The prophets

1. The simplest form of com- munication from God to the prophets is the word which comes to them, and which is very frequently the equivalent of ‘revelation.’ According to Jer 188 it was a current saying of the time that torah (‘direction’) could never be lacking to the priest, nor ‘counsel’ to the wise, nor the ‘ word’ to the prophet. That the prophet, in virtue of his call, could speak in the name of Jahweh, without having in every instance received an extraordinary revelation, we have already (p. 674°) pointed out. On the other hand, the exact dating of pec Beulae Divine messages (particularly in Ezekiel, Haggai, and Zechariah, but occasionally also in Jeremiah) is an evidence that the prophet could be _qniteconscious..of having received a special revelation. < “The same is witnessed to by the expression (Is 22)4, cf. 5°) ‘Jahweh revealed himself in my ears,’ i.e. called tome andibly. It has been argued by Ed. Konig that a hearing with the bodily ear is what is thought of in this phrase; but that it is not so, is shown by the fact that elsewhere the Divine word is said to be seen by the prophet. But this seeing is with the eye of the spirit, like the beholding of the prophetic visions. Both kinds of seeing are designated by the same word in Hebrew (j\i7 Aazén; cf., for instance, the expres- sion ‘ Vision of Isaiah,’ placed as a collective title at the head of the present Book of Isaiah). This is explicable only on the supposition that the boundary between the two—especially in early times—was a fluid one: even the receiving of a Divine message might readily be coupled with ecstatic visionary conditions, 2. Still we are entitled to speak of visions proper, i.e. of the beholding of concrete pictures and incidents, of which the prophet afterwards gives an account, and, if necessary, an interpreta- tion. Itis noteworthy that this seeing is almost everywhere (cf. Am 7-47 81! 91, Is 61, Jer 11} 33, Ezk 1, Zec 1° 2! ete.) expressed by the verb 13 (r@ah), which usually stands for bodily vision. Here, again, it cannot be inferred from this that we have to do with an unveiling of the invisible world to the bodily eye of the prophet, but rather that he with the spiritual eye beholds real pictures and incidents as at other times he does with the bodily eye. Of all the analogies which have been adduced to make the mystery of this kind of seeing (namely, the prophetic vision in the nar- rower sense) intelligible, that which deserves most attention is the largely attested ‘artistic intui- tion.’ In the latter, a work of art, which has been planned and perhaps long considered, may all at once present itself to the mind’s eye of the artist in unthought-of finish and beauty, and that so clearly that he is able henceforth to retain it in his memory and carry it into execution. But, even with such an analogy as this, we must not overlook the considerable differences in kind be- tween the two, artistic and prophetic inspiration, 676 RELIGION OF ISRAEL RELIGION OF ISRAEL and, above all, the difference in their subject- matter. But, further, the visions present themselves to us in such multiplicity that we can readily understand how attempts have been made to dis- tinguish between genuine vision and the purely literary garb given to prophetic ideas—not to speak of the attempt to reduce all visions to a mere literary device. To refute the latter notion, it is necessary only to point to (a) the single vision recorded by Isaiah (in ch. 6). It is inconceivable that he should have invented this incident, to which his solemn call to the prophetic office is attached, merely in order to present in this form certain thoughts of his own about the nature and the prospects of his prophetic calling. For any such purpose the labour spent on the description would be too great, and everything favours the assumption that the prophet on this one occasion actually beheld the supra-earthly pictures which he describes, experienced the atoning influence (v.7), and heard the Divine commission given him. And, in truth, the pictures are of sublime sim- plicity, while the succession of the incidents is clear and impressive (just as in the vision of Micaiah ben-Imlah, 1 K 22-)—both indications of a real inward experience. (6) It is much more difficult to gain a harmonious conception of the first two visions of Amos (7!), In the third of them (v.7) it is to one object alone, the plumbline, that the Divine oracle attaches itself ; while the object of the fourth, the basket of harvest fruits, serves merely as a sym- bol of the harvest which is to be sent to the people. The fifth vision (9'-) is the first to offer, although described with extreme brevity, an ana- logy to that of Isaiah. But, in the opinion of the present writer, it is possible to regard the others also, in spite of their peculiarities, as something more than merely the literary garb of prophetic ideas. This latter device makes its appearance only after the prophetic vision has had a consider- able history, and the public ministry of the prophets has had to yield more and more to the activity of the pen. Moreover, the testimony to visions on the part of pre-exilic prophets is confined, apart from those of Amos and Isaiah, to those recounted in Jer 1-18, In both of the last two a single object (an almond-tree and a seething-pot) seen by the prophet furnishes the motive (and that in connexion with the immediately subsequent call of the prophet) for a prophetic announcement. (c) In Ezekiel, on the other hand, the vision makes its appearance in a highly detailed and somewhat complicated form. As in the case of Isaiah and Jeremiah, the first vision (Ezk 1") ushers in the call of the prophet. Ezekiel relates at the outset how, after the heavens were opened (i.e. after he had received the faculty of beholding even the supra-earthly), he saw visions produced by God. Yet itis not from heaven, but from the north, that the theophany comes, in a storm-driven fiery cloud. This conceals the very minutely de- scribed cherubim (see above, p. 644°), and it is only at the close (v.) that we learn that they bear the platform on which the throne of God stands, with God seated upon it. The merely allusive way in which the prophet speaks of the form of Him who is thus enthroned is in accord- ance with the reverential reserve which we note also in Ex 24 and Is61. But the extraordinary circum- stantiality of the preceding description, notwith- standing which it is impossible to form a clear conception of the objects, justifies the conclusion —not that the prophet simply coined the vision (whose exact date is given) but—that literary skill played a very considerable part in his deserip- tion of it. The same remark applies to the ex- planation attached (2°) to his eating of the book- roll which was inscribed with sighs and lamenta- tions. Of course the eating of the roll, which is a materializing of the purely spiritual inspiration thought of elsewhere, likewise belongs to the realm of vision, for it is not till 3! that the prophet hears behind him the noise of the cherubim- chariot which bears away again ‘the glory” of Jahweh. On the appended description (3!) of the physical condition of the prophet, ef. above, p. 673. When the same theophany recurs in 3°" the prophet contents himself with a simple mention of it. On the other hand, there is a very detailed account (8!) of the idolatrous horrors which he saw in the precincts of the temple, when he was carried by the spirit to Jerusalem. Then follow, in the same locality, the visions (chs. 9-11) which present to his view the destruction of the city and the temple, together with the threatening address to the heads of the people. From this point the vision does not recur till ch. 37—the reanimating of the dead bones, which symbolize Israel dead, as it were, in the Exile. Here, as in chs. 8-11, there is no reason to doubt that the prophet really saw what he asserts; but the individual descriptions and, in quite a special sense, the detailed inter- pretations and practical applications must cer- tainly be once more set down to the account of a literary performance. The same is true in quite a peculiar measure of the great vision in the last part of the book (chs. 40-48), where the prophet sketches the future form of the temple and its cultus and of the land. Here the details are so multiplied and involved that it has been plausibly suggested that the prophet worked out his descrip- tion with the aid of maps and plans. It is evident that the matter which could suggest such a method does not belong to the contents of the vision. Elsewhere the transition from the sphere of the vision to that of literature is betrayed by the elaborate justification of prescriptions which are to come into force only in the future; so, especi- ally, the new regulation about the priesthood (44°f-), and the distribution of the tribes (ch. 48). These prescriptions and much else are fitted into the framework of the vision only by being put in the mouth of the prophet’s guide (cf. 40), or even of Jahweh Himself. (dz) The latest accounts of visions proper lie before us in the eight night-visions of Zechariah (18-68). We have already (p. 673°) pointed out that, apart from 4}, there are no indications point- ing to a cataleptic condition of the prophet when he had these visions. Hence it os Lies to us quite improbable that ‘the angel who talked with me’ (1% 13 98 ete.) is to be referred, with Duhm, to the seemingly double consciousness of a cataleptic. Rather might we Poet 4 say, with Baudissin (Einleitung in die Biicher des AT, Leipzig, 1901, p. 565): ‘The introduction of this medium (the so-called angelus interpres) between God and the prophet changes the character of OT prophecy, which was based upon the notion that the prophet was directly filled with the Divine spirit. his already implies that in these night-visions the great bulk of the matter is to be attributed to the — prophet’s own imagination and litera: activity. : On several occasions (so, quite especially, in 1? 2108.) the description of the vision passes over into the usual tone of prophetic address. iv. THE FORMS OF THE PROPHETIC MESSAGE. —1l. Amongst the various ways in which the pro- phets communicated the revelations they received, — by far the most important place, at least in the — early period, is taken once more by the word or The visions of Daniel, which really belong to a different tT eee of apocalyptic—will be dealt with later on (ses p- . RELIGION OF ISRAEL RELIGION OF ISRAEL 677 the prophetic address, whether in the form of a brief oracle or of a somewhat longer, clearly con- nected discourse. But it is only with reservations that the view can be maintained that the extant oracles and discourses of the earlier prophets are practically, without exception, to be regarded as the (subsequent) written record of what were ori- ginally actual spoken addresses. To be sure, in every instance where the prophet himself gives place and time, and names ear-witnesses of his dis- course (as, for instance, in Is 7}-), we must find the record of an actual address. But even such a case as this does not exclude the use of much freedom in regard to the form and the dimensions of what is committed .to writing. Here, once more, we have to keep in mind what holds good of the whole of the literature of the OT, namely, that it aims not at a diplomatically exact record of words and actions, but at exer- cising a religious influence, and hence that the prophet, when he became an author, must have reserved to himself full liberty as to the method by which he was to achieve this result. But, above all, must this liberty be postulated where it was not till years had elapsed that a prophet reprodu ved from memory a long series of addresses and dictated these to an amanuensis, a8 we are told Jeremiah did after twenty-three years of prophetic activity (Jer 36%). In such a procedure it would be impossible for the earlier addresses to escape being influenced in a variety of ways by the later experiences and views of their author. And, when the roll written by Baruch was burned by king Jehoiakim, the greatest freedom was used once more in reproducing it: ‘Then took Jeremiah another roll, and gave it to Baruch the scribe, the son of Neriah ; who wrote therein from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the book which Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire ; and there were added besides unto them many like words’ (Jer 36°2).. But there are also other Prophetical books, like that of Amos, whose ver dating (11 ‘two years before the earthquake’) shows it to have been composed later than the events, and no less those of Hosea and Isaiah, which bear such evident traces of the subsequent reduc- tion to writing and of the polishing and expansion of the supposed spoken address, that it is scarcely possible anywhere to maintain the absolute identity of the address and its report. In saying this we are leaving entirely out of account the fact that in the end the Prophetical writings were subjected almost, without exception, to editing by other hands—a process which introduced changes not only in their dimensions, but in many instances even in their language. It is useless to seek to deny this. On the other hand, however, it is per- verse to see in this a destroying of the character of revelation and of the high value in general which belongs to the word of the prophets. Whatever may have suffered from all those influences which are unavoidable in the course of human tradition, the genuine Divine word retains amidst it all a bower and a majesty which even at the present ay do not miss their effect. 2. The prophetic address occasionally avails itself, with a view to heightening the effect, of the forme of poetical art, such as the parable (Is 517 “; even the ‘riddle’ [37°n, hédah] of Ezk 17- is there designated at the same time ‘com- parison,’ ‘parable’ [yp mdshal]}), or plays upon words (e.g. Mic 1-) ; nay, in the pre-exilic period, and repeatedly even in later times, it passes into poetic rhythms. We must be content, however, Thus, for instance, the so-called kinah or ‘ mourning measure’ (discovered by Ley and Budde), ¢.e. the bringing together of a longer and a shorter verse-member (generally 3 and 2 ‘ rises’), with merely alluding to this, for it lies outside the scope of an article dealing with the history of religion. 3. Full notice must be taken, however, of the symbolical actions whereby the prophets gave, as if were, a concrete form to the truths they pro- claimed. We meet with an example of this even in very early times, when Ahijah of Shiloh (1 K 11%) rent his new mantle into twelve pieces and gave Jeroboam ten of these. Here the interpreta- tion follows straight upon the action, whereas in 1 K 22" the latter comes after the prophetic oracle. With the writing prophets the state of things is the same with symbolical actions as with the vision. At first rare and simple, these actions oceur inEzekiel in considerable numbers, and at times in so complicated a form as to justify the question whether they are meant to be thought of as actually performed, and not LE as the literary garb given to prophetic ideas. In Amos, Hosea, Micah there are no examples. (a) In Isaiah, as there is only one vision, so there is only one symbolical action (ch. 20). The prophet is to go about for three years naked (i.e. without his upper garment) and barefooted, and thus to furnish an impressive emblem of the con- dition of the Egyptians and Ethiopians going into captivity. But this action of his serves also, as v.° shows, a practical purpose of extreme import- ance, namely, to keep Judah from foolishly revolt- ing from Assyria, through trust in the delusive aid of the Egyptians and the Ethiopians. The sym- bolical action then appears here in the direct service of the Divine guidance of the people by means of the prophet, and hence (like all the sym- bolical actions we meet with in the writing pro- phets) is directly commanded by God. (6) After Is 20 the next instances of symbolical actions occur in the life of Jeremiah. In Jer 13 the prophet is told to buy a linen girdle, and first to put it upon his loins and then to hide it in a hols of a rock by the water. The consequent destruction of the girdle is to symbolize the inevit- able destruction of Judah and Jerusalem. With a like aim he goes to Topheth (19!), the place of child-sacrifice, and before the eyes of many witnesses breaks an earthen pitcher—an action whose significance is heightened by the scene where it takes place. According to 27', Jeremiah, in order to symbolize the necessity for Judah’s sub- mitting patiently to the yoke of Nebuchadrezzar, places bands and yoke-bars upon his own neck (cf. also 28 13), It is noteworthy that the explana- tion of this symbolical action, along with a corre- sponding warning, is sent also to the kings of the surrounding peoples—a strong proof that the prophet felt that he spoke on behalf of the God who rules over all. It isa very crass misconcep- tion that sees here an unbecoming interference with foreign politics, or even an evidence that the prophet acted thus because he was in the pay of the Chaldeans. Finally, our present category includes in a certain sense also 43%", where the prophet, by Jahweh’s instructions, buries great stones in the clay-ground in front of the palace of the Pharaoh at Tabpanhes, as a testimony to the to be supposed ; cf. e.g. Am 52f, Is 12ff. 25. 132M 144M 162M, Qglb-4 3722. 471M. 527M. H 71M. GOL, Jer 920f 158%, Ezk 191bf. ete, Cf. art. Pozrry in vol. iv. If by Pérath (n 3) of v.4% the river Euphrates must be understood, there is no alternative but to regard the account of the whole transaction as simply a literary device, or even (with Duhm in his Commentary on Jeremiah, p. 119) as the free invention of a late redactor. For Jeremiah cannot possibly have undertaken the long journey to the Euphrates twice over, merely to establish the fact that a linen girdle is ruined by damp. ButnowL. Gautier (cf. Bote aus Zion, July 1894, p. 62f.) points to an ‘Ain (‘fountain’) Fara in the neighbourhood of Anathoth, the home of the prophet. Assuming this to be meant plays a much larger réle in the prophetical writings than used | by Pérath, all difficulty disappears (cf. Hne. Bibl. ii. 1429). 678 RELIGION OF ISRAEL RELIGION OF ISRAEL fact that Nebuchadrezzar would one day set up his throne over these stones, to execute grim judgment upon Egypt. : The above instances, however, exhaust the sym- bolical actions of Jeremiah ; for his purchase, by Divine command, of a field, while he was in prison (327-), is a legal transaction, whose symbolical sense, as we learn from v.”, was not evident to the prophet himself till afterwards. Moreover, all the above enumerated symbolical actions are as simple as they are impressive; they are easy to interpret and easy to remember. (c) Much more circumstantial is even (a) the first of the emblematical transactions required of Ezekiel (41%), He is to draw upon a tile a plan of Jerusalem, to set in array various siege appliances, nay even whole armies, against the city, and, finally, to place an iron pan between himself (as God’s representative) and the city. Still the direc- tion to give the house of Israel a ‘sign’ in this way was quite capable of execution, whatever room there may be for difference of opinion as to the method by which the prophet depicted the besieging armies.—(8) But it is different with the case contemplated in 4“, Here Ezekiel is to lie upon one side, bound with cords to prevent his turning over on his other side, and first to bear for 190 days the guilt of Israel, and then for other 40 days the guilt of Judah—these numbers corresponding to the number of years, respectively, of the captivity of the two kingdoms. No appeal to the prophet’s alleged tendency to catalepsy will suffice to make a literal fulfilment of this com- mand conceivable: for this reason, apart from any other, that such a prolonging of the symbolical transaction over nearly eight months would have tended to rob it of effect, or at least would have been quite unnecessary for the purpose in view. We must therefore assume that the symbolical action was indeed actually carried on by the prophet for a time, but that its prolongation to 190+40 days is merely part of his subsequent ex- planation of it.—It is only upon this assumption, again, that (y) the prescription (4°%) as to the stinted use of unclean food by the prophet while he was bound as above described,+ can be conceived as capable of being obeyed. A daily allowance of 20 shekels [about 5 oz. avoir.] weight of the com- posite bread prescribed would scarcely have sufficed to support life for 230 (not to speak of 430) days. —(6) Very graphic and impressive, on the other hand, is the fourth sign (5), The prophet, hay- ing cut the hair of his head and beard, burns a third of the hair, smites about another third with a sword, scatters the other third to the winds, and finally burns some of the hairs that have been concealed in the skirt of his mantle—all this as a aign of the fate that was reserved for the people of Judah. Even if the use of a balance (v.') to apportion the hair suggests the somewhat mechani- cal fondness of Ezekiel for exact measures and numbers, the whole transaction is well fitted to make the most lasting impression; and one can well imagine the eager attention with which the onlookers watched the prophet at work, and lis- tened to the explanations that followed.—(e) No less impressive is the fashion in which he is told (12)%-) to give the people an emblematic repre- sentation of the cheerless departure into exile. He is to bring out his baggage by day in their sight, So, with most moderns, we should read (following the LXX) in place of 390. From the beginning of the exile of Israel to that of Judah there are reckoned in round numbers 150 years {in reality they amount to only about 130, or, counting from 734, to 142], which are followed by 40 years of joint exile. Nothing can be made of the number 390, 1 That in v.9 the ‘300 [LXX ‘190’] days’ are an erroneous gloss, is evident from the simple fact that, in view of v.°f, it shculti be ‘430 [230] days.’ and in the evening is to make his way, with his face concealed, through a hole cut in the wall of the house.—(f) Again, 12 igs certainly to be understood in the sense that the prophet, as he eats and drinks, is to exhibit an the signs of terror, in order to portray to those about him the fear and horror of the besieged in Jerusalem.— (n) In 248 the symbolism consists in the neglect of the mourning customs enjoined by usage. The prophet himself testifies how much the curiosity of his countrymen was excited by this very strange neglect. All the more impressive on that account must have been the explanation he gave of it. All the symbolical actions of Ezekiel as yet described had but one purpose: to exhibit the certainty and the terrors of the Divine judgment upon Judah. In opposition to these there is at least one action, of a very simple kind, whose interpre- tation issues in a comforting promise. We refer to the two staves, inscribed with the names of Judah and Joseph, which were to be joined together in one in the hand of the prophet, as a sign that the two separated and apparently ruined kingdoms of Israel were to be restored and united in the old home under one king. The threatenings, which the previous symbolical actions of the prophet served to emphasize, were literally fulfilled; but the restoration, in spite of the very detinite terms of Ezk 37%, included only Judah—an undeniable proof of the ‘con- ditional’ character of prophecy. The firm con- viction of the prophet that at a given moment he was giving utterance to a genuine message from God, does not exclude the possibility of God’s ways afterwards taking a different turn. (d) Something similar applies to the solitary in- stance of a symbolical action (if this designation can be applied to it at all) in the post-exilic period, namely, the making of a costly crown + from the gifts sent by the Babylonian Jews (Zec 6). If it is the case that in v.4 the coronation of Zerubbabel is enjoined, the symbolical action consists in the anticipation and therewith the pre-announcement of avery important event. But it is the last action of its kind—a clear proof that Jahweh prophecy of the fashion inaugurated by Amos had come to an end. Along with a vivid consciousness of being the immediate recipients of a Divine revelation there disappears also any motive for seeking by accom- panying action to give an impressive concrete form to the contents of the revelation. v. THE CONTENTS OF THE PROPHETIC MES- their national existence, their Deliverer from Egyptian bondage, their constant Benefactor for so many centuries. But, with all this, Jahweh is no longer simply the God of Israel in the old sense The procedure described in v.3f: is expressly stated (v.38) to be a ‘parable’ and not a symbolical action. t The present text of Zec 61. is undoubtedly corrupt, but its correct restoration is still a matter of dispute. On the ground of the plural ‘crowns,’ Ewald suggested as the original : ‘ Place {them] upon the head of Zerubbabel and Joshua,’ etc. But the singular verb (777m) in v.14 shows incontrcvertibly that only one crown was in view—that, namely, of the Messianic king, In this way Joshua disappears from y.11, having been first intro- duced when, under the post-exilic theocracy, the high priest | was actually at the head of the State. The queson now is whether v.11 read, ‘and place it upon the head of Zerubbabel’ {this is favoured by ‘to him’ of v.12], or whether v.11> is to be struck ont altogether [and then ‘to them’ to be read in v.12a}, In any case, in view of 49, the crown is to be thought of as destined for Zerubbabel, even if the actual crowning is reserved for a later occasion, with a view to which the crown is directed (v.14) to be laid up in the temple. RELIGION OF ISRAEL of the national God, whose sphere of power ends, strictly speaking, at the boundaries of His land. On the contrary, we note on the part of all the writing prophets a strong, and almost everywhere successful, effort to burst the barriers of the old particularist conception of God, and to lay pro- minent emphasis on the unconditioned superiority of Jahweh to every form of restriction by space or time, and especially to every restriction of His sphere of power. The old representation of the national God is still at work in so far as the mani- festations of His omnipotence, in the world of nature as well as in dealing with the heathen world, are almost always connected with His pur- poses towards His people. Yet there are not wanting approaches to a Weltanschawung which brings even the heathen nations, and that on their own account, within the scope of the Divine rule of the world and plan of salvation. (a) In seeking to establish these propositions in more detail, we may look first at what is said of the Person of God. It was an unavoidable neces- sity that even in this period the analogy of the human personality should still be used to give a clear, nay even an intelligible, idea of the nature and working of the Divine personality. Even we, who stand on Christian ground, must have recourse to the same analogy if we wish to set up the concept of a living, energetically active, Per- sonality. Hence even the prophets resort not infrequently to anthropomorphisms and anthropo- pathisms, which, in early times (cf. above, p. 627°) owed their origin to the naive belief in Jahweh’s possession of a human bodily form. But there is not a single trace that they continued to share that naive belief. When Isaiah, in the vision which marked his call to the prophetic office (6), beholds Jahweh seated upon a throne high and lifted up, no doubt a human form is here thought of. But it must be remembered that this is a vision, a sight beheld with the spiritual eye of the prophet, and, moreover, he says nothing more about the figure on the throne than that it had a long flowing train. He does not thus go beyond the simple indication of a splendidly, clothed, majestically-enthroned, ruler. We must by no means conclude from the above single instance of the localizing of Jahweh in the earthly temple [for nothing else can be thought of, in view of the ‘house’ of Is 64 and the altar of v.°], that during this period the notion was still retained that Jahweh dwelt in a grossly material fashion in the sanctuary. The temple, it is true, and Zion in general, is the spot where Jahweh manifests Himself: He has Himself founded it as a precious corner-stone of the theocracy (Is 28"), as a refuge for the aftlicted of His people (14%); He roars from Zion, and causes His voice to be heard from Jerusalem (Am 1?); He dwells on Zion (Is 81%), where, in the form of the sacrificial hearth, he has His fire and His furnace (Is 31°; cf. also 29)", where ’dri’el probably stands for ‘hearth of God’). Hence, in praying, one readily turns towards the city and teinple of Jahweh (1 K 8%. 43, but cf. also v.??). But numerous other passages leave no doubt that, notwithstanding all this, heaven was regarded as the proper dwelling-place of Jahweh, as had already ae the case even in the bstegtid period (cf. above, p. 646°f.). What dwells on Zion is not the Person of Jahweh in the most real sense, but a more or less secondary representation of this, such as His ‘glory’ (cf. above, p. 639°f.) or His ‘name’ (cf. the references, especially those from Deuteronomy, p. 640°f.). He Himself is enthroned in heaven. From there He spoke already to the Eerie at Sinai (Ex 20”, Dt 4%); there is His oly dwelling-place (Is 31‘, Mie 12 [where the RELIGION OF ISRAEL 679 ee ‘holy palace’ must, in the light of v., be under- stood of heaven], Dt 265, 1 K 8%"); there He hears the prayers of His people (1 K 8% 4 etce.), when they spread forth their hands towards heaven (v.“). But it comes to be strongly felt that this localizing of Jahweh in heaven, if taken literally, amounts to an unworthy limitation of His bound- less being. Hence it is more than once stated emphatically that not only the heaven to its utmost heights, but also the earth with all that it contains, belongs to Him (Dt 10") ; that He alone is God in heaven above and on the earth below (Dt 4%, Jos 24). Nay, in 1 K 8”, in the prayer of Solomon at the consecration of the temple, it is positively declared that heaven to its utmost bounds cannot contain Him, not to speak of the earthly house which Solomon has built for Him. When, again, in Jer 23% Jahweh asks, ‘Do not I fill heaven and earth?’, it is true that we must be careful not to give to this question anything of a pantheistic sense, for this would be in the sharpest conflict with the OT conception of God. But, on the other hand, the above question cer- tainly contains a protest against the crass notion of Jahweh as the God of heaven, and at the same time shows an approximation to that conception which is so very difficult to the human mind—the conception of a purely spiritual beng. A clear formula for the notion of pure spirituality, such as we find in Jn 44, was beyond the reach of the Old Testament. But when Isaiah (31%) exclaims, ‘The Egyptians are men, not God; and their horses are flesh, not spirit,’ he manifestly contrasts man and perishing flesh with God, who is spirit. In like manner, the analogy of the human personality in the matter of the so-called anthropopathisms is denied ; e.g. Nu 23! (1S 15”), where it is declared that ‘God is not a man that he should lie, nor a son of man that he should repent’ (cf. also Hos 11°). The great advance in the spiritualizing of the notion of God shows itself clearly in two other points— (6) The first of these is that nowhere in the pre- exilic prophets are qngels spoken of as beings mediating between God and man. For the seraphim in the vision of Isaiah (see above, p. 644), which might readily occur to one’s mind, are really the retinue of Jahweh, not His messengers who are supposed to be at a distance from Him, and who perform His will. The latter notion is indeed contradictory of the idea of a living presence of God, and hence it is wanting in the prophets, however familiar they may be otherwise with the conception of angels. (c) The other evidence of the spiritualizing of the notion of God is the unwearicd polemic the prophets carry on against the images of Jahweh in both kingdoms. At one time it used to be assumed that this polemic was almost exclusively directed against the images of heathen gods, or, at most, against the golden bulls of the Northern kingdom, whose construction was viewed as a glaring viola- tion of the Second Commandment in the Decalogue. But we found (see above, p. 641°) that the making of images of Jahweh must have been regarded, down to the 8th cent., and that in the most widely separated circles, as quite unobjectionable, and hence there is the greatest-dithiculty in holding that the prohibition of images was an original feat- ure of the Decalogue. In the Elijah- and Elisha- narratives there is not atrace of any polemic against the bull worship of the Northern kingdom. All the more marked is the fashion in which the indignation of the writing prophets is roused when that God who in His majesty is exalted above On Hos 124f- as an allusion to a manifestation of God, see above, p. 638), 680 RELIGION OF ISRAEL everything earthly is brought down to the sphere of the visible and transitory—a process which only too readily leads also to a dishonouring of Him. The answer to the question whether Amos had already opened the polemic against the images of Jahweh, depends upon how we interpret Am 8'4.+ The ‘sin of Samaria’ may there refer to the golden bulls of Jeroboam 1.; but the text is probably corrupt. As to Hosea, it cannot be proved from Hos 3 that he expressly repudiated the ancestral representation of Jahweh in the form of the éphéd (see above, p. 641%) or the térdphim (see above, p. 642°), for his primary object in this passage is simply, to affirm that Israel in exile will have to do without everything which at present it regards as indispensable, On the other hand, there are other passages which leave no doubt that, to the mind of Hosea, the Divine images of gold and silver, the work of men’s hands, and the bull figures pre- eminently, were an abomination; cf. Hos 8§ (especially v.5 ‘thy bull, O Samaria, stinketh’) 10° 13? 143. The polemic of Isaiah against the obs (prob. originally ‘ gods,’ but also the equiva- lent of ‘nothings,’ and hence to the prophets a welcome occasion for a play upon words) applies not only to the idols of the heathen (Is 10” 19%) and the gods whom they represented (19!), but to the images of Jahweh (2° 38 2° 104), Even the latter are only men’s work, and on that account contemptible (28 178 [in the latter passage the ‘altars’ are to be struck out _as an incorrect gloss] where the Divine images are called ‘ the work of your hands’; in Jer 1° 25° 328° ‘the work of their own hands’ may refer to images of Jahweh, but perhe Ps includes also, as it certainly does in 448, actual heathen idols). In Dt 45 the representa- tion of Jahweh by any figure is strictly forbidden, on the ground that Israel at Horeb saw nothing of this kind; while in 27% a curse is pronounced on the making of a carved or a molten image by the hands of an artist. Here, as in the Decalogue, the reference is to every species of Divine image, including those of Jahweh. The rigour of the Deuteronomist has all the less power to astonish us, seeing that he repudiates in express terms, not only the ‘dshérah, or sacred pole at places of sacri- fice, but also (Dt 12° 16”) the mazzebah, which, in earlier times, were regarded as quite unobjection- able (see above, p. 620). (ad) What we have said about the character of Jahweh as God of heaven, and the sharp rejection of all pictorial representations of the Deity, may seem to have already answered another. question, namely, as to the solity of Jahweh, as contrasted with the mere henotheism (see above, pp. 625%, 635") of earlier times. Now, it must indeed be re- marked that it is still customary to cite, as proofs of the absolute monotheism of the Prophetic period, a number of passages which in truth are intended only to emphasize Israel’s obligation to reverence Jahweh alone, and which thus amount simply to henotheism.t Such are, for instance, the very We see from Hos 132 that in Hosea’s time it was still custom- ary to kiss the bull-images, and thus to put them (like the images of Baal in Elijah’s time, 1 K 1918) on a footing of equality with the God whom they were meant to represent. Also the expression 717" "35°ny abn (Ex 8211, 1 § 1312, and often, in sense of ‘ propitiate Jahweh’) originally means in all probability ‘stroke the face of [the Divine image],’ and points to a practice which must have been in vogue wherever images of Jahweh were worshipped. t Am 24, with its allusion to the (Judzan) D°3}3, lit. ‘lies,’ [=‘idols’], is generally recognized to be a later interpolation. ¢ On the controversy as to the porinnicg of absolute mono- theism, the reader may consult: A. Kuenen, art. ‘Jahweh and the other gods’ in Theol. Review, July 1876; Baudissin, Studien zur semit, Religionsgeschichte, i., Leipzig, 1876 (Studie 2 ‘Die Anschauung des AT von den Géttern des Heidenthums’); Baethgen, Beitrage zur semit. Religionsgeschichte: der Gott Israels und die Gétter der Heiden, Berlin, 1880 [cf. esp. pp. 131-162 ‘Israels Verhiltniss zum Poly theismus’}; Ed. Konig, RELIGION OF ISRAEL frequent cautions in Deuteronomy against other gods; in none of the passages containing these is there any expression of opinion as to the reality or non-reality of these ‘other gods.’ Even the famous ‘ Hear, O Israel’ of Dt 64, which the Jews and many Christian exegetes are wont to regard as the formulated fundamental confession of mono- theism, signifies by itself no more than that Jahweh is the God of Israel, Jahweh alone, and that hence the veneration of Israel is due to Him alone. The declaration is thus on a parallel with the Virst Commandment. Hos 134, again, says only that Israel knows (or should know) no other God, and has experienced no other deliverer than Jahweh. Moses testifies in Dt 3%, as Solomon does in 1 K 8", that Jahweh the God of Israel has no other god like Him, either in heaven above or on earth below. But here the existence of other gods seems to be yet always assumed, pre- cisely as in the question of Ex 15" ‘ Who is like thee, O Jahweh, among the gods?’; or in the designation of Jahweh as ‘God of gods’ and ‘Lord of lords’ (Dt 10); or, finally, in the state- ment of the prophet: ‘Before him (Jahweh) trembled the idols of Egypt’ (Is 19%). There can, however, be no doubt that the pas- sages last cited are to be set down simply to the account of poetic colouring or of an involuntary accommodation to the still subsisting popular con- ceptions, The real belief of the leading circles of thought is presented to us—at least in the later Deuteronom. stratum—in the confession: ‘ Jahweh is the [true] God’ (Dt 7°) ; ‘ Besides him there is none’ (4%- 3, 1 K 8; cf. also Is 376, 2K 19%), But the same faith is held by the writing prophets, although it is never reduced to so precise a formula, Without it the conception of Jahweh as God of heaven could never have established itself in the shape above (p. 679) described. The God to whom ‘belongeth the heaven to its utmost heights, the earth and all that is upon it’ (Dt 10%), cannot possibly share this sovereignty of His with another god. It might indeed appear surprising that the allusions to the creative power of Jahweh, in which afterwards His uniqueness as God of the whole world comes into the sharpest prominence, are so scanty in the pre-exilic prophets. For, apart from the oft recurring Divine name Jahweh Zéb@ 6th, which, in the mind of the writing prophets (see above, p. 637°), doubtless includes a confession of the supramundane power and glory of Jahweh, and leaving out of account occasional allusions to Jahweh as bestower of the rain (Am 4’, Jer 5% 14") and, conversely, as the author of drought and famine, all that we find is an express reference in Jer 275 to Jahweh as the Creator of the earth, with man and beast, and an allusion (put in the | mouth of Hezekiah in 2 K 195=Is 37!) to Him as }{ the Creator of the heaven and the earth.t+ But the scantiness of these allusions should not excite our wonder. It is richly counterbalanced by the abundance of other passages which witness to the solity, or at least the incomparable omni- potence, of Jahweh in the world of nations. It was not the function of the prophets to solve cosmic or purely metaphysical problems, but to hold up Beitrdge zum positiven Aufbau der Religionsgeschichte Israels, ii. a Der Monotheismus der legitimen Religion Israels,’ Leipzig, a This interpretation of the words is claimed, in our opinion rightly, on the ground of the accentuation. The prevailin explanation, on the other hand, yields the sense: ‘ Jahwel our God is one Jahweh’ (i.e, not broken up into a number of local deities; cf. Zec 149). Even thus the question of the reality of the strange gods is still left quite out of account. + So far as their contents are concerned, Am 413 58f. 95f woula also fall under this category ; but these passages are now pretty generally regarded as late glosses. The same remark applies to Jer 1012f. and 3325, where we read of a covenant of Jahweh with the day and the night, and of His appointing of the ordinances of heaven and earth. RELIGION OF ISRAEL RELIGION OF ISRAEL 681 to the eyes of their people the greatness of their responsibility and the dreadfulness of the God to whom they had to give account. Thus the judg- ments of God, present and future, supply a con- stant motive to portray Jahweh as the God who has at His command not only the resources and powers of the whole Universe, but, no less, the nations of the earth, when it is necessary to realize His purposes. When He commences a law- suit with His people, heaven and earth have to listen in reverential silence (Is 1°; cf. also Mic 6!, Hab 2°); and, when He comes to execute judg- ment, the whole course of nature reels (Mic 1°, Nah 1%:), and men hasten to hide themselves in terror of His majestic appearance (Is 21% 1% 21), The mighty Assyria, with all its subject peoples, is like a lifeless instrument in His hands if He vares to employ it for the chastisement of Israel. He whistles for it from the end of the earth (Is 56), much as the shepherd whistles to his dog, and it comes hurrying up. And if, in its haughty vonceit, Assyria fancies that it has accomplished by its own strength what it has done only as the chastising rod in Jahweh’s hand (Is 10°-), it has to listen to the crushing question: ‘ Does the axe boast itself against him that heweth therewith, or does the saw magnify itself against him that worketh it?’ (v.45). Then by a fearful judgment is Assyria taught the truth of the all-superior might of Jahweh (vy.167- 25%) The réle that Assyria lays in Isaiah is played in Jeremiah by ‘all the amilies of the kingdoms of the north’ (Jer 1"), These are called by Jahweh to execute judgment upon Jerusalem ; He has given all lands into the power of Nebuchadrezzar (Jer 27°; cf. 284, Hab 1, also 2 K 15%). Jahweh’s judgments upon foreign nations are for the most part occasioned by their hostility to Israel (so Am_ 1% 9% 1)-13, Tg 14°48. 1712. 1887 Nah 35%, Hab 215), Yet passages are not wholly wanting which speak of an un- limited exercise of the Divine sway amongst the nations, even apart from any such motive. Jahweh punishes Moab for its outrage on the king of Edom (Am 21-) ; it was Jahweh that brought the Philis- tines from Caphtor and the Aramzans from Kir (9"). He stirs up the Egyptians against one an- other, and gives them over into the hand of a cruel lord (Is 194); He produces in them a spirit of dizziness (v.4). He has determined upon the de- struction of Tyre, ‘to stain the pride ofall glory, to bring into contempt all the honourable of the earth’ (23°, cf. also v."). At His command, Jeremiah hands to all kings of the earth the in- toxicating cup, and, whether they will or no, they enust drink it (Jer 25%"), In view of all these testimonies to a lofty view of history and a conception of God which embraced the whole Universe, we can now see also the polemic against images in its true light. We perceive how to the oh as every attempt to give to this owerful, majestic God a petty visible form, must have been anabomination. But we understand also now, in the case of the heathen idols, they could recognize no reality except that of metal, wood, and stone. This is not yet (except perhaps in Hab gist.) Jer 21! 16, and in the later Deuteronom. stratum, Dt 28%5- 64) expressed so definitely as in are nothing but vain imaginations of the heathen. To the first category, that of opprobrious epithets, belong the following terms: jv ‘abomination’ (Jer 417; and used repeatedly by the Deuteronom. redactors of the Books of Kings, 1 K 11, 2 K 231°: 24), and, with the same sense, niayin (2 K 23%); still later probably is 0°53, i.e. perhaps ‘round blocks or dolls,’ if not rather, ‘excrements’ (Dt 291° (1) ‘of wood and stone, of silver and gold,’ 1 K 21%, 2K 17”, and oft. in Ezekiel). To the second category, terms expressive of unreality, belong: 227, lit. ‘breath,’ ‘nothingness’ (Jer 2°, 1 K 16%, 2 K 17%; in plur. Jer 8 1472); and mw ‘vain,’ ‘null’ (Jer 18”), Cf., finally, the threatening of Dt 4° (that is to say, within the later framework of Deut.) that Istael in exile will have to serve gods which are the work of men’s hands [and nothing more], wood and stone, which can neither see nor hear nor eat nor smell. (e) If, by way of supplement to this, we fur- ther ask in traditional fashion how the being of Jahweh reveals itself in the prophets in the way of | special attributes, we must from the very first re- nounce all idea of discovering any didactic abstract statements or purely scholastic definitions. Here, again, it holds good that the mission of the pro- phets was primarily to preach repentance to their people. Hence they exhibit to them their God in a light corresponding to changing needs, now as the terrible avenger of their apostasy, now as the long-suffering and merciful One. ay, these ualifies always make their appearance first in the special bearing of Jahweh in concrete instances. It was not till the days of the late-Jewish theology that it became possible to draw up a ‘doctrine of the attributes,’ upon the basis of a scholastic analysis of the living being and acting of Jahweh, which to the prophets had been the object of direct vision. (a) Under the heading of ‘attributes’ it has from the first been usual to discuss, above all, ever it may answer to the NT conception of holi- ness, is true only in a very limited measure to the OT conception. We might have spoken of the latter concep- tion, even in dealing with the earlier periods, for the terms wip ‘holy,’ wp ‘holiness,’ and wap ‘to declare holy,’ ‘to consecrate,’ are, beyond doubt, very ancient. But they occur primarily—and that as marking an attribute especially of things, rarely of (human) persons—in a ritual connexion, and, as is a matter of course in the case of things, ’ without any ethical connotation. Anything is called wipg+ which is withdrawn from profane possession and use, nay even from profane touch, and in place of this is destined for the possession and service of the Deity. Thus the name ‘holy’ is given naturally to all the ritual apparatus, all the rooms which serve as the dwelling-place or the spot of worship of Jahweh, all the sacrificial gifts intended for Him. But the same name is giver also to such things as have, for some special reason, been forfeited, not indeed to the service the next period; but the above-described notion }. of God leaves no doubt that there is no room for real ‘other gods’ alongside of the one God who rules over the Universe and the world of men. A proof of this is found even in the numerous desig- nations of the idols which lay stress either upon their repulsiveness or upon their utter nothingness (or unreality). Some at least of these designations are as early as the pre-exilic period. Evidently, there lies at the root of almost all of them the assumption that the gods whom they represent Cf. the very thorough discussion by Baudissin, ‘ Der Begriff der Heiligkeit im AT’ (Studien zur semit. Religionsgeschichte, ii, pp. 1-142); R. Schroter, Der Begriff der Heiligkeit im AT und NT, Halle, 1892. See also art. Houiness (in OT) in vol. ii. of the present work. + The etymology is disputed. There is still, however, most to be said in favour of tracing it to the root wp, in the sense of ‘separate,’ ‘segregate,’ At all events this answers admirably to the Hebrew usage, which is more than can be said of the proposal to trace it to the Heb. W717 ‘new,’ and hence ‘pure,’ ‘bright,’ ‘sparkling’ (cf. also Assyr. kuidushu, ‘shining,’ ‘pure’). 682 RELIGION OF ISRAEL of God, but so as to be His property and that of His sanctuary. Thus the censers of Korah and his com- pany become ‘holy’ (Nu 17% [16°’]), and are accord- ingly to be employed to overlay the altar. In the same way, however, even a person by unauthorized touching of what is itself holy may ‘ become holy,’ i.e. fall forfeit to the sanctuary, enter into a special relation to God: so, for instance, by touching the altar (Ex 29°”) or the sacred vessels (30%, Hag 21? etc.). In such an event, special offerings and atone- ments are needed in order to remove the condition of ‘being holy,’ which presses upon the individual as a danger. The danger lies in the fact that, while he is in this condition, every species of defilement, whether due to his own fault or no, may readily prove fatal to him. It cannot occasion us any surprise that ¢his use of the concepts ‘holy’ and ‘holiness’ meets us most frequently in the latest stratum of the Pentateuch, the so-called Priests’ Code, for the hatter is concerned, above all, with ritual prescrip- tions. But in this matter it is plain that it simply follows a long-established usage of language, and that, too, even long after the notion of holiness had begun to assume a positive connotation. At a very early period we already hear (1 8. 21 (4) not only of ‘holy’ bread (t.e. bread consecrated to God and hence withdrawn from profane use), but also (v.§()) of holy ‘vessels,’ t.e. clothes and weapons. The ‘holiness’ is here manifestly produced by special rites such as were customary at the begin- ning of acampaign. This is proved by the expres- sion ‘hallow a war or a festival,’ 1.e. prepare oneself for the conflict or the celebration of the festival by performing certain acts of consecration. There are quite a number of passages which show that this consecration, apart from certain forms of abstinence, consisted mainly in the washing and cleansing of the person and the clothes. Thus ‘holy’ and ‘hallow oneself’? come to be almost synonymous with ‘clean’ and ‘cleanse oneself’ (cf., for example, 1S 20% where inp xd ‘not clean’ stands for one who, in consequence of a nocturnal pollution, has been incapacitated for taking part in the sacrificial meal at the New Moon festival). When the demand is made in Dt 7 14? that Israel shall be a holy people to Jahweh its God, because He has chosen it out of all este to be the people of His own possession, the notion of holiness is not here restricted merely to the point that Israel has been separated from the peoples and appropriated by Jahweh to be His property alone. In that case the notion of ‘ holiness’ would be concerned merely with a relation (as in the case of the sacred bread), and would not imply any alteration in the quality of the persons or things dedicated to God. In reality, however, the ‘holy’ people means one that carefully guards against any defilement that would make it incapable of being called the people of this very God and of taking part in His worship. But here, again, it is far from being the case that moral defilement is primarily in view. What incapacitates for par- ticipating in the cultus is physical or so-called ‘Levitical’ uncleanness. To this category belongs every kind of contact with persons or things belonging to the realm of ide worship, as well as the touching (even unwittingly and uninten- tionally) of a corpse, the partaking of unclean food (Dt 147), and other acts of the same kind. Even in the so-called ‘ Law of Holiness’ (Lv 17-26, ef. also 11“), in spite of such general expressions How far removed any such implication was in the oldest linguistic usage, is best shown by the designations O'v7) and Nip, given to those who prostituted themselves in honour of a leity (cf. above, p. 6625), Here, of course, any thought of a religious-moral quality is out of the question. RELIGION OF ISRAEL ae as are found in 19? 20%, we have to do, not with a demand for absolute moral holiness, but with the same caution against every species of physical defilement. The circumstance that the latter may frequently include at the same time a reli- gious offence is left at first out of view in applying the notions of clean or holy. Hence is to be explained the fact, which is so strange from our oint of view, that outward, physical, and it may be even unwitting defilement involves guilt, and necessitates the same sacrifices and other means of atonement as actual moral defilement. This view, which characterizes the Priests’ Code, presents itself to us most clearly in Ex 19°, where the ideal goal of God’s ways with Israel is set up &z consist- ing in His making them a ‘ kingdom of priests,’ a holy people, i.e. a people every member of which answers always to the conditions of perfect (Levitical) purity as these were binding at all times on the priests. Still more marked is the filling of the concept ‘holy’ with moral contents, when it is transferred to God, and—what is very noteworthy—exclusively to the God of Israel. The earliest passage of this kind is probably 1S 6”, where the inhabitants of Bethshemesh, after the stroke which fell upon tiiem for looking into the sacred Ark, ask in terror: ‘Who can stand in presence of Jahweh, this holy God?’ Here the word ‘holy’ manifestl contains the notion of terrible and unapproachable —nay, death-dealing ; for there is a deep cleft be- tween the imperishable being of the Deity and everything which is subject to decay and unclean- ness. To say that Jahweh is a holy God means thus that He is elevated above all that is outside Him, that He holds a unique position over against all that is created. Hence it has been mighty said that the holiness of Jahweh is not a single attribute (such as ‘moral perfection’), but a de- signation of His essential boing: practically iden- tical with the notion of being Divine (Gotésein). Hence Jahweh in Am 4? swears by His holiness, i.é., as is seen from Gn 22'6 and Jer 225, by Him- self. It may be added that expressions about the holiness of God are at first very rare. Ex 15% (‘ Who is like thee, glorious in holiness, terrible in ~ exploits, doing wonders?’) should probably be assigned to the later Prophetical period. Jos 24% (‘ Ye cannot serve Jahweh, for he is a holy God’), from the pen of E, emphasizes, like 1S 6, the terrible and unapproachable nature of Jahweh. All that occurs in Amos, apart from 4? (see above), is the reference in 2’ to the dishonouring of the holy name of Jahweh by shameless immorality. In Hos 11° (‘ For I am God, and not man; as holy I dwell among you’) ‘holy’ means raised above human passion and hasty anger. It is in Isaiah that the notion of the holiness of God first comes to be frequently mentioned and is most sharply defined. Already in the vision that marked his prophetic call, he hears the antiphonal song of the seraphim that surround the throne of Jahweh— Holy, holy, holy is Jahweh of Hosts, The whole earth is full of his glory.’ These two parallel members contain two state- ments, which supplement one another, about the inmost being of Jahweh. The first concerns the immanent being—that elevation above everything earthly or creaturely which belongs in the highest degree to Jahweh; the second, again, the tran- scendent being—the glory that manifests itself over the whole earth (cf. above, p. 639°f.). Insofar, now, as absolute elevation above everything bar includes, as a matter of course, superiority to On the expression of the superlative ye repetition of the adjective, see Gesenius, Heb. Gram.27 § 133 kit a a al ea ae ee RELIGION OF ISRAEL —— inlirmity and sin, we may speak also of an ethical content of the notion of Eatneas But even in Isaiah this does not yet make its appearance expressly or quite exclusively. The designation of Jahweh as ‘ the Holy One of Israel’ (a favourite expression with Isaiah, 14 10% 177 etc.) implies that He is to be recognized and correspondingly venerated by Israel as the absolutely exalted and therefore terrible One, who is not to be provoked with Bey for towards His despisers He shows Himsel holy by His punitive justice (5°). The only pre-exilic prophet, besides Isaiah, who uses ‘ holy’ as a predicate of Jahweh, is Habakkuk (1). Here the ethical quality of the Divine holi- ness comes pretty clearly into the foreground. Immediately after the question, ‘Art thou not from everlasting, Jahweh, my Holy One?’ comes the statement, ‘Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and thou canst not look on perverse- ness’ (v.38), ' We have already (p. 682%) pointed out that the holiness of God, which is so often urged in the ‘Law of Holiness’ as a motive why Israel should be holy, is, above all, the contrast to all Levitical impuri ve This priestly notion of holiness is thus markedly inferior in depth and significance to Isaiah’s conception. But the latter did not on that account disappear from the upenage of religion. We meet with it frequently in the exilic and post -exilic prophets (especially Deutero, Isaiah), and no less in the Psalms. And we may say that it is the essential designation of the God of Israel, laying the greatest stress, as it does, on His uniqueness and incomparable character, before which all gods recognized elsewhere shrink into their nothingness. Holy things and persons (i.e. set apart for the exclusive service of a deity) are known to other religions as well ; but the holiness” of its God is known to Israel only through the revelation given to it. Thus the application of the notion of holiness to Jahweh includes, when rightly understood, a kind of monotheistic con- fession, a far-reaching testimony to the surpassing greatness of the religion of Israel. Although, as was remarked above, the idea of moral perfection and aversion to evil was not the primary one attaching to the notion of holiness, it is by no means strange to the Prophetical con- ception of God. This idea comes to light in the absolute truthfulness and fidelity of Jahweh, as well as in the unconditional character of the moral demands made on Israel; but, above all, in the attitude of Jahweh to heathen nations, for He avenges outrage and injustice everywhere on earth, even although these have not (as in Am 18-6. 9-11) been inflicted on Israel. Thus He once punished Sodom and Gomorrah ; thus, according to Am 2}, will He chastise Moab for their sacrilegious treatment of the bones of the king of Edom. The prophet thus takes it as self-evident that there are moral principles which are binding upon all peoples, and on whose observance Jahweh, as an absolutely moral Being, and at the same time Ruler and Judge of all keeps strict watch. But, above all, rael itself must be taught that Jahweh is a God right (Is 30"), and of right at any price. In We may take this opportunity of pointing out that the Hebrew words which are commonly rendered ‘ righteous’ (p’71y) and ‘righteousness’(p71¥, 77271¥) have originally a different sense from that of forensic justice. ply or 71x denotes a way of acting or a condition corresponding to a standard (so quite clearly in p7¥ 31ND ‘correct scales,’ P7¥ °328 ‘correct weights’). When used of men, it is mostly=‘ righteousness’ (d:xasorivn), ‘piety’; used of God, it denotes the attitude corresponding to the norm of the Divine being. But to this norm belong not only strict justice, but also God’s covenant faithfulness, coupled with long-suffering and grace ; and hence 77x (esp. in Is 40-66) is used not infrequently of that aspect of Jahweh’s activity which has for its object the salvation of His people. See, RELIGION OF ISRAEL 683 another connexion we shall have to speak of how He causes it to triumph over wrong and sin, even if this involves the giving up and destruction of His own people. Here it may suffice to refer to one other illustration of how widely the genuine Prophetical judgment of things differs from that of the mass of the people of Israel. Jehu’s extir- pation of Baal worship in Israel was carried out with terrible bloodshed. The early narrative of 2K 9. 10 evidently saw in this a duadable ‘zeal for Jahweh’ (10°), and the Deuteronom. redactor, who on this point represents the general opinion of Israel in the supposed interest of the Jahweh religion, makes Jahweh Himself declare to Jehu (v.%) that he has done what is well-pleasing in His eyes, and has treated the house of Ahab entirely after His mind. Quite different is the judgment of Hosea (14). To him it appears impossible that blood-guiltiness should not be called blood-guilti- ness simply because it assumes the title of zeal for Jahweh. And so the prophet threatens that the blood-guiltiness of Jezreel shall be avenged on the house of Jehu, by the destruction of the kingdom of Israel and the shattering of her military power in the Plain of Jezreel. (8) As was remarked above (p. 681°), the con- viction of the prophets regarding other attributes of God presents itself, not in express definitions, but rather (apart from certain Divine names) in casual utterances about His activity and the occurrences which He brings about. Thus we have His absolute omnipotence (which is already, if only in a general way, presupposed in such catty passages as Gn 184, Nu 1173, 1S 14°), which shows itself in His unconditioned supremacy over all, even the mightiest, peoples of earth (see above, p. 6814), but no less also in such remarkable pas- sages as Is 74. The whole context of this last passage permits of no other view than that Isaiah holds with unshaken confidence, that whatever Ahaz may demand from Jahweh as a confirmato sign, be it as great a wonder as it may, Jahwe will bring it to pass. So firm a belief is with diffi- culty conceivable by us, because our judgment is influenced by all the dogmatic considerations about the possibility and the limits of miracles as a ‘violation of the laws of nature’—laws which, however, are imposed by God Himself. Such con- siderations, it is plain, never crossed the prophets’ minds. Of ‘miracles’ in the sense familiar to us they know nothing. They are acquainted with extraordinary occurrences and actions (n\x?53) which transcend the ordinary course of things, but to them nothing is so extraordinary as to be beyond the sphere of Jahweh’s power (Jer 3277). This conviction is a self-evident result of their notion of God; the idea of the Divine omnipotence is a postulate of their faith long before language had coined a special term for this attribute. Such a term could be dispensed with all the more readily, seeing that allusions to the Divine omnipotence served not scholastic speculations, but prominent religious interests; they brought consolation to the godly, who could now unreservedly trust to the help of their God; they were meant to instil further, Kautzsch, Ueber die Derivate des Stammes zadaq im alttest. Sprachgebrauch, Tibingen, 1881; G. Martin, La notion de la justice de Diew dans Vancien Testament, Montauban, 1892; G. Dalman, Die richterliche Gerechtigkeit im AT, Berlin, 1897 ; Bouwman, Het begrip gerechtigheid in het Oude Testa- ment, Kampen, 1899. On the title Jahweh Zéba’éth as used by the prophets in allusion to the supramundane power and glory of Jahweh, cf, above, pp. 6375 and 680. Of., further, the designation of Jahweh as bye Vax ‘the strong One of Israel’ (Is 124); and as 3X ‘rock’ (Is 1710 3029 ; elsewhere in the later passages, 264 448, Dt 324. 15. 18. 30. 31. 37, 1 § 22, 2§ 223. 32.47 233, and 14 times in the Psalms; cf. Wiegand, ‘ Der Gottesname zér,’ ete. in ZATW x. [1890] 86 ff.; and art. Rock in vol. iv. of the present work). §84 RELIGION OF ISRAEL terror into the hearts of sinners, whom nothing could deliver from this God’s mighty arm. (y, 5) Precisely similar remarks apply to the occasional allusions to the omnipresence and omniscience of God. That the first named of these could be regarded only with reference to the Divine activity (i.e. God’s cognition and Provi- dential care) and not of the Divine substance, has been already remarked ; and for the OT conception of God this is self-evident, in so far as any approach to pantheistic notions would destroy, or at least greatly endanger, the idea of the living Personality, which forms the inmost kernel of the conception in question. But this does not prevent His care from always following His people, or, on the other hand, His eye from penetrating all darkness, so that there is no secret corner where the workers of iniquity can remain unseen by Jahweh (Jer 234). If in this last statement the idea of omni- presence already touches that of omniscience, still more is this the case with the declarations about Jahweh as One who can see into the most hidden depths of the human heart. He penetrates the secret plans of the Judeans with reference to an alliance with Egypt, however carefully they may seek in their fal to conceal these from Him (Is 2915) ; He it is that searches the heart, tries the reins, to recompensé every man according to his works, according to the fruit of his deeds (Jer 17°), And this applies not only to Israel, but He alone knows the heart of al/ men. But the strongest evidence of the firmness of the belief in the omnipresence and omniscience of God, and at the same time the most significant fruit of this faith, is the conviction (already felt in the pre- ceding period) that Jahweh hears, and for the most part also answers, the prayers of His people. This conviction meets us everywhere in the Pro- phets, most markedly perhaps in Jeremiah’s mani- old communion in prayer with his God, but in every case as a conviction that is a matter of course. All the more on that account may it be reckoned among the evidences that the religion of Israel, at an early date and in quite a special way through the influence of the pre-exilic prophets, was filled with an imperious desire to burst the barriers of a merely national religion, and to pave the way to a worship of God in spirit and in truth, such as should satisfy the deepest longings of every individual soul that drew near to this God. . (e) In view of the above-described strong empha- sizing of the holiness of God as the absolute eleva- tion and unapproachableness, nay the awfulness, of the Divine essence, and, in no less degree, owing to the circumstance that the preaching of repent- ance was the main task of the prophets, it is readily intelligible that expressions about the love, the goodness, and mercy of God should recede more into the background. The terms so frequently used of human love are transferred to God first by Hosea (31 11°), more frequently by the Deuteronomist (4%7 7% 18 10 1516 235, cf. 1 K 109), once also by Jeremiah (31°). But, apart from Dt 1018 (‘ Jahweh loveth the gér’), it is always God’s love to the people of Israel that is spoken of ; and, besides, the words used for ‘love’ (both noun and verb) have always attached to them the notion of choice, nay, of preference; the full unfolding of the idea of the Divine love is not yet reached. In like manner, the expressions for ‘ mercy,’ ‘ grace,’ ‘compassion’ are in later linguistic usage trans- ferred to God, or at least somewhat frequently employed in making predications about Him. A collection of almost all the qualities of the love of God is brought together in Ex 34° (‘Jahweh, a Of. Caldesaigues, La pritre dans la religion de Jéhovah, etc.. Cahors, 1899; Koberle, Die Motive des Glaubens an die Gebetsernorung im AT, Erlangen and Leipzig, 1901. RELIGION OF ISRAEL God full of compassion and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy and truth’), but this passage, too, is undoubtedly from the hand of a later redactor than the J pericope in which it is now inserted. 2. The relation of Jahweh to Israel.—That an intimate relation has subsisted from the first between Jahweh and Israel, is assumed in all the OT sources as a matter of course. They likewise hold that this relation is not based, as in tha ascribe filial rights to all other peoples as well. The emphasis lies upon ‘firstborn’ in the sense that Israel alone possesses all the prerogatives which belong to the firstborn as the one who is loved and preferred before all others. These filial privileges, however, are predicated only of the people collectively, not of the individual Israelite. The latter, on the other hand, is a ‘servant’ of Jahweh (so in Nu 12%, and repeatedly, of Moses; | in Is 20% of Isaiah; in Jer 7% of the prophets). Even the OT, it is true, is acquainted with the notion of individual sonship, but only- in the person of the theocratic king (28 74, Ps 27 897 {of David]), not yet in the NT sense of sonship for which all men are destined. We meet with this same conception of the son- ship of collective Israel not infrequently in the Prophetical period: Is 1% 301% Dt 14! (where | ‘children’ || ‘people holy to Jahweh,’ v.?), Is 43% | (where sons and daughters are distinguished) | 45".+ The necessary reverse side of this is the idea of the Fatherhood of God. Disregarding here passages wher er’ stands mainly for the hysical Creator of the people (Dt 32°, Mal 2”), the atherly relation is once more one that is sustained towards the nation collectively: so Jer 3+ 31° (towards Ephraim as ‘ firstborn son’); ef. also Is 63!8 (|| ‘redeemer’), Mal 19, (0) The foundation of this close relation is the election-ofsrael. Israel has been chosen out of all nations to be the people of God’s own possession, i.e. a highly prized and therefore carefully guarded and cherished piece of property. Thus Amos (3?) says, ‘You only have I known [i.e. made the object of my intimate knowledge and close care] of all the peoples of the earth,’ from which, indeed, he draws the inference, so startling to the popular view of the matter, that for that very reason Jahweh will visit upon them all their offences. The idea of a choice [verb 1032] of Israel from amongst the numerous nations makes its appear- ance first in the vocabulary of the Deuteronomist : Dt 4°7 76 1015 147, 1 K 38 8°; ef. also Ps 33 47°@ 1354 ete., and numerous passages in Is 40-66. Quite a unique contrast is drawn in Dt 4° between the choice of Israel and the fact that Jahweh has assigned to the other nations of the earth the stars as the object of their veneration. The motive assigned for Israel’s election is in | 1S 12” the good pleasure of Jahweh, but re- peatedly (so already in Hos 11, Dt 4% 10”) Jahweh’s love to Israel (coupled in Dt 78 with His oath to the patriarchs) is exhibited as the motive. A reason for this love itself is not stated. But In Ps 686(5) (‘father of the orphans’) ‘father,’ as the parallelism shows, is figurative=‘ protector,’ ‘provider’; cf. P. Bauer, ‘Gott als Vater im AT’ in SA, 1899, p. 483 ff. + In Hos 111 (MT ‘out of Egypt I called my son’) we should probably read, with LXX and Targ., ‘his sons’ (1337). RELIGION OF ISRAEL the Book of Deuteronomy labours to impress it upon the people’s minds that it was not on account of any greatness (Dt 7’) or any special righteous- ness of theirs that they were so highly favoured of God. On the contrary, Israel was the smallest of peoples, and a stiff-necked people to boot. All the more, it is urged, is Israel bound to show heartfelt gratitude to God. (c) In the closest connexion with the idea of Israel’s election stands the theologumenon of the ‘jealousy.of Jahweh.’? The Heb. word (Ay3p) appears to stand originally for angry zeal in general (Zeph 178 38, Dt 2919 2), and very often in Ezekiel; cf. also x32 ‘jealous,’ in Jos 24 and Nah 1°); more specially the zeal of God on behalf of Israel against the heathen, as manifested par- ticularly in the exact fulfilment of His promises (Is 9°, 2 K 19!, and often in Ezekiel and Is 40-66). Tf »x3p here already denotes God’s jealous guarding of His honour, no less does the adjective #32 im- port the ‘jealous’ God who vehemently asserts is sole right to the love and reverence of Israel, and hence tolerates no kind of idolatry: so in Ex 20° [Dt 5°] 3414, Dt 4% 6, all of which passages are probably not earlier than the Deuteronom. stratum, (ad) Jahweh’s special love to Israel, evinced in the choice of this people, shows itself, further, in the wise guzdance and powerful protection He accorded them from the first and all through their history. This is a favourite theme of the prophets, and very specially of Deuteronomy, and it serves in almost every instance as a motive for strong denunciations of Israel’s ingratitude. Thus Amos (2%) holds up to the people the powerful aid given by Jahweh in the extirpating of the Canaanites, His deliverance of them from Egypt, and His 40 years leading of them in the wilderness, Hosea (115-) recalls how, in spite of their disloyalty, God taught Ephraim, like a child, to walk, took them in His arms, and bound them to Himself by cords of love. Isaiah (1?) begins his great arraignment of Israel with the words: ‘I have nourished and brought up children, but they have rebelled against me.’ Micah (64), too, presses upon the people’s notice the gracious acts of Jahweh after their de- liverance from Egyptian bondage. In Jeremiah (2°-), again, Jahweh Himself recalls the time of the wilderness wandering as the glorious bridal era of the people’s history; and speaks of His marvellous guidance of them through the terrible wilderness (v.°), and his settling of them in the fruitful land of Canaan. The transfigured light in which the initial stages of the national history appeared to a later age is witnessed to by the Deuteronom. speech of Joshua (Jos 23°). Accord- ing to the latter, none could then stand against Israel: a single Israelite could chase a thousand foes, for Jahweh their God Himself fought for them. A glorious description of the blessings which Jahweh showered upon the people in the days of their youth is contained also in the (prob- ably exilic) Song of Moses (Dt 32°14), (e) Such numerous and important benefits re- ceived from Jahweh demand, as a matter of course, Israel’s gratitude and obedience to their God. This leads us now to ask, What does Jahweh, according to the teaching of the prophets, require of the.people ? In the first place, naturally, there must be abstin- ence from every species of idolatry and of image worship, the images of Jahweh included. This inexhaustible theme of the warnings and _ re- proaches of Deuteronomy, as it had been already with the great prophets of the 8th cent., will have to be more fully discussed below (see p. 689f.). On the repudiation of the images of Jaliweh, see above, p. 6794. (a) Here the primary question that concerns us RELIGION OF ISRAEL 685 is this. When the prophets repudiate an external cultus, to which even the cult of Jahweh, with its intermixture of heathen ritual customs, belongs, do they at least demand a purified, God-pleasing cultus? This question, if it is sacrifice, the proper centre of ancient worship, that is in view, is to be answered with a flat negative, and this negative — in spite of appearances to the contrary—is to be extended even to Deuteronomy. It is true that the latter law-book imperatively requires (125% etc.) all kinds of sacrifice to be brought to the one sanctuary chosen by Jahweh, and the offerers are to eat and drink and rejoice there before Jahweh. But, apart from such general prescrip- tions as 12%, there is not a single trace of any importance being attached to the ritual at these sacrificial meals. All that the code is concerned about is that the latter, which are now ancestral, deeply-rooted practices, should be held at the one legitimate sanctuary which Jahweh has chosen. Only thus is there any security that the cultus shall be so watched over that the relics of heathen ritual customs shall at length be combated success- fully. Further, it is the case that Deuteronomy (26') no doubt, taking up a long-established custom—requires a basket of the firstiruits of the field to be handed to the priest. But it does not neglect to prescribe to the offerer (v.5) a prayer (the only prayer for public worship, besides that of v.18, in the whole Pentateuch !) which gives the true meaning and sets in a clear light the deeper significance of the outward gift as a grate- ful testimony to Jahweh as the bestower of the fruits in question. With regard to the so-called ‘poor’s tithe,’ again, the most important question for Deuteronomy, as 264 shows, is whether the gifts in question have been brought into connexion “with practices which are to be regarded as a denial of the pure Jabweh-cult. While Deuteronomy accommodates itself to pre- vailing customs, there are, on the other hand, say- ings of the prophets proper which cannot be under- stood except as absolutely disclaiming any demand on God’s part for sacrificial gifts—a proof, by the way, that these prophets, one and all, are as yet quite unacquainted with a law-book such as P, where sacrifice becomes asacred duty. Itis readily intelligible that for a long time there was a reluctance to admit this fact. Sacrifice appeared to form such an integral part of the religion of Israel that it was a@ priori declared to be impossible that the prophets could have carried on a polemic against it. And so it is a favourite subterfuge still to say that the prophets never polemize against the offerings per se, but only against offerings that are precited hypocritically, without repentance and a right disposition, with blood-stained hands ; against the opera operata of the carnally-minded, half-heathen mass of the people. But such an interpretation is made possible only by doing violence to the clear language of the passages in question. When, in Am 5”, Jahweh, after very warmly repudiating the offerings of Israel (v.2"), asks, ‘Did ye bring unto me sacrifices and offer- ings in the wilderness forty years?’ He evidentl expects the answer, No. And the practical appli- cation is equally self-evident + Jahweh could do without their offerings then, He doves not need them now. In like manner, it is perfectly futile to read out of Hos 6° anything else than a categorical rejection of sacrifice: ‘For I have pleasure in merey and not in sacrifice, in the knowledge of That this did not imply such a mechanically conceived concentration of the sacrificial cultus as if only the one altar of burnt-offering could serve as a legitimate place of sacrifice, is shown by 1 K 864(D), where we read that Solomon consecrated the whole of the middle court because the hrazen altar was too ee for the multitude of offerings at the dedication of the temple. 686 RELIGION OF ISRAEL RELIGION OF ISRAEL God and not in burnt-offerings!’ With regard to Is 1"! it has been maintained with some appear- ance of plausibility that the flat rejection there of offerings and festivals is intended to apply only to the false worship, which is coupled with a sinful disposition. But any one who reads the whole passage carefully must pronounce it impossible that the prophet, after the burning words (v.1), in which he impresses upon his hearers what are the real demands of God, could still have left room for the exhortation: ‘And then come and bring your offerings!’ On the contrary, once they have cleansed themselves, once they have helped the widow and the orphan to their rights, then they have done what God asks of them, and there need be no word of sacrifice. The very same meaning attaches to the words of Micah (6°), The people are still under the delusion that it may be possible by multiplying their offerings—in an extreme case by perhaps giving up even their firstborn son—to atone for their sin, and thus, as it were, compel the favour of Jahweh. But the prophet does not go on to answer the questions put by those who are so deluded. In this way he gives it to be clearly understood that they are questions that are not worth discussing. Instead he points them to the requirements of God which were made known to them long ago, and in which everything is comprehended that is well-pleasing to God— namely, to do justly, and to show love, and to walk hamble with their God. Alongside of this threefold command there is plainly no room for requiring ay outward services. Much about the same time, if not somewhat later (for the téraphim are already reckoned among the apparatus of idolatry), we may place 1S 15%%, It is true that here obedience is only declared to be better than sacrifice, and disobedience put on the same level as idolatry. But the whole tone of the statement leaves no doubt that we are listening to the words of a narrator who has penetrated deeply into the thoughts of the true prophets of Jahweh, and who shares their conviction of the utter worthlessness of outward offerings, A final testimony, and that of the strongest kind, to this judgment of the sacrificial cultus is found in Jeremiah. Already in 6% the prophet combats the notion that Jahweh has any ease either in the incense of Saba and the costly cane from a distant land, or in the burnt-offerings and slain beasts of the people. Still his language here might be explained as amounting only to a rejec- tion of sacrifice as a hypocritical opus operatum. But when, in 721, Jahweh says, ‘Add your burnt- offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat ye flesh,’ this can mean only that it is to Him a matter of pure indifference whether they themselves eat not only the sacrificial meals but the burnt-offerings (which, according to very ancient custom, had to be wholly consumed by fire). And when He goes on (v.2") to say, ‘For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt [i.e. at the time when the foundation of the theocracy was laid], concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices,’ this is intended to show that it is a complete delusion to suppose that God requires any such offerings or makes His favour depend upon them. Not out- ward services, but obedience to His will is what He demands ; in other words, a moral life, for this and nothing else is the meaning of the words (v.”), ‘Walk ye in all the way that I command you.’ This testimony of Jeremiah weighs all the more The usual rendering, ‘more than in burnt- offerings,’ by which, after all, a recognition of sacrifice is introduced into the saying, would be in itself linguistically possible, but is absolutely excluded by the first half-verse; n)7/D means simply ‘apart from (97 to the exclusion of) burnt-offerings.’ that he himself was a priest. His denial that God gave any commands as to sacrifice appeared so unheard of that men did not shrink from the most incredible exegetical operations in order to com- pel him to say something different from what he actually says. But no wresting of the text can alter the fact that Jeremiah is as little acquainted as the prophets before him with a law-book which issued in God’s name statutes as to sacrifice. This does not mean that the Book of Deuteronomy was unknown to him. This book, however, as we saw a little ago, never sets itself to distinguish in prin- ciple the value and the necessity of sacrifice, but simply takes sacrifice for granted as a present fact, an old-established custom. And so the result of our whole inquiry is that no one has any right to depreciate the merit which belongs to the above-named prophets, of having discovered the ideal of true service of God in the worship of Him in spirit and in truth, without any outward cere- monies and performances, We may anticipate a little by adding that this Prophetical conception was not so very quickl obliterated even in the post-exilic period, whic is mostly thought of as the era of torpid, rigid legalism. Even Ps 407( roundly declares: ‘Sacri- fice and offering thou hast no delight in; ears hast thou opened [lit. digged] for me (namely, that I may hear and obey thy will]; burnt-offering and sin-offering thou requirest not.’ In Ps 50% the writer repels as a piece of childish imagination, not to say ridicules, the notion that the flesh of bulls and the blood of goats are to be offered as food to God, the Lord of the whol2 world of beasts. Ps 51380) insists once more that God does not desire sacrificial victims and has no pleasure in burnt, offerings, but with the very weigkty addition (v.' (7) that the true sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart. We may compare, finally, Ps 69%, according to which Jahweh has more pleasure in grateful praise than in a young bullock with horns and hooks We have not here to inquire how it was possible for these Psalms, with their very emphatic settin; forth of the Prophetic view of sacrifice, to fin their way into the ‘song-book of the post-exilic congregation,’ which was at all times profoundly penetrated with the notion of sacrifice as a sacred and quite indispensable duty. Was it that a forced interpretation was put upon the actual expressions so as to remove what was offensive to the later, priestly view of sacrifice? This would really appear to have been the case, in view of the present conclusion (v.” (!6)f-) of Ps 51. Here the Prophetical view expressed in y.8(6) has evidently this turn given to it: all this applies as long as Israel languishes under God’s wrath ; in this situa- tion sacrifices are useless and displeasing to God. But once He has compassion again on Zion, and has built again the walls of Jerusalem,—a proof that the time of wrath is finally over, and the long-promised great restoration begun,—then once more will He take pleasure in right offerings, then shall bullocks be offered on His altar. The most recent commentators on the Psalms are in part disposed to regard this conclusion as original, and to find in it the simple solution of the problem how a Psalmist could have given utterance to such revolublon’ry Snag But the present writer agrees with Duhm in holding that it is quite im- ossible to remove the difficulty in this way. It implies the doing of quite unseemly violence to the language of v.!9(7), A saint, who had reached so We are compelled to pronounce completely mistaken also the argument of Jacob (ZATW xvii. [1897] 265)and Matthes (ib, xxi. [1901] 73 ff.), according to which the meaning is that asks for thank-offerings and votive offerings in preference ta others (in which, however, He also takes pleasure, the of the Psalms being uniformly favourable to sacrifice). = | =— ore A SO et ON ee eee ee RELIGION OF ISRAEL thoroughly purified and truly evangelical a con- ception of the proper service of God as we find in that verse, could never have sunk to such an appreciation of external sacrificial worship as manifestly underlies v.?! (9), In view of all this, it cannot surprise us that, apart from sacrifice and from frequent denuncia- tions of false worship, the Prophetical references to matters of the cultus are scanty, and are based, moreover, rather upon accommodation to the pre- vailing popular view than upon an independent appreciation of it. To the people, to be sure, it is a terrible threat that Jahweh is to put an end to all their festivals, new moons and sabbaths (Hos 2"); that in exile they shall be without king and ruler, without altar and mazzébdh, ephod and téraphim (3); that there, in an unclean land, where no cult of Jahweh is possible, they shall have to eat unclean food, and be unable to present offerings of any kind (9*). But all that the prophet is concerned about is simply to threaten something that shall sound terrible to his hearers, not to express approval or disapproval of the cultus and its necessary apparatus. Elsewhere, too (Am 8°, Is 29! (Jer 177% is a later addition, prob- ably from the time of Nehemiah)), it is only in a secondary way that the festivals, New Moons and Sabbaths, are mentioned. We have already ex- plained the sense in which Deuteronomy com- mends the observance of the yearly festivals (ch. 16) and the use of the tenth for sacrificial meals (1478). Moreover, this book seizes every oppor- tunity of substituting humanitarian for ritual motives, or at least of putting them alongside the latter: so, for instance, with the command- ment to hallow the Sabbath (52%); the tithe every third year (14% 26); the year of release (15"-) ; and the letting go of a Hebrew slave in the seventh year (15!2%-), nd if Deuteronomy, as is only reasonable, requires the punctual fulfilment of vows once they have been taken (2371), it does not omit to add that the man who forbears to vow is guilty of no sin (v.~). ut the strongest evidence of the Prophetical spiritualizing of the old ritual customs is the turn now given to the very ancient and strictly observed requirement of circumcision (cf. above, p. 622° f.), when in Jer 44 (cf. also Dt 10! 30°) the removal of the foreskin of the heart is called for. We shall not be wrong in assuming that the prophet here passes a judgment on the value of external cir- cumcision similar to what he passed in 72" on the value of sacrifice. To him it is a symbol of the purifying of the heart, which is what God requires above all, and without which it has neither use nor value. (8) In all other instances as well as in those we have considered, the actual demands of the pro- phets are of a specifically religious and, above ali, specifically moral nature. “But the latter are in no way separated from the former. Nothing would be more perverse than to represent the prophets as preachers of a bare moral religion simply because in their writings the inculcating of justice, honesty, and mercy, in relation to one’s neighbour, always plays a most nape part. Behind all this is the implication that the deter- mining motive for such conduct is to be the re- vealed will of the God of Israel and the reverent fear of His displeasure [in Deuteronomy (6°) hearty love to God]. It is in harmony with this that, as in the First Commandment, the demand for vener- ation of Jahweh alone precedes all others. It is indirectly expressed in the numerous denuncia- Since the LXX still retains ‘altar’ along with ‘sacrifice’ (003% ovens Ouoias otdt dvr0s Fucseernpiov), we should probably read NZD for ng}. ‘Altar and mazzébah’ torms a good collocation, pot ‘sacrifice and mazzébah.’ RELIGION OF ISRAEL 687 tions of idolatry, but has also positive utterance iven to it frequently (cf. e.g. Am 54%, Is 81%), he greatest zeal in this direction is displayed by Deuteronomy (cf. 4!°, the reasoned exhortation against star worship; but, above all, 12), Any enticing to idolatry, even if it emanate from pro- phets or from one’s nearest relations, is regarded by this book (137% 17%) as nothing less than a capital crime; and the penalty is to be executed on the guilty party without pity, even if this should involve the destruction of a whole city with all its inhabitants and all their property (13'#-). Real reverence for Jahweh shows itself, above all, in unreserved confidence in His wise disposal of events and His help in time of need (Is 7‘, and esp. v.°> ‘if ye trust not, ye shall not stand’; cf. also the locus classicus Jer 17°-). This is at the root of the unvarying policy which the true pro- phets of Jahweh commend to their countrymen in relation to the world-powers. After Ahaz, agains the earnest counsel of Isaiah, has called in the aid of the Assyrians and become their vassal, the pro- phet sees in this a Providential dispensation of Jahweh and a well-deserved punishment of Judah. And now what is required is to keep still under the salutary chastening rod (28! 30% [‘In turning away (from the wild struggles of the others) consists your safety, in quietness and confidence is your strength’]), until the hour has;come for Jahweh to interpose and to display His power on the defiant Assyria itself (1016 24f- sf. ]git), Pre. cisely the same standpoint is assumed by Jeremiah in reference to the Chaldeans. There is no resource for the nations subject to them (Jer 27"), or for Zedekiah of Judah (v.!-), but to put their neck under the yoke of Nebuchadrezzar (cf. also 38? 17- 42108.) How little on this account Jeremiah despairs of the return of God’s favour to the nation and their restoration, he proves by purchasing, although ° a prisoner, a field (32°), when already the em- bankments of the besiegers stretch up to the city. The right knowledge of Jahweh issues likewise in due humility, such as love to one’s neighbour (cf. the prophetic programme of true morality in Mic 6°). The latter shows itself primarily in striving after justice at any price, especially when protection and care for oppressed widows and orphans are concerned: Am 52, Is 117-2 102, Jer 75%. 298 (addressed to the king), Dt 108 (coupled with the injunction to love the gér) 2417 2719 In general, the whole legislation of Deuteronomy is permeated with a spirit of the most genuine humanity, and thus constitutes, as it were, a de- posit of the ethical system of the prophets. It evi- dently discovers the main value of the sacrificial meals, as well as of the three years’ tithe, in the provision for the Levites, the poor, the widow, and the orphan (14° and oft.) ; in face of an extremely powerful custom—that of blood-revenge—it pro- vides for the deliverance of the unintentional man- slayer (19°); it claims tender consideration for female prisoners of war (21!-), and the less loved aap (v.45%), as well as for the poor when a pledge for a loan is taken from them (24% 1°), An escaped slave is not to be given up (23%); a day-labourer is not to be oppressed, but to be paid his wages before sunset (24'). Interest is to be taken only from foreigners, not from one’s country- men (237), The property of the latter is to be jealously safeguarded (22"-) ; the danger of falling from a roof is to be averted by a railing (228), But all this humanity and mildness in Deutero- nomy goes hand in hand with an unbending strict- ness, not only against idolatry but against every form of lawlessness. The son who is hopelessly corrupt is, at the instance of his own parents, to be stoned to death (21'8"), In like manner, in the case of adultery (22), or of the seduction of 0 688 RELIGION OF ISRAEL betrothed maiden within the city, the penalty of death is to be inflicted on both parties (2275), Seduction of a maiden who is not betrothed is punished by a money fine and the obligation to contract an indissoluble marriage with her (2278), Shameless conduct on the part of a woman is avenged by her having her hand cut off (254), A newly married woman who proves to be not a virgin is to be stoned (22), while a false accusa- tion on this score by the husband involves his paying of a considerable money fine and agreeing to hold his marriage with her indissoluble (22°-), If a husband wishes to put away his wife ‘ because he has found some unseemly thing in her,’ he is required to give her a bill of divorcement. To all appearance, dissolution of marriage was pretty frequent; it was only gradually that even the people of Israel shook itself free of the general Oriental conception of woman as a kind of chattel. Yet at least remarriage with a divorced wife who in the interval has been married to another man, is strictly forbidden as a defilement of the land (24%), Finally, a sort of compendium of the Deuteronomic ethics may be discovered also in the twelve curses of Dt 27/5. In all this, moreover, Deuteronomy implies that the demands put forward by it are not (with such exceptions as that relating to the concentration of the cultus) addressed to the people as something entirely new. Nay, Jahweh has from the first vrovided organs for the communication of His will, in the shape of priests and prophets. To the former of these the following functions are assigned in Deuteronomy : the decision of the more difficult law-cases (17%? 19!" 215); the service of Jahweh in the sanctuary, which gives them a means of livelihood in the absence of a tribal portion of the land (181: 26%) ; the encouraging of warriors before battle (207-) ; and the supervision of leprosy (24%), As regards the prophets, Deuteronomy finds itself involved in a certain measure of self- contradiction in so far as, upon the one hand, it emphasizes the pre-eminence, nay perfection, of the code it promulgates (4° 30"; cf. also Jos 1); while, on the other hand, it recognizes the import- ance of the Prophets, although these were, pro- erly speaking, rendered superfluous by the written aw. This contradiction, however, is resolved by considering that Dt 18 has manifestly in view only one particular function of the prophets—not the announcement of the Divine will in general, but the prediction of the future. Prophecy is Jahweh’s substitute for the soothsaying and prog- nosticating of other nations (v.44). Jahweh Him- self sees to it that this substitute is always present; but the only proof that a prophet has really spoken in the name of Jahweh is the fulfil- inent of his prediction (v.”4). Of the prophets proper, Jeremiah indeed com- mends the observance of ‘the words of this law’ (11°8-),+ by which only Deuteronomy can be meant. But he can never have been of opinion that true Jahweh prophecy, the living word of Jahweh, which is as a fire, and like a hammer breaking the rock in pieces (2379), is ever to be rendered super- fluous by a written Law. Jahweh still acts as He has done since the choice of Israel, sending with- out intermission His servants, the prophets, to announce His will (775 254 26° 29%). And only this immediate torah (‘direction’) of God offers a guar- antee that it is a true Divine word—an assurance The referring of ‘the prophet’ of v.15 and v.18 to a par- ticular individual, namely the Messiah (on which the old dog- matic founded the munus propheticum of Christ), is at once seen to be mistaken, when one looks at v.20 and y.22, t In this connexion we should not omit to say that the stron; objections taken by Duhm (in his Commentary on Jescialt to Jeremiah’s authorship of this passage, rest on what is by no means an airy foundation. RELIGION OF ISRAEL which cannot be unreservedly felt regarding a written Law. It is only in this way that we can explain the remarkable words of Jer 8° ‘How can ye say, We are wise, and the torah (here=the [written] Law) of Jahweh is with us? Nay, the lying pen of the scribe hath worked so as to deceive.’ If this is not exactly a repudiation of the law-book discovered and introduced in Josiah’s reign, it is at least an allusion to the dangers which beset a written code; and hence the latter can never take the place of the living word com- municated through the prophets. : Amongst the earlier prophets, Hosea (8!) as- sumes the existence of a multitude of written toréth+ (‘directions’); but the context of the passage shows that these cannot be regulations for the cultus, but only guides to a moral life. In Is 816 the torah that is to be laid up and sealed refers only to the immediately preceding predic- tions. Nowhere except in Jeremiah and Hosea do we find any allusion to a written Law. On the other hand, we encounter everywhere (cf. Am 21, Hos 6°, Is 6' 8", Mic 38, Hab 2 etc.) the con- viction of the Divine mission and the direct com- ieee of the genuine Jahweh prophets with their od. Since we have already (p. 672 ff.) discussed fully the nature and functions of these, we may here refer to other two points only. There is, first, the very definite way in which the prophets look for the fulfilment of their predictions (cf. esp. Is 8% 30%, Hab 2?, where the prediction is still further strengthened by being committed to writing; but also Is 20'-, Jer 208 217 2816), The other point is that the natural feelings of the prophet may readil; come into conflict with the meanace ue is prea by God to utter, whether it be that he has a transi- tory fit of doubt as to the justice of the principles that govern the course of the world (Jer 12-), or that he despairs of any success to his mission (1515 207"-), or that he is unable to suppress a feeling of rofound compassion for the objects of his threaten- ing (Is 224, Mic 18, Jer 4! 818#-), In the end, how- ever, the conviction always triumphs which Jere- miah (12) prefixes to his complaint and reproaches: ‘Thou remainest in the right, O Jahweh, if I think to strive with thee.’ Nay, in God’s sight all human wisdom and strength and all riches are as nothing (Jer 9°3), Amongst other organs of Jahweh, Amos ouce (2) mentions the Nazirites (see above, p. 658) ; but of the priests, apart from the honourable reference to the chief priest Uriah in Is 8?, all that we hear from the prophets are vehement denunciations for neglect of duty. Almost as frequent are serious complaints against the kings. ot, indeed, that the old conception (cf. above, p. 660°), which saw in the monarchy a blessing from Jahweh, and in the king as well as in the et: and peophes ar. organ of the theocracy, is wholly denied. It meets us clearly in the present (Deuteronom.) form of 28 7; but experience of the monarchy in general —particularly in the Northern kingdom—as this is very clearly reflected in the so-called ‘law of the kingship’ (Dt 174:), must inevitably have led to a judgment almost entirely adverse. (y) There is still one question we must answer before passing from this division of our subject. Do the prophets consider that perfect obedience to The usual interpretation, ‘the lying pen of the scribe hath made deceit of it,’ would require the reading inyy instead of my. + Instead of the sing. 'n7\A, by which the MT means to suggest the one Law of Moses, read the plur. ‘nin. Only thus does ‘the countless number’ spoken of bear any sense.—On the usage of the word 77)RA, cf. J. Valeton, art. ‘Beteekenis en ebruik van het woord Thord in het Oude Testament 'in Theol. Studien, 1891, p. 101 ff. RELIGION OF ISRAEL tke Divine will is possible, and do they measure each man’s responsibility accordingly? The answer must be that the prophets know ase too well the inborn sinfulness of man, which is connected with the weakness of the flesh. Even an Isaiah must lament (6°) that he is a man of unclean lips and dwells in the midst of a people of unclean lips. Jeremiah (17°, cf. also 13%) pronounces that ‘the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately sick: who can know it?’ The Deuteronomist, again, makes Solomon declare (1 K 8“) at the dedication of the temple: ‘There is not a man that sins not.’ But, in spite of this general con- dition of sinfulness, the prophets know of a re- lative righteousness, a piety which honestly en- deavours to satisfy the Divine claims. What it still lacks, owing to error, haste, and weakness, is made up to it by the sparing, pardoning grace of God. In this connexion it is noteworthy that, in all the numerous expressions for the forgiveness of sins, stress is laid, not upon a complete destroying of sin (as in the Catholic sense, without which there could be no ‘saints’), but only upon an overlooking of it or rendering it invisible, so that it no more oe, the judicial eye of God to unish it. No doubt, we have figurative language ere, but language answering to the true evan- gelical view, according to which the man remains as before a poor sinner, but is declared by God in His grace to be righteous, and accordingly free from condemnation. Propitiation consists in a ‘covering’ (and thus making invisible) of guilt; and, according to the Prophetic usage of language, it is God Himself that covers the sin (Is 6’, Jer 18” c¢ al.). Other expressions for the forgiveness of sins are ‘take away,’ ‘put aside,’ ‘let pass,’ ‘wash away,’ ‘wipe away,’ ‘heal’; God plunges sin into the depths of the sea (Mic 7’), or casts it behind His back (Is 38!7)—all with the same result, that sin is now withdrawn from His view. In all this it is assumed as a matter of course that true contrition and repentance are present, and these can make sins that are blood-red to be white as snow, and make the purple-red to be like wool (Is 138). The proof that at least a relative righteousness is regarded by the prophets as attainable, is found, on the one hand, in allusions to such righteousness in past times (Is 1 °6); and, on the other hand, in the frequent promises attached to the honest fulfilment of the Divine will (Is 1, and with special frequency and emphasis in Deuteronomy [7° 11138 and, with the corresponding threaten- ings against disobedience, 28! 30'-]). The ques- tion how such a doctrine of retribution, according to which a man’s lot corresponds exactly to his conduct, is in harmony with the experiences of real life, is not yet raised. Pious faith holds simply to the postulate which must always be maintained by any truly religious Weltans:hawung, that genuine godliness must find its reward, un- godliness its punishment. This postulate appeared to be justified all the more as it was applied, above all, to the conduct and the lot of the people as a whole, and less to those of the individual. And if, according to D (for to this stratum belongs, no doubt, the expansion of the Decalogue in Ex 20%" ®), a continued influence of guilt upon the children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren of the ungodly is taught, as conversely a continuance of the Divine favour, gained by godliness, till the thousandth generation, this is merely to affirm, in the sense of the Prophets, a truth which is frequently testified to elsewhere in Scripture and confirmed a thousand times over by experience. As the merits of David benefit the peoples for centuvies long (1 K 11% 154, 2 K 81%), so, on the Cf., on this subject. art. PRopiTiaTIon in vol. iv.