W0fr%$eie Books
j for. Vie founding of a CoQegt, Ui/tir. Colony'

BY THE SAME AUTHOR
THE BEACON LIGHTS OP PROPHECY
NET $1.25

The Religious Teaching
of the Old Testament

BY
ALBERT C. KNUDSON
ProfeiBor in Boston UniverBity School of Theology

THE ABINGDON PRESS
NEW YORK CINCINNATI

Copyright, 1918, by
ALBERT C. KNUDSON

The Bible text used in this volume is taken from the American Standard Edition of the
Revised Bible, copyright, 1901, by Thomas Nelson & Sons, and is used by permission.

To
My Father
a faithful minister of
the gospel for almost
'fifty years

CONTENTS PAGE
Preface  13
I. INTRODUCTION CHAPTER I
Outline of the Development of Old Testament Religion
and Literature  17
Principle of evolution, p. 17 — Its application to Hebrew history,
p. 20 — Gradual adjustment of the historic Christiari faith to
the evolutionary view of Scripture, p. 2 1 — Idea of evolution in
the Bible, p. 23 — Date of the Priestly Law, p. 25 — Structure of
the Pentateuch, p. 26 — Date of Psalms and Wisdom Books,
p. 28 — Divergences of opinion relative to the preprophetic re
ligion and the Messianic hope, p. 28 — Main tacts in the re
ligious history of the preprophetic period, p. 34 — Literature of
the preprophetic period, p. 37 — Religion and literature of the
prophetic period, p. 38 — History and literature of the legalistic
period, p. 41 — Chronological table of Old Testament literature,
P- 43- II. GOD AND ANGELS
CHAPTER II
The Personality of God  49
Definition of personality, p. 49 — Importance of the personality
of God in religion and in the Old Testament, p. 49 — Questions
of the divine existence, p. 51 — Question as to the possibility
of knowing God, p. 52 — Origin of the name "Jehovah," p. 54 —
Origin and derivation of the name "Yahweh," p. 55 — Is the
ascription of personality to God an anthropomorphism? p. 58 —
Anthropomorphisms in the Old Testament and development
in their use, p. 59 — Freedom of God in nature and history,
p. 61 — -Miracles Jn the Old Testament and their significance, A-
p. 64 — Personality Of God and modern thought, p. 66.
CHAPTER III
The Unity of God  68
Double meaning of the word "unity," p. 68 — Origin of the belief
in the unity of Yahweh and reason for late emphasis on it, p. 68
— Relation of early Yahwism to Baalism,, p. 70 — Polybaalism
and polyyahwism, p. 71 — Unity of Yahweh's character as
distinguished from unity of his being, p. 73 — Absence of sexual
distinctions in the Hebrew idea of God, p. 74 — Anticipations of
the doctrine of the Trinity in the Old Testament, p. 76 — Pre-
Mosaic Hebrews polytheistic, p. 78 — Monolatry of Moses and

CONTENTS

PAGE
its distinguishing characteristic, p. 79/— Intolerance of Yahweh
and its origin, p. 81 — Elijah's contribution to the develop
ment of monotheism, p. 83 — Teaching of eighth-century
prophets, p. 85 — Deutero-Isaiah's emphasis on the sole deity
of Yahweh, p. 88 — Doctrine of the divine unity in postexilic
period, p. 90 — Summary, p. 91.
CHAPTER IV
The Spirituality of God  93
Three different meanings of spirituality, p. 93 — Hebrew concep
tion of spirit as distinguished from matter, p. 94 — Was Yahweh
thought of as having a physical form? p. 95 — God spiritual
in the metaphysical sense of the term, p. 96— Dynamic con
ception of divine spirituality, and idealistic element involved in
it, p. 97 — Ethical conception of divine spirituality, p. 99 —
Practical implications of spirituality of God, p. 101 — Sacrifices
and theif relation to spiritual worship, p. 102— Localization of
Yahweh and its bearing on the divine spirituality, p. 104 — The
ark, its nature and significance, p. 105 — The temple, its history
and religious significance, p. 107 — Anti-image movement in
Israel, its history and significance, p. 109 — Doctrine of the Spirit
and its importance, p. 1 14. CHAPTER V
The Power of God  115
Religious value of the attribute of power, p. 115 — Yahweh at
first not a mere War-God or Storm-God, p. 116 — Yahweh at
the outset not a mere national or local Deity, p. 118 — Distinc
tion between the practical postulates and theoretical beliefs
of the early Israelites, p. 120 — Limitations ascribed to Yahweh,
p. 120 — Passionate loyalty the unique and significant element
in the relation of early Israel to Yahweh, p. 122 — Creatorship
not necessarily an evidence of a Deity's universal rule, p. 123 —
Creatorship of Yahweh in Deutero-Isaiah and later literature,
p. 124 — Creation stories common among primitive peoples,
p. 127 — Allusions to Yahweh's creatorship in the early literature
of Israel, p. 128 — Relation of biblical to Babylonian accounts
of creation, p. 130 — Teaching of the prophets relative to the
universal rule and world-purpose of Yahweh, p. 131 — Origin
of these ideas, p. 132 — Eternity, omnipotence, omniscience,
and omnipresence of God, p. 135.
CHAPTER VI
The Holiness of God  137
Modern conception of holiness, p. 137 — Meaning of kodesh, p. 137
— 'Holiness originally a unique and indefinable attribute of
Deity, p. 138 — Origin of the distinction between holy and un
clean, p. 13c; — Relation of the later ideas of holiness and un
cleanness to each other, p. 140 — Holy things and places not
8

CONTENTS

PAGE
necessarily the property of the Deity, p. 141 — Holiness not a
mere expression of the idea of relation, p. 142 — Holiness not
the peculiar characteristic of each individual deity, p. 143 —
Unapproachableness as an element in holiness, p. 144 — Re
lation of holiness to the divine wrath and jealousy, p. 144 —
Holiness as power or majesty, p. 146 — Idea of the divine glory,
p. 147 — Yahweh's sanctification of his own name, p. 148 — Holi
ness as purity, p. 149 — Ethical justification of Old Testament
ceremonialism, p. 150 — Ethical conception of holiness, p. 151
— Holiness of God in postexilic Judaism and teaching of Jesus,
P- 153- CHAPTER VII
The Righteousness of God  154
Distinctive factor in Israel's religion ethical, not ceremonial, p. 154
— Hebrew conception of the divine righteousness as compared
with that of other peoples, p. 155 — Ultimate explanation of the
Hebrew belief in the righteousness of God, p. 156 — Significance
of Amos, p. 156 — Date of the Decalogue, p. 157 — Budde's theory,
p. 158 — Ethically significant factor in the work of Moses, p. 159
— Diverse elements in the conception of Yahweh's character
during the preprophetic period, p. 162 — Prophetic conception
of Yahweh, p. 163 — Evils condemned by the prophets, p. 164
— Ethical idealism of the prophets, p. 167 — Relation of right
eousness to mercy, p. 168 — Election of Israel in the light of the
divine righteousness, 170 — Religious significance of the moraliza-
tion of the idea of God, p. 171.
CHAPTER VIII
The Love of God  173
Importance of the idea of the divine love, p. 173 — Terms used
to express the love of God, p. 173 — Hosea not the author of
the idea of the divine grace, p. 174 — Conception of Yahweh's
favor in early Israel, p. 175 — Different meanings of the word
berith ("covenant"), p. 176— Uses of beriih in pre-Deuteronomic
times, p. 177 — Berith in Deuteronomy, Jeremiah, Ezekiel,
Deutero-Isaiah, and P, p. 178 — Divine grace the fundamental
thought underlying the covenant-idea, p. 179 — Origin and
significance of the idea of Yahweh as husband of Israel, p. 180
— -Conception of God as Father, p. 182 — Hosea's contribution
to the development of the idea of the divine love, p. 185 —
Yahweh's attitude toward the heathen, p. 185 — Christianity as
the supreme expression of the doctrine of the divine grace, p. 188
—Summary of the development of the doctrine of God, p. 189.
CHAPTER IX
Angels and Other Divine Beings  192
Definition of "angel," p. 192 — Different terms used to designate
angels, p. 193 — Nature of angels, p. 193 — Function of angels,
9

CONTENTS PAGE
and their origin, p. 194 — Malakim during the preexilic period,
p. 198 — Development of angelology after the exile, p. 201 —
Angels as mediators, p. 202 — Angels as distinct personalities,
p. 202 — Different ranks or orders of angels, p. 203 — General
character of angels, p. 205 — Form of angels, p. 206 — Seraphim,
p. 206 — Cherubim, p. 207 — Religious signifi^antf of he-Mpf in /^'
angels, p. 208 — Moral character of angels, p. 208 — Fallen angels,
demons, and other superhuman beings hostile to Lrod.'p. 209
— Development of the idea of Satan, p. 210.
III. MAN AND REDEMPTION
CHAPTER X
The Nature of Man  217
Old Testament doctrine of man as compared with the doctrine
of God, p. 217 — Different meanings of spirituality as applied to
man, p. 218 — General character of Old Testament psychology
and physiology, p. 219 — Flesh (basar), p. 219 — Relation of
the soul (nephesh) to matter, p. 222 — Different meanings of the
word nephesh, p. 224 — Preexistence of the soul, p. 225 — Tra- l"
ducianism and creationism, pT"226 — Trichotomy, p. 227 —
Spirit (ruach), p. 229 — Heart, p. 231 — Spiritualistic element in ^"
the Hebrew conception of man, p. 232— Dignity of man,, p. 233
— Man as the image of God, p. 235 — Human freedom, p. 236.
CHAPTER XI
The Doctrine of Sin  239
Two tendencies in Old Testament teaching relative to sin, p. 239
— Defective elements in the early conception of sin, p. 239 —
Indications of a higher view of sin in preprophetic Israel, p. 242
— Moralization of the idea of sin by the eighth-century prophets,
p. 243 — Offenses against God, p. 246 — Postexilic ceremonialism,
p. 247 — "Unwitting" sins and sins "with a high hand," p. 249
— Utilitarianisrn of Proverbs, p. 250 — Teaching of Psalms
and Job, p. 251 — Seriousness of the Old Testament view of sin,
p. 253 — Nature of sin, 254 — Universality of sin, p. 258 — Origin
of sin, p. 260 — Genesis 3, p. 261 — Native bias to sin, p. 262^
Transmission of guilt, p. 264.
CHAPTER XII
The Problem of Suffering  266
Relation of sin to guilt and suffering, p. 266 — Earliest view as to
the cause of suffering, p. 267 — View of suffering in early Israel,
p. 268 — Genesis 2-3, p. 270 — Eighth-century prophets and
Deuteronomy, p. 271— Suffering not a problem in pre-Deu-
teronomic period, p. 272 — Reasons for the rise of the problem
of suffering, p. 272 — Objections to the principle of retributive
righteousness, p. 275 — Habakkuk, p. 277 — Jeremiah's contribu-
IO

CONTENTS

PAGE
tion to the problem of suffering, p. 280 — Ezekiel, p. 281 —
Deutero-Isaiah, p. 283 — Job, p. 284 — Proverbs, Ecclesiastes,
and Psalms 37, 49 and 73, p. 287.
CHAPTER XIII
Forgiveness and Atonement  290
Importance of the ideas of sin, forgiveness, and atonement in the
Old Testament, p. 290 — Relation of forgiveness to suffering, p.
291 — Prophetic contribution to the idea of forgiveness, p. 292
— Bearing of the Messianic hope and of the teaching of Deutero-
Isaiah and Job on the conception of forgiveness, p. 294 — Divine
mercy the ultimate ground of forgiveness, p. 295 — Special motives
operative in the forgiveness of Israel, p. 296 — Repentance,
reformation, and faith, p. 298 — Intercession, p. 299 — Partial
punishment of sin, p. 300 — Vicarious suffering, p. 301 — Pro
phetic attitude toward sacrifices as means of atonement, p. 303
— Meaning of "atonement," p. 304— Different theories con
cerning the origin and underlying motive of sacrifice, p. 305 —
Prevailing Old Testament conception of sacrifice, p. 308 — Sin-
offerings and trespass-offerings, p. 310 — Atoning sacrifices
not cases of penal substitution, p. 312 — Idea of substitution in
the Old Testament, p. 314. CHAPTER XIV
Nationalism and Individualism  316
Modern theory of the development of individualism and its appli
cation to the Old Testament, p. 316 — The nation as religious
unit to be understood in a racial rather than political sense,
p. 320 — Relation of the solidarity of nation to that of family,
clan, and other smaller groups, p. 32 1 — The nation, past and
present, morally interrelated but not conceived of as a corpor
ate personality, p. 325 — Ancient Hebrew not more interested
in public affairs than modern man, p. 327 — Current theory as
to the place of the individual in preexilic Israel negatived by
general considerations drawn from Israelitic history and liter- 1
ature, p. 331 — Recognition of the individual in pre-Jeremianic
literature, p. 335 — The individual as well as nation an object
of the divine care in early Israel, p. 337 — Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's
contributions to the development of individualism, p. 341 —
Individualism among the postexilic prophets, priests, and sages,
p. 346 — Teaching of Job, p. 347 — Culmination of individual
ism and nationalism in the Old Testament, p. 349.
CHAPTER XV
The Messianic Hope  351
Double meaning of "Messianic," p. 351 — Four elements in the
Messianic hope, p. 351 — Current theory as to the origin and
character of the Messianic hope, and recent reaction against
it, P- 352— Messianic hope in its essential nature not of foreign

CONTENTS

PAGE
origin, p. 354 — Origin of the idea of a judgment, p. 358 — Sig
nificance of idea of a world-catastrophe, p. 362 — Different
views as to the nature of the impending judgment, p. 363
—Origin of the belief in a glorious future for Israel, p. 364—
Attitude of the preexilic prophets toward the popular Messianic
hope, p. 365 — Anticipated transformation of nature, p. 368 —
Origin of the belief in a Davidic Messiah, p. 371 — Origin of the
belief in a personal Messiah, p. 373 — The ideal king of the early
prophets, p. 375 — The suffering servant in Deutero-Isaiah,
p. 375 — Son of Man in Daniel, p. 376 — Relation of the Mes
sianic hope to the Oriental belief in a series of world-cycles,
P- 377 — Importance of the Messianic hope, p. 379.
CHAPTER XVI
The Future Life  382
Negative attitude of the Old Testament toward the future life
and reasons for it, p. 382 — Contribution of the Messianic hope
to the belief in personal immortality, p. 384 — Origin of the idea
of Sheol, p. 385 — Ancestor worship among the Hebrews, p. 386
— Two different views of Sheol, p. 389 — Relation of the pop
ular belief in Sheol to the later belief in personal immortality,
P- 394 — Effect of individualism on the Messianic hope, p. 395
— Idea of retribution and the belief in a future life, p. 396—
Fellowship with God and its bearing on the belief in immor
tality, p. 399 — Psalms 16, 17, 49, 73, p. 401 — Reasons for the
belief in the resurrection of the body, p. 403 — Isaiah 26. 19
^ and Daniel 12. 2, p. 404 — Relation of the Jewish to the Persian
^belief in the resurrection, p. 405 — Two different views of the
fate of the individual immediately after death, p. 407 — Sheol
and the Messianic age in the postcanonical literature, p. 407.

Index .

409

n

PREFACE
In this exposition of the religious teaching of the Old
Testament I have adopted the topical method as best cal
culated to meet the needs of the preacher and general
Bible student. This method presupposes some acquaint
ance with the religious history of Israel taken as a whole.
The first chapter is consequently devoted to a brief outline
of the development of Old Testament religion and liter
ature. The aim of the book is to give an account of the origin
and development of the leading religious ideas of the
Old Testament. Incidentally, the effort has been made to
relate these ideas to modern thought. Controverted ques
tions have been made subordinate, but it has not been pos
sible to avoid them altogether. Scholars are generally
agreed on the history of religious thought in Israel after
the time of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. But with reference to
earlier times, especially the preprophetic period, consider
able difference of opinion still prevails. It is the conten
tion of this book that the literary prophets were not, in the
proper sense of the term, the "creators of ethical mono
theism." The higher faith of Israel may be traced back
into the preprophetic period. Indeed, its germ is to be
found in the teaching of Moses. As regards two points in
particular — the history of the Messianic hope and the
place of the individual in early Israel — the view held by
many modern scholars is in need of revision. To these
subjects consequently special attention has been given.
The traditional form of the divine name "Jehovah"
13

PREFACE
is the one still in general use. But the more correct form,
Yahwe(h) or Jahve(h), is almost universally employed
among scholars (see pages 54f.), and it is only a question
of time when it will come into general use. Hence I
have adopted it, though not without some hesitancy, in
all cases except in the biblical quotations, where I have
followed the text of the American Revised Version.
My special thanks are due the Rev. Elmer A. Leslie,
Ph.D., for the painstaking care with which he has gone
through the manuscript, verifying references and making
numerous helpful suggestions and criticisms. I wish also
to thank Professor Edgar S. Brightman, Ph.D., for the
privilege of using the advance sheets of his valuable work
on the Sources of the Hexateuch.
Albert C. Knudson.

M

I
INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER I
OUTLINE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF OLD
TESTAMENT RELIGION AND
LITERATURE
It is only in comparatively recent times that the idea
of development has been applied in a thoroughgoing way
to human history. During the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries there were four distinguished thinkers, namely,
Bodin (1530-96), Bacon (1561-1626), Descartes (1596-
1650), and Pascal (1623-62), who formulated "the gen
eral fact of progress in language so striking that it could
no longer be overlooked." 1 And in the early part of the
eighteenth century the Italian jurist Vico (1668- 1744)
made the theory of man's gradual development out of a
barbaric state basal in the science of history. But the
principles he laid down did not come to be fully appre
ciated until almost a century later ; so that it is only dur
ing the past hundred years that the idea of evolution has
been employed in a strictly scientific way in the recon
struction of ancient history.
Two principles are involved in the evolutionary con
ception of history. One may be called the naturalistic,
the other the psychological. Both were stressed by Vico.
In the dominant philosophy of history before his time,
that represented by Augustine's City of God and Bos-
suet's "Discourse on Universal History," Providence was
1 Robert Flint, History of the Philosophy of History, p. 104.
17

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
made the central and controlling factor in human history.
The rise and fall of nations was ascribed to divine inter
vention, and so also the development of each particular
people. God was represented as everywhere the efficient
cause in human affairs. But this idea, however true it
may be, was not fitted to serve as the working basis of a
scientifically written history. For Providence is a matter
of faith, not of observation. It is not one among a num
ber of causes operative in human history, but the sole ulti
mate cause in whose existence theists believe. It does not
stand opposed to what is sometimes called secondary
causes, but works in and through them. In any case what
we see when we observe and study human history is cer
tain human forces and motives at work. These forces
and motives are as varied as human nature. They grow
out of physical need, out of ambition, passion, and the
higher aspirations of men. But they are not aimless or
lawless. They operate in certain regular ways, and the
function of the historian is to ascertain what these laws
are, and then apply them to the reconstruction of the past.
It was this naturalistic principle that Vico put in the place
of Augustine's and Bossuet's Providence. In so doing he
did not, however, deny the fact of Providence. He ac
cepted it, but interpreted it in a profounder way, look
ing upon God as immanent in human history rather than
external to it.
The psychological principle laid down by Vico empha
sizes the importance of our interpreting primitive men
from their own point of view. "All our errors," he held,
"in explaining the origin of human society arise from our
obstinacy in believing that primitive man was entirely
similar to ourselves, who are civilized, i.e., developed by
the results of a lengthy process of anterior historic evolu-
18

OUTLINE OF DEVELOPMENT
tion. We must learn to issue from ourselves, transport
ourselves back to other times, and become children again
in order to comprehend the infancy of the human race.
As in children, imagination and the senses prevailed in
those men of the past. They had no abstract ideas; in
their minds all was concrete, visible, tangible. All the phe
nomena, forces, and laws of nature, together with mental
conceptions, were alike personified. To suppose that all
mythical stories are fables invented by the philosophers is
to write history backwards, and confound the instinctive,
impersonal, poetic wisdom of the earliest times with the
civilized, rational, and abstract occult wisdom of our own
day." 2 It was this mistake that the eighteenth-century
historians, such as Hume and Gibbon, made. They re
jected the Augustinian idea of Providence, but put no
constructive principle in its place. They failed to grasp
the conception of growth or development. For them it
was difficult to conceive of men as living and thinking
under conditions quite different from those with which
they themselves were familiar, and hence they were un
able to arrive at a true understanding of the past. Not
until the dawn of the nineteenth century did historians
begin to appreciate the psychological principle laid down
by Vico, and to enter more sympathetically into the
thought-life of the ancient world.
When these two principles, the naturalistic and psy
chological, implicit in the evolutionary conception of his
tory, were applied in a thoroughgoing way to ancient
history, as for example, by Niebuhr to Rome, they led to
important modifications of the views that had hitherto
been current. But so long as their application was con
fined to "profane" history, no serious difficulty arose. It
2 Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. xxviii, p. 24.
19

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
was generally admitted that in the "natural" sphere they
were valid. When, however, they came to be applied to
"sacred" history, the situation was different. Here they
ran counter to long-established beliefs and deep-seated
convictions. Vico had regarded Hebrew history as sui
generis, and this was the common belief. But when the
naturalistic principle was applied to the Bible, the sharp
distinction hitherto drawn between the "sacred" and "pro
fane" was obliterated. The effort was now made to write
a history of the Hebrews similar to that of the Romans.
Little or no account was taken of supernatural factors.
The miraculous revelations and interventions that seemed
to be characteristic of Israel's history were ascribed to
"Oriental" or "primitive" habits of thought and expres
sion. They were not in the proper sense of the term his
torical facts; yet they were not due to fraud, as was
claimed by the unbelievers of the eighteenth century.
They, rather, owed their peculiar character to the Oriental
type of speech or to the myth-making tendency of the
ancient mind. In any case the attempt was made to in
terpret the history of Israel so far as possible as a natural
development; and this resulted in a somewhat radical
modification of the traditional views relative to the origin
and history of Old Testament religion and literature.
Against this tendency there was naturally a vigorous
protest. A long controversy ensued. The advocates of
the new view were regarded as "unbelievers" ; and many
of them were such. But that this was the case, we now
see, is not strange. "There are manifest reasons why
the critical movement should originate, and for a time be
prosecuted outside of the circles dominated by an earnest
Christian faith. For one thing, only there could the
20

OUTLINE OF DEVELOPMENT
necessary freedom be found. For ages Christian piety
had been so intimately bound up with certain views con
cerning the origin of the Scriptures that its very exist
ence seemed to be involved in the maintenance of those
views. Any attempt, then, at their revision, in quarters
where religious conviction was strong, would necessarily
have met with strenuous opposition. Again, the impulse
to such revision was primarily intellectual. The men who
engaged in it were, most of them, moved by a passion for
knowledge rather than religion. And such men under
modern conditions of life naturally found the extra-ec
clesiastical atmosphere more congenial. There knowl
edge might be pursued for its own sake, regardless of con
sequences. Furthermore, the stress on the natural, as
opposed to the miraculous, which underlies modern criti
cism, was necessarily at the outset more or less repugnant
to religious minds. To treat the Bible as one does other
books seemed, at first, sacrilegious." 3
But this feeling gradually gave way. Men began to
see that there is no necessary antithesis between the "na
tural" and the "supernatural," that God is immanent in
the world, and that the "natural" is only the ordinary
way in which God works. What happens in a natural
way may be as direct an expression of the divine will as
a miracle. It is not necessary that the Bible should have
been miraculously dictated to men in order to be accepted
as "the word of God." Indeed, the great fact of the cre
ative or constitutive activity of thought, first made clear
to us by Immanuel Kant, renders such a method of revela
tion inherently improbable. The human mind is not the
3 See the author's article on "The Philosophy and Theology of
the Leading Old Testament Critics," in Bibliotheca Sacra, 1912,
pp. 1-21. 21

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
passive recipient of a ready-made knowledge. It receives
from without certain stimuli, and then out of them builds
up for itself its own world. In the case, then, of "re
vealed" truth what we should expect is that certain im
pulses from the Divine Spirit would impinge upon the
human mind, and that these would then be worked up in
harmony with the mind's own laws and translated into the
concrete messages of the prophets. In this process much
that is distinctively human would necessarily intermingle
with the divine, and there would be in the process itself
nothing essentially different from that observed in the
composition of other books. The Bible, we should con
sequently expect, would be a book or collection of books
to be studied just as other books are. It would not be
inerrant. Its origin and development would be subject
to the same laws as those operative in the literature of any
people. Furthermore, it has become increasingly clear since the
time of Rant that logical demonstration is impossible in
the field of objective knowledge, and that in the religious
realm the final test of truth is not to be found in any
absolute objective authority, whether church or Bible,
but in experience. If the Bible finds us at greater depths
of our being than any other book, if it enriches our lives
and inspires us to heroic service, if it makes God real to
us, we have in that fact a sufficient evidence of its inspira
tion. We need no doctrine of infallibility to assure us
of its truth. Nor is it, from this point of view, a matter
of concern to us that there is much, especially in the
earlier parts of the Bible, that seems to us crude and
obsolete. In any historical movement the important thing
is the outcome and not what it came out of. By its fruits
we must judge it, not by its roots. This pragmatic test
22

OUTLINE OF DEVELOPMENT
of truth, together with the idea of the divine immanence
and that of the constitutive activity of the human mind,
has so modified Christian thought during the past century
that the older fear of the "critical" and evolutionary con
ception of Scripture has largely vanished. It is now seen
that there is nothing in what may be termed the modern
view of the Bible that is necessarily inconsistent with the
historic Christian faith.4
But the acceptance of the evolutionary view of the Old
Testament does not necessarily carry with it any specific
reconstruction of the history of Old Testament religion
and literature. Indeed, the evolutionary idea appears to
some extent in the Bible itself, especially in the work of
the priestly contributor to the Pentateuch. "The ordered
and schematic arrangement of this author's creation
story," says H. P. Smith, "made him, in a sense, the first
of the evolutionists, and his theory of development comes
to view in his treatment of the institutions of Israel. The
Sabbath was introduced at the beginning; at the Deluge
the prohibition of blood as food was imposed; at the birth
of Isaac circumcision was commanded ; and at the exodus
the observance of the passover." 5 The idea of a pro
gressive revelation appears also in the author's theory
concerning the divine names. Before Abraham the name
of God was Elohim or'El;6 in the patriarchal age he was
known as El Shaddai ;7 and to Moses he revealed himself
as Yahweh.8 We further find the idea of development in
Paul's conception of the Old Testament dispensation as
*For a more extended discussion of this subject see the author's
article on "The Evolution of Modern Bible Study," in the Meth
odist Review, 191 1, pp. 899-910.
5 The Religion of Israel, pp. 229L ' Gen. 17. 1.
9 Gen. 1. sExod. 6. 2-3.
23

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
a preparatory and partial one. The Law was a tutor to
bring us to Christ.9 Not until "the fullness of time" did
Christ come.10 These facts show that a kind of evolu
tion was recognized by some of the biblical writers them
selves. And to this it may be added that some of the
modern exponents of evolution, such as Bruno Bauer,
have applied their theory to the Old Testament in such a
way as to involve no serious modification of the tradi
tional view as to its origin and history. The bare idea of
development does not, then, necessarily imply any particu
lar scheme of historical reconstruction. The problem in
each case must be solved, not by a priori considerations,
but by a careful critical study of the data involved.
There are, however, as we have seen, certain principles
implicit in the idea of evolution; and these principles,
when applied in a consistent and thoroughgoing way,
have led to important modifications of the traditional
view relative to the Old Testament. The most important
of these modifications has to do with the date when the
higher religious ideas of the Old Testament were first
expressed, and its elaborate ritualistic and ecclesiastical
system formulated. According to tradition, the ritual
istic and ecclesiastical system as embodied in the Law
owed its origin to Moses ; and the higher religious ideas
of the Old Covenant, such as the unity of God, his
creatorship, righteousness, and grace were more ancient
still. We find them with Abraham; indeed, our first
parents are represented as monotheists. But, leaving
out of account the pre-Mosaic age, the question arises
as to whether it is probable that Israel's religion came
into being full-fledged at the very beginning of the na-
0 Gal. 3. 24.
10 Gal. 4. 4. 24

OUTLINE OF DEVELOPMENT
tion's history. Is it probable that such an elaborate
ecclesiastical system as that found in the Pentateuch
was formulated by Moses, and that the lofty ideas of the
divine nature and character there expressed came from
him? The analogy of other peoples points strongly to a
later date. So complete a system of religious belief and
practice as we find in the Law would certainly most natu
rally appear at the end of a long period of development
rather than at the very birth of the nation. The people
in Moses' time were not prepared for such an elaborate
and highly developed system. The very conditions of
their life would have made it impracticable. And when
we turn to the subsequent history of Israel, the period of
the Judges and the Monarchy, we find no evidence that
the Levitical system was in vogue among the people. The
assumption of the Mosaic origin of the Law throws no
light on the historical and prophetic books. "On the
contrary," says Wellhausen, "my enjoyment of the latter
was marred by the Law ; it did not bring them any nearer
me, but intruded itself uneasily, like a ghost that makes a
noise indeed, but is not visible and really effects
nothing." u "Did ye," says Amos, "bring unto me sacri
fices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, O house
of Israel?" 12 "I spake not," says Jeremiah, "unto your
fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought
them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings
or sacrifices." 13 Evidently, these prophets and the peo
ple of their day knew nothing of an extended ritual law
attributed to Moses. This law, it would seem, must have
come from a later date, probably from the time of Ezra
11 History of Israel, p. 3.
"5. 25-
"7-22, 25

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
and Nehemiah. There is also no evidence that the higher
religious ideas of the Pentateuch were current among the
early Israelites. These ideas seem to have been first
clearly expressed by the eighth-century prophets.
There are thus three periods that may be distin
guished in the religious history of Israel. The rise of
literary prophecy marks the end of the first and the begin
ning of the second; and the introduction of the Priestly
Law marks the end of the second and the beginning of the
third. The first is commonly known as the preprophetic
period; it extended from about B. C. 1200 to B. C. 750.
The second is the prophetic^ period ; it covered three cen
turies, from B. C. 750 to B. C. 450. The third may be
called the legalistic or levitical period; it also covered
about three centuriesTextending from B. C. 450 to the
close of Old Testament history, which may be placed at
B. C. 150 or 100.
\ The assignment of the Priestly Law to the fifth cen
tury B- C. does not mean that the whole Pentateuch was
written at that time. Scholars are now quite generally
agreed that the Pentateuch is a composite work, that it is
made up of four main documents. Two of these were
written in the preprophetic period, the third in the pro
phetic, and the fourth at the beginning of the legalistic
period. The first two are commonly designated by the
symbols, J and E, J standing for Jehovistic and E for
Elohistic. This nomenclature is due to the fact that the
J document uses the name "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" from
the beginning, while the E document does not introduce
the name "Jehovah" until the time of Moses,14- using
instead the Hebrew word for "God," Elohim. To J "is
referred about a half of Genesis, a sixth of Exodus, a
14 Exod. 3. 13-15. 26

OUTLINE OF DEVELOPMENT
fifteenth of Numbers, and a few verses in Deuteronomy."
E "is credited with having furnished more than a fourth
of Genesis and Exodus, about a ninth of Numbers, and
... a few verses of Deuteronomy." The third docu
ment is known as D or the Deuteronomic. It originated
in the seventh century B. C, and is now incorporated in
Deuteronomy. How much of the present book of Deu
teronomy belonged to the original D document is a ques
tion on which scholars are divided. Most of chapters
5-26 is commonly assigned to it, and it may also have in
cluded portions of the rest of the book. The fourth docu
ment is commonly known as P or the Priestly document.
It forms the framework of the Pentateuch, and includes
"about a fifth of Genesis, nearly a half of Exodus, the
whole of Leviticus, nearly three fourths of Numbers, and
a few verses in Deuteronomy." With reference to the
dates of these different documents and their union in the
Pentateuch, Professor H. G. Mitchell makes the compact
and representative statement, "that J originated about
850, and E about B. C. 800; that the two, having been
more or less revised and enlarged, were united into a com
posite document before B. C. 639 ; that D, which was dis
covered in B. C. 621, but must have been written some
time before and revised in the reign of Manasseh, was in
corporated with JE early in the Captivity; and that the
Pentateuch was practically completed by the addition of
P, a product of the first half of the fifth century B. C,
before 444, if not before 458, the date of Ezra's appear
ance in Palestine." 15

16 The World Before Abraham, p. 63. The other quotations in the
above paragraph are also taken from this work, which contains an
excellent introduction to the Pentateuch (pp. 1-67). See also The
Books of the Pentateuch, by F. C. Eiselen. The text of the J, E,
27

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
The late date of the larger part of the Pentateuch and
the view that the higher religious ideas of the Old Testa
ment were first clearly expressed by the eighth-century
prophets, carry with them the conclusion that the Psalms
and Wisdom Books (Proverbs, Job, and Ecclesiastes)
were also of comparatively late date, for these books, like
the Pentateuch, presuppose the work of the literary
prophets. The book of Psalms was not written by David,
as was formerly supposed. It was the songbook of the
second temple, and most of the individual psalms were
written after the exile. Indeed, the question has been
raised as to whether there are any preexilic psalms in the
collection. Proverbs and Ecclesiastes were not the work
of Solomon, but came from the postexilic period; and
Job instead of being the oldest book of the Bible probably
dates from the fourth century B. C.
These general modifications of the traditional view
relative to the history of the Old Testament religion and
literature have been accepted by most modern scholars;
but there are still considerable differences of opinion con
cerning the dates of particular portions of the Old Testa
ment, and concerning the character of the religious life
and beliefs of the Israelites during the preexilic and espe
cially the preprophetic period. Some critics are inclined
to minimize the work of Moses and to reduce the pre
prophetic religion of Israel to the plane of a nature reli
gion. This is due in large part to a mistaken application
of the principle of evolution. Evolution is interpreted
either from the standpoint of biology or from that of the
and P documents is presented in a convenient form and with ad
mirable introductions in The Sources of the Hexateuch, by Edgar
S. Brightman. 28

OUTLINE OF DEVELOPMENT
Hegelian philosophy. In biology evolution is supposed
to be a slow but more or less steady upward movement,
and so it is argued that the rather crude religious ideas
and practices of the period of the Judges preclude a dis
tinctly higher conception of religion on the part of Moses.
If there was in the time of the Judges no distinct bond
between morals and religion, there could have been no
such bond in the earlier Mosaic period. In the Hegelian
philosophy, on the other hand, evolution is regarded as
a kind of logical process, a dialectic of thought. Thesis
gives rise to antithesis, and these two then unite in a
higher synthesis. This triadic dialectic, as applied to Old
Testament religion, made the naturalism of the prepro
phetic period the thesis, the moral idealism of the
prophets the antithesis, and the legalism of the post-
exilic priests the synthesis. "In old times," as Well
hausen says, "the nation had been the ideal of religion in
actual realization; the prophets confronted the nation
with an ideal to which it did not correspond. Then to
bridge over this interval the abstract ideal was framed
into a law, and to this law the nation was to be con
formed." This conception of the religious development of Israel
is a suggestive one, and contains much truth. But when I
applied in a thoroughgoing way it leads to an abstract I
and one-sided conception of the different periods of |
Israel's history. The preprophetic period, for instance, is
reduced to a dead level of naturalism. "The relation of
Yahweh to Israel," says Wellhausen, "was in its nature
and origin a natural one; there was no interval between
him and his people to call for thought or question. Only
when the existence of Israel had come to be threatened by
the Syrians and Assyrians, did such prophets as Elijah
29

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
and Amos raise the Deity high above the people, sever the
natural bond between them, and put in its place a relation
depending on conditions, conditions of a moral char
acter." 16 This implies that Moses contributed nothing
of a distinctly ethical character to the religion of Israel.
Before this higher factor could appear, the prophetic
antithesis must have asserted itself. Utterances, conse
quently, such as the Decalogue, which involve an ethical
conception of religion, cannot have come from the Mosaic
or preprophetic period. Between the prophetic and pre
prophetic religion there was a wide gulf. The very anti
thesis between the natural and the ethical implies this.
But life itself is always too complex to fit into any such
logical strait jacket. No period is completely dominated
by any one conception. The forces operative in the pro
phetic period had their precursors in the preprophetic,
and it is unwarranted to draw: a Jhai;d-and-fast line be
tween the two.
It is a defect both of the biological and the Hegelian
conception of human evolution that they do not accord a
sufficiently important place to the personal factor. In the
one case a mysterious necessity inherent in human nature,
and in the other a kind of dialectic of thought, provides
the moving force in human development. These forces
work through individuals but are superior to them, using
them simply as instruments. History is consequently a
steady forward movement, so that the insight of one age
may be tested by that of the succeeding age. But this con
ception of history is manifestly untrue to the facts of life.
Conditions during the period of the Judges do not neces
sarily furnish a test of what the teaching of Moses was.
"History," as Toy says, "proceeds by crisis, and a crisis
16 History of Israel, pp. 491, 417. 30

OUTLINE OF DEVELOPMENT
implies a great man," 17 who is far ahead of his age.
"Those," says Kautzsch, "who recognize everywhere
simply development in a straight line from crude or at
least naive naturalism to more and more purified moral
conceptions, quite overlook the circumstance that their
contention is opposed by demonstrably historical facts.
Epochmaking religious ideas generally come upon the
scene in full strength and purity; it is only in course of
further development that these products of religious crea
tive genius, or, better, of divine impulse, are corrupted
and disfigured by the intrusion of vulgar human ideas
and selfish interests. Such was the fate of the religion
of Jesus Christ in the Roman Church with its popes and
monks ; and the same thing happened to many of the great
fundamental ideas of the Reformation at the hands of
Protestant scholasticism. And we are quite safe to
assume something of the same kind in the process of the
development of Yahwism. The great fundamental ideas
upon which its institution rests were often forced into the
background during the wandering period of the people's
history and in the time of endless struggles for national
existence under the Judges. . . . But they did not die
out, and when, in the eighth century B. C, they were put
forward by Amos and others with the greatest clearness
and precision and urged upon the conscience of the people,
these prophets had a perfect right to claim that they were
making no new and unheard-of demands, but only pro
claiming what from Sinai downward had been recog
nized as facts." 18
The prophets are, then, to be regarded not as inno-
" Judaism and Christianity, p. 21.
18 "The Religion of Israel," in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible,
vol. v, p. 632. 31

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
vators, but as reformers.19 For the source of Israel's
higher faith we must go back to Moses. "The germs of
ethical monotheism," as A. R. Gordon says, "are already
found in the Yahweh religion as proclaimed by Moses,
and handed down in its purity among the 'thousands in
Israel that have not bowed the knee to Baal.' . . .
There is no real breach between the prophets' exalted con
ceptions of God, and the earlier faith in Yahweh in the
pious circles in the land. . . . The religion of Yahweh
— by virtue of its ethical character — was instinct with the
power of immortal life from the beginning. And this
inherent quality is not to be explained from the events of
history alone, nor yet from the external bond of the union
that bound Israel with Yahweh, but from the essential
character of Yahweh himself." 20
In this connection two other errors may be noted into
which Old Testament critics have fallen. In contending
that the early religion of Israel was devoid of a higher
ethical element they have often overlooked the fact that
the literary remains from that early period are mere frag
ments, and that these fragments are of such a character
that we would not naturally expect to find in them ex
pressions of a higher ethical faith. The situation is sim
ilar to what would have been the case with regard to the
eighth century B. C, if the prophetic sermons from that
time had not come down to us. The historical narratives
dealing with this period fail altogether to reveal to us
19 Compare this statement by Wellhausen, History of Israel, p.
398: "After the spirit of the oldest men of God, Moses at the head
of them, had been in a fashion laid to sleep in institutions, it sought
and found in the prophets a new opening ; the old fire burst out like
a volcano through the strata which once, too, rose fluid from the
deep, but now were fixed and dead."
"The Early Traditions of Genesis, pp. n8f.
32

OUTLINE OF DEVELOPMENT
the lofty faith attained by the prophets. And this may
well be the case also with the narratives that have to do
with the earlier periods of Israel's history. The date;,
when an idea first appears in extant literature by no
means fixes the date of its origin.
Again, critics have not taken adequate account of pos
sible foreign and traditional elements in the religious be
liefs of preexilic Israel. They have attempted to deduce
these beliefs psychologically from the historical experi
ences of the nation. This method is no doubt in large
measure justifiable. But over and above the beliefs that
grow out of experience there is always in every nation a
large body of beliefs that have been inherited from the
past or borrowed from other peoples. Hence it is a mis
take in method to attempt to deduce the entire teaching of
the early prophets from the conditions of their own time,
and to assume that their utterances must all have been
logically consistent with each other. It is, for instance,
claimed that the Messianic hope is inconsistent with the
prophetic message of doom, and that the passages in the
preexilic prophetic books that announce this hope must
consequently be assigned to a later date. But it is quite
possible, indeed probable, that the Messianic hope had
been handed down from the past, and that the prophets
simply adapted it to their own time without seeking to
harmonize it with their message as a whole. In any case
strict logical consistency is not to be expected of any man
who lives in close touch with his age, and, least of all, of
poets such as the prophets.
But apart from divergences of opinion due to such
methodological errors as these there are still many points
in which the data are too scanty and too uncertain to war
rant a confident conclusion. Concerning: manv__matters
33

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
in the history of Old Testament religion and literature we
must remain in ignorance or content ourselves with mere
conjecture. How uncertain the date of many individual
passages is, is well illustrated by the widely different opin
ions of representative modern scholars. Kirkpatrick, for
instance, assigns the second psalm to about B. C. 950;
Briggs to B. C. 625 ; and Baethgen to the second century
B. C. But in spite of such differences there is still a large
body of facts on which critics are quite generally agreed,
( and these we now present in brief outline.
We begin with the preprophetic period, which extended
from the time of Moses to that of Amos and covered
about four hundred and fifty years (1200-750). Polit
ically, this period was not a unit. It embraced the period
of the Judges ( 1200-1030), that of the United Monarchy
(1030-937), and a considerable part of that of the
Divided Monarchy (937-750). But the political changes,
represented by the establishment of the monarchy and its
division, did not seriously affect the religious life and
thought of the people. The establishment of the mon
archy led to the removal of the neglected ark to Jerusalem
and the building of the temple ; and this, when worship
was later centralized in Jerusalem, became an important
factor in the religious life of the nation. But at first the
temple was simply the royal sanctuary. This no doubt
gave to it a certain preeminence, but worship elsewhere
was not suppressed. And even its preeminence was not
recognized in the larger northern kingdom after the divi
sion of the monarchy. There Bethel and Dan supplanted
Jerusalem. The calf-worship set up in the northern sanc
tuaries by Jeroboam was severely condemned by later
writers ; and it did probably mark a decline from the purer
34

OUTLINE OF DEVELOPMENT
worship at the Jerusalem temple, at which no image seems
to have been kept. But, in general, religious conditions in
Judah did not differ essentially from those in Israel.
Throughout the entire preprophetic period sacrifices were
offered at many different sanctuaries, and much that was
impure and heathenish came to be associated with them.
When the Israelites settled in Canaan they adopted to a
large extent the rites and customs of their new neighbors,
and these acted in many cases as a corrupting influence in
their life. As instances of this influence, or at least of a
crude and undeveloped type of religious life, we may cite
the widespread use of images as illustrated not only by the
golden calves of Jeroboam, but by the ephod of Gideon,21
the story of Micah,22 and the teraphim in Saul's family;23
we may also note the use of the lot in determining the
divine will,24 the superstitious sanctity attributed to the
vow as evidenced in the cases of Jephthah26 and Saul,26
and the abhorrent rite of prostitution in connection with
the public sanctuaries.27
But over against such facts as these is to be placed
the prophetic movement which harked back to Moses and
the marvelous deliverance from Egypt. This movement
seems to have had in it at the outset more or less of the
spirit of manticism and dervishlike ecstasy.28 But on
the whole it stood opposed to the corrupting influence of
Canaanitic life and thought, and sought to promote the
21 Judg. 8. 22-27.
KJudg. 17-18.
"1 Sam. 19. I3ff.
" 1 Sam. 14. 18-20 ; 23. 2 ; 2 Sam. 2. 1.
?Judg. 11. 30ff,
™i Sam. 14. 24-46.
" Amos 2. 7 ; Hos. 4. 13L
88 1 Sam. 10. 1-13; 19. 18-24. 35

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
purer faith of the fathers. The prophets seem to have
been especially active in the eleventh century at the time of
the Philistine peril, and again in the ninth century at the
time of the Syrian menace. But they probably formed
a continuous succession from the time of Moses down.
They were deeply interested in the welfare of the nation,
and did not hesitate to rebuke the rulers when occasion
demanded. They regarded themselves as the direct mouth
piece of Yahweh, and as such were zealous advocates of
his cause. They defended right and established custom as
over against the lust and greed of kings, and when in the
time of Ahab the sole authority of Yahweh was threat
ened by the introduction of the Tyrian Baal, they rose in
rebellion against the reigning family and did not rest con
tent until a new house had been set upon the throne. This
was perhaps the greatest achievement of the preliterary
prophets. The revolution of Jehu (B. C. 842), brought
about by the work of Elijah and Elisha, outlawed the
worship of other gods in Israel, and made Yahweh once
for all supreme. This was no new doctrine. It had been
plainly taught by Moses, but not apparently until the time
of Elijah did its full practical significance come to be ap
preciated. In this connection it may be added that it is
to be regarded as providential that Israel for three cen
turies after the settlement in Canaan was left unmolested
by the great empires of the East and West. Had Israel in
that early day been conquered by Egypt or Assyria, the
free development of its religious life would have been im
possible. Yahweh would have been subdued before his
supremacy had been fully established. But when his
name had once been set on high by the glorious reigns of
David and Solomon, it was possible for the prophets to
see in the disasters of the Syrian wars and in the threat-
36

OUTLINE OF DEVELOPMENT
ened subjection to Assyria an evidence not of his weak
ness but of his moral rectitude. The sufferings of these
later days were a punishment for the people's sins.
The literature that has come down from the pre
prophetic period is not extensive. The Decalogue29 in
a briefer form may have been the work of Moses. The
Code of the Covenant30 and the so-called J Decalogue31
are also early collections of laws. From the time of the
Judges we have the Song of Deborah,32 which is fre
quently spoken of as the earliest monument of Hebrew
literature. The lament of David over Saul and Jon
athan33 is almost universally accepted as authentic, and
the Blessing of Jacob34 is also commonly assigned to the
reign either of David or Solomon. The Oracles of
Balaam,35 too, may perhaps come from about the same
time, though some scholars put them a century or two
later. The Blessing of Moses36 was probably written
about B. C. 780. In addition to these poems there are a
number of poetic fragments that are early, such as Exod.
15. ib-3; Num. 10. 35f. ; 21. i7f. ; Josh. 10. I2b-i3a;
2 Sam. 3. 33 f. ; 18. 33 ; 1 Kings 8. I2f. The Hero-Stories
in the book of Judges were probably reduced to written
form shortly after the division of the monarchy, and the
Jerusalem stories of David37 may have been still earlier.
The latter document, as Kautzsch says, "is one of the
most complete, truthful, and finished products of histor-
"Exod. 20. 1-17.
30 Exod. 20, 22 to 23. 19.
31 Exod. 34. 14-26.
3-Judg. 5. •
33 2 Sam. 1. 19-27.
34 Gen. 49.
35 Num. 23-24.
38 Deut. 33-
37 2 Sam. 5-7 ; 9-20. 37

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
ical writing which have come down to us from the He
brews, and, indeed, from the whole ancient world."38
Many of the other narratives incorporated in Samuel and
Kings are also early and reliable. The prophetic stories
found in i Kings 17 to 2 Kings 13 were probably written
early in the eighth century. Of the J and E documents
incorporated in the Pentateuch we have already spoken.
They deal chiefly with the patriarchal and Mosaic periods
and contain in that way not a little historical material,
but their chief value lies in what they reveal concerning
the beliefs of the Israelites in the ninth century when
they were written.39
The prophetic period in Israel's religious history ( 750-
450), like the preceding period, was lacking in political
unity. Shortly after the time of Amos Samaria fell
(721), and with it the larger part of the Davidic kingdom
came to an end. Judah escaped a similar fate twenty
years later by a marvelous deliverance from the hands of
Sennacherib (701), and continued to exist as a state until
the fall of Jerusalem in 586. After a period of about
seventy years the temple was rebuilt (520-516), and the
local community began to revive, largely as the result of
the enthusiasm of the exiles who had returned. But con
ditions were far from encouraging. Poverty and oppres
sion were the common lot, and doubt and despair often
hung over the community. Such in brief were the out
ward fortunes of the Israelites during the prophetic
88 The Literature of the Old Testament, p. 25.
30 For a detailed study of the literature of the Old Testament in
its chronological development see Kautzsch's Literature of the Old
Testament, and especially Harlan Creelman's Introduction to the
Old Testament. The latter is a book of exceptional value as a stu
dent's manual. 38

OUTLINE OF DEVELOPMENT
period. Calamity followed calamity, and hope time and
again was disappointed. But Israel's religion, as some
one has said, was like the pearl, which grows by the pain
and the death of the oyster. The decline and fall of the
state and the sufferings of the people only stimulated the
prophets to new insight, leading them to enunciate those
great spiritual truths that have become the permanent
possession of mankind. It is literally true that the endur
ing elements in Old Testament religion were built upon
the ruins of the state. If it had not been for the work of
the prophets, it is virtually certain that Israel's religion
would have perished with the fall of the nation. Old
Testament religion is the only national religion that ever
survived the nation's downfall. When other nations fell
they threw their gods to the moles and the bats, thinking
they had been overcome by superior deities. And this
would have happened in Israel had it not been for the
prophets, who during the period of the nation's decline
elevated Yahweh to the throne of universal sovereignty,
and declared that the destroyers of the nation were simply
the instruments of his wrath. This is a most remarkable
fact without parallel in the religious history of mankind.
Had monotheism originated in Assyria or Egypt, it would
not have been so strange, for these empires were virtually
world-powers. But that it should have originated among
a small people like the Hebrews, and have been first pro
claimed among them at the very time that they were on
the road to political ruin, is a fact so contrary to the
normal operations of the human mind that we cannot but
see in it a special manifestation of the presence of the
Spirit of God. There is no better proof of the inspiration
of the Old Testament than just this fact.
Aside from the teaching of the prophets, the outstand-
39

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
ing religious event in the prophetic period was the Deuter
onomic reform. This was effected in B. C. 621. It was
an attempt to make the Israelitic state conform with the
demands of the prophets, so that it might escape the doom
which had been pronounced upon it. But the reform was
too external and superficial to accomplish its purpose.
The centralization of worship, however, which it estab
lished proved a significant element in the subsequent life
of the people. After the fall of Jerusalem a similar pro
gram was outlined for the restored community by Ezekiel
(572), and this too had an important influence on the
later development of the Jewish Church. But it was not
until the next period that this influence came to full
fruition. With the advent of the literary prophets we are able for
the first time to date somewhat precisely the monuments
of Hebrew literature that have come down to us. The
dates of the eighth-century prophets (Amos, Hosea,
Isaiah, Micah) can be determined with a fair degree of
certainty. The same is also true of the group of prophets
who appeared shortly before the fall of Jerusalem (Ze
phaniah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Jeremiah, Ezekiel). Isaiah
40-55 is to be placed at about B. C. 540, and the follow-.
ing chapters (56-66) within the next seventy or eighty
years. Haggai and Zechariah give their own dates
(520), and Malachi and Obadiah probably belong shortly
before 450. Besides Deuteronomy and Ezekiel 40-48 we
have another legal code in this period, the so-called Law
of Holiness,40 now incorporated in P. Its exact date is
uncertain, but it should perhaps be placed after Ezekiel
(560-550). J, E, and D were combined into a single
work during the exile, and to about the same time is to be
"Lev. 17-26. 40

OUTLINE OF DEVELOPMENT
referred the Deuteronomistic redaction of Judges, Sam
uel, and Kings. Lamentations, in part at least, must
have been written shortly after the fall of Jerusalem,
and the Song of Moses (Deut. 32) should probably be
assigned to about 560. The completed Psalter and the
book of Proverbs belong to a later date, but many indi
vidual psalms and proverbs no doubt had their origin in
this period. Indeed, some of them may be older still.
Concerning the external history of Israel during the
legalistic or levitical period (450-150) we know compara
tively little. The Jewish community restored after the
exile was a church, not a state. Its interests were
ecclesiastical, not political. Not until the very close of
the period did it assume independent political action, and
then simply in defense of its faith. What the post-exilic
Jews aimed at was the establishment of a religious com- \
munity so pure and holy that it would prove worthy of
the glorious promises made to the nation by the prophets j
of old. It was this motive that lay back of the elaborate 1
legal system that became the foundation of Judaism. A
preliminary sketch of this system was made by Ezekiel
(chapters 40-48). Later priests developed it, and finally
under Ezra and Nehemiah (444) it was made the law of
the restored community. This law tended to create a
sharp line of distinction between the Jews and other peo
ples. The wall of Jerusalem rebuilt by Nehemiah was
symbolic of the wall of separation that he and Ezra
established between the Jewish and heathen worlds. In
termarriage with other peoples was forbidden, and certain
peculiar rites and customs were insisted upon which gave
to Judaism an exclusive and nationalistic character that
seems out of harmony with the earlier prophetic teaching.
41

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
But this very exclusiveness served an important purpose.
It enabled Judaism to maintain its integrity as over
against Greek naturalism, which became dominant
throughout southwestern Asia after the conquests of
Alexander. Judaism is "the only example of an Oriental
religion emancipating itself from the influence of Hellen
ism" (Schiirer). And it became such, as Cornill says,
only "because Ezra and Nehemiah had rendered it hard
as steel and strong as iron. In this impenetrable armor it
was insured against all attacks, and thus saved religion
against Hellenism. And therefore it behooves us to bless
the prickly rind, to which we owe it, that the noble core
remained preserved." 41 Had it not been for the work
of Ezra and Nehemiah, the successful revolt of the Mac
cabees would have been impossible, and Judaism would
have been crushed by Antiochus Epiphanes.
But while legalism was the dominant characteristic of
Old Testament religion after the time of Ezra and Ne
hemiah, the literature that has come down to us from this
period makes it evident that there were also other sig
nificant forces at work among the people. The legalistic
tendency was embodied in the Priests' Code, which seems
to have been united with J, E, and D to form the Penta
teuch about B. C. 444. In recent times, however, not a
few scholars have put Ezra's expedition after that of Ne
hemiah, and in that case the completion of the Pentateuch
should probably be assigned to about B. C. 398, the
seventh year of the second Artaxerxes.42 The tendency
reflected in P appears also in the priestly histories, Chron-
icles-Ezra-Nehemiah, which originally formed one work,
and in Esther. As distinct from, and at times opposed
" The Prophets of Israel, pp. i62f.
42 Ezra 7. 7. 42

OUTLINE OF DEVELOPMENT
to, this tendency, we have the prophetic spirit, which
manifested itself in three different ways. In such books
as Ruth and Jonah it directly opposed the narrowness and
exclusiveness of the legalistic program. In apocalyptic
works, such as Joel, Isaiah 24-27, Zechariah 9-14 and
Daniel, it kept alive the earlier prophetic hopes of the
speedy coming of the kingdom of God. And in the
Psalms it nurtured a deep spirit of personal piety such as \
we find in Jeremiah. Another significant tendency in I
post-exilic Judaism was that represented by the Wisdom
Literature — Proverbs, Job, and Ecclesiastes. Here the
speculative and humanistic spirit in Israel manifests itself. •,
Religion is a problem which each one feels called upon to ',
settle for himself. This type of thought no doubt had its
place to some extent in the earlier history of Israel, but .
the three Old Testament books in which it is embodied
belong, at least in their completed form, to the legalistic ',
period. We thus have at the close of the Old Testament dis
pensation a complex religious life. There were diverse
and even contradictory elements in it. But in the midst
of all the diversity and all the contradictions there was
a solid body of truth, the product of centuries of spiritual
struggle, which was destined to form the basis of a uni
versal faith.
For the convenience of the reader the following table
giving the approximate dates of the more important docu
ments in the Old Testament is appended :
1. The Preprophetic Period (B. C. 1200-750).
Decalogue (Exod. 20. 1-17), 1200?
Song of Deborah (Judg. 5), 1100.
David's Elegy (2 Sam. 1. 19-27), 1015.
43

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
Blessing of Jacob (Gen. 49), 1000-950.
Oracles of Balaam (Num. 23-24), 1000-800.
Code of Covenant (Exod. 20. 22 to 23, 19), 1200-800.
The so-called J Decalogue (Exod. 34. 14-26), 1200-800.
Hero-Stories in Book of Judges, 900.
Early Saul and David Stories, 950-900.
J Document, 850.
E Document, 800.
Blessing of Moses (Deut. 33), 780.
Prophetic Stories in 1 Kings 17 to 2 Kings 13, 775.
2. The Prophetic Period (B. C. 750-450).
Amos, 750.
Hosea, 743-734-
Isaiah, 740-700.
Micah, 725-715.
J and E united, 650.
Zephaniah, 627.
Deuteronomy discovered, 621.
Habakkuk, 621-600.
Nahum, 607.
Jeremiah, 626-586.
Ezekiel, 592-570.
Code of Ezekiel, 572.
Code of Holiness, 560-550.
Lamentations, 580-550.
Song of Moses (Deut. 32), 560.
Union of J, E, and D, 550.
Deuteronomistic redaction of Judges, Samuel, and Kings,
5SO.
Isaiah 40-55, 540.
Isaiah 56-66, 536-460.
Haggai, 520.
Zechariah, (1-8), 520-518.
Malachi, 460.
Obadiah, 460.
3- The Legalistic Period. (B. C. 450-150).
P published and united with JED, 444 or 398.
Ruth, 440-430.
Memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiah, 432-398.
Joel, 400.
Job, 400-350.
Song of Solomon, 350-300. 44

OUTLINE OF DEVELOPMENT
Jonah, 300.
Proverbs, 300-250.
Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah, 300-250.
Isaiah 24-27, 250-200.
Zechariah 9-14, 250-200.
Ecclesiastes, 200.
Daniel, 164.
Esther, 160.
Psalms, 450-150.

45

II
GOD AND ANGELS

CHAPTER II
THE PERSONALITY OF GOD
Personality and moral quality, as Professor Hock
ing says, "may well be regarded as the most humanly *"
valuable attributes of the divine nature." x Indeed, with
out them the conception of God would be of very slight
value. The former gives to religion its distinctive char
acter, and the latter imparts to it its rational worth. It
is these two attributes that are most conspicuous in the
Old Testament. We here deal with the first, the person
ality of God.
"Personality" is a term that has had various connota
tions. Frequently it has been thought to imply corporeal
ity, or form or limitation of some kind. But no such
implication necessarily attaches to the term. "The essen
tial meaning of personality," as Professor Bowne says,
"is selfhood, self-consciousness, self-control, and the
power to know." 2 And in this sense the personality of
God is the basal idea in religion. Without it there could
be no religion in the proper sense of the term. "Reli
gion," to quote Bowne again, "demands the mutual other
ness of the finite and infinite, in order that the relation of
love and obedience may obtain. Both love and religion
seek for union, but it is not the union of absorption or
fusion, but, rather, the union of mutual understanding
and sympathy which would disappear if the otherness of

1 The Meaning of God in Human Experience, p. 207.
1 Personalism, p. 266.

49

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
the persons were removed." 3 "No impersonal being,"
as Fairbairn puts it, "whether named fate or chance,
necessity or existence, the soul or the whole, can be an ob
ject of worship, though it may be an object of thought.
As a matter of historical fact, no religion has ever been
a pantheism, nor has any pantheism ever constituted a
religion. . . . The impersonal must be personalized
before thought, which is a subjective activity, can pass
into worship, which is a reciprocal action, or a process of
converse and intercourse between living minds." 4
The personality of God is therefore no peculiarity of
Old Testament or biblical religion. It is a belief that be-
. longs to all religions worthy of the name. It is, however,
an idea that has been apprehended with different degrees
of clearness by different peoples. Among the Semites in
general the tendency was to think of God in more dis
tinctly personal terms than was the case among other peo
ples, and this was especially true of the Hebrews. "In the
IOld Testament conception of God," says Schultz, "nothing
stands out from the first so strongly and unmistakably as
the personality of the God of Israel. There is nowhere
even the faintest inclination to the thought of a God with
out consciousness or will." 5 One reason for this signifi
cant fact is to be found in the close relation that Yahweh
sustained to history. Nature is impersonal, and the gods
of nature partake to some degree of its impersonality.
( But Yahweh was primarily a God, not of nature, but of
history. And history is personal. It is the scene of hu
man action. Its forces are personal forces. A god con
sequently who manifests himself chiefly in the field of
8 Personalism, p. 284.
'Philosophy of the Christian Religion, p. 241.
5 Old Testament Theology, vol. ii, p. 103.
50

THE PERSONALITY OF GOD
history necessarily partakes of the personal character of
history. And so it was with Yahweh. From the begin
ning of the nation's history he stood in the most intimate
relation to the life of the people. He revealed himself in
their fortunes and misfortunes, in their hopes and fears,
in their longings and aspirations. Their personal life was
as a result imparted to him, and he became as intensely
personal as they. In this connection it may be added that
this manifestation of God in history was, as Andrew
Harper says, "the only possible form for a real revela
tion of God; and that the writers of the Old Testament
in their circumstances and in their time felt and asserted
this, is in itself so very great a merit that it is almost of
itself sufficient to justify any claims they may make to
special inspiration." 6
Under the personality of God we might discuss the
entire Old Testament doctrine of God. For personality
is an inclusive category and might be regarded as em
bracing all the attributes that can properly be ascribed to
the Deity. But some of these attributes, such as the di
vine unity, spirituality, power, holiness, righteousness,
and love, are of such special importance that we deem it
best to reserve a separate chapter for each. Here we shall
discuss simply the general idea of personality and some of
its essential implications.
The Old Testament does not raise the question of the
divine existence or the question as to the possibility of
knowing God. These are philosophical questions that did
not exist for the ancient Hebrew mind. That God or
gods existed was universally assumed. The fool might

0 The Book of Deuteronomy, p. 52.
51

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
say in his heart that there was no God,7 but in saying this
he did not mean to deny the actual existence of- God.
What he meant was that he himself in his own life took
no account of the divine existence; he lived as though
there were no God; he was altogether heedless of the
outcome of his evil ways.8 In a word, his atheism was
practical, not theoretical. And such an atheism is in the
nature of the case immune to all argument except that of
painful experience. Hence the Old Testament writers
nowhere attempt to prove the divine existence. They
refer now and then to the wonders of creation, the glory
and beauty of nature, as evidence of the power and wis
dom of God,9 but they do this not to prove that there is
a God but to make the already existent belief in him
warmer and heartier, more vivid and vital. So far as the
unbeliever was concerned, they contented themselves with
proclaiming the retributive righteousness of God. All
who forgot him and disobeyed his will would certainly
perish. In the same way the knowledge of God was assumed.
Agnosticism in the modern sense of the term had no place
in Hebrew thought. Religion by its very nature implies
that God has reyealed himself, and this conviction lay at
the root of Israelitic life and belief. Now and then a
voice might be heard like that of Agur, the son of Jakeh,10
protesting against too confident a knowledge of God.
And there were always those in Israel who were deeply
conscious of the limitations of human thought when it
came to the things of God.

'Psa. 14. 1; 53. 1.
8 Psa. 10. 4 ; Zeph. 1. 12.
"Isa. 40. 12, 26; Psa. 8. 1 ; 19. 1 ; 104. 5-11.
10 Prov. 30. 1-4. 52

THE PERSONALITY OF GOD
"Canst thou by searching find out God ?
Canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?" 1X
"My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your
ways my ways, saith Jehovah. For as the heavens are
higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your
ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." 12 Even
all the wonders of nature
"are but the outskirts of his ways :
And how small a whisper do we hear of him !
But the thunder of his power who can understand?" 13
Limited, however, as God's revelation of himself was,
it was valid so far as it went. He did not reveal his
inmost nature to men. Even Moses was permitted to see
only the back of God and not his face.14 There was in
Israel a general feeling that man could not see God and
live.15 Then, too, in antiquity what men were primarily
interested in was not the nature of God, but his will and
law.16 If they knew the divine purpose and the divine
requirements, they were content. And this, Israel was
confident, had been revealed to them. Their possession
of the Law was a source of national pride. "What great
nation," they asked, "is there that hath a god so nigh unto
them, as Jehovah our God is whensoever we call upon
him? And what great nation is there that hath statutes
and ordinances so righteous ?" 17
As the existence and knowledge of God were assumed,
so also was his personality. There was no pantheistic

"Job 1 1. 7- 15 Judg. 13. 22; Isa. 6. 5.
12 Isa. 55- 8-9. 16 2 Kings 17. 26.
13 Job 26. 14. "Deut. 4. 7-8.
" Exod. 33. 20-23, J- \
0U<r <£. £• in f>4. 53

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
philosophy against which the Old Testament writers were
forced to contend. They all belonged to what Auguste
Comte termed the theological stage of thought. Ulti
mate existence for them took on the personal form. Will
was the first cause of all things. The idea of an imper
sonal law or power not ourselves that makes for right
eousness, such as Matthew Arnold substituted for the God
of the Old Testament, was wholly foreign to them.
The personality of God is implied or expressed in the
Old Testament in a great variety of ways. But there
are three particular forms of expressing it that call for
special attention. The first is the personal name, "Je
hovah" or "Yahweh." It is now well known that "Je
hovah" is a hybrid word, made up of the consonants of
"Yahweh" or "Jahveh" and the vowels of the Hebrew
word for "Lord," Adonay, the first a in Adonay being in
the original a half-vowel, which after y or /, according
to a regular law of the language, became a very short e.
This combination grew out of the superstitious reverence
in which the name "Yahweh" came to be held by the later
Jews and which led them to eschew its use altogether. A
trace of this superstition appears as early as the book of
Amos, where in a pestilence the people in their terror are
represented as saying that they dare not make mention of
the name of Yahweh.18 Later in the Old Testament,
as in the second book of the Psalter,19 and in Ecclesiastes,
there is observable a tendency to use instead of Yahweh
the general name for God, "Elohim." This, tendency to
avoid the name "Yahweh" continued to become more and
more pronounced until finally the name ceased to be used
at all, and even its pronunciation was forgotten. So
"6. 10.
" Psa. 42 to 72 or perhaps 42 to 89.
54

THE PERSONALITY OF GOD
strong apparently was the feeling on this point in some
quarters that in the Septuagint and some of the other
versions the word "blaspheme" in Lev. 24. 11, 16 was
rendered "name," so that the text was made to impose the
death penalty upon those who merely named the divine
name. Wherever the sacred Tetragram (YHWH) ap
peared in the biblical text, the Jews would read "Adonay,"
or in some cases "Elohim." And so when in the sixth
or seventh century of our era vowel points were added to
the text so as to fix the vocalization, the vowels of Adonay
were attached to Yhwh or Jhvh to indicate that the name
was to be read "Adonay." There was no thought whatso
ever of pronouncing the name "Yehowah" or "Jehovah."
This hybrid form did not arise until about the time of the
Reformation. Concerning the origin and derivation of the name
"Yahweh" there is wide diversity of opinion. In two of
the Pentateuchal documents, P and E, its introduction
seems to be attributed to Moses. In Exod. 6. 2-3 (P) we
read: "And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him,
I am Jehovah : and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac,
and unto Jacob, as God Almighty; but by my name Je
hovah I was not known to them." And in Exod. 3. 13-15
(E) we are told that when Moses was about to return
from Horeb to Egypt he was uncertain by what name to
designate the God who had sent him, and that it was then
that the name "Yahweh" was revealed to him. Consist
ently with this view both documents, P and E, avoid the
use of the name until after the account of its revelation
to Moses. In J,20 on the other hand, it is stated that way
back in the time of the antediluvian patriarch Enosh men
began to call upon the name of Yahweh. And J himself
MGen. 4. 26. 55

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
uses the name from the very beginning of his narrative in
the second chapter of Genesis. What the exact facts
were, lying back of this diverse tradition, is not easy to
determine. Some, such as A. B. Davidson,21 seek to
harmonize the different narratives by holding that while
the name "Yahweh" was known to the Hebrews before
the time of Moses it did not receive divine sanction till
his day. Then for the first time it was "appropriated by
God and authorized as part of his manifestation of him
self." Others, such as Kautzsch,22 take the view that
Yahweh before the time of Moses was "the God of one or
v more tribes, or perhaps the God of one particular family,"
but not the God of all Israel. Still others — and this at
present seems to be the favorite theory — hold that Yah
weh was originally a Kenite or Midianite deity worshiped
at Sinai-Horeb, and that he was made God of Israel by
Moses. That the name "Yahweh" in any case antedated
the time of Moses would seem clear. Indeed, some As
sy riologists contend "that the Babylonians were accus
tomed to the use of the divine name 'Jau' or 'Janven'
during the period from B. C. 2000 to B. C. 1400," and
that traces of its use appear also elsewhere outside of
and independent of Israel.23 But however this may be,
it is generally admitted that it was Moses who first gave
special significance to the name. It was he who made the
worship of Yahweh in Israel "the fundamental basis of
the national existence and history," 24 "the conscious
motive power of an organized national life." 25

21 The Theology of the Old Testament, p. 68.
22 Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, vol. v, p. 627.
23 Rogers, Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, pp. 89-98.
21 Wellhausen, History of Israel, p. 433.
25 Schultz, Old Testament Theology, vol. i, p. 133.
56

THE PERSONALITY OF GOD
What the name "Yahweh" originally meant is not
known. A popular etymology is given in Exod. 3. 13-15
(E). The name is here connected with the verb "to be,"
and is interpreted as meaning either the absolute and
self-subsistent Being or the really existing One as distin
guished from other gods, or perhaps the I-will-be-with
thee God, a God who is ever present with his people. The
exact thought in the author's mind is not certain. But
this etymology, while interesting and suggestive, was
probably an after-thought. It does not give the actual
derivation of the name. Many other derivations have
consequently been suggested. But none of them have
been able to command general assent ; and the probability
is that the original meaning of the name has been lost
beyond recovery.
But the real significance of the name "Yahweh" does
not lie in its meaning. It lies in the fact that it is a_per-
sonal name. It distinguishes the God of Israel from all
other deities. He is not one of a class but a distinct and
separate Being. He has an individuality, a definite char
acter of his own. The very fact that he bore a personal
name emphasized this distinctness of his personality.
And when finally the belief in the existence of other gods
vanished the implications of the personal name were natu
rally carried over into the general conception of Deity.
God became as personal as Yahweh, and the name "Yah
weh" was used to express the special differentiating qual
ity of the true God.26 The richness of Hebrew mono
theism was thus due in no small measure to the fact that it
grew out of an earlier monolatry. The_personality_oi-
Yahweh made more concrete and more real the personal
ity of God.
" See Ezek. 25. 5, 7, 11, 17, etc. 57

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
Another way in which the personality of God comes to
expression in the Old Testament is by the use of anthro
pomorphisms. There is a sense in which the mere ascrip
tion of personality to God might be called anthropomor
phic. For we arrive at the idea of personality through
our own experience. The only personality that we know
anything directly about is human personality. To speak,
then, of God as a Person is to think of him under the hu
man form. But such an anthropomorphism is unavoid
able if we are to retain a conception of God that is of any
religious value.27 Personality is the highest category of
which we know anything. "Superpersonal existence" is
a phrase without any concrete content, an unknown quan
tity that means no more to us than an algebraic xyz.
If we are, therefore, to think of God, it must be either
under the personal or some subpersonal form. There is
no third alternative. But even though this be admitted,
the idea still persists that personality involves limitation
and so is inapplicable to the Infinite. Some other term
must be found to express his nature. To speak of him
as personal is anthropomorphic in the derogatory sense of
the term. But this idea rests upon a false conception of
the nature of personality. Human personality is limited,
but personality as such involves no necessary limitation.
It means simply self-knowledge and self-direction, and in
this sense it is so far from being inconsistent with the
nature of the Absolute that "we must really say that
complete and perfect personality can be found only in the
Infinite and Absolute Being, as only in him can we find
that complete and perfect selfhood and self-expression
which is necessary to the fullness of personality." 28
2T See F. L. Strickland's Foundations of Christian Belief, pp.. i62ff,
28 Bowne, Personalism, pp. 266L 58

THE PERSONALITY OF GOD
The conception of God as personal is, therefore, not an
thropomorphic in the sense that it implies limitation of
any kind.
But there are in the Old Testament a great many
anthropomorphic expressions that do seem to imply a dis
tinct limitation of the Divine Being. We may classify
these anthropomorphisms as physical and psychological.
On the one hand, God is spoken of as though he possessed
a human form and was spatially limited. He walks in the
garden in the cool of the day;29 he comes down to see the
building of the tower of Babel;30 he visits Abraham ap
parently in human form.31 He speaks to him and his
human servants generally as one man to another. We
read of his hand, mouth, eye, ear, arm. The organs and
physical activities of men in general are attributed to him.
And so also with the inner life of man. Not only does
Yahweh have the essential attributes of personality, self-
consciousness and self-direction, but the passions and
changing purposes of men are ascribed to him. He be
comes angry, takes vengeance on his enemies, laughs to
scorn the pride of men, is jealous, hates as well as loves,
and also repents.
This anthropomorphic method of speech runs through
out practically the whole of the Old Testament. A cer
tain development in it is, however, observable. In the
preprophetic period, represented by the J and E docu
ments and the early narratives in the book of Judges;
physical anthropomorphisms are more common than in
later times, though even in the postexilic period they are
not altogether avoided. They are found in P,32 and as
late as the second century B. C. God appears in a vision
29 Gen. 3. 8, J. S1 Gen. 18, J.
"°Gen. n. 5, J. "Gen. 17. 1, 22; 35. 9, 13.
59

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
as an aged, white-haired man.33 In the r^ojjhejicjDeriod
physical anthrapomorphisms give place largely to the
psychological. These, however, abound. The prophets
cling tenaciously to this style of speech. They ascribe to
the Deity human passions and motives with the utmost
freedom. And it is somewhat surprising, as A. B. Davidv
son observes, that Deutero-Isaiah, in spite of his very
lofty and highly developed doctrine of God, is "more
addicted to the use of anthropomorphisms than any other
prophet." 34 In the postexilic period there is a tendency
to moderate at least the use of anthropomorphisms.
This is especially evident in the P document. We need
only compare its account of creation35 with that in J36 to
see that it represents a more transcendental conception of
God — a conception that seeks to distinguish him from
everything material and to free him from the limitations
of human life and activity. This tendency became still
more pronounced in postcanonical Judaism, but in the
New Testament we have a return to the warmer anthro
pomorphic or anthropopathic speech of the prophets.
We need not here raise the question as to how far the
anthropomorphisms of the Old Testament were con
sciously metaphorical. To a very considerable extent they
undoubtedly were such. The very variety of the forms
under which the divine manifestations and activities are
represented makes this evident. But at the same time it is
equally clear that the current conceptions of the Deity
were such that many things could then be said literally of
him which to-day would have to be understood in a figur-

33 Dan. 7. 9.
34 Theology of the Old Testament, p. 174.
35 Gen. 1.
88 Gen. 2-3. 60

THE PERSONALITY OF GOD
ative or accommodated sense. What we are, however,
here concerned about is not to determine the extent of the
literal and the metaphorical in the Old Testament use of
anthropomorphisms, but to point out the fact that the
great purpose actually served by these anthropomor
phisms is to emphasize the personality of God. He is a
living, acting Being, a Being touched with the feeling of
our infirmities. He does not stand apart from men but
enters in the most intimate way into their experiences.
He counsels them, commands them, blesses them, punishes
them. In a word, he is the great outstanding fact of their
lives. This truth it is that lies back of the biblical use
of anthropomorphisms and is enforced by them. In no
other way could the personality of God at that time have
been adequately and effectively expressed. Concrete con
ceptions and concrete modes of speech, such as we find
in the anthropomorphisms of the Old Testament, were
the only ones that could then be fully understood.
A thirdjyay in which the Old Testament brings out the
idea of the personality of God is by its teaching concern
ing his free relation to nature and history. Freedom and-'
self-direction is an essential constituent of personality.
Wherever we have freedom and self-consciousness we
have a personal being. It is here that the dividing line is
drawn between personalism on the one hand and all
impersonal systems of thought on the other. Necessity
is the characteristic of the latter, and freedom with its
implication of self-consciousness the characteristic of the
former. In the Old Testament the ascription of freedom
to the Deity was, of course, instinctive and immediate.
He was looked upon as sustaining the same relation to the
world as we do to the objects with which we deal. The
61

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
question as to when Yahweh came to be thought of as
Creator of the world need not here be raised. It will be
dealt with at some length in a later chapter. Here it need
only be remarked that even if Yahweh during the earlier
part of Israel's history was looked upon as an intra-mun-
dane Being, he was nevertheless perfectly free in his rela
tion to the world. He may not at that time have been
thought of as holding all the forces of nature in the
hollow of his hand, but so far as his power extended it
\was regarded as exercised with perfect freedom. And
this was, if anything, still more the case when he came to
be thought of as creator of all the world. The heavens
and the earth were no necessary emanations from his
being. They were his free acts, the work of his fingers.
He spake, and the ordered universe began to be. Both
animate and inanimate beings were the product of his
word. And if so, it was self-evident to the Old Testa
ment writers that he must be not only as free, but also as
truly conscious as the beings he has made.
"He that planteth the ear, shall he not hear ?
He that formed the eye, shall he not see?" 37
This free intelligence of the Deity manifest in the work
of creation was, if anything, still more manifest in his
relation to history. For in history purpose reveals itself
more readily than in nature. No doubt there was a pur
pose in creation. God formed the earth, we read, "to be
inhabited." 3S But it is in history that we are able to trace
most easily a divine plan. And so it was here that the free
guiding hand of Yahweh manifested itself most distinctly.
37 Psa. 94. 9.
88 Isa. 45. 18. 62

THE PERSONALITY OF GOD
We need not at this point raise the question as to when
the idea of a world purpose was first ascribed to Yahweh.
This topic will engage our attention in a subsequent
chapter. Here it suffices to point out that no matter how
limited Yahweh's outlook at the first may have been, he
was never lacking in a purpose or plan. From the very
beginning he was thought of as having purposed good
concerning Israel. This purpose no doubt in the course
of the centuries came to be thought of in broader, clearer,
and more spiritual terms, but as a purpose it was dis
tinct from the outset, and as such implied the free rela
tion of Yahweh to human history. In this connection it
may be pointed out that the idea of a series of world-
cycles, so persistent in all Eastern thought, failed to gain
lodgment in Israel. The author of Ecclesiastes appar
ently accepted it, and his pessimism was to some extent
the outcome of it. "That which hath been," he says, "is
that which shall be; and that which hath been done is
that which shall be done : and there is no new thing under
the sun." 39 , But in the teaching of the prophets and in
Hebrew thought in general the idea found no place. And
the reason was the strong sense of the divine will and per
sonality that prevailed in ancient Israel. No supreme
Person could tolerate the thought of an unending series
of recurrent cycles. Personality must have an ultimate
goal, an end to be attained. And so Hebrew thought in- ]
troduced into the ancient scheme of world-cycles the idea
of development. The present order would come to an
end, but it would be succeeded by another of a higher
character. There would be no mere return of the present
cycle, but a step forward, progress. This great thought
weowe to the Hebrews, and owe it especially to "the
89 i. 9. 63

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
strong sense of personality, human and divine, which

" 40 *

characterized all the faith of the prophets.
The freedom of God in his relation to nature and his
tory is implied practically everywhere throughout the
Old Testament, but it is particularly clear in connection
|with the idea of miracle. There are two periods in Is-
Irael's history during which miracles are represented as
{especially common. The first was in the time of Moses
fwhen the nation was created and established upon a reli-
Igious foundation, the other was during the great revival
connected with the names of Elijah and Elisha. But mir
acles were by no means confined to these two periods.
They belonged to Old Testament history as a whole. The
canonical prophets say very little concerning them, but it
is evident that they believed firmly in their possibility.
When Ahaz was apparently hesitating, uncertain whether
to accept Isaiah's assurance of the divine help, the prophet
turned to him and said, "Ask thee a sign of Jehovah thy
God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above." 41
"Tremendous words," says Cornill, "a belief in God of
such intensity as to appear to us men of modern times
fanatical." 42 It has even been suggested that it was
fortunate for the prophet that the king did not take him
at his word. Had he done so, the promised sign might
not have been forthcoming. But whatever may be our
opinion on that point, there was no doubt in the prophet's
mind, nor apparently in that of the king. Both believed
that God stood ready to perform a miracle at any time if
the occasion should demand it. And this was the common
belief of the day.
40 A. C. Welch, The Religion of Israel under the Kingdom, p. 260.
41 Isa. 7. 11.
42 The Prophets of Israel, p. 62. 64

THE PERSONALITY OF GOD
Miracle, it is true, did not have the same significance
for the ancient mind that it has for us. Nature was
not then thought of as a fixed and inflexible order as it
is to-day. A certain uniformity in its processes was, of
course, observed, and this was recognized as an estab
lished fact: "While the earth remaineth, seedtime and
harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter,
and day and night shall not cease." 43 But along with
this established order large room was left for the ex
traordinary and miraculous, and the established order
itself was not thought of as offering any resistance to
the divine will. There was consequently no inherent dif
ficulty in the idea of miracle. Indeed, miracles need not
necessarily point to Yahweh as their source. A false
prophet might perform them, and in that case the peo
ple are warned not to be led astray. They are told, by
implication at least, that the self-attesting power of truth
is more important than any outward sign.44 But while
miracle did not have the same significance for the ancient
mind that it has for us, the belief in its possibility served
essentially the same purpose as it does to-day. It made
vivid and concrete the thought of God's free relation to
the world, and so gave definiteness and distinctness to the
conception of his personality. He is no blind force of
nature, no vague spiritual presence, no abstract principle,
but a living personal Being, who distinguishes himself
from the world which he has made, freely communicates
himself to his children, and by his sovereign will guides
the course of nature and history.
Schultz, writing thirty years or so ago, says that "the
43 Gen. 8. 22, J.
"Deut. 13. 1-3. 65

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
tendency in the newer theology, which inclines to a less
definitely personal conception of God feels clearly enough
its antagonism to the Mosaic idea of God, and lets this
be seen in its depreciation of the Old Testament.45 But
since that time there has been a marked drift of thought
in the opposite direction. "One of the encouraging signs
of present-day religious thinking," as F. J. McConnell
says, "is the movement away from the God of the abstract
to the God of the concrete, in spite of the fact that con
nection with the concrete means limitation."46 And with
this tendency there has gone a renewed appreciation of the
Old Testament. It is coming to be felt that "the tenden
cies of modern philosophy support the religious ideas of
the Old Testament." 47 Auguste Comte distinguished
three stages in the history of human thought : the theolog
ical, "when all phenomena are referred to wills, either in
things or beyond them"; the metaphysical, when phe
nomena are explained "by abstract conceptions of being,
substance, cause, and the like"; and the positive, when
"men give up all inquiry into metaphysics as bootless, and
content themselves with discovering and registering the
uniformities of coexistence and sequence among phe
nomena." According to this scheme, God is first con
ceived of as personal, is then reduced to some impersonal
principle or abstraction, and finally is given up altogether
as an object of inquiry. But the last two stages have
proven unsatisfactory, and so we are witnessing a return
to the first, the stage to which the Old Testament belongs.
Personality is again being restored to its central place in

43 Old Testament Theology, vol. ii, pp. I03f.
48 The Increase of Faith, p. 78.
47 W. H. Robinson, The Religious Ideas of the Old Testament,
226. 66

THE PERSONALITY OF GOD
human thought, but with a difference. The ancients were
inclined to look upon caprice and arbitrariness as neces
sary factors in personality or will. And so God was
thought of as more or less arbitrary and capricious in his
relation to the world. Even the Old Testament does not
altogether succeed in rising above this tendency. We see
it in the unreasonable exclusiveness and undue hanker
ing after the miraculous, characteristic of the postexilic
period. But since that time "we have," as Bowne says,
"learned the lesson of law, and we now see that law and
will must be united in our thought of the world. Thus
man's earliest metaphysics reemerges in his latest; but
enlarged, enriched, and purified by the ages of thought
and experience." 48
48 Personalism, Preface, pp. v-vii.

67

CHAPTER III
THE UNITY OF GOD
Unity as applied to the Deity has a double significa
tion. It means that he is one, that he does not differen
tiate himself into a number of local and independent
manifestations; and it means also that he is only, that
there is no other god. In the former sense the unity of
God is an implication of his personality, and stands op
posed to pantheism; in the latter sense it denies poly
theism, and asserts the rule of one supreme will and intel
ligence in the world. In both senses the unity of God is
taught in the Old Testament. The famous saying in
Deut. 6. 4, "Jehovah our God is one Jehovah," embodies
both ideas. It asserts both the oneness and the uniqueness
of Yahweh. He is one, a unitary Being, by way of con
trast with the multiplicity of Baals, and he is unique,
the only true God, by way of contrast with the current
belief in many gods. Both monotheism and monoyahw-
ism constitute thus the doctrine of the Shema,1 the saying
that became the watchword of Judaism.
Yahweh as a Unitary Personality
The conception of Yahweh as a distinct and indivisible
personality dates from the beginning of Israel's history.
From the time of Moses on Yahweh was thought of as a
single and unitary Being. But at the outset this was spon-
1 Shema is the Hebrew word for "hear," with which Deut. 6. 4
begins. 68

THE UNITY OF GOD
taneous, intuitive. No stress was laid on the fact of his
unity. The fact was simply taken for granted, assumed
as a constituent element in his personality. As we are
conscious of our own unity and identity, so it naturally
was with him. Later, however, as we see from Deut. 6. 4,
this instinctive belief took on a more positive character.
It came to be looked upon as a point of special religious
significance, and was made a distinctive element in the
true Israelite's creed.
The reason for this emphasis on the unity of Yahweh is
to be found in the religious conditions that arose among
the Hebrews after their settlement in Canaan. They were
there confronted with a widespread worship of Baal, or,
rather, Baals; for "Baal" was not a proper name. It
did not designate the supreme deity of the Canaanites.
Nor is it probable that there was originally one god by
the name of Baal, a sun-god, who was later differentiated
into a number of local Baals.2 "Baal" was a common
Semitic title applied to the deity. It meant owner or lord,
and designated any particular numen, or deity, as inhabit
ant or owner of a place. In this sense it was in common
use among the Canaanites and was applied by them to the
local numina whom they worshiped. These numina were
originally distinct from each other. But the fact that the
same title was applied to them all, and the further fact
that they were apparently thought of as quite similar in
character, tended naturally to a blurring of their individ
uality. They came to be thought of as a group or class
rather than as distinct individuals, and at times they seem
to have been merged into a single divinity. We read, for
instance, in the Old Testament not infrequently of "the
2 For a recent defense of this view, see Eduard Konig, Geschichte
der alttestamentUchen Religion, p. 255.
69

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
Baalim" and at other times of "Baal," not the Baal of any
particular place, but Baal in general. Evidently, there was
no little confusion of thought on the subject in the pop
ular mind. The local Baals had to a considerable extent
lost their unity and individuality. At the same time their
persistence in the popular thought made it impossible to
hold to the strict unity and individuality of a supreme
Baal. The result was a pantheistically inclined nature-
worship. Such was the state of thought into which Israel was in
troduced in Canaan, and it was against it as a background
that the unity of Yahweh came finally to be emphasized.
At first the Israelites after gaining possession of the land
substituted Yahweh for the local Baals and spoke of him
as the Baal of the land. We have, for instance, such a
name as Bealiah,3 which means "Yahweh is Baal" ; and
according to Hosea4 the people regularly addressed Yah
weh as Baali, "My Baal." There are also a number of
names of early Israelites from distinguished families,
which are compounded with Baal, such as Jerubbaal
(Gideon), Ishbaal (son of Saul), Meribbaal (son of
Jonathan), Beeliada (son of David). Later Baal came to
be regarded as a heathenish name, and hence was fre
quently changed by copyists to Bosheth ("shame"), so
that we read Jerubbesheth, Ishbosheth, and Mephibosh-
eth. Beeliada was apparently changed to Eliada, El
("god") taking the place of "Baal." 5 But originally
there was manifestly no such aversion to the use of the
name "Baal." In the time of Saul and David it was cus
tomary in the best circles to speak of Yahweh as Baal.
3 1 Chron. 12. 5.
4 2. 16.
6 1 Chron. 14. 7 ; 2 Sam. 5. 16. 70

THE UNITY OF GOD
This, however was a dangerous practice. It tended to
obliterate the distinction between Yahweh-worship and
Baal-worship, and tended also to confuse Yahweh with
the local Baals.
Exactly what form this confusion took is a matter of
difference of opinion. Some6 hold that the syncretism <-
never became so complete that the original distinction
between Yahwism and Baalism was forgotten. The local
Baals, although absorbed to a certain extent in Yahweh,
never ceased to be distinguished from him. There was
in the popular thought no conscious antithesis between the
two, between the worship of Yahweh and that of the
Baals, but they were never so completely identified that the
Baals were regarded as having gone out of existence.
Others,7 however, take the view that the local Baals were ^
at an early date completely supplanted by Yahweh. The
rites and conceptions associated with them passed over
into the worship of Yahweh, and they themselves ceased
to exist. They were completely absorbed in Yahweh.
This absorption, however, did not take place without its
having a marked effect on the popular conception of Yah
weh. He had taken the place of the local Baals, but in so'-"
doing had lost his own unity. Just as the absorption of
ancient local divinities in Italy by the Virgin Mary led to
the belief that there were different Madonnas, so it came
to be believed in Israel that there were a number of Yah-
wehs. The Baalim, to which Hosea refers, were really in
the popular thought local Yahwehs. And when we read of
certain altars that were given the names Yahweh-yireh,8
8 See Konig, Geschichte der alttestamentUchen Religion, p. 363.
7 See Bade, The Old Testament in the Light of To-day, pp.
201-209; Peters. The Religion of the Hebrews, pp. i59f., 218; H. P.
Smith, The Religion of Israel, pp. 183L
j>en. 22. 14. 71

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
Yahweh-nissi9 and Yahweh-shalom,10 we are not to sup
pose that these names were simply felicitous designations
of different sanctuaries. They point to local differentia
tions of Yahweh. Likewise Absalom's request that he be
permitted to pay his vow to Yahweh "in Hebron11 im
plies that the Yahweh of Hebron was looked upon as a
different being from the Yahweh of Jerusalem. And so
also there was a distinct Yahweh in Shiloh.12
That such a differentiation of Yahweh into a number
of local and independent Yahwehs may have taken place,
especially among the ignorant, is not improbable. But to
say that the people in the seventh century B. C. were
"given over to polyyahwism"13 is to go far beyond what
the evidence warrants. The fact is that the eighth-cen
tury pjrophets did not distinguish clearly between a hea
thenish worship of Yahweh and the worship of heathen
gods. One in their sight was as reprehensible as the
other. And it cannot in every instance be determined
with certainty which evil they were condemning. The
popular religion was probably a mixture of both. In
any case there was current among the people a species
of polytheism, whether polybaalism or polyyahwism
does not matter, much. Either would have furnished
an adequate occasion for the assertion of the unity of
Yahweh. He was one as over against the multiplicity of
Baals, and he was also one as over against the belief that
there was a plurality of Yahwehs.
,• This unity of Yahweh was grounded deep in the past

'Exod. 17. 15, E.
10 Judg. 6. 24.
"2 Sam. 15. 7.
n 1 Sam. 1. 3.
18 Bade, The Old Testament in the Light of To-day, p. 208.
72

THE UNITY OF GOD
history of the people. It was one Yahweh that had de
livered the Israelites from Egypt, and it was one Yahweh
that had been their God throughout their entire national
history. The very unity of the nation carried with it the
unity of Yahweh. Indeed, the division of the monarchy
in no way interfered with it. There is no suggestion any
where that the Yahweh of the northern kingdom was a
different being from the Yahweh of Judah. And in view
of this fact there certainly was no reason why the exist
ence of different sanctuaries should necessarily be con
strued as inconsistent with Yahweh's unity. In Israel's
oldest collection of laws we are told that in every place
where Yahweh causes his name to be remembered, that
is, manifests himself, there he will come to his people and
bless them.14 And this must have been the general belief
among the Israelites. The pronounced nationalism of
their religion made it impossible that there should at any
time have been any serious peril from polyyahwism. The
prophets nowhere betray any fear of it. What they saw
in the corrupt worship of their time was not so much a j
compromise of the unity of Yahweh's being as a com- ;
promise of the unity of his character. The current wor- f
ship, though probably carried on for the most part in the j
name of Yahweh,15 was so unworthy of his ethical and
spiritual nature that it was indistinguishable from the
worship of the conquered Baals. To have tolerated such
a worship would have been to destroy the spiritual unity
of Yahweh. And so the prophets denounced it as a wor
ship of other gods.
It is from this point of view also that the Deuteron
omic centralization of worship in Jerusalem is to be
14 Exod. 20. 24.
,B See Hos. 9. 3-5- 73

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
understood. What was feared from the numerous sanc
tuaries throughout the land was not so much the differen
tiation of Yahweh into a number of local Yahwehs as the
growing corruption of his worship. The existence of but
one sanctuary might perhaps have helped the popular im
agination to grasp the idea of the unity of Yahweh's
being. But the real motive lying back of the centraliza
tion of worship was not the desire to establish the abstract
doctrine of the divine unity, but the desire to purify the
public worship, which had been seriously corrupted, espe
cially at the unregulated local sanctuaries. In this work
of purification the recognition of the unity of the Divine
Being would no doubtj, have its value. It would put an
end to whatever tendencies there may have been to poly-
baalism or polyyahwism, and so would improve religious
conditions in general, for these tendencies were closely
bound up with the corrupt worship at the high places.
But, like the prophets, what the Deuteronomists were
primarily interested in was not the unity of the divine
being but the unity of the divine character. The latter
no doubt implied the former. But we understand the
true significance of the Deuteronomic declaration that
Yahweh is one, only when we make the practical motive.
lying back of it primary, only when we see that, the
real evils that prompted it were ethical. It was not the
worship of local divinities in the name of Yahweh or
along with Yahweh that constituted the great evil of the
day, but the fact that this worship was unspiritual and
immoral, and so contradicted the true ethical unity of
Israel's God.
In this connection it may be noted that there were no
sexual distinctions in the Hebrew idea of God. Yah
weh had no feminine counterpart such as Baal had in
74

L-

THE UNITY OF GOD
Astarte or Ishtar. This is a very significant fact. "Is
rael," says Cornill, "is the only nation we know of that
never had a mythology, the only people who never differ
entiated the Deity sexually. So deep does this trait ex
tend that the Hebrew language is not even competent to
form the word 'goddess.' Where the book of Kings tells
us of the supposed worship of idols by Solomon, we find
written: 'Astarte, the god of the Phoenicians.' Not even
the word 'goddess' is conceivable to the Israelites, much
less the thing itself." 16 This statement may be somewhat
extreme. It is doubtful if the difference between Israel
and other peoples on this point was so absolute as Cornill
makes out. The Hebrew word fpr "God" while mas
culine in form need not have excluded the feminine idea, '
and the contact of the Hebrews with the Canaanites and
other Semitic peoples must, it would seem, have accus
tomed them to the idea that there were goddesses as well
as gods. The frequent references in the Old Testament
to the Ashtaroth would seem to make this clear. Indeed,
it is not impossible that the Israelites themselves had orig
inally, like the Arabs, female deities of their own. But
however this may be, it can hardly be questioned that
from the time of Moses on the unity of Yahweh was con
ceived so clearly and held so firmly that it permanently
excluded the idea of a feminine counterpart. Female
deities were no doubt worshiped here and there in Israel,
and the immoral rites associated with them were, we1
know, introduced into Israel and became a serious evil.
But Yahweh resisted all tendencies to amalgamation with '
any of them. He remained lone and solitary. And this
fact gave to Israelitic religion a moral purity that would
otherwise have been impossible. It did not save the pop-
18 The Prophets of Israel, p. 23. 75

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
ular religion from the contaminating influences of the
neighboring nature- faiths, and did not exclude altogether
the grossly sensual practices that grew up among the
Canaanites, Phoenicians, Aramaeans, and Babylonians as
a result of the sexual differentiation of the deity; but it
did give to the Israelites an inner power of resistance to
these evils which enabled them eventually to cast them out
as heathenish and unclean. The unity of Yahweh was,
therefore, a conception of no little moral and spiritual sig
nificance in the religious history of Israel.
But valuable as the idea of the strict unity of the Divine
Personality was as over against the current pantheistic
and polytheistic nature-worship, it still had its own ljgii-
tations. It failed permanently to provide for that com
plexity and richness of the divine nature which seems
necessary to satisfy the deepest needs of the human heart.
And so in the course of time there grew up the Christian
doctrine of the Trinity or Tri-unity. In view of the im
portance of this doctrine, the question naturally arises as
to whether there were any anticipations of it in the Old
Testament. It was once customary to find an allusion
to it in the plural form of the pronoun which the Deity
in several instances uses in referring to himself. "Let
us," he says, "make man in our image ;" 17 "Let us go
down, and there confound their language";18 "Whom
shall I send, and who will go for us?" 19 But the plural
in these instances, it is now commonly held, is either a
plural of majesty, or, what is more probable, a reference
to the court of heaven by which Yahweh was regarded as

" Gen. i. 26, P.
18 Gen. 11. 7, J.
19 Isa. 6. 8.

76

THE UNITY OF GOD
surrounded. Other supposed indications of distinctions
within the Godhead are found in such conceptions as the ,
"Angel of Yahweh," 20 the "Face" or "Presence of Yah
weh," 21 the "Name of Yahweh," 22 and the "Glory of
Yahweh." 23 How far we have in these conceptions a true
hypostatizing tendency and how far a mere personification
of certain aspects or manifestations of the Divine Being is
difficult to determine. At times the Angel of Yahweh
seems clearly distinguished from Yahweh himself, and so
also, though less clearly, his Face and Name and Glory.
But these conceptions, whatever hypostatic distinctions,
may have been implied in them, developed as a matter of
fact into nothing definite. They may be regarded as cases
of arrested growth.
There are in the Old Testament three other conceptions
that made a much deeper impression on Jewish and Chris
tian thought. These are "the Spirit of God," "the Word
of God," and "the Wisdom of God." The Spirit of God ^
is not represented as a distinct personality in the Old
Testament, but the beginnings of the idea are there.24
The Word of God is in a number of instances25 person- L
ified, and in so far the way was prepared for the later
doctrine of the Logos. Still more emphatically is this '
true of the Wisdom of God. Here we have a conception
that reaches the very verge of a true hypostasis.26 In
any case it is the most striking and distinct of the Old
20 Gen. 16. n, J; 21. 17, E; Judg. 6. 12; Gen. 24. 7,40, J; Exod.
23. 20, E; 33. 2.
21 Exod. 33. 14. J ; Isa. 63. 9.
22 Psa. 20. 1 ; 44. 5 ; 54- 1 ; 48. 10.
23 Ezek. 1. 27L; 3. 12; 9. 3; 10. 4; Isa. 40. 5; 60. if.
"Hag. 2. 5; Zech. 4. 6; Isa. 63. iof.; 48. 16.
25 Isa. 55- 11 ; Psa. 33- 6; 107. 20; 147. 15; Deut. 8. 3.
28 Job 28. 23ff. ; Prov. 8. 22ff. 77

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
Testament personifications. We have, then, in the Old
Testament a number of tendencies toward the establish
ment of hypostatic distinctions in the divine nature; but
these tendencies were all left in an undeveloped state,
and led to no direct enrichment of the idea of God.
Yahweh as Sole Deity
We now come to the second sense in which the di
vine unity is affirmed, the sense, namely, that there is but
one God. Here the Old Testament made one of its great
est contributions to the world's thought and faith. The
monotheism of Christianity and Mohammedanism, as
well as modern Judaism, is a direct inheritance from the
ancient Hebrew Scriptures. It is, therefore, a matter of
special interest to trace the development of Old Testa
ment teaching on this point.
The unity of the Divine Personality was, as we have
seen, apprehended more or less clearly from the outset,
but the sole godhead of Yahweh was a truth that was
only gradually attained. The different steps in this de
velopment may be distinguished with a fair degree of
clearness. We begin with the Mosaic age. It was to
Moses, as we have seen, that the establishment of Yah-
weh-worship was due. Previous to his time the Israel
ites seem to have been polytheists. On one of the
cuneiform tablets discovered by Winckler at Boghazkoj
and belonging to the pre-Mosaic age we read of "the
gods" of the Habiri or Hebrews,27 and in Josh. 24. 2, 14L
and Ezek 20. yi ., 24 we are told that both in Mesopotamia
and Egypt the Israelites worshiped other gods. The
very name "Yahweh" also points in the same direction.
27 Hugo Gressmann, Mose und seine Zeit, p. 425.
78

THE UNITY OF GOD
The manifest purpose of such a name was to distinguish
the god of Israel from other gods. If the Hebrews had
not believed in the existence of other deities, there would1"
have been no need of giving a personal name to the Di
vine Being through whom they were delivered from
Egypt. He would have been to them simply God. Then,
too, it is a significant fact that the common Hebrew word
for "God," Elohim, is plural in form. This plural, it is-
often said, was not numerical, but simply enhancive of
the idea of might, a plural of majesty. And this was no
doubt to a large extent true of later usage. But originally ^
the plural form must have had a polytheistic background.
People could have begun to use the plural "gods" to ex
press the idea of divinity only at a time when they be
lieved in the existence of a plurality of divine beings.
This is illustrated by the Greek use of theoi and the Latin
use of dei. The plural, Elohim, points, then, back to an
earlier polytheistic stage of belief. And this stage we
naturally locate in the pre-Mosaic period.
What Moses did was to put monqlatry in place of the
earlier polytheism. He did not deny the existence of
other gods, but proclaimed Yahweh as the sole god of
Israel. He did not say that there was but one God, but
insisted that it was Israel's duty to have but one God.28
But while he thus did not teach monotheism, the monol-
atry he established was an important step in that direc
tion. And what made it such was the intensity of devo
tion that the worship of Yahweh called forth. Well
hausen has asked why, for instance, Chemosh of Moab
did not become the God of righteousness and creator of
the world instead of Yahweh, and has replied that a satis-
28 Exod. 20. 3. 79

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
factory answer cannot be given.29 What he would re
gard as a satisfactory answer we do not know, but one
answer at least to his question may be found in the more
passionate devotion that must have characterized the Is
raelitic worship of Yahweh. Chemosh may have been the
god of Moab in very much the same sense as Yahweh was
of Israel, and yet the different, outcome in the two in
stances makes it evident that there must have been some
difference between them. And the difference that most
naturally suggests itself to our minds is a difference in the
degree of loyalty that the two deities evoked. There must
have been more of passion, more of intensity, in the wor
ship of Yahweh than in that of Chemosh. For passion
is, after all, the mainspring of religious development. It
is not so much new ideas that give rise to passion, as it is
passion that gives rise to new ideas. Yahweh in a mar
velous way had delivered the Israelites from their op
pressors in Egypt. At the very time when they seemed
doomed to destruction he had rescued them. So great
was this deliverance that only one response on the part of
the people seemed adequate, and that was complete devo
tion to Yahweh and unlimited confidence in him. One
who had wrought so remarkable a deliverance in the past
could surely be trusted to meet every need of the people in
the future, and was, therefore, deserving of their unques
tioning obedience.
Such was the attitude of mind inculcated by Moses,
and in it we have the germ of the whole subsequent reli
gious development in Israel. If Yahweh was really be
lieved to be equal to every emergency, it followed neces
sarily that the conception of his being would expand with
the expanding needs of the people, until finally they
2° Kultur der Gegenwart, Th. i, Abtlg. iv, p. 15.
80

THE UNITY OF GOD
would come to see that his rule was not only not limited
to Israel nor to the nations of the then known world, nor
even to this terrestrial life, but that it embraced the entire
universe, so that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor
principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor
height, nor depth, nor any other creature was beyond the
reach of his power and control. This entire development l,
of the idea of God grew naturally and logically out of the '•
monolatrous worship established by Moses. In this wor
ship there may have been very little that was new so far as
religious conceptions are concerned. That Yahweh, and
he alone, was God of Israel had its parallel in other na
tions. And it is even a question how far, if at all, there
was any differentiating quality in the Mosaic conception
of his character. But that he evoked a new and sustained
enthusiasm, that he called forth a depth and intensity of
loyalty heretofore unknown, would seem clear from the
subsequent history of Israel. And here it is that the mosf-
significant feature of Moses' work is to be found. What,,
he contributed to the religious development of mankind
was not so much new ideas as a new passion.
How far this new loyalty to Yahweh was from the
outset exclusive and implied the rejection of all other
deities is a question on which scholars are divided. Some,
such as H. P. Smith,30 hold that Moses permitted the^
hereditary clan and family gods to be worshiped along
with Yahweh, and that the Israelites after their settlement
in Canaan did nothing inconsistent with his teaching
when they combined the worship of Yahweh with that of
the local Baals and Ashtaroth. For centuries after the^
time of Moses there was, we are told, no feeling that
Yahweh was an intolerant Deity. It was the religious
30 The Religion of Israel, pp. 66-75, 82-86.
81

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
passion of Elijah that first gave rise to this idea. "We
may," says H. P. Smith, "attribute to him the first formu
lation of the statement, so frequent in later times, that
Yahweh is a jealous God."
But this view fails to do justice to the work of Moses.
It fails to take account of the strength and depth of en
thusiasm created by that initial act of divine grace which
laid the foundations of Israelitic nationality. So intense
was the loyalty to Yahweh then generated that it would
seem clear that there must have been more or less of ex-
clusiveness associated with it from the beginning.31 If
there was not, it is difficult to see how Elijah could have
found any point of attachment for his message. When
he summoned the people of his day to choose between
Yahweh and Baal, he was making no new and unheard
of demand upon them. They were well aware that the
syncretistic movement then going on was not conso
nant with the character of Yahweh. And it was just that
fact that gave power and leverage to the prophet's mes
sage. He was no innovator, but a reformer. He looked
upon himself as simply reviving and carrying on the work
of Moses. The God whom he proclaimed was in his every
attribute the ancient God of Horeb. The idea of the in
tolerance of Yahweh did not then originate with him.
That idea goes back to the very beginning. It was, to be
sure, in subsequent times often overlooked by the people,
often disregarded by them in practice, but it still remained
as a real factor in the national consciousness. Indeed, it
was just this factor that constituted the uniqueness of
Israel's religion during the preprophetic period. "The
31 See Kiichler, Der Gedanke des Eifers Jahwes im Alten Testa
ment, in Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 1908,
pp. 42-52. 82

THE UNITY OF GOD
peculiar thing," as Davidson says, "about Israel is not
that it had one God, but that it had an evil conscience
when it worshiped other gods." 32 And this evil con
science was a corollary of that passionate devotion to
Yahweh which originated with Moses.
The Mosaic monolatry, we consequently hold, included
the thought of the divine jealousy. The latter idea did
not originate with Elijah, but it was nevertheless he who
made the first distinct advance beyond the Mosaic mono
latry. Moses had insisted that Yahweh, and he alone, was
to be worshiped in Israel, but he had said nothing about
the existence of other gods. He apparently assumed that
the gods of the neighboring nations had a real existence
similar to that of Yahweh. And this continued to be the
popular belief in Israel down to the time of Elijah. In his
day there arose for the first time a conflict between Yah
weh and a neighboring deity. Previously the local Baals
and various household gods had been worshiped in Israel,
but they had been so completely subordinated to Yahweh
that proper divinity could hardly be attributed to them.
The people seem scarcely to have been aware that in
worshiping them they were not worshiping the national
deity. But when Jezebel introduced into Israel the wor- ,.
ship of the Tyrian Baal a quite different situation was
created. Here was a god of a neighboring and power- •
ful people. There could be no question about his inde
pendence of Yahweh, or his claims to true divinity.
What attitude, then, was to be taken toward him? Was
his worship to be tolerated in Israel? If so, it would
mean the end of that supreme and undivided allegiance
which Yahweh had demanded from the outset. It would

! The Theology of the Old Testament, p. 91.
83

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
mean the recognition of two independent spiritual forces
in Israel, and this in turn would mean the disruption of
the national unity. Such a peril could not but cause the
gravest concern. It brought the question of Yahweh's
relation to foreign deities to a head. An immediate and
definitive settlement of the problem seemed necessary.
Compromise between Yahweh and Baal was not to be
thought of ; it was repugnant to all the best traditions of
the nation. So Elijah demanded that the people make a
final and unequivocal choice between the two. "If Je
hovah be God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow
him." 33
The question thus raised was settled, as was inevit
able, in favor of Yahweh. But what did this decision
imply with reference to Baal ? What, was Elijah's con
ception of him ? To this question there are three differ
ent answers. Some contend that Elijah had no intention
of denying the existence of Baal or his proper divinity
in his own sphere. All that the prophet objected to was
his encroachment upon territory that belonged to Yah
weh. "It is evident," says H. P. Smith,34 "that Elijah
had no prejudice against other gods on their own terri
tory. He went to Sidon, where the very Baal whom he
opposed in Israel had his home, and remained quiet under
his protection. His theory was evidently that each na
tion had its own god and that for Israel this God is Yah
weh." Others see in Elijah's attitude to Baal a complete
rejection of his existence. "The ridicule," says Kautzsch,
"which he pours35 upon the vain efforts of the prophets
of Baal goes essentially beyond the sphere of henotheism,
83 1 Kings 18. 21.
84 The Religion of Israel, p. 86.
35 1 Kings 18. 27. 84

THE UNITY OF GOD
and is equivalent to a complete denial, not only of the
power but of the very existence of Baal." 36 Still others
hold — and probably correctly — that Elijah did not go so '-
far as to deny altogether the existence of Baal. The
very fact that he was worshiped by a neighboring people
would, according to contemporary modes of thought,
imply that he was not a mere product of the imagination.
Some sort of existence was probably allowed him. But
whatever this was, it did not in Elijah's view constitute
him in the true sense of the word a deity. He was not
god in the same sense as Yahweh. The two did not be
long to the same class. Yahweh alone was God. This
truth was not applied by Elijah to heathen deities gen
erally. He had no occasion to do so. But when the
occasion once arose it was inevitable that the application
would be made. What Elijah did was to claim for Yah-i>
weh a unique divinity, such a divinity as could not be
attributed to Baal or any other rival deity.
The next stage in the development of the belief in the -
sole deity of Yahweh is represented by the eighth-century
prophets. These men manifestly took the same attitude
toward the heathen gods in general that Elijah did to
Baal. They were not confronted with the necessity of
insisting that the people choose between the worship
of Yahweh and that of foreign deities. That question
had been disposed of once for all by the work of Elijah,
Elisha, and Jehu. But the appearance of Assyria in the
west made it imperative that they point out the relation
of Yahweh to this world-power and to other nations gen-

38 Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, vol. v, p. 654. The same view
is also taken by H. G. Mitchell. See his Ethics of the Old Testament,
p. 88. 85

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
erally. In doing so they did not look upon themselves as
announcing anything new. What they said concerning
Yahweh in this connection they assumed was already
known to the people, or at least ought to have been. That
he exercised authority over other nations as well as over
Israel, was no new idea suggested by the approach of
Assyria. A certain supernational character had attached
to him from the beginning. This was implied in the
! thought that he was more powerful than the neighboring
deities. It was also implied in the belief that Yahweh had
chosen Israel, that his relation to Israel was not a purely
natural one, but one founded on a free divine act. He
might have chosen some other people, had he desired to
do so. There was, therefore, nothing startlingly new in
Amos' assumption that Yahweh had led the Philistines
from Caphtor and the Syrians from Kir,37 nor was there
anything unheard of in Isaiah's representation of Assyria
as the rod of Yahweh's anger and the staff of his indig
nation.38 What these prophets did was simply to apply
to new conditions, and to state more explicitly, what was
already implied in the traditional conception of Yahweh.
"The great events of Israel's history," as Davidson says,
"did not suggest to the prophets their conceptions of
Yahweh. On the contrary, their conceptions of Yahweh
already held solved to them the enigma of the events that
happened." 39
In the prophetic conception of the universal rule of
Yahweh it was manifestly implied that the heathen deities
were not in the proper sense of the term deities at all.
There is no explicit statement to this effect until we come
87 9- 7-
88 io. 5-
39 The Theology of the Old Testament, p. 102.
86

THE UNITY OF GOD
to Jeremiah and Deuteronomy. In Jeremiah40 the
heathen deities are spoken of as "no gods," and in Deut.
4. 39 we read, "Know therefore this day, and lay it to thy
heart, that Jehovah he is God in heaven above and upon
the earth beneath; there is none else." But the jdea is
clearly implicit in the eighth-century prophets. Accord
ing to Isaiah, the whole earth was full of the glory of.
Yahweh,41 and the entire spirit-world also belonged to
him. "The Egyptians," he says, "are men, and not God;
and their horses flesh, and not spirit." 42 God and spirit
are here synonymous terms, and both are by the context
identified with Yahweh. He is God and spirit in an alto
gether unique sense. Isaiah nowhere takes any account of "
the gods of the Assyrians and Egyptians.43 Both Hosea u-
and he seem to have identified the heathen gods with their
images. The images were lifeless, the work of men's
hands ; they were elilim, nonentities or worthless things.44
And so, it may be presumed, the deities they represented
were likewise regarded as lifeless and worthless. Some
sort of existence apart from their images may have been
allowed them, but, if so, it was an existence altogether
devoid of religious significance. The eighth-century'
prophets were therefore practically monotheists, and this
was, if anything, still more true of Jeremiah and the Deu- j
teronomists. "Jehovah our God is one Jehovah" 45 ex-
40 2. n; 16. 20.
» 6. 3.
"3i. 3-
43 Chapter 19, in which reference is made to the idols of Egypt, is
commonly assigned to later hands. If from Isaiah, it would con
firm the view that he identified the heathen gods with their idols,
for the same term (elilim) is here applied to them as to the images
of Yahweh in 2. 8.
"Hos. 8. 6; Isa. 2. 8.
45 Deut. 6. 4. 87

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
eluded, as we have seen, the thought of any other
god.46 A still further development, however, of the mono
theistic idea is found in Deutero-Isaiah. Here it is not
only assumed or incidentally stated that Yahweh alone
is God, but the thought is enlarged upon, asserted again
and again, and enforced by argunients. One argument is
drawn from prophecy. Yahweh is the only one who has
proven himself able to predict the future. No other god
has this power. The other deities, therefore, are not
gods. They are "of nothing" and their work is "of
nought." 47 In thus stressing prediction as a distinctive
characteristic of divinity, Deutero-Isaiah was not think
ing primarily of the miraculous element involved in it.
Prediction, as he conceived it, was not merely a marvel
pointing to a divine cause. It was a symbol and expression
of the intelligence and moral purpose operative in the
world. That Yahweh, and he alone, had the power of
prediction was then evidence that he alone was the con
trolling force in human history, that he alone was its
directing will. Another argument urged by Deutero-
Isaiah in support of the sole godhead of Yahweh was
based on his work as Creator. Over and over again the
prophet recurs to this theme. "Who," he asks, "hath
measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted
out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of
the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in
scales, and the hills in a balance?"48 And the implied

18 For this use of "one" see Zech. 14. 9; Song of Solomon 6. 9;
and Job 33. 23.
" Isa. 41. 21-29.
48 Isa. 40. 12.

THE UNITY OF GOD
answer is "Yahweh alone." He is the one who created
the heavens and laid the foundations of the earth.40 The
unity of creation carries with it the unity and sole deity
of the Creator. Yet another line of argumentation fol
lowed by Deutero-Isaiah consists in poififihg out the
absurdity of all idolatry. He identifies the heathen deity
with its image, and then pours out all manner of contempt
and ridicule upon the worship of these man-made images
of wood and metal.50 Deities thus worshiped were to
his mind no deities at all.
It is sometimes said that the enthusiasm with which
Deutero-Isaiah exploits the thought of Yahweh's sole
deity points to its being a novel idea. But this, as we
have seen, was not the case. It was not the novelty of
the idea but the novelty of the situation that led to Deu-
tero-Isaiah's stress on the sole godhead of Yahweh. Dur
ing the exile the Israelites were brought face to face
with the heathen world in a way that they had not been
before. On every hand they were surrounded by heathen
deities. Heathen worship was everywhere in evidence
about them. They stood face to face with an imposing
heathen civilization. If, then, in the presence of this se
ductive environment they were still to maintain their faith
in Yahweh, they needed to have the conviction renewed
that he alone was God. So time and again the great
prophet of the exile recurs to this thought. "I am Je
hovah, and there is none else; besides me there is no
God. . . . Before me there was no god formed, neither
shall there be after me. I, even I, am Jehovah; and
besides me there is no saviour. . . . There is no God
else besides me, a just God and Saviour; there is none
49 Isa. 42. 5; 44. 24; 45. 12, 18; 48. 13-
50 40. 18-20 ; 41. 6f . ; 44. 9-20 ; 45. 20 ; 46. 1-2, 5-7.

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
besides me." 51 Here the name "Jehovah," or "Yahweh,"
ceases to have any special meaning and becomes the high
est name of God.
In the postexilic period the unity of God became a
firmly established doctrine, not only from the religious
standpoint, but from the theological and speculative as
well. The tendency at the same time arose to think of
God as more and more transcendent in nature. Such
names as "God of Heaven" and "Most High God" be
gan to be regularly applied to him.52 It also became
customary to use the general name "God" instead of
"Yahweh." But in spite of this increasingly pronounced
monotheism the older particularistic methods of expres
sion were not altogether discarded.53 Other gods were
still referred to as though they actually existed.54 And
some sort of existence apart from their idols seems at
times to have been ascribed to them. They were in some
instances apparently thought of as demons,55 and in other
cases appear to have been represented as divine beings of
a subordinate rank whom Yahweh had appointed to be
worshiped by heathen peoples. In Deut. 32. 8-9, depart
ing from the text of the American Revised Version and
substituting what was probably the original text, we read :
"When the Most High gave to the nations their inherit
ance, when he separated the children of men, he set the
bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons
of God; but Yahweh's portion is his people ; Jacob is the
"Isa. 45. 5; 43. io-n; 45. 21.
"Ezra 6. 10; 7. 12; Neh. 2. 4, 20; Dan. 2. i8f. ; 3. 26; Psa.
78. 56; 136. 26.
33 Ruth 1. i5f.; 2. 12.
"Psa. 86. 8; 135. 5; 96. 4.
85 Deut. 32. 17 ; Psa. 106. 37 ; compare 1 Cor. 10. 2of . ; Rev. 9. 20,
90

THE UNITY OF GOD
lot of his inheritance." And in Deut. 4. 19 we read of the
worship of the sun and the moon and the stars, "which
Jehovah thy God hath allotted unto all the peoples under
the whole heaven." Such conceptions as these arose from
the desire to reconcile the supremacy of Yahweh with the
fact of the widespread worship of other gods. They do
not therefore in any way compromise the sole deity of
Yahweh. Other gods, whatever form of existence may
have been attributed to them, were regarded as wholly
subject to his rule.
The thoroughgoing monotheism, in which the Old
Testament thus culminated, had its roots, as we have seen,
in the actual experience and practical needs of the people. .¦'
Not speculation but the logic of events was the moving
force in its development. Its history began with a great
act of dedication to the newly found national Deity.;
Yahweh had marvelously delivered the Israelites from
their Egyptian bondage, and they in return had vowed
to him their undying allegiance. In him they concen
trated all their faith and hope. The new relationship thus
established was an exclusive one. It was a love relation,
and so would brook no rival. Other gods no doubt
existed, but none of them might be put on a plane of
equality with Yahweh without arousing his jealousy. He
demanded the undivided loyalty of his people, and they
in return, at least in their better moments, felt that he
was able to meet all their needs. It was then inevitable,
when their expanding life and thought brought them into
ever closer contact with other nations, that they would
eventually deny proper divinity and true existence to all
other deities. The Tyrian Baal was first relegated to this
position, and then shortly afterward other deities gen
erally, until finally Yahweh was recognized as King of
91

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
kings and Lord of lords. The imperious heart of the
Hebrew could tolerate no fundamental dualism or plural
ism in its view of the universe. Its demand for an ulti
mate unity was as insistent as was the Greek intellect.
But while the latter gave us a unity that aimed simply to
j satisfy the mind's demand for an ultimate explanation of
the world, the former gave us a unity that met the de
mands of life as a whole, a unity to which heart, con
science, and intellect might adoringly turn and say, "Thy
kingdom come and thy will be done." It is, then, no sur
prise that the monotheistic faith of the Hebrews rather
than the monistic philosophy of the Greeks finally con
quered the civilized world.

9a

CHAPTER IV
THE SPIRITUALITY OF GOD
The word "spirituality" as applied to God has at least
three distinct meanings. It means that God is a spirit as
distinguished from material or physical existence. It
means that he is free from the weakness of flesh, and is a n
supramundane power, superior to the forces of nature. It
means also that there is an inner side to his personality, a
rational and ethical side, and that it is here that his essen
tial nature is to be found. He is not primarily substance
or force, but a rational and ethical Being, who seeks to
control men not by the sheer exercise of power but by
appeal to their reason and intelligence, and who conse
quently, when worshiped, must be worshiped in spirit and
in truth.
These three senses, in which the divine spirituality is
affirmed, stand in a certain relation to each other. The
second and third do not necessarily follow from the first,
but they are naturally suggested by it and by the corre
sponding conceptions of the human spirit. Spirit as ap
plied to man in the Old Testament did not simply mean
the ethereal substance of which the soul was supposed to
be composed. It also expressed both the idea of power
and that of character. Spirit was the vital element in
man, the source of energy. It was also the seat of the
higher mental and moral life. Naturally, then, these
ideas were carried over into the conception of the Divine
Spirit, for our thought of God is modeled on our thought
93

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
of man. We first form some idea of our own spirit and
then apply this to the Divine Spirit, making such changes
as are required by the unique conditions and unique char
acter of the Divine Life. These changes, however, do not
alter the essential characteristics of spirit as realized in
human life. Spirituality, both divine and human, is fun
damentally the same. It has a threefold meaning, and
involves a threefold antithesis, an antithesis to lumpish
matter, to fleshly weakness, and to brute force.
The form under which spirit was originally conceived
was apparently that of an ethereal substance, a refined
or attenuated matter. The Latin word spiritus, from
which our English word was derived, meant primarily
breath or wind. And this was also the meaning of the
corresponding Hebrew word ruach. Spirit did not then,
to begin with, stand in complete antithesis to matter. It
was not an "immaterial" form of existence. This highly
abstract idea appears nowhere in either the Old or the
New Testament. "The conception of an immaterial soul
and the corresponding conception of an immaterial God ,
have their origin in Plato." x And not until postbiblical
.times did they become the property of Hebrew and Chris-
tiarMfeeught. Spirit, as we find it in the Scriptures, was
a rarefied form of matter. But this fact, while interest-
esting from the philosophical point of view, did not seri
ously affect the actual distinction made between the mate
rial and the spiritual. Matter in its sublimated or spirit
ual form was so different from matter in its ordinary
manifestations that there was felt to be a virtual antithesis
between them.
In this connection the question naturally arises as to
whether the Hebrews ever thought of God as having a
1 G. F. Moore, History of Religions, vol. i, pp. 501 f.
94

THE SPIRITUALITY OF GOD
definite form. Spirit, as they conceived it, was not nec
essarily formless. It occupied space, and though usually
invisible as the air, might have been regarded as having
shape or form. The analogy of wind and breath, how
ever, was unfavorable to this view. A certain formless
ness belongs to these natural phenomena. And so it
probably was with spirit as generally conceived. But
nowhere in the Old Testament is it said that God was
pure spirit, or even that he was a spirit. The Spirit of
God is frequently spoken of, but the same expression
was used of men. It is then possible that the human
analogy was applied to God, and that he was thought of'
as having a spirit rather than being a spirit. In that case
a quasi-physical form similar to that of the human body
may have been attributed to him. And that this was the
view of the early Hebrews is the contention of not a
few scholars. When it is said that man was made in the
image of God,2 what the author had in mind, we are told,
was the physical resemblance between man and God. The
human body was patterned after the divine body. That
God was thought of as having a human form is evident,
it is claimed, from the fact that Old Testament writers
speak of his hand, his arm, his eyes, his ears, his mouth,
his lips ; in short, the organs of the human body in gen
eral are ascribed to him. He is represented as walking
in the garden in the cool of the day. Moses is permitted
to see his back, though not his face.3 Such expressions
as these, it is contended, would not have been used if it
had not been believed that the Deity had a physical form
of some kind.

2 Gen. i. 27 ; 9. 6, P.
8 Exod. 33. 20-23, J ; compare Num. 12. 8 ; Psa. 17. 15.
95

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
But in reply to these considerations it may be urged
that the anthropomorphisms of the Old Testament cannot
in any case be taken in strict literalness. If God was
looked upon as having a body, it must have been a very
different kind of body from our own. "Doubtless," says
H. P. Smith, "the body of Yahweh was conceived of as
ethereal, not material like ours. It is a body of lumin
ous matter, a 'glory,' so that the offerings must be sub
limated by fire in order that he may receive the agreeable
odor." 4 But such a body would from the biblical point
of view be practically indistinguishable from spirit. It
would have to be described as a spiritual body. And if so,
the human analogy of body and soul manifestly fails as
applied to the Deity, for it now turns out that the divine
body and soul are identical in substance. Both are spirit
ual, that is, ethereal. And so God in the totality of his
nature is, after all, a spiritual being.
It has already been .pointed out that God is nowhere
in the Old Testament said to be a spirit. But this fact
has no special significance. The impression left by the
Old Testament as a whole is that the divine spirituality
was so generally recognized that it did not need to be
affirmed. In Isa. 31. 3 it is, for instance, said that "the
Egyptians are men, and not God; and their horses flesh,
and not spirit." God and spirit are here distinctly op
posed to men and flesh. Indeed, the words "God" and
"spirit" are treated as virtually synonymous. And that
this was the general Old Testament conception can hardly
be questioned. It is in this sense that the expression
"Spirit of God" is to be understood. "This calling what
is really God," says A. B. Davidson, "by the term the
Spirit of God is the strongest proof that the idea of the
4 The Religion of Israel, p. 99. See Gen. 8. 20-22, J.
96

THE SPIRITUALITY OF GOD
spirituality of God underlay the idea of God." 5 No
doubt spirit was often conceived very crudely. The He
brews were not given to reflection on such matters. They
accepted the current ideas concerning spirit and spiritual
beings without any effort to reduce them to philosophical
consistency. But the physical images and materialistic •
expressions used of the Deity were wholly subordinate to \
the thought of his true spirituality. And the tendency in
Old Testament teaching was more and more to de-mate-'
rialize the conception of spirit. As the thought of God
and his greatness grew, it was inevitable that a more^
refined view of spirit should come to prevail. At first a
quasi-human form may have been attributed to Yahweh,
but later this was felt to be inconsistent with his exalted
character. When he revealed himself on Mount Sinai
the people heard a voice but saw no form.6 This was re
garded as evidence that no material image could properly
represent him. He was essentially formless, "without
body or parts." Pure immateriality was not, as we have
seen, ascribed to him. But he was nevertheless in at least
the later stages of Hebrew thought regarded as com
pletely superior to the limits of time and space.7
Thus far we have considered the Spirit of God from
what might be termed the metaphysical point of view, as
a substance. But it was not this aspect of the divine
spirituality that especially interested the Hebrews. What \
appealed to them in connection with spirit was the idea of I
power. Originally, spirit meant breath. But where there
is breath, there is life and strength. Consequently, at a v
3 The Theology of the Old Testament, p. 125.
8 Deut. 4. 12, 15.
' Psa. 139. 7ff. ; 90. 4. 97

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
very early date the idea of vitality and power came to
be connected with that of spirit. In man spirit was op
posed to flesh. And this antithesis was still further ac
centuated in the case of the Divine Spirit. The Spirit of
God stood opposed to all material and fleshly existence.
The latter was weak and dependent, destined to pass
away; the former was the creative energy of the world,
transcendental, independent, self-existent. It is this idea
that is emphasized in the above verse quoted from Isaiah.
The Egyptians were men and their horses flesh. They
were not, therefore, to be relied ,upon. For opposed to
them stood God and spirit, the invisible principle that
guides the course of human history.
In this dynamic conception of the divine spirituality
it is implied that God stood apart from the material
world. He was not contained in it, but was above it.
He might use the forces of nature, but he was identified
with none of them. He might make the nations of the
world his instruments ;8 indeed, they had no power inde
pendently of him;9 but he was not limited to such means
in order to accomplish his purpose. He could intervene
in human affairs in a miraculous way. And so there was
a tendency to contrast the Divine Spirit with human
might, "Not by might," we read, "nor by power, but
by my spirit, saith Jehovah." 10 And Judah, we are told,
is to be saved not "by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by
horses, nor by horsemen," but by Yahweh their God.11
A distinctly idealistic element was thus introduced into
Israelitic thought. Other forces, it was seen, have to be
reckoned with besides material strength. There is an
unseen spiritual power that may at any time upset the cal-
8 Isa. 10. 5. 10 Zech. 4-6.
"Isa. 10. 15. "Hos. 1. 7.
98

THE SPIRITUALITY OF GOD
culations of men. Military strength and material pros
perity have in them no certain guarantees for the future.
Providence is by no means always on the side of the heav
iest artillery. Over and above all these material forces is
an invisible Spirit directing the course of affairs. Men
need not, therefore, be discouraged by the unideal con
ditions of life. These conditions will not last forever.
For at the helm of the universe there is a personal will,
stronger than the arm of flesh, more powerful than insen
tient matter, which in due time will bring to pass its own
purposes. This brings us to the third sense in which the spiritual- j
ity of God is taught in the Old Testament, the subjective I
or ethical sense. The Divine Spirit is substance and
jjowej-, especially the latter. But spirit as applied to God
is also the Spirit_of holiness, an_ethical Spirit. It happens
that the expression "holy Spirit" occurs but three times in
the Old Testament ;12 and only twice is the Divine Spirit
spoken of as "good." 13 But the idea thus expressed was,
of course, involved in the moral character of Yahweh. ,
The Spirit of God was as ethical as God himself. As the
thought of God was gradually moralized, so was that of
his Spirit.
In the time of the Judges the Spirit of God was asso
ciated with extraordinary physical strength and unusual
gifts of military leadership. The remarkable achieve
ments of Samson, Gideon, Jephthah, and Saul were all
ascribed to the Divine Spirit.14 And it is probable that

" Psa. 51. 11 ; Isa. 63. 10, 11.
13 Neh. 9. 20; Psa. 143. 10.
"Judg. 14. 6; 6. 34; 11. 29; 1 Sam. 11. 6.
99

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
the ascription of prophecy to the Spirit of God was at
first due to the excited demeanor of the prophets rather
than to the ethical character of their utterances. We read,
for instance, in i Sam. 18. 10, that "an evil spirit from
God came mightily upon Saul, and he prophesied in the
midst of the house." "Prophesied" here evidently refers
to the extraordinary deportment of the king, his rav
ing. It was this external aspect of prophecy that seems
to have first attracted the attention of men. It, however,
gradually subsided, and in its place there came into the
foreground that powerful moral conviction which the
prophets themselves were persuaded was born of the
Spirit of God. "I am full of power," says Micah, "by the
Spirit of Jehovah, and of judgment, and of might, to de
clare unto Jacob his transgression, and to Israel his
sin." 15 The supreme test of the Spirit's presence is now
the moral test. What characterizes the Spirit-filled Mes
siah is "the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spir
it of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the
fear of Jehovah." le "To preach good tidings unto the
meek ; ... to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim
liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to
them that are bound" 1T — such are the fruits of the Spirit.
All the highest elements in human life are due to the
Spirit of God.18 From this it necessarily follows that the
Divine Spirit itself is essentially intellectual and moral in
character. It is a "holy spirit," a "good spirit," a "spirit
of knowledge." The element of power is not excluded
from it, but the power it represents is no longer selfishly
or capriciously exercised. It is a rational and moral
power, a power with whom the individual man may hold
13 Mic. 3. 8. " Isa. 6i. I.
16 Isa. ii. 2. 18 Exod. 31. 2-3, P ; Job 32. 8.
100

THE SPIRITUALITY OF GOD
communion, a power so rich in its fellowship with men
that the devout heart instinctively exclaims,
"Whom have I in heaven but thee?
And there is none upon earth that I desire besides thee." 19
The lofty conceptions which were thus associated with ^
the spirituality of Yahweh are significant in and of them
selves. But what especially interests us in connection
with them is their bearing on the religious life and wor
ship of the Israelites. And here there are three lines of i
influence to be particularly noted : the effect on sacrificial 1
worship, on the localization of Yahweh, and on the use of 1
images. What the effect in each of these instances should j
have been, is clear enough from the abstract point of view.
In so far as Yahweh was looked upon as a transcendent
Being, superior to the limits of time and space, in so far
as he was regarded as of a purely ethereal nature, free,
from material needs, in so far as he was thought to be )
in his inmost essence a rational and moral Being; in a \
word, in so far as he was genuinely spiritual, it is mani- >
fest that sacrifices in and of themselves could have no j
value for him, that his presence could not be confined to
any particular place or region, and that no material image
could properly represent him to the thought and imagina
tion of men. But in actual life the situation was not so
simple. Sacrifices, sacred places, and images had had
their place in religion from the most ancient times. They
had been legislated into the very structure of worship.
Through the force of habit they had acquired a momen
tum which caused them to persist long after the orig
inal reason for their institution had been forgotten. We
" Psa. 73. 25. 101

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
must not, then, expect that the higher ideas of God cur
rent in Israel from the time of Moses on would work
themselves out at once into practice. There would neces
sarily be long periods of concession and compromise, be
fore people came to see that the older customs and the
newer ideas were essentially irreconcilable, and that the
former must yield to the latter. Perfect harmony be
tween religious practice and religious thought is conse
quently not to be looked for. In a developing society
practice as a rule lags far behind thought. And so it was
in Israel. The essential spirituality of Yahweh may have
•^ been apprehended early in the history of Israel, indeed,
14 from the very outset ; and yet it may not have been until
centuries later that its logical consequences were wrought
out in life and practice.
The custom of offering sacrifices continued throughout
i the entire Old Testament period. In one sense the custom
was not inconsistent with spiritual religion. Sacrifices
might be regarded as mere outward tokens of gratitude
and devotion, and hence might be in complete harmony
with a thoroughly rational and ethical worship. This
was apparently the attitude taken by the early literary
prophets. These men did not, as some scholars maintain,
denounce sacrifices as such. What they condemned was
sacrifices offered as a substitute for righteousness. And
in this sense they also condemned prayer.20 A purely
formal prayer was as worthless in their sight as a purely
formal sacrifice.21 Neither had any value in and of itself.
Yet both might be helpful as outward expressions of a
true inner piety. At least nothing was said by the early
prophets that is necessarily inconsistent with this view.
20 Isa. i. 15.
21 Isa. 29. 13. 102

THE SPIRITUALITY OF GOD
But this was not the attitude taken by the Hebrews in
general toward sacrifices. They looked upon these out
ward rites as an essential element in the worship of Yah
weh. This was true both of the early popular religion
and the later legal religion. It may be that in early times
the Hebrews shared to some extent the primitive belief
that the Deity himself actually partook of the sacrificial
offering, deriving a kind of physical satisfaction from
it. We read, for instance, in one passage that "Jehovah
smelled the sweet savor" of Noah's sacrifice, and so said
in his heart that he would not again curse the ground for
man's sake.22 But while this conception in a strictly lit
eral sense may have had some currency in Israel, there
is no evidence that it was ever widely held. The prevail
ing view seems to have been that sacrifices had been di
vinely established as a means of. communion with the
Deity, and hence must be observed. There may originally
have been some mysterious reason for the institution, but
primarily it rested upon the divine will. This was at least
the view that prevailed during the later legal period. It
represents a distinct advance beyond the crudely material
istic conception of an earlier day. But it is still an un-
spiritual view, for in its last analysis it bases sacrifice
upon an arbitrary act of the divine will. No adequate
rational or ethical reason for the institution is given.
And an institution so founded by its very nature violates
the inner principle of the divine spirituality, for this prin
ciple permits religion to require of men only such a service
as is rational and ethical. This idea the prophets, as we
have seen, clearly grasped, and so did some of the psalm
ists.23 But the later ecclesiastical system stood in the way
22 Gen. 8. 21, J.
"Psa. 51. 16. 103

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
of its complete recognition. The result was that the prac
tice of sacrifice continued as an unspiritual force, until
it was finally brought to an end by the work of Jesus and
Paul. The tendency to localize Yahweh grew up partly out of
inherited customs and beliefs and partly out of the felt
need of giving concreteness to the idea of his presence.
Sinai or Horeb seems to have been originally regarded as
in a special sense his home.24 Later the land of Ca
naan,25 and especially the individual sanctuaries in the
land,26 were looked upon as his dwelling place. But his
residence in these three places did not exclude the thought
of his presence elsewhere, and particularly the thought of
his residence in heaven. It is argued by Stade27 that
the latter idea was unknown during the preprophetic pe
riod; that, in fact, it did not originate until the time of
Ezekiel. But in this he is certainly mistaken. We read
in the J document of Yahweh's coming "down" upon
Mount Sinai, and of his going "down" to see the tower of
Babel, and "down" to ascertain the real situation at
Sodom and Gomorrah.28 It is here manifestly implied
that Yahweh's customary abode was in heaven above.
And this is also the implication of other early passages.29
"According to the whole Old Testament, God dwells in
heaven." 30 From there he visits the children of men and
24 Judg. 5. 4f.; 1 Kings 19. 8.
23 1 Sam. 26. 19; 2 Kings 17, 18, 23 ; Hos. 8. 1 ; 9. 3, 15 ; Jer. 2. 7.
"Gen. 21. 14, 17; 28. i6f. JE; Amos 1. 2.
" Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments, pp. 103L
28 Exod. 19. lib, 20a; Gen. 11. 5, 7; 18. 21.
" Gen. 19. 24, J ; 21. 17 ; 28. 12, 17, E.
30 Piepenbring, The Theology of the Old Testament, p. 26. See
Westphal, Jahwes Wohnstdtten nach den Anschauungen der alten
Hebraer. 104

THE SPIRITUALITY OF GOD
manifests himself at particular places.31 To these places
he was not bound in a fetishistic sense. Yet his connec
tion with them and with the land of Canaan as a whole
was closer than seems to us consistent with his true spir
ituality. This connection, however, was due not so much
to a defective view of God on the part of the Hebrews as
it was to their limited knowledge of the world and the
limited range of their sympathy. Hence as their knowl
edge and sympathy broadened they naturally detached
Yahweh more and more from his connection with the
land of Canaan. Especially did the exile and the disper
sion of the Jews contribute to this end. But the move
ment in this direction did not attain its completion in the
Old Testament. There lingered to the last, traces at least
of an unspiritual connection between Yahweh and the
sacred places of the past (compare John 4. 2of.).
A special word in this connection needs to be added
concerning the ark and the temple. It has recently been
argued with a good deal of ingenuity and considerable
plausibility that the traditional view, that there was but
one ark, is erroneous;32 there were many arks, every
important sanctuary having one. Where we now read in
the early literature of the "ephod and teraphim," the
original reading, we are told, was "ark and teraphim."
It was the Deuteronomistic editors who introduced the
change into the text. Their purpose in so doing was to
remove from the early historical documents everything
inconsistent with the idea that there was but one ark, and
so to establish in the early history of Israel a point of
support for the Deuteronomic centralization of worship

32 W. R. Arnold, Ephod and Ark: A Study in the Records and
Religion of the Ancient Hebrews.
31 Exod. 20. 24. 105

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
in Jerusalem. Should this theory prove correct, it would
probably detract somewhat from the importance of the
ark in the early religion of Israel, but it would not appre
ciably affect- its bearing on the spirituality of Yahweh,
the point with which we are at present concerned. This
bearing would be practically the same, whether the ark
was one or many.
Accepting the common view that there was but one ark,
and that it was the work of Moses, we find a considerable
diversity of opinion as to its original character. Accord
ing to the biblical account,33 it was a sacred box contain
ing the tables of the law. Some modern scholars regard
this as impossible because of what they believe to be the
late date of the Decalogue. Hence they substitute for the
tables of the law a meteoric stone or stones.34 These
stones had come down from heaven. They were con
sequently sacred, and were believed to embody in some
realistic way the divine presence. Others take the view
that the ark was a portable throne on which Yahweh was
seated.35 But whatever its exact character, there can be
no doubt that it was regarded in early times as not only a
symbol of the divine presence but as an objectification
and guarantee of it.36 Far more so than any other sacred
object it made real the presence of Yahweh. And hence
the sanctuaries where it was kept, those at Shiloh and
Jerusalem, were accorded a certain preeminence over
others. After the ark, however, was installed in the

83 Deut. 10. 1-5.
84 Stade, Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments, p. 117.
85 Martin Dibelius, Die Lade Jahves; Gressmann, Mose und
seine Zeit, pp. 44gff. See 1 Sam. 4. 4 ; 2 Sam. 6. 2.
88 Num. 10. 35f.; 14. 42ff., E; 1 Sam. 3. 3; 4. 3ff.; 5. 7ff . ; 6. 19;
2 Sam. 6. iff. 106

THE SPIRITUALITY OF GOD
temple at Jerusalem, interest in it seems to have declined.
In the older historical books no mention is made of it
after i Kings 8. iff. What finally became of it we do
not know. It was probably destroyed with the temple or
carried away by Nebuchadrezzar. In Deuteronomy very-
little significance attaches to the ark as such. Interest
centers almost wholly in the tables of stone contained in
it. And Jeremiah goes still farther in divesting it of its
earlier religious importance. He declares that after the
restoration of the people "they shall say no more, The
ark of the covenant of Jehovah; neither shall it come to
mind; neither shall they remember it; neither shall they
miss it; neither shall it be made any more." 37
The temple at Jerusalem owed its preeminence partly
to the presence of the ark, but especially to the fact that it
was the royal sanctuary. Its importance was considerably
lessened by the division of the monarchy. But after the
fall of the northern kingdom and the remarkable deliver
ance from Sennacherib it became again, and in a new and
heightened sense, the religious center of the Hebrew peo
ple. Isaiah had on two notable occasions, in B. C. 735
and 701, announced the inviolability of Jerusalem. By
this he did not mean that the city would never be de
stroyed. What he meant was that it would survive the
particular perils that confronted it at these two crises of
its history. A later age, however, understood his words
in an absolute sense. In the time of Jeremiah the people
gathered about the temple crying, "The temple of Je
hovah, the temple of Jehovah, the temple of Jehovah, are
these." 3S the implication being that the sacred buildings
and the surrounding city were inviolable, and so perfectly
"Jer. 3. 16.
"Jer. 7- + 107

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
safe, no matter what or how great the threatening danger
might be. The fall of Jerusalem in B. C. 586 brought a
rude shock to this faith. But after the return from the
exile and the rebuilding of the temple it revived. Jeru
salem became again a fixed point in the divine economy.
In all the pictures of the future it occupied a central place,
and the divine presence was in a unique way connected
with it. There is one passage in the Old Testament that
seems to represent a higher standpoint. In Isa. 66. 1-2
Yahweh apparently declares that he has no interest in the
rebuilding of the temple, that what he is alone concerned
about is the man "that is poor and of a contrite spirit."
So contrary is this to the teaching of the Old Testament
as a whole that most commentators think that the refer
ence here must be to some schismatic temple such as that
erected on Mount Gerizim. But if so, it is strange that
there should be nothing in the text to indicate the fact.
On the other hand, it will have to be admitted that, if
the passage was intended as a protest against the rebuild
ing of the temple at Jerusalem, it remained altogether in
effective. Not until the time of Stephen39 was it used
as a polemic against the temple-worship. Before that
time, however, Jesus had already declared in words
whose import could not be mistaken that the hour was
at hand when neither on Mount Gerizim nor at Jerusalem
should men worship the Father. "God is a Spirit: and
they that worship him must worship in spirit and truth."40
Sacrifices and a certain localization of the divine pres
ence maintained, as we have seen, their place through
out the Old Testament period. The Jews apparently saw
39 Acts 7.48-50.
"John 4. 21, 24. 108

THE SPIRITUALITY OF GOD
in them nothing necessarily inconsistent with the spirit
uality of God. But not so with the use of images. From '
a very early time the feeling was current in Israel that
Yahweh was so great a Being, so far removed from
fleshly weakness, so elevated above everything material,
that it was an offense to him to be worshiped by means of
images. This feeling grew in strength until finally it cul
minated in an iconoclastic movement that brought about
the complete abolition of images from Israelitic worship.
So characteristic did this feature of Old Testament reli
gion become that all heathen worship came to be identified
with idolatry.
The history of the anti-image movement in Israel is
one concerning which there is considerable difference of
opinion. Especially is this true of its earlier stages. He
brew tradition carries the prohibition of images back to
Moses, and makes it second in importance only to the
commandment not to worship other gods. But the prac
tice of the Hebrews during the period of the Judges and
for several centuries subsequently was so out of harmony
with the second commandment of the Decalogue that"
many modern scholars have concluded that this command
ment, and, indeed, the entire Decalogue, cannot be Mosaic,
but must come from a much later date. It was Hosea,
they hold, who first made an issue of image- worship.
The new movement begun by him gained headway rap
idly, and a century later culminated in the Deuteronomic
reform. From that time on, except for a brief relapse
after the death of Josiah, Israelitic worship was image-
less. The reason for making Hosea the originator of the
iconoclastic movement is that he, so far as we know, was
the first to ridicule and scoff at the worship of images.
109

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
The idols, he said, were man-made. There was nothing
divine about them. They were simply calves. And that
men should actually kiss such images seemed to him the
height of absurdity.41 But this very attitude on his part
implies that his antipathy to images was nothing new.
Had it been, he would have approached the subject in a
quite different spirit. He would have sought to instruct
the people and to prepare their minds for the new teach
ing. The fact that he instead bursts out into condemna
tion and ridicule is itself evidence that his message was
not new, but had its support in the accepted tradition.
The truth is, as has already been pointed out, that the
propheJ^jiQwhere represent themselves as innovators.
They were reformers, and were simply seeking to restore
the better conditions of an earlier day. In so doing they
no doubt at the same time made an advance, and an im
portant advance. But this advance consisted not so much
in the promulgation of new ideas as in the clarification
and deepening of convictions already present. The very
success achieved by the prophets would have been impos
sible if their teaching had not had its roots in the past.
Had the antipathy to image-worship begun with Hosea,
it is in the highest degree improbable that it would have
become the law of the land a century later. A much
longer period was needed to prepare for such a movement
as the Deuteronomic reform. Then, too, in Exod. 20. 23
and 34. 17, which are admittedly pre-Hoseanic, molten
images are expressly forbidden. That this implied that
the use of graven images was permitted, is a wholly gra
tuitous assumption. Hosea recognizes no distinction be
tween molden and graven images.42 One with him in-
41 Hos. 8. 4, 6; 13.2.
a 11. 2; 13. 2.
no

THE SPIRITUALITY OF GOD
volved the other. And so it must have been before his
time. What Hosea did was simply to bring the earlier
antipathy to images to clearer self -consciousness and to /
give to it an edge and dynamic power that seems to have
been previously lacking.
At what time previous to Hosea the anti-image senti
ment in Israel arose cannot be determined with certainty. -
But there is no conclusive reason why it should not, in ac
cordance with the uniform tradition of Scripture, be car- .
ried back to Moses. The objections to this view are
chiefly two: the silence of Elijah and Elisha, and the
earlier common and unrebuked use of images.43 Both of
these objections, however, may be met without serious
difficulty. That Elijah and Elisha did not attack the
calf-worship of the northern realm is not strange in view
of the far more serious task which confronted them. In
their day the very existence of the religion of Yahweh
was at stake. It was a question whether he or Baal was
to be recognized as God. In the presence of this supreme,;
question minor matters, having to do simply with the
manner of worship, naturally sank out of view. For Eli
jah and Elisha to have raised the question of image-wor
ship might have been to confuse the main issue. It does
not, then, follow from their silence that they approved of
the calf-worship. Indeed, our records of their work are
so scanty that we do not even know that they did not ex
press disapproval of it.
The use of images in early Israel is no more difficult of
explanation than the similar practice in the Christian
Church. The parallel in the two cases is interesting.44
The Christians accepted the second commandment and be-
43 Judg. 8. 24fT.; 17-18; 1 Sam. 19. i2ff.; 1 Kings 12. 28f.
44 See J. P. Peters, The Religion of the Hebrews, p. 104.
in

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
gan as an imageless church. But gradually through the
influence of their heathen environment they fell into im
age-worship, and in so doing seemed to be unconscious of
a breach of the Decalogue. The second commandment
they apparently interpreted as directed against heathen
idol-worship. Images representative of other gods they
condemned, but images representative of their own God
and their saints they placed in a different category and
seemed to regard as perfectly proper. Thus they finally
developed a practical polytheism. And so it was in Israel.
Moses forbade the use of images and gave the people,
instead, the ark as a symbol and guarantee of the divine
presence. Where the ark was kept, namely, at Shiloh and
Jerusalem, the worship seems to have been imageless.
But elsewhere, through Canaanitic influence, images were
gradually introduced. As representative of other gods
they would have been rejected as inconsistent with the
Mosaic tradition. But when connected with the worship
of Yahweh the feeling apparently was that there was
nothing wrong in them. In this way idolatrous practices
grew up in Israel and continued in vogue until finally
the prophetic reform, a movement similar to that of the
Protestant Reformation, swept them away. We thus see
that there is nothing in the history of Israel that neces
sarily precludes the view that the antipathy to image-
worship dates from the time of Moses.
We need not, however, hold that the Mosaic prohibition
of images rested upon the same insight into the spiritual
ity of Yahweh that we find in the eighth-century prophets.
The mere fact of the prohibition manifestly implies that
the Mosaic conception of God was in some regards higher,
more spiritual, than that of the Egyptians and other
neighboring peoples. On the other hand, the stress placed
112

THE SPIRITUALITY OF GOD
on the ark is evidence that Yahweh was still connected
in an unspiritual way with a material object. People as
a rule probably saw no important difference between the
ark and an image. If Yahweh could be represented by
the former, there was no inherent reason why he might
not be represented by the latter. Before the prohibition
of images could be placed on an adequate basis, it was
necessary that such a conception of the transcendence of
Yahweh and of his essentially ethical character be at
tained as would preclude the possibility of his representa
tion by any material object. And this is the view that we
find in the literary prophets, especially in Deutero-Isaiah.
Over and over again the latter pours his pitiless scorn on
all attempts to represent the Divine Being by means of
any material image.45
To the pure intellectualist and pantheist this icono
clastic spirit may seem fanatical. Why not, it is asked, !
concede the use of images to ignorant people as an aid to
their imagination? The images are, of course, not divine,
but they may be helpful as symbols of the divine pres
ence. Such has always been the apology for idolatry.
But the Hebrew prophets would hear none of it. With
an almost unique religious insight they saw the inevitable
perils of such a position, and set their faces like flint
against it. Idols to them were simply idols, and nothing
more. Between them and Yahweh there could be no con
nection. The gulf between the two was impassable. On
the one hand was pure spirit, on the other man-made
images of wood and stone, gold and silver. God needed
no such material forms through which to reach the minds
of men. He was spirit, and could speak directly to the
45 Isa. 40. 18-20 ; 41. 6-7 ; 44. 9-20 ; 45. 20 ; 46. 1-2, 5-7.
113

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
spirit of man. Indeed, the spirit of man, we are told, is
the candle of the Lord.46 It is here that we see the im
mense practical importance of the doctrine of the Divine
Spirit. It is for this reason that the Spirit of God figures
so prominently in Scripture. It stands opposed to the
irrationality of idolatry and the mummery of ceremonial
ism. The question is sometimes raised as to whether the
i Spirit is anywhere in the Old Testament conceived of as
, a distinct Person. There was, as we have already seen,
' a tendency in that direction, but only a tendency.47 The
great truth with which the Old Testament as a whole was
I concerned was not thejDerjtojtmHt^pjjt^^
' but the_ spirituality of_tJre_Diyine Person.
48 Prov. 20. 27.
47 See p. 77.

114

CHAPTER V
THE POWER OF GOD
If Schleiermacher was right in defining religion as "the
feeling of absolute dependence," it is evident that power
is a fundamental attribute in the religious conception of
God. What first awakened the religious impulse was the
consciousness of a power not of ourselves, on which we
are dependent. And what has through the ages kept reli
gion alive has been the belief that this power might in one
way or another be made to serve our ends. It is conceiv
able that a different attitude might have been taken to the
invisible power by which we are surrounded. Bertrand
Russell, for instance, in an eloquent passage thus ex
presses himself: "Brief and powerless is man's life; on
him and all his race the slow, sure doom falls pitiless and
dark. Blind to good and evil, reckless of destruction,
omnipotent matter rolls on its relentless way; for man,
condemned to-day to lose his dearest, to-morrow himself
to pass through the gate of darkness, it remains only to
cherish, ere yet the blow falls, the lofty thoughts that
ennoble his little day; disdaining the coward terrors of
the slave of fate, to worship at the shrine that his own
hands have built ; undismayed by the empire of chance, to
preserve a mind free from the wanton tyranny that rules
his outward life; proudly defiant of the irresistible forces
which tolerate, for a moment, his knowledge and his con
demnation, to sustain alone, a weary but unyielding Atlas,
the world that his own ideals have fashioned despite the
"5

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
trampling march of unconscious power." 1 But the atti
tude thus expressed is a highly artificial one. What alone
makes such a view possible is the fact that the ideals of
life have as a result of the nurture received from religion
attained a ^wasi-independence. They are seen to have an
inherent worth of their own, and so are thought to be de
tachable from the faith that gave them birth. They may
even, as here, take a defiant attitude toward the basal
power of the universe ; but the dualism thus created in our
thought-life is not one in which the human mind could
long rest. Our ideals must be regarded as rooted in real
ity, or they will fade away. The power not ourselves must
be looked upon as friendly to our strivings, or these striv
ings will themselves, in at least their higher and more diffi
cult forms, cease. Power andjiuman need go together.
Human need requires a power on which it may lean ; and
this power in turn must be not only friendly but also ade
quate to human need. Power in our thought of God is
quite as basal as love, and originally it was the more dis
tinctive factor. This is illustrated by the Hebrew word
for God, El or Elohim, the root of which probably meant
"to be strong." Strength was the primary characteristic
of Deity.
In our discussion of the personality, unity, and spirit
uality of God we have already dwelt to some extent upon
the power of Yahweh. Power is so basal an attribute
that it is to some degree involved in all the others. But
certain special aspects of the subject still remain to be
considered, and these we take up in the present chapter.
It is frequently asserted that Yahweh was at the outset
a war god. And it is true that in our earliest records he
appears to a large extent in this light. He is spoken of
1 Philosophical Essays, p. 70. 116

THE POWER OF GOD
as "a man of war." 2 An early collection of songs was
called "The Book of the Wars of Yahweh." 3 Israel's en
emies were his enemies ;4 Israel's wars were his wars ;5 Is
rael's armies were his armies.6 The title "Yahweh of
hosts" was interpreted as meaning "God of the armies of
Israel." 7 The ark, with which the presence of Yahweh
was in a unique way connected, was a battle standard as
well as a sanctuary.8 The camp of Israel was sacred to
Yahweh.9 Men dedicated themselves to battle as to a
religious service. The military leaders were in a special
sense the agents of Yahweh, controlled by his spirit. But
while Yahweh was thus in the early history of Israel
closely connected with war, it is a mistake to suppose that
his power was limited to the battlefield. He was not a
god of war in the sense that the other interests of life
lay beyond his province. It is frequently stated that
Yahweh had at first nothing to do with the private con
cerns of the individual or with the soil and its products.
These were left to the household gods and the local
numina. But for this view there is no adequate basis.
No doubt local numina and household gods continued to
be worshiped in Israel after the time of Moses, but this
was due rather to the force of habit and custom than to
the belief that Yahweh was limited to any particular field
or form of activity. From the beginning he was God of
Israel, and sole God of Israel. No partition of the life of

2 Exod. 15. 3.
8 Num. 21. 14, E.
4 1 Sam. 30. 26.
5 Exod. 17. i5f., E; Judg. 5. 23; 1 Sam. 18. 17; 25. 28.
" 1 Sam. 17. 26, 36.
7 1 Sam. 17. 45.
" 1 Sam. 4. 3-1 1 ; Num. 10. 35f., E.
' Deut. 23. 9, 14. 117

u

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
the nation was made ; the whole of it was under his con
trol. The reason why he seems more closely connected
with war than other lines of activity is that wars were at
first the supreme interest of the nation. Israel had the
task of conquering Canaan, and then consolidating their
newly won territory against hostile attacks both from
within and without. This task engaged the energies of
the nation for several centuries, and during this time it
was inevitable that the battlefield should be the place
where the divine presence would be most urgently sought
and the divine help most clearly perceived. But this by
no means implies that either the power or interest of Yah
weh was limited to war.
It may be added that what has been said of the concep
tion of Yahweh as a war god holds true also of the view
that he was originally a storm god or volcano god. Yah
weh is often associated with lightning and thunder, and
volcanic phenomena.10 But all this means is that it was
such striking natural phenomena as these that seemed to
the ancient Hebrews to be the most impressive manifesta
tions of the divine power. Yahweh's power was no more.
limited to these phenomena than it was to the battlefield.11
Another error into which writers on the Old Testa
ment not infrequently fall is that of assuming that Yah
weh was at the outset so closely identified with the nation
that his power was hardly more than commensurate with
10 Exod. 19. i6ff., JE; 20. i8ff., E; 1 Kings 19. nf.; Psa. 18. I3f.;
29. 3ff.
11 In an interesting article on "Beginnings of Hebrew Monothe
ism — The Ineffable Name," in the Methodist Review, 1902, pp.
24-35» President W. F. Warren argues that "Yah," the original form
of "Yahweh," was the West-Semitic form of the East-Semitic or
Proto-Semitic Ea, the God of waters, citing in support of this view
the numerous water-miracles attributed to Yahweh.
118

THE POWER OF GOD
that of the people themselves. He was limited geograph
ically as they were. When they were defeated in battle I
he was defeated. When they were victorious, he was )
victorious. His achievements were limited by theirs.
This was a not uncommon view of the relation of a tribal
deity to his people, and no doubt it had some currency in
Israel. The very fact that Yahweh was worshiped by the
Israelites alone would seem to imply that his rule was lim
ited to them. David, for instance, is represented as say
ing that for him to be driven out of his native land was
equivalent to being forced to serve other gods.12 And
this method of expression appears also in so late a book
as that of Ruth. The Moabitess here says to her mother-
in-law, as she resolves to accompany her to Judah, "Thy / ^_
people shall be my people, and thy God my God." Re- '
moval to another country meant to her a change of reli
gion. This was the common view of antiquity, and it
seems to have been held by the early Israelites as well as 1
by others. But while this fact seems to involve a geo- l\
graphical limitation of Yahweh's power, it did not neces- '
sarily do so. In the early patriarchal narratives Yahweh
is represented as manifesting himself to his servants
wherever they might be, in Egypt or the distant East.13\
However much he might be attached to the promised land
and to sacred places in it, he was not bound in an exclu
sive sense to it. From the beginning there was something
transcendent about his nature, something that resisted A
every tendency to restrict him to a particular place or to
identify him in an absolute way with his own people. He
was from the outset supernational, and in a true sense also
supramundane. 12 1 Sam. 26. 19; compare Gen. 4. 14, J.
18 Gen. 12. 1 ; 24- I2ff . ; 26. I2ff., J ; 46. 4, E,
119

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
The key to the early theology of the Hebrews is to be
found in the distinction between their practical postulates
and their theoretical beliefs. The latter were vague, un
settled, and imperfect. Thought at that time was so un
developed and knowledge so limited that one could hardly
expect clear conceptions of the world, of God, and of
their relation to each other. Questions concerning the
nature of God and the extent of his power had very little
interest for the early Israelites. They did not reflect
enough on matters of this kind to feel the intellectual
necessity of asserting the absoluteness of God, his omnip
otence, omniscence, and omnipresence; and there was,
of course, no accepted teaching on the subject that had
been handed down to them. The result is that we find in
the Old Testament not a few expressions and beliefs that
seem to imply very distinct limitations of Yahweh's being
and power. The admitted existence of other gods would
seem clearly to limit the extent of his power. His abode
in heaven and his localization at Sinai, Zion, and other
sanctuaries would seem to restrict the range of his being.
Such statements as those in Gen. ii. 5 (J) and 18. 21 (J),
where Yahweh is represented as going down to the tower
of Babel and Sodom, in order to ascertain the true situa
tion, seem plainly to imply a limitation of his knowledge.
And so the anthropomorphic expressions in general of the
preprophetic period seem to rule out the thought of the
divine absoluteness.
But while all this is true from the theoretical point of
view, the situation is quite different from the practical
or religious standpoint. Such limitations and imperfec
tions as seem to have characterized the early intellectual
conceptions of Yahweh's power formed, so far as we can
see, no conscious barrier to faith itself. The early Israel-
120

THE POWER OF GOD
ite from the beginning felt that he had in Yahweh one who
would meet all his needs. "Is anything," he asked, "too
hard for Jehovah?14 "There is no restraint to Jehovah,"
said Jonathan to his armor-bearer, "to save by many or
by few.15 Yahweh was able to do whatever he wished.
For all practical purposes he was omnipotent. He could
do whatever the Hebrews needed to have done. He also
knew all they needed to know. Numerous incidents are
recorded that reveal his supernatural wisdom and power.
The very existence of the priestly oracle implies that it
was believed that he knew all hidden and future things.
As the Israelite approached Yahweh in prayer there was
no consciousness of any limitation of his knowledge or
power or presence. To the believing heart he was abso
lute. This does not mean that the early Hebrew had a clear
conception of Yahweh's unlimited power. Various facts
already cited imply the contrary. It means simply that he
was believed to be equal to all the needs of his people:
These needs did not call for a Deity who was absolute in
the theological sense of the term ; and hence there are, as
we have seen, in the early literature of the Old Testament
statements that seem to limit his power and being. But
these limitations were primarily due, not to the nature of
Yahweh, but to the needs of the people. There was
nothing in the conception of Yahweh itself that neces
sarily limited him to Canaan or to any particular people.
It was the historic conditions that imposed these limita
tions. The Hebrews as yet felt no need of a universal
Deity. When they finally did, Yahweh proved equal to
the need. There was something elastic, expansive about
14 Gen. 18. 14, J.
>5 1 Sam, 14- 6- 121

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
the Mosaic conception of Yahweh that made it impossible
that he should be permanently limited to a single nation.
He was from the outset, as Jastrow says, "a national
Deity largely in name only." "The limitations to his
scope and jurisdiction" were "circumstantial rather than
essential, so that the Prophets obeyed a correct instinct in
attaching their conception of a universal power to the God
of Moses." 16
"In early [Semitic] heathenism," says Robertson
Smith, "the really vital question is not what a god has
power to do, but whether I can get him to do it for me,
and this depends on the relation in which he stands to
me." 17 If the relation is intimate and profound, there is
hardly any limit to what the worshiper may ask and
expect of his god. But this question of one's relation to
the Deity is just the uncertain factor in early religion./
And here it is that the unique religious genius of early
Israel manifests itself. The relation established between
Yahweh and Israel was so deep, so firm, so intense, that
it was able to bear the strain of every crisis through which
the nation was forced to pass. And it was made so durable
because it was founded not on any lormal or authoritative
teaching, but on a great experience, a mighty act of deliv
erance, which evoked from the people so deep a gratitude
and loyalty that there was no limit to the confidence they
reposed in their God. That this confidence did not at first
rest upon a clear conception of Yahweh's unlimited power
is not strange, nor is it significant. The significant thing
in the early religion of Israel was not the imperfect be
liefs about God, but the passionate devotion to him, which
led the people to feel that there was no limit to his power
"Hebrew and Babylonian Traditions, p. 282.
" The Religion of the Semites, p. 83.
122

THE POWER OF GOD
to help those who believed in him. It was this devotion
to him that was the moving- force in Israel's religious de
velopment. This devotion was also a more or less con
stant factor throughout the entire Old Testament period.
It is for this reason that so distinguished and openminded
a scholar as A. B. Davidson was able to say after a life
time of study that it was his impression "that even in the
most ancient passages of the Old Testament essentially
the same thought of Yahweh is* to be found as appears in
the Prophets and the later literature." 18 The "thought
of Yahweh," of which this statement is true, was that
practical religious conception of his nature and power in
volved in loyal devotion to him. This conception re
mained virtually constant throughout. What developed
was its theoretical implications. And here we come upon
two interesting and disputed questions. When did Yah- \
weh, God of Israel, first come to be regarded as creator \
of the world? and when did he come to be looked upon as
the sole controlling force in human history?
These two questions are manifestly related to each
other. The first would seem logically to involve the
second. If Yahweh was the creator of the world, it
would seem that his rule in the world must be universal.
But as a matter of fact such was not the view of antiquity.
The idea that a certain God was creator of heaven and
earth did not necessarily exclude the existence of other'
gods. These other gods were no doubt looked upon as
less powerful than the Creator-God, but they were none (
the less real, and each had his own province in human
life. In Babylonian mythology Ea, the water-god ; Enlil,
the storm-god; and Marduk, the sun-god were each at dif-
18 The Theology of the Old Testament, p. 180.
123

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
ferent times looked upon as the creator of everything.
But this did not exclude the existence of a vast pantheon,
nor did it exclude the idea that other peoples were ruled
by their own gods. The conception of Yahweh as
creator did not, then, necessarily include the thought of
his universal rule. The latter idea may quite possibly
have originated later than the former. In any case it
is best to discuss the two separately.
We begin with the idea of the creatorship of Yahweh.
It was Deutero-Isaiah who first gave to this conception
profound religious significance. He made it a funda
mental article of belief. Again and again he comes back
to it. "Who," he asks, "hath measured the waters in the
hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span?
. . . Lift up your eyes on high, and see who hath cre
ated these, that bringeth out their host by number. . . .
Thus saith God Jehovah, he that createth the heavens, and
stretcheth them forth; he that spread abroad the earth
and that which cometh out of it. . . . I have made
the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands,
have stretched out the heavens; and all their host
have I commanded. . . . Yea, my hand hath laid the
foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spread
out the heavens. ... I am Jehovah, that maketh all
things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that
spreadeth abroad the earth." 19 It was not the novelty of
the idea that led the great prophet of the exile to revert
so frequently to it, but the practical religious value that
it had for him. The Jews were at the time without any
organized government, scattered throughout the world,
and surrounded by an imposing heathen civilization that
seemed to give the lie to their most cherished faith. Hope
"40. 12, 26; 42. 5; 45. 12; 44. 24; 48. 13.
124

THE POWER OF GOD
had to a large extent died out. There was no immediate
prospect of relief. What they consequently needed aboveA
everything else was comfort. And this Deutero-Isaiah
found in the great thought that the covenant-God of
Israel was none other than the creator of heaven and
earth. "The everlasting God, Jehovah, the Creator of
the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary.
He giveth power to the faint; and to him that hath no
might he increaseth strength." 20
Shortly after the time of Deutero-Isaiah appeared the
Priestly Code with its noble account of creation.21 We
need not here dwell upon its exalted spiritual conception
of God nor its lofty view of human nature. These facts
are familiar to the reader. The only point we need here
direct attention to is the growing interest that the nar
rative seems to reveal in the divine creatorship. People
have now begun to reflect on it, to draw out its monothe
istic implications, and to find in it a doctrine that min
isters alike to their comfort and spiritual edification. It
is only natural, then, that the thought of the creative
activity of God should figure more prominently in the
literature after this time (about B. C. 500) than here
tofore. We find it in some of the most beautiful of the
psalms. "The heavens declare the glory of God;
And the firmament showeth his handiwork." 22
The heavens are the work of his fingers, and the sun and
the moon and the stars he has ordained.23 "He com-

20 Isa. 40. 28, 29.
"Gen. 1. 1 to 2. 4a.
22 19. 1.
23 8. 3. 125

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
manded, and they were created." 24 "He spake, and it
was done." 25 It is thou, O Yahweh, "Who stretchest
out the heavens like a curtain ; who laid the foundations
of the earth." 26 In Proverbs also the idea is impressively
expressed.27 And the book of Job is pervaded with it.
Here not only are the heavens and the earth represented
as the work of Yahweh, but they are declared to be simply
the outskirts of his ways, a mere whisper when compared
with the mighty thunder of his power.28
The creatorship of Yahweh, it is thus clear, was a well-
established belief in Israel from the time of Deutero-
Isaiah on. But the belief did not originate with him.
"Have ye not known?" he asks, "have ye not heard?
hath it not been told you from the beginning ? have ye not
understood from the foundations of the earth? It is he
that sitteth above the circle of the earth, and the inhabit
ants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the
heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to
dwell in." 29 That Yahweh was creator of heaven and
earth was evidently a truth that Deutero-Isaiah looked
upon as having been handed down from the distant past.
But how far back can it be traced? When did it orig
inate? On this point there is wide difference of opinion.
Some contend that it originated only shortly before the
time of Deutero-Isaiah ; others carry it back to the early
preprophetic period.
In favor of the former date three different lines of
argument are adduced. One is based on general consid
erations relative to the development of religious thought
in Israel. Stade, for instance, says that a people, such as

"148.5.

27 8. 22-31.

"33. 9.

's26. 14.

28 104. 2, 5.

29 Isa. 40. 2lf

126

THE POWER OF GOD
preprophetic Israel, whose outlook hardly extended be
yond the limits of Canaan, could not in the nature of the
case have raised cosmological problems, and that the idea
of Yahweh's creative activity could not, consequently,
have originated until about the seventh century B. C.30
But this argument is really a glaring instance of what
has been called the psychological fallacy. Stade seems to
think that the preprophetic Israelite with his limited
knowledge of the world was as conscious of that limita
tion as we to-day are, and that, therefore, the idea of the
world as a whole lay beyond his grasp. But the fact, of
course, is that the world of the early Hebrew was as com
plete to him as our world is to us to-day, and hence the
question of its origin may quite as well have presented
itself to his mind as to ours. This is evident also from
the history of thought among other early peoples. "Crea
tion stories abound everywhere among people in a primi
tive state of culture." 31 "There is no people of antiquity
now known to us which does not possess a creation story
of some kind." 32 These facts, it is clear, make it not
only possible but in the highest degree probable that the
idea of Yahweh's creative activity originated early and
not late in Israel's history. Indeed, creation stories may
have been known to the Hebrews even before the time of
Moses. A second argument urged in favor of the late origin of
the creation-idea is the paucity, if not complete absence,
of references to it in the early literature. The preexilic
prophets, it is said, make no mention of it, nor is there
any reference to it in any early passage, unless we ac-
30 Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments, p. 239.
81 Morris Jastrow, Hebrew and Babylonian Traditions, p. 65.
82 R. W. Rogers, The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, p. 100.
127

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
cept, as most scholars do, the reading of i Kings 8. 12-13,
found in the Septuagint. Cheyne thus renders this
ancient fragment:
The sun did Yahweh settle in heaven,
But he said he would (himself) dwell in dark clouds.
I have built a lofty house for thee,
A settled place for thy habitation.
These words are ascribed to Solomon. They are repre
sented as having been used by him at the dedication of
the temple, and there is no good ground for rejecting the
tradition. They clearly imply that Yahweh was regarded
as the creator of the sun, and if so naturally as the creator
of the heavens and earth also. But a single text such
as this would, of course, not be regarded as adequate
proof of the early existence of the creation-idea, if it was
not supported by confirmatory evidence. In this connec
tion we might refer to the statement in the Song of De
borah that the stars in their courses fought against
Sisera.33 This expression evidently implies that the
heavenly bodies were under the control of Yahweh, and
were probably his creation. A similar inference might
also be drawn from the early poetic fragment, taken from
the Book of Jashar, which represents Joshua as com
manding the sun and moon to stand still.34
But more important than individual utterances such as
these is the attitude of the early prophets. It is true that
these prophets do not preach the creatorship of Yahweh
as did Deutero-Isaiah. But it by no means follows ,that
the idea was unknown to them. Their mission was simply
different from that of Deutero-Isaiah. It was their task
not to draw consolation from the thought of Yahweh's
33 Judg. 5. 20.
34 Josh. 10. 12-13. 128

THE POWER OF GOD
creative activity, but to declare that Yahweh, the God of
Israel, was also the moral governor of the world, and that
as such he would punish all nations for their sins, espe
cially Israel. Only incidentally then, if at all, would we
expect to find in their utterances any reference to his cre
ative activity. We have such a reference in Amos 4. 13,
and, although it is now the fashion to ascribe this and
the other two "nature passages" 35 to a later hand, it is
quite possible that they all came from Amos. In any case,
they certainly fit in with his exalted conception of God.
And surely a prophet such as Isaiah, who represents the
seraphim as saying that the whole earth is full of the
glory of Yahweh,36 must have believed in his creatorship.
This idea in all probability formed the background of
the teaching of all the earlier prophets. It stands in an
especially close relation to their eschatology, the day of
Yahweh to which they looked forward. This day, as we
shall see in a later chapter, was to be a day marked by a
marvelous manifestation of divine power. A new world-
order was to be established, which would rival the glories
of the golden age of the past. As Yahweh was to insti
tute the new order, he must also have been regarded as
the author of the old order. The world past as well as
future must have owed its origin to him. What the
prophets, it is true, chiefly reflected on was the moral, not
the physical, order. But between these two orders they
made no sharp distinction. In both Yahweh was for
them "the everlasting creator of new things."
The third argument in favor of the view that the crea
tion-idea did not originate until late in Israel's history is
based on the assumption that the idea was borrowed from
"5- 8-9; 9- 5-6.
"6.3. 129

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
, the Babylonians and that the borrowing could not have
| taken place until after Israel had come into contact with
L the Assyrians toward the close of the eighth century.
Now, it is quite possible that the Hebrew idea of creation
was derived from the Babylonians, and it is unquestion
ably true that the biblical narrative of creation betrays
Babylonian influence, but it is by no means certain, nor
\ even probable, that this influence was first introduced into
Israel after the eighth century. The priestly account
of creation was probably put into its present form about
< B. C. 500, but the material embodied in it had almost cer
tainly before that time had a long history in Israel. The
antipathy to everything heathenish was so pronounced
during the exile and, indeed, in prophetic circles from the
eighth century down, that it is in the highest degree im-
j probable that such a crude polytheistic myth as the Baby
lonian account of creation could during this period have
been introduced into Israel and worked up into the biblical
narrative. For the introduction of this myth into Israel
we must go back to a much earlier date. Babylonian
culture, as we know from the Tel-el- Amarna tablets, was
diffused throughout southwest Asia before the settlement
of the Hebrews in Palestine. The creation myths were
current among the Canaanites. It was, then, only natural,
indeed inevitable, that the Israelites should learn of these
myths from the Canaanites among whom they settled.
Yahweh was substituted for the Babylonian gods, and
gradually the stories as a whole were transmuted into a
form consonant with the higher faith of Israel. That the
process of transformation was a long one is indicated by
the marked contrast between the Babylonian and biblical
narratives. It should also be noted that the- J document37
37 Gen. 2. 4b. 130

THE POWER OF GOD
seems originally to have begun with an account of crea
tion so similar to that in P that it was omitted by the edi
tors of the Pentateuch; and, if so, the creation-idea must
have existed in a developed form as early as the ninth
century B. C.
Another consideration pointing in the same direction is
the frequent allusions in the Old Testament to a dragon
myth akin to that found in the Babylonian account of
creation.38 In the Bible Rahab39 and Leviathan40 take
the place of the Babylonian Tiamat. The references to
this myth appear chiefly in the exilic and postexilic liter
ature, but they are so numerous and occur in a way that
implies such familiarity with the myth that it cannot have
been a recent importation. We conclude, consequently,
that the idea of Yahweh's creatorship appeared early in
the history of Israel. From virtually the outset Yahweh
was to Israel all that Marduk was to the Babylonians.
But only gradually did the full religious significance of I
the idea dawn upon the people. Not until the time of \
Deutero-Isaiah was it made the logical basis of universal-
ism.

We now turn to the idea of the universal rule of Yah-r
weh. This idea is clearly implied in the teaching of the )
eighth-century prophets. According to Amos, Yahweh
had not only brought Israel out of Egypt, but had led the
Philistines from Caphtor and the Syrians from Kir.41
Nor was his power limited to earth. It reached high

38 See Morris Jastrow, Hebrew and Babylonian Traditions, pp.
I07ff., and H. Gunkel's Schopfung und Chaos.
39 Job 26. 12-13; 9- !3; Isa- 51. 9; Psa. 89. 10; 87. 4; Isa. 30. 7.
40 Psa. 74. 12-17 ; Isa. 27. 1 ; Job 41. 1-8 ; Psa. 104. 26.
41 Amos 9. 7. 131

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
as heaven and deep as Sheol. 42 Isaiah speaks of Assyria
as the rod of Yahweh's anger and the staff of his indigna
tion.43 Yahweh was using Assyria to accomplish his pur
pose in the world, and when this purpose was accom
plished Assyria itself would be overthrown. "This is the
purpose that is purposed upon the whole earth; and this
is the hand that is stretched out upon all the nations." 44
We have here the distinct idea of a world-purpose. There
is a world-goal to be attained, and Yahweh is directing
the course of events toward that end. In the accomplish
ment of this end Israel has a unique mission. She is the
chosen of Yahweh. But what this mission implied, so
far as other nations were concerned, apparently did not
form a subject of special reflection with the eighth-cen
tury prophets. In one notable passage,45 whose authen
ticity, however, has been questioned, Isaiah represents
Israel as the future religious center of the world. But
not until we come to Deutero-Isaiah is the idea of Israel's
world-mission made prominent. Here Israel is repre
sented as "a light to the Gentiles." 46 Through her Yah
weh's salvation is to be brought unto the end of the earth.
But however late this thought may have been in develop
ing, and whatever the attitude of the eighth-century
prophets may have been toward it, there can be no doubt
that from their time on the idea of the universal rule of
Yahweh was well established in Israel. They made it
unmistakably clear that Yahweh, God of Israel, was the
moral ruler of the entire world.
But when did the idea of Yahweh's world-power and
world-purpose originate? Were these ideas altogether
42 9- 2. 432. 2-4.
43 Isa. io. 5. " 49. 6.
44 14. 26. 132

THE POWER OF GOD
new with Amos and Isaiah? The prophets themselves
apparently did not so regard them. They laid, it is true,
new stress on the moral character of Yahweh and repre
sented his purpose as more distinctly ethical than had
heretofore been done; but, so far as the general conception
of his will and power is concerned, they added nothing
new. The idea of the creatorship of Yahweh was al
ready, as we have seen, current among the people; and
so also was that of the day of Yahweh, an impending
event of world-wide significance, which was to mark
the end of the present order. "This eschatology, even in
its crudest form, stood for the truth that the world was
one and was governed by one purpose." 47 No doubt this
purpose was inadequately conceived, and no doubt the
current conception of the world of nations was a very
imperfect one. But the framework of the idea was at
least there ; and to Yahweh's power there was thought to
be no limit.
In a few passages dating from the preprophetic
period48 a world mission seems to be ascribed to Israel.
In Abraham and his seed, we read, all the nations of the
earth are to be blessed. This has been supposed to mean
that the blessings of the true religion were to be mediated
to the world through Abraham and his descendants. But
the Hebrew word here rendered as a passive should prob
ably be treated as a reflexive. The meaning, then, is that
Israel was to be so prosperous that the nations of the
earth would bless themselves by her, that is, would ex
press the wish that they might be as prosperous as she.
An exceptional destiny is thus ascribed to Israel among
the nations of the world, but nothing is said about a
47 A. C. Welch, The Religion of Israel under the Kingdom, p. 71.
" Gen. 12. 3 ; 28. 14, J ; see also 18. 18 ; 26. 4.
133

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
world-mission. This idea seems to have been later in de
veloping. And so also the world and Yahweh's world-
rule were no doubt conceived far more distinctly by the
eighth-century prophets than in earlier times. But this
does not mean that these ideas did not originate until the
eighth century. They are assumed in the prophetic teach
ing as already known, and hence must have had their
origin in the preprophetic period.
Our conclusion thus is that the lofty ideas of Yahweh's
power expressed by the thought of his creatorship and
universal rule arose early in the history of Israel. Their
>full import did not come to be appreciated until later. But
when they did become the subject of special reflection and
I emphasis, there was no consciousness of any break with
the past. Men felt that they were simply bringing out
^nto clearness of expression truths that had been part of
/the common heritage from the beginning. To describe
/Yahweh as at first a war-god, then an agricultural land-
/ jgod, and finally the world-god is to misrepresent the
I actual course of development. At no time was Yahweh's
i power limited to the battlefield or to the land of Canaan.
j From the outset Yahweh was both a supernational and a
! supramundane being, and it was only a specification of
these transcendental elements in his nature when men later
came to believe in his creatorship and universal rule. All
that was needed to bring these beliefs out into distinct
consciousness was the stimulus of an expanding expe
rience. Both were present in germ in the Mosaic concep
tion of God.
Along with the new stress placed on the creative ac
tivity and world-wide power of Yahweh from the time of
the exile on there went naturally also an increased era-
134

THE POWER OF GOD
phasis on his absolute attributes: his eternity, omnip
otence, omniscience, and omnipresence. Nowhere in the
Old Testament is it stated or even hinted that Yahweh
was not eternal. The Hebrews had no theogony. From
everlasting to everlasting Yahweh was God. This was
the belief from the beginning, but it received special em
phasis in the postexilic period. Eternity was thought of
as endless duration : Yahweh's years would have no end.49
And yet there was a feeling that time cid not have the
same meaning for him as for us. A thousand years in
his sight, we are told, are but as yesterday when it is
past.50 He is thus in reality a super-temporal Being. It
is in the same concrete way also that his omnipotence is
taught. The abstract idea is nowhere asserted, but thd
thought is expressed in a great variety of ways. God
but speaks and the ordered universe springs into being.
"He stretcheth out the north over empty space, and hang-
eth the earth upon nothing." 51 The heavens are but the
work of his fingers, and all the marvels of the stellar uni
verse are but as a whisper when compared with the
mighty thunder of his power.
The omniscience and omnipresence of God receive their
clearest and fullest expression in Psa. 139. Here we read
that there is no point in space so distant that God is not
there, there is no darkness so dense that it can hide any
one from his presence, and there is no secret of the heart
so profound that it can escape his all-seeing eye.
For there is not a word in my tongue
But, lo, O Jehovah, thou knowest it altogether.

9 Psa. 102. 27.
1 Psa. 90. 4.
'Job 26. 7. 135

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
Thou hast beset me behind and before,
And laid thy hand upon me.
Such knowledge is too wonderful for me;
It is high, I cannot attain unto it.
Whither shall I go from thy Spirit ?
Or whither shall I flee from thy presence ?
If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there :
If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, thou art there.
If I take the wings of the morning,
And dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;
Even there shall thy hand lead me,
And thy right hand shall hold me.
If I say, Surely the darkness shall overwhelm me,
And the light about me shall be night ;
Even the darkness hideth not from thee,
But the night shineth as the day (vs. 4-12).

136

CHAPTER VI
THE HOLINESS OF GOD
Holiness, like spirituality, has both a natural or meta
physical and an ethical meaning. With us the ethical pre
dominates. Indeed, holiness is about synonymous with
ethical perfection. Borden P. Bowne thus analyzes the
conception: "Negatively, holiness implies the absence
of all tendencies to evil and of all delight in evil. Pos
itively, it involves delight in and devotion to goodness.
The knowledge of evil must exist in the divine thought,
but perfect holiness implies that it finds no echo in the
divine sensibility and no realization in the divine will. It
further implies, positively, that in God the ideal of moral
perfection is realized ; and this ideal involves love as one
of its chief factors." x But this was not the original con
ception of holiness, nor is it the conception that prevails
throughout most of the Old Testament.
The root-idea of kodesh, the Hebrew word for "holi
ness," has been the subject of much discussion.2 But no
generally accepted conclusion has been reached, and by
many the problem has been abandoned as hopeless. The
view most commonly held is that kodesh meant originally
"separation" or "cutting off." And this may very well
have been the primary meaning of the term. A holy thing

1 Theism, p. 286.
2 For a statement of the different views and a well-nigh exhaust
ive discussion of the subject, see Baudissin, Studien zur Semit-
ischen Religionsgeschichte, ii, pp. 5-142.
137

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
or person was one "separated" in one way or another
from common use or from the common activities of life.
But the original physical sense of the term nowhere oc
curs, and so is necessarily a matter of surmise. The
word, wherever found, is used in a religious sense.
Holiness was primarily a characteristic of Deity. Its
ascription to certain things and persons was secondary.
Things and persons were not holy in and of themselves
by virtue of their own nature. Whatever holiness they
possessed was derived from their special relation to God
or the gods. In its essential nature holiness was a unique
quality of Deity. Indeed, it was not in the strict sense of
the term a quality. It expressed rather the idea of di
vinity itself. The "Holy One" was a synonym for
"God." 3 Even the plural Kedoshim, like the plural Elo
him, was used in this sense.4 In a Phoenician inscription
we read of the "holy gods," and the same expression oc
curs also in the Old Testament.5 "Holy" as here used
does not denote a special attribute of the gods, but, rather,
the differentiating nature of Deity itself. The gods were
"holy" as distinguished from »ther beings.
It was chiefly by way of contrast with men that God
or the gods were spoken of as holy. But the contrast
also applied to the lower order of supernatural or spiritual
beings. Angels, it is true, were regarded as "holy,"6 but
they were also called Elohim and sons of Elohim.1 They
were thought of as sharing in the divine nature and so as
being holy as God is holy. Then, too, since the angels
were messengers of God, dedicated to his service, they
3 Isa. 40. 25.
4 Prov. 30. 3.
5 Dan. 4. 8, 9; 5. 11.
8 Job 5. 1 ; Psa. 89. 5, 7 ; Zech. 14. 5 ; Dan. 8. 13.
7Psa. 8. 5; 97. 7; Job 1. 6; 2. 1 ; 38. 7.
138

THE HOLINESS OF GOD
may for this reason also have been designated as holy,
just as sacred things and persons were. But supernatural
or spiritual beings below the rank of Elohim, demons and
spirits that stood in no direct relation to the Deity, were
not regarded as holy. To them the idea of uncleanness
was attached. And here it is that the distinction between
"holy" and "unclean" had its origin. Things and per
sons dedicated to a deity were holy, while those possessed
by a demon or spirit were unclean.
Before this distinction arose there was a lower state of
development represented by the institution of taboo.
"Taboo" is a term borrowed from the Polynesians, but
the idea expressed by it is one common among savage and
half-savage races. It rests on the belief that certain
things and persons are inhabited by a mysterious demonic
or divine agency and consequently are dangerous, so that
they need to be approached warily or avoided altogether.
They are not "holy" nor are they "unclean" ; they exhibit
characteristics of both classes. A sanctuary is taboo, and
so is a dead body. The rise of the distinction between
these two classes is due to the emergence of the belief in
a higher order of spiritual beings, to whom a certain
stability of character is attributed and who are looked
upon as friendly. These higher beings, or deities, as they
may be termed, are holy. They enjoy the respect of men,
and true worship is paid to them. The lower spiritual
beings, on the other hand, come now, by way of contrast,
to be regarded as unclean. They and the objects dedi
cated to them are obnoxious to men and hateful to the
gods. They must be avoided if contamination and injury
are to be escaped. It is for this reason that no unclean
thing could be made holy. Uncleanness meant possession
by a demon or spirit, and this by its very nature excluded
139

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
that divine possession which formed the essence of holi
ness. But while holiness was a unique characteristic of Deity,
it nevertheless in its earliest form bore a certain re
semblance to the magical and defiling influence attributed
to the lower order of spirits and demons. Uncleanness and
holiness had both grown out of the idea of taboo, and
hence it was only natural that there should for a time be
a certain affinity between them. The most noticeable
point of resemblance is that both are represented as con
tagious. According to Lev. ii. 32ff., all things on which
the carcasses of vermin might fall were rendered unclean
and must be washed; and in the case of earthen' vessels
the uncleanness was thought of as penetrating so deeply
that it could not be removed by mere washing. The
vessels must consequently be broken, for any food or
drink taken from them would pollute the one partaking.
In a similar way it was held that the flesh of the sin-offer
ing rendered everything it touched holy.8 Any garment
sprinkled with its blood must be washed, and the earthen
vessel in which it was boiled must be broken. Holiness
and uncleanness were thus manifestly viewed as a kind of
physical infection, transmissible from one thing to an
other or from one person to another. So also, in the
pagan rites described in Isa. 65. 5, a bystander is warned
not to come near "or else I will sanctify thee" (emended
reading), the idea being that anyone who entered the
circle of the initiated would be infected with the holiness
of the group. This conception of holiness clearly harks
back to the primitive idea of taboo. The only advance it
marks is the identification of the spiritual agency sup
posed to be resident in certain things and persons with a
"Lev. 6. 27ff. 140

THE HOLINESS OF GOD
deity instead of a mere spirit or demon. But this, after
all, was a very important step forward. It put into the
hearts of men respect for the gods instead of fear of an
unknown on hostile power. And in this change we have,
as Robertson Smith says, "a real advance beyond savag
ery. There is a great moral difference between precau
tions against the invasion of mysterious hostile powers
and precautions founded on respect for the prerogative of
a friendly god. The former belong to magical supersti
tion, . . . [the latter] contain within them the germ-
inant principles of social progress and moral order." 9
From what has been said it follows that holiness as
applied to things and places did not mean that these things
and places had been withdrawn from private use and had
become the property of the gods. Later some such idea
seems to have become current. But originally the idea 7
of holiness was independent of the property idea. It'
was, to begin with, older. Certain places were regarded
as sacred before the institution of property in land had
arisen. This was the case among the nomadic Arabians.
In the next place, the hbliness of a thing did not neces
sarily exclude it from human use, nor did it rule out
human ownership. Sacrifices and tithes were holy, yet
they were eaten by the priests and worshipers.10 A sanc
tuary together with its entire equipment of images and
other sacred objects might be owned by an individual.11
Again, holy places were surrounded with restrictions
which manifestly had no connection with their protection

' The Religion of the Semites, p. 154-
10 Exod. 29. 33f.; Lev. 21. 22; 22. 10; Deut 12. 26; Num. 18. 25-32;
Deut. 26. 13.
"Judg. 17-18. 141

I)

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
as property. Certain persons were denied access to the
sanctuary, not because they were dangerous but because
they were unclean and so offensive to the gods. Others
found in the sanctuary an asylum. In the Old Testament
this right of asylum was limited to those who were
guilty of involuntary homicide,12 but the older custom
imposed no such limitation. All fugitives found shelter
and protection at certain Arabian sanctuaries. The rea
son apparently was that blood-shedding or violence of
any kind was regarded as an encroachment upon the
divine holiness, and so could not be tolerated in the di-
i vine presence. The conclusion to which we thus come is
| that things and places were not holy because they were the
| exclusive property of the gods, but because they were in
some way electrically charged, as it were, with the divine
nature or substance so that it was dangerous for men to
approach them except in certain specified ways. "Com
mon things," as Robertson Smith says, "are such as
men have license to use freely at their own good pleasure
without fear of supernatural penalties, while holy things
may be used only in prescribed ways and under definite
restrictions, on pain of the anger of the gods." 13 To
some things and places a higher degree of holiness, a
"most holy" state, was attributed. This was because they
were regarded as standing in an especially close relation
to the deity and so were surrounded by special restric
tions.14 It has been argued that holiness, even as applied to the
Deity, expresses the idea of relation. "The Holy One
of Israel," for instance, is interpreted as meaning that
12 Exod. 21. 13-14.
13 The Religion of the Semites, p. 150.
"Exod. 26. 33f.; Lev. 6. 25; 24. 9; Num. 4. 19; 18. 9.
142

THE HOLINESS OF GOD
God is holy by virtue. of his relation to Israel. It is the
relationship that makes him holy. But the fact that
heathen deities generally were spoken of as holy excludes
this view. "The Holy One of Israel" means simply that
he who is holy has revealed himself in Israel or is God of
Israel. "Of Israel," as Davidson remarks, forms no part
of the idea of holy. Holiness is a common and essen
tial characteristic of Deity. Indeed, J. P. Peters holds
that it was not a characteristic of Deity in general, but
the peculiar characteristic of each individual deity.
"Holiness," he says, "was that which especially belonged
to a god, his divinity, which not only differentiated the
deity from man, but differentiated one deity from an
other. It is this peculiarity of each deity, his individual
ity, in which his holiness consists." 15 In support of this
view it is pointed out that each deity had his own special
rules of holiness, to which all were required to conform.
But this fact hardly warrants the conclusion that the holi
ness of each deity differed in some essential way from
that of every other. When it is said that "there is none \
holy as Jehovah," ie the meaning is not that a peculiar
form of holiness belonged to Yahweh, but that he alone
was worthy to be regarded as truly divine. "Holiness"
and "divinity" were almost synonymous terms. Amos,
for instance, speaks of Yahweh at one time as swearing
"by his holiness" 17 and at another time as swearing "by
himself." 18 The two expressions evidently had sub
stantially the same force. Holiness and the divine per
sonality implied each other,.

13 The Religion of the Hebrews, p. 295.
18 1 Sam. 2. 2.
" Amos 4. 2.
w6. 8. 143

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
But while holiness was originally almost synonymous
with divinity, it had a distinct connotation of its own.
j It directed attention to the unapproachableness of God,
1 to that aspect of his nature which awakened in men the
feeling of awe. God in so far as he called forth rever
ence and fear was holy. And this meaning of the term
never left it. Whatever specific conceptions may later
have been associated with it, it never lost the idea that
God is unapproachable and a Being to be feared. In its
earlier form there was something of the irrational in this
conception of the divine nature. Men believed that they
could not see God and live.19 They also felt uncertain
about the operation of the divine holiness. There was
something mysterious and incalculable about it. A great
slaughter was visited upon the men of Beth-Shemesh or,
if we accept the reading of the Septuagint, the sons of
Jeconiah, because they had in some apparently innocent
way infringed upon the holiness of the ark.20 And when
Uzzah put forth his hand to stay the ark as it was about
to fall, he was struck dead.21 Yahweh was as yet a
Being who was not fully understood, and so men asked
in more or less of dismay, "Who is able to stand before
Jehovah, this holy God?" 22
Translated into psychological terms holiness in early
thought took the form of wrath and jealousy. "Jeal
ousy," as Cheyne says, "is the affectional manifestation
of the divine holiness." 2S And the same might be said
of the divine wrath, for jealousy is only a specialized

' Exod. 33. 20, J ; Judg. 13. 22 ; Isa. 6. 5.
" 1 Sam. 6. 19.
l2 Sam. 6. 6f.
2 1 Sam. 6. 20.
8 The Prophecies of Isaiah, p. 63.
144

THE HOLINESS OF GOD
form of the divine anger. Whenever the divine holi
ness was offended, whether by heathen nations, by the Is
raelites, or by any profane person or thing, the inevitable
psychological reaction was wrath. This was naturally
suggested by human analogy. As conceived in the Old
Testament the divine wrath was akin to human passion.
It was not always thought of as controlled by justice.
Left to itself, it might overleap the bounds of equity.24
Jealousy was awakened in the divine mirid whenever the
intimate relation between Yahweh and Israel was en
croached upon. Israel might of her own free accord wor
ship other gods, or her enemies might lead her astray and
dishonor her. In either case the divine holiness was vio
lated, and the divine jealousy aroused, against Israel in
the one case,25 and her enemies in the other.26 These re
actions of the divine mind in the form of wrath and
jealousy were conceived of as taking place on the natural
plane. They were expressions of the divine nature rather
than the divine will or character, and so illustrate the
nonethical view of holiness current in primitive times.
The primitive conception of holiness as a mysterious,"'
indefinable, fear-inspiring characteristic of Deity formed
the common Semitic background of Old Testament teach
ing. It appears, as we have seen, to some extent in the
Old Testament itself ; but it has interest and value there
only as revealing the crude beginnings from which the
distinctive Old Testament doctrine developed. "Israel,"
as Cornill says, "resembled in spiritual matters the fabu
lous King Midas who turned everything he touched into
24 Psa. 6. i ; Jer. 10. 24.
85 Exod. 20. 5 ; 34. 14.
"Zech. 1. 14; 8. 2; Joel 2. 18. 145

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
gold." This is especially clear in the case of the idea of
holiness. The heathen associations of the term were not
altogether discarded, but they gradually gave way to
higher spiritual and ethical conceptions. Of these con
ceptions three may be distinguished: power, purity, and
righteousness. Each calls for separate discussion.
The power or majesty of God was not far removed
from the fundamental idea expressed by holiness, that of
unapproachableness. What rendered God unapproach
able, what above all distinguished him from men, was his
greatness. This was true of the gods generally long be
fore the rise of monotheism, and was true of Yahweh
from the beginning. It became natural, therefore, to
associate the holiness of God with the thought -of his
transcendent greatness. This is the sense in which the
term is most widely used. It appears clearly in the tri-
sagion of the seraphim :27 "Holy, holy, holy, is Jehovah
of hosts." It is implied in many utterances in the Psalms :
"Let them praise thy great and terrible name:
Holy is he;"28
"Holy and reverend is his name;" 29
"God reigneth over the nations :
God sitteth upon his holy throne." 30
It is the idea that underlies the use of the term in Deutero-
Isaiah. Holiness is there associated with the omnipotence
of Yahweh. It is as Lord of the stellar host and as re
deemer of Israel that he is the Holy One.31 He is "the
27 Isa. 6. 3.
"99- 3-
29 in. 9-
"47-8.31 Isa. 40. 25 ; 49. 7. 146

THE HOLINESS OF GOD
high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is
Holy." 32 But it is especially in Ezekiel that this concep
tion of holiness is made prominent. Here "great" and
"holy" are used synonymously.33 What constitutes a pro
fanation of the holy name of Yahweh is a disbelief in his
omnipotent power. It was in this way that the Israelites
by their exile profaned his holy name. They caused the
heathen to believe that their exile was due to the weak
ness of Yahweh.34 And so the sanctification of his name,
the exhibition of his holiness, consisted in the assertion
of his power by the restoration of Israel. Such a display
of might on his part would sanctify his name by compel
ling the heathen to recognize his true majesty.35
Closely connected with this conception of holiness is
the idea of the divine glory. The two are brought to
gether in Isaiah 6. 3 : "Holy, holy, holy, is Jehovah of
hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory." The glory of
Yahweh was the outward manifestation of his holiness.
It is represented in at least two different ways in the Old
Testament. Isaiah sees it in the power and might mani
fest in nature and history,36 and many later passages in
the Old Testament echo the same view.37 Ezekiel, on the
other hand, represents the divine glory as a physical phe
nomenon, a bright or fiery appearance, indicative of the
divine presence,38 and the same view appears also in P.39

82 Isa. 57. 15.
38 36. 21-23.
31 36. 20.
85 20. 41 ; 38. 16, 23, etc.
86 2. 10, 21 ; 3. 8.
37 Deut. 5. 24; Hab. 2. 14; Isa. 66. 19; Psa. 8. 2; 19. 1; 57. 5, 11;
63. 2.
88 1. 28; 9. 3; 10. 4; 11. 23; 43. 2ff.; 44. 4.
30 Exod. 16. 10; 24. 16-18; 29. 43; 40. 34, etc.
147

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
There is, however, this difference. In Ezekiel the divine
glory appears only in prophetic vision, while in P it mani
fests itself to ordinary human sight.
The idea is frequently expressed in the Old Testament,
especially in Ezekiel, that Yahweh's motive in the redemp
tion of Israel was to sanctify his name. "I wrought," he
says, "for my name's sake." 40 "I had regard for
my holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned
among the nations whither they went." 41 "I do not this
for your sake, O house of Israel, but for my holy
name." 42 The prophet's thought here seems to be that
Yahweh was actuated by the motive of self-defense. His
honor was at stake, and must be protected. The nations
saw in the exile of Israel an evidence of his weakness, and
so rejected the idea of his universal sovereignty. Hence
it was necessary for him to restore Israel and make such
a display of his omnipotence that none could doubt it. In
this representation of the divine conduct there seems to
be a non-ethical element. Yahweh seems to be moved to
action by impulses akin to those natural feelings of resent
ment and offended dignity that figure so prominently in
human life. In these feelings there is often very little,
if any, ethical content. They arise frequently from mere
sensitiveness of nature. And yet back of them, no matter
how foolish and irrational they may be, there is a pro
found ethical principle, that of respect for oneself. Self-
respect lies at the very basis of the moral life. No one
can lose his self-respect without losing both the respect of
others and respect for others, and so becoming funda
mentally immoral. This holds true of men generally, and
40 Ezek. 20. 9, 14, 22.
41 Ezek. 36. 21.
42 Ezek. 36. 22. 148

THE HOLINESS OF GOD
what Ezekiel does is to apply the same principle to God.
God must as God be true to his own nature, to his own
position in the world, and so must demand reverence from
men. His holiness, his transcendent greatness, requires
it. It is perhaps not a mere coincidence that the prophet
who thus stresses Yahweh's regard for his own name was
also the prophet of individualism. The two ideas are
nowhere directly connected, but the same fundamental
thought underlies them both. According to individual
ism, every individual man has certain rights which so
ciety and God himself must respect. No one may justly
be damned for the sake of anyone else, not even for the
glory of God. And so it is also, on the other hand, with
God. God by virtue of the fact that he is God has certain
rights which men and nations must respect. He must at
times act out of regard for his own holy name. Duty
requires it. It is this profound ethical truth that lies at
the basis of Ezekiel's conception of the divine holiness, as
majesty or irresistible power.
The conception of the divine holiness as purity appears
to some extent in Ezekiel,43 but is especially prominent in
the Levitical legislation. Cleanness, as we have seen,
was a condition of holiness. Only clean objects could
become holy. Hence cleanness and holiness came to be
used almost synonymously. Both formed an antithesis to
uncleanness. Holiness in this sense as applied to the
Deity expressed a sensitiveness on his part to everything
impure. He reacted against it as we do against anything
repellent to our taste. Originally objects and customs
were rendered impure because of their connection with
"43- 7-9- 149

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
heathen deities, with ancestor-worship, or with other
forms of superstition.44 Such objects and customs
awakened the jealousy of Yahweh and hence were cast
out from his presence as unclean. Later, uncleanness
came to be attributed to a wider range of objects and acts.
All sin came to be viewed as uncleanness,45 and unsesthetic
things generally came to be regarded in the same light.
Priests, for instance, were prohibited from wearing any
thing woolen on the ground that it caused sweat.46 There
was something in the divine nature that reacted unfavor
ably upon everything impure and improper. It was holi
ness in this sense that formed the ruling principle in the
rites and ceremonies of the Old Testament. When Yah
weh said, "Be ye holy, for I am holy," 47 what he meant
was that the people should hold themselves aloof from
everything ceremonially unclean as he himself did. Holi
ness, thus understood, did not exclude the moral, but it
stood more closely related to the aesthetic nature.
It is in the last mentioned fact that the ethical justi
fication of Old Testament ceremonialism is to be found.
"It is the very nature of religion," as A. V. G. Allen has
said, "that it tends to cultivate good taste as well as a
right heart and right living." 48 Men demand that in our
relation to them we should not only observe the moral law,
but also those rules of polite intercourse which reveal per
sonal respect and consideration. And so, the ceremonial-
ist says, it should be in our relation to God. Etiquette
has its place in religion. It is an indication not only of
good taste but of spiritual refinement. It shows a sensi-
" Lev. 19. 31.
45 Lev. 18. 26-28.
40 Ezek. 44. 18.
"Lev. 11. 44; 19. 2; 20. 26.
48 Freedom in the Church, p. 195. 150

THE HOLINESS OF GOD
tiveness of feeling toward the divine such as could not be
expressed by mere obedience to the moral law. Moral
obedience is fundamental and absolutely essential, but
ceremonialism has its place in the further culture of the
soul. If it obscures, as it sometimes does, the moral re
quirements of religion, it is of course to be condemned.
But in and of itself it simply aims by a reverent and
thoughtful approach to God to give expression to the
inviolable purity of his nature. It aims to refine the sense
of the divine presence. Ceremonial holiness, conse
quently, as applied both to God and man had a rational
place in Old Testament religion.
The ethical conception of holiness is especially promi
nent in Isaiah. That this formed no part of the original
meaning of the term is evident from the fact that the de
graded beings, prostitutes and sodomites, who sacrificed
their purity at the sanctuaries, were called "holy" ones, or
"saints."49 Such a use of the term kadesh would have
been impossible if a moral quality had been expressed
by it. All that the word originally meant was that the
thing or person to which it was applied was in some way
related to the sanctuary. The word was itself morally
neutral. But as the worship of Yahweh became more and
more firmly established in Israel, the idea of holiness
naturally took its color from the prevailing conception of
his character. And as he came to be thought of more
and more distinctly as a moral Being, holiness natu-\
rally came to be regarded as having an ethical con
tent. It was with Isaiah that this ethical content of the
term was first emphasized. We see it in his inaugural
vision. The holiness there attributed to Yahweh awak-
49 Deut. 23. 17. 151

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
ened within the prophet a consciousness, not only of
creaturely infirmity, but also of moral unworthiness, an
unworthiness that attached both to himself and the na
tion.80 As compared with the Holy One he and the
people among whom he dwelt were morally unclean.
"Jehovah of hosts," he says in another connection, "is
exalted in justice, and God the Holy One is sanctified in
righteousness." 51 This particular verse, it is true, is as
signed by many critics to a later hand, but the idea it ex
presses is one that underlies most of the Isaianic pro
phecies. It is Isaiah's general teaching that Israel's sin
is rebellion against God and that the divine holiness has
manifested itself and will continue to manifest itself in
righteous judgments on his people. The essential ele
ment in holiness is thus righteousness. And this must
have been the case generally with those prophets who
stressed the moral character of Yahweh. Nor are we to
suppose that the ethical conception of the divine holiness
was lacking with such prophets as Ezekiel and Deutero-
Isaiah, who laid special emphasis on the power and great
ness of Yahweh. Holiness was, as we have seen, a unique
characteristic of Deity. It denoted no particular attri
bute. But when some attribute such as power or purity
or righteousness was especially emphasized, the idea of
holiness came naturally to be closely associated with it.
In this way every distinctive attribute of the Deity came
to be regarded as an expression of the divine holiness,
or as virtually identical with it.
In the development of the Old Testament idea of the
divine holiness there was a tendency toward a more dis
tinctly ethical and spiritual conception. But the develop-
80 Isa. 6. 5.
"5- 16. 152

THE HOLINESS OF GOD
ment was not a steady upward movement. The half-mag
ical and ceremonial elements in the preprophetic concep
tion of holiness52 gave way in Isaiah to the ethical, and
from his time on the moral factor remained a constituent
element in the idea of holiness. But in Ezekiel and the
Priestly Code, as we have seen, the less distinctly ethical
conceptions of holiness as majesty and ceremonial purity
came into the foreground, and down through the post
exilic period these conceptions seem to have become in
creasingly prominent. Holiness, while not excluding the
ethical, came to be thought of more and more from the
ceremonial point of view. It was probably for this reason
that Jesus used the term so seldom. In only two instances
does he apply it to God. In John 17. 11 he addresses
God as "Holy Father," and in the Lord's Prayer he
teaches us to pray that the divine name may be hallowed.
In both cases, it should be noted, the idea of holiness is
associated with that of Father, and derives its meaning
from that association. It is the fatherly or ethical nature
of God, not his mere transcendence or mystic purity, that
is thought of as the object of reverence and trust. The
principle of ceremonialism Jesus rejected outright,53 and
with it went the ceremonial conception of holiness. If,
then, the idea of holiness was to be retained in Christian
thought, it could be only by completely moralizing it and
making it synonymous with ethical perfection. This
process of moralization began even before the time of
Isaiah, but it did not attain its completion until Chris
tianity had so thoroughly spiritualized the conception of
God that men came to see that he could henceforth be
worshiped only in spirit and in truth.
82 1 Sam. 6. 20; 2 Sam. 6. 7; Exod. 22. 31, E.
88 Mark 7. 14-23. 153

CHAPTER VII
THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD
A century or so ago it was a common belief that the
distinctive features of Israel's religion were to be found
in its ceremonial regulations. The poet Goethe, for in
stance, in an article published in 1773, contended that the
ethical Decalogue in Exod. 20 could not have been the
basis of the Mosaic covenant, because the principles it
laid down were universally recognized as valid and con
tained nothing distinctively Israelitic. The ceremonial
Decalogue, on the other hand, supposed to be found in
Exod. 34. 10-26 and now commonly known as "the
J Decalogue," he argued, would have furnished a fitting
basis for such an exclusive covenant as was that of the
Old Testament. It was, he consequently concluded, the
ten commandments in Exod. 34, not those in Exod. 20,
that were written "on the tables of stone" at Sinai.1 This
theory in a modified form has found wide acceptance in
recent times. It is now a common view that there is a
second Decalogue in Exod. 34 and that this Decalogue is
considerably older than that in Exod. 20. But the basis
for this view is quite different from that on which Goethe
rested his theory. Goethe held that the ethical element
in religion was common to mankind and that it was the
ceremonial that was distinctive of Israel. To-day schol
ars are agreed that the chief point of similarity between
1 See the author's article on "The So-called J Decalogue" in the
Journal of Biblical Literature, 1909, pp. 82ff,
154

THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD
the Old Testament and heathen religions is to be found in
its rites and ceremonies, and that the new and significant
element in the Old Testament is the ethical. But this ele
ment, it is contended by many critics, was a late achieve
ment in Israel's history. Hence we must hold that the
ritual Decalogue in Exod. 34 was older than the ethical
Decalogue in Exod. 20. It was, however, the latter, and
not the former, that expressed the true genius and distinc
tive character of Old Testament religion.
Applying this conclusion to the Old Testament con
ception of God, we see that the characteristic element in
this conception was righteousness. In the Semitic poly
theisms there was usually some one god such as the Baby
lonian Shamash whose special function it was to main
tain law and right; in the Zoroastrian dualism Ahura
Mazda represented perfect goodness; and in the philo
sophic monotheism of the Greeks there was a strong eth
ical element. But none of these systems was, as Kuenen
puts it, "ethical to the very core." 2 They were not abso
lutely dominated by the idea of righteousness, as was
Hebrew and Christian thought. It was the unique char
acteristic of Yahweh that he was identified with the moral
principle of the universe and that this principle was looked
upon as absolutely sovereign.
But such a conception was naturally not the work of a
day. It was the outcome of a long development. To
trace the stages in this development is one of the most
interesting and difficult problems connected with Old
Testament religion. Wellhausen, as we have already ob
served,3 has asked why, for instance, Chemosh of Moab
did not become the God of righteousness rather than
2 The Prophets and Prophecy in Israel, p. 590.
3 Page 79. 155

r

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
Yahweh of Israel, and has replied that a satisfactory
answer cannot be given. A partial answer, as we have
suggested, might be found in Israel's passionate devotion
to Yahweh; but in the last analysis Wellhausen's state
ment is no doubt true. There is an element of mystery
lying back of the spiritual development of any people,
which the human mind will never be able to penetrate.
That mystery, according to theistic and Christian thought,
belongs to the inscrutable will of God. To his will must
be referred the ultimate explanation of everything. And
when it comes to movements of different degrees of spir
itual value, Christian thought sees in those of a higher
character the presence in a unique sense of the Divine
Spirit. Such a marvelous spiritual movement as that in
Israel it, consequently, refers to the self -revelation of
God himself. But this still leaves open the question as
to how and when this revelation was made. Was the
righteousness of God first revealed to Amos or can it be
traced back to Moses? Under what form did it first
manifest itself, and what was the attitude of the pre
prophetic Israelites toward it? These are all questions
on which there is wide difference of opinion.
It is generally agreed that with Amos we have a com
plete moralization of the idea of God. To seek Yah
weh and to seek the good are with him synonymous ex
pressions.4 Yahweh is the moral ruler of the universe,.
and what he requires of men is simply obedience to the
moral law. But was this teaching of Amos "something
new and startling in Israel" ? Was it "a bolt out of the
open blue," or did it have its roots in the past? Can it
be traced back into the preprophetic period, or even to
4 5. 6, 14. 156

THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD
the time of Moses? How, in a word, is the relation of
Amos to the early religion of Israel to be construed?
In answering this question it will be well to begin with
Moses. If the Decalogue came from Moses, the question
would be virtually settled. But this is unfortunately one
of the main points of dispute in connection with the ques
tion. One of the chief objections to the Mosaic origin of
the Decalogue is the ethical conception of religion that
underlies it. This objection as an argument is, of course,
a begging of the question, since the major point at issue is
just the question as to whether there was a distinctly eth
ical element in the Mosaic conception of Yahweh. If there
was, the Decalogue might have come from Moses; if not,
it must have come from a later date. In the present state
of thought it is consequently evident that the Decalogue
cannot be used either to support or oppose the view that
the ethical factor in Old Testament religion had its origin
in the teaching of Moses. Though it may justly be con
tended that in default of positive disproof there is an<
a priori probability that the unanimous biblical tradition
ascribing the Decalogue to Moses had a trustworthy basis.J
If Yahweh, as conceived by Moses, "was no more eth
ical than any other god," it devolves upon us to show at
what subsequent period in Israel's history the unique eth
ical element in the later conception of Yahweh might
more naturally have been introduced. But this cannot be
done. Between the time of Moses and that of Amos
there was no event and no personality significant enough
to be regarded as the starting point of so far-reaching a
change in the conception of the character of Yahweh.
This is conceded by Budde,5 who, while denying that the
Mosaic Yahweh was in any distinctive sense an ethical
8 The Religion of Israel to the Exile, pp. 21-38.
157

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
deity, still contends that the germ of the subsequent eth
ical development must be found in the work of Moses.
"All attempts," he says, "to find the germ of the ethical
development of the Yahweh religion in the material con
tent of the conception of God as represented by Moses,
have completely failed." The ethical germ does not lie in
anything that Moses taught or revealed. It is to be found
in the fact that Yahweh, who had previously been the
God of the Kenites, became under Moses' leadership the
God of Israel. He chose Israel as his people, and they
accepted him as their God. There was thus established
a voluntary relation between a people and its god, some
thing new in the history of religion, and out of this volun
tary relation grew the new ethical element in Israel's
religion. "Israel's religion," as Budde says, "became
ethical because it was a religion of choice and not nature,
because it rested on a voluntary decision which estab
lished an ethical relation between the people and its God
for all time."
In this ingenious theory there may be some truth. But
several criticisms naturally suggest themselves. In the
-first place, it is by no means certain that Yahweh was the
God of the Kenites before he became the God of Israel.
It is quite probable that he was known to some at least of
the Israelitic tribes, if not all of them, before the time of
Moses. And in that case there was nothing in the new
loyalty to him evoked by the deliverance from Egypt to
suggest the distinction between a religion of "nature" and
one of "choice." In the next place, it is doubtful if the
distinction between a "natural" and a voluntary" relation
to the Deity ever played such a role in the history of reli
gion as is implied in Budde's theory. Ancient peoples
generally looked upon their relation to the Deity as a per-
158

THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD
sonal one, and it is open to serious question if any impor
tant people ever regarded the god of their fathers as "by
nature bound so closely to the descendants that he was
compelled to take their part whatever their behavior to
him." 6 When Babylon fell, the priests of Marduk did
not hesitate to attribute its fall to the anger of their god,
just as the fall of Jerusalem was ascribed by the prophets
to the wrath of Yahweh. The same free relation of the
Deity to his people was assumed in both cases. Then,
again, it may be noted that while Yahweh's choice of
Israel is frequently referred to in the Old Testament, it
is nowhere opposed to a "natural" relationship. Indeed,
the two ideas, that of a "natural" paternal relation to
Israel and that of a choice of Israel, at times go hand in
hand.7 And so far as the people themselves were con
cerned, there was nothing in the conception of their elec
tion by Yahweh that implied that their relation to him was
primarily ethical. The prophets found it quite as neces
sary to moralize the idea of Israel's election as they did
the idea of a "natural" relation to Yahweh. Between
these two conceptions no distinction of any significance
was made in the Old Testament.
What was ethically significant in the work of Moses
v was not the establishment of a new voluntary relation be- J
tween a people and its God, but the new and profound/
sense of gratitude and loyalty called forth by the mar
velous deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt. That
deliverance they attributed to Yahweh, whether they had
known him before or not, and to him they poured out
their soul in passionate devotion. This devotion was in
itself a profoundly ethical act. It involved such a sur-
8 H. P. Smith, The Religion of Israel, p. 60.
7 Hos. 11. 1-4. TS9

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
render of the human to the divine will and such an out
flow of joyful gratitude to God that the prophets cen
turies later looked back upon it as the ideal expression
of the nation's religious life. Israel was then "holiness
unto Jehovah, the first-fruits of his increase." 8 He
found her "like grapes in the wilderness; ... as the
first-ripe in the fig-tree." 9 The ardor she then mani
fested was the kindness of her youth and the love of her
espousals.10 And when Hosea describes the ideal Israel
of the future he says that "she shall make answer there,
as in the days of her youth, and as in the day when she
came up out of the land of Egypt." u In that early day
no mummery of sacrifice vitiated her worship.12 Her
devotion was a pure service of the heart.
Whether this new-born and intense loyalty to Yahweh
was accompanied by any definite instruction concerning
his moral character and moral commands, is a point on
^ which we are left in uncertainty. It is quite possible, and
even probable, that the Decalogue emanated from Moses.
But whether it did or not, and whether there was any
other moral instruction that came from him or not, there
can hardly be a doubt that the initial passionate devotion
of Israel to Yahweh contained an ideal element that made
it the germ of the subsequent ethical development. The
Yahweh, to whom the Hebrews surrendered themselves,
may not to an outward observer have seemed, very dif
ferent from Chemosh of Moab, but the glowing loyalty
that he evoked carried with it of necessity a tendency to
idealize his character. There are in our subjective moral
8 Jer. 2. 3.
' Hos. 9. 10.
10 Jer. 2. 2.
"2. 15.
" Amos 5. 25 ; Jer. 7. 22. 160

THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD
equipment two positive factors, the good will and a cer
tain ideal of life. Both come to us as obligations, and
both in the case of the Hebrews must have been so stim
ulated by the sense of loyalty and gratitude to Yahweh
as to lead to an essentially new view of his character and
of the service he required of men. This higher ideal
element may not at first have manifested itself with per
fect distinctness. But the impulse toward it was cer
tainly there. It was implicit in the intense devotion and
sustained enthusiasm of the people. The God under
whose banner they had enlisted was no mere nature-god,
no mere dispenser of the good things of life, but a stern
God of conscience, a God to whom law and right were
dear.13 As much at least of the ethical as this must be
attributed to the Mosaic conception of Yahweh.
Between the time of Moses and that of the literary
prophets we have both decline and progress. The period
corresponds closely to that in Christian history between
the apostolic age and the Reformation. The Reformation
was a reaffirmation of primitive Christianity, and yet it
marked also an important step forward. The interven
ing centuries, dark and backward as they had been, had
still not been altogether fruitless. They had prepared the
way for such an advance as that of the Reformation.
And so it was with the literary prophets. They reaf
firmed what they believed to be the teaching of Moses,
and yet their teaching was not a mere echo of that of
the nation's founder. The intervening centuries in spite
of all their lapses had witnessed a distinct religious de
velopment, and this development it was that alone made
possible the work of the eighth-century prophets. The
13 Exod. 18. 161

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
outstanding characteristic of this period of development
was the assimilation of a vast amount of heathenism and
the gradual recognition of the essential antithesis between
this heathen importation and the faith inherited from
Moses. In the course of such a process it was inevitable
that diverse views concerning the character of Yahweh
should receive expression. In the main he is represented
as a God of righteousness. The statement of a later
writer that "judgment belongs to God," 14 holds true of
this earlier period. Two striking scenes illustrate it.
One is Nathan's arraignment of David for his sin against
Uriah the Hittite,15 and the other is Elijah's denuncia
tion of Ahab for the judicial murder of Naboth.16 But
the idea in less striking ways finds expression through
out the period as a whole.17 The Book of the Covenant18
is in large part a legal embodiment of it.
Nevertheless along with this conception of Yahweh
as a righteous Deity there are other representations that
seem to conflict with it. Yahweh falls at times into an
apparently unintelligible or capricious anger,19 he mani
fests a jealous attitude toward human ambition,20 he
allows himself to be moved by such a material gift as the
smell of the sweet fragrance of a sacrifice,21 he incites to
evil action,22 and he shows favoritism to the Israelites,
"Deut i. 17.
"2 Sam. 12.
18 1 Kings 21.
17 Judg. 1. 7; 1 Sam. 2. 25; 24. 12; 25. 39; 2 Sam. 16. 10-12; 17. 14;
1 Kings 2. 32; 2 Kings 9. 24-26.
18 Exod. 20. 22 to 23. 19.
19 1 Sam. 6. 19; 2 Sam. 6. 6f.
"Gen. 3. 22; 11. 6f, J.
21 Gen. 8. 21, J.
22 2 Sam. 24. 1; 1 Kings 12. 15; 22. 23; 1 Sam. 26. 19; Judg.
9. 22-24. 162

THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD
even helping them against other people when they them
selves are in the wrong.23 In such instances as these it is
no doubt true that the biblical writers did not mean to
impute moral imperfection to Yahweh. What they re
lated of him seemed to them proper enough. It was their
own uneducated moral sense, their own imperfect concep
tion of the divine sovereignty, and the nationalistic limita
tions of their own views that led them to ascribe to Yah
weh acts that seem to us unethical. But the very fact that
such acts were ascribed to him is of course evidence that
the current conception of his character had not as yet been
so completely molded on the principle of righteousness
that the latter was regarded as forming the one touch
stone of divine action. Another forward step was needed
before the idea of God was fully moralized.
This forward step was taken by Amos and the other
eighth-century prophets. It was taken, however, by them
almost unconsciously. They were unaware of any break
with the past. They regarded themselves as simply call
ing the people back to "the old paths, where is the good
way." 24 And yet as we study their utterances we dis
cover in them an ethical thoroughness and loftiness that
we do not find in the documents that have come down to
us from an earlier period. Their idealism moves on a
higher plane. £They feel themselves standing face to
face with a marvelous theophany. God is about to reveal
himself as the righteous Judge of the world. He had
been such before, but his dealings with men had not al
ways been so clear that they could discern the principle by
which he was guided. In the great day about to dawn this
23 Gen. 12. 10-20, J ; 20. 1-18, E.
24 Jer. 6. 16. 163

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
unclearness is to disappear, and God is to stand before
men as the one living embodiment of righteousness and
judgment. All iniquity is to be overthrown, and a new
kingdom founded on right and truth is to be established.
In these ideas there was nothing wholly new; there was
nothing to which the devout of an earlier day would not
have said "Yea" and "Amen." 25 Yet they reveal a clear
ness of vision, a firmness of conviction, and an elevation
of moral sentiment such as had not appeared before.
The prophetic stress on the righteousness of God mani
fested itself in several ways. For one thing, it took the
form of a denunciation of the traditional worship of the
Israelites. This worship was in two regards unworthy of
a righteous God. First, some of the objects and rites
associated with it were of a debasing and even immoral
character. This was true of the images used and of the
prostitution practiced at the high places.26 In the next
place, the rites and ceremonies that were in and of them
selves unobjectionable, were observed in such a formal
way that they had no spiritual value. Instead of express
ing the spirit of true piety they were regarded as a substi
tute for it. Instead of leading to a life of righteousness
they were regarded as dispensing with the need of such
a life. So deep seated was this heresy that the early
prophets were forced again and again to condemn it.
"I hate," says Yahweh, "I despise your feasts, and I will
take no delight in your solemn assemblies." 2T "I desire
28 This is a significant fact. "In striking contrast is the progress
of thought in Greece, where the awakening of the ethical conscious
ness caused a rupture between the culture of the philosophers and
the popular religion, and led to a final decay of the political and
social life." See Dr. K. Kohler's Jewish Theology, p. 39.
^> 28Amos 2. 7; Hos. 4. 13-14; 8. 4-6; 13. 2.
/v27Amos 5. 21. 164

THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD
goodness, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God,
more than burnt-offerings." 28 "What unto me is the
multitude of your sacrifices? saith Jehovah: I have had
enough of the burnt-offerings of rams, and the fat of
fed-beasts . . . Bring no more vain oblations; incense
is an abomination unto me. . . . Your new moons
and your appointed feasts my soul hateth; they are a
trouble unto me; I am weary of bearing them." 29 "To
what purpose cometh there to me frankincense from
Sheba, and the sweet cane from a far country? Your
burnt-offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices
pleasing unto me." 30 Thousands of rams and ten thou
sands of rivers of oil, even the sacrifice of one's first-born,
had no value in his sight.31 Nor did he give any heed to
the outstretched hands of prayer when unaccompanied by
the proper spirit.32 It was to him a sufficient ground for
the people's condemnation that they, as he says, "draw
nigh unto me, and with their mouth and with their lips
do honor me, but have removed their heart far from
me." 33 In and of themselves rites and ceremonies were
worthless, and the formal traditional worship a sham and
a delusion. Along with this condemnation of ceremonialism went,
in the next place, an equally emphatic insistence on right
eousness as the one essential element in the true worship
of Yahweli. Righteousness was conceived by the proph
ets as both objective and subjective, both social and indi
vidual. Some laid more stress on one aspect, and some
6 28Hos. 6. 6.
| t> 29Isa. i. 11-14.
y " Jer. 6. 20.
31 Mic. 6. 6-7.
32 Isa. 1. 15.
83 Isa. 29. 13. 165

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
on another, but all agreed in their conception of the es
sential nature of righteousness. It meant social justice,
it meant personal purity, it meant a clean heart as well
as right conduct. Amos emphasizes social justice, and
this is also prominent in Isaiah. "Let justice," says
Amos, "roll down as waters, and righteousness as a
mighty stream." 34 "Seek justice," says Isaiah, "relieve
the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the
widow." 35 Hosea condemns moral evil in general, but
dwells with special emphasis on personal purity.36 Jere
miah stresses the subjective side of righteousness.
"Break up," he says, "your fallow ground, and sow not
among thorns. Circumcise yourselves to Jehovah, and
take away the foreskins of your heart." 37 "This is the
covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after
those days, saith Jehovah: I will put my law in their
inward parts, and in their heart will I write it." 38 This
idea is also expressed by Ezekiel. "A new heart also,"
he represents Yahweh as saying, "will I give you, and a
new spirit will I put within you ; and I will take away the
stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart
of flesh." 39 The most comprehensive statement of the
ethical teaching of the prophets is the well-known saying
in Micah : "What doth Jehovah require of thee, but to do
justly, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with thy
God?"40 The most striking exhibition, however, of the ethical

84 5- 24.

38 1. 17.

r*°4-i3;7.4-
^4- 3-4-
88 31- 33-
39 Ezek. 36. 26;
compare
11.
19.
"6.8.
166
THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD
idealism of the prophets is to be found, not in their de
nunciation of the traditional religious formalism, nor in
their insistence on righteousness as the one worthful thing
in the sight of God, but in their teaching concerning the
^-day of YahweH!? In that day soon to dawn the evils of
the present order are to cease. The eternal and ideal is
to emerge in the order of time. Yahweh is to establish
his own kingdom among men. It is primarily in Israel that
the parousia is to take place. In a certain sense Yahweh
had ruled over the Israelites in the past. They had been
his people and he their God. He had given them laws,
and sent them prophets. He had punished them time and
again and in the most varied ways for their sins. He had
sent them famine and pestilence and earthquake and war,
but all to no avail. After each visitation he was forced
to say, "Yet have ye not returned unto me." 41 And
so the prophet Isaiah in describing a series of chastise
ments was compelled to add after each of them the con
viction that "for all this his anger is not turned away,
but his hand is stretched out still." 42 A more com
plete and striking manifestation of his wrath against all
wrongdoing was consequently necessary. And this was
to come in the not distant future. A doom surpassing
anything known in the past was to befall Israel. War,
captivity, fire, earthquake, eclipse, famine, pestilence — all
these were used as symbols of the impending catastrophe,
but none expressed its full terrors. Yahweh himself was
to arise and shake mightily the earth.43 Before his pres
ence nothing hostile would be able to stand. The Israel
of history with its idolatry, its injustice, its immorality,
"Amos 4. 6, 8, 9, 10, 11.
"9. 12, 17,21; 10. 4:5-25.
43 Isa. 2. 21. 167

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
its uncleanness of heart, would be swept away by the
breath of his anger. Only righteousness and loyalty of
soul would have a place in the new Israel that was to
supersede the Israel of the past.
But Yahweh's day of doom was not confined to Israel.
It was to involve all peoples. One nation might for a
while be used to punish another for its sins. Assyria, it
is said, was the rod of Yahweh's anger and the staff of
his indignation.44 But this was only a temporary phase
of the approaching doom. Eventually all nations were to
come under the divine wrath. To some extent the indig
nation of God against the sins of the heathen had mani
fested itself in the past. It wasi for instance, the wick
edness of the pre-Israelitic inhabitants of Canaan that led
to their expulsion from the land.45 But thus far the
righteous rule of Yahweh in dealing with the heathen
had manifested itself only to a very limited degree. In
the great assize of the near future it would be different.
The nations will then be tested by the plummet line of
righteousness. Their pride will be rebuked, their hostil
ity to the divine plan defeated, and Yahweh alone will be
exalted in that day. Confusing as the present course of
events may be, iniquity will soon be so decisively and
finally punished that none will be able to doubt the abso
lute reign of righteousness in the world.
The righteousness of God, however, did not in the Old
Testament mean simply judgment. It did not mean the
enforcement of abstract justice. The Hebrews made no
such sharp distinction between the divine righteousness
and the divine mercy as we sometimes find in Christian
theology. Righteousness with them was coextensive with
44 Isa. 10. 5.
48 Deut. 9. 5 ; Gen. 15. 16. 168

THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD
the moral nature. It embraced kindness, benevolence, hu
manity. One could not be righteous without being kind
and loving. This aspect of the divine righteousness is
brought out prominently in Deutero-Isaiah. Here right
eousness is about synonymous with salvation. Yahweh
is spoken of as "a just God and a Saviour." 46 "My
righteousness," says Yahweh, "is near, my salvation is
gone forth." 4T "My salvation shall be forever, and my
righteousness shall not be abolished." 48 This use of the
word "righteousness" is commonly explained by saying
that Yahweh stood in a covenant relation to Israel,
and so was morally bound to be true to that relation
and to save Israel. But in Isa. 42. 6, 21 the divine
righteousness is represented as initiating the covenant-
bond, and in Isa. 51. 5 it has to do with the salvation not
of Israel but of all mankind. It thus manifestly had a
broader meaning than that of mere fidelity to a covenant
relation with Israel. It carried with it the idea of grace
and mercy as one of its constituent elements. The right
eousness of God itself impelled him to save men. Just as
a father is morally obligated to do everything he can for
his children, so is it with God in his relation to men.49
The very fact that he is righteous carries with it the idea
of his benevolence, so that the triumph of righteous
ness means also the triumph of his grace and the redemp
tion of all those that love his appearing.
There is another aspect of the divine righteousness that
has created some difficulty for the modern mind. Right-
48 Isa. 45. 21.
"Isa. Si. 5.
48 Isa. 51. 6; compare i John 1. 9; Heb. 6. 10.
49 Isa. 63. 16. 169

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
eousness as we apply it to a judge or ruler implies on his
part an equal or impartial attitude toward all that come
under his jurisdiction. But if God is righteous in this
sense, how are we to account for his special relation to
Israel, a relation assumed throughout practically the
whole of the Old Testament? In the abstract such a
relation can be justified only on ethical grounds, only on
the assumption that Israel by its superior moral attain
ments had merited its election at the hands of Yahweh.
But this assumption is manifestly one that lies beyond
the possibility of proof. And so the tendency at present
is to look upon the problem as insoluble and to refer it to
that realm of mystery by which human life as a whole is
surrounded. In a world of heredity and social solidarity
abstract righteousness, in the sense of perfect equality in
the treatment of all, is impossible of realization. This is
true both of individuals and of nations. Why one should
be apparently favored and the other not, we do not know.
But in any case there is no greater mystery in the divine
choice of Israel than in the unique history of Greece and
Rome. The Old Testament writers, in so far as they dealt
with this problem, contented themselves with various re
flections of an ethico-religious character. They assigned,
for instance, the election of Israel and the blessings that
came with it to the love of Yahweh without any attempt
to give a reason for that love.50 His love was with them
an ultimate fact. At other times they attributed the
favored position of Israel to the promises made by Yah
weh to the patriarchs. The people were not deserving of
the blessings they received, but Yahweh had promised the
patriarchs that their descendants would receive these
MHos. n. i. 170

THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD
blessings, and hence they were granted them. 51 We have
here ^suggestion of the doctrine of justification by faith.
The patriarchs represented to the Old Testament writers
ideal Israel. What they were, Israel in its best moments
hoped to be. And what the Israelites thus hoped to be, or
in other words, their faith, was thought of as the ground
of Yahweh's gracious attitude toward them. A somewhat
higher standpoint still is represented by Amos and Deu
tero-Isaiah. Accordirig_to_-Amo^_Lsraers (election") did
not mean a monopoly of the divine favor, but simply
moral opportunity. Revelations of truth had been made
to them such as had been made to no other people, but
these revelations gave them no selfish advantage. They
simply increased their responsibility and made the punish
ment of their sins all the more certain. According to
Deutero-Isaiah, the special revelations made to Israel had
an ulterior purpose. They were not granted for Israel's
own sake, but for the sake of the whole world. Israel
was to be a light to lighten the Gentiles.52 It was in this
that their election consisted. It was an election to a mis
sion, an election to service. Why Israel rather than an
other nation was chosen for this mission is not stated.
That was a question the prophets left to the mystery of
the divine sovereignty. For them it was sufficient that the
divine election of Israel, accepted by the people generally
as a fact, should be moralized and spiritualized, and so
be brought into essential harmony with the righteous
character of Yahweh.
The moralization of the idea of God was Israel's su
preme achievement. Its importance in human history
can hardly be exaggerated. It saved religion from the
51 Deut. 8. 18 ; 9. 5.
62 Isa. 42. 1-4, 6; 49. 6. 171

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
groveling superstitions associated with signs and omens,
superstitions that degraded both intellect and conscience.
It likewise saved religion from the irrationality and emp
tiness of mere ceremonialism, a system of rites that stood
in no vital relation either to the conscience of the indi
vidual or the social good. In a positive way it linked up
religion with those elemental virtues that lie at the basis
of every healthy social organism, and so made religion the
mightiest agency in the world for both the preservation
and development of society.53 It furthermore tended to
make conscience in a special sense the seat of religion, and
so transformed religion from an external obedience to an
inward fellowship between the soul and God, a fellowship
that eventually rose above the world of time and sense
and thus became the chief good of life.
83 See the author's Old Testament Problem, pp. 39ff., and The
Beacon Lights of Prophecy, pp. 82ff.

172

CHAPTER VIII
THE LOVE OF GOD
F. W. H. Myers, the English essayist and investigator
of psychic phenomena, was once asked what one thing
he would like to know above all others, what one ques
tion, if he were restricted to one, he would ask the Sphinx.
After a moment's silence he replied that he thought it
would be this : Is the universe friendly 71 It is this ques
tion that lies at the basis of religion, and it is this ques
tion more than any other to which the Scriptures taken as
a whole give a positive answer. God, we are told, is love.2
But this exalted conception came only after a long period
of development ; and our task in the present chapter is to
trace this development so far as it is reflected in the liter
ature of the Old Testament.
Various terms are used in the Old Testament to express
the idea of the divine love, or good will. There is, first,
the Hebrew equivalent of the English word "love"
(aheb), which is used both of human and divine love and
of affection both pure and impure. Then there is the He
brew word usually rendered "loving-kindness," or "good
ness" (chesed). It is significant that the corresponding
adjective (chasid) meant "pious," or "godly." This sug
gests that kindness was regarded as the distinguishing
characteristic of piety. Closely associated with "loving
kindness" was the word "faithfulness" (emeth). These
1 The Problem of Religion, by E. C. Wilm, p. 114.
* 1 John 4. 8, 16. 173

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
words occur together frequently.3 They imply that God
has the loyalty and good will of a friend. "Compassion"
is another term used to express the divine love. In the
Hebrew this term is derived from the word for "womb"
(rechem), and so probably expressed the idea of mother-
feeling.4 Frequently coupled with "compassionate" is
the word "gracious,"5 a word used only to express an
attribute of God. These terms all brought out the tender,
affectional side of the divine nature, the side that mani
fests itself in the more intimate relations of personal life.
The Hebrew word for "righteousness" (tsedek), by way
of distinction, suggested, rather, a judge or ruler. It
probably originally was connected with the idea of vic
tory, victory in battle or in a court of law.6 He was
"righteous" who was adjudged such by appeal to arms or
the decision of a judge. Only later did the term take on
a broader and more distinctly ethical content. And even
then its earlier judicial associations did not altogether dis
appear. It is commonly agreed that Hosea sustained the same
relation to the development of the doctrine of the divine
love that Amos did to the development of the idea of the
divine righteousness. And in both cases we have the same
difference of opinion as to what this relation was. Some
look upon Hosea's teaching concerning the divine love as
"absolutely new." This is Cornill's view. "The entire
faith and theology," he says, "of later Israel grew out of
Hosea." It was with him that "those thoughts in which
humanity has been educated and which have consoled it

3 Gen. 24. 27, J ; 2 Sam. 2. 6.
4 2 Sam. 24. 14.
"Exod. 34. 6, J; Psa. 103.8..
8 See B. Stade, Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments, p. 89.
174

THE LOVE OF GOD
for nearly three thousand years" had their origin, and
hence "we must reckon him among the greatest religious
genius* which the world has ever produced." 7 The
latter statement relative to the greatness of Hosea, while
somewhat extreme, may be allowed to pass. He was
without doubt a very remarkable man, and his teaching
marks an epoch in the development of the doctrine of the
divine love. But that his teaching on this point was "ab
solutely new" is a statement that will not bear the test
of sober criticism.
Religion as distinguished from magic implies faith in
the good will of the superintending spirit or deity; and
this was especially true of the worship of Yahweh from
the very beginning. What gave rise to the national reli
gion of Israel was a mighty act of grace on the part of
Yahweh. He delivered the Israelites in a marvelous way
from threatened destruction, and thus revealed once for
all his gracious disposition toward them. This disposi
tion in early times manifested itself chiefly in the form
of help against their enemies. It was through the aid of
Yahweh that the Israelites triumphed over the Canaan
ites, the Midianites, and Philistines.8 Indeed, all their
victories were due to Yahweh's favor.9 But it was not
simply in time of war that Yahweh revealed his good will
toward them. It manifested itself in the most varied
relations of life both toward the nation and toward indi
viduals.10 At times he did things that seemed to belie his
gracious character;11 but these experiences while they
1 The Prophets of Israel, p. 50.
8 Judg. 5 ; 7. 14 ; 2 Sam. 5. 24.
"Deut. 9. 1-3.
10 Gen. 24. 27; Num. 14. 19-20, J; Deut. 33. 3; 2 Sam. 2. 6;
24. 14.
11 1 Sam. 6. 20; 2 Sam. 6. 7. 175

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
perplexed the early Israelites did not destroy confidence
in his essential goodness. In spite of apparently incon
sistent acts on his part they continued to trust him as one
kindly disposed toward them.
Several different figures are employed in the Old Testa
ment to express the idea of the divine love. The most
common one and the one that may be regarded as most
fundamental is that of a covenant between Yahweh and
Israel. The Hebrew word for "covenant" (berith) prob
ably originally meant a "fetter" or "bond," and so came
to be used in the sense of a compact between two parties,12
or a decree imposed by one party upon another,13 or a
pledge made by one to another.14 Of these different uses
it is not certain which was the earliest. Where a berith
was established between equals it would naturally take
the form of a mutual agreement, involving mutual obliga
tions and mutual rights. Where, on the other hand, a
superior imposed his will on an inferior or pledged him
his aid, the berith thus established would be in the nature
of a law or a promise. In such cases a certain obligation
either of obedience or grateful loyalty might rest upon
the weaker party, but this was often overlooked, so that
berith was frequently used as a synonym for commandr
ment or promise. A promise might, of course, be made
conditional upon obedience to a certain law, and in that
case, if the arrangement were accepted by the weaker
party, all three senses of berith would be combined in a
single relationship. A "covenant" would be a compact,
a law, and a pledge.
12 Gen. 31. 44ff., JE; 1 Sam. 18. 3.
18 2 Sam. 5. 3.
"Jer. 34. 8ff. 176

THE LOVE OF GOD
It is in this threefold sense that the covenant between
Yahweh and Israel was understood from the time of
Deuteronomy down. Whether before that time the idea
of a compact or mutual agreement between Yahweh and v,
Israel was current, is a question on which opinion differs.
The eighth-century prophets make no reference to such
a compact. Hosea speaks twice of a "covenant," which
Israel has transgressed,15 but in both cases the word need
not mean anything more than a "commandment" of Yah
weh. It does not, however, follow from the silence of
the eighth-century prophets that the covenant-idea was
unknown to them ; for quite a number of the later proph
ets, such as Zephaniah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Jonah, Joel,
and Zachariah 1-8, all of them post-Deuteronomic except
Zephaniah, fail to make use of it. It may simply be that j
the prophetic mind ran in different channels. So far as
the idea itself is concerned, the presuppositions of it are
manifestly to be found in the teaching of the eighth-
century prophets. They looked upon Israel as standing in
a unique relation to Yahweh, a relation whose continu
ance was morally conditioned. That they do not seem to
have spoken of this relation as a covenant, may have been
more or less accidental. Berith in their day and before
their time was used in the sense of a divine command
ment.16 It was also used of the divine promise made to
Abraham. In Gen. 15. 18 (J) we read that "Jehovah
made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have
I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great
river, the river Euphrates." This promise, or covenant,
seems to have been unconditional, but that it implied cer
tain obligations on the part of Israel was, of course, taken
"6. 7; 8. 1.
18Deut. 33. 9; Josh. 7. 11, E; 1 Kings 19. 14.
177

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
for granted. In Exod. 24. 7, 8 (E) the laws in the pre
ceding chapters (21-23) are represented as forming the
basis of the covenent relation between Yahweh and Israel ;
and in Exod. 34. 10, 27 f., the same view is taken of the
so-called J Decalogue.
But while the special relation of Yahweh to Israel
seems thus to have been thought of as a covenant or
mutual compact even in preprophetic times, it was not
until the seventh century that this conception or figure
became prominent. In Deuteronomy, Ezekiel, and espe
cially the Priestly Code it is a ruling idea, and it appears
also in Jeremiah and Deutero-Isaiah. It is, however, con
ceived in two different ways. In Deuteronomy it is rep
resented simply as a historical fact. God made three
covenants with Israel, one with the patriarchs,17 one at
Horeb,18 and one on the plains of Moab.19 But in Jere
miah and Ezekiel a more abstract or ideal conception
of the covenant appears. These prophets refer in several
instances to the Mosaic covenant,20 but along with it they
speak of a future covenant, a "new covenant," 21 a "cove
nant of peace," 22 an "everlasting covenant." 23 The
new covenant does not exclude the older one, but it is a
covenant grounded in the essential and eternal purpose of
God rather than in a historical transaction. This con
ception of the covenant appears also in Deutero-Isaiah,24
and it likewise underlies the Priestly Code. P, if we
17 Deut. 4. 31 ; 7. 12.
184- 13; 5-2.
"29. 1.
v MJer. 3. 16; 11. 2ff.; Ezek. 16. 8, 59; 20. 37.
— >i "Jer. 31. 31.
Q MEzek. 34. 25; 37. 26.
28 Ezek. 16. 60; Jer. 32. 40, probably from a later hand.
j 24Isa. 55.3; 65. 8. 178

THE LOVE OF GOD
omit the single reference to a Mosaic covenant in Lev.
26. 45, knows of but two historical covenants, one with
Noah,25 and the other with Abraham.26 But these cove
nants were not, from P's point of view, simply historical
compacts; they were, rather, revelations of a higher
eternal covenant,27 a covenant that could not be broken,28
grounded in the unchanging purpose of God.29
Where the covenant between Yahweh and Israel is
represented, as it is especially in Deuteronomy, as based
on a definite body of laws, the suggestion might naturally
arise that the covenant-idea was an expression of a legal
relation rather than a relation of love. And it is true that
stress is often laid on the duty of obeying the laws that
formed the basis of the covenant with Yahweh.30 But
the fundamental thought that lay back of the covenant-
idea was never that of legal obligation, but always that
of the divine grace. Covenant and grace were almost
synonymous terms. "Jehovah thy God," we read, "will
keep with thee the covenant and the loving-kindness
which he sware unto thy fathers." 31 The covenant with
Abraham was a gracious promise that the land of Canaan
would be given to his seed. 32 And when their possession
of the land was threatened by the Syrians in the ninth
century and still more seriously by other foes toward the
close of the seventh century, the people naturally found
28 Gen. 9.
28 Gen. 17.
" Gen. 17. 7, 19.
28 Lev. 26. 44.
29 For a detailed discussion of the covenant-idea in the Old Testa
ment see Die Bundesvorstellung im Alten Testament, by Richard
Kraetzschmar. "Deut. 26. 16-19.
"Deut. 7. 12; compare Isa. 54. 10.
32 Gen. 15. 18, J. 179

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
comfort and assurance in the thought of the covenant
with Yahweh. He was by virtue of his covenant with
the fathers pledged to help them. This help did not come
in the form expected ; their land was lost. But they never
theless continued to cling to the covenant-idea. They
saw in it not only a guarantee of their return to Palestine,
but an assurance of the eternal favor of God toward them
as a people. Indeed, the covenant with its assurance of
the divine grace was extended by P to men generally,
at least in so far as they embraced the Judaic faith. It is
this thought that underlies the account of the covenant
with Noah.33
Another figure that plays an important role in the Old
Testament is that of Yahweh as the husband of Israel
or Israel as the wife of Yahweh. It was -Hosea, so far
as we know, who first gave ethical significance to this
figure. The figure itself was not new with him. It had
been current among heathen peoples. They thought of
the deity as wedded to his people or to the land. It was
this idea that underlay the immoral practices connected
with the Canaanitic sanctuaries. But "slain and made
carrion by the heathen religions, the figure was restored
to life by Hosea." In its heathen form it had no doubt
been long current in Israel, but there is no evidence that
before his time it had been spiritualized and incorporated
into the higher religious faith of the people. To have
achieved this was the unique distinction of Hosea. He
represented Israel as the wayward wife of Yahweh. By
her idolatry, her immorality, her foreign intriguing, her
social injustice, her violation of the moral law in general,
she had been guilty of illicit relations with other gods.
83 Gen. 9; compare -Isa. 42. 6; 49. 8.
180

THE LOVE OF GOD
She had broken her troth with Yahweh, and hence was
about to be driven from his house. But however deserved
this punishment may have been, the love of Yahweh could
not altogether desert her. "How," he cries, "shall I give
thee up, Ephraim ? how shall I cast thee off, Israel ? how
shall I make thee as Admah? how shall I set thee as
Zeboiim? my heart is turned within me, my compassions
are kindled together. I will not execute the fierceness of
mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim : for I
am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee;
and I will not come in wrath." 34 The holy wrath of Yah
weh was tempered and held in check by his love.
It is here that Hosea's most significant contribution to
the doctrine of God is to be found. Amos had once for I
all established the truth that God is righteousness and that
religion is law. What Hosea did "was to prove in God
so great and new a mercy as was capable of matching that
law." Religion, he taught us, was love as well as law,
and love, he held, was stronger than law. Just as a man
by a deep instinct of his nature seeks a wife and cleaves
unto her, so was it with Yahweh in his relation to Israel.
There was a deep ingrained bond of union between them.
And that union had all the intensity, all the passion, all
the delicacy, and all the refinement of feeling that mani
fests itself in the marriage relation in its highest and
purest form. To have fixed upon this thought and to
have given it abiding expression, was no. small achieve
ment; and this we owe to Hosea. Such a conception
naturally made a profound impression upon the people of
Israel. The later prophets employ it,35 and under its in-
•fluence it became the custom to speak of all idolatry as
34 Hos. u. 8-9.
35 Jer. 2. 2 ; 3. 1 ; Ezek. 16 ; 23 ; Isa. 50. 1 ; 54. 5.
181

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
harlotry. Ezekiel, it may be added, combines the ideas of
a covenant and a conjugal relation, regarding the two as
essentially the same.36
Another figure used in the Old Testament to express
the idea of the divine love is that of God as Father. Both
"husband" and "father" expressed to the ancient Semite
the idea of authority quite as much as that of love. But in
Old Testament usage the latter predominates. There are
eleven instances in the Old Testament where God is
spoken of as Father, and in all except two37 the term is
used in a kindly affectionate sense.38 This is also true of
the cases where Yahweh is likened to a father,39 and of the
correlative expressions where Israel is spoken of as God's
son40 or the Israelites as his children.41
"Like as a father pitieth his children,
So Jehovah pitieth them that fear him." 43
"When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my
son out of Egypt. ... I taught Ephraim to walk; I
took them on my arms ; . . . I drew them with cords
of a man, with bands of love." 43 "Thou, O Jehovah, art
our Father ; our Redeemer from everlasting is thy name,44
It is commonly stated that the Fatherhood of God in the
88 Ezek. 16. 8.
37 Mai. i. 6 ; 2. io.
88 Jer. 3. 4, 19; 31. 9; Isa. 63. 16; 64. 8; Deut 32. 6; 2 Sam. 7. 14;
Psa. 68. 5 ; 89. 27.
39 Psa. 103. 13 ; Deut. 1. 31 ; 8. 5.
"Hos. 11. 1 ; Exod. 4. 22; Jer. 31. 20.
41 Hos. 1. 10 ; Deut 14. 1 ; Isa. 43. 6.
"Psa. 103. 13.
48 Hos. 11. 1-4.
" Isa. 63. 16. 182

THE LOVE OF GOD
Old Testament applied only to the nation. It was not
personal. The individual Israelite did not have the right
to call himself Yahweh's son. But this is open to serious
question. It is true that in most of the passages above
cited it is the nation of which Yahweh is said to be the
Father. But in two of them45 it is the Messiah to whom
he is represented as standing in a paternal relation; in
several others46 it is individual Israelites; and in still
others47 the latter are spoken of as sons of God. It is,
therefore, surely possible and probable that the individual
Israelite in Old Testament times thought of himself as
a son of God and addressed Yahweh as his Father. This
method of address to the Deity was current in idolatrous
circles in Israel,48 and in the postcanonical literature we
occasionally find it. In Ecclesiasticus 23. 1, 4 we read:
"O Lord, Father and Master of my life, . . . O Lord,
Father and God of my life," Not until the Christian era,
it is true, did this method of address become regular and
normative. But in the Old Testament period it must to
some extent have been current from the earliest times.
For the presuppositions of its use were always there.
There never was a time in the history of Israel when the
individual did not regard himself as under the providen
tial care of Yahweh.
The idea of the Fatherhood of God was not peculiar
to Hebrew and Christian thought. It was a common
heathen conception. But among the heathen the divine
fatherhood was conceived in a physical sense. The clan
or tribe traced its descent back to its god. In that sense

48 2 Sam. 7. 14 ; Psa. 89. 27.
48 Psa. 68. 5 ; Isa. 63. 16 ; 64. 8.
47 Hos. 1. 10 ; Deut. 14. 1 ; Isa. 43. 6.
48 Jer. 2. 27. »
183

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
its members were sons and daughters of the deity.49
"In Christianity," on the other hand, "and already in the
spiritual religion of the Hebrews, the idea of divine
Fatherhood is entirely dissociated from the physical
basis of natural fatherhood. Man was created in the
image of God, but he was not begotten ; God's sonship is
not a thing of nature, but a thing of grace. In the Old
Testament, Israel is Yahweh's son, and Yahweh is his
Father who created him; but this creation is not a phys
ical act, it refers to the series of gracious deeds by which
Israel was shaped into a nation." 50 The divine Father
hood in the Old Testament was thus a spiritual relation
ship. The term was a figurative expression of the divine
love and the divine creative activity. How early in
Israel's history the term was used in this sense, we do not
know. But there is no good reason why it should not
have been thus used from the time of Moses down. And
this is also true of other figures expressive of the divine
care, such as those which represent God as a physician,51
and as a shepherd.52
The difference between Hosea's teaching concerning
the divine love and that of his predecessors was simply
one of degree. The assurance of Yahweh's good will had
formed the basis of Israel's religion -from the beginning.
At any time during the preprophetic- period" Yahweh's
relation to Israel might have been represented as that of
a covenant; he might also have been spoken of -as- Israel's
father or husband or physician or shepherd. There is
nothing in any of these figures that woHld have been

48 Num. 21. 29, E; Mai. 2. 11.
38 W. R. Smith, The Religion of the Semites, p. 41.
81 Exod. 15. 26 ; Hos. 6. 1 ; 7. 1 ; 14. 5.
82 Psa. 23 ; Ezek. 34. 184

THE LOVE OF GOD
inconsistent with the religious consciousness of early
Israel. But as yet the nation's religious consciousness
was more or less amorphous. It had not crystallized into
definite form. It moved also to a large extent on a low
material plane. What it needed was to be lifted to a
higher ethical level. It needed to have the love of Yah
weh exhibited in so striking a way, that men would see
that it was the deepest attribute of the divine nature, an
attribute that could be trusted in spite of all human way
wardness and suffering, an attribute that made certain
the ultimate solution of the problem of redemption. And
this Hosea did for Hebrew thought. He set the grace of
God on high as had not been done before. He took the
tenderest and most intimate human relations and made
them symbols, broken lights, of the divine affection.
"There is," says George Adam Smith, "no truth uttered
by later prophets about the divine grace, which we do
not find in germ in him. . . . He is the first prophet
of grace, Israel's first evangelist." 53
But significant as was the teaching of Hosea, there was
one important regard in which it was defective. The
divine love that he preached was restricted to Israel. He
hadno message of grace for the heathen world. At
least no utterance of his to that effect has come down to
us. This, does not mean that he regarded the rule of
Yahweh as confined to Israel. He was a monotheist. He
recognized no real Deity except Yahweh. But as yet the
practical implications of monotheism had not been
worked out. The divine purpose concerning the hea
then world had not been made the subject of reflection.
Amos had declared that the divine providence was uni-
53 The Book of the Twelve Prophets, vol. i, p. 230. ;
185

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
versal. It embraced heathen peoples like the Philis
tines and Syrians as well as Israel.54 And Isaiah a
little later represented the peoples of the world as com
ing to Jerusalem for instruction and guidance.55 But
such visions and insights were wholly incidental to
the work of the eighth-century prophets. The local
problems of their day were too engrossing to per
mit much attention being paid to the heathen. The
very existence of the Israelitic state was at stake, and so
long as this remained the case, there was little opportu
nity or occasion to consider the relation of Yahweh to the
world as a whole. And so it came to pass that universal-
ism, which is logically the correlate of monotheism, did
not become a distinct feature of Israelitic thought until
considerably later.
We find in Jeremiah56 and Ezekiel57 occasional
glimpses of a redeemed heathenism, but it is not until we
come to Deutero-Isaiah that the gracious purpose of
Yahweh to the world as a whole is made a cardinal theme
of prophetic preaching. "A law," we here read, "shall go
forth from me, and I will establish my justice for a
light of the peoples. My righteousness is near, my salva
tion is gone forth, and mine arms shall judge the peo
ples; the isles shall wait for me, and on mine arm shall
they trust. . . . Look unto me, and be ye saved, all
the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is none
else. By myself have I sworn, the word has gone forth
from my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return,
that unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall

84 Amos 9. 7.
88 Isa. 2. 2-4.
88 16. 19-20.
17 16. 53-63- 186

THE LOVE OF GOD
swear." B8 The supreme task of the Servant, ideal Israel,
is that of being a light to the Gentiles.59 The whole plan
of God has as its goal the redemption of all man
kind. This idea also finds expression in some of the
Psalms60 and later prophecies.61 But it is in the book of
Jonah that the divine love for the heathen receives its
most persuasive and affecting expression. Here Israel is
rebuked for its narrow and unsympathetic attitude toward
the heathen. Jonah, who represents Israel, became angry
when the divine mercy was extended to the people of
Nineveh. How unnatural and unhuman this was, is illus
trated by the prophet's attitude toward the gourd. A
wild, ephemeral plant had suddenly sprung up. Jonah had
expended no labor upon it, he had not made it grow, and
yet when it suddenly perished he was full of pity for it.
"And should not I," asks Yahweh, "have regard for Nine
veh, that great city, wherein are more than six score thou
sand persons that cannot discern between their right hand
and their left hand; and also much cattle?" 62 The love
of God for the heathen is here grounded in the natural
instinct of pity for the needy, and especially in the feeling
of interest and sympathy that grows out of the sense of
creatorship. We love that which we create.63 God has
created all things, and consequently his love embraces all
mankind; indeed, it extends even to the animal world.
"Thou lackest much," says the author of 2 Esdras,64
"before thou canst love my creature more than I."
88 Isa. 51- 4, 5:45-22,23.
9 49- 6.
'22. 27; 65. 5.
" Isa. 19. 23-25.
M4- ii-
"Compare Jer. 45. 4.
M2 Esdras 8. 47. 187

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
This generous attitude toward the heathen was shared
by only a limited number in postexilic Judaism. But it
represented the line along which the growing revelation
of God was certain to develop. The one Creator of the
world and God of righteousness must needs eventually
rnanifest to all men the same love that he had shown to
Israel. National prejudice might for a while resist this
natural and logical development of religious thought, but
the barrier thus created could not be permanent. Ulti
mately some movement would certainly arise, which
would break through the artificial restrictions created by
post-exilic priests and scribes and make the God of the
prophets in very truth the God of all nations ; so that in
his kingdom there would be "neither Greek nor Jew, cir
cumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond
nor free."
In Christianity this goal was realized; and in the pro
cess of expansion the love of God lost none of its depth
or intensity. Rather did it grow, and grow to a surpris
ing degree, in power and richness of content. The dis
tinctive element in it, as it was conceived by Christianity,
has been put in such an impressive and admirable way by
Professor Bowne that I quote from him at some length :
"In the exercise of his love God has sent us rain from
heaven and fruitful seasons and daily bread. But this
was not enough. He also sent us prophets and teachers
to reveal his will. But this also was not enough. There
was a still higher thought, and Christianity dared to think
it. It was that God himself should come into humanity
for his supreme self-manifestation and for the redemp
tion of men, And when the way had been prepared,
the Divine Son appears as the Divine Redeemer. There
is nothing beyond this. The possibilities of grace are

THE LOVE OF GOD
exhausted. God has made the highest moral revelation
of himself. He is seen at the head of all those who love,
and for love's sake bear burdens and sacrifice themselves.
A Divine Person working for love's sake a divine work
for man's redemption is the center of the Christian faith
and the source of its power. Drop it out of our teaching,
and, though the external form and facts remain un
changed, the life is gone nevertheless. Men wonder that
Christian faith should cling so pertinaciously to this mys
terious doctrine — mysterious to speculation, but clear to
love — but the reason is that it contains all that is distinc
tively Christian. The self-sacrificing love of God, and
even the ethical perfection and moral grandeur of God,
are all bound up in this doctrine. That which stirs men's
hearts has always been the condescension, the grace of the
Lord Jesus, the cross, that is, the self-renunciation, of
Christ. 'Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that
he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for
our sins.' 'He loved us and gave himself for us.' Now
the revelation of love and righteousness is complete. And
now not merely gratitude, but adoring love and absolute
self-surrender, become possible on our part. Now intel
lect and conscience and heart and will alike can come
to God and say : 'Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done.'
No wonder that Paul cried out, 'God forbid that I should
glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.' No
wonder that Peter declares that the angels desire to look
into this grace of God. For surely in earth or heaven
there is nothing great or divine besides." 65
This concludes our study of the doctrine of God. We
have seen that the God of the Hebrews was from the be-

' Studies in Christianity, p. 102-104. 189

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
ginning a distinctly personal Being. He stood in a free
and independent relation to the world. His personality
did not blend with nature nor lose itself in a pantheistic
haze. It retained throughout its unity and distinctness.
Ideas relative to the divine nature and power were natu
rally at first vague and unsettled. Yahweh was not
thought of as God of all the world, and yet he was not
regarded as bound to any particular place, nor as neces
sarily limited in the exercise of his power. He was equal
to all the demands made upon him, and as these demands
increased, the range of his being and power increased
with them. At an early date he came to be thought of as
Creator of the world. Stress was not laid on this idea,
nor was it interpreted as excluding the existence of other
gods, until the Israelites in exile were brought face to
face with a formidable and threatening heathenism; but
the idea itself was preprophetic, if not Mosaic. In a
similar way the universal rule of Yahweh did not come
to definiteness of expression until the idea of the world
and the world-empire "was beaten into the trembling
hearts of the prophets by the pitiless hammer-strokes of
fate;" 66 but the general conception of his unlimited
power was older. From the outset he was for all practical
purposes omnipotent. Other deities existed, but they
interposed no barrier to the execution of his will; and, as
the life of the people developed and their thought ex
panded, he took under his control more and more of the
Elohim-world, until finally no place was left for other
gods, and they came to be regarded as virtually nonex
istent. Along with the gradual expansion of the power and
being of Yahweh went also a gradual moralization of
88 Kittel, History of the Hebrews, vol. i, p. 242.
190

THE LOVE OF GOD
his character. He was always looked upon as "spiritual"
and "holy," but at first no ethical quality attached to these
terms. They simply expressed the supernatural and mys
terious character of divinity, and were applied to other
gods as well. Indeed, to an outward observer Yahweh
may not at the outset have seemed to differ in any im
portant regard from the gods of the neighboring peoples.
Yet even then there was something about him that evoked
from his people an intense and sustained devotion such
as we nowhere else find. And this devotion had in it the
germ of the whole subsequent religious development in
Israel. It led men to idealize the character of Yahweh.
It led them to think of him as essentially a God of
righteousness and love. Thus endowed, he stood heaven-
high above all other gods. He was "spiritual" and "holy"
in an altogether unique sense. He needed and would
tolerate no images in his worship. He had no interest in
sacrifices, and cared not for rites and ceremonies. All
that he asked of men was that they should do justly, love
mercy, and walk humbly before him.
It was this ethical quality that by the eighth century
B. C. constituted the unique characteristic of Yahweh. It
was this that differentiated him from other deities, and
gave to him his distinctive value. What made it worth
while believing in him was his righteousness and his love.
It was these qualities that made him God in the full sense
of the term. And so the conclusion was drawn that other
gods, who lacked these qualities, were not really gods.
True divinity is indistinguishable from moral perfection.
Yahweh, therefore, who alone is morally perfect, is the
only God. Thus the logic of conscience joined hands
with the soul's need of an all-sufficient helper, and ethical
monotheism was the result. 191

CHAPTER IX
ANGELS AND OTHER DIVINE BEINGS
Divinity with the Hebrews was practically synony
mous with Yahweh, and yet the two ideas were not alto
gether conterminous. In the earlier period of their his
tory the Israelites did not deny the existence of other
gods, and after they had begun to assert the sole deity of
Yahweh they still believed that there were other super
natural beings who like Yahweh were invisible and spirit
ual, and in this sense divine. To this group belong espe
cially the angels. They were subordinate to Yahweh, but
partook of his nature and served a distinct purpose in the
divine economy.
In the strict sense of the term W. H. Bennett is prob
ably right in defining an angel as "a subordinate super
human being in monotheistic religions," and consequently
in holding that "in the earlier periods of the religion of
Israel . . . the idea of angel in the modern sense does
not occur." 1 But the distinction between a subordinate
superhuman being in a monotheistic and in a monolatrous
system is at the most slight, and may in our discussion
be disregarded. There is, furthermore, no date or even
period which can be fixed upon with certainty as marking
the transition from monolatry to monotheism. The de
velopment was a very gradual one and was brought about
almost unconsciously. We may, therefore, use the term
1 Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. ii, 4L
192

ANGELS AND OTHER DIVINE BEINGS
"angel" freely to designate a subordinate supernatural
being referred to during any period of Israel's history.
The common Hebrew word for "angel," malak, means
"messenger," and in this sense is used of men2 as well as
angels. The angels are also spoken of as "ministers." 3
They are designated "sons of Elohim" 4 and "sons of
Elim." 5 They are described as "holy ones" 6 and watch
ers," 7 and are referred to as the "host" or "hosts" of
heaven, of God, of Yahweh.8 The term "host" was also
applied to the stars.9 Between the stars and angels there
was supposed to be a close connection.10 Whether the
angels were spoken of as Elohim, "gods," as well as
sons of Elohim is a question. In Psa. 8. 5. Elohim is
commonly rendered "angels," n and it is quite possible
that the term was used in this sense; for in several in
stances it has the general meaning of "a godlike being," 12
and an angel may very well have been so designated.
But in this particular passage Elohim probably means
neither "angels" nor "God" exclusively, but both. It is
divine beings generally, than whom man has been made
but a little lower.
These different terms applied to angelic beings may be
divided into two groups, those that define the nature of
angels and those that describe their office or function. To
2 Gen. 32. 3, J ; Num. 21. 21, E ; Hag. 1. 13 ; Mai. 2, 7.
3 Psa. 103. 21.
4 Gen. 6. 2, 4, j"; Job. 1. 6 ; 2. 1.
8 Psa. 29. 1 ; 89. 6.
8 Psa. 89. 5, 7 ; Job 5. 1 ; Zech. 14. 5.
7 Dan. 4. 13, 17.
" 1 Kings 22. 19; Psa. 103. 21 ; 148. 2; Isa. 24. 21 ; Dan. 8. 10.
"Deut. 4. 19; Isa. 34. 4; 40. 26; Jer. 33. 22.
10 Job 38. 7-
"Heb. 2. 7.
12 1 Sam. 28. 13; Exod. 4. 16; 7. 1.
193

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
the first group belong the terms "sons of God" and
"holy ones." "Sons of God" is not to be understood in
a physical or genealogical sense. Like the analogous ex
pression "sons of the prophets," it denotes membership
in a guild, in this case the divine guild. The "sons of
God," or "sons of the gods," were divine beings con
ceived as forming a class or fraternity. They partook of
the divine nature, were spirits, belonged to the Elohim
world. It was in this sense probably also that angels were
spoken of as "the holy ones." Holiness, as we have seen,
was a unique characteristic of Deity, and in it the angels
as divine beings shared. Indeed, "holy" as applied to
them was hardly more than a synonym for "divine." It
may be that they were also thought of as "holy" in the
later and derived sense of the term, that is, as dedicated
to the service of God. They were ministers of Yahweh,
and hence, like the priests of the temple, may naturally
from this point of view have been regarded as holy. In
later times especially, when the distinction between the
Deity and all subordinate forms of being became more
and more pronounced, this usage must almost inevitably
have arisen.
The function of the angels is expressed by the terms
"messengers," "ministers," and "watchers," and is also
implied in their being spoken of as the "host" of heaven.
They are the army of God; they carry out his will, obey
his commands. They represent and mediate the Divine
Providence. They make known the divine will. In all
the multitudinous forms of the divine activity they mani
fest themselves as the efficient agents of the Most High.
They have no independent purposes or functions of their
own. Their activity is merged in that of God. In this
complete subordination of angelic beings to the Deity we
194

ANGELS AND OTHER DIVINE BEINGS
no doubt have a relatively late development. In earlier
times there were "sons of God" who were looked upon
as acting contrary to the divine will. The one distinct
illustration of this in the Old Testament is found in Gen.
6. 1-4, a passage that has been correctly described as a
piece of "unassimilated mythology." The "sons of God"
are here represented as conducting themselves in per
haps a sensual, certainly a high-handed manner toward
God's lower creatures. When they "saw the daughters
of men that they were fair, . . . they took them wives
of all that they chose." This representation of the sons
of Elohim is so different from that of the malakim, or
angels, that it is evident that the two conceptions must
originally have been independent. Indeed, it is nowhere
in the Old Testament distinctly stated that the sons of
Elohim were the same as the malakim. The two con
ceptions gradually merged into unity, but the unity is not
directly affirmed.
As to the origin of the belief in angels there is consid
erable difference of opinion. Kosters13 argued at length 1
that the "sons of God" were the gods of the heathen de
graded into ministering servants of the one God Yah-I
weh. For this view there is some support in Scripture./
In Psa. 89. 6 we, for instance, read, "Who among the
sons of the mighty is like unto Jehovah?" and in Psa.
86. 8, "There is none like unto thee among the gods, O
Lord." The original has, instead of "the mighty,"
Elim (gods). In these two verses the heathen gods and
the "sons of the gods" seem thus to be equated. And this
is manifestly the teaching of Deut. 32. 8, if we adopt the
"Het ontstaan en de ontwickkelung der angelologie onder Israel,
Theol. Tijdschr., 1876. 195

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
reading of the Septuagint. The Most High "set the
bounds of the peoples according to the number of the
sons of God," each nation having its own deity or guard
ian angel. This is also the view of Deut. 4. 19, where it
is stated that Yahweh "allotted unto all the peoples under
the whole heaven" the various heavenly bodies as objects
of worship. And in Dan. 10. 13, 20 the "princes" or
patron-angels of Persia and Greece probably represent
the gods of these nations. Furthermore, it may be noted
that in Deut. 32. 17 and Psa. 106. 36f., the heathen gods
and demons (shedim) seem to merge into one another.
The two ideas are treated as virtually synonymous.
These facts make it clear that the reduction of heathen
deities to the plane of "angels" or subordinate spirits was
not unknown to Hebrew thought. But the passages in
which the idea is expressed are all comparatively late,
and are perhaps to be ascribed to the effort of later think-
) ers to harmonize the supremacy of Yahweh with the fact
of heathenism. The earlier and prevailing tendency in
the Old Testament was to regard the heathen gods as es
sentially hostile to Yahweh. The prophets could see
nothing good in them. They were vanities and were
doomed to destruction.14 Such an attitude was mani
festly unfavorable to the transformation of the gods of
the heathen into ministering angels of Yahweh. It is
hardly probable, therefore, that the Israelitic belief in
angels grew up in this way.
If, however, we substitute for the foreign-gods of
Kosters' theory as some do, the polytheistic gods and ani
mistic spiritsof Israel's pre-Mosaic religion, it can hardly
be doubted that we have here an important source of
Hebrew angelology. When Yahweh was first proclaimed
14 Jer. 2. 5, 11 ; 10. 11 ; Zeph. 2. li.
196

ANGELS AND OTHER DIVINE BEINGS
and acclaimed as Israel's God, the older gods and spirits
did not pass out of Israelitic thought, nor was their ex
istence denied. They simply sank to a lower grade of
being and came more or less directly under the control of
Yahweh. Some of them at least were regarded as form
ing his retinue or council. It was probably in this way
also that the heathen belief in superhuman beings of a,
subordinate rank arose. The gods and spirits of a lower |
stage of culture became the ministering servants of the
gods of a new age. In this regard there was nothing
peculiar about the Israelitic belief in angels.
But apart from this common source of the belief in
subordinate superhuman beings, George Adam Smith is
no doubt right in contending that the belief "must have
sprung up in the natural tendency to provide the royal,
deity of a people with a court, an army, and servants.
In the pious minds of early Israel there must have been
a kind of necessity to believe and develop this — a necessity
imposed firstly by the belief in Yahweh's residence as con
fined to one spot, Sinai or Jerusalem, from which he him
self went forth only upon great occasions to the deliver
ance of his people as a whole ; and secondly by the unwill
ingness to conceive of his personal appearance in mis
sions of a menial nature, or to represent him in the hu
man form in which, according to primitive ideas, he could
alone hold converse with men." 15 Tn this field popular
imagjnation had free play. It could create its own ob
jects; and there can hardly be a doubt that this factor
played an important role in the development of the He
brew conception of the angelic world. The idea of a
court of heaven or a divine council is one to which we
have several references in the early literature. In the
18 The Book of the Twelve Prophets, vol. ii, p. 310.
197

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
inaugural vision of Isaiah (Chap. 6) the attendants of
Yahweh are termed seraphim, and in i Kings 22. 19-22
they are spoken of as "the host of heaven." 16 It is to
this "host" or council that the plural pronoun in Gen.
1. 26; 3. 22; and 11. 7, as well as Isa. 6. 8, refers. God
here speaks for the angelic beings by whom he was sur
rounded. In this connection attention may also be di
rected to the angelic horsemen referred to in 2 Kings 2.
11 and 6. 17. These horsemen figured prominently in
the later apocalyptic literature.
The history of Hebrew angelology was marked, as we
have already seen, by the gradual merging of two con
ceptions, that of the sons of Elohim and that of the mala
kim. With reference to the origin of the latter conception
there is not a little difference of opinion. Some hold that
the term did not during the preexilic period denote dis
tinct beings but simply different manifestations of Yah
weh. This was true both of the singular and the plural
forms of the word. And even if distinct beings were de
noted by the term, it is contended that they were not
thought of as messengers from God to men. No need of
mediation was felt during this early period. Yahweh
manifested himself directly to men, appeared among them
and spoke to them. The malakim, if distinct beings, at
tended Yahweh, forming a kind of divine court, but they
were not mediators. The angelic beings who at the time
did enter into relations with men were the sons of Elohim,
and they were not subject to Yahweh, but were independ
ent beings.
In this view there are some elements of truth. It is true
that the angel of Yahweh frequently referred to in the
18 Compare Josh. 5. I4ff. 198

ANGELS AND OTHER DIVINE BEINGS
preexilic literature is in many instances represented not as
a distinct being but simply as a manifestation of Yah
weh,17 and it is also true that there are only a very few
instances in the early literature where more than one
"angel" or "angel of God" is referred to. Two of the
three supernatural visitors who appeared to Abraham by
the oaks of Mamre are spoken of as "angels" ;18 Jacob in
his dream at Bethel saw "the angels of God ascending
and descending;" 19 and on his return from Paddan-
aram "the angels of God," we read, met him at the place
which from this incident was called Mahanaim.20 In
even these instances it has been contended that we simply
have manifestations of the one God in a plurality of
forms. But this view is forced and unnatural. The
"angels" here spoken of were manifestly thought of as
distinct beings. There are also a number of cases in
which the singular malak is used in a way that suggests
that one of a class is meant.21 And in each of these cases
"the angel of God" is referred to in a way that reminds
one of the Elohim in Gen. 3. 22 and Psa. 8. 5. Both are
represented as superhuman beings and as having the
power to discern good and evil. This seems to imply that
the malakim were identical with the sons of Elohim.
Furthermore, it should be noted that there are a num
ber of passages in which the "angel of Yahweh" is clearly
differentiated from Yahweh.22 The effort has been made

"Judg. 6. 21-24; 13- 20-22; Gen. 16. 8-13, J; 21. 17-19; 48. 15-16,
E; Exod. 3. 2-4, J.
18 Gen. 19. 1, 15, J-
19 Gen. 28. 12, E.
20 Gen. 32. 1, E.
21 1 Sam. 29. 9 ; 2 Sam. 14. 17 ; 19. 27.
22 Gen. 24. 7, 40, J; Exod. 23. 20, E; 33. 2; Num. 20. 16, E; 2
Sam. 24. 16. 199

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
to harmonize these passages with those above cited on the
ground that "the mere manifestation of Yahweh creates
a distinction between it and Yahweh, though the identity
remains." 2S But it is more natural to see in the two
groups of passages two variant views. According to
one, the angel of Yahweh was simply Yahweh in mani
festation ; according to the other, he was a distinct being.
The latter conception may perhaps have originated as a
means of mediating between the belief that Yahweh dwelt
at Sinai and the belief that he was present with his people
wherever they might be. In any case we have here an
angelic being distinct from Yahweh. This being has
been identified with the Logos of Christian theology.
|And in so far as the angel of Yahweh was identical with
Yahweh and yet distinct from him, we have in this con
ception a rather remarkable anticipation of the Christian
doctrine of the Son. The outstanding difference between
the two conceptions is that in the angel of Yahweh "the
self-revealing life of God is not yet human, nor does it
exist as a permanent personal life." 24
It is then an exaggeration to say that the word malak
during the preexilic period was used only of appearances
of Yahweh and that Yahweh during this period stood in
such an intimate relation to men that there was no room
for mediators between him and them. The very tend
ency to localize Yahweh at Sinai and Jerusalem would
naturally suggest to the popular imagination the need of
"messengers" to reveal his presence and convey his word
to people separated from these sacred places. It is true
23 A. B. Davidson, in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, vol. i,
p. 99. 24 Schultz, Old Testament Theology, vol. ii, p. 223.
200

ANGELS AND OTHER DIVINE BEINGS
that Yahweh communicated his word directly to the pre
exilic prophets. No use was made of angelic mediators.
But it is also clear that such "messengers" were known to
the people. Only exegetical violence can remove the evi
dence of it from the text. On the other hand, it cannot
be denied that beginning with the exile we have a marked )
development of Hebrew angelology. This development I
was due to various causes, partly perhaps Babylonian and \
Persian influences, but especially the increasing stress on /
the supremacy and transcendence of Yahweh. The divine
transcendence did not simply carry with it the thought
that God was so far removed from terrestrial life that he
stood in need of intermediate agencies; it augmented the
sense of his greatness and so created the feeling that it
was unworthy of his august Being to be concerned with
the details and menial tasks of life.
A. B. Davidson has argued that what we have at the
time of the exile and after the return is not "a develop
ment in angelology," but, rather, "a movement in the
direction of hypostatizing the Spirit of God." The
angelic beings in Ezekiel and Zechariah were simply sym
bols of the Divine Spirit "objectivized." And the later
idea, we are told, of patron and ruling angels, such as we
find in Daniel, was due among other causes to "a tend
ency to personify abstract conceptions such as the spirit of
a nation, and a further tendency to locate these personified
forces in the supersensible world, from whence they ruled
the destinies of men. "25 This view no doubt contains
some truth. The personifying tendency of the Jewish
mind during the exilic and postexilic period was probably
an important cooperant factor in the development of the
belief in subordinate superhuman beings. But angels
28 Hastings', Dictionary of the Bible, vol. i, pp. 95f .
201

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
thus "born" were no less angels than similar beings
handed down from tradition or borrowed from neighbor
ing peoples. Exilic and postexilic angelology, even if it
had its chief source in the personification of the Divine
Spirit, was on that account none the less angelology.
Three lines of development may be observed in the
- history of later Old Testament angelology. First, angels
came to be regarded as mediators of the prophetic word
and intercessors with God. The earlier prophets had
received all their messages direct from God. Ezekiel was
the first to whom God spoke indirectly through an angel26
as well as directly.27 To Zechariah the divine instruc
tions all came indirectly through angels.28 And Daniel
received in the same way the explanation of his visions.29
The idea of an angelic intercessor appears first in Zecha
riah.30 A somewhat similar conception is found also in
Daniel. Michael is there represented as the guardian
angel of Israel. He is "the great prince who standeth for
the children of thy people." 31 But elsewhere in the Old
Testament there is no reference to the angels as inter
cessors.32 It was in the extracanonical apocalyptic liter
ature and in the later practice of the Christian Church
that the idea came to its fullest development.
In the second place angels tended during the postexilic
period to become distinct personalities. In earlier times
function had completely predominated over personality.
28 Ezek. 40. 3 ; 43. 6.
27 44- 2.
28 1. 8ff.; 2. iff.; 3. iff.; 4. iff.; 5. 5ff.; 6. 4ff.
20 4- 13, 23; 7. 16; 8. I3ff.; 9. 2iff.; 10. sff., isff.; 12. sff.
30 1. 12.
31 12. 1.
32 Job 5. 1 and 33. 23 are often cited as expressions of the idea of
angelic intercession, but erroneously. 202

ANGELS AND OTHER DIVINE BEINGS
The angels had no names, no distinctive individuality.33
They were simply members of a class. Even the angel ,!
of Yahweh seems at times not to have been distinguished
from other angels.34 But when we come to Zechariah,
this indefiniteness has apparently been overcome. The
angel of Yahweh here designates a particular angel.35 '
And in Daniel there are two angels that bear personal
names, Gabriel36 and Michael.37 Michael was the
guardian of Judah, and Gabriel brought the word of
Yahweh to the prophet. In the Apocryphal literature
two other names are added. We read in the Book of
Tobit38 of an angel by the name of Raphael, "one of the
seven holy angels," and in Enoch39 and 2 Esdras 5. 20
there is mention of an angel by the name of Uriel.
The third line of development in postexilic angelology f
was the creation of different ranks or orders of angels.
This idea was implicit in the earlier conception of the
angels as a host or army. We read, for instance, in
Joshua 5. I3ff. of "the prince of the Lord's host," an •
angelic being who was evidently thought of as the leader
of the heavenly host. But the idea of an organized body
of angels was not carried any further in the earlier liter
ature. In Enoch40 the cherubim and seraphim are re- ,.
garded as different orders of angels, but this view is no
where expressed in the Old Testament. In the ninth
chapter of Ezekiel seven angels of judgment are referred
83 Gen. 32. 29, J.
84 1 Kings 19. 5, 7 ; 2 Sam. 24. 16.
"i.uf.;3.i.5ff.38 8. isff.
37 10. 13, 21 ; 12. 1.
88 12. 15.
89 9. 1, etc.
"61. 10. 203

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
to, but that they had any connection with the later doc
trine of seven angels41 or with the seven great spirits of
j Persian mythology is doubtful. In Zechariah, however,
I there are clear indications of differences of rank. The
' Angel of Yahweh is here a judge before whom other
f angels stand as servants,42 and "the angel that talked with
me" — the Interpreting Angel — received his instructions,
» in one instance at least, not directly from Yahweh, but
from another angel.43 In Daniel these distinctions in
rank are still more marked. Here we read of angelic
"princes," and "chief" or "great princes." 44 And in the
subsequent apocalyptic literature we find an elaborate
hierarchy of angelic beings, "mighty regencies of
seraphim, and potentates, and thrones." "The imagina
tion ran riot on the rank, classes, and names of angels." 45
.But along with this increasing interest in angelology in
postexilic Judaism there went also a counter tendency.
The great Priestly Code makes no direct mention of
I angels, and the priestly Chronicler does so only seldom.
' This is also true of such Apocryphal books as Ecclesias
ticus, Wisdom, and Maccabees. In New Testament times
' this tendency was represented by the Sadducees.46 It
may have been their belief that the Law was the com
plete expression of the divine will, and that with it in
their possession there was no need of mediating angels.
' More likely, however, their attitude on this point was due
to rationalistic skepticism. The earnest people of the
day took seriously the belief in angels, and accepted the
41 Tobit 12. 15 ; Rev. 8. 2.
"3.1,4- 41 2. 3-4.
44 10. 13, 20; 12. 1.
48 W. H. Bennett in Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. ii, p. 5.
"Acts 23. 8. 204

ANGELS AND OTHER DIVINE BEINGS
fact of their existence as unquestioningly as they did that
of God himself.
The angels, according to Old Testament teaching, be
longed to the Elohim world, and as a result shared to
some extent in the qualities of the divine nature. They
were "holy" in the ancient sense of the term. They were
possessed of supernatural knowledge.47 They existed be
fore the creation of the world.48 Whether they were
themselves thought of as having been created is a ques
tion. In earlier times they probably were not, but in such
late passages as Psa. 148. 2-5 and Neh. 9. 6 they seem to
be included in the list of created objects. They were re
garded apparently as sustaining a close relation to the
stars.49 Even so early a passage as the Song of Deborah
seems to refer to this relation.50 In their essential nature
the angels were looked upon as spirits,51 though they are
nowhere in the Old Testament declared to be such.52
Though invisible to ordinary sight, they revealed them
selves to the divinely opened eyes of the servant of the
prophet as "horses and chariots of fire." 53 By this it was
meant that they shared in the ethereal and luminous sub
stance of the heavenly beings. At times they are rep
resented as eating and drinking and walking like men,54
but at other times they appear as quite superior to hu
man needs.55 And the general view was that they were
" 2 Sam. 14. 17 ; compare Gen. 3. 22.
48 Job. 38. 6f.
49 Job 38. 7 ; Deut. 4. 19 ; Isa. 24. 21.
80 Judg. 5- 20.
51 1 Kings 22. 21.
52 Compare Heb. I. 14.
83 2 Kings 6. 17; compare Num. 22. 23-27.
64 Gen. 18. 8; 19. 16, J.
85 Judg. 6. igff.; 13. i6ff. 205

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
exempt from the common burdens and limitations of
human life. They might appear and disappear at will,
unhampered by the ordinary laws of earthly existence.
When angels appeared to men, it was usually in hu
man form. Indeed, they are frequently spoken of as
"men." 56 This, however, does not mean that they were
thought of as permanently having the human form.
What form or shape they may have had when withdrawn
from human sight is not clear. If the seraphim of
Isaiah's vision were representative of angelic beings as
they appear in the heavenly temple, we might conclude
that angels in their celestial abode were composite beings.
But there is no indication anywhere that the seraphim
ever assumed the common human form, or that angels
after manifesting themselves to men reverted to the form
of seraphim. Indeed, it is a question whether the sera
phim may be regarded as angels at all. In the broader
sense of the term they no doubt were. They were sub
ordinate supernatural beings and ministering servants of
Yahweh. But if we take the description of angels else
where found in the Old Testament as typical of the class,
it is evident that the seraphim belonged to a different
order of beings. It is not certain whether Isaiah meant
to represent them as having a human body or not, but
in any case their posession of wings gave to them an
essentially different appearance from that of the angels
elsewhere spoken of. "Angels have no wings in the Old
Testament." 57 In Jacob's dream they do not fly between
heaven and earth, but ascend and descend by means of a
ladder. The idea of winged angels belongs to a later
88 Gen. 18. 2, 16, 22; 32. 24, J; Josh. 5. 13; Ezek. 9. 2, 3, 11 ; 43. 6;
Dan. 3. 25 ; 9. 21 ; 10. 16, 18.
87 H. G. Mitchell, Isaiah, a Study of Chapters I-XII, p. 162.
206

ANGELS AND OTHER DIVINE BEINGS
date. They are first mentioned in Enoch 61. i. If re
ferred to anywhere in the Old Testament, it is only in
such late passages as i Chron. 21. 1 6 and Dan. 9. 21, and
even there only by implication, if at all.
Closely related to the seraphim were the cherubim.
The cherubim are mentioned in several different connec
tions in the Old Testament. They appear in the story
of paradise as guardians of the tree of life;58 they figure
prominently in Hebrew art, in the adornments of the
ark, the tabernacle and the temple;59 they are identified
with the four living creatures in the vision of Ezekiel
who support the throne of Yahweh;60 they serve in He
brew poetry as symbols of the storm-clouds.61 The de
scriptions of their appearance differ somewhat. In
Ezekiel 10 they each have four faces, but in Ezek. 41. i8f.
only two, and from what is said of them in connection
with the ark one would naturally suppose that they each
had only one face. Whether this was the face of a man
or an ox is uncertain. The diversity of representation
was due to the fact that the cherubim were products of
the imagination and hence had no fixed form, though they
do regularly appear as winged beings. In the latter re
gard they resemble the seraphim, and in later times the
two were identified.62 In the Old Testament, however,
the two are clearly distinguished. "The cherubim carry
or veil God, and show the presence of his glory in the
earthly sanctuary. But the seraphim stand before God
as ministering servants in his heavenly sanctuary." 63
88 Gen. 3. 24, J.
89 Exod. 25. i8ff.; 26. 1. 31, P; 1 Kings 6. 23; 8. 6f.
80 10. 20; 1. sff.
81 Psa. 18. 10.
62 Rev. 4- 8.
83H. Schultz, Old Testament Theology, vol. ii, pp. 238L
207

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
Both classes of beings were angels in the broader sense of
the term, but both differed in appearance and to some ex
tent in function from the malakim.
Angels, according to Old Testament teaching, served
various purposes. They formed a divine court or council
or army,64 and thus contributed to the conception of the
divine majesty. They acted as ministers of the divine
wrath, destroying those who disobeyed or defied the di
vine will.65 They interpreted the divine visions to the
later prophets,66 and explained to men the divine purpose
in their afflictions.67 But in particular they served as
mediators of the divine care and favor.
"He will give his angels charge over thee,
To keep thee in all thy ways.
They shall bear thee up in their hands,
Lest thou dash thy foot against a stone." 68
It is here that the real religious significance of the belief
in angels is to be found. Belief in them gave "visibility
to the working of God in Providence." It made objec
tive, concrete, and special the divine care and supervision
of human life. It embodied in a form that the imagina
tion could readily grasp the thought of the divine guid
ance and the divine favor.
Thus far we have said nothing of the moral character
of the angels. In a certain sense they had none. They
were merely servants of Yahweh. Apart from him they
84 Isa. 6. 8 ; I Kings 22. 19 ; Job 1. 6 ; 2. I ; Psa. 89. 5, 7 ; 103. 20-22.
88 Gen. 19. 13; 2 Sam. 24. 16; 2 Kings 19. 35; Ezek. 9. iff.; Psa.
78. 49.
00 Ezek. 40. 3; Zech. 1. 9; Dan. 7. 16.
"Job 33. 23.
68 Psa. 91. uf. 208

ANGELS AND OTHER DIVINE BEINGS
had no will and no purpose. They simply did his bid
ding. Even the angels or spirits that are spoken of as
"evil" or are represented as doers of evil,69 were not
evil in and of themselves. They did evil only in the sense
that Yahweh himself did,70 and only in fulfillment of his
will. Their own character did not come into the question.
They were not in the proper sense of the term morally
responsible agents. Such at least seems to have been the
view of earlier times. And yet the tendency must early
have arisen to think of angels as superior to men ethi
cally as well as otherwise.71 Such is manifestly the view
of Job. Here we read,
"Behold, he putteth no trust in his servants ;
And his angels he chargeth with folly :
How much more them that dwell in houses of clay !" 72
As compared with God angels were imperfect, but as
compared with men they were the purest of beings.
The idea of fallen angels is nowhere expressed in the
Old Testament. It was first taught in the Book of
Enoch.73 A certain basis for it, however, or at least for
the belief in the existence of supernatural beings of an
evil character, is found in the Old Testament. We have
there the idea of demons, beings hostile to Yahweh or in
dependent of him. These beings no doubt figured promi
nently in the popular religion,74 but only one of them
""Judg. 9. 23; 1 Sam. 16. 14-23; 2 Sam. 24. 16; 1 Kings 22. 19-23;
2 Kings 19. 35 ; Psa. 78. 49 ; Job 33. 22.
70 Ezek. 14. 9 ; Amos 3. 6 ; Isa. 45. 7.
71 1 Sam. 29. 9.
72 Job 4. i8f. ; see also 15. isf. ; 25. 5f.
73 6-15; see Jude 6 and 2 Pet. 2. 4.
"Deut. 32. 17; Psa. 106. 37; Lev. 17. 7; 2 Chron. 11. 15; 2 Kings
23. 8 ; Isa. 13. 21 ; 34. 14. See Hebrew and English Lexicon of the
Old Testament, by Brown, Driver, Briggs, p. 972.
209

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
received recognition in the Old Testament cultus. This
was Azazel,75 who plays a great role in the Book of
Enoch.76 He there appears as a leader of the evil spirits,
a temporary rival of Satan, who because of his wickedness
is bound hand and foot and held in the desert "under
rough and jagged rocks" to await the fire of the great
Day of Judgment. In Leviticus he is apparently thought
of as a wilderness demon, a satyr or goatlike figure. To
him the sins of the people laden on a goat were sent on
the Day of Atonement. This ceremonial was a symbol
ical declaration that the land and the people had been
purged of their guilt.
But besides the demons there were other superhuman
beings who stood apart from Yahweh and were to
some extent hostile to him. In Gen. 6. 1-4, as already
pointed out, reference is made to certain "sons of God,"
who dealt in a high-handed way with the daughters of
men. In Isa. 24. 21-22 we are told of supernatural be
ings, "the host of the high ones on high," who were im
prisoned as a punishment for intruding on the sovereign
rights of Yahweh. And in Daniel the princes or guardian
angels of Persia and Greece appear as opponents of
Michael and another celestial visitant, who manifestly
represent the divine will.77
More important, however, than any of these is the
figure of Satan. The Hebrew word satan had the gen
eral meaning of "adversary," and in the earlier literature
was used exclusively in that sense. "The angel of Je
hovah placed himself in the way for an adversary
75 Lev. 16.
78 8-10.
77 10. 13, 20. 210

ANGELS AND OTHER DIVINE BEINGS
against" Balaam.78 "Jehovah raised up an adversary
unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite." 79 The word is also
used as a verb, "to be or act as an adversary." 80 Not
until we come to Zechariah (B. C. 520) was it applied to
a particular personage. And here it is not used as a
proper name. The being to whom it is applied is called
not Satan but £/&£_Saian, or Adversary.81 The Adversary,
it is said, was standing at the side of Joshua the high
priest "to be his adversary." The word satan is here
used both as a noun and a verb. The particular function -,
of the Satan in this connection was to represent "the jus- I
tice of Yahweh as contrasted with his mercy." He was a'
kind of advocatus diaboli whose task it was "not to prove
so much as to recall the iniquity of" Joshua, the repre
sentative of Judah, "and insist upon the infliction of the
appropriate penalty." 82 The rebuke administered to the
Adversary in verse 2 is evidence that Yahweh did not
approve of the hardness and lack of compassion that he
was showing in the performance of his office. A certain
tendency to evil is thus observable in Zechariah's concep- 1
tion of the Satan, but the Satan is not yet conceived of as
hostile to Yahweh. He is, rather, a minister of Yahweh.
This is clearly the view of the book of Job (about B. C.
350). The Satan is here one of the sons of God.83 But)
the work in which he is engaged is even more distinctly
evil than that attributed to him in Zechariah. He is
skeptical of human nature, takes a low view of it. Every
73 Num. 22. 22, 32, J.
79 1 Kings 11. 14; compare 5. 4; 1 Sam. 29. 4; 2 Sam. 19. 22.
80 Psa. 38. 20; 109. 4.
81 3- 1-5-
82 H. G. Mitchell, "Zechariah" in International Critical Commen
tary, p. 151.
83 1. 6-12; 2. 1-10. 211

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
i
i man, he believes, has his price.84 And this view he is
bent on confirming. He pursues Job relentlessly, doing
everything in his power to break the bond of faith be
tween him and God. He acts the part of a real tempter,
and that without any good motive. He is Job's enemy,
seeking to drive him to despair. In all this, it is true,
he acts on his own initiative, differing in this regard from
the nameless spirit who was sent to deceive Ahab.85 But
he is still a minister of God, operating under the divine
permission, and not an independent principle of evil.
In_i Chron. 21. 1, written perhaps about B. C. 250,
Satan first appears as a proper name. His personality is
here distinctly recognized. In 2 Sam. 24. 1 Yahweh is
said to have incited David to an act of disobedience,
namely, that of numbering the people. But in Chron-
' icles this temptation is attributed to Satan. "Between
the two statements (an interval of probably two or three
hundred years) the feeling had grown up that instigation
to evil could not properly be referred to God ; an evil spirit
becomes the agent of sin." 86 The serpent of Genesis 3
> was first interpreted as meaning Satan in the Wisdom of
\ Solomon (2. 23), a book dating from about B. C. 100.
This interpretation carried with it the idea that sin and
death were introduced into the world through satanic
agency. And with this idea went naturally a marked de
velopment of demonology. Satan appears in the Jewish
literature of the New Testament period and to some ex
tent in the New Testament itself as the chief personifica-
/ tion of evil, as the leader of the hosts of darkness and as
prince of this world. This development was probably due
84 2. 4.
8i 1 Kings 22. 19-23.
38 C. H. Toy, Judaism and Christianity, p. 157.
212

ANGELS AND OTHER DIVINE BEINGS
in part to foreign influence, to the dualism of Persian
and Greek thought, but it was also due to the growing
moral refinement of the idea of God. It was increasingly
believed that God was essentially benevolent in his nature
and that he could not, therefore, be responsible for all the .
evil of the world. Faith consequently felt a certain re
lief in turning over the ills and wickedness of life to a
being hostile to him.
But neither the conception of Satan nor that of angels
formed an essential part of biblical teaching. They were
natural and perhaps inevitable accompaniments of the de
veloping faith in the divine goodness and transcendence.
But they constituted no necessary part of this faith.
They owed their origin and growth in large part to condi
tions of life and thought that have now ceased to be
operative. At the best they were simply adjuncts to the
idea of God and derived whatever value they possessed
from the help they rendered the imagination in conceiv
ing aright the thought of God.

213

Ill
MAN AND REDEMPTION

CHAPTER X
THE NATURE OF MAN
Religion centers in the thought of God, but the
thought of God becomes a source of inspiration only in
so far as it elevates the conception of man. The concep
tion of man is therefore second in importance only to that
of God. The value of any religion and of any system
of philosophy may be tested by its teaching on these two
points. As regards the idea of God the Old Testament, as we
have seen, is reasonably clear and satisfactory. The
development through which the Hebrews passed before
they arrived at a complete monotheism may be some
what obscure and a subject of dispute. But the ideas
concerning the divine unity, spirituality, and righteous
ness ultimately attained and reflected in the larger part of
the Old Testament are on the whole such as to commend
themselves to modern religious thought. The situation, '
however, with reference to the conception of man is less^
satisfactory. Anthropology lagged far behind theology,,
and not until the very close of the Old Testament period
did a conception of man begin to arise that satisfies the!
developed religious consciousness. Much of what we find:
in the Old Testament concerning the nature of man is
consequently of an imperfect and sub-Christian character.
There are three beliefs with reference to man in which
religion is especially interested. These are his spirituality,
freedom, and immortality. The last is of such import-
217

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
ance that its discussion is reserved for a separate chapter.
Here we shall consider the teaching of the Old Testament
in so far as it bears upon the first two.
"Spirituality," as we have seen, is a term that has vari
ous meanings. As applied to God there are three that
may be distinguished : the metaphysical, dynamic and eth
ical. These three meanings appear also in our conception
of human spirituality. Man is spiritual in the sense that
he has a soul, a nonfleshly nature; he may also be said
to be spiritual in so far as there is within him a vital
power that enables him to rise above the weakness of the
flesh ; he is still further spiritual in so far as he is guided
in his conduct by ethical and religious considerations
rather than by his selfish and fleshly nature. It is in the
last sense that spirituality is commonly used when ap
plied to man. But the other two uses of the term are
important, and religion is interested in the spirituality of
man in all three senses. It is interested in the ethical, but
it is also interested in those other qualities that lift man
above the plane of the sense-life with its weakness and
inevitable decay, and link him with the divine. What
religion seeks to find in man is something permanent and
abiding, something that elevates him above the world of
change and makes him share in the life of God. It conse
quently turns away from the things of sense and fixes
its thought upon the soul, the inner life of man that stands
nearest to the divine. But it is only gradually that the
immanent logic of religion works itself out into satis
factory concepts. And the question with which we are at
present concerned is as to how far this was accomplished
in the Old Testament. In what sense and to what extent
did the Old Testament teach the spirituality of man ?
In answering this question we are first confronted with
218

THE NATURE OF MAN
the fact that the Old Testament writers had no distinctive
psychology and no distinctive physiology. Their ideas in
these fields were those current among the people of their
own day. They did not seek to introduce a new theory
of the constitution of human nature, nor did they attempt
to deal in a more systematic way with the subject. They
simply reflected the common thought of the day, and their
language was that of the people; it lacked the definiteness
and precision of a scientific treatise. No clearly defined
doctrine of man is consequently to be found in the Old
Testament. What we have, for the most part at least,, is
the popular beliefs and the popular speech of the day.
But in these there is a considerable uniformity, so that it
is proper to speak of an Old Testament teaching con
cerning the nature of man.
There are four terms of special significance in what
might be called the physio-psychology of the Old Testa
ment. These are "flesh" (basar), "soul" (nephesh),
"spirit" (ruach), and "heart" (leb). All of these terms
are used in a variety of senses. Here we are concerned
with them simply as designations of component elements
in human nature. The physical basis of life was ex
pressed by the term basar. The Hebrews had no word
exactly corresponding to the Greek soma and the English
"body," but basar was often used in an equivalent sense.1
The basar, or body, however, as conceived by the He
brews, was not a mere material mechanism. It was a pro
duct of the union of dead inert matter, the dust from the
ground (aphar), with the live-giving spirit (neshamah or
ruach). It thus had a double character. It was not only
'Exod. 30. 32; Lev. 6. 10; 14. 9; 19- 28; Num. 8. 7; 1 Kings
21. 27; Job 14. 22; Psa. 16. 9; 63. 1 ; Eccl. 2. 3; 4. 5; Isa. 10. 18.
219

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
matter, but, as Davidson puts it, "ensouled matter." It
had a vital and psychical side to its being as well as a
physical. It was represented as sinning,2 suffering,3
trembling with fear,4 living trustfully,5 longing,6 sing
ing for joy.7 In a similar way psychical functions were
ascribed to the individual sense-organs. The eye was
spoken of as unsatisfied,8 proud,9 humble,10 evil;11 the
ear as seeking knowledge12 and bestowing blessing ;13 the
tongue as framing deceits and devising mischiefs.14 In
such expressions as these it might at first be thought that
the language was purely metaphorical. But when we take
into account the general physiological and psychological
notions current in antiquity this is seen to be improbable.
Frazer tells us that "the savage commonly believes that
by eating the flesh of an animal or man he acquires not
only the physical, but even the moral and intellectual qual
ities which were characteristic of that animal or man." 15
And among ancient peoples generally a similar idea of the
close connection between the physical and psychical seems
to have prevailed. We localize the immediate physical
antecedents of sensation in the brain. But the Hebrews

2Eccl. 5- 6.
"Eccl. n. 10.
4 Psa. 119. 120.
8 Psa. 16. 9.
8 Psa. 63. 1.
7 Psa. 84. 2.
"Eccl. 1. 8; Prov. 27. 20.
° Psa. 131. 1.
10 Job 22. 29.
11 Prov. 23. 6.
12 Prov. 18. 15.
"Job 29. 11.
"Psa. 50. 19; 52. 2.
18 The Golden Bough (second edition), vol. ii, p. 353.
220

THE NATURE OF MAN
had no knowledge of the nervous system. They had no
distinct term for "nerve," and the word "brain" does not
occur in the Old Testament. No doubt they had some
way of designating the physical substance of the brain.
Perhaps they spoke of it as "the marrow of the head."
But they did not look upon it as the center of conscious
ness. The heart, as we shall see, came nearer to serving
that function in their thought. But even it was not re
garded as the sole organ of consciousness. Conscious- j,
ness was, rather, conceived as inherent in the flesh or the
blood, and hence might be ascribed to the individual sense :
organs or to the body as a whole.
The antithesis between soul and body was far less
marked with the Hebrews than with us. The distinction
between the two was made, but the tendency was to view
life as a unity, and in this unity the body rather than the
soul was the characteristic element. Hence the word
"flesh" was used to designate sensuous creatures gener
ally, men as well as animals. "All flesh," a common ex
pression especially in P, meant either mankind,16 or
the animal world,17 or both.18 The essential and dis
tinctive element in human nature by way of contrast with
the divine was also not infrequently expressed by the
word "flesh." "The Egyptians are men, and not God;
and their horses flesh, and not spirit." 19 Flesh here car
ries with it the idea of weakness, frailty, and depend
ence. It is this that characterizes man as over against
God. The contrast between flesh and spirit was thus not ,
'"Gen. 6. 12; Num. 16. 22; Deut. 5. 26; Isa. 40. 6; Jer. 12. 12;
Ezek. 21. 4.
"Gen. 7- 15. 16; 8. 17.
18 Gen. 6. 17; 7. 21; 9. 11; Lev. 17. 14; Num. 18. 15; Job 34. 15;
Psa. 136. 25.
18 Isa. 31. 3. 221

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
ethical. Flesh nowhere in the Old Testament is looked
upon as evil in and of itself. If it had been, it would not
have been used in sacrifices and for food, nor would the
word "flesh" have been employed as a figure to denote
tenderness or ethical sensitiveness, as it is in Ezek. 36. 26.
Fleshly weakness might lead to sin, but it was not identi
fied with it. Rather was the guilt of sin extenuated by
the fact that it grew out of sensuous weakness.20 Sensu
ous weakness could not therefore have been regarded as
itself morally evil. If it had been, it could not have
served as an excuse for or palliation of sin. The idea of
an ethical dualism of body and soul was remote from
Hebrew thought. Yet in the contrast between flesh and
spirit, first clearly stated by Isaiahj^we have the begin
ning of the development that led later to the Pauline
doctrine of the flesh with its distinct ethical implications.
Closely connected with the "flesh," yet clearly distin
guished from it, was the soul, or nephesh. It would be a
mistake to read our modern ideas into the Hebrew con
ception of the soul; yet there is this point of agreement
between the modern and the ancient view, that the soul in
both represents a principle distinct from the flesh or body.
The Hebrew nephesh might originate in connection with
the body and disappear with it, yet it was conceived of as
a distinct substance or entity. It seems to have been the
Hebrew view that, as the body was the product of the
union of the "dust" with the life-giving spirit, and hence
might be spoken of as "ensouled matter," so the nephesh,
or soul, was due to the union of the life-giving spirit with
the dust or flesh, and hence might be called "incar-
20 Job 4. 17-19; 14. 1-14; Psa. 78. 38-39.
N 21 Isa, 31. 3. 222

THE NATURE OF MAN
nate spirit." 22 Flesh and soul were thus intimately
connected with each other, indeed, mutually dependent
upon one another, yet they rooted in different principles,
one in dust or matter, the other in breath or spirit.
Spirit as conceived by the Hebrews was not, as we have
seen, an immaterial form of existence. It was, rather, a
breathlike substance, a rarified form of matter. Indeed,
the soul was identified by the Hebrews with the breath.
The reason for this is evident. Breath is a sign of life.
When breath ceases life vanishes. Hence it was easy to
conclude that the soul or principle of life was identical
with the breath. It was for the same reason also that the
soul was brought into such intimate connection with the
blood. Loss of blood after a certain point is accompanied
by loss of consciousness and finally of life. Hence we
read, "The life [nephesh] of the flesh is in the blood," 23
and again, "The blood is the life [nephesh]." 24 A still
further reason for the identification of the soul with the
blood may perhaps be found in the visible reek of shed
blood. This would suggest to the primitive mind that
there was in the blood a breathlike or soullike substance.
The quasi-physical character of the soul and its close
connection with the body did not, however, interfere with
an essentially spiritual conception of its functions. The
nephesh was identified more frequently with the principle
of life than is the case with the soul in modern times, but
this vital function was in no way inconsistent with the
psychical and personal uses of the term. It was the same
soul that formed the basis of the conscious as of the phys
ical life and that constituted the agent in both. There are,

22 Gen. 2. 7, J.
23 Lev. 17. n.
24 Deut. 12. 23. 223

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
then, three different senses in which the word nephesh is
used — the vital, psychical, and personal — and it is used
with about equal frequency in each. According to H. W.
Robinson,25 the word occurs seven hundred and fifty-four
times in the Old Testament ; in two hundred and eighty-
two instances it refers to the principle of life,26, in two
hundred and forty-nine to conscious activities of one
kind or another,27 and in two hundred and twenty-three
to the personal agent, serving in the latter case either as
an equivalent of the personal pronoun28 or as a designa
tion of the individual man.29 The nephesh was thus
plainly regarded as the seat of the conscious and per
sonal life, but it was not the exclusive seat of this higher
life. Psychical functions, as we have seen, were attrib
uted to the flesh as well as to the soul, and the term basar
as well as nephesh was used to designate the total life of
man. It should further be noted that no distinction is
made between the psychical functions attributed to the
flesh and those attributed to the soul. One might have
supposed that the higher psychical activities would be at
tributed to the soul and the lower to the flesh. But such
is not the case. The highest spiritual activities are at
times assigned to the flesh,30 while the sensations of phys
ical hunger31 and sexual passion32 are attributed to the
soul. It is evident from this that soul and body did not
in Hebrew thought constitute a dualism in the strict
28 The Christian Doctrine of Man, p. 16.
28 For example, I Kings 19. 10.
27 For example, Gen. 42. 21.
28 For example, Num. 23. 10.
23 For example, Gen. 12. 5.
89 Psa. 63. 1.
31 Prov. 27. 7.
" Gen. 34.8, E. 224

THE NATURE OF MAN
sense of the term. They were correlative rather than
antithetic terms. Though rooted in independent prin
ciples, they formed a unity. What we, then, actually have
in Old Testament psychology is an "explanation of the
unity of personality along two parallel lines of primitive
thought, according as the (supposed) immediate organ
or the more ultimate and mysterious breath might be
made the starting-point." 33
The question has been raised as to whether there is any
basis in the Old Testament for the doctrine of the pre-
existence of the soul. Some have interpreted the latter
part of I Sam. 2. 6 as referring to "a sojourn of unborn
beings in the realm of Sheol," and it has also been argued
that Job34 in speaking of his mother's womb, from which
he had come and to which he was to return, had in mind
the womb of Sheol. But neither of these interpretations
has a sound basis. In Psa. 139. 15 the writer speaks of
himself as having been "curiously wrought in the lowest
parts of the earth." As this is a late psalm it is not im
possible that there may here be a reference to the soul's
preexistence in Sheol, but what we more probably have is
simply a description of the mysterious origin of human
life. The general conception of the soul current among
the Hebrews was unfavorable to the belief in its pre
existence. Body and soul in the Old Testament went to
gether. The soul had no separate and detached existence,
either before its union with the body or after the dis
solution of the union. The inhabitants of the nether
world were not souls but shades (rephaim). The shades
were shadowlike images of our earthly life. In this
vague sense they no doubt represented a continuation
33 H. W. Robinson, The Christian Doctrine of Man, p. 21.
84 1. 21. 225

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
of the existence of both soul and body,35 and in a similar
1 way it is conceivable that the Hebrews might also have
('thought of the soul as preexistent. But there is no evi-
/ dence of such a belief. The preexistence of the soul was
, a Hellenic doctrine that did not gain access into Hebrew
thought until the postcanonical period. The earliest dis
tinct reference to it is in the Wisdom of Solomon (8.
i9f.)- Another point that has been much discussed is as to
-* whether the Old Testament favors traducianism or crea-
tionism. Is the soul of the child derived from its parents
or is it created directly by God ? This is a problem that
can hardly be said to have existed for the Old Testament
writers, and it is doubtful if their teaching can be said to
be favorable to either view. The native realism of the
human mind would naturally lead to traducianism, and
this is no doubt the tendency represented by much of the
Old Testament. It is also argued that traducianism is.
implied in the Old Testament doctrine of inherited sin,36
in the account of the creation of woman,37 and in the
representation of creation as coming to an absolute end in
man.38 But over against this attention may be directed
to the vivid sense of the divine immanence in the Old
Testament, the tendency to ascribe everything to God as
its source. The origin of the soul and the total life of
man is frequently referred to the creative activity of
God.39 Between these two tendencies there was, how
ever, no conscious conflict in the Old Testament. As
88 Job 14. 22.
"*-^"38 Psa. 51. 5; Deut. 5. 9; Job 14. 4.
37 Gen. 2. 21-24, J-
88 Gen. 1. 26 to 2. 3, P.
39 Psa. 33. 15; 95. 6; 119. 73; Zech. 12. 1; Job 10. 8; 33. 4; Jer.
1. 5 ; 38. 16 ; Isa. 57. 16. 226

THE NATURE OF MAN
good a statement as any of the teaching of the Old Testa
ment on this point is that of Schultz. "Biblical traducian
ism," he says, "is, indeed, opposed to that scholastic crea-
tionism, which conceives of a soul distinct from the body,
being called forth directly from God, but not to the reli
gious creationism which is convinced that each individual
is an immediate expression of God's creative will." 40
Thus far it has been assumed that according to Old
Testament psychology there were only two component
elements in human nature, body and soul. But besides the
word nephesh, or soul, we often meet with the word
ruach, or spirit, and this has given rise to the question as
to whether the Old Testament does not teach a threefold
instead of a twofold division of human nature, trichot
omy instead of dichotomy. "Spirit" and "soul," it is
urged, are not synonymous terms. They designate dis
tinct elements in human nature. What the exact relation
of these two elements to each other is, is admittedly not
clear. But much ingenuity has been expended in the
effort to solve the problem. The most notable attempt
was that by the distinguished Franz Delitzsch. "Spirit
and soul," he says, "are of one nature, but of distinct
substances. If anyone would rather say that the soul is a
Tertium, or third existence, not substantially indeed, but
potentially independent, between spirit and body, but by
its nature pertaining to the side of the spirit, we have no
objection to it. . . . Although the soul originated out
of the essence of the spirit, it is not of absolutely identical
condition with it, or, as we prefer saying, it is not one and
the same substance with the spirit, but a substance that

' Old Testament Theology, vol. ii, p. 182.
227

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
stands in a secondary relation with it. It is of one nature
with it, but not one distinct nature, as the Son and
the Spirit are of one nature with the Father, but still not
the same hypostases. . . . The spirit is the inbreathing
of the Godhead, and the soul is the outbreathing of the
spirit. . . . The spirit is the inward being of the soul,
and the soul is the external nature of the spirit. . . .
The spirit is the image of the triune Godhead, but the soul
is the copy of the image." 41 Delitzsch regarded this
theory as the key to biblical psychology, declaring that
with his insight into and acceptance of it his "confused
materials of biblical psychology formed themselves as if
spontaneously into a systematic unity." But this system
atic unity was subjective. It is not to be found in Scrip
ture. There are two verses in the New Testament that are
frequently adduced in support of a threefold division of
human nature, i Thess. 5. 23 and Heb. 4. 12, but it is
doubtful if either of them requires such an interpretation.
There is also one verse in the Old Testament that is often
so interpreted, Gen. 2. 7. "This one verse," says De
litzsch, "is of such deep significance that interpretation
can never exhaust it; it is the foundation of all true an
thropology and psychology." 42 R. H. Charles also attrib
utes to this verse a special significance, though in a dif
ferent sense from Delitzsch. He finds in it a different
view of human nature from that represented by the Old
Testament as a whole. Here "man is represented as a
trichotomy of spirit, soul and body : the spirit is the breath
of God, and the soul only a function of the quickened
body. According to this view, when the spirit is with-
41 System of Biblical Psychology, pp. 116, 117, 118, 119.
"Ibid., p. 90. 228

THE NATURE OF MAN
drawn the personality is extinguished at death." 43 This
view he finds reflected also in Eccl. 12. 7. But this is
taking the language of Gen. 2. 7 in too strict and precise
a sense. "All that seems in question here is just the giv
ing of vitality to man. There seems no allusion to man's
immaterial being, to his spiritual element. It is a picture
of his endowment with vitality. Vitality is communicated
by God, and he is here pictorially represented as communi
cating it by breathing into man's nostrils that breath
which is the sign of life." 44
That ruach did not denote a third element in human
nature, distinct from the nephesh, is evident from the
fact that it is often used synonymously with nephesh as
a designation both of the principle of vitality45 and the re
sultant psychical life.46 In the former sense it is used
thirty-nine times in the Old Testament, and in the latter
seventy-four. The latter use seems to have been rather
late in its development. At least it did not become com
mon until the exilic and postexilic period. In the former
sense, that of vitality or life-energy, ruach appears in a
number of early passages,47 but not until the time of
Ezekiel does it seem to have been used to denote "the
normal breath-soul as the principle of life in man." 48
From that time on, however, it became a common desig
nation of the psychical element in man.

"'Religious Development between the Old and New Testaments,
pp. 124L
44 A. B. Davidson, Theology of the Old Testament, p. 194.
"For example, Gen. 6. 17; 45. 27; Judg. 15. 19; 1 Sam. 30. 12;
Ezek. 37. 5 ; Psa. 104. 29.
48 For example, Isa. 26. 9; Exod. 28. 3; Psa. 51. 12; Judg. 8. 3;
Isa. 19. 14; Prov. 16. 18.
"Gen. 45. 27, E; Judg. 15. 19; 1 Sam. 30. 12; 1 Kings 10. 5.
"Ezek. 37- 5, 6, 8. 229

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
But while ruach and nephesh thus denoted the same
component element in human nature, the two terms were
not mere synonyms. Ruach meant originally air in mo
tion, and so was applied both to the wind and to the
breathing or panting of men and animals in excitement
or distress. The latter use was naturally extended so as
to include the mental states that gave rise to quick and
vigorous breathing. In this way ruach came to denote the
stronger and stormier emotions, such as anger, grief,
zeal,49 while the milder feelings were attributed to the
nephesh. But a far more important difference between
the two terms is found in the fact that ruach was used of
God as well as man. Indeed, the primary reference was
to God. Nephesh was a corollary of basar ("flesh"), but
not so ruach. Ruach was characteristic of deity, and in
this sense stood in a certain antithesis to flesh. When,
then, ruach came to be applied to the breath-soul of man,
a certain affinity was established between the human and
the divine. The higher association of the term with the
Spirit of God inevitably had its influence on the concep
tion of the human spirit. "The similarity of terminology
kept open a heavenward door, so to speak, in human
nature, and no more striking case could be found of the
influence of language on the thought it shapes even
whilst it serves." 50 It is here that the most significant
fact connected with Old Testament psychology is to be
found. No parallel to it occurs in any ethnic system.
"Spirit," says Laidlaw, "is not so used by Plato, by Philo,
by the earlier Stoics, by Plotinus and the Neo-Platonists,
nor, indeed, anywhere out of the circle of Bible thought.
It denotes the direct dependence of man upon God. The
"Judg. 8. 3; Gen. 26. 35; Hag. 1. 14; Job 15. 13; Eccl. 10. 4.
80 H. W. Robinson, The Christian Doctrine of Man, p. 27.
¦ /' 230
•/, //

THE NATURE OF MAN
peculiarly biblical idea is the attribution to man, as the
highest in him, of that which is common to man with
God. Spirit is the God-given principle of man's life,
physical, mental, and spiritual." 51 The development of
this thought had far-reaching consequences. It led to a
new and far higher conception of human destiny. "Man
had only to find along this line the fulfillment of the
deepest moral and religious demands of his life, to be
lifted into a realm where personality is victorious over
death." 52
In addition to "sbul" and "spirit" the Hebrews used the
word "heart" (leb or lebab) to designate the inner life of
man. We also employ the same figure of speech. But
with us the usage is more distinctly metaphorical than
with the Hebrews. With them the blood was the actual
seat of the soul, and the heart as the center of the blood-
life or, as we should say, circulatory system was thought
of as the direct organ of consciousness. It served some
what the same function as the "brain" does with us ; only
the connection between the physical organ and the con
scious life was more realistically conceived. It happens
also that the word "brain" or "brains" with us comes
nearer to suggesting the psychical import of the Hebrew
leb or lebab than does our word "heart." Heart with us
denotes the emotional side of life, and this was true to
some extent also of Hebrew usage.53 But it was chiefly
intellectual and volitional activities that were referred by
the Hebrews to the heart.54 The emotional life was
81 Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, vol. iv, p. 167.
82 H. W. Robinson, The Religious Ideas of the Old Testament,
p. 83. 53 Gen. 42. 28, J ; Judg. 18. 20 ; 1 Sam. 4. 13 ; 25. 36 ; 2 Sam. 14. 1.
"Exod. 7. 23, E; 28. 3, P; Deut. 7. 17; 4. 9; 1 Sam. 2. 35; 1
Kings 3. 9; Hos. 7. 11. 231

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
thought of more particularly as having its seat in the
nephesh.55 "With all thy heart, and with all thy soul," 56
meant, then, "with all one's mental powers." No special
significance, however, attaches to this difference of con
notation in the case of the two terms. "Heart" and "soul"
are often used synonymously with each other and with
"spirit" to denote the total conscious life of man.
In our discussion thus far we have arrived at several
conclusions that have a bearing on the relation of Old
Testament teaching to the spirituality of man. We have
seen that the Old Testament conception of man is anti-«
materialistic in the sense that it does not reduce human
life to a purely physical basis. It does not regard man as
the outcome of a collocation of merely material elements.
There is in human nature a higher spiritual factor, a soul.
In this regard, it is true, the Old Testament simply reflects
a widely spread popular belief. But this belief is signi
ficant. "The word 'soul,' occurring in all cultivated lan
guages, and the content of the word, indicates a general
belief that the soul is not a passing phase of matter but
an abiding essence. In its spontaneous language the race
has recorded its verdict against materialism ; and this fact
constitutes a strong presumption in favor of the spiritual
philosophy." 5T To this statement it may be objected that
the Hebrews did not regard the soul as "an abiding es
sence ;" it vanished with the body. And this is no doubt
true. But the point to be noted is that the soul or spirit,
as conceived by the Hebrews, was sufficiently distinct
from its material basis; so that it was possible for it to
68 Gen. 44. 30; 27. 4, J; Psa. 11. 5.
88 Deut. 6. 5.
"Borden P. Bowne, Studies in Theism, pp. 377L
232

THE NATURE OF MAN
become the organizing principle of a new life after death,
when once the demand for such a life arose. The popu
lar philosophy of the Old Testament was not materialistic.
It left the door open to a spiritual view both of human
nature and of human destiny.
On the other hand, the Old Testament view of man
was not dualistic. It did not oppose the soul to the body
in such a way as to make the two mutually independent,
nor in such a way as to degrade the body. The soul was
not looked upon as imprisoned in the body, nor was any
merit attached to the mortification of the flesh. Life as
»a whole was viewed as a unit. This is the fundamental
thought of the Old Testament. The flesh, on the one
hand, and the soul, spirit or heart, on the other, were
simply aspects of the one personal life. No basis was con- I
sequently furnished for a one-sided and unhealthy spirit-
ualization of life, for a neglect of the needs of the body.
The natural was not set in antithesis to the spiritual, but
on the contrary was, rather, regarded as the true field for
its exercise.
A third point we have noted is the accessibility of the
human to the divine spirit. The use of the word ruach
to designate the inner life of man accentuated this idea.
The fact that the same word was used for the human as
for the divine spirit emphasized their affinity. And this
conception, as we have seen, was one of special signifi
cance. It implied the unique dignity of man and prepared
the way for the later Jewish and Christian belief that man
is destined to share in the eternal life of God.
A further word relative to Old Testament teaching
concerning the dignity of human nature needs in this con
nection to be added. As over against God, man is regu
larly in the Old Testament represented as a weak creature
233

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
of the dust.58 "Cease ye from man," we read, "whose
breath is in his nostrils ; for wherein is he to be accounted
of ?" 59 Man's relation to God is such that there is no
place for human pride. God will tolerate no haughtiness
of spirit on the part of men. "The lofty looks of man
shall be brought low, and the haughtiness of men shall be
bowed down, and Jehovah alone shall be exalted." 60 But
this attitude of humility and consciousness of weakness
as over against God were not inconsistent with a high
conception of human nature as contrasted with the animal
world. Men and animals, it is true, are frequently classed
together under the general term "flesh," and the words
"soul" and "spirit" are used of animals as well as men.
But a unique dignity and glory was nevertheless assigned
to man, "which raises him not merely comparatively but
absolutely out of the ranks of the animals" (Schultz).
This is clear from the two accounts of man's creation.
In J61 both the body and soul of man are the result of a
special creative act on the part of God. The animals afe
created for him, and both the animal and vegetable king
doms are made subject to him. In what is said of the
creation of woman the unique superiority of man is
brought out in a naive but beautiful and impressive way.
Woman, we are told, was created because no help meet
for man could be found among the animals. In P also
man owes his origin to a special purpose and act of God.62
He is here even more clearly than in J the end and crown
of creation. This is true both of male and female. If

88 Gen. 18. 27, J; Isa. 40. 6-7; Job 13. 25; Psa. 78. 39; 104. 29.
89 Isa. 2. 22.
80 Isa. 2. 11; compare Gen. 3. 22; 11. 1-9.
61 Gen. 2. 7ff.
82 Gen. 1. 234

THE NATURE OF MAN
there is a trace of inequality in the conception of man and
woman in J, this is lacking in P. And if there is also
in J a feeling that man did not and should not resemble
God,63 this likewise is lacking in P. Man is here repre
sented as made in the "image of God."
What, however, was meant by the image of God is a
question concerning which there has been considerable
difference of opinion. The older view was that it re
ferred to the moral perfection of man before the fall.
But this is inconsistent with Gen. 9. 6, which speaks of
mankind generally after the Deluge as made in the image
of God. Another view is that man's likeness to God
consisted simply in his bodily form. And this may have
been the original meaning of the term, but it certainly
was not all that P understood by it. Others find the
divine image in man's lordship over nature. This thought
is suggested by the context in Genesis 1 and by Psalm 8.
But lordship, as Skinner says, "is the consequence, not
the essence, of the divine image." We must, then, find
the image of God in man's participation in the higher
personal or spiritual life of God. The physical need not
altogether be excluded, but the stress is to be placed upon
the spiritual. This is manifestly the idea in Psalm 8,
where we read that man was made "but little lower than
God [Elohim]." Elohim here probably does not mean
God, but the general class of divine or spiritual beings.
Man, though a fleshly being, it is here said, stands next to
the pure spirits. There is only a small gap between him
and them. The deepest instincts of his nature link him
to the spirit-world. He is made for God. This thought
is suggested in a striking way by the prophet Jeremiah.
"The stork," he says, "in the heavens knoweth her ap-
88 Gen. 3. 22. 235

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
pointed times; and the turtle-dove and the swallow and
the crane observe the time of their coming; but my people
know not the law of Jehovah." 64 It is implied in this
verse that what instinct is to the birds of passage, that the
spiritual impulse is or ought to be in man. But for his
willfulness it would lead him unerringly to God. In his
essential nature man is spiritual, and hence must find in
God his chief good. As the psalmist says,
"Whom have I in heaven but thee?
And there is none upon earth that I desire be
sides thee." 65

/

There was, we thus see, a tendency in the Old Testa
ment toward a distinctly spiritual view of man. In spite
of a popular and inadequate psychology there was a grow
ing and deepening conception of man's essential affinity
with God.

/ We now pass to the question of human freedom. An
adequate discussion of this subject would require a con
sideration of the problem of individualism in the Old
Testament, the relation of individual to what has been
called "corporate" personality. But this is so broad and
so important a topic that its discussion has been reserved
for a separate chapter. Here we shall consider the teach
ing of the Old Testament only in so far as it relates to
the general problem of human freedom.
Freedom is nowhere asserted in the Old Testament,
and it is nowhere denied. The philosophic question of
determinism and indeterminism did not exist for the
ancient Hebrew mind. The Old Testament attitude
64 8. 7.
M 73- 25. 236

THE NATURE OF MAN
toward the subject was purely practical. The demand of
the ethical nature for freedom was fully recognized, but
so also was the demand of the religious nature for the J
exercise of divine control in human life. The result is
that we have two sets of facts in the Old Testament, one,
apparently favoring determinism and the other freedom/
The relation, for example, of God to man is in several
instances represented under the figure of the potter and
the clay,66 and in every case but one67 this figure is under- '
stood in a strictly deterministic sense. God is also spoken
of as a doer of evil. Moral evil as well as natural evil is
attributed to him as its inciting cause.68 In particular it
is said of him that he hardened the hearts of men. This
expression occurs especially in the case of Pharaoh,69 but
it was not confined to him. It is used frequently of. others
in the Old Testament.70 Efforts have been made to har
monize such statements as these with the fact of human
freedom, but the explanations offered have usually been
forced and unnatural. All that can be said is that the He
brews themselves saw no contradiction between divine
causality on the one hand and human freedom on the
other. The two were simply opposite sides of the same
fact. While, for instance, it is said of Pharaoh that God
hardened his heart, it is also said of him that he hardened
his own heart,71 and the same expression is also used of
others.72 So far as human freedom is concerned, it is every-

88 Isa. 45. 9; 64. 8; 29. 16.
"Jer. 18. iff.
88 Judg. 9. 23; 2 Sam. 24. 1, 10; Isa. 45. 7; Amos 3. 6.
89 Exod. 4. 21, E ; 7. 3 ; 9. 12, P ; 10. 20, 27, E.
70 Jos. 11. 20; Deut. 2. 30; Isa. 63. 17, etc.
71 Exod. 8. 15, 32 ; 9- 34. J-
n 1 Sam. 6. 6; 2 Chron. 36. 13; Psa. 95. 8.
237

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
where assumed in the Old Testament. It is not said that
man is free; the more concrete expression is used, that
man "chooses." But the idea is the same. Man is every
where treated as morally responsible. His free will does
not lie beyond the influence of the divine will, but it is a
fact nevertheless quite as much as the divine influence
itself. Had the Hebrew felt it necessary to choose be
tween human freedom, on the one hand, and the divine
sovereignty, on the other, it is possible that his choice
might have fallen on the latter. But no such necessity
presented itself to his mind. The freedom and responsi
bility of man stood as a fixed fact in his thought, and in
so far as this was the case the ethical interests of religion
were adequately safeguarded.

238

CHAPTER XI
THE DOCTRINE OF SIN
One's conception of sin is in large part a reflection both
of one's conception of God and one's conception of man.
If God is regarded as essentially ethical in nature, and
man as essentially a spiritual being, there will naturally be |
a tendency to identify sin with moral evil and to discard
the earlier superstitious and ceremonial associations of
the term. If at the same time there is a vivid sense of the
divine presence in the world and a clear recognition of
human freedom and responsibility, there will also inevitX
ably be a tendency to take a serious view of sin and to
look upon it as a fact of central importance in human lifeJ
It is consequently only what we should-'expect when we
find both of these tendencies in the Old TesfeMHfeiiJli' They
grew naturally out of its conceptions of God aijH man.
They are also the points of chief interest in connection
with the doctrine of sin. Hence it is to them that our
attention in this chapter will for .the most part be directed.
The Ethicizing of the Conception of Sin
We begin with the moralization of the idea of sin.
At first sin was looked upon as simply an offense against
the Deity. This offense, in so far as it was voluntary, no
doubt involved an ethical element. But according to
ancient conceptions, an act did not need to be voluntary in
order to be an offense to the Deity. An ignorant or care
less violation of a divine law was punished as well as
one that was deliberate. Then, too, the divine law was
239

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
supposed to require the performance of many acts that
would not to-day be classed as distinctly ethical. Reli
gious rites and social customs were looked upon as obli
gatory. Not to observe them was to expose oneself to
the divine wrath. On the other hand, wrongs done to
one's neighbor were not necessarily offenses against God.
j An act might be evil and yet not a sin.
All of these imperfectly moralized conceptions of sin
are to be found in the early history of Israel. Jonathan,
who knew nothing of his father's curse, ate of the for
bidden honey, and thus exposed himself to the penalty of
death.1 Uzzah out of solicitude for the ark put forth his
hand to keep it from falling and was smitten dead "for
his error." 2 Pharaoh was plagued for taking Sarah to
his house, though he did not know that she was the wife
of Abraham,3 and Abimelech only escaped "sinning" in
a similar case by a divine revelation of Sarah's relation
ship to Abraham.4 Personal guilt was thus not necessary
to the idea of sin. Nor was it necessary that a sin be a
violation of what we would call a principle of right. The
curse pronounced by Saul on anyone who should eat food
before evening had no rational claim to be heeded, and yet
not to heed it was regarded as a sin punishable by death.5
Eating flesh with the blood violated no ethical principle,
yet it was looked upon as a sin against Yahweh.6 And
so with religious rites in general. It was quite as much a
sin to disregard them as to disregard the plain dictates of
the moral law. Then, too, the moral law itself was identi-
1 1 Sam. 14. 27, 43-44-
* 2 Sam. 6. 6f . ; compare 1 Sam. 6. igff.
3 Gen. 12. 15, 17, J.
4 Gen. 20. 3, 6, 9, E.
"1 Sam. 14. 24ff.
¦ I Sam. 14. 32ff. 240

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN
fied so closely with custom that the two were virtually
indistinguishable. To say that "it is not so done in Is
rael" was equivalent to branding an act as immoral.7
It was for this reason that the census taken by David was
condemned ;8 it was a breach of custom. This was also the
evil of which Nabal was guilty; he refused to pay the cus
tomary levy asked of him by David and his band.9
To accept in this thoroughgoing way custom as the
standard of right naturally led to externalism in the moral
life. Morality was looked upon simply as compliance j
with established customs. And this not only eliminated
the subjective element from morals, not only reduced sin
to what has been termed "forensic liability," it restricted
the field of objective morals. It permitted new evils to
grow up without a distinct recognition of their unethical J
or at least their sinful character. That this was to a large
extent true of the Hebrews in the eighth century B. C, is
evident from the prophetic writings of that day. Many
of the people, especially the leaders, were assiduous in the
performance of religious rites, and faithful in the observ
ance of national customs ; but when it came to social in
justice, to oppression of the poor, and to vices such as
luxury and licentiousness, they seemed to think that these
lay beyond the province of religion. There was nothing
in them that need give offense to the Deity. There was in
them "no iniquity that is sin." 10 In this connection it
may also be noted that moral obligation in early Israel
was largely limited to one's own people. Falsehood and
7 2 Sam. 13. 12 ; Judg. 19. 30 ; compare Gen. 20. 9 ; 34. 7.
8 2 Sam. 24. 1, 17.
" 1 Sam. 25. 39.
10 Hos. 12. 8. The text of this verse should, however, probably be
emended so as to read, "All his gains will not suffice for the iniquity
which he has committed." 241

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
deceit were practiced against foreigners without rebuke by
Abraham,11 Jacob,12 and David.13 Against his enemies
the ancient Israelite was cruel and vindictive,14 and that
too in the service of religion.15 But this was due not so
much to lack of conscience as to the strong racial preju
dices that divided the nations and tribes of antiquity.
The sense of moral obligation is limited by imagination
and sympathy, and where these are undeveloped as a re
sult of ignorance or strife, men have no consciousness
of duty beyond the particular tribe or nation to which they
belong. From the foregoing facts it is clear that the early Is
raelitic conception of sin was in several respects defective.
But it would be a mistake to regard these facts as repre
sentative of the total thought of the early Israelites.
There are clear indications that a higher view was also
current ^mong them. /While the subjective or voluntary
element in conduct did not receive proper recognition, it
was by no means completely overlooked. The code of the
covenant distinguishes between murder and manslaughter,
and protects a man guilty of the latter from the law of
blood revenge.16 David, when the people were smitten
because of the census which he had ordered to be taken,
said to Yahweh, "Lo, I have sinned, and I have done per
versely; but these sheep, what have they done? let thy
hand, I pray thee, be against me, and against my father's
house." 17 The Decalogue condemns sin in thought as
11 Gen. 12. ioff., J ; 20. 2ff., E.
12 Gen. 27. 5ff.; 31. iff., JE.
13 1 Sam. 27. ioff. ; 29. 8ff.
14 Gen. 34. 25ff., JE ; 1 Sam. 27. 8f . ; 2 Sam. 8. 2.
15 1 Sam. 15.
18 Exod. 21. 12-14.
"2 Sam. 24. 17. 242

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN
well as in word and deed.18 And in J's account of the
Flood it is said of man that "every imagination," or "the
whole bent, of the thoughts of his heart was only evil con
tinually." 197
Along with this recognition of the subjective element
in morals there went also an increasing tendency to look
upon all violations of the moral law as offenses against
God as well as man. Yahweh is represented as a Judge
whose function it was to decide against the guilty individ
ual20 and also against the guilty nation.21 From the
earliest times he was thought of as sustaining an espe
cially close relationship to the administration of justice.22
"The judgment," we read, "is God's." 23 This view is
well illustrated by the Code of the Covenant, where the
various legal and moral relations of men are represented
as under the divine protection.24 It is also strikingly
exemplified by the sin of David against Uriah the Hit-
tite25 and by the judicial murder of Naboth.26 These
wrongs done by kings to individual subjects were sternly
condemned by the prophets Nathan and Elijah as sins
against God.
It is not, however, until we come to the literary proph
ets that we find a complete moralization of the idea of
sin. This moralization manifests itself in several dif
ferent ways. In the first place, the prophets virtually
18 Exod. 20. 17.
"Gen. 6. 5.
28 1 Sam. 2. 25.
"Judg. 11. 27.
22 Exod. 18. I3ff., E.
28 Deut. 1. 17.
24 Exod. 21-23.
28 2 Sam. 12. 7ff.
'"' 1 Kings 21. 243

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
/eliminated violations of the ceremonial law from the cate
gory of sins. At least they made rites and ceremonies so
subordinate an element in religion that they ceased to be
factors of any consequence in the conception of human
duty. What God, according to the prophets, required of
men was not sacrifices and burnt-offerings, but obedience
to the moral law!27 Outward acts of worship when
offered as a substitute for righteousness were simply an
abomination in his sight.28 They were an aggravation of
sin rather than a ground for its remission.29 In the next
, place, the prophets made prominent the idea that wrongs
done to one's neighbor are sins against God. Indeed, it
was such transgressions that they especially condemned.
It was the social injustice, the oppression of the poor, the
bribery, deceit, and luxury in Israel and Judah, that they
singled out as the direct causes of the national doom
which they predicted. These evils were not only viola
tions of law or violations of custom, they were offenses
against Yahweh himself, acts of rebellion against him.
He had in earlier times been regarded as in a special
sense the defender of law and custom. But now he has
risen to a higher plane; he is the champion of right, of
humanity, a principle that rises far above mere law and
custom. Moral evil of every kind is now an offense in
his sight, a sin against him.
Then, too, moral evil, as the prophets conceived it, was
subjective as well as objective. To some extent this was
recognized in the preprophetic period. But not until we
come to the literary prophets was the subjective factor
made primary. And among the literary prophets it was
v27Hos. 6. 6.
28 Amos. 5. 21-24 ; Isa. 1. 10-17.
29 Hos. 8. 11. 244

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN
Jeremiah who first emphasized it. He, it has been said,
"first discovered the soul and its significance for religion."
Hosea had represented sin as a habit,30 as something so
deeply ingrained that its removal was like the breaking
up of fallow ground.31 Isaiah had condemned all worship
that did not come from the heart, all mere ceremonial
ism, whether it took the form of prayers or of sacri
fices;32, and this was also the attitude of the other eighth-
century prophets. But in Jeremiah the subjective element |
in morals and religion was brought into the foreground
in a way that had not been done before. God, according
to Jeremiah, was one who tried the heart and the mind.33
He stood in a direct relation to the soul. The soul was
the seat of moral values. Good and evil alike had their
source in it. It was the stubbornness of the heart that]
was the root of sin.34 This stubbornness was not inborn,!
but through habit it had become so strong as to be a kind
of second nature to man which he could no more change
than an Ethiopian his skin or a leopard his spots.35 And
yet a change was necessary if the people of Judah were to
escape the divine wrath. So Jeremiah takes up the words
of Hosea and expands them, saying: "Break up your
fallow ground, and sow not among thorns. Circumcise
yourselves to Jehovah, and take away the foreskins of
your heart." 36 Only a radical change of character would
remove from their lives the evil that was threatening their
ruin.

"5-4-81 10. 12.
82 29. 13 ; 1. 10-17.
33 11. 20; 17. 10; 20. 12.
M7- 24; 9- 14; 23. 17-
88 13- 23.
88 4- 3-4- 245

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
In the more subjective and distinctly ethical conception
of sin thus introduced there was, it should be noted, no
tendency to reduce sin to offenses against one's fellow
men. Such offenses were sins against God, far more so
than any neglect of religious rites. But along with these
offenses there were others of a distinctly religious char
acter, offenses that were directed chiefly if not solely
against Yahweh. There was, for instance, the worship
of other gods, the worship of idols, man-made images.37
Such worship may have had its evil social consequences,
but it was not on that account that the prophets con
demned it. They saw in it a direct act of disloyalty to
Yahweh, an act of rebellion against him. It was so also
with the foreign intriguing, the establishment of alliances
with Assyria and Egypt, condemned by the prophets.38
Such alliances may have threatened in various ways the
social life of the people. But this was not the reason for
the prophetic opposition to them. What the prophets saw
in them was a renunciation of faith in Yahweh, a lack of
trust in his protecting power. It was for a similar rea
son also that Hosea condemned the anarchy of his day,
the setting up of kings one after the other without the
authorization of Yahweh.39 Such acts were an expres
sion of unbelief, of distrust in the divine guidance. And
so in the prophetic literature as a whole the fundamental
element in evil of every kind was always disobedience to
or disregard of God. The disobedience or disregard took
different forms with the different prophets. Amos saw
it chiefly in the social injustice of his day, Hosea in dis
loyalty or unfaithfulness to Yahweh, Isaiah in unbelief,

87 Hos. 8. 4-6 ; Isa. 44. 9-20.
33 Hos. 7. 11-13.
"8. 4I7-7; 13. 11. 246

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN
Jeremiah in stubbornness of heart, and Deutero-Isaiah in
lack of faith and courage. But under whatever form the
chief sin of Israel was conceived, its essential nature re
mained the same. It was looked upon as directed pri- .
marily against God rather than man.
In the postexilic period we have a continuation of the
prophetic teaching concerning sin, but along with it there
were two tendencies less profound and less distinctly eth
ical in character. These two tendencies were represented
by the priests on the one hand and the wise men on the
other. The priestly teaching was a revival of the cere
monialism of the preprophetic period, but with a differ- *
ence. The rites and ceremonies condemned by Amos,
Hosea, and Isaiah were essentially heathen in character.
They were associated with sensuous and degrading
views of God, and were furthermore looked upon as
substitutes for righteous living. This was no longer
the case in the postexilic period. The lofty prophetic
conception of God was then generally accepted, and
so also was the prophetic program for human life. ''
What the priests, indeed, aimed to do was to translate
that program into terms so concrete that all could
understand it. This was true of the authors both of
Deuteronomy and the Priestly Code. These men sought
by rules and rites and laws to reduce the prophetic
teaching to a form that would be intelligible to all, and^
that might consequently be made the basis of an efficient
national or ecclesiastical organization. The average man
was not as yet prepared for the lofty spiritual truths laid
down by the prophets. He was too much accustomed to
sacrifices and sacred feasts to give them up altogether.
He needed the outward rites that had been taught him ; he
247

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
needed also specific regulations for his daily life. Hence
it was that the priests detached the earlier sacred institu
tions, such as the Sabbath and sacred feasts, from their
heathen associations,40 and sought to make them symbols
of higher religious truth. Hence it was that they laid
down specific rules for daily conduct.
In carrying out this program they placed, it is true, the
ceremonial requirements alongside of the ethical, and left
them both apparently on the same level. Indeed, they
seem to have devoted more attention to the ceremonial
than the ethical. But they still did not lose sight of the
essentially ethical character of the teaching they had in
herited. The Decalogue with its moral demands re
mained for them the fundamental law of the land. Then,
too, the ceremonial as such was not simply a symbol of
higher religious truth. It was an expression of refined
religious taste. It carried with it the idea that we owe
God not only the obedience due a righteous Judge, but
also that personal consideration, that feeling of reverence
and awe, due the Lord of the universe.41
But in spite of these spiritual elements in the later cere
monialism it was inevitable that the stress placed by the
priests on ritual offenses should give rise to more or less
of externalism in the conception of sin. It is difficult for
people to keep steadily in view the symbolic and spiritual
significance of a ritual. The mind easily loses itself in the
outward form, and thus an offense against the ritual tends
to become a mere violation of an external rule. It ceases
to be a matter of conscience. Lord Melbourne, it is re-

40 The Sabbath was probably derived from the Babylonians, and
the three great annual feasts, that of Unleavened Bread, Pentecost,
and Tabernacles, from the Canaanites.
41 See pp. isof. 248

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN
lated, once protested against a sermon on personal sin by
rising from his seat and stalking down the aisle, mutter
ing to himself that things had come to a pretty pass when
religion was made to invade a man's private life. And
this is the attitude of mind which a ceremonial type of
religion is likely to create. It makes of sin something
impersonal and objective. It may take sin seriously.
This was true in a marked degree of postexilic Judaism.
The whole levitical system centered about the fact of sin
and its removal. But sin was nevertheless conceived to
a large extent in an external way, in a way that involved
no vital grip on conscience.
This is reflected in the distinction made in the priestly
law between two classes of sins, sins committed "with
a high hand," 42 and sins committed "unwittingly." 43
This distinction did not correspond fully with our distinc
tion between intentional and unintentional nor with our
distinction between moral and ceremonial. "Unwitting"
sins might be intentional and might be violations of the
moral law. But usually they were ceremonial offenses,
and were committed without a full consciousness of their
sinful character. Indeed, the latter was their character
istic feature. Unwitting sins, while not necessarily unin
tentional, were not deliberate and conscious acts of re
bellion against God and did not involve a breach of the
covenant. They might consequently be atoned for by
sacrifice.44 It was this class of sins about which the
whole levitical system revolved. And sin in this sense
was manifestly not sin in the full ethical sense of the term.
There was something objective and mystical, if not arti-
42 Num. 15. 30.
43 Lev. 4. 2, 22, 27 ; 5. 18.
"Num. 15. 22-31. 249

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
ficial, about it. It did not relate itself in an adequate way
to intention and to conscience.
Another postexilic deviation from the prophetic con
ception of sin is found in what has been termed the "util
itarianism" of the book of Proverbs. Here sin is repre
sented as folly; wickedness is lack of understanding.
The true guide of life is to be found in wisdom.
"Length of days is in her right hand;
In her left hand are riches and honor." 45
Prudence and righteousness thus go hand in hand. Men
are exhorted to be righteous, because they will in this way
secure the good things of life, and they are urged to avoid
evil because such a course will lead to suffering and ruin.46
If men only knew the inevitable results of wickedness,
they would shun it. The essence of sin is ignorance, ig
norance of the law of retribution.
A certain basis for this view is no doubt to be found in
the teaching of the prophets. They too pointed out the
disastrous consequences of sin, and condemned the peo
ple because of their blindness to the doom they were
bringing upon themselves. But, as they viewed it, the
trouble with the people was not simply lack of knowledge.
There was a radical defect in their heart life. Will and
conscience were impaired. And this in the eyes of the
prophets was the serious thing. Not the doom resulting
from wickedness but the wickedness itself was what they
were primarily concerned about. They were ethical mon-
ists. To them the ideal was the real. The moral law was
the dominant force in the universe. Its imperative was
absolute. Obedience to it was the chief good of life.
45 Prov. 3. 16.
"2. 21-22; 3. 1-2; 10. 27; 11. 18, 31 ; 16. 20.
250

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN
This does not mean that the prophets regarded moral
obedience as its own sufficient reward. They were far
removed from such hollow abstractions. Beneficent re
sults for the total life, they held, would follow from obe
dience, but the primary and vital thing was the obedience,
not the results. The prophets were thus intuitionalists
rather than utilitarians.
The reverse was the case with the wise men. They laid
stress on the effects of obedience and disobedience rather
than on the obedience or disobedience itself. The result
was that their sense of sin lacked the inwardness and
depth of that found in the prophets. Outward expe
riences became with them more important than the inner
state of the soul ; and hence there was a tendency to judge
the latter by the former. This necessarily gave rise to
moral confusion, and to superficiality and externalism of
ethical judgment. It also led inevitably to a weakening
of the moral imperative. For outward fortune can never
furnish an adequate basis for the moral law. Morality
of a high type is always rooted in idealism.
The true prophetic conception of sin is best represented
in the postexilic period by some of the psalms and by the
book of Job. There is in some of the psalms the same
depreciation of sacrifices and outward rites that appears
in the early Prophets. We read for instance :
"Thou delightest not in sacrifices ; else would I give it :
Thou hast no pleasure in burnt-offering.
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit :
A broken and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not de
spise." 47
There is also in some of the psalms the same stress on
41 Psa. 51. 16, 17; compare 40. 6-8; 69. 3of.
251

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
righteousness as the one essential of true worship that we
find in the Prophets. It is
"He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness,
And speaketh truth in his heart ;
He that slandereth not with his tongue, nor doeth evil
to his friend ;
Nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbor, — " 48
it is he, and he only, that is to dwell in Yahweh's holy hill.
Offenses against one's neighbor, it is here implied, are
the chief offenses against God. And what, on the other
hand, gave to a moral offense its seriousness was just
the fact that it was primarily an offense against God.
"Against thee, thee only, have I sinned,
And done that which is evil in thy sight." 49
Such was the feeling of the devout psalmist as he con
templated his own sinfulness. There is too in the Psalms
a marked inwardness of ethical life and thought. Clean
hands are not enough; the heart must also be pure.50
God desires "truth in the inward parts" ; and so the psalm
ist prays,51 "Create in me a clean heart, O God ;
And renew a right spirit within me." 52
The same inwardness appears also in the book of Job.
Sin is here represented as rooted deep in human nature,53
48 15. if.; compare 24. 3-5; 50. i6ff. ; 66. i8f.
"51.4.60 24..4-
" 51. 6.
52 Psa. 51. 10.
68 4. 17; 14. 4; 15. I4f. 252

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN
and as manifesting itself quite as much in thoughts and
desires as in outward acts.54 Indeed, the book of Job
hardly falls short of the New Testament itself in its
penetrating insight into the inner sources of moral evil
and into its power over human life.
Looking back over our discussion thus far, we see
that sin, as understood by the early Hebrews, stood in
antithesis both to holiness and to righteousness, and that
this double antithesis was never completely overcome by
the Old Testament. The prophets reacted strongly against
the ceremonial conception of sin, but the later priests re- \
established it as an essential part of the official religion.
To violate the ceremonial laws that guarded the divine
holiness was in postexilic Judaism a sin quite as much as
the violation of the moral law. But in spite of this revival
of ceremonialism the ethical teaching of the prophets
persisted. The inwardness of sin was emphasized; and
the way was thus prepared for such a complete rejection
of ceremonial holiness as we find in the New Testament.55
Taking, then, the Old Testament as a whole, it may be
said that in spite of backward currents here and there its
teaching is characterized by a gradual ethicizing of the
conception of sin.~
The Seriousness of Sin
We now pass to that other aspect of the doctrine of sin
in which religion is especially interested, the question of
its seriousness. There is in the Old Testament a grow
ing appreciation of the gravity of sin. This is evident
both in the life and thought of the people. It appears in
the increasing prominence given to sin and guilt-offer-

84 31. 1-40.
58 Mark 7. 8ff.

253

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
ings in the public worship, and in the greater somberness
that characterized the religious life of the postexilic pe
riod. Various causes contributed to this development,
"but the most important was the exile. The national hu
miliation and suffering that followed from the fall of
Jerusalem brought home to the people a consciousness of
sin such as they had not had before. The book of La
mentations illustrates this, and so does the whole post
exilic priestly system.
What we are chiefly interested in, however, is the doc
trinal or intellectual expression of the seriousness with
which the Hebrews viewed the subject of sin. And to
ascertain this we must inquire into the teaching of the
Old Testament relative to the nature, extent, and origin
of sin. These are all important topics. We begin with
the nature of sin.
There is in the Old Testament no speculation concern
ing the nature of sin. But from the Hebrew words used
to designate sin or evil we may distinguish two differ
ent points of view from which it was conceived. ^First,
it was represented as want of correspondence with an
objective standard. This is implied in the common word
for sin, chattath, and also in the word awon, usually ren
dered "iniquity." The root of chattath, like that of the
corresponding Greek word hamartia, meant originally
"to miss the mark," 56 and the root of awon meant "to
go astray" or "make crooked." Sin was thus thought of
as deviation from a prescribed course of conduct, as fail
ure to do the right thing. But this leaves us with only a
very general and on the whole external conception of sin.
The other view found in the Old Testament represents
/sin as rebellion. This is the idea expressed by the word
'" Judg. 20. 16. 254

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN
4>J.sha, or pasha,57 and also by such terms as marad,5B
marah™ and tsarar.™ Of these words the first is used
most frequently and is the most important. The spe
cial significance attaching to it is well brought out in Job
34- 37. where we read, "He addeth rebellion [pesha]
unto his sin [chattath] ." Pesha was more serious than
chattath. It, as A. B. Davidson says, "describes sin as
a personal, voluntary act. It also implies something re
belled against, something which is of the nature of a
superior or an authority. . . . The particular author-!
ity is not stated ; . . . but the emphasis is laid upon the
self-determination of the person, and his consequent with
drawal from the authority. The word could not be used
of the withdrawal of an equal from cooperation with an
other equal." 61 It might be used of the rebellion of a
people against its king,62 but most frequently it was used
of rebellion against God.63 And here it is that we have
the inmost essence of sin. Sin is not simply moral evil ;
it^ is "moral evil regarded religiously." It is disobedi
ence to God. This it is that gives To the biblical idea of-'
sin its peculiar depth and gravity. Sin is a positive act or
state of hostility to God. It is not an "unreality or
illusion," as Spinoza would have us believe; nor is it, as
Hegel teaches, "an essential moment in the progressive
or eternally realized life of God" ; nor is it, as some evo
lutionists tell us, simply a relic of the animal nature which
we have inherited. Not.even Kant's conception of evil as
" Isa. 43. 27.
88 Num. 14. 9, J.
88 Num. 20. 10, P.
80 Isa. 65. 2.
81 The Theology of the Old Testament, p. 210.
82 1 Kings 12. 19. y
83 Isa. 1. 2; Hos. 7. 13; Jet- 2. 8; Ezek. 2. 3; Isa. 43. 27.
255

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
"the perversion of the right relation between reason and
sense, the false subordination of the rational to the sensu
ous" fills out the biblical idea of sin.64 Sin, as it is con
ceived both in the Old and the New Testament, carries
with it the thought of a defiant attitude of the soul toward
God. And it is this aspect of sin that becomes increas
ingly prominent in the course of Israel's history. Indeed,
sin is not confined to a hostile attitude of the human soul.
It comes to be thought of as an objective power.65 "The
characteristic," as Toy says, "of the New Testament
teaching is its intense conception of sin as the one great
evil in the world, as the central fact of life, around which
range themselves all the powers of heaven, earth and hell.
All the manifestations of God in history look finally to
the annihilation of this malignant power of the human
soul." 66
In the seriousness with which the Bible thus takes the
\ . >_.  w
subject of sin some see a significant point of contrast be
tween the ancient and the modern mind. "As a matter
of fact," says Sir Oliver Lodge, "the higher man of to
day is not worrying about his sins at all, still less about
their punishment." 67 And Professor Royce offers as a
partial definition of the modern man the statement that
he "is^gne_who does not believe irTnell, and whojs too
busy to jthink about his sins." 68 These statements prob
ably represent correctly the tendency of thought in non-
theological circles at present, and it is no doubt also true
that the distinctively religious mind does not to-day dwell
"See F. R. Tennant, The Origin and Propagation of Sin, pp.
5L 67.
85 Gen. 4. 7, J; Psa. 36. 1 ; 1 Chron. 21. 1.
"Judaism and Christianity, p. 220.
81 Quoted in W. E. Orchard's Modern Theories of Sin, p. 11.
88 The Problem of Christianity, vol. i, p. 176.
256

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN
on the subject of sin so much as was once the case. But
this is not so significant a fact as is sometimes supposed.
It is simply a result of the changed mood of the time.
In ancient Judaism there was a sense of world-weariness.
The nation had been defeated in its political aims. Self-
assertion, it was now felt, could yield but little. If the
hopes of the devout Israelite were to be realized, it could
be only by a marvelous divine intervention. The thing
to do, consequently, was not to devote oneself to a posi
tive program of social amelioration, but to remove the
obstacles to the coming of the kingdom of God. The
ethical life thus took a negative turn. It found its sat
isfaction in repentance from sin rather than in achieve
ment and self-realization. With us to-day the reverse is
the case. We have met no crushing defeat. We be
lieve God is working through us for the establishment of
his kingdom. What consequently interests us is the posi
tive program in which we are engaged. Not what we
omit doing or repent of doing, but what we do, is the
thing that concerns us. The satisfaction of service has
thus to no small degree taken the place of the conscious
ness of sin. But both, it should be noted, involve the same
ethical earnestness. They grow out of different moods,
and each finds its completion in the other. Logically,
however, the modern emphasis is no doubt nearer the
truth, for, as Bowne says, "the religious life in its idea is
altogether independent of the existence of sin. We are
not, then, to think of it as a device for overcoming sin
or for saving sinners. This work, indeed, has to be done ;
but it is only incidental to the deeper, more inclusive aim
of religion. Religion has to do with the relation of man
to God, and would exist if there were no sin in the world
or in the heart. Indeed, it is only in the sinless life that
257

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
the ideal of religion can be perfectly realized; for only
there can we find the filial spirit perfectly realized and
perfectly expressed." 69
As the Old Testament takes a serious view of the
i nature oLsin, so it takes an equally serious view of its
f extent. There are a number of passages that teach either
directly or by implication that sin is universal.
"Who can say, I have made my heart clean,
I am pure from my sin?" 70
"There is none that doeth good, no, not one." 71 "There
is no man that sinneth not."^2 "There is not a righteous
man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not." ^ In
addition to such specific utterances as these it is also evi
dent that the total representation of human life and his
tory in the Old Testament implies the virtual universality
of sin. So far as Israel is concerned, her history from
the beginning was a succession of sins and apostasies.
This is the teaching both of the prophets and the histor
ical books. And as for the heathen it is everywhere as
sumed that a lower type of life was expected, if not char
acteristic, of them. Indeed, the whole philosophy of his
tory that we find in the Old Testament revolves about the
thought that the misfortunes and reverses of human life
from the time of Adam down were due to sin. Sin, it is
implied, is a universal fact of human experience.
Over against these facts, however, there are others in
"Studies in Christianity, p. 266.
70 Prov. 20. 9.
71 Psa. 14. 3 ; 53- 3-
72 1 Kings 8. 46 ; 2 Chron. 6. 36.
"'Eccl. 7- 20; compare Psa. 143. 2; Job 4. 17-19; 14. 4; 15. 14; Gen.
8.21. 358

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN
the Old Testament that seem to imply that human sin
fulness is not absolutely universal, that there are excep
tions to the general rule. We have, for instance, the
cases of Enoch, Noah, and Job. Enoch, it is said,
"walked with God." 7* Noah is spoken of as "a righteous
man and perfect in his generations." 75 Job is declared
to have been "perfect and upright, and one that feared
God, and turned away from evil." 7e It may also be
added that Abraham and Joseph are not apparently
charged with faults by the sacred writers, and that some
of the psalmists speak of their own righteousness in a way
that seems to imply that they regarded themselves as
guiltless of wrongdoing.77
Now, in such instances it is quite possible that we have
what were supposed to be actual exceptions to the general
rule of human sinfulness. The absolute universality of i
sin was not a dogma, at least in early Israel. Human
nature in and of itself was not regarded as so depraved as I
necessarily to exclude the possibility of a sinless life.
Such a life may well have been thought of as within the
reach of exceptional men. Not until the time of Jere
miah and the exile, according to some scholars,78 did the
idea of the strict universality of sin receive expression,
and after that it was only slowly that it gained general
acceptance. It is to this late period that the specific state
ments above quoted concerning the sinfulness of all men
are to be referred.
But while it is thus possible that the Old Testament at-
74 Gen. 5. 24, P.
76 Gen. 6. 9, P ; 7. i> J-
70 Job 1. 1, 8; 2. 3.
77 7. 8; 18. 20ff.
78 See Stade, Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments, p. 257,
and Friedrich Schwally, Leben nach dem Tode, p. 99.
259

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
tributed sinlessness to certain exceptional men, it is more
probable that the righteousness ascribed to them was
relative rather than absolute. As compared with other
men Enoch, Noah, and Job were righteous and perfect,
but this does not mean that they were altogether free
from moral imperfections. Job, for instance, admits his
6wn sinfulness.-79 There is no man, he says, that is per
fectly clean.80 In a similar way Moses and David are
represented as righteous in a preeminent degree,81 and
yet serious faults are attributed to them. So also Isaiah,
the chief of the prophets, confesses that he is a man of
unclean lips.82 It is, then, probable that the Old Testa-
( ment writers did not mean to ascribe absolute sinlessness
( to any human being, not even to Enoch and Noah. The
i general sinfulness of man is an idea with which the He
brew mind was deeply impressed.83 Even the pre
prophetic Israelite, as Koberle says, "would have re
garded it as impious arrogance to doubt that all men in
the sight of God are sinners." 84 And later this convic
tion was naturally deepened by the growing inwardness
of the ethical life and by the greater degree of transcend
ence ascribed to God, until finally it became a fixed article
of belief.
It is the universality of sin that makes the problem of
its origin so difficult. Sin in the ethical sense of the
term implies guilt, and guilt involves freedom and re
sponsibility. But if men are really free, why do they all
'" 7. 21 ; 10. 14 ; 13. 26.
80 T A A
14- 4-
81 Num. 12. 6-8, E; 1 Sam. 13. 14.
82 Isa. 6. 5.
83 Gen. 6. 5; 8. 21.
84 Siinde und Gnade, p. 59. 260

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN
sin ? To account for this fact it would seem necessary to
assume that there is in human nature an extravolitional
factor that determines the will. But if so, sin owes its
ultimate source to necessity, not freedom, and thus its
ethical character is denied. This antinorny between the
race-wide prevalence of sin and the idea of guilt which
seems essential to the concept of sin has figured promi
nently in the history of harmartiology. Numerous at
tempts have been made to solve it. Of these the most im
portant one historically is the theory that the universality
of sin is due to the fall of Adam and the resulting cor- '
ruption of human nature. According to this theory, every
individual inherits a sinful nature. Though not himself
responsible for it, he is nevertheless adjudged guilty be
cause of it. In some mysterious way the guilt of Adam
is transmitted to all his descendants.85 This transmitted
guilt is known as original sin by way of distinction from
the actual sins of which the individual is guilty. Sin is
thus unescapable and necessary so far as the individual is
concerned, and yet it carries with it the idea of guilt.
To what extent if any, the question now arises, does
this theory find a basis in the Old Testament? It was
once believed that an adequate ground for it was to be
found in Genesis 3. But modern exegesis has pretty \,
thoroughly dispelled this belief. It is now generally ad
mitted that Adam and Eve are not represented as origi
nally morally perfect beings, that -their disobedience was
not regarded as resulting in the corruption of human
nature, and that nowhere in the Old Testament is any
thing said about the transmission of Adam's guilt to his
88 For a clear and compact exposition and criticism of the dif
ferent theories that have sought to explain this transmission, see
H. C. Sheldon's System of Christian Doctrine, pp. 317-322.
261

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
descendants. What we have in Genesis 3 is simply an
account of man's first sin and its physical consequences.
That the author took a serious view of the first sin is evi
dent from the consequences attributed to it : the pains of
childbirth, toilsome labor, and the loss of immortal life.
But so far as the source of sin is concerned, the situation
with Adam and Eve was not essentially different from
what the Old Testament represents it to be in the case
of people generally. Our first parents were free to refuse
the evil and choose the good. And so it is with us all.
Each one of us, as 2 Baruch says, is "the Adam of his
own soul." 86 Sin crouched at the door of Cain,87 as
it does at ours, and as it did with our innocent first par
ents. But in each case it was assumed that the tempted
person was free to resist the evil and master it. The free
will of man was thus thought of as the source of sin.
This was true of later generations as well as of the first
human pair. The "fall" did not impair human freedom,
nor did it impair that image of God in which the first
man was made.88
But while the Old Testament knows nothing of original
sin in the sense of guilt transmitted from Adam, it is
well aware of a native human bias toward evil. This
bias has its seat in the flesh. The flesh itself, as we have
seen, is not sinful. But its impulses, its desires, its will
fulness constitute the soil of sin. It is here that tempta
tion takes root. We see this in the case of the first human
pair. It was the woman's self-assertion and desire of
pleasure that led to the first act of disobedience. The
divine prohibition seemed to her an unfriendly restriction,
88 54- 19.
37 Gen. 4. 7.
"Gen. 1. 26; 9.6, P. 262

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN
and when faith in the divine goodness and reverence for
the divine command had thus been weakened, the allure
ment of the senses easily swayed the will. So it is also
with people in general. Their fleshly nature, with its as- i
sertiveness and love of pleasure, leads readily to unbelief
and disobedience.
This fact, however, does not from the Old Testament ,
point of view increase the sense of guilt. Rather does/
it constitute a ground for clemency. Man is so frail,*
yields so easily to temptation, that God ought not to hold
him to the strictest account. His very weakness ought to .
be an appeal to the divine mercy. This thought is repeat
edly expressed in the Old Testament,89 and from one
point of view Piepenbring is quite right in saying that it
"is unquestionably much more correct than the orthodox
doctrine of native and hereditary guilt." 90 The physical
and moral weakness of man does lessen the degree of in
dividual responsibility. But, on the other hand, it is also
true, as Bowne says, that "we judge not merely the will
but also the sensibilities, not merely the action but also
the tendencies and spontaneities of the being itself. We
demand not only that the will be right, but that the affec
tions and emotions shall be harmonious therewith." 91
And from this point of view the orthodox doctrine of
human depravity has a certain justification. The native
inclination to evil, though we are not responsible for it,
does carry with it a certain sense of moral unworthiness.
Having it, we necessarily stand condemned in the presence
of the ideal. We all feel that we have come short of the

88 Psa. 103. 14; 78. 39; Job 14. 1-4; 13. 25L; 10. 8-14; 7. 12-21;
Gen. 8. 21.
80 Theology of the Old Testament, p. 201.
''Principles of Ethics, p. 41. 263

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
glory of God, and the higher our spiritual attainments,
the keener this feeling is likely to be. There is then a
sense in which the natural weakness of man, instead of
serving as an extenuation of sin, rather increases the
consciousness of it, and makes all the more imperative the
need of the divine grace. This standpoint, however, was
not developed in the Old Testament.
How far, if at all, the Old Testament teaches the trans
mission of guilt is a question. There are certain facts
that seem to imply it. It is, for instance, frequently
stated that children were punished because of the sins of
their fathers.92 But this did not necessarily mean that the
guilt of the fathers was transmitted by heredity to the
children. For, according to the Old Testament, men were
also punished for the sins of others to whom they stood in
no direct blood relationship;93 and in such cases there
could, of course, be no thought of hereditary guilt. It
should also be noted that children were spared or blessed
because of the righteousness of their fathers or an
cestors,94 and such instances manifestly imply hereditary
righteousness quite as much as the passages above cited
imply hereditary guilt.
The passage most confidently quoted in support of the
idea of hereditary guilt is Psa. 51. 5 :
"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity;
And in sin did my mother conceive me."
Along with this verse may be placed Job 14. 4: "Who
can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one;" and
25. 4 : "How can he be clean that is born of a woman" ?
82 Exod. 20. 5 ; 34. 7 ; Lev. 26. 39 ; Num. 14. 18.
"Deut. 1. 37; 4. 21 ; Isa. 53; 2 Kings 23. 26; 24. 3f.
*4Gen. 26. 24, J; Deut. 9. 26L; 7. 9; 1 Kings 11. i2f.
264

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN
Such passages as these readily suggest to us the idea of
inherited sin, but it is by no means certain that they orig
inally expressed anything more than the fact of the uni
versality of sin. The author of Psalm 51 felt that he was
not only personally sinful, but that he belonged to a sinful
race. From the very beginning he had lived in an evil
environment, so that sin had penetrated into the very
marrow of his being.95 His feeling, except that it was
more intense, was like that of Isaiah, when he declared
that he was a man of unclean lips and that he dwelt in the
midst of a people of unclean lips.96 The uncleanness of '
the people or race to which one belonged was regarded
as permeating one's own life. How this was done is not
explained. There is nowhere in the Old Testament any
account of the origin of man's native inclination to evil.
This inclination is simply accepted as a fact, a fact re-/
vealed by observation and introspection.
88 Compare Psa. 58. 3 ; Isa. 48. 8.
"6.5.

265

CHAPTER XII
THE PROBLEM OF SUFFERING
The problem of suffering is closely connected with the
doctrine of sin. Sin carries with it the idea both of guilt
and of punishment. At least this is the case in the Old
Testament. The attempt has been made in recent years
to eliminate the idea of guilt from that of sin. "Guilt,"
it is said, "is not a feeling, but is an intellectual judg
ment," and as such it "can only be established when
certain conditions exist, and whether these conditions are
present or not is a matter entirely beyond our power to
discover, and they certainly cannot be discerned by any in
tuitive sense." x The consciousness of sin, therefore, does
not involve that of guilt, unless guilt perchance be under
stood as simply fear of punishment. But this, we are
correctly told, is not the proper meaning of the term.
Guilt means moral blameworthiness, and in this sense it
has np place in the consciousness of sin. In a similar way
it has been argued that punishment stands in no necessary
connection with sin. Punishment of wrongdoing may be
justified from the pedagogical point of view; but "retrib
utive punishment is always either nonmoral or immoral.
. . . The notion that wickedness ought somehow to be
balanced by pain" is "wholly without foundation." 2
These contentions, however, do not commend them
selves to the unsophisticated conscience. Sin, as the aver-

1 W. E. Orchard, Modern Theories of Sin, pp. 133, 136.
2 William Temple, The Faith and Modern Thought, p. 140.
266

THE PROBLEM OF SUFFERING
age mind sees it, cannot be dissociated from the idea of
guilt without losing its ethical character ; nor can it be dis
connected from the idea of retribution without the sacri
fice of one of the deepest convictions of the race. "One
thing," as Bowne says, "on which the moral nature is
categorical and unyielding is that moral good and moral
evil shall not be treated alike. It would be the overthrow
of the moral universe to hold that moral evil could ever be
ignored as indifferent or treated as if it were good." 3
The ill desert of the evil will is a fundamental moral
axiom. This does not mean that punishment may not
have a remedial purpose. In so far as it is the work of a
benevolent agent it naturally will have. But whether it
has or not, it is the just desert of the evil will. Sin and
4 punishment go together just as sin and guilt do. The
three terms are involved in each other. This is the com
mon judgment of men, and this is the view represented
in the Old Testament. Indeed, the three ideas were so in
timately related to each other in Hebrew thought that the
same words were used to express them all. Awon meant
not only "iniquity," 4 but also "guilt" 5 and "punish
ment." 6 The same was also true of chattath,7 and
pesha.3 These terms denoted the guilt and punishment
of sin or transgression as well as the sin or transgression
itself. In harmony with this view of the relation of sin, guilt,
and punishment to each other, suffering in early times was
3 Studies in Christianity, pp. 147L
4 Psa. 90. 8.
"Gen. 15. 16, E.
8 Gen. 4. 13, J.

8 Gen. 4. 13, J.
7 Mic. 6. 7 ; Jer. 17. 1 ; Zech. 14. 19.
8 Amos. 1. 3 ; Job. 34. 6 ; Dan. 9. 24.
267

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
looked upon as a penalty for sin. This was true not only
of Israel but of ancient peoples generally. Indeed, there
seems to have been a still earlier stage of thought in which
suffering was referred to the arbitrary anger of the gods.
Misfortune befell a person, not because of any sin he had
.committed, but because of the fitful wrath of some deity
or spirit. The supernatural beings were not as yet
S thought of as guided by fixed rules or principles. They
were subject to the impulses of the momentt and hence no
one could tell when he might awaken their displeasure.
But this stage of thought had largely passed away when
Israel appeared upon the scene, and even if it had not, it
was so inconsistent with the Mosaic conception of God
that it could hardly have persisted among the Hebrews.
The view current in early Israel was that pain and
misfortune were, to be sure, due to the divine wrath,
but the divine wrath was not groundless. It was caused
by human transgression? The transgression might
take a variety of forms. It might be ceremonial9 or
distinctly ethical.10 It might be intentional11 or uninten
tional.12 It, might be one's own13 or that of some rela
tive.14 It might be individual15 or collective.16 In each
and all' of these forms sin was made the ground of pun
ishment.' The punishment might be remedial, but more
frequently it was regarded as simply retributive. In some
cases the sense of guilt seems not to have been awakened
" i Sam. 14. 33.
10 1 Kings 21.
11 2 Sam. 11.
" 1 Sam. 14. 27, 43.
"Josh. 7. 20f.
"2 Sam. 21. 2, 6.
18 Gen. 9. 5f., P-
18 Exod. 32. 30ff., E. 268

THE PROBLEM OF SUFFERING
until the punishment was inflicted,17 and this was prob
ably often the case. But at other times it is stated that
directly after the offense the offender's heart smote him.18
•There was in these early times no well-defined conception
of sin, and no clear insight into the grounds of responsi
bility. The latter is especially noticeable, and constituted
the chief defect in the ethics of the early Hebrews. They
did not see the necessary connection between free will,
on the one hand, and sin, guilt, and punishment, on the
other. This was a point that could become clear only as
a result of the growth of individualism. But the general
belief that evil would be and was punished, was firmly
held. The punishment of sin, however, while the general rule
of the divine procedure, was not an absolute principle,
universally applicable. It did not account for all suffer
ing. Misfortune might befall a man without its being a
penalty for sin. This, for instance, was the case with
Abner,19 Amasa,20 the sons of Gideon,21 and the priests
of Nob.22 These men, though represented as guiltless of
any special wrongdoing, were slain in cold blood. And so
it was in war. The innocent fell with the guilty. As
David said in concealment of his treachery toward Uriah
the Hittite, "The sword devoureth one as well as an
other." 23» On the other hand, Yahweh did not always
punish wrongdoers. Sins might be overlooked by him.
Only when his attention was directed to them did he deal
"Gen. 42. 2if., E; 2 Sam. 21. iff.
18 1 Sam. 24. 6 ; 2 Sam. 24. 10.
18 2 Sam. 3. 33.
20 2 Sam. 20. 10.
21 Judg. 9. 5-
22 1 Sam. 22. 18.
23 2 Sam. 11. 25. 269

THE PROBLEM OF SUFFERING
with them as they deserved.24 There was no strict law of
retribution rigidly adhered to in human life. Yahweh
acted in a sovereign way, doing what seemed to him
good.25 Suffering and misfortune in early Israel were for the
most part dealt with as isolated facts. But we have one
.significant narrative dealing with the general problem.
| This is Genesis 2-3 (J). Here some of the great ills of
'life are declared to be penalties imposed on man because
of his primal sin. 'Those especially mentioned are, on
woman's side, the pains of childbirth and the tyranny to
which in antiquity she was subject at the hands of her
husband; on man's side, the unresponsiveness of the soil,
its useless and injurious products, and the laborious toil
of agricultural life. To these ills it is customary to add
that of death as the last and greatest. But a distinction
needs to be made between death and the ills just spoken
of. The latter were direct penalties for man's disobedi
ence.26 Death, on the other hand, was natural to man.27
It was inherent in his constitution. Had he continued to
live in paradise, he might, it is true, have escaped it.
But this he would have done, not because he was by nature
immortal, but because of the wonderful tree of life. That
he became subject to death was not the direct penalty of
sin, but the result of his being driven from paradise.28
In effect this no doubt amounted to the same thing. But
it is worth bringing out the fact that according to Genesis
3 death was not foreign to human nature as originally

' 1 Kings 17. 18 ; compare Gen. 44. 16 ; Gen. 16. 5 ; Exod. 5. 21.
5 2 Sam. 10. 12.
'3- 17, 18.
'3- 19-
8 3. 22. 270

THE PROBLEM OF SUFFERING
constituted. It was not part of the curse pronounced on
man. Still the significant fact in the narrative is that
the operation of the law of death might have been avoided,
if it had not been for man's sin. And in so far as this
idea was current in early Israel, it gave to the common
belief that suffering was due to sin a new depth and seri
ousness. Not only the occasional ills of life, but its basal
evils, those that have woven themselves into the very tex
ture of man's being, were now thought of as due to man's
transgression of the divine law. This was a somber view
to take of life, and it was probably not widely current in
the preprophetic period.29 But its presence, even in lim
ited circles reveals an early interest in some of the deeper
questions connected with the fact of pain.
.• The most important contribution made by the eighth-
century prophets to the development of thought relative to
suffering is found in their insistence that the evils that
had befallen and that threatened the nation were due
primarily to violations of the ethical law. What aroused
the divine anger was not neglect of the rites of religion,
but_social injustice, immorality, and inhumanity. Over
and over again this thought was hammered into the con
science of the people, until finally the idea of a strictly
moral government of the world was accepted as an
established doctrine/ In Deuteronomy a larger place in
the field of human duty was accorded religious rites, but
stress at the same time was laid on the ethical as an essen
tial condition of the divine favor.30 If the people obeyed
the divine commandments, prosperity would be their lot;
but if they failed to do so, adversity would just as cer-
29 Compare 2 Sam. 14. 14.
30 Deut. 24. 10-22 ; 25. 13-16. 271

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
tainly befall them.31 It was chiefly national prosperity
and national adversity that both the Deuteronomists and
the earlier prophets had in mind, but the doctrine they
laid down was general and on occasion was applied to
individuals also.32
Thus far we have met with no protest against the idea
that suffering is a penalty for sin. The idea was gen
erally accepted; but it had not as yet been applied in a
thoroughgoing way to life as a whole. In preprophetic
Israel it was not claimed that every sin was punished. Sin
itself was, furthermore, conceived in such an indefinite
way as both intentional and unintentional, both ceremonial
and ethical, that it furnished no clearly defined criterion
for determining when suffering or adversity might be ex
pected. With such a broad and elastic conception of sin
it was always possible to find some sort of justification
for whatever misfortune befell either the individual or
the nation. The eighth-century prophets, it is true, lim
ited the idea of sin largely to moral offenses, but they
were concerned almost exclusively with the nation. And
there conditions were so complex and so unideal both
ethically and religiously, that no difficulty was expe
rienced in discovering an adequate ground for the suffer
ings and disasters of the past, the present, and the future.
But toward the close of the monarchy two important
changes took place which made it less easy to hold to the
principle of retributive righteousness as the one explana
tion of life's fortunes and misfortunes.
The first was the Deuteronomic reform (B. C. 621).
It sought to put an end to the evils the prophets had de-
81 Deut. 28. 1-14, 15-68.
82 Amos 7. 16-17 ; Isa. 22. 15-18. 272

THE PROBLEM OF SUFFERING
nounced, and so to avert the disaster threatening the state.
Its aim was to make the prophetic teaching the official
religion, and thus transform Israel into a holy nation.
With such a noble aim the reform when adopted natu
rally created in the nation a consciousness of righteous
ness such as had not previously existed. The earlier
afflictions had been deserved, but now it was to be ex
pected that a better future would be theirs. This expecta
tion, however, was doomed to disappointment. A brief
period of virtual independence was followed by a dis
astrous defeat on the plain of Megiddo (B. C. 609).
The pious king Josiah was slain, and the land became sub
ject to Egypt with its oppressive taxes. This subjec
tion continued for a few years, and then was followed by
another equally onerous vassalage to the new Babylonian
kingdom. Against this new bondage Judah rebelled, and
the result was that Jerusalem was captured and a large
number of its citizens deported (B. C. 597). A few
years later another rebellion led to a similar result, except
that Jerusalem was now completely destroyed and the na
tional life terminated (B. C. 586). Under those circum
stances it was inevitable that the question should be raised
as to whether God had dealt justly with the nation. A
people that had reformed its life and worship in accord
ance with the newly found book of the Law,33 surely
deserved a different fate from that which had befallen
them. In their case at least suffering was not a just pen
alty for sin. The most that could be said for the tradi
tional doctrine from their point of view was that the
fathers had eaten sour grapes and hence the children's
teeth were set on edge.34 The wickedness of Manasseh
33 2 Kings 22. 1 to 23, 25.
34 Jer. 31. 29 ; Ezek. 18. 2. 273

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
was responsible for the doom that befell the nation.35
But considerations such as these did not suffice to quiet the
awakened mind and conscience of the people. A problem
had been raised that could not so easily be disposed of.
The other change above referred to was the growth of
individualism due to the prophetic teaching and the dis
integration of the state. Even after the Deuteronomic
reform Jeremiah had no difficulty in finding a sufficient
ground for the disasters that befell the nation in the wick
edness and disloyalty of the people. The reform effected
by Josiah had been only on the surface. Judah had re
turned unto Yahweh, but only "feignedly." 36 At heart
the people were still corrupt. A radical change of char-
" acter was needed. So it seemed to Jeremiah ; and in a
similar way it perhaps has always been possible in the
complex life of a nation to find an ethical ground for
whatever misfortunes have befallen it. Practically every
nation contains so many diverse elements that, . if one
chooses, he can almost invariably establish a causal con
nection between the sufferings of the present and some
guilt of the past. But when it comes to the individual, it
is often not so easy to apply the law of retribution. For
here the correctness of the law can be more readily tested.
The factors involved are simpler and less numerous.
They are for the most part open to direct observation,
and where not, the conscience of the individual serves as
a witness. To be sure, it is still possible in individual
cases, where the principle of retribution does not seem to
hold, to insist that a person's sufferings are due to sins of
which others know nothing and which may even in part
be hidden from the person himself. This was the atti-
8=2 Kings 24. 3f.
88 3- 10. 274

THE PROBLEM OF SUFFERING
tude taken by Job's friends. But their position was
simply the last recourse of a defeated theory. It could
not keep back the insistent pressure of facts nor break the
plain testimony of conscience. To every unprejudiced
observer it was clear that the innocent did at times suffer
while the wicked prospered. Hence it was inevitable that
serious questionings and protests should arise when the
prophetic doctrine of retribution came to be applied in a
strict way to the life of the individual.
Then, too, the theory that prosperity and adversity are
rewards and punishments for good and evil conduct, is
defective from the religious point of view. It has, to be
sure, a considerable basis of fact. The laws of nature
and of society are such that he who violates them will as
a rule suffer for it. "The way of the transgressor is
hard." 37 And even where there is no consciousness of
special guilt, sudden misfortune speaks with a warning
voice to the human spirit. The modern mind may agree
with Lecky that the belief that calamity is a punishment
for sin, is "a baseless and pernicious superstition." "But
all the same," as McFadyen says, "to the sensitive heart
every disaster speaks an urgent message. We have no
right to interpret it as the punishment of others, but we
have every right to regard it as a call to ourselves — a call
to reflection and repentance." 38 This was in the main
the standpoint of the early prophets. They regarded
"each calamity, as it fell, more as a call than a chastise
ment." But this profounder viewpoint was easily over
looked. And the tendency was for the doctrine of retri
bution as commonly held to give rise to a utilitarian type
of morality. If uprightness and piety always lead to
37 Prov. 13. 15.
88 A Cry for Justice, pp. 46f . 275

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
health and prosperity, they will naturally tend to be culti
vated because of their results rather than for their own
sake. Virtue thus becomes prudence. It ceases to be
devotion to principle and becomes a means to a material
end. The pious man feels that he must be rewarded for
his piety, or God is not just.
But more serious than the utilitarian tendency of the
| principle of retribution was its bearing on the relation of
' religion to the unfortunate members of society : the poor,
the burdened, the oppressed, the wretched. If health and
prosperity are invariable results of the divine favor, it is
evident that it is the strong and the successful to whom
the comforts of religion especially appertain. The sick
and the needy lie beyond its sphere. This view was
widely held in antiquity. "The unhappy leper, in his life
long affliction, was shut out from the exercises of religion
i as well as from the privileges of social life. So too the
\ mourner was unclean, and his food was not brought into
\ the house of God; the very occasions of life in which spir
itual things are nearest to the Christian, and the comfort
of religion most fervently sought, were in the ancient
world the times when a man was forbidden to approach
{he seat of God's presence. To us . . . this seems a
cruel law ; nay, our sense of justice is offended by a sys
tem in which misfortunes set up a barrier between a man
and his God." S9
Our feeling on this point must also have manifested
itself to some degree in ancient Israel. At least, the idea
that the unfortunate were shut out from the comforts of
religion must have clashed with the early and deepseated
conviction that Yahweh was in a special sense the pro
tector of the weak and the needy, the fatherless and the
" W. R. Smith, Religion of the Semites, p. 259.
276

THE PROBLEM OF SUFFERING
widows. A contradiction was thus created in the reli
gious consciousness of the people. Logically, it may have
seemed to them that need was an evidence of the divine
disfavor; the law of retribution apparently required it.
But actually it must have been clear that it was need
which above all things drove men to God. God could not,
therefore, withdraw himself from the needy. Such action
would be contrary to his inmost nature. The very in
stinct, consequently, that lies at the root of religion, was
opposed to a strict and logical application of the principle
of retribution.
The earliest book to raise a question as to the justice
of God's dealings with the nation was that of Habakkuk,
provided we accept the common view as to its date. /
Duhm40 has assigned the book of Habakkuk to the time
of Alexander the Great, holding that instead of "Chal
deans" irt i. 6 the text originally read Kittim, meaning
the European Greeks;41 but very few have followed him
in this conclusion. Some contend that the main body of
the book (omitting i. 5-1 1 and chapter 3) came from the
exile. But most scholars hold that it dates from the clos
ing years of the seventh century. The interpretation of
the book is beset with numerous difficulties. The author
is manifestly perplexed by the unjust conditions he sees
about him. He cannot understand how God can hold his
peace "when the wicked swalloweth up the man that is
more righteous than he." 42 But what gave rise to the

"Das Buck Habakuk, published in 1906. Duhm's view is ac
cepted by Max Haller in Die Sehriften des Alten Testaments, ii, 3,
pp. 2I3ff.
41 Compare 1 Mace. 1. 1 ; 8. 5.
0 1. 13. 2/7

Religious teaching of old testament
prophet's problem is not certain. Was it the sufferings of
Judah at the hands of the Chaldeans, or at the hands of
the Assyrians, or at the hands of the Egyptians? Or was
it perhaps local conditions within Judah itself? Accord
ing to many, it was the latter that at first formed the sub
ject of the prophet's complaint.43 He asks how God can
permit such violence, injustice, and oppression as prevail
in Judah. The answer given is that Yahweh is about to
raise up the Chaldeans to punish the wicked Israelites.44
But a Chaldean invasion would mean that all Judah would
suffer, and hence the question arose as to how Yahweh
could use a wicked nation like Chaldea to punish Judah,
a people more righteous than they.45 That this, however,
was the line of thought in the prophet's mind is im
probable. "The wicked" in verse 4 is most naturally
identified with "the wicked" in verse 13, and in the latter
verse it is evident that a foreign tyrant is referred to.
Whether this tyrant was Assyria or Babylonia or Egypt,
does not matter much, so far as the general teaching of
the book is concerned. Judah in any case is represented
as a righteous people oppressed by a wicked foreign
power. It was this fact that gave rise to and that con
stituted the prophet's problem.46
The conception of Judah as "righteous" by way of
contrast with other peoples would most naturally have
arisen shortly after the Deuteronomic reform, and it was

43Hab. 1.2-4.
44 1. 5-n.
" 1. 12-17.
"If 1. 5-11 were transferred to chap. 2 and placed between verses
3 and 4, the interpretation of the book would be considerably simpli
fied. The foreign tyrant would then be Assyria, and Chaldea would
be the power raised up to punish the wicked Assyrians.
278

THE PROBLEM OF SUFFERING
probably at that time that the book of Habakkuk was
written. The book of Nahum, it may be noted, also dates
from about the same time, and it too has nothing to say
of the sin of Judah, though it vents its wrath on Assyria.
A similar and even more bitter feeling toward Baby
lonia no doubt arose a little later, especially after the fall
of Jerusalem; and it is possible, though less likely, that
the book of Habakkuk was written during the exile.
"If," says A. S. Peake, "Habakkuk saw his vision in the
gloomy period before the fall of Jerusalem, his problem
arises because he feels so keenly the strange contrast be
tween the fair promise of the happiness that should fol
low on reform, and the dark fulfillment now that reform
has come. If it was during the exile, then the destruc
tion of the Jewish state and the captivity are responsible
for much of the prophet's perplexity, and the Reforma
tion falls into the background." 47 Should we accept the
latter view, Habakkuk would still be the first prophet for
whom the sufferings of the nation constituted a problem;
for both Jeremiah and Ezekiel looked upon the calam
ities that befell Judah as abundantly deserved. But the
earlier date is the more probable, and it, of course, makes
more evident the unique distinction of Habakkuk. His
book marked "the beginning of speculation in Israel."
It is this fact that gives to it its special significance in the
history of Old Testament religion. The solution, how
ever, which it offers to the problem it raises can hardly
be said to go beyond the teaching of the past. Righteous
ness, we are assured, will ultimately triumph. The pros-'
perity of the wicked will not last ; the heathen oppressor
will be destroyed.48 On the other hand, the sufferings
47 The Problem of Suffering in the Old Testament, p. 5.
48 e. 5-20. 279

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
of Judah will soon be ended; the righteous will live be
cause of his faithfulness.49
) The problem of suffering, so far as it relates to the
f individual, was first raised by Jeremiah. "Wherefore,"
| he asks, "doth the way of the wicked prosper? Where
fore are all they at ease that deal very treacherously?" 50
| The wicked, it is here implied, ought to suffer, but do not.
To his question why this is so, the prophet received no
direct answer. The fact itself, he was told, was so
familiar that there was no reason why he should concern
himself about it.51 Then, too, the general problem of
suffering was in his case pushed aside by the pressure of
his own personal peril and pain. Over and over again
he was driven into a state of rebellion as he contem
plated his own experiences, the persecutions to which he
was subject and the sufferings that befell him.52 God, he
felt, had not dealt justly with him. He had been to him
"as a deceitful brook, as waters that fail."53 He had
enticed him and overpersuaded him to become a prophet,
and then had left him to suffer all manner of reproach
from men.54 But this sense of unjust treatment at the
hands of God was not a fixed conviction with Jeremiah.
It did not represent an objective fact to be explained; it
was, rather, a feeling to be overcome. In his better
moments he saw clearly that the complaining" of which he
had been guilty was "vile." There was something in his
relation to Yahweh so "precious" that all rebellious feel-

i5-i7-

"2.4.

"12.
I.
"12.
5-
"20.
7-l8
;i8
. 18-
¦20;
15
83 15.
18.
"20.
7ff.;
15.
15-
280
THE PROBLEM OF SUFFERING
ing ought to have been silenced.55 We have here a sug
gestion of the thought that fellowship with God is the
summum bonum of life, and that as compared with it the
sufferings we endure as servants of God are not worthy
to be considered. This attitude of mind does not, it is
true, solve the mystery of pain, but it does give him who
consciously makes it his own a standpoint from which he
can view with equanimity his own afflictions. And this
was Jeremiah's chief contribution to the problem of suf
fering. He showed by his own experience not only that
suffering was not inconsistent with fellowship with God,
but that in the light of this fellowship no ground could be
found for complaint against the divine justice.
Ezekiel dealt in a more objective and dogmatic way
with the subject of suffering. So far as the nation is con
cerned, his position did not differ essentially from that
of Jeremiah, Zephaniah, and the eighth-century prophets.
The doom of Judah was abundantly deserved. It was the
inevitable outcome of her long history of unfaithfulness.
If there is anything new in Ezekiel on this point, it is to
be found in the interest he manifests in justifying the
ways of God.56 "His own problem is not to reconcile
with justice the hard fate of Israel, but to clear the fair
name of Yahweh from the aspersions cast upon it. If he
seeks to justify the ways of God to man, it is rather that
God may be vindicated than that man's heart may be at
peace. He never felt the pressure of the mystery of suf
fering." 5T This applies also to his attitude toward the
individual. He pleads with the individual Israelites not

" is- 19-
"Compare 14. 21-23.
87 A. S. Peake, The Problem of Suffering in the Old Testament,
p. 23. 28t

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
to continue in their sinful course. "For why," he asks,
"will ye die, O house of Israel ? For I have no pleasure in
the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord Jehovah:
wherefore turn yourselves and live." 58 But the doom,
when it came and however it might come, was a just
doom. God's ways were always "equal." To this there
were no exceptions. Here it is that Ezekiel made his
contribution to our problem. He asserted in unqualified
terms the doctrine of individual retribution. There is no
such thing as inherited guilt or vicarious suffering.
Every man is punished for his own sins, and for them
alone. For this doctrine much could be said from the
standpoint of abstract ethics and from the point of view
of the individual's ultimate destiny, and it is probable that
Ezekiel approached the subject from these points of view. .
But when applied to concrete conditions his teaching led
to unavoidable difficulty. Facts conflicted with theory,
and it became a serious problem how to adjust the one
to the other. The problem might be temporarily post
poned by a denial of the facts, but this method could not
long prove satisfactory.
The times demanded that the subject of suffering both
as related to the nation and the individual be dealt with
in a more thoroughgoing way than had yet been done.
Especially was this true after the fall of Jerusalem in
B. C. 586. In response to this demand there appeared
"two Hebrew writers of supreme intellectual and spiritual
power." 59 The first lived toward the close of the exile.
His name is unknown, but his utterances are preserved in
the latter part of the book of Isaiah, and hence he is com-
88 18. 3if.
88 James Strahan, The Book of Job, p. 3.
282

THE PROBLEM OF SUFFERING
monly known as Deutero-Isaiah. The problem of suf
fering as it presented itself to his mind had to do with
the nation. It may be that the Suffering Servant whom
he describes originally referred to some individual to
whom Messianic significance was ascribed.60 But in their
present context the socalled Servant-passages61 manifestly
refer to Israel. Israel had suffered grievously. These
sufferings were due in part to her sins,62 but only in part.
To some extent they were like the sufferings of Jeremiah,
the sufferings of a martyr.63 Israel had been loyal to her
divine mission, and hence had been subject to bitter per
secution. But this did not suffice as an explanation of her
afflictions. Deutero-Isaiah saw in them something more,
a new factor, unmentioned before: they were vicarious
and redemptive.^ To outward appearances exiled Israel
was like one "stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted."
But her restoration made it evident that such was not ac
tually the case. Israel was not a special object of the
divine disfavor. Rather was her exile the means through
which the knowledge of the true God was being brought
to the idolatrous heathen. This they recognized, and
hence they are represented as saying that Israel was
wounded for their transgressions and bruised for their
iniquities. The sufferings that befell Israel ought to have
fallen on them. And not only were her sufferings thus
vicarious. They also served a redemptive purpose. They
were a means of healing, a chastisement that won for the
60 E. Sellin first suggested Zerubbabel and then later Jehoiachin,
whose long imprisonment and final release (2 Kings 25. 27-30)
might conceivably be figuratively described in Isa. 53.
81 42. 1-4; 49- 1-6; 50. 4-9; 52- 13 to 53. 12.
82 40. 2; 42. 24L ; 43. 22-28; 50. 1.
63 50. 5-9-
6'53-4-6. 283

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
heathen peace of soul. The very fact that Israel's suffer
ings were undeserved, that they were endured for others,
brought home to the heathen a poignant consciousness of
their own sins, and wrought in them a change of heart.
It led to repentance and confession, and to the recogni
tion of Israel's God as God of all the world. Such an end
might well justify and sanctify any affliction and any
sacrifice. No deeper or higher thought concerning suf
fering is anywhere to be found.
It is strange that this profound conception of suffering
as vicarious and redemptive seems to have been without
effect upon the later development of Hebrew thought.
Nowhere else in the Old Testament is there any reference
to it.65 Not even the second of the two Hebrew writers
above referred to, the author of the book of Job, takes
note of it. The reason perhaps is that the idea of vicari
ous suffering did not admit of such obvious application
to an individual like Job as to the nation. Some scholars,
it is true, see in Job "a type of the godly portion of the
nation," 60 and look upon him as representing "somewhat
the same thing which the servant in Deutero-Isaiah repre
sents — the ideal Israel, or . . . the faithful Israel in
captivity and humiliation." 6T But there is nothing in
the text to support this view. "It is not with the nation
that the poet is concerned, but with the individual, not with
Israel but with man, not with God's discipline of his peo
ple, but with his government of the world." 68
88 It is not again referred to or employed until 4 Mace. 1. 11; 6.'
29; 17. 21 f.
88 A. B. Davidson, The Theology of the Old Testament, p. 457f .
87 J. P. Peters, The Religion of the Hebrews, p. 332.
*" A. S. Peake, The Problem of Suffering in the Old Testament,
p. 83f. 284

THE PROBLEM OF SUFFERING
When the book of Job was written we do not know,
but it was probably a century or two after the time of
Deutero-Isaiah. The author takes up the problem of
suffering where it had been left by Ezekiel. Ezekiel had
disposed of the problem by denying the facts upon which
it was based. The wicked, hejx«itended, did not prosper,
and the righteous did not suffer. Suffering was, conse
quently, an evidence of sin. This became the orthodox
doctrine. In its positive form it is frequently expressed.
It constitutes "the burden of many of the psalms and of
the whole book of Proverbs, as well as the perpetually
recurrent moral of all the Hebrew histories." We read
that "evildoers shall be cut off;
But those that wait for Jehovah, they shall inherit
the land." 69
"Behold, the righteous shall be recompensed in the
earth ;
How much more the wicked and the sinner !" 70
In this doctrine there is no doubt much truth, but when
applied in such a way as to teach that all suffering pro
ceeds from sin it comes into glaring conflict with the facts
of life. And here it is that the author of Job takes his
start. It is his fundamental contention that the traditional
doctrine is false. The righteous do suffer and the wicked
do prosper. And the suffering and the prosperity are not
merely of brief duration. They often continue until
death.71

88 Psa. 37- 9-
70 Prov. n. 31-
"Job 21. 7-34. 285

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
But if this be so, what function does suffering fulfill
in the life of the righteous? Two positive answers are
given in the book of Job. The first is found in the
prologue. Here we are told that the afflictions of Job
were a test of his righteousness. They were an attempt to
determine whether his loyalty to God was sincere, whether
it was devotion to him for his own sake, or whether it
was based on self-interest. The result of the testing was
a proof of the genuineness of Job's piety. "The words,
'Though he slay me, yet will I trust him' 72 — it is pretty
generally agreed — do not represent what Job said or
could have said in that particular context; but they do
represent the whole attitude of the man." 73 His piety
stood far above utilitarian considerations. It was an
expression of pure ethical idealism. And what proved
it to be such was the sufferings he endured. They showed
that he was quite willing to serve God for nought. An-
other function performed by suffering is that of disciplin
ing and refining the life of the righteous. Says Eliphaz :
"Happy is the man whom God correcteth ;
Therefore despise not thou the chastening of the
Almighty.
For he maketh sore, and bindeth up ;
He woundeth, and his hands make whole." 74
This idea was elaborated still further by Elihu.75 It was
not strictly applicable in Job's case, but it nevertheless
expresses an important truth. Suffering does often
deepen, enrich, and mellow the lives of those who accept
"J. E. McFadyen, The Problem of Pain: A Study in the Book
of Job, p. 287.
"5- 17-18.
75 33. 15-30; 36. 8-21. 286

THE PROBLEM OF SUFFERING
it in the right spirit. It is, then, not an unmixed evil. It
has its place even in the life of the righteous.
But while these considerations have their value, they by
no means fully solve our problem. The suffering of the
righteous still has to it unplumbed depths, and the book
of Job frankly confesses its inability to sound them. It
does, however, make one or two further suggestions that
should not be overlooked. One is that suffering has a
purpose in human life whether we are able to discern it or
not. This is implied in the prologue and also in the
speeches of the Almighty. What takes place in the heav
enly council we cannot ourselves observe, and the universe
itself is so vast and intricate that it would be folly for us
to insist on comprehending it in its every detail. But that
the suffering of the righteous does have a place in the di
vine plan, that it does have a meaning, is guaranteed by
the very character of God himself. The wisdom and love
manifest in nature as a whole assure us that our afflictions
are not purposeless. What their purpose is we may not
understand, but where we cannot understand we can
always trust. Then, too, there is the suggestion that
death does not close the case. In one supreme moment
Job rises to the assurance that the justice denied him
here will be granted him in the world beyond.76 This
assurance did not apparently remain with him, but the
door of hope thus opened was one through which many a
suffering and sorrowing heart was destined to walk in the
ages to come.
In spite of Job's vigorous attack upon it the traditional
doctrine concerning suffering continued to be widely held,
as we see from the later strata of the book of Proverbs.
70 19. 25ff. 287

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
Adversity and wickedness, on the one hand, and pros
perity and righteousness, on the other, were supposed to
go together. But this was a teaching which it was in
creasingly difficult to hold. Pessimists like the author of
Ecclesiastes rejected it outright,77 and the apocalyptists
were forced to look to the future for its realization. The
latter standpoint is represented by Psalm 27- It is here
repeatedly insisted that the wicked will soon be cut off
(verses 2, 9, 22, 28, 34, 38), and the righteous will
then inherit the land (verses 9, 11, 22, 29, 34). God
will before long intervene in a miraculous way in the
world, and the injustices that now prevail will then be
righted. Besides this psalm there are two others that also deal
specifically with our problem, the f OEjy-ninth and seventy-
third. These psalms, like the thirty-seventh, look to the'
future for their source of comfort, but they find it not in
an imminent catastrophe but in life after death. Ac
cording to Psalm 49 the wicked in spite of their wealth
cannot escape death but are compelled to go down into
the dim underworld. The psalmist himself, however, has
the assurance that after death God will take him to live
with himself. In Psalm 73 the contrast is made still more
emphatic. The wicked in the world beyond are here
represented as cast down to ruin and utterly consumed
with terrors, while the psalmist himself is received up
into glory. But even more significant than this thought
is the author's vivid consciousness of the overshadowing
presence of God :"
"Whom have I in heaven but thee?
And there is none upon' earth that I desire besides thee."

77 7- 15; 8. 14; 9- 2.

THE PROBLEM OF SUFFERING
These words give us "a wonderful picture of the soul
in deep, untroubled fellowship with God, so deep that
death cannot sever it, so perfect that heaven itself can
add nothing to it. . . . Nowhere else in the Old Testa
ment is the essence of religion set forth with such power
and such beauty, no passage makes so deep an appeal to
our inmost heart." 78
We do not, it is true, have here a formal solution of
the problem of suffering. Such a solution, indeed, is
impossible. But we have something better : we have an
attitude of soul, a spiritual experience, by means of which
the problem is transcended. It is good to know that our
sufferings may be a trial of our faith, a test of our right
eousness, that they may in the providence of God be vicari
ous and redemptive, that they have a disciplinary value,
and that they will ultimately give way to a happier future ;
but it is better still to have a vision of God so rapturous
that the sufferings of the present lose their sting, and life
is permitted to go on in unruffled peace. It was such an
experience toward which Jeremiah and Job struggled, to
which the author of Psalm 7^ attained, and which Jesus
promised his disciples when he said, "Peace I leave with
you ; my peace I give unto you : not as the world giveth,
give I unto you" (John 14. 27).
78 A. S. Peake, The Problem of Suffering in the Old Testament,
p. 117.

289

CHAPTER XIII
FORGIVENESS AND ATONEMENT
Sin, as the Old Testament writers conceived it, was
something more than "moral growing pains." It carried
with it the idea of alienation from God. This sense of
alienation may originally have been due to a purely ex
ternal cause, some misfortune or physical affliction. It
may have had no connection with moral shortcoming.
But it was nevertheless real, and it was practically uni
versal. Suffering and adversity spoke to primitive men
generally of an offended deity. The evils of life were
themselves an evidence of the divine displeasure, and they
could be removed only by winning back the divine favor.
In times of need it became, therefore, a matter of special
interest to secure the divine forgiveness; and the more
urgent the need, the deeper and more permanent the con
sciousness of sin, the more important became everything
that had to do with forgiveness and. atonement in the reli
gious life and thought of men. In our day it is said that
the message of forgiveness is "less and less able to stir
any deep interest in the average man or to attract the at
tention of the mass of the people. It seems to strike them
as an irrelevant message : it is not what they want, it does
not meet any need of which they are vividly conscious."
It is at the best "a symbolical recognition of the idea that
sin is something man should not brood over, but some
thing which is to be worked off, by thinking as little as
possible about sin as a religious problem." 1 But if this
1 W. E. Orchard, Modern Theories of Sin, pp. 137, 138L
290

FORGIVENESS AND ATONEMENT
be the modern mood, it stands far removed from that
which prevailed in ancient Judaism and early Christian
ity. In the Bible forgiveness and atonement are ideas of
central importance.
The close connection which in ancient Israel was sup
posed to exist between sin and suffering led naturally to
the view that forgiveness manifests itself in the improve
ment of one's physical or material condition. As affliction
was a sign of the divine displeasure, so its removal was
evidence of the divine forgiveness. The forgiveness of
sins as a purely spiritual experience unrelated to the out
ward fortunes of life lay beyond the range of at least
early Israelitic thought. Sin -and punishment were so
intimately bound up together that the forgiveness of the
one carried with it the removal of the other, and vice
versa. In this day we deem it important to distinguish
"between forgiveness as the removal of personal displac-
ence and forgiveness as the canceling of natural conse
quences." "Forgiveness," we are told, "does not cancel
consequences. ... So long as one wishes to be saved
not from sin but from the penalty of sin, there can be no
salvation for him. . . . True salvation is from sin, not
from penalty." 2 But this sharp distinction between sin
and penalty the early Israelite did not make. Salvation, as
he conceived it, meant primarily deliverance from the tem
poral and material ills of life. It meant for the nation
deliverance from Egypt,3 victory over its enemies,4 re
turn from exile,5 and general prosperity.6 For the indi-

2 B. P. Bowne, Studies in Christianity, p. 156L
8 Exod. 14. 30, J ; 15. 2.
* 1 Sam. 9. 16 ; 2 Sam. 3. 18 ; Deut. 20. 2-4.
8 Jer. 23. 5-8 ; 46. 27 ; Psa. 106. 47.
8 1 Sam 10. 19; Psa. 118. 25. 291

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
vidual it likewise meant escape from danger,7 recovery
from sickness,8 and enjoyment of the good things of life.9
/Among these good things forgiveness of sin was no doubt
one. But it was a deduction from the outward blessings
of life rather than a distinct inward experience. It did
not, it would seem, necessarily imply a complete canceling
of the penalty of sin. In Exod. 34. 7 we, for instance,
read of Yahweh as "forgiving iniquity and transgression
and sin, although he does not leave it unpunished." 10
Punishment and forgiveness did not thus form a com
plete antithesis. Death excluded the thought of forgive
ness, but a less extreme penalty apparently did not. This
is illustrated in the case of David. Nathan announces
that a certain punishment will be meted out to him be
cause of his sin, and then adds, "Jehovah also hath put
away thy sin; thou shalt not die." 11 Forgiveness of sin
did not here carry with it the complete removal of the
just penalty. But this conception of forgiveness received
only isolated expression. In general, suffering was looked
upon as a penalty for sin, and only the removal of the
penalty could give rise to the consciousness of forgive
ness. A more independent conception of forgiveness was
only very gradually developed. Two different stages, or
perhaps, rather, factors, in its development may be dis
tinguished. First, the prophetic stress on the ethical
requirements of Yahweh, both objective and subjective,
7 2 Sam. 22. 3f.
3 Isa. 38. iff. ; 2 Sam. 12. i6ff.
"Gen. 39. 3; Job 30. 15.
10 See C. F. Kent's translation in The Student's Old Testament.
Compare Num. 14, 18.
11 2 Sam. 12. 13. 292

FORGIVENESS AND ATONEMENT
tended to give to the inner life of the soul an importance
it had not had before. Forgiveness of sins and purity
of heart came to have a value in and of themselves. They
might lead to outward fortune, but altogether apart from
that they had a worth of their own. Regeneration of soul
was a good to be sought for its own sake. Salvation did
not consist simply in deliverance from the consequences
of sin, but in deliverance from sin itself. We first find
this clearly expressed in Jeremiah. As the prophet real
ized the weakness and sinfulness of his own heart, he
cried : "Heal me, O Jehovah, and I shall be healed ; save
me, and I shall be saved." 12 The salvation for which he
here prays is manifestly an inner process, a healing of the
soul. It is a similar conception also that appears in his
description of the new covenant, a covenant to be written
in the hearts of the people. "I will forgive," says Yah
weh, "their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no
more." 13 Even more distinctly is this thought expressed
in Ezekiel. "I will sprinkle," we read, "clean water upon
you, and ye shall be clean : from all your filthiness, and
from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also
will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you;
and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh,
and I will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my
.Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes.
. And I will save you from all your unclean-
nesses." 14 In Deutero-Isaiah this idea is also made
prominent. Forgiveness of sins appears as the chief
blessing of the Messianic age. "I, even I, am he that
blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake ; I have
12 17. 14.
18 Jer. 31. 34-
14 36. 25-29. 293

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
blotted out, as a thick cloud, thy transgressions, and, as a
cloud, thy sins: return unto me; for I have redeemed
thee." 15 But more strikingly still is the thought of for
giveness and regeneration expressed in Psalm 51 :
Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;
Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. . . .
Create in me a clean heart, O God ;
And renew a right spirit within me.
Cast me not away from thy presence ;
And take not thy holy Spirit from me.
Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation,
And uphold me with a willing spirit" (verses 7,
10-12).
Another factor that contributed to the differentiation
of the assurance of divine forgiveness from the out
ward experiences of life was the Messianic hope. This
hope implied that in the existing order rewards and pun
ishments were not meted out justly either to nations or
individuals. In the better and not distant future it would
be different. But at present outward fortune was no
certain test of one's status in the sight of God. And if
so, a change of attitude toward God would not necessarily
be accompanied by an immediate change in the physical
or material conditions of one's life. God might conceiv
ably forgive a man his sins, and yet allow him for a time
at least to remain subject to some form of adversity.
This idea is manifestly implied in the Messianic hope, and
it is also implied in such interpretations of suffering as
are found in Deutero-Isaiah and the book of Job. If suf
fering be vicarious and redemptive, if it is a test of one's

18 Isa. 43. 25 ; 44. 22. 294

FORGIVENESS AND ATONEMENT
righteousness, it is evident that its removal is not neces
sary to the consciousness of forgiveness and of the divine
favor. These spiritual blessings may be enjoyed without
reference to the outward experiences of life. But while
the Old Testament points forward to this truth, and
while some of the Hebrew saints, such as Jeremiah, Job,
and the author of Psalm 73, anticipated it in their own
experience, it cannot be said to have been fully grasped
in Old Testament times. The consciousness of sin and
forgiveness continued to be more or less closely connected
with external fortune. Even Psalm 5 1 seems to have had
as its background suffering of some kind, either that of
the nation or of the author, probably the latter (verse 8).
The ultimate ground of forgiveness was the divine >
mercy. This was the teaching of the Old Testament as a '
whole, the Law as well as the Prophets. Sacrifice, what
ever value it may have had, was "the fruit of grace, not
its root." Yahweh was a God of mercy; he was such
by nature.16 He was also righteous. But righteousness
did not exclude mercy; it, rather, included it. Yahweh
was "a just God and a Saviour." 17 The two qualities
went together. There was nothing in the nature of Yah
weh as such that made him reluctant to forgive sin. Not
even his wrath excluded the thought of mercy.18 "The
conception," as G. B. Stevens says, "that retributive jus
tice is the fundamental, essential quality of God, and
that mercy is a secondary and optional attribute whose
operation has to be secured or provided for by means of
some 'plan' or 'scheme,' is not only without warrant in
" Psa. 103. 8ff. ; Joel 2. 13.
17 Isa. 45. 21 ; compare Exod. 34. 6f. ; Num. 14. 18.
18 Hab. 3. 2. 295

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
the Old Testament, but is entirely irreconcilable with the
Hebrew idea of God in the classic period of Israel's reli
gion. It is more accordant with the conceptions of late
Jewish theology as illustrated in popular Pharisaism." 19
In the Old Testament longsuffering and compassion is
represented as a fundamental characteristic of the divine
mjnd. Wrath is a mere affection, a transient feeling.20
It does not express the true nature and essence of God.
While capable of wrath, Yahweh is slow to anger,21 and
does not keep his anger forever.22
The gracious disposition of Yahweh was at first mani
fested almost exclusively within and toward Israel. The
rationale of this special relation to Israel is nowhere
given. At times it seems to be the result of a sovereign
and arbitrary choice. "I will be gracious," says Yahweh,
"to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on
whom I will show mercy." 23 The special favor shown
Israel is expressed in various ways. It is, for instance,
said that Yahweh defers his anger, saves Israel, and for
gives her sins "for his own sake" or "for his name's
sake." 24 "I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy trans
gressions for mine own sake ; and I will not remember thy
sins." 25 The point to such statements as these is that
Yahweh has a world purpose and that the accomplish
ment of that purpose required him to show to Israel a de
gree of favor that she did not deserve. Her sins were

18 The Christian Doctrine of Salvation, p. 29.
w Psa. 30. 5-
"Neh. 9. 17; Jonah 4. 2; Nah. I. 3.
"Mic. 7. 18; Jer. 3. 12.
" Exod. 33. 19, J.
24 Isa. 48. 9, 11 ; Psa. 106. 8; Ezek. 20. 9, 14, 22.
" Isa. 43. 25. 296

FORGIVENESS AND ATONEMENT
forgiven and she was redeemed, not because she had fully
met the conditions of forgiveness and redemption, but
because only in this way could Yahweh achieve his pur
pose and cause his name to be honored among the nations
of the world. If he had failed to redeem Israel, his fail
ure would have been attributed to weakness, and his name
would thus have been profaned among the heathen.26
It was consequently for his own sake that he deferred his
anger and forgave Israel her sins.
Another motive to the divine forgiveness occasionally
referred to in the Old Testament is Yahweh's regard for
the patriarchs and for David. Moses, for instance, thus
prays : "O Lord Jehovah, destroy not thy people and thine
inheritance. . . . Remember thy servants, Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob; look not unto the stubbornness of this
people, nor to their wickedness, nor to their sin." 27 And
in 2 Kings we read that "Jehovah would not destroy
Judah, for David his servant's sake." 28 "I will defend,"
says Yahweh, "this city to save it, for mine own sake, and
for my servant David's sake." 29 Back of this represen
tation there probably lay the idea that the patriarchs and
David were representative of ideal Israel, and that ideal
Israel was the bearer of the divine purpose in the world.
But ideal Israel could not accomplish its purpose apart
from actual Israel. For the patriarchs' sake, therefore,
for the sake of ideal Israel, it pleased God to forgive
actual Israel, the Israel of history. The feeling that lay
back of this thought seems to have been akin to that ex
pressed by the poet Browning: "What I aspired to be,
28 Ezek. 36. 16-23; Deut. 32. 26-27; Num. 14. 15-20, J.
27 Deut. 9. 26, 27 ; compare Exod. 32. 12-13.
28 8. 19.
20 19. 34; compare 1 Kings 11. 13, 32; 15. 4.
297

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
and was not, comforts me," and he might have added,
"assures me of the divine favor."
But the two motives to forgiveness just stated appear
only occasionally and incidentally in the Old Testament.
The one on which the prophets lay almost exclusive stress,
and which constitutes the only rational and ethical con
dition of forgiveness, is repentance and reformation.
This, of course, includes faith. But faith did not receive
such emphasis in the Old Testament as in the New. Isaiah
repeatedly urges the need of faith in Yahweh as against
foreign alliances and trust in merely human powers.30 In
Habakkuk we have the pregnant saying that the just shall
live by his faith or, rather, faithfulness.31 And of Abra
ham it is said that "he believed in Jehovah ; and he reck
oned it to him for righteousness." 32 But no proper doc
trine of faith in the later New Testament sense of the
term is to be found in the Old Testament. There is no
antithesis between faith and works. Yet faith in Yahweh
is everywhere assumed as a duty and as a condition of
reconciliation with him. The call to repentance and obe
dience was also a call to faith. It was, however, the
former rather than the latter that was stressed by the
prophets. They were constantly summoning the people
to return unto Yahweh and to obey his voice.33 "Seek
good, and not evil, that ye may live," was the cry of
Amos;34 and this was also the burden of the prophets as
a whole. Only a complete change of life could win back

"7. 9:28. 16; 30. 15.
ai _

"2.4

82 Gen. 15. 6, J.
33 Hos. 14. 1 ; Jer. 3. 22; 11. 7; Ezek. 33. 11.

"5- 14

298

FORGIVENESS AND ATONEMENT
the divine favor. No fitful repentance would suffice.35
There must be a radical change of character,36 an earnest,
whole-hearted searching after God.37
Where these conditions were met, there was from the /
prophetic point of view no further obstacle to the divine /
forgiveness. Yet we do find in the prophetic and extra-
ritual literature of the Old Testament other factors
that at times entered into the bestowal of forgiveness.
There was, for instance, the intercession of devout
and righteous men. Abraham interceded for Sodom;
and his prayer, while it did not effect the deliv
erance of the city, resulted in the rescue of Lot.38 Moses
interceded for Israel at the time when the golden calf
was made; and Yahweh, we read, "repented of the evil
which he said he would do unto his people."39 Amos
besought the divine forgiveness when the existence off
Israel was threatened, and twice his prayer was an
swered.40 Jeremiah also repeatedly interceded for the
people, but in his case it is implied that the time for inter
cession was past.41 No rationale of intercessory prayer
is given. Ezekiel virtually denies its efficacy.42 But in
the Old Testament as a whole it is assumed as an estab
lished practice. The effectual fervent prayer of a right
eous man was supposed to avail much in behalf of the
guilty. A theoretical basis for this belief, if such were
needed, might be found in the ancient conception of the

88 Hos. 6. 1-4.
"Jer. 4.3-4-
37 Deut. 4. 29.
38 Gen. 18. 23-33, J ; i9- 29, P.
39 Exod. 32. 14, J ? compare 32. 30-35, E.
"7. 1-6.
41 7- 16; 11. 14; 14- n; 15- i-
42 14. 12-20. 299

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
solidarity of society. But apart from that the analogy of
human experience furnishes an adequate explanation.
Intercession often avails in the relation of man to man;
and if so, the ancient saw no reason why it should not
avail also in the relation of man to God.
Another factor that seems at times to have served as a
motive to the divine forgiveness was the partial punish
ment of sin. The partial punishment revealed the divine
wrath, and this under certain circumstances was accepted
as sufficient. The best illustration of this is furnished
by Phinehas at the time when the Israelites were being
visited by a severe plague because of their whoredom on
the plains of Moab.43 Phinehas slew an Israelite and a
Midianitish woman whom he found together in the camp.
And "so," we read, "the plague was stayed from the chil
dren of Israel." Phinehas, said Yahweh, "hath turned
my wrath away from the children of Israel, in that he was
jealous with my jealousy among them, so that I con
sumed not the children of Israel in my jealousy. . . .
Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace, . . .
because he was jealous for his God, and made atonement
for the children of Israel." The infliction of a partial
penalty by a man filled with divine zeal served to reveal
the divine wrath in such a way that no further punish
ment was felt to be necessary. A similar idea underlies
the common Old Testament representation, that while
Yahweh punished his people for their sins he did not make
a full end of the nation.44 Mercy intervened before the
punishment was complete. Indeed, in his grace Yahweh
might even feel that the partial penalty he had inflicted on

3 Num. 25. 1-13.
4 Amos 9. 8; Jer. 4. 27; 5. 18; 30. 11.

FORGIVENESS AND ATONEMENT
the people was more than they had merited.45 A full pun
ishment of sin was not necessary to meet the demands of
the divine justice. "The idea," as Skinner says, "that
Yahweh's penal purpose can be satisfied by a temporary
chastisement is of the very essence of the Old Testament
notion of forgiveness." 46
Yet another and more significant factor that entered
into the prophetic teaching relative to forgiveness is found
in the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah. Here the suffering \
innocently borne by another is made the motive of for- I
giveness. Israel bears the punishment that ought to have
fallen upon the guilty heathen, and thus makes possible «
their redemption. The effect of his suffering is double.
It satisfies the divine demand for the punishment of sin,
and at the same time it acts as a regenerating influence in i
the life of the heathen. They are moved to repentance and
confession as they contemplate the Servant voluntarily
"pouring out his soul unto death" for their sakes. "The
chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his
stripes we are healed." "By the knowledge of himself
shall my righteous Servant make many righteous." How
it was possible for the Servant to suffer for others is not
stated. "The vicariousness," says Stevens, "is ethical.
The blood of this offering is the blood of real life. If we
are to use the word 'substitution,' we should say that the
substitution here involved is that which takes place when
one puts himself under another's burden, and from love
and sympathy makes that other's suffering lot his own." 47
But there are indications that the author looked upon the
48 Isa. 40. 2.
48 The Book of the Prophet Isaiah, Chapters xl-lxvi, p. 3.
47 The Christian Doctrine of Salvation, pp. 33-34.
301

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
sufferings of the Servant in a more objective way. Rit
ualistic conceptions are applied to him. He is compared
to the sacrificial lamb (verse 7), and is spoken of as "a
guilt-offering" (verse 10). He is also manifestly repre
sented as bearing the penal consequences of the sins of
others. "It is this voluntary suffering of the righteous
in behalf of the unrighteous that alone satisfies the de
mand of Yahweh and saves the guilty from the extreme
penalty of the law." 48 In taking this view the author dis
regards the fact that punishment to be just must be visited
upon the guilty themselves. He simply accepts the tradi
tional idea that suffering is a punishment for sin, and then
interprets the sufferings of the righteous Servant as a
vicarious atonement for the sins of others. The various
ethical problems involved in this conception he does not
raise. The important point, however, is that we have here a
distinct advance beyond the more purely moralistic con
ceptions of forgiveness that prevail throughout most
of the prophetic literature. "If the religion of the
prophets," says J. K. Mozley, "had culminated in the
appeal for repentance for the past and right action for
the future, we should have to look upon them as sepa
rated by an unbridgeable gulf from the ideals of the
legal, priestly cultus. Where repentance and good works
are all that is necessary, there may be a religion of
reconciliation, but not what is generally understood by
a religion of atonement." 49 Atonement implies repa
ration, an act of expiation, and this we have in the suf
ferings of the Servant. The Servant's sufferings are
not, -it is true, represented as essential to forgiveness;
48 Burton and Smith, Biblical Ideas of Atonement, p. 36.
48 The Doctrine of the Atonement, p. 25.
302

FORGIVENESS AND ATONEMENT
but they did have the virtue of effecting within the
heathen a transformation of mind and heart. And this
is the essential thing in atonement. "The fundamental
problem is to find a way whereby the righteous God
can make righteous the ungodly; and this cannot be
secured by calling or declaring them righteous, but
only by a spiritual transformation." 50 This transforma
tion, however, cannot be effected by men themselves.
A divine act of grace is needed, and in Isaiah 53 this
act is represented as performed through the Servant.
Men can be won back to God only by self-sacrificing love.
This is the thought suggested by the work of the Servant.
And when this thought is carried up into the life of God
himself, we have the full Christian view of forgiveness
and atonement.51 We have thus far dealt chiefly with the prophetic
teaching concerning forgiveness, and hence have said
nothing concerning sacrifices as a means of atonement J
It was one of the outstanding characteristics of the
prophets that they denied to sacrifices any value in and
of themselves. When offered as a substitute for right
eousness they were worse than worthless, an abomination
in the sight of God. "I hate, I despise your feasts, and
I will take no delight in your solemn assemblies." 52
"Bring no more vain oblations ; incense is an abomination

80 B. P. Bowne, Studies in Christianity, p. 148.
81 It has been customary to find the idea of the self-sacrificing
love of God in Isa. 63. 9, where we read of Yahweh that "in all their
afflictions he was afflicted." But this reading is due to a defective
text. We should on the basis of the Septuagint read: "So he be
came to them a saviour from all their distress; it was no envoy or
angel, but his own presence," etc.
82 Amos 5. 21. 303

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
unto me." 53 "Did ye bring unto me sacrifices and offer
ings in the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel? " 54
"I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in
the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt,
concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices." 55 It was the
contention of the preexilic prophets that at the outset, in
the classic period of Israel's religion, sacrifices had little
or no place. What Yahweh then required of the Israel
ites was simply obedience to the moral law. And this
for the prophets was normative. The sacrifices of their
own time they did not regard as evil. The altar had its
place in the temple.56 But sacrifices as such had no inde
pendent value. They were like prayer, acceptable if of
fered in the right spirit, but otherwise worthless. They
were not looked upon as in any way conditioning the
divine grace. They were not means of atonement.
Atonement in the common sense of the term figured, as
we have seen, only incidentally in the teaching of the
prophets. What they stressed was the moral conditions
of forgiveness. When these conditions were met, nothing
more was needed. At the same time they recognized the
fact that to meet these conditions was no easy matter. To
do so either the punishment of the guilty or the suffering
of the righteous seemed necessary, and this left the door
open to some of the profounder ideas that underlie the
doctrine of the atonement.
Atonement in the Old Testament is associated chiefly
with the sacrificial rites; and these, while rejected by the
prophets as of no value, figured prominently in the pop
ular and legal religion. The root-meaning of the Hebrew
word for "atone" (kipper) was either "to cover" or
83 Isa. i. 13. BBJer. 7. 22.
64 Amos 5. 25. 88 Isa. 6. 6.
304

FORGIVENESS AND ATONEMENT
"wipe out." 57 The word, however, is not used in the
Old Testament in its original literal and physical mean
ing. It always has a metaphorical sense. As applied to
sin, it means that sin has been "covered" or "wiped out"
in such a way that it no longer arouses the divine wrath.
When Yahweh is spoken or thought of as "covering" or
"wiping out" sin, kipper is virtually synonymous in mean
ing with "forgive." It is in this sense that the word is
commonly used in the prophetic and extra-ritual litera
ture.58 In the ritual literature it is usually the priest
who is represented as doing the "covering" or "wiping
out," and in this case kipper has about the force of "ap
pease," "propitiate," or "atone." 59 The priest appeases
the divine wrath by the offering of a sacrifice. It may
also be noted that kipper is generally regarded as stand
ing in a close relation to the noun kopher, "a ransom,"
that it was probably a denominative from it, and that the
same general sense attaches to both words. Kipper con
sequently carries with it the idea that the appeasement
aimed at is secured by compensation of some kind for
the injuries or offenses committed.60
Sacrifice is a custom that goes back into prehistoric^
antiquity. How it originated we cannot say. The^Rriest/s_
Code represents sacrifice in Israel as instituted by Moses
under divine command, and recognizes no offering of
sacrifice before that time. But this view, even if correct,
would apply only to sacrifices in Israel. Sacrifice was a
87 For an exhaustive discussion of the word and its use in the
Old Testament see Die Idee der Suhne im Alten Testament, by
Johannes Herrmann.
8" Isa. 6. 7 ; 22. 14 ; Jer. 18. 23 ; Psa. 65. 3 ; 78. 38.
09 Lev. 4. 20, 31 ; 10. 17 ; 16. 32.
80 1 Sam. 3. 14; 2 Sam. 21. 3L ; Gen. 32. 2of., J.
305

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
universal custom among the heathen. It has been held
that its origin was due to a primitive revelation, but for
this view there is no basis. Its universal prevalence sug
gests that it must in some way have been a natural expres
sion of man's sense of relation to God.
What the original idea was that lay back of sacrifice
has been the subject of much discussion. No generally
accepted conclusion has as yet been reached. Four differ
ent thories may be distinguished. Of these the "gift-
theory" is perhaps the one now most widely held.61 It
regards sacrifice as originally a gift offered to super
natural beings for the purpose of winning their favor and
overcoming their hostility. Closely related to this is the
"homage-theory." It holds that sacrifices were originally
acts of worship, "the embodied prayers of men who think
like children." They expressed the various feelings of
dependence, reverence, thanksgiving, penitence, trust,
with which men approach the higher powers. A quite
different theory is that advocated by Robertson Smith, the
"covenant" or "corrmuimpn^theory.. According to this
theory sacrifice was originally a meal of fellowship in
which the deity participated along with his worshipers.
Just as eating at a common meal was regarded by the
Arabians as binding people together, so was it with the
deity in his relation to those who worshiped him. The
blood poured but at the sacrificial meal to the deity
cemented the union between him and his people. In
this way a friendly relationship with the deity was main
tained, and misfortune and divine chastisement were
avoided. Yet another theory relative to the original
81 As representatives of this theory H. Spencer, E. B. Tylor,
H. Schultz, and G. F. Moore may be named. The "homage-theory"
was advocated by F. D. Maurice and R. Smend.
306

FORGIVENESS AND ATONEMENT
r
i.ieauing of sacrifice is the "propitiatory''or "substitution-
ary" theory, according to which the penalty^dueThe sinner
was inflicted on the sacrificial animal. This theory was the
one commonly held in earlier Protestant theology,62 but
it is now generally agreed that it represents too advanced
a stage of thought for primitive man.
These different theories may at first seem quite distinct
from each other, and it may seem necessary to make a
choice of some one to the exclusion of the others. But it
is not improbable that there is truth in more than one of
them, and that each represents a factor or motive that at
an early date was associated with the custom of sacrifice.
To pass from one of these motives to another was not
difficult. "Let us assume," says G. B. Stevens, "the cor
rectness of the simplest theory of sacrifice, the gift-
theory. But the idea of a present to the deity is itself an
act of homage or worship. The gift of what has value for
the giver is made in recognition of the superior rights or
claims of the divinity. And this idea of homage, in turn,
would naturally deepen into the feeling of fellowship or
communion. If the offered gift is regarded as sacred; if,
for example, the idea obtains that there is some mysteri
ous connection between the life of the divinity and the life
or blood of the animal, then the conviction will naturally
arise that in offering the animal in sacrifice the worshiper
enters into communion with the Power whom he would
honor. Then, again, when the sense of sin is deepened in
men; when the conception of the divine holiness arises
and man appreciates the moral separation between himself
and the deity, it will then be natural that sacrifice should
assume a more distinct reference to sin. It will become

82 For an exposition of it see Fairbairn's Tj^o/o^y.
307

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
the means whereby sin is confessed and reconciliation
with the offended divinity sought. Thus it would natu
rally happen that gifts which in a more naive religious
condition were merely presents, should come to be re
garded as the means of a mystic communion or even as a
cover or protection from the displeasure felt by the Deity
toward the sins of his worshipers." 63
What we are, however, directly concerned with is not
the primitive idea that underlay sacrifice, but the idea
or ideas that underlay sacrifice in Israel. Sacrifice
was an inherited custom, and the ideas associated with it
no doubt varied to some extent with different peoples and
from age to age. Taking the Old Testament as a whole,
the prevailing conception of sacrifice would seem to be
that of a gift or present to God. This is the idea ex
pressed by the two general terms applied to sacrifices and
offerings, minchah and qorban. Minchah is used in P
only of grain-offerings, but in J it is applied to Abel's
sacrifice of the firstling of his flock as well as to Cain's
vegetable offering,64 and this general meaning occurs in
many other passages.65 The word was used of gifts to
men as well as God.66 Qorban in the later ritual liter
ature is the regular term for sacrifice and offering of
every kind.67 It is applied to sin-offerings and trespass-
offerings as well as to meal-offerings, peace-offerings, and
burnt-offerings. 68 It was the general Old Testament
rule that no one might appear before God without a gift.69
83 The Christian Doctrine of Salvation, pp. 7-8.
84 Gen. 4. 3-5.
85 1 Sam. 2. 17, 29; 26. 19; Isa. 1. 13; Psa. 96. 8; Zeph. 3. 10.
88 Gen. 32. 14, E; 43. 11, J ; Isa. 39. 1.
87 Lev. 1. 2, 3 ; 2. 1, 5 ; Num. 31. 50 ; 7. 13.
88 Num. 18. 9; Lev. 3. 1 ; 1. 10.
"'Exod. 23. 15, E; 34. 20, J; Deut. 16. 16.
308

FORGIVENESS AND ATONEMENT
Gifts made to God were supposed to serve the same pur
pose as gifts to men. They might insure a continuation
of the divine favor, or they might appease the divine
anger if it had been aroused. In the latter case they were
a means of atonement. It was in this sense that sacrifices
"atoned" for sins. They were in the nature of a kopher,
a ransom or compensation for the offenses committed.70
It was, of course, assumed that the offering of sacrifices
would be accompanied by a proper attitude of mind.71
But this was not always the case, and in such instances
sacrifices were nothing less than bribes, attempts to pur
chase the divine forgiveness without meeting its ethical
conditions. It was for this reason that the preexilic
prophets so frequently and vigorously denounced the
sacrificial cultus.
Originally sacrifices were no doubt looked upon as ac
tual food for the gods. They partook of it, enjoyed the
sweet savor. Traces of this view linger in the Old Testa
ment phraseology. We read in the earlier literature of
Yahweh's smelling the offering or its sweet savor,72
and in the later legal literature "sweet savor" is a term
frequently applied to the sacrifices.73 "Bread of God"
is also a common expression.74 The material implications
of these terms were no doubt transcended at an early date
in Israel,75 but the idea that sacrifices were gifts to God
still persisted.76 As material substances sacrifices in P
did not, of course, have any value for Yahweh, but as

70 Exod. 21. 30; 1 Sam. 3. 14.
71 2 Sam. 24. 17, 25.
72 Gen. 8. 21, J ; 1 Sam. 26. 19.
78 Exod. 29. 18, 41 ; Lev. 1. 9, 13, 17; Num. 15. 7, 14; Ezek. 20. 28.
74 Lev. 21. 6, 8, 17, 21 ; 22. 25 ; Ezek. 44. 7.
"Compare Psa. 50. 13.
78 Lev. 4. 23, 28; 5. 11. 309

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
gifts representative of the offender's attitude of mind and
heart they were pleasing to him and hence significant
factors in securing the remission of sins.
In early Israel there was no special atoning ritual. Any
ordinary sacrifice might serve the purpose of making
atonement. In the later legal literature, however, from
the time of Ezekiel on, there appear two special propitia
tory sacrifices, the sjn=off.ering (chattath) and trespass-
offering (asham). Atoning value was not, however,
confined to these two sacrifices. The burnt-offering,
peace-offering, and other oblations might serve the same
end.77 Indeed, "the great expiation for the whole people
was the scapegoat; not any form of sacrifice." 78 In con
nection with the sin-offering and trespass-offering it
should be noted that they were both quite limited in their
range, the latter even more so than the former. They
served as a means of atonement simply for "unwitting
sins." Sins "with a high hand" were unpardonable.
"The soul that doeth aught with a high hand, whether he
be home-born or a sojourner, the same blasphemeth Je
hovah ; and that soul shall be cut off from among his peo
ple. Because he hath despised the word of Jehovah, and
hath broken his commandment, that soul shall utterly be
cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him."79 "Unwitting
sins" seem, however, to have been interpreted broadly.
Among the sins for which atonement might be made were
such offenses as perjury, robbery, oppression, betrayal of
trust, immoral relations with another man's bondmaid,
and murmurings against the representatives of Yah-
77 Lev. i. 4; 16. 24; Ezek. 45. 15, 17.
78 G. F. Moore in Encyclopedia Biblica, vol. iv, col. 4219.
79 Num. 15. 30-3I. 310

FORGIVENESS AND ATONEMENT
weh.80 There are also one or two passages which seem
to provide for the remission of all sins.81 These appar
ently conflicting regulations may perhaps have come from
different hands and different times. The prevailing view
in the Old Testament is that only sins of inadvertence
may be forgiven. The idea that certain sins are un
pardonable no doubt came from an earlier period,82 but
the first explicit statement of it is found in P. The dis
tinction between "unwitting" sins and sins "with a high
hand" looks like an attempt to combine the moral serious
ness of the prophets with the popular hankering after
sacrifices. If sacrificial atonement availed only for un
witting sins, a place was manifestly left for the stern
attitude of the prophets toward distinctly moral offenses.
What the prophets condemned was sins "with a high
hand," and toward them the later priests took an equally
uncompromising attitude. Sacrifices had a certain value,
but theoretically they offered no ground for the remission
of sins committed in defiance of the divine will.
In P not only did "unwitting" sins call for atonement,
but also certain natural processes or conditions of both
things and persons that were regarded as unclean. The
altar, for instance, needed to be purged by atoning sacri
fices.88 So also did a woman after childbirth,84 a leper
healed of his disease,85 and a person defiled by contact
with the dead.86 In these instances the sin-offerings and
trespass-offerings were manifestly simply purifying

"Lev. 5. i; 6. 1-7; 19. 2of. ; Num. 16. 4iff.
61 Num. 5. 6ff. ; Lev. 16. 21 f.
32 1 Sam. 3. 14 ; Isa. 22. 14.
S3 Exod. 29. 36f. ; Ezek. 43. 19-27.
84 Lev. 12. 6-8.
83 Lev. 14.
38 Num. 6. 9.12.
3H

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
agencies. They had nothing to do with the remission of
sin. Their purpose was merely to render unclean things
and persons clean.
But were the atoning sacrifices anything more than
cleansing agencies or propitiatory gifts to God? The
traditional view is that they were also and chiefly cases
of penal substitution. The guilt of the sinner was trans
ferred to the sacrificial animal, and the death of the ani
mal was accepted as a substitute for that of the sinner.87
In support of this view special stress is laid on the ritual
of the Day of the Atonement. Here the sins of Israel
are represented as placed on the head of the scapegoat
who carries them away into the wilderness.88 But the
scapegoat was not sacrificed, nor was its blood sprinkled
on the altar. All that we have here is an analogous rite,
from which it might be inferred that the guilt of the
people was thought of as transferred to the sacrificial
animal (note verses 26 and 28). That this was actu
ally the case, it is further argued, is evidenced by the
rule which required the offerer89 or the elders of the con
gregation90 or the priests91 to lay their hands upon the
sacrificial victim. This rite, it is thought, was a sym
bolic representation of the transfer of the offerer's guilt
to the victim. But this interpretation of the rite is not
in harmony with the other Old Testament references to
it. The general idea underlying the imposition of hands

87 For a defense of this view in modified form, see the article by
W. P. Paterson on "Sacrifice," in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible.
88 Lev. 16. 20-22.
39 Lev. 3. 2, 8, 13 ; 4- 4-
90 Lev. 4. 15.
91 Lev. 8. 14. 312

FORGIVENESS AND ATONEMENT
was that of benediction or dedication.92 If anything was i
transferred, it was something good, not bad. Then, too,
one would naturally expect that if the offender's sin had
been transferred to the victim, the latter's flesh would be
regarded as unclean; but instead we read that it was
"most holy" and was eaten by the priest.93
Again, it is difficult to see how fine flour could serve as
a sin-offering,94 if vicarious death was the essential thing
in atonement. It is also not easy on this theory to under
stand why the sin-offerings should be limited in their
efficacy to sins of inadvertence. If we have the substitu
tion of one life for another, we would naturally expect
that capital offenses as well as others might be expiated.
Further, it may be added that the emphasis in the ritual
was not on the death of the victim, but on the sprinkling
of the blood on the altar. "The life," we read, "of the
flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon
the altar to make atonement for your souls : for it is the
blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life." 95
This is the nearest approach to a rationale of atonement
in the Old Testament. It is the blood that is the effi
cacious element in sacrifice, and it is efficacious because
it is the seat of life. But why the life-containing blood
should atone is not explained. Its efficacy may have been
regarded as due simply to arbitrary divine appointment,
as Riehm contended. More probably, however, other
and deeper ideas underlay the belief. A certain mystical
sanctity was in ancient times attributed to the blood, and
this in the thought of the day gave to it a purifying influ-

92 Gen. 48. 14 ; Num. 8. 10 ; 27. 18, 23 ; Deut. 34. 9.
93 Lev. 6. 24f. ; 7. 6.
94 Lev. 5. 11-13.
85 Lev. 17. 11. 313

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
ence and made it a fitting symbol of the sinner's sorrow
and desire for pardon. In any case, there is no suggestion
that the life of the victim was looked upon as a substitute
for that of the sinner.
At the same time it cannot be denied that the idea of
substitution had a place in Hebrew thought. The grand
sons of Saul were required to pay with their lives the pen
alty that ought to have fallen on Saul himself.96 Isaac
was saved from being offered up as a burnt-offering by
the substitution of a ram.97 The first-born in early Israel
was redeemed by some sort of gift or offering, the nature
of which is not stated;98 and in later times the Levites
were regarded as a gift to Yahweh in substitution for the
first-born in Israel.99 These, however, were none of them
cases of penal substitution. The death of Saul's grand
sons was in a sense vicarious, but not in the sense that it
saved his life. And in the other instances there is no
thought of the transference of guilt or the suffering of
the innocent on behalf of the wicked.
In Deut. 21. 1-9 we do, however, have a case where an
animal was apparently slain as a substitute for an un
known murderer. The slaughter in this instance was not
a sacrifice according to the Deuteronomic legislators, but
originally it was probably so regarded. And if the idea
of substitutionary sacrifice applied in one case, it may
very well have applied in others ; so that it would be un
warranted to say that the idea of penal substitution was
wholly foreign to the Old Testament idea of sacrifice.
But far more important than this instance is that of the

08 2 Sam. 21. 1-11.
97 Gen. 22. 1-14, E,

98 Exod. 34- 20, J.
"Exod. 13. 2; Num. 3- ^i., 41 ; 8. 16-18; 18. 15; all P.
3H

FORGIVENESS AND ATONEMENT
Suffering Servant.100 Here we have true atonement, vi
carious and redemptive suffering voluntarily borne, the
only instance of the kind in the Old Testament. It was
this conception far more than the temple sacrifices that
influenced the thought of Jesus and gave vital content to
the early Christian teaching relative to his death. The
sin whose forgiveness was effected by sacrificial atone
ment was not sin in the Christian sense of the term. It
was largely submoral or nonmoral. The sin, however,
for which atonement was made by the Suffering Servant
and Jesus, was something inward, a state of the soul. It
was a spiritual condition, which could be forgiven only
by being removed. The atonement made for it was conse
quently necessarily a redemptive as well as a vicarious act,
an act'making the unrighteous righteous.
1Mlia:'53-""';1')

315

CHAPTER XIV
NATIONALISM AND INDIVIDUALISM
"There are," says Professor Flint, "two principles in
the world — the principle of authority and the principle of
liberty, the principle of society and the principle of indi
vidualism." x These two principles have received vary
ing emphasis at different times and among different peo
ples. A century and a half ago the dominant note of
European civilization was individualism, and in harmony
therewith went the theory that organized human life was
the outcome of a social contract freely entered into by
originally independent individuals. The first state of
man, the so-called state of nature, was one of absolute
individual freedom. Society was a later artificial pro
duct; it was second and not first. But during the past
half century this judgment has been to a large extent re
versed. To-day the social note is dominant. Society is
first, not second. The individual is the product of society.
"Society," it is said, "is the concrete reality, of which the
individual is a mere abstraction." And with this general
view the theory of origins has in large measure been made
to conform. It is now commonly agreed that the state
of nature as conceived by the eighteenth-Century thinkers
is a fiction. Human life was always a community life.
And the farther we go back, the more marked does the
solidarity of the family, clan, and other social groups
become. The individual tends to lose himself in larger
wholes. Society, not the individual, becomes the object
of primary concern.
1 Philosophy of History, p. 34. 316

NATIONALISM AND INDIVIDUALISM
That this new conception of primitive human life
should be applied to the interpretation of the Old Testa
ment was inevitable. The small place accorded the indi-l
vidual in the Hebrew Scriptures had always been a sourcef
of embarrassment to apologists. Efforts had been made
by typologists and allegorists to obscure or explain away
the fact, but without success. It was, then, only natural
that modern scholars should see in the subordinate place
assigned the individual in the Old Testament simply an
illustration of the common ancient conception of social
solidarity. And since it is now a generally recognized
law of human history that with the advancement of civil
ization the individual emerges into greater prominence, it
was inevitable that the attempt should be made to trace
in the Old Testament the gradual development of individ
ualism. Vatke,2 in 1835, first pointed out the significance
of Jeremiah and Ezekiel for this development. Duhm,3
in 1875, worked out the problem in its relation to the
teaching of the prophets generally. And W. Robertson
Smith,4 in 1889, powerfully reenforced the conclusions of
Duhm and other Old Testament critics by his apparently
well-established theory of the essentially communal char
acter of all primitive religion, especially the Semitic.
The resulting theory concerning nationalism and indi
vidualism in the Old Testament may be briefly outlined
in two or three paragraphs. Down to the time of Jere
miah, Ezekiel, and the exile the nation as distinguished
alike from other peoples and from individual Israelites
was the subject or unit of religion. But the relation of
the nation to Yahweh was differently conceived by the lit-
2 Die Religion des Alten Testamentes, pp. 5i7f., 637L
3 Die Theologie der Propheten, see pp. 95, 2i6f.
4 The Religion of the Semites. 317

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
erary prophets, on the one hand, and their preliterary pre
decessors and the people in general, on the other. The
preliterary prophets and their contemporaries looked upon
Yahweh as bound to Israel by a natural or physical bond,
a bond that could not be broken. The literary prophets,
on the other hand, regarded the union between Yahweh
and his people as ethically conditioned, and, therefore, as
capable, of being dissolved.
The individual during the preexilic period stood in no
direct relation to Yahweh, except in so far as he was a
representative of the nation. In the individual as such
' Yahweh had no interest. "Over him," as Wellhausen
says, "the wheel of destiny remorselessly rolled; his part
was resignation and not hope." 5 In Isaiah's doctrine of
the remnant we have, it is true, the beginning of a new
religious unit. But not until we come to Jeremiah do we
find the clear idea of a direct personal relationship to God.
Here the prophet's personality takes the place of the na
tion. The nation has been virtually cast off, and the
prophet alone now stands in a direct relation to Yahweh.
"The true Israel was narrowed to himself." s This spe
cial relation of Yahweh to a single individual was then
universalized by Ezekiel after the fall of the nation, and
applied to individuals generally. "All souls," Yahweh
now says, "are mine." 7
Thus originated religious individualism. In the heart
of Jeremiah was first opened the fountain of true personal
piety, and from it flowed the stream of religious lyric
that made its way down through the postexilic period

8 History of Israel, p. 469.
8 Wellhausen, History of Israel, p. 4. See also Smend, Alt-
testamentliche Religionsgeschichte, pp. 263L
7 Ezek. 18. 4.

3i8

NATIONALISM AND INDIVIDUALISM
and issued in the book of Psalms. \In Ezekiel we have
expressed for the first time the strict doctrine of indi
vidual- responsibility.) This formed the basis of much
of the later Wisdom Literature, and gave rise to the
problem of suffering which received its classic expres
sion in the book of Job. Jeremiah and Ezekiel thus
marked the dividing line between nationalism and indi
vidualism. In them the old order came to an end and the
new order began. Before the exile Israel was a nation,
after the exile a church, a congregation of devout indi
viduals. Traces of the earlier nationalism, to be sure,
lingered after the exile, but the individual was by this
time firmly established as the true subject or unit of reli
gion. Such in brief is the view held by a large and influential
group of scholars. Wellhausen, Stade, Duhm, Marti,
Smend in his earlier utterances on the subject, W. Robert
son Smith, G. Buchanan Gray, R. H. Charles, and many
others have adopted it. Indeed, it has become so common
and is so unquestioningly accepted by many that it might
almost be called a dogma of modern criticism. And that
it contains a large element of truth is not to be denied.
But in some important regards the theory is certainly
wrong, and at other points it is lacking in clearness and
definiteness. The topic is, furthermore, one of such importance that
a careful critical investigation of it is necessary, if one is
to have a correct conception of the religious life of the
Israelites both before and after the exile.
The Nation as the Unit of Religion
It is not always clear what scholars mean by the nation
when they speak of it as the unit or subject of religion.
319

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
Is it to be understood in a political or a racial sense ? The
former seems to be the prevailing view. W. Robertson
Smith, for instance, speaks of the "whole nation in its
national organization ... as the religious unit." 8
And the stress placed on the exile as the dividing line be
tween nationalism and individualism naturally suggests
that it is the nation in a political sense that is primarily
thought of. W. H. Bennett, for instance, says that "the
suspension of national life left only individuals to be
dealt with." 9 Furthermore, it might be argued that only
a nation politically organized would be in a position to
exercise in an effective way a restraining influence on the
individual. Mere racial or ecclesiastical unity might per
haps furnish a sufficient basis for nationalism as opposed
to universalism, but for nationalism as opposed to individ
ualism political unity would be necessary. Only a power
ful social group such as the independent state would be
able to effect such a complete subordination of the indi
vidual as is implied in religious nationalism.
But if it is the nation as a political entity that was the
subject of Old Testament religion, both the establishment
and the fall of the monarchy must have profoundly af
fected the religious consciousness of the Israelites. And
of this we have no evidence, at least so far as the partic
ular point under consideration is concerned. Clan con
sciousness may have been stronger in the period of the
Judges,10 and individual self-consciousness in the post
exilic period, but in both periods Yahweh was thought of
as standing in a unique relation to the entire people. No
important difference on this point is observable between
8 The Prophets of Israel, p. 20.
9 The Post-Exilic Prophets, p. 243.
10 See Wallis, Sociological Study of the Bible, p. 47.\
320

NATIONALISM AND INDIVIDUALISM
the literature of these two periods, on the one hand, and
that of the monarchy on the other. Throughout the
whole of Israel's history it was the entire nation that was
thought of as standing in covenant relation with God. It
must, then, have been the racial unity of the people rather
than their political organization that was uppermost in
the minds of the, Old Testament writers when they spoke
of the bond of union between Yahweh and Israel. No
doubt the term "Israel" carried a different connotation at
different times and with different authors. With some
the political factor was more prominent than with others,
but taking the Old Testament as a whole the basal ele
ment in the term was certainly that of race or kinship.11
And if so, the distinction between preexilic and postexilic
Israel need not have been so great as is commonly sup
posed. We may speak of the one as a nation and the
other as a church, we may call the one "secular" and the
other "ecclesiastical," but the consciousness of religious
solidarity was essentially the same in both. As proof of
this we need only compare the prophecies, legal codes,
and histories of the exilic and postexilic period with those
of the preexilic age. In both groups of writings it will be
found that we have practically the same conception of
Israel and its relation to Yahweh.12
Another point that calls for consideration in this con
nection is the relation of the solidarity of the nation to
11 "Religion and race," says Dr. K. Kohler in his Jewish Theology
(pp. 6-7), "form an inseparable whole in Judaism. . . . The racial
consciousness formed, and still forms, the basis of the religious
community.'' 12 For a convincing and almost exhaustive array of evidence on
this point see "Das Subjekt der altisraelitischen Religion," by E.
Sellin, in Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift for 1893, pp. 447-465.
321

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
that of the family, clan, and other smaller groups. Some
scholars fail to distinguish clearly between these different
kinds of solidarity. R. H. Charles, for instance, says that
in early Israel "the individual was not the religious unit,
but the family or tribe," and then a little later declares
that "the nation was the religious unit." 13 But mani
festly the nation was not identical with the family or tribe.
National solidarity is clearly quite distinct from a merely
tribal or family solidarity. Yet, as a matter of fact, the
family as well as the nation is often treated as a moral
unit in the Old Testament. Innocent relatives were pun
ished along with the guilty persons and even instead of
them. This was true of the divine procedure as well as of
the human. The most conspicuous instances are perhaps
those connected with the destruction of Korah, Dathan,
and Abiram,14 the punishment of Achan,15 the avenging
of Saul's crime against the Gibeonites,16 and the judicial
murder of Naboth.17 But these were by no means excep
tions. They illustrate the common practice. This is evi
dent not only from the many other similar instances in the
Old Testament,18 but also from the generally accepted
law of blood revenge. This law not only required the
Israelite to avenge the blood of a relative, but permitted
him to execute that vengeance on a relative of the guilty
person as well as on the guilty one himself. And in the

13 Eschatology, Hebrew, Jewish and Christian, pp. 58, 60.
14 Num. 16. 27ff. JEP.
"Josh. 7. 16-26.
10 2 Sam. 21. 1-9.
17 1 Kings 21. 13 and 2 Kings 9. 26.
18 See 2 Sam. 3. 29; 1 Kings 2. 33; 14. 10; 16. 3; 21. 2if. ; 1 Sam.
2. 31 ; Deut. 22. 8; Lev. 20. 5; 2 Sam. 14. 9; Neh. 1. 6; Amos 7. 17;
Jer. 18. 21 ; 20. 6; Gen. 20. 7, 17; 1 Sam. 22. 1-4; 25. 22; 2 Sam. 12.
10, 13; 1 Kings 11. uff. ; 21. 29L ; Isa. 14. 21.
322

NATIONALISM AND INDIVIDUALISM
Decalogue19 it is declared that Yahweh visits the iniquity
of the fathers upon the children even to the third and
fourth generation. Moreover this custom of treating
the family as a moral unit was not confined to the earlier
periods of Israel's history. The very latest books of the
Old Testament contain instances of it.20 It should also
be added that the solidarity of the family brought not
only suffering upon one's relatives, but also blessing.
They shared in the consequences of one's good deeds as
well as one's evil deeds. Yahweh keeps covenant and lov
ing-kindness with them that love him and keep his com
mandments to a thousand generations.21 And so it is
often recorded that because of the righteousness of some
good man, such as Noah,22 Caleb,23 Obed-Edom,24 or
David,25 his family or a descendant was granted some
special favor.
Such facts as these naturally raise the question as to
the relation of the solidarity of the family to that of the
nation. One might regard the latter as an extension of the
former. And this was a common idea in antiquity. But
we now know that nations do not arise from the growth
of a single family. They are the result of the union of
different tribes or peoples. And in the case of Israel we
have a well-established tradition that the different Hebrew
tribes were welded into national unity by the work of
Moses. This unity did not become political till the time
of Saul and David. But it was nevertheless from the

10 Exod. 20. 5.
20 Dan. 6. 24; Esth. 9. 131.
21 Deut. 7. 9 ; Exod. 20. 6.
22 r-  *. ,

10 Exod. 20. 5
0 Dan. 6. 2
1 Deut. 7. 1
2 Gen. 7. 1.
23 Deut. 1. 36.
24 2 Sam. 6. nf.
28 1 Kings 11. 11 ; 2 Chron. 21. 7.
323

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
outset a true national unity, a unity founded on race
and religion. Yahweh was recognized as the national
God. He stood in a direct relation to the people as a
whole. As over against him they formed a unity. His
covenant was a covenant with them in their corporate
capacity. In a word, he was God of the nation rather
than of the individual tribes or families.
The suggestion has consequently been made that the
solidarity of the family had originally no connection with
Yahwism. It was simply a survival from pre-Yahwistic
times. It had its source in the family cult, especially the
cult of the dead.26 The numen or numina originally wor
shiped in the family were gradually displaced by the na
tional religion, but, after they had vanished, the family
still persisted as a religious unit.27 In this view there is
probably some truth. But it hardly seems necessary to as
sume that the relation of Yahweh to the nation was so
exclusive as to be naturally and logically inconsistent with
the existence of other minor moral and religious units.
Granting the principle of solidarity, it would seem only
natural that it should be applied to other social groups as
well as the nation. Take, for instance, the village or city.
In several instances in the Old Testament the inhabitants
of a city are treated as a moral unit. There is the case of
Sodom and Gomorrah,28 and that of the city of Nob.29
Then in Deut. 13. 12-16 we have a regulation providing
for the destruction of all the inhabitants of any city in
which idolatry has been practiced, regardless of the fact

28 See Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. i, p. 507, and Lohr,
Sozialismus und Individualismus im alten Testament, pp. 9-1 1.
27 1 Sam. 20. 6.
28 Gen. 18-ig, J.
29 1 Sam. 22. 19. 324

NATIONALISM AND INDIVIDUALISM
that some in all probability would be innocent. In such
cases no real light is thrown on the fact by ascribing it to
a non-Yahwistic or pre-Yahwistic source. What we have
is merely an application of the principle of solidarity ana
logous to that in the case of the nation. Between the
solidaric city or family, on the one hand, and the solidaric
nation, on the other, there was no inconsistency. Neither
was in an exclusive sense the subject or unit of religion.
Another point that needs to be noted is the exact sense
in which the Hebrews thought of the nation as a religious
unit. The general notion of solidarity as applied to the
nation is clear enough. Various aspects of it appear in
the Old Testament. The people are represented as so
bound up with their own past that the deeds of the fathers
had a moral significance for them. They suffered because
of the sins of the fathers,30 and because of the righteous
ness of the patriarchs were blessed.31 The nation is also
represented as sustaining such an organic relation to
every member and part of it that the acts of the individ
ual or any group of individuals had a bearing on the for
tunes and the moral status of the people as a whole. It
is naturally the king who is most frequently spoken of as-
standing in this solidaric relation to the nation.32 The
people were punished because of the sins of Manasseh and
Ahaz,33 and, on the other hand, are said to have been de
livered from the Assyrian foe for David's sake.34 But
it was not only the king who stood in this relation of
30 2 Chron. 34. 21 ; 29. 6-8 ; Dan. 9. 16 ; compare Lev. 26. 39 ; Gen.
49. 3ff.
31 Gen. 26. 5, 24, J ; Lev. 26. 42, 45 ; compare Exod. 32. 13.
32 2 Sam. 3. 28 ; Gen. 20. 9, E.
83 2 Kings 21. 10-13 ; 23. 26; Jer. 15. 4; 2 Chron. 28. 19.
"2 Kings 19. 34; 20. 6. 325

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
moral solidarity with the people. Individuals generally
occupied the same relation. The sin of Achan brought
defeat upon the army of Israel,35 and as the reverse of
this Isaiah represents himself as involved in the guilt
of the nation.36 Individuals suffered because of the sins
of the people as a whole. And so also the sins of a par
ticular class or group of men brought guilt upon the
entire nation.37 This appears to have been the standpoint
of the earlier prophets; and it may be, as J. M. Powis
Smith says, that this fact accounts to some extent for the
intensity and passion of their denunciation of the
wicked. They believed that the wicked were not only
bringing destruction upon themselves but upon the whole
people, good as well as bad. It would seem, then, as
though the ancient Israelites looked upon the nation as a
self-identical moral personality, embracing in its unity
not only all existing members but also past generations.
The question, however, arises as to whether the idea of
national solidarity actually existed in such a definite form
as this in the minds of the Hebrews, whether it was not
with them rather a vague feeling, than a clear concept. It
might even be questioned whether we have not here simply
a personification rather than a personalisation of the
nation. But the above facts and references seem clearly
to imply that the solidarity of the nation was not with
the Hebrews a mere figure of speech. There was a real
sense in which they thought of the nation as a unit. The
tendency of the Semitic mind to ascribe objective reality
to collective terms and general conceptions, naturally led
to this view. But that the Hebrews had reflected on the

33 Josh. 7. 2-21 ; compare Gen. 26. 10.
38 Isa. 6. 5.
37Ezra 10. 10 ; Josh. 22. 18. 326

NATIONALISM AND INDIVIDUALISM
subject at such length that they had come to think of the
nation as a "corporate personality," 38 is quite improb
able. Their ideas concerning the unity of the state must
at the best have been vague, and only in a very general
way can they have thought of its component parts, past
and present, as morally interrelated. Statements were
made that may seem to us to imply a highly developed
conception of the nation as a moral unit and an organic
whole, but it is not to be supposed that the ancient Hebrew
necessarily drew from these statements the same conclu
sion that we to-day would.
This leads us to ask how the conception of the nation
as the subject of religion related itself to the practical
life, the actual consciousness of the individual Israelite. .
It meant, of course, that his relation to Yahweh was con- f
ditioned by the fact that he was an Israelite. But how
did the nationalistic as opposed to the individualistic
standpoint affect his life? Did it make him more inter
ested than the modern man in public affairs ? Did it give
him a higher estimate of the value of society or the na
tion ? Did it cause him to be more patriotic and less self-
regarding ? Or was his religious nationalism more or less
unconscious ? Was it to a considerable extent a mechan
ical fact rather than a deliberate devotion to the common
good? In answering this question it will be well to begin with
a consideration of the current view of primitive life in
general. We have already seen that according to this view
the earliest social groups were characterized by a marked
solidarity. The individual was almost wholly subordi-
38 See H. Wheeler Robinson's Christian Doctrine of Man, pp. 8, \
27ff. 327

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
nated to the family or tribe. And from this the conclusion
has been drawn that men's original impulses were distinc
tively and predominantly social. They were directed
toward the common good, the welfare of the group. The
individual cared little for himself. His life was very
largely absorbed in that of the clan. But this conclusion
rests upon a manifest error. It assumes that primitive
man interpreted the facts of his own life in the same way
that we to-day would with our developed self-conscious
ness. This is in itself inherently improbable, and is really
a case of what has been called the psychological or socio
logical fallacy. Professor Warner Fite has stated the
case so clearly that I quote somewhat at length from
him: "The primitive clan exhibits, let us say, a distinct
solidarity, a clear submission of the individual will to the
authority of the group. For us that would mean a con
scious recognition of the paramount claims of the com
mon good. But it need not mean this for primitive man,
any more than the movements of the heavenly bodies
mean for him that the earth revolves upon its axis. . . .
The primitive life is a relatively unconscious life. The
primitive condition of mind is not so much a clear percep
tion of things as a vaguely mystical feeling. The prim
itive society is thus less a conscious relationship than a
mechanical fact. No high sense of the value of social
unity binds men together. They just stick together; and,
relatively speaking, in much the same way as the cattle or
the parts of a machine, because of the mechanical struc
ture of the individuals and their space and time relations.
The primitive individual has no very distinct conscious
ness of himself, and just as indistinct a consciousness of
the presence and characteristics of his neighbor. He
obeys the group-authority — not, however, from a recogni-
328

NATIONALISM AND INDIVIDUALISM
tion of value, but as the result of inherited instinct and
habit. . . . For only as the individual has a meaning
of his own can he attribute any meaning to the social
order." 39
The bearing of this on Israelitic nationalism is evident.
Much of what is called religious nationalism in the history
of the Hebrews was not self-conscious. It was simply a '
blind acquiescence in established custom or an equally
blind patriotism. The people no doubt believed that the
violation of the divine will as expressed in religious rite
and social usage might bring evil upon the community,
and this naturally served as an inducement to obedience.
But in this no clear consciousness of the superior claims
of the community or nation as such was necessarily in
volved. And so also with the patriotism of the Hebrews.
This was stimulated by their frequent wars, and expressed
itself in the ardent expectation of a glorious future for
the nation. But in it all there was probably very little in
the way of clear perception of the meaning and value of
the state. As a means of defense against a foreign foe
its function was no doubt generally understood and appre
ciated, but beyond this there was no clear understanding
of its place in human life and very little of what could
be called rational and moral devotion to it. Even to-day,
as Professor Bowne says, "society is held together less
by rational appreciation and moral devotion than by
something analogous to the herding instinct of cattle.
... A large part of patriotism and national feeling is
only one phase of this instinct, complicated by our native
pugnacity." 40 And this must have been much more the
case among the ancient Hebrews, who had no regular
"Individualism, pp. 166-167.
40 Principles of Ethics, pp. 127L 329

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
system of education, and who in spite of their limited
territory had far less adequate means than we of gather
ing and disseminating news.
It is, consequently, a mistake to attribute to the early
Israelites a paramount interest in national affairs and a
superior devotion to the common good. Their national
ism was largely of the instinctive or mechanical type.
I Not until we come to literary prophecy do we have a
really serious effort to bring Israelitic nationalism to self-
consciousness. Here the blind patriotism of the past and
a merely mechanical conformity to rites and customs
are set aside as worthless and misleading. The nation
has a mission to perform, but it is a moral mission; and
this mission can be performed only by resolute devotion
to the will of God and the common good as expressed
especially in the moral law. To bring this truth home to
the minds and consciences of the people was the chief task
of the eighth-century prophets. And the work they be
gan was in its essential nature carried on by the Deuter
onomists, and the exilic and postexilic prophets and law
givers. What we have, therefore, in the history of Israel
is not a gradual decline of nationalism, but an increasing
consciousness of it. The nation instead of losing its reli
gious value augments it. The clearest and noblest expres
sions of the religious function of the nation come from
the postexilic period, and it is here also that we must look
for the truest and the most intense devotion to the com
mon good.
Thus far our discussion has brought us to several con
clusions. We have seen that the nation with which Yah
weh's covenant was made was not construed by the He
brews in such an exclusively or predominantly political
sense that the exile necessarily led to a sudden transition
330

NATIONALISM AND INDIVIDUALISM
to individualism. We have also seen that the conception
of the nation as a religious unit was not inconsistent with
the existence of other minor religious units, such as the
family, clan, or city. It has, furthermore, been shown
that the solidarity of the nation was by no means clearly
conceived by the early Israelites; that, on the contrary,
it was largely mechanical in character, and that the con
sciousness of national solidarity instead of gradually de
clining continued to grow in clearness of conception and
depth of devotion throughout most of the Old Testament
period. The Individual as a Religious Unit
We now pass to a consideration of the place of the
individual in the Old Testament, and here we begin with
preexilic Israel. As previously stated, it is a common
theory that "down to the sixth century no individual
retribution had been looked for ; . . . for Yahweh was
concerned in the well-being of the nation as a whole, and
not with that of its individual members. . . . Before
the exile . . . the individual as such had no worth
and could not approach God except through priest or
prophet."41 The fate of the individual was involved in
that of the nation or the particular group to which he
belonged. He had no independent significance What
Tennyson said of nature,
"So careful of the type she seems,
So careless of the single life,"
might be applied to Yahweh's relation to Israel. He
was deeply interested in the nation, but cared little for the
individual. And at first sight, viewing the preexilic lit—
41 R. N. Charles, Religious Development Between the Old and the
- New Testaments, pp. 105, 67. 331

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
erature in the large, it will have to be admitted that some
thing can be said for this view. The preexilic literature,
made up chiefly of prophecies, legal codes, and historical
narratives, deals very largely with the nation, its origin,
history, and destiny. Individuals, to be sure, figure
prominently in the historical narratives, but they are
chiefly such men as the patriarchs, Judges, kings, and
prophets, whose life and work had a national significance.
The individual as such receives very little attention. On
the other hand, the Psalms and Wisdom Literature, in
which the needs and problems of the individual find their
chief expression, belong for the most part, if not exclu
sively, to the postexilic period. Hence the inference is
natural, that nationalism was the characteristic of pre
exilic Israel, and individualism the characteristic of Israel
after the exile.
But a more careful and detailed study of the facts in
volved soon makes it evident that this view is quite unten
able. The preliminary presupposition in its favor, aris
ing from a superficial survey of the history of Old Testa
ment literature, largely vanishes when one takes into
account two facts. The first has already been alluded to.
It is that the prophetic, priestly, and historical literature
of the postexilic period is ort the whole virtually as na
tionalistic as is the corresponding literature of the pre
exilic period. It belongs to the very nature of these types
of literature that they should deal chiefly with the nation.
History, prophecy, and law, as then understood, were
distinctly national. And the fact that they were practi
cally as much so in the period after the exile as in that
before, makes it perfectly clear that no sweeping conclu
sion concerning the exclusively nationalistic character of
preexilic religion can justly be drawn from the fact that
332

NATIONALISM AND INDIVIDUALISM
the literature of this period was predominantly national.
In the next place, such individualistic literature as the
Psalms and Wisdom Books must have existed to some
extent before the exile. Most of what has come down
to us may date from a subsequent period. But that this
type of literature originated in the exile or subsequently
is a wholly unwarranted assumption. The only con
clusion justified by the facts is that it was cultivated more
extensively after than before the exile.
But in order to come to a definite conclusion concerning
the question at issue, it will be necessary to examine some
what carefully the teaching of those portions of the Old
Testament which are commonly admitted to be preexilic
or rather pre-Jeremianic. That there should be here some
recognition of the rights and worth of the individual is
a priori probable. We have already seen that other reli
gious units besides the nation were recognized in ancient
Israel, such as the family, clan, and city. If these were
not excluded by the existing nationalism, there is cer
tainly no reason why the individual should not at the same
time have been recognized as a moral or religious unit.
On the contrary, such recognition is inherently probable.
For there is no necessary contradiction between the nation
or society, on the one hand, and the individual, on the
other. The primitive subordination of the individual to
the group was, as we have seen, largely mechanical. It
was akin to the herding instinct of cattle. There was no
conscious recognition of the value of the group any more
than there was of that of the individual. Man, to begin
with, was neither social nor self-regarding. He devel
oped into both, and both, in so far as they were facts of
consciousness, tended to support each other. The individ
ual found his value in society, and society found the
333

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
ground of its value in the individual. As the individual
came to distinguish himself from the group in which he
was merged, he entered at the same time into a recogni
tion of the place and value of the group. Thus indi
vidual self-consciousness and social self -consciousness
kept pace one with the other. Whatever recognition there
was of the high value of the group, whether that of the
family, tribe, or nation, necessarily reacted upon the con
sciousness of the individual, and tended to create in him a
new sense of worth. And so the achievements of the in
dividual and the recognition of his value reacted in a sim
ilar way upon the consciousness of the group, in so far as
the group furnished for the individual a worthy field of
activity. One group might yield in importance to an
other, the tribe to the nation, and the nation to society in
general, but, in so far as the group concerned formed an
adequate field for the thought and labor of the individual,
there was no reason why the consciousness of the group
and that of the individual should in any sense be mutually
exclusive. And so, as we turn to the history of Israel, we
will naturally expect to find the development of national
ism and individualism going hand in hand.
The religion of Israel began in a great act of national
deliverance, and this fact gave to it from the outset a dis
tinctly national cast. But Hebrew nationalism was at
first only imperfectly apprehended, and in any case stood
in no conflict with the claims of the individual. What
the individual had to contend against in that early day
was the enslaving tie which bound him to the clan or tribe.
And this tie was not strengthened, but weakened by the
new nationalism. The national idea tended to break up
the old tribal distinctions, customs, and religious rites;
and, in so far as it did this, it manifestly contributed to
334

NATIONALISM AND INDIVIDUALISM
the development of individual independence, instead of
the reverse. Some recognition of the individual is, there
fore, to be expected even in the earliest literature of the
Hebrews, and certainly in the pre-Jeremianic literature
taken as a whole.
Turning now to this early literature and inquiring more
specifically into the status of the individual as reflected in
it, we first note a number of instances in which the law
of solidarity did not hold in the execution of punishment.
There are the cases of Noah,42 Lot,43 and Caleb.44 There
is the direct statement that, when the murderers of Joash
were punished, their children were not put to death with
them;45 and with this may be connected the words of
David at the time when a pestilence was sweeping over
Israel as a punishment for the taking of a census: "Lo,
I have sinned, and I have done perversely ; but these sheep,
what have they done? Let thy hand, I pray thee, be
against me and against my father's house." 46 There is
also the significant fact that the oldest body of laws in the
Old Testament, the Code of the Covenant,47 imposes pen
alties only upon the offenders themselves. The murderer,
the idolater, the sorceress, and others were to be put to
death, but nothing is said about the punishment of their
families. Furthermore, there is the doctrine of the rem
nant which seems to have antedated literary prophecy.
In the time of Elijah there were the seven thousand that

42 Gen. 7. I, 22f., J.
43 Gen. 19, J.
41 Num. 14. 24, E.
48 2 Kings 14. 5-6.
40 2 Sam. 24. 17.
47 Exod. 21-23. 335

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
had not bowed the knee to Baal, who were to escape the
general doom.48 And so in Amos49 and Isaiah,50 espe
cially the latter, there are references to a remnant that is
to be saved. It may seem strange that greater promi
nence is not given to this thought by the eighth-century
prophets. But it should be borne in mind that the mis
sion of these men was to the nation, not the individual,
and that in the face of grave national peril the greater
danger to the state inevitably, even in a period of de
veloped individualism, tends to turn attention away from
the individual. Still the mere existence of the idea of a
remnant makes it clear that in the thought of these
prophets the nation was not, from the religious point of
view, an "undivided whole."
In so far as the individual did not share in the fate of
the nation or the group to which he belonged, it was im
plied that a distinct law of retribution applied to him.
And that this was a common idea in early Israel is fully
attested. Yahweh acts as judge in the relation of indi
vidual men to each other, and rewards and punishes them
according to their deeds. Not only does this underlie the
legal procedure of early times,51 it is expressed and illus
trated again and again in the early historical narratives.
In the trouble that arose between Abraham and Sarah
over the handmaid Hagar, Sarah says, "Jehovah judge
between me and thee." 52 In i Sam. 2. 25, in what looks
like a proverbial saying, we read, "If one man sin against
another, God shall judge him;" and in 2 Sam. 3. 39

48 1 Kings 19. 18.
"5- 15-
80 7. 3; 10. 20ff.
61 Compare Exod. 23. 7.
52 Gen. 16. 5, J- 336

NATIONALISM AND INDIVIDUALISM
David, referring to Joab's assassination of Abner, says,
"Jehovah reward the evildoer according to his wicked
ness." In i Sam. 26. 23 Yahweh, we are told, "will
render to every man his righteousness and his faithful
ness." He rewards Abraham for his hospitality,53 and
the Hebrew midwives for their courage.54 He punishes
Nabal for his churlishness55 and Abimelech for the
murder of his brethren.56 Repeatedly we meet the
formula, "God do so and so to me, if I do or fail to do so
and so," 57 and the instances in which the sufferings and
misfortunes of the individual are attributed to his sins are
almost numberless.58
The idea of individual retribution naturally carried with
it the thought that the individual was also an object of the
divine care. And the evidence for the existence of this
belief in early Israel is equally clear and conclusive. The
names given children testify to it. "Jonathan," for in
stance, means "Yahweh has given" ; "Joshua," "Yahweh
has delivered"; "Jozabad," "Yahweh has bestowed";
"Joiada," "Yahweh knows" ; and so on. Only the belief
in a special and individual Providence could have
prompted such names. And so with the prayers and
offerings of individuals. These manifestly presuppose a
God who cares for the private needs of men. The servant
of Abraham in his quest for a wife for his master's son,59
Ishmael and Samson in their thirst,60 Hanna in her bar-

83 Gen. 18, J.
34 Exod. 1. 21, P,
85 1 Sam. 25. 39.
86 Judg. 9. 54f.
87 Compare i Lam. 20. 13 ; 25. 22 ; 2 Sam. 3. 9 ; 2 Kings 6. 31.
88 Compare 1 Kings 17. 18.
m Gen. 24. i2ff., J.
60 Gen. 21. isff., E;Judg. 15. 18. 337

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
renness,61 Hezekiah in his illness,62 all seek the divine aid,
and Yahweh hears them. It is evident from such in
stances as these and many others that the early Israelite
felt free to bring his every need to Yahweh. From him
came every blessing; deliverance from danger63 and suc
cess in any enterprise,64 as well as the products of the
soil65 and the fruit of the womb.66
f In the light of the foregoing facts it is clear that the
individual had an assured place in the religion of Israel
long before the time of Jeremiah. The attempt, it is true,
has been made to destroy or weaken the force of these
facts by claiming that they relate for the most part to
exceptional individuals, men who were representatives of
the nation or for some reason favorites of the Deity,
and that consequently no conclusion can properly be
drawn from these facts concerning the religious worth of
individuals in general. But while it is true that the
stories, for instance, of the patriarchs fit at present into
the framework of the national history, this was not orig
inally the case. They existed, to begin with, independ
ently of each other and of any distinct national reference.
Hence "what is revealed in them as to God's relation to
certain men was told of his relation to them as men first
and as representatives afterwards." 6T Furthermore the
effort to bring the life of every early Old Testament char
acter into conscious relation to the nation leads necessarily
to a farfetched and artificial type of interpretation.
81 1 Sam. i.
82 2 Kings 20. iff.
83 1 Sam. 17. 37.
84 Gen. 27. 20 ; 43. 23, J.
38 1 Kings 17. 1, 14.
83 Gen. 30. 2, E.
87 A. C. Welch, The Religion of Israel under the Kingdom, p. 25.
338

NATIONALISM AND INDIVIDUALISM
It is not, therefore, strange that such a scholar as
Smend, who had held to the older and more rigorous
theory concerning the place of the individual in early
Israel, later changed his view. In the second edition of
his Alttestamentliche Religionsgeschichte (1899) he ad
mits that the early Israelite regarded himself as standing
in a direct relation to Yahweh, but now contends that his
private affairs were not brought before the Deity with the
same confidence as were those of a public or national
character. "For that," he says, "they were too small.
The individual looked, indeed, with a certain hope toward
Yahweh, but faith in him in the proper sense of the term
he did not have." 68 And so Robertson Smith tells us that
"in ancient religion, as it appears among the Semites, the
confident assurance of divine help belongs, not to each
man in his private concerns, but to the community in its
public functions and public aims. . . . The gods had
their favorites no doubt, for whom they were prepared to
do many things that they were not bound to do; but no
man could approach his god in a purely personal matter
with that spirit of absolute confidence . . . characteristic
of antique religions." 69 In support of this view as applied
to early Israel, Smend gives but one citation. He quotes
the words of Hannah, "If thou wilt indeed look on the
affliction of thy handmaid, and remember me, and not
forget thy handmaid," 70 as though these words implied a
lack of confidence on her part in her approach to Yahweh.
But in Num. 21. 2, (J) substantially the same expression
is put into the mouth of the whole people. Israel says,
"If thou wilt indeed deliver this people into my hand."
83 P. 103.
89 Religion of the Semites, p. 266f., 263.
70 1 Sam. 1. 11. 339

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
We consequently conclude that, so far as any specific
statement is concerned, there is no basis in the Old Testa
ment for the line of distinction drawn by Smend and
Robertson Smith between the faith of the individual and
that of the nation. No doubt the individual as a rule felt
a greater degree of confidence in the future of the nation
than in his own future. But that he regarded the bond
between Yahweh and Israel as indissoluble, as is com
monly claimed, is open to serious question. The priests
of Babylon ascribed the fall of their city and the triumph
of Cyrus to the anger of their god, Marduk.71 And that
a similar possibility may have presented itself to the minds
of the early Israelites is certainly probable. Still, national
feeling was unusually strong with them, and at times the
interests of the nation no doubt submerged those of the
individual. But in the ordinary course of life the primary
interests of men are necessarily personal and individual.
This must always have been the case. And if early He
brew religion had not ministered in some adequate way
to these interests, it is doubtful if it could ever have at
tained to such elevation of thought and feeling as is found
in the preexilic prophets. It is a mistake to suppose that
the national loyalty of the individual Israelite necessarily
imposed upon him the consciousness of self-renunciation.
Rather did his national loyalty, in so far as it was self-
conscious, contribute to his sense of personal worth.
Nationalism and individualism in their higher forms, in
stead of being mutually antithetical, were really mutually
complementary. It is, therefore, a mistake to regard Jeremiah and Eze
kiel as marking the beginning of individualism. Individ-
71 R. W. Rogers, Cuneiform Parallels to the Old Testament, p. 380.
340

NATIONALISM AND INDIVIDUALISM
ualism in their time had had a long history in Israel.
Many causes had contributed to its development. J. M.
Powis Smith72 enumerates the following: the transi
tion from a nomadic or seminomadic to an agricultural
and commercial life, the establishment of the monarchy,
the work of the preexilic sage and priest, the ethical teach
ing of the prophets, and also their doctrine of the rem
nant. Through these and other agencies the individual
had gradually been coming to a clearer moral and reli
gious self-consciousness. His sense of personal responsi
bility had been sharpened, his conviction of a divine ret
ribution strengthened, and his assurance of the divine
care deepened. But the relation of this growing individ
ualism to older ideas and customs had not been made the
subject of reflection. "Ancient Israel was not accus
tomed to reflect, and so established no dogma concerning
the relation of the individual to the group." 73 As in
Greece, so in Israel, individualism coexisted with various
ideas and customs implying the moral solidarity of
the family and nation. And for a long time there was
apparently no consciousness of any conflict between these
divergent ideas. Only slowly and gradually did this con
sciousness arise. And here it is that the significance of
Jeremiah and Ezekiel, especially the latter, is to be found.
Ezekiel brought out, as had not been done before, the
necessary antithesis between a consistent individualism
and the traditional ideas of group solidarity.
What Jeremiah's contribution to the development of
individualism was, has been the subject of considerable
difference of opinion. There are a number of passages
72 The Prophet and His Problems, pp. 174-184.
73 Individualismus und Socialismus im A. T., by H, Gunkel in
Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, vol. iii,
341

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
in the book that bears his name, which seem to anticipate
the explicit teaching of Ezekiel.74 But all these passages
have been rejected by distinguished critics either wholly
or in part as later additions ; and, even though this view be
incorrect, as seems to me probable, since similar passages
are to be found in the book of Deuteronomy,75 it is still
true that they occur only incidentally and form no essen
tial part of the prophet's message. Some scholars have
consequently fixed attention upon certain passages in
which the prophet seems to emphasize the sinfulness of his
contemporaries,76 and have concluded that this was "the
furthest point reached by Jeremiah in the direction of
personal responsibility. . . . According to Jeremiah,
each generation determined its own fate by its attitude
toward Yahweh and his demands for ethical righteous
ness and spiritual worship, without any let or hindrance
due to the rebellious deeds of previous generations." 77
But if this were really Jeremiah's thought, it would seem
that he must have made the contrast between the present
and the past more distinct than he has.
The true place to look for Jeremiah's contribution to
individualism is in those passages where he lays bare his
own inner life: his dissatisfaction with his own lot, his
feeling that God had not dealt faithfully with him, his
consciousness of sinfulness, and his conviction that, after
all, the chief good of life is to be found in fellowship
with God.78 Here we have, it is true, no formal doctrine
of individualism, but we do have individualism in con-

'Jer. 31. 29f.; 3. 14-16; 12. iff.; 15. iff.; 17. g{.; 32. i8f.
8 Deut. 7. 10; 18. 19; 24. 16.
8 2. igff.; 3. iff-; 5- iff.; 6. 6ff.; etc.
7 J. M. Powis Smith, The Prophet and His Problems, p. 191.
8 15. ioff.; 17. 9fT.; 18. i8ff.; 20. 7ff.
342

NATIONALISM AND INDIVIDUALISM
crete living expression. The prophet constitutes a prob
lem to himself. His own experiences, as well as the for
tunes of the nation, call for explanation. God must
justify himself to the consciousness of the individual as
well as in the history of the people as a whole. Such
was Jeremiah's feeling, and the way in which he worked
out his personal problem and arrived, in spite of pain and
agony of soul, at the assurance of an inner spiritual fel
lowship with God, became without doubt a powerful
factor in promoting personal piety. In this connection
may also be noted the prophet's stress on the inwardness
of true religion. The new covenant was to be a covenant
written in the heart,79 and such a covenant manifestly
implies a direct personal relation of the individual soul to
God. Ezekiel's contribution to the development of individual
ism was of a different character. It was intellectual
rather than persenal. It consisted in the announcement
of a principle rather than in the inspiration of an example.
This does not, however, mean that Ezekiel was guided by
speculative interest in laying down his doctrine of indi
vidualism. His purpose was distinctly practical. The ex
iles of his day were haunted by the thought that they were
under the ban of an evil inheritance. Their fathers had
sinned, and they must needs bear the penalty; for them
there was no hope. Or they regarded themselves as under
the ban of their own evil past. They had themselves
sinned, and hence could not hope to escape the divine
wrath. It was this practical situation that led Ezekiel to
lay down the principle that every individual stands in
an independent relation to Yahweh, that his destiny is in
no way determined by the conduct of anyone else, and that
79 31. 3iff- 343

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
even his own past has forged no chains about him which
he cannot break.80 The divine grace, he thus means to
say, is absolute. It knows no limits. Neither heredity
nor the organic relation between the past and the present
offer any barrier to it.
In view of the practical purpose thus underlying it, it is
not surprising that Ezekiel's doctrine of individualism is
somewhat extreme and one-sided, and that he does not
himself adhere consistently to it. To see that each indi
vidual must be judged by his own relation to Yahweh, and
that only, was an insight of great ethical and religious sig
nificance. But in his eagerness to enforce this truth, and
so to cut from under the exiles all valid ground of com
plaint against the divine justice, and at the same time
assure them of the certainty of the divine grace, Ezekiel
seems to have overlooked the undeniable fact of social
solidarity and also the essential unity and continuity of
the individual life. He speaks as though the act of an
individual stood in no organic relation to his own past and
as though the fate of an individual were actually unaf
fected by the conduct of others. And yet at other times
he seems to conceive of the nation as a moral unit, in
whose fall the righteous would perish with the wicked.81
This inconsistency and one-sidedness grew naturally
out of the varying practical motives by which the prophet
was guided. But they were also due to failure on his
part to distinguish clearly between the ideal or eschatolog-
ical, on the one hand, and the actual or empirical, on the
other. From the former point of view the prophet's as
sertion of the absolute independence of the individual is
fully justified. Ideal justice requires that each individual
30 Ezek. 18; 33. ioff.; 14. 12-20.
81 21. 4. 344

NATIONALISM AND INDIVIDUALISM
should suffer for his own sins and for them only. But in
a world of heredity and social solidarity it is evident that
this abstract principle is incapable of realization. In the
actual world about us the innocent suffer with the guilty.
The fathers eat sour grapes and the children's teeth
are set on edge. It cannot be otherwise. Only in a
better future age, where other laws prevail, can the real
and the ideal be brought into harmony. And this is the
view expressed in Jer. 31. 29L But in Ezekiel the dis
tinction between the present and the future is less clearly
drawn. Here the ideal principle of justice seems at times
to be applied to the present order as well as the future.
And yet this is not quite Ezekiel's position. What he is
interested in is not the present order as such, but the
future. He is an eschatologist. He looks forward to
the speedy advent of a new order. And so real to him is
this new age that he judges the immediate present in the
light of its advent. It is from this point of view that his
apparently extreme and one-sided individualism is to be
understood. In expounding it he is thinking of the com
ing kingdom, in which the ideal moral law prevails. There
everyone is judged according to his own merits. And
since this kingdom is almost at hand, its law is already to
some extent applicable to men. At its arrival, death must
necessarily be the lot of the wicked and life the certain
reward of the righteous.
But whatever the practical purpose and eschatological
ideas may have been that lay back of Ezekiel's doctrine of
individualism, the actual influence of his teaching seems to
have been largely independent of these considerations. In
the postexilic period individual retribution was commonly
accepted as a dogma valid for the normal experiences of
345

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
human life. It was inculcated without reference to the
messianic hope and without reference to any concrete sit
uation. But the point first to be noted is that Ezekiel's
successors in the prophetic office do not deal with the
problem that he raises. Deutero-Isaiah, Haggai, Zech
ariah, Malachi, Joel, and Jonah are all nationalistic. They
may distinguish somewhat more sharply than the preexilic
prophets between the two classes of the righteous and the
wicked in Israel,82 and at times may also speak more di
rectly of the redemption of individuals.83 But on the
whole they deal almost as exclusively as the earlier
prophets with the nation and its future. And so it is also
with the priestly successors of Ezekiel. Here and there
we may observe a slightly more developed individual
ism,84 but on the whole the postexilic law and priestly his
tories represent substantially the same standpoint as that
of preexilic times. The nation in the racial sense is still
a unit,85 and the solidarity of the family is still assumed.86
The true successors of Ezekiel, so far as his doctrine of
individualism is concerned, were the sages. But how far
they were directly influenced by him is a question. They
had no doubt inherited from the sages of the preexilic
period an individualistic type of teaching, and conditions
after the exile favored its development on a larger scale.
(The exile itself, while it did not create religious individ-
' ualism, must have greatly stimulated it. The fall of the
state did not put an end to the national hope of the Jews,
but it necessarily lessened their political activity, and so

82 Mai. 3. 13-18 ; Isa. 65. 9-16.
83 Isa. 43. 6f. ; Joel 2. 28-39.
84 For example, Num. 16. 22 ; Neh. 1. 5ff.
38 Lev. 4. I3ff.
88 Esth. 9. i3f. 346

NATIONALISM AND INDIVIDUALISM
left more time for consideration of the problems of the
individual. Wars ceased to inflame national passion, and
the interests of peace, which are the interests of the indi
vidual, became more prominent. The rise of the syna
gogue, with its stress on prayer and religious instruction,
was also individualistic in its tendency. And contact with
the more highly developed Babylonian civilization and
later with Greek thought had the same general effect.
These and other forces operative at the time make it clear
that quite apart from Ezekiel it is possible to account for
the individualism of the postexilic sages.
If the later sages were influenced by Ezekiel, they at
least took their own path. The most characteristic fea
ture of his teaching, the rejection of the older idea of
moral solidarity, apparently made little if any impression
upon them. They seem to have accepted the common
idea that children might be punished for the sins of their
parents or blessed because of their virtues.87 And so
also with the eschatological background of the prophet's
teaching. For it they had no place or at least no enthusi
asm. They accepted the world as it is, and tried to har
monize the facts of life with the principle of individual
retribution. Difficulties necessarily arose, but these they
glossed over with devices of one kind and another.
Such was the situation when the author of the book of
Job appeared upon the scene. His profound mind could
not rest satisfied with the easy solutions of the past. They
were to him but proverbs of ashes. And yet no final
solution presented itself to his own mind. The problem
of suffering remained to him an unsolved mystery to the
end. But while he was unable to solve the problem he
"Job 21. 19; Prov. 20. 7. 347

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
made a very important contribution to its solution by
asserting the independence and worth of the individual in
a way that had not been done before. Ezekiel had laid
down the principle of individual retribution, and Job ac
cepted it not only as morally valid, but as an ethical neces
sity. When it was suggested that God might punish a
man by laying up his iniquity for his children, Job re
plied :
"Let him recompense it unto himself, that he may
know it:
Let his own eyes see his destruction,
And let him drink of the wrath of the Almighty.
For what careth he for his house after him,
When the number of his months is cut off?" 88
But Job differed from Ezekiel in insisting that the law of
individual retribution was not observed in the existing
order. The wicked often prosper while the righteous
suffer. Against this view was arrayed the prevailing
tradition, and the very righteousness of God seemed to
rule it out. Nevertheless Job boldly advoqated it. The
voice of his own conscience attested its truth. And this
voice he placed above the teaching of the past, above the
apparent indications of Providence, and above the God of
tradition himself. As against all these forces of author
ity Job championed the rights of the individual, and
for their vindication turned with longing and budding
faith to the God of his own ideal, the God demanded by
the enlightened conscience of men.89
After such an assertion as this of the independence and
worth of the individual only one step remained before
88 Job 21. 19-21.
89 Job 16. 2of.; 19. 25-27. 348

NATIONALISM AND INDIVIDUALISM
the climax of religious individualism was reached. This
final step was taken before the close of the Old Testament
era. The righteous Israelite was assured of life everlast
ing. How this belief arose need not now engage our at
tention. This question will be dealt with in a later
chapter. For our present purpose it is sufficient to direct
attention to the fact that this culmination of individual
ism was not attained independently of Israelitic national
ism. One of our main contentions in this chapter has
been that these two tendencies in Israel were not neces
sarily antagonistic to each other. The fall of Jerusalem
in B. C. 586 did not mean the end of nationalism and the
beginning of individualism. Both tendencies continued
to exist thereafter and to develop. Nationalism changed
to some extent its form. It became less political in its
basis and more distinctly racial and ecclesiastical. But
as a religious force it did not weaken. It rather grew in
strength as a result of the work both of priest and
prophet, until finally the highest hopes of the nation com
bined with those of the individual in the doctrine of the
resurrection of the dead. The eternal worth ascribed to
the nation was thus also attributed to the individual, and
the two were united in a final synthesis.
But this did not end the development. Israelitic nation
alism had its limitations as well as its positive value. It
had furnished the field for the development of a high and
noble individualism, and it had given to religion a social
character that religion dare not lose without losing itself.
But along with this it had built up a barrier between Israel
and the rest of the world, which not only denied to the
heathen the rights which were his, but also made impos
sible the fullest development of individual character
within Israel itself. Not until the solidarity of mankind
349

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
had taken the place of the solidarity of Israel, not until
nationalism had yielded to univ'ersalism, not until the hope
of immortality had been extended to men generally, could
a fully developed religious life and a perfect religious
faith arise. This end was not attained in the Old Testa
ment, but it is nevertheless to Israelitic nationalism and
individualism that we must look for the source of the
Christian idea of the kingdom of God and the Christian
belief in the immortal life.

350

CHAPTER XV
THE MESSIANIC HOPE
The word "Messianic" has a twofold meaning. It
may refer either to the personal Messiah or to the Mes-
sianic_age. The latter is the sense in which it is here used.
By the Messianic hope we mean, therefore, not simply the
expectation of a Messiah, but the broader and more in
clusive belief in the coming of the kingdom of God. In
this wider sense of the term the Messianic hope is about
synonymous with the eschatology of the nation. It has
to do with the future of the people of God and everything
directly related thereto.
The Messianic idea is consequently a complex one. It
embraces at least four distinct elements. Primarily, it is
concerned with the new_age and the redemption of Israel,
but with these ideas is associated the thought of judg-
ment, a judgment both upon foreign nations and upon
Israel, and to this, again, is to be added the belief
in a personal Messiah. These different elements sustain
a manifest relation to each other, but the last is a less
constant factor than the other three. In not a few de
scriptions of the future no mention is made of the Mes
siah. His place is taken either by Yahweh himself or by
the idealized nation. Indeed, there are two notable pas
sages, one dealing with the Suffering Servant1 and the
other with the Son of Man,2 in which it is uncertain
1 Isa. 53.
2 Dan. 7. 13L 351

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
whether an individual redeemer is referred to or ideal
Israel. But while the belief in a personal Messiah was
not essential to the Messianic hope of the Israelites, it did
nevertheless form an important element in it, and in the
later Christian Messianism became the central factor.
Concerning the origin and value of the Messianic hope
there is wide difference of opinion. In recent times the
tendency has been to regard it -as a comparatively late de
velopment. Whatever basis it may have had in the pop
ular religion of an earlier period, it was not, we are told,
until the exile that it became a constituent element in what
might be called Old Testament religion. Ezekiel was "the
father of the Messianic expectation." 3 With him orig
inated the eschatology of the Old Testament,4 and from
him went forth those influences which developed into the
later apocalyptic literature. This type of thought, it is
said, stands opposed to the genuinely prophetic, and
represents a decline. Apocalypticism did not grow
naturally out of existing conditions, as did the teach
ing of the prophets, but was an artificial construction. It
dealt with fantastic and impossible conceptions of Israel's
future glory, and was permeated with a narrow national
feeling quite foreign to the stern ethical tone and judicial
impartiality of the preexilic prophets. The latter were in
their whole spirit opposed to apocalypticism. It is, then,
impossible that they should have written the Messianic
prophecies now found in their books. These prophecies
belong to a later age and reflect a different state of
thought, one which is for us largely obsolete. Certain
features of the later Messianism may have for us an his-
" H. P. Smith, The Religion of Israel, p. 243.
4 Wellhausen, Israelitische und Jiidische Geschichte, pp. 152, 197;
B. Stade, Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments, p. 295.
352

THE MESSIANIC HOPE
torical interest, but in its essential nature it fails to appeal
to us. There is about it too much of detachment from
the actual world, too little sense of reality, and too
much of narrow and unethical nationalism for it to com
mend itself to the modern mind. We are, therefore,
forced to regard it as a quite subsidiary and transitory
element in the religious teaching of the Old Testament.
This view concerning the origin and character of the
Messianic hope is one at present widely held.5 But dur
ing the last few years a reaction has set in against it. It
is now contended by a number of distinguished scholars6
that the Messianic hope not only had a place in the teach
ing of the preexilic prophets, but that it antedated literary
prophecy and is to be carried back almost to the beginning
of the nation's history. This view naturally gives to the
Messianic eschatology a new significance. It teaches us
that Messianism was not a later and more or less super
fluous addition to the real structure of Hebrew thought,^
but that it formed a constituent element in it. It was,
throughout at least the most important part of Israel's
history, the bearer of her higher hopes, the support and'
stimulus of her ethical idealism. The teaching of the
great preexilic prophets, as well as that of the prophets
and psalmists of a later period, can be fully understood

8 It should be added that all who hold to the late origin of the
Messianic hope do not share in the low estimate of its value. See,
for instance, B. Stade, "Die messianische Hoffnung im Psalter," in
Zeitschrift fiir Theologie und Kirche, 1892, pp. 369-413, and R. H.
Charles, Eschatology and The Religious Development Between the
Old and New Testaments.
8 H. Gressmann, Der Ursprung der israelitisch-judischen Escha-
tologie; E. Sellin, Der alttestamentliche Prophetismus; H. Gunkel,
Schopfung und Chaos, and Ausgewdhlte Psalmen; A. C. Welch,
The Religion of Israel under the Kingdom.
353

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
only in its light. Their message is raised to a higher
power, if we put back of it a more or less developed
eschatology. From this it is evident that the question concerning the
time when the Messianic hope originated is one of consid
erable importance. But before we pass to a consideration
of this problem, there is another which calls for attention.
It has of late been argued that the Messianic hope of the
Israelites was of foreign origin. The argument rests in
part on certain conceptions in Old Testament eschatology,
such as the catastrophic end of the present order and the
return of paradisiacal conditions, which, it is claimed,
cannot have originated on Palestinian soil.7 But a more
direct and somewhat more substantial basis for the theory
is furnished by certain parallels to the Messianic hope
which, it is claimed, have been discovered in Babylonia
and especially in Egypt. Only the Egyptian texts need
here concern us. There are several papyri dating from
widely different periods of Egyptian history, which de
scribe a state of desolation and ruin, of cosmic disorder
and social anarchy, followed by one of peace and pros
perity introduced by a new and ideal ruler. Of these
papyri there are two of special importance, the Papyrus
Golenischeff,8 as it is sometimes called, and the Admoni
tions of Ipuwer. The story contained in the first is sup
posed to date from about B. C. 2000, though it purports
to come from the time of King Snefru, about B. C. 2930.
7 For an elaborate exposition of this part of the argument, see
H. Gressmann, Der Ursprung der israelitisch-judischen Eschatol-
ogie; and for a brief criticism, Eduard Konig, Geschichte der alt
testamentUchen Religion, pp. 329-337.
8 For the text, see H. Gressmann, Altorientalische Texte und
Bilder, pp. 204ft. 354

THE MESSIANIC HOPE
It was apparently written in glorification of Amenemhet
I, the founder of the Twelfth Dynasty, and was a vaticin-
ium ex eventu. This seems also to have been the case
with most of the Egyptian "prophecies," if we may judge
from the few and isolated fragments that have come down
to us. They were not really prophecies, but were written
to glorify the reigning monarch. It was a common idea
among the Egyptians that the Sun-god Re was the first
king of Egypt, and that his reign was the golden age of
the world. It became, therefore, natural for courtiers to
speak of the kings of their own day as sons of Re. It is
this idea that underlies the prediction recorded in the
Papyrus Westcar, a document coming from the eighteenth
century B. C, in which a divine paternity is ascribed
to the founders of the Fifth Dynasty. A somewhat dif
ferent conception, however, appears in the Admonitions
of Ipuwer, dating from about B. C. 1300.9 This sage
condemns the reigning king as the source of the grievous
evils of his time, and then by way of contrast describes
the ideal king, as represented by the Sun-God Re. "He
is the shepherd of all men. There is no evil in his heart."
We have here no distinct prediction that the ideal king will
come, but the hope that he would is at least expressed.
"Where," says Ipuwer, "is he to-day? Doth he sleep per
chance ? Behold his might is not seen."
On the basis of these texts, especially the last, it is con
fidently asserted that the Messianic hope of the Hebrews
was derived from the Egyptians.10 We have,1 it is said,

8 See Alan H. Gardiner, The Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage;
and J. H. Breasted's Development of Religion and Thought in
Ancient Egypt, pp. 203-216.
10 See Eduard Meyer, Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarsidmme,
pp. 451-455- 355

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
in the prophecies of both peoples the same general form
of threat and promise, the same idea of a perfect ruler,
and the same conception of the return of paradise. A
point that Gressmann especially emphasizes is the fact
that the idea of a Messianic King does not harmonize, as
it would if it were of native origin, with the Israelitic con
ception of the paradise of the past. Israel knows nothing
of a primeval paradise-king. Her monarchy was of too re
cent origin to make possible such a view. This view, says
Gressmann, "must have its source among a people whose
kingdom is rooted in the oldest times, even out of mind,
who cannot at all imagine a life without a king and for
whom it is necessary to think of the first man as the first
king." " This was the case in Egypt. It is consequently
there that we must look for the origin of the idea of a
paradise-king both of the past and the future. And it is
to this same source that we must trace the deification of
the Messiah, the representation of him as Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. This idea cannot
have had its origin among the Israelites, but must have
come from a people like the Egyptians, "who were ac
customed to elevate their kings into the god's sphere and
who made no great difference between a king and a god."
But ingenious as this derivation of the Messianic hope is,
it can hardly be said to be convincing. It is quite pos
sible, as Breasted says, that "the pamphlets of Ipuwer
and the men of his class" may somehow have "entered
Palestine and suggested to the idealists of Israel the con
ception of the righteous king and redeemer." Or it may
be, as Gressmann holds, that the Canaanites, under Egyp
tian influence, came to think of Melchizedek as their
11 "The Sources of Israel's Messianic Hope," in American Journal
of Theology, 1913, p. 188. 356

THE MESSIANIC HOPE
Messianic king,12 and that what they expected of him was
later transferred by the Hebrews to David. But these
theories at the best represent mere possibilities, and
neither is necessary to account for the origin of the Mes
sianic hope of the Israelites.
This hope in a primitive form is one that we should
expect to arise among different peoples. It has its mani
fest psychological roots. It grows out of the native dis
content of the human mind with existing conditions and "
out of the natural tendency of men to idealize what is dis
tant in time. It was in this way that the widespread be
lief in a golden age of the past arose, and the correspond
ing view of the future would naturally originate in the
same manner. There is no need to suppose that all expec
tations of a glorious future emanated from one source.
They may have arisen independently in different lands,
and then, as they developed, have to some extent influ- '
enced each other. In this way the Messianic hope of the
Israelites may have received various accretions from par
allel developments in Egypt, Babylonia, and other coun
tries. But what was thus borrowed was not the hope
itself. The invincible optimism that lay back of Israel's
Messianism could not have been borrowed. It was a '
native growth. And so also with those great conceptions
that give permanent value to Old Testament eschatology
— the idea of a divine world-plan, of a universal moral
government, and of the coming of the kingdom of God.
These conceptions are the unique creation of Israelitic '
genius. Nowhere else do we find anything comparable to
them either in range or intensity, in moral earnestness or
spiritual power. They have no parallels in any other
land.

12 Gen. 14; Psa. no. 4. 357

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
We turn now to the question as to when the Messianic
hope took its rise in Israel. Was it a late development,
or did it have a place in the teaching of the eighth-century
prophets, and even before their time? In considering this
question it will be well to treat the different elements in
the Messianic hope separately, and also to discuss the de
velopment of each idea along with the question of its
origin. The Messianic hope embraces, as we have seen,
in addition to the general thought of a new age, the idea
of judgment, of redemption, and of the Messiah. The
character of the new age may naturally be discussed in
connection with the idea of redemption. So we have
three main lines of inquiry to pursue.
We begin with the idea of judgment. It is a common
opinion that it was Amos who first announced an ap
proaching day of doom. There was current in his time a
belief in the day of Yahweh,13 a day on which Yahweh
would manifest himself in some marvelous way; and to
this belief Amos attached himself. But his conception of
the day was almost the direct reverse of that current
among the people. According to their view, it contained
no threat of doom to Israel, but was to be for her a day
of triumph. This belief, it is said, grew up out of the
»evil conditions which followed the division of the mon
archy.14 Such conditions the people felt could not pjf-
manently continue; Yahweh must intervene on their foe-
half. And so they began to look forward to a day of
Yahweh, "a great day of battle on which Yahweh would
place himself at the head of the armies of Israel and lead
them on to overwhelming victory over all their en-

18 Amos 5. 18.
14 B. Stade, Biblische Theologie, p. 213.
358

THE MESSIANIC HOPE
The expected day was thus to be to them a
day of light ; only to their enemies was it to be a day of
darkness. But this comfortable hope Amos rudely set
aside. The day of Yahweh he declared was to be not a
day of national exaltation, but a day of divine judgment.
Israel's enemies would, indeed, be overthrown on that
day ; but their overthrow would be due, not to their hostil
ity to Israel, but to their violations of the moral law. And
for this very reason it was certain that the day of Yahweh
would be to Israel also a day of doom. The divine justice
would be meted out to her as well as to her enemies. Her
territory as well as that of her neighbors would be over
run by the Assyrians.
Such, it is claimed, was the day of judgment, as it was
first conceived in Israel. It was local and historical, an
impending political calamity. Yet from it developed the
later eschatological conception. The most important step
in this direction was taken by Zephaniah a little over a
century after the time of Amos. He represented the im
pending doom as universal and apocalyptic.16 It was not
to consist simply in a foreign invasion, but was to be a
terrible world catastrophe, in which not only all men but
even the fish of the sea and the birds of the air were to be
involved. This idea was developed further by Ezekiel and
the later apocalyptists, but in its essential nature it re-
rrfained practically the same down to New Testament
times. There was to be a great day of Yahweh at which
all his enemies were to be finally overthrown.
This view concerning the origin of the idea of a com
ing judgment is widely held, but weighty considerations
15 J. M. P. Smith, "The Day of Yahweh," in American Journal
of Theology, 1901, p. 512.
18 1. 14-18; 3-8. 359

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
may be urged against it. For one thing it is highih/_im:^.
probable that thejroridcwjde character of the impending
doom was first conceived by Zephaniah. So great an ad
vance step could hardly have been taken by a man such as
he, who in no other regard betrays any capacity for con
structive thought. Furthermore, if the idea had been
original with him, he would naturally have presented it in
a concrete form as, for instance, a world-wide flood or
fire. But as a matter of fact he conceives it vaguely and
indistinctly. Figures of war, of a solar eclipse, and of a
great consuming fire mingle together in his book in a way
that makes it plain that he had no clear conception of the
exact nature of the coming doom. Nor does he give any
reason for its universality such as we would expect if the
idea had originated with him. Evidently, he was dealing
with traditional material.
This conclusion is confirmed when we examine care
fully the utterances of the eighth-century prophets. It is
a„ mistake to suppose that these men represent the ap
proaching judgment as simply local and historical in char
acter, as ITcalamity brought on by an invading army.
Their conception of the day of Yahweh was essentially
the same as that of Zephaniah. There is in it the same
indefiniteness as to the form that the impending judgment
will take. War and captivity are spoken of, but so also
are an earthquake,17 an eclipse,18 a pestilence,19 a de
vouring fire,20 and an "overflowing scourge," 21 whatever
that may be. There is also in the eighth-century prophets

17 Amos 2. 13-16 ; 8. 8.
18 8. 9.
"6. 9f-
29 1. 4, 7, etc.; 7. 4.
31 Isa. 28. 15. 360

THE MESSIANIC HOPE
the same idea of the universality of the doom. The figure
of the eclipse implies it. ^ThenTtoo, there are more de
finite statements. In Isaiah22 we read of a "day of Je
hovah upon all that is proud and haughty, and all that is
lifted up," and Hosea23 tells us of a calamity in which the
fishes of the sea are to be taken away as well as the beasts
of the field and the inhabitants of the land. The doom
pronounced by Amos and Isaiah upon foreign nations is
also best explained by their belief in a world-catastrophe.
But this idea djd not originate even with the eighth-
centuryjprophets. It was traditional with them as well as
with Zephaniah. This is clear from the incidental and
indefinite way in which they refer to it, and also from the
fact that the designation of it as the day of Yahweh was
current among the people, and evidently had been for
some time. It was the common idea that in the approach
ing catastrophe Israel would escape. But this conviction
was apparently not so strong and universal as to leave the
people altogether free from misgivings. Amos tells us
that there were those in his day "who put far away the
evil day," 24 and to those who longed for the day of Yah
weh he spoke in a way that suggests that they too knew
that there was ground for the view that the day was one
to be dreaded rather than desired. "Shall not," he says,
"the day of Jehovah be darkness, and not light; even very
dark, and no brightness in it ?" 25 The idea of a remnant
found in Amos and Isaiah, and current before their time,
also points in the same direction. In the approaching
catastrophe some would be saved, but not all. The pre-
22 2. 12.
28 Hos. 4- 3-
24 6. 3.
25 5- 20. 361

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
prophetic outlook into the future was not, therefore, one
of unmixed optimism. There were those who, like
Micaiah and Elijah, occasionally predicted evil for
Israel,26 and this Jeremiah declared was characteristic of
the true prophets generally before his time. How far
back the idea of a day of doom went we do not know.
It may have had its ultimate source, as Gressmann holds,
in mythological ideas concerning the end of the world.
But in the form in which it appeared in Israel it must
from the beginning have been connected with the idea of
the unlimited supremacy of Yahweh. This supremacy
had not as yet been asserted, but some day it would be.
In a great day of doom, such as people from of old had
talked about, Yahweh would manifest his power, and the
privileged position of Israel would be made clear to all
the world.
The conclusion, then, to which we come is that the idea
of a world-catastrophe must be carried back into the pre
prophetic period and that it must be regarded as having
formed the background of the earliest group of literary
prophets as well as those of a later date. This idea even
in its simplest form was one of profound religious sig
nificance. It stood, as A. C. Welch says, "for the truth
that the world was one and was governed by one purpose.
It stood for the possibility of the emergence of the eternal
order within the world of time." The early Israelites
who accepted it "had learned to conceive of God as spirit
ual in the sense that he was not contained in, but was
above, the world and all it held." What Amos did was
to give to the conception a more distinctly ethical char
acter. "Because of his knowledge of the nature of Yah
weh, the emergence of the eternal order within the sphere
28 1 Kings 18. i>£. ; 22. 8, 17. 362

THE MESSIANIC HOPE
of time meant to him the revelation of the moral order of
the universe. To those who listened to him he declared
not only that Yahweh was about to arise speedily, but why
he was to intervene. He was about to assert the moral
basis of everything, and when that manifested itself, it
meant ruin to the world of things which Amos knew." 27
This truth, so admirably expressed by Dr. Welch, has
been to a large extent overlooked in recent study of the
early prophets. The tendency has been to explain all their
utterances from the psychological and historical points of
view, blind to the fact that the purely empirical and his
torical could never have borne the weight of the religious
faith which these men possessed. The prophets illus
trated their faith by a pronouncement of doom upon
things round about them. But their vision was never lim
ited to what they saw. They viewed all things sub specie
ccternitatis. The conception which the early prophets had of the
future judgment was, as we have seen, rather vague and
indefinite. It was to be universal, but how it was to be
carried out was not a subject on which they reflected.
Their interests were practical. What they were con
cerned about was to point out the causes of the impend
ing doom, and to insist on its divine source and certainty.
In later times the idea arose that the expected catastrophe
would not only be universal, but would involve the de
struction of the world. The heavens would be rolled to
gether as a scroll, and the earth wax old as a garment,28
after which new heavens and a new earth would be cre
ated.29 But how this idea of the end of the world was re-

37 The Religion of Israel under the Kingdom, pp. 71, 72, 73.
28 Isa. 34. 4; 51. 6; Psa. 102. 25L
29 Isa. 65. 17 ; 66. 22. 363

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
lated to the Messianic age is not clear. Whether it was to
precede or follow the new era is not stated.
Another feature of the later eschatology that may be
mentioned is its conception of the fate of the heathen.
The ethical principle laid down by the earlier prophets was
that all powers hostile to Yahweh should be destroyed in
the day of doom. But how this principle would be applied
to the actual conditions of life was by no means clear. To
those who were narrowly nationalistic it would mean the
destruction of the entire heathen world. To others, who
laid more stress on individual piety and who were broader
in their sympathies, it would mean that the heathen world
would be treated in the day of judgment in substantially
the same way as Israel itself.30 A certain precedence
might be given to Israel, but the line of cleavage between
the redeemed and those doomed to destruction would be
drawn not between Israel and the heathen world but
through both. And as a matter of fact these two views
both receive expression in the Old Testament, though the
first cannot but seem to us unduly prominent. One of
the least attractive features in the Old Testament is the
unsympathetic and bitter feeling which it frequently dis
plays toward the heathen.
But the idea of judgment, prominent as it is in Israel's
sacred literature, was never the final word of her seers.
It was simply the foil to the hope of redemption and the
new age. This hope, it is commonly admitted, can be
traced back into the preprophetic period. It was implied
in the popular conception of the day of Yahweh. But as
to the origin and content of the day of Yahweh there is,
as we have seen, considerable difference of opinion. Ac-
89 See Jer. 12. 14-17; 48. 46L; 49. 5f.; Isa. 19. 20-22.
364

THE MESSIANIC HOPE
cording to the view most widely held it grew up out of
the weakness and suffering that resulted from the division
of the monarchy, and consisted in the hope of a better
future for the nation after a great and glorious victory
over its enemies. This psychological derivation of the
idea is not in itself improbable. But it may be remarked
that it is also psychologically conceivable that the idea had
its origin in the national aspiration and growing con
sciousness of strength which characterized the Hebrews
before the division of the monarchy. In recent times a
great and growing nation has, according to common be
lief, had much to say of "the day" when it would settle
accounts with all its rivals. And it is not impossible that
such a hope originated with the ancient Hebrews under
similar circumstances, and then was only made all the
more intense by the defeats and disappointments of subse
quent centuries. The day of Yahweh was not, however, .
as we have seen, confined to the idea of military victory.
It was a broader conception. It looked forward to a
marvelous intervention on the part of Yahweh in the
cosmic as well as the human world. This intervention,
according to the popular belief, was to be universal in its
extent and would involve more or less of peril to all
peoples, but, as far as Israel was concerned, it was certain
to result in her exaltation. The chosen people would es
cape in the day of divine visitation, and thereafter be
ushered into a new era comparable in peace and prosperity
to the paradise of the past.
But what was the attitude of the preexilic prophets to
this popular belief? If we accept the testimony of their
books in the form in which they have come down to us,
there can be no doubt about the answer. They accepted
the traditional Messianic hope in a modified form. Israel
36s

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
was not to escape the impending doom. She was to suffer
all its terrors. But after it was over and the nation had
been purified, she was to enjoy a glorious future. Such
is the manifest teaching of the early prophetic books in
their present form. But of late it has become the fashion
to insist that such a combination of threat and promise
on the part of the preexilic prophets is psychologically
unintelligible. These men, it is maintained, were heralds
of doom, and for them to have uttered such messages of
hope as we find in their books would have been to turn the
edge of all their threats. A man cannot both threaten
and promise at the same time. At least, if he does, he
must establish some connection between the two. But in
the prophetic books this connection is usually lacking.
Unconditional promises stand side by side with equally
unconditional threats. That this should originally have
been the case is incredible. We must then hold that most,
if not all, of the Messianic passages attributed to the pre
exilic prophets31 were the work of later hands, who
sought in this way to relieve the severity of the earlier
prophetic utterances.
But this view, widespread as it is, rests on inadequate
grounds. It assumes that the prophetic books are made
up of connected discourses, and that these discourses
were originally arranged by the prophets themselves in a
logical or chronological order. This, however, is a mis
take. The utterances of the prophets were not sermons
in the ordinary sense of the term, but detached oracles
or poems, usually brief, consisting of only a few lines.
Originally they were independent of each other, and we
do not know that they were grouped together in any
31 For example, Amos 9. 8ff. ; Hos. 2. I4ff.; 14. iff.; Isa. 2. 1-5;
4. 2-6; 9. 1-6; 11. 1-10; Mic. 4-5; Zeph. 3. 8ff.; Jer. 30; 31. 23ff.
366

THE MESSIANIC HOPE
particular way and published by the prophets themselves.
Their arrangement and publication may quite as well have
been due to their disciples. In any case the present con
junction of threats and promises is arbitrary. It does not
mean that the prophets predicted doom and blessing at the
same time. These different types of oracles grew out of
different situations and different moods, and originally
had no connection with each other. The recognition of
this fact alone disposes of most of the arguments against
the authenticity of the Messianic passages in the early
prophetic books. The linguistic objections are most of
them afterthoughts and not especially significant. It may
also be noted that no one questions the fact that Isaiah
believed in the salvation of a remnant. And if this
limited acknowledgment of the divine grace coexisted in
his case with a complete denial of. it, there is certainly no
good reason why we may not also credit him and other
preexilic prophets "with being the authors of the prom
ises or Messianic hopes, which have no limit at all." The
sharp antithesis which some have sought to establish be
tween the prophetic message of doom and the Messianic
hope has, it may be admitted, a certain basis in logic.
But such antitheses belong for the most part to the realm
of the abstract. In the real world what we usually find
is compromise; the principle that obtains is not Either-
Or but Both-And.
We conclude, therefore, that the preexilic prophets
shared to some extent in the Messianic hope of their day.
They gave to it a more distinctly ethical character than
had been done before, declaring that its realization
was dependent on repentance and moral regeneration.
They made righteousness the essential characteristic of
the new kingdom, and insisted that before its establish-
367

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
ment Israel would be visited by a terrible divine judgment.
But in other respects they shared in the common view
that there was to be a glorious future for the chosen
people. This future was not to consist simply in the re
demption of Israel from captivity, but in a marvelous
transformation of the entire world. War was to cease.
All the peoples of the world were to be united together
under the spiritual leadership of Israel.32 And not only
was there to be peace among men. There was to be a
covenant also "with the beasts of the field, and with the
birds of the heavens, and with the creeping things of the
ground." 33 "The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the
leopard shall lie down with the kid. . . . The sucking
child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned
child shall put his hand on the adder's den." 34 The inani
mate world also is to be changed. The soil is to become
supernaturally productive. "The plowman shall over
take the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth
seed ; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the
hills shall melt." 35
This anticipated transformation of nature is not to be
understood in a purely figurative sense. It was a real
change to which the prophets looked forward. And
underlying this expectation there is a profound truth.
"In the divine plan," as Professor Bowne says, "nature is
adjusted to man quite as much as man is adjusted to
nature. Each is in a way the counterpart of the other,
and hence it is permitted to say that if human society
should pass into higher spiritual development so that it
32 Isa. 2. 2-4.
33 Hos. 2. 18.
"Isa. 11. 6,8.
88 Amos 9. 13. 368

THE MESSIANIC HOPE
could be trusted with greater powers and opportunities,
the environment would change to correspond. The larger
spiritual life would have a better and fairer physical set
ting, and nature would become the more pliant instrument
and effective servant of humanity." 86 But while this
truth underlay the prophetic hope, there is one important
regard in which the thought of the prophets differs from
ours. We look for an eternal kingdom beyond the lim
its of time and sense. But not so the ancient seers. They
thought of the kingdom of God "as coming to fruition
within time and on the earth." They looked for the
"emergence of eternity in the sphere of time." And "in
order that this might be, there was need for a supreme
intervention of Yahweh: the divine kingdom must be
set up through God's direct action, and could only endure
through God's presence." 37
As to the extent to which nature would be affected by
this divine intervention there are different representations
in the Old Testament. The most advanced is the one that
looks forward to the complete end of the present order
and the creation of new heavens and a new earth.38 But
the most important thing about the new age was not the }
change in the outward conditions of life. This change
was to be real, but its primary significance did not lie in
the new sense-satisfactions which it would bring. In its
essential nature the outward change was after all but a ,
symbol of an inward spiritual change. This is a fact
that needs to be borne in mind in estimating what has been
termed the eudemonism of the Old Testament as a whole.
The natural blessings of life had for the Old Testament
38 The Essence of Religion, pp. 256f.
" A. C. Welch, The Religion of Israel Under the Kingdom, p. 184.
" Isa. 65. 17 ; 66. 22. 369

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
saint a kind of sacramental quality. They symbolized the
favor and presence of God. And so with the outward
glory of the Messianic kingdom. It was but a sign and
pledge of the new spiritual relationship into which God
had entered with his people. No profounder conception
of this new relationship is anywhere to be found in the
Old Testament than in Jeremiah's description of the new
covenant to be established with the house of Israel. "I
will put my law," says Yahweh, "in their inward parts,
and in their heart will I write it ; and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no
more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother,
saying, Know Jehovah ; for they shall all know me, from
the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith Je
hovah : for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will
I remember no more." 39
This new covenant was to be made with the Israelites,
but its influence was not to be restricted to them. The
narrow nationalists were naturally inclined to exclude
the heathen from its benefits; and the Old Testament is
by no means free from this spirit. But there were
broader-minded men. Deutero-Isaiah looked for the sal
vation of the ends of the earth,40 and so in the Psalms we
read, "All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn
unto Jehovah." 41 He is "the confidence of all the ends of
the earth." 42 But perhaps the most remarkable ex
pression of this universalism is to be found in Isa. 19.
23-25. Here not even a primacy is accorded Israel in the
final state of redemption. "In that day shall Israel be
80 Jer. 31. 33f.
40 45- 22, 23.
41 22. 27.
"6S- 5- 370

THE MESSIANIC HOPE
the third with Egypt and with Assyria, a blessing in the
midst of the earth ; for that Jehovah of hosts hath blessed
them, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria
the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance."
Having discussed the origin and development of the
ideas of judgment and redemption, we pass now to a con
sideration of the third factor in the Messianic hope, the
expectation of a Messiah. The coming of the new king- \
dom was not dependent upon the appearance of an ideal \
king. It might be brought about by the intervention of
Yahweh alone. And this is the prevailing Old Testament
view. But in a number of striking and significant pas
sages the Messianic hope is made to center in the Messiah. '
And the fact that this is the case with the New Testament
as a whole, lends special interest to these passages and
also to the question as to the origin and history of the
conception contained in them.
In taking up this question we are confronted with the
same diversity of opinion that we have met in our study
of the Old Testament ideas of judgment and redemption.
Some tell us that the belief in the coming of the Messiah
could not have originated until the breach between proph- j
ecy and the royal rule in Judah had become so wide that it
could not be bridged over. This state of affairs was
brought about by the refusal of Ahaz to heed the word
of Isaiah when the two men met at the end of the conduit
of the upper pool outside of Jerusalem at the time of the
Syro-Ephraimitic war. It was in that connection that the
Immanuel prophecy was uttered. So Kittel, referring to
this incident, says, "The hour in which Isaiah parted from
Ahaz gave to the world the thought of the Messiah." 43
"History of the Hebrews, vol. ii, p. 346.
371

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
Others again are very sure that this idea did not arise
until after the fall of the Davidic dynasty. Not until the
Jews were without a king did they begin to long for the
return of David and the establishment of the Messianic
kingdom. For the earliest expression of this belief we
may, therefore, not go farther back than Ezekiel, and per
haps we should come down as late as the time of Haggai
and Zechariah. But this view implies that the Messianic
passages in Isaiah, Micah, and Jeremiah were not au
thentic. And this is a conclusion which we have already
seen there are good grounds for rejecting. Here it need
only be added that the expectation of David's return
would more naturally have arisen shortly after his death,
when his memory was still fresh, than centuries later. In
Germany it was seriously believed for a century after the
death of Frederick II that he was still alive and that he
would return and restore to the empire the golden age of
peace. Similar beliefs also sprang up after the death
of Nebuchadrezzar, Nero, Charlemagne, Frederic Bar-
barossa, and others.44 And it is not improbable that the
belief in the Davidic Messiah originated in the same way.
In later times what was expected, it is true, was not so
much a return of David himself as the appearance of a
descendant or even a succession of descendants who would
restore the glories of the Davidic reign. But this later
expectation is best explained as a modification of an ear
lier belief in the actual return of David himself.45 In
either form, however, the belief would most naturally
have arisen not long after the time of David. And if so,
44 See J. P. Peters, The Religion of the Hebrews, pp. 427-429, and
H. Gressmann, "Der Messiasglaube in der Geschichte der Volker,"
in Deutsche Rundschau, 1914, pp. 4i2ff.
"Hos. 3. 5; Jer. 30. 9; Ezek. 34. 23L
372

THE MESSIANIC HOPE
it is quite as easy to believe that it found a place in the
prophecies of Isaiah as in those of Ezekiel a century and
a half later.
But the expectation of a Messiah did not owe its origin
to David. His remarkable career led men to attach the
Messianic hope to him or to his dynasty, so that his name
became the symbol of' the Messianic King. But the
Messianic kingship itself remained detachable from him
and even from his dynasty. Haggai and Zechariah ex
pected that Zerubbabel would prove to be the Messiah.
In the second century B. C. the descent of the Messianic
King was traced not to Judah, the tribe of David, but to
Levi, the tribe of the Maccabees.46 And in the famous
Immanuel prophecy of Isaiah the Messianic hope is turned
directly against the Davidic dynasty. The name of the
expected Messiah, Immanuel, means "God-with-wj," that
is, God with Isaiah and his followers as against Ahaz
and the royal house. Furthermore, it should be noted
that the descriptions of the Messiah and the Messianic
era in Isaiah and Micah are such as cannot have been in
spired by David alone. Divine predicates are used of him,
his rule is said to be without limit, and his birth is
apparently thought of as attended by some remarkable
portent.47 Such ideas cannot have been suggested simply
by reflection on the career of David. They probably had
their source in a popular Messianic belief that was orig
inally independent of him.
When and how this popular expectation of a Messiah
arose we do not know. It is sometimes said that such a
hope would have been unintelligible before the time of
48 R. H. Charles, Religious Development Between the Old and the
New Testaments, pp. 56, 80.
47 Isa. 7. 14 ; Mic. 5. .3. 373

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
Saul and David. But this presupposes on the part of the
pre-monarchic Israelites a degree of ignorance of the out
side world which, to say the least, is improbable. It is
possible that the belief in a Messianic King was adopted
from the Canaanites and that it originally had some con
nection with the idea of the return of the Paradise-king.
But anything like certainty is here out of the question.
The earliest reference to the Messiah is probably that
found in the Blessing of Jacob,48 a passage that may date
from the time of David. We read here of the coming of
Shiloh. Unfortunately, there is some doubt as to the cor
rectness of the text. Perhaps we should read/instead of
Shiloh/'his king" or "he whose it is." But in any case the
reference seems clearly to be to the Messiah. To him the
obedience of the peoples is to be. He is to ride upon an
ass, but the ass in this case is not a symbol of meekness,
as in the late Messianic prophecy found in Zech. 9. 9f.,
but a sign of royal dignity.49 The coming of the Messiah
will bring to the land of Judah paradisaical fruitfulness,
but it will also mean the end of her dynasty. David and
his house will continue to rule only until the Messianic
King comes. This, however, is evidently thought of as
belonging to the distant future.
There are other early passages in the Old Testament,
such as Num. 24. i7ff. (J) and Deut. 33. i3ff. (E),
which may possibly refer to the Messianic hope, but they
in any case add nothing of importance to our knowledge
concerning it. How widely the belief in a Messiah was
current in preprophetic Israel we do not know, nor do we
know to what extent it affected the thought of the reli
gious leaders. But to it in any case the literary prophets
48 Gen. 49. 10-12, J.
40 Compare Judg. 10. 4; 2 Sam. 19. 26.
374

THE MESSIANIC HOPE
attached their message. Isaiah declared that the ex- i
pected Messiah would come, but, contrary to the common )
expectation, would come soon, and when he came would
establish forever the righteous rule of God in the world.
"Righteousness shall be the girdle of his waist, and faith
fulness the girdle of his loins." 50 And according to Jere
miah the Messiah was to bear the name "Jehovah our
righteousness," 51 by which the prophet meant not only
that the Messiah was to introduce the ideal righteousness
of the divine rule, but that he was to be the means by
which the individual members of the new kingdom would
be made righteous.
Noble, however, and lofty as is this conception of the \
ideal king, it was not here that the prophetic hope received !
its highest expression. For that we must turn to the
figure of the Suffering Servant. On petty etymological
grounds it has been argued that the Servant was not the
Messiah and that he sustained no relation to Israel's
Messianic hope. But with objections of this kind we need
not concern ourselves. Nor is it,a matter of any special \
importance whether the Servant be understood in an indi- '
vidual or collective sense. It suffices for our present pur-,
pose that he was regarded as the agent through whom the1 ,
divine salvation was to be wrought in the world. And
in the picture presented of him we have the sublime
thought that the redemption of men was to be effected not
by the exercise of force, but by vicarious suffering. "He
was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for
our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon
him ; and with his stripes we are healed." 52
80 Isa. n. 5.
81 Jer. 23. 6.
52 Isa. 53- 5- 375

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
There is yet another stage in the development of the
Messianic teaching of the Old Testament. This is repre
sented by the Son of Man or "one like unto a son of man,"
who, according to the book of Daniel,53 was to come with
the clouds of heaven, and to whom universal and ever
lasting dominion was to be given. Here also the ques
tion arises as to whether we have an individual or collec
tive conception. Does the "one like unto a son of man"
mean "the glorified and ideal people of Israel," "the saints
of the Most High," or does it mean a heavenly angelic
being? The former view is suggested by the context
(verses 18, 22, 27), and is the common one. But this
can hardly have been the original meaning of the term.
The expression, "came with the clouds of heaven," does
not fit in well with the collective interpretation. To say
that this means "that Israel, as the people of Yahweh,
had a heavenly origin," 54 and that "it was kept in the
special care of God until such time as he should see fit to
bring it to its own," is at least somewhat forced. What
we have in the idea of the Son of Man, and also in that of
the Suffering Servant, is probably an originally individual
conception, which was later applied to ideal Israel. In
Deutero-Isaiah the sufferings of Israel are declared to be
those of the Messianic Redeemer, the Servant of Yahweh,
through whom the world's redemption is to be wrought.
And in Daniel the judicial office and the world-rule of
the heavenly Messiah, the Son of Man, are transferred to
the glorified and ideal people of Israel. But this col
lective application of the terms does not deprive them of
their Messianic significance. The nation simply takes
over the functions of the Messiah. And in the case of the
83 7- 13L
84 H. P. Smith, Religion of Israel, p. 303.
376

THE MESSIANIC HOPE
"Son of Man" the individual interpretation was revived
soon after the time of Daniel and became the common f
one.55 It was this conception and that of the Suffering/
Servant which most profoundly influenced Jesus' concep-/
tion of his own mission and destiny. He combined the
two ideas, and "herein," says Muirhead, "we touch at
once the depth and height of his originality." 56
We may thus distinguish three stages in the develop
ment of the Old Testament idea of the Messiah : the ideal
King, the Suffering Servant, and the Son of Man. Each
grew to some extent out of the conditions of the time in
which it originated. The ideal King was an expression of I
the strength and confidence of the nation in its youth ; the '
Suffering Servant was the counterpart of the afflicted
people of the exile; and the Son of Man coming in the
clouds of heaven fit in with the transcendental and apoc- .
alyptic type of thought current toward the close of the '
Old Testament period. In these conceptions of the
Messiah some of the highest and sublimcst thoughts of the
prophets were embodied. Yet back of them atr-rather,
inv&ked- in -then?* was„as we ¦faa.vp- seea, the broader and,
even more significant conception of the coming of the)
kingdom of God. This idea was the most striking and
characteristic feature of Israel's religiorf?£2ft is not only
found in the Prophets, but pervades the Psalms, and
formed the background of Hebrew thought during the
whole of its creative period.
The expectation of a new age stands in marked con
trast to the ancient Oriental belief in a series of world-
cycles. According to this belief, the world would pass
88 See Book of Enoch, chapters xxxvii-lxxi.
fs Eschatology of Jesus, p. 203. 377

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
through a certain course, would culminate in a great
catastrophe, and then return to its previous condition, run
the same course, and end again in the same catastrophe.
This was to continue indefinitely. There was to be no
permanent progress. "That which hath been is that
which shall be; and that which hath been done is that
which shall be done : and there is no new thing under the
sun." 57 This conception was current among the Baby
lonians and Persians, is found in Greece and Rome, and
appears also in the "prophetic" texts of the Egyptians.58
By way of contrast with it the Messianic hope of the He
brews introduced the idea of development. When the
great cataclysm should come there would be no reversion
to the previous order of things. A new eternal kingdom
of God would emerge. There would be a step forward,
an advance. "This thought," says A. C. Welch, "of how
the world was an organism, with its inevitable higher
view of history, was one great contribution of the He
brew to the world's thought. . . . Even Greek thought
never broke away from the Eastern conception of the
world-cycles until it had been fertilized by the infusion
of this Hebrew contribution." 59
Now, in the idea of development there is a certain basis
for optimism. This is evident in our modern life. The
law of evolution has affected the mood of our times, and

87 Eccl. 1.9.
88 See Robert Flint's Philosophy of History, pp. 88ff. According
to Nemesius, "the Stoics taught that in fixed periods of time a burn
ing and destruction of all things take place, and the world returns
again from the beginning into the very same shape as it had before,
and that the restoration of them all happens not once but often, or,
rather, that the same things are restored an infinite number of
times." 89 The Religion of Israel Under the Kingdom, p. 260,
378

THE MESSIANIC HOPE
has given to it a somewhat more hopeful character. But
this effect has been very general and diffusive. It has led
to no new movement; and for a manifest reason. The
belief in progress can become dynamic only when the goal-'
is conceived of as not very distant. During the persecu
tion of the Jews in Russia a number of years ago, when
hundreds were being slain, it was reported in the daily
press that Andrew Carnegie sent them a cablegram say
ing, "Do not be dismayed. Under the law of evolution
we must steadily, though slowly, march upward, and
finally reach the true conception of the brotherhood of
man." That this message brought any great degree
of comfort to its recipients, is hardly probable. Before the
belief in development can be translated into the living
power of an optimistic faith, the goal of the development
must be brought so near that it may be possible for the
individual himself or at least his immediate descendants
to share in it. And here it is that the strength of the
prophetic hope lay. It was no distant Utopia which the
prophets held up before men, but an imminent kingdom
of God. The new era was about to dawn. God was
about to intervene. It was this nearness of the divine
intervention that gave moral leverage and convicting
power to the prophets' message. And it was this fact also\
that made it possible for them for such a long time to dis
pense with the belief in personal immortality. The near
ness of the new age made possible the thought of personal
participation in it.
The older exegesis found everywhere in the Old Testa
ment references to Christ. A scarlet thread could hardly
be mentioned without its being construed as pointing
forward to the sacrifice on Calvary; and so with a thou
sand other details. That type of exegesis is now past.
379

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
We no longer look to the Old Testament for specific pre
dictions concerning Jesus of Nazareth. It is the ethical
teaching of the prophets, and not their outlook into the
future, that interests us. And so the habit has arisen of
depreciating the eschatological element in both the Old
and New Testaments. "Such ideas," we are told, "by
their nature belong not to the spiritual kernel of religion,
but to its external dogmatic framework. From the point
of view of pure religion they are among the least influ
ential and the least interesting of religious facts." 60
But against this tendency there has been of late a reac
tion. It is now coming to be seen that we do not do
justice to the prophets and psalmists when we place an
almost exclusive stress upon their ethical and social teach
ing. The ethical idealism of these ancient seers and
singers was born out of and sustained by their Messianic
hope. Their eschatology constituted the very atmosphere
of their religious life. It was their supreme interest, the
heart of their message. Hence we are coming to see that
the older exegesis was not so wholly wrong after all. Its
method was completely mistaken. But the instinct which
led it to single out the Messianic hope as the most sig
nificant element in the Old Testament was sound. It was
this hope, and this hope only, that made possible the lofty
idealism of the Hebrew seer and saint. A similar change
of attitude toward eschatology is also observable in the
New Testament field. "We are beginning," says F. C.
Burkitt, "to see that the apocalyptic vision, the New Age
which God is to bring us, is no mere embroidery of Chris
tianity, but the heart of its enthusiasm. And therefore
the expectations of vindication to come, the imagery of
the Messianic Feast, the 'other-worldliness' against which
80 C. H. Toy, Judaism and Christianity, p. 372.
380

THE MESSIANIC HOPE
so many eloquent words were said in the nineteenth cen
tury, are not to be regarded as regrettable accretions
foisted on by superstition to the pure morality of the orig
inal gospel. These ideas are the Christian hope, to be alle
gorized and spiritualized by us for our own use whenever
necessary, but not to be given up so long as we remain
Christians at all." 61
01 Preface to Schweitzer's Quest of the Historical Jesus.

38l

CHAPTER XVI
THE FUTURE LIFE
i The eschatology of the individual receives far less at-
I tention in the Old Testament than that of the nation.
And not only does it receive less attention. Such views
Vas are expressed of the individual's future are for the
' most part very different from those to which the Chris
tian believer has been accustomed. Not until almost the
| close of the Old Testament period do we find the belief
in personal immortality. And even here it is no general
' and assured conviction that meets us. Uncertainty, skep
ticism, and dreary representations of the future mingle
with the few expressions of confident hope. And not only
does the Old Testament conception of the individual's
destiny fall below that of the New Testament. It seems
on the whole to be beneath the level of several of the
Ethnic faiths, "less tolerable than the Greek, less ethical
than the Egyptian, less adequate and certain than the
Persian." J These Gentile religions, it is sometimes as
serted, "had a more special mission than can be claimed
for the Hebrew faith, in the preservation and transmis
sion of the truth of a future life." 2 Indeed, Kant was
so impressed with the lack of the Old Testament at this
point that he denied to Judaism a genuinely religious
character, and Schopenhauer stigmatized it, in the form
in which it appears in the historical books, as "the rudest
of all religions."
1 S. D. F. Salmond, The Christian Doctrine of Immortality, p. 174.
2 Ibid. 382

THE FUTURE LIFE
This singular attitude of the Old Testament toward
the belief in a future life calls for explanation. Thexea- )
son commonly^given for it is the strong sense of solidarity /
that prevailed in ancient Israel. The individual was so
completely subordinated to the family, tribe, and nation >
that he had no independent rights or worth. He found
his satisfaction in the prosperity of the group to which
he belonged. If the nation was believed to be immortal,
nothing more was needed. The Messianic hope rendered /
unnecessary the belief in personal immortality. But !
while there is some truth in this contention, it is not an /
adequate reason for the comparatively negative attitude /
of the Old Testament toward the question of the indi
vidual's destiny. The same attitude in even a more pro
nounced form appears among the Babylonians and Assyr
ians, and in their case it could hardly be contended that
the difference in this regard between them, on the one
hand, and the Egyptians, on the other, was due to their
more highly developed sense of solidarity. Evidently,
some other explanation is necessary. And so the rela
tively undeveloped thought of the Hebrews and Babylon- \
ians concerning the future life has been attributed to the '
lack of constructive imagination on the part of the Sem
ites.3 The Semitic peoples had no drama and no meta- J
physic. They concerned themselves with the empirical/
and practical, and hence devoted little attention to what|
took place after death.
In this as well as the preceding explanation there is
probably an element of truth. But both explanations have /
only a limited validity as applied to the Old Testament/
It was not simply lack of creative imagination that led the ,
prophets to take such a gloomy view of Sheol and the'
3 C. H. Toy, Judaism and Christianity, p. 383.
383

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
future life. There was another reason, as we shall see
later. And as for the idea of solidarity we have already
seen in a previous chapter that nationalism and individual
ism were not antithetical to each other. The Messianic
hope did not necessarily stand in the way of the develop
ment of the belief in immortality. In one sense it rather
contributed to it. "The thought of the destiny of the
individual rose upon that of the nation. The hope of
Israel carried with it the hope of the Israelite." 4 No
doubt the expectation of the speedy coming of the king
dom of God tended to direct attention away from the
thought of death and the life hereafter, but it did so in
the interest of a higher conception of the Future, a con
ception that had its significance for the individual as well
as the nation. For the nearness of the approaching king
dom made it not only possible but a matter of lively ex
pectation that the individual Israelite would share in it,
and to this extent at least the Messianic hope contained in
germ the later belief in personal immortality.
Whether this belief would not have arisen sooner in
Israel had not the national hope been so strong, is a ques
tion that admits of no answer. But a providential pur
pose may be discerned in the order of development that
actually took place. The Messianic hope, imperfect as
it wa^ in its earlier forms, stressed two important truths,
the value of the present life and the social character of the
life in the new age. Both of these truths have at times
been overlooked by believers in immortality. There has
been on their part a tendency to other-worldliness, to a
depreciation of the life that now is, and also a tendency
to view the life hereafter in too individualistic a sense,
as simply a reward for meritorious conduct. The re-
4 S. D. F. Salmond, p. 208. 384

THE FUTURE LIFE
suit has been to deprive the belief in immortality of
its richness and sustaining power. For, as R. L. Steven
son says, "To believe in immortality is one thing, but
first of all it is needful that we believe in life." And
the only life that we can permanently believe in is the
social life, the life lived with and for the brethren. It
was the failure of the Egyptians, the Persians, and
Greeks adequately to emphasize one or the other of these
truths that eventually deprived their belief in the life/
hereafter of its vitality. And so it turned out that the
Hebrew religion, which seemed far cruder and more neg
ative in its view of the Future than these heathen faiths,
but which did emphasize the value of life as such and its
social character, "proved nevertheless to be the only reli
gion that moved on to a vital and enduring faith in
immortality." 5
In tracing the development of Old Testament teaching
concerning the future life we naturally begin with the
conception of Sheol. The word "Sheol" was probably
derived from a root meaning "to bejiollow," and so cor
responded in meaning to the German Holle and the Eng-'
lish "hell." The representations of Sheol in the Old
Testament are not altogether uniform, but in general it
was thought of as a great subterranean pit or cave to
which all the dead went.6 The origin of this conception
is a matter of uncertainty. L. B. Paton argues that it was
of Sumerian origin, and that it was early adopted by
the Canaanites and from them by the Hebrews.7 It
8 S. D. F. Salmond, p. 181.
"Compare Num. 16. 30, 33.
* "The Hebrew Idea of the Future Life," in The Biblical World,
191 0, vol. i, pp. I59ff- 385

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
was thus independent of the general Semitic belief that
the dead haunted their graves and were possessed of
certain magical powers which led men to treat them as
objects of worship. But the more common and prob
able theory is that "Sheol was originally conceived as
, a combination of the graves of the clan or nation, and
as thus its final abode. In due course this conception
was naturally extended till it embraced the departed
of all nations, and thus became the final abode of all man
kind, good and bad alike." 8 That the idea, however,
underwent this development within Israel itself is im
probable. The conception of a general rendezvous of
the dead is a very ancient one, and was probably bor
rowed or inherited by the Hebrews. Their Sheol was
quite similar to the Aralu of the Babylonians, and may
very well have been derived from it, or from an earlier
common source.
But while the conception of Sheol may have originally
developed out of the more primitive idea of the tomb as
the abode of the dead, the latter idea was not displaced by
it. The two continued to exist together. This is the case
throughout practically the whole of the Old Testament.
The dead are represented both as gathered to their
fathers in the family grave and as going down into Sheol.
Strictly taken, these two conceptions were mutually ex
clusive, but in popular thought and speech this was over
looked. The tendency was to confuse the two and treat
them as interchangeable.9 The result was that the old
cult of the dead persisted along with the belief in Sheol.
That ancestor worship had a strong hold upon the
Israelites is evident from many facts. We read fre-
3 R. H. Charles, Eschatology, p. 34.
"Compare Isa. 14. 11. 386

THE FUTURE LIFE
quently in the Old Testament of offerings to the dead.10
The bread of mourning was such an offering,11 and so
probably was the hair cut off by mourners.12 Further
more, "such Hebrew graves as have been found in Pal- j
estine contain deposits similar to those found in Canaan
ite graves (and indeed in the graves of all neighboring
nations) — food, drink, arms, tools, and the like." 13
The mourning customs also, such as cutting into one's
flesh14 and removing one's shoes,15 point to religious
reverence for the dead. Such reverence is likewise implied
in the invocation or consultation of the spirits of the
dead to which repeated references are made in the Old
Testament.16 It is from this point of view also that
the importance of posterity among the Israelites is best
understood. The cult of the dead was in the hands
of one's sons. If it was not observed, the dead would
lose whatever life and joy would otherwise be their
lot in the hereafter. It was consequently a matter of
prime importance to the Israelite to have male offspring,
or at least some one who by adoption or otherwise would
perform the religious offices of a son after one's death.17
The law of levirate marriage, according to which it was
the duty of a surviving brother to marry the childless
widow of his deceased brother,18 owed its origin to this
fact. And the same fact also explains the belief that

10 Deut. 26. 14 ; Jer. 16. 7 ; Psa. 106. 28.
"Hos. 9. 4; Ezek. 24. 17.
"Isa. 22. 12; Jer. 7. 29; Amos 8. 10.
13 J. P. Peters, The Religion of the Hebrews, p. 450.
14 Lev. 19. 28 ; 21. 5.
18 2 Sam. 15. 30; Ezek. 24. 17.
18 1 Sam. 28; Isa. 8. 19; Deut. 18. 11.
17 Compare 2 Sam. 18. 18.
18 Deut. 25. 5-10. 387

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
"even in the after-life men could be punished by Yahweh
through the destruction of their posterity,19 for with the
destruction of the latter sacrifices ceased to be made to
the former." 20
In the light of such facts as these it is clear that the
cult of the dead and necromancy played no inconsider
able role in the popular religion of Israel. But they did
so in defiance of the national religion. From the very
beginning Yahwism seems to have assumed a hostile atti
tude toward ancestor-worship and everything associated
with it. Saul is reported to have "put away those that
had familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land." 21
And the later prophets and lawgivers condemn in the
most pronounced way the necromancers "that chirp and
that mutter." "Should not," asks Isaiah, "a people seek
unto their God? on behalf of the living should they seek
unto the dead?" 22 Between the worship of Yahweh and
the cult of the dead there was a distinct antithesis. Yah
weh was a jealous God and would tolerate no rivals, not
even the spirits of the dead. Everything connected with
ancestor-worship was looked upon as idolatrous.23
This was undoubtedly one reason why the early
prophets devoted so little attention to the after-life. That
realm had already been appropriated by other and rival
objects of worship. The dead themselves were looked
upon as divine or semidivine.24 Then, too, the current

19 Exod. 20. 5; 34. 7; Num. 14. 18; Deut. 5. 9.
29 Compare Job 21. 19-21. R. H. Charles, Eschatology, pp. 25f.
See Schwally, Das Leben nach dem Tode, pp. 30L
21 1 Sam. 28. 3.
22 Isa. 8. 19; compare Deut. 18. 11 ; Lev. 19. 31 ; 20. 6, 27.
23 See Die israelitischen Vorstellungen vom Zustand nach dem
Tode, (pp. 38ff.), by Alfred Bertholet.
24 1 Sam. 28. 13. 388

THE FUTURE LIFE
conception of Sheol was hardly such as to suggest that it
belonged to the domain of Yahweh. Yahweh was the
God of the living, not of the dead. This, however, does
not necessarily mean that he was so exclusively a national
God and so completely limited in his sway to the land and
the people of Israel that he had no interest or power over
the underworld. The first of the literary prophets repre
sents him as having Sheol within his reach,25 and the
manifest conviction of the religious leaders of Israel
throughout their entire history was that Yahweh was
equal to every emergency. Wherever his people might be,
he was able to protect them. What kept him from taking
Sheol under his special care was not its location but its\
character. It was not beyond the reach of his power, but I
life there was so shadowy and so unethical that it seemed
unworthy of his direct supervision.
Yahwism consequently assumed a negative attitude !
toward the future life. It did not altogether deny the /
existence of Sheol, but it tended to take a very low and/
pessimistic view of everything connected with it. And so
there arose in Israel two different representations of the
underworld. According to the earlier and popular view, ,
the dead were possessed of a certain degree of life, of
knowledge, and of power. They were self-conscious,
moved about, and could even be brought back to earth.26
They were acquainted with the fortunes of their living
descendants, were interested in them, and were able to
help or injure them.27 They had supernatural knowledge, i
could forecast the future;28 indeed, were called yid-

28 Amos 9. 2.
28 Isa. 14. 9ff. ; 1 Sam. 28.
"Jer. 31. 15!-
38 1 Sam. 28.

389

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
deonim, "the knowing ones," 29 and were spoken of as
elohim, "divine." The term Rephaim applied to them30
is commonly interpreted as referring to their weakness,
describing them as "sunken, powerless ones," but it should
be noted that the same term is applied to "the vanished
races, who had left colossal remains behind them, evi
dences of their more than normal human powers";31 and
it is possible that it may have been used in this sense also
of the spirits of the dead.
But in spite of their superhuman powers the lot of those
in Sheol was at the best a miserable one. The Israelites
looked forward to it with unconcealed dread. Almost
any kind of earthly existence was to be preferred to it.
Only one condition was worse, and that was the state of
those who were unburied and so not admitted to Sheol,
or at least not to an honorable place in it.32 Whether
there were distinctions of lot in Sheol is a question.
There are a few passages that speak of "the lowest
Sheol," 33 "the chambers of death," 34 and "the uttermost
parts of the pit," 35 but whether these expressions are to
be interpreted literally is uncertain. In any case the dis
tinctions in Sheol, if such there were, were not based on
ethical grounds. "Here,'* as J. P. Peters puts it, "the
dead rested in their places, according to the character
not of their deeds but of their graves." The social dif
ferences of the present life were carried over into Sheol38
29 Lev. 19. 31 ; 20. 6 ; Isa. 19. 3.
30 Isa. 14. 9 ; 26. 19 ; Psa. 88. 10 ; Job 26. 5.
31 J. P. Peters, Religion of the Hebrews, p. 449.
82 Isa. 14. 18-20; Jer. 22. 19; 25. 33.
33 Deut. 32. 22.
34 Prov. 7. 27.
38 Isa. 14. 15; Ezek. 32. 23f.; compare Isa. 24. 2if.
68 1 Sam. 28. 14; Isa. 14. gff.; Ezek. 32.
390

THE FUTURE LIFE
but the ethical distinctions vanished.37 Life there was
submoral, and in its misery and emptiness subhuman.
But uninviting as Sheol was from the popular point of
view, there is another and darker representation of it in
the Old Testament. According to this representation,
Sheol was a land of forgetfulness.38 It was called Abad
don, destruction." 39 It was synonymous with silence.40
From it there was no return,41 and in it there was "no
work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom." 42 The
dead had no consciousness of themselves and no knowl
edge of others.43 They had no interest in their living
descendants and no acquaintance with their affairs.44
Life to them was a blank nothingness. Everything con
nected with it had ceased except bare existence. Indeed,
there are passages that seem to assert man's complete ex
tinction at death. The psalmist says,
"Oh spare me that I may receive strength,
Before I go hence and be no more." 45
And Job says,
"Now shall I lie down in the dust ;
And thou shalt seek me diligently, but I
shall not be. . . .
Man dieth, and is laid low ;
Yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where is
he?
As the waters fail from the sea,
And the river wasteth and drieth up ;
So man lieth down, and riseth not." 48
87 1 Sam. 28. 19; Job. 3- 13-19- 12Eccl. Q. 10.
38 Psa. 88. 12. 43Eccl. 9.51.
89 Psa. 88." 11 ; Job 26. 6; 28. 22. "Job 21. 21 ; 14. 21.
49 Psa. 115. 17. 4B Psa. 39. 13.
41 Job 7. 9 ; 14. 12. 48 Job 7. 21 ; 14. 10-12.
391

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
Such passages as these are perhaps not to be taken in
strict literalness. They may be expressions of a passing
mood rather than final reasoned convictions. Still it
would not have been strange, had the belief in the utter
worthlessness of the after-life led some Old Testament
saints at least to a complete denial of it.
R. H. Charles derives the more negative view of Sheol
from what he terms "the monotheistic doctrine of man's
nature" in Gen. 2-3. A strict trichotomy, he holds, is
here taught. Man is composed of three elements — spirit,
soul, and body. The spirit is the impersonal basis of life.
It came from God and returns at death to God.47 The
soul, which constitutes the personal factor in man, is the
"result of the indwelling of the spirit in the material
body, and has no independent existence of its own. It is
really a function of the material body when quickened by
the spirit." 48 It, consequently, follows that when spirit
and body are separated at death, the soul ceases to exist,
and the individual personality vanishes altogether.
But it is very doubtful if any such clearly defined
theory of man's nature underlay the narrative in Gen.
2-3; and in any case there is no evidence that the more
negative view of Sheol just described was a logical deduc
tion from it. The best explanation of this view of Sheol
is the one already suggested. It had its origin in the pro
phetic opposition to ancestor-worship and to the crude,
superstitious, and idolatrous ideas and practices associated
with it. The current view of the life hereafter was too
shadowy and too unethical to commend itself to the true
, worshiper of Yahweh. Yahweh was a stern ethical Deity,
a Being who manifested himself here and now in the
47 Eccl. 12. 7.
"Eschatology, p. 42. 392

THE FUTURE LIFE
affairs of men, a God of history so real that the realm of
the dead, as men then understood it, seemed foreign to ;
him. Hence the Old Testament saints turned away from
the life hereafter. As currently believed in, it was empty l
enough ; but in the light of Yahweh's revelation of himself
it was still more barren. It was the very reverse of all
that he stood for ; and so the prophets used its emptiness
and nothingness as a foil to set off the richness of the
present manifestations of the divine grace and power.
To us this seems strange; not to believe in the future,
life seems almost equivalent to the denial of religion. But \
with the ancient prophets almost the reverse was the case.
"Not from want of religion," says Dean Stanley, "but (if
one might use the expression) from excess of religion,
was this void left in the Jewish mind. The Future Life s
was not denied or contradicted; but it was overlooked,
set aside, overshadowed, by the consciousness of the liv
ing, actual presence of God himself. That truth, at least
in the limited conceptions of the youthful nation, was too
vast to admit of any rival truth, however precious." 49
This negative attitude, however, of early Yahwism to |
the question of the future life represented only a transi-;
tional stage. With the development of Old Testament re
ligion it was inevitable that the problem of the individual's
destiny should be seriously raised. And it was equally
inevitable, if the needs of the human spirit were to be met,
that a more positive attitude toward the subject should be
taken. Not only must the reality of the future life be
affirmed; there must also be a strong conviction that it
is a life of moral distinctions, and that to the righteous
it is one of eternal blessedness. In the development of
49 Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church, vol. i, pp. 173I.
393

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
this view three lines might have been followed by the
Hebrews; indeed, have been followed by the human
spirit. The first is the resurrection of the body. This
means the resumption of the earthly life. The second
is the idea of a judgment in the underworld. This de
prives the after-life of its moral neutrality, and gives to
it the same interests and values that the present life
possesses. The third is the immortality of the soul. This
doctrine establishes a kinship between the human and the
Divine, and finds in that kinship a ground for the belief
in the endless existence of the soul. These three lines of
thought were first worked out by the Persians, Egyptians,
and Greeks respectively. And all three exercised a con
siderable influence on the development of the belief in
immortality.
- Among the Jews the idea of immortality took the form
>of the resurrection of the body. The process by which
this conclusion was reached was a long and complex one.
In seeking to trace it we first note that it took its rise
within Yahwism itself. It did not grow out of the popu
lar belief in Sheol. Toward this belief the prophets, as
we have seen, took a negative attitude. They were either
indifferent to it, or directly condemned the necromancy
and cult of the dead connected with it. But while the
popular heathen conception did not form the starting
point of the later belief in personal immortality, it was
still not without its positive value. Superstitious and
idolatrous though it was, it had accustomed the popular
mind to the thought of existence after death, and in so far
had prepared the way for the later and higher faith. Like
Spiritualism, Theosophy, Christian Science, and New
Thought in recent times, it furnished a kind of intellec
tual or psychological support to the true religious doctrine
394

\

THE FUTURE LIFE
of the future life, and in this way contributed to its de
velopment. Had there been no popular belief in an after
life, had the Israelites been materialistic in their thought
and looked upon death as the end of all, it is certain that!
the later religious doctrine would have had greater diffi
culties to contend with, and been still slower than it was
in finding lodgment in their minds.
Within Yahwism itself there were three native lines of
thought, or developments, that led to the doctrine of im
mortality : first, the rise of individualism; second, the idea
of reirihntion ; and third, the sense of fellowship with
God. These three factors were to some extent interre
lated ; but it will be well to consider them, so far as pos
sible, separately.
We have already discussed at some length the develop
ment of individualism. Here we need only point out the
way in which the Messianiciiope .was affected_by it. This
hope down to the time of the exile made a certain provi
sion for the inevitable longings of the individual for a
larger and fuller life, but it did not promise him immor-j
tality. Long life would no doubt be his lot, but for final
and ultimate satisfaction he was forced to turn to the '
thought of the abiding glory of the nation. This concep
tion, however, could not be permanently satisfactory. \
The individual, as he grew in importance, demanded
something more, and so we read in a postexilic prophecy50
that there is to be in the new age a miraculous prolonga
tion of human life. "As the days of a tree shall be the
days of my people, and my chosen shall long enjoy the
work of their hands." But this also failed to meet the
growing demands of the individual heart. So in a still
later prophecy, or, rather, apocalypse we are told that
80 Isa. 65. 20-22. 395

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
death itself is to have no place in the new kingdom.
"He hath swallowed up death forever; and the Lord
Jehovah will wipe away tears from off all faces." 51
But immortality in the Messianic age, comforting as
the hope no doubt was, did not solve the problem of life
and destiny. Many would certainly not live until the new
age dawned and so would have no share in the immortal
life then granted men. Then, too, the repeated delays in
the coming of the new era made it necessarily doubtful
whether the Messianic utterances of the prophets were
not, after all, intended "for many days to come" and for
"times that are far off." 52 And if so, there was little in
the Messianic hope that could give comfort to the present
generation. Hence we find the idea of immortality at
taching itself to the second line of thought above men
tioned, the idea of retribution.
It is in the book of Job, "our first, oldest statement of
the never-ending problem, man's destiny and God's ways
with man here in the earth," 53 that these two ideas are
brought together. It is here assumed that retribution is
a principle of the divine government, but it is strenuously
contended that the principle is not equitably applied in the
actual experiences of life. The innocent often suffer,
while the wicked prosper. This fact with Job was not
only a matter of observation, it was a testimony of his
own conscience. Though innocent he was sorely afflicted.
Tradition, he knew, interpreted his sufferings as an evi
dence of guilt; and even God himself, he believed, re
garded him as a sinner. Otherwise he would not have
brought such suffering upon him. Nevertheless, in the
81 Isa. 25. 8.
82 Ezek. 12. 27.
83 Thomas Carlyle, Heroes and Hero-Worship, p. 68.
396

THE FUTURE LIFE
face of the clear indications of Providence and in the face
of the united voice of the past he protested his innocence.
The inner voice of conscience was to him more trust
worthy than any external or objective standard of truth.
He knew from his own experience that the law of retribu
tion was not justly applied in his case. And yet he was
not prepared to reject the law. He could not do so with
out wrecking the moral universe itself. The law must,
therefore, somehow be valid. But how to harmonize it
with his own experience was beyond him. The problem
baffled him.
If there was to be a solution, it must lie beyond the
experiences of the present; and so in the stress and agony j
of his own soul Job turned to the thought of the possibil- j
ity of another life. "If a man die, shall he live again?" he
asks. If this were only so,
"All the days of my warfare would I wait,
Till my release should come." 54
Sheol, it is here suggested, may perhaps be only a tempo
rary place of sojourn, from which the righteous will re- i
turn again to life. But the suggestion gave only a mo
mentary gleam of light to the sufferer. His mind seemed
unable to rest in it. And yet there must be some escape
from the intolerable moral situation in which he found
himself. So he turned to the God of his own ideal, and
pleaded with him for vindication as over against the God
of traditional theology.
"Mine eye poureth out tears unto God,
That he would maintain the right of a man with
God." 55
"Job 14. 14.
86 16. 20f . 397

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
What Job here had in mind was probably vindication, not
in this life, but after death. And a little later this thought
passed from a mere prayer to at least a temporary convic
tion. He says :
"I know that my Redeemer liveth,
And at last he will stand up upon the earth :
And after my skin, even this body, is destroyed,
Then without my flesh shall I see God ;
Whom I, even I, shall see, on my side,
And mine eyes shall behold, and not as a
stranger." 56
The text of this important passage is unfortunately so
corrupt that its interpretation in detail is uncertain and
difficult. But the main idea is clear. Job looked for
ward to a vindication of himself after death, a vindica
tion of which he himself would be conscious. This did
not necessarily imply immortality. A temporary vision
of God after death would meet the demands of the text.
But the significant thing is that Job felt himself driven by
the moral antinomies of life to the assertion of a con
scious existence after death. And even though he was
unable permanently to maintain for himself this high level
of conviction, he nevertheless in the above passage
pointed out the path along which the higher thought in
Israel must needs travel. A profound ethical sense such
as characterized the Hebrew religion from the beginning
leads necessarily by an inner logic of its own to the belief
in an after-life.
But more directly than the growing individualism and
the intensified idea of retribution did the deepening sense
88 19. 25-27. 398

THE FUTURE LIFE
of fejlowship with God contribute to the rise of the be
lief in a blessed future life. What the Old Testament
saint most dreaded as he contemplated existence in Sheol
was the absence there of all communion with God. The
psalmist, for instance, says :
"In death there is no remembrance of thee:
In Sheol who shall give thee thanks?" 57
What gave value to life from the Old Testament point of
view was the consciousness of the presence of God; and
it was the removal of his presence that made death a spe
cial object of dread, and gave to it the character of a
divine judgment.
According to one method of representation in the Old
Testament, and this the more common one, death is
viewed simply as a fact of the natural order. It is the
inevitable outcome of physical existence. Dust we are,
and to dust we must return. Premature death is an evil,
and may be a divine judgment. But death after a long
life is part of the divine plan. It has in and of itself no
religious significance. Along with this empirical view,
however, there is another in the Old Testament, that sees
in death a departure from the ideal. In the original plan
of God death had no place. Man was made for life, for
endless life with God; but the divine plan was defeated
by human disobedience, and death was introduced as a
penalty. The latter view is clearly expressed in the story of the
tree of life in Genesis 2-3. It may be that in the original
J narrative there was no reference to the tree of life, and
that in 3. 19 death is not to be regarded as a part of the
penalty imposed on man. But even so, it can hardly be
87 6. 5. 399

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
questioned that the tree of life embodied an early Israel
itic conception, and that death, whether viewed as a pen
alty or not, is in the present narrative represented as actu
ally due to expulsion from the garden of Eden. The
same idea of man as originally intended for an immortal
destiny is also suggested by the statement that he was
made in the image of God.58 If like God, it would seem
that he ought to share in the eternal life of God. And in
the case of two early Old Testament heroes it is explicitly
asserted that they escaped death. Enoch was not, for
God took him,59 and Elijah was carried aloft in a chariot
of fire.60 It is a common remark that these stories had
no significance for the belief in a future life, because both
Enoch and Elijah were wholly exceptional men, perhaps
"depotentiated deities." And it is, of course, true that
no general doctrine of immortality can be inferred from
their experiences. But what is recorded of them must at
least have suggested to the Hebrews the possibility of es
caping death and the thought that the life to come was de
pendent upon a present life of communion with God.
But suggestive and significant as these early passages in
the Old Testament are to us, they led to no important
theological development.
Not until we come to some of the late psalms do we find
the sense of fellowship with God drawing the inevitable
conclusion to which it itself furnished the premises. If
God be a God of the living, and not of the dead, if the
maintenance of conscious life be the chief end of crea
tion, if communion with God be the supreme good of
life, then it must needs be that this communion will not
88 Gen. i. 26f., P.
89 Gen. 5. 22-24, P-
60 2 Kings 2. 11. 400

THE FUTURE LIFE
be terminated by death, but will be as endless as God him
self. To suppose otherwise would be to think of God
either as weaker than his works, less powerful than Sheol,
or as himself defeating the very purpose of creation.
Neither alternative is possible to faith. There must,
therefore, somehow be deliverance from death. Life with
God must be without end.
There are four psalms in which this thought seems to
be expressed, and which are consequently called psalms
of immortality: the sixteenth, seventeenth, forty-ninth,
and seventy-third. The first two, however, are less |
definite in their teaching on the subject than the last two. ,
The expression, "when I awake," in Psa. 17. 15 has been5
interpreted as meaning an awakening from the sleep of
death, and the statement about beholding the "face" or
"form" of God has been construed as a reference to the
beatific vision that follows the awakening. But the
context is unfavorable to this interpretation. What is
here contrasted is not the present and the future life,
but "an unreal and fugitive good apart from God, and a
real and enduring good in his fellowship." And this is
also the standpoint of Psalm 16. So secure does the
author feel in the consciousness of the divine presence
that he has no fear even of death. He says:
"Thou wilt not leave my soul in Sheol,
Neither wilt thou suffer thy godly one to see
corruption" (verse 10).
Nothing is here said about a life after death. The psalm
ist is simply so enraptured by the presence of God that
he feels himself lifted above the thought of death. The
fact of death is not denied, but it is overlooked, tran
scended. This attitude falls short of the full belief in
401

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
the future life, but it nevertheless marked an important
advance. The idea of immortality is implicit, though not
explicit. The situation, however, in Psalms 49 and 73 is differ-
" ent. Here we have definite statements relative to the
after-life. In Psalm 49 the fate of the wicked and the
righteous is contrasted. Sheol is, to be the future abode
of the wicked.
"They are appointed as a flock for Sheol ;
Death shall be their shepherd : . . .
And their beauty shall be for Sheol to consume,
That there be no habitation for it" (verse 14).
(• The righteous, on the other hand, are to dwell in heaven.
"God," says the psalmist, "will redeem my soul from
the power of Sheol; for he will take me," as he took
Enoch of old (verse 15). And so in Psalm 73, after
speaking of the certain destruction which awaits the
wicked, the author turns to the thought of his own fel
lowship with God. Nothing is to be compared with it in
value, not even the universe itself :
"Whom have I in heaven but thee?
And there is none upon earth that I desire be
sides thee" (verse 25).
Such perfect communion with God manifestly could
not brook the thought of its own cessation. Hence we
read, "Thou shall guide me with thy counsel,
And afterward receive me to glory" (verse 24).
In Psalms 49 and 73 the thought evidently is that the
^ righteous at death are taken to heaven, while the wicked
402

THE FUTURE LIFE
remain in Sheol. Sheol is thus given a moral character,/
becoming a place of punishment. Heaven, on the other
hand, as the home of God, becomes the eternal reward "
of the righteous. But rich as the thought of the divine
abode was, it did not fully satisfy the demands of the
Israelitic mind. Something more definite, more tangible
was needed. The idea of the soul as living apart from
the body was one to which the Old Testament writers did
not attain. Not even in Sheol was the soul thought of as
body-less. The departed in Sheol are represented as
having bodily forms,61 and these bodily forms were ap
parently conceived as connected in some way with the
bodies in the grave.62 In one instance it is possible that
the idea is expressed that the soul is "capable of the high
est spiritual activities though without the body." Job
says, "without my flesh shall I see God."63 R. H.
Charles makes much of these words, contending that they
show that "it was not necessary for Israel to borrow
from Greece the idea that the soul could preserve its
powers independently of the body." But unfortunately
the Hebrew text of this passage is too uncertain to be ac
cepted as an adequate basis for so important a conclusion.
In any case, the idea was an exceptional one in Israel.
The people generally seemed incapable of conceiving "the
body without psychical functions, or the soul without
a certain corporeity." In order, consequently, to give to ;
the future life definiteness and richness of content it was
necessary for them to do something more than believe in
the immortality of the soul. They must give to the soul
bodily form.
81 Isa. 14. 9ff-
82 Job 14. 22 ; Isa. 66. 24.
83 19. 26. 403

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
This incapacity to conceive of the soul apart from the
body was one reason for the rise of the doctrine of the
resurrection of the body. Another reason is found in the
Messianic hope. This hope was an earthly hope. The
kingdom to which it looked forward was to be realized
on earth. And it was a hope that was older than the be
lief in individual immortality. It had laid firm hold upon
the national consciousness, and could not be set aside.
The highest thoughts of the Israelites centered about it.
If, then, the idea of personal immortality was really to
grip the thought of the people and become a living faith,
it must somehow be connected with the belief in the com
ing kingdom of God. Now this was made possible by the
doctrine of the resurrection of the body. The righteous
who died before the dawn of the new era were to be
raised from the dead so as to share in its blessings.
There are two passages in the Old Testament where
this belief is expressed. The first is Isa. 26. 19. Here
restored Israel, addressing Yahweh, says, "Thy dead shall
live; my dead bodies shall arise"; and then, turning to
her own dead children, she cries, "Awake and sing, ye
that dwell in the dust; for thy dew is as the dew of herbs,
and the earth shall cast forth the dead." Whether the
dead here included all the Israelites or simply the right
eous, is a question. Probably the latter. The author
would hardly have represented the idolatrous Israelites
as being raised from the dead to share in the glories of
the Messianic age. For them and the wicked generally he
evidently had in mind a different fate.64 The other pas
sage is Dan^jA-^-r Here we have a double resurrection.
"Many," we read, "of them that sleep in the dust of the
earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to
84 See 26. 14; 24. 22. 404

THE FUTURE LIFE
shame and everlasting contempt." Whether the "many"
here spoken of refers to all the Israelites by way of "com
parison with the still more innumerable heathen"
(Ewald), or simply to "the preeminently good and bad in
Israel" (Charles), that is, the martyrs and apostates, is
uncertain. The latter is suggested by the immediate con
text.65 But in either case what we have is not a general 1
resurrection, but a resurrection merely of Israelites. )
The idea that the wicked as well as the righteous were
to be raised introduced into the thought of the resurrec
tion a new motive. What underlay the idea of the resur
rection of the righteous was the thought of restoration to
communion with God and with the righteous community.
This is the positive religious conception that lies at the
basis of the doctrine as a whole. But to this the resurrec
tion of the wicked adds the idea of the retributive right-/
eousness of God. The wicked were to be raised in order.
to be punished. This implies that Sheol was thought of
in the old colorless way as a region where there was
neither reward nor punishment. The assumption, on the
other hand, that only the righteous were raised, implied
that Sheol, while the temporary abode of the righteous,
was the eternal abode of the wicked, and so relatively at
least a place of punishment.
The two Old Testament passages which we have just
considered belong to a late date. Daniel comes from the
Maccabean period, and the apocalypse in Isa. 24-27 was
probably not more than a century earlier. The late ap^
pearance of the doctrine of the resurrection in Israel natu
rally suggests the theory that the doctrine was borrowed
from the Persians, with whom it originated earlier, and
with whom the Jews had been in constant contact since
63 See 11. 33ff-; 12. 3- 405

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
the latter part of the sixth century. In favor of this
theory not a little can be said. The resemblances between
the Mazdean and the Jewish doctrine, especially in the
form represented by Dan. 12. 2, are manifest. Both teach
a resurrection of the wicked as well as the righteous, and
both connect it with the final Judgment. But along with
; these resemblances there are a number of points of differ
ence. In one the resurrection is universal, in the other
limited; in one the Judgment follows the Messianic era,
" in the other it precedes it ; in one the departed go to their
reward or punishment, heaven or hell, immediately after
death, in the other they are all detained together in Sheol
until the new era dawns.
j- Then, too, we have already seen that there were native
tendencies in Israel naturally leading to the doctrine of
individual immortality and the resurrection of the body.
The growingdndividualism, the strict idea_of_diyine retri
bution, and the deepeningsgnse ofjellowship with God
all made it inevitable that immortal life should eventually
be predicated of the individual. And the strength of the
Messianic idea in Israel made it equally inevitable that
the immortal hope should take the form of the belief in
the resurrection of the body. This idea was not new to
the Israelites. The prophets, Elijah and Elisha, had
raised the dead,66 and later prophets had applied the idea
of the resurrection to the nation.67 Hence its subsequent
application to individual Israelites generally was only
r natural. No suggestion of it from a foreign source was
necessary<wThis, of course, does not mean that the Jews
were altogether uninfluenced by their Persian environ-
' ment. To some extent they must have been affected by
38 1 Kings 17. 22 ; 2 Kings 4. 35 ; 13. 21.
87 Ezek. 37. 1-14 ; Isa. 53. 10-12. 406

THE FUTURE LIFE
it. But, so far at least as the doctrine of the resurrection
is concerned, there is no good ground for going beyond
the position taken by Kuenen, who held that "the germs
which lay hidden in Judaism were fertilized by contact
with a religion in which they had arrived at maturity." 68
In the development of the idea of immortality in the
Old Testament we have observed three stages. The first
asserted immortality for the individual in the Messianic
age. Death would then be abolished. In the second the
pious soul expressed the conviction that his communion
with God would be without end. The third announced
the doctrine of the resurrection. The dead would be
raised to share in the glories of the Messianic kingdom.
Two different conceptions thus became current concern
ing the fate of the individual at death. According to one
he went directly to heaven and continued there an un
broken fellowship with God. According to the other he
descended to Sheol and remained there until the resurrec
tion day, when he was restored to communion with God
and men.
In both of these forms the new hope met with more or
less of skepticism, as we see from such a book as Ecclesi
astes,69 and from the unbelief of the Sadducees. But it
nevertheless continued to make its way until it became a
firmly established article of the popular faith. Both
forms of the belief persisted into the postcanonical period.
Indeed, they both appear in the New Testament.70 But
there was a gradual tendency to adjust the one to the
other. Sheol, for instance, came to be thought of as a

' The Religion of Israel, vol. iii, p. 43-
' See 2. i5f. ; 3- 19-21 ; 6. 3-6 ; 9- 2-6 ; 11. 8.
' Compare Luke 23. 43 and Mark 12. i8ff.
407

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
place of moral distinctions. The dead are no longer in
discriminately mingled together. "A division," we read
in the Book of Enoch,71 "is made for the spirits of the
righteous, in which is a bright spring of water." A fore
taste of the bliss of heaven is thus transferred to the right
eous in Sheol. Then, too, the resurrection and the Mes
sianic age came to be thought of in less distinctly earthly
or material terms. The resurrection was to be either a
resurrection of the spirit or a resurrection "in garments
of light and glory." And the earthly Messianic kingdom,
if established at all, was not to be eternal. The dead were
not to be raised to participate in it. It was to be only
preparatory to the general resurrection,' which was to
usher in the heavenly kingdom or an eternal Messianic
kingdom in a new heaven and a new earth. A more spir
itual conception of the future life thus came to prevail.
But not until the advent of Christianity did this higher
hope become a living and burning faith. Stripped of its
national limitations, it now became a universal hope, the
hope of every man as man. It also, when linked up with
the established fact of the resurrection of Christ and the
thought of eternal fellowship with him, carried with it a
certainty of conviction and a richness of content that were
altogether new. In a very real sense Christ brought life
and immortality to light; so that it was possible for the
believer to say that while "it is not yet made manifest
! .what we shall be, we know that, when he shall be mani
fested, we shall be like him ; for we shall see him even as
he is." 72

22. 9.
2 1 John 3. 2.

408

INDEX
Index of Authors and Subjects

Admonitions of Ipuwer, 355
Allen, A. V. G., 150
Amos, 156, 35§, 361
Ancestor worship, 386L
Angel of Yahweh, 77, 199
Angels, 138, I92ff.
Anthropomorphisms, 58f., 96
Apocalypticism, 352
Ark, iosf., 117
Arnold, W. R., 105
Atonement, 303f.
Azazel, 210
Baal, Tyrian, 36, 83f.
Baals, 6gi.
Babylonian influence, I30f., 201
Bade\ W. F., 7 if.
Baudissin, 137
Bennett, W. H., 192, 320
Bertholet, Alfred, 388
Blood, atoning, 313
Body, 2193.
Bowne, B. P., 49, 58, 67, 137, 189,
232, 257, 263, 267, 291, 303,
329. 368
Brain, 221
Breasted, J. H., 355
Brightman, E. S., 28
Budde, K., 158
Burkitt, P. C, 380
Canaanitic influence, 130
Carnegie, A., 379
CeremoniaUsm, 150, 153, 164, 243,
247
Charles, R. H., 228, 322, 331, 353,
373. 386, 388, 392
Cherubim, 203, 207
Cheyne, T. K., 128, 144
Cleanness, 149
Compassion, 174
Comte, Auguste, 66
Cornill, H., 42, 64, 75, 145, 174
Covenant (berith), 176s., 370
Creation stories, 127
Creationism, 226

Creative activity of thought, 2 1
Creatorship of Yahweh, 1248.
Creelman, Harlan P., 38
Custom and morals, 240
Daniel, 203, 376, 404!.
David, 119, 297, 372
Davidson, A. B., 56, 83, 86, 96,
123, 229, 255, 284
Day of Atonement, 312
Day of Yahweh, 129, 167, 361, 364
Death, 270, 389!, 399
Decalogue, 109, 157
Decalogue, so called J, 154
Delitzsch, Franz, 227
Demons, 196, 209
Deutero-Isaiah, 88f., I24f., 178,
186, 283, 375
Deuteronomy, 40, 179, 247, 271,
272
Devotion to Yahweh, 122, 159L
Debelius, Martin, 106
Dignity of man, 233f.
Duhm, B., 277, 317
Ecclesiastes, 288
Egypt, deliverance from, 159
Egyptian influence, 354
Eiselen, F. C, 27
Election of Israel, 132, 158, l7of.
Elijah, 36, 82, in, 162, 400, 406
Elohim, 79, 116, 138
Eschatology, 359ff.
Eternity of God, 135
Etiquette in religion, 150
Eudemonism, 369
Evolution, I7ff., 28f., 378
Exile, 254, 320, 346
Existence of God, 51
Ezekiel, 148, 178,182,281,293,310,
318, 343. 352
Ezra, 4if.
Face of Yahweh, 77
Fairbairn, A. M., 50
Faith, 298

409

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT

Fall of man, 261, 270
Fatherhood of God, 182S.
Fellowship with God, 399
Fite, Warren, 328
Flesh (basar), 2igS.
Flint, Robert, 17, 316, 378
Foreign alliances, 246
Forgiveness, 29off.
Frazer, J. G., 220
Freedom of God, 6if.
Freedom of man, 236f.
Future life, 382ft.
Gabriel, 203
Glory of Yahweh, 77, I47f.
Gods, heathen, 123, 155, 183,
195-
Gods, household, 117
Goethe, 154
Gordon, A. R., 32
Greatness of Yahweh, 146L
Gressmann, Hugo, 78, 106, 354ff.,
372
Guilt, 263, 266
Gunkel, H., 131, 341, 353
Habakkuk, 277ft., 298
Harper, Andrew, 51
Heart, 231
Heathen, the, 168, 180, i8sff., 364
Heaven, 104
Heaven, host of, 198
Hegelian philosophy, 29
History, God in, 51, 62f.
Hocking, W. E., 49
Holiness, meaning of, 137, 151
Holiness of God, I37ff.
Holiness of persons, 151
Holiness of things, 141L
Holy One of Israel, 143
"Holy Ones," I93f.
Hosea, 109, 174, 181, 185
Ideal King, 375
Idealism of prophets, 167
Image of God, 95, 234f.
Image- worship, I09ff., 246
Immanence of God, 21
Immanuel prophecy, 373
Immorality at sanctuaries, 164
Imposition of hands, 312
Incarnation, 188
Individualism, 149, 274, 316, 328,
" 33I2-. 395I-

Intercession, 202, 299
Jastrow, Morris, 122, 127, 131
Jealousy of Yahweh, 81, 144
Jehovah, the name, 54
Jeremiah, 178, 245, 259, 280, 293,
318, 341
Job, 28, 126, 2iif., 252, 284, 347,
396
Jonah, 187
Judges, period of, 29, 34!
Judgment, day of, 358ff.
Justification by faith, 171
Kant, Immanuel, 21, 255, 382
Kautzsch, E., 31, 38, 56, 84
Kenites, 158
Kent, C. F., 292
Kittel, R., 371
Knowledge of God, 52
Koberle, J., 260
Kodesh, 137
Kohler, Dr. K., 164, 321
Konig, Eduard, 69, 71, 354
Kosters, 195
Kraetzschmar, R., 179
Kuenen, Abraham, 155, 407
Laidlaw, J., 230
Legalistic period, 41L, 44!
Limitations of Yahweh, 120, i62f.
Localization of Yahweh, I04f.
Lodge, Sir Oliver, 256
Lohr, Max, 324
Love of God, 1738.
Lovingkindness, 173
Malak Yahweh, ig8f.
Malakim, 193, 198
McConnell, F. J., 66
McFadyen, J. E., 275, 286
Mediation, angelic, 202
Messiah, 37 iff.
Messianic hope, 33, 294, 35lff.,
395
Meyer, Eduard, 355
Michael, 202f.
Miracles, 64!
Mitchell, H. G., 27, 85, 206, 211
Monolatry, 79
Moore, G. F., 94, 310
Moses, 25f., 32, 78f.( 109, 122,
I57ff-
Moving force in Yahwism, i22f,

410

INDEX

Mozley, J. K, 302
Myers, F. W. H., 173
"Name" of Yahweh, 77
Nathan, 162
Nationalism, 316ft.
Naturalism, 17L, 29L
Nature and God, 6 if.
Nature of man, 217ft.
Nature of sin, 254
Nature, transformation of, 368
Necromancy, 387
Nehemiah, 4 if.
Omnipotence of God, I20f., 135,
146
Omnipresence of God, 120, 135
Omniscience of God, 120, 135
Orchard, W. E., 266, 290
Origin of sin, 260ft.
Paton, L. B., 385
Patriarchs, i7of., 297
Peake, A. S., 279, 281, 284, 289
Pentateuch, 26f.
Persian influence, 201, 405
Personality, definition of, 49
Personality of God, 49ft.
Peters, J. P., 71, in, 143, 284,
372, 387, 390
Piepenbring, Ch., 104, 263
Polybaalism, 69f.
Polyyahwism, 7if.
Power of Yahweh, nsff., 146L,
389
Pragmatic test of truth, 22f.
Preexistence of soul, 225
Pre-Mosaic Hebrews, 78
Preprophetic period, 26, 2gf., 34ft.,
43f., 133, i6if., 175, 184, 239EE.,
267ft.
Priestly code, 27, 41, 125, 149^,
I78f., 247, 311, 346
Prophetic period, 26, 30, 38f., 44
Prophets, eighth-century, 39, 85,
I28f., 131, i63f., 177, 243, 271,
298, 303. 36o, 365. 375. 388,
392
Proverbs, 28, 250, 287
Psalms, 28, 41, 251, 288, 401ft.
Psychological fallacy, 127, 327
Punishment of sin, 266, 29 if., 300,
335
Purity, I49f.

Remnant, the, 335, 361
Repentance, 298
Resurrection, 404ft.
Retribution, 272, 336, 396
Righteousness, human, i6sf.
Righteousness of God, 151, 154ft.
Righteousness and grace, i68f.,
174. 295
Robinson, H. W., 66, 224, 230, 327
Rogers, R. W., 56, 127, 340
Royce, Josiah, 256
Russell, Bertrand, nsf.
Sacrifices, I02f., 305ft.
Salmond, S. D. F., 382, 384^
Salvation, 291
Satan, 2 ioff.
Schultz, H., 50, 56, 65, 227, 234
Schwally, F., 259, 388
Self-respect, 148L
Sellin, E., 283, 321, 353
Seraphim, 203, 206
Sheldon, H. C, 261
Sheol, 385ft.
Sin, 239ft.
Sin-offering, 310
Skinner, J., 235, 301
Smend, R., 319, 339
Smith, G. A., 185, 197
Smith, H. P., 23, 8i, 84, 96, 159,
352, 376
Smith, J. M. Powis, 302, 326, 34if.,
359
Smith, W. R., 122, 141, 142, 276,
3°6, 317, 320, 339
Solidarity of family, 322
Solidarity of nation, 319ft.
Son of Man, 376
Sons of God, 138, 193, 210
Soul (nephesh), 222ft.
Spirit (ruach), 94, 229ft.
Spirit of God, 77, 97!, 114
Spirituality of God, 93ff.
Spirituality of man, 2i8ff.
Stade, B., 104, 106, 127, 259, 324,
352f., 3J8
Stanley, Dean, 393
Stars, the, 205
Stevens, G. B, 295, 301, 308
Strahan, J., 282
Strickland, F. L., 58
Substitution, penal, 312ft.
Suffering, problem of, 266ff.
Suffering Servant, 375

411

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT

Taboo, I39f.
Temple, io7f.
Temple, William, 266
Tennant, F. R., 256
Toy, H. C, 31. 256, 380, 383
Traducianism, 226
Transcendence of God, 201
Trichotomy, 227L
Trinity, 76f.
TJnapproachableness of God, 144
Uncleanness, I39f., 149L
Unity of God, 68ff.
Unity of human nature, 233
Universal rule of Yahweh, 13 if.
Universality; of sin, 258
Unwitting sins, 249, 311
Utilitarianism of Proverbs, 250
Vatke, W., 317
Vicarious suffering, 283, 301, 315
Vico, G. B., 17ft.

Warren, W. F., 118
Welch, A. C, 64, 133, 338, 353,
362, 369, 378
Wellhausen, J., 25, 30, 32, 56, 80,
155, 319. 352
Wisdom of God, 77
Wise men, 347
Word of God, 77
World-catastrophe, 362
World-cycles, 63, 377
World-mission, Israel's, I32f.
World-purpose of Yahweh, 132
Wrath of God, 144
Yahweh, the name, 55f.
Yahweh as war-god, 116
Yahweh as husband of Israel, 180
Yahweh as storm-god, 1 18
Yahweh's regard for his own
name, i48f.
Zechariah, 204, 211
Zephaniah, 359

Index of Scripture Passages

page
Gen. 1  60, 125, 234
1. 26  76, 198, 262, 400
1-27  95
2-3  270,392
2. 4b  130
2. 7  223,228,234
2. 2lf  226
3  261
3- 19  399
3- 22  162,198,235
4-7  256,262
4-26i  55
5- 24  259.400
6. 1-4  210
6. 5  243.260
6. 9  259
7- 1.22  335
8. 21  103, 162
8. 22  65,96
9  180
9- 6  95.235
11. 5  120
ii- 7  76.198
12. 3  133
12. 10-20  163, 240, 242
14  357

PAGE
Gen. 15. 6  298
15- 18  177.179
16- 5  336
17- I---  23
17- 7  179
18. 2  206
18. 14  121
18. 23ff  299

18. 27.

¦234

20. 3, 6  240
22. 1-14  3H
24-7  199
32- 29  203
48- 14  313
49  37
49. 10-12  374
Exod. 3- 13-15  26,55
4-21  237
6- 2-3  23,55
8- 15  237
15- 1-3  37,"7
16. 10  147
18  161,243
19- 11  104
20  154
20.3  79

412

INDEX

PAGE
Exod. 20. 5  145, 264
20. 17  243
20. 23  no
20. 24  73.105
21-23  162,243,335
21. 12-14  142,242
24. 7f  178
31- 2f  IOO
32. 14  299
33- 20-33  53.95.144
33- 19  296
34-7  292
34. 10-26  154.178
34- 17  110
Lev. 3. 2, 8  312
4- 2, 22  249
5- "-13  313
6. 27ft  140
11. 32ft  140
"•44  150
12. 6-8  311
16  210,312
17- 11  223,313
18. 26-28  150
19- 28  387
19-31  150
24- 11, 16  55
26.45  179
Num. 10. 35f  37, 106, 117
" H- 24  335
15- 30f  249,310
16. 27ft  322
21. 2  339
21. I7f  37
23-24  37
24- I7fi  374
25. 1-13  300
Deut. 1. 17  162, 243
1. 31  182
4- 7f  53
4- 12, 15  97
4- 19  91,193.196
4-31  178
4-39  87
6. 4  68,87
6. 5  232
7. 10  342
7. 12  179
8. 18  171
9- 1-3  J75
9-5  17i
9. 26f  297
10. 1-5  106

PAGE
Deut. 12. 23  223
13- 1-3  65
13- 12-16  324
14- 1  182
21- i-9  3H
23- 17  151
24. 10-12  271
25- 5-io  387
26. 14  387
26. 16-19  179
32. 6  182
32. 8f  90, 195
32. 17  90, 196, 209
32. 22  390
33  37
33-9  177
33- I3ff-.  374
Josh. 5. I3ff  203
7. 16-26  322
10. I2f  37, 128
11. 20  237
24- 2, I4f  78
Judg. 5  37
5- 4*  104
5. 20  128, 205
6. 19ft  205
8. 22ft  35. in
9- 23  209,237
11. 30ff  35
13-22  53
1 Sam. 1. n  339
2.2  143
2. 6  225
2. 25  336
4. 4  106
6. 19  144, 162
10. 1-13  35
14. 6  121
14. 8ff  35,240,268
17-45  "7
18. 10  100
19- I3ff  35
25- 39  241
26. 19  104,119
26. 23  337
28  387,389
28. 13  388
2 Sam. 1. 19-27  37
3- 33f  37
3. 39  336
6. 6f  144, 153, 162, 240
7-14  l83
n. 25  269
413

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT '
PAGE PAGE
2 Sam. 12  162 Psa. 8. 3  ."  125
12. 13  292 8. 5  138,193
13- 12  241 14. 1  52
14- 17  205 14. 3  258
18. 33  37 15. iff  252
21. 1-11  314,322 16. 10  401
24. 1  162, 212, 237, 241 17-15  401
24- 17  242,335 18. 20ft  259
1 Kings 8. iff  107 19. 1  125
8. I2f  37, 128 22. 27  187,370
8. 46  258 37  288
12. 28f  in 37. 9  .285
17. 18  270 47. 8  146
18. I7f  362 49  288,402
18.21,27  84 51.4  252
21  162, 243, 268, 322 51. 5  226, 264
22. 8  362 51. 8  295
22. 19  193,209,212 51. 7, 10-12  294
2 Kings 2. 11  198, 400 51. 10  252
4- 35  406 51- 11  99
8. 19  297 51. 16  251
14-5-6  335 73  288, 402
19- 34  297 73. 25  101,236,288
1 Chron. 21. 1  212 86. 8  195
21. 16  207 88. nf  391
Job 1. 1, 8  259 89. 6  195
1. 6  193,211 89. 27  183
1. 21  225 90. 4  135
4. i8f  209,222 91. nf  208
5-1  138 94- 9 • ¦ ¦  62
5- 17-18  286 99. 3  146
7. 21  260 103. 13  182
n. 7  53 104.2,5  126
13- 15  286 106. 37  196
14. 1-4  222,263 in. 9  146
14- 4  260,264 139  135f-
14. 10-12  391 139. 15  225
14- 14  397 148- 5  126
14. 22  226, 403 Prov. 3. 16  250
16. 20f  348, 397 7- 27  390
19- 25ft  287, 398 8. 22ft  77, 126
19- 26  403 n. 31  285
21. 19-21  348,388,391 13- 15  275
25. 4  264 20. 9  258
26. 7  135 20. 27  114
26. i2f  131 30. 1-4  52
26. 14  53. 126 Eccl. 1. 8  220
28.23ft  77 1-9  63,378
34-37  255 2. isf  407
38. 7  193,205 7. 15  288
Psa. 6. 1  145 7. 20  258
6. 5  •¦•¦399 9- 5f  391
8.1  52 9-io  391
414

INDEX
PAGE PAGE
Eccl. 12. 7  229, 392 Isa. 53  3oift\, 315
Isa. 1. 11-14  165 53. 4-6  283,375
i- 13  304 55-3  178
i. 15  102,165 55- 8f  53
i- 17  166 57. 15  147
2. 2-4  132, 186, 366, 368 61. 1  100
2. 10  147 63. 9  303
2. nf  234,361 63. 16  169,182
2. 22  234 64. 8  183
5- 16  152 65. 5  140
6. 3  87,129,146,147 65. 17  363,369
6. 5  265 65. 20-^22  395
6. 8  76, 198,208 66. 1-2  108
7-3  336 Jer. 2. 2f  160
7- 9  298 2. 27  183
7- 11  64 3. 4, 19  182
7- H  373 3- 10  274
8. 19  388 3- 16  107,178
9- iff  366 4. 3-4  166, 245, 299
9. 12  167 6. 16  163
10. 5  86,98, 132, 168 6. 20  165
n. 2  100 7. 4  107
ii- 5  375 7-22  25, 160, 304
11. 6, 8  368 7. 24  245
14- 9ff  389, 403 8. 7  236
14. 26  132 11. 20  245
19  87 12. 1-5  280
19- 23-25  187, 370 13. 23  245
22. 12  387 15. ioff  342
24. 2if  210 15. i8f  280
25. 8  396 16. igf  186
26. 19  4°4 17- H  293
28. 15  360 18. iff  237
29. 13  102, 165, 245 20. 7ft  280
31. 3  87,96,222 23. 6  375
34-4  363 31- 9  182
40. 2  301 31. 29  273,342
40. 12  88,124 31. 31  178,343
40. 18-20  89, 113 31. 33  370
40. 2if  126 34- 8ft  176
40. 25  146 45-4  187
40. 28  125 Ezek. 1. 28  147
42. 1-4  171,283 10  207
42. 6  169,180 12. 27  396
43. 25  294,296 14. 9  209
44. 22  294 16. 8  182
45. 9  237 16. 53-63  186
45. 18  62 16. 60  178
45. 21  169,295 18  344
45. 22  187 18. 4  3i8
49. 6  132,187 18. 3if  282
50. 5-9  283 20. 7f., 24  78
51. 5f  169,187,363 21.4  : ..344
415

RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT
PAGE ^ PAGE*^
Ezek. 33. ioff  344 Amos. 4. 2  .T . . 143
34-25  178 4-6  167
36. 20ff  147 4. 13  .-129
36. 25-29   293 5. 6, 14  ¦¦156, 298
36. 26  166,222 5. 15  ^;-336
37- I-I4  406 5. 20  361
40. 3  202 5.21  164.T03T
43-7-9  H9 5-24  ."N*,,.^
44. 18  150 5. 25  ->>»25, 160,304
Dan. 4. 13, 23  202 6. 3  ....361
6. 24  323 6. 10  54
7. 9  60 9. 2  132, 389
7- 13*  351.376 9- 7  86,131,186
8. 15ft  203 9- 8ff  366
921  , . 207 _9^J3_-  ¦_  .^368__
10. 13, 20  196, 204, 210 MIS 3. 8T77  100
12. I  202 5. 3  373
12. 2  404 6. 6-7  165
Hos. 1. 7  98 6. 8  166
2. 14ft  366 Zech. 1. 8ff  202
2. 15  160 1. 14  145
2. 18  368 2. 3-4  204
3- 5  372 3- 1-5  202,211
4- 3- •  36i 4-6  98
5-4  245 9. 9f  374
6. 1-4  299 14. 9  88
6. 6  165, 244 Mark 7. 8ff  253
6. 7  177 7- 14-23  153
7. n-13  246 12. i8ff  407
8. 4  no Luke 23. 43  407
8. 6  87,246 John 4. 21, 24  108
9-3-5  73 14-27  289
9-4  387 17- n  153
9. 10  160 Acts 7. 48-50  108
n. 1-4  159, 170, 182 Gal. 3. 24  24
n. 2  no 4. 4  24
n. 8-9  181 1 Thess. 5. 23  228
1 12. 8  241 Heb. 4. 12  228
13. 2  1 10 1 John 3. 2  408
Amos 2.7  164 4. 8, 16  173

416

,

\\\w