LIBRARY OF THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY PRINCETON, N. J. PRESENTED BY The Jenkins estate Division^S-UaZ "■-y.- ^''" '^■^> - .■^■ 'M*- -". _■ , , "^..l '■: ■ i The International Theological Library EDITORS' PREFACE THEOLOGY has made great and rapid advances in recent years. New lines of investigation have been opened up, fresh light has been cast upon many subjects of the deepest interest, and the historical method has been applied with important results. This has prepared the way for a Library of Theological Science, and has created the demand for it. It has also made it at once opportune and practicable now to se- cure the services of specialists in the different depart- ments of Theology, and to associate them in an enter- prise which will furnish a record of Theological inquiry up to date. This Library is designed to cover the whole field of Christian Theology. Each volume is to be complete in itself, while, at the same time, it will form part of a carefully planned whole. One of the Editors is to pre- pare a volume of Theological Encyclopaedia which will give the history and literature of each department, as well as of Theology as a whole. The International Theological Library The Library is intended to form a series of Text- Books for Students of Theology. The Authors, therefore, aim at conciseness and com- pactness of statement. At the same time, they have in view that large and increasing class of students, in other departments of inquiry, who desire to have a systematic and thorough exposition of Theological Science. Tech- nical matters will therefore be thrown into the form of notes, and the text will be made as readable and attract- ive as possible. The Library is international and interconfessional. It will be conducted in a catholic spirit, and in the interests of Theology as a science. Its aim will be to give full and impartial statements both of the results of Theological Science and of the questions which are still at issue in the different departments. The Authors will be scholars of recognized reputation in the several branches of study assigned to them. They will be associated with each other and with the Editors in the effort to provide a series of volumes which may adequately represent the present condition of investi- gation, and indicate the way for further progress. Charles A. Briggs Stewart D. F. Salmond The International Theological Library ARRANGEMENT OF VOLUMES AND AUTHORS THEOLOGICAL ENCYCLOP>EDI A. By Charles A. Briggs, D.D., D.Litt., Professor of Theological Encyclopsedia and Symbolics, Union Theological Seminary, New York. AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LITERATURE OF THE OLD TESTA- MENT. By S. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt., Regius Professor of Hebrew and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. \_Revised and Etilarged Edition. CANON AND TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. By Francis Crawford Burkitt, M.A., Norrisian Professor of Divinity, University of Cambridge. OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY. By HENRY PRESERVED Smith, D.D., Professor of Old Testament Literature, Meadville, Pa. [Nmu Ready. CONTEMPORARY HISTORY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. By Francis Brown, D.D., LL.D., D.Litt., President and Professor of Hebrew, Union Theological Seminary, New York. THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. By A. B. Davidson, D. D., LL.D., sometime Professor of Hebrew, New College, Edinburgh. \_A^o7u Ready. AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LITERATURE OF THE NEW TESTA- MENT. By Rev. James Moffatt, B.D., Minister United Free Church, Dundonald, Scotland. CANON AND TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. By Caspar Rene Gregory, D.D., LL.D., Professor of New Testament Exegesis in the University of Leipzig. \_Now Ready. THE LIFE OF CHRIST. By Wii.LiAM Sanday, D.D., LL.D., Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. A HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE. By Arthur C. McGiffert, D.D., Professor of Church History, Union Theo- logical Seminary, New York. \_N^ow Ready. CONTEMPORARY HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. By Frank C. Porter, D.D., Professor of Biblical Theology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. THEOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAP.I ENT. By George B. Stevens, D.D., sometime Professor of Systematic Theology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. \_A''ow Ready. BIBLICAL ARCHveOLOGY. By G. Buchanan Gray, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Mansfield College, Oxford. THE ANCIENT CATHOLIC CHURCH. By Robert Rainy, D.D., LL.D., sometime Principal of New College, Edinburgh. [Now Ready. THE EARLY LATIN CHURCH. ]^Author to be announced later. The International Theological Library THE LATER LATIN CHURCH. {^Author to be announced later. THE GREEK AND EASTERN CHURCHES. By W. F. Adeney, D D., Principal of Independent College, Manchester. \^Now Ready THE REFORMATION. By T. M. Lindsay, D.D., Principal of the United Free College, Glasgow. \2 vols. Now Ready. CHRISTIANITY IN LATIN COUNTRIES SINCE THE COUNCIL OF TRENT. By Paul Sabatier, D. Litt. SYMBOLICS. By Charles A. Briggs, D.D., D.Litt., Professor of Theological Encyclopaedia and Symbolics, Union Theological Seminary, New York. HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. By G. P FiSHER, D D , LL D , sometime Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. \_Revised and Enlarged Edition. CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS. By A. V. G. Allen, D.D., sometime Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Protestant Episcopal Divinity School, Cambridge, Mass. \^Now Ready. PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION. By Robert Flint, D.D., LL.D., soma- time Professor of Divinity in the University of Edinburgh. THE HISTORY OF RELIGIONS. By George F. Moore, D.D., LL.D., Professor in Harvard University. APOLOGETICS. By A. B. Bruce, D.D., sometime Professor of New Testament Exegesis, Free Church College, Glasgow. \Revised and Enlarged Edition. THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF GOD. By WiLLi AM N. CLARKE, D. D., Professor of Systematic Theology, Hamilton Theological Seminary. [Now Ready. THE DOCTRINE OF MAN. By William P. Paterson, D.D., Professor of Divinity, University of Edinburgh. THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST. By H. R. M.\CKlNTOSH, Ph.D., Professor of Systematic Theology, New College, Edinburgh. THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF SALVATION. By George B. Ste- YENS, D.D., sometime Professor of Systematic Theology, Yale University. [TVira/ Ready. THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHRISTIAN LIFE. By WiLLIAM Adams Brown, D.D., Professor of Systematic Theology, Union Theological- Seminary, New York. CHRISTIAN ETHICS. By NEWMAN Smyth, D.D., Pastor of Congrega- tional Church, New Haven. [Revised and Enlarged Edition. THE CHRISTIAN PASTOR AND THE WORKING CHURCH. By Washington Gladden, D.D., Pastor of Congregational Church, Columbus, Ohio. , [Now Ready. THE CHRISTIAM PREACHER. The Rev. A. E. Garvie, M.A., D.D., Principal of New College, London, England. RABBINICAL LITERATURE. By S. ScHECHTER, M.A., President of the Jewish Theological Seminary, New York City. f^ OTHER VOLUMES WILL BE ANNOUNCED LATER. XCbe international Ubeoloolcal Xtbrari?. EDITED BY CHARLES A. BRIGGS, D.D., Edward Robinson Professor of Biblical Theology, Union Tkeoloficat Seminary, New York, AMD STEWART D. F. SALMOND, D.D., Principal, and Professor of Systematic Theology ^ United Free Church College, Aberdeen; THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. Bv THE LATB A. B. DAVIDSON, D.D., LL.D., Lirr.D. ^V. OF PHlito^ International Theological Libr THE THEOLOGY ^^ 09 TBM OLD TESTAMENT BT THE LATB A. B. DAVIDSON, D.D., LL.D., Litt.D. FBOFESSOR OF HEBREW AND OLD TESTAMENT EXEGESIS NEW COLLEGE, EDINBDBGH EDITED FROM THE AUTHOR'S MANUSCRIPTS BY S. D. F. SALMOND, D.D., F.E.I.S. ytaoaut or thb ukited fees ohukch collkqx, abxbddi NEW YORK: CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS 1910 Published May, 1904 The Mghtf of TravslMim. avd of He'ftrofhi.dim, are Retemed PREFACR Thb master hand, it will easily be seen, has not put this work in order for the press. The subject was long in Professor Davidson's mind. He gave it a large place in his College Lectures. He was constantly engaged in writ- ing upon it and in recasting what he had written, modify- ing his statements and revising his conclusions. He prepared a large mass of matter, but he did not survive to throw it finally into shape for publication. It has been a difficult and anxious task to deal for the best with the abundant material. Dr. Davidson's manu- scripts bear on every page impressive evidence of the immense pains he took with things, and the lofty standard he set before him in all his professional duty. Much of the matter came to me in a variety of editions, — four, five, or six in not a few cases, — the long results of unceasing study and searching probation of opinion. It has been far from easy to decide between one form and another, all being left undated, and to bring the different parts into proper relation. I have not thought it right to take liberties with my departed friend's work. I have given it substantially as he left it, adding only an occasional note where that seemed specially appropriate or needful. Nor have I judged it within my province to depart from his ways in the use of Scripture or in anything elsa When expounding any n PRBFAOB Biblical trnth he was in the habit of making oopiooB quotations from the sacred text, referring to the same passages again and again as they offered themselves in different aspects and connexions. He did this, too, with much freedom, using sometimes the Authorised Version and sometimes the Kevised, furnishing sometimes a trans- lation of his own, and sometimes giving the sense rather than the terms. His methods in such things are followed as they are found in his manuscripts. Had Dr. Davidson been spared to complete his work and carry it through the press, it would have been different, no doubt, in some respects from what it is. It would have been thrown into the best literary form. Its statements at some points would have been more condensed. It would have had less of that element of iteration of which he made such effective use in his class-room. But even without the last touches of the skilled hand, it will be seen to be a distinct and weighty contribution to a great subject. Fine thinking, penetrating exegesis, spiritual vision, a rare insight into the nature and operation of Revelation, make the book one which the student of Old Testament Scripture will greatly valua One thing that gave Dr. Davidson much concern was the question of the plan on which a work of this kind should be constructed. His object was to bring the history and the ideas into living relation, to trace the progress of Old Testament faith from stage to stage, and to exhibit the course along which it advanced from its beginnings to the comparative fulness which it obtained at the end of the prophetic period. But he never carried out the scheme. He had an increasing distrust of ambitious attempts to fix the date of every separate piece of the Hebrew literature, and Unk the ideas in their several measures of immaturity and maturity with the writings as thus arranged. He PREFACE VU became more and more convinced that there was no solid basis for such confident chronological dispositions of the writings and juxtapositions of the beliefs. In his judg- ment the only result of endeavours of this kind was to give an entirely fictitious view of the ideas, in their relative degrees of definiteness, the times at which they emerged or came to certainty, and the causes that worked to their origin and development. The most that we had scientific warrant to do, in view of the materials available for the purpose, was, in his opinion, to take the history in large tracts and the literature in a few broad divisions, and study the beliefs and the deUverances in connexion with these. My work is at an end. During its course the mist has been often in my eyes. The sense of loss has been revived. A voice has spoken to me out of the past. A face that was darkened has seemed to be turned upon me again with its old light. I have felt how long art is and how short is life. & D. F. SALMOND. Ambdhn, April 2, 1904. CONTENTS. L THE SCIENCE OF OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY. tAOl 1. The Idea of Old Testament Theology ... 1 2. Studies preliminary to Old Testament Theology . .4 3. Definitions and Characteristics of Old Testament Theology 6 4. The Relation of Old Testament Ideas to the Old Testament History ..,.,,. 11 5. Divisions of the Subject ..... 12 6. The great Historical Periods ..... 16 7. General Course and Drift of the History . . .22 8. Literary and Historical Criticism in relation to Old Testament Theology ..... 28 IL THE DOCTRINE OF GOD. 1. General Character of the Old Testament Conception of God 30 2. The Idea of the Divine Name . . . ,36 3. Particular Names of God . . . . ,38 4. The Name Jehovah ...... 45 5. Jehovah the God of Israel ..... 58 6. The historical Occasion of the Application of the Name Jehovah ....... 67 III. THE DOCTRINE OF GOD— THE DIVINE NATURE. 1. The Knowledge of God 2. The Essence and Attributes of God . 3. The Unity of God . 4. The Doctrine of the sole Godhead of Jehovah Prophecy ..... 6. The Personality and Spirituality of God iz . , 73 , 82 , , 96 in later ^ , 100 t • 106 K C50NTENTS IV. THE DOCTRINE OF GOD— THE SPIRIT. PAOB 1. The Spirit of God ...... 115 2. The Spirit of God within God Himself . . .117 3. The Activities of the Spirit . . • • • 120 4. What the Spirit is ..... . 126 V. THE DOCTRINE OF GOD— THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTES. 1. The Righteousness of God ..... 129 2. The Holiness of God ...... 144 3. The Natural Attributes . . . . .160 4. The Redemptive Attributes . . , , , 169 5. Gktd's Relations to Nature and to Men . • .174 VI. THE DOCTRINE OF MAN. 1. Human Nature and its Constitution . . • • 182 2. The terms ' Body ' and ' Flesh ' . , , .188 3. The term 'Spirit' ...... 192 4. The term ' Soul' ...... 199 VII. THE DOCTRINE OF MAN— SIN. 1. Sin — its Nature and Extent ..... 203 2. The Consciousness of Sin ..... 227 VIII. THE DOCTRINE OF REDEMPTION. 1. The Covenant ....... 235 2. Why the Covenant with Israel and not another ? . , 249 3. The Terms descriptive of the Covenant Relation . . 252 4. The Second Side of the Covenant — The People a righteous People ....... 259 5. Righteousness in the People ..... 271 6. Righteousness, Grace, and Faith . • • . 278 7. Suffering and Imputation . . • • • 282 IX. DOCTRINE OF REDEMPTION— SUPRAHUMAN GOOD AND EVIL. 1. Angels ....... 889 2. The Angel of the Ixmi • . . . . S96 3. Satan ........ 300 CONTENTS XI X. DOCTRINE OF REDEMPTION— PRIESTHOOD AND ATONEMENT. 1. The Priest ..... PAQB , 306 2. Sacrifice ...,,, . 311 3. Atonement and Forgiveness . . , . 315 4. Atonement by Priest and High Priest . . 324 5. The term ' Atone ' . . . . , . 327 6. Ritual Use of the Term . . , , . 338 7. The Principle of Atonement * • • < 352 XI. THE DOCTRINE OF THE LAST THINGS— THE MESSIANIC IDEA. 1. Distinctive Contributions to the Doctrine . 2. The Consummation of the Kingdom . 3. The Day of the Lord .... 4. The Day of the Lord in Deutero-Isaiah . 6. Redemptive Righteousness in Deutero-Isaiah 356 365 374 384 395 XII. DOCTRINE OF THE LAST THINGS— IMMORTALITY. 1. Differences in Modes of Thought . . . 2. Fellowship with God the Fundamental Idea • 3. Preliminary Questions as to Man's Nature . . 4. Conception of Sheol ..... 5. Conception of Death ..... 6. Life and its Issues ..... 7. Problems of Righteousness and their Solution 8. Ideas of an After-Life in Psalms xvii., xxxvii., xlix., Ixxiii 9. The Idea of an After-Life in Job 10. The Hope of an After- Life in relation to the Ideas of Life and Death . . ... 11. The Moral Meaning of Death 12. Further on the Reconciliation between the Idea of Death and the Idea of Life . . . . • 402 415 417 425 432 437 453 459 466 495 511 622 Notes of Literature Index of Scripture Passaqbs Index or Maiisss « 633 641 648 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 7. THE SCIENCE OF OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY. 1. The Idea of Old Testament Theology. Old Testament Theology is the earlier division of Biblical Theology. We speak of a Natural Theology, a Biblical, a Systematic Theology. These adjectives attached to the term Theology indicate the source of our theological knowledge, or the orderly form into which the knowledge is thrown. In Natural Theology nature is the source of our know- ledge. In Systematic Theology, while Scripture supplies the knowledge, some mental scheme, logical or philo- sophical, is made the mould into which the knowledge is run, 80 that it comes out bearing the form of this mould. In Biblical Theology the Bible is the source of the know- ledge, and also supplies the form in which the knowledge is presented. Biblical Theology is the knowledge of God's great operation in introducing His kingdom among men, presented to our view exactly as it lies presented in the Bible. Now the Bible is a book composed of many parts, the composition of which extended over considerably more than a thousand years. And the operation of God in bringing in His kingdom extends even over a larger space But in the Bible we have writings contemporary with this operation, and reflecting it for more than a thousand years, and writings which sketch that operation in brief z 2 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT and in its principal turning-points during the ages pre- ceding. This at once suggests to us, therefore, when we consider that God's operation extended over this long period, and yet that it took end at last in the coming of His Son, that two characteristics belong to it. It is historical, and it is progi-essive ; it covers a long period, and it advances from less to more, and finally culminates. And the Bible keeps pace, so to speak, with this operation, reflects it, and gives us the knowledge of it in this form. In its fullest sense the kingdom of God was only intro- duced in the Coming of the Son of God into the world ; and in this sense aU that went before might seem only capable of being regarded as preparation for this kingdom, or at most shadows of it. And this is the view which has often been taken of what is called the Old Testament dispensation, namely, that it is a designed shadow or adumbration of the new. But this is not the view which it takes of itself ; the consciousness of Israel as reflected in the minds of its prophets and highest men was that it was the kingdom of God already. The apparent discrepancy disappears on a little consideration of what the kingdom of God is. It is the fellowship of men with God and with one another in love. In a perfect sense this could not be till the Coming of the Son in whom this fellowship is fully realised. And in a sense all that went before was preparation for the kingdom rather than the kingdom itself. But how was the perfect kingdom prepared for ? Not by mere pre- dictions of it and references to it as a thing to come, nor by setting up a thing which was a shadow of it ; but by setting itself up in as perfect a form as was possible to begin with, awakening within men both a sense of dis- satisfaction with its imperfections then, and lofty ideals of what its true condition would be, and thus kindhng in them an enthusiasm which made them not only long for the perfect kingdom, but struggle for its attainment. For as the kingdom of God in its perfect form does not lie in mere knowledge, but rather in the life which the know- ledge awakens, so it eould not be prepared for by the THE IDEA OF OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 3 mere knowledge that it was approaching, nor even by the knowledge outwardly communicated of what it was. It could be prepared for only by bringing in, and that in ever fuller tides, the life of which it consista That life no doubt depended on the knowledge of what the kingdom truly was ; but this knowledge could be learned by men only by living withia the kingdom itself. Thus the perfect kingdom was gradually prepared for by setting up such a kingdom in an imperfect state and under temporary forms, and by administering it in such a way as progressively to suggest to men's minds the true ideal of the kingdom, and communicate to them in broader streams the true life in such a kingdom. And each step of this com- munication was a more perfect bringing in of the kingdom itself, an advance towards its perfect form. Thus a life and a thought were awakened within this kingdom of God set up in Israel, which grew and expanded tiU they finally burst and threw off from them the imperfect outward form of the kingdom in which they were enclosed. Now the Old Testament Scriptures exhibit to us the growth of this life and this thought. We can observe the stream of life and ideas flowing from the Exodus at least, or even from a source higher up, ever broadening as it proceeds, and finally pouring itself into the sea of life and thought in the New Testament age. We can fathom this stream here and there along its course, mark the velocity and breadth of its cur- rent, observe the changing colour of its waters as it pursues its way through region after region of the people's history, and perceive what subsidiary streams poured their contents into it and helped to swell it. To do this and present the results to ourselves is to be Old Testament theologians. What we shall have to look for is a point of view ; and that point of view will be this, that in the Old Testament we have presented to us an actual historical religious life, — men filled with the profoundest thoughts of God, and living to God a most close personal life, and, having such thoughts of God and such experiences of life Us Him, importunate in their desires and attempts to 4 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT awaken in those around them the same thoughts and the same life. This is the strange scene, full of the intensest reality, which the Old Testament exhibits to ua, — a scene continued down through a long historical period, changing in some ways, but always presenting the same main feature — namely, that of a body of profoundly religious men speaking the truth to their countrymen, and seeking to turn them to God. Thus we do not go to the Old Testa- ment with any general conception that it is the word of God spoken to us. We do not go to it with this concep- tion, but we rise from it with this conception. This is the thing which will be made plain to us, — the personal religion of all the writers of Scripture, their life to God and with God. This becomes plainer the lower down we come, — in the Psalter, for example, and in such books as Job. In the period after the Exile we shall find problems raised by the conditions of life, — problems touching God's rule of the world, His relation to Israel, the people who knew Him, and were the representatives of His cause in the world ; problems, too, of His relations to the godly in an ungodly generation. To the intellect these questions might be insoluble. But we shall see something that enabled men to live without a solution. This was their religion, their conscious fellowship with God. We shall find that more and more rehgious certainty was based on this consciousness. It was the only thing the pious mind possessed, but it was at last always found enough. " Nevertheless," said the Psalmist, tried by misfortune and intellectually paralysed before the riddles of providence, — " nevertheless, I am continually with thee" (Ps. Ixxiii. 23). The consciousness of God becomes the other side of self- consciousness, and this in- ward assurance will be seen to be strong enough to face all the difficulties raised by what is external 2. Studies preliminary to Old Testament Theology. This cone<3ption of what Old Testament Theology is at once sugs:?fUp) that certain studies must precede it. If it PRELIMINARY STUDIES 5 be the presentation to ourselves of the gradual advance of the kingdom of God as exhibited to us in the successive books of Scripture, it is necessary that we should see how these books follow one another, and know the age to which they belong, and of which they reflect the life and the thought. Criticism or Introduction must precede any^^ attempt at a scientific Old Testament Theology. And this fact is what legitimates Criticism and gives it a place as a handmaid to Theology. As a mere literary science whose object was to settle the ages of the various literary components of the Bible, and describe their characteristics, and indicate their connections with the history of the People of Israel regarded as any other ancient people. Criticism would have no proper place among our theological disci- plines. But when it is not pursued simply for its own sake, so to speak, but is used as an instrument for disposing the books of the Old Testament in their proper place so that we may correctly perceive how ideas arose and followed one another in Old Testament times, and may observe how history reacted upon the thought and life of the people, then Criticism has a very important place to fill. Obviously, too, Old Testament Theology must be pre- ceded by scientific exegesis of the literature in its length ^ and breadth. We cannot create a trustworthy theology of the Old Testament by merely picking out a text here and there in an Old Testament book. We must know the whole scope of the book. Individual passages always derive their meaning from the context. Torn from their surroundings their mere language might suggest to us much more or sometimes perhaps much less than they really mean. Such passages have usually some bearing on the circumstances of the author's time. This bearing often greatly modifies their meaning, and it is seldom that we can really discover the true sense of any single passage in a book unless we have made a study of the whole book and learned to estimate the author's general modes of thinking, the broad drift of his ideas, and discovered to what matters in the history of his people and what 6 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT condition of their minds it is that he is directing his whole work. Such studies of whole books are useful and almost necessary preliminaries to Old Testament Theology. Such studies, exhibiting what the Germans call the Lehrhegriff, the general drift of the teaching of a book, have not been uncommon in connection with the New Testament. They have been less attended to with regard to the Old Testament, 3. Definitions and Characteristics of Old Testament Theology. Old Testament Theology has been defined to be the historical and genetic presentation of the rehgion of the Old Testament ; or as others express it, it is that branch of theological science which has for its function to present the religion of Eevelation in the ages of its progressive movement. These definitions do not dififer from the one already suggested, namely, that it is the presentation of the great operation of God in bringing in the kingdom of God, so far as that operation was carried on in the Old Testament period. The one definition speaks of the religion of the Old Testament, and the other of God's operation in bringing in His kingdom. But these two things are in the main the same. The kingdom of God. is within us. To bring in the kingdom was to awaken a certain religious life in His people, and to project great thoughts and hopes before their minds. This life and these thoughts are reflected to us in the Old Testament Scriptures. These various definitions all imply the same distinct characteristics. They all imply, e.g., that Old Testament Theology is a historical science. It is historical in the same sense as that in which the Old Testament is historical, i.e. in the sense that its parts follow one another down through a long period of time. We can readily perceive reasons sufficient to explain the gradual and historical inbringing of the kingdom of God, For instance, one of the first necessities to one who will take his place in the kingdom of God is that God should DEFINITIONS OF OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 7 be known to him, at least on the moral side of His being. But God could not make His moral nature known by mere statements concerning Himself delivered at once. His power He could reveal in one terrible act, but the principles lying behind His power, and governing the exercise of it, — His justice. His goodness, His grace, in a word His moral nature, — could not be shown except by a prolonged exhibition of Himself in relation to the life of men. When we look at the Divine names we observe that the attribute which the Shemitic mind earliest laid hold of was the Divine power. The Shemitic people were slower to learn His other attributes, especially to learn the constancy and unchangeableness of these attributes, in other words, to rise to the conception of God as a tran- scendent moral Person. They could be taught this only by observing how God acted in their history with a terrible consistency, punishing evil with an inflexible uniformity, and making righteousness on their part the condition of His being their God and protecting them. When we read the Prophets we perceive that they considered that this was the chief lesson which the people's history was fitted to teach them. In opposition to their superficial hopes, founded on Jehovah's beuig their national God, and their expectation that they could at any time secure His favour by making their burnt sacrifices fatter and more abundant, these prophets insist upon the ethical uniformity of the Divine Mind, which cannot be bribed by gifts, but demands rectitude : " I hate, I despise your feasts ... let judgment roll down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream " (Amos V. 21-24, E.V.). This lesson in regard to the nature of God is the chief lesson which the prophets draw from the history of the people. But one can conceive many other uses served by the long preliminary history of Israel. Its many vicissitudes threw individuals into very various circumstances, often trying, sometimes joyous, and thus we have those beautiful pictiu-es of the Hfe of the individual with God which are contained in the Book of Psalms, almost the most precious heritage which the Church has 8 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT derived from Israel, and to which there is almost nothing similar in the New Testament period. These definitions also all imply that the presentation of the Old Testament religion in Old Testament Theology is genetic. This means not only that Old Testament Theology shows us the religion of the Old Testament in genesi, that is, in the condition of actually arising or originating, but that its progress was, so to speak, organic. It grew, and that not by mere accretion or the external addition of truth to truth. The succeeding truth rose out of the former truth. This was due to the fact that the kingdom of God was planted into the life of a people, and thus its progress was inseparably connected with the progress and destiny of the nation of Israel. We cannot get a religious progress without a religious subject in whose mind we observe the progress. Now, the religious subject in the Old Testament was the people of Israel — and the progress can be studied in the mind of this subject as influenced by its history. Eevelation of truth was not, so to speak, communicated from without ; but the organs of revelation rose within the people in the persons of its highest re- presentatives, men in whom its life beat fullest and its aspirations were most perfectly embodied. Thus the truths concerning the kingdom of God which they were enabled, stage after stage, to reach, had a connection with one another parallel to the connection between the stages of the life of the people. The truths regarding the kingdom of God appearing in the Old Testament are all given in terms, so to speak, of the history, institutions, and life of the people of Israel. It is customary to regard the institutions of Israel, its offices and ordinances, as all prearranged parallels to the things of the Christian Church, shadows and adum- brations or types, as they are called, of the realities of the New Testament kingdom. Now, of course, it must be maintained that the perfect form of the kingdom of God, the form which it was to have in the New Testament, was contemplated from the beginning. There was a deter- minism impressed on the Old Testament kingdom toward CHARACTERISTICS OF OLD TESTAAIENT THEOLOGY 9 its perfect form ; it was a growth, an organism of which we see the complete stature only in the New Testament kingdom. But we must not regard those institutions in Israel as only having this use of foreshadowing the future. They were real institutions and offices there, and then- re- ference to the future was probably, in many instances, not understood or even surmised. The way they bore reference to the future in the minds of the people was rather this. The highest thinkers among the people, such as the pro- phets, perceived the idea lying in the offices and institu- tions, and expressed their longing and certainty that the idea would be yet realised. Thus it was, for instance, with the kingship. Its idea was a king of God's kingdom, a representative of God sitting on the throne in Jerusalem. Such an idea of the kingship led to the most brilliant idealising of the king and his offica Being king for God and in God's king- dom, he had attribute after attribute assigned to him, all reflections of the Divine attributes, till at length he was even styled the ' mighty God,' he in whom God Himself would be wholly present. And not only the kingship, but other offices and other characters appearing among the people were idealised ; and as it by and by came to be felt that such ideals could not be realised in the present, the reahsa- tion of them was thrown into the future. One of the most remarkable of these ideals is the Suffering Servant of the Lord, which is rather a personification of the suffering people idealised. But, in general, everything significant in the people's history and life was, as it were, abstracted from its relations in the present; it was held up and magnified by a process of moral idealisation — and the realisation of it thrown into the futiu'e. Thus the people's minds were directed to the future, not, as is often thought, because they understood beforehand or ever were taught that their institutions were all predetermined shadows of a reality to come, but because they perceived that the ideals which their institutions suggested to them, and which their history and experience had called up before their 10 THE THEOLOGY OP THE OLD TESTAMENT mind, were ideals that could not be realised in the present, ui the conditions of the people and the world that then existed, nor even under those institutions which had been the very means of suggesting the ideals to their minds. But, again, these definitions all imply that Old Testa- ment Theology is a development. It is not a thing com- plete, it is but the earlier part of Biblical Theology, and is completed in New Testament Theology. Still, Biblical Eevelation being an organism. Old Testament Theology is not a torso. It is a growth which, though it has not attained perfection, has attained a certain proper develop- ment. All its parts are there, though none of it is yet in full stature. There is perhaps no truth in the New Testament which does not lie in germ in the Old ; and conversely, there is perhaps no truth in the Old Testament, which has not been expanded and had new meaning put into it in the New. The Old Testament contains the same truths as the New Testament, but in a less developed form, and we must avoid two errors which are not uncommon. The one is the mistake of separating the Old Testament from the New in such a way as leaves us with no authoritative truth in the Old, The other is to confuse the New and the Old so that we shaU find the Old equally advanced with the New. The difference between the New and the Old is not that the same truths are not found in both, but that in the one the truths are found in a less degree of development than in the other. The Old Testament is as good authority for a truth as the New ; only we must not go beyond the degree which the truth has yet reached in the Old Testament. This fact, however, that the progress of the kingdom was organic and at last culminated, suggests that the Old Testament should be read by us always in the hght of the end, and that in framing an Old Testament Theology we should have the New Testament completion of it in our view. What we shall be engaged in is mainly dis- covering the thouolits and estimating the life of the Old Testament people in its various stages. But it is obvious THE IDEAS AND THE HISTORY 11 that at no time was the consciousness of the Old Testament Church able to take in the whole meaning of the develop- ment in the midst of which it stood. It must be our first object to discover what views the prophets and other Old Testament writers had, to present them to ourselves, and to take care not to impose New Testament conceptions upon them. Still, it will be of interest to ourselves to compare the two together, and to see how far the Old Testament Church had been able to realise to itself the point towards which the development was moving; and, knowing this goal, we shall be in a better position to estimate the meaning of the Old Testament from the light in which it is thus set for us. 4. The Relation of Old Testament Ideas to the Old Testament History. If the view which we have taken of our subject, then, is correct, it will appear that, though we speak of Old Testament Theology, all that we can attempt is to present the religion or religious ideas of the Old Testament. As held in the minds of the Hebrew people, and as exhibited in their Scriptures, these ideas form as yet no Theology. There is no system in them of any kind. They are all practical religious beliefs, and are considered of importance only as they influence conduct. We do not find a theology in the Old Testament ; we find a religion — religious con- ceptions and religious hopes and aspirations. It is we ourselves that create the theology when we give to these religious ideas and convictions a systematic or orderly form. Hence our subject really is the History of the Religion of Israel as represented in the Old Testament. We have seen, too, that the presentation or exhibition of the religious ideas is to be historical. This is the systematic form under which the religious ideas are pre- sented, and which the Old Testament itself supplies. The historical character of the Old Testament rehgion is one of its chief characteristics, that is, its continuance and 12 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT growth during a long period of history. And, further, we have seen that the presentation is organic. This, indeed, is contained in the fact that it is historical The history of any individual consciousness must be organic, whether the mind be that of a nation or that of a person. Our successive experiences and the phases of mind which we go through during a lifetime are not isolated occurrences. They rise each out of the other. They are connected with our external history ; many times they are due to it. But even our external history has a unity and an organic char- acter in it. And this is no doubt truer of a nation, or at least its truth may be more distinctly perceived in national life. When, therefore, it is said that the Old Testament religion is to be presented organically, it is meant that each step of progress was intimately connected with the people's history — with their experiences. Eevelations of this truth or that were not made sporadically, but were given in con- tinuous connection with the national life and experience, and so the truths are interlinked with one another in the same way as the successive stages of evolution in the national history are.^ 5. Divisions of the Suhject. Now, the question arises. What divisions of the subject shall we adopt ? If we employed the ordinary threefold division, — Theology, Anthropology, and Soteriology, — we ^ "From au evolutionist point of view, men speak of the development of the religion of Israel . From a different point of view, the history of Israel's religion is called a progressive revelation. We must remember that a pro- gressive revelation from the Divine side must exhibit itself among men as a persistent struggle to realise new truths. Every new thought of God is first understood in a soul which has been made receptive for it ; and, once grasped, it maintains itself in him who is illumined by it, as well as in those around him, only by conflict. This conflict appears to one man as a progressive development ; to another, who, by experience, has learned to know the gulf between God and the human heart as a terrible reality, it appears as a progressive revelation. But, however it be regarded, all are agreed that from the Tora and Nebiim [Law and Prophets] we can understand how the precious treasure of Israel's religion came more and more fully to light, and maintained itself ever more firmly " (Wildeboer, Carum, p- 162). DIVISIONS OF OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 13 should have to take each of these subjects and trace it down, step by step, through the whole length of the nation's history, marking the points at which the current of thought on the subject received new additions or a new momentum. Perhaps, however, the easier way would be to divide the history into periods, .to cut it into zones, as it were, and examine in each of these zones the whole religious thought of the people during the period, as it is reflected in the literature of that period. This method preserves better the historical character of the study, and this is the method usually adopted by writers on the subject of Old Testament Theology. In point of fact, the three- fold theological division — Theology, or doctrine of God ; Anthropology, or doctrine of man ; and Soteriology, or doc- trine of salvation — is somewhat too abstract for a subject like ours. What we meet with in the Old Testament are two concrete subjects and their relation. The two are : Jehovah, God of Israel, on the one hand, and Israel, the people of Jehovah, on the other; and the third point, which is given in the other two, is then- relation to one another. And it is obvious that the dominating or creative factor in the relation is Jehovah. The Old Testament contains almost exclusively a theology (\0709 -rrepl Oeov) or doctrine of Jehovah the God of Israel. It is to be observed, too, that what we have to do with is not a doctrine of God, but a doctrine of Jehovah, Israel's God. We have reached, now such a stage of thinking on the Divine that, while some may doubt whether there be a God at all, nobody supposes that there is more than one. But this point is just one that has to be inquired into regarding Jehovah — how far Israel's God was believed to be God alone. At all events, as I have said, He was the normative factor in the relation. He moulded the people, and the mould into which He cast them was that of His own nature. The conceptions of the people regarding Jehovah immediately reacted on the people and created corresponding conceptions regarding themselves. The people must be what their God, Jehovah, was. Now, thoughts of Jehovah or revelations regarding 14 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT Him, — for the two things are the same, seeing that a revelation is no revelation until it takes the shape of human thought, — might run on two chief lines. One would be ethical or spiritual conceptions of Jehovah — conceptions which immediately reacted on the people and made them feel that the same ethical character was de- manded from them, if they were to be His people. And a second would be thoughts of how Jehovah was to be served in acts of worship — in other words, thoughts re- garding the sacred ritual. Now, these are the two lines on which most of the sacred writings of the people run. The first line of conceptions, the ethical or spiritual, whether in regard to the nature of Jehovah or the conduct of His people, was chiefly developed by the prophets. The line of ritual service naturally was developed mostly by the priests, or at least by men who were more praclical than the prophets. But even the ritual legislation was influenced by the pro- phetic teaching — ^it was often an embodiment in a practical form of theu' ideas. This second line, then, is that of the legislation, for all the legislation relates to the worship or ritual service of Jehovah — at least in the main. These two streams of thought might be called objective, so far as the body of the people was concerned. For, though the prophetic thoughts were, of course, profoundly sub- jective to the prophets themselves, that is, rose up out of their own hearts with the greatest intensity and fire of conviction, yet the prophets were a small body compared with the whole mass ; they were the organs of revelation to the general body. And in like manner the legislation, which was many times a mere practical embodiment of prophetic teaching, was formulated by small bodies of priests, and was imposed upon the mass by authority. Besides these two objective streams there were two others, which might be called subjective. One of these was the expression of personal devotion, or the spiritual experi- ence and exercise of the individual mind, such as we have in the Psalms. There is no reason at all to suppose that the bulk of the Psalms are the production of one individual THE GREAT HISTORICAL PERIODS 15 They are the expression of the devotion, and many times of the religious conflicts of the individual mind, throughout the whole of the people's history, particularly during its later stages. And, secondly, the other subjective stream of thought was that embodied in the Wisdom. This is the expression of the religious reflectihg'inind, as the other was of the devotional mind. The pious emotions responded to the prophetic truth, and to the demands of the law, in words that run through the whole scale of religious feeling. The reflecting mind delighted itself by observing how the great ethical truths of Jehovah's nature were everywhere verifying themselves in His providence in the world and in men's lives. Or it was startled at a later time, when even the godly lay under grievous calamities, to find that the prophetical teaching was contradicted by events of actual providence. This gave rise to doubts and question- ings, by which men were sometimes almost driven to despair. This Wisdom we have in the Proverbs, many of the Psalms, Job, and Ecclesiastes ; and, of course, to all these have to be added many expressions of rehgious faith and many examples of religious conduct in the historical writings. Keeping, then, all these general lines of thought in view, which are in the main four, — prophecy, or religious pontics ; legislation, or the ritual of worship ; devotion, and reflection, — we have the literary materials which we have to divide into periods, so as to exhibit the historical growth of the conceptions which the materials embody. Naturally, any division will to some extent break in upon things closely connected, because the growth of thought or the stream of history cannot be cut into sections. For it is a thing continuous and uninterrupted. But with this admission the following division marks the great points in the literary history of Israel 6. The great Historical Periods. (a) A preliviinary or introductory period terminating with the Exodus. — The Old Testament religion hardly begins till 16 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT the Exodus. Therefore the religious subject in Old Testa- ment times with whom Jehovah's covenant was made was the people Israel, not individual Israelites, and the people was the creation of the great act of redemption at the Exodus. This period, then, would be preliminary. We have no litera- ture from this period itself. What we have is the mexo of this period taken in the ninth and eighth centuries. This view contains many elements — particularly two, national traditions of early human history not peculiar to Israel, but shared in by most Sheraitic nations ; and, secondly, the penetration and modification of these traditions by the principles of the religion of Jehovah — e.g. in the narratives of the Creation, the Fall, the Flood, etc. So the patriarchal period is the period of tradition, and of tradition possibly religiously coloured. What is perhaps most important for us is this religious colouring, rather than the mere details of the liistory. (6) The period from the Exodus to written prophecy, B.C. 800. — The beginning of written propliecy in the deliverances of Amos and his successors is a point of such importance that it is natural to make it an era. Apart from the religious truths taught by the canonical prophets there is one thing which characterises them all from Amos downwards. They have completely broken witli the nation, whose conditition they condemn and pronounce to be hopeless, and on the eve of destruction. This destruction is inevitable, Jehovah their God being what He is. No doubt earher prophets express the same judgment, but less universally. Even as early as Solomon, Ahijah of Shiloh predicted the downfall of his kingdom (1 Kings xi. 31—39). And Elijah's attitude was the same towards the kingdom of the north. Perhaps during this period we can trace only two of the four great streams of thought with much certainty. 1. Of Prophecy, we have examples in Deborah, Samuel, Elijah, and Elisha. Except the Go/ig of Deborah, there is no literary prophecy. Under prophecy, however, according to the Jewish modes of classification, fall historical writings, e.y. Judges, the r>ouks of Samuel. THE GREAT HISTORICAL PERIODS 17 2. The other stream is that of Legislation. Here we can put with certainty the so-called Book of the Covenant, Ex. XX .— xxiiL It may be the case that more should be placed here ; but this is disputed. It is probable, how- ever, that there were both Psalms and Proverbs during this period — the latter certainly, as, e.g., in the fable of Jotham. But it is difficult to identify those of this age. As to this oldest legislation, however, all scholars are agreed, and with it goes, of course, a good deal of the history in Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, and Joshua. It is very probable that laws more strictly ritual than those in the code Ex, xx.— xxiii. existed. But it is not certain that they were yet reduced to writing, being merely traditional among the priests. If written, they were kept within the priestly circles. (c) From 800, written prophecy, to 586, the Exile of Judah. — 1, Prophecy. The stream of prophecy beginning with Amos gradually widens out to be a broad and im- posing river. The great prophets whose names we know belong to this period — Amos, Hosea, Micah, Isaiah, and Jeremiah. Perhaps it would be safest to close the period with Jeremiah, who survived the Exile only a very short time, and to carry Ezekiel into the next period. He survived the Exile a number of years, and for other reasons he rather belongs to the post-Exile sphere. 2. In Legislation we have belonging to this period the Book of Deuteronomy. This may be said apart from any theory of its origin or even its date of composition. It ought to be placed in this period on other grounds. It was discovered in the Temple in the year 621. Made public in this year, it exercised immediately a powerful influence upon the worship, and also upon the general current of the people's thoughts. This period of its discovery was that when its teaching really became a factor in the public life and the religious conceptions of the nation. It became public law, and powerfully influenced both religious practice and religious literature from this date. It is also the general impression among writers on the Old Testament 18 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT that Deuteronomy follows the great prophets Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah, and reflects in its spirit their teaching. So far as its legislative contents apart from its spirit are con- cerned, they are an expansion of Ex. xx.— xxiiL {d) From the Exile, 586, to 400, the close of the pro- phetical Canon. — This might be called the period of the Eestoration and Eeconstruction of the State. It deserves to be considered a distinct period, because undoubtedly new conceptions and a new way of reading the past history of the nation arose, and also a new ideal for the future. The prophet Ezekiel belongs to this period, at least as a powerful influence, though in point of fact he lived mainly during the preceding period. It includes : 1. Prophecy — Ezekiel, II Isaiah, Zechariah, Haggai, Malachi. 2. Legislation — the Levitical legislation of Ezra and Nehemiah. 3. The Psalter, 4. The Wisdom. (1) As to Prophecy. The second half of Isaiah is usually placed in this era. Its contents refer it to this period. If Isaiah was its author, he was enabled to project himself in spirit into the Exile, and see and e.stimate that period, with its personages and forces, precisely as if he had lived during it in the body. (2) The Legislation of this period is the so-called priestly or Levitical legislation, contained now in Ex. xxv.— xL, Leviticus, and good part of Numbers. It is disputed, indeed, whether this legislation as a whole belongs to this period. And it may be allowed to be probable that there were written ritual laws as early as other laws. There were customary ritual actions — a ritual praxis, consuetu- dinary and practised — embracing the various kinds of sacrifice, though the numbers of victims, etc., might not be fixed. This ritual praxis gradually expanded, and became more splendid, more refined, more expressive in details of the underlying ideas. We see it in great grandeur m the time of Amos and Isaiah ; it was about complete m the time of Ezekiel It is not at all probable that these ritual laws were for the first time written at this late period, but at this period they appear to have been THE PSALTER 19 brought together and codified, and no doubt additions were made to them to give them theoretical completeness. They are probably the result of the ritual practice throughout the history as it was modified and improved. It appears to me that the Book of Ezekiel shows that before his day the ritual was almost the same as it became after the Eestoration. But how far the ritual customs had been reduced to writing before this period is difficult to ascertain. Being largely for the guidance of the priests, they had less public importance. Apart, however, from other considerations, there are, at any rate, these two reasons for placing the priestly legislation here — first, it was certainly not completed or codified in the form in which we have it till this period ; and, secondly, what is more important, it did not become an element in the national life till this era. Whether it existed before or not, it was not obeyed, the nation did not subject themselves to it. From the year 444, when Ezra and Nehemiah read the Law before the people, it is certain that this Levitical law, as a ritual, and the hierarchical system as a govern- ment, became the ritual and government of the community. The theocracy, which was, so to speak, ideal before {i.e. Jehovah was king), now became hierarchical : the theo- cracy was a government by priests ; the high priest was the head of the community. (3) The Psalter. The Psalter must be placed here for various reasons. It was only now that the Psalms were collected together, and as a whole made the medium of the devotional service in the temple. Not before this time did the Psalter enter into the people's life as the expression of their devotions, and as a powerful influence upon their life. In estimating the progress of religious thought and de- votional life, we must recognise the pubhc acceptance of the Psalter as the expression of this thought and life to be one of the most important events with which we have to deal Many of the Psalms, of course, may be ancient. It would be as untrue to say that the Psalmody of Israel took its rise with the Second Temple, as to say that the Thames rises 20 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT at London Bridge. But though the Thames rises higher up, it begins at London Bridge to bear on its bosom the commerce and the industrial life of the nations ; and the Psalter, too, begins with the Second Temple to express the rehgious life, not of individuals, but of Israel. And the national use of the Psalter shows how completely all the conflicts which the propliets had to wage against idolatry and the like, had been fought out and the battle won. The providence of God had set its seal on the prophetic teaching, and it was accepted by the restored nation. (4) The Wisdom. The Proverbial literature probably would fall largely into the preceding period. But some of the most splendid fruits of the reflective mind of Israel, such as the Book of Job, probably belong to this epoch. The Wisdom belongs to the literature of the individual's religious life ; Prophecy and Legislation to the sphere of the national life. Consequently the Wisdom literature is mainly late. (e) From 400 to the Christian era. — This embraces: 1. Prophecy — Daniel; 2. Wisdom — Ecclesiastes ; 3. His- tory— Chronicles. This is the period of the Law. The division which we have followed gives five periods, a preliminary one, and four others — From IMoses to prophecy, 800 ; from 800 to 586, the fall of Jerusalem; from 586 to 400 ; and from 400 to our era. But perhaps the whole period from the Exodus might be divided into three characteristic stages — 1. Pre-prophetic period, down to 800 ; 2. Pro- phetic period, down to 586 ; and 3. Levitism, down to our era. Of course, these names are general. Prophetism is but the development of IMosaism on one side ; but it is a distinct development and a literary development. Similarly, Levitism is a development of Mosaism on another side, but it is no doubt an expansion ; and historically the Levitical system during this period actually made itself master of the people, and brought them into subjection to it, which historically had not been true at an earlier period. The prophets, being statesmen in the kingdom of God, stand in closest relation to the history, and in their THE PROPHETIC LITERATURE 21 pages the significance of the various momenta and turning points in the national career can best be estimated. And it is their teaching that we should chiefly have before us. From 850 or 800 to 400 B.C. they are the main figures in the history of Israel ; and unquestionably the prophetic literature is the most characteristic, and has most affinities with the New Testament. We are able to receive a better general idea of the religion of the Old Testament by study- ing the Prophets than by reading any other part of the Hebrew Scriptures. The literature of the period ending with 800 or 750 b,c. is scanty, being chiefly contained in the part of the Pentateuch called J, or the united elements JE. It is different with the prophetical period, 800—586, which is the most important for an Old Testament theo- logian, i.e. for one who wishes to understand the develop- ment of Eevelation or the religion of Israel historically — in other words, to understand the faith and hopes of Israel as they existed actually in the minds of the prophets and the people. All the great religious conceptions of the Old Testament come to view in this period. An exception might be made in regard to the doctrine of immortality. But there are two doctrines of immortality in the Old Testament — that of the people, the kingdom of God ; and that of the individual person. The former is fully developed in the prophetic age ; that of the individual, perhaps not until the period of Judaism. For the prophetic teaching is, so to speak, national ; it was only on the down- fall of the State that the meaning and worth of the individual life began to be adequately felt, and consequently that the destinies of the individual began to be earnestly pursued and reflected upon. But very much of the Christian doctrine of immortality — e.g. the concomitants of it, the judgment ; the result of it, eternal peace and fellowship with God, and the like — is taught in the Old Testament in connection with the eschatology of the king- dom or people of God. But if the prophetic period be the most important period for the Old Testament theologian, the period of 22 THE THEOLOGY OP THE OLD TESTAMENT Judaism, from the Kestoration in 537 to our era, is of supreme importance for the Christian theologian or exegete. Because, although this period is not so rich in original productions, it is the period of reflection and generahsation on the prophetic teaching, and of appropriation and as- similation of it into the individual life. This process in great measure stripped off the nationalism from the pro- phetic truths, and brought them under individualism. But individualism is universalism. The individual is of no nation. But this way of looking at the ancient literature generalised the contents. The circumstances in which a truth was uttered ceased to be of importance, while the person who uttered it or to whom it was uttered was equally unimportant. All those things ceased to have meaning. The things that had meaning — and had universal applicability — were the ethical and religious principles. These were the Word of God. So that in a sense it is true that the better historical Old Testament theologians we are, the worse fitted are we to comprehend the New Testament writers. It is admitted that the sense put by New Testament writers on much of the Old Testament which they quote is not the true historical sense, i.e. not the sense which the original writers, prophets, or wise men had in their mind. The sense which the New Testament writers express is the sense which arose during the period of Judaism — which experience and reflection and personal piety put upon the Old Testament. Hence is it that to the Christian theologian or exegete the period of Judaism is of the utmost importance. 7. General Course and Drift of tTie History. The literature of Israel, then, being so closely connected with its history, it is of importance to understand the general course and drift of the latter. As in all ancient States, the religion was national. The religious unit or subject was not the individual in the State, but the ideal unity GENERAL DRIFT OF THE HISTORY 23 formed by the State as a whole. Now, this unity came into existence at the Exodus from Egypt. From that hour Israel was conscious of being a people, and Jehovah, who had delivered them, was their God alone : " I am Jehovah thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt " (Ex. XX. 2 ; cf. Hos. xiii. 4), The sense of being a people, and the sense of being the people of Jehovah, if not identical feelings, reacted very powerfully on one another ; and hence the religious literature of the people reflects from age to age all the changing hues of its history. That history ran very much such a course as we should have expected. (1) The migration of the ancestors of the people from the East, the descent into Egypt, the oppression and bondage there, and the delivery under Moses, are events testified to not only in the formal history of the Penta- teuch, but by frequent incidental allusions in other writing. These allusions express the fundamental historical feeling of the people, the very "basis of their national and religious consciousness (Amos ii 9 seq. ; Hos. xii. 1 3 ; Mic. vL 4). (2) Disintegration under the Judges. It was natural that the unity into which the tribes ^ had been welded at the Exodus by the necessity of facing a common danger, or sharing a common enterprise, should become relaxed when the danger was over and the enterprise had in great measure succeeded ; and, accordingly, after the settlement in Canaan, we find the unity in some degree disintegrated, and the various tribes fighting each for its own hand, and only entering into combinations when some danger more serious than usual threatened. Such is the history as reflected in the Book of Judges. No doubt a religious disintegration in some measure ran parallel to the political one. Even in this troubled period, however, although ' The tribes entered Canaan, or at least conquered a place in it, not in common, but independently, or in smaller combinations. There were two Canaanite belts — between Judah and the northern tribes, and between the Dorthern tribes themselves, i,e, the plain of Jezreel. 24 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT practically the tribes are often seen acting independently, and settling with a stronf^ hand their own local differences with the native population, the sense of the ideal unity of all the tribes as one * Israel ' inspired the higher minds in the nation, as, e.g., the prophetess Deborah (Judg. v. 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, etc.) ; and the need of some single head, such as a king, to represent this unity is often felt and expressed by the people (Judg. viii. 22). (3) The Monarchy. When a danger, so pressing that it threatened the national existence of Israel, arose in the Philistine ^ power, the need of a visible head to bind the tribes together, and animate them with a common impulse, and lead them against the common enemy, was universally recognised, and the people demanded that Samuel should give them a king to "go out before us and fight our battles" (1 Sam. viii. 20). The aged seer, though reluctant to see the ideal sovereignty of Jehovah, the feeling of which should have been enough to secure the national unity, brought down and materialised in the form of an earthly representative king, was sagacious and patriotic enough to perceive the necessities of the time, and to take them under his direction. And thus arose the Monarchy, a partial attempt in the same direction having already been made by Abimelech (Judg. ix.). The history of this period is recorded in the Books of Samuel. This period is of extreme importance in the literary and religious history of Israel. Three powerful streams of influence take their rise in it, and run through the whole succeeding history, fertilising and enriching it. These were, first, the prophetic order; a class of men who probably * The origin of the Philistines is yet far from certain. They came from Caphtor (Amos ix. 7 ; Deut. ii. 23 ; Jer. xlvii. 4, 5), supposed by some to be Cappadocia, by others to be Crete, or Cyprus, or the northern Egyptian Delta. They either were Semites, or they speedily adopted the language and religion of the country. Their chief god appears to be allied to the Aramaic Marnas and the Babylonian Dagan. The time of their settlement on the coast of Palestine must have been during the time Israel was in Egypt. THE DAVIDIC KINGDOM 25 existed from the earliest times along with the Nazirites (Amos ii 11), but who acquired an influence in the State at this period, first as counsellors and seers of the early kings (Nathan, Gad, 2 Sam. xii. 1, xxiv. 11), and ulti- mately as an independent order who took the religious destinies of the nation into their own hands, and in whose writings, the Prophetical Scriptures, we have the fullest exposition of that lofty spiritual religion in Israel to which the New Testament directly attaches itself. Secondly, the elevation of the Davidic dynasty to the throne. The brilliant reign of David, whose arms extended the Hmits of the Jewish State till for those days it might justly be named an empire, became the ideal of after ages; and when, amidst disaster and religious decline, men looked back to it and transfigured it in the light of the religious I hopes which filled their minds, it became the type both of j a future king and a future universal kingdom of God that would arise upon the earth in the latter days. These special predictions of the perfection of the kingdom of the Lord, named Messianic prophecies, all borrow their form and colours from this powerful reign. And, thirdly, the choice of Jerusalem as the centre both of the national and the rehgious life of the people. The influence of the Temple of Solomon, both in purifying and in elevating the ritual wor- ship, as well as in leading ultimately to its concentration at one shrine, cannot be overestimated. But the step taken by David gave a colour to all succeeding literature. Patriot- ism and religion were once more wedded together. Jeru- salem was not only the perfection of beauty, the joy of the whole earth (Ps. xlviii 2), it was also the * hearth ' of Jehovah, who dwelt in Zion at Jerusalem (Isa. xxix. 1). National sentiment mingled with religious emotion in one powerful stream, and the union has given to the religious poetry of Israel, which celebrates ' Zion,' or longs to revisit it, or tells that its dust is dear, not only a rehgious value, but a never-dying human pathos. (4) Disruption of the Kingdom. There had existed from of old a jealousy between the North and the South, 26 THE THEOLOGY OP THE OLD TESTAMENT between the powerful tribe of Ephraim, which always aspired to the leadership of the tribes, and the great tribe of Judah. We see already in the Song of Deborah the smaller tribes clustering around Ephraim, and learn from the fact that Judah receives no mention that this great family had already begun to pursue its own course and go its own way. Naturally, therefore, when the unity of the tribes under the Monarchy was subjected to a great strain under Eehoboam, it broke asunder, and two king- doms arose, existing side by side, sometimes hostile to one another, but in the main friendly.^ Though neither of the two kingdoms might prove itself sufi&ciently strong to hold in subjection the petty States of Edom and Moab, and even to maintain its own against the more powerful kingdom of Syria, when the time came that they were confronted with the imposing empires of Assyria and Babylon, they naturally lost their independence, first Israel at the hands of Assyria (721 B.C.), and then Judah at the hands of Babylon (586 B.C.), and became merged in these empires as provinces. The internal history of the two kingdoms is told in the Books of Kings ; and the internal condition of the people, the relaxation of morals, the struggles of contending parties, and the cruel idolatries to which despair had recourse, are reflected in the pages of the prophets — in the writings of Amos and Hosea during the last years of Samaria ; in Isaiah and Micah during the conflict of Judah with Assyria ; and in Jeremiah during the death struggle of Judah with Babylon. (5) The Exile and Eestoration ; Israel a religious com- munity. As one colossal empire followed another and succeeded to the inheritance of its predecessor, — Babylon, * Though the nation now formed two kingdoms, not always friendly, the conception of the higher unity of all parts of Israel still filled the religious minds of the country. Hosea, a prophet of the North, has the tenderest regard for Judah. Araos, a native of Judah, felt called to preach to Samaria. And all Isaiah's earlier prophecies have regard both to Judah and to Israel, which to his mind are one people of Jehovah ; and he addresses his oracles to both the houses of Israel — Israel and Judah (viii. 14). Even Jeremiah and Ezekiel still continue to speak of one Israel — North and South. THE EXILE AND RETURN 27 Persia, Greece, and Eome, — the people of Israel, no longer independent, existed as a community governed internally in the main in accordance with its own conceptions, but forming externally part of the heathen empire for the time. Only after a successful revolt against the Grseco- Syrian rule of the Seleucids did the people again attain to iuddpendence, and become ruled by native princes for about a century (167—63 B.C.). It then fell under the influence of Eome, which finally destroyed the city and temple, 70 A.D. No internal history of the Babylonian Exile has been written ; but the picture of the desolation of the land, the sad silence in the streets and gates of Jerusalem, which used to ring with the joy of the feasts, and the sense of abasement and contempt into which the people had fallen as a nation among the nations, together with the flickerings of a faith in the sure mercies of the Lord that refused to be quenched (Lam. iii. 22), — all this may be seen in the exquisite collection of elegies known as the Lamentations, written not many years after the fall of the city ; while the delirium of hope raised somewhat later by the victories of Cyrus, and the approaching downfall of Babylon, and the brilliant religious anticipations of the destruction of idolatry and the conversion of the nations to the true religion of Jehovah through the ministration of Israel restored, " the servant of the Lord," fill the pages of the second half of Isaiah (chs. xl.— Ixvi.). The fortunes of the returning exiles are described in Ezra and Nehemiah, and their hopes and despondencies in the three prophets of the Eetum (Zechariah, Haggai, Malachi) ; while the aims and faith and hopes of the godly Israel during the Maccabean struggles are reflected in the Book of Daniel Thus, amidst all the vicissitudes of its eventful history, the literary activity of Israel knew no intermission. The great literary period extends from 800 to 400 B.C. ; but much of the finest historical writing is anterior to this period, while several important books, aa Chronicles, Ecdesiastes, and Daniel, fall later. 28 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 8. Literary and Historical Criticism in relation to Old Testament Theology. It is admitted that the order in which the Old Testament literature now exists is not the historical order, and that traditional ideas regarding its date and authorship require sifting. For example, it is acknow- ledged that the Pentateuch is not a homogeneous work, the composition of a single person at a very early date, but consists of a number of distinct writings, originating at different periods, all down the people's history, and brought together at various times, so that it gradually assumed its present shape not earlier than about 500 B.C. ; and that there are elements in it later than this period. Similarly, in regard to the prophetical writings, though the dates of the main parts of the prophetical literature are less liable to discussion, still it is a fact that the prophets themselves were less careful to collect their own prophecies than one might have expected. Jeremiah, for example, dictated to Baruch an outline of his prophecies for the first time more than twenty years after he became a prophet. The prophecies, as we have them, are the work of collectors or editors, and they are often grouped together according to subjects, though the individual prophecies may be of very different dates, or even different ages ; and, further, the collectors, occasionally at least, made insertions in order to make the prophecies applicable to the thought and religious needs of their own time. Edification, not strict literary exact- ness and discrimination of dates, was the object they pursued. The newest criticism is partly textual criticism and partly literary. It moves mainly in three lines. 1. It is acknowledged that the early history of the world (Gen. x., xi.), and the patriarchal history, and even ^/'partly the history of the Exodus, were not written down till very long after the events happened which are recorded. It is traditional or legendary. The question arises, How LITERARY CRITICISM 29 much real history is it possible to extract from this ? The narrative has affinities with early Babylonian traditions, and it is largely coloured by tlie religious sentiments of the age when the traditions were written down. How far, e.g., are the Patriarchs real persons, or ideal types of nationalities (Esau = Edom ; Laban = Arameans, etc.), or how far are they ideal types of the true Israel or the true Israelite ? 2. Textual criticism. To take one example. Besides the formally poetical books, Psalms, Job, and Proverbs, it is certain that much of the early prophecy is poetical Now, in criticising and attempting to restore the text of a classical poet, the metre would be a powerful in- strument for use in the hand of the critic. Any current text where the metre was defective, making the line too long or too short, would certainly be false. The line, if too long, must he restored by some omission ; or, if too short, by some insertion or change of words. Must the same process be applied to Hebrew poetry ? Many scholars reply that it must. Hence enormous changes are intro- duced— by Duhm, for example — into the early prophetic texts, and into such books as Job and the Psalms. 3. As to literary criticism, two principles are assumed as undeniable. (1) The language, like all languages, has a history. The vocabulary changes in process of time, and to some extent also the syntax. After Jeremiah the Aramaic language begins to influence the Hebrew, both in vocabulary and in style, (2) It is not only the language that has a history, but also the thought of the nation. New thoughts arise. Modes of contemplating things are seen in later ages which were unknown in earlier times ; and, in particular, ideas which might be called eschato- logical hopes and outlooks into the future destiny of the nation and of the other nationalities of the world become very prevalent. Now, these principles being admitted, and it being further admitted that the literature, as it stands, has been collected by scripturalists — I use that word rather 30 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT than scribes — in a way not chronological, and without discrimination with regard to what is ancient and what is modern, — the newest criticism feels that it has the task before it of applying these principles, — particularly those relating to the progressive changes in the language and the progressive changes in the religious ideas, and by their application separating the elements out of which the present texts of the prophecies have been composed, and showing which is ancient and which is recent. Now, these processes are, in principle, quite legitimate. No other method is open. But, at the same time, a door is opened to subjective and individual judgment, and the operation is necessarily a precarious one. The literature is very limited. An idea that is found now only in a late writing might really belong to an earlier time, if we only had a more extensive literature covering that time. But the effect of the criticism referred to is to cut up the writings, particularly the prophecies, into a multitude of fragments, and to introduce the greatest uncertainty into the exegesis. I cannot help thinking that this kind of criticism has gone to extremes in recent times, and has had the effect of discrediting the criticism which is legitimate. //. THE DOCTRINE OF GOD. 1. General Character of the Old Testament Conception of God. On the subject of God the ideas of the ancient world are in many respects different from our own. And the ideas of the Old Testament have, in these points of difference, naturally greater affinity with those of the ancient world in general than with ours. One such point of difference is this, that it never occurred to any prophet or writer ^ of the Old Testament to prove the existence of God. To do so might well have seemed an absurdity. For all PRESUPPOSITIONS OF THE DOCTRINE OF GOD 31 Old Testament prophets and writers move among ideas that presuppose God's existence. Prophecy itself is the direct product of His influence. The people ot Israel in their character and relation are His creation. It is not according to the spirit of the ancient world in general either to deny the existence of God or to use arguments to prove it. The belief was one natural to the human mind and common to all men. Scripture does indeed speak of men who say in their heart there is no God, but these are the fools, that is, the practically ungodly ; and their denial is not a theoretical or speculative one, but merely what may be held to be the expression of their manner of life. Even the phrase " there is no God " hardly means that God is not, but rather that He is not present, does not interfere in life ; and counting on this absence of God from the affairs of the world, and consequently on impunity, men become corrupt and do abominable deeds (Ps. xiv.). And for their wickedness they shall be cast into hell, the region of separation from God, along with all the nations that forget God (Ps. ix. 17). Yet even this forgetfulness of God by the nations is regarded as something temporary. It is a forgetting only ; it is no obliteration of the knowledge of God from the human mind. That is impossible, and these nations shall yet remember and turn unto the Lord. Scripture regards men as carrying with them, as part of their very thought, the conception of God. This being the case, the Old Testament naturally has no occasion to speculate on how this knowledge that God is arises in the mind. Its position is far in front of this. It teaches how God who is, is known, and is known to be what He is. But it seems nowhere to contemplate men as ignorant of the existence of God, and therefore it nowhere depicts the rise or dawn of the idea of God's existence on men's minds.* In the historical period tlio ' The ongin of the idea ot God, the origin of religion, is a question of great interest. Ab the origin lies so far beyond the horizon of history, little but conjectures regarding it need he looked for. We perhaps perceive two stages, cbe one the full historical stage, such as it meets us in all the Old 32 THE THEOLOGY OP THE OLD TESTAMENT idea of God's existence is one of the primary thoughts of man. He comes possessed of this thought to face and observe the world. His conception of God already possessed explains the world to him ; the world does not suggest to him an idea hitherto strange, that of the existence of God. And, of course, the bare idea of the existence of God is not the primary thought which Scripture supposes all men to possess. This abstract idea gathers body about it, namely, a certain circle of ideas as to what God is. And with these ideas the Hebrew took up his position over against the world. To him God and the world were always distinct. God was not involved in the processes of nature. These processes were caused by God, but were quite distinct from God. The Hebrew thinker, however, came down from his thought of God upon the world ; he did not rise from the world up to his thought of God. His primary thought of Testament writings ; the other, one lying behind this, some dim traces of which we may perceive in practices occasionally appearing in Israel, or referred to in the history of the Patriarchs (such as Jacob's anointing with oil the stone which he called Beth-el, the place of God) ; and in some things treated and announced as superstitions in the historical period, such as seeking for the living unto the dead, necromancy, witchcraft, and the like (Isa. viiL 19). It has been thought that several sources of the religious idea might be discovered, as, e.g., animism, reverence for deceased ancestors, or for heroes of the tribe, etc. The forces of nature, and man's subjection to them, suggested powers, or more particularly spirits, as they were unseen. These were located in various natural objects. In stones — generally natural, but afteiTvards artificial, places were prepared for the spirit. These artificial stones were the Maccebas or pillars. They either became altars or were placed beside altars. We find them standing beside the altars of Jehovah, and denounced by the prophet Hosea. Other objects to which the spirit attached itself were trees and fountains. Hence some explain the part played by trees in the patriarchal history, as the oak of Mamre near Hebron, and the place given to the well Beersheba, long a sanctuary, as Amos shows (v. 7). The sacred tree was, no doubt, common in Canaan, and was a seat of the god, and a place where oracles were given ; hence the name the Oak of the Soothi-ayers (Judg. ix. 37). A later substitute for this sacred tree was the Ashera — or wooden stock. This was also always naturally beside an altar. Possibly many practices observed in mourning, such as cutting off the hair, may have reference to dedication of the hair as a sacrifice to the dead. Setting food before the dead is forbidden in Deuteronomy (xxvi. 14). These practices in historic times are all treated aa heathen superstitions in Israel, and forbidden. RELATION TO NATURAL THEOLOGY 33 God explained to him the world, both its existence and the course of events upon it; these did not suggest to him either the existence or the character of God, these beinsr unknown to him. The thought of the Hebrew, and his contemplation of providence and life, were never of the nature of a search after God whom he did not know, but always of the nature of a recognition and observation of the operation of God >vhon> he already knew. There seems no passage in the Old Tescament which represents men as reaching the knowledge of the existence of God through nature or the events of providence, although there are some passages which imply that false ideas of what God is may be corrected by the observation of nature and life. When the singer in the xixth Psalm says that " the heavens declare the glory of God," all that he means is that the glory of God, who is, and is known, and is Creator, may be seen reflected on the heavens. But the Psalmist only recognised on the heavens what he already carried in his heart. When, however, in Isa. xl. 25, 26, Jehovah, asks " To whom then will ye liken Me ? . . . Lift up your eyes on high, and see who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number," it is implied that false views of what God is may be corrected, or at least that they may be brought home to men's consciousness. There is an approximation to the arguments of Natural Theology in some of these passages. And even more in a passage in one of the Psalms (xciv. 5—11), when, speaking probably of the excuses of the heathen rulers of Israel, the writer says : " They break in pieces Thy people, 0 Lord, and afflict Thine heritage. They slay the widow and the stranger, and murder the fatherless. And they say, The Lord doth not see, neither doth the God of Jacob observe. Consider, ye brutish among the people : and ye fools, when will ye be wise ? He that planted the ear, shall He not hear ? He that formed the eye, shall He not see ? He that instructeth the nations, shall not He correct ? Even He that teacheth men knowledge ? The Lord knoweth the thoughts of men." 34 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT The Old Testament as little thinks of arguing or ]/' proving that God may be known as it thinks of arguing that He exists. Its position here again is far in front of such an argument. How should men think of arguing that God could be known, when they were persuaded they knew Him, when they knew they were in fellowship with Him, when their consciousness and whole mind were filled and aglow with the thought of Him, and when through His Spirit He moved them and enlightened them, and guided their whole history ? There is nothing strictly peculiar, however, here. The peculiarity of the Old Testament conception rather comes out when the question is raised, how God is known. Here we touch a fundamental idea of the Old Testament — the idea of Revelation. If men know God, it is because He has made Himself known to them. This knowledge is due to what He does, not to what men themselves achieve. As God is the source of all life, and as the knowledge of Him is the highest life, this knowledge cannot be reached by any mere effort of man. If man has anything of God, he has received it from God, who communicates Himself in love and grace. The idea of man reaching to a knowlege or fellowship of God through his own efforts is wholly foreign to the Old Testament. God speaks, He appears ; man listens and beholds. God brings Himself nigh to men ; He enters into a covenant or personal relation with them ; He lays commands on them. They receive Him when He approacJhes ; they accept His will and obey His behests.^ Moses and the prophets are nowhere represented as thoughtful minds reflecting on the Unseen, and forming conclusions regarding it, or ascending to elevated concep- tions of Godhead. The Unseen manifests itself before them, and they know it. Such a revelation of God is everywhere supposed in the Old Testament. God is not a God that hides Himself in the sense that He is self -engrossed or self-absorbed. His Spirit streams through the world, producing all life and » Cf. Schultz, Alttest. Theol, ftinfte Aufl. pp. 397, 398. IDEA OF REVELATION 35 maintaining it, and begetting in men a fellowship with the life of God. His word goes forth to the world that it shall be, and shall be upholden, and to men that they may know Him and live in Him. He appears and manifests Himself to the patriarchs in angelic forms, to the prophets in the inspiration of their minds, in visions and dreams or spiritual intuitions, and to Moses speaking face to face. The form of His manifestation of Himself may change, but the reality of it remains the same. The conviction in the mind of the prophet that God revealed Himself and His word to him when the truth broke upon his mind, was not less vivid than that of the patriarch who was visited by angelic forms when sitting in the door of his tent. The prophet speaks the word of God, has his ear awakened by God, is the messenger and interpreter of God, as much as Moses who saw the God of Israel on the mount. And this is not because the prophet rose to the conception of God, or attained to know His will by reflection. It was because God called him and put His words in his mouth. But, however much the Old Testament reposes on the ground that all knowledge of God comes from His revealing Himself, and that there is such a true and real revelation, it is far from implying that this revelation of God is a full display of Him as He really is. An exhaustive communication of God cannot be made, because the creature cannot take it in. Neither, perhaps, can God communicate Himself as He is. Hence Moses saw only a form, saw only His back parts. His face could not be beheld. Thus to the patriarchs He appeared in the human form. So in the tabernacle His presence was manifested in the smoke that hung over the Ark. So, too, in Eden He was known to be present in the cherubim, who were the divine chariot on which He rode. All these things signified His presence, while at the same time intimating that in Himself He could not be seen. Yet this may refer only to a bodily vision of Him. There is no trace of the idea in the Old Testament that God, aa revealed to men, is not really God as He ia in Himself. 36 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT There is no such idea as that His revelation of Himself ie meant merely to be regulative of human life, while what He is in truth remains far away in a transcendental back- ground, out of which it is impossible for it to advance, or unto which it is impossible for men to approach. The revelation God gives of Himself is a revelation of Himself as He is in truth. Yet it may be impossible to reveal Himself fully to men, and it is impossible for any form appreciable to the senses either to contain Him or do much more than indicate His presence. The Hebrew idea of God, however, is not physical ; it nowhere speculates on His essence ; its idea of Him is ethical. This conception of revelation is just the characteristic conception of the Old Testament. It reposes on such ideas as that Jehovah is a living God, and that He rules by His activity all the life of men. And it reposes on the idea that the religious life of men is mainly their practical conduct. And revelation is His ruling practically the whole life of the people by making known His will This must be done to individual persons, not to the whole people directly. Hence all revelation is oral, because it is continuous — the constant impression by Himself of the living God. Even the priests' decisions on questions of right between man and man — their torah — were oral, and always caused by occasions. Now, on man's side this revelation was an operation of Jehovah in the mind. Eevelation was the arising in the mind of man of thoughts or impulses accompanied by the conviction that the thoughts and impulses were from God. In such thoughts the mind of man and God coalesced, and the man was conscious of meeting God. 2. The Idea of the Divine Name. In 80 far as God reveals Himself He acquires a name. Men call that which they know by a name. God, in reveal- ing Himself, proclaimed His own name — Jehovah, Jehovah merciful and gracious. Among the Hebrews the name waa THE NAME OF GOD 37 never a mere sign whereby one person could be distinguished from another. It always remained descriptive ; it expressed the meaning of the person or thing designated. The name bore the same relation to the significance of the thing or person as a word does to a thought. It was always the expression of it. Hence when a person acquired a new significance, when he began to play a new role, or entered into new relations, or was in some sense a new man, he received a new name. Therefore Abram became Abraham ; Jacob, Israel ; Solomon, Jedidjah — * beloved of God' (2 Sam. xii. 25). So even to God men have a name. Thus He calls Moses and Cyrus by their name. That is. He conceives to Himself what their significance is, what meaning they have in His redemptive providence ; and He recognises this, and enters into relations with them as men having this meaning. And the same is true of God's own names. Such a name expresses that which is known to men of the nature of God, When a new or higher side of the Being of God is revealed to men there arises a new name of God. Any name of God expresses some revelation of His Being or character. When the word name is used absolutely as God's name, it describes His nature as revealed, as finding outward expres- sion. So when the Psalmist in Ps, viii. exclaims, " How excellent is Thy name in all the earth ! " he means how glorious is God's revelation of Himself, or God as revealed on the earth, — that is, among the family of men, whom He has so dignified as to put them over the work of His hands, with all things under their feet. His grace to men is His name here. His revelation of Himself. So when Israel is warned to give heed to the Angel of the Lord that leads them, for His name is in him (Ex. xxiii. 21), the sense is that the significance of God is present there ; what God is, His majesty and authority, is there embodied. So His name is holy and reverend ; He, as being what He is known to be, is reverendus. Occasionally, perhaps, as the name is properly a full description of the nature, the expression name of God 38 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT may refer rather to what God is in Himself than to that which He has revealed Himself to be. But ordinarily, at least, the latter idea is predominant ; and even when he swears by His name, or when, ' for His name's sake,* He blots out transgression, or will not cast off Israel, the idea is that on account of what He has given men to know that He is, because He has manifested Himself to Israel, and in relation with Israel to the world, therefore He will not cast away Israel (Ezek, xxiii.— xxxviii.). This use of * for His name's sake ' is comparatively late — in Isaiah only in the prose ; in Second Isaiah, and often in Ezekiel, and later Psalms. The ideas connected with this expres- sion appear to be these: (1) In the mind of the writer Jehovah is God alone. But (2) He is known to the world, the nations of mankind, as Jehovah, God of Israel. All the knowledge they have of Him is of Him as God of Israel — who had led Israel out of bondage, and done great things for them in the wilderness and in their history. (3) Jehovah's purpose is to reveal Himself to all mankind. This revelation has already begun in Israel and through Israel. It is only as God of Israel that the nations know Him — the one God. It is only, therefore, through Israel that He can reveal Himself to them. The name, therefore, for whose sake He is besought to save Israel, is the name Jehovah, known to the nations, and revealed in His redemption of Israel of old, and in Israel's history. Hence, when He finally redeems Israel, His glory appears to all flesh. 3. Particular Names of God. Though the Name of God has this significance, it is rather descriptions of Him as Jehovah merciful and gracious, and such like, that carry with them this meaning and express this insight into what He is, than what is known as strictly the Divine names. Not much can be drawn from these. They are chiefly two, Elohim and Jehovah ; the one a general name for God, that is, an app^^Uativo PARTICULAR NAMES OF GOD 39 expressing the conception God, and therefore having no special significance ; the other Jehovah, the personal name of the God of Israel But these are not the only names. There is the term ^l V^\ which, like EloMm, expresses the general idea of God. There are also the terms M-SJiaddai, El-Elyon, which are descriptive titles applied to God ; and there is the singular Eloach. The names El, Elohim, El-Shaddai, and the term Jehovah itself, appear all to be prehistoric. The most widely distributed of all these names is El. It appears in, Babylonian, Phoenician, Aramaic, Hebrew, and Arabic, especially South Arabic. It belongs, therefore, to the whole Shemitic world. Gesenius and many more have taken it to be a part of a verb h^H = to be strong. But other ex- planations have been advanced. Noldeke, e.g., would con- nect it with the Arabic root '41 = to be in front, whence awwal = first ; according to which the idea would be that of governor or leader. Dillmann would refer it to a supposed root n^N, with the sense of power or might ; while Lagarde would seek its explanation in a root supposed to be related to the preposition "?ij!, so that it would designate God as the goal to which man is drawn, or toward which he is to strive. This last explanation is entirely impossible. The idea of Deity implied in it is too abstract and metaphysical for the most ancient times. No satisfactory derivation has as yet* been suggested. Equally obscure is the name ^K', which we translate Almighty. In poetry the word is used alone; in prose it is usually coupled with ^^, = God Almighty. The derivation and meaning are uncertain. It is an archaic term. According to P, it was the name of God that was used by the patriarchs (Gen. xvii. 1 ; Ex. vi. 3). It marked in that case an advance upon El and Elohim. The tradition tbat it is an archaic name is supported by the Book of Job, where the patriarchal and pre-Mosaic speakers use it. It is also supported by such names among the people of the Exodus as Zurishaddai = ' Shaddai is my rock ' (Num. i. 6). Some have suggested an Aramean root, vn^ = 40 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT to pour out, and have taken the name to designate the rain- or storm-god. Others would derive it from "M^, giving it the sense of ' the destroyer,' or more particularly the storm- god or the scorching sun-god. But there is little probability in such derivations. The oldest Babylonian names for God are all equally unresolvable. The meaning of Ishtar or Astarte, Marduk (Merodach), and the like, cannot be ascer- tained. The Jewish scholars resolve ''1^ into "'"1 ^ (IK'X) = he who is sufficient ; but whether self-sufficiency is meant, or sufficiency for others, is left uncertain. It is probable that the Sept. translators, or some of them, already knew this etymology, as they occasionally render the term by LKav6?:"S 'n was felt to give the significa- tion of the ancient Jahweh. We cannot be certain, of course, when the passage in Exodus was written. But even if in its written form it is the product of a much later age, it most probably expresses an old historical tradition. Much of the Pentateuch may be in its present form of comparatively late date, and not unnaturally a writer living in a late age may mix up some of his own conceptions with those of a former time, and colour his delineations of the past with ideas that belong to his own time. But wholesale fabrications of a past history from the point of view of a more modern age are very improb- able. And this improbability is indefinitely heightened in the domain of ancient Shemitic literature. To Moses the name Jahweh, which he elevated into such prominence, must have had a meaning of its own, and he is just as likely to have connected that ancient name with the verb rrri as the prophet Hosea, who certainly does so. It is to be noticed that the Old Testament con- nects the name with the verb n\n in its modern sense. The imperfect Qal of the verb n^, as used in the times of Moses and Hosea, expresses the meaning of Jahweh. It is certainly possible that the ancient name Jahweh is derived from this verb in its more ancient and primary sense. This sense is probably to fall ; and some, as we have said, have supposed the name nin'» to be a Hiphil from this, and to mean the feller, the prostrator — a name which would be allied to C3^■^^N and "'1^' (if the last were derived from "ni", which is not likely) ; just as others have supposed it to be a Hiphil, in the sense of to cause to he, and meaning the Creator. But such inquiries Ue without MEANING NOT METAPHYSICAL 65 the Old Testament horizon. To the Israelites of history the covenant name Jahweh has a meaning which may be expressed by the first singular imperfect Qal of nM, to he. Now, two things must be premised about this verb. First, the imperfect of such a stative verb as iTTi must be taken ^ in the sense of a future. I do not think there is in the Hebrew Bible a case of the imperfect of this verb having the sense of the English 'present. This is expressed by the perfect. The word means to fall, fall out, hecome ; hence its perfect is equivalent to to be. The imperfect must be rendered, / will he. Second, n\n does not mean to he . essentially, but to he phenomenally ; it is not elvai, but rylvecrOai. It cannot be used ordinarily to express ' being * in the sense of existence. Now these two facts regarding n\n exclude a large number of conjectures as to the mean- ing of Jahweh. In the first place, the translation / am is ^ doubly false : the tense is wrong, being present ; and the idea is wrong, because am is used in the sense of essential existence. All those interpretations which proceed upon the supposition that the word is a name of God as the self-existent, the absolute, of which the Septuagint's o &v is the most conspicuous illustration, must be set aside. Apart from the fact that such abstract conceptions are quite out of keeping with the simpHcity and concreteness of Oriental thought, especially in the most early times, the nature of the verb and the tense peremptorily forbid them. Second, the translation / will he, or / will he what I will he, while right as to tense, must be guarded also against having a metaphysical sense imported into the words will he. Some have supposed that the expression denoted the eternity of God, or the self - consistence of God, or His absolute freedom and His inviolability from all sides of the creature universe ; but these constructions also put a sense upon n^n which it cannot bear. The expression / will he is a historical formula ; it refers, not to what God will be in Himself; it is no predication regarding His nature, but one regarding what He will 56 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT approve Himself to others, regarding what He will show Himself to be to those in covenant with Him. The name is not a name like Elohim, which expresses God on the side of His being, as essential, manifold power ; it is a word that expresses rather relation — Elohim in relation to Israel is Jahweh. In this respect the word has almost the same signification as the term t^Hj? holy ; the "b*^ 'i? and Jahweh are one. It is in this sense that Hosea says to Israel : D37 'k N7 / will not he to you ; but I " will save them by the Lord their God" (nin^a) — i,e. as Jahweh their God (L 7, 9). In Exodus the formula appears in two shapes — the simple n\nK, / will he, and the larger 'n ntj'S 'n, / will he that I will he. But it is evident that the lesser formula is a full expression of the name — ^"say unto the children of Israel that 'n hath sent me unto you." The name is, / will he. Thus it is equivalent almost to 6 ip'x^6fievo regarding God ; and we have reached an abstract and I general conception of God to which, if there be any actual I God, He must correspond. But these men were pursuing ' ihe opposite course. They started from the assurance of ihe existence of a Being whom they named God, whom they considered a person in close relation with their life ; and their general thoughts of Him were few, and only rose \ to their mind gradually, one after another, as their life and I history suggested them. And the history of the people of God enables us to observe how these great thoughts of what God was rose like stars, one in succession to another, y upon their horizon ; thoughts which we, who have inherited A PRACTICAL MONOTHEISM 63 the mental riches of these great men, now are able to unite / together into one great constellation and call it God. The religion of Israel was practical, not speculative; and while a practical Monotheism prevailed, and gave rise to all that profound rehgious life which we see in such men as Moses and Samuel and David and the prophets, it perhaps needed that internal conflict which arose through the slowness of the popular mind, and the . degradation of the popular morals arising from absorbing the native Canaanite, to bring into speculative clearness the doctrines of Monotheism and Spirituality. The whole history of Israel is filled with this internal conflict between the strict worshippers of Jahweh and those who showed a leaning to other gods. And while all the leading minds held, and when they were writers expressed, conceptions of Jahweh which to our minds would have excluded the existence of all else named God, it is not perhaps till the age of Jeremiah that the speculative truth is clearly announced that there is no God but Jahweh. I exclude from consideration here the Book of Deuteronomy, the age of which is contested. In estimating evidence on this question, however, we must always take the state of thought in those ages into account, and the condition of religion among the neighbour- ing peoples. Much is said in Scripture which reflects not the point of view of Israel, but that of the heathen peoples about, and the facts of religious practice in the world at the time. For example, in the hymn sung at the Eed Sea it is said : " Who is like unto Thee, 0 Jaliweh, among the gods ? who is hke Thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders ? " (Ex. xv. 11), There it is certainly said, as elsewhere, of Israel's God, that He is incomparable. But it seems admitted that though supreme, He is just one God among others. Yet this last inference might be very mistaken. The language reposes upon the fact that the heathen nations had gods whom they wor- shipped, and is based merely upon the general religious conditions of the time. In a late Psalm (Ps. xcvii.), 64 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT certainly written after the expression of a theoretical Monotheism by such prophets as Jeremiah and the Second Isaiah, we read : " Great is Jahweh ; — He is to be feared above all gods." And had we no more we might suppose the author to admit the existence of other objects of worship along with Jahweh, although he might put them on a meaner level. But he immediately adds : " For all tlie gods of the nations are vanities," — ^YP^:, non-existences ; " but Jahweh made the heavens." And David, who was certainly a monotheist, uses similar phraseology when he identifies being banished from the land of Israel with serving other gods (1 Sam. xxvi. 19). Such language arises from the religious conditions of the age, and we cannot draw any conclusions from it as to the actual views of the persons in Israel using it. We ourselves still speak of the gods of the heathen, and our classical education makes us many times refer to them as actual entities. But this arises from identifying ourselves in thought with the ancients ; we do not, when the matter is seriously before our minds, give any weight to the language we ourselves employ. A great deal too much weight has been attached by writers like Kuenen and others, whose object is to demonstrate a progressive ad- vance from a mere national particularism to a true Monotheism, to such expressions as those which we have been considering. Such formulas may mean much or little, according to the position of the persons in whose mouths they occur ; and certainly much more discrimination needs to be practised in estimating their value than is done by Kuenen. This class of writers admit that from the age of Jeremiah a theoretical Monotheism prevailed in Israel And this may be held as conceded on all hands. Two questions, however, arise in regard to this theoretical Mono- theism. First, was it a view held by the older prophets, by the prophets from the beginning, or may we observe the rise of the view among the prophets whose writings we possess ? And second, suppose we find that it was virtually THE HEATHEN GODS 65 the view of the prophets from the beginning, though they may not have occasion to express the view in a very general way, being only interested on insisting on a practical Monotheism in Israel, was it the view current in Israel from the foundation of the commonwealth, i.e. from the Exodus ? In the age of Jeremiah such things are said of the heathen gods as leave us in no doubt that the prophets had reached the idea of a theoretical Monotheism ; for, e.g., these gods are named * nothing,' pxp, Isa. xli 24 ; 'chaos,' ^nn, Isa. xli. 29; 'falsehood,' "ip'^', Jer. x. 14; ' vanity,' t^i^, Jer. xviii. 15; * wind ' or ' vapour,' ?2n^ Jer. ii. 5 ; ' nonentities,' Q v^?^., Ezek. xxx. 13; 'no gods,' '^N i6, Jer. iL 11;' abomination,' npj;in, Jer. xvi 18; 'to be loathed,' HPJr, Jer. iv. 1 ; 'shame,' np, Jer. iii. 24. But long before Jeremiah, terms of a similar kind are employed. In Hos. xiii. 4 we read : " Thou knowest no God but Me ; there is no saviour beside Me," And again he says of the idols, " They are no god," bi^ to (viii. 6) ; and he even calls them k^j absolutely or ?^, i.e. not. Jehovah is the universal Governor, He brought the Syrians from Kir as well as Israel from Egypt (Amos ix. 7). In Mic. iv, 13 He is called "the Lord of the whole earth." In Amos His rule and judgment apply to all nations, whom He chastises for their infringements of the common laws of humanity. In Isaiah Jehovah moves on a swift cloud and flies to Egypt, and all the idols of Egypt are moved at His presence ; and speedily Egypt shall be part of His Kingdom, and Israel shall be a third with Egypt and with Assyria, even a blessing in the midst of the earth, whom the Lord of hosts shall bless, saying: " Blessed be Egypt My people, and Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel Mine inheritance" (xix. 25). The only difference between the earlier and the later in regard to this subject seems to be that while the same doctrine of the unity of God is professed aud taught by all, in the earlier prophets it is presupposed and expressed more in concrete form ; while in the later, on account of conflicts that had 5 66 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT arisen within the nation, and from the political relation! into which the people had entered with idolatrous nations iibroad, the subject had become more one of abstract thought, and the prophets had occasion to formulate the faith of the nation more sharply in opposition to tendencies of thought that came in upon Israel from without, and currents originated by these tendencies from within. But even during all the prophetic period, no less aftei than before Jeremiah, that mode of speaking still pre- vailed which referred to the idols of the nations as having a real existence and as being real gods. This way of speak- ing was one natural to the ancient world. It less readily occurred to an ancient thinker, who observed nations around him devoutly attached to their gods, to imagine that these had no existence, or to present to his own mind the idea that such deities were mere impersonations of the religious notions of the human mind. But when the prophets have the question before their own mind they are at one in denying any reality to the gods of the nations — there is one God, Jehovah, God of Israel. We observe, indeed, the same twofold method of speaking in the New Testament. At one time St. Paul says : " An idol is nothing in the world" (1 Cor. viii. 4), and hence meat sacrificed to idols is neither better nor worse than other meat, if a man have understanding and faith to perceive that this is the case. But as this is not the case with all men, the idol becomes to the apostle that which those who believed in it held it to be, something that had a real existence ; " But I say, the things which the Gentile? sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God : and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. ... Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils" (1 Cor. x. 20, 21). What is said of the prophets before Jeremiah is true of the writers who preceded these prophets. They profess not only faith in Jehovah as alone God of Israel, but faith in Him as the only God. Thus in the xviiith Psalm, the undoubted composition of David, we find it said : " Who ia HISTORICAL ACCOUNTS OF THE NAME 67 God save Jehovah ? and who is a rock save our God ? " (ver. 31). Cf. also Ps. vii. 8 and Ex. xix. 5. In the former passage, part of an ancient Psalm, Jehovah judges the nations ; in the latter — a passage belonging to the oldest literature — Jehovah has all the earth as His own. God in giving His revelation to Israel was, first of all, intent that this people should worship Him alone, that they should be practically monotheists. It was religion that was first necessary, a practical faith, in order to a pure life. Hence expression of the doctrines of this faith in a theoretical form was little attended to. With the practice, the life, there gradually rose to the surface of the mind the theoretical form of the truth. This explains the form in which the commandments are given ; how for long the doctrines regarding God are expressed in the practical concrete form ; and how only late in the history of Israel and as occasion occurred did these doctrines acquire a theoretical expression. But the doctrines were the same from the beginning. 6. The historical occasion of the application of the Name Jehovah. If we could realise to ourselves the circumstances in which the name Jehovah came into prominence in connec- tion with Israel, it would uud(3ubtedly help us. We have two narratives of these circumstances, one in Ex. vi. and another in Ex. iii. Modern scholars recognise different writers in these two passages, and it is not quite easy to reconcile the two statements made by them with one another. The account in Ex. vi. is brief, that in Ex. iii. circumstantial ; and it is in the latter that we have what appears to be an explanation of the name. The former (Ex. vi. 2-4) is as follows : " And God 'n spake unto Moses, and said xmto him, I am Jahiueh; and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob as El Shaddai ('^ ^^3), but (as to) My name Jahweh I was not known to them " (or, " I did not let Myself be known by them "). The writer who uses 68 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT these words is supposed to be the same who in Gen. L says, " In the beginning God created, D'''?^^ i^l}, the heavens and the earth " ; and who in Gen. xvii. 1 represents God in His appearance to Abraham as saying, " I am M Shaddai " ; and now he introduces God saying, " I am Jaliweh." In other words, he is supposed to have a general view of the progress of revelation and of the Divine names: first, in the times before Abraham the name of God was Elohim, or El ; second, in the Patriarchal age it was El Shaddai, from Abraham onwards ; and in the Mosaic age and hence- forward it was Jdhweh. And in conformity with this view it is supposed that the wi'iter avoided the name Jahweh in his historical sketch of ancient times, till he reached in his narrative this revelation to Moses, when God called Himself Jahwth. If this be an accurate account of the facts, we may be obliged to assume a certain difference of tradition, for in other parts of Genesis the name Jahweh is assumed to exist in pre-Mosaic times. Thus it is not only freely put into the mouth of the Patriarchs, which might be due merely to usage ; but it is expressly said of men in the times of Enos, the son of Seth : " Then began men to call upon the name of Jahweh*' (Gen. iv. 26). Looking at these facts, it is certainly more probable that the author of Ex. vi. does not mean to deny that the name Jahvieh was older than Moses, or unknown before his day. He denies rather that it had Divine sanction before his day, and regards it as appropriated by God now and authorised as part of His manifestation of Himself, — as that which He revealed of Himself at this new turning-point in the histoiy of redemption. This is probably the meaning, because the words are not " My name Jahweh was not known to them " (i!*i^3), but " in or, as to. My name Jahweh, I was not known by them," or, " I did not become known 0J!iV*]i3) to them." This interpretation admits the view, which is certainly likely, that the name was old ; it introduces no discrepancy into the various narratives in Genesis ; and it is in harmony with the other passage in Exodus. On all hands it is admitted that in Hia THE PASSAGES IN EXODUS 69 revelation to Moses, God appropriated the name Jahweh to Himself, and stamped it as the name expressive of His relation to Israel now about to be entered into and mani- fested in deeds of redemption, and in memory of these deeds to be henceforth His peculiar name as God in Israel. It is in the other passage, however, Ex. iii., that more details are supplied, and where there is given what some have supposed to be an etymology of the name. There it is narrated how, as Moses kept the flocks of Jethro on Horeb, the angel of Jahweh appeared to him in a bush that burned, but did not consume. The angel of Jahweh here, according to the usage, is not any created angel ; it is Jehovah Himself in manifestation, for He immediately says : " I am the God of Abraham." Moses turned aside to see the great sight, and the Lord addressed him from the bush, and said : " I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." This is the first point, God who now appeared to him was the same God who had appeared to the fathers, and led them. The Being is the same, but as yet there is no reference to His peculiar name. But the cause of His mani- festation of Himself now lies in His relation to the seed of Abraham, His friend : " I have seen the aflfliction of My people, . . . and am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians " ; in which great operation Moses must serve him : " Come now, therefore, and I will send thee unto Pharaoh." Moses shrank from the great task, and pleaded his unfitness : " Who am I, that I should go unto Pharaoh ? " The reply of the Lord to him is significant, and the phraseology of it of great importance : " Surely I will be with thee " "HW n\-iK ^3 — n^nx, / will he. And in token of this great promise of His presence with him the Lord proposes to Moses a sign. Now, as I have said, it is of consequence to notice the phraseology used, ivr\^, 1 will he, because it recurs immediately. Moses is still reluctant to undertake what seemed to him so hazardous an enterprise ; he pictures to himself not only the dangers he might encounter from the Egyptians, but the incredulity 70 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT with which he is likely to be met on the part of the Hebrews — "Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you ; and they shall say unto me, What is his name ? what shall I say unto them ? " And God said unto him HMN 's n^HK ; " and he said thus shalt thou say imto the children of Israel, '"i\"ix hath sent me unto you." And God added finally : " Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Jahweh, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you : this {i.e. Jahweh) is My name for ever, and this is My memorial unto all generations." Then follows an amplified form of the promise to deliver the people, and work great signs and wonders in Egypt, and do great judgments upon that people. Now, here the name appears in three forms : 's rrrix n'^TWi, the simple n\"iK, and Jahweh. Jahweh is merely the third person, of which Ehyeh is the first ; He who says Ehyeh when speaking of Himself is Jahweh when spoken about. But does it not seem manifest, as has already been indicated, that the name Ehyeh or Ehyeh asher Ehyeh cannot be translated differently from that former expression: " Certainly I will be with thee," ■^'SJ? n\nx ; that it is nothing else but that promise raised into a title, and that we must render / will he, and / will he that I will he, and, in the third person, He will he? It is evident that the whole meaning of the larger phrase, " I will be that I will be," 'ns 's 'hn, may be expressed by the shorter phrase / will he 'na, or, in the third person, 'n\ The addition, " that which I will be," or as it might be rendered : " I who will be," only adds emphasis to the preceding 7 will he. The expression resembles the other declaration : " I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy," the meaning of whicli would be clearer if put in this order : " On whom I will have mercy I will have mercy." That is to say, when He has mercy, then, indeed, He has mercy ; and so, " that which I will be, I will indeed be." But the point of the phrase lils in the circumstances of misery and bondage on the part MEANING OF THE NAME 71 of the people in which it was spoken, in the very vagueness of the promise of interference and presence, and in the continuousness of that presence which is suggested. The name is a circumference the contents of which cannot be expressed. He who relies on the same has the assurance of One, the God of his fathers, who will be with him. What He shall be to him when with him the memory of what He has been to those that have gone before him may suggest ; or his own needs and circum- stances in every stage and peril of his life will tell him. Or his conception of God as reposing on the past and on his own experience, and looking into the future, may project that before his mind. The name Jehovah does not reveal a God who was not known. Jehovah is a^ saying : " I will be " — I will approve MyseK. The name is not one expressing special attributes of Jehovah ; it is rather a name expressive of that which all His attributes make Him — the same at all times, the true in covenant, His being ever like Himself, the unchanging. The name supplies two things absolutely necessary in this age. (1) A personal name for God. Without this it may be said that the people could not have been educated into Monotheism. It brought strongly into rehef His personality — His particular personality; and (2) a strong expression of His union with this people. The name did not express any attribute of God, or describe God as to His essence; but it described Him in this relation to Israel — " I will be with thee." The same general principles apply to the discussion of another question, namely, the spirituality of Jahweh. There also the commandment merely prohibits the repre- sentation of Israel's God under any material form. It does not state directly that He has no such form. This could not have been expected from a practical religion, the object of which was to initiate men into the truth in practical lifp, that gradually they might ascend to its piinciples in speculation. Except the evidence of the 72 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT second commandment, there is naturally not much to rely upon as evidence in favour of the spirituality of Jahweh. Some evidence of an indirect kind may be found in such statements as those in the fourth commandment. The Creator of heaven and earth can hardly be one capable of being presented under the species or n:iDn of anything which He has created. But this, though an inference that we should make, may not have occurred to peoples whose mode of thought was less exact. More trustworthy evidence, though only of a confirmatory kind, may be found in the history of the Ark and the Tabernacle. It is certain that no form was permitted in the Tabernacle. Jahweh was worshipped as a formless being. The injunc- tions of the law were there carried out in practice. In Judah almost always, we might say, the worship of Jehovah without any image prevailed, and in Jerusalem this worship was never interrupted. But we may readily conceive how a coarse-minded people had difficulty in accommodating themselves to this abstract religion. The idea under which they con- ceived God was the powerful', the symbol of might, strength, was the ox. Even in the prophets the mighty One of Israel, "'^SN, is called by the same name by which the ox is called. A sensuous race could ill be restrained from giving Jahweh a sensible form in order to realise Him to themselves. "We know how early this occurred, and how even the weaker leaders of the people were drawn into the error. All down the history of the people this tendency manifested itself, and it is to be presumed that the private sanctuaries so common in the north, particularly in the time of the Judges, contained images of Jahweh in the form of an ox. This was the type of power. And the familiarity of the people with this form explains the readiness with which Jeroboam's rehgious innovations were accepted. But all this does not imply that the spirituality of Jahweh was not a doctrine of all the higher minds in the nation and of Mosaism itself. It merely implies that the crass imagination of th'^ masses had not been penetrated THE DIVINE NATURE 73 by the idea,, and that their sensuous minds, like the bulk of the lower orders in Catholic Christendom, demanded and welcomed some external object in order to bring before them the real existence of their God. The case of the great prophets EHjah and EHsha has been adduced in order to prove that the spirituality of Jahweh was not a doctrine of Mosaism originally, but only a development of it belonging to the eighth century, or the age of the Uterary prophets. But, in the first place, we have very imperfect accounts of these prophets, and the accounts we have are taken up with their conflict against a much more serious evil, namely, the profoundly immoral worship of Baal which the State authorities had introduced. That they contented themselves with contending against this, or that their contentions against minor evils should be over- looked in their great warfare against fundamental per- versions of the theocratic idea, was not imnatural. We have no writings from these prophets, Elijah and Ehsha ; but the first writings that we possess contain strenuous protests against all images of Jehovah, the setting up of which is identified with idolatry, and the images themselves are called by the odious names of Baals. III. THE DOCTRINE OF GOD— THE DIVINE NATURE, 1. The Knowledge of God, The existence of God is not a doctrine of Scripture in the sense that Scrip tm-e directly teaches it. It is assumed- there as a fact, and as an element in the thought of all men ; as connate with man. If there be men who deny it, or do not know it, it is because by a long course of wilful wickedness they have banished the knowledge of it from their minds, and their state is not so much miserable as criminal. Even in their case, extreme as it is, the knowledg;e that God is is not finally darkened, but only 74 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT temporarily eclipsed ; it is rather forgetfulness than final loss — they shall remember and turn unto the Lord. It may seem hardly to be another thing, but rather something involved in the above, when we say that Scrip- \ture does not teach, but assumes, that God may be known. We do not mean known to he, but known, seeing that He is. Scripture does not teach that God may be known, but it teaches these things — in what ways He is known, and that He is known so far as He gives Himself to be known. But it always assumes as a thing undeniable that He may be known. The doctrine of Scripture on the knowability of God is much more extensive than its doctrine regarding His existence. Two things have to be considered here, namely, first, what Scripture teaches about the possibility of knowing God ; and, second, what Scripture teaches about God thus known. In dealing with these questions it is not necessary to distinguish between what Scripture asserts and what it assumes, inasmuch as its assumptions may be considered its teaching even more than its direct affirma- tions. Now, regarding this doctrine of our knowledge of God, we find these four positions : (1) Scripture assumes that God may be and is known by men. (2) This know- ledge of God on the part of men is man's fellowship with God. (3) The avenues through which this knowledge reaches man's soul, or the regions within which man moving meets and knows God, are many — such as nature, the spiritual life of the soul, the redemptive history, prophecy, miracle, and so on. And (4) Scripture denies that God can be known by man. Perhaps Scripture is even more particular than what is here laid down. It may also be thought to state what element or organ of man it is that knows God immediately — whether the soul or the spirit. But if it do, that question need not be raised by us here, because, by whatever organ or side of his nature man knows God, it is not accurate to say that it is that organ or side that knows. It is man that knows through or by that organ or side ; and we are concerned meantime with the possibility and reahty of man's knowing God, not with KNOWABILITY OF GOD ASSUMED 75 any question of what element of man it is by which he knows, — which is a question concerning anthropology. Now, first, it is hardly needful to prove that Scripture teaches or assumes that God may be known — i.e. not that God may be known to be, but that God who is may be known ; not that He may be known as being or to be what He is, but that being what He is He may be known. If I say I know the king, I do not mean I know that the king is, or I know what the king is ; but that the king being, and being all that he is in office and person, I know him — I, a person, know him personally. To know in Scripture is to be acquainted with, to have familiarity and acquaintance with whoever is known. The Bible certainly recognises all these four degrees of knowledge : (a) to know that God is ; (b) to know what God is ; (c) to know that a certain Being, or a Being who manifests Himself in a certain way, is G od ; and {d) to know God, who so manifests Himself. Thus Scripture says : " He that Cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that dihgently seek Him " (Heb. xi. 6) ; though I am not sure whether that text means to describe the attributes of a person who does come unto God, or the requisites of a person who shall come ; whether it means to say : " He who cometh imto God shows himself, by coming, to be possessed of a belief in God's existence and in His moral government ; or to say : " If any one will come to God, he must, in order to come, believe in God's existence and in His moral government." But, in any case, the distinction between the idea that God is and what God is, is clearly recognised. As to what God is, — all that God is, — this is generally embraced in Scripture under the expression the ' name of God.' That term embodies all His charac- teristics— is the summary of what He is. Hence it is said, " tliey that know Thy name — what Thou art — will put their trust in Thee" (Ps. ix. 10); and "the name of the Lord is a strong tower : the righteous runneth into it, and is safe" (Pro v. xviii. 10). And nothing is more 76 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT common in Scripture than the idea that certain acts, or words, or manifestations, show the Actor or Speaker to be God — "Be still, and know that I am God" (Ps. xlvl 10); "Believe Me for the very works' sake" (John xiv. 11); " Unto thee it was showed, that thou mightest know that Jehovah is God. Out of heaven He made thee to hear His voice ; and upon earth He showed thee His great fire"(Deut. iv. 35). And it is said that God's wonders in Egypt brought both the Israelites and the Egyptians to know that the worker of them was God : — Israel shall know — the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord — the heathen shall know that I am the Lord. And that this Being, who is known by His works to be God, may Himself also be known, is manifest in every line of the Bible. Indeed, it is the object of the Bible to make Him known — the object of the Incarnation to declare Him — "that they might know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent " (John xvii. 3). And while Scripture shows how all along history God made Himself known to men, it predicts that the time is at hand when all shall know Him — "they shall all know Me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them " (Jer. xxxL 34). Further, as to the second thing the Scripture was said to teach regarding this knowledge, namely, that it was fellowship with God, it may perhaps be questioned if that statement be strictly accurate. At least, if it be not accurate to say that Scripture identifies knowledge of God with fellowship with Him, it considers the two in- separable, and so allied that the one may be put for the other. Christ Himself says : to know Thee is eternal life (John xvii. 3), and calls this knowledge and life the object of His mission. And His apostle calls the object of his mission fellowship — " that ye may have fellowship with us : and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ" (1 John i. 3). But what I am con- cerned to say is that Scripture does not present God as an object of abstract contemplation, or anticipate His THE UNSEEN BACKGROUND 77 being made such. He is always a historical Being, with a history, with a particular sphere of manifestations in specific relations, and exhibiting a certain character in these relations. No doubt there is a background, — an unseen, — but that is rarely before the eye of the saint or prophet. Occasionally, however, it is , and when it is, he can only speak of it in negatives like ourselves. God in that case cannot be made the subject of positive speech or thought : " Canst thou by searching find out God ? " (Job xi. 7). " Who hath measured the Spirit of Jehovah ? " (Isa. xl. 13). Scripture does recognise this distinction, which the Germans have made so much of, between im- manent and economic ; that is, God as in Himself He is, and God as in revelation He has shown Himself to us. But while many theologians and philosophers, in main- taining that distinction, have asserted either that God immanent is different from God economic (a singular position to assume, seeing the term economic must em- brace the whole circuit of our knowledge of God), or have contented themselves with the position that we are unable to say whether He be the same or different, Scripture never contemplates the idea that He is different. He is the same as we know Him to be ; only He is all that we know Him to be, heightened so as to exceed our reach of thinking. It is rare, however, that Scripture deserts the region of revelation, the very idea of which impUes that God can be known ; or the region of spiritual experience, which is but another name for fellowship. The occasions when it does desert this empirical realm are chiefly two: first, when showing the absurdity of idolatry it holds up the Incomprehensible before the idol-maker, and asks if his idol be a proper presentation of Him ; and second, in cases of religious desertion, or other awful and unwonted experience in the soul, when the spirit moving amidst mysteries is brought often to question the truth of its ideas of God, and always to recognise that, whether true or not, they go but a little way to express Him ; — " Verily, 78 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT Thou art a God that hidest Thyself, 0 God of Israel" (Isa. xlv. 15). Thus, what Scripture means by knowledge of God is an ethical relation to Him ; and, on the other side, when it says that God knows man, it means He has sympathy and fellowship with him. All Israel's history is filled with this reciprocal knowledge, rising up from strength to strength, till One came who knew the Father, and whom the Father knew in fulness : — " No man knoweth the Son but the Father ; neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him" (Matt. xL 27). Now, thirdly, as to the channels through which this knowledge reaches man, or the regions moving in which man knows or comes to the knowledge of God. Those that Scripture recognises are very much what we insist upon to this day, viz. nature, history, the human soul. But I think Scripture does not make quite the same use of these things as we do in our Natural Theology. For ex- ample, I doubt whether it regards these as primary sources of our knowledge of the existence or of the character of God. The position it assumes is not this: Contemplate nature and you will learn from it, both that God is and what He is ; but rather this : You know that God is, and what He is ; and if you contemplate nature, you will see Him there — the heavens declare the glory of God. This, at least, is the position of the Old Testament revelation, though in the New I am not sure but some further use is made of nature. And, in any case, if God's character be manifest in nature, then that memory of God and that knowledge of Him which we have otherwise may be refreshed, and if needful corrected by the contemplation of nature. I need not say that Scripture neither contemplates any one destitute of the knowledge of God, nor describes the process whereby any one destitute of this knowledge comes to reach it. It merely mentions certain regions in which, or media by which, God is in fact and actually known ; without assert- ing that any of them occupies the first place, much less the only place; without saying of any of them that it GOD AND NATURE 79 is the medium through which we nrcjl know or begin to know God, or is the only medium thiougn which God can be known. Now in regard to nature. Scripture has been thought to teach or assume not only that God may be recognised in nature, but that He may be known from nature, i.e. not only that we may see God there whom we already know, but that we may discover God there though formerly unknown. The Old Testament, as it spoke chiefly to a people having a knowledge of God from revelation, insists mainly on recognising that God of revelation in nature ; but it also appeals to nature to correct the ideas of God given by revelation when the people had perverted them. It is merely exhibition of an already known God which we find (Ps. viii. and xix.) ; but it is a heightening of the conceptions already had of God when Isaiah points to the starry heavens, saying, " To whom then will ye liken Me, or shall I be equal ? saith the Holy One. Lift up your eyes on high, and behold ! Who hath created these things?" (xl. 25). And in a remarkable passage in Ps. xciv. an inference is drawn from the nature of man to the nature of God who made him, and an argument somewhat similar to what we call our argument from design ^ is conducted. The writer in that Psalm denounces, first, the wickedness of certain men ; and, second, their foolishness in thinking that God cannot or does not see their wickedness : — " They say the Lord shall not see, neither shall the God of Jacob regard it. . . . Ye fools, when wiU ye be wise ? He that planted the ear, shall He not hear ? He that formed the eye, shall He not see ? " While, of course, it is always assumed that God created the capacities, it is argued that the existence of certain capacities in man implies their existence much ' What is called the ontological argument is probably not touched in Scripture. The cosmological may be supposed to be touched in Paul's state- ment, "In whom we live, and move, and have our being," although, as usual, the fact is assumed. It is not put so as to be proof. The physico theological or teleological argument is often alluded to. 80 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT more in the Creator of man ; and the Apostle Paul conducts a similar argument before the Athenians when, from the fact that we are the offspring of God, he infers the absurdity of representing God by images of gold or silver : — " Foras- much, then, as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold or silver or stone, graven by art and man's device" (Acts xvii. 29). All these passages speak of discovering, or recognising, the character of a Being supposed to be already known ; so that while it is mainly recognition, it in no case goes further than correction of false ideas of Him, or inference as to His true character from His works. There is one passage, however, which many have thought to go further, and to teach that it may be dis- covered from nature that God is, as well as what He is — the well-known passage in Eom. i. 19. Now that passage certainly teaches or assumes that in nature certain things, or so much, of God, may be or is known, — " that which may be known of God (to •yvoaaTov) is manifest in them, — for God showed it unto them." Apart from revelation, so much is known of God, — it is known in men's hearts, — for God has made it known to them. And it is known thus : the invisible things of God, the invisible attributes which form His character, are seen from His works, voovfieva being = things perceived by the reason, even His power and Godhead, OcLorrjii. But it is doubtful if deioTrj^; include existence — it is all the attributes that make up Godhead. It is questionable whether the passage contemplates proof of the Being of God. The Scripture does not seem to contemplate men without a knowledge of the existence of God, or without certain ideas regarding His nature. It does contemplate them as possessed of perverted ideas regarding Him ; and it affirms, both in the Old Testament and in the New, that so far right notions of God may be derived from nature apart altogether from supernatural revelation. But Scripture regards Revelation, particularly as his- tm'ical, as the main source of our knowledge of God, or the GOD INCOMPREHENSIBLE 81 main region wherein God is known. I have already quoted passages to this effect, and I need not repeat them. But there are two elements in the history of revelation which Scripture singles out as spheres wherein God is specially known — miracle and prophecy. The miracle is not only a proof that God is there ; the complexion of the miracle is an exhibition of some aspect of the character of God. "According to Josh. iii. 10, it is shown by the wonderful subjugation of the Canaanites that Jehovah is the living God ; according to Ex. vii. 5, the Egyptians shall know by the plagues He sends upon them that Jehovah is God ; according to Deut. vi. 21, the miracles are meant to draw the eyes of all nations to Jehovah, just as in Ex. ix. 29 they are intended to produce the conviction that the earth is the Lord's " (Steudel, Vorlcsungen uber die Theologie des AT., p. 170). And very frequently Scripture sets forth prophecy as a sphere in which God may be known. This mark of God's presence is very much insisted upon in the second half of Isaiah, and in chap. xli. it is coupled with the extraordinary, if not miraculous, history of Cyrus, as manifesting the activity of God — " Who raised up the righteous man from the East — gave the nations before him, and made him rule over kings ? I the Lord, the first and with the last, I am He." And idols are chal- lenged to demonstrate their Godhead by predicting some event near or distant : — " Let them show us what will happen — let them show the former things, or the things that are to come hereafter." Such is the tenor of the passage. But novf, fourthly, in opposition to all this. Scripture denies that God can be known. It moves here among natural contradictories or antinomies, which only need to be cited to be understood. Thus it says of the angels that they see God — " their angels do always behold the face of My Father who is in heaven" (Matt, xviii. 10). But of men in their present bodily life it says, "no man shall see God and live" (Ex. xxxiii. 20 ; cf. John i. 18, etc.); while again, on the other hand, David comforts himself 6 82 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT tvith the hope that he shall see God : " A« for me, I will behold Thy face in righteousness : I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with Thy likeness" (Ps. xvii. 15); and Jesus promises the same thing to those who are pure in heart (Matt. V. 8) ; and John says : " We shall be like Him ; for we shall see Him as He is" (1 John iii. 2). Again, it is ?aid (Ex. xxiv. 9, 10): "Then went up Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel : and they saw the God of Israel." There is the statement : "No man hath seen God at any time " (John i. 18) ; while again it is said : " In the year that king Uzziah died I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and lifted up " (Isa. vi. 1). Paul speaks to the Athenians of feeling after God and finding Him, though He is not far from any one of us (Acts xvii. 27); while Job says: "Who can by searching find out God ? " (xi. 7). Scripture speaks of possessing the Spirit of God in the soul, and then it says : "Who can measure the spirit of the Lord?" (Isa. xl. 13). These contradictories explain themselves. Scripture does not say in what sense God may be seen and may not be seen, how He may be known and may not be known. It assumes that men themselves understand this, and merely alludes to the two facts as things undoubted in men's thought and experience. 2. The Essence and the Attributes of God. With respect to what Scripture teaches of this God who may and may not be known, two things are in view here — first, what may be known of the essence of God ; and second, what may be known of His attributes, or of God Himself. As to the essence of God, Scripture teaches directly in the New Testament and assumes in the Old that God is Spirit. Christ says, " God is Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth " (John iv. 24). But the same truth is presupposed in the Old Testament in many ways ; for example, in the prohibition to represent God by any material likeness ; and GOD ABSOLUTE AND PERSONAL 83 also, not obscurely in the history of man's creation, in which God is said to have formed man's material part out of the dust of the ground, but to have drawn his sphitual part out of Himself ; and again, perhaps in the name given to the angels as spirits, sons of God, i.e. altogether in His hkeness, both as to essence and as to moral nature. Yet more perspicuously the spirituahty of God is seen to be an idea underlying all Old Testament thought from a significant passage in Isa. xxxi. 3 : " Now the Egyptians are men, and not God ; and their horses flesh, and not spirit." There the parallelism shows that man is to God as flesh to spirit ; that as man is a corporeal being, so God is spiritual. It has indeed been maintained that the Old Testament, or the Israelites, at first at least contemplated God as possessed of a corporeal form, and that gradually the conception of Him clarified till He was recognised as formless spirit. It is difficult to see how such a theory can be fairly maintained in the face of the above passages. Some of the early Fathers, such as TertuUian, fancied that God possessed a form ; yet they denied it to be material. As to what is taught about this Being Himself, that may be found in Scripture in various forms — chiefly two, namely, statements or assumptions regarding God, and names applied to God. It will be found, I think, that aU other designations of God, and all other assertions respect- ing Him, and all other attributes assigned to Him, may be embraced under one or other of the two names given to God in the opening chapters of Genesis. What is taught of God in these chapters is, Jirst, that God is the absolute^ Cause and the absolute Lord of all things — heavens and earth ; which terms embrace not only the upper and lower matter, but the superior and inferior spirits. And, second^ that God is the absolute personaHty — over against finite personalities, not absorbing personahties in HimseK, nor by His personality excluding personalities besides Himself. This personality is self-conscious — it is not undeter- mined till it becomes what it is in the finite personality, but it is free before the finite comes into being, and 84 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT conscious of itself as over against the finite when it has called the latter into existence. Before the existence of the finite it deliberately purposes to make it : — " Let there be light " ; " let us make man " ; " let him have dominion." And when created, it conceives of itself in opposition to the finite : — " Hast thou eaten of the tree of which / commanded thee not to eat ? I will put enmity between thee and the woman." This person is perfectly ethical, and is in an ethical relation of undisturbed love-communion with the innocent spiritual beings whom He has made. To speak shortly, the truths contained in these names, the names by which God is known in the account of Creation, are these two — first, that God is the power to whom the world belongs ; and, second, that He is at the same time the Eternal, the Person who stands in a fellow- ship of love with the spiritual beings in the world.^ The first truth is contained in the name Elohim and the cognate names ; the second, in the name Jehovah and others allied to it ; and all other assertions regarding God in Scripture may be reduced to one or other of these two. But of this more hereafter. There is no reason to deny that some elements of truth, or many elements, may have been found in the primeval Shemitic religion held by the ancestors of Abraham, or by himself before his call — fragments of a primitive knowledge of God more or less pure, generalisa- tions more or less profound regarding God and morality, hopes and aspirations more or less exalted, like those of Job. We cannot form a very complete idea of the condi- tion. But these stages in the development of the know- ledge of God in Israel may be detected : first, the primeval Shemitic religion, in which each family had its particular god, whom it worshipped, if not in images, at least in con- nection with sensuous forms, as groves, trees, pillars. Second, a very important development from this primitive Shemitic religion which took place at a far back period * See Hofmann, Schriftheweia, p. 75 flf. DEVELOPMENT OF IDEA OF GOD 85 towards a high morality and faith in a spiritual omni- potent God. This development we know as the call of Abraham and the foundation of the Patriarchal religion. Third, even a higher development which took place at the end of the Patriarchal time and the beginning of the national life. This we know as the legislation of Moses, in which the spirituality and unity of God are set forth in the fundamental laws of the constitution. Jacob is represented as having found God in a certain place, and as rearing a pillar, on which he poured oil, as a visible representation, if not of God, yet of the place of God, The idea of God as One everywhere present seems far from this. But all similitudes were forbidden by Moses. The second and third of these stages are not to be regarded as natural developments of the primary religion, for the surrounding tribes did not share in the development, but sank deeper into idolatries of the most degrading kind. The Scriptures represent God as revealing Himself to Abraham and Moses, and there seems no way of account- ing for their knowledge except by considering this state- ment of Scripture to mean that God revealed Himself to these men in another manner than to the Gentiles. The distinctive title of God as known and worshipped by the patriarchs — El Shaddai, God Almighty; El Elyon, Most High God — shows that the omnipotence of God was the attribute to which most prominence was given. Tliis ^ was very natural, seeing that the primary idea of God in the Shemitic mind was poiver. But if the idea of the unity of God was not already in the worshipper's mind, these names were very well fitted to suggest it. And in like manner, if the first commandment of the Decalogue — which beyond doubt is Mosaic — did not directly inculcate the unity, it immediately suggested it — " thou shalt have no other gods with Me." Again, if the second commandment — " thou shalt not make unto thee any njij^n of anything in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, to fall down to them and worship them," did not directly inculcate the spirituality of God, it 86 THE THEOLOGY OP THE OLD TESTAMENT immediately suggested it. And there can be no hesitation in saying that all the men of insight in Israel read these cjommandmeuts as meaning that there was but one God, and that He was a spiritual being who could not be repre- sented under any form. But it is very evident that two lines were thus opened up, on which there might be divergence and conflict in Israel — the unity of God and the spirituality of God. The denial of the one, or the failure to recoguise it, led to the introduction of other gods along with Jehovah, par- ticularly of Baal ; and the denial of the other led to the worship of Jehovah through sensuous forms, particularly the calf. This was made the distinctive form of the worship of the Northern Kingdom. This officially sanctioned mode of worshipping Jehovah must not be confounded with pure idolatry, such as the Baal worship. The one not unnaturally led to the other; but the prophets of Jehovah drew a clear distinction between the two, and, though they denounced the calf worship, they did not leave the kingdom, or hold that those who practised it cut them- selves quite off from being the people of God. But with the Baal worship they would hold no terms. Against the prophets of Baal they waged a war of extermination. There is perhaps no more singular phenomenon in the history of Israel than the repeated outbreaks into idolatry. There was even the attempt, under the dynasty of Omri, to suppress the worship of Jehovah and extirpate His followers out of the coimtry. These repeated falls into idol worship, exhibited throughout the whole history of Israel, especially in the Northern Kingdom, but even also in the Southern, and there in an aggravated form toward the close of the monarchy under Manasseh, require some explanation. And, as might be expected, the explanation that many have given has been, that we have in the history of Israel as established in Caanan the spectacle of a people slowly emerging by natural means out of the darkness of idolatry into the clear Hght and freedom of a spiritual CONFLICT WITH IDOLATRY 87 monotheism. The leaders of the people in this splendid march, in which Israel were the pioneers of mankind, were the prophets. There in Canaan, and in this people Israel, humanity achieved its most glorious triumph ; it trod down under its feet those debasing embodiments of its own passions and vices called gods ; and prostrated itself before that loftiest conception of one spiritual being. Lord of the universe, who is God. But the victory was not reached without many temporary defeats ; and the progress of the conflict may be watched in that history which records the changes from Jehovah worship to idolatry, and from idolatry to Jehovah worship, till, finally, the refining pro- cess of the Exile purified the people's conceptions of God, so that idolatry utterly disappeared from among them. Now these things are true in this representation, namely, that there was a confiict between the worship of Jehovah and idolatry ; that the prophets were the leaders on the side of Jehovah ; that the conflict lasted during the whole history of Israel ; and that the victory was won only under the purifying sorrows of the Exile. This, too, is true, that in this splendid march Israel became the pioneer of humanity, or, as it may be put, humanity was in Israel making this triumphal march. For humanity is no doubt a unity, and no theory of revelation requires us to break up this unity or deny that what God was showing to one people and enabling it to perform, He was achieving once for all in the race. So far is this theory from being contrary to revelation, that it is itself part of revelation, which teaches that God founded His Church once for all in Abraham ; that He took the Jewish people into His covenant of salvation, not for themselves merely, but for the salvation of the world. All this is certainly true, and there may even be more truth still in the representation. For unquestionably such a conflict could never have been fought unless there had been many born idolaters among the mass of the people, unless large masses of the general surface of the nation had been continuously sunk in idolatrous doctrines, and the light of the true faith in its 88 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT purity had shone only on those elements that rose up high above the common level. The history throughout its whole length shows a polluted stream of idolatrous worship. They were idolatrous in Canaan ; even David's wife had teraphim ; they were idolatrous in the wilderness ; they were idolatrous in Egypt ; they had been idolatrous in Ur of the Chaldees. But this is what is false in the representation above given, that the struggle was carried on in the field of natural religion. What natural religion contributed was the idolatry. The worship of the spiritual God came from revelation. The case can be accounted for best by supposing the Jehovah worship something impressed from without, and the mass of the people only imperfectly penetrated by it. The conflict itself came to a head in the kingdom of Israel, under the rule of the monarchs of the house of Omri. That vigorous ruler, more intent on strengthening his kingdom by alliances without than by purity of national faith at home, had entered into treaties with the kingdoms about, especially the Syrian, and married his son to Jezebel, a daughter of Ethbaal the king of Sidon. Ahab was not so much vicious as weak ; one who, like a wilful child when refused his wishes, fell sick, and would not eat. And thus he fell completely imder the guidance of his self-willed and unscrupulous wife. At her instigation he introduced the worship of BaaL Baal worship became thus a State religion. For a time, probably, it subsisted peaceably side by side with the worship of Jehovah. But collisions naturally ensued between the partisans of the two, and the royal power seems to have been used to put down the worship of Jehovah. An order was issued for the murder of Jehovah's prophets, and the throwing down of His altars. This is nowhere expressly recorded. But Elijah, who alone of the Lord's prophets escaped, says : " The children of Israel have forsaken Thy covenant, and thrown down Thine altars, and slain Thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away" I (1 Kings xix. 10). The history here is very defective, JEHOVAH AS GOD OF ISRAEL 89 but the representation of the prophet is corroborated by a statement given as made by Obadiah, who represents himself as hiding one himdred of Jehovah's prophets by fifty in caves. The commanding genius of this era was Elijah. In the long period from the Judges to the times of Elijah and the downfall of the house of Omri, proceedings were * going on of which no record has been preserved. David was a fervent Jehovist. Solomon perhaps was not fervent in any direction. He can hardly have been a theoretical monotheist when he erected temples to the deities of his wives. Nor can Ahab, when he raised a house to the Sidonian Baal served by his wife. Still Ahab called all his sons by the name of Jehovah. There was evidently great want of clearness of thought in men's minds. It is very useful for us if we can here and there find an epoch in the course of events signalising a new turn and a new victory in the higher conception of God. We have such an epoch in the reign of Ahab and the downfall of the house of Omri before Jehu. What is included in the expression Jehovah, God of Israel, has been much disputed by modern writers, as we have said, and we have already remarked that we must take into account the existence of various elements in Israel since its settlement in Canaan. In Israel, as history deals with it, there were sections difi*ering very widely from one another in culture and morals ; and when it is asked what is meant by saying Jehovah is God of Israel, the answer may be that it meant different things among difierent classes, or to different minds. History or prophecy may bring to Ught this divergence. (V)But it seems clear, as we have said, that the phrase meant, - at least that Israel was to worship no other God but' Jehovah. Unquestionably the people entered upon national existence with the consciousness of having been delivered or redeemed from Egypt by Jehovah. He was not unknown to the people before this dehverance, but now 90 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT He had made them free, and created them a people. They owed their existence to Him, and He was their God. This was the positive fact ; but no deductions are drawn from the fact in reference to other gods, nor are any general conceptions as to Godhead connected with it. Each separate people about Israel had its national god, and [^bne god worshipped did not necessarily imply the belief ^--^ in the existence of no other gods : " For all the nations walk every one in the name of his god," says the prophet Micah, " and we will walk in the name of the Lord our God for ever and ever" (iv. 5). The separate peoples, while worshipping each its own god, did not deny the existence of the gods of their neighbours — though they may have considered their own the most powerful And it is probable, as we said, that many in Israel stood on no higher platform than this, that Johovah was God of Israel, while Chemosh was god of Ammon. But it is certain, at least, that the national consciousness was at one with the prophets on this point, that Jehovah was God of Israel. This was a common faith, though it was, of course, a faith that might be held in very different senses, that is, with very different conceptions of the Being called Jehovah, as we perceive from the prophets Amos and Hosea. The first commandment might seem to leave the question whether there were gods besides Jehovah undecided, for it merely prohibits the worship of other gods in Israel.^ By mention- * The question is one of great interest, What deduction are we entitled to draw from the words, " Thou shalt have no other gods before Me " t If we looked at the Commandments as simple objective revelation and as ordinances given to Moses, without, so to speak, any exercise of his own mind, then perhaps questions need not be raised about the enigmatical form, " Thou shalt have no other gods before Me." But if we suppose that the mind of Moses concurred in this revelation and was not inactive, but that the commands came through his mind, just as the revelation to Amos or any of the prophets was reached not without all that activity of mind which we cannot help perceiving, then the question, how the command took this shap^ and what is implied in it, at once rises. ; The command is unique in antiquity. What induced Moses, the founder of the new religion, to give it this shape t It must have been his conception of what Jehovah was. It has been suggested that it arose from the idea that Jehovah was a 'jealous God.' Bat if Moses conceived Jehovah as a jealous God, which He is often named thia QUESTION OF THE SOLE GODHEAD 91 ing other gods it might even appear to admit their existence, at least it might be thought not to rise to the affirmation of Monotheism. But in like manner, as we have already noticed, the seventh commandment prohibits merely Israel from committing adultery, and the sixth from doing murder ; they contain no hint that these injunctions have any uni- versal validity, and are fundamental laws of human well- being. .A^^hemitic n^ind. we repeat, would rise to_gene]:^l conceptions such as we cherish very slowly ; and while piFactically Jehovah was the only God to the Hebrew, he might not have risen to the theoretical notion that He was God alone. But one with such a practical faith in Jehovah c«nception only throws the difBculty a step further back. How did he conceive Him as jealous ? Jealousy is the reaction of the consciousness of one's self — of being what he is, when this consciousness is hurt or touched. How did Moses fancy that the presence of other gods would wound Jehovah's consciousness of Himself? What conception had Moses of Jehovah's nature which would make him attribute jealousy to Him ? The deities of the nations were not jealous. They were sometimes contemptuous, sharing the spirit of the nations themselves ; but from all we observe they were perfectly tolerant of the existence of other deities beside them. With Jehovah it was otherwise. This intolerance of His requires some explanation, that is, some explanation of Moses' way of conceiving Him which made him impose upon the people such a law. The explanation must lie in his conception of Jehovah's nature — His ethical nature. Certainly Moses regarded Jehovah as the God of righteous- ness. When he sat and judged the people, he did so in Jehovah's name — he only interpreted and expressed His mind. He was the guardian of right and moral order. Hence the curious phrase, that the people were to bring their causes before Elohim, when they came to the priests or judges for decisions. But mere ethical quality in Jehovah will not explain the ex- clusiveness, unless on the supposition that this differentiated Him from other gods, who were not ethical, or else that He was ethical in such degree that He was the one Being that men should worship. When the form of the other commandments is considered, the natural conclusion is that Moses was a monotheist, and not merely what is called a monolatrist. The peculiar thing about Israel is not that it had one God, but that it had an evil conscience when it served other gods. This is unique. The mere existence of a law will hardly account for this. No doubt the law had been reinforced by the history, by the redemption which their God had wrought for the people. At all events we must attribute to the Exodus the planting in the popular mind of the truth that Jehovah was God of Israel. So far as we see, Israel never had any native God but Jehovah. If it fell into the worship of the Baals as local deities, it found these. No proper name is compounded with such a name as Astarte. 92 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT stood to Him much as believers in the unity of God stand to God now. The religion of Israel was practical, not speculative ; and while a practical Monotheism prevailed, and gave rise to all that profound religious life which we see reflected in such men as Moses, and Samuel, and David, and the prophets, it perhaps needed that internal conflict which arose through the slowness of the popular mind, and that outward collision with idolatrous nations which occurred in the days of the great prophets from Isaiah downwards, to bring into speculative or theoretical clearness the doctrines of the oneness and the spirituality of God. My impression is that this conflict, whether within the State or with foreign nations without, did not suggest to the prophets the doctrines of God which they express, but only furnished the occasion which demanded the expression of them. Perhaps we lay too much stress upon the meaning in religion of a mere theoretical Monotheism, i.e. upon this, that the worshipper had in his mind the idea that the Deity he stood before was God alone. Probably even now this feeling is little present to the mind of worshippers. It is what God is to the worshipper, and what are His attri- butes in Himself, that is important, not whether there be other beings to be worshipped. Of course, at other times we have in our minds the fact that the Being we worship is God alone ; and this no doubt influences the mind when it comes to the act of worship, though the idea be not present in the act. And perhaps this consideration may lead us to judge more favourably of the worship even of heathen and polytheistic nations. As a rule, the individual worshipper did not adore more gods than one. He selected some one of the deities worshipped in his country. Practically this god was the only one to him. He gave this god his adora- tion, and sought from him alone the help he needed. Eeligiously, his mind towards this deity was just as if no other deity existed. Even when he admitted the existence of other deities, they took, in regard to the deity he worshipped, a lower place. His god was the supreme god, TERMS USED OF HEATHEN GODS 93 and the others were merely his agents, or, it might be, intercessors with him for the worshipper. Cyrus, when he conquered Babylon, restored to their ancient seats the gods which had been collected there by the previous king, and he begs that these minor gods would intercede with the supreme God Bel for him and his son Cambyses. Both in Egypt and in Babylon there is visible a tendency to elevate one deity into a supreme place, — not always the same deity by name, — and to concentrate on one all the attributes of all the others, so that the one embodies the exhaustive conception of Deity. There are various classes of passages in which the gods of the nations are mentioned : one class consists of passages put into the mouth of persons whose history or conduct is being described by Old Testament writers. Thus in Judg. xi. 23, 24, Jephthah is represented as saying to the king of the Ammonites : " So now Jehovah the God of Israel hath dispossessed the Amorites from before His people Israel, and shouldest thou possess them ? Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god givetb thee to possess ? " Another class of passages consists of ex- pressions used by Old Testament writers themselves in which the gods of the nations are referred to, and Jehovah is contrasted with them, or said to be superior to them, and the like. Now in estimating all these passages we must take the state of thought in those ages into account, and the condition of religion actually existing in the world at the time. Even the passage in Judges can hardly show that Jephthah conceded any existence to Chemosh. He could hardly speak otherwise than he did to one whose national god Chemosh was. Jeremiah himself, as we have seen, uses phraseology analogous : " Woe to thee, 0 Moab : the people of Chemosh perisheth " (xlviii. 46); and again: " Hath Israel no sons, hath he no heir ? Why then doth Milcom inherit Gad, and his {i.e. Moloch's) people dwell in his cities ? " (xlix. 1). Evidently such language means nothing in Jeremiah's mouth. It is argued, however, that though in the mouth of such men as Jeremiah such ex 94 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT pressions have no meaning, reposing merely on the belief and the condition of things in Moab itself, and on the notorious fact that Chemosh was worshipped there, it may- have had meaning in the popular mind ; and that, though in later times such phraseology had merely become a current mode of speech, with little significance, at the time when it first arose it must have expressed the belief in the existence of Chemosh. It is no doubt difficult to estimate the value of this kind of language. But it may be said, I think, that the use of it is far from con- clusive as to the behef in the reality of the gods spoken of. Take a passage from the Chronicles, a very late book, probably of the age of Alexander the Great, the end of the fourth century before our era (2 Chr. xxviii. 23). Speak- ing of Ahaz, the writer says that he sacrificed to the gods of Damascus, who had smitten him, saying : " Because the gods of the kings of Syria helped them, therefore will I sacrifice to them, that they may help me." But the writer adds : " But they were the ruin of him and of all Israel." It is certain that at that time of day neither the Chronicler nor any educated man in Israel ascribed reality to any object called god except the God of Israel. In ancient times a stranger must attach himself to some tribe or family in order to be protected. But attachment to a tribe or family meant partaking in its sacra — its religious rites ; for this was what constituted a tribe's distinction, or that of a family. Hence the stranger who went to a foreign country must perforce take part in the rehgion of the country and serve its gods. A great deal has been made of an expression used by David (1 Sam. xxvi. 19). Appealing to Saul not to pursue him out of the country, he says : " They have driven me out this day from abiding in the inheritance of the Lord {i.e. the land of Israel), saying, Go serve other gods." According to these words, abiding in a foreign land is equivalent to serving other gods. But, again, we are supplied with analogous phrase- ology in Jeremiah — the man who counselled the exiles in THEORETICAL MONOTHEISM 95 Babylon to build houses and plant vineyards, to seek the peace of the city whither they had been carried captive, and to "pray unto the Lord for it, for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace " (xxix. 5). While men may pray unto the Lord in foreign lands, He threatens Israel: " Therefore will I cast you forth out of this land into the land that ye know not . . . and there shall ye serve other gods" (Jer. xvi. 13). And similarly in Deut. iv. 28: " The Lord shall scatter you among the nations . . . and there ye shall serve gods, the work of men's hands, wood and stone." The phraseology rests merely on the fact that in foreign lands other gods were worshipped; it contains no proof that these gods had any reality. At most it might be supposed to imply that Jehovah was God only of Israel, and could not be found in a foreign land. It is possible that the phrase might have had this meaning ; but it had no such sense in Jeremiah's days, for he counsels the exiles to pray unto the Lord for the peace of the land of their exile. It is admitted on all hands that from Jeremiah down- wards there are abundant expressions of a theoretical Monotheism. The circumstances of the prophets from Isaiah onwards differed from those of the earlier prophets. The great prophets, such as Isaiah and Jeremiah, were con- fronted by the world powers, and the question of the relation of Jehovah to them was forced upon them. These powers were embodiments of idolatry, and they were the oppressors of Israel. The antithesis between their gods and the God of Israel pressed itself upon men ; the relation of Jehovah to the world, and His relation to the idols, the gods of the world, could not be evaded. The prophets solved the question of the conquest of Israel by the world power, by the great conception that the world power was Jehovah's instrument to chastise His people — the Assyrian was the rod of His anger, Nebuchadnezzar was His servant. And this was already also a solution of the relation of the idols to Jehovah. It was not the idols, but Jehovah that gave Assyria and Babylon its victories. Much more, it was not 96 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT the idols that had raised up Cyrus to destroy the idolatrous Babylon. And when these powers forgot that they were but instruments in the Lord's hand, they were acting as if the saw should magnify itself against him who shook it, or as if the rod should say it xoas not wood (Isa. x. 15). But even in this age the same way of speaking still pre- vailed,— of speaking of the gods of the nations as if they had reality ; as St. Paul also speaks of idols at one time as ' nothing in the world,' and at another time as ' devils.' Perhaps the citation of these passages may suggest that some caution is necessary in founding inferences upon expressions which at first sight might seem to imply belief in other gods besides Jehovah, on the part of those who used them. 3. The Unity of God. The simplest notion of „GcDd among the Semitic peoples was, as we have said, the idea of -power, force. If we con- sider ourselves at liberty to inquire how this idea was reached, we should presume that it was through the pro- cesses and phenomena of nature. The power that worked in Nature, that changed her face, that conducted the gigantic movements of the heavens above and the waters beneath, was God. There cannot be a doubt that among the peoples about Israel there appeared the tendency to confound Nature herself with God, to regard individual forces in Nature as gods. We do not find such a thing among the Jews, except occasionally and by imitation. But how shall we regard this tendency? As a degeneration of a Monotheism retained by Israel ? Or as a Polytheism out of which Israel rose to Monotheism ? Was the first step to regard the forces of nature as gods, and the next to abstract and unite the forces into one, and spiritualising this force name it God ? Or was the tendency downward, to break up this grand simple power into a multitude of forces, and out of the one God to frame many gods ? The question probably cannot be answered with certainty, either on Slieniitic or GOD ALWAYS PERSONAL 97 on Indo-Germanic data. But in point of fact we find Israel agreeing with the related peoples in the Name it gave to God and the idea it had of Him, and occasionally falling into their way of idolatry, which identified some natural force with God, as the force resident in the sun, or the generative power of nature, etc. If the idea of a Supreme Being was first impressed on men, or impressed anew after being lost, by the opera- tions of some single great force in nature, they would be very apt to identify this force with the Being, or to regard the two as inseparable. Such an identification would operate in two ways on the conception of God. It might prevent the mind rising easily to the unity of God. And it might make it slow to reach the idea of the spirituality of God. This was but a single force, there were many ; the Being who so showed His power might not be the only powerful being. And the Being who showed Himself through this material symbol might not readily be con- ceived abstractly and unclothed in the physical energy. Yet He might have to the worshipper a very distinct personality. A pantheistic conception of nature is quite foreign to the Shemitic mind. Hence even where we cannot be sure that the conception of God in any par- ticular case implied His unity or spirituality, we may assume that His personality was always part of the con- ception. It is true that in Homer, while some of the gods are undoubtedly and always persons, others of them appear sometimes as forces or phenomena and sometimes as persons, such as Iris, Dream, etc., and sometimes even Apollo ' far darting,' as if the statue were partly formed out of the block, or the living bird half out of the shell. But among the Shemitic races this condition does not appear to present itself. God is always personal. Now, if we suppose that the condition of the idea of God among the Shemitic peoples prior to the call of Abraham, or even after his call, was this, that He was a personal power, there are materials in it for that profound religious experience which we know to have 7 98 THE THEOLOGY OP THE OLD TESTAMENT been his. The power may easily rise to omnipotence; the personality may easily pass into spirituality, and the union of these two easily into unity. But we must not judge the ancients by ourselves. With this Personal Power, Lord of men, ruler of nature — without raising questions, as we should, whether He was Lord of all men or ruler of all nature — there might be a fellowship, and towards Him a reverence, and on Him a dependence, and in His intercourse a training and an elevation, that together made up the elements of a fresh and deep rehgious life. The personal bond to a governing personal power — or, as it was called, the covenant — was the essence of religious life. How God by His training of Abraham purified his faith and strengthened it, we see from the history. It is probable that among the family out of which Abraham sprang there had come a great degeneration, or at least there prevailed a low condition of religion prior to his time. This is the universal supposition of the Scrip- tures. Joshua in his last speech exhorts the people thus : " Now therefore fear the Lord, and serve Him in sincerity and in truth : and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt ; and serve ye the Lord " (Josh. xxiv. 1 4). And the same appears from the story of Jacob's flight from Padan-Aram, in which his wife Eachel is represented as stealing the gods of her father, and carrying them with her in her flight. And thus it is certain that through God's revealing of Himself to Abraham a great purification and elevation took place in his conception of God. The fundamental thought of God did not alter, but it was more firmly grasped and sharply conceived, and probably carried to such a degree of clearness as to involve, if not the spirituality, at least the unity of God. That fundamental thought common to all the Shemitic peoples was, as we have seen, power, expressed in the words El, Mohim; but we are expressly informed that the prevailing conception of God in the Patriarchal PLURAL FORM OF NAME FOR GOD 99 ;ige was that of almightiness : — " I appeared to your fathers as M Shaddai — God Almvjhty" This is a potentiation of the simple idea of mighty, which seems to carry with it the exclusion of other powers, and to lead directly to the conception of the Unity of God. We should probably be right in considering the Patriarchal idea of God as em- bracing these two ideas within it. The plural form of the word Elohim might be supposed to have some bearing on the question of unity. And, indeed, by many it has been supposed to bear testimony to the plurality of gods originally worshipped among the Shemitic peoples ; and by others, who seem to consider the name Elohim part of God's revelation of Himself, to the plurality of persons in the Godhead. The real force of the plural termination, as we have already said, is not easy, indeed, to discover. But a few facts may lead us near it. In Ethiopic the name of God is Amldk, a plural form also of a root allied to melek — a king. All Shemitic languages use the plural as a means of heightening the idea of the singular ; the precise kind of heightening has to be inferred from the word. Thus u-ater — D^» — is plural, from the fluidity and multiplicity of its parts; the heavens — Dy^'f — from their extension. Of a different kind is the plural of adon — lord, in Hebrew, which takes plural suffixes except in the first person singular. Of this kind, too, is the plural of Baal, even in the sense of owner, as when Isaiah uses the phrase vi>j?3 D^2N (i. 3). Of the same kind also is the plural teraphim, penates, consisting of a simple image. And of this kind probably is the plural Elohim — a plural not numerical, but simply enhancive of the idea of might. Thus among the Israelites the might who was God was not an ordinary might, but one peculiar, lofty, unique. Though the word be plural, in the earliest written Hebrew its predicate is almost universally singular. Only when used of the gods of the nations is it construed with a plural verb ; or, sometimes, when the reference is to the general idea of the Godhead. This use with a singular predicate 100 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT or epithet seems to show that the plural form is noD a reminiscence of a former Polytheism. The plural ex- pressed a plenitude of might. And as there seems no trace of a Polytheism in the name, neither can it with any probability be supposed to express a plurality of persons in the Godhead. For it cannot be shown that the word is itself part of God's revelation ; it is a word of natural growth adopted into revelation, Hke other words of the Hebrew language. And the usage in the words haal, adon, rob, and such like, similar to it in meaning, leads us to suppose that the plural is not numerical, as if mights, but merely intensifying the idea of might. Nor can it be shown to be probable that the doctrine of a plurahty of persons should have been taught early in the history of revelation. What the proneness of mankind to idolatry rendered imperative above all and first of all, was strenuous teaching of the Divine Unity.^ 4. The Doctrine of the sole Godhead of Jehovah in later Prophecy. We have noticed certain forms of speech used with feference to Jehovah, the God of Israel, which seemed to Suggest that, though God of Israel, and greater than all gods. He was not considered God alone. The phraseo- logy in which other gods are spoken of may not be quite easy to estimate justly. But if writers on the religion of Israel are not unanimous on the question as to how such phraseology is to be interpreted in the earlier books of Scripture, they are entirely at one in the view that from Jeremiah downwards the prophets give un- doubted and clear expression to a theoretical Monotheism. The circumstances of the prophets from Isaiah onwards * It is probably a return to the literal sense of the word when the term EloMm 18 used of men or angels, or of what we call the supernatural : " I said, Ye are gods " (Ps. Ixxxii. 6) ; "Thou hast made him a little lower than the Elohim" (Ps. viii. 5); "I saw Elohira coming up out of the earth,** eaid by the witch of Endor of the ghost of Samuel (1 Sam. xxviii. 18). THE SOLE GODHEAD IN LATER PROPHECY 101 differed from those of the earlier prophets. In the time of the earlier prophets, Israel came into connection with nothing but the petty States lying immediately around. These States were many, and their gods many. And over each of them Jehovah was the Saviour of Israel In point of fact Amos, the oldest of the prophets, except in one obscure passage, makes not the faintest allusion to the gods of the nations ; he represents Jehovah as ruling immediately over all the peoples neighbouring on Israel, and chastising them, not only for their offences against Israel, but for their cruelties to one another. Still this prophet's world was composed of a multitude of small peoples — the world did not yet form a unity in opposition to Israel. But when Israel was confronted by the great empires of Assyria and Babylon, empires which virtually embraced the world and presented it as a unity, then the question of the relation of Jehovah their God to this unity was forced upon them. These empires, too, were embodiments of idolatry ; for, of course, as in all ancient States, the culture, and the law, and the social fabric of the empire reposed on the religion. And thus, when Israel was confronted with the world as a unity in these empires, Jehovah was felt to be confronted also with idolatry as a general faith and conception. And thus the prophets were led to form, or at all events to express, abstract and theoretical judgments regarding these matters. Now the judgments which they do express regard- ing Jehovah and the idols are remarkable. So soon as Northern Israel came into collision with Assyria, it fell before the great Eastern empire ; and in like manner Southern Israel, Judah, succumbed before Babylon. Now, if the prophets had learned their conceptions of Jehovah from history, the natural inference would have been that the gods of Assyria and Babylon were more powerful tlian Jehovah, the God of Israel. This was the inference of the fooHsh king Ahaz when defeated by the Syrians : " Be- cause the gods of the kings of Syria help them, therefore 102 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT will I sacrifice to them, that they may help me " (2 Chroa xxviii 23). And this was the inference no doubt of Manasseh also, and of many in Judah during its later years, when the worship of the host of heaven and many other idolatries were introduced from Assyria and Babylon. Men worshipped the gods of their conquerors. But the inference of the prophets was a whoUy different one. They solved the problem of Israel's humiliation by the idolatrous nations on these two principles : first, these nations were Jehovah's instruments — they were not more powerful than the God of Israel, on the contrary, the Assyrian was the rod in His hand to chastise His people, and Nebuchadnezzar was His servant ; and, secondly, it was because Jehovah was holy and His people sinful that He gave them up to the destroyer. The great events of Israel's history did not suggest to the prophets their con- ceptions of Jehovah. On the contrary, their conceptions of Jehovah already held, solved to them the enigma of the events that happened. But no doubt these events also led them to express their thoughts of Jehovah and the idols in a more general and abstract — one might say almost — dogmatic way. , ~- ^^_ Here an important place belongs to th6 Second Isaiah, the finest, but also the most difficult, part of Old Testament prophecy. Here the name of Jehovah has no special mean- ing ; it is the highest name of God. Though the prophet is a monotheist in the strictest sense, his Monotheism is no mere dead article of belief or inoperative conviction. It is the most living and powerful of truths that Jehovah, God of Israel, is God alone. Being God alone, He must make Himself known to be God alone : " My glory will I not give to another, neither My praise to graven images " (Isa. xlii. 8). In the words Jehovah, God alone, is heard the death knell of all idolatry : " I have sworn by Myself . . . that every knee shall bow " (Isa. xlv. 23). But on another side the sole Godhead of Jehovah opens up wide prospects of thought to the prophet. He who is God alone is God over aU — He is the God of the nations as DOCTRINE OF DEUTERO-ISAIAH 103 well as of Israel. And that which He is to Israel as God of Israel, He must be to the nations also as their God. His purposes, which are in the main purposes of grace, must extend to the peoples also as well as to Israel. Yet Jehovah is primarily God of Israel, and He remains so always. His relation to the nations is manifested only through Israel. Israel is His servant to make Him known to the nations, to mediate His grace to all man- kind. The doctrine of Jehovah is stated in the broadest and most developed manner in this section of prophecy. Still this is done with such religious fervour, and in a way so brilliant with all the hues of a poetical imagination, that to state the several points in that doctrine in cold and naked propositions of the mere intellect, seems to desecrate them. We need only mention a few things, and refer to one or two passages. V^ Jehovah, God of Israel, is God alone. This is fre- quently stated explicitly and in so many words ; usually, however, it is based on certain kinds of evidence, or it takes the form of contrasting Jehovah with the idols. In chap, xli. Jehovah challenges the idol worshipping nations to meet Him before a tribunal, that a question whether He or the idols be God may be decided : " Let the nations renew their strength ; let us come near together to judgment ! " Opening the plea on His own side. He asks them two questions : " Who raised up Cyrus ? " and, " Who pre- dicted it from of old ? " The idol gods of Babylon have hardly brought Cyrus on the stage of history, who will lead Bel and Nebo away captive (chap. xlvL). And if they are gods, let them show what will happen. Let them point to former things, prophecies already uttered, that they may be compared with events, and be seen to be true predictions ; or let them now in the present declare things that are to come ; yea, let them do good or do evil, that they may be seen to have life in them, They are silent, and judgment is passed on them that they are of nothing and their work of nought (Isa. xlL 21)^ 104 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT In a word, Jehovah appeals to history and to prophecy in proof of His sole Godhead. This appeal to prophecy fully justified Apologetics in making the same appeal, however arguments of another kind may be used now in addition to this order of evidence. And no doubt the argument from prophecy has considerably changed its form ; it is now less an argument based on the literal fulfilment of predictions of contingent individual events. It has become more an argument from prophecy than one from prediction, an argument based on a broad, general movement of the religious mind taught of God in Israel, — a movement that revealed itself in religious presentiments, in aspirations of the pious heart, in momentary flights of faith too lofty to be sustained, in a certain groaning and travailing under the sense of inadequate life and a cry for fuller life, in a sense of imperfection that was often far from seeing clearly how it was to be satisfied, how the im- perfection was to be removed. It is all these things and many more put together now that form the argument for prophecy ; for with the widening of the conception of pro- phecy as not mere prediction, the argument from prophecy has widened in proportion. And in this prophet the reference to prophecy is more for the purpose of showing that Jehovah is, unlike the idols, a living, intelligent Being, who is working a work the end of which He foresees and declares from the beginning. Being living and conscious. He has before Him the whole scope of His great operation ; and He might carry it on, leaving men in darkness as to what it is. But from the nature of His operation men must be enabled to enter into it also with intelligence. Israel is His Servant in carrying it out, and it is Jehovah's relation to Israel that makes them prophesy. Men cannot live unless they have some knowledge of what the end of life shall be. They caimot strive unless a goal be set before them, nor run for the prize unless there be a mark. Prophecy was an absolute necessity in a redemptive history; THE SOLE GODHEAD IN DEUTERO-ISAIAH 105 though, of course, it might be enough to give great general conceptions of the future, and less necessary to supply knowledge of contingent occurrences. This prophet evi- dently refers to special events in history, such as the destruction of the Babylonian empire. But what makes his general conception of interest is that he connects prophecy and history together as but the inner and outer sides of one thing. History is Jehovah in operation ; , prophecy is His mind, conscious of its purpose, breaking I S^ out in light around Him, and enabling men to see Him operating. The prophet's references to prophecy in proof of Jehovah's sole Godhead are confined to chaps, xl.— xlviii. After these chapters this argument, being sufficiently well developed, is no more pursued. I need not do more than mention a few of the passages where the sole Godhead of Jehovah is explicitly stated : xliv. 6 ff. : "I am the first, and I am the last ; and besides Me there is no God " ; " Is there a God besides Me ? yea, there is no rock ; I know not any." Being God Himself, He thinks He would know the other gods ; but He has no acquaint- ance with them. Similarly xlv. 6, 21, xlvi. 9; cf. also Ixiv. 4. In xliii 10 it is said : " Before Me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after Me . . . beside Me there is no saviour." Besides prediction and history, the Creation in its unity is proof of the sole Godhead of Him that formed it: "Thus saith the Lord that created the heavens : He is God " (xlv. 1 8). Such passages as these indicate why it is that the prophet so much insists on the Godhead of Jehovah alone. It is no mere formal intellectual Monotheism that He preaches. To Him the knowledge of the true God is the source of all truth and all life to men, that alone which allows the nations of the earth to have any destiny before them. Having no true God in the midst of them, the nations have no goal before them, no elements of true pro- gress ; they are without the conditions of attaining the destiny set by God before men. Yet they are included 106 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAIMENT in His purpose of grace, and they shall be brought into the stream of it by His servant Israel : " Behold my Servant, ... he shall bring forth right to the nations. . . . He shall not faint . . . till he have set right in the earth, and the countries shall wait on his instruction " (xlii. 1). It is here that to the prophet hes the significance of the sole Godhead of Jehovah ; the knowledge of it is the condition of salvation for mankind. Hence Jehovah says: " Look unto Me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth : for 1 am God, and there is none else" (xlv. 22). This forty- fifth chapter is one of the most important in the prophecy in this point of view. 5. The Personality and Spirituality of God. The question which naturally follows that of the Unity of God, is that of the Persojiality and Spirituality of God. Unquestionably the most distinct and strongly marked conception in regard to God in the Old Testament is that of His personality. This appears on every page. A God identical with nature, or involved in nature, and only manifesting Himself through the blind forces of nature, nowhere appears in the Old Testament. He is always distinct from nature, and personal. In the first chapter of Genesis He stands over against nature, and perceives that it is good. He stands also over against man, and lays His commands upon him : " Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat." He puts Himself as a moral person over against men as moral persons, and enters into covenant of moral conduct with them. Not only is He conscious of men, but He is conscious of Himself : " By Myself have I sworn" (Gen. xxii. 16; Isa. xlv. 23). He is not only conscious of Himself as existing, but of what character He Himself is. He resolves with Himself to make man, and to make him in His own image. In Amos He swears not by Himself, but by His holiness (iv. 2). The idea of some modern writers, that the con- ception of God among the people of Israel was first that of PERSONALITY OF GOD 107 some power external to themBelves which they perceived in the world, a power making for a moral order or identical with it, and which they afterwards endowed with personality and named God, inverts the Old Testament representation, according to which the personality of God was the primary idea, and the secondary idea the moral character of this person ; for tliis latter idea, no doubt, became clearer and more elevated. This representation of modern writers to which I have referred is not a historical account of the origin of the conception of God's personality among the people of Israel, — at all events in the historical period which the Old Testament embraces. It is rather a descrip- tion of movements of thought in regard to God, pecuhar to modern times, when men, having lost the idea of God's personality which once prevailed, are making a new effort to regain it. From the first historical reference to God in Scripture the idea of His being a person is firmly reached, and httle advance takes place along this line. This is so much the case that, on the other hand, the question arises whether this very vividness with which the personality of God was realised in Israel did not infringe upon other conceptions necessary to a true idea of God, such as His transcendence and ubiquity and spirituality. Did not Israel so strongly conceive God as a person, that He became to them a mere magnified human person, subject to the hmitations of personaHty among men, so that true attributes of Deity were obscured ? Now, in going to the Old Testament and seeking to estimate its statements about God, we have to remember that it is not a piece of philosophical writing, that its statements about God are all given in the region of practical rehgious Hfe, and that they are the expressions of this vivid religious hfe among a people strongly realistic and emotional. A theology of the schools, where the laws of exact thought prevail, was unknown in the Old Testament period. We observe, indeed, the beginnings of such a theology in the Alexandrian translation of the Scriptures, and in the 108 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT Chaldee translation, and in Jewish writings of later times. These express themselves, in regard to God, in a form that seeks to be more severe and exact, using circumlocutions for the anthropomorphisms of the Old Testament, — a fact which indicates that these caused some offence to the minds of this age. Even in the so-called Priests' Code, while there are some anthropomorphisms, anthropopathisms are avoided. In the Old Testament generally, however, such anthropo- morphisms are freely used, as we use them still, when not meaning to be scientific, and when expressing our religious life and feelings. It may be made a question, no doubt, whether, in the popular religion, among ourselves they may not be carried to excess, and whether the strong reahsing of the personality of God there may not obscure some other conceptions of God which also have their rights. This / may well be. Still the use of anthropomorphisms is inevit- V able if men will think of God ; and it has usually been argued that they are legitimate, seeing men were made in the image of God. We are in some measure at least entitled to throw back upon God the attributes of man when speaking of His action and thought. Yet just as in the popular religion among ourselves — the true rehgion of men animated with a true rehgious life — it is possible that the powerful feeling of the personality of God may obscure some of God's essential attributes and lead to a narrow conception of Him, so it is quite possible that among the people of Israel the same narrowing effect may have arisen from the same cause. So far, however, as the Old Testament is concerned it cannot be said that its expressions go this length. When it speaks of the hand, arm, mouth, lips, eyes of God, of His speaking, writing, laughing, mock- ing, and the like ; when, as in Second Isaiah, He makes bare His holy arm in the sight of all the nations (lii. 10) ; when in His eagerness to dehver the people He pants like a woman in travail (xlii. 14) ; when, as in the 2nd Psalm, He that sits in the heavens laughs ; when He lifts up a signal to the nations (Isa. xlix. 22) ; when He is seen at the head of the Medians mustering His hosts, — all this is but vivid ANTHROPOMORPHISMS 109 conception of His being, His intelligence, His apprehension, His activity, and His universal power over the movements of the nations which He directs. The human is transferred to His personality, as it could not but be ; it is transferred graphically, as could not but happen when done by the vivacious, poetical, powerful phantasy of the people of Israel But under all this what we observe is the vivid realisation of the true, free, intelligent, active personality of God. Such language only certifies to the warmth and intensity of the rehgious feeling of the writer. Another class of passages may perhaps require more consideration : those in which manifestations of God are described which seem to imply that He was confined within the limitations of space, or that the human form really was proper to Him. He is said to have walked in the garden in the cool of the day ; to have come down to see the tower which men did build ; to have been one of three men that appeared to Abraham, and to have eaten that which was set before Him. Jacob thought Bethel a house, i.e. a place or abode of God; and in Israel His presence was inseparably connected with the Ark of the Covenant. Under all these things there lies at least not only a vivid conception of His personality, but a vivid conception of a profound and more strictly redemptive truth, namely, that He 'reveals Himself and enters into the closest friendship with men.i It may be the case that ideas of God's spirituality were less clear in the Patriarchal age, and that some of these narratives preserve this fact. It was but a short step from the Unity to the other essential element in the conception of God, His Spirituality. Yet this step has always been found very hard to take. The whole history of Israel shows how hard the struggle was in the popular mind between this idea and the sensuous conception of God. ' Of course, different minds may estimate these narratives differently. So far as we consider the experiences, say, of Jacob at Jabbok real, we may suppose that a spiritual impression always reflected itself in an accompanying extraordinary physical condition ; just as among the early prophets the ecstasy was usual, while, although still occasional among the later propheta (Isa. Ti. 8), it became rare. 110 TIIK THEOLOUY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT And when the sense of God's spirituality was lost, there followed speedily the loss of the sense of His unity. Throughout the whole Patriarchal time the prevaiHng sense of God was that of a lord, an owner, an almighty ruler whose commandments must be obeyed, who tells his servant to leave his country and he leaves it, who gives the barren children, who subdues kingdoms, and rebukes kings for his servant's sake. If Abraham had a clear thought of His spirituality, this clearness became obscured in the minds of his descendants. Even in Abraham's history God is attached to places. Jacob found Him at Bethel — and said, " Surely God is in this place — this is a house of God — a gate of heaven." And this patriarch reared his stone, which, if it did not represent God, was called by him Bethel, and conceived by him as something to which God would attach Himself. These localisations of God show an imperfect conception of His spirituality. Hence such high places were rigidly forbidden in the Mosaic constitution. And it is certain that even the conceptions of the Patri- archal time became greatly obscured among the people in Egypt. Idolatry was practised largely there. Ezekiel in several places chastises the people for their idolatrous practices in this land. " Then said I unto them, Cast away every man the abominations of his eyes, and defile not yourselves with the idols of Egypt" (xx. 7). We may consider these two things ascertained from a study of the history of Moses. First, that he gave great prominence to the idea of the spirituality of God ; and, second, that he connected the idea of the spiritual God with the name Jehovah. The new elevation given by Moses to the idea of God cannot be regarded as anything but the result of a special revelation. God appeared to him. He did not reach a purer conception of God by study or thought. God showed Himself to him. But the conceptions of the Patriarchal time wliich were then loosely held, and which had been almost lost entirely in Egypt, were brought back by him in full luminousness, and laid as fundamental con- ceptions at the basis of his constitution. One might raise SPIRITUALITY OF GOD 111 doubts, though hardly with good reason, as we have already seen, in regard to the first command, as to whether it in so many words prescribed the absolute unity of God, or only the relative unity of God to Israel : " I am Jahweh thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt . . . thou shalt have no other gods before Me." Israel shall have no God but Jahweh ; but whether there be other gods is not certainly declared ; and in a hymn contemporary with this law, the hymn after the passage of the Eed Sea, we read : " Who is like unto Thee, Jahweh, among the gods ? " But there can be no doubt that the second commandment teaches the spirituality of God in the sharpest manner : " Thou shalt not make unto thee any grc!,ven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters under the earth " (Ex. xx. 4) ; and in the repetition of the law in Deuteronomy : " Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves ; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb . . . Lest ye corrupt yoiu'selves and make you a graven image" (Deut. iv. 15, 16). And very singularly that very act which Jacob did is expressly prohibited in Lev. xxvi. 1 — "neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land." What is forbidden in the commandment is not worshipping other gods than Jahweh, but worshipping Jahweh under any similitude. That does not expressly declare that Jahweh has no similitude, but the inference is immediate. Jehovah is represented as having a dwelling-place. But He is no local God. That dwelling-place is usually conceived to be heaven. But though His abode is there, He visits the children of men, and appears wherever His people are. He appeared to the patriarchs often and in many places in Canaan. But though Canaan be the land of Jehovah, and His house. He is not confined to it. He says to Jacob : " Fear not to go down into Egypt ; for I will there make of thee a great nation : I will go down witli thee into Egypt" (Gen. xlvi. 3, 4). Tu Moses in the 112 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT wilderness He gave the promise : " Mine angel shall go before thee" (Ex. xxiii. 23); and Moses said: "If Thy presence go not with me, carry us not up hence " (Ex. xxxiii 15). In one place He appeared to Joshua as the leader of the Lord's host ; in another, to David. So far as His dwelling among the people was concerned, He abode in the Ark. The Ark of the Covenant is not to be conceived as an idol, or as an image of God. No deity could be represented in the form of a smaU chest. But neither is it enough to say that the Ark was a symbol of Jehovah, whatever that might mean, or a symbol of His presence. It was more than that. Jehovah's presence was attached to it. It was in some sense His dwelling- place. But although it was so, and the people had thus an assurance that He was present among them there in some special sense, His presence was not confined to the Ark. He appeared in the form of the Angel of the Lord in many places ; and when the Ark was captured by the Philistines, the priests offered sacrifices to Jehovah at Nob, and set the shewbread before Him as had been done in Shiloh. Everywhere in the old histories as well as in the prophetic writings, the supersensuous abode of Jehovah, and His condescension, nevertheless, and entrance into the life of men, were both well understood. We cannot say that fi'om the time of Israel's becoming a nation any behef in a local limitation of God can be traced. The sanctuaries scattered up and down the country were hardly places to which God was confined ; they were rather places where, having manifested Himself, He was held to have authorised His worship. Such facts as that men, e.g. Gideon, Saul, etc., reared an altar anywhere, and that Absalom when an exile in Geshur outside of Palestine made a vow to Jehovah, show that they conceived of Jehovah as without local limitations. Finally, the multi- plicity and variety of the combinations of the manifestation of God with nature show that the idea lying at the root of them was not that God was locally confined, but that He was present in all the phenomena of the world. This ia ANTHROPOPATHIC EXPRESSIONS 113 the religious idea lying under such descriptions. The rest is but clothing thrown around this idea by the religious phantasy. And when, as in Ps. xxLx., the thunderstorm is specially regarded as a theophany, this, of course, arose from the fact that majestic phenomena, like the thimderstorm and earthquake, brought more impressively before the mind the conception of the great Person who was the cause of the phenomenon, and who revealed Himself through it. But it does not need to be said again that the phenomenon did not suggest the idea of God, and cause the mind to rise to the idea of a person ; the idea of a person was there already, and explained the phenomenon.* We pass into another and somewhat higher region when we take into account another class of passages — those in which human emotions and modes of conduct are thrown back upon God. The first class of passages referred to mainly suggested the personality of God. The next class added the deep religious idea of His manifesting Himself to men. This new class brings in the idea of the moral in God's personality. Thus He repents that He made man, and also of the evil He intended to do ; He is grieved ; He is angry, jealous, gracious ; He loves, hates, and much more ; He breaks out into a passion of anger (Isa. liv. 7, 8), and again He feels as if His chastisements had been excessive (xl. 2). All the phenomena of the human soul of which as men we are conscious, and all the human conduct corre- * Two beliefs characterise the Hebrew mind from the beginning ; first the strong belief in causation, — every change on the face of nature, or in the life of men or nations, must be due to a cause ; and, secondly, that the only conceivable cause is a personal agent. The unseen power under all things, which threw up all changes upon the face of the world, which gave anima- tion to the creature or withdrew it, which moved the generations of men upon the earth from the beginning (Isa. xli. 4), bringing Israel out of Egypt, the Philistines from Caphtor, and the Syrians from Kir (Amos ix. 7), was the living God. Some phenomena or events, such as the thunderstorm or the dividing of the sea, might be more striking instances of His operation than others. They were miracles, i.e. wonders, but they did not diller in kind from the ordinary phenomena of nature, from His making the sun to riso, and His sealing up the stars ; His clothing the heavens with blackness, and making them bright with His breath. Everything is supernatural, i.e. direct Divine operation. There is no idea of Law to be broken. 8 114 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT spending to these emotions, are thrown back upon God It may be that here there is a certain imperfection, — that when we conceive Him from another point of view we must hold Him free of all passion, and not subject to such changes as are implied in one emotion succeeding another. This may be true ; but it is equally true that this other mode of conception, however much it may have its rights, reduces God to a Being absolutely unmoral, and even im- personal, if it be carried to its fair issue. Scripture takes the other line. Starting with the idea of personality, it adds that of moral personality, and this can he expressed in no other way than by attributing to God such emotions. Scripture is conscious that this mode of conception may be abused : " God is not a man, that He should lie ; nor the son of man, that He should repent" (Num. xxiii. 19) — "I am Jehovah, I change not" (Mai. iii. 6). But, again, what is to be observed is that it is tlie general truth lying under all these expressions that really makes up their meanmg ; that the real force of these expressions does not lie in the form, or in the detailed variety of the emotions, but in the general conception which they combine to suggest, namely, the moral Being of God ; that men are in relation with a Being between whom and them there is a moral reciprocity, — a Being to whom men's conduct and thought have a meaning, such a meaning that they seem to reflect themselves upon His nature, and determine it according to their quahty. In one sense such language used of God gives more a piece of anthropology than of theology ; it testifies to the meaning of human life, to its moral character, to the essential distinction between one act of man and another. These distinctions are 8o real and of such influence, that they repeat themselves upon the nature of God. Man is not related to an impassive nature force which his actions leave unaffected. The moral voices of his conduct do not fall on the dead walls of a prison in which he is immured. They reverberate in heaven. But while the language elevates the meaning of man's life and conduct, it also THE SPIRIT OF GOD . 115 states something about God. It describes Him as the sensitive moral Spirit in the universe, — sensitive because He is perfect moral personality, and His sensitiveness visible because He is the Being to whom all stand related. But we should be doing the same wrong to the writers of Scripture that we should do to ourselves or to another, if we charged them, when expressing the moral Being of God through such language, with infringing by it the passionless nature of God. IV. THE DOCTRINE OF GOD— THE SPIRIT. 1. The Spirit of God. It is under the aspect, then, of perfect ethical per- sonality that the Old Testament conceives of God. It has little to say of His essence. He is a free, active, moral person. And to this attaches what the Old Testa- ment says of the Spirit of God. The question whether the Old Testament teaches the 2^^'>^sonality of the Spirit of God is not one that should be raised apart from the other — What is its conception of the Spirit of God ? We are very apt to raise these formal questions when we ought first at least to raise the material ones. The sphere of the Old Testament is the practical religious sphere, out of which it never wanders into the sphere of ontology. The whole question is the question of the relation of a living, active, moral, personal God to the world and men. It asks as little what the essence of God is as it asks what the essence of man is. The question regarding the Old Testament idea of the Spirit of God presents itself in another way. As we have seen, there are uncertainties attaching to the terms El, Elohim, Jehovah, which prevent us from getting all that we might expect from these ancient designations of God. More instructive are the geutTal :;t.Utjrui'iit,s wliich occur ■)f what were the prevailing thouglitss regarding Gud 116 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT These statements bear that He was conceived to be the source of all things to Israel — of things spiritual specially, but also of other advantages ; and that He ruled Israel. He was King in Jeshurun, and He was Judge. Men brought their causes to Elohim, as it was said ; that is, they brought them to the priests, to whom through an oracle Jehovah gives a decision. A later writer sums up all when he says : " The Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king ; He will save us " (Isa. xxxiii. 22). It becomes, then, an interesting question how Jehovah exercises His rule in Israel, and His guidance of it in all the spheres of its life. There are two ways in which the Old Testament con- ceives this to be done. First, by external manifestation of Himself to men, and the giving of commands. This external manifestation of Himself is called the Angel of the Lord (nin"; Tisbo). This Angel is not a created angel — He is Jehovah Himself in the form of manifestation. Hence He is identical with Jehovah, although also in a certain sense different. We have such expressions as these : " The angel of God spake unto me (Jacob) . . . and said, I am the God of Bethel" (Gen. xxxi. 11, 12); "Behold, I send an Angel before thee . . . My name is in Him," i.e. My revelation of Myself is in Him" (Ex. xxiii. 20, 21). The " Angel of the Lord " redeemed Jacob, led Israel into Canaan, and directed Israel's armies in the conflict with Sisera. Second, by God's Spirit. As Jehovah's operations in ruling His people were chiefly through men, they are regarded as the operations of His Spirit. The " Spirit of Jehovah " is Jehovah Himself within men, as the " Angel of Jehovah " is Jehovah Himself without men. This Spirit raised up judges, i.e., inspired men. He fell on Saul, and Saul was changed into another man. He raised up Nazarites and other special persons. In particular. He animated the prophets. The whole public life of Israel was thus inspired by Jehovah. Jehovah ruled, and He ruled through His Spirit. Further, the idea of the Spirit of God, like other idpae THE SPIRIT AS WITHIN GOD 117 of God, is probably formed upon the idea of the spirit of man. The spirit of man is not something distinct from man, but is man. The thinking, willing life within man, manifesting itself in influences on what is without, is his spirit. So the fulness of life in God, active, effectual on that which is without, is His Spirit. The Spirit of God, however, may be spoken of as outside His being or as within it. It is His nature, not conceived, however, as substance or cause, but as moral, personal life. It may feel within Him, or be efficient without Him. It corresponds to the spirit of man. Hence it may be physically conceived just as man's is. As man's spirit manifests itself in his breath, so God's Spirit is the breath of His nostrils, His fire-breath. Hence it is represented as poured out, as breathed, as coming from the four winds, etc. Now there are two questions which have to be put here. First, What is said of the Spirit of God in the Old Testa- ment ? and, secondly, What is that Spirit of God of which such things are said ? On this second question it may not be possible to say very much. The answer to it is in the conclusion suggested by the answer to the other. The first question itself has two branches, namely, first, What is said of the Spirit of God in God, within God Himself ? and secondly. What is said of the Spirit of God not in God Himself, but in connection with the world or human life ? 2. The Spirit of Ood within God Himself. As what is said of God is for the most part of necessity secondary, that is, a reflection upon His being and application to Him of what is said and thought in regard to men, it may be useful to look at the general idea connected with spirit in the Old Testament, and at what is said of the spirit of man in man. The passage in Isaiah (xxxi. 3) perhaps comes nearer expressing the idea of spirit in a general way than any other : " Now the Egyptians are men, and not God, and their horses flesh, and not spirit." The general scope of the passage is to show the impotence of the Egyptians: they 118 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT are men, and not God ; their horses are flesh, and not spirit. Flesh is weak and liable to decay, it has no inherent power in it; spirit is power, or has power. This seems everywhere in the Old Testament the idea attached to spirit. It is quite probable that the idea is not primary, but derived. The physical meaning of spirit (D'''') is hreath. Where breath is present there is life and power; where it is absent there is only flesh and weakness and decay. And thus the idea of life and power may have become connected with 't from observation. But if we should suppose this to be the case, the connection of the idea of life and power with spirit is of such ancient date that it precedes that use of language which we have in the Old Testament. Now, in harmony with this general idea of spirit is all that is said of the spirit of man in man in the Old Testa- / ment. The original meaning of spirit is breath. This was the sign of life, or was the principle of life. But by a step which all languages seem to have taken, this merely pheno- menal life or visible sign or principle was, so to speak, intensified into an immaterial element in man, the spirit of man. Now, avoiding as far as possible anthropological questions which do not concern us here, when the im- material element in man is called spirit it is in the main either when it is put in opposition to flesh, or when its strength or weakness in respect of power and vitality is spoken of. Hence we have such expressions as these : " God of the spirits of all flesh " (Num. xvi. 22) ; " In whose hand is the spirit of all flesh of man " (Job xii. 10); "The spirit of Jacob tlieir father revived" (Gen. xlv. 27); "To revive the spirit of the humble " (Isa. Ivii. 15); " My spirit is quenched, my days are over, graves are mine" (Job xvii 1). So it is said that there was "no more spirit" (1 Kings X. 5) in the Queen of Sheba when she observed the wisdom of Solomon ; i.e. she was overcome, and felt weak. Hence, too, the spirit is "overwhelmed" and " faileth " (Ps. cxliii.) ; " by sorrow of heart the spirit is broken" (Ps. xv. 13); "I will not, saith the Lord contend for ever, neither will I be always wroth : for aPIRIT AS MOOD AND CHARACTER 119 the spirit would fail before Me, and the breaths that I have made" (Isa. Iviii. 16). Thp_spirif-., t.hftn, Vising that in whinh rfisidfta vitality, power, energy in general, the usage became extended some- whatjfurther. First, any predominating determination or prevailing direction of the mind was called a spirit of such and such a kind ; what we call a mood or temper or frame of a temporary kind. Thus Hosea speaks of " a spirit of whoredoms" being in Israel (iv. 12); and Isaiah, of a " spirit of deep sleep " being poured out on them (xxix. 10) ; and of "a spirit of perverseness '' being in the Egyptians (xix. 14) ; and another prophet speaks of " a spirit of grace and supphcations " (Zech. xii. 10). So one is "short in spirit," that is, impatient ; grieved in spirit, bitter in spirit, and the like. This powerful determination of mind, however, might be not of a temporary, but of a permanent kind. This is also called spirit, and corresponds to character or disposition, whether it be natural or ethical. Hence one is of a haughty spirit, of a humble spirit, of a steadfast spirit ; and the Psalmist prays to be upheld with a free spirit (li. 1 2). Thus the spirit in man expresses all the activities and energies of life and mind : the strong current of emotion ; the prevailing determination of mind, whether temporary or permanent, and whether natural or ethical And the usage is entirely the same in regard to the Spirit of God in God. The term expresses the fulness of vital power, and all the activities of vital energy, whether, as we might say, emotional, or intellectual, or moral, — whether temporary or permanent. In regard to His emotional nature Micah asks : " Is the spu'it of the Lord short, impatient ? " (ii. 7). Another prophet asks : " Who directed the spirit of the Lord ? " that is, His intelligence, which presided over His power in giving weight and measure to the infinite masses of the material universe. " Who weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance ? Who directed the spirit (or mind) of the Lord (when He did so), or being His counsellor taught 120 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT Him f Who . . . instructed Him in the path of judgment, and . . . showed to Him the way of understanding ? " (Isa. xL 13, 14). One Psalmist (Ps. cxxxix.) expresses by the term Spirit His whole omniscient and omnipresent miad : " Whither from Thy spirit can I fly ? " And one of the Psalmists, by the same term, expresses His unchanging ethical disposition : " Thy spirit is good, lead me into the land of uprightness" (Ps. cxliii. 10). Thus theQld_Testa- ment language as to the Spirit of^iod jnJ&Qd^HiTnself corresponds to^ JiteJ^guage in regard Jto the spirit oiman in man. 3. The Activities of the Sjoirit The other branch of the general question was, What is said of the Spirit of God not in God, but in rela- tion to the world and men ? Now, as in the first half of the question it was of consequence to ascertain what general idea attached to spirit, so here it is of importance to remember the general ideas entertained of God. The conception of secondary causes is almost entirely absent from the Old Testament ; what God does He does directly and immediately. And He is over all and in alL All phenomena are due to Him, all changes on the face of the material world, all movements in history, all vicissitudes in the life of men. The Old Testament doctrine of God is not more strongly monotheistic than it is theistic and Qot deistic. That universal power within all things which throws up all configurations on the face of the world, of history, and of man's life is God. When general language is used these phenomena are said to be due to God ; when more precise language is used they are said to be due to the Spirit of God. The Spirit of God ah intra is God exerting power, God efficient, that is, actually exerting efficiency in any sphere. And His efficiency pervades all spheres, the physical and moral alike. Some instances may be given by way of illustration. First, in the oosmical sphere. The Spirit of Go 1 moved THE SPIRIT m NATURE AND LIFE 121 upon the face of the waters — the watery chaos (Gen. i. 2). This is a realistic image which expresses the idea that God's creative power was engaged in educing life and order out of the primal chaos. It is of some consequence to distinguish between this Spirit of God and the successive creative feats — " let there be light," etc These latter express God's conscious will and determination. These are move- ments of the Spirit of God according to the passage in Isa. xL 13, already referred to, ah intra. The pervading Spirit expresses God's efficient presence and operation ah intra, carrying out His voluntary determinations. In Job (xxvi. 13) it is said that "by the Spirit of God the heavens are made bright," — a bold, though not unnatural figure identifying the wind that carries off the clouds through God's efficiency with the Spirit of God. In Like manner Isaiah (xl. 7) says " the grass withereth when the Spirit of the Lord breatheth or bloweth upon it," identifiying the hot withering wind of the desert with the Spirit of God ; and Ezekiel (xxxvii. 9) uses the figure of breath or wind from the four quarters of the heaven for the vitalising Spirit of God, in animating the dead. This operation of the Spirit of God upon the material world, however, is rarely spoken of, and it appears to be but an extension of the idea which is referred to next. Second, there is the Divine operation in the sphere of life or vitality. God in His power and efficiency, or the Spuit of God, is much dwelt on in the sphere of life, whether in giving vitaHty or in reinforcing it. In the Creation narrat- ive it is said of man that he was formed " of the dust of the ground," and that man being thus formed, God breathed into his nostrils " the breath of Ufe, and he became a living being " (Gen. ii 7). This again appears to be exceedingly reahstic imagery. Breath in man's nostrils is the sign of life ; it may be said to be life in man. Hence also God has a breath of life in Him hke man — as indeed the breath of His nostrils in anger is frequently spoken of. When this breath or spirit of life was breathed into man, man also lived. Obviously we must throw away the imagery 122 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT and seek the idea — which is, that God is the source of life ; and in any particular case of producing life, it is God's Spii it that produces it. Man's life is the presence in man of God's Spirit. Hence Job says : " The spirit of God is in my nostrils " (xxviL 3) ; and Elihu says, " The spirit of God made me, and the breath of the Almighty giveth me life " (xxxiii. 4). Hence as the source from whence life comes, this Spirit is called the Spirit of God ; but, as it is in man, it is also said to be man's spirit : " Thou hidest Thy face, they are troubled ; Thou takest away their spirit, they die, and return to their dust ; Thou sendest forth Thy spirit, they are created" (Ps. civ. 29, 30). And Elihu says in another passage : " If God should set His mind on Himself (i.e. cease to think of the creature) and withdraw His spirit, all flesh would perish " (Job xxxiv. 1 5). Of course, we must beware of imagining that the Spirit of God is divided or divisible. The spirit of life in man is not a particle of God's Spirit enclosed in man, which, when released, returns to the great original source ; it is not a spark separated from the primary fire. And it is equally inept to ask where this spirit of life goes when withdrawn. It goes nowhere. As the ocean fills the caves on the shore, and again when it recedes leaves them empty, so the indivisible Spirit of God gives creatures life, and when withdrawn leaves them dead. Stripped of all these scarcely to be avoided figures, and of that tendency so ineradicable in the Eastern mind to turn general conceptions into things, all this seems to mean that vitaHty in all creatures is due to God, to God's operation. God is the source of life, and as God He is continually communicating His life. But God in operation or efficiency is the Spirit of God, and God's operation in giving the creature life is the entrance of His Spirit into the creature. His continuous efficiency in upholding life is the continuous presence of His Spirit ; His cessation to uphold life is the withdrawal of His Spu-it.1 * The above exegesis of the passage in Gen. 11. may seem doubtful. There is room for dissent ; for the word on means both the life-breath, mere > itality. THE SriKIT IN TilE I'ROrHETS 123 Third, there is also the Divine operation in a region perhaps somewhat higher, being one in human experience and history. This embraces those cases in which extra- ordinary feats of strength and daring are referred to the Spirit of God. Thus the Spirit of the Lord came upon Othniel, and he judged Israel and went out to war (Judg. iii. 10); upon Gideon, and he blew a trumpet, and Abiezer was gathered unto him (vi. 34); upon Jephthah, and he passed over Gilead against the children of Ammon (xi. 29) ; on Samson, and he rent the lion in pieces as one rends a kid (xiv. 6) ; on Saul, when the Ammonites besieged Jabesh-Gilead, and his anger was kindled exceed- ingly (1 Sam. ii. 6). Some of these cases may be referred to again. What struck the beholder in these cases was the presence of a power and efficiency superhuman. These heroes were acted upon, and showed a power not their own. The power of acting on them was God — the Spirit of God. And perhaps to this division belongs the ascription of prophecy at first to the Spirit of God. The early prophets, as we see from what is related in connection with Saul, were the subjects of a lofty enthusiasm, which sometimes became an uncontrollable excitation or ecstasy. This visible external affection of the prophet was probably what attracted attention and was ascribed to the Spirit of God, i.e. the inspiration of which the excitation was the symptom was due to the Spuit of God. I do not allude here to any question whether or how God was present with these pro- phets. I merely say that it was probably the phenomenon of excitation which was observed, and which suggested and the immaterial element in man. And it may seem that it was this latter that God breathed. I have never been able to see my way through these two uses of 'n in the Old Testament. The point of union between them is, I think, here, that 0'"i is spoken of the immaterial part when special reference is made to vitality. 1 think when the phraseology I have referred to — that of the spirit being taken, was used the question was not pursued where it went. Later the question was asked, as in Ecclesiastes : "Who knows whether the spirit of man goeth up, and the spirit of beast goeth down ?" (iii. 21). Od the exegesis adopted above the connection between the Spirit of God and Ufa or vitality in the creature is evident. 124 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT to the observer the presence of God — the Spirit of God. It is probable that it was the external excitation and elevation of the prophet that was described as the effect of the Spirit of God, and not as yet anything ethical or spiritual in the contents of what the prophets uttered. We may infer this from the remarkable passage in 1 Sam. xviii. 10, where it is said that an "evil spirit of God fell upon Saul, and he prophesied in the midst of the house." In later times, when prophecy threw off this excita- tion and became an ethical intercourse of the mind of man with God, a thing almost normal, — as in the case of Jeremiah, who repudiates all such things as prophetic dreams, and claims for the prophet simple entrance into the counsel of God, — the phraseology formed in earlier days still remained, but with another sense. The prophet is still called in Hosea the man * of the Spirit ' ; and Micah says in significant language : " Truly I am full of power by the Spirit of the Lord ... to declare to Jacob his transgressions, and to Israel his sin (iii. 8). The power which seemed formerly physical had now become moral. Fourth, there is the same in the sphere of intellectual I / gifts. " There is a spirit in man," says Elihu, and "the breath of the Almighty giveth him understanding." Intellectual powers are regarded as the product of God's Spirit, i.e. of God. Artistic skill, as in the case of Bezaleel, is ascribed to the Spirit of the Lord. Fifth, so, too, in the sphere particularly of moral life. All the religious emotions and vitality of man, the endow- ments which we call spiritual, are said to be due to the Spirit of God. Hence the Psalmist prays : " Take not Thy holy Spirit from me" (li. 11), which is almost equal to a prayer that his mind may not cease to be religious, to have thoughts of God, and aspirations towards God. Of course, connected with this, the Spirit of God is the source of all theocratic forces or capacities in the mind of man. Here God is personally most active ; here He communi- cates Himself in most fulness. Hence the prophet is full of might by the Spirit of Jehovah to declare to Israel his THE SPIRIT OP JEHOVAH 125 sins (Mic. iii. 8). And the Messiah has poured out on him the Spirit of Jehovah, not only as a spirit of the feai of the Lord, but as a spirit of wisdom and governmenl (Tsa. xi. 2). This is by far the largest of the various spheres. Bui it is familiar, and it is not necessary to enlarge upon it. Now, perhaps this slight induction might justify the general remark that the Spirit of God is, so to speak, the constant accompaniment of God, the reflection of God. The Spirit of Jehovah is Jehovah Himself — the source ol life of all kinds, of the quickening of the mind in thought, in morals, in religion, particularly the last. God is all and all comes from Him. The ideas, God and Spirit of God, are parallel, and cover one another. This calling what is really God by the term the Spirit of God, is the strongest proof that the idea of the spirituality of God underlay the idea of God ; just as ' the spirit of man ' indicated that in man spirit is the main element. Hence, whatever development we may trace in the Old Testament in the doctrine of God, there will be a corresponding development in that of the Spirit of God. The Spirit of God being God in operation, an advance on the conception of God, a tendency to give the thought of God a prevailing direction, as, e.g., the ethical or redemptive, will be followed, or rather accompanied, by the same advance and tendency in regard to the Spirit of God. And here perhaps a distinction should be alluded to which no doubt is connected with such a tendency — the distinction between the Spirit of God and the Spirit of the Lord, or Jehovah. The distinction has no bearing on general principles, inasmuch as Jehovah is God under a certain aspect. But the aspect is important. Jehovah is God as God of Israel, God as King of the redemptive kingdom of God in Israel. And the Spirit of the Lord is the Lord operating as redemptive God in Israel This very idea in itself gave a particular direction to the thought of God, and therefore to that of the Spirit of God. The ethical and spiritual naturally came to the front. The 126 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT Spirit given to men such as Gideon, Jephthah, and others was this theocratic redemptive Spirit; it was Jehovah operating in men for redemptive purposes — saving and ruling His people. And the Spirit of prophecy became almost exclusively ethical. And, of course, the further down we come the more this conception of God, and consequently of the Spirit of God, became the prevailing one, imtil it became almost the exclusive one. The Spirit of God under the name of the ' Holy Spirit ' occurs very rarely, only three times in the Old Testament, in Ps. li. and twice in Isa. Ixiii. Both these compositions may be late. Judging from usage, e.g. holy hill, holy city, holy place, holy arm, etc., which mean hill of God, city of God, etc., the phrase ' Holy Spirit ' probably at first merely meant Divine Spirit, Spirit of God, emphasising the fact that He was the Spirit of God. But, of course, as the ethical being of God more and more became pro- minent, the same advance in the ethical quality of the Spirit also took place, and the expression Holy Spirit was specially employed to express this idea. The general conclusion which seems to follow from these things is^hat the Spirit of God ab intra is God active, showing life and power, of the kinds similar to those exhibited by the spirit of man in maa^ that the Spmt of God ab extra is God in efficient operation, whether in the cosmos or as giving life, reinforcing life, exerting efficiency in any sphere, — according to the nature of the here, whether physical, intellectual, or spiritual ; and at the tendency towards limiting the Spirit of God to the ethical and spiritual spheres is due to the tendency to regard God mainly on those sides of His being. 4. Whai the Spirit is. But now, on the second question. What is the Spirit of God of which the above things are said ? If the Spirit of God be God exercising power or efficiency, does He work it per se or per alium ? Is the Spirit of God numerically QUESTION OF THE PERSONALITY OF THE SPIRIT 127 another, distinct from God in the Old Testament ? This question is exceedingly difficult to answer. Of course, the language used, whether of the Spirit of God ab intra or ah extra, might be used, and no doubt is used now, to express the conception of the Spirit as a distinct person. But it ia doubtful if any Old Testament passage can be found which requires this sense ; and it is doubtful if any passage of the Old Testament has this sense, if by the sense of the Old Testament we mean the sense intended by the writers of the Old Testament. It should be said further, that the idea of the personality of the Spirit is not one that we should expect to be pro- minent in the Old Testament. For we have to start from the idea that the Spirit of the Lord is the Lord — not an influence from Him, but the Lord Himself. This is the first step to any just doctrine of the personality of the Spirit. The Old Testament, however, seems to teach these things : (a) The Spirit of God is always something, as we say, supernatural, and it is always God. The Spirit of God is not an influence exerted by God at a point from which He is Himself distant. God is always present in the Spirit of God. The Spirit of God is God actually present and in operation. And this lays the foundation for the New Testament doctrine, (b) The Spirit of God is not a substance communicated to man. The Old Testament knows nothing of a spiritual substance. God is not any- where called a Spirit in the Old Testament : He has a I Spirit ; but Spirit is not a substance. It is an energy. / The various figures used of the communication of the Spirit, as to fall on, to pass on, to rest on, and the like, express either the supernaturalness of the gift, or its suddenness and power, or its abiding influence. One peculiar expres- sion is used, the Spirit of God clothed him, implying the complete enveloping of all the human faculties in the Divine. This phrase is still used by the Mohammedans. When they whirl or jerk their heads back and forward tiU they fall down in a faint, then they are 'clothed.' The 128 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT figure is quite intelligible. Job says : " I put on justice, and it clothed me" (xlix. 14) — he was himself hidden and lost behind justice, (c) And with this second point, that the Spirit of God is not a substance, is connected the other conclusion, that, as all the passages and examples show, the influence exerted on man in His communication is, as we say, dynamical. It does not give thoughts, e.g., but it invigorates and elevates the faculty of thought. It is not a material but a formal gift, sending power into all the capacities of the mind, and thus it is in a sense re-creative. There are, indeed, a very considerable number of passages in the Old Testament which might very well express the idea that the Spirit is a distinct hypostasis or person. We might refer specially to such passages as Hag. ii. 5 : " My Spirit is in the midst of you " ; Zech. iv. 6 : "Not by might ... but by My Spirit"; Isa. Ixiii. 10: " They rebelled, and vexed His holy Spirit " ; Isa. Ixiii. 1 1 : " "Where is He who put His holy Spirit within it (Israel) ? ," etc. But, on the other hand, it must be said that little can be made of most of those passages in which a dis- tinction appears to be made between God and His Spirit. For men also distinguish between themselves and their spirit, and speak of their souls, their spirits, etc. This way of speaking, it must, however, be added, is much developed in the Old Testament, so that we may say the beginnings at least of the distinction between the Lord and His Spirit, are to be seen. But, at the same time, it is doubtful whether there are any passages which must be so inter- preted. That moral attributes, such as goodness and holi- ness, are ascribed to the Spirit, hardly goes any way to prove distinction. Of more force, perhaps, is such a passage as the one in Isa. Ixiii. 10. But then another passage (Isa. liv. 6) speaks of a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit. Of some significance, however, is Isa. xlviii. 1 6 : " Jehovah hath sent me and His Spirit " — He and His Spirit have sent me, or perhaps. He hath sent me with His Spirit. The question here is whether the Spirit is subject or object. But even if the latter is the case, it may THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD 129 still be said that the Spirit becomes an agent parallel to man — whoever the speaker be, whether prophet or Servant. There is one more point on which a word will suffice. We hear it said sometimes in regard to such passages as that in Gen. i. 26: " Let us make man " ; or Isa. vi. 8 : " Who will go for us ? " — that there is there a Tague or obscure intimation of the doctrine of the Trinity. Now this is unfortunate language. It is unhappily the case that there are many passages of the Old Testament which we must call obscure ; that is, we are unable to say whether this, or that, or some other thing be the meaning. But we never have any doubt that they have some one perfectly clear sense, if we had the means of reaching it. They are not vague in themselves. There is no vagueness or obscurity in either of the passages referred to. If God, who speaks in these passages, uses the word us of Himself, there is a perfectly clear statement to the effect that the Godhead is a plurality — whether that plurality be a duality, or a trinity, or some other number is spoken of. But so far the sense has no vagueness or obscurity. The point, however, is whether the Divine speaker uses the word us of Himself, i.e. of the Godhead alone, or whether He does not rather include others, e.g. His heavenly council along with Him. The opinion of most expositors is to the latter effect. V. THE DOCTRINE OF GOD— THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTES. 1, The Righteousness of God. The etymological meaning of the root pnv may not be now ascertainable. Like tJ'lp, holy, the word, no doubt, once expressed a physical action ; but in usage it seems now to occur only in a moral sense, or when used of things in the sense of our word ' right.' It has been 9 130 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT suggested that the Hebrew idea of ' right * was what wae conformable to a standard ; but there seems to be little in this. It was not conformity to a standard that made things right, but conformity to a right standard. The idea of a standard is secondary — the idea of right precedes it. A standard is only a concrete embodiment or expression of right in a particular sphere. An ephah is a standard in measurement, but only a right ephah. The prophet Micah speaks of the cm-sed scanty ephah, to measure according to which was not right (vi 10). All that it is of consequence to keep in mind is that long before we find judgments on conduct passed, the per- son or mind passing them had already the ideas of right and wrong, and the further ideas what things were right and what things were wrong in the particular spheres to which his judgment applied. And long before judgments are passed and predications of righteousness or unrighteousness made, whether in regard to God or to man, the persons making them were already so far morally educated. The question how persons found passing judgment became morally educated is not of much consequence, because it refers to something anterior to the point at which we must begin. The judgments which we find passed in regard to righteousness or unrighteousness are made from the mind of the person judging, and as a rule bear no reference to any source from which he may have learned to judge as he does. That is ' righteous,' whether in God or in man, which is right in the circumstances, i.e., judged by the person who pronounced the judgment to be right. Eighteousness is one, whether in God or in man. It would be wrong in a human judge or ruler to condemn the righteous with the wicked, or destroy them indiscriminately ; and Abraham asks in reference to such a thing : " Shall not the judge of all the earth do right ? " (Gen. xviii. 25). Of course, there is great difference between God and man, seeing man's righteousness may largely consist in a right relation to God, while God may not be conditioned in this way. SOVEREIGNTY AND RIGHTEOUSNESS 131 But the fact that God is God does not withdraw Him and His actions from the sphere of moral judgment. Nothing would be right in God because He is God, which would not be right in Him were He man. Again, naturally this statement is general, and has to be limited in many ways. He is right, for instance, in demanding obedience from man, and man is right in obeying Him ; still it is always understood in the particular instances that the act re- quired and rendered is an act right in itself, though it may be that in details some actions might at an early time be considered right, or not wi'ong, which would not be considered right now. But while men may be found in plenty who are described as doing those things not now considered right, it may be doubtful if there are cases where they are commanded by God to do them. It is sometimes argued that because God is sovereign He has a right to do with His creatures as He pleases, and He is right or righteous in so domg. The abstract question does not concern us here; I do not think it is touched upon in the Old Testament. The Old Testament certainly teaches that God does " according to His pleasure in the armies of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth " (Dan. xi. 16); but I think it is always assumed that His pleasure is a benevolent and moral one, at least in the first instance, and that when it is otherwise this is due to the evil of men. The figure of the clay and the potter is fre- quently used. Now this figure means that it is God that does shape the history and destinies of mankind, par- ticularly of His people ; but it says nothing of the principles according to which He shapes thenu In Isa. xlv. 9—1 2 the people of Israel are represented as criticising the methods of God's dealing with them, the instruments He is using for their deliverance. They disliked the idea that a heathen conqueror like Cyrus should be God's agent in giving them freedom, or they were incredulous as to the results. And God replies to them : " Woe to that which strives with Him who makes it ! . . . Shall the clay say to the potter, What makest thou ? or shall thy work say 132 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT in regard to thee, He has no hands ? . . . Thus saith Jehovah, the Holy One of Israel, Ask Me concerning My children, and commit to Me the work of My hands. I have made earth, and man upon it : My hands stretched out the heavens." What God claims here is not the right to do as He pleases; what He claims is superior power and imderstanding, and as having this He claims that He, the Creator of earth and man upon it, and of the host of heaven, may be trusted to deal with the people's destinies in wisdom and with success. It is the same idea as is expressed in another place : " Your ways are not My ways, nor My thoughts your thoughts. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My thoughts (or plans) higher than your thoughts" (Isa. Iv. 8, 9). The paragraph in Jer. xviii. about the potter supplies a further element. The prophet went down to the potter's house, and behold he wrought his work on the wheels. And when the vessel that he was making of the clay was marred in the hands of the potter, he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it. Then the word of the Lord came to the prophet : " Behold, as the clay in the potter's hand, so are ye in Mine hand, 0 house of Israel" The potter's design was to make a vessel, but the clay was marred in his hand. The cause, no doubt, lay in the clay ; it was due to some flaw or intractability in it. It was not suitable for the potter's first intention, and he made of it that which could be made of it. This is the whole scope of the chapter. It is meant to show that God deals with men and nations on moral principles, one way or another, according to their character ; that, if His first intention fails with them. He has recourse to another : " At what time I speak concerning a nation to build and to plant it, if it do evil in My sight, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit thero." But the opposite is equally true : " At what time I speak concerning a nation, to pluck up, and to destroy it ; if that nation turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them." Jeremiah's figure teaches these two things •, RIGHTEOUSNESS NOT ABSTRACT 135 first, that He can deal with nations as the potter deals with the clay ; but, second, also the principles on which He deals with them.^ God is righteous when He does what is right in any particular case, or in any of the characters in which He acts as Judge, Euler, God of His people. Eighteousness is not an abstract thing; it is right conduct in particular relations. God is not very often said to be righteous in regard to His whole character, so to speak, though there are examples. The term is more often said of men. But a righteous man is one who has done or always does right actions. And God's righteousness is judged in the same way. Now it is evident what is right in a judge or ruler ; it is to clear the innocent and condemn the guilty, to find out and give effect to the truth in any particular cause. It is particularly right in the judge or ruler to see that right be done to those who are weak or without human helpers, to stand by them and plead their cause, such as the widow or the orphan. Justice is to be done to all, and the judge is warned against favouring the poor unjustly because they are poor ; but it is a sacred duty to see that right is done to those whose means of doing themselves justice are limited. Job claims this kind of righteousness for himself : " I was a father to the needy : and the cause of him that I knew not I searched out"(xxix. 16). And God is the father of the fatherless and the judge of the widow. The function of the judge was wider than with us ; he was both judge and advocate ; not judging as judges do now, on evidence set before him by others, but discover- ing the evidence for himself. So the Messiah in His function as judge does not judge after the sight of His eyes, nor decide after the hearing of His ears, but judges the poor with righteousness — with an insight given to Him by the Spirit of God which fills Him (Isa. xi. 3). But the actions of God are judged in His various relations to men, * On this see further in the author's The Book qf EzeJeUl th« Frophet, J». 38 {Cambridge Bible for Schools aivi Colleges). — Ec. 134 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT just as the actions of a man would be judged. The dog- matic principle that men being sinners nothing is due to them, is not the foundation on which judgments in regard to God are based. No doubt this idea is often recognised, and in the earliest times : " I am unworthy of the least of all the mercies . . . which Thou hast showed unto Thy servant" (Gen. xxxii. 10). The principle of His grace is frequently emphasised. But in passing judgment on His actions in relation to men this principle lies further back, and His actual relations to men are made the basis of the judgment, — the fact that He is God of His people, father of His children, and the like. And the principle of judgment applied is very much what would be apphed to men. It is ' right,' for example, among men to forgive on confession of wrong, and God is righteous in forgiving the penitent : " Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, 0 God, Thou God of my salvation : and my tongue shall sing aloud of Thy righteousness" (Ps. H. 14). This language is also used in the New Testament : " If we confess our sins. He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins " (1 John L 9) ; and again : " God is not unrighteous to forget your work, and the love which ye shewed toward His name " (Heb. vi. 10). There is therefore no antithesis between righteousness and grace. The exercise of grace, goodness, forgiveness may be called righteousness in God. Thus : " Answer me in Thy faithful- ness and in Thy righteousness, and enter not into judgment with Thy servant : for in Thy sight shall no man living be found righteous " (Ps. cxliii. 1). Here righteousness is opposed to entering into judgment, i.e. to the very thing which technically and dogmatically is called righteousness. When the relations of God to His people Israel are considered, the question of His righteousness becomes more complicated. There are two or three points to be noticed. First, His relation to His people internally, when the other nations of the world are not considered. Here He acts as a righteous ruler. He punishes their sin. As Isaiah (xxviii- 17) expresses it, He " makes judgment (justice) the CHASTISEMENT AND JUDGMENT 135 line and righteousness the plummet" with which He measures and estimates the people. His afflicting them may be only chastisement up to a certain point, but it may go further and become judgment, and all His judgments are done in righteousness. His being God of Israel does not invalidate the general principle of His righteous dealing with men. So far from invalidating it, it rather confirms it : " You only have I known of all the families of the earth, therefore will I visit your transgressions upon you " (Amos iii. 2). The relations of God and people are altogether moral. When, however. His chastisements pro- duce repentance. He is again righteous in returning to His people and saving them. These two principles apply to the people as a whole ; they apply also to the individuals of the people, as is seen in the case of David, when he greatly sinned and greatly repented of his sin. But, of course, the solidarity of the individuals and nation often involved those who were innocent in the national judg- ments, and this became the cause of extreme perplexity to the minds of many in later times. Second, there is the case when the other nations are drawn into His operations with His people. So far from Israel being insured against the nations because it was in name His people, the nations are represented as being used as instruments in chastising the people. And these chastisements are an illustration of God's righteousness. " The Lord of hosts shall be exalted in judgment, and God the Holy One sanctified in righteousness" (Isa. v. 16); " For though thy people Israel be as the sands of the sea, only a remnant of them shall return : a consummation is determined, a stream flooded with righteousness" (x. 22). The moral character of the nations who are used to chastise Israel does not come into account. They are mere instru- ments in God's hand : " 0 Assyrian, the rod used by Mine anger" (x. 5). And when the purpose they served was effected they were flung aside ; or when they overstepped their commission, and cherished purposes of conquest of their own, they fell themselves under God's anger, particu- 136 THE THEOLOGY OP THE OLD TESTAMENT larly when they dealt harshly with Israel, and oppressed where they were only used to chastise. So it is said to Babylon : " I was wroth with My people . . . and ga^•e them into thine hand : thou didst show them no mercy ; upon the aged hast thou very heavily laid thy yoke. Thou didst not lay such things to heart, neither didst consider the issue thereof " (Isa. xlvii. 6) ; and in Zech. God says : "I am very sore displeased with the nations that are at ease: for I was but a little displeased [with My people], and they helped forward the affliction " (i. 15). In all the earlier prophets the calamities that befall Israel are illustrations of God's righteousness. They are all absorbed in the idea of Israel's sin, and the character of the heathen nations used to chastise the people little occupies their attention. No doubt they all, especially from Isaiah downwards, have an outlook ; and the time of the nations will come, and Assyria shall be broken upon the mountains of Israel, when the Lord shall have per- formed His short work, i.e. His work of chastisement upon Jerusalem. But naturally when Israel had been long in exile the hardships they suffered at the hand of the nations were regarded as oppressive. They were so. As against the nations, Israel felt itself to be righteous : the nations were injurious and unjust. Jehovah's interposition there- fore for His people was claimed as right : it was righteous. Hence in the second part of Isaiah, Israel complains that her God has forgotten her right : " Why sayest thou, 0 Jacob, and speakest, 0 Israel, My way (i.e. what I suffer) is hid from the Lord, and my right is disregarded by my God ? " (Isa. xL 27). And in a'nother place, " They ask of Me judgments of righteousness" (Iviii. 2); and again, "There- fore is judgment far from us, neither does righteousness accrue to us " (lix. 9), i.e. they do not enjoy God's inter- position, which would be on His part righteousness. Hence, in general, God's interpositions to save His people are called His righteousness, — a way of speaking, however, which is very old, occurring in the Song of Deborah, — the righteous acts of His rule in Israel The assumption Israel's appeals to righteousness 137 underlyiug this usage is that the people as against the nations that oppressed them were in the right, and Jehovah's vindication of them was a righteous act. But this leads on to what is perhaps the most interest- ing usage of the term righteousness, whether it be of God or man ; for God's righteousness and man's come into contact or run into one another. For Israel to claim God's inter- position on their behalf because they were righteous, even as against the nations, might be thought to imply on their part a superficial conscience. Even if they were superior to the nations in morals, as no doubt they were, their sense of their own sin before God, it might be supposed, would restrain them from pleading their righteousness, which at the best was but comparative. But this was by no means their plea, as it is expressed in such a prophet as the Second Isaiah. In the last years of Judah and in the Exile Israel's religion had attained its maturity. Virtually no more growth can be observed in it. What we observe is not enlargement or addition in the religion, but its arrival at self-consciousness. From being before naive, and in- structive and unconscious in its utterances and life, it now attains to reflection on itself and the consciousness of its own meaning. The conflict of the nation with other nations, and their mixture among the peoples of the world, gave the people knowledge of the world religions, and com- pelled comparison with their own. And their own was true, the others false. They had in them the true know- ledge of the true God. It is quite possible that this conviction was an ancient one ; indeed, it is certain that it was, if, at any rate, Isa. ii. belong to that prophet. Because there the nations are represented as all exhorting one another to go up to Jerusalem to the house of the God of Jacob, that He may teach them of His ways, and that they may walk in His paths. The author of this was already conscious that his religion was the true one, and that it would become universal. But, in the age of the Exile and later, the conditions of the world and of the people caused this cousciousness 138 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT to be much more widely spread and vivid. When, there- "^fore, Israel pleads before God that it is in the right as against the nations, the meaning is not that the people are as persons or as a nation morally just or righteous. The meaning is that their cause is right. In the conflict of religions their cause is righteous. As a factor in the world, in the destinies of mankind, they have the right to which victory is due. The cause of Jehovah is con- tained within them. They possess the true knowledge of the true God, and the revolutions of the nations, the 3onflicts of opposing forces, going on then and at all times, are but the great drama, the denouement of which is the victory of Jehovah's cause, which Israel has within it. I This is what is meant when Israel is called the Servant of I the Lord — His public servant on the stage of the world to bring His purpose to fulfilment. The consciousness and * the faith of this Servant are expressed in the exquisite passage, Isa. 1. 4-9, where the Servant says: "The Lord God hath given me the tongue of disciples, that I should know how to uphold him that is weary. . . . The Lord God opened mine ear, and I was not rebellious, neither turned away backward. I gave my back to the smiters, ^ and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair. . . . For the Lord God helpeth me ; therefore I have not been confounded : therefore do I set my face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be put to shame. He is near that will justify me ; who will contend with me ? Behold, the Lord God helpeth me ; who is he that shall put me in the wrong ? Behold, they shall all wax old as a garment ; the moth shall consume them." This is the cause, the cause as wide as the world ; indeed, the world-cause, the cause of Israel against the world — in truth, Jehovah's cause. The Servant is conscious of its meaning, and his faith assures him of victory — He is near that will justify me. To give this cause victory is an act of God's righteousness. " He is near," the Servant says, " who will justify me " ; that is, the justification is imminent, close at hand. To justify is to show to be in the right. Now the idea IDEA OF JUSTIFICATION 139 prevailing in those days was that the relation of God to a man or to a people was always reflected in the outward circumstances of the man or nation. Prosperity was the token of God's favour, and adversity of His displeasure. Hence Job, speaking of a man who had been sick unto death, but was restored, says : " He prayeth unto God and He is favourable unto him : so that he seeth His face with joy ; and He restoreth unto man his righteousness " (xxxiii. 26), i.e. his restoration to health is a giving back to him his righteousness, — it is the token that he is now right before God. Similarly, when the great calamities of drought and locusts to which the people had been subjected are removed, and rain bringing fertility and plenty is again sent from heaven, it is said : " Be glad, ye children of Zion, and rejoice in the Lord your God : for He shall give you the former rain for righteous- ness" (Joel ii. 23) — '^i^1>?, i.e. in token of righteousness, right standing with God. In no other way could God's justification of the Servant be approved to the eyes of the nations or verified to the heart of the people except by the people's restoration to prosperity and felicity in their own land. Then Israel would be the righteous nation among the nations. Then would begin to operate all the redempt- ive forces within Israel, and to flow out among the peoples. Then she would be as the dew among the nations, not breaking the bruised reed nor quenching the glimmering light, till she brought forth right also to the nations — " Arise, shine ; for thy light is come. . . . And the nations shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy shining " (Isa. Ix. 1—3). Hence in the Old Testament justification has always this outer side of prosperity and restoration, at least when spoken of the people. It does not consist in this, but this is an essential element in it ; this is that wliich verifies it to the heart of the people. And this was usually the case also with the individual man. Even ordinarily the individual probably was slow to realise hia sinfulness or God's displeasure except he fell into sickness 140 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT or misfortune, and on the other hand he craved that God's favour should approve itself to him in his external life ; when his circumstances reflected it, then his heart felt it. No doubt in some instances the individual saint rose to be at least for moments independent of all that was outward. His faith and right standing before God was a self-verify- ing thing, it reflected itself in his consciousness ; and this evidence of his conscience might be so strong as to overbear any contrary evidence which men or adverse circumstances brought against him. So it is represented in Job, and so the surprising words of a psalmist over- whelmed with calamities : " Nevertheless I am continually with Thee" (Ps. Ixxiii. 23). There are two further points which may be briefly referred to in regard to the righteousness of God. The mere righteousness of God as an attribute of His nature does not require much investigation. It is to be under- • stood. But His righteousness is said of His redemptive operations. It is a strange thing that from the fall of Jerusalem onwards Israel never attained again to a con- dition of prosperity. It was not only never again an independent people, but its condition was in general greatly depressed and miserable. No doubt for about a century it was ruled by the Maccabean princes, but the period was perhaps the most barren of any age of its history. Many scholars, indeed, have found Maccabean Psalms, but it must be acknowledged that there is little certainty here. At any rate, there is absolutely no evidence that the highest hopes of the people in regard to the incoming of the perfect kingdom of God among them were ever connected with any of the Maccabean princes. It was not when prosperous, but when under the deepest afflictions, that they reached the highest thoughts of God and themselves. Their long-con- tinued calamities, the delay in the reaUsing of their hopes concerning their redemption and God's coming in His king- dom, turned their thoughts back upon themselves to find the cause of such protracted disappointment. And all the deepest problems of religion rose before them — wrath and REDEMPTIVE RIGHTEOUSNESS 141 grace, sin and forgiveness, justification and righteousness. Israel, of course, never doubted that it had within it the truth of the true God, but the brilliant hopes which this consciousness created at the period of the return from exile became greatly dimmed and faded. Even to the great prophet of the Exile, in spite of his faith, the outlook seemed often very clouded. Between Israel, the ideal servant of the Lord with a mission to the world, and the Israel of reality the contrast was almost absolute — " Who is blind, but my servant ? or deaf, as my messenger whom I send ? " (Isa. xlii. 19). Israel was unrighteous. Its salvation could not come from itself, but from an interposition of God on its behalf. All the prophets of this age — Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Second Isaiah — are at one in this. The first prophet asks in reference to his people, " Can the Ethiopian change his skin ? " (xiiL 23). Can they who are habituated to do evil do well ? And he can solve the problem only by the faith that Jehovah will yet write His law on the people's hearts. But it is only the Second Isaiah that calls this interposition of God, and His deliverance of His people, God's righteousness. In this use of it righteousness is frequently parallel to salvation : " I bring near My righteousuess, and My salvation shaU not tarry" (xlvi. 13). Only in the Lord, shall they say, is righteousness and strength : " In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified, or be righteous, and shall glory" (xlv. 24, 25). When this is called righteousness and also salvation, the two words are not quite equivalent. Salvation is rather the negative side — deliverance ; righteousness, the positive. And this includes, as was said before, the external felicity which is the guarantee to the nation's heart that it was justified or righteous. This is the outside of righteousness, indispensable, but only the outside. The inside is true righteousness of heart and life — " My people shall be all righteous" (Ix. 21); "In righteousness shalt thou be established ; thy children shall be all taught of the Lord " (liv. 1 3) ; " He hath clothed me with the garments of salva- tion. He hath covered me with the robe of righteousness " 142 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT (Ixi. 10). This righteousness is thus sometimes called the people's and sometimes God's. It is the people's because they possess it, though it has been freely given to them. There is considerable approach to New Testament phrase- ology and thought here, though this righteousness of God which He bestows upon the people is not mere forensic justification. Besides the forgiveness of sin, it includes inward righteousness of heart, and the outward felicity which reflects God's favour, and is the seal of it to the people. But why is this called God's righteousness ? Scarcely merely because He gives it. Neither can this interposition and deliverance of Israel be called righteousness because it was right to interpose in behalf of Israel, the righteous nation. This cannot well be, first, inasmuch as Jehovah brings this righteousness of His to manifestation just because Israel is utterly unrighteous. In Isa. lix. 1 2 ff. the people confess this : *' Our transgressions are multiplied before Thee, and our sins testify against us ... in transgressing and denying the Lord, and turning away from following our God, speaking oppression and revolt, conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falsehood. Yea, truth is lacking ; he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey." This is the condition of the people. And the Lord saw it, and it displeased Him that there was no judgment : " He saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was none to interpose : therefore His own arm brought salvation to Him ; and His righteousness, it upheld Him. He put on righteousness as a breastplate, and an helmet of salvation upon his head." . . . And, secondly. because this righteousness of His is given by Him not only to Israel but to the nations : " Attend, 0 My people, unto Me : for torah, teaching, shall go forth from Me, and I will make My judgment, i.e. justice or right judgment, to rest for a light of the peoples. My righteousness is near ; My salvation is gone forth, and Mine arms shall judge, i.e. justly rule, the nations ; the isles shall wait for Me, and on Mine arm shall they trust " (Isa. li. 4, 5), JEHOVAH S RIGHTEOUSNESS 143 These passages aeem to give the key to this use of the word righteousness. It is not a Divine attribute. It is a Divine effect — it is something produced in the world by God, a condition of the world produced by God, a condition of righteousness, called His not only because He produces it, but also because when it is produced men and the world will be in attributes that which He is. This righteousness of God appears to the prophet to be something in itself, something independent and eternal : " Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath : for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment : but My salvation shall be for ever, and My righteousness shall not be abolished " (Isa. li. 6), To this prophet what characterised the world was unrighteousness, violence, bloodshed, devastating wars, cruel idolatries. This, in his view, was due to the false gods which they worshipped. Only knowledge of the true God would remedy it. For this was not the will of Him who in truth created the world : " Thus saith the Lord that created the heavens — He is God ; who formed the earth and made it ; He created it not to be a wilderness. He formed it to be inhabited" (Isa. xlv. 18). And in like manner the mission of the Servant of the Lord was to " bring forth judgment to tne nations " (Isa. xlii. 1), i.e. not the true rehgion, but civil right, equity, humanity among the nations. This could only be, no doubt, by making them know the true God ; but judgment was not this knowledge, but the secondary effect of it — it was righteousness as con- duct and life. This is the thing called by the prophet Jehovah's righteousness ; it is a condition of the earth, of mankind. It is Jehovah that brings it ia ; to bring it in is the goal of all His operations, and it is the" final effect of them. It is not His own righteousness as an attribute ; though, of course, it corresponds to His own being, for " the righteous Lord loveth righteousness " (Ps. xi, 7). Only by the knowledge of Him can it be attained. When attained it is salvation : " Look unto Me, and be saved, all the ends of the earth : for I am God, and there is none else 144 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT — a righteous Grod and a Saviour" (Isa. xlL 22). The antithesis which in dogmatics we are familiar with is a righteous or just God and yet a Saviour. The Old Testa- ment puts it differently, — a righteous God, and therefore a Saviour. It is His own righteousness that causes Him to bring in righteousness. All His redemptive operations are performed in the sphere of this righteousness. Israel's first call: "I have called thee in righteousness" (Isa. xlii. 6); His raising up Cyrus : " I have raised him up in righteous- ness" (Isa. xlv. 13), and all His operations, have for their goal this condition of men and the world, and all are per- formed with a view to it. And when the great movement has reached its final goal, righteousness on earth is the issue : " Behold, I create new heavens, and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness " (Isa. Ixv. 1 7). 2. The Holiness of God. The " Holiness " of Jehovah is a very obscure subject, and the most diverse views regarding it have prevailed among Old Testament students. It is not possible to discuss these different views. I will rather set down first, in a few propositions, the results which comparison of the Old Testament passages seems to give ; and then refer to these propositions briefly by way of iUustration. The terminology is as follows : — ^IP^, to be holy ; FL, Hiph. to sanctify, hallow, con- secrate, dedicate ; ^i^P, holy, also as noun, ' Holy One ' (of Jehovah), ' saint ' of men, or ' holy ones ' of angels ; t:'ip, holy thing, holiness, thing hallowed, sanctuary, and frequently in combination, as ' holy hill,' hill of holiness, holy arm, people, cities, etc. ; ^"^i]''?, sanctuary, holy place. N'ow, with regard to this term, these things may be said — (1) The word ' to be holy ' and the adjective ' holy * had originally, like all such words, a physical sense, now completely lost, not only in Hebrew but in all the other Shemitic languages. (2) Whatever this meaning was it became applied very ORIGINAL USE OF THE TERM * HOLY * 145 early to Jehovah in Hebrew, and to the gods in Shemitic heathenism. It is so much peculiar to the gods, e.g. in Phoenician, that the gods are spoken of as the ' holy gods ' ; the term holy being a mere epitheton ornans, having no force. The same phrase occurs also in the Book of Daniel. (3) The word is applied, however, also to men and things, not as describing any quality in them, but to indicate their relation to deity. ' Holy ' said of men and things originally means merely belonging to deity, sacred. It is probable that this use of the word, though naturally also very ancient, is secondary and applied. That this sense should be ancient as well as the other is natural ; for wherever gods were believed in and worshipped there were persons and things employed in their worship, and dedicated to them, and therefore also ' holy.' (4) In its original use the term 'holy,' when applied either to God or to men, does not express a moral quahty. Of course, when applied to things it could not express a moral quality, though it might express a ceremonial quality; but in the oldest use of the word, even when applied to men, it expresses rather a relation, simply hclonging to Jehovah or the gods ; and when apphed to Jehovah it rather expresses His transcendental attributes or that which we call Godhead, as opposed to the human. (5) In use as applied to Jehovah it is a general term expressing Godhead. But, of course, ' Godhead ' was never a mere abstract conception. Some attribute or characteristic was always in the person's view which betokened Godhead. Hence the term ' holy ' is apphed to Jehovah when mani- festing any attributes which are the token of Godhead, or which men consider to be contained in Godhead ; e.g. transcendent majesty, glory, greatness, power, righteousciss, or in later prophets as Ezekiel ' sole-Godhead,' when Jehovah is spoken of. None of these attributes are synonyms of holiness strictly; they are rather elements in hoHness. But Jehovah reveals Himself as ' holy ' when He manifests any one of these attributes ; and He is lO 146 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 'sanctified' among men when they attribute to Him any of these Divine qualities ; just as, on the other hand, He is ' profaned ' or desecrated when men fail to ascribe these attributes to Him, or act in forgetfulness of them. Thus ' holy ' acquired contents, and one prophet puts in one kind of contents into it and another another. But it is important first to seize the general idea ; the development of details which the idea may contain was, no doubt, a historical process. (6) Similarly 'holy' in regard to men or things, originally expressing a relation merely, namely, the belonging to Jehovah, naturally became filled out with contents precisely parallel to the contents put into ' holy * when applied to Jehovah. Men who belonged to Jehovah must have the same character, so far as was possible to men, as Jehovah ; the same ethical character, at least, and the same purity. Things that belonged to Him must have at least that purity which things are capable of having. (7) In order to get a background for the idea of holiness and throw it into relief, the opposite ideas need to be looked at. These are bh, profane, and 7pn^ to profane, both also old words. ' Profane ' is the opposite of ' holy ' when applied to things ; and to ' profane ' is to desecrate, to take away, or at least detract from the ' holiness ' which belongs to Jehovah, or anything that being His is holy, such as His sanctuary. His name. His Sabbath, His people, and His land. Of course, words like ' sanctify ' and ' profane ' always acquire in language an extended use, less exact than their primary use. Hence writers speak of sanctifying a fast or a war, ie. a fast to Jehovah, and a war /or Jehovah, in a somewhat general sense (Joel i. 14, ii. 15, iii. 9). The heathen * profane ' Jehovah's sanctuary when they enter it, and His land when they overrun it or take possession of it. Jehovah ' profanes ' His people by casting them out of His land, and making them to appearance no more His; He • profanes ' or desecrates the prince of Tyre, a being who arrogated deity to himself, saying, " I am God, I dwell in the seat of God," when He cast him down out of his fancied ETHICAL AND CEREMONIAL USES 147 Divine seat, and gave him into the hands of Nebuchad- nezzar, the terrible one of the nations (Ezek. xxviii.). (8) The consequences of these last propositions are easily seen. On the one hand, Jehovah's presence sanctifies, because it makes to be His all around it — primarily, the house in which He dwells, which becomes a ' sanctuary ' ; then in a wider circle Zion, which becomes His * holy ' hill, and Jerusalem the ' holy city ' ; and then in the widest circle the land of Israel, which is the holy land — and His people Israel, the holy people. On the other hand, an opposite effect may be produced by the presence of that which is opposed to Jehovah, sin and impurity. The sins of Israel in their worshipping other gods than Jehovah, and worshipping Jehovah in a false manner, ' profaned ' the land, that it spued them out (Lev. xviii. 28). Much more did their sins, adhering to them, and their practices even in the Temple precincts, desecrate Jehovah's sanctuary, so that He could no more abide in it, but forsook it and gave it over to destruction; cf. Ezek. xxxvii. 28: "The heathen shall know that I the Lord do sanctify Israel, when My sanctuary shall be in the midst of them." Even Jehovah Himself may be profaned or desecrated, but particularly His holy name. Especially is it so when that reverend name 'Jehovah, the God of Israel,' is compromised in the eyes of the heathen through the calamities which befall Israel. Israel by their unfaithfulness compelled Jehovah to send severe judgments on them, and cast them out of their land. The heathen, observing this, concluded that Jehovah the God of Israel was a feeble Deity, unable to protect His people. They naturally were unable to rise to the idea that Jehovah's rule of His people might be a moral one, — they inferred at once His want of power, saying, " These are the people of Jehovah, and lo, they are gone forth out of His land." Thus Israel profaned Jehovah's holy name, caused it to be detracted from in the eyes of the nations. (9) Finally, the development of the idea of holiness may be regarded as moving on two lines, the ethical, and the eesthetic or ceremonial. The word ' holy ' while expressing 148 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT ' Godhead ' did not express this idea altogether abstractly, but always seized, on each occasion when used, upon some attribute, or connoted some attribute which betokened deity, such as majesty, or purity, or glory, and the like. In the older prophets and in the older literature outside the Law, these attributes are usually the ethical attributes; e.g. in Amos ii. 7 a man and his father go in to the same maid to " profane My holy name." This immorality on the part of those who were His people desecrated the name of their God ; it brought the name of Him who is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity, down into the region of mere nature gods like Baal, who were served by a mere following of the unrestrained natural instincts and appetites of men. Similarly, Isaiah when he beholds Jehovah, whom the seraphim unceasingly praise as ' holy,' instinctively thinks of his own uncleanness. But he uses the word ' uncleanness ' of his lips, as that through which the heart expresses itself, and in an ethical sense ; and hence when the uncleanness showing itself in his lips is consumed by a Divine fire, it is said that his iniquity is removed and his sin is forgiven (vi. 5-7). So in chap. i. 16, 17 : "Wash you, make you clean ; put away the evil of your doings from before Mine eyes ; cease to do evil ; learn to do well ; seek justice, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead the cause of the widow," — where uncleanness is again exclusively moral. This development on ethical lines can, no doubt, be traced through all the following literature. It is perhaps to be specially observed in the phrase 'holy Spirit.' Strangely this phrase, so common afterwards, occurs, as we have seen, only three times in the Old Testament, once in Ps. U., and twice in Isa. Ixiii. (10, 11). Primarily, the phrase ' holy ' merely emphasised the relation of the Spirit to Jehovah, just like ' His holy arm ' — and meant very much ' His Divine Spirit * ; but more lately it specially denoted the ethical side of Jehovah's being, or that which we now call His ' holiness.' But alongside of this ethical development there ran THE DIVINE JEALOUSY 149 unquestionably a development on another line, which is to be called aesthetic or ceremonial. There were taken up imder the idea of holy, or the reverse, a number of things and actions which to us now have no moral significance, but some of which have still sesthetic meaning, i.e. have a reference to feeling, taste, and natural instinctive liking or dishking. In this use ' holy ' becomes nearly equivalent to ' clean,' and ' unholy ' to ' unclean.' The words, however, are by no means synonymous. The clean is not holy in itself, although only that which is clean can be made holy. But as the unclean cannot be made ' holy,' unclean comes to be pretty nearly synonymous with unholy. This, how- ever, is a very obscure region. (10) There are two points which come in as appendix to these preceding points : first, the meaning of the ex- pression * Holy One of Israel,' so often used by Isaiah ; and, secondly, the meaning of what is called the jealousy (ns3p) of Jehovah. Now, in the phrase * Holy One of Israel ' the element ' of Israel ' forms no part of the idea of * holy.' The phrase * Holy One of Israel ' is exactly equivalent in con- struction to the phrase ' God of Israel ' ; so in Isa. xxix. 23, " Sanctify the Holy One of Jacob, and fear the God of Israel." The phrase ' Holy One of Israel ' means that He who is Kadosli has revealed Himself in Israel — has become the God of Israel. It is this strange twofold fact that to Ezekiel gives the clue to human history. Jehovah is the true and only God ; but He is also God of Israel ; and the nations know Him only as God of Israel. Hence in reveal- ing Himself to the nations He can only do so through Israel ; for the nations know Him only in that relation, not in His absoluteness as the true and only God, which, however, He is at the same time. For * Holy One of Israel' Ezekiel says 'Holy One in Israel' (xxxix. 7). More rarely we have 'His Holy One' (Isa. x. 17), or *my Holy One' = my God (Hab. L 12), The 'jealousy,* ^^}}>, lit. 'heat,' of Jehovah may be any heightened emotion on His part, e.g. military ardour 150 THE THEOLOGY OP THE OLD TESTAMENT (Isa. xliL 13). But when used in the sense of jealousy proper it is almost equivalent to injured self -consciousness ; it is the heightened emotion accompanying the sense of having suffered injury either in Himself or in that which belongs to Him, as His land. His people. Hence His jealousy is chiefly awakened by the worship of other gods, by want of reverence for His ' holy name,' i.e. His recog- nition as God alone, or by injury done to that which is His. A few further notes may be added illustrative of the various points referred to. First, as to the meaning of the word ' holy * and its appropriation to designate deity, or that which pertains to deity. The form ^'^\> is an adjective or a participle of a neuter verb, just like bSii, great ; 31 nn, broad ; ^'"l^', long, and numberless others. Though no more applied in a physical sense, it had originally, no doubt, such a sense. Possibly its primitive meaning was to be separated, or to be elevated, or to be loftij, or some- thing of the kind.^ Whatever exact idea it expressed, the idea was one which could be held pre-eminently to charac- terise deity or the gods as distinguished from men. It was so suitable' for this that it was almost appropriated to this use. It is certain that this was not a moral idea first, but rather some physical one ; at least we may say this is probable, because the Phoenician gods are not moral beings, and yet in Phoenician (Eshmunazar's inscription) the gods are called the ' holi/ gods.' The same expression is used several times in Daniel, e.g. iv. 8, 9, " in whom is the spirit of the holy gods " ; so v. 11, and quite parallel to this v. 14, " the spirit of the gods is in thee." Possibly the passage ii. 11 might interpret the term ' holy ' — none other can show it except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh. At all events the word contained a meaning which was felt appropriate to express the characteristic of the gods, or of Jehovah as distingushed from men. The word in its use bears a certain analogy to the ordinary word D\n^K for God. ^ On this see more at length in the article on Holiness in Hastings' Diet, of the Bible ; also Baudissin's Stvdien z. Sem. Iteligionsgeschichte ; Robertson Smith'i Heligimt. of the Semites, pp. 91, 140 ff. — Ed, IDEA OF THE TERM ' HOLY ' 151 ' The holy one,' ^hpn, is God ; a usage which went further. And the simple word B>np, without the article, was used like a proper name — " To whom then will ye liken me, saith Kadosh ? " (Isa. xl. 25). And just as the plural Eiohim is used, so the plural Kedoshim is used for God : " Surely I am more brutish than any man. ... I have not learned wisdom, nor have I the knowledge of Kedoshim " (Prov. xxx. 2); and perhaps so early as Hos. x. 12. And to this has to be added the fact that the angels are frequently called Kedoshim, just as they are named Eiohim, or Bene- Elohim, sons, i.e. members, of the Eiohim, — both epithets designating them as a class of beings in opposition to what man is. 'Holy,' therefore, was not primarily an epithet for ' god ' or ' the gods ' ; it expressed the idea of god or the gods in itself. No other epithet given to Jehovah is ever used in the same way. For example, Jehovah is righteous ; but 'the righteous one,' in the absolute or abstract sense, is a term never applied to Him — nor ' the gracious,' and the like. It^ seems clear, therefore, tha\^_Kadosh is not a word that expresses any attribute of deity, but deity itself ; though it remains obscure what the primary idea of the word was which long before the period of Kterature made it fit in the estimation of the Shemitic people to be so used. The same obscurity hangs over the commonest of all words for God. But two things, I think, are clear : first, that it was a termjdescribing the nature of Jehovah rather than His thoughts, what He was in His being or person. And, second, itjsvas therefore a word that was mainly used in connection with worship. Jehovah's holiness was felt wEen men approached Him. When they were in His pre- sence His being or nature, His personality, displayed itself ; it showed sensibility to what came near it, or it reacted against what was incongruous, or disturbing to it. Hence, perhaps, there was originally a feeling that to approach Jehovah, or to touch that which was holy, was dangerous. So Isaiah exclaims, " I am undone ; for mine eyes have seen the King " (vi. 5) ; and Uzzah, who put out his hand 152 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT to touch the holy ark, was smitten with death. This may have been the older view. In the oldest view of all, the reaction of Jehovah may, so to speak, have been physical — the creature could not come into His presence ; but in Isaiah's mind the reaction or influence of Jehovah's nature was of a moral kind. It is not quite certain whether in the Law it was thought that there was danger to the unclean person who approached Jehovah, or merely that such approach was intolerable to Jehovah. Passing over some other points that do not need further illustration, it may be remarked that the prob- ability is that the application of the term 'holy' to things is secondary. Things are called ' holy ' as belonging to deity. It might be that the name holy was applied to things, just as it was applied to deity, to express something that characterised them. If ' holy ' meant ' separated,* the things might be so called as separated and lying apart. But the term is never used in the general sense of separate or lying apart; it always signifies separated for deity, belonging to the sphere of deity. In Phoenician, just as in Hebrew, the Hiphil of the verb is used in the sense of to dedicate or consecrate to deity. All this being sufficiently plain, I may refer to the usage of the term ' holy ' as applied on the one hand to things and men, and on the other hand again to God. (a) With regard to things and men. Of course, 'Jholy ' ^r JJioliness ' said of things cannot denote a moral attribute. It can only express a relation ;~anJ the relation is, belonging to Jehovah, Tiedi'Cated to Godhead. No thing is holy of itself or by nature ; and not everything can be made holy ; only some things are suitable. But suitability to be made holy and holiness are things quite distinct. For example, only the clean among beasts could be devoted to Jehovah, and a beast so devoted is holy ; but all clean beasts were not so devoted. The ideas of ' holy ' and ' clean ' must not therefore be confused ; cleanness is only a con- dition of holiness, not holiness itself. As the unclean was, however, incapable of being made holy, the case is some- THE 'holy' and the * CLEAN ' 153 what dififerent here, and the term unclean became, as we have said, almost synonymous with unJwly, or all that was incompatible with and repugnant to the Holy One of Israel. According to the nomenclature in use, everything belonging to Jehovah, whether as His by nature or as dedicated to Him, is called holy. Thus writers speak of His holy arm, His holy Spirit, His holy word. In a wider way, the tabernacle, the place of His abode, was holy ; Zion was the holy hill ; Jerusalem, the holy city ; Israel, His holy people ; the cities of Palestine, His holy cities. All sacrifices and gifts to Him were holy things, the tithes, the first-fruits, the shewbread, the sacrifices, particularly the sin-olTering and the trespass-offering. In that which was holy there might be gradations ; the outer part of the temple was holy, the inner most holy. All flesh-offerings were holy, but the sin-offering was most holy. The meaning does not seem to be this, that these things being dedicated to God, this fact raised in the mind a certain feeling of reverence or awe for them, and then this secondary quality in them of inspiring awe was called holiness. The word^lJioly' describes the primary relation of 'hplnrt.qi/n/^ t.n Jph^vah ; and things were ' most JipJyL!_jEdiiclL..belonged exclusively or in some special way to Him. The sm-oHermg, for example, was 'partaken of exclusively by the priests, His immediate servants. It was wholly given over to Jehovah ; while the peace-offerings were in large part given back to the laity, to be used by the people in their sacrificial feasts. The idea of holiness appears in the terms in which those are described who are to be priests ; as indeed it appears quite evidently in the passage where Israel is called an 'holy' nation (Ex. xix. 6), which is parallel on the one hand to a ' kingdom of priests,' and on the other to the word ' private possession,' npjtp, Korah and his company objected to the exclusive priesthood of Aaron, saying, " Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and Jehovah is among them"; His presence makes all alike holy, Le. His. To which 154 THE THEOLOGY OP THifl OLD TESTAMENT Moses answered : " To-morrow will Jehovah show who are His, and who are holy " (Num. xvi. 5). Hence the priests are said to be holy unto Jehovah ; His special possession. The term ' holy ' applied to things, therefore, signifies that they are the possession of Jehovah. Naturally out of this idea others arose of an allied kind. That which is His, e.g., is withdrawn from the region of common things. Thus in the legislation of Ezekiel, a part of the holy land, 25,000 cubits square, the portion of the priests, is called a holy thing, and distinguished from all around, which is f)n, profane, or common — that which lies open, is accessible. Hence ' holy,' that which is peculiar to Jehovah and not common, is looked at as elevated above the ordinary. And, in Hke manner, belonging to Jehovah it is inviolable, and those who lay their hands upon it desecrate it, and Jehovah's jealousy reacts against them and destroys them. So it is said of Israel in her early time, in the beautiful passage Jer. ii. 2, 3 : "I remember of thee the kindness of thy youth . . . Israel was a holy thing of the Lord, and the first - fruits of His increase," i.e. His nearest property; all that devoured her incurred guilt. In a similar way, when ' holy ' was said of men, the term gathered a certain amount of contents into it. Though expressing originally merely the idea of dedication to Jehovah, or possession by Him, all the conceptions of that which Jehovah was naturally flowed into the term, because men dedicated to Jehovah must be fit for such a consecration, and fitness implied that they must be like Jehovah Himself — partakers of the Divine nature. Hence Isaiah (iv. 3, 4) speaks of the holy seed being the stock of a new Israel of the future ; and what ideas he expresses by ' holy seed ' appears from chap. iv. 3, in which he describes the regenerated nation of the time to come, in those last days when all nations shall pour in pilgrimage to the house of the God of Jacob: "And it shall come to pass, that he that is left in Zion, and he that remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, every one whose name is inscribed among the living in Jerusalem : 'holy' as applied to JEHOVAH 155 vfhen Jehovah shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall cleanse away the bloodshed of Jerusalem from the midst thereof." (b) A few passages may be cited in illustration of the application of the term 'holy' to Jehovah. Soli/ as applied to Jehovah is an expression that in some way describes Him as God, either generally, or on any particular side of His nature the manifestation or thought of which impresses men with the sense of His Godhead. Generally the term describes Jehovah as God. For example, in one place (Amos vi. 8), " Jehovah God hath sworn by Himself " ; in another (Amos iv. 2), " Jehovah God hath sworn by His holiness," the two phrases having virtually the same sense. Again (Hos. xi. 9), " I am God, and not man, Kadosh in the midst of thee," where Kadosh is equivalent to God and opposed to man. So in Isa. vi 3, the cry of the seraphim, " Holy, holy, holy is Jehovah of hosts," the term ' holy ' expresses the same conception as Adondi, the sovereign, or melek, the king ; it expresses the conception of Deity in the highest sense. But usually more than the mere idea of Godhead is carried in the term. That it also connotes the attributes always associated with Godhead, appears even in this passage, where the vision of Jehovah immediately suggests to the prophet the uncleanness of his lips and those of his people. Still it was not any particular side of Jehovah's Godhead, or any one special attribute, that Kadosh expressed ; Jehovah was seen to be Kadosh when He mani- fested Himself on the side of any of those attributes which constituted Godhead. Thus there may be among the prophets considerable difference in regard to the application of the term ' holy ' ; one prophet, such as Isaiah, may call Jehovah Kadosh, when His moral attributes are manifested, as His right- eousness ; another, such as Ezekiel, may consider His Godhead revealed more in the display of other attributes which are not distinctively moral, such as Hif" power. In Isa. V. 16 we have this : " Jehovah of hosts shall be exalted in judgment," and " God, the Holy One Quik- 156 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT kadosh), shall be sanctified in righteousness." The Niphal, rendered to he sanctified, means either to show one's self Kadosh, or to get recognition as Kadosh. Here then Jehovah shows Himself as Kadosh, or is recognised as Kadosh by a display of His righteous judgment upon the sinners of Israel. An exhibition of righteousness shows Him to be Kadosh. In other two passages of Isaiah Jehovah is ' sanctified * — recognised or reverenced as Kadosh — by religious fear or awe : " Fear ye not that which this people fear, nor be in dread thereof. Jehovah of hosts, Him shall ye sanctify ; and let Him be your fear, and let Him be your dread" (viii. 13); and, "They shall sanctify the Kadosh of Jacob, and shall stand in awe of the God of Israel" (xxix. 23). In Num. xx. 12 a remark- able instance of the general use of the term sanctify occurs. Jehovah says to Moses and Aaron : " Because ye believed not in Me to sanctify Me in the eyes of the children of Israel," i.e. because Moses apparently doubted the Divine power to bring water out of the rock. In Lev. x. 3, re- ferring to the profane act of Nadab and Abihu, Jehovah says : " I will be sanctified (recognised and reverenced as Kadosh) in them that come nigh Me, and before all the people I will be glorified " ; being ' glorified ' is not syn- onymous with being ' sanctified,' but it is a part of it. So Ezek. xxviii. 22: " I am against thee, 0 Zidon ; and I will be glorified in the midst of thee : and they shall know that I am Jehovah {i.e. God alone), when I have executed judg- ments in the midst of her, and I shall be sanctified in her " ; where to be ' sanctified ' or recognised as Kadosh is parallel to " they shall know that I am Jehovah," — which in Ezekiel means the only true God, and all that He is. Passages might be multiplied, especially from Ezekiel, but it is not necessary. The words holy, sanctify, and their opposites, profane and the like, are the terms usually em- ployed. It is a remarkable thing that never in Ezekiel, any more than in the Levitical law, is the term ' righteous * /•applied to Jehovah. Men are righteous, but Jehovah is Kadosh. This is particularly remarkable when the usage J£BEMIAU AND EZEKIEL 167 of Jeremiah is observed. Except in chaps. L and li, which are usually considered in their present form later than Jeremiah, that prophet does not use the word * holy ' in any of its forms in reference to Jehovah (except xxiiL 9, where he apphes it to the words of Jehovah). There are two prophets contemporary with one another differing totally in their phraseology in regard to God — Jeremiah following the example of the earlier prophets, and avoiding the phraseology of the ritual law, Ezekiel following it. The fact shows that we must be very cautious in inferring from a writer's usage of language and from his conceptions the date at which he lived. Ezekiel knows and uses all the terminology of the ritual law ; his contemporary Jeremiah avoids it as much as prophets two centuries before him, such as Amos or Isaiah. The peculiarity is due to personal idiosyncrasy and associations, and is not a criterion of date. And it is precarious, as a rule, to rely much on the argument from silence. The fact that Jeremiah has no interest in the ritual with its terminology, and ignores it, while the mind of his contemporary Ezekiel is full of it, leads us to ask whether there may not have been contemporary with the older prophets, Amos, Isaiah, etc., who ignore it, a body of persons like-minded with Ezekiel, godly men as well as ne, who cherished the same class of thoughts — in a word, a priestly class among whom the term 'holy' was used where among another class 'righteous* was employed, among whom * sin ' and all evil were conceived of under the idea of uncleanness and impurity and such-like — men, I say, as godly, and pursuing ends as holy and as truly theocratic as the prophets, but dominated by a different class of conceptions and by different ideals. To what shall we ascribe the domination of this class of ideas, and, particularly, how shall we account for the drawing of the aesthetic or ceremonial into the idea of holiness, and the strange conception — strange to us, at least — that certain creatures were obnoxious to the Deity, that certain acts perfectly innocent morally incapacitated a person for worshipping Him acceij)tftbly ? 158 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT Now, this is a large question. But, in the first place, the place of aesthetic in religion is undoubtedly ancient. It pervades antiquity, and is seen very early in Israel The priest who gave the holy bread to David and his fol- lowers insisted on knowing whether the young men were clean. Among all ancient peoples the sexual relations, the offices of nature, the giving birth to children, inferred uncleanness, and in Israel, at least, contact with death. There was something in all these things which to decency or refinement or taste was repulsive. Further, human feeling recoils in many instances from some of the lower creatures, such as the reptiles, and those designated in the wider sense vermin, such as the smaller quadrupeds. Men shrink from contact with all these creatures, and they have a feel- ing of defilement in regard to the actions just referred to. Undoubtedly this feeling, which men shared, was attributed by them also to God. Again, this gesthetic or ceremonial side of holiness was greatly promoted by the other conception that Jehovah was located in a certain place — His Temple. This created the possibility and the danger that some of these things should be brought near Him, or that men being in that state which the above mentioned acts brought them into, should come into His presence. This aesthetic or cere- monial element in holiness was thus undoubtedly an ancient element, as ancient as the notion of the existence of a place where Jehovah abode. It was essentially con- nected with the idea of worship rendered to Jehovah in a place of His abode. Once more, undoubtedly, this idea of Jehovah's being connected with a particular place was strengthened by the destruction of all the local shrines, and the confining of ritual to Jerusalem. There He was present in person. The destruction also of the local shrines destroyed all private sacrifice, and made ritual officially religious ; and the idea pervaded the minds of men more and more of being a congregation, a body of worshippers, and the question was raised as to their condition and fitness to appear before the CEREMONIAL CLEANNESS lo9 presence of Jehovah. By all these things probably the aesthetic or ceremonial was drawn more and more into the idea of holinesa The conception of ceremonial cleanness was old, as old as that of the existence of a place of worship ; and the class of conceptions would be cherished among the priestly order, and developed by them ; and as the idea of Israel's being a State was lost, and it appeared merely a worshipping community, the conceptions would gain greater ground. Thus probably the multiplication of ceremonies, defilements on the one hand and purifications on the other, may have gradually increased, until it reached the dimensions which it has attained in the ritual law.^ But one may perceive from all this that there was no distinction in the Law between moral and what we have been accustomed to call ceremonial. The idea of cere- monial, i.e. rites, such as washings, etc., which have no meaning in themselves, but are performed in order to ex- press or suggest moral ideas, has strictly no existence in the Old Testament. The offences which we call ceremonial were not symbolical, they were real offences to Jehovah, against which His nature reacted ; and the purifications from them were real purifications, and not merely sym- boHcaL That is, what might be called aesthetic or physical unholiness was held offensive to the nature of God in the real sense, in a sense as real as moral offences were offen- sive to Him ; and the purifications were true removals of these real causes of offence. This aesthetic or physical holiness is an ancient idea. But the prophets made little of it, insisting on moral holiness. On the other hand, the idea receives a great extension in the Law. And hence at the return from Captivity, when the people were no more a nation but a worshipping community, serving God who abode in a house in the midst of them, this idea of ' hoh- ness ' was the fundamental idea, both of God who was worshipped and of men who worshipped Him, and the con- * Did not purifications take place before sacrifice, even at the high plftces ! No doubt. 160 THE THEOLOGY OP THE OLD TESTAMENT ception lies at the basis of the new constitution after the Restoration. In this connection we may advert also to the point of view from which the people are regarded. In the extra- ritual books atonement is very much equivalent to forgive- ness of sin, — after Jehovah's exhibition of His righteousness by the chastisements inflicted on the people who sin, and on their acknowledging their sin and repenting. The con- ception of God is that of a moral Mind who regards sin as morally wrong, deserving of punishment, and who as a moral Ruler inflicts punishment ; though His long-suffering and mercy are ever ready to forgive. The same conception of Jehovah appears in Isa. liiL ; but there the chastisement of sin falls upon another than those whose sin is forgiven. He bears the chastisement of the sins of the people, and they are forgiven and restored. But though this be the case, God continues to be con- sidered the author of salvation. This laying of the sins of the people upon another was His act : " It pleased the Lord to bruise Him," with the view that if He made an offering for sin, the work of the Lord should prosper by Him. This is the view in the Law and Ezekiel. It re- appears in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Perhaps this view of God and of atonement is that expressed in St. Paul's Epistles. There is, however, another view of God in the Old Testament. He is not regarded so much in the character of a righteous ruler as in that of a sensitive being or nature which reacts against sin. Sin, however, is conceived as uncleanness. In this view Jehovah is called holy, and atonement is removal from men of aU uncleanness disturb- ing to Jehovah's natura 3. The Natural Attributes, When the prophets speak of Jehovah as God alone, they also state in many ways what His attributes are. Not that they ever speak of the atlributes of Jehovah THE ATTRIBUTES IN LATER PROPHECY 161 abstractly or as separated from Himself. They speak of a great, living person who shows all the attributes of moral Being. Jehovah, who is God alone, is a transcendent moral_gerson. He is such a person as we are ourselves ; His characteristics do not differ from om's, except that they exceed ours. To say that Jehovah is a transcendent moral person, is to express the whole doctrine of God ; for that which is moral includes mercy and love and com- passion and goodness, with all that these lead to, not less than rectitude and justice. What needs to be said on this subject may be best said by looking specially at the representations given in Second Isaiah. In the first nine chapters of the prophecy, in which the prophet, in order to sustain the faith of Israel and the hope of deliverance, enlarges upon the antithesis between Jehovah and the idols, it is mainly what have been called the natural attributes of Jehovah that he dwells upon, such as His power, His foresight and omni- science, the unsearchableness of His understanding or mind, and the like. But in the succeeding chapters, where not the opposition between Jehovah and the idols and idol-worship- ping nations is dwelt upon, but the relations of Jehovah to His people Israel, it is naturally chiefly the redemptive attributes of Jehovah that become prominent. His love, as in calling the people and redeeming them of old ; His memories of Abraham His friend ; His compassion when He beholds the miseries of the people, and remembers former times before they were cast off, as a wife of youth, who had been rejected, is remembered ; or His mercy in restraining His anger in pity of their frailty : " He will not be always wroth ; for the spirits would fail before Him, and the souls which He has made " ; or the freedom of His grace in blotting out their sins for His name's sake: "I am He that blotteth out thy transgressions for Mine own sake, and I will not remember thy sins " (xliii. 25). In these chapters, especially from the forty-ninth on- wards, the prophet descends to a depth of feeling, in two II 162 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT directions, to which no other prophet reaches — first, in his feeling of the love of Jehovah for His people. He becomes, as we might say, immersed in this love, placing himself in the very Divine mind itself, and expressing all its emotions, its tender memories of former union, its regrets over the too great severity of the chastisement to which the people had been subjected. She has "received of the Lord's hand double for all her sin " (xl. 2) ; " In an overflow of anger I hid My face from thee " (liv. 8). He tells of returning love, and the importunity with which it desires to retrieve the past : " Comfort ye, comfort ye My people : speak to the heart of Jerusalem" (xl. 1,2); and makes the announcement of the unchangeableness of His love for the time to come : " This is the waters of Noah unto Me : as I have sworn that the waters of Noah shall no more overwhelm the earth, so have I sworn that I will no more be angry with thee "(liv. 9). And in another direction the depth of the prophet's feeling is without parallel — his sense of the people's sin. It is no doubt the unexampled sufferings of the people, especially the godly among them, that mainly suggested to him the depth of their sin. It is usually held that it was the Law that gave Israel its deep sense of sin. The Law was, no doubt, fitted to suggest to men the exceeding breadth of God's commandments, and the inability of man to fulfil them, and thus to lead them to feel that they must cast themselves upon the grace of God. Yet, historically, it is probable that this educational influence of the Law began later than the prophetic age. At whatever time the Law, as we understand it, was actually given, it certainly did not draw the people's life as a whole under its control till after the restoration from the Exile. So that as a matter of history the sense of sin was impressed upon the people by their experiences. Their sufferings were Jehovah's chas- tisement of them, they were due to His anger. And they measured His anger by the terribleness of their calamities ; and their sin they estimated according to the terribleness of His anger. It is in the sections where the sufferings of THE NATURAL ATTRIBUTES 16S the Servant are touched upon that the prophet's sense of the people's sin most clearly appears. But it is proper to refer to some of those attributes of Jehovah usually called natural. These may be dealt with very briefly. First, His power. In Isa. xl. the prophet, in order to comfort the people and assure them of Jehovah's ability to redeem them out of the hand of their enemies, presents before them His might as Creator — His immeasur- able power. He measured in the hollow of His hand the oceans. The nations to Him are as a ' drop of a bucket,' and as ' the small dust upon the balance ' — inappreciable. So great is He that to make a sacrifice to Him that would be appreciable ' Lebanon would not suffice ' for the wood, nor all the beasts there for an offering. All nations are from His point of view nothing ; in a word, His greatness is such that no comparison can be instituted between Him and aught else ; He and the universe are incommensurable. As an instance of His power in nature good for all, the prophet points to the motions of the starry heavens : " Who created these, bringing out their host by number ? He calls every one by name, for the greatness of His power not one faileth." He is the Lord of hosts, calling out Plis armies on their nightly parade, and not one fails to answer His call. This is physical power. But His mental power is equally immeasurable : " Who regulated or directed His mind in creating ? " the prophet asks, " who was His counsellor ? " The infinite masses of the universe are there by His wisdom in their just proportions : " He weighed the mountains in His scales." He is an everlast- ing God ; the sources of His life and power well up eternally fresh ; He fainteth not, neither is weary ; there is no searching into His understanding. And it is not only that He possesses this power ; -He maj^e observed continually wielding it in history. He sits upon the circle of the heavens overarching the earth, and the " inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers " ; and He " bringeth princes to nmight," withering up, as the hot wind of the desert does the vegetation, the most powerful com- 164 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT binations of men in armies and in empires, and scattering them as dust abroad ; dissolving kingdoms and States, and causing their elements to enter into new combinations (xl. 22). And not only in the past does He so act, but in the present He raises up Cyrus from the East, making him come upon rulers as upon mortar, and as the potter treadeth clay (xli. 25); subduing nations before Him, breaking in pieces the doors of brass, and cutting asunder the bars of iron (xlv. 1, 2). And this is no mere sporadic exhibition of power, no inbreak merely into history ; for He dominates all history and the life of mankind upon the earth ; He calleth the generations from the beginning, each to come upon the stage of life, and when its part is played to depart (xli. 4). His sovereignty over nature and men and the nations is absolute and universal, and He makes all serve His ends. J[lvernature His sovereignty is beautifully expressed in the passage where, making all things to help the restoration of His people, He says : " I will make all My mountains a way, and all My highways shall be paved" (xlix. 11); "I will say to the north. Give up ; and to the south. Keep not back : bring My sons from far, and My daughters from the ends of the earth " (xliii. 6). His sovereignty over men, over His people, in like manner is expressed in the passage : " Woe to him that strive th with his Maker ! Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it. What makest thou ? or thy work. He hath no hands ? " (xlv. 9). And in chap. Iv. 8 : " My thoughts are not as your thoughts." And not only over men or His people, but over the nations: "I will give Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Sheba instead of thee " (xliii. 3). But the further multiplication of passages is unneces- sary. There are three names used by the prophet under which these various conceptions of Jehovah might all be summed up. These are : {a) Kadosh, K'inj?, the * Holy One,' as we might say, the transcendent, (b) nisay \ Jehovah of Hosts, the omnipotent. And (c) liinx^ W^\ the first and the last. The expression * Holy One of Israel * is common to these 'the first and the last' 165 chapters with the first part of Isaiah ; in these chapters, however, the simple tJ'i'iP is used even without the article as a proper name : " To whom then will ye Hken Me ? saith Kadosh" (xl. 25). The word is derived from a root np meaning to cut, or cut off; hence the meaning of K'iii?, as we have seen, is possibly separate, removed. As applied to Jehovah it comes nearest our term transcendent. It signifies Jehovah as removed from the sphere of the human or earthly. Naturally, though this removal might first of all apply, so to speak, to Jehovah in His physical nature, so far as usage goes, it is employed mainly of His moral nature. But of the first of these three names enough has been said already. The second, the phrase * Jehovah of hosts,' or 'Jehovah, God of hosts,' was probably first used in connection with the armies of Israel. But later, the hosts were understood of the stars ; and the commanding of these, and causing them to perform their regular movements, was held the highest conceivable exercise of power. Hence ' Jehovah of hosts ' is nearly our Almighty or omnipotent, as the Septuagint in some parts renders it iravroKpdrcop. The third expression, 'the first and the last' (Isa. xhv. 6), is a surprising generalisation for a comparatively early time. It is not a mere statement that Jehovah was from the beginning and will be at the end. It__is_ a name indicating His relation to history and the life of men. He initiates it, and He winds it up. And He is present in all its movements : " Since it was, there am I " (xlviii. 16). Even the last book of the New Testament has nothing loftier to say of Jehovah than that He is ' the first and the last ' : " I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, saith the Lord, the Almighty " (Eev. i. 8). The prophet's doctrine of Jehovah on this side of His Being is very lofty and developed, more so than is seen in any other book except Job ; and most writers are inclined to conclude from this highly advanced doctrine of God that the prophecies cannot be earlier than the time of the Exile. The unity of God and the universaUty of His power and 166 THE THEOLOGY OP THE OLD TESTAMENT rule are inferred from His being Creator : ** Thus saith the Lord, who created the heavens, He is God" (xlv. 18). It is to be remarked, however, that the prophet's interests were never abstract or merely theoretical. All his ex- hibitions of the unity or power or foresight of Jehovah have a practical end in view, namely, to comfort the people of God amidst their afflictions, to sustain their faith and their hopes, and to awaken them to those efforts on their own part, that forsaking of their sin and their own thoughts, which are needful to secure their salvation. " Why, when I am come, is there no man ? when I call, is there none that answereth ? Is My arm shortened, that it cannot save ? Behold, by My rebuke I dry up the sea, I cover the heavens with blackness" (1. 2), Thus all the teaching of the prophet regarding Jehovah and regarding the people is strictly religious. When he insists on the unity of Jehovah, it is not the unity as a mere abstract truth about God, but as the very basis and condition of salvation for Israel and all men. And the same is true in regard to all the attributes of Jehovah which he touches upon, and all the operations which he represents Him as performing. His whole interest is summed up in such words as these which the Lord speaks through him : " There is no God besides Me, no Saviour." To mention one or two particulars ; (1) Even creation is a moral work, or has a moral purpose. In it Jehovah contemplated the peace and well- being of men. " Thus saith the Lord who created the heavens ; He is God, who formed the earth : He created it not a chaos. He formed it to be inhabited " (xlv. 1 8). The world is a moral constitution. The devastations introduced by wars, the miseries of men due to idolatry, with its pride and cruelty and inhumanity, are perversions of His primary conception in creation. This idea of the universality of Jehovah's sovereignty — which the prophet expresses so often by calling Him Creator — compels him to take into account not only Israel, but all mankind in his view. Jehovah, God alone, is God of all men. Hence He is the Jehovah's universal sovereignty 167 Saviour not of Israel only, but of all men. Earlier prophets, such as Isaiah in his second chapter, in the prophecy of the ' mountain of the Lord,' to which all nations shall go up that Jehovah may teach them of His ways, and that they may walk in His, paths, already teach that the Gentiles shall be partakers with Israel of the knowledge of the true God. But the present prophet has a much securer hold of the truth, or at least expresses it much more formally : " The Servant of the Lord shall bring forth right to the nations ; they shall wait on his instruction " (xlii. 1-4) ; " He shall be the light of the Gentiles" (xUi. 9, xlix. 9); "The nations shall come to Israel's light, and kings to the brightness of her rising" (Ix. 1);' "Jehovah's arms shall rule the nations " (li. 5). (2) As in creation Jehovah contemplated men's good and salvation, so all His operations, all the exhibitions of His power and foresight, have the same end in view. All His operations on nature, for instance, when He trans- figures it and makes the desert pools of water, are for the sake of His people : " The poor and needy are seeking water, and there is none, and their tongue faileth for thirst ; I will open rivers on the bare heights, I will make the wilderness a pool of water " (xli. 17, 18) ; "Behold, I wiU do a new thing, I will give waters in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert, to give drink to My people, Mine elect " (xliii. 20). And that all things form a unity, and that it is in salvation that their unity and their good are realised, appears from the jubilations which the prophet puts into the mouth of universal creation, men and nature, when he refers to the salvation of God. Thus, when Jehovah announces that He will not give His glory to another, nor His praise to graven images, but that His Servant shall be the light of the Gentiles, the prophet makes all mankind break into song over the announcement : " Sing unto the Lord a new song, and His praise from the ends of the earth, ye that go down into the sea ; the isles, and the inhabitants thereof. Let the wilderness and the cities thereof lift up their voice ... let them shout from the 168 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT top of the mountains'* (xlii. 10). And so all nature is to burst into singing over the redemption of Israel, because that is the first step towards the evangelising of the world : " Sing, 0 ye heavens, for the Lord hath done it ; shout, ye lower parts of the earth ... for the Lord hath redeemed Jacob, and will glorify Himself in Israel " (xliv. 23 ; of. xlv. 8, xlix. 13). (3) And it is not only Jehovah's operations on nature which have salvation in view, but also all His operations on the stage of history ; such, for example, as His raising up of Cyrus. This great act of providential history con- templates the widest scope. It has, no doubt, narrower objects in view, but even these narrower purposes look towards a universal one. Jehovah raises up Cyrus, first, that Cyrus may know Him: " That thou may est know that I am the Lord " ; secondly, that His servant Jacob may be set free : " For My servant Jacob's sake, and Israel My chosen, I have called thee by thy name " ; but, thirdly, these two are but steps in the direction of the universal object in view : " That men may know from the rising of the sun, and from its going down, that there is none besides Me. I am the Lord, and there is none else " (xlv. 1-7). And the same idea is expressed in the name ' First and Last* given to Jehovah. He has a purpose from the beginning, which He brings to completion ; and this is none other than that they may " look unto Him and be saved, all the ends of the earth " (xlv. 22). And the same is the meaning when it is said so often that Jehovah is perform- ing some great act in * righteousness,' as when He says of Cyrus: " I have raised him up in righteousness" (xlv. 13). (4) And corresponding to this exclusively religious con- ception of Jehovah, all whose attributes and operations are conceived as working to one end, is the prophet's conception of the people Israel. Though he still holds fast to the idea of the people or nation, as all the prophets operate with nations, the religious unit being to them the people, not the individual ; — though he still retains this conception, his idea of Israel and its meaning is a purely rehgious one. REDEMPTIVE ATTRIBUTES 169 This he expresses by calling Israel the Servant of the Lord. All other conceptions of the people have been dropped, and its sole significance is as a religious unity, serving the Lord as His people, and in a public mission to the world on His behalf. Though Israel remains a people, the prophet's conception of it is that of a ChurclL And that which makes Israel the ' Servant of the Lord ' is that He has put His word into its mouth ; Israel is the prophet of the world. In earlier writings the antithesis was between the individual prophet and the people of Israel. The individual prophet was the servant of the Lord sent to the people of Israel. Now the antithesis is a wider one. The universal- ism of the prophet's conception of Jehovah compels him to formulate Jehovah's relations to all nations, and he expresses his conception of this by saying that Israel is the Servant of the Lord, His messenger and prophet to mankind. Israel is the Lord's Servant, because Israel is the word of the Lord incarnate ; and the greatness of the scope which Jehovah had in view in putting His word into Israel's mouth is expressed in tlie words : " I have put My words in thy mouth, that I may plant the heavens and lay the founda- tions of the earth {i.e. the new heavens and the new earth), and say unto Zion, Thou art My people" (li. 16). The prophet's redemptive or religious conception of Israel exhausts Israel. This appears in the remarkable passage in chap. Ixi,, where Israel's relation to the nations in the new world is described : " Strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, and aliens shall be your plowmen and vine- dressers. But ye shall be named the priests of the Lord ; men shall caU you the ministers of our God" (bci. 5). 4. The Redemptive Attributes. These general remarks lead us to refer more parti- cularly to those of Jehovah's attributes that are usually ''^Ued redemptive. It is unnecessary to dwell on these : the mention of one or two things will suffice. There is one preliminary point, however, on which a remark may be made. 170 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT The prophet's statements are concrete and not general He speaks of Jehovah as Eedeemer mainly in relation to Israel Israel was then His people, and no other was. His redemptive attributes therefore are manifested in His relation to Israel To interpret the prophet rightly this must always be kept in mind. Yet now when the Church or people of God has a wider sense, and belongs to all mankind, we are, no doubt, entitled to apply to this universal Church that which this prophet says of Israel, the Church in his day. Though he regards Jehovah's purpose of salvation as universal, embracing the nations, he does not represent Jehovah as loving the nations, or choosing them, or redeeming them. The Lord does not use those terms regarding them which He uses regarding Israel Jehovah has compassion on their miseries ; He sees that the flame of life burns low in them, and His Servant in bringing forth right to them will deal gently with them, and quicken and heal their decaying strength : " The bruised reed He will not break, and the dimly burning flame He will not quench " (xlii. 3). (a) First, then, Jehovah loved Israel This is not a common expression ; it occurs, however, several times, as in xliii. 4 : " Since thou hast been precious in My sight . . . and I have loved thee." And Abraham is called the friend or lover of God (xll 8). The word 3ns is not much used by the prophets of Jehovah's mind towards His people. But there is another word, namely, nDn, which we render by ' loving-kindness.' This is oftener employed, as, e.g., in the beautiful passage : " I will make mention of the loving- kindness of the Lord, and the great goodness which He bestowed on the house of Israel, according to His mercies and according to the multitude of His loving-kindnesses " (Ixiii. 7). And this word really expresses the idea of love. Again : " In an overflow of wrath I hid My face from thee for a moment, but with everlasting love will I have mercy upon thee" (liv. 8). This love of Jehovah to Israel is entirely inexplicable. It was certainly not due to any loveliness on Israel's part, for Israel has been a " ti^^s- LOVE AND E!LE(JTION 171 gressor from the womb " (xlviii. 8), and her " first father sinned against the Lord" (xliii. 27). The prophet might seem to give an explanation when Jehovah addresses Israel as " the seed of Abraham my friend " (xli. 8). Israel is " beloved for the father's sake." But this only thrusts the difficulty a step back, for His love of Abraham himself cannot be explained : " Look unto Abraham your father ... for when he was but one I called him, and blessed him, and made him many " (U. 2). Jehovah's love is free, and we cannot explain it. We can see, indeed, why He should love some one people, and enter into relations of redemption with them, and deposit His grace and truth among them ; but we cannot see why one and not another. It helps us, however, somewhat if we perceive that His choice of one was only temporary, and for the purpose of extending His grace unto all. And we are assured that His love is not arbitrary, nor a mere uncalculating passion ; but, seeing it is said that God is love. His love is the highest expression of His ethical being, the synthesis and focus of all His moral attributes. (h) He chose or elected Israel. It is difficult to say whether this choice follows God's love, or is contempor- aneous with it, or is but another way of expressing it. The choice or election of Israel is one of the most common thoughts of the prophet : " But thou, Israel, My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen " (xli. 8), and a multitude of other places. The familiarity of the idea to this prophet is remarkable when the other fact is taken into account that the idea finds expression in no ancient prophet. It occurs in a single passage of Jeremiah (xxxiii 24), and also once in Ezekiel (xx. 5), and in some passages in Deuteronomy. Otherwise, it occurs only in late psalms, such as Ps. cv. and cvi. The reason why this prophet insists upon Israel's election so much is easily perceived. It is part of the * comfort ' which he is charged to address to the people. Israel seemed dissolving away imder the wearing forces of the time. It was dispersed among all peoples, itself no more a people. In its despondency it 172 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT could only complain : " Jehovah hath forsaken me, and the Lord hath forgotten me." To which Jehovah answers: " Can a woman forget her sucking child ? . . . I have graven thee upon the palms of My hands ; I have chosen thee, and not cast thee ofiF" (xlix. 15, 16), (c) This choice realises itself in calling, or, as it is otherwise expressed, in creation or redemption. " I called thee from the ends of the earth," — which probably refers to Egypt, as the prophet, in all probability, wrote in Babylon (xli. 8, 9). And to this same event, namely, the Exodus, the terms create and redeem usually refer. Jehovah is called the Creator of Israel, because He brought Israel into existence as a people of the Exodus ; and for the same reason He is called the Redeemer of Israel. No doubt the term ' Redeemer ' is more general. It expresses a constant relation which Jehovah bears to His people — a relation illustrated in the Exodus, and to be again illustrated in the deliverance from Babylon : " Say ye. The Lord hath redeemed His servant Jacob" (xlviii. 20). {d) A characteristic of this love of Jehovah to Hia people is its unchangeahleness : " Can a woman forget . . . the son of her womb ? Yea, they may forget, yet I will not forget thee" (xlix. 15); and many similar passages. The flow of this love may be interrupted for a small moment by an access of anger ; yet it but returns again to its channel to run in an everlasting current : " For a small moment have I hid My face from thee ; but with everlasting love will I have mercy upon thee " (liv. 8). Indeed, the inter- ruption was but apparent. There was no real separation between the Lord and His people : " Where is your mother's bill of divorcement, with which I sent her away ? " (1. 1). («) There is another affection of Jehovah towards Hia people which is but a complexion or aspect of His love — His compassion. This is love modified by some other element, chiefly the wretchedness of those loved. Thus in the beautiful passage, " In all their affliction He was afflicted, and the angel of His presence saved them : in His love and in His pity He redeemed them ; and He bare god's grace 17i them, and carried them all the days of old " (IxiiL 9) ; and in the similar passage chap. xlvi. 3 : " Hearken unto me, 0 house of Jacob . . . which have been carried from the womb : and even to old age I am He ; and even to hoar hairs will I carry you." And His anger is kindled against Babylon for its severe treatment of His people : " I was wroth with My people, and gave them into thine hand . . . thou didst show them no mercy ; upon the aged hast thou very heavily laid thy yoke . . . therefore, these two things shall come upon thee in one day : the loss of children and widowhood " (xlvii. 6, 9), Most frequently the compassion of Jehovah arises when He chastises His people, or it awakens in His breast to arrest His chastening hand : " I will not be always wroth : for the spirits would fail before me, and the souls which I have made " (Ivii. 16). (/) There is one thing else to notice. That the salvation of Israel is of the free grace of God is consistently taught, e.g., in the declaration, " Thou hast wearied ]\Ie with thy sins. I, even I, am He that blotteth out thy trans- gressions for Mine own sake ; and I will not remember thy sins" (xliii. 24, 25); and in many other passages. In one passage, however, there is an idea introduced which deserves attention. It is there said, " For My name's sake do I defer Mine anger, and for My praise do I refrain from thee, that 1 cut thee not off: for how should My name be profaned ? and My glory will I not give to another" (xlviii. 9, 11). Here the idea seems expressed that Jehovah's motive for saving Israel is lest His name should be profaned — that is, lest His power to save and His glory as God should be little esteemed, probably among the nations. This shade of idea seems to occur first in Ezekiel, in whom it is very common. There the motive of salvation is not found in the condition of those saved, nor in the love, or mercy, or good- ness of God, but in the respect which He has to His own glory or name — as we might almost say. His reputation. Now, no doubt, God must be conceived as Himself the end of all His operations ; as all things are by Him, so all things are unto Him. The idea, however, is one which 174 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT requires to be very carefully expressed. Otherwise, we may be in danger of introducing a certain egoism into our conception of God which would be fatal to it. When Moses asked to see Jehovah's glory. He replied that He would " make all His goodness to pass before him " ; and He proclaimed His name, " The Lord merciful and gracious " (Ex. xxxiv. 6). The glory of God is His goodness, and His goodness is His blessedness. He is glorified, therefore, not when His goodness is revealed to men, and they admire or praise it ; for that would still involve a certain egoism. He is glorified when by revealing His goodness He attracts men unto Himself, and His own goodness is reproduced in them, and they are created anew in His image ; for to be this is blessedness. Finally, when it is said that salvation is of God's free grace, this does not exclude atonement for sin, such as that rendered by the Servant of the Lord. For this comes in as the instrument of God's grace : " It pleased the Lord to bruise him; He put him to grief" (Isa. liii. 10). These points are all mere commonplaces of Christian doctrine. But it is of interest to see that they are here already in the Old Testament — at all events six hundred years before the Christian age. Christianity brought some- thing absolutely new into the world, but much that it embraces was already prepared for it. When we consider the very lofty and highly-developed doctrine of God found in this prophet, it is somewhat sur- prising to find him moret ddicted to the use of anthropo- morphisms than any other prophet. This is, no doubt, due to his highly imaginative mind, and the strength of his religious fervour. 6. God^s Relations to Nature and to Men. Much more might be said in this connection of God'a relations to nature and to men. With respect to the former. He is always represented as the Maker of all things, heavens and eaith, and all creatures; and on the highest RELATION TO NATURE 175 scale He commands nature, sending a flood upon the sinful world, opening the windows of heaven above, and breaking up the fountains of the great deep beneath ; overthrowing the cities of the plain by a convulsion of nature ; making the stars in their courses to fight against Sisera. All earthly forces are obedient to Him. He caused the east wind to blow and roll back the sea that His people might pass through ; and at His word the sea returned and over- whelmed the Egyptians. The plagues were brought by Him on the land of Egypt and on the royal house. For the idolatry of Israel under Ahab and Jezebel, He scourged the land with drought three and a half years ; and when Elijah prayed earnestly with his head between his knees, He gave rain. Perhaps the two greatest wonders of Deity to the ancient mind were that He set bounds to the sea, and that He gave rain. So Jeremiah saj's : " Let us now fear the Lord our God, that giveth rain, both the former and the latter, in his season " (v. 24) ; and again : " Are there any among the vanities of the heathen that can cause rain ? ... Is it not Thou, 0 Lord God ? " (xiv. 22). In punishment of Saul's attempt to exterminate the Gibeonites, in defiance of the solemn oath by which Israel, under Joshua, had bound itself to spare their lives (Josh, ix.). He sent a drought and a famine, which were only alleviated when expiation was made for the blood which Saul had shed. And to chastise the pride of David in numbering the people, He devastated the people with a pestilence (2 Sam. xxiv.). In all these cases His rule of nature, although absolute, appears to be for moral ends, as in the instances of the Flood and Sodom. With respect to God's relation to men — nations and individuals — in the early period of the Old Testament history, Israel had not yet entered greatly into connection with the nations. The definite teaching of Scripture in regard to Jehovah's rule of the nations, therefore, first appears in the Prophets, when the great Assyrian and Babylonian empires came upon the scene of the world's history, l^ut Lhe concepliou of Jeliovah'e relation to the 176 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT natious is the same in the early history as in the ProphelS; although it is not so broadly expressed. He showed His power over Egypt when He brought Israel out with a high hand and an outstretched arm ; when He laid on Egypt the terrible stroke of the death of the firstborn, and over- whelmed its army in the sea. He declared war for ever against Amalek, and gave Israel the victory over that power. And that the victory was of Him, was shown by the symbol, that when the hands of Moses, uplifted in prayer, became relaxed and hung down, Amalek prevailed, and when they were held up Israel prevailed. The view is everywhere expressed that Israel's victories over the Canaanites were due to Jehovah. There is a point of great interest here, however, in regard to the conception of the Lord in the early histories namely, the representation of Jehovah as predetermining and revealing all these dispositions of His in regard to the nations long before they actually occurred. To Abraham and to his seed He promised by covenant the land of Canaan. The territories of Moab and Ammon He assigned to them ; and Israel's conflicts with Edom and victory over it were foreshadowed in the struggles of the two children, Jacob and Esau, before their birth. Now, most modern writers regard all this as just the actual situation which history brought about reflected back upon a much earlier time. Jacob and Esau were never children ; they are brothers, because kindred peoples. Their struggles before birth, and the prediction that the elder should serve the younger, reflect the history of David's time. Edom or Esau was the elder, because he found a settled abode earlier than Israel Jacob robbed his brother of the birth- right— meaning, in other words, that Israel inherited the good land of Canaan, while Edom had his portion in the stony desert And the promise to Abraham of the land of Canaan is a reflection of the actual possession of Canaan by Israel, Abraham being their greatest, and, above all, their spiritual, ancestor. How much truth there may be in these representations I do not stop here to discusa There PURPOSE AND REVELATION 177 may be some in regard to Jacob and Esau. This, how- ever, is a question bj itself. The point deserving of notice is that in the age when these histories were written these conceptions of Jehovah prevailed. He was a God who saw the end from the beginning, who purposed and, though He long delayed, eventually executed His purposes. In Gen. XV. Jehovah is represented as making a covenant with Abraham, promising that the land of Canaan should be his, and that in him all the famihes of the earth should be blessed. The two essential things in a covenant are, Jirst, the disposition or engagement on the part of God to do some act of goodness or grace to men ; and, secorid, His making this purpose known to men. This revelation of His purpose of goodness is necessary, because it can only be carried out through the intelligent and spiritual co-opera- tion of men. The covenants are momenta in the religious history of man ; and as this history is a redemptive history, they are momenta in man's redemptive history. This being so, they are more than successive steps in the revelation of a purpose ; they are momenta in the history of God's redemptive indwelling among men, and His entrance into their life. Now, undoubtedly, when the narrative in Gen. XV. was written this idea was current in Israel of an engagement on the part of Jehovah to give Canaan to Israel as his abode, and to bless all nations through him. Is it anything incredible that this should have been revealed to Abraham ? Amos says : " Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but He reveals His secret unto His servants the prophets " (iii. 7). The characteristic of the Israelitish mind was an outlook into the future. In Isa. xli. prophecy, even prediction, is regarded as an essential in redemptive history. Jehovah is ' the first and the last.' He is conscious of His own purposes. But it is His indwelling in Israel that causes Him to declare them. Because they concern Israel, and because Israel, His servant, must co-operate towards their fulfilment, they must be made known to him. Was the case different with Abraham ? If he was anything like that character which la 178 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT these early histories describe him to have been, nothing would seem more natural than that he should be made to know what the goal was to be to which his history looked. One can scarcely explain how Israel came to direct its atttention to Canaan when it escaped from Egypt, unless it had some tradition of its destiny alive in it. More interesting than Israel's views of the way in which Jehovah judged and ruled the nation, and approved Himself its God, whether in giving it victory over its enemies, or in visiting its sins upon it, are those indica- tions that are given of how Jehovah's relations to individuals were thought of. The truth that God's covenant at Sinai was made with Israel as a people, and that the prophets deal mainly with the State and its destinies, rarely with individuals, and of these mainly with the ruling classes, obscures, for the time being, the question of Jehovah's relation to individual persons. Indeed, it has been asserted that down to the time of the prophet Amos, no individual mind in Israel was conscious of a personal relation to Jehovah. This is serious exaggeration. From the nature of the case less is said of such relations than we might wish. But enough is said to enable us to see that the thought of Jehovah entered into every circum- stance of the people's life. That Jehovah is conscious of the meaning of the individual is sufficiently plain. He calls Moses by name, i.e. He conceives his meaning as a person and a servant. He chooses David, calling him from the sheep-cotes, and finds him a man after His own heart. He loves Solomon. It is, however, in certain relations of life that the feeling reveals itself how intimately Jehovah is connected with the life of men, and enters into it. Such relations are those, e.g., of family life. It is when children are born into the world that the pious feelings of parents are most strongly evoked and expressed. So the names of most children are com- pounded of the Divine name. Thankfulness is expressed, and the child is accepted as a Divine gift, and is called, e.g. Jonatlian = " Jehovah has given," etc. ; or some hope GUARDIAN OF THE COVENANT 179 is expressed which God will grant ; or some happy omen is seized indicative of God's purpose with regard to the child. The story of the naming of Jacob's children in Padan-Aram is full of indications how closely men and women felt Jehovah to be bound up with their history. And there is perhaps nothing more striking in Israel's history than this — that it is chiefly a history of great individuals — Abraham, Moses, Elijah, David, etc One other point, illustrating how Jehovah entered into the life of men, may be mentioned. That is, the making of contracts or covenants. Into these Jehovah is repre- sented as entering as a third party — the Guardian of the contract. Men mutually swore by Him. Or they offered a sacrifice, of which part was given to Him, while the rest was eaten together by the contracting parties ; and so all three were drawn into the bond, and bound by it. When Laban left his daughters to Jacob in Gilead, they made a covenant, raising a cairn in witness of it ; and Laban on parting said ; " The Lord watch between me and thee when we are absent from one another" (Gen. xxxi. 49). "God is witness betwixt me and thee." So Sarah, when enraged by Hagar, her maid, said to her husband : " The Lord judge between me and thee" (Gen. xvi 5). The Lord everywhere upholds right. Sometimes it seems that the conception held of Jehovah was very severe, and sometimes His action seemed to show great jealousy of any familiarity with anything specially His or holy, as when He struck down Uzzah for putting his hand to the ark to uphold it when it tottered (2 Sam. vi. 6, 7), and slew seventy men of Bethshemesh for looking into the ark (1 Sam. vi. 19). Yet His pious servants show the profoundest humility before Jehovah and submission to His will. When Eli heard from Samuel that his house was doomed to forfeit the priesthood and perish, he said : " It is Jehovah, let Him do what seemeth good " (1 Sam. iii. 18). When David fled before Absalom, and was cursed by Shimei, whom his servants wished to be allowed to slay, he said : " Let hira curse : for the Lord hath said unto him Curse David " 180 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT (2 Sam. xvL 10). And it is in these histories that the Lord proclaims His name : " The Lord God, merciful and gracious, forgiving iniquity and sin," pardoning the sin of David in the matter of Uriah (2 Sam. xii. 17), and graciously granting the prayer of the afflicted Hannah at Shiloh (1 Sam. i 10, 17). My impression is that even in the most ancient passages of the Old Testament essentially the same thought of Jehovah is to be found as appears in the Prophets and the later literature. The doctrine of Jehovah receives few developments during the course of the Old Testament period. It is stated more broadly in the later books, but in the oldest writings the germs of it are contained. Instead of quoting separate passages, it will be enough, in bringing this statement to an end, to refer to one passage which gives a very vivid picture of what may be called the consciousness of God in the mind of Old Testament saints. That is the cxxxixth Psalm. Here we see, first, how the Psalmist begins with the expression of God's general knowledge of man, even of his heart : " Thou hast searched me, and known me." The writer feels him- self standing before One who knows. The knowledge and the whole relations expressed are properly ethical, but the ethical at times — so strong is the feeling of the presence of the Person who knows, and of His scrutiny pervading the whole nature — seems to pass into the physical, and the image of one substance or element surrounding and compressing another is used to body out the almost physical feeling of God's presence. But that this is only a powerful way of expressing the ethical, is seen from the concluding prayer : " Search me, . . . and lead me in the way ever- lasting." Second, this one general feeling of being known is broken up into particulars : " Thou knowest my sitting down and my rising up, . . . Thou hast sifted mj going and lying down." The outward is known, sifted, every mode in which existence expresses itself is seen through. But it is not so much the things themselves as that out of which they come : " Thou knowest my thought afar off," long ere it be formed ; ere THE HUNDRED AND THIRTY-NINTH PSALM 181 the word be on my tongue, Thou knowest it all. This feeling of being known by One present is so strong that it expresses itself in the figure of physical pressure ; this piercing eye, this seeing Person is so near that He thrusts Himself against the Psalmist — " Thou pressest me before and behind " ; the faculties of his soul, not to speak of his body, have not room to play, to move, for this impinging element about them, bearing in upon them, and hampering them in their action. And this figure is varied by another, that of the grasp of a hand laid upon the man, by which he is carried about, and from beneath which he cannot move : " Such knowledge is too deep for me " ; he is unable to grasp it. Third, this surrounding, compressing element bears in upon him with such terrors and causes such awe, that the thought rises in his mind whether he might not flee from it. But that cannot be : " Whither from Thy spirit can I go ? If I ascend into heaven, Thou art there : if I descend into Sheol, Thou art also there : if I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost part of the earth, there will Thy hand hold me." The physical figure, by which the Divine omniscience was expressed, leads through the thought of the escape from it, if that were possible, to the expression of the Divine omnipresence. The two are hardly distinct things; He who knows, God as knowing, is an all-pervading presence. This surrounding element, how shall he escape it ? this inbearing, oppressing spirit, that thrusts itself close unto him, how shall he elude it ? " Whither from Thy spirit can I go ? " In heaven, in hell, in east or west — though he should pass from the highest heaven to the deepest Sheol, or through space as swift as the light from east to west, the hand that lies on him will still lie — " Thy right hand holds me." Even in the dark- ness he is conscious of a face beholding him — to God the darkness is as light. Fourth, the Psalmist adds words which seem partly meant to be an explanation of this knowledge of God — ** for Thou hast possessed my reins," or " hast made my reins." 182 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT If the former, aB the reins denoted what we mean by the conscience or consciousness, the meaning is, that God had settled down in his consciousness. If this were the mean- ing, the figure would be deserted, and the literal meaning expressed. It is perhaps more likelj that the meaning is, " Thou hast made my reins." This both explains God's knowledge, and deepens the expression of it. God knows him ; for He was present at the beginning of his being, and foresaw and designed all that it should be — all his members before they were " written in His Book." God formed him, and prescribed and looked forward to all that he should be ; His knowledge of him is not new. And to the mind of the Psalmist there is a certain awfulness in this thought : " Such thoughts are too heavy for me " ; he is fascinated by tliis sense of God, and cannot dispel it from his mind. When he awakes in the morning, it still haunts him and fills his mind — " when I awake I am still with Thee"; still occupied with Thee. His consciousness of God has become the other half of his consciousness of himself. Yet, that all this conception of God, however much expressed in physical figures, is mainly ethical, appears, as we have said, from the prayer with which the Psalmist concludes : " Search me, and know my heart : try me, and know my thoughts : and see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting." Though he fears the searching, yet he invites it. The Divine, although awful, yet attracts. He is fascinated by the Divine light, almost as the insect by the lamp ; and he must move towards it, even though there be danger that it ehould consume him. FI. THE DOCTRINE OF MAN. 1. Human Nature and its Constitution, On the subject of Old Testament Anthropology the first question that presents itself is the question of human nature QUESTION OF A BIBLICAL PSYCHOLOGY 183 itself and its elements, as they are spoken of in Scripture. Much has been written on the subject of the Psychology of the Old Testament. Many systems of Biblical Psychology have been constructed, and the points signalised in which this Psychology differs from ordinary Psychology. Two points have generally been much insisted on. One is that the Bible teaches a trichotomy, or threefold division of human nature, hody, soul, and spirit ; and the other is that the spirit is the highest element in man, the element allied to God, the element endowed with the power of receiving God and Divine influences. It is not easy to bring into system or order the statements of Scripture regarding the nature of man, and its several elements or sides. But the following remarks may be made : (1) What we may expect in the Old Testament is not scientific, but popular phraseology. Any such thing as a science of the mind, whether just or false, is not to be looked for among the people of Israel in Old Testament times. A Biblical Psychology of the same class as other psychologies of a philosophical or natural kind, but distinct and different from them, is not to be expected. It is the purpose of the Old Testament to impress practical religious truth on men's minds, and with this view it speaks their ordinary language, not the language of the schools, if, indeed, we could suppose such a language to have existed at the time. (2) If the Old Testament speaks the popular language, its usage will reflect all the varieties of that languaga We cannot expect a more constant use of terms in par- ticular senses than actually prevailed among the people. If the popular language contained distinctions, these will appear in the Old Testament ; and if words were used with- out discrimination and indifferently in the mouths of the people, this indiscriminate usage will appear in the Scrip- turea It is not probable that in the Old Testament there is any advance over popular usage in the direction of a fixed or scientific phraseology. (3) In this connection it is proper to refer to the New 184 THE THEOLOGY OP THE OLD TESTAMENT Testament and its ideas. The New Testament phraseology is not purely Jewish, but has been influenced by Greek thought. And in the New Testament there may be ob- served an approach towards a more fixed or definite use of terms. But even in the New Testament there is no Biblical Psychology in a scientific sense. The New Testa- ment Psychology is not meant to be a psychology of the mind as regards its substance or elements, or even its operations, except on a certain side of these operations. All that we have is an ethical and religious phraseology. The Psy- chology of the New Testament is part of its ethics, and cannot be pursued further back so as to be made strictly a psychology or physiology of the mind. It remains a description of the mind or its attitudes ethically and religiously. It might, no doubt, be legitimate and useful to inquire whether the New Testament phraseology, applied there exclusively in an ethical way, might not have partly arisen from previous speculations of a more purely psycho- logical kind. It is not unlikely that such speculations in some degree influenced the language of the New Testament writers. But a distinction should be drawn between the New Testament usage, which is exclusively ethical, and previous usage of a more strictly philosophical kind which such inquiries might reveal. The latter should not be mixed up with what is called Biblical Psychology. And perhaps such a phrase should not be used at all ; for it suggests the idea, for which there is no foundation, that the Scriptures contain a peculiar psychological nomen- clature distinct from that of popular usage, which is not true in any sense, and t?\at this nomenclature might be compared or contrasted with that of secular systems of philosophy of the mind, which is only true in this sense, that terms which in secular systems are used in a strictly psychological way, are in the Scriptures used ethically or religiously. There are certain passages in the New Testament that might seem, and by many have been held, to establish a distinction between soul and s/pirit of a kind to be named QUESTION OF A TRICHOTOMY 185 substantial, and consequently to teach a trichotomy of human nature, a division into three distinct elements. In 1 Tliess. V. 23 occur the words: "And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly : and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved entire, without blame, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." The commentary of a writer, not undeserving of attention, on this passage is as follows : •• The position of the epithet shows that the prayer is not . . . that the whole, spirit, soul, and body, the three asso- ciated together, may be preserved, but, — that each part may be preserved in its completeness. Not mere associated preservation, but preservation in an individually complete state, is the burden of the apostle's prayer. The prayer is, in fact, threefold : first, that they may be sanctified by God, the God of peace, — for sanctification is the condition of outward and inward peace, — wholly {oXorekeh) in their collective powers and constituents ; next, that each con- stituent may be preserved to our Lord's coming; and lastly, that each so preserved may be entire and com- plete in itself, not mutilated or disintegrated by sin ; that the body may retain its yet uneffaced image of God, and its unimpaired aptitude to be a living sacrifice to its Maker ; the appetitive soul, its purer hopes and nobler aspirations ; the spirit, its ever blessed associate, the holy and eternal Spirit of God." 1 This New Testament passage certainly names three constituent elements of human nature, names them all co- ordinately, and speaks of each as needing sanctification, and as capable of preservation. And it might be plausibly argued that, as the three are specially named, there is as good reason for considering the ^rit distinct from the soul, as there is for considering the body distinct from either. But this reasoning would be seen to go further than it ought; for the distinction between soul and sptnV, even admitting it, can hardly be one of essence. And on the other side it may not unfairly be represented that the apostle's language does not require, in order to justify it, 1 Ellioott, Destiny qf the Creatwrt, p. 107. 186 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT a distinction of organs or substances, but may be accounted for by a somewhat vivid conception of one substance in different relations or under different aspects. In ordinary language we certainly speak of soul as well as of spirit ; and m his fervid desire for the complete and perfect sanctifica- tion of his disciples, the apostle accumulates these terras together, so as to give an exhaustive expression to the whole being and nature of man. In Heb. iv. 1 2 there occurs a similar passage : " For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and quick to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart." The word of God has four attributes assigned to it : it is quick, that is, living, as we speak of the quick and the dead ; it is powerful, that is, active ; it is sharp ; and being so, it pierces even to the dividing of soul and spirit. The word ' divid- ing ' means here the act of dividing rather than the place of division. The meaning does not seem to be that the word of God, like a two-edged sword, enters so deep as to reach the place of division, the seam, or boundary line be- tween soul and spirit, but that it goes so deep as to effect a division of them. Some doubt may remain whether the sharp word of God effects a division between the soul and spirit, or a division within them — whether it separates between the two, or cuts asunder each, as we might say dissects both the soul and spirit. In comparison with the question, indeed, whether the soul and the spirit be distinct things, this other question is of less consequence. The passage recognises two things, one called soul, and another called spirit. Are these conceived to be separated by something introduced between them, — an operation delicate enough, but one which an instrument so sharp as the word of God is qualified to accomplish ? Or is it that each of them is divided and cut open into its own elements ? Probably the view that the division is made not between the soul and the spirit, but within each of them, is the true one. If the other view were correct. DIVIDING OF SOUL AND SPIRIT 187 that according to which a division is effected by the word jf God between soul and spirit, a relation between soul and spirit would be suggested which is injurious to the latter, a sensuous sinking of the spirit into the soul, where its higher energies become drowsy, and expire in the soft, voluptuous lap of the lower psychical nature ; and the word of God comes to dissever and divorce this depressing union, and elevate the spirit again to a position of freedom and command. This interpretation, however, is less prob- able. The meaning is rather that the word of God is so sharp that it pierces and dissects both the soul and spirit, separates each into its parts, subtle though they be, analyses and discerns their thoughts and intents. But in any case the question forces itself upon us — Are we here on the ground of literal speech or of metaphor ? A writer whose imaginative and rhetorical manner endows the word of God with life and activity may very readily conceive one thing in its various states and connections as various things. We need to remember that the writers of Scripture were Oriental, or we shall be in danger of taking figures of speech for statements of doctrine. Perhaps, too, the vivid grandeur of the concep- tions of Scripture is not altogether due to their authors being children of the East. The time when these concep- tions were formed was one of profound excitement. Old systems of thought and life were breaking up under the fresh influence of Christian thought like an ice-bound river, and the strong currents newly released were dashing the fragments against one another. A now moral world had suddenly been created, more real, and to the earnest imagination of the time almost more substantial, than the world of matter. It was not mere conceptions amidst which men stood ; it was things, almost beings. Even to a man of the character of St. Paul the words sin, death, law, and the like represented personalities rather than abstract ideas. He wrestled with them, as they wrestled with one another. And it was not outside of him alone, or for him, that the conflict was carried on, but 188 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT within him. He found himself divided. One less con- scious than he was, that the influence which gave men power to be at any time victorious over the evil within them came from without, might have described his moral sensations by saying that he felt himself sometimes on the side of good and sometimes on the side of eviL But the apostle was not sometimes one kind of man and sometimes another ; he was two men, or there were two men within him. There was an old man and a new man, an inner man and another. And where the fervour of the religious imagination produced creations like these, it may easily be conceived to have spoken of two aspects of the one thing, the mind, as if they were two things. Elsewhere, both with St. Paul and with the author of Hebrews, we find human nature spoken of as consisting of two elements only. The one speaks of " cleansing ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God" (2 Cor. vii. 1); and the other, of our drawing near unto God, " having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water "(x. 22). It is most likely, therefore, that the trichotomy which appears in some other passages is rhetorical, and not to be taken hterally, 2. The terms * Bodi/ ' and ' Flesh.' If we return now to the Old Testament and inquire how the three terms, body, soul, and spirit, are employed there, the following may be taken as an outline of what the usage is : As to the lody. The Hebrew word for ' body ' is njia, which ia sometimes used for the living body (Ezek. ill, "bodies of the Cherubim"; Gen. xlviL 18; Neh. ix. 37), but usually for the dead body or carcase. This term hardly corresponds to the Greek aco/xa. Properly speaking, Hebrew has no term for 'body.* The Hebrew term around which questions relating to the body must gather iajlesh, "'B'a, Now, the only question really of interest in THE TERM * FLESH ' 189 regard to this term is the question whether in the Old Testament an ethical idea had already begmi to attach to it ? Such an ethical use of the word ' flesh/ a-dp^, is very characteristic of the New Testament, at least of the Pauline Epistles ; and it is of interest to inquire whether it be found also in the Old Testament. The word ' flesh * is found in the Old Testament used of the muscular part of the body in distinction from other parts, such as skin, bones, blood, and the like, especially such parts of animals slain for food or for sacrifice. Hence it is used for food along with bread (Ex. xvl 3), or wine, — eating flesh and drinking wine (Isa. xxii. 13), — and forms the main element of the sacrifice. The fact that it is used for sacrifice, and offered to the Lord as His fire-food, shows that no uncleanness belongs to the flesh as such. The distinctness of clean and unclean among animals is not one due to the flesh, for they are all ahke flesh. The flesh in itself has no impurity attaching to it ; it is of no moral quality. In living creatures the same distinctions are drawn between the flesh of the body and other parts of it — " this is bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh." But the flesh being the most outstanding part of the living creature, covering the bones and containing the blood, it naturally came to be used, the part being taken for the whole, of the living creature in general In this sense it represents the creature as an organised being, flexible, smooth, and possessing members. In Arabic the corresponding word is used of the surface of the body as smooth and fresh ; and it is curious that in Hebrew ^esA in this sense does not seem to be employed of animals covered with feathers or hair, and probably the soft, fresh muscle and the smooth surface of the animal body is the prominent notion. Hence a usage which is as far as possible from casting any aspersion of an ethical kind upon the flesh, in the prophet Ezekiel, who says : " A new heart will I give unto you ... I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh " (xxxvi 26). 190 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT This usage forms the transition to a wider one, accord- ing to which sensuous creatures, particularly mankind, are called all fiesh. This remarlcable expression for mankind, or for sensuous creatures in general, is usually, however, employed in a way that may suggest its origin. It is gener- ally, or at least very often, used when there is an antithesis of some kind suggested between mankind and God. And it is possible that this antithesis gave rise to this way of naming mankind. The suggestive passage Isa. xxxi. 3, The Egyptians are men, and not God : and their horses are flesh, and not spirit," perhaps gives a key to the kind of idea underlying the usage. The idea must be carefully observed. The passage begins : " Woe to them that go down to Egypt for help ; tliat stay (trust) on horses, and look not unto the Holy One of Israel." The question with the prophet is a question of help, or where real strength lies. Therefore when he says, " their horses are flesh, and not spirit," his point is not what the horses are composed of, but what they are able to accomplish. When Jehovah is called Spirit, it is not a question of His essence, but of His power. And when men are spoken of as all fiesh, the emphasis does not fall on that which they ^ are made of, but it rather expresses a secondary idea, no doubt suggested by this, the idea of their weakness. Flesh as one sees it is perishable, and subject to decay ; when the spirit is withdrawn it turns into its dust. As thus feeble and subject to decay, in contrast with God who is eternal, mankind and all creatures are spoken of as all Jlesh. The primary sense may perhaps be seen in Deut. V. 26: " For what is all flesh, that it might hear the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we, and live?" And, similarly, Isa. xl. 6, 7 : "All flesh is grass . . . the grass withereth . . . but the word of our God shall stand for ever." Naturally, supposing this to be the origin of the expression, it came also to be used when no such antithesis between mankind and God was designed to be expressed. The phr^tse might have arisen from the fact that the flesli or body of THE FLESH AND MORAL FRAILTY 191 animated creatures is the prominent thing about them to the eye ; but in any case the expression denotes usually f the weakness and perishableness of those creatures called * flesh.' Mankind is also called B'SJ b^ ; but this phrase denotes every individual of mankind, whereas all Jiesh is rather the whole race ; the characteristic of which is that it is flesh, and therefore weak and perishable. Now this leads to the last point, namely, whether the term ' flesh ' is used in an ethical sense, to imply moral defect, or to be the source of moral weakness. The Hebrews are rather apt to confuse the physical and the moral. There was, of course, no tendency among them, as with us, to resolve the moral into the physical, and obUterate the moral idea altogether. The tendency was the contrary one, to give moral significance to the physical or material ; to consider the physical but a form or expression of the moral So specific forms of disease acquired a moral meaning, and were religious uncleannesses. To touch the dead created a religious disability. This arose from their mixing up the two spheres, and their thinking of them in connection with one another ; or it led to it. And this being the case, it might be very natural for them to give to the physical weakness of mankind as ' flesh ' a moral complexion. Whether they did so is difficult to decide. They often couple the two together — man's moral and his physical weakness. The Psalmip^ in Ps. ciii., blesses God, who healeth all our diseases and forgiveth all our sins. Yet here the things, though combined, are still distinct. And so in another beautiful passage, Ps. Ixxviii. 38, 39: " But He, being full of compassion, forgave their iniquity . . . yea, many a time turned He His anger away. . . . For He remembered that they were but flesh ; a wind that passeth away, and cometh not again." Here flesh and iniquity are by no means confounded; on the contrary, He forgave their iniquity because He remembered that they were flesh — that is, transitory beings, a wind that passeth away and cometh not again. It is possible that in such passages, where sin and flesh 192 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT go together, the feeling appears that it is to be expected that beings so weak physically should be weak morally, and liable to sin. This seems to be the view in Job xiv. 1—4 : " Man, born of woman, is of few days, and full of trouble. He Cometh forth as a flower, and withereth : he fleeth as a shadow, and continueth not. And dost thou open thine eyes upon such an one, and bringest me into judgment with thee ? O that a clean could be out of an unclean ! there is not one." Here the two things, physical frailness and moral uncleanness, again go together ; but they do not seem con- fused. Neither are they confused in the words of EKphaz, chap. iv. 17—19: "Shall man be righteous with God? . . . Behold, He charges His angels with error ; how much more man, that dwelleth in houses of clay, which are crushed before the moth." And there is a similar passage in chap. xv. 14. In all such passages the universal sin- fulness of mankind is strongly expressed, and his physical weakness and liability to decay serve to strengthen the impression or assurance of his moral frailty. It is this moral fallibility that is insisted on. There is also reference to his physical frailty and brief life ; he is called Jlesh, and said to dwell in houses of clay and the like. It is con- sidered natural that one physically so frail should also be morally frail and sinful. Physical frailty is pleaded as a ground of compassion for moral frailty. But the two do not seem to be confounded ; neither is it taught that the cause of man's moral frailty is to be found in his physical nature, or that the flesh is in itself sinful, or the seat of sin. 3. The term * Spirit.* The words spirit, nn, and soul, ti'Q3, are often put in antithesis to the Jlesh, and express the invisible element in man's nature — the separation of which from the body is death. In the Old Testament the word nn, spirit, is the more important term. In the New Testament, spirit, irvevfxa, is little used of any natural element in man ; it THE SPIRIT OF GOD 193 chiefly refers to the Divine Spirit communicated to men in fellowship with Christ. In the Old Testament the word nn is used of the wind ; the characteristics of this are impalpableness and force ; it is invisible, but a real energy. Then the word is used of the breath. The breath is the sign of life in the living creature. When he no more breathes he is dead — his breath departs, and he falls into dust. Man is a being in whose nostrils is a ' breath ' — the sign of the feeblest existence. When this breath is sent oat in a violent way it implies passion ; hence the word is used for anger, fury. So even God's breath is spoken of, and His wrath, which is seen in His nostrils like a fiery smoke. Now, here we meet an extension of the use of the term spirit, common in all languages, the various steps of which need to be distinctly noticed, though it is difficult to keep them separate. There are three steps : (1) the nn is the breath — the sign of life ; (2) it becomes not merely the sign of life, but, so to speak, the principle of vitality itself ; and (3) this principle of vitality being considered the unseen spiritual element in man, it comes to mean man's spirit. Eeference to certain passages may show this ascent of three steps.^ (1) All life, whether in man, or in the lower creatures, or in the world, is an effect of the C''"', the Spirit of God. God's Spirit is merely God in His efficiency, especially as giving life. The Spirit of God is hardly considered another distinct from Him ; it is God exercising power, communi- cating Himself, or operating. This power may be simply vital power, physical life ; or it may be intellectual, moral, or religious life. These are all communicated by the Spirit or nn of God. This Spirit of God communicated to man gives him life. Now, though this nn or Spirit of God be properly no substance, but a mere power, it is very * Compare what has been said above on the Bubject of "The Spirit of God." Some of the points developed in the following statementB an refenvd to there. — Ed. «3 194 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT hard, perhaps impossible, to avoid conceiving it in some substantial way, or to escape the use of language which seems to express this. But we must guard against being misled by such phraseology. In the beginning of Genesis (ii. 7) the creation of man is set forth graphically, and in a very realistic way : " The Lord God made man out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life ; and he became a living creature — nephesh." The passage is of interest in various ways : first, it distinguishes between man and the lower creatures. The earth and waters at the command of God brought forth the other creatures, but man's formation was the work- manship of God's own hand. Secondly, man's body being formed, God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. The source of life does not belong to the body, life is not a manifestation of organised matter. It is a product of God's Spirit. Thirdly, man thus became a living nephesh — the soul or nepTiesh lives. Now, here we are on the ground of a representation which is very realistically put. Into the still, lifeless, imbreathing form of man God breathed a breath, and straightway the lifeless form exhibited the symptoms of life — breath in the nostrils, and was a living creature. God's ^^^, which is the source of life, is here considered God's own breath ; the passage of the spirit into man is represented as God's breathing it ; and, that being in man, man lived. Now all that seems in question here is just the giving 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 communicating it by breathing into man's nostrils that breath which is the sign of life. The anthropo- morphism of the author is very strong. He represents God Himself as having a breath which is the sign or prin- ciple of life in Himself ; and this He breathed into man, and it became the same in him. Now, this vital spirit, coming from God, but now belonging to man, not, it is to be observed, considered as a WITHDRAWAL OP THE SPIRIT 195 spiritual substance in man, but simply as a vital piinciplo or as vitality, is called in Scripture the " Spirit of God,'* because it is a power of God or a constant efficiency of His; and the "spirit of man," because belonging to man. Hence Job says: "The spirit (or breath) of God is in my nostrils " (xxvii. 3), parallel to the other clause : " My breath is yet whole in ma" And Elihu says : " The spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life " (xxxiiL 4). And again, arguing that the creation and upholding of life in creatures demonstrates the unselfish benevolence of God, he says : " If God should set His mind upon Himself — make Himself the sole object of His consideration and regard, and withdraw unto Him- self His spirit and His breath, all flesh should perish together, and return again into dust" (xxxiv. 14). Again, Ps. civ, 29: "Thou takest away their rrn, they die, and return to their dust. Thou sendest forth Thy nn, and they are created." All these passages are realistic ways of describing life and death ; the one is caused by an efflux of God's spirit, which is represented by or identified with the breath in the nostrils, the sign or the principle of life ; and the other, death, is caused by God's taking away His spirit, the previous continual sending forth of which was the cause of life. One can readily perceive how two things are mixed up in these representations : first, the belief that all life is communicated by God's Spirit, or by God who acts and is everywhere present as spirit, and as such is the giver and upholder of vitality in all that has life ; and, secondly, a tendency to represent this sensuously by dwelling upon the breath in man, the sign, and pre- sumably the principle, of their life. When the spirit is spoken of as being withdrawn by God and going forth from man, in other words, when, as we say, he expires and dies, there is no question raised as to where the spirit of life which he had goes to. The spirit of life is not a substance, it is the mere principle of vitality, as we say. The question did not occur, when the spirit of life was spoken of in this sense, where it was when it went 196 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT out or was withdrawn. It really had no existence as any- thing in itself. It is not considered as gathered into a world of spirits. Neither does it seem regarded as a part of the Divine Spirit, which is reabsorbed into the Spirit of God. This conception would be nearer the truth. If one wished a figure, he might imagine it thus : As the ocean runs up upon the shore and fills every cave and hollow in the rocks, and thus, though each of these cavities has its own fulness, yet this fulness is not separated from the rest of the ocean, but is only the universal ocean, communicating itself ; so God's spirit of life becomes the spirit of life in all flesh, yet His spirit is not divided. And just as when the ocean retreats the caves and hollows are left empty and dry, so when God withdraws His spirit of life the living creatures fall into dust. A better illustration, because a scriptural one, is given in Ezek. xxxvii., in the vision of the dry bones : "As I prophesied, there was a voice, and the bones came together, bone to his bone. And I beheld, and, lo, there were sinews upon them, and flesh came up, and skin covered them ; but there was no breath in them. Then said He unto me. Prophesy, and say unto the wind (nit), Come from the four winds, 0 breath (nil), and breathe into these slain, that they may live. So 1 prophesied, and the breath (nil) came into them, and they stood up upon their feet an exceeding great army. . . . Behold, I will open your graves, 0 My people, and I will put My nn in you, and ye shall live, and I will place you in your own land." (2) All the preceding illustrations have been given on the plane of mere life or vitality. But an advance is made on this in a use of the word nn which is common to all languages. The spirit means the intellectual or mental element in man. It could not but occur to men that the breath was not the life or living principle in man ; there was something unseen which was the source or seat of life and also of thought. Still it was probably the breath that suggested this, or the same word would hardly have been used for both. There are still some passages where THE MENTAL ELEMENT IN MAN 197 the distinction between the breath and the immaterial principle or mind is scarcely maintained. Thus Elihu says : " There is a spirit in man, and the breath of the Almighty giveth them understanding " (xxxii. 8). And while in earlier books the question is not raised as to what becomes of the life-spirit in man when he dies, in later books this spirit is spoken of more as if it had an independent being of its own. That is, the immaterial element in man is identified with the spirit of life or principle of vitality in him : " Then shall the dust return fco the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it " (Eccles. xii. 7). And in another passage in the same book : "Who knoweth the spirit of man, whether it goeth upwards, and the spirit of the beast whether it goeth downward to the earth ? " (iii. 21). In general, however, the difference between ' spirit ' as vitality and ' spirit ' as immaterial element in man is pretty well preserved, though an affinity between the two usages must be acknowledged. The term spirit (']''"') is used for the mental element in the nature of man, especially in three aspects : first, when put in opposition to flesh ; secondly, when considered as drawing its origin from God, when He is thought of as its source ; and, thirdly, when the strength or weakness in respect of vitality of man's immaterial nature is spoken of. The first two are illustrated by such passages as these: " God of the spirits of all flesh " (Num. xvi. 22, xxvii. 16) ; " In whose hand is the soul of all that liveth, and the spirit of all flesh of man" (Job xii. 10). Examples of the third are numerous : " The spirit of Jacob their father revived " (Gen. xlv. 27); "To revive the spirit of the humble" (Isa. Ivii. 15); "My days are over, my spirit is extinguished" (Job xviL 1); hence the spirit "is overwhelmed and faileth " (Ps. cxliii. 4) ; " by sorrow of heart the spirit is broken" (Prov. xv. 13); "the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit" (Ps. li. 17) ; and this other passage, " For I will not, saith the Lord, contend for ever, neither will I be always wroth : for the spirit would fail before me, and the breaths which I have made" (Isa. IviL 16)l 198 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT This connection of nn with the idea of life, and con- sequently of strength, ^ower, is very remarkable, and needs fiu'ther investigation. It seems, however, to be the foundation for two very interesting extensions of the use of the term nsn^ to which some allusion may be made. First, as vitality, power, energy resided in the spirit, the term nn came to be used of a predominating staie or direction of the mind, that which when it is temporary we designate a mood or humour or frame or temper, and when natural or habitual, a disposition or character. In the former sense Hosea speaks of "a spirit of whoredoms" being in Israel (iv. 12, v. 4), and Isaiah of "a spirit of deep sleep being poured out on them " (xxix. 10), i.e. of insensibility, and of " a spirit of perverseness " being in the Egyptians (xix. 14) ; and in the same sense, perhaps, another prophet speaks of "a spirit of grace and supplications" (Zech. xii. 10). In the latter sense, that of a prevailing disposition or character, the Old Testament speaks of those who are " proud in spirit " (Eccles. vii. 8), " haughty in spirit " (Prov. xvi. 1 8), " hasty in spirit " (Eccles. vii. 9) ; and, on the other hand, of a "humble spirit" (Prov. xvi 19), of a " patient spirit " (Eccles. vii. 8), a " faithful spirit," and the like (Prov. xi. 13). The word K'Q3 or ' soul' could hardly have been used in any of these examples. Secondly, it is this same conception of power or energy or fuller life which is expressed when it is said that the Spirit of God is given to men, or when He comes upon them and moves them. It is said, for example, in reference to Samson, that the Spirit of God began to move him at times in the camp at Dan (Judg. xiii. 25); that the Spirit of God came upon him, and he rent the lion as he would a kid (xiv. 6) — the reference being to the great display of strength which he put forth. Similarly, it is said of Caleb that the " Spirit of God came upon him, and he judged Israel, and went out to war" (iii. 10). It is probable that the nomenclature regarding the Spirit coming on the prophets originated in this way. All exhibitions of power or energy, whether bodily or mental, are ascribed to the Spirit ; and THE TERM * SOUL* 199 the excitation which characterised prophecy in its earlier Btages was spoken of as the result of the Spirit — as Ezekiel still speaks of the " hand of the Lord " being on him (iiL 14, 22, viii. 1, etc.). As prophecy became more purely ethical, and threw off excitement of an external kind, the internal revelation and moral elevation continued to be ascribed to the Spirit. But this revelation is not usually considered to be mere thought communicated, but rather an elevation and greater power of mind, which may, as in Isa. xi. 2, ramify into many directions as wisdom, judicial discernment, counsel, executive, and fear of the Lord. 4. The term * Soul* Less needs to be said in regard to the soul or K'ss. The soul as well as the spirit is used to designate the whole immaterial part of man — though with certain shades of difference in the conception. That the two are identical upon the whole appears from Job vii. 11: "I will speak in the anguish of my t^'j??. ; I will complain in the bitterness of my D'*"'." Compare also iiL 20: " Why giveth He life to the bitter of t^'£3 ? " When God " breathed into man the breath of life," man became a " living ^^}.." A creatm-e that has life is K'sa, an individual, a creature, or person. Even a dead person is t^'S3. Hence tf'S?. being the actual living creature that we see, with its many varieties, its form, its sensibilities, and the like, in a word, the hving concrete individual, when the word was appHed to the immaterial substratum of this life, the soul, the same concrete individual character, marked by sensibilities, desires, affections, still adhered to it. Therefore to the K'S3 belongs the personality of the individual The ' soul ' longs, pants, desires, melteth for heaviness, fainteth for God's salvation, abhorreth dainty meat, loathes, is satisfied, is bound down, cleaveth to the dust, quiets itself like a weaned child. The same epithets might be used of the nil and of the tJ'SJ ; but they would scarcely have the same force. AppHed to the nn they would describe the condition 200 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT more objectively as a condition of mental power, e.g. a broken spirit ; applied to the ^'23 they would describe the condition more reflexively as one felt by the B'S3 or individual. Any distinction of a substantial or elemental kind between D^t and t:'S3 is not to be imderstood. Neither is the nn higher than the trs3, or more allied to God. But the idea of D^"^ is vitality, strength, power, which is also the idea attached to the D''"' of God; and such influences coming from God are influences of the nn, and are nn in man, or a strengthening of nn in man, because l!R"^ is man's nature on the side of its vitality, power, prevailing force, and the like. The ^2?. is the bearer of the individual personality; but it is not modified nn, as if nn concretised were B'Bi. There seems no such idea in the Old Testament. As it has or is the personality, most importance attaches to the t^??. in questions of immortality : " Thou wilt not leave my^w to Sheol" (Ps. xvi. 10); "He hath brought up my K^S)3 from Sheol " (Ps. xxx. 3). But with this we shall have to deal later. To put it more exactly, the case is this : (1) All influences exerted by God upon man are influences of the Spirit of God. God exerting influence is the Spirit of God. The kind of influence which God exerts is dynamical ; as we might say, it is a communica- tion of life, or a potentiation of life ; or of strength, power, in some region — particularly in the ethical and religious spheres. (2) As God communicates power as nn, so the soul of man, in its nature as O'"', receives the communication, i.e. it is affected with new power, energy, elevation ; and as exhibiting power, energy, elevation, the soul of man is nn. (3) This does not imply that the nn in man is different from the ^Pl, much less that the ni"* is higher than the K'W The nn is the ^^l as possessing or showing power, elevation, etc. For we have seen that when man's mind moved in any direction with a strong current, whether the SPIRIT AND SOUL 201 current was temporary or permanent, it was descrioed as a n^"* of such and such a kind ; being a mood or temper or mental tendency when temporary, and being a character or disposition when permanent. (4) Neither, finally, is the K'M the nn individualised, or the nn modified and made concrete in the individual. No doubt the individuality or personality is attributed to the If'sJ; hence ^^l often means *a person.* And also the r'*"' is spoken of more abstractly. But the D''"' is not first general and impersonal, and then impersonated in the K'S? ; rather the ti'D3 is spoken of as nn when exhibiting deter- mination, indicating power, strength, and elevation ; while as ^P.l it is more simply the individual Hence ^^l can be used even of a dead person. Hence, also, two concurrent ways of speaking of death : the nn returns to God who gave it (Eccles. xii. 7) ; or as in Job : " If God should gather to Himself His spirit and His breath, all flesh would perish together, and man turn into his dust " (xxxiv. 14). But, on the other hand, the ^^^. descends into Sheol. If t:'a3 were nn individualised, it is evident that man would not possess a D^"* at all, only a K'M. But the fact that his nil as well as his K'Si is spoken of, implies that D'"* and 5^23 are the same things under different aspects. If man's ti*?3 were nn individuaUsed, then the taking away the nn would really leave nothing at death ; while, in fact, the E'B3 is left, and descends into S leol. In our modes of thought we operate with substances, but the Hebrew mind operates rather with abstract conceptions which it treats and speaks of as things. Thus it is saying very little to say that the nn ' returns to God who gave it.' For that may mean nothing more than that the vitality which flowed from God is withdrawn by God, and the living person falls into weakness and death. It is altogether another thing when Psalmists go the length of saying that the '3 is taken by God, or that He redeems the ': from Sheol. Because the '3 is the person, while the 'i was but some vital energy, the withdrawal of which by God was death. The main points reached, therefore, are these : 202 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT (a) That the flesh is not a moral term, — the flesh is not regarded as the source of sin, — and is not a term for sinful nature. (&) The spirit of man and the soul of man are not different things, but the same thing under different aspects. ' Spirit ' connotes energy, power, especially vital power ; and man's inner nature in such aspects, as exhibitiug power, energy, life of whatever kind, is spoken of as S2)irit. The same way of speaking prevails in regard to the Spu-it of God. The Spirit of God is God operating powerfully, imparting life, communicating influence. Hence such influences of God when communicated to man affect the spirit of man, i.e. man's inner nature, in those aspects in which it is thought of as spirit. (c) The soul, on the other hand, is the seat of the sensibilities. The idea of 'spirit* is more that of some- thing objective and impersonal ; that of ' soul ' suggests what is reflexive and individual. (d) Upon the whole, taking into account both what is stated in the beginning of Genesis and what appears else- where, the impression left on us is that Scripture adds nothing on this subject of Biblical Psychology to what is taught us by common sense. Besides the general doctrine that human nature is the work of God's hand, it gives special prominence to the fundamental dualism of man's nature. He is a compound of matter and spirit. The term * matter ' does not indeed occur in Scripture, but the particular matter of which man's body is composed is named dust. And man's spirit is drawn from a quite different quarter. Spirit or mind is so far from being the result of material organisation, that the organisation is represented as existing without spirit. And equally independent of the spirit is the material organisation in its origin. How- ever popular the representation may be considered to be, and however much we may be inclined to regard the account written, so to speak, post-eventum, a description of man's creation conceived from the point of view of what man appears in life and in death, it is impossible to VARIOUS ASPECTS OF SIN 203 eliminate from the account the belief in the dualism of human nature and the essential independence of matter and spirit, the two elements of his nature. (e) There is nothing very difficult in the phraseology employed in the Old Testament for the parts of human nature. The material part, spoken of in itself, is "^sy, dust from the ground ; the spiritual part, spoken of by itself, is noij^j or nn, breath or spirit. When united to the spirit, dust becomes fiesh, "i^s, which may be defined living, or ensouled matter ; and spirit when united to the dust, now flesh, becomes soid, ^^\, which may be called incarnate spirit. There is no more ground for Delitzsch's opinion that soul is a tertium quid, a substance distinct from spirit, although of the same essence,^ than there is for an opinion that "i^s is something different from "iSV, dust. The body is hardly spoken of in the Old Testament, but the idea of the body is organised flesh — flesh imder a special form. Hence the form being inalienable, the body will rise from the dead : flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God, but the body shalL VII. THE DOCTRINE OF MAN— SIN 1. Sin — its Nature and Extent. In all the prophets the conception or doctrine of God, of Jehovah the God of Israel, is the primary subject, while the idea of sin is secondary, and the obverse, so to speak, of the other idea. In Amos, whose conception of Jehovah is that of a supreme righteous ruler of the world and men, the idea of sin is generally unrighteousness, injustice. In Hosea, whose idea of God is that He is unchanging love, sin is the alienation of the heart of the community from Him ; while in Isaiah, who conceives Jehovah as the sovereign Lord, the transcendent Holy One of Israel, the sin of man is pride and insensibility to the majesty * S«e hi« Biblical Psychology, Clark's tr. p. 113 ff. — En, 204 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT of Jehovah, who is a holy fire, consuming all that is unclean. In general, in all the prophets who speak of the sin of Israel, that sin is some form of ungodliness, some course of conduct, whether in worship or in life, having its source in false conceptions of Jehovah. Hosea traces all Israel's evil to this : there is no knowledge of God in the land. The prophetic statements regarding sin are mostly, if not always, particular, having reference to the conditions of society around them, and to Israel the people of God ; they rarely rise to the expression of general principles, and do not make abstract statements in regard to sin or its prin- ciple. It is not of mankind, but of Israel that they speak, though they say of Israel what other parts of Scripture say of mankind. Israel had a period of innocency, succeeded by its fall, which ended in death : when Israel transgressed through Baal he died. In the prophetic period, when, of course, already sin in these various forms had arisen and all the various con- ceptions of it had been formed, and nothing new appeared in regard to it except perhaps a deeper sense of it, and to some extent, as society became more complex, a more alarming spread and self-manifestation of it, all statements that we find regarding it will be altogether particular. There need be looked for no generalising of it or its principle. But this holds good also of the Mosaic and even of the jDre-Mosaic period ; and indeed in all the Old Testament, except in the single element of Christology, the development is not a development of objective truth so much as of subjective realising of the truth. It matters little, therefore, whether we carry on our inquiry in the region of the prophetic literature or in that of the earlier Scriptures. On the question of sin, just as on other questions, we are not entitled to expect in the Old Testament anything more than popular language — not that of science. It may be made a question, indeed, whether what we call the language of common-sense, especially in regard to moral subjects, has not been largely formed on Scripture ; whether GOOD AND EVIL 20ri our habitual ways of thinking may not be largely due to its influence on the human mind for so many ages ; and whether thus the agreement of Scripture statements with what we call common-sense and men's ordinary ways of thinking be not a coincidence but an identity. It becomes a problem, indeed, seeing things are so, how far, if philosophy should succeed in resolving the ordinary ideas of life into other forms, simpler or higher. Scripture may be capable of this transformation, or will necessarily undergo it. No doubt there is very inconsiderable cause for disquietude. The philosophers have not yet made much way in this pro- cess of resolving our ideas into other forms, each generation being fully occupied in bringing into sight the failures of its predecessor. In any case, when we speak of the in- fallibility of Scripture, we must remember it is not a scientific or philosophic infallibihty, but the infallibility, if I may say so again, of common-sense. And, however it may be with questions of that kind, what we do find in Scripture corresponds, particularly in all that concerns morals and life, to what the unscientific mind thinks and feels. (1) Thus, to begin with, Scripture lays down at its beginning the categories of good and evil ; " God saw everything which He had made, and behold it was very good" (Gen. i. 31); "It is not good that the man should be alone" (Gen. ii. 18). There is good and there is not good. Probably in such passages ' good ' means little more than, in the one, answering to its design, and in the other, conducive to his well-leing. * Good ' in both cases may be capable of being further resolved. But here at least is a general idea embracing particulars under it. Opposite to good. Scripture places the category of ' evil.' The two are so irreconcilable that they are named as the two poles of human thought and experience : " Ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil " (Gen. ii. 5). The existence of Elohim Himself is bounded by these two walls. And so radical is the distinction, that the prophet Isaiah (v. 20) denounces as sunk to the last stage of 206 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT perversity those who in his age confounded the two: " Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil ; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness ; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" — although even those did not question the distinction, but only inverted the things, saying as another said, "Evil, be thou my goodl" (2) This distinction then existing, we may inquire whether in the terms employed to express it there be any- thing that suggests what the principle or essence of good or evil is. This is perhaps hardly to be expected. We shall find abundance of statements to the effect that particular things are good and particular things evil ; but probably nothing more than popular or figurative expressions for good and evil in themselves. Naturally, we need not look for any support for theories regarding evil which have sometimes been broached, as that evil is defect of being, as if omne esse were honum, and non-esse were equivalent to malum; or that evil is the imperfection inherent in the finite existence, and eliminated only by the passage of the finite into the infinite ; or that it is, if not identical with that imperfection which is synonymous with the finite, a necessary antithesis in thought and life looking to the development of the creature, an obstacle to be overcome, a drag to call out the energy of vitahty, a resistance to develop strength of will, an impulse to move it, and thus a factitious but designed element in the universe. Thus, though called an evil, and necessarily so thought of (otherwise it would be inoperative), it becomes in reality a good, or at least the means to good, and in itself nothing. Such reflections naturally do not occur in Scripture. But Scripture uses terms of a different kind, which do add something to our knowledge. The Old Testament has a variety of terms for moral evil which, though they are figurative, tell us something of bow its nature was conceived. There is no language that in ethical things has a richer vocabulary than the Hebrew. Its terms are all heaped together in certain passages, such DIFFERENT TERMS FOR SIN 207 as Ps. xxxii. and li. God spake to Cain, when he was angry because of the rejection of his sacrifice, saying : " If thou doest well, hast thou not the pre-eminence ? and if thou doest not well, sin (nxtan) croucheth at the door" (Gen. iv. 7). Here sin is named for the first time, and per- sonified as a wild beast crouching at the door, and ready to spring upon the man who gave any inlet to it. The word f^^T' li^6 the corresponding Greek word afiaprdvw, means to miss, as the mark by a slinger, the way by a traveller, and even to find wanting in enumerating. There is the idea of a goal not reached, a mark not struck. Again, Cain, when in despair he surveys his fate under the curse of his hasty murder, cries out : " My sin C^iy) is greater than can be borne" (iv. 13). The root of Avon is n^y, to pervert or make crooked. Evil is that which is not straight, or, as we say, right. There are several related ideas borrowed from the properties of matter and used for good, such as P^^', right, in the sense of linear straight- ness ; if \ uprightness, as I think, in the sense of superficial smoothness; with their antitheses as expressions of eviL And, of course, there are many similar ideas and antitheses ; but they are all popular, and such as are the common property of mankind, as sweet and hitter, clean and unclean, light and darkness, etc. The commonest of all words for evil, Vl, perhaps expresses properly the violence of breaking, or the noise of it. It may be admitted that something is gained by these terms. Sin is of the nature of failing to reach a mark ; it is of the nature of what is crooked compared with what is straight ; of the nature of what is uneven con- trasted with what is smooth ; of the nature of what is unclean compared with what is clean, and so on. The physical ideas are transferred to the moral sphere. There underlies all such transferences, of course, also the idea that that which hits the mark and does not fail is straight and not crooked, is clean and not unclean, is in that outer physical sphere ' good ' and its opposite ' bad.' ' Grood ' in this physical sphere might perhaps be resolv- 208 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT able into * convenient,' * pleasant/ and suchlike ; but it would not follow that ' good ' in the moral sphere, though it might be resolvable also into other forms, was resolvable into these same forms ' convenient,' ' pleasant,' and the like. It is, of course, an old question whether we can ob- serve in these physical expressions the genesis of the ideas of good and evil, or whether what we see is the expression in various forms of an antithesis inherent in the mind, and merely clothing itself in these material forms. But such questions as these belong to the general theory of morals. They are hardly raised by anything in the Old Testament. What Scripture exhibits to us is this : a national con- sciousness, or at least a consciousness in the highest minds in the nation, filled with moral conceptions and sentiments of the strongest and most pronounced description. These conceptions and feelings are in lively operation. They exist, and conduct is estimated by the public teachers according to them. These moral conceptions and senti- ments are neither in the process of formation — the national mind had long advanced beyond such a moral stage ; nor are they yet in process of analysis or decomposition, as among ourselves at present — the national mind had not proceeded to any such state of reflection. Two results follow from the use of the terms referred to: first, the strong, accountable antitheses before re- marked ; and, second, something in the two sets of things representing good and evil that shows not only that the things are different, but that they differ with a difference that is essential and universal, and that there is some effort made by the mind to conceive good and evil as such. The question, however, remains, whether in these modes of speech we have the genesis of the ideas of good and evil, or only the expressions in various forms of an antithesis inherent in the mind, and merely clothing itself in these material forms. In the physical sphere had might be resolved into unfit for the purpose desired, but lad in the moral might not be so resolvable. In the physical sphere the thing is had because it is crooked. In the ETHICAL VOCABULARY 209 moral sphere is it not named crooked because it is had ? Probably there is a circle out of which there is no escaping. But at least there is in such classes of words, as we have said, the evidence of a strong distinction and a strong effort to render it into external expression. And in any case the origin or genesis of such moral distinctions lies far behind Scripture. The ideas are formed and in full opera- tion long ere any part of it was written. From the fact that Scripture is always dealing with actual life and presenting rules for conduct or passing judg- ment upon it, no such thing as a definition of the nature of evil is to be expected- What we find is concrete designa- tions of actual evil in various spheres. To this evil there is always something opposite in the particular sphere which is good or right, although this is often not expressed, but assumed as lying in the common mind. Scripture simply exhibits a consciousness in the nation filled with moral conceptions and sentiments, as we have said, which are in operation, but are not themselves ever subjected to analysis. But the Old Testament is uncommonly rich in its ethical vocabulary. For example, in the sphere of the Wisdom, and opposed to it, there is a rich gradation of stages of evil. There is the ''ns, the simple, the natural man, undeveloped almost in either direction ; still without fixed principles of any kind, but with a natural inclination to evil, which may be easily worked upon so as to seduce him. Next to that is the •''03, the man who is sensuous rather than sensual, fleshly in the milder sense — one still capable of good, though more naturally, from his disposi- tions, drawn to evil. Then there is the fool who is rather negatively than positively evil, 3? ""pn, ' destitute of mind,' who, from want of understanding rather than a sensuous propensity, be- comes the victim of sin. In Job (ix. 12) this man is called a hollow man (3«a '«). This person is rather defective in intellect, and is thus led to pass unwise and precipitate f4 210 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT judgments on providence, and in general on things above him. So he runs into impiety. Then, further advanced is the fool actual and outright (733), or the ungodly man — i.e. the person who moves in a region altogether outside of the Wisdom, which embraces not only intellectual truth, but religious reverence. And, last of all, there is the scorner (r?), the speculat- ively wicked, who makes his ungodliness and folly matter of reflection, and consciously accepts it and adheres to it. Again, in another region, that of truth, evil is falsehood, 3T3, or vanity, ^1^, what has no reality in it ; or it is a lie in the concrete, ">i^^. In the region of social morals and brotherly kindness evil is generally expressed by the word DDn violence, i.e. injurious conduct ; and a higher stage is nb*. Again, in the region of theocratic holiness evil is what is unclean, ^<^D, profane, Sin, etc. There are certain other words which express a some- what different conception ; for example, the word V^Q, usually translated transgress. This is a mistranslation. The word rather means to secede from, defcere, to rebel against, and suggests a conception of sin which is of im- portance. It describes sin as a personal, voluntary act. It also implies something rebelled against, something which is of the nature of a superior or an authority. And, further, it implies the withdrawal of one's self by an act of self- assertion from under this superior or authority. The particular authority is not stated, for all these terms are general ; but the emphasis is laid upon the self-determina- tion of the person, and his consequent withdrawal from the authority. The word could not be used of the with- drawal of an equal from co-operation with another equal. It is said that Israel ' rebelled against ' the house of David (1 Kings xii. 19). Again Jehovah says : " I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against Me " (Isa. i. 2) ; and frequently in this sense. Now these words suggest two lines on which men thought of what we call sin. In the one case it was SIN AS UNRIGHTEOUSNESS 211 failure to hit, or to correspond to an objective standard ; in the other it was an attitude taken by a person in reference to another person who was his superior. In the former case 'sin' was the opposite of righteousness. Eighteous- ness (P"!-?) is conformity to a standard. The man is righteous in any sphere of conduct or place, when his action or mind corresponds to the acknowledged standard in that sphere. The standards may, of course, be very various, differing in different spheres. In common life the standard ^ may be what is called custom, whether moral, or social, or consuetudinary law, which, as almost the only law in the East, is very strong. Or in a higher region, that of the Covenant, the standard may be the general and under- stood requirements of this covenant relation. Or in the widest sphere, that of general morals, the standard is the moral law, which all men carry in a more or less perfect form written on their minds. Usually the standard is perfectly well understood, and righteousness is conduct or thought corresponding to it, and sin is failure to conform to it. So in this sense God is called riijliteous when He acts in a way corresponding to the covenant relation. This relation would lead Him to forgive and save His people ; hence He is a righteous God and a Saviour, the two meaning very much the same thing. No doubt the breach of the covenant by the people released God, so to speak, from obligations of a covenant kind ; and this caused the prophets to move a step further, going behind the historical covenant, and falhng back on the nature of God which prompted Him to form the covenant. And His own nature becomes the standard of His action. What might be called the tone or disposition * While the idea of righteous or right seems to imply a standard, it is doubtful whether, when moral judgments are passed, there is in general any reference in the mind to a standard. The mind passes judgment now from its own standard ; it has attained a condition, a way of thinking and feeling now habitual, from which, without any reference to an external standard, it passes judgment and calls a thing right or wrong. That this condition of mind may have resulted from external teaching may be true ; but this lies further back now when in Scripture we find men passing moral verdicts. 212 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT of His beiug is a redemptive disposition towards men ; for in creation He contemplated an orderly moral world, purposing the earth to be inhabited, and not subject to the devastations caused by evil in men or due to the cruelties and perversities of idolatry. And He becomes righteous in the highest sense when He acts according to this inherent saving disposition. Eighteousness becomes the action corre- Bponding to the nature of the one true God. This conception of sin as a want of correspondence with an external objective standard has been adopted in the doctrinal books of the Presbyterian Churches of Scotland. There, sin is defined as " any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God." In this definition the words * of God ' must be very strongly emphasised in order to keep up the sense of relation to a living person ; other- wise if sin be thought of as mere breach of an external law, we should fall into mere dead Phariseeism. It may be a question, indeed, whether the words ' the will of God ' would not have been more in correspondence with the idea of Christianity than the ' law * of God. It may be certain that we shall never be able to dispense with the idea of laio, but it is scarcely in the form of law that God com- mends His will to us in Christ. His will comes to us now not under the one complexion of legality, biit coloured with the hues of all the motives that move men to obedience. The very idea of Christianity is the removal of the con- ception of legality, the mere bare uncoloured, absolute command, and to bring the whole nature of God, with all that is in it fitted to move us, into connection with all in our natures that is likely to be moved. And the operation of the Spirit on the mind is to make obedience or righteous- ness instinctive, and the spontaneous action of the mind itself. Perhaps it would be impossible rightly to define sin. Practically the will of God is a sufficient standard ; that is, if you start with the idea of a standard outside of the mind. Although in point of fact there can never be any dipagreement between the will or action of God and that which is right, the Old Testament touches occasionally SIN AS DISOBEDIENCE 213 upon a more general conception, implying that right has a self-existence, and is not a mere creation of the will of God: "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" (Gen. xviii. 25). We should distinguish probably between lorong and sin, making sin the action in its reference to God. And this is the Old Testament view in general: sin has reference to God the Person, not to His will or His law as formulated externally. And in this view the term V^B is a more accurate definition of it than Ncpn, although the latter term is also used quite commonly of sinning against a person. The prophets, being public teachers, occupy themselves with the life of the people. And the standard w^hich they apply is just, as a rule, the covenant relation, i.e. the Decalogue. Hence Israel's sin is usually of two kinds: either formkiTig of Jehovah, God of Israel, or social wrong- doing of the members of the covenant people to one another. But what gives its meaning to all they say is their vivid religious conception of Jehovah as a person in immediate relation to the people. Sin is not a want of conformity to the law of Jehovah, so much as a defection from Himself, the living authority, in the closest relation t-o them, and appealing to them both directly by His prophets and in all the gracious turning-points of their history. The prophets speak directly from Jehovah ; they appeal little to external law. Even external law was always living; it was Jehovah speaking. And this con- sciousness of Jehovah's presence made all sins to be actions directly done against Him. So it is, e.g., in Joseph's exclamation, " How then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God ? " (Gen. xxxix. 9). And the Psalmist, although confessing wrong against his fellow-men, saya: 'Against Thee, Thee only, have I sinned" (Ps. li. 4). This idea of sin, as something done directly against a person, naturally led to a deepening of the conception of it. For a person cannot be obeyed apart from some relation to him of the afFections. And as the party obey- 214 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT ing was the people, this proper relation of the affections was difficult to secure. And this difficulty led, no doubt, to that singular habit of personifying the community which we observe in Hosea and the last chapters of Isaiah. The prophets thus created out of the community an ideal individual, from whom they demand the obedience of affection ; and they so manipulate this idea as to reach the profoundest conceptions. Yet, perhaps, so long as the prophets began with the community and descended from it to the individual, thinking of the individual only as sharing in the general feelings of the whole, the deepest idea, whether of sin or of righteousness, could not be reached. They had difficulty in reaching a true ethical foundation for want of a true ethical unit to start with. It was naturally the progress of events in God's pro- vidence that opened the way to further conceptions. The actual destruction of the State put an end, for the time at least, to the relation of Jehovah to the community; the community no more existed. Yet Jehovah and His purposes of grace remained. The prophets and people were thus thrown upon the future. That had happened to them which happened to the disciples afterwards, and which our Lord said was good for them : " It is expedient for you that I go away" (John xvi. 7). The life of prophets and people became one of faith absolutely. And hence the clarification of their religious ideas, and the religious purity and spiritual splendour of the ideal con- structions of the future kingdom of Jehovah which are due to the period of the Exile. The destruction of the State as a kingdom of God made religion necessarily, so far as it was real, a thing of the individual mind. It had, of course, been this really at all times. Yet the kingdom of the Lord had a visible form before, which now was lost. And, so far as religion lived, it lived only in the individual mind, and as a spiritual thing ; for in a foreign land external service of Jehovah was impossible. The Sabbath, as the token of His covenant, could be kept, and was the more tenaciously clung to. The Lord could SIN AND THE INDIVIDUAL 215 be served in mind ; and Jeremiah exhorts the people in Babylon to lead quiet and peaceable lives, and to pray- to the Lord in behalf of the country that sheltered them. The transition to a spiritual religion was in point of fact effected. With all this, however, the inextinguishable hope remained of a Eeturn and a reconstruction of Jehovah's kingdom on more enduring foundations. The history of the past revealed the cause of former failures. It was due partly just to the nature of the Old Covenant, which was a covenant with the people in a mass — with them as a people. Its virtue descended down to the individual from the whole. But now this splendid fabric was shattered in pieces, and its only enduring elements, the individuals, lay scattered about. It was an imposing idea, that of the Old Covenant, the idea of a religious State, a State all the functions of which should be arteries and channels for con- veying religious truth and expressing service of God. It is an ideal which has attracted men in all ages, and an ideal which the Old Testament never gives up — least of all such prophets as Jeremiah and the Second Isaiah. If these prophets differ from earlier prophets, it is not in their ideal, but in the way necessary to reach it. The true kingdom of God cannot be established by a lump operation like that of the Exodus. It cannot be called into existence by a stroke of the magician's wand — even if the wand be in the hand of God. For it consists in making godly human minds, and gathering them together till mankind is gathered ; and human minds can be made godly only by operations that correspond to the nature and laws of the human mind. Hence the prophets of this age set themselves to re- construct on opposite principles from those formerly used. They begin with the individuals. The broken fragments of the old house of God were lying all about, as individual stones. And they gather these up, putting them together one by one : " I wiU take you one of a city, and two of a tribe, and I will bring you to Zion " (Jer. iii 14). The 216 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT need, not of a reformation, but of a fundamental regenera- tion, is clear to the prophet : " Break up the fallow ground, and sow not among thorns. Circumcise your- selves to the Lord, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem " (iv. 3, 4). And conformable to this fundamental necessity is Jeremiah's conception of Jehovah's work, for he is well aware that appeals to men to regenerate themselves are vain, he asks : " Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots ?" (xiii. 23). Therefore the Lord Himself will make a new covenant. He " will put His law in men's inward parts, and write it in their hearts ; and they shall all know Him, and He will remember their sins no more" (xxxi. 33). The ethical unit becomes the individual mind, and sin and righteousness become matters of the relation of the personal mind to God. The Exile might appear to us the greatest disaster that could befall the kingdom of God. Yet it no doubt helped to clarify the minds of the people in regard to the religion of Jehovah, enabling them to see that it did not perish though its external form came to nought. And though not interfering with the great hope of a community to arise in the future as the kingdom of the Lord, yet it permitted and caused the individual to feel his independence, and to understand that religion was a thing between him and God immediately. The clear recognition and expres- sion of this Christian truth was greatly helped by the destruction of the State, and many of the most profound expressions of personal religion in the Psalter very probably are not anterior to this period. It is not necessary, however, to say very much of the Old Testament doctrine of sin. The anthropology of the Old Testament is a reflection of its theology: the sense or thought of sin corresponds to the conception and fear of Jehovah. And as the thought of the spirituality and purity of Jehovah rose, so did the sense of what was required of man to correspond to Him and be in fellow- ship with Him ; and therefore the sense of sin deepened- SIN AND THE RACE 217 Consequently, the development is not so much intellectual or in ideas, as in a tendency to inwardness, to look less at the mere external actions than at the mind of the actor. But the Old Testament teaching regarding sin does not differ from that of the New Testament. It teaches, first, that all individual men are sinners. Second, the sinful- ness of each individual is not an isolated thing, but is an instance of the general fact that mankind is sinful. And, thirdly, the sin of man can be taken away only by the forgiveness of Jehovah : " Who is a God like unto Thee, pardoning iniquity?" (Mic. vii. 18). This forgiveness is of His mercy, and in the latter age a New Covenant will be extended to all His people: their sins He will re- member no more. He will be their God, and they shall* be His people. As to the first point, testimonies need not be multiplied : " If Thou shouldst mark iniquity, who could stand ? " (Ps. cxxx. 3). " Before Thee no flesh living is righteous " (Ps. cxliii. 2), " There is no man that sinneth not" (1 Kings viii. 46). It might be worth while, however, to look for a moment at the second point, with the view of inquiring how far the Old Testament goes in regard to the sinfulness of mankind, and the connection of the individual with the race. That large numbers of mankind may be taken together and form a unity in many ways, whether for action on their own part or for treatment on the part of God, is manifest. The human race is not a number of atoms having no connection ; neither to our eye, at least, does it seem a fluid pressing equally in all directions, and conveying impressions received over its whole mass. It is very probable that it is this, although the influence communicated cannot be traced by us beyond a certain circle. But just as Achan's sin affected, in God's estimate, the whole camp of Israel, the sin of any individual may seem to Him to affect the whole race of mankind. The view of the Scripture writers is sometimes not 80 broad. The penitent in Ps. li. exclaims : " Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive 218 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT me." His evil was so far at least hereditary. The prophet Isaiah exclaimed : " Woe is me ! for I am undone ; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell among a people of unclean lips " (chap. vi. 5). He shared in the sinfulness of his people. And not to stop short of the most general, Job asks in reference to mankind : " Can a clean come out of an unclean ? There is not one " (xiv. 4). And his opponent Eliphaz asks : " Shall man be righteous with God? shall man be pure with his Maker?" (chap. iv. 17). So the Apostle Paul regards all sins among mankind as but the development, the details, of the original Trapdinwfia ■- of Adam. All sin is one sin of the race. The unity of the race is a consistent doctrine of the Old Testament. * It was Dixn, Tnan, when created as a single individual. It spread over the earth and was still Dixn, man. It was ilJ'3 h'2, all flesh, that had corrupted its way before the Flood. Mankind is, as a whole, corrupt ; and, corresponding to this, each individual is unclean. Smaller sections of it, as families, nations, are also sinful, and he that is born in the one, or belongs to the other, shares the sinfulness. ^~~ As we have seen, the Old Testament does not ascribe any sinfulness to the flesh. It often ascribes weakness and feebleness to the flesh, i.e. to man as a creature of flesh, and deprecates God's rigid judgment of man for this reason : " Man that is born of woman is of few days, and full of trouble : . . . and dost Thou open Thine eyes upon such a one, and bringest me into judgment with Thee ? " (Job xiv. 1—3). But the feebleness is not directly moral. Though teaching that evil is inherited, it does not appear to speculate upon a condition of the nature of the in- dividual prior to his own voluntary acts ; though it seems occasionally to recognise what is technically called habit, as when Jeremiah says : " The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked " (xviL 9). It has not yet a general doctrine of human nature distinct from the personal will, or from the concrete instance of the nature as it appears in the individual. Probably the Old Testament does not go the length QUESTION OF IMPUTATION 219 of oSiwing any rationale of the fact that each mdividual is sinful, beyond connecting him with a sinful whole. The doctrine of imputation is a moral rationale of the sinful condition of the individual when he comes into existence, and prior to his own acts. And certain things in the Old Testament have been fixed upon as sustaining that doctrine. It is doubtful, however, if the Old Testament offers any- thing beyond just the historical facts that Adam fell from righteousness, and that we observe his descendants univer- sally sinful, as it is said: "The wickedness of mankind became great upon the earth" (Gen. vl 5). And God repented that He had made mankind ; and He resolved to destroy mankind; and then He determined no more to destroy mankind, though the imagination of the heart of mankind was only evil from its youth. Passages like that in the law : " visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Him" (Ex. xx. 5), and occurrences like the destruction of the whole dependents and family of Korah along with him (Num. xvi.), are usually cited as analogies. They seem, however, to fail just at the point where the analogy is wanted. They afford instances of persons, themselves innocent of a particular sin, suffering from their connection with the person guUty of the sin. But, of course, the whole life of mankind is full of instances of this. The point of the doctrine of imputation, so far as it is a moral or judicial explanation of the sinfulness of all individuals of mankind, lies in the idea that Adam was the legal representative of all the individuals of the race, each of whom, therefore, is held guilty of Adam's sin, and his corrupt nature is due to his own offence of which he was guilty in his representative. This is the moral side. The individual's physical connection with Adam is only the channel through which this moral law takes effect. It is probable, however, that the Old Testa- ment presents merely the physical unity, without yet exhibiting any principle. The Question is of interest as to wl;at was the idea in 220 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT the Old Testament when it was said that the iniquities of the fathers were visited upon the children, or that the fathers ate sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge (Jer. xxxi, 29); or in such a case as that of Korah and his children and dependents. The Old Testament idea does not appear to have been the idea of repre- sentation. The idea of representation implies that the descendants are held guilty of the representative's act There is no sign of this idea. The conception was rather this. The father or head was alone had in view. The children or dependents were embraced in him ; they were his, were part of him. When the chastisement embraced them it was only in order completely to comprehend him ; when it pursued his descendants, it was really still pursuing him in his descendants. That is, as yet the father or head alone was thought of, the place or right of the children or dependents as independent individuals was not adverted to. In short, the conception was really the same kind of con- ception as that according to which the covenant of Jehovah was with the nation as a whole. That this was the idea appears from a passage in Job xxi. 17—20. Disputing with his friends, who maintained that a man was always chastised for his sins, and that great sufferings were proofs of great sins, Job drew attention to the fact that often- times the sinner escaped all punishment. How often is the candle of the wicked put out ? There is no such universal law. To which his friends replied : " God layeth up his iniquity for his children." If he escapes himself, his children suffer. To which Job replies : " Let his own eyes see his destruction : for what concern has he in his house after him ? " The argument of both parties implies that the visitation of the father's sins upon the children was regarded as a punishment of the father. And the argument of Job is that as such it fails ; the father escapes, for he has no concern in his house after him, and no knowledge of it. The argument of Job does not lead him to find fault with the supposed providential law on the score of its TEACHING OF EZEKIEL 221 injustice; he argues that it is no case of punishing the actual sinner. It is at once perceived that Job's argument implies that to his mind the father and the children are distinct, — the children are independent persons, — and what touches them does not touch the father. Of course, the proverb referred to above is a way of expressing the idea that the calamities of the end of the State and the Exile were due to the sins of former generations — the fathers, perhaps the generation under Manasseh. In the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel, how- ever, the supposed providential law is repudiated on account of its injustice. Jeremiah touches the question lightly, saying merely that the law, the fathers ate sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge, shall no more prevail in the new dispensation: he that eats sour grapes, his own teeth shall be set on edge. But Ezekiel enters into the question fully. He sets it forth in every possible form, especially in chaps, xiv. and xviii., of which the sum is this : * If a righteous man have an impenitent son, the son will not be saved by his father's righteousness : he shall surely die. And if a sinful father beget an obedient son, the son shall not die for his father's iniquity ; he shall as surely live as his father shall die. If a once righteoua man turn away from his righteousness . . . his righteousness shall not be remembered ; in his sin that he has sinned, he shall die. And again, if a wicked man turn away from his sins and do that which is right, he shall live. . . . All souls are mine, saith the Lord ; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine : the soul that sinneth it shall die. . . . The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son. . , . Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every man according to his ways.' The teaching of the prophet is intended, first of all, to comfort his brethren of the Exile. They thought they were under the pressure of an iron law, suffering for the sins of their fathers, enduring a penalty which must be exhausted, whatever their own state of mind and conduct 222 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT might be. And they stood in despair before this spectre of an irreversible destiny : " Our transgressions and our sins be upon us, and we pine away in them, how then should we live ? Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord, I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth " (Ezek. xxxiii. 10, 11). But the prophet takes occasion to go very much further, and to teach the freedom and the respon- sibility immediately to God of the individual — not only his freedom from all consequences of the actions of others, but also his freedom within the limits of his own life. No man, as regards his relation to God, is the victim of a destiny outside of him ; and no man is the victim of a destiny created by his own past hfe. Before God, and in relation to Him, each man is a free moral agent, at hberty to determine ; and, as he is at hberty to determine, so the duty of determining hes upon him and cannot be shifted. This is all the doctrine the prophet is interested in teaching. Modern writers have ridiculed this teaching of Ezekiel, as if he imagined that human life was not a con- tinuous thing, but could be cut up into sections having no moral dependence on one another ; and that God treated a man just according to the particular frame in which He found him at the moment, with no regard to his past. But this hardly does the prophet justice. To understand him we must look at his circumstances, the ban imder which the people were lying, due to the past, and the former conceptions prevailing among the people. His teaching is part of the new sense of the freedom of the individual, and the worth and place of the single person, which was due to this age. This truth is a general one. We know, indeed, how near external circumstances come towards creating a destiny for many men ; and we also know how each is in danger of forging a destiny for him- self in the future by his life in the past. Yet in spite of all this the truth which the prophet was interested in teaching remains true — men have a personal relation to God which is not conditioned by the acts of others ; and there is a personahty in each which can be distinguished FORGIVENESS AND SIN's EFFECTS 223 in some measure from his own nature ; and however much his past may influence his nature, and even his personality, yet the personality can take up a new position towards Crod, and thus gradually overcome even the evil of its own nature. This is what the prophet was interested in teaching. It is too true that no man can sin without the sin reacting upon his nature, leaving an imprint upon it, and in some way enfeebling it. And thus as by a law every man bears his own sin. Yet can this be said to be the only sense in which sin might have to be borne ? Are there not a multitude of other ways in which we might have to bear sin, besides this reflex influence of sin on the nature ? And are we not, when forgiven sin by God, freed from having to bear it in these other ways ? It is true that His forgiveness does not in itself free us from having to bear it in this reflex way. But it would perhaps be a mistake to suppose the laws of mind to have the same kind of rigidity as physical laws. For the moral nature is of such a sort that it can draw in evil itself into the category of remedial influences, and thus our very moral enfeeblement becomes a means of causing us to have more constant recourse to the strength administered by God. St. Paul gloried in his infirmity, because God's strength was made perfect in his weakness (2 Cor. xii. 9). And so even with another inevitable evil consequence of sin, to wit, remorse and its pain — the moral nature is capable of drawing that, too, in among things that are remedial, just as was the case with St. Paul's remorse that he persecuted the Church of God. This sense of remorse magnified to him the mercy of God — " that in me primarily, above all others. He might show His long-suffering " (1 Tim. i. 16). And in other ways. So that even the effects of our past evil may be drawn in among the remedial measures that minister to our general g(jdliness. Of course, there are two questions: (1) the relation of the individual personality to God — what might be called the spiritual relation ; (2) the external history or life of 224 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT the individual person. Ezekiel is mainly interested in the first. But he may not yet have disentangled the two questions from one another. The point was never clearly understood in Israel. It was felt that the second question must always be resolved in terms of the first — felicity or adversity. So far as the prophet Ezekiel is concerned, he is concerned mainly with the spiritual relation of the individual to God. The outer relation he teaches will correspond to this. His feeling is that he is standing before a new age, when the spiritual relation will reahse itself also visibly ; the righteous shall * hve,* life being that which we call life in the final state. From the Old Testament, then, so much can be estab- lished, namely : First, that the human race is in God's estimation a unity — as much so now as it was when it was summed up in Adam, whose acts, of course; were the acts of humanity. Second, that sin is as much a unity as humanity, and that as the one man developed into millions, the one sin multiplied into millions of sinful acts ; but the TrapdiTTcofia of Adam was what all the while abounded. Humanity is one, its sin is one. Third, that thus when any one sins, it is humanity that sins ; it, which is one, propagates its one sin. But, of course, that does not take away from the other truth that the individual sinner is guilty of his individual act. The individual Adam was guilty of his sin. Fourth, the sin of Adam being the sin of the race, the displeasure of God against the race followed, and the penalty. So when any one in the race sins, it is a mani- festation of the sin of the race, and will be chastised upon the race. The chastisement may not extend over all the race, but only perhaps over some part, i.e. not over all the individuals. But it will extend, in general, over many more than are personally guilty. It is a chastisement of the race. The persons chastised are not as individuals held guilty of the sinful acts. But the unity which we know as humanity is held guilty of them. The act was INHERITED DEPRAVITY 225 an expression of the sin of the world, and it calls down a judgment on the world. Fifth, of course, the person who committed the sin is as an individual guilty of the sin, and the judgment which falls on him falls on him as an individual sinner. But is there not a twofold treatment of the human race, a treat- ment of it as a unity, each individual being part of it and acting as part, and therefore for the whole, and the con- sequences of his acts falling upon the whole ; and a treat- ment of it as individuals, when the individual is dealt with for himself ? The further conclusion to which the passages of the Old Testament lead us are these : first, that what is speci- fically called original sin is taught there very distinctly, i.e. " that corruption of man's whole nature which is com- monly called original sin," and that it is also taught that this sin is inherited ; second, that no explanation is given in the Old Testament of the rationale of this inherited corruption beyond the assumption that the race is a unity, and each member of the race is sinful because the race is sinful. In other words, in conformity with the Old Testament point of view the individual man is less referred to than the race. The question. What is the explanation of an individual corrupt before any voluntary act of his own ? does not seem raised in the Old Testament. When raised, as it has very much been, various answers have been propounded to it. Some, e.g., Julius Miiller in his work on The Christian Doctrine of Sin, have had recourse to a pre-existent state to explain it. Miiller feels that such a thing needs ex- planation ; punishment implies antecedent guilt. This guilt must have been contracted antecedently to this life, for the punishment is seen in the earliest stages of the present state of existence. It must have been con- tracted, therefore, he thinks, in a previous condition of existence. The same difficulty has been felt by all thinkers. And an explanation somewhat similar is the generally accepted 15 226 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT one among orthodox theologians. Miiller teaches an actual pre-existence. They teach a legal pre-existence of the individual — a pre-existence in the person of one who represented them, and for whose acts they are responsible, and the consequences of whose acts they each bear. I think this way of explaining the difficulty does not occur in the Old Testament, for the difficulty does not seem to occur there. There is, indeed, very much in the way of dealing with men which this way of explanation fastens upon as favourable to itself. Yet it is doubtful if there be anything really favourable. For every case seems to differ just in the point where it ought to agree. The Old Testament shows innumerable cases of men who suffer for the sins of others, without, however, these sins being imputed to them in any other sense than this, that they do suffer for them. But this theory explains their suffer- ing by the previous imputation of the guilt of the sin. In the Old Testament the imputation of sin and the suffering of its consequences are the same thing — it is nowhere more than a being involved in the consequences of the sin ; in this theory imputation of the sin is distinct from the suffering of its consequences, antecedent to it, and the cause of it. In the Old Testament the explanation of the suffering is the unity of man, or the unity of a family, or the unity of a nation, or, at least, some piece of humanity which is an organism ; in this theory the explanation is the legal representation by one of all those individuals who suffer on account of him. The two theories proceed on different conceptions of humanity. I do not know that the Old Testament raises the question which is discussed under the terms Creationism and Traducianism, i.e. the question whether the soul of each individual be a work directly of the Divine hand or be propagated like the body. But the answer on Old Testament ground would, I think, certainly be in favour of Traducianism, — although the Old Testament way of re- presenting all results as immediate effects of the Divine activity might cause a phraseology distinctly creationaL QUESTION OP TRADUCIANISM 227 But such a phraseology would apply to the body as well as the soul. It may perhaps be true that God is repre- sented as the Father of spirits oftener than the Creator directly of the body ; but that arises from the greater similarity of the spirit to God, and the natural referring of it, therefore, immediately to Him. But unquestionably Scripture represents God as forming the body directly, e.y. in Ps. cxxxix., as well as the soul. And if the general inference from the Old Testaiiiont would be in favour of Traducianism there are some s]tL'cial facts tliat go in the same direction. We notice tliioe, namely : 1. This very doctrine of inherited sin, so distinctly an Old Testament doctrine. 2. The kind of representation employed when the creation of woman is described. She is taken out of man ; there was no breathing into her nostrils of the breath of life : in body and soul she is of the man.^ 3. The way of looking at things which appears in the history of creation in general. It had an absolute end in man. God rested from all His works which He had made in creation. Henceforth creative activity ceased. In the one man was created all the race — it is but a development of him. 2. The ConscioTisness of Sin. We have noticed the terms expressing the idea of sin in Israel. Of these the term y?'S perhaps was the one ' It is certainly to be expected that Scripture will not stop short of supplying some rationale of the fact that men are born with a propensity to depravity, which must be regarded as a disability and evil witli which each is atllicted, and of which there must be some explanation. It may be the case that the Old Testament does not give any explanation furtlier than insisting upon the unity of the race, and indicating that men receive from their parents the corrupt nature they possess, and that this process of reception mounts up to Adam. The expectation is raised that Scripture subsequent to the Old Testament will analyse this unity of the race, and that the analysis will make it appear not tc Lo a physical unity, but a moral one. 228 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT that went most to the root of the conception, that sm was defection from God. The prophets, being practical teachers, naturally refer to sin as it shows itself in the life of the people. They have no occasion to speculate on its origin, or on its funda- mental idea. They regard it as universal. Even Isaiah says of himself, " I am a man of unclean Hps." And if we observe a progress in their ideas of it, it is in the direction of a more inward view of it. They direct attention more to the state of mind which the external sinful act implies.^ It was less easy for them, deahng with the community, to reach the profoundest thoughts of it. In Amos, the sins mentioned are chiefly those of men against men. But Hosea, through his profound personification of the com- munity as the spouse of Jehovah, is enabled to exhibit the state of the heart of the people, its aUenation from the Lord. No prophet has anything higher to say than what he says, either on the side of Jehovah or on that of the people. For, as Jehovah's mind toward the community is that of love, the mind of the community has turned away from Him in alienation of affection and consequent outward sin. Here it is no more external acts on either side that are thought of by the prophet. It is the relation of two minds, mind and mind ; love on Jehovah's part, and ahenation of affection on the part of the community. These ideas which Hosea struck run more or less through all the prophets. In Isaiah we look for, and, of course, find, an inde- pendent view. His thought of God is not that of Hosea, neither, therefore, is his idea of sin the same. To him Jehovah is the Sovereign, Kadosh, the transcendent God, who, however, contradiction as it may seem, is the Kedosh * It is probable that sins of ignorance were properly such offences aa were inevitable, owing to the limitations and frailties of the human mind. The idea is expressed accurately in Ezek. xlv. 20, where the sin-offering is made " for every one that erreth, and for him tliat is simple " — that is, for inadvertent breaches of law due to the limitations of the liuman mind in general, or to the natural slowness of individuals. But it was necessary in practice to extend the idea over some offences scarcely coming under it originally. IDEA OP SIN IN DEUTERO-ISAIAH 229 Tisrael, the holy One of Israel, — who, as the Second Isaiah expresses it, inhabits eternity and dwells " in the high and holy place with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit" (Ivii. 15). Corresponding to his idea of God is his idea of sin in man. This idea is equally inward with that of Hosea, but it has another complexion. Sin is pride. Hence Jehovah has a day against every one that is proud and lofty — " the lofty looks of man shall be humbled, and the haughtiness of man shall be bowed down, and the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day" (ii. 11). He has nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against Him (chap. i.). It is but another aspect of this idea when he calls their sin want of faith : " If ye will not believe, ye shall not be established " (vii. 9). And but another aspect of it still, when he charges the people with insensibility to the Divine ; people whose hearts were 'fat,' and their ears heavy, and their eyes 'shut' (vi. 10). Throughout the prophets, sin is estimated in its relation to Jehovah, and each prophet's conception of it varies with his conception of Jehovah. Yet though it was difficult to reach so inward a conception of sin, when the com- munity was the moral subject or unit, it is evident from these expressions of Isaiah and Hosea how profoundly inward their ideas were, and how far from true it is to say that they refer only to external acts, and take no note of the condition of the mind or affections. " They draw near unto Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me" (Isa. xxix. 13). God in His providence broke up the outward form of the community. It ceased to be the kingdom of God. It was no more a question of its relation as a community to Jehovah, and of external conduct as a community. The factors now became different. They were Jehovah and the individuals. The national existence was interrupted, the national service in a foreign land was impracticable. There was nothing now between the single personal heart and the Lord. It may even seem a strong thing to say, but this event, the breaking up of the national existence, was the greatest 230 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT step, next to the calling of Israel, towards Christianity. It revolutionised men's conception of religion. It made it, as no doubt it had to some extent been always, a thing exclusively personal. No doubt the idea of the community remained an idea. It is this idea that plays so splendid a role in the second half of Isaiah, under the name of the Servant of the Lord — the idea, which was not merely an idea, but had a nucleus of godly individuals, especially in Babylon, to which it attached itself ; over which, if I can say so, it hung like a bright canopy, a heavenly mirage reflected from the kernel of the people on earth. This ideal Israel could not die ; so far from dying, it possessed, in Jehovah's calling of it and holding it fast by the right hand of His righteousness, a vitality which should yet im- part life to all the scattered fragments of the people, and reconstitute them as out of the grave into a new nation. But ere that time nothing held them together except theu' individual faith. It is at this point that Jeremiah stands, who despairs of the community as it now is, as all the prophets do, but who looks forward to a new Church of God made up of members, gathered together one to one by an operation of Jehovah with each. Hence Jeremiah's idea of sin is not only national, but profoundly personal : " The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked " (xvii. 9) ; " this people hath a revolting and a rebellious heart" (v. 23); the house of Israel are "un- circumcised in heart" (ix. 26); "I will give them a heart to know Me " (xxiv. 7) ; " Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord . . . I, the Lord, search the heart, I try the reins " (xvii. 7, 10) ; "I will write . . . My law upon their heart" (xxxL 33). And the reconstruction which such a prophet looks forward to, or which is looked forward to in the second half of Isaiah, is, so far as its moral and religious character goes, nothing short of, and nothing else than, Christianity. These prophets expect it soon. They couple it with the restoration from exile ; they bring it down upon a condition of the world externally resembling that in CONSCIOUSNESS OF SIN 231 their own day. We have to distinguish between their religious thoughts themselves and their ideal reconstructions of the external world. These were constructions which, living in that ancient world, they had to make ; for no other materials were at their hand. But the ideas which they expressed through their great fabrics of imagination abide, the inheritance of all the ages. They built on the true foundation gold, silver, precious stones. Time wastes even these costly but earthly fabrics, and we, as we live age after age, have to replace them with materials to serve our use, which shall probably decay too, and future generations will have to body out the eternal ideas in other materials. But the ideas are eternal. Here we see that, in the sphere of religion, sin is idolatry, or service of Jehovah of a kind that profaned His holy name ; that, in the sphere of speech, truth is right- eousness, and sin falsehood ; that, in the sphere of civil life, justice is righteousness, and sin is injustice, want of con- sideration, also evil speaking, and much else ; and that, in the sphere of the mind of man, sin is want of sincerity, either towards God or towards men, guile ; purity, the opposite to this, being purity of heart, simplicity, openness, genuineness. The Old Testament teaching regarding sin does not differ from the teaching in the New Testament, though probably there is less approach towards generalis- ing and to statement in the form of categories. The Old Testament is so entirely of a practically religious nature, that deductions of a general kind are not quite easy to make. Perhaps we acquire a better idea of the consciousness of sin in the mind of Old Testament saints from some continuous passages than by any induction based on individual terms. And there is no more remarkable picture of the consciousness of sin in Israel than that shown in Ps. li. The tradition preserved in the heading of the Psalm is that it is by David. Modern writers are inclined to bring it lower down. For our present purpose this question is not of importance. We learn more from 232 THE THEOLOGY OP THE OLD TESTAMENT such a picture of the feelings of an individual mind in regard to the thoughts of sin in Israel than we could from any investigation into the meaning of the mere terms by which sin is described. My impression of the Psalm is that it contains only a single prayer, namely, that for forgiveness. The cry, " Create in me a clean heart," is not a prayer for what we call renewal. The ' heart ' is the conscience ; and the prayer is that God would by one act of forgiving grace create, bring into being, for this penitent a clean conscience, on which lay no blot either to his feeling or to God's eye. The main points are these. The petitioner begins his prayer with what we might call an outburst of feeling : " Fity me, 0 God." The cry has been long repressed ; his feelings have chafed behind his closed lips, demanding an outlet ; but he has stubbornly kept silence. At lasb they break through like confined waters — "Fity me, 0 God, according to thy loving -kindness " ; then comes a laying bare of his consciousness to support his cry for pity. First, he utters such expressions as these, " cleanse me," " wash me," " sprinkle me with hyssop, and I shall be clean." Perhaps the Psalmist has here before his mind what we call the pollution of sin, its evilness in itself. It is of the nature of a stain on the nature of man, apart from its consequences, and without bringing in subsidiary ideas of its relation to God and of its Hability to punishment. And when he speaks of washing him thoroughly, he perhaps has in his mind the idea of a cloth into which stains have entered and have dyed its very tissues ; just as in the words ' cleanse me ' he refers to the disease of leprosy, a disease that more than any other almost is constitutional, and, though appearing externally, pervades the whole body. And very beautiful is the contrast which he would present when forgiven and purified : " I shall be whiter than the snow." Still I should not lay much stress on this, because such terms as ' wash,' etc., are all used of forgiveness. Second, he says : " Behold, I was shapen in iniquity ; and in sin did my mother conceive ma" This sin is in- THE FIFTY-FIRST PSALM 233 herited ; not he alone, but all about him are sinful. The Psalmist does not plead this as an extenuation of his act, but rather as an aggravation of his condition. It deepens the darkness of his state which he presents before the eye of God, and is an intensification of his plea for ' pity.* In opposition to this condition of his he places what he knows to be the moral desire of God : " Thou desirest truth in the inward parts : in the hidden part make me to know wisdom." He supports his prayer, both by the desperate condition of nature and conduct in which he is himself, and by what he knows to be the gracious desire of God, that no creature of His hand should remain, or be, in such a condition. Third, he uses these expressions : " Against Thee, Thee only, have I sinned. Hide Thy face from my sin." This is an additional idea — sin is against God. The words against Thee only mean against Thee, even Thee ; as : "I will make mention of Thy righteousness, of Thine only," that is, even of Thine (Ps. Ixxi. 16). The words express the judgment of the conscience regarding sin ; it is against God. No doubt you might confirm this judgment by reflection. All sins are against God, for God is present in all the laws that regulate society ; when we offend against men, it is against Him in truth that we are impinging. He is behind all phenomena ; He is in every brother man whom we meet. Yet this is scarcely before the Psalmist. The words are the expression of conscience, which, when it opens its eye, always beholds God, often beholds nothing but God. The world is empty, containing but the sinner and God. The Psalmist feels all else disappear, and there is only the full, luminous face of God bearing down upon him. Fourth, he uses such phrases as : " Cast me not from Thy presence "; " Take not thy holy Spirit from me " and the like. The two expressions mean much the same. God in the world is the Spirit of God. The holy Spirit is the name for aU godly aspirations, as well as for the cause of them; it is that quickened human spirit which strivee after God, and it is that Divine moving which causes it to strive, and it is that God even after whom there is the 234 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT strife. Its taking away would leave the soul without any- thing of all this. And the Psalmist by his prayer seems to imply that he had felt himself as if on the brink of this abyss — his sin seemed to him to carry in it the possibility of this consequence, when he should be without God in the world. These are some of the thoughts of sin in the mind of this penitent, causing him to cry, Pity me. Not less pro- found is his concluding petition : " Kestore to me the joy of Thy salvation " ; " then will I teach transgressors Thy ways " ; " Open Thou my lips ; and my mouth shall show forth Thy praise." This is still a prayer for forgiveness ; but it contains an outlook into the Psalmist's future. The words express the Psalmist's idea of that which should lie at the basis of all life, of any life — the sense of forgiveness. Of course, he does not mean by opening his lips, giving him boldness after his great sin to come before men with ex- hortations, who might reply to him : Physician, heal thy- self. It is not courage to speak, but a theme of which to speak to men that he desires. There is a singular sincerity in his mood. He cannot, in speaking to men, go beyond what he has himself experienced. His words are : " Blot out my transgressions ; then will I teach transgressors Thy ways " — Thy way in forgiving. " Open Thou my lips ; then shall my mouth show forth Thy praise." " Who is a God like unto Thee, pardoning iniquity ? " By " open my lips " he means " enable me to speak," i.e. through iuj parting to him the sense of forgiveness. Tliese are some of the thoughts of sin — its pollution ; its being inherited ; its being in truth, whatever form it may have outwardly, against God ; its tendency to encroach upon and swallow up the moral lights of the soul, till all that can be called the Holy Spirit is withdrawn ; and the true idea of a life in the world and an activity among men which is founded on forgiveness. And, of course, there is to be observed, what runs through all the Psalm, faith in God's forgiving mercy : " Have pity on me, according to Thy goodness : according to the multitude of Thy tender THE COVENANT RELATION 235 mercies, blot out my transgressions." Similar thoughts are contained in many other passages, such as Ps. xxxii. ; but multiplication of examples would not add anything to the points just referred to. VIII. THE DOCTRINE OF REDEMPTION. 1. The Covenant. The only aspect under which Scripture regards the constitution of Israel, is its religious aspect. JJ'he Isiaelit- ish State is everywhere regarded as a religious community ; J in other words, as that which we call the kingdom of (!(id or of Jehovah. To the Scripture writers it has no other aspect of interest. But under this aspect they embrace all its fortunes and vicissitudes. These have all a religious meaning. Its deliverance out of Egypt, its settlement in Canaan, its peaceful abode there, and its ejectment out of that land, have all a rehgious significance. They express some side or some aspect of its relation to Jehovah, God of Israel. In other words,, Israel is the people of (Jod, and all that happens to it illustrates in some way iis relations to God. This is the fundamental position to l»c taken in reading the Scriptures, or in any attemjti in understand them. Further, though Israel be the people of God, jiimI though it is as the people of God only that it is sp, to be holy ; Pi., Hiph., to sanctify, hallow, consecrate, dedicate ; ^"^p, holy thing, holi- ness, sanctuary, thing hallowed ; and equal to ' holy ' in connection with a noun ; ti^pro^ sanctuary, holy place ; adjective ^inj^, holy ; also as noun, saint, holy ona Now these words are applied in the Old Testament: (a) to things ; (6) persons ; (c) and to Jehovah ; and it is not an uninteresting inquiry, what is their meaning when so applied ? Now, in pursuing this inquiry, it will be best to disregard opinions stated by others, and follow out merely a brief induction of passages. But perhaps I may state, to begin with, the result to which I think comparison of the passages will lead. These results are: (1) The word 'holy' does not originally express a moral attribute, nor even a moral condition as the blending of many attributes, when applied either to God or men. (2) When applied to Jehovah, it may express any attribute in Him whereby He manifests Himself to be God, or anything about Him which is what we should name Divine ; and hence the name ' Holy,' or 'Holy One,' became the loftiest expression for Jehovah as God, or it expressed God especially on the side of His majesty. It was the name for God as transcendental. (3) When applied to things or men, it expresses the idea that they belong to Jehovah, are used in His service or dedicated to Him, or are in some special way His property. (1) With regard to things and men. Of course, holi/ or holiness said of things cannot denote a moral attribute. It can only express a relation. And the relation it ex- presses is, belonging to Jehovah, dedicated to Godhead. Nothing is holy of itself or by nature. And not every- thing can be made holy. Only some things are suitable. But suitability to be made holy and holiness are things quite distinct. For example, only clean beasts could be devoted to Jehovah. A beast so devoted is holy. But all clean beasts were not so devoted. The ideas of ' holy ' and ' clean ' must not therefore be confoimded. Clean- 254 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT ness is only a condition of holiness, not that itself. For example, it was forbidden to defile the camp in the wilder- ness, because this made it unfit for the presence of Jehovah ; as it is said, " That they defile not their camps, in the midst whereof I dwell " (Num. v. 3). Every- thing dedicated to Jehovah, and belonging to Him, was holy. For example, the tabernacle where He dwelt was called ty'"Jp» or ^"p, a holy place. Mount Zion, the hill where His presence in the tabernacle was manifested, was a holy hill. Jerusalem was the holy city. The sacrifices, as belonging to Him, were a holy thing, B^'p. So were the shewbread, the tithes, the oil, the first-fruits, everything, in short, dedicated to Jehovah. In that which was holy there might be gradations. Thus the outer part of the tabernacle was the holy place, but the inner part was •^TlpT 'P> ™ost holy place ; it was especially dedicated to God, and none dared enter it. So all flesh offerings were holy ; but some were most holy things, such as the sin- offering. The meaning does not seem to be this, that these things being dedicated to God, this fact raised in the mind a certain feeling of reverence or awe for them, and then this secondary quality in them of inspiring awe was called holiness. No doubt things as dedicated to God had this quality. But what the word holy describes is the primary relation of belonging to Jehovah. This appears from a passage in which those are described who are to be priests, as indeed it appears quite evidently in the passage where Israel is called an holy nation, which is parallel to the other designation, a kingdom of priests (Ex. xix. 6). Korah and his company objected to the exclusive priesthood of Aaron, saying : " Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and Jehovah is among them. And IMoses answered. To-morrow will Jehovah show who are His and who are holy " (Num. xvL 3). Hence the priests are said to be holy unto Jehovah, i.e. they are His property and possession. The term holy, therefore, whether applied to things or men in Israel, or to all Israel, IDEA OF HOLINESS 255 signifies that they are the possession of Jehovah ; hence the term expresses what is elsewhere expressed by the word n?3p, a peculium, or peculiar people. But naturally with this idea of belonging to Jehovah other ideas are allied. That which is His is separated out of the region of common things. Thus in Ezek. xlv. 4 a certain part of the land, the portion of the priests, is called P.'?'?'^ ^IPj * ^oly thing taken out of the land. Hence holy is opposed to profane, bh. The latter word means that which lies open, is accessible, common, not peculiar. Hence in holy there lies the idea of being taken out of the common mass of things, or men, or nations ; and with that naturally the notion of being elevated above the common. Again, there quite naturally belongs to it the idea of being inviolable, and those who lay their hands upon it the Divine nature reacts against and destroys. Hence Uzzah, who put out his hand to stay the ark, perished ; and likewise those of Beth- shemesh who looked into it. Hence the offerings could not be eaten by any but the priests, God's peculiar servants. So it is said of Israel in his youth, that he was " a holy thing unto the Lord O^p), ... all that devoured him incurred guilt, i.e. as putting forth their hand against what was Jehovah's " (Jer. ii. 3). Further, it is quite possible that this formal idea of relation to Jehovah might gather unto it, if I might say so, a certain amount of contents. Only clean things could be dedicated to Jehovah. Only men of a character hke His own could be His property. And it is possible, therefore, that the word holy may occasionally be used to cover this secondary idea. But this is not its primary use, and in any case is rare. (2) A more difficult question presents itself when we inquire what is meant when it is said, " Jehovah is holy." First, it is out of the question to say that, as Israel is holy, being dedicated to Jehovah, so Jehovah is holy, as belong- ing to Israel ; and that the language, he ye holy : for I am holy, means nothing more than " be mine : for I am yours." That sentence means, at all events, he My people : for I am your God. Holy, on the side of Israel, meant devoted to 266 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT God — ^not devoted in general. The conception of God was an essential part of the idea. But this suggests at once that Iwly, as applied to Jehovah, is an expression in some way describing Deity; i.e. not describing Deity on any particular side of His nature, for which it is a fixed term, but applicable to Him on any side, the manifestation of which impresses men with the sense of His Divinity. For instance, EzeMel (xxxvi. 20) says of the heathen among whom Israel were dispersed, that they profaned Jehovah's holy name when they said to Israel, " These are the people of Jehovah, and are gone forth out of their land." What is implied in this language of the heathen is a slur upon the power of Jehovah. He was unable to protect His people. Hence, they had gone into exile. This thought on the part of the heathen was profanation of the holy name of Jehovah, i.e. it reduced His majesty and might to contempt. Thus the Divine greatness and power are elements of His ' holiness.' Hence He will ' sanctify ' His great name, i.e. His revealed greatness, by restoring Israel. Again, in a similar way. He sanctifies Himself in Gog by giving him over to destruction ; i.e. He shows Himself by His power to be God <'Ezek. xxxviii. 16). And thus the words, "I will sanctify Myself," and " I will glorify Myself," are almost synonymous. Compare Lev. x. 3, where it is said : " I will be sanctified in them that come nigh Me, and before all the people will I be glorified." So it is said in Ps. xcix. 3 : " Let the nations praise Thy great and terrible name, for it is holy." So Moses is chastised because he failed to sanctify Jehovah's name at the waters of Meribah (Num. xx. 12, 13) — i.e. failed to impress upon the people His power and God- head. The cry of the seraphim in Isaiah is, " Holy, holy, holy, the whole earth is full of His glory " (vi. 3), i.e. His Divine majesty ; and the word holy must here be very much the same as God, i.e. God in His majesty. Thus the name comes to express Jehovah on some side of His Godhead, or perhaps on that side which, to men, is specifically Divine, His majesty. Hence the name becomes, in Isaiah and the GOD THE HOLY ONE 257 prophets after him, a name of Jehovah as God ; He is the Holy One of Israel, i.e. God in Israel, the name implying an effort on the part of men's minds to express Divinity in its highest sense. " Holy is the name," says Baudissin, " for the whole Being of Jehovah, God revealed in Israel." Hence it may be used without the article. " To what will ye liken Me, saith t^'Hi^ " — the incomparable — the God of majesty. Wisdom is the knowledge of Providence as the ways of God. Hence it is said in Proverbs, " I have not learned Wisdom, so that I should have knowledge of cil^. The fear of Jehovah is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of 'p is understanding." ^ Two points yet deserve some notice : first, the etymology ; and, second, the extended usage of the name to express special attributes. The latter wUl depend upon the special character under which God is presented with a view to influence men. Etymology is rarely a safe guide to the real meaning of words. Language, as we have it in any literature, has already drifted away far from the primary sense of its words. Usage is the only safe guide. When usage is ascertained, then we may inquire into derivation and radical signification. Hence the Concordance is always a safer companion than the Lexicon. The word tjnp is perhaps i-elated to other words beginning with the same letters, e.g. kad., cut, cedo, and the like. If so, its meaning would be to cut off, to separate, to elevate out of the sphere of what is ordinary and set apart. If this be its meaning, we can readily perceive how it came to be applied to God. He is the lofty, the heavenly, separated in space from men — dwelling on high. More, He is the majestic, the morally lofty, separated from the human, not only as the finite material creature, but particularly as the sinful, impure creature. The Hebrews hardly distinguish, to begin with, the physical from the moral attributes of God. Majesty and moral purity are hardly separated. In both respects God is separated from man and elevated above him, and * See his Studien zur $$mitisehen BeligumsgeackichU, iL p. 76 S, — £d. 17 258 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT in either way He is holy ; and when men's eyes suddenly behold Him, His nature repels the profanity, and men die. If this was the line of thought along which the name 'p was applied to Jehovah, it perhaps follows that the name was imposed upon men and things in a secondary way aa belonging to Him. Thus (1) we see Holy as a designation of Jehovah ; having reference to His Godhead, or to anything which was a manifestation of His Godhead. (2) We have it as used of men and things. These it describes as belonging to Jehovah, dedicated to Him, devoted or set apart to Him. Primarily, therefore, it expressed merely the relation. (3) But naturally the conception of dedication to Jehovah brought into view Jehovah's character, which reacted on the things or persons devoted to Him. Hence a twofold filling up of the circumference of the word 'holy' took place. (a) As to men devoted to Him, they must share His character, and thus the term ' holy ' took on a moral com- plexion. (6) As to things, they must be fit to be Jehovah's. Even when ' clean ' is used here by the prophets, it denotes moral purity (Isa. vi. 5). Hence the word took on what may be called a ceremonial or aesthetic complexion ; differ- ing little from clean, ceremonially pure. But the name as applied to Jehovah expresses the efforts made by the Hebrew mind to rise to the conception of God as transcendent. It was the name for God abso- lutely. Hence the highest expression of the national life was : " Be ye holy : for I am holy " ; that is at first, le ye Mine : for I am God. But what God was is not expressed. And always as the conception of God enlarged and clarified, more was felt to lie in the expression 'p ; and the calling of a people who was His, was felt to be more elevated. But it will be easily seen how various the shades of significance may be that lie in 'p. When we use the name €hd, it is not a mere empty name — we have always a A RIGHTEOUS PEOPLE 259 feeling in the background of what God is morally, or in power or wisdom. Hence 'p, being used in the same way, may, in certain cases, emphasise special attributes of God, according as circumstances brought these into prominence ; in opposition, for example, to the sins of those who were His people, or their disbelief, or their forgetfulness of their covenant relation to Him, or the like. 4. The Second Side of the Covenant — the People a righteous People. The two parties to the covenant are God and Israel, His people. The covenant was made with the people, not with individuals. The people was the unit. The relation of Jehovah to the people made Him King. He was King of Jacob, the Creator of Israel, their King (Isa. xliii. 15). And their relation to Him was that of subjects owing allegiance and obedience. Again, they were a peojyle, united by ties to one another, and owing duties to one another. Thus conduct, whether of the nation as a whole or of individuals, was estimated rather under the aspect of civil actions. A people necessarily forms a common- wealth, and its conduct was right when it fulfilled its obligations to its king, and the conduct of the individuals was right when they fulfilled their duties to one another. Yet, on the other hand, this King was Jehovah, God of Israel, and this people was the people of Jehovah. Thus what might seem at first merely civil became religious. This second conception allowed room for a very great deepening of the idea of the people's relations to one another, and of their relation to their King. It might be made a question, indeed, which of the two conceptions, the civil or the religious, was the prior conception. To answer this question is of little importance. Probably the very asking such a question betrays a modern point of view, and one from which tlie Hebrew mind never regarded things. The Hebrews regarded all things from the religions point of view. Civil government and tiie conduct of men to one 260 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT another alike belonged to the religious sphere, with the more direct acts of Divine service. If we observe a progress in the thinking of the people as represented by their writers, it is not a progress in the direction of divid- ing men's actions into two spheres, one civil and the other religious, but in the direction of a deeper conception of the nature of actions. All things continued with them to be religious. They were all done to God, but the con- ception deepened of what the meaning of doing anything to God was. To begin with, an external obedience to the laws of their king was thought religion ; but later it was felt that a true state of the heart towards God must go along with the outward act to make it right. At first, perhaps a citizen considered he had fulfilled his obligations to his fellow-citizen when he gave him his external civil right, when he was just to him ; but later it was felt that humanity and mercy and love must be shown by one to another. There is always some danger of generalising too hastily, and finding the steps of progress from one idea to another, or from one stage to another, clearly shown by different writers. We may go so far safely enough. We may say certain authors represent this idea, and certain others another idea. An examination of the writings of one prophet may enable us to say with fairness, this and not another is the prevailing conception in him ; and in another prophet who came after him a different and a deeper conception prevails. Yet it may be hardly safe to say that the deeper conception had not yet been reached in the time of the former prophet. Much may depend on his idiosyncrasy. And we require to move with very careful steps in making inductions in regard to the progress of ideas in Israel. In the prophet Amos the prevailing conception is that of righteousness. Jehovah is the right- eous ruler of men, who vindicates on aU, Israel and the heathen alike, the law of morality. And what the prophet demands from the people is righteousness — that is, just dealing with one another. " Let righteousness run down THE REQUIREMENT OF GOODNESS 261 your streets like water" (Amos v. 24). A succeeding prophet, Hosea, has another, and what is to us a pro- founder, conception. He abandons the region of law and right, and enters the region of affection. Jehovah is not to him the righteous King, but the loving father of Israel. " When Israel was a child, I loved him, and called My son out of Egypt" (Hos. xi. 1). He is the husband of Israel, who is His spouse. And He complains not of the want of righteousness among the people to one another, but of the want of mercy, *iDn — that is, humanity in the highest sense, goodness, love. Where Amos says : " I will not regard youi* burnt-offerings ; but let justice run down as waters, and righteousness as a never-drying stream " (v. 24), Hosea says : " I desire goodness, and not sacrifice ; and the knowledge of God more than burnt-offerings" (VL 6). Now, undoubtedly there is a profound advance from the one of these conceptions to the other. The former conception is not abandoned ; at least all that it covered is retained, but reduced under a more rehgious idea. And a succeeding prophet, Micah, combines the ideas together : " What doth the Lord desire of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy " — "ion — goodness ? (vi. 8). Yet we might go too far in saying that the idea of Hosea was wholly new ; for even Samuel had said : " To obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams" (1 Sam. XV. 22). And had we fuller records, we might find among earher prophets much that seems to us now the con- ceptions of later ones. We cannot be wrong, however, in signalising certain prophets as the great expounders ot certain conceptions, though we may find in their idiosyn- crasies and their circumstances some explanation of their giving such ideas so great prominence. We found that what brought perfection to the people of God, so far as that depended on God and the Divine side of the covenant, was the presence of God in His fulness among the people. Sometimes this presence is His presence in the Messianic king, and sometimes it is 262 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT His presence, so to speak, in Himself. These two lines cannot, of course, remain separate ; and the New Testament unites them in one by making those passages which speak of the Lord's presence in His own Person, also to be Messi- anic passages. In doing so the New Testament writers stand on history. They have the history of Jesus behind them, and this history has interpreted much of the Old Testament to them. That splendid passage, Isa. xl. 1-11, which speaks of Jehovah coming in strength, i.e. in His fulness, and feeding His flock like a shepherd, is interpreted in the Gospels of the Son. It was in the Son, or as the Son, that Jehovah so manifested Himself. By the Old Testament prophet a distinction in the Godhead was not thought of; but subsequent revelation casts light on the preceding. The Lord, the Eedeemer and Judge, is God in the Son. Now the perfection of the covenant relation was reached when Jehovah thus came in His fulness among His people. It is difficidt to reahse what idea the Old Testa- ment prophets had of this — how they conceived Jehovah present. They are obHged to adopt figures. His glory is seen, and physical images are employed to body out the spiritual ideas. The most brilhant pictures are in the second half of Isaiah. But there are some passages in this book where the prophet seems to show us what in his less exalted, or at all events more realistic, moments he probably really conceived Jehovah's presence to be. In xliv. 2 3 he says : " The Lord hath redeemed Jacob, and glorified Himself in Israel." In xlix. 3 : " Thou art My servant, 0 Israel, in whom I will glorify Myself." In Ix. 1, 3 : "Arise, shine ... for the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee . . . And the Gentiles shall come to thy light." These passages would seem to imply that Jehovah is presented in His presence through Israel itself, not as an independent glory ; the glory of Israel is His glory. He and Israel are not two, but glorified Israel reflects His glory. And there is a singular passage (xlv, 14, 15) which perhaps confirms this view : " Thus saith the Lord, THE SERVANT OF THE LORD 263 The labour of Egypt, inerchaiidise of Ethiopia and of the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over unto thee . . - they shall fall down unto thee . . . saying, Surely God is in thee. . . . Verily thou art a God that hidest Thyself, 0 God of Israel, the Saviour." It is worth observing here that the Servant of the Lord, whomsoever that remarkable conception represents in the mind of the prophet, does not appear as a distinct personage among Israel redeemed. He either is Israel redeemed, or he is not considered separately from them in their condition of glorified redemption. In chap. liii. Israel redeemed looks back upon the time when he was among them in his humility, and they confess how sadly they misapprehended him. " Who believed what we heard ? and to whom did the arm of the Lord manifest itself ? . . . We thought him smitten, and afflicted of God ; but it was our sins that he bore : by his wounds we have been healed." But after chap. liii. the servant does not appear, except perhaps in chap. Ixi. 1, 2, a passage the point of view of which is anterior to the redemption : " The Spirit of the Lord is upon me ; because he hath anointed me to proclaim liberty to the captive ; . . . to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, the day of vengeance of our God." The prophet, after chap, hii., speaks no more of the Servant of the Lord, but of the servants of the Lord — the people are all righteous, and taught of God ; while before he spoke of " my righteous servant, whose ear was opened as that of one taught " (L 4). Perhaps this point is in favour of those who think that the Servant of the Lord is not an individual If an individual, it is strange that he wholly disappears when Israel is ransomed through his great sufferings. We should expect him to be at the head of the people. But the people have no head but Jehovah Himself. There is a very remarkable passage in chap. Iv. 3 f., where the people are addressed : " Incline your ear, and come unto me . . . and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David. Behold, I made him a witness to 264 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT the peoples, a leader and commander of the peoples. Behold, thou shalt call nations that thou knowest not, and nations that know not thee shall run after thee for the sake of Jehovah thy God, and for the Holy One of Israel ; for He hath glorified thee." Here the people, redeemed and glorified, are served heirs to the great promises made to David. There is one other point here which I need only touch upon. The place of Israel glorified and of God present is, of course, in all the Old Testament writers the earth. God descends ; His tabernacle is among men ; men are not translated into heaven. The earth is transfigured, but it remains the earth, and abode of men. There is a new heavens and a new earth, but the two are still distinct ; and the new earth is the inheritance of the saints. Of course, the conceptions of prophets are very various on this final condition of things. It was not given to them to see clearly here. Now the word that describes the proper condition of the people on their side of the covenant relation is righteotis. The difference between * holy ' and ' righteous ' must be observed. ' Holy,' K'iip, is a term that expresses the being in covenant. It is equal to belonging to God, i.e. being His people ; but righteous expresses the condition morally of those who are His people. This latter is the word that describes how the people should be at all times, and how it shall be at the end. And Isaiah mourn- fully exclaims : " How is the city that was faithful become an harlot ! she in which righteousness dwelt ; but now murderers" (i. 21). And in the later chapters of the book it is said of the restored and perfected Israel : " Thy people shall be all righteous" (Ix. 21); "They shall be called trees of righteousness, the planting of our God, that He might be glorified " (Lxi. 3) ; and again : " Ye shall be named the priests of the Lord ; men shall call you the ministers of our God " (lxi. 6) ; and again : " I will greatly rejoice in the Lord ... He hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself TERMS FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS 266 with omamenta" (Lxi. 10). It is obvious that the term ' righteousness ' is one that admits of considerable variety of use, and may cover wider or narrower meanings. We may refer a little to the usage of the word ; and, second, to the general idea conveyed in the expression " the people shall be righteous." We shall inquire what this means when said of the people on their side of the covenant. (1) As to the usage of the words P% P^'^.)?, Pls, and njTix — verb, adj., and noun. In general, we may remark that the radical idea of these words is extremely difficult to detect. Most Hebrew words now apphed to express ethical conceptions expressed, no doubt, originally physical ideas. In some cases we can reach these original conceptions. For example, the word "'^*, translated upright, means ' plain ' or ' level,' in a physical sense. Perhaps the radical idea in K'inj^ is " cut off, separated, removed to a distance." But the radical notion of pnx seems not to have survived. There is prob- ably no passage in the Old Testament where it can be detected. Some, indeed, have thought they found it in Ps. xxiii. 3, P'3^""y3V?, " paths of righteousness," i.e. even or straight paths; but it is probable that there the meaning is the same as in other passages — " right paths " or "righteous paths," i.e. such patbs as are conformable, appropriate to the requirements of sheep, or paths which are righteous, the figure being deserted. In Arabic the root means " to be true," i.e. to correspond to the idea and reahty. The lexicographers, with some subtlety, say that a man to speak sidq must not only say what conforms to the reaUty, but at the same time what conforms to the idea in his own mind. Thus, if a man said : " Muhammed is the prophet of God," that, to be sidq or truth, must not only correspond to the fact, which of course it does, but also to his own idea, i.e. he must also believe it Lexico- graphical subtleties of this kind are rarely very helpful ; it is safer, first of all, to look to usage. Then it is possible that etymology may give an idea that binds the usages into 2G6 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT one, or give a stem conception out of wliich all the other conceptions may be seen to have branched off. If we consider now, first of all, the verb P"]^, imperf. P'^T., which is often translated shall be Justified in English, as in Gr. BiKaKoOijaeraL, we find that the proper sense of it is, to be right, to be in the right, to have right on one's side. The idea is juridical, or, as it is called, forensic — belonering to the forum, or court of law. The Hebrews were fond of this conception, when a question arose between two persons, or when one blamed another, or the like ; the parties were very readily conceived as parties to a suit before a judge. And when one defended another in any way, he was said to plead his cause. Thus Jehovah summons the nations and their gods to an imaginary tribunal : " Let them draw near ; let us enter into judg- ment together (Isa. xli. 1). And so when the people are conceived as having a plea which they can bring forward of being true to the covenant obligations, the Lord says: " Let us plead together ; declare thou that thou raaycst be justified " (xliii. 26). Now the verb P7V was said of the person who in such a real or imaginary plea was found by the real or supposed judge to be in the right, to have right on his side. Examples of this do not need to be multiplied. The one just cited from Isaiah is a good instance : declare Piyn |i'D7 ; here there is no question of ethical righteous- ness, but of simple juridical right — having right on one's side. And, similarly, the passage in xliii. 9 : " Let them bring forward their witnesses " {i.e. witnesses of their pre- dictions), " that they be justified," found to have right, in this contested matter, on their side. This is the idea of the simple stem. The causative or Hiphil agrees in meaning ; it is to Jind in the right, to find, in one's action as a judge, a person to have right on his side ; or, with other modifications, such as to regard one as in the right, or to treat one as in the right ; as, e.g., " I will not justify the wicked " (Ex. xxiii. 7) — treat the VBh as P^"nV Of course, as a judge finds this by declaring it, the sfnsc may be to declare one to have THE SENSE OP JUSTIFYING 267 right on his side ; but, properly, it is to find that one is in the right. It does not mean to make a man ethically pure. There seems no passage in the Old Testa- ment where such a sense is possible, except, perhaps, Dan. viii. 14. To find right, or in the right, is the mean- ing of the Hiph., or to j\istify\ or, with slightly different shades of meaning, to declare to be in the right, or show to have right on one's side. Thus the Servant of the Lord (1. 8) exclaims : " He is near that justifieth me," SiiJ? 'p>i\n3 ; " who will enter a plea against me ? " (^^^ 3n> >rp). And in words almost identical, Job — whom God calls " My servant " — says : " I know that I shall be found in the right (P'^.V^) ; who is he that will enter a plea with me?" (xiii. 18^ 19). Now this is a general mode of conception, applicable in a hundred ways. Any question, or charge, or claim may be brought under this juridical idea. The point on which a man may be arraigned, or suppose himself arraigned, may be a trifle — a point of etiquette, or the question of his life before God. To be in the right, or to have right on his side, may be equally various : it may be in a matter of speech, as speaking truth or no ; a matter of custom or consuetudinary law ; a matter of common morals ; or a matter of his relation to God. The standard may be simply a fact, or any understood norm or rule, whether human or Divine, according to which conduct is measured. When Judah said in regard to Tamar the harlot "'3'20 ni^ns " she is in her rights as against me" (Gen. xxxviii. 26), and when the Psalmist cries: "In Thy sight shall no man living be justified " (P"^V^), i.e. be right, or found in the right (Ps. cxliii. 3), they both use the word in the same sense, although the spheres referred to are widely apart. There is always a standard, always a cause ; a man's conduct in a particular matter, or his hf e as a whole, is in question ; and there is always a judge, real or imaginary. The standard may be very various, so may be the point or cause ; the person is pnv when, before the judge, his act or life is in correspondence with the standard. 268 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD 'TESTAMENT Of course, in many cases the standard itself may be con- ceived as the judge, as when a man is condemned by his conscience, or by the popular customs, or by the principles of the covenant. Two passages in Job illustrate the flexibility of the usage in the higher sphere. Eliphaz, arguing against Job's complaints, says : " Shall mortal man be just (P^f.) with God?" (iv. 17), i.e. be found in the right as to his Hfe.^ To which Job replies : " Of course I know that it is so, How should man be just with God ? " (ix. 2). Eliphaz means that, brought to God's bar, no man will be foimd righteous ; Job means, no man can make his righteousness, though he have it, valid against God, or at God's bar, He being unwilling that he should ; because His omnipotent power will hinder man from sustaining his caase. " I know that I have to be guilty," he else- where exclaims (ix. 15, 20). Thus it may be said in regard to this verb: (1) that it is not much in use in the older language; (2) that it is always used of persons; (3) that it means to be in the right, according to some standard, chiefly in a juridical sense ; and (4) that this standard being sometimes the general law of conduct, the moral law, the word shows a tendency to be used of this conformity, or as we use righteous in an ethical sense, the juridical idea falling away. This tendency shows itself more and more in the language, i.e. the standard becomes more and more the great general principles of morals and rehgion. Now the same things can be said in general of the adjective P""^?? righteous, in regard to which we need only remark : (1) that it is never used in the feminine ; a curious fact, explained, perhaps, by the primary use being juridical, where the interests of men alone came into discussion — and it is only used of persons, with perhaps one exception ' On the interpretation of Job iv. 1 7 see the author's The Book of Job. with Notes, etc. ("Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges"), p. 33, where he briefly discusses the competing renderings, and decides on the whole for Can man he righteous before Ood ? This, he thinks, is most in harmony with the tiine at which the charge comes in, the scope of the following verses, and the general aphorism in v. 6, 7. — Ed. STANDARD OF RIGHT 269 (Deut. iv. 8) ; and (2) the ethical notion begins to prevail over the juridical. The use of the nouns P^.^* and ■^P'^Y' which hardly differ in their general meaning, is of great interest, especially in Isaiah. The same general idea belongs to this word — that which has the quality of PIV, which is conformable to a norm or standard. This appears most plainly, first of all, when the word is predicated of things like measures and weights, e.g. '"i riD''S a righteous ephah, 'v \33^? righteous weights, 's ^pT4lo peiliajjs felt that they were Buffering for the sins of their ancestors. They said : " The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge" (Jer. xxxi. 29). In some way they abused this doctrine, either in the way of self-exculpation, or in the way of charging God with unrighteousness. The prophet Jeremiah takes up the proverb. Its use raised the question in his mind. He seems to perceive in the method of God's dealing with men, which this proverb suggests, what is the essence of the old covenant method — the method of dealing with men in the mass, or with Israel as a com- munity ; a method which obliterated the rights of the individual, or under which, at least, the individual did not come into the prominence that belonged to him. And he foresees the time when this method shall no more prevail. But if this method no more prevail, its cessation will be because God and the individual heart will become the two factors in the covenant relation. The external organism will come to an end. All that made Israel distinctive as a community, its external organisation, its old palladiums of redemption and salvation, its orders of teachers, like priests and prophets — all this will come to an end. Men shall no more call to mind the ark of the covenant ; they shall no more teach every man his neighbour ; the law and ordinances shall no more be external. Hence this proverb comes to an end simultaneously with the coming in of the new order of things called the New Covenant : " Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, . . . that as I have watched over them to pluck up and to break down, so will I watch over them to build and to plant, saith the Lord. In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But every man shall die for his own iniquity. Every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge. Behold, the days come that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel ... I will put My law in their inward parts and write it in their hearts . . . they shall all know Me" (xxxi. 29-84). 284 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT That the principle of punishing the children for the sins of the fathers was much speculated on in this age, appears also from the fact that the same proverb is referred to by Ezekiel (xviii. 2), and its further prevalence denied. And in the Book of Job, where all such questions concern- ing evil are focused, Job repudiates the doctrine, and holds the procedure unjust. He points to the fact that a man is often not punished for his sins in this life. His friends reply that the punishment falls on his children. To which he answers. Let God chastise the man himself; what concern hath he in his house after him when the days of his own life are completed ? Job's reply is to the effect that the method of Providence referred to is unjust, and in point of fact fails as a punishment on the man himself, seeing he is all unconscious of the incidence of God's anger on his descendants (xxL 16—34). What made the question of such profound interest was this. God's external treatment of men was held to reflect His true relation to them. Chastisements were indications of His anger. A distinction was not yet drawn between God's external providence and God's true mind towards men. In the Book of Job we perceive this dis- tinction in the very course of being arrived at. Yet Job, though he knows the two things, calls them both God, and appeals to the one against the other : " Mine eye poureth out tears to God that He would procure justice for a man with God"^ (xvi. 20). Thus God's external deaUiig with men being the reflection of His true relation to them, the injustice of mflicting anger on the children for the sins of the father was manifest so soon as the idea of individual rights occurred to one. Hence Jeremiah has no help but to demand a complete reversal of this pro- * In his commentary on The Book of Job (" Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges"), Dr. Davidson puts it so — "Job now names his Witness, and Btates what he hopes for from Him. " 20 My friends scorn me : Mine eye poureth out tears unto God, £1 That He would maintain the right of a man with GK)d, And of a son of man against his neighbour.' — £o. THE ELEVATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL 285 oeeding; and he seems to require that evil shall not fall on a man's descendants because of a man's sins. We know that this involvement of others in a man's sin con- tinues to be the case, and must be. But we draw the distinction between evils of this kind and God's true relation to the individual. Salvation is to be distin- guished from this more external sphere. No doubt the two will influence one another, as a man's condition or circumstances may influence his knowledge of God, or his will to receive the truth. The Apostle Paul has carried back this principle into the history of Israel from the beginning, distinguishing between God's treatment of the nation and His relation to individuals. The elevation of the individual into religious promi- nence, and the constituting him, so to speak, the religious unit instead of the people, had wide consequences. No doubt the community was made up of individuals, and the teaching of the prophets, though directed to the nation, must at all times have been taken home by individuals to themselves. And in order fully to realise the life of Israel, we have to take into account the Psalms and the Wisdom books as well as the Prophets. It is in these more subjective writings that the life of the individual and his thoughts find expression. It is extremely difficult to place these writings with any certainty in their true historical place. It is also at all times difficult, no doubt, to detect in history the causes that brought into promi- nence certain questions. But at all events the dissolution of the State as a religious unit naturally brought into prominence the standing of the individual towards God. The extreme hardships also borne by many pious men at this period forced upon men's thoughts the relation of evil in God's providence to sin and to righteousness. Even the destruction of Israel as a nation, and its subjection to heathen conquerors, might have raised this question. No dowbt, in many minds the deep consciousness of the sin of the nation was sufficient to allay and remove doubt. These heathen conquerors were but instruments of chastise- 286 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT ment in Jehovah's baud ; the Assyrian was " the rod of His anger " (Isa. x. 5). Yet, on the other hand, Israel was, in comparison with these idolatrous, cruel nations, the righteous people, the servant of God. The truth was in Israel; there was a holy stock in it. Such thoughts would arise, perhaps, only later, when the oppressions of the Exile had been long continued, and there seemed no hope of release from it. Then the problem of evil became oppressive to the mind of godly men. And it was the subject of much reflection, and received, perhaps, various solutions. One remarkable book in the Old Testament is devoted to the discussion of it, the Book of Job. This book may discuss the evils of Israel or those of Judah, but probably its theme is suggested by the calamities that befell either the Northern or the Southern State. It may be going too far to say that Job is a type of the people ; that is, that the people are spoken of personified under his name. That is scarcely probable, and the supposition is not necessary. It is the sufferings of individuals, godly individuals, that are exhibited. Job is but a specimen, an idealised specimen. But the solution proposed by the author of the book is that these sufferings are not for sin, for Job is perfect and upright, fearing God and eschewing evil (i. 1 ) ; they are a trial of righteousness, and if borne in patience and devoutness, lead to a restora- tion and a higher blessedness. This view makes Job's sufferings only have meaning if they are but examples of the sufferings of many who suffered like himself. Job's sufferings have no relation to any but himself. Job is not in his sufferings a Messianic type. His history is consoling to sufferers, whose sufferings may be severe or mysterious — to rehgious men ; it has not a higher value. The solution of the meaning of sufferings which is given by the prophet Isaiah in the second half of his book, is much more profound. There the Servant of the Lord Buffers innocently, too, like Job ; but his sufferings are for the sins of the guilty. THE INNER ISRAEL 287 There is, again, this case of the descendants of sinners, who suffer the evils of their forefathers' sins. The circum- stances of the time brought this question into prominence. The godly exiles were bearing the iniquities of their fathers. And men's thoughts were tm-ned to the old doctrine of retribution enunciated early, that God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth gene- ration. The question is of interest, because we see the minds of the wise of that age working their way towards a truth, or at least towards setting forth prominently a truth, which, though always a truth, does not receive much prominence before this time — the truth, namely, set forth by St. Paul, that they are not all Israel who are of Israel (Eom. ix. 6); that witliin the outer frame of Israel, the nominal people of Jehovah, there is an inner circle to whom, in truth, God is communicating the blessings of the covenant. We perceive this great truth receiving prominence at this epoch in two forms, both leading, how- ever, to the same result, one in the Book of Job, and another in such prophets as Jeremiah. The truth is set forth in the form that God's external treatment of the individual, or the people, is not the index of God's true relation to either. In other words, religion is divorced from any connection with what is external, and is driven into the heart, and made to be a relation of the spiiit to the Lord, which no proofs in the shape of external blessings may attend. The calamities of Job were no proof that God's heart was not towards him ; the disper- sion of the nation, or at least the breaking up of the external forms of the religious state, did not invalidate religion. This may seem a commonplace to ub, but perhaps it was little short of a revolution in the thinking of many in Israel. For the fundamental idea, so to speak, of the Old Covenant was that the people's relation to the Lord was reflected in their external circumstances. The external blessings were the seal to them of God's favour ; calamity was the token to them of His anger. It was the 288 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT same in the case of the individual. Perhaps for long they could hardly realise God's favour out of connection with the external tokens of it. The fundamental conception of the Wisdom was, that it was well with the righteous and ill with the wicked. This general principle, no doubt true as a general principle, was taken up as without ex- ception. And, in like manner, it needed God's severe dealing with them to bring home to them their sense of sin ; or at least they saw His anger reflected in calamity. The conflict between Job and his friends on the meaning of calamity, and their pertinacious maintenance of the theory that suffering is always due to sin, indicate to us the kind of questioning that was going on in men's minds in this age. And when the author of the book allows Job to drive his opponents from the field on this point, we perceive that it was his purpose to discredit the doctrine, in the shape in which they advanced it, as one that could not be maintained. While, when he brings forward his own doctrine, that calamity may not be for sin, but as a -trial of righteousness, we see at least one other solution of the question, one applicable not only to individuals, but to the suffering nation. But what is more interesting is the conflict in Job's own mind, and his successful effort to realise to him- self that, in spite of God's severe chastisement of him, God and he are still in true fellowship. The way in which he expresses this is singular enough, but also in- telligible enough. To his mind God was the immediate author of every event. His sufferings came direct from God's hand. And he, unlike the author of the book, still held that sufferings indicated the anger of God, or at least that God was holding him guilty of sins. Yet he rises to the assurance that God knows his innocence ; one God holds him guilty, another knows his innocence, and he appeals to the one against the other. This is but his Hebraistic way of affirming that God's heart as He is in Himself is toward him, though His outer providence be against him. But this half snlution, as we may onl\ it, EVIL OUTSIDE HUMANITY 289 which is forced to make two out of the one God, indicates to us the struggles which it cost men at this time to rise, even under the teaching of God's providential dealings, to the idea that religion was a thing altogether of the relation of the spirit to God, and that it might exist with no external tokens of God's favour. IX. DOCTRINE OF REDEMPTION— SUPBAHUMAN GOOD AND EVIL, 1. Angels. Something has been said of the ideaa of evil entertained in Israel and expressed in Scripture, and of the conscious- ness of sin and guilt among the people of God. But another question presents itself, which is of great interest, and also of some importance. That is the question of the existence of evil outside the sphere of the human mind and human society. Are there traces of a belief in the exist- ence of a superhuman evil to be found in the Old Testa- ment as in the New ? And if so, to what extent of development had this belief attained among the covenant people in the prophetic age in particular ? This is a large question ; and to speak in a judicious manner upon it re- quires an extensive observation of individual passages scattered largely about in many writings, and a careful weighing of the amount of meaning to be fairly attached to them in the circumstances and connections in which they are found. The question has two sides : one, the existence of evil in regions lying outside human life, and among the creatures of God not belonging to the human race ; the other, the influence of beings of this kind upon the destiny of man in general, and upon the self-determina- tion of individual minds among men in particular. Both tliese questions receive large illumination in the New Testament. All that can be looked for in the Old Testa- ment will be traces of beliefs going in the same direction 19 290 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT as the more fully developed New Testament doctrines And the most interesting question will be whether such traces be actually discoverable, and to what distance in this direction they may be followed. Now, first, the raising of such a question brings us face to face with another question, namely, the question of the existence of beings not creatures of God such as men are, but standing in moral relations to Him as men do, and as all beings in the universe must do. For the God of Israel, who is also the God of the whole universe, is no mere unmoral force in the universe, nor the unmoral sum of all the forces in the universe ; He is, above all things, an ethical Being. His physical nature is hardly ever alluded to in the Old Testament. It does not even go the length, which the New Testament does, of calling Him Spirit, though it gives numerous predications regarding Him, and assigns numerous attributes to Him, which show that the concep- tion of His spiritual essence underlay all current ideas and modes of expression regarding Him. There is, I think, only one passage in the Old Testament which approaches to saying in words that He is Spirit. It is the passage already alluded to in Isaiah : " The Egyptians are men, and not God ; their horses are flesh, and not spirit " (xxxi. 3). The Old Testament has no place for speculations upon the physical essence of God. It does not say that He is Spirit ; it says that He has a Spirit, which is the source of all life and organic existence in the world. But its main interest lies in defining God as an ethical Being, and placing all other beings in the universe in ethical relations to Him. And these ethical relations cover the whole forms of existence and every manifestation of the life of these other beings. We are fond, in our scientific analytic manner, of dividing man into two elements, soul and body ; and so does Scripture in a general way. But Scripture never goes the length that we are apt to go of calling the body a material organism, and regarding it as subject to the laws of organisms ; that is, laws different from moral laws, and EXISTENCE OF ANGELS ASSUMED 291 applying to the body of man as a thing outside the region of moral law. In the Old Testament, man, body and soul, is a unity ; and that unity is a moral unity, standing in relations to the great moral Being in the universe ; and man, in his body as well as in his soul, i.e. man as a whole, belongs to the region of the moral world. All that he does is estimated on moral principles ; all that happens to him illustrates moral principles ; and if any part of him, as his body, falls into another region, where other laws prevail, e.g. the region of material organism, this is because some- thing has occurred in his history which has disrupted the unity of his being, and thrown the elements of his nature, for a time at least, into another region, and subjected it to the laws that prevail in that sphere, namely, to the laws of material dissolution and decomposition. But this is the effect of evil, and is only temporary. The scheme of resti- tution retrieves it. And the Scripture doctrine is that when he is restored, man again becomes a unity, and all the parts of this imity enter together again into the moral sphere, and the unity takes up the right moral relation to God and retains it for ever ; a doctrine which is expressed in words not unfamiliar to us : " Their bodies being united to Christ, do rest in their graves till the resurrection" (Shorter Catechism), — i.e. the new man is united to Christ, both in his soul and in his body, as an indivisible imity. But this being the conception of the Old Testament, it being just its characteristic that it passes this moral judg- ment on all beings, it is to be looked for that if it assumes the existence of other beings besides man, it will not leave undetermined the moral sphere to which they belong. If there be angels, they will be either good or bad angels. l^ow, first, that there are beings called angels. Scripture does not prove, but everywhere it assumes. No person denies that the people of Israel and the writers of Scrip- ture believed in the existence of beings so named, or that Scripture makes the belief its own. The question which some persons have raised, or have been supposed to raise is not whether Scripture makes this belief its own, but 292 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT whether, after all, it may not be just an opinion current in those days and among that Eastern people, which, though made its own by Scripture, yet, not being of the essence oi religion, may be in our day legitimate subject for discussion, with the view of arriving at scientific conclusions on the subject. With the question in that form we do not deal here. It is part of the general question of Scripture itself. But the question may appear in another form. It may be put thus: Does not Scripture sometimes so speak of angels as to show that in the minds of the writers their personality was not always very clearly conceived; that though on many occasions this personahty seems clearly grasped, on other occasions it is dim, and the angelic being melts away into a mere manifestation of the providence of God in some form, as when it is said: "He makes winds His angels, and a flame of fire His messengers " ? (Ps. civ. 4). And the question is put. Is it not this class of passages that we should regard as giving the key to the true Biblical conception of the angels ? Are they not mere manifestations of God's providential and redemptive activity, first idealised into living agencies, and then further adorned with personal attributes, those of strength, holiness, and the like, which are characteristic of God's action in providence and in grace ? Now, that is a question which is not like the other one lying behind Scripture ; it is one raised on the stage of Scripture itself, and no one need be afraid to discuss it. I shall only say in regard to it, that the view appears to me to invert the Scripture method of conception. The angels are in Scripture the agents and ministers of God in His providence and grace. They are, according to the later generalisation regarding them, "all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for the sake of them who shall be heirs of salvation" (Heb. i. 14). They carry out God's will, and communicate to His saints strength or light. But as doing so they are personal beings ; and the phraseology which uses the name of angels for the mere providence of God and His care of men, is a later phraseology, which NAMES OF ANGELS 2 9 15 reposes upon the more strict and usual conception of what the angels are, and applies it in a looser way. Passages of this sort may be found, perhaps, in Ps. xxxiv. 7 : " The angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear Him " ; and Ps. xci. 11: "He shall 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." It may be difficult in particular cases to decide between the strict use of the name to indicate personal agents, and its more colourless use for God's providential care. The colourless use, however, is not the primary, but the secondary application, and reposes on what is more strict ; it is a figurative mode of speech, which is based, however, on what many times is actual fact. Now, second, Scripture uses certain names for these superhuman beings. And these names are of two kinds : first, those which define their nature, or the class or grade of being to which they belong, in contrast with the race of men; and, second, those which describe their office, in regard to God or men. Names of the first kind are ^'''p^. or 'x V.?, ^y^ or 'fr' \33. They are called Elohim, or sons of Eloliim ; Elim, or sotis of Elim. This expression is no doubt wrongly translated in our Version ' sons of God.' The name Elohim is used both for God and for angels. The angels are Elohim ; and as a family or class they are * sons of Elohim,' just as prophets are Nehi'im, or sons of Nebi'im. The idea that they are called ' sons of God ' because they stand in close relation to God, or because they share in the purely spiritual nature of God, is not contained in the ex- pression ; neither is the idea present that they are the adoiJted sons of God, having stood the period of probation with success, and now received into His family. This cannot be meant ; for in Job the Satan appears among the ' sons of Elohim,' and is one of them. We found the name Elohim to mean ' mights,' ' powers,' and it is with this meaning that the name is given to the angels. In contrast with man, angels belong to the class of Elohim. In Ps. xzix. 1 our Version reads quite rightly if the name is to be 294 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT interpreted, " Give unto the Lord, 0 ye mighty, give unto the Lord glory and strength " — literally : " Give unto the Lord, ye sons of Elim." The ' sons of Elim ' form the attendants and ministers around Jehovah ; and in the end of the Psalm it is said : " In His palace doth every one say, Glorious ! " In Ps. Ixxxix. 6 the same expression is trans- lated "sons of the mighty": "Who in heaven can be compared with Jehovah, who among the sons of the mighty — Bene Elim — can be likened unto the Lord ? " The angels, therefore, in contrast with the human race, belong to the class of Elohim. They are sons of Elohim. The exegetical tradition firmly reposes on this fact. And perhaps in some cases it may apply the name Elohim to angels where it properly means God, as in Ps. viii. 6 : " Thou hast made him a little lower than Elohim " ; in the Septua- gint 'angels,' though modern interpreters prefer 'God.' I am not sure whether the exegetical tradition here be not more in accordance with the modes of thinking in the Old Testament. It might be an interesting question how the same name Elohim came to designate God and this class of beings. Perhaps we should be satisfied with the general explanation, that the name, meaning ' powers,' is applied from the standpoint of men to all that is above man, to the region lying above him. Though the same name is given, the two are never confounded in Scripture. But if this answer does not seem satisfactory, our inquiries will throw us back into a prehistorical period, a period where the genesis of tlie general name Elohim and its general applications must be investigated. From the beginning of Scripture we find God and these Elohim called by the same name ; He is surrounded by them ; they are His servants, and they minister to His purposes of grace and providence. We can quite well perceive, however, how this broke open a line of thought in another direction. The false gods of heathenism were also Elohim ; and in this way certain classes of angels and these gods were brought into connection or identification, and the gods of the nations 8UPRAHUMAN MESSENGERS AND MINISTKIIS 295 became demons or evil angela There is a curious fluctua- tion in the exegetical tradition, due, perhaps, to this mode of conception. In Ps. xcvii. 7 it is said : " Confounded be all they that serve graven images, that boast themselves of idols : worship Him, all ye gods " ; but the Septuagint renders : " worship Him, all ye angels." These Elohim, or sons of Elohim, form the council of Jehovah. They surround Him, and minister to Him. He and they are Elohim. And it is from this point of view that some explain the use of the plural in such passages as "Let us make man" (Gen. i. 26); "Let us go down and there confound their language " (Gen. xi. 7). In character these angels are said to excel in strength, and to be mighty (Ps. ciii. 20); they are styled C'"jni5 (Job v. 1, XV. 15; Ps. Ixxxix. 6, 8; Zech. xiv. 5; Dan. viii. 13). And from their ministering office the representation appears in Job that they interpret to men God's afflictive pro- vidences with them ; and, on the other side, might be supposed to receive men's complaints of this too severe chastisement : " Cry then ; is there any that will answer thee? and to which of the 'p wilt thou turn?" (v. 1). The passage is poetical, and merely touches upon a supposed turn that Job's mind might take. It does not go the length of teaching that it is part of the office of angels to intercede, or even to represent. Although these excel in purity far above men, the profound consciousness of the Creator's hohness in Israel represents Him as finding something to blame in them : " He charges His angels with error" (Job iv. 18). Names are also given to these angels as having certain characteristics, or filling certain offices, as seraphim, cherubim. There is another class of names given to these beings, however, which is of great interest. They are called angels, D''DNj'Dj i,e. messengers, and D^niK'O, i.e. ministers. These names describe their office, and the place they have in the providence of God. All the Old Testament is filled with illustrations of their operations in this sphere, and examples need not be cited. " The angels represent in a personal 296 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT manner," says Hermann Scbnltz, " God's care of Hia people ; they are the medium of His government of His kingdom, and of His interference in the affairs of the world. They reveal the will of God in reference to the present and the future, call men of God to the undertaking of great deeds which God will accomplish by their hand (as Moses, Jerubbaal), deliver the pious out of danger, and execute the judgments of God against the sinful world, or the dis- obedient in Israel, as in the case of David. When they manifest themselves among men, it is always as armed with some commission from God, which they come to executa" * 2. The Angel of the Lord. As God's manifestations of His will and His inter- ferences in the world are predominantly in the way of carrying out His purpose of redemption, the angels usually appear on missions of mercy or in furtherance of the salva- tion, either of individuals, or of the people as a whole. Prominent among those who labour in this direction stands one angelic figure, who has always attracted largely the attention of interpreters, and regarding whom very diverse judgments have been passed, ' the Angel of the Lord.' It has not been uncommon to find in him a manifestation of the Logos or Son of God, and in his appearance among men a pre-intimation of the incarnation. With regard to the name ' Angel of the Lord,' of course any angel may bear this name. And in many places where such a name is applied, there is no reason to consider that the angelic being to whom it is given is in any way distinguished from others. Thus in 1 Kings xix. 5, it is said that as Elijah lay under a juniper tree an angel touched him ; and then further on in the narrative : " And the Angel of the Lord said unto him." The definiteness here arises from the fact of the angel having been already mentioned. So in the history of David it is said that the angel stretched out his hand upon Jerusalem ; and then it is added that the angel » Alt. Theol., i. p. 560. THE ANGEL OF THE LORD 297 of the Lord was standing by the floor of Arauuah the Jebusite (2 Sam. xxiv. 16). Passages of a similar kind are numerous. But there are many passages of a different kind, where the definiteness of the expression ' the Angel of the Lord ' cannot be explained in this way, and where things are said of this angel that are scarcely applicable to ordinary angelic messengers. Thus at the period of the Exodus, the Angel of the Lord led Israel ; and it is said regarding him : " Be- hold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not ; for he will not pardon your transgressions : for My name is in him. But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak," etc. (Ex. xxiii. 20-23). And in Ex. xxxii. 34 it is said : " Mine Angel shall go before thee " ; which in Ex. xxxiii. 14 is varied : " My presence C^s, My face) shall go, and I will give thee rest " ; and in Isa. Ixiii. 9 the two are combined : " In all their afiliction he was afflicted, and the Angel of His presence (i'';S, i.e. the Angel of His face, the Angel who was His face) saved them ; in his love and in his pity he redeemed them." Here regarding this Angel two things are said : that Jehovah's name, i.e. His revealed character, is in him ; and that he is Jehovah's face, i.e. the face of Jehovah may be seen in him. They who look upon him look upon Jehovah, and in him all that Jehovah is is present. Hence he saves, and will not pardon transgres- sion, though he has the power. With these passages are to be combined others which describe the emotions of those to whom the Angel appeared, e.g. Jacob said : " I have seen God face to face, and my hfe is preserved" (Gen. xxxii. 30); and when he recurs to this event in his dying prophecy, he Bays : " The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads" (xlviii. 16). These passages indicate that in the minds of those to whom this angel appeared, it was an appearance of Jeliovah in person. Jehovah's face was seen. His name was re- vealed. The Angel of the Lord is Jehovah present in 298 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT definite time and particular place. What is emphatic is that Jehovah here is fully present. In particular provi- dences one may trace the presence of Jehovah in influence and operation. In ordinary angelic appearances one may discover Jehovah present on some side of His being, in some attribute of His character ; in the Angel of the Lord He is fully present, as the covenant God of His people, to redeem them. It is the fulness of the manifestation that is emphasised in the name. Now, it may be difficult to say whether the pious in Israel conceived this full mani- festation as effected through the medium of an angel like other partial revelations of God's will and of His power, or considered it a thing quite distinct. On the one hand, while freely considering that Jehovah used instruments to effect His purposes by, they were jealous of ever seeming to confound Jehovah with His agents. On the other, the manifestation is called the Angel of the Lord, like other manifestations. Undoubtedly also Jehovah is not conceived as present in this Angel in such a manner that there is not still preserved the distinction between him and Jehovah. The Lord speaks of him as ' My Angel,' and the * Angel of My face.' But of course there would be a distinction between Jehovah manifest for purposes of redemption and Jehovah in Himself. This particular point, therefore, is not easily settled. But one can readily perceive what Messianic elements lay in the idea of the Angel of the Lord, — who was at least a full manifestation of Jehovah in His redeeming power, — and how far the ancient Church was on right lines when it believed it could trace here the appear- ance of the Son of God. The question whether we are, from our more enlightened point of view, to consider this Angel of the Lord a manifestation of the Son or a mani- festation of God, is not of much moment. On the one hand, further revelation has revealed that God manifested is God in the Son, and it is not unnatural with the ancient Church to suppose that these preUminary theophanies of God in human form were manifestations of the Son, who ANGELS AND PROVIDENCE 299 at last was manifest in the flesh. To Old Testament saints, of course, this view would not occur. The truth which such theophanies would suggest to them was that God truly manifested Himself among them, at least on great occasions, for their redemption ; in His full personality, in the form of man, He came and was seen by them. He did not yet abide among them ; but both the possibility of this, and the hope of it, and the longing for it, must have been awakened in their minds. We have thought it not improper to run out one side of angelic manifestation and operation to its culminating point. But we must now return and take up the other. God's providence is not exclusively benevolent or redemp- tive. Or if you assume that upon the whole it is so, and that a large goodness characterises all that He does, and that His redemptive purpose is strictly His whole purpose, embracing all within it, there are at least particular provi- dences that in themselves, whatever they may be as parts of a great whole, are not benevolent. God often interferes in the world to judge or to destroy. In a way less severe He interferes to punish and chasten. And even in a way less severe still, though full of pain, He interferes to prove and try. Now, on these three lines of providence not dis- tinctively benevolent, the angels also appear as mediating the interference of God in the affairs of men. The angel of death, or destroying angel, smote the Egyptians, and slew their firstborn. The angel of the pestilence stretched his sword over Jerusalem, and chastised Israel for their own sin and the pride of their king. And in connection with the tempting or proving of the saints, the most remarkable instances of angelic activity that Scripture presents to us are to be found. It is to be observed that, as a rule, the angels who execute God's commissions in providence are mere ministers. Any personal share or sympathy with the operations tliat they perform is not brought out. They are so far neutral, or morally indifferent. The destroying angel is not called « bad or cruel angel. And the angels that hurry Lot out 300 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT of Sodom are not represented as acting out of pity to the old man. They merely perform with skill and promptitude the commission entrusted to them. The angels are gener- ally, when enacting the providence of God, mere servants, whose sympathy with the operations they perform is not dwelt upon. In other connections the angels are called ' holy ones,' are regarded as greatly more pure than man, and are described as continually praising Jehovah. But as His servants among men their moral character generally retreats. It is necessary to remember this, otherwise we might draw conclusions that would be too hasty, or at least too broad, in regard to those angels whom we observe sub- serving God's purpose in His providences that are afflictive. 3. Satan. In the prologue to the Book of Job, and in the 3rd chapter of Zechariah, we observe an angel who perhaps represents in his operation the culmination of angelic service in the line of providences not strictly benevolent. The representations in these two passages are highly dramatic and in some respects ideal, and they must be handled with circumspection. In Job the scene presented is something like a cabinet council of heaven. The King, Jehovah, is on His throne, and His ministers appear to stand before Him. These ministers are the sons of Elohim. Among them one presents himself, also one of the sons of Elohim, who is named the Satan, or adversary. The presence of the article with the name shows that it had not yet become a proper name. The adversary describes this angel's function. The word Satan means one who opposes another in his purpose (Num. xxiL 22, 23), or pretensions and claims (1 Kings xi 14, 23, 25 ; Zech. iii. 1); or generally. ' The Satan ' is that one of God's ministers whose part it is to oppose men in their pretensions to a right standing before God (Zech. iii. 1 and in Job i.) ; that is, the minister who represents and executes God's trying, sifting provi- dence. He is one of God's mesaengers, who appears with SATAN IN ZECHARIAH 301 other sons of Elohim, before Jehovah's tlirone, to report his service, and to receive commissions, parts of God's will, which he is to execute. It is in the exercise of this office that he comes into contact with Job, and gives expression to the sentiments to which we shall immediately refer. The scene in Zechariah, chap, iii., is not materially different from that in Job. The people had just been restored from exile. Their restoration was the token of God's favour, and of their right standing with Him. His anger was turned away, and He comforted them. Yet the restoration was a miserable restitution of the ancient glory of Israel. Old men who remembered the former Temple wept at the sight of the meanness of the new one ; and the people had few of the manly virtues and little of the deep godliness of their fathers in the best times of Israel. And the thought could not but rise in men's hearts of the unworthiness of the present people, and doubts of the truth of their repentance ; and whether, in fact, God had returned and been reconciled to them, and was founding anew His kingdom among them. These feelings and doubts are dramatically expressed in the scene where Joshua, the high priest, the representative of the people, is exhibited as standing, clothed in filthy gar- ments, before the Lord, and the Satan standing at his right hand to oppose him. Both in this passage and in Job the Satan comes in between God and men ; he opposes men in their pretensions to a right standing before God ; in other words, he represents the severe, trying, searching side of God's nature and providence, in opposition to the side of His love and grace and complaisance in men. So far all is plain. And the representation might go no further, and we should be obliged to concede that, as is frequently the case, the Satan is left a mere minister, and, so far as appears, morally indifferent. But obviously, in Job at least, the representation goes further. Even in Zechariah there seems a reflection on his uncompassionate and inhuman performance of his office : " The Lord rebuke thee, Satan : is not this a brand plucked from the bm-ning?" (iil 3). 302 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT This insistence on human weakness and guilt, and the general raggedness of human nature and the Church before God, as seen in the filthy garments of Joshua, was ovei- dona There was satisfaction to him in this condition of men ; he desired to hinder the reconcihation of Jehovah and His people. In the case of Job he has nothing outwardly to found upon, but he insinuates selfishness in Job as at the root of his religion. He is no believer in human virtue. He envies and hates the man who is the subject of God's love and trust, and misleads God to destroy him. He hopes to break the bond of faith that unites Job to God, by means of the severe and inexplicable calamities which he brings upon him. The heart of the Satan is already in his work. He begins to carry it on on his own account. It would not perhaps be fair to draw more from these passages ; subsequent revelation will supply additional details. We naturally put the question. Is the Satan here a fallen spirit ? Of course, there is no allusion to anything in his history. All that is touched upon is that one of the Bene Elohim is called the Satan, and that his function is to oppose and accuse men in their relations to God, to make it apparent that these relations are not right, or to produce a displacement of these relations. This is all that mean- time is stated. But we must recall to remembrance here a peculiarity in early revelation, and indeed in all revelation, but one particularly conspicuous in the Old Testament — its tendency to refer all things back to God. As Isaiah says : " I form the light, and create darkness : I make peace, and create evO. : I the Lord do all these things " (xlv. 7). Hence the evil spnit that troubled Saul, for example, is called " an evil spirit from the Lord " (1 Sam. xvi. 14). In the remarkable passage in 1 Kings xxii. 20—22, where the false prophets persuade Ahab to go up to Eamoth-gilead, it is said : " And the Lord said, Who will persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead ? . . . And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said. I will persuade him. And the Lord said imto him. Wherewith ? And he said, I will GODET's view of SATAN 303 go forth, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. Now therefore, said Micah, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets." And what is emphasised in the passage in Job is not whether the Satan be an evil spirit or no, or a fallen spirit, but this, that he is in the hand of God, and that whatever he performs is only under permission of God and in further- ance of His designs. This element in our idea of a fallen spirit, namely, that he is filled with hatred of God Himself, and an eager desire to counteract His designs, is nowhere visible in the Old Testament. Perhaps in our popular theology we exaggerate this idea, and give to the kingdom of evil an independence of the Divine will, and assign to it an antagonism to God who is over all, which goes beyond what Scripture warrants. Godet goes the length of saying that Job's trials were inflicted just to show the Satan that his insinuations against Job were false. But this elevates the adversary into a prominence and an importance which is not at all in keeping with Old Testament conceptions of the relation of God to evil, and its subordination to Him. The Satan in Job does not come into such prominence as to be a party at all. He is simply God's minister to try Job, and when his work is done he is no more heard of. Godet in his interesting essay on Job introduces this idea into the words of Satan — " Does Job serve God for nought ? " — which he considers a covert attack on God Himself. " If it be so, God is nothing more than a poten- tate flattered by cowards ; He has no friends, no children, nothing but mercenaries and slaves. , . . Satan has then discovered the vulnerable point in God Himself. The in- stinct of hatred has served him well . . . while shooting that fiery dart, which reduces to ashes the piety of Job, it is really at the heart of God that he has aimed," etc.^ However the words of Satan may serve to suggest this idea, the idea appears to me one quite foreign to the Old * See Godet's Bihlical Studies on the. OH Tpsfnmi:nt, edited by the Hon. and Rev. W. II. Lyttletou, p. 199 ti'.— Eu. 304 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT Testament. The Satan is the servant of Jehovah, and the ideii is rather that he is zealous for God's honour, than that he is the covert and sneering foe even of Jehovah Himself. It may also be remarked that, as it is the office of the Satan to try God's saints in the present economy where sin has entered, and as all trial may have the effect of seducing them and tempting them to evil, there is nothing a priori against the idea that he may have been employed in God's hand to try those innocent, but whose innocence was not yet confirmed by voluntary determination to maintain it. And thus there is nothing against the idea that the tempta- tion in the form of a Serpent, recorded in Gen. iii., proceeded from the Satan. It is true, Old Testament Scripture does not say directly anywhere that the Satan and the Serpent were identical, or that the one used the other. The first direct statement that Satan was the tempter in the Garden occurs in an Apociyphal book. In the Wisdom of Solomon ii. 23 it is said: "For God created man to be immortal; . . . nevertheless through envy of the Devil came death into the world." There are, however, passages in the Old Testament which form a transition to this, where the Serpent is spoken of as the foe of God and of His people, and the like. There is one other prophetic passage which has to be noticed. The gods of the heathen nations were, of course, called Eloluin. So were the angelic beings. It was not unnatural, as we have said, that they should be brought into connection and identified, and that the gods in this way should become demons, i.e. evil angeHc spirits. And already in the Book of Daniel each nation is represented as having a guardian spirit, who in the heavenly or super- human world is its prince ; and in this superhuman world conflicts are waged, wliich decide the relations of nations to one another on eartli. This idea is but a transference into heavenly places of the conflict between the God of Israel and the gods of the nations, which is usually waged on earth. THE HOSTS OF HEAVEN 306 But the identification of the gods with the angelic Elohim was helped ou another line. The heathen nations worshipped the hosts of heaven — the visible powers of which, sun, moon, and stars, were to them but embodi- ments of spiritual powers behind. Tn this way it was natural again to bring these gods of the heathen into con- nection with the Bene Elohim, or to identify them with them. The expression * the hosts of heaven,' though properly meaning the mere visible starry hosts, acquired then the deeper sense of the heavenly powers. Even when Jehovah is called Jehovah of hosts, the idea is that He can lead hosts of angels, as Christ speaks of receiving to aid Him more than twelve legions of angels if He should desire it (Matt. xxvi. 53). And it is certainly in this sense that the passage in Isa. xxiv. 21, 22 is to be interpreted: " It shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall punish the host of the high that are on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth. And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit ; and they Bhall be shut up in prison, and after many days shall they be visited." This judgment is that of the ' day of the Lord.' It falls on kings of the earth upon the earth, and on the host of heaven that are in heaven. Both shall be shut up in the pit, and after many days they shall be visited, i.e. released. But one perceives ideas that afterwards became more clear — of spirits reserved in chains and darkness, of a bind- ing of Satan, and a loosing of him again to deceive the nations. The Old Testament ideas originate in a variety of ways, and only gradually unite to form the general con- ceptions which we find in the New Testament. The increasing light of revelation threw the figure of the Satan into deeper shadow, and with the full manifesta- tion of redemption came a clearer knowledge and exhibition of his power and malignity. Our Lord is said to have been " manifested that He might destroy the works of the Devil " (1 John iii. 8). And at that time the anti- thesis between the redemptive power and the destructive 30 306 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT came very strongly out in a hundred points. And the Apocalypse, which may be called the drama of Christ, throws the action into the form of a conflict between Satan him- self and those whom he inspires and in whom he is incarnate, such as the Beast on the one hand, and the Saviour with His Saints on the other. But there is no duaUsm, no power of evil co-ordinate with God : " Greater is He that is in us than he that is in the world" (1 John iv. 4). And this view prevails very strongly in the Old Testament, and it is not amiss for us to recur to it when weary or like to faint in our minds. X. DOCTRINE OF REDEMPTION— PRIESTHOOD AND ATONEMENT. 1. The Priest. The four great ideal, or as they are sometimes called typical, figures in the Old Testament, namely, the Prophet, the King, the Priest, and the Servant of the Lord, have each their special significance. They have this both in themselves and in the ideal character in which they point to that which shall be when the perfect and final condition of the theocracy is realised. The last-mentioned, sometimes the saint or the ' holy one,' sometimes the people, is, as the name indicates, one who serves the Lord, that is, in bringing His truth to the nations. The service rendered by this * Servant of the Lord ' is a public redemptive service ; and what makes the figure of this personality so remarkable is the suffering which he undergoes in his great vocation of serving Jehovah. At present, however, we look at certain points relating to the Priest. It is remarkable that in the Old Testament the priest himself is not to so large an extent a redemptive figure as we should anticipate. And the features which are attri- buted to him in the New Testament are partly borrowed from the more subhme figure of the Servant of the Lord in THE IDEA OF PRIESTHOOD 307 Isaiah. The sacrificial system is left in the Old Testament without explanation as regards redemptive relations, except in a general way. Throughout the Scriptures, till we reach the final chapters of Isaiah, the animal sacrifices receive no explanation, and are not lifted up into any higher region. In the final chapters of Isaiah a step is taken which is of the profoundest significance. Sacrifice is translated out of the animal sphere into that of the human. The Servant makes himself an offering for sin. To us who are familiar with this idea the immense advance made in this conception is apt to be overlooked. The word priest means, perhaps, minister, that is, one who serves Jehovah in worship. The covenant is a state of relation between God and men, in which He is their God and they are His people, which means His worshipping people. The term which expresses their translation into the state of fitness to serve Jehovah in all the exercises of worship is ' sanctify.' Sanctification or consecration is effected through a sacrifice of purification, by which the people is cleansed from sins to serve God. The term expressing this condition of the people in covenant with God as His worshipping people is 'holy.' Now the covenant was made with the people. Hence they were a ' holy nation,' that is, a nation dedicated to Jehovah for His service. The idea of service is an essential element of the idea of sanctity or holiness in the people ; because this is the only sense in which moral beings can belong to Jehovah, namely, as His worshippers, doing Him service. Now, to serve Jehovah thus in His worship is to be a priest. Hence Israel is called a * kingdom of priests.' The nation was priest or minister of the Lord, and every member of it was privileged to draw near to Him in service. Now, it is very necessary to maintain this point of view ; for otherwise some things in the history of Israel will re- main unexplained. Israel is a priestly people, and ideally no Israelite has any privileges over another in drawing near and presenting offerings before Jehovah. Thronohout the history of Israel we find tfus piivilege Lirgely taken 308 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT advantage of. Any Israelite felt himself entitled to offer sacrifice before the Lord. Gideon, Manoah the father of Samson, King Saul, David, Solomon, every person, where duty prompted, offered sacrifice to the Lord It was the privilege of Israelites. This privilege of individuals, however, did not interfere with a public and national worship, any more than this later superseded it. The covenant was made with the people, which was a unity. And the worship of this unity was carried on in a central sanctuary. Further, it is evident that it had to be carried on by a representative body called priests, for the whole nation could not at all times assemble within the central sanctuary. It had to be carried on by a smaller body for other reasons also, chiefly in order to indicate what the conditions of such service were, and in what state of sanctity those must be who approached to worship Jehovah. The parallel may be drawn between the condition of things in Israel and that in the Christian Church. Worship and mutual edification are the objects had in view by the Christian people, and for these ends they meet in public worship. But it is manifest that the general body must, so to speak, resolve or condense itself into a smaller body of persons who become in a manner its representatives, if these great ends are to be well carried out. It was the same in Israel. The priestly body were the representatives of the people. But the existence of the priestly class as representatives of the people did not supersede or absorb the priestly privileges of the individual, any more than the ministry of the Church supersedes the ministry in prayer and exhortation of the father and the individual The selection of a priestly class to minister before the Lord was necessary from the nature of the circumstances in which the people were placed ; but, besides being necessary, it was very suitable for the purpose of impressing upon men's minds what the true requirements of serving the Lord were. Those who draw near in service to Him must be hke Him in character and mind. This necessity, if it QUALITIES OF PRIESTHOOD 309 could not be actually realised, could at least be symbolised in so graphic a way as to teach it. The imperfect holiness of the holy nation made the priesthood necessary. As Ewald says : " In the sacred community of Jahveh the original purity which, strictly speaking, ought always to be maintained there, is constantly receiving various stains, noticed or unnoticed, expiated or unatoned for . . . and the whole community, while it felt the necessity for strictest purity, felt also that Jahveh's sanctuary dwelt in the midst of the countless impurities of the people, and was never free from their defilement. Between the sanctity of Jahveh and the perpetually sin-stained condition of the people there is therefore a chasm which seems infinite. All the offerings and gifts which the members of the community bring are only like a partial expiation and payment of a debt which is never entirely wiped out. To wipe out all these stains, to bear the guilt of the nation, and constantly to restore the Divine grace, is the final office of the priest. How hard a one duly to fulfil 1 " (Antiq., Solly's trans., p. 271). If a sacerdotal caste is to maintain for Israel the relations with Jehovah which Israel ought as a whole to maintain, this caste must possess in a greater degree than Israel the qualities of sanctity and purity essential to fellowship with Jehovah. In order to secure this, an elaborate system of selection and purification was carried on. First, the basis of the priestly caste was made very wide. The sanctuary and presence of Jehovah was sur- rounded by a deep mass of specially consecrated persons, the outer circle of which stood far away from it, although nearer it than the ordinary Israelite. There took place within the class of priestly servants a process of exclusion and narrowing, reducing the number and elevating the sanctity, as the approach was made to the presence of the Lord. First a special tribe was set apart, that of Levi, which alone was privileged to perform any act of service connected with the tabernacle. Then, second, within this wider circle was the narrower one of the priests, or sons of ^10 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT Aaron, who alone could minister directly before Grod, although they were only admitted to the mediate nearness represented by the holy place. And, finally, gathering up all the virtue and sanctity of the class into himself, there was the high priest, who alone could enter the holiest of all, although even he could enter only once a year. The other line of sanctification consisted not in diminishing the number of the caste, but in the symbolical acts of purification. Had it been possible to secure really greater godliness in the priest, it would have been de- manded. But what could not be secured in reality was expressed in symbol. The priest must be bodily free from all deformity. Then he went through numerous lustrations and purifications by many kinds of sacrifices. Then to exhibit the purity needful for his office he was clothed in linen clean and white. Notwithstanding these distinctions between the priest- hood and the people, the strictly representative character of the priests, particularly of the high priest, is the important point in the institution. In the services of the priesthood Israel was itself serving the Lord. The priest- hood was an idealised and purified Israel performing the service before Jehovah. In the priesthood Israel offered its sacrifices to the Lord, and in the priesthood it carried away the blessing, righteousness from the God of salvation. The meaning of the sacrificial system is of importance here. The great primary fact to start from is that of the state of covenant relation between God and the worshipping people. Though in covenant, the people were not thought of as sinless. They might fall into errors, and they were compassed with infirmities. For these sins of infirmity, or ignorance as they were called, an atonement was provided in the sacrificial system. This is the meaning of the system. It is an institution provided of God for sins committed ivithin the covenant. For some sins there was no atonement ; sins done with a high hand cut a man off from the covenant people. But for all sins of error, which included not only sins done ignorantly, but sins of infirmity THE ORIGIN OF SACRIFICE 311 though committed consciously, the sacrificial system pro- vided an expiation. The effect of them was to restore those who offered them to their place in the covenant which they had forfeited. There are two passages regarding the priest in Zecha- riah. In one (vi. 11) the priest is crowned. He does not seem, however, to be identified with the Messiah, the man the Branch. Eather the future is modelled upon the con- dition of things then existing. There were two heads to the State, symbohsed by the two olive trees, the civil head and the hierarchical. These two are not conceived as united in one person ; but the counsel of peace is between them both. Both sit on a throne, and they act in concord. In the other passage (iii. 1-5) the high priest Joshua represents the people. His filthy garments are removed, and he is clothed with rich apparel ; in token that the sins of the people whom he represents are taken away, and they are clothed with hoUness before the Lord. 2. Sacrifice. We have to notice here, however, two questions which have been raised regarding sacrifice. These oxe, first, the question as to how it originated ; and, second, the question as to the primitive idea connected with it, or expressed by it. There is much difference of opinion in regard to both these questions. On the first question there are two views which may be noticed here. There is, first, the view that sacrifice was ordained and suggested to men directly by God. This is the idea that it is part of a primitive revelation. To this theory there are two objec- tions: (1) The Old Testament gives no countenance to it. The reference to sacrifice in the story of Cain and Abel seems to regard their offerings rather as spontaneous, tlie instinctive expression of their feeling of dependence on God and thankfulness to Him. The Priests' Code, it is true, regards sacrifice in Israel as due directly to God's commands to Moses. Hence this writing recognises no 312 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT offering of sacrifice prior to Moses, maintaining perfect silence regarding such sacrifices as that of Noah after the Flood, those of Abraham and the patriarchs, and all pre- ceding the Exodus. But the author's silence can hardly be treated as any evidence of his view of the origin of sacrifice in general, but only of the sacrifices operating in Israel. This work is a history of Israel's sacred institu- tions— institutions which, at the time when the book was written, had attained their full development, and were in that sense God's final revelation to His people as to how He desired to be served. And (2) the imiversal prevalence of sacrifice among the heathen nations seems to imply that sacrifice was in some way a natural expression of man's sense of his relation to God. The hypothesis of a primitive revelation, the remains of which lingered among all the peoples of the world, and which expressed itself through sacrifice, is precarious. It certainly caimot be proved ; and to explain sacrifice by it must leave the origin of that institution involved in the same precarious and hypothetical condition. But this leads to the other question. What was the primitive idea underlying sacrifice ? The answers have mainly run on two lines, the ethical, and what might be called the physical It has been supposed that man's sense of evil, of his own inadequate service to God, and of God's holiness, made him feel that reparation was due to God, and that he deserved death. Hence, to express this feeling, he brought living creatures to God as his own sub- stitutes, inflicting on them the penalty of death deserved by himself. Sacrifice was thus from the first piacular and propitiatory. The objection to this idea is, that it seems to assume ideas present in the mind of primitive man as the subject of his own sin, and of death as the deserved penalty of it, which rather belong to an advanced period of ethical reflection. And the same objection applies, though in less degree, to a variety of the above view, which regards sacrifice as the expression of homage and dependence; in other words, a sort of acted prayer. THE ESSENTIAL IDEA OF SACRIFICE 313 Action rather than words, it is argued, is what is to be expected of primitive life ; and this act was sacrifice. So, e.g., F. D. Maurice. See his Theological Essays and his Doctrine of Sacrifice deduced from the Scriptures. This view differs not very greatly from another one, that sacrifice or offering was of the nature of a gift to please tlie deity, and so obtain from him what was desired, whether it was the pacification of his anger and the cessation of calamities, or success in the struggle with enemies, or, in a higher stage of thought, the joy of fellowship with him, and the sense of being pleasing in his sight. These views all move more or less on ethical lines. Quite a different view has been advocated by Professors Robertson Smith and Wellhausen.^ In the view of these scholars the essential idea of sacrifice is to be observed in the sacrificial meal — the communion of the deity and man in a common sacramental food. The god and the tribe were one ; or, if the god was estranged, it was only a tem- porary estrangement. The idea that a common partaking of food united in a bond of friendship or covenant those who so partook, was a usual one. The idea was trans- ferred to the sphere of Divine and human relations. The common sacrificial meal, as it cemented the union of men with men, cemented also the union of the deity and men ; or if the union had been partially or temporarily strained, — it could never be more, for the god was one with the tribe, — it restored it. The participants on the human side, by eating food in common, confirmed their union one with another; and by giving the god part of the. sacrifice, e.g. smearing the blood on stones which he inhabited, and which more lately developed into an altar, they allowed him also to participate, and so cemented his union with them. He was thus one with them, their help and stay in all the vicissitudes of their hfe. As thought advanced, this action carried moral meaning with it ; although originally the idea was more that of a physical union, ' See the Skizzen und Vorarbeiten of tbe latter, and Tiu Btligion of th* SemiUs of th« former. — £j>. 314 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT the common material food binding all who partook of it into one physical body. A fragment of this primitive theory is supposed still to be seen in the Hebrew sacrificial meal after offering to the God. It is doubtful if this construction of the meaning of the sacrificial meal anywhere appears in the Old Testament ; but it is common for a usage to maintain itself long after the original idea which it expressed has ceased to be con- nected with it. Those who maintain this theory have considerable diffi- culty in explaining how this primitive idea gradually ramified into the conceptions connected with sacrifice which we find prevailing from the beginning of the historical period among the Hebrews. If sacrifice was a common sacramental meal between men and the god, how did such a sacrifice as the ?73 or npli? arise, — the whole burnt-offering, which was wholly given to the deity, and of which men did not partake at all ? The explanation is connected with the advance in social conditions, which suggested new ideas. In the earliest times, it was the tribe that had existence and owned property, it and the god in common. All sacrifices were tribal, cementing the union of the tribe and the rid. The individual had no property, no separate being or placa This was the condition in a nomad state. But when the people passed into an agricultural life he had something really his own, his land, his cattle. If he owed them to the god, still they were his in the sense that they did not belong to the- tribe or the people. He was, so to speak, in personal relation to the deity. If the old idea of a sacramental meal still prevailed, he could present his offer- ing for himself. But naturally the idea would arise in his mind that he could now present a gift to his god, — it might be out of thankfulness and in return for much that he had received, or it might be to placate the god's anger if he seemed estranged, or it might be for other reason. Sacrifice began to express the idea of a gift to God with the view of pleasing Him. DISTINCTIONS OF SINS 315 Whatever the historical evolution of the idea of sacrifice, or whatever its primary idea, it seems certain that this idea of a gift or offering to God is the prevailing idea in the Hebrew religion from the earliest. The sacrifices of Cain and Abel are called a '^^^^, a present. If there is dissidence and diversity of opinion between prophets and people, it is not on the general idea that an offering or serWce is pleasing to the Deity, but on what is the offering that is pleasing, — these material offerings of flesh, or the service of the mind in obedience and righteousness. 3. Atonement and Forgiveness We may notice here a few points, particularly some distinctions, which it is useful to keep in mind, and which are helpful to the understanding of the Old Testament view on these subjects. (1) A distinction is drawn in the Old Testament, as we have seen, between sins of ignorance or inadvertence and sins done with a high hand or of purpose. The former are called chiefly njJC', the latter are said to be done HDi "i''2. The former class embraced more than mere involuntary or inadvertent sins. The class comprehended all sins done not in a spirit of rebellion against the law or ordinance of Jehovah — sins committed through human imperfection, or human ignorance, or human passion ; sins done when the mind was directed to some end connected with human weakness or selfishness, but not formally opposed to the authority of the Lawgiver. The distinction was thus primarily a distinction in regard to the state of mind of the transgressor. In point of fact, however, it was convenient to specify in general the offences that belonged to the class of sins done with a high hand, and upon the whole they were the sins forbidden by the moral law. No doubt, in certain circumstances even these sins, if committed involuntarily, were treated as sins of error, and the penalty due to them was averted by certain extra- ordinary avrangements ; as for example, when a murder was 316 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT committed by misadventure, the manslayer was allowed to flee to a city of refuge. Otherwise the consequence of his deed would overtake him in the ordinary penalty attached to such an offence, which was death. (2) Corresponding to this distinction among offences was another. Only sins of ignorance, as we have said, were capable of being atoned for by sacrifice. The class of offences said to be done with a high hand were capital, and followed by excision from the community. The sins of error or ignorance could be removed by sacrifice and offering. In other words, the Old Testament sacrificial system was a system of atonement only for the so-called sins of inadvertency. (3) This distinction may be put in other terms — in terms of the covenant. The sins done with a high hand threw those committing them outside the covenant re- lation. They were an infraction of the fundamental con- ditions of the covenant union. Such a sin as idolatry, homage to another deity than Jehovah, infringed the first principle of the covenant relation, the basis of which was that Jehovah was God of Israel The sinner who had committed such an offence had withdrawn himself from the sphere within which Jehovah was gracious ; there stood nothing between him and the anger of Jehovah for his sins, and especially for this the greatest possible sin. The sins of ignorance, on the other hand, were sins of human frailty, offences not amounting to an infraction of the very conditions of the covenant ; but though disturbing to the relations between a God of holiness and His people, offences that were not immediately destructive of these relations, and permitting the relations to continue, pro- vided they were removed by the means appointed by Jehovah for that purpose, and not voluntarily persevered in or neglected. And the sacrificial or Levitical ritual system was the means appointed for obviating the con- sequences of these inevitable offences. The sacrifices were thus offered to a God already in relations of grace with His people. They were not offered UNCLEANNESS AND ITS REMOVAL 317 in order to attain His grace, but to retain it — or to prevent the communion existing between Him and His people being disturbed or broken by the still inevitable imperfections of His people, whether as individuals or as a whole. It is argued by some that such a conception as this of a people in communion with their God, a communion only liable to be disturbed now by such mere offences of frailty, points to a period in the people's history posterior to the prophetic age, when idolatry and the gross offences assailed by the prophets no longer existed. It must be admitted at once that at no period of the people's history prior to the return from exile did the condition of the people and this idea embodied in the sacrificial system correspond in fact. But that would not at once entitle us to infer that the ideal itself was not of much greater antiquity. At all events the Old Testament sacrificial system belonged to the worship of the people of God, conceived as truly His people, believing in Him and in fellowship with Him. And it was a means of maintaining this fellowship, of equating and removing the disturbances which human frailties occasioned to this communion. Hence the pre- vailing conception of Jehovah in all the ordinances of the system is that of holiness — a purity as of hght which human imperfections disturb, and which when disturbed reacts and becomes a fire that consumes. It cannot be denied that this idea of the Divine holiness in the law draws up into it not merely moral holiness, that is, freedom from and reaction against all moral evil, but also a considerable aesthetic element. The Divine holiness re-acts against much that is on man's side merely an uncleanness, and requires its removal by washings, before the fellowship can be maintained or renewed. A deeper study of these points, such as the imcleanness arising from touching the dead, the woman's uncleanness from childbirth, and much more, might reveal to us some moral conception underlying the ordinance. If the ritual system be late, this supposition would become even more probable ; if it were very early, we might 318 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT perhaps more readily aciiuiesce in the idea that the moral and the physical were not yet strictly distinguished. There were thus in Israel two streams of conception re- garding God, running side by side. In the one — as seen in the historical and prophetic literature — Jehovah is a King, a righteous Ruler and Judge, who punishes sin judi- cially, or forgives it freely of His mercy, requiring only repentance. In the other, Jehovah is a holy person, dwelling in a house among His people, who approach to worship Him ; a being, or a nature, sensitive in His holir^ess to all uncleanness in that which is near Him, and requir- ing its removal by lustrations and atonement. On the other hand, the other class of sins referred to threw the offender outside the sphere within which God was continuously gracious. There was no sacrifice for such sins. The offender was left face to face with the anger of God. Here the offender has to reckon not so much with the Divine holiness, as with the Divine right- eousness, and wrath against sin. At all events he has no refuge to flee to except God Himself. And these cases are of extreme interest because they polarise, so to speak, the Divine nature itself — the two poles being His wrath against sin and His mercy. And the latter appears the more powerful of the two, and ultimately prevails, although not usually at once, nor without some terrible illustration of God's wrath against evil. It is, of course, with this class of sins that the prophets deal almost exclusively — sins throwing the nation outside the covenant limits. And they express the consciousness of the true nature of these sins and their inevitable consequences. And some may think that just here lies the explanation of their assaults upon the sacrificial system. The people thought that redoubled assiduity in ritual and increase in the splendour of their gifts would atone for their offences, however great. But their idea was a misconception of the very principle of the ritual system, which had rtspect only to those true to the fundamental conditions of Che covenant relations which they had transgressed. Of course, many other false ATONEMENT AND ITS MEANS 319 conceptions were mingled together in their minds, due partly to the fact that the sacrifices were of the nature of a gift to Jehovah. (4) But now this distinction between the two classes of sins being had in mind, and the distinction between sins and persons for whom sacrifice is available and those for whom it is not being remembered, the next point is that of atonement, and the means by which it may be efifected. The word which has been translated ' atone ' is, in Hebrew, "IS3. Now, in point of fact, this term is used both of sins done within the covenant and sins which threw the offender outside the covenant. The former sins were atoned by the sacrifices, more specifically by the blood of the sacrifices ; the latter could not be atoned by this means — at least, in general. Now, it is evident that in order to obtain a general view of the Old Testament teaching on atonement, both classes of sins and their treatment must be kept before us. The sacrifices atoned for the sins of those who were truly Jehovah's people ; they were ordinances of God ah-eady in fellowship with men, to whom He was gracious, in fact. They had not respect at all to Jehovah's actual wrath — they had respect only to His holy nature, and the danger that it might react against uncleanuess or sin in those who approached Him as His people. Atonement of offences in this relation could hardly furnish us with a general conception of what atonement is. No doubt, the principle may be the same in all cases. But at all events the other class of cases will be more instructive in this at least, that they will show us the Divine mind in a greater variety of conditions. Even any inferences we might draw, however, from atonement of sins that in theory and principle were outside the covenant, may scarcely be held available to form a general and abstract idea of atonement applicable universally ; because even when Jehovah waa dealing with the sinners who had broken His covenant — they were the sinners of His people, He remembered in them the kindness of their youth (Jer, ii. 2) — they were 320 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT the seed of Abraham His friend, whom He had chosen and not cast away (Isa. xli. 8). And how far the principles observed even in His treatment of the covenant-breakers of Israel might be applied to the sinners of mankind generally, might need consideration. There are two classes of passages which have to be considered. They express different shades of conception regarding the Divine Being. The one class bears upon His holiness, the other on His righteousness. In the class having reference to worship, the Divine nature is considered more as something wliich instinctively reacts against human unholiness. The worshippers coming into His courts are in His personal presence, — His nature and theirs come into direct union, — and hence the danger to a nature impure. In the other class of cases the sinner is not in Jehovah's presence. Jehovah is rather the ruler, and His action is strictly moral. His will and moral right- eousness, rather than His physical nature, come into pro- minence. It may be best to take this class of passages first. The word 1S2, rendered atone, means properly to cover. Hence its synonym nD3 is not unfrequently employed instead of it, as in Ps. xxxii. : " Blessed is he whose trans- gression is covered." Naturally a covering may be pro- tective, or it may have the effect of making the thing covered inoperative ; it may invalidate its natural effect, or annul it. Hence Isaiah says (xxviii. 18): "Your covenant with death shall be disannulled, "^231." Now it is with some such general sense that the word is used of sin ; it is covered so that its operation is hindered, its effects are invalidated. In what sense this is done will best appear if one or two points be stated in order. (a) In these cases of extra-ritual atonement the object of atonement is the sin, or offence, of whatever kind it be, e.g. Ps. Ixv. 3 : " Iniquities prevail against us : as for our transgressions, Thou shalt atone them, D"!Q3ri," E.V. " purge them away." Ps. Ixxviii. 38: "But He, being full of com- passion, atoned iniquity," 12?"., E.V. "forgave." Isa. vi. 7: THE COVERING OF SIN 321 " Thine iniquities shall depart, and thy siu shall be atoned, "iMri." Jer. xviii. 23: " Thou, Lord, knowest all their counsel against me to slay me : atone not Thou their iniquity, "iBDn'PX," Instead of "iQ3, the verb of similar sense, HD? to cover, is sometimes used ; Ps. Ixxxv. 3 : " Thou hast taken away the iniquity of Thy people : Thou hast covered all their sin,'' n^D3. The immediate effect of the covering is upon the sin. It is of importance to notice that it is never primarily an effect produced upon Jehovah Himself, nor upon His face, nor upon His wrath. The atonement may take place before the Lord, or in His presence (Lev. vi. 7), but the Lord Himself is never the object. His face or eyes are not covered so that He does not see the sin or offence or unholiness of the sinner ; the sin is covered and withdrawn from His sight. Similar ideas are expressed by the phrase, "I am He that blotteth out thy transgression like a cloud" (Isa. xHv. 22); and by such figures as casting the people's sins into the depth of the sea (Mic. vii. 19), cast- ing them behind His back (Isa. xxxviii. 17). It might seem that the difference is not great between covering a sin so that God's eyes do not see it, and inducing Him to turn away His eyes from it ; and the Psalmist (Ps. li. 9) actually prays : " Hide Thy face from my sin." Still there must be something in the usage, and it no doubt suggests these general ideas: (1) that the sin itself must in some way be done away, and made invalid ; (2) that without this no gifts can operate on the Divine anger — He is not induced by influences from without, but moved from within Himself. (h) A second point in this class of offences is that the subject who atones is usually God Himself — He covers the sin. Ps. Ixv. 3 : " As for our transgressions. Thou dost atone (or, cover) them." In general this is the representa- tion, though occasionally another subject intervenes, as Moses the mediator of the covenant, and others who re- present the people. The meaning of atoning sin, then, may, in general, be said to be this, it is covering it so that the eyes of Jehovah do not behold it, and His anger ai 322 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT against it is quenched; and none but Himself can effect this. (c) The means whereby sin is covered in these extra- ritual cases are various. The fact that He Himself is represented as the subject who performs the covering or atonement, shows how profoundly the feeling had taken possession of the people's mind that in whatever way sin was to be invalidated, and its effects neutrahsed, ultimately its removal must be due to God ; that He was not moved by something or anything outside of Him, but that the movement came from within Himself, whatever the im- mediate means were of which He made use. Hence in the widest sense, His own sense of Himself, considerations taken from His whole being, and His relations to men, may inter- vene between men's sin and His anger ; Ps. Ixxix. 9 : " Help us, 0 God of our salvation, for the glory of Thy name . . . cover our sins, for Thy name's sake." " Who is a God like unto Thee, pardoning iniquity ? " (Mic. vii. 18); or less widely, some one prevailing attribute, such as His compassion ; Ps. Ixxviii. 38: " But He, being full of compassion, covered their iniquity." As has been said, the effect of sin was, 80 to speak, to polarise the Divine nature, and to draw out powerfully the consuming anger; yet the prevail- ing tone of His nature might come between and cover the iniquity, so that His anger was turned away. There is, perhaps, no passage that illustrates the general idea that atoning or covering of sin must proceed from the Lord Himself, whatever means He employs, better than the passage in Isa. vi. The ideas of the passage have un- doubtedly a certain resemblance to the Pentateuchal passages, though the means of atonement are very general. The prophet's uncleanness was removed by a messenger sent from the presence of the Lord ; and, second, by a coal taken from His altar, where He is Himself most present. And the coal had in it a Divine power ; both the agent and the means came directly from the Lord. I am afraid these remarks leave the question somewhat indefinite ; but probably it is left somewhat indefinite in THE DIVINE WRATH AND ITS REMOVAL 323 the Old Testament, the definite points being only these : that it is ths sin that is covered ; that ' covering ' it means VAthdrawing its power to provoke the anger of God ; that Uoually it is God Himself who covers it ; that the motives are drawn from His own nature, and the initiative is His ; and that the means, where mentioned at all, are appointed by Him, though the motives and the means are usually identical. There are two or three historical passages of considerable interest ; for example, the instance of the golden calf made by Aaron (Ex, xxxii.), and the instance of the whoredom of the people in the plains of Moab in connection with Baal Peor (Num. xxv.). In these instances there are several things: (1) a breach of the covenant; (2) an out- break of Divine wrath in the form of a plague ; and (3) the intervention of a human agent : in the one case JMoses, who interceded with Jehovah ; and in the other Phinehas, who executed vengeance upon the chief transgressors. In both cases the covering of the sin of the people followed. Now the two points of interest are: (1) that the Divine anger to a certain extent took effect in the plague and slaughter. It was manifested and illustrated so far as in some degree to satisfy it. And (2) a human agent inter- vened to eflect the covering of the sin. On what ground was the action of Moses or Phinehas a covering of the people's sin ? It was, perhaps, on the principle of solidarity. The anger of Jehovah was kindled against the whole people, and threatened to consume them utterly. But these men were of the people. Moses was a mediator and representa- tive of the people, and not in any way involved in their sin ; and he was a prince and leader, and showed Ms zeal for the Lord. In point of fact, though many liad broken the covenant, it had not been broken by the people as a whole. And God had respect to Sis covenant, and covered the offence of the sinners. It is this principle of solidarity, perhaps, that explains the intercession of the prophets. Amos twice interceded and was heard. But both Jeremiah and Ezekiel are warned that their intercessions will not be listened to. 324 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT But the other point is of chief interest in regard to the prophet Isaiah, Of course, to punish for sin and to cover sin are ideas opposed to one another. If the people bear their sin in Divine chastisement, there is no covering of it. But it is to be noted that the penalty of breach of the covenant is not mere chastisement, but destruction. Now the question suggests itself, whether chastisement to a less degree than destruction might not be held a covering of sin in God's mercy. Strictly, it was not a covering, but might it not be considered so ? In this case there would be a union of means acting as ' covering ' : first, the satis- faction so far of the punitive wrath, and, second, the mercy of God intervening to regard it as enough — as it is said in Isa. xl. 2 : " She has received of the Lord's hand double for all her sins." 4. Atonement by Priest and High Pried. Anticipating in some measure what has to be noticed further on, we may say here that the points in connection with atonement in the sacrifices that entered into worship are not numerous, although they are of importance. They are two. (1) The subject who atones in this case is no more God Himself, but the priest, or, when the atonement is made for the whole people, the high priest. This is not, perhaps, a great change, as the priest is appointed of God. But the procedure of atoning is now something ordinary, and not left to the mercy of God. In particular instances He has appointed standing ordinances and persons for accomplish- ing it. It is still an ordinance, proceeding in all its parts from Him ; but it is now a standing ordinance. (2) The object of atonement is still the sins of the offender, whether individual or people. In this case, how- ever, the language differs considerably from that previously used. It is more commonly not the sins of the offenders, but the persons or souls or lives of the offenders that are covered. The change is due to the circumstances. The THE EFFICACY OF ATONEMENT 325 persons in question now are not strictly sinners afar from God. They are His worshippers entering into His courts ; and the danger is of His nature reacting against them and consuming them, as in Isa. vi Of course the danger in the other class of cases was to the person of the sinner ultimately ; but in these cases the sinner was not a worshipper in Jehovah's presence, and it was rather God's judicial sentence that he had to fear. If anything were needed to show that the danger feared is, so to speak, from the nature of God and His presence, it is the fact that not only the persons drawing near to Him needed to be atoned or covered by blood, but the same necessity existed for the tabernacle, or house itself, and all its furniture. These contracted uncleanness, perhaps, from the presence in them of sinful men, and they had to be covered by sacrificial blood. This is a very profound idea of the Divine holi- ness ; and when we extend it from the mere idea of worship to His universal presence, it becomes very suggestive. (3) The means of atonement in this case are always the blood of the sacrifice. Sometimes the efficacy appears to be ascribed to the whole sacrificial arrangement, but never unless the arrangement contained a bleeding sacrifice. The chief atoning sacrifices are the sin-offering, the guilt- ofiering, and the whole burnt-offering. The passage in Lev. xvii. 1 1 gives the fullest account of the principle of atonement. " The life of the flesh is in the blood : and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls : for the blood atoneth in virtue of the life." This law prohibits the eating of blood, and states the reason. The life is in the blood, and the blood is given to make atonement ; and this atonement the blood effects in virtue of the life which it contains. Atone- ment is here represented as made not for sins, but for souls or persons. The blood makes this atonement, covers the persons : it does so because it contains the life. But no explanation is given of the principle how the blood with the life in it covers the persons, i.e. atones. The passage 326 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT is silent on the principle ; but the ordinance is an ordinance of God : " I have given it to you upon the altar." Thus the Old Testament doctrine of atonement runs on two lines, which perhaps, in the Old Testament, do not meet or coincide. The Christian doctrine, as expressed by St. Paul, has united the two, taking from the first that which creates the necessity of atonement, the moral righteousness of God ; and from the second the means of atonement, the blood of sacrifice, and making the one answer the other. The apostle, of course, lays down universal principles applicable to all men, Jews and Gentiles. He regards all sins as inferring the wrath of God. All sins, in his view, belong to the category of sins done with a high hand ; at least all men are guilty of such sins. Knowing that such things are worthy of death, they not only do them, but have pleasure in those that do them. All men are guilty of sinning wittingly. Thus the relation of God to all men is to St. Paul the same as His relation was to sinners in Israel with a high hand. He is Piuler and Judge ; His righteous- ness and the sin come into connection. Of course, the apostle refers forgiveness to the same source as the Old Testament, the mercy or grace of God. Then, as has been said, he unites the means used in the second class of offences with this primary class, making the sacrifice the means of atonement. The Old Testament has not gone so far as this. It recognises the moral righteous- ness of Jehovah, which manifests itself in wrath against sin. But for such sin there is not sacrificial atonement ; the sinner's refuge is only in God Himself, in the prevailing direction of the Divine mind, which is towards mercy and compassion. And, secondly, it recognises infirmities and impurities adhering to men even when truly in fellowship with God as His people. And these infirmities of His worshipping people disturb the Divine holiness, which is in danger of manifesting itself destructively in opposition to these imperfections of men, and the infirmities must be atoned or covered. And the means of this covering is the USE OF TERMS FOR ATONEMENT 327 blood of sacrifice in virtue of the life which it carries. It is not easy to remove from this second conception the elements of a relative kind which it contains, and the shade of physical conception of the Divine nature peculiar to it, 80 as to reach a pure general idea universally appHcable. 5. I'he term ' Atoned The references in the Old Testament are scattered through it, and have regard to particular cases. There is no single passage tliat states a formal or full doctrine upon the subject. It is probable that a full doctrine of Atone- ment can hardly be obtained from the Old Testament even by combining the passages. But traces of general ideas may be discoverable, which lead in the direction of the more complete New Testament doctrine. (1) The word 'atone' ""23 is not now used in the Kal. In Gen. vi. 14 : "Thou shalt pitch it with pitch," the word is a denominative from the noun "iE'3, ' pitch.' The word is now used only in Piel and its derivatives. Further, the word is no more used in Scripture in its literal and physical sense, but always in a transferred metaphorical sense. The original meaning of the word, however, was certainly to cover, and so put out of sight, or do away with. In the cognate languages it is used in the sense of to deny, i.e. conceal a fact. That the word means to ' cover * originally appears from the synonyms, e.g. nD3, to cover, put out of sight, and so out of activity or influence, to annul or invalidate, parall. to nno, Hot out. See Jer. xviii. 23 : D3ij? hv iDSri h^ >n»Pl-b^? ^^3D^o onxtsni. Neh. iii. 37 (iv. 5) quotes this thus : nn?2ri-i5K ^'ps^^ ^nstam Djiy hv DDn ^n. So Ps. Ixxxv. 3 : " Thou hast taken away the guilt of Thy people. Thou hast covered ("'B?) all their sin " ; Ps. xxxii. 1 : " Blessed is the man whose sin is covered." In this extra-ritual use of -1Q3 that which is atoned or covered is sin or guilt ; and from tlie passage in Jeremiah it appears that it is covered 328 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT from Jehovah's sight — ^^''JSf^.i With this idea may be compared Ps. xc. 8 : " Thou hast set our iniquities before Thee, our secret sins in the light of Thy countenance." Similar figures, as we have said, are to remove or take away sin, Isa. vi. 7 ; Ps. xxxii. 1 ; to Hot it out, Jer. xviii. 23 ; Isa. xliii. 25, xliv. 22 ; to cast into the depth of the sea, Mic. vii. 19; to cast behind the hack, Isa. xxxviii. 1 7 ; cf. Ps. cix. 14: " Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the Lord ; and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out." And so in the New Covenant, Jehovah remembers sins no more. All these figures express the idea that the sin is covered so as to have all effects from it removed ; it is put out of sight, invalidated, undone. In particular, Jehovah no more sees it, and it exerts no influence upon Him. Hence the Psalmist prays : " Hide Thy face from my sins," Ps. li. 9. This sense of undoing or annulhng or invalidating appears in several passages, e.g. Isa. xxviii. 18, already referred to : " Your covenant with death shall be disannulled " ("i|3n); and Isa. xlvii. 11 speaks of a calamity which " thou shalt not be able to neutralise." And there is the interesting passage in Prov. xvi. 6 : "By goodness and truth guilt or sin is atoned {'^^^\) for," which means done away with, the results of it obviated ; it does not mean that reparation is made by goodness and truth. In all these passages the use of the word is metaphorical ; the sense of literal covering no more obtains (cf. Gen. xxxii. 2 0 ; Prov. xvi. 1 4). It may, no doubt, be made a question, seeing the word "iS3 is used in parallelism both with the word nD3 cover, and also with nno Uot out, which of these ' If "13? mean to cover, and "isb be a covering, the question, as we have said, may be raised, and has indeed been raised, whether it be the sin that is covered or God. Are God's eyes covered so that He does not see the offence, or is the offence covered so that it is not seen by Him ? The phrases used may suggest both sides, e.g. the second in the language, " Hide Thy face from my sin !" and the opposite, to "set our sins in the light of His countenance." The effect is the same, whether God does not see the offence, or it be not seen by Him, being invisible to Him. The questions remain : (a) What produces this effect ? (6) How does this produce the effect! ATONEMENT AND FORGIVENESS 329 two ideas is the primary one in "iS3. Some even think that "1Q3 is a denominative from "isb, a ransom. But "isb, ransom, is so named because it covers, "isb is properly ransom money from a death penalty : " Save him from going down to the pit ; I have found a ransom " (Job xxxiii. 24), i.e. the ransom money covers the offence. (2) In these extra-ritual passages the subject or agent who atones (iQa) is, as we have said, usually God Him- self. He covers the sin ; and in this usage ' cover ' or atone is almost equivalent to ' forgive,' although the figure is present to the mind of the writer. See the passages already cited — Jer. xviii. 23 : " Cover not their sin " ; Ps. Ixv. 3 : " Iniquities prevail against us : as for our trans- gressions, Thou wilt atone them — cover them " (D^Qan) ; Ps. Ixxviii. 38: "But he, being full of compassion, atoned — covered — their iniquity." To these add Ps. Ixxix. 9 : " Help us, 0 God of our salvation ! atone, cover our sins for Thy name's sake " ; Ezek. xvi. 63: " Thou shalt open thy mouth no more because of thy shame, when I have forgiven — atoned or covered to thee — all that thou hast done." It is to be observed that in these passages Jehovah does not first atone or cover the sin, and then follow this by forgiveness ; the atoning or covering is merely a figure for forgiveness. It might be that 133 in the sense of forgive was a secondary usage, derived from the primary sense of to cover or atone, either by a hfe ransom or by a sacrifice ; and that the sense " forgive " was properly to declare atoned for. It is a question of the genesis of the sense forgive. If this were its genesis, forgive would express properly the result of the covering or atoning the sin ; and as this result always followed, the word cover or aton£ would come to have the sense forgive when the subject is God. However the usage arose, the sense forgive is the usual one. Considering that IQ? is used in the ritual and non-ritual sense, it is probable that even in the ritual ' cover ' has not a literal, but a metaphorical sense ; and that it is not said in regard of the blood being hterally laid on the object covered ; for in most cases it is not ; it ia 330 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT brought before God, and even in the ritual it might be He (or His eyes) that is covered. (3) There is the question of the means that lead to Jehovah's atoning or covering of sin, or the motives that induce Him. This point opens out rather a wide inquiry. It may be said, however, negatively, that sacrifice or offer- ing is never the means. None of the prophets, not even Ezekiel, refers to sacrifice as the means of atonement for the sins of the people ; God forgives of His grace and mercy alone. It is possible that in Isa. liii. the sacrificial idea may be piesent. There is, indeed, one passage (1 Sam. iii. 14) where reference seems to be made to a possible use of sacrifice wider than that which it ordinarily has : " I have sworn that the iniquity of Eh's house shall not be atoned, covered, with sacrifice nor offering for ever." There is another passage also of interest (1 Sam. xxvi. 19), where David says to Saul, when remonstrating with him for his persecution of him : "If it be the Lord that hath stirred thee up against me, let Him smell an offering." The ideas here are : David regards Saul's persecution of him as an aberration of mind, possibly caused by God. If caused by God, it must be in punishment of some inadvertent or unremembered sin of which Saul had been guilty. Therefore for this sin let him offer a sacrifice, that Jehovah may remove the punishment — the aberration of mind imder which the king suffers. This is, however, just the proper use of sacrifice, namely, for sins of inadvertency. There are several cases which at first sight look like instances of sacrifice which are not so. One is the case in Deut. xxi. 8. This was the case where a murdered body was found, without its being possible to trace the murderer. The elders of the city nearest to which the body was found were to take an unblemished heifer, never subjected to the yoke, bring her to a valley with running water, and there slay her by breaking her neck. The elders were to wash their hands over the heifer, and protest their innocence, "Our hands have not shed tliis blood . . JUDICIAL ACTS 331 And they shall answer and say, Atone, 0 Lord, for Thy people Israel . . . suffer not innocent blood to remain in the midst of Thy people. And the blood shall be atoned (or, covered) to them." This is no sacrifice, but a symbolical judicial action. That the animal was not a sacrifice, is certain from the fact that her neck was broken ; a thing absolutely forbidden in sacrifice, where the blood must always be separated from the flesh. B) the nmrder, guilt was brought on the land, which of right could be removed only by the death of the murderer. In this case he could not be found, and a syinbolical execution was performed ; which, illustrating the principles of justice, was held sufficient. A similar though more painful and tragic instance occurs in 2 Sam. xxi. A famine of three years afflicted the land in David's days, and on inquiring the cause of the Lord, David was answered : " It is for Saul and his bloody house, because he put to death the Gibeonites." The narrator then explains to us that the Gibeonites were not Israelites, but of the remnant of the Amorites ; but the children of Israel had sworn to them to spare them (Josh, ix.), and Saul sought to slay them in his zeal for Judah. Eeceiving this answer, David turned to the Gibeonites, asking : " By what means shall I make atonement ("^2?^ '^'7?), that ye may bless the heritage of the Lord ? " They answered : " The man that devised evil against us . . . let seven men of his sous be delivered unto us, and we will hang them up unto the Lord." Now this is not a sacrifice, but again of the nature of a judicial transaction. Guilt lay on the land because of Saul's sin ; this guilt was punished by God with famine : the guilty person could no longer be made amenable himself, and he was made amenable in his descendants. Tlie case is entirely analogous to that in Deuteronomy. They both illustrate the principles of justice and of God's government. The case of the Gibeonites is entirely similar to the case of the manslayer. Num. xxxv. 32, 33 : "Ye shall take no ransom for the life of a manslayer who is guilty of death. ... So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye 332 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT are : for blood poUuteth the land : and no expiation can be made for the land for the blood (D^^ is^^ ii^ H^??') shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it." These words are from the Pentateuch, and the idea is expressed in terms of holiness and pollution. As it is Jehovah who covers or atones sin, naturally the motive is usually found in Himself. And here a pre- liminary point requires to be remembered. The effect of sin upon Jehovah, whatever the sin was, — whether idolatry, wrong-doing, or disobedience, — was to arouse His anger or wrath. The Divine wrath, of course, is not an attribute like His righteousness. Wrath in God is what it is in men, — an affection, a pathos, — and is transient. The Divine nature is capable of wrath, although God is slow to anger. Then the natural result of wrath is punishment of the wrong-doer. But as wrath is but an affection, and not the fundamental character of the Divine mind, which rather is long-suffering and compassion, this prevailing disposition may so restrain the anger that no chastisement follows, but there is forgiveness; Ps. Ixxviii. 38, 39: "They (the people) were not faithful in His covenant. But He, being full of compassion, forgave their iniquity, and de- stroyed them not : yea, many a time turned He His anger away, and stirred not up all His wrath. For He remembered that they were flesh." Very often God is represented as restraining His anger " for His name's sake." The phrase is peculiar to the later books, and embraces a variety of ideas. In Isa. xL and in Ezekiel this is the idea expressed by the phrase : " Jehovah is God alone, but He has become God of Israel." The nations know Him only as Jehovah, the God of Israel. Therefore He can reveal Himself to the nations only in connection with Israel, for they know Him only as God of Israel. His purpose is to reveal Himself to all flesh. But this purpose can be effected only through Israel. Hence His name, His honour as God alone, is involved in Israel's history, whose God He is. He has begun a redemptive work in the world with Israel, a work which is to embrace JEHOVAH'S REGARD FOR HIS NAME 333 the nations, .and lie cannot undo tin's work however Israel may sin. This consideration restrains His anger against Israel. So it is in the poem, Deut. xxxii. 26, 27 : "I would make the remembrance of them (Israel) cease from among men, were it not that I feared the provocation of the enemy, lest their adversaries should misdeem, lest they should say, Our hand is exalted." In Ezek. xx. the whole course of Israel's history is explained on this principle. That which has prolonged the existence of Israel as a people, and given them a history, is Jehovah's regard for His own name. He is conscious of being God alone, and He has become God of Israel ; in this light alone the nations know Him, only thus does knowledge of Him reach the nations. Therefore His name would be compromised in Israel's destruction ; His work of redemption and revelation of Himself to the nations begun upon the earth would be obliterated and made of none effeet. His preservation and final redemption of His people Israel is that which reveals ?Iis name, His sole Godhead, to the nations. Hence, even when the trials of the Exile had failed to turn the hard hearts of the people, Jehovah exclaims : " For My name's sake do I defer Mine anger . . . that I cut thee not off. I have refined thee, but not as silver" (i.e. not with the result with which one refines silver). " For Mine own sake, for Mine own sake do I do it : for how should My name be profaned, and My glory will I not give to another" (Isa. xlviii. 9-11). Naturally the expression, His ' name's sake,' expresses many other things besides this, such as the fact that Israel is His people whom He hath redeemed, and His affection for their forefathers. Thus in Deut. ix. 26-29, Moses prays :" 0 Lord God, destroy not Thy people and Thine inheritance, which Thou hast redeemed. . . . Eemember Thy servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ; look unto the stubbornness of this people , . . lest Egypt say, Because the Lord was not able to bring them into the land which He promised them, and because He hated them, therefore He slew them in the 334 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT wilderness. Yet they are Thy people and Thine in- heritance." We have the same circle of ideas in Ex. xxxii. 10—14 and Num. xiv. 15—20. In the latter passage, Moses prays : " If Thou shalt kill this people as one man, the nations which have heard the fame of Thee will speak, saying, Because Jehovah was not able to bring them into the land which He swore to give them, therefore He slew them in the wilderness. And now . . let the power of my Lord be great, according as Thou hast spoken. The Lord is slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy . . . Pardon, I pray Thee, the iniquity of this people according to the greatness of Thy mercy. And the Lord said, I pardon according to thy word." (4) There is another aspect of the case which is illus- trated in the history of the people in the wilderness, and in all the prophets. In tlie history of the Exodus the anger of God against the people's rebellion expressed itself in plagues ; and in the prophets, in the people's subjugation by the nations and ejection from their land, with all the terrible sufferings connected with the Exile. Yet a full end was not made of the people. The eyes of the Lord are upon the sinful kingdom to destroy it, saving that He will not altogether destroy the house of Jacob (Amos ix. 8). The point here is that the righteous anger of Jehovah dip- played and enforced itself. It received, so far, a certai' illustration, Jehovah did not stir up all His wrath, noi make a full end of the nation, which would have been the natural penalty of their disobedience ; but His righteous anger was displayed, and His rule vindicated so far. In His returning mercy He might even feel that He had chastised too harshly. " Speak comfortably to Jerusalem, and say unto her, She hath received double for all her sins " (Isa. xl. 2). (5) And one other point may be referred to. A few cases occur where human intercession is had respect to, and God averts His anger and forgives. We have the instance of Abraham in Gen. xviii. 23-33. There is the case in Amos (vii, 4—6). Preparations for destroying ACTS OF INTERCESSION 335 *srael were shown him, and he prayed : " 0 Lord, forgive, [ beseech Thee : how shall Jacob stand ? for he is small." And the Lord said : " It shall not be." Jeremiah, again, frequently intercedes for Israel, though both to him and to Ezekiel the intimation is given that the time for inter- cession is past : " Though Moses and Samuel stood before Me, My mind could not be toward this people : cast them out of My sight ' (Jer. xv. 1). In the wilderness, when the people made the golden calf, Moses interceded with effect : " The Lord said : ... it is a stiff-necked people. Now therefore let Me alone, that My wrath may wax hot against tliem, that I may consume them : and I will make of thee a great nation" (Ex. xxxii. 9, 10). Moses prayed, making the representations already quoted in the passage in Num. xiv. And the Lord repented of the evil which He thought to do to Israel. In a subsequent part of the chapter there is recorded a slaughter of three thousand men which the Levites made among the people. And Moses said on the morrow to the people : " Ye have sinned a great sin : and now I will go up unto the Lord ; per- adventure I may, make an atonement ('"i"^??^ v''^), for your sin." Moses prayed : " Oh, this people have sinned a great sin. Yet now, if Thou wilt forgive their sin — ; and if not, blot me out of Thy book which Thou hast written." Moses acknowledges the sin, and will not outlive the de- struction of the people. It is not certain what is meant when he says : " Perhaps I may atone (or, cover) for your sin " ; whether it is that he himself will be able to remove it from God's sight, or that he will be able so to intercede that God may cover it. The latter is probably the mean- ing, for Moses prays Jehovah to take away the people's sin. So that his intercession does not atone in the technical sense. Moses identifies himself with the people, devotedly refusing life to himself if the people are to perish ; then he profoundly feels and acknowledges the people's sin, which from the relation he assumes to them may be con- sidered their confession. There is an important passage in Num. xxv. 10—13. 336 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT The case is that of the sin of Israel with the Midianitisn women. Phinehas, seeing an Israelite bring in a Midianitish woman for purposes of fornication, smote them both through with a dart. And the Lord said : " Phinehas 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 them not in My jealousy. Therefore I give unto him my covenant of peace, because he was jealous for his God, and made atonement for the children of Israel" (^41ar : " Turn not unto them that SIN AS DEFILEMENT 849 have familiar spirits, nor unto wizards : seek them not out, to be defiled by them : I am Jehovah your God " (Lev. xix. 31). And, of com'se, all those other conditions or actions to which reference has been made are called uncleannesses. But our modern distinction of ceremonial and moral is not one known to the law. Equally un- known to it is the idea that the Levitical purifications and ritual offerings were symbolical — operations performed merely to suggest the ideas of moral purity in God and the necessity for it for men. On the contrary, the Levitical defilements were real ; they were offences to the absolute purity of the Divine nature. And the Levitical purifi- cations were equally real — the washings removed the un- cleanness if of a lesser kind, and the blood of the sacrifice atoned for it if it was of a more serious nature. It is just those defilements, such as that arising from touching the dead, that are called sins, and the offering to atone for them is called the sin-offering. An instructive instance is that of the Nazirite, Num. vi. 2—12: "When either man or woman shall make a special vow, the vow of a Nazirite, to separate himself unto the Lord ... all the days of his separation he is holy unto the Lord ... he shall not come near to a dead body. And if any man die very suddenly beside him ... he shall bring two tmtle-doves to the priest, and the priest shall offer one for a sin-offering . . . and make atonement for him, for that he sinned by reason of the dead." Now, with regard to this ritual atonement, it is dis- tinguished in several ways from the atonement previously referred to. 1. In the first place, there are stated and regular means appointed for it. It is not left to the compassion of God, or the intercession of men, or Jehovah's consideration for His name's sake. The stated means are the sacrifice, and specially the blood of the sacrifice. 2. The person who atones in this case, as has been already stated, is no more God Himself, but the priest ; or, when the atonement is made for the whole people, the 350 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT high priest. The priest, of course, is appointed of God. But the procedure in the atonement is now something ordinary ; both the means to it and the persons accom- plishing it are fixed ordinances. 3. A certain difference of phraseology also appears. In the extra-ritual atonements, that which was atoned or covered was the sin. In the ritual atonements, that which is atoned or covered is the persons or souls of the offenders ; or it may be, for even things are atoned for in the ritual, the altar or the sanctuary in which Jehovah is present. The difference of construction is perhaps not of great im- portance, being due to the different conception entertained of sin in the ritual law. In the extra-ritual Scriptures sin is conceived as an offence which the sinner is guilty of. The offence is seen by the eye of the righteous God, the Judge and Ruler. It incurs His anger, and draws forth penalty. But the sin is not considered as adhering to the sinner ; hence, when it is atoned it is covered and done away. But in the ritual atonements sin is regarded as an uncleanness, and this necessarily adheres either to a person or a thing. Hence, when atonement is made, the person is covered, or, as the case may be, the thing — the altar or the dwelling-place which contracts defilement from the presence of the people. Here two questions arise — first, what is the idea of atonement in the ritual ? and, secondly, what is the prin- ciple ? As to the idea, it seems still, as in the extra- ritual, that of covering, putting out of sight, or doing away with the uncleanness. The use of the word atone (is?) is still figurative. There are other terms, however, which have less of figure in them. These are : KDH to un-sin ^ nnD to cleanse J- = "iS3 atona ^P to sanctify J The /ac< is, that the sacrifice or blood reiaoves the sin, or cleanses, or sanctifies ; the Jigicrt is, that it covers the sin or uncleanness, and so removes it from the sight of God, RITSCHL AND RIEHM ON ATONEMENT 351 jt obviates all effects of it. There is an element of the idaal still in the operation. When the altar or sanctuary is atoned for, the blood is literally applied to them, so that the uncleanness adhering to them is literally covered. But when persons are atoned for, the blood is not usually applied to them, it is merely brought before the sight of God, being applied to His altar. Sometimes, however, as in the consecration of the high priest, it is applied to the person ; and when applied to the sanctuary, there is the idea that the uncleanness of the people cleaves to the sanctuary. Hence, on the day of atonement, the sacri- fices for the people are regarded as cleansing the sanctuary as well as the people ; the things are identical. Ritschl has argued that the ritual atonement moves entirely in the region of nature, in the sphere of that which man and God are, so to speak, physically ; that man needs to be covered by the blood of sacrifice when approaching God, because of what he is as a finite creature in the pre- sence of the natural majesty of God. But the terminology appears to be against this, which speaks of specific acts of uncleanness, and calls them sins. Eiehm, in his valuable book on Old Testament Theology, and in his Essay on Atone- ment, argues against this transference of the operation of atonement into the mere physical or natural region ; but agrees with Kitschl to this extent, that the necessity for atonement, for the covering of the sinner's uncleanness by blood, lies in the danger to the sinner from the holiness of God, which would react against the sinner's unclean- ness if he approached uncovered by blood, and destroy the sinner.^ That is, the covering of the sinner is regarded ab a protection of him against the reaction of the Divine holi- ness, which would destroy him. But this idea, that the necessity for covering by blood Hes in the danger to the sinner from the reaction of the Divine holiness against him ' See the discussion in Ritschl's Die christliche Lehrevonder Rechtfertigung und der Versdhnung, vol. ii. ; Hofmann's Schrl/tbeweis, ii. 191 ff. ; Weiss'a Biblical Theology of the New Testament, Clark's tz., L 419 ff., and ii. 220tf. ; etc.— Ed. 352 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT in his uncleanness, appears to have no support in the language of the ritual. It is nowhere intimated that there is any danger to the sinner because of his un- cleanness. If he neglects the appointed means of purifica- tion, he is threatened with leing cut off; but this is because of his disobedience to the ordinance of God, not because of his uncleanness. The idea appears to be rather that the uncleanness or sin of the individual or people is in- compatible with their being the people of God. It dis- turbs the holiness of God, who is their God, and abides among them. It makes His fellowship with them impos- sible ; if not removed, it would make His abode among them as their God no more possible, and lead, as it did of old, to His withdrawal. The explanation lies in the words, " Be ye holy : for I am holy " (Lev. xx. 7).^ 7. T?ie Principle of Atonement. Finally, as to the principle of atonement by the sacrifice or the blood of sacrifice, this, I fear, must remain obscure. The law appears nowhere to give any rationale or explana- tion of the ordinance that blood atones or covers the sin or defilement. The passage in Lev. xvii. 11 comes nearest an explanation, though without supplying it. " The life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls ; for the blood atones in virtue of the life." The law here is not occupied immediately with the question of atonement ; it is a law against eating of blood. Eating of blood is prohibited, because the life is in the blood, and the blood has been ' In the Epistle to the Hebrews, where the same idea prevails, there seems no allusion to any obstacle to the sinner's drawing near to God on the part of God, the obstacle lies exclusively in the conscience of sin on the sinner's part ; and it is when his conscience is purified from dead works that he can serve the living God. Pre-Christian sin is ignorance. And another New Testament writer seems to touch on the same idea — "the times of this ignorance God winked at, but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent" (Acts xvii. 30). And even our Lord Himself says : " If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin " (John xv. 22), THE OFFERING OF THE BLOOD 353 given to make atonement ; and this atonement the blood effects in virtue of its being the life. We must be on our guard again against fancying that we have symbolism here. There is no symbolism, but reality. The blood is not a symbol of the life, it is the life, or contains it. The offering of the blood to God is the actual offering of the life. The slaying of the victim and the offering of the blood are not two separate acts. They are one act, which consists in offering the life or victim to God. The death is not to.be regarded as a mere means of getting the blood ; the dt^ath and the offering are the giving to God of the life of the victim. But while stating the fact that the life thus given atones, the ritual law offers no explanation. The traditional explanation has been that the death of the victim was a poena vicaria for the sin of the offerer. And it is probable that this idea did become attached to sacrifice. It is questionable, however, when other things are considered, if it be found in the law. When we consider such things as these : first, the fact that whatever older or more primary ideas of sacrifice may have been, in the Old Testament at least sacrifice is of the nature of a gift to God ; secondly, that the kind of offences for which sacrifices made atone- ment were sins of inadvertency, in regard to which there does not seem evidence that they awakened the wrath of God, although, notwithstanding that they were done un- wittingly, they disturbed His holiness and endangered His fellowship with His people and His abode among them ; and, thirdly, that these sacrifices were offered in the main for a people in His covenant fellowship, for those already His worshipping people, and that the prophet Ezekiel regards these atoning offerings as necessary, and as continuing even in the final condition of the people, after their forgiveness and final restoration, and when they are all led by God's Spirit, — when these and other things are considered, it does not appear probable that the death of the victim was regarded by the law as a penalty, death being the highest possible penalty. On the other hand, though the sacrifices were of the as 354 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT nature of a gift, in this case the use of the blood in virtue of the life for atonement is an express appointment of God. And it is said that the blood in virtue of the hfe atones for the souls or lives of men. It is possible that the compilers of the ritual law satisfied themselves with just enunciating this fact, refraining from stating any princij^le, or assuming that the principle was known. The ritual law is the culmination of a multitude of ritual practices And probably ritual conceptions, and the compilers have satisfied themselves with legalising the practices without condescendence on the principles. The view of Eielim, that the blood atones simply because it is God's appointment or ordinance ; and that if the question be put why He appointed blood, there was no reason for His appointment beyond this, that there is a certain congruity in life being appointed for life, — the nephesh of the creature for the nephesh of men, — is not altogether satisfactory. It may be assumed that the grounds for the Divine appointment are deeper than this ; but so far as the Old Testament is concerned they are not distinctly revealed. At all times the blood was sacrosanct. Life belonged to God, and must in all cases be given back to Him, and not used by men as flesh might be. It is probable that deeper and mystical ideas gathered around the blood, and that men, if they did not see more in the offering of the Hfe for atonement of sin than a mere ordinance of God, felt there was more in it ; that there lay grounds under the ordinance which they might not see. ]\Ieantime the law has contented itself with stating the fact that the offering of a life to God atones. Subsequent revelation may go further. But thus in the Old Testament there are two lines on which atonement moves : that of the righteousness of God in the extra-ritual Scriptures ; and that of the holiness of God in the ritual law. In the former. He deals with sir as the righteous Euler and Judge of men. In the latter, He deals with it as a holy person with whom men have fellowship, wl)0 draw near to Him, and among whom He westcott's view of sacrifice 355 graciously abides. But there is one other Old Testament passage which may give additional light (Isa. liii.). Although the form in which the sacrifice is put in the law be that it is the giving of the life of a creature to God, naturally the other side of such a transaction, when the case of the creature is concerned, is that it is the death of the creature. In earlier times, perhaps, the former side of the idea was more prominent — the idea of a gift to placate God ; in later times the other side, that the death of the creature was of the nature of penalty, by the exaction of which the righteousness of Jehovah was satisfied. This idea seems certainly expressed in Isa. liii. ; at least these two points appear to be stated there, that the sins of the people, i.e. the penalties for them, were laid on the Servant and borne by him ; and, secondly, that thus the people were relieved from the penalty, and their sins being borne, were forgiven. New Testament scholars seem as much perplexed in seeking to discover the principle of atonement in the New Testament as we are in the Old. There is one passage m the Epistle to the Hebrews (x. 1-10) which has been interpreted by New Testament scholars, such as Bishop VVestcott, and indeed most, in a way which is very doubtful The passage runs thus : " For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Where- fore when He {i.e. Jesus) cometh into the world He saith, Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldest not, but a body hast Thou prepared Me. In burnt-offerings and sacrifices for sin Thou hadst no pleasura Then said I, Lo, I am come . . . to do Thy will, 0 God. Above when He said, Sacrifice and offering . . . Thou wouldest not . . . (which are offered by the law), then said He, Lo, I am come to do Thy will, 0 God. He taketh away the first that He may establish the second." Now the general interpretation of this passage is that it substitutes for the mere material sacri- fices of the Old Testament an ethical service, obedience to the will of God. But this, I think, — though it may be the meaning of the Psalm quoted (Ps. xL), as it is the 356 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT doctrine of the prophets, — is obviously not the meaning of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrewa The author's argument is that Christ having done what was declared in Scripture to be God's final will in regard to sacrifice, His sacrifice is final, " By one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." It is not the general will of God that he refers to, but His particular specific will that Christ should offer His body. What are contrasted are not two disparate things, namely, the material sacrifices offered according to the law and the moral sacrifice of obedience ; but two things of the same kind or class, namely, Old Testament sacrifices, the blood of bulls and goats, and the offering of the body of Christ once for all — the blood of Christ. For it is said, " Sacrifice and offering, i.e. the legal offerings, thou wouldest not, but a body hast Thou prepared Me." He willed not sacrifices, and He willed the offering of the body of Christ; "by, or in, which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Christ once for all." The Epistle to the Hebrews merely throws the New Testament sacrifice into the mould of the Old Testament, but furnishes no principle : " If the blood of bulls and the ashes of an heifer sanctify to the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God ? " It is not a new principle, but a more con- clusive application of the old principle. The death of Christ takes away sin because it is the death of Christ.^ XL THE DOCTRINE OF THE LAST THINGS— THE MESSIANIC IDEA. I. Distinctive Contributions to the Doctrine. In the times of the early prophets 'it is the nation ds a whole that occupies the view of the prophet, its ' On this see more at length in the author's The Epistle to the Hebrews, vsUh Introduction and Notes, pp. 189-194. — Ed. THE MESSIANIC HOPE 357 relation to Jehovah, its approaching fall ; yet the in- destructibleness of Jehovah's kingdom, its rise again in the future, to be universal and all-endin-ing. Under this general conception of the future, the eschatology of the kingdom of the Lord, fall those prophecies which are called Messianic. And the Messianic Hope is the transi- tion to the Doctrine of the Last Things. When we pass from this early region and this general subject, the people or kingdom of the Lord, we have to consider the individual, his condition and destiny. This raises many questions regarding, e.g., human nature in the elements composing it — body, soul and spirit ; sin and its atonement ; as well as death and immortality — the eschatology of the individual. The most of these questions came into prominence a century or two later down the history than the period of the early prophets. In all the earlier prophets the religious unit, so to speak, is the people, as we see, e.g., in Hosea. The individuals occupy a secondary place, and share the fate, disastrous or happy, of the people. It is but exceeding slowly that in the thoughts of the Old Testament the individual man acquires prominence and comes to the rights and the responsibilities assigned to him in Christianity. It can readily be seen, however, how God's providence in the history of Israel gradually led to this result. So long as the State, North and South, endured, the unit, the people, was apt to be alone thought of. But when the State fell, first the North and then the South, this unit no more existed. Yet the individuals existed, and their God existed ; and the individual rose into the consciousness that all those things which had been spoken of the people, its duties and relations to Jehovah its God, had a reality as regarded himself, and meantime had no other reality. Even before the actual dissolution of the State, the many calamities that befell the people in common could not but awaken the individual's consciousness, and lead him to a clearer conception of his true relations and worth- The interpretation put by the prophets upon 358 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT •(he people's disastrous history led men to reflect and to iiscriminate. While the interpretation that calamity was due to the jins of the people, might be just when the people as a unity «vas considered, yet many were conscious that they did not share in the sins and idolatries denounced by the prophets. Still the disasters of defeat and exile fell on them even with a more crushing weight than on the sinners of the people. It was the dite of the nation, the best-informed, and purest, and most godly, that were deported from their country. They could not but say, as one of them does : " Verily I have cleansed my heart in vain, and washed my hands in innocency. For all the day long have I been plagued." — " Lo, these are the ungodly who prosper in the world " (Ps. Ixxiii. 12—14). Hence arose the proverb, " The fathers ate sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge " ; or, as it is expressed in Lam. v. 7 : " Our fathers sinned, and we bear their iniquities." It is in the two pro- phets Jeremiah and Ezekiel, who both lived partly before and partly after the Exile, that the individual man fully comes to his true place before God. Indeed, in the xviiith and xxxiiird chapters of Ezekiel we may say that we see the birth of the individual mind taking place before our eyes : " All souls are mine, saith the Lord : as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son " (xviii. 4). The prophet disentangles the individual from the people as a mass, and even from his nearest ancestors ; he shall not be involved in the consequences of their sins : " The soul that sinneth, it shall die." But the prophet goes much further than this, and asserts for the individual a moral freedom, in virtue of which he can break with his own past and de- liver himself from its consequences. He is not under the han of the past. There is an ego, an / in man, possessed of moral freedom, which can rise above even that which may be called nature in him, and not only break with it, but take the rule of it, and shake off its moral shackles, and, in the favour of God, redeem himself from its consequences. Perhaps there are hardly any more important passages in PROBLEMS OF THE INDIVIDUAL UFE 359 the Old Testament than these two chapters of Ezekiel. The religious unit, so to speak, that subject between wliich and God religion is the bond and in which rehgious experi- ences take place, is the individual mind. The period between the earlier prophets and those of later time, when problems of the individual life fill the minds of Scripture writers, such as the author of Job, for instance, and the authors of many of the Psalms, — this long period is of the greatest importance. There belong to it some, we may almost say most, of the profoundest parts of the Old Testament ; those parts, indeed, many of which have come nearest Christianity. Examples are the Book of Deuteronomy, with the revolution which its discovery and promulgation occasioned ; the prophecies of Jeremiah, in a moral and personal aspect — perhaps because he analyses himself and dissects his own mind and experience to us — the most Christian of the prophets ; the Book of Ezekiel, on whom modern writers pass a very slighting, but probably not very profound judgment ; who, at any rate, is not without his part in leading on the people of God towards great New Testament truths ; the exquisite little collection of elegies, called the Lamentations, written shortly after the fall of the city, and reflecting the condition of the people's mind after this event. These poems exhibit to us the mind of religious men stunned by the magnitude of the blow, especially by the reflection that it was Jehovah their God who had inflicted it. Then they show us the profound sense of sin awakened in men's minds by these reflections ; and no doubt it was just the people's history as a whole, under the interpretation of it by the prophets, that more than anything else deepened the sense of sin in the nation's heart. And, finally, they show us the inextinguish- able faith in Jehovah, the Saviour of His people, a light which the darkness, however deep, could not swallow up. We may refer specially to the 3rd chapter of the Lamentations, perhaps the most singular piece of reflective meditation and weighing of considerations for and against the hope of God's mercy, which the Old Testament contains. 360 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT And, finally, there is the prophet of the second half of Isaiah, — who touches problems of sin and forgiveness more profoundly than any of his predecessors. Many difficult questions are raised by Deuteronomy which we cannot discuss here. Perhaps a careful reader of it will feel inclined to come to the conclusion that it is the reflection of the teaching of the three earliest prophets of Israel, Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah, particularly of the last two ; for if a distinction can be drawn between the two things, it is more distinctively religious than moral. It will certainly be best understood when read after Hosea and Isaiah. This, at any rate, is its historical position, so far as it influenced and modified religious life among the people. Its teaching might be somewhat generally summed up in four points : 1. Jehovah, Israel's God, is one Jehovah, who cannot be represented in any form. The right disposition men show towards Him is love, and love is His disposition towards His people : " Hear, 0 Israel : Jehovah our God is one Jehovah : and thou shalt love Jehovah thy God with all thine heart " (vi. 4). " And Jehovah chose them because He loved them " (iv. 37). 2. The humanity which is everywhere inculcated in the book. It is not necessary to dwell on thia How often the widow, and the orphan, and the stranger are commended to the consideration of the people, because they were themselves once strangers in Egypt ! How the gleanings of field and vineyard, the sheaf forgotten in the field, and the seventh year's crop are to be left them that they may be well and rejoice before the Lord ! This spirit of benevolence and goodwill extends even to the nations, as, e.g., to Egypt. One can hardly fail to see the teaching of Hosea reflected in both these points. 3. The holiness of Jehovah is greatly emphasised, and the necessity that His people should be holy. And here the doctrines of Isaiah are probably reflected. But an efibrt is made to bring the prophet's ideal hopes as to the future into the present. In the picture which he draws of the final condition of Jerusalem, every one that is left shall be called ' holy.' Deuteronomy seeks to realise THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY 861 this great ideal in the present life of the people. Under this general idea fall all the prescriptions regarding clean- ness, and purifications, and the like. It is this conception that gives unity to these laws, and enables us to understand them. And to this head belong all those denunciations of the impurities of the Canaanites, and the overwhelming moral earnestness of the warnings against having part in them, and the terrible threatenings against practising the religious rites or customs of these peoples. 4. And, finally, as the corollary of this law of holiness and the unity of Jehovah their God, and as the necessary means of realising this holiness, there is the law of the one altar where sacrifice to Jehovah is to be offered, that at Jerusalem. This is by no means, as is often represented, the chief burden of Deuteronomy. It is the least part of it, and only a consequence of other doctrines. As the book is all spoken by Moses, the way in which the law is represented is this. It is not a law that is to come into effect on their entry into Canaan ; it is to be observed from the time that Jehovah shall have given them rest from all their enemies round about ; that is, from the times of David, or, more particularly, Solomon ; for only when the temple was built did that place become known which Jehovah had chosen to place His name there. The main idea of the book is the holiness of Jehovah and the necessary holiness of His people. To * sanctify ' Jehovah is to recognise Him to be the God that He is ; God alone, spiritual, and above all ethical To ' sanctify ' Him in thought is to recognise this ; in act, it is to live as the people of such a God should do — to be like Him. The opposite of to * sanctify ' is to ' profane ' ; and the people profane His name when, being His people, they engage in the impure worship of the Canaanites, or serve Jehovah in a false way, as under visible forms ; and when, being His people, they practise the moral impurities of the nations about them. It is probable that * holy ' in Isaiah is mainly a moral idea, but in Deuteronomy and the law it is extended over a multitude 362 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT of outward conditions ; and ideas such as clean and unclean, perfect and imperfect physically, are drawn very largely into it. This great ideal of ' holiness ' was set before the people ; and they were taught by a multitude of prescrip- tions to seek to realise it. Jeremiah had already been five years a prophet when Deuteronomy was made public law in 621. He does not appear to have had any hand in the promulgation of the law ; nor in Josiah's reformation, which abohshed all the rural high places of sacrifice, and confined the ritual worship of Jehovah to the temple at Jerusalem. It is probable that he saw this reform with satisfaction, but probably cherished few illusions in regard to it. It was good in its way, but it was not the good which he and men like him desired to see and required. The prophets were men never satisfied. When a reform was effected they accepted it, but always went further. Jeremiah soon had reason to see the effects of Josiah's reformation to be anything but good in all respects. The temple of the Lord, where worship was alone carried on, became to men's minds a kind of fetish : " the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, are these " (Jer. vii. 4). The people thought it indestructible. And they thought their service of Jehovah at one place, as He had commanded, condoned all other offences and sins. "Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and walk after other gods ; and come and stand before Me in this house, and say, We are delivered ? " (vii. 9). " Is this house that is called by My name a cave of robbers," where, after committing their depredations, they find refuge and think themselves safe? It is indeed an interesting position that is occupied here by Jeremiah. That prophet's relation to the people and to Jehovah made him continually tossed between the two, and neither listened to him. He interceded for the people before God, but was rejected. " Though Moses and Samuel stood before Me, IMy heart could not be toward this people " (xv. 1). He carried Jehovah's word to the people, and he was persecuted because of it. THE TEACHING OF JEREMIAH 363 God seemed to ask much from him and to give hiiu nothing. Yet He gave him Himself. And He gave him His word. On this the prophet fed. " Thy words were found, and I did eat them ; they were unto me a joy, and the rejoicing of mine heart : for I am called by Thy name, 0 Jehovah God of hosts" (xv. 16). To know God, to be His servant, to have His ear to pour out his sorrows and perplexities and hard experience into, was enough. Success he had none — only defeat on every side ; yet lie was himself victorious amidst defeat. His teaching is little else than an expression, a transcription of his own pious life, of his intimate fellowship with God. It is personal religion become conscious of itself. Though not in the same formal way as Ezekiel, Jeremiah took great steps towards giving prominence to the individual mind. Several things combined to secure this result. First, there was the isolation of the prophet. He felt himself, especially in opposition to the false prophets, the only true man in the State. This isolation, combined with his singular tendency to introspection and self-analysis, enables us to see his mind better than we see that of any other prophet. It was perhaps his isolation that compelled him to practise introspection ; it required him to analyse his own mind, and to bring clearly before himself his relation to Jehovah, and perceive wherein the essence of that relation lay. And all this being the case of an individual, it established the position of the individual once for all. Secondly, another thing led to the same result, namely, his conception of Jehovah. Jehovah is to him a purely ethical being, and consequently His relation to the subject in fellowship with Him is a purely inward one. It must, therefore, be a relation to the individual mind. And, conversely, the service rendered to Him must be a service of the mind. From this position follow the main things which appear in his prophecies, e.g., 1. His condemnation of the whole past rehgious history of the nation ; it has been no 364 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT service of Jehovah (chaps, ii., iii., vi.). 2. The futility of external service and material symbols, such as sacrifice, ark, and the like : the time is coming when these shall no more be called to mind (vii. 21—28, vii. 9—11, iii. 16—18). 3. Hence his dissatisfaction with or indifference to the reforms of Josiah, — reforms on which the people prided themselves. It is not reform but regeneration that is required : " Break up the fallow ground, and sow not among thorns ; circumcise your hearts " (iv. 3 ; cf. references to the heart, iv. 4, 14, v. 23, xi. 20, xvii. 9, xxxi. 33). 4. Hence the stringent demand for morality in the individual, the subject of Jehovah's fellowship (v. 1, viL 26—28, ix. 1-6, xviii.). 5. Hence prophecy has lost what was extra- ordinary and intermittent in it, — it becomes little else than an exalted piety. Jeremiah has reached the condition spoken of by the Servant of the Lord : " He wakeneth my ear, he wakeneth morning by morning " (Isa. 1. 4). Prophecy is a continuous standing in the counsel of God. It is that which he himself predicts of all : " They shall all know Me" (xxxvi. 19). His conception of prophecy is that of a relation of mind to mind, conscious and reason- able, and his scorn is for the ' dreams ' and ' visions ' of the false prophets (xxiii. 21-32), and their mechanical supernaturalism. The verification of prophecy lies in the consciousness of the true prophet, and in the moral nature of his prophecy ; it is only prophecies of ' peace ' to sinners and a sinful nation that require justification by the event (xxviii. 7-9). 6. Hence the calmness with which Jeremiah contemplates the ruin of the State as a State, buys a field on the eve of the city's fall (chap, xxxii.), and counsels submission to the king of Babylon (xxi. 9, xxix. 1—7; xxxviii. 17). Though the State falls, the individuals of the people remain, and Jehovah remains, and religion and life to him remain ; and 7. To the same effect is his view of the nature of the New Covenant. The Lord writes it on the heart of the indi\ddual, and graves it on his inward part ; and each man knows the Lord (xxxi. 33). MESSIANIC CONCEPTIONS 365 2. The Consummation of tlic Kingdom. The great thouglits of salvation which the prophets give forth gather around certain conspicuous figures in the people of Israel. One of these figures is the theocratic or Davidic king. The idea of the king occupies a large place especially in prophets like Isaiah and Micah. In the various hghts in which it is set, and the glorious colours with which it is invested, it becomes the most fruitful Messianic conception in prophecy. In the second part of Isaiah we have another figure, less conspicuous and im- posing in grandeur, but, if possible, more singular in the attributes with which it is invested, and suggesting thoughts equally profound, although in an altogether differ- ent region — the figure of the Suffering Servant of the Lord. We can trace the character of the theocratic kingdom, and see what efforts the prophets make to set forth the glories of the theocratic king, rising in their conceptions of him till at last they reach the unsurpassable height of naming him : " God with us — Mighty God," and teaching that in him God shall be wholly present with His people. The point to which that delineation of the theocratic kingdom and king carries us, is perhaps the most favourable place for gathering together some of the things which the prophets say about the issue and final condition of the kingdom. This issue of the theocracy into its final condition takes place at a time and under circumstances which make up what the prophets call ' The day of the Lord.' These two great figures, the King and the Servant, suggest almost all the conceptions in the Old Testament which we are accustomed to caU Messianic or Christological. It is probable that Old Testament writers themselves did not yet identify these two figures, or come to the conclusion that the attributes of both would yet be combined in one person. History, however, shows that this was to be the case. The Messianic conceptions and hopes in Israel are mainly connected with the last days, the period of Israel's perfection and final peace and blessing. This restoration 366 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT of Israel and its perfection are realised through thia event* ' The day of the Lord.' Now, to begin with, all Israel's spiritual blessings came from God, and even all Israel's blessings of whatever kind. He taught Israel's arms to fight, and made him tread on his high places. Salvation belonged unto God. And in whatever form or degree salvation was attained, it was through Him. All the strength of the nation arose from being strengthened with might by His Spirit, when all the channels of their life were filled and flushed with the Spirit poured into them. God Himself was Israel's highest blessing. He was the portion of her cup. His nearness brought salvation near. His presence in its fulness was the end of all development in Israel and Israel's glorification : "Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee" (Isa. Ix. 1). This was the meaning of the covenant relation. With regard to the covenant, the two great factors in it are, of course, God and the people. Under the former head is discussed what is properly called theology, under the latter what is named anthropology. The Messianic teaching miglit be taken as a part of the first, and the doctrine of immortality as a part of the second. These two in some respects correspond. They form respectively the eschatology of the two departments ; or rather the Messianic doctrine belongs to the eschatology of the nation or people ; immortality, to the eschatology of the indi- vidual. Even the Messianic doctrine is not strictly a distinct thing in the Old Testament ; it is an element of the eschatology or final condition. Tliere does not, I tliink, run through the Old Testament a distinct hope, to be called the Messianic hope. What is interpreted as Messi- anic in the New Testament, is rather everything in the Old Testament that is ideal of its own kind, whatever that kind may be, — an idealism only to be realised in the last times, whether, for example, it be the king, or the people, or the priest, or the individual saint. Being thus some form ol the final and perfect condi- VARIOUS FORMS OF THE MESSIANIC 367 tioii of the kingdom or people of Jehovah upon the earth, being a picture of this, or of this in some of its aspects, or of some great outstanding personage who is influential in the introduction of this perfect state, or in maintaining and perpetuating it, — that which we may call the Messianic, — using the word in that general sense, as nearly equivalent to eschatological in reference to the kingdom, — may assume very different forms, and bring into ideal prominence different persons or agents in the work of perfecting the kingdom, or in its condition when perfected. We can perceive that Jehovah's own operation and His own pre- sence will be the essential Messianic element. Then we have the state and conduct of the people as a whole; and then, again, the theocratic king idealised as he shall be in the latter day, when the kingdom of God is perfect ; or, because he was representative of Jehovah and the destinies of the kingdom were in his hand, the individual saint in his sufferings and deliverance. The Messianic, as it is called, will thus differ very greatly in different ages. The prominent agent in the particular age will be idealised. At all times, of course, Jehovah's work and presence may be dwelt upon. Also at almost any time the condition of the people may be idealised. During the monarchy the prominent personage will be the Davidic king, and so on. Dividing the history into periods, the prominent figures seem these : 1. Jehovah, in His work and presence, at all times. And this is of special importance, because it lays the foundation both for the work and the person of the Messiah. Whoever he is, it is Jehovah in him that is Saviour. 2. In the pre-monarcbical period it is chiefly the people, or mankind, as in the protevangelium, the promises to Abraham and the patriarchs : " In thee and in thy seed *' ; and in the poems of Balaam. 3. During the monarchy it is the Davidic king, — the Messianic king as representative of Jehovah, — though also, of course, many times, of His peupla This is pai'ti- 368 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT culyrly the case during the Assyrian conflicts, because the destiny of the State was greatly in the hands of the kings, and because the Davidic monarchy was threatened with extinction in Isaiah's days and in Micah's. The Davidic king is intra-hrad ; the Servant of the Lord is much wider, intra-national. The widening ideas of the time could not but create a larger subject, giving him a larger scope. 4. After the destruction of the monarchy, the Messianic or eschatological hopes again centre in the people, as in the second half of Isaiah ; the personal Messiah, as Davidic king, drops out of sight ; the Divine in this case is the revelation of God incarnated in Israel. 5. At the Kestoration, as was to be expected, the priest becomes more prominent or the union of the priestly and the kingly becomes so, because the greater sense of sin brings the idea of atonement into prominence. So in the prophets of the Re.sturation, Zechariah, Haggai, and Malachi. It is remarkable that the prophet plays little part in the eschatological view. Except in the passage in Deutero- nomy, he has no place, though the prophetic function of the people is the main conception of the second half of Isaiah. But in the view of the prophets themselves, their own function woidd be superseded in the perfect State. Jehovah would write His law on men's hearts, and one should no more teach his neighbour. The Spirit of God takes the place of the prophet — He is poured out on all flesh, and they all prophesy ; all the Lord's people are prophets. With regard to Daniel, my impression is that, in that book, it is the people, the saints of the Most High, who shall receive the kingdom, and that the " son of man " in that prophecy is a symbol of the people, and not of an individual. This point, however, is somewhat obscure. When the idea of the covenant relation was realised in God's full presence in Israel, then Israel had reached the end of her desires and attained perfection. The idea of salvation in the Old Testament i^ fellowship with God. RESTORATION IN THE LATER PROPHETS 369 That this union of God with Israel sh(juld yet be realised, all the prophets firmly helieve. No doubt ere that time come tliere shall be great sorrows, and Israel shall seem abandoned of God. All the prophets predict the dissolution of Israel ; but they look across the dark stream of death, and behold a new life on the other side. They usually put the two, destruction and restoration, side by side in abrupt opposition to one another. One prophet, like ]\Iicah, may first describe, as in his first three chapters, the dissolution of Israel : " Ziou shall be ploughed like a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps " ; and then in the following chapters paint the restoration of the pris- tine kingdom, and the revival of the House of David : " It shall come to pass in the latter day that the mountain of the house of the Lord . . . shall be exalted above the hills, and all nations shall flow to it." Another prophet, like Isaiah, may begin with this prediction, and run out the development of calamity from his own present till this time of perfection is reached. Usually the prophets do not bridge over the chasm between Israel's dissolution and her restoration. They move usually in the higher region of Divine procedure. And as God chastises Israel by dispersing her in His anger, so He gathers her together again in His returning mercy. But, in the earlier pro- phets, the internal processes within Israel which explain, or at all events accompany, this different dealing, are usually only hinted at. In later prophets, on the other hand, or at all events in prophets whose point of view is that of a later time, as in the second part of Isaiah, we have laid bare to us the wonderful internal process going on within Israel, the atonement of her sin and her repentance, which mediate the Eestoration. We have it also in Zechariah : " I will pour out on Israel the spirit of grace and of supplications, and they shall look on Him whom they have pierced, and mourn" (xii. 10). The prophets may not express, they may not even represent, to themselves the means of Israel's restoration, except that God shall accomplish it ; but they 24 370 THE THEOLOGY OP THE OLD TESTAMENT all believe in it. And in the prophecies, certainly in those of Isaiah, we have the idea of continuity, and the holy seed indestructible blossoms out into a new people. When they accompany to the grave, with bitter lamenta- tions, the bier on which is laid the virgin daughter of Israel, they sorrow not as those that have no hope. She shall rise again : " Thus saith the Lord God, Behold, 0 My people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel " (Ezek. xxxvii. 1 2). Now the author of all this to Israel being God, the fulness of Israel's life and the perfection of her attainment is often described as the coming of God. What precise concep- tion the prophets formed of this coming of God may not be easy to determine. But it was not merely a coming in wonders, or ia the word of His prophets, or in a spiritual influence and a change in His people's minds. It was some- thing objective and personal : " Behold, the Lord cometh in might, with His arm ruling for Him. The glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together." When He came He came in His fulness. The age behind was wound up and a new age commenced. The processes that had been long going on ran out, and new lines of movement began. This coming was not only the per- fection of Israel, it was also the restitution of all things, the renovation of the world. And it was a thing which not Israel alone, but the inanimate world, had longed for and rejoiced in : " The Lord is King ; let the earth rejoice ; let the multitude of isles be glad thereat " (Ps. xcvii. 1). During the past, the former age, God had often seemed apathetic. He slept ; He let the reins of government slip from His hands. He winked at men's wickedness. Now He awoke. He grasped the reins of power ; He took to Him His power and reigned. The kingdom was the Lord's. Now this is the fundamental thing, — Jehovah in per- son was present with His people. But this coming of Jehovah is not always represented as being accomplished CHIEF -ERIODS OF THE MESSIANIC 371 in the same way. Sometimes the direct appearance of Jehovah in person is asserted, and the question how His appearance shall be realised is answered. Sometimes the coming is accomplished in the line of the Messianic hope — Jehovah comes down among His people in the Messiah, His presence is manifested and realised in him. The Messiah is " Immanuel — God with us'' he is El Gihbor, ' mighty God.' God is fully present, for purposes of redemption, in the Messianic king. This is the loftiest Messianic conception. It places the Messiah in the line of the perfect realisation of the hopes of Israel. Her highest hope was the perfect manifestation of God and His abode among the people ; and when this hope is conceived as finding verification through the line of the Messiah, the Messiah becomes in himself the personal appearance of God. The Messianic hope in the early prophets ran chiefly in the line of the theocratic kingship, and this hope blossomed into extraordinary splendour on two great occasions. The first was the glorious reign of David and the early monarchs of his house. This gave rise to hopes, and suggested con- ceptions, and disengaged, if I may say so, ideals which constituted the loftiest Messianic revelations. These are contained in the Messianic Psalms, such as Pss. ii., Lxxii., ex., and others. Such passages seem to repose on the promise made to David by Nathan, that his house should never cease to bear rule in the kingdom of Jehovah. This promise is often alluded to in Scripture. It is formally stated in 2 Sam. vii. 1 2 ff. ; alluded to in Pss. Ixxxix., cxxxii., and in David's last words, 2 Sam. xxiii. ff., 1 Kings xi. 13, 36 ; while Ps. ii. and others are based on it. It is also present to the mind of all the prophets, even the oldest, as Amos and Hosea. The other occasion was when danger threatened the Davidic house, or when the certain dissolution of the kingdom was before the prophet's mind. Here two chief periods may be mentioned as giving rise to conceptions called Messianic : (1) the age uf Hczekiah ; (2) the age of the Exilu. rciliaps we should give a third later age — an age of the study of 372 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT the old predictious. Then the inextinguishable faith of the prophets in God's promises reacted against the appearances and dangers of the present, and they recalled to mind the ' sure mercies of David,' and the ' covenant ordered in all things ' ; and Isaiah gave the prophecies of the Virgin's Son and the Mighty God ; while Micah saw rising on the ruins of Jerusalem a new Zion, and the former kingdom restored to it. This was the inspired protest of faith in the face of danger, or in view of the disaolution of the kingdom, now perceived to be inevitable. This continued, and is repeated, e.g., in Jeremiah. But when the kingdom had been long destroyed, and the Davidic house long in abasement, these ideas became less prominent. Circumstances turned the thoughts of the prophets in other directions, and made them move on other lines. God's providential treatment of Israel raised new conceptions of the future. The struggling nationality in Babylon attracted interest especially. Its faith amidst its exile, its constancy amidst its persecutions, its permanence and enduring individuality amidst defections, and the wear- ing hardships and enticements from the heathenism about it, — these drew the attention of the prophets. Tlie idea of the people of God, the other side of the groat covenant relation, rather than that of the theocratic king, was what filled their minds. And there floated before them glorious idealisations of that people, of its endowments by God, of its destinies, of what it should accomplish in the world, and what it should be when God returned to it and restored it to its own land. Then comes to Hght the meaning of Israel's suflerings, and the holy figure of the Suffering Servant rises before the prophet's view. In this way a new and most fruitful Messianic concep- tion is struck — profounder if possible, than any previous. But it is a conception wholly different from the former one, though it comes in to supplement it. The former Messianic conception made prominent the Divine side. Its highest expression was God with us. In the Messiah, Jehovah came to His people. But, as was said, the prophet left unrecouciled the antithesis between a sinful Israel and an Israel among whom God was to be present for ever in peace and fatherly protection and care. God could abide in this way only among a purified people. And now the chasm is filled up. Israel is purified by the sufferings of the Servant of the Lord : "By His stripes we have been healed " (Isa. liii. 5), and Jehovah dwells for ever among them. But this Servant rises out of the people. He is Israel itself. He realises in himself all that Israel should be, and therefore atones for Israelites who have not such characteristics. But lie is a figure suggested by the sufferings of godly Israel, the holy kernel of the people in exile. He is the Messiah, but not the King Messiah. It is doubtful if the prophets identified in their own minds the Servant of Jehovah and the King Messiah. Later revelation showed them to be one. But, in the Old Testament, Messianic truth runs in many streams, far apart, all pursuing their own way, and regarding which one far up the stream would be unable to say that they would yet meet in the same sea. Again, in Zech. iii. the Branch is the MessiaL And the conception of atonement struck in Isaiah reappears, though it is doubtful if it is in quite the same sense There is another very difficult passage in Zechariah where the same conception of suffering seems to appear : " They shall look unto Him whom they have pierced " (xii, 10). And, finally, the Book of Daniel is, as a whole, ]\Ies- sianic, though whether in the more general and wide sense of eschatological, or in the narrower sense of personally Messianic, will depend on our interpretation of the phrase, 'a son of man,' i.e. it is not quite clear whether this son of man be a real person, the Messianic king, or a personification of the people of the saints of the Most High , represented as human in opposition to the beasts which represented the heathen kingdoms. Without doubt the former inter- pretation became very prevalent before the time of our Lord, and the Book of Daniel is a very important element in the formation of the Messianic hope of his time. 374 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT As has been remarked, however, the prophets, regarding Jehovah's presence as Israel's salvation, dwelt much on His coming. It is not necessary to multiply references. The first eleven verses of Isa. xl., of which the climax is, " Say to the cities of Judah : Behold your God " — '• the Lord Cometh in strength," are an example ; and among the Psalms the ciind, " Thou shalt arise, and have mercy upon Zion. . . . So the heathen shall fear the name of the Lord, and all the kings of the earth Thy glory ; when the Lord shall build up Zion, He shall appear in His glory " (ver. 1 3 ff.). Now the authors of these passages, and others like them, had not in their mind the Messiah. They spoke of the appear- ance of Jehovah Himself, without connecting it with the Messianic hope. But Jehovah's appearance in glory could not in reality take place on two lines, and subsequent revela- tion fitted these passages into the line of Jehovah's mani- festations in the Messiah. These manifestations of Jehovah were either for salvation or for judgment. But for these ends Jehovah appeared in the Messiah. All judgment is committed into his hand. Hence, in the New Testament, these passages are all referred to the manifestation of God in the Messiah. 3. The Day of the Lord. But to be more specific. This manifestation of Jeho- vah is conceived as occurring at a set time, and with certain characteristics accompanying it ; and in this aspect it is called the day of the Lord. It is possible that in Hebrew as in Arabic the day means the day of battle ; the day of Badr is the battle of Badr, and this may be the primary sense of the phrase in Hebrew. And, in fact, in Isa. ii., where it is used, it may refer to the Lord's battle day — through His instruments the Assyrians. But natur- ally the phrase soon acquired a wider sense in Hebrew. It is not, however, to be regarded primarily as an assize, a day of judgment ; judgment always took place in an external manner, in the form of chastisement at God's hands through His instruments — often in war, It is a day that is a special THE DAY OF THE LORD 375 time ; and it is the day of the Lord, belongs to Him, is His time for working, for manifesting Himself, for display- ing His character, for performing His work — His strange work upon the earth. Hence Isaiah says : " For the Lord of hosts hath a day upon every one that is proud and lofty . . . and he shall be brought low " (u. 12); " And the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day" (ver. 17). Now, as to this day, these things may be observed : (1) As it was a day of the manifestation of Jehovah, God of Israel, in His fulness, and therefore in a way to realise His purposes, which, with Israel and even with the world, were those of grace, it is fundamentally a day of joy to Israel and also to the world. " Let the children of ZioB be joyful in their King " (Ps. cxlix. 2). " The Lord is king ; let the earth rejoice ; let the multitude of the isles be glad thereof" (Ps. xcvii 1). "Say among the heathen that the Lord is king. . . . Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be glad ; let the sea roar (i.e. for gladness), and the fulness thereof. Let the fields be joyful, and all that is therein. . . . Before the Lord : for He cometh, for He Cometh to rule the earth : He shall rule the world with righteousness, and the peoples with His truth " (Ps. xcvi 10—13). That Jehovah should reign, and that He should come to the earth as King, must, in spite of all the terrors that might attend His coming, bring to the world a pervading gladness. For the falsehood and injustice that had cursed the earth so long would disappear, and the longing of men, who were ever, in words or sighs, crying, ' Show us the Father, and it sufficeth us,' should be satisfied- But it would be a day of satisfaction, above all, to Israel, when He should plead her cause ; for the day of vengeance was in His heart, and the year of His redeemed was come. Naturally an accompaniment of the manifestation of Jehovah was the disappearance of the idols. " Ashamed, turned back . . are all they that frame graven images ; Israel is saved with an eternal salvation" (Isa. xlv. 17). "On that day men shall cast their idols of silver and their idols of gold to the moles and to the bats " (ii. 20). 376 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT But in the view of the prophets the gigantic oppres- sions which the empires of Assyria and Babylon meant to Israel, were but projections of their idolatry, with its cruelties and inhumanity, and licentiousness and pride. The later prophet, Daniel, condenses this idea into a graphic enough and expressive figure, when he represents the heathen monarchies under the image of various savage beasts, while the kingdom of God is represented under the image of a man. These kingdoms were embodiments of the qualities of the brute ; in the kingdom of Israel man rose to his place, and the true attributes of humanity found full play and embodiment. Hence the grand tone of all descriptions of the day of the Lord is a certain joy, which is willing to face the terrors of His coming for that which shall follow upon it. Behind the tempest the sky breaks clear. The terror, and the joy that is in spite of it, are finely displayed in the hymn of Habakkuk (chap. iii). (2) To those in Israel who looked for Jehovah's coming, apart from the natural terrors of it, it was unmixed satis- faction. And it would have been so to all Israel^had fidelity to her relation to Jehovah been universal. But this was far from being the state of Israel. The condition of Israel was mixed. Hence the ' day of the Lord,' while as a whole a day of salvation, had another side, which made it a day of judgment. To Israel as the people of God it was a day of salvation, and consequently it was a day of vengeance and judgment upon the people's foes, i.e. all the heathen round about. Thus Obadiah (vers. 15-17) says: " For the day of the Lord is near upon all the heathen : as thou hast done (to Israel), it shall be done unto thee : thy reward shall return upon thine own head, . . . but upon Mount Zion shall be deliverance, and there shall be holiness." But there were many in Israel who belonged to Israel only in race. They were " filled from the East, and were soothsayers like the Philistines" (Isa. ii 6). They shared the idolatries and practised the sins of the nations ; and, as Jeremiah charges it upon them, their sin was double : " Hath a nation changed their gods, which are no gods I A DAY OF SIFTING 377 but My people have changed their glory for that which doth not profit. . . . My people have committed two great evils : they have forsaken the fountain of living waters, and hewn out unto themselves cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water " (ii. 1 1—1 3). Therefore the day of the Lord came upon Israel also as a day of terrors and destruction. And the true prophets find it necessary to warn the people against a superficial national conception of the day of the Lord, as if it was a mere interference of Jehovah in behalf of Israel as a people, and not a manifestation on strict moral Hues, and a revelation of the righteous judgment of God. So early even as Amos this perversion of the idea had crept in : " Woe unto you that desire the day of the Lord ! Wherefore will ye have the day of the Lord ? It is darkness, and not light. As if a man did flee from a lion, and a bear met him. Shall not the day of the Lord be darkness ? even very dark, and no brightness in it?" (v. 18). Hence the ' day of the Lord ' acquires a double-sided character. It is a day of salvation and judgment, or a day of salvation through judgment, — a day of judgment on the heathen world and the Church's foes, but also upon the apostate, impure Church itself, — and a day of salvation behind this. Sometimes one side is prominent and some- times another. Sometimes it is represented as a process of sifting, or a process of refining. Thus Zephaniah, whose book is just a detailed delineation of the day of the Lord, says : " The day of the Lord is at hand ; the Lord hath prepared a sacrifice, and He hath bid His guests " [Israel is the society, and the nations who execute His wrath are the guests]. ..." And it shall come to pass at that time, that I will search Jerusalem with candles, and punish the men that are settled on their lees" (i. 7—12). And an- other prophet says : " I wiU turn My hand upon thee, and purge away thy dross" (Isa. L 25); and yet another: " Who may abide the day of His coming . . , for He is like a refiner's fire . . . and He shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver" (MaL iii. 2, 3). Sometimes both sides 378 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT of the Divine manifestation are brought forward, as in Joel : " I will pour out My Spirit upon all flesh ; . . . and I will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the Lord come. . . . And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered" (chap. ii. 28-32). It is in connection with this side of the day, which is judgment, that all the terrible pictures of it are drawn with which we are familiar That day, says Amos, is " darkness, and not light " (v. 18). According to Joel, it is a " day of darkness and of gloominess, a day of clouds and of thick darkness " (iL 2) . . . " the sun and moon shall be dark, and the stars shall withdraw their shining " (ii. 1 0). Isaiah describes it as a day of terrors : " Men shall go into the holes of the rocks and into the caves of the earth for fear of the Lord . . . they shall say to the mountains. Cover us; and to the hills. Fall on us" (ii 19). "Behold, the Lord maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down, and emptieth out the inhabit- ants thereof . . . the earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard, it shall shake like a booth . . . and it shall fall, and not rise again" (Isa. xxiv. 1—20). "Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the earth desolate . . . therefore I will shake the heavens, and remove the earth out of her place, in the wrath of the Lord of hosts" (Isa. xiii. 9, 13). For this wrath shall be universal and indiscriminate : " I will utterly consume all things from off the earth, saith the Lord. I will consume man and beast ; I will consume the fowls of the heaven, and the fishes of the sea . . . and I will cut off man from off the earth, saith the Lord. Hold thy peace at the presence of the Lord God : for the day of the Lord is at hand " (Zeph. i. 2-7). (3) From this character of the day as a manifestation of God we may understand how it is that the prophets connect it with many diflerent things. It is a manifesta- THE FUTURE IN THE PRESENT 379 tion of God — of God as wliat He is truly, aud in the whole round of His being. Heuce it displays His whole character, and sees His whole purpose effected. Hence it has universal bearings. But all manifestations of Jehovah are on moral hues. God wholly revealed is only in per- fection that which He is partially seen to be every day. His perfect work is but the completion of the work which He can be seen at any time engaged in performing. The final state of things was but the issue of operations going on always. The prophets are in the dark as to the time of that day, but they are in no ignorance of the principles of it. And the feeling that these principles, retarded by many obstacles in their operation now, counteracted by the opposing wills of men, and by their inseusibihty to Jehovah's work among them, may at any moment over- come the obstacles and throw off the hindrances that impeded them, and run out into perfect realisation, was ever present with them. Thus, when they observed a quickening of the currents of providence in any direction, whether of judgment or salvation, the presentiment filled their minds that it was the beginning of the day of the Lord. Hence Joel attaches that day to the plague of locusts and drought ; this extraordinary judgment seemed to him the first warnings of the universal judgment. Another prophet (Isa. xiii.) connects the day with the violent upheavals among the nations that accompanied the overthrow of the Babylonian monarchy by the Medes : " The oracle of Babylon . . . the noise of a multitude . . . a tumultuous noise of the kingdoms of nations gathered together . . . they come from a far country, even the Lord, and the weapons of His indignation, to destroy the whole earth. Howl ye, for the day of the Lord is at hand " (xiii 1—6). And yet again, in the second chapter, the prophet connects it with the wickedness and pride of Israel, and with the feeling that God's vengeance must fall upon it : " The land is full of idols . . . the lofty looks of man shall be humbled ... for the Lord hath a day upon every one that is proud and lofty " (ii. 11—12). And other 380 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT prophets connect it with other great movements in the world, in which Jehovah's presence was conspicuously seen. These prophets moved much amidst presentiments. It was mainly moral necessities that they spoke of. They had a finer sensibility than others to detect the currenta of things. Their hearts were full of certain issues, and they were constantly looking for them, although the exact time of their coming was hid from them. And as one in the darkness thinks he hears the approach of an evil which he dreads, these prophets, when the sound of Jehovah's goings was more distinctly heard than usual, deemed that what they heard was the warning of His coming to shake terribly the earth. This was not a mere subjective feeling. For His final appearance was closely connected with these manifestations in great pro- vidences, as the outermost ring in the pool is but the widening of the innermost. For there moves a current under all things, bearing them on its bosom towards results affecting all. Often its motion is imperceptible. But sometimes it receives a mysterious quickening, and men become conscious whither things are moving. Every wave that runs up and breaks upon the shore is the precursor of the full tide ; and every act of judgment or of salvation is a premonition of the day of the Lord. To say that this frame of things shall never reach a goal, is to put God out of it as effectually as to say that it never began. But it shall not end in a manner which cannot be guessed at. It shall end on the lines on which it is at present moving. And the ear that is wakened by Jehovah, and sharpened by His touch, may detect in the sounds of any signal providence the final issue of things, as surely as one can hear the full tempest in the first drops that fall sharp and measui'ed upon the leaves in the sultry stillness of the air. A distinction, of course, must be drawn between the faith of the prophets and their presentiments. Their expectation of the day of the Lord was a beUef, an assur- NEARNESS OF THE DAY 381 ance, as much as our own ; but the feeling they had about its nearness on any occasion was more a presentiment. It is somewhat difficult for us to realise this peculiar feeling which the prophets had of the nearness of the day of the Lord. Yet, perhaps, it is not really so difficult. The prophets wrote and spoke usually amidst very stirring scenes. Great events were passing around them. It is only, speaking generally, amidst convulsions that rend society deeply that they came forward. In these great events about them they felt the presence of Jehovah. He was nearer than before. The noise of falling empires, the desolations of the kingdom of God, the revolutions in men's thoughts, revealed to their ear His footsteps ; they heard in them the sound of His goings. God was so near that His full presence, which He had promised, appeared im- minent. Speedily His glory would be revealed, and all flesh would see it together, as the mouth of the Lord had said. Thus their belief in the nearness of the Lord's coming was more a feeling than a thought, more a pre- sentiment of their heart — a religious presentiment — than a mere intellectual calculation of time. Still the feeling was of such a kind that we cannot imagine them thinking His coming could be long deferred. (4) Another thing follows from the last two particulars. Though the ' day of the Lord,' as the expression implies, was at first conceived as a definite and brief period of time, being an era of judgment and salvation, it many times broadened out to be an extended period. From being a day it became an epoch. This arose from the fact that under the terms day of the Lord, that day, or that time, was included not only the crisis itself, but that condition of things which followed upon the crisis. Frequently, also, there was included under it the condition of things that preceded the crisis. Now this condition of things that issued in the day of the Lord was frequently one of some duration, being sometimes a calamitous period in Israel's history, and sometimes a period of great commotion among tl">e nations. The day is usually considered, a period when 382 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT it is brought into conuectiou with the Messianic age or ideutified with it. The Messianic age, as we observe it, for example, in Isa. ii., the prophecy of the mountain of the Lord, or in Isa. xi., the prophecy of the shoot out of the stem of Jesse, is a period entirely homogeneous. There are no occurrences within it. It is the perfect condition of Israel, and there are no events or breaks within it. It has characteristics, but no internal develop- ment. It is a period of light, and peace, and the knowledge of the glory of the Lord which covers the earth. But it has no movement. "It shall come to pass in that day," says Zechariah, " that the light shall not be clear and dark, but it shall be day only . . . not day and night . . . but it shall come to pass that at evening it shall be Light" (xiv. 6). Subsequent revelation has broken up the coming of the Messiah into a coming and a coming again, and intercalated between the two an age full of developments and vast changes. But the prophets embrace all in one period, over which there hangs a Divine light. The characteristics they assign to the Messianic age are those characteristics in the main which we assign to the age which the Second Coming shall introduce. These charac- teristics are the result of the first coming and the natural expansion of its principles, and to the prophets the prin- ciples and their realisation all seem condensed into one point. But in this way, as was said, the day of the Lord widens out into a period, homogeneous,, no doubt, but extensive. (5) Again, the condition in which the day of the Lord leaves the external world is variously represented. For, as the prophets were not interested in giving mere pre- dictions of external events or conditions, but in setting before the Church the moral developments and issues of the kingdom, it sometimes happens that they bring down these issues in their completed form upon an external condition of the world which is just that existing in their own day. There is a perfection and realisation of moral principles ; but the condition of the world, in its kingdoms TRANSFORMATION OF EARTH 383 and the like, remains unchanged. Thus to Micah the Assyrian still exists in the Messianic age. But, ordinarily, this is not the case. The heathen monarchies entirely disappear. The heathen nations are utterly destroyed, as in Joel ; or they are absorbed into Israel, as in most of the prophets. " In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria : when the Lord of hosts shall say. Blessed be Egypt My people, and Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel Mine inheritance" (Tsa. xix. 24, 25). "Egypt shall be a desola- tion, and Edom a desolate wilderness . . . but Judah shall dwell for ever" (Joel iii. 19, 20). "The house of Jacob shall be a fire . . . and the house of Esau for stubble ; and they shall devour them . . . they of the south shall possess the mount of Esau ; and they of the plain the Philistines . . . and Benjamin shall possess Gilead" (Obad. 18, 19). In many of the prophets this conquest of the world by Israel is through the religion of Israel. Many nations shall say, " Come, and let us go up to . . . the house of the God of Jacob ; . . . He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His steps " (Isa. ii. 3). The issue is the same in all, but it is realised in many dif- ferent forms. And, finally, in many of the prophets what is declared is not only a great change upon the condition of the earth, but an absolute transformation. An order of things wholly new is introduced upon the world. It is not quite certain what that prophet quoted both by Isaiah and Micah means when he says " that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be exalted above the hills " (Isa. ii. 2 ; Mic. iv. 1 ) ; whether he speaks of real physical changes on the face of the world, or uses only a figure to express religious pro- minence. But it is certain that the prophet Zechariah contemplates physical changes when he says : " The land shall be turned into a plain from Geba to Eimmon south of Jerusalem : and it shall be lifted up," i.e. elevated, " and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of the first gate " ; and so on (Zech. xiv. 1 0). But 384 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT the transformation of the earth assumes larger proportions in many of the prophets, and becomes a complete trans- formation of all things. There is not so much a trans- formation as a transfiguration : " Behold, I create new heavens and a new earth, saith the Lord " (Isa. Ixv. 1 7 ; cf. iv. 2, xi. 6-16, etc.). As the prophets are mainly interested in the moral destiny of Israel, there are two characteristics which are always announced as present in that great day : a. Israel is truly the people of God. The people shall be all righteous. Jehovah dwells in Zion. He is Israel's glory, and she needs no more the light of the sun and moon. He makes a new covenant with Israel, and writes His law upon her heart. Sorrow and sighing flee away. The Lord rejoices over Israel as the bridegroom over the bride. Jerusalem shall be holy ; the uncircum- cised and the unclean shall pass through her no more. 6. Israel in that day shall be fully restored. Ephraim shall not envy Judah, nor Judah envy Ephraim. Jehovah will lift up a signal to the nations, and they will bring Israel's children from afar, and plant them in their own land. The former kingdom shall return, and all the nations on which Jehovah's name is named shall be again subject to Israel, in a new manner. But we shall have occasion to speak of this again when considering the Kestoration of Israel in itself. 4. The Day of the Lord in Deutero-Isaiah. So much importance belongs to the Second Isaiah in this connection, however, that it is necessary to look more particularly to the conceptions of Redemption and the Day of the Lord which appear in that great section of prophecy. Something has been said of the day of the Lord as the idea is represented in most of the prophets. The prophet whom we shall now specially consider does not, I think, use this expression, but the idea is present to him when he says : " The Lord God cometh in might. His arm ruling for Him. JEHOVAH AND MESSIAH 385 Behold, His reward is with Him, and His recompense before Him (xl. 10). "The glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together " (xL 5). And the issue of Jehovah's coming shall be that He will " feed His flock for ever, like a shepherd," And in another passage (xlii. 13—17): "The Lord shall go forth as a mighty man; He shall stir up ardour as a man of war. ... I have too long holden my peace, now will I cry out like a travailing woman. I will make waste mountains and hills . . . and I will lead the blind by a way that they know not . . . they shall be turned back and ashamed that trust in graven images." See also the splendid passage in lix. 16, etc. We have seen, then, that it was Jehovah who was the Saviour of His people, and that this salvation consisted in His coming to them in His fulness ; for then was fulfilled the idea of the covenant, that He should be their God and they His people. It is remarked by Franz Delitzsch that it is always Jehovah in the Old Testament, and not the Messiah, that is the Saviour of the people. The remark is true ; and it is a truth profoundly important when we consider it in connection with Messianic state- ments in the Old Testament. We find that, though Jehovah alone is Saviour of His people, and though the salvation is often represented as realised in His coming in person in the day of the Lord, this is not always the case. Sometimes He comes not, so to speak, in person or independently, but in a presence manifested in the Messianic King; and in such cases there is no additional presence of Himself in person. This elevates His presence in the Messiah, and the Messiah in whom He is present, to a very lofty significance. It may be doubtful, as we have already observed, if the Old Testament went so far as to identify the Messiah with Jehovah, or to represent the Messiah as Divine. It went the length of saying, however, that Jehovah would be present in His fulness in the Messiah, so that the Messiah might fitly be named ' God with us,' and ' Mighty God.' It is thus just the very idea *ihat Jehovah alone is the Saviour of His people that 386 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT makes this representation, viz., that He saves them in Hia presence in the Messiah, so remarkable, and elevates the Messianic conception to so high a level. It was not a difficult step to take, to infer that the Messiah was Himself God, and that because He was God He was Saviour ; and then to apply even those passages which speak of Jehovah's coming in person to His coming in the Messiah. We have seen also that each of the prophets represents the day of the Lord as arising out of the condition of the people of God and of the world in his own day, and there- fore as near. Isaiah, for instance, in his first discourse (chaps, ii.— iv.) represents the day of the Lord as a moral necessity, to humble the pride and to chastise the sin of men of his day. Again, in chap. xiii. it is represented as following the convulsions of the nations which were to issue in the downfall of Babylon. The chapters we are now considering represent it in the same way as following on the conflict of Cyrus with the idolatrous kingdom. Probably it is not too much to say that all students of prophecy now acknowledge that this peculiar mode of representation characterises the prophets. It was not so, however, with scholars of older date, such as Hengstenberg. That re- doubtable Berlin theologian expressed the opinion that the prophets and psalmists would have made themselves ridiculous by cherishing such a notion. In reply to this, Kurtz, in an excellent paper on the " Theology of the Psalms," remarked : " It is once for all the case that not only the subjective hopes of the pious in Israel at all times conceive the time of the Messianic fulfilment as near, but the objective prophecies of the prophets of the Old Covenant so represent it " ; and he adds,. " and so it is in the New Testament ; for the apostles represent the advent of the Lord as near, even immediately near." Perhaps these two remarks require still to be made on the term Day of the Lord, One is, that of course there is no such thing as a day of the Lord, it is always the one day of which the prophets speak. It is a great religious conception, in the minds of the prophets, of unknown Jehovah's coming 387 antiquity ; for even Amos refers to the conception as having already been corrupted. The day of the Lord is the day when the Lord Himself comes, manifesting Himself in His fulness. It is never identified with plagues or con- \ailsion8 ; these are but the tokens of its nearness, or, at most, accompaniments of it. " The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood," says Joel, " before the great and terrible day of the Lord come" (ii. 31). The second remark is this, — although to the prophets, amidst the great events taking place around them, in which they saw the presence of Jehovah, the day seemed near ; yet this was not a judgment of the mind so much as a surmise of the heart ; it was not an intellectual calculation, it was rather that they threw their faith and their hope of the coming of Jehovah in His redemptive fulness into the events^ and His coming seemed imminent. I make such suggestions in explanation of this peculiarity on the part of the pro- phets. I am doubtful if they will quite satisfy others, for they do not quite satisfy myself. But however we explain the peculiarity, its existence cannot be doubted, and it is of great importance in interpretation. Another thing which appears with regard to the day of the Lord is, that, being perfect redemption, a condition of full rehgious fellowship with the Jehovah, it was this religious side that was present to the prophets chiefly ; and, having a presentiment of its nearness, they often bring the perfect kingdom into a condition of the world such as they saw in their own time. Of course it need not be said that such an idea as that which we call * heaven,' an abode of the saints in a transcendent sphere different from the earth, is not yet an idea of the Old Testament revelation. The perfect condition of the Church was not to be realised by translating it into heaven, to be with God there, but by Jehovah coming down to be with men here, when the tabernacle of God was with men. Ordinarily, however, the prophets conceive the earth as renewed so as to be a fit abode for God's perfect people ; and sometimes a new heaven and a new earth are prophesied oL 388 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT One other point may be referred to. The day of the Lord, or His coming in His fulness as Eedeemtr, was to bring perfect redemption to His people. But the question arises, what did the prophets understand by redemption, and who were His people ? We must always remember the condition of the world in the prophets' days, because redemption was conceived as coming to the Church and world that then existed. Now the people of God in the prophets' days was Israel, and no other. And redemp- tion in that day, while the essence of it was the same as redemption to us, namely, the forgiveness of sins, and the perfect fellowship of God consequent on this, was not yet conceived as consisting exclusively in these spiritual blessings ; because the Church of God was a people, and a local dwelling and land was necessary to it. And, further, the minds of men in those days were not able to realise to themselves that they possessed the favour of God, and had His fellowship and were His people, unless they had also external prosperity. It was not the external blessings themselves that they coveted ; but these external blessings, possession of Canaan and the like, were a kind of sacra- mental sign to them. They were seals of God's forgiveness and His favour. Hence in this prophet the righteousness of the people is put in parallelism with their salvation. This righteousness was imputed to them or bestowed on them by Jehovah, but they were able to realise it only when it was manifested externally in their restoration and outward well-being. Now, keeping these few points before our minds, we are able to place ourselves in the circumstances of the prophet, and to understand his construction or conception of Redemption, and how it was to be effected. Throwing ourselves into the world of the prophet, we perceive easily the phenomena and forces which made up that world. These were Jehovah, God alone, and the false gods ; the people of God, in bondage to that mighty world-empire of Babylon, which was but an incarnation of its own idolak-y ; the irresistible career of Cyrus, raised up JEHOVAH AND CYRUS 389 and directed by Jehovah, and the prostration of the idol- worshipping nations before him. The prophet did not look on these things as other men did. His eye saw in them what he brought with him to the observation of them. He animated them with his own religious faiths and hopes. The external conflict became to him a conflict of principles, and out of the conflict the eternal truth rose victorious; the kingdom of the Lord was ushered in, — the kingdom of Him besides whom there was no God, no Saviour. To many an eye the world might have seemed only confusion, and it did fill many of the prophet's contempor- aries with despair. They shared in the alarm of the other nations at the advance of Cyrus, fearing he might but forge heavier chains for them than those that now bound them. But they were comforted against this fear : " But thou, Israel, my servant, fear not : for I am with thee ; I hold thee by the right hand of My righteousness" (xli. 8—10). They were faint-hearted : " Why, when I am come, is there no man ? " (1. 2). They were captious, and criticised the ways of Jehovah in delivering them : " Woe to him that striveth with his Maker ! " (xlv. 9). But though to many minds in Israel all things might appear in confusion, they could not appear so to a prophet of the Lord. It was a great Divine drama that was being played, complicated and extended, and only a prophet could foresee how it would develop itself. He could foresee, because to his mind the principal, or rather the only actor was Jehovah Himself ; and he knew beforehand what He was and what His purposes were : " Look unto Me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth : for I am God, and there is none else " (xlv. 22). The thought of Jehovah, like the morning light breaking into the darkness, turns to the prophet's view the confusion into order. Under his eye there starts and proceeds, step by step, the evolution which ushers in the kingdom. This evolution has two sides, an outer and an inner ; but the power moving and operating in both is Jehovah. The outward evolution is the career and work of 190 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT Cyrus. This Cyrus, who was spreading consternation among the heathen, treading down kings, and exciting terror even in the breasts of the captives, was the ' anointed ' of Jehovah, whom He had raised up, and who was come, obedient to His bidding ; and His raising him up was not a mere display of power, but a great operation within the sphere of redemption : " I have raised him up in righteous- ness : he shall build my city, and let go my captives " (xlv. 13). Other prophets had spoken of heathen conquerors as Jehovah's instruments. The Assyrian was the ' rod of His auger ' (x. 5) to chastise His people in early times ; and later, in Jeremiah, the Lord speaks of " My servant Nebuchadnezzar" (xliii. 10). But in two particulars this prophet goes beyond others : first, in the great scope of the task which he assigns to Cyrus, which is to crush the heathen world-power, and thereby abolish idolatry ; and to set the Lord's captives free and build His temple, that the law might go forth from Zion and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem ; and, second, in the intimacy with Jehovah Himself into which he brings the Persian hero. Cyrus is no mere instrument, as the Assyrian was, to be flung away or broken in pieces like a rod when God's purpose was served with it. Cyrus is the anointed of the Lord, whose right hand Jehovah holds (xlv. 1), whom He even ' loveth ' (xlviii. 14), whom He called by name when he did not know Him, and who shall even call on His name (xli. 25); and whom He has raised up with the v/idest purpose, even that men may know from the rising of the sun and from the west that there is " none beside Me " (xlv. 6). These passages suggest one of the most interesting questions that these prophecies raise, the question, what thoughts the prophet had of the religion of Cyrus, and whether he entertained the hope that the king might be won over to the religion of Jehovah. No thought was too lofty or too wide for the prophet in the passion of enthusiasm which the vision of a restored nation and a regenerated world raised within hinL And, obviously, if such a thought occurred to him, THE LIGHT OF THE GENTILES 391 it would facilitate to his mind the solution of the problem that attracted his thoughts, namely, how the nations could be gained over to the true faith and become the kingdoms of the Lord. In this way what might be called the external frame of the prophet's conception of the universal kingdom of the Lord was set up, — the idolatrous empire was laid low, the idols demonstrated to be vanity (xli. 29), those that served graven images were turned back and put to shame (xliL 17) ; and, on the other side, the ransomed of the Lord were restored to Zion with everlasting joy upon their heads (li. 11), and Israel saved with an everlasting salvation (xlv, 17). Such language, however, is proof enough how ill suited such a phrase as ' external frame ' is to express the prophet's conception. The work of Cyrus was, in truth, the work of Jehovah. Its whole meaning to the prophet lay in its being a religious work, — a great stride taken by the kingdom of the Lord towards its full victory over all that was evil and false. Nothing could demon- strate how entirely all the prophet's interests are religious 80 much as his eagerness to bring Cyrus, the great agent in Jehovah's work, himself into true and personal relations with the Eedeemer of Israel, and God over all. But there is also a process of internal evolution needful to realise the perfect kingdom of the Lord. The prophet's idea is complete ; he has comprehended the problem in all its details. The work of Cyrus in the world only overthrows the idol-serving empire, and eternally discredits the idols and the idolaters. The nations are not thereby enlightened in the knowledge of the true God, and right. It is the mission of the Servant of the Lord to bring forth right to the nations, and the countries shall wait on his instruction. Not to raise the question of the Servant here, whether he be Israel or another, when the prophet says in xlii. 6 and xlix. 6 that the Servant shall be " the light of the Gentiles," and in chap. Ix. says of Zion glorified, " Arise, shine . . . the Gentiles shall come to thy light," it appears manifest at least that his idea is 392 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT that the Servant shall reach the Gentiles only through Israel restored. Any missionary enterprises of individuals, however exalted, could scarcely occur to the prophet. Like all prophets of the Old Testament, he operates with nations and peoples. And if the nations are to receive light through Israel, it will be through Israel again a people before the world's eyes ; just as the Lord goes forth from Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And this clearly enough shows what the prophet means by the Restoration. It is no return of a few or many exiles from Babylon ; it is the reconstruction of the people in its former integrity. Delitzsch (with whom Cheyne agrees) maintains that the covenant which the Servant makes or is, is made with the true spiritual Israel. Of course, it is a truism that the covenant cannot be made with those who will have none of it, — " There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked " (xlviii. 22). But the language which the prophet uses when he speaks of the Servant as a " covenant of the people," whose mission is to set up the tribes of Jacob and restore the preserved of Israel, and when the Lord says : " I will say to the north. Give up : bring My sons from afar ; even every one that is called by My name" {i.e. belongs to the people of Jehovah) (xliiL 6), sufi&ciently indicates the extent of the prophet's hopes. And, speaking expressly of the new covenant, the Lord says : " Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters. Incline your ear, and I will make an everlasting covenant with you ... let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts : and let him return unto the Lord, and He will be gracious " (Iv. 1—7). This language shows the extent of the covenant, and that the prophet's hopes were the same as those of the Apostle Paul: "And so all Israel shall be saved" (Eom. xi. 26). But this restoration of the people could not take place apart from the true condi- tions of it : " Let the wicked forsake his way, and . . . let him return unto the Lord, and He will be gracious." To the prophet's mind, Israel's exile and afflictions were THE SERVANT A COVENANT OF THE PEOPLE 393 due to its sin, and its restoration must be preceded by its repentance and forgiveness. This forgiveness it mediated through the sufferings of the Servant of the Lord. But it is he also who kindles within Israel the glow of a new faith in Jehovah, which secures their spiritual unity, and thus leads to their restoration. But here again, if we would observe the prophet's thoughts, we shall find that he attributes all to Jehovah. He called the Servant in righteousness, and took hold of his hand, and will keep him, and make him a covenant of the people, a light of the Gentiles (xliL 6) : " Behold my servant, whom I keep hold of; I will put My spirit upon him" (xHi. 1). " For the Lord God will help me ; therefore have I set my face like a flint, I know that I shall not be ashamed. He ifl near that justifieth me ; who will contend with me ? " (1. 7. 8). Deferring reference to the Servant's atoning sufferings for the present, I may notice three passages which describe the Servant's operation and methods. The first is in chapter xlix., which shows that the Servant also operates in the direction of restoring Israel ; it is not, however, in an external way, like Cyrus, but by awakening a new faith and a new spirit in the scattered exiles. For this is even more necessary than the external interposition in their behalf of Cyrus. Jehovah thus speaks to the Servant : " I will preserve thee, and make thee a covenant of the people, to raise up the land, and make them inherit the desolate heritages ; to say to them that are bound. Go forth ; to them that are in darkness. Show yourselves. They shall feed by the ways ; they shall not hunger nor thirst, neither shall the sun smite them. I will make all my mountains a way. Lo, these shall come from far : and these from the north and from the west ; and these from the land of Sinim" (xlix. 8—12). Two things, surely, are made evident by such a passage: first, that the Servant is a contem- porary of the Exile and that the land is desolate, seeing he helps to its repopulation ; and, second, that the imperative condition of the people's restoration is their repentance and 394 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT uew faith, which the Servant produces in their minds : " I will make thee a covenant of the people, in order to raise up the land ; to make them inherit the desolate heritages." The second passage, showing the general method of the Servant's operation, is the one previously quoted in chap. 1. : " The Lord Jehovah hath given me the tongue of disciples, that I may know how to comfort with words him that is weary : He wakeneth mine ear morning by morning to hear as the disciples. He opened mine ear, and I was not rebelHous. I gave my back to the sniiters : I hid not my face from shame and spitting. For I knew that I shall not be ashamed. . . . He is near that justifieth me " (1. 4—8). Here the Servant sets forth these three things : (a) his consciousness of having the true word of the Lord, and his acceptance of the mission entrusted to him as having it ; (b) the inevitable svifferings in the work of the Lord, — he who is Servant of the Lord will suffer ; and (c) his invincible faith, founded on Jehovah's help ; and the assurance that through Jehovali he shall yet succeed. To this passage should perhaps be added the beautiful one in chap. Ixi. 1 : " The Spirit of the Lord is upon me. He hath anointed me to preach glad tidings to the meek," etc. The third passage I shall cite is in chapter xlii. 1 ff., describing the Servant's bearing and method with the Gentiles : " Behold My Servant. I will put My spirit upon him : he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not strive, nor cry. The bruised reed he shall not break : he will bring forth judgment to the Gentiles ; and the isles shall wait on his instruction." The only instrument which the Servant employs is the word of the Lord. This word is powerful, because it is not a mere dead letter ; the Lord Himself is in it : " For as the rain Cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but causeth the earth to bring forth seed to the sower, and bread to the eater ; so shall My word be : it shall not return to me void, but shall accomplish that which I please For ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with REDEMPTIVE RIGHTEOUSNESS 395 peace" (Iv. 10, 11 ; comp. li. 16). The Servant does not 80 much wield the word of God, he is rather an impersona- tion of it : " He made my mouth a sharp sword . . . He made me a polished shaft, and said unto me, Thou art My Servant " (xlix. 2). The Servant is the word of the Lor«? incarnate in the seed of x4.braham. But thus the prophet's construction is complete. Je- hovah, God of Israel, is God alone. Being so, the nations are related to Him no less tlian Israel. As the one true God, He must reveal Himself to all men, and destroy their confidence in that which is no God, no Saviour : " My glory will I not give to another " (xlii. 8). To Him every knee shall bow. Yet though God over all, He stands in a special relation to Israel. This relation is now about to be manifested through His Servant. He will turn the hearts of His people to Himself, and, gathering them from all lands, will appear in His glory among them. And through them, thus restored, His relation to all mankind will also be manifested : His Servant will bring forth right to the Gentiles, the nations will walk in Zion's light, and kings come to the brightness of her rising. Much more might be said of this prophet's conception of the people Israel or Jacob. 5. Redemptive Righteousness in Deutero-Tsaiah. But, passing that by, it will be enough to refer to his peculiar use of the word righteousness as a redemptive term. There are three terms: (1) the verb PT^; (2) the adjective P^V ; and (3) the two nouns p"3^ and ^pTi. The word ' righteous ' is used in two ways : first, in a juridical or forensic sense ; and, second, in an ethical sense. The verb is almost exclusively used in the forensic sense, to he in the right, with the idea of a court or judge in the back- ground ; or to be found in the right, — as our Version goes, to be justified. Naturally, to be found in the right is very near to be pronounced in the right. Hence Hiph. to find in the right, pronounce in the right, or justify. Of courst 396 THE THEOLOGY OP THE OLD TESTAMENT there may be a multitude of situations, some important and others less so, in which one may be found in the right or justified ; but the word has the same sense everywhere, and generally it is used in the sense of being right before God. The adjective is chiefly used in the ethical sense. It is the two nouns, however, which are used somewhat peculiarly in these prophecies. The word * righteousness ' is used both of Jehovah and of the people. First, in relation to Jehovah. The word is used in reference to all His redemptive operations. These are done ' in righteousness,' pnva ; they are npnv, ' righteous- ness.' For instance, " Who raised up him from the east, whom 'n calleth to follow it ? " (xli. 2). "I have called him (Cyrus) in righteousness : he shall rebuild My city, and let go My captives " (xlv. 13). And of the people : " But thou Israel, My servant, fear not ... I keep hold of thee with the right hand of My righteousness ... all they that are incensed against thee shall be confounded " (xli. 10, 11). And again of the Servant: "I called thee in righteousness, and took hold of thy hand, and will keep thee, and make thee a light of the Gentiles" (xlii. 6). And frequently Jehovah's righteousness is put in parallelism with His salvation : " My righteousness is near ; My salva- tion is gone forth " (li. 5). " My righteousness shall be for ever, and My salvation to all generations " (li. 8). And, again, the people are represented as asking of Jehovah ' ordinances of righteousness,' i.e. deeds of salvation on their behalf (Iviii. 2) ; and Jehovah's righteousness sustains him, and His arm brings salvation unto him (lix. 16). Now, of course, we must not identify righteousness with salvation. Salvation is something objective ; it is a con- dition in which the Lord puts the people, including restora- tion and, what precedes that, forgiveness of sins. When righteousness is put in parallelism with salvation, that word also has a certain objective sense, meaning deeds or operations which are illustrations or embodiments ot Je- hovah's righteousness, or a condition of the people brought SALVATION AS RIGHTEOUSNESS 397 about by Jehovah operating in righteousness. In other words, salvation is, so to speak, the clothing, the manifestation of Jehovah's righteousness. So we have it in the remark- able passage, xlv. 21, "a righteous God, and a Saviour," where the two expressions are identical in sense; or the point may be that His being Saviour is the necessary con- sequence of His being righteous. Thus salvation is a result, a manifestation of His righteousness. How then is this ? Now, we miglit find the explanation of this way of regarding salvation as righteousness manifested in the relation of Jehovah to Israel. He is Israel's God, His covenant is with Israel. They are His people ; it is there- fore right that He should interpose in their behalf. He is righteous in saving them; and of course He is also righteous in inflicting vengeance on their oppressors. No doubt this conception will cover a number of the passages. And a similar idea is, that Israel's salvation is due to Jehovah's faithfulness, i.e. not merely to His word or promise, but to His whole relation to Israel as their God. There are passages, however, which this idea of right- eousness merely in regard to His covenant with Israel will hardly explain. They are these : xlii. 6, where He says to the Servant, " I called thee in righteousness, and took hold of thy hand " ; and xlii. 21, " the Lord was pleased for His righteousness' sake to give a law great and broad." Both these passages refer to the very beginning of Jehovah's relation with Israel, and imply that even the initiation of the covenant illustrated His righteousness. And, once more, li. 5, "My righteousness is near; My salvation is gone forth, and Mine arm shall rule the people ; the isles shall wait on Me, and on Mine arm shall they trust." Here, not the salvation of Israel only, but that of all mankind, illustrates or embodies the righteousness of Jehovah. And this wider expression makes it question- able whether we were right in explaining even those passages which spoke of Israel's salvation as righteousness, merely of what was right or righteous in Jehovah in view of His relation to His people. 398 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT Various attempts have been made to explain this usage. In an excellent paper on the root piv, Kautzsch ^ defines ' righteousness ' to be conformity to a norm ; and in his exceedingly good treatise on the theology of these chapters, Krliger ^ defines the norm in this case to be Jehovah's will, which is a redemptive will, upon the whole. Hence He is righteous when He acts along the line ov this redemptive will, or in conformity to it ; or, in other words, according to His redemptive purpose. But does it not seem that these definitions are rathe; abstract ? And when it is said that righteousness is con- formity to a norm, is not that either false, or to say nothing more than that righteousness is righteousness ? A man would not be righteous who habitually lied, though he would speak according to the norm of falsehood. Is there not in the norm itself the idea of righteousness ? Does not the existence of a norm imply a prior judgment as to what is right, and the norm is the expression of this judgment ? Conformity to a norm is not righteousness unless the norm be right, or embody righteousness. Cor- respondence is only the evidence of righteousness, not righteousness itself. A particular act or general conduct is righteous, because it is an instance of that general of which the norm is an embodiment. Therefore, to say that Jehovah's redemptive acts are righteous because they are in correspondence with His general will, which is a redemptive will, is hardly true ; they are righteous only because that redemptive will to which they correspond is righteous. And thus we come back to the question, why are ' a righteous God ' and ' a Saviour ' identical expressions ? * ^ IXe Derivate de$ Stammes pis im Altt. Sprachgebraueh. ' Essai sur la Thiologie d'Esaie 40-66, par F. Hermann Kriiger. Paris : Fischbacher. * From what appears elsewhere, we gather that Dr. Davidson's answer to this question was that, while in other books the term ' righteous ' and its cognates convey legal ideas, in Second Isaiah at least they express the constancy of God's purpose regarding Israel, His trustworthiness in all Hi| dealings with His people, even in His chastisements. — Ed. PROPHETIC VIEW OF HISTORY 399 6. General Considerations on the Eschatalogy of the Old Testament. On this whole subject of the Eschatology of the Old Testament the following remarks may also be made with regard to its rise, its development, and its contents : (1) It is, of course, now a commonplace to say that Amos taught that Jehovah is absolute righteousness, the impersonation of the moral idea ; that moral evil alone is sin ; and that the only service Jehovah desires is a right- eous life — although Amos also teaches that Jehovah is good and compassionate (ii. 9, vii. 1) ; that Hosea represents Jehovah as unchanging love, which no ingratitude of His people can weary or alienate ; and that to Isaiah, Jehovah is the transcendent Sovereign and universal Lord, — whose glory fills the whole earth, — the cnip of Israel. Both Hosea and Isaiah insist much on the inwardness of religion. It is a state of the mind, a prevailing consciousness of Jehovah. The want of this consciousness, insensibility to the Lord the King, is sin ; and it is the source of all sin, of the levity of human life, and the self-exaltation both of men and nations. Further, the prophetic ideas form but half of the teaching of the prophets ; the greater half lies in their own life and personal relation to God. (2) Taken as a whole, the prophetic teaching amounts to the full ethicising of the conception of Jehovah. And the moral is of no nationality ; it transcends nationality, and is human. The righteous God is God universal, over all. The principles of the human economy have at last clearly reflected themselves in the consciousness of the prophets, and human history is seen to be a moral process. It has, at all events, a moral aim, and will have a moral result. The universalism of the prophetic idea of God, and its influence on the prophetic notion of history, is most clearly seen in Isaiah. The movement of the prophetic thought towards the universalistic idea of God may have been aided by the entrance of the universal empires of Assyria and Babylon on the stage of history. This gave Uiem a 400 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT new conception — that of the world ; and it created a new correlation — Jehovah and the world. (3) What is called Eschatology, — the doctrine of ra ecTxaTa, — the last things, the final condition of the world, could not have arisen earlier than this. The idea of a final condition of the world could not arise apart from a general conception of the meaning of human life and history ; and what suggested the meaning of human history to the prophets was their conception of the moral being and the universal rule of Jehovah. An eschatology ; a condition of final result ; a condition of mankind and the world at the end of Jehovah's operations, arose very naturally. (4) The Old Testament, however, is what might be called Theocentric. Jehovah operates ; He accomplishes all ; and He finds the motives of His operations in Him- self. Hence the final condition of the world is not in the Old Testament the issue of a long ethical development in human society, ending in a perfect moral world or king- dom of righteousness upon the earth. The final condition is rather due to an interposition, or a series of interpositions, of Jehovah. These interpositions, of course, are all on moral lines ; in the interests of righteousness they are to make an end of sin and bring in everlasting righteousness, and the issue is a kingdom of righteousness. But the issue is due to a sudden act, or a sudden appearance, of God, and is not the fruit of a growth in the hearts of mankind. (5) It is not enough, however, simply to say that an eschatology, the conception of a final condition of mankind, could hardly have arisen before a general conception of the nature of the human economy, or at least of those things that are needful to man's perfection and felicity had become general. There is the question, Jiad such a conception come to the prophets ? Now the answer to that question is, that the meaning of human history, or the understanding of its tendency, of its movement towards an eschatological goal, was not revealed to Israel by study of the life of mankind, but by reflection on the natme THE TWO ESCHATOLOGIES 401 of God as revealed. God was the real Maker of history. To the prophets there are no such things as mere events or occurrences ; all events are animated, so to speak, with a Divine energy. God is the author of the events, and His mind, His will, or His purpose is in them. Hence, when so broad a view as that of human life or history as a whole is taken, it is, so to speak, secondary. It is the reflection of the view taken of God, of His being, and therefore as an inference from His being, of His purpose, and of what the issue will be when He realises His pur- pose, or, as we might say, when He realises Himself in the history of mankind. So soon as the ethical being of Jehovah was conceived, and His oneness as God, there could not but immediately follow the idea also that human history, which was not so much under His providence as His direct operation, would eventuate in a kingdom of righteousness which would embrace all mankind. No doubt the way in which this is conceived is that this kingdom of righteousness is first realised in Israel, and that through Israel it extends to all mankind ; for the nations " come to Israel's light, and kings to the brightness of its rising," this light being the glory of Jehovah dwell- ing in Israel But the unity of God creates the unity of mankind. (6) So we have an eschatology of two kinds : that of the kingdom, and that of the individual. The former is what is taught concerning the perfection of the nation or people of Israel, or on a universal scale of the nations or mankind; and the latter, so far as the individual is considered in himself as distinct from the people, would constitute the doctrine of immortality. But one of the things that surprise us more and more in the Old Testa- ment is the place given to the individual. How little the individual bulks in it, how greatly the individual loses himself in the community, — thinks of himself always as part of it, has hopes for himself only so far as he has hopes for his people. Pure or true individuaHsm, i.e. the in- dividual's consciousness of himself in relation to God, and a6 402 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT as having a destiny of his own to work out or to inherit out of all relation to the destiny of the community, and independent of all other men — this kind of individuality appears in the Old Testament only in a few great instances. XIL DOCTRINE OF THE LAST THINGS— IMMORTALITY. 1. Differences in Modes of Thought. In much of the teaching of the Old Testament, as we have seen, it is the destinies of the People of God as a people that are specially in view. But there is the question also of the Individual, and what the Old Testa- ment has to say of him. This comes into view in connec- tion with the Old Testament conceptions of sin, death, life, and immortality. Very much of what is taken up into the Christian doctrine of Immortality appears in the Old Testa- ment in connection with what is said of the People or the Kingdom^ of God, especially in the prophetic teaching. But there is much more than that in the New Testament doctrine ; and in the Old Testament itself there is an Eschatology of the Individual as well as an Eschatology of the Kingdom or People. In entering now on the teaching of the Old Testament on the subject of a Future Life, we have to notice certain matters of general interest, and certain broad considera- tions which have an important bearing on the view we take of the Old Testament position. These must be borne in mind if we are to understand aright the Old Testament conception of a future life. We may notice, in the first place, the point which has just been referred to, namely, the relation of the Eschatology of the Individual to that of the Kingdom or the People. A. large portion of the contribution which the Old Testa- ment makes to Christian Eschatology is derived from the Eschatology of the Nation. To this belong such points as ESCHATOLOGY OF THE NATION 403 these: (1) the manifestation or advent of God; (2) the universal judgment connected with the Day of the Lord ; (3) behind this judgment, the incoming of tlie perfect kingdom of God, when all Israel shall be saved, and the nations shall be partakers of their salvation ; (4) the finality and eternity of this condition, that which con- stitutes the blessedness of the saved people being the presence of God in the midst of them ; (5) the form which this view of the presence of God Himself (which corresponds to the Christian view of heaven) takes in such Messianic prophecies as Isa. ix. 11, etc., where Jehovah is represented as present in His fulness in the Messianic King. Now, most that is said in these connections is said of the people as a people. The people is immortal, and its life eternal ; and this life is conceived as lived in this world, although this world is also said to be destined to be transfigured, so that there shall be a new heaven and a new earth (Isa. Ixv. 17). But the question must arise, Are the individuals of the people immortal, or is there only an immortality of the people as a people ? Is the life of the individuals, however prolonged and blessed, yet finally closed by death ? In most passages the prophets have in view the destiny of the people as a unity, the ultimate fate of individuals not being present to their mind. In some passages, however, the destiny of the in- dividual is referred to, and perhaps a progress may be :>bserved. It is important to observe, therefore, how the Old Testament ways of thinking on man's future differ in cer- tain respects from ours. The chief difference, perhaps, lies in this, that when the Old Testament speaks of immortality, eternal felicity, or what is equivalent to heaven, it usuallj speaks of the immortahty and eternal felicity of the nation. This immortality and felicity shall be entered upon at the manifestation of Jehovah at the day of the Lord and His judgment. We, on the other hand, think of the individual and immortality, and apply the latter term to the in 404 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT dividual's destiny after death. But in the Old Testament the immortality of the people does not raise the question of death. There is a change, — a being made perfect, an entrance upon a new age, — but only a change. The Old Testament position appears precisely like that which, if New Testament scholars be right, was the early Christian position — when the hope of the Second Coming continued vivid. This Coming would change the world and the Church, but the Church would pass living into perfect blessedness. And of course individuals would share in the change — " We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed" (1 Cor. xv. 51). Now, this was very like the state of feeling in the Old Testament. The individual would share in the transition of the community. The day of the Lord would break, and the living would enter into fulness of life without tasting death. Thus the greater part of what is said of immortality in the Old Testament being said of the people, death is not a thing referred to in such connections. But even when the individual is spoken of, or is the speaker, his hopes may be connected with the destinies of the people. He may share in these, — entering into endur- ing blessedness, without seeing death, — he being part of the people. In passages, also, in which this is implied, death is not contemplated. There is an immortality, a continuance of being, which does not pass through death or arise behind it. Now that the Second Coming has ceased to be a vivid part of Christian faith, and death is looked on as the inevitable fate of us all, the state of the question becomes somewhat changed, and immortality is looked at exclusively as something involving death. The passages, however, in the Old Testament where death is contemplated are not numerous, because the hope of the nation was so vivid, and this hope was shared in by the living individuals. True individualistic hope, therefore, is expressed only in those passages of the Old Testament where death is contemplated, — where it seems near or certain. Then the warburton's view 405 individual person is cut off from sharing in the hope and destiny of the nation, and he is thrown upon his own individual relation to God to sustain him. Again, it has always been felt to be strange that the teaching in the Old Testament regarding immortality should be so obscure, or at least so indirect and inex- plicit. This seems not only strange in itself when the case of some other nations, such as the Egyptians, is con- sidered, in whose minds questions of death and immortality occupied so prominent and engrossing a place ; it becomes doubly strange when we take into account the very clear and elevated teaching given in the Old Testament regarding other truths of religion, and the true conditions of hving unto God. The faith in a future life is so important a part of our religion, that we are surprised to find it appear- ing with so little explicitness in the religious thoughts of the Old Testament saints. This has, indeed, appeared to some writers — Warburton, for example ^ — so surprising, that they have concluded that the revelation of the doctrine was of purpose kept back, with the view of serving some other ends. This idea, however, belonged to the time when views of the nature and methods of revelation prevailed which were rather artificial. In the present day we are more inclined to conclude that the methods pursued by revelation were simple, and, if we can say so, natural ; that is, that its great object was to enable men in each age practically to live unto God, and that at all times it gave them light sufficient for this ; but that on other subjects it left them very much with the ideas which they had. In other words, it took men as it found them, setting before them at all times, and in each successive age, what was needful that they might walk before God in holiness and righteousness, and, as it taught them this, penetrating and transforming other modes of thinking on many non- essential matters which they cherished. If, therefore, we find explicit teaching on this question of immortality post- poned, we may infer that it was not unnatural that it * In his Divine Legation of Moses. 406 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT should be so; that there was something m the ways of thinking on the part of the people which, for a time at least, supplied the place of it, or at all events made it not a necessity to a true life with God and a walk before Him in righteousness. And we may perhaps also infer that at a later time events occurred in God's providential ruling of the history of the people, which modified their former modes of thinking to such an extent that more explicit statements on this question were requisite, and so when requisite they were supplied. Again, our life now is very strongly individual, and so is our religion. Some make it a charge against Christianity, at least as practised and lived, that it is too individualistic, that it is so even to selfishness. However this be, it cannot be doubted that a different way of feeling prevailed in Israel. The individual was always apt to lose himself in some collective, such as the family, the tribe, or the people. He was part of a greater whole, and felt himself to have meaning only as belonging to it. This is perhaps an Oriental way of thinking ; and if so, revelation in some respects accommodated itself to it. It did not wage war against it, but left the positive truth which it gave to act upon it, and gradually disintegrate and dissolve it. The covenant was made not with individuals, but with the people. The prophets address their oracles to the State, to the leaders and rulers in the kingdom of God. It is the destinies of this kingdom that they pursue out to the perfection of it. The individual has his part in the blessings of the kingdom, but he has it as a member of the people. This conception of solidarity and the repression of indi- vidualism are considerations always to be kept in view in judging the Old Testament. They explain many things, and give a different colour to some things which are apt to offend us. The sweeping away, for example, of the whole family and dependents of a man along with himself because of his sin or offence, was a practice due to this idea of solidarity. The children and dependents were not regarded as having an independent existence or a standing IDEA OF SOLIDARITY 407 of their own. They were part of the father, of the head of the family, and he was not held fully punished unless all that were his shared his fate. Such a practice would appear now to us an immorality, because of our strong sense of the independence of each individual ; but from the point of view of solidarity then prevalent it had not this aspect. And in the same way the tendency of the individual in early times to sink himself in the collective unity, the tribe or the people, helps to explain what seems to us the defective aspiration of the individual after immortality or life. What Jehovah had founded on the earth was a kingdom of God. This was eternal. In the days of the King Messiah this kingdom would be universal, and the people would be perfect. And the individual had his immortality in that of the theocracy. His great interest was in it. His hopes found realisation there. His labours were perpetuated in it, even if he ceased to live. He saw the good of Israel, and he continued to live in the fuller life of his people. But this immortality of his hopes and purposes was not all. In his children he continued to live. He was there in them ; for he regarded them as himself, furthering God's work and enjoying His favour. So, too, his remembrance was not cut off — " the righteous shall be held in everlasting remembrance " (Ps. cxii. 6), This kind of feeling is illustrated in Isa. Ivi., 3, where the prophet, encouraging strangers and eunuchs to attach them- selves to the new community of the Eestoration, addresses the latter : " Let not the eunuch say. Behold, I am a dry tree." The feeling of these persons was that, having no children, they would have no permanent place in the com- munity, no endless share in the kingdom of God. To them the Lord replies : " I will give them in Mine house and within My walls a place, and memorial, an everlasting name that shall not be cut off" (Ivi. 5). The passage is a pathetic one ; for all that the prophet is as yet able to promise the individual, however high the worth of the individual is now considered to be, is an immortality in the memory of God and of mem A true personal immortality 408 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT is not yet promised ; not he, but his memory, shall be immortal. Yet it must be acknowledged that here lay an im- perfection which could not but be felt. This kind of immortality in the perpetual existence of the kingdom of God, and in the perfection of the people in which the spirit of the individual lived, must have been felt by the man to be too shadowy to satisfy his heart. The individual spirit struggles against the idea of being poured out into the general stream of the spirit of mankind or even of the people of God, and claims a place for itself. And this claim will be the more resolutely pressed the more the individual becomes aware of his own worth and of the meaning of the personal life. Now, in the providential history of Israel, the time came when the State or people in which the individual was apt to lose himself came to an end. At the Exile the people ceased to exist, being scattered into every land. But though the people and State had disappeared, Jehovah their God remained, and religion remained, and there remained the individuals of the nation ; and thus all that significance and those responsibilities and hopes, which belonged to the people before, were now felt by the individual to belong to him. We might think the downfall of the kingdom of Judah a great calamity, yet in a religious sense it was the greatest step towards Christianity taken since the Exodus. It made religion independent of any locality ; it showed that the people of God could exist though no longer in the form of a State or nation. It changed the religious centre, so to speak, making it no more the conscience of the people, but the conscience of the individual. Hence in a prophet of the Exile we find such words as these : " All souls are Mine, saith the Lord ; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is Mine " (Ezek. xviii. 4). To each individual spirit the Lord stands in the same relation. Naturally, when this stage has been reached the craving for individual immortality would immediately arise. And speedily the idea would be extended ; even the dead of past generations BEUEF IN RETRIBUTION 409 would be drawn in under the general conception. They, too, would be made to share in the bleisings of the perfect kingdom, and thus faith in the resurrection also would arise, as in Dan. xii. There is another way of thinking, common now, which makes us wonder how the doctrine of a future state could for long be so obscurely stated in the Old Testament. We wonder how morality and religion could exist without the support of those eternal sanctions suppHed to the mind in the faith of a future retribution. Now the difference between our way of thinking and that prevalent for long at least in Israel, does not lie in any difference as to belief in retribution. It lies here. We may relegate this retribu- tion to a future world , Israel believed that it prevailed fully now and was seen in this world. The universal faith of the people is compressed in Prov. xi. 31: " Behold, the righteous shall be recompensed on the earth ; much more the ungodly and the sinner." Or as it is in the 1st Psalm. To our minds now the anomalies of providence bulk much more largely than they did to early Israel at least. We may detect general principles in providence, we may see the direction the movement pursues ; it may in a general way plainly make for righteousness, but there are many hindrances, and the current is often hemmed, and to appearance even turned aside. But in the early literature of Israel such a feeling hardly appears. Even in the Book of Proverbs, a book occupied almost exclusively with the doctrine of providence, with God's rule of man's life, there seems to be hardly one complaint regarding any anomaly of providence, any hardship or infelicity to the righteous or any prosperity or felicity to the wicked. In later books, such as Ecclesiastes and Job and some Psalms, complaints are abundant. But in the earlier literature the faith in an inflexible retribution in this life prevails. This, indeed, may be said to be just the essence of the prophetic teaching — balanced or tempered, of course, by God's enduring mercy and His purpose of grace, which nothing could frustrate, and towards which even His righteousness in retribution worked- 410 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT It may be made a question how this very stringent doc- trine of retribution in this life arose. It is probably due, as almost all other doctrines are, to the very powerful theism of Scripture and of the people. God was all in all. Events were all His work, and all immediately His work. All the changes on the earth and in life were but the effects of an unseen power operating within all things. And this God was righteous, and His rule, therefore, in each particular event a display of His righteousness. As there was one God, there was one world. His rule prevailed alike every- where. The universe was a moral constitution. The physical had no meaning in itself ; it was but the medium for the manifestation of the moral. Thus that sphere where retribution finds full realisation, and which we have learned to transfer to some transcendental state, early Israel found to exist in this present world. Sin was punished and righteousness rewarded. There was no anomaly here. The anomaly was the existence of evil, and that it was permitted to continue, and not finally purged away. Yet this condition was but temporary, and would terminate soon ; it might terminate at any moment. The day of the Lord might break on the generation then living The glory of the Lord would be revealed, and all flesh would see it together. He would come. His arm ruling for Him, His reward with Him, and His recompense before Him. He would perform His short work on the earth. Of course, here again, in this idea of a retributive rule of God on earth, there was an imperfection, and the feeling of it led to further developments. In the early and happy condition of the kingdom and society the well-being of the righteous might seem realised, and under good government the wicked might be cut off. The law of retribution had effect. Yet later, when the State began to stagger under the blows dealt it from abroad, and when morals within became dissolute, the faith in a perfect retributive rule of providence in this world would receive rude shocks. The fall of the State, indeed, was its most perfect illustration LACK OF CLEARNESS IN THE DOCTRINE 41] when the State was considered as a moral person, — as the prophets from Hosea downward consider it. But in the disastrous time that followed it was just the righteous individuals that suffered the most grievous hardships, and that often just because of their righteousness — " For Thy sake are we killed all day long" (Ps. xUv. 22). And then this ideal of a perfect retributive providence in this world began to break up. Men felt it giving way under their feet. And profoundly interesting is it to observe the per- plexities, we might say the agitation and alarm, which the discovery occasioned. The unrighteousness prevailing on the earth was immediately transferred to God as the author of it ; for He was the author of all events. The very sun of righteousness in the heavens seemed to suffer eclipse. The reason of pious minds almost tottered under the sugges- tion that God Himself was unrighteous, as the author of Job makes him say : " It is God that makes my heart soft, and the Almighty that troubleth me" (Job xxiii. 16); "The earth is given into the hands of the wicked : He covereth the face of the judges thereof ; if not He, who then is it ? " (Job ix. 24). By and by a higher teaching calmed these feelings by suggesting considerations, such as that these afflictions of the righteous might serve beneficent ends, even in regard to the righteous themselvea And further, it calmed them by opening a glimpse, if no more, of the truth, that though pious minds might end their life on earth amidst darkness, a light might still arise after death. This appears the position assumed in Job xix. 25: "I know that my Eedeemer liveth . . . and after this my body is destroyed, I shall see God : whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another." Ap- parently also in Pss. xlix., Ixxiii., and possibly xxxvii. But of these we shall speak again. There is yet another point of view from which, to us now, the waot of clearness in the Old Testament doctrine of a future life appears somewhat strange. We are sur- prised that the Old Testament saint seemed satisfied with •he conditions, necessarily imperfect, of a religious life with 412 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT God upon the earth ; that he did not feel the need of a closer fellowship with God than is possible amidst the imperfections of earth ; and that dissatisfaction with earth did not lead him to demand, and to believe in, a more perfect condition of existence and a nearer vision of God. Now, in this there may be some imperfection in the manner of thought and feeling of the Old Testament saints. Here at least we touch upon a point in which we have been taught to diverge from them, and which in some respects is just the point of difference between the Old Testament and the New. In order to judge these Hebrew saints fairly, however, we must look closely at their way of thinking ; and if we do so, perhaps we shall be prepared to admit that we may have diverged from them, not indeed in fundamental faith, but practically further than was necessary. We have come to feel strongly the imperfec- tions of the most perfect life upon the earth, and to believe that only in a world that is another can full fellowship with God be found. However true this be, it is possible that the very axiomatic nature of the truth leads occasion- ally to the undue depreciation of this life, and to an un- necessary disparaging of the possibilities it offers in the way of living imto God. So far as the Old Testament saints were concerned, if we examine the utterances very numerously scattered over the Scriptures, we do find evidence of a very vivid consciousness of the presence of God with them, and of the possession of His fellowship : " Wliom have I in heaven ? and on earth there is none I desire beside Thee" (Ps. Ixxiii. 25). " When I awake I am still with Thee" (Ps. cxxxix. 18). "I have set the Lord before me ; He is at my right hand " (Ps. xvi. 8). " Never- theless I am continually with Thee" (Ps. Ixxiii. 23). This consciousness of God's nearness and fellowship seems to exceed that which men ordinarily have now. We might speculate to what it was due. In some respects it might be due to the extremely emotional and the highly intuitive nature of the people's mind, which realised God more powerfully than our minds THE MEANING OP LIFE 413 do. There was, no doubt, something supernatui'al in the visions of God which such prophets as Isaiah and Ezekiel saw, but there must also have been a peculiar mental characteristic which lent itself readily to such revelations. Perhaps another thing which helped the people to realise the presence of God so vividly with them was just this, that He did in fact dwell in a house among them where He had placed His name. When the worshipper came to this house, he felt he was near unto God ; there he ap- peared before Him. We are familiar with the vividness with which God's presence was realised, and with the longing of saints to be near the place of His abode: " One thing have I desired . . . that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the Lord " (Ps. xxvii. 4). But to whatever this vivid realising of God's presence was due, it certainly existed in the minds of His people, and the religious meaning of it is not affected. That which constitutes the essence of the future world to men now, the presence of God, the Israelite profoundly enjoyed on earth. But no doubt a significant point of difference between the modes of thought among Old Testament saints and those now current emerges here. The difierence lies in the different views of what constitutes life. To the Israelite, ' life ' meant what we ordinarily call ' life in the body.' Life was the existence of man in all his parts. When Adam was created, God formed him of the dust, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life ; and he became a living person (Gen. ii. 7). He lived ; and in the fellow- ship of God his life was perfect. And so the pious Israelite always continued to think. To him, separation of the spirit from the body was what he called death. He was far removed from the philosophical view that the body was a prison-house, released from which the spirit could spread its wings and soar into purer and loftier regions. Neither yet had he attained to the Christian view, that *>here is a perfection of the spirit even apart from the body. His view of life was the synthetic one ; it was the existence 414 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT of man in all his parts, living in the light of God's face. He stood before that analysis, so to speak, which ex- perience teaches us takes place in death ; and his view corresponded to that new synthesis which the New Testa- ment teaches, when the dissolved elements of human nature shall be reunited in the resurrection life. And his nomenclature corresponded with that of the Apostle Paul ; he called the existence of man in the lody 'life,' as the apostle names existence in the resurrection body ' life.' But of course, life being understood in this sense, a physical sphere was necessary for it. Hence, as the earth was the abode of man, it was to be his abode for ever. A transcendental sphere of existence, such as we conceive heaven, could not occur to the Israelite. He was far from being insensible to the imperfections that accompanied life. Though he enjoyed God's presence, it was not yet God's presence in its fulness. In a sense, therefore, the Israelite believed in a future life, and longed for it. But it was not a life in a transcendental sphere ; it was a future life upon the earth. In the perfection of the people of God they would not be translated to be with God in heaven, but God would come down and reveal Himself in His fulness among men ; the tabernacle of God would be with men, and He would be their God, and they His people. Then God would make a new covenant with men, forgiving their sin, and writing His law upon their hearts. And the kingdom would be the Lord's. And simultaneously with this manifestation of Jehovah among men, the earth would be transfigured, and all hindrances to a perfect life with God removed : " Behold I create a new heavens and a new earth, and the former shall not be remembered" (Isa. Ixv. 17), This manifestation of Jehovah in His fulness was felt as if it were imminent ; the salvation was ready to be revealed. And here, perhaps, just as much as anywhere, lies the ex- planation of the want of the kind of faith which we now have. The eternal abode of man was the earth ; perfection lay in the perfect presence of Jehovah ; but His perfect pre- sence was always near in hope, — living men might behold it LIFE IN GODS FELLOWSHIP 415 2. Fellowship with God the Fundamental Idea. These considerations may tend somewhat to remove our surprise at the absence of explicit teaching about immortality in the Old Testament. The pious Israelite had in truth, or felt he had in essence, all those things that constitute heaven. No doubt he had them in idea rather than in the fulness of reality. He had that sense of perfect retribution which to us seems to belong to the future, although the time came when painful doubts arose, and suggested that something was wanting. He had that presence of God which is that which gives its meaning to heaven. It was this that made up the joy of life to him — " Thou art the portion of my cup . . . the lines have fallen to jie in pleasant places " (Ps. xvi. 5—7). So that the acute remark made by the authors of the work called the Unseen Universe is true, who say : " Not from want of religion, but from excess of religion, was this void [specific thoughts about future immortality] left in the Jewish mind. The future life was overlooked, overshadowed by the conscious- ness of the presence of God Himself" (p. 9). Yet this presence of God was not in such fulness as to satisfy, and in this sense the pious Israelite looked for a future life, when God would be present in His glory. But this perfection was one the scene of which still remained the earth ; there was no translation of man into a transcend- ental sphere of spiritual existence. It is to this point of the enjoyment of God's fellowship ^ and hfe in His favour upon the earth that the chief developments of the Old Testament doctrine of immortality attach themselves. The event of death interrupted this fellowship, and turned the joy of life with God into dark- ness. For, to the Israelite, death was truly death ; and the dead were cut off from fellowship with the living, whether man or God. It may seem surprising that the references to death are so few in the Old Testament. Yet, if we count them up, the passages are pretty numerous. Naturally, these passages are generally of the nature of reminiscencea 416 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT of feelings that were present when the prospect of death was near. Hence they are all personal, and not of the nature of abstract teaching ; though they often rise to the expression of principles, particularly the principle that fellowship with God constitutes an indissoluble bond, which death cannot sever. The kind of immortality demanded, or inferred or prayed for, is always a religious im- mortality, the continuance of that life with God already lived on earth. The mere existence of the spirit after death is never the point, for this was never doubted ; it is the existence in the fellowship of God and in the light of His face that is supplicated for or assumed. Hence every contribution made to the question is of a practical religious kind. It is a demand of the religious mind, what seems to it of the nature of a necessity ; or it is a flight of ecstasy of the religious experience ; or it is what seems involved in the very relations of God and the mind of man. To the Old Testament saints, immortality seemed the corollary of religion, for immortality was the continuance of fellowship with God, If religion was true, i.e. if God was, then that experience which religion was would continue, and men would live. The teaching of the Old Testament is summed up by our Lord : " God is not the God of the dead, but of the living" (Matt, xxii, 32), The prophets and saints of the Old Testament kingdom of God were not speculative men. They did not reason that the soul was immortal from its nature; this was not the kind of im- mortality in which they were interested, though for all that appears the idea that the immaterial part of man should become extinct or be annihilated, never occurred to them. They did not lay stress, in an objective, reflective way, on man's instinctive hopes of immortality, though perhaps they may be observed giving these instinctive desires expression. They could not, with the patient eye of inductive observa- tion, gather up what we call analogies to the passage of beings from a lower to a higlier life, such as we conceive our own death to be, as the entrance of a fuller life. They did not reason : they felt, and they kuew. They set the VIEW OF man's naturb 417 Lord before them ; and because He was at their right hand they were not moved, and every element of their being rejoiced. They had life with God, and they felt that im- mortality was involved in their communion with Him. He was their God ; and He was not the God of the dead, but of the hving. This commimion was the object of their hopes and the ground of their faith. Their faith in immortality was but a form of their faith in God. It was entirely subjective and rehgious, — the corollary not of reason, but of experience drawn from their actual life with God- And even if it had remained but a record of subjective conditions, of postulates of faith, of demands not of reason, but of religious life, without any objective veri- fication, it would have been a distinct contribution to the belief of men in immortality, a contribution in a region and from a side altogether different from those in which other nations made their contributions — the contribution not of man's reflection, but of his religious nature. But the Old Testament age did not pass away without these subjective aspirations receiving an external seal. In Christ these subjective hopes and demands of faith and man's heart became real outward facts. In His life they passed into history. 3. Preliminary Questions as to Man's Nature. Any question concerning deatli and immortality and resurrection must be preceded by other questions relating to the nature of man. For if death be in some sense a dissolution, and that which is simple is incapable of separation, the nature of man must be compound ; and its elements will demand consideration, the dissolution of which is death, the continued separation of which is the state of the dead, and the reunion of which is resurrection. But there is no question more difficult in BibHcal Theology than the question of the nature of man. Not only is there no certain answer given to it in the Old Testament, but the New Testament seems to leave it equally imsettled. «7 418 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT That man possesses a soul and a body is clearly taught That is the simplest and most general form in which the teaching appears. That death may be defined as the separa- tion of these ; that their localities during death remain distinct ; and that in resurrection they are united, — these are all general statements, true indeed, but concealing within them a number of minor undetermined problems. With regard to the body, except in the matter of its resurrection, there is not much compKcation. But on the side of the soul there is such a variety of terminology employed, and such apparently irreconcilable predications are made concerning it, that certain results seem hardly to be expected from any investigation. The first and most prominent fact is that Scripture constantly uses two words for this side of human nature, soul and sjnrit, which it does not employ indiscriminately by any means. It seems to regard the latter as the primary, the union of which with body gives lise to soul. But whether this soul that so arises be itself something distinct from the spirit which, uniting with the f)dy, gave rise to it, or whether it be not that sjnrit itself conceived in this state of union and in all the relations incidental to it, so that the naked essence unrelated would be called spirit, and the same essence in vital union with the body would be named soul, is a question to which answers very diverse have been returned. Moreover, as to this spirit itself, its relation to God's nature is very obscurely set forth in Scripture ; for it seems sometimes called His. He gives it, and men live ; He takes it away, and men die. It returns to God who gave it. He is " the God of the spirits of all flesh" (Num. xvi. 22, xxvii. 16). And sometimes it is called man's. Thus we are at a loss to say whether this spirit which God gives man, and which, coming from God, may be called God's (as the apostle also exhorts us to glorify Him in our bodies, which are God's, Gal. vi. 20), and which, given to man and belonging to him, may be called man's, — be really a permanent part of man at all, or merely God Himself abiding in every creature, sustaining hfe, and when He withdraws, causing that from SOUL AND SPIRIT 419 which He withdraws to fall into death. There are thus two very obscure sides to the question concerning man's nature : one is the relation of man's spirit to man's soul ; and the other is the relation of man's spirit to God's Spirit. Are soul and spirit in man essentially or substantially, or only relationally distinct ? Are man's spirit and God's Spirit numerically distinct, or is the same spirit called man's because possessed by man, and God's because given by God ? And being given by God, is it man's inalienabile possession, or only a temporary gift ? These are questions on which one cannot profess to be able to declare any very definite results. But they deserve consideration, partly because they are of great interest in themselves, and partly on account of their bearing on the larger question of im- mortality. For this latter strikes its roots very deep down into the Old Testament views of the primary and essential relations of man with God. With regard to the essential or substantial distinction of soul and spirit in man, there are certain statements in the New Testament, to which we may return here,^ as they might seem and have indeed been considered by many, undeniably to establish it. There is the passage in 1 Thess. v. 23: "And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly ; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." Here, to use the words of Ellicott, the prayer " is threefold : first, that they may be sanctified by God, the God of peace ; for sanctifica- tion is the condition of outward and inward peace, wholly oKor^keh in their collective powers and constituents ; next, that each constituent may be preserved to our Lord's coming ; and, lastly, that each so preserved may be entire and complete in itself, not mutilated or desintegrated by sin ; — that the body may retain its yet uneffaced image of God, and its unimpaired aptitude to be a living sacrifice to its maker ; the appetitive soul its purer hopes and nobler aspirations ; the spirit, its ever blessed associate, the Holy and Eternal Spirit of God " {Destiny of the Creature, p. 107) » See pp. 184-187.— Ed. 420 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT This New Testament passage certainly names three con- stituent elements of himian nature, names them all co- ordinately, and speaks of each as needing sanctification, and capable of preservatioiL Are we to consider the distinction between soul and spirit as real, or only, so to speak, functional ; as a distinction of organs or substances, or only of the different relations or conditions of a single element ? In Heb. iv. 1 2, too, there occurs, as we have seen, a similar passage : " For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." The word of God has four qualities assigned to it : (1) it is living, ^wv ; (2) it is active, ivep'yi]>;\ the spirit of man, within him, Zech. xii. 1. But thus you will see how the question is encumbered, and that in matters concerning the state of the dead we may find expressions both hard to understand in themselves and not easily reconcilable with one another. Probably all that can be determined meantime with certainty, though it leaves the questions which were raised very vaguely answered, is this : Whether the soul, '3, in man be distinct substantially from the spirit or no, the soul is the seat of life and of personality in man, and having received sub- sistence, no more loses it. At death it parts from the body ; if the person who died be restored to life, the soul returns to the body. It has existence apart from the body in Sheol, and the personality is still attached to it in that region. The Old Testament, I think, does not call that which is in Sheol soul, nor yet spirit ; it does not con- descend upon the quality of any of the individuals there ; it calls them all ^''^^l, that is, either soft, tenues, shadowy, or long -stretched. Again, as to spirit, whether that be man's permanently, or God's actually and man's only in temporary possession, it is said to return to God who gave it (Eccles. xii 7). Its presence is the source of life in THE IDEA OF SHEOL 425 man ; its withdrawal produces death, and even its partial withdrawal a diminishing of the powers of life. It might be surmised from the strong expressions used many times of death in the Old Testament, that it was believed that in death the existence of the soul came to an end. So, e.g., in Ps. cxlvi. 4 : " His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth ; in that very day his thoughts perish " ; and in Ps. xxxix. 13: "0 spare me, that I may recover strength, before I go hence, and be no more." And perhaps most strongly of all in Job, e.g., vii. 21 : " And why dost thou not pardon my transgression ? for now shall I sleep in the dust ; and thou shalt seek me eagerly, but I shall not be " ; and xiv. 7 : " For a tree hath hope : if it be cut down it will sprout again ; but man dieth, and wasteth away : man giveth up the ghost, and where is he ? man lieth down, and riseth not : till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep." But these are only the strong expressions of despondency and regret over a life mourn- fully soon ended, and that never returns to be lived on this busy earth again. The very name and con- ception of Sheol is sufficient answer to the contention that they mean more. 4. CoTiception of Sheol. The word 7\^^, rarely written defectively, is a feminine noun, as most other nouns are which indicate space, though in a few cases it appears as masculine. Its derivation is uncertain. Some derived it from h^f,^, to ask, believing that Hades is so named from its insatiable craving. But it is improbable that this primitive and ancient name for the underworld should be a mere poetical epithet. Others, with more probability, connect the name with the root hw, to be hollow, in which case it would resemble our word Hell, Germ. Holle, that is, hollow ; and the name nn, pit, with which it is interchanged in the Old Testament, and d^vaaoq, its synonym in the New, favour this deriva- 426 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT tioiL* The Old Testament represents Sheol as the opposite of this upper spliere of light and life. It is " deep Sheol," njnnn 'b', Pg. Ixxxvi 13: " Thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest helL" It is deep down in the earth, Ps. Ixiii. 9 : " Those that seek my soul, to destroy it, shall go down into the lower parts of the earth." Corresponding to this it is the region of darkness, as Job, mournfully looking to it, says: "A land of darkness, as darkness itself; and of the shadow of death, without any order, and where the light is as darkness " (x. 22, 23). Of course, there is no formal topography to be sought for in Sheol. It is in great measure the creation of the imagination, deep down under the earth, even under the waters, and dark, and all within it chaos. The shades tremble " underneath the waters, and their inhabitants," Job xxvi. 5. Hence it is often decked out with the horrors of the grave. The prophet Isaiah, xiv. 9, represents the king of Babylon as going into Sheol : " Sheol from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming. Thy pomp is brought down to Sheol, and the noise of thy viols : the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee." And so in Ezek. xxxii. 21—23 : "The strong among the mighty shall speak to him out of Sheol . . . Asshur is there and all her company : his graves are about him : all of them slain, fallen by the sword : whose graves are set in the sides of the pit." That is a representation, according to which Sheol is a vast underground mausoleum, with cells all around like graves. But it may be asserted with some reason that nowhere is Sheol confounded with the grave, or the word used for the place of the dead body. Sheol is the place of the departed personalities — the Old Testament neither calls them ' souls ' nor * spirits.' It is the place appointed for all living, the great rendezvous of dead persons ; for a strict distinction is not drawn between the body and its place, and the soul and its place. The generations of one's forefathers are all there, and he who dies is gathered ^ The supposed discovery of Sheol in Assyrian Sualu (as affirmed bj Friedrich Delitzsch, Jeremias, etc.) is denied by Schrader, Jensen, etc. STATE OF THOSE IN SHEOL 427 unto his fathers. The tribal divisions of oue's race are there, and the dead man is gathered unto his people. Separated from them here, he is united with them there. And if his own descendants had died before him, they are there, and he goes down, as Jacob to his son, mourning. None can hope to escape passing down among that vast assemblage of thin and shadowy personalities : " What man is he that liveth, and shall not see death ? that shall deliver his soul from the hand of Sheol ? " (Ps. Lxxxix. 48). But it may be of use to put under distinct heads a few things about Sheol. (1) The state of those in Sheol. As death consists in the withdrawal by God of the spirit of life, and as this spirit is the source, in general, of energy and vital force, the personality is of necessity left feeble and flaccid. All that belongs to life ceases except existence. Hence Sheol is called |i"n?^, perisJdng, it is called ^^n, cessation (Isa. xxxviii. 11). The personalities crowding there are power- less, and drowsy, and still and silent, like those in sleep. Hence they are called D^xsn (Job xxvL 5 ; Isa. xiv. 9). The state is called noi'^, silence : " Unless the Lord had been my help, my soul had almost dwelt in silence " (xciv. 17). It is the land of forgetfulness (Ps. Ixxxviii. 12); " the living know that they must die : but the dead know not any thing. Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished" (Eccles. ix. 5). Yet though they are feeble, as those in Sheol confess to the Babylonian king, " Art thou become weak as one of us ? " — ri''?n (Isa. xiv. 10), thinned, as one worn by sickness, — they know them- selves and their state, as this representation shows, and also Others. They even seem to keep a kind of shadowy life of their own, a dreamy pomp and ceremonial, sitting with invisible forms upon imperceptible thrones fi'om which they are stirred, with a flicker of interest and emotion, to greet any distinguished new arrival It is the shadow of earth and its activities; wavering shades of the present life. The things said are not presented to us as matters of faith, they are the creations largely of the writers' imagination. 428 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT One can see that there is no knowledge on the part of th* writers concerning this underworld. They shudder at the thought of it, and their imagination paints it dark and distant. The grave suggests a deep cavernous receptacle to them. The sleep of death causes them to deem it a land of stillness and silence. The flaccid corpse makes them think of the person as feeble, with no energy or power of resistance. All is taken from the circumstances of death, and can have no reality or truth to us as an article of belief. Only this is certain, that there was a belief in the continued existence of the person. Death puts an end to the existence of no person. (2) There seems to be no distinction of good and evil in SheoL As all must go into Sheol, so all are represented as being there. Sheol is no place of punishment itself, nor one of reward. Neither does it seem divided into such compartments. The state there is neither blessedness nor misery. It is bare existence. " There the wicked cease from troubling, i.e. from the disquietude which their own evil causes them, and the weary are at rest." " The small and great are there alike, and the servant is free from his master" (Job iii. 17, 19). To-morrow, said Samuel to the king whom God had rejected, " to-morrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me. Then Saul fell straightway all along upon the earth, and was sore afraid, because of the words of Samuel" (1 Sam. xxviii. 19). "The dead know not any- thing," says the Preacher, "neither have they any more a reward " (Eccles. ix. 5). There are, perhaps, a pair of passages from which critics have surmised that there was in the Old Testament a belief in a deeper Sheol than the ordinary, a aBr)<: a-KOTi(i}Tepoi3 ^n3"V, " the sides of the pit " ; he who had said presumptuously, " I will set my throne on the sides of the north, in the mount of God" (liav '•nsi'V). But the expression is evidently used in anti- IDEA OF GEHENNA 429 thesis to " the sides of the north," and cannot be held W signify a deeper Hades than that where the ordinary dead are assembled. And the same must be said of the only other passages where traces of such an opinion have been found by some scholars, as, e.g., Ezek. xxxii. 23, already quoted, and Isa. xxiv. 21 : "The Lord will punish the high ones that are on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth. And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days shall they be visited." Neither can the fervent prayer of Balaam, " May I die the death of the righteous, and may my last end be like his " (Num. xxiii. 10), have any reference to that which he feared after death, or to any faith which he had in a distinction in the positions of the righteous and the wicked in Sheol. Eather his prayer is that he may live such a life as he sees before Israel, rich in God's blessings, and therefore peaceful and long ; so that he should die old and full of days, and be carried to the grave like a shock of corn coming in in his season. It is douljtful, therefore, if in the Old Testament any traces of a distinction in Sheol between the good and evil be found. The distinction that begins to appear is that indicated in Ps. xhx., that while the wicked are congregated in Sheol, the righteous overleap and escape it. Towards the close of the Hebrew commonwealth, another idea began to rise — that of a gloomy vale of horrid sufferings through the torturings of fire. This was Gehenna — first the valley of Hinnom, where the cruel rites of Moloch were performed, and children passed through the five to the horrid king. Then this idea seemed to be transferred to the state of the dead, and the wicked were conceived to be subjected to such torments of fire. Already, ere New Testament times, this advance upon the old doctrine of Sheol had been made, and in the parable the rich man is represented as tormented in flames (Luke xvi. 23-28). And pro- bably some traces of the idea may be found in the Old Testament, as in the end of Isaiah, " for their worm 430 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched" (IxvL 24). (3) But this last passage leads to some other questions, e.g., as regards the connection of the personality in Sheol with the body of which it had been deprived, with the outer world, and with God. As to connection with the outer world, that is com- pletely broken off. The dead can neither return, nor does he know anything of the things of earth ; even the fate, happy or miserable, of those he is most bound up with, is a mystery to him. " His sons come to honour, and he knoweth it not ; and they are brought low, and he perceiveth it not of them" (Job xiv. 21). "As the cloud is consumed and vanisheth away : so he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more" (vii. 9). Yet with the strong belief in the existence of the persons in Sheol, there was naturally a popular superstition that they could be reached, and that they could be interested in human affau-s, of the issues of which they must have deeper knowledge than mortal men. This belief among the Hebrews gave rise to the necromancy so sternly proscribed in the law, and ridiculed by Isaiah : " Should not a people seek unto their God ? should they seek for the living to the dead ? " (viii. 1 9) ; and the belief is not extinct among ourselves. That it was not a mere superstition, but an unlawful traffic, was shown by the case of Samuel ; for there is no reason to suppose this a delusion of Saul's, or a trick of the woman. At all events the event bears testimony to the prevalent belief in the existence of those who had died in this life. Yet how far the practice in general was carried on by mere working on the supevstitions of the people, one cannot say. There is no other case in the Old Testament but that of Samuel of any dead person appearing and returning to Sheol. The relation between the dead in Sheol and God is not close : " Shall the dead praise Thee ? " (Ps. Ixxxviii. lO). Of this more hereafter. The question whether any connection still exists between the body and the dead in Sheol is interesting, but there SIGNIFICANCE OF DEATH 431 are hardly materials to answer it. No such connection exists between the body and the soul as to interfere with the passage into Sheol, whatever befall the body. The body needs not to be embalmed, as in Egypt, nor burned, nor even buried. It may be thrown out as a dishonoured branch, and yet the descent into Sheol be unimpeded. The want of burial was in itself dishonouring, and it is regarded as having a reflection on the condition of the dead person in Sheol in the estimation of others there. But, on the other hand, there are passages which seem to speak of a sympathetic rapport still existing between the body and the person in Sheol, These passages are hardly capable of being pressed further than to the inference that the body, though thrown off, was still part of the man, and was not mere common unrelated dust. Some passages speak of sensibility still remaining in the body ; e.g., Isa. Ixvi. 24 : " Their worm dieth not," where the body is represented as feeling the tooth of the corrupting worm. But others go further, and seem to regard the soul as also sensitive, and sharing in the pain of the body : " His flesh upon him shall have pain, and his soul within him shall mourn " (Job xiv. 22). But, as I have said, these statements hardly go further than to show that the body, though cast off, is still considered in some connection with the person. The main point is that the relation between the deceased person and God is cut off. This is what gave death its significance to the religious mind, and caused such a revulsion against it, culminating in such protests as that in Ps. xvi. Fellowship with God ceases : " In death there is no remembrance of Thee : in Sheol who shall give Thee thanks ? " (Ps. vi. 5). " For Sheol cannot praise Thee," says Hezekiah ; " they that go down to the pit cannot hope for Thy truth " (Isa. xxxviii. 1 8). And the plaintive singer in Ps. xxxix. pleads for an extension of his earthly life on this ground : " Hold not Thy peace at my tears : for I am a stranger with Thee, and a sojourner," — the meaning of these words being the opposite of what, with our Christian knowledge, we put into them. The Old Testament 432 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT saint was a sojourner with God : this life in the body upon the earth was a brief but happy visit paid to Jehovah ; but death summoned the visitor away, and it came to an end. 5. Conception of Death. The point of view from which Scripture looks at every- thing is the moral and religious. This is the point of view from which it regards the universe as a whole. It is a moral constitution. With all its complexity it has a moral unity, all its parts subserving moral ends and illustrating moral truths. Hence, when Scripture describes the origin of things and their gradual rise into order, though it may seem to be physical phenomena that it is describing, its design has not respect to these physical phenomena in themselves, but primarily to this, that they occurred through the free act of a Supreme Moral Agent ; and that they con- templated as their final result the preparation of a suitable sphere of activity for another free moral agent. This moral purpose of Scripture in everytliing which it says makes it of less consequence for it to describe events precisely as they occurred. It may use liberties. It may so group phenomena and so colour events that the moral meaning of them may shine out to our eyes more clearly than if it had adhered in its description to prosaic literality. It is quite conceivable that some parts of ancient history are so written in Scripture. Its design never being to record facts merely for facts' sake, but for the sake of the moral teaching which they contain, it is a supposition not to be at once rejected, that in order to exhibit to our dull eyesight the ideas of history, it may idealise the history. This principle, however, if admitted, must be carefully guarded ; and no doubt the difficulty would be to guard it when once admitted. It must be guarded for the reason that Redemption is historical. Our salvation consists of historical facta : " If Christ be not risen, yom* faith is vain ; ye are yet in your sins" (1 Cor. xv. 17) A redemption consisting wholly of ideas would, of course, be only an ideal redemp- MULLER ON DEATH 433 uion, and leave us precisely where we wera But the historicity of salvation as a whole being conserved, nothing stands in the way of our admitting that some of the historical occurrences whereby it was illustrated or realised may have been set by subsequent nai'rators in an intenser Ught than that in which they first appeared. K the point of view from which Scripture regards the universe as a whole be moral, much more will it regard man in this light. Man has, no doubt, according to Scripture, just as God has, a nature and a ' self.' But his essence and meaning lie so exclusively in his ' self,' in his personality, that only when the just equilibrium between his nature and his ' self ' has been disturbed, do the former and its elements come into prominence. His centre of gravity as well as centre of unity Hes in his moral constitution. That remaining as it was by creation, he will remain as he was in creation a living man, a unity embracing all his parts ; for this is what Scripture means by life. The author of the well written but not very exhaustively thought out treatise on The Christian Doctrine of Sin, says : " Death as a simple physical fact is un- affected by moral conditions." But such a statement requires limitation in several ways. We observe moral conditions to be of great influence in reference to disease, in keeping off infection, for instance, and in neutralising the effects of poison. We read in the Gospel history of some who had faith to be healed, and on the other hand of the infliction of mania through the operation of evil intelli- gences on the mind ; and what is true of disease is, of course, true also of death, for the two are identical The forty days' fast of our Lord in the wilderness shows sufficiently the enormous power exercised over the body by the mind in a high state of spiritual tension. Who does not perceive that such a statement as that death is unaffected by moral conditions, is a mere begging of the question ? It is true that ultimately all, moral and immoral, die ; just as it is true that death is inherent in all organisms a8 434 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT with which we are familiar. But that implies merely that death affects all the limited varieties of moral conditions now appearing in the race since sin has intervened, and that death is inherent in human organisms such as we now know them. But that fact can support no inference as to how death or disease would behave in the presence of a perfect moral condition, and what would occur to the organism of such a human being ; for the difference between the highest morality that exists and a perfect one, is a difference not of degree, but of kind. Experience affords us no data here on which to go ; or if we refer to the case of Christ, who was sinless, we read nothing regarding Him which implies that He ever suffered any ailment, or that the seeds of natural death were sown in His body. We can form no judgment from direct observa- tion. We could at most infer from what we see of men at present. But such an inference would certainly be to beg the question against Scripture, which expressly recognises the two conditions of a perfect and an imperfect moral state, and teaches that the organism of human nature is not a thing under the government of physical laws only, but is lifted up by the spiritual nature of man into another plane, and subject in its destiny to the operation of moral laws. Coupled with this view, that death is inherent in all organisms, and that, consequently, the death threatened to Adam could not mean mere physical death, is the view of the writer quoted, that death as there threatened was merely the moral consequence of transgression, namely, what we call spiritual death, together with the terrors that gather about dying to a sinner. This irruption into our theological nomenclature of the term death to describe the spiritual condition of a sinner, has been a great misfortune, not only because it affords a foundation for the kind of views propounded by this author, but because it diverts our minds from the Scripture way of regarding death and life. In the Old Testament and in St. Paul, death always includes what we popularly call dyiny\ and in the Old DEAD IN SINS 436 Testament dying includes remaining dead, i.e. all the destiny of the dead ; and so life includes the hfe of the body, — in Paul the resurrection life, which, as man is a unity, alone / is life. Even the expression, 'dead in sins' (Eph. ii. 3, 5), does not mean spiritually insensible in the practice of sin, but subject to death as a penalty in the element or region of sins. There are, no doubt, certain expressions, particularly in this Epistle to the Ephesians, that may seem to go against this view, such, e.g., as tliis : " You hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses " (ii. 1) ; " raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places " (ii. 6). But this difficulty disappears as soon as the apostle's true manner of looking at Christianity is understood. He always, in the theoretical portions of his Epistles, looks at it as a whole. He uses terms of it which embrace and describe its perfect results; not the beginning, but the end of its development. What it will yet achieve is to him already achieved. His statements are not empirical and bounded by the actual experience of Christians, but ideal, and reaching out to the future consummation of things. Nay, he even in his ideal descriptions employs the terms suitable for the future and perfect to describe the small beginnings of the present. Hence to him believers are as much sanctified as they are justified ; they are saints, complete in Christ. It is only in the practical parts of his epistles, when he descends to deal with the actual condition of the Churches and his converts, among whom, alas ! this ideal of Christianity is far enough from yet obtaining, that he analyses the effects of redemption into those that already are and those that shall be. Then sanctification is seen to be incomplete. Then the perfect Church splits asunder, and what we name the Church Visible is the subject of treatment, at least in its members. But neither the imperfect saint nor the Church Visible belongs to the region of the ideal of Christianity, and consequently they find no place in the early and theoretical parts of the Epistles. And yo, speaking to the Ephesians, he uses terms descriptive of salvation as perfectly reaUsed, 436 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT to indicate what believers are really in possession of. His language is in a sense proleptic. Believers do not yet sit with Christ in the heavenly places ; but faith and grace, when they shall have their perfect work, will issue in their resurrection ; and this issue is involved in those beginnings of power which God has already put forth among them. Consequently the apostle does not employ the terms * quickened ' and ' raised ' to describe a mere spiritual change which has already been produced. He uses them literally, although by anticipation, to remind the Ephesians of what is contained in God's gift to them, and what shall yet accrue to them, namely, the redemption of the body. I quite admit that, after all, the two views may coalesce, and that it may be the vitalising of the soul with spiritual life which really quickens the body ; for the new body is not in Scripture regarded as alien matter, but is the old body vitalised and become spiritual And the new life instilled into the soul by God's Spirit may become so intense, that, like a flame, it stretches itself out and communicates its fire to the body, still its own and not yet altogether extinct. We know so little of what life is, and how it operates to gather a body about it. But just as we see the somewhat languid life of our present existence gradually add element to element and accumulate in the slow course of twenty years a mature full body to itself, so the intenser life that we shall yet inherit may on the resurrection day draw a body around itself in an instant, accomplishing in the twinkhng of an eye what is the work of many years at present. But what I am anxious to emphasise is, that Scripture makes very little in this region of physical cause and effect. Man is under a moral constitution. Death is the penalty of sin, not that spiritual feebleness which may be but another name for sin itself. And life is the reward of righteousness, not righteousness itself. The wages of sin is death ; but grace reigned through righteousness unto eternal life (Kom. v. 21 VL 23). ISSUES OF LIFE 437 6. Lift and its Issues. But we must leave this New Testament region, which is always so fascinating, and return to the Old Testament and its statements on the subject of Sheol, the receptacle of the departed. There, in that underworld, good and evil, according to the Old Testament, appear ahke immured ; and the condition in which they subsist is not life, but bare existence, dreary and infelicitous. Does the Old Testament give any light as to the permanence of this condition ? Sheol does not appear to be a place of reward or punishment. Is there any escape from it for the righteous, or is there any intensification of its evils awaiting the unjust ? There is no question that is stirring men's minds with a greater intensity at present than this one of the destiny of the wicked. Does the Old Testament go any way to solve it ? Besides the view which may be said to be the ordinary and hereditary one in the Churches, there may be said to be at present three others current, besides minor ones which I do not mention, regarding the destiny of those dying impenitent. First, there is the Universalistic view, according to which all shall be restored. Second, there is the view, stopping short of this, which demands a place of repentance and a sphere of development beyond the grave, and which, assuming infinite gradations of salvation, finds a place for at least most of the race. And, third, there is the view, which calls itself that of Conditional Immortality, according to which those finally evil shall ultimately be annihilated. Has the Old Testament anything to say to the question as stated in these views ? Now, of course, such questions will not be decided on Old Testament ground, but in the light of the clearer revelation of the New. But so far as the Old goes, it does not, I think, favour any of these views. From all that we have seen, you will perceive that the Hebrew view of things is a view essentially concerned with things on this side. Salvation is to it a present good. The moral cou- Btitution of the world exhibits itself already here. In this 438 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT life righteousness delivers from death. This vivid manner of conceiving the moral order of the present constitution of things, accounts for the fact that attention is confined to what falls on this side almost exclusively. Whatever prin- ciples are involved in the relations of God and men, these exhibit themselves completely in the present life. It is well with the righteous, — the lines fall to him in pleasant places, — God is the portion of his soul. As to the wicked, he says to God : I desire not the knowledge of Thy ways. His feet is set in slippery places. He is brought down in a moment amidst terrors. The principles prevailing in life come out always to perfect manifestation in death. The manner of dying is certain to express the true relations of the righteous and the wicked. And the manner of dying fixes the condition of the dead ; and this condition abides. All is yet general ; only great principles of moral govern- ment appear. But, so far as the Old Testament is con- cerned, no change seems indicated in the state of the unjust, either in the way of release or in the way of an intensification of the evils of Sheol. They die estranged from God, they remain estranged ; the estrangement does not appear aggravated into positive misery. In Ecclesi- astes, indeed, it is said that God wiU bring every work into judgment ; but it cannot be said with certainty that this judgment differs from that passed on every one at death, and illustrated in his manner of dying. Neither in the Apocryphal writings that arose on the soil of Palestine proper is there any advance upon the Old Testament doctrine, at least till quite close to the Christian era. In the Greek Apocrypha the case is different. Scripture is chiefly concerned with the destinies of the righteous. And on this side there is great advance on the dreary doctrine of Sheol, which is the popular basis of the doctrine of the dead. And to that I will devote a few remarks. The passages adduced already touching the place and state of the dead are perhaps more poetical than dogmatic, and little can be concluded from them beyond the con- QUESTION OP NATURAL IMMORTALITY 439 tinued existence of the persons that once lived upon the earth, their consciousness of themselves and of others, their complete exclusion from the world of life, and their silent, feeble form of subsistence. But there are also passages which show the other side of the picture. Perhaps as those formerly adduced could not be held to contain state- ments which we should be justified in treating as part of a religious conviction, but were rather expressions of an imagination very vivid and greatly stirred, exercising itself upon what was unknown, and clothing it in robes woven out of the things seen in connection with death ; so we might not be justified in attributing dogmatic significance to the statements regarding life and immortality. They may be but jets of religious feeling, spasmodic upleapings of the flame of love of existence or love of God, which flickers most wildly and convulsively just when it is about altogether to expire. What value to attribute to them is a thing that perhaps cannot be decided without bringing them into relation to the doctrine regarding future things now fully revealed in the New Testament, But that these beliefs appear in the Old as bm'sts of religious feeling, as demands of the living soul for continuance in life, as long- ings of the soul in fellowship with God for closer and eternal fellowship with Him, as expressions of an instinctive shrinking from death, so far from impairing theii' validity or depriving them of meaning, only adds to it, by showing how deeply seated the desire of immortality is in the nature of man as given by God ; how it rises higher the higher the nature is purified by God's fellowship ; and how probable, therefore, in itself it is that immortaUty shall be its goal and reward. Man, so far as we can gather from the narrative in Genesis, was made neither mortal nor immortal. He was not made so that he must die, for the narrative represents him surrounded by the means of living for ever ; nor was he so made that he could not die, for the event has too clearly shown the reverse. He was made capable of not dying, with the design that by a free determination of hia 440 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT activity rewarded by God's favour, he should become not capable of dying. He sinned, and when he sinned he died. But death is thus a foreign thing, an evil befallen man, the child of sin. Where sin is, death is. But surely the other thought could not but be immediately suggested, — seeing if sin had not been, death would not have been, — that when sin should be overcome, death would be van- quished also. To overcome sin is to live. This is every- where the doctrine of the Bible. Yet in the earliest portions of Scripture the truth is not put quite in this manner. It is not freedom from sin that gives, or that is, life, so much as fellowship with God. Sin is regarded as an enfeebling of the soul, a drugging of the soul by a deadly narcotic, an impairing of its vital energy. That which pours life into the enfeebled, paralysed spirit is God's Spirit, and so is God. In Him, with Him, is life. Thus the early Scriptures overleap a step. They do not so much speak of righteousness being life, as of God, who is the cause of righteousness, giving life. This is perhaps the state of the belief in the earliest times. This seems the idea at the root of the Mosaic economy. There is no allusion there to a future life. Yet there are hfe and death set before the Israelite. Are we to suppose it was only earthly life, worldly goods, the quiet heritage of Canaan, freedom from peril and sword ? Life lay in God's favour, in His presence and fellowship. The rehgious life of Mosaism was as real as our own, and as true. What the patriarchs are represented as looking forward to was not the rest of Canaan, but abiding with God, — a settled near- ness to Him and fellowship with Him. They sought 'a country ' — which the New Testament writer, from his point of view, interprets as a heavenly one (Heb. xi. 16). They looked for the "city that hath the foundations, whose builder and maker is God" (Heb. xi. 10). What thoughts they may have had, one can hardly imagine. Yet what they sought, and what they felt called to, in all their wanderings, was some stable place of abode, — some country, some city of God, where He dwelt, and where they should THE OBJECT OF HOPE 441 dwell with Him ; where their life should run on for ever parallel to God's. He was the element of satisfaction that they sought, and that constituted their life. And 80 it was with the pious Israehte when settled in Canaan. He thought nothing good, nothing to be desired, which was severed from the fellowship of God. The external goods which he enjoyed, he considered but the pledge of this. But there is little, if any, sign of that analytic tendency, which we cannot resist, to distinguish between this world and another. To the Israelite both worlds were united in one. He enjoyed both. He drew a distinction between this world without God and this world with God. The wicked had the former and he the latter. God was his portion, and the lines had fallen to him in pleasant places. The future he seldom strove to unveil. Still, if he did, we can imagine what feelings the thought would arouse : it would either be a pitiful entreaty that God would not interrupt that blessed fellowship by death : " I said, 0 my God, take me not away in the midst of my days " (Ps. ciL 24) : " Return 0 Jehovah, deliver my soul : 0 save me for Thy mercy's sake. For in death there is no remembrance of Thee ; In Sheol who shall give Thee thanks?" (Ps. vi. 4, 5). or it would be a violent resistance and putting down of the thought of death. It could not, it must not be, that this blessed fellowship should ever be broken : " I have set the Lord always before me : because He is at my right hand, 1 shall not be moved " (Ps. xvi. 8). So far, what we have seen was the certain faith in God and life in Him. This was conviction and thought. Eising out of that was, perhaps, more the emotional feeling of immortality — the dread of dying, the passionate longing for life — the refusal to conceive or to admit that this life with God lived on earth could come to an end. Yet perhaps there was no intellectual presentation to the mind itself of the way in which it could be continued. Still certain things narrated in the Pentateuch might suggest 442 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT to the saints of those and after times even a way. That wonderful glory recorded to have been vouchsafed to Enoch, of whom it was said that he " walked with God," showed that the reward of the closest fellowship with God might be rapture into God's presence without tasting of death — "for God took him" (Gen. v. 24). And this word took laid deep hold of men's minds in this connection. For the sorely troubled Asaph, when he came to clearness and peace, at last comforted himself that God would take him also : "Thou shalt guide me with Thy counsel, And afterward take me to glory " (Ps. IxxiiL 24). This glory of Enoch's was what few could hope for as it had fallen to him ; yet the way in which Asaph conceives it, was the way those contemporary with Enoch and sub- sequent to him could hardly help conceiving it. What had befallen him who walked with God marvellously, in this marvellous way, would befall them who walked with Him in an ordinary way, in a manner equally real if less marvellous. And, in addition to this, there was the general faith in God's power, and that He was able to bring again the dead. Thus Abraham, being strong in faith, staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief, but offered up his son when commanded, though the promise was made to him, accounting that God was able to raise him up even from the dead (Heb. xi. 19). Such miracles, too, as are narrated of Elijah would also familiarise men's minds with the possibility of the dead again Hving. Thus we should anticipate that the minds of Old Testament saints would run in two lines in this matter of the hope of immortality, — one line emotional and another reflective, though the emotional may also have under it reflection of various kinds, chiefly on the evils or the inequalities of hfe. The emotional utterances will chiefly rise from the feeling of fellowship with God, which is life, and take the form of protests against the thought of its being broken in upon ; and these reaches of feeling into eternity will be brief and rarely sustained, and seldom NINETIETH PSALM 443 reasoned. Indeed, they will generally ground themselves with a certain absoluteness simply on the sense of fellow- ship, and refuse to take all other facts, even death, into consideration. The reflective utterances, again, will natui'ally accept of facts, such as the universality of death, and seek to dispose of them. Thus, what the emotional utterances bring forward will rather be immortality, i.e. never dying. What the reflective utterances bring forward will be resurrection. And, as was to be anticipated, the ex- pressions of emotion will appear in lyrics, in plaintive elegies, — the productions of deeply exercised religious men. The expressions of reflection will rather come from prophets, men who have a clear outlook into the things of the future, and who are set to indicate with authority to the Church the final developments of her history. We cannot fully pursue these two lines. It must suffice to project them, and to linger for a little at one point in each. The passages where the Old Testament saint appears striving to maintain his fellowship with the living God in spite of all vicissitudes, are chiefly Pss. xvi., xvii., xlix., Ixxiii., and the Book ®f Job. The state of the believer's mind in Ps. xvi. does not materially differ from that disclosed in the great passages of Job. But there is another psalm which forms the fitting background to this one, at which we may look for a moment, Ps. xc, headed, ' A Prayer of Moses the man of God.' Whether the Psalm be so old or no, it is very old, and Httle that is plausible can be said against its traditional age. It might be called an elegy on the brevity of human life. But such general subjects never were treated alone by a Hebrew poet. If he deplored an evil, he was always struggling for a remedy. The remedy of this he finds in the eternal God. The Psalm might be headed : ' The eternal God a refuge for man, shortlived by reason of his sin.' First, the poet posits the relation of God to men : " Thou hast been a dwelling-place for us in all generations." This relation of God to men is the theme of the Psalm, which consists, then, of a further statement how God is this, and how men need it, and, 444 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT finally, of a prayer that God would cause the relation to be fully realised in the case of those now praying. The words " in all generations " suggest the eternal sameness of God, over-against the brevity of man's life. " From ever- lasting to everlasting, Thou art God. Thou turnest man to destruction," i.e. Thou scest men, generation after genera- tion, perish. Thyself still eternal and living : for a thousand years in Thy sight are but as yesterday. Men are like the grass, which, springing in the morning, withereth ere night. But this short-livedness of men in opposition to the eternal, unmoved duration of Jehovah, is not without a cause. It is not merely that He lives and they die, each from his appropriate nature. They die because they are consumed in His anger. He hath set their sins in the light of His face, turned His full face with awful light upon them. This is the condition of men, sinful and perishing because they are so. The Psalm expresses general and universal relations. God eternal, men of transient exist- ence, and that because God's wrath carries them away in their sins. Yet, also, there is another general relation to be added : " Thou art our dwelling-place, our refuge, in all generations." He who carries sinful men away with a flood, tlie overflow of His wrath, is then- refuge. In God is the hiding-place from the anger of God. In Him, the Eternal, man that is of few days finds his refuge. And so the Psalmist concludes with the prayer : " Eeturn, 0 Lord ; how long ? and pity Thy servants. Satisfy us in the morning with Thy goodness ; that we may be glad, and rejoice all our days." This may be the cry of a generation worn out with wanderings, and sick with disappointed hopes, and sated with plagues, dropping down one after another like an enchanted caravan in the wilderness ; but it is fit to be the cry and the confession and the prayer of a worn and heavy-laden human race, to God, under whose anger it perishes. What is spoken generally in Ps. xc. is expressed par- ticularly in the words of a single person in Pa xvi SIXTEENTH PSALM 445 Who the person is we cannot certainly say. But David's favourite word heads the Psahn, "H? "'r'''?C> " I bave fled for refuge to Thee," as in vii. and xi. ; and the tradition puts his name in the heading. What the dangers were which threatened him, must remain unknown ; but we know that it was a mortal danger. His life was at stake ; and he presses close to Jehovah, the living God, to protect him from the death that sought to assail him. First when he begins to speak, he has already taken refuge in Jehovah ; pursued by dangers, he has sought safety in Him : and being in Him he prays that He would not deliver him up to his pursuers : " Keep me, O God : for I have fled to Thee." Speedily in that refuge his terror seems to pass away, and he speaks calmly, and even with assurance, of eternal safety. Partly he addresses God and partly he soliloquises. It is the believing consciousness thinking aloud. And tlie thoughts that would fill a mind at such a time would be something like these : first, there would be joy in Jehovah; which might very naturally suggest the unhappy lot of those who sought their joy in aught else. And, as the mind passed from antithesis to antithesis, this thought would drive it back again with increased intensity to the feeling of its own blessedness. And then, when from its refuge it looked abroad on its foes, that had just pursued it to its dwelling-place, this blessedness would throw its colour over them all, and a Dold defiance of them would be felt. This seems just the hne of thought in the Psahn. First, the mind's joy in Jehovah : " I said to Jehovah, Thou art my Lord, my joy ; delight is in none but Thee." The use of the word Lord seems to indicate the complete devotion of the speaker to Jehovah. Then comes the natural passage of the mind to other minds, unhke itself, finding their joy in something else, "inx ; " their sorrows are many who seek for themselves aught else " : "I will not pour out their drink-offerings of blood, and I wiU not take their names on my lips." If the Psalm be Davidic, these expressions must be taken figuratively. It ia not 446 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT probable that in his day there was any party actually practising idolatrous rites in the kingdom. But there were, no doubt, many irreligious men, chiefly among the supporters of Saul's dynasty ; and many who secretly, and some who openly, repudiated Jehovah, the God of David. In words of strong aversion, the Psalmist speaks of their rehgious services as drink-offerings of blood. But, with a natural swing, the mind reverts to its own blessedness: "Jehovah is my portion," ver. 5, — 'Jehovah' being put emphatically at the head of the clause. And every possible figure is heaped together to express the idea that Jehovah is the possession of the speaker, and to convey what the joy of this possession is to him, " Jehovah is the portion of my inheritance and my cup : Thou art my constant lot. The lines have fallen to me in pleasant things." And, unable to restrain himself, he breaks forth into the exclamation, " I wiU bless the Lord." But, finally, from being occupied with the contempla- tion of his position, and his joy there, he now looks out upon his foes ; and he feels confident that where he is they cannot come. In that hiding-place to which he has fled he is secure, all secure, his whole man — not secure merely, but triumphantly confident : " My heart is glad, and my glory rejoices; my flesh also resteth securely." For that Sheol, which opened her mouth wide to swallow him, God will beat back ; and that pit, which yawned for him, he shall not see : " Thou wilt not leave my soul over to Sheol, nor give Thine holy one to see the pit." What he shall experience will be life, — " Thou wilt make me know the way of life," — the way to life. Not death, but life, shall be bis portion. Now, if we consider the lie of the Psalm, first the flight of the suppliant to God to protect him from some mortal danger, then his soliloquising with himself over his blessed- ness in God, and then his outlook from his place of refuge, from which he dares to face and to defy his pursuers, we can hardly escape the conclusion that what, in his lofty moment of inspu'ation, he expresses, is the assurance of SIXTEENTH PSALM 447 immortality. He shall not die, but live. God, to whom he has fled, will not leave him to Sheol ; it shall not be per- mitted to have its desire upon him, to swallow him up; neither will He allow him to see, i.e. to have experience of the pit. He to whom he has fled will save him from those dark enemies that would devour him. Also He will save him wholly. He the Hving man, in the fellowship and protection of the living God, shall live. He does not con- template dying and being restored again to life. Eather these gigantic personalities, Sheol, Shachath, that open their mouth for him, shall have no power over him. He shall be made to know the way to life. And it was life such as then he lived, only fuller ; • not spiritual life, nor bodily life, but personal life, embracing all. These distinctions, which we insist so much upon, vanish in the excitation of such a moment. And it is ridiculous to imagine that the hopes of one who speaks thus went no further than delivery from some particular mortal danger that threatened him at the time. Some such danger may have started the train of thoughts and feelings which here run out to so sublime a height, but the expressions here are absolute. He who trusteth in God shall live ; Sheol and Shachath shall have no power over him. We need not stop to discuss how far such feelings are true, and how even death is not death to the righteous. For such is not strictly the meaning of the Psalm. We shall only say that, although to all appearance the Psalm expresses the idea of not dying, yet it may be applied to any who, having died, cannot be held of death. The Psalm teaches that those who have perfect fellowship with God shall not die. It does not go into the grounds of this, as other parts of Scripture do, which show God to be life and giving life ; and that the creature in such fellowship with Him partakes of His immortal strength, and dieth not. It only expresses the relation, and the consequences that flow from it. But anyone in such perfect fellowship cannot die. If death fall upon him, it must be out of the course of things, the result of a special economy, in which that 448 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT which is the natural order is suspended. But when this suspension is removed, things will flow in their accustomed order. He who died under a special economy will Live under the natural law. And hence the words of this Psalm may be very fitly applied to such an One as in Acts iL 31. A superficial criticism used to find in our Lord's proof of the resurrection, taken from the words of God to Moses in ' the Bush,' " / am tJie God of Abraham" an artificiality. His commentary is, God is not the God of the dead, but of the living; and His conclusion, therefore, Abraham shall again live. If I might say so, our Lord's argument is an Old Testament commonplace. It is the argument, so far as it can be so called, of all Old Testament saints. It is the argument of this Psalm and of all the Psalms. What they postulate from fellowship with God is life, — escape from Sheol, not experiencing Shachath ; and if, in fact, they have fallen into the power of these, neither their faith nor their words can be satisfied without release from them. And, again, what their words and their faith require is not an immortality of the soul ; such a thing would have sounded strange to them. They knew of persons only, not souls ; and their faith demanded the life of the whole person. But, in strictness, the argument for the resurrection here is not direct but constructive. It is an argument for immortality, for not dying, — an argument that ignores facts like death ; and only when this fact of death comes in its way does it become modified into an argument for resurrection. The apostle expresses this view when he says : " The body, indeed, is dead because of sin ; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness" (Rom. viii. 10). The hope of Job differed altogether from the hope of this Psalmist ; because Job, when he spoke, was in estrangement from God. And in this life he could not hope for reconciliation ; for his malady, which betokened God's anger, he saw, would be mortal. Yet what his faith, in spite of appearances, made certain to him was, that he would see God in reconciliation and in peaca It is a THE OPERATION OF REFLECTION 449 reuniting that his faith demands. Whether it is of his whole being or no is left by the words rather obscure, though the general drift of the Old Testament would point to the former. But this Psalmist has not words enough to express his present blessedness in union with God, and what he protests against is any interruption of it. His faith demands that his whole spirit and soul and body be preserved entire in fellowship with God for ever. The other Psalms which have been named add little if anything to the details of Ps. xvi. The other point from which immortality was viewed was reflection ; and as this, unlike emotion and faith, which ignored facts, took facts into consideration, it produced the doctrine of a resurrection. It was the prophets who raised and prosecuted this thought specially ; and, as was proper to their office, it was in connection with Israel as a people that they chiefly proclaimed the resurrection. Israel in fellowship with God would have lived for ever ; but, like Adam, Israel sinned and died : " When Ephraim offended in Baal, he died," says Hosea (xiii. 1). And all the prophets downwards are familiar with the idea of Israel's dissolution from which nothing can now save him. But with the sentence of dissolution came also the promise of restitution. Isaiah embodies this hope, in the very image used by Job as unsuitable to man, the image of the tree sprouting again (Ixv. 22), and in plain words : *' The remnant shall return." But his contemporary Hosea, who employs the figure of death, employs also that of resurrection : " Let us return unto the Lord. After two days He will revive us : and the third day He will raise us up, and we shall live in His sight " (vi. 2). And the power of death over them shall be altogether destroyed : " I will ransom them from the power of the grave ; I will redeem them from death : 0 death, I will be thy plagues ; 0 grave, I will be thy destruction ' (xiii. 14). These things are certainly said of the people, for the plural refers to the tribes rather than to individuals. But 89 450 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT the idea of resurrection is very broadly presented, and we wonder whether it is for the first time that it arises, or whether it be not rather an idea, already more or less familiar, applied to a new subject. On the one hand, such miracles as those narrated of Elijah must have powerfully affected men's minds, even although those raised by him ultimately succumbed to death. Such events would at least furnish the imagery used here, and make it both intelligible and very well fitted to inspire hope. On the other, it is certainly first in connection with the tribes and people that the idea of resurrection is plainly expressed, and the individual Israelites share it because Israel shares it. But the idea once struck by the prophet Hosea is familiar to every succeeding prophet ; and whether Hosea used the term raise figuratively or no, succeeding prophets use it literally. In some cases, as in the great prophecy of Ezekiel of the valley of dry bones, we may be in doubt whether the prophet refers to the actual raising of in- dividuals dead, or to the restoration of dismembered tribes, and a renewal of the national life. But even if it is to the latter, his imagery reposes on the familiar thought of individuals rising. The vaUey seemed full of bones, very dry ; but bone came to his bone, and flesh came up upon them, and by the breath of God they lived, and stood upon their feet. If, in the case of Hosea, the idea of the national resur- rection was first, and was transferred to the resurrection of the individual, in Ezekiel the order of thought is certainly the reverse ; the national resurrection reposes on the fully won idea of that of the individual. Again, in the singular prophecy in Isa. xxvi. this is quite as true : " Thy dead men shall live ; awake and sing, ye that dwell in the dust." And in Daniel it is no more said of the people, but of individuals directly, though, from the contested age of Daniel, we cannot be certain how early the passage is : " There shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time : and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be THE WISDOM LITERATURE • 451 found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of tho firmament ; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever" (Dan. xii. 1, 2). While in other passages only a resurrection of Israel is spoken of, and where indi viduals are referred to we have only a resurrection of the just ; here there seems taught a resurrection both of the just and of the unjust. Now, of course, these utterances are of the nature, much of them, of subjective hopes. They are based upon the relation to God — a relation of fellowship and love. This relation, the soul demands, shall not be interrupted. It protests against death. It overleaps Sheol in the vigour of its faith. This is the position of the Old Testament saint. Has his hope been verified ? In Christ it has been verified, in Him as an Old Testament saint, as One who was truly a Holy One. And in Him those united to Him by faith shall have the verification of it also in themselves. The history of the creation presents man living and in true relations with God. This is the ideal condition of man, and the idea of its permanence is implied in the relation. The conception of man is entirely a moral one. This relation to God is the central point. This remaining, all other things are permanent. Such ideas as that the soul is immortal from its nature, or, on the other hand, that the body is necessarily subject to decay from its nature, do not occur. The Old Testament strictly knows nothing of such elements of the being of man ; the living man as a whole person is the subject of its contemplation, and he lives in the continuance of his true relations to God. This is the point of view of the history of creation. It is also the point of view of the Wisdom literature in its earliest stage, the stage of what might be called principles, where only the ideal conceptions of man and the world, and their relations to God, appear. Such conceptions are expressed in proverbial form in these terms : " In the way of rigbteouo- 452 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT ness is life, and the pathway thereof is immortality " ; " The hoary head is a crown of glory ; it is found in the way of righteousness" (Pro v. xii. 28, xvl 31). The E.V. misreads the latter passage, and obscures its teaching by translating " if it be found in the way of righteousness." The meaning is as in the other passage : " The fear of the Lord pro- longeth days ; but the years of the wicked shall be shortened " (Prov. X. 27). Such passages do not refer to cases only; they state a 'principle. To the Hebrew mind this life in the body was the normal life. He had no doctrine of a transcendent place of happiness different from earth, where the principles of God's government, impeded in their flow here by many obstacles, should roll on smooth and straight. He saw these principles realised here. The blessedness of the just, arising from the fellowship of God, was enjoyed here. And in the contemplation of this, the/ac^ of death was ignored. At least this is the point of view in the early Wisdom literature, — in the deep flow of the principles that regulate the relation of God and man, death is submerged. The theory that the doctrine of immortahty was kept hid from Israel in order that the attention of the people might be fastened on the conditions of a moral life here, fails to take into account this point of view from which we must always start. A normal life here was im- mortality. The doctrine of immortality was already given to the people in this conception: life was the existence of the whole man in the body, this hfe was had in fellowship with God, and this fellowship was indissoluble ; for in the conception they had of the world their condition in it truly represented the relations of God to men. Of course, all this was in some respects ideal, and facts were opposed to it. But the doctrine of immortality was given in the idea and in the consciousness of the living saint ; and the task of after revelation was to move out of the course the obstacles that stood in the way of the idea being realised. To us, on the contrary, the obstacles bulk so largely that we begin with them, and we are scarcely •^ble to conceive a condition of the mind that could give PROBLEMS OF PROVIDENCE 453 death a secondary place, or sweep it away in the rush of great principles regarding God and the universe, or sink it in the intense ecstasy of conscious life with God. 7. Problems of Righteousness and their Solution. In many passages of the Old Testament the idea of immortality is connected with the problems of the Wisdom. The hope, the necessity, of immortality appears as the solution of problems which, it was felt, received no just solution in this life. As the Wisdom aimed at detecting and exhibiting the operation of fixed principles in the world and life, it became practically a doctrine of pi'o- vidence in a wide sense. And in a world where moral anomalies were so abundant, a doctrine of providence took oftentimes the shape of a theodicy or justification of the ways of God to man ; and as this justification was seen to be imperfectly comprehended in this life, the necessity was felt of projecting the final issue into a region beyond death. In no nation were the principles and conditions of well-being and misfortune so clearly distinguished as among the Hebrews. The lawgiver set out by laying before the people blessing and cursing. Though the kingdom of God was administered as to its principles in no way different from God's government of other nations, there was this great difference, that there was always present the inspired consciousness of the prophets and teachers of the people, in which was immediately reflected the meaning of God's providence with them. And it is possible that, though the principles of God's government of Israel were the same as those by which He governs other nations, there was a more immediate connection in their case between sin and mis- fortune, than there is among other peoples. There is in all cases the same connection ; but it may be made a question whether, in addition to having the connection clearly set before the people by the prophets, the connection was not more strict and immediate in God's rule of His peopla 454 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT In addition to this general law, the individual was also taught the same lesson. When he sinned, there was immediately, in the ceremonial disability that ensued, a punishment cf his offence. Thus that fundamental connec- tion between sin and suffering being extremely prominent, it took possession of men's minds with a very firm hold And, no doubt, this was intended. The law was a ministra- tion of death ; its purpose was to educate the people in the knowledge of sin and retribution. In the theology of Paul, the law stands not on the side of the remedy, but on the side of the disease. It came in to aggravate the malady — that the offence might abound. It had other uses, and this view of it is not meant to be exhaustive. But as an inter- mediate institution, coming in between the promise and actual redemption, this was one of its effects and purposes. It augmented the disease in the consciousness of the mind struggling with its demands, and perhaps also, as Paul argues, it increased the disease in fact by provoking the sinful mind to oppose it. It revealed both sin and its consequences : " By the law is the knowledge of sin " ; " when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died " (Rom, iii. 20, vii. 9). The covenant of Sinai and its ad- ministration brought out very conspicuously the principles of all moral government. It was natural in this way for a member of the Hebrew State to apply the principle of retribution very stringently and universally. All evil he knew to be for sin, any evil he concluded to be for some sin. Where there was evil, there nmst have been sin to bring it forth. Evil was not an accident, nor was it a necessary outcome of the nature of things ; it arose from the sinful conduct of men : " Affliction cometh not forth of the dust, neither doth trouble spring out of the ground ; but man is born unto trouble, — i.e. bcrn so that he acts in such a manner as to bring trouble upon himself, — as the sparks fly upward" (Job V. 6, 7). This stringent application of the law was more natural in a state of society like that existing in the East tiian it PROBLEM OF CALAMITY 455 would be with us. There, society is simple, and its elements more detached from one another. The tribes live apart, and draw their subsistence from the soil in the most direct way. One class does not depend upon another ; indeed, there are no classes, no such complex and intricate interweaving of relations as in modern society. Hence the incidence of a calamity was generally direct ; it did not pass through several sections, or ramify on all sides, affecting most severely those who were innocent of the evil. The move- ments of life were simultaneous, and a calamity was seen to fall generally where it was deserved. In this way, not in Israel only, but throughout the East, the principle of retributive righteousness was held very firmly : with the man who doeth well it is well ; with the sinner it is ill. This was right under the rule of a just God ; for this rule was particular, and embraced every occurrence. But even in such an approach towards organised society as was made on the settlement of the people in Canaan, this simple faith must have received rude shocks. In the happy times of the early monarchy, indeed, when the kingdom of God was everywhere prosperous, and heathen States on all sides bowed before it, and when justice was administered with equal hand, and society still preserved its ancient moral authority, the principle was receiving continual veri- fication. But in later times, when great heathen monarchies rose in the East and trampled the kingdom of God under their heel, the principle could not but come into danger of question. At first, indeed, the principle itself afforded an explanation of these calamities — they were the first judg- ment of God upon the sin of the people. And, so far as the nation was concerned, the explanation might satisfy the pious mind. But the case of individuals was different. In the fate that overtook the different classes of the people the failure of the principle was most signally manifested. It was the most godly of the nation that suffered the severest calamities. The disloyal, ethnicising party, agree- ing with their conquerors, or at least submitting to their 456 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT idolatries, escaped suffering; while the true theocratic- hearted men, whether those left at home or those carried into exile, were the victims of extreme hardships and in- dignity, both at the hands of their enemies and from their false brethren. And even in regard to the nation, though the sense of the national sinfulness might compose the mind and humble it more deeply before God, there could not but rise occasionally in the heart thoughts of a dis- turbing kind. Though the people had deeply sinned, and though their sin was aggravated by the fact that they had sinned against the knowledge of the truth, yet by com- parison the people of God, though sinful, stood above those idolatrous powers into whose hand their God had delivered them. Already this thought appears in the prophet Habakkuk, when he compares Israel and the Chaldeans, which latter acknowledge no right but force, and no God but their own right hand. And, further, as time wore on under the sorrows of the Exile, and a new generation arose who had not been guilty of the sins that caused the national dispersion, and yet continued to suffer the penalty of them, there arose not only a sense of paralysis and help- lessness, as if they lay under a cruel ban which no conduct of their own could break, but also questionings as to the rectitude of God. Now, these questionings were met in three ways. First, in the prophet Ezekiel, himself an exile, the old concep- tion of the national miity is subjected to analysis. The unity is resolved and decomposed into individuals, and the relation of the individual to Jehovah is declaied to be dii-ect and immediate ; the son does not suffer for the sins of the father, nor the individual for the sins of the nation, — the soul that sinneth shall die. This was an emancipa- tion of the individual from the ban of national sin, and a profound advance towards a spiritual religion. Of course, the prophet's conception is true only in the region of spiritual relation to God ; externally, the individual may be involved in national calamity, but his own conduct is that which determines God's spiritual relation to him. It may SORROWS OF THE GODLY 457 not be quite certain that the teaching of the prophet is presented with all the limitations necessary to it. But great truths are everywhere presented broadly, and the limitations come in their own time. A second hne was that of hope in the future, as we observe it in the second half of Isaiah. The very calamities of the Exile and the apparent dissolution of the nation led to a profounder meditation upon what the people of God was, — what designs Jehovah had in calling it to be His servant, — and a deeper conception of what Jehovah Himself was, and of the scope of His purposes. Thus it became plain what it was to know the true God, and what must yet, in spite of all appearances, be the issue of the fact that there was a true God, and that the true knowledge of Him had been given to Israel, His servant. When we look at the circumstances of the time, at that which was powerful in the world, and at the state of Israel scattered in every land, the faith of this prophet in the destiny of his people becomes one of the most surprising things in the Old Testament. But this was only part of the conception. A judgment was formed of the meaning of the chastisement of the people, and hope found satisfaction in the idea that these chastisements exhausted the nation's sin and atoned for it. The precise form of the prophet's conception, as we saw, is matter of difficulty ; but his general idea, that the sorrows and evils of the Exile, falling on some element in the people, removed their guilt, is plain. But a third line is also followed. In the second half of Isaiah the sorrows of the people are due to their sins. Their sorrows are the expiation of their sins, and the national unity is still firmly retained. But in another book the distinction is drawn between the godly and the sinful among the people, and the question is raised, What is God's purpose in the chastisements which He inflicts upon the godly ? This question is put and answered in the Book of Job. Though Job be an individual, it is scarcely possible to avoid regarding him as a type of the godly portion of 458 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT the nation ; the character as drawn in the book is broader and larger than that of an individual. The answer given to the question is, that the afflictions of the righteous are a trial of their righteousness, and when borne with steadfast- ness they issue in a higher religious condition and a closer fellowship with God, through a more perfect knowledge of Him. " I had heard of Thee with the hearing of the ear : hut now mine eye seeth Thee" (xlii. 5). These were thoughts which consideration of the sin of the nation and its sufferings suggested. Of equal, if not greater, interest were thoughts suggested to the mind by the sufferings and history of the individual. The general principle, that it was well with the righteous and ill with the sinner, was seen to be broken in upon on two sides. The wicked were many times observed to be prosperous, and, on the other hand, the righteous were plagued every day. Now, relief was sought from this anomaly of God's providence in various ways. First, the pious mind sought to comfort itself and other minds in similar distress, with the consideration that the triumphing of the wicked was brief; it was but a momentary interruption to the general flow of God's providence, which would speedily be removed. This is the consideration in some of the Psalms. Or, at any rate, whether brief or prolonged, it would come to an end. The true relation of the wicked to God would be manifested sometime in this world ; they would be destroyed, with terrible tokens of His displeasure. This is taught in other Psalms. In the Book of Job this solution no longer satisfies, it is a solution not found universally valid. The wicked not only pass their life in prosperity, but go down to the grave in peace : " They spend their days in wealth, and in a moment {ie. in peace) go down to the grave. He is borne away to the grave, and men keep watch over his tomb. The clods of the valley are sweet unto him, and all men draw after him, as there were innumerable before him " (chap. xxi. 3 2). When this point is reached there is evidently only the alternative, to leave the question nnsolved, or to project the solution beyond death. Secondly, IDEAS OF THE PSALMISTS 459 another consideration which afforded comfort to the righteous mind was a deeper analysis which he was able to make of that which was to be called true life and true prosperity and blessedness. In all the passages where the question is raised of the outward prosperity of the wicked, the righteous comforts himself with the thought that he has the blessedness of God's favour, — except in the Book of Job. Even in the xxxviith Psalm the pious mind exhorts others : " Deliglit thyself in God, and He will give thee the desire of thy heart." Yet in this Psalm this delight in God is not regarded as sufficient or altogether satisfying to the mind ; there is the demand also that the anomaly of the prosperity of the wicked should be removed, and that the righteous should be externally prosperous. In Ps. Ixxiii. the pfbus mind dwells more upon its own blessedness in possessing the favour of God : " Nevertheless, I am continually with thee " ; but the problem of providence is still found a trouble, which occasions great disquietude to the mind. And a solution of it is anxiously sought. In two remarkable Psalms, however, the xlixth and xviith, the problem seems to have been entirely overcome. In the first of these two passages the author comes forward with a philosophy of the question, and in the other he calmly surveys the prosperity of the wicked almost as if it were a thing of course. This life belongs to the wicked, but there is another which belongs to the righteous. In both tliese passages the solution seems thrown into the region beyond death. And this is also the solution in the xixth chapter of Job, although the conclusion is there reached in a some- what different way. One is almost compelled to think that both Ps. xlix. and Ps. xvii. are later than the Book of Job. 8. Ideas of an After-Life in Psalms xvii., xocxvii., xlix., Ixxiii. A brief reference may be made to each of these typical passages. The simplest resolution of the problem is that seen in Ps. xxxvii. There the condition of the perplexed 460 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT mind is not very aggravated, and the relief administered is simple. The difficulty of the prosperous wicked and the afflicted righteous man was felt, but the difficulty was simply a practical one. The fact that many wicked were rich and prosperous, and that righteous men were in distress, led to envy and irritation on the part of the just. And relief is administered in the form of an advice often repeated, with a reference to the great principle of moral government : " Fret not thyself because of evil-doers . . . cease from anger, and be not wrathful . . . fret not thyself in any wise to do eviL" And the consideration urged is that the prosperity of the wicked is hrief] it is an inter- ruption to the general scope of things, but it is speedily overcome by them, and the current flows on in its accustomed channels : " Fret not thyself because of evil- doers : for they shall soon be cut down like the grass . . . the wicked plotteth against the just ; but the Lord laugheth at him, because He seeth that his day is coming," And, on the other hand : " Trust in the Lord and do good, and thou shalt inherit the earth." The Psalmist satisfies himself and others by affirming the general principle, and by saying that the exception to it is of short duration. This is a practical solution, sufficient when the evil has gone no further than to occasion discontent. The difficulty that there is exception at all, does not bulk largely in presence of the acknowledged brevity of its duration. The other side of the question, the felicity of the righteous in God, is touched upon, though but slightly ; it is touched upon in the course of an exhortation to keep the faith even amidst present confusions, because out of these the true moral order will speedily arise : " Delight thyself in God, and He shall give thee the desires of thine heart." This is one way of reading the Psalm. It may be questioned, however, whether it is sufficient. It makes the Psalmist's doctrine somewhat abstract, and hardly does justice to the manifest eschatological references in it, as that the meek shall inherit the earth. The ' meek ' is technical language for the godly ; and itiherit the earth refers to the final condition, when the SEVENTY-THIRD PSALM 461 kingdom of God has come. The Psalm, therefore, appears to be a real eschatological national Psalm ; comforting the righteous with the hope of the nearness of the day of the Lord, and the triumph of the right. In Ps. Ixxiii. an advance is made both in the problem and in the solution. The problem is felt to be more serioua The Psalmist's mind is in a more disquieted condition. The question is no more a mere practical one, but has become a real religious and speculative difficulty, what the writer calls an amaly so great that his faith in God was in danger of being overthrown : " As for me, my feet were almost gone. Behold, these are the ungodly, who prosper in the world. . . Verily I have cleansed my heart in vain." Only after much anxiety had the Psalmist been enabled to return again to peace. In the sanctuary of God a light was shed upon the fate of the wicked which enabled him to walk without stumbling. And just as the problem is more seriously grasped than in Ps. xxxvii., so the solution is also profounder. This solution consists in a contrast between the condition of the wicked and that of the righteous, with the necessary consequences of this con- dition. The whole is thrown into the form of an analysis of their respective relations to Jehovah. The prosperity of the wicked is a thing merely apparent; it has no sub- stantiality, because of the necessary attitude of Jehovah to sin. The prosperity of the wicked is as " a dream when one awaketh " ; so, when " Jehovah awaketh. He will despise their image." The relation of God to them must display itself ; and when it displays itself they will perish amidst terrible manifestations of His anger. The righteous, on the other hand, is ever with God : " I am continually with Thee : Thou wilt (or, dost) direct me with thy counsel ... It is good for me to draw near unto God ... all they that go far from Thee shall perish." The essential thing ia the relation of men to God. This contains in it the fate of men. And this fate will yet reveal itself. The Psalmist considers that this fate, so far as the wicked is concermed, will reveal itself in their visible 462 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT destruction. It is, indeed, possible that both in this Psalm and in Ps. xxxvii. the prophetic conception of the day of the Lord may be present to the Psalmist's mind, and the destruction of the wicked be that which will overtake them on that day. This is one of the main points, indeed, to which, in studying these Psalms (xvii, xxxvii., xlix., and Ixxiii.), attention has to be directed. Is the Psalmist contemplating his own death ? or is he contemplating that change which will supervene at the coming of God, on the day of the Lord and the judgment, when the sinners of the people perish, but the godly pass into the peace of God ? However this be, the Psalmist sees in the relation of men to God the certain issue of their history. The question is of interest, however, whether he does not pursue the destiny of the righteous beyond death. It is possible that he might have satisfied himself with stating the general principle, with leading back the destiny of the righteous and the wicked alike to that which is really essen- tial, their relation to Jehovah ; and assuring himself that the destiny of all will be determined by this. And some scholars understand the words " thou wilt take me to glory " in this sense ; meaning that God would take the saint to His care and protection. But (1) the passages adduced by Ewald and Riehm to support this sense are hardly in point. And (2) the same phrase occurs in Ps. xlix., where it can hardl}' refer to protection and providential care in this life. It is therefore more natural, I think, to regard the phrase as having a reference to that which is beyond death ; at any rate, it must have a reference to the eternal relation of the saint to God. And the words, " my flesh and heart faint and fail," not unnaturally refer to death. The hope of the believing mind lies in its relation to Jehovah : " Whom have I in heaven but thee ? and on earth I desire nought beside Thee." And his assurance that it shall be ill with the wicked, is based equally upon their relation to God. P& xlix. is even more remarkable. Its reference to the condition after death, in regard both to the wicked and to FORTY-NINTH PSALM 463 the righteous, can scarcely be mistaken. First, the Psalmist begins with a promise to all men, high and low, rich and poor, that he will clear up a mystery. Whatever his theme and the lesson he is going to teach may be, it is no more a truth which he is wringing out of circumstances ; it is no more a thing reached only by a struggle, and attained only as a necessity of faith. It is an objective doctrine, an assured principle. Again, though he speaks in the first person, what he says applies to all men. His proposition is, ' Why should I fear in the evil day ? ' He has no reason to fear ; and this feeling of security arises from his contemplation of mankind. He sees that all men die ; this is the universal fate : wise men die, the brutish and foolish perish together. So far as this is concerned, the lot of men is the same, and common to all. Thirdly, the question to which he presents a solution is that of the prosperity and riches of the wicked ; and also, on the other hand, the misery of the good, the calamities of the evil day. The riches of the wicked cannot deliver them from death. None can redeem his brother, or give unto God a ransom for him so that he should live and not see the pit. He shall soe it ; for all men die. And none can carry his riches to the grave with him. Thus the riches and prosperity of the wicked do not avail the wicked ; he as well as poorer men comes to the grave at last. Still, if this were all that could be said, there would be an ad^'alltage in riches — in this life, at least. If all die, and if this were the end, the wicked, if rich, would be better than the righteous, if poor. But it is just at the point when death intervenes that the difference appears. Man, being in honour, without understanding is like the beasts that perish. Like sheep, the ungodly are laid in Sheol, and Death shepherds them • their end is to be for the consumption of Sheol. It is probable that there may be a transference to Sheol of that which takes place in the grave. There is no likeliliood that the passage teaches that the deceased persons in Slieol are consumed, so as to cease absolutely to subsist. But the point, on the one hand, is that at death the wicked, however 464 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT prosperous in life, really become the prey of death — they may be compared to the lower creatures ; while, on the other hand, the righteous live : " God shall redeem me from the hand of Sheol : for He will take me." Sheol, the place of the dead, is escaped ; the hand of God takes the righteous soul across its gulf to Himself. Now, these points in this passage are remarkable : first, what the author teaches is put forward as an objective principle, no more a mere demand of faith, but a dogma of rehgious behef ; second, it is a doctrine which assumes and is based upon the acknowledged fact that death is uni- versal, wise and foolish ahke falHng a prey to it ; third, the doctrine itself touches the point of the prosperity of the wicked in this life, and the evils that befall the righteous ; and, fourth, the solution is thrown entirely into the region beyond death. The destiny of men is looked at as a whole, both in this life and as extending beyond death. And this destiny depends on their relation to God. The wicked's prosperity in this life cannot save him from death ; and death to him remains death. The evil are gathered Hke a flock into Sheol ; death is their shepherd. The Old Testament teaches no aggravations in death. Death is itself the highest aggravation, — i.e. death and continuance in the state of death, according to the popular notions of what this was, — Death shepherds them. But God redeems the righteous from the hand of Sheol ; for He takes him. The phrase ' he will take me ' looks like a reminiscence of the language used of Enoch, — " He was not ; for God took him" (Gen. v. 24). The date and the authorship of the xlixth Psalm is doubtful It might be supposed that this remarkable conception would scarcely be early. The passage belongs to the writings of the Wisdom, as the introduction shows. And it is quite conceivable that in certain circles of the people a more advanced faith might have prevailed than was to be found among the bulk of the nation. At all events, the plain sense of a passage ought not to be made dependent on questions of date or authorship. It is possible that Ps. xviL may have the same mean- SEVENTEENTH PSALM 465 ing. It draws the same kind of distinction between two classes of men : those whom it calls men of the world, whose portion is in this life, whom God loads with earthly joys and blessings ; and another class, whose portion God is Himself, This character of the two classes furnishes the key to their destiny. The Psalmist, though he appears to regard the prosperity of the wicked in Ufe as a thing natural and of course, their portion being in this life, anticipates their destruction eventually at the hand of God. But for himself, he will " see God's face in righteous- ness." The language in which the Psalmist expresses his hope is remarkable, though of somewhat uncertain mean- ing : " I shall behold Thy face in righteousness : when I awake, I shall be satisfied with Thine image." The phrase ' in righteousness ' might mean * through righteousness,' more probably ' in the element of righteousness.' The ex- pression ' thine image,' 1|I!J^^^, is remarkable. The word is used to express what we call the species or genus of a thing : " Thou shalt not make unto thee any generic likeness of any- thing in the heavens " (Ex. xx. 4). When such a thing is seen, the beholder must be face to face with it — in its very presence, and looking on it. The language is thus in favour of an immediate vision of God ; as in Deuteronony it is denied that any 'n of God was seen in His manifesta- tions of Himself on earth (Ex. iv, 12). In the xixth chapter of Job, too, the assurance of Job, that he shall see God, is one having reference to a state after death. If this sense be adopted, then the expression ' when I awake' would have a quite natural sense, though a very large one. It is very improbable that the word should mean merely ' when I awake out of sleep in the morning,' or 'every morning'; as if the meaning were that each morning, as soon as consciousness returned, his joy in God would return ; and he would realise God's image, and be satisfied with it. Neither is the sense very natural, . ' when I awake out of this night of darkness and calamity now lying on me, in the morning of prosperity ' (Eiehm). On the other hand, if the word refer to the history 3© 466 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT of man after death, the passage seems to go further than even Ps. xlix., and to refer to the awakening out of death, when God has brought in His perfect kingdom, which departed saints would live again to share. This doctrine is certainly found in Daniel ; and from the date of that book onward it is the faith, at least, of the Pharisees. It is quite probable that it may have been cherished in Israel long before the age of Daniel, if that book be of the late date to which it is now usually assigned. It is certainly also found in Isa. XX vi. 19 — a passage the age of which is very obscure — " Thy dead shall live, my dead ones shall arise. Awake and cry for joy, ye dwellers in the dust : for a dew of light is thy dew, and the earth shall bring forth the dead." The heading of the present Psalm ascribes it to David. Such headings are not very good evidence ; though, being in the first book, this Psalm is probably not a very late one. But again our duty is to accept the natural sense of words, leaving questions of date and authorship to take care of themselves. 9. The Idea of an After-IAfe in Job. In endeavouring to ascertain what hopes of immor- tality were entertained by Old Testament saints, how these hopes arose, and on what they were grounded, special attention must be given to the Book of Job. Some- thing might be said even for the propriety of beginning with it. For the opinion that once prevailed, that the book was of Arabic origin, or, at least, not of native Israehtish extraction, is now altogether obsolete. The work has every mark of a genuine Jewish authorship. And though the belief that once also held the field regarding thf extreme antiquity of the book cannot now be maintained in face of modern criticism, yet even if we admit the actual authorship to be pretty late, the scene and the circumstances are those of very early times. Job himself is represented as living in the patriarchal age ; and it is the author's aim to exhibit events and opinions as they existed then. It is, no THE BOOK OF JOB 467 doubt, quite possible that the beliefs and the condition of society in his own days may sometimes form the back- ground of his picture, or even give some of its colour to the hght which he throws over it. But probably such a thing, if it be the case, will very little interfere with the truth of the representation of the ideas ; for we find sub- stantially the same views expressed on this subject in such Psalms as the xvith and xviith, and in the very late prophet Malachi. It is difficult to know how far to distinguish between the author of Job and his hero. For, on the one hand, as we must take very much of the speeches and opinions put into the mouths of Job and his friends to be due altogether to the author, and certainly to be sym- pathised with by him, while yet, on the other, he shows very great power in giving oljjectivity to his personages and maintaining very distinctly their individualities, it will always remain somewhat doubtful how far he shared in the views which he makes his characters express. In order to realise fully the meaning of the passages bearing on this subject in Job, it will be of use to refer to the general contents and the problem of the book. (1) As it now lies before us, the book consists of five parts. First, the prologue, in prose, chaps, i.— ii. This de- scribes in rapid and dramatic steps the history of Job, his piety and the prosperity and greatness corresponding to it ; then how h^3 life is drawn in under the operation of the trying, sifting providence of God, through the suspicions suggested by the Satan, the minister of God's providence in this aspect of it, that his godliness is but selfish (" Does Job serve God for nought ? "), and only the natm-al return for the unexampled prosperity bestowed on him. If stripped of his prosperity, he will renounce God to His face. These suspicions bring down two severe calamities on Job, one depriving hirai of all external blessmgs, children and possessions alike ; and the other throwing the man him- self under a loathsome and painful malady. In spite of these afiiicLions, Job retains his iiitegiity, and imputes no wrong to God, Then the advent of Job's three frienda 468 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT is described, EKphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite, who, having heard of Job'a calamities, came to condole with him. Second, the body of the book, in poetry, chaps, iii.— xxxL, containing a series of speeches in which the problems of Job's afflictions and the relation of external evil to the righteousness of God and the conduct of men are brilliantly discussed. This part is divided into three cycles, each con- taining six speeches, one by Job and one by each of the friends (chaps, iii.— xiv., chaps, xv.— xxi., and chaps, xxii.- xxxi.), although in the last cycle the third speaker, Zophar, fails to answer. Job, having driven his opponents from the field, carries his reply througli a series of discourses, in which he dwells in pathetic words upon his early prosperity, con- trasting with it his present misery and humiliation. He ends with a solemn repudiation of all the offences that had been insinuated or might be suggested against him, and with a challenge to the Almighty to appear and put His hand to the charge which He had against him, and for which He afflicted him. Third, a youthful bystander named Elihu, the repre- sentative of a younger generation, who had been a silent listener to the debate, now intervenes, and expresses his dissatisfaction with the manner in which both Job and his friends had conducted the case, and offers what is scarcely to be called a new solution of the question, but some argu- ments which the friends had overlooked, and which ought to have put Job to silence (chaps, xxxii.— xxxvii.). Fourth, in answer to Job's repeated demands that God would appear and solve the riddle of his life, the Lord answers Job out of the whirlwind. The Divine Speaker does not con- descend to refer to Job's individual problem, but in a series of ironical interrogations asks him, as he thinks himself capable of fathoming all things, to expound the mysteries of the origin and subsistence of the world, the phenomena of the atmosphere, the instincts of the creatures that inhabit the desert ; and, as he judges God's conduct of the world amiss, he is invited to seize the reins himself and gird him THE IDEA OF THE BOOK 469 with the Divine thunder and quell the rebellious forces of evil in the universe, chaps. xxxviii.-xlii. 6. Job is humbled and abashed, and lays his hand upon his mouth, and repents his hasty words in dust and ashes. No solution of his problem is vouchsafed ; but God Himself effects that which neither the man's own thoughts of God nor the representations of his friends could accomplish ; the Divine Speaker but repeats in another form what the friends had said and what Job had said in a sublimer way, but now it is God who speaks. Job had heard of Him with the hearing of the ear without effect ; now his eye sees Him, and he abhors himself, and repents in dust and ashes. This is the profoundest rehgious depth reached in the book. Then, fifth, comes the epilogue, also in prose, chap. xlii. 7—17, which describes Job's restoration to a prosperity double that of his former estate, his family felicity, and long life. (2) If, now, we pass from this outline of the contents of the book to inquire what is the idea of the book or the design of it, we must not expect to find this in any particular part of the poem, but partly in the senti- ments uttered especially by Job, partly in the history of mind through which he is made to pass, and partly in the author's own contributions, the prologue and epilogue. Job is unquestionably the hero of the work ; and in the ideas which he expresses, and the history through which he passes, taken together, we may assume that we find the author speaking and teaching. The discussion of the ques- tion of the meaning of suffering, between Job and his friends, occupies by far the largest part of the book ; and in the direction which the author causes this discussion to take, we may see revealed the main didactic purpose of the book. When the three friends, the representatives of former theories of providence and of previous views in regard to the meaning of evil and the calamities which befall men, are reduced to silence, and driven off the field by Job, we may be certain that it was the author's purpose to discredit the ideas which they represent. Job himself 470 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT offers no positive contribution to the doctrine of evil ; his position is negative, and merely antagonistic to that of the friends. But this negative position, victoriously maintained by him, has the effect of clearing the ground ; and the author himself supplies in the prologue the positive truth, where he communicates the real explanation of his hero's calamities, and teaches that they were a trial of his righteousness. It was, therefore, the author's purpose in his work to widen men's views of the providence of God, and set before them a new view of suffering. This may be considered the first great object of the book. This purpose, however, was in all probability no mere theoretical one, but subordinate to some wider practical design. No Hebrew writer is merely a poet or a thinker. He is always a teacher. He has men before him in their relations to God. And it is not usually men in their individual relations, but as members of the family of Israel, the people of God. Consequently, it is scarcely to bo doubted that the book has a national scope. The authoi considered his new truth regarding the meaning of affliction as of national interest, and to be the truth needful for the heart of his people in their circumstances. But the teach- ing of the book is only half its contents. It contains a history, and this history furnishes the profoundest lesson to be learned. It exhibits deep and inexplicable affliction, a great moral conflict, and a victory. The author meant the history which he exhibits and his new truth to inspire new conduct and new faith, and to lead to a new issue in the national fortunes. In Job's sufferings, undeserved and inexplicable to ^him, yet capable of an explanation most consistent with the goodness and faithfulness of God, and casting honour upon His steadfast servants ; in his despair, bordering on unbelief, at last overcome ; and in the happy issue of his afflictions, — in all this Israel should see itself, and from the sight take courage and forecast its own history. Job, however, is scarcely to be considered Israel, the righteous servant under a feigned name ; he is no mere parable, though such a view is as early as the Talmud. JOB AND DEUTERO-ISAIAH 471 Without doubt, there is a connection between the second half of Isaiah and the Book of Job. The linguistic affinities are manifest. And in both the problem is the same, the sufferings of the righteous servant of the Lord. But ' My servant Job ' is scarcely the same as * My righteous servant ' in Isaiah, although in Job there may be national allusion. The solution of the problem differs in the two. In Job, sufferings are a trial of faith which, successfully borne, will issue in restoration. In Isaiah they are vicarious, borne by one element in the nation in behalf of the whole, and issuing in the national redemption. Two such solutions can scarcely be entirely contemporaneous. That of Isaiah is the profounder truth, and may be later. But Job is hardly to be identified with the ' servant of the Lord.' It is the elements of reality that lie in the tradition of Job that make him of significance to Israel. It is these elements of reality common to him with Israel in affliction, common even to him with humanity as a whole, confined within the straitened limits set by its own ignorance, wounded to death by the mysterious sorrows of life, tormented by the uncertainty whether its cry finds an entrance into God's ear, alarmed by the irreconcilable discrepancies which it seems to discover between its necessary thoughts of Him and its experience of Him in His providence, and faint with longing that it might come unto His place and behold Him, not girt with majesty, but in human form, as one looketh upon his fellow, — it is these elements of truth that made the history of Job instructive to Israel in the times of affliction when it was set before them, and to men in all ages. (3) Two threads, therefore, requiring to be followed, run through the book. One, the discussion of the problem of evil between Job and his friends ; the other, the varying attitude of Job's mind towards heaven, — the first being subordinate to the second, and helping to determine it. Both Job and his friends advance to the discussion of his sufferings and of the problem of evil, ignorant of the true cause of his calamities, as that is laid before us in the 472 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT prologue, — Job strong in his sense of innocence, and the /friends armed with their theory of the righteousness of God, who giveth to every man according to his works. The principle with which the three friends came to the consideration of Job's calamities was the principle that ' calamity is the result of evil-doing, as on the other hand . prosperity is the reward of righteousness. Suffering is not an accident or a spontaneous growth of the soil : man is bom unto trouble as the sparks fly upward ; there is in human life a tendency to do evil, which draws down on men the chastisement of Heaven. The form in which the principle is enunciated by Eliphaz, from whom the other speakers take their cue, is this : where there is suffering there has been sin in the sufferer ; not necessarily deadly sin, though where the suffering is great the sin must have been heinous. Not suffering, however, in itself, but the effect of it on the sufferer, is what affords a key to his fundamental character. Suffering is not always punitive ; it is far oftener disciplinary, designed to wean the man, who is good though still a sinner, from his sin. If he sees I in his suffering the monition of God, and turns from his evil, his future shall be rich in peace and happiness, — so happy is the man whom God corrects, and who despises not the chastening of the Almighty. His latter estate shall be more prosperous than his first. If he murmurs or resists, he can only continue under the multiplying chastisement which his impenitence wiU provoke. For " irritation killeth the foolish man, and indignation slayeth the silly one' (V. 2). Now this general idea is the fundamental principle of moral government, the expression of the natural conscience, — a principle common more or less to all peoples, though perhaps more promient in the Shemitic mind because all ideas are more prominent and simple there, — not suggested to Israel first by the law, but found and adopted by the law, although it may be sharpened by it. It is the funda- mental idea of prophecy no less than of the law ; and, if possible, of the wisdom or philosophy of the Hebrews more PROGRESS OF JOB's MIND 473 than of either. The friends did not err in laying down this general principle, they erred in supposing it a principle that would cover the wide providence of God. Job agreed with his friends that afflictions came directly from the hand of God, and also that God afflicted those whom He held guilty of sins. But his conscience denied the imputation of guilt, whether insinuated by his friends or implied in God's chastisement of him. Hence he was driven to conclude that God was unjust ; that He sought occasions against him, and perverted his right. The position of Job appeared to them nothing else but impiety, as it came very near being ; while theirs was to him mere falsehood, and the special pleading of sycophants in behalf of God, because He was the stronger. Within these two iron walls debate moves with much brilliancy, if not strictly of argument, at least of illustration. The progress of the argument is not important to us meantime, the other thing, namely, the progress of Job's mind in his relation to heaven, being the thing in which for our present purpose we are interested. There is one remark only which may be made. To a reader of the poem now it appears strange that both parties were so entangled in the meshes of their preconceptions regarding God as to be unable to break through to broader views. The friends, while maintaining their position that injustice on the part of God is incon- ceivable, might have given its due weight to the persistent testimony of Job's conscience as that behind which it is impossible to go. They might have found refuge in the reflection that there might be something inexplicable in the ways of God, and that afltliction might have some other meaning than to punish the sinner, or even to wean him from his sin. And Job, while maintaining his innocence from actual and overt sins, might have bowed beneath the rod of God, and confessed that there was such sinfulness in every human life as to account for the severest chastise- ment from heaven, or, at least, have stopped short of charging God foolishly. Such a position would certainly be taken up by an afflicted saint now ; and such an explana- 474 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT tion of his suffering would suggest itself to the sufferer even though it might be in truth a false explanation. But perhaps all this was designed on the part of the author. The role which he had reserved for himself was to teach the truth on the question in dispute, and he accomplishes this by allowing his performers to push their false principles to their proper extreme. The friends of Job were religious Orientals, men to whom God was a Being in immediate contact with the world and life, effecting all things with no intervention of second causes ; men to whom the idea of second causes was unknown, on whom science had not yet begun to dawn, nor the conception of a Divine scheme pursuing a distant end by complicated means, in which the individual's interest may suffer for the larger good. The broad sympathies of the author and his sense of the truth lying in the theory of the friends, are seen in the scope which he allows them, in the richness of the thought and the splendid luxuriance of the imagery — drawn from revelation, from the immemorial consent of mankind, the testimony of the living conscience, and the observation of hfe — with which he makes them clothe their views. He felt it needful to make a departure from a position too narrow to confine the providence of God within ; but he was not unmindful of the elements of truth in the theory which he was departing from, and, while showing its insufficiency, he sets it forth in its most brilliant form. Then in regard to the position maintained by Job, that God was unjust — the extravagance of his assertions was occasioned mainly by the extreme position of his friends, which left no room for his conscious innocence along with the rectitude of God. Again, the poet's purpose, as the prologue shows, was to teach that afflictions may fall on a man out of all connection with any offence of his own, and merely as a trial of his righteousness. Hence he allows Job, as by a true instinct with respect to the nature of his sufferings, to repudiate all connection between them and sin in himself. And, further, the severe conflict into which the INNER MOVEMENT OF THE DRAMA 475 Buspicions of the Satau brought Job could not be exhibited without pusliing him to the verge of ungodliness. But in all this the poet is true to the conditions of his time. Under the Old Covenant the sense of sin was less deep than it is now. In the East, too, and especially in the desert, men speak boldly of God. Such a creation as Job would be an anomaly in Christian drama. But nothing would be more false than to judge the poet's creation from our later point of view, according to a more developed sense of sin and a deeper reverence for God than belonged to antiquity. It is in complete contradiction to the idea of the book to assume, as Hengstenberg, for example, does, that Job's spiritual pride was just the cause of his afflictions, and the root of bitterness in him which must be killed down ere he could become a true saint. The fundamental idea, on the con- trary, is that Job before his afflictions was a true saint. This is testified by God Himself, and is the radical idea of the author in the prologue, and the fundamental conception of the drama. Job's complaints, indeed, proved that be was not perfect or sinless. But this was never supposed. Yet it was not his sin that caused his afflictions. They were the trial of his faith, which, maintaining itself in spite of them, and becoming stronger through them, was rewarded with a higher felicity. Now it is this inner movement of the drama that is of interest to us here — not the outward controversy between Job and his friends regarding evil, but the successive attitudes taken by Job's mind towards God. This is of extreme interest in the general, and it is of more interest in the question with which we are immediately concerned. (4) It is scarcely necessary to call attention again to the character which the book has in common with all other parts of the Old Testament — its religioiis character, the word being used in the strict sense. The poem is not philosophic or moral. Job in all his utterances starts from himself, from his own case and experience, and not from any aspect which men or the world without him presented He at times includes others, even all mankind, 476 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT in his misery and trial ; he had seen or heard of their straits and sorrows too, and he draws the colours with which he paints his own misery sometimes from the common sorrows of the race. But his position is properly personal first ; what draws his attention to the world and the relations of God to it is his own case. A jar had occurred there, a dis- placement of his own relations to God. Formerly he had been at peace with God ; suddenly, through a single step of reasoning, his sufferings, he beholds God in anger with him. How far his belief that God was angry with him, as he concluded He was from the construction he put upon his sufferings, ahenated his mind from God, is not easy always to perceive. That his sufferings would perfectly ahenate his mind was the prediction of the Satan, and his hope in plaguing him. He was disappointed. But the very problem of the book is this ultimate condition which Job's heart will settle into ; and what the chief part of it is occupied in showing is the ever -varying, wavering attitude of the sufferer's spii'it, sometimes standing firm and sometimes swaying as if it would altogether faU, until at last it settles into a composure that nothing can shake. Hence the greater part of Job's speeches are monologue, or speech to One absent and resolutely refusing to hear. The friends are present, but their presence is subordinate. Their shallow theories occasionally irritate and provoke a sarcasm : Te are the people, and wisdom will die with you ; their perverse attempts at consolation sometimes in- crease the solitude and wretchedness of the sufferer, and he pathetically beseeches them to be silent : Miserable com- forters are all of you; would that ye were silent, and it should he your wisdom. But they are too insignificant to detain him, he has to do with Another ; and their words form but starting-points from which the spirit begins its appeals to Him. Like one sick who has been drawn into half-consciousness by the entrance of some visitor, and utters some words of apparent recognition, but straightway relapses and soliloquises with himself, or speaks to someone absent who is thought near, Job is for a moment drawn THE MENTAL CONDITION 477 into controversy as each new comforter delivers himself of his solution of the mystery of the universe ; but speedily he turns from them, or, though before him, they make no impression on his eye, which is fascinated by the awful form of Another, or strained so as to pierce the deepest heavens that it might come to His place. And thus to Him he pours out his heart, pleading his former relation of love to Him : Oh, that I were as in months past ! ; seeking to startle Him with the certain consequences of his treatment : Thou will seek me, hut I shall he gone ; calhng passionately that He would come and solve the mystery of his troubles, and sinking into hopelessness when He refuses to appear or to hear him ; provoked apparently by this obstinate silence, and flinging indignant words against Him who uses His omnipotent power to crush a moth ; looking all around and proclaiming all on earth to be impenetrable darkness ; and yet again, in the midst of all this darkness and con- fusion, groping his way back to Him, hke a child who has fled in tears and anger from the hand of a chastening father, sure that He is his Eedeemer and will yet show that He is this, and will return to him and yearn over the work of His own hands. It is needful to understand the exact mental condition out of which the thoughts of im- mortahty spring, in order to estimate properly the thoughts themselves. And nothing is further from the truth than to regard the hopes of immortality expressed in Job as the results of philosophical reasoning. They are the broken cries, after the light of God's face, of one to whom around God the clouds and darkness seem to have immovably settled. Before the friends' arrival, we find only one allusion from Job to the other world : " Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither" (i. 21) — an allusion that indicates nothing but the forced composure with which he looked forward to it. But when the friends arrived, their amazement and dumb sympathy, combined with his protracted anguish and those regrets which he many times utters so pathetically over. a too brief life, — all this made him break out in the bitter lamentations of 478 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT chap, iii., where we have from him a full picture of the state of the dead. It is curious that his pictures vary with the point of view from which they are seen. Chap, iii. is a paroxysm of human sorrow, which the sight of sympathising men brought upon him. And from the side of the wretchedness of human life, at least such as his, the state of the dead seems the profoundest blessedness : "Why died I not from the womb? Coming out of the womb, why gave I not up the ghost t Why did the knees hold me up? And the breasts that I should suck? For now should I have lain down and been quiet ; I should have slept : then would there have been rest to me With kings and counsellors of the earth, Who built desolate places for themselves ; Or with princes who had gold. Who filled their houses with silver : Or as a hidden untimely birth, I should not bej As infants that never saw light. There the wicked cease from troubling; And theie the weary are at rest. The prisoners rest together ; They hear not the taskmaster's voice. The small and great are there alike ; And the servant is free from his master "(iii, 11-19). That which makes misery and sorrow overpowering is not the pure evil, but that element of tenderness which the memory of former things mixes with it. Had he not been cruelly cared for, he would have died ; and the stillness and majesty of death ravish his sight and carry him away. His words become calm, and he forgets his anguish, thinking himself one of the happy dead. That rest which he would have enjoyed is unbroken and profound like deep sleep ; royal and in state ; princely and with the rich of the earth; broken by no sharp pains, but uncon- scious and still as the unmoved faces of infants bom before their time ; common to all, the evil and the good, the wicked ceasing their unquiet life of evil, and the weary being at rest. The two ideas most prominent in this picture of the condition of the dead are the splendour and pomp JOB IN ALIENATION 479 of death, where all the great who played famous parts in life congregate, and even the meaner men are admitted to their fellowship ; and the freedom and the painlessness of it, for it is the common refuge of all who are wretched here. These two things are in contrast with the squalor and degradation of Job's present condition, and with the un- bearable anguish of his disease. All that can fairly be inferred from such a passage is the behef in the existence of a place of the dead, where good and evil alike are assembled ; but the colours in which it is painted are borrowed largely from the grave, and the condition of the body in death. With reference to the problem of the book, it may be asked : Does Job's mind show any progress in this chapter towards disowning God to His face ? And it may be replied that it does. For where he alludes to God, the nature of his allusion seems to show the beginnings at least of ahenation ; he will not name Him, but speaks indirectly, as of one distant, Whi/ gives He light to him that is in misery ? And though it is cliicfly an outburst of pure human grief that we have in chap, iii., and while it might be admitted to be excessive and therefore sinful, without being a sin of the kind called disowning God to His face, — as it can hardly be contended that the similar complaint of Jeremiah, who uses almost the same words, formed a sin of that kind ; yet it is not improbable that the whole complaints are tinged with that same religious feeling wliich appears in the only allusion to God in the chapter. The next allusion to the place or state of the dead adds nothing to that already given, except that the brevity of this life is lamented and contrasted with the unalterable condition of death : ** My days have been swifter than a weaver's shuttle, And are spent without hope. . . . The cloud consumes and is gone, So he that goeth down to Sheol shall come up no mora. He shall not return again to his house, And his place shall know him no more ^ (tu. 6). 480 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT The sleep of death is unbroken and eternal. No doubt human feeling and regret might utter such words even still, having in view the present manner of earthly life . to which none shall ever return. And it may be diffi- cult to infer with certainty from such language any- thing about Job's belief. Yet the language here and in chap. xiv. : "Till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, Nor be roused out of their sleep," hardly permits us to suppose that the hope of a resurrection was an element of his ordinary faith. Again, in the chapters from which these passages are taken, the progress of his mind in alienation from God is decided. He has no hesitation in declaring the treatment meted out to him to be injurious and unjust, and demands of the friends whether he be not able to say whether he be justly afflicted or no : " Is there falsehood in my tongue ? Cannot my taste discern what is perverse?" And then he passes on to a description of the sad condition both of all men and of himself in particular, rising into a sarcastic remonstrance with Heaven over its treatment of him, as if he was and must be coerced : "Am I a sea, or a monster of the sea, That Thou settest a watch over me?" In his indignant bitterness he travesties the viiith Psalm to express the Deity's incessant occupation with him : "What is man, that Thou shouldst magnify him, Ajid set Thy thoughts upon him ? That Thou shouldst visit him every morning. And try liim every moment? How long wilt Thou not look away from me 7" He even ventures, with incredible boldness, to ask the Almighty, supposing he had sinned, how such a thing could affect Him, and to reproach Him with His too watchful scrutiny of wretched men : JOB AND GOD 481 •K I have sinned, what do I unto Thee, Thou observer of men ? And why wilt Thou not pardon my transgression, And take away mine iniquity 1 " Here we have the beginning of a singular distinction which the mind of Job begins to draw in the Divine Being. There is an external God and there is a hidden God ; the one but an arbitrary Omnipotence, the other the Father of Mercies. To the endless harpings of the three, who were ' the people,' that God was just, Job ironically replies : Of course He is, / kTww that it is so ; because no one can vindicate his right against omnipotence: " How can a man be just with God ? If he should desire to contend with Him, He could not answer Him one of a thousand. Wise in heart, and strong in power : Who can oppose Him and prosper? . , . Though I were righteous, my mouth would condemn me : Though innocent, it would pervert my cause. I am innocent ! " But though he is innocent, this arbitrary Might has deter- mined to hold him guilty : ** I know Thou wilt not hold me innocent. I have to be guilty ; why then should I weary myself in vain t Though I wash myself with snow, And cleanse my hands with lye ; Thou wilt plunge me into the ditch, And mine own clothes shall abhor me." That God holds him guilty is the interpretation put by Job upon his afflictions : " I will speak in the bitterness of my soul. I will say unto God, Do not hold me guilty ; Show me wherefore Thou contendest with me." And we might almost imagme that the Satan's prediction had come true, and that Job had renounced God to His face, when he proclaims the government of the world to be indiscriminately cruel : " He destroys the righteous and the wicked. When the scourge slays suddenly. He mocks at the distress of the innocent"; 31 482 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT or when, in a passage in which he reaches the climax of extravagance, he asserts in the face of God that all the skill and care and seeming affection which He lavished on his creation and early years, were but in order that He might the more ingeniously torture him as now He does; ** Didst not Thou make me flow as milk, And thicken me like the curd? Clothe me with skin and flesh, With bones and sinews interweave me. Life and favour Thou didst f(rant me, And Thy providence preserved my spirit. Yet these things Thou didst hide in Thy heart; I know that this was in Thy mind ; If I sinned, Thou wouldst observe me, And wouldst not absolve me of my sin. Were I wicked, woe unto me ; Were I righteous, I must not lift up my head. Filled with shame, and the sight of my misery, Should I lift it up. Thou wouldst hunt me like a lion, And show Thy wonderful power upon me " (x. 10-16). Yet even here, where he reaches perhaps the highest point of alienation to which he comes, there is no direct renuncia- tion of God. For even amidst these loud and bitter cries there are heard undertones of supplication to the Unseen God, the ancient God of his former days, the real God who is behind this menacing angry form that now pursues him: — " Thou wilt seek me, but I shall be no more " ; " Thy hands have fashioned me and made me, and yet Thou dost destroy me " ; " Oh that a clean might come out of an unclean " ; "and dost Thou open Thine eyes upon such a one, and bringest me into judgment with Thee?" (vil 21, x. 8, xiv. 3, 4). The thoughts that had taken complete possession of Job's mind were that his afflictions were direct inflictions on him by God in anger, and that the afflictions were of such a kind that they must very speedily prove final. God's anger would pursue him, he saw well, even to the grave. We must consider him a man in middle life, older, perhaps, than some of the younger of his comforters, yet much younger than the eldest of them. And thus he saw HID IN SHEOL 483 Iiimself cnt ofif in the midst of his days. And over the grave absolute darkness hung before him. It was : *• A land of darkness and of death shade ; A land of gloom, like the thick darkness ; Of death shade, and disoraer. Where the light is as thick darkness " (x. 21, 22). Many times all these thoughts gather together and press upon him, and he falls into a paroxysm of sorrow. Yet it is out of these very paroxysms that new and bolder thoughts spring, and that new hopes are engendered, which, if they are transient, yet by their momentary glory still the wild motion of the heart and soften the feelings towards Heaven. One of the most remarkable of these is in chap. xiv. There he breaks into a sorrowful wail over the wretchedness of man, and his inherent weakness, — man born of woman is of few days and full of trouble, — and the rigid treatment of him by God — " Oh that a clean might come out of an unclean ; and dost Thou open Thine eyes upon such a one?"; and over the complete extinction of his hfe in death, as complete as that of the waters which the sun sucks out of the pool, more to be lamented in this than are the trees which, if cut down, will sprout again. The very extremity of the misery of man, so awfully reahsed in himself, forces into his mind the thought that there might be another life ; that when God's anger was passed, which now consumed him. He might remember His creature and awake him to hfe and blessedness : " Oh that Thou wouldst hide me in Sheol ; that Thou wouldst appoint me a set time and remember me" (xiv. 13). Yet the thought is but a momentary flash of light, serving only to show the darkness, and in a moment is swallowed up by the gloom about him, — " if a man die, shall he live again ? " Still the phantom, for he will not believe it to be quite a phantom, is too glorious to lose sight of, and he will, in spite of reason and experience, pursue it, — " All the days of my appointed time would I wait till my change came ; Thou wouldst call, and I would answer ; Thou wouldst yearn 484 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT after the work of Thy hands." Such would be the meeting of the creature and his reconciled Creator, whose anger had turned away. The thought that dawns upon Job here is certainly that of a new life in the body; for it is to this alone tha^ the rising objection applies : If a man die, shall he live again ? And however momentary the thought be, yet it is once started. And it is certainly probable that the author of the passage was himself not unfamiHar with such thoughts. Else he could hardly have let his hero give expression to them. But what is always to be observed is the ground on which the hope of resurrection or any hope is foimded ; it is the complete reconciliation and reunion of the creature with God. Here there is estrangement ; in Sheol the separation is wider. As the xlixth Psalm expresses it, in this brief life upon the earth the living man is a sojourner, a guest with the living God ; but his visit ends, and he departs at death. But what both the creature and the Creator yearn for is complete fellowship — that their joy may be full ; and this fellowship must be of the whole person — body and spirit. Between this passage and the even more remarkable one in chap. xix. there is a step which cannot be omitted. In chap. xiv. the hope of meeting God can hardly sustain itself at all. It is little but a rainbow that melts again into the dark cloud. The hope consists of two elements, the overpassing of God's anger, and the reunion of the creature with Him in blessedness, which depends on that. But this overpassing of His anger, how shall it be hoped for ? Job's solution of this comes from that double repre- sentation of God which has been alluded to. The outer God is pursuing him, but the Unseen heart of God sym- pathises with him. The outer God holds him guilty, but the consciousness of God knows his innocence. He appeals from God to God. He asks God to procure the recognition of his innocence with God. The outer God — which is God in that aspect of Him that is the cause of Job's sorrows — wiU pursue him to death, and his blood will lie upon the earth. But he can appeal to the earth not to cover it, as JOBS WITNESS IN HEAVEN 485 innocent blood, till it be avenged ; and that there is an Avenger in heaven, he knows : "My face is inflamed with weeping, And a shadow of death is on my eyes; Although no violence ia in my hands, And my prayer is pure. Oh earth, cover not thou my blood, And let my cry have no resting-place. Even now, behold, my witness is in heaven, And He who can attest me is on high. My mockers are my friends. My eye droppeth unto God ; That He would do justice to a man with Qod, And between a man and his fellows 1 Give a pledge, I pray Thee, Be thou my surety with Thyself " (xvi. 16, xvii. 3). He weepingly implores God to do him justice with God ; to procure that God would acknowledge his innocence. He prays God to give him a pledge that He will use means with God that his righteousness be confessed. This is one of the most . singular passages in the book. Job is not able to present to himself otherwise these two things, namely, the thought that his afflictions are proof of God's anger, and show that God holds him guilty ; and his own consciousness of his innocence, and assurance that God is also aware of it. This was the only way in which an Oriental mind could express such an idea. We take refuge in a scheme of providence, a great general plan, the particular developments of which do not express the mind of God towards individuals. But to the Oriental, God was present in each event; and each event befalhng the individual expressed God's feeling towards him. The other expression of confidence in chap. xix. is reached in the same way. It follows that hardest of passages in which Bildad, with concealed insinuations, pictured the awful fate of the sinner. Under his terrible picture he wrote, These are the habitations of the iviched, and held it up before Job. It was meant for him. The terrible distemper, " the first-born of death," which consumes the 486 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT sinner's limbs, was too plain an allusion to his leprosy to be mistaken by him. The brimstone that burns up the sinner's habitation is also the fire of God that fell on Job's cattle. The tree, withered at the roots and cut down, reminds Job too easily of his own wasted state, and the sad calamities that had lopped off his children from him. He is the sinner. To every sentence of his oration Bildad adds, ' Thou art the man.' Against this application Job's whole soul protests and maintains his innocence. But while maintaining it he realises with new distinctness his dreary isolation, God and men having alike turned against him ; which he describes in most pathetic words. Yet so profound and unalterable is his conviction of his innocence, that as with a desperate leap out of the depth of his misery he rises to the assurance that his innocence shall yet be revealed, that God will publicly declare it, and that he himself shall hear the declaration and see the Eedeemer that makes it. The joyful anticipation of this overcomes him, and he faints with longing — " My reins are consumed within me." It is the lowest ebb of sorrow that precedes the flow of this full tide of faith. God not only afflicted him with trouble, but removed from him all human sympathy. There is something more breaking to the heart in the turning away of men from us, than in the acutest pain. It crushes us quite. We steel ourselves against it for a time, and rise in bitterness to it and resentment. But it breaks us at last, and we soften and are utterly crushed. And this seems the way, whether men frown on us with justice or no. So there comes on Job, when he sets before himself his complete casting off by men, by his friends and his household, and even by the little children who mocked his attempts to rise from the ground, a complete breakdown, and he bursts into that most touching of all his cries : " Pity me, 0 my friends ! Why do ye 'persecute me like God? " But his appeal is vain. Those Pharisaic muscles wiU not move. The rigidity of that religious decorum no human feel- ing shall break. Secure as they are in their principles and THE AFTERMAN 487 their piety, their countenance shows but austere reprobation of their wicked friend. They will be more austere because he is their friend, and because they feel it a sacrifice to be austere. And, looking into their hard eyes and set faces, Job reads only their unalterable verdict against him. So he turns away from them, and the desire suddenly seizes him to make his appeal to posterity, to record in writing his protestation of his innocence, to grave it in the rock that it might last for ever, and that all generations to the end of time might read, when they Kstened to his story, the solemn denial of his guilt. " Oh that my words were written, that they were graved upon a book ! That they were inscribed with an u'on pen and lead in the rock for ever ! " The words are not the words about his Redeemer which follow, but his protestation of his innocence. But if that were possible, how small a thing it would after all be ! He needs more, and shall have more. His invincible confidence in his innocence makes him feel that behind all the darkness there looks a face that shines upon him. There is a living God who knows his innocence, who shall yet declare it to him, to men, publicly, visibly, — whom his eyes shall see. That life behind lived in God's fellow- ship cannot go for nothing, — these endearments are not for ever broken off. " I know that my Redeemer is living : whom I shall see, and mine eyes shall behold Him ; and my reins faint within me." The passage is of much difficulty. The main points are these : — ver. 25, " But I know that my Redeemer liveth, and in after time, as an afterman, will stand upon the earth." Job dies under his afflictions, unacknowledged and held guilty ; but there is one that liveth, who stands in such a relation to him that he calls him his Redeemer. Whether ^^^ mean next of kin, i.e. one on whom as next of kin it devolves to take up his cause and right it, or more generally one who will right him and deliver him from the wrongs which he suffers, matters very little. The thing is that there is such a Deliverer, and that He lives, though Job dies ; and that when Job is dead this Redeemer will stand 488 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT upon the earth. The word t^in>? may mean an afterman^ either as one after me, taking my rights, or simply as one coming after me. In the one case it repeats the idea of p^^, in the other the idea of liveth. And the word "ISV, diist, seems used for the earth, not without reference to it as the place where the sufferer himself lies in death. The ideas contained in the verse are simply these — that he has an avenger, a sustainer of his rights; that this Eedeemer liveth, dieth not ; and that He will manifest Himself upon the dust, whither He returns to uphold the cause of the afflicted innocent, and declare his innocence. "And after my skin which is destroyed — this here, Even without my flesh shall I see God : Whom I shall see, And my own eyes behold, and not another's; And my reins faint within me." Two things were needed for his vindication — one, that his innocence should bo publicly proclaimed among men. This is expressed in ver. 25. But how small a thing that would be ! His sorrow lay chiefly here, that God was estranged from him. His heart and flesh cry out for the living God. The other half of his assurance concerns himself — he shall 866 this Eedeemer, who shall appear on his behalf. The expression riiT^Qi33 is a relative clause, and nxT seems used Sei/cTt/cco? — pointing to his body : " After this my skin, which they consumed " ; and ''"l^'*3pi is the apodosis — " then without my flesh." What Job looks for is an appearance of God, a vision of Him for himself, an inter- position of Him on his behalf. He faints with longing for that joyful sight. Now the question, of course, is much agitated among interpreters — When does Job anticipate this appearance of God to be made on his behalf ? Various views are contended for, which all depend on the different renderings of ''!K'30? in verse 26. Some render, ' And from my Jiesh shall I see ' ; that is, I in my flesh — looking from it — shall see God. This translation leads to two views : (1) That Job shall see God even though he be reduced to a mass of fle^^ — his sMn gone through his THE HOPE OF SEEING GOD 489 disease ; or (2) that, endowed with new flesh, he shall see God — in a new resurrection body. Now the first of these views seems out of the question : a distinction between his skin and his flesh is inconceivable. Elsewhere he says, " my bone cleaveth to my skin and to my flesh " (xix. 20). Hia skin and his flesh cannot be put in antithesis, but must mean the same thing. This seems also to go against the second view, and it is improbable that Job would have called his new body, had he imagined such a thing, my Jlesh, or that he would have called his present body his skin merely, without adding his flesh also. Others render, * and away from my flesh shall I see God* — i.e. and without my flesh. This, again, is taken diflerently — (1) by some in a com- parative sense, without my flesh — a mere skeleton, but of course still alive in this life ; and (2) by others absolutely — stripped of my flesh, disembodied, no more in this life. In the one case Job is assured he shall see God in this life, however great the ravages be which disease has made on him ; in the other, he shall see God only after this life is ended. Now, I think that between these two views the truth lies, and that no other sense is possible. On this alternative the following remarks may be made : (1) It is above all things to be noticed what to Job's own mind is the main point. It is that he shall see God. The connection of the whole is : But I know that my Eedeemer liveth, and ... I shall see God. The question, whether here or elsewhere, is not the main point. His affhctions were to Job the seal and token of God's anger, — in being afflicted Job felt God's face withdrawn from him. God was imputing sins to him. And so were his friends, arguing on his calamities. "What Job is assured of is, that God knows his innocence — is still in friendship with him. And this invincible assurance is the basis of the other invincible assurance, that this relation of God to him will yet be manifested. It will be manifested to his own joy — his eyes shall see God, and to the conviction also of men. Nothing speculative mixes in the question. It is purely a personal faith. The future or the present is 490 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT indifferent so far as the true point of Job's position is concerned. (2) A second point is this. I think it must be conceded that Job does not anticipate restitution to health and prosperity in this life. Neither in this chapter nor anywhere does he express such an opinion, but always, and consistently, an opposite one. He calls such a view, when expressed by his friends, mockery (xvii. 2). In one of the most remarkable passages of the book, chap. xvi. 18, he says : " O earth, cover not my blood," — alluding to the idea that the blood of one unjustly slain, like himself, will not cover, but lies on the face of the earth, appealing for vindication. Here he anticipates that he shall have to die an imjust death. Immediately after these words he adds : " Even now, He who shall witness for me is in heaven, and He who shall testify to me is on high." Now this might seem a revocation of his view that he shall die a martyr's death ; but it cannot be so from what follows. A few verses further on he says of his friends : ' They change the night into day — i.e. their promises are, that the night of affliction will soon give place to a day of restitution. To which he answers : " If I have said to corruption. Thou art my father ; to the worm, Thou art my mother ; where then is my hope ? It shall go down to the bars of Sheol " (chap. xvii. 12). To the same effect is his desire in xix. 23, that his protestations of his innocence should be graven in the rock as a testimony to all generations when he is no more. And that the new idea of a restitution to prosperity does not appear in chap. xix. seems proved by what follows. In chap, xxiii. 14 he says that God will " perform, or complete, the thing appointed for him " — i.e. will bring him to death through his malady. And, again, in his last words, chap. xxx. 23, he says: "For I know that Thou wilt bring me to death." To the former passage, xxiii. 14, he adds — " and many such things are with him." Dying an unjust death, as Job now does, is a common occurrence in God's providence. And this idea appears in aU the SEEING GOD AFTER DEATH 491 chapters that follow the xixth. Job misses the Divine rectitude in the ]iistory of men, — men die in affliction though they be righteous, and the wicked die in peace though they be sinners, chaps, xxiii— xxv. Hence, in chap. xxiv. 1, Job asks why men do not see God's judg- ment days — His days of assize, when He shows 1 1 is rectitude in governing the world. The point of the speeches after chap. xix. is that this rectitude of God fails to manifest itself during the whole life of some men. Such an argument could hardly have been carried on if Job had, in chap, xix., risen to the assurance that God would visit him with prosperity and health in this life. (3) This seeing of God, therefore, which Job anticipates, if it take place in this life, will not be accompanied by restoration to health and prosperity. But could such a thought have occurred to Job ? Job's disease was to him the very seal of God's estrangement from him — his calam- ities were God's hiding His face from him, and proofs of His anger. Hence, in chap, xiv., he contemplates being hidden in Sheol till God's wrath was past, and then being recalled to a new life. And it seems impossible that Job could have conceived God reconciled to him while He continued to afflict him with his malady. These arguments seem to point to the conclusion that Job does not anticipate this appearance of God on his behalf in this life — that is, prior to his death through his disease. There are many individual points that go in the same direction. The word Goel naturally suggests a reference to the vindicator of the deceased. Admitting that it would not necessarily do this if it stood alone, it remains that no account of the word Ti, liveth, can be sug- gested which does not imply an antithesis between Job dead and his living Goel. It is a great mistake to regard any of Job's utterances in any of his speeches as extravagances, or to suppose that he is allowed by the author even to contradict himself, or to rise to an idea in one verse out of all connection with its surrounding context, or which he dismisses as not further 492 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT to be pursued On the contrary, he usually flings out ideas first, generally or vaguely, which he resumes and pursues till he has given them full expression. This makes it probable that the conception of a new life thrown out in chap. xiv. is not a mere isolated idea, like a flash of light swallowed up for ever in the darkness. It is rather the commencement of a progress which finds its climax in chap. xix. This progress has three stages, first, that of presentiment in chap. xiv. : — " If a man die, shall he live again ? Thou wouldst call, and I would answer Thee ! " Second, that of prayer in chaps, xvi.— xvii. : — " My witness is in heaven, and He who shall testify for me is on high. Mine eye droppeth tears unto God that He would maintain the right of a man with God, and between a man and his fellow." These are words which follow the other words : " 0 earth, cover not my blood." And, third, that of assur- ance, in chap. xix. : " I know that my Eedeemer liveth — whom I shall see." (4) If, as seems necessary, we assume that Job expected this appearance of God on his belialf not previous to his death, we must not attempt to fill up the outlines which he has drawn. We must take care not to complete the sketch out of events that have transpired long after his day, or out of beliefs reposing on these events that are now current among ourselves. The English Version has done 80 at the expense of the original. The main point of Job's assurance is, that God wiU appear to vindicate him, and that he himself shall see Him in peace and reconcilia- tion. It is for this that he faints with longing. This is the point that absorbs his attention. And, probably, this so absorbed his imagination that the surroundings of the event were hardly thought of. These surroundings hardly form a positive part of his assurance at all. We must lay no stress on them as parts of his conception or vision. We should be wrong to say that Job contemplates a purely spiritual vision of God. And we should be wrong to say that he contemplates being invested with a new body when he sees God. He was a living man when he projected NATURE OF JOBS VISION OF GOD 493 before his own mind this glorious vision ; and probably he fancies himself to see it, when it is realised, as a living man. This seems likely, because he threatens his friends with God's anger when He appears. But he had not in his mind at the time any thought of the necessary pre- liminaries— such as being invested with a new body. He sees the coming appearance of God, and he sees himself present with it, and he fancies himself a living man. It is a fundamental thought, then, in Job's mind, that God's anger will pursue him to the grave. Eestoration in this life is an illusion, a false issue, which the friends hold up before him. But he knows better. The certainty which he expresses is a certainty which concerns him after death — without his flesh he shall see God He shall see Him ; and his eyes, not another's, behold Him. Other eyes may see Him too, — but his shall. Job's sorrow was that God was unseen, that He eluded his search — " Oh that I knew where I might find Him." But this hiding of Himself shall not always continue ; and the thought of seeing Him overcomes him, so that he cries out : " My reins faint within me. Now it is necessary to consider what Job was, — in his righteousness] this is the very basis of all, — a just man, fearing God and eschewing evil. A man in union with God — living by faith on God. The writer puts him outside of the Israelitish community ; he is not one of the cove- nant people. He has not much about him to fall back upon, no public life embodying God's relations to men, no great society of believers on whose experience to lean and draw support from, nothing but his own history — his consciousness. For, whatever supports one may have in what is without, in ordinances and a church life and a visible organisation, as proofs to him that there is a God — a God of grace, and that He has revealed Himself to men, and is dwelling among them in very truth, — all these things but help to form his consciousness — are but outer food to be turned into personal nourishment, and must be so used ; and one's own 494 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT history and experience may be in extreme circumstances enough, just as it is in all cases necessary. Further, looking merely at the things here said, they are very singular, they are all concrete things, and not general ; but if turned into generals, we hardly yet know more.- First, there is One who upholds the cause of men, who shall yet stand upon the earth and declare of everyone according to his deeds. There is a Eedeemer, a righter of men from the wrongs and sorrows of the world and the malice of Satan. This shall be public, before the eyes of all. What this man reaches through his troubles, and affirms of his own case, must be true of all. Second, there shall be to the righteous a complete reunion with God Estrangements, whether explicable or no, shall be recon- ciled, and the eye of the just shall see God. The question must be put, — Does Job contemplate the vindication of himself before men and his own vision of God as contemporaneous ? There seems no certain answer to be returned to this question. In the Old Testament it is ideas and things that appear, not times and seasons. It is fragments, not wholes. Here, two things are certainly affirmed with irrefragable certainty : A public confession by God of the just before the world, and a union of the just with Himself in blessed vision. That the things are contemporaneous may not be here taught. Nor can we conclude with certainty in what condition the sufferer thought himself to be when seeing his Eedeemer. On the one hand, the Vindicator shall rise upon the dust — and even without his flesh Job shall see Him. This implies that not in this life or with this body he shall behold Him. But, on the other hand, the goel and afterman stands upon the earth, and there might be a return here to the bold anticipation of the xivth chapter. If there is not, then it is left to us to put the two anticipations together and make a whole out of them. Once more, if we conceive Job's case in its true breadth — who, at bottom, was hi ? accuser, the Satan ; who ultimately it is that, as Judge and Vindicator, shall stand TRADITIONAL INTERPRETATION 495 upon the earth, He to whom all judgment is committed, being the Son of Man ; what eyes it is that are needful to see Him who came in the flesh, even eyes of flesh, when to those who look for Him, He shall come the second time, for salvation — we shall have the elements for a construction greater than that yet reared in the Old Testament. In treating the Old Testament scientifically, we show the materials of the fabric not yet reared ; in treating it practically, we may even exhibit the fabric fully reared. The vision of his meeting God in peace so absorbed Job's mind, that the preliminaries which would occur to a mind in a calmer condition, and which immediately occur to us, were not present to his thoughts. Yet I do not know but that to Job's mind all the religious essentials were present which we associate with the future life. And though the ancient and traditional interpretation of the passage was in many respects exegetically false, and imposed on Job's mind our more particular conceptions, it seems to me that it seized the true elements of Job's situation in a manner truer to the reality than can be said of some modern expositions. The situation of Job differed from that of the Psalmists whose words we have in Pss. xvi., xlix., and Ixxiii. These men were, when they spoke, in fellowship with God. What they demand is the continuance of it. But Job had lost it. This saint has a double difficulty to overcome. His invincible faith in God's relation to him at heart, in spite of a darkness which will last all this life, enables him to overcome it, and to rise to the assurance that this estrange- ment of God shall be removed, and that he shall see Him in peace. This is a very profound faith. 10. The Hope of an After-Life in relation to the ideoi of Life and Death. The Old Testament view of Immortality is a very large one. It embraces a variety of elements whicli re- quire careful study, and which may seem at first obscure. It may be best understood if we look at these three points 496 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT in particular : — first, the Old Testament view of death ; secoud, the Old Testament view of life ; and, third, the reconciliation of the two — or the way in which life over- comes death. It might seem to be more natural to speak first of life, but it may conduce to clearness if the question of death be put first. On such questions as life, death, the tody and the soul, there are several witnesses who offer us their testimony. There is science ; there is speculation, ancient and modern ; and there is Scripture. We naturally compare their testi- monies. This is inevitable. And on comparing them, or any two of them, say science and Scripture, it may turn out that they do not agree. But there is an important preliminary question regarding the witnesses — -Are they witnesses of the same kind ? The question is not whether the one is more or less credible than the other, but whether they really be witnesses that speak to the same things ; whether, though they all speak about the world and man and the body and soul, they do not speak of these looking at them from quite different points of view. If the latter is the case, these witnesses, though giving different testimonies regarding these subjects, may not be in conflict. What students of the Old Testament have rather to complain of is, that its testimony on all matters which are also matters of science is virtually suppressed, through the assumption that it is a witness of the same kind with the scientific witnesses, and that its testimony moves in the same plane. Hence the trepidation lest there should be contradiction, and the rash haste to effect a harmony. The maxim that the Bible and nature having the same Author cannot contradict one another, in itself a right maxim, may become mischievous if we set out with unjust notions of the two, or assume that the Bible and science deliver testimony within the same sphere. The result is to lead to a comparison of science as the interpreter of nature with Scripture, to attempts at harmony, to explana- tions sometimes forced ; in the course of which it happens either that scientific results are denied, or said to be so VIEW OF DEATH 497 immature that nothiug can be founded on them, or else such a haze is thrown around Scripture that practically all meaning is denied to it. The latter is usually the case ; for in this conflict theology generally suffers a defeat, and the result is scarcely less disastrous to Scripture than the open ascription of error to it. For while its authority may be formally upheld, it is made to be so obscure that on a large class of subjects it cannot be taken into any practical account. Now, unquestionably science and Scripture look at all the things on which they speak in common from different points of view. Science busies itself, whether it speak of the world or of man, with a physical constitution under physical law. This is an idea unknown to the Old Testa- ment. In its view the world is a moral constitution, all the phenomena of which illustrate moral law and subserve moral ends. Now it is of great importance to keep this general distinction before our minds. It would be of great utility to go through Scripture under the guidance of this general principle which pervades it, collecting all that it says about the world or man, before bringing its testimony into any comparison with what science says. We might find that though the testimonies were very different, yet Scripture in making moral affirmations regarding the universe did not contradict science in making physical affirmations. And we should always be justified in saying of any apparently physical affirmations which Scripture makes, that to make such affirmations is not its direct object. Such physical statements are only the vehicle or indirect means of making moral statements. (1) As to death. The Old Testament means by that what we ourselves mean when we use the word. It is the phenomenon which we observe, and which we call dying. But in the Old Testament this, so to speak, contains two things, death itself or dying, and the state of the dead. Now, on the one hand, all parts of the Old Testament indicate the prevalence of the view that at death the person who dies is not annihilated. The person who is dead has not ceased 32 498 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT to exist, though he has ceased to liva But, on the other hand, death is not merely the separation of body and soul, the body falling into decay and the soul continuing to liva The Old Testament does not direct its attention to the body or the soul so much as to the person, and the person who dies remains dead. Death paralyses the life of the person. The person who has died continues dead. He descends into the place where all dead persons are con- gregated, called in the Old Testament Shcol, and in the New Testament Hades. The dead person is there not non- existent, but dead, and all the consequences which we observe to follow death here pursue him there, — he is cut off from all fellow .ihip with the living, whether the living be man or God. Of course, the Hebrew view of death is not materialistic. Just as in the history of creation God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, just as the body is represented as com- plete while not yet inhabited by the soul, which was drawn from elsewhere and entered the body ; so the soul leaves the body in death, but does not become extinct. Yet the Old Testament does not call that which descends into Sheol, the place of the dead, either soul or spirit. It is the deceased person. And this person, though dead, was to such an extent still existent, that he was supposed capable of being evoked by the necromancer, as in the case of SamueL The person still subsisted, though dead. Again, the Hebrew view is far from being akin to the philosophic theory, which held the body to be the spirit's prison-house, from which when set at Uberty the spirit rejoiced in a fuller life, and could expand its faculties to a greater exercise of power than was possible to it when cramped in the narrow material cell. Such a view of the body is far from being Scriptural. But, on the other hand, we must equally dismiss from our minds ideas which Christianity has made familiar to us, — ideas of a culmination of the spirit at death into moral per- fection, and the drifting away of all clouds which obscure STATE OF THE DEAD 499 the face of God to it here on earth. This view is the end, the result, of the development and the struggles of faith which we observe in the Old Testament. But it must not be assumed at the beginning of them. Dismissing, then, all these ideas from our mind, we have to adhere to the representations in the Old Testament. And the point that requires to be kept firm hold of is, that the person who dies remains dead, not merely in the sense that he does not live on earth, but in every sense ; life is paralysed in whatever element of our being it may be supposed to reside. The state of the dead is a con- tinuance, a prolongation of death. A few passages may be cited to illustrate what was thought of the state of those dead. {a) There are certain strong expressions used at times in the Old Testament regarding death, from which it might be inferred, indeed, that it was believed that the existence of the person came to an end absolutely, e.g. (Ps. cxlvi. 4) : " His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth ; in that very day his thoughts perish " (Ps. cxlvi. 4) ; "0 spare me, that I may recover strength, before I go hence, and be no more " (Ps. xxxix. 14); " Why dost thou not pardon my transgression ? for now shall I sleep in the dust ; and thou shalt seek me earnestly, but I shall not be" (Job vil 21). " For a tree hath hope, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again ; but man dieth, and wasteth away : man giveth up the ghost, and where is he ? Man lieth down, and riseth not ; till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep " (Job xiv. 7). But these are merely the strong expressions of despondency and regret over a life soon ended here, and that never returns to be lived on earth again. The very name and con- ception of Sheol, the place of the dead, is sufficient answer to the first impression that they produce. The word Sheol, as has been said, is of uncertain meaning ; but it probably is connected with the root that signifies to gape or yawn, and may mean a chasm or abyss, and thus ditfer little in mean- ing from om- own word Hell, connected with the word to 500 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT be hoUoiu. A word often used in parallelism with it is pit, and in the New Testament abyss. This place, where dead persons are assembled, is represented as the opposite of this upper world of light and life ; it is spoken of as deep down in the earth : " Those that seek my soul, to destroy it, shall go down into the lower parts of the earth " (Ps. Ixiii. 9) ; or it is under the earth, " the shades tremble underneath the waters" (Job xxvi. 5). Corresponding to this it is a land of darkness, as Job says : " A land of darkness, as darkness itself ; without any order, and where the light is as darkness" (x. 22). Of course there is no formal topography to be sought for Sheol. It is in great measure the creation of the imagination, deep down under the earth, or under the waters of the seas. It is the abode of departed persons, the place appointed for all hviug. The generations of one's forefathers are there, and he who dies is ' gathered unto his fathers.' The tribal divi- sions of one's nation are there, and the dead is gathered unto his people. Separated from them here, he is united to them there ; and if even his own descendants had died before him, they are there, and he goes down, as Jacob to his son, to Sheol mourning. None can hope to escape entering among these dead personalities : " What man is he that liveth, and shall not see death ; that shall deliver his soul from the hand of Sheol?" (Ps. Ixxxix. 48). (h) We have seen that, as death consists in the withdrawal by God of His spirit of life, and as this spirit is the source of energy and vital force, the person- ality in death is left feeble. All that belongs to life ceases except bare subsistence. Hence Sheol is called Abaddon, * perishing ' ; it is called cessation. The persons there are still and silent as in sleep. They are called shades. The condition is called * silence ' : " unless the Lord had been my help, my soul had dwelt in silence" (Ps. xciv. 17). It is the land of forgetfulness : " the living know that they must die : but the dead know not anything. Also their love, and then- hatred, and their envy, is now perished " (Eccles. ix. 5) ; " Art thou become weak as one of us ? " is the SHEOL AND MORAL DISTINCTIONS 501 salutation with which the mighty king of Babylon is greeted by the shades. Yet this passage in Isa. xiv. re- presents the dead as having a kind of consciousness of themselves and others, a memory of the past, and as enjoying a kind of subsistence, which, though not life, is a dim reflection and shadow of life upon the earth. The social distinctions that prevail on earth are continued in Sheol. Shadowy kings sit upon imperceptible thrones, from which they are stirred with a flicker of interest and emotion to greet any distinguished new arrival. Ke- spectable circumcised persons refuse to mingle with the uncircumcised. But all this, it can be readily seen, is partly poetry and partly effort of the imagination. It is not doctrine. It is the product of the imagination operating on the circumstances connected with death. The grave suggests a deep cavernous receptacle as the place of the dead. The sleep of death causes them to deem it a land of stillness and silence. The flaccid, powerless corpse makes them think of the person as feeble, without energy or power. Only this amount of certainty seems deducible, that the dead persons still in some way subsisted Death puts an end to the existence of no person. (c) My impression is, as has been stated, that so far as the Old Testament writings are concerned, there appears nowhere any distinction between good and evil in this place of the dead. Sheol is no place of punishment itself nor of reward. Neither is it divided into any distinct, retributive compartments. The state there is not blessed- ness nor misery. It is subsistence simply. There is a distinction drawn in the Old Testament between the righteous and the wicked. But it is not a distinction in regard to their condition in Sheol. It is a distinction anterior to Sheol, — a distinction according to which the righteous do not fall into Sheol at all, as will appear immediately. (d) There is one more point in regard to the dead that is of importance. Connection with the world of life is 502 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT completely broken. The dead man cannot return to earth, nor does he know anything of the thmgs of earth ; even the fate, happy or miserable, of those he was most bound up with, is unknown to him : " His sons come to honour, and he knoweth it not ; they are brought low, and he per- ceiveth it not of them" (Job xiv. 21). Yet, with the strong belief in the existence of the personalities in Sheol, there was not unnaturally a popular superstition that they could be reached, and that they could give counsel to the living. The belief probably was not that the dead must have more knowledge than the living, from the mere fact of their having passed into another state. It was not thought that there must be wisdom with great Death. More likely the dead to whom recourse was had were persons who were eminent when living, such as prophets or great ancestors, and who might still be supposed capable of giving counsel or light to the living in their perplexity. This appears to be the meaning of Saul's desire to consult Samuel. The prophet Isaiah, however, ridicules the idea : " Should not a people seek unto their God ? should they seek for the living unto the dead?" (viii. 19). But the main point is that the relation between the deceased person and God was held to be altogether severed. This was what gave death its significance to the religious mind, and caused such a revulsion against it, culminating in such protests as that in Ps. xvi. Now these points regarding death and the state of the dead perhaps are hardly to be called Scripture teaching ; they are rather the conceptions lying in the popular mind which Scripture presupposes, and which are made the foundation on which what may more fairly be called Scripture teaching is reared. But all kinds of men are represented in Scripture as giving expression to these sentiments, the pious as well as others. They are elements of the national mind. They form, in fact, the convictions against which the faith of the pious struggles ; and in this struggle really lies the contribution made to the doctrine of immortality in the Old Testament. How general these con. VIEW OF UFB 503 notions are may be seen from Pss. vi., xxx., and Hezekiah'a prayer, Isa. xxxviii. In the first it is said, " Keturn, 0 Lord, deliver my soul : for in death there is no remembrance of Thee ; in Sheol who shall give Thee thanks ? " In the second, " I cried unto the Lord, What profit is there in my blood, when I go down to the pit ? Shall the dust praise Thee ? shall it declare Thy truth ? " And in the last, " For Sheol cannot praise Thee, death cannot celebrate Thee : they that go down to the pit cannot hope for Thy truth." And the plaintive singer in Ps. xxxix. pleads, as Job often does, for an extension of his earthly life on this ground : " Hold not Thy peace at my tears : for I am a stranger with Thee, and a sojourner," the meaning being, as has been noticed, nearly the opposite of what the Christian mind would read into the words. To the Old Testament saint this life on earth was a brief but happy visit paid to the Lord ; but death summoned the visitor away, and it came to an end. This is always the significant element in the popular view of death, that it severed the relation between the person and God. 2. As to Life. — As by death, so by life the Old Testament means what we mean by it. It starts from the idea not of the soul, but of the person. * Life ' is what we so call ; it is the existence of the complete personality, in its unity, body and soul. Man was made a living person, such as any one of us is, and the maintenance of this condition is life. But in the Old Testament there is always an additional element. What might be called the centre of gravity of life is not physical, but moral or religious. Man was created a living person, in a particular relation to God; and this relation to God would have maintained him in the condition of a living person. The bond of unity in the elements of man's nature is his moral relation to God. So that life, as the Old Testament uses the term, is what we name lift, with the addition of the fellowship of God. This was the condition of the original man — be was a living person. This is life, and the continuance of it is immortality. The 504 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT idea of immortality which the Old Testament teaches, or is engaged with, is not a doctrine of the subsistence merely of the immaterial part of man's being. It is a doctrine, first, of the subsistence of the whole of man's being, body and soul ; and, secondly, not of the subsistence of this merely, but its subsistence in the fellowship of God. The mere subsistence of the dead person was never questioned. Scripture has no need to affirm it, but presupposes it. What it is occupied with is a religious immortality, an immortality which shall preserve and prolong that life with God actually enjoyed by the living saints here upon the earth. The early chapters of Genesis illustrate what is meant by life and immortality. They tell us that Adam was made a living person, — a person such as we are, and living as any of us lives. This man lives in fellowship with God. The passage, from its way of speaking, appears to assume that life is to continue ; for a warning is given that it will cease in certain events. Apart from these events it is destined to flow on. The question is not raised as to how long it will flow on ; but no cessation is contemplated, except in the case of a particular occurrence. The man who Uves is not a body nor a soul, but a complete person. No question is raised whether the soul be immortal from its nature, nor whether the body be from its nature liable to dissolution. The passage says nothing of the body or the soul, it speaks of the person, who lives as we under- stand life to be. This is life in the primary condition of man, in the fellowship of God, and this life has an inde- finite flow onward, provided a certain occurrence do not intervene. When we pass across the record of many generations, and come to the story of the Patriarchal and Mosaic ages, we perceive the same conceptions prevailing. There is no allusion in the literature of the periods to a future life of reward ; yet life and death are set before Israel, What is this life that is spoken of ? It is life as we behold it in the case of any living man, but always with an additional element. It lay in God's favour. External NORMAL CONDITION OF MAN 505 goods were good, when God's presence and favour were in them. They were seals to the pious Israelite of God's good pleasure with him. In the jojousness of existence and in the clet. : light of God's favour the Old Testament saint in his full bodily existence upon the earth, in the language of Scripture, had life. It has always been surprising to readers of the Old Testament that there is so little reference in it — in many parts of it no reference at all — to what we call a future life. And there is, no doubt, some diflficulty in conceiv- ing the modes of thinking that prevailed in Israel. In point of fact, our modes of thinking and theirs form two extremes. We have been taught by many things to feel that a true or perfect religious life with God cannot be lived upon the earth ; that only in another sphere can true fellowship with Him be maintained. It is possible that what is true in this idea may have been pursued to an extreme, to the undue depreciation of this life, and the undue limitation of its possibilities in the way of living unto God. The Hebrew stood at the other pole. This life seemed to him the normal condition of man. Life with God was possible here — was indeed life. It was this that gave life its joy — " The Lord is the portion of mine inheritance and my cup" (Ps. xvi. 5). It was this pos- session of Jehovah that made life to the pious mind of old. The Hebrew saint did not think of the future, because he had in the present all that could ever be received. Hence it was only on occasions when the presence of God was like to be withdrawn or lost, as when death threatened, that the question of a future life rose before the miud. So that when we feel surprise at the small reference to future immortality in the Old Testament, we must take care that we do not pass a mistaken judgment on the Old Testament saints, and suppose that the reason why they thought and spoke so little of the future was that they were entirely occupied and satisfied with the material joys of this earthly lifa The true state of the case is very much the opposite 506 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT of this. The Hebrew saint called that "life" which made the existence of the complete person in all his parts, body and soul. Anything else was not life, but death. And he had this life upon the earth, and God's presence with him filled it with joy ; he had life in its perfect meaning. Therefore our surprise, if legitimate, must be directed to these two points, namely : How the Old Testament saint could fancy a life on earth, with all its imperfections, to be a satisfying life with God; and, secondly. How he was so little given to reflection, that the thought of death, so inevitable to us, did not oftener intrude and disturb his joy, and force him to contemplate the future. Now, we must not forget in what age of the world we live, and in what age the Old Testament saints lived. There lies behind us all the speculation of mankind upon death ; the history of Christ and all the light cast by Christianity. The Old Testament saint stood before all these things ; he was only sowing seeds here and there, of which we now reap the harvest. But, in reference to the first question, it may perhaps be admitted that a deeper sense of the evils which pervade this world, the impedi- ments which the evil of mankind lays in the way of the principles of the Divine government — in a word, a deeper Bense of the sinfulness of mankind and of the holiness of God, might have suggested the necessity of another sphere where evil should be eliminated and the fellowship of men with God be complete. And in point of fact we perceive this thought in a certain form in Job, who, baffled before the complexities of God's providence, is compelled to look to the future, and enabled to assure himself that beyond this life he will see God's justice vindicated. But in earlier times there was a strong feeling of the unity of God and His universal efficiency in the rule of all things ; and this carried with it also the feeling of the unity of the world, which was the sphere of His rule, and no distinction was drawn between this world and another. There was one world, as there was one God ruling everywhere. His IMMINENCE OF THE LORD's COMING 507 efficiency and will pervaded the universe ; no change of place could make any alteration. Hence the idea, now familiar to us, of heaven as an abode of the righteous, had not yet been reached. That which makes the essence of our idea of heaven, the presence of God, they had as much as we. But this presence was enjoyed on earth. In the perfect state of God's people, when the cove- nant should be fully realised, when Jehovah should be truly their God and they His people, the saints would not be translated into heaven to be with God, but He would come down to earth and abide among them. The tabernacle of God would be with men. That state of blessedness which we transfer to heaven, they thought would be realised on earth. They were not insensible to the evils that were on the earth, nor did they suppose that God would dwell with men upon the earth, the earth remaining as it is. On the contrary, the coming of the Lord would destroy evil, and the earth would be transformed : " Behold, I create new heavens and a new earth " (Isa. Ixv. 1 7). Yet it remained the earth ; and in the new and transfigured world the principles of God's present rule were but carried to perfection. Hence essentially, though not perfectly, the pious Israelite had, in God's presence with him, what we name heaven, although upon earth ; and though he might long and look for the day of the Lord, when God would appear in His glory and transform all things, this change did not create another world, but brought in the religious perfection of the present one. In other words, what we call, and what is to us, heaven, the Israelite called earth, when the Lord had come to dwell in His fulness among men ; there was no trans- lation into another sphere. There were not two worlds, but one. And this coming of the Lord was regarded as imminent. The pious mind saw the Lord in everything, especially in any great calamity or convulsion among the nations ; He was present there, and His full presence was ready to be revealed. And this feeling of the nearness of the Lord's coming helps greatly to explain the paucity of 508 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT the references to the death of the individual. I suspect we might find the same paucity in the apostolic writings, and for the same reason. The mind of the Church in Israel corresponded greatly to the mind of the early Chris- tian Church. The great object of expectation was the coming of the Lord. The salvation was ready to be revealed. The living generation might see it. Living men could take up the words of the apostle — "We that are alive and remain at His coming" (Thess. iv 15). Hence the death of the individual had not the significance which it has come to have among us. Our point of view is changed. We may look for the coming of the Lord ; but, however certain in itself, its time is uncertain, while our own death, besides being certain, cannot be very far off. And, consequently, the death of the individual has now come to usurp the place which, both in Israel and in the early Christian Church, was held by the coming of the Lord. (3) The conflict of the view of life with the fact of death. — Life, as has been said, was that which we name so, the existence of the person in all his parts, body and soul, in the fellowship of God. Death was a severance of the person from God's fellowship. Hence arose a conflict; and in the triumph of faith over the fact of death, lies largely the Old Testament contribution to the doctrine of im- mortaHty. (a) Now, first, I suspect it must be admitted that some- times, especially in the earher periods, the Old Testament saint acquiesced in death ; he accepted it even under the feel- ing that it was severance from God. One of the strangest things in the Old Testament is the little place which the individual feels he has, and his tendency to lose himself in larger wholes, such as the family or the nation. When in earlier times the individual approached death, he felt that he had received the blessing of life from God, and had enjoyed it in His communion. His sojourn with God had come to an end ; he was old and full of days, and he acquiesced. However strange his acquiescence may seem to EFFORTS OF FAITH 509 US, he consoled himself with the thought that he did not all die, the memory of the righteous was blessed. He lived, too, in his children and in his people ; he saw the good of Israel ; his spirit lived, and the work of his hands was estabhshed. The great subject was the people, the nation. Jehovah had made His covenant with the nation ; the individual shared its blessings only in the second degree, through the prosperity of the people. And he was content to lose himself in the larger whole ; to have poured his little stream of hfe and service into the tide of national life, and in some degree swelled it. This was particularly the case in earlier times. But when the nation came to an end with the Captivity, and national religion and life no more existed, the individual rose to his proper place and rights ; he felt his own worth and his own responsibiUty. Though the nation had fallen, God remained and religion remained ; but it remained only in the heart of the indi- vidual. The religious unit, formerly the people, now became the individual person. With the fall of the nation, religion took a greater stride towards Christianity than it had done since the Exodus. Hence the problems of the individual life rose into prominence, particularly the problem of death. The efforts of faith, as we have interpreted them, seem made on two lines : {a) First an appeal is taken, in a way not quite easy for us to imderstand, against the fact of death, a demand for not dying, — a protest against the fellowship of the living man here with God being interrupted. It is probable that the examples of this may be to be leferred to particular circumstances, when death might be actually threatening ; and this fact helps us somewhat to understand them. But the language used, the demand made for con- tinuance of life, the lofty assurance expressed by faith, that from the relation of the person to God life cannot be inter- rupted, rise to the expression of principles, and are by no means merely an assurance that God would save the person from death on this particular occasion. They express what the religious mind demands : what it feels to be involved 510 THE THEOLOGY OP THE OLD TESTAMENT in its relations to Jehovah absolutely and apart from all circumstances. (6) Secondly, we observe the faith of the Old Testament saints operating in a less ecstatic way, which to us is more comprehensible. The first was a protest against death, and a rising up to the enunciation of the principles involved in the relation of the living believer to God. This second is rather a protest that dying is not death ; it is an analysis of the popular conception of death, and a denial of its truth. According to the popular con- ception, dying and the state after death were one : the dead person descended into Sheol, and was severed from God. Faith now reclaims against this view. The death of the saint is not this : he does not descend into Sheol, he over- leaps the place of the dead. (c) Further, it is evident that in analysing the idea of death, and concluding that in the case of the righteous it did not imply descent into the place of dead persons, there was also an analysis of the human being into elements. Death made this analysis inevitable. The body fell into decay, and faith was only able to assure itself that the person was taken by God. There is no means of knowing what view was entertained of the condition of the person. It may be doubtful if, with the strong view had of life, as the full existence of the person in the unity of all his parts, body and soul, they would regard the condition, even of those whom they described as taken by God, as properly to be called life. Faith needed to supplement itself. This it did by the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. It was chiefly the prophets who brought up this side ; and the idea of resurrection is presented first as the raising up of the dead nation, as in Ezekiel's vision of the dry bones of Israel. There is, however, one very beautiful passage where the idea occurs in connection with the individual (Job xiv.). As has been said, Job regarded his malady as proof of God's estrangement from him. Further, he re- garded his malady as mortal ; God's estrangement would endure to the end of his life. With these feeUngs in his mind the thought suddenly presented itself, that this life MORAL MEANING OF DEATH 611 on earth might not be the only one — life might be renewed ; out of Sheol and the grave he might be called by God's re- turning favour to a second life. " 0 that Thou wouldest hide me in Sheol till Thy wrath be past ; that Thou wouldest appoint a set time, and remember me ! " But while pursu- ing the thought he becomes conscious of what is involved in it — If a man die, shall he live again ? But, without answering the objection, he pursues his original dream of a second life : " All the days of my appointed time would I wait till my change came. Thou wouldst call, and I would answer Thee ; Thou wouldst yearn after the work of Thine hands." 11. The Moral Meaning of Death, We have drawn attention to a number of passages in the Old Testament with the view of exhibiting the way in which the Hebrew mind regarded death and the state of the dead. These passages are to a large extent popular, some of them poetical, and therefore not fitted to bear the weight of dogmatic inferences being built upon them. But they are sufficiently plain to enable us to reach the popular way of thinking regarding death. It may be of use now to indicate the views given of the moral meaning of death and its opposite. Much depends here on the method on which we approach the investigation of Scripture on such ques- tions. In a work entitled The Christian Doctrine of Sin, by the late Principal Tulloch of St. Andrews, the following statements are made, among others, on this question of immortality : " But what of physical death ? it may be asked — Is not this also immediately connected with sin as its consequence ? Is it not so specially in St. Paul's Epistles ? What then are we to make of this ? To the modern mind, death is a purely natural fact. It comes in course of time as the natural issue of all organism, which by its very life spends itself, and hastens towards dis- solution as an inevitable end. We cannot conceive any individual life perpetuated under the existing laws of the 512 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT external world. . . . The physical fact of death therefore cannot be traced to sin as its sole cause. Nor can Paul be said to do thia Even when he speaks of death as the dissolution of the body, it is not only this dissolution that he means, but death with all its adjuncts of pain and sad- ness and spiritual apprehension" (p. 163). "Death as a simple physical fact is unaffected by moral conditions. Its character may be greatly altered, and no doubt has been greatly altered, by the fact of sin ; but its incidence is natural, and lies in the constitution of things. . . . Physical dissolution did not directly follow the act of sin, and is not connected with it as immediate cause and effect" (pp. 76—77). "The dissolution of the physical system is nowhere in St. Paul nor in Scripture represented as solely the result of sin. The death of Adam, the death of sin, in St. Paul is always sometliing more than mere physical death. It may include the death of the body — it does this plainly and prominently in the passage before us [Eom. v. 1 2], but it always includes more ; ... It is beyond doubt that death itself in the mere sense of decay is inherent in all organism ; that the conditions of life, in short, are death ; and that infant organic structures consequently should die when weak or imperfect or ready to vanish away, is no more remarkable than that any other organism should perish" (p. 188). These passages are specimens of many others in the volume. It may strike one that the consistency of some statements in the extracts with others is not apparent at once. For example, it is said that the " dissolution of the physical system," i.e. natural death, " is nowhere in St. Paul represented as solely the result of sin " ; and yet immediately after it is admitted that in Eom. v. 12, where Paul says, " As by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin," the death of the body is " plainly and prominently " included. It is added that more is always included ; but it is hard to see how the inclusion of more excludes this. And in another passage the writer says : " If the apostle's view of the consequences of si'i included deaun as an DEATH AS A PHYSICAL FACT 513 external fact, the special meaning of the fact for him . . . was spiritual" (p. 164). What is meant by saying that the meaning of death as an external fact was spiritual may be left an open question ; but it is difficult to reconcile the admission that Paul's view of the consequences of sin in- cluded death as an external fact, with the assertion that the dissolution of the physical system is " nowhere in St. Paul . . . represented as solely the result of sin." The author's use of the words ' sole ' and ' solely ' is peculiar. For he says plainly "death as a simple physical fact is unaffected by moral conditions," and again, " it is beyond doubt that death itself in the mere sense of decay is inherent in all organism " ; and then he says " the physical fact of death, therefore, cannot be traced to sin as the sole cause." But however we may criticise words, the general drift of the author is unmistakable, which is, that natural or physical death in man is not due to sin, but is the result of his constitution, being inherent in organism ; and that when it is said " the wages of sin is death," what is meant by death is a certain condition of man's spirit, not any fact in his history. I cite these passages not for the purpose of controverting as unscriptural the views presented in them, though I consider them to be unscriptural, but to draw attention to the viciousness of the method of investigation adopted, namely, that of mixing up the views of Scriptm'e and the results of science, and attempting to identify them before any thorough investiga- tion of what the view of Scripture is, and particularly before ascertaining what its point of view is. The Old Testament certainly has a view on this subject which is neither that of modern science nor that of ancient speculation. I do not say that its view is in contradiction to either of these views, but it differs from them. And in order to ascertain the real truth on any question, it is well to allow each witness to give his testimony separately, and from his own point of view, without making premature attempts at reconciling one evidence with another. Now the general scope of Scripture on such broad 33 514 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT questions as death, Bin, God, and the like, can be ascer- tained. One thing, indeed, that characterises Scripture in distinction from modern literature — looking at it as a national literature — is that its deliverances on any subject are consistent throughout. There is no such violent anti- thesis of opinion on these questions as occurs in modern literature. From beginning to end of the Bible the view taken of death, for example, and sin, is self-consistent. But the full view is nowhere presented at once ; and hence, in order to pass a just judgment as to Scripture teaching on such a subject, we have to familiarise ourselves with the whole of Scripture. The acquiring of this familiarity is not an easy thing. It takes, I might say, the labour and experience of a lifetime. For Scripture is a literary work written in the language of life, and not in that of the schools, whether of Philosophy or Theology or Science ; and whatever ways of thinking and speaking men have, will appear in it. All forms of human composition that the genial, subtle, various, calculating, enraptured human mind may employ to express itself, may be looked for in it. The ways of reaching its sense are a thousand. One must lay bare all his sensi- bilities, and bring himself en rapport with it on every side, and weigh general statements, and make the necessary deduction from a hyperbole, and calculate the moral value of a metaphor, and estimate and generalise upon sentiments that are never themselves general, but always the outcome of an intense life in very particular conditions, and even take up with his dumb heart " the groanings that cannot be uttered." But these two positions are to be firmly maintained, ^rs^, that Scripture has a meaning and a view of its own on most moral and religious questions ; and not more than one view really, although, of course, different writers may present the view with all the variety natural to different minds and diverse circumstances ; and that this view is not to be inferred from any single text, but from the whole general tenor of thought of the Scripture writers; and, second, that the meaning of Scripture ia GOD AS THE SOURCE OP LIFE 515 capable of being ascertained from Scripture alone, and ought not to be controlled by anything without — that, for example, our interpretation of prophecy ought not to be made dependent on historical events now occurring or that have occurred, and that our interpretation of Scripture statements regarding creation or the constitution of man ought not to be submitted to the judgment of geologists or writers on physiology. Having regard, then, to the point of view of Scripture, the possibility of finding its meaning, and the duty of seek- ing it, from itself alone, we may look again at the question in hand. Now, the cause of life in man is viewed as in God. God lives, and is the source of life. He sends forth His Spirit, and man lives. He withdraws His Spirit, and man dies. The Hfe or death of man depends on the will of God, and is due to an influence exerted by God. Here, no doubt, we enter a region of some difficulty. The * Spirit of God ' seems sometimes to be identical with, or to be the cause of, the mere physical energy which we call life, while at other times it is identical with moral power and spiritual vitality ; and Scripture writers sometimes so speak as if they regarded these two things as ultimately the same, and held a decline in moral vigour to be equivalent to a decline in vital energy. But however this be, there is no doubt that the prevailing view taken of God in Scripture is not physical, but ethical. He is spoken of as personal, and having a character. It is true that He is living, has life in Himself, and communicates life by communicating Himself; but it is taught, above all, that this communication of Himself is the free act of a Person, and is the consequence of His goodness and love, which is His character. But the same is the case with man. He has been created in the image of God ; he is a free person, and haa a moral character. And his relations to that which is without him are the expressions of his freedom and character. God and man are alike in this. The difference U that God commimicates and man receivea Whether 616 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT what passes between them be a physical influence or a moral influence, the conditions of it are on both sides moral Man is not considered in Scripture as a duality, but as a unity, though a unity composed of elements; and the principle of this unity, the centre of it, is his moral relation to God. This binds aU his parts into one, and retains his constitution entire as he came from God. The narrative beginning with chap, ii of Genesis places man thus created before us in true relations to God, and Uving ; it describes how God called to man's consciousness these relations, concentrating them into a particular point ; and how He set before him death as the penalty of any change in these true relations : " Thou shalt not eat : in the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt die." He ate, and died. This was the penalty attached to eating the tree. In the day man ate, he died. He became mortal, in the sense that he must die. Death laid his hand on him, and called him his own from that moment. From that moment he was dead in sin ; dead as the consequence of sin. He could be called dead in the language of Paul, who says to men who still lived : " The body, indeed, is dead because of sin." It really scarcely requires to be argued that * death ' in Scripture, as well as ' life,' and indeed all other terms of a similar kind, is used as part of the language of ' common sense.' The term death is not a synonym for sin or sinfulness any more than hfe is a synonym for righteousness ; at least not in the Old Testament, nor, I think, in the writings of St. PauL Everywhere in the Old Testament and in St. Paul * death ' is regarded as a thing distinct from * sin,' of which it is the consequence, and it always embraces what we know as physical death. And everywhere ' life ' is distinguished from * righteousness, and always embraces life in the body, and in the New Testament the resurrection life. The expression * dead in sin,' which we use to signify what we call spiritual dead- ness, is not Scriptural language for that idea. Indeed, it is the very converse of the language of Scripture. EFFECTS OF DEATH 517 That state in which the natural man is when sin reigns, before ever the moral ideal has risen before the mind and disturbed the placidity and naive instinctiveness of the sinful actions, is not called death by the apostle, but life : " I was alive without the law once " (Eom. vii. 9). It is the second stage that is called death, when the commandment has been introduced into the mind, and has decomposed its unity, and made its elements fly to different sides and take part one half of it with the law and the other haK with sin, " When the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." Then he was dead in sin ; doomed to die in the element of sin. Both in the Old Testament and in the New man is regarded as a unity; and when it is said in the Old, " In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Gen. ii. 17), and in the New, "The wages of sin is death" (Eom. vi 23), death is used in its ordinary full sense ; just as when it is said, " In the path of righteousness is Hfe " (Prov. xii. 28), and " Grace shall reign through righteousness unto eternal life " (Eom. V. 21), life means in the one case this compound life which men live in the present body, and in the other the new hfe which men shall Hve in the new body. Of course, ' death ' is a large word ; it includes not only dying, but remaining dead. It embraces all that has been said above of the condition of the dead. The views then exhibited expressed the general mind of the people; but this might be subject to further enlightenment, e.g. a distinction might be made between the condition of the righteous and that of the wicked, etc. Still the question comes, What ideas were entertained of the effects of this natural death ? What was the fate or condition of the soul ? First of all, the Old Testament view was not materiaUstic. Just as the story of creation represents the body as complete, while not yet inhabited by the soul, which was drawn from elsewhere and entered the body ; so the soul leaves the body in death, but does not become extinct. When the dead man is raised, the spirit or soul comes again to the body. The necromancer 518 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT can evoke the dead. Death is the extinction of no person. But, again, the Hebrew view is far from being akin to that ancient philosophic theory which held the body to be the spirit's prison-house, which when set at liberty rejoiced in a fuller life, and could expand its members to a greater exercise of power than was possible to them when cramped in their narrow material cell. The terms as they are used popularly embrace all that we usually associate with life and death, the joy on the one hand, and the fears, regrets, darkness, and the like, on the other. For death being the consequence of sin, what lends terror to it, in addition to the shrinking of a living being from it, is the consciousness of this. And in addition to this it may happen that seeing death is now, so to speak, normal (through the effect of sin, sin being universal) ; any- thing extraordinary about it, any aggravation of it, e.g. its suddenness, or prematureuess, or disastrousness, may be specially regarded as the judgment and punishment of sin, and not the mere death itself, seeing it is a common fate. But this does not hinder that death itself is always included ; and that, though the awful death is specially the judgment on the wicked, even the death of the righteous is an awful evil. Neither does this hinder that death may sometimes, as in Job's case, be looked at as a relief. That is only relative. Death is essentially an evil. It is always an effect of sin, an intensification of the effects of sin, namely, separation from God. It is the greatest possible separation. In the xvth chapter of 1 Corinthians, Paul writes : " As by man came death, by man came also the resurrection " (ver. 21). Could it be argued here that not the fact of death, but only the moral consequences of it, came by sin ? No man in his senses would so argue. Or could it be argued that spiritual torpidity came by man, and spiritual resurrection by Christ ? This was the very error that the chapter was written to confute. Or could it be argued that the expression * by man ' meant that death was a necessary consequence of his constitution, he being an organism ? Now, certainly the apostle says that the first DEATH AS PENALTY 619 man was ' earthy ' and not ' spiritual,' and that * flesh and blood ' cannot inherit the kingdom of God. He certainly believed that the condition in which Adam was created was not one in which he could enter into the kingdom of God. And it might be supposed that he considered man mortal by nature, and that he must pass through death in order to attain a spiiitual body. But this would not be an inference in the line of his reasoning. For he says even of men as now constituted : " "We shall not all sleep; but we shall all be changed " (ver. 51). This shows that he distinguished between dying and that change of the earthy into the spiritual which must take place in order to enter the kingdom of God or perfect Messianic kingdom, and that man's being ^(oIko^, or earthy, did not in his view imply the necessity of death. Of course, the capacity of death is implied. Immortality was not inherent in the nature of the original man as a quality of it. Scripture says nothing of such a thing ; but in the moral condition of man as a righteous, religious being, immortality was inherent. When, therefore, it is said that the penalty of sinning was death, we must start from death as we know it. The dead are insensible to all that is. Fellowship with the living ceases. Fellowship with all ceases, even with God. The soul exists ; but it has no conscious relations. The cause of this is separation from God. The Hebrew people took a certain view of evil, including physical evil. They always regarded evil as evidence of the anger of God. This is the fundamental idea in Job on both sides. Even to Job himself his calamities were proofs of God's anger, though the anger was undeserved. Perhaps the book was written partly to break in upon this view and modify it. But the view everywhere prevailed. The suppHant prayed that God would not visit upon him the sins of his youth. Evil was the consequence of God's anger. Hence, of course, death, the greatest evil, was the extreme consequence. The people saw in evil the signature of God's feeling towards them. He had left them when He chastised, left them 520 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT altogether when He chastised unto death. It may be doubt- ful, on the other hand, if they realised the absence of God except in these evils. Despondency or spiritual depression outside of trouble perhaps did not assail them. That state of feeling which we name the sense of desertion by God did not produce itself in them except through calamities. These calamities were to them the proof, and gave rise to the sense, of being forsaken. Hence also Christ felt forsaken in the midst of His sufferings, and never before. He was a true Old Testament saint. But in His suffer- ings He realised this abandonment by God as truly as the Old Testament saint did. In death He was abandoned; in it He reahsed His abandonment. Thus on both sides there was no feeling of God's anger except through suffering and death ; on the other side, there never was suffering and death without the feeling of God's anger. Death expressed this. To die was to become separate from God ; to be dead was to continue in this state of separation. This is the meaning of death in the Old Testament. Hence the terrors that gathered around dying. Throughout the Old Testament the ideas that usually come to expression on the subject of death are dark indeed. They are so dark as to suggest at once the question whether so gloomy a view could have prevailed exclusively. To this we may reply that such a view could prevail only where God's grace had not begun to manifest itself. Death was separa- tion from God, but the very idea of a covenant is union with God, and union with God is ' life.' This, then, is death, which is the wages of sin. The picture given of it can perhaps scarcely be called Scripture teaching, it is rather the preliminary to Scripture teaching ; it is the dark ground upon which Faith is enabled to paint her brighter views, but the ground itself is not wholly matter of revelation. It is the expression rather of the moral consciousness of a people on whom the sense of human sin and of God's holiness had taken a profound hold, and who were ignorant of any final and thorough FLUCTUATIONS OF HEBREW MIND 521 means of their reconciliation. These pictures of death and the state of the dead, though drawn by saints, are usually drawn by saints in sickness. The complainer in Ps. vi. is sick unto death. So was Hezekiah ; so was Job. Now it is not that in such circumstances the imagination mixes even still darker colours. There was a special oppression upon the mind. Sickness and all other evils, especially of the same direct character, were the tokens of God's anger ; and His anger was for sin. This was the source of Job's extreme perplexity. The Psalmist pleaded that God would not chasten him in His hot displeasure, for such chastisement would be unto death ; and another Psalmist humbly deprecated being visited with the sins of his youth. Sickness brought profoundly home the sense of sin, and this sense shed a lurid light, which made the darkness of Sheol even darker. Perhaps the Old Testament saints did not realise the anger or the absence of God, except in these evils. Despondency or spiritual depression did not perhaps assail them out of trouble. That state of feeling which we name the sense of desertion did not produce itself in them except through calamities. But the sense of sin and of God's estrange- ment was always reflected from evil. And, on the other hand, the sense of God's favour was realised in prosperity and health. Thus the man lived in the light of God, and his candle shone upon his head. To the saint thus living and blessed in the present an outlook into the future did not occur. In his calm or ecstatic felicity there was no room for the exercise of that restless analytic that is ever distinguishing between this world and another. To him there was but one world, one system of things. Or, if there were two, it was this world with God, and this world without Him. The wicked had the latter ; he, the former. In that unity with God, which might be called essential, there was no room for distinction or change. The cause of the fluctuation in the mind of the Old Testament saint was his inability to dispose of the question 522 THE THEOLOGY OP THE OLD TESTAMENT of sin. No mode, satisfying to the reason, of disposing of sin was known by him. It was not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats could take away sin. His ceremonies could not make him perfect as pertaining to the conscience. There was a remembrance made of sin every year. And as the sense of God's favour or the feeling of sin prevailed, the mind fluctuated between the light of heaven and the darkness of Hades. But to us all this is altered. We too have the advantage of having seen the subjective hopes of the Old Testament saints realised in a case, and fellow- ship with God maintain itself even through death. 12. Further on tlie BecoTiciliation "between the Idea of Death and the Idea of Life. We found it necessary to dismiss from our minds many ideas connected with death which are familiar to us who have the light of a fuller revelation. Denuding ourselves of these, we have also to remember that such ideas are not ideas that lie at the beginning of the Old Testament development, are not even ideas that in their fulness are to be found anywliere along the course of the Old Testament history and thought, although they may be seen springing up and receiving expression in some measure there. They are ideas that are, so to speak, wholes made up of many fragments that lie scattered up and down the Old Testament ; and that which has given them unity as well as force, changing them from their character of anticipations and demands of faith or religious reason into stable convictions, has been the life of Christ, in whom all these ideas — mere postulates or ecstasies of faith before — have been converted into historical facts. We have to dismiss also from our minds many modes of thinking not even drawn from Christianity directly, but inherited rather from the traditions of European thought, which have passed into our Christian thinking, and been, so to speak, adopted by it. Questions of the nature of the soul in itself, or of the nature of the body, are foreign man's personality 523 to Scripture. Now by death we found to be meant for the whole person an insensibility to all that is life, and a secliTsion from it, whether the living be God or man. A full representation of all that is said in Scripture on this point would occupy much space ; but the essential thing in it is what has been stated. Questions might be raised whether the separation from life and God which was involved in death was always held due to sin, or only afterwards became connected with the idea of sin. To answer such questions, we should probably have to travel into regions of thought among the Shemitic peoples that lie beyond the confines of history. Probably as soon as we enter upon Old Testament times, that which causes separation from God will be found to be sin, and death will be found to be regarded as due to sin. There are passages in the Old Testament in which death seems regarded as a natural event. Such passages, however, are not distinctively religious, and do not bring the event strictly into connection with its original cause, but merely refer to it as a thing now natural to men. But this does not show that it is natural in any other sense than that it has become naturalised ; and we ourselves employ the same methods of thought and speech. The Old Testament idea of life, too, was seen to be just that of our natural life in our present personal con- dition. And the person is composed of body and soul. No doubt this is not equally so. The personality belongs to the soul rather than to the body. The deceased in Sheol do not lose personality in the sense that the in- dividual soul evaporates or melts away into a general spiritual element. Such an idea is wholly foreign to the Old Testament. Individualism or personality is one of its strongest ideas, and the identity is never lost. And of course, of the elements of which the living person is composed, the soul is by far the nobler and the more energetic, so that the personality is considered to adhere to it when it separates. But this does not hinder that to a true and full person the body is essential Now 524 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT this being life, that is, our existence in full personal con- dition, that which gave it was God. It was an efflux from Him ; His Spirit communicated it. This is sometimes spoken of as if it were a physical relation between men and God. And of course, in some sense it is so. There is no point perhaps more obscure in the Old Testament than its method of speaking of the Spirit of God as the spirit of Ufe. But without entering into that, both God and man are chiefly conceived as ethicaL Their relations are moral. Even when God communicates to man a physical influence, this communication is made under ethical conditions on both sides. Thus life is had in the fellowship, the moral and emotional fellowship, of men with God. This life is enjoyed here. It is the fact and experience of its enjoy- ment here that is the basis and ground for the hope and the faith of it at any future time. Now, one can readily perceive how, based on this experience of the possession of Ufe, the expression of the faith in its continuance would arise, as in point of fact we see it to have done, in two ways. One way might be the calm and contemplative expression of the principle. I am not sure but we have raised, and perhaps rightly, in our Christian thinking, as it has come to be current among us now, certain ideas into a prominence over other ideas, which they did not at all possess in Old Testament times. One of these ideas is the idea of sin. In the Old Testament, sin is far from being ignored; but it takes its place rather within than above the general idea of God's relation to men. This idea embraces it, rather than is composed of it. In the viiith Psalm, for instance, which describes the place which God has assigned to man in the world, sin is not specially aUuded to. This is not because the Psahn describes man's condition before sin entered ; which it does not do. Nor because the Psalm describes his condition after sin has been eliminated ; for neither does it do this, though the description of the Psalm being ideal, when it is realised, may correspond to this. But the Psalm does not specially mention sin nor yet LARGER IDEA OF WISDOM BOOKS 525 redemption, because it includes them both. It seizes upon that which in a world where both exist it sees to be the prevailing tendencies, what amidst all the elements which surround him in his relation to God man's ideal position is. And this is what makes it a prophetic Psalm, pointing to the world to come, when this ideal shall find verification. Now this is the character of very much of the Old Testament, particularly of the early Old Testament writings. They are written in the midst of a world where sin and redemption both exist, and they seize man's relation to God not on one side or the other, but on the whole. And naturally the larger idea prevails over the smaller, the whole view absorbs that which is partial This is the point of view of the early Wisdom as seen in the Proverbs. In the condition of the country that then prevailed, when the land had rest and the social virtues were still un- corrupted, the true principles of God's relation to men were seen realising themselves without interruption or hindrance, and the religious philosopher finds his highest enjoyment in meditating on these principles and giving them expression. These relations are conceived as essen- tial and unchangeable, and the fellowship between God and the persons of men is, so to speak, absolute. From what he sees the wise man rises to the conception of a relation that cannot be interrupted. And when he says that 'the pathway of righteousness is immortality,' his words express not the temporary phenomenon, but the eternal truth. And death has no place, but is swept away before the irresistible wave of unchangeable principles. Again, expression is given to the same idea in very different circumstances, and consequently in a very different way ; not now in philosophic calmness expressing what it sees, but in moral perturbation protesting against what it fears or demanding what it fails to see. Such expression is given by the mind of a person feeling himself in danger of death, from which he recoils and against which he protests. The danger brings before him the thought 526 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT of his relation to Jehovah, his blessedness in Him, which he cannot think of being interrupted. But now we come to the reconciliation of a faith of this kind with the fact of death on the one hand and with the idea of death just described. Such a faith, indeed, as that just described, which would have none of death, and resolutely bade it be gone, could not be always sustained in the face of the inexorable fact. The expression of it, whether in the Wisdom books or in the Lyrics, would perhaps only be found during the healthy vigour of a man or the nation. A decaying nationality or a dissolving nature could not sustain it. It is a faith of this sort to which the Preacher, the author of Ecclesiastes, seeks to recall himself or the people in the declining stages of the commonwealth, with but little success, owing to the overpowering depression which adverse circumstances laid upon his own heart and that of the nation : " Fear God, and keep His command- ments" (xii. 13); and, "There is nothing better for a man than that he should eat and drink, for this is his portion from God " (ii. 24). A joyous life with God upon the earth was his theme. But the times were too late for these far-off and faint echoes of a stronger time to be listened to, and the outlook was too gloomy. And even long before this time it could not fail that the question of Sheol should often rise and demand some solution satisfying to the reflecting mind. And we have seen how the pious Hebrew was enabled to analyse what we call death, and rise to the faith that it involved no separation from God, according to the old idea of it. And there is the other half of the solution. The Old Testament saint, in the vivid consciousness of the life which was his in his fellowship with God, made the demand that this life should not be interrupted by death, could not think of it as thus interrupted. This was a demand for the immortality of the whole man, of the saint in the unity of his being. The protestation, too, which was made by him when he had to face the fact of death, that dying was not death in the popular sense, and did not involve separation RESTITUTION OF ISRAEL 527 from God, was a demand for an immortality in the religious sense — of the soul. But this latter had to be supplemented by the idea of the participation of the body in the same, which we find chiefly in the prophetical writings. The one was the natural complement to the other, and thus the great primary demand for the continuance of the whole person in life was revealed. This idea of a resurrection is pursued in more than one form by the prophets. It is a national rather than a personal hope at first and for a time. First, the covenant which God made with Israel was a national covenant. What He founded was a kingdom of God. This was eternal. In the King Messiah this kingdom would be universal and perfect. The indi- vidual saint had his immortality in the theocracy. His great interests were centred in it. His hopes found realisation there. His labours were perpetuated in it, and his spirit lived in it, even if he died. He saw the good of Israel. But this immortality of his hopes and purposes was not all. In his children he lived, he was there in them furthering God's work, enjoying God's favour. So, too, he was remembered for ever — " the memory of the just shall be in eternal remembrance" (Ps. cxii. 6). This is the kind of immortality that is taught in the Book of Wisdom, the finest of all the apocryphal writings. Yet this kind of immortality in the perpetual existence of the work and kingdom of God, into which he had flung his energies and in which his spirit lived, must have been felt by the individual to be too shadowy to satisfy his heart. The individual man struggles against the idea of being a mere drop in the general stream of humanity, and claims a place for himself. The doctrine that, though the leaves fall off, the tree remains undying, does not satisfy the individual demand for life. This demand for a place for the individual life was expressed in the doctrine of the restitution of Israel. It was natural, as has been said, that the prophets whose minds were always directed rather to the whole community than to individuals, should bring up this side 528 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT of the idea of life. Israel in fellowship with Jehovah would have lived for ever as a people ; but, like Adam, Israel transgressed the covenant and died : " When Ephraim offended in Baal, he died," says Hosea (xiii. 1). And all the prophets downwards are famihar with Israel's dissolution. But with the sentence of dis- solution came also the promise of restitution. Hosea, who employs the figure of death for the dissolution, uses the figure of resurrection for the restoration : " Let us re- turn unto the Lord : after two days He will revive us ; and the third day He will raise us up, and we shall live in His sight " (vi. 2). The power of death over them was to be destroyed : " I will redeem them from the power of the grave : I will redeem them from death : 0 death, I will be thy plagues : 0 grave, I will be thy destruction " (xiii. 1 4). These things may be said here of the people ; but the language seems to imply that the idea of a resurrection of individuals was famiUar. The great prophecy of Ezekiel also concerning the valley of dry bones probably refers to a resurrection of the members of the nation scattered and wasted in every land, and their reconstitution into a living, united body ; for the people say : " Our bones are dried, we are cut off for our parts." But, as in Hosea, the idea of a resurrection of individuals lies under the imagery. And in other prophets the idea deepens, and that which these prophets say of the people, which seemed to them in its disjointed, wasted state to be like dried bones scattered over the vaUeys, is said with immediate reference to indi- viduals on whom death has passed. The restitution of Israel embraces also all Israel of the past. This view ap- pears in Isa. xxvL, but most fully in Daniel : " At that time thy people shall be dehvered, every one that is found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament ; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for evet and over " (Dan. xii 1). DESTINY OF THE WICKED 529 But before we close, it may be in place to refer to other aspects of the case which are of great interest. One of these is the relation of the Old Testament ideas to the question of the destiny of the wicked. On this subject several views are current. There is the universalistic view, according to which all shall be restored. Then there is the view, stopping short of this, which demands a place of repentance and sphere of development beyond the grave, and which, assuming many gradations of salvation, finds a place for at least most of the race. And there is the view which calls itself that of conditional immortality, according to which those finally and persistently evil shall be annihilated. These views are in addition to the one which has been generally accepted. Now, of course, such questions will not be decided on Old Testament ground, but in the light of the clearer revelation of the New Testament. I do not wish, therefore, to speak with great decision on such a question ; but my impression is, that the whole scope of the Old Testament is in favour of the ordinary opinion. In all those Psalms which have been alluded to, faith in the future sustains itself by planting its foot on the present. The view of the Old Testament saint is chiefly confined to the present, — the future is to him, so far as he himself is concerned, and so far as the wicked are con- cerned, but the prolongation of the present. Salvation was to him a present good. The moral constitution of the world exhibits itself on all its sides here. This is the very postulate of the thought of the Hebrew mind, and the fundamtntal idea of the Old Testament theocracy. Whatever principles are involved in the relations of God and man, exhibit themselves in life here. So much is this the case, that any deviation from this position which occurs, as in the prosperity of the ungodly or the adversity of the just, occasions extreme disquietude. And it is olmated by the reflection that it must be brief, that at least in death the true relations of God and men will exhibit themselves ; and what is after death is but the 34 630 THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT prolongation of what precedes it. No doubt, in the Book of Job this principle is assailed by Job on both its sides, — necessarily on the side of the just, — for he was a just man, and on this side he would never see good ; but he carries the same principle out on the other side, giving examples of men ungodly and yet dying in peace, and honoured by imitation at least after death. Yet as Job expresses his assurance of seeing God's face after death, this might seem to carry also the opposite, that the wicked would have no such vision. But Scripture, both in the Old Testament and the New, is chiefly interested in pursuing the destiny of the just. This is in the very nature of the case. For the representations which are given in the Old Testa- ment of death and Sheol are not strictly Scripture teaching. They are the expressions of popular feeling, though all classes of men, pious and evil alike, are repre- sented as giving utterance to them. The revelation, or the Scripture teaching itself, consists rather in the efforts of faith to rise above them. The consequence of this is, that the Old Testament doctrine of the future hfe is one-sided. The doctrine is developed only so far as it concerns the righteous ; it is left entirely undeveloped as concerns the wicked. In Ps. xlix. the wicked are brought like sheep into Sheol, and Death, personified as a keeper, shepherds them ; but no further exposition of their destiny appears. In Isa. xxiv. 21 it is said that the Lord will " punish the host of the high ones on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth. And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in thf pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days they shall be visited." But the meaning of this visitation is very obscure. Such passages require to be carefully looked at. They probably contain germs which were afterwards more fully developed. But that is the most that can be said of them. Between the close of the Old Testament Canon, indeed, and the Christian era, the doctrine as it concerns ♦".he destiny of the evil seems to have received expansions These expan- IDEA OF GEHENNA 531 sions appear in the parable of the Eich Man and Lazarus and in the New Testament expression, the " Gehenna of fire." This Gehenna was propeiiy originally Ge Hinnom, the valley of Hinnom, used as a burial-place, or a place where impurities were burned. The last words of Isaiah have been brought into connection with this : " They shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against Me : for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched ; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh" (Ixvi. 24). This is a remarkable passage. The circumstances are those of the final felicity of the Church, — here, those that are represented as looking on the carcases of the wicked ; there, the carcases of the wicked, which are represented as exposed to unceasing corruption and consumption by fire. This, however, is something that is represented as transpiring not in Sheol, but on the face of the earth : the godly go and look upon the evil ; and it is their carcases. The destruction of the transgressors is complete, and men shudder at and abhor their remains. But any question of a further kind is not answered. The representations in the Old Testament are generally of this fragmentary kind, and it requires skill and fairness when one seeks to combine them, or draw general inferences which fit into more advanced revelation from them. So far as the Old Testament is concerned, a veil is drawn over the destiny of the wicked in death ; they descend into Sheol ; death is their shepherd ; they die in the old sense of death, and nothing further seems added in regard to them. I think there is no indi- cation of any aggravation of misery or positive torment being their lot in the Old Testament ; neither is there any indication that their personality in Sheol ceases, or that they are annihilated. In reading the Old Testament, we must remember that it is a book of beginnings. Thoughts of God never thought before are showing themselves ; presentiments in regard to man and his destiny, ho])es or ilreaius in rrgjiul lo life, are seen rising up from the deepest heart of the pious, 532 THE THEOLOGY OP THE OLD TESTAMENT like air-bells to the surface. The life and immortality brought to light in the gospel are being reached from many sides, in fragments, and many times only by the arm of faith reached out and striving to grasp them as brilliant rainbow forms. In the Old Testament, truth has not yet attained its imity. But everywhere in it the ground of hope or assurance is the spiritual fellowship already enjoyed with God. Om' Lord's argument, " God is not the God of the dead, but of the living," is the expression of the whole spirit of the Old Testament on this great subject. The temple of truth is not yet reared, perhaps the idea of it hardly conceived in its fuU proportion. Yet everywhere workmen are employed preparing for it, and all around there lie the exquisite products of their labour; and here we may see one laying a foundation, and there one carving a chapiter, and there another wreathing a pillar or polishing a corner-stone, working singly most of them, able only to take in the idea of the one piece on which he is engaged, till the master-builder comes in whose mind the full idea of the temple bodies itself forth, and at whose command each single piece of workmanship arises and stands in its fit placfr NOTES OF LITEHATURE. I. Biblical Theology and the Theolociy op the Old Testament generally. Ammon, C. F., BiUische Theologie, Erlangen, 1792, 2 Aufl. 1801-2, 3 vols. Bauer, G. L., Theologie des Alien Testaments, Leipzig, 1796 and 1800-2, 4 vols. Zachariae, G. T., Bih. Theologie, 4 Theile, 1772-75. Bauer, G. L., BibUsche Moral des Alten Testaments, Leipzig, 1803-5, 2 vols. Kaiser, G. Ph. Ch., Die biblische Theologie, oder Judaismus und Christianismus, Erlangen, 1813-21, 2 vols. De Wette, W. M. L., Biblische Dogmatik Alten und Neuen Testaments, oder kritische Darstellung der Religionslehre des Hebraismus, des Judenthums und des Urchristentums, Berlin, 1813 ; 3 Aufl. 1831. Baumqarten-Crusius, L. F. D., Grundziige der biblischen Theologie, Jena, 1828. Colln, D. von, Biblische Theologie ; hrsg. von D. Schulz, Leipzig, 1836, 2 vols. Vatke, W., Die Religion des Alten Testaments in der Oeschichtlichen Entwickehmg ihrer Prinzipien dargestellt, Berlin, 1835. Bauer, B., Die Religion des Alten Testamtids, Berlin, 1838 ff., 2 vols. Knapp, J. G., Biblische Glaubenslehre, Ha'le, 1840. Beck, J. T., Die christliche Lehrwissenschaft nach den biblischen Ur- kunden, 1 Theil, Stuttgart, 1841 ; 2 Aufl. 1875. Steudel, J. Ch. F., Vorlesungen iiber die Theologie des Alten Testaments ; hrsg. von Oehler, Berlin, 1840. Oehler, G. F., Prolegomena zur Theologie des Alten Testa/ments, Stuttgart, 1845. Havernick, H. a. C, Vorlesungen iiber die Theologie des Alten Testaments ; hrf^g. von Halm mit Vorwort von Dorner, Erlangen, 1848 ; also 2 Auflage mit Anmerkeng von Hermann Schultz, Frankfort a. M. 1863. LuTZ, J. L. S., Biblische Dogmatik ; hrsg. von Ruetschi, mit Vorwort von Schneckenburger, Pforzheim, 1847, 2 Ausg. 1861. 534 NOTES OF LITERATURE NoACK, L., Die Inhlische Theologie. Einleitung ins A. «. NT, Halle, 1853. SoHULTZ, Hermann, AUtestamuntliche Theologie, Die Offenbarungsreligion auf Hirer vorchristl. Entwickelungsstufe, Frankfort a. M. 1860, 2 vols. ; 2 Aufl. 1878, 1 vol. ; 5tli ed., Gottingen, 1896 ; English translation (from 4th ed.) by J. A. Paterson, 2 vols., Edinburgh, 1892 (T. & T. Clark). HoFMANN, J. Ch. K. von, Der Schriftbeweis, Nordlingen, 1852-55, 2 Theile ; 2 Aull. 1857-60. EwALD, H., Die Lehre der Bihel von Gott, oder Theologie des alten und iieuen Bimdes, 4 parts, Leipzig, 1871-76 ; also an English trans- lation of the first volume by T. Goadby under the title of Revelation, its Nature and Record, Edinburgh, 1884 (T. &T. Clark). Oehler, G. F., Theologie des alten Testaments, 2 vols., Tubingen, 1873, 1874 ; 3 Ausg. hrsg. von Th. Oehler, Stuttgart, 1891 ; also English translations by Ellen D, Smith and Sophia Taylor, 2 vols., Edinburgh, 1874, T. & T. Clark, and George E. Day, 2nd ed., New York, 1884. Bennett, W. H., The Theology of the Old Testament, London, 1896. DiLLMANN, A., Handbuch der alttestajnentlichen Theologie. Aus dem Nachlass des Verfassers hrsg. von R. Kittel, Leipzig, 1895. Duff, A., Old Testament Theology ; or. The History of the Hebrew Religion from the xjear 800 B.C., London, 1901. Duff, A., Theology and Ethics of the Hebrews, London, 1892. Qrau, D. R. F., Gottes Volk und sein Gesetz. Bruchstikke einer biblischen Theologie Alten Tedaments, Gutersloh, 1894. LoTZ, W., Geschichte und Offenbarung im Alten Testament, 2 Ausg., Leipzig, 1892. Schlottmann, K., Kompendium der biblischen Theologie des Alten und Neuen Test. ; hrsg. von E. Kiihn, 2 Ausg., Leipzig, 1895. Driver, S. R., Sermons on Subjects connected with the Old Testament, London, 1892. HiTZIO, F,, Vorlesungen iiber biblische Theologie und messianische Weissa- gungen des Alten Testaments ; hrsg. von Kneucker, Karlsruhe, 1880. PiEPENBRiNG, Ch., Theologie de VAncien Testament, Paris, 1886; English translation by G. H, Mitchell, New York, 1893. Kayser, August, Die Tluologie des Alten Testaments iri ihrer geschicht- lichen Entwickelung da,rgestellt ; hrsg. von K. Marti, 1894. RiEHM, Ed., Alttestamentliche Theologie ; hrsg. von K. Pahncke, Halle, 1889. Smend, S. R., Lehrbuch der alttestamentlichen Religionsgeschichte, Freiburg u. Leipzig, 1893. Foster, R. V., Old Testament Studies; an Outline of Old Testament Theology, Chicago, 1890. Gabler, J. P., De justo discrimine theologies biblicce et dogmaticoBy 1787. NOTES OF LITERATURE 535 Davidson, A. B., paper on " Biblical Theology " in his Biblical and Literary Essays, London, 1902. Kahler, M., article on "Biblische Theologie " in Herzog'a BeaU Encyclopddie, 2n(i ed. IL The History and the Religion op Israel. Baudissin, W. W., Studien zur semitischen Beligionsgeschichte, Leipzig, 1876-79. Wellhausen, J., Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israel, Berlin, 1883. Diestel, L., Geschichte des Alten Testamentes in der christlichen Kirche, Jena, 1869. Henqstenberq, E. W., Geschichte des Reiches Gottes unter dem Alten Bunde ; also English translation in Clark's " Foreign Theological Library," Edinburgh. KuENEN, A. Religion of Israel, Haarlem, 1869 ; Eng. tr. 3 vols. 1875. MoNTEFiORE, C. Q., Religion of the Ancient Hebrews, Hibbert Lecture, 1893. Chantepie de la Saussaye, Lehrb. der Religionsgeschichte, 2nd ed. : Religion oj Israel, by Valeton, 1897. Oesterley, "W. O. E., " The Development of Monotheism in Israel," Expositor, vi. 6, p. 93. III. God and the Divine Names (additional to literature referred to on p. 52). On "Jehovah," etc. Dillmann's Note, Commentary on Genesis, p. 74 (T. & T. Clark). Skipwith, G. H., " The Tetragrammaton " in Jewish Quarterly Revieto, X. p. 662. Gray, G. B., article on " Names" in Encyc. Bihl. iii. 3320 ff. Blau, Das altjiidische Zauberwesen (1898). Stade, in Gesch. d. Volkes Israel, vi. 1, 130 flf. Pinches, " Ya and Jawa in Assyro-Baby Ionian Inscriptions " in PrO' ceedings of Soc. of Bibl. Archceology, i. pp. 1-13. KoNiG, " The Origin of the Name nin%" Expository Times, x. HoMMEL, Ancient Hebrew Tradition, 115. Wellhausen, J., Skizzen, iii. 169. Laqarde, p., Mitteilungen, p. 96fif. (1884) Davidson, A. B., article on " God " in Diet, of Bible, ii. p. 199 (Clark). KuENEN, Religion of Israel, Eng. tr. 1874. KoNiG, Hauptprobleme der altisr. Religionsgeschichte, 1884. Sellin, Beitrage zur semit. Religionsgeschichte, 1896-97. HuNNius, C, Natur u. Char. Jahves nach d. vordeut. Quelle7i d. Biiehet Genesis- Konige, Strassburg, Heitz. 536 NOTES OF LITERATURE KoNiG, E., "War *Jahve' eine Kana'anaische Gottheit?", in Nev^ Kirchl. Ztsch. 13. Weber, H., " Die alttest. Schatzung d. Gottesnamens," in Deutsch- Amer. Ztschr.f. Theol. u. Kirche, 3. Johns, C. H. W., " The Name Jehovah in the Abrahamic Age,' Expositor, vi. 8, p. 282. On '^ Elohim," etc. Fleischer, Kleirie Schriften, i. 154 fF. Delitzsch, Franz, Note, Commentary on Genesis, p. 48 (1887) (Clark). NoLDEKE, article in Zeitsch. d. Morg. Gesell. xi. 174. DiLLMANN, Note, Coiu-mentary on Genesis, i. 1 (Clark). Nestle, article in Theol. Stud, aus Wiirt. p. 243 ff. (1882). Baethgen, Beitrage, 271 and 297 ff. Gray, G. B., article on •' Names," Encycl. Bibl, iii. 3323. On " L ology. Law, idea of, 280. Leimdorfer, D., 53. Life, Old Testament view of, 413 ; its issues, 437 ; life more than exist- ence, 437 ; righteousness and life, 440 ; ideas of life in science and in Scripture, 496. Literary criticism of Old Testament, its principles, 29 ; its limitations and results, 30. Man, Old Testament doctrine of, 182 ; distinct from lower creatures by creation, 194 ; unity of man- kind, 224 ; doctrine of man's in- herited depravity, 225 ; normal condition of, 505. Margoliouth, G., 52. Marti-Kayser, 41. Maurice, F. D., 313. Messianic elements, in idea of Angel of the Lord, 298 ; Messianic idea, 357 ; the theocratic king, 365 ; the Suff'ering Servant of the Lord, 365 ; various forms of the Messianic, 367 ; diff"erent periods of, 367 ; subordinate importance of age of Hezekiah and period of Exile in regard to the Messianic hope, 371 ; Messianic doctrine in relation to Eschatology, 373 ; the Messianic in Second Isaiah, 872 ; in Zeohariah and Daniel, 873 ; Jehovah and tha INDEX OF MATTERS 551 Messiah, 885 ; the Suffering Servant, 392. Monolatry, in Shemitic religion, 61. Monotheism, Hebrew, 60 ; theoretical, 64 ; Jeremiah's relation to it, 64 ; question of a degeneration of Mono- theism or a rise of Monotheism out of Polytheism, 96. Moses, 60, 68, 110. Muller, Julius, 225, 433. Name, use of, among Hebrews, 36 ; idea of the Divine name, 37 ; J articular names of God, 38 ; ehovah's regard for His name, 333. Name's sake, 33. Natural theology, 78. Nature and the knowledge of God, 79 ; nature not ;^confounded with God, 96. Nbldeke, Th., 89. Oehler, G. F., 423. Old Testament dispensation, false views and true, 2. Old Testament history, its course and drift, 22. Old Testament theology, studies pre- liminary to, 5 ; definitions of it, 6 ; a historical science, 6 ; genetic, 8 ; a development, 10 ; a presenta- tion of the religion or the religious idea, 11 ; practically the history of the religion of Israel, 11 ; relation of the ideas and the history, 12 ; divisions, 12. Ontological argument, 79. Pantheistic conceptions strange to Shemitic mind, 97. Particularism of Hebrew religion, 59. Personality of God, 106; anthropo- morphic expression of, 108. Personality of the Spirit, question of, 127 ; passages which might convey idea of a distinct hypostasis, 128. Philistines, their origin, 24. Potter and clay, figure of, 131. Power of God, 163 ; in nature, 163 ; in history, 164. Predetermination, the Divine, 176. Priest, the, sense of term, 307 ; character and functions of, 308 ; high priest, 310, 311. Priesthood, doctrine of, 307 ; priest- hood of people, 307 ; representa- tive priesthood of class, 308 ; basis of priestlv caste, 309 ; function of priestly oUss, 810t Prophecy and Apologetics, 104. Prophets of Old Testament, 20 ; their view of history, 21. Providence, benevolent and punitive or chastising, 299 ; problems and solutions, 453. Psychology, question of a Biblical, 183. Purpose, the Divine, 177. Redemption, Old Testament doctrine of, 235 ; the covenant, 235 ; re- demptive righteousness, 395 ; doc- trine of, 235, 289, 306. Redemptive attributes, 169 ; love, 170 ; election, 171 ; calling, 172 ; unchangeableness, 172 ; confession, 172 ; free grace, 173. Religion of Old Testament, historical, 11 ; relation of ideas to history, 12 ; great periods of, 15 ; prophetic view of, 21 ; natural character, 22 ; particularistic, 60 ; how and when monotheistic, 60 ; monolatrous stage, 61. Representation, not the Old Testa- ment rationale of penalty descend- ing on children, 220. Restoration, idea of, in later pro- phets, 369. Resurrection, doctrine of, 443 ; pro- duct of reflection, 449 ; in the prophets, 528 ; its climax in Daniel, 528. Retribution, Old Testament belief in, 409. Revelation, 14 ; idea of, 34 ; oral and continuous, 36 ; chief source of knowledge of God, 80 ; given in symbolical form, 237 ; in frag- mentary form, 237. Riehm, E., 243, 249, 351. Righteousness, the term, 395 ; its various applications, 395 ; _ its relation to the term salvation, 396. Righteousness of God, 129 ; when expressed by the term, 130 ; righteousness and sovereignty, 131 ; not abstract, 133 ; principle of judgment in it, 134 ; in respect of God's relations to His people, 134 ; in respect of His relations to other nations, 135 ; in relation to Israel's right, 138 ; as applied to God's redemptive operations, 140 ; righteousness aa salvation, 141 ; why called OocTs righteousness, 142 i JohoT»h'B righteousuMS, 148 ; 552 INDEX OF MATTERS redemptive righteousness, 395 ; righteousness as salvation, 398. Righteousness in the people, 257 ; as obedience, 260 ; as goodness, 261 ; requirement of the covenant-rela- tion, 264 ; radical idea of righteous- ness, 265 ; conformity to a motive, 271 ; general and specific uses, 273 ; righteousness and grace, 275 ; righteousness and faith, 278. Ritschl, A., 351. Sabbath, idea of, 243. Sacrifice, doctrine of, 311 ; questions regarding origin of sacrifice, 311 ; primitive idea of sacrifice, 312 ; Maurice's view, 312 ; Robertson Smith's view, 313 ; Wellhausen's view, 313 ; Westcott's view, 355. Sanctuaries, 112 ; effect of destruction of, 158. Satan, doctrine of, 300 ; instrument of Jehovah, 303 ; his oflSce, 304 ; development of idea of, 305. Satisfaction for sin, forms of, 336, 337. Schultz, Hermann, 34, 296. Scripture, Old Testament, what it is, 3 ; as the word of God, 4. Servant of the Lord, 365 ; His opera- tion and method, 393. Shemitic religion, primary form of, 43 ; not pantheistic, 97. Sheol, the term and its derivation, 425, 499 ; relation to Assyrian Sualu, 426 ; various synonyms, 427 ; idea of Sheol, 428 ; questions of moral distinctions in Sheol, 428, 501 ; condition of those in Sheol, 430, 499 ; no topography, 500 ; hid in Sheol, 483. Shorter Catechism, 212, 291. Sin, Old Testament doctrine of, 203 ; a popular doctrine, not a scientific, 204 ; categories of good and evil, 205 ; variety of terms for moral evil, 207 ; variety of conceptions of sin, 207 ; as folly, 209 ; as scorn, 210 ; as falsehood, 210 ; as unclean- ness, 210 ; as failure, 211 ; as un- righteousness, 211 ; as defined by Westminster standards, 212 ; as offence against a person, 213 ; as defilement, 249 ; in relation to the nation, 215 ; in relation to the individual, 215 ; in relation to doctrine of God, 217 ; in relation to the race, 217 ; questions of creationism and traducianism, 227 ; eoiuoiousnesa of sin, 228 ; covering of sin, 320 ; various expressions of the consciousness of sin in the prophets, 228 ; sins of ignorance, 228 ; idea of sin in Amos and Hosea, 228 ; in Isaiah, 229 ; in Jeremiah, 230 ; in Fifty-first Psalm, 232. Sinfulness, Old Testament view of, 217 ; not attributed to the flesh, 218 ; as seen in connexion of individual with a sinful whole, 219 ; as inherited depravity, 229. Sins of ignorance and sins, of high hand, 315. Smith, W. R., 41, 313. Solidarity, Hebrew idea of, 407. Sorrows of the godly, 457. Soul, use of tei-m, 199 ; widest sense, 199 ; no substantial distinction between soul and spirit, 200, 419 . soul one aspect and spirit another, of same thing, 202 ; seat of sen sibilities, 202 ; origin of, 226. Soul and the knowledge of God, 78. Sovereignty of God, 131. Spirit, use of term, 192 ; primarj sense, 193 ; extended sense, 193 ; withdrawal of spirit is death, 195 ; the vital spirit coming from God, 194 ; source of life, strength, energy, 198 ; man's spirit and God's Spirit, 421. Spirit of God, doctrine of, 115 ; foundation of idea, 117 ; spirit within God Himself, 117 ; general idea of spirit, 118 ; source of vitality and power, 119 ; used both of temporary and of permanent determinations of mind, 119 ; an expression of character, 119 ; activities of, 120 ; in cosmical sphere, 120 ; in sphere of life, 121 ; in human experience and history, 123; in prophecy, 123; in in- tellectual gifts, 124 ; in moral life, 124 ; Spirit of Jehovah as Jehovah Himself, 125 ; distinction between Spirit of God and Spirit of the Lord, 125 ; question of personality of the Spirit, 127. Spirituality of God, 106. Spoer, Hans, 52. Steudel, J. C. F., 81. Suffering, development of thoagbt on, 282 ; problem of, 284 ; in Job, 286. Textual criticism of Old Testament, 29. INDEX OF MATTERS 553 Theology of the Old Testament, studies preliminary to it, 5 ; definitions of it, 6 ; a historical science, 6 ; genetic, 8 ; a develop- ment, 10 ; a presentation of the religion or the religious ideas, 11 ; practically the history of the religion of Israel, 11 ; relation of the ideas and the histov)', 12 ; divisions, 12 ; historical periods, 15 ; not a theology of the schools, 107. Theology of the schools, 108 ; its beginnings in Alexandrian trans- lation of Old Testament, and the Chaldee translations, 109 ; seen in later Jewish books, 109. Traducianism, question of, 227) Trichotomy, theory of, 185. Trinity, doctrine of, 129. Tulloch, Principal John, ML Tyler, T., 53. Uncleanness, removal of, 817. Unity of God, 96. Universal restoration, doctrine oft 529. Vision of God, Job's, 493. Vowel signs in Hebrew, 47. Warburton, Bishop W., 405. Warren, President, 52. Weiss, B., 351. Wellhausen, Julius, 313. Westcott, Bishop B. F., 355. Wicked, destiny of, 529. Wildeboer, G., 13. Wisdom literature, 451, 525. Wrath, the Divine, 318, 32S, SSI 836, 337. The International Theological Library VOLUMES NOW READY An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testa- ment. By Professor S. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt. "As a whole there is probably no book in the English Language equal to this ' Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament,' for the student who desires to understand what the modern criticism thinks about the Bible." — Dr. Lyman Abbott, in The Outlook. Crown 8vo. $2.50 nei. A History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age. By Arthur C. McGiffert, Ph.D., D.D. " The clearness, self-consistency, and force of the whole impression of Apostolic Christianity with which we leave this book goes far to guar- antee its permanent value and success." — The Expositor. Crown 8vo. $2.50 net. Christian Ethics. By newman smyth, d.d. "As this book is the latest, so it is the fullest and most attractive treat- ment of the subject that we are familiar with. Patient and exhaustive in its method of inquiry, and stimulating and suggestive in the topic it handles, we are confident that it will be a help to the task of the moral understanding and interpretation of human life." — The Living Church. Crown 8vo. $2.50 net. Apologetics; or, Christianity Defensively Stated. By Alexander Balmain Bruce, D.D. " We have not for a long time taken a book in hand that is more stimulating to faith. . . . Without commenting further, we repeat that this volume is the ablest, most scholarly, most advanced, and sharpest defence of Christianity that has ever been written. No theological library should be without it." — Zion's Herald. Crown 8vo. $2.50 net. Old Testament History, by henry preserved smith, d.d. " Prof. Smith has, by his comprehensive and vitalized history, laid all who cure for the Old Testament imder great obligations." — The Independent. Crown 8vo. $2.50 n«t. The International Theological Library VOLUMES NOW READY The Theology of the New Testament, bj giomb b. Stevens, D.D., I,L.D. " It is a fine example of painstaking, discriminat/ng, impartial research and statement."— r/j« Congregationalist. Crown 8vo. $2.50 net. History of Christian Doctrine. By george p. fbher, D.D., LL.D. " It is only just to say that Dr. Fisher has produced the best History of Doctrine that we have in English." — The New York Evangelist. Crown 8vo. $2.50 net. The Christian Pastor and the Working Church. By Washington Gladden, D.D., LL.D. "A comprehensive, inspiring and helpful guide to a busy pastor. One finds in it a multitude of practical suggestions for the development of the spiritual and working life of the Church, and the answer to many problems that are a constant perplexity to the faithful minister." — Tlie Christian Intelligencer. Crown 8vo. $2.50 net. Christian Institutions. By Alexander v. B. Allen, d.d. " Professor Allen's Christian Institutions may be regarded as the most important permanent contribution which the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States has yet made to general theological thought." — The American Journal 0/ Theology. Crown 8vo. $2.50 net. The Theology of the Old Testament. By a. b. Davidson, D.D., LL.D., D.Litt. " We hope every clergyman will not rest content until he has procured and studied this most admirable and useful book. Every really useful question relating to man — his nature, his fall, and his redemption, his present life or grace, his life after death, his future life, is treated of." — The Canadian Churchman. Crown 8vo. $2.<{onet. The Christian Doctrine of Salvation. By georgb b. Stevens, D.D., LL.D. " Professor Stevens has performed a task of great importance, certain to exert wide and helpful influence in settling the minds of men. He has treated the subject historically and has given to Christ the first place in interpreting his own mission." — Congregationalist and Christian World. C own 8vo. $2.50 net. The International Theological Library VOLUMES NOW READY The Ancient Catholic Church. By Robert rainy, d.d., ll.d. "As a comprehensive work on the formative stage of the Church's ex- perience the volume will easily find its place in the front rank among books on the subject composed in t'le English language." — The Interior. Crown 8vo. $2.50 nst. The Reformation in Germany. By thomas m. lwdsay, M.A., D.D. Crown 8vo. $2.50 net. The Reformation in Lands Beyond Germany. ByXHouAs M. Lindsay, D.D. " Together these two volumes will at once take their place as the clas- sical English History of the Reformation." — The Expository Times. " The good balance of material which he has attained by a self-denying exclusion, as well as by much research and inclusion of fresh material, makes the work a real addition to our materials for study." — The Congregationalist. Crown 8vo. $2.50 net. Canon and Text of the New Testament. By casper ren6 Gregory, D.D., LL.D. " The book is a treasury of learning, and its fairness in dealing with the matter in hand is admirable. From first to last, the purpose of the author is not to show upon how slight basis our confidence in the can- onicity of the New Testament is based, but rather upon how solid a foundation our confidence rests." — Journal and Messenger. Crown 8vo. $2.50 net. The Greek and Eastern Churches. By Walter f. adeney, M.A., D.D. " It seems to me an excellent and inost useful piece of work. I do not know anything in English which covers the same ground and am sure Dr. Adeney has put us all in his debt by his scholarly, well- balanced and judicious treatment." — Prof. William Adams Brown. Crown 8vo. $2.50 net. The Christian Doctrine of God. By William n. ciarke, d. d. Crown 8vo. $2.50 nrl. Post«we Additional. The International Critical Commentary On the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments EDITORS' PREFACE THERE are now before the public many Commentaries, written by British and American divines, of a popular or homiletical character. The Cambridge Bible for Schools, the Handbooks for Bible Classes and Private Students, The Speaker's Commentary, The Popular Commentary (Schaff), The Expositor' s Bible, and other similar series, have their special place and importance. But they do not enter into the field of Critical Biblical scholarship occupied by such series of Commentaries as the Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum A. T. ; De Wette's Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum N. T ; Meyer's Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar ; Keil and Delitzsch's Biblischer Commentar i'lber das A. T. ; Lange's Theologisch-homiletisches Bibelwerk ; Nowack's Hatidkommentar zum A. T. ; Holtzmann's Handkommentar zum N. T. Several of these have been translated, edited, and in some cases enlarged and adapted, for the English-speaking public ; others are in process of translation. But no corresponding series by British or American divines has hitherto been produced. The way has been prepared by special Commentaries by Cheyne, Ellicott, Kalisch, Lightfoot, Perowne, Westcott, and others; and the time has come, in the judgment of the projectors of this enter- prise, when it is practicable to combine British and American scholars in the production of a critical, comprehensive Commentary that will be abreast of modern biblical scholarship, and in a measure lead its van. The International Critical Commentary Messrs. Charles Scribner's Sons of New York, and Messrs. T. & T. Clark of Edinburgh, propose to publish such a series of Commentaries on the Old and New Testaments, under th editorship of Prof. C. A. Briggs, D.D., D.Litt., in America, and of Prof. S. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt., for the Old Testament, and the Rev. Alfred Plummer, D.D., for the New Testament, in Great Britain. The Commentaries will be international and inter-confessional, and will be free from polemical and ecclesiastical bias. They will be based upon a thorough critical study of the original texts of the Bible, and upon critical methods of interpretation. They are designed chiefly for students and clergymen, and will be written in a compact style. Each book will be preceded by an Introduction, stating the results of criticism upon it, and discuss- ing impartially the questions still remaining open. The details of criticism will appear in their proper place in the body of the Commentary. Each section of the Text will be introduced with a paraphrase, or summary of contents. Technical details of textual and philological criticism will, as a rule, be kept distinct from matter of a more general character ; and in the Old Testament the exegetical notes will be arranged, as far as possible, so as to be serviceable to students not acquainted with Hebrew. The History of Interpretation of the Books will be dealt with, when necessary, in the Introductions, with critical notices of the most important literature of the subject. Historical and Archaeological questions, as well as questions of Biblical Theology, are included in the plan of the Commentaries, but not Practical or Homiletical Exegesis. The Volumes will con- , stitute a uniform series. The International Critical Commentary ARRANGEMENT OF VOLUMES AND AUTHORS THE OLD TESTAMENT GENESIS. The Rev. John Skinner, D.D., Principal and Professor of Old Testament Language and Literature, College of Presbyterian Church of England, Cambridge, England. [Now Ready. i^XODUS. The Rev. A. R. S. KENNEDY, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, University of Edinburgh. LEVITICUS. J. F. Stenning, M.A., Fellow of Wadham College, Oxford. NUMBERS. The Rev. G. Buchanan Gray, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Mansfield College, Oxford. [Now Ready. DEUTERONOMY. The Rev. S. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt., Regius Pro- fessor of Hebrew, Oxford. [Now Ready. JOSHUA. The Rev. George Adam Smith. D.D., LL.D., Professor of Hebrew, United Free Church College, Glasgow. JUDGES. The Rev. George Moore, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Theol- ogy. Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. [Now Ready. SAMUEL. The Rev. H. P. Smith, D.D., Professor of Old Testament Literature and History of Religion, Meadville, Pa. [Now Ready. KINGS. The Rev. Francis Brown, D.D., D.Litt., LL.D., President and Professor of Hebrew and Cognate Languages, Union Theological Seminary, New York City. CHRONICLES. The Rev. Edward L. Curtis, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. [Now Ready. E7RA AND NEHEMIAH. The Rev. L.W. BATTEN, Ph.D., D.D., Rector of St. Mark's Church, New York City, sometime Professor of Hebrew, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia. PSALMS. The Rev. Chas. A. Briggs, D.D., D.Litt., Graduafe Fro- fessor of Theological Encyclopsedia and Symbolics, Union Theological Seminary, New York. [2 vols. Now Read''' PROVERBS. The Rev. C. H. Toy, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Hebrew, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. [Now Ready. JOB. The Rev. S. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt., Regius Professor of He- brew, Oxford. The International Critical Commentary ISAIAH. Chaps. I-XXXIX. The Rev. G. Buchanan Gray, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Mansfield College, Oxford. ISAIAH. Chaps. XL-LXVI. The Rev. A. S. Peake, M.A., D.D., Dean of the Theological Faculty of the Victoria University and Professor of Biblical Exegesis in the University of Manchester, England. JEREMIAH. The Rev. A. F. Kirkpatrick, D.D., Dean of Ely, sometime Regius Professor of Hebrew, Cambridge, England. ZZEKIEL. The Rev. G. A. Cooke, M.A., Oriel Professor of the Inter- pretation of Holy Scripture, University of Oxford, and the Rev. Charles F. BURNEY, D. Litt., Fellow and Lecturer in Hebrew, St. John's College, Oxford. DANIEL. The Rev. John P. Peters, Ph.D., D.D., sometime Professor of Hebrew, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia, now Rector of St. Michael's Church, New York City. AMOS AND HOSEA. W. R. Harper, Ph.D., LL.D., sometime Presi- dent of the University of Chicago, Illinois. \^Now Ready. MIC AH TO HAGGAI. Prof. John P. Smith, University of Chicago; Prof. Charles P. Fagnani, D.D., Union Theological Seminary, New York; W. Hayes Ward, D.D., LL.D., Editor of The Independent, New York; Prof. Julius A. Bewer, Union Theological Seminary, New York, and Prof. H. G. Mitchell, D.D., Boston University. 2ECHARIAH TO JONAH. Prof. H. G. Mitchell, D.D., Prof. John P. Smith and Prof. J. A. Bewer. ESTHER. The Rev. L. B. Paton, Ph.D., Professor of Hebrew, Hart- ford Theological Seminary. [iVow Ready. ECCLESIASTES. Prof. George A. Barton, Ph.D., Professor of Bibli- cal Literature, Bryn Mawr College, Pa. \^A^o'U' Ready RUTH, SONG OF SONGS AND LAMENTATIONS. Rev. CHARLES A. Briggs, D.D., D.Litt., Graduate Professor of Theological EncyclopaEdia \nd Symbolics, Union Theological Seminary, New York. THE NEW TESTAMENT ST. MATTHEW. The Rev. WiLLOUGHBY C. Allen, M.A., Fellow and Lecturer in Theology and Hebrew, Exeter College, Oxford. [Now Ready. ST. MARK. Rev. E. P. GoULD, D.D., sometime Professor of New Testa- ment Literature, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia. [Now Ready. ST. LUKE. The Rev. Alfred Plummer, D.D., sometime Master of University College, Durham. [Nuw Ready. The International Critical Commentary ST. JOHN. The Very Rev. John Henry Bernard, D.D., Dean of St. Patrick's and Lecturer in Divinity, University of Dublin. HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS. The Rev. William Sanday, D.D., LL.D., Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, Oxford, and the Rev. WlL- LOUGHBY C. Allen, M.A., Fellow and Lecturer in Divinity and Hebrew, Exeter College, Oxford. ACTS. The Rev. C. H. Turner, D.D., Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford, and the Rev. H. N. Bate, M.A., Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of London. ROMANS. The Rev. William Sanday, D.D., LL.D., Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, and the Rev. A. C. Headlam, M.A., D.D., Principal of King's College, London. \_N^f England, Cambridge, England. Crown 8vo. $3.00 net (Postage additional). The Books of Chronicles. By the Rev. edward l. curtis, Ph.D., D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Yale University, and Rev. Albert A. Madsen, Ph.D. Crown Svo. $3.00 net (Postage additional), Date Due m n. r ®