•YAiuE-waiiVEiasinnf-

DIVINITY SCHOOL
TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY

THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL

THE
RELIGION OF ISRAEL
AN HISTORICAL STUDY

BY
HENRY PRESERVED SMITH

NEW YORK
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS
1914

Copyright, 1914, by
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS

Published February, 1914

THE MEMORY OP
CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS, D.D., D.Litt.
WARM-HEABTED FRIEND
ACCOMPLISHED SCHOLAR
DEVOTED DISCIPLE OF THE MASTER
VALIANT DEFENDER OF THE FAITH

PREFACE
The purpose of this book is sufficiently indicated by the
title and is set forth more at large in the opening chapter.
It is an endeavour to give an intelligible account of the
rise and progress of Israel's religion from its beginnings in
the nomadic period down to the tragic event which put an
end to the Jewish state. The reader who is even super
ficially acquainted with the progress of biblical study during
the last forty years will not be surprised to find that the
book proceeds upon the supposition that the results of the
so-called higher criticism are fairly certain. All that the
book claims for itself is that it represents our present knowl
edge; what the future has in store for us we cannot fore
cast. I have avoided controversy and have endeavoured
to state my opinion frankly and in positive terms. I have
not thought it necessary to make frequent reference to the
literature of the subject. Old Testament scholars will dis
cover where I am indebted to my predecessors. The reader
who is not a specialist may safely assume that I have not
taken any position without examining the arguments for
and against.
The frequent references to the biblical writers will be
their own justification. And since (according to my obser
vation) few readers have the patience to look up chapter
and verse in their Bibles, I have often introduced the words
of the authors into my text. In the few cases in which the
notation of chapter and verse in the English is not the
same as in the Hebrew, I have followed the latter. Where
my translation differs from that of the current version it
will, I think, command the approval of good authorities.
vii

Vlll PREFACE
In preparing this book I thought with pleasure of dedi
cating it to my friend Dr. Briggs, to whom biblical and
theological scholarship owes so much. Before the copy
could be put into the hands of the printer he was called
from the scene of his earthly labours. There remains to
me only the melancholy pleasure of consecrating it to his
memory, a belated testimony of my affection, but none
the less an evidence of the debt of gratitude I owe him. I
count him among them that are wise, who shine as the bright
ness of the firmament.
New York,
December 1, 1913.

CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I. Aim and Method  3
II. Nomadic Religion  12
III. Moses and His Work  46
IV. The Transition  63
V. Religion in the Early Literature ... 91
VI. The Earlier Prophets . . . . .117
VII. Amos and Hosea  131
VIII. Isaiah  147
IX. Jeremiah  162
X. The Beginnings of Legalism  179
XI. Ezekiel  196
XII. Legalism Triumphant  211
XIII. The Dogmatic Bus  227
XIV. The Messianic Hope  240
XV. Spiritualisation of the Messianic Hope . . 250
XVI. The Sceptical Reaction  263
XVII. Legalism and Practical Problems .... 276
ix

X CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
XVIII. Apocalyptic Development of the Messianic Hope . 293
XIX. The Treasure of the Humble . . . .315
XX. The Final Stage  332
Index of Scripture Passages  355
Index of Subjects  366

THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL

THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
CHAPTER I
AIM AND METHOD
Our purpose is to trace the history of Israel's religion
from the earliest discoverable stages down to the Christian
era. The subject has been frequently treated in recent
years under the name of "Biblical Theology of the Old
Testament." The adjective "Biblical" in this title is in
tended to differentiate this science from dogmatic or
systematic theology. Dogmatic theology, which aims to
present the philosophy held in any particular religious com
munion, uses the contents of the Bible to confirm or estab
lish the doctrines of the Church as defined in the creeds.
Its purpose may be said to be the discovery of the mean
ing of the Bible for us and in our philosophical system.
With the rise of modern historical science men began to
realise that what the biblical writers thought of God and
divine things might not always be normative for us. The
student of history does not understand a thing unless he
can trace the process of growth by which it has come to
be what it is. From this point of view it is no longer enough
for us to set forth the religious ideas of the Bible in some
philosophical arrangement. The principle of arrangement
must be organic, according to the stages of growth discov
erable in the documents upon which our knowledge depends.
Biblical theology, therefore, is correctly defined as the sci
ence which sets forth "the theology of the Bible in its his
torical formation." J The same thing is meant by Oehler
1 Briggs, General Introduction to the Study of Holy Scripture, p. 569.
Dr. Briggs adds the phrase "within the canonical books." Whether this
conception of the canon belongs here we may be able to determine later.
3

4 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
when he speaks of the "historico-genetic presentation of
the religion contained in the Scriptures of the Old Testa
ment." 1 The phrase historico-genetic means simply that we
are to trace the genesis and growth of the Old Testament
religion. Since this is a purely historical inquiry, it seems
best to state it in the title, and speak of the history of Is
rael's religion.
The source of our knowledge is, of course, the literature
of the Hebrews. For dogmatic theology the same is true.
For dogmatic theology the definition of the canon is impor
tant; for the historical inquiry this is not so. The canon
is the group of books accepted in the Church as authorita
tive. Historical science knows no authoritative documents;
it asks only whether the documents with which it deals
contain material bearing on a certain historic development,
in this case bearing on the religion of Israel. This consid
eration shows that the attempt to limit biblical theology
to the canonical books of the Old Testament is a mistake.
No clear line of demarcation can be drawn between the
religion of the canonical books and the religion of those
excluded from the canon. The religion of Israel did not
stop growing when the latest of the Hebrew books took
shape. In fact, as we now know, some of the so-called
apocrypha and pseudepigrapha are earlier in date than some
portions of the Old Testament.
The advantage of defining our subject as the history of
religion instead of a theology is seen when we reflect that
while the documents with which we have to deal are full of
religion, it is doubtful whether they can be said to contain
a theology. The endeavour to make them teach a theology
is instructive with reference to this point. The early Church
was challenged as to its theology, that is to say, as to its
beliefs concerning God and the world, sin and salvation,
on two sides. The Jews denied that the beliefs of the
Christians were authenticated by the Scriptures; the gen
tiles called upon them to justify their rejection of the an-
1Old Testament Theology, §2.

AIM AND METHOD 5
cestral gods. Against both antagonists Christian thinkers
appealed to their sacred book. But the stress to which
they were driven is made clear by their method of inter
pretation. It was a boon to them that the allegorical ex
position had been so thoroughly adopted by Philo. Ori
gen, the greatest scholar of the Church, appropriated this
method and frankly confessed that many passages of the
Old Testament, taken literally, did not teach any important
theological truth. The literal sense, he held, is only the
body of Scripture; we must search for the soul, which is
the deeper mystical meaning.
It must be evident that this theory and the later asser
tion of a threefold, fourfold, or even sevenfold sense of
Scripture must block the way to a really historical under
standing both of the documents themselves and of the relig
ion which underlies them. Protestantism, indeed, rejected
the allegorical interpretation and laid stress on the literal
interpretation. Luther, although his religious experience
gave him a better understanding of the real religious ap
peal made by the biblical writers than was found among the
theologians who preceded him, was not able to free himself
from the scholastic philosophy in which he had been brought
up, and this is more distinctly true of Melanchthon and
Calvin. In one sense the interpretation of Scripture was
less open to discussion in the Protestant Churches than in
the Church of Rome. In the latter the defects of Scripture
could be made good by tradition, and the allegorical method
could find a suitable sense almost anywhere. But the Prot
estants had made their whole system depend on the Bible,
and they had rejected the allegories. They must find all
that they needed in the text literally interpreted. What
actually happened was that a new tradition took the place
of the old. What could be used to strengthen the received
doctrinal system was taken in the form of proof-texts, and
the rest was left out of view. The theory of a fourfold sense
now gave way to the doctrine of the analogy of faith, ac
cording to which all Scripture, since it proceeded from God

6 THE RELIGION OP ISRAEL
as author, must be harmonious. And in place of the alle
gorical interpretation came a set of types according to which
everything in the Old Testament was made to foreshadow
Christ. The endeavour to emphasise the doctrinal parts of Scrip
ture had one curious result. It became the fashion for
teachers of theology to collect proof-texts out of the whole
Bible and publish them with comments for the use of stu
dents. Sebastian Schmidt, of Strassburg, one of the ablest
scholars of the seventeenth century, gave a course of lec
tures on the dicta probantia, and afterward published them
under the title Collegium Biblicum. The example was fol
lowed by others, and may have given rise to the idea that
there was, after all, a difference between dogmatic and biblical
theology. The rise of rationalism, however, was probably
more potent in turning thought to the real nature of the
biblical books. The clear formulation of the distinction
between biblical and dogmatic theology seems to be due
to Gabler, whose essay on this subject was published in
1787.1 Gabler rightly made biblical theology an historic
rather than a philosophical study. A considerable part of
the theological work of the nineteenth century, especially
in Germany, was devoted to the development of this thought;
namely, that biblical theology belongs among the historical
sciences. The apprehension of the literature of the Hebrews as an
historic source is what distinguishes our age from all that
have preceded it. To the Jews the Bible was primarily
a code of laws. The earnestness with which they have ap
plied this code to their daily conduct is writ large on their
whole later history. This point of view was to a certain
extent overcome by the early Church under the leadership
of the Apostle Paul. The Church, however, looked upon
the documents of the Old Testament as so many predictions
1 De justo discrimine theologies biblicce et dogmaticce, regundisque recte
tdriusque finibus. I have not seen this essay, but it is cited by most
of the writers on this subject.

AIM AND METHOD 7
of the salvation which was brought by Jesus Christ. This
also was a one-sided view. Later, when stress was laid
upon a correct philosophy of the universe, the Bible became
the divinely inspired treatise on doctrine. The unnatural
interpretations forced on the text by both these theories
are well known. It is now clear that both theories did vio
lence to the real nature of the Bible. What we now empha
sise in describing this book is its character as religious lit
erature; the Bible is the expression of the religious life of
the Hebrew people. It is, therefore, a source of religious
edification to the reader. This, to be sure, has always
been known to devout souls. It was the merit of Pietism
that it called men's attention afresh to this truth.
But the view of Pietism may easily lead to extravagancies.
If these are to be guarded against they must be accompanied
by an historical apprehension. As the Bible is something
more than a collection of proof-texts for the dogmatician,
so it is more than a series of comforting assurances for the
believer. When by a correct exegesis we have discovered
the meaning of the sentences which make up the book, we
are still far from understanding the book. These sentences
are somehow related to each other. They have an organic
unity, or rather they express a single continuous life. We
must therefore have some principle by which we can bring
the isolated fragments into unity. This means that we
must seek to discover the organic evolution of which they
are the expression.
It follows logically that our science demands as a pre
requisite what is known as the higher criticism. Criticism
is simply examination of documents to determine their his
torical value. All our knowledge of antiquity comes to us
in fragments. We have a bit of flint as evidence of what
the oldest man was doing; we have a half -defaced inscrip
tion from which to discover the ideas which were current
three thousand years ago; we have a pile of broken clay
tablets from which to piece together the cosmology of the
dwellers in the Euphrates Valley somewhere near the dawn

8 THE RELIGION OP ISRAEL
of history. Even the literature which has come down to
us is only a fragment, and the Bible itself is a collection
of such fragments. To understand them we must first get
an idea of ancient literary methods. This means that we
must rid ourself of the idea that authorship implies literary
property. In our own time it is unwarrantable to take sec
tions of a book and intersperse them with paragraphs from
ano her source and thus make another book. But in an
cient times there was no scruple in doing just this. When
a man of Israel had in his possession a book that seemed
to him defective in its point of view, he saw no reason why
he should not correct it by insertion of what he thought
more adequate. This process was almost inevitable in the
case of a sacred book, for religious ideas change, and what
is edifying to one generation may not be so to another. We
have seen how the allegorical interpretation was made to
give the old Bible new meanings. Before the text had be
come fixed the same end was attained by interpolation and
redactional changes. If we are rightly to appreciate the
historical process which has embodied itself in these docu
ments we must first apply the critical process and separate
earlier elements from those which are later.
It would be a mistake to suppose that what, for want of
a better name, we call interpolations are of less value to us
than the older strata with which they are interspersed.
These later additions reveal most clearly, and often most
touchingly, the state of mind of religious men who felt the
defects of the documents which had come down from an
tiquity. All that we need to guard against is the tempta
tion to take the later portions as evidence of what went on
at an earlier time. This temptation naturally beset the
first generation of critics, and it took a long time to estab
lish the real historical order of the documents. The diffi
culty was caused by the strength of the tradition embodied
in the Hebrew documents themselves. This tradition made
the Law of Moses the starting-point of Israel's history. At
the present day it is generally conceded that this is a mis-

AIM AND METHOD 9
take. With such a presupposition the history of Israel is
unintelligible, whereas on the modern theory we get a well-
ordered development culminating in the priestly legislation
instead of starting from it.
In saying that our method must be critical we mean that
we assume the results of critical study as to the order of
the documents. This implies, of course, that we base our
sketch of the religion of Israel on the critical reconstruction
of Israel's history. But, since this reconstruction is not yet
universally accepted, it is necessary at this point to state
in brief what it holds to be the actual process of Israel's
development. The comparative study of religions shows
with increasing clearness that the religion of a people bears
an intimate relation to that people's political and social
conditions. What these conditions were in Israel must be
determined by the historian. As thus determined, Israel's
development may be sketched as follows:
About thirteen hundred years before Christ a group of
nomad clans was making its way into the cultivated country
of Canaan, the district which lies between the Jordan and
the Mediterranean. For some three hundred years the
struggle went on between the older inhabitants and the
newcomers. The result was the amalgamation of the two
elements, with the desert blood predominant. David suc
ceeded in uniting the heterogeneous sections into one peo
ple, though the unity was never very perfect, and the single
kingdom was broken into two after less than a hundred
years. The larger fraction maintained a semblance of in
dependence for about two hundred years, succumbing at
last to Assyria in 722. Judah, the smaller fraction, enjoyed
the name of a kingdom for something over a hundred years
longer. But it, too, fell before a greater power, becoming
an insignificant province of the Babylonian Empire. Never
again politically independent, the Jews yet learned to live
among the gentiles without mixing with them, keeping their
separate social and religious customs.
This bare outline shows that we may distinguish four

10 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
stages in the history of this people, and the presumption is
that the religion will show four stages corresponding to
these. First of all, the clans were nomads living on the
milk of their flocks and the plunder taken from their neigh
bours. Their religious ideas must have been similar to
what we find among the Arabs of the same region at the
present day. Then came the stage of amalgamation with
the Canaanites and the adoption of the agricultural life.
The adoption of Canaanitish religion would naturally follow,
and we have abundant evidence that it actually did follow.
With the reign of Solomon the arts of life made an advance;
commercial enterprises were undertaken; great buildings
were erected; class divisions became more marked. The
reaction did not come at once, but when, in the time of Ahab,
foreign customs seemed about to prevail, a vigorous protest
was made under the lead of Elijah. The succession of
prophets thus introduced marks a new era for the religion
of Israel. Their political revolution, which set Jehu on the
throne, did not stop the march of events, but their influ
ence lasted long after the fall of Samaria, which they so
plainly foresaw. Their message was repeated with em
phasis by Isaiah but was disregarded in the half-century
that followed his death. The attempt of the prophetic
party to effect a thorough reformation of religion under
Josiah was of short duration, but, as was true in the case of
the earlier prophets, the message had greater vitality than
the men who formulated it. The remnant which survived
the fall of Jerusalem felt the full force of the denunciations
which the prophets had put on record, and their attempt to
regulate their lives by the traditions which came from the
fathers made the final period (that of legalism) the most
strongly marked of all the stages of Israel's religion.
What is now clear to us is that in our history of the re
ligion we must begin with the nomadic stage and end with
the highly developed legalism which is characteristic of the
religious community which we know as the Jews. For the
nomadic stage we have to depend on indirect evidence, for

AIM AND METHOD 11
the nomad does not preserve records of his experiences.
In the agricultural stage written documents begin to ap
pear. But it is only under the monarchy that literature
in any real sense of the word takes form. And religiously
the most important literary monuments of this period are
the remains of the written prophets. Of course here, as
in other departments of human history, no clear and sharp
lines of division can be drawn. This is most distinctly seen
in the case of Deuteronomy. The writers of this book sup
posed themselves to be putting the ideas of the prophets
into definite form; yet they were, in fact, introducing a new
period — that of legalism.
This instance is important as showing that the political
development and the religious history do not exactly coin
cide. Politically, the fall of Jerusalem in 586 was the most
important event in the history of Israel; religiously, the
publication of Deuteronomy, nearly forty years earlier, was
epoch-making. It may be well to note, however, that the
legalism introduced by Deuteronomy would not have be
come effective had not Jerusalem fallen into the hands
of Nebuchadrezzar. What stands out clearly is that our
divisions of Israel's religion will be the following:
1. Nomadic religion.
2. Agricultural religion.
3. Prophetism.
4. Legalism.

CHAPTER II
NOMADIC RELIGION
According to the unanimous voice of tradition, the He
brews were immigrants to Palestine, coming from the eastern
desert or from the south. The tradition is confirmed by
the monuments, according to which the Chabiri, a nomadic
people, invaded Syria in the fourteenth century or earlier.
We are entitled, therefore, at the outset to seek for religious
phenomena akin to those presented by the desert-dwellers
of the present day. Direct testimony, that is, accounts
contemporary with the desert sojourn, we must not expect,
for the literature in our hands dates from the time of the
monarchy. But the conservatism of religion is such that we
may expect survivals from the earlier stage of thought to
show themselves in tradition. The tradition, as was just
remarked, is to the effect that the fathers of the people were,
if not nomads in the strict sense of the word, at least shep
herds without fixed dwellings. This is the more striking
because the ideal of the Hebrew writers for themselves was
agricultural. What the Israelite of the ninth century de
sired for himself was to dwell in the shadow of his own vine
and fig-tree, with none to molest or make him afraid. But
when he pictured those ideal figures, the patriarchs, he rep
resented them as shepherds wandering up and down the land
accompanied by their flocks, living in tents, and not having
title even to a burial-place until they had bought it from the
earlier inhabitants.
What, then, was the religion of these fathers of the nation?
It is almost superfluous to remark that it was not mono
theism. The theory of Renan, according to which early
Semitic monotheism was suggested by the sterile uniformity
12

NOMADIC religion 13
of the desert, so different from the engaging variety of the
cultivated country, is no longer held by any one. In fact,
to the nomad the phenomena of the desert are as varied as
are those of any other region. And better acquaintance
with nomadic ideas shows us that the early Semites, like all
other peoples, did not hold a belief in one God. This is
made evident by the Arab descriptions of the times before
Mohammed as well as by the survivals of polydemonism
among the Bedawin to-day. The idea of the unity of God
came late to the Semite as it comes late to other peoples.
The impression made by nature upon early thinkers is that
of a multiplicity of powers, and religion consists in the wor
ship or at least the conciliation of these powers whenever
they make their presence known.
Since the decipherment of the Babylonian and Assyrian
documents the endeavour has been made to discover in
them a primitive monotheism, and to derive Hebrew relig
ion from the dwellers in the Euphrates Valley. It is suffi
cient to notice here that if any monotheistic beliefs existed
in Babylon they were the property of a few isolated thinkers
and never moulded the popular religion. The whole impres
sion made by the religion of Babylonia and Assyria is that
of a highly developed polytheism. And that the early He
brews worshipped a multitude of gods is affirmed by their
own writers. The author of Joshua's farewell speech (Joshua
24 : 2) declares that the fathers served other gods before
their migration to Canaan. Even as late as the time of
Jeremiah the prophet could say that Judah's gods were as
many as her cities (Jer. 2 :28). The sacred writers did
indeed believe, or at least some of them believed, that the
polytheism which was so constant a phenomenon in their
people's history was a declension from the purer faith of
the fathers. But in this they were moved by the same
sort of idealism which prevails in almost every period of
history, an idealism which locates the golden age in the
past. Careful consideration of the facts will free us from
this prepossession.

14 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
Polytheism among the Hebrews seems to be indicated
first of all, by the fact that the usual Hebrew^name for
God (Elohim) is plural in form. Various theories have been
brought forward to account for this curious fact. For the
early dogmaticians, who assumed that the Old Testament
reveals all that is essential for Christian belief, it was
an evidence of a trinity of persons in the Godhead. This
will hardly be seriously urged to-day. More recent is the
hypothesis that Elohim is a plural of majesty, akin to the
formulae in which monarchs speak of themselves as "we."
Such plurals of majesty, however, are without parallel in
Hebrew. The only view that can be urged with plausibility
is that the word originally designated the whole group of
divinities and was gradually narrowed down so as to be
applied to the One. Vestiges of a belief in a group of divine
beings have survived even in our present Bible. Yahweh
himself says: "Man has become like one of us" (Gen. 3 : 22).
The Creator takes counsel of his associates: "Let us make
man in our image" (Gen. 1 : 26). We read also of sons of
Elohim, who must themselves be of divine nature (Gen. 6:2).
It is true that in our present text these other divine beings
are thought of as subordinate to the chief God. But this
shows only how the earlier belief was reconciled with the
later. More convincing is the variety of names which are used
for God. Strictly speaking, the fact that any name besides
"God" is used is evidence for polytheism. It would not
occur to a man of our time to ask for the name of the
divinity who reveals himself to him; yet this is what Moses
does. And in Israel we find several names applied to God.
Elohim we have just discussed. Then we have EI (Gen.
31 : 13; 35 : 1; 49 : 25, and elsewhere), a name found among
the other Semites. It has been traced among the Phoeni
cians and Arabs as well as in Babylonia. Among the
Babylonians it seems to have been the most general name
for God, but among the Phoenicians it was applied to a
particular divinity whom Greek authors identified with Kro-

NOMADIC RELIGION 15
nos.1 Again we find a name, Shaddai, sometimes conjoined
with El, but apparently once designating a separate divinity
(Deut. 32 : 17). In poetic passages of comparatively early
date it is brought into parallelism with Yahweh, as though
an archaic equivalent of that name (Gen. 49 : 25; Num.
24:4 and 16). Further, we meet with_Elyon, meaning
Most High, usually combined with El, but sometimes inde
pendent (Num. 24 : 16; Deut. 32 : 8). In the former pas
sage we have three of these names in parallel clauses: "Who
hears the words of El, knows the knowledge of Elyon, and
sees the vision of Shaddai."
The name Elyon (Elioun) was known among the Phoeni
cians, as we learn from Eusebius. This author quotes from
Philo of Byblos, who in his account of the Phoenician
religion says that Elioun was one of the gods who died and
received wb-fship after his death.2 The theory that the gods
are deified men, which underlies this statement, does not
here concern us. All that we have now to do is to note
the evidence of these various names for God. Although
applied by the biblical writers to the one God of the He
brews, they really attest a primitive polytheism.
It was at one time thought that the primitive ideas of
religion could be discovered by tracing the etymology of
divine names. Unfortunately, the meaning of almost all
the Semitic names for God is obscure. Elyon, to be sure,
is quite transparent, meaning the Exalted or the Most High.
This meaning made it easy for the Hebrews to apply it to
their God. Of the others, the name Yahweh, the proper
name of Israel's God, has naturally been most discussed,
but the discussion has led to no generally received result.
The idea of the biblical writers, or at least of some of them,
on this point will occupy us later. As to the other divine
names we remark that it is still uncertain whether Shaddai
means Mighty or El means Powerful (these meanings are
*A detailed discussion may be found in Lagrange, Etudes sur lea
Religions Semitiques,2 pp. 70-83.
2 Eusebius, Prwpamtio Evangelica, I, 10.

16 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
usually attached to these names), although both words have
been elaborately investigated by scholars.
These names for God have survived into the latest period
of Hebrew religion. They do not directly give us light on
the nomadic stage. From analogy we conclude that before
a distinctly polytheistic stage of religion there was a some
what vague polydemonism among the Hebrew clans, much
like what is found in the desert to-day. Throughout Syria
and the neighbouring wilderness there are countless divini
ties dwelling in trees, fountains, rocks, and hills. At the
present day these superhuman beings are called saints or
prophets, but both Christians and Moslems pay them the
worship due to gods. A tree which grows before the door
of a church is regarded as an incarnation of the saint to
whom the church itself is dedicated; but a church build
ing is not at all necessary to give sanctity to a tree. A
story is told of a solitary tree standing in the open coun
try under which a gazelle had taken refuge. A hunter fired
at the animal but the ball turned and wounded the gunner.
He at once recognised that the tree was inhabited by a
saint who protected those who took refuge with him.
Therefore, although no one had ever heard of a saint being
buried at this place, the people of the nearest village agreed
with the hunter's interpretation of the incident, and insti
tuted a festival in honour of the hitherto unknown, offered a
sheep, baked bread, cooked rice, and rejoiced before the
sacred object. Other examples from the same region show
that it is not always the grave of a saint which makes the tree
sacred. The tree itself has supernatural power. He who
cuts a branch from it will be punished, even visited by
death. In the time of Mohammed "trees to hang things
on" were common in Arabia, and the name was given be
cause of the custom which is still observed, that of hanging
a piece of one's garment on the tree to show it reverence
or to secure its potent influence.1
1 The above examples are taken from Jaussen, Coutumes des Arabes
au Pays de Moab, but similar ones will be found in Curtiss, Primitive
Semitic Religion today.

NOMADIC RELIGION 17
The people in Canaan did not, in the early periqd, differ
essentially from those who dwelt in the desert. The liter
ature in our hands mentions the tamarisk planted by Abra
ham (Gen. 21 : 33), because the tree was venerated in the
later period. The author probably did not think of it as
divine in the strict sense of the word, but it was to him at
least sacred, as he indicates in saying: "He planted a tama
risk in Beersheba and called there on the name of Yahweh,
El-olam." The calling on the divinity showed his presence
in that place. Since men at this stage of culture almost
necessarily conceive of a god as dwelling in a material object,
it is altogether probable that the earliest inhabitants be
lieved Yahweh to inhabit the tree. So with the oak or
oak grove at Mamre, also connected with Abraham (Gen.
13 : 18; 14 : 13, and 18 : 1-4). The uncanny or supernatural
quality of such trees might be ascribed to idols buried be
neath them. When Jacob took the foreign gods which were
in possession of his family and buried them under the oak
at Shechem the divinities who inhabited the images took up
their residence in the tree (Gen. 35 : 4). Later we read of
the Oak of the Pillar in Shechem and are inclined to identify
it with Jacob's tree. It certainly was a sacred tree, for the
pillar which is mentioned is one of the pillars which regu
larly stood at a sanctuary until the Deuteronomic reform.
The oak in the sanctuary of Yahweh (Joshua 24 : 26) is
apparently the same. In the same chapter with the Oak
of the Pillar we read of the Oak of the Soothsayers (Judges
9 : 37), and in other places of the Oak of the Diviner (Oak
of Moreh in our version, Gen. 12 : 6; Deut. 11 : 30). Such
trees were probably oracular, like the oak of Zeus at Dodona.
Then the pains taken to tell us that Deborah was buried
under an oak is explicable only if the people believed the
spirit of the dead to live in the tree (Gen. 35 : 8). Gideon's
oak, which is spoken of as the place where the angel, or
Yahweh himself, appeared to the hero, may be of the same
nature with these others (Judges 6:11 and 19), and with it
we may mention the Palm of Deborah (4 : 5). An omen is

18 THE RELIGION OP ISRAEL
given by the rustling in the tree, indicating that the in
dwelling divinity is on the move to help his people (II Sam.
5 : 22-25), and the flaming bush in which Yahweh appeared
to Moses belongs in the same group (Ex. 3:2). In fact,
Yahweh is called in one passage, He who dwells in the bush
(Deut. 33 : 16).
The polemic of the prophets reveals distinctly the form of
the popular religion. Jeremiah tells us how the Israelites
worship under every green tree (Jer. 3:6), and reproaches
them with calling a stick their father (2 : 27). The word
translated stick is the same that is elsewhere rendered tree,
so that possibly the author has direct reference to tree-
worship. The case would be little different if he meant a
wooden idol, for the earliest wooden idols were pieces of a
sacred tree rudely carved into human semblance. Isaiah
gives us to know in unmistakable terms that oaks were
objects of the people's affection (Isaiah 1 : 29).
Fountains are held in reverence by almost all peoples.
To the Bedawin they are especially important because of
their rarity. The fountain seems to have a life of its own,
and it is beneficent to men and animals. The story of
Hagar and the fountain Beer-lahai-roi is evidence of the
Israelite feeling in the nomadic stage. It is, in fact, a sur
vival from the time when the fountain was worshipped. In
one form of the story, as we now read it (Gen. 16 : 7-14), it
is the angel of Yahweh who reveals himself to Hagar. In
the parallel it is Elohim (21 : 14^.). It is not too bold to
suppose that in the earliest form of the story it was the spirit
inhabiting the fountain who gave the revelation. In this,
as in so many other cases, the genius loci has been displaced
by the angel or by Elohim. In all probability the name of
the fountain originally told who the divinity was, but this
has now been purposely obscured. The name of the well
at Beersheba was given by a sacred ceremony, and is inter
preted to mean either the Well of Seven or the Well of the
Oath. But, as we have traces of a divinity named Sheba in
some of the Hebrew proper names, it is not unlikely that the

NOMADIC RELIGION 19
well was his. There is no evidence that there were seven
wells, and even if we take Sheba in its meaning of seven it is
more natural to conclude that originally seven spirits were
supposed to dwell in the well than that the name should have
been given on account of the seven lambs used in an ancient
covenant (Gen. 21 : 22-34). In the country east of the
Jordan there is at the present day a cult of the daughters of
the fountain. A simple wall with niches is erected over the
fountain and here the people pay their devotions.1 Among
sacred fountains perhaps the most important was the one at
Kadesh. The name itself indicates a sanctuary, and the
other which was attached to it, Fountain of Judgment (En
Mishpat, Gen. 14 : 7), indicates that an oracle was con
nected with the place. Massah and Meribah are names of
places in the vicinity, and probably show that the divinity
gave decisions in cases of dispute, and that this was done
by the ordeal.2 Moses was the minister of the oracle, and
it is not improbable that the fountain was the place where
he consulted the divinity. If this be so the tradition which
made Moses bring water from the rock was the local tra
dition concerning the origin of this source. We find also a
place name, Baalath-beer, the Goddess of the Well, which
indicates another of these sacred sources (Joshua 19 : 8),
and we may add to the group the well-known Dan, situated
at one of the copious sources of the Jordan. Here also the
divinity of the place was appealed to to decide cases of dis
pute, his name being Judge.
Two objections will be urged against this enumeration
of divinities. One is that these are not nomadic sanctuaries,
but are found within the borders of Palestine. The other
is that we have no intimation in the Bible that worship was
offered at any of these places. To the first the reply is
that, with the exception of Dan, all these fountains are ac
tually located in nomadic territory, that is, in the border of
the cultivated country, where the people kept up the pas-
1 Jaussen, Coutumes des Arabes, p. 302.
1 Meribah is the Place of Litigation, and Massah the Place of Testing.

20 THE RELIGION OP ISRAEL
toral life all through their history. The answer to the other
objection is that we must not expect the biblical writers to
make record of practices which were proscribed in the later
period of the history. When Abraham is represented as
sacrificing at Beersheba and when Moses is pictured ad
ministering the oracle at Kadesh, this is as much as we could
expect them to put on record.
Among the nomads of to-day we learn of sacrifice offered
to a mountain.1 The history of the Hebrews gives dis
tinct parallels. Sinai and Horeb were the residence of
Yahweh. At Kadesh the hill or rock from which the foun
tain flowed partook of its sacredness. Mizpah of Gilead
was a hilltop sanctuary. Balaam sought Yahweh on the
heights overlooking the Jordan Valley (Num. 22 : 41; 23 : 14
and 28). The Song of Moses congratulates Zebulun on
the sanctuaries on the mountains (Deut. 33 : 19). It is
probable that the location of Solomon's temple was decided
by the sacredness of the hill on whose top it was built. In
fact, the naked summit of the hill is the central object of
the Moslem sanctuary which stands on the spot at the pres
ent day. The complaint of Jeremiah that the people sac
rificed on every high hill as well as under every green tree
is well known, and Ezekiel reckons eating on the mountains
among the transgressions of Judah (Ezek. 22 : 9; cf. 20 : 28).
Among the sacred mountains Sinai and Horeb certainly
belong to the nomadic region, and the others show that
nomads and agriculturists are at the same stage of religious
thinking. Sacred stones belong in the same class with sacred moun
tains. The classic example is the one which Jacob set up
at Bethel (Gen. 28 : 10-22), and which was apparently an
object of worship long after the settlement in Canaan.
Such a stone is still pointed out as the residence of a divinity
by a dream or revelation, as may be illustrated from recent
observation. At Maan in the transjordanic region there
is a rock seven feet high. One night a woman took shelter
1 Jaussen, op. cit., p. 359.

NOMADIC RELIGION 21
by it and in her sleep she saw a serpent emerge from the
rock. At the same time a voice said: "I am the Welieh
[female saint] of the rock." Soon after, another person
sleeping here had a similar dream, only instead of a serpent
he saw a woman. The reputation of the rock as the home
of a spirit was thus established, and the women of the
neighbourhood began to invoke the aid of the saint and to
show their devotion to her by kissing the rock, by anointing
it with henna, and by burning incense before it.1 The
parallel with the experience of Jacob is exact, except that
the inhabitant of the rock is no longer called a god but a
spirit or saint. In the Hebrew Scriptures we read that
Joshua set up a stone under the oak which is in the sanc
tuary at Shechem and said: "This stone shall be a witness
against us, for it has heard all the words of Yahweh which
he has spoken among us, and it shall be a witness against
you that you will not deny your God" (Joshua 24 : 26). It
must be clear that if the stone hears all the words spoken
it is animated by a spirit. Although here made a witness
in the cause of Yahweh, this spirit must have been originally
a divinity. So we must say of the stone which Jacob set
up as a witness between himself and Laban (Gen. 31 : 45,
51). Owing to the combination of documents in this nar
rative, the stone is now supplemented by a heap of stones.
One of the component documents made the single stone the
witness; the other made it the heap of stones. This only
shows that a divinity may inhabit a group of stones as well
as a single stone. The circle of stones at Gilgal attributed
to Joshua (Joshua 4 : 3 and 8) marked a sanctuary which
is frequently mentioned in the history. There were images
here also, as we read in one passage (Judges 3 : 19). In
the book of Exodus a sanctuary is marked by twelve stones
set up by Moses, and here the covenant with Yahweh is
entered into (Ex. 24 : 4).
The single stone set up at an altar as the residence of the
divinity was called a macceba, and such a stone seems to
1 Jaussen, op. cit., p. 303.

22 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
have been set up at every altar of Yahweh until the pro
mulgation of Deuteronomy. The earliest decalogue, when
it prohibits molten images, seems tacitly to recognise these
primitive pillars as legitimate. Such upright stones are
still found in Palestine, and more have been uncovered by
excavation.1 There is nothing to show that these menhirs
are specifically nomadic, but Arabic antiquity shows that
the nomads shared the belief of their neighbours with re
gard to them, and the biblical evidence seems convincing.
In connection with these monuments we should note that
altars sometimes receive proper names as though identi
fied with the divinity. Jacob called one El-God-of-Israel
(Gen. 33 : 20), Moses named one Yahweh-my-banner (Ex.
17 : 15), and Gideon had his Yahweh-Shalom (Judges
6 : 24). Since the earliest altars received the blood of the
victim directly from the hand of the offerer, they, like the
pillars, must have been identified with the divinity himself.
Otherwise we must suppose that the names ascribed to the
altars in the passages just cited were originally given to the
attendant macceboth. An altar named Ed, that is, Witness,
existed beyond the Jordan to a comparatively late date
(Joshua 22 : 34).
In one of the early accounts of the covenant entered into
by Yahweh and Israel we find that the blood was sprinkled
on the altar and on the people (Ex. 24 : 6-8). The blood
which unifies the parties should, of course, be applied to
both, so that we have no doubt that the altar was identified
with Yahweh himself. Possibly we should interpret the cov
enant between Jacob and Laban in this light. After the
heap of stones was gathered, the two parties ate upon the
heap. Yahweh was thus made, in the most realistic sense, a
partaker of the food, and therefore a party to the cov
enant. Down to the present time it is the divinity localised
1 One at Maan is pictured by Jaussen, Mission Archeologique en
Arahie (1909), p. 9; those uncovered by excavation at Megiddo and
Gezer are reproduced by Vincent, Canaan d'apres I'Exploration recente
(1907); those at Tell es-Safi by Bliss and Macalister, Excavations in
Palestine (1902), plate 9.

NOMADIC RELIGION 23
in some material object who is invoked in case of an oath;
"If a person accused of crime dares to go to a sanctuary,
lay his hand on the grave or pillar (of the saint) and swear
that he has not committed the crime he is regarded as inno
cent. The saint punishes more severely than a human
judge."1 If we may judge by the nomads of to-day, the early
Israelites worshipped not the material objects but the spirits
which dwelt in them. The giving of such a name as Bethel
(House-of-God) to the stone would indicate this. The Arabs
believe the desert to be inhabited by a class of spirits
whom they call the Ginn. These appear frequently in the
Arabian Nights. Such spirits, as a rule, have not attained
the dignity of gods; that is, they do not receive a regular
worship. But they must be conciliated on occasion; for ex
ample, when their territory is invaded. When the tent is
pitched in a new place a sacrifice is offered to the local
Ginnee, or a meal is cooked for him. Even in the towns
when ground is broken for a new building, a foundation-sac
rifice is offered to the genius loci; else he will avenge himself
by sending calamity on the occupants of the house. This
was the custom in ancient Palestine also, as the excavations
have shown. When a new family is established by the mar
riage of a young man and young woman who set up their
own tent, a sacrifice is offered, and they beg permission of
the "master of the place" to occupy it with a new home.
The tent-pole is smeared with the blood of the victim; and
where the Bedawy adopts the agricultural life and builds a
more permanent dwelling the blood is smeared on the lintel,
as was the Israelite custom at Passover.
The local genius may rise to the dignity of patron divinity
to a family or clan by revealing himself and thus showing
his friendly interest. In this case an altar or pillar is erected
and sacrifice is brought at fixed intervals. The revelation,
however, may be hostile rather than friendly, intended at
least to warn the recipient that he must pay due respect to
1 Palestina-Jahrbtich (1911), p. 103.

24 THE RELIGION OP ISRAEL
the proprietor of the ground. Some stories which are now
imbedded in the Hebrew text are evidently based on tradi
tions of this kind. The biblical authors suppose in every
such case that the divinity is Yahweh. But the original
stories probably attributed the revelation to a purely local
divinity. The mysterious stranger who wrestles with Jacob
(now called an angel, Gen. 32 : 24-32) was originally such a
local divinity. In this instance Jacob's strength and valour
are such that he comes off victor and even wrests a blessing
from the hostile power, though not without receiving a
wound. The ghostly nature of the visitant is made evident
by his anxiety to be allowed to go before daybreak, for the
night demons, like the ghosts of popular superstition, cannot
endure the light of the sun. This is further evidence that
the original tradition was not recounted of Yahweh or of
his angel, since neither the one nor the other had reason to
shun the daylight.
The origin of this saga escapes us. It may have been
intended to explain the place-name Penuel (Face-of-El), or
it may have been an old myth representing the dangerous
temper of the Jabbok. In either case it throws light upon
early beliefs. The divinities were near to men, so that they
could be seen face to face, but the encounter was not always
to be desired.1 An even more striking illustration of the
belief is found in the story of Moses and the circumcision of
his son (Ex. 4 : 24-26). In this we read that at one of the
camping places in the desert the divinity attacked Moses
and would have slain him. Zipporah was quick-witted
enough to remember that circumcision blood is a power
ful charm. She therefore circumcised her infant son and
touched her husband with the blood, whereupon the hostile
God left him. As in the other case, our text identifies the
mysterious enemy with Yahweh. But he has none of the
features of Israel's covenant God, and his attack upon
the prophet is passing strange in view of the fact that
1 A Phoenician locality, Face-of-God, mentioned by Strabo (Geog.,
XVI, ii, 15), is brought by Ewald into connection with Penuel.

NOMADIC RELIGION 25
Moses was a chosen instrument for the redemption of Israel.
The only explanation is that a story of some local divinity
has been adopted in the Yahweh tradition.1
In this connection we may notice further the fragment
preserved in the book of Joshua (Joshua 5 : 13-15), according
to which Joshua at the invasion of the land met a strange
apparition carrying a sword. The Israelite leader went
boldly up to him and asked: "Art thou for us or for our
enemies?" The reply was to the effect that the stranger
was leader of the heavenly host, apparently coming to the
help of Israel. The text, as we have it, only tells us that
Joshua was commanded to put off his shoes in recognition of
the sanctity of the place, and the thread is then abruptly
broken. It is not too bold to suppose that this was a local
saga, according to which the divinity of the place promised to
help the Israelites in getting possession of the country on con
dition that they continue to honour him at this sanctuary.
These survivals are sufficient to show that the early
Israelites worshipped a multitude of local divinities. Even
very late authors complain that the desert demons (satyrs,
se'irim) still receive the sacrifices (Lev. 17: 7), and we shall
have occasion to note the tenacity of Ufe shown by one of
them, named Azazel. The question which will next suggest
itself is whether the spirits of dead men were among the
objects of worship. There is a growing consensus of opinion
that the Hebrews, like all other peoples at a certain stage of
thought, worshipped these spirits. We have already seen
that among the natives of Syria at the present day the tombs
of holy men are places of devotion, and that an oath taken
in the name of a Wely is more binding than the one taken
in the name of Allah. Not all deceased persons receive
this honour; only men (sometimes women) who have been
distinguished for sanctity during their lifetime. Like the
wonder-worker Elisha the power of the saint continues after
his death, and miracles are wrought at his grave. For this
1 Jewish tradition holds that circumcision is a prophylactic against
the demons.

26 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
reason he is honoured there by sacrifices and festivals. ^ Par
allel with the case of the local divinity cited above is the
declaration of an inhabitant of Maan: "If one swears by
Abdallah [a Wely buried at Maan] and the oath is false he
is sure to die." x Among the saints who are thus honoured the
prophets and patriarchs of the Old Testament still have a
place. The tomb of Abraham at Hebron is one of the most
sacred spots of the Mohammedans, and the Bedawin across the
Jordan are sure that El-Halil (the Friend of God), as Abraham
is called, visits and helps them in answer to their prayers.2
To appreciate the tenacity of religious belief and custom
we need only remind ourselves that these examples are taken
from a region where Islam has endeavoured to enforce a
strict monotheism for thirteen hundred years. It is impor
tant to notice that the spirit of the ancestor or alleged ances
tor of a clan is the one most sure to receive religious venera
tion. He is thought to accompany his descendants on their
wanderings and to protect them in danger. He is therefore
invoked by them in time of trouble. Unsettled as the life
of the nomads is, all of the tribes have their regular places of
resort for religious purposes, and these are generally graves
of an ancestor. The place is marked by a heap of stones:
"An Arab never passes by such a monument without making
a brief prayer; if he is not in haste he stops and prostrates
himself in token of veneration; and on occasion he makes a
visit of more ceremony, when he offers a sacrifice in conse
quence of a promise or vow." 3 In addition to these private
sacrifices there are also public occasions when the greater
part of the tribe makes a pilgrimage to the tomb and holds
a feast of some days' duration. At the return of a success
ful expedition also an animal is sacrificed at the tomb of the
ancestor in recognition of his help.
Other testimony might be adduced. The reverence paid
to the tomb of Mohammed is rightly regarded as polytheistic
by the Wahhabees. Yet it is said that a pious Moslem
'Jaussen, Coutumes des Arabes, p. 311. *Ibid., p. 308.
« Ibid., p. 317; cf. p. 355.

NOMADIC RELIGION 27
living in the third century of the Hejra boasted of having
offered twelve thousand animals in honour of the prophet.
The obstinacy of popular beliefs was perhaps never more
strikingly manifested, for Mohammed himself forbade such
rites as savouring of heathenism. Among the Arabs it is still
the custom to sacrifice a sheep at the death of a member of
the tribe, and another seven days later. This latter is called
the sacrifice of consolation, and the phrase reminds us of the
cup of consolation spoken of by the Hebrew prophet (Jer. 16:
7). In one case the sacrificial feast, in the other the libation
is supposed to benefit the soul of the departed. The blood
of sacrifices offered at the tomb of a saint is still poured over
the heap of stones or other monument, as it was poured or
smeared on the stone altar or pillar in the old days. Oil
is also poured on the monument. Another rite of worship
is the rubbing of earth, taken from the tomb, on the face of
the worshipper. The sacredness of such earth makes it
effective for healing the sick, on whom it is rubbed in the
same way.1 Another custom is that of offering the hair
of the mourner at the tomb: "The women cut their hair at
the death of a husband, father, or near relative. The long
tresses are laid upon the tomb or rolled about the stone
placed at the head of the grave. I have observed a more
curious custom; two stakes were driven, one at the head, the
other at the foot of the grave, and a cord was stretched from
one to the other. On this cord were tied the long locks of
hair." 2 In the time of Mohammed we are told that when
Chalid ibn al-Walid died all the women of his clan shaved
their heads and laid the hair on his tomb.3
The fact to which allusion has already been made, namely,
that Mohammed attempted to suppress such customs, is of
importance, for it shows that he, who knew the thoughts
of his countrymen so well, believed their mourning rites
to be polytheistic. The prohibition of swearing by one's
ancestors and the command to swear by Allah alone4 must
1 Jaussen, Coutumes, p. 310. 2 Ibid., p. 94.
* Goldziher, Muhammedanische Studien, I, p. 248. ' Ibid., p. 230.

28 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
be motived in the same way. Other testimony from Arab
antiquity might be adduced. For example, the ground
around a tomb was, at least in some cases, a sanctuary
and an asylum. The prohibition of marking off such ground
except for God and the prophet, put into Mohammed's
mouth by tradition, is doubtless apocryphal, but it shows
the attitude of the theologians to be the same with that
of the prophet himself. The stones erected at the grave
are doubtless, both in Arabic and in Hebrew antiquity, sa
cred stones like those at the sanctuary of a divinity.
It is only by this review of Semitic custom outside Israel
that we are able to understand survivals which are attested
in the Hebrew Bible. First of all, the custom of marking
the grave by a stone, which is recorded in at least one Old
Testament passage: This is the grave of Rachel (Gen.
35 : 20; I Sam. 10 :2). Rachel was ancestress of the two
tribes Joseph and Benjamin, and her grave seems to have
been located on the boundary of these tribes. Here her
spirit lingers, for Jeremiah hears her lament over the ap
proaching captivity of her children (Jer. 31 : 15). The pil
lar over the grave is called by the same name which is used
elsewhere (macceba) for the sacred stone set up at a sanctu
ary. The custom is further illustrated by the act of Absa
lom. The prince had no son, and for this reason he took
and reared a pillar (macceba) in the King's Vale (II Sam.
18 : 18). He justified himself by saying: "I have no son
to keep my name in remembrance." The word translated
"keep in remembrance" means to pay religious reverence
to a divinity. The thought of the passage is that Absalom,
despairing of a son (who alone could pay the regular relig
ious rites) erected this pillar in order that charitable people
might be reminded of him and to a certain extent give his
soul the honour which the departed crave.1
We now see why so many tombs of heroes are mentioned
1 The text of the passage is not in order, and it is possible that in the
earliest account it was David who erected the pillar; but this would
not make any difference for our present inquiry.

NOMADIC RELIGION 29
in the Hebrew narrative. The cave where Abraham and
Sarah are buried is important to the writer because it was
in some sense a sanctuary. That its sanctity has persisted
until the present day we have already noted. Jacob took
pains to secure that he be buried in the tomb of his fathers
(Gen. 47 : 30). The bones of Joseph were brought from
Egypt in order that they might rest among his descendants
(Joshua 24 : 32). The burial-place of Joshua, of Eleazar
and of each of the Judges is carefully noted. Absalom's
pillar was not the only monument consecrated to this prince,
for the heap of stones raised over his body where he fell
served the same purpose with the pillar (II Sam. 18 : 17).
Similar heaps of stones were raised over the slain Canaan
ites, the kings of Ai, and the five kings slain at Makkedah
(Joshua 8 : 29; 10 : 27). And the criminal Achan received
the same honour (Joshua 7 : 26).
Here modern ideas are in conflict with those of antiquity
and we are shocked by the thought that the souls of bad
men, like Absalom and Achan, should receive the kind of
reverence paid the gods. But early religion gives a large
place to fear, and, the spirit of a bad man being as truly su
pernatural as that of a good man, it must be placated even
more carefully. This is illustrated by the Greek hero-wor
ship, where all the dead are regarded as " blameless, " what
ever their previous record has been. Some of the shrines
at which the Greeks paid reverence are distinctly affirmed
to be those of men of violent lives. The spirit is especially
dangerous if the body which it once inhabited is left un-
buried, and the Hebrew pains in caring for burial is expli
cable on this ground. David cares for the body of Abner
and for the bones of Saul's descendants, as well as for those
of the king himself (II Sam. 3 : 32 and 21 : 14). These
last are laid in the ancestral tomb, a boon which was espe
cially desired, since thus one was sure to receive attention
from the living members of the family. The curious cus
tom of burial in one's own house is occasionally recorded
(I Sam. 25 : 1; I Kings 2 : 34). This is accounted for by

30 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
the desire of the family to have the spirit of the ancestor
as protector of the home.1 The kings of Israel, we are ex
pressly told, were buried in the palace or in an adjoining
garden. The objection made by the prophet Ezekiel to
this custom, owing to the proximity of the palace to the
temple, sufficiently shows that there was a religious motive;
and from this point of view we may interpret the burning
made for these kings as a religious rite, either sacrificial
or designed to destroy property which was taboo because
it belonged to a superhuman being.
Supernatural power is attributed to the dead or dying.
The Pentateuchal narratives give the dying Isaac, Jacob,
and Moses power to predict the future and to determine
the course of coming events (Gen. 27 and 49; Deut. 33).
The yearly festival in memory of Jephthah's daughter was
probably a religious rite in which the spirit of the dead
maiden received comfort from the sympathy of the young
women who gathered at the shrine, and possibly was grati
fied by the banquet of which they partook.
Just as the demon resided in the pillar erected to him,
so the spirit of the dead man took up its abode in the pillar
or heap of stones erected over his body. This conception
we know to have been prevalent among the neighbours of
Israel, for we have instances in which the gravestone is
directly identified with the soul (nephesh) of the deceased.2
This explains some texts which have puzzled the expositors.
These texts speak of the soul as that which defiles the per
son who touches a corpse (Num. 5 : 2; 6 :6; 19 : 13). If
the soul has left the body we do not see how it can defile.
But in Hebrew thought the soul still has its abode in the
body, at least until the latter has been deposited in the
tomb. Then it dwells in the tomb, for the touch of a grave
makes one taboo just as surely as the touch of a corpse.
Why the contact should produce defilement we shall inquire
1 Ethnological parallels are numerous.
! Lods, La Croyance a la vie future et le culte des Moris dans VAn-
tiquite Israelite, p. 62.

NOMADIC RELIGION 31
presently. What now interests us is that the soul resides
in the pillar just as any other divinity resides in the visible
object which marks his sanctuary.1
The continued existence and the superhuman knowledge
of the souls of the dead is implied in the practice of con
sulting the spirits. The classic example is that of Saul and
the witch of Endor. There is no reason to doubt that the
narrator believed in the reality of the apparition. The most
significant thing is that the necromancer calls the ghost a
god (I Sam. 28 : 13). The wide prevalence of spiritistic
arts in Israel down to a late period is proved by the polemic
of the prophets (Isaiah 8 : 19) as well as by legal prohibi
tions in late as well as early codes (Ex. 22 : 17; Deut. 18 : 10/.;
Lev. 20 : 27). The reason for the opposition is that the
necromancer was priest or priestess of a religion which Yah
weh would not tolerate; that is, they worshipped the spirits.
As has often been pointed out, the mourning customs of
the Jews are survivals from the animistic stage. Besides
the natural expressions of grief, such as weeping and cry
ing out, we read of fasting, shaving the head or some por
tion of it, tattooing or cutting incisions in the flesh, rend
ing the clothes, and strewing ashes or earth on the head.
The majority of these are religious customs. The strew
ing of earth on the head is a sign of consecration, the earth
being taken from a sanctuary — in this case the burial-
place. The ashes are in like manner sacred, bringing the
mourner into communion with the departed, probably being
taken from a sacrifice (cf. Jer. 6 : 26). Mourning garments
— sackcloth is usually associated with the ashes of mourn
ing — are to be classed with the special robes which the
worshippers donned at a religious ceremony. The rending
of the clothes had some reference to the taboo imposed by
the presence of a corpse.
1 Jaussen points out that a stele in one of the Nabatsan inscriptions
is distinctly said to be the residence of the god (Mission Archiologique,
p. 416). The gigantic monoliths at Axum, in Abyssinia, are said to be
called "souls," like the Phoenician monuments spoken of above (Ar-
chiv far Religionswissenschaft, XI, p. 567).

32 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
Some of these customs might be interpreted in such a
way as not to be inconsistent with the Yahweh religion, but
some of them, as we have seen, were strictly forbidden.
The Deuteronomist prohibits tattooing and shaving the
head: "You shall not cut yourselves nor make any bald
ness between your eyes for the dead" (Deut. 14 : 1). The
priestly writer in repeating these prohibitions brings the for
bidden practices into connection with enchantment and au
gury (Lev. 19 : 26-28) and is especially stringent with the
priests (21 : 1-6). The Deuteronomist takes pains to have
the faithful Israelite declare that he has not given any
part of the tithes to the dead (Deut. 26 : 14), doubtless
because there was strong pressure exercised by common
custom to make the offerings to the dead a first charge on
the sacred things. The desire of the legislators, therefore,
was to separate everything connected with the worship of
Yahweh from contact with the dead. But since death is a
universal human experience every one at some time or other
must come into the presence of a corpse. Such persons are
pronounced by the law ritually unclean and are not admitted
to the sanctuary of Yahweh until purified by a special rite.
In the case of the high priest, in whom sanctity was most
important, a stricter regulation was enforced and he was not
allowed to approach any dead body whatever, not even
that of his father or his mother (Lev. 21 : 10-13).
The fact that all of this testimony is from comparatively
late documents only shows the strength of the belief in the
demonic nature of the spirits of the dead. This belief has
left its mark on the legislation, not only in the prohibitions
we have noted, but in some positive regulations. The sac
rifice of a red cow enjoined in Numbers (chap. 19) seems to
be a sacrifice to the dead which has survived in the ritual
system because it could not be eradicated. The sacrifice
is unique in the priestly system in that it is not offered at
the sanctuary. The colour of the animal and the manner of
its offering remind us of the sacrifices brought to the dead
in other religions, and the fact that the man who handles

NOMADIC RELIGION 33
the ashes is unclean points to the same conclusion. Fur
ther, the heifer strangled near the spot where a man has
been murdered by an unknown hand seems to be a similar
survival (Deut. 21 : 1-9). The ghost of the dead man must
be propitiated lest he do harm to the people of the neigh
bourhood. Mention has already been made of the burnings for the
kings of Judah (Jer. 34 : 5; II Chron. 16 : 14; 21 : 19) and of
Ezekiel's protest against the burial of these kings in imme
diate proximity to the temple (Ezek. 43 :7). The impor
tance attached to male offspring throughout the Old Testa
ment is intelligible if a man's sons were the ones to pay
him worship after his death. It has even been suggested
that the command to honour father and mother has refer
ence primarily to the payment of the funeral rites. This,
however, is problematical. The patriarchal family, which
we find fully developed in Israel, usually rests on the relig
ious basis of ancestor-worship. What is certain is that we
have enough evidence to warrant us in saying that the wor
ship of the dead existed in Israel throughout its history
and that it dates back to the time of the wilderness sojourn.1
The nomad does not clearly distinguish the wild animals
from the spirits which in his imagination people the desert.
Traces of animal worship, therefore, do not surprise us when
we meet them in the Old Testament. The serpent had
the reputation of superhuman knowledge, and sacrifice was
brought to a bronze serpent in the temple down to the time
of Hezekiah (II Kings 18 : 4), a striking example of religious
conservatism. This serpent was ascribed to Moses, and our
narrative sources represent it to have been a harmless talis
man by which those bitten by serpents were healed. But it
is clear that Hezekiah would not have destroyed so innocent
and so venerable a monument had this been all that he be-
1 The recollection of this fact finds expression even in the Psalter,
where eating the sacrifices of the dead is brought into connection with
the worship of Baal-peor (Psalm 106 : 28). An elaborate discussion
of the whole subject will be found in Lods, La Croyance a la vie future
et le culte des Morts dans I'AntiquM Israelite, Paris,. 1906. -'-'-"- ¦- -

34 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
lieved it to be. It must have been an idol representing the
serpent-god, to whom one might appeal for protection from
his subjects. A sanctuary in the vicinity of Jerusalem bore
the name "Serpent's Stone" or "Dragon's Well" (I Kings
1 : 9; Neh. 2 : 13). Other direct evidence of the worship
of animals, except that of the bull, which will occupy our
attention later, there seems to be none. But indirect tes
timony is given by the abhorrence of the Yahweh religion
for "unclean" animals. The reason for this abhorrence is
the fact that these animals were associated with other gods
than Yahweh. Probably they were not only consecrated
to these divinities but were regarded as incarnations of
them. We have already seen that down to a late period
the desert demons were worshipped. These demons are
called Se'irim, which means goats (Lev. 17 : 7). The divini
ties were, therefore, wild goats, or goat-like in form, resem
bling the satyrs of Greek mythology. Egypt, the classic
land of animal-worship, shows numerous parallels.
The reaction of Yahweh-worship against these supersti
tions is itself an evidence that they once prevailed. Even
so late an author as Origen, and one so comparatively en
lightened, thought that every animal is in some manner
akin to a demon, and Plutarch speaks of the ass as an un
clean and demonic beast.1 But demons are only gods of
inferior rank, or who have been proscribed by more advanced
religious belief. The close connection of uncleanness and
sanctity in ancient thought gave rise to the gentile opinion
that the Jews worshipped an ass.
Summing up what has been said, we may say that the
early Hebrews worshipped the spirits which they supposed
to animate trees, fountains, and rocks; they reverenced the
animals, also, or at least some of them, and they paid religious
adoration to the spirits of the dead at the places where they
were interred. Yahweh was himself originally the god of a
mountain or, according to one account, of a cave (I Kings
lDe Iside et Osiride, 30. Origen, Contra Celsum, IV, 72. I owe
this citation to Kalisch, Leviticus, II, p. 72.

NOMADIC RELIGION 35
19 : 9-14). The Hebrew writers who have recorded these
evidences would doubtless have been glad to ignore them
had they had less fidelity to tradition. This makes their
evidence all the more convincing. The survival of so many
of these beliefs into the later period shows what the religion
of the nomads must have been.
It is evident that the religious emotion which dictates
worship of these divinities must be that of fear. The fear
of Yahweh was, in fact, the Hebrew definition of religion down
to the New Testament period. Later documents, indeed,
emphasise the love of God, and there are expressions of trust
and affection in the higher stages of this religion. But the
nomad was moved more by fear than by love. This is true
to the present day, for the Palestinian Arab still speaks of
a pious man as one that fears Allah, and reverence for the
local saint of which we have spoken as the most vital religion
of these people has always behind it the idea that he will be
swift to avenge an insult. The oath by the saint, as we
have seen, is inviolate just for this reason, and the laxity
in swearing by Allah is due to the belief that he is a God
of mercy who will not be so particular.1 It is not without
reason then that Yahweh is called the Fear of Isaac, and
that Jacob swears by him under that name (Gen. 31 : 42 and
53). Fear of the gods expresses itself in the ascription to them
of a quality for which we have no good name in English, but
for which we may provisionally use the word sacredness.
The gods, as inhabitants of a different sphere from that in
which men are found, or rather as having a different nature
from that of men, possess in themselves this uncanny quality
— to call it holiness, as is so often done, is misleading, for to
us this implies moral perfection. On account of this mys
terious quality it is dangerous to approach the divinity with
out certain precautions; to handle what belongs to him is
also dangerous. To protect oneself from this dangerous
power is one object of religious rites. But to ward off the
1 Jaussen, Coutumes, p. 292.

36 THE RELIGION OP ISRAEL
baleful influence of one god we may put ourselves under the
protection of another. The use of charms and spells is
intended to enlist a divine protector. The earliest orna
ments used by men were not designed to make the person
attractive; they were amulets in which supernatural power
resided. In other words, sacredness has two sides to it; it
may be either helpful or harmful. When Aaron asked for the
earrings of the Israelites and made them into an idol of
Yahweh, he was moved by the reflection that these objects
were already sacred, that is, they had already something of
divinity in them. They were therefore fit material for his
purpose (Ex. 32 : 2-4). Micah made an image out of some
of the silver which he had taken from his mother because
she had laid a curse upon it, that is, she had made it taboo
by dedicating it to the divinity, and it was thus withdrawn
from secular use (Judges 17: 1-5). Gideon in like manner
used the earrings of the Midianites for an image of Yahweh
(Judges 8 : 25-27). In this case the earrings were probably
originally devoted to another god. But if so, the way to
render them innocuous was to dedicate them to Yahweh,
for the sacredness imparted by the more powerful God would
overcome that of the weaker. Here is the secret of the
whole opposition of clean and unclean which is so prominent
in the ritual of the Hebrews, and which survives in orthodox
Judaism to the present day. The sacredness of Yahweh is
strongly opposed to the sacredness of another divinity; this
therefore becomes uncleanness for the Yahweh religion. It
is probable that we have here the reason why David's music
was expected to cure Saul's madness. Music has in it some
thing of divine power; the musician may, in fact, be inspired
by Yahweh, as we see in the case of the early prophets. He
is therefore able to drive away the evil demon, who is the
cause of madness. Plato believed that the sacred dance
and music would cure those who were possessed.1
This idea of sacredness as an uncanny power runs through
the whole history of Hebrew religion. A curious illustration
1 Laws, VII, 790, cited by Rohde, Psyche, p. 336.

NOMADIC RELIGION 37
is found in a late law (late in the literary formulation, that is),
which must be a survival. In the ordeal for the woman sus
pected of adultery it is commanded that the accused drink
of a cup which contains sacred water (probably from a
sacred spring) in which some of the dust from the floor of
the sanctuary has been dissolved as well as the ink in which
the curse was written. If she is guilty it will punish her
(cause her to miscarry), but if she is innocent it will not
harm her (Num. 5 : 11-31). The sacred water, reinforced
by the sacred dust and the sacred formula, has supernatural
power to discover and punish guilt. The dust of the sanc
tuary has the same uncanny power that we have discovered
in dust from a grave, as believed by the Bedawin down to
the present day. The whole theory of ordeals, which plays
so prominent a part in the history of religion, is based on this
sacredness of material that belongs to a god or demon.1
This matter of exorcism and magic is important because,
crude as it seems to us, it opened the way to a higher con
ception of religion. The idea that we may secure the aid
of the friendly divinity by an alliance or covenant is on this
side of the line which divides magic and religion. This idea
of alliance or covenant became fundamental in the religion
of Israel and has become one of the leading ideas in Chris
tianity also. What now interests us is that it originated
in the nomadic stage. Among the nomads the relations
of man and man are regulated by covenant. Clans are, in
fact, made by covenants between smaller groups, and clans
coalesce into tribes by the same process. But, as we have
seen, the covenant is made binding by making the local
divinity a party to it. This divinity, thus brought into the
compact, became not only the guardian of the oath, but a
member of the clan. And as the earliest covenants were
blood covenants, the divinity was made a blood-brother by
the same sort of rite with the one used when two men made
an alliance.
From this point of view we must explain the rite of
1 Cf., further, Goldziher, Muhammedanische Studien, II, p. 260.

38 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
circumcision, which doubtless goes back to ancient times.
This rite was practised in Egypt, as we know, and is still
observed by almost all African tribes, by the Australians,
and in parts of North and South America. Among the most
primitive tribes it seems to be a rite of initiation. The boys
of the tribe are not thought to attain manhood until they
have undergone this operation, which is usually performed at
puberty, and which admits them to full membership in the
tribe, releasing them from the control of their mothers. The
admission is by a blood covenant, the blood which flows at
the operation being applied to the men of the tribe, and their
blood at the same time being caused to flow over the initi
ates. The account of the circumcision of Moses' son, already
considered, shows the power of the blood, and, as the divinity
is made a party to all the solemnities of the tribe, we see how
circumcision was not only the sign but the seal of the cov
enant. It is, in fact, so regarded in the latest documents.
As for the bodily organ which was operated upon, we must
remember the importance of reproduction in all early so
cieties, where the life of the clan depends upon the number
of fighting men. Because of the importance of having
many sons born to the clan, the whole sexual life was under
the protection of the divinity, and entrance on the marriage
able age was the most important event in the life of the
individual. In the later stages of Hebrew society circum
cision was performed in infancy, but there are traces of the
earlier custom which connected it with the age of puberty.
Since this rite brought the boy into covenant with the
clan and with the clan-god, we understand why it is called
a purification and why the uncircumcised are called the
unclean. All tribal marks and mutilations seem to be re
ligious in their origin, and this could be no exception. If
it be objected that we have no evidence that human blood
was ever used to bring the Israelite into communion with
the divinity, we must remember that in the later stages of
this religion pains were taken to ignore those features of
early custom which had become repulsive to advancing

NOMADIC RELIGION 39
thought. If human sacrifice was practised in the early
stages — and that it was admits of no doubt — human blood
must have been regarded as the most potent means of sanc
tifying the covenant. The priests of Baal cut themselves
with knives as they danced about the altar, thus appealing
to the god by the covenant relation which gave them a
claim on him (1 Kings 18 : 28) ; and" Hosea intimates that the
Israelites also cut themselves at the altar of Yahweh (Hosea
7 : 14, emended text). The prohibition of cutting oneself for
the dead is emphasised by the Deuteronomist because such
mutilations bring one into communion with the departed.
These survivals show that the use of human blood to
ratify the covenant was not unknown, and we may suppose
that in the prehistoric stage circumcision blood was applied
to the altar or pillar which represented the divinity. In
our records animal blood has taken the place of human
blood, and we find the covenant ratified by sacrifice of an
animal. The earliest account of the covenant made be
tween Israel and Yahweh tells us that the blood was sprinkled
on the altar (representing Yahweh) and on the people.
The blood cements the union; the parties become of one
blood (Ex. 24 : 6-8). To the present day some of the Arabs
give solemn sanction to a betrothal by a blood covenant:
" When an Arab has secured a bride for his son by a promise
from the young woman's father, he takes a sheep or goat
to the tent and slays the animal there, sprinkling a little of
the blood on the fiancee. She is thereby irrevocably prom
ised to the young man. She and all her kin are bound by
the contract." 1
Circumcision, covenant rites, and .sacrifice, then, go back
to the nomadic period of Israel's history. And the com
munion meal is naturally a part of the sacrificial rite. When
the blood had ratified or renewed the covenant the flesh of
the animal was eaten by the members of the clan. It is
well known that among the Arabs to this day eating with a
man establishes peace with him, so that you are safe from
1 Jaussen, Coutumes, p. 345.

40 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
his hostility as long as the food is in your body. Jacob and
Laban establish peace by the common meal, to which appar
ently the divinity is also invited. The covenant between
Israel and the Gibeonites was ratified by the parties eating
together (Joshua 9 : 14). Whether the Hebrews ever con
ceived the sacrifice as the slaying of a divine animal in order
that his life might strengthen the members of the clan by
entering into them cannot be definitely made out. Such a
conception does not seem to have been entertained in the
historic period.
A sacrifice which differs in some respects from the others
adopted in the later ritual is the Passover, and we may
perhaps assume that this goes back to nomadic times.
What was peculiar about it was its performance at the home
instead of at a sanctuary. The blood, instead of being
poured upon an altar, was smeared on the door-posts and
lintel, and it was required that the whole flesh should be
consumed before morning. This seems to be the original
clan sacrifice. The unity of the group is shown by their
gathering in one house. In the nomad period the social
unit is the circle of tents pitched at one spot, and all the
members of the group easily find accommodation in the tent
of the sheikh. The smearing of the blood on the tent-pole
(the earliest method) serves a double purpose: it keeps off
the demons which prowl around, and which are especially
active at certain seasons of the year; at the same time it
brings the clan into renewed covenant with the divinity.
The fact that the spring was the season for this festival
makes us associate it with present Arab custom. The lamb
which was slain was probably the first one yeaned that sea
son. For this lamb is still considered sacred, and must be
sacrificed to a saint.1
The Hebrew authors found a historic occasion for the
Passover in the slaying of the first-born in Egypt, but the
documents themselves allow us to discover that the festival
is older than the exodus. Moses asks Pharaoh that the
1 Jaussen, Coutumes, p. 366.

NOMADIC RELIGION 41
people may go three days' journey into the wilderness to
observe the feast to Yahweh. The natural supposition is
that this was the season when such a sacrifice should be
observed, and that the God would be angry if it was omitted.
The festival is spoken of as if it were some known and estab
lished thing. In the mind of the earliest writer, therefore,
the exodus was demanded in order that the Passover might
be observed. When Pharaoh refused his assent, Yahweh
took the first-born of the Egyptians as a substitute for the
sacrifices which were wrongfully withheld. The fact that
after the settlement in Canaan the Passover was amalga
mated with another festival, that of unleavened bread, does
not now concern us.
The covenant sacrifice implies that the god becomes a
member of the clan. The numerous Semitic proper names
which affirm that the divinity is a kinsman become intelligible
when we bear this in mind. It is not always as father that
he is presented; he is often brother or uncle of the clansman.
Possibly this points to a time when the father was of less
importance to the child than the uncle or brother.1 The
totemistic clan, that is, the one in which gods, men, and
animals are all kinsmen, is matriarchal, or, perhaps better,
matrilinear. The women of the clan do not leave their
kinsmen to join the group to which the husband belongs, but
remain among their own people, receiving visits from the
man from time to time, but keeping the children for their
own group. The greater importance of the uncle or brother
in such a society is evident. Although there is no clear and
decisive evidence that such a system ever prevailed among
the Hebrews, there are some facts which find their best
explanation on the hypothesis that the Hebrews, like so
many other peoples, have passed through the totemistic
stage. Thus the mother is the one who names the child in
many cases (Gen. 4 : 25; 16 : 11 ; 29 : 32; 30 : 24; I Sam. 1 : 20).
This is hardly conceivable in a strictly patriarchal society.
1 The subject is considered at length by W. Robertson Smith, Re
ligion of the Semites, Lecture II.

42 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
There are also some cases of exogamous marriage which look
in the same direction (Samson, Judges 14, and Gideon,
Judges 8 : 31). Animal proper names might be adduced as
further arguments. Yet it is clear that at the entrance
into Canaan the Hebrews had left the totemistic system
behind. At what point of time the worship of the heavenly bodies
entered the religion of Israel is impossible to determine.
Later writers have much to say in opposition to this worship,
but it is possible that they have in mind rites that were in
troduced from Assyria or Babylon (Deut. 17 : 3). It does
not seem violent, however, to suppose that the moon was
an object of adoration in the nomadic period. The new
moon was a festival from early times, and among the Arabs
the new moon is still greeted with song or prayer at its ap
pearing.1 The fact that the Sabbath is often mentioned in
connection with the new moon leads us to suspect that it
also was a lunar festival. Sun-worship was common in all
the more advanced religions of western Asia, and the story
of Samson indicates that it had some hold among the Is
raelites, but whether this was true in the nomadic stage is
not clear.
On another point we are compelled to admit our igno
rance. This is whether the early Hebrews had goddesses
as well as gods. The other Semites paid great attention
to a goddess of fertility whom the Babylonians called Ish
tar, the Canaanites Astarte. Her worship in Israel in the
historic period is well attested, but whether it is earlier is
not known. The goddess of fertility would naturally flour
ish in the cultivated country, but the phenomena of the
oases may well have associated her with certain spots in
the desert as well. It has recently been argued with much
ability that a goddess of the oases, perhaps embodied in
the palm-tree, was the original divinity of the Semites.2
1 Jaussen, Couiumes, p. 294; Doughty, Travels in Arabia Deserta,
I, 366, 455.
2 Barton, A Study of Semitic Origins.

NOMADIC RELIGION 43
We are on more certain ground when we say that the
most fundamental social institution of the nomadic life is
blood-revenge. The solidarity of the clan brings with it
the duty of revenge. "Our blood has been spilled," they
say, when any member of the group has been injured or
slain. If the murderer cannot be identified, some member
of his clan must pay the penalty. The consequence is that
some tribes are at constant feud. The logic of the system
is well set forth by the woman of Tekoah, who complains
that the whole family will be exterminated by strict ad
herence to custom (II Sam. 14 : 4-11). What now concerns
us is that the institution is religious because the god is a
member of the clan, and the duty of blood-revenge devolves
upon him as well as upon the human kinsmen. Where
there is no human avenger the god will assume the obliga
tion. In case of murder within the clan the punishment is
not death but banishment, which, as we see in Cain, is worse
than death. All that now concerns us is that the divinity
protects the blood, and so long as it is unavenged it cries
to him from the ground. To the latest times the Israelites
called Yahweh their go' el, that is to say, the next of kin, on
whom the duty of revenge devolves. The oft-quoted pas
sage, " Whoso sheds man's blood by man shall his blood be
shed," is the expression of clan custom, and in immediate
connection with it Yahweh declares that he will avenge if
man does not: "Surely your blood will I require; at the
hand of every beast will I require it and at the hand of
man" (Gen. 9:4). Joseph's brothers felt that the hand of
God was avenging their treatment of their brother when
their lives were threatened in Egypt (Gen. 42 : 22). Sol
omon felt himself justified in slaying Joab even at the altar,
because as the instrument of Yahweh he was thus return
ing the man's blood-guilt on his own head (I Kings 2 : 32),
and Elijah did not hesitate to declare that Yahweh would
require the blood of Naboth from Ahab (I Kings 21 : 19).
Even in the nomadic stage, therefore, Yahweh was a God of
justice, the protector of the clansman's life.

44 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
His attitude toward strangers, however, was that of a
thorough partisan. The nomad is at perpetual war with
his neighbours, and raids upon the neighbouring tribes are
the regular way by which the means of subsistence are ob
tained. The divinity stood in such close relations with the
clan that he took part in their wars. This is illustrated by
Mesha, who tells us that Chemosh delighted in the victories
of his people. A tribe might pay its devotion at any of
the shrines which lay near the route of its wanderings, but
its own tutelary divinity stood in closer relation to it than
any of the others. To secure his presence on their cam
paigns it was natural to carry the visible object in which
he was supposed to reside. Hebrew tradition speaks of a
tent which accompanied the people in their wanderings,
and also of an ark or chest which secured the presence of
the divinity. This tradition speaks of two stones placed
in the ark, and we are inclined to suppose that these were
sacred stones, bethels in which the God had his residence.
Recently it has been argued that the ark was a seat or
throne on which the divinity was invisibly present, and
parallels are adduced from other religions. But it seems
pretty clear that the Hebrew word means box or chest.
It seems more probable, also, that the nomads would carry
a fetish than that they would conceive of the deity as in
visibly present. In any case the ark was so closely identi
fied with Yahweh that its presence secured his presence.
Moses invoked it in the morning with the words: "Rise,
Yahweh, and let thine enemies be scattered, and let thy
haters flee before theel" And when it rested at night he
said: "Return, Yahweh, to the myriad thousands of Israel"
(Num. 10 :35). Because the ark secured the presence of
Yahweh the Israelites carried it into battle against the
Philistines, and the Philistines themselves, when they heard
of its presence, said: "God has come into the camp" (I
Sam. 4:7). David, in dancing before the ark, danced be
fore Yahweh (II Sam. 6 : 5 and 16). All these examples
are from the later period, and it is not certain that either

NOMADIC RELIGION 45
ark or tent actually existed in the nomadic stage, but at
least there is nothing improbable in supposing that one or
the other dates from that time. Egyptian influence is
sometimes assumed here as elsewhere, and it is true that in
Egypt the gods were carried about in chests, though more
often in boats. It is precarious, therefore, to assume Egyp
tian influence. Portable gods are mentioned in the story
of Rachel's stealing the teraphim of her father (Gen. 31 : 19).
Fragmentary as our information is, we have been able
to make out a fairly good outline of what Israel believed in
the nomadic period. How the people advanced from this
rudimentary stage we have now to discover.

CHAPTER III
MOSES AND HIS WORK
Priestly tradition makes Moses the giver of the Law
and therefore the founder of the religious institutions of
Judaism. Deuteronomy puts into the mouth of Moses the
statutes and ordinances which it wishes to see observed in
Israel. The older narratives ascribe to the same leader a
code of civil regulations or at least a decalogue of commands
given by his mouth at Horeb or Sinai, as the case may be.
All that we can with probability conclude from this stream
of tradition is that a man named Moses had a marked in
fluence on the religious development of early Israel. That
he was not a legislator in the later sense of the word seems
obvious. For in the first place the Bedawy tolerates no
statutes. What regulates his relations with his fellows is
tribal custom. And that tribal custom prevailed in Israel
as late as the time of David is shown by the protest of
Tamar against her brother's violence. She appeals to no
law; all she says is that it is not so done in Israel (II Sam.
13 : 12). This and other cases show that no authoritative
code was recognised in the earlier period. Not even a
decalogue is appealed to by the prophets in their arraign
ment of Israel for its sins. One has only to reflect on the
impressive use which these preachers might have made of
an ethical decalogue, divinely given (if they had known of
such a decalogue), in order to realise that no such decalogue
had yet been promulgated. To this we may add that the
character of the earliest code ascribed to Moses forbids us
to suppose it to have been given in the desert. To impose
a code intended for an agricultural people on tribes not yet
in possession of a cultivable country would have been both
46

MOSES AND HIS WORK 47
impracticable and irrational. Moreover — and this is the
most convincing of all the considerations that present them
selves — the earlier prophets did not believe that a ritual
law had been given in the desert. They, in fact, categor
ically deny that sacrifice was either commanded or offered
in the wilderness (Amos 5 : 25; Isaiah 1 : 11-15). Jere
miah declares that Yahweh had given no directions con
cerning sacrifice or offering, though he admits that Israel
had been charged with the duty of obedience to its divinely
sent teachers (Jer. 7 : 22).
These prophets did not deny that Moses had existed;
much less did they deny that there had been a great de
liverance at the beginning of Israel's history. It is assumed
by all the Old Testament writers that there had been such
a deliverance. Amos says: "I brought you up from the
land of Egypt and led you forty years in the wilderness to
possess the land of the Amorites." Even more striking is
the declaration: "Hear the word that Yahweh has spoken
to you, O sons of Israel; against the whole family that I
brought out of the land of Egypt, saying: You only have I
known of all the families of the earth; therefore will I visit
upon you all your iniquities" (Amos 2 : 10; 3 : 1/.). Hosea
alludes to the exodus a number of times and says specifi
cally: "When Israel was a child then I loved him, and called
my son out of Egypt." And in another passage the prophet
declares that the relation between Yahweh and Israel was
constituted at the time of the exodus (Hosea 11 : 1; 12 : 10;
cf. 2 : 17; 9 : 3). He adds that it was by a prophet that
Yahweh brought his people out of Egypt and by a prophet
that he guarded them (12 : 14).
While the literature outside the Pentateuch is thus aware
of the importance of the exodus, it is to the Pentateuch it
self that we must look if we are to get an idea of the place
which Moses had in the thought of the people at all stages
of their history. The extreme complexity of the critical
problem with reference to these books must not prevent
our attempt to get an historical view. The first thing that

48 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
impresses us is that the documents here united agree in
ascribing to Moses the foundation of Israel's religion and of
Israel's nationality. One writer conceives of him as civil
ruler; another describes him as the great liberator; a third
emphasises his magical power as far superior to what Egypt
could show. Still another thinks of him as the minister of
the oracle and declarer of the will of Yahweh. Finally, he
becomes the inaugurator of the priesthood and the origina
tor of the theocracy. Various as these views are, they
testify unanimously to the greatness of the man whom they
glorify. They create a considerable probability, therefore,
that such a man once existed and that he did an important
work for Israel. What that work was, however, is not so
easy to define. Its historic basis must be found in the
sojourn in Egypt.
Reconstructing the oldest narrative, we may present the
case somewhat as follows: In the course of their migra
tions, probably driven by famine, one or more of the clans
which sojourned in the desert south of Canaan took refuge
in the border-land of Egypt. Here they kept their flocks
in the ancestral manner in the district called Goshen. The
friendly relations which at first existed between them and
the Egyptians became strained when the Pharaoh tried to
force them to labour for him (as did his other subjects) on
his great public works. One of their own number aroused
the enmity of the king and was forced to flee the country.
Finding a refuge among the tribes to the east of the Red
Sea, he was adopted into one of them and married the
daughter of the priest of the local divinity. Religious by
temperament, and brooding over the misfortunes of his
brothers in Egypt, he invoked the aid of this divinity on
behalf of these kinsmen. One day, approaching a sacred
tree or thicket, he heard the voice of the God calling him
and warning him of the sanctity of the place. Then came
the wished-for promise of aid. The God commanded him
to lead his people from Egypt to this sacred spot that there
they might pay him worship (Ex. 3 : 1-12).

MOSES AND HIS WORK 49
The sequel of the account tells how Moses, in order to I
assure himself of the genuineness of the revelation, asked
the name of the divinity, and the name Yahweh was re- j
vealed to him (Ex. 3 : 13-18). There is here a conflict in j
the narrative, for the new name would be that of a new;
divinity and not that of the god of the fathers. His iden-j
tification with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is,!
in fact, a theological attempt to carry the Yahweh religion)
back to the time of the patriarchs. One of the documents
goes so far as to make the name Yahweh invoked as early'
as the antediluvian period. But earliest must be the theory
that Moses, as the inaugurator of Israel's religion, brought
to his people a hitherto unknown God. This is implied
also in the account of the covenant entered into after the,
deliverance, for no such compact would have been neces
sary had Yahweh been the God of the Hebrews from the
earliest times.
In accordance with the commission given him, Moses
went to Egypt and demanded of the Pharaoh a furlough for
his people, that they might go three days' journey into the
wilderness and observe the festival of this God. The re
quest was the mildest that could be framed and was thus
framed to test the Pharaoh's attitude. It was stated in a
way that should have appealed to him. The Hebrews
were afraid that, if they neglected the festival which was
due the divinity, he would visit his wrath upon them in the
form of a pestilence (Ex. 5:3). The refusal of the king was
followed by a contest between the God of Moses and the
gods of Egypt, or between the supernatural power of Moses
and that claimed by the Egyptian magicians. For at the
revelation at the bush Moses had received a magic staff
which enabled him to outdo the celebrated wonders of the
Egyptian sorcerers. The series of plagues by which the
obstinacy of the king was broken culminated in the death
of the first-born among the Egyptians, the flight of the
Israelites, and the great deliverance at the Red Sea. What
basis in fact the narrative has can no longer be discovered.

50 THE RELIGION OP ISRAEL
Whatever took place was interpreted by the people as the
direct intervention of the new God on their behalf.
The earliest account seems to have stated that the people
journeyed the three days in the wilderness and thus reached
the sanctuary at which they had come to worship. The
first thing done here was to make a covenant with the God
who had so signally favoured them. The account, now
imbedded in other matter, deserves citation in full. It
reads as follows: "Then Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, came
with his [Moses'] wife and his sons unto Moses into the
wilderness where he was encamped at the mount of
God; and he said unto Moses: I, thy father-in-law, am come
unto thee. . . . And Moses told his father-in-law all that
Yahweh had done unto Pharaoh and to the Egyptians for
Israel's sake, all the trouble that had come upon them in
the way, and how Yahweh had delivered them. And Jethro
rejoiced for all the goodness which Yahweh had done to
Israel in that he had delivered them out of the hands of
the Egyptians. And Jethro said: Blessed be Yahweh who
has delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians and out
of the hand of Pharaoh. Now I know that Yahweh is
greater than all gods, for exactly in that in which they dealt
arrogantly with you he smote them. Then Jethro, Moses'
father-in-law, took burnt-offerings and peace-offerings for
Yahweh, and Aaron came and all the elders of Israel and
ate bread with Moses' father-in-law before the God." (Ex.
18 : 5-12.)
The fact of a foreigner's officiating at a sacrifice at which
Aaron and the elders of Israel are only guests is so extraor
dinary and so much out of harmony with later Hebrew
thought that we are compelled to see in this account a very
ancient tradition. According to it the chief men in Israel
are received into covenant with Jethro's God at a sacrificial
meal. Moses is not mentioned, probably because, being
already in covenant with Yahweh, he acted as acolyte for
his father-in-law. It is possible that in the original account
he was stated to be a pupil of Jethro at this function, learn-

MOSES AND HIS WORK 51
ing the ritual proper for the sacrifice to Yahweh.1 In any
case this narrative shows that Yahweh was formally intro
duced to Israel by a Midianite priest. It is sometimes as
sumed that Jethro's admiration for Yahweh's power is ad
miration for the God of Israel. But in that case we should
expect him to avow his conversion to this God before
sacrificing to him, and even then he could hardly assume to
act as priest. The only explanation is that Jethro was
gratified at the evidence of his own God's superiority to all
the gods.
Later in the narrative we read of the ratification of the
covenant between Yahweh and the people as a whole.
Here Moses acts as leader. After submitting to the people
the question whether they will obey the voice of Yahweh,
and receiving their affirmative answer, he erected an altar
at the foot of the mountain and twelve pillars (macceboth)
for the twelve tribes. Then he chose out the young men
of the sons of Israel and they offered burnt-offerings and
sacrificed bullocks for peace-offerings. Then Moses took
half the blood and poured it into bowls, the other half he
sprinkled on the altar; and when the people promised, "all
that Yahweh has commanded will we do" he sprinkled the
people and said: "This is the blood of the covenant which
Yahweh has made with you on the basis of all these com
mandments" (Ex. 24 :3-8). In the text we have a book
spoken of. This is because the author supposed the earliest
written code to have been given by Moses. The important
thing is that the document before us, like the other, asserts
that Moses became the founder of Israel's religion by bring
ing the people into covenant with Yahweh after the deliver
ance from Egypt.
Another view of Moses as founder of the religion of Israel
is given by the account of his administration of the oracle.
Jethro appears in his company here also. In the chapter
from which we have already cited we read that Jethro was
astonished at the burden which Moses took upon himself in
1 As supposed by Gressmann, Mose, p. 168.

52 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
judging the people. He therefore counsels him to relieve
himself of part of the labour by appointing judges to hear
the minor cases, reserving for himself the more important
ones, which he shall decide by bringing them before the
divinity (Ex. 18 : 13-27). The narrative presupposes a
somewhat permanent settlement of the people (probably at
Kadesh) where they have leisure for litigation. Moses is
the arbitrator between man and man, but in his attempt to
hear all the cases that are brought before him he is wasting
his strength. Jethro's advice is twofold: first, Moses should
have helpers; secondly, he should make use of the oracle to
decide the more difficult cases. It is not hazardous to con
jecture that in the earliest form of the story Jethro in
structed Moses not only in the civil administration (indi
cated by the appointment of the minor judges) but also in
the manner of using the oracle of Yahweh. For Jethro, as
priest of Yahweh, must know how to ascertain the will of
the God.
We can hardly doubt that Kadesh was the seat of an
oracle, for one of its names was En Mishpat (Fountain of
Judgment). Further, as was said above, it is not improbable
that its prerogatives in this respect are indicated by the
names Massa and Meribah, both of which are located at Ka
desh. One name, Place of Testing, would indicate that the
ordeal was applied to those who were brought into judgment;
the other name, Place of Litigation, needs no explanation.
As the only tribunal to which the nomad or half nomad sub
mits is that of a divinity, the tradition in this case is just
what we should expect.
According to the earliest sources at our command, there
fore, Moses is not only the deliverer of the people from
Egypt; he is the minister of the oracle, the priest of the
sanctuary at Kadesh, and also the civil ruler so far as any
nomad people endures the yoke of a ruler. The sources fur
ther indicate that his position was not secured without con
flict. At one time he calls for volunteers in the cause of
Yahweh, and the young men who rally to him put to death

MOSES AND HIS WORK 53
their own nearest relatives in defence of the Moses religion
(Ex. 32 : 25-29; confirmed by Deut. 33 : 9). The result was
to organise the priestly guild of Levites. The protest of
Korah against the limitation of the priesthood, on the ground
that all the people are sacred, is another evidence of the con
flict waged against these innovations. The revolt of Dathan
and Abiram, now read in connection with that of Korah,
seems to have been directed against the civil power exer
cised by Moses, for his answer is that he has not been
guilty of receiving bribes (Num. 16 : 15). Protest against
the prophetic assumptions of Moses made by Aaron and
Miriam (Num. 12) is additional evidence of the struggle
which the new religion had to undergo.
Some motive must have been presented to the people to
induce them to adopt a God hitherto unknown. What this
motive was is not difficult to discover. The state of early
society being a state of war, the divinities are sought in
order that they may give their aid in battle. Yahweh,
therefore, is consistently presented to us as a God of war.
And since the covenant with the God of Midian meant a
covenant with the people of Midian, the fact would seem to
be that Israel and Midian entered an alliance for defence,
and perhaps also for offence, against their enemies. Midian
nowhere appears in the later history as an ally of Israel,
but we read concerning the Kenites that they entered Ca
naan with Israel. The Kenites were counted a subdivision
of Midian, according to some of the documents, and Moses'
father-in-law or brother-in-law (here called Hobab) was
asked by Moses to journey with Israel. It was his clan, in
fact, that went with the tribes (Judges 1 : 16), and later a
member of this clan was camped near the scene of the bat
tle with Sisera, who met his death at the hands of the wife
of the sheikh (Judges 4 : 11; 17-22). Later in the history
the Rechabites — zealots for the religion of Yahweh — were
also assigned to the Kenites (I Chron. 2 : 55).
These scattered indications allow us to conclude that the
fundamental fact of the sojourn at Kadesh was the for-

54 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
mation of an alliance between Yahweh, Midian, and Israel
against hostile neighbours. And who these were can hardly
be doubtful. In one of the earliest stages of the wilderness
wandering we read of a conflict with Amalek ending with a
declaration on the part of Yahweh that he will be at war
with this tribe from generation to generation (Ex. 17 : 8-16).
Dramatic use of this declaration is made by the writer who
tells of the rejection of Saul (I Sam. 15), so that the fact
of the enmity is strongly attested. The lasting feud here
alleged between Amalek and Israel is explicable if we sup
pose the object of the alliance between Israel and Midian
to have been a war for the possession of the oasis of Kadesh,
to which the Amalekites asserted a claim. The fountain of
Kadesh is the most copious in all the region and it would
evidently be an object of desire to all the desert tribes. We
might even suppose that the Kenites had been worsted in an
attempt to get possession of the coveted spot and had sought
the help of Israel by the mediation of Moses.
While the advantages offered by the new religion were
material in their nature, we have no reason to doubt the
sincerity of the religious impulse by which Moses himself
was moved. In the account of the battle with Amalek he
appears as the religious leader, not as the military com
mander. His position is not unlike that of Mohammed in a
later time. And as in certain stages of social development
the religious motive is the only one strong enough to pro
duce united action in any community, the whole history
becomes intelligible on the supposition that Moses was one
of those religious natures to whom the divinity is a present
reality. Such a nature in the solitude of the desert, brood
ing over the wrongs of his countrymen, impressed by the
power of the God of the flaming mountain, may well have
heard the voice out of the bush commanding him to deliver
Israel from bondage. The idea of revelation lies at the
basis of all religion, and we have seen how powerful it is
down to the present time. It is by revelation of himself,
or, as earlier thinkers expressed it, by revelation of his name,

MOSES AND HIS WORK 55
that a divinity showed his friendliness to man. For it is
only when one knows the name of the divinity that he can
effectively call him to his aid. A certain reluctance to reveal
his name is, indeed, ascribed to the divinity in some Old
Testament stories, as though he were afraid of thus placing
himself in the power of man. The wrestler with Jacob in his
night experience refuses his name; the superhuman being who
speaks to Manoah says that his name is wonderful, that is,
that it is a mystery which should not be made known to men.
But these are exceptional cases. Yahweh's affection for
Moses is shown by his full revelation of his name and by his
frequent appearances to him, in which he speaks with him
face to face as a man talks to his friend. And that this
friendliness is extended to Israel of the later time is indicated
by the declaration of the earliest legislative code: "In every
place where I make my name known I will come to thee and
bless thee" (Ex. 20 : 24). The same text shows that the
friendly relation was to be recognised on the part of man by
his building of an altar and bringing his offerings to the God,
thus graciously revealing himself.
If our attempt to find the earliest tradition is successful,
we see that Moses was actually the founder of the Yahweh ,
religion for Israel. From this time the people never alto
gether lost sight of the fact that in some sense Yahweh was
their God and that he had a unique claim to their allegiance.
What Yahweh was as God of the Kenites or of Midian is not
known to us. The theophany at Sinai suggests that he was
God of one of the volcanoes which within historic times have
been active along the east shore of the Red Sea. In the
consciousness of the people he was the God of Sinai or Horeb
long after the settlement in Canaan. The pillar of smoke
and fire which some of the documents assert to have led the
people in their exodus, and afterward in their wanderings,
is a reflection of volcanic phenomena. Since there are no
volcanoes in the Sinaitic peninsula, it is clear that the tra
dition which connects the giving of the Law with one of the
peaks in this region is without foundation. The tradition is,

56 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
in fact, of Christian origin. Whether a volcanic tidal wave
was not connected in some way with the passages of the Red
Sea it is useless now to inquire.
The priest and the prophet (and Moses appears in both
characters, as we have seen) must be a wonder-worker if he
is to command the allegiance of his people. Moses doubtless
appeared to his contemporaries as a man possessed of super
natural power. The rod which he carried was the visible
organ of this power. By it he wrought the plagues in Egypt
and by it he parted the sea so that the people passed through.
In the battle with Amalek he lays a spell on the enemy by
holding up the rod (Ex. 17 : 8-13). With this rod he smites
the rock and the water gushes forth. Whatever the histori
cal fact behind these narratives, we have no reason to im
pugn Moses' good faith. He himself must have supposed
that he could do wonders, and without powers apparently
supernatural he could not have enforced his authority on a
half-savage people. How powerful is the belief in the ability
of the diviner to work weal or woe is well illustrated by the
story of Balaam, whose curse was invoked in order that Israel
might be destroyed. The account implies that the curse
would have had the desired effect had not Yahweh turned it
into a blessing. Deborah, the prophetess, owed her influ
ence over the tribes to the belief that her song had magic
power and would throw the ranks of the enemy into con
fusion. Comparison with these characters shows the nature
of the influence which Moses was able to acquire and which
he used so as to give his people a new impulse. Making all
allowance for the exaggerations of later tradition, the work
of Moses seems intelligible and the substratum of the nar
rative has probability in its favour.
It remains to inquire in what respect the religion intro
duced by Moses was an advance on that which he found
already in existence. Our first impulse is to seek a reply
from the name Yahweh, the name by which the divinity
made himself known. The account itself lays stress on the
meaning of the name and has naturally called forth much

MOSES AND HIS WORK 57
speculation. Unfortunately, the recorded reflections on the
meaning of the name are of much later date than the name
itself, later even than the time of Moses. The meaning /
am that I am, which has become part of the Christian tradi
tion, does not adequately render the Hebrew original. Such
a phrase is much too abstract for Moses' day, and if the
people had apprehended this as the meaning of the name
they would have had little interest in it. What they wanted
was a god who would give them help in a given exigency
— some assurance of his sympathy and of his power would
meet their need. Such assurance was given them, but not
by any definition of the divine name. The Hebrew phrase
we are considering would perhaps be more adequately ren
dered: "I will be what I will to be." It would then indi
cate that Yahweh is the self-determining one, the one who I
has mercy on whom he will. But such a revelation would
have been superfluous to the Israelites, for it would not occur
to them to doubt the freedom of the divinity to act accord
ing to his own good pleasure. This text, then, is of no use
for our present purpose.
It is unnecessary to recount all the speculations of later
scholars on this head. They will appeal with different force
to different minds. No one of them seems to have occurred
to the Hebrew writers, and no Old Testament allusion can
be quoted in their favour. Only one of them need be men
tioned. This is the one which derives the name from a
verb meaning to cast down. Yahweh would then be the
one who casts down his weapons — the lightnings or the
thunderbolts or the stones thrown up by the volcano. A
certain force is given this conjecture by the fact that Yah
weh in many passages appears as the God of the storm.
Volcanic phenomena, such as are indicated in the accounts
of the sacred mountain, would suggest that the divinity of
the place was active in the thunder-storm. The connection
of mountains and storms is so obvious that we are not sur
prised to find the God of the storm at home on the moun
tain top. The case of Zeus is strictly parallel.

58 THE RELIGION OP ISRAEL
The storm god is also a god of war, and that Yahweh
appealed to Israel in his character of war-god needs no dem
onstration. The carrying of the ark into battle is explicable
only on this theory, and the exhortation spoken at the be
ginning of the day's march, "Rise, Yahweh, and let thine
enemies be scattered and let them that hate thee flee before
thee," is significant enough. The belief that even after the
settlement in Canaan Yahweh had his home on one of the
southern mountains, whence he came to the help of his
people in their conflicts, is dramatically set forth in the
Song of Deborah: "Yahweh, as thou earnest forth from Seir,
Marchedst from the field of Edom,
The earth trembled, the heavens dropped,
The clouds dropped down water;
Mountains shook before Yahweh,
Before Yahweh, Israel's God."
There is no reason to doubt that the poet meant this to be
taken literally. In later stanzas of the same poem we read
that the stars from their paths fought against Sisera and
that the river Kishon swept away the slain Canaanite war
riors. What actually occurred was a cloudburst in which
the people saw the direct intervention of the storm god on
their behalf. It is probable that the title Yahweh Zebaoth
( Yahweh of Armies) expresses the same faith — that the celes
tial powers are under the command of Israel's God and that
he marshals them for the help of his people in battle. An
other poem of early date describes the theophany at Sinai
in similar terms: "Yahweh, who came from Sinai,
And rose upon his people from Seir,
Shone forth from Mount Paran,
And appeared at Meribath-Kadesh:
The people of Jacob became his possession;
He became king in Jeshurun." (Deut. 33 : 2-5).1
1 Sinai is read in the present text of the Song of Deborah (Judges
5 : 5), but is apparently not original there. The text of Deut. 33 is

MOSES AND HIS WORK 59
Yahweh appears as God of the storm in other passages,
also, as where he throws down hailstones on the Canaanites
(Joshua 10 : 11), and where, in answer to Samuel's prayer
he sends thunder and rain (I Sam. 12 : 17/.). Even in
the latest period Yahweh appears as God of the thunder
storm whose voice shakes the forest (Psalm 29).
On the basis of the accounts which have come down to
us, critically treated, it seems fair to say, then, that Moses
was the founder of the particular religion of Israel. Him
self religiously impressed by the phenomena of the moun
tain region in which he sojourned, and able to interpret the
experiences of his people from this point of view, he aroused
in them a faith that the God whom he had met in the desert
had chosen Israel as his special charge. As God of the storm
he was able to fight on their behalf against their enemies,
and his willingness to do this was indicated by the covenant
into which he entered. The promise he gave in this cove
nant was that he would lead them into Canaan. In the
texts now in our hands the promised presence is described
in various ways. At one time it is said that an angel will
accompany the people; in another the Face of Yahweh is
spoken of. Moses is dissatisfied with the promise of the
angel and will content himself with nothing less than the
Presence of Yahweh in person.1 The promise of the Pres
ence is confirmed and the faith of the people strengthened
by the material symbol of the ark. For the ark a tent was
provided, in which Yahweh appeared and gave revelations
to his servant.
There is no evidence that Moses wished to abolish the
worship of the minor divinities, the clan and family gods,
which were already naturalised among the people. The de
mand that Yahweh alone should be worshipped belongs in
the later period. The conflict with the Baal religion, which
not free from suspicion, but what is given above has probability in its
favour. 1 The angel in whom the Name dwells can hardly be distinguished
from Yahweh himself (Ex. 23 : 21), but the entreaty for the Presence
(Face) seems to indicate that the latter is superior (33 : 2, 14).

60 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
is set forth in the story of the golden calf, is also of later
date. Yet the impression must have been made on the
people that Yahweh is the superior divinity, to whom the
first devotion must be paid. The covenant between Yah
weh and the clans was also a covenant between the clans
themselves; and by this union of discordant elements, and
by the common devotion to Yahweh, not only was the sense
of nationality awakened, but the basis was laid for future
progress. And it is probably true, as has been urged by
others, that there was a valuable ethical element in the
thought that Yahweh and Israel were united not by nature
but by an act of free choice. The god of the fathers might
have been supposed to be by nature bound so closely to
the descendants that he was compelled to take their part,
whatever their behaviour to him. But when the people re
minded themselves that there was an act of free choice on
Yahweh's part, they realised more distinctly that they were
under obligation to live up to the covenant. The germ of
the prophetical appeal for righteousness may be found here.
The point of view is given by one of the late writers in the
words: "Now therefore if you will obey my voice indeed
and keep my covenant you shall be my possession from
among all peoples — for all the earth is mine — and you shall
be unto me a kingdom of priests and a consecrated nation"
(Ex. 19 : 5/.). Moses would not have used words of such
sweeping import, but he had in germ the idea which here
finds such full expression.
We have already had occasion to notice that the local
divinities were made parties to oaths and agreements be
tween men. In several cases it is evident that Yahweh
showed his ethical character by holding men to their en
gagements. The most conspicuous instance is that of
the Gibeonites who suffered through Saul's zeal for Israel
(II Sam. 21 : 1-14). The strong predilection of Yahweh
for his own people seems to have suggested to the king
that his transgression of the ancient covenant would be
condoned just because it was motived by zeal for Israel

MOSES AND HIS WORK 61
and therefore for Yahweh. But the sequel impressed upon
the people the idea that Yahweh is a God of righteous
judgment. This same idea must have been fostered by
Moses' use of the oracle to settle disputes among his peo
ple. A good while after Moses' time it was customary to
bring a man suspected of breach of trust to the sanctuary
and there test him by some sort of ordeal or by an oath
of purgation (Ex. 22 : 7-11). The tradition that Moses
referred the cases brought before him to the decision of
God indicates that this was ancient custom. It probably
indicates also that Moses himself was a righteous man, for
he could not have retained his hold on the confidence of the
people if he had not administered the oracle according to
justice. It would be too much to say that from our point of view
the Yahweh of Moses' time had a perfect moral character.
That he was a thorough partisan so far as Israel's relations
to other peoples was concerned is shown by his taking part
in the wars. The enemies of Israel were also the enemies of
Yahweh. Even within the bounds of Israel itself he might
have his favourites. If his action seemed arbitrary no one
could call him to account, and he had full freedom to act
according to his good pleasure.
Although the founder of the religion of Israel, Moses was
not in our sense of the word a monotheist. Probably he
never considered the question whether there was one God
for the whole universe. The problems which confronted
him were practical problems, and for the solution of these
it was enough to say that Yahweh was powerful enough to
secure Israel in possession of all that he had promised them.
Sufficient to that day was the faith that Yahweh was a God
of war and that Israel was his special care. Except that
he was more powerful, he did not differ essentially from
Chemosh of Moab, who also delighted in the slaughter of
his enemies, who were the enemies of his people as well.
Like Moab, Israel devoted its enemies to destruction, and
Yahweh insisted on the carrying out of the vow, as we see

62 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
from the case of Agag. The consecration of warriors by a
special service when going on a campaign was customary in
Israel as among her neighbours. In these respects the re
ligion of Moses was crude and cruel like the other religions
of the time. But the religion of Moses had in it the prom
ise of development which cannot be truly asserted of these
others. How the development came about we have now
to see.

CHAPTER IV
THE TRANSITION
From about 1200 B. C. until the time of David the Israel
ites were making their way into Canaan. Tradition is no
doubt correct in representing the conquest of the country
east of the Jordan as first accomplished, though it is wrong
in making the occupation the result of a single battle, or
rather of two battles. East of the Jordan the people were
always half nomads, so that amalgamation with the earlier
inhabitants, or gradual absorption of them, was easier here
than across the river. The impression made by our narra
tives is to the effect that for centuries the land of Gilead
retained much of primitive Israelite life and manners. It
is for this reason, perhaps, that Ishbaal and David found
a refuge in Mahanaim when hard pressed by enemies in
Canaan — the tie of blood, so strong among the nomads, was
here in full force as in the old desert days. But the political
centre of the country was west of the Jordan, and our sources
tell us little of the religion and manners of the transjordanic
region. In Canaan proper, at the time of the invasion, the agri
cultural life was fully established except in the country bor
dering on the Dead Sea, and the change brought about by
amalgamation with the earlier inhabitants was marked —
though perhaps not so marked as we are accustomed to
think. Israelites and Canaanites were of the same blood
and spoke the same language. The later biblical writers
preferred to disguise this fact, making Canaan the son of
Ham while Israel was derived from Shem. But there can
be no doubt from the evidence in our hands that the two
63

64 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
peoples were closely related. Their customs were very sim
ilar; their names for God (except that of Yahweh) were the
same; intermarriage was early tolerated. The main differ
ence was the one already mentioned — the Canaanites were
agriculturists and lived in walled towns. Since it was dif
ficult for the nomads to reduce fortified places, the process,
which is usually thought of as a conquest, was really an
amalgamation in which the superior vigour of the Israelite
stock asserted itself, making an Israelite nation out of the
combined elements. The Israelite authors are conscious
that amalgamation has taken place, for the more rigid of
them allege intermarriage with the Canaanites as the rea
son for all the misfortunes which befell the people. Indi
rectly they testify to the same thing when they make cer
tain tribes sons of Jacob by slave girls. The names of at
least two of the tribes (Gad and Asher) point in the same
direction, for they are the names of Syrian divinities. Judah
marries a Canaanitess — that is, the tribe of Judah was made
up from the two separate races. In the testament of Jacob
Issachar is under task-work (Gen. 49 : 15). This means that
the Israelite tribe is the inferior part of the composite com
munity. A commentary on the statement is given by the
earliest account of the conquest (Judges 1), in which the
author tells us frankly that in most of the cities the Canaan
ites were too strong to be dispossessed and that they and the
Israelites dwelt together, sometimes one element being the
predominant one, sometimes the other. The most that
the Israelites could do in the majority of cases was to
reduce the older inhabitants to the position of serfs, and
this was not done until the time of Solomon.
The religion of the Canaanites was not very different from
that of their nomad neighbours. There was, therefore, no
violent break when the immigrants adopted the sacred
places of the country and attributed their foundation to
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. These sacred places were on
the hilltops and under the evergreen trees, and were associ
ated with the local divinities just in the way in which the

THE TRANSITION 65
desert rocks and trees were. When the people of Shechem
consecrated Abimelech as prince they did it at the Oak of
the Pillar which is in Shechem (Judges 9:6). These people
were Canaanites, and the macceba at this sacred tree was |
probably an object of worship before the Israelite invasion. \
Yet it had now become the dwelling of Yahweh, for one >
author supposes it set up by Joshua (Joshua 24 : 26), and if I
by him it must have been sacred to the God of Israel. It
is, perhaps, not without significance that the divinity of this!
city is called El-berith or Baal-berith (Judges 8 : 33; 9:4/
and 46), for the name means God-of-the-covenant or Lord-
of-the-covenant. 'The name was given to the God because
he had become the guardian of the treaty by which the two
peoples bound themselves to live together in peace.
The examples of sacred stones, already discussed under
the head of nomadic religion, need not again be cited, though
the most of them, from the nature of the case, were found
on the soil of Canaan. To later writers they were uncon
genial, and the effort was made to disguise their original
cultie significance and to make of them historic monuments.
The stones from which the sanctuary of Gilgal took its names
are thus to the writer of the book of Joshua simply memori
als of the crossing of the Jordan (Joshua 4:3), and the stone
Ebenezer appears as a similar monument of an Israelite vic
tory (I Sam. 7 : 12). The sacred stones on Ebal (originally
Gerizim, Deut. 27 : 2) are made into stones of record on
which the Deuteronomic law is written. But the mention
of the altar in the same connection indicates that the place
was a sanctuary. Numbers of such simple sanctuaries may
have been founded after the Israelites entered the country,
for, as we have seen, the earliest law encouraged the erection
of altars wherever some extraordinary event indicated the
special presence of the divinity. At the close of a day of
battle Saul had a great stone set apart as a place of sacrifice,
and the account indicates that this king showed his piety
by erecting a number of such altars (I Sam. 14 : 35).
Excavation seems to show that the Canaanite sanctuaries

66 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
were for the most part open-air spaces with pillars and altars
such as are indicated in the Hebrew accounts. But there
are indications also that in the more advanced communities
the god was represented by a metal image, in which case a
..building was needed for the protection of the sacred object.
-The God of Israel had only an ark or a tent, and permanent
structures such as we find at Shiloh must have been taken
over from the Canaanites. The comparatively late author
who ascribes to David the intention to build the temple
affirms that Yahweh had sojourned in a tent up to that
time (II Sam. 7:6). This was true only in a limited sense,
for the temple at Shiloh, though probably Canaanite in origin,
had been appropriated by Yahweh after the conquest. That
it became customary to represent Yahweh by an image is
also evident from the narratives, for the later reaction
against molten images indicates that the Israelites had
yielded to Canaanite influence in this respect.
All that we know of the Canaanites and their kinsmen
leads us to believe that they worshipped a multitude of
divinities, genii locorum, such as we have already discov
ered among the Hebrews in the nomadic stage. The name
most frequently applied to one of these gods was Baal,
originally not a proper name but an appellative meaning
possessor. It seems to have been a primitive Semitic word,
for in Babylon it was applied to one of the older divinities
in the form Bel, and afterward it was transferred to the
chief god of Babylon, whose proper name was Marduk.
In the Old Testament it occurs in the plural to designate
the whole group of local divinities, or else with the article
showing the consciousness that it was not strictly a proper
name. In a number of place-names it shows that the local
divinity was regarded as the proprietor of the place. Thus
we have Baal-peor, the divinity of the mountain Peor (Num.
25 : 3-5), Baal-hermon, the god of Mount Hermon (Judges
3 : 3), parallel to which is Baal-lebanon in an inscription.
Baal-perazim is in our narrative connected with a mani
festation of Yahweh (II Sam. 5 : 20). Baal-tamar is evi-

THE TRANSITION 67
dently the Baal who inhabits a palm-tree (Judges 20 : 33).
In some cases the spirit is feminine — something which the
later religion of Israel rejected. Thus the Baalath-beer is
the Naiad of the well (Joshua 19 : 8; other Baalahs are
mentioned in 15 : 9, 11, and 19 : 44). Finally, we have
Bamoth-baal and Kirjath-baal, both of which indicate that
the Baal is lord or possessor of the heights or of the city
(Num. 22 : 41; Joshua 15 : 60).
The conception of the divinity as possessor of a place
or district implies private property in land, something un
known to the nomad but essential to the agriculturist. A
man cannot cultivate successfully unless he has undisturbed
title to his land. This is conspicuously true in the culti
vation of those crops for which a considerable part of Canaan
was famous — the fig, the olive, and the vine — since these
crops require a series of years before they repay the care of
the cultivator. Moreover, the success of the farmer de
pends upon the water supply, and in the border of the
desert irrigation is necessary to bring the land into fruit-
fulness. This labour will not be expended unless the gar
dener is tolerably certain that he will receive his reward.
But the water supply, whether it comes from the sky or
from the underground reservoir which wells up in springs
and fountains, is evidently given by the gods. Hence the
idea of the nomad is that the oasis where the water flows
out of the ground and causes a luxuriant vegetation is the
garden of God. Private property in land was first ascribed
to the divinity, and the agriculturist thought of himself as
tenant of this proprietor. The farmer who had subdued
the wild land, therefore, held that he owed something to his
landlord. His agriculture was interwoven with religious
rites designed to conciliate the god, and the first-fruits of
the crop were paid to him in recognition of his rights. Not
all the Baals were gods of agriculture, but those who most
distinctly appealed to the Israelites when they were learn
ing to till the soil must have been those who had it in their
power to give or to withhold the harvest. Hosea correctly

68 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
represents the popular belief when he makes Israel justify
her worship of the local Baals by saying: "I will go after
my lovers who give me my bread and my water, my wool
and my flax, my oil and my drink" (Hosea 2:7). It is
probable that the larger part of Canaanitish religion con
sisted in rites designed to propitiate the Baals to whom the
soil belonged.
It follows that Baal was not a sun-god. That the sun
was worshipped in Palestine is indicated by the place-names
Beth-shemesh and En-shemesh. But he was not the god
of the cultivator, for the sun in Syria is hostile to the crops
rather than favourable to them. Even the Baal-shamem of
the Phoenicians (Baal of heaven) seems to have been a
sky-god rather than a sun-god. From a sky-god the rain
might be expected, and this Baal might be the husbandman's
patron divinity. Baal-hamman, whom we meet in Phoe
nician inscriptions and possibly once in the Hebrew Scrip
tures (Cant. 8 : 11), is probably not the Baal of the sun, as
has sometimes been maintained, but the Baal of the pillar,
for the hammanim were pillars or obelisks like the macce-
both. The translation "sun-images" given in the Revised
Version (Lev. 26 : 30; Isaiah 17: 8 ; 27 : 9) is based on con
jecture only. What seems clear is that Baal was worshipped
as the god of fruitfulness and the giver of the crops. As
sociated with him was his female counterpart.
We have already found traces of goddesses in some place-
names. Parallel with these Palestinian divinities is the
Baalah of Gebal who was the chief object of worship in
that city. She is called simply the Baalah or Mistress of
the city. What her proper name was is not certain, but it
is probable that she was one form of a female divinity widely
worshipped throughout the Semitic world. This goddess
bore the name Ishtar in Babylon, Astarte (Ashtart) in
Canaan. Among the Hebrews her name was undoubtedly
the same that we meet in Phoenician, though the Hebrew
punctuators have vocalised it differently (Ashtoreth, plural
Ashtaroth), perhaps to avoid pronouncing a name offensive

THE TRANSITION 69
to them. As to the nature of the divinity there can be
no doubt; she was the goddess of animal fruitfulness and
therefore of sensual passion. In the Babylonian myth she
is represented as having had many lovers upon whom she
has brought misfortune. Evidence of her worship in Pales
tine is given by some place-names, though these are not
numerous. Thus we read of an Ashtaroth (Deut. 1:4;
Joshua 9 : 10) and of a Beeshtera which may be abbrevi
ated from Beth-ashtart (Joshua 21 : 27). East of the
Jordan was Asteroth-karnaim, which means Ashtart-of-
two-horns (Gen. 14 : 5). Because of the two horns Ashtart
has been supposed to be a moon-goddess, but there is no
direct evidence to connect her with the moon. Her plane
tary embodiment in Babylon was the celestial body which
we still call Venus, translating the Babylonian name into
its Latin equivalent. In accounting for a horned goddess
we may suppose that the horns are those of her sacred ani
mal, the cow, or perhaps the ewe. Ashtart was worshipped
in one of the chief Philistine towns (I Sam. 31 : 10). \
The best evidence of the attraction which Canaanite re
ligion had for Israel is given by the constant protests of
Hebrew writers against the Baals and Ashtarts. These ,
protests show that these were generic names for the various
local divinities. The proper names of some of them have
come down to us. Thus we read of Hadad-Rimmon, the
Syrian god of the thunder-storm; of Anath, a Syrian (orig
inally Babylonian) goddess; of Nebo, who undoubtedly
came from Babylon; of Dagon, one of the chief gods of the
Philistines, but who also had a sanctuary, Beth-dagon, in
Israel; and of the sun-god as already mentioned. Whether
the horses dedicated to this divinity, which were kept in
Jerusalem as late as the reign of Josiah, were originally
Canaanite or whether they were Assyrian importations can
not be made out with certainty (II Kings 23 : 11). The
cult of the sun and moon and constellations which is men
tioned in the same connection (II Kings 23 : 5) and against
which the Deuteronomist inveighs (Deut. 4 : 19) may have

70 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
come in with the Assyrian domination. But enough re
mains to show that the Israelites did not think of displacing
the multitude of divinities which they found in possession
of the country when they entered it. What they did at
first was to worship these local divinities along with Yahweh,
and we may suppose the reaction against this practice is
indicated by the command: "Thou shalt not have any
other gods in my presence." Late writers are reluctant to
admit that other gods were actually associated with Yahweh
in the same sanctuary, but various hints to the effect that
they were are contained in the history of the Jerusalem
temple. One class of divinities — the teraphim — was found
in the sanctuary of Yahweh from the time of the judges
(Judges 17 : 5) down to that of Hosea (Hosea 3:4). The
fact that Canaanite altars, pillars, and images had been
adopted by the Israelites is clearly seen by the Deuteron
omist, and this explains his bitterness against the country
sanctuaries (Deut. 12 : 2/.).
/" The association of various gods in the same sanctuary
was apparently followed by identifying the several divin
ities as so many forms of one God. In the case of Yahweh
and Baal this was made easy by the fact already noticed
that Baal means simply possessor or owner and might be
applied to any god. It was inevitable that the Israelites
should think of Yahweh as the Lord (Baal) of Israel. In
the same way the divinity named Melek (in our text Mo
loch) would be identified with Yahweh the King (melek) of
Israel. A god of this name was, as we know, worshipped
by the Phoenicians; under the name Mil com he was the
chief god of the Ammonites and had a sanctuary at Jeru
salem (I Kings 11 : 5-7). His worship among the Israelites
is indicated by a number of personal names, for there seems
no reason to doubt that as the name Elimelek, among the
Phoenicians, indicated the worship of this divinity, so it did
among the Hebrews. The notoriety of this god came from the
fact that he was worshipped by human sacrifice in the Valley
of Hinnom just under the walls of Jerusalem. Jeremiah

THE TRANSITION 71
leaves no doubt in our mind that by the people at large
this service was thought to belong to Yahweh, for speaking
in the name of Yahweh he says: "And they built the high-
places of Baal which are in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom
to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the
fire to Melek, which I commanded not, neither came it into
my mind" (Jer. 32 : 35). It is impossible to see why Yah
weh should protest that this sort of sacrifice had not come
into his mind unless the people supposed it to be offered to
him. In another passage the prophet speaks of the high
places of Baal being built "to burn their sons and their
daughters in the fire for burnt offerings to Baal, which I
commanded not, neither spoke it, nor did it come into my
mind" (19 : 5). The citations make it clear that the people
of Jerusalem offered these sacrifices to Yahweh, whom they
called both Baal and Melek. With these passages we
should combine the prohibitions in Leviticus (18 : 21 and
20 : 2-5) which speak of sacrifices to Melek as defilements
of the sanctuary of Yahweh and profanation of his name.
They could not effect this defilement unless they were
brought into Yahweh's own sanctuary.
The amalgamation of Yahweh with Baal and Melek is
probably only one example of a process which went on
through a long period. It was, in fact, inevitable that the
amalgamation of peoples should bring syncretism in religion.
Even where hostility was acute Canaanite families might
go over to Israel and be adopted, as is made plain by the
story of Rahab (Joshua 6 : 25). The town of Gibeon and its
allies secured a treaty which gave them standing in the
Israelite commonwealth, and Yahweh protected their rights
against the aggressions of Saul (II Sam. 21 : 1-14). This
case is particularly instructive because it shows that the
divinity worshipped at Gibeon was Yahweh; the trans
gressors of the covenant were impaled before the Yahweh
of Gibeon. The Gibeonite sanctuary became in fact one
of the most prominent of those dedicated to the God of
Israel, for in the time of Solomon it was "the great high

72 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
place" (I Kings 3:4). Intermarriage between Israelites
and Canaanites was common. A certain amount of pref
erence for marriage within the clan is indicated by the
patriarchal stories, but the very mild protest of Samson's
father against his son's proposal to take a Philistine wife
shows that the opposition cannot have been very intense
(Judges 14 : 1-3). Gideon married a Canaanitess. In fact,
it was only in the time of Deuteronomy that the prohibi
tion was uttered: "Thou shalt not give thy daughter to
his son, nor take his daughter to thy son; for this will turn
away thy sons from following me" (Deut. 7:3).
To the strict worshipper of Yahweh there was a real dan
ger in such alliances, for the religion of the women of the
family is pretty certain to be instilled into the children. It
is probable also that the rites which were supposed to secure
fruitfulness were practised by the women, and the new
comers, in learning agriculture, would feel it necessary to
adopt these rites. If, as we have supposed, the clan and
family gods were worshipped along with Yahweh there
could be no effective protest against the adoption of the
Baals and Ashtarts. These were at least gods near at hand,
while Yahweh's proper home was the desert. Nor must we
underestimate the influence exerted by the more ornate rit
ual which was performed at the Canaanite sanctuaries. The
essence of the agricultural festivals was eating and drinking
and rejoicing before the god, with music and dancing and
in some cases sexual indulgence such as the primitive mind
supposes acceptable to the divinities of fruitfulness. Sa
cred prostitutes were found at the high places, and appeared
even in connection with the temple at Jerusalem down to
the time of Hezekiah (I Kings 14 : 24; 15 : 12; II Kings
23 : 7). The unbridled licence of the great festivals, so un
sparingly denounced by the prophets, was taken over by
the religion of Yahweh from that of Baal and Ashtart.
Like these divinities, Yahweh was now honoured by gifts
of wine and oil — the most valued productions of the agri
cultural life (Judges 9 : 9 and 13).

THE TRANSITION 73
In proportion as Israelites and Canaanites became one
people Baal and Yahweh would become one God. And
since Israel was the more vigorous stock, the composite
divinity was called Yahweh. He was doubtless called Baal,
also, as is made known by proper names compounded with
Baal even in the family of devout worshippers of Yahweh.
We need only notice Jerubbaal, one of the heroes identified
with Gideon by tradition; Ishbaal, son of Saul (the correct
reading has been preserved in I Chron. 8 : 33; elsewhere the
scribes have distorted the name to Ishbosheth) ; Baaliadah,
son of David (I Chron. 14 : 7); and Ishbaal, one of the cham
pions in David's army (I Chron. 11 : 11, emended text).
Jonathan's son, who appears in most passages as Mephi-
bosheth, was really named Meribbaal (I Chron. 8 : 34; 9 : 40),
and we find Baalhanan (I Chron. 27 : 28), and Baaliah
(I Chron. 12 : 5). This last name is particularly instructive,
for it distinctly affirms that Yahweh is Baal, and there is
some evidence that the equivalent name Jobaal was once
found in the text (Greek manuscripts of Judges 9 : 26).
In the time of David, then, Yahweh has become identi-\
fied with the Baal — he is the Baal of Israel, we may say, '
and the land of Canaan is his land. David complains that
his banishment from the cultivated country is banishment
from the presence of Yahweh (I Sam. 26 : 19). The older
sanctuaries have been adopted by Yahweh. The most
conspicuous instance — that of Gibeon — has already been
mentioned; but this was not an isolated case, for Gilgal
seems to be another, and even the site of the Jerusalem
temple may have been determined by the previous wor
ship of the local divinity. The adoption of earlier sacred
places by a new religion is one of the commonest phenomena
in religious history. The reconsecration of the church of
Saint Sophia by the Moslems, and its use as a mosque down
to the present day, is a case in point. The great mosque of
Damascus was a church before it became a mosque, a tem
ple of Zeus before it became a church, and probably a temple
of Rimmon before it was assigned to Zeus.

74 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
The biblical narrative seems to have preserved the mem
ory of such a transfer in the story of Gideon and his altar.
The narrator represents Gideon receiving a divine command
to break down the altar of Baal and erect one to Yahweh
on the same spot (Judges 6 : 25-28). Probably the original
text stated that the new altar was made of the stones taken
from the old. For fuel Gideon used the wood of the asherah.
If the narrator means that the altar of Yahweh is erected
on the same spot and with the same material as the old,
he is far removed from the later abhorrence of Baal-worship;
for the later point of view would have been that the spot
once devoted to Baal was for ever unclean, and that the
stones of the altar as well as the wood of the asherah were
an abomination to Yahweh. The historic fact underlying
the narrative must have been that the original sanctuary
of Baal at Ophrah was taken over by Yahweh.
Though Yahweh was now fully naturalised as god of Ca
naan and god of agriculture, he did not lose his warlike char
acter. This is shown by the use of the ark in war. In one
instance, indeed, this use led to disaster, and the palladium
passed into possession of the Philistines. But the sequel
showed the superiority of Israel's God. He humiliated
Dagon and afflicted the people with a pestilence, so that
they were obliged to send the hostile guest back to his own
country, sending also a votive offering. The historicity of
the account does not here concern us. It shows the pop
ular idea of the superiority of Yahweh. His close associa
tion with the ark led David to bring that sacred object to
Jerusalem and to carry it with him on his campaigns. Yet
the idea persisted that Yahweh retained his home at Horeb,
so that Elijah sought him there when in need of special
encouragement. Yet Elijah sacrificed at Carmel, just as
the people did at the local high places. So close is the asso
ciation of Yahweh with the soil of Canaan that Naaman
begs some of that soil that he may erect a private altar
upon it in Damascus (II Kings 5 : 17). The danger that
the Yahweh of each locality would be regarded as differ-

THE TRANSITION 75
ent from all other Yahwehs was not remote. Solomon
would hardly have gone to Gibeon to worship had he not
supposed the Yahweh of Gibeon to be more ready to an
swer prayer than the one at Jerusalem. When Absalom
was in exile he vowed a vow to the Yahweh of Hebron, and
David found it quite natural that the vow should be paid
at that sanctuary (II Sam. 15 :7/.). Whether Absalom's
statement was according to fact or whether it was only a
pretext makes no difference for our present purpose.
The number of places at which Yahweh was worshipped
during the early monarchy is not realised by the casual
reader of the Old Testament. We have already had occa
sion to mention Gibeon, Gilgal, and Ophrah. At Shiloh
was a notable sanctuary, in charge of a family of priests,
who possibly claimed to descend from Moses. Moses was
also claimed as ancestor by the priests of Dan (Judges
18 : 30). At Nob was a sanctuary, in possession of a priestly
clan, all the members of which except one were massacred
by Saul (I Sam. 22 : 18). Bethel traced its foundation to
the patriarch Jacob, and other sacred places were associated
with the patriarchs. We may be sure that in this period
every village had its high place, located by preference on top
of a hill. No objection seems to have been raised to the
representation of Yahweh by an image, for Gideon set up
an ephod, which was certainly an object of worship, in his
native place, making it out of gold taken from the enemy
(Judges 8 : 24-28). At Dan was also a molten image cap
tured from its original owner. Images seem, however, not
to have been common in the earliest period of the occupa
tion, and it is likely that the Canaanites themselves were
usually content with the rude stone pillar, such as the one
raised by Jacob at Bethel. A sacred tree was pretty sure
to be planted at each altar, as we have discovered. With
the tree, or perhaps in some cases a substitute for it, was a
wooden pole or post — the asherah, whose origin and sig
nificance are obscure.
The hostility of the Deuteronomist to both pillars and

76 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
asherahs indicates that in his opinion they were idolatrous.
That the pillar was regarded as the residence of the god
has been made sufficiently clear. Whether the asherah was
dedicated to Ashtart, as has sometimes been supposed,
whether it was the impersonation of a goddess Asherah of
which we have some evidence, or whether it was, like the
pillar (maqceba), dedicated to Yahweh himself, is still unde
termined. Poles or posts seem to have been dedicated to
various divinities among the Assyrians and Babylonians, and,
as we read of prophets and sacred vessels of Asherah (or
of the asherah) among the Hebrews (I Kings 18 : 19; II
Kings 23 : 4), the idolatrous nature of the object can hardly
be doubted.
The earliest form of worship was apparently the pres
entation of a gift, the material of which was applied directly
to the sacred stone. Thus Jacob poured oil upon the pillar
at Bethel (Gen. 28 : 18). Libations were poured on the
altar down to the latest times — usually of wine which re
joiced God as well as man. The idea was the primitive one
that the divinity residing in the stone absorbed the food or
drink. In the case of animal offerings the earliest method
was to pour the blood on the sacred stone, and this was done
in Israel even when the use of fire became customary. In the
account of the sacrifice of Isaac we read that the boy was
bound and laid on the wood, before the act of slaying. The
evident purpose was that the blood of the victim should flow
directly upon the stone. In the account of Gideon's sac
rifice it is said that he brought out his gift and laid it upon
the stone, then the angel touched the flesh, and fire burst
from the rock and consumed the offering (Judges 6 : 21).
This is a poetic way of describing the transition from tireless
offerings to those burnt on the altar. Originally the food
was simply laid upon the sacred stone. At a later time it
was sublimated by fire and the divinity partook of it in the
form of a sweet-smelling savour.
A separate order of priests was not necessary to this sort
of worship. Any man could sacrifice, though it would be

THE TRANSITION 77
the father of the family who would usually officiate. When
Moses made a solemn covenant the sacrifice was performed
by the young men of the clans (Ex. 24 : 5). Where there
was a sacred object of value, however, it would be neces
sary to have a guardian for it. Thus at Shiloh the ark was
in the keeping of Eli and his sons, and Samuel, the attendant,
slept in the sanctuary (I Sam. 3:3). When Micah made an
image he secured a priest to guard it. In proportion as a
sanctuary became a place of resort it would devolve upon
the priest to keep order among the worshippers and see that
the service was rightly performed. It was in order to do
this that Eli sat at the gate of the temple. The reproach di
rected against his sons is to the effect that instead of look
ing to the orderly performance of the service they thought
only of their own advantage (I Sam. 2 : 12-17). Hosea's
complaint against the tyranny of the priests (Hosea 5 : 1)
receives light from this passage.
The primary office of the priest was not to offer the sac
rifices but to attend to the oracle. Saul and David take a
priest on their campaigns that they may know the will of
the divinity. This will is revealed by means of the ephod,
whose nature and working are still obscure. It is clear,
however, that the use of this implement was an art which
required special knowledge and training. The man who had
this special knowledge was called a Levite. Keeping this
in mind we understand the self-gratulation of Micah on
having a Levite for his priest. This particular Levite
traced his descent to Moses, and Moses, as we have seen,
was primarily the minister of the oracle at Kadesh. While
we are led to suppose that there was a tribe of Levi in early
days — which in some obscure way was nearly extermi
nated — the Levites in historic times are rather a guild than
a clan. The poem ascribed to Moses intimates, as does the
account of the golden calf, that the members of this guild
had disregarded the ordinary ties of kindred in order to
devote themselves to the worship of Yahweh (Deut. 33 : 9).
For this devotion they are rewarded by the gift of the Urim

78 THE RELIGION OP ISRAEL
and Thummim, the implements of the oracle (probably used
in connection with the ephod). The priesthood, however,
was not strictly limited to the guild of Levites, for the people
of Kirjath-jearim consecrated one of their own number to
have charge of the ark (I Sam. 7 : 1), and David appointed
Zadok, a man apparently not of priestly descent, and also
made priests of some of his own sons as well as a certain
Ira the Jairite (II Sam. 8 : 18; 20 : 25).
With the increasing magnificence of the court after the
building of the temple, the Jerusalem priests enjoyed larger
emoluments and greater prestige. In order that these royal
officers should be relieved of the menial parts of the service
it became the custom for the kings to present slaves to the
sanctuary. Ezekiel seems to have been the first to protest
against this custom, on the ground that the persons thus
brought into the sacred place were not duly consecrated.
Certain experiences of the priests themselves led them to
emphasise this matter of consecration. Thus one Uzzah
was smitten with death because he took rash hold of the
ark (II Sam. 6:7). Although the details of the process escape
us we must suppose that there was a gradually increasing
stringency in drawing the line between the sacred and the
profane, until in the exile it was resolved not to allow any
but duly consecrated persons to enter the sanctuary.
Priests, however, were not the only persons who in the
earlier period enjoyed the special favour of the divinity.
Special gifts of sight were granted to some men, and those
who received them were called seers. Such a man was sup
posed to tell where lost articles could be found. Samuel not
only satisfied Saul about the lost asses, but also informed
him of the divine purpose to make him king. It is probable
that Samuel blessed the sacrifice for his townsmen not be
cause he was priest but on the general ground that he was
in special relations with Yahweh as his seer (I Sam. 9 : 5-13).
The seer's divine equipment was sufficiently defined in his
title of " man of God." Because of his special relation to the
divinity he was able effectively to bless or to curse. Among

THE TRANSITION 79
the Arabs at the present day certain men are believed to
have the same power. They are sought after to recover
articles lost or stolen, to detect the thief, and to heal the
sick.1 The title of seer fell into disuse in later times, and
the Old Testament writer who gives us the account of
Samuel supposes that the seer and the prophet were the same
(I Sam. 9:9). But the prophet was, at least in the earlier
period, distinguished by his abnormal enthusiasm and also
by his associating himself with others of like temperament in
a religious society (I Sam. 10 : 5-16; 19 : 18-20). This
enthusiasm was contagious and infected the bystanders who
thereupon joined in the religious exercises of the band (music
and dancing), even becoming so frenzied as to fall down in a
cataleptic fit.
The reputation of madmen given the prophets by the
people (II Kings 9 : 11) is explicable on the ground of these
extravagant manifestations. Madness was thought to be
possession by a spirit or demon, and it is possible that in
the earlier days the prophet (nabi) was so called because
possessed by the divinity of revelation, the Babylonian
Nebo. In the period of which we have record the Hebrews
attributed the possession to the spirit of Yahweh. The
spirit was the organ by which the God of Horeb was able
to work at a distance. While at great national crises the
divinity himself came on the thunder-cloud to help his people,
his influence on individuals was by means of the spirit.
Thus the spirit "clothed itself" with Gideon and drove him
to his heroic deed (Judges 6 : 34); it impelled Othniel
(3 : 10), and afterward stirred or rushed upon Samson and
Saul (Judges 15 : 14; 14 : 6; 13 : 25; I Sam. 11 : 6). The
spirit might be a spirit of evil in that it wrought evil to
men. Yahweh sent a spirit of evil between Abimelech and
his subjects, whose mission was to stir up strife and thus
avenge the brothers whom Abimelech had slain (Judges
9 : 22 /.).
The best illustration of this belief is found in Saul the
1 Jaussen, Coutumes des Arabes, p. 386.

80 THE RELIGION OP ISRAEL
King. If we may interpret the account according to our
lights we shall conclude that the unfortunate man was af
flicted with melancholia, becoming at times acute mania.
The popular explanation would be that he was possessed
by a demon, as the Arabs at the present day call an insane
man majnfin, that, is possessed by a jinnee. The piety of
the Hebrew writers, which ascribed all that takes place to
the direct action of Yahweh, saw the cause of the phenome
non in a spirit sent by Yahweh, an evil spirit only in so far
as it was an instrument of harm to Saul (I Sam. 16 : 14/.).
In another passage we read that Yahweh did not hesitate
to deceive men by the spirit, which in this case was allowed
to become a lying spirit in the mouth of the prophets in
order to lure Ahab to his death (I Kings 22 : 21-23). Since,
according to this representation, the spirit assumes a dis
tinct personality we may call him an angel. But in most
cases he seems more like an effluence from Yahweh than a
person distinct from him. Our authors did not take pains
to define their idea more exactly. What now interests us
is that this theory of the spirit may well have been Canaan-
itish as well as Israelite, for the phenomena of prophetism
seem to be the same in both religions.
The result of the process we have been studying was to
amalgamate the religion of Israel and the religion of Ca
naan. But from the beginning the process met with some
thing of protest. The complex civilisation of the cultivated
country involved evils against which the more thoughtful
of the desert-dwellers revolted. Evidence of this is given
by the institution called the Nazirate. The only early ex
ample is that of Samson, and in his case the historicity of
the account is not above suspicion. As we now read it,
the hero's mother was, during her pregnancy, to eat nothing
that came from the vine, to drink no wine or fermented
drink, and was to avoid all that was ritually unclean. The
purpose was to devote the child to this sort of abstinence
during his prenatal life. He himself followed the same
course and in sign of his devotion he let his hair grow long.

THE TRANSITION 81
Similar abstinence is narrated of Jonadab ben Rechab, of
whom we read that he enjoined upon his clan not to eat
anything that came from the vine, not to build permanent
houses, and not to engage in the cultivation of the soil
(Jer. 35 : 6-10). The reason for this strict rule was oppo
sition to the agricultural life and devotion to the simpler
manners of the desert. Since the Rechabites were Kenites,
that is, original worshippers of Yahweh, their devotion to
the ancestral mode of life was really devotion to the an
cestral God. In the time of Jehu they were known to be
members of the strict Yahweh party and opposed to the
Baal of Jezebel and her family (II Kings 10 : 15-17). The
later legislation allows Nazirites to consecrate themselves
for short periods of time, but in the case of Samson the vow
is assumed to be lifelong.
The only explanation of the phenomena is to recognise
the fact that to the strictest worshippers of Yahweh the
vine was taboo, and this was because it was sacred to the
Baal of the cultivator. This Baal, then, was felt to be hos
tile or at least uncongenial to Yahweh. The rigorists who
took Yahweh seriously could not adopt the cultivation of
the soil, since this was under the patronage of the Baals.
The opposition was heightened by the Philistine oppression
when Israel was rallied against its enemies by leaders who
invoked the help of Yahweh. The history of the period is
unfortunately obscure, but the appearance of the enthusi
astic prophets, and the Nazirate of Samson, possibly also of
Samuel, indicate a revival of devotion to the national God.
Saul himself, the leader of the revolution, seems to have
received his impulse from Samuel, and his zeal for Yahweh,
though a zeal not according to knowledge, was manifested
by his attempt to exterminate the Gibeonites because they
were not of Israelite blood. That the national movement
was a religious movement is indicated by the title "Anointed
of Yahweh" given to Saul and afterward to David, for
unction was a distinct rite of consecration, as we see from
the story of Jacob at Bethel. David's reluctance to lay

82 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
hands on the "Anointed of Yahweh " arose from the fact that
such an act would be sacrilege. The sacred character of the
act of anointing is made evident also by the sanctity of the
person by whom the act was performed (prophet or priest),
by the place where it was performed (usually a sanctuary),
and by the oil itself which was taken from the sanctuary.
The conflicts in which Israel engaged in the first period
of the monarchy thus served to emphasise the importance
of Israel's God, Yahweh. David's devotion was shown by
the great political stroke of bringing the ark to Jerusalem.
The ark had never been connected with the Baals. It was
the leader of Israel in the desert wandering and in subse
quent battles. Its installation at Jerusalem was eloquent
testimony to the fact that David was devoted to Yahweh
and relied upon him to support the throne. This is intelli
gible when we remember that David's tribe was more nearly
related to the Kenites than were those in the northern part
of the country, and that they had perhaps assimilated less
of the Canaanitish fife than had the others. Not that we
should think of Yahweh as the God of Judah who was forced
upon the other tribes by David, for there is no reason to
doubt the tradition which connected the ark with Shiloh,
and in the time of David Yahweh was already naturalised
at Gibeon.
Nor can we suppose that David was a monotheist. He
had the teraphim in his house in his early days, and we
hear nothing of his attempting to abolish the Canaanitish
sanctuaries in any part of the kingdom. The most that
can be asserted with safety is that by the establishment
of a regular cultus at Jerusalem, under the direct protec
tion of the royal house, Yahweh was given a certain pre
eminence over the local divinities. Yahweh, in the lan
guage of Jethro, was acknowledged to be the greatest of
the gods. Even this pre-eminence seemed to be endan
gered in the time of Solomon, for this king prided himself
on being cosmopolitan in his tastes and beliefs. Only thus
can we account for his building shrines for many divini-

THE TRANSITION 83
ties in Jerusalem or at least in its immediate vicinity. The
present text evidently endeavours to state the matter in
the way most favourable to Solomon, but it admits that he
erected sanctuaries for Chemosh and Melek on the mount
east of Jerusalem, immediately facing the temple, " and so
for all his wives who burnt incense and sacrificed to their
gods " (I Kings 11 : 4-8). The worship was not confined to
the foreign wives and their households, for Solomon him
self took part in it. It is not improbable, therefore, that
foreign deities were introduced into the temple itself. Phoe
nician models seem to have been followed by the artisans
who erected this building, and the mythological imagery
would certainly have polytheistic suggestions for the wor
shipper. The two brazen pillars in front of the building
might be regarded as macceboth, such as were found at every
sanctuary of Yahweh in this period. But they were par
alleled by the two pillars which stood at the entrance of
the sanctuary of Melkart, in Tyre, and by the two in the
temple of the Syrian goddess at Hierapolis. They would
naturally be associated in the minds of the people at large
with Baal rather than with Yahweh, and the fact that they
received proper names would imply that they were embodi
ments of separate divinities.1
Attendant divinities are the cherubim which embellished
the inner sanctuary and protected the ark with their over
shadowing wings. From Ezekiel we know that these were
composite animal figures like the winged bulls and lions of
Babylon and the sphinx of Egypt. The Yahwist makes
them the guardians of the Garden from which the first man
was expelled (Gen. 3 : 24), and Ezekiel also stations them
in paradise (Ezek. 28 : 14, 16). They are, therefore, myth
ological figures, and to this extent inconsistent with a strict
monotheism such as we attribute to the Hebrews. Further
we find in the temple court the great sea, which is something
1 Their names, Jakin and Boaz, are not yet satisfactorily explained
and have perhaps been changed so as to disguise their original sig
nificance.

84 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
more than a reservoir for the use of the priests. Its twelve
bulls represent the twelve signs of the zodiac, and the sea
itself is a symbol of the celestial store of waters from which
come the rains.
Consideration of all the phenomena, then, seems to author
ise us in saying that in Solomon's temple we have a picture
of the amalgamation of elements from various sources.
The chief divinity was Yahweh, but he was confused with
the Canaanite Baal and was attended by minor divini
ties imported from Phoenicia, Syria, Babylon, and Egypt.
Moreover, the temple probably stood upon the spot made
sacred by the earlier inhabitants, for the original native
rock, the summit of the hill on which the fortress was built,
would be the spot at which the Jebusites worshipped the
local deity. Of jealousy on the part of Yahweh we have
as yet no trace.
The division of the kingdom made no difference in the
religious beliefs and customs of the people. In the north
ern kingdom the monarchs were devoted to the God of
Israel and fostered his worship at the two great sanctuaries
of Bethel and Dan. Bethel was of venerable antiquity, its
foundation being attributed to Jacob. Dan was of more
questionable origin, having been founded by the tribe of
Dan when they captured the city and furnished by them
with an image taken by violence from its owner. Prob
ably the site in each case was sacred before the Israelite oc
cupation, the one at Dan being located at a copious foun
tain, the one at Bethel showing a curious rock formation
such as the imagination attributes to the activity of the
gods.1 Both these sanctuaries were redecorated by Jero
boam I and furnished with golden bulls as objects of wor
ship. The account makes it clear that the king had no
idea of introducing new gods, for he expressly says that this
is the God who led Israel out of Egypt (I Kings 12 : 28).
1 A description of the site is given by Peters, in Studies in the History
of Religion, dedicated to Crawford Howell Toy (New York, 1912), pp.
239/.

THE TRANSITION 85
Yahweh was already worshipped, then, under the image of
a bull, and, in fact, this is clear from the account in Exodus,
which condemns the usage, for the significant thing in
that account is that the bull (calf it is called in contempt)
was made by Aaron, the father of the legitimate priest
hood (Ex. 32 : 2-4).
At the same time this worship of the bull is the plainest
evidence of the syncretism which we are discussing. For
it is evident that the nomads, who had only sheep and goats,
would not think of paying homage to the bull. This animal,
on the other hand, is so necessary to the husbandman that
its worship in an agricultural community is inevitably a
part of agricultural religion. The introduction of a bull
god from Egypt is not probable, for we know that Egyptian
influence is not traceable in the early religion of Israel. On
the other hand, there is evidence that Adad, the storm god
of Syria, was represented riding on a bull. As Yahweh,
like Adad, was a storm god, it would be easy to transfer to
him the attributes of Adad. Moreover, recent excavations
at Samaria have brought to light the proper name Egelyo,
meaning Calf-of -Yahweh,1 parallel to the Palmyrene Egelbol,
Calf-of-Baal. Other traces of bull-worship in Canaan and
Syria have been found/ and it is well known that the chief
god of Heliopolis (Baalbek) was a bull god.2 The evidence
seems sufficient to justify the conclusion that the identifi
cation of Yahweh with the bull was the result of his fusion
with Baal.
It was nearly a hundred years after this union of Yahweh
with the Canaanite god that the reaction became acute.
Even then the reaction was not directed against the Ca
naanite Baal but against a new divinity. Ahab had married
a Phoenician princess and thus allied himself closely with
the Phoenician court. Jezebel doubtless thought the civi-
iLidsbarski, Ephemeris, III, pp. 153/.; cf. Kdnig, Geschichte der Alt-
testamentlichen Religion, p. 210.
2 Gressmann, Altorientalische Texte und Bilder zum Alien Testamente
(1909), II, p. 76.

86 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
lisation of her own country superior to that of the Israelite
peasants, and introduced her religion, with the manners of
her father's court, into Samaria. Her own god was the
Baal of Tyre, whose proper title was Melkart, and to him
a sanctuary was erected at the Israelite capital; and here,
we may suppose, Ahab himself was polite enough to pay
occasional reverence. The opposition of the people was
called out not by the new rites but by new methods of ad
ministration. The old Israelite legal precedents were dis
regarded by the foreign woman, for she suborned perjury
and instigated judicial murder in order to gratify her hus
band's whim.
The reaction, which was necessarily political as well as
religious, was led by Elijah. The legends which have at
tached themselves to his name do not obscure bis character
or leave us in any doubt as to the kind of man he was. He
was a true child of the desert, native of that transjordanic
region where the people retained much of the old nomadic
life and thought. He was possessed by the religious passion
which makes a man intolerant of any gods but his own and
leads him to fierce action where that god's rivals invade
his territory. We may attribute to him the first formula
tion of the statement, so frequent in later times, that Yah
weh is a jealous God. It is evident that Elijah had no
prejudice against the other gods on their own territory. He
went to Sidon, where the very Baal whom he opposed in
Israel had his home, and remained quiet under his protec
tion. His theory was evidently that each nation has its
own god and that for Israel this God is Yahweh. And to
this was added the belief that Yahweh is the protector of
the individual Israelite against the aggressions of unscru
pulous rulers, and that he is the avenger of blood when
blood has been unrighteously shed. The alternative which
he set before the people was plain: "If Yahweh be God serve
him; if Baal, then serve him! " The disciples of the great
prophet were reinforced by the clan of Jonadab ben Rechab,
already known as zealots for Yahweh, and the result was

THE TRANSITION 87
the extermination of the house of Omri and the seating of
Jehu on the throne.
With the extermination of the party of the Phoenician
Baal the attempt to introduce new divinities into Israel
seemed to come to an end. But Yahweh continued to
unite the attributes of Israel's war-god with those of the
Canaanite Baal. The festivals were those of the agricul
tural life; the sanctuaries continued the old orgiastic wor
ship of Canaan. Morals were on the plane of tribal custom
tempered by the decision of the king. The claim of blood-
revenge was stronger than the king's peace, as we see from
Joab's murder of Abner. The customs of war were bar
barous. The Judaites cut off the thumbs and great toes of
their captive Adonibezek, as he himself had been accustomed
to do with his captives. The foreigner was entitled to no
consideration except where a formal treaty had been entered
into. The Danites sought for no pretext when they at
tacked Laish (Judges 18). Rahab betrayed her country
men and was highly praised for the act (Joshua 6 : 22-25).
Assassination was one of the means of ridding the land of
a tyrant, and the assassin became a hero (Judges 3). It
continued to be the custom to devote a hostile city or tribe
to the divinity and to carry out the vow by extermination,
and in the belief of the people this was required by Yahweh
himself (I Sam. 15).
The evidence of archaeology shows that human sacrifice
was practised by the Canaanites, and it certainly was not
foreign to the Israelites, though whether they adopted it
from their predecessors or whether it was a part of the
desert religion is not yet clearly made out. That the god
Melek was worshipped in this way we have already noticed,
and we have noted also the probability that he was in some
cases at least merged in Yahweh. But that not all cases
of human sacrifice can be laid to the charge of Melek seems
evident. The thought of human sacrifice to Yahweh as
something grateful to him underlies the story of Jephthah's
daughter. The grief of the people narrated in this connec-

88 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
tion did not at all arise from the thought that such an
extraordinary fulfilment of a vow was contrary to the re
ligion of Yahweh but from the fact that a family was ex
tinguished by the death of the virgin. The calamity consisted
in this — that neither Jephthah nor his daughter would have
any one to pay honour to them after their death. The case of
Agag was somewhat different; he was devoted to death by the
ban placed on his people by Saul. His death "before Yah
weh" was therefore a gratification to the divinity, in that it
assured him that the vow had been carried out, but whether
the slaying was regarded as a sacrifice is not clear. Prob
ably it was, for the Deuteronomist speaks of the burning of
"devoted" property as a whole burnt offering to Yahweh
(Deut. 13 : 17). The foundation-sacrifice alluded to in
connection with the rebuilding of Jericho (I Kings 16 : 34)
may not have been offered to Yahweh. But there is no
question that his claim on the first-born was understood to
require sacrifice of infants. Ezekiel believed that this had
been commanded in the early period: "Moreover I gave
them statutes which were not good and ordinances in which
they should not live, and I polluted them by their own gifts
in that they caused to pass through the fire all that opened
the womb, that they might know that I am Yahweh"
(Ezek. 20:25/.). The prophet believed that the sacri
fice was commanded by Yahweh as a punishment of the
people. The testimony of Jeremiah on this subject has
already been considered, and comparison of the passages
shows that the people construed literally the command:
"The first-born of thy sons shalt thou give unto me" (Ex.
22 : 28).
The sacrifice of children by other Semites is well at
tested. The Carthaginians are said to have offered two
hundred children from their noblest families when hard
pressed by their enemies. The case of Mesha, king of
Moab, is parallel. This king, when besieged, sacrificed his
first-born son on the wall of the city and thus roused his
god to activity so that the besiegers were forced to retreat

THE TRANSITION 89
(II Kings 3 : 27). Excavation in Palestine has brought to
light a great number of infant remains, for the most part
those of new-born infants. Their proximity to the altars
indicates that they were sacrificed, though not all of them
have passed through the fire. The prevalence of the cus
tom in Israel is indicated by the fact that Ahaz, king of
Judah, sacrificed his son (II Kings 16 : 3), and Manasseh,
who revived the ancient religious customs, included this
among them (21 : 6). The story of the sacrifice of Isaac
and the acceptance of a ram as substitute for the child
(Gen. 22) is therefore a protest against rites actually prac
tised in the time of the writer, that is, in the eighth century
B. C.
What becomes clear, as we trace the history of the twelfth,
eleventh, and tenth centuries B. C, therefore, is the trans
formation of Israel's religion under the influence of the agri
cultural life. The nomads brought with them the rite of
circumcision, which they continued to observe, and the fes
tival of the Passover, which was now united with the agri
cultural observance of unleavened bread. They adopted
the harvest festivals of the earlier inhabitants. Local sea
sons of rejoicing are mentioned at Shiloh (Judges 21), at
Bethlehem (I Sam. 20 : 29), and at Shechem (Judges 9 : 27).
The enthusiastic exercises of the prophets who raved about
the Canaanite altars were adopted by the devotees of Yah
weh (I Sam. 10 : 9-12). Sitting under one's own vine and
fig-tree, with none to molest or make afraid, became the ideal
of the Israelite. The old tribal organisation persisted but
was gradually overshadowed by the kingship, which re
ceived the divine sanction. Yahweh was worshipped as in
some sense the patron deity of Israel, but he often shared
his sanctuary with the local Baals or more frequently took
on their features. The sanctuaries were the original rock
altars of the Canaanites, and at some of them molten images
represented the God, though for the most part the object
of reverence was the primitive stone pillar. The more or
nate ritual of the Canaanites was taken over, marked at

90 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
certain seasons by lavish indulgence in eating and drinking
and by immoral excesses. This was the state of things
when the early narratives were composed to which we must
now give attention.

CHAPTER V
RELIGION IN THE EARLY LITERATURE
It can hardly be doubted that a considerable literature
existed in Israel from the time of Solomon at least. But
from that and earlier times only fragments have come down
to us. It was apparently in the ninth century that it oc
curred to religiously minded men to write a connected story
of the earlier traditions of their people. Their work has
been preserved embedded in the books of the Hebrew canon
from Genesis to II Samuel inclusive. Critical analysis re
stores these early documents to us in the J and E strata
of the Pentateuch, and in the hero stories of Judges and
Samuel. The religious motive of the authors is evident:
they desire to record the evidences of Yahweh's goodness
to his people in the past and thus to stir the gratitude and
stimulate the fidelity of their contemporaries. The authors
sympathised with the prophetic party which, under the lead
of Elijah, was strenuous in opposing the innovations of Jez
ebel. In their opinion the best vindication of Yahweh was
the record of his dealings in the past. They therefore em
bodied in their narratives some of the ancient poems which
glorified the God of Israel. By common consent the oldest
of these is the Song of Deborah. This is a song of triumph
composed to commemorate a signal victory over the Canaan
ites. The victory is ascribed to the direct intervention of
Yahweh who, from his distant home in the south, came on
the thunder-cloud to deliver his people. The various tribes
are praised or blamed according to the part which they
took or refused to take in the conflict. Patriotism and re
ligion are one — to take the part of Israel is to come to the
91

92 THE RELIGION OP ISRAEL
help of Yahweh. The conclusion is a vigorous curse against
the enemies of Israel as the enemies of Yahweh: "So let all
thine enemies perish, Yahweh! But let them that love thee
be as the sun in its strength!" (Judges 5 : 31.)
Similar religious and patriotic faith is revealed by the
testament of Jacob (Gen. 49). The author will encourage
the tribes by giving them a sense of Yahweh's protecting
care or else warn them of the danger of going contrary to
his righteous will. The low estate of Simeon and Levi is
attributed to their cruelty, upon which Yahweh has visited
a penalty. Reuben has lost his birthright because of an act
of lawlessness committed by the ancestor of the tribe. On
the other hand, the tribes most prosperous are the objects
of Yahweh's favour. Joseph is under the direct protection
of the God of Bethel, who strengthens him for war and gives
him the blessings of fruitfulness: "Blessings of the heaven
above, blessings of the depth below, blessings of the breast
and of the womb." Here Yahweh is evidently the God of
the rains, of the underground reservoir, and of animal fruit
fulness. So he appears in the other ancient poem, the one
called the Blessing of Moses. In this the felicity of Ephraim
is ascribed to Yahweh, to whom is addressed the prayer:
"The best that the sun brings forth, and the best that the
moon causes to spring up, the treasures of the ancient moun
tains and the precious things of the eternal hills, the best of
the earth and its fulness and the good pleasure of him that
dwells in the bush, come upon the head of Joseph and on
the crown of the crowned one among his brothers" (Deut.
33 : 14-16). The favour of Yahweh, however, is not ex
tended to Judah, in spite of the fact that the Jerusalem
temple is in possession of this tribe, for the author is able
only to pray that Yahweh may fight for him and restore him
to the unity of the tribes. Yahweh, therefore, is present in
the northern kingdom and at the local sanctuaries. Zebu
lon and Issachar are happy in that they are in possession
of sacred places to which they invite the neighbouring clans:
"They call peoples to the mountains; there they offer right-

RELIGION IN THE EARLY LITERATURE 93
eous sacrifices" (v. 19). Levi is especially blessed (in sharp
contrast to what is said in the older poem) in that he is in full
possession of the priesthood: "Thou hast given to Levi thy
Thummim, and thy Urim to thy beloved, whom thou didst
try at Massah, didst contend with at Meribah; who said of
his father: 'I know him not'; he considered not his brothers
nor his children; for they obeyed thy commandment, and
kept thy instruction; they teach Jacob thy testimonies,
and Israel thine oracle; they bring sweet savour to thy
nostrils and whole burnt offerings on thine altar."
The tone of this poem and by consequence the tone of
the writer who included it in his narrative is in sharp con
trast with that which we find a little later in the written
prophets. The poem shows an optimistic faith in the God
of Israel. This God is not thought of as dwelling in the
temple at Jerusalem but manifesting himself at the many
sanctuaries of the northern kingdom. The tribe or guild
of Levi is not the Jerusalem priesthood but the company
of ministers of the high places. Yahweh smiles upon them
and upon the nation for whom they minister: "There is
none like the God of Jeshurun, who rides on the heavens
for thy help, and in his majesty on the clouds. Thy refuge
is the eternal God, and underneath are the everlasting arms;
he drove the enemy before thee and commanded to destroy
them" (vss. 26/.).
The poems from which I have cited have been preserved
for us by the two Pentateuchal writers whom we have
called J and E and by the author who collected the hero
stories of the book of Judges. The motive which led to
the preservation of the poems moved the writers also in
their choice of material from early tradition. Three classes
may be distinguished in this material. There is, first, that
which makes up the greater part of the book of Genesis
and in which the forefathers of the nation are the actors;
then the account of the wilderness wandering or the be
ginnings of the national life; and, finally, the stories of the
heroes who secured Israel in possession of the land of Ca-

94 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
naan. For the first period the material must have been
drawn from folk-lore and, as we shall see, from early my
thology. The authors had a much larger material to draw
from than they actually put on record, as is seen from some of
their briefer notices. For example, we are told how, as Jacob
went on his way, the angels of God met him and he said:
"This is God's camp; so they call the name of the place
Camp" (Mahanaim, Gen. 32 : 2/.). This is a reference to
the local tradition which accounted for the name of the
place; the author might have given it at length, as he did
so many others, had he been so minded. In like manner
the account of Jacob's purchase of a piece of ground at
Shechem (Gen. 33 : 18/.), the death of Deborah (35 : 8)
and of Rachel (35 : 19), might have been expanded, but the
author dismisses them with brief mention. The reason is
probably that they did not serve his religious purpose.
In the lives of the patriarchs this religious purpose is two
fold. First, the stories set forth the divine guidance of Israel,
beginning with the forefathers; secondly, they show these
same forefathers as models of piety and obedience. When
we come to the wilderness wandering the same thought of
divine guidance is prominent, but the people are not models
of obedience. Rather they are held up in their frequent
unbelief and murmuring as warnings for later generations.
In the lives of the heroes again we see the power of Yahweh
manifested in giving his people victory and securing them
in possession of the land which he had promised to the
fathers. It is evident that the writers are not interested
in history for its own sake but for its revelation of the
power, the love, and the forbearance of Israel's God. The
contrast between these narratives and such a piece of plain
historical writing as we find in the account of Absalom's
rebellion is sufficiently striking to show what I mean.
The Pentateuchal writers take their material from a great
variety of sources, and some of it is of great antiquity. Our
present knowledge enables us to say that a part of it comes
from Babylonia, a part of it bears the marks of the early

RELIGION IN THE EARLY LITERATURE 95
nomadic or half-nomadic life of the Israelites, another part is
the product of the soil of Canaan, and in some cases at least
there may be Egyptian influence. A question which has
been much mooted of late years is: How much of this mate
rial can properly be called mythological? The answer will
depend on our definition of myth. If by a myth we under
stand a story which pictures the processes of nature as
actions of anthropomorphic gods, there are no myths in the
Old Testament. The story of the twelve labors of Her
acles, if it be a poetic representation of the progress of the
sun through the twelve signs of the zodiac, is a myth in
the proper sense of the word. But it has no parallel in
the Hebrew Scriptures. The tendency to discover ancient
divinities in the persons of the patriarchs — Joseph a sun-
god, Jacob a moon-god — has no warrant in our present text.
Even if it could be proved that some of the incidents in the
lives of these patriarchs are parallel to some things narrated
of the sun-god and the moon-god, we must still recognise the
fact that to the writers Joseph was not a divinity of any
kind, but a man of Hebrew race whose life was like that of
any other man except for the distinct providential guidance
which it illustrates. Abraham may have been a local di
vinity once worshipped at Hebron. In the narratives we are
considering he is only the ancestor of Israel, a man of extraor
dinary piety, no doubt, but still a man.
Except in the early chapters of Genesis (to which we shall
return presently) myths do not form any important part of
the material with which our authors deal. Legends or
sagas, however, are distinctly traceable. A saga is a story
which represents a nation or tribe as an individual. The
growth of saga in Israel, as among the Arabs, was helped
by the fact that the name of a clan or tribe was often
used as a collective, that is, as though it were the name of
an individual. Thus in the first chapter of Judges, Judah
is said to have invited his brother Simeon to come with him
into his portion. The narrator is well aware that Judah and
Simeon are clans and not men, but the language might lead

96 THE RELIGION OP ISRAEL
the reader to think of them as individuals. In many cases
therefore when the Hebrew writers used the tribal names,
we may be sure that they were aware that they were speak
ing of the collective body. But in other cases they were not
clearly conscious of the historical nucleus which was con
cealed under the tradition, because the popular imagination
had already personified the clans as individuals, and had
told their adventures as those of so many ancestral heroes.
It was doubtless the universal belief in this period, and
indeed until recent times, that the tribes were actually
descended from the eponyms whose names they bore. For
our present purpose, however, this is not of prime impor
tance. What interests us is not the family history of Abra
ham, Isaac, and Jacob, but the ideas of the writers of this
history.
> The lesson that these writers have most at heart is that
! Israel became the people of Yahweh in the earliest period by
i a divine act of choice; Yahweh was God of Israel because
* he was the God of Abraham. Moreover, this God revealed
his righteous character by his actions in relation to these
ancestors of the people. The pledge of Yahweh gave Is
rael its title to the land of Canaan. Even when the land was
in possession of strangers Yahweh walked with Abraham
and Isaac and protected their rights. The plan of God,
thus traced back to the earlier period, gave the sort of assur-
' ance to believers which later was derived from an abstract
theory of the divine election. The transfer of local legends
to Yahweh is made in order to emphasise the main lesson.
The divinity who appeared to Joshua, originally one of
numerous local deities, as we have seen, now appears as the
angel warrior who leads Israel's armies against the older
inhabitants. The mysterious being who wrestled with
Jacob is identified with the God of Israel, for Jacob says:
"I have seen God [Elohim] face to face." The name of God
here used is the one regularly denoting the God of Israel
in the document E. The polytheism of these early stories
is thus somewhat violently changed to monotheism, or

RELIGION IN THE EARLY LITERATURE 97
rather to monolatry, for, as we have had occasion to notice,
it did not occur to the Hebrews at this stage of their develop
ment to deny the existence of other gods than Yahweh.
The most interesting case of transfer is the one which re
lates how the local demon fell upon Moses and would have
killed him for intruding upon his territory had not Zipporah
rescued her husband. The cruel night demon who thus
throttles strangers has little in common with the covenant
God who sent Moses to deliver his people, yet the account
identifies them, calling the hostile being by the name Yahweh.
It is probable that the authors in adapting these stories
to the thought of their own time have made more extensive
changes than at first sight appears. The three who appear
to Abraham and eat with him may have been three divinities
in the early form of the story (Gen. 18). They may even
have been the numina who inhabited the sacred trees under
which Abraham pitched his tent. Other cases where the
angel of Yahweh appears seem originally to have spoken of
Yahweh himself. The angel who speaks to Hagar was, as
we have seen, the spirit who inhabited the well; in the
present form of the story he appears as the angel of
Yahweh, and at the close of the account we discover that
it was Yahweh himself (Gen. 16 : 13). The story of the
discovery of Bethel plainly indicates that the divinity dwelt
in the sacred stone. But the author of the story in its
present form assumes that Yahweh dwells in heaven, and
that the spot was sacred because the ladder rested there by
which one could ascend to the Presence.
The authors we are discussing, therefore, with all their
piety toward the old legends which they preserve for us,
mark a distinct advance in religious thought. Although
Yahweh is localised in Canaan, yet he is not bound to the
soil. He is able to protect Joseph in Egypt; he goes with
Jacob in his wanderings and encourages him to go down to
Egypt, promising him protection (Gen. 46 : 4). He appears
to Abraham in Mesopotamia and calls him to emigrate to
a new land. Yahweh therefore is able to act within the

98 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
jurisdiction of other gods. This is most strikingly brought
out in the account of the exodus, where Yahweh enters into
a formal conflict with the gods of Egypt and shows himself,
as Jethro says, greater than all gods. The narrators did not
reflect logically on the omniscience of Yahweh; enough for
them that in every emergency Yahweh was able to protect
his own. Even the Egyptians are made to recognise that
Joseph is inspired by God (Gen. 41 : 32-39), but this, of
course, they might do and still believe in their own divinities.
We must expect to find anthropomorphism at this stage
of religious thinking. Even the latest of the Pentateuchal
writers thinks of Yahweh as existing in human form, for
there is no reason to understand the statement that man
was made in the image of God and after his likeness in any
other than the literal sense. In the older narratives we
read of Yahweh's eye, his hand, his mouth, his ears, his
lips, his nostrils. A striking passage tells us that after an
interview with Moses Yahweh refused to show his glorious
form to the prophet, but he added: "When my glory passes
by I will put thee in a cleft of the rock and cover thee with
my hand until I have passed by; and then I will take away
my hand and thou shalt see my back, but my face shall not
be seen" (Ex. 33 : 22/.). The allegorists, no doubt, attempt
to explain away the meaning of the passage, but its original
sense must be plain. Equally human is the passionate
nature of the divinity, which comes to view in many pas
sages. His anger burns against his enemies, and he keeps
hatred in his heart throughout the generations, as in the feud
with Amalek (Ex. 17 : 16). He does not always see the end
from the beginning, and has sometimes to repent of what he
has done. Seeing the violence of the generation before the
deluge, he repented that he had made man upon the earth,
and it pained him to the heart (Gen. 6:6). Saul's disobedi
ence leads Yahweh to confess to Samuel: "I repent that I
made Saul king" (I Sam. 15 : 11).
Even in his dealings with Israel Yahweh has occasion to
change his mind. The murmuring of the people causes him

RELIGION IN THE EARLY LITERATURE 99
to threaten them with destruction, but he yields to Moses'
intercession. The plea of Moses is to the effect that the
Egyptians will hear what has been done, and will say that
Yahweh has not been able to fulfil his promise. It is this
very human thought of the damage to his reputation which
finally prevails with the divinity (Num. 14 : 13-16). In an
other passage, where the situation is similar, Moses argues
that the Egyptians will say that Yahweh had no purpose of
mercy toward Israel, but brought the people into the wilder
ness on purpose to destroy them (Ex. 32 : 12/.). This idea
of Yahweh's care for his reputation was entertained as late
as the time of Ezekiel. The account in Exodus is significant
as showing that Yahweh can be moved by his affection for
individual men. It is when Moses offers to be blotted out
of Yahweh's book that he finally yields to the entreaty and
spares Israel. Elsewhere his mercy is shown for the sake of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Ex. 32 : 13 and 32).
Doubtless the body of Yahweh was conceived of as ethe
real, not material like ours. It is a body of luminous mat
ter, a "glory," so that the offerings must be sublimated by
fire in order that he may receive the agreeable odor (Gen.
8 : 20-22). He is gratified also by libations of wine and oil,
and even to a comparatively late period he was thought to
absorb the blood poured upon the altar. That he origi
nally dwelt in the sacred stone we have already remarked,
but in the period before us he is gradually dissociating him
self from such material objects and taking up his residence
in the sky. Thus he goes up after speaking to the patriarchs,
or if he wishes to see what is going on on the earth he comes
down to investigate (Gen. 11 : 5, 7, and apparently 18 : 20/.).
But this point of view is not consistently held.
Certain ethical attributes are predicated of Yahweh,
though we shall not be surprised to find the conceptions
somewhat defective from our more advanced point of view.
Yahweh is first of all faithful to his promises. It is the
purpose of these narratives to emphasise this fidelity. Love
for the fathers moves him to be gracious to the descendants.

100 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
This affection rises or sinks to partiality at times. Pharaoh
and Abimelech are rebuked for their attempts upon Sarah,
but nothing is said to Abraham concerning his prevarication,
which was the occasion of the trespass (Gen. 12 : 10-20 J;
20 : 1-18 E; the same story is told of Isaac, 26 : 6-11 J).
The incident is even made of advantage to the patriarch,
for each monarch gives him rich presents. The belief in
the unwavering favour of Yahweh toward Israel is well
brought out in the story of Balaam. Although a foreigner,
this seer has power to destroy men by his curse and to give
them prosperity by his blessing. Hence the king of Moab
sends for him to pronounce a curse on Israel. But Yahweh
cannot be induced to curse his chosen people, and the
inclination of the seer is overborne so that he utters a
blessing: "God is not a man that he should lie,
Nor the son of man that he should repent;
Shall he promise and not perform?
Or speak and not keep his word?
Behold to bless is my mission,
Therefore I bless and do not hold back.
Evil is not seen in Jacob,
Nor guilt in Israel
Yahweh his God is with him,
And the shout of a king is his." (Num. 23 : 19-21.)
In saying that Yahweh does not repent the author was
conscious of no inconsistency though he had said that in
some cases Yahweh does actually change his mind. What
he is here affirming is the fidelity of Yahweh to his chosen
people. And while we may suppose that the election of
the nation is an act of free grace, yet at the same time an
ethical justification for it is found in the corruption of the
older inhabitants. Yahweh's delay in giving Abraham full
possession of Canaan is accounted for on the ground that
the guilt of these nations is not yet sufficient to require their
expulsion (Gen. 15 : 16). The local legend which related
the destruction of Sodom is made to teach a lesson concern-

RELIGION IN THE EARLY LITERATURE 101
ing moral corruption and its just punishment. It is the
fear of God's justice which keeps men from sin. Abraham
excuses himself for deceiving Abimelech on the ground that
he thought there was no fear of God in the place and con
sequently no moral restraint. The story shows that even
the Philistines were amenable to this motive, and Abime
lech pleads his innocence of evil intent as a reason why he
should not be punished for his trespass. The gentile, in fact,
turns the tables upon Abraham by reproaching him for bring
ing him into unwitting sin and thus endangering his king
dom by exposing it to the wrath of God (Gen. 20 : 9-11).
The most distinct expression of this connection of religion
and moral conduct is in the story of Joseph, who refuses the
solicitations of his mistress because he will not do a great
sin in the sight of God (Gen. 39 : 9).
Even from earlier times Yahweh was the guardian of
social custom and the avenger of blood. He watched over
oaths, also, and punished their violation. Almost all the
Hebrew authors, therefore, account for calamity by suppos
ing it a punishment for sin. The extermination of the house
of Ahab, for example, was regarded as a penalty for the
sins of this king. This is not to say that the punishment is
always fitted to the crime. Yahweh sometimes seems ca
pricious or arbitrary in his dealings with his subjects. When
the men of Beth-shemesh rejoiced at the coming of the ark
one of their families did not share the joy. Yahweh, in anger
at their indifference, smote seventy of their number with
death (I Sam. 6 : 19, according to the Greek text). Uzzah,
although a consecrated person, was smitten with sudden
death because he rashly took hold of the ark, and this with
the best of motives1 (II Sam. 6 : 6/.).
Yahweh's action is, therefore, often unaccountable. David
cannot explain Saul's wrath against him except on the
ground of a slander uttered by men or of a suspicion in-
1 In like manner the man who took hold of the Palladium at Ilium
was smitten with blindness, though his motive was to save the sacred
object from the fire (Reinach, Cultes, Mythes et Religions, II, p. 316).

102 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
stilled into the king's mind by Yahweh (I Sam. 26 : 19).
Yahweh even incites David to commit a sin in order that he
may have an excuse for punishing the people (II Sam. 24).
He leads Rehoboam to give a foolish answer to the repre
sentatives of the tribes in order to punish Solomon in the
person of his son (I Kings 12 : 15). But in most cases, as
has been said, the motive is distinctly ethical. Thus David's
violation of the marriage rights of his subject Uriah is
punished because the king has despised Yahweh (II Sam.
12 : 9-13). The calamity of Eli's house came because the
priests despised the offerings and thus insulted the divinity
(I Sam. 2 : 17; 3 : 13). The line is not clearly drawn be
tween offence against an abstract moral code and personal
affronts against the deity. In the case of Pharaoh the hard
ening of his heart, which is ascribed to Yahweh's direct ac
tion, is a means of vindicating the power of Israel's God
(Ex. 4 : 21; 10 : 1 J). Samson's love for a Philistine woman
is Yahweh's way of humiliating his enemies (Judges 14 : 4).
The very partiality thus shown toward the favourites of
the God is a reason for appealing to him in time of stress.
As between members of the nation, however, the appeal
is made to the justice of Yahweh. " If a man sin against a
man God will intervene," says Eli in expostulating with his
sons (I Sam. 2 : 25). This is the force of the imprecation:
"God do so to me and more also if I do not thus and so."
The taker of the oath calls on God to punish in case he is
unfaithful, and against the deity, if offended, there is no ap
peal. "If a man sins against God, who will judge the mat
ter?" says Eli- Cases of what we should call poetic justice
are favourite material for these authors. Thus Ahab's son
is killed at the vineyard of Naboth (II Kings 9 : 24-26).
Joab's guilt comes upon his own head although he is too
powerful to be punished by David (I Kings 2 : 32). Adoni
bezek recognises the justice of God in meting out to him
the same suffering which he had inflicted upon his captives
(Judges 1:7). It is by the decree of Yahweh that Absalom
adopts the advice of Hushai and thus brings ruin upon him-

RELIGION IN THE EARLY LITERATURE 103
self (II Sam. 17 : 14). The evil spirit who stirred up strife
between Abimelech and the men of Shechem was the instru
ment by which Yahweh returned the sin of Abimelech on
his own head (Judges 9 : 23). David leaves his cause in
Yahweh's hand just because he trusts in the righteousness
of his God to vindicate him (I Sam. 24 : 13). He even re
fuses to take vengeance when it is in his power, not only on
Saul but afterward on Shimei (II Sam. 16 : 10-12). The
fate of Nabal is construed as God's justice acting on behalf
of David in a case where the hero had refrained from taking
vengeance for himself (I Sam. 25 : 39).
In these examples we have not confined ourselves to the
narratives of the Pentateuchal J and E, but have given il
lustrations from other literature whose point of view is
similar. Looking more narrowly at the earlier strata of
the Pentateuch we notice first that the Yahwist did not
hesitate to make use of material from foreign sources. For
it must be clear that his account of the creation and of the
deluge are not purely Israelite in origin. The deluge story
is known to be Babylonian; the account of the creation (the
one contained in Gen. 2 : 4 to 3 : 24) has not yet been traced
to a Babylonian source and probably came from Damascus.
It presents the primeval chaos, not as a mixture of water
and earth such as is indicated in the first chapter of Genesis,
but as a desert, an arid plain in which nothing could live
for lack of water. On this soil Yahweh first sent a mist to
soften it and then planted it with trees pleasant to the eye
and good for food. And since a garden in the desert quickly
reverts to wilderness unless it has care, man was made to be
the gardener. Man, as in a Babylonian document,1 is made
of clay and animated by Yahweh's breath.2
It seems clear that our author did not rise to the concep-
1 The Gilgamesh epic. Parallels are found also among the Egyp
tians and among the Greeks. Ungnad, Das Gilgamesh Epos, pp. 8 and
101. 2 In one Babylonian myth the kinship of man with the gods is in
dicated by making Bel cut off his own head and create man by mingling
the blood with earth.

104 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
tion of creation out of nothing and, indeed, that he did not
mean to describe the creation of the universe. The crude
material existed before Yahweh laid hand upon it, but it
needed his vivifying water before it could be made habit
able. The phenomena of the oasis which presents a mass
of living green to the eye wearied by the intolerable glare
of the desert must have given rise to the story. Where this
paradise was located we need not inquire. Since the ex
pulsion of man it is no longer accessible to mortals, though
the cherubim show that it is still the garden of Yahweh.
Our present interest is to notice the vivid anthropomorphism
of the story. Yahweh inhabits the garden and takes his
pleasure in walking there in the cool of the day. He is sur
prised at Adam's hiding himself, and questions him to find
out the reason. He threatens man with death on the day
in which he eats of the forbidden tree, and then neglects to
carry out the threat. Above all, he is jealous of man's as
piring to the rank of a god, or rather he discovers that man
has reached that rank and fears that he may aspire further
and become immortal. Hence the expulsion from the garden
and the stationing of the cherubim to guard the tree of life.
This jealousy of the divinity is shown in another story pre
served by this author — the story of the tower, according to
which Yahweh fears that men will not be restrained from
the most lofty ambitions unless extraordinary measures are
taken against them (Gen. 11 : 1-9). Parallels in Greek lit
erature will occur to every reader.
Although this author shows a theology very primitive in
many of its features, yet he has reflected on some of the
fundamental problems of human life. He finds the lot of
the cultivator a hard one — compelled as he is to wring his
subsistence from an ungrateful soil. He is perplexed by the
difficult parturition of woman, so different from the easy
delivery of animal mothers. He must account for the ser
pent's abnormal figure and mode of progression, all the more
astonishing in view of the animal's cunning. This nar
rative, therefore, comes from the first social philosopher,

RELIGION IN THE EARLY LITERATURE 105
painfully impressed by the problems of human life, and com
pelled to account for them by an act of God, which was
the just punishment for an act of disobedience on the part
of man. Probably in the early myth which he has adapted
to his purpose the serpent was a divinity. He is now re
duced in power and made unable to resist the sentence im
posed by Yahweh, though not too impotent to plot against
him. That the garden is a mythological survival seems
evident from what has been said of its being the residence
of the divinity. Yahweh appears as the owner of the soil
to which he has obtained title by irrigation and cultivation.
He shows, therefore, the features of the Semitic Baal, the
god of agriculture, who gives or withholds the crops. So
late as the time of Ezekiel we find allusions to this garden
of God.
Ezekiel addresses the king of Tyre thus: "Thou wast
in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy
covering, the sardius, the topaz, the diamond, the beryl,
the onyx, the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald and the car
buncle. ... On the day thou wast created thy dwelling
was with the cherubim; in the midst of them I set thee.
Thou wast on the mountain of God, walkedst in the midst of
the sons of God" (Ezek. 28 : 13/.). We can hardly doubt
that the prophet had in mind the story from which the
author of Genesis has drawn. One thing comes out more
clearly in Ezekiel's text; this is that the garden was located
on the great mountain of the north, where, according to the
Babylonians and other nations, the gods had their residence,
like the Olympus of the Greeks. But our author was less
interested in these details than in the relation of man to
Yahweh, and the human lot of toil and suffering. For this
he tries to account, and for the enmity which has always
existed between men and serpents.
In the same way in which the story of Eden explains the
fate of mankind by a transgression of its first father, the
story of Cain accounts for the nomad life of a portion of the
race. Doubtless a local saga, current in Palestine and mo-

106 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
tived by the mode of life of the Kenites, has here been pre
served for us. It reflects the attitude of the cultivator
toward the Bedawy. The poverty of the desert compared
with the abundance which the farmer enjoys makes the
latter believe that the desert life was adopted by Cain be
cause he had been driven out of the cultivated country in
punishment for crime. The religious side of the story comes
out in the representation that expulsion from the cultivated
country is expulsion from the presence of Yahweh, as was
believed by David. The blood shed in the land of Yahweh
cries to him for vengeance and does not cry in vain.
The division of society indicated by this story is into
three classes. Abel is a shepherd and his offering is the
one acceptable to God. This is, therefore, the calling pre
ferred by the author. Cain is at first a farmer, but is com
pelled to become a nomad. He is the earlier representative
of the class to which Ishmael belonged — the robber class —
whose hand is against every man. The shepherd is repro
duced in the patriarchs, although the transition to cul
tivators is hinted at in the case of Isaac, who sowed the soil
and reaped a hundredfold because Yahweh blessed him
(Gen. 26 : 12). Joseph sees himself and his brothers bind
ing sheaves in the field, another indication that the author
thought of the patriarchs as cultivators. The explanation
is that the Yahwist reflected the condition of things in the
border of the desert, where the shepherd is becoming a
cultivator but is not yet closely attached to the soil.
Yahweh is a God at hand and not a God afar off. He
therefore reveals himself to his chosen ones either by the-
ophanies or by dreams. Such dreams may come even to
gentiles like Abimelech and Pharaoh. But they are most
frequently sent to Israel. Jacob receives one at Bethel and
thus discovers the sacredness of the place. Where Yahweh
reveals himself once he will probably reveal himself again.
So the sanctuaries become places of incubation. Solomon
went to Gibeon in order to seek a revelation, and this came
to him in a vision of the night. It is the hope of Jacob's

RELIGION IN THE EARLY LITERATURE 107
descendants that Yahweh will speak to them at the sanc
tuary where he once spoke to the great ancestor of the
nation. The chief sanctuaries of the land were founded be
cause of some revelation of the divinity. The earliest legis
lation assumes that Yahweh may reveal himself at any
time and any place, and that the place will thereby become
a sanctuary at which sacrifice may be brought and find ac
ceptance (Ex. 20 : 24).
The best commentary on this command is found in the
stories of the patriarchs that we have been considering.
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, when they receive a revela
tion, at once erect an altar and call upon the divine name
(Gen. 12 : 7; 26 : 25; 35 : 1). That many of the sacred
places were ancient Canaanitish places of worship we have
already had occasion to notice. But this does not alter
the fact that the popular conception was that Yahweh
might come near to a man at any time and that then the
proper thing to do was to consecrate the place and make it a
place of sacrifice. For sacrifice was the known and recog
nised method of approaching the divinity. The calling on
the name of Yahweh was the way in which he was invited
to partake of the gift. The practical result was to estab
lish sanctuaries at innumerable sites, so that every village
had at least one.
Since the earliest decalogue prohibits molten images of
Yahweh we may suppose that in this period the reaction
against Canaanitish religion had already set in. And one
of the local sagas preserved to us confirms this impression,
at least so far as Canaanitish morals are in question. This
is the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen.
19 J). This was in origin simply a local saga which at
tempted to account for the formation of the Dead Sea.
The Yahwist makes it an eloquent protest against the cor
ruption of Canaanitish manners, which would even violate
the rights of the guest in order to gratify unnatural lust.
The justice of Yahweh would not tolerate such practices,
and to the religious mind the sea became a standing witness

108 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
to this fact.1 That Israel itself was not free from such vices
is indicated in another narrative, and this shows the prac
tical intention of the author.
In spite of the protest against molten images of which we
have spoken, one allusion to the golden bull of Bethel seems
to have survived in the early literature, and that one not
hostile. In the Testament of Jacob, now embodied in the
work of J, we read:
" By the hands of the Bull of Jacob,
By the name of the Shepherd, the Stone of Israel;
By the God of thy father — he will help thee,
By El-Shaddai— he shall bless thee." (Gen. 49 : 24/.)
If this reading be correct the reference is to the two sacred
objects at Bethel, the sacred stone attributed to Jacob and
the golden bull of Jeroboam. The author of the poem can
hardly have been acquainted with the prohibition of molten
images. The compiler in adopting the poem may have
interpreted the language as poetic imagery only, or he may
have condoned the image at Bethel because of its associa
tion with the most venerable sanctuary of the northern
kingdom. It is a matter of common knowledge that the story of the
deluge adopted by J comes from Babylonia. And at the
date we have assigned to this author we must recognise the
probability that Babylonian literature was making its way
to the west. What interests us here is not the closeness
of the parallel between the Babylonian and the Hebrew
account, but the way in which the Hebrew writer has re
moved the original polytheism. Instead of the many gods
and their unseemly quarrels we have Yahweh alone sitting in
judgment on mankind and inflicting punishment for their
corruption. The anthropomorphism undoubtedly remains
— Yahweh repents that he has made man; he shuts the
door after Noah; he smells the sweet savour of the sacrifice
and is moved by it never again to destroy mankind. But
1 On the numerous parallels in folk-lore, see Gunkel, Genesis,3 p. 214.

RELIGION IN THE EARLY LITERATURE 109
throughout the story he remains the only God and it is he
who does his will in heaven and on earth.
That our author is more than a mere compiler is shown
by the use he makes of the little bit of mythology concerning
the marriage of the sons of God with the daughters of men
(Gen. 6 : 1-8). We have already noticed that this was
originally a story of divine beings who took human wives,
begetting giants like the Titans of Greek mythology. The
skill of the Yahwist is seen in the way in which he makes
this fragment lead up to the story of the deluge. These
giants are not only prodigious in strength but prodigious
also in wickedness. They bring about such a state of things
that only by their destruction can the earth be cleansed.
The deluge receives thus an ethical motive, and the divin
ities of the early text are made wholly subject to Yahweh.
Yahweh's power is further illustrated by the story of the
tower of Babel (Gen. 11 : 1-9). This seems to be a folk-
story which circulated among the desert tribes in the vicin
ity of Babylon. The great temple of Marduk attracted
their attention, since it was a conspicuous feature of their
landscape. Wondering at the shape of the tower they sup
posed that it had never been completed and that it was
arrested by the act of a god. When they ventured into
the city, moreover, their ears were assailed by a polyglot
mixture of tongues. This also they thought the result of
a divine interposition. As in the other material we have
considered, the polytheism of the original account has dis
appeared though the frank anthropomorphism remains.
Yahweh goes down to see what is going on; he fears that
mankind will become too powerful unless he intervenes;
he finds unity of effort to be the secret of men's strength,
and he therefore disunites them by confounding their speech.
After this they are unable to proceed with their high de
signs. Whether according to the original account men
actually planned to invade the heavens and so to storm the
seat of the gods, we can no longer make out. Some par
allels in other religions lead us to suspect this. If it were

110 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
so, the author has toned down the story so as to preserve
the dignity of Yahweh.
The religious interest of all these authors is seen in their
treatment of the covenant between Yahweh and Israel.
Historically, this covenant was entered into under the leader
ship of Moses. But faith antedated it and connected it with
Abraham. The story of its solemnisation given by the Yah
wist is interesting because of its analogies in Semitic prac
tice to-day. The account in Genesis says that Abraham
was instructed to slay a cow, a goat, a ram, a dove, and a
pigeon. The two halves into which the animals were cut
were laid apart, and after the sun had gone down, Yahweh,
in the form of a burning torch, walked between the pieces.
We are not told that Abraham also walked between the
pieces, though that was probably the primitive idea. Among
the Arabs east of the Jordan it is still customary to sacri
fice an animal when a treaty is made. The body of the
slain animal is cut in two and the parts are suspended on
two stakes before the tent door. The parties then pass
between them.1 The idea as interpreted by those who take
part in the rite is that the blood of the victim will drive
away evil. Our author does not reflect on the reason for
the rite. He makes Yahweh conform to the custom of the
times, a custom to which we find a reference as late as the
time of Jeremiah (Jer. 34 : 18; cf. Gen. 15 : 17).
The covenant with Abraham thus narrated binds Yahweh
to give Abraham's descendants possession of Canaan but
says nothing of obligations undertaken by the patriarch in
return. It must be obvious that some such obligations
formed a part of the agreement between Yahweh and Israel
which these writers really have in mind. Historically, the
covenant was entered into in the time of Moses, and it is
interesting to see that the authors we are studying regarded
it as a real covenant, an agreement by which each party
bound itself to certain specific things. On the part of Yah
weh there was an undertaking to give Israel possession of
1 Jaussen, Coutumes des Arabes, p. 362.

RELIGION IN THE EARLY LITERATURE 111
the promised land; on the part of Israel there was a defi
nite undertaking to give a part of the produce of the land
to Yahweh. The obligation is formulated in ten commands
to which the people promise obedience, and this decalogue
in its most primitive form contains the following:
Thou shalt worship no other God.
Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep.
All that open the womb are mine.
Six days shalt thou work but on the seventh day thou shalt rest.
Three times in the year shall all thy males appear before God.
Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread.
Neither shall the sacrifice of the passover remain all night until the
morning.
The first of the fruits of thy ground shalt thou bring to the house of
Yahweh thy God.
Thou shalt not boil a kid in its mother's milk.1
The appropriateness of such a series of commands for an
agricultural people needs no demonstration. It expressly
recognises Yahweh as God of the soil, to whom the first-
fruits belong. The three feasts which are enjoined are con
nected with the harvest. At each of these the farmer is
to appear at the sanctuary, recognising Yahweh as the giver
of the grain, the wine, and the oil. The God of animal
fruitfulness is honoured by the gift of the firstlings of cattle
and even by the consecration of the first-born of men. The
idea of religion here presented is that which prevailed in
Israel during its most flourishing period, as is shown by
the testament of Jacob. Worship is the presentation of
tribute to the God of the soil with the expectation of thus
securing his continued favour. Jacob voices the idea of
these authors when he vows that if Yahweh will give him
1 Ex. 34. Several of the commands are given also at the conclusion
of the Covenant code, Ex. 23 : 10-19. The present text of Ex. 34
gives twelve commands, but the explicit declaration that the ten words
were written on tables of stone indicates that the original number was
ten, and tradition speaks uniformly of a decalogue.

112 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
bread to eat and clothing to Wear Yahweh shall be his God,
and he will give a tenth of his gains to him. The covenant
we are considering recognises the obligation assumed by the
great ancestor of the people and formulates it in these
commands. The idea of the sacrificial service as something gratifying
to Yahweh and the means of securing his favour was the
one against which the prophets found themselves obliged to
protest. The writers we are considering show that it was
not a mere vulgar error but that it was held by the most
thoughtful Israelites in this period. To the Yahwist, cer
tainly, sacrifice was the natural method of approach to the
divinity. For this reason he dates it in the earliest times.
Abel's presentation of the firstlings of the flock secures the
favour of Yahweh, whereas Cain's vegetable offering is not
regarded. In the time of Noah, again, the aroma of the
sacrifice moves Yahweh so that he resolves never to send
another deluge, and this sacrifice is provided for by the
presence of an extra number of clean (that is, sacrificial)
animals in the ark. Even a non-Israelite like Balaam may
hope to secure the help of Yahweh by offering a sacrifice
(Num. 23:1/.).
Sacrifice of children was not foreign to the early religion
of Israel as we have had occasion to notice. The first pro
test against this custom, so far as we know, is due to the Elo-
histic author of the Pentateuch. The right of the divinity
to test the faith and obedience of his servants in any man
ner that seems good to him is assumed. In the case of Abra
ham the test is the more severe in that Isaac is the only
child. What the original form of the story was is not clear.
Some scholars suppose that it told how Abraham was obedi
ent even to the extent of sacrificing his only son. But the
life of Isaac is so essential to the existence of Israel that we
can hardly suppose this probable. Nor can we now discover
the local saga which formed the nucleus of the story. In its
present form it teaches that at least in cases where the sac
rifice of the first-born would exterminate the family Yah-

RELIGION IN THE EARLY LITERATURE 113
weh will accept a substitute. The lesson would not have
been needed unless the actual sacrifice were in vogue.
An important step was taken by this author when he stated
that the covenant with Yahweh was embodied in a book,
the so-called Covenant code (Ex. 20 : 22 to 23 : 32). This
codex shows on the surface that it is a compilation from dif
ferent sources. A part of its enactments, if we may call
them so, are legal precedents, as: "If a man smite the eye
of his servant or of his maid he shall let him go free for
his eye's sake." Some are in the form of direct commands,
as: "Thou shalt not let a sorceress live." The idea of the
compiler is that all civil as well as all ritual custom is under
the direct care of Yahweh and that the covenant with him
is based on the whole social order. Moreover, as the origin
of the nation was traced to the Mosaic age, and as the Deca
logue already embodied the will of Yahweh in specific com
mands, it was natural to suppose that Moses was the recip
ient of a code which he published in written form. This
idea of Moses as the great lawgiver was effectively used by
the author of Deuteronomy and finally coloured the whole
thought of the people. That the Covenant code, like the
earliest decalogue, was the product of the agricultural age
needs no demonstration.
In this code no line is drawn between civil and religious
duties, or rather, we may say, that all duties are religious in
their nature. Israel is a people consecrated to Yahweh, and
must avoid all that is offensive to him. That which is torn
by wild beasts must not be eaten because it had been infected
by the taboo of a demonic being (Ex. 22 : 30) . In approaching
the presence of the divinity men must put away all strange
gods, must wash their clothes, and must keep from women
(Ex. 19 : 14/.). This consecration is indicated in the pas
sage which speaks of Israel as a kingdom of priests, as a sa
cred nation, and as Yahweh's own possession (Ex. 19 : 5/.).
This formulation may be of comparatively late date, but
the idea is primitive. And, since Yahweh is the guardian
of the social order, legal questions may be decided by him.

114 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
Thus the slave who decides to remain with his master is
brought before God in order that his status may be sanc
tioned (Ex. 21 : 6). An oath of purgation taken before Yah
weh is sufficient to establish a man's innocence (22 : 8, 10).
The code marks an ethical advance by its treatment of the
manslayer. According to tribal custom, blood calls for blood
whether there be evil intent or not. In this document it
is provided that the unintentional slayer may flee to a place
of refuge. Whether the author thinks of every sanctuary
as such a place of refuge is doubtful. The more prominent
sacred places would be better able to protect the suppliant,
and historically we read only of the temple of Jerusalem as
affording asylum (I Kings 1 : 50; 2 : 28). What is re
markable in the Covenant code is that the sacredness of the
place is not to protect the intentional murderer: "Thou shalt
take him from my altar to put him to death" (Ex. 21 : 14).
Neither in the Covenant code, nor anywhere else in these
early narratives, is there any allusion to a life beyond the
grave. The happiness of the patriarchs consists in a long
life and a peaceful death. Nevertheless, the soul in some
sense survives the death of the body. Jacob says that he
will go down to Sheol to his son Joseph (Gen. 37 : 35). It
is evident that Sheol is not the grave, for he could not
hope to be joined with Joseph in a tomb. Samuel predicts
that Saul and his sons will be joined with him, though they
are not buried but lie on the field of battle (I Sam. 28 : 19).
These passages indicate clearly enough the unimportant
place which a belief in a future life took in the thought of
the times. There was the notion that the immaterial part
of man goes to an underground region where it leads a
shadowy existence and whence it may be called by the
necromancer. The ancestral animism which paid some sort
of worship to the shades is already felt to be inconsistent
with the religion of Yahweh, and for this reason the whole
subject of the state of the dead is kept in the background.
Summing up what has been said, we may affirm that in
the ninth century B. C. Yahweh has taken full possession

RELIGION IN THE EARLY LITERATURE 115
of the land of Canaan. He has dispossessed the local Baals
and taken their place in the sanctuaries. He is still Israel's
God of war, but he is also the God of the agriculturist and
the giver of the fruits of the ground. In dispossessing the
Baals, therefore, he has taken on some of their features.
The land of Israel is his land, as the Philistines imply when
they propose to send the ark back to its own place. Yahweh
himself confirms their view in that he forces the cows to go
up the road to Beth-shemesh (I Sam. 6 : 9, 12). Joab's at
tempt to besiege Abel-beth-Maacah is an attempt to destroy
the heritage of Yahweh (II Sam. 20 : 19). The land of
Israel is consecrated by the presence of Yahweh so that even
to later authors it is different from all other countries.
Both Amos and Hosea think of other lands as unclean (Amos
7 : 17; Hosea 9 :3). Even in the exilic period an author
was able to say of Jonah, that he thought to escape the
presence of Yahweh by fleeing from Canaan (Jonah 1:3).
Foreigners coming into the territory of Yahweh are expected
to pay him worship. Doeg, the Edomite, was undergoing
purification at Nob when David came thither (I Sam. 21 : 8) ;
Uriah, though a Hittite, declares his devotion to the ark
(II Sam 11 : 11); Ittai, a Philistine just enlisted in the ser
vice of David, swears by Yahweh (II Sam. 15 : 21); and the
colonists sent by the Assyrian king have no rest until they
learn how to pay their respects to the God of the land
(II Kings 17 : 24-28).
If the more advanced thinkers were satisfied with this
religion, we may suppose the mass of the people to be equally
so. They enjoyed the favour of Yahweh when the crops were
bountiful and when they had peace from their enemies.
They believed that the payment of the dues at the sanctu
aries and the eating and drinking there secured a continu
ance of Yahweh's favour. If the political situation some
times caused anxiety and there seemed to be danger from
hostile neighbours, the Israelites comforted themselves with
the thought that Yahweh was a man of war, and as he had
overcome the Canaanites and Philistines so he would take

116 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
the field against any other foe. There was apparently a
tradition that a great day of Yahweh was not far away, in
which he would signally vindicate himself upon invaders of
his territory. This optimistic hope lulled the conscience of
the people into a false security. Some aggressive move
ment was needed, more aggressive than was contemplated
by the writers of the early narratives, if the religion of
Israel was to make any real advance. Such a movement
came in the preaching of the great prophets.

CHAPTER VI
THE EARLIER PROPHETS.
According to ancient conceptions the gods are not far
from any one of us, and they take an interest in the affairs
of individual men. Hence the history of religion shows a
variety of ways in which men have tried to discover the
will of the divinity. Some of these ways were not in vogue
in Israel. Observation of the flight of birds or of the con
duct of animals, for example, is not alluded to in the Old
Testament. Taking the auspices from the entrails of sacri
ficial animals is also conspicuous by its absence from our
documents. Since divination by the liver of an animal
slain at the temple was commonly practised in Babylon this
absence of allusion in the Hebrew Scriptures is the more
remarkable. The Hebrew ritual law enjoins that the liver
be burnt on the altar (Lev. 3 : 15, etc.), probably in con
scious opposition to gentile practice. Moreover, astrology,
so sedulously cultivated in Babylon, does not seem to have
gained a foothold in Israel. There is nowhere in the Bible
any allusion to the theory of a close correspondence between
what takes place in the visible heavens and what goes on on
the earth. Although Yahweh is God of the heavenly armies,
prognostication by observation of the constellations is not
attempted. The sole exception is the assertion of Deborah:
"This is the day in which Yahweh has given thine enemy into
thy hand; has not Yahweh gone out before thee?" (Judges
4 : 14.) Even here the prophetess does no more than ex
press the belief that Yahweh has indicated an auspicious
day; in what method we are not told.
The reason why the systematic observation of the heavens
117

118 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
is discouraged by the Hebrews is evidently the fact that
such observation was closely connected with the worship
of the planets and constellations. A late writer has inserted
in the book of Jeremiah a warning against being afraid of
the signs of heaven as the other nations are afraid of them
(Jer. 10 : 1/.). The Deuteronomists frequently exhort Israel
to keep from this superstition which was rife among the
nations, even tolerated in them by Yahweh's own appoint
ment (Deut. 4 : 19, etc.). Yahweh's complete control of the
heavenly bodies is indicated by the assertion that he has
made them to regulate the calendar (Gen. 1 : 14) and by his
making the sun reverse its course (Isaiah 38 : 7/.). But no
prediction is associated with any of these texts. Where the
Babylonian star-gazers are alluded to it is in tones of open
contempt. Addressing Babylon and anticipating its immi
nent destruction, the prophet says: "Let now the dividers of
the heavens, the star-gazers, the monthly prognosticators,
stand up and save thee from the things that shall come upon
thee" (Isaiah 47: 13). These passages seem to show that
astrology, so far as it was practised in Israel at all, was a
foreign importation, and, taken with the silence of the doc
uments concerning auspication by the liver, they make it
clear that the religion of Israel developed independently of
that of Babylon.
This does not mean, however, that various other methods
of inquiring the will of the divinity — methods which we call
superstitious — were unknown in Israel. The polemic of the
Deuteronomist is sufficient evidence: "When thou comest
into the land which Yahweh thy God gives thee, thou shalt
not learn to do after the abominations of these nations;
there shall not be found in thee any that makes his son or
his daughter to pass through the fire, who uses divination
or practises augury, or a sorcerer, or a charmer, or a con-
suiter with a familiar spirit, or a wizard, or a necromancer.
For whosoever does these things is an abomination to
Yahweh thy God" (Deut. 18 : 9-12). The continuation of
the passage shows that these ways of ascertaining the will

THE EARLIER PROPHETS 119
of the divinity are contrasted with the word of the prophet
as the false contrasts with the true. The author indeed re
gards these not only as false but also as foreign supersti
tions, but the tenacity with which they were held in Israel,
returning after each attempt to suppress them, shows that
they were a part of the popular religion. Though violently
repressed by the reforming party, they came back into view
as soon as pressure was withdrawn, as in the time of Ma
nasseh (II Kings 21 : 6).
It is not always easy to discover the nature of the arts
denounced by the Deuteronomist. Divination by the sacred
lot is certainly one of them. From Ezeldel we learn how this
was done. A bundle of arrows was shaken in the presence
of the god, and one was drawn from the bundle. Nebuchad
rezzar is undecided whether to march against Rabbath-
Ammon or against Jerusalem. At the parting of the ways
he consults the teraphim, looks on the liver, and shakes the
arrows to and fro. The arrow which comes into his hand
is marked "Jerusalem," and this decides the route of the
army and the fate of the city (Ezek. 21 : 26-28, E. V., vss.
21-23). This passage would not prove that diviners were
found in Israel, but in other passages Ezekiel intimates that
they were active among his own people, and even brings
them into close connection with the prophets (13 : 9, 23).
Isaiah classes them with the judges, prophets, and elders,
as pillars of the state (Isaiah 3:2). Reaction against them
is shown by Jeremiah, who, however, mentions them in con
nection with the prophets (Jer. 27 : 9; 29 : 8), and the
classic expression of this opposition is found in the verse:
"For rebellion is as the sin of divination,
And like the teraphim is obstinacy." (I Sam. 15 : 23.)
Another kind of divination is designated by the word
which we have rendered augury. Manasseh is accused of it
(II Kings 21 : 6), and Isaiah reproaches Judah with being
full of it, "like the Philistines" (Isaiah 2:6). Jeremiah

120 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
warns the people against the augurs who prophesy a lie (Jer.
27 : 9). It is prohibited by the Law (Lev. 19 : 26). With
it we may class soothsaying. The only distinct clue to this
form is given in the story of Joseph, where the value of the
stolen cup is said to consist in its use for this art (Gen. 44 : 15).
We conclude that the method was the one used elsewhere
with a magic cup. The cup was filled with water and a
little oil was poured upon it. The shape of the drops in
dicated the answer that was sought. The ascription of this
art to Joseph shows that it was not objected to in Israel in
the earlier period, though later it was regarded as sinful
(II Kings 17:17; 21-6). Its prohibition by the Deu
teronomist and by the ritual code followed as a matter of
course. Another of these methods of getting supernatural knowl
edge or power is sorcery. As early as the covenant code
we find the command: "Thou shalt not suffer a sorceress to
live" (Ex. 22 : 17). This was probably for a double reason;
she was in communion with other gods than Yahweh, and
she made use of her alleged powers to injure her neighbours
in person or property. Ezekiel denounces Jewish women who
sew bands for all wrists and make caps for every head, to
hunt lives. The purpose is evidently to inflict disease or
death upon obnoxious persons, contrary to the will of Yahweh.
These women are called prophetesses, from which we are
authorised to conclude that they claimed supernatural
knowledge, and as they are said to profane the name of
Yahweh, we may suppose they claimed to receive revelations
from him (Ezek. 13 : 17-23). In the time of Jeremiah sor
cerers uttered false predictions (Jer. 27 : 9), and Malachi de
nounces them along with other evil-doers (Mai. 3:5).
Elsewhere they are associated with Babylon (Isaiah 47 : 9
and 12), and with Jezebel, queen of Israel (II Kings 9 : 22).
The similarity of ideas in Israel and outside it is indicated
by the conflict of the Egyptian sorcerers with Moses, in
which they duplicate some of his miracles, although they
finally acknowledge his superiority (Ex. 7 : 11).

THE EARLIER PROPHETS 121
Enchantment, probably the casting of spells over a person,
was also practised in Israel, but has no bearing upon the
question of revelation, with which we are now concerned.
Consultation of spirits, however, is illustrated by a cele
brated case. The adept in this art is called possessor of an
ob, a word of obscure meaning. The narrative of the witch
of Endor makes sufficiently plain what the people believed:
the necromancer had the power of invoking the spirits of the
dead and received from them revelations of the future
(I Sam. 28). With this art we find mention of wizardry
(II Kings 21 : 6; 23 : 24; Isaiah 8 : 19; 19 : 3). The wiz
ards and necromancers are said to defile those who consult
them, sufficient evidence that they came into connection
with other divinities than Yahweh (Lev. 19 : 31). From
Isaiah we learn that these practitioners chirped and mut
tered in voices that were supposed to be those of the spirits
they consulted. Down to the present day Palestinian magi
cians in their rites "make a sucking sound as one might
chirrup to a horse." J
To the Deuteronomist's list of magic arts we should add
consultation of the teraphim. The passage from Ezekiel
quoted above shows that these divinities were appealed to
for decisions, and while the action of a heathen king would
not prove anything concerning the custom in Israel, the
association of the teraphim with divination in a passage
already cited (I Sam. 15 : 23) is significant. Moreover, we
find the teraphim mentioned in company with the ephod,
which was a means of discovering the will of Yahweh (Judges
17 : 5; Hosea 3 : 4; Judges 18 : 14). In one of our latest
documents it is declared : " The teraphim have spoken vanity,
and the diviners have seen a lie" (Zech. 10 : 2); and the
account of Josiah's reforms groups the teraphim with necro
mancers and soothsayers (II Kings 23 : 24). That the tera
phim were images of some kind seems clear from the story
of David's flight and Michal's stratagem (I Sam. 19 : 13 ff.).
The desire to know the will of the divinity is sufficiently
1 Bliss, Religions of Palestine, p. 273.

122 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
evidenced by this list of proscribed arts. It was only in the
later period that they were proscribed in Israel, and in con
trast with them three methods of ascertaining the divine
decision were regarded as legitimate. These were dreams,
Urim, and appeal to a prophet. It was only when these
failed him that Saul appealed to the necromancer.1 Of
these three the Urim or, more fully, Urim and Thummim
early fell out of use. It seems to have been one form of the
sacred lot. A passage preserved to us by the Greek transla
tion of I Samuel (14 : 41) indicates that after appropriate
ceremonies the divinity was asked to give a negative or posi
tive answer to the question put by the inquirer or to dis
tinguish between two alternatives. Since there was a third
possibility, that is, that the answer might be refused, the lot
must have been arranged for three possible answers. The
simplest hypothesis is that the Urim and Thummim were
two disks, white on one side and black on the other. If both
fell with the white side uppermost the answer would be
affirmative; if with the black side uppermost, negative;
while if one showed the white and the other the black the
answer was withheld. The management of the oracle was
in the hands of the priests, and even the latest code provides
for depositing the sacred implements in the ephod of the
high priest. In an early poem they are associated with the
Levitical guild (Deut. 33 : 8), as already noted. David had
the sacred lot at his command because Abiathar brought the
ephod with him when he escaped from the massacre at Nob.
Dreams are regarded as means of revelation in all early
religions, and they are frequently presented in this light in
the Old Testament. From Abraham down to Nebuchad
rezzar men prominent in the narrative are recipients of
dreams. The practice of sleeping in a sanctuary in order to
receive a revelation is perhaps indicated (as we have already
noted) in the story of Jacob at Bethel and also in that of
Solomon at Gibeon. When we are told that Saul sought an
1 1 Sam. 28 : 6. The historicity of the account is open to objection,
but its value as a statement of popular belief is indubitable.

THE EARLIER PROPHETS 123
answer from Yahweh but received none by dreams we
naturally think that he sought them by incubation, that is,
sleeping in the sanctuary. The dreamers of dreams are asso
ciated with the prophets in several passages, and, in fact, the
prophets seem often to have received their revelations in
dreams. It is only in the time of Jeremiah that the dream
begins to lose its reputation: "The prophet that has a dream
let him tell his dream, but he that has my word let him speak
my word faithfully; what is the straw to the wheat? says
Yahweh " (Jer. 23 : 25, 28) . The superiority of Moses to the
other prophets is indicated by the declaration that Yahweh
speaks to the others in dreams and visions, but with Moses
face to face (Num. 12 : 6-8).
While Yahweh may reveal himself to any man by a dream
(even to a non-Israelite), certain men are thought to be so
nearly in touch with the divinity that they receive frequent
revelations both by dreams and by waking visions. Such
men are seers or prophets. In the earlier time the two classes
seem to have been quite distinct. Two words designate the
seer, which we might translate seer and gazer. The account
of Saul's meeting with Samuel tells us of the seer (I Sam. 9).
The young man is in perplexity concerning the lost asses of
his father and is advised by his servant that in the neigh
bouring village there is a man of God, and all that he says
comes to pass. The seer by his supernatural knowledge is
able to tell about lost articles. He is a local practitioner
who assists people in such matters. The pains taken by
Saul's servant to give assurance that the man is honourable
indicates that some of the professors of the art were not
above suspicion. The narrative shows that Samuel pre
dicted the events of the coming day, not to satisfy Saul's
curiosity, but to give him assurance of the genuineness of
his message concerning the kingship.
The distinction between seer, gazer, and prophet was lost
sight of in the period of the monarchy. Isaiah mentions
seers and gazers in the same breath (Isaiah 30 : 10); Gad,
an official at David's court, is called a gazer and also a

124 ^THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
prophet (II Sam. 24 : 11). Prophets and gazers occur to
gether in II Kings (17 : 13) and in Isaiah (Isaiah 29 : 10).
Amos is called a gazer, perhaps contemptuously, by Ama
ziah, who warns him not to play the prophet at the royal
sanctuary (Amos 7 : 12). Micah, however, classes the
gazers with diviners and regards them as inferior to the
prophets (Micah 3:7). These references show that the peo
ple at large did not distinguish between prophets, seers,
and gazers. All three classes doubtless arrogated the title
"man of God" and claimed supernatural illumination. In
fact, however, the prophets are of different origin from the
others. This is made clear by the passage which describes
the band of prophets at Geba, the home of Saul (I Sam.
10 : 10). Here we find them in a company, marching in
procession headed by lyre, drum, fife, and harp. They are
engaging in some enthusiastic exercise, probably the dance,
and so powerful is the contagion of this enthusiasm that
Saul, to the surprise of his neighbours, is overcome by the
same impulse and joins with them. In the parallel account
we read that Saul threw off his clothes and lay naked all
day and all night (I Sam. 19 : 18-24). The phenomena are
strikingly like those presented by the devotees of the Great
Mother in Asia Minor and by the dervishes of the present
day. The motive was and is to enjoy the ecstasy of com
munion with the divinity. The enthusiastic exercises induce
a state of exaltation in which the spirit seems rapt out of
itself, or, in another conception of it, in which the divinity
seems to come down and take possession of the worshipper.
The Hebrews applied the word prophesy to the extravagant
action of an insane man, as of Saul under the influence of a
supposed spirit of evil (I Sam. 18 : 10). The young prophet
sent by Elisha to anoint Jehu is called by the officers a crazy
fellow, and Jehu at first affects to make light of his "babble"
(II Kings 9 : 11). At a later date the temple police are
advised to arrest irresponsible men like Jeremiah who rave
and play the prophet (Jer. 29 : 26).
The primary purpose of the prophets, then, was not to se-

THE EARLIER PROPHETS 125
cure revelations for the benefit of others but to get into
close relation with the divinity for their own enjoyment.
Yet it could hardly be that they would not obtain great
influence among the people because of their being men of
God. And since they were zealous for Yahweh they often
exerted a considerable influence on the popular religion
and also on political movements. It is not accidental that
they come into view at two crises of Israel's history: in the
time of Saul, when the Philistine encroachment was most
galling, and in the time of Ahab, when the Phoenician Baal
invaded the territory of Yahweh. Individual prophets ap
pear in our narrative as political agitators. Nathan took
an active part in seating Solomon on the throne (I Kings
1 : 11/.). Ahijah the Shilonite encouraged Jeroboam to
revolt against Solomon (I Kings 11 : 29-39). Jehu ben
Hanani threatened Baasha with the extermination of his
house (I Kings 16 : 1-4). Elisha actively fomented the con
spiracy of Jehu, and according to tradition even suggested
assassination as the way to a change of dynasty in Damascus
(II Kings 8 : 7-13). In the view of later times Samuel was
the originator of the kingship and unmade kings as easily
as he made them. Since Yahweh is the god of the social
order, it is inevitable that his servants should concern them
selves with affairs of state.
The prophet, being a man of God, was in the eyes of the
people a worker of miracles. Moses is a conspicuous ex
ample. But others are almost as remarkable. Thus Sam
uel appeals to Yahweh and receives an answer in the thunder
(I Sam. 12 : 18). The lives of Elijah and Elisha seem to
have been written to show the superhuman power of the two
men. The widow's cruse of oil (I Kings 17 : 13-16), the
parting of the waters of the Jordan (II Kings 2:8), the
healing of the waters of Jericho (2 : 19/.) are so many evi
dences of the popular belief, as are the shocking anecdotes
of the two bears (2 : 23-25) and of the destruction of two
companies of soldiers by fire from heaven (1 : 10-12). The
power of Elijah to withhold the rain is not doubted, and al-

126 THE RELIGION OP ISRAEL
though the contest at Carmel is intended to decide whether
Baal or Yahweh is the true God for Israel, there is also the
question whether Elijah or the Baal prophets can bring
the rain. The extreme expression of the popular belief is
the legend that Elijah was carried off by a fiery chariot to
heaven. To appreciate this we must remind ourselves that
in this period there was no thought that the saints live in
heaven. The only parallel to the case of Elijah is that of
Enoch — a survival from the mythological stage of belief.
The belief of the people in the divine protection accorded
the man of God accounts for the deference with which the
prophets were treated by those in authority and for the bold
ness of the prophets themselves in the presence of kings.
Ehud, by pretending to have a message from God, obtained a
private audience from Eglon (Judges 3 : 20). The young
prophet who wished to disguise himself from Ahab com
manded a man to strike him, and the refusal was punished
by a lion (I Kings 20 : 36). Gehazi was punished by leprosy
for misusing Elisha's name (II Kings 5 : 27). The sceptic
who doubted the word of this prophet died the next day
(7 : 20). It is no wonder, therefore, that the elders of Beth
lehem trembled at the coming of Samuel (I Sam. 16 : 4). In
the popular view, and no doubt in the view of the prophets
themselves, disobedience to a man of God is disobedience to
God himself, and what this means is clear: "Has Yahweh as
great delight in burnt-offering and sacrifice as in obeying
the voice of Yahweh? Behold to obey is better than sacri
fice, and to hearken than the fat of rams" (I Sam. 15 : 22).
The conviction that Yahweh speaks through the prophet
accounts for the boldness with which Nathan denounced
David for his adultery, and Elijah pronounced judgment on
the tyranny of Ahab.
Tradition draws no clear line of distinction between priest,
seer, and prophet. The annotator of the narrative concern
ing Saul and Samuel supposes seer to be simply the archaic
term for prophet. The life of Moses shows him acting both
as priest and prophet, and Samuel is presented in the three-

THE EARLIER PROPHETS 127
fold aspect as priest, seer, and prophet. In the course of
time the seer became less prominent and there came a differ
entiation between priest and prophet. Where a priest be
came a prophet, as in the case of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, the
priestly function dropped into a subordinate place. The
result was to make the priest simply a minister of the sanctu
ary, charged with the proper performance of the ritual, whose
tora (instruction) was strictly limited to matters of ritual
cleanness, while the prophet became the preacher, the critic
of the existing order, and therefore often in sharp opposi
tion to the priesthood. Evidence that the prophets had
actually appropriated the work of the seer is given by the
word vision, used to designate the written words of the
prophet. Thus the title of Isaiah's book is "The Vision of
Isaiah." This word vision, descriptive of the experience of the man
of God, is from the same root with the word which I have
translated gazer. It is not applied ordinarily to dreams.
The idea which it expresses is that the world is full of things
which are invisible to the ordinary eye but which may be
seen by the man who has some special power. Thus there
was an angel standing in the road by which Balaam
must go, but he was not seen by the prophet. The riding
animal had the keener sight. Only when Yahweh opened
Balaam's eyes did he see what confronted him. Yahweh,
therefore, is said to "uncover the eye" of the prophet.
Balaam describes himself as one who sees the vision of the
Almighty, lying prostrate but having the eye uncovered
(Num. 24 : 4). When Elisha's servant is terrified by the
approach of the Syrian army the prophet prays that his
eyes may be opened, whereupon the servant sees the moun
tain full of chariots and horses of fire (II Kings 6 : 15-17).
It is this supernatural quickening of the eye which makes
the prophet, the seer, or the gazer. Neither the prophet
himself nor the men to whom he described his visions had any
doubt of the reality of the supersensible objects presented to
his spiritual eye.

128 THE RELIGION OP ISRAEL
Similarly the ear may be quickened to hear what is not
audible to the ordinary sense. What is thus heard is usu
ally the words of a superhuman being, Yahweh or his angel.
Balaam claims that he hears the words of God and knows
the knowledge of the Most High (Num. 24 : 16). When
Yahweh makes a revelation to Samuel he uncovers his ear
(I Sam. 9 : 15); and a number of parallels might be cited.
But audition is less common than vision. As time went
on the word vision designated the word of the prophet,
as we have seen. In the apocalyptic literature the vision
is a purely literary device. Since the prophet is the organ
by which Yahweh makes his will known to men, it is nat
ural for him to think of his words as something placed in
his mouth by the divinity (Jer. 1:9). Ezekiel is even more
materialistic; he sees Yahweh hand him a book which he
takes and eats (Ezek. 2 : 8 to 3:3). The psychological fact
which gives rise to these descriptions seems to be the strong
inner impulse to deliver a certain message which comes to
the prophet without conscious and deliberate reasoning of
his own. The conviction of the truth objectifies itself to
him as a command of God ordering him to speak. Jere
miah tells us how contrary his message was to his natural
feelings and how, in consequence, he resolved that he would
not speak any more. But the inner torment became so
great that he was compelled to deliver the message (Jer.
20:9; cf. 6:11).
Although the more marked phenomena of Hebrew proph-
etism are such as are elsewhere attributed to possession by
a divinity, the Old Testament nowhere says that Yahweh
enters into a man. What is done in cases of extraordinary
manifestations is done by the spirit of Yahweh. This spirit
clothes itself with the hero (Judges 6 : 34) or comes upon
him (Judges 11 : 29; Num. 24 : 2). The writers seem to
have formulated no distinct theory concerning this spirit.
In some cases it seems to be an influence sent by Yahweh,
like the spirit of jealousy or of suspicion mentioned in some
passages (Num. 5 : 14; II Kings 19 : 7). It is materialisti-

THE EARLIER PROPHETS 129
cally conceived and it can be transferred from one man to
another. Elisha asks for a double portion of it (the portion
of the first-born son) as though it were to be divided among
Elijah's heirs (II Kings 2:9). Yahweh takes a part of
the spirit which is on Moses and puts it upon the elders
of Israel (Num. 11 : 17). But in some passages the spirit
seems to be a distinct personality. Micaiah sees in vision
how the spirit responds to Yahweh's inquiry for a method
of beguiling Ahab to his death, by offering to be a lying
spirit in the mouth of his prophets (I Kings 22 : 21/.).
The importance of the spirit as the organ of revelation is
attested by a number of passages. The poet who speaks
for David at the close of the great king's life claims that it
was the spirit of Yahweh that spoke through him and that
Yahweh's word was on his tongue (II Sam. 23 : 2). Joel
supposes that in the Messianic time the spirit will be im
parted to all the members of the theocratic community,
giving dreams and visions — that is, revelations — to young
and old (Joel 3:1). In Deutero-Isaiah we read : " This is my
covenant with them, says Yahweh: My spirit which is
upon thee, and my words which I have put into thy mouth,
shall not depart from thy mouth nor from the mouth of thy
children nor from the mouth of thy children's children
forever" (Isaiah 59 : 21). The Messianic King himself will
be endued with the spirit, to qualify him for his office, and
the spirit is described as the spirit of wisdom and insight,
the spirit of knowledge and religion (Isaiah 11 : 2).
In the prophets whose writings have come down to us
the work of the spirit is to impel men to speak to their con
temporaries concerning the divine will. Through the prophet
Yahweh rebukes the people for their sin and threatens them
with punishment. The prophet's conviction that he was
called to speak in the name of Israel's God might come in
the form of a vision, as we have seen, or it might be a strong
inward sense of inevitableness. In any case the subject of
the experience was sure that what he experienced was not
the result of bis own judgment or reasoning powers. Yet

130 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
it was easy to mistake the source of this conviction, and
among those whom we call false prophets there were prob
ably some who were as sincere as were their opponents whose
words found their way into the canon of Scripture. That
some who claimed the prophetic inspiration made use of their
alleged gifts for purposes of private gain is evident. The
sincerely patriotic, unselfish, and religious men were in the
minority, and were opposed, even persecuted, both by mem
bers of the guild and by the secular authorities. This op
position brought out the essential nobility of their char
acters. Later generations did them justice and took pains
to preserve some record of their utterances. For this reason
their works have come down to us in one division of our
Hebrew Bible.

CHAPTER VII
AMOS AND HOSEA
"In the fifteenth year of Amaziah king of Judah began
Jeroboam son of Joash king of Israel to reign in Samaria
and he reigned forty-one years. He restored the boundary
of Israel from the Entrance of Hamath to the sea of the
Arabah, according to the word of Yahweh, God of Israel,
which he spoke by his servant Jonah son of Amittai, who
was of Gath-hepher. For Yahweh saw the affliction of Israel
that it was very bitter, for there was none fettered nor free,
neither was there any helper for Israel. And Yahweh re
solved that he would not blot out the name of Israel from
under heaven, and he saved them by the hand of Jeroboam
son of Joash" (II Kings 14 : 23-27).
This statement of the Hebrew author sufficiently sets
forth the state of things when the prophetic movement
took a new direction. There had been great distress in the
northern kingdom under the persistent aggression of Da
mascus, the hereditary enemy. In the time of Jeroboam II
a turn bad come for the better. Damascus was occupied
with a more formidable foe on its northern frontier, and
this gave Israel an opportunity to recover its lost territory.
Jeroboam did not hesitate to seize his advantage, and he
was able to extend his frontier to the traditional boundary
claimed by Israel. All the signs go to show that the people
under Jeroboam's sway interpreted the success of their arms,
as is, in fact, declared in the passage just quoted, as due
to the direct intervention of Yahweh. Congratulating
themselves that they were protected by their God, they
observed the rites of the ancestral religion with zeal and
131

132 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
confidence. But their rejoicing was premature. Even be
fore the death of Jeroboam a change set in, and within a
few years of this apparent prosperity the kingdom of Israel
ceased to be. The sister kingdom prolonged its existence
more than a century longer, but at length it, too, succumbed.
The question which confronts us is: Why did not the
fate of the nation determine the fate of the nation's God?
To the mass of the people Yahweh was a national God,
more powerful, perhaps, than Chemosh of Moab, but in other
respects like him. When Moab perished Chemosh ceased
to be more than a name. But as Israel shrank in impor
tance, Yahweh grew, and when his worshippers could no
longer call themselves a nation he became to his worshippers,
and later to all the civilised world, the God of the whole
earth; and his religion made its way to people to whom
Israel had been unknown even by name. As historical stu
dents, we must try to apprehend the process by which the
God of Israel thus freed himself from the national bonds by
which he had been held, and became the God above all
Gods, the Creator and Ruler of the universe. This process
was due in large measure to the men whose writings have
come down to us in the books of the prophets. These writ
ings are, to be sure, fragments only, and what makes them
more difficult to understand is that they have undergone
extensive revision by editors who were not always in sym
pathy with the original authors. The progress of criticism,
however, has enabled us to trace an outline of the develop
ment with some confidence.
The first thing we discover is that the prophets build
upon foundations already laid. This is inevitable. How
ever convinced the reformer may be that a radical change
is needed, no revolution ever makes a clean sweep of exist
ing institutions. Moreover, man's inextinguishable ideal
ism convinces him that the former days were better than
these. The most powerful argument which the preacher
can bring in favour of his message is that what is needed is
a return to the better manners of the fathers. This explains

AMOS AND HOSEA 133
the attitude of the prophets toward tradition. They did
adopt certain ideas which were current in their time, but
they made use of them in a manner that was new and star
tling to their contemporaries. The people, as we have seen,
were familiar with the idea that Yahweh was the God of
Israel and that Israel was his people. The prophets assume
this. They assume also the corollary — that Yahweh reveals
his will to his people. Religion is knowledge and fear of
Yahweh, and the knowledge must come from him in the
first place, being made plain to chosen instruments who
proclaim it to their fellows.
It was probably at the great autumn festival, when the
crowds had gathered with sacrifices at the sanctuary at
Bethel to eat and drink and rejoice before Yahweh, that
"suddenly there appeared a man who checked the joyous
celebration by the earnestness of his mien. It was a plain
shepherd from the borders of the wilderness. Into the gay
music of the revellers with their drums and harps he in
jected a discordant note, for he chanted the dirge which
the mourners were accustomed to sing as they followed the
corpse to the tomb. Through all the shouting of the crowd
he heard the death-rattle: 'The virgin Israel has fallen, no
more to rise,' was the burden of his song." 1 The priest in
charge of the temple had no good opinion of the strolling
prophets who thus disturbed the festivities, and he gave this
one a warning: "Go, Seer, flee into the land of Judah and
there earn thy bread, and there play the prophet. At
Bethel you cannot prophesy any more, for it is a court sanc
tuary." As in duty bound the officer reported the incident
to his monarch, and Amos was compelled to keep silence.
His reply to the priest, however, has become classic: "I
am no prophet nor prophet's apprentice, but a plain herds
man and a cutter of sycamore fruit. And Yahweh took me
from following the flock and said to me: 'Go, prophesy to
my people Israel'" (Amos 7 : 14/.). It is plain that Amos
wished to dissociate himself from the professional prophets
1 Wellhausen, Israelitische und Judische Geschichte, p. 105.

134 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
of the guilds. Yet even in his denial he finds no word to
designate his activity except "prophesy." He means that
he was overborne by the will of Yahweh just as those pro
phets claimed to be. The irresistible nature of this impulse
is indicated by his declaration: "When the lion roars who
will not fear? When Yahweh speaks who can help proph
esying?" (3:8.)
With reference to Yahweh's election of Israel Amos gives
no uncertain sound: Yahweh had brought the people out of
Egypt, had led them in the wilderness forty years, and had
destroyed the Amorites before them (2 : 9/.). "You only of
all the nations have I known," says Yahweh (3 : 2); though
later a broader view is intimated (9 : 7). Canaan is Yah
weh's land, and other lands are unclean (7 : 17; cf. Hosea
9 : 3-5). As God of the land he gives or withholds the
rain and sends blasting and mildew (4 : 6-9). It is evidence
of his grace that he sends prophets and nazirites (2 : 11).
In all this Amos stands on the same ground with the people
at large. But on the basis of these received beliefs he builds
up a very different theory. The people rejoiced at the out
ward prosperity which they enjoyed as evidence of Yah
weh's being altogether favourable. Victories at Lo-debar
and Karnaim were fresh in their minds and were taken to
be the earnest of more to follow (Amos 6 : 13). They, on
their part, were sure that they were gratifying Yahweh
by their lavish sacrifices. Was not the covenant an agree
ment that he would help them against their enemies if he
received the firstlings, the first-fruits, and the observance of
the great festivals?
Amos answers by a flat contradiction, and by the unheard-
of declaration that Yahweh does not require sacrifice but
righteousness between man and man. In the material pros
perity on which the people laid so much stress the prophet
saw only the social evils which prosperity had fostered.
The sacrifices are to him not only something indifferent, they
are even contemptible: "Come to Bethel and transgress!
To Gilgal and multiply transgression! Bring your sacri-

AMOS AND HOSEA 135
fices in the morning and your tithes the third day! Offer
your thanksgiving sacrifice of leavened bread, and proclaim
free-will offerings — this pleases you, O house of Israel!"
(4 : 4 /.) The intimation is that all this is mere will-
worship, recreation and dissipation for the people, but of
no value to Yahweh. And, thinking his irony might not be
understood, the prophet tells in plain words what Yahweh
means: "I hate, I despise your feasts, and I take no delight
in your solemn assemblies; though you offer me your burnt-
offerings and sacrifices I will not accept them, neither will
I regard the peace-offerings of your fed beasts" (5 : 21).
And, as if this were not enough, Amos goes the length of
denying that the cultus was observed in the wilderness, the
time when, according to common consent, the relations of
Yahweh and his people were at their best: "Was it sacrifices
and offerings that you brought me in the wilderness forty
years, O house of Israel?" It is evident that a strong nega
tive is implied in the question.1
Instead of being gratified by the lavish offerings, Yahweh
is indignant at the sins of his people and is about to destroy
them — such is the conviction of Amos. What rouses his
indignation is the social condition of Israel. Yahweh is
the protector of the poor and will avenge their wrongs. In
a sense this was not new. By tradition, Yahweh, the tribal
God, was brother and friend of every member of the clan.
But Amos gave the principle a broader construction. Yah
weh is the God of righteousness and requires right conduct
even from men outside Israel: "For three crimes of Da
mascus or for four I will not turn back, because they have
threshed Gilead with threshing instruments of iron; and I
will send a fire into the house of Hazael and it shall devour
the palaces of Benhadad" (1 : 3-5). In like terms Amos
threatens Ammon and Moab, and then turns to Israel:
"Thus says Yahweh: For three crimes of Israel, or for four,
I will not turn back; because they have sold the righteous
1 The intent of the verse (5 : 25) is plain, though the context is ob
scure and probably interpolated.

136 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
for silver and the needy for a pair of shoes; they trample
the head of the poor and tread down the meek; a man and
his father go to the woman to pollute my name; they lay
themselves down beside every altar on clothes taken in
pledge, and in the house of their God they drink the wine of
such as have been fined" (2 : 6-8). The accusation is that
the lavish feasts at the sanctuaries are based upon oppres
sion and extortion. Those who should administer justice
turn it to wormwood (5 : 7), they take bribes (5 : 12), and
hate the man who rebukes them (5 : 10). The sins of Israel
are such as to astonish the nations; Philistines and Egyp
tians are invited to witness the tumults in Samaria and the
oppressions in the midst of it (3 : 9/.). The fault is with
the chief men: "Woe to the secure in Samaria, the distin
guished men of the chief of the nations, who think the evil
day far away, yet bring it near by injustice and violence"
(6 : 1-3). The women are as bad as the men, urging their
husbands on to further oppression that they may have
wherewith to indulge their appetite for drink (4 : 1).
That punishment must follow is the firm conviction of
the prophet. What strikes him is the unreason of those
who think otherwise — as though the evil day which they
think far off would not necessarily follow the violence in
which they indulge. To neglect this sequence of cause and
effect is as unreasonable as to plough the sea with oxen, or
to attempt the cliffs of the chamois on horseback (6 : 12).
Warnings had in fact been given them. Twice had Yah
weh set out to execute his vengeance; once with locusts,
once with fire. . Now this third time the plumb-line is ap
plied to the wall and reveals its tottering condition: "The
high places of Isaac shall be destroyed, and the sanctuaries
of Israel laid waste, and I will stand against the house of
Jeroboam with the sword" (7 : 1-9). It was this culmina
tion of the discourse at Bethel which roused the anger of
the priest. No other direct denunciation of the royal house
is recorded, but there are plenty of declarations concerning
the nation: "As the shepherd rescues out of the mouth of

AMOS AND HOSEA 137
the lion two legs or the piece of an ear, so shall the sons
of Israel be rescued who sit in Samaria in the corner of a
couch and on the cushions of a bed" (3 : 12). There is
here no thought of a remnant; what is sarcastically said to
be rescued is not worth calling a remnant. The two shank
bones or the piece of the ear are only evidence that the
sheep has indeed been destroyed (cf. Ex. 22 : 12).
In his final vision Amos sees Yahweh himself standing
in his temple at Bethel and shaking the building on the
heads of the worshippers, with the declaration: "I will
slay the last of them with the sword; not one of them shall
flee away and not one of them shall escape. Though they
dig into Sheol, thence shall my hand take them; and though
they climb into heaven, thence will I bring them down;
though they be hid in the top of Carmel I will search and
take them out thence; and though they be hid from my
sight in the bottom of the sea, thence will I command the
serpent and it shall bite them; and though they go into
captivity before their enemies, thence will I command the
sword and it shall slay them; and I will set my eyes upon
them for evil and not for good" (9 : 1-4).1 It would be
difficult to be more explicit. The message of Amos was one
of destruction, complete and irremediable.
It does not seem hazardous to assert that Amos was an?
acute observer of the movements of the nations of western;
Asia. The great world-power, whose capital was Nineveh,
was showing renewed activity about this time. Amos, to
be sure, does not distinctly say that he anticipates an in
vasion by the Assyrian army. But he could not have been
ignorant of the fact that Damascus was already hard pressed
by this formidable foe, and it was easy to conclude that
Israel would come next in the sequence. Amos, indeed,
thinks less of the instrument than of him who wields it. To
him the overshadowing thought was that Yahweh was .
1 1 have quoted the whole passage because it makes plain, if anything
can, that the conclusion of the book which speaks of a relenting on
the part of Yahweh cannot be by Amos.

138 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
making use of this instrument for the punishment of all
those nations which had been guilty of man's inhumanity
to man. That Yahweh should make use of a foreign nation
to punish his own people was something which the ordinary
Israelite could hardly understand. This, however, was in
fact the first step in the promotion of the God of Israel to
his transcendent position as the ruler of the whole world.
When the events of the Exile emphasised the message of the
prophets the common people began to apprehend this sub
lime conception.
In the history of Christian theology undue emphasis has
been placed on the predictive element in the Old Testa
ment. From our present more historical point of view we
see that this element was in the minds of the prophets them
selves of subordinate importance. They did not suppose
they were drawing up a scheme of the world's history.
Their minds were occupied with the fate of their own peo
ple. They claimed, indeed, to be in such relations to Yah
weh that they could interpret his will to men who were
blind to the signs of the times. These signs of the times
proved to them that unless Israel should turn from its evil
ways, it would surely be destroyed. Their concern was
with the nation and not with the individual. Where they
denounce certain classes of the community, they have the
sins of individuals in mind, of course, for sin is a personal
matter, but the denunciation is motived by the thought
that the sins of these classes are bringing the nation to
ruin. Amos, at any rate, gave no thought to the fate of
individuals, whether in this world or in the next, except so
far as the individual was a part of the community.
Since the evils against which the prophets declaimed are
social evils, these preachers are often called social reformers,
as though they aimed to reconstruct society in such a way
as to secure the greatest good of the greatest number. No
doubt they desired social regeneration, but the form in which
they clothed this ideal was not that of the modern social
reformer. What they sought was the fulfilment of the will

AMOS AND HOSEA 139
of Yahweh. In other words, they were religious idealists.
Doubtless in the last analysis they were moved by sym
pathy with their afflicted fellow men, but this sympathy
was wholly dominated by their religious faith. The sym
pathy was objectified in Yahweh before it was brought to
bear upon men. They defined the oppression and violence
which they saw not as social wrong but as sin, transgression
of the will of the Almighty.
What Amos knew and what he thought everybody ought
to know was that this will of the Almighty is ethical in its
demands. When he exhorts: "Seek Yahweh and live!"
he makes it clear that he has no ritual service in mind, for
he adds: "Seek not Bethel, enter not into Gilgal, and pass
not to Beersheba; for Gilgal shall surely go into captivity
and Bethel shall come to nought. Seek Yahweh and live;
lest he break out like fire in the house of Jacob, and there
be none to quench it in Bethel. Seek good and not evil,
and so Yahweh, God of Israel, will be with you as you say.
Hate the evil and love the good, and establish justice in the
gate" (5:4/. and 14/.). The verses might be called a com
pendium of Amos's principles. The demand which he was
never weary of making is reiterated again in the same chap
ter: "Let justice flow on like a river, and righteousness like
a perennial stream" (5 : 24). The very fact that Israel stood
in special relations to Yahweh made it more imperative that
Israel should meet these demands: "You only have I known
of all the nations of the earth; therefore will I visit upon
you all your guilt" (3 : 2).
It will be evident that Amos was no theologian. He no
where speculates on the nature of Yahweh and his relation
to the world. Whether he conceded any reality to the
gods of the nations is not revealed by any utterance of his.
He is not even consistent with himself; for, although he con
cedes that Israel has been brought up from Egypt by Yahweh
("you only have I known" he makes Yahweh say), yet he
holds also that it is Yahweh who brought the Philistines from
Caphtor and the Arameans from Kir (9 : 7). If religious

140 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
thinkers in Babylon or in Egypt had developed a specula
tive monotheism Amos was guiltless of any knowledge of
their systems. His monotheism, if such it was, was a prac
tical monotheism. Enough for him that Yahweh, God of
Israel, was powerful enough to punish his people for their
sins, and that he would use the nations of the earth for
this purpose. His power extends beyond the boundaries
of Israel, and his ethical will is enforced upon other peoples.
The cruelty of the Syrians in war, the barbarity of the
Moabites who burned the bones of the King of Edom to lime,
are certain to be punished by the same Yahweh who stands
up to judge the oppressors in Israel. Yahweh, the God of
Israel, is, within these limits, the living and active guardian
of the moral order of the world. Commonplace as this seems
to us, it was something new and startling in Israel.
Hosea, the younger contemporary of Amos, is a contrast
to him in almost every respect. Amos is the stern moralist,
sitting in judgment on his people, pronouncing them guilty,
and almost rejoicing to see that justice is to be done. Hosea,
though obliged to assent to the correctness of the verdict,
yet suffers in sympathy with the condemned, and feels all
the pain and shame that are to fall upon them as if they
were his own. The point of departure for his preaching is
given by the idea we have already alluded to — the idea that
the prophet is in such close relations with Yahweh that his
actions as well as his words are revelations of the divine will.
Even the experiences which come to him without active ef
fort on his own part may give him intimations of the higher
will. Hosea had a wife who made shipwreck of their mar
ried life. Reflecting on this experience the prophet saw in
it something divinely ordained to teach him the heart of
Yahweh toward Israel. Yahweh is the husband, Israel the
wife, and the wife is unfaithful.
To Amos the unfaithfulness of Israel is the unfaithfulness
of a servant. Yahweh commands righteousness between
man and man; Israel, instead of obeying the command,
disobeys, and then seeks to make the dereliction good by

AMOS AND HOSEA 141
flattering the master with another kind of service, devoting
itself to the cultus, as though sacrifice and offering could be
a substitute for obedience. Hosea says the unfaithfulness
is the unfaithfulness of a wife. The ritual is not mere will-
worship — the substitution of something else in place of obe
dience. It is the choice of another object of affection —
the wife's preference of another to her rightful lord. This
other is Baal who has usurped the place of Yahweh. Hence
the wrath of Yahweh is jealousy, the most intense of the
passions. The defection is, indeed, judged from the ethical
standard, as truly as by Amos: "Yahweh has an indictment
against his people," says Hosea; "there is no fidelity and no
kindness, and no knowledge of Yahweh in the land; there
is nought but breaking faith and killing and stealing and
committing adultery" (4 : 1/.). As in Amos, prosperity has
led to luxury and excess. "When the fruits were abundant,
altars were multiplied; when the land was prospered the
people set up pillars at the sanctuaries" (10 : 1).
As in Amos also, the forefathers were acceptable, but they
had quickly turned away. " When Israel was a child I loved
him and called my son out of Egypt; but the more I called
the more they went from me; they sacrificed to the Baals
and burned incense to the images. Yet it was I who taught
Ephraim to walk, who took them by the arms" (11 : 1-3).
This choice of the Baals is the crowning sin. It is whore
dom, as the prophet does not hesitate to say. Israel herself
declares: "I will go after my lovers who give me my bread
and my wine, my wool and my flax, my oil and my drink"
(2 : 7). Hosea has the idea, which, as we have seen, is
historically justified that the popular religion is of Canaan
itish origin. The divinity worshipped at the local sanctu
aries, though called by the name of Yahweh, was, in fact,
the Baal of the early inhabitants. The oracles at the sacred
trees, the sacrifices, the prostitution of the devotees, were so
many evidences of Canaanitish religion. It is for this rea
son that Hosea denounces the priests so often. Where Amos
condemns the nobles, the great landed proprietors, because

142 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
of their oppression and injustice, Hosea breaks out against
the priests. To him the people are perishing for lack of the
knowledge which the priests ought to impart: "Since you
have rejected knowledge I will reject you, that you be no
longer priest to me; and since you put the tor a of your God
out of your mind I will put your children out of my mind.
The more powerful they [the priests] become the more they sin
against me; they exchange their glory for shame; they feed
on the sin of my people and delight in their guilt" (4 : 6/.).
To understand the accusation we must remember that the
word tora, often translated law, means the instruction of the
priest, given by means of the oracle. Cases of dispute, as
we saw in the time of Moses, were brought to the priests
for decision, and also cases where a trespass had been com
mitted in sacred things. The imputation is that the priests
manipulate the oracle for their personal profit, and that they
even encourage the people to sin in order that they may im
pose penalties upon them, exacting fines which accrue to the
sanctuary. The prophet has also in mind the lavish festi
vals by which the priests attract the people to the sanctu
aries, these festivals becoming scenes of debauchery. In one
passage he does not hesitate to accuse the priests of sins of
violence: "Their bands are like highway robbers, they mur
der on the road to Shechem" (6 : 9).
Amos nowhere objects to the images of Yahweh, though,
doubtless, he included them in his condemnation of the whole
worship. Hosea is more specific. The golden bulls at Bethel
and Dan had long enjoyed the prestige given by use and wont.
They had been the objects of worship for two hundred years.
If forbidden by early documents the prohibition had not
been taken seriously. Hosea makes his position clear by
saying that Yahweh has cast off the calf of Samaria, by
which he means the one at Bethel, the chief sacred object
in the northern kingdom (8 : 5). In another passage he
says that the inhabitants of Samaria shall be in terror for
the calf of Bethel, and that it shall be carried away as a
gift to the great king (10 : 5/.). It seems clear, therefore,

AMOS AND HOSEA 143
that the first effective opposition to the images of Yahweh
dates from Hosea.
Amos and Hosea agree in rejecting the popular religion,
and they agree further in stating their positive programme.
What Yahweh desires is not sacrifice, but kindness, love of
man for his fellow man (6:6). Yahweh is a God of justice,
and from the house of Jehu he will require the blood shed at
Jezreel (1 : 4). The declaration is the more remarkable in
that the blood shed at Jezreel was shed in obedience to the
prophetic champion of the rights of Yahweh. It does not
seem extravagant to conclude that the prophets have dis
covered the vanity of political remedies for moral evils.
The frequent changes of dynasty in this period instead of
bringing about a better state of things had rather aggravated
the corruption of the people, of which indeed it was the fruit
and evidence. It is sometimes said that Hosea rejected the
kingship and desired a return to the old tribal organisation;
but this is far from evident. He does, indeed, believe that
the existing rulers are not the men to save the people. "They
make kings but not of my will; they set up princes but not
of my knowledge" (8:4). What the prophet attempts to
set forth is the vanity of political devices. Whether a king
after God's own heart would be able to help he does not say.
The actually existing monarchy is of no avail: "Where is
now thy king that shall save thee? And thy rulers that they
may vindicate thee? Concerning whom thou saidst: 'Give
me a King and princes!' I gave thee a king in my wrath,
and I take him away in my fury" (13 : 10/.). Distrust of
political devices extends, as we should expect, to the current
diplomacy: "Ephraim is like a silly dove without under
standing; now they call to Egypt, now they go to Assyria"
(7 : 11). "When Ephraim saw his sickness and Israel his
wound, then went Ephraim to Assyria and sent to the great
king; but he is not able to cure you, neither will he heal
you of your wound" (5 : 13). The very nations to whom
they appeal will be the instruments of their destruction:
" They shall not dwell in Yahweh's land; Ephraim shall

144 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
return to Egypt and in Assyria shall he eat unclean food"
(9 : 3).
This recapitulation of the main points of Hosea's teaching
gives little idea of the passion which filled his soul. The
situation as he regarded it was indeed desperate, and he was
in a heat of indignation and grief. The invasion of the land
seems to him so imminent that he urges the blowing of the
alarm at once (5 : 8-10). The greatness of the love which
Yahweh has had for his people is the measure of the wrath,
now that his wooing has been rejected. Yet there is a strug
gle as his love still tries to assert itself: "How shall I give
thee up, Ephraim? How shall I cast thee off, Israel? How
shall I make thee as Admah? How shall I set thee as Zeboim?
My heart revolts within me, my compassion is kindled. Yet
shall I not execute the fierceness of my anger? Shall I not
destroy Ephraim? I am God and not man, the holy one in
the midst of thee, and I must come in wrath" (11 : 8/.).
The ordinary translation reverses the meaning of this pas
sage; the conflict in the heart of Yahweh results in the de
termination to go on with the work of punishment. The
allusion to his holiness, the quality which separates God from
man and which reacts against human sin, is the pledge that
he will execute justice however much his love may plead for
the offender. If we were in doubt the following passage
would check any illusion: "Therefore am I unto them like
a lion; as a leopard will I watch by the way; I will meet
them like a bear robbed of her whelps, and will rend the en
closure of their heart; there will I devour them like a lion,
like a wild beast tear them in pieces" (13 : 7/.). The cul
mination of this chapter, which is, in fact, the culmination of
Hosea's preaching, is in the same tone: "Shall I ransom
them from the power of Sheol? shall I redeem them from
death? Rather, bring on thy plagues, O Death! Hither
with thy torments, O Sheol! Repentance shall be hid from
my eyes" (13 : 14).
Such passages seem to leave no room for hope, and in view
of them we cannot suppose those sections of the book of

AMOS AND HOSEA 145
Hosea which predict a restoration to be genuine utterances
of'the prophet.1 An utterance which seems at first blush to
express the repentance of the people is introduced only to
show their incurable levity: "In their affliction they will
seek me and say: 'Come let us return unto Yahweh, for he
has torn and he will heal; he has smitten and he will bind us
up '" (6 : 1) . The answer of Yahweh is : " What shall I do to
thee, Ephraim? What shall I do to thee, Israel? Your piety
is like the morning mist, like the dew which soon melts away.
Therefore have I smitten them by the prophets, have slain
them by the words of my mouth" (6:4). The immediate
context gives a renewed declaration of the people's wicked
ness, and makes it clear that the prophet had no confidence
in any professions of repentance. Whether an individual
here and there was impressed by the preaching of the prophet
does not appear. These preachers, as we have seen, were
thinking of the nation as a whole.
Our study should make clear to us the contribution made
by Hosea to religious thinking. To him Yahweh is not sim
ply the God who requires justice between man and man; he
is the God who seeks the love of his people, a love that will
manifest itself in the doing of his will. It was because the
love was rejected that he was compelled to punish, though
his own heart was torn by the necessity. What will become
of him when his people is destroyed is a question not raised
by the prophet. Doubtless the faith which was so deeply
convinced of his love, his power, and his justice was content
to leave the future with him. It does not even appear that
Hosea was a monotheist in our sense of the word; the bitter
ness with which he declaims against the Baals indicates that
he had some sort of belief in their real existence, and his decla
ration that other lands than Yahweh's are unclean shows
that in his view other divinities had power there. Yet the
vividness with which Hosea conceived the relation of Yahweh
to Israel as a marriage prepared the way for monotheism,
1 The concluding exhortation of the book (14 : 2-10) must be judged
like the conclusion of Amos.

146 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
for it impressed upon the people the thought that Yahweh
tolerates no rival in the affections of his people. Both
Jewish and Christian thinkers have given prominent expres
sion to this conception of Hosea.

CHAPTER VIII
ISAIAH
With the fall of Samaria in 721 northern Israel ceased to
play a part in history, and the mission of the Hebrew race
was intrusted to Judah. With reference to religion we may
say that the centre of interest had shifted to Judah before
the fall of Samaria, for Isaiah, one of the most influential of
the prophets, began his career about 740. Before studying
him we may briefly notice his contemporary, Micah, frag
ments of whose discourses are embedded in the book which
bears his name. We might suppose Micah to be the man
who transplanted the prophetic movement from Israel to
Judah, for he seems to have been a disciple of Amos. Like
Amos, he was a simple-hearted countryman who was revolted
by the corruptions of city life. His conception of his office
is like that of the older prophet — he regards himself as a
plain-spoken warner, "full of might by the spirit of Yahweh,
to declare unto Jacob his transgression and to Israel his sin"
(Micah 3:8). As the transgression of Israel was concen
trated at Samaria, so the sin of Judah was concentrated at
Jerusalem (1 : 5). The phenomenon is too familiar to need
comment; in the great cities vice makes itself more odiously
visible than in the smaller towns and villages. In the cities
the rich and the devotees of pleasure congregate, and there
they find those who minister to their profligacy. This is
what impressed the preacher who was accustomed to the
simple life of the country.
The details given by Micah are much like what we read
in Amos. The nobles are covetous and oppressive; they
devise iniquity on their beds and when the morning comes
147

148 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
they put their plans into effect; they covet fields and seize
them, houses and take them; so they oppress a man and
his house, a man and his inheritance (2 : 1 /.). They do
not hesitate to evict the women of their people from their
homes, and they sell the children into slavery because of
debt (2 : 9). They plunder travellers on the highway, and
when they are rebuked by the prophet they bid him hold
his peace. Yet they are the ones who ought to know better:
" Is it not for you, chiefs of Jacob, is it not for you to
know justice? Yet they hate the good and love the evil,
tear the skin from men's bodies and the flesh from their
bones" (3 : 1 /.). While they silence the true prophets, they
encourage the false who drivel of wine and strong drink
(2 : 11). Prophets, seers, and soothsayers, all are in the same
condemnation, and the same shame will overtake them all.
Their venality is too evident: "If one does not give them to
eat, against him they declare war" (3 : 5). Deceiving the
people and pandering to their vices, they lead them on to
their destruction. Because of this false teaching Zion is
built up in blood, and Jerusalem in iniquity. Yet the evil
doers are confident that Yahweh is in the midst of them
and that no evil will come upon them (3 : 11). The sequel
is plainly evident to the prophet, and is announced in words
that were remembered long after his time: "Therefore Zion
shall be ploughed as a field for your sake, and Jerusalem
shall be ruins, and the temple mount overgrown with bushes"
(3 : 12; cf. the reference in Jer. 26 : 18). The close parallel
with Amos must be evident — justice will be done though the
heavens fall.
In Isaiah we find a man of more genial temper and a larger
outlook. His general position, however, is the same taken
by his predecessors, and we have no difficulty in supposing
that he was acquainted with the words of Amos and Hosea.
With Hosea he shared the belief that the life of the prophet
is shaped by his calling. He says that he and the children
God has given him are signs and portents in Israel. He
named one of his sons Shear-jashub, and another Maher-

ISAIAH 149
shalal-hash-baz in order to emphasise his message. At one
time he went naked and barefoot for three years, so as to
impress upon his people the impending fate of Egypt (20 :
1-6). Perhaps if we had the full record of his life we should
have more instances of such symbolic actions, but these
are enough to show his conception of the prophet's office
and work, or rather of the complete identification of the
prophet's person and his work. Yet there is little of the
enthusiastic visionary in Isaiah, and the impression made by
his words is that of a wise and sane counsellor, preaching
righteousness to the people, and even confronting the mon
arch in the, calm consciousness of a man who is sure that he
has the right on his side.
The vision by which Isaiah was determined to undertake
the work of a prophet (related in chapter 6) is one of the
most impressive in the Old Testament, and it reveals as
clearly as any part of the book what was the guiding prin
ciple of his life. He saw Yahweh, he says, sitting on a lofty
throne in the temple. We can hardly doubt that in the
mind of Isaiah the Jerusalem temple was the dwelling-place
of Israel's God. Amos and Hosea seem not to have given
the same importance to any of the sanctuaries of the
northern kingdom. In one instance, indeed, Amos sees
Yahweh standing in or over the temple at Bethel, but this
is only in order to throw the building down and thus des
troy the worshippers. To these earlier prophets Bethel was
no more than Gilgal or any of the others — Yahweh was not
in them. But to Isaiah the temple of Jerusalem did not
stand on the same level with the other sanctuaries of the
land; Yahweh had his dwelling there as he had not in other
places of worship. This attitude toward the temple became
influential in the later development of religious belief.
In this temple Yahweh had his throne, where he was
visible to the spiritual eye and in human form, though
of supernal brightness. He was attended by the seraphim,
mythological figures which are nowhere else mentioned in
the Old Testament. Possibly they were originally the per-

150 THE RELIGION OP ISRAEL
sonification of the lightnings. Elsewhere we read of the
cherubim as attendants of the throne, or the host of heaven
takes this office (I Kings 22 : 19). If once serpentine in
form (the word saraph is used to denote the fiery serpents
which infest the desert), they have now become partly hu
manised, possessing hands and feet, though also furnished
with wings. Their office is to proclaim the uniqueness of
Yahweh, his apartness from earthly things. This sanctity
is proclaimed as a warning, such as Moses received at the
bush. To approach the divinity without undergoing some
cleansing process is dangerous. Isaiah realises this, for he
feels that he is undone: "I am a man of unclean lips and I
dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips," is his cry.
The conception of holiness seems on the way from the
physical to the ethical, for the uncleanness of the lips must
refer to sinful utterance. A coal from the altar removes
the defilement, for fire, especially sacred fire, is one of the
most potent means of purification. In connection with the
proclamation of Yahweh's sanctity the seraphim affirm that
the whole earth is full of his glory. As the sun shines from
one part of heaven to the other, so Yahweh enlightens his
whole creation. This universalism is beyond anything we
have yet found in Israel.
Isaiah's readiness to volunteer in response to the divine
call for a messenger probably indicates that he had been
meditating on the need of the hour, and had debated the
question whether he was not the man to carry the warn
ing to his people. The form of the command is, however,
strange: "Go and tell this people: 'Hear on, but under
stand not; gaze on, but perceive not!' Make the mind of
this people stupid and make their ears dull, besmear their
eyes too, lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their
ears and understand with their heart, and their health be re
stored" (6 : 9/.). To us the strangeness is in the concep
tion that the message is sent not to heal but to aggravate
the disease, not to convert but to harden the hearers. Yet
such a conception is not foreign to the Old Testament

ISAIAH 151
writers. Since whatever comes to pass is the work of Yah
weh, the obstinacy with which the message of the preacher
is so often confronted, and which seems to result from the
preaching, must be the result intended by the divinity.
The Pentateuchal writer had no difficulty with the thought
that Yahweh hardened the heart of Pharaoh. Isaiah him
self speaks of Yahweh as a stone of stumbling, a trap, and
a snare to both houses of Israel (8 : 14). Isaiah, in other
words, dealt with the hard facts of life, and in his observa
tion Yahweh did often seem to inflict what we call judicial
blindness by the means which would seem calculated to in
duce repentance. In another passage the prophet tells the
people: "Yahweh has poured on you the spirit of deep sleep,
and has closed your eyes and covered your heads" (29 : 10).
Holding this fixed idea of the divine power, these earlier
prophets conceived that their work was to proclaim the will
of Yahweh as a protest rather than as a means of grace.
This we have found to be the case with Amos, with Hosea,
and with Micah. At a later time Jeremiah declared that
the earlier prophets had spoken of war and of pestilence
and of calamity, and he intimated that any message of dif
ferent tenor had the presumption against it. It is quite
conceivable therefore that Isaiah saw from the beginning
the uselessness of any attempt to bring his people into a
better frame of mind. As the text now stands, it shows
quite clearly that he regarded himself as the predictor of
evil. He asks how long his commission is to run, and re
ceives for answer: "Until the cities be waste without in
habitant, and houses be without men, and the land becomes
utterly waste, and Yahweh removes men far away, and the
forsaken places be many in the midst of the land; even if
there be a tenth in it, it in turn shall be consumed as a
terebinth and an oak whose stump alone remains when they
have been felled" (6 ill/.).1 And this sombre passage
1 Later editors, who were familiar with the thought that a remnant
would be preserved, added to the text the clause: "The holy seed is
the stump." But it must be evident that this contradicts the main
idea of the passage.

152 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
does not stand alone, for at the end of the parable of the
vineyard Isaiah says: "Therefore the wrath of Yahweh
burns against his people, and he stretches his hand against
it, and he smites it till the mountains shake, and the corpses
lie like mud on the streets; yet his wrath is not turned away,
and his hand is still stretched out" (5 : 25). And this last
sentence recurs again and again as though to impress the
thought that repeated chastisements had had no effect (cf.
9 : 11, 16, 20, and 10 : 4).
Early in his career, then, the prophet, like Amos and
Hosea, saw only the threatened destruction of the people of
Yahweh by Yahweh himself. This is not to say that he
held to this expectation through life. The young man
sometimes applies his theories with more rigid consistency
than the man who has had larger observation of life and char
acter. The indignation of the revolutionist burns hottest in
youth. Isaiah's early message is accounted for by his lofty
view of the character of Yahweh. His favourite name for
Yahweh is: "The Holy One of Israel." And with him
holiness is no longer a physical attribute. Proof is found
not only in the scene described above but in the express
declaration that Yahweh of Hosts is exalted by justice and
the Holy God shows himself holy by righteousness.1 One
who has this high idea of God's ethical perfection may judge
a sinful world severely and expect it to be destroyed. It is
probable, however, that in Isaiah's case the early severity
was moderated in later years. Especially when the invest
ment of Jerusalem by the Assyrians threatened to destroy
the temple, Yahweh's own dwelling, he reflected on the blow
that would thereby be struck at religion, and his faith af
firmed that the sacred building would not be delivered over
to the enemy.
The chief utterances of the prophet, however, echo the
old refrain of the sins of Israel. Calling heaven and earth
to witness, Yahweh protests: "Sons have I nourished and
1 The authenticity of the verse is questioned by some scholars, but
I think without sufficient reason (5 : 16).

ISAIAH 153
brought up, but they have rebelled against me. The ox
knows his owner and the ass his master's crib; Israel does not
know, my people does not consider" (1 : 2/.). And the bill
of particulars follows. First of all, Yahweh does not re
quire sacrifice: "What is the multitude of your sacrifices to
me, says Yahweh; I have had enough of the burnt-offerings
of rams, and the fat of fed beasts, and I delight not in the
blood of bullocks or of lambs or of he-goats" (1 : 11/.).
The true demand of Yahweh is for righteousness between
man and man: "Wash you, make you clean, put away the
evil of your doings from before my eyes; cease to do evil,
learn to do well; seek justice, relieve the oppressed, judge
the fatherless, take up the cause of the widow" (1 : 16/.).
We are already familiar with such expressions of the pro
phetic conscience, roused by the spectacle of man's tyranny
and hard-heartedness. Like Amos, Isaiah denounces the
rulers as most to blame: "Yahweh stands up to judge the
people; Yahweh will enter into judgment with the elders of
his people, and with the rulers thereof: It is you who have
eaten up the vineyard; the spoil of the poor is in your houses;
what mean you that you crush my people and grind the
faces of the poor? says Yahweh, Lord of Hosts" (3 : 13-15).
The women of the upper classes come in for a sharp rebuke
(3 : 16-26), and the priests and prophets receive castigation.
These are pictured as they sit at revelry, apparently in the
temple itself, and make merry over the preacher who pre
sumes to give them lessons (28 : 9-11). Their example is
infectious, for the common people also "say to the seers:
See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right
things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceit, turn
from the way, go aside from the path, trouble us no more
with Israel's Holy One" (30 : 10/.).
We have already noticed that the originality of Hosea
consisted in his application of the relation of husband and
wife to the relation between Yahweh and Israel. Isaiah
takes up this figure when he says : " How is the faithful city
become a harlot!" (1 : 21.) Apparently, however, he is not

154 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
thinking of Baal worship, but rather, with Amos, of the ritual
as so much will-worship, amusement for the people, but not
acceptable to Yahweh. Isaiah has little to say of defection
to other gods, but much of the false religiosity of the people;
their religion is mere externality; they draw near to God
with their lips while their hearts are far away; their fear of
him (that is, their religion) is a commandment of men
which has been taught them (29 : 13).
We cannot claim great originality for Isaiah, therefore.
His ideas are those common to the prophetic school. But
he puts these ideas into powerful expression. A fine ex
ample is the parable of the vineyard. We may suppose that
the people had gathered at the temple for the autumn festi
val, satisfied that all was well between them and their God.
The prophet appears as one of the revellers, singing them a
song composed in the light, tripping measure appropriate to
the vintage season. After thus attracting their attention
he breaks out with an objurgation made terrific by its word
play: "The vineyard of Yahweh of Hosts is the house of
Israel, and the men of Judah are his cherished plantation;
and he looked for justice, but behold bloodshed; for right
eousness, but behold an outcry" (5 : 7). What sort of fruit
the vineyard has been yielding is then set forth in a series
of woes. These single out first of all the great landed pro
prietors, who get their estates by crowding out their poorer
neighbours; then come the drunken revellers, who rise up
early that they may follow strong drink, who tarry late into
the night that wine may inflame them. Next in the list are
the scoffers, who wish the day of Yahweh to come, and with
them the perverse reasoners who call good evil and evil
good, making the worse appear the better reason. These
are apparently the politicians who defend deception as the
true method of diplomacy, and regard underhanded mea
sures as necessary to the well-being of the state. The unjust
judges, who justify the wicked for a bribe, and deprive the
righteous of his standing in court, close the list, unless we
join with them the scribes who write out unjust and op-

ISAIAH 155
pressive decrees.1 In the original form of this discourse it
is probable that each woe had its appropriate punishment.
Some of these have now disappeared from the text, but it is
evident that they included dearth, banishment, pestilence,
and a visitation which is left undefined but which is com
pared to a sweeping storm that ruins everything in its path.
The part which the prophets took in political movements
is well illustrated by the life of Isaiah. He shows also that
the political interest was primarily religious. The first occa
sion when he took part in public affairs was the invasion of
Judah by the combined forces of Israel and Damascus, in 735.
The intention was to compel Judah to join in a common
movement of resistance to the Assyrians. The sentiment of
the people of Judah seems rather to have favoured the in
vaders, if we may judge by the perturbation of Ahaz. The
king saw an obvious resource in calling the Assyrians to his
assistance. He was meditating this step when Isaiah inter
vened and attempted to dissuade him. The prophet saw
that the proposed arrangement with Assyria would bring
Judah into a subjection which would prove burdensome and
in the long run disastrous. But the spring of his opposi
tion was not any view of expediency; he believed that Judah
should trust to Yahweh and refuse the arm of flesh. To mix
in the affairs of the nations would be to give up Judah's
prerogative as the people of Yahweh. The promise of the
child called Immanuel was intended simply to give assur
ance that in the immediate future the two threatening pow
ers would become incapable of harm, and that God's inter
vention would be manifest in Judah. Politically this meant
that it was unnecessary to call upon Assyria, because that
nation was bound to act for its own sake, and any submission
on the part of Judah would be a gratuitous assumption of
the foreign yoke. Politically sound as the advice was, it
was evidently motived by trust in Yahweh.2
1 The full number of seven woes would be made out by joining
10 : 1-3, to those in chapter 5.
2 The boy Maher-shalal-hash-baz teaches the same lesson with Im
manuel. Before he should be able to say father or mother the riches

156 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
The expectation of the prophet that Damascus and
Ephraim would be reduced to impotence by the Assyrians
was amply realised. It seems, however, that he expected an
invasion of Judah at the same time. A vigorous passage
describing the march of the invading army has been pre
served to us, and may belong in this period. Whenever it
was pronounced, it was not literally fulfilled. As to the fate
of the northern kingdom, however, Isaiah made no mistake.
Their stoutness of heart did not deceive him. Not long
before the fall of Samaria the prophet pronounced the spir
ited denunciation of the drunkards of Ephraim which he
used later as a text for his discourse against the leading men in
Jerusalem (chapter 28). He agrees with Amos in describing
the luxury and carelessness of the people in Samaria, on
whose horizon the storm-cloud of disaster already lowered.
This chapter as it now stands introduces us to the third
crisis which occurred in the life of the prophet. This is the
invasion of the country by Sennacherib. There was at this
time a joint movement among the Palestinian powers to
throw off the Assyrian yoke. It was encouraged by Egypt,
and apparently Babylon had promised to revolt at the same
time. Isaiah had protested against submission to Assyria
in the time of Ahaz, but he believed that Judah, having once
accepted the relation of vassal, should be faithful to its obli
gations. To revolt would be dishonest and would bring
down the wrath of Yahweh. His deep-rooted scepticism
concerning political measures made him protest against the
Egyptian alliance, and it was probably reinforced by a
sound common sense which took an accurate measure of
Egyptian pretensions. It was, perhaps, when the Egyptian
alliance had been consummated that the joy of Jerusalem
broke out in immoderate feasting: "What ails thee that all
thy people have gone up to the housetops, thou who art full
of uproar, tumultuous city, joyous town? . . . The Lord
Yahweh of Hosts calls to weeping and to mourning, and to
of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria would be carried away by the
king of Assyria (8 : 1-4).

ISAIAH 157
baldness, and to girding of sackcloth; but behold, joy and
gladness, the killing of oxen and the slaughtering of sheep,
the eating of flesh and the drinking of wine!" (22 : 1, 12/.)
What the people hailed as a day of deliverance appeared
to the prophet as a day of perplexity and discomfiture.
It is unnecessary to quote the passages in which the
prophet pours scorn on the men who take the toilsome jour
ney through the desert to seek the help of Egypt and to flee
to the shelter of Pharaoh (30 : 1-6), or the powerful discourse
in which he describes the alliance as a covenant with death
and a compact with Sheol (28 : 15). Then, as now, the
diplomatists thought finesse all-powerful; the prophet had a
higher ideal. This ideal, to be sure, found negative expres
sion for the most part, and we must be prepared to meet
the demand that a fruitful and positive programme should
be formulated. Had Isaiah any positive measures to recom
mend, or was he simply a critic of the existing order? To
this we find one answer: He would have the people trust
in Yahweh. Trust in Egypt is contrasted with trust in
Yahweh (31 : 1-3). The classic verse in which he formu
lates his principle, and which might be prefixed as motto
to his book, is: "By repenting and remaining quiet you
would have been delivered; in quietness and pious trust
you would have found your strength" (30 : 15). In the
crisis of the Ephraimitic invasion he himself illustrated the
true state of mind and enunciated it : " If you do not believe
you will not be upheld" (7 : 9), or to attempt to reproduce
the play on words: "If you do not hold fast you shall not
be held fast." In the more acute crisis of Sennacherib's
invasion he uttered the well-known words: "Behold I lay
in Zion a stone, a tried stone, a precious foundation stone:
he who believes shall not waver. And I will make justice
the measuring line, and righteousness the plumb-weight"
(28 : 17). The positive principle thus formulated is: "Do
right and let God take care of the results."
Isaiah was at one with Amos in believing that Yahweh
was able to make use of the nations as instruments of his
f

158 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
wrath. He, in fact, describes the Assyrian as the rod in
his hand (10 : 5— ll).1 But the whole impression made by
Isaiah is that of a more lofty conception of God than that
expressed by any of his predecessors. We meet in Amos the
conception of a day of Yahweh, and the intimation is that
the people at large had a traditional expectation of such a
day. To them it was a day in which Yahweh would tri
umph over all the enemies of Israel ; to Amos it was a day
in which he would punish the evil-doers in Israel itself. This
is the view of Isaiah also, but he brings it to finer expression:
"Yahweh has a day for all that is proud and lofty, for all that
is exalted and lifted up; for cedars of Lebanon and oaks of
Bashan, for mountains and hills, for every high tower and
every fenced wall, for all ships of Tarshish and all stately
vessels. The haughtiness of man shall be bowed down, and
the loftiness of mankind shall be brought low, and Yahweh
alone will be exalted in that day. Men shall go into the
caverns of the rocks and into the holes of the ground at the
terror of Yahweh, at the splendor of his majesty when he
arises to strike awe throughout the earth" (2 : 12-19). The
sanctity of Yahweh is here defined for us; it is his absolute
supremacy above everything earthly. That to Isaiah it is
ethical as well as physical we have already seen.
Some corollaries of Isaiah's belief were perhaps needful
for him and his contemporaries, though their survival in
the popular mind wrought mischief in a later generation.
One of these was the impregnability of Jerusalem. The
prophet's inaugural vision has shown us that to his view
Yahweh dwelt in the temple. And in another passage he
says: "Yahweh has founded Zion and in her the afflicted
of his people take refuge" (14 : 32). If this be so, the con
clusion cannot be remote that the sacred place will not be
given up to a heathen people. This thought was fully
brought home to the prophet at the great crisis of Sennach-
1 Unfortunately, the chapter has been worked over by a later hand,
but there is no sufficient reason for denying the substance of it to
Isaiah.

ISAIAH 159
erib's invasion. What seems clear is that though Isaiah
had been predicting disaster when the people were most con
fident of success, yet when the situation changed for the
worse his faith rose to the assurance that the worst would
not be inflicted; Yahweh would not give his sanctuary over
to the enemy. The event justified the prophet. And al
though, as we have seen, the message which he felt called to
deliver was one of denunciation, yet time may have modi
fied the sternness of his early judgment. We cannot argue,
indeed, from the name of his oldest son, Shear-jashub (A-
remnant-shall-return) for it may have meant that only a
remnant would survive the Ephraimitic war. But when we
read, "I will turn my hand against thee and smelt out all
thy dross; I will remove all thine alloy; I will bring back
thy judges as at the first, and thy counsellors as at the be
ginning; thereafter thou shalt be called Citadel of Right
eousness, Faithful City" (1 : 25-27), we see how distinct in
at least one period was the idea of purification and restora
tion. Exactly how the prophet conceived the state of the com
monwealth after the purifying process should have taken
effect is not clear. The only clew we have is the reference
to the band of disciples whom the prophet had gathered
about him and to whom he committed a record of his spoken
discourses (8 : 16). This party, we may suppose, took an
active interest in what went on in the political world as well
as in the sphere of religion. The line was not drawn, in
fact, between the secular and the religious. This little group
was probably considerably strengthened after the verifica
tion of Isaiah's prediction in the time of Sennacherib. Pos
sibly they were the active instigators of Hezekiah's reforms
of the cultus of which the book of Kings makes mention.
But they were not only a political party, they were also a
church, a religious communion finding edification in the
words of their great leader and cherishing the record of
these words when he himself was no longer with them.
Among the reforms attributed to Hezekiah there is one

160 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
which seems historically attested. This is the destruction of
the brazen serpent which was an object of worship in the tem
ple from the earliest times. The legend which attributes this
idol to Moses shows not only its venerable antiquity but
possibly also that it was regarded as an image of Yahweh.
Isaiah's reaction against images was first roused, we may sup
pose, by the foreign gods brought to Jerusalem by Ahaz when
the Assyrian alliance was formed. Opposition to the alliance
with Egypt would intensify the feeling. In describing the
state of Judah he affirms that the land was full not only of
soothsayers like the Philistines, but also of silver and golden
images (2 : 8, 18). The impotence of these alleged divini
ties was clear to him, for he predicts that they will be cast
to the moles and the bats. It is he, perhaps, who first stig
matised the idols as nothings (elilim). He declared further
that the people would be ashamed of the oaks which they
had loved and the gardens in which they had delighted
(1 : 29). The impotence of the idols must have been made
evident in connection with the fall of the northern king
dom, when the golden bulls fell into the hand of the As
syrians, and also at the invasion of Sennacherib when the
country sanctuaries were plundered by the invader. All
this tended to increase the prestige of the temple and to
strengthen the hands of those who desired an imageless wor
ship. Reviewing what can be known of the life of Isaiah, it
does not seem hard to account for the influence which he
exerted — first on his own generation, more distinctly on those
that followed. He alone among the prophets of Judah
seems to have correctly forecast the failure of Pekah and
Rezon, then the fall of Samaria, next the futility of the
Egyptian alliance, and, finally, the preservation of Jerusalem
from sack and siege. But this influence could hardly have
been his unless he had been a thoroughly religious man. In
fact, all his utterances impress us as those of a man thor
oughly honest, thoroughly courageous, and thoroughly de
voted to the God of Israel. The fact that the majority was

ISAIAH 161
against him made no difference in the persistency with which
he uttered the truth as he saw it. He tells us that Yahweh
warned him not to be moved by popular clamour even when
it based itself on religious beliefs: "Call not that sacred
which this people call sacred; neither fear what they fear
nor be terrified at it! Call Yahweh of Hosts sacred and let
him alone be your fear and your object of reverence." x What
made Isaiah a religious leader was the firmness with which
he held on to this trust in Yahweh alone. The scoffing of
priests and prophets was finally put to shame by his fidelity.
On account of the overlaying of Isaiah's words with later
material it is difficult to say whether his hope in the rem
nant ever assumed what we may call Messianic form. Sev
eral chapters contained in his book give very definite ex
pression to this hope, but the most of these are now conceded
to be of later date. They are insertions of an exilic writer
who could not bear to leave the uncompromising threats of
the prophet unmodified by more hopeful expressions. The
phenomenon is the same that we have met in the editing of
Amos and Hosea. It is possible that the thought of a rem
nant involved the continuance of the Davidic dynasty and
the reign of an ideal king. The coming judgment would
purify the people (1 : 25), and the city would remain as a
citadel of righteousness for all time, perhaps with a right
eous ruler at its head. But we cannot get beyond the "per
haps" with reference to all this. It is not accidental, appar
ently, that Isaiah promises that the judges shall be restored
as at the first and makes no mention of the king. On the
basis of such silence we should conclude that the monarch,
even of David's line, played no part in whatever picture the
prophet made of the commonwealth of the future. A rudi
mentary expectation is all that we can with confidence at
tribute to him.
1 The received text of the passage (8 : 12) is unintelligible and the
emendation obvious.

CHAPTER IX
JEREMIAH
Since religion is a personal experience, the progress of
Israel's religion is reflected in a series of personalities whose
words have been preserved for us. The biographical form
of our study is therefore inevitable. As we have taken up
in succession Amos, Hosea, Micah, and Isaiah, so now we
must endeavour to understand Jeremiah, in some respects the
most interesting of all. There might indeed be a question
whether he should be studied before we consider Deuteronomy.
The most important event of the seventh century B. C. was
the reform of Josiah, based on the book found in the temple,
and this book was found early in the active life of Jeremiah.
Chronologically, it would seem that Deuteronomy should be
studied before Jeremiah. But against this is the considera
tion that Jeremiah belongs in the succession of which Amos
was the first member, and that in a sense he completed that
line. Deuteronomy introduced a new element into the relig
ion of Israel, an element with which Jeremiah had little or
no sympathy. It is best therefore to let him complete the
series of prophets of the old school, reserving Deuteronomy
to open a new division of the subject.
Whatever reforms were introduced into the worship at
Jerusalem by Hezekiah were largely undone in the reign
of Manasseh. This king, we are told, "built again the
high places which his father had destroyed, reared again
altars for Baal, made an Ashera as had Ahab, king of Israel,
and worshipped all the host of heaven and served them.
He built altars for all the host of heaven in the two courts of
the temple, and made his son pass through the fire, and
162

JEREMIAH 163
practised augury and used enchantments, and dealt with
them that had familiar spirits and with wizards. . . . More
over he shed innocent blood very much till he had filled
Jerusalem from one end to another" (II Kings 21 : 3-6).
It was the traditional religion revenging itself on innovators,
coupled probably with Assyrian influence, which prompted
this violent reaction. Jeremiah confirms what is said about
the shedding of innocent blood, and we must suppose that
the prophetic party, the one founded by Isaiah, was the ob
ject of active persecution. Religion was an affair of the
state, and opposition to the king's religious measures would
be punished as treason. The persecution seems to have been
active enough to repress the public appearance of prophets
of the reforming school, and this accounts for the fact that
none of the fragments which have come down to us can be
dated in the reign of Manasseh.
Clear light falls upon the history of Judah only with the
call of Jeremiah. The occasion of this call seems to have
been an irruption of northern barbarians into the cultivated
country, such a migration as afterward overran and terri
fied the Roman world. The invading army at this time con
sisted of the people known as Scythians. From sources ex
ternal to Israel we learn that this people wrought wide-spread
desolation in the Assyrian empire, and that indirectly they
were the cause of that empire's fall. To Jeremiah and his
fellow prophets they appeared to be the instruments of
Yahweh's wrath, as did the Assyrian armies to Amos and
Isaiah. The activity of the prophets at such crises has been
likened to the appearance of birds of ill omen in advance of
the storm. One of them, Zephaniah, was a contemporary of
Jeremiah. His book repeats the threats with which his pred
ecessors have made us familiar: Yahweh is about to des
troy the nations, Judah being one of the first to feel his
vengeance. The name of Baal is to be blotted out from the
idolatrous city. Those who worship the host of heaven on
the housetops are singled out for punishment, along with
those who swear by Moloch, those who leap over the thresh-

164 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
old of the sanctuary,1 and those who wear garments of for
eign fashion (Zeph. 1 : 4-9). We may suppose these to be
devotees of outlandish deities who made their religion known
by their dress. The sceptics, the men who are settled on
their lees, and who say that Yahweh will not do anything
either good or evil, come in for their share of denunciation
(1 : 12). The approaching calamity is identified with the
great day of which the earlier prophets had spoken, a day
of wrath and trouble and distress, of waste and desolation,
of clouds and thick darkness. It will execute judgment on
Jerusalem, but it will also bring vengeance on Assyria. In
this we find little variation from what we have already read
in Isaiah.
Jeremiah, the main subject of this chapter, shows himself
as a man of very different disposition from Isaiah. He was
naturally timid and received his mission with fear and
trembling. Moreover, in his day things were distinctly
going from bad to worse; the times were out of joint, and he
saw his impotence to set them right. Deeply attached to his
country, he suffered as every patriot must suffer when woes
come upon his fatherland. Compelled to announce the com
ing calamity, he was misunderstood, taken to be a traitor,
arrested, humiliated, and plotted against. His mission for
bade him to marry and enjoy the comforts of home, so that
he presented in his own person the fate of his people, whose
God had left them to themselves. Yet it would be wrong
to think of him as essentially weak. Much as he shrank
from the work laid upon him and from the suffering it en
tailed, yet he was steadfast to the end. His confidence in
his God made him like a wall of iron or a pillar of bronze,
able to withstand the shocks and storms of time.
Like the other prophets, Jeremiah was conscious of a dis
tinct crisis in his life when his mission was made clear to him.
In a vision he saw Yahweh in human form, who told him that
1 Leaping over the threshold is a custom found in various religions,
and distinctly attributed to the Philistines by the Old Testament
itself (I Sam. 5 : 5).

JEREMIAH 165
he had been set apart (consecrated) to his work even before
birth. The nature of the work was indicated by the divinity's
touching his mouth as though putting his words into it.
Henceforth Jeremiah regarded himself as dedicated to the
work of heralding God's will. His personal experiences and
actions revealed that will. The girdle which he hid in a rock
and which was spoiled by the damp and the dirt showed
him the corruption of Judah; the yoke that he made and
wore typified the coming subjection of his country to the
king of Babylon; the potter's vessel which he dashed to
pieces was an object-lesson for those who doubted the
complete rejection of Jerusalem. In all this he was in line
with the earlier prophets, to whom also life was dominated
by their mission.1
We have already found occasion to suppose that renewed
prophetic activity came with the Scythian inroads. It is
probably not a mere coincidence that Jeremiah's preaching
began at the time when this fierce people appeared on the
horizon of Palestine. He saw in them the destined instru
ments of Yahweh's vengeance — not upon Assyria, but upon
Judah. The approach of this dreaded foe spelled ruin for
his people, and Jeremiah's description is one of the most
vivid that we have in the Old Testament: "Declare in
Judah, and publish in Jerusalem, and say : ' Blow the trumpet
in the land, cry aloud; assemble yourselves and go up to the
fortified cities; set up a standard toward Zion; flee for safety,
stay not! For I will bring evil from the north and a great
destruction. A lion is gone up from his thicket, and a de
stroyer of nations; he is on his way to make thy land deso
late, that thy cities be laid waste without inhabitant.' For
this gird you with sackcloth, lament and wail; for the fierce
anger of Yahweh is not turned from us. It shall come to
pass in that day, says Yahweh, that the heart of the king
shall perish, and the heart of the princes, and the priests
shall be astonished and the prophets shall wonder" (4 : 5-9).
The whole chapter should be read, not only to get a picture
1 Cf. chapters 13, 19, and 27.

166 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
of the invader, but to realise the intense sympathy which the
prophet felt for his people. This sympathy leads him to
cry out: "Ah, Lord Yahweh, thou hast surely deceived this
people, saying: 'You shall have peace,' whereas the sword
has reached the seat of life." He alludes, no doubt, to the
word of some opposition prophet which assured the people
that all was well. The genuineness of Jeremiah's grief is
attested again a little later. It seems as if the vision of
desolation haunts him continually: "My pain! My pain!
I suffer at my very heart. I cannot hold my peace, for I
hear the sound of the trumpet, the shout of war. Destruc
tion on destruction is cried out, the whole land is laid waste"
(4 : 19/.). And again in another passage: "For the hurt
of the daughter of my people am I hurt; I mourn, dismay has
taken hold of me. Is there no balm in Gilead, and no
physician there? Why then is not the hurt of the daughter
of my people recovered? Oh that my head were waters, and
my eyes fountains of tears, that I might weep day and night
for the daughter of my people! Oh that I had in the wilder
ness a lodging for wayfaring men, that I might leave my
people and go from them, for they are all adulterers, a band
of treacherous men" (8:21 and 9:2). The phrase "daughter
of my people," it is scarcely necessary to say, is the poetical
or rhetorical personification of the people itself. The Old
Testament writers like to think of the people of a land as the
daughter of the land. The comely and delicately nurtured
daughter of Zion (6:2), for example, means the people of
Jerusalem. We can hardly wonder that Jeremiah's pessimistic mes
sage made him enemies, but we can understand that the soli
tary man found a peculiar bitterness in his lot in that those
most nearly attached to him by ties of blood were alienated
by his preaching, and went so far as to plot against his life.
In the East, one's kinsmen ought to stand by him even
if the community persecutes him. The sensitive Jeremiah,
deprived of sympathy where he had the most right to look
for it, broke out into imprecations on his own birth, prayed

JEREMIAH 167
for vengeance on his enemies, and even reproached his God
for bringing him into this unbearable situation. His faith
indeed triumphed over these moments of weakness, and he
took up his burden again, strengthened by the assurance
that he would be sustained if he should persist, but with no
definite promise beyond that.1
It is this very crisis of his faith which makes Jeremiah so
instructive for the history of religion. His patriotism was
in conflict with his conviction of God's will. The earlier
prophets seem to have comforted themselves with the thought
that as messengers of Yahweh they would be exempt from
the fate which impended over the nation; but Jeremiah was
so thoroughly one with his people that he felt himself smitten
by every blow that fell upon them. The inner disharmony
drove him to appeal to Yahweh himself, and thus the thought
of his personal relation to his God came to more distinct
consciousness. What most impresses us as we follow his
career is that he lived the life of prayer. On this account,
Jeremiah has been called, not without reason the discoverer
of individualism in religion. One of the best expressions
of his sympathy with his people is found in his discourse on
the famine (chapter 14). Here he describes in affecting terms
the distress which afflicts not only men but animals. The
prophet expostulates with Yahweh as though he, by giving
his own land over to desolation, shows himself unable to save
it. The protest is made more vivid because other prophets
have promised welfare. The reply is that the prophets have
promised lies, that they are not sent by Yahweh but proclaim
only the imaginations of their own brains. Further expostu
lation brings only the stern command not to intercede —
though Moses and Samuel, the most influential intercessors
of past times, were to appear on behalf of their people they
would accomplish nothing (15 : 1).
It was doubtless a cause of perplexity to the hearers of
such discourses that they were uttered after a sincere at-
1 Notice 15': 10-12, and in connection with it 11 : 18/.; 17 : 14;
18 : 18; and 20 : 14-18.

168 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
tempt had been made to meet the demands of Israel's God.
For it was in Jeremiah's early period that the book of Deu
teronomy had produced such a revival of religious feeling
and such sweeping measures of reform. The attitude of
Jeremiah with reference to this reform was distinctly one of
reserve. He, indeed, accepted the idea of the covenant, so
prominent in the thought of the Deuteronomist though not
original with him. He almost quotes from the book when
he says: "Cursed be the man who does not hear the words
of this covenant which I commanded your fathers in the day
that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, out of the
iron furnace, saying: 'Obey my voice, and do according to
all that I command you; so shall you be my people and I
will be your God'" (11 : 1-5). But the continuation of the
discourse shows only that the people have broken the cov
enant and have walked in the stubbornness of their own
heart, and that the fearful punishment threatened by the
book must be inflicted. There is even some indication that
the prophet turned against the new code as though it con
tributed to a false security on the part of the people: "How
do you say: 'We are wise, and the Instruction of Yahweh is
with us'? Behold the false pen of the scribes has wrought
falsely" (8:8). Since Deuteronomy calls itself the Book of
Instruction we can hardly avoid suspecting that the prophet
is here aiming at that very book. And in accord with this
is his attitude toward the ritual, which, as we shall see, is
very different from that of Deuteronomy.
The burden of guilt which rests upon the people has
been accumulated by transgressions of the plain demands of
ethics: "They are all adulterers, an assembly of treacherous
men; they bend their tongue as it were a bow for falsehood;
they rule not in fidelity; they go from one crime to another,
and they do not know me, says Yahweh. Take heed every
one of his neighbour and let no man trust his brother, for
every brother deceives and every friend slanders" (9 : 2-5).
The sweeping condemnation is repeated in all possible varia
tions: "There is not one who seeks justice; if there were a

JEREMIAH 169
man in the whole city who spoke truth Yahweh would spare
it, but the search for one is vain" (5 : 1). We should, per
haps, make allowance for a little rhetorical exaggeration here,
for we know that there were some men who listened to the
prophet and protected him when his life was in danger. But
these were the exceptions which proved the rule. The lead
ers, as always, are especially to blame. The common people
might be excused on the ground of ignorance: "I said: 'Surely,
these are the poor, they are foolish, they know not the way
of Yahweh nor the instruction of their God. I will get me
to the great men and will speak unto them; for they know
the way of Yahweh and the justice of their God.' But these
with one accord have broken the yoke and burst the bonds"
(5:4/.). A crying example was the king, Jehoiakim, who
with almost incredible levity showed himself insensible to
the crisis which confronted his people, and Jeremiah did not
hesitate to tell the truth: "Woe to him who builds his house
by unrighteousness, and his chambers by injustice; who
forces his fellow man to work without wages, and does not
give him his pay! Art thou a king because thou viest with
Ahab in building? Thy father ate and drank, to be sure,
but he administered justice; he judged the cause of the
oppressed and the poor and it went well with him. Is not
this to know me, says Yahweh? But thy eyes and thy de
sire are set only on gain, to shed innocent blood, and to
practise oppression and extortion" (22 : 13-17). There fol
lows a very definite prediction that Jehoiakim will not come
to his grave in peace, but that his corpse will be dragged
ignominiously through the streets of Jerusalem and thrown
outside the gate like that of an unclean animal.
Nobles, priests, and prophets are in the same condemna
tion with the king. "The priests do not say: 'Where is
Yahweh?' and those who handle the tor a do not know me;
the shepherds transgress against me, and the prophets proph
esy by Baal, and go after those who do not help" (2 : 8). Or
again: "A wonderful and horrible thing has come to pass in
the land; the prophets prophesy falsely and the priests are

170 THE RELIGION OP ISRAEL
in league with them and my people love to have it so"
(5 : 30/.). The motive is the same which made Micah so
indignant: "From the least to the greatest they are out after
gain; prophets and priests all practise lying and deceit"
(6 : 13). i
Since Jeremiah and Hosea were men of similar tempera
ment it was natural that the later preacher should adopt
the figure of the adulterous wife used by the earlier one.
The opening discourse of the book speaks of the bridal sea
son when Judah had testified her love by following her hus
band into the wilderness. The law of the first-fruits pre
vailed in her case, for these are sacred. So she had been
wholly dedicated to her Lord. But soon she had turned
away, had polluted the land by prostituting herself to other
gods, had been worse than the heathen who do not exchange
their gods for others (2 : 10). At the sanctuaries, on the
hills, and under the trees she had played the harlot with
a lack of shame that revolted even the most hardened. The
case was worse in that Judah had the example of the north
ern kingdom before her eyes. Judah was, in fact, the more
guilty of the two, and there was more hope of the restitution
of the older sister than of the younger (3 : 6-12). The de
fection was political as well as religious; alliances with
Egypt and Assyria were sought, in distrust of Yahweh, and
in the vain hope that foreign gods would be better protectors
than he. The anger of Yahweh and the final ruin of Judah
were sure to follow (2 : 18).
Making all allowances for the prophet's temperament, we
must suppose that he had grounds for so serious an indict
ment. After the enthusiastic revival in Josiah's time a re
vulsion had followed. The Deuteronomic reform had been
undertaken in the confidence that prosperity and peace would
be thereby assured. This faith seemed at first to find con
firmation in the arrest of the Scythian invasion, and in the
fall of Nineveh. But the death of Josiah, the well-beloved,
was inexplicable on the Deuteronomic theory. The fall of
1 Read also the extended indictment of the prophets in 23 : 9-32.

JEREMIAH 171
Nineveh was found to be no deliverance, for it threw the
country first into the hands of the Egyptians who were no
more merciful than the Assyrians, and then into the power
of the Babylonians who were apparently more ruthless.
Hence the demoralisation of the people, resulting in reck
lessness or a frantic appeal to foreign gods. The moral
levity is well illustrated by the release of the slaves when
Nebuchadrezzar invaded the country, and their prompt
re-enslavement when the danger seemed to be past (34 :
8-22). We have seen that Assyrian deities were introduced into
Jerusalem by Manasseh. After the death of Josiah they
seem to have reappeared, perhaps on the theory that, being
worshipped in Babylon, they had given that city the empire
of the world. Among these Jeremiah names one, the queen
of heaven, whose worship was openly practised in Jeru
salem and was especially obnoxious to Yahweh: "Seest
thou not what is done in the cities of Judah and in the
streets of Jerusalem? The children gather wood, and the
fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead the dough to
make cakes for the queen of heaven, and to pour out liba
tions to foreign gods, to provoke me to anger" (7 : 17/.).
The rites are familiar to students of the history of religion.
Cakes in the form of animals are substituted for animal
offerings, and since such cakes were offered to the Baby
lonian Ishtar (who was also an Assyrian divinity) it is prob
ably she who is designated queen of heaven in this passage.1
The devotion of the people to her worship is brought to
light in a later passage, where the women attribute all their
misfortunes to the temporary interruption of her worship
(44 : 19).
The foreign deities had been introduced into the temple
of Yahweh itself. This was no new thing. It had been
done possibly by Solomon, certainly by Athaliah, by Ahaz,
and by Manasseh. The stricter party had always protested
against it, however, and the conscience of Jeremiah was
1Cf. Schrader, Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament* p. 441.

172 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
sensitive to every violation of Yahweh's exclusive right.
Against rites traditionally connected with the worship of
Yahweh he also protested. His indictment specifies the
high places of the valley of Hinnom, where children were
sacrificed (7 : 31). Since Yahweh protests, "Which I com
manded not, neither came it into my mind," we must sup
pose that the popular belief regarded such offerings as some
thing pleasing to him. Ezekiel plainly shows that this
belief was prevalent in this period, and since child sacrifice
was offered both by Ahaz and by Manasseh we must con
clude, as we have already done, that it was one of the ancient
features of Yahweh- worship, suppressed by Josiah but re
vived after his death.
This very survival testifies that the worship of Yahweh
was not neglected. In fact, the prophets, all of them, show
by their invective that the people were never indifferent to
the ritual. Jeremiah, like the others, admits the zeal of the
people, but like the others declares it to be vain. He claims,
as Amos had claimed, that sacrifice and offerings had not
been brought in the wilderness wandering, when, neverthe
less, the relations of Yahweh and his people had been of the
best. He goes so far as to assert in the teeth of Deuteron
omy that these had not been commanded by Yahweh:
"Thus says Yahweh, God of Israel: 'Add your burnt-offer
ings to your other sacrifices and eat flesh; for I spoke not
to your fathers nor commanded them in the day that I
brought them out of the land of Egypt concerning burnt-
offerings and sacrifices; but this thing I commanded them:
Hearken to my voice, and I will be your God and you shall
be my people; and walk in all the way that I command you,
and it shall be well with you'" (7 : 21-23). The difficulty
the passage presents to those who still hold that a ritual law
was given by Moses must be evident. For our present pur
pose it is enough to note that Jeremiah denied that any such
law had been given. He held that Yahweh commanded
the people to walk in the way pointed out by the prophets,
and that the prophets concerned themselves with ethics and

JEREMIAH 173
not with ritual. If the contemporaries pointed with pride
to the enrichment of the temple service by new rites, such
as the burning of costly perfumes, the prophet was ready to
disabuse them: "To what purpose does there come to me
frankincense from Sheba, and sweet cane from a far coun
try? Your burnt-offerings are not acceptable nor your
sacrifices pleasing to me" (6 : 20). In another place he
asks indignantly: "Shall vows and sacred flesh take away
thy wickedness? Or shalt thou escape by these? " 1
It was pointed out in the last chapter that a strong con
fidence in the inviolability of the temple had arisen as the
result of events in the reign of Hezekiah. Jeremiah does
not hesitate to denounce such confidence: "Trust not in
lying words, saying: 'The temple of Yahweh, the temple of
Yahweh, the temple of Yahweh is this!' . . . Behold you
trust in lying words that cannot profit. You steal, murder,
commit adultery and swear falsely and burn incense to
Baal and walk after other gods whom you have not known,
and then you come and stand before me in this house and
say: We are , delivered to do all these abominations! Is
this house which is called by my name a den of robbers in
your eyes? Behold I have seen it, says Yahweh" (7 : 4-11).
The sequel cites the case of Shiloh, where there had once
been a famous sanctuary, and where now only ruins were to
be seen, a proof that Yahweh would not hesitate to destroy
his own dwelling. This was answer enough to those who
were under the delusion that, because Yahweh had taken
up his residence in the temple, he was therefore obliged to
protect it, no matter what his worshippers might be or do.
To protect them in their evil courses would be to make him
an accomplice of their crimes.
With reference to this whole set of beliefs that Yahweh
had bound himself irrevocably to Israel or to the temple,
Jeremiah energetically protested that the God of Israel has
liberty. This is the lesson of the potter, a lesson which has
1 The original reading here adopted has been preserved by the Greek
translator (11 : 15).

174 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
been frequently misunderstood. As Jeremiah watched the
potter he saw that, when the vessel he was shaping did not
please him, he did not hesitate to crush it together and
begin over again. Was it not clear that if Yahweh did not
find his people to his mind he could with the same sovereign
freedom crush them out of existence and begin a new work?
They, on their part, hugged the delusion that in some way
he had committed himself to them and could not give them
up. Yet this delusion he had tried to nullify by the word
of the prophets, diligently preached (7 : 13, 25). He had
hoped that they would repent, would cease to sow among
thorns, .and would break up the new ground. But now
there seemed no more chance of this: "If a man put away
his wife and she become another's, shall he return to her
again? Would not that woman be too thoroughly pol
luted? And thou who hast played the harlot with many
lovers, wilt thou return to me? says Yahweh." The ques
tion evidently calls for a negative answer.1 The sinful
habit has become so ingrained that it cannot be given
up. This conception of sin as a habit, something ingrained, is
first distinctly brought out by Jeremiah. He had of course
no thought of an original taint introduced by the trans
gression of Adam. But he saw his contemporaries so en
slaved by evil that there was a real moral inability to turn to
righteousness. In spite, therefore, of his frequent exhorta
tions to circumcise the foreskin of the heart, the prophet
had no confidence that his preaching would be effective:
"To whom shall I speak and testify that they may hear?
Behold their ear is uncircumcised, and they cannot hearken;
the word of Yahweh is to them a reproach, they have no de
light in it" (6 : 10; cf. 4:4). The prophet pictures himself
as a refiner of silver, but one who works in vain because
1 The Greek text seems again to be original. Hebrew custom seems
to have regarded a divorced woman who had entered a second mar
riage and been again divorced as still taboo to her first husband (Jer.
3 : 1; cf. Deut. 24 : 4).

JEREMIAH 175
the ore he uses contains only baser metal. "The bellows
blow fiercely; the lead is consumed of the fire; in vain does
he go on refining, for the dross is not taken away; refuse
silver shall men call them because Yahweh has rejected
them" (6:29). Even more emphatic to those who first
heard it must have been the text which has to us lost some
thing of its force by repetition: "Can the Ethiopian change
his skin, or the leopard his spots? Then may you do good
who are habituated to evil" (13 : 23). The fact that habit
fastens the chains of evil so that its victims find it morally
impossible to reverse their steps is nowhere more forcibly
expressed. Again we hear Yahweh asking: "Why has this
people turned away in a perpetual backsliding? They hold
fast to deceit and refuse to repent. They should be ashamed
that they have committed abomination, only they cannot
blush any more, neither do they know how to be ashamed"
(8 :5, 12). We are reminded of Lessing: "Blush at least,
Lucinda, that you'have lost the power of blushing!" In
Jeremiah's view the girdle soiled by damp and mildew was
the fit symbol of Judah in its corruption.
Jeremiah's theology was the simple faith in Yahweh held
by the other prophets. Yahweh is a God of righteousness,
and he requires righteousness in man. He is the living
God, and the others do not profit (2 : 8). The perversity
of the people is seen in their turning from him in prosperity,
but in distress calling upon him to save them. The other
gods are like broken cisterns, which hold no water; he is the
fountain of living water which never fails. "What evil did
your fathers find in me that they forsook me and went after
vanity?" (2 : 5.) Whether this word vanity indicates the
non-existence of the other divinities is not clear. For
Israel there is only one Helper; that is, Yahweh. And that
Yahweh has power over the other nations is assumed, as in
the case of the other prophets. The prophet even sees
himself commissioned to give the cup of Yahweh's wrath to
Judah's neighbours as well as to herself (25 : 15-29).
From Yahweh's power and justice on one hand, and the

176 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
ingrained sinfulness of Israel on the other, follows logically
the certainty that punishment must come. Like the north
ern kingdom, Judah is to be banished from Yahweh's pres
ence (7 : 15). The completeness of the destruction is sym
bolised by the earthen pot dashed to pieces before the eyes
of the people (19 : 10/). Yet there is always the possibility
that the people will repent. The prophet put his discourses
in written form, thinking that if a compendium of his vari
ous- messages could be read to the multitude they would
bethink themselves (36 : 3). But an occasional gleam of
hope like this makes the prevailing gloom only the more
visible. At the very beginning of his mission the preacher
was obsessed by the vision of complete ruin: "I beheld the
earth and it was a chaos, and the heavens had no light;
I beheld the mountains and they trembled, and all the hills
moved to and fro; I beheld, and lo there was no man, and
all the birds of heaven were fled; I beheld, and lo the fruit
ful field was become a wilderness, and all the cities were
broken down before Yahweh, before the fierceness of his
wrath" (4 : 24/.). The concrete details must leave no
doubt in the hearers' minds: "The corpses of this people
shall be food for the birds of heaven and for the wild beasts,
and no one shall scare them away. I will cause joy and
gladness, the joy of the bridegroom and the joy of the bride,
to cease from the cities of Judah and from the streets of
Jerusalem, for the land shall become a desert. In that day,
says Yahweh, they shall bring out the bones of the kings of
Judah and the bones of her princes, and the bones of the
prophets, the bones of the priests, and the bones of the
dwellers in Jerusalem out of their tombs and spread them
out before the sun and the moon and the host of heaven"
(7 : 33 and 8:1). No more fearful threat could be uttered
to men who believed that the soul finds rest only when the
body has been properly buried.1
1 Outrage of the tombs was one of the ways by which the Assyrian
kings sought to strike terror into their enemies, as is shown by the
boast of Ashurbanipal, Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, II, p. 193.

JEREMIAH 177
What would follow after the blow had actually fallen?
This question finds no direct answer in the genuine words
of Jeremiah. The passages which promise restoration are
not from the hand of the prophet, but are inserted by later
editors in the manner already familiar to us. One intima
tion that Jeremiah had some hope that a remnant would
be spared is given, however, in his attitude toward the first
group of exiles — the men carried away in 597. Those who
were spared in this visitation and who remained in Jerusa
lem seem to have plumed themselves on the thought that
they were the righteous remnant, and that the exiles were
the wicked who had been punished. Jeremiah looks at the
matter in another light. To him the good figs of his vision
typify the exiles. Yahweh will set his eyes on them for
good (chapter 24). To the same effect is the letter which
the prophet sent to these same exiles (29), designed to keep
them from false hopes of an early return. The prediction
that the exile would last seventy years was, however, in
tended not so much to set a time for the return as to
wean the exiles from any hope of immediate change in
their lot.
It must be clear that the importance of Jeremiah in the
religion of Israel arises not so much from any definite doc
trine promulgated by him as from the example he gave of
a man true to his convictions throughout a lifetime of trial
and opposition. The steadfastness of the man excites our
admiration even at this distant day. During his life his
people were blind to it, but after his death, when the ful
filment of his predictions called attention forcibly not only
to his message but also to his character, the conviction that
he had indeed been in the counsel of the Almighty came
with overwhelming force. The result was to cause his mem
ory to be cherished, his message to be studied, and to some
extent his example to be followed. True religion was here
set forth in an object-lesson which none could misunder
stand. Religion was seen to be a matter of the individual
heart in communion with its God. When the nation per-

178 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
ished this religion still found its dwelling-place in the heart
of the humble and contrite. In teaching this lesson, Jere
miah takes one of the leading places in the history of human
thought.

CHAPTER X
THE BEGINNINGS OF LEGALISM
With Jeremiah the old school of prophets came to an
end. By the time he had completed the first five years of
his ministry, a new force had appeared in the intellectual and
religious life of Israel, something which was to supersede
the prophets as organs of the divine will. This new force
was a book, and the account of its discovery and effect is one
of the most dramatic that we have in all Hebrew literature.
It was in the reign of Josiah, when the royal officers were
taking account of the money in the temple chest in order
to apply it to the repair of the building, that the priest, Hil
kiah, informed them, casually, it would seem, that he had
found a book, which he called the book of Yahweh's Instruc
tion. It has been pointed out recently that this is parallel
to a story in the Egyptian inscriptions according to which
a certain king, when about to rebuild a temple, found a
plan of the original temple in the old foundation wall and
by it was guided in his erection or restoration. There is
also a statement in one of the chapters of the Book of the
Dead to the effect that this chapter was found under the
feet of one of the statues when the prime minister was on a
tour of inspection of the temple. Other parallels are cited
both from Egyptian and from Babylonian sources, so that
we might suspect the story to be simply one of the floating
anecdotes which are current in different regions. On the
other hand, they may all testify to the custom of depositing
books of importance, hke other valuable objects, in the
sanctuaries, a custom which may well have prevailed in Is
rael from an early time. The contents of the book thus
179

180 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
found, if we are right in identifying it with Deuteronomy
(in the primitive form of that book, that is), give no indica
tion that the report of its finding in the temple is a fiction.
The important thing is that the book had a marked effect
on the king when it was read to him and that the result
was a thorough reform of religious practice in Judah. The
country sanctuaries were violently suppressed; the temple
was cleansed of everything that was contrary to the de
mands of the newly found document; and the people, acting
through their natural leaders, took a solemn obligation to
act in accordance with the demands there formulated. The
reforms thus inaugurated correspond closely with the pro
gramme laid down in our book of Deuteronomy, and we
can scarcely doubt that this book was the source of the
influence exerted on king and people. For our present pur
pose it is not necessary to determine the exact limits of the
original book and of the various accretions that have been
made to it from time to time. The tone of all the Deuter
onomic writers is homogeneous, and their religion expresses
itself in like phrases throughout.
Why the programme of the prophetic party should be
embodied in a book is not hard to conjecture. We have
seen that Isaiah gathered a small group of disciples to whom
he committed his written words as a solemn testimony.
These men had hardships to endure during the reign of Ma
nasseh and found it impossible to appear in public. Nothing
would seem more natural than that they should not only
cherish the written words of their master but should them
selves engage in writing down their ideas of what was needed
in Judah. Their consciences were revolted by the open and
flagrant superstition practised and encouraged by Manas
seh. In their reflections they realised the need of more defi
nite and specific regulations than had been laid down by
the earlier prophets. The prophets, to be sure, had in
sisted on righteousness as the supreme requirement of Yah
weh. But none of them had given more than a very gen
eral definition of what was meant by righteousness. A rule

THE BEGINNINGS OF LEGALISM 181
of life in black and white, laying down what was commanded
and what was prohibited, would be a boon to all right-
minded men, they thought. Moreover, the prophets had
been unpractical men in some of their requirements. They
had inveighed against the traditional worship. But they
could hardly have intended to do away with all ritual.
Religion is inseparably connected (in the minds of men of
that time at least) with external manifestations of devo
tion. The really pious heart desires to approach the di
vinity with a gift. It might well occur, therefore, to the
members of the school that the position of their predeces
sors with reference to the ritual was extreme.
And we must remember how deeply the ritual was im
pressed upon popular custom. It not only went back to
immemorial times; it was sanctioned by the Mosaic tradi
tion as set forth in the earliest narratives. To take away
the sacrifices and offerings, to abolish the great festivals,
closely interwoven as they were with the life of the people,
would be to deprive men of what they dearly prized and
perhaps to shake their faith in all religion. To all this was
added the practical consideration that vested rights of the
priesthood were not lightly to be taken away. The members
of this guild had ancient privilege on their side. To do away
with all public ceremonies would certainly make enemies of
this powerful class. Some of its members, we may suppose,
were right-thinking men who might be won to the side of
reform if only they could be protected in their prerogatives.
The party of reform among the priests may have been
strengthened by the reaction under Manasseh. The re
forms of Hezekiah, whatever they were, gave prestige to the
temple at Jerusalem; the reaction under Manasseh not only
revived the country sanctuaries but introduced foreign gods,
and we may suppose foreign priests, into Jerusalem. It is
not a mere accident that Hilkiah, the priest, is the one who
first calls attention to the new book — the desire for a posi
tive programme had reached even the priestly class.
The book was thus a compromise between prophetic and

182 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
priestly ideals. It was put into the form of discourses from
the mouth of Moses, because Moses was the first of the
prophets and also the first of the priests. Codes bearing
his name were already in circulation and the covenant on
which Deuteronomy lays so much stress was attributed to
him. The authors of Deuteronomy were, no doubt, confident
that they were enforcing the demands that Moses would
make were he living in their time. In some respects they
were justified in thinking that their book was simply an
enlarged edition of Moses' own code. Their ethical demands
were in many cases based on traditions which popular belief
traced to the great lawgiver himself. The Mosaic colour
ing doubtless helped to deepen the impression made by the
reading. But something of the influence of the book must
be traced to the times in which it came to light. The Scyth
ian invasion was fresh in the minds of the people; the de
nunciations of the book were reinforced by the preaching of
Jeremiah; there was probably a general feeling that reforma
tion was needed in Judah. Josiah was still a young man, ear
nestly striving to do right, impressionable, we may suppose,
and already under the influence of the prophetic party. All
things considered, we see how the book made its deep im
pression and how it impelled to the solemn covenant which,
for the time being, made it the supreme law of the state.
For the time being, I say, for it is evident that the effect
was only temporary. The drastic nature of the measures
taken by Josiah was sure to provoke a reaction, especially
when the high hopes of temporal prosperity, held out by the
book as a reward for obedience, were disappointed; when
the unexpected and heart-breaking death of Josiah seemed
to smite the theory of the book in the face; when the As
syrian yoke was succeeded by that of Egypt, and that again
almost immediately by that of Babylon. When the ruthless
Jehoiakim came to the throne, then the pendulum swung
back again and all the work of the reformers seemed to be
undone. Jeremiah shows that the old heathenism returned
and moral degradation with it. The reform itself had dis-

THE BEGINNINGS OP LEGALISM 183
appointed its advocates by its superficiality, as Jeremiah
again witnesses. But though the effort seemed to be with
out permanent fruit, the more remote effect was all that the
promoters of the movement could have anticipated. The
idea of a book as the repository of the revealed will of God
became established and has been one of the most influential
ideas in the history of mankind. The Deuteronomists them
selves continued their activity, and the Old Testament in our
hands shows marks of their influence in almost every part.
First of all we must notice that the Deuteronomistic con
fession of faith has been cherished by the Jews through
twenty-five centuries. This confession is the well-known
Shema which the loyal Jew repeats every morning and
evening: "Hear, O Israel, Yahweh our God is one Yahweh;
and thou shalt love Yahweh thy God with all thy heart and
with all thy soul and with all thy strength. And these words
which I command thee shall be in thy heart, and thou shalt
teach them to thy children and shalt speak of them when
thou sittest in the house, and when thou walkest in the way,
when thou liest down and when thou risest up. And thou
shalt bind them as signs upon thy hands and as frontlets
between thy eyes, and thou shalt write them upon the door
posts of thy house and upon thy gates" (Deut. 6 : 4-9).
These verses may be said to be the text upon which Deuter
onomy is never tired of enlarging. Its points are three: }
the unity of God, the duty of loving him, and the manifes
tation of the love by obedience to the commandments written
in the book.
The unity of God which is here affirmed is opposed to the
popular conception which looked at the various sanctuaries
as the homes of so many local divinities. These might all
be called by the name Yahweh, but the devotees of any one
of them did not think of him as more than the god of the
place or the clan in which he was worshipped. The author
wishes to put an end to this confusion of thought. He is
not attempting to state a speculative monotheism; his fre
quent use of the phrase "other gods" would rather favour the

184 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
thought that he believed in the existence of such others.
He persistently asserts that Yahweh is the greatest of all
gods, which again would admit that such gods have some
reality. The prayer of Solomon, a thoroughly Deutero
nomic document, addresses Yahweh with the declaration:
"There is no god like thee either in heaven above or on the
earth beneath" (I Kings 8 : 23). Later readers were no
doubt able to construe such expressions in terms of an abso
lute monotheism, but it is doubtful whether the writers so
intended them. Yahweh is One, and he is the only God who
should receive worship in Israel, and this just because he is
greatest of all and most powerful of all.
Some writers of this group attempted to reconcile Yahweh's
supremacy with the fact that other gods had such a powerful
hold on the minds of the gentiles, by assuming that Yahweh
himself had so ordained it. Thus the author of the Song of
Moses, now forming a part of the book of Deuteronomy, says:
" When the Most High gave the nations their portion, when
he gave the children of men their lots, he set the bounds of
the peoples according to the number of the sons of God; but
Yahweh's own portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his
inheritance."1 Here we see Yahweh as the supreme ruler,
having under him the inferior divinities, the sons of God as
they are called elsewhere (Gen. 6:1). Yahweh has himself
arranged that the nations should worship these inferior divin
ities in order that Israel may have the prerogative of devotion
to him. In another passage these inferior divinities are re
garded as identical with the sun and moon and constellations,
which the author knew to be objects of worship among the
nations (Deut. 4 : 19).
The deduction which the author makes from his strict
belief in the unity of Yahweh is one strange to his contem
poraries. This is that the one Yahweh has but one sanc
tuary in which he should be worshipped. The practical
measure which he has most at heart is the abolition of all
1 Deut. 32 : 8/. The text of the current Hebrew has suffered, and
the emendation is now generally accepted.

THE BEGINNINGS OF LEGALISM 185
sanctuaries outside of Jerusalem and the concentration of
all worship at the capital. The reason why sacrifices should
be brought at this one place is, of course, that Yahweh has
his dwelling there. There is here, however, some confusion
of thought. Yahweh dwells in the temple, since that is the
place to seek him; even the dwellers in foreign lands should
turn toward the temple when they pray. Yet Yahweh
dwells in heaven and hears them thence. In the prayer
which is offered when the tithe is brought, the worshipper
says: "Look down from heaven thy dwelling-place and bless
thy people Israel and the land that thou hast given us"
(Deut. 26 : 15). Yet the sacrifices are distinctly declared
to be brought before Yahweh (14 : 23; 15 : 20). Both beliefs
were held — that Yahweh dwells in heaven, and that he dwells
in the temple — with no consciousness that they were incon
sistent. Probably the throne in heaven was conceived to be
just above the temple, and not very remote from it. An
attempt to combine the two ideas is made when it is said that
Yahweh has made his name dwell in the temple (I Kings
8 : 29; cf. 5 : 9; 9 : 3, also Deut. 12 : 5 and 21). At a later
time we read that heaven is Yahweh's throne, and earth is
his footstool, which may be another attempt to secure his
presence both in the temple and in the heavenly dwelling.
What the Deuteronomist has most at heart is to convince
his readers that Yahweh is a God near at hand, and not a
God afar off: "What nation has a god so near it as Yahweh
our God is near us?" (4 : 7.)
Obedience to the law now laid down is motived not only
by the greatness and power of Yahweh but also by his moral
character. His leading attributes are justice and fidelity.
He does not regard faces nor take bribes; he secures the
rights of the orphan and the widow; he loves the client, giv
ing him bread and clothing (10 : 17/.). He.keeps covenant
and loving-kindness with them that love him and keep his
commandments, to a thousand generations, but repays them
that hate him by destroying them (7 : 10/.). He is merci
ful even to sinners if they repent: "Yahweh thy God is a

186 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
merciful God; he will not fail thee nor destroy thee, nor for
get the covenant with thy fathers which he swore unto them"
(4 : 31). This idea of the covenant goes back to early times,
as we have seen. The Deuteronomists dwell upon it with
almost wearisome iteration. The covenant by which Yah
weh and Israel were bound to each other was entered into
with the forefathers. It was an act of free grace on the
part of Yahweh: "Say not in thy heart after Yahweh thy
God has driven them (the Canaanites) out before thee: For
my righteousness Yahweh has brought me into this land,
whereas for the wickedness of these nations Yahweh drives
them out before thee. Not for thy righteousness or for the
uprightness of thy heart dost thou go in to possess the land,
but for the wickedness of these nations Yahweh thy God
drives them out before thee, to establish the word which he
swore to thy fathers" (9 : 4/.). The proof that Israel was
not chosen for its righteousness is found in the record of the
wilderness wandering which is rehearsed to show their con
stant disobedience (9 : 7-20). And in like manner the
choice of them had not been made because of their greatness,
for they were few in number (7 : 7). The reader is shut up
to the conclusion that the election of Israel was an act of
[Yahweh's mere good pleasure.
This election brings Israel into such relations with Yahweh
that it is properly called his own possession, a phrase which
frequently recurs (7 : 6; 14 : 2; 26 : 18; cf. Ex. 19 : 5). The
relationship may also be defined as that of father and son:
"You are sons of Yahweh your God" (14 : 1). Hosea had
already said that Yahweh had called his son out of Egypt,
but the Deuteronomist makes the conception more individual :
each Israelite may call himself a son of Yahweh. The con
ception may have been a current one, however, for in an
older source the Moabites are called sons and daughters of
Chemosh (Num. 21 : 29). The originality of the Deuterono
mist consists in his making all these ideas bear on the ques
tion of obedience to the law which he promulgates. Sons
should obey a father; a sacred people should show their sepa-

THE BEGINNINGS OP LEGALISM 187
rateness from other nations by conformity to the will of their
God; the people of the covenant are bound by the terms of
the covenant, and this means obedience. Yahweh, on his
part, has been faithful and has a right to expect fidelity on
the part of Israel. Yahweh's beneficence calls for gratitude,
and gratitude is another motive to obedience.
One of the most distinct statements of the author's posi
tion is the one which comes near the close of the book: "Thou
hast avouched Yahweh this day to be thy God> and that
thou wouldst walk in his ways, and keep his commandments
and his ordinances and his statutes, and wouldst hearken to
his voice; and Yahweh has avouched thee this day to be a
people for his own possession as he has promised thee, and
that thou shouldst keep all his commandments; and to make
thee high above all peoples that he has made in praise and in
name and in honour" (26 : 17-19). The ethical character of
the will thus emphasised is brought out by our author's
treatment of the Decalogue. The idea of a decalogue as the
basis of the covenant is as old as the Yahwist. But the
covenant of the Yahwist is a plain case of bargain with the
Divinity. Yahweh agrees to go with the people and give
them possession of Canaan if they will agree to pay him the
dues at the sanctuary; and the commands of this earlier
decalogue are concerned with these dues — the festivals, the
firstlings, and the first-fruits (Ex. 34). An enormous advance
is registered therefore by the Deuteronomist when he makes
the Decalogue entirely ethical. God now commands nothing
in the way of sacrifice, but he enjoins the duties which man
owes his fellow man, along with such reverence as is due to
God himself. Even the desire of the heart is to be regu
lated in accordance with the law of right (Deut. 5 : 1-21).
The supremacy of ethical above ritual requirements is indi
cated further by making this Decalogue the covenant pro
posed by Yahweh himself at Horeb and accepted by the
people with fear and trembling. In thus distinguishing it,
the author shows himself the heir of the best prophetic
tradition.

188 THE RELIGION OP ISRAEL
Heir of the best prophetic tradition we may also call him
in the emphasis he lays on the social programme of the
prophets. He constantly urges the claims of the poor and
the oppressed. The wage-earner, whether Israelite or for
eigner, is to receive his pay promptly at the close of each
day (24 : 15); the gleanings of field, olive-yard, and vine
yard are to be left for the client, the orphan, and the widow
(24 : 19/.); the festivals at the sanctuary are to be occasions
for helping slaves and the dependent classes, among which
we find the Levites (16 : 11, 14). This mention of the Le
vites is noteworthy, for it shows that the priestly class as a
whole was needy, dependent on the charity of the well-to-
do (12 : 18; 14 : 27; 18 : 1-4). The Israelites are to remem
ber that they had been slaves in Egypt and to sympathise
with the slave accordingly (16 : 12; 24 : 22). Yahweh loves
the client and gives him food and raiment; love for the
client therefore becomes a part of religion (10 : 18). The
Sabbath is to be observed in order that the slave may have a
time of rest from his toil (5 : 14). The runaway slave is not
to be returned to his master; the hungry man has a right to
eat from field and vineyard; the millstone, an indispensable
implement in every household, must not be taken as pledge
for a loan; the garment of the widow must not be taken in
any case; the cloak of the poor man, if taken, must be re
turned to him at sunset that be may have covering for the
night; every seven years there is to be a remission of debt
for all poor debtors (15 : 1-3). The earnestness of the author
in insisting on this last command indicates perhaps that
he was not very confident of its practicability, and in fact
some of these regulations are impossible of enforcement.
None the less they testify to the writer's moral sense. In
justice is an abomination to Yahweh— in the matter of
weights and measures (25 : 13-15), for example, and in the
matter of bribery (16 : 18-20).
It must be borne in mind that these humanitarian regula
tions are intended for Israel alone. A very different stand
ard is set up for the relations between Israelites and gentiles.

THE BEGINNINGS OP LEGALISM 189
Usury may be exacted of the foreigner but not of the fellow
Israelite (23 : 20/.). The year of release is for one and not
for the other (15 : 3). The "stranger within thy gates," so
often commended to the mercy of the reader, does not mean
any foreigner who happens to be in the country, but the
client who has come into definite relations of dependence to
some citizen, and who is therefore himself on the way to
full citizenship. Other foreigners are still regarded as ene
mies. The reason is not far to seek; the crying sin of Israel
in the past had been worship of other gods than Yahweh,
and temptation had come from those foreigners who were
most closely in contact with Israel, that is, the Canaanites.
Hence the sharp contrast between the treatment of Israelites
(including the clients) and the treatment of Canaanites.
These latter are to be exterminated without mercy. In the
belief of the author all the calamities of the past had come
from yielding to the seductions of these idolaters.
There was a measure of truth in this charge. The orig
inal worship of Yahweh had been simple, even austere. The
worship which the people had adopted in Canaan was ornate,
sensual, licentious. On this ground the Rechabites thought
that fidelity to Yahweh required avoidance of all Canaan
itish customs. The mass of the people, however, saw in
Yahweh a Baal, and their worship differed little from the
orgies of the early inhabitants. From the ethical point of
view the reaction of the Deuteronomist is quite intelligible,
most clearly directed at the old sanctuaries of the land:
" You shall surely destroy all the sacred places in which the
nations that you dispossess serve their gods, upon the moun
tains and upon the hills and under every green tree; you shall
pull down their altars, and break in pieces their pillars, and
burn their asheras with fire; you shall hew down the graven
images of their gods and destroy their names out of that
place" (12 : 2/.). Since pillars and asheras were the regular
accompaniment of the altars of Yahweh, and since even the
graven images often represented him, there can be no doubt
that the author was aiming at all the sanctuaries in which,

190 THE RELIGION OP ISRAEL
as he supposed, Canaanitish influences were discernible even
though they were ostensibly dedicated to the God of Israel.
The earnestness revealed by these prohibitions reminds
us of the zeal of the Puritans against statues and relics of
the saints. But in the mind of the Israelite reformer the
extermination of idolatry meant also the extermination of
idolaters. All the Canaanites (he ordains) are to be put
under the old Semitic ban (herem). By this everything in
the enemy's city was to be utterly destroyed, as is set forth
in the story of Achan. With enemies outside of Canaan
terms may be made; if they surrender they shall be made
tributary; if they refuse and are conquered the men may
be slain and the women and children may be made slaves:
"But from the cities of these peoples which Yahweh thy
God gives thee for an inheritance thou shalt save alive none
that breathes, but thou shalt utterly destroy them. . . .
That they may not teach you to do after the abominations
which they have done unto their gods; so would you sin
against Yahweh your God" (20 : 16-18). Logically, all cov
enants with the ancient inhabitants are prohibited. It is
to us some consolation to think that the author is setting
forth an ideal no longer attainable, for in his day there were
no Canaanites to be exterminated, amalgamation with the
Israelites being an accomplished fact.
Israelites who yielded to the temptation to polytheism
were to be treated with the same severity. A rumour that
any Israelite city was worshipping other gods than Yahweh
was to be promptly investigated, and if it was found to be
true, the guilty city was to be destroyed, the whole popu
lation put to the sword, the cattle slaughtered, even things
without life were to be burned as a holocaust to Yahweh
(13 : 13-17). The old ritual idea of taboo is here in evi
dence; whatever has been dedicated to another god be
comes a source of defilement to Israel, and even to touch
it will bring one into a state of pollution and expose him
to the wrath of Yahweh. Drastic action was to be taken
against individuals who seduce men from their allegiance

THE BEGINNINGS OF LEGALISM 191
to Yahweh, especially false prophets, soothsayers, and all
who were addicted to magic arts. The faithful Israelite
was to spare neither brother, wife, nor friend if any of them
became a source of temptation (13 : 7-12). Men must not
even inquire how the Canaanites worship their gods lest
they be led to adopt their customs (12 : 29/.). The tradi
tional marks of mourning are forbidden because they are
connected with the worship of the manes (14 : 1). The ex
change of garments between men and women, the planting
of different seeds together, ploughing with a mixed team,
and wearing of garments made of wool and linen combined
are all under the ban, doubtless because all were in some
way associated with other divinities. Even the silver and
gold which have been in contact with idols are an abomina
tion, and he who takes them will fall under the curse of
Yahweh (7 : 25).
The number and minuteness of these specifications justi
fies us in making Deuteronomy introduce the first stage of
legalism. The authors who wrought out this system had
the not uncommon idea that a complete rule of life can be
written down for men's guidance. They supposed that
they had, in fact, written down such a rule, and that it
represented the divine will. The word command and its
derivatives occur no less than sixty times in the book of
Deuteronomy alone, and the phrase "commandments and
ordinances," or in the fuller form, "commandments, stat
utes, and judgments," is a mark of Deuteronomic authorship
wherever found. By a writer of this school, David is made
to charge Solomon in these words: "Observe thou that
which Yahweh, thy God, commits to thee, by walking in
his ways, and keeping his commandments, his judgments,
and his testimonies, according to what is written in the
Tora of Moses" (I Kings 2:3). The idea is clear: Yahweh
has laid down a path in which a man must walk, and the
first inquiry of the righteous man should be: What doth
Yahweh require? The hearer or reader should impress the
words of the book on his heart and soul, bind them on his

192 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
hand, write them between his eyes and on the door-post of
his house, teach them to his children, talk of them con
stantly, meditate on them day and night (Deut. 11 : 18-20).
The reason is the intrinsic excellence of the law, for in the
view of the writers no nation ever had righteous statutes
like this Tora (4:8). For this reason it can never be sur
passed, and men are solemnly forbidden either to add to
it or to take away from it (4:2).
It is in this insistence on its own completeness and on
the regulation of the whole life by its precepts that Deu
teronomy differs from the earlier documents which seem to
belong in the same class. The Decalogue of J specifies the
terms of the covenant which are binding on Israel; the
Covenant code provides a law for certain cases which might
arise. But neither Decalogue nor Covenant code attempted
to regulate the whole life of the individual. Deuteronomy
marks a new stage of thought by its attempt to do just this
— to lay down in black and white a complete rule of life for
the Israelite. That, in fact, it codifies existing social cus
tom we have already seen. On the side of ritual it draws
upon priestly tradition. In some cases it adopts supersti
tions which were contrary to its own principles, but which
were too strongly intrenched in popular belief to be done
away. Thus it requires the sacrifice of a heifer to placate
the ghost of a slain man (21 : 1-9). It does not call the
rite a sacrifice, and it attempts to make it innocuous by
placing it under the supervision of the priests, but its orig
inal nature is only thinly disguised.
Although the authors suppose their code to be complete
and final, they do not mean to supersede the prophets, the
divinely inspired teachers of Israel. They represent Moses
as the ideal prophet and put in his mouth a promise that
there shall be a succession of similar teachers (18 : 15-22).
Yet these prophets of the future are to be subordinate to
the law now promulgated, for even if they seem to have
supernatural sanction for their preaching they are not to
be listened to in case their doctrine differs from that of the

THE BEGINNINGS OF LEGALISM 193
book. It did not occur to the writer that by this regula
tion he made the prophet superfluous and opened the way
to the scribe, the interpreter of the written document. No
more did he see that his emphasis of the Jerusalem sanc
tuary would put enormous power into the hands of the
hierarchy, the guild which had the temple already in pos
session. The fundamental character of the Deuteronomic require
ment of a single sanctuary must be evident. What is of
equal importance is that the sacrifices are now first legiti
mated in an ostensibly prophetic document. The earlier
prophets had denounced burnt offerings and sacrifices, tithes,
and free-will offerings as indifferent or even abhorrent to
Yahweh. But the Deuteronomist enjoins them as equally
important with justice and mercy. Tradition was undoubt
edly on his side. The earlier narratives had pointed out
that the sanctuaries were places of worship for the patri
archs, and that they had sacrificed there. The earlier codes
also had enjoined that all Israelites should appear before
Yahweh three times in the year, and that they should not
come empty-handed. The eating and drinking and re
joicing before Yahweh which had scandalised Amos and
Isaiah, and which Hosea had identified with spiritual adul
tery, is now made a part of the law of Yahweh. It is, to
be sure, purified from some of its more notorious abuses,
and its concentration at the central sanctuary made it more
amenable to police supervision. Further, the ritual require
ment is combined with the ethical, and the attempt is made
to use the sacrifices for humanitarian purposes. The tithe
is no longer simply a tribute to Yahweh; it is to be given
to the poor and needy, they being in some sense his clients.
Every third year it is to be wholly used in this way, while
on those occasions when it is brought to the sanctuary it is
to be shared liberally with the dependent classes (14 : 28/.).
This combination of ritual and ethical requirements was of
practical importance, for, as we have seen, the comparative
failure of the older prophets is explained by the fact that

194 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
they made no allowance for the human longing for ritual.
The adoption of the ritual by the Deuteronomists and its
concentration at Jerusalem created, we may say, a church
which was able to survive the destruction of the national
life. The doctrine of rewards and punishments which under
lies the book and which comes frequently into distinct ex
pression is a deduction from the preaching of the earlier
prophets. That preaching had constantly threatened na
tional disaster as the consequence of national disobedience.
Deuteronomy formulates the theory mechanically, we may
say, and has no hesitation in giving details. The frequent
phrase, "that thy days may be long in the land," is only one
example. More explicit is the promise that the rain on
which the productivity of the land depends will be sent in
case the law is obeyed, and withheld if other gods are wor
shipped (11 : 13-16). The fullest statement of the theory
is found in the list of blessings in the twenty-eighth chapter,
which is followed by an even more elaborate catalogue of
curses. It is possible that a precedent existed for the series
of curses in some ancient custom performed at Mount Ger-
izim (11 : 29; 27 : 11-26; cf. Joshua 8 : 30-35). The full
force of these curses came home to the people who endured
the calamities of siege and exile in the time of Nebuchad
rezzar, and the sense of sin so prominent in postexilic
Judaism arose from combining the words of Deuteronomy
with the disasters which came so soon after its promulga
tion. It was of importance for the later development of religion
that the earlier history of Israel was rewritten, or at least
re-edited, under Deuteronomic influence. According to the
view of the Deuteronomic editors all the calamities of the
people in the past had come from their lack of conformity
to the Deuteronomic standard. The almost rhythmical suc
cession of victory and disaster in the book of Judges is made
to teach this lesson. Oppression by the enemy regularly
follows apostasy from Yahweh, while repentance is as regu-

THE BEGINNINGS OF LEGALISM 195
larly followed by deliverance (Judges 2 : 10-19). In the
books of Kings we are repeatedly informed that the people
sacrificed at the high places even after the temple was built,
and the prophets who are introduced in those books to re
buke the people or the rulers enforce the thought that this
defection from Yahweh is the cause of their calamities.
The whole story, from the time of Joshua down, is made the
dark picture of religious declension relieved by a few bright
spots. To point the contrast the history of the conquest was re
written to show that Joshua was a worthy successor of
Moses, and strictly true to the Deuteronomic programme.
What actually took place at the conquest we know from the
fragment preserved in the first chapter of Judges. Israelites
and Canaanites amalgamated, and it was not until the time
of Solomon that the Israelite element became predominant.
But the Deuteronomist, to whom everything Canaanitish is
an abomination, makes Joshua exterminate the earlier in
habitants, saving alive nothing that breathed. The only
exception was made by the Gibeonites and their allies, and
they obtained their treaty by fraud. The neglect of the
Israelite leaders to take counsel of Yahweh in this case is
censured, with the implication that the covenant would not
have been allowed had he been consulted. The conclusion
of the account is the unhistorical statement that Joshua re
duced his new allies to slavery.1
The number of hands that must have been employed in
this reconstruction of the history shows the extent of the in-
. fluence which Deuteronomy exerted in the exilic and post-
exilic period. Henceforth Israel was the people of a book.
'Joshua 9 : 15 and 26/. On the extermination of the Canaanites,
cf. 10 : 40; 11 : 17; 6 : 17-24; 7 : 12-26.

CHAPTER XI
EZEKIEL
In the death of the state of Judah it might seem to the
onlooker that the battle for a purer Yahweh religion had
been lost. But while the disintegration in Palestine was
for the time complete, there was a spot far in the East where
the ideas to which the prophets had given expression were
cherished. This was the district in Babylonia where the
exiles, carried away in 597, were settled. These exiles seem
to have had some sort of civil organisation of their own.
They were permitted to build houses, to plant gardens, and
to consult each other concerning their common interests.
At first their cohesion was secured by the hope of an early
return, a hope which was fostered by prophets of their own
as well as by messages from Jerusalem. When this hope
was rudely shattered by the fall of their beloved city they
were still united by the bond of religion. Their faith in
Yahweh was, at least in the case of the more earnest,
strengthened by the fact that the words of the prophets had
been fulfilled.
The most drastic expression of Yahweh's threats was, as
we have seen, that contained in the book of Deuteronomy.
For the future of Judaism it was an important fact that by
the fulfilment of these threats this book was more firmly
fixed in the regard of the exiles. Other thoughts expressed
in it were calculated to appeal to them. The strange
customs of the people among whom they found themselves
living would justify Deuteronomy's condemnation of all
heathenism. Not less important was the assertion that
Yahweh had made Israel his own by a deliberate act of
196

EZEKIEL 197
choice. His truth and righteousness, emphasised by the
calamity which had fallen, gave ground for believing that he
would not refuse to hear the prayer of the penitent who
should turn to him with all their heart. The soil was thus
prepared by Deuteronomy for the establishment of a new
type of religion, and the man to cultivate the soil was not
lacking. This man was Ezekiel, to us one of the least sympathetic
of the Old Testament characters. We Occidentals of the
twentieth century find it difficult to understand his exag
gerated visions, his fits of silence, and his grotesque actions.
Yet he was only the complete example of a man possessed by
the prophetic ideal. His visions differ from those of the
other prophets only in their pitiless distinctness of detail;
his actions only carry out to logical sequence the belief that
the prophet's actions are a part of his message. The point
in which he differed from his predecessors is due to the influ
ence of Deuteronomy. What he receives from Yahweh is a
book (Ezek. 2 : 8 to 3 : 3). In a sense we may call him the
first of the scribes, the exponent of a written revelation.
And since he was of priestly birth and training, it is clear
that the ritual element in Deuteronomy is the one that most
distinctly appealed to him. The priestly ideal, embodied
in the word sanctity, was already emphasised by the Deuter
onomist. Ezekiel reveals his own point of view when he
protests his own scrupulosity in the matter of ritual cleanli
ness (4 : 14). From this point of view we must interpret
his work.
Ezekiel most distinctly influenced his people by his plans
for the future. But before these could be fully appreciated
the prophet had a destructive work to do. This was to rid
the exiles of many cherished notions. The prophetic ideal
had never really impressed the great mass of the people.
By Ezekiel it was so firmly held that he demanded a com
plete break with the past. Not that he had ceased to be an
Israelite; the God whom he worshipped was the ancestral
God, Yahweh, who in the most literal sense had taken up

198 THE RELIGION OP ISRAEL
his dwelling at the centre of the earth — in Jerusalem: "In
the midst of the nations I have set her [Jerusalem] and round
about her are the lands" (5 : 5) — such is the declaration of
Yahweh himself. Temporarily the temple was abandoned,
because it had been too much polluted for Yahweh to re
main there; but it was his chosen dwelling-place, and he
would surely return thither.1 In the first period of his
preaching the prophet uttered the most sweeping condemna
tions of Israel's past; if the people continued to walk in the
ways in which the fathers had walked they were sure to
perish. The prophet's attitude toward foreign nations is that of
the narrowest patriot. This might be supposed to come from
the bitterness which the misfortunes of Judah had produced.
But this would be an incomplete statement. Ezekiel desired
not so much to see vengeance wreaked upon the oppressor as
to see his God vindicated from the aspersions which the
heathen were casting upon him. The fall of Jerusalem
seemed to prove that Yahweh was too weak to protect his
own city and his own temple. Ezekiel knew that he was the
omnipotent one, and that the future must prove this to the
heathen themselves. Yahweh himself declares that the re
sult of his judgments will be to make them know that he is
Yahweh (22 : 16 and elsewhere). Justice requires the fall
of Jerusalem, but it requires also the punishment of the
gentiles. Ezekiel gives a detailed description of the vision which
convinced him of his prophetic mission, and in it we discover
the influence of ancient Israelite tradition. What he saw
was a mighty cloud interfused with fire, in which as it drew
nearer he discovered four living creatures, each with four
faces and four wings. Beneath them were four wheels, and
in the middle space an altar-fire. Above was a throne, and
1 It is probably not without significance that Ezekiel nowhere uses
the Deuteronomic phrase concerning Yahweh's making his name dwell
in the temple. He thought too realistically to be satisfied with such a
statement.

EZEKIEL 199
on it a human form of supernal brightness, which he discov
ered to be Yahweh himself. The whole is called by the
prophet the glory of Yahweh (1 : 28). The thunder-cloud, in
which the earliest Israelite belief saw the chariot of Yahweh,
seems to furnish the basis for this vision. The composite
figures which appear in it are the cherubim which guarded
the ark in the temple of Solomon. The altar-fire is that of
the temple itself. The originality of the prophet is to be
found not in the details of the vision but in the use which
he makes of them. The cherubim are transformed into
supporters of the throne; the altar is made movable that
it may accompany Yahweh in his wanderings. The wheels
are to show that Yahweh is not bound to a single spot, but
can move freely to all quarters of the earth. Since the tem
ple is to be destroyed Yahweh is about to leave it and take
up his residence in the mountain of the gods in the far north,
whence he will visit his faithful exiles at intervals until the
temple is rebuilt, when he will return there as of old.
The celestial vision so fills Ezekiel's heart that he never
reflects on the heathen divinities, and never inquires whether
they have any reality. His only allusion to them is in pas
sages which tell of Israel's idolatry. Here they are called
"abominations," or "sticks."1 Yahweh, however, is con
ceived of as highly anthropomorphic. In fact, he shows
human passion in a marked degree in the very thing which
Ezekiel has most at heart, that is, his anger at the sins of his
people and his determination to vindicate his own reputa
tion. Trespass on the sanctity of Yahweh is not only dis
obedience to the divine law; it is insult to the divine majesty.
This is what arouses the anger of the divinity both against
Israel and against the other nations. The detailed statement
may be cited : " On the day that I chose Israel and swore to
the offspring of the house of Jacob, and made myself known
to them in the land of Egypt, saying: I am Yahweh your
God — on that day I swore to them that I would bring them
out of the land of Egypt to a land flowing with milk and honey,
1 Gillulim ; the meaning of the word is not quite certain.

200 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
the glory of all lands. I said to them: Cast away every one
the abomination of his eyes; defile not yourselves with the
idols of the land of Egypt; I am Yahweh your God. But
they rebelled against me and would not hear me; they did
not cast away the abominations of their eyes, nor forsake the
idols of Egypt. Then I resolved to pour out my fury upon
them and accomplish my anger upon them in the land of
Egypt; but I dealt with them for my name's sake, lest it
should be profaned in the eyes of the nations in the midst
of which they were, and in whose sight I had made known to
them my purpose to bring them forth from the land of Egypt.
I brought them forth from the land of Egypt and brought
them into the wilderness" (20 : 5-10). The passage goes
on to show that the same thing had been repeated, first in
the wilderness, but also in the land of Canaan. In every
case the people had been unfaithful and had served other
gods. In each particular case of unfaithfulness, also, Yahweh
had been moved to destroy them, but had reflected for his
name's sake and had spared them.
From this chapter we see that Ezekiel condemned the
whole past history of Israel. In fact, as has been said by
another, it was he who taught the people to misunderstand
this history. To the earlier prophets the wilderness wander
ing was a time of harmony between God and the people
(Hosea 11 : 1-3; Jer. 2 : 2/.), and the defection had begun
only after the entrance into Canaan. But in the view of
Ezekiel idolatry had begun in Egypt, and Yahweh would have
been justified in destroying the people at the very beginning.
This is undoubtedly the result of his reflection on the sin
fulness of his contemporaries, for he finds no terms strong
enough to describe the state of things in the Jerusalem of
his own day. His vision takes him to the sinful city, and he
sets forth in detail what he sees there. The parable of the
adulterous wife, first used by Hosea, is adopted by Ezekiel
and carried out in detail, and the parable is repeated in such
form as to indict the two sister nations (16 and 23). The
figure of the vine, used by the older prophets, is also taken

EZEKIEL 201
up by him, but given a new turn: "Of what use is the wood
of the vine, the wild stock of the forest? Is even a peg got
from it to hang things on?" (15 : 2.)
The crying sin of Judah, as of Israel, is the worship of other
gods, and this the prophet supposes to have been carried on
at all the sanctuaries of the land: "I brought them into the
land which I had sworn to give them, and wherever they saw
a high hill or a leafy tree there they offered sacrifice, there
they presented their offensive oblations, there they proffered
their sweet savours and there they poured forth their liba
tions" (20 : 28). This was not only treason to Yahweh; it
was also direct disobedience to his commands. The view of
Deuteronomy, according to which a specific law was pro
mulgated in the wilderness, is adopted to the full: "I gave
them my statutes and taught them my ordinances which if a
man do he shall live in them; I gave my Sabbaths also to
be a sign between me and them that they might know that
it was I, Yahweh, who sanctified them. But the house of
Israel rebelled against me in the wilderness, my statutes
they did not keep, they rejected my ordinances which if a
man do he shall live in them, and they sorely profaned my
Sabbaths" (20 : 11-13).
This last phrase — -"they profaned my Sabbaths" — shows
the distinctly priestly point of view. Sin is defilement, and
the object of the commandments is to prevent pollution of
that which is sacred to Yahweh. The land which he has
chosen for himself should be kept clean from all that he ob
jected to. The indictment charges that Israel defiled this
land — committed sacrilege, that is. The acme of guilt was
reached when the very temple was profaned by idolatry.
The vision, in which the prophet sees the image which causes
jealousy in the temple court, sees the women weeping for
Tammuz (a Babylonian god) in the sacred enclosure, sees
the elders of Judah burning incense to their fetishes in
a chamber of the building, sees also the worshippers of the
sun turning their backs on Yahweh (chapter 8), is intended to
make the reader realise the extent of the profanation. The

202 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
prophet does not hesitate to say that Judah is worse than
Sodom (16 : 48, 51/.). The conclusion is that the time of
forbearance is past and that the catastrophe is at hand
(chapter 9). What is ritually unclean must be cast out of
Yahweh's land. After the blow has fallen the prophet,
looking back upon it, makes Yahweh say: "In my sight
their ways were like the most abominable ceremonial im
purity; thereupon I poured my fury on them for the blood
they had shed in my land, and because they had defiled it
with their idols; according to their ways and deeds I
judged them" (36 : 17-19).
It would be a mistake to suppose that Ezekiel is indifferent
to ethics. The specifications in the indictment make his
position clear. He is in line with the best prophetic tra
dition, and in this he follows the lead of Deuteronomy,
when he denounces bloodshed, oppression of the client, the
fatherless, and the widow, incest, bribery, usury, and fraud
(22 : 1-12). A specific instance is his condemnation of
Zedekiah's perjury (17 : 16). But in the same breath with
these crimes we find enumerated what we regard as ritual
offences — eating with the blood, despising the sacred things,
and profaning the Sabbaths. The priestly habit of mind,
it is evident, classes all transgressions as defilement; all sin
is invasion of the sanctity of Yahweh.1 The implications
of this view are more extensive than we at first realise.
The unconscious violations of taboo are as dangerous as
witting transgressions. The effect is evident in the later
Levitical documents. What Ezekiel calls the justice of
Yahweh is the almost mechanical reaction of his sanctity
against that which is unclean.
In the application of this justice to the individual this
prophet goes beyond any that we have yet met. In his day
the problem of the individual was brought to the front.
After the introduction of Deuteronomy there was a clearly
marked line of division between the righteous, those who
1 The prevailing view of sin in the Babylonian religion seems to be
the same.

EZEKIEL 203
adhered to the book and strove to obey it, and the sinners
who disobeyed. But in the calamities which befell the
state the righteous suffered with the wicked. Jeremiah had
wrestled with the problem whether this was consonant with
the justice of Yahweh, but Ezekiel was compelled to con
front it even more directly. His solution was the assertion
that Yahweh deals with every individual in exact accor
dance with his deserts. And he meant that this justice was
meted out in the present life — the idea of a retribution be
yond the grave had not yet arisen in Israel. The boldness
with which the prophet announces the programme of the
divine administration arouses our wonder: "The soul that
sins shall die; the son shall not bear the consequences of the
father's iniquity, and the father shall not bear the conse
quences of the son's iniquity. The righteousness of the
righteous shall be put down to his account, and the wick
edness of the wicked to his account" (18 : 20). The popular
doctrine was other: "The fathers have eaten sour grapes,
and the children's teeth are set on edge." Tradition was em
bodied in this saying, as we see in the earlier documents and
in later ones also. The solidarity of the family made the
children suffer for the father; and, on the other hand, the
merits of the father might induce Yahweh to spare the son
who had offended — it was for David's sake that Solomon was
dealt with so mildly. Ezekiel breaks with this tradition and
the pains he takes to set forth his theory shows his con
sciousness of its novelty. He declares that, so far from the
fathers being able to help their children in the coming ca
lamity, even Noah, Daniel, and Job would not be able to
deliver their children from punishment (14 : 14). Pictori-
ally the same thing is said when the angel is told to mark
the few righteous men in Jerusalem before the slaughter of
the rest (9:4).
The bearing of this thought upon the prophet's activity
among his compatriots must be evident. He did not believe
that the punishment would cease with the fall of Jerusalem.
Upon the exiles there would be further visitation. It was

204 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
his mission by all means to save some; hence his exhortation:
"Turn from your evil ways, O house of Israel; why will you
die? " (33 : 11.) And Yahweh swears by his own life that he
does not desire the death of the wicked but rather that he
should turn from his way and live (18 : 32). The appeal to
the individual which results makes Ezekiel the first pastor
in history. He watched for souls as one that must give
account. This is well brought out in his comparison of
himself to the watchman on the city wall: "As for thee, O
son of man, I have made thee a watchman to the house of
Israel; when thou hearest a word from my mouth thou shalt
warn them. When I say to the wicked: thou shalt surely
die — then if thou speak not to the wicked to warn him to
turn from his way, he shall die for his guilt, but I will hold
thee responsible. But if thou warn the wicked to turn from
his way and he turn not, he shall die for his guilt, but thou
hast delivered thyself" (33 : 1-9).
In thus preaching, Ezekiel takes no account of the sinful
habit of which Jeremiah had so clear an'idea. To him right
eousness consists in a number of single acts, and in like
manner wickedness consists in single acts, in the one case
of obedience, in the other of disobedience. At any single
moment a man may change his course of life, the righteous
may become wicked, and the wicked may become righteous
by an effort of the will. The part which each will have in
the chastisement that is to come will be determined by the
actions in which he is engaged at the time (cf. 33 : 12 and 17).
This is a mechanical theory, but probably it was what the
contemporaries of the prophet needed.1 Their temptation
was to despair because of their belief that the sins of the
past lay heavy upon them: "Our transgressions and our sins
are upon us and we are rotting away in them" (33 : 10).
Encouragement could come only from the thought that each
man had it in his power to turn and do right. Ezekiel was
1 "He states the doctrine of free-will in that crude and exaggerated
form which is inevitable with ideas that are still new." (Addis, Hebrew
Religion, p. 224.)

EZEKIEL 205
not altogether consistent in carrying out his theory, for after
the fall of Jerusalem he saw that those who escaped were
not such as he had classed among the righteous. He
accounts for the fact by supposing that Yahweh had spared
these to show the exiles what kind of men the Jerusalemites
were, object-lessons to convince them that the punishment
was deserved (14 : 21-23).
The faithful who respond to the preaching will become
the seed of a new commonwealth, in which Israel's true
ideal will be reached. Such is the message which followed
the fall of Jerusalem. The end is to be accomplished by
an act of God, but the prophet is to co-operate. This is
the meaning of the vision of dry bones. The bones come
together by divine power, but they do so when the word
is uttered by the human voice. A restoration is necessary
for the vindication of Yahweh himself. He could not leave
the heathen to believe that he had not been strong enough
to protect his own. The banishment of Israel caused the
gentiles to scoff: "These are the people of Yahweh, yet
were forced out of his land! Then I took pity on my sa
cred name which the house of Israel had [thus] caused to
be profaned among the gentiles whither they went. Say
to the house of Israel: Not for your sakes do I act, but
for my sacred name which you have profaned among the
nations to whom you are come. I will make sacred my
name which is become profane among the nations, and the
nations shall learn that I am Yahweh when through you
I manifest my sanctity in their sight. I will take you from
all lands and bring you into your own land; I will sprinkle
pure water upon you and you shall be clean from all your
impurities; from all your idols I will cleanse you; I will
take the heart of stone out of your bosom and give you a
heart of flesh; my own spirit I will put within you; I will
cause you to follow my statutes and to observe my ordi
nances; you shall dwell in the land which I gave your fathers;
you shall be my people and I will be your God" (36 : 20-28).
This detailed statement may be paralleled from several

206 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
other discourses. The root idea is that of sanctity as we
have already defined it — that mysterious attribute which
separates Yahweh from the world of common things— his
divinity. This will be made known by his action on be
half of Israel, so that all the world shall see his power. This,
we may say, is the external aspect of the restoration. The
internal is the renewal of the covenant by an act of free
grace. Israel will be chosen anew and regenerated by such
an influence as will make them obedient to Yahweh. The
complaint of the earlier prophets had been that the people
were too stupid to understand the ways of God. This is
what is meant by the heart of stone, for the heart is to
the Hebrew thinker the seat of the intellect. This will all
be changed; the new Israel will understand and will desire
to obey the commandments which give life. This ideal
will be reached and applied not to Judah alone but also to
the exiled northern kingdom; even Sodom will not be shut
out, for it also is a part of Yahweh's domain (16 : 53).
The nations, however, are not to share in the new king
dom. They must be punished in order to vindicate the
reputation of Yahweh and because of their attitude toward
Israel. To prevent aggressions such as Israel had too often
suffered from in the past, also, they must receive an exem
plary lesson: "Of all the malignant neighbours of Israel,
not one shall be any longer to them a pricking brier or a
piercing thorn; they shall learn that I am Yahweh" (28 : 24).
Specific denunciation of these neighbours — Ammon, Moab,
Edom, Tyre, Sidon, and Egypt — are therefore included in
Ezekiel's book. Their humiliation will both vindicate Yah
weh's power and secure Israel in undisturbed possession of
its land for all the future. But the most signal vindication
of Yahweh, and at the same time the best pledge of future
security, will come through the destruction of Gog. In the
earlier time the prophets had described the invasion of Pal
estine by a cruel and relentless enemy. Isaiah had seen
that the oppressor of Israel, though acting as Yahweh's
instrument, would have to be punished for the arrogance

EZEKIEL 207
with which it had carried out its mission. When this antic
ipation had been fulfilled by the downfall of Assyria new
foes had come upon the scene. We have read how Jere
miah was shaken to the inmost soul by the Scythian irrup
tion. What would happen if Israel were restored to its own
land and a new invasion should come upon them from those
obscure northern regions which had vomited forth these
barbarian hordes? To answer this question Ezekiel shows
us the foes again brought on his land by Yahweh, this time
not to ravage it but to meet their doom. By an act of
God and without human intervention they will be exter
minated, and with them all danger for the future will dis
appear. The nations will thus finally be convinced that
Israel went into captivity for their sins, and the true glory
of Yahweh will be revealed (39 : 21/.).
To our prophet the crowning event of the world's history
will be the return of Yahweh to his temple, which will take
place after the restoration of the people to their own land.
The importance of the event may be measured by the par
ticularity with which the restored temple is described, and
the care taken to regulate all that belongs to it. The de
scription which fills the last nine chapters of the book is
called a vision, but it bears all the marks of an elaborately
thought-out plan. It shows us the logical development (in
material form) of the priestly ideal. According to this ideal
Israel existed in order to guard the residence of Yahweh so
carefully that his sanctity will not be invaded. As the in
trusion of things repulsive to him had been the cause of
Israel's misfortunes in the past, so in the future Israel's
welfare and the peace of the world will result from this
effective guardianship of the sanctuary from pollution. To
suppose that this end would not be secured would be to
suppose that the restoration would fail of its object.
In the good time to come the centre of the land will be
the temple. It will be erected on a very high mountain
and by its form, as well as by its situation, it will declare
the inviolability of Yahweh. Jerusalem, being situated at

208 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
the centre of the earth, is the appropriate place for the sanc
tuary, and it will be guarded by Yahweh's own people
dwelling about it. The transjordanic territory is to be aban
doned and all Israel is to dwell in Canaan, properly so called.
The Dead Sea is to be made sweet by the waters flowing
from the temple spring and all the land will enjoy abundant
fruitfulness. The tribes will be settled, seven to the north
and five to the south of the temple in such order as to break
up the old jealousies. The temple is to be separated from
the city of Jerusalem, that there may be less danger of de
filement and is to be further protected by a sacred tract of
land in which the priests dwell.
The temple itself is planned after the scheme of the one
destroyed by Nebuchadrezzar, even the ornaments of palm-
trees and cherubim being retained. Two courts, however,
are to surround it, to secure more thorough separation from
common things. The service is to be in the hands of the
old priestly family of Zadok (appointed by David and con
firmed by Solomon), to whom the Levites are to be subor
dinate. This is in deliberate contradiction with earlier
practice, as Ezekiel himself tells us. Before the exile the
menial work of the sanctuary had been performed by slaves
given to the temple by the kings. These were foreigners
uncircumcised in flesh and in heart as the prophet complains.
The new temple is to have in their place the Levites, that
is, priests of the old country sanctuaries. By the destruc
tion of the sanctuaries in the days of Josiah these had been
deprived of their means of support, and, although the Deu
teronomist ordained that they should have a place in the
Jerusalem temple, they had not been able to make good their
claim in face of the Zadokites who were already in posses
sion. They had become hangers-on of the sacred place,
thankful to get a morsel of bread by performing menial
service. This arrangement, which was apparently in effect
before the fall of Jerusalem, is now distinctly legitimated
by Ezekiel. Its advantage was that it provided conse
crated persons for all the offices and definitely allowed the

EZEKIEL 209
exclusion of laymen from the sacred precincts. Even the
prince is not to enter the inner court, but is to stand in the
east gate when his sacrifice is offered (46 : 2).
The commonwealth will have little need of a secular ruler,
and the prince is altogether secondary to the priesthood.
The early experience of Judah with the monarchy had not
been such as to encourage hope in a king. The few refer
ences to a new David show that Ezekiel did not care to
make him prominent, and the prince of whom he speaks
is to be only the collector of taxes for the temple service,
not for himself or his household (45 : 13-17; 46 : 16-18).
The prosperity of the people depends upon the priests, and
exact regulations are laid down by which they must pre
serve their ritual cleanliness. Doubtless these regulations
concerning clothing, marriage, and the observance of mourn
ing are drawn from tradition, but we may suppose that the
codification was intended to give them new importance.
The chief duty of the priests is, of course, to offer sacrifice,
though the work of instructing the people in matters sacred
and profane is still theirs (44 : 23/.).
Not only is the personnel of the temple thus exactly regu
lated; the services are brought into a system with special
reference to this same matter of pollution and its avoidance.
In the old days the primary purpose of sacrifice had been to
gratify Yahweh by a gift, or else to enter into communion
with him. The festivals were occasions for eating and
drinking and rejoicing before Yahweh. This old joyous
ritual is now replaced by a series of rites designed to preserve
the purity of people, land, and sanctuary. It was traditional
custom, no doubt, to apply sacrificial blood to a person or
thing which had become ceremonially defiled, in order to
remove the taboo. Ezekiel makes use of this same means
to consecrate the building and its utensils, and provides that
the consecration shall be renewed at stated intervals. His
thought is that in a world full of unclean things the temple
may contract defilement in spite of the most scrupulous care.
The whole sanctuary is to be reconsecrated twice a year

210 THE RELIGION OP ISRAEL
(45 : 18-20). This is expressly said to be on account of any
one who has erred or is dull of understanding, and it is in
accordance with the view later carried through in the Law,
namely, that wilful transgression must be punished, but that
unwitting trespass causes defilement and must be purged
away. And since defilement is contagious, even the sanc
tuary and its utensils may become polluted through the
ignorance of the worshipper. The sacrifices which are per
formed in order to secure the purifying blood are called sin-
offerings. But the purpose of all the sacrifices is now sup
posed to be purification, as we see from a passage which in
our version says that the prince shall provide the sin-offer
ing, and the meal-offering, and the burnt offering, and the
peace-offering "to make atonement" for the house of Israel
(45 : 17). It would probably better represent the original
idea to render "to purify the house of Israel," since the idea
of atonement in the theological sense does not seem to be
found in the Old Testament, at least not in connection with
the sacrifices.
By this programme the ritual side of religion triumphed.
Ezekiel completes the process begun by Deuteronomy, and
the result is to reverse the teachings of the prophets. Amos
declared Yahweh's scorn for offerings, sacrifices, and the
festivals; Isaiah is equally emphatic in his condemnation;
Jeremiah denied that Yahweh had given a law concerning
ritual. Ezekiel, with sublime indifference to these declara
tions, makes ritual Yahweh's first concern. Ecclesiasticism
has triumphed and will increasingly dominate Jewish thought.

CHAPTER XII
LEGALISM TRIUMPHANT
By putting religion into legal form Ezekiel protected it
from a disintegrating syncretism. On the other hand, legal
ism is always in danger of degenerating into formalism. It
is easy for us to exaggerate this danger and to underrate the
advantages of a rigid code. The imageless worship of
Yahweh was more elevated than the idolatry to which the
whole gentile world was addicted. Humanly speaking, it
could not have been preserved pure unless it had been
guarded by ritual barriers. The terrible earnestness with
which the prophet sought to exclude everything unclean
from the sanctuary communicated itself to the Jewish com
munity. The fact that the exiles were shut out from par
ticipation in civil affairs made them all the more devoted to
matters of religion.
The rebuilding of the temple at Jerusalem in the time of
Darius was doubtless inspired by the Messianic hope. The
disappointment which followed seemed to indicate that not
enough care had been taken to separate the clean from the
unclean. Those who clung to their faith in Yahweh as the
only God could imagine no other reason for his delay to
reveal himself. Hence came the anxious inquiry for ritual
tradition, and a persistent effort to put that tradition into
written form. Ritual is, from the nature of the case, capable
of indefinite expansion. Deuteronomy, as we have seen,
had comparatively few priestly regulations; Ezekiel added
to the number; the guild of scribes who came after him car
ried on the process. Apparently the exiles who lived at a
distance from the temple were more zealous in this work
211

212 THE RELIGION OP ISRAEL
than were the inhabitants of Jerusalem. The very fact that
the ritual could not be carried out by those in exile made it
easier for them to develop its theory. Evidence of their
state of mind is given by the Talmud, which formulates the
most elaborate rules for ceremonies though these have not
been observed for eighteen centuries. The underlying
thought is, of course, that when the kingdom comes every
thing necessary for a complete service must have been pro
vided for.
For two centuries or more after Ezekiel the industry of
the scribes spent itself in the collection of ritual traditions.
The result was the elaborate code contained in the middle
books of the Pentateuch. It is now almost impossible to dis
entangle the many strands which have here been interwoven.
Some of the material is doubtless ancient, representing
customs in vogue at Israelite sanctuaries before the Deutero
nomic reform. But whatever its source, all of it has been
brought under Ezekiel's point of view. One body of laws
has, in fact, been supposed to be the work of Ezekiel, though
the evidence is not convincing. This is the so-called Holiness
code, which avows its design to protect the sanctity of
Yahweh. Its watchword is: "Be ye holy, for I am holy"
(Lev. 19 : 2). We have already discovered the inadequacy
of this translation. It would be more in accordance with
the author's idea to read: "Be ye separate from all that is
profane because I am thus separate. " This code (Lev. 17-
26) occupies a position intermediate between Ezekiel and
the fully developed priestly system. The author uses many
of Ezekiel's phrases and may be called a disciple of the
prophet. If we may judge from the concluding exhortation
of his book, he himself lived in exile, for this section regards
dispersion among the gentiles as the supreme misfortune,
and it shows the hope of the exiles by the promise that if they
repent Yahweh will remember his covenant with the fathers
and again be their God.
The scrupulosity of this writer is shown by his inclusion in
his code of many things not mentioned in Deuteronomy.

t
LEGALISM TRIUMPHANT 213
He reveals the power of the antique way of thinking, accord
ing to which all the more unusual processes of life are under
the control of supernatural powers. These powers are no
longer regarded as gods, yet they have a real existence, and
must be conciliated or warded off. Diseases are inflicted
not directly by Yahweh but by the demons. These demons
are taboo to the worshipper of Yahweh; hence the person
afflicted by the disease is unclean, and must be shut out of
the community. For uncleanness is contagious, and the
presence of the sick man in the camp (which here doubtless
stands for the sacred city) is a source of danger. The code
therefore attempts to guard the community by shutting the
leper out of its bounds, and by providing an elaborate rite
of purification before he can be readmitted to the sanctuary.
I have used the leper as an illustration because the law
concerning him shows most clearly the point of view of this
whole school. The regulations concerning the leper seem to
belong to one of the later strata of the Pentateuch, but other
cases of defilement are treated in the Holiness code. Most
surprising to us are the laws concerning the sexual life, es
pecially concerning childbirth. Parallels from other relig
ions show that there was a wide-spread belief that the birth
of a child is under the influence of a demon (originally a
divinity) of reproduction. The child and mother are there
fore unclean after the birth, and there must be an elaborate
purification after the forty or eighty days of separation. It
would be a mistake to suppose that the Hebrew writers
regard the sexual life as sinful in our sense of the word.
There is no trace of asceticism in the Old Testament. Mar
riage is incumbent on all, and the birth of a son is a sign of
the grace of Yahweh. The treatment of the young mother
as unclean is therefore a survival from early beliefs or usages.
From the same point of view we must judge the elaborate
prohibitions of marriage within certain degrees of kinship.
These are uttered in conscious opposition to foreign religious
practice. The text intimates as much: "After the doings
of the land of Egypt wherein you have dwelt you shall not

214 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
do, and after the doings of the land of Canaan whither I
bring you you shall not do, neither shall you walk in their
statutes" (Lev. 18 : 3). This sentence prefaces the pro
hibitions of which I have spoken. The inference is plain —
that in these countries marriages within the kin were allowed
or encouraged from alleged religious motives. Ezekiel says
plainly that sexual license was common in Jerusalem before
the fall of the city (Ezek. 22 : 10/.). Probably the worship
of a foreign or old Canaanite god of fruitfulness was respon
sible for these abuses, and the reason for the prohibitions of
our code is the acute reaction of the religion of Yahweh
against foreign custom. This accounts for the mention of
child sacrifice in connection with these sexual offences; it
was regarded as Canaanitish in origin. The author takes
pains to emphasise his view at the close of the chapter, when
he says that the land is defiled by all these things (Lev.
18 : 24-30).
As in the case of Ezekiel, all sins are judged from the rit
ual point of view. Hence the incongruous grouping together
of such things as cutting one's hair or beard, tattooing the
person, eating with the blood in one class, and prostituting
one's daughter, oppression of the client, and the use of false
weights and measures in the other. And in the same para
graph we find positive commands to observe the Sabbath,
to show reverence to old age, to love the client as one's self
(Lev. 19 : 26-36). From Deuteronomy are repeated the
prohibitions of sowing two kinds of seed in one field and
of wearing cloth in which two kinds of thread are woven
together (19 : 19). We are not able to point out in every
case the exact heathen superstition against which the pro
hibition is directed, but the probability is that such a super
stition existed. There is evidence, for example, that in some
cases heathen diviners wore a garment in which wool and
cotton were woven together.1 The scrupulosity of the Holi
ness code is manifest when it makes the touch of an un
clean animal a source of defilement (Lev. 11 : 43).
xGoldziher, Zeitschr. d. alttest. Wissenschaft, XX, pp. 36/

LEGALISM TRIUMPHANT 215
Since Yahweh has separated the people from all mankind
to be his consecrated ones, the obligation to purity rests
upon every Israelite. But there are degrees of purity, and
the priests who come into the immediate presence of the
divinity must exercise more care than the layman who
stands at a greater distance. Hence the legislation for the
priests, which follows the precedent set by Ezekiel. Bodily
blemishes shut a man out from active service, though not
from sharing the sacred food (Lev. 21 : 16-18). Mourning
rites defile the mourner, as we have seen. The demand of
bereaved nature, however, is too insistent to be altogether
ignored. Hence the concession, according to which the priest
may express his grief for father, mother, son, daughter,
brother, or unmarried sister (vss. 1-4). Even for these
there must be no shaving of the head or malting marks in
the flesh, these acts being connected with the worship of the
manes. The high priest now appears distinctly as the cul
mination of the sacred caste, in whom therefore separation
from the common must be most complete. He must not
rend his clothes, must not approach any corpse, and must
not observe any of the conventional signs of grief even for
his father or his mother (21 : 10-15). The code seems to
prohibit his leaving the sanctuary at all, lest his sanctity
be contaminated (vs. 12), but in practice this was not en
forced. The severity of the law is seen in the enactment
that any Israelite who approaches the sacred things in a
state of defilement shall be cut off from his people (22 : 3).
The way in which ancient custom is adopted in this legis
lation is illustrated by the treatment of a newly-planted
vineyard or orchard. For three years the fruit must be re
garded as unclean; the fourth year it is all consecrated to
Yahweh; after this it becomes the property of the owner.
The evident reason for the law is that originally the first
three years, or perhaps the first four years, were sacred to
the local Baal, that is, it was taboo to man. In this legis
lation the taboo is recognised as uncleanness, and the special
act of consecration to Yahweh in the fourth year is designed

216 THE RELIGION OP ISRAEL
to remove the taboo and make the fruit safe for men to
enjoy (19 : 23-25). Among the Bedawin at the present day,
the first milk yielded by a domestic animal is regarded as
sacred. We saw that Ezekiel practically abolished the old joyous
festivals and substituted an exactly regulated series of ob
servances under the strict supervision of the priests. The
Priestcode in like manner codifies the regulations concern
ing festivals and sacrifices. Four stages of ritual are trace
able in the order, Deuteronomy, Ezekiel, Holiness code,
and Priestcode proper. To the last stage we may now
give some attention. It is distinguished by the thorough
way in which it transfers the ideal church from the future,
where Ezekiel located it, to the past. Ezekiel saw a sanc
tuary in the middle of the land surrounded by a priestly
people which would guard it from pollution. Yahweh will
here take up his abode and will be served constantly by a
duly consecrated body of priests and Levites. Here the
sacrificial service will secure the constant presence and bless
ing of the divinity. The priestly writer believes that this
ideal had once been realised. This was during the wilder
ness wandering. The theory is in flat contradiction to
Ezekiel, for this prophet traced Israel's defection back to
the time of the exodus. But there was another tradition
according to which Israel had been faithful in the earliest
period, and the defection had come only after the entrance
into Canaan. Upon this tradition the priestly author bases
his scheme. According to his account, the revelation made
to Moses on the Mount was a command to make a sanctu
ary so that Yahweh might dwell in the midst of his people
from that time on. The earlier narrative gave some sort
of countenance to this idea by its mention of the tent of
tryst. But there is a vast difference between the simple
oracle tent, of which Joshua was the sole minister and guard
ian, and the elaborate tabernacle whose dimensions and ma
terials are now so exactly described to us, and to which
some thousands of Levites are attached as its servants.

LEGALISM TRIUMPHANT 217
Moses' forty days on the Mount were occupied with
study of the plan for this elaborate and costly structure.
The plan was simply that familiar to us. There are the
two chambers; the Most Sacred, in which Yahweh himself
dwells; and the Sacred antechamber with a lamp-stand and
a table for the bread of the presence. Around the whole
is a court fenced off by curtains in which is the great altar
for the sacrifices and the laver for priestly ablutions. The
whole is the shadow of Solomon's temple thrown by the
imagination of the writer upon the background of the desert.
To make such a structure plausible, at least to a certain
extent, its dimensions are reduced, and the materials are
such as might be appropriate for a portable sanctuary. At
the same time, concessions to historic probability are not
very marked. Gold, silver, precious stones, leather, and
brocade are lavished, as though the resources of an empire
were at the disposition of the wandering clans in the bar
ren south country. The ideal which has mastered the
writer is that Israel as it came out of Egypt was already the
fully fledged nation of Solomon's time — a people thoroughly
unified — organised under Moses, the theocratic ruler — mus
tering six hundred thousand fighting men and devoted to
the ecclesiastical ideal of postexilic Judaism.
Yahweh has brought Israel from Egypt that he may
dwell in the midst of them, and this is actually accom
plished when, after the completion of the tabernacle, the
cloud descends and rests upon it, or fills it (Num. 9 : 15-23).
This cloud is the same in which Yahweh descended upon
Mount Sinai, and, like Ezekiel's chariot, it is made of flame.
For this reason Moses' face shone when he had been in the
Presence (Ex. 34 : 30-35). The special place of Yahweh's
presence was the lid of the ark, which now receives the
name kapporeth, rendered in our version "mercy-seat," but
which probably means "place of purification," because the
purifying blood is sprinkled there on the great Day of Atone
ment. The ark, an implement taken over from the earlier
narratives, is now overlaid with gold and provided with

218 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
the golden lid just mentioned. Here Yahweh promises that
he will meet with Moses and commune with him (Ex. 25 : 22;
Lev. 1 :1; Num. 7 : 89).
The sanctuary thus constructed becomes the central ob
ject of the camp. Aaron and his sons guard the entrance,
and the Levites camp about it "lest wrath come upon the
congregation" (Num. 1:52/.). Ezekiel's distinction be
tween priests and Levites is thoroughly carried out.
The priests, however, are Aaron and his sons, instead of the
sons of Zadok. The exigencies of the case required an an
cestor of the clan who was of older date than Zadok, and
Aaron, already known to tradition, was the only one avail
able. The gradation in the priesthood is carried one step
farther than in Ezekiel, for Aaron as high priest is sharply
marked off from his sons by his greater sanctity. In him
the sacredness of the whole order is concentrated, and this
is so powerful that his intervention with the incense calms
Yahweh's anger (Num. 17 : 11-15). His importance is in
dicated again by the declaration that if he falls short of
what is required the wrath of Yahweh will fall upon the
whole congregation (Lev. 10 : 6).
The material nature of the sanctity on which stress is
here laid is shown by the treatment of the implements of
the service. Their sacredness is so great and so deadly
that, if they are not carefully wrapped up by the priests
before they are seen by the Levites, whose duty it is to
carry them on the journey, they will kill even these conse
crated persons (Num. 4 : 15; cf. vss. 18/.). In accordance
with this is the sanctity of the whole camp from which all
unclean persons must be rigorously shut out "lest they
defile the camp" (Num. 5 : 1-4). The sanctity of the di
vine name is such that the blasphemer must be put to
death (Lev. 24 : 10-23). The danger of trespass is set be
fore us in the story of Nadab and Abihu, who are slain by
fire proceeding from Yahweh because they offered incense
with strange fire (Lev. 10 : 1-7). In what their offence
consisted is not made clear to us, and it is possible that

LEGALISM TRIUMPHANT 219
the story is based on the attempt of some irregular priests
to arrogate to themselves a part in the service. The au
thor's main idea is that any infringement of the sacred Law,
any deviation from the exact ritual, will be punished by an
act of God.
The importance of sanctity is expressed again in the elab
orate rites by which the tent and altar are made ready for
the residence of Yahweh (Lev. 8 : 10/.) and in the account
of the consecration of the priests. Here the most elaborate
precautions are taken to remove every trace of defilement.
The priests are washed, anointed, invested with the sacred
garments; a sacrifice is offered on their behalf, blood from
the altar and oil are sprinkled on the priests and on their
garments. Only after this has been done are they fit to
approach the altar and present the food of Yahweh. No
less than twenty-four acts are performed in this rite of con
secration (Ex. 29). The lamina or gold plate which the
high priest wears bears the appropriate inscription "Sacred
to Yahweh," and it is expressly declared that by wearing it
Aaron takes away the guilt of the sacred things which the
people consecrate (Ex. 28 : 36-38). The meaning is that
the sacred character of the high priest counteracts any defect
in the gifts of the people. The danger incident to the priest's
office is indicated by the statement that if they do not wash
their hands and feet before approaching the altar they will
die (Ex. 30 : 21).
The exact regulation of the sacrificial service is the logical
sequence of the consecration of sanctuary and priests. The
daily burnt offering is the condition of Yahweh's dwelling
among his people (Ex. 29 : 38 and 45/.). In the thought of
later Judaism the suspension of this recurring expression of
loyalty to Yahweh was the most painful feature of the dese
cration of the temple by Antiochus. The whole sacrificial
ritual is defined as to its material, the method of slaying the
animal, the disposition to be made of the blood and flesh.
The four kinds of sacrifice — burnt offering, peace-offering,
sin-offering, and guilt-offering — are described (Lev. 1-7).

220 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
Exact measurements are given for the meal-offering and the
libation (Num. 15 : 1-12). The number of victims to be
brought on Sabbaths and festivals is specified (Num. 28).
To one of these authors we owe the exact regulation of the
Passover (Ex. 12 : 1-20). Nowhere is any reflection in
dulged in as to the meaning of this elaborate ritual — priestly
tradition gave it sanction and that was enough. Some of
it, as I have said, was very old, and the original point of view
sometimes comes to the surface, as where the animal is said
to be burned as a fire offering of fragrant odour to Yahweh
(Lev. 3 : 11), or where even more distinctly, not to say
crassly, it is said to be the food of Yahweh (Num. 28 : 2;
cf. Ezek. 44 : 7).
Characteristic of the postexilic point of view is the promi
nence now given to the sin-offering and the guilt-offering.
These two classes are rarely mentioned in the earlier litera
ture. In Ezekiel they become important because of his
theory of sin, a theory which was fully developed by the
priestly writers. According to this view sin is anything that
offends the sanctity of Yahweh. The Law attempts to define
what these things are, but in making the attempt it has
become so elaborate that one may often be in doubt whether
he is a transgressor or not. One may easily sin in ignorance,
by coming in contact with an unclean animal or with a
person suffering some sexual defilement. Unwitting sin is,
however, dangerous to the person affected and to the whole
community, for the sanctity of Yahweh reacts against every
defilement. To provide against this danger is the aim of the
priestly writers. In their theory transgression of the Law by
a person who knows what he is doing must be punished by
death or excommunication. "That soul shall be cut off from
the congregation" is their declaration, leaving it uncertain
whether he will be visited by an act of God, or put to death
by the civil authority, or excommunicated. In practice ex
communication was the method taken, and this accomplished
the end sought, which was the purification of the congrega
tion from contagion. The stringency of the Law is shown

LEGALISM TRIUMPHANT 221
by the number of offences on which this penalty is to be
inflicted. What really troubled the pious observer of the Law was
unwitting violation of the commandment. Such "sins"
could not be punished by the community, but they were sure
to bring down the wrath of Yahweh. To meet this danger
the purifications were ordained, and the purifications were
effected by the sin-offering and the guilt-offering. Thus a
man who discovered that he had unwittingly contracted de
filement, or who even suspected that he had, could always
find relief by bringing one of these offerings. Whatever
atonement they effected extended only to this class of
offences. The limits of witting and unwitting, however, are
so drawn as to make the latter class as large as possible,
and this is an intelligible concession to human weakness.
The law of the guilt-offering says: "If any one commit a
trespass against Yahweh, and deal falsely with his neighbour
in a matter of deposit or of bargain or of concealing a theft,
or of taking advantage of his neighbour, or have found that
which was lost and have dealt falsely therein, or have sworn
to a lie . . . then he shall restore that which he took wrong
fully adding a fifth of its value . . . and shall bring his guilt-
offering to Yahweh." J It is clear if this definition be allowed
that a wide variety of offences might pass for unwitting, and
so claim the benefit of the law of purification.
I have just spoken of "whatever atonement" these sac
rifices effected. It is fair to notice here that in the sin-
offering and guilt-offering there is no idea of expiation in the
sense in which the word is ordinarily understood — that is,
the victim was not a substitute giving his life for the life of
the guilty man. The emphasis laid upon the blood, which
is often interpreted as favouring the theory of substitution, is
due to quite another consideration. By ancient tradition
blood is sacred, either because it is the blood of an animal
dedicated to the divinity, and so partakes of his sanctity,
or else because this mysterious fluid, containing the life of
1 Lev. 5 : 20-26 in the Hebrew (6 : 1-7 English).

222 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
the animal, has in it intrinsically something supernatural.
From the most ancient times the blood had been the portion
of the sacrifice which was too sacred to be appropriated by
man and which must be carefully presented to the divinity.
The gift was grateful to him and made the offerer acceptable.
But there was more in it than this: the blood might be ap
plied to anything defiled or common and the object was
thereby consecrated. This is seen in the consecration of
the priests to which allusion has been made. By its blood
the sin-offering effects a removal of pollution. If a substitu
tionary atonement were aimed at we should expect the flesh
of the victim to become taboo, being laden with the sin of
the offender transferred to it. But we are distinctly told
that the flesh of the sin-offering is most sacred (Lev. 6 : 18-
22 and 7:1). The priests are strictly commanded to eat
this flesh in the sanctuary (6 : 19; 7 : 5/.). An exception is
indeed made in certain cases where the offering is brought
on behalf of the priests themselves. Here it is ordered that
the flesh shall be burned outside the camp, probably because
it was felt to be unbecoming for the priests to profit by their
own imperfections. The whole treatment of the subject
shows that the authors were not interested in any theological
theory; they did not ask themselves why the sacrifices took
away the guilt. Enough for them that the blood is a power
ful cleanser. Moses unsins the altar by sprinkling the blood
of Aaron's sin-offering on it (Lev. 8 : 15). The reason why
the blood was not in ordinary cases sprinkled on the sup
posed guilty person was apparently twofold; for one thing,
the blood was too powerful — if sprinkled on the person
it would make him unfit for the ordinary duties of life;
and, on the other hand, the writers of these regulations were
more interested in keeping the sanctuary clean than in puri
fying the persons who brought the sacrifice. The sacredness
of the sacrifice was such that the offerer was sufficiently
cleansed by laying his hands on the head of the animal,
whereas the altar, which possibly had been defiled by the
very neglect which was now made good, needed the appli-

LEGALISM TRIUMPHANT 223
cation of the blood to keep it fit for the service. What is
certain is that the death of the victim is nowhere treated as
a punishment, and there is no intimation that the victim
takes the place of the guilty man.
The idea of purification reaches its climax in the ritual of
the great day which we call the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16).
The underlying thought is that the sanctity of the dwelling
may have been impaired by the uncleanness to which the
people were so liable. This sanctity is so great that no one
must enter the inner chamber except the high priest, and he
can enter only on this one day in the year. On this occasion
he must take special precautions, offering a sin-offering and
a burnt offering for himself and then putting on vestments
kept for this occasion. The bells on the skirt of his robe
notify the divinity of his approach, lest, coming unannounced,
he provoke the divine anger. In entering the Presence he
is to carry a censer with burning incense so that the cloud
will prevent his looking directly at the object of his rever
ence, for this would be fatal. After purifying himself and his
household by this first sin-offering he is to cast lots on two
goats, one of which is thus assigned to Yahweh and the
other to Azazel. The one for Yahweh is a sin-offering for
the people. This one is slain and the blood is brought into
the inner sanctuary and sprinkled both on the cover of the
ark and all about this most sacred room in order to cleanse
it from the impurities of the children of Israel. In the
same way the high priest is to "unsin" the altar by sprin
kling the blood upon it (16 : 15-18).
The account makes plain the purpose of the sin-offering.
The sanctuary in the course of the year may have been de
filed by some of those unwitting sins to which every man is
liable; therefore there must be a special purification reach
ing even within the veil. This is effected by sprinkling the
blood of this sin-offering in the most sacred place and also
upon the altar. The further ceremony is without parallel
in Hebrew religion, unless the bird set free at the cleansing
of the leper be an exception. It consists in loading the

224 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
other goat (scapegoat, we call it traditionally) with the sins
or rather with the impurities of the people and sending it
thus laden into the wilderness. According to Hebrew tra
dition, though this is not directly asserted in our text, the
goat was taken to the edge of a precipice and thrown down
from it. Since the goat is distinctly said to be for Azazel,
and since in postbiblical documents Azazel is known to be
one of the demons, it seems clear that we have here one of
the ancient sacrifices to these uncanny beings elsewhere so
sternly repressed. The rite is a cathartic one, like many
which we meet in other religions. In these rites sin or dis
ease or impurity is transferred to an object, animate or
inanimate, and then thrown away or driven out of the
community. The use of two goats in this ceremony shows plainly enough
the twofold aspect of the idea of purification: the removal
of uncleanness and the communication of sanctity. This
double-faced idea underlies the whole Levitical system. The
rite of circumcision is both removal of impurity and conse
cration to the divinity. Its importance is indicated by the
penalty of death or excommunication imposed for neglect of
the rite. The Sabbath is a sacred day, and any profanation
of it is punished in the same way (Ex. 35 : 1-3). This is
brought out by an anecdote in which Yahweh himself de
crees the death of a man for the comparatively trifling act
of gathering sticks on that day (Num. 15 : 32-36). The
blasphemer of the sacred name is punished in the same way,
and it is apparent from the anecdote which enforces this
lesson that it is wrong to mingle the sacred Jewish blood
with that of gentiles, for the offender in this case was son of
an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father (Lev. 24 : 10-23).
The rite of cleansing the leper, which is curiously parallel
to the consecration of the priest, shows this twofold aspect.
It takes pains to remove the taboo of the disease, and at the
same time it dedicates the convalescent to the service of
Yahweh. The mechanical nature of the idea of defilement
is attested by the treatment of a house infected with mould

LEGALISM TRIUMPHANT 225
or mildew. It is pronounced leprous and submitted to the
judgment of the priest just like the human leper.
Other enactments of this literature might be adduced,
but these are sufficient to show the motive of the authors.
The very punctiliousness of their demands shows the earnest
ness of their conviction. To them Israel was no longer a
nation among the nations; it was a church whose first, and
one might say whose only, duty was to keep itself unspotted
from the world. While the temple stood and the rites were
duly performed, and while the Jews kept themselves free
from demonic influences, all would be well. Not only the
prosperity of the scattered Jewish communities but the well-
being of the world at large depended on the observance of
the Law. The danger of formalism which resulted from this
emphasis of the opus operatum is obvious. The authors of
the code would reply to our objection: "Formalism or no
formalism, we are bound to obey the divine ordinances, and
this is, in fact, our life." Men of a more sophisticated age
may easily underestimate the amount of serious religious
purpose which finds satisfaction in the strict observance of
such a ritualistic system.
It is easy to misunderstand also the zeal of the authors for
the prerogatives of the priesthood. If the service of the
temple was to be worthily performed the ministers of the
sanctuary must have an adequate support. It was not alto
gether because the priestly writers were themselves priests
(we do not know that they were) that they made such
extravagant demands for tithes and contributions. If the
prosperity of the race depends on the hierarchy, it is a small
thing for the laymen to provide an adequate support for its
members. Deuteronomy has shown us that in the early
period the members of the priestly caste were reckoned
among the poor of the land, dependent upon the charity of
the faithful. Ezekiel sanctioned the exclusion of all laymen
from the sanctuary, and at the same time provided that all
the offices should be in the hands of consecrated persons.
The Priestcode assumes that Ezekiel's arrangement was in

226 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
effect from the Mosaic age, and takes care that the whole
priestly clan shall be duly supported. First of all, forty-
eight cities, including the most important places in the coun
try, are set apart for the tribe of Levi — something quite con
tradictory to the declarations of earlier authors (some of
them priestly even), according to which Levi was not to re
ceive any territory (Num. 18 : 21-24). Then they are to
have a tithe of the gross produce of the land. Of this the
priests are to have a tithe. Considerable portions of the
offerings also go to the priests, and this is doubtless in ac
cordance with ancient usage. The subject is of subordinate
interest to the student of religion, illustrating as it does only
the tendency of a hierarchy to claim more and more for it
self in the way of emoluments and in the way of dignity.
The climax was reached in the Greek period, when the high
priest became the civil as well as the ecclesiastical head of
the community, and when the titles of king and high priest
were given to the same person.
The separatism, the scrupulosity, and the externalism of
the Pharisees developed from the ideas embodied in the
Priestcode. Fortunately for the history of religion, the Priest
code was only one part of the literature of Israel in this
period. Within the rigid frame provided by the Law there
was room for a more spiritual and vital piety than that of
the ritualists. The best evidence is found in the documents
which we have still to study.

CHAPTER XIII
THE DOGMATIC BIAS
We have seen how thoroughly Ezekiel taught his people
to misunderstand their own history. We have seen also how
members of the Deuteronomic school rewrote the earlier
narrative to make it teach Deuteronomic lessons. The
priestly writers could not do otherwise than carry on this
process. The greatest treasure of Israel was its literature.
But the lesson taught by this literature must be made plainer
if it was to edify a generation dominated by priestly ideals.
These ideals were thoroughly theocratic; the wilderness
period was a time of gracious obedience, because Yahweh
directly controlled his people by the mouth of Moses. The
record of Israel's later history was a record of defection,
partly because the monarchy was a human institution, not
divinely ordained and not divinely guided. Hence the view
of the later strata of the books of Samuel, according to which
the demand for a king was a proof of the depravity of the
people, and a rejection of Yahweh himself. In this same
strand of the narrative Samuel is presented as the theocratic
ruler, a second Moses, who has only to pray to Yahweh in
order to secure a miraculous deliverance from the Philis
tines (I Sam. 7 : 3-14). That this is not history needs no
demonstration. It is not always easy to distinguish between the Deuter
onomic redaction and that of the priestly writers. In fact,
the point of view of the two schools was so similar that it
was easy for the later to expand the text of the earlier.
The prayer of Solomon, for example, is Deuteronomic in
tone, but it has evidently been retouched by a hand which
227

228 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
we may properly regard as that of a priestly writer. Without
attempting to point this out in detail we may notice the dis
tinctly priestly document which underlies the book of Gen
esis and the earlier chapters of Exodus. We have already
noticed those narrative portions of these books which belong
respectively to the Yahwistic and to the Elohistic writer.
When these narratives are dissected out we have left what
evidently was a single document, mostly genealogical in
nature, which belongs to the priestly school. It was appar
ently composed as an introduction to the laws contained in
Leviticus. It was designed also to replace the patriarchal
stories of J and E, which from the later point of view were
scarcely edifying. For an introduction to the Law it was
sufficient to give an outline which would lead the reader
rapidly from Adam to Abraham, and from Abraham to
Moses, without dwelling upon these unedifying details.
This author whom we will call P, resembles his predecessor
E in that he prefers the name Elohim for God. His theology,
however, is less anthropomorphic than that of either of his
forerunners. This comes into view at once when we com
pare his account of the creation (Gen. 1 : 1 to 2 : 4<i) with that
of J. He makes God transcendent, working by his spirit
and word alone. The divinity no longer fashions man of
clay, and he does not find it necessary to experiment with the
animals before deciding to make woman as man's fit associate.
We hear nothing of Yahweh's walking in the garden, or of
his cross-questioning Adam about his conduct. The local
colour has disappeared; there is no serpent; no cherubim
guard the paradise. The mythology has been discarded,
and we have something which approaches a scientific cos
mology. A trace of anthropomorphism survives indeed in
the statement that man is made in the image of the Creator,
and a faint echo of the Babylonian myth is heard in the
word tehom, used for the primeval waters, for this is evi
dently the Tiamat of Mesopotamian cosmology. But these
faint survivals show how thoroughly the mythological stage
of thought has been left behind.

THE DOGMATIC BIAS 229
It is possible that the succession of works of creation in
this account has been borrowed from Babylonian sources,
for Babylonian science was in high repute throughout the
empire of Xerxes. But if so the arrangement has been
subordinated to Jewish conceptions, for the compression of
these successive acts into the six days of the creative week
is plainly dictated by the Jewish reverence for the Sabbath.
The reason for the sanctity of the day is now seen to be
that God himself rested on that day and consecrated it as
a sacred day. The correspondence of things on earth and
of things in heaven requires that the day be observed in
both. Later Jewish authors carry this idea of correspon
dence so far as to require the angels to observe all the Jew
ish festivals, and some of them are insistent in their de
mand that the calendar be so arranged that the earthly
festivals shall be observed at the proper time, since other
wise the discordance would interfere with the divine pur
pose. The priestly writer bridges over the period between Adam
and the deluge by a genealogy in which he records the age
of each patriarch at the birth of his eldest son. The inter
est of this table is plainly chronological and the explana
tion is not far to seek. In the postexilic period, when the
new era was ardently hoped for, it was supposed that the
duration of the present world could be calculated and
the time of the consummation of all things could thus be
foreseen. The world was to exist four or six or seven thou
sand years, or as many periods, which could be discovered
by the study of history. Which of the schemes underlay
this author's figures he does not tell us. Possibly he drew
upon Babylonian tradition, for his ten antediluvian patri
archs are shadows of the ten kings which Babylonian my
thology assigned to the primeval age.
The ordered and schematic arrangement of this author's
creation story made him, in a sense, the first of the evolu
tionists, and his theory of development comes to view in
his treatment of the institutions of Israel. The Sabbath

230 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
was introduced at the beginning; at the deluge the prohi
bition of blood as food was imposed; at the birth of Isaac
circumcision was commanded; and at the exodus the ob
servance of the Passover. A certain amount of dependence
on tradition dictated this order in ;fche narrative, for cir
cumcision antedated Moses, and the Yahwist had already
brought the Passover into connection with the exodus, his
view being also adopted by the Deuteronomist. The priestly
writer by accenting these institutions marked off four periods
of the world's history, beginning respectively with Adam,
Noah, Abraham, and Moses. The Greeks also had a
scheme of four ages, as we know, but it is not necessary to
suppose that the Hebrew thinker was influenced by Greek
thought. It is not accidental that Sabbath and circumcision are
singled out as having special significance. These were the
two institutions which the Jews could observe in the dis
persion and which, therefore, most distinctly served the
purpose of a test for the faithful observer of the Law. Our
author thinks them obligatory not on the Jews alone. In
reference to the Sabbath, at any rate, he felt authorised to
say: "We Jews are the only people who are faithful to the
divine ordering." How, in fact, the observance of a day of
rest was introduced into Israel is still unknown. The pre-
exilic references to it seem to indicate that it was a lunar
festival. In Babylonia the seventh, fourteenth, and twenty-
first days of each month were regarded as days of ill omen
on which, therefore, it was safer not to undertake any work.
It is difficult, however, to see how this monthly scheme
could be dissociated from the phases of the moon so as to
give rise to the Hebrew series of seventh-day observances
independent of the lunar months. But the importance of
the number seven in Hebrew thought is evident from the
documents in our hands. It might well be that the idea
of consecrating one day in seven by abstaining from labour
arose without direct connection with the moon. The thought
would be the same which we find in the so-called sabbatical

THE DOGMATIC BIAS 231
year, one year in seven, in which the land was allowed to
lie fallow as a tribute to Yahweh, the Lord of the soil.
The difference between the Deuteronomic and the priestly
point of view is shown by the treatment of the Sabbath in
their respective decalogues. The Deuteronomist, with his
characteristic humanitarianism, insists upon the day of rest
as a boon to the slave and the hireling: "Thou shalt remem
ber that thou wast a slave in the land of Egypt and Yah
weh thy God brought thee out thence by a mighty hand
and by an outstretched arm; therefore Yahweh thy God
commands thee to keep the sabbath" (Deut. 5 : 15). The
priestly writer in adopting the Decalogue changes the rea
son for the observance of the Sabbath and inserts his pre
conceived notion that it was consecrated by Yahweh him
self: "For in six days Yahweh made heaven and earth, the
sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day;
wherefore Yahweh blessed the sabbath and hallowed it"
(Ex. 20 : 11). The difference is enormous — the humanitarian
institution has become something imposed by divine com
mand and binding for that reason. As a sacred thing it
marks Israel off from the rest of the world: "You shall
keep my sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you
throughout your generations, that you may know that it
is I, Yahweh, who consecrate you" (Ex. 31 : 13). The full
stringency of the command comes out in the same connec
tion, where it is distinctly ordered that the disobedient shall
be put to death: "You shall keep the sabbath, for it is a
sacred thing to you; every one who profanes it shall surely
be put to death; whosoever does any work therein shall be
cut off from his people" (Ex. 31 : 14). That we may be
in no doubt as to the severity of the commandment we are
told of a man who was found gathering sticks on the sacred
day and was brought to Moses for judgment. The sentence
of death was given by a direct revelation from Yahweh
(Num. 15 : 32-36).
Emphasis on the Sabbath is, for the reasons already in
dicated, a mark of postexilic authorship. In the book of

232 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
Jeremiah we read a passage which is quite out of harmony
with the rest of that prophet's discourses. It exhorts the
kings and the people in the words: "Take heed to your
selves and bear no burden on the sabbath, nor bring it in
by the gates of Jerusalem, neither carry forth a burden out
of your houses on the sabbath, neither do any work but
hallow the sabbath as I commanded your fathers" (Jer.
17 : 21). There follows a specific promise that if the Sab
bath is observed the kingdom and temple will stand forever.
The view of this writer is that profanation of the Sabbath
was the reason why Jerusalem was destroyed, something
which is nowhere else affirmed by the prophets until we
come to Ezekiel. Postexilic also is the identification of
"keeping the Sabbath" with "holding fast the covenant"
which we find in another writer (Isaiah 56 : 6). The con
trast between this theory and that of the earlier prophets,
according to which the Sabbath, like the other ritual ob
servances, is a matter of indifference to Yahweh or even
displeasing to him needs only to be mentioned.
As to circumcision, we know that it was an ancient tribal
mark common to a number of peoples, among them the
group allied by blood with Israel. It became the distin
guishing badge of the Jew when he lived in the midst of
people who did not practise it. The pre-exilic writers lay
no stress upon it, but in Ezekiel's view uncircumcision is
uncleanness. The priestly writer regards it as the sign of
the covenant and, as we have seen, threatens death for its
neglect. The Talmud goes further and declares that if it
had not been for circumcision the world would not have
been created. Jewish authorities add that the higher order
of angels were created with the distinguishing Jewish mark
upon them.
According to the document now before us the permission
to eat flesh given to Noah and his sons was accompanied
by the prohibition of blood. We may suppose the author
moved by ancient custom in this case also. According to
early ideas the blood is sacred and consequently belongs to

THE DOGMATIC BIAS 233
the divinity. So late as the time of Ezekiel the prohibition
of its enjoyment by man was supposed to be because it was
the food of God and was brought to him on the altar (Ezek.
44 : 7). That this belief existed to a late period is indicated
by the pains taken by the Psalmist to contradict the popu
lar impression (Psalm 50 : 13). The priestly author could
not give this reason to Noah because he thought that sac
rifice was not commanded until the time of Moses; but,
all the same, blood was to him an uncanny thing which no
one ought to eat. The divine command given to Noah
should naturally bind all of Noah's descendants. In this
case, therefore, as in the matter of the Sabbath, the Jews
regarded themselves as the only people who were faithful
to the divine order of things.
The scheme of the priestly writer included a gradual reve
lation of Israel's religion. It also included a gradual narrow
ing of Yahweh's interest from mankind at large down to
Israel. The early history of the world is divided into ten
periods each marked by the title: "This is the genealogy."
The series ends with the genealogy of the sons of Jacob
(Gen. 37 : 2). But whatever evolution there was stopped
with Moses, for he received the final and complete revela
tion of the will of Yahweh. In the wilderness the ecclesi
astical commonwealth was organised in the form which it
must have throughout all future generations. The new
epoch is marked by the revelation of the name of Yahweh
— this had been stated by the Elohist also. The census of
Israel is taken twice in the wilderness, as if to assure us
that the nation as it existed in the time of Solomon was
born full-grown at the exodus. The colossal miracle by
which three million people were sustained in the desert forty
years does not disturb our author, since it is the convincing
evidence of Israel's election.
As the organisation of this priestly commonwealth in the
wilderness was effected by direct divine activity, so was the
settlement of the tribes in Canaan. This land was the land
of Yahweh, promised by him to the patriarchs, and kept in

234 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
view at the exodus (Gen. 17 : 1-8; Ex. 2 : 24). The con
quest had been narrated by a Deuteronomic author in such
a way that the priestly writer did not need to revise it to
any extent, but the division of the country among the tribes
must be brought into the scheme by relating the direct divine
command given to Moses before his death (Num. 34). The
second half of the book of Joshua narrates how the com
mand was carried out. The allotment was accompanied by
a provision that the land should be inalienable. The family
which receives title at the conquest retains it for ever. If
there be a deficiency of male heirs daughters may inherit,
but on condition that they marry kinsmen, so that in any
case the land shall not pass out of the tribe to which it was
first given. The sabbatic system is now made to secure this
end, there being a general reversion of land to the original
owners at the end of seven sabbatic periods (Lev. 25). The
author is not a socialist, desiring to prevent a monopoly of
landed property; he is a religious idealist endeavouring to
secure the perpetuity of the allotment made originally by
the direction of Yahweh himself. It is, of course, obvious
that no one but an Israelite will ever be able to obtain
foothold in Palestine, and that consequently the sanctity of
Yahweh's territory will always be preserved.
What customs of war are logically implied in the exclusive
sanctity of Israel is set before us in the anecdote of the
slaughter of the Midianites (Num. 31). This tribe having
seduced the Israelites to idolatry, Moses sends an expedition
against them. The warriors think it enough to slay the
adult males and bring the women and children to the camp
of Israel. But Moses and Eleazar instruct them that all the
males, of whatever age, and all the women, except virgins,
must also be slain. These, therefore, are executed in cold
blood. The soldiers, being ritually unclean by reason of
their contact with the dead, are shut out of the camp seven
days and are then sprinkled with the holy water kept for
purification. The booty is purified by fire and water and
divided into halves, one for the men who took part in

THE DOGMATIC BIAS 235
the expedition, the other for the rest of the people. From
each portion, before its distribution to individuals, a con
tribution is made to the sanctuary, and in addition to this,
which is intended to be a fixed tax (as a precedent), the war
riors insist on giving a thank-offering. There seems to be
no historic basis for the story; it only embodies the author's
idea of the way in which the Israel of the future will deal
with the heathen.
Since the history of the Judges and the history of the
Kings had been worked over by a Deuteronomic hand the
priestly school did not find it necessary to re-edit these books.
But one of its members, dissatisfied with the record, made a
new compendium of the history, containing what he thought
best for people to know. Probably he intended his work,
which is preserved to us in the books of Chronicles together
with Ezra and Nehemiah, to take the place of the other nar
rative books. For the period between the creation and the
accession of David he contents himself with a genealogical
outline. He assumes apparently that the Law is in the hands
of his readers and that this is enough for this earlier period.
He has little use for the Judges, and he probably regarded
Saul as an apostate. In fact, he ascribes this unhappy
king's death to the vengeance of Yahweh because of the visit
to a necromancer (I Chron. 10 : 13). His interest becomes
keen when he writes of David. His David, however, is not
the David of the earlier narrative — the man who shows many
human weaknesses. Whatever throws a shadow on the great
king is carefully excluded from the narrative. What is
shown us is a great churchman, devoted to the service of the
sanctuary. The account of the bringing up of the ark, taken
from the earlier narrative, is changed in details so as to make
David conform to the Mosaic Law. The Levites, who are
conspicuous by their absence from the earlier story, now
appear as the legitimate carriers of the sacred object. And
being thus brought into the story, the author makes use of
them to show David's care for the ritual; for it is at his
command that the Levites arrange the companies of singers

236 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
and of doorkeepers (I Chron. 15 : 16-24). We are assured
that even before this time David and Samuel had set the
Levites in their office as doorkeepers for the tabernacle, and
that they lodged about the house of God (9 : 22 and 27).
This house of God is the Mosaic sanctuary, which the author
supposes to have been at Gibeon in this period. Only on
this hypothesis could he understand Solomon's going thither
to sacrifice. At this sanctuary, we are told, David organised
the guilds of Levitical singers "until Solomon should build
the house of Yahweh" (6 : 16-32; cf. 15 : 11). Further,
in conjunction with Zadok, David divided the priests into
twenty-four courses, and made twenty-four courses of singers
for the sake of symmetry (24 and 25). Obed-edom, origi
nally a foreigner, is now made a Levite, progenitor of a family
of temple servants. Thus the correctness of the service is
assured from the time of David on.
The work of David, however, is only preliminary, for in
the view of postexilic Judaism the most important event in
the history of the world was the building of the temple.
This could not be ascribed to David, because all the world
knew that it was the work of Solomon. Our author, how
ever, gives David as much of the credit as was possible.
According to him David made all the preparations, gathered
all the materials, and even received the plan from Yahweh
himself (28 : 11). The extravagance of the provision is in
dicated by the figures given— a hundred thousand talents of
gold and a million talents of silver, besides uncalculated
amounts of timber, stone, bronze, and iron (22 : 4 and 14).
All that was left for Solomon to do was to carry out the
plans of David, and to conform to the Law of Moses (II
Chron. 8 : 12-14).
Since the temple is the place of Yahweh's residence, and
the only legitimate place of worship, the rebellion of Jero
boam and the northern tribes was apostasy from Yahweh.
Having this conviction, the Chronicler leaves the northern
kingdom out of his history. The crowning sin was that
Jeroboam expelled the true priests from their office. Ac-

THE DOGMATIC BIAS 237
cordingly, the priests and Levites and all true believers are
said to have emigrated from the northern kingdom (II Chron.
11 : 13-16; 13 : 4^".), and citizens of that kingdom are under
the wrath of Yahweh (25 : 6-10). We are not concerned
here with the historicity of any of these statements, but with
the author's point of view. His belief is that Judah has the
favour of Yahweh as long as the temple service is carried on
according to the Law of Moses, supplemented by the regu
lations of David. A good king makes it his first concern to
see that the Law is observed. Thus Jehoshaphat orders the
Levites to go through the kingdom and instruct the people
in the book of the Law (II Chron. 17 : 7-10). At the cor
onation of Jehoash the princes allow none but priests and
Levites to enter the temple (23 : 3-7). Hezekiah exhorts the
priests and Levites to consecrate themselves and to recon
secrate the temple (29 : 4/.); he re-establishes the courses of
priests and Levites and gives order for their proper support
(31 : 2-6). Josiah stations the priests in their offices and
arranges the Levites according to the writing of David and
the decree of Solomon (35 : 3 /. and 15). The presence of the
Levitical singers with the army of Jehoshaphat is enough to
secure a great victory over the Ethiopians (20 : 21-24). On
the other hand, Uzziah's leprosy (the fact was known from
the earlier narrative) is now accounted for as a punishment
for an act of sacrilege; the king is said to have intruded
into the temple and to have had the presumption to offer
incense, thus trespassing on the prerogative of the high priest
(26 : 16-20).
Prophets and Deuteronomists had conspired to establish
the view that the Exile was a punishment on Judah for its
disobedience to Yahweh. The Chronicler adopts this view,
and gives it the proper ritualistic colouring. To him the
specific sin which called for exile was the neglect of the sab
batic years. Seventy years of exile are called for, to give
the land the rest of which it had been deprived during the
four hundred and ninety years which had preceded (36 : 21).
The author believes that all Judah was carried away, so that

238 THE RELIGION OP ISRAEL
the land was destitute of inhabitants until the return under
Joshua and Zerubbabel. Since the family of David was not
then restored to the throne the care of Yahweh for the temple
was indicated by his moving gentile kings to rebuild it and
to provide for the worship. Hence we learn of the decrees
of Cyrus and his successors. Cyrus recognises Yahweh as
God of heaven who has given him his power (Ezra 1 : 1-3) ;
Darius encourages the work of rebuilding and provides for
the sacrifices (6 :6-12); Artaxerxes goes beyond either of
them and authorizes Ezra to enforce the Mosaic Law,
exempts the temple servants from taxation, and provides
lavishly from the public revenues for the carrying on of the
service (7 : 17-26). The performance of the ritual is the
most important thing in the world, overshadowing the res
toration of Israel's nationality. If the service cannot be pro
vided for by a king of David's line, the next best thing is to
have a gentile king attend to it. Hence the evident satis
faction with which these various decrees are reproduced (we
cannot tell from what source) in the narrative.
A considerable part of the book (Chronicles, Ezra, and
Nehemiah) is taken up by genealogies, and this fact is ex
plicable when we remember the priestly point of view. By
divine command the temple service is in the hands of the
priests and Levites. These must be of genuine Levitical
blood. The community which lives about the temple in like
manner must be genuinely Israelitic, for it was the descendants
of Jacob whom Yahweh had chosen to be his people. The
line was, therefore, sharply drawn in the postexilic com
munity between the people of the land who were suspected
of Canaanitish admixture and those who could show their
purity of blood. These last alone were (in theory, at least)
admitted to membership in the new community. The book
of Ezra shows us the rigid logic of the purists, who demanded
the divorce of foreign wives even when they had borne chil
dren to their husbands. So drastic a measure can hardly
have been carried through, but the demand shows the stand
ard set by the legalists, of whom Ezra is the type. The

THE DOGMATIC BIAS 239
most important man in the community is now the scribe, to
whom the written law is everything, and obedience to it is
the whole duty of man. To enforce this lesson is the pur
pose of the literature we have been considering.

CHAPTER XIV
THE MESSIANIC HOPE
The history of the Jews in the Persian period is very im
perfectly known. In the early part of it Zerubbabel, appar
ently a descendant of David, was civil governor in Jerusalem,
and the little community under his rule rebuilt the temple.
The city had lost its earlier importance and the district sub
ject to it was insignificant in size. The people were dis
couraged, the city walls were not restored, and the temple
itself was a sorry structure compared to the one erected by
Solomon. It was nearly a century after the Persian con
quest of Babylon before the fortunes of the sacred city began
to revive, and the impetus then came from outside of Pal
estine — an energetic Jew arrived from the court of the great
king armed with authority from his master and animated by
patriotic zeal for the city of his fathers. Under his influence
other Jews came from the East and took up their residence
in Palestine. These immigrants looked upon themselves as
the true Israel and distrusted the remnant in Palestine who
claimed to be of the same stock. Their unyielding temper
is revealed by Nehemiah's own record, which shows how an
tagonism existed from the time of his arrival. The introduc
tion of the priestly law and the measures taken against
foreign marriages accented the division. On one side was
the party of those who came from the East with such of the
"people of the land" as accepted the Law; on the other was
the country party, led by one Sanballat, prefect of Samaria,
which, when finally excluded from Jerusalem, built a temple
on Mount Gerizim and became the sect of the Samaritans.
The postexilic community nourished its intellectual life on
240

THE MESSIANIC HOPE 241
the books which had come down from earlier times and read
into them more hope for the future than they actually con
tained. It was easy to find in the stories of the patriarchs
pledges for the continued favour of God. The narrative of
the deliverance from Egypt afforded a parallel to the hoped-
for redemption from another slavery. The experiences of
the exile had strengthened the sense of sin, but this sense of
sin had always beneath it the faith that repentance would
be followed by pardon and restoration. The precedent was
set by the narratives of the wilderness wandering which told
how the rebels had actually been forgiven. Nehemiah's
prayer gives an affecting picture of this state of mind. The
penitent, after confessing the sins of the fathers, reminds his
God that Moses had given assurance that the outcast Israel
ites should be gathered again if only they would turn to
Yahweh (Neh. 1 : 6-9).
It was natural that much attention should be given to
passages which were predictive in form. The literary device
of putting such passages into the mouth of ancient worthies
was not unknown even in the pre-exilic period. Thus the
patriarch Jacob is made to foresee the fate of his sons.
The promise of dominion to Judah had been amply verified
by the kingship given to David. But the postexilic Jew
found it impossible to believe that that fulfilment was final.
It was more in accordance with the richness of divine grace
to expect a larger verification in the time yet to come. The
same is true of the utterances of Balaam. This enigmatic
seer had been called to pronounce a curse on Israel, but the
curse had been turned into a blessing. And the most strik
ing part of it was the vision of a star out of Jacob and
a sceptre from Israel (Num. 23 : 21; 24 : 17). Whatever
might be said of the fulfilment in David, the religious reader
could hardly bring himself to suppose that a word of God
would exhaust its full meaning in any one age. It is true
that to us, who have the trained historical sense, this seek
ing of a double meaning in Scripture seems to be fallacious,
but there can hardly be a doubt that by just this method

242 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
many fainting souls have been strengthened not only in
Judaism but also in Christianity.
The books of the prophets were studied in this way and
they were also supplemented by the scribes to whom the
severity of the early message was often intolerable. Some
hopeful features may have been discovered in the messages
of these great preachers, even though the message was (as it
so often was) one of denunciation. Thus, underneath the
sombre accusations of Hosea there was the thought that Yah
weh still loved Israel though forced to cast her off. Isaiah at
some time in his career had given hints of a remnant which
would survive the coming calamity. It was he who had
declared that a sure corner-stone was laid in Zion. Even
Jeremiah had intimated that a restoration would come after
seventy years. The intention of the prophet was, as we
know, to discourage the optimism of the exiles, who were
looking for an early redemption; to impress upon them the
need of adjusting themselves to the life in Babylon. But
now the seventy years had passed and the hope of revival
became vivid. In like manner Ezekiel had thought of forty
years as the duration of the captivity (Ezek. 29 : 11-13).
Ezekiel, in fact, was the man who gave definite form to the
hope of a restoration. His programme, which we have already
considered, was thoroughly supernatural — that is, it looked
for an act of God to change the nature of the soil of Canaan
and to change also the hearts of the people. The change in
the soil had not come, but thoroughly penitent Israelites
might hope that the divine grace had already operated on
their hearts.
The definite lines with which Ezekiel had drawn his picture
of the future commonwealth made a deep impression on his
people. His scheme included three essential features of
what we know from his time on as the Messianic hope.
These were : the punishment of the hostile world-power, the
restoration of Israel to its own land, and the dwelling of
Yahweh in the midst of the new commonwealth. The head
ship of a prince of the house of David is included, but this

THE MESSIANIC HOPE 243
was in Ezekiel's view only a minor feature. His belief in
the visible presence of Yahweh in his temple made an
earthly prince superfluous. The prince in his scheme be
comes only the steward of the sanctuary. In saying, there
fore, that Ezekiel is the father of the Messianic expectation,
we must be careful to note that the expectation is Messianic
in the broader sense only; it looked for the restoration of the
theocratic community but did not picture it as a kingdom in
which the personal Messiah would be the dominant figure.
Loyalty to the house of David would, however, be strength
ened by the experiences of exile, and it is probable that the
majority of the people could conceive of the restored nation
in no other way than as a monarchy with a member of the
legitimate dynasty on the throne. Evidence of this state
of mind is given by the two little books of Haggai and Zech
ariah.1 The two prophets were active in connection with
the rebuilding of the temple in the reign of Darius I. Hag
gai shows us how the expectation of a miraculous interven
tion of Yahweh really prevented activity on the part of
the people. They said that the time for rebuilding had
not come, just because Yahweh gave no sign of return
ing to his people. Haggai reasoned the other way: that
Yahweh would do his part when the people did theirs.
They looked upon the bad harvests as discouragements;
he thought them a result of their neglect of the house.
"You looked for much, but it came to little, and when you
brought it home I shrivelled it up. Why? says Yahweh
Sabaoth: Because of my house which lies waste while each
of you takes pleasure in his own house" (Hag. 1:9).
Under this encouragement Zerubbabel, the governor, and
Joshua, the high priest, set to work and the temple was re
built. Haggai is confident that this event foreshadows the
great restoration. "I will shake the heavens and the earth
and overturn the throne of kingdoms. ... In that day I
will take thee, O Zerubbabel my servant, and will make thee
1 Zech. 1-8 only belongs here; the rest of the book bears marks of a
later date.

244 THE RELIGION OP ISRAEL
a signet; for I have chosen thee, says Yahweh Sabaoth"
(Hag. 2 : 21-23). Since the king of Judah is the signet on
Yahweh's right hand (Jer. 22 : 24), there can be no doubt
that Haggai expects the restoration of the house of David
to come at once, with Zerubbabel as the reigning monarch.
His contemporary, Zechariah, shared this expectation. In
vision this prophet sees evil banished from the land, the
nations rendered impotent to harm Judah, and Zerubbabel
crowned king of the new commonwealth with the high priest
as his coadjutor. The exiles will return and Yahweh him
self will dwell in the midst of his people (Zech. 8 : 1-8).
The declaration concerning Zerubbabel (6 : 9-15) has been
obscured in the current Hebrew text, but the original is still
discoverable. Disappointment followed, and it is possible
that the expectation brought a tragic fate to Zerubbabel,
but the hope lived on.
The hope lived on, but it had to struggle with indiffer
ence and scepticism. Evidence of this is given by the little
book called by the name of Malachi. The change of view
which has taken place is plain when we compare this preacher
with Amos and Isaiah. To them the cultus is hateful to
Yahweh; to him the neglect of the ritual is the great sin
of the people. He complains that the altar is defrauded of
its dues and that the priests connive at this sin. The tem
ple service is the centre of the prophet's thought; what
afflicts him is that the lame and the blind are brought in
sacrifice (Mai. 1 : 6-8) and that tithe and tribute are with
held (3 : 8). The reason of this neglect is scepticism, and
this has arisen from Yahweh's long delay to carry out his
promises. Two parties exist in Jerusalem: one is that of
the unbelieving, who say: "Every one that does evil is good
in the sight of Yahweh and he takes pleasure in them;
where is the God of Justice?" (2 : 17.) These say: "It is
vain to serve God, and what profit is it that we have kept
his charge and have walked mournfully before Yahweh
Sabaoth? Now we call the proud happy, yes they that
work wickedness are built up, they tempt God and escape"

THE MESSIANIC HOPE 245
(3 : 13/.). Opposed to them is the little band of those
who trust Yahweh. To these the prophet gives assurance
that they are not forgotten of their God, but that their
names are preserved in a book of remembrance for the
coming day (3 : 16/.). This day is a day of judgment, for
Yahweh will sit as a refiner of silver and purge the dross
from his people (3:2). "The wicked will be as stubble and
will be burned root and branch, but to those that fear the
Name the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in
his beams" (3 : 19/.; 4:1/., E. V).
The common expectation held by the pious throughout
this period is here reproduced, but with some details that
seem to be original with Malachi. The idea of a heavenly
book of reckoning, in which are written the names of those
who are well-pleasing to God so that they may be rewarded
in the time of trial, is not met with in the earlier literature
unless we take into account the brief and obscure allusion
in the Pentateuch (Ex. 32 : 32/.). Malachi is also the first
to mention the prophet Elijah as herald of the Messianic
time. Elijah suggested himself as the proper person for
this office, not only because he was a courageous advocate
of the true religion in a time of backsliding, but because he
had been taken to heaven and so had escaped the common
lot of man. Having been admitted to the heavenly counsels,
he would be able to announce the plan of God with author
ity. But it is noticeable that Malachi does not expect a
human Messiah; he believes that Yahweh himself, or rather
the angel who represents him, will come and regulate af
fairs in the Jewish community.
In the circle of those who feared God the Scriptures
of the prophets were read and studied, and it is easy to
see how they were supplemented by sections which gave
expression to the longing for redemption. In many cases
leaflets embodying this longing were circulated from hand
to hand and finally added to the books of the prophets.
Thus, in the book of Jeremiah, we have the complete Messi
anic programme set forth in language that we cannot pos-

246 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
sibly suppose to have been used by that preacher (Jer. 30 and
31) . The opening section gives the theme : " I will turn again
the captivity of my people Israel and Judah, says Yahweh,
and I will cause them to return to the land that I gave their
fathers and they shall possess it." There follows a sketch
of the dismay which will overtake the nations when Yah
weh breaks the yoke of oppression. Yahweh will thus be
the saviour of his people and they shall have a second David,
a prince of their own blood. The land will be secure and
its fruits will abound, so that the virgin will rejoice in the
dance. The climax is reached with the promise of a new
covenant: "Not according to the covenant which I made
with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of the land of Egypt, which covenant of
mine they broke; but this is the covenant which I will make
with the house of Israel after those days, says Yahweh:
I will put my Law in their inward parts and on their heart
I will write it; and I will be their God and they shall be
my people; and they shall no more teach every man his
brother and every man his neighbour, saying: Know Yah
weh! — for they shall all know me, from the least of them
to the greatest of them, says Yahweh; for I will forgive
their iniquity and their sin I will remember no more" (Jer.
31 : 32-34).
The vitality of the Messianic hope doubtless came from
this distinctly religious appeal. The sense of estrangement
from their God was the hardest thing that the exiles had
to bear. Their comfort was found in such assurances of for
giveness as we have here. At the same time we must re
member that many of the Jews found a less spiritual con
solation in the predictions of vengeance which circulated in
this period. Ezekiel's treatment of Gog set the example for
a number of writers who envisaged the hostile power, not as
a mysterious invader from the north, but as the actually
existing Babylon which had besieged Jerusalem and burned
the temple. Babylon became the typical figure, the arch
enemy, guilty of oppression of Israel and of sacrilege com-

THE MESSIANIC HOPE 247
mitted against the God of Israel. This typical position it
retained even after the rise of the Persian empire, for Cyrus
did not destroy the great city; he, in fact, made it one of
his capitals, and it remained the most important city of the
East until after Alexander's triumph. So long as this em
bodiment of luxury, pride, and godlessness stood, the Jews
were longing for her overthrow as the crowning proof of the
divine justice; hence the bitterness of some of the proph
ecies which concern themselves with this event. A good
example is the supplement to the book of Jeremiah (Jer. 50
and 51). Repeatedly the writer assures us that Babylon is
about to be destroyed, for Yahweh is about to take ven
geance for his temple. Repeatedly, also, the exiles are ex
horted to flee out of the land of their captivity and return to
their own land. In this narrow circle of ideas the author
moves round and round without making any progress. At
the end we are assured that Jeremiah sent the written leaflet
to Babylon and had it read as a testimony against the city
and then cast into the Euphrates. The literary device is
transparent. What interests us, however, is the desire for
vengeance which breathes in the lines. A similar but more
finished production has been included in the book of Isaiah
(Isaiah 13 and 14). Here we read how Babylon, the op
pressor, is to be overthrown by Yahweh's army, mustered
from the ends of the earth for this purpose, and accompanied
by convulsions of nature (13:1-10). The redeemed Israelites
will sing a song of triumph over the slain king of Babylon,
taunting him with his ignominious fate: " Cast out from the
tomb like a despised branch" (14 : 18/.). Few passages
show so distinctly the hatred felt by the Jew for his op
pressors. In its complete form the Messianic expectation involved
four things: the punishment of the foreign nations; the re
turn of Israel to its own land; a new covenant; and the rule
of a king of David's line. But not all these features are
emphasised at the same time. The political colouring varies
greatly. Some hearts felt an ardent longing for the suprem-

248 THE RELIGION OP ISRAEL
acy of Israel over all the nations. But for the most part the
religious desire for forgiveness, purification, and the presence
of God is the one most distinctly expressed. The severity of
Hosea was corrected by a later hand, which promised that
Yahweh would heal the people's backsliding and love them
freely (Hosea 14 : 4). A similar consolatory conclusion was
added to the book of Amos, specifically promising the re-
erection of the fallen tent of David, together with millennial
plenty in the land. The original book of Isaiah was com
pleted by a picture of paradisiacal peace and fruitfulness.
How far such passages were intended to be taken literally is
still obscure to us.
As we have seen, the figure of a human ruler was not con
stantly present in these anticipations. In many instances
the thought of Yahweh's coming to rule his people, in the
midst of whom he would dwell, overshadowed the earthly
king. Yet in many places we meet the king of David's line
who will fulfil the promises made to his great ancestor
(II Sam. 7). The supplementer of Amos, in assuring us that
the fallen tent of David shall be raised again, doubtless means
that there will be a son of David on the throne. One writer
apostrophises the decayed town of Bethlehem with the
promise that it shall again give birth to a ruler of the ancient
stock (Micah 5 : 1-3). Isaiah's prediction of the child to
be born, whose name, Immanuel, will testify to the deliver
ance of Jerusalem from its besiegers, suggested a rapturous
description of the Coming One, whose very name indicates
that he will be a hero prince, godlike in his deeds (Isaiah
9:5). Another passage now embedded in Isaiah's book de
clares: "A king shall rule in righteousness and princes shall
reign in judgment, and a man shall be a hiding-place from
the wind, a covert from the tempest, as rivers of water in a
dry place, as the shadow of a great rock in a weary land"
(Isaiah 32 : 1/.). It is by no means sure that in such pas
sages the authors were thinking of one single superhuman, or
at least heroic, figure; they probably had in mind the suc
cession of Davidic rulers who would secure peace and pros-

THE MESSIANIC HOPE 249
perity for their subjects. This is true even where the pre
diction seems most distinctly individual, as in the celebrated
passage which declares that the spirit of Yahweh will fit
the king to be a just judge, a vindicator of the oppressed
(Isaiah 11 : 1-8). But again it is Yahweh who will be the
protecting cloud over all the dwellings in Jerusalem (Isaiah
4 : 5), making the human ruler superfluous. In the good
time to come the righteous will dwell with Yahweh and will
see him, their king, in his beauty: "There Yahweh will be
with us in majesty, Yahweh the lawgiver, Yahweh the king"
(33 : 17 and 21).
The material we have considered makes it obvious that no
pains were taken to bring the expectations of the Jews into
a single harmonious picture. It is probable that really re
ligious people fixed their hope more on the personal presence
of Yahweh in his temple than on any human ruler. The
most distinct prediction of a human Messiah aside from the
two we have considered is the one in Zechariah which de
scribes him as meek and riding on an ass (Zech. 9:9).
Such a personage is overshadowed by the divine majesty,
under whose protection his reign is one of uninterrupted
peace. But in either form — whether it pictured the reign
of Yahweh or whether it looked for a son of David — the
Messianic hope kept the Jews faithful to their religion and
obedient to their Law.

CHAPTER XV
SPIRITUALISATION OF THE MESSIANIC HOPE
The preceding chapter has shown the importance of the
Messianic expectation in keeping alive the religion of the
Jews. But this expectation was not consistent in all its
parts; To make a real contribution to the religious history
of mankind it needed to be unified and spiritualised. These
qualities it received in the book which now forms the second
half of Isaiah (Isaiah 40-66). Whether these chapters are
the work of one man or whether they belong to a group of
like-minded thinkers is a question of minor importance.
What is clear is that the same ideas are expressed in all
parts of the book, and that these ideas mark it off distinctly
from the rest of the Old Testament.
In form we have here a series of poems which treat of God
and his relation to the world, of Israel in its present low
estate, of the problem of suffering as illustrated in the experi
ence of the chosen people, of sin, of forgiveness, of the re
ligious life and of the future glory. Throughout, the author
speaks as a prophet, that is, as the mouthpiece of Yahweh.
Yet in him the experiences of the believer find expression,
whether in the joy of perfect trust or in the pain of conflict
with temptation and doubt. The preacher is fully conscious
of his mission to comfort the faint-hearted and to confute
the unbelieving. He will not only proclaim the will of God,
he will justify his ways. His unshaken confidence in the
God of Israel as God of the whole earth makes him the first
of universalistic theologians, but a theologian made by the
heart rather than by the intellect.
His fundamental thesis is this: Yahweh is the only God,
250

SPIRITUALISATION OF THE MESSIANIC HOPE 251
beside him there is no other: " I am Yahweh and there is none
else; beside me there is no God: That men may acknowledge
both in the East and in the West, that beside me there is
no other — who form light and create darkness, who make
welfare and create calamity — I, Yahweh, the true God, am
author of all this" (45 : 5-7). The terms used make us
think that the author has in view the Persian dualism which
apportions light and darkness to the two opposing chief
powers. But if this be true it is also true that he more dis
tinctly opposed the crass polytheism which was the religion
of the common people of gentile race among whom the
Israelites dwelt. The alleged gods of the heathen are the
objects of his most biting invective. To him they are only
so many manufactured articles. The smith who prepares
such an image over the burning coals, instead of being
strengthened by it, grows faint at his work; the carpenter
who marks out the human figure on a piece of timber and
fashions it into an idol does not reflect on the absurdity of
the process: "Half of it he burns in the fire, and upon the
coals thereof he roasts flesh; he eats the flesh and is satisfied,
he warms himself also and says: Aha, I am warm, I feel the
glow; and the residue he makes into a god! Makes it into an
image and bows down to it! He prostrates himself before it
and says : Rescue me, for thou art my god ! " (44 : 16 /.) Of
course, it would be easy to show that this does less than
justice to the more thoughtful of the heathen to whom the
image is only the symbol of a spiritual being. But as against
the religion of the common people the protest was justified,
and this accentuation of the contrast between Yahweh and
the idols was what Israel needed at this time. Not syn
cretism of all religions was the need of the hour, but the
proclamation of the one God, the Creator of the world, and
the Father of the human spirit.
The intensity of the author's faith comes out in his chal
lenge to the other gods: "Let them draw near and announce
to us what shall happen; relate former events, how they were
foretold, that we may reflect upon them; or else declare to

252 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
us the future that we may mark their issue; announce the
things that are to come hereafter that we may know that
you are gods; yea, do something either good or bad that we
may marvel and have something to see! Behold you are
nought and your work is nothingness !" (41 : 22-24.) In
spite of the greatness of Babylon, her divinities are as im
potent as others: "Bel bows down and Nebo stoops; their
images have passed to the beasts and to the cattle" (46 : 1).
The contrast is here drawn between the helpless and sense
less images which are a burden to their worshippers, which
have to be carried when danger threatens, these on the one
hand; and on the other, Yahweh, the living, active, support
ing God, who bears his people up in his arms. Such scorn of
the idols became ingrained in Jewish thought and finds fre
quent expression in later documents.
That Yahweh is Creator of the world had been affirmed
by pre-exilic writers. But the religious application of the
belief had not been made. Now we learn not only that he
is Creator but that the work of creation and the work of
providence are one. He who sits on the vault of heaven,
weighs the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance, is
the one who is still at work ruling the affairs of the nations.
History is the carrying out of his purpose: "My purpose shall
stand, and all my pleasure I will perform; as I have spoken
I will bring to pass; as I have planned I will accomplish"
(46 : 11/.). This implies the attribute of wisdom as well
as that of power: "Who has measured the mind of Yahweh,
or who as his counsellor gave him knowledge? With whom
has he taken counsel that he might obtain insight, and be
taught the path of right and be shown the way of under
standing?" (40 : 13/.) The immediate practical bearing
of such declarations is easily seen, for it is the author's con
viction that the historical activity of Yahweh is especially
concerned with Israel. It was he who had called Abraham
when but one man and increased him to a great nation
(51 : 2) ; it was he who had led Israel through the Red Sea
and annihilated the pursuing host (43 : 16; 51 : 9/.). The

SPIRITUALISATION OF THE MESSIANIC HOPE 253
present misery of Israel proves nothing against this care on
the part of Yahweh, and nothing against his power, for it
is he who has given his own people over to punishment,
because of their sins. Proof is given by the earlier prophe
cies in which Yahweh made known what was coming to pass,
for only the God who makes history is able to predict what
history is to be: "The former events, behold, they came, and
new things do I announce; before they spring into being I
tell you of them" (42 : 9). "It was I who both announced
and declared and there was no strange god among you;
you are my witnesses, says Yahweh, and I am your re
deemer from the beginning" (43 : 12/.).
The immediate practical interest of the author is seen in
the context. His purpose is to encourage the depressed
Israelites by assuring them that the power of this Creator
and Governor of the universe is at the disposition of those
who will avail themselves of it: "Why sayest thou Jacob,
and speakest, O Israel : My fortune is hidden from Yahweh
and my right is unnoticed by my God? Hast thou not
perceived? Hast thou not heard? An everlasting God is
Yahweh, the Creator of the ends of the earth; he faints not
nor can he be wearied; his insight is unsearchable; to the
weary he gives vigor and to the powerless he increases
strength; youths may faint and grow weary; young warriors
may stumble, but they who wait for Yahweh renew their
vigor; they put forth as it were eagles' wings; they run
and are never weary; they go onward and are never faint."1
In similar passages Israel or Zion is again and again exhorted
to look to Yahweh as the true source of strength, the one
who is about to intervene for the redemption of his people.
And this means that exiled Israel is about to return to its
own land. It is for this that a voice is heard commanding
to make a highway through the desert; Yahweh at the head
of his people, like a shepherd leading his flock, will make his
1 Isaiah 40 : 27-31; cf. 41: 8-20; 51: 17#.; 52 : 1-6. I have used
Cheyne's excellent translation in the Book of Isaiah, Printed in Colors
(1898).

254 THE RELIGION OP ISRAEL
triumphal march back to his chosen dwelling. Jerusalem's
long period of mourning is ended; she has received the full
recompense for her sins; forgiveness and restoration must
follow. Since Israel is in virtual slavery its deliverance is a real
redemption, a buying back of the bondman. The frequent
title which Yahweh gives himself is that of Redeemer. This
word, however, has not the full meaning which Christian
theology is accustomed to give it. It properly denotes the
next of kin, on whom devolves the duty of avenging a man's
quarrel or of ransoming him from captivity if he has fallen
into the hands of the enemy.1 Such a kinsman is Yahweh —
he will bring his people out of their slavery, and he will
punish their enemies. Their present state is, to be sure,
low enough — it is a people spoiled and plundered, they are
all snared in dungeons and hid in prison-houses; they are
become a spoil and there is no rescuer; a plunder and there
is none to say: Restore! (42 : 22.) " Yet now says Yahweh
thy Creator, O Jacob, and thy Fashioner, O Israel: Fear
not, I redeem thee; I call thee by name, mine thou art"
(43 : 1). And the Redeemer is also the avenger. The op
pressing power is Babylon, and she is to suffer what she has
inflicted on others. Her gods will be carried away with the
other spoil of the city; she herself, the tender and delicate,
once a queen who boasted that she has never submitted to
a master is to be humiliated like the lowest slave : " Now hear
this, O voluptuous one, who sittest securely, who sayest in
thy heart: I, and none other; I shall not sit in widowhood
nor know the loss of children — both these shall come to thee
in a moment, in the same day, loss of children and widow
hood; in full measure shall they come upon thee" (47 : 8/.).
To accomplish this purpose upon the ancient enemy Yahweh
himself will intervene as a warrior, rousing himself to mighty
deeds and raising the battle shout (42 : 13/.).
The human instrument of this vengeance is purposely left
1 The Hebrew term is go'el, which occurs nine times in these chapters.
The verb from which it is derived is found five times.

SPIRITUALISATION OF THE MESSIANIC HOPE 255
obscure. An unnamed deliverer is alluded to in one passage
and his appearance is propounded as a riddle for the false
gods and their worshippers: "Who was it that roused up
from the east him on whose steps victory attends, that gives
up peoples before him and into kings strikes terror? His
sword makes them like dust, his bow like driven stubble;
he pursues them, passes on in safety, the path with his feet
he treads not" (41 : 2/.). The traditional interpretation of
this passage makes it refer to Cyrus and the conquests of
Persian power under his leadership, and, in fact, Cyrus is
mentioned by name in two verses in close juxtaposition
(44 :v28; 45 : 1). It is a question, however, whether these
two references are not later insertions into our text, the
product of the Jewish tradition which made heathen kings
the nursing fathers of the restored temple. It is contrary to
our author's habit to name specifically the persons whom he
has in mind. The most that we can say is that he has the
expectation of a deliverer who will accomplish all Yahweh's
will upon the nations and bring back the exiles to their home.
It is even possible that he had the personified Israel in mind
as this instrument of Yahweh's purpose: "Behold, I have
made thee a new sharp threshing instrument having teeth;
thou shalt thresh the mountains and make them small, and
shalt make the hills as chaff" (41 : 15).
Restoration to temporal prosperity is not so prominent in
the author's thought as is the spiritual blessing which is to
come in the new time. The wiping out of the load of guilt
which has oppressed the people is frequently emphasised. The
punishment had been deserved: "Thy first fathers sinned,
and thy mediators rebelled against me, and thy princes
profaned my sanctuary; so I gave up Jacob to the ban and
Israel to contumely" (43 : 28). Yet in the midst of the in
dictment Yahweh pauses to declare: "Yet I am he who blots
out thy rebellions and thy sins I remember not" (43 : 25).
And punishment is not a mere mechanical process of balancing
a certain amount of guilt against an equal amount of suffer
ing; it is a purifying process, purging out the baser metal in

256 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
the furnace of affliction (48 : 10). To take a New Testa
ment passage as the expression of the writer's thought we
may say that he regarded Israel as thus made a vessel of
honour fit for the Master's use. Israel is an instrument for
accomplishing a larger purpose than has yet appeared: "By
myself have I sworn, a true word has gone out of my mouth,
a word that shall not be recalled: That to me every knee
shall bow, every tongue shall swear" (45 : 21-23). It is
in this universalism that our author advances beyond all his
predecessors. By what process is his hope to be realised?
The answer to this question is to be found in the figure
which appears at intervals throughout the book and which
receives the name Servant of Yahweh. He is first intro
duced to us as one gentle in his method, who will not quench
the dimly burning wick but yet who will courageously set
forth the Law so that for his instruction the far lands will
wait (42 : 1-4). More fully he describes his own mission:
"Hearken ye far countries unto me and listen ye distant
peoples; Yahweh has called me from the womb; from my
mother's lap has he celebrated my name; he made my
mouth like a sharp sword, in the shadow of his hand he hid
me; he made me a polished shaft, in his quiver he stored me.
He said unto me: Thou art my servant, Israel, in whom I
will glorify myself; so I was honored in the eyes of Yahweh
and my God became my strength. But as for me, I said:
I have labored in vain; to no purpose have I spent my
strength; nevertheless my right is with Yahweh and my
recompense is with my God. And now Yahweh says: It
is too light a thing to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to
restore the preserved of Israel; so I set thee as a light of
the nations, that my deliverance may reach to the ends of
the earth" (49 : 1-6). In both passages we see an ideal
prophet pictured, one who will carry Yahweh's message to
the ends of the earth. In his case, as in the actual experience
of the preacher of righteousness, the mission involves suffer
ing on the part of the one who undertakes it: "My back I
gave to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that pulled out

SPIRITUALISATION OP THE MESSIANIC HOPE 257
the beard; my face I hid not from insult and spitting"
(50 : 6). The culmination is found in the description of the
suffering servant giving his soul even to death (52 : 13 to
53 : 12).
Opinion is still divided as to this ideal missionary, whether
he is a single individual, historical (of the past or who is yet
to come), or whether he is a personification of a group.
There seems to be a growing consensus in favour of the
latter interpretation. And the group thus personified and
idealised must be Israel, not the empirical Israel in the midst
of which the author lived, but the ideal Israel, the faithful
few who were chosen of God to carry his message and to
endure on his behalf. This would seem to be evident from
such passages as the one already quoted, where the servant
is directly addressed by the name Israel (49 : 3). And
again: "But thou Israel my servant, Jacob whom I have
chosen ... to whom I said: My servant art thou; I have
chosen and not rejected thee" (41 : 8-10). The only diffi
culty in the identification is made by the sharp contrast be
tween the ideal and the actual. In the New Testament use
of the word " church " we find the same double meaning. The
ideal church, the bride of Christ, is without spot or wrinkle
or any such thing. But the church which actually exists is
made up of frail and fallible men who too often must be re
buked for their unfaithfulness and immorality. There is an
Israel within Israel to which alone the description of the
servant can be applied.1
This distinction between the ideal and the real Israel —
that is, between the loyal and obedient kernel of the nation
and the empirical mass, careless of its privileges — throws
light on another problem. Some of the older prophets were
perplexed by the fact that the innocent so often suffer with
the guilty. Jeremiah had questioned Yahweh as to the
justice of his action just on this ground; Ezekiel had solved
1 Whether the figure of the Servant has not borrowed some features
from an ancient mythical character, as is maintained by Gressmann
and others, is not clearly made out.

258 THE RELIGION OP ISRAEL
the problem by ignoring some of the facts. Our author, as
we have seen, believes in the purifying nature of affliction,
but he goes one step further in that he sees suffering to be
the way in which a missionary must walk in order to carry
out his mission. In the passage which forms the culmina
tion of the Servant poems Yahweh himself makes this plain.
Here he calls attention to the Servant as one who has suf
fered deeply — "Marred was his appearance out of all human
likeness, and his form out of semblance to the sons of men."
But as marked as the suffering will be the obeisance of
many: "Before him kings will be awe-struck, for that
which had not been told them they see" (52 : 14). J At this
point the gentile kings themselves take up the description.
They confess that they had thought the Servant smitten of
God and afflicted. Now they see that he was, indeed, af
flicted but not for his own sake; the innocent suffered for
the guilty: "Surely he bore our griefs and carried our sor
rows" (53 : 4). The smitten Israel even goes down to death
in quiet resignation to the will of God. But death is not
the end; a resurrection is to follow so that the Servant shall
see the fruit of his labour. Since the only resurrection of
which we have had a hint up to this point is the resurrection
of the nation, foretold by Ezekiel, we must suppose that
this is the conception cherished by the author.
This, then, is the wonderful plan of Yahweh in the af
fliction of his people. He will not only punish them for
their sins; he will not only purify them from their evil de
sires; he will bring all the world to the conviction that
Israel is his Servant, suffering for others and thus carrying
out his mission. The gentiles will recognise that severity
toward the Servant is an evidence of grace for them. They
will be moved to receive instruction at the mouth of the
revived Israel, will be convinced that Yahweh is God and
1 Cf. 49 : 7/.: "Thus saith Yahweh to him whom man despiseth, to
him whom the nations abhor, to the servant of rulers : Kings shall see
and arise, princes and they shall worship; because of Yahweh who is
faithful, even the Holy One of Israel who has chosen thee."

SPIRITUALISATION OF THE MESSIANIC HOPE 259
none else, and so the glory of Yahweh will shine to the ends
of the earth. "This is the salvation that is to go forth, the
deliverance that is to endure forever" (51 : 4/.). The de
scription of the suffering Servant is followed, therefore, by
an invitation to the desolated Zion to triumph in the pros
pect of coming glory (54). The covenant to be established
will include the gentiles: "Thou shalt call people whom
thou knowest not, people who know not thee shall run unto
thee, because of Yahweh thy God, and for Israel's Holy
One, for he has glorified thee" (55 : 3-5). This thought of
the mediatorial mission of Israel is the most important con
tribution of our author to enlightened religion.
It is only natural that the hopes here expressed should
take on a transcendental colouring. The expectation that
the return of Yahweh to Palestine will be accompanied by
a transformation of the land is certainly as old as Ezekiel.
Our author gives glowing expression to this hope. The
wilderness is to become an Eden, the waste places of Zion
will become like the garden of Yahweh (51 : 3). The new
Jerusalem will shine with supernal brightness: "Thou af
flicted, storm-tossed, unconsoled; behold, I will set thy
bases in rubies, and will found thee with sapphires; I will
make thy battlements of jasper, thy gates of carbuncles, and
all thy borders of jewels" (54:11/.). Christian interpre
ters are tempted to apply the description to the heavenly
Jerusalem, the abode of the blessed, but our author has in
mind the earthly city, the dwelling of Yahweh, transformed
by his presence: "No more will the sun serve thee for light
nor for brightness will the moon illuminate thee; but Yah
weh will be to thee an everlasting light, and thy God thine
adornment" (60: 19). Nations will come to this light and
kings to the brightness of the rising (60 : 3). Into this sacred
city "no one that is unclean or uncircumcised shall enter"
(52 : 1); its people shall be all righteous, the redeemed of
Yahweh, a sacred people (60 : 21; 62 : 12). The suprem
acy of Israel will consist in its priestly office: "You shall
be called priests of Yahweh; servants of our God will they

260 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
name you" (61 : 6). In this way Jerusalem will become a
joy to the whole earth, for all flesh will come and worship
there (62 : 3; 65 : 18; 66 : 23). In the land of Israel the
wolf and the lamb will lie down together: "They shall not
hurt nor destroy in all my sacred mountain, says Yahweh"
(65 : 25). The life of man will be prolonged, so that he
who dies at a hundred years of age will be thought to be
untimely cut off (65 : 20).
Whether the various elements of this picture could be
combined into one consistent whole may be doubted. What
interests us especially is the author's conception of religion.
This we see to be not merely national but also individual.
Not only is the afflicted and storm-tossed Zion encouraged,
but the depressed member of the community receives a mes
sage of cheer. The proselyte who fears that he may be
shut out of the company of the faithful because of his for
eign blood, and the eunuch who feels that his physical mu
tilation unfits him for the service of Yahweh, are singled
out for encouragement (56 : 1-8). Those who hunger and
thirst for righteousness receive their message: "On high as
the Holy One do I abide, and with him who is crushed and
lowly in spirit, to revive the spirit of the lowly, and to re
vive the heart of those who are crushed" (57 : 15). And the
essence of religion is seen to be faith: "They that wait for
Yahweh shall not be ashamed" (40 : 31; 49 : 23). "Whoso
walks in darkness with no brightness of dawn; let him trust
in the name of Yahweh, and lean upon his God" (50 : 10).
Faith must issue in service, but not the formal service of
the ritualist. The fast that Yahweh chooses is not a mat
ter of external observance: "Is not this the fast that I have
chosen, says Yahweh: To loose the fetters of injustice; to
untie the bands of violence; to set at liberty those that are
crushed; to break asunder every yoke? Is it not to break
thy bread to the hungry, and to bring the homeless to thy
house? When thou seest the naked to cover him, and not
to hide thyself from thine own flesh? Then thy light shall
break forth as the dawn; thy wounds will quickly heal over;

SPIRITUALISATION OF THE MESSIANIC HOPE 261
thy righteousness will go before thee, and Yahweh's glory
will be thy rearward" (58 : 5-8).
Apparently there were few who were prepared to appre
ciate this message. The little community had its full share
of unbelievers and scoffers. Some seek satisfaction in out
worn superstitions: "They sit among the graves and lodge
in vaults; they eat swine's flesh and the broth of abomi
nable things is in their vessels; they say: Stand by thyself;
come not near me lest I consecrate thee [by my touch]."1
No wonder that the prophet cries out: "The hand of Yah
weh is not too short to deliver, nor his ear too heavy to
hear; but your iniquities have become a barrier between
you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from
you, so that he hears not. For your hands are defiled with
blood, and your fingers with iniquity; your lips speak lies
and your tongue utters depravity; none sues in truthfulness,
and none pleads with honesty; men trust in pretence and
speak falsehood; they conceive trouble and bring forth mis
chief. Therefore has our right been far from us, and redress
does not overtake us; we wait for light but behold dark
ness; for bright beams but we walk in gloom" (59 : 1-4, 9).
The contrast between the lofty ideal cherished by the writer
and the reality by which he found himself confronted ex
presses itself not only in this rebuke but also in the almost
agonising prayer which follows. In prayer the believer
finds his comfort, and faith reasserts itself after the struggle
with depression.
This contrast between the expectation of a divine inter
vention and the actual condition of the chosen people is
characteristic of Judaism, and the frequent confession of
sinfulness which we find in later documents only echoes this
prayer. Yet, since we are saved by hope, the . postexilic
community continued to cherish the vision of a new heaven
and a new earth. One of the best expressions of this hope is
1 Incubation at the shrines of dead heroes is alluded to, 65 : 4, and
the abominable things that are eaten at these mysteries include mice
as well as swine, 66 : 17.

262 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
in a little paragraph which has been preserved for us both
in the book of Isaiah and in the book of Micah. Its post
exilic origin needs no demonstration. It tells how in the
good time to come "the mountain of Yahweh's house will
be established as highest of the mountains, and will be ex
alted above the hills; and all nations will stream unto it,
and many peoples will set forth and say: Come let us go
up to the mountain of Yahweh, to the house of the God of
Jacob; that he may instruct us out of his precepts, and that
we may walk in his paths; for from Zion goes forth instruc
tion and the word of Yahweh from Jerusalem. Then will
he judge between the nations, and give decision to many
peoples; and they will beat their swords into mattocks and
their spears into pruning hooks; nation will not lift up
sword against nation, neither will they learn war any more "
(Isaiah 2 : 2-4). Universal peace, Jerusalem the capital of
the earth, the law of Yahweh taught to the nations and
obeyed by them — such was the Messianic hope in its most
spiritual expression. The special relation of Yahweh to
Israel is only the first act of a great drama whose denou-
ment will be the spread of true religion to all nations. Israel
is Yahweh's messenger, destined to overcome the world, not
by the sword but by the word.

CHAPTER XVI
THE SCEPTICAL REACTION
The spiritual thoughts of Deutero-Isaiah were appre
hended by few of his countrymen. His universalism was
lost sight of in the conflicts between parties within the Jewish
community. How bitter these conflicts were is made known
by the Samaritan schism and by the opposition to gentile
wives. In Jerusalem the stricter party organised themselves
in a church state, of which the high priest was head, and the
main object of effort was to keep the sacred city from defile
ment. No doubt the Messianic hope animated those who
observed the Law and who excluded the foreigner, but it
was the Messianic hope in its most particularistic form — the
salvation to come must belong to the seed of Israel, and they
alone would share in it who kept themselves from contam
ination. Everything else was under a taboo; it was, in
ecclesiastical language, an abomination.
Fortunately, we are allowed to see that this rigid exclu
siveness did not go without protest. Two little books which
have found a place in the canon reveal a broader spirit.
These are Ruth and Jonah, both of them works of fiction,
though possibly both have made use of floating traditions,
even mythological in their nature. The heroine of one book
is a Moabitess, belonging, therefore, to the race against
which the lines were most strictly drawn in the postexilic
community. She is pictured as a model woman in her devo
tion to Israel and also to the God of Israel. She is recog
nised by the Israelite community of Bethlehem as a devout
woman, is taken to wife by one of the leading members of
that community, and becomes the ancestress of David. The
263

264 the religion of israel
lesson is so plain that it needs no interpreter. If marriage
with gentiles were so contrary to the mind of Yahweh as
was held by the exclusive party, he would not have so blessed
the marriage of Boaz and Ruth.
In contrast with the mild idyllic tone of Ruth is the satire
of Jonah. Here we read of the prophet who is commissioned
to preach to Nineveh, the typical heathen city. The task is
not to his liking, not because of any danger that he fears,
but because the preaching may be followed by repentance
and the city may be spared, whereas he longs to see it de
stroyed. He, therefore, tries to flee to a foreign country
where he will be out of the jurisdiction of Yahweh. Mirac
ulously he is brought back and forced to carry out his mission.
What he has expected follows — the city repents and is
spared. By the gourd over whose loss he grieves he is taught
the lesson of compassion. The whole is an object-lesson to
the narrow and embittered Jews, who would be willing to
see no matter what suffering inflicted on their fellow men if
only the hostile powers of the gentiles might be destroyed.
The book was admitted to the canon not because of this
lesson but because it was read as a wonder book, one of the
crowning evidences of the power of Yahweh.
The Messianic glory was delayed, and, while every hope of
its immediate coming met with disappointment, a painful
question arose in the minds of believers. Even supposing
that perfect righteousness will rule when the good time
comes, what is the ad interim principle of the divine govern
ment? Ezekiel, as we know, had defended the theory of
eudemonism; the man who does right will be rewarded by
prosperity; the man who sins will be taken out of the world
by an early death. The theory was stated so uncompro
misingly that it seemed to challenge investigation into the
facts. In the face of facts could this theory maintain itself?
The Chronicler was able to rewrite history so as to show
that sin had always been followed by misfortune, not only
for the nation but also for individuals. In his narrative
he records that Asa died of gout because he sought not to

THE SCEPTICAL REACTION 265
Yahweh but to the physicians, and the ships of Jehoshaphat
were wrecked on account of the king's alliance with the un
godly Ahab. On the other hand, Manasseh's long reign was
his reward for repentance. But it is easier to write history
to fit the theory than it is to discover the theory in actual
operation in the world around us. The Jews could not
claim that piety and good fortune always go hand in hand.
The righteous servants of Yahweh were too often poor and
persecuted, while the heathen, who forgot God, were often
the ones blessed with riches, children, and long life — the
three best gifts. Something of the complaint that the arro
gant worldlings are happy, and that, therefore, it is vain to
serve God, we have met in Malachi. The longer the Messi
anic time was delayed, the more acute the problem became.
The perplexity of the pious is revealed to us by the little
book which bears the name of Habakkuk. The author wit
nessed the remorseless advance of a conquering army, per
haps that of Alexander, and questioned whether the great
overturning was, in fact, working out the purposes of Yahweh.
To all appearance the cruel invader was following his own
lust for blood and plunder. So far from recognising any God,
he sacrifices to his weapons as though they were the source
of his power; his strength is his god (Hab. 1 : 15/.). So the
prophet cries out against injustice: "How can Yahweh who
cannot look upon iniquity be silent when the wicked swallows
up the righteous? " To these questionings the author has no
answer except that Yahweh must be just in spite of all ap
pearances to the contrary: "Yahweh is in his holy temple
and all the earth will at length be silent before him" (2 : 20).
The heathen have no God to compare with him, and the
prophet's faith takes hold of this fact and will wait for the
time of revealing, even though the fig-tree should fail and
the vine refuse its fruit (3 : 17-19). The attitude of waiting
upon God for the fuller revelation is often urged upon the
believer in this period (cf. Micah 7 : 7 ff.).
This is rational enough, so far as the fate of nations is
concerned, for it may well be that the time of a nation's pro-

266 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
bation is extended through centuries. But the lot of the
individual is still a problem. If this lot is apportioned ac
cording to justice we ought to discover the fact in the men
whom we meet day by day. That we do not so discover it
is the conviction of the author who wrote the book of Job.
In this book we find various elements combined, but all bear
on this one problem. The example which the author brings
before us is that of a righteous man greatly afflicted. Ac
cording to the prologue and epilogue, which are in prose,
this man Job suffered the extremes of fortune, but after a
time of probation was restored to health and happiness.
The story thus briefly told furnishes the framework within
which the author of the poem discusses his problem. The
problem is: Why should the righteous man suffer? One
answer is given by the prologue itself where Satan insti
gates the affliction. His theory is that virtue is mere self-
interest, and that if Job is put to the test his alleged right
eousness will be discovered to be no more than this. When
the man is tried by loss of fortune and of family, and stands
the test, the accuser still holds to his theory; if Job was
upright in the first instance because he was rewarded for it,
his present steadfastness is due to nothing but fear. If he
is attacked by a disease which shall take away his hope of
life, and which will, therefore, remove the fear of death, then
he will appear in his true colours. This second test is there
fore applied without shaking the sufferer's integrity. His
devotion to Yahweh is seen to be sincere.
The book might have ended here with the triumph of dis
interested virtue. Possibly a version of the story was in
circulation in which this was brought out. But in our form
of the book the heavenly wager, if we may call it so, has
no clear result — Satan does not confess that he is defeated,
nor does Yahweh point out the reality of virtue. The author
of the poem is too much interested in the experiences of his
hero to dwell upon this point. What he brings out is the
human document, the action of the soul of a man thus put
to the test. Job has no knowledge of the heavenly wager,

THE SCEPTICAL REACTION 267
and the motive of the divine dealing with him is wholly con
cealed. The perplexity into which he is thrown by his ac
cumulated misfortunes is increased by the conduct of his
friends, who claim that they can speak for God and justify
his ways, and who do this in terms which both injure and
insult the sufferer. The object of the book, then, is not to
set forth a theory, but to present a living picture of human
experience. And this is broad human experience, not that
of the Jew alone. Job is, in fact, not presented as a Jew,
and the author has purposely left distinctly Jewish obser
vances out of view.
What we find in the book, then, is a human soul under
severe trial, wrestling with its doubts, and coming out at last
measurably at peace with its God in spite of the mystery
which surrounds his dealings. The real trial comes when the
sufferer receives the visit of his friends. Terrible privations
and more terrible disease have not shaken him; but when
his friends come and sit silent before him he knows why
they find no word of comfort. Representing the popular
theology, they are applying their theory of retribution to
him. They can account for so signal an affliction only by
supposing that the one who is visited by it has been an
aggravated offender — all the more that his former conduct.
was ostensibly virtuous. Not only a flagrant sinner, but a
consummate hypocrite — this is their judgment. This it is
which shuts their mouths when they attempt to condole
with the sufferer. The sting is felt by Job, because in his
days of prosperity he had judged in much the same way.
He had accepted his good fortune as evidence that God
smiled upon him. But could he now believe that God was
justly angry with him? Against such a thought his con
science uttered its most vigorous protest. What confronted
him was loss of his faith in God.
From this point of view we understand the violence of
his language as he curses the day of his birth. This day
he would blot out of the calendar, because it had seen the
birth of him, miserable, or because it had not at once put

268 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
an end to him when he first saw the light. But, since this
had not occurred, his only hope is for a speedy ending of this .
wretched life. The only rest for the troubled is the grave,
and this is what he longs for: "Wherefore is light given to
him that is in misery, and life to the bitter of soul? To
those who long for death but it comes not, and dig for it
more than for hid treasures?" The friends find in these wild
utterances only the ravings of one who is under the curse of
God, and they are confirmed in their condemnation of the
speaker. They are so possessed by their theological theory
that they cannot do him justice. This is shown distinctly by
the speech of Eliphaz, the most moderate of the three. He
evidently endeavours to deal gently with his friend. He be
gins by pointing out how Job has comforted others in their
affliction, and how he ought to apply the same method to
himself: "Behold thou hast instructed many and hast
strengthened the weak hands. Thy words have upholden
him that was falling, and thou hast made firm the feeble
knees. But now it is come unto thee and thou faintest, it
toucheth thee and thou art troubled!" The sufferer is re
minded that his own theory had been that the innocent
could not perish: "According as I have seen, they that plow
iniquity and sow trouble reap the same". (4 : 4/.).
Eliphaz is confident that he has received his doctrine from
a higher source. A vision of the night had appeared to him
and said : " Can a human being be righteous before God, or
a man be pure before his maker? Behold he puts no trust
in his servants, and his angels he charges with error; how
much more the dwellers in clay, whose foundation is in the
dust, who are crushed before the moth, are destroyed be
tween morning and evening ! " (4 : 17-20.) This revelation,
Eliphaz thinks, is confirmed by observation of the facts of
life. No doubt the facts of life are easily made to teach
what one believes, and the speaker is able to describe in
vivid terms how he has seen the wicked take root and then
suddenly be destroyed. The practical application is made
by an exhortation to Job to repent and pray to God. If

THE SCEPTICAL REACTION 269
he will only do this, all may yet be well: "At destruction
and dearth thou shalt laugh; thou shalt be in league-with the
stones of the field, and the wild beasts shall be at peace
with thee; thou shalt know that thy tent is in welfare and
shalt visit thy fold and miss nothing. Thou shalt know
also that thy seed shall be great and thine offspring like the
grass of the earth; thou shalt come to the grave in a full
age like as a shock of corn cometh in in its season. Lo,
this have we searched and so it is; hear it and know it for
thy good" (5 : 17-27).
The well-rounded periods reveal a man with a settled
theory of the universe, who will not be disturbed by mere
facts. It is clear, however, that he does not and cannot un
derstand Job's state of mind. His sentences uttered with
so much unction sound like bitter mockery to the sufferer.
How can a man in the power of fatal disease look forward
to days of peace and security? How can he whose children
have been swept into the grave expect his offspring to be
like the grass of the earth? To exhort the man of conscious
integrity to seek God in penitence is to urge him to hypoc
risy. The common sinfulness of the creatures of God is a
mere truism; it does not explain why one of them should
be signalled out for exceptional severity. What Job denies
is that he has deserved this exceptional treatment. The
whole effect of Eliphaz's exhortation is simply to confuse
the sufferer. His suffering goes beyond the common experi
ence, for he is made the direct mark of the divine arrows.
His strength cannot hold out for the changed fortune to
which the friends would have him look forward, even if it
were to come. Added bitterness comes from the lack of
sympathy on the part of his friends who are like the streams
of the hot countries — when there is need of them they are
found to have vanished.
In a somewhat calmer state of mind the hero considers
the state of man. This is like the lot of the day-labourer,
or of the common soldier — unremitting toil, with no hope
for the future. For the question of a future life is raised

270 THE RELIGION OP ISRAEL
only to be answered in the negative : " As a cloud is consumed
and vanishes away, so he that goes down to Sheol comes
up no more. He shall return no more to his house, neither
shall his place know him any more" (7 : 9/.). This being
so, there is no reason why Job should not speak out all his
thought. Gathering boldness, as if in desperation, he expos
tulates with God for the way in which he is treated: "Am
I a sea or sea-monster that thou settest a watch over me?"
(7 : 12.) We remember that the sea was originally a hos
tile power, a great dragon, whose subjugation was the best
evidence of the power of the Almighty (Jer. 5 : 22). Job's
thought is that he is too puny a creature to be treated like
the rebellious dragon, made the direct object of the divine
vengeance: "If I have sinned what do I unto thee, O thou
watcher of men? Why hast thou set me as a mark for thee
so that I am a burden to myself? Why dost thou not
pardon my transgression and take away my guilt so that I
might lie down in the dust and thou mightest seek me dili
gently but I should not be?" (7 : 20/.) To make so much
of any possible transgression that a man may have com
mitted seems hardly worth while.
Of course this bold protest must arouse the horror of the
friends. To them piety means an anxious fear of God, which
will, above all things, avoid exciting his displeasure by crit
icism of his acts. Job, on the other hand, has reached a
point where he can affirm the rights of man's moral judg
ment, even in the face of God himself. Bildad and Zophar,
the other two friends, restate the position of their group with
more bluntness than Eliphaz. They are sure that they have
all tradition on their side as well as common sense. They
argue that there must be some cause for the afflictions of
men; what can it be except the sins of men? God cannot
pervert justice — this is unthinkable. To this Job replies
that it depends on what you mean by justice. The accused
man, brought before a judge, gets a verdict condemning or
acquitting him. The verdict may or may not be justice.
If you mean that in the divine court no one can reverse the

THE SCEPTICAL REACTION 271
verdict, that needs no argument — from that court there is
no appeal. But it may not follow that a man who is con
demned is really guilty. The friends are willing to declare
the verdict right just because it has been pronounced by
God. In that case might makes right. But Job cannot rest
in this thought; he must inquire whether there is a moral
standard to which God himself is amenable. The fact that
his hardships indicate a judgment of God against him does
not prove that he is really guilty, and this he would make
plain to God himself if he could only come before him.
It is clear that the sufferer is now possessed by a longing
to set himself right with God. His physical pains are lost
sight of in the realisation that to all appearance God has
misjudged him. To be under that condemnation is torture.
Yet even if he were given the opportunity to come before
God and plead his cause he would be so overcome with fear
that he would not be able to make his argument. The ver
dict would go against him by default. If only there could
be an umpire to hear the two parties (God and Job), there
would be more hope; but this again is impossible. Only
one conclusion is open: God destroys the righteous and
the wicked alike according to the whim of the moment
(9 : 22). But in this conclusion the religious soul cannot
rest, and there follows another appeal to God: "Thy hands
have framed me and fashioned me; wilt thou turn against
me and destroy me? Remember how thou didst form me
as clay; wilt thou bring me into dust again?" (10 : 8/.)
The longing appeal for recognition shows that the more the
speaker is repulsed by his friends the more he feels that
there must be comfort in God if only he can find it.
Feeling around for some ground of hope, the author peers
again into the region beyond the grave, fascinated by the
mystery that may be concealed there. Yet he can form no
clear conception of a life in another world. The realm of
the departed is away from the presence of God: "There is
hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again
and that the tender branch thereof will not cease; though

272 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
the root thereof wax old in the earth and the stump thereof
die in the ground, yet through the scent of water it may
bud and put forth boughs like a plant. But man dies and
is laid low; man gives up the ghost and where is he? As
the waters fail from the lake and the river wastes and dries
up so man lies down and rises not; till the heavens be no
more they shall not awake nor be roused out of their sleep"
(14 : 7-12). In spite of this explicit statement, a lingering
hope still asserts itself: "Oh, that thou wouldst hide me in
Sheol* that thou wouldst keep me secret until thy wrath
were past, that thou wouldst set me a time and remember
me!" (14 : 13.) Sheol is evidently a place where a man
would be out of sight of the divinity. For this reason the
speaker wishes that he might have a temporary sojourn
there, that God might have time to bethink himself. His
wrath then might cool and he would remember his servant
and recall him from the dark world, receiving him into favour
again. But even this wish is set aside as something impos
sible. It is unnecessary to follow the debate in detail. The
friends have said all that they can say, and can only repeat
the same thing, but with increasing positiveness. The prog
ress of the discussion confirms them in the opinion that Job
is a great sinner. He is charged by the venerable Eliphaz
with destroying religion, and the evidence is drawn from his
own words. Nothing is left except to warn him of his peril
ous condition. So a vivid picture is drawn of the reckless
sinner who stretches out his hand against God, bidding de
fiance to the Almighty. All three of the alleged friends unite
in applying this description to Job, so that he is more and
more convinced that he has nothing to look for from man
and turns again to God. His faith reasserts itself in the well-
known words: "I know that my avenger lives, and at last
he shall stand upon the earth; and after my skin (even this
body) is destroyed, yet without my flesh I shall see God;
whom I, even I, shall see for myself and my eyes shall behold
and not as a stranger" (19 : 25-27). The language must be

THE SCEPTICAL REACTION 273
interpreted in harmony with the explicit rejection of the
thought of a future life of blessedness which we have already
cited. The declaration is an answer to the question whether
God is the friend or the enemy of the sufferer. His faith is
that, though the Almighty had momentarily turned away
from him, yet he must bethink himself. Then, after the
death of his servant, he will stand over his grave and pro
nounce him innocent. And the spirit of the dead man will
have some knowledge of this vindication. Perhaps he may
be permitted to revisit the glimpses of the moon and hear the
final verdict in his favour. This seems to us a meagre satis
faction, but for the author it is enough. He has shown his
hero fighting his doubts and coming into a reasonable con
fidence. This individual believer, then, has the confidence that God
will deal with him in such a way as to vindicate him from the
false suspicions of his friends and of the world. But the
larger problem is still to be attacked. The friends have
based their accusations on a definite theory of the divine
government. They are sure that God rewards the good and
punishes the wicked in this world — they, like Job, know
nothing of another world. Job reviews the facts of life as
he has observed them, and finds that the theory is not borne
out. Instead of the case being as the friends affirm, the re
verse may easily be discovered: "Why do the wicked live,
become old, yes, wax mighty in power? Their seed is estab
lished with them in their sight, and their offspring before
their eyes. Their houses are safe from fear, neither is the
rod of God upon them." Death may indeed come upon them
suddenly, but this is a mercy rather than a punishment as
the case of Job himself proves. If it be said that his children
are punished for his crimes, how can this be made to vindi
cate justice? "Let his own eyes see his destruction and let
himself drink of the wrath of the Almighty, for what cares
he for his house when the number of his months is cut off? "
(21 : 7-9.) Consideration of this problem threatens to bring
back Job's former perplexity, especially as his friends find

274 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
nothing to say except to renew their old charges of blasphemy
against the one who doubts their theology. Their attacks
are met by a renewed protest of innocence, accompanied by
a detailed statement of the principles on which he has con
ducted himself throughout his life (31). So far from being
without fear of God as they charged, he has always regulated
his life by it: "Does he not see my ways and number all my
steps? If I have despised the cause of my servant or of my
maid when they contended with me, what then shall I do
when God rises up? When he visits what shall I answer him?
Did not he that made me in the womb make him?" With
calm confidence Job would receive the indictment of his
prosecutor even if this were God himself. Such is the con
scious innocence of the man who fears God and turns aside
from evil.
It is evident that the larger problem has not been solved.
Nor is it solved by the speeches of Yahweh, which come
after Job has affirmed his integrity anew. The divine inter
locutor contents himself with pointing out the wonders of
creation and asking Job whether he understands them. In
successive questions the objects which meet the eye in earth
and sky and sea are brought before the listener, in order that
he may have a realising sense of the task of governing the
universe (chapter 38). When Job confesses his own insignifi
cance he is again addressed with the sarcastic injunction:
"Deck thyself now with excellence and dignity and array
thyself with honor and majesty! pour forth the overflowings
of thine anger and look upon every one that is proud and
abase him!" (40 : 10-12.) In reply Job can only confess
that he has spoken rashly in what he has brought forward.
Yet this is not a confession that Job was in the wrong, for
the epilogue expressly acquits him while accusing the friends.
The result of the inquiry, then, is a non liquet. So far as
the general problem of the government of the world is con
cerned, the author is no wiser than other men. He sees the
world to be so great and wonderful that the principles by
which it is governed are above the comprehension of man.

THE SCEPTICAL REACTION 275
Only he who made it is able to govern it, but he may be
trusted to govern it rightly. One thing stands out clearly:
Man must not think that the world is governed for his sake,
for, after all, man is only one of the creatures for which God
cares. This is the mistake of the orthodox, represented by
the friends in the dialogue. They supposed themselves to
know the ways of God, and on the basis of this supposed
knowledge they were willing to do their fellow man a grievous
wrong in misjudging him. The result of the inquiry is not
pessimism; the author rejoices in the great world in which
he lives. It is not irreligion; for those who wait upon God
receive a measurable satisfaction in their confidence in him.
But to a certain extent it is agnosticism, the agnosticism of
one who would not allow a theological theory to shut his
eyes to the facts of life. His earnestness and honesty are
evident. The thought of the author was too advanced for his con
temporaries, and the book was increased in size by two in
sertions which were intended to correct its teaching. One
of these is the well-known poem in the twenty-eighth chap
ter. This is a panegyric of wisdom, which is the prerogative
of God alone. The author is deprecating such discussion as
is carried on by Job and his friends, on the ground that it is
intruding into the sphere of divine things. Man should turn
to the practical problems of life, fear God and eschew evil,
and be content. More significant is the long speech assigned
to Elihu. This personage is represented as a young man
who has listened to the debate between Job and his friends
and is dissatisfied with both parties. What he really does
is to set forth anew the arguments (if arguments they may
be called) of the friends. He reveals to us the tenacity of
the view that misfortune is a punishment for sin. This view
maintained itself in Israel, as we see from many of the Psalms,
and is not wholly overcome even at the present day.

CHAPTER XVII
LEGALISM AND PRACTICAL PROBLEMS
Speculation on the ways of God is, from the nature of the
case, the occupation of only one thinker in ten thousand.
The majority of men are confronted by more immediate
problems. This was the case with the Jews in the Greek
period. This people, as we have seen, had ceased to be a
nation, and the majority of them were living outside of what
they still regarded as their true home. In the cities founded
by Alexander and his successors the Jews were a prominent
part of the population. The great port of Egypt which the
conqueror called by his own name speedily counted a hun
dred thousand Jews among its inhabitants. In this and other
large cities they were obliged to learn a new mode of life and
to adjust themselves to new modes of thought. The nation
of agriculturists had become a race of traders. Men who are
engaged in commerce must develop a different ethic from
that which satisfies a community of peasants.
Two things conspired to make the problem difficult. The
Jew, although living among the gentiles, wished to preserve
his own religion. To live in the world and yet not conform
to its religious and social usages required no small skill. In
the second place, knowledge of the Greek language (which
was essential to the business man in this period) brought
with it some knowledge of Greek culture. But Greek cul
ture was predominantly intellectual. Both metaphysic and
ethic had been studied by the ablest minds among the Greeks,
and the claim of the philosophers to possess the truth was a
challenge to the Jew to make good the claims of his own
Law. Adjustment to practical life and to Greek modes of
276

LEGALISM AND PRACTICAL PROBLEMS 277
thought was, therefore, forced upon reflecting minds among
the Jews. Hence the rise of what we call the Wisdom litera
ture. Although direct evidence is lacking, we may assume
that in this period a regular system of instruction was inau
gurated in Jerusalem. The teachers were called sages; their
instruction was given orally, but the maxims in which they
embodied the substance of their teachings were written down
and have reached us in the books we have now to consider.
The point of view is set forth with all desirable distinctness
in the opening words of the book of Proverbs: "To know
wisdom and discipline; to discern words of understanding;
to receive instruction in wise dealing, in righteousness, and
equity" (Prov. 1:2/.).
The sage claims to have attained this knowledge and he
desires to impart the knowledge to others. The art of right
living is something that can be learned, and it is because the
young man has not studied it that he so often goes astray.
The bad man is a fool, either because he has not had the
opportunity of learning how to live or because he has
flouted the instruction offered him. The sage, therefore,
addresses the young man in order to give him knowledge and
discretion: "If thou wilt, my son, thou shalt be instructed,
and if thou givest thy mind to it thou shalt become wise,"
says Ben Sira; and the same author admonishes: "Neglect
not the speech of the wise, and reflect on their enigmas; by
this thou shalt attain education, so that thou canst appear
before princes; despise not the tradition of the ancients which
they have received from their fathers; for thereby thou shalt
attain insight so that thou canst give an answer when there
is occasion" (Sirach 8:8/.; 6 : 32).
In dating the Wisdom literature in the Greek period, we
do not mean to say that something similar had not existed
from very early times in Israel. In fact, the wise men are
occasionally alluded to in the pre-exilic period, and from the
nature of the case apothegms embodying reflections on the
problems of life are current among all peoples which have
reached anything like civilisation. We have from Egypt the

278 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
sayings of Ptah-hotep, who is said to have lived two thousand
years before Christ and whose point of view is not unlike
that of our book of Proverbs. For example, he says: "How
beautiful it is when a son receives what his father says; he
shall attain long life. Take care what thou sayest! Let it
be such that the nobles will say: How fine is the utterance
of his mouth 1 If thou obtainest me (wisdom) thy body will
remain sound, and the king will be content with all thy
actions." We have also from Egypt a similar collection at
tributed to one Ani containing warnings against women and
exhortations to care for father and mother very similar to
what we find in our book of Proverbs, and the maxims of
the Babylonian Ahikar were known to the Jews as early
as the sixth century B. C. The Wisdom literature, therefore,
is not of purely Jewish origin.1
Our reason for dating the books now under consideration
in this period is easily understood. The books are four in
number (the book of Job, though affiliated with them, has
been treated separately), namely, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the
Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach, and the Wisdom of Solo
mon. The similarity of the four is so great that they cannot
have originated far apart in time. One of them we can
date with almost absolute certainty. This is the book of
Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus), which must have been written
about the year 180 B. C. The others must belong in the same
general period, Proverbs somewhat earlier, Wisdom certainly
later. Two of the four were received into the Hebrew canon.
This was probably because they were attributed to Solomon.
Wisdom was written in Greek and so did not appeal to the
Rabbinical authorities. The ascription of Proverbs to Solo
mon is only in line with postexilic custom, which published
many books under the name of ancient worthies.
The point of view of this whole school is well put before
us by Ben Sira, or rather by his grandson, who translated his
book into Greek, in his preface: "Whereas many and great
1 The sayings of Ptah-hotep and of Ani are translated in Gressmann,
AUorientalische Texte und Bilder, I, pp. 201 /.

LEGALISM AND PRACTICAL PROBLEMS 279
things have been delivered to us by the Law and the prophets
and the others who have followed after them, for which things
Israel ought to be commended for culture and wisdom, and
since it is becoming not only that the learned should them
selves attain insight but also that they should be able to
profit the unlearned, therefore my grandfather when he had
much given himself to the study of the Law and the prophets
and the other books of our fathers and had got therein suf
ficient skill, felt moved himself to write something pertain
ing to learning and wisdom, that those who are desirous to
learn, being attached to these things, might profit all the
more in living according to the Law." The grandson in
stating his grandfather's desire formulated his own purpose
also, since it was his aim in translating the book into Greek
to benefit his fellow Jews in precisely the same way. What
impresses us is that the Jew has taken up the Greek chal
lenge which claimed culture and wisdom as Greek posses
sions. The claim is rejected on the ground that in the Law
the Jew has the supreme source of wisdom. The Law is
already supplemented by the collection known as the proph
ets and by some other books, which are not described more
particularly. But it is plain that the Hebrew Scriptures
already exist in the threefold division which still obtains.
In these Scriptures the Jew has the supreme code of ethics,
and the object of Ben Sira in publishing his reflections is to
enable his fellows to live according to the Law. The author
of Proverbs avows the same aim: "He that turns his ear from
hearing the Law, even his prayer is an abomination" (Prov.
28 : 9). Both authors, however, claim to speak not only
from knowledge of the Law but also from long observation
of human life. Ritual, to be sure, which occupies so large a
space in the Pentateuch, is not made prominent by them.
This is because they could trust the priestly scribes to see
that this part of the Law was carefully obeyed. What most
interested them was the problem of carrying the ethic of
the Jewish code into practical life in foreign and often hostile
surroundings.

280 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
Since these authors deal with every-day problems, they
do not permit themselves to dwell much on the specific
Messianic hope. Yet the strong racial feeling comes out
now and then. Ben Sira prays that Israel may be saved
and that Yahweh will send his terror on the gentiles. This
author hopes for the gathering of the tribes and the return
of Elijah, and in one passage even alludes to the Messiah
(Sirach 48: 9; cf. 47: 22). His pride in the history of Israel
comes out in his panegyric on the national heroes. He is
confident that the God of Israel is the only true God (36 : 22),
and genuine Jewish feeling shows itself in his hatred for the
schismatic Samaritans, "the foolish people that dwell in
Shechem" (50 : 26).
So thoroughly has the belief in one God established itself
that the polemic against idols such as we find in Deutero-
Isaiah is no longer necessary. The hope of the Jew is that
the gentiles may recognise that there is no God besides
Yahweh (Sirach 33 : 5) . There is, however, no speculation on
the problems raised by the belief in God— as to his charac
ter, his toleration of evil, or his government of the world.1
Ben Sira deprecates such inquiries : " What is too high for thee
search not out, neither inquire into what is beyond thy
strength; for men have many vain opinions, and evil specu
lations lead them astray"(3 :21 and 24). At the same time cer
tain things are assumed; for example, that the universe is an
ordered universe, a kosmos, as the Greeks would say. The
principle of its ordering is wisdom, and the glowing words
in which she describes her part in the creation of the world
testify to the firmness with which this idea of an ordered
universe had rooted itself in the mind of these thinkers
(Prov. 8). Ben Sira is moved to praise by his contempla
tion of the works of God in nature, and utters his thought in
one of the most elevated passages which have come to us
from a Hebrew source (Sirach 42 : 15 to 43: 33). To this ex
alted mood the problem of evil seems to be no longer a
problem, for even the evil spirits and the venomous beasts
are subject to the will of the Creator (39 : 28-31).
1 The exception in the case of Ecclesiastes is discussed below.

LEGALISM AND PRACTICAL PROBLEMS 281
Religion is the basis of ethics. The motto of the school is:
"The fear of Yahweh is the beginning of wisdom." Although
the works of Yahweh are wonderful and his deeds among men
inscrutable (Sirach 11 : 4), yet on the whole he is on the
side of the righteous. "He sees all that men do, and they who
think to escape his notice deceive themselves" (23 : 10/.).
"The ways of men are before the eyes of Yahweh, and he
regards all their paths" (Prov. 5 : 21). The wise man is the
one who bears this in mind, while the fool is the one who
doubts the providence of God: "Say not in thy heart: 'Who
has power over me? ' For Yahweh is an avenger; say not:
'I have sinned and what happened to me?' for Yahweh is
patient. Trust not in forgiveness so as to go on in sin"
(Sirach 3 : 3-5). The egoistic nature of this teaching needs
no demonstration, but it would be easy to emphasise it un
duly. As the man who believes honesty to be the best
policy may yet be honest from a higher motive, so with these
advocates of wisdom. They believe that godliness is profit
able, but the godliness need not, therefore, be mere selfishness.
Religion is the fear of Yahweh, but it is also trust in him:
"Trust in Yahweh with all thy heart, and lean not on thine
own understanding," says the author of Proverbs (3 : 5),
and Sirach pronounces a woe on the heart which has not
faith, for it shall not be established (2 : 13). Obedience to
the will of Yahweh, therefore, was in the last analysis based
on the belief that the will of Yahweh is in conformity with
righteousness. This is implied in the treatment of wisdom itself — the most
characteristic thing in all this literature. Wisdom is the art
of right living, and it has attained consistency in a body of
tradition which has come down from former generations. It
is not, however, of human origin. It is revealed from above,
and its proper home is the bosom of God himself. Wisdom
personified declares as much: "Yahweh formed me at the
beginning of his way; before his works of old. . . . When he
established the heavens I was there, when he set a circle on
the face of the deep. . . . Then I was by him as a master
workman, and I was daily his delight, sporting before him

282 THE RELIGION OP ISRAEL
always, sporting in his habitable earth, and my delight was
with the sons of men" (Prov. 8 : 22-31). Sirach, in like
manner, says that wisdom dwells in heaven, was created be
fore all things, is the possession of God himself, and has
power over the nations (Sirach 1 : 4, 8/., and chapter 24).
The authors of these passages are, in fact, influenced
by the speculative tendencies which they have disavowed.
There was a theological necessity which compelled men to
mediate between God and the world. In early days it had
not been difficult to suppose that Yahweh came in person
to his people, in theophany and vision. But with the larger
view of the universe which came in the Persian and Greek
periods, Yahweh in becoming greater had also become more
remote. He had need of mediators. The result in the doc
trine of angels we have already discovered. The Wisdom
literature has little to say of angels, but it finds in the per
sonified wisdom the organ by which the transcendent God
reveals himself to men and carries on his work of creation
and providence. Doubtless Greek thought influenced the
conception, reluctant as the authors themselves would have
been to admit such influence.
The mission of wisdom is not only to order the universe;
she is the guide and counsellor who invites and warns the
sons of men. She is, in fact, the voice of God calling men
to right living. By a natural transition (natural to a loyal
Jew, that is) she is identified with the revelation of God in
Scripture. Ben Sira says that wisdom is given to all flesh,
but especially to those who fear Yahweh (1 : 10), and again
he makes wisdom declare that she had taken up her resi
dence in Jacob, and he identifies her with the book of the
covenant of God, the Law that Moses commanded (24 : 23).
In practical life, therefore, wisdom means obedience to the
will of God revealed in the Law: "He who fears Yahweh
seeks wisdom, and he who keeps the Law attains her," says
Ben Sira, and he frequently returns to the theme, exhorting
his readers to reflect and to keep the commandments (Sirach
1 : 26; 6 : 37; 15 : 1; 32 : 1-15).

LEGALISM AND PRACTICAL PROBLEMS 283
It is evident that legalism has here formulated its simple
creed: God has given a law to guide men into right living;
this law is to be studied and expounded in the light of tradi
tion and experience; thus studied and obeyed it leads to a
really successful life. Wisdom, then, is the most precious
possession of man. Gold and jewels are not to be compared
to her; those that love her love life; she is a crown of gold
to the one who obtains her; all her ways are pleasantness
and her paths are peace. Nor is she difficult of attainment.
She invites men to her banquet. To the young and unin-
structed she says: "Come eat of my bread and drink of the
wine which I have mingled; leave off ye simple ones and
live, and walk in the ways of understanding" (Prov. 9 : 5/.).
"She brings her sons to honor and takes the part of those
that seek her; he who loves her loves life and those who
seek her shall be filled with joy" (Sirach 4 : 11/.). Con
trasted with her is Madame Folly, who also invites men to
her house saying: "Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten
in secret is pleasant." But those who accept her invita
tion go to death and her guests are in the depths of Sheol
(Prov. 9 : 18).
The reward of obedience is given in this life, and so is the
recompense of ill doing. There is no intimation that the
future life is a place of recompense. Wisdom "holds long life
in her right hand, in her left are riches and honor" (Prov.
3 : 16). "The rebellion of the simple slays them, and the
security of fools destroys them, whereas the upright shall
dwell in the land and the perfect shall remain in it, while the
wicked shall be cut off from the land, and the treacherous
shall be rooted out of it" (Prov. 1 : 32; 2 : 21, and often).
There is no enjoyment in Sheol, says Ben Sira. After ask
ing: "Who shall praise the Most High in the grave instead
of them that live and give thanks?" he answers his own
question: "Thanksgiving perishes from the dead as from
one that is not; the living and sound alone praise Yahweh"
(Sirach 14 : 16; 17 : 27). The righteous man may indeed
comfort himself with the hope that after his death his

284 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
descendants will have part in the Messianic glory, and for
the wise man there is always the confidence that his name
will be held in honour after he has gone from this life.
So far as these authors are concerned, the book of Job
might not have been written. The sufferings of the right
eous, so far as they are considered at all, are supposed to be
disciplinary: "My son, despise not the chastening of the
Almighty, neither be weary of his reproof; for whom Yahweh
loves he reproves, even as a father the son in whom he de
lights" (Prov. 3 : 12). "Gold is tried in the fire, and accept
able men in the furnace of adversity" (Sirach 2:5). He, there
fore, who would learn wisdom must make up his mind to be
tested by trouble. If his faith stands the test God will at last
reward him: "Look at the former generations and see; who
ever trusted Yahweh and was put to shame? Who abode
in his fear and was forsaken? Who called to him and was
despised? For Yahweh is merciful and gracious; he forgives
sin and rescues in time of trouble" (Sirach 2 : 10/.). The
point of view is the one which is represented by the so-called
friends of Job.
The existence of evil seems to present no problem to these
writers. Each man is endowed with free will and can make
or mar his own fate. Nothing is said of a sinful nature, or of
inherited tendencies to evil: "God in the beginning made man
and left him to his own will; if thou wilt thou shalt keep the
commandments, and it is a faithful thing to do what is pleas
ing to him" (Sirach 15 : 14/.). There is no need of expiation,
and the sacrificial system, while it is assumed to be divinely
ordered, must not be taken to wipe out guilt. The priest is
to be honoured, the tithes are to be paid and the sacrifices
are to be brought, but one must not think that Yahweh can
be bribed by them. "The sacrifice of a wicked man is abomi
nation to Yahweh" (Prov. 15 : 8). The only way of counter
acting sin is by right action: "Water quenches fire, and
righteousness erases sin" (Sirach 3 : 30).
The system of this school, then, may be called legalism,
with the emphasis on the ethical, as distinguished from the

LEGALISM AND PRACTICAL PROBLEMS 285
ritual, commandments — a common-sense legalism we may
say. And there can be no doubt that as a working theory of
life it gave satisfaction to its adherents. Ben Sira praises
the scribe as the man who has the best of callings, and the
general tone of these writers (with the exception to be noted
presently) is optimistic. Ben Sira knows that all God's
works are good; even man, though so often rebellious, has
received eyes and ears to perceive the good, and a mind to
understand: "With understanding and insight he filled their
heart; good and evil he taught them, to show them his
mighty acts, that they might have his fear in their heart,
to magnify his wonders always, and to praise his sacred
name" (Sirach 17 : 5-10). Therefore the writer is moved to
a hymn of thanksgiving for deliverance from danger, and for
help vouchsafed in time of peril (Sirach 51). It would be a
mistake to think of these men as mere moralists. They had
the consciousness of the presence of God, and they appealed
to him for blessings not only temporal, but spiritual. Ben
Sira invokes God as his father, and prays to be kept from sin,
especially from unguarded utterance: "Oh that one would
set a watch on my mouth and on my lips a lock of discretion,
that I may not fall by them. . . . Let me not have pride of
eyes, and keep me from haughtiness of heart; let not the
desire of the flesh seize me, nor shameless lust rule over me"
(Sirach 22: 27 to 23: 6). In similar strain Agur prays: "Two
things have I desired of thee; deny me them not before I die :
Remove far from me falsehood and lies, and give me neither
poverty nor riches; feed me with the portion that belongs to
me, lest I be full and deny thee, and say: Who is Yahweh?
or lest I be poor and steal and use profanely the name of
my God" (Prov. 30 : 7-9).
Two classes of sin seem to tempt the young and inex
perienced in the period when these books were written.
These are sins of violence and sexual excesses. Proverbs
describes the sinners who invite the young man to make
common cause with them in robbery: "Let us lurk privily
for the innocent; let us swallow them alive as those who

286 THE RELIGION OP ISRAEL
go down to Sheol; we shall find all precious substance, shall
fill our houses with spoil; cast in thy lot amongst us, and let
us all have one purse" (Prov. 1 : 10/.). The passage re
flects the unsettled state of society during the Greek period.
The central government was weak, and the policing of the
provinces was neglected. The career of highway robber of
fered attractions to the adventurous. Moreover, the for
eign rule over the Jews gave large opportunities for spies
and informers. Blackmail could be collected by the less
scrupulous, who were willing to use their advantage. The
temptation against which the wise man cautions his pupil
must be obvious. From this point of view also we under
stand Ben Sira's somewhat cold-blooded cautions against
easy friendship: "Be at peace with many but let thy friend
be one of a thousand; if thou wouldst get a friend, prove
him first and be not hasty to credit him; for many an one
is a friend for the time, but abides not for the day of need;
many a friend becomes an enemy and reveals thy quarrel
among the people" (Sirach 6 : 6-9). At the same time it
would be a mistake to call this cynicism; the value of a
true friend is fully recognised: "Of a faithful friend there is
no price, and his worth is incalculable; a faithful friend is
a medicine of life; whoso fears God obtains him" (6 : 15/.).
Proverbs also knows of a friend that sticks closer than a
brother. The state of society is reflected in the warnings against
enemies: "An enemy speaks sweetly with his lips but in
his heart he is devising to throw thee into a pit; he will
weep with his eyes but if he find opportunity he will be
insatiate of blood" (Sirach 12 : 16). The prudent man will
avoid association with those whom he knows or suspects to
be evil. The temptation to court the society of the rich
and powerful is to be guarded against (13 : 2-13; cf. Prov.
23 : 1-3). The guard which Ben Sira is careful to set on
his lips is comprehensible when we consider the way in
which this society was honeycombed with espionage: "Even
a fool if he holds his peace is accounted wise" (Prov. 17 : 28).

LEGALISM AND PRACTICAL PROBLEMS 287
The false friend leads one on to speak perverse things that
he may deliver one over to the judge. But the wise man
will know how to avoid the trap: "Understanding shall
keep thee and deliver thee from every false way, from the
man who speaks perverseness" (Prov. 2 :12/.). Scepti
cism also was rife, and there were those who were ashamed
of the Law, who justified the wicked and condemned^ the
righteous. Such men are an abomination to Yahweh
(Prov. 17 : 15). The young man flatters himself that he
has sinned once and has not been punished, and so he dis
believes in the divine administration of affairs. In fact, it
was a time of intellectual ferment, and many were losing
the old faith.
If the young man had cause to avoid the society of syco
phants, false friends, and those who would lead him into
crime, he had also reason to guard against the seductions
of the strange woman. Whether the notorious laxity of
Greek custom with reference to the relations of the sexes
is in evidence here is doubtful. Ezekiel shows that Hebrew
manners down to the time of the fall of Jerusalem left much
to be desired. In the Law, indeed, we have strict injunc
tions against sexual licence, and Jewish writers of this period
doubtless felt that their morality was superior to that of
the gentiles — this is one of the points emphasised by Philo
and the Sibylline books. Our authors show plainly enough
how constantly young men were beset by temptations to
unchastity. There is in the exhortations of the sages, how
ever, no trace of asceticism, as though marriage were a less
perfect state than celibacy. On the contrary, the young
man is exhorted to rejoice in the married state, and while
many of the references to women in this literature are de
rogatory to the sex, yet the virtuous woman receives high
praise. The classic panegyric of Proverbs is too well known
to need citation here (Prov. 31 : 10-31), and Ben Sira says:
"A good wife is a good gift, and she is given to the man
who fears God" (Sirach 26 : 3).
It is unnecessary to give further details concerning the

288 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
teachings of the sages. The line between manners and
morals is not easy to draw, and both manners and morals
are treated in detail by these writers. As we have seen, a
certain type of mind is able to rest in such a practical, com
mon-sense system, and it is clear that the sages thought
highly of their own attainments. Ben Sira, after describ
ing the various professions and trades and the advantages
of each, comes to that of the scribe, the student of the Law:
"But he that gives his mind to the Law of the Most High,
and is occupied in the meditation thereof, will seek out the
wisdom of all the ancients and be occupied in the prophe
cies; he will seek out the secrets of grave sentences and be
conversant in dark parables; he will serve among great
men and appear before princes" (Sirach 39 : 1-4). In fact,
if there be an art of right living there can be no nobler call
ing than that of him who makes this art the object of his
study and who imparts the results of his reflections to
others. But the limitations of the method of the sages are
obvious. They had no profound philosophy of life. They
purposely avoided speculation on the nature of things.
That more thoughtful inquirers could not rest in the phi
losophy of common sense is made evident by one book of
this group, and to this we now turn.
This book bears, rather unfortunately, the name Ecclesi-
astes. The Hebrew title Koheleth is not altogether clear
in meaning, but probably intends to describe the author
as one of the group of teachers who, we have reason
to believe, carried on systematic instruction in Jerusalem.
That the book gives itself forth as a work of Solomon can
cause us no surprise. The tradition of Solomon's wisdom
made him the patron saint of all this school, and his repu
tation for wealth and luxury made him the appropriate
character to inculcate the lessons Koheleth had at heart.1
For Koheleth claims to have found by careful observation
of the world that all is vanity — absolute emptiness and a
1 On the date of the book the reader may consult the commentary
of Barton (1910), p. 62.

LEGALISM AND PRACTICAL PROBLEMS 289
striving after wind is his watchword. His reason is, first,
that the course of nature is an eternal grind with no visible
progress toward a goal: One generation goes and another
comes, the sun travels his daily round, the winds turn from
one side to another without being able to find a new quar
ter of the compass; the rivers run to the sea only to re
ceive their supplies from the same source — " that which has
been is that which shall be, that which has been done is
that which shall be done, and there is no new thing under
the sun" (Eccles. 1:9). Human experience is of the same
sort. The king with all the resources of wealth and power
at his command may experiment with every pleasure, sen
sual, aesthetic, intellectual, only to find that no one of them
gives real satisfaction; each is a striving after wind. Even
wisdom, though of a certain practical advantage, makes no
real difference among men, for one event happens to all, to
the wise man and to the fool. God does not intervene, either
to reward the righteous or to punish the wicked, nor yet
to regulate the course of the world to any end. He does,
indeed, ordain what comes to pass, but this only adds to
man's misery, for it shows him that, however he may strive,
his fate is not in his own power: "I beheld all the work of
God, that man cannot find out the work that is done under
the sun; because, however much a man labors to seek it
out, yet shall he not find it. . . . All things come alike to
all; there is one event to the righteous and to the wicked,
to the good and to the bad, to the clean and to the unclean,
to him that sacrifices, and to him that sacrifices not; as is
the good so is the sinner; he that swears is as he that fears
an oath" (8:16/.; 9:2).
Man's freedom is thus an illusion, and the theory of retribu
tion, either in this life or in another, has no foundation. God
purposely treats men and animals alike that men may know
that they are no better than the brutes (3 : 18/.). All go
to one place. The theory of a future life is met with the
stern, almost angry, question: "Who knows whether the
spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes

290 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
downward?" (3 : 21.) Specific denial is made of any work
or device or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol to which we go
(9 : 10). Even the poor consolation that Ben Sira found
in the thought that one's memory will abide through the
generations proves illusory, for the memory of the dead per
ishes like their loves and their hates (9 : 5). If one comforts
himself in the thought that his children will give him a sort
of immortality, this also proves groundless, for who can tell
whether they will be an honour or a disgrace to their par
ents? It is a bitter thought to the wise man that after
labouring to accumulate an estate he may leave it to a stran
ger, or if he leaves it to a son that son may turn out to
be a fool (2 : 19).
The world, then, is an unintelligible world. Worse than
this, it is a perverse world; the wicked sit in the place of
judgment; the cry of the oppressed finds no response; the
righteous perish in their righteousness; slaves ride on horse
back while princes go afoot; the race is not to the swift nor
the battle to the strong; riches are not apportioned to men
of understanding nor favour to men of skill (3 : 16; 4 : 1;
7 : 15; 9 : 11/.; 10 : 7). A similar complaint was uttered by
the author of Job, but the indictment is here much stronger.
The author of Job was able to rest in the faith that the gov
ernment of the world, though incomprehensible by man, was
yet in accordance with true wisdom. Koheleth has lost this
faith.1 It is probably not true that he had ceased to believe
in the existence of God. This frame of things cannot be
without a mind, he might have said. But his search for a
rational order in the conduct of affairs brought no result.
It is as if God purposely arranged to confound the pride of
men. "One fate comes to man and beast, that man may
know that he is no better than the lower animals." There is,
therefore, no real good for man. "The dead are better off
than the living, better than either is the untimely birth which
does not open its eyes to the light" (4 : 2; 6 : 3).
1 A glimpse of agnosticism in Proverbs (30 : 2-4) shows that he was
not alone in his negations.

LEGALISM AND PRACTICAL PROBLEMS 291
In the book as we have it there is, indeed, the assertion that
a relative good is attainable in the enjoyment of the pleasures
of life, but it is a question whether these Epicurean passages
are by the original author. Whoever inserted them, how
ever, drew a natural conclusion from the premises of the
author.1 In the book there are, moreover, a number of pas
sages which plainly contradict its main teaching. Where
Koheleth saw only perversity in the administration of the
world and wickedness in high places, the pious annotator
assures us that God will judge the righteous and the wicked
(3 : 17). Direct rebuke seems to be administered to the
author by the insertion: "Because sentence against an evil
work is not executed speedily the heart of the sons of man is
fully set in them to do evil; but though a sinner do evil a
hundred times and prolong his days yet surely I know that
it shall be well with them that fear God ; but it shall not be
well with the wicked, neither shall he prolong his days which
are as a shadow before God" (8 : 11-13). Most instructive
of all is the edifying conclusion of the book in which the ortho
dox defender of the faith shows his assurance that he has
silenced his adversary: "The end of the matter when all has
been heard is: Fear God and keep his commandments, for
this is the whole of man; for God will bring every work into
judgment even every hidden thing whether it be good or
whether it be evil" (12 : 13).
If it had not been for these edifying insertions it is probable
that Ecclesiastes would not have been received into the Jew
ish canon. And some may even now demur at the inclusion
of the original author among the sages of Israel. Yet there
is no reason to doubt that he counted himself a loyal Jew, and
that he claimed a place among the teachers of Israel. The
editor of his book assures us that because Koheleth was wise
he still taught the people knowledge. Scattered through the
book we find wise saws such as adorn the book of Proverbs :
"Better a handful of quiet than two handfuls of toil"; "Two
1 These Epicurean passages are 3 : 12/., 22; 5 : 17-19; 8 : 15 and
9 : 7-10.

292 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
are better than one"; "Better is a poor and wise youth than
an old and foolish king"; "Better the rebuke of the wise than
the song of fools." Such passages impressed the average
reader more distinctly than did the scepticism of the book,
and they gave it currency. No doubt, the thought that the
riches and wisdom of Solomon convinced him of the vanity
of worldly prosperity also attracted many minds. For us
who seek to know the actual course of religious thought in
Israel the book is significant, as showing the near approach
to bankruptcy of faith made by one who sought an explana
tion of the phenomena of life.
How it escaped bankruptcy in the case of some minds is
made evident by the latest book in this group, the Wisdom
of Solomon. Since the book was written in Greek and at
the very end of the Old Testament period, it might be a ques
tion whether it belongs in our discussion. Yet the author is
a loyal Jew, and he makes use of Solomon to teach the lessons
he has at heart. Far from making the great king the blast
and disillusioned pursuer of pleasure, however, it holds him
up as an example, a man who has attained the best there is
in life. We can hardly avoid seeing in this an intentional
confutation of the older book. Ben Sira and Koheleth are
apparently opposed to Greek philosophy. The author of
Wisdom, on the other hand, finds the solution of the problems
of life in the doctrine of immortality, and this not in the Jew
ish form of a resurrection of the body, but distinctly in the
form already wrought out by Greek philosophy, that is, the
immortality of the soul set free from the body by death. To
him it is the sinner who says that in the death of a man there
is no remedy, neither is any known to return from the grave
(Wisdom 2:1). "In the world to come the righteous shall
enjoy eternal felicity in the presence of God and receive a
beautiful crown from him" (3 : 8).

CHAPTER XVIII
APOCALYPTIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE MESSIANIC HOPE
Ecclesiastes shows a rationalising tendency at work on
the religion of Israel, and it is a question whether Greek
thought was not undermining the distinctive beliefs embodied
in the Jewish Scriptures. What might have happened had
there been no violent attack on those beliefs (and the prac
tices which went with them) we cannot tell. What actually
took place is clear to us. The persecution of Antiochus
kindled the zeal, not to say fanaticism, of the observers of
the Law and gave to Legalism a new and stronger hold on
the affections of the faithful. The conflict with the Syrian
monarchy showed that a considerable party in Jerusalem
sympathised with the desire of the king to "civilise" his
subjects, as he phrased it. These men were not moved alto
gether by a desire to secure court favour. Some of them were
attracted by Greek ideals. They were to be found among
the more educated of the nation and were in any case only
a minority. Opposed to them were the strict observers of
the Law, and the course of the struggle showed that these
were divided into two parties. One we may call the Macca-
beans, adherents of the heroic family which led the revolt.
They were at first moved only by the determination to resist
tyranny, but as they achieved success they indulged hopes
of restoring the politicial independence of their nation. The
other fraction consisted of the Asideans, the Pious, as they
called themselves. They would take no part in political
affairs, believing that Yahweh would set up his kingdom in
his own time by an act of miraculous intervention. Until
that time should come, the duty of the loyal Jew, as they
293

294 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
believed, was to obey the Law to the letter, and wait upon
God. This party did, indeed, make common cause with the
Maccabeans when the possibility of keeping the Law was
threatened, but as soon as they were again allowed to observe
their customs without interference they withdrew from the
struggle. We have seen the importance which the Messianic hope
assumed in postexilic Judaism. What now interests us is
the intensity with which the hope was held in the time of
persecution. It is only in accordance with human nature
that the expectation of divine intervention should rise to
fevered heat in proportion as persecution becomes more bit
ter. At such times believers argue that God cannot long
leave his people to be a prey to the wicked. In the history
of the Christian Church expectation of the Second Coming
becomes acute at those times in which the puritan party is
oppressed by worldlings. So in the Jewish Church the Mes
sianic hope was kindled into flame when persecution arose.
It then took new and fantastic forms, and the more ardent
spirits even ventured to calculate the time of the end and to
revive the spirits of their coreligionists by specific promises
that the day was just at hand. The evidence is found in a
group of books to which we give the name apocalypses.
The author of an apocalypse conceives of prophecy as
essentially predictive — the miraculous revelation of what is
to come to pass. But the older books of prophecy very
imperfectly conform to this ideal. The predictions which
they contain are much less definite and specific than the
believer would like to have them. This defect is remedied
in the apocalypse. On the basis of a tradition or of vision
ary experiences, or of both, the author sets forth the divine
plan as he conceives it. And since this plan embraces the
past as well as the future, he dates his work in the past,
ascribing it to some ancient worthy. This name will carry
weight with the reader. The predictions embodied in
the work are really history under the guise of prophecy,
and they are usually couched in the form of vision, that

DEVELOPMENT OP THE MESSIANIC HOPE 295
being the traditional means of revelation. In the theory of
the book the ancient seer to whom it is ascribed had the
course of human history unrolled to him in trance from his
own time until it reached its end with the triumph of the
Kingdom of God.
The representative apocalypse in the Hebrew canon is the
book of Daniel, in which all these points are fully illustrated.
It has, however, precursors in some older fragments. Eze
kiel has distinctly apocalyptic features. It was he who first
set forth the scheme adopted by later writers, according to
which there would be a miraculous annihilation of the
heathen world-power, followed by an equally miraculous re
building of the temple. In the other prophets we have sim
ilar utterances. Thus Habakkuk describes the coming of
Yahweh to judgment: "Yahweh comes forth to judge his
people; his presence shakes the earth, dries up the streams,
causes the sun to forget his rising, and the moon to cease
her shining" (Hab. 3). Several passages now included in
the book of Jeremiah have the apocalyptic colouring, and
with them we may class the little book of Joel. This exam
ple is especially instructive, for it shows how any extraor
dinary event in nature may awaken the expectation of
Yahweh's coming. The extraordinary event in this case
was a plague of locusts such as often visits the countries bor
dering the desert. The author describes what seems to him
an unprecedented event and the description is in such terms
that expositors have been in doubt whether a veritable swarm
of locusts is intended or whether the author is picturing the
approach of a hostile army: "A people has invaded my land
mighty and without number. . . . Like heroes they run,
like veteran warriors they climb the wall, they march every
one in his way and they do not break their ranks" (Joel
1 : 6 and 2:7). The decision, however, cannot be doubt
ful; the author is describing an invasion of locusts pure
and simple. It is significant of his point of view that his
chief grief is that the desolating swarm has cut off meat
offering and drink-offering from the house of God (1 : 13).

296 THE RELIGION OP ISRAEL
He is thoroughly priestly in his sentiment, and he shows
this further by his view of the efficacy of fasting. It is only
necessary that the people fast, the priests setting the exam
ple, in order that the grace of Yahweh may be manifested.
Yahweh is moved for his people, the oncoming plague is
driven back, the rain follows in its season, and the bounti
ful harvest of the new year more than makes good what has
been destroyed by the invaders.
All this is preliminary. The invasion of locusts is imme
diately followed by the supernatural phenomena of the
Messianic age. The day of Yahweh is ushered in by great
overturnings in nature and in the world of man; It is a
time of clouds and thick darkness, of gloom and terror
(2 : 1 /., 10). There are prodigies in heaven above and on
earth beneath, blood and fire and pillars of smoke, the sun
turned into darkness and the moon into blood. Among
mankind, also, there are miracles. The spirit, the organ of
revelation, will no longer be restricted to a few chosen mem
bers of the race, but will be poured out on all. Even slaves
and maid servants will possess it or be possessed by it (3 : 1).
This we may suppose will be true of Jews alone, for punish
ment is to be the lot of the other nations. Yet a chance
of salvation is left for those gentiles who become proselytes
and call upon the name of Yahweh.
The final scene is the great day of judgment, described in
terms that have influenced all subsequent thinking. After
the gathering of Israel to its own land Yahweh will sum
mon the nations to the Valley of Jehoshaphat (the Valley
of Yahweh's Judgment), which the author doubtless located
just under the walls of Jerusalem and in the immediate
presence of Yahweh, who dwells in the temple. There the
divinity will call them to account for their treatment of
the exiled Israelites. The penalty will be their own sale
into slavery by the Jews. The sentence will not be put
into execution without a conflict, but Yahweh will be vic
torious: "He will roar from Zion and utter his voice from
Jerusalem, so that heaven and earth shake; Yahweh will

DEVELOPMENT OF THE MESSIANIC HOPE 297
be a refuge to his people and a stronghold to the children of
Israel; so shall you know that I am Yahweh your God,
dwelling in Zion, my sacred mountain; then shall Jerusalem
be sacred and no foreigner shall pass through her any more"
(3 : 16/.). The transformation of the land will follow so
that the mountains will distil sweet wine, and the hills
will flow with milk. Ezekiel's expectation of a fountain
flowing from the temple mount and watering the waste
places will be fulfilled, and, on the other hand, Egypt will
be a desert and Edom will be desolate. The Messiah is
nowhere mentioned. The dwelling of Yahweh himself in
Jerusalem is supposed to make a human king superfluous.
A very similar composition has found a place in the book
of Isaiah (chapters 24-27). * The author expects a day of
judgment. Yahweh will lay the earth waste for the sin
fulness of its inhabitants. The judgment will extend to the
host of heaven on high — the first intimation that the angels
will be punished for disobedience (Isaiah 24 :21/.). The
same idea is apparently expressed in Yahweh's sword pierc
ing Leviathan, the crooked serpent, the dragon (27 : 1).
Early mythological ideas seem here to be taken up by the
Hebrew writer, for in Babylonian mythology there is a con
flict between the chief of the gods and an opposing monster.
The struggle with hostile powers will be followed by Yahweh's
dwelling in Jerusalem, where he will make for all nations a
feast of fat things; he will wipe away tears from all faces,
and the reproach of his people he will take away over all
the earth (25 : 8). In this document, as in Joel, the human
Messiah is not mentioned; he is made superfluous by the
thought that Yahweh himself will dwell in the midst of his
people. Here we meet for the first time the distinct assur
ance of a resurrection for Israel, the full significance of which
will be seen when we look at the book of Daniel.
Still another passage, which may be called apocalyptic in
the larger sense, is now contained in the book of Zechariah
1 Whether more than one hand is discoverable in the section does not
now concern us.

298 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
(chapters 9-14). This passage begins with a denunciation of
the neighbours of Judah against whom Yahweh is about to
assert himself. He will use Judah as his bow, and Ephraim
as his arrow against the sons of Greece. This day of Yah
weh will be a day of battle in which the nations will gather
against Jerusalem, and though at first successful they will
finally be conquered by the direct act of God. In this
sense Jerusalem will be a goblet of intoxication to all nations
(Zech. 12 : 2). The consummation comes when Yahweh
himself takes up his abode in Jerusalem and becomes
king over all the earth: "And it shall come to pass that
every one that is left of the nations shall come up from
year to year to worship the king Yahweh of Hosts, and to
keep the feast of tabernacles" (14 : 16). The land will be
miraculously transformed so that there will be neither heat
nor cold, and there will be no night. Ezekiel's fountain will
flow as a perpetual stream, and the ritual ideal will be fully
realised, so that all the cooking utensils in Jerusalem will
be consecrated and the worshippers will be able to use any
of them for the sacrificial flesh (14 : 20/.). Whatever uni
versalism the author cherished, therefore, had a distinctly
Jewish colouring. For this reason we must interpret ritual-
istically the declaration that Yahweh will open in Jerusalem
a fountain for sin and uncleanness (13 : 1). Only ritual
offences can be removed by the application of water, and
there is no intimation that sinfulness in its darker aspect
will be forgiven or purged away. What crime will be re
pented of by the people, "like the mourning of Hadad-
Rimmon" (12 : 11), is entirely obscure.
The apocalyptic nature of these chapters is most clearly
manifest in the conviction that the Messiah is about to
appear. Jerusalem is exhorted to rejoice because her king
is at hand. He is pictured as the meek and lowly one, rid
ing on the peaceful ass instead of the warrior's horse (9 : 9).
Since he is the prince of peace he will abolish the implements
of war — the chariots from Ephraim, the horses from Jeru
salem: To destroy the bow of war and to offer peace to

DEVELOPMENT OP THE MESSIANIC HOPE 299
the nations. His dominion will extend from one sea to the
other and from the Euphrates to the ends of the land, that
is, he is to possess the traditional empire of Solomon (9 : 10).
Such fragmentary utterances enable us to understand how
constantly certain circles nourished their faith on the thought
of a divine intervention that would restore the ancient glo
ries of Israel. It was when the Maccabean revolt was at
its height that the hope assumed the definiteness with which
it is pictured in the book of Daniel.
In this period the whole power of the Syrian kingdom was
brought to bear on the little company of faithful Jews in the
endeavour to make them apostatise. The first need was to
encourage the faithful to stand fast in the observance of the
Law. The author of our book makes use of an ancient tra
dition which told of Daniel, a righteous man, who stood high
in the favour of Yahweh (Ezek. 14 : 14 and 19; 28 : 3).
This Daniel he makes the mouthpiece of his own convictions,
authenticating the story by the correspondence of the vision
with the actual course of history. That the book was com
pleted just after the first successes of Judas Maccabeus is
so obvious that we need not stop to argue the question.
Whether it does not embody older material is unimportant
for our present purpose.1
One aim of the writer of the stories in the first half of the
book is to show that the wisdom of Israel is superior to that
of the gentiles. In this period, as we have seen, Greek phi
losophy was forced upon the attention of the world, making
the claim to possess the truth. At the same time the ancient
reputation of the Babylonians as men having superior
knowledge was reaffirmed by men like Berossus. Daniel is
made the example to prove that the Jews were proficient in
the arts which the astrologers of both nations were claiming
as their own. Specifically, the wisdom of Daniel was the
power of interpreting dreams. In this he shows himself
master of the art and brings contempt on the far-famed
1 Professor Torrey has pleaded for the ' earlier composition of the
first half of the book, not quite convincingly, as it seems to me.

300 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
Chaldeans. A heathen king may receive a revelation in a
dream, but he is unable to understand it, or even to give an
intelligible account of it, without the help of the inspired
interpreter. The God of Israel is thus shown to be the only God, and
to be the arbiter of the destinies of mankind. He has a
definite plan, according to which the various empires have
their day and, by successive stages, lead up to the consum
mation of all things. The empires of Babylon, Media,
Persia, and Greece mark successive stages of decadence, and
Antiochus fills the cup of iniquity to overflowing. The
downward movement is symbolised by the gold of Babylon,
succeeded by the silver of Media, this by the bronze of Persia,
the lowest stage being indicated by the mingled iron and
clay in Greece. Not only is the divine plan fully determined
upon; the deeds of men and the crimes of the nations are
written down in a heavenly record. In the judgment which
is about to be held these records will testify against the ac
cused (Daniel 7 : 10). All this is made to bear upon the
situation of the persecuted Jews by the stories of deliverance
in which the divine power comes directly into operation.
Daniel and his friends, though living at the court of a heathen
king, are model Jews. They will not eat of the king's
dainties for fear of being defiled; they will not bow to the
image set up by him, though threatened with the most cruel
of deaths. The deliverance of the three, the protection of
Daniel in the lions' den, impresses even the heathen monarchs
with the uniqueness of Israel's God, and they give solemn
testimony to this effect. Equally convincing is the anecdote
of Nebuchadrezzar's madness, followed by his restoration
and a renewed testimony to the God of the Jews. What
tradition may have furnished the basis on which these stories
are built can no longer be discovered. That neither they nor
the story of Belshazzar's feast are history ought to be self-
evident. Nebuchadrezzar, or Belshazzar, or Darius, the
king who claims divine honours for himself, who insults
the God of heaven, or who thinks to impose his religion on

DEVELOPMENT OF THE MESSIANIC HOPE 301
the Jews, is in each case only Antiochus Epiphanes wearing
a mask. Our author has no confidence in the help of man, and looks
for the setting up of the Kingdom of God by a direct act of
God himself. In his sketch of the fortunes of the Syrian
and Egyptian kingdoms he unhesitatingly condemns those
of his people who attempt to bring in the fulfilment of proph
ecy by human effort (11 : 14). When he speaks of the
Maccabean successes he says only that they are helped with
a little help, and he shows his distrust of the movement of
Judas and his brothers by saying that many join themselves
to them by flatteries (11 : 34). The whole duty of the faith
ful according to him — and that he represented a consider
able party among the Jews must be clear to one who follows
the course of history — was to wait in resignation for the
divine intervention. But the very point of his writing was
to express the conviction that this intervention was just at
hand. The kingdoms of the world have had their day; they
reached the extremity of guilt when Antiochus erected the
altar or statue of a Greek god in the temple. This is the
abomination that makes desolate, an insult to the divine
majesty so gross that it must bring down the divine ven
geance. In various ways the sweeping nature of this ven
geance is set forth. In the case of the image which repre
sents the successive world-powers we read that the gold, the
silver, the bronze, the iron, and the clay are ground to dust
and blown away, and the stone which represents the Kingdom
of God becomes a great mountain, filling the whole earth
(2 : 35). On the other hand, the parallel vision of the beasts
seems to intimate that the nations will continue to exist
(though without power), at least for a time (7 : 11/.). The
most impressive of the visions shows us the judgment going
on: After the blasphemies of the eleventh horn "the thrones
were placed and the Ancient of Days did sit; his raiment
was white as snow, and the hair of his head like wool; his
throne was fiery flames, and the wheels thereof were burning
fire; a fiery stream issued and came forth from before him;

302 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
thousands of thousands ministered to him, and ten thousand
times ten thousand stood before him; the judgment was set
and the books were opened. I beheld at that time because
of the words which the horn had spoken, even till the beast
was slain and its body destroyed, and it was given to be
burned with fire. ... I saw in the night vision and behold
there came with the clouds of heaven one like a man, and
he came even to the Ancient of Days and they brought him
near to him. And there was given him glory and dominion
and a kingdom, that all the nations should serve him; his
dominion is an everlasting dominion which shall not pass
away" (7 : 9-14).
There has been much discussion of the question whether
this passage refers to an individual Messiah. The true inter
pretation seems to be that the one like a man1 is contrasted
with the beasts which have appeared in the vision, and as
they symbolise kingdoms, so he represents a kingdom. This
is demonstrated by the author's own interpretation of the
vision, in which he says that the kingdom and greatness of
the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given (not to
the Messiah, the son of David, but) to the people of the saints
of the Most High: "His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom,
and all dominions shall obey and serve him" (7 : 27; note the
whole passage, vss. 21-27). The author, we must conclude,
had no interest in a personal Messiah. His ideal was that
Israel as a sacred people should become the chief nation of
the world, to whom all others should be subject. They
would dwell at Jerusalem with their God as their ruler, and
his high priest as the chief executive. Nowhere in the book
of Daniel is there any intimation of a Messianic king, the
son of David. The only thing which seems at first sight to
militate against the collective interpretation of the phrase
"one like a man" is the fact that he is represented as coming
on the clouds of heaven. But all that the author intended
1 As has frequently been pointed out, the Aramaic phrase "hke a son
of man" means simply like a man. Whether Son of Man was later a
Messianic title is another question.

DEVELOPMENT OP THE MESSIANIC HOPE 303
to express is that Israel, as the people of Yahweh, had a
heavenly origin. It was kept in the special care of God
until such time as he should see fit to bring it to its own.
It has already been said that the conception of prophecy
held by the apocalyptic writers is that it foretells the course
of history. From the books of the prophets it ought to be
possible, therefore, to calculate the time of the end. But in
the older books there is only one passage which seems to
give an exact date. This is Jeremiah's prediction that the
captivity would last seventy years. The non-fulfilment was
evident to the author of Daniel, because in his view the cap
tivity had lasted until his own time. His conclusion was,
not that Jeremiah was mistaken — this would, in fact, be un
thinkable — but that the prediction had not been understood.
Where the literal sense of a sacred book is unacceptable, re
course is had to allegory. The author, in endeavouring to
understand Jeremiah, conceived the theory that the seventy
years were not literal years, but mystical years. With a
somewhat inexact knowledge of chronology he had no diffi
culty in making out that about seventy periods of seven years
each had elapsed between the fall of Jerusalem and his own
time. Jeremiah's seventy years then meant these seventy
year-weeks. The importance of the number seven in Hebrew
chronology would seem to him to confirm this interpre
tation. Our author puts this interpretation into the mouth of the
angel who shows Daniel the course of future history. The
four hundred and ninety years from 586 B. C. he divides into
three periods. First comes a jubilee period of seven times
seven years from the fall of Jerusalem to the time of Joshua
the high priest, whom he calls characteristically the anointed
prince. There follows a period of sixty-two weeks of years
during which Jerusalem is inhabited but is of no great im
portance. Then comes the final period of seven years (one
week) which will be a time of trouble — the birth pangs of
the kingdom. This begins with the cutting off of the
anointed prince, that is, with the deposition of Onias the

304 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
high priest (9 : 26). 1 This is followed by the desecration of
city and temple and this by the crowning calamity, the arrest
of the daily offering. The author indicates that this cessa
tion of the offerings will last through one thousand one hun
dred and fifty days, or about three years and a half (cf. 12 : 7).
His last eventful week, therefore, is divided into two parts;
the first half has passed, the second is still in the future. He
anticipates that in this remaining half Antiochus will make a
final expedition against the Holy Land and will be cut off
by an act of God. In the general overturning of the nations
Michael will interfere to protect the faithful Jews. After
three years and a half of wars and tumults those martyrs
who testified on behalf of the true religion will be raised from
the dead, as will the renegades who were not punished for
their treason. This is in order that the one group may
take part in the Messianic kingdom, while the other will
receive just punishment for their deeds (shame and ever
lasting contempt, 12 : 1/.).
The endeavour to find in this book foreshadowings of the
Christ of the Church, or even predictions of the course of
events for centuries of Christian history, need not be dwelt
upon here. They belong in a history of biblical exposition.
All that we need to note is that the author of Daniel was
firmly convinced that the great event of the world's history,
the termination of the world's history, in fact, and the open
ing of a new period, was three years and a half away from
the date of his writing. In this he was, of course, mistaken,
as every one has been mistaken who thought he knew the
time of the Messiah's coming or of the Parousia of the Christ.
Within the period he had set he must have become convinced
of this, unless, indeed, he suffered martyrdom with the little
band of faithful observers of the Law for whom he wrote.
What concerns us here is the religious faith which found such
vivid expression in the book. The book attests first of all the
prominence which the angels had taken in the belief of the
1 The verse does not necessarily mean that Onias was murdered, but
that there was no longer a legitimate high priest.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE MESSIANIC HOPE 305
Jews. Angels were not altogether absent from earlier docu
ments; their appearance in Zechariah's visions has already
been noticed. But now for the first time we learn their
names. Gabriel and Michael appear from now on as friends
and defenders of true believers, first among the Jews and then
in the Church. It is no longer Yahweh himself who speaks
to the prophet — Gabriel brings the word. The defence of
Israel against its enemies is committed to Michael. The
throne of Yahweh is surrounded by thousands upon thou
sands of such ministers (7 : 9 /.).
In the heavenly hosts some are hostile to Israel. When
Gabriel is sent to comfort Daniel by a revelation he is con
fronted by the guardian angel of the kingdom of Persia who
succeeds in detaining him three weeks. The issue would
have been doubtful had not Michael come to Gabriel's help
(10 : 13). Gabriel expects the battle to be renewed after
his errand to Daniel has been accomplished and anticipates
that the angel of Greece will reinforce the Persian (vs. 20).
The heavenly government, in this conception of it, simply
reflects the loose organisation of Asiatic empires, where the
satraps are often at war with each other. The theory that
each human nationality has its heavenly satrap, who shares
the predilections and animosities of his clients, was welcome
to the Jews of this age, for it allowed them to account for the
evil in the world by laying the blame on seditious angels.
These angels are not yet the evil spirits who have rebelled
against God and organised a kingdom hostile to his, but they
are on the way to it. That, in fact, the old heathen gods sur
vive in these patron angels of the nations seems evident. A
poem now incorporated in the book of Deuteronomy asserts
that Yahweh himself apportioned the nations to the Sons of
God, that is, to the angels, reserving Israel for himself (Deut.
32 : 8, emended text).
In the minor apocalypse which we discussed in the early
part of this chapter we noticed a statement that the dead
are to be raised. The book of Daniel reveals the way in
which this doctrine came to have importance in the thought

306 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
of the Maccabean sufferers. In earlier times the Hebrews
had no definite belief in a future life. Sheol (Hades is the
Greek equivalent) was conceived as a place in which there is
no joy and no life unless a shadowy existence away from God
and the light of day may be called life. It is pictured as an
uncanny monster which opens its jaws and swallows men.
Sometimes men and tents descend into it by the opening of
a chasm in the earth (Num. 16 : 25-34). Isaiah threatens
the nations: "Sheol will stretch wide its jaws and open its
mouth without measure, and their glory and their multi
tude and their pomp shall descend into it" (Isaiah 5 : 14).
The inhabitants of this region are sometimes thought of as
asleep: "Till the heavens are no more they wake not" (Job
14 : 12) ; but on occasion they may be roused so as to notice
what is going on. When the king of Babylon goes to the
underworld Sheol itself stirs up the shades to look upon
the newcomer, and they feel the shock of surprise that the
mighty ruler of an empire is reduced to a mere shadow like
themselves (Isaiah 14 : 9/.). But this does not imply that
these souls, if we may call them by so definite a name, had
any real life. Certainly there was no theory of reward and
punishment in Sheol. Speculation on this subject was, in
fact, discouraged by the Jewish religion because the worship
of the manes was felt to be contrary to the will of Yahweh.
Moreover, the early documents — even down to the time
when the book of Job was written — denied the possibility
of any return from the region of the dead. But the book of
Daniel expressly affirms that at the time of the end many
of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some
to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting
contempt (Daniel 12 : 2). This partial resurrection was
inferred by a logical necessity from the religious belief of
the times. The most painful thought to those who wit
nessed the persecutions of Antiochus was that the martyrs
who were faithful even unto death would not share the glory
of the Messianic kingdom. That kingdom was not located
in Sheol; it was not located in heaven; it was to be on a

DEVELOPMENT OF THE MESSIANIC HOPE 307
renewed and purified earth. If the martyrs were to have
their reward they must be raised from the dead and allowed
to share in the glories of the kingdom. Conversely, the
sinners — especially the renegade Jews who had conformed
to the impious command of the persecutor, perhaps had
turned informers against their brethren — had not had their
punishment, for they had often gone down to the grave full
of riches and honours. If justice were to be done, these also
must be raised to suffer the shame which was their portion.
Their punishment, like the reward of the righteous, is to take
place in Jerusalem. At the end of the book of Isaiah we
read that the men who come to Jerusalem to worship shall
look upon the dead bodies of those who have transgressed:
"For their worm shall not die neither shall their fire be
quenched, and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh"
(Isaiah 66 : 24). The spot in the vicinity of Jerusalem where
the sinners shall thus suffer shame is the notorious Valley of
Hinnom the scene of earlier idolatrous rites. Its name
(Gehenna) passed over into later Jewish literature as that
of the place of torment for evil angels as well as for evil men.
The prominence of this belief in Christian and Moslem sys
tems is well known.
The book of Daniel, as has already been intimated, is an
example of a kind of literature which flourished in the sec
ond and first centuries of our era and even later. It is the
product of the puritan party, so often opposed, scorned, and
oppressed by the wicked or careless many. Even after the
persecution of Antiochus ceased this party remained de
pressed and pessimistic. The Maccabean princes were far
from being the nursing fathers of the Church which they
ought to have been according to the ideas of these Chasidim.
The conflicts which arose in the time of John Hyrcanus be
tween the Pharisees (as we may now call the puritans) and
the Sadducees (adherents of the ruling house) show how im
possible it is for a civil administration to live up to the de
mands of a rigid ritual law. From this time on, therefore, we
find a sharp distinction drawn by all Jewish writers between
the righteous and the wicked. This distinction is carried

308 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
back to the beginning of history, and ancient worthies are
introduced to us to make clear the eternal conflict between
the two parties. Of these the favourite seems to be Enoch.
This antediluvian patriarch was the appropriate teacher of
religious lessons, for, according to tradition, he had been trans
lated to the presence of God where he had opportunity to
learn heavenly wisdom. The body of literature which gath
ered about his name made him the founder of astronomy and
the regulator of the calendar. The author who thus presents
him to us has a religious interest in his stringent demand for
a Jewish reckoning of the year. The Sabbaths and festivals
are celebrated in heaven as well as on earth, and the days
should correspond. If, however, a miscalculation be made
in the calendar, men will be found observing days which are
not truly sacred and desecrating those which God has set
apart as holy. Mohammed was moved by a similar belief
when he forbade intercalation. This point of view is fully
stated in the book of Jubilees (Jubilees 6 : 30-32) -1
Although the Enoch literature is the most important that
has come down to us in this class, we know that books were
published under the names of Noah, Moses, Baruch, Ezra,
and others. Complete discussion of them would take a vol
ume. Here we can notice only their leading ideas. The
one most prominent is the one already indicated in Daniel,
that is, the course of history is divinely foreordained so that
it is possible to calculate the time of the end. The plan
of the ages is set down on heavenly tablets, and chosen men
are permitted to see it. Enoch saw all that was on the
heavenly tablets, considered and read the book concerning
the deeds of men, all the children of flesh down to the latest
generation.2 The numbers which are most prominent in
these schemes are seven and four. Seven is distinctively
1 The obstinacy of the author of Enoch in insisting on a year of 364
days (Enoch 82; cf. Secrets of Enoch, 48, and the recently discovered
fragments published by Schechter) may be based on the biblical ac
count of the Deluge which makes a solar year ten days longer than
twelve lunations.
2 Enoch 81, cf. Jubilees 1 : 29, where the angel of the Presence takes
the tables of the divisions of the years and shows them to Moses.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE MESSIANIC HOPE 309
the sacred number of the Hebrews, so its dominance does
not surprise us. Four was suggested to the author of Dan
iel by the four world empires which he found in history,
though it is possible that some early mythological scheme
of four world periods influenced his thinking. An echo of
Daniel's scheme is found in Enoch, where the seventy shep
herds of the nations are divided into four groups (Enoch
89/.). In Enoch we find, however, the statement that there
will be seven weeks in the history of the world, and that the
Messianic time will come at the end of the seventh (Enoch
93). Other documents seem to have computed twelve pe
riods (Ap. Baruch 56 ff.).
All this literature is pessimistic, that is, it regards the
present age as one of degeneracy, and looks for no relief
until God shall violently reverse the present order and bring
in a new age. In the more advanced of the documents the
degeneracy is traced to the wickedness of the angels. Jubi
lees tells us that the angelic ministers were created on the
first day of the creative week. They were placed in charge
of the movements of the planets, the rains, the winds, and
the storms. They are now divided into good and bad.
They are of different ranks, the highest being the two, or
four, or six archangels. Precedents may be found in Per
sian or Babylonian mythology. The activity of these benef
icent angels is for the good of mankind. They appear in
battle on the side of the Jews (II Mac. 10 : 29). They
teach Enoch astronomy and the art of writing.
On the other hand, the evil angels are active in corrupt
ing mankind. Their fall is traced to their love for mortal
women, the account of which is given in the book of Gene
sis. This is elaborated so that we learn the number of the
rebels to be two hundred. Their leader is named Shema-
iah. They came down to earth in the days of Jared (De
scent), and the place of their conspiracy was Mount Her-
mon, an ancient heathen sanctuary as the name indicates.
The names of the twenty leaders are recited for us, and in
some passages their chief is identified with Azazel, the desert

310 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
demon who plays a part in the ritual of the Day of Atone
ment (Enoch 9:6; 10 : 4). They taught their wives magic
and astrology (Enoch If.), showed men how to make weap
ons for each other's destruction, and taught women the use
of cosmetics and jewelry. Although some of them are con
fined under the earth until the day of final judgment, some
of them are allowed to roam about and seduce men to idol
atry and other sins (Jubilees 10 : 1-12).
Men who are puzzled to account for the existence of moral
evil in a world created good find a certain relief in thus
laying the blame upon superhuman free agents. The au
thor of Chronicles had not hesitated to make Satan the
inciter to sin, where the older writer had attributed the sug
gestion to Yahweh himself. The literature now before us
advances further in the same line. It is the evil one who
tries to kill Moses on his return from Midian, and it is he
who suggests that Abraham's faith be tried by the com
mand to sacrifice Isaac (Jubilees 48: 2; 17: 16). Ashmodeus
(the name is evidently borrowed from Persia) is in love with
a Jewish maiden and strangles her successive bridegrooms to
the number of seven (Tobit 6 : 14). He is finally driven
away by the help of Raphael. It is only a short step to the
theory that each pious Jew has a guardian angel in constant
attendance upon him (Tobit 5 : 22).
Yet, when all is said, the present government of the world is
largely in the hands of the evil powers. The end so ardently
longed for by the righteous will be ushered in by a judgment
in which these world rulers will be called to account. Enoch
assures us that the Almighty will come down upon Mount
Sinai with the myriads of his angels and there chastise the
wicked for all their ungodly deeds (Enoch 1 : 4-9). Else
where the scene is laid in the Holy Land or, specifically, in
Jerusalem (47-53). The precedent has been set by Joel,
but now it is not the nations of earth only that are called
to the bar. The Lord of the sheep (Israel) has the recording
angel bring the book in which he has entered the evil deeds
of the angel shepherds (90 : 20), or the judgment begins with

DEVELOPMENT OP THE MESSIANIC HOPE 311
the angels who sinned in the antediluvian time, then deals
with the oppressive shepherds, condemns next the renegade
Israelites, and finally justifies those who have observed the
Law. After this the old temple is taken away, a new one is
brought, and the Messiah is born (90 : 28-38).
The variety of details shows the composite nature of this
literature. The general scheme, however, is the same: The
end of the present state of things is not far away, and the
kingdom of God is about to be set up. But whether it will
simply renew the glories of Solomon, whether it will be
supersensible, whether it will be located in Palestine or in
one of the seven heavens — on these points we find a variety
of views. Daniel's hope of a resurrection for the exemplary
righteous, especially for those who have been martyred for
the faith, is improved upon until we get a general resurrection.
The sufferers of the Maccabean age express their confidence
that they will be raised (IV Mac. 9 : 8/.), and one writer
goes so far as to say that Judas Maccabeus was moved by
his belief in a resurrection to offer a sin-offering for those
who had died in their defilement (II Mac. 12 : 43-45).
The expectation thus set forth in varying forms may be
called in the general sense Messianic, but the individual
Messiah is not a constant figure in the picture. Where he
does appear it is not always clear whether he is thought to
be transcendent, a ruler for eternity or for a thousand years,
or whether the perpetuity of the dynasty in successive mem
bers is intended. To make room for his reign of a thousand
years two resurrections are sometimes posited, one at the
beginning of the Messianic age, the portion of exemplary
Jews, the other at the end of the period, when the whole of
mankind will be revived for the final judgment. In one
passage Enoch asserts that at the end of the seventh week
of the world's history the righteous will rise, and during the
eighth week they will execute judgment on the sinners.
After this, in the tenth week, will be the general judgment,
when: "He will execute judgment on the angels and the
first heaven will depart, and a new heaven will appear, and

312 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
all the powers of heaven will shine sevenfold for evermore,
and after that there will be many weeks without number in
goodness and righteousness, and sin will be no more men
tioned" (Enoch 91 : 10-17; cf. Jubilees 21 : 24).
The Son of Man who appears in the book of Daniel is a
symbolic figure representative of the people of Israel. The
writer thought of the coming commonwealth as a theocracy
without human king. A part of the Enoch literature takes
the same view. But a part of it looks for a personal Messiah,
king of Israel and vicegerent of Yahweh. Enoch borrows
from Daniel the figure of the Son of Man and describes him:
"With the Ancient of Days was another being whose coun
tenance had the appearance of a man and his face was full of
graciousness like one of the holy angels. And I asked the
angel who went with me concerning that son of man who
he was and why he went with the Ancient of Days; and he
answered me and said: This is the Son of Man who has
righteousness, with whom dwells righteousness, and who
reveals all the treasures of that which is hidden, because the
Lord of Spirits has chosen him, and his lot before the Lord
of Spirits will surpass everything in uprightness forever."
There follows a promise that the Son of Man shall overcome
all the kings of the earth who oppose themselves to him
(Enoch 46). The language might be construed in con
sistency with the vision of Daniel, where the Son of Man
stands for the people, but when the next chapter goes on to
say that the prayer of the righteous ascends before the Lord
of Spirits in his days (days of the Son of Man) it seems
clear that the Son of Man is not himself the personified
righteous. Here, therefore, we have the fully developed
personal Messiah, who will come to judge the earth. He is,
moreover, a superhuman being, one whose name was named
before the Lord of Spirits, before the sun and the constella
tions and the stars were created: "For this reason was he
chosen and hidden before him before the creation of the
world, and from eternity" (48 : 1-6). Enoch saw the Elect
One of righteousness and faith, and how righteousness shall

DEVELOPMENT OF THE MESSIANIC HOPE 313
prevail in his days, and the righteous shall be without num
ber before him forever. "And I saw his dwelling place under
the wings of the Lord of Spirits, and all the righteous are
before him beautifully resplendent as lights of fire" (39 : 6/.).
Elsewhere the Elect One is described sitting on a throne and
so dwelling in the midst of the righteous (48 : 3-5). He is
said to judge Azazel and the wicked angels (55 : 4) , and
several passages might be quoted to show his office as judge
in heaven.
We have before us, then, the fully developed theory that
the Messiah who is to rule the coming kingdom is a super
human person, pre-existent in heaven and only waiting for
the time appointed to come from heaven and take the
throne. He was created before the stars, but is kept hidden
until the day of judgment. This is not so violent a hy
pothesis as we are at first inclined to think it. If Enoch,
the antediluvian patriarch, sees all these things in vision,
they must have some sort of existence in his time before
they actually become real in the course of history. It is not
probable that the writers asked themselves whether this was
a real or an ideal pre-existence. In the later Jewish con
ception many things existed from eternity, or at least from
the creation, which were revealed in time — the Law, for ex
ample. The book called the Secrets of Enoch declares that
all souls were created in the beginning before the foundation
of the world (Secrets of Enoch 23). The hypothesis of pre
existence enables the author of Enoch to explain the vision
of Daniel where the Son of Man comes on the clouds of
heaven. To the oppressed people of God the thought of an
angelic Messiah would be most welcome. His superhuman
dignity would be a guarantee of power and permanency for
his reign.
While this literature shows that the Messianic hope was
cherished by a large section of the Jewish people in this
period, it also shows how far the hope was from being con
sistent. The future glory is to be manifested in Jerusalem,
but Jerusalem may be either on earth or in heaven; it may be

314 THE RELIGION OP ISRAEL
a new Jerusalem, a new creation, or it may be something
already existing in heaven, shown to Adam, to Abraham, or
to Moses. The home of the saints may be in the paradise
in which Adam first dwelt, and which is either in one of the
heavens or on the earth, in the far east or in the far west;
or, on the other hand, the tree of life, the central object of
that paradise, may be transplanted to Jerusalem (Enoch 24,
25, and 32). The place of punishment is to be below the
earth and its entrance is the ill-omened Valley of Hinnom.
Located thus, just under the walls of Jerusalem, it will con
tribute to the pleasures of the righteous, since they will be
able to contrast their own happy state with that of the
damned (Enoch 27, 62 : 12; cf. Isaiah 66 : 24). Yet the
underworld is also conceived as a temporary paradise, one
division of it being the place where the souls of the righteous
are reserved until the resurrection. According to one view,
when the righteous are raised the wicked will simply be left
in this Hades. More general was the idea of a judgment
for all men. The Messianic time is in some cases thought
to last only a thousand years, during which the righteous will
enjoy material good, will possess land of great fruitfulness,
will sow seed that will increase a thousandfold, and will
beget a thousand children (Enoch 10 : 17-22). The two
monsters, behemoth and leviathan, will be slain and given
to the righteous for food, the earth will bring forth a thou
sandfold, each vine will have a thousand branches, each
branch will have a thousand clusters, each cluster a thousand
grapes, each grape will yield a cor of wine, and the manna
will again fall from heaven so that no one need hunger
(Apocalypse of Baruch 29). Similar millennial dreams were
cherished in the Church, as we well know. They show the
power which the apocalypses exercised over the minds of
those who sighed for the redemption of Israel.

CHAPTER XIX
THE TREASURE OF THE HUMBLE
By common consent the book of Psalms represents the cul
mination of Israelitic religion. This is attested by the New
Testament and by the place which the book has taken and
still holds in the Christian Church. It is the culmination
not only in tone but also in time, being one of the latest, if
not the latest, of the Old Testament books. The tradition
which ascribes, or which seems to ascribe, a large number of
the poems to David as author is now generally given up. It
is as certain as anything can be that the collection contains
Maccabean compositions,1 and the final redaction of the
book took place not long before the beginning of our era.
This being so, it is not probable that any portion of it can be
older than the Exile, and for our purpose it is safest to see
in it the expression of Jewish piety of the latest period.
That the book as we have it is made up from a variety of
sources is evident on the surface. Poems similar in tone to
the Psalms are found in some of the prophetic books and
must be judged to be late insertions in those books.2
The Psalter is a book of devotion. It is often called the
hymn-book of the second temple, but this is somewhat mis
leading. Some parts of it seem to have been contributed
by the musical guilds (those ascribed to the sons of Korah,
to Asaph, or Jeduthun), and the ascriptions of praise which
fill the last section of the book are appropriate for the
public service. But these make up only a fraction of the
1 The most convincing example is Psalm 74.
2 Examples are Isaiah 12 and 25 : 1-5, the psalm of Habakkuk, al
ready discussed, and several passages in Chronicles.
315

316 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
book. Many of the poems are distinctly petitions of the in
dividual, and we must think of the book as one of those
compendia of prayers such as our fathers often used for
their private devotions. One of the most widely used of
the Psalms ends with the petition: "Let the words of my
mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in thy
sight, Yahweh my Rock and my Redeemer" (19 : 15). The
sentence indicates that the preceding verses had been the
murmured meditation of the reader in the time set apart for
prayer. We see also that the long panegyric of the Law
(Psalm 119) can never have been a part of the temple liturgy,
and must have been composed as an alphabet of loyalty
by a devotee of Israel's legal system. The believer was ac
customed to engage in prayer three times a day, as one of
the poems tells us (55 : 18), and the use of a written guide
to thought by those who felt unable to give extemporary
expression to their aspirations cannot surprise us.
Although the collection had no direct connection with
the temple service, 'there is no reason to doubt that it was
used in the synagogues. The synagogue was originally
the school in which the people were taught the Law. But
people who gathered for instruction in religion were led to
engage in common prayer, especially at times when the tem
ple was inaccessible. The Psalms being expressions of the
desires, beliefs, perplexities, and aspirations of the pious
naturally suggested themselves as the appropriate formulae
for such common worship. The much-debated question of
the ego of the Psalter is answered by this reflection. The
most original of the Psalms are the expression of individual
experience and individual emotion. But the communion of
saints is communion in just these experiences. Hence came
the adoption of these compositions for the public service.
Then came the time when the more gifted members of the
community, conscious of the common faith, ventured to
compose psalms which should utter the faith, joy, or contri
tion which were shared by all. It is this which gives the
book its value; it is the expression of a piety which was

THE TREASURE OF THE HUMBLE 317
shared by a considerable number of men whose situation was
the same.
The majority of the Psalms are not didactic, though there
are a few which may be so classed. The great majority are
expressions of the religious feeling. They are "contempla
tive or intuitive, using the religious imagination or fancy
rather than the logical faculty and the reasoning powers." l
But since the feelings expressed imply certain beliefs we have
no difficulty in ascertaining, at least in outline, the theology
of the book. First of all, of course, Yahweh God of Israel is
the God of the universe and the only God. For the most
part this is so thoroughly assumed that the gods of the
nations are not alluded to at all. Where reference is made
to them it is to emphasise their impotence. It is, indeed,
said that all the gods cast themselves down before him
(97 : 7), but the reference may be to the angelic satraps of
which we had evidence in the book of Daniel. The assur
ance that the gods of the nations are mere silver and gold,
the work of men's hands, reads like an echo of Deutero-
Isaiah (115 : 3-7). Yet, that the believer was tempted at
times to pay some sort of reverence to these other alleged
divinities is indicated by the energetic rejection of such a
thought occasionally expressed (16 : 1-4).
It is the believer's comfort that Yahweh is all-powerful:
"Our God is in the heavens; he has done whatever he pleased"
(115 : 3). A well-known poem emphasises the omnipres
ence as well as the omnipotence of Yahweh: "If I ascend to
heaven thou art there; if I make my bed in Sheol thou art
there; if I take the wings of the dawn and alight in the utter
most part of the sea, even there would thy hand lead me and
thy right hand hold me" (139 : 7-10). The older theology
had not risen to the thought that Yahweh was present in
the dark realms of the dead; even some of the Psalmists think
that the shades of the departed are no longer before him;
but our author reserves nothing from the divine omniscience.
1 Briggs, Commentary on the Psalms (International Critical Commen
tary), I, p. xcvi.

318 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
The thought of the majesty of Yahweh inspires other singers,
and the glory of his work in creating and sustaining the world
of nature is a frequent topic. I need only allude to the fa
miliar nineteenth and the even more attractive one hundred
and fourth. Briefer lyrics call upon all nature to join in praise
of the Creator — mountains and all hills, fruit-trees and all
cedars, beasts wild and tame, creeping things and winged
birds (148). The thunder-storm is special evidence of the
divine power, but the ordinary and beneficent processes of
the seasons are also ascribed to him: "He crowns the year
with his goodness and his paths drop fatness" (65 : 9-12).
Though Yahweh is God of the whole earth, yet he is in
special relations with Israel: "Happy the people whose God
is Yahweh, the people he has chosen for himself as his
heritage" (33 : 12). It is for the sake of Israel that he gov
erns the world. The history of early times is recited to
prove the election of this people. And in the favourable
events of the present time the believer recognises his merciful
intervention: "Thou hast pleaded my right and my cause;
hast sat on the throne a righteous judge; thou didst threaten
the heathen, destroyedst the wicked, didst blot out their
name for ever and ever" (9 : 4/.) . In present distress the con
trast between the earlier presence of Yahweh with his people
and the present apparent desertion is affectingly dwelt upon
(44). This contrast was a frequent trial to the believer, but
for the most part faith was able to triumph over depression
and comfort itself with the thought that Yahweh will yet pro
tect his own. His attributes are, in fact, kindness, fidelity,
and justice: "Thy kindness reaches up to the firmament, thy
faithfulness to the heavens; thy righteousness is like the
mountains of God, thy judgments like the great deep"
(36 : 5/.; cf. 33 : 1-10). Gratitude for present mercies has
furnished the form of thanksgiving for all generations of be
lievers (103). Yahweh is thought to reside in Jerusalem
and also in heaven. From his throne above he is able to
observe all the actions of men. Here he sits as judge, de
stroys the sinners, but delivers those who fear him (9 : 8 /.;

THE TREASURE OF THE HUMBLE 319
33 : 13, 52). His judgment is not based on actions alone;
he tries heart and reins (7 : 10). He hates the doers of
iniquity; the arrogant dare not appear before him; he
abhors men of blood and deceit (5 : 4-6).
The religion of these writers, then, may be defined as faith
in a faithful God. When faint-hearted friends exhort the
believer to flee as a bird to the mountains, he replies that his
trust is in Yahweh, who dwells in Jerusalem and who holds
the righteous dear (11 : 1, 5). In the midst of foes when
many say that there is no help for him in God the believer
sleeps peacefully because Yahweh sustains him (3 : 6; 4 : 8/.)
The fullest expression is in the Christian as well as Jewish
classic (91), where the angels guard the righteous so that his
foot does not slip. Even those Psalms which were written
in deep despondency usually end with an expression of trust.
It is the inextinguishable conviction of the authors that
Yahweh is the God of the oppressed: "He does not forget the
cry of the humble; for the groaning of the poor he will arise
and put him out of danger" (12 : 6/.; cf. 9 : 10-13). He
is father of the fatherless and judge of the widow (68 : 6).
He is near the broken-hearted (34 : 19). All conceivable
figures of speech are used to express this faith: "Yahweh is
a rock, a deliverer, a fortress, a strong tower, a shield, a horn
of victory, a stronghold" (18 : 2). He is the light and salva
tion of the faithful so that they will not fear though the
earth be removed. The faithful are those who wait upon
Yahweh, who look to him as servants look to the hand of
the master (123). On occasion of victory vouchsafed to the
Jewish arms this faith rises to joyous triumph (46), and in
quiet times it expresses itself in thanksgiving and content
ment (103). The believer who is exiled from the temple is
consumed by thirst for the presence of Yahweh like the thirst
of the hart in times of drought (42). The joy of religion
leads men to shout aloud in praise of Yahweh, and even rises
to the affirmation that he has not dealt with any nation as
he has dealt with Israel. It would be a mistake to inter
pret all these affirmations as expressions of national feeling.

320 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
The personal note comes out very clearly in those Psalms
which appeal to Yahweh as shepherd, guide, or host, and
which commit the believer's life and lot to him (23, 31, 16).
This joy in the Lord is evidence that legalism is not in
consistent with deep and sincere piety. For it is clear that
the Psalmists are wholly devoted to the Mosaic Law as the
expressed will of God and the binding rule of life for man.
The righteous man is the one who studies day and night in
the Law (1 : 2). The perfection of Yahweh's work in nature
is parallel to the perfection of his revelation in the Law
(19) -1 One writer cannot say enough in praise of the testi
monies, statutes, precepts, commandments, and judgments
of Yahweh (119). In order to induce the present generation
to obey the Tora the story of the wilderness wandering is
rehearsed (78 and elsewhere). Prominence is given to the
ethical precepts, but the ritual is prized as well. The man
who washes his hands in innocency does it that he may go
about the altar in the sacrificial procession. The not infre
quent exhortation to pay one's vows or to sacrifice sacrifices
of righteousness is to be taken literally. Religion includes
affection for the temple. The grief of the exile is made
poignant by the recollection of the time when he was priv
ileged to take part in the festival procession (42 : 5). Blessed
is the man who dwells in the temple (65 : 5) even as a door
keeper (84 : 11). Jerusalem partakes of this affection be
cause it is the residence of the great king, that is, of Yahweh
himself, and the Psalmist is confident that the holy city is
established forever (48, also 27 : 4-6, and elsewhere).
This distinctly Jewish colouring is apparently contradicted
by some passages which declare that God does not require
sacrifice (40), and one writer thinks it necessary to confute
the popular notion that Yahweh eats the flesh of bulls and
drinks the blood of goats (50). These expressions are in part
echoes of the prophetic opposition to the ritual; in part they
indicate that religion is more spiritual than in the days
1 Whether, in fact, the two parts of this Psalm are by the same author
does not affect our estimate.

THE TREASURE OP THE HUMBLE 321
when the ritual was all in all. The believer who is remote
from the temple finds in prayer a substitute for sacrifice, and
is conscious that his communion with God is real though
without the customary ritual accompaniment. The writers,
however, do not intend to do away with sacrifice, for almost
in the same breath in which they say that sacrifice is not
required they pray that the offerings may be regularly
brought (50 : 23; 51: 21; 66 : 13-15). The fact is that the
worshippers found satisfaction in the forms handed down by
tradition, yet have come to the consciousness that sacrifice
without obedience is worthless. Obedience to the Law, in
cluding its ritual requirements, is to them the whole duty
of man.
Yet, undoubtedly, ethical precepts take a large place in
the thoughts of these writers. Worship is unacceptable if
offered by the unrighteous. He who is to be Yahweh's guest
on the temple mount must have clean hands and a pure
heart, must walk in uprightness and do righteousness, must
speak truth in his heart, not slander nor defraud nor take
usury; must honour the pious and take no false oath (15).
This decalogue almost deserves a place beside the other one
with which we are familiar. The profession of a righteous
man is: "I have followed Yahweh's paths and have not
wickedly departed from my God; ever present to me are all
his decrees, his precepts I keep ever in mind" (18 : 22). The
man called to public office resolves not to set any base thing
before his eyes, and adds: "Whoso privily slandereth his
neighbor him will I destroy; him that has a high look and
a proud heart will I not suffer; my eyes shall be upon the
faithful of the land that they may dwell with me, he that
walks in a perfect way shall minister unto me" (101: 3-6).
The character of the righteous is brought out by its con
trast with that of the opposite party, and we are scarcely
ever allowed to forget that the wicked were distinctly in evi
dence in the community in which these poems took shape.
The conditions in Jerusalem (for most of the Psalms seem
to have been composed in the sacred city) appear, in fact, to

322 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
have been anything but ideal. The opposition of parties
reaches a frightful pitch in some Psalms. The city is de
scribed as full of strife, violence, oppression, and guile. This
comes not from the heathen, which might be borne; it is from
men allied by blood and ostensibly by religion with the com
plainant: "Smoother than butter is his mouth, but his heart
is war; more glib than oil are his words, yet they are drawn
swords" (55 : 22). Those imprecations in some of the
Psalms, which have given so much trouble to apologetic ex
positors, are evidence of the same state of feeling.1 No doubt
the writers were confident that their cause was the cause of
God and that they were justified in hating them that hate
Yahweh. The men so described were, moreover, apparently
morally defective. They are accused of deceit; they dig a
pit for the righteous or hide a snare to catch him, that they
may take the poor in their net; they lurk by the way like a
lion (52 : 3-6; 5 : 9-11). The crowning evidence of their de
pravity is that they do not believe in God (14). This may
not mean a theoretical atheism, which was always foreign
to the thought of the Jew. It means rather that these
evil men did not believe in Yahweh's active government
of the world. They do not consider the works of Yahweh;
they say: "He does not see, he hides his face" (10 : 4
and 11).
The righteous poor, oppressed by the unscrupulous rich,
here make their voice of protest heard. They characterise
themselves as the humble, the contrite, the needy, while the
opposition is made up of the proud, the arrogant, the scoffers.
The comfort of the believer is the thought that Yahweh will
judge the wicked: "His eyes behold, his eyelids try, the sons
of men; he will recompense the righteous, but on the wicked
he will rain coals of fire and brimstone" (11: 4/.; cf. 92 : 8).
The theory of reward is, therefore, the same that we have
met elsewhere, and which gave the author of Job such mis
givings. He who desires many days should keep his tongue
1 For example, 69 : 23-29 and 109. False friends are denounced in
35 : 11/ and 41 : 6-11.

THE TREASURE OF THE HUMBLE 323
from evil and his lips from speaking guile; should turn from
evil and do good, seek peace and pursue it (34 : 12-14;
37 : 25). The discordance between the theory and the facts
of life does not altogether escape observation, however, and
in some cases it calls forth earnest, we might say agonised,
protests. Scepticism like that of Koheleth threatened some
minds. The observer sees, to be sure, that riches and honours
do not save their possessor from the common fate: "Man
that is in honour abideth not, he is like the beasts that perish"
(49 : 21). But this is an unsatisfactory solution, and the
problem still rankles: "Surely in vain have I kept my heart
pure and washed my hands in innocency; for all the day long
am I plagued, and my chastisement starts afresh every
morning" (73 : 13/.). This is what one of these tempted
ones thinks, though he is able to reassure himself, finding, like
the friends of Job, that the feet of the wicked are set on slip
pery ground and that they will be hurled to ruin in a moment.
So another expresses the assurance that the transgressors
will be extirpated together, and that the future will bring
destruction to the wicked (37).
Under a complicated Law the misfortunes of the believer
may in part be accounted for by the hypothesis that they are
sent in punishment for unwitting sins. And there is also in
the Psalms a lively consciousness that afflictions accomplish
the purification of those who are tried by them. But many
experiences of life are perplexing, even when all allowance is
made for this theory. The prosperity of the wicked con
trasted with the misfortunes of the righteous causes de
spondency, and many of the Psalms strike this note. In
time of sickness the believer inquires anxiously for the sin
which has brought this upon him. The so-called penitential
Psalms seem to have been called out by experiences of this
kind: "My wounds are noisome and fester because of my
folly; I am sore oppressed and cast down, I go in mourning
all the day long; for my loins are full of decay, and there is
naught of soundness in my flesh; I am wholly benumbed and
sore bruised, I groan louder than the roar of the lion"

324 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
(38 : 4-9). There is no reason to suppose that this is a de
scription of anything else than a literal sickness. Confession
of sin in such a case is not evidence of any deep depravity
from which the sufferer has just awakened; it is rather a
logical deduction from the belief that Yahweh punishes in
this life. The prayer that one may be kept from secret sin
— that is, unwitting violation of the Law — shows the anxiety
of conscience produced in sensitive souls by a complicated
code. At the same time we must remember that the faith
of the sufferer was usually able to triumph over his de
spondency and find peace in the assurance that God for
gives. The blessedness of forgiveness is vividly brought
before us by the experience of one who had found relief in
confession (32). The classic example (51) shows a deep
desire for purity, prays for a clean heart and steadfast
spirit, and finds in Yahweh the helper who is able and willing
to confer this boon.
On the other hand, the danger of self-righteousness is not
remote. The observer of the Law in time of prosperity con
gratulates himself that he is being rewarded for the clean
ness of his hands. A clear conscience boldly invites God to
judge him, for he has walked in integrity (26 : 1/.). In some
cases it is evident that the speaker who uses these Pharisaic
expressions is not an individual, but the community of the
faithful. Protestations of fidelity on the part of the company
of believers who are conscious of their devotion to Yahweh
are less objectionable than they would be in the mouth of a
single individual. The most conspicuous example of self-
righteousness must apparently be judged from this point of
view (18 : 21-25). In the mouth of David this paragraph
would be evident hypocrisy or else egregious self-deceit. If,
however, it be the boast of the righteous remnant which
remained faithful to Yahweh when the whole power of the
Syrian kingdom was brought to bear upon them to induce
apostasy, we can at least understand it and to some extent
justify it. Fully intelligible is the protest of the community
in the midst of persecution, setting forth that it has not

THE TREASURE OP THE HUMBLE 325
deserved Yahweh's apparent indifference to their sufferings
(44 : 18/.).
Undoubtedly the temptation of the believer became most
acute in times like this, when the nation seemed threatened
with extinction. They protest that it is for Yahweh's sake
that they are slain, and yet he seems not to take their part:
"For thy sake we are killed all the day long, and are ac
counted as sheep for the slaughter. Wherefore hidest thou
thy face, and forgettest our affliction and our oppression? "
(44 : 23 and 25.) Most agonising of all was the thought that
the temple, Yahweh's own house and the centre around which
clung the prayers and aspirations of the faithful, was given
over to desecration by the heathen (79). The pious were
not only precluded from paying their vows at the sanctuary
hallowed by tradition, they were compelled to hear the
taunt: "Where now is your God?" A partial solution of
the problem was found in the old prophetic declaration
that the sinful nation was being punished: Yahweh's wrath
has flamed out against an unfaithful Israel, and he has,
therefore, given them over into the power of the enemy (74),
and goes not forth with their armies (60 : 3-6). But how
was it consonant with the justice of God to involve the right
eous in the punishment of the wicked, and, in fact, to throw
the brunt upon them? For it was evident that it was just
the pious who suffered most in these calamities. All that we
can say is that these believers never came to a complete solu
tion of the difficulty, but that for the most part they were
able to hold on to their faith in spite of it. The complaint
that Yahweh stands aloof is in itself an expression of the
hope that it will not always be thus. When the enemy says
of the pious, "There is no help for him in God," or when
faint-hearted friends declare, "The foundations are de
stroyed, what has the righteous accomplished?" (11 : 4) the
believer answers: "Yahweh's throne is in heaven; his eyes
behold, his eyelids try, the children of men." In the darkest
hour, when a conspiracy of the surrounding nations threatens
Jerusalem, the Psalmist is able to reassure himself and his

326 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
fellow believers that Yahweh will shine forth as the God of
vengeance and that he has set his king on Zion, the sacred
hill (94; cf. 2 and 83).
We have seen that in this period the belief in a future
life was struggling for recognition. Koheleth's energetic re
jection of it shows that some men were insisting on it, prob
ably as affording a solution for these very problems of the
divine government. The majority of the Psalmists seem
untouched by this innovation. The affirmations are so clear
as to admit of no mistake: "In death we no longer remember
thee; in Sheol who praises thee?" (6 : 6.) "In the very day
in which a man's breath goes forth he returns to the dust and
his thoughts perish" (146 : 4). These two statements from
the beginning and the end of the book may be taken as typ
ical of the general belief of the Psalmists. And this general
belief explains the despair which some of them express in
view of the approach of death. Had they supposed that
death was entrance upon a larger life, or that it would in
troduce them into the immediate presence of God, they
would have welcomed instead of dreading it. The thought
which threw them into despair was that passing out of this
life they would be cut off from the presence of Yahweh and
the opportunity of worship: "What profit hast thou in my
blood, that I should go down to the pit? Shall the dust
praise thee; shall it declare thy fidelity?" (30 : 10.) Even
more explicitly: "Wilt thou show wonders to the dead?
Shall the shades arise and praise thee? Shall thy loving
kindness be declared in the grave, or thy faithfulness in the
abyss?" (88 : 11/.) The problem of the afflictions of the
righteous is nowhere solved by the intimation that their
reward will be given after death, nor do those who complain
of the prosperity of the wicked reassure themselves by the
thought that punishment will come in another world. Re
flection on the brevity of human life, in contrast with God's
eternity, is not relieved by any suspicion that man may
have another life awaiting him (90).
As to the prevailing theory, then, there can be no doubt.

THE TREASURE OP THE HUMBLE 327
A few isolated passages seem, however, to show some hope
of future blessedness, though even in these there is some
question whether in our interpretation we are not influenced
by Christian ideas. The religious realisation of the presence
of Yahweh would seem to lead to a hope that this presence
would not be withdrawn at death. When the believer as
serts that Yahweh is his share and his portion, and adds,
"Yahweh I keep ever before me; with him on my right hand
I shall not be moved" (16 : 9), he may have hoped that even
death would not divide him from the object of his affection.
Moreover, occasional intimations that Yahweh's power ex
tends even to Sheol point in the same direction. To all
appearance a definite hope for the future is expressed by the
writer just quoted, who goes on to say: "Therefore glad is
my heart and my liver rejoices, my body also shall rest in
peace; for thou wilt not commit me to Sheol, nor suffer thy
faithful one to see the pit; thou teachest me the path of life;
in thy presence is fulness of joy, fair gifts in thy right hand
forever" (16 : 9-11). Yet in spite of appearances it is still
possible that the author was thinking of a long and happy
life which he hoped to enjoy on the earth and in the presence
of Yahweh in Jerusalem. More explicit, however, is the fol
lowing: "Yet do I stay by thee forever; thou holdest my
right hand fast; thou leadest me according to thy counsel
and wilt afterward take me in glory. Whom have I in
heaven but thee; whom besides thee do I care for on earth?
My body and my heart may pass away, but the rock of my
heart and my portion evermore is God" (73 : 23-26). It
seems clear that the poet expects his nearness to God to
endure after his heart and his body have passed away. And
although the text is not free from difficulty, we may under
stand the "taking to glory" of a dwelling with God after
death. The verb used is the same which describes Enoch's
translation, and it was, of course, universally conceded that
the patriarch was taken to the presence of God and not rele
gated to Sheol. Our author can hardly have expected his
case to be as exceptional as that of Enoch, but his faith

328 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
would not allow him to suppose that even death could sepa
rate him from his God. The author of Daniel knows of a
resurrection for the righteous few, and our author may have
had an esoteric doctrine assuring him that special favour
would be granted to the faithful in another life.
The hope most widely cherished by the Jews was that
Yahweh would intervene in the affairs of men and set up
his kingdom in the near future. This was partly a corollary
from the belief in the divine justice: "He who planted the
ear shall he not hear? He who formed the eye shall he not
see? He that instructs the nations shall he not correct,
even he who teaches man knowledge?" (94 : 9/.) "Yah
weh looks from heaven at the children of men to see whether
there is any wise, any that seeks after God" (14 : 2). This
is, no doubt, in order to reward and punish men according to
their deserts in the ordinary course of providence. But, as
we have seen, this ordinary course of providence leaves much
to be desired. In the near future there will be a judgment
in which the apparent wrongs of the present system will be
remedied. God will ascend the throne and judge the peo
ples (7 : 7/.). In that judgment sinners shall not abide, nor
evil men in the assembly of the righteous (1:5). The throne
of wickedness, that is, evil-minded kings, cannot stand in
that presence (94 : 20). The judgment will reach the
heavenly powers, that is, the angels who have been appointed
to conduct the affairs of men and who have not carried out
the will of Yahweh: "Yahweh stands in the heavenly as
sembly; he judges in the midst of the gods" (82 : 1). Hence
the frequent praise of Yahweh because he is coming to judge
the earth: "He will judge the world with righteousness
and the nations according to his truth" (96 : 13). That the
judgment was actually in process was assumed when victory
crowned the Jewish arms. Israel congratulates herself that
Yahweh has already subjected the nations to her: "Thou
didst save me from the strife of peoples, didst set me as chief
over the nations; people that I knew not were subject to me"
(18 : 44). What seem to us the insignificant successes of the

THE TREASURE OF THE HUMBLE 329
Maccabean period were taken as earnest of the good time
coming, when Israel was to become chief of the nations of
the earth.
In the general sense, then, of hoping for the kingdom of
God the Psalmists are inspired by the Messianic faith. Did
they also look for a personal Messiah, a king of David's line?
The Psalm just quoted ends by describing Yahweh as the
one who shows favour to his anointed, to David and his seed
forever (18 : 51). The rest of the Psalm, as we have seen,
expresses the faith of the pious community, and this makes
it probable that the mention of David and his seed is to be
interpreted in favour of the restoration of the dynasty, but
not as laying any emphasis upon an individual as the future
king. The covenant with David, which is rehearsed in an
other Psalm, is introduced simply to give force to the impas
sioned protest that Yahweh has not favoured his people as
they had a right to expect (89). Even here the anointed
one is not an individual but the people (89 : 51). In other
passages also the anointed (the word is the same that we
translate Messiah) designates the people rather than an in
dividual (28 : 8 and probably 84 : 10).
The passages traditionally interpreted as Messianic, there
fore, must be viewed with some reserve. But there are allu
sions to a king which may have been intended to apply to
the ideal king, that is, the Messiah. The best known is the
prayer for the king (72), the language of which seems to
transcend what might be said of an ordinary ruler. The
declaration in another Psalm, however, that the king is both
king and priest (though not of the order of Aaron) must be
interpreted of one of the Maccabean princes (110). The
vivid description of the nations plotting against Yahweh and
his anointed (2) refers to some actual event, no longer clear
to us. But the king whom Yahweh is here affirmed to have
set on Zion, his sacred hill, is apparently the people. The
conclusion from an examination of these passages is that
while the figure of the Davidic king was present to the minds
of some of these writers, he was not the most prominent

330 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
object of their hope. The coming kingdom of God, that is,
the personal reign of Yahweh, was the object of their hope.
Already to the eye of faith, this kingship is realising itself:
"Thy foes, O Yahweh, are perishing, and all evil-doers are
scattered" (92 : 10). Yahweh has assumed the sovereignty;
he has clothed himself with majesty (93 : 1). God has
taken his seat on his holy throne; men of their own free will
from among the gentiles have joined the people of Abra
ham's God; for to God, our shield, belongs the world; he is
exalted on high (47 : 9/.). If called forth by the Macca
bean victories these expressions are nevertheless evidence
of a strong religious faith, which looked for the coming of
a universal kingdom, in which all nations will recognise the
sovereignty of Yahweh, when "All the nations whom thou
hast made shall come and fall down before thee, O Lord, and
glorify thy name" (86 : 9). How far this means the genuine
conversion of the nations to the religion of Israel is not clear,
but it doubtless prepared the way for distinct missionary
activity. When one writer declares his readiness to teach
sinners the way of God (51 : 14), and another affirms that he
has not withheld the knowledge of Yahweh's faithfulness
from the great congregation (40 : 10), the reference is only to
the instruction of careless Israelites.
One subject of subordinate importance may here be
touched upon. This is the doctrine of angels. We have seen
how prominent in the thought of this age were these media
tors between God and man. It is rather surprising, there
fore, to find them so rarely mentioned in the Psalter. The
explanation is that for the most part the Psalms were not
the work of the writers to whom we owe the apocalypses.
That the Psalmists are not hostile to the doctrine of angels
is proved, however, by a number of references. In one in
stance the sons of God are called upon to praise Yahweh — a
reminiscence of the phrase in Genesis which in this period
was understood of the angels (29 : 1). Another passage de
clares that the angel of Yahweh camps round about those
who fear Yahweh and rescues them (34 : 8). More explicit is

THE TREASURE OP THE HUMBLE 331
the promise to the one who abides under the shadow of the
Almighty : " 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" (91 : 11/.). One
notable Psalm takes the position of Daniel, that the heavenly
powers appointed to administer affairs among men have been
unfaithful to their trust and will be brought into judgment:
"In the heavenly assembly Yahweh stands forth and the
gods there he arraigns: How long will you judge unjustly,
and respect the person of the wicked?" (82 : 1/.) There
is here a dim remembrance that these angelic shepherds (to
use Enoch's term) are the old gods of the heathen once in
trusted by Yahweh with the administration of affairs over
the nations. Now they are to die like men. Their destruc
tion is, in fact, necessary to Yahweh's complete supremacy
over the universe.
The significance of the Psalms is certainly not to be found
in any doctrine of angels. Their significance is to be found
in their clear attestation of the life of faith, lived in unpro-
pitious surroundings and under a rigid legalism such as is
often thought to stifle the life of the spirit. The true state
of the case seems to be that the loyal soul delights in obedi
ence to a law, however complicated, so long as that soul re
tains the faith that the law is the will of its God. The
prophetic aphorism, "To obey is better than sacrifice, and
to hearken than the fat of rams," finds here its living illustra
tion. The Psalmists identify the righteous with those who
obey the Law. But these are also the ones who wait in hope
for the fuller revelation of Yahweh. Often in suffering, op
pressed by the proud who do not fear God or who virtually
deny his existence, they yet hold fast to their faith. This is
attested by their songs of rejoicing and also by their utter
ances in time of trouble. Prayer is becoming more impor
tant than ritual service, and these believers are unconsciously
preparing the way for the time when they that worship the
Father shall worship him in spirit and in truth.

CHAPTER XX
THE FINAL STAGE
We have now traced the religion of Israel to the latest
period of the national existence, and we may attempt to pic
ture it in its final stage. We see a community scattered
throughout the world, everywhere in contact with foreigners
and susceptible of foreign influence, yet retaining its sepa-
rateness and conscious that the true fatherland is not the one
in which its members sojourn. What gave these people unity
was not primarily their purity of blood, though this was one
of the things on which they prided themselves, but the con
viction that they were the people of Yahweh. And the sense
of superiority which they undoubtedly felt was based on the
conviction that their God was the one true God. Contrast
ing their comparatively pure idea of him with the crass
idolatry which was everywhere in evidence around them,
they had a certain right to assume this attitude so galling
to their neighbours. More to their prejudice was the tenacity
with which they held to the observance of their Law. Sep
aratism was ingrained in the legal system, and such an ex
ample of it as their refusal to eat with their gentile neigh
bours naturally brought upon them the reputation of being
unsocial and surly.
Anti-Semitism, therefore, is not a recent development, and
it was probably accentuated by the Messianic hope. The
Jews did not conceal their expectation that the time would
come when Yahweh would put an end to the domination of
the heathen and establish the elect people in the place of
supremacy. All Jews were united in these, which may be
called the common features of Judaism — the belief in Yah
weh as the one God, observance of the Mosaic Law, and
332

THE FINAL STAGE 333
expectation of the Messianic time. But there is plenty of
evidence that with this unity there was also striking di
versity of view. The attempt to observe a complicated
system of rules is divisive rather than unifying. Casuistry
is capable of indefinite development, and the constantly in
creasing volume of tradition as to what is allowed and what
is forbidden gives room for endless debate which culminates
in hatred of one party by the others, if not in actual pro
scription and schism. The New Testament shows with
sufficient clearness that the two parties of Sadducees and
Pharisees hated each other as bitterly as either one hated
the gentiles. Of the two it seems evident that the Pharisees
held to the more developed tradition afterward embodied in
the Talmud, while the Sadducees, equally strict in observ
ing the letter of the Law, rejected beliefs and practices
which were supererogatory. Their political differences do
not concern us. But we may notice that both parties, to
all appearance, looked down upon the common people (the
people of the land) because they did not keep the many
precepts contained in the written and oral Law. Moreover,
there was a separate sect called the Essenes, the members
of which, if we may trust the documents which have come
down to us, regarded themselves as the true Israel, and
whose observance (apparently influenced by asceticism from
the farther east) was more rigorous than that of either of the
other sects. Recently discovered documents seem to show
that still another sect had settled in the vicinity of Damascus,
with the intention of constituting themselves the true king
dom of God by observance of the Law in their own inter
pretation of it. At an earlier date the community of
Samaritans, Jews to all intents and purposes, had been ex
scinded by the Jerusalem Jews.
All these sects were located in Syria. But, as we have
seen, the larger part of the race was settled outside of Pales
tine, the most flourishing communities being in the great
cities of the Greek-speaking world. That these could not
escape the influence of Greek culture we have already no-

334 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
ticed. They were, in fact, broader than their coreligionists
who spoke Aramaic. In some cases they seem to have recog
nised that the God whom the gentiles worship is the same
known to them as Yahweh. The letter of Aristeas declares
that the Jews worship the same divinity with the Greeks
(Ep. Arist. 16), though this may be a concession made to con
ciliate the Greek readers, for whom, apparently, the letter
was composed. The claim urged by some Jews that all the
good found in Plato was borrowed from Moses is a concession
to the genuineness of the religion of the great philosopher.
But the Jew, conscious of the superiority of his own faith,
probably held in reserve the thought that the gentiles had
corrupted the original revelation.
Characteristic of the period is the tendency to secure
recognition of Judaism as the true religion by alleged conces
sions from the gentiles themselves. We have seen how the
book of Daniel makes Nebuchadrezzar confess the unique
ness of the Most High in terms that only a Jew could use.
The author of the book of Ezra makes Cyrus acknowledge
Yahweh God of heaven as the one from whom he had received
all the kingdoms of the earth (Ezra 1:2), and embodies in his
book a decree of Artaxerxes which enjoins that the temple
worship be worthily sustained in order that wrath from
heaven may not break out on the empire (7 : 23). Of a
piece with these alleged documents is the letter of Anti
ochus, the arch-enemy of the Jews, in which he seeks to
win their favour and vows to restore and purify the temple
(II Mac. 9 : 19-27). The Greek Esther gives us a decree
of Artaxerxes in which he calls the Jews Sons of the Most
High (Gr. Esth. 5 : 16).
The sufficient explanation for these insertions is the tra
dition which grew up that gentile kings had been miracu
lously induced to recognise the one God and to show favour
to his servants and to his temple. The Jews, living in the
midst of unsympathetic and often hostile neighbours, were
dependent on the favour of the civil ruler. It was necessary
to assume an attitude of conciliation toward their de facto

THE PINAL STAGE 335
governors. One writer in this age asserts that rebellion
against the gentile monarch is disobedience to God (Baruch
2 : 21-24). The supposititious letter of the exiles in Baby
lon to the high priest in Jerusalem exhorts him to pray
and sacrifice on behalf of Nebuchadrezzar: "That we may
live under the protection of Nebuchadrezzar and of Bel-
shazzar his son, serve them many days and find grace in their
sight" (Baruch 1 : 10-12). Nicanor is shown the burnt offer
ing that is made for the king of Syria (I Mac. 7 : 33), and
Eleazar the high priest assures Ptolemy that he offers sac
rifices on his behalf and prays for him and the security of his
kingdom (Ep. Arist. 45). Similarly, the Jewish high priest
and Council assure the Spartans that they remember them
in their prayers and offerings (I Mac. 12 : 11). With evi
dent pride the writers of this period recount the presents
made to the temple by foreign monarchs as so many tributes
to the power of their God (Ep. Arist. 51/.).
Conscious of gentile contempt, and resenting it, the Jews
also comforted themselves by stories of wonderful deliver
ances wrought on their behalf by their God. The one most
familiar to us is, of course, the one which has found its way
into the canon under the name of the heroine, Esther. The
intensity of hatred with which the heathen are regarded does
not prevent the author from making the Jewess an inmate of
the royal harem. How intense the feeling is is made evident
near the end of the book: "The Jews smote all their enemies
with the stroke of the sword, and with slaughter and destruc
tion, and did what they would to them that hated them"
(Esth. 9:5); and we learn that the number of enemies thus
destroyed was seventy-five thousand. Justification is found
in the unreasonableness of Haman's persecution — because
Mordecai would not prostrate himself before him, the prime
minister plots the destruction of the whole Jewish people.
That there is no historic basis for the story seems evident.
Even more extravagant in its details is the story known
as Third Maccabees. According to this, Ptolemy Philo-
pator desecrates the temple by entering the Most Sacred

336 THE RELIGION OP ISRAEL
apartment, and for this he is punished by an act of God.
Full of wrath, he orders all the Jews in his realm to be gath
ered in the amphitheatre at Alexandria, there to be trampled
to death by the war elephants. On three successive days
the threatened fate is averted, and at the final attempt two
angels appear and save the Jews. The king is convinced of
his error, and not only releases the Jews but issues a decree
that those who wish to return to Palestine may do so. As
in the book of Esther, the Jews are given permission to slay
their enemies, and these are defined as the renegades of their
own race. As in the case of Esther, it is vain to search for
an actual event underlying this story. And the same must
be said of the book of Judith, another monument of Jewish
ferocity. What the Jews would have done had they had the
power is revealed by these books and by the method of Judas
Maccabeus, who slew all the males in the cities he conquered,
for which, to be sure, he was able to urge Old Testament prec
edent (I Mac. 5 : 35), and by Jonathan's burning of the
temple at Ashdod with all that had taken refuge there
(10:83/.). These books are not intended primarily to utter hatred,
but to encourage believers by recounting the wonderful in
tervention of Providence in their behalf. They belong,
therefore, with the anecdotes of Daniel and his friends.
The appetite for the marvellous is, however, not easily satis
fied, as we see when comparing the second book of Macca
bees with the first of the same name. The two are concerned
with the same period, but the sober narrative of the first book
contrasts strangely with the fantasies of the second. In the
latter signs and portents abound, angelic warriors strike
down intruders into the temple, lead the Jewish armies to
battle, or take Judas between them and protect him in the
thickest of the fight. The first book knows nothing of these
supernatural events, and we are compelled to see in them
the product of the religious imagination attempting to edify
believers by instances of direct divine intervention on behalf
of Israel.

THE FINAL STAGE 337
The difficulties of the Jews in the dispersion arose from
the fact that they were forced into contact with heathen
customs. In Greek and Roman communities the public build
ings, the squares, and the markets were under the patron
age of heathen divinities, whose very sight was an abomina
tion to the faithful Jew. Hence arose the desire on the part
of the Jews that the places of their sojourn might be cleansed
from these defilements. Moreover, acquaintance with the
more thoughtful of the gentiles led many to desire that these
neighbours might come to the knowledge of Israel's God. In
contrast with the state of mind which we find at a later date
and which discouraged proselytism, we discover in this period
a distinct missionary activity. The Gospels intimate that
this was not altogether unselfish, and we may readily grant
that the conversion of gentile princes, of which we have
mention in this period, was not prompted by purely religious
zeal. But when the intensely national, not to say fanatical,
book of Judith approves the reception of Achior, an Ammon
ite, into the household of faith (Judith 14: 10), we must sup
pose a genuine interest in the conversion of the gentiles.
The reaction first shows itself in the Psalms of Solomon
which assert that in the Messianic time there will be no
proselyte or stranger in the community (Ps. Sol. 17 : 28).1
Only on the theory of a wide-spread desire to interest the
gentiles in the Jewish religion and so to secure their respect,
if not their adherence, can we account for the considerable
body of literature in this period which puts Jewish ideas into
the mouth of Greeks. A notable example is the letter of
Aristeas already mentioned. The letter purports to be
written by a Greek officer at the court of Ptolemy Phila-
delphus. The alleged author, Aristeas, writes to his brother
as one interested in the good morals and temper of those who
observe the Jewish Law. Not only are these men rational
and cultivated persons, but the Law which they observe is one
of the important literary monuments of mankind. This is
1 On the attitude of the Talmud, see Bousset, Religion des Judentums,
p. 269.

338 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
shown by making Ptolemy (the founder of the great Alexan
drian Library) take special pains to secure a copy of it for
his collection; not only to secure a copy but to have it trans
lated into Greek. The narrative tells us how the king sends
an embassy to Jerusalem (Aristeas represents himself to be a
member of this embassy), requesting the high priest to send
a copy of the Law and also a band of competent translators.
The visit to Jerusalem is described, and the glory of the tem
ple is enlarged upon. Evidently the reader is expected to
form a favourable idea both of the religion of the Jews and of
the Law which they observe. Ptolemy is made to recognise
the Law as something divine, bowing before the parchments
as sacred and venerable, containing as they do the oracles
of God. In accordance with the excellence of the Law is
the virtue of those who obey it. They are moved by a high
religious sense of accountability to the one God. And the
Law itself is not the irrational thing which some of the
Greeks think it to be. Even those commands which seem
strange have in them the highest wisdom. Thus the pro
hibition of birds of prey for food is intended to teach us that
we should not oppress our fellow men. Animals which divide
the hoof are allowed, in order to show that we should exercise
wise discrimination, and these permitted animals are rumi
nants, to impress upon us the value of reflection. At the
court of Ptolemy the Jewish teachers shine as embodiments
of the wisdom which must belong to the observers of such a
divine Law.
It has long been recognised that this account of the
translation of the Pentateuch into Greek has no basis in
fact. The existence of the translation, however, at some
time before the Christian era is something of prime impor
tance. It testifies to the extent to which the large Jewish
community in Alexandria was Hellenised. The translation
must have been made for the Jews themselves, and it is
doubtful whether the efforts of Aristeas made any impression
on gentiles. The Hebraisms of the Greek Bible would repel
the foreigner. The continued existence of the Jewish dis-

THE FINAL STAGE 339
persion, however, would be almost unthinkable without this
version of the Scriptures, and its importance for the history
of the Christian Church is well known. Its origin is wholly
obscure, and as to the date at which it was made all that we
can say is that it was in existence some time before the trans
lator of Ecclesiasticus came to Egypt in the year 131 B. C.
A more daring attempt to impress the gentile world was
made in the so-called Sibylline books. Traditions of divinely
inspired prophetesses must have been wide-spread in the
Greek and Roman world. Books ascribed to such prophet
esses had official recognition at Rome, and when the alleged
Tarquinian codices were destroyed in the year 83 B. C. the
Senate had no difficulty in gathering other oracles to replace
them. This implies that a considerable body of literature
circulated under the name of one Sibyl or another. The
Jews saw no reason why these venerable characters should
not find a place in their own tradition. They therefore
made the Sibyl the daughter of Noah, and in the book at
tributed to her she foresees the whole course of history — a
device with which we are already familiar in the apocalypses.
The mixture of Hebrew tradition and Greek legend is crassly
made — the Greek gods Kronos, Iapetos, and Titanos being
identified with the three sons of Noah (Or. Sib. Ill, 110-116).
The date of the composition is indicated by the supposititious
prediction of Rome's rule over Egypt (III, 46). The author
expects a judgment in the near future, and this is to be fol
lowed by the coming of the Messiah: "The sacred ruler who
will wield the sceptre over the whole world for all ages" (46-
50). The judgment will be one of wrath for Latin men, with
fire and brimstone. It will be introduced by Beliar, who will
lead men astray by his lying wonders. "Then the God who
dwells in the ether will roll up the heavens as a scroll, the
vault above will fall to the earth, and a stream of fire will
consume earth and sea" (63-85).
The difference between these lucubrations and the apoc
alypses which we have considered is that the apocalypses
are intended to encourage the Jews in time of oppression; the

340 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
Sibylline verses are intended to impress gentile readers by
denouncing woes upon them, and to convince them of the
happier lot of Israel. When the consummation comes the
sons of the great God will dwell in peace around the temple,
rejoicing in that which the Creator and just Ruler will give
them (702 jf.): "For he himself will protect them like a
wall of fire. Then all the nations will come to the seat of
the divine majesty, confessing the error of their idolatry.
The king who is to come will appear from heaven (or from
the East), will follow the counsels of God, will judge every
one with blood and fire, and will adorn the temple, or even
rebuild it."
The reason for the happier lot of the Jews is their superior
righteousness, and this is set forth at length. These are the
worshippers of the one God, who is contrasted with the
demons whom the gentiles revere (cf. Procemium) . They pay
no attention to oracles or signs, necromancy or magic: "But
they reflect on righteousness and virtue, and there is not
among them covetousness which begets a thousand evils
among mortals and endless war and famine. They have just
measures in country and city; they steal not nor do they drive
away flocks and herds; neither does one remove the land
marks of his neighbor, nor does the rich man oppress the
poor. He does not oppress the widow, but rather helps her
and supports her with corn and wine and oil; he who has
possessions sends a part of his harvest to those who live in
want, fulfilling the word of the great God" (218-245). Be
cause of this superiority in the moral life, and because of their
monotheism, the people of the great God will be the guides
to life for all mortals (194). The gentiles are, therefore, ex
horted to give up their sins, to bathe in running water, to
pray for forgiveness for the sins of the past, atoning with
praises for the bitter godlessness. Then will God repent
and not destroy them; he will leave off his wrath if they
practise honourable piety in spirit. Otherwise the judgment
must come and annihilate the whole race of men (IV, 161-
190).

THE FINAL STAGE 341
Such works as these may have had some influence upon
Greek readers, but their chief power was shown later when
they had considerable vogue in the Christian Church. Of a
different stamp is the book called the Wisdom of Solomon, to
which we have given some attention in an earlier chapter.
It differs from the other Wisdom books by its distinctly Hel
lenistic tone, having been written in Greek for the benefit of
Greek-speaking Jews. Its assertion of the superiority of the
religion of the Jews as compared with the idolatry of the
other nations is in line with what we have already read. An
attempt is made to account for the origin of idolatry by the
hypothesis that statues of deceased relatives were the first
recipients of this sort of homage (Wisdom 14 : 15/.). Where
the author differs from his predecessors is in affirming the
immortality of the soul apart from the body. This is evi
dently due to Greek influence. At the same time he is
a loyal Jew, and believes in the observance of the Law,
as is evident from his treatment of the subject of inter
marriage (3 : 13; 4 : 6). In connection with this book
we may notice another work which attempts to clothe
Hebrew religion in a Greek garb and so commend it to
gentile readers. This is the fourth book of Maccabees,
a sermon such as may have been delivered in the great syn
agogue at Alexandria. It takes as its text an anecdote con
tained in the second book of Maccabees, the martyrdom of a
mother and her seven sons in the days of Antiochus IV. The
lesson which is taught is that Jewish piety is sufficient to sus
tain the believer in the face of the greatest danger and in the
midst of the most acute suffering. The most interesting
thing is that the lesson is put in Greek form, being stated
thus: "The reason is ruler of the passions." This is the true
wisdom or, as the author states it, the true philosophy. This
philosophy he thinks is obtained by the Law. If he had
gentile readers it must have seemed a curious non sequitur
when he goes on to commend the avoidance of forbidden
meats as a conspicuous instance of the rule of reason.
The most striking example of Hellenistic Judaism is Philo,

342 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
a member of the Jewish community at Alexandria, and a
man thoroughly acquainted with Greek thought. That he
is a loyal Jew is seen by his attitude toward the Pentateuch,
which he regards as the perfect revelation of divine wisdom.
Everything in these books is an oracle of God, and no word
is without its significance. Moses is the great master from
whom the gentile philosophers have learned. To prove
that the Law is the law of reason he wrote an extended series
of treatises, hoping thus, apparently, to bring reflecting and
intelligent gentiles to accept the Law and obey it. As he
has left on record evidence of the acute hatred felt by some
of the gentiles toward the Jews, it is probable that he desires
also to show how baseless are the attacks made upon his
people and their religion. This he does by affirming the
ethical value of the Law and also by insisting that it is
identical with the law of nature: The Law begins with the
account of Creation to indicate that the world and the Tora
are in harmony and that the observer of the Tora is a citi
zen of the world, since he regulates his actions by the will
of nature by which the whole world is guided.
The difficulties which the expositor must encounter in prov
ing such a thesis are met by the allegorical method already in
vogue among Jews and gentiles. The book of Daniel opened
the way by treating the seventy years of Jeremiah as some
thing other than seventy literal years. It is probable, how
ever, that Philo was influenced here as elsewhere by Greek
precedent, for we know that Homer was already allegorised
by some of his commentators. The thoroughness with which
Philo has learned his lesson is seen from his treatment of the
Pentateuch. To him the history of mankind contained in
Genesis is only a picturesque psychology and ethic. It may
be too much to say that the history, as history, had no impor
tance to him, but the historical content of the book is wholly
subordinate. The patriarchs, for example, symbolise the
various states of the soul — Abraham and Lot are the two ten
dencies of man, one striving after virtue, the other after sen
sual enjoyment. Abraham sends Lot away; so the soul frees

THE FINAL STAGE 343
itself from the lower desires and appetites and gives virtue
the first place. The word of God to Abraham: " Know that
thy seed shall be strangers in a land that is not theirs," means
that the love of virtue dwells in the body, not as its home,
but that it should regard itself as a stranger in a strange land.
The sacrifices commanded by the Law, although obligatory
on the believer, are not of value for their own sake; they are
symbols of the state of the soul in repentance, when it frees
itself from sin and is thus rendered acceptable to God.
In spite of the fact that Philo himself was a loyal and con
scientious observer of the Law, it is doubtful whether a his
tory of Jewish religion should take further account of him.
His philosophy was not that of the Jewish Scriptures, but
was the Platonic dualism, putting soul and body into sharp
opposition, positing also a great gulf between God and his
creation, a gulf that can be crossed only by the mediating Lo
gos which was already a figure of Greek speculation. Philo,
in fact, belongs at the beginning of Christian thought rather
than at the end of Jewish, for his influence on Christian the
ology and on Christian exegesis is marked and may be said
to have endured to the present day. We can hardly doubt
that his emphasis of the allegorical meaning of the Law
helped to undermine its force as law. If, in fact, the im
portant thing was the allegory, why not keep the allegory
and let the literal meaning go? Christianity answered by
rejecting the Law as a system of rules while retaining it as
a divine revelation. And though we cannot say that the
allegorical interpretation was rejected by the Jews who re
tained the Law as a rule of life, no doubt there was a sharp
reaction against Hellenism, so sharp that the day when the
Greek translation was made was regarded by the Rabbinical
authorities as a day of calamity parallel to that which saw
the manufacture of the golden calf.
Leaving the Hellenistic Jews and turning to those of Pales
tine, we note that the most significant feature of society is
the sharp opposition between Pharisees and Sadducees. We
have already met the Pharisees as the strict observers of the

344 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
Law. The conflict between them and their enemies came
(according to Josephus) in the time of John Hyrcanus. The
Sadducees seem to have been adherents of the Maccabean
house, and it is probable that we have an important document
from a member of this party in the first book of Maccabees.
The object of the author is evidently to set forth the merits
of the ruling family, and this he does by a plain, unvarnished
narrative of the deeds of the heroic brothers who deserved
so well of the nation. His piety is of the good, old-fashioned
sort such as we discover in Ben Sira. The miraculous inter
position of angels on which other narratives of the period
love to dwell are absent from his story, but this is not because
he doubts the presence of the God of Israel with his people
to deliver them in time of peril. He thinks that Antiochus
was brought to a realising sense of his sin against Jerusalem
by the illness which befell him (I Mac. 6 : 12), regards the
death of Nicanor as an example of the divine retribution
(7 : 47), and treats similarly that of Alkimus, the Hellenising
high priest who tore down the temple wall (9 : 55). He
makes the piety of Judas evident by describing his prepa
rations for battle (3 : 56; 4 : 9 and 30), and justifies his
slaughter of his male prisoners by pointing out that it is
strictly according to the Law. He shows us that Jonathan's
title to the high-priesthood is exactly the same as that of
Alkimus, whom the Chasidim were so ready to recognise,
the appointment in each case having come from the Syrian
monarch (10 : 20). His hatred of renegade Jews is genuine,
and he takes pains to show that the woes of Israel were
due to them rather than to the gentiles (11 : 21, 25). He
rarely blames the stricter party, and then only mildly, as
when he condemns them for trusting in Alkimus (7 : 13/.).
The emphasis laid on the piety of Simon Maccabeus shows
the mind of the author, for he dwells on the fact that it was
Simon who expelled the heathen from Gazara, cleansed the
city from idols, and settled observers of the Law there,
entering the city, moreover, with the singing of Psalms
(13 : 47 jf.). The action of the Jewish Council in making

THE FINAL STAGE 345
Simon general and leader of the nation was ratified by the
divine blessing which followed, for in the days of Simon "they
tilled their ground in peace and the earth gave her increase,
and the trees of the field their fruit; the old men sat in the
streets communing of good things, and the young men put
on glorious and warlike apparel. ... He made peace in the
land and Israel rejoiced with great joy, for every man sat
under his vine and his fig-tree and there was none to fray
them. . . . Moreover he strengthened all those of the peo
ple that were brought low; the Law he searched out and
every contemner of the Law and every wicked person he
took away; he beautified the sanctuary and multiplied the
vessels of the temple" (14 : 8-15). If this be a fair example
of Sadducean opinion, the members of this party were not
lacking in devotion to Israel's ideals.
The point made against them in the New Testament is
that they did not believe in the resurrection of the dead.
This is confirmed by the book before us when compared
with the second book of Maccabees, apparently a Pharisaic
document. Our book makes no reference to a resurrection
or to a life beyond the grave, though the description of the
death of Mattathias and of his heroic sons would have given
abundant opportunity to allude to such a belief. The second
book, on the other hand, not only states that Judas believed
in the resurrection, but that he caused sin-offerings to be
offered on behalf of the dead just because he expected them
to be raised (II Mac. 12 : 44). The reason why the Sad
ducees refused to adopt this belief was no doubt that they
did not find it taught in the Pentateuch. It is probable also
that this party was not affected by the extravagant hopes
of the apocalypses. Adherents of the Maccabean house,
they regarded the Messianic hope as reasonably fulfilled in
the elevation of that dynasty to the throne. One of the
Psalms, to which allusion has already been made (110), con
gratulates Simon that the divine decree has made him priest
for ever after the order of Melehizedek. In spite of this
thoroughly religious tone at the outset, however, the Sad-

346 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
ducean party became more and more worldly as the princes
became mere temporal rulers. Hence the decline in power
of the Sadducees, and their final extinction. The Roman
rule disregarded any claims that might be put forward for
a native Jewish prince.
The mass of the people sympathised with the Pharisaic
point of view. This does not mean that the common people
could be counted in the strict sense Pharisees. Punctilious
adherence to a complicated law and to the casuistic tradi
tions that gather about such a law is impossible to the man
in the street. Knowledge of this tradition requires serious
and prolonged study, which comparatively few men are in
position to give. Strict avoidance of contact with the gen
tiles, which was the root principle of Pharisaism, was im
practicable for those who engaged in active business in the
midst of foreigners. The Pharisees themselves, that is,
those who were punctilious in observing the commandments
and traditions, drew a sharp line of demarcation between
themselves and the mass of their coreligionists, whom they
called the people of the land. They said: "This people
which knows not the Law is accursed." Yet these same peo
ple of the land looked up to the Pharisees as their teachers,
and were willing to follow them so far as lay in their power.
Their attitude was something like the attitude of lay Chris
tians toward members of the monastic orders, as men who
have attained a sanctity to which the ordinary man cannot
aspire. That the members of the party often succumbed to
the temptation to emphasise ceremonial purity at the ex
pense of ethical sincerity is evident from the New Testa
ment; but that the party contained many serious-minded and
devoted adherents to the God of Israel we must believe.
Pharisaic legalism has left its mark on a considerable liter
ature. Hatred of the gentiles we have already seen exem
plified in the book of Esther. Opposition to intermarriage
with other races goes back to the time of Nehemiah, and it is
emphasised in a later ordinance that any Israelite who gives
his daughter in marriage to a gentile shall be stoned, and the

THE PINAL STAGE 347
young woman shall be burned (Jubilees 30 : 7/.). The author
of Esther, it is true, allowed his heroine to become a member
of Xerxes' harem. But the supplementer of the narrative,
whose work is preserved in the Greek version of the book,
makes her express the utmost horror of such a fate (Gr.
Esther 3 : 26/.). The crime of such a marriage is sacrilege,
defilement of the sacred blood of Israel, and it brings all
kinds of plague and curse on the nation (Jubilees 30 : 14-17).
Later the prohibition was made even more rigid, forbid
ding a Pharisee to give his daughter to any but a Pharisee.
The book of Jubilees, from which we have just drawn,
shows how the most devoted adherent of the sacred code is
obliged to supplement it in accordance with the ideas of his
own time. The author rewrites the narrative of Genesis in
order to make clear things concerning which the original text
is silent. It is his conviction that there is strict correspon
dence between things heavenly and things earthly. Human
chronology must be made to correspond with that used in
heaven, else the angels will be observing Sabbath on one day,
and men will be observing it on another; and so with the
New Moon and other festivals (Jubilees 1:5, 14; 6 : 32/.).
The feast of Tabernacles is inaugurated by Abraham instead
of by Moses (16 : 20-31). The Passover is commended be
cause its observance insures against plagues for the following
year (49 : 15). Noah observed the law of first-fruits (7 : 1).
The conquest of Canaan is justified on the ground that it
had first been assigned by lot to Shem (10 : 28-36). These
specimens may show the freedom with which the Law was
treated in the interest of the Law itself, or rather of the tra
dition which had grown up about it.
Pharisaic ideals have also coloured the narratives of Tobit
and Judith. Tobit, although represented as living in the
northern kingdom, sends tithes and firstlings to Jerusalem,
and makes the pilgrimage thither, abstains from the food of
the heathen, and shares his goods with his poorer brethren.
When in exile he buries the unfortunate Jews who are the
victims of persecution, braving even the wrath of the king

348 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
in order to carry out this religious duty. Judith is more
pronounced. It declares specifically that Israel will be pro
tected so long as it keeps the Law, but when it disobeys by
trespassing upon the sacred offerings, tithes, or first-fruits,
it will be destroyed (Judith 11 : 11-18). The deed of
Simeon and Levi, which is condemned by the author of
Genesis, is now praised because they slew the Canaanites
(9 : 2-4). The heroine, though willing to deceive the
heathen general, is careful to eat only clean food, and to
bathe every night because of possible defilement contracted
in the camp of the enemy (12 : 7). A similar point of view
animates the series of poems called the Psalms of Solomon,
and they show also the deepening breach between the Phar
isees and the Maccabean house. The members of this house
are said in so many words to have usurped the throne of
David, and the writer regards their deposition by the Roman
power as a just punishment. The Roman Pompey, however,
is punished in turn, for he had desecrated the temple by
entering the Most Sacred chamber (Ps. Sol. 17 : 4-10). The
calamities which befell Jerusalem were interpreted as the
vengeance of God on the Hellenising party, though it is also
intimated that the chastisement is intended to rouse the
sinner to a sense of his sin. The righteous man is the one
who constantly searches his house to cleanse it, who erases
unwitting sins by fasting, and who chastens himself thor
oughly (3 : If.). The sinners who are said to be members
of the supreme council of the nation (and we may now call
it the Sanhedrin) are probably the Sadducees, and it is they
who are stigmatised as the ungodly (3 and 4). While the
ideal of this party was undoubtedly that for the present the
government should be in the hands of the Sanhedrin, yet
they had a lively expectation of the coming of the Messiah.
They looked for the return of the dispersed Jews, and for a
true son of David to take the throne. "He will crush the un
righteous, will cleanse Jerusalem from the heathen, will
judge the tribe of the sacred people, and keep the gentiles
under his yoke" (17 : 21-33).

THE FINAL STAGE 349
With the fall of Jerusalem in the year 70 all the Jewish
parties came to an end except the Pharisees. The Messianic
hope had not realised itself, and the various calculations of
the time of the end had proved fallacious. Henceforth, al
though the hope was held, an anathema was pronounced on
any one who should attempt to fix the time of the advent.
Until that time should come, all that was left to the faithful
Jew was to cleave to the Law, the only sacred thing that re
mained to him. The Bar Kochba rebellion showed, indeed,
that the Messianic hope had vitality enough to rally some
desperate adherents, but its disastrous termination empha
sised the admonition not to determine the times and seasons,
which God had kept in his own power. The remnant that
survived resigned themselves to the task of building a hedge
about the Law, leaving the time of the kingdom to God.
One monument of the feeling of the Jews after the fall of
their city may claim our attention. This is the so-called
fourth book of Ezra. The deep pessimism with which the
author treats the problem of sin and punishment shows how
his faith was tried. To the question whether there are few
that be saved he does not hesitate to give an affirmative
answer (IV Ezra 7 : 47; 8 : 1-3). The spectacle of the tri
umph of the hated Roman power and the sufferings of the
faithful makes him realise that the ways of God are unsearch
able, and we wonder that he can attempt to throw light upon
them. But his surcharged feelings must find vent. The
fact that the present age is wholly evil is taken to prove that
it must be succeeded by another. The fulness of times must
be at hand and these overturnings are signs of the end (4 : 40
and chapter 5). The reason for these fearful judgments is
found in the universal corruption of mankind, for it is evi
dent that if Israel has sinned the heathen are no better.
For the first time we meet the unequivocal declaration that
Adam's sin brought all these woes into the world (7 : 11/).
Hence came the corruption of the human heart (4 : 12, 22, 30).
Yet even in his despair the writer asserts that God is merciful,
and he again takes up the Messianic hope. God's Son, the

350 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
Messiah, will appear and will rejoice the remnant four hun
dred years. After this he will die — the only distinct asser
tion of the death of the Messiah which we have yet found.
Then after seven days, during which all men sleep, the res
urrection comes, followed immediately by the judgment
(7 : 26-43).
At this point we must arrest our discussion of the religion
of Israel. The religion of the Talmud which prevailed in the
Jewish remnant requires separate treatment. Much of that
which the people of Israel had developed became the posses
sion of Christianity, and thus entered into one of the great
universal religions. Briefly reviewing the ground that we
have gone over, we may recall to mind that when the Israel
ites first came into the light of history they were a group of
nomad clans with a religion like that of other dwellers in
the desert. Their God, Yahweh, was apparently the local
divinity of Kadesh, who was made party to a coalition of
the social groups in that region. The success of the coalition
led to the invasion of Canaan and the gradual settlement of
that country by the immigrants. In Canaan the God took
on the features of an agricultural divinity, receiving the
first-fruits and tithes of the soil. The attempt of Ahab to
introduce the worship of the Phoenician Baal led to a reaction
under the powerful personality of Elijah. The prophetic
party thus beginning its career was prompted by a desire for
social justice as well as for religious simplicity. In some
centuries of conflict this party clarified its aims and at last
preached an ethical monotheism for Israel. This mono
theism would not have triumphed (humanly speaking) had
it not been for the exile. In the exile the people found the
bond which held them together to be that of religion. They
therefore became a church rather than a nation, conscious
of possessing a unique treasure in the traditions of Moses
and the Prophets, carefully avoiding amalgamation with
those of different faith.
The spread of Greek ideas after the time of Alexander en-

THE FINAL STAGE 351
riched the religion of Israel but also threatened to deprive
it of its most characteristic features. This danger was coun
teracted by the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes. The
two things on which the Jews had laid the most stress — the
Law and the temple — were now threatened with destruction.
A desperate band of believers rallied to their defence, recov
ered the temple, and gave the Law a new importance. The
same period saw the development of the synagogue, a social
centre at which each of the scattered Jewish communities
could study the Law and engage in prayer. Behind the
devotion to the Law, the temple and the synagogue was
the Messianic hope, most highly developed in the time of
persecution and enriched by the visions of the apocalyptic
writers. The synagogue, the Law, and the Messianic hope
prepared the way for Christianity, for a powerful personality
like Paul was able to show that the value of the Law as a
divine revelation might be unimpaired even if it ceased to
be binding as a rule of life. The synagogue showed the pos
sibility of worship without sacrifice and priesthood, and thus
became the model on which the local congregations of Chris
tians might organise themselves. That gentile influence was
at work here is not to be denied, but it remains true that the
early Christians were Jews and carried over into the Church
the things which were of so much value to them. The belief
that Jesus was the Messiah would not have sustained the
faith of the infant Church had it not adopted the Jewish
expectation of a speedy advent of the Son of David, or the
Son of Man, coming in the clouds of heaven to judge the
world and to introduce the kingdom of God. Nourished by
this hope, the young Christian community organised itself
in independence of the Judaism from which it sprang, and
started to conquer the world. Judaism withdrew all the
more closely within itself (compelled, no doubt, by persecu
tion from without) and devoted itself to legalism, the results
of which are embedded in that gigantic monument of human
industry, the Talmud.

INDEXES

INDEXES

INDEX OF SCRIPTURE PASSAGES

Genesis
CHAPTEB PAGE
1  228
1 : 14  118
1:26  14
2:4#  103
3:22  14
3:24  83
4:25  41
6: 1-8  109
6:2  14
6:6  98
8:20-22  99
9:4  43
11 : 1-9  104,109
11:5-7  99
12:6  17
12 : 7  107
12 : 10-20  100
13:18  17
14:5  69
14 : 7  19
14:13  17
15: 16  100
16:7-14  18
16:13  97
17: 1-8  234
18  97
18:1-4  17
18 : 20/.  99
19.....  107
20 : 1-18  100
20:9-11  101
21 : 14  18
21:22-34  19
21 : 33  17
22  89
26 :6-ll  100
26:12  106
26:25  107
27  30
28:10-22  20
28 : 18  76

CHAPTER PAGE
31:13  14
31:19  45
31:42  35
31:45  21
32:2  94
32 : 24-32  24
33:18  94
33:20  22
35: 1  14,107
35 : 4  17
35 :8  17,94
35:19  94
35 : 20  28
37:2  233
37:35  114
39:9  101
41:32-39  98
42:2  43
44: 15  120
47:30  29
49  30,92
49:15  64
49 : 24/  108
49:25  14
Exodus
2 : 24  234
3:1-12  48
3:2  18
3:13-18  49

4 : 21....
4 : 24-26.
errsr....7: 11....
10 12171717
17 1818

1 
1-20..
8-13..8-16.. 15....16....
5-12.. 13-27.

102 2449
120 102
220 56
542298 5051

355

356

INDEXES

CHAPTER PAGE
19:5  60,113
19 : 14  113
20:22/  113
20:24  55,107
21 : 6  114
21 : 14  114
22:7-11  61
22 : 8-10  114
22: 12  137
22:17  31
22: 18  120
22:28  88
22:30  113
23: 10-19  Ill
23:21  59
24 : 3-8  51
24 : 4  21
24:5  77
24 : 6-8  22,39
25 : 22  218
28 : 36-38  219
29  219
29 : 38  219
30 : 21  219
31 : 13  231
31 : 14  231
32:2-4  36,85
32:12/  99
32:25-29  53
33:2  59
33:22/  98
34  111,187
34:30-35  217
35: 1-3  224
Leviticus
3: 11  220
3: 15  117
5 : 20-26  221
6 : 1-7  221
6 : 18-22  222
7:5  222
8: 10 #  219
8 : 15  222
10 : 1-7  218
10 : 6  218
11 :43  214
16  223
16 : 15-18  223
17:7  25,34
18:3  214
18:21  71
18 : 24-30  214

CHAPTER PAGE
19: 19  214
19 : 23-25  216
19 :26  120
19:26-28  32
19 : 26-36  214
19 : 31  121
20:2-5  71
20:27  31
21 : 1-4  32,215
21:10-13  32
21 : 10-15  215
21 : 16-18  215
22 : 3  215
24: 10-23  218,224
25  234
26 : 30  68
Numbers
1 :52  218
4: 15  218
5:2  30
5:11-31  37
5: 14  128
6:6  30
9 : 15-23  217
10:35  44
11 : 17  129
12  53
12: 6-8  123
14:13-16  99
15:32-36  224,231
16:15  53
16 : 25-34  306
17: 11-15  218
19...  37
19:13  30
21 :29  186
22:41  20
23 : 1  112
23 : 14  20
23 : 19-21  100
23 : 21  241
24 : 2  128
24:4  15,127
24: 16  15,128
25:3-5  66
28 : 2  220
31  234
34  234
Deuteronomy
1:4  69
4:2  192

INDEXES

357

CHAPTER PAGE
4:7....  185
4:8  192
4: 19  69,118,184
4:31  186
5: 1-21  187
5 : 14  188
6 : 4-9  183
7:3  72
7:6  186
7:7  186
7: 10/  185
7 : 25  191
9:4/  186
9 : 7-20  186
10 : 17  185
10: 18  188
11 : 13-16  194
11 : 18-20  192
11 :29  194
11 : 30  17
12:2  70,185,189
12: 18  188
12 :29/  191
13 : 7-12  191
13 : 13-17  190
13:17  88
15 : 1-3  188
15:3  189
16 : 11  188
16 : 18-20  188
17:3  42
18 :9-12  118
18:10  31
18 : 15-22  ^^^_L23
14 : 1. . . .7.7T777T: . .32, 191, 229
14:23  185
14:28  193
20 : 16-18  190
21 : 1-9  33,192
23 : 20  189
24: 15  188
24: 19/  188
25 : 13-15  188
26 : 14  32
26 : 17-19  187
27 : 2  65
27 : 11-26  194
32:8  15,184,305
32:17  15
33  30
33 : 2-5  58
33:8  122
33:9  53,77
33:14-16  92

CHAPTER PAGE
33:16  18
33:19  20,93
33:26/  '93
Joshua
4:3  21,65
5: 13-15  25
6:22-25  87
6:25  71
7 : 26  29
8 : 29  29
9:10  69
9 : 14  40
9 : 15  195
10:11  59
10:27  29
19:8  19,67
21:27  69
22 : 34  22
24 : 2  13
24: 26  21,65
24:32  29
Judges
1  64
1:7  102
1 : 16  53
2 : 10-19  195
3  87
3:3  66
3:10  79
3:19  21
3 : 20  154
4:5  17
4:11  53
4: 14  117
4:17-22  53
5:5  58
5:31  92
6:11  19
6:19  17
6:21  76
6:24  24
6 : 25-28  74
6:34  79,128
8:24-28  75
8:25-27  36
8:31  42
8:33  65
9:4  65
9:6  65
9:9  72

358

INDEXES

CHAPTER PAGE
9:22  79
9:23  103
9:26  73
9:27  89
9:37  17
9:46  65
11 :29  128
13:25  79
14  42
14 : 1-3  72
14 : 4  102
14 : 6  79
15 : 14  79
17:1-5  36
17: 5  ..70,121
18  87
18: 14  121
18:30  75
21  89
I Samuel
1 : 20  41
2 : 12-17  77
2: 17  102
2:25  102
3:3  77
3 : 13  102
4:7  44
5:5  164
6:9  115
6: 19  101
7:1  78
7 : 3-14  227
7 : 12  65
9  123
9:5-13  78
9:9  79
9: 15  128
10:2  28
10:5-16  79
10:9-12  89
10 : 10  124
11:6  79
12 : 17  59
12: 18  125
14:35  65
14:41  122
15  54,87
15:11  98
15:22  126
15 :23  119,121
16 : 4  126
16 : 14  80

CHAPTER PAGE
18: 10  124
19 : 13  121
19 : 18-20  79
19 : 18-24  124
20:29  89
21 : 8  114
22:18  75
24: 13  103
25:1  29
25 : 39  103
26: 19  73,102
28  121
28:13  31
28 : 19  114
31 : 10  69
II Samuel
5 : 20  66
5:22-25  18
6:5  44
6:6/  101
6:7  78
7:6  66
8:18  78
11 : 11  114
12:9-13  102
14:4-11  43
15:7  75
15:21  114
16: 10-12  103
17 : 14  103
18:17  29
18:18  28
20: 19  115
20:25  78
21 : 1-14  60,71
23:2  129
24  102
24: 11  124
I Kings
1:9  34
1: 11  125
1 : 50  114
2:3  191
2 :32  43,102
2:34  29
3:4  72
8 : 23  184
8 :29  185
11:4-8  83
11:5-7  70

INDEXES

359

CHAPTER PAGE
11 : 29-39  125
12: 15  102
12:28  84
14:24  72
15:12  72
16 : 1-4  125
16:34  88
17: 13-16  125
18:19  76
18:28  39
19:9-14  34
20 : 36  126
21:19  43
22 : 19  150
22 : 21-23  80,129
II Kings
1 : 10-12  125
2:8  125
2:9  129
2: 19  125
2 : 23-25  125
3:27  89
5:17  74
5 :27  126
6: 15-17  127
7 : 20  126
8 :7-13  125
9: 11  79,124
9 : 22  120
9 : 24-26  102
10:15-17  81
11 : 2  129
14:23-27  131
16:3  89
17: 13  124
17 : 17  120
17 : 24-28  115
18:4  33
19:7  128
21:3-6  163
21:6  89, 119/
23:4  76
23:5  69
23:7  72
23:11  69
23 : 24  121
I Chronicles
2:55  53
6:16-32  236
8:33/  73

CHAPTER PAGE
9 : 22  236
10 : 13  235
15 : 16-24  236
22 : 4  236
24  236
II Chronicles
8 : 12-14  236
11 : 13-16  237
16:14  33
17:7-10  237
20 : 21-24  237
21:19  33
23 : 3-7  237
25:6-10  237
26 : 16-20  237
29 : 4/  294
31 : 2-6  237
35:3/  237
36 : 21  237
Ezra
1:2  334
7: 17-26  238
7 : 23  334
Nehemiah
1 : 6-9  241
2:13  34
Esther
9:5  335
Job
4:4  268
4: 17-20  268
5: 17-26  269
7:9/  270
7 : 12  270
7:20/  270
9 :22  271
10:8  271
14:7-12  272
14: 12  306
14 : 13  272
19 : 25-27  272
21:7-9  273
31  274
38  274
40: 10-12  274

360 INDEXES
Psalms chapter page
CHAPTER PAGE 52 \ 3~6  322
1:2  320 55 : 18  316
1:5  328 55 : 22  322
3:6  319 60 : 3-6  325
5 : 4-6  319 65 : 5  320
6:6  326 65 : 9-12  318
7:7/  328 68 : 6  319
7 : 10  319 69 : 23-29  322
9:4  318 72  329
9:8/  318 73 : 13/  323
10 : 4  322 73 : 23-26  327
11:1  319 74  325
11 : 4  322, 325 78  320
12 : 6  319 79  325
14  322 82 : 1  328
14 : 2  328 82 : 1/  331
15  321 84 : 11  320
16 : 1-4  317 86 : 9  330
16 : 9-11  327 88 : 11  326
18 : 2  319 89 : 51  329
18 : 21-25  324 90  326
18 : 22  321 91  319
18 : 44  328 91 : 11/  331
18 : 51  329 92 : 10  330
19  320 93 : 1  330
19 : 15  316 94  326
26:1/  324 94:9/  328
28 : 8  329 94 : 20  328
29  59 96 : 13  328
29 : 1  330 97 : 7  317
30 : 10  326 101 : 3-6  321
32  324 103  319
33 : 12  318 106 : 28  33
34 : 8  330 110  329, 345
34 : 12-14  323 115 : 3  317
36 : 5/  318 115 : 3-7  317
37  323 119  320
38 : 4-9  324 123  319
40  320 139 : 7-10. . ,  317
40 : 10  330 146 : 4  326
42  319 148  318
42 : 5  320
44  318
44 : 18/  325
44 : 23  325 1 : 10/  286
46  319 1 : 32  283
47 : 9/  330 2 : 12/  287
48  320 3:5  281
49 : 21  323 3 : 12  284
50  320 3 : 16  283
50 : 13  233 5 : 21  281
50 : 23  321 8 : 22-31  282
51  324 9 : 5/., 18  283
51 : 14  330 15 : 8  284

Proverbs

INDEXES 361

PAGE CHAPTER PAGE

CHAPTER
" = 15  287 10 : 5-11  ~158
J7 : 28  286 11 : 1-8  248
28 : 9  279 13  247
|0 : 2-4  290 14 : 9/  306
30 : 7-9  285 14 : 18/  247
31 : 10-31  287 14 : Z2.  158
17:8  68
19 ' 3 191
Ecclesiastes 20 : 1-6 '.!!... ! 149
1:9  289 22 : 1- •'¦'•'¦'•'.'.'•'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. '. 157
2 : 19  290 2^27  297
3:16  290 2£ : 2i/  297
3:17  291 27 = 1  297
3 = 18/  289 g ¦ 9  68
3:21  290 fj*--"::  I56
4-2 290 28:9-11  153
s : ii-i3: :::::::::::::::': 291 28:15,17  157
8 = 16/  289 ™ \ \%  ^ 151
Q-K 9Q0 29:13  154
oik::::::::::::::::::::: 280 *>:jjfr  \%
12:13  291 ISiis^;::::::::::::::::: ill
31 : 1-3  157
Song op Songs 32 : 1/  248
„ ,, „„ 33 : 17  249
8 : H  68 38 : 7  118
40: 13  252
40:27-31  253
41 : 8-10  257
1:2/  153 41 : 22-24  252
1 : 11-15  47 42 : 1-4  256
1 : 21  153 42 : 2  255
1 : 29  18, 160 42 : 9  253
2 : 2-4  262 42 : 22  254
2:6  119 43:1  254
2:8  160 43 : 25  255
2 : 12-19  158 43 : 28  255
3:2  119 44 : 16  251
3 : 13-15  153 44 : 28  255
3 : 16-26  153 45 : 5-7  251
4:5  249 45 : 21-23  256
5:7  154 46:11  252
5 : 14  306 47 : 9  120
5 : 25  152 47 : 13  118
6  149 48 : 10  256
Q-'g'f  150 49 : 1-6  256
6 : 11  151 49 : 3  257
7-9 '  157 49:23  260
8 • li3' "  156 50 : 6  257
8- 12''  161 50:10  260
8 •' 14" "  151 51 : 3  259
8 ! 19! ! '.  31, 121 51 : 4/  259
9.5  248 52 : 1  259
10 • i-3".  155 52 : 14  258

Isaiah

362

INDEXES

CHAPTER PAGE
53:4  258
54: 11/  259
55:3-5  259
56: 1-8  260
56:6  232
57: 15  260
58 : 5-8  261
59 : 1-4  261
59 :21  129
60: 1/  259
60 : 3  259
60 : 19  259
61 : 6  260
65 : 4  ,  261
65 : 20  260
65 : 25  260
66 : 17  261
66 : 24  307
Jeremiah
1:9  128
2:2/  200
2:5  175
2:8  175
2:27  18
2:28  13
3:1  174
3:6  18
4:5-9  165
4 : 19/  166
4: 24/  176
5:4  169
5 :22  270
6:2  166
6 : 10  174
6: 13  170
6:20  173
6:26  31
6:29  175
7 : 4-11  173
7 : 13  174
7 : 15  176
7 : 17  171
7 : 21-23  172
7 : 22  47
7 : 33/  176
8:5  175
8:8  168
8: 21/  166
9 :2-5  168
10: 1  118
11 : 1-5  168
11 : 15  173

CHAPTER PAGE
13  165
13 :23  175
14  167
15:1  167
15 : 10-21  167
16 : 7  27
17:21  232
19:5  71
19 : 10/  176
20 : 9  128
22: 13-17  169
22 : 24  244
23 :25  123
25 : 15-29  175
26: 18  148
27 : 9  119,120
29  177
29 : 8  119
29 : 26  124
30 and 31  246
31:15  28
31 : 32-34  246
32:35  71
34:5  33
34: 18  110
35 : 6-10  81
36 : 3  176
50  247
Ezekiel
1 :28  199
2:8/  128,197
4: 14  197
5:5  198
9  202
9:4  203
13 : 9  119
13 : 17-23  120
14: 14  203,299
14 : 21-23  205
15 : 2  201
16  200
16:48  202
16 : 53  206
17 : 16  -  202
18 : 20  203
18 : 32  204
20 : 5-10  200
20 : 11-13  201
20:25  88
20 :28  20,201
21 : 21-23...  119
21 : 26-28  119

INDEXES

363

CHAPTER PAGE
22:1-12  202
22:9  20
22 : 10/  214
22 : 16  198
28 : 3  299
28: 13  105,128
28:14  83
28 : 24  206
29 : 11-13  242
33 : 1-9  204
33 : 10  204
33 : 11  204
36 : 17-19  202
36 : 20-28  205
39 : 21/  206
43:7  33
44 : 7  233
44 : 23/  209
45 : 13-17  209
45 : 17  210
45 : 18-20  210
46:2  209
46: 16-18  209

Daniel

2 : 35....
7:9/....7 : 9-14. .
7 : 10. . . .
7 : 11/...
7 : 21-27.
9 :26....
10 11
11121212

13.14.
34. 1/.
2..7..

301 305
302300301302
304 305301301304306304

Hosea

1:4  143
2:7  68,141
2:17  47
3 :4  70,121
4:1  141
4:6/  142
5:1  77
5 : 8-10  144
5:13  143
6:1  145
6:4  145
6:6  143

CHAPTER PAGE
6:9  142
7:11  143
7 : 14  39
8:4  143
8:5  142
9 :3  47,114,144
9:3-5  ....134
10:1  141
10:5  142
11:1  47
11 : 1-3  200
11 : 3  141
11 : 8/  144
12:10  47
12 : 14  47
13:7/  144
13 : 10/  143
13 : 14  144
14 : 2-10  145
14 : 4  247
Joel
1:6  295
1 : 13  295
2 : 1/  296
3 : 1  129,296
3 : 16/  297
Amos
1, : 3-5  135
2 : 6-8  136
2_l£  134
2: 10.  47
3JJ,  47
_:2  134,139
 134
 136
 137
4 : 17  136
&JLA,  135
A : 6-9  134
5:4/  139
5jJ7  136
gTl4f  139
5~TJT  135
5T24  139
•TT25  47,135
6 : 1-3,  136
7 : 1-9'. '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 136
7TT2T  124

364

INDEXES

CHAPTER PAGE
7; 14.  133
TTl7  115, 134
^TThI  137
9jJ  134,139
Jonah
1:3  114
Micah
1:5  147
2:1/  148
2:9  148
2 : 11  148
3:1  148
3:5  148
3:7  124
3:8  147
3 : 11  148
3 : 12  148
5 : 1-3  248
Habakkuk
1 : 15  265
2 : 20  265
3  295
3: 17-19  265
Zephaniah
1 :4-9  164
Haggai
1:9  243
2 : 21-23  244
Zechariah
8 : 1-8  244
9-14  298
9:9  249
9 : 10  299
10 : 2  121
12 : 2  298
12 : 11  298
13:1  298
14 : 16  298
14 :20/  298
Malachi
1 :6-8  244
2 : 17  244

CHAPTER PAGE
3:5  120
3:8  244
3: 13/  245
3 : 16/  245
3: 19  245
IV Ezra (II Esdras)
4 : 12  349
4 : 40  349
7: 11  349
7 :48  349
TOBIT
5 : 20  310
6 : 14  310
Judith
9 : 2-4  348
11 : 11-18  348
12:7  348
14 : 10  337
Greek Esther
3:26/  347
5 : 16  334
Wisdom op Solomon
2:1  292
3:8  292
3 : 13  341
4:6  341
14 : 15/  341
Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)
1:4  282
1 : 10  282
1 : 26  282
2:5  284
2: 10/  284
2 : 13  281
3 : 3-5  281
3 :21  280
3 : 30  284
4 : 11  283
6:6-9  286
6: 15/  286
11 : 4  281
12 : 16  286
13 : 2-13  286

INDEXES

365

CHAPTER PAGE
14 : 16  283
15 : 14/  284
17 : 5-10  285
22:27j(f  285
23:10/  281
24 : 23  282
26 : 3  287
33 : 5  280
36 : 22  280
39 : 1-4  288
42: 15 #  280
48 : 9  280
50 : 26  280
51  285
Baruch
1 : 10-12  335
2 : 21-24  335
I Maccabees
3 : 56  344
5 : 35  336
6 : 12  344
7 : 13  344
7 : 33  335
7 : 47  344
9 : 55  344
10 : 20  344
10: 83  336
11 : 21  344
12 : 11  335
13 :47  344
14 : 8-15  344
II Maccabees
9 : 19-27  334
10 : 29  309
12 : 43-45  311
12 : 44  345
IV Maccabees
9:8/  311
Jubilees
1:5  347
6 : 30-32  308
7:1  347
10 : 1-12  310
10 : 28-36  347
16 : 20-31  347

CHAPTER PAGE
30:7/  347
30 : 14-17  347
48 : 2  310
49 : 15  347
Epistle op Aristeas
16  334
45  335
51/  335
Enoch
1:4-9  310
7  310
9:6  310
10: 17-22  314
24  314
27  314
39 : 6/  313
46  312
47-53  310
48: 1-6  312
48:3-5  313
55 : 4  313
81  308
89/  309
90 : 20  310
91 : 10-17  312
93  309
Sibylline Books
III : Prooemium  340
III : 46  339
III: 63-85  339
III: 110-116  339
III: 194  340
III : 218-245 and 702/  340
IV : 161-190  340
Secrets op Enoch
23  313
Apocalypse op Baruch
29  314
Psalms op Solomon
3:7  348
17 : 4-10  348
17 : 21-33  348
17 : 28  337

366

INDEXES

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

Abel's Sacrifice, 112.
Agnosticism, 290.
Agricultural Religion, 67.
Allegorical Interpretation, 5, 342.
Altar, The, 22.
Amalgamation, 65.
Amos, 133.
Angels, 305, 330.
Angels, Patron divinities, 305.
Angels, Rebellious, 309.
Animal worship, 33.
Anointing, 81.
Anthropomorphism, 98, 104, 199.
Antisemitism, 332.
Apocalypses, 294.
Archangels, 309.
Aristeas, letter of, 337.
Ark, The, 44, 82.
Ark in War, The, 74.
Ashtoreth, 68.
Asideans, 293.
Assyria, 137.
Astarte, 42, 68.
Astrology, 118.
Asylum, 114.
Atonement, 221.
Augury, 119.
Azazel, 223, 309.
Baal, 66.
Babel, Tower of, 109.
Babylon, Hatred of, 246.
Balaam, 100.
Ben Sira, 278.
Bethel, 84.
Blessing of Moses, 92.
Blindness, Judicial, 150.
Blood, The, 23, 39.
Blood, Cleansing power of, 222.
Blood, Prohibition of, 232.
Blood Covenant, 39.
Blood Revenge, 43.
Book, Finding of the, 179.
Book, The Heavenly, 302.
Book of Remembrance, 245.
Bull, The Golden, 84.
Burial-places, 29.
Burnt offering, The Daily, 219.
Calf, The Golden, 84.
Call of Jeremiah, 164.
Canaan, Yahweh's Land, 115.

Canaanite Religion, 66.
Canaanite Sanctuaries, 189.
Canaanites, The, 64.
Canaanites, Extermination of the,
190.
Cherubim, 83, 199.
Childbirth unclean, 213.
Child-sacrifice, 172.
Chronicles, Books of, 235.
Circumcision, 24, 38, 224.
Circumcision, sign of the Cove
nant, 232.
Circumcision obligatory, 232.
Clan Divinities, 41.
Clean and unclean, 36.
Clients, 189.
Consecration by Blood, 209.
Consecration of Priests, 219.
Covenant, The, 37, 168, 185.
Covenant, The new, 246.
Covenant Code, The, 113.
Covenant with Abraham, 110.
Covenant with Yahweh, 50.
Creation-story, The, 103.
Criticism, The Higher, 7.
Cup-augury, 120.
Cyrus, Decree of, 238.
Daniel, The Book of, 299.
Day of Atonement, 223.
Day of Yahweh, The, 158, 164,
298.
Deborah, Song of, 91.
Decalogue, The earliest, 111.
Decalogue of Deuteronomy, 187.
Defilement by Idols, 190.
Deluge, The, 108.
Demons of Disease, 213.
Deuteronomic Redaction, 194.
Deuteronomic Reform, 168.
Deutero-Isaiah, 249.
Deuteronomy, 182.
Disease, Demons of, 213,
Divination, 118.
Dreams, 122.
Dry bones, Vision of, 205.
Ecclesiastes, 288.
Ecclesiasticus, 278.
Egyptian Sojourn, The, 48.
El, 14.
Election of Israel, 96, 186.

INDEXES

367

Elihu, 275.
Elijah, 86.
Elijah's Return, 245.
Eliphaz, 268.
Elohim, 14.
Elyon, 15.
End of the World, 304.
Enemies, 286.
Enoch Literature, 308.
Ephod, The, 75.
Epicureanism, 291.
Essenes, The, 333.
Ethical Attributes, 99.
Ethical Demands of Jeremiah,
168.
Ethical Will of Yahweh, 139.
Ethics and Religion, 274.
Ethics of the Psalms, 322.
Ethics of the Sages, 281.
Eudemonism, 194.
Exclusiveness, Jewish, 346.
Exiles, The, 196.
Exodus, The, 47.
Ezekiel. 197.
Ezekiel's Program, 242.
Ezra, Fourth Book of, 349.
Face of Yahweh, 59.
Faith, Jewish Confession of, 183.
Faith in Yahweh, 260.
Faith of Jeremiah, 167.
Faith of Job, 272.
Fast, The true, 260.
Fear of God, 35.
Forgiveness, 255, 324.
Foundation-sacrifice, 23.
Fountains, Sacred, 18.
Free Will, 284.
Friendship, 286.
Future Life, 289, 326.
Gabler, 6.
Gabriel, 305.
Garden of Yahweh, 104.
Gehenna, 307, 314.
Genealogies, 238.
Gibeon, 71.
Glory of Yahweh, 199.
Gog, 206.
Golden Calf, The, 84.
Gravestones, 30.
Greek Translation, 338.
Guardian Angels, 310.
Guardian Angels, National, 305.
Guilt-offering, 221.

Habakkuk, 265.
Haggai, 243.
Hatred of Gentiles, 335.
Heavenly Tablets, 308.
Heavens, Observation of the, 117.
Holiness, 150, 152.
Holiness Code, The, 212.
Hosea, 140.
Human Sacrifice, 70, 87.
Idols, Scorn for, 251.
Images, Molten, 75.
Images, Reaction against, 160.
Image-worship, 66.
Immortality, 341.
Imprecatory Psalms, 322.
Individual Recompense, 202.
Individualism, 167.
Intercession, 99.
Intermarriage, 72.
Isaac, Sacrifice of, 112.
Isaiah, 148.
Israel, The Ideal, 257.
Israel and Foreigners, 188.
J and E, 93.
Jeremian, 162.
Jeroboam II, 131.
Jerusalem, The New, 314.
Jerusalem the Golden, 259.
Jethro, 50.
Jezebel, 85.
Job, The Book of, 266.
Job's Friends, 267.
Joel, 295.
Jonah, The Book of, 264.
Josiah's Reform, 180.
Jubilees, Book of, 347.
Judgment, The, 310, 328.
Judgment, The Day of, 296.
Judgment of Angels, 297, 328.
Judgment by Yahweh, 246.
Judgment-scene, 301.
Justice of God, 101, 271.
Kadesh, 52.
Kindness of Yahweh, 318.
Koheleth, 288.
Land, Division of the, 234.
Law, Jewish Defence of the, 338.
Law the Source of Wisdom, 279.
Legalism, First Stage of, 192.
Legalistic Piety, 320.

368

INDEXES

Leper, The, 213.
Levites, The, 77, 188, 208, 218.
Levitical Cities, 226.
Libations, 76.
Literary Methods, Ancient, 8.
Local Divinities, 25.
Locusts, 295.
Love, Yahweh's, 145.
Lowly, Promise to the, 260.
Maccabees, First, 344.
Maccabees, Second, 336.
Maccabees, Third, 335.
Maccabees, Fourth, 341.
Macceba, The, 21.
Majesty of Yahweh, 158.
Malachi, 244.
Manasseh, 162.
Matriarchy, 41.
Messiah, The, 298, 311, 348.
Messiah the King, 248.
Messiah in the Psalms, 329.
Messianic Hope, The, 161, 241.
Micah, 147.
Michael, 305.
Midianite War, The, 234.
Millennium, The, 311.
Mission of Israel, 258.
Missionary Activity, 337.
Moloch, 70.
Monotheism, 13, 140, 211, 251.
Moon-worship, 42.
Moses, 46.
Mourning Customs, 31.
Mythology, 95.
Nadab and Abihu, 218.
Name, Vindication of Yahweh's,
200.
Narratives, The early, 91.
Nazirate, The, 80.
Necromancy, 31.
Nehemiah, 240.
Nomadic Religion, 12.
Omnipresence, 317.
Oracle, The, 77.
Ordeals, 37.
Passover, The, 40.
Pastoral Care, Ezekiel's, 204.
Patriarchs, Lives of the, 94.
Penuel, 24.
Persecution of Antiochus, 293.
Pessimism, Jewish, 309.

Pharisees, The, 333, 346.
Philo Judaeus, 341.
Pietism, 7.
Plan of God, The, 300.
Political Activity of the Prophets,
155.
Polydemonism, 16.
Polytheism, Solomon's, 82.
Polytheism condemned, 201.
Power of Yahweh, 151.
Prediction and Prophecy, 138.
Priestcode, 216.
Priestly Narrative, The, 228.
Priests, 76, 126.
Priests, Consecration of, 219.
Priests, Prerogatives of, 226.
Priests, Purity of, 215.
Prince of the restored Common
wealth, 209.
Prophets, 10, 79, 123.
Prophets and Priests, Corrupt, 169.
Prostitutes, Sacred, 72.
Psalms, The, 315.
Psalms of Solomon, 348.
Ptah-hotep, 278.
Punishment of Judah, 176.
Race Pride, 279.
Rechabites, The, 81.
Recompense, Temporal, 283, 322.
Redeemer, Yahweh as, 254.
Religion, 260.
Remnant, The, 177.
Resurrection, The, 306.
Resurrection and the Sadducees,
344.
Retribution, Theory of, 267, 273.
Revelation, 54.
Revelation by the Spirit, 129.
Righteous, Sufferings of the, 267.
Righteous and Wicked, 307.
Ritual, Need of, 181.
Ruth, The Book of, 263.
Sabbath, The, 224.
Sabbath, The Babylonian, 230.
Sabbath, Postexilic Emphasis of
the, 231.
Sabbath at Creation, The, 229.
Sacredness, 35.
Sacrifice, 40, 76.
Sacrifice, Human, 70.
Sacrifices, Deuteronomic View of,
193.
Sacrificial Ritual, 219.

INDEXES

369

Sadducees, The, 344.
Saga, The, 95.
Sanctity, 205, 212.
Sanctity of Jerusalem, 298.
Sanctity of Material Objects, 218.
Sanctuaries, 106.
Sanctuaries, Canaanite, 66.
Satan and Job, 266.
Scapegoat, The, 223.
Scepticism, 244.
Scribe, Praise of the, 288.
Scythians, The, 163, 165.
Seer, The, 78, 123.
Separation, Jewish, 332.
Serpent, The brazen, 160.
Servant of Yahweh, The, 256.
Seven World-periods, 308.
Seventy Years, Jeremiah's, 303.
Seventy Year-weeks, Daniel's, 303.
Sexual Sins, 214.
Shaddai, 15.
Shema, The, 183.
Sheol, 114, 270, 306.
Sheol, No Return from, 272.
Sibylline Books, 339.
Simon Maccabeus, 344.
Sin, Priestly Idea of, 220.
Sin and its Punishment, 102.
Sin as Defilement, 202.
Sinful Habit, 174.
Sin-offerings, 210, 220.
Sins, Unwitting, 210, 221.
Slaves of the Temple, 78.
Social Demands of Deuteronomy,
188.
Social Justice, 135, 153.
Social Reform, 138.
Sodom and Gomorrah, 107.
Solomon, Psalms of, 348.
Son of Man, The, 302, 312.
Sons of God, 109.
Sorcery, 120.
Spirit of Yahweh, The, 79, 128.
Spirits of the Dead, 28.
Stones, Sacred, 20, 65.
Syncretism, 71, 85.
Tabernacle, The, 216.
Taboo of Fruits, 215.

Tammuz, 201.
Temple, Importance of the, 149.
Temple of Ezekiel, 207.
Temple slaves, 78.
Teraphim, The, 121.
Testament of Jacob, 92.
Theocratic Ideal, The, 227.
Tithe, The, 193.
Tora, The, 192.
Trees, Sacred, 17.
Trust in Yahweh, 157, 281, 368.
Unity of God, 184.
Unity of the Sanctuary, 184.
Unwitting Sins, 323.
Urim and Thummim, 122.
Vicarious Suffering, 258.
Vindication of Yahweh, 200.
Vineyard, The new, 215.
Vineyard, Parable of the, 154.
Visions, 127.
Wicked and Righteous, 323.
Wisdom, The Book of, 292.
Wisdom, Panegyric of, 275.
Wisdom Defined, 281.
Wisdom is the Law, 282.
Wisdom Literature, 277.
Wisdom of Israel, 299.
Wisdom of Solomon, 341.
Wisdom Personified, 281.
Worship of the Dead, 28.
Yahweh, 15, 49.
Yahweh, Name of, 56.
Yahweh all-powerful, 317.
Yahweh and Ethics, 99.
Yahweh the Creator, 252.
Yahweh's Fidelity, 99.
Yahweh's Justice, 143, 228.
Yahweh's Kindness, 318.
Yahweh's Oneness, 184, 250.
Yahwist, The, 103.
Zadokite Priests, 208.
Zephaniah, 163.
Zerubbabel, 243.

599?