'J give theft Baois
fer tie founding of alt I. "clon.f
DIVINITY SCHOOL
TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY
CLARK'S
FOREIGN
THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY.
FOUKTH SEEIES.
VOL XXXII.
HfstotB of tlj* KtnsKom of ©o» unBer tf>e ©la ^tstanunt.
VOL. I.
EDINBURGH:
T. & T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET.
MDCCCLXXI.
PKINTED BY MTJREAT AND GIBB,
FOE
T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH.
LONDON, .... HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO.
DUBLIN, .... JOHN EOBEP.TSON AND CO.
NEW YORK, . . . C. SCMBNER AND CO.
HISTORY
OP
THE KINGDOM OF GOD
UNDEK THE OLD TESTAMENT.
TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN OF
E. W. HENGSTENBERG-,
LATE DOCTOR AND PEOFESSOE OF THEOLOGY IN BEELIN.
IN TWO VOLUMES.
VOL. I.
EDINBURGH:
T. & T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET.
MDCC.CLXXI.
CONTENTS.
Introduction.
1. Nature, Extent, Name, Division, Import, and Method
of treating the History of the Old Testament, . 1
2. Sources of Old Testament History, ... 21
3. Aids to Old Testament History, ... 79
FIRST PERIOD.
FROM ABRAHAM TO MOSES.
§ 1. The Condition of the Human Eace at the time of Abraham's
Call.
1. In a Political Aspect, ....
2. In a Religious Aspect, ....
§ 2. History of Abraham.
1. Abraham's Call, ....
2. Abraham in Egypt, ....
3. Abraham's Separation from Lot,
4. Abraham's "Warlike Expedition. — Melchizedek,
5. God's Covenant with Abraham,
6. Abraham and Hagar, ....
7. The Promise of Isaac, ....
8. The Appearance of the Lord at Mamre,
9. The Destruction 'of Sodom,
10. Isaac's Birth and Ishmael's Expulsion,
11. The Temptation of Abraham, .
12. Sarah's Death, .....
13. Isaac's Marriage, ....
14. Abraham's Death, ....
§ 3. Isaac, ......
1. Birth of Jacob and Esau,
2. Transactions relative to the Birthright, or Jacob's Cun
ning and Esau's Roughness, .
8. Isaac's Blessing, ....
90
115 124
1301?4135141143144116149
158 1591651C6
167 172174.
176'
178
VI
CONTENTS.
§ 4. Jacob. 1. Jacob at Bethel,
2. Jacob in Mesopotamia,
3. Jacob's Wrestling,
4. The Crime of Jacob's Sons at Sichem,
§ 5. Joseph, .....
§ 6. Remarks on Government, Manners, and Culture,
§ 7. Of the Religious Knowledge of the Patriarchs,
§ 8. Of the External Worship of God among the Patriarchs,
181 183
186190191
202207216
SECOND PERIOD.
THE PERIOD OF THE LAW, FROM MOSES TO THE BIRTH OF CHRIST.
FIRST SECTION.
MOSES.
§ 1. Introduction. — The Condition of the Israelites in Egypt
before the Time of Moses,
1. Concerning their External and Civil Relations,
2. Concerning their Religious and Moral Condition,
§ 2. The Call of Moses, .....
§ 3. The Deliverance out of Egypt,
§ 4. The March through the Wilderness until the giving of the
Law on Sinai, ....
§ 5. The Covenant on Sinai, ....
§ 6. Other Occurrences on Sinai,
§ 7. From the breaking up on Sinai to the Death of Moses,
234
234 243
248 264293311336
374
SECOND SECTION.
HISTORY OF JOSHUA.
§ 1. From the Death of Moses to the Conquest of Jericho,
§ 2. From the taking of Jericho to the Division of the Land,
§ 3. The Division of the Land, .....
§ 4. Return of the trans- Jordanic Tribes. — Joshua's Last Exhorta
tions. — Accounts given in other places of the History
of Joshua. — Condition of the Israelites under him, .
403 420449
460
HISTOEY OF
THE KINGDOM OF GOD
UNDER THE OLD TESTAMENT.
INTRODUCTION.
EFORE entering on the history of the kingdom of
God under the Old Testament, it will be necessary
to make a few introductory inquiries relative to its
nature, extent, name, division, import, and method
of treatment.
The history is divided into two great parts, the history of the
kingdom of nature, and the history of the kingdom of grace.
The ground of separation is formed by the different relation in
which God stands to the world since the fall, already indicated
in the Old Testament by the different names Elohim and
Jehovah. The relation which God bears to the whole world
is that of creator, preserver, and ruler. This is the kingdom
of nature. It is divided, according to the condition of the
creatures of God, into two parts, the kingdom of bondage and
the kingdom of freedom. The former is a question of natural
history in its stricter sense ; the latter of civil, profane, world-
history. One of its chief tasks is to point out how the pro
vidence and sovereignty of God reveal themselves in the
destinies of nations and of those individuals who have exercised
special influence on the whole ; how all the changes of origin
and decay are under His direction, and especially how His
retributive justice checks the abuse of freedom, punishes it,
and humiliates everything which arrogantly presumes to place
itself in opposition to Him (one need only recollect Shakspere's
A
2 INTRODUCTION.
historical pieces, in which this forms the centre in prefiguration
of all higher historical composition) ; finally, to show how all
His arrangements have the ultimate and higher aim to prepare,
establish, and confirm the kingdom of grace in humanity.
While, therefore, profane history has to do with the universal
providence of God ; the history of the kingdom of grace has
to do with His special providence. The idea of grace, in so
far as it is restoration, stands in necessary relation to the idea
of sin. (As mercy presupposes misery, so grace presupposes
sin.) As soon as sin had once found entrance into the world,
as soon as the image of God had been lost or obscured, a
return to God became impossible unless God Himself would
enter into humanity, unless He Himself would reunite the
bond which had been torn asunder by the guilt of man ; and
would found a kingdom of holiness and righteousness in oppo
sition to the kingdom of sin which had its origin in the fall.
The history of the kingdom of grace is therefore the history
of the peculiar arrangements of God for restoring the happi
ness which had been forfeited by the fall ; and in necessary
connection with it, the history of the way in which men
as free personal beings upon whom salvation cannot be forced,
but to whom it is offered for acceptance or rejection, de
meaned themselves towards it, whether they accepted or re
jected it.
The centre of God's decrees for the salvation of man was
from the beginning in Christ. But in order that His ap
pearance might effect that which it was calculated to produce in
accordance with the condition of men upon whom happiness
was not to be forced, it was preceded by a long period of pre
paration; of direct preparation with regard to one nation
chosen for this purpose ; of indirect preparation when all other
nations were concerned, although civil, not sacred history has
to do with the latter. Thus God's measures of salvation, and
therefore their history, is divided into two great parts : the tinxe
of preparation ; and the time of fulfilment, called by Paul in
Gal. iv. 4 the TfKrjpwp.a tov yjiovov. These two parts have
very aptly been termed the economies or dispensations. Because
every relation of grace into which God enters with all humanity
or with a single nation, or with an individual, is in the language
of Scripture designated a covenant, — a term which implies that
INTRODUCTION. 3
God never gives without requiring ; that with every new grace
the question simultaneously arises, I do this for thee, what dost
thou for me ? that all unions into which God enters are not of
a pathological, but of an ethical nature : therefore the first
economy has been called that of the Old Testament, the
second that of the New Testament. Their essential distinc
tion consists in the fact, that the former is based upon the
promised and future Christ, the latter upon the manifested
Christ ; the former is the gradual progressive preparation of
salvation in Christ, the latter is the appearance of this salva
tion from its beginning to its final and glorious fulfilment. In
this main distinction the others have their origin.
With reference to the extent of the first part, the older
theologians universally begin the history of the Old Testament
with the creation of the world, and carry it on to the birth of
Christ. Against the starting-point which they take there is
the less to be objected, since in this respect they follow the
sacred records themselves. If we designate the first economy
as the economy of preparation, it must not be forgotten that
already in the first history of the human race there is much
which may fitly be regarded as preparatory. Thus, for example,
the divine sentence of punishment after the fall, and, still
more, the punishment itself, was designed to awaken in man
the consciousness of sin, and consequently to prepare him for
the revelation of grace. In like manner the deluge was
intended to set limits, at least for a time, to the depravity
which was increasing with rapid strides, in order that at the
beginning of the special revelations of God all susceptibility
for their reception might not have disappeared. Thus the
confusion of tongues, which had its origin in the diversity of
minds, served, by scattering the various nations, to impede the
communication of evil, and to guard against the development
of a common spirit, or universalism in sin. But the main
thing, the proof of the development of sin, to which chief
attention is directed in the sacred records from Adam to
Abraham — the reference to it forms the soul of Genesis,
chaps, i.-xi. — furnishes that series of the more definite arrange
ments of God which began with Abraham, with the best
basis for the foundation of the kingdom of grace, for pre
paration of Christ's manifestation. When we remember
4 INTRODUCTION.
how sin which entered into the world by the fall even in
early times attained to such fearful power as to cause fratri
cide, how before long it gave rise to a nation which sought
its honour in barbarity and violence, how by degrees it drew
down into its whirlpool the e/eXoyj; who had remained from
the beginning, how it attained such supremacy that with
the exception of a few individuals it became necessary to
destroy the whole race of man, how among the descendants of
the few who had been rescued forgetf ulness of God soon broke
forth anew on an enlarged scale ; the measures which God
had arranged for salvation, beginning with Abraham, appear
in their true significance ; their absolute necessity becomes
manifest ; and hence that which proves the necessity for the
economy of preparation may itself be regarded as an element
of its history. Through Adam's fall human nature was com
pletely corrupted ; this is the key to an understanding of
God's plan of salvation. Thus the beginning with Adam is
not unsuitable if we regard the first economy as the economy
of preparation. And even if we regard it as the economy of
promise, there is a good argument in favour of this starting-
point also. For the promise begins immediately after the fall,
though the promised One does not stand out with clearness;
which was the case even in the promises to Abraham and Isaac.
In the judicial Sentence on the tempter, which has reference
to the invisible cause more than to the visible instrument,
there is certainly a promise to the betrayed human race of
future victory over their betrayer, and over the sin he intro
duced. And this promise is more nearly defined soon after
the deluge, in Gen. ix. 26, 27, where it is stated that the pro
mised salvation is to originate with the descendants of Shem,
and from them to pass over to the posterity of his brethren.
Whatever little reason there is, after what we have said,
for rejecting this earlier starting-point, we have come to the
conclusion on many accounts to adopt another, the call of
Abraham. Our outward and subjective argument is based
upon the wish to secure for ourselves the possibility of a
thorough treatment, by the greatest possible restrictions of our
space within the narrow limits which recent times accord to
academic lectures, especially on this subject (Rambach read
five semesters on the church history of the Old Testament)
INTRODUCTION. 5
and at the same time not to encroach too much on another
lecture, that on Genesis, in which it will be necessary to treat
the history from the creation to Abraham's call with particular
fulness. An additional argument is drawn from the subject
itself, viz. that the proper founding of the Old Testament,
the proper establishment of the kingdom of God upon earth,
the economy of preparation begins with the call of Abraham ;
so that when the earlier history is concerned, it is sufficient
to draw attention to the manner in which it serves as a
preparation for this founding and establishment. Against
the concluding-point of the older theologians there is one
objection to be made, namely, if we follow Scripture we find
that the perfect end of the economy of the Old Testament
consists not in the birth, but in the mediatorial death of Christ,
and in the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, which takes place as
a consequence of the altered relation of God towards the world,
effected by Christ's death. Forgiveness of sins and the out
pouring of the Holy Ghost are already cited by the prophets,
especially by Jeremiah in the classic passage chap. xxxi. 31, etc.,
as essential marks of the appearance of the Messianic kingdom,
and of the abrogation of the Old Testament. The Lord Him
self and His disciples kept the law until His mediatorial death;
and Paul makes the abrogation of the Old Testament date
from the same event, — the Lord Himself declares the New
Testament to be first instituted by His blood, and to rest in it.
But although the efficacy of Christ certainly belongs to the
time of the economy of the Old Testament, yet, in accordance
with the nature of the question, it belongs specially to the
economy of the New Testament, since it professes to be the
necessary foundation of the facts which ushered in the revela
tion of this economy. In it we find the New Testament
silently germinating in the time of the Old Testament. 'O
X0709 aap% iyevero, with this fact those others were also given
which led on directly to the cessation of the Old Testament.
The Lord Himself, in Matt. xi. 13, 7rai/Tes' ' to /3ij3\la
Srjfj,oai,evoaai, Trpoaera^ev, words which some have erroneously
understood to mean that Titus, famed for his readiness in writ
ing, copied out the whole book himself. Josephus tells also in
his autobiography how King Agrippa assured him that he had
written this history the most carefully and accurately of all.
We must take care, however, not to place too much value
on their assurances. They only testify to the historical truth
as a whole. In many details, especially where chronology is
concerned, we perceive that want of the true historic mind,
whicli appears in his remaining works, and for which no
autopsy can compensate. The fact that many have undertaken
to justify all these details (especially v. Raumer in his Geo
graphy of Palestine) betrays the lack of a complete view of the
individuality of Josephus. The analogies which he brings
forward with much learning in favour of everything strange
and improbable could only hold good if his individuality had
been quite different from what it really was ; if he could be
cleared from the reproach of credulousness, of superstition,
and that love of exaggeration and of obscurity which leads
him to follow not only the great aim of the historian viz.
INTRODUCTION. 61
truth, but at the same time other subordinate ends. That the
description of the temple which Josephus gives in this work, as
well as that in his Antiquities, are in many details confused and
in others undoubtedly exaggerated; that national vanity and
the peculiarity of his position led him to embellish and beautify
for the glory of his nation — all this has been thoroughly estab
lished by Robinson in his Travels, part ii. p. 53, etc. But, on
the other hand, we cannot fail to see that we have to do with
a contemporary and perfectly informed historian who on the
whole wished to tell the truth, and was obliged to tell it.
2. 'IovSaiKT) dp%cuo\oyla, Jewish history in twenty books,
from the beginning of the world to the year 66 A.D., when the
Jews again rebelled against the Romans ; so that the work may
be regarded as a continuation of the Jewish war. It was
written at Rome. Josephus states at the end of his last book
that he completed it in the thirteenth year of Domitian, in
the 56th year of his age. It is therefore almost contempo
raneous with the last book of the New Testament, the Apo
calypse, which was written about three years later. In the
choice of a title, and in his division, Josephus seems to have
imitated Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who had written a Roman
archaeology in twenty books. The value of this history is
various, according to the times of which it treats. The period
embraced in the historical books of the Old Testament is
comparatively small, and may be reckoned a help rather than
a source ; having for the most part no greater authority
than a modern elaboration of the Old Testament history, so
that it becomes a matter of great surprise that many, even
in recent times, should thoughtlessly quote Josephus as an
authority for the history of the period. Besides the books
of the Old Testament, which he read mostly not in the
original, but the Alexandrian translation, which is in some
parts very defective, and which we, with our aids, can under
stand much more thoroughly, he employed no native sources
except oral tradition, of whose miserable state we have ample
proof in the accounts he has taken from it ; for example,
the history of the march of Moses against the Ethiopians,
of the Ethiopian princess who offered him her hand, of the
magic arts of Solomon, etc. If we take pleasure in such
stories, it js just as easy to invent them for ourselves as
62 INTRODUCTION.
to borrow them from Josephus. He is also deficient in the
power of transporting himself to ancient times, partly owing to
his participation in the unhistorical Alexandrian tendency, a
circumstance which leads him also to adopt the allegorical mode
of intepretation ; but what is more prejudicial to his work is the
fact that he continually aims at writing history in a way which
should give no offence to the heathen for whom his work was
specially intended, but might rather remove their prejudices
against the Jews, or their contempt of them. Sly tact, cunning,
and craftiness — such is the character of Josephus as he appears
in his own description of his personal relations; and we recognise
the same characteristics in his history. The fact that his aim is
not purely historical, that history serves him rather as a means
to a special end, is the key to explain a multitude of phenomena
which his work presents. The injury which must accrue to his
tory from such an apologetic attempt has been seen whenever that
course has been adopted ; but it appears most strikingly in the
second half of the last century, when theologians like Michaelis,
Less, and Jerusalem diluted and distorted biblical history,
attempting by the most far-fetched hypotheses to make it agree
able to the spirit of a time which was alien to it. In Josephus,
the- detrimental influence of this mode of treatment may be
seen in double measure. First, he seeks to place his favourite
people higher than they are placed in the sacred record, and to
invest them with the attributes which the heathen prized most
highly. Like Philo, he assigns to the Patriarchs and Moses a
wisdom like that which he found among the Greeks and Greciz-
ing Romans of his own day. Again, in recording the miracu
lous events which demanded particularly strong faith, fearing
to compromise himself or to lose a favourable hearing for that
which was to be accepted, he either speaks in vague language or
by silence weakens the impression of the miraculous. Thus, for
example, he remarks on the narrative of the passage through the
Red Sea that he relates the story as he finds it in the holy
Scripture, leaving it to each one to decide whether the circum
stance was effected by direct divine influence or by natural
causes. We can scarcely suppose that remarks of this nature
are suggested by Josephus' own doubt and uncertainty, as
is the case with the above-named theologians of the last cen
tury ; but must regard them rather as the product of a peda-
INTRODUCTION. 63
gogic prudence, so to speak ; which frequently appears elsewhere
in reference to the Messianic hopes for example, where far too
little distinction has been made between what Josephus says
and what he believes. ' But that which gives him some value
even where ancient history is concerned, is the use of foreign
historical authors who are lost, from whom he has brought
forward many explanations and confirmations of the biblical
narrative. Yet we must use great caution with respect to this
evidence; for the writers belong to a bad period, that which
succeeded Alexander, where historic falsification played a very
important part, especially in Alexandria, in which authorship
was made a profession; prefiguring our present literary acti
vity, and authors wrote in the service of the various national
vanities which there intermingled, seeking in literature the satis
faction denied thern in politics. On nearer consideration, the
really important extracts of Josephus are reducible to a very
small number. What he quotes from Menander's Greek Elabo
ration of the Tyrian Journals is by far the most important.
Next in value are the communications from Berosus, which,
however, are of importance only so far as they have refer
ence to the time of Nebuchadnezzar and his successors. For
the history of the last period comprised in the books of the Old
Testament no dependence can be placed on Josephus. Here he
has little which is original, little that surpasses the canonical
Ezra and the books of Nehemiah and Esther ; and even this
little is of inferior quality. It is in a great measure taken
from the apocryphal book of Ezra, whose statements, in
themselves uncertain, are still further distorted by the con
jectures and false combinations of Josephus. He used no
other sources for this period. Comp. the translation of Kleinert,
Treatise on Ezra and Nehemiah, Dorpat Contributions, part i.
p. 162 et seq. But Josephus has far greater weight when he
treats of the time from the conclusion of the Old Testament
to the end of his work. For whole periods, from the conclu
sion of the Old Testament to the Maccabees, he is almost our
only source, though indeed very meagre. At this time the
causes which led him to represent the earlier periods had mostly
disappeared ; and his credibility respecting it may be gathered
partly from the internal character of his narrative and partly
from the accounts of profane writers. Where we might feel
64 INTRODUCTION.
tempted to question his statements, as in the account of
Alexander's sojourn at Jerusalem, a closer examination some
times serves to confirm them. It cannot be denied, however,
that great caution should be used in accepting what he says,
even where it has reference to this period ; and that not a few
incorrect statements are to be found; for he never quite
belies his character. His testimony is unreliable particularly
when he treats of the time he assigns to the apostate priest
Manasseh, and to the beginning of the temple at Gerizim. He
is not even accurately acquainted with the succession of the
Persian kings. From the great poverty of his sources, it is
evident he does not draw from important ones. Historic cer
tainty increases as he comes nearer to his own time, but is not
unqualified even here ; for the absence of other, earlier occasions
of error, are replaced by a new one, his personal vanity.
3. De vita sua, autobiography of Josephus, valuable first of
all for the knowledge which it reveals of his individuality,
so indispensable to the formation of a just estimate of his
larger works ; and also for the knowledge of the history of his
time, and of the contemporary religious and civil condition of
the Jews. In determining the date of the composition of
his Antiquities, we fix that of this book also. It forms, as
Josephus himself tells us at the end of the twentieth book, an
appendix to it; and is therefore not improperly quoted by
Eusebius under the name of the Antiquities. It is not so much
a complete biography as a record for the vindication of his con
duct in the Jewish war, which was attacked on so many sides.
4. On the antiquities of the Jewish nation. Josephus was
prompted to undertake this work by the quackish polyhistor
Apion, who had attacked the antiquity of the Jewish nation,
and had brought forward many unfounded calumnies against
them in the interest of the Greco-Egyptian enmity to the
Jews, which was prevalent in the time of the Roman imperial
dominion, especially in Alexandria. But Josephus was not
satisfied to refute him alone ; he also noticed the calumnies of
Apollonius Molo and other writers. This book is important
for Old Testament history, because it contains a number of
fragments from lost works of Phoenician, Egyptian, and Baby
lonish historians ; with reference to which, however, we must
repeat the remark already made respecting the Antiquities. The
INTRODUCTION. 65
defence of Josephus is often as inaccurate as the attack against
which it is directed. Without criticism he heaps together
everything which can serve his purpose. The historically-
veiled polemics he combats had adopted Jewish accounts of
ancient history, altering them to suit themselves; and had
then represented them as resting on independent heathen tradi
tion. Josephus ¦ never fully uncovers this literary deception;
he unmasks the impostors only so far as it serves his national
interest ; and allows their testimony to pass when he can turn
it to his own advantage. Nor has he any hesitation in over
looking the deception of the Jewish writers who represented
themselves as heathens, that in this character they might more
effectually weaken heathen calumnies and glorify the antiquity
and grandeur of their nation by testimony apparently coming
from an enemy. He never seems to entertain the idea of
unmasking them.. It follows from these remarks that the
books against Apion can only be used as a historical source,
with the greatest caution.
Among the Jews Josephus found little acceptance, partly
on account of the language in which his works (with the excep
tion of the books of the Jewish war) were written, partly also
because he was looked upon as an apostate. So much the more
highly was he valued by the Christians, for whom the books on
the Jewish war must have had special interest, as forming
" an excellent apology for Christianity against Judaism ; and
for all that relates to the relations existing in the time of
Christ, which to the present day forms an invaluable mine
in proving the genuine historical character of the Gospels.
Even the earliest church writers, as Clement of Alexandria
and Origen, show an intimate acquaintance with him. Euse
bius, in his Church History, quotes whole sections from his
books on the Jewish war. The Latin translation was several
times printed in the fifteenth "century. A German one, by
Hedio, was also in existence, Strasb. 1531, when at Basle 1544,
the first edition of the Greek original appeared. The most com
mon edition is that by Ittig. By far the best, however, is that
of Haverkamp, Amsterdam 1726, 2 vols, fol.; indispensable for
• every one who wishes to become thoroughly familiar with Jose
phus. It is provided with a tolerably rich critical apparatus,
but is unfortunately very inadequate in respect of exegesis.
E
66 INTRODUCTION.
To the native sources we may reckon also the pseudo-epi
graphs of the Old Testament, collected by Fabricius in the
Cod. Pseudepigr. V. T., Hamb. 1713, 1723, 2 vols.— viz. such
writings as are falsely attributed to the most important men of
the Old Testament— Enoch, for example ; while the apocryphal
books are certainly genuine, but not canonical ; and are dis
tinguished from native works, like those of Josephus, by a
certain authority which, they have obtained in the synagogue,
and in the church as a sort of uncanonical supplement to the
canon. The pseudo-epigraphs have the dignity of sources
more with regard to later Jewish modes of thought and dogmas
than in reference to isolated facts; for where the latter are
concerned, they must in the nature of things be highly uncer-*
tain, and do in fact abound with absurd fables. Even Philo
(born in the year 20 B.C.) is only so far to be regarded as
a source as his writings set forth the character of Alexan
drian Judaism ; the peculiar form which Judaism assumed in
Egypt, owing to contact with the Greek mind. For historical
facts he is a bad guarantee; owing to his morbid dominant
subjectivity, which always transfers itself to the object; and;
on account of his unhistorical, idealising manner of thought.
Even where he speaks of the present, and from his own obser
vation, as in his account of the Therapeutse, there is such a
mixture of truth and fiction, of the ideal and the actual, that
we must regret, in the absence of more sober witnesses, to be
obliged to accept him as our authority. The historic accounts
of the Talmud belong to a time when the perception of truth
among the Jews had so utterly disappeared, that the narrators
themselves were no longer conscious of the distinction be
tween truth and fiction. This is also the case with respect
to other old Jewish writings, such as the book Sohar, and
the ancient allegorical commentaries on the Bible known under
the name of Rabboth. In all history there is scarcely an ex
ample of a nation in whom the perception of truth generally,
but especially of historic truth, was so completely enfeebled
as among the Jews after the destruction of Jerusalem. In
this respect they are related to other nations in an inverse
ratio to their ancestors; a phenomenon which will appear
strange only to those who are incapable of apprehending its
deeper causes, comp. John v. 43; to which we may add
INTRODUCTION. 67
national vanity in union with the deepest degradation — a union
which everywhere proves itself a potentiality destructive of
history, but most strikingly in Egypt — isolation ; a base mind
thinking only of gain ; and the one-sidedness of studies directed
to mere subtleties. The analogy of the modern Greeks to the
Greeks of antiquity suffices at least to show how little we are
authorized to infer the unhistorical tendency of Israel from
that of later Judaism.
The only national monuments which serve to illustrate the
history are coins of the time of the Maccabees, whose genuine
ness was triumphantly established in the contest between Bayer
and Tychsen, amply detailed in Hartmann's biography of the
latter. Let us now pass to the foreign sources of Old Testament
history. These are divided into two classes — accounts which
directly refer to the Jews, and those which indirectly bear
upon Hebrew history in setting forth the history of the nations
with whom the Jews came into contact. We shall speak
first of the former. In the later East we find strange tradi
tions and sayings concerning Old Testament history, which,
though not without manifold interest, have but little historical
value, — the less because they may generally be recognised
as embellishments and distortions of the accounts preserved in
later times by Jews and Christians. This is especially the
case when they have reference to the Koran ; and what has not
been sufficiently recognised — to the traditions of the Arabs con
cerning their own early history and their descent from Kahtan
(Joktan) and Ishmael, which have perhaps no independent
basis, being certainly developed under Jewish influence, which
was very powerful in Arabia in the centuries preceding
Mohammed. Greek and Roman authors were not well informed respect
ing the affairs of the Jews, and drew from bad sources ; from
contempt they did not trouble themselves to inquire into the
truth, and from hatred they would not see it. But especially
regarding the more ancient, the pre-Babylonish history of the
Jews ; Greek and Roman history contributes very little which
is valid, as may be inferred from the remarkable circumstance
that previous to the time of Alexander no Greek author men
tions the name of the Jews. Herodotus represents them only
68 INTRODUCTION.
as Syrians in Palestine ; and has evidently very obscure ideas
respecting them ; although what he tells of the conquest of
Cadytis by Necho is of no little importance for the conflict
between Egypt and Judah in the time of Josiah, of which the
books of Kings and Chronicles tell nothing. Many writers,
most of whom, however, seem to belong to the lowest class,
composed separate works on the Jews; but none are now in
existence. Fragments are to be found in Josephus, c- Ap.,
and in Eusebius, in the Chronicon and in Praepar. Ev. These
two works are important for the history of the Old Testa
ment. In the Chronicon the sole aim of Eusebius is to bring
forward confirmation of Old Testament history from heathen
authors whose works have for the most part been lost — whether
they gave accounts concerning the Jews, or only explained
and confirmed what the Scriptures told of foreign nations.
For a long period we had to content ourselves with fragments
of Jerome's Latin translation of this chronicle, which were
collected and learnedly discussed by Scaliger under the title of
Thesaurus temporum, first at Leyden 1606, afterwards in a
second enlarged edition at Amsterdam, 1658. But the whole
has been preserved in the Armenian language; and first ap
peared in the year 1818, in Armenian and Latin, at Venice,
in 2 vols. 4to, with many annotations. This is an addition to
the treasury of sources for Old Testament history. To it
we owe many illustrations and confirmations of that history,
taken from otherwise unknown fragments ; especially with
regard to the objects of the embassy which, according to
the book of Kings, was sent from Babylon to Hezekiah ; and
concerning the narrative in the six first chapters of Daniel.
The whole ninth book of the Praeparatio Evangelica serves
the same purpose. For the rest, that which has been said of
Josephus also holds good in the case of Eusebius. We must
be particularly cautious in using his authorities ; for they are
generally bad late writers who quote as the original a copy
of the copy of the Old Testament narrative, in which but few
genuine features remain. Everything which these authors—
Nicolaus Damasc, Alex. Polyhistor, Artapanus, Eupolemus, etc.
—can tell of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and even of Moses,
bears the same relation to the Old Testament as the statements
of the Koran ; and is of no more importance ; so that we cannot
INTRODUCTION. 69
help wondering how men like Hess can make so much of
these statements; or how v. Bohlen, Tuch, Lengerke, Bertheau,
and others can treat them as almost equal in value to the
Mosaic account. Other Greek and Latin authors still extant
give passing accounts of the Jews. Thus Diodorus Siculus,
lib. i. chap. v. ; Strabo, in the tenth book of his Geography ;
Justin, in the second chapter of the thirty-sixth book of his
extract from Trogus Pompejus ; Tacitus historiarum, lib. v.
chaps, ii.-xiii. Horace, Juvenal, C. Pliny the younger, and
Martial also make passing mention of the Jews. The passages
from these authors which have reference to the Jews have been
diligently collected and explained by many scholars, especially
by Schudt, in his Compendium historiae Judaicae potissimum
ex gentilium scriptis collectum, Fkf. a. M. 1700. The latest col
lection, that of Meyer, Judaica, Jena 1832, is incomplete, con
taining simply the Greek text.
So much for. those who occupy themselves directly with
the Jews. The nations with whom the Hebrews came most
into contact, and whose history is therefore of special import
ance as bearing upon theirs, are the Egyptians, Phoenicians,
Assyrians, Chaldeans, Persians, Greeks, and Romans. With
the exception of the Phcenicians, these very nations, and they
alone, appear in the Apocalypse as the successive possessors of
the sovereignty of the world, under whose yoke the people of
God sighed — six heads of the seven-headed beast, under the
symbol of which the sovereignty of the world is represented ;
the seventh head was still future at the time of the Apocalypse.
We give here only the principal sources for the history of the
five first nations, assuming that the sources of the history of
the Greeks and Romans are already known.
The sources of Egyptian history are very meagre. The
Egyptians were extremely deficient in the historic faculty, about
as jnuch as the Indians. Truth and fiction, mythology and
history, were separated by a fluctuating barrier. In olden
times, in records which did not relate to the intercourse of
common life, they generally made use of hieroglyph or picture-
writing, which was liable to much misapprehension in the
lapse of time, and gave rise to strange misunderstandings.
This source was the more necessarily fluctuating, because such
defective writing contained only pompous descriptions of actual
70 INTRODUCTION.
or alleged exploits, never forming a properly historical work,
which Egypt does not seem to have possessed at all before the
supremacy of the Greeks. Yet to this source, to uncertain
oral tradition, and to old monuments, the Egyptians were
limited in the time of Herodotus ; and to them, not to mention
the Old Testament, we owe directly or indirectly all we know
of Egyptian history. We must remember, also, that national
vanity induced the priests to conceal their ignorance by fabri
cation ; to be silent respecting many facts that were disagree
able ; and to distort others. They had one particular quality,
which has been very aptly designated virtuosity by O. Miiller
in his work Orchomenos and the Minyans, by virtue of which
they appropriated foreign histories and traditions respecting their
country ; and after metamorphosing them to their own advantage,
gave them out as originally Egyptian ; a virtuosity by which
they often imposed on the Greeks, but which they also applied
to the Jews. Among native Egyptian authors the most import
ant is Manetho, which is not saying much unfortunately, — he was
professedly a priest at the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, about
260 years B.C. He wrote by order of the king, as is alleged,
a copious history of his people in the Greek tongue, from the
oldest traditionary time to that of Darius Codomannus, who
was conquered by Alexander. But my treatise, Manetho and
the Hyksos, as an appendix to the work entitled The Books of
Moses and Egypt, brings forward many important reasons
why Manetho could not have written as a born and exalted
Egyptian under Ptolemy Philadelphus ; and assigns to him or
to the person who appropriated his perhaps honoured name, a
much later time, probably that of the Roman emperors. Frag
ments of what the alleged Manetho wrote concerning the
sojourn of the Hebrews in Egypt and their exodus, have been
preserved by Josephus, in his first book against Apion. These
fragments, which have been so much built upon, are more
important for a knowledge of the Alexandrian spirit than
of the events they record. We might just as well follow
the Uranios of Simonides as take Manetho for our guide in
this matter. The lists of the Egyptian kings have been
excerpted by Julius Africanus; from whom Eusebius trans
ferred them to his Chronicle. These lists of names have
more importance than anything else that has been preserved.
INTRODUCTION. 71
Although even here the ground is very uncertain, especially
in the whole series of the first fifteen dynasties, for the most
part the result of patriotic fabrication ; yet many names
receive confirmation from the most recent discoveries. But
we are not authorized to infer the correctness of his narrative
from that of these lists of names, for he had very different
sources at his command for the names ; they occur numberless
times on the monuments, and from them a certain number
of kings' names might very readily be copied with accuracy.
In the time of the Roman emperors an Egyptian named
Charemon, notorious even among the ancients for his igno
rance and unreliableness, wrote a work on Egyptian history,
which has also been lost ; but Josephus in his first book, c. Ap.,
has preserved the part which relates to the Hebrews. As a
reason for the odious accounts which these and other Egyptian
writers, such as Lysimachus and Apion, give of the Jews,
Josephus adduces the ancient national hatred perpetuated from
the time of the settlement of the Hebrews in Egypt. But
there was unquestionably a far more powerful cause in the
envy of the Egyptians, whose hatred was afterwards trans
ferred to the Greeks dwelling in their country, — envy on
account of the favours which the Jews enjoyed in Egypt after
the time of Alexander, combined with a knowledge of the
accounts of their forefathers contained in the Pentateuch,
which, especially in the Alexandrian version, were extremely
offensive to the national vanity of the Egyptians. So far as
we know at least, there is no reason for assuming that the
Egyptians had independent traditions relative to their original
relations with the Hebrews. They sought to supply this
deficiency by inventions, which may be recognised as such
because they are throughout based upon the biblical narrative,
and give such a turn to the history, and that generally in a
very awkward way, that it no longer offends but subserves
the national vanity. Since so little of the native writings of
the Egyptians has been preserved, we must welcome even
what has been said by foreign writers concerning ancient
Egypt. Of these, the oldest and most important is Herodotus,
who collected accounts of ancient history, from the mouth of
the priests, about seventy years after the subjugation of the
Egyptians by the Persians. Although the source was very
72 INTRODUCTION.
muddy even then, it flowed considerably purer than at the
time of Manetho. Thus Herodotus knows nothing of the
whole Hyksos-fable of Manetho ; nor is this to be wondered at,
for the cause was not yet in existence which afterwards gave
rise to it, viz. the relation to the Jews. Among the editions of
Herodotus that by Bahr is the most important and indispens
able for the elaborators of Old Testament history, on account
of its rich apparatus. Next in value comes the manual of
Stein. Four hundred years later, Diodorus Siculus gave a
compilation of accounts respecting ancient history, partly from
oral inquiries made in Egypt, partly from Greek authors.
Diodorus has taken a fancy to set up the Egyptians as a model ;
and we seem often to be reading a historical romance rather
than a history. In Plutarch, also, we find an exaggerated
reverence for the Egyptians, and an effort to make them the
representatives of his ideal. It is only with the utmost caution
that we can avail ourselves of the historical material of these
and similar writers. Each one finds his favourite idea realized
in the Egyptians. This unhistorical tendency meets us in its
grossest form among the Neo-platonists. In recent times,
especially since the French expedition to Egypt, Egyptian
antiquity has been made the subject of many learned investi
gations. The results of these are principally contained in the
works of Rosellini and Wilkinson. Recent discoveries, how
ever, have imparted less knowledge of the history of ancient
Egypt than of its domestic, civil, and religious condition ; for
the numerous pictures and sculptures in the subterranean re
cesses afford such superabundant materials for the latter, that
a recent English author has justly remarked that we are better
acquainted with the court of the Pharaohs than with that of
the Plantagenets. Notwithstanding the work of Bunsen, so
rich in hypotheses, which Leo has followed far too incautiously
in the third edition of his History of the World; and in spite
of the work of Lepsius, the history still remains in confusion,
from which it will never be possible to extricate it let us discover
and decipher what we will, because the Egyptians never had
a history. For Phoenician history, so far as it is incorporated in that
of the Old Testament, we possess no native sources since the
fragments which have come down to us from the alleged Greek
INTRODUCTION. 73
translation of the very old Phoenician historian Sanchuniathon,
edited by Orelli in a separate collection, contains only a cosmo
gony and theogony, and can therefore be of use only for that
portion of the Mosaic narrative which lies beyond our province.
Moreover, the alleged translation is certainly an original, the
whole a composition of Philo who lived under Nero until
Hadrian ; and a Sanchuniathon for whose existence we have
no testimony except that of Philo probably never lived at all ;
comp. my Contributions, ii. p. 110 et seq. Josephus accords
special praise to Dius, from whom he gives a fragment relative to
the relation between Solomon and Hiram, in his book against
Apion. Besides this, he communicates isolated fragments from
Menander of Ephesus, who wrote in Tyre, and drew from
Tyrian annals a history of Tyre. These fragments show that
the alleged works bore quite another character than the com
position of Philo, which had no historical aim whatever, but only
a dogmatic one, viz. to bring forward an ancient authority for
his atheism. But even these authors are not to be trusted with
out qualification. What Dius relates of riddle-contest between
Hiram and Solomon, which he professed to draw from an old
Phoenician source, is, to judge from the fact on which it is
based, manifestly of Jewish origin ; supplemented by ready
additions which owe their origin to Tyrian national vanity.
Owing to the scantiness of native historical sources, Greek
authors are almost the only co-narrators for the biblical authors
with reference to their statements concerning Phcenician history,
and are certainly very ill-informed.
For Assyrian history also, we have till now no native sources.
What knowledge we may gain from the discoveries made in
the last ten years (it is believed that annals of the Assyrian
kingdom have been found written on the bricks) must in the
main be waited for. Till now a safe contribution has been
gained only for archaeology, not for history. Even Marcus
Niebuhr, in his History of Assyria and Babylon, has not ven
tured to build with certainty upon the alleged decipherments of
Assyrian texts. Till now the principal sources have been the
fragments of Ktesias, best edited by Bahr, with a copious his
torical commentary ; and the compiler Diodorus Siculus.
The history of the Babylonians and Chaldseans was for a long
time distinct, — the Chaldseans were represented as having been
74 INTRODUCTION.
first transplanted into Babylon Proper by the Assyrians, but
have been proved to be identical by recent inquiries, especially
by Hupfeld, and Delitzsch on Habakkuk, — the Chaldseans
being the original inhabitants of Babylon, or a separate, promi
nent branch of them. Thus we possess two native sources for
the history of these nations, both important for Old Testament
history, although they have come down to us only as fragments
of comparatively small compass. Berosus, a priest of Bel at
Babylon, wrote professedly under the dominion of the Seleucidaa
about the year 262 B.C., a Chaldsean or Babylonish history in
three books, of which fragments are preserved by Josephus,
and by Eusebius in the Praep. Ev. and in the Chronic, and
have been put together in a separate work by Richter. The
work of Berosus was highly esteemed in ancient times, and is
frequently quoted by Greek and Roman authors. To judge
by the fragments which have come down to us, it seems on the
whole to have deserved its good name, though even here the
influence of the fatal period in which it originated is unmistake-
able. When Berosus does not wander into prehistoric times,
and when his national vanity found no opportunity of exercis
ing its injurious influence on him or his guarantees, his state
ments are trustworthy and of importance for the explanation
and confirmation of the Biblical narrative, especially in the
history of Nebuchadnezzar. The Chaldaean historical con
sciousness probably did not go beyond the period in which
that people first attained to historical importance. What lay
beyond was full of mythologumena and borrowed matter,
on which the stamp of the Babylonish spirit was impressed.
With respect to primitive times especially, the whole East is
dependent on the Old Testament ; an important position, which
will be certified by every sound historical investigation. Nothing
but the most determined prejudice can avoid seeing this in
Berosus. What he tells of the Flood, of tlie Ark in which
Noah was saved, its resting upon the summit of the Armenian
mountains, cannot have been drawn from old native records,
notwithstanding his express assertion to that effect — (1.) because
it coincides too exactly with the statements of Holy Scripture;
and (2.) because at the time when the Jews were still shut
out from intercourse with the world, no trace is to be found
among the heathen of such accounts. The second author who
INTRODUCTION. 75
has drawn directly from Chaldsean tradition is Abydenus.
(Comp. Niebuhr's observations respecting him in the treatise,
On the Historical Gain to be derived from the A rmenian Chron
icle of Eusebius, printed in vol. i. of his historicorphilological
writings.) The time in which* he lived cannot be accurately
determined. It is certain that he wrote later than Berosus.
We infer this partly from the circumstance that he knew and
made use of that work ; and partly from the fact that he found
tradition in a much more disfigured condition. Eusebius has
preserved fragments of his work, irepl ttjs rcov XaXBalccv /3a-
crtXet'a?, in the Praep. Ev. and the Chronicon. Abydenus is
far inferior to Berosus ; he narrates in such a confused and
uncertain way, that it is difficult to gain any clear sense of
what he means. Nevertheless his fragments are of some
importance ; not, indeed, as is generally thought, for the first
eleven chapters of Genesis, where we willingly allow the con
firmation which he is said to afford, especially for the building
of the Tower of Babel ; but for the time of the captivity and
that which immediately followed it. He gives some welcome
notices of the history of Nebuchadnezzar and his successors.
Among Greek authors we find only very scattered, scanty, and
uncertain notices of ancient Babylonish and Chaldsean history.
A remarkable proof of the great ignorance of the Greeks in
this portion of history is, that none of their historians, not even
Herodotus, has a syllable relative to the great world-conqueror,
Nebuchadnezzar. For the history and antiquities of the Persians we possess no
native written sources. Their national annals, so often men
tioned in Scripture, have been lost. The decipherment of old
Persian inscriptions is a recent thing ; and however interesting
the results already attained may be as they are put together in
Benfey's work, Persian Cuneiform-inscriptions, with a Transla
tion and Glossary, Leipzig 1847, and briefly in the last edition
of Leo's World- History ; yet they have contributed nothing
of any moment for our immediate purpose, the explanation
of Old Testament history. The most important thing which
has yet been deciphered is the inscription of Bisutan, in which
Darius Hystaspis describes his achievements — the Darius of
the books of Ezra, Haggai, and Zechariah. We must, there
fore, adhere to the older Greek historians, who drew from
76 INTRODUCTION.
Persian sources, which, however, were unfortunately very much
obscured by national vanity; hence their accounts are frequently
contradictory in the most important matters. Those who have
most weight are Ktesias, preserved only in fragments ; Hero
dotus, and Xenophon. Of the latter the Cyropaedia is impor
tant, especially for the period in which the history of the
Persians comes into contact with that of the Israelites. Not
withstanding its ideal tendency, this work has in many respects
more historical credibility than Herodotus and Ktesias; and
strikingly coincides with biblical-historical statements, especially
those in the book of Daniel. The knowledge of the religion
of the ancient Persians is of importance for the religious history
of the Old Testament. No heathen religion presents so many
separate coincidences with the Old Testament. It is enough,
by way of illustration, to draw attention to the doctrines of the
creation, of the fall, of evil spirits, of a revealer of the hidden
God, and of a Redeemer. And here arises the interesting
problem, how these coincidences, which really contain an infi
nitely greater difference, are to be explained ; a problem which
cannot be solved without a thorough knowledge of the history
of the Persian religion. The first who gained great merit
concerning Persian religious history was Hyde, in the work
entitled De Religione vett. Persarum. With great diligence
and acuteness he made use of those sources which were avail
able in his day, so that his work is still indispensable. New
disclosures were made when Anquetil du Perron found the
Zendavesta among the descendants of the ancient Persians in
India, who had there remained faithful to the religion of their
forefathers while in Persia itself the ancient religion had been
supplanted by Mohammedism ; he made it known in a French
translation now recognised as very inaccurate, with learned
researches, Paris 1771. Its genuineness was at first attacked
by many scholars ; afterwards, for a long time, doubts seem to
have been almost entirely silenced ; while the most exaggerated
assumptions respecting the antiquity of these books, and the
period in which their alleged author, Zoroaster, appeared, were
universally accepted. To Stuhr, particularly in his Religious
Systems of the East, p. 346 et seq., belongs the merit of reviving
the old doubts, and of having proved that Zoroaster himself
probably did not live till the time of Darius Hystaspis. The
INTRODUCTION. 77
matter is very uncertain, however; and Niebuhr has justly
remarked that, owing to the prevailing mythical character of
the accounts of Zoroaster, it will never be possible to succeed
in ascertaining with certainty the period in which he lived.
Stuhr showed also that the religious books in their present
form belong to a very late time ; and that, in judging of them,
we must distinguish between the original matter and later
additions. With this correct settlement of the age of the
Zend books, the treatment of the earlier indicated problems is
brought back upon the right track, from which an uncritical
admiration of the books had withdrawn it. So long as the
Zendavesta was placed fifteen hundred years before Christ, there
were but two solutions of the problem possible — either the
coincidence was to be explained from common participation in
the original revelation ; or else the Israelites must be made
dependent on the Medo-Persians. Now, on the contrary, a far
more natural mode of explanation has been suggested. Spiegel,
Avesta, part i. p. 13, says : " Obviously very little in the
writings of the Zendavesta which have come down to us pro
ceeds from Zoroaster himself, perhaps nothing at all; the
greater part is the work of different, and mostly later authors."
He observes also, p. 11 : " In this historical time the Persians
certainly borrowed much from their more cultivated Semitic
neighbours. If a statement accords with a foreign one, we
may, in most cases, assume that it is borrowed." Kriiger,
according to whom Zoroaster was a younger contemporary of
Jeremiah, in his History of the Assyrians and Iranians,
Frankfort 1856, assumes Jewish influence in the history of
our first parents and their fall. Thus, after the relation had
for a long time been reversed with great confidence, we have
gone back essentially to the very point where we were two
hundred years ago. The learned and sober Prideaux makes
Zoroaster to have appeared under Darius Hystaspis, maintains
that he borrowed much from the Old Testament, and draws a
parallel between him and Mohammed. Heeren, in his Ideas,
has made most successful researches into the Zend religion in
its relation to the Persian State; and Rhode, in his work entitled
The Religious System of the ancient Bactrians, Persians, and
Medes, Frankfort 1826, has explained the religious system, as
such, with acuteness, it is true, but from utterly untenable.
78 INTRODUCTION.
uncritical presuppositions, and with a great tendency to arbitrary
hypothesis. The totally divergent representations of Stuhr, and
of Roth, in his History of Western Philosophy, 2d ed., 1863,
show how far the inquiry is still removed from a satisfactory
conclusion. Owing to the nature of the subject, a really
satisfactory result is scarcely attainable ; for the Persian reli
gion, by its fluctuating character, is not open to exact deter
mination ; and in consequence of the Persian tendency to mix
religions, favoured by this character, it has appropriated a
multitude of foreign elements from Judaism, from the Indian
religion, from Christianity, and from Mohammedism, which
it is very difficult to discriminate, and can often be done only
by conjecture. The Orientalist, Roth of Tubingen, has given
an interesting survey of the religious system of the Persians,
Tubingen Theological Year-Book of 1849, in two parts. To
the Persian religious books, in their present form, he assigns
no greater antiquity than the end of the Sassanide kingdom, in
harmony with the tradition of the Persians themselves, accord
ing to which their old and original religious books are said to
have been lost (comp. Leo, p. 193). Roth places Zoroaster
considerably earlier than Stuhr. Roth agrees with the latter
in other respects, but assumes that in the Persian religious books
Zoroaster had already become a mythical personage.
The sole foreign monument for the illustration of Israelitish
history was for a long time the triumphal arch of Titus, still
standing at Rome, upon which are represented the golden
table, the golden candlestick, together with two censers and the
trumpets, perhaps also the holy codex, all of which, according
to Josephus, were publicly carried in triumph. This monument
has been copied and learnedly discussed by Hadrian Reland in
his work, De spoliis templi Hierosolymitani in arcu Titiano Romce
conspicuis, Utrecht 1706. A new edition, with valuable observa
tions by Schulze, appeared in 1765. It was reserved, however,
for the present century to discover important monumental con
firmations of Old Testament history in Egypt. The scene in a
grave at Bni Hassan, strangers arriving in Egypt, is doubt
ful, though some have regarded it as a representation of the
entrance of the Children of Israel (comp. The Books of Moses
and Egypt, p. 37) ; but, on the other hand, a monument which
has been discovered in Thebes, representing the Hebrews
INTRODUCTION. 79
making bricks, is undoubtedly genuine and of great import
ance. Rosellini first gave a copy and description of this (comp.
The Books of Moses and Egypt, p. 79 et seq.). The earlier
mentioned representation of the personified kingdom of Judah
on an Egyptian sculpture of the time of Rehoboam, is also
genuine. 3. Aids to the History of the Old Testament.
The literature of Old Testament history properly begins
after the Reformation, for the only coherent representation of
the time of the church fathers, viz. the Historia Sacra of
Sulpicius Severus, best edited by Halm, Vienna 1867, can
scarcely be taken into consideration ; since it possesses no other
excellence than pious thought and elegant language. It begins
with the creation of the world, and continues the history to the
end of the fourth century. Those Greek and Latin authors
of the middle ages who have expatiated on Iraelitish history
are still less deserving of mention ; for they were deficient in
almost every requisite for the success of their undertaking.
Yet there are many excellent things, many correct points of
view, many single observations relative to the history of the
Old Testament, which the historian must not overlook in the
works of the church fathers ; especially in those of Augustine,
particularly in his work De civitate Dei ; of Chrysostom and of
Theodoret. The same may be said of the writings of the
Reformers, none of whom has contributed a proper treatise
on Old Testament history. They first brought to light again
that distinction of the Old and New Testament which had been
obscured in the middle ages, and had been very imperfectly
apprehended even by the church fathers. Thus a basis was
secured for Old Testament history, without which it must
necessarily have missed its aim. In matters of detail, also,
their works afford rich resources, especially those of Luther,
particularly his Commentary on Genesis ; and of Calvin, espe
cially his Commentary on the Pentateuch, the Book of Joshua,
the Psalms, and Daniel, as also his Institutes. The numerous
works on the history of the Old Testament, written after the
Reformation, of which we can here name only the most
important, are divided into three classes — those written before
the spread of rationalism, works of rationalistic authors, and
80 INTRODUCTION.
works of authors who still believed in revelation after the begin
ning of rationalism.
The first class may be subdivided into two different kinds
of works — those in which the theological, and those in which
the historical, element preponderates. The most important
of the former class are the following : From the Catholic
Church, the Historia Ecclesiastica V. et N. T., by Natalis
Alexander, Paris 1699, 8 vols, fol., and several times later
edited. From the Reformed Church, Frederick Spanheim,
Historia Ecclesiastica a condito Adamo ad aevum Christianum,
in the first volume of his works, Leyden 1701 ; and the Hypo-
typosis ilistoriae et Chronologiae Sacrae, by Campeg. Vitringa,
still valuable as a compendium, published in Frankfort 1708,
and frequently since ; also a careful monograph, the Historia
Sacra Palriarcharum, by J. Heinrich Heidegger, 2 vols. 4to,
2d ed., Amsterdam 1688. From the Lutheran Church, the
Historia Ecclesiastica V. T. of the excellent theologian Buddeus,
published in Halle 1715, 4to, 3d ed., and in the same place, in
2 vols., 1726, 1729. This may be regarded as the most im
portant book of , the period, which does not however imply
that the author made deeper investigations than all others — in
the Compendium of Vitringa there is more independent re
search than in his copious work — but only that no other work
is better calculated to represent this period ; a characteristic
which it owes in part to the circumstance that the author dis
claims all attempts at independence and originality. Buddeus
is in general neither an actual inquirer nor a compiler, but an
eclectic. Here we find the older material for a history of the
Old Testament put together with great completeness. With
diligence, circumspection, and sound judgment, the author
has employed the sources and helps available in his day;
elaborating, and everywhere expressly citing, his authorities.
The order is luminous, the language good and fluent, and
the whole, notwithstanding the total avoidance of everything
ascetic, is penetrated by the spirit of piety. The Collegium
Ilistoriae Eccles. V. T., by Joh. Jac. Rambach, edited after
his death by Neubauer, Frankfort 1737, has no scientific
value, but in this respect rests principally upon Buddeus ; on
the commentaries of Clericus, which contribute much that is
useful for Old Testament history, although the author in
INTRODUCTION. 81
Tlieologicis is very superficial; and on some other works. It
is however distinguished by a treasure of excellent practical
remarks ; and is therefore always valuable, especially for the
prospective clergyman. On the other hand, the works of
Joachim Lange on the same subject, Mosaic Light and Truth,
etc., which were much read in their day, are now of little use ;
owing to their prolixity, and deficiency in independent research.
Lange possessed the power of writing seven sheets in a day,
without exertion.
Let us now point out the general character of this period,
and in so doing we must naturally notice only the compara
tively better writers belonging to it. As in every department
of theology, so here also, this period is distinguished by firm
ness of faith, by its absolute acceptance of divine revelation,
and its unconditional submission to the divine word; by a
conscientiousness in research, which has its root in this cardinal
virtue ; and by a diligence and a thoroughness proportioned
to the prevailing view of the importance of the subject. But
on the other hand, there are also unmistakeable defects ; so
that even the best works of the period no longer suffice for
ours, even apart from the fact that the representation of the
truth now demands distinct reference to error in that form
in which it appears at variance with the truth ; and the pro
gress of recent times, especially in the history of antiquity, for
which so many new sources have been discovered, and to which
so many noble powers have been devoted, must also afford
considerable gain for Old Testament history. Ancient writers
of church histories of the Old Testament speak too much from
a doctrinal point of view ; so that we cannot expect from them
a perfectly satisfactory representation of the divine institutions
of salvation adapted to the condition of men. The iroXviroi-
Kt\os cro<; in Heb. i. 1 ; the astonish
ing development from the germ to the fruit is hidden from
their sight. They are wanting in that principle which ought
to govern the presentation of the whole religious history of
the Old Testament, insight into the divine condescension.
In the unity of the two testaments they forget the diversity.
Thus, for example, they seek to prove that the patriarchs
already possessed a perfect knowledge of Christian truths in
p
82 INTRODUCTION.
their full extent, or at least with only a slight difference in
clearness ; and attribute to the believers of the Old Testament
a clear knowledge of the mystery of the Trinity, of the atoning
sufferings of Christ, and of everlasting life, forcibly setting
aside those passages which represent the future life as more
or less concealed. Their prevailing intellectual tendency de
prives them of the power of transference to ancient times;
they are deficient, like all their contemporaries, in historical
intuition. This deficiency appears most strikingly in the repre
sentation of false religions, to which nearly all church histories
of the Old Testament have devoted a special section. What
they have contributed in this department, is now almost entirely
useless. The heathen consciousness remained almost closed to
the authors of these works, — a want which is not indeed peculiar
to them, but is characteristic of the whole period. The origin
of a symbolism and mythology really deserving of the name is
due to our century. To Creuzer belongs the merit of having
led the way in this department.
To the second subdivision of the first class belong, first,
those who have treated Old Testament history with special
reference to chronology. The most important among them
are the more worthy of mention,. since we are almost entirely
dependent on their works : knowledge of this kind has made
very little advance. And here we must in many respects
assign the first place to the Annales V. et N. T. of the pious
and learned Irish archbishop Usher, first published in London
1650, 1654, 2 vols, fol., afterwards in many impressions, — a
work of long and arduous diligence, which opened a pathway
in this department, and even now deserves attentive notice.
A worthy parallel to it has been contributed by the Jesuit
Petavius, De Doctrina Temporum, Antwerp 1703, 3 vols. — a
more comprehensive work, in which, however, the biblical
chronology is treated with peculiar diligence, with great acute
ness, and much care, and on the whole in a clear, unprejudiced
spirit. We must also draw attention to the Chronologie de
VHistoire Sainte, from the exodus from Egypt till the Baby
lonish captivity, by Alphonse de Vignoles, Berlin 1738, 2 vols.
4to, which deserves to be mentioned with distinction. The most
recent solid work in this department is Hartmann's Systema
Chronologiae Biblicae, Rostock 1777, 4to, which deserves to take
INTRODUCTION. 83
precedence of all others as a handbook of chronology, with
Vitringa's summary.
Others made it their principal object to unite the biblical
accounts with those of profane writers. The principal work
of this kind is that of Prideaux, first published in English,
London 1716, 1718, 2 vols., and again in this century in
a new edition in England and America ; in Germany, under
the title H. Prideaux A. und N. T. in Zusammenhang mit der
Juden- und benachbarten Volker-Historie gebracht, first published
in Dresden 1721, two parts, 4to. The work begins with the
time of Ahaz. For the period from the exile to Christ, it is still
one of the most useful helps. The use of sources is extensive ;
and as an inquirer the author proves himself indefatigable. A
want which is observable in almost every work of the kind, as
well as in those of a prevailing theological character, is that
of an able historical criticism. We find accounts of profane
writers compared with the statements of holy Scripture, with
out regard to the condition of these authors, the degree of
their credibility, or the sources from which they drew. Yet
there were exceptions in this respect. Perizonius and Vitringa
give evidence of decided critical talent ; the latter especially is
free alike from credulousness and from an unhealthy scep
ticism. We have testimony to his truly critical tendency, not
only in his Hypotyposis, but also in his Commentary on Isaiah,
and his Observationes Sacrae, which present much that is excel
lent for biblical history.
Let us now pass to the second class of helps to the history
of the Old Testament, viz. the works of rationalistic authors.
The direct advantage which these afford can only be small.
That which we have designated the principal aim of the histo
rian of the Old Testament, viz. the promotion of faith and
love, cannot be realized by works of this kind. The history
of the people of God becomes a history of human deceit and
error in the hands of those who obliterated every trace of
God from it. To discover this and to set it forth was for a
long time a principal object. The first copious work is that
by E. Lor. Bauer, Manual of the History of the Hebrew Nation
from its Origin to the Destruction of the State, Niirnberg 1800,
1804, 2 vols. 8vo, incomplete, continued only to the time
of the Babylonish exile. The chief strength of the author
84 INTRODUCTION.
consists in the natural explanation of miracles; he does not
even make use of the most common sources and aids. De
Wette, in the sketch of Jewish history in his Compendium of
Hebrew-Jewish Archaeology, is too brief to do anything but set
forth the view of the author and of those who agree with him
respecting Hebrew history. The estimate to be put upon Leo's
Lectures on Jewish History may be inferred from the circum
stance that he makes it the principal aim of his undertaking
to show from the example of the Hebrews what a people
should not be. The author himself afterwards retracted his
opinions, in the first volume of his History of the World.
Ewald's work, History of the People of Israel, 3 vols., also
belongs essentially to the rationalistic standpoint, notwithstand
ing all its high modes of speech. For here too the history
of the people of Israel is treated throughout as a purely
natural process of development. The book is out and out
anthropocentric. This mode of treatment reaches its climax
in the History of Christ, which appeared in the year 1854,
nominally as the fourth volume of the History of Israel.
Here Ewald himself states that it is one of his main objects
to prove there was nothing in Christ which any one may
not now attain. Where he differs from De Wette and his
followers is in this, that while the latter confine themselves to
destruction, Ewald always attempts to build up something
new in the place of what has been destroyed. Many of his
performances in this respect are however mere castles in the
air ; he is deficient not only in the mind for sacred history,
but also in the historic sense generally. This is evident from
the one circumstance that he regards Manetho as a historical
source co-ordinate with the biblical writings. Here even more
than in his later writings the author is in bondage to his sub
jectivity, so that he can no longer see simple things as they really
are, but is constrained to make history. To this he adds tiresome
length and prolixity. The gain which the book brings is limited
to the impulse it affords, no small merit certainly ; and to single
correct apprehensions, luminous rays, which are not wanting in
any of the works of Ewald, although they appear but rarely in
his earliest writings. On account of these luminous points we
cannot overlook his work. Thus rationalism has not contributed
any important direct advance in Old Testament history.
INTRODUCTION. 85
Indirectly, however, rationalism has exercised a salutary
influence on the history of the Old Testament. This may
be clearly seen in the works of the Old Testament histo
rians who continued to believe in revelation after the rise of
rationalism. They happily avoid those errors which had
been censured in authors of the first period. Doctrinal em
barrassment has in a great measure ceased. The power of
transferring themselves into antiquity is greatly increased.
Careful consideration is bestowed on the gradual development
of the divine institutions of salvation. On the other hand,
we cannot fail to recognise the injurious influence of ration
alism on many works of this period. From fear of giving
offence — partly, too, from weakness of faith — some have at
tempted either by forced explanations entirely to do away
with single miracles of the Old Testament, or at least to
make very little of them. Thus an inconsistency appears,
of which their opponents at once take advantage ; comp., for
example, the observations which Strauss makes on Steudel
in the 1st Heft of the Streitschriften. Fearing lest they
should go too far, or perhaps depending on the inquiry con
ducted by unbelief, they sometimes extinguish the light of
the Old Testament when it is actually luminous; they strive
unceasingly to forget all they have learnt from the New
Testament, and to go back completely to the standpoint of
those who lived under the Old Testament ; they suffer them
selves to be guided too much by apologetic attempts ; and
try to establish the plan of the divine institutions of sal
vation too surely and specially, in order by this means, by
allowing nothing which is incomprehensible and inexplicable
to stand, by pointing out an aim and meaning in every
thing, by proving the reference of each to the whole — to
compel, as it were, their opponents to the acknowledgment
of the divine elements in Old Testament history, a proceed
ing which could only attain its object if human nature were
constituted otherwise than it really is. The most import
ant works of this class are the following : — History of the
Israelites before the time of Jesus, Zurich 1776-1788, 12 vols.
8vo, by Joh. Jac. Hess, with which we may connect the Doc
trine of the Kingdom of God, 2 vols., by the same author ; and
Kern's Doctrine of the Kingdom of God, in which latter work,
86 INTRODUCTION.
that appeared in the year 1814, we have the author's per
formances in nuce and in their greatest ripeness. These have
throughout a groundwork of learned research ; although the
author rather conceals than displays it. In respect of learning,
however, they bear only a secondary character ; and in the
years which have passed since the appearance of the principal
work, the study of history has received so great an impulse
from the discovery of new sources, from the development of
historical criticism, and from enlargement of the intellectual
horizon, that in this respect they no longer suffice. We
are somewhat shocked also by the wide and extended view
they take, and to which we are not accustomed. Our time
demands much in a small compass. The author gives him
self too much trouble in elucidating the plan of God for the
salvation of mankind. He often sacrifices depth to clearness.
He grasps the idea of the divine condescension somewhat
roughly at times — too much after the manner of Spencer.
(J. Spencer wrote a work entitled De Legibus Hebrceorum
Ritualibus, first published in 1686, in which he sought to
derive the Old Testament ceremonial law from an accommo
dation of God to the heathenizing tendencies of the people:
ineptice tolerabiles.) Hess does not make it sufficiently clear
that it is God who condescends ; and suggests that perhaps the
Israelites merely drew Him down to them in their thoughts,
as in the account which the author gives of Israelitish worship;
— indeed, his whole view of the theocracy has a mixture of bad
anthropomorphism; and if it had been conformable to Scripture,
it would have thrown doubt on the divine origin of this institu
tion. The tendency of the author, moreover, is too purely
historical; he is less able to comprehend the doctrinal con
tents of the Old Testament. Yet all this does not prevent
his work from belonging to the most important which have
been written on the history of the Old Testament; and the
author's standpoint appears the more worthy of honour, the
more we take into consideration the time in which and for
which he wrote. The book has exercised a very considerable
influence. Many have been preserved by it in a time of apos
tasy ; or have been led back into the right way. In Count
Stolberg's well-known History of the Religion of Jesus Christ,
the first four volumes treat of the history of the creation of the
INTRODUCTION. 87
world till the birth of Christ. We find scarcely a trace of the
influence of rationalism in this work. It is lively and sugges
tive, only written in somewhat too pretentious language, with
spirit and with deep piety. Sometimes, however, the author
introduces the dogmas of his church; and, from a learned
point of view, the work has very important defects, or, more
correctly speaking, is almost without excellence. Ignorant of
the Hebrew language, the author, in his exposition of the Old
Testament, has almost throughout been obliged to follow abso
lutely the somewhat antiquated and rather shallow works of
the French Benedictine, Calmet; a cognate spirit to Grotius
and Le Clerc. The mistakes of the works of the first period,
especially the mingling of the later with the earlier, here return ;
the author has made pretty extensive use of foreign sources
and aids for Hebrew history, especially for the history of false
religions, which he has copiously treated, but has used them in
a manner which is truly Roman Catholic, without criticism or
sifting, and with too ready an acceptance of that which serves
his aim. This is exemplified in the supplements to his first
volume, On the Sources of Eastern Tradition, and Traces of
Earlier Tradition respecting the Mysteries of the Religion of
Jesus Christ. Here we altogether lose sight of the former
Protestant ; while his ever-recurring subjectivity is manifestly
a beautiful dowry he has taken with him from the Evan
gelical Church. For the clergyman who knows how to test
it, the book remains still useful in many respects. Zahn's
work, On the Kingdom of God, is also worthy of notice. It
was published in Dresden in 1830, and afterwards in a second
and third edition, but remained almost unchanged. The first
volume embraces the Old Testament ; the second, the history
of Christ; the third proposes to give the history of the Chris
tian Church. In a scientific point of view it is only second-
rate ; in separate learned researches the author mostly follows
either an earlier or a later guide. But the style is lively,
vigorous, and full of spirit; the author has made suitable choice
of a considerable number of excellent passages on Old Testa
ment history from Christian authors of every century ; every
where we find firmness of faith without doctrinal embarrassment.
Yet the book is very unequally worked out, and becomes more
and more meagre as the author proceeds. Kurtz's Compendium
88 INTRODUCTION.
of Biblical History found acceptance among many ; and though
properly designed only for the highest class of schools, it pre
sents a diligent and comprehensive use of existing helps. Of
the larger work by the same author only two volumes have
yet appeared, containing the time of the Pentateuch. The
author has amassed materials with great diligence; and in many
respects his work promises to be for our time what Buddeus's
was for his. There is a want, however, of thorough research
and sharp criticism; especially of a simple historical sense. The
author too frequently gives himself up without investigation to
the influence of the work of v. Hofmann, Prophecy and Ful
filment, which, with a spiritual tendency, is excellently adapted
to give suggestions, but against the results of which we must
be on our guard ; for in many cases they are not the product
of a genuine historical view, but rather of history-making. He
also adheres too closely to Baumgarten's Commentary on the
Pentateuch, a work which contains much that is immature and
fantastic ; and fails to control Delitzsch's Commentary on
Genesis with sufficient sharpness. It is a lamentable pheno
menon that the simple and the natural are so little appre
hended. In this respect many an ecclesiastically-minded author
might have learned even from a Gesenius. The principiis
obsta holds good here ; for whoever once enters on this course
can hardly leave it again. It is of special importance, there
fore, to begin betimes to walk in the footsteps of men who, like
the Reformers, Joh. Gerhard, Bengel, and Vitringa, are funda
mentally opposed to such far-fetched spiritual subtleties, and
whose aim it was, not to say something new but true. The
History of the Old Testament, Leipzig^lSeS, by Hasse, who
died in the year 1862, Professor of Theology in Bonn, is an
excellent little book. It is written in a truly historic sense,
in clear and simple language, and is well adapted to furnish
a preliminary survey. The performances of recent times are
also of some importance for the religious history of the Old
Testament, especially Steudel's Lectures on the Theology of tlie
Old Testament, edited by Oehler, Berlin 1840, which, as a whole,
belongs too exclusively to a transition period, and to the supra-
naturalistic standpoint, to be able to afford much satisfaction,
but has in detail much that is able; and the Symbolik des
Mosaischen Cultus, by Balir, Heidelberg 1837, 1839, to which,
INTRODUCTION. 89
however often we may differ from the author, we cannot deny
the great merit of having given a powerful impulse to the
weighty subject, and of having introduced it once more into
the circle of theological treatises. Havernick's Lectures on the
Theology of the Old Testament, published after the author's
death, have little depth ; but are well calculated to afford the
first survey. V. Hofmann's Schriftbeweis is only for the more
advanced and mature ; the thorough and able examination of
Kliefoth serves to correct him in his numerous aberrations.
FIRST PERIOD.
FROM ABRAHAM TO MOSES.
§1.
the condition of the human race at the time of
Abraham's call.
1. In a Political Aspect.
FTER the flood the population increased with rapid
strides. The long duration of life, a powerful
constitution, and the ease with which all the neces
sities of life could be procured, all tended to promote
an increase much more rapid than what was common to later
times. The population of the earth, according to Genesis xi., first
proceeded from Shinar or Babylonia, the most southern part of
the region between the Euphrates and the Tigris, beyond Meso
potamia, a plain with rich soil, the most fruitful land of interior
Asia. Thither the descendants of Noah repaired after the flood,
and there they dwelt, still connected by community of tongue
and unity of mind, until with the latter the former also gradually '
disappeared, and everything was dispersed on every side. With
respect to the manner of life of the first race of men, a hypo
thesis has frequently been suggested that men without exception
passed through the various stages of uncivilised life until they
arrived at agriculture. But this hypothesis, which rests on no
historical basis, is contradicted by history. According to the
account given in Genesis, agriculture is as old and original as
the pastoral life; and if it existed before the flood, it is impossible
to see how the descendants of these shepherds should have been
90
THE HUMAN RACE AT THE TIME OF ABRAHAM'S CALL. 91
obliged to rise to it again step by step. Of Noah it is expressly
stated that he devoted himself to agriculture, and especially to
the cultivation of the vine. And, moreover, in the countries of
Asia and Africa, where agriculture was exceptionally flourish
ing, especially in Egypt and Babylonia, we are altogether
unable to trace its origin. " So far as history and tradition
reach," says Schlosser in his General Historic Survey of the
History of the Ancient World, part i. p. 39, "we find those kinds
of grass which have been improved by culture already culti
vated as kinds of grain ; and their wild state, as well as their
proper home, can only be matter of conjecture," which is also
the case with the original species and home of the domestic
animals. The zoologist, A. Wagner, in his History of the
Primitive World, has shown that we are acquainted with no wild
stock of all our domestic animals, especially of the cow, the
sheep, the goat, the horse, the camel, and the dog ; but at most
only with individuals who have become wild. He proves also
that the time of their introduction into the domestic state cannot
be determined ; and that a new stock has not been added to
the old in the course of time. " The help of those domestic
animals," he remarks, " without which a higher state of culti
vation cannot exist, seems therefore not to have been devised
and attained by man, but rather to have been originally given
to him." The botanist, Zuccarini, remarks, " In answer to
the question, ' What man reaped the first harvest ? ' we have no
tradition to which any probability attaches, no monument ; but
still, so far as we know, no blade growing wild." According to
this, therefore, there was from the beginning not a succession
but a co-existence of the various modes of life. In the case of
each individual race and people, the choice was partly deter
mined by its character, which was to a great extent moulded
by the individuality of its ancestors (we have remarkable ex
amples of this in Ishmael and Esau) ; but still more strongly
and permanently by the nature of the residence allotted to
each. A land, such as Egypt for example, where the whole
natural condition was an incentive to agriculture, which so
richly rewarded a little labour, must by degrees have led its
inhabitants to this pursuit, even if in accordance with their
disposition they had originally more inclination for some other
mode of life. The great wastes of Mesopotamia would have
92 FIRST PERIOD.
compelled a race, which had by any circumstance been led to
immigrate thither, to embrace a nomadic life, even if it had
formerly been given to agriculture. Districts like those at
Astaboras in Ethiopia make agriculture and cattle-rearing so
impracticable, that for thousands of years their inhabitants
have remained hunters, without having made the least step
towards a higher civilisation, although surrounded by cultivated
nations. And just as the mode of life adopted by races and
peoples was dependent on the character of the soil and the
climate ; so these, in conjunction with the manner of life and
ethical development, gave rise to great diversities among the
nations of the earth, so great that many have been led by
observation, in contradiction to the Old and New Testament
Scriptures, to deny the descent from one human pair, and to
maintain an essential difference of races. This hypothesis
is contradicted by the fact, not to mention other reasons, that
among those nations whose descent from one and the same
stock cannot be denied, there are almost as great differences
as among those to which different stems have been assigned.
This is the case especially among the African peoples. No
where is the influence of climate and manner of life more
perceptible than among them. " The inhabitants of the
northern coast," says Heeren, "in complexion and form differ
very little from Europeans. The difference appears to become
more and more marked the nearer we approach the equator;
the colour becomes darker ; the hair more like wool ; the profile
shows striking differences ; finally the man becomes completely
a negro. Again, on the other side of the equator, this form
appears to be lost amid just as many varieties ; the Kaffirs and
Hottentots have much in common with the negroes, but without
being completely negroes." We must consider further, that
the influence of climatic and other conditions is still retained
among those who settle in other latitudes in modern times,
where the peculiarities are much more strongly defined than
in the softer and more pliant primitive times, arid which there
fore possess a much stronger power of resistance. Bishop
Heber speaks thus of the Persians, Tartars, and Turks who
had penetrated into Hindoostan, part i. p. 217 of the trans
lation of his Life, " It is remarkable how all these people after
a few generations, even without intermixing with the Hindoos;
THE HUMAN RACE AT THE TIME OF ABRAHAM'S CALL. 93
acquire the deep olive tint almost like a negro, which therefore
seems peculiar to the climate. The Portuguese intermarry only
among themselves ; or, if they can, with Europeans ; but these
very Portuguese have become as black after the lapse of three
centuries' residence in Africa as the Kaffirs. If the heat has
power to originate a difference, it is possible that other pecu
liarities of the climate may give rise to other differences ; and
allowing these to have operated from three to four thousand
years, it becomes very difficult to determine the limits of their
efficacy." Finally, we must take into consideration the analogy
of the changes in the animal world in various localities. "All
national varieties," says Blumenbach, " in the form and com
plexion of the human body are in no wise more striking or more
incomprehensible than those into which so many other species
of organized bodies, especially among domestic animals, de
generate under our eyes." R. Wagner, a successor of Blumen
bach, gives expression to the same sentiment in his work
Menschenchopfung und Seelensubstanz, p. 17, which appeared
in Gottingen in 1854 : " The possibility of descent from one
pair cannot be scientifically contested in accordance with phy
siological principles. In separate colonized countries we see
among men and beasts peculiarities arise and become per
manent, which reminds us, though remotely, of the formation
of races." Compare the ample refutation of the hypothesis
of a number of primitive men in the first volume of Humboldt's
Kosmos; in R. Wagner's Anthropologie, 2d vol., Kempten 1834,
p. 102 et seq.; in Tholuck's Essay, Was ist das Resultat der
Wissenschaft in Bezug auf die Urwelt, verm. Schriften, Th. 2, p.
239 et seq. ; and in the second part of A. Wagner's Urgeschichte
der Erde; also in a work by Schultz, Die Schopfungsgeschichte,
Gotha 1865. All these, together with others, draw attention to
the fact that there are black Jews in Asia ; that the negroes of
the United States in the course of a hundred and fifty years have
travelled over a good quarter of the distance which separates
them from the white men ; that America has changed the Anglo-
Saxon type, and from the English race has derived a new white
race, which may be called the Yankee race ; that the Arabs in
Nubia have become perfectly black ; and that when we hear a
Dyak who has been rescued from barbarism, or a poor Hottentot
maiden speak gratefully of that which Jesus has done for
94 FIRST PERIOD.
them, we are unable to divest ourselves of the feeling that here
is flesh of our flesh. Lange, in his Dogm. ii. p. 332 et seq.,
shows that diversities are not however to be attributed to
climatic influences alone. We must not overlook the fact that
the germs of' the various types of the human race must have
been in existence from the beginning ; and that climatic influ
ences and a different mode of education have only developed
these germs. Ungewitter, in his Introduction to the Geography
of Australia, which appeared in the year 1853, makes some
striking observations on the influence of a different moral
development. And the greater or less culture of the people
was closely connected with their mode of life. Culture was
already considerably advanced before the flood. Judging from
what revelation tells us of the condition of the first man, it
could not be otherwise. Among those nations who, by the
character of their lands, were led to agriculture and com
merce, the original culture was not only retained, but continued
to advance ; so it was, for example, in Egypt and Phcenicia.
Among the hunting and shepherd peoples, on the contrary,
original culture must soon have been lost had it not been that,
as Abraham's stock, they had a special capacity for civilisation,
and dwelt in the midst of agricultural nations ; otherwise they
must have fallen back into complete barbarism. The percep
tion of this has led many to adopt the hypothesis already refuted,
viz. that the original condition of humanity has in general been
one closely resembling that of the animals. There are nume
rous arguments subversive of this view. We shall only quote
here what Link says in his Urwelt und das Alterthum. 2d ed.
part i. p. 346 : " It is a remarkable phenomenon that neither
in antiquity nor in modern times has any nation been found
which, according to credible witnesses, does not possess the
knowledge of fire, and of the means of producing it, although
many nations are now known whose ability to discover fire we
may reasonably question. It is highly probable therefore that
all nations sprang from one stem, and that savage nations have
fallen, if not from a high, at least from a higher cultivation.
In some cases we are able to prove certainly that wildness is
only degeneracy. Among American savages the language has
been found to resemble that of the Japanese in many points ;
and therefore it has been supposed that they are descended
THE HUMAN RACE AT THE TIME OF ABRAHAM'S CALL. 95
from shipwrecked Japanese. Among this race culture must
have been very readily lost ; for they are altogether unpro
ductive, only imitative. Whoever stepped out of the inter
course of nations lost his prototypes, and at the same time his
position. Aristotle calls man a tfaov itoXitikov. The forma
tion of states is not the work of man." " An incessant im
pulse," says Leo, " is at work in man, a magnetic cord draws
him to the formation of such communities ; he is created for
them, and therefore these communities themselves are a part
of the human creation ; they have not been invented by man,
but were born with him. The beginning of civil government
was various among the various nations. It has at least a
double origin. That which in a good sense was conformable
to nature, was the development of civil government out of
the family. The head of the family by the increase of the
family becomes head of the race ; his government, which
passes on from him to his eldest son, and reaches beyond
the family circle to his household, and to those who have
repaired to him for protection, forms an analogy to the paternal
sway." We have an example of this kind of government in the
history of the patriarchs; and also in the glimpses of the
history of the Edomites given in Gen. xxxvi. But an actual
state is formed only in those kingdoms where there is not only
a natural factor, but also a moral one ; where a moral idea forms
the centre of a natural union of peoples. This alone can per
manently preserve a nation from decay. This alone can supply
true religion in its most perfect sense. It was by the appre
hension of this that Israel first attained to the full dignity of
a nation; which it could never have gained by mere carnal
descent from Abraham. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were not
only its carnal, but also its spiritual ancestors, whose work
was continued by Moses. Under him they first adopted those
high truths which became the centre of national life. The
heathen nations are, in Deut. xxxii., said to be not a people,
because they did not possess this animating principle. Even
among Israel, those only were regarded as true members of the
nation who participated in this spirit ; of the rest it is said in
the law, that soul shall be rooted out from the nation ; and
John says in the Apocalypse of the great mass of the nations
who assumed the name of Jews, " They say they are Jews, and
96 FIRST PERIOD.
are not." So Paul in Rom. ii. 28, 29. Whoever in this spirit
attached himself to the community of nations was looked
upon as a true member of it, though he might not possess the
sign of actual descent. We find another form of government
exemplified in the history of Nimrod. It has its origin in
power; and rests upon the so-called right of the stronger, which,
when combined with the passion for possession and dominion,
raises the possessor to the rule over those who have not enough
strength and energy to oppose his usurpation ; and therefore
destroys the natural form of government, or only suffers it to
exist in a subordinate relation, which is usual in the ancient
East. After these observations it is incumbent on us to treat of
the separate nations which were already in existence at the
time when Abraham appeared, and came into contact with
him or his posterity. How necessary this sketch is for under
standing all subsequent history is self-evident; and we have
also the example of Moses, who, before passing on to the
history of Abraham, gives a genealogic-historical survey of the
national ancestry, with special reference to their connection
with the history of the chosen people.
We begin here with the country which we have already
termed the second cradle of the human race, as that from
which the dispersion of men after the flood over the whole
earth went forth, viz. the territory of Babylonia, so important
for the later history of the East generally, and for that
of the Israelites in particular. Here was the site of the city
Babylon, which did not attain that greatness which its ruins
now attest till many centuries later, — in the time of the Chal-
daic supremacy, and especially under Nebuchadnezzar. It
was overthrown by the combined strength of the tribes who
united for this undertaking, forming a kind of confederate
state. Not long afterwards other towns, also worthy of men
tion, were founded. It was here that in all probability, soon
after the dispersion of the races, one of those who had re
mained, a member of the Hamitic tribe of the Cushites, founded
a despotic government. He undertook a conquering foray
from a distant land; and after-time, in accordance with the
Oriental custom, gave him from the beginning the name of
Nimrod, rebel, viz. against the order of God, — "noa signifies
THE HUMAN RACE AT THE TIME OF ABRAHAM'S CALL. 97
properly, "we will rebel;" he himself made use of these
insolent words ; they were his motto, and therefore well
adapted for his proper name. Besides Babylon, Nimrod took
other towns in the district of Shinar. But not content with
this extension of his kingdom, he undertook a campaign from
Babylon into the neighbouring district of Assyria, situated on
the other side of the Tigris, the country east of the Tigris
(between Susiana and Elymais, Media and Armenia). The
11th verse is not to be translated as Michaelis and others have
it, " Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh,"
etc. ; but, " From this land he went out towards Asshur, and
builded Nineveh, Rehoboth, Ur, Calah, and the greatest among
all, Resen, between Nineveh and Calah," as may be seen
from this fact, among others, viz. that in the former verse the
cities of Babylonia are said to be the beginning of the kingdom
of Nimrod ; and also because Assyria is by Micah called the
land of Nimrod ; and moreover the mention of a march of the
Shemite Asshur would be out of place here, where Moses is
occupied with the descendants of Ham. In all probability the
steppe-land of Assyria was at that time already in the posses
sion of the Semitic, nomad tribe of Asshur. After having
conquered it, Nimrod founded several cities with the view of
establishing his supremacy; for a supremacy over nomads
cannot be otherwise than fluctuating and evanescent. Layard
and others have put forward the opinion that the towns named
formed separate parts of a great city, parts of Nineveh in a
wide sense. Moreover, among the Arabs and Persians, Nimrod
is the subject of ancient and widely-spread traditions ; he bears
among them the name of the scoffer and the godless (comp. the
collections of Herbelot, Bibl. Oriental, s. v. Dahak, and in
Michaelis, Supplem. p. 1321). Yet these traditions are not a
branch of ancient tradition independent of the Hebrew, but
only embellishment of what had passed over from the Jews
to the other nations of the East. Far more importance
is due to the confirmation which this account of a Hamitic
colony receives from the many traces which have been dis
covered of a connection between Hamitic Egypt and Babylonia
in religion and culture; comp. Leo, p. 165. The kingdom of
Nimrod was not of long duration ; already in Abraham's time
it had quite lost its importance. This appears from the narra-
G
98 FIRST PERIOD.
tive of the battles of the kings of Interior Asia against the kings
in the plain of Siddim. It is true that here also we have men
tion of Amraphel, king of Shinar. But in verses 4 and 5
Chedoriaomer, king of Elam, appears as the originator of the
whole expedition, to whom Amraphel and the other kings stood
in a subordinate relation. Elam was the Elymais of the Greeks
and Romans, and was bordered by Persia on the east, on the
west by Babylonia, on the north by Media, and on the south
by the Persian Gulf. This kingdom seems to have been the
most powerful in Interior Asia at the time of Abraham. Yet
the wide difference between it and the later larger Asiatic
kingdom, a result of the smallness of the population at that
time spread over the earth, appears most plainly from the
fact that the king, although with his allies he undertook a
campaign into distant Palestine, was yet unable to withstand
the comparatively weak power of Abraham and his confede
rates. But in the interval between Abraham and Moses an
important Assyrian monarchy must have been formed. This
appears from Gen. ii. 14, according to which the Tigris flowed
on the east of Assyria. For this presupposes that at the time
of Moses an Assyrian monarchy existed, of which that part
which lay on the west of the Tigris was so important that the
eastern portion was as nothing compared with it. For to Assyria
proper the Tigris is not east but west. In harmony with this
are the native traditions of the Assyrians, which have become
known to us through the medium of classical authors, the tradi
tions of Semiramis and Ninus ; at the basis of which there must,
at least, be this much historical truth, that already in primitive
times a powerful Assyrian kingdom was in existence. This is
borne out by the testimony of Egyptian monuments; upon
which we find the Assyrians, then called Schari, engaged in
war with the Egyptians, even in very early times ; comp. d. Bb.
Moses in ^Eg. p. 209; Bileam, p. 260 et seq. Birch has recently
tried to prove that the Schari are. identical with the Syrians.
But it is evident that this name is only of late origin, and was
corrupted from Assyria after the time of the Assyrian supre
macy over Aram. In the interval between Moses and the
period of the Israelitish kings, the kingdom of Assyria appears
again to have fallen into decay. But in the days of Uzziah it
began once more to rise up victorious ; and became a scourge in
THE HUMAN RACE AT THE TIME OF ABRAHAM'S CALL. 99
the hand of the Lord against His faithless people, as Balaam
had already prophesied.
Mesopotamia, the northern portion of the land between the
Euphrates and the Tigris, bounded on the south by Babylonia
and . on the north by Armenia, was already in the time of
Abraham, as it is still, overrun with nomadic tribes, for whom
by its natural character it is specially adapted; — it is in the
interior a steppe -land. Here the ancestors of Abraham
settled down; hence Abraham began his wanderings; and
here his kindred continued to sojourn. That the original
inhabitants of Mesopotamia were the Chaldseans is evident
from the name Ur Chasdim, the present Urfa in the north of
Hatra; comp. Ritter, Erdkunde, x. 3, pp. 159, 243; as also from
Job i. 17, where from Mesopotamia they make an incursion
into the neighbouring Uz. The Chaldseans were at home not
only in Mesopotamia, but in Babylonia. They were of Semitic
origin and tongue. Yet, like the Assyrians, they must have
been considerably influenced by the neighbouring Indo-Persian
races, as appears from the names of their kings and gods. It
is a remarkable fact that the Chaldseans are not named in
the table of nations; but because Ur Chasdim had already
appeared in the history of Abraham, we must expect to find
them here disguised under some other name. The most pro
bable hypothesis is that they were descended from Arphaxad,
who is mentioned in Gen. x. 22, together with Elam and Asshur,
among the descendants of Shem. This is the opinion of Jose
phus. How to interpret the prefixed "HK is uncertain.
We now pass on to that part of western South Asia which is
situated on this side of the Euphrates ; and since we possess
no information relative to the political condition of Syria at
the time of Abraham, we must pass at the same time to Pales
tine. This country was at that time inhabited by two different
races. The principal one, of which we must speak at greater
length on account of its exceptional importance in the whole
history of the Old Testament, was that of the Canaanites, or
according to their Greek name, the Phcenicians. And here we
must first examine into the correctness of the view which has
become pretty widely extended since the argument of Michaelis,
and has recently been defended by Bertheau in his History of
the Israelites, Gottingen 1842, and by Ewald and Kurtz, viz.
100 FIRST PERIOD.
that the Canaanites originally dwelt on the Persian Gulf, and
only settled in Palestine at a later time. The advocates of this
view appeal to two arguments : (1.) To the testimony of several
ancient authors, who expressly say that the Phoenicians came
from the Persian Gulf or from the Red Sea. But on nearer
consideration these witnesses lose much of their value. Only
Herodotus and Strabo are independent. Herodotus, who lived
for a long time in Tyre, in the principal passage, chap. i. 1,
designates not the Phcenicians, but the Persians, as the origin
ators of this account. But how could this, a new nation, that
is to say, one which did not awake to historical consciousness
until a comparatively late period, know anything more definite
respecting the origin of the Phoenicians than they themselves 1
and they regarded themselves as Autochthons. But these
witnesses refer principally to a time to which the heathen
consciousness did not extend, so that we cannot sufficiently
wonder at the uncritical procedure which treats them with as
much respect as if they referred to some fact in historical
times. Their testimony loses still more of its value when
we examine the probable sources of their accounts ; and we
are able to do this with the greater certainty since the authors
themselves give us some information respecting these sources.
In some passages Strabo expressly says that the doubtful
assumption of some, that the Phoenicians originally came from
the Red Sea (to which the Persian Gulf also belongs), is
founded on the names of the islands Tylus and Aradus, which
have been combined with the names of the cities, Tyre and
Aradus. A second source quoted, both by Strabo and others,
was the name Phoenicians. " It has been assumed," says Strabo,
" that they are called Phcenicians, because the sea is termed
Red." These two sources fully suffice to explain the origin of
this opinion, especially as all later accounts are dependent on
those of Herodotus and Strabo. (2.) Michaelis tries to prove,
even from Scripture, from Gen. xii. 16, xiii. 7, that the Canaan
ites were a people who only immigrated at a later time. For
there it is said that the Canaanites were already in the land at
the time of Abraham. But this proof is based on an evidently
false interpretation of these passages : the already is introduced.
We are told, merely by way of illustrating the relations of
Abraham, that the land was not empty on his arrival, but was
THE HUMAN RACE AT THE TIME OF ABRAHAM'S CALL. 101
in the possession of the Canaanites, so that he was obliged to
dwell there as a stranger, and could not call a foot-breadth
of it his own. The opinion that the Phcenicians originally
dwelt on the Red Sea has therefore no argument of any weight
in its favour. On the contrary, it is at variance with the
account given in Genesis, according to which the Canaanites
appear as the original inhabitants of their land ; no other races
are mentioned as having been found there and expelled by
them, as was the case with the Philistines, Idumseans, and
Moabites. Bertheau and Ewald have indeed adopted this
view ; but the races which they state to have been dispossessed
were themselves of Canaanitish origin. It is evident from
Deut. iii. 8, iv. 47, xxxi. 4, that the Rephites belonged to the
Canaanites ; and it is impossible to separate the race of giants
who dwelt in Canaan from the Canaanites, for it was only the
territory of the Canaanites which was given by God to the
Israelites, and they were careful to avoid every encroachment
on other boundaries. Moreover, the giants in Canaan are in
Amos ii. 9 (comp. with Num. xiii. 32, 33) expressly called
Canaanites. That the Horites, whom Ewald also classes among
the original nations, were Canaanites, will appear afterwards.
(Compare the copious refutation of the hypothesis of Ewald and
Bertheau in the treatise by Kurtz, Die Ureinwohner Paldstinas,
Guerike's Zeitschrift, 1845, 3 Heft.) In the whole table of
nations, which is so exceedingly ample and accurate where the
Canaanites are concerned, we find no mention whatever of
original inhabitants dispossessed by the Canaanites. And
further, it is related in chap. x. 18, 19, how the Canaanites
spread themselves over the land as their tribes increased by
degrees from a few members to considerable nationalities.
This leads us to infer that they found the land empty and at
their service. In chap. x. 15 the personified Sidon is called
the first-born of Canaan ; therefore it has been said- that Sidon
was the oldest settlement of the Canaanites ; and since it is one
of the most northern states, this points to an emigration from
Babylonia through Mesopotamia and Syria, which is rendered
more jprobable by the analogy of Abraham's wandering, that
also took a north-easterly direction. If the immigration had
been from Arabia, the southern settlements must have been
the earliest.
102 FIRST PERIOD.
The extent of the land of Canaan is given in- Gen. x. 19.
It reached from Sidon to Gerar, as far as Gaza, thence to
Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboim, as far as Lasha.
Sidon is here termed the northern boundary, because there was
at this time no Phcenician town of any importance above it,
except Hamath in Syria ; although the Phoenicians still occu
pied the narrow space between the sea and Lebanon, as far as
the Syrian boundary. The south-western and southern boun
dary appears to have been formed by the Philistine towns
Gerar and Gaza ; the south-eastern limit of the land being the
cities in the fruitful plain, which were afterwards covered by
the -Dead Sea. The eastern boundary, Lasha, is uncertain ;
according to Jerome, it is the later Callirrhoe on the eastern
side of the Dead Sea, noted for its warm baths. The m'ost
important tribes of the Canaanites were the Amorites and the
Hittites : hence the nation is often called by their name, par
ticularly by that of the former. Ewald is mistaken in his recent
attempt to maintain that the Canaanites also were originally
only a single, separate, powerful branch of the nation, and
that their name was afterwards transferred to the whole nation,
whose real name has been lost. The only passage, Num. xiii.
29, which is brought forward in favour of this assumption does
not prove it. " The Amalekites dwell in the land of the south ;
and the Hittites, and the Jebusites, and the Amorites, dwell in
the mountains ; and the Canaanites dwell by the sea." As for
the dwellers beside the sea, writers have contented themselves
with giving the general name of the people, either because
they were ignorant of the more accurate one, or because it
had no special interest at the time. At first the Israelites had
intercourse only with those who dwelt in the southern range
of mountains. There is just as little foundation for Ewald's
assumption that all Canaanitish nationalities were included in
the four great divisions of the Amorites, Hittites, Canaanites,
and Hivites. There is not a single proof that the remaining
nationalities stood in a subordinate relation to these.
The Canaanites were at that time an agricultural and com
mercial people. Commerce is first mentioned in Scripture in
Gen. xlix. 13, in the blessing of Jacob, where it is spoken of
as a privilege conferred on Zebulun, or properly on Israel ;
for in Zebulun is only exemplified that which belongs to the
THE HUMAN RACE AT THE TIME OF ABRAHAM'S CALL. 103
whole — he is to dwell on the shores of .the sea, in the neigh
bourhood of Sidon, that he may have opportunity for profitable
trade. But at that time commerce could only have been in its
first beginning ; for those great Asiatic kingdoms with which
the Phcenicians were afterwards connected in so many ways
were not yet in existence ; most of the lands bordering on the
sea were still occupied by nomads who could offer no great
commercial advantage. Navigation was still in its infancy,
although the situation of the Phcenician towns was so favour
able to commerce by sea ; and notwithstanding the excellence
of the materials whicli their country offered for shipbuilding.
At that time, and for long afterwards, Sidon was the principal
city of the country. Tyre, although it had probably been
founded already, is not once mentioned in the Pentateuch. It
first appears in Josh. xix. 29. Even in Abraham's time we
find the land far from being occupied by the number of
Canaanites which it could bear. The Canaanites willingly
yielded to Abraham the use of large districts. He was at
liberty to traverse the whole land; and everywhere found
sustenance for his flocks. We can form a pretty correct idea
of the gradual growth of the population. Jacob and Esau
have no longer room in the land for their flocks, which together
were certainly not more numerous than those of Abraham.
Esau therefore repairs to Mount Seir, afterwards Idumea. On
the return of the Hebrews from Egypt the land was already
almost overfilled with inhabitants. The constitution of the
Canaanites was at the time of Abraham essentially the same
as in later times. Compare the description of the latter by
Heeren, i. 2, p. 14 et seq. The land was divided into a number
of cities with their townships, of which each had an indepen
dent king. Thus, for example, we find in Genesis kings of
the separate cities in the region of what was afterwards the
Dead Sea ; a king of Salem, afterwards Jerusalem, the dwell
ing-place of the Jebusites ; a king of Sichem, etc. Then, as
in later times, the kings sought to obviate the injurious effect
of this dismemberment by mutual covenants to submit to the
guidance of the most powerful. Thus the kings of the vale of
Siddim united against their common enemies from Interior
Asia. Then the seat of government was at Sodom ; as among
the Canaanites dwelling on the sea the seat of government was
104 FIRST PERIOD.
originally at Sidon, afterwards at Tyre. In primitive, as in
late times, the power of the kings was limited. We infer this
principally from the negotiations of the prince of Sichem with
his subjects, in Gen. xxxiv. Despotism was kept down by
civilisation, which had early been promoted by agriculture and
commerce ; and we find them already considerably advanced in
Genesis. It appears also, that in some cities an aristocratic
or democratic constitution existed. Among the Hittites at
Hebron, according to Gen. xxiii., the highest power seems to
have rested with an assembly of the people. In later time
we find a similar constitution in the city of Gibeon, comp.
Josh. ix. Their elders and kings decided everything. And
in the list of Canaanitish kings conquered by Joshua, Josh.
xii., there is no mention of a king of Gibeon. The influence
of the priesthood, which was afterwards so powerful, seems
not yet to have been in existence, if we may judge from the
history of Melchizedek and from the complete silence respect
ing the priesthood elsewhere. Among the Canaanites it existed
from the beginning in a corrupt root of sin. They were a
reprobate people. This appears from Gen. ix. 25, where, on
account of the sin of Ham, Canaan his son is cursed, for no
other reason than because of the foreknowledge that Ham's
sin would be perpetuated, especially in Canaan and his race.
Already, in Abraham's time, the day was at hand when the
iniquity of the Amorites should be full, Gen. xv. 16 ; when it
should have reached the highest point which infallibly draws
down avenging justice. This deep corruption of the Canaan
ites, to which testimony is borne by classical writers, forms
one of the presuppositions in favour of the decrees of God with
respect to the guidance of His people. Ezekiel, in chap, xxviii.,
foretells that the spirit of commerce would overgrow all nobler
feelings, and thus become a snare to them. And it is observ
able that the Canaanites, although of Hamitic origin, must in
early times have been in close contact with Semitic races. We
are led to this conclusion by the fact that their language
belongs to the Semitic, stock; but the inference that the
Canaanites must therefore necessarily have been a branch of
the Semitic stock has been arrived at too hastily. And yet
the circumstance cannot be explained, as some old authors
have attempted, by the fact that the Canaanites adopted their
THE HUMAN RACE AT THE TIME OF ABRAHAM'S CALL. 105
language from the patriarchs. We are so little acquainted with
the associations of races in the primitive world, where the small
number of members made it so easy for language to pass from
one to the other, that mere community of language has not
power to destroy the weight of express reiterated testimony,
contained in a document whose credibility has proved itself
even to those who are accustomed to regard it only as human
testimony. We have, moreover, on our side the analogy of
the very important Semitic element in the language of the
Egyptians, which also can only have been derived from close
intercourse with Semitic races in primitive times. But
analogies lead us still further. Leo, p. 109, points out that in
the lapse of time almost all the Hamites have lost their lan
guage ; and it is certain that they have all been supplanted by
Semitic dialects, as Arabic is now the prevailing language in
Egypt. He attributes this to the circumstance that among the
Hamitic nations there was a special inclination towards the
external side of life, — thus, in the Old Testament, Canaanite
and merchant are convertible terms, — and for this reason a want
of attraction towards the inner, deeper sides of spiritual life.
Among such nations language is something extraneous, which
is readily relinquished. " If we knew the Semitic dialect of
Canaan better," Leo goes on to say, " we should be sure to
find in its character evidences of the presence of Hamitic
modes of thought, and should find it to be a kind of low
Hebrew." From the Canaanites we pass on to their neighbours the
Philistines, the inhabitants of the southern coast of Palestine,
reaching from Egypt to Ekron, almost opposite Jerusalem.
From the statement of Genesis, that the territory of the
Canaanites extended as far as Gaza, we are not at liberty to
infer that the stretch of coast from Gaza to Ekron was not
taken from the Canaanites by the Philistines until a later time.
The Canaanitish territory really extended as far south as Gaza,
but did not quite reach to the sea. The author says this almost
expressly ; for before Gaza he mentions Gerar as the eastern
limit of the Canaanitish territory. And this very Gerar is
spoken of in Genesis as the most important place, and the seat
of a Philistine king, in whose dominions the patriarchs some
times took up their abode, using for pasturage the land which
106 FIRST PERIOD.
was not set apart for agriculture, to which the Philistines as
well as the Canaanites were addicted. Afterwards, however, the
city seems to have lost its importance. In late history, already
in Josh. xiii. 3, we find other cities named as the Philis
tine centres, viz. Gaza, Ashdod, Ekron, Askalon, and Gath,
the seats of the five kings of the Philistines; while Genesis
mentions but one king of the whole race. This change must
be attributed to the increase of trade, by which means Gerar,
so far distant from the sea, must have been pushed into the
background. The Philistines were not, like the Canaanites,
a nation who had already dwelt in the land from the time
of their ancestors. This is indicated by their name, which,
not without probability, has been derived from b6s, to wander,
which still exists in Ethiopic. But it has been wrongly
asserted that this interpretation was already followed by
the Alexandrians, who in many passages, like the apocryphal
writers, render the name of the Philistines by 'AXk6pa to>v XaXSalcov. But the goal of Terah's journey,
Haran, is demonstrably a single place; and therefore we must
regard his starting-point also as such. The cause of Terah's
resolve to go to Canaan is not given in Scripture. Fables like
that related by Joseph. Antt. i. 7, in which Abraham out of
zeal for the honour of Jehovah takes counsel with the Chaldseans
and Mesopotamians, deserve no notice. The reason was pro
bably the same which still impels races of nomadic Arabs to
distant wanderings ; the hope to find in Palestine rich pasture
for his numerous flocks. On this supposition it becomes evi
dent why when he was come to Haran, to Carra, famous for
the defeat of Crassus, in Mesopotamia, not far from Edessa
and. the Euphrates, west of Ur, he took up his abode there.
In that pasture-ground he found what he had sought, and
had no reason to continue his march farther. But the con
sideration of God's object in the matter is more important
than that of Terah's motive. His secret guidance is not ex
cluded by the existence of human motives. The kingdom of
God was not to be founded among a nation already in existence.
God wished to prepare a people for it ; to possess a sacred primi-
HISTORY OF ABRAHAM. 125
tive ground of nationality. God dealt gently with Abraham,
who was chosen as the progenitor of this race. He took from
him only in the same proportion in which he had given to him.
His demands increased gradually. Man can give up the earthly
for the sake of God only in so far as God has made Himself
dear to him and valued. God wished to be alone with Abra
ham. Only thus could He perfect his education. Abraham
must go forth with his future kindred from sinful communion
with his race ; he may no longer dwell among a people of un
clean lips. He must also cease to have communion with his
immediate family. Even in it the apostasy from God was
already so great that Abraham's remaining in it put great
hindrances in the way of his divine education. He must be
conducted to a people who were utterly strange to him, with
whom he might hold no close intercourse, in whom God
showed him the future hereditary enemy of his descendants. •
God could not at once demand this sacrifice from him, for it is
certain that He does not tempt above what is able to be borne.
The departure from his people and his country was facilitated
by the circumstance that under God's direction his father and
his other nearest relations accompanied him. Thus the first
pain is overcome. His exodus from country is followed by his
departure from the paternal roof ; and to soften the pain of this,
God gives him Lot for a companion, that he might not feel so
utterly lonely. Later, when God speaks to him in secret, He
frees him from this tie also, but arranges it so that his relative
shall act an unfriendly part towards him, and thus facilitates
this parting also.
In the promises which God makes to Abraham, partly in
•Mesopotamia and partly on his entrance into Canaan, there are
three points to be noticed : (1.) He will make of him a great
nation ; (2.) He will give the land of Canaan to his posterity ;
(3.) in him, that is, as is afterwards explained, in his posterity,
shall all nations of the earth be blessed. In Gen. xii. 3, where
this promise first appears, and also in chaps, xviii. 18, xxviii. 14,
we find the Niphal, which can have no other meaning than this,
Be blessed; elsewhere we have the Hithpahel, which in a cir
cuitous way leads to the same sense. For if the heathens bless
themselves by the race of the patriarchs, i.e. wish to be thus
blessed, comp. Gen. xlviii. 20, they must regard the lot of the
126 FIRST PERIOD.
patriarchs, which consists in their relation to the Lord, as a
highly prosperous one, and with this is inseparably bound up
the striving to participate in their blessing, comp. Isa. xliv. 5.
But we must separate two classes of passages ; for it is a like
perversion to impose upon the Niphal the meaning of the Hith-
pahel, and to impose upon the Hithpahel the signification of the
Niphal. That the passages in which it occurs must be supple
mented though not explained by antecedent and parallel pas
sages in which the Niphal appears, is evident from the constant,
solemn repetition of the announcement which is everywhere
spoken of as the highest summit of the promises given to the
patriarchs, and from the reference of the blessing upon all
nations of the earth to the curse which passed on the world
after the fall ; also from the connection with the prophecy that
Japhet should dwell in the tents of Shem (Gen. ix. 27) on the
one side, and with the ruler who should go forth from Judah,
to whom the allegiance of the nations should be (Gen. xlix. 10),
on the other side. The intermediate members which, unite
these predictions are disturbed if we impose upon the Niphal,
in the promises to the patriarchs, the signification of the Hith
pahel. In these promises, we have at the outset a sketch of all
the subsequent leadings of God until their final accomplish
ment. The great nation which is to proceed from Abraham is
not 'composed of all the carnal descendants of Abraham, includ
ing the Arabs and Idumeans ; as the union of this point with
the two others shows, and also the whole subsequent history.
The question here is not of the universal, but only of the
special providence of God, by which Abraham became the pro
genitor of the chosen race. The land of Canaan was not to
belong to him in the same sense in which it had belonged to its
former inhabitants, who possessed it under the guidance of the
general providence of God. It was to be an absolute gift of
the free grace of God, and must clearly appear in this light.
The last design of the first two promises discloses the third,
which must have become dearer and dearer to Abraham as his
inner life advanced. The great value of the blessing to Abra
ham and his seed, consisted in the fact that it was at some
future time to become a blessing for all nations of the earth.
This condition of the promises to Abraham, the fact that
the special reference they contain to him and his posterity
HISTORY OF ABRAHAM. 127
appears as the foundation of an institution embracing the
whole human race, stands in- most beautiful harmony with
that which is related in Genesis of the time previous to his
call. In the first human pair, God created all men in His
image. From the creation to Abraham the whole human
race is an object of His guidance and government. In Gen.
ix. 7, the blessing is pronounced on all the posterity of Noah.
To such a beginning there can be no other continuation. How
would a God who for centuries had embraced the whole, sud
denly limit Himself to a single race and people, unless their
limitation be destined to serve as a means of future expansion ?
" Those who bless thee," it is said, " I will bless, and those who
•curse thee, I will curse." Here at the first establishment of
the kingdom of God a law is pronounced which is realized in
the whole course of history. According to the position which
each one assumes towards the kingdom of God and its bearers,
so is his fate determined. For this is the criterion of his hatred
and his love towards God Himself. The first grand verifica
tion of the announcement must have been experienced by
Egypt in the Mosaic time. The promises to Abraham were at
the same time so many demands. This is seen in the com
mands which are bound up with them. "Get thee out of thy
country," etc., is special only in form, — in idea it includes
everything which God requires of man, the going out from
one's self, the offering up even of the dearest to God, if
prejudicial to the divine life. Only let us ask, " Why should
Abraham be called to go forth?" and this idea at once pre
sents .itself. That the universal foundation of the special was
already known under the Old Testament is shown by the pas
sage in Ps. xlv. 11, which is based upon Gen. xii. 1. Renun
ciation, self-denial, this requisition meets us at the very threshold
of the kingdom of God. Here we have the foundation of that
great- saying of our Lord, " Whoever will be my disciple, let
him take up his cross and deny himself." How deeply conscious
Abraham was of this interchange of promise and obligation is
seen in the fact that immediately on his entrance into Canaan
he erected an altar, called upon the Lord who had appeared
to him, and consecrated himself to Him, in the midst of the
idolatrous people.
Why was Abraham led just to Canaan? In studying his
128 FIRST PERIOD.
history and that of the other patriarchs, we find that the so
journ in this land was both a strengthening and a discipline of
faith ; — a strengthening, for the promised possession in its love
liness lay continually before their eyes — the more indefinite the
idea of a hoped-for good, the more difficult is it to hold fast
the hope. The favour they received at the present time in
this land served as a pledge of the future glorification of God
in that very place. It was a discipline of their faith, for they
must have been vividly conscious of the contrast between hope
and possession. How strange ! they who could not call a single
foot-breadth of the land their own property — for they had only
the use of the pasturage so long as the inhabitants did not
require it — should at some future time possess the whole
country. They, with their small numbers, should drive out all
the nationalities, whose numbers and might were daily before
their eyes. But it is necessary that the reference to their
posterity should be made still more prominent. The author of
Genesis himself draws our attention to this by carefully noting
every event by which any place in the country becomes re
nowned. It is a great blessing for a nation to have a sacred
past. Israel was surrounded on all sides by dumb, yet speaking
witnesses of the faith of their fathers, especially of the love of
God towards them. Abraham's guidance to Canaan was thus
in every respect dependent on God's determination to give it
to his posterity for a possession. But now arises the new
question, Why should his descendants have received Canaan
in particular? The reasons for this determination, as far
as they are given in Scripture itself, are the beauty and fruit-
fulness of the land, whose bestowal was well adapted to serve
as a manifestation of the grace of God, the more since its
advantages were brought home to the consciousness by the
contrast of the surrounding wilderness which was populated
by races kindred to Israel,— in the Pentateuch it is con
tinually termed "a land flowing with milk and honey," and
in Deut. xi. 10-12 is represented as in many respects
superior £ven to Egypt,— and again the circumstance that
the inhabitants of this land had filled up the measure of
sin particularly fast and early, comp. Gen. xv. 15, 16, so that
in the taking and giving of it, justice and mercy could go
hand in hand. This union was at the same time of deep
HISTORY OF ABRAHAM. 129
significance for the mind of Israel. In the fate of the earlier
inhabitants they had before them a constant prediction of their
own fate if they should prove guilty of like sin. Already in the
Pentateuch Israel is referred to this prophecy. These are the
reasons which appear in Scripture. What many have said
concerning " the central position of Palestine" is not supported
by Scripture. In Ezek. v. 5, " This is Jerusalem : I have set
it in the midst of the nations and countries that are round
about her," Jerusalem is designated only as the moral-religious
centre of the world, in order that its guilt and degeneracy might
appear in a stronger light, as verse 6 clearly shows, and also
verses 7 and 11.
Nicolaus Damascenus relates in a fragment of the 4th book
of his History, which has been preserved by Josephus, i. 8, that
Abraham remained for a long time at Damascus on his way to
Canaan, and there conducted the government. Justin, lib. 36,
says the same ; and Josephus relates that the house is still
shown in Damascus where Abraham lived. But we can
scarcely understand how Hess, and even Zahn, as also Bertheau,
who bases upon this his hypothesis of a wandering of the
" Terahitish people," and subsequently Ewald, who calls Nico
laus Damascenus " a witness of great weight," could attribute
any value to this account. Heidegger, ii. p. 60, has proved that
it belongs to the numerous legends respecting Abraham which
are current in the East. It has been inferred from the remark
in Gen. xv. 2, that Abraham's house-steward belonged to
Damascus, and hence the conclusion has been come to that
Abraham must have sojourned in that place. But it can be
proved on chronological grounds that Abraham continued his
journey to Canaan without any pause by the way. And here
we may remark, that the same judgment holds good with refer
ence also to all other accounts of heathen authors ; such, for
example, as we find collected in Buddeus and Hess. Their
origin is written on their foreheads. They belong to a period
when, owing to the wide dispersion of the Jews, fragments of
the narratives contained in their holy writings found their
way into all heathendom. They are composed of a true
element drawn from this source and increased by some very
cheap but false additions. So, for example, when Artapanus in
Eusebius speaks of the sojourn of Abraham with the king of
I
130 FIRST PERIOD.
Egypt, and maintains that Abraham instructed this king in
the art of astrology ; an assumption which has its origin merely
in the statement of Genesis that Abraham came out of Ur of
the Chaldees ; for the Chaldseans were highly renowned among
the ancients for astrology; or where Alexander Polyhistor relates
that Abraham's name was famous throughout all Syria, and
that he proved to the most learned Egyptian priests the nullity
of their doctrines.
We must guard against using accounts of this nature in
confirmation of biblical history. Let us rather leave this deal
ing to the opponents of revelation. Such statements could
only have a value if it could be proved that they had their
origin in a source independent of Genesis. But, a priori, how
is this conceivable ? Whence could the knowledge of Abraham
come to those who knew nothing but fables concerning their
own ancestors, or to those who were totally unable to estimate
the importance of that which was really significant in Abraham's
appearance, and to whom he was a man of no interest. Add
to this that the oldest historians, those who lived before the
time of the dispersion of the Jews and circulated the narratives
of Scripture, especially from Alexandria, know nothing of
Abraham. It is noticeable also with respect to chronology, that Abra
ham was 75 years old when he set out on his journey to
Canaan, 366 years after the flood and 2023 after the creation
of the world, and that Terah survived his departure for 60
years, although his death is related in Genesis prior to the
exodus of Abraham, in order that the narrative may henceforth
occupy itself exclusively with Abraham. Shem was still alive
at the time of Terah.
2. Abraham in Egypt. — In this narrative our attention is
directed almost exclusively to the inquiry into Abraham's
morality ; a secondary matter whose proper treatment is depen
dent upon that view of the true kernel and centre of the
narrative which prompts the author to communicate it. The
birth of the son who was destined by God to be the ancestor of
the chosen race, was the beginning of the realization of all the
promises that had been made to Abraham. The rest hung
upon this birth, and many years elapsed before it took place.
The human conditions must first disappear, and at the same
HISTORY OF ABRAHAM. 131
time it must be demonstrated by many providences, that God
had a part in the matter. This event forms the beginning of
these leadings of providence. Abraham himself by his carnal
wisdom does what he can to nullify the promise. But God
takes care that the chastity of the ancestress of the chosen race
shall be preserved inviolate. And just as this circumstance is
a manifestation of the providence of God, it formed also an
actual prediction of the importance of His decree, and served
to strengthen Abraham's faith. It is the author's aim to
draw attention to this. The judgment of Abraham's con
duct he leaves as usual to his readers, if they find any interest
in it. The author writes not as a moralist but as a theologian.
The judgment of readers, who were unable to follow the
grand abstraction of the author, has been very various.
Luther goes farthest, stating in his Commentary on Genesis
that Abraham formed this resolution by the inspiration of
the Holy Ghost and in strong faith. Chrysostom too, and
Augustine seek to exonerate Abraham from all guilt ; Origen,
Jerome, and the theologians of the Reformed Church form
a severe judgment, and express strong disapprobation of the
subterfuge. It is certain that Abraham had no intention of committing
a sin. It was not a sudden idea. Already in Haran he had
pre-arranged it with Sarai. Doubtless he thought he could
say with a good conscience that Sarai was his sister, because
she really was his sister in a certain sense. She was his near
relation, the daughter of his brother Haran. For Sarai is
identical with Iscah mentioned in Gen. xi. 29. She was first
called Sarai, my dominion, on her marriage with Abraham.
Augustine says, " Tacuit aliquid veri, non dixit aliquid falsi."
He was so strongly persuaded of the innocence of this pre
cautionary measure, that according to Gen. xx. 13, he had
determined to adopt it everywhere, and did actually repeat it
afterwards ; as Isaac did also.
But nevertheless Abraham cannot be pronounced guiltless.
He is not to be blamed for having acted in accordance with his
conviction, but because this conviction was a false one, and
had its origin in his own inclination, not in the thing itself.
His statement was nothing less than a hidden lie. For in
saying that Sarai was his sister his intention was that those to
132 FIRST PERIOD.
whom he said it should understand him to mean that she was
not his wife ; and they did actually understand it in this sense.
Rambach therefore justly remarks, "The whole thing was the
result of a weak faith which suffered itself to be beguiled by
carnal wisdom into the use of improper means, viz. an equivo
cation for the preservation of his life and the chastity of his
wife." It was once said, " Non facienda sunt mala ut eveniant
bona." He would have done better if he had commended the
whole matter to God in earnest prayer, and had then repaired
thither in reliance on the divine promise to make of him a great
nation and to bless him. But because he directed the eyes
of his reason too exclusively to danger, he lost sight of the
promise of God, and his faith began to waver. But as Christ
reached His hand to Peter when he began to sink at the sight
of a great wave, so God extended His hand to Abraham lest
he should utterly perish in this danger.
Many here enunciate views by which they are often misled
afterwards. Thus Zahn remarks, " It is difficult, nay impos
sible, from our position to form a correct judgment concerning
the life of the ancients. The 19th century before Christ is
brought into close comparison with the 19th century after
Christ. This will not do."
If the question were how to excuse Abraham, it would be im
possible for us to judge harshly. He stood at the very threshold
of the divine leadings, and came from the midst of a degenerate
people with whom, thougli outwardly separate, there was close
connection. We cannot expect to find him a saint. Many of
his severe judges certainly pronounce judgment on themselves.
In the joy of finding an imperfection in the father of the
faithful they forget that their whole life is a continuous lie,
since they have had far more opportunity of recognising the
unconditional obligatory power of the law of truth ; and a far
stronger inward condition of grace has been offered to them for
its fulfilment.
But here a justification may rather be attempted, which we
must decidedly oppose. It is only possible by making the
building power of the divine law dependent on the stage of
development, which again demands that the law be regarded
as a kind of arbitrary thing, and thus the will of God is
separated from His essence, which is highly injurious. If the
HISTORY OF ABRAHAM. 133
will of God be only a reflex of His essence, it must be valid for
all times ; and moral requirements are the same for the rudest
period as for the most advanced. Thus there is but one con
science for all times ; and it is man's fault if he do not perceive
all its demands.
That the narrator himself regarded the matter in this light
may, amid all the objective tendency, be clearly proved from
the circumstance that he lays the entire stress of the thing
upon the agency of God. The very issue of the matter con
firms this. Abraham is not rescued by his own carnal wisdom.
This rather plunges him into the greatest embarrassment and
anxiety, from which God's intervention alone delivers him.
Pharaoh's conduct when he apprehends the true state of the
matter is an additional argument in favour of this view.
" Why," he says, " hast thou done this unto me ? " If Pharaoh
has the consciousness that wrong has happened him through
Abraham, he must the more readily assume that Abraham, by
his own free-will, stifled the consciousness of wrong-doing;
especially if we compare the still more definite reproaches of
the king of the Philistines, chap. xx. 9 et seq. But Abraham
must be exonerated from another reproach, viz. that of having
exposed his wife to the lust of the Egyptians. He only hoped
to gain time by his precautionary measure. Before the tedious
Egyptian marriage ceremonies were at an end, he hoped to find
some way of escape. His faith was not yet strong enough to
induce him to surrender himself with absolute trust to God,
who had compelled him by circumstances to go down to Egypt.
For the moment, therefore, he sought to help himself by his
own wisdom ; the future he left to God. Here his faith could
co-exist with the visible ; for the visible did not yet lie before
his eyes and fix his attention upon itself. The difficulty
of Sarah's age is also without weight. We have only to
remember that the usual duration of life at that time amounted
to 130-180 years; and we may add that among the Egyptians
the women had a most disagreeable complexion. That it
appeared so even to the Egyptians themselves, is evident from
the circumstance that -upon their monuments the women are
painted much fairer than they were in reality, while the men
bear their natural colour (comp. Taylor, p. 4), and that
everywhere the Egyptian women were exceptionally ugly, as
134 FIRST PERIOD.
the representations in Wilkinson and Taylor show. But the
main point is, that the effort of Oriental princes to fill the harem
has its origin less in sensuality than in vanity. The high
position of Sarah was the great thing in the eyes of Pharaoh;
a certain beauty and stateliness was only the condition. More
over the mighty help of the Lord, which was exerted in Egypt
on behalf of Abraham against Pharaoh, was a type and prelude
of that to be vouchsafed to his posterity.
3. Abraham's Separation from Lot.— The essence of this
narrative is the divine providence by whicli circumstances
occurred to remove from him an element not belonging to the
chosen race. Under this providence Lot voluntarily gave up
all his claims to the land of promise. He repaired to the
plains of Jordan, which were doomed to destruction. That
the whole importance of the event in the eyes of the narrator
himself turns on this point, appears from chap. xiii. 14, where
the renewal of the promise of the land of Canaan to Abraham
is introduced with the words, "And the Lord said unto
Abraham, after that Lot was separated from him." From this
it appears that the renewal is not only in its proper place here,
but serves at the same time as a means of development and
closer definition. When the land is promised to Abraham's
posterity as an eternal possession, the idea naturally is, that no
power from without shall ever deprive him of it. That by
Israel's guilt the possession should be lost at a future time, is
frequently foretold in the Pentateuch itself. An assurance to
the contrary would have been a licence to sin ; but the land
was only withdrawn from the true posterity of Abraham that
they might be made partakers of a higher inheritance. When
the patriarch, in obedience to the divine command, traversed
the whole land in its length and breadth, his action was sym
bolical, indicating that his posterity should become possessors of
the territory in which he wandered as a stranger. He takes
possession for his descendants, of the whole land in which
he himself has not a foot-breadth of property ; thus giving
evidence of the faith which it was God's object to nourish and
strengthen by this command. Lot, the type of a sojourner
and lodger in the kingdom of God in contrast to its citizens,
was probably not influenced in his choice of a residence by the
consideration of the beauty of the region. He sought the
HISTORY OF ABRAHAM. 135
neighbourhood of towns, whose restless life and pursuits con
stantly offered new excitement to one for whom the simple
shepherd-life was too monotonous. He belonged to those who
could not exist without hearing del n Kaivorepov. If this were
not so, how are we to explain the fact that he afterwards
settled down in the midst of the immoral city itself ? It is true
that he did not take part in their abominations — his earlier
intercourse with Abraham had so much influence on him ;
yet he was too weak completely to withstand the corruption
by which he was surrounded. And now he was called upon to
suffer with those who had not been too bad for him to rejoice
with. Formerly he stood as a free shepherd-prince, in no close
* connection with the inhabitants of the land ; but now he was
involved in their affairs, and was soon afterwards led forth as
a captive with the other inhabitants of Sodom.
4. Abraham's warlike expedition. — Melchizedek. — We have
already treated of the campaign of the kings of Central Asia
against the kings in the plains of Jordan. In Abraham's con
duct two principal features of his character are exemplified —
courage and magnanimity, sanctified by childlike confidence in
the goodness of God. But the eye of the narrator is not
directed to this. The centre of the narrative is God's grace
respecting His chosen people, by which, in prefiguration of that
which was to be imparted to Abraham's race, He placed him in
a position to carry on war with the kings, and gave him the
victory over them, bringing kings to meet him after his return
— one in respectful recognition, the other in bitter subjection.
A casual remark shows us how rich and powerful Abraham
had already become through the divine blessing. With him
alone there travelled 318 servants born in his house, sons
of his slaves, who had grown up under his eye, and of whose
fidelity he could be certain. But these formed only the smaller
part of his people. They were certainly far outnumbered by
the newly-purchased servants, old men, children, and women ;
and even of those who could carry arms, some were not able to
accompany him. A few must remain for the protection of the
flocks. Thus it is easily explained how Abraham could mix
everywhere with the Canaanitish kings as their equal. He
was this by right; and had also power to enforce the re
cognition of the right. There was scarcely one among the
136 FIRST PERIOD.
Canaanitish princes who could singly measure his strength
with him.
The shortness and the obscurity of the narrative has occa
sioned the most various and strange opinions relative to Mel-
chizedek. Origen held him to be an angel ; others believed
that he was Christ, who had appeared to Abraham in his later
human form, and had presented the supper to him. So also
Ambrose and many old theologians. The Chaldee paraphrasts
with many Jewish and Christian scholars believed that Mel-
chizedek was Shem, the son of Noah, who was still living then.
Others took him for Enoch, who had been sent by God from
heaven to earth again, in order to administer the kingly and
priestly offices.
All these are but baseless hypotheses. Theodoret's view is
the correct one ; he says, " He was probably of those races
who inhabited Palestine ; for among them he was both king
and priest." The fact that there should have been a servant
of the true God in the midst of the heathen, which at first
appears strange, has already been explained. Zahn says, " A
lovely picture of peace stands before us after the tumult of
war ; a king of righteousness pronouncing blessing, a king of
the city of peace, a priest of God. The mention of Melchizedek
shows how much the holy Scripture conceals. How manv
other priests of God may not his lifted hands have raised up
to God the Most High, from the midst of that human race
which was ever turning more and more from God." But the
expression "how many" says too much. The reason why the
author speaks so fully and emphatically lies just in the soli
tariness of the phenomenon; it is on this account that the
memory of the event was preserved in tradition. Melchize
dek places himself in distinct contrast to his surroundings;
and, according to the remark in the Epistle to the Hebrews,
the author shows how little these are calculated to explain
his existence by the fact that he is almost completely silent
concerning them {dirdraip, dyeveaXoyijTO*;, Heb. vii. 3) ; and
even if we were perfectly acquainted with these relations we
should know nothing more of the main question. He stands
severed from natural development, as a wonder, in the midst
of an apostate world. At a later time, indeed, such an isolated
phenomenon would no longer have been possible. A form
HISTORY OF ABRAHAM. 137
like Melchizedek's does not meet us again in all subsequent
history. For Jethro, the priest of Midian, is only a very im
perfect counterpart. Melchizedek may be called the setting
sun of primitive revelation. Deep shadows continue to gather
over the heathen world, while the light concentrates itself more
and more within the divine institutions of salvation.
Melchizedek dwelt at Salem, the Jerusalem of after times,
which in antiquity-loving poetry still bears this name in Ps.
lxxvi. 2: "In Salem also is His tabernacle, and His dwelling-
place in Zion." No other Salem appears in the New Testament ;
for in Gen. xxxiii. 18 tbv> is an adjective : " And Jacob came
in a prosperous condition to the city of Shechem." Still
further, Jerusalem, from BTV and DP^, the peaceful possession,
is essentially the same name. [The dual form is an invention
of the Masoretes.J The identity of Salem and Jerusalem is
also presupposed in Ps. ex., which was composed by David.
For when it is there announced that the Messiah will be king
and priest in Zion after the order of Melchizedek, it is un
doubtedly assumed that primitive time prefigures in the same
place a similar union of the kingly and priestly dignity.
Another fact which speaks in favour of the identity of Salem
and Jerusalem is that in Joshua's time, Adonizedek, equivalent
to Melchizedek, is called king of Jerusalem, Josh. x. 1. In
all probability this was the standing name of the Jebusite kings.
Finally, the King's Valley at Salem, Gen. xiv. 17, lay, accord
ing to 2 Sam. xviii. 18, in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem ;
according to Josephus, two stadia distant from it. Thenius
says on this place, that the King's Valley was a part of the
valley through which the Kedron pours itself into the Dead
Sea. W. L. Krafft, the topographer of Jerusalem, remarks :
" If Abraham with the spoil chose the most convenient
and shortest way back to Hebron over the high land on
this side of the Jordan, he must have passed not far from
Jerusalem. While the king of Sodom ascended the present
Wady en Nar, in which the valley of Kedron extends to the
Dead Sea, Melchizedek descended from his rocky fortress,
Salem, to salute Abraham." Melchizedek united in himself
the kingly and priestly dignity ; a combination which was not
rare, indeed almost universal. Aristotle, Politic, iii. chap.
14, says, " In antiquity the subjects invested their ruler with the
138 FIRST PERIOD.
highest power, giving to one and the same the judicial, kingly,
and priestly dignity." Servius also remarks on Virgil, " Sane
majorum hsec erat consuetudo, ut rex etiam esset sacerdos vel
pontifex." In Homer the prince not only arranges the sacra
in the interest of the community, but not seldom dispenses it
himself without the assistance of the priest ; comp. Nagelsbach,
Homerische Theologie, p. 180. Nor is it accidental that this
union of the two powers appears in the highest antiquity. In
later times the further development of the two spheres made it
necessary to separate them. This was a concession to human
weakness so far that, owing to it, two interests could scarcely be
united in one person without danger to the one or other. There
fore, the separation occurred also among the people of revelation
under the Mosaic dispensation. But in Christ, who was not
subject to human weakness, the original union, which is also
the most natural, was restored. Melchizedek is therefore
justly represented in Scripture as a type of Christ. The idea
symbolized in Melchizedek, viz. that of a prince, who at the
same time represents his people before God, is realized in Him
in its whole extent and in its profoundest depth.
Melchizedek brought out bread and wine to Abraham.
Abraham was not in need of the food for his people. He had
just conquered his enemies, and had taken rich spoils from
them, even food (food is expressly mentioned in verse 11).
But in ancient times presents were a token of esteem and love,
as they are still in the East. Melchizedek paid honour to Abra
ham as a worshipper of one and the same God ; he must already
have heard of his piety, and rejoiced in finding an opportunity
of proving his esteem for him. The bringing forth of bread
and wine was therefore a symbolical act, in reality a proof of
community of faith, and at the same time a worthy prepara
tion for the impartation of the blessing which had its basis in
this community. We have no authority to put more meaning
into the offering of the bread and wine, as v. Hofmann does.
According to the narrative, it is related to the Last Supper
only in one respect, only so far as the latter was a love-feast.
In saying "The narrative certainly does not imply that he
brought bread and wine only to refresh Abram, or else it
would not be added immediately, in the same verse, ' and he
was a priest of the most high God,' " v. Hofmann overlooks
HISTORY OF ABRAHAM. 139
the fact that these words are a preparation for what comes
after, "and he blessed him." Melchizedek king of Salem
(with kingly hospitality) brought forth bread and wine, and
at the same time he blessed him in his capacity of priest.
Melchizedek blessed Abram as " a priest of the most high
God, possessor of heaven and earth." Thus Melchizedek him
self specifies the God whom he served ; for this designation
has not previously occurred, and is nowhere else to be found.
It cannot therefore belong to the writer. He chose the
appellation to indicate that his God was not ruler over a
single family or district, or over some star as the neighbours
believed their idols to be, but was the omnipotent God of
the whole world. Such absolute extension was the necessary
condition of his community of faith with the monotheistic
Abraham. With the exception of this kingly priest not a trace is to
be found in all pre-Mosaic history of a priesthood consecrated
to the true God, if we except the uncertain history of Jethro,
who probably first got from Moses the most of what we find
in him ; just as Balaam drew his knowledge of God from an
Israelitish source. Although we cannot more nearly define
the nature of the priesthood of Melchizedek, we may conclude
that it was a public one from the circumstance that Abraham
was not called a priest, although he built altars and offered up
sacrifices for himself. It is probable that not only the inhabi
tants of Salem but also the dwellers in the regions round about,
so far. as they had not yet sunk into idolatry, brought their
offerings to him that he might present them to the most high
God, and make intercession for the people in prayer. All that
was still in existence of the elements of true piety among the
Canaanites gathered about him.
Abraham paid the highest honour to Melchizedek. To
show that he recognised his dignity he gave him the tenth
part of the spoil, and that too of the whole spoil, even of
what had originally belonged to the inhabitants of the plain
of Jordan. For in accordance with the rights of war at that
time this belonged to whoever had taken it from the robbers ;
and only Abraham's generosity made him renounce all per
sonal claim to it. He had no power to dispose of the part
which belonged to God and that which belonged to his
140 FIRST PERIOD.
associates. In his address to the king of Sodom he uses the
same designation of God which Melchizedek had employed
immediately before, thus to acknowledge in the face of the
idolaters that their mutual faith rested upon the same founda
tion. But at the same time he intimates by the name of
Jehovah which he puts to this designation, tenderly and softly,
at the head of it, that he has more part in the common basis
than Melchizedek ; that his religious consciousness, though not
purer than that of the royal priest, is yet richer and fuller.
God appeared as Jehovah only to Abraham, by means of a
divine revelation made specially to him. It is this in particular
whicli secures the continuance among Abraham's descendants
of what was common to him with Melchizedek. The most
high God, etc., could only be permanently recognised where He
revealed Himself as Jehovah.
This narrative shows clearly the groundlessness of the re
proach of particularism so often made against the Old Testa
ment. Whenever the heathen world offered anything worthy
of recognition, it was lovingly and ungrudgingly recognised.
The reason why this recognition afterwards fell more into the
background is to be found in the fact that there was always less
and less to be recognised; that the heathen-world became darker
and darker. Thus the narrative alone suffices to refute those
who, like Ewald (p. 370 et seq.), would willingly turn the
monotheism of the patriarchs into a monolatry, and represent
them as worshippers of a single domestic God whom they kept
solely for themselves, and exalted above all those worshipped by
others. They maintain this only in order to escape the dis
agreeable necessity of having to accept a supernatural source of
the patriarchs' faith. That which these critics deny to Abra
ham was possessed even by Melchizedek; Abraham had in
common with him the very thing upon whose foundation the
higher and peculiar prerogative was raised up. There is not
even the semblance of a proof that the God of the patriarchs
was a mere house god, along with whom they allowed scope
for other deities. It appears from history, and indeed is self-
evident, that their neighbours could not at once raise themselves
to this height ; which proves all the more clearly how little the
faith of the patriarchs can itself be explained by purely natural
causes.
HISTORY OF ABRAHAM. 141
5. God's covenant with Abraham. — The essence of this nar
rative is God's condescending love to His chosen, by virtue of
which He not only vouchsafed to them the blessing of the
covenant, but also strengthened their weakness by a sign. We
may remark, a priori, that the whole substance of Gen. xv.,
although it is to be regarded as having actually occurred, is yet,
according to the express statement in verse 1, not an objective
but a subjective thing. Abraham is already, in Gen. xx. 7,
called prophet, K^i, as also all the patriarchs, in Ps. cv. 15.
The essence of prophecy is divine inspiration. X'3J means
properly the inspired. But according to Num. xii. 6 the two
forms in which God revealed Himself to the prophets were
visions and dreams. In this narrative we have the two com
bined. After the rest had passed before him in a vision, Abra
ham falls finally into a prophetic sleep. V. Hofmann has
indeed denied the inwardness of the occurrence (p. 98), with
the exception of the dream-revelation in chap. xv. 12-16.
But his assumption that the expression in a vision in verse 1
means nothing more than that this revelation is prophetic is
without foundation : ntnD and the designations corresponding
to it always refer in the first instance to the form not the
contents of divine revelations. The nature of that which is
related also speaks in favour of its inwardness. According
to verse 5, compared with verse 12, Abraham saw by day the
stars in heaven ; which was only possible in a vision. On the
assumption of outwardness, the contents of verse 12 are in
explicable. It is evident from the beginning of the narrative
that the renewal and ratification of the promise contained in it
were occasioned by a temptation to which Abraham's faith
threatened to succumb. This temptation did not perhaps con
sist in fear of Chedorlaomer's revenge, but in doubts whicli
were called forth in him by his childlessness, as we see clearly
from the narrative. He looked at natural causes, and feared
that nothing might come of all the salvation that had been
promised him. He felt himself lonely and forsaken. His faith
wavers because it finds so little support in the visible ; but it
proves itself to be faith by endeavouring to derive strength from
the word of God, and does actually find support. Abraham lays
before God what appears in his eyes to nullify all the promises
made to him; the fact that he has no son and heir, and in the
142 FIRST PERIOD.
ordinary course of nature has no longer any hope of getting
one. God promises him a son, and by him a numerous
posterity : at once he grasps the word with joy. Doubt dis
appears, since he knows that the counsel of God stands for
ever. The proper essence of faith is to trust in God's word
and power, and by this means to rise above all visible things.
" Abraham believed the Lord ; and He counted it to him for
righteousness." But Abraham is conscious of his human weak
ness. He begs God for a sign by which he may know that His
promise to him will be fulfilled. The highest step of faith is
indeed to believe simply in the word of the Lord without any
sign. But Abraham felt, as Gideon did later, Judg. vi. 37, and
Hezekiah, 2 Kings xx. 8, that he had not arrived at this stage;
that he needed an embodiment of the promise to overcome the
sensuous and visible which resisted it. God condescended to
give him such a sign, and showed how firm His promise was by
binding Himself to its fulfilment in the same way by which in
those days a mutual promise between men was solemnly sealed ;
although properly speaking this was not appropriate, which may
be said also of the oath to which God frequently condescends in
Scripture, though it is really adapted for man only. Sacrificial
animals were slain and divided, and the promising party passed
between them for a sign that his promise was sacred, made
under the divine sanction, and also as a proof of his readiness,
in case the covenant should be broken, to take upon himself
divine punishment, and to be cut in pieces like the slaughtered
animals. This solemn sanction of the promise — and that is the
point in question — was not intended merely for Abraham, but
also for his posterity. How could they doubt, without sacrilege,
that God, the foundation of the sacredness of every human
promise, should Himself keep the vow so solemnly made ? At
the same time the offence which later divine providence might
present to weak faith was avoided. Abraham's descendants
must leave the land of promise, must live for a long time in
hard servitude in Egypt ; all human hope of the fulfilment of
the promise of Canaan's possession must disappear. But while
God here predicts this guidance, He shows that the very thing
which appears to disturb the promise forms the beginning
of its realization. Birds of prey descend on the sacrificial
animals, upon which the number 3 is impressed — they must
HISTORY OF ABRAHAM. 143
all be three years old — as the signature of the divine, that
which is consecrated to God ; but Abraham, the representative
of the Abrahamic covenant, scares them away. The mean
ing of this symbol is, that human power will try to nullify
God's covenant, but will prove unsuccessful and then be
instructed by the word. For four hundred years the descen
dants of Abraham will serve in a strange land ; God will then
judge their oppressors, and they shall go forth with great posses
sions. At the same time an indication is given of the cause of
the long interval intervening between the promise and its fulfil
ment. The iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full, though
already far advanced. This must first be fulfilled and the
necessity arise for the manifestation of God's punitive justice,
that by this means the expression of His love to His people may
have free course. The fact that in this vision God appears to
Abraham in the form of fire points to the energetic character
of His essence. Wherever fire appears in relation to God, it
characterizes Him as personal energy. This divine energy first
becomes visible in His punitive justice, which from the connec
tion must be regarded as having been first directed against the
enemies of the chosen race, so that the appearance is sym
bolical, and means " those who curse thee, I will curse." But
at the same time an appeal is made to the elect themselves,
" Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." Yet
God reveals Himself as sacred fire in love as well as in righteous
ness ; in love which manifests itself to the individual believer
and to the whole church.
6. Abraham and Hagar. — God's covenant-truth soon found
an opportunity for manifestation. Abraham himself did what
he could to nullify the promise. This is the principal point
of view from which the narrative is to be looked at. It has
often been maintained that Abraham did not commit sin in
this matter. God did not tell him that he should beget the
promised son by Sarai. But if his eyes had been quite pure,
he would have known that it could not be otherwise. Sarai
was his lawful wife. The narrative itself points to this, for
Sarai is expressly and repeatedly called the wife of Abraham,
and in this designation we find the writer's judgment on Abra
ham's action. Polygamy was at variance with the divine insti
tution of marriage ; and though it might last for a period owing
144 FIRST PERIOD.
to the divine forbearance, yet it was never allowed as lawful.
How then could Abraham think that the birth of the son of
promise should be brought about by a violation of the divine
order ? But he did not make this reflection, because it appeared
quite too improbable to him and still more so to Sarai, that
the promise should find its longed-for fulfilment in the ordinary
way. He thought it necessary therefore to help God, instead
of waiting quietly till He should bring the matter to its con
clusion ; but the violation of divine order soon avenged itself,
as the author relates with visible purpose. The unnatural
relation in which the slave was placed to her mistress, by the
consent of the latter, prepared sore trouble for her.
The care manifested by the angel of the Lord for a run
away slave only appears in its right light if we regard it
as an emanation of God's love to Abram. The main object
of the narrative is to make this apparent, and so to attract
his posterity into love towards such a God. Any other
object is doubtful. Many say, we must look upon Hagar
as the ancestress of one of the most numerous peoples of the
whole earth. If Ishmael had been born and educated in
idolatrous Egypt, then the nation springing from him would
have been poisoned in its very origin. Growing up in the
house of Abram, he must at least have imbibed some good
qualities. And so it actually was. The pre-Mohammedan
religion of the Arabs is the purest of all heathen religions.
Even the Mohammedism founded on it contains a multi
tude of fragments and germs of truth which give it the pre
ference over all heathen religions. On the other hand, it
may be objected that the assumption of a continuance of the
original tradition among the posterity of Ishmael is untenable,
that Mohammedism is only superior to heathenism in one
respect, in every other it is decidedly worse. But it is enough
to note that Scripture does not give the slightest indication
of such a point of view. It is necessary to be on our guard
against the confidence with whicli so many in the present day
impose their own ideas on Scripture. What Scripture wishes
to tell us it does tell clearly and definitely.-
7. The promise of Isaac. — Abraham thought that by the birth
of Ishmael the divine promise would be fulfilled. This is evident
from chap. xvii. 18. It was indeed a mere supposition, and we
HISTORY OF ABRAHAM. 145
must not regard it as an absolute certainty. His posterity, he
thought, would participate in the promised divine blessings ;
and in mercy to his weakness God left him for a considerable
period in this delusion. It was not till thirteen years later,
a year before Isaac's birth, that he was undeceived ; when God
promised him another son, whom Sarai should bear, and who
should be the inheritor of the covenant and of the promises.
Abraham, already ninety-nine years of age, found it difficult to
reconcile himself to this new idea. For thirteen years he had
fancied himself in the region of the visible ; and all at once he
was transported back to the region of faith. God showed him
the earnestness of His purpose by altering his name and Sarah's
in reference to the renewal of the promise. The name in
ancient times was not so distinct from the thing as it is with us.
It was therefore much more moveable : a new position and a
new name were closely connected. These new names were a
constant reminder of the promises ; a God-given guarantee for
their fulfilment. Abram, the high father, the honoured head
of a race, receives the name Abraham, composed of 3X and Dm,
according to the Arabic, " a great multitude" = the Hebrew
Jinn. Sarai properly, principes mei, the plural instead of the
abstract " my kingdom," receives the name Sarah, princess ; as
Jerome has very correctly said, " princeps mea, unius tantum
domus materf amilias, postea dicta est absolute princeps." Both
names emanate from the narrow limits of an obscure tribe, and
pass over into the wide region of the world's history. They
characterize Abraham and Sarah as persons of universal signi
ficance. From Abraham through Isaac there sprang first of all
a single nation only ; and the " multitude of nations" in reference
to whicli Abram receives the new name of Abraham, father of a
great multitude, cannot apply to this people . alone ; the less so
since the question relates to a multitude of Goyim, which was
more especially a designation of those born heathen. But this
one nation was by adoption to be infinitely. extended; it was at
a future time to receive a multitude of .nations into its bosom.
To this the parallel fundamental promise in Gen. xii. 3 has
distinct reference, " In thee shall all families of the earth be
blessed." They are ingrafted into the stock of the chosen
race. It was only in this way that kings of people could pro
ceed from Sarah, as is predicted in chap. xvii. 16. In a natural
E
146 FIRST PERIOD.
way only the kings of one nation could proceed from her. It
was because all this was connected with the birth of Isaac.that
the preparation for it was so solemn. And now since the birth
of the heir of the promise, in whom as it were the covenant
nation should be born, was so near, on account of the close con
nection of sacrament and church, circumcision, the mark of
the covenant, was instituted, and is still retained in the Christian
church in baptism, which only differs from it in form. To
Abraham it was the pledge and seal of the covenant ; and was
designed constantly to give new light to his faith and hope, but
at the same time also to his zeal in the service of God. Further
details hereafter ; we note only this, that the extension of cir
cumcision to the servants was fraught with great significance.
It pointed to the fact that participation in salvation was not
confined to corporeal birth ; and was a prelude to the later recep
tion of the heathen into the kingdom of God. If reception into
the chosen race were a result of circumcision ; under altered
circumstances, it must also be a result of baptism.
8. Tlie appearance of the Lord at Mamre. — There can be no
doubt that the three men who turned in to Abraham were in
the writer's view the Angel of the Lord in company with two
inferior angels. Neither can it be disputed that from the
beginning Abraham regarded them as something more than mere
men. His very first speech is addressed to the Lord. But
from the first he was uncertain in what manner the Lord was
here present, whether personally, or only in the person of His
messengers and servants. A dim presentiment of something
superhuman and divine was awakened in his soul by the
majesty which beamed especially from the countenance of one of
his guests. To Him, therefore, he addressed his requests and
speeches. The presentiment which had been awakened by the
spirit of God became clear consciousness when the stranger
manifested a knowledge of his relations, which could not have
been gained by human means, and foretold things which no
man could foreknow; which was changed to certainty when the
Angel of the Lord revealed what He was, and predicted the
destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha which immediately took
place. It follows from this represesntation that Abraham's conduct
towards the strangers on their arrival, was something more than
HISTORY OF ABRAHAM. 147
ordinary hospitality. It was rather a proof of that fear of God
which has a mind exercised to discern the divine and can recog
nise it even through the thickest veil ; it was the lively expres
sion of joy which every pure and pious spirit feels when it sees
God, comes into close relation to Him and the divine. Abra
ham did not at first clearly recognise what degree of directness
belonged to this view of God ; and therefore his offering to his
high guests is not at variance with this opinion ; the fact that
they eat does not contradict the declaration respecting their
nature. Only the necessity to eat is opposed to this; the
power to eat is given at the same time with the human form,
and the fact that the possibility here became a reality had its
cause in the divine condescension to Abraham's childlike stand
point. What love presented, love accepted. The eating of
Christ after His resurrection is analogous, and the glorification
connected with it, Luke xxiv. and John xxi. The meaning of
this appearance of the Lord to Abraham is only rightly appre
hended when its immediate connection with the destruction of
Sodom and Gomorrha is kept in view. The mere repetition
of the promise which has just been renewed, cannot be
the sole aim. The judgment on Sodom and Gomorrha was
deeply significant for the future. It taught God's punitive
justice more clearly and impressively than could be done by
words, which cannot lay claim to significance unless they are
able to make good their reality as interpretations of the acts of
God ; then, indeed, they are of the greatest importance, since
human weakness finds it difficult rightly to interpret the text of
the works without such a commentary. In that awful picture of
the destruction, Israel saw in its own country the type of its
own fate, if by like apostasy it should call forth the retributive
justice .of God. And the event is continually represented by
the prophets in this light, not as a history long past, but as one
continually recurring under similar circumstances ; comp., for
example, Deut. xxix. 23, Amos iv. 11, Isa. i. 9, and many other
passages, even to the Apocalypse, where in chap. xi. 8, the de
generate church, given up to the judgment of the Lord, is
termed spiritual Sodom. But the event could only reach this
its lofty aim by the revelation of its significance to Abraham, and
through him to his posterity. Only in this way did it leave the
region of the accidental, of the purely natural. Only thus did
148 FIRST PERIOD.
it receive its reference to the divine essence, and become a
real prophecy. The intercession of Abraham called forth
by the communication, and the answers which God gave to it,
are detailed so amply, first of all to bring to light the justice of
God, a knowledge of which formed the necessary condition of
the moral influence of the past. God states expressly that neither
arbitrary caprice nor yet severity, but only the entire moral
depravity of the city shall provoke His arm to punish. But
at the same time Abraham's fruitless intercession for Israel con
tains the lesson, that the faith of another can never take away
the curse of one's own unbelief ; and that even the closest rela
tion between God and the patriarchs cannot protect from destruc
tion the posterity who are unlike them; comp. Jer. xv. 1, where
that which is here exemplified in deeds is thus expressed in words,
" Then said the Lord unto me, Though Moses and Samuel stood
before me, yet my mind could not be toward this people ; cast
them out of my sight, and let them go forth." The 'O iraTrjp
ijixoiv 'Afipadp, icm which the degenerate sons afterwards urged
in excuse for their false security (comp. John viii. 39), here
receives its right explanation. We find in the history of divine
revelations that great mercy is often accompanied by deep afflic
tion. It is enough to draw attention to the parallelism of the
o X070S : comp. the prophecy of Messiah
in Mie. v. 5, " And this shall be the peace," and the appella
tion "Prince of peace" in Isa. ix. 6. These last words of
Jacob could not fail to make a very deep impression. They
were the staff by which the nation was sustained in times of
heavy oppression and persecution. The people also retained
the remembrance of the prophecy made to Abraham of the
400 years ; and the consequence was, that its realization was
not expected before that time, so that the delay did not cause
them to relinquish their hope. How confidently Jacob and
Joseph looked for the land of promise, is shown by their re
spective injunctions respecting their bodies.
We shall here give a chronological survey of the history of
the patriarchs : —
From the time that Abraham left Haran till Jacob went
down into Egypt, 215 years elapsed.
JOSEPH. 201
The year of Abraham's call coincides with the year of the
world 2083, B.C. 1922.
The year of Jacob's going down into Egypt coincides with
the year of the world 2298, B.C. 1707.
Abraham was 75 years old when he was called ; from that
time till Isaac's birth, 25 years elapsed. Gen. xxi. 5.
Between the birth of Isaac and the birth of Esau and Jacob
there was an interval of 60 years ; for Isaac was 40 years
old when he took Rebekah ; and her childlessness con
tinued for a period of 20 years. Gen. xxv. 26.
From that time till the death of Abraham 15 years elapsed,
for Abraham died at the age of 175 years. Gen. xxv. 7.
Between Abraham's death and Isaac's death there was an
interval of 105 years ; for Isaac was 100 years younger
than Abraham, and died at the -age of 180 years. Gen.
xxxv. 28.
From that time till Jacob's going down into Egypt there
were 10 years. Jacob was 130 years of age. Gen. xlvii.
19.
Isaac was contemporary with Abraham for 75 years.
Jacob with Abraham, 15 years.
Jacob with Isaac, 120 years.
We get the sum-total of 215 years, if we reckon up the 25
years which intervened between Abraham's call and Isaac's
birth, the 60 years from Abraham's birth to the birth of his
two sons, and the 130 years of Jacob when he went to Egypt.
It is important also to fix the date of a few points in the life
of Jacob, with reference to which no direct chronological state
ments exist. First, his departure into Mesopotamia. This took
place when he was 77 years of age ; so that we cannot speak of
"the flying youth," an expression which we frequently hear in
sermons. Neither can he be called an old man ; for, owing
to the long duration of life at that time, Jacob was only in
the prime of manhood. Joseph was only 30 years old when
he was brought before Pharaoh. On Jacob's immigration to
Egypt the seven years of plenty were already passed, and two
years of the famine. Joseph was therefore at that time 39
years old, Jacob 130. Jacob must therefore have been 91 at
the birth of Joseph. Joseph was born in the 14th year of
202 FIRST PERIOD.
Jacob's sojourn in Haran ; comp. Gen. xxx. 24, 25. Thus we
get 77 years.
A second point is the event which befell Dinah, in Gen.
xxxiv. This belongs to about the 107th year of Jacob. It
cannot be placed later ; for it occurred previous to the selling
of Joseph, when, according to Gen. xxxvii. 2, he was seventeen
years of age. Jacob must therefore have been 108. Neither
can it be placed earlier ; for Dinah, who was born in the 91st
year of Jacob, about the same time as Joseph, was then a
grown-up maiden. Jacob remained six years in Mesopotamia
after the birth of Dinah ; and before the event of which we
speak he sojourned for a considerable time in two places in
Canaan, Succoth and Sichem. Gen. xxxiii.
§6.
REMARKS ON GOVERNMENT, MANNERS, AND CULTURE.
The power of an Arabian Emir differs only from that of
a king in one respect, viz. that he possesses no fixed terri
tory. For the rest, his sway is free and unlimited. It was the
same among the patriarchs. A single glance at the history
of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, suffices to show that they did
not live as subjects in Palestine. Abraham had 318 servants
born in the house, whom he exercised in arms ; or, more cor
rectly, he took only 318 with him to battle, leaving others
for the protection of his herds. He had also a probably far
greater number of other newly-gained servants. As an inde
pendent prince, he carries on war with five minor kings. He,
as well as his son, concludes treaties with kings in Palestine
as their equal. Jacob's sons destroy a whole city, without
any attempt being made on the part of the Canaanites to bring
them to judgment and punishment. The heads of the tribes
exercised judicial power to its full extent. Thus Judah pro
nounces judgment of death on his daughter-in-law Tamar; and
reverses it himself when he is convinced of her innocence. Gen.
xxxviii. The government of the Bedouin Arabs forms a good illus-
REMARKS ON GOVERNMENT, MANNERS, AND CULTURE. 203
tration of that in the time of the patriarchs. It is excellently
described in Arvieux' remarkable account of his travels, part
iii. ; and again in Burckhardt's English work on the Bedouins,
2 vols. ; by Michaud, and Poujoulat-Lamartine.
Respecting the rights of the patriarchs we have but little
information. It is certain they exercised many rights which
were afterwards sanctioned by Moses. The Levirate-law pre
vailed among them: according to this, if a man died with
out children, his unmarried brother was to marry the widow,
and the first son of this marriage belonged, not to the natural
father, but to the deceased brother, and received his inheri
tance. This law was carried out with such strictness, that
there were no means of eluding it, as appears from the story
told in Gen. xxxviii. of Judah and his daughter-in-law
Tamar. The root of this right or custom, which the patriarchs
doubtless brought with them from earlier relations, lies in the
want of a clear insight into the future life. An eager longing
for perpetuity is implanted in man ; and so long as this desire
does not receive the true satisfaction which the mere doctrine
of immortality is totally unable to afford, he seeks to satisfy it
by all kinds of substitutes. One of these substitutes was the
Levirate. It was regarded as a duty of love towards the de
ceased brother to use every possible means to preserve his name
and memory. We see how deeply rooted the custom was already
in the pre-Mosaic time, from the circumstance that Moses was
obliged to make an exception in its favour among those laws
on marriage within near relationship to which the custom ran
counter, — an exception, indeed, which has reference only to
one case belonging to the extreme limit. Only in such a
case was an exception possible. In most, prevailing customs
had to be reformed by violent measures. He took care, how
ever, by the arrangement recorded in Deut. xxv., that the
custom should no longer exist as an inviolable law, establishing
a form under which a dispensation from it could be obtained.
Polygamy certainly appears in Genesis ; but only among the
godless race, except in cases where there was some special
motive: the patriarchs followed it only when they believed
themselves necessitated to do so by circumstances, and the
result showed that they were wrong. We are scarcely justified
in saying that polygamy was not sin at that time, because there
204 FIRST PERIOD.
was no special command against it. If this were so, it would
not be sin now. Such a command does not exist in all Scrip
ture. But it is given in marriage itself: hence polygamy is
always sin, more or less to be charged only according to
the various degrees of development. That the essence of
marriage was understood in its deep meaning even at that
time, is seen by the examples of Isaac and Rebekah; and
even apart from these, it must necessarily follow from the reli
gious standpoint of the patriarchs. Heavenly, stands in the
closest connection with earthly, marriage ; and upon this con
nection is based the prevailing scriptural representation of the
former under the image of the latter. Only sons partici
pated in the inheritance; daughters were entirely excluded
from it. Laban's daughters knew that they had no part in
their father's house. It seems to have been left to the father's
option whether he would give the inheritance altogether to
the sons of the true wife, or allow the sons of the maids to
have a share in it. There was yet no settled custom in this
respect. Abraham constituted Isaac his sole heir, and gave
but presents to the sons of his maids. Jacob's inheritance, on
the other hand, was shared by the sons of his maids as well as
by the rest. But we must remember that in this case the sons
of the maids had been adopted by the wives of the first rank.
The mode of life followed by the patriarchs was very simple.
The wives lived in a separate tent, but quite near that of
the men. The tent of the chief ruler stood, as it does now
among the Arabs, in the centre of the great circle formed by
the tents of his subjects. The nature of their tents is not
accurately described, but we may assume that the description
given of the tents of the Arabs by a recent writer will apply to
it : " The commonest and all but universal tents of the Arabs
are either round, supported by a long pole in the middle,
or extended lengthways, like the tents of galleys. They are
covered with thick woven cloth made of black goats' hair.
The tents of the Emirs are of the same material, and are
distinguished from those of the others only by size and
height. They are strong and thick, stretched out in such a
way that the most continuous and heavy rain cannot pene
trate them. The princes have many tents for their wives,
children, and domestic servants, as well as for kitchens, store-
REMARKS ON GOVERNMENT, MANNERS, AND CULTURE. 205
rooms, and stables. The form of the camp is always round ;
between the tent of the prince and the tents of his subjects
a distance is left of thirty feet. They encamp on hills, and
prefer those places where there are no trees which might in
tercept their view of comers and goers at a distance. (In this
respect the peaceful patriarchs differed from these waylayers.
Abraham dwelt under the oak of Mamre at Hebron, according
to Gen. xviii., and planted a grove of tamarisks at Beersheba,
according to Gen. xxi. 33.) They choose places where there
are springs, and in whose neighbourhood are valleys and
meadows for the maintenance of their cattle. The want
of this often obliged them to change their camp, sometimes
every fourteen days or every month." See Arvieux, p. 214,
etc. Although this mode of life is very troublesome, shep
herd-nations manifest a strong attachment towards it. The
Arab Bedouins despise all dwellers in towns, and are no
longer willing to acknowledge as brethren those of their num
ber who settle there. But the natural restlessness of man
has a great deal to do with this prejudice. " It leads him to
roam through field and forest." He who has an inward incli
nation to rest, seeks as far as possible to bring rest and stability
into his outward life also. Even now an excessive love of
wandering is the sign of a heart without peace. " Qui multum
peregrinantur," says Thomas a. Kempis, "raro sanctificantur."
Among the patriarchs it is quite evident that nomadic life was
only the result of circumstances, the natural consequence
of their residence in a land in which property was in the
hands of the former inhabitants. When it was at all possible,
the nomadic mode of life was forsaken. Abraham does not
wander in the district surrounding Egypt, but repairs at once
to the court of the king. Afterwards he settles down in
Hebron; comp. chap, xxiii. Isaac sojourns in the principal
town of the Philistines, and occupies there a house opposite to
the king's palace, chap. xxvi. 8. There he sows a field, ver. 12.
Jacob builds a house for himself after his return from Mesopo
tamia, chap, xxxiii. 17. Thus we already perceive a tendency
to change the mode of life. A partial change did afterwards
take place in Egypt ; and in Canaan the former mode of life
was entirely abandoned.
The cattle-wealth of the patriarchs consisted in sheep, goats,
206 FIRST PERIOD.
cows, asses, and camels ; they had no horses. The breeding
of horses was very ancient in Egypt, but was not practised
in Canaan till late. In the time of Joshua and the Judges
the horse was not used at all ; it did not become general until
the period of the Kings. Everything else which the patriarchs
wanted, they either got in exchange for their cattle, or bought
for the silver obtained by the sale of cattle. Silver money
was in use even at that time. Abraham bought a sepulchre
for four hundred shekels; and Abimelech made Sarah a
present of one thousand shekels. At that time, however,
silver was not coined, but weighed out. Thus, in Gen. xxiii.
16, Abraham weighs the purchase money when he buys a
field. Even in Egypt, according to all accounts, there was no
coined metal in use among the old Pharaohs ; although it was
common among the Greeks, Romans, and other nations of anti
quity. According to old monuments, the Egyptians, in trading,
made use of metal in the form of a ring. This was weighed in
the act of contract itself ; and therefore its value was decided
according to weight ; Rosellini, ii. 3, p. 187 et seq. Kesitah,
mentioned in Gen. xxxiii. 19, was probably a similar substi
tute for a coin. It occurs afterwards in the book of Job,
where it is borrowed from Genesis. Besides these, only silver
was used for money : its name points to this purpose — H®-}, de
rived from ^03 ; like mammon, which means confidence. Gold,
though frequently mentioned, was used only for ornament.
They had ample opportunities for the sale of their produce and
the supply of their wants: since the Phoenicians, the oldest
commercial people, lived in the neighbourhood ; and the cara
vans, which took wares from Arabia to Egypt, went through
Palestine, according to Gen. xxxvii. 25-28 : comp. the confir
mations afforded by the monuments in Egypt respecting the
opening of trade between Arabia and Egypt, in Wilkinson,
part i. p. 45 et seq. They exchanged or bought slaves, wheat,
wine, gold, silver, woven goods, and pieces of cloth. We find
many things among them which show that it was not in vain that
they lived in the neighbourhood of cultivated nations. They
did not hesitate to avail themselves of all the advantages and
pleasures of culture : for we find no traces of nomadic bar
barism among them — in mind and manners they seem rather to
have occupied the standpoint of civilisation. The women wear
OF THE RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE OF THE PATRIARCHS. 207
costly veils and rings of gold. Esau has fragrant garments,
such as are still worn by the inhabitants of Southern Asia.
Joseph has a coat of many colours, while Judah wears on his
breast a seal attached to a cord, etc.
§7.
OF THE RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE OF THE PATRIARCHS.
On this subject there is, of course, little to be said. The
life of the patriarchs in God was one of great directness : their
faith was childlike. It is vain, therefore, to try to examine
it in its separate doctrinal loci; just as useless as it would be
to strive to point out in the germ the stem, branches, twigs,
leaves, and blossoms ; although they are actually present there.
Only a few single points demand consideration. It is a very
remarkable thing, that even in Genesis we find the distinction
between a revealed and a hidden God which penetrates all the
remaining writings of the Old Testament ; and this is the case
not only when the narrator speaks, but also when he introduces
the patriarchs as speaking: so that the doctrine must be re
garded as a constituent part of the patriarchal religion. We re
fer to the distinction between Jehovah and His Angel, mrT> ~\$bft ;
or DTi^sn ~[tihft, where the reference of the hidden God to the
world, which is the medium of communication with Him, is of a
more universal nature, or the author wishes to describe it only
in general terms. This Angel of Jehovah is very often placed
on a level with the supreme God, called Elohim and Jehovah,
and designated as the originator of divine works. In illustra
tion of this, we shall only mention the narrative in Gen. xvi.,
the first place where the Angel of the Lord appears. In ver. 7
it is said that the Angel of the Lord found Hagar ; in ver. 10
this Angel attributes to himself a divine work, viz. the count
less multiplying of Hagar's descendants; in ver. 11 he says,
Jehovah has heard the affliction of Hagar, and therefore pre
dicates of Jehovah what he had formerly predicated of himself ;
in ver. 13, Hagar expresses her surprise that she has seen God
and still remains alive. Again, in chap. xxxi. 11, the Angel of
208 FIRST PERIOD.
God appears to Jacob in a dream. In ver. 13 he calls him
self the God of Bethel, to whom Jacob made a vow, referring
to the circumstance related in chap, xxviii. 11-22, where in a
nightly vision Jacob sees a ladder, at the top of which stands
Jehovah. The Angel of God is thus identified with Jehovah.
We find the Angel of the Lord so represented throughout,
in Genesis as well as in the other books of the Old Testament.
Many ways have been taken to explain this apparent identifica
tion of the Angel of the Lord with the Lord Himself, and at
the same time to preserve the distinction between them. (1.) It
is very generally maintained that the Angel of the Lord is one
of the lower angels, to whom divine names, deeds, and predi
cates are attributed only because he speaks and acts by God's
commission, and in His name. The principal defenders of this
opinion are: Origen, Jerome, and Augustine among the church-
fathers; among Jewish expositors, Abenezra; numerous Roman
Catholic, Socinian, and Arminian scholars, especially Grotius,
Clericus, and Calmet ; among recent commentators, Gesenius,
v. Hofmann (Weiss, and Schriftbeweis), who differs from the
rest only in assuming that it has always been one and the same
spirit who is the medium of communication between God and
the chosen race ; Baumgarten, Delitzsch, Steudel in his Old
Testament theology, and others. But there are weighty argu
ments which prove that the Angel of God was not an ordinary-
angel, but one exalted above all created angels. Thus, for
example, the angels who accompany the Angel who repre
sents Jehovah, Gen. xviii., are throughout subordinate to him.
And in chap, xxviii. 11-22 the Angel of God is also clearly
distinguished from the lower angels. Jehovah, or as he is
called in chap. xxxi. 11, the Angel of God, stands at the top
of the ladder ; angels ascend and descend on it. In Ex. xxiii.
21 this Angel is characterized as having the name of God
in him, i.e. as partaking of the divine essence and glory. In
Josh. v. he first calls himself the prince of angels, and attri
butes to himself divine honour. In Isa. lxiii. 9 he is called the
Angel of the presence of the Lord, equivalent to the Angel who
represents God in person. To follow v. Hofmann in giving
such prominence to a created angel, is quite at variance with
the position which the Old Testament throughout assigns to
angels, and would have led to polytheism. In this case we
OF THE RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE OF THE PATRIARCHS. 209
should have to give up the Old Testament foundation so
necessary for the prologue of John's Gospel, and should lose
the key to the explanation of the fact that Christ and Satan
are at variance in the New Testament, just as the Angel of
the Lord and Satan are opposed in the Old Testament : in the
New Testament the Angel disappears almost without a trace.
He is mentioned only in Apoc. xii. under the name of
Michael. This is inconceivable if he were distinct from Christ,.
the guardian of the church ; for the Old Testament has much
to say of the Angel of the Lord. But the principal argument
is the following: " The Angel of the Lord constantly and with
out exception speaks and acts as if he were himself the creator
and ruler of all things, and the covenant God of Israel; he
never legitimizes his appearance and activity by appealing to
a divine commission; we find him continually deciding the
destinies of nations and individuals by his own might, appro
priating divine power, honour, and dignity, and accepting
sacrifice and worship, without a protest, as something due to
him." The assumption of a temporary interchange of the
person of Jehovah is refuted by this exceptionless regularity.
(2.) Others — as, for example, Rosenmiiller, Sack, De Wette —
try to make the Angel of Jehovah identical with Him, as the
mere form in which He appears ; " a passing transformation of
God into the visible," as Oehler expresses it, Proleg. p. 67. This
hypothesis, however, is contradicted by those passages where
the Angel of the Lord is expressly distinguished from the Lord
Himself. Thus, for example, in Ex. xxiii. 21, where Jehovah
promises the Israelites that He will send before them the Angel
in whom is His name; and in Josh. v. 13, etc., where the Angel
calls himself the captain of the host of Jehovah, and is thus
relatively subordinate to Him. The view is also at variance
with Gen. xlviii. 16, where Jacob says, "The Angel which
redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads," where the Angel is
spoken of as a permanent personality, and without any refer
ence to a single appearance. Jacob traces all his preservation,
and all the blessings he has received during his whole life,
to this Angel; and claims his. help for his grandchildren and
their descendants. (3.) The only view remaining is this, that
the doctrine of the Angel of the Lord contains the main
features of a distinction between the concealed and the revealed
o
210 ' FIRST PERIOD.
God or the revealer of God. We find this in perfect develop
ment in the New Testament, which makes known to us not
only the concealed, but also the revealed God, who is united
with Him by unity of essence, viz. the Son or Xo'709, who was
the medium of communication between God and the world
even before He became incarnate in Christ, and to whom in
particular belonged the whole administration of the affairs of
the kingdom of God, the entire guidance of Israel and their
ancestors. This view is the only possible one besides the other
two which we have already shown to be untenable ; and more
over, it has in its favour, that in all passages where the Angel
of the Lord is spoken of, the unanimous tradition of the Jews
makes him the one mediator between God and the world,
the originator of all revelation, to whom they give the name
Metatron. It may be regarded as that which generally pre
vails in the Christian church. All the church-fathers, with the
exception of those already named, were in favour of it ; and
it has been defended by almost all theologians of the two
evangelical churches. Here arises the question, How does
the doctrine of the Messenger of God related to Elohim and
Jehovah, already belong to the patriarchal consciousness?
At the first glance it seems as if God were related to His
Messenger as Elohim to Jehovah. But on nearer considera
tion the difference becomes apparent. The distinction between
Jehovah and Elohim has reference not to being, but to know
ing : Elohim is the concealed Jehovah, Jehovah the revealed
Elohim ; whence it is evident that the use of Elohim prepon
derates only in Genesis, at the time of the gradual transition to
a developed consciousness of God ; and, on the other hand, falls
completely into the background in the later books of the
Pentateuch. The difference between Jehovah and Elohim has
its basis solely and entirely in the distinction between the
developed and the undeveloped God-consciousness. It con
tains no intimation of the doctrine of a diversity of persons in
one divine substance. Elohim and Jehovah both refer to the
whole divine essence. On the contrary, the doctrine of the
iW ^D or n\"taw has reference to inner relations of the God
head. It is the first step towards the distinction of a plurality
of persons in the orie divine nature ; against which we cannot
urge similarity of name to the created servants of God. For
OF THE RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE OF THE PATRIARCHS. 211
this common name has reference not to essence, but only to
office. While the difference between Elohim and Jehovah
gradually disappears, Elohim becoming more and more Jehovah,
the difference between God and his Angel is by degrees more
and more sharply defined, till at last it is definitely shown to
be that of Father and Son. In this way it loses its fluctuating
character, that of a mere difference of relations, which it always
more or less maintained under the Old Testament, because the
main thing there was to uphold the doctrine of the unity of
God in opposition to polytheism, and because it was impossible
to apprehend more deeply the relation existing between Father
and Son till the incarnation of Christ. The existence of the
revelation-trinity forms the necessary foundation for rightly
understanding the trinity of essence. There is only one more
fact to which we shall draw attention, viz. that in the book
of Daniel, and in Apoc. xii., the Angel of the Lord appears
under the name of Michael. This name — who is like God,
whose glory is represented in me — is an exact designation of
the essence ; a limitation of his sphere against that of all other
angels. It rests upon Ex. xv. 11, " Who is like unto Thee, O
Lord, among the gods ?" and on Ps. Ixxxix. 7, 8. It denotes
the ehai lo~a @e& which is predicated of Christ in John v. 18,
Phil. ii. 6. We shall now proceed to point out the causes
which led to erroneous views respecting the-Angel of the Lord.
Among Catholic theologians, it was interest for the worship of
Angels ; among Socinians and Arminians, it was a disinclina
tion to the ecclesiastical doctrine of the Trinity ; among many
recent writers, it is due to an exaggerated aversion to the old
•identification of Old and New Testament doctrine.
How far the patriarchs associated this doctrine of the revealer
of God with their Messianic views, cannot be accurately deter
mined. The immediate was so predominant among them, that
they must undoubtedly have guessed far more than they clearly
understood. But before we can come to any decision respecting
this combination, we must first give a sketch of the peerings into
the future granted to the patriarchs.
The first human pair, after their fall, received an indefinite
promise of future restoration, of conquest over sin, and deliver
ance from the evil connected with it. How the burden of sin
and evil impelled the better among the first men to cling to
212 FIRST PERIOD.
this promise, inscribing it on their hearts in ineffaceable cha
racters, and how their longing was constantly directed to its
fulfilment, is shown by the saying of Noah's parents on his
birth, Gen. v. 29. They hoped that the son who was given to
them should be the instrument by which God would realize- His
promise of the blessing which was to follow the curse, if not in
its full comprehension, yet in its beginning. And they were
not deceived in this hope. In the grace which God showed to
Noah and his race the promise certainly did not fail, but re
ceived a beginning of its fulfilment, which was at the same time
a pledge and prediction of a far more glorious accomplishment.
An indication of this was contained in the prophetic announce
ment of Noah, Gen. ix. 26, 27. God promises to enter into a
close union with the race of Shem ; and the descendants of the
other son, Japhet, are also at some future, time to participate
in the fulness of this blessing. This was the extent of the
glimpse into the future at the time when Abraham appeared.
An entirely new basis was now given to the hope, even apart
from the verbal renewal and more exact determination of the
promise. In the leadings of the patriarchs, the living God
manifested Himself in a way never anticipated before. The
heavens which had been closed since the fall re-opened, and
the angels of God again ascended and descended. What God
promises for the future, gains significance only in proportion as
He makes Himself known in the present. Promises heaped
upon promises float in the air, and do not come nigh the heart.
What God promised to the patriarchs, received its significance
by that which God granted them.
These promises are closely connected with those which pre
ceded them. The revelation of a closer union of God with
the race of Shem is more nearly defined by the promise that
among this race the posterity of Abraham should come, into
closer communion with God through Isaac, and the posterity of
Isaac again through Jacob. God promises to give them the
land of Canaan for a possession, to come forth more and more
from His concealment, and to assume a more definite form.
The promise that Japhet should dwell in the tents of Shem is
also renewed. What God pledges Himself to do for a single
people, has final reference to the whole human race. Through
the posterity of the patriarchs all nations of the earth are to
OF THE RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE OF THE PATRIARCHS. 213
be blessed; through them the curse is to be removed which has
rested upon the whole earth since the fall of the first man.
In this particular the renewal is also a continuation. In chap.
ix., participation in the blessing is promised only to Shem and
Japhet ; in this connection, no prospect of a joyful future is
opened out to Ham. In the promise to the patriarchs, on
the contrary, the blessing is always extended to all nations of
the earth. With reference to the manner of the blessing, a
new disclosure was given in the blessing of the dying Jacob.
From Judah's stem a great dispenser of blessings is to go forth ;
and on Him, as the King of the whole earth, the nations will
depend. As Gen. iii. is the first Gospel in a wide sense ; so
Gen. xlix. is the first Gospel in a narrower sense : Shiloh is the
first name of the Redeemer.
Let us now return to the question, In what relation do the
expectations of the patriarchs respecting the future stand to
their knowledge of the X070? ? All the graces bestowed on
them by God they recognised as coming through the Angel
of the Lord. It was he who entered Abraham's tent ; who
allowed himself to be overcome by Jacob, by means of the
power he himself had given him ; whom Jacob, when near
death, extolled as his deliverer from all need ; and to whose
guardianship, as the redeemer from all evil, he commended
the sons of Joseph, Gen. xlviii. 14-16. Since, therefore,
the Angel of the Lord is expressly named in a series
of announcements to the patriarchs ; since Jacob, in another
place, derives all the assurances which he has experienced
from this Angel ; since Hosea, in chap. xii. 5, represents
Jacob as wrestling with the Angel, while in Genesis we are
told of his encounter with Elohim ; and since in Gen. xxxi. 11
the Angel of God arrogates to himself that which in chap.
xxviii. is attributed to Jehovah, — we are fully justified in assum
ing that all revelations of God to the patriarchs were given
through the medium of the Angel of the Lord ; that wherever
manifestations of Jehovah are spoken of, they must always be
regarded as having taken place " in His Angel ; " that Jehovah
does not form the antithesis to the Angel of Jehovah, but is
only the general designation of the divine essence, which is
brought near by the Angel. If the Lord generally converses
with His own through the medium of His Angel, He must do
214 FIRST PERIOD.
so always. For the reason why He does so generally can only
lie in the fact that His nature requires this mediation; and if
the Angel of the Lord had done such infinitely glorious things
for believers in the present, why should they not also expect
him to be the mediator of all future graces ? To determine
whether this mediation would concentrate itself in a personal
appearance of the Angel of Jehovah, whether he would be
bodily represented in the Prince of Peace from Judah's stem,
lay beyond the sphere of their lower knowledge. But in the
meantime it formed a basis for that higher illumination which
was vouchsafed to them in moments when they were filled
with the Spirit of God. If the Angel of the Lord appeared to
Abraham for an inferior aim, what might they not expect when
the highest of all aims would be realized, and the whole earth
freed from its curse ? We do not find the clear and sharply-
defined knowledge of the mediation of the Messianic salvation
through the Angel of the Lord until very late, in the post-exile
prophets Zechariah and Malachi. Those passages, properly
classic, are Zech. xi. and xiii. 7, and Mai. iii. 1.
What has been said respecting the doctrine of the Messiah,
holds good also of the doctrine of immortality and retribu
tion, among the patriarchs. In their direct consciousness, the
belief in immortality was given as certainly as they themselves
had passed from death to life. Only he who has experienced
this change has the certainty of a blessed immortality; and
where this is the case, it exists without exception. All God's
dealings with the patriarchs were calculated to strengthen
direct trust. In Matt. xxii. 23 et seq., the Saviour shows, in
opposition to the Sadducees, how all the Lord's dealings with
them were a prophecy of their resurrection. If man be only
dust and ashes, how should God deign thus to accept him for
His own ? What lies at the basis of Abraham's readiness to
offer up his son, is the confidence that God was able even to
raise him up from the dead (Heb. xi. 19), founded on a real, not
a lifeless, knowledge of His unbounded omnipotence, which,
when connected with a true perception of the divine love, must
necessarily beget the hope of resurrection. In general, the
patriarchs held aloof from all subtle inquiries on a subject
respecting which God had not given them more definite dis
closures. Their aim was to surrender themselves, body and
OF THE RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE OF THE PATRIARCHS. 215
soul, unconditionally to God, and quietly to await His will
respecting them. Some have sought to find a definite expres
sion of hope in the words of the dying Jacob, Gen. xlix. 18 :
" I have waited for Thy salvation, O Lord." But the context
shows that this has reference rather to that salvation which
God had promised to Jacob for his race, the salvation to which
the whole blessing has reference. But it is significant that
the account of Enoch's translation, in consequence of his walk
with God, must have come to Moses through the medium of
the patriarchs. This circumstance showed them that there was
an everlasting blessed life for the pious ; and that the more
closely they felt themselves united to God, the more able they
would be to appropriate the actual promise thus given to them.
These remarks have reference to the doctrine of eternal life ;
belief in mere immortality was common even to the lower
knowledge of the patriarchs ; as is shown by a whole host of
passages, which we take for granted are well known. The
idea of annihilation and the cessation of all individual life, is
quite foreign to the Old Testament. The foreground, the
sojourn in Sheol — derived from hn&, to ask, the ever-desiring,
drawing all life to itself — is very clearly recognised even in
the time of the patriarchs. But a veil rested on that which
lies beyond Sheol. It was not yet clearly understood that
Sheol was only an intermediate state. But the more the
patriarchs had decidedly the disadvantage of us with regard
to a clear knowledge of the future life — for in this respect
they lacked all revelation of God — the more ought we to
be edified by their living faith, which was ready for every
sacrifice ; the more deeply must they put us to shame, since
we possess the solution of so many of the problems of this
earthly life, of so many difficulties which interfere with a clear
insight into the future life; to whom so glorious a prize is clearly
presented ; to whom " I am thine exceeding great reward "
means far more than it could have meant to Abraham ; to whom,
therefore, it must be infinitely easier to rise above the sorrows of
the present. It was not until long after the time of the patri
archs that the doctrine of eternal life was laid down as one
of the fundamental dogmas of revelation, for reasons which
we shall afterwards develop.
Faith is expressly designated in Gen. xv. 6 as the subjective
216 FIRST PERIOD.
ground of the righteousness of the patriarchs before God, the
soul of their religion : " And Abraham believed God, and God
counted it to him for righteousness." This faith, as an abso
lute trust in God's word and power, notwithstanding all protests
raised against it by the visible, is in essence perfectly identical
with the faith of the New Testament, which accepts the word
of reconciliation and the merit of Christ. The difference con
sists not in the position of the mind, but only in the object, in
the meaning which God here and there gives to the word faith,
in the expression of His power, which must be apprehended by-
faith. The motto of the patriarchs, like that of the New
Testament believers, was : " Although the fainting heart deny,
yet on Thy word I must rely." Whoever, like Abraham, in
firm confidence in the word and power of God, notwithstanding
his dead body and Sarah's, expects the promised son, is ready
to offer up this son as a sacrifice, against the assurance of the
flesh that no life can follow death, and considers the pro
mised land his own although it is occupied by numerous and
mighty nations ; who ever, like Jacob, rises above his sins, and
in strong faith exclaims, " Though our sins be many," etc., is in
such a position that the word of reconciliation has only to be
offered, in order to be accepted by him.
§8.
OP THE EXTERNAL WORSHIP OF GOD AMONG THE
PATRIARCHS.
The fragmentary character of the worship of the patriarchal
age corresponds to the fragmentary character of its religious
knowledge. To the outward signs of the worship of God
belonged (1) Circumcision, of whose antiquity, origin, aim, and
signification we shall speak at greater length after having first
quoted the words of the divine institution from Gen. xvii. 10
et seq. :. " This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between
me and you, and thy seed after thee ; Every man-child among
you shall be circumcised. And he that is eight days old shall
EXTERNAL WORSHIP OF GOD AMONG THE PATRIARCHS. 217
be circumcised among you, every man-child in your genera
tions ; he that is born in the house, or bought with money of
any stranger, which is not of thy seed. And my covenant shall
be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant ; but the uncir
cumcised man-child shall be cut off from his people : he hath
broken my covenant."
And here we must first answer a question which in olden
times was the cause of violent disputes ; the question " whether
circumcision was given to Abraham by God as an entirely new
custom ; or whether it already existed among other nations,
and passed over from them to the Israelites ?" The arguments
for and against may be found collected in Spencer, de legibus
Hebraeorum ritualibus, i. 1, c. 4, sec. 2, p. 58 sqq. ed. Lips.
1705. What Michaelis says on the subject, Mos. Recht, Th.
iv. § 185, is borrowed from him. See also Meiner's Comm.
Gotting. vol. xiv. ; Bahr on Herodotus, ii. 37 and 104 ; Clericus,
ad h. I.
There are only two nations from whom circumcision could
have come to the Jews — the Egyptians and the Ethiopians — or,
more correctly, but one ; for in a religious point of view these
two are almost equivalent to one nation, and the Israelites were
in communication only with the Egyptians. Let us first col
lect the passages which attribute a higher antiquity to circum
cision among the Egyptians than among the Hebrews. The
oldest statement to this effect is to be found in Herodotus.
He says, i. ii. c. 104 : " It is of still greater significance (viz.
for the proof of the Egyptian origin of the Colchians), that
only the Colchians, Egyptians, and Ethiopians practised cir
cumcision from the most remote times. For the Phcenicians
and Syrians in Palestine (this was the name given by Hero
dotus and other Greeks to the Israelites, who were in reality
Ibrim, Aramaeans who had wandered into Palestine) them
selves confess that they learnt this custom from the Egyptians.
But the Syrians dwelling on the rivers Thermodon and Par-
thenius, and their neighbours the Macrones, say that they had
only recently adopted the custom from the Colchians. These
are the only nations who practise circumcision ; and all appear
to have done it in imitation of the Egyptians. Respecting
the Egyptians and Ethiopians themselves, however, I cannot
say which of the two nations learnt circumcision from the
218 FIRST PERIOD.
other; for the custom is very ancient. But I am strongly
convinced that other nations learnt it from the Egyptians, from
the circumstance that those Phoenicians who have intercourse
with the Greeks no longer imitate the Egyptians in this
matter, but have given up circumcision."
Diodorus Siculus says, i. 1, c. 28 : " Even the Colchians in
Pontus, and the Jews between Arabia and Syria, regard some
colonies as Egyptian, because their inhabitants circumcise
their boys soon after birth, — an old custom which they seem
to have brought with them from Egypt." In chap. 55 he
says of the Colchians : " As a proof of their Egyptian origin,
it has been adduced that they have circumcision like the,
Egyptians, — a custom which has been retained in the colonies,
and which also still exists among the Jews."
The third Greek author is Strabo, who says of the Egyp
tians, i. 17, p. 1140, that they practise circumcision like the
Jews, who, however, are originally Egyptians.
These writers are therefore of the opinion that the Israelites
got circumcision from the Egyptians. But it would betray
an entire want of historical criticism to prefer the accounts
of foreign writers, of whom the oldest is a thousand years
younger than Moses, who did not even know the language of
the people of whom they speak, to the account of Moses, who
does not derive circumcision from the Egyptians, but represents
it as a divine appointment. We see how little their accounts
are to be relied on, from the mistakes they make elsewhere.
Herodotus, who never visited Judea, but only heard of the
Jews through the Phcenicians (comp. Bahr on Herod, ii. 104),
is mistaken in maintaining that the Jews themselves acknow-
ledged they had received 6ircumcision from the Egyptians.
His assumption that the Phcenicians got circumcision from the
Egyptians is also false ; for the Phoenicians or Canaanites were
not circumcised at all, as Herodotus afterwards himself con
fesses. Diodorus and Strabo show their ignorance by asserting
that the Jews are descended from the Egyptians. But the
value or worthlessness of the whole theory is best ascertained
by investigating its source. It undoubtedly owes its origin
to Egyptian national vanity. This is shown by the great
mass of analogous inventions which appear in those accounts of
Greek authors which are taken from Egyptian tradition. To
EXTERNAL WORSHIP OF GOD AMONG THE PATRIARCHS. 219
represent themselves as the original people, older than all
others, from whom all other nations borrowed manners, inven
tions, and civilisation, was the most zealous endeavour of the
Egyptians ; more especially from the time when Egypt, sub
jugated by the Persians, had lost its whole political importance.
Vanity now sought to find in the past that satisfaction which
the present could no longer afford. It is almost incredible to
what distortions of history it gave rise in the time that lay
next to Greek history. Many examples of this have been
given by Miiller, Orchomenos, p. 1170 ; also in The Books of
Moses and Egypt, f. 217 sqq., and by Creuzer in his treatise,
jEgyptii in Israelii, malevoli ac maledici, in the Comm. Herod.
§ 21 ; by Welker in Jahn's Year-Book, ix. 3, p. 276 sqq., who
recognises nothing more in the Egyptian story of Helena in
Herodotus, than a transformation of matter originally Greek
in the interest of national vanity. Greek credulity, and the
childish wonder of the Egyptians, were calculated to provoke
the Egyptian spirit of lying to such fabrications. More
over, ' the three accounts may probably be reduced to one.
It appears that Herodotus alone draws independently from
Egyptian accounts ; and that Diodorus and Strabo only copied
him, as they frequently did. It cannot therefore be maintained
with any appearance of probability, as Bertheau and Lengerke
have done, that the Israelites adopted circumcision from the
Egyptians. This is the more evident, when we see how little
reliance can be placed on the other proofs which have been
cited in favour of the great antiquity of circumcision among
the Egyptians. Special reference is made to Josh. v. 9, where,
after the .completion of the circumcision which had been
neglected in the wilderness, it is said that God had freed
the Israelites from the reproach of Egypt. The reproach of
Egypt, it is maintained, was the neglect of circumcision, with
which the Egyptians had reproached the Israelites. But ac
cording to the correct explanation, the reproach of Egypt is
the .scorn which the Israelites suffered from the Egyptians, as
well as the heathen generally, because they had been rejected
by their God. The real explanation of this rejection was the
neglect of circumcision, — a thing which had been commanded
by God. When Israel had again been circumcised by God's
command, the reproach of Egypt was taken away. For cir-
220 FIRST PERIOD,
cumcision was a real assurance from God that Israel was again
the covenant people. The following passages serve to illustrate
this : Ex. xxxii. 12, " Wherefore should the Egyptians speak,
and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in
the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the
earth?" Num. xiv. 13 sqq.; Deut. ix. 28. Jer. ix. 25, 26,
has also been appealed to. But this passage rather furnishes
a proof that, even in the comparatively late time of Jere
miah, circumcision was not universal among the Egyptians.
It is there said, according to De Wette's translation : " Behold,
there come days, says Jehovah, when I shall punish all the
circumcised with the uncircumcised, Egypt and Judah, and
Edom and the sons of Ammon, etc. For all the heathen are
uncircumcised ; but the whole house of Israel is uncircumcised
in heart." This passage is intended to deprive the godless
covenant people of that false security which was based on out
ward circumcision. Therefore they are to be placed in the
midst of the uncircumcised. The uncircumcised in heart are
to be punished no less than the uncircumcised in flesh, the
heathen. By way of example, the Egyptians are also men
tioned among the latter; and it is added, that all the heathen
are outwardly uncircumcised ; only the Israelites are outwardly
circumcised. Comp. especially Venema, and more recently
Graf, on this passage. The Egyptians are also placed among
the uncircumcised in several passages in Ezekiel ; for example,
chap. xxxi. 18, xxxii. 19. To this is added that, according to
other accounts, even to most recent times, circumcision among
the Egyptians was peculiar to the priests. The whole nation
was never circumcised. Compare the proofs in Jablonsky,
Prol. p. 14 ; Wesseling on Herodotus, ii. 37. It is also stated
that, in the appointment of circumcision, it is spoken of as a
familiar thing. But we must not forget that Moses pre
served only what was important for his time. The mode and
way of circumcision were known at that time. Why then
should he detail all the commands given respectinc it on its
first appointment? But we have an important proof of the
great antiquity of circumcision among the Israelites, in the
circumstance that, according to Josh. v. 2, it was done with
stone knives. At the time of the first introduction of circum
cision, knives of a kind which had long gone out of use in
EXTERNAL WORSHIP OF GOD AMONG THE PATRIARCHS. 221
Joshua's time must still have been employed. That which was
sacred from its antiquity was retained only for a religious pur
pose ; just as at a later period stone knives were used among
the Egyptians for embalming. Yet in maintaining that cir
cumcision originated among the race of Abraham, we do not
necessarily imply that, wherever else it is found, it must have
been borrowed from them. This was certainly the case with
reference to the present Ethiopians, among whom circumcision
prevails. Comp. Ludolph, Hist. JEthiop. iii. 1. Among this
people it was a consequence of the great influence which,
according to reliable accounts, Judaism exercised on them in
the centuries antecedent to the introduction of Christianity.
Among them Judaism stands parallel to the rest of the
Jewish Sabbath solemnities. It is equally certain that all
Mohammedan nations derived circumcision from the Israelites.
With respect to the Egyptians and the ancient Ethiopians the
matter is more doubtful : borrowing is even improbable in
this case. The same may be said of the non-Mohammedan
nations in Western and Southern Africa, who despise all that
are not circumcised ; comp. Oldend. part i. p. 297 sqq. They
may readily be regarded as having been subject to Moham
medan influence, which indeed seems probable.
Neither can we allow that which has been asserted by many,
viz. that circumcision among the Israelites is quite distinct
from that among other nations, — because among the former it
bad a religious significance, among the latter only a physical
aim, — and that there is therefore as little connection between
them as between the habit of washing oneself and baptism. It
is very questionable whether circumcision on physical grounds
existed among any nation. The contrary is unquestionable
with respect to the Egyptians at least. Under certain circum
stances they did indeed appeal to the medicinal uses of circum
cision ; on which comp. Niebuhr's Description of Arabia, pp.
76-80. But this was only the ostensible reason, given to those
who were incapable of understanding the higher. Philo even
seeks to defend circumcision from physical arguments with
regard to such persons. In the work de Circumcisione (t. ii.
p. 211, ed. Mangey) he appeals to a double use of circumci
sion ; that it prevents a most painful and troublesome disease
which is very frequent, especially in hot countries, and also
222 FIRST PERIOD.
that it promotes greater cleanliness of the body. That cir
cumcision among the Egyptians had a religious aim, that it
had a symbolical meaning, appears from the simple fact that
only the priests were obliged to be circumcised ; among whom
it was so sacred a duty, that without it nobody could be
initiated into the mysteries : comp. Jablonsky, p. 14. A
further argument is, that the whole Egyptian ceremonial has
religious significance : all interpretations which represent it
as having a physical and dietetic object are proved to have
been introduced at a later time, the invention of an age in
which the religious element had lost its importance, and men
had become incapable of understanding the power it had
exercised in antiquity. But it is quite unnecessary to invent
distinctions ; the one which really exists is great enough. Cir
cumcision among the Israelites is related to circumcision among
other nations, not as ordinary washing perhaps, but as the
religious washings of the Indians and all other nations are
related to baptism. Even if all the nations of antiquity had
been circumcised, and if in the case of one of them the pre-
Abrahamic introduction of circumcision could be proved, that
would not affect the matter. " Verbum," says Augustine,
" cum accedit elementum, fit sacramentum." The word is the
great thing, the living spirit ; the external is only an addition.
It is matter of perfect indifference whether the dead mate
rial, the corpse of the sacrament, is to be found anywhere else.
The animating thought in Israelitish circumcision is specifically
Israelitish. This leads naturally to the inquiry respecting the aim and
meaning of circumcision. Circumcision was the sign and seal
of the covenant. A covenant presupposes reciprocity. Hence
the sign in which the covenant is embodied must contain a
double element : it must be at once an embodied promise and
an embodied engagement; the respective extent of each can
only be ascertained by a discussion on the meaning of the
symbolical rite.
Philo, de Circumcisione, calls circumcision avpfioXov fjlov&v
e/cTO/Mj?, ao KarayorjTevovai Biavoiav. In another place he says,
to TrepirifiveaOai rjSovwv ical iraQcdv TrdvTcov eKTOfirjv Kal Sofi??
dvaipeo-iv doeftovs ift^alvet. But we have other more impor
tant interpretations of the meaning of circumcision, — inter-
&
EXTERNAL WORSHIP OF GOD AMONG THE PATRIARCHS. 223
pretations which are quite ignored by those who in recent
times have set up a theory which at a glance is manifestly
absurd, viz. that circumcision is a modification of that voluptuous
service in which priests unmanned themselves (von Bohlen,
Tuch, Baur, Lengerke). With equal right, it might be main
tained that baptism is a modification of the Indian custom of
drowning in the Nile. For there is nothing in favour of
the view but a similarity altogether external. The differ
ence in essence is utterly ignored. If this be considered, it
will be found that there never was any transition from self-
emasculation to circumcision. The circumcision of the heart
is by the lawgiver himself said to be symbolized by outward
circumstances, Lev. xxvi. 41, and especially Deut. x. 16, xxx. 6.
To these are added the prophets ; Jer. iv. 4, and chap. ix. 25,
26, where he says, " All the heathen are uncircumcised, and
all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart." Ezekiel
goes a step further. In chap. xliv. 9, 10, he characterizes the
godless priests and Levites as uncircumcised, not merely in
heart, but also in flesh ; because, according to the expression of
the apostle, their Trepvropjq is become aKpo^varla, the sign
having reality only in the presence of the res dignata.
It is therefore placed beyond all doubt that outward cir
cumcision symbolized purity of heart. But, at the same time,
attention is drawn to the true nature of that which is opposed
to purity of heart, which ought to be removed by spiritual
circumcision, and to the main thing to be considered in the
reaction against sin; the reaction which proceeds from God,
and the reaction which proceeds from man. Human corruption
has its seat, not so much in the abuse of free will by indivi
duals, in the power of example, etc. ; but it is propagated by
generation, brought into the world by birth. Circumcision
presupposes the doctrine of original sin. It is a virtual ac
knowledgment, " I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my
mother conceive me," Ps. li. 5 ; and a confession to the truth
expressed in Job xiv. 4, "Who can bring a clean thing out
of an unclean ? Not one." To every man circumcision was
a testimony to this effect : ev dfidprlac^ ai) eyevvrj9in<; o\o<;,
John ix. 34. From this remark alone does it appear why this
very sign should have been chosen for a designation of the
thing. Circumcision generally points to sin universally; the
224 FIRST PERIOD.
manner of circumcision points to the nature of sin, and desig
nates it as having taken possession of man. But it is evident
from the passages already quoted, that original sin has its
proper seat not in the body, but in the heart : it is clear that
what happens to the body only prefigures what ought to happen
to the heart; which cuts away the root from the physical
theory of v. Hofmann (p. 100). The manner of circum
cision points not to the seat but to the origin of sin.
It now becomes easy to define more exactly the twofold
element embodied in circumcision, viz. that of the promise and
that of the engagement. It is the more easy, because the law
giver himself clearly gives prominence to both ; the former in
Deut. xxx. 6, " And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine
heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with
all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live ;"
the latter in the exhortation based on the promise, chap. x. 16.
1. So far as circumcision was an embodied promise, it
formed the comforting assurance that God would freely bestow
that which it symbolized on the whole nation, and on those
individuals who had participated in the rite by His command.
Whoever bore the mark of circumcision might have perfect
confidence that God would not leave him without the help
of His grace, but would give him power to circumcise his
heart, and to eradicate the sin he had inherited. In so far as
the means by which sin could be met in an internal effectual
way did not exist in full power under the Old Testament,
circumcision pointed beyond the old dispensation to the new,
under which the most efficacious principle for the extermina
tion of sin was to be given in the 7rvevp,a Xpicrrov. Cir
cumcision was an indirect Messianic prophecy. In the main,
therefore, it guaranteed the fundamental benefit of the king
dom of God — renovation of the heart, regeneration. But cir
cumcision was at the same time a pledge of participation in all
the outward blessings of God. Both are closely connected.
"Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness,
and all these things shall be added unto you," is perfectly
applicable here. In the kingdom of God there were no outward
blessings. The blessing was in every case only the reflection
of faithfulness towards God. But it was also its necessary
attendant. Hence that which was a pledge of the help of
EXTERNAL WORSHIP OF GOD AMONG THE PATRIARCHS. 225
divine grace in the alteration of the heart, must also necessarily
be a pledge of the communication of external divine favours.
Whoever therefore received circumcision, was adopted by this
means into the sphere of divine privileges in every respect.
2. So far as circumcision was an embodied engagement, it
contained the voluntary declaration that a man would circum
cise his heart ; that, rooting out all sinful desires, he would love
God with his whole heart, and obey Him alone.
From this second meaning of circumcision, it follows, as
St. Paul says, that circumcision is of use if a man keep the
law ; if not, that circumcision becomes uncircumcision. And
as those who do not fulfil the conditions of the covenant have
no part in its verbal promises, so also are they excluded from
participation in the embodied promise which, in another aspect,
is an embodied engagement. The necessary consequence of
this, St. Paul says, Gal. v. 3, is that every one who is cir
cumcised is a debtor to do the whole law. The circumcision
given to Israel was a solemn declaration that a man would
circumcise his heart, and that, denying his own inclinations,
he would serve God alone. Whoever made this declaration
in the form prescribed under the Old Testament dispensation,
thus declared himself a member of that covenant, and ready to
seek after righteousness in the Old Testament form : the trans
gression of the least of the Old Testament commandments
then became a violation of his engagement. Circumcision is
related to the mere promise of purity of heart, as the Mosaic
law to the divine law generally. Both meanings of circum
cision lie close to one another, and are not unconnected ; or
rather, the second follows from the first. Just as every gift of
God at the same time imposes an obligation, so the necessary
sequence of "I will purify thee," is, "I will purify myself."
Whoever has declared the contrary to " I will purify myself,"
is either outwardly deprived of circumcision, as in the march
through the wilderness, or at least it ceases to be circumcision
for him.
All the foregoing representation explains the reason why,
on the appointment of circumcision, the neglect of it was desig
nated as so great a crime, that whoever was guilty of it was
expelled eo ipso from the community of God, as one who
had made His covenant of none effect. Circumcision was the
226 FIRST PERIOD.
embodied covenant. Whoever despised the former,, made a
virtual declaration that he would have no part in the promises
of the latter ; would not fulfil its conditions — viz. that he had
no desire that God should purify his heart, and would not himr
self strive after purity.
We have still to speak of the relation of circumcision to the
passover. But it will be better to do so after we have ex
plained the nature of the passover.
A second outward sign of the worship of God consisted in
sacrifice. The presentation of sacrffices was not yet confined
to any one place. According to the accounts of the ancients,
Egypt was the land where temples were first erected to the
gods (Herod, ii. 4; Lucian, de Dea Syra, ii. p. 657 opp.), and
that very probably as early as the time of the patriarchs. For
we find even in Joseph's time a developed priestly condition in
Egypt. The patriarchs built an altar to Jehovah in every
place where they resided for any length of time, in groves
or on mountains ; of stones, or of green turf, under the open
heavens. Under certain circumstances, they even split the
wood themselves for the burning of the sacrifice, slaughtered
it with a sacrificial knife, and then burnt it whole. In sacrifice
they used the same animals which Moses afterwards com
manded, viz. sheep, rams, and cows, but not goats, which in
the Mosaic time were appointed as sin-offerings — a thing which
does not yet appear in the patriarchal time. This similarity of
sacrificial animals is due to the fact that the Mosaic commands
in this respect rest not so much on caprice as upon a certain
natural fitness, or a perception of their symbolical character,
which must have been prevalent before the legal determination.
The sacrifice of the pig or the dog is inconceivable, except
among nations in whom the sense of natural symbolism is
wholly corrupted. To offer up other than domestic animals
did not belong to the idea of sacrifice. Sacrifice has throughout
a vicarious signification. In sacrifice a man offers up himself;
and therefore, according to the expression of De Maistre, the
most human sacrifices must be chosen, viz. those animals which
stand in the closest relation to man. Prayer was constantly
combined with sacrifice, and is often mentioned by itself in the
history of the patriarchs ; for example, in Gen. xxiv. 63, xx. 7,
xxxii. 9. Wherever the erection of an altar is mentioned,
EXTERNAL WORSHIP OF GOD AMONG THE PATRIARCHS. 227
reference is also made to invocation of God. Quite naturally,
for sacrifice is only an embodied expression of prayer. Prayer
is its embodiment. We learn the closeness of the connection
between sacrifice and prayer from passages like Hos. xiv. 2 :
" Receive us graciously ; so will we render the calves of our
lips." Thanksgiving here appears as the soul of thankoffering.
The embodiment of prayer in sacrifice was in harmony with
the symbolic spirit of antiquity, with the necessity of beholding
outwardly that which moves the heart inwardly, — a want which
dwells so deeply in man in times of the predominance of sen
suous views and imagination. But we must not dwell upon
this. Along with the impulse towards outward representa
tion, another tendency is operative in sacrifice, viz. to attest
the truth and reality of internal feeling, and so to avoid the
possibility of self-deception. It is essential to sacrifice, that
man offer up a part of his possessions. In every great section
of their hves, after .every great divine preservation and bless
ing, the patriarchs instituted a peculiarly solemn public act of
worship : for example, Abraham, after his arrival in Canaan,
and the first manifestations of God given to him there, and
again after his return from Egypt, etc. The njiT' DBO JOj?,
which is generally used in Genesis in speaking of such a
solemn act of worship — for example, in chap. xii. 8 — means
to call on the name of the Lord, not to preach of the name of
the Lord, as Luther has translated it. The name of the Lord
is mentioned, because all invocation of God has reference, not
to the mere summum numen, but to the God who has revealed
Himself in His works. The name of God is everywhere in
Scripture the product and combination of His deeds. But
Luther's translation is not incorrect in essence. Abraham's
public solemn invocation of God, and his thanksgiving for
those actions which had made him famous, were at the same
time a preaching of the name of the Lord.
It is not purely accidental that in the patriarchal time there
' existed no special priestly condition — just as little accidental as
the appointment of such a condition in the Mosaic time. It
stands in the closest connection with the simplicity and form
lessness of the patriarchal religion. In ancient times there
were warm disputes as to who possessed the right of offering
sacrifices under the patriarchal constitution. Hebrew scholars
228 FIRST PERIOD.
unanimously conceded this right to the first-born, as Onkelos
had previously done in Gen. xlix. 3 ; Luther founded a proof
for the priesthood of the first-born on an incorrect transla
tion of the same passage ; and many theologians followed their
footsteps. Spencer has combated this opinion with the greatest
thoroughness : de legibus Hebr. ritualibus, i. c. 6, sec. 2,
p. 208 sqq. Yet it may be maintained with a certain modi
fication, namely, just as in every family the father exercised
supreme authority, so he also possessed the right to sacri
fice, as appears from the examples of Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob. And if the father of the family died, the first-born
became head, and received also the right to sacrifice. But
just as the power of the first-born over the younger brethren
lasted only so long as they remained in the same family,
so the right to sacrifice passed over to them as soon as they
themselves founded a family. The first-born had therefore
the right to sacrifice, not as such, but as the . head of a
family. It may therefore be said that the right to sacrifice
was associated with the right to command. Whoever had a
right to command those beneath him, had also the right and the
obligation to supplicate the power which was superior to him.
He was the natural representative before God of those over
whom he had charge, and so far he was the priest appointed
by God Himself. But this right, pertaining to the head of the
house, to present sacrifices and prayers for his family and for
himself, was distinct from the public priesthood which Mel
chizedek exercised, and concerning which we have said all that
is necessary in the history of Melchizedek. The origin of
sacrifice has been much disputed. One party maintained that
it was originally a divine institution, while others advocated a
natural origin. Of the former view there is not the least trace
to be found in Genesis. It probably originated in incapacity
to transport oneself to old times. Otherwise it must have been
seen that sacrifice and prayer stood on the same level. Sacri
fice, on the subjective side, which is the only aspect apparent in
Genesis (the objection first appears in the Mosaic economy),, is
an embodiment of prayer ; and in the tendency of the old world
to symbolism, having its basis on the prevalence of intuition,
this embodiment must necessarily take form of itself, as it did
among different nations independently. Here the divine ele-
EXTERNAL WORSHIP OF GOD AMONG THE PATRIARCHS. 229
ment is prayer. This is a living testimony of the union of God
with the human race, perpetuated even after the fall. But we
must not regard prayer as an outward demonstration. It is a
natural and necessary efflux of religious consciousness. Reli
gious consciousness, however, only exists where God reveals
Himself to the heart.
From this relation of sacrifice to religious consciousness, it
appears that the offering of sacrifice is not in itself the sign
of a lower religious standpoint. It only becomes such when
religious consciousness and prayer, the soul of sacrifice, have
become impure and degenerate. Here also the original seat of
sin is not in the body. Sacrifices outwardly alike are separated
as widely as possible by the different intention with which they
are offered. Yet the danger of the opus operatum lies close at
hand, as in all embodiments of religious feelings. Abraham is
already directed to this by the command to offer up his son.
By such means he is distinctly told that God does not desire
cows and sheep, but in cows and sheep demands the heart.
Every sacrifice of an animal must also be a human sacrifice.
The patriarchs had a lesson concerning the nature of sacrifice
in the history of Abel and Cain, which has passed on to us
by their means. According to Gen. iv. 2, 3, notwithstand
ing the outward similarity of the sacrifices of Cain and Abel,
their acceptance with God is different ; and this difference is
traced back to the difference of personalities. Hence it becomes
evident to all who have any desire to see the truth, that sacrifice
has significance only as a reflection of inner states. Whoever
therefore presents an offering as a mere opus operatum, takes
the rejected Cain for his father; for Cain's sacrifice typifies the
sacrifices of the heathen generally ; while the offering of Abel
forms the type of the offering of the faithful of the Old Testa
ment. Heathen sacrifices are a subterfuge, a substitute for the
heart which the offerer has neither power nor wish to bring.
On the other hand, in the biblical sphere, the sacrifice of
animals bears a patent character: in the form of an animal, man
himself is offered up. Three kinds of sacrifice are prescribed
by the law: sin-offering; burnt or whole offering, which ex
presses the consecration of the whole person to God in all the
particulars of existence; and schelamim, atonement-offering,
which in thanksgiving and prayer had salvation for their
230 FIRST PERIOD.
object. Of these three the patriarchal age knows only two,
viz. burnt-offering and atonement-offering. We have already
pointed out the reason of this. It lies in the childlike charac
ter of the patriarchal time. Consciousness of sin was not yet
developed. Sin-offerings were still included in burnt-offerings.
Even in the Mosaic time the latter retained a reference to the
consciousness of guilt; for if, in presenting them, the whole man
consecrated himself to God, sin could not be left quite out of
consideration. In them a man besought forgiveness for his
sins as the principal hindrance to consecration, and his request
was granted ; all burnt-offerings served at the same time as an
atonement for souls. But the consciousness of sin had now
become so powerful, that it required a peculiar representation
besides. 3. The celebration of the Sabbath is generally reckoned as
part of the outward worship of God. Michaelis, after the
example of other theologians, has strenuously endeavoured to
prove that it was observed in the patriarchal age : Mos. Recht, iv.
§ 195 ; also Liebetrut, The Day of the Lord; and Oschwald in
his prize-essay on the celebration of the Sabbath. But there
is not a single tenable argument to be adduced in favour of the
pre-Mosaic existence of the Sabbath. That it was instituted
immediately after the creation cannot be maintained, for
nothing is then said of a command. It is true that God
hallows the seventh day and blesses it; but the realization of
this would presuppose circumstances which were present only
in the Mosaic economy. The Sabbath could not have been
destined to come into operation except in connection with a
whole divine institution. It is false to assert that the division
into weeks, which we find in the very earliest times, can be
explained only by the existence of the Sabbath. The week is
a subdivision of the month into quarters of the moon ; comp.
Ideler, Chronologic, Th. i. 60. It is equally vain to appeal to
the hallowing of the seventh day among the most diverse peoples
of the earth. On nearer examination of the proofs brought
forward for the celebration of the Sabbath, it is evident that
the seventh day was kept by no other nation besides the
Israelites. The command, "Remember the Sabbath-day, to
keep it holy," would only prove that the Sabbath was at that
time already known among Israel, if it were not followed by
EXTERNAL WORSHIP OF GOD AMONG THE PATRIARCHS. 231
an accurate statement respecting what was to be understood by
the Sabbath. On the other hand, we must remember that in
the whole pre-Mosaic history no trace at all is to be found of
the celebration of the Sabbath; that, according to Ex. xvi.
22-30, God hallows the Sabbath as a completely new institu
tion, by the cessation of the manna on that day, before the
command to keep it holy had been given to the Israelites ; and
that the Sabbath is everywhere represented as a special privilege
bestowed by God upon Israel, as a sign of the covenant and a
pledge of their election : comp. Ex. xxxi. 13-17 ; Ezek. xx. 12 ;
Neh. ix. 14.
4. The offering of tithes belonged to the external worship
of God. That these, if not prevailing before the Mosaic time,
did at least exist, is evident not merely from the circumstance
that Jacob made a vow to give them to God, Gen. xxviii. 22 ;
but also because Moses, in his regulations respecting the second
tithes, speaks of them as already customary before his time.
No properly comprehensive law respecting these tithes is to
be found in the Pentateuch. In Deut. xii. they are mentioned
only with reference to the place where they are to be consumed ;
and in chap. xiv. 22 only a secondary precept is given respect
ing them. Clearly, therefore, they were not established by
Moses, but only recognised. A man did not give them to
another, but consumed them himself at sacrificial meals, to
which he invited widows, orphans, strangers, the poor, and his
own servants, and thus gave them a joyous day. It was
thought that God could be best honoured by bestowing benefits
on His creatures ; the sacrificial meals were at the same time
love-feasts: comp. Michaelis, Mos. Recht, iv. § 192. What had
originally been a voluntary act of love to individuals, had by
degrees become an established custom. In this matter the
example of the ancestor doubtless exercised great influence.
We find a pre-indication of the later Levitical tithes in those
given by Abraham to Melchizedek.
5. The anointing and consecration of stones are regarded
by many as having been an outward religious custom. But the
circumstance that Jacob consecrated a stone does not justify
the assumption that this was a usual form of worship. Rather
does the narrative itself show that it here treats of something
exceptional. The stone is consecrated by Jacob not as such,
232 FIRST PERIOD.
but as representative of an altar to be erected there at a future
time, so that the latter was consecrated in the former.
6. Purifications belong to the number of religious usages
(purifications before the offering of sacrifice ; connected with
the putting on of clean garments, which in Gen. xxxv. 2 is said
to have been done by Jacob and his whole family before going
to Bethel). At the basis of this rite of purification lies the
feeling that he who wishes to approach God must do so with
the deepest reverence. "Be ye holy, for I am holy," enters
•most powerfully into the consciousness in approaching the Holy
One ; comp. Isa. vi. If this reverence is exemplified even in
outward things, how much more ought it to be evident in the
direction of the heart ! The delusion that it is enough to be
externally reverent is far removed from the religious stand
point of the patriarchs; but this standpoint necessarily demands
that the internal be expressed through the medium of the
external. 7. Imposition of hands, first mentioned in Gen. xlviii. 13,
14, was another external religious custom, symbolizing the
granting of divine grace. The hand serves as it were for a
ladder. The practice presupposes that the laying on of hands
stands in close relation to God, and may therefore be the
medium of His grace. Traces of such a inediation also occur
apart from its embodiment in this custom. Abimelech is told
in a dream: " Abraham is a prophet; let him pray for thee, and
thou shalt live," Gen. xx. Again, in Abraham's intercession
for Sodom and Gomorrha, and the sparing of Lot for his sake ;
and in the blessing which Melchizedek pronounces on Abra
ham, by virtue of his office as priest of the most high God.
This custom was afterwards very general among the Israelites.
The laying on of hands was practised not only in investing
with an office (comp. Num. xxvii. 18, Deut. xxxiv. 9, and other
passages), but children were also brought to those who had the
character of peculiar holiness and sanctity before God, that
they might be blessed by the laying on of hands ; comp. Matt.
xix. 13. The hand was laid on also in imparting the Holy
Ghost, and in healing. "The meaning of the rite," Kurtz
strikingly remarks, " is quite obvious in all these cases. Its
object is, the communication of something which the one has,
and the other lacks or is to receive. The object of the com-
EXTERNAL WORSHIP OF GOD AMONG THE PATRIARCHS. 233
munication is determined by the individual case, blessing,
health, the Holy Spirit. The hand of the one is really or
symbolically the medium of the communication, the head of the
other is the receptive part."
We find burial ceremonies observed in the history of the
patriarchs only in the case of Jacob and Joseph, and that
after the Egyptian fashion. Their corpses were embalmed by
Egyptians ; an Egyptian custom which is copiously described
by Herodotus, 1. ii. c. 85 sqq., and by Diodorus Siculus, i. 1, p.
81 sqq. On Jacob's death a public mourning was held in
Egypt, and the most distinguished Egyptians accompanied his
body in solemn procession to Canaan.
SECOND PERIOD.
THE PERIOD OP THE LAW, FROM MOSES TO
THE BIRTH OP CHRIST.
FIEST SECTION.
MOSES.
The only source is the Pentateuch, for we have already shown that all
else which has been represented as such is undeserving of the name.
§ 1.
INTRODUCTION.
OSES interrupts his narrative where the divine
revelations ceased for a time. Of the condition of
the nation, which was now for a time left to its own
development, he relates only so much as is neces
sary for the understanding of what follows, and takes up
the narrative again where the divine revelations begin anew.
We shall here give a brief summary of the accounts which we
possess of the condition of the Israelites in Egypt before the
time of Moses.
1. In reference to their External and Civil Relations.
Respecting the dwelling-place of the Israelities, comp. The
Books of Moses and Egypt, p. 40 et seq.
After the death of Israel and Joseph the descendants of
Abraham rapidly grew to be a numerous nation. Their increase,
comparatively so great, is in Ex. i. 12 represented as the result
of special divine blessing, which does not, however, preclude
the possibility of this gracious power of God having worked
through the natural means present in Egypt. In the most
fruitful of all countries, it was quite easy for each one to pro-
234
INTRODUCTION. 235
cure the necessary means of substance for himself and his
family. According to Diod. Sic. i. 80, the maintenance of a child
cost only twenty drachmae = thirteen shillings. Early marriages
were therefore customary. Add to this the unusually rapid
increase of population in Egypt. Aristotle, in his Hist. Anim.
vii. 4, 5, relates that the women in Egypt not only brought
forth twins at one birth, but not seldom three and four, some
times even five. Indeed, he tells of one woman who in four
births brought twenty children into the world. Pliny, in his
Hist. Nat. vii. 3, gives still more exaggerated accounts. But
this exaggeration must have a basis of truth, as our knowledge
of modern Egypt attests : comp. Jomard, in the Description, ix.
130 et seq. In the objections which have been raised against
the acceptance of so rapid an increase of the Israelites, it has
been too much overlooked that the increase of nations is widely
different, and depends altogether upon circumstances. Thus,
for example, in South Africa ten children may be reckoned to
every marriage among the colonists : Lichtenstein, Travels in S.
Africa, i. p. 180. The increase of population is also very rapid
in North America. Then, again, many proceed on the un
founded assumption that the residence of the Israelites in
Egypt lasted only 215 years instead of 430; and finally, it
has been left out of consideration that to the seventy souls of
Jacob's family we must add the number of servants, by no
means inconsiderable, who by circumcision were received into
the chosen race, in order a priori to preclude the thought that
participation in salvation was necessarily, associated with carnal
birth. With respect to the constitution of the Israelites during their
residence in Egypt, they were divided into tribes and families.
Every tribe had its prince — a regulation which dates beyond the
Mosaic time ; for we nowhere read that it was made by Moses,
and indeed it is at variance with his whole administration :
comp. Num. ii. 29. The heads of the greater families or tribes,
the ninssPD or lYDK *o (the former is the proper termin. tech.;
on the other hand, the latter appears also of the individual
family, and of the whole race : comp. Ex. xii. 3 ; Num. iii. 15,
20), were called heads of the houses of the fathers, or simply
heads. ^ They appear also under the name of elders, or DMpT,
which is not a designation of age, but of dignity: comp. Ex. iv.
236 SECOND PERIOD— FIRST SECTION.
29, according to which Moses and Aaron begin their work by
collecting the elders of the people. Kurtz (Gesch. des A. T. ii.
§ 8) is quite wrong in maintaining that the elders of the tribes
and the heads of the families were distinct. In Deut. xxix. 10,
to which he appeals, " your captains of your tribes, your elders,
and your officers," the magistracy and the people are first of
all contrasted ; then the two classes of magistrates, the natural
rulers or elders, and the scribes, a sort of mixture of the patri
archal constitution, — jurists, who in Egypt, where the condition
of the people had assumed a more complex character, had come,
to be associated with the natural rulers. We find the same con
stitution among the Edomites, the Ishmaelites, and the present
Bedouins, among the ancient Germans, and the Scotch: comp.
Michaelis, Mos. R. i. § 46. These rulers were also the natural
judges of the people. Yet in the times of the Egyptian oppres
sion only a shadow remained of their judicial power. We have
already pointed out the error of the common assumption that
the Israelites continued a nomadic life in Egypt (comp. the
copious refutation in the Beitr. ii. S. 431 et seq.). The founda
tion of the settled life was laid in the very first settlement.
It was in the best and most fruitful part of the land that the
Israelites received their residence, at least in part : Gen. xlvii.
11, 27. The land of Goshen, the eastern portion of Lower
Egypt, forms the transition from the garden-land of the Nile
to the pasturage of the desert. It is inconceivable that they
should not have taken advantage of the excellent opportunity
for agriculture which presented itself ; and to participation
in Egyptian agriculture was added participation in Egyptian
civilisation. " It is expressly stated in Deut. xi. 10, that a great
number of the Israelites devoted themselves to agriculture
in Egypt, dwelling on the fruitful banks of the Nile and its
tributaries. We learn from Num. xi. 5, xx. 5, how com
pletely they shared the advantages which the Nile afforded to
Egypt. To this may be added passages such as Ex. iii. 20-22,
xi. 1-3, according to which the Israelites dwelt in houses, and
in some cases had rich Egyptians in hire : again, the circum
stance that Moses founds the state on agriculture, without giving
any intimation that the nation had first to pass over to this new
mode of life ; the skill of the Israelites, as it appears especially
in the accounts of the tabernacle ; the wide spread of the art of
INTRODUCTION. 237
writino1 among the Israelites in the time of Moses, which we
gather from the scattered statements of the Pentateuch, while
in the patriarchal time there was no thought of such a thing,
etc. On the other hand, the assumption of a continued
nomadic life appears on nearer proof to be mere baseless pre
judice. If this assumption were correct, the divine intention
in the transplanting of the Israelites to Egypt would be very
much obscured, so that the establishment of the right view has
at the same time a theological interest.
For a long period Israel remained unmolested by the
Egyptians. This is implied in the statement that the oppres
sion originated with a king who knew not Joseph, and there
fore ensued at a time when the remembrance of him and his
beneficent acts had already passed away. Then, again, in the
statement of the motives of the Egyptians, which had their
root in the circumstance that Israel had already become a great
and powerful nation. Without doubt, the oppression began
in the century previous to the appearing of Moses. Attempts
have been made to explain that which is related of the oppres
sion of the Israelites by the king who knew not Joseph, from
a statement of Manetho, who states in Josephus, c. Apion,
i. 14—16, that under the reign of King Timaeus, a strange
people, named Hyksos, invaded Egypt from the eastern region,
practised great cruelties and destruction there, subjected a great
portion of the country, and made Salatis, one of their own
people, king. After they had retained possession of the land
for 511 years, they were finally conquered by the inhabitants.
Despairing of their complete extinction, the conqueror con
cluded an agreement with them, and gave free exit. Hence
240,000 of them left Egypt, with their families and their pos
sessions, repairing through the wilderness to Syria, and in the
country which is now called Judea founded a town large
enough to contain so great a number of men. This they
called Jerusalem. Many scholars have therefore concluded that
this is the dynasty which knew not the merits of Joseph, and
oppressed the Israelites. They imagined that this happened in
order to prevent the union of the Israelites with the inhabitants
of the land, who only awaited an opportunity to throw off the
yoke which was a burden to them. Thus recently Saalschiitz,
Forschungen auf dem Gebiete der hebr. dgypt. Archaologie,
238 SECOND PERIOD — FIRST SECTION.
Konigsberg 1851 ; iii. die Moneth. Hyksos, § 41 ff. Others—
lastly Kurtz, Gesch. des A. B. ii. S. 197 — assert that these
shepherd-kings were already in possession of the land when
Joseph and his family immigrated. Afterwards the old
Pharaoh-race again came to the throne, and, not without
reason, suspicious of all shepherd-nations, caused the Israelites
to feel their suspicion and severity. But against this are the
facts, that already in Joseph's time the Egyptians ate with no
foreigner, Gen. xliii. 32 ; that shepherds were an abomination
to the ruling race ; that Joseph was obliged to free himself
from the ignominy of his origin by marriage with the daughter
of a high priest; and that the king bore the unmistakeably
Egyptian title of Pharaoh. All this shows that the immigra
tion of the Israelites took place under a national Egyptian
dynasty. Other hypotheses still more intricate we pass by.
There is no necessity for them. On impartial consideration,
it soon appears that the Hyksos of Manetho are the Israelites
themselves, and that his statements respecting them do not by
any means rest upon independent Egyptian tradition, but are
a mere perversion and distortion of the accounts in the Penta
teuch, undertaken in the service of Egyptian national vanity,
— accounts which came into circulation in Egypt during the
residence of the Jews there after the time of Alexander.
Hence the history of the Israelites can gain nothing from these
statements of Manetho. Among the ancients, after the ex
ample of Josephus, Perizonius and Baumgarten have already
shown this ; but Thorlacius has given the most complete argu
ment, de Hycsosorum Abari, Copenhagen 1794: comp. also
Jablonsky, Opuscc. i. p. 356 ff.; and the treatise, Manetho und
die Hyksos als Beilage der Schrift. die B.B. Moses u. ^Egypten;
also the researches of v. Hofmann (Stud, und Krit. 1839, ii.
p. 393 ff.), Delitzsch (Commentar iiber die Genes, iii. Ausl.
S. 518 ff.), and Uhlemann in the work Israeliten und die
Hyksos in JEgypten vom Jahr. 1856. Although Bertheau,
Ewald, Lengerke, Kurtz, and others, with remarkable lack of
critical insight, employ Manetho as if they had the best con
temporary sources before them, it may be seen how bad an
authority he is for events which occurred iri the Mosaic time,
from the gross errors of which he is shown to be guilty, in the
work Egypt and the Books of Moses, — errors of such a kind
INTRODUCTION. 239
that it is impossible not to regard his statement that he has
written as a distinguished priest under Ptolemy Philadelphus
as false, and to assume that his work belongs to the time of
all those other Egyptian narrations which are hostile to the
Israelites, and have been preserved in fragments in Josephus,
viz. the beginning of the Roman Empire.
Again, notwithstanding all misrepresentations undertaken in
the Egyptian interest (the object was to retort upon the Israel
ites that shame which accrued to the Egyptians from the
accounts of the Israelitish historical books, to throw back the
reproach of barbarity and inhumanity upon those with whom
it had originated), yet the dependence of the relation on the
Mosaic narrative clearly appears. The Hyksos, like the Isra
elites, come to Egypt from the region 77-/309 dvaro\r)v ; they are
shepherds, comp. Gen. xlvi. 34 ; pao'lms, dfiayrjTt, they occupy
Egypt, — a perversion of what is told in Genesis concerning the
measures of Joseph. The name of their first king, Salatis, a
sufficient argument of itself against Rosellini, who makes the
Hyksos Scythians, has evidently arisen from Gen. xiii. 6, where
Joseph is called B'-n^n. (In Eusebius this name is corrupted into
Saites, after an Egyptian reminiscence.) To this first king
the measuring of corn is attributed as one of his principal
occupations, lo-iv epydfyo-dat dvdyicr), Od. 14, v. 272, 17, 410.
According to Herodotus (2, 108) and Diodorus, the Egyptians
considered it a matter of pride to employ no natives, but only
prisoners and slaves, in the building of their monuments. It
was resolved to convert Israel into a nation of slaves, and with
this object means were chosen which must have been emi
nently successful if there had been no God in heaven (but the
neglect of this, as the result shows, was a very great mistake
in the reckoning). The Israelites were driven to compulsory
service, of whose magnitude and difficulty we may form some
idea from those monuments which still exist as an object
of wonder; but particularly from a monument discovered in
Thebes, representing the Hebrews preparing bricks, of which
Rosellini was the first to give a copy and description, ii. 2, S.
254 et seq.: compare the copious remarks on this interesting
picture in B.B. Moses, etc., S. 79 ff. ; Wilkinson, 2, 98 ff.
Against its reference to the Jews Wilkinson has raised a
double objection. (1.) It is incomprehensible how a represen
tation of the labours of the Israelites should come to be on
a tombstone in Thebes. But it might just as readily have
happened that parties of them were sent to Thebes to compul
sory service, as that the Israelites should have been scattered
abroad throughout all Egypt to gather straw, Ex. v. 12.
Even now in Egypt, the poor Fellahs are driven like flocks
out of the land when any great work is required. (2.) The
workers want the beard which forms so characteristic a mark of
the prisoners from Syria, and especially of those of Sesonk.
But this argument is refuted by what Wilkinson himself says
in another place : " Although strangers who were brought as
slaves to Egypt had beards on their arrival in the land, yet we
find that, as soon as they were employed in the service of this
civilised nation, they were obliged to adopt the cleanly habits
of their masters, their beards and heads were shaved, and they
received a narrow hat." That which tells most in favour of
this reference to the Jews, is that the physiognomies have an
expression so characteristically Jewish, that every one must
recognise them as Jews at the first glance. The clear colour
of their skin already suggests the idea of captive Asiatics.
It was hoped that a great number of the Israelites would
sink under the heavy work, and that the remaining masses
INTRODUCTION. 243
would acquire a low, slavish spirit. And when it became
evident that this measure had not attained its object, — that the
concealed divine blessing accompanying the visible cross called
forth a continued growth of the nation, — measures still more
cruel were resorted to, which trampled under foot all divine
and human rights, and failed to lead to a successful result just
because of their exaggerated cruelty. The matter was thus
brought to a climax. The existence of the nation was at stake,
and at the same time God's faithfulness and truth. To faith
this misery was a prophecy of salvation. It was not in vain
that believers so often cried out in the Psalms : " Save me, O
God, fori am in misery," or "I cry unto Thee." Election being
presupposed, every misfortune contains a promise of deliverance.
This is the main distinction between the sufferings of the
world and the sufferings of God's people. The cross of the
latter is an actual appeal : " Lift up your heads, for ye see that
your salvation draweth nigh." The greater the cross, the
greater and nearer is the deliverance.
But Israel was enabled to come to this conclusion not merely
from the fact of their having been chosen. God had already
given them special comfort in this respect, having applied the
idea individually. It had already been told to Abraham that
his posterity should be strangers in a foreign land. The ap
pointed time had expired, or was near its expiration ; the severe
oppression which had been foretold had come to pass; and
therefore the salvation so closely connected with it must also
be at hand, — deliverance from the land of the oppressors by
means of great judgments ; the march to Canaan with great
possessions. It must come to pass, or God would not be God,
Jehovah, the one, the unchangeable.
2. Respecting the Religious and Moral Condition of the
, Israelites in Egypt before Moses.
On this subject a violent dispute has been carried on among
ancient theologians. Spencer, de legibus Hebraeorum rituali-
bus, i. 1, cap. 1, sec. 1, p. 20 sqq., maintains that the Israelites
in Egypt had almost lost the knowledge of the true God, and
had given themselves up to the idolatry of the Egyptians.
On this he based the opinion, to carry out which is the aim of
his whole work, that the ceremonial law has not an absolute
244 SECOND PERIOD— FIRST SECTION.
but only a relative value ; that God permitted those heathen
customs to which the Israelites had accustomed themselves to
remain just as they were, so far as they were not directly
associated with the worship of idols, so far as they were
ineptiae tolerabiles, to use his own expression, thus to leave the
nation its plaything, lest, by having all taken from it, it might
be induced to retain everything, even idolatry. From this
opinion there is only one step to the acceptance of a purely
human origin of the Mosaic law; and many theologians to
whom it was justly offensive, regarding it as an ineptia into-
lerabilis, sought to undermine the foundation of it, and to show
that the Israelites remained faithful to the true religion.
Salomo Deyling, in his Oratio de Israelitarum JEgyptiacorum,
ingenio, at the end of vol. i. of the Observatt. Sacrae, goes
farthest in this view.
It is clear that both parties have gone too far, occupied by
preconceived opinions. On one side it is certain that the
knowledge of the true God and His honour was not yet lost
among the Israelites. Otherwise how could Moses, who came
as the ambassador of this God, — comp. Ex. iii. 15, "Jehovah,
the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of
Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you;" chap.
vi. 3, — have found a hearing? They were still familiar with
the promises of the land of Canaan. Moses found them still
in possession of the traditions of the life of the patriarchs,
and their relation to the Lord. We have a memorial of con
tinued union with the Lord in the names of that time, which
contain the expression of a true knowledge of God. It is
remarkable, however, that among these names there are very
few which are compounded with Jehovah, such as Jochebed,
while there are many with ba ; for example, the three names
'Uzziel, Mishael, 'Elzaphan, in Ex. vi. 22. Already Simonis
remarks : Compositio cum nw1 maxime obtinuit temporibus re-
gum. From fear of God, the Hebrew midwives transgressed
the royal mandate at their own peril. " The fault is in thine
own people," were the words of the oppressed Israelites to
Pharaoh in chap. v. 16 ; "by the injustice which thou doest
unto us they incur heavy sin ; and where sin is, punishment
soon follows." By this expression they show that they had not
yet lost the consciousness of a holy and just God. The con-
INTRODUCTION. 245
tinuance of circumcision in Egypt is proved by the words of
Ex. iv. 24-26, and by Josh. v. 5, according to which all the
Israelites were circumcised on their departure from Egypt.
On the other side, it cannot be denied that those who per
sist in representing Israel as quite pure, are at direct variance
with the most explicit testimony of Scripture. We see how
much the Israelites had succumbed to Egyptian influence by
their great effeminacy, which is denied by Ewald, notwith
standing the decided testimony of history. In Josh. xxiv. 14,
the Israelites are exhorted to put away the gods which their
fathers served in Mesopotamia and Egypt. Ezekiel, xxiii.,
reproaches the Israelites with having served idols, especially
in verses 8, 19, 21. Amos says in chap. v. 25, 26: "Have
ye offered unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness
forty years, O house of Israel? But ye have borne the
tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of
your God, which ye made to yourselves." The sense of this
passage (comp. the discussions in vol. ii. of the Beitrdge,
S. 109 ff.) is this : The mass of the people neglected to wor
ship God by sacrifices during the greater part of the march
through the wilderness, the thirty-eight years of exile, and in
the place of Jehovah, the God of armies, put a borrowed god
of heaven, whom they honoured, together with the "remaining
host of heaven, with a borrowed worship. These idolatrous
tendencies of the Israelites in the march through the wilder
ness, of which Ezekiel also makes mention, chap. xx. 26,
presuppose that the nation had in some measure succumbed to
the temptations to idolatry during the residence in Egypt. It
is also a proof of the corruption of the nation, that most of
those who were led out of Egypt had to die in the wilderness
before the occupation of Canaan. The whole history of the
march through the wilderness is incomprehensible on the
assumption that Israel remained perfectly faithful to the Lord.
It can only be explained by the circumstance that the new,
which Moses brought to Israel, consisted in a rude antithesis
to the old. That the Israelites had practised idolatry, espe
cially that of Egypt, is shown by the worship of demons, Lev.
xvii. 7. The goats there mentioned, to which the Israelites
offer sacrifice, are the Egyptian Mendes, which is honoured in
the goat as its visible form and incarnation, comp. Herod, ii.
246 SECOND PERIOD — FIRST SECTION.
46, and a personification of the masculine principle in nature,
of the active and fructifying power. It was associated with
the eight highest gods of the Egyptians, chap. 145 ; and even
took precedence among them, Diod. i. 12 f. There were also
other deities of the same stamp, explaining the plural, as
the Bealim in 1 Kings xviii. 18. The worship of the golden
calf in the wilderness also belongs to this period. It was an
imitation of the Egyptian Apis, or bull-worship. It is imma
terial that in the one case it is a calf, and in the other a bull.
The name of calf is everywhere contemptible. They would
willingly have made an ox, but they could not bring themselves
to it, because it would dishonour their entire origin. The
worshippers undoubtedly called the image a bull. According
to Philo, a golden bull was made ; and in Ps. cvi. 20 it is said,
" They changed their glory into the similitude of an ox that
eateth grass." The ceremonies also which the Israelites em
ployed in this worship were Egyptian. This, therefore, was
a yielding to Egyptian idolatry, even if the Hebrews, which is
unquestionable, only wished to honour Jehovah in the image,
Almost every participation of the Israelites in Egyptian life
was of a similar kind, not a direct denial of the God of their
fathers, but only an adaptation of heathen ideas to Him, resting
upon a misapprehension of the wall of separation which holiness
formed between Him and the heathen idols. Again, on the
assumption of the absolute purity of the Israelites, it is impos
sible to comprehend the lively exhortations, the strict rules, and
the heavy threatenings of the law against all idolatrous life,
comp. Deut. iv. 15 et seq. ; they presuppose the tendency of
the nation to such deviations. On the other hand, the argu
ment for the participation of the nation in Egyptian nature-
worship, which is drawn from the symbolism of the law, is
untenable. For the assumption on which it rests, that the
home of symbolism is only in natural religion, has no founda-
' tion. Symbolism has nothing to do with the substance, but
solely with the form, of religious consciousness. It is an
embodiment, indifferent in itself. Neither is there any weight
in the argument, that in many forms and symbols a more exact
description is wanting. The people are supposed to be already
conversant with them. Here it is forgotten that the Penta
teuch in its present form was not written down until long
INTRODUCTION. 247
after the introduction of these forms and customs. Between
the Sinaitic legislation and the redaction of the Pentateuch lies
a period of thirty-eight years.
The correct view of the moral and religious condition of the
Hebrews in Egypt has more than a mere historical importance :
it is highly significant in a religious "point of view. By par
tially giving prominence to the one side or the other, we lose
sight of the most important thing in the matter, viz. its typical
meaning. Those who try to represent the Israelites as pure
as possible, have, notwithstanding their good intentions, done
them a very bad service. The whole history of the departure
from Egypt to the entrance into Canaan, is one vast, ever-
recurring prophecy, — a type which, to be one, must bear in
itself the essence of its antitype. The bringing out of Egypt
signifies the continual leading out of God's people from the
service of the world and of sin ; the sojourn in the wilderness
typifies their trial, sifting, and purification ; the leading into
Canaan, their complete induction into the possession of divine
blessings and gifts, after having been thoroughly purified
from the reproach of Egypt. This symbolism pervades all
Scripture, as we shall show more fully in considering the march
through the wilderness. If the Israelites had become altogether
like the Egyptians, they could not have continued to be the
people of God. There can be no period in the history of the
people of God in which they exactly resemble the world. To
maintain this would be to deny the faithfulness and truth of
God, and to assert that He is sometimes not God. It is not
without foundation that we say in the creed of the Christian
Church : " I believe in the holy, catholic church." Balaam, in
Num. xxiii. 10, characterizes Israel by the name &nvh, the
upright. This predicate is always applicable to the church of
God, even in times of the deepest deterioration. In her bosom
she always conceals an ixXoyij, in which her principle has
attained to perfect life. And to the corrupted mass there is"
always a superior background : the fire which still glows in the
ashes has only to be fanned in times of divine visitation. Since
God's carnal blessing accompanied the cross in so marked a
manner, how is it possible to conceive that He should spiritually
have abandoned His people ? If the Israelites had kept them
selves quite pure, then the exodus would have to be regarded
248 SECOND PERIOD— FIRST SECTION.
merely as an external benefit, and the guidance through the
wilderness would become utterly incomprehensible. The second
step, that of temptation, necessarily presupposes a first, that of
primary deliverance from spiritual servitude, and the first love
arising out of it, whose ardent character was to be changed
into one of confiding affection. Add to this, that already the
external bondage of the Israelites itself afforded a proof of
their internal bondage. The suffering of the people of God
always appears in Scripture as a reflex of their sin: if they
have given themselves up to the world, and have come to
resemble it, they are punished by means of the world. How
should there be an exception to the rule in this case only?
If we look at the moral and religious condition of the Israel
ites from this point of view, we see more clearly that it was
necessary for God, in accordance with His covenant faith,
to step forth from His concealment just at that time. It
was not perhaps external misery alone, but rather internal
misery, which gave rise to this necessity. When the carcase is
in the church of God, there the eagles first collect; but then,
in accordance with the same divine necessity, the dry dead
bones are again animated by the Spirit of God. At that time
the critical moment had arrived when the question turned
upon the existence or non-existence of a people of God upon
earth. But one century later, and there had no longer been
any Israel in existence deserving of the name. What Israel
had inherited from the time of the patriarchs, could not in the
lapse of time hold out against the mighty pressure of the spirit
of the world. A new stage of revelation must be surmounted,
or that which had previously been gained would be lost.
§2.
THE CALL OF MOSES.
Here we take this word in a wide sense. In the call of
Moses, we reckon all those preparatory dispensations of God
by which he was adapted for it, from his birth to the giving
of the call on Sinai. And further, we include all those means
by which he was strengthened in the faith, from this first com-
THE CALL OF MOSES. 249
mission to the commencement of the plagues, and by which he
was prepared for the vocation upon which he really entered
with the occurrence of this event. Until now all had been
mere preparation. Now for the first time Moses is ready for
the work of God. The narrative itself here breaks off into the
first great section. It remarks, chap. vii. 6, that from this
time Moses did as the Lord commanded him. In his former
trials, human weakness was largely associated with divine
power, but from this time only the latter can be perceived.
In the place of probation now comes vocation. Our remarks
in this paragraph include also the section Ex. ii.-vii. 7.
The work which was to be accomplished in the Mosaic time
could only be completed by a distinguished personality. It is
true that the people had been prepared for it by the divine
guidance. The heavy suffering which they had experienced
through the instrumentality of the Egyptians, the representa
tives of the world, had destroyed their inclination for Egyp
tian life, just as among us external bondage by the French
destroyed the power of spiritual bondage. The traditions of
antiquity had again become living ; a desire for the glorious
possessions which God had entrusted to this people alone among
all nations of the earth was again aroused, and appears espe
cially in the tribe of Levi, which distinguished itself in the
beginning of the Mosaic time, Ex. xxxii., by zeal for the reli
gion of Jehovah, and by reason of this zeal was appointed by
the Lord to its guardianship. Comp. Deut. xxxiii. 8 sqq. But
the nation did not get beyond a mere susceptibility; it had sunk
too deeply to be able to attain to complete restoration, except
through an instrument endowed by God with great gifts, — a
man of God, in whom the higher principle should be personally
represented. All great progress in the kingdom of God is
called forth only by great personalities. No man has ever gone
out from the mass as such, although in every reformation a
preparation took place in the mass.
The deliverance granted to Moses in his childhood typified
the deliverance of the whole nation from the great waters of
affliction. We learn from Ps. xviii. 17 how individuals justly
regarded it as a pledge of their own deliverance from distress.
But a special divine providence appears most clearly in the
circumstance that Moses, by deliverance, was placed in so close
2,50 SECOND PERIOD — EIRST SECTION.
a relation to the daughter of the Egyptian king, called Ther-
muthis by Josephus in his Antiq. ii. 9. 5. In the statement
that she treated him as her son, chap. ii. 10, is implied what
Stephen expressly says, Acts vii. 22, without giving any other
proof for it than that contained in the former passage, that he
had been brought up in all the wisdom of the Egyptians. This
wisdom was essentially practical. It formed the foundation of
the charismata which were afterwards imparted to Moses, and
which always presuppose a human foundation. Here there
was a repetition of what God had done for Joseph, who had
first to be educated in the house of Potiphar for his future
vocation, so important for Israel. Here was concentrated
God's design in leading the whole nation into Egypt, the most
civilised country then in existence. Here was realized the idea
which lies at the basis of the announcement to Abraham, that
his descendants should go out from Egypt with great spoil.
The possession which Israel here gained was far greater than.
the vessels of gold and silver. Here also the divine act is a
prophecy whose fulfilment extends through all time. The
world collects and works in art and science for itself and its
idols, collects and works in opposition to God. But faith will
not be misled by this. It is only unbelief or shortsightedness
which suffers itself to be led into contempt of art and science,
and anxiety regarding their progress. Even here the wisdom
and omnipotence of God so order things, that what has been
undertaken without and against Him, turns to His advan
tage and to that of His people. Look, for instance, at the
period of the Reformation. The re-awakened sciences had
been developed mainly in the service of the world. This
natural development would have led to godlessness, but sud
denly Luther and the other reformers stepped forth and bore
away the spoil of Egypt. It is sufficient merely to indicate
how this actual prophecy is realized in our time.
But the working of special divine providence was not only
.manifested in the sending of Moses into this school. It was
still more strongly displayed in the fact that he drew from it
the good only, and not the bad. The wisdom was certainly
essentially practical, but yet its foundation was pseudo-religious.
How powerful, therefore, must have been the working of God's
Spirit in Moses, which enabled him, while descrying the snake in
THE CALL OF MOSES. 251
the grass, to hold to the simple traditions of his fathers, unblinded
by the spirit of the time, which pressed upon him on all sides,
although he was obliged to search after this tradition while the
false wisdom pressed upon him ! How mighty must have been
that efficacy which enabled him to change its letter into spirit,
its acts into prophecies, whose fulfilment he sought and found
with burning zeal in his own heart ! It was necessary for the
calling of Moses that he should be placed in the midst of the
corrupt Egyptian life. It served to call forth in him a violent
contest, and to give rise to a mighty crisis, without which no
reformer can become ripe for his vocation. He who is destined
to contend effectively with the spirit of the world, must have
experienced it in its full power of temptation. Thus the
negative influence of the Egyptian school was as salutary and
necessary to Moses as the positive. Again, Moses was brought
up at court. That he was not blinded by its splendour, nor
sank into its effeminacy, that he chose rather to suffer affliction
with the people of God than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for
a season, Heb. xi. 25, is a marvel as great to him who knows
the disposition of human nature, and does not measure great
ness by the ell, as the subsequent external miracles which one
and the same carnal mind, only in a different form, either
stumbles at, or regards as the only miracles. Therefore in
this respect also God's design is perfectly realized, which was
to direct the glance of the people to Moses from the begin
ning, and so, by the manifestation of human power, to create
in them a susceptibility for the subsequent ready acceptance of
the proof of his divine greatness.
In Eusebius, Artapanus in the Praep. Ev., and josephus,
Antiq. 2. 10, relate, the latter with the minutest detail, that
Moses, as an Egyptian general, undertook a campaign against
the Ethiopians. Attempts have been made to use this narrative
to explain the knowledge of distant lands which Moses shows
in the Pentateuch, and to account for his skill in war. Joh.
Reinhard Forster takes great trouble to defend it ; see his letter
to Joh. Dav. Michaelis on the Spicilegium Geogr. Hebr. ext.,
Goetting. 1769. But we might just as well invent such a story
as accept it on authority so imperfect. The whole fable has
been spun out from Num. xii. 1. Mention is there made of a
Cushite wife of Moses. Zipporah is meant. In a wide sense,
252 SECOND PERIOD — FIRST SECTION.
the Midianites belonged to the Cushites. Or it might be that
Zipporah was of a Cushite family who had immigrated into
the Midianites, just as now negroes are to be found among
the Arabs of the wilderness, who have been received by them
into their community, according to the Countess de Gasparin's
Travels in the East, which appeared in 1849. But it has been
supposed that reference was there made to another wife of
Moses ; and in order to obtain her, he has been represented as
having undertaken a campaign into Egypt, as having conquered
Meroe and won an Ethiopian princess.
Moses' conduct towards the Egyptians gives us a deep in-
sioiit into the constitution of his mind at that time. The
matter has a beautiful side, which alone is made prominent
in Heb. xi. 24, because it is viewed in an enumeration of
examples of faith. Moses leaves the court in order to visit
his suffering brethren. Love towards them, which rests upon
faith, so overcomes him, that before it every consideration of his
own danger disappears. Moses also here developes that natural
energy which is in every reformer the substratum of those gifts
necessary to his vocation. But the thing has also an evil side,
which does not demand notice in the narrative, since the actual
judgment on it is contained in what immediately follows ; for
here also history shows itself to be judgment. His princely
education did not pass over him without leaving some trace.
It is true that he would no longer be called a son of Pharaoh's
daughter, but yet he aspired to deliver his people by his own
hand. The act towards the Egyptian, which is excused, though
not by any means justified, by the oppressed condition of the
Israelites, was intended only as a beginning. Immediately on
the following day, Moses in his reformatory haste goes out to
continue the work which had been begun. He throws himself
as an arbiter between two Israelites, expecting that his powerful
words would be followed by absolute submission. But the
matter assumed quite a different aspect. He made the experi
ence which all self-made reformers make. He was disregarded
even by those whom he wished to help, for the sake of God
as he thought. In Acts vii. 25 Stephen says, "He supposed his
brethren would have understood how that God by his hand
would deliver them: but they understood not." Instead of
delivering his people from their misery, he himself was obliged to
THE CALL OF MOSES. 253
wander into misery, without possessions and without courage,
fearing to be punished as a common murderer; for his conscience
told him that he had been zealous, not for God, but for himself.
That which seemed always to exclude him from participation
in the deliverance of his people, was really intended to serve as
a preparation : there could not have been a worse preparation
if the matter were to be accomplished by human power. God
prepared a place of refuge for him, and here he was obliged to
remain forty years, until he began to grow old. (It is not stated
in the Pentateuch itself that the sojourn lasted so long, but
only in the discourse of Stephen, Acts vii. 23-30, according to
tradition; but it is confirmed by the analogy of the eighty years
of Moses at the time of the deliverance, Ex. vii. 7, and by his
death at 120 years of age, Deut. xxxiv. 7.) The main object
was to free him from those stains which a residence at court
had left, even in him, especially from pride and arrogance.
His new residence was well adapted to this end. It was a true
school of humility, which we afterwards recognise as a funda
mental trait in the character of Moses; comp. Num. xii. 3. In
the eyes of his father-in-law Hobab, the son of Raguel, who
was still living at the time of Moses' coming, and stood at the
head of the household, the priest of the Midianites dwelling
to the east of- Mount Sinai, the splendid title of Jethro, his '
Excellency, seems to have been the best external advantage
which he derived from his office. Religion does not seem to
have been highly estimated by this nation. It had perhaps
come to them with the race of priests from abroad, and had
taken no deep root among them. Moses was obliged to protect
the daughters of the priest from the injustice of the Midianite
shepherds. He himself had afterwards to do service as a
shepherd, which, as the son of a king's daughter, must have cost
his pride a severe struggle. When he returned to Egypt, he
had only an ass for the transport of his whole family. He set
his wife and child upon it, and himself walked by the side with
his shepherd-staff — the same which was destined to receive so
great importance as the staff of God ; comp. Ex. iv. 2. It is
certain that at this time he must have been in great difficulties.
His marriage was also in many respects a school of affliction.
The two single verses, Ex. iv. 24, 25, give a deep insight into
the mind of his wife. She was so passionate and quarrelsome,
254 SECOND PERIOD— <-FIRST SECTION.
that, owing to her opposition, Moses was obliged to omit to
circumcise his second son, doubtless with great sorrow, for the
circumcision of the first had given rise to so much strife ; and
she is unable to repress her vehemence when she sees her
husband in evident danger of his life, and is thus obliged to
do herself what she had been unwilling for him to do. At
the same time, we see plainly how little Moses had in her a
companion in the faith. Circumcision, the sacrament of the
covenant, she regarded only with the eyes of carnal reason.
She thought it foolish to give pain to her child for the sake of
such a trifle. Moses spoke directly from his own experience,
when he declared himself so strongly against marriage with a
heathen woman. All this was well adapted to make him weak
in himself, and therefore strong in God, for the power of God
is mighty in the weak. It was of great advantage to him that
he was separated for a considerable time from his people. He
was thus protected against that human unrest which must
constantly have received new nourishment from association
with them, and from the sight of their sorrow. His shepherd-
life was well calculated to call forth calm reflection. Here he
could transport himself vividly to the time of his ancestors,
when the grace of God was so manifestly with the chosen race.
Thus, while his external man gradually wasted away, his spirit
was renewed from day to day. We have memorials of his
disposition in the names of his two sons, Gershom and Eliezer,
— " a stranger here," and " God helpeth." The former gives
utterance to the complaint, the latter to the comfort.
It cannot be regarded as accidental that the call of Moses
took place on Mount Sinai, from which circumstance some have
assumed, without any foundation (Ewald, Gesch. des Volk. Isr.
ii. S. 86), that it had been already consecrated before Moses, as
the seat of the oracle and the habitation of the gods. For
there is not the least trace to lead to such a conclusion. All
the sanctity of the mountain is due to the acts of the Mosaic
time. By the circumstance that he was here solemnly called
to the service of God, the place receives its first consecration as
the mountain of God ; when the Israelites afterwards arrived
there, they found it already marked with the footprints of God:
it was already holy ground. The call of Moses to God's service
prefigured the call of the Israelites to God's service, which was
THE CALL OF MOSES. 255
to take place in the same spot. If history prove the former to
be real and mighty, the latter must, a, priori, be regarded as
such. It is of great importance that the manifestation which pre
sented itself to Moses, after the supernatural revelation of God
had ceased for four centuries, should not be regarded as a
mere portentum, but that its symbolical significance should be
rightly apprehended. Then it appears that the substance stands
infinitely higher than the form, that the marvellous element
contained in it continues through all time, and that only he
whose eyes are closed can seek a natural explanation of the
miracles of the past (to which department it does not belong, if
the occurrence be transferred to the region of the inner sense ;
for by this means it loses nothing of its reality), so that he is
not able to apprehend the miracles which exist in the present.
A thorn-bush burning and yet not consumed, this is the symbol.
The thorn-bush is the symbol of the church of God, exter
nally small and insignificant. In Zech. i. it appears again
under the symbol of a myrtle-bush — not a proud cedar on the
high mountains, but a modest myrtle; and again in Isa. viii.
under the image of the still waters of Shiloah, in contrast to the
roaring of the Euphrates; and in Ps. xlvi. under the image
of a quiet river in contrast with the raging sea. Looking at
the thorn-bush from this point of view, Moses himself, in Deut.
xxxiii. 16, speaks of God as He who dwelt in the thorn-bush,
ri3D ''J35J', — not so much He who once appeared in the physical
thorn-bush, but He who continually dwells in the spiritual
thorn-bush which is prefigured — in the midst of His people.
Fire in the symbolism of Scripture denotes God in His essence,
especially in the energetic character of His punitive justice;
comp. instar omnium, " Our God is a consuming fire," in the law
itself, and in Heb. xii. 29. The thorn-bush burns, but is not
consumed. The world is consumed by the judgment of God.
For His people, the cross is a proof not only of God's justice,
but also of His love : He chastises them unsparingly, but does
not give them over to death. Here we have the key to all the
guidances of Israel, the key to the history of the church of the
new covenant, and the key to our own guidances. For that
which is applicable to the whole, is always applicable to the
individual, in whom the idea of the whole is realized. We
256 SECOND PERIOD— FIRST SECTION.
must burn, we must enter into the kingdom of God through
much tribulation ; but we are not consumed : the cross is always
accompanied by the blessing. What a rich theme is afforded
in the words of Moses, " I will now turn aside, and see this
great sight, why the bush is not burnt," — rich in proportion as
personal experience has opened the eyes to the perception of
the historical fact !
Again, according to the opinion of Stephen, it was in a
vision that Moses saw the bush which burned with fire, and
yet was not consumed. For the opayua, by which word he
designates that which he has seen in Acts vii. 31, is always
applied in the New Testament to visions of the inner sense,
and occurs very frequently in the Acts of the Apostles.
But the symbolical utterance of God here stands in exact
relation to the verbal. The latter contains the meaning of the
former. God only applies the idea which animates the symbol
to the present case, in explaining to Moses, who was filled with
holy awe, that He would now lead His people out of the land of
the Egyptians, and into the land of promise. The command
follows this promise. Moses was to lead the people out of
Egypt, not, as formerly, by his own hand, but by the commission
of God.
The manner in which Moses receives this commission ; his
lingering irresolution ; his want of confidence in himself, which
still suggested new scruples, desiring a special assurance from
God for each doubt, although the answer to all was already
contained in the universal promise, and led him to repeat even
those objections which had been obviated whenever a new
difficulty arose, and at last, when all escape was cut off from
him, made him still hesitate to move in the matter, and led him
after he had received the call to urge those difficulties made
known to him by God, and designated as belonging to the
matter, as a plea why he should not be sent ; till at last he
rises to confidence in that strength of God which is mighty in
the weak, and now suddenly appears as an entirely new man:
all this is important in more than one aspect. Let it be noticed
especially how powerfully the character of truth is imprinted
on the whole representation of the internal struggle of Moses.
Where in mythical history do we find even an approach to
anything similar ? The heroes of mythology are of one piece—
THE CALL OF MOSES. 257
power- at the beginning, and power at the end. Here the author
could not have made a greater mistake, if it had been his inten
tion to glorify Moses. That which must deprive him of the
character of a great man in the eyes of the world (forty years
before he had the intention of becoming so, but now he had
abandoned it), appears to have made him so much the better
adapted to the purposes of God. Whence, then, arises his great
hesitation ? It had its foundation first in his great humility,
which led him to see himself just as he was. How many think
that they are undertaking a work in faith in God's help, while
secret confidence in their own power lies at the foundation !
Where this confidence is completely destroyed, it is very
difficult to trust in God. It is easier for God to bestow con
fidence in His power, than to take away a man's confidence
in his own power. But when He has accomplished this, those
persons who have before completely despaired, turn out very
different from those who have apparently trusted in God from
the beginning, while in reality their confidence has been half in
themselves. The latter always retain one part where they are
vulnerable, ' if it be only the heel. They stumble and fall in
the middle of the course, while Moses has everything arranged
before beginning the race. His weakness therefore served only
to make him the more humble. If it had overtaken him while
in office, which would certainly have been the case if he had not
been weak before entering upon it, then the reproach would have
fallen on the cause of God. A second reason for Moses' hesita
tion was his sobriety. It is impossible to imagine a more direct
contrast to a fanatic. The latter is raised high into the clouds
by his phantasy ; mountains of difficulty disappear from before
his eyes. And when he descends to earth, where he is called
upon to act, the actual takes the place of the imagined reality :
every stone upon which he stumbles is converted into a moun
tain, and every actual mountain becomes as high as heaven
in his eyes. His enthusiasm disappears, and sad despondency
takes its place. But Moses, on the contrary, is not disconcerted
by the appearance of God. All difficulties appear in their
natural size. Pharaoh the mightiest monarch, Egypt the
mightiest kingdom, of the then existing world ; and on the other
hand an aged, infirm man, of humble appearance, with his
staff in his hand, scarcely able to stammer forth his commission
E
258 SECOND PERIOD— FIRST SECTION.
with his stuttering tongue. And again the difficulty which
his humble appearance must present to the people themselves
whom he was sent to deliver, — a people whose mind was already
blunted by slavery, and who were so little able to rise to faith
beyond the visible. But the very thing which was the cause
of his original hesitation was the cause of his subsequent firm
ness. He is deterred by nothing, however unexpected. He is
prepared for everything. He has fully counted the cost of
building, and is therefore able to carry out the work without
making himself and God a mockery to the world. In him we
see clearly the distinction between enthusiasm and spirit. The
former is essentially a product of nature, by which it seeks to
supply the deficiency of the latter, and is the more dangerous,
since it conceals this deficiency, and paralyzes the effort to
supplement it.
God's dealing with Moses is just as sharply defined, and
bears equally in itself the imprint of truth. It repeats itself
in all believers. All pride is an abomination to God, but He
has infinite patience with lowliness and weakness : comp. Isa.
lxvi. 2. A fictitious God would have crushed such hesitation
as Moses displayed with a word of thunder. He would have
been satisfied to say, " Thou shalt," — the words with which
Pharaoh, the image of the categorical imperative which reason
has exalted to God, met the complaints of the Israelites who
had to make bricks, and yet received no straw. The true
God, with unwearying patience, points out, " Thou canst."
And it is only after He has done this, and Moses still refuses,
that He threatens with His anger. Afterwards, on every re
lapse into his old weakness, God takes him by the hand and
helps him to rise.
What God intends to do to Israel, He comprises, on His first
call to Moses, in the name Jehovah, which forms a prophecy,
and from this time becomes His peculiar designation among
Israel. Afterwards, in chap, vi., before He begins his manifes
tation as Jehovah, He solemnly declares Himself once more as
such. The name had been known to Israel long before ; but
now for the first time, and from this time through all centuries,
the essence of which it was the expression was to be fully
revealed to Israel, and at the same time the name was to lose
that sporadic character which it had hitherto borne, and was
THE CALL OF MOSES. 259
to pass into common use. It is remarkable, that before the
Mosaic time we find so few proper names compounded with the
name Jehovah. The name is properly pronounced Jahveh,
and means "He is," or "the Existing" (not, as Delitzsch
asserts in die bibl. proph. Theologie, Leipzig 1845, S. 120, "The
Becoming," " the God of development ; " for Scripture knows
nothing of a God of development — it abandons this to pan
theistic philosophy : the God of Scripture does not become,
but He comes. Ex. iii. 14 is decidedly at variance with this
view, however; for here TCTKi "i^K irriK is placed in essential
parallel with nTiN, which can only be the case if we explain
it, "I am," and "I am that I am"). The name denotes God
as the pure, absolute existence, the personal existence ; for it is
not in the infinitive. But the name is : I am, I am the only
one who is real ; all others can participate in being only by
community with me ; besides me there is only non-existence,
impotence, death. The " I am" seals the " I am that I am,"
constantly the same, unaffected by all change. For absolute
existence excludes all change, which can only belong to exist
ence in so far as, like all earthly existence, it has an element
of non-existence. Immutability of essence necessarily implies
immutability of will. So also purity of existence implies omni
potence. And if this were established, what then had Israel to
expect from God ? The name at once assured them of the
power of their God to help them, and of His will to help them ;
assured them of the fact that, as omnipotent, He was able to
help ; and as unchangeable and true, He must help. But when
God established His name Jehovah as a pledge, He gave effect
to all that had been verbally predicted to the patriarchs — the
deliverance out of Egypt, the possession of the land of Canaan,
and the blessing on all nations. And not only this, but the
whole history of the patriarchs, and all God's dealings with
them, became converted into a prophecy. For God, in accord
ance with His repeated declaration, had acted towards them not
as to individuals, but as to the ancestors of the chosen race. If
what He then did was not a work of caprice, which inheres only
in non-existence ; if it were the efflux of His essence, and if
this essence were raised above all change and hindrance, then
every act of God must be revived— God must have mercy on
the nation, or He must cease to be God. And everything
260 SECOND PERIOD — FIRST SECTION.
which He then did to prove His name of Jehovah, was again a
prophecy, and a pledge of His future gifts.
From these remarks it is clear how suitable Jehovah was to
be the theocratic, ecclesiastical name of God, which it appears
to have been from this time. It stands in close relation to
the name of Israel. In establishing Himself as Jehovah, God
shows what He will do to the nation, and what He must do in
accordance with the necessity of His essence. By giving the
name of Israel to the nation in their ancestor, He shows what
they must do in order that He may reveal Himself to them as
Jehovah. The struggle with God, the faith which does not
leave Him till He blesses, is the destination, but at the same
time the privilege, of the people of God. For the invitation to
this struggle rests upon the fact that God is Jehovah. This
name is the protection against all despair, the sure rock on
which the waves of the world-sea break : it beams like a sun into
the earthly darkness, and brings light into the benighted soul.
The privilege of Israel over all the heathen consists not in their
having only one God, but in their having such a God. There
is nothing in heaven or earth that can in any wise harm a
nation that has such a God; there is nothing in heaven and
earth that can turn away from the service of such a God.
" Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and
with all thy soul, and with all thy strength," has its firm founda
tion in the name and essence of Jehovah. A God who is un
conditionally exalted above everything, the only real existence
in heaven and earth, must also be unconditionally loved above
everything. Here all dividing of the heart is imprudence and
sin. In the name of Jehovah lies the proper world-history of
the people of Israel. By this they are separated from all other
nations ; in this they have the pledge of a glorious future, the
prophecy of the future dominion of the world. For such a
God can never be permanently confined within the narrow
limits of a single nation. Under Him, they can only gain
life and power for the purpose of beginning the triumphal
march against the world from this firm starting-point. In
the Revelation of John, chap, i., the name of" Jehovah is
paraphrased by the words, "which is, and which was, and
which is to come." God is, as the pure, and absolute, and
unchanging being: He exists in the present, in the fulness
THE CALL OF MOSES. 261
of that power which supplies the church ; He was — in the
past He has testified His existence by deeds of almighty love ;
He is to come — He will appear to judge the world, and for the
salvation of His church, and places will then be changed. The
occurrence by the way, related in chap. iv. 24 (a confirmation
of the vision of the thorn-bush, which burns and yet is not con
sumed, in the personal experience of the leader of the people),
is important in many respects. The incident must be looked
at thus. On the way Moses was suddenly afflicted by severe
sickness, threatening immediate death. His conscience accused
him of a sin, and God or His Angel gave him an internal con
viction that the malady was a punishment for this offence.
From fear of his wife, he had neglected to circumcise his
second son. This disturbance of the relation between him and
God must necessarily be done away before he could enter on
his calling. He must be under no ban. In the anguish of
her heart, Zipporah now does that which she had formerly
refused to allow, and the punishment is removed. But Zipporah
performs this compulsory act in anger : she says to Moses
passionately, " Surely a bloody husband art thou to me" — going
back to the time of the beginning of her relation to him, when
she might still have taken a husband from among her own
people, who would not have demanded such sacrifices from her.
What first impresses us here is the openness with which we are
told that the honoured lawgiver himself violated the funda
mental law given by God to Abraham and his posterity. This
is scarcely consistent with the assumption of a later author,
aiming at the glorification of Moses, but applies excellently to
Moses himself, who has God's honour always in view, and not
his own. It was impossible for him to pass over in silence an
act which served to glorify God — the less, since it contains so
rich a treasure of exhortation for his people. (God appears no
less God in the manifestation of His righteousness, than in the
manifestations of His love, which was also active in this event.)
If God entered into judgment in this way with His servant, who
erred only through weakness, what might not proud offenders
expect ?
How Moses turned to his advantage the doctrine which lay
nearest to him in this event, is shown by his sending back his
wife and children to Midian, which undoubtedly happened in
262 SECOND PERIOD— FIRST SECTION.
consequence of it, and prefigured what every true servant of
the Lord must do spiritually; comp. Deut. xxxiii. 9, where
Moses himself declares it to be indispensable for the service of
God that a man should say. unto his father and his mother, "I
have not seen him, and should not know his own children."
That this sending back did really take place, is proved by Ex.
xviii. 2, where it is related that, when the Israelites sojourned
in the wilderness after the exodus from Egypt, Jethro led back
to Moses his wife and children. Without doubt, the neglected
circumcision was not the only thing with which Moses had to
reproach himself. He had also yielded in many other points
where he ought not to have yielded, and all at once this became
clear to him. He feared, not without reason, that wife and
child would be detrimental to him in the great work which he
now went to meet, and therefore he sent them back.
Before Moses began the great battle, he was still further
strengthened in the faith. The lower promises of God passed
into fulfilment, and were a pledge to him of the realization of
the highest. Aaron, his brother and promised helper, was led
to him by God on Mount Sinai. It almost appears that
Aaron's journey was connected with a revolt which arose
among the people, and that all eyes turned to Moses. The
people believe. Even Pharaoh's opposition seems to have
tended to strengthen their faith. It had been foretold by
God. To him who does not know human nature, it must
appear as an internal contradiction of the narrative, that Moses
should now have been destitute of courage, when that which
had been foretold was fulfilled, and the nation had fallen into
still greater distress. But on any knowledge of the human
heart, it is evident that this contradiction is inseparable from
the thing. The flesh has so great a shrinking from the cross,
that at the moment the bitter feeling absorbs everything else:-
the impression of the visible must first be overcome by struggle.
At the conclusion of this consideration we have only one
more point to discuss. God says, Ex. iv. 21, that He will
harden Pharaoh's heart. In the subsequent narrative it is
ten times repeated that God has hardened Pharaoh's heart,
and it is said just as often that Pharaoh hardened his heart.
Here the similarity of number points to the fact that the
hardening of Pharaoh is related to the hardening of God,
THE CALL OF MOSES. 263
which is designedly mentioned first and last, as the effect to
the cause.
The whole spirit of the Pentateuch renders it impossible to
suppose that this representation makes God the original cause
of sin. The whole legislation rests on the presupposition of
individual responsibility. The threatenings appended to the
breaking of the covenant, and the promises attached to the
faithful observance of it, Lev. xxvi., Deut. xxviii. sqq., most
decisively presuppose this. Pharaoh himself is looked upon as
an offender who deserves punishment.
The semblance of injury to the idea of responsibility also
disappears at once if we only consider that the hardening had
reference throughout not to the sin in itself, but to the form of
its expression — to his obstinate refusal to let Israel go. Pharaoh
had power to relent, and the fact that he did not relent proves
his guilt and the justice of his punishment. But because he
would not, the form in which the sin expressed itself was no
longer in his own power, but in the power of God, which is the
case with all sinners. God so arranges it as to consist with His
own plans. He who turneth the hearts of kings like water-
brooks, makes Pharaoh persist in not allowing Israel to go
(which he might have done without, however, being in the least
better), that an opportunity might thus be given to Him to
develope His essence in a series of acts of omnipotence, justice,
and love. It was most important to draw attention to this
cause of Pharaoh's hardening. If it were not recognised, his
long resistance to God would have been perplexing ; but if it
were recognised, then Pharaoh's resistance serves no less to the
glory of God than to his own destruction. Calvin strikingly
remarks on the kindred passage in Ps. cv. 25, " He turned their
heart to hate His people, to deal subtilely with His servants : "
"We see how the prophet designedly makes it his object to
subject the whole government of the church to God. It might
suffice for us to learn that God frustrates whatever the devil
and godless men may design against us ; but we receive double
confirmation in the faith when we perceive that not only are
their hands bound, but also their hearts and minds, that they
can determine nothing but what God pleases."
264 SECOND PERIOD— FIRST SECTION.
§3.
THE DELIVERANCE OUT OF EGYPT.
Ex. vii. 8, to the end of chap. xv.
Now begins the struggle of God with the world and the
visible representative of its invisible head, — the latter adapted
for this representation by their moral abandonment, no less
than their power, which ends in their complete overthrow.
Now begins a series of events which are at the same time so
many prophecies. The gradual progressive victory of God and
His people over Pharaoh, the mightiest ruler of the then existing
world, and his kingdom, is a pledge of the victory of God and
his church over the whole region of darkness, and that sub
servient world-power which is at enmity with God, and appears
in Revelation under the image of the beast with seven heads, of
wluch Egypt is the first. The number of the Egyptian plagues
is generally estimated at eleven. But they are rather completed,
certainly with design, in the number ten, the signature of that
which is complete in itself, of that which is concluded in Scrip
ture. For that miracle which is generally regarded as the first,
the changing of Moses' staff into a serpent, is not to be reckoned
among them. It is distinguished from the others by the fact
that it is not, like them, punishment at the same time, but is
only a proof of the omnipotence of God, and not a proof of His
justice. It is distinguished also by the circumstance that it
follows the demand of Pharaoh, while the others are forced upon
him. It may be regarded as a sort of prelude, as if somebody
were to fire into the air before aiming at the enemy, in order to
see if by this means he will be brought to his senses.' And at
the same time we must regard it as a symbol, as an actual pro
phecy of all that was to follow. The staff of Moses which was
changed into a serpent, is an image of the covenant people,
weak in themselves, but able by God's power to destroy the
mightiest kingdom of the world ; an image of Moses, who, con
sidered in himself, was scarcely dangerous to a child, but as
God's servant formidable to the mightiest monarch in the world.
Let us now turn our attention to the object of these facts.
It is given by God Himself in His address to Pharaoh, chap.
THE DELIVERANCE OUT OF EGYPT. 265
ix. 15, 16 : " For now I will stretch out my hand, that I may
smite thee and thy people with pestilence ; and thou shalt be
cut off from the earth. And in very deed for this cause have
I raised thee up, for to show in thee my power ; and that my
name may be declared throughout all the earth." God will be
known upon the earth in His true character. Hence He who
could have settled the whole matter with one stroke, developes
His essence perfectly in a series of facts; hence He hardens the
heart of Pharaoh. This revelation of the divine essence had
reference first to the Egyptians. In this respect it is on a level
with other judgments on the heathen world — the flood, the
destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the expulsion of
the Canaanites. The time to restrain the corruption of the
world in an internal and efficacious way had not yet come ;
but that it might come at a future time, retributive justice
must permeate the destinies of nations, huirible their pride, and
break their power. This was the preliminary part in God's
hand. .This was the condition of future closer communion ;
comp. Isa. xxvi. 9, 10. With proud disdain Pharaoh had
challenged God with the words, "Who is Jehovah, that I
should obey his voice ? " This question demands a real answer ;
and the more boldly the question is repeated, the more obsti
nately Pharaoh rebels against the God who has already revealed
Himself, the more his guilt is increased by this circumstance,
the more perceptibly must the answer resound till the final,
complete destruction of the defiant rebel. The divine jus tali-
onis which realizes itself throughout the whole history must also
be exemplified in him — must be most unmistakeably exempli
fied in him, that it may also be recognised elsewhere, where it
is more concealed. Because God could not glorify Himself in
Pharaoh, He must be glorified by him. Pharaoh must repay
what he had robbed — by his possessions, by his child, by his life.
And in treating of the meaning of the plagues for Egypt, it
seems right that we should enter somewhat more closely into
this passage, Ex. xii. 12, "And against all the gods of Egypt
I will execute judgment." According to the assertion of v.
Hofmann, which is adopted by Baumgarten, Delitzsch, and
others, this passage implies that in the plagues God manifested
His omnipotence and justice not only to the Egyptians, but
also to the spiritual powers to whom Egypt belonged. Spiritual
266 SECOND PERIOD— FIRST SECTION.
rulers, he maintains, are at work in the corporeal world. They
are spirits but not original, and are powerful, but only where
the Creator allows them to have sway. But even if these powers,
which are only the product of phantasy, really did exist, the
passage could not have reference to them. For the question
here is not of subordinate spirits, but of gods. Those passages
in the New Testament which v. Hofmann cites in favour of
their existence have no weight. In 1 Cor. viii. 5, &cnrep ela-l
8eol iroXXol, K.a\ Kvpiou iroXKot, and the preceding Xeyo/ievoo
6eol, have reference only to an existence in the heathen con
sciousness; and in 1 Cor. x. 16-21, a demoniacal background of
heathendom is only asserted in general ; the real existence of
separate heathen deities is not taught. Since, therefore, all
Scripture teaches the non-existence of the heathen deities, and
since the scriptural idea of God excludes their reality (comp.
Beitrage, Bd. ii. S. 248), we can only refer the judgment con
tained in this passage respecting the gods of Egypt to the cir
cumstance that by those events their nothingness was made
manifest, and they were proved to be mere \eyop,evoi Oeoi. It is
clear that the presupposition that idols have no existence beyond
what is merely material, lies at the basis of the two passages,
Lev. xix. 4, " Turn ye not unto idols, nor make to yourselves
molten gods;" and xxvi, 1, "Ye shall make you no idols nor
graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither,
shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down
unto it." The assumption of their nothingness has its founda
tion in this. The passage, Isa. xii. 24, "Behold, ye are of
nothing, and your work of nought," which serves to explain the
Elilim, is preceded by " do good or do evil," as a proof that the
non-existence of the gods is absolute. The whole sharp polemic
against idolatry contained in the second part of Isaiah, especially
in the classic passage chap. xliv. 9-24, rests upon the presup
position that idols do not exist apart from images. This is
explicitly stated in Ps. xlvi. 5, and copiously proved in Ps. cxv.,
in expansion of the Mosaic passage, Deut. iv. 28, " And there ye
shall serve gods, the work of men's hands, wood and stone, which
neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell" — are less than the man
who fashions them, which is perfectly clear, and which in itself
forms a sufficient refutation of v. Hofmann. Ewald (Gesch.
Isr. S. 109) appeals to Ex. xv. 11 in support of his theory,
THE DELIVERANCE OUT OF EGYPT.
267
where it is said that Jehovah is not like to any among the
gods. But it is proved by Ps. lxxxvi. 8, that in this and similar
passages the gods are only imaginary. We only add that
Kurtz, Gesch. des A. B. S. 86 sqq., mistakes the meaning of the
whole thing. The question is not whether heathendom has a
demoniacal background. This is recognised by all Christen
dom. Scripture bears clear testimony to it in those passages
which we have already cited, and experience confirms it. The
question is, whether individual heathen deities, such as Apollo
and Minerva, have or have not a real existence. Scripture
determines the latter ; and with this determination science goes
hand in hand ; for we can clearly prove a human origin in a
succession of heathen deities. This, therefore, is the reference
which the wonders and signs had to Egypt. But the reference
of the Egyptian plagues to Israel was of infinitely greater im
portance. By these events Elohim was to become Jehovah to
them. Here He manifested Himself as such in a series of
days more powerfully than He had formerly done in centuries.
His omnipotence and grace were now openly displayed. We
have a repetition of the history of the creation in miniature.
There everything was created for the human race ; here every
thing created, departing from its ordinary course, was designed
for the salvation of the chosen race, and for the destruction of
its enemies. Thus the God who had hitherto been concealed
became manifest and living to Israel, an object of grateful love.
They could say, with Job: "I have heard of Thee by the
hearing of the ear, but now mine eye seeth Thee." What
these events were intended to convey to Israel we learn from
Ex. x. 1, 2, where it is said : " I have hardened his heart, and
the heart of his servants, that I might show these my signs
before him : and that thou mayest tell in the ears of thy son,
and of thy son's son, what things I have wrought in Egypt,
and my signs which I have done among them." But we
recognise it most fully in seeing what these events became to
' them. When everything visible seems to deny that the Lord
is God, then the faith of the Psalmist clings to no actual proof
of this great and difficult truth with such firmness as to this ;
comp. Ps. cv. When the prophets wish to remove the doubts
which the flesh opposed to their announcement of the future
wonderful exaltation of the now lowly kingdom of God, they
268 SECOND PERIOD— FIRST SECTION.
constantly go back to this time when the invisible power of God
made itself visibly manifest — to this type of the last and greatest
redemption. When all around is gloom, and the Lord seems
to have quite forsaken His people, the believing spirit pene
trates into these facts, and sees them revive.
But we must not overlook the close connection between such
events and the legislation which follows. This is evident from
the fact that the latter began with the words, " I am the Lord
thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt,
out of the house of bondage." God surrenders Himself to
Israel before requiring that Israel should surrender itself to
Him. Here also He remains faithful to His constant method
of never demanding before He has given. Love to God is the
foundation of obedience to Him ; and it is impossible to love a
mere idea, however exalted. The language of revelation is
throughout, " Let us love Him, for He first loved us."
But these events are also a preparation for the giving of the
law, in so far as they guarantee Moses, the mediator between
God and the nation, as such. In the narrative itself, Ex. xiv.
31, this is stated to have been the result : " And the people
feared the Lord, and believed the Lord, and His servant
Moses." Announced by Moses, the divine signs are ushered
in ; at his command they disappear ; his staff is the staff of
God, his hand the hand of God. As a sign that God allows
all the wonders to take place through his mediation, he must
always begin by stretching out his hand and staff over Egypt.
Moses could not afterwards have demanded so severe things in
the commission of God, if he had not now given so great things
in the same commission. By these deeds the better self of the
nation was raised in Moses to the centre of its existence, and
the success of its reaction against the corruption which had
begun to permeate the nation was secured.
But the events are of the greatest importance for the
Christian church no less than for Israel. It is true that we
have before us the last and most glorious revelation of God.
Compared with redemption in Christ, the typical deliverance
out of Egypt falls into the background, as was already foretold
under the old covenant : comp. Jer. xxiii. 7, 8, xvi. 14, 15.
But we cannot know too much of God. Every one of His
actions makes Him more personal, brings Him nearer to us.
THE DELIVERANCE OUT OF EGYPT. 269
If, like the Psalmist and the prophets, we look upon these
events not as dead facts, if we do not adhere to the shell, we
shall find them to contain an unexpected treasure. Our flesh
so readily obscures God's grace and righteousness, that we
must be sincerely thankful for that mirror from which its
image shines out upon us. Moreover, the Pharaoh in our
hearts is so well concealed, that we greatly need such an out
ward illumination for his unveiling.
If we now look at the form and matter of the miracles, we
see some analogy to each in the natural condition of Egypt, the
agency of which had only to be strengthened, and which had
to be secured against every natural derivation by circumstances
such as the commencement and ceasing of them at the com
mand of Moses, in part at a time determined by Pharaoh him
self, and by the sparing of the Israelites. The same thing takes
place afterwards in the miracles in the wilderness. Miracle-
explainers, such as Eichhorn, have sought to find in this a con
firmation of their interpretations. But De Wette has already
disproved this : in his Krit. der Israel. Gesch. S. 193 (Beitrdge
z. Einl. in d. A. T. ii.), he shows that every attempt to explain
miracles as they are described in the narrative in a natural
way, is vain. Apart from all else, how could they have had
such an effect on Pharaoh and on Israel ? But these miracle-
explainers are like Pharaoh himself, who may be looked upon
as their father. Unable to recognise the finger of God, they
anxiously look for anything whicli can serve as a palliation of
their want of faith. If they and the mythicists who make
this union with nature an argument that the Egyptian plagues
belong to the region of poetry, would consider the thing im
partially, they would see that the very character of the miracles
attests their truth and divinity. In this respect, God's mode
of dealing remains always the same. As a rule, He attached
His extraordinary operations to His ordinary ones. We have
only to look at the analogy in the spiritual department, where
there is no %dpiap,a which has not a natural talent as its
basis. In a mythical representation, all that the author knew
of the wonderful or terrible would be heaped up, without
any reference to the natural condition of Egypt ; and if he
were acquainted with that natural state, he would even avoid
everything which might favour an explanation by it, and so
270 SECOND PERIOD — FIRST SECTION.
apparently lessen the miracle. The universal ground for this
condition of the supernatural in Scripture is, that it places
even the natural in the closest relation to God. The attempt
to isolate the miraculous can only consist with godlessness. But
here there was a special reason. The object to which all facts
tended was, according to chap. viii. 18, to prove that Jehovah
the Lord was in the midst of the land. And this proof could
not be substantially conducted if a series of strange horrors
were introduced. From them it would only follow that Jehovah
had received an occasional and external power over Egypt.
On the other hand, if yearly recurring results were placed in
relation to Jehovah, it would be shown very, properly that He
was God in the midst of the land. At the same time, judgment
would be passed on the imaginary gods which had been put
in His place, and they would be completely excluded from the
regions which had been regarded as peculiar to them.
It would lead us too, far to prove in detail how a natural
substratum is present throughout all the plagues, while in none
is a natural explanation admissible. For this we refer to the
treatise, " The Signs and Wonders in Egypt," in The Booh
of Moses and Egypt, p. 93 sqq.
The miracles are taken from the most various departments.
That which was a blessing to Egypt is converted into a curse; the
hurtful which was already in existence is increased to a fearful
degree. The smallest animals become a terrible army of God,
In this way, it was shown that every blessing which ungrateful
Egypt attributed to its idols originated with Jehovah, and that it
was He alone who checked the efficacy of that which was injurious.
With respect to Pharaoh, Calvin remarks : " Nobis in unius
reprobi persona superbise et rebellionis humanse irnago sub-
jicitur." This is the kernel of the whole representation. Every
thing is so represented that each one- can find it out ; and what
is still more, all the arrangements of God are such that this
obduracy must be apparent. The hardness of heart is impor
tant for us in a double aspect : first, in so far as it originated
with Pharaoh, who was not brought to repent even by the
heaviest strokes, and so to ward off that fate which led him
with irresistible power step by step to his destruction ; and
again — and on this the narrator's eye is specially fixed — in so
far as the greatness of God manifests itself in the incomprehen-
THE DELIVERANCE OUT OF EGYPT. 271
sible blindness with which Pharaoh goes to meet his ruin, com
pelling him to do what he would rather not have done. The
greatness of human corruption is seen in the fact that he will
not desist from sin ; the greatness of God, in the fact that he is
not able to desist from that form of sin in which it is madness to
persevere. Every sinner stands under such a fate, from whose
charmed circle he can only escape by the salt, mortale of re
pentance. It is the curse of sin, that it lowers man to a mere
involuntary instrument of the divine plans. At the first inter
view Moses dare not yet reveal the whole counsel of God. Now,
and even afterwards, he demands not the complete release of the
people, but only permission to hold a festival in the wilderness.
There was no deception in this. When God gave the command,
He ordered that the request should be put in such a form that
Pharaoh would not listen to it. If he had complied with it,
which was not possible, Israel would not have gone beyond the
demand. But the object was only that, by the smallness of
the demand, Pharaoh's obstinacy might be more apparent. He
refuses the simple request, and only oppresses the Israelites the
more, while he mocks their God. After some little time Moses
and Aaron repeated their demand, this time with far greater
assurance, representing the misery which the king would bring
upon his owu people by non-compliance. He becomes obstinate;
and instead of proving the goodness of the cause by internal.
grounds, he asks a sign. Ungodliness always seeks some
plausible pretence which may pass for the spirit of proof.
What need was there here for a sign ? His conscience told
him that he had no right to retain Israel ; and the inner voice
of God convinced him that the outward command to let them
go emanated from God. Nevertheless God granted him what
he desired, that the nature of his obstinacy might become
visible, and that the depth of human corruption on the one side,
and on the other side the energy of God's righteousness and
the infinitude of His power, might be made manifest. Never
theless, in conformity with God's constant method in nature
and history, the matter was so arranged that unbelief always
retained some hook to which it could adhere ; for God always
gives light enough even for weak faith, at the. same time leaving
so much darkness that unbelief may continue its night-life.
The miracle of the conversion of the staff into the serpent was
272 SECOND PERIOD — FIRST SECTION.
imitated by the Egyptians ; and thus Pharaoh was punished for
the confidence which he had placed in these idolaters, to the
neglect of the true God. But, at the same time, the circum
stance that the serpent of Moses devoured the serpents of the
priests must have convinced any one of candour and judg
ment, that the secret arts owed their efficacy only to God's per
mission. Pharaoh had not this candour and judgment. His
sinful corruption had robbed him of goodwill, and God had
deprived him of insight and wisdom. He anxiously seized the
feeble support. Now begin those signs which are at the same
time punishment. In the first two it happened as in the case
of the previous sign. Again a handle was given to Pharaoh's
unbelief. The servants of the idols imitated, though only in
a small way, what the servants of God had done on a large
scale. If Pharaoh had had any willingness and insight, this
could not have deceived him. The inner criteria always
remained; and even when looked at externally, he mi are not exclusively
enchantments, but generally secret arts. It is stated that the
priests did the same as Moses, but nothing is said as to how
they did it. When, for instance, we read, " Now the magicians
of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchant
ments ; for they cast down every man his rod, and they be
came serpents ; but Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods," — this
does not imply that the Egyptian wise men really changed
ordinary rods into serpents, " dry wood into living flesh," but
only that they imitated the miracles of Moses in so illusive
a way, that no difference could be proved in the outward mani
festation. The record only keeps to that which passed before
the eyes of the spectators. It does not trouble itself as to the
nature of the arts which the wise men employed to procure
rods which they could make alive. It has no object in enter
ing into this argument. Apart from it, the victory of Moses
is secure and manifest.
The first view, however, must be ennobled before it can be
approved of. The Egyptian wise men are by no means to be
regarded as ordinary jugglers : it must of necessity be recog
nised that they stood in an elevated state, wherein they had
276 SECOND PERIOD — FIRST SECTION.
at their service powers which, though certainly natural, were
very unusual. This appears especially from the analogy of
the serpent-charming which still exists in Egypt (comp. The
Books of Moses and Egypt, p. 98 sqq.). That very analogy,
which evidently stands in close connection with the events in
question, shows us that the theory which sees real miracles
in them is untenable, the more so because one of the actions
recorded has a striking relationship to what is still done by
the serpent-charmers. It is said in the Descr. t. xxiv. p. 82
sqq.: "They can change the hajje, a kind of serpent, into a
stick, and compel it to appear as if dead." If we do not regard
this as a miracle, although no explanation has yet been success
ful and the circumstance is still veiled in mystery, then we can
not look upon these things as miracles.
Moreover, tradition has handed clown to us the names of
the Egyptian enchanters, which Moses does not mention.
Paul, in 2 Tim. iii. 8, calls them Jannes and Jambres; and we
find the same names in the Targums of Jonathan and Jeru
salem ; also in the Talmud, and in heathen writers, in Pliny,
Apuleius, and the Pythagorean Numenius in Eusebius, Praep.
Evang. ix. chap. 8. But the correctness of the tradition
is not attested by the apostolic passage. The apostle plainly
mentions the Egyptian magicians in a connection in whicli
he attaches no importance to their names. He only calls
them by the name current in his time. With reference to
the alleged borrowing of the vessels of the Egyptians by the
Israelites, there is nothing easier than to show that no such
borrowing can here be meant — which nothing could justify-
but that the passages in question can only be understood of
spontaneous presents made by the Egyptians. The assump
tion of borrowing has its basis in two interpretations of words
equally unfounded. 1. The verb ^NE>n is quite arbitrarily
interpreted " to lend ; " W means in Hiphil, " to make an
other ask." This, then, has reference to voluntary and un
asked gifts, in contrast to such as are bestowed only from fear,
or in order to get rid of importunity. He who gives volun
tarily invites another, as it were, to ask, instead of being
himself moved to give by the request. So in 1 Sam. i. 28, the
only other passage where the Hiphil is found. 2. The verb
PS3 has been interpreted to steal, a meaning which it never has,
THE DELIVERANCE OUT OF EGYPT. 277
but rather that of robbery, of a forcible taking away, which
does not at all agree with the assumption of crafty borrowing.
But in what respect could the spontaneous gift be looked upon
as a robbery ? How does this agree with the fact that, in the two
passages, chap. xi. 2 and xii. 36, it is expressly made prominent
by the words, " And the Lord gave the people favour in the
sight of the Egyptians," that the vessels were a voluntary gift
to the Hebrews, prompted by the goodwill of the Egyptians,
through the influence of God, so that fear alone cannot be
regarded as the efficient cause ? The only possible mode of
reconciliation is this: The robber, the spoiler, is God. He
who conquers in battle, carries away the booty. The author
makes it prominent that the Israelites left Egypt, laden, as it
were, with the spoil of their mighty enemies, as a sign of the
victory which the omnipotence of God had vouchsafed to their
impotence. Thus understood, the fact is not only justifiable,
but appears as a necessary- part of the whole : it acquires the
importance which is attributed to it in the Pentateuch, which
had been foretold to Abraham, and to Moses when he was first
called. One of the greatest proofs of God's omnipotence, and
of His grace towards His people, is seen in the fact that He
moves the hearts of the Egyptians not merely to fear, but to
love, those whom they had formerly despised, and had now
so much reason to hate. The material value of the gifts was
insignificant, compared with the value which they had for Israel
as a sign or proof of what God can and will do for His people.
The vessels of the Egyptians had become holy vessels in the
strictest sense, from which we may infer that in the presen
tation of free-will offerings for the holy tabernacle in the wil
derness, these must have formed a large proportion. Comp.
Num. iv. 7, Ex. xxxv.
Before the exodus from Egypt three very important institu
tions were inaugurated by Moses, at the divine command :—
(1.) He gave a law respecting the beginning of the year. In
the Mosaic time, and even long afterwards, until the time of
the captivity the Hebrews had no names for their months,
which were only counted ; the Israelites first took the names
of their months from the Persians : comp. Stern and Benfey on
the names of the months of some ancient nations. No single
name of a month appears in the Pentateuch. Formerly the
278 SECOND PERIOD FIRST SECTION.
Israelites had begun the year with the later month Tisri, which
corresponds to our October ; from this time the current month,
afterwards called Nisan, was to be their first month, as a me
morial of the exodus from Egypt. Josephus says, however,
in his Antiq. Jud. i. 1, chap. 3, § 3, that the change had
reference only to the beginning of the ecclesiastical year,
whereas the civil year began at the same time afterwards as
before. It appears from Lev. xxv. 9 that this happened in
accordance with the design of the lawgiver, that the new be
ginning of the year had reference only to the character of Israel
as the people of God, while the former retained its meaning for
the natural side; for it is here stated that the Sabbath and
jubilee year, which exercised so great an influence on the civil
relations, began with the former beginning of the year, while
the month of the exodus already in the law forms the begin
ning of the ecclesiastical year : comp. Lev. xxiii. 5 ; Num. ix. 1,
2, 11. The new commencement of- the year points to the fact
that, with the deliverance of the people out of Egypt, they
had arrived at a great turning-point ; that with this event the
nation had acquired a spiritual in addition to its natural cha
racter. (2.) The feast of the passover was instituted. This is
generally regarded as a mere memorial, and it did bear that
character ; but such was far from forming its principal signifi
cance, just as little as the Lord's Supper in the New Testa
ment, which corresponds to it. In true religion there cannot
be a mere memorial feast. It recognises nothing as absolutely
past. Its God Jehovah, the existing, the unchangeable, makes
everything old new.
Bat with special reference to the feast of the passover, the
continuance of the slaughter of a lamb as an offering proves
that it cannot be regarded as a mere memorial feast. The
Easter lamb is expressly termed " a sacrifice," Ex. ii. 27, xxiii. 18,
xxxiv. 25. It was slaughtered in holy places, Deut. xvi. 5 sqq.;
and after the sanctuary had been erected, its blood was sprinkled
and its fat burnt on the altar, 2 Chron. xxx. 16, 17, xxxv. 11.
The Jews have always regarded it as a sacrifice. Philo and
Josephus call it Qxyxa and Ovala. In a certain sense, it be
longed to the class of DTOT, to those sacrifices of which the
givers received a part. But this designation has reference
solely to the form, to the communion here associated with the
THE DELIVERANCE OUT OF EGYPT. 279
sin-offering. That it was essentially a sacrifice of atonement,
appears from Ex. xii. 11, 12, and xxii. 23. Israel was to
be spared in the divine punishment which broke forth over
Egypt — the death of the first-born. But lest they should
ascribe this exemption to their own merit, that it might not
lead them to arrogance but gratitude, the deliverance was
made dependent on the presentation of an offering of atone
ment. Whoever then, or at any time, should slaughter the
paschal lamb, made a symbolical confession that he also de
served to be an object of divine wrath, but that he hoped to
be released from its effect by the divine grace which accepts
a substitute. Where there is a continued sacrifice, offered in
faith, there must also be a continued atonement : there must
be a repetition of that first benefit, which is only distin
guished by the fact that it forms the starting-point of the
great series — that with it this first relation of God came into
life. The passover must not be placed in too direct connec
tion with the sparing of the first-born. In harmony with its
name redemption, and then atonement- or reconciliation-offer
ing, it has to do first of all only with atonement, and the
forgiveness of sins which is based on it. But where sin has
disappeared, there can no longer be any punishment for sin.
Again, there is no doubt that the passover stands in a certain
relation to the exodus from Egypt. But here also the connec
tion must not be made too direct. That the Lord led His
people with a strong hand out of Egypt, from the house of
bondage, was only a consequence and an issue of the funda
mental benefit He had conferred on them by the institution
of the passover- offering for atonement and forgiveness of
sins. Israel was to be brought out from the bondage of the
world and its fellowship. It was to be raised to the dignity of
an independent people of God, separate from the heathen.
But before this would or could happen, the only true wall
of partition was erected between them and the world. The
blood of atonement was granted to them, and in it the for
giveness of their sins. It was not without an object that the
passover was held in the harvest month. The harvest was not
to be touched before the feast of the passover. According to
Ex. xxiii. 19-24, comp. Lev. xxiii. 9 sqq., the first sheaf was to
be brought to the Lord on the second day of the feast, as an
280 SECOND PERIOD— FIRST SECTION.
acknowledgment of indebtedness to Him for the whole blessing.
"Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness,
and all these things shall be added unto you." This seek
ing the kingdom of God consists mainly in looking for for
giveness of sins in the blood of atonement. The request for
daily bread is only justified in the mouth of those who have a
reconciled God. After determining the nature of the pass-
over feast, it will not be difficult to point out its relation to
circumcision. The feast of the passover presupposed circum
cision. It is expressly laid down that no uncircumcised person
is to eat of it. When circumcision was omitted in the wilder
ness at the divine command, tlie feast of the passover was
also discontinued, and only recommenced after circumcision
had been again accomplished under Joshua. By the sacra
ment of circumcision the people of Israel became the people
of God, and every individual a member of this people; by
the sacrament of the passover they received the actual divine
assurance that God would not reject them on account of
their sins of infirmity, that of His mercy He would forgive
them, and would not withdraw His blessing from them. From
this it follows that the passover, sometimes termed the feast,
has quite another meaning than all the other Israelitish feasts ;
and also that it must precede all others. By the institution
of the passover, Israel was first put fully into a condition
adapted to the reception of God's commands. That the pass-
over lamb was not merely slaughtered but eaten, symbolized
the appropriation of redeeming grace. The bitter herbs, whicli
were eaten as vegetables, typified the sorrows by which the
elect are visited for their salvation ; the unleavened bread,
the etkiKpiveia and d\i]9eia which they must practise. For
leaven is the symbol of corruption, in antiquity. That the
children of Israel were obliged to eat the passover with their
travelling-staves in their hands, with girded loins and shod feet,
points to the zeal with which the redeemed must walk in the
ways of God, and to the fact that idle rest does not become
them. 3. Then followed the consecration of the first-born. This
was intended to keep in remembrance throughout the whole
year, what the passover, in so far as it was a memorial feast,
testified once a year. The representation of the sparing of the
THE DELIVERANCE OUT OF EGYPT. 281
first-born in Egypt, at the same time a pledge of future grace,
was intended to penetrate the whole life. Every first-born by
his simple existence proclaimed aloud the divine mercy; his
consecration was an embodiment of the exhortation "Be thank
ful." The manner of consecration varied, however ; clean
animals were offered up, clean ones compensated for the un
clean, the first-born among men were redeemed. The assump
tion that the clean animals fell to the lot of the priests rests
on a mere misunderstanding of the passage, Num. xviii. 18,
where it is only said that the same portions of the sacrifices of
the first-born should fall to the priests which are due to them
of all the heave-offerings. As of all the heave-offerings so of
this also God first received His portion, then the priests, and
the rest was consumed in holy feasts.
In the narrative of the exodus of the Israelites our attention
is first arrested by the passage, Ex. xiii. 21, "And the Lord
went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the
way ; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light, to go
by day and night." That the pillar of cloud and of fire should
be mentioned just here, after the account of the arrival of the
children of Israel in Etham, has no basis in chronology, but only
one in fact. We stand immediately before the passage through
the sea, in which the symbol of the divine presence, which was
probably discontinued immediately on the Israelites' departure,
was to unfold its whole meaning. The best that has been said
concerning this symbol is given by Vitringa in the treatise de
Mysterio facis igneae " Israelitis in Arabia praBlucentis," in his
Observv. Sacr. i. 5, 14-17. There is much, it is true, that is
arbitrary and unfounded. The symbol of the divine presence
first mentioned here, led the Israelites afterwards in their whole
march through, the wilderness. After the erection of the. holy
tabernacle it descended upon it. In Ex. xl. 38 it is said, " The
cloud was upon the tabernacle by day, and fire was on it by
night, in the sight of all the house of Israel, throughout all
their journeys." With reference to the outward appearance of
this symbol, it seems that we have not to think of a gross
material fire : Ex. xxiv. 17, " And the sight of the glory of
the Lord was like devouring fire." Vitringa: "Ignis speciem
habuit, veris ignis non fuit." The pillar of cloud and of fire
was not the Angel of the Lord Himse(lf, who, on the contrary,
282 SECOND PERIOD — FIRST SECTION.
is expressly distinguished from it, Ex. xiv. 19. When the
Egyptians approach Israel, the Angel of the Lord first betakes
himself from the head of Israel to the rear, between them and
the Egyptians. Then the pillar of cloud also leaves its place,
from which it appears that this was only the abode of the Angel
of the Lord, the outward sign of His presence, and that He
Himself was not shut up within it. Vitringa: " Vides columnae
nubis jungi angelum tanquam Alius hospitem earn inhabitan-
tem." The form is characterized by the name of a pillar. It
rose, like a pillar of smoke from earth to heaven, and spread its
glory by night far over the camp of the Israelites. Although a
pillar of cloud and fire is generally spoken of, yet it cannot be
doubted that both were one and the same phenomenon, which
only presented a different aspect by day and by night. By
night the fire shone out more clearly from the dark covering.
This appears from Ex. xiv. 20, where one and the same cloud
produces a double effect, covering the Egyptians with darkness,
and at the same time illumining the camp of the Israelites.
Hence it is clear that the cloudy covering was also present
in the mighty symbol of the divine presence. But that the fire
was not absent by day, that it was only concealed by the cloudy
veil, appears from two other passages, Ex. xvi. 10, and Num.
xvi. 19, 35, where, on an extraordinary occasion, in order to
make the presence of God felt by the Israelites, the fire, which
was generally concealed by day and obscured by the sun
shine, broke forth into full splendour. The pillar of cloud
and of fire occupied the front of the Israelitish camp in their
marches (for during the encampment it rested upon the taber
nacle of the covenant) ; Israel, the army of God, preceded
by God their general: comp. Ex. xiii. 21, xxiii. 23; Deut. i.
33. It showed the Israelites the direction they should take : if
it moved, the people broke up their camp ; if it rested, they
encamped. By night it gave them light ; by day, when it was
more extended, it gave them protection against the heat ; as it
is said in Ps. cv. 39, " He spread a cloud for a covering, and
fire to give light in the night." Comp. Num. x. 34, " And
the cloud of the Lord was upon them by day, when they went
out of the camp ;" Isa. iv. 5, 6, xxv. 5, where the shadow of the
cloud, which at one time protected Israel, is made a symbol of
God's protection in the heat of trouble and temptation. From
THE DELIVERANCE OUT OF EGYPT. 283
it all the divine commands proceeded, Num. xii. 5 ; Ex. xxix.
42, 43. Destruction went forth from it upon the enemies
of the people of God, as we learn from the example of the
Egyptians. It frequently bears the name mir TD3, the glory
of Jehovah, that by which God revealed His glory. It was
in a lower sense what Christ was in the fullest sense : to
diravyaap,a tjj? oo^? tov Qeov. If what is related of the
pillar of cloud and of fire be truth, it must prove itself as such
by the fact that only the form of the thing is peculiar to the
Old Testament, while its essence is common to all times. The
whole must have a symbolical, prophetic character. The
whole thing is treated as a prophecy. In the Messianic time
God will again provide His people with a cloud by day and the
splendour of flaming fire by night. Here we have a striking
image of the most special providence of God in Christ, on
behalf of His Church ; we see how He leads His people in
their wanderings through the wilderness of the world, guides
and defends them, and avenges them on their enemies ; how
He shows them the way to the heavenly Canaan ; how He
protects them against the heat of misfortune and tempta
tion ; how He illumines them in the darkness of sin, error, and
of misery ; but also how He reveals Himself to them as con
suming fire, by punishing them for their sins, and rooting
out sinners from their midst. We have still to examine why
this form was chosen as the symbol of the divine presence.
The prevalent opinion regards the cloud only as a veil. Ac
cording to 1 Tim. the concealed God dwells in (/>w? dirpoatrov.
Even the revealed God must veil His majesty, because no
mortal eye can bear the sight. But the clouds with which, or
attended by which, the Lord comes, imply in all other places
in Scripture the administration of judgment. Comp. Isa.
xix. 1 ; Ps. xviii. 10, xcvii. 2 ; Nah. i. 3 ; Apoc. i. 7. And
the correspondence of the fire by night with the cloud by day,
comp. Num. ix. 15, 16, proves that the cloud in the pillar of
cloud and of fire bears a like threatening character. Destruc
tion descends from the cloud upon the Egyptians, Ex. xiv. 24.
In the pillar of cloud the Lord came down to judge Miriam
and Aaron, Num. xii. 5. Isa. iv. 5, 6, distinguishes a twofold
element in the fire — the shining and the burning — and both
appear separately in the history. At the same time fire breaks
284 SECOND PERIOD— FIRST SECTION.
forth from the cloud for the destruction of Egypt, and light
shines out upon Israel. In Scripture, light is the symbol of
divine grace, fire the energy of God's punitive justice, by
which He glorifies Himself within and without the Church in
those who would not glorify Him. That the fire in the cloud
is not to be regarded as bringing blessing but destruction, is
shown not only from the example of the Egyptians, but also
from Ex. xxiv. 17, " And the sight of the glory of the Lord
was like devouring fire." Moses, Deut. iv. 24, characterizes
God Himself as a consuming fire, with reference to this sym
bol, comp. Isa. xxxiii. 14, 15, Heb. xii. 29 (and what we pre
viously said of the symbol of the burning bush). The fire,
therefore, attested to Israel the same thing which was conveyed
in the verbal utterance of God concerning His angel, Ex. xxiii.
21, "Beware of Him, and obey His voice, provoke Him not;
for He will not pardon your transgressions." From this it
appears that in many cases the fire breaks forth with startling
splendour as the reflection of the punitive divine justice, to
terrify the refractory in the camp : comp. Ex. xvi. 10 ; Num.
xiv. 10, xvi. 19, xvii.. 7 et seq. The Angel of the Lord is
a reviving sun to the just ; to the ungodly consuming fire.
The symbol proclaimed this truth ; and the history of the march
through the wilderness confirmed it. But the fire, like the
cloud, bears a twofold character. The threat also includes
a promise. If Israel be Israel, it is directed against their
enemies, while to them it is the fortress of salvation : comp.
Num. ix. 15 et seq. The God of energetic judgment is their
God. If Israel were the people of God, then the pillar of
cloud and of fire became a warning to all their enemies.
"Touch not mine anointed, and do my people no harm."
Rationalism has mooted the hypothesis, that the pillar of cloud
and fire was nothing more than the fire which is frequently
carried before the marches of caravans in iron vessels on poles,
that it may give light by night, while the smoke forms a signal
by day. The origination of this fancy plainly shows how every
one who has not himself experienced God's special providence,
is under the necessity of obliterating all traces of it from history.
It is impossible for him who has the substance to stumble at
the form, adapted as it was to the wants which the people
of God then had. Ex. xiv. 24 serves as a refutation of this
THE DELIVERANCE OUT OF EGYPT. 285
view, so far as it claims to be in harmony with the narrative
itself ; for according to this passage, lightning came down from
the pillar of cloud upon the Egyptians : comp. also the passages
just cited, where the obstinate are terrified by the sudden break
ing out of fire. He who stands in the faith will draw comfort
and edification from this circumstance, instead of abandoning
himself to such miserable interpretations ; and is thus enabled
the more easily to recognise the Angel of God who goes before
him also. From the stand-point of faith we must necessarily
agree with Vitringa, who says : " Ecquis vero, qui divinae ma-
jestatis reverentia et termitatis humanae sensu affectus est, ut
decet, non stupeat, Deum immortalem et gloriosum homines mor-
tales tam singulari prosecutum esse elementia et gratia, ut suam
iis praesentiam notabili adeo et illustri symbolo demonstrare
voluerit?" This sign of the divine presence, this guarantee
that God was in their midst, was the more necessary for the
people of God since their leader Moses was a mere man, whose
divine commission made it the more desirable that there should
be a confirmation of the divine presence by means of an inde
pendent sign. It is quite different with respect to the church
of the new covenant, whose head is the God -man. The
accounts of the caravan-fire (best given in the Description, t. 8,
p. 128) are of interest only in so far as this custom appears to
be the foundation upon which the form of the symbol of the
divine presence was based. The pillar of cloud and fire may
be characterized as an irony of that caravan-fire. The hypo
thesis of Ewald, which makes the pillar of cloud and fire to
have been the holy altar-fire, is perhaps still more unfortunate.
His partiality for this hypothesis leads him to assume, in direct
opposition to the narrative, that the pillar of cloud and fire first
appeared at the erection of the holy tabernacle, and forcibly
to explain away all those passages in which the pillar of cloud
and fire afterwards appears outside the sanctuary ; all this only
in the interest of ordinary miracle-explanation, which, with
him, generally plays an important part, though it does not ven
ture to come forth openly. Above all it must not b6 forgotten
that our source describes the pillar of cloud as it was seen with
the eye of faith. It was no doubt so arranged here, as it is
everywhere, that obstinate unbelief should have a handle — some
apparent justification of the natural explanation of the pheno-
286 SECOND PERIOD FIRST SECTION.
menon. We must not form too material a conception of the
pillar of cloud ; we must not regard it as having remained
absolutely the same at all times, nor as distinctly separated
from all natural phenomena. So palpable an appearance of
the divine continuing for so long a period would be without
analogy ; and nothing in the narrative obliges us to accept it
if we remember that the author's object was not to give an
accurate and detailed description of the phenomenon in all its
phases and changes, for scientific purposes, but that, as a writer
of sacred history, he was only concerned with its significance
for the piety to which it belonged.
The reason why Moses, at God's command, did not take the
Israelites by the nearest way to Canaan, through the land of
the Philistines, but led them by the path through the Arabian
desert, is given in Deut. xiii. 17: "Lest peradventure the
people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt."
But, in order to understand the full significance of this reason,
it is necessary to bring back the particular to its universal
foundation. It was the lack of living, heartfelt, stedfast faith
which made them incapable of fighting with the Philistines.
Owing to this weakness they could not yet perform what was
required of them in Deut. xx. 1 : " When thou goest out to
battle against thine enemies, and seest horses and chariots, and
a people more than thou, be not afraid of them : for the Lord
thy God is with thee, which brought thee up out of the land of
Egypt." And the same lack of faith made it necessary that
in many other respects also they should be first sent into the
wilderness, the preparatory school. As the people of God,
they were destined to possess the land of Canaan. Therefore,
before the possession of it could be granted to them, they must
become the people of God in spirit. In this respect they had
only yet made a weak beginning. It was, therefore, impossible
that they should at once be led to Canaan, the more so because
divine decorum required that the ministers of divine punitive
justice to the Canaanites should not themselves deserve the
same punishment. The bestowal of the land on a people
not much less sinful than the Canaanites, would have been an
actual contradiction of the declaration that it was taken from
them on account of their sins. For the covenant-people there
were no purely external gifts. The exhortation was, " Seek ye
THE DELIVERANCE OUT OF EGYPT. 287
first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these
things shall be added unto you." The kernel and foundation
of all this was the land of Canaan. How then could it be
given to Israel before they had earnestly sought after the king
dom of God? It would have been severity in God to have
given it to them immediately after their departure out of Egypt.
For the land would soon have cast out the new inhabitants, just
as it did the former, comp. Lev. xviii. 28. It has been objected
that the new generation showed itself still sinful in the fortieth
year. But a perfectly holy people does not belong to this
troubled world. The history of the time of Joshua, however,
sufficiently shows that the new generation was animated by a
very different spirit from that which had grown up under Egyp
tian influence.
The passage through the Red Sea is to be regarded in a
twofold aspect as the necessary conclusion of the Egyptian
plagues. First, with respect to Israel. If they had departed
triumphantly out of Egypt without any hindrance, with a high
hand, as the text has it — i.e., frank and free — then the plagues
would soon have been forgotten because of the slight point of
contact which the wonderful divine manifestations still had with
their minds. How much their confidence had increased, ap
pears from the fact that they came forth from Egypt in order, in
the form of an army ; or, according to the source, they went out
d^'DTl — i.e., in the opinion of Ewald, in fives, separated into
middle, right and left wing, front and back lines, in accordance
with the simplest division of every army which is prepared for
battle. But according to others, the expression means equipped
in warlike trim. The human heart is refractory and despond
ing. When things turn out evil, despair at once sets in ; when
all is prosperous, false confidence and pride arise. Though pre
viously without arms, they wished to play the 'soldier, and
thought themselves able to overcome the world ; they formed
themselves into ranks as well as they could ; and doubtless made
a ridiculous spectacle to those among the Egyptian spectators
who were skilled in war. It was time that their own weakness
should be brought powerfully home to them ; which happened
when God put it into Pharaoh's heart to pursue them. In
order that the earlier distress and help might attain their object,
the distress and help must rise once more at the exodus to the
288 SECOND PERIOD— FIRST SECTION.
highest point ; death without God, and life through God, must
once again be placed in the liveliest contrast. Again, with
respect to Pharaoh. The divine judgment had advanced only
to the death of his first-born son. The water did not yet reach
his neck. If we take into consideration the greatness of his
obduracy, we see that there was still one prophecy unfulfilled—
that of his death. Without this, the revelation of the divine
righteousness, the type of the judgment on the world and its
princes, at once strikes us as incomplete, — a mere fragment
which, as such, does not carry with it the internal certainty of
divine authorship.
The deep significance of the passage through the sea as an
actual prophecy is already recognised by the prophets, when
they represent the deliverance by the Messiah and the final
victory of God's people over the world as a repetition of this
event, for example, Isa. xi. 15, 16. It has also been recognised
by our pious singers when they make it a pledge of God's con
tinual guidance through sorrow to joy, through the cross to
glory ; comp. the song, " Um frisch hinein, es wird so tief nicht
sein, das rothe Meer wird dir schon Platz vergonnen," etc.,
after the example of the Psalmist in numerous passages, Ps.
cxiv. 3, etc., where the sea is specially regarded as the symbol
of the power of the world, and its retreating before the children
of Israel as the pledge of the victory of God's people over the
world. We have still to consider the relation of the passage
through the Red Sea to that through the Jordan. Both are
closely connected. First as a justification of Israel against the
Canaanites. This aspect is already brought forward in the
song of praise in Ex. xv. 15 : "Sorrow shall take hold on the
inhabitants of Palestine. Then the dukes of Edom shall be
amazed ; the mighty men of Moab, trembling shall take hold
upon them; all the inhabitants of Canaan shall melt away."
As the servants of divine righteousness, the Israelites were to
exterminate the Canaanites. Such a commission is not at all
conceivable unless he to whom it is given receives an unques
tionably divine authorization. Otherwise the greatest scope
is given to human wickedness. Each one might invent such
a commission, by which means that which was really divine
punishment might not be recognised as such. But because
THE DELIVERANCE OUT OF EGYPT. 289
the. Israelites were led out from their former habitation in a
marvellous way, and in a marvellous way conducted into their
new habitation, it was impossible that any one should throw
doubt on their divine commission. The passage through
the Red Sea was to the Canaanites an actual proclamation of
divine judgment. It showed them that it was not the sword
of Israel, but of God, that was suspended over their heads.
And because they saw it in this light their courage failed
them. The passage through the Jordan could no longer come
unexpected. It was already implied in the passage through
the Red Sea, as its necessary complement, and must follow,
if we suppose that the Jordan by its natural power placed an
insuperable obstacle in the way of entrance into the promised
land. For to what purpose had the Lord led the people out
of Egypt? Certainly with no other object than to lead them
into the land of promise. Finally, both events are closely con
nected in a typical aspect also. He whom God leads forth
from the bondage of the world with a strong hand, has in this a
pledge that God will also lead him with a strong hand into the
heavenly Canaan.
With respect to the mode and manner of the deliverance
from Egypt, when the Israelites had once come as far as the
region north of the Arabian Gulf, arid therefore to the borders
of 'Egypt, they would in all human probability have left Egypt
at once, and have taken the eastern side of the Arabian Gulf.
But instead of this Moses led them, at the divine command,
back again, up the western side of the Arabian Gulf. If they
were attacked here, they were cut off from all escape, suppos
ing that before the attack the region north of the Red Sea was
occupied, in which case there might already be an Egyptian
castle here for the protection of the country against the hordes
of the wilderness. Pharaoh, who had ascertained their position
by means of spies, rushed into the snare that God had laid for
him. If the former divine manifestations had found any re
sponse in him, his first thought would have been that this was
a snare, like God's former dealing in permitting the success of
his magicians. But human judgment is swayed by inclination
—a mighty proof that a just God, who takes the wise in their
craftiness, has dominion over the world — and with Pharaoh in
clination was always predominant. Thus he saw what he
T
290 SECOND PERIOD — FIRST SECTION.
wished to see. The position of the Israelites, humanly speak
ing so unwisely chosen, appeared to furnish him with a cer
tain proof that they could not be under the special guidance of
divine providence, that there was no God of Israel who was
at the same time God over the whole world, and that the clear
proof of His existence, which he had hitherto experienced, had
been only delusion and accident. The more he reproached him
self with foolishness, in having yielded to them, the more he
hastened to wipe out the disgrace. This was his only object;
he lost sight of everything else. Here we see plainly how
God befools the sinner. The operation of God forms the only
key to the explanation of Pharaoh's incomprehensible delusion ;
an operation which, however, was not confined to him alone,
but appears daily. Without it there would be no criminal.
But the conduct of the Israelites when they saw the danger
before their eyes, their utter despair, as if they had never been
in contact with God, is equally incomprehensible for him who
is ignorant of human nature and the heart of man in its stub
bornness and despondency. For him who looks deeper, all this
impresses the 'description with the seal of truth.
The place of crossing was in all probability the extreme
northern limit of the gulf (Niebuhr's Description of Arabia,
p. 410), where, according to Niebuhr's measurement, it is 757
double steps broad, and was therefore a fitting scene for the
manifestation of divine miraculous power. V. Schubert, in
his Travels in the East, part ii. p. 269, estimates the breadth
of the Isthmus of Suez at about half an hour. There are also
facts which show that the Isthmus of Suez formerly extended
farther towards the north, and was broader : comp. Niebuhr,
in the passages already cited, Robinson's Palestine, i. 19, and
Fr. Strauss, Journey to the East, p. 120. V. Raumer, in the
March of the Israelites from Egypt to Canaan, Leipzig 1837,
p. 9 sqq., represents the Israelites as having gone much farther
south across the gulf, by the plain Bede, where the sea is per
haps six hours' journey across ; but this view is sufficiently dis
proved by the circumstance that he proceeds on an erroneous
determination of the place from which the Israelites set out,
and of the way they took, making this determination the only
basis of his assumption : comp. the copious refutation in Tlie
Books of Moses and Egypt, p. 54 sqq. If it be established
THE DELIVERANCE OUT OF EGYPT. 291
that the place from which the Israelites set out, Raamses, is
identical with Heroopolis, and that Heroopolis lay north-east
of the Arabian Gulf, in the vicinity of the Bitter Lakes, thir
teen French hours from the Arabian Gulf, which the Israelites
reached on the second day after their departure, then it is proved
at the same time that the passage must have taken place not
far from the extreme north. V. Raumer, who places Raamses
in the neighbourhood of fleliopolis, asserts that from here to
the Red Sea was a journey of twenty-six hours, which it was
not possible for the Israelites to accomplish in two days. In his
later work, Aids to Biblical Geography, Leipzig 1843, p. 1 sqq.,
and also in the third and fourth edition of The Geography of
Palestine, v. Raumer himself destroys the foundation of his
hypothesis, which, however, he still retains, by agreeing with
the position assigned to Raamses in The Books of Moses and
Egypt, afterward independently maintained by Robinson. The
argument, that the way is too long for two days' journey, he
meets with the assumption that Ex. xiii. 20 and Num. xxxiii. 6
refer only to the places of encampment where the Israelites
remained for a longer period. But this distinction between
days of journeying and places of encampment is highly impro
bable, so far as the march of the Israelites through Egyptian
territory is concerned ; for Pharaoh drove them out of the land
in haste, Ex. xii. 33, and their own interest demanded that they
should depart with the greatest possible speed. The assertion,
" It is quite incomprehensible why the Israelites should have
despaired, or why a miracle should have happened, if they
could have gone round that little tongue of water without any
inconvenience," does not take into consideration what is said in
The Books of Moses and Egypt, p. 58, founded on Ex. xiv. 2,
in favour of the assumption that the Egyptian garrison had
blocked up the way by the north of the gulf. Here it was
quite immaterial whether the Israelites went more or less south.
But the view that the Israelites travelled by Bede through the
sea entails great difficulties, for the passage of such immense
masses could scarcely have been effected in so short a time
through a sea three miles in width. Stichel, Stud. u. Krii.
1850, ii. S. 377 ff., whom Kurtz, Geschichte des A. B. ii.
S. 166 ff., has incautiously followed, contests the identity of
Raamses and Heroopolis. But the objection that, in accord-
292 SECOND PERIOD — FIRST SECTION.
ance with the narrative, Raamses must have lain close to the
Egyptian residence, confounds the temporary dwelling-place
of Pharaoh, who had repaired to the scene of events, with his
usual residence. The assertion of Stichel, that Raamses is
identical with Belbeis must be regarded a.s purely visionary;
while the identity with Heroopolis has important authorities in
its favour, especially the testimony of the LXX., which Stichel
vainly tries to set aside. But there are decided positive reasons
against the identity with Belbeis. In its interest Stichel, like v.
Raumer, is obliged to assume a succession of days' journeying.
And he himself is obliged to confess that this hypothesis is in
compatible with the fact attested in Ps. lxxviii. 12, 43, comp.
with Num. xiii. 22 (23), that Zoan or Zanis was at that time
the residence of Pharaoh. The following was the course of
the catastrophe : — An east wind drove the water some distance
on to the Egyptian shore, where it was absorbed by the thirsty
sand, and at the same time kept back the water of the southern
part of the sea, preventing it from occupying the space thus
vacated, which was surrounded by water on both sides, north
and south. Here again a handle was given to the unbelief
of the Egyptians. In the natural means employed by God,
they overlooked the work of His miraculous power. The
darkness also in which they were enveloped by the cloud they
regarded as merely accidental. It has been frequently main
tained that the passage of the Israelites took place at the time
of the ebb, while the flow engulfed the Egyptians who pursued
them. This hypothesis is refuted by the fact that Q'lp never
means or can mean the east wind ; and, moreover, it is incon
sistent with the oft-repeated statement that the water stood up
to right and left of the Israelites, as also with the analogy of
the passage through the Jordan. Besides, the Egyptians, know
ing the nature of their own country, would certainly not have
followed so blindly if a tide were to be expected. We must
therefore give up this hypothesis, which has been recently revived
by Robinson and justly opposed by v. Raumer. Moreover, the
efficacy here attributed to the wind still finds its analogies :
" When a continuous north wind," says Schubert, " drives the
water towards the south, especially at the time of ebb, it can
be traversed northwards from Suez, and may be waded through
on foot ; but if the wind suddenly turns round to the south-east,
THE MARCH THROUGH THE WILDERNESS. 293
the water may rise in a short time to the height of six feet.
Napoleon experienced this when he wanted to ride through the
sea at that place, and was in danger of his life owing to the
sudden rise of the water. When he had been safely brought
back to land, he said, ' It would have made an interesting text
for every preacher in Europe if I had, been drowned here.'"
But God's time had not yet come — he was still needed ; after
wards he was swallowed up in Moscow.
§4.
THE MARCH THROUGH THE WILDERNESS UNTIL THE
GIVING OF THE LAW ON SINAI.
The result of the former leadings of God is thus given in
Ex. xiv. 31 : " And Israel saw that great work which the Lord
did upon the Egyptians : and the people feared the Lord, and
believed the Lord and His servant Moses." The song in Ex.
xv. is an expression of fear and of faith, with the love arising
therefrom. The same love is also attributed to the people in Jer.
ii. 2, " I remember thee, the kindness of thy youth, the love of
thine espousals, when thou wentest after me in the wilderness, in
a land that was not sown," which must be regarded as having
reference to the first time of the sojourn in the wilderness be
fore the giving of the law on Sinai, on account of the mention
of the youth and espousals which are replaced by marriage on
Sinai. The whole behaviour of the people at the giving of the
law also bears testimony to this love, the extreme readiness with
which they promise to do everything the Lord may command.
Then again, the great zeal in presenting the best they had for
the construction of the sacred tabernacle.
It seems at the first glance that the people might now have
been put in possession of the inheritance promised to them by
the Lord ; and so they themselves believed, as we see from their
murmuring on every opportunity. But because God knew the
disposition of human nature, He chose a different course. The
state of almost entire estrangement from God was succeeded by
one of temptation and trial, the necessity of which rests on the
294 SECOND PERIOD— FIRST SECTION.
circumstance that the influence of Egypt was not limited to the
surface, but had penetrated to the lowest depths.
It is expressly stated in Deut. viii. 2-5, the principal passage
bearing on the subject, that temptation and trial formed the
centre of the entire guidance through the wilderness : " And
thou shalt remember all the way which the Lord thy God led
thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and
to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou
wouldest keep His commandments, or no." The same thing
appears also from the comparison of Christ's sojourn in the
wilderness ; for its essential agreement with the guidance of
Israel is indicated by the external similarity of time and place —
the wilderness, and the forty years corresponding to the forty
days. It is shown also by the history itself, which only comes
out in its true light when we start from the idea of trial.
And finally it is made manifest by the predictions of the pro
phets, who announce the repetition of the three stations —
Egypt, the wilderness, and Canaan: Hos. ii. 16; Ex. xx. 34-38;
Jer. xxxi. 1, 2. The first is complete bondage to the world,
first as guilt and then as punishment ; the second is trial and
purification ; the third is the induction into full possession of
divine grace.
But what is the nature of temptation? It presupposes that
there is already something in man, that the fire of love to
God is already, kindled in him, and is the means which God's
love employs to strengthen and purify this love. First love is
only too often, indeed always more or less, but a straw-fire.
Sin is not quite mortified ; it is only momentarily overpowered.
The true rooting out of sin, the changing of the love of feeling
and of phantasy into a heartfelt, profound, moral love, de
mands that sin should be brought to the light, that the inner
nature of man should be perfectly revealed, that all self-decep
tion, all unconscious hypocrisy should be made bare. True self-
knowledge is the basis of true God-knowledge. From it springs
self-hatred, the condition of love to God. We learn to know
our own weakness, and are by this means brought closer to
God. So also in temptation we learn to know God in the con
tinuous help which He vouchsafes to us, in the long-suffer
ing and patience that He has with our weakness, in the ex
pression of His punitive justice towards our obduracy; and
THE MARCH THROUGH THE WILDERNESS. 295
this knowledge of God forms the basis of heartfelt love to
Him. God proves in a double way — by taking and by giving. By
taking. As long as we are in the lap of fortune, we readily
imagine that we love God above everything, and stand in the
most intimate fellowship with Him. While adhering to the
gifts, the heart believes that it is adhering to God. God takes
away the gifts, and the self-deception becomes manifest. If
it now appear that we do not love God without His gifts, at
the same time it becomes clear that we did not formerly love
Him in His gifts. Again, in happiness we readily imagine that
we possess a heroic faith. We say triumphantly, " Who shall
separate us from the love of God?" But as soon as misfortune
comes, we look upon ourselves as hopelessly lost. We place no
confidence in God ; we doubt and murmur. It is impossible
to determine the character of our faith until we are tried by
the cross.
But just as Satan seeks to make pleasure as well as pain
instrumental to our ruin, so God tries by that which He gives
no less than by that which He takes. We are only too ready
to forget the Giver in His gifts, we become accustomed to
them, they appear to us as something quite natural ; gratitude
disappears, we ask " Why this alone ? why not that also ? " The
heart which is moved to despair by the taking becomes insolent
on the giving. God allows us to have His gifts in order to
bring to light this disposition of the heart.
The second station is, for many, the last. Many fall in the
wilderness. But while a mass of individuals are left lying
there, the church of God always advances to the third station
— to the possession of Canaan. The state of purification is for
them always a state of sifting. Ezekiel says, chap. xx. 38,
" And I will purge out from among you the rebels, and them
that transgress against me : I will bring them forth out of the.
country where they sojourn, and they shall not enter into the
land of Israel : and ye shall know that I am the Lord." In
Ezekiel this appears as a promise. That which is a misfortune
to individuals is a benefit to the church. The rooting out
of obdurate sinners by trial is for the church what the rooting
out of sin is for the individual.
Let us now investigate somewhat more closely the locality
296 SECOND PERIOD— FIRST SECTION.
of the temptation. Much light has been thrown on this sub
ject by recent travellers, especially Burckhardt, Travels in Syria
and the Holy Land, London 1822, in German by W. Gesenius,
Weimar 1823 ; Riiffell, Reisen in Nubien, Kordofan, und dem
Petraischen Arabien, Frankfurt 1838-40 ; Laborde, Voyage de
I'Arabie PStrSe, Paris 1830-34; Robinson, who does not, how
ever, afford so much information here as on Canaan. The best
summary is contained in the map of v. Raumer : Der Zug der
Israeliten aus Aegypten nach Canaan, Leipzig 1837 ; comp. his
Beitrdge zur biblischen Geographic, Leipzig 1843, and the
latest edition of the Geographie von Palastina, 1860. Then
Ritter's Erdkunde, 14ter Theil, die Sinai-Halbinsel, Berlin 1848.
Close to the fruitful country on the eastern side of the Lower
Nile, at a short distance from Cairo, the barren desert of Arabia
begins, and extends from thence to the bank of the Euphrates.
The Edomite mountains, extending from the Aelanitic Gulf
to the Dead Sea, divide this desert into the Eastern Arabia
Deserta and the Western Arabia Petraea. The latter is
bounded on the north by the Mediterranean Sea and Palestine,
on the south it runs out into a point between the Gulf of Suez
and of Aila ; and on the end of this point is Mount Sinai, in
the language of Scripture, Horeb. This mountain has springs,
luxuriant vegetation, and noble fruits, but north of it the country
at once assumes a dreary aspect. First comes a barren and
waterless plain of sand, then the mountain-chain et-Tih, and
beyond it the dreadful desert et-Tih, occupying the greater
part of the peninsula. Here bare chalk hills alternate with plains
of dazzling white, drifting sand, extending farther than the eye
can reach ; there are a few springs, mostly bitter — not a tree,
not a shrub, not a human dwelling. On the wide stretch from
Sinai to Gaza there is not a single village.
Towards the east this waste table-land et-Tih sinks down
into a valley fifty hours' journey in length and two hours' jour
ney wide, which extends from the southern point of the Dead
Sea to the Aelanitic Gulf ; the northern half is now el-Ghor,
the southern, el-Araba. In Scripture the name Araba is em
ployed of the entire district. On the whole it is waste, yet
not without a few oases. In this valley the Israelites had their
principal camp during the thirty-eight years of exile.
The Edomite range, which forms the eastern boundary, rises
THE MARCH THROUGH THE WILDERNESS. 297
abruptly from the bottom of the valley, but on the other side
it is only slightly elevated above the higher desert of Arabia
Deserta. The country, where for forty years the Israelites were kept
in the school of temptation, was in two respects better adapted
to their object than any other; and in this choice we see clearly
the divine wisdom. 1. The land was a true picture of the state
of the Israelites, and was therefore calculated to bring it to
their consciousness. That this formed part of the divine plan
is shown by the analogous sojourn of John in the wilderness.
Although already in Canaan in the body — this is the virtual
testimony of John — yet the nation is essentially still in the
wilderness. They do not yet possess God in the fulness of His
blessings and gifts. They are still in the barren wilderness, in
the state of trial, sifting, and purification. But now the
entrance into Canaan is at hand. Happy is he who does not
remain lying in the wilderness. 2. The Arabian desert was
by its natural character peculiarly adapted to serve as the place
of trial for a whole nation. Where natural means are in exist
ence, God, who is also the originator of the natural world,
makes them subservient to His purpose, and does not by
miracles interfere with a nature, independent, and existing
beside Him. In the trial by taking there was no necessity for
any extraordinary exercise of power. The barren and waste
desert gave opportunity enough. It also presented a natural
substratum for the trial by giving, though less than might have
been found elsewhere. This very circumstance, however, was
specially adapted to God's plan. By this means He manifested
Himself the more clearly as the giver. He who tries no man
beyond what he is able to bear, would not expect a nation
still weak to recognise Him as the giver of those gifts which
came to them in the ordinary course of nature. He gave
them bread from heaven to teach them that the common bread
also came from heaven. This mode of thought characterizes
the lawgiver himself. In Deut. viii. 3 we read, " He suffered
them to hunger, and fed them with manna, which thou knewest
not, neither did thy fathers know; that He might make thee
know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word
that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live."
Ewald says, " The desert is like the sea, exactly adapted, as it
298 SECOND PERIOD— FIRST SECTION.
were, to remind man in the strongest way of his natural help-
lessness and frailty, teaching him at the same time to place a
truer and higher value on those strange alleviations and deliver
ances which he often encounters so unexpectedly, even in the
wilderness." •
The beginning of the temptation occurred at the bitter waters
of Mara. " The water," says Burckhardt, " is so bitter that
men cannot drink it, and even camels, unless very thirsty,
cannot endure it." This was the more felt by the Israelites,
because they were accustomed to the excellent water of the
Nile, highly lauded by all travellers. God might previously
have deprived the water of its bitterness, but in this case Israel
would neither have murmured nor have expressed gratitude;
and the design was that they should do both, as long as they
still retained their morbid temper of mind. The bitterness of
their heart was to be revealed by the bitterness of the water.
So also in its sweetness they were to become sensible of the
sweet love of God towards them. The antithesis to the wood
by which the water is here made sweet, is to be found in the
Apocalypse, viii. 10, 11, in the wormwood which is thrown by
God into the water of the world and makes it bitter. For His
own, God makes the bitter water sweet; for the world, He
makes the sweet water bitter. How far the means by which
the water was made sweet were natural, and to be looked
upon as a gift of God only as they pointed out that which had
hitherto been unknown, we cannot determine. The present
inhabitants, . from whom Burckhardt and Robinson made in
quiries, are not acquainted with any means of sweetening the
waters, which still continue bitter ; and the accurate researches
of Lepsius led to just as little result. After God had helped
the people by Moses, and had put their murmuring to shame,
He gave them " a statute and an ordinance," Ex. xv. 25, — that
is to say, He brought home to their hearts the truths which
had been brought to light by these events, Jhe condemnation
attached to unbelief, and the unfailing certainty of divine help
if they only walked in the way of God. Ver. 26 shows that
the words are to be understood in this sense. The history will
only gain its proper educating effect when it is rightly inter
preted and applied by the ministers of the word.
As the first temptation had reference to drink, the second
THE MARCH THROUGH THE WILDERNESS. 299
was connected with food. This was natural. The carnal people
who had taken such pleasure in the flesh-pots of Egypt must
be attacked on their sensitive side. They could not yet be
tempted by spiritual drought and spiritual hunger. God first
allows their unbelief to appear in a very gross form, and
then shames them by miraculous help, which is again a temp
tation, r-
The Israelites had longed not only for Egyptian bread, but
also for Egyptian meat. God showed that He was able to give(
them both, by granting them manna and quails on one and
the same day ; the latter merely as a token of His power. For
the present, manna only was to be the permanent food of
the people, lest by the too great abundance of the gifts they
should be led to despise them. The quails disappeared after
having served as their food for only one day, to be given to
them afterwards, however, for a longer period.
It is well known that there is a natural manna in the Arabian
desert. But this does not exclude the fact that in this manna
the Israelites recognised the glory of the Lord, to use a scrip
tural expression, and were able to call it JD — present, gift of
God; a name which afterwards passed over to the natural
manna. For them it was bread from heaven. In Ex. xvi. 4 it
is called "bread of the mighty ones," and in Ps. lxxviii. 25,
bread of the angels, i.e. bread from the region of the angels,
or, as the Chaldee paraphrases it, " food which came down from
the dwelling of the angels." To make use of this natural
manna to do away with the miracle, is nothing less than to
throw suspicion on the miraculous feeding of the 5000, because
of the fewness of the loaves and fishes which formed the natural
substratum of it. According to Burckhardt, the quantity of
manna now collected on the peninsula, even in the most rainy
years, amounts only to 500 to 600 pounds. We must, therefore,
ask with the apostles, ravra rl et? roaovTovs ; In years which are
not rainy scarcely any is to be found. But, on the other hand,
we must take care not to follow the course recently pursued by
v. Raumer and Kurtz, respecting the manna, who, in their
fear of the worship of miracles, go beyond the statements of
Scripture. We must enter somewhat more fully into these
misunderstandings (with reference to the discussions in our
work on Balaam). (1.) It has been often assumed, owing to a
300 SECOND PERIOD— FIRST SECTION.
misunderstanding of Josh. v. 11, 12, that manna was given to
the Israelites, not only on the Sinaitic peninsula, but also in the
trans-Jordanic country, and even during the first period of
their residence in Canaan proper. But it is clear that the pas
sage refers to a definite cessation, from the circumstance that
the period of manna now definitively ceases, and is replaced by
the period of bread. That it must be so understood follows
from Josh. i. 11, and still more decisively from Ex. xvi. 35,
where the inhabited land appears as the natural limit of the ,
manna, which is spoken of as something already past. In Deut.
viii. 2, 3, 16, the manna and the wilderness appear inseparably
connected. It is thus certain that the manna did not follow
the Israelites into Canaan. It even appears probable, from
Deut. ii. 6, that manna was not given to them beyond its usual
district, the Sinaitic peninsula. (2.) In accordance with the
prevailing opinion, manna formed the sole food of the Israelites
during the forty years' sojourn in the wilderness, coming to
them without any interruption, and always in the same abun
dance. But we are led to a contrary result, first, by the state
ments of the Pentateuch itself, from which it appears that
the desert was the abode of many peoples, who found their
sustenance in it, and further, by a consideration of the natural
resources offered by the wilderness, which are expressly men
tioned in Ex. xv. 27. And we know from Deut. ii. 6, 7, that
they possessed pecuniary means which enabled them to procure
by trade all that was necessary, as soon as they came into the
neighbourhood of inhabited districts. The accounts of recent
travellers, moreover, confirm the statements of the Israelites
themselves, that the Arabian desert is rich in resources; and
there are many indications that these resources were at one time
considerably more abundant. Such indications are collected
in my essay, Moses and Colenso, in the year 64 of the Evan.
Kirchenzeitung, which enters minutely into the means of sub
sistence afforded to the Israelites in the wilderness. Notwith
standing all this, however, there must unquestionably have
been times and places in which the maintenance of so large a
multitude necessarily demanded extraordinary divine assistance,
and at such times and in such places the Israelites received the
gift of manna.
We only remark further, that Ehrenberg's assumption, that
THE MARCH THROUGH THE WILDERNESS. 301
natural manna is the honey-like secretion of a small insect,
is now almost universally rejected. Wellsted, Lepsius, and
Ritter, who have given us the most complete account of the
manna, have declared against it. The opinion that the na
tural manna exudes from a twig of the manna-tamarisk is
also subject to considerable suspicion. From the analogy of
the biblical manna, which " the Lord rained from heaven,"
according to Ex. xvi. 4, and which " fell upon the camp in the
night with the dew," according to Num. xi. 9, it seems more
probable that the manna-tamarisk merely exercises an attractive
influence upon the manna which comes 'out of the air, and that
this latter is not absolutely connected with it. But we cannot
follow those who do away with this connection between the
natural and the biblical manna. We are led to uphold it from
the circumstance that manna is not found in any part of the
earth, except where it was given to the Israelites, and that the
natural manna is found in the very place where the Israelites
first received it, and finally from the identity of name. This
connection is already recognised by Josephus. He relates that
in his time, by the grace of God, there was a continuance of
the same food which rained down in the time of Moses. The
differences — among which the most important is that the present
manna contains no proper element of nutrition, but, according
to Mitscherlich's chemical analysis, consists of mere sweet gum —
prove nothing against the connection, since the same natural
phenomenon may appear in various modifications.
The giving of the manna — which served as a continual re
minder to the nation that the milk and honey so abundant in
the promised land were also the gift of God, a remembrance
which was kept alive by the enjoined laying up of a pot with
manna before the ark of the covenant in the Holy of holies —
was also highly important in another aspect. It formed a
preparation for the introduction of the Sabbath, which had
hitherto not been generally observed among the Israelites.
The gathering of a double portion on Friday, mentioned in
Ex. xvi. 22-30, and the gathering of none on the Sabbath,
were not a result of caprice on the part of the people, as the
defenders of the pre-Mosaic observance of the Sabbath have
falsely assumed. The people gathered on each occasion as
much manna as had fallen ; and by the decree of God this
302 SECOND PERIOD— FIRST SECTION.
sufficed for their wants. On Friday there was unexpectedly
so much, that double the usual portion could be gathered.
Amazed, the elders of the people hasten to Moses and ask him
what is to be done with this superabundance. He tells them
that it must serve for the following day also, on which, as the
day holy to the Lord, no manna would fall. Taken in this
sense, the event stands in remarkable parallel with another : the
command to eat unleavened bread was not given to the people
at the first passover, but, contrary to expectation, God so dis
posed events that they were obliged to eat unleavened bread
against their will. This divine institution served as a sanction
to the Mosaic arrangement for the later celebration of the
feast. In a similar way God hallowed the Sabbath before
allowing the command to hallow it to reach the nation through
Moses. He took from them the possibility of work on the
Sabbath, to show them that in future they must abstain from
it voluntarily. At the same time He made them understand
that it was not designed to injure their bodily health. By
the circumstance that a double portion was given on Friday,
and that those who were disobedient to the word of God and
went out on the Sabbath to collect manna, found nothing, it
was made evident that God's blessing on the six days of acquisi
tion may suffice for the seventh ; and that he is left destitute
who selfishly and greedily tries to snatch from God the seventh
day also, and to use it for his own ends. The Lord, it is said,
gives you the Sabbath. Here the Sabbath already appears not
as a burden but as a pleasure, Isa. lviii. 13, as a precious privi
lege which God gives to His people. To be able to rest without
anxiety, — to rest to the Lord and in the Lord, — what a con
solation in our toil and travail on the earth which the Lord has
cursed ! But just because the day of rest is a love-gift of the
merciful God, contempt of it is the more heavily avenged. We
cannot assume that with this event the Sabbath received its
full meaning among Israel. It certainly implies the observance
of the Sabbath, but in this connection only with reference to
the gathering and preparation of the manna. The injunction
of a comprehensive observance of the Sabbath first went forth
on Mount Sinai. The Sabbath could only unfold its benignant
power in connection with a series of divine ordinances. It is
significant only as a link in a chain. But, since the Sabbath
THE MARCH THROUGH THE WILDERNESS. 303
is here actually hallowed, it is the proper place to speak of
its design and significance, to which so much importance is
attributed in the Old Testament economy. The whole idea of
the Sabbath is expressed in the Mosaic " God hallowed the
Sabbath," and " Remember the Sabbath, to keep it holy."
From this it is plain that the observance of the Sabbath did
not consist in idle rest, which is proved also by the fact that
not only was a special sacrifice presented on the Sabbath, comp.
Num. xxviii. 9, 10, but also a holy assembly was held, Lev.
xxiii. 3 ; a fact which has been quite overlooked by Bahr, who
makes the observance to consist in mere rest. Let us enter
somewhat more fully into this passage. Jewish scholars, begin
ning with Josephus and Philo, have justly regarded this verse
as the first origin of synagogues. In the wilderness, the
national sanctuary was the natural place for holy assemblies
on the Sabbath. After the occupation of the land, assemblies
for divine worship were formed in different places on the
authority of this passage alone. From 2 Kings iv. 23 we
learn that on the Sabbaths those who were piously disposed
among the twelve tribes gathered round the prophets. In the
central divine worship the sacrifices to be presented on the
Sabbath formed the nucleus for these sacred assemblies. The
natural accompaniment of sacrifice is prayer, by which it is
interpreted and inspired. Even in patriarchal times invocation
of the Lord went hand in hand with sacrifice ; and we are led
to the conclusion that sacred song was also associated with it,
from the fact that among the Psalms we find one (Ps. xcii.)
which, according to its superscription and contents, was spe
cially designed for the Sabbath-day. And the reading of the
law must unquestionably have formed part of the service, if
we judge from the significance attributed to it in the law itself ;
which could not fail to be soon followed by exposition and
application. Only the presentation of sacrifice, however, was
limited to the national sanctuary ; no such limits were set to
other acts of worship. So much for Lev. xxiii. 3. We now re
turn to the exposition of those Mosaic passages which treat of the
hallowing of the Sabbath. In accordance with the prevailing
idea attached to hallowing, to hallow the seventh day can only
mean " to consecrate it to God in every respect." That day
alone can be truly consecrated to the holy God on which we con-
304 SECOND PERIOD — FIRST SECTION.
secrate ourselves to Him, withdraw ourselves completely from
the world, with its occupations and pleasures, in order to give
ourselves to Him with our whole soul, and to partake of His
life. The people, only too ready to be satisfied with mere
outward observance of the Sabbath, were continually reminded
of this, the true meaning of consecration, by the prophets, whom
Moses himself had raised to be the legal expositors of the law.
Isaiah, in his discourse on entering upon office, chap. i. 13,
declares that the mere outward observance of the Sabbath is
an abomination to God. He gives a positive definition of the
'true hallowing of the Sabbath in chap, lviii. 13: "If thou
turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure
on my holy day ; and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of
the Lord, honourable ; and shalt honour Him, not doing thine
own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine
own words." Doing thine own pleasure and thine own ways
is here placed in opposition to the " keeping holy ;" and their
" own pleasure" he employs in its full extent and meaning,
making it inclusive of the speaking of words, i.e. of such words
as are nothing more than words, and tend neither to the honour
of God nor to the edification of themselves and their neigh
bours — idle words. He insists so strongly on the inward
disposition of mind, that he makes it a requisition that the
Sabbath shall not be regarded as a heavy burden by which a
man is taken away from his own work against his will, but as
a gain, as a merciful privilege which God, whose commands are
so many promises, gives to His own people as a refuge from the
distractions and cares of the world. Moreover, Ezekiel says
repeatedly in chap, xx., of the Israelites in the wilderness, that
they grossly polluted the Sabbath of the Lord. There is no
mention in the Pentateuch of the neglect of the outward rest of
the Sabbath ; on the contrary, Num. xv. 32 sqq. shows that it
was strictly observed. The prophet can, therefore, only have
reference to the desecration of the Sabbath by sin.
These remarks suffice to explain the main design of the insti
tution of the Sabbath. It was the condition of the existence of
the church of God. Human weakness, only too apt to forget
its duties towards God, requires definite, regularly-recurring
times devoted to the fulfilment of these duties only, setting
aside all external hindrances. In order that the people might
THE MARCH THROUGH THE WILDERNESS. 305
be enabled to observe every day as a day of the Lord, on one
definite, regularly-recurring day they were deprived of every
thing that was calculated to disturb devotion. Ewald justly
characterizes the Sabbath as " the corrective of the people of
God." Their business is to be holy, to live purely to the " Holy
One : " " Be ye holy," is already in the Pentateuch set forth as
an indispensable requirement, "for I am holy." But amid a
life of toil and trouble the church cannot comply with this
demand, unless with the help of regularly-recurring times of
introspection, of assembly, and of edification. Among all the
nations of antiquity Israel stands alone as a religious nation ; in
them alone religion manifests itself as an absolutely determin
ing power. This, its high destination, its world-historical signi
ficance, it could only realize by the institution of the Sabbath.
In the divine law, in the command relating to the Sabbath,
after the general meaning of consecration had been set forth,
among all the particulars included in it, rest alone is made
primarily prominent and copiously developed. The religious
day of the Old Testament also bears the name of rest. n3K>,
an intensive form, means wholly resting, a day of rest. This
leads us to the fact that rest is of the highest importance for
the observance of the Lord's day, and especially for life in
God, and for the existence of the church. Incessant work
makes man dull and lifeless, and destroys his susceptibility for
salvation. According to Ex. xxxi. 13-17, the Sabbath is in
tended as a sign between God and His people ; on the side of
God, who instituted the Sabbath, a symbol of His election ; on
the side of the chosen, a confession to God — an oasis in the
wilderness of the world's indifference to its Creator, of the non-
attestation of God to the world ; a nation serving God in spirit
and in truth, whose beautiful worship was entrusted to them by
God Himself.
From the definition of the nature of the observance of the
Sabbath under the Old Testament it follows that, by virtue of
its essence, it must be eternal, and is an exemplification of what
our Lord says in Matt. v. 18. We, too, must consecrate our
selves to God ; and in order to do this daily and hourly, in the
midst of our work, we also must have regularly-recurring days
of freedom from all occupation and distraction, for the weak
ness which made this a necessity under the Old Testament is
U
306 SECOND PERIOD— FIRST SECTION.
common to human nature at all times. We, too, must make
public confession to God. But just as the whole Mosaic law is
a particular application of an eternal idea to a definite people, so
it is also with the command relating to the Sabbath. There
fore, side by side with the eternal moment, it must contain
a temporal moment. This consists mainly in the following
points: — (1.) The truths laid down as subjects of meditation
for the Old Testament nation and for us, on the Lord's day,
are various. Devotion has always reference to God as He
has revealed Himself. Under the Old Testament it conceived
of God as the Creator of the world and the Deliverer of
Israel out of Egypt. The latter is set forth in Deut v. 12-15
as a subject of meditation in the observance of the Sabbath.
Afterwards the subject became more extended, even under the
Old Testament itself, by each new benefit of God, every new
revelation of His nature. But the nucleus remained always the
same. Nothing which occurred had power to supersede these
two notions of God. Under the New Testament an essential
change took place. God in Christ, this was now the great
object of devotion. (2.) And with this the change of day is
closely connected. The day on which the creation was ended,
was now naturally superseded by the day on which redemption
was fulfilled. The religious day of the Old Testament can
only be the xvpiaicT) rip>epa, Apoc. i. 10. (3.) The punishments
attached to the neglect of the command respecting the Sabbath
bear a specific Old Testament character : he who desecrates the
Sabbath shall die the death. The punishments contained in
the Mosaic law are essentially distinct from its commands.
Their severity is in a great measure based on the presupposi
tion of the weakness and spiritual lifelessness of the Old Cove
nant. But since Christ appeared in the flesh, and chiefly
since He accomplished eternal redemption, since He poured
out His Spirit upon flesh, the church is released from the
necessity of dealing so roughly with the sinner— a necessity
imposed upon it by sin. (4.) Nor can the details of the legal
determination respecting the observance itself be transmitted
unconditionally to the Christian church. This is evident from
the command to kindle no fire, which had its foundation in the
climatic relations peculiar to that nation to whom it was first of
all given. Briefly, to sum up the matter, the law concerning
THE MARCH THROUGH THE WILDERNESS. 307
the Sabbath was expressly given to Israel alone, and hence in
the letter it is binding upon them only ; but, because it was
given by God, it must contain a germ which forms the founda
tion of a law binding upon us also. Of the spirit of the com
mand respecting the Sabbath, not a jot or a tittle can perish.
What belongs to the kernel and what to the shell must be
determined from the general relations which the Old and the
New Testament bear to one another. That which cannot be
reduced to anything peculiar to the Old Testament must retain
its authority for us also.
A new temptation followed in the lack of water. The people
had by their own fault neglected to drink of the spiritual rock
which followed them, 1 Cor. x. 4 ; therefore they were unable
to rise to the belief that God would assuage their bodily thirst.
When for a' moment they lost sight of the outward signs of
God's presence, they ask, "Is Jehovah in our midst, or not? "
An actual answer to the question was given in the water from
the rock. The name of the place served for a perpetual me
morial of the weakness with which they succumbed to the
temptation, as a perpetual accusation against human nature,
which is prone to quarrelling and contention, and as a warning
to be on their guard against it. The fact is of importance, in
so far as it gave rise to the first actual revolt of the people who
had so shortly before beheld the glorious acts of God. And
this circumstance explains the emphatically warning reference
to the event contained in Ps. Ixxxi. 8.
Formerly Israel had been tempted by hunger and thirst;
now they are tempted by fear. They are attacked by the
Amalekites. Here they are taught how Israel conquers only
as Israel, how they can conquer men only in conquering God,
and this by a living picture — Moses praying in sight of the
whole nation, as its representative. If in weariness he allows
his hands to sink, then Amalek gains the upper hand, however
Israel may contend; if he raises them to heaven, Israel pre
vails. Raising the hands is the symbol of prayer among Israel,
Ps. xxviii. 2, as well as among the heathen, though Kurtz has
most unaccountably denied it. The raising of the hands sym
bolizes the raising of the heart on the part of an inferior to a
superior. Already, in the book of Judith, emphasis is laid on
the fact that Moses smote ]the Amalekites not with the sword,
308 SECOND PERIOD — FIRST SECTION.
but with holy prayer. 1 Tim. ii. 8, f3ov\ofiai otv irpoaev-
¦yeadai toii? av$pa<; iv iravrX roVco i-TralpovTa<; ocrlovs %etjoa?,
refers back to this passage. The meaning is the same which
the Saviour brings out in Luke xviii. 1, by a parable: To
Beiv nrdvTOTe irpoaevyea6ai, ical p,r] eKKaKeiv. Here we have
the counterpart to Jacob's struggle, equally rich in meaning.
Amalek is to be regarded as the representative of the enemies
of the kingdom of God. For this he was exactly adapted.
He attacked Israel not as one Arab-Bedouin tribe now attacks
another which shows signs of disturbing it in the occupation of
its pasture. His attack was directed against Israel as the
people of God. In this character they were confirmed by
everything which had happened in Egypt and in the wilder
ness. All this Amalek knew, comp. Ex. xv. 14, 15 ; but it only
served to increase his hatred towards Israel, his desire to try
his strength with them. As Moses says, he wanted to lay his
hand on the throne of God, Ex. xvii. 16, where D3 is the poeti
cal form for NB3. This fighting against God, which had its
origin in profound impiety, involved the Amalekites already at
that time in defeat, and later in complete destruction, as was
here solemnly prophesied, and fulfilled especially by Saul. We
learn from Deut. xxv. 18 with what cruel anger and malice the
Amalekites treated Israel. They would have been forgiven
if they had ceased from their hatred towards the people of God,
which was the more punishable because they were connected
by ties of blood ; but in this very circumstance we must look for
the cause of the intensity of the hatred — they were envious of
the undeserved preference given to Israel. But because the
omniscient God foresees that no such change will take place,
their destruction is unconditionally predicted. The same thing
is afterwards repeated by Balaam in Num. xxiv. 20, " Amalek
was the first of the nations (i.e. the mightiest among the heathen
nations which at that time stood in connection with Israel), but
his latter end shall be that he perish for ever," — Words in which
Balaam only changes into a verbal prophecy the actual pro
phecy, which lay in the conduct of the Amalekites themselves.
At the close of the section let us glance once more at the
way which the Israelites took from the exodus till their arrival
at Sinai. They set out from the territory of Goshen, the
eastern part of Lower Egypt, principally from the town
THE MARCH THROUGH THE WILDERNESS. 309'
Raamses, where they were assembled waiting for permission to
set out : comp. Ex. xii. 37. V. Raumer, Beitr. S. 4, here
makes Raamses to stand for the country Raamses, in defence
of a preconceived opinion; but the Pentateuch knows only
the town Raamses. This town, which probably got its name
from its founder, the king Raamses, is only mentioned per
prolepsin in Gen. xlvii. 11, where the land of Goshen is called
the land of Raamses, i.e. the land whose principal town is
Raamses : comp. Rosellini i. Monumenti, etc. i. 1, p. 300. For
the Egyptian kings who bear the name Raamses probably
belong only to the time after Joseph. The town was therefore
built in the time between Joseph and Moses. The command to
depart was not given to the children of Israel suddenly ; it had
already long been understood that they were soon to set out,
and already for fourteen days everything had been prepared
for it in Raamses, the central-point, the residence of Moses and
Aaron, and throughout all the land of Goshen, through which
the instructions of Moses had spread with the rapidity con
sequent on the unsettled condition of the people. The march
began at Raamses, and in their progress they were joined on
all sides by accessories. On the second day of the march the
Israelites reached the northern point of the Arabian Gulf,
Etham, which probably occupied the site of the present Bir
Suez. From Etham they journeyed up the western side of
the Arabian Gulf as far as Suez, where they crossed it. From
this point they reached Mara in three days, passing through
the wilderness Sur, the south-west part of the desert et-Tih,
and along the eastern coast of the Gulf of Suez. Burckhardt
(followed by Robinson, part i. p. 107) has rightly identified
Mara with the well Howara, which he discovered on the usual
route to Mount Sinai, about eighteen hours from Suez. The
remoteness and the character of the water favour his view.
Ritter says, p. 819, " In the space of this three days' march
there is no spring-water, and this Ain Howara, which lies on
the only possible route, is the only absolutely bitter spring on
the whole coast, which accounts for the complaining and mur
muring of the people, who were accustomed to the salutary and
pleasant-tasted water of the Nile." From Mara the Israelites
penetrated to Elim, Ex. xv. 27, where they found wells of
water and palm trees. Burckhardt has identified this Elim
310 SECOND PERIOD — FIRST SECTION.
with the valley of Ghurundel, which is almost a mile in width,
and abounds with trees and living springs, and is about three
hours' journey from the well Howara. So also Robinson, who
remarks (p. Ill) that this place is still much resorted to for
water by the Arabs. Ritter says of the Wadi Ghurundel
(p. 829): "In times of rain the wadi pours great masses of
water to the sea. Therefore it still afforded good pasturage in,
October. It was thickly covered with palms and tamarisk
trees, and wild parties in the solitary valley gave a romantic
character to the Elim of the ancients." We remark, in passing,
that Moses probably gives prominence to the fact that the wells
of water in Elim were twelve, and the palms which grew so
luxuriantly out of them were seventy, because he looked upon
it as a symbol, a representation of the blessing which should
proceed from Israel, as the source of blessing, upon all nations
of the earth. Twelve is the signature of Israel, and seventy is
the number of the nations in the table of nations, Gen. x.
The twelve apostles and the seventy disciples rest upon the
same numerical symbolism. According to Num. xxxiii. 6, the
Israelites next came to a station which lay on the sea-coast.
Even now the caravan-route touches on the sea just at the
mouth of the Wadi Taibe, about five hours from Ghurundel.
Formerly the Israelites had repaired to the neighbourhood of
the Red Sea ; now they turned eastwards in order to' reach
Sinai. The caravan-route to Sinai, accessible from ancient
times, leads through the valley Mocattab. This is probably
the station of the wilderness of Sin, Ex. xvi. 1 (notwithstand
ing Robinson's objections). The valley is wide, and contains
wells and manna-tamarisks. Flere the Israelites first received
manna. From Sin they passed on to Rephidim, a plain at the
foot of Mount Horeb, from whence they repaired to the wilder
ness of Sinai, and encamped opposite this mountain, which has
been characterized by Robinson as a sanctuary in the midst of
a great circle of granite district, having only one entrance,
which is easy of access. It was a secret, sacred spot, cut off
from the world by solitary, bare mountains, and therefore well
adapted as a place for the nation that dwelt alone, with whom
the Lord desired to hold converse in their solitude.
THE COVENANT ON SINAI. 311
§5.
THE COVENANT ON SINAI.
If we follow v. Hofmann, we relinquish all idea of a covenant
of God with Israel. In his opinion (Prophecy and Fulfilment,
p. 138) rr^D does not mean covenant, but determination, estab
lishment. On closer examination, however, we shall readily con
vince ourselves that this meaning is not at all applicable in by
far the greater number of passages ; while, on the other hand,
those few passages which v. Hofmann cites in favour of his
theory may easily be reduced to mean covenant. The term
covenant is applied to circumcision as a covenant-sacrament,
to the law as representative of the covenant condition, to the
Messiah as the mediator of the covenant, and to the divine
promise because it always implies an obligation, even when this
is not actually expressed. The covenant now in question must
not be regarded as something altogether new. God had al
ready concluded a covenant with Abraham, and that this had
reference to all his descendants appears from the circumstance
that by divine command all bore the sign and seal of the
covenant. The blessing of the covenant already encircled the
Israelites during their whole residence in the wilderness, and
promoted their great increase ; and under the ¦ cross they still
maintained the covenant blessing. In every threat to Pharaoh
God calls Israel His people. The covenant on Sinai was there
fore a solemn renewal of that which already existed. It is related
to the earlier, as confirmation is related to baptism. The nation
which had been born into the covenant now with free conscious
ness makes a vow to observe it, and receives a renewal of the
divine promise.
What is a covenant of God with man ? At the first glance
it seems as if such a thing were impossible, and the idea appears
to have its basis in a rude conception of the relation of God to
man. We belong to God from the beginning, body and soul.
We are created by Him, and therefore to, Him. How, then,
can it be necessary that He should first purchase us to be His
property, that He should make good His claims to our obedience
by special benefits ? From this it follows that God could con
clude a covenant with Israel only by the deepest condescen-
312 SECOND PERIOD— FIRST SECTION.
sion ; and hence we are led to infer the depth of that human
corruption which made such condescension necessary. God, in
whom we live, move, and are, ought to be near to us ; but He
is by nature as far from us as if He did not exist at all. His
revelation in nature is to us a sealed book. We have lost the
key to its hieroglyphics. We forget that we stand in a natural
covenant - relation towards Him, that we receive rich gifts
from Him, and that He has high claims to make on us. But
in His mercy He does not let us go. He gives up the claims
which He has as a Creator ; He becomes our Father for the
second time, and brings back His alienated property by redemp
tion. The less we are divine the more He becomes human.
Because the time has not yet come to reveal Himself thus to
the whole human race, He does it first to a single nation, but
to it on behalf of the whole human race. By free choice He
becomes their God. Among this nation He founds the theo
cracy, — a name which was first employed by Josephus, while
Scripture designates the same thing by the word covenant,
a word which is highly characteristic of the thing, since it
embraces the two elements which here come into consideration:
that of the gift and the promise, and that of the obligation,
indicating the special gifts by which God distinguished Israel
from the other nations, and the particular obligations which
grew out of this relation to God. As the thing here comes
into full effect, this is the place to treat of it.
When we hear of the covenant of God with Israel, or of
theocracy, it generally suggests to us a relation of God to
Israel which had no natural basis, and which at the beginning
of the New Testament entirely ceased at one blow (a mode of
consideration which has been only too much encouraged by
most of those who have written on this subject). Consistently
carried out, it results in theocracy being transferred from the
region of reality into that of imagination. For if it were really
a divine institution, it must also, in accordance with its essence,
be eternal, in which case the form can belong only to this
single nation, to whose wants it is adapted. The sacred writers
are far removed from this mode of consideration. It is true,
they recognise with deep gratitude that God stands in a relation
to their nation such as He bears to no other ; but this relation
is to them only a potentialization of the universal — the idea of
&
THE COVENANT ON SINAI. 313
Jehovah rests upon that of Elohim : God could not be King
of Israel in a special sense unless he were King of the whole
world. His special providence in rewarding and punishing had
universal providence for its substratum. They are also far
from regarding that which was given to Israel before other
nations as withdrawn from these for ever. The extension of
theocracy over the whole earth, while it had formerly existed
only among Israel, the universal change of the general into the
particular, is to them the most characteristic mark .of the
Messianic time. In the similarity of essence they take no heed
of the difference of form. We shall now show in detail how,
in all the properties of the theocracy, the particular rests upon
the basis of the universal, the temporal on the basis of the
eternal, and how the word of the Lord is here verified, that of
the law of God not a jot or a tittle can perish.
1. In the theocracy God was the lawgiver. It is generally
asserted that among the heathen, and also among Christian
nations, the laws were given, not by God, but by distinguished
men who stood at the head of the nation. But whence, then,
did these get their laws ? Were they mere arbitrary whims ?
By no means. God is everywhere the source of all right. He
implanted in man the idea of right and wrong. Even the
worst legislation contains a divine element; and those who
know nothing of God speak in God's name. The peculiarity
of the theocracy was only this, that in it the law of God was
exempt from the many disfigurements whicli are inevitable so
long as it is written only on the uniform tablets of the human
heart ; and a correction for all times is thus given to the natural
law. Again, the application of the idea of right to special
relations was not left, as among the heathen, to unenlightened
reason, or, as among Christian nations, to enlightened reason, but
was given by God Himself in its minutest details. Thus the
holiness of that law which in all its determinations rested upon
the immediate authority of the highest Lawgiver, was increased,
while legislation was raised far above the age. How far it
reached beyond that age, and how little it can be regarded as a
product of the time, appears most clearly from the lively con
flict which it had to maintain with the spirit of the nation
during the march through the wilderness, and from the long
series of revolts to which it gave rise, and which at last resulted
314 SECOND PERIOD — FIRST SECTION.
in the rejection of the whole race. By this means a pattern
and a test were given to that more advanced time, which was
so far matured as to be able to make its own application of the
idea of right to special , relations. But we must not, therefore,
overlook the circumstance that even under the Old Testament
wide scope was given to the legislative activity of man, and the
right which was customary was reformed only in so far as it
required reformation, while in whole departments free play was
given to its successive natural development. It is very in
correct to imagine that the Pentateuch was the exclusive source
of right to Israel. With regard to the right of inheritance,
for example, we find only three solitary injunctions, and with
respect to buying and selling there is not a word. In all cases
provision is made only for that which could not be left to
natural development, — that which had special reference to the
minority of the nation, and its immaturity in a religious and
moral aspect. This observation also serves to lessen the chasm
between theocracy and all other forms of government.
2. For the covenant-people God was not only the source of
right, but also its basis. Every transgression was regarded as an
offence against Him, and so punished. He who did not honour
his father and mother was punishable, because in dishonouring
them he violated that image of God which they bore in a definite
sense. Whoever injured his neighbour incurred guilt, partly
because in him he despised that divine image which is im
planted in all, and is worthy of honour even in its remnant;
and partly from his disregard to that which is peculiar to the
members of the covenant, whom God esteemed worthy of such
high honour, and to whom He imparted the seal of His cove
nant. This is clearly shown in the Decalogue, the fundamental
law. Fear of God and love towards Him are there made the
foundation of the whole fulfilling of the law, and in the very
introduction the obligation to keep all the commandments is
based upon the relation to the Lord. Exodus xx. 6 expressly
terms love to God the fulfilling of the law. That the com
mandments of the second table do not lie loosely beside those
of the first already appears from the ratio legi adjecta, the
1JH. The children of Israel are friends only through their
common relation to the. Lord. Only by accepting this prin
ciple can we clearly understand the position of the command
THE COVENANT ON SINAI. 315
to honour our parents. Easy and appropriate arrangement:
Thou shalt honour and love God in Himself, vers. 3-11 ; in
those who represent His rule upon earth, ver. 12 ; in all who
bear His image, vers. 13-17. The peculiarity here is only the
establishment of the commandments upon that which God has
done for Israel, on the common relation to Him as the God of
Israel. While, among the heathen, laws are founded upon that
which is common to all men, among Christians, especially upon
that which God has done for us in Christ, the laesis proximi
here appears in its most glaring light, because it affects a
brother redeemed by Christ. Here also the theocratic is only
a particular modification of the universal. Without God there
is no sin, no duty, no right. Hence we can no longer speak of
punishment in the proper sense, but only of means to render
harmless those who are injurious to the interests of society.
Where God disappears revolution infallibly sets in, all rights
are trodden under foot, and there arises a bellum omnium contra
omnes. 3. All power among the covenant-people was regarded as an
efflux of the divine supremacy. Judges administered justice in
the name of God. Hence, " to stand before the Lord," instead
of " to appear before the tribunal of judgment," Deut. i. 17,
xix. 17. In His name executive power acted, and thus it
became of no consequence by whom it was administered. The
law which has reference to the demand made by the people for
a king, Deut. xvii., sufficiently shows that even the monarchical
form of government was not inconsistent with the covenant.
And the essential element was only this, that the government
should not make itself independent of God. It is a mon
strous error wheu Ewald, Gesch. d. V. Israel, ii. S. 207 f.,
makes the theocracy an absolute antithesis to all human
government; the antithesis is only that of dependent and
independent human government. If this be misunderstood
in the face of the plainest and most numerous facts, we
attribute to Moses a groundless fanaticism. This, therefore, is
the peculiarity, that the power conferred by God manifests
itself as such more clearly and sharply than elsewhere, that the
law of God comes more visibly into play, that He interferes
more promptly and palpably when the rulers depart from Him,
or when the nation rejects Him by disobedience to authority.
316 SECOND PERIOD — FIRST SECTION.
Moreover, all supremacy is of God, Rom. xiii. 1. Every king
bears His image, and this alone gives him the right to rule and
makes it the duty of subjects to obey. To give to Caesar that
which is Csesar's, and to God that which is God's, to fear God
and honour the king, appear inseparably connected under the
New Testament. According to Eph. iii. 15, every fatherhood,
every relation of ruler and ruled upon the earth, is a reflection
of the fatherhood of God. Only by confounding hierarchy
with theocracy would it be possible to place a far higher value
on that which was specifically Israelitish in the theocracy than
it really had. It is perfectly clear that among Israel God ruled
without a priesthood. According to law the priests have no
political, but only a religious position. Everywhere their office
is made to consist in the conduct of divine worship and the
instruction of the people. After the appearance of Moses the
political and judicial power still remained in the hands of the
rulers of the people, but in difficult cases judges were at
liberty to seek counsel from the priests as teachers of the law.
The covenant allowed free scope to the development of the state.
It recognised the existing government as ordained by God,
while, at the same time, the lawgiver declared that a future
alteration was in itself perfectly consistent with it. This is now
so plainly manifest that even rationalism can no longer refuse to
recognise it. Bertheau, in his History of the Israelites, p. 252,
says, " The state power is not in the hands of the priests ; they
are only called upon to represent the collective body of the
Israelites before God, and to watch over the purity and holiness '
of the community ; but as priests they can neither give laws nor
guide the state."
God makes known, through Moses, that as King of His people
He will strictly punish all disobedience against His laws and
will richly reward the faithful observance of them. The
Magna Charta of the theocracy in this respect is Deut. xxviii.
The truth of these threats and promises is shown by the history,
which is really entirely contained in them, and by the fate of
the earlier covenant-people, even to the present day. Here
also the particular rests only on the universal. Even the
heathen have much to say of Nemesis. Schiller says, " The
history of the world is the judgment of the -world." And our
Saviour says, " Where the carcase is, there will the eagles be
THE COVENANT ON SINAI. 317
gathered together." The peculiarity of the theocracy was only
this, that in it the judgments of God were sharper than those
inflicted on the heathen, because the offence, which is always
proportioned to the gift of God, was greater, comp. Lev. x. 3 ;
Amos iii. 1, 2; 1 Pet. iv. 17; that they appeared more promptly
and regularly, while God frequently suffered the heathen
nations to remain in then* sins, outwardly happy ; that they were
more palpable, because the history of Israel was designed to
manifest to all nations and all times the divine retribution, that
in this rude writing they might learn to read the finer also ;
finally, that by the divine ordinance punishment and blessing
were always made known to the nation as such, comp. Amos
iii. 7, " Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but He revealeth
His secret unto His servants the prophets."
5. God as the King of Israel took care that His people should
never want means of recognising His will, and for this He gave
ordinary means. Upon the priesthood which He had established
He enjoined the study of the law, of the authentic revelation of
the will of God, comp. Lev. x. 10, 1 1 ; Deut. xxxi. 9 ff., xxxiii.
10 ; and facility was given to them for this purpose. The tribe
of Levi was called to the priesthood because the new principle
had taken deeper -root in it than in any of the rest, comp. Ex.
xxxii. 26-35; Num. xxv. 6-9; Deut. xxxiii. 9; but the com
plicated character of the Mosaic-religious legislation demanded
a hereditary priesthood, — it required a priesthood formed by
hereditary tradition and early education. But the book of the
law was not designed merely for the priesthood. It was given
by Moses to the elders of the people no less than to the priests,
Deut. xxxi. 9. Every seven years it was to be read to the
whole assembled nation, v. 12 ; the king was to make a copy of
it for himself, and to read in this every day of his life, Deut.
xvii. 19. When ordinary means did not suffice, God vouch
safed extraordinary. The high priest, clothed with the holy
insignia of office, the Urim and Thummim, asked it in the name
of the nation, in living faith, certain that God would give him
the right answer in his heart. In times of apostasy, when the
ordinary ministers did not adequately fulfil their calling, when
the knowledge of divine truth had become obscured, and the
fear of God seemed to be quite dead, God raised up prophets,
instruments of His Spirit, who, endowed with infallible know-
318 SECOND PERIOD— FIRST SECTION.
ledge of His will, again gave prominence to it, and quickened
the decaying piety ; and this is the main thing. Nor was it a
later addition ; but the original founding of the theocracy was
associated with a belief that it would be maintained by extra
ordinary powers and gifts, just as it had been established by
them : comp. Deut. xviii. 15, " The Lord thy God will raise up
unto thee a prophet, like unto me;" "and the prophetic law,
Deut. xiii. 2-6, and xviii. 15-22. This law formed the founda
tion for the activity of the prophets, which is only intelligible
on the assumption of its existence. Without possessing such a
right, how could they have acted in conformity with the mode
and manner of their appearance? By this law no prophet
could be called to account so long as he prophesied in the name
of the true God, and so long as he predicted .nothing that did
not pass into fulfilment. Here, also, it must not be overlooked
that even in the heathen world there was a faint analogy to this
prerogative of the covenant-people, in the feeble rays of light
which God permitted to shine through their darkness, comp.
Rom. i. 18 ff. ; and by virtue of its essence the same thing still
continues among the nation of the new covenant. The church
of the New Testament has a pure source of knowledge of the
divine will in the Holy Scriptures. It has a ministry appointed
by God to spread the knowledge of the truth. In it also every
obscuring of divine truth is a prophecy of the approaching
illumination, every degeneracy of ordinary means for the appre
hension of the divine will is a prophecy of the preparation of
extraordinary messengers. The appearance of an Athanasius,
of a Luther, a Spener, and a Francke, rests upon the same
divine necessity as the appearance of an Isaiah and a Jeremiah.
The difference lies only in the form. The Old Testament
messengers had a stronger external authority in the gift of
prophecy, and, when the danger of complete apostasy was
especially great, in the power to perform miracles. Under the
New Testament, when the Spirit worked more powerfully in the
heart of the church, which had acquired a firm position, the
ordinary operations of the Spirit sufficed. A similar relation
exists between those who are called to watch over the external
welfare of the kingdom of God. Thus the appearance of a
Samson and a Gustavus Adolphus depends on the same divine
causality. But how great is the difference in form !
THE COVENANT ON SINAI. 319
6. Another essential characteristic of the theocracy was this,
that God dwelt among His people, that the sanctuary erected
to Him was not without praesens numen, but was rather a
tabernacle of God among men. In this way, in the type and
prefiguration of His incarnation, God came into close contact
with the nation. The temple, the priesthood, and the yearly
feasts depend on the presence of God in the nation. It was
prescribed by law that each one should appear before God at
the place of the sanctuary three times a year ; in subsequent
practice, however, only the annual appearance at the feast of
the passover, as the principal festival, was regarded as an
absolute religious duty. Israel had in reality what the heathen
only imagined they had, and this is the only form suitable for
the necessities of that time, as we see from the analogy of the
heathen. The form has now changed, but the essence, far from
having ceased, is present among us in still stronger manifesta
tions ; and this advance forms one of the main distinctions
between the Old and New Testaments. Apart from it, the
change of form would not have been possible. Since Christ
appeared in the flesh, since He made His dwelling in the heart,
and abides constantly with us ; where only two or three are
gathered together, there He is in the midst of them ; these
irrto^a crroL-^eia (Gal. iv. 9) have ceased. The chasm between
heaven and earth is completely filled up ; there is no longer any
need of the lower representation of God, because God is there
in most real, presence.
We have still a few words to say respecting the duration of
the theocracy. This is differently estimated by different writers.
Some, such as Spencer, make it end with the establishment of
royalty ; others, such as Hess, regard it as having extended to
the Babylonian exile ; while others again, such as Warburton,
asserted that it lasted until Christ. We must, first of all, pre
mise that the theocracy can only be said to have ceased in a
certain sense. . This is sufficiently shown by what has already
' been said. By virtue of its essence the theocracy must be
eternal. Otherwise it could never have existed. Ewald excel
lently remarks, " Here, for the first time, is a kingdom which
recognises an end and aim external to itself, which neither had
a human origin, nor can advance by human means, and by
virtue of its rejection of all that is not divine, bears in itself
320 SECOND PERIOD— FIRST SECTION.
the germ of infinite duration." Such a kingdom can only pass
away as the grain of corn passes into the blade. Its destruction
cannot belong to the future, but only its fulfilment. ¦ Already
the prophets regard the matter in this light. They proclaim
the extension of the kingdom of God, which had hitherto been
limited to a single nation, over the -whole earth, and its com
plete subjugation of the kingdom of the world, comp. Isa. ii.;
Dan. ii. vii. The, Saviour does not distinctly assert that the
theocracy, the fiao-Ckela too Geov, will cease, but He says, The
kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to another
people bearing its fruits. Nor is it taken from all Israel, but
the unbelieving portion of the nation is thrust out from it,
while the heathen unite themselves with the believing portion.
The twelve tribes of Israel, to whom the heathen merely
attached themselves, still form the church of God in iraXiyye-
veaia: comp. Matt. xix. 28 ; Apoc. vii. 4. Only with reference
to its form can the theocracy be said to have ceased. Unques
tionably, therefore, this cessation took place at Christ's death.
How it can be regarded as having ceased on the establishment
of royalty, we can scarcely conceive. No essential change in the
form of the theocracy occurred at that time. We learn how
little the kingly dignity was in itself opposed to the divine
supremacy, not only from Deut. xvii., but also from the
announcements in Genesis, in which reference is made to
royalty among Israel, as to one of the greatest blessings of the
future. Moreover, David found his highest honour in being
the servant of God, and under his rule the theocracy attained
its deepest reality. In Judges xvii. 6 royalty is represented as
progress towards something better : " In those days there was
no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his
own eyes." Many later kings, indeed, abused their power, and
sought to make themselves independent of God. But this only
gave rise to the stronger assertion of the theocracy, partly through
the prophets and partly by divine judgments. The theory
which makes the cessation of the theocracy coincident with
the return from captivity, is equally untenable. The prophet
hood certainly became extinct. This is the only apparent
argument which can be adduced. But it did not cease for ever
— it revived again in John, as in Samuel ; after having exer
cised but little influence during the whole time from Moses to
THE COVENANT ON SINAI. 321
him, though in a certain sense it continued even in the interval ;
the longing after new communications from God became the
more intense by the fact of their . absence. But the earlier
prophets, especially Daniel and Zechariah, had provided even
for this period ; the prophethood did not cease until it had given
counsel, comfort, and exhortation for every need. Virtually,
therefore, it still continued ; but the commands of God, specially
destined, for this time, were drawn from the Holy Scriptures,
instead of the mouth of the prophets. At the death of Christ,
on the other hand, there ensued a great change, not only in the
fact that the greater part of Israel had completely broken the
covenant — though this alone is generally brought forward ; but
there ensued a change, which could only result in the passing
away of the earlier form, though not otherwise than as a seed
of corn passes into the blade. It may be said, that with the
death of Christ the temple at Jerusalem, as such, was destroyed.
For now the relation of God to the world was altered; now
arose the possibility of an inner union, of a richer participation
in the Spirit, so that from this time forth God could be wor
shipped in spirit ; faith raised itself powerfully to Him without
any further need of such a prop. It would have been a gross
anachronism to wish still to adhere to the temple at Jerusalem,
after Christ had been exalted to the right hand of the Father,
and the realization of His promise to be with His own to the
end of the world had begun. When the sun rises, other lights
are put out. With the death of Christ the whole theocratic
institution of sacrifices was done away, for in His death the
idea of sacrifice was realized. With Him the whole letter of
the ceremonial law was abrogated.
This section is twofold: it contains the conclusion of the
covenant and the giving of the law. Both are closely con
nected. The covenant presupposes reciprocity, as we have
already said. Therefore, before it could be solemnly concluded,
the covenant-nation must be told what they have to do. This
explains the order of events ; first, the question to the people
whether, in grateful recognition of all the favours which the
Lord had vouchsafed to them, they would obey Him in all
things, and the subsequent promise that He would henceforward
manifest Himself as Jehovah. Then, after the affirmation of the
people, the sketch of the divine commandments, to which obe-
x
322 SECOND PERIOD — FIRST SECTION.
dience was required, so that all which followed was only ampli
fication in idea. The whole law is already fully given here.
That the Decalogue is the quintessence of the whole legislation
is indicated by the number ten, and by the circumstance that
" the words of the covenant," Ex. xxxiv. 28, is applied only to
the Decalogue in the ark of the covenant, while the book of the
law is treated as mere supplement. It is shown also in the
solemn ratification and reception of the law by the nation, and
in the solemn conclusion of the covenant.
And this is the place to make a few remarks relative to the
nature and design of the revelation of the law to Israel.
The relation of the law to the economy of the Old Testament
has very frequently been quite misapprehended by a misconcep
tion of the Pauline representation. It has been forgotten that
Paul had not to do with the meaning of law generally, but only
with the special relation of the law to the carnal-minded, those
who were sold under sin. The law has been completely severed
from the grace which accompanies it, so that the favour be
comes a mockery.
The living God coirimanded nothing without at the same
time giving that which was commanded. Each of His com
mands is a simultaneous promise. And that this promise was
fulfilled in many under the Old Testament is shown by the
numerous examples of piety which it contains. They prized the
law as sweeter than honey and the honeycomb, Ps. xix. 11;
they were grateful to the Lord for leading them in His ways ;
they prayed that He would not take His Holy Spirit from thenij
Ps. li. 11 ; that He would create in them a clean heart, in con
formity with the actual promise which He had given them in
circumcision. The prerogative of Israel over the heathen did
not consist merely in the fact that the law was given to them
on stone tables ; in this they had a pledge that God would write
it on the table of their heart, as we read in Prov. vii. 3, " Bind
them upon thy fingers, write them upon the table of thy heart."
The difference between the Old and New Testament in this
respect is only relative. The latter possesses, on the one hand,
more powerful means to break the heart of the natural man,
to remove his hardness and at the same time his despair ; and, ,
on the other hand, it imparts to those who are thus prepared a
more effectual assistance of the Holy Spirit for the subjective
THE COVENANT ON SINAI. 323
realization of the law, which could only be given after the aton
ing death of Christ.
From this standpoint we can more accurately define the
relation of the Old to the New Testament pentecost than is
generally done, when they are apprehended as in pure antithesis,
and the law is represented as the letter of the first Old Testa
ment pentecost and the spirit of the second New Testament
pentecost. By this view the Old Testament pentecost is
changed into a mere outward memorial feast. But if it be
apprehended that in the first passover the law was written
immediately upon the heart, as David says in Ps. xl. 8, "I
delight to do Thy will, O my God, yea Thy law is within my
heart," then every subsequent Old Testament feast of pente
cost, solemnized at God's command, is a pledge of the con
tinuous realization of the promise given in and with the law.
The first Old Testament pentecost is at the same time the last
of the Old Testament, the end only in so far as it is the fulfil
ment. .God would not have kept His covenant if He had not
brought about the fulfilment. The essence of the Christian
and the Old Testament pentecost is the same; the former is only
an advance on the latter. They are related to one another, as
circumcision to baptism, as the Old to the New Testament pass-
over. The Old Testament passover is the pledge of the con
tinuing forgiveness of sin ; pentecost, of continuing sanctifica-
tion. The feast of pentecost had moreover a natural side, be
sides that which has already been mentioned. As in the feast
of the passover the first-fruits were presented, so pentecost was
the feast of the end of the corn-harvest. In this way Israel
was made conscious of the ethical condition of the benefits of
nature, and was reminded of the saying, "Seek ye first the
kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things
will be added unto you." The harvest blessing has its root in
reconciliation and sanctification.
The one main object of the communication of the law is thus
already indicated. In Ex. xix. 6 God declares that Israel shall
be a kingdom of priests and an holy nation. The peculiarity
of the priesthood consisted in the closeness of their relation to
God. A holy nation must represent God's holiness on earth.
And that the nation might fulfil this its high destiny, God gave
a copy of His own holiness in the law. By this means He
324 SECOND PERIOD — FIRST SECTION.
showed them the aim which is partially or entirely concealed
from the eyes of the natural man, gave them a safe rule for
their actions, which even the well-disposed have need of; and to
those who were filled with gratitude and love by His manifesta
tions of mercy, He imparted inner power to reach the goal.
In His mercy He pardoned their sins of weakness, in accordance
with the promise which He gave on the founding of the pass-
over feast and the institution of sin-offerings. Thus there
sprang up among the covenant-people a germ of those in whom
His idea was realized, without whom a covenant-people cannot
have any existence, and who cannot be wanting at any period.
If their existence cannot be proved, the fSaaiXeia rov ©eov be
comes a mere fable. They are the D^IV, who meet us in almost
every psalm, and so often in the prophets, especially in the second
part of Isaiah, in strong contrast to the dead members of the
community of God ; who meet us again on the threshold of the
New Testament in Zacharias, Elisabeth, John the Baptist, and
Hanna. But this activity of the law must be preceded by
another ; before sanctification can come into operation, there
must be recognition of sin, the fundamental condition of recon
ciliation, which forms the only possible basis of sanctification.
We are led to this definition of the law by its name !W5>, testi
mony, in so far as it bears testimony against sin and the sinner :
comp. Beitr. vol. 3, p. 640 ff. The law first accuses and com
pels to the reception of the offered reconciliation. Afterwards,
by the forgiveness of sin, the accusation and condemnation of
the law are silenced so far as the penitent is concerned. Not
until man finds himself in a state of grace, and the innermost
disposition of his heart is in unison with the law — for sin is
loved until it is forgiven — can the law begin its work of sancti
fication. But even for the mass of the people, in whom the destination
of the law was not perfectly realized, it was not given in vain.
It created discipline, morality, and the fear of God. The fear
ful manifestations which accompanied the giving of the law were
well adapted to give birth to the latter, even in coarse minds ;
and when it disappeared, God knew how to reawaken it by the
ever-continuing realization of these actual threats, as we see
from the example of the time of the Judges, especially of the
Babylonian exile, which was followed, if not by universal love
THE COVENANT ON SINAI. 325
towards God, yet by universal fear, so that the worship of idols
was abolished at one stroke. But what the law accomplished
in this respect formed a basis for the realization of its main
object. Discipline, morals, and the fear of God in the, multi
tude are the foundation for the erection of the structure of the
living faith of the elect. And this faith of the elect was the
necessary condition of the coming of Christ. The diroXvTpcoai';
cannot be conceived of apart from the irpoaBe^pfievoi, r-qv dTroXv-
Tpmcriv. How could the Saviour have appeared among Israel
if the Israel which Josephus puts before us in horrible manifes
tation had been the whole of Israel ? But at the same time
care was taken that the faithful should be satisfied only in so far
as to awaken a longing after the highest satisfaction ; to them
the law always remained relatively external, so that it became
for them the iraiBaywyos eh Xpiarov. The highest step under
the Old Testament only stood on a level with the lowest under
the New Testament ; comp. Luke xvii. 28, where it would not
do to substitute the superlative for the comparative, so that no
one was too rich and too contented to be willing to receive from
Christ. The object of the giving of the law will have been made
plain from these remarks. It was intended to effect : 1. dis
cipline ; 2. conviction of sin ; 3. sanctification. A time was
chosen for the giving of the law in which the nation was raised
above itself by the great deeds of the Lord, and was willing to
submit to the discipline and the constraint of a new position to
which its inner temperament did not yet correspond. The in
spiration soon cooled again; but however much the nation
struggled against the law which had once been accepted, yet
this proved itself to be leaven which by degrees leavened the
whole mass.
We have still to define the mutual relation of the ceremonial
law and the moral law, in opposition to very wide-spread error.
The former, it is generally assumed, was completely abolished
by Christ, while the latter remains binding for all time. But
this view is totally incorrect. The Mosaic law forms one in
separable whole ; in a certain sense it was quite abrogated by
Christ, and no longer concerns the church of the New Testa
ment, but in a certain sense it was fully ratified by Christ, the
ceremonial, no less than the moral law.
326 SECOND PERIOD — FIRST SECTION:
The continuance of the whole law becomes clear simply on
the ground that it was given entirely by God. If this be
established, it cannot consist altogether of arbitrary enactments,
but must contain a kernel of eternal truth. And so it appears
on closer consideration. Every ceremonial law, even that
which is apparently most external, is only an embodied moral
law, an incorporated idea which can be divested of that body
which it only assumed with reference to the stage of develop
ment of a certain nation, but has never surrendered anything
of its peculiar essence. Look for instance at circumcision, the
idea of which still remains in force, although in baptism it has
assumed a new form. The duration of the whole law also
appears from the definite statements of the Holy Scriptures.
Instar omnium applies here, Matt. v. 17-19. There the Lord
asserts, in the strongest expressions, the eternal duration of the
whole law, to its very smallest detail, and its binding power for
the members of the new covenant.
But in another aspect the whole law is to be considered as
abrogated. Pure moral law, such as had no special reference
to Israel, and may be transferred to the Christian church with
out that modification to which the ceremonial law must be
subjected, is not to be found in the Old Testament. We shall
illustrate this by the example of the Decalogue, which is gener
ally considered as the most free from all national reference. At
all events, this is not its prominent characteristic. It is designed
to be the quintessence of the whole legislation, which is related
to it only as further extension and amplification. We see that the
Decalogue points to later supplements by the fact that it con
tains no punitive enactments. From this it necessarily follows
that the kernel is of more value than the shell, the eternal
element of more value than the temporal. It gives only that
which is most simple and most original. In the first table there
are five commands respecting the relation to the virepe^ovrei,
the authorities, to God and those who represent His dominion
upon earth (for the command to honour parents belongs to the
first table). The second table also contains five commandments,
relative to neighbours, equals. But even here the temporal
element is not entirely wanting. The reason of the obligation,
contained in the introduction, concerns Israel alone. For the
Christian church, the redemption from Egypt is superseded by
THE COVENANT ON SINAI. 327
redemption through Christ. The Old Testament itself declares
that at a future time the former will give place absolutely to
the later (Jer. xxiii. 7). The command respecting the Sabbath
also bears a specifically Old Testament character, in so far as
it strictly enjoins the celebration of the seventh day, and
partially insists upon rest, taking the creation of the world
for its principal basis. By neighbours we must first of all
understand only the members of the covenant-nation, the co-
Israelites, etc.
We must, therefore, infer that the letter of the whole Mosaic
law is done away, while its spirit remains eternal. Its
authority rests not so much upon the circumstance that it is in
unison with the law of our reason, but upon the fact that God
gave this law through Moses. We do not become free from
this authority until we are able to prove that a legal determina
tion does not belong to the essence, but only to the special
Old Testament form. We only remark further, that on this
subject there is good material to be found in the work of
Bialloblotzky, de legis Mosaicae dbrogatione, Gott. 1824, although
his conclusion is not quite correct. Adopting many of the one
sided incautious expressions of Luther, the author has too much
overlooked the fact that the Old Testament law, as a copy of
the divine holiness, is imperishable with regard to its essence,
and must remain valid even for the church of the New
Testament. We have still a few remarks to make with special reference to
the aim and signification of the ceremonial law. In accordance
with what has been said, the principal value must be attached to
its meaning. There is no ceremonial law whicli is not symboli
cal, and, as symbolical, typical. The older theologians have erred
only in separating the typical from the symbolical, and instead
of seeking it in the idea, have sought it in little externalities.
To have understood and avoided this error is the great merit of
Bahr's Symbolism of the Mosaic Worship, 2 vols., Heidelberg,
1837-39, a book which has much that is valuable in other
respects, but must be used with great caution on account of its
many arbitrary assertions. We shall illustrate the symbolical
and typical character of the law by a few examples. After the
completion of the tabernacle of the covenant, all sacred things
and persons were anointed. Oil is in Scripture the symbol of
328 SECOND PERIOD — FIRST SECTION.
the Spirit of God ; the anointing of the sanctuary, a graphic
representation of the communication of this Spirit to the church
of God, which is by this means consecrated and set apart from
all others, lying without the department of the operations of
divine grace, comp. Isa. lxiii. 11. So much for the symbol.
The communication of the Spirit to the theocracy was still
incomplete. Moses himself recognises this when he expresses
the wish that all the people might prophesy, i.e. might enter
into immediate spiritual union with God: Num. xi. 19. This
wish, which contains a recognition of the spirit of godlessness
which was still prevalent at that time, is based on the notion
of a people of God, and is therefore also prophecy. Thus that
which is an image of the already-existing is at the same time a
type of the future. Because God has given the beginning, He
must also bring about the end. The former is no chance act
of caprice, but rests upon the relation of God to the theocracy ;
and this same relation demands also fulfilment.. From Dan.
xii. 24 we learn that this typical meaning was already recog
nised under the Old Testament itself. Again, the third among
the great annual feasts, the feast of tabernacles, was a symboli
cal representation of the gracious guidance of the Lord in the
time of trial and temptation, and thus a necessary supplement
to the feast of the passover, as the feast of the bestowment of
forgiveness of sins, and to pentecost, as the feast of the internal
and external giving of the law or the feast of consecration;
The passover corresponds to sin-offering, pentecost to burnt-
offering, the feast of tabernacles to peace-offering. But the
symbol was at the same time type, not only of God's future
similar dealings with this nation, but also of His treatment of
those who were resolved to become His people. The feast of
tabernacles points prophetically to that of the church militant
of the New Testament, to the march throughout the wilder
ness of this earth, comp. Apoc. xii. 6-14, to salvation granted,
and to the final happy issue of this march. Zech. xiv. 16
expressly mentions the feast of tabernacles as a type. And again
in the Apoc. vii. 9. Besides the historical side, according to
which the feast of tabernacles was one of gratitude for the
gracious preservation of the Lord during the pilgrimage of
Israel through the wilderness, comp. Lev. xxiii. 43, and a
pledge of the continuance of this preservation, this feast had
THE COVENANT ON SINAI. 329
also a natural side, like the passover and pentecost. It was
the feast of the completed gathering in of all fruits. This
natural side stood in close connection with the historical.
Bahr says : " There was certainly no time better adapted than
this to remind them of the hardships endured in their wander
ings in the desert, of the time of the trial of their faith, of
the great benefit conferred on them in the possession of the
promised and wished-for land, and in the final entrance into
rest after the struggle." With respect to the natural side also
the typical meaning of the feast of tabernacles is clearly
apparent. It prefigured the heavenly harvest, the time when
the elect, who kept the passover and pentecost in the spirit,
rest from their work, and their works do follow them, since
they have well invested what they here gained by the sweat of
their brow, and what God's blessing had bestowed on them.
Again, the yearly great day of atonement was deeply significant
for Israel, Lev. xvi. The ceremonial of this day was as follows:
The high priest first presents a sin-offering as an atonement
for himself and his house. Then he takes two goats as a sin-
offering for the house of Israel. One of these is actually
offered up, the other only in and with it. Aaron lays both
his hands upon its head and confesses upon it the (forgiven
and obliterated) trespasses of the children of Israel, lays them
upon its head and sends it to Azazel — i.e. to Satan — in the
wilderness. The meaning of this symbolical action is, that
when God's people have sought and obtained forgiveness of
their sins, they need no longer have any fear of Satan, but
may come boldly before him, triumph over him, and mock at
him, in contrast with the delusion of the Egyptians, who
thought that they had to do immediately with the evil principle,
the Typhon. Here also the symbol is a type. By the symbol
the triumph of the church of God over Satan is shown to be
necessary in accordance with its essence; and since this triumph
was but imperfect under the Old Testament, the yearly feast
of atonement was at the same time a pledge of a more complete
triumph to be granted in the future, having its foundation in
atonement through the true High Priest ; comp. Heb. vii. 26,
ix. 7, and Zech. iii. 8 — a passage which shows that the incom
pleteness of the Levitical atonement was already recognised
under the Old Testament. And, apart from its ascetic meaning,
330 SECOND PERIOD — FIRST SECTION.
the outward rest of the Sabbath formed a symbol of the inner,
actual rest : Thou shalt cease from thy work, that God may
have His work in thee, as Isaiah interprets the symbolical action.
But every command is at the same time a promise. In the sphere
of revelation there is no " Thou shalt" which is not followed by
" Thou wilt." The external rest of the Sabbath was therefore
a type of that rest which God would at a future time grant to
His people from all their own works, comp. Heb. iv. 9. Again,
fasting was a symbolical representation of repentance. Man,
in chastising his soul (this is the expression which the law
applies to fasting), by this means made an actual confession that
misery belonged to him. God, in commanding this symbolical
expression of repentance, required repentance from the cove
nant-people, treated it as presupposed in the symbol, and in it
gave an actual promise that, at a future time, He would pour
out the spirit of repentance and of grace in rich abundance
upon the nation, comp. Zech. xii. 10. Finally, the sin-offerings
were symbolical. In them the offerer made a virtual confession
that he recognised himself as a miserable and condemned sinner,
deserving the fate of the sacrificed animal, and that he placed
his trust only in the acceptance of substitution by the divine
mercy. And because God instituted sin-offerings, they also
were symbolical. They contained the virtual assurance that at
a future time God would institute a more perfect redemption,
a true substitution, which was only prefigured and typified in
the offering of animals, but could not be fully bestowed. Isaiah,
chap, liii., already regards sin-offering as such an actual
assurance. And so throughout.
But now the question arises, whether, in the ceremonial law,
there is not at best useless circumlocution — the question why
God chose this material representation of spiritual truths, why
He did not represent them naked and bare, in mere words ?
1. Here we must, first of all, apprehend the symbolical ten
dency of the East generally, and of antiquity in particular.
The image and symbol were a means of bringing home to the
people that truth which they were not yet able to comprehend
without a veil. The language of symbol was at that time the
natural language. And we find the same plan pursued in the
New Testament. ' The design is not merely to fill the mind
with true thoughts, but also to sanctify the phantasy, and to
THE COVENANT ON SINAI. 331
fill it with holy images. For this the profound allegory of the ¦
ceremonial law forms an excellent means. Whoever has
penetrated into this cannot fail to regard the lower as a type of
the higher. We are released from the external representation ;
it is too coarse, too material for the New Testament times. The
symbolism may still, however, serve as an image for us.
2. The ceremonial law, in placing the least and the greatest
in outward connection with God, in bringing God into every
thing, formed a life-long remembrance of the inner relation to
Him. Take, for example, the laws respecting food, which
cannot be regarded as arbitrary enactments, but rather rest
upon the symbolical character of Nature, and are images of that
which is morally clean and unclean. Every act of eating and
drinking was calculated to recall God to the memory of those
who were by nature so apt to forget Him. In this respect the
ceremonial law had deep meaning, especially as an antidote to
the Egyptian nature. False religion had taken possession of
the Egyptian mind principally through the circumstance that
it had penetrated by its ceremonies into every corner of the
national life. Adherence to it could only be thoroughly re
moved by a homoeopathic mode of dealing. Otherwise the
true religion would have remained hovering above the actual
relations, instead of permeating them.
3. The ceremonial law was designed to effect the separation
of Israel from other nations, comp. Eph. ii. 14. Idolatry was
then the spirit of the age ; nor was this spirit of the age some
thing accidental, but in the state of things then existing was,
even in its form, a necessary product of that same human
nature which was possessed by Israel also. The sole means of
inwardly resisting it, the Holy Spirit, was not present among
Israel in the masses ; and apart from the Holy Spirit no
adequate effect could be anticipated. Thus the Israelites were
kept outwardly under the law to Christ, until the time when,
furnished with power from on high, they could begin the offen
sive warfare against heathendom.
4. The ceremonial law facilitated the recognition of sin, and
thus called forth the necessity for redemption. The people
must be weary and heavy laden, that at a future time the Lord
might be able to say to them, " Come unto me all ye that
labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." The
332 SECOND PERIOD— FIRST SECTION.
law was, and was intended to be, a hard yoke, Acts xv. 10,
Gal. v. 1, under which the nation should sigh, and thus be
stirred up to long for the Redeemer.
5. Much in the ceremonial law served, by carnal impress, to
awaken in the carnal people reverence for that which was holy.
This aim is definitely expressed in Ex. xxviii. 2. The cere
monial law made it very difficult to have intercourse with the
heathen. Some of the forbidden animals, for example, were
those which other nations were commonly in the habit of eat
ing ; comp. Michaelis, Mos. Recht, Th. 4, § 203. Add to this
that mockery of the heathen, which had its origin in the obser
vance of the canonical law, and which we still find expressed
in Greek and Roman authors.
And here we must allude to the subject of a long and violent
dispute among older theologians. English scholars — Marsham
in the Canon chronicus aegypt., ebraic, graec. ; Spencer, de leg.
ril. ; Warburton, in The Divine Legation of Moses, to whom
Clericus, and, to some extent, J. D. Michaelis, attached them
selves — sought to prove that among the oldest heathen nations,
especially among the Egyptians, there were similar ceremonies,
and on this hypothesis found the assumption that God had
connected with the true religion customs which had been pre
valent among idolatrous nations, in order, by this condescension,
to help the weakness of the Israelites, who had become accus
tomed to these ceremonies while in Egypt. Their opponents,
on the other hand, maintained, first, that it would be unworthy
of God to pay any regard to those customs prevalent among
idolatrous nations ; or, in their language, for the devil to
have supplied God the Lord with matter for the ceremonial
law, since otherwise the devil would be simia Dei, but God
not simia diaboli ; second, that the similarity is by no means
so great ; and finally, that where such similarity can be
proved, the Egyptians may readily have borrowed from the
Israelites; for we have no account of their religious con
stitution, except in very late writings. The principal work
on the subject is Witsius' Aegyptiaca, Amstel. 1683; Lange,
Mos. Licht und Recht ; and Pfaff, in the preface to his
edition of Spencer. It cannot be denied that these theo
logians were right in taking up the matter very seriously:
for if the view of the English scholars were allowed, it would
THE COVENANT ON SINAI. 333
prove the rude transfer of & whole multitude of the elements of
the heathen religion ; and in this case would it not be much
more natural to leave out God entirely, and to assume that the
borrowing originated with the Israelites themselves? And the
English critics were not able so completely to escape this con
clusion, if they refrained from giving it outward expression.
In Marsham, at least, we have many reasons for supposing that
his view of the Old Testament was pretty much that of the
rationalists, who afterwards understood well how to employ the
results of the English theologians for their own purposes. In
Spencer, also, the fundamental direction is plainly rationalistic.
Yet we must not overlook the fact, that the opposition to this
view, although in the main well-founded, was yet in one
respect partial. The truth that lay at the basis of their asser
tions was overlooked, and by this very means many were led to
adopt their errors. Although the English scholars dragged
forward a multitude of similarities, although they showed no
critical power in the use of sources, although they brought
forward very much which, owing to its universal character, can
prove nothing at all ; yet notwithstanding the opposition
against them, which has been recently revived by Bahr, there
still remains something which must lead us to accept an inner
link of connection between the heathen and the Israelitish
religions, — for example, the Egyptian analogy of the Urim and
Thummim, the cherubim, and the rite at the feast of atonement.
This rite presupposes the Typhonia Sacra of the Egyptians,
which cannot be doubted if we compare those passages of the
ancients which have reference to it, collected by Schmidt, de
Sacerd. et Sacrif. Aeg. S. 312 ff. ; and the discussions in the
work entitled The Books of Moses and Egypt, p. 164 ff. But
notwithstanding the similarity in form (the offering of the
Typhon was also led into the wilderness), there is a most
decided contrast as regards the meaning. Among the Egyp
tians Typhon is conciliated, — among the Israelites only God : the
goat sent to Azazel in the wilderness is first consecrated to God
as a sin-offering. The inability to rise to a perception of the
internal differences between those things which are outwardly
similar — theological impotence — is the great defect in these
English scholars. But their opponents also participated in this
defect to some extent. If they had vividly realized that the soul
334 .SECOND PERIOD— FIRST SECTION.
is
more than the body, they would not have been so anxious to
set aside all outward agreement. It must be said, however,
that the most unprejudiced examination can find comparatively
few points of contact with Egyptian worship. The three
already mentioned are the most important. Besides these, we
must refer to the institution of holy women, Ex. xxxviii. 8—
women who renounced the world in order to consecrate them
selves entirely to the service of God in prayer and fasting, in
the tabernacle of the covenant ; an institution a priori pro
bably due to an Egyptian source, since it was not instituted by
Moses, but arose' of itself, and is placed beyond all doubt by
the precise accounts concerning the holy women among the
Egyptians. Women from the higher families, princesses, even
queens, in Egypt consecrated themselves to some deity. The
most important were the Pallades of Amon : comp. Bahr on
Herod, ii. 54, pp. 557, 612; Wilkinson, i. p. 258 ff.; Rosell.
i. 1, p. 216 ff. But we see at once how essentially different
the outwardly similar institution was among the Israelites, if we
only apprehend the difference between the God of Israel and
the Egyptian deities. The form of the Nazirate seems also to
have an Egyptian origin, as also the laws relative to the mate
rial and colour of the priests' garments, and the legislation
respecting clean and unclean animals, and a few other things.
The result is the following : It is impossible without embar
rassment to deny a close connection between the Egyptian and
the Israelitish worship, since in many places we find an agree
ment which is too characteristic to pass for accidental. A bor
rowing on the side of the Egyptian can hardly be thought of.
But just as little can we suppose that the Israelites properly
borrowed from the Egyptians. The state of the matter is this.
Every sensuous worship, every external religion, rests upon the
distinction between holy and unholy. Now the holy is partly
natural — resting upon an inner relation of the symbol to the
thing symbolized; as, for example, anointing, common among
nations the most diverse, and quite independent of each other,
was a symbol of consecration, washing was a symbol of purifi
cation, the slaughter of sacrificial animals was a symbolical
expression of the necessity for atonement. Again, the holy is
factitious, either entirely or to some extent, so that the meaning,
though attached to a natural symbol, goes beyond it. But the
THE COVENANT ON SINAI. 335
artificial symbol does not for the most part originate by some one
stepping forward, and saying, " This thing which has hitherto
always been regarded as common, shall from this time be holy,
and shall mean this and that." In a certain sense it is a natural
product. It leaves the circle of common things gradually, by
various circumstances, historical associations which attach them
selves to it, etc. And when for a long time it has been the
habit to regard such an artificial symbol as a representation of
the supersensuous, then ' the distinction between it and the
natural disappears. It makes the same impression as the
natural, and therefore presents a point of contact whicli the
original, common thing did not possess. Hence, only the
foundation of that which had already been consecrated in this
way was transferred to the Israelitish religion as a symbol of
the holy, but this transference, if we may call it so, has refer
ence only to the form ; with regard to the spirit, which is the
main point, the contrast is most decided. At the conclusion of
this section we only remark further, that the locality of the
giving of the law has not received its true elucidation until our
time. It has frequently been maintained (recently by Winer,
in his article Sinai, in the first edition of the Real-Wdrterbuch)
that there was no open space between Mount Horeb and the
plain where Israel assembled at the command of God for the
giving of the law. The contrary is now firmly established.
Robinson tried to prove that the plain er-Rahah, lying north
of Mount Sinai, was suitable as an encampment for the children
of Israel. But the difficulty still remained, that from that point
the summit of the present Sinai must have been completely
concealed from the view of the people, contrary to the Mosaic
narrative ; a difficulty which Robinson seeks to obviate by the
forced hypothesis that tradition is at fault in its determination
of the position of Mount Sinai. But further examination has
ascertained that the large plain lying north of Sinai was not
the only one adapted to the encampment of a nation, but that
there is one equally large on the south side of Sinai, and that
from this great southern plain, called Sebaijah, the summit of
the lofty Sinai of tradition, which rose like a pyramid immedi
ately towards the north, was fully visible to the people. Com
pare the collection of researches by Laborde, Tischendorf,
Strauss, and others, in Ritter. "This plain," says Tischen-
&¦
336 SECOND PERIOD— FIRST SECTION.
dorf " is of great extent, and seems as if made to be the scene
of such a solemn act." It also forms an excellent commentary
on the expression employed by Moses in Ex. xix. 22 : " Who
soever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death." For
in the plain of Sebaijah the mountain may be actually touched,
since it rises up so precipitously that it can be seen in all its
grandeur from the foot to the summit. It also agrees with the
words, " And they stood at the nether part of the mount," ver.
17. Seldom is it possible to stand so immediately at the foot
of a mountain with the glance fixed on the summit many thou
sand feet high, as iu the plain of Sebaijah, at the foot of Sinai.
§6.
OTHER OCCURRENCES ON SINAI.
After the conclusion of the covenant, as a confirmation of it,
the God of Israel manifested Himself gloriously to the nation
in His representative, Ex. xxiv. 9-11, exemplifying the words,
" The pure in heart shall see God," and proving that He reveals
Himself to all those who keep His commandments, John xiv. 21.
We must remember that the elders were in a solemnly elevated
frame of mind, that they were rapt in God, as the apostles
at the feast of the passover. That which was seen under the
feet of God (" And there was under His feet as it were a paved
work of sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in
his clearness") reflected the majesty and glory of the divine
acts and judgments. The clear splendour (the white, i.e. the
dazzling sapphire) points to their exceeding glory ; the purity,
to their absolute faultlessness. Above this splendour God ap
peared, as Jerome says, "in human form, and in the likeness
of a glorious prince and lawgiver." This formed the consum
mation of the solemn conclusion of the covenant, in prefigura
tion of the o Xoyo<; K means trespass- and restitution-
offering. The sinner must not only be animated by a desire
352 SECOND PERIOD — FIRST SECTION.
to obtain God's forgiveness by the atonement of his sins, a
desire which is satisfied by the sin-offering, but he must also
have a sincere wish to make up for the past as far as possible ;
a wish which is always a sign of genuine sorrow and repent
ance. But this wish can receive no real satisfaction in so far
as sin has reference to God ; and only to this extent has sacri
fice to do with sin. Yet, in the Mosaic worship, it had a
symbolic representation, as an incentive to sleepy consciences
and a satisfaction to anxious ones which cling especially to
this point. An estimate was taken of the sin, and an equivalent
was presented in the sacrifice, to which the same value was
ideally attributed. But since the main object was simply to
represent the idea, the trespass- and restitution-offering was
only enjoined for a limited number of cases : those which most
powerfully suggested the wish to make restitution, especially
cases of material faithlessness respecting the property of a
master or a neighbour, where the material restitution enjoined
could not fail to awaken the wish to be able to satisfy God in
a higher sense.
Let us now turn to those sacrifices which were presented by
persons already in a state of grace.
Among these, burnt-offerings take the first place. When
the sacrifices are named together, the sin-offering always pre
cedes the burnt-offering, and this again precedes the thank-
offering. That which is characteristic in the burnt-offering
is already indicated by the names it bears. It was called d>V,
the ascending, that which mounts up in fire to the Lord,
and 5>i?3, the whole, on account of the total burning, in con
trast to the burning of single portions in the other sacrifices,
especially in the sacrifice of slaughtered animals. This name
makes the total burning just as characteristic of burnt-offer
ings as the sprinkling of blood was characteristic of sin-offer
ings. This total burning symbolized consecration to the Lord,
— the entire surrender of him who offered the burnt-offering,
and in it, himself. The burnt-offering was a sign that he who
was justified should henceforward live not to himself but to the
Lord, as His true servant. The important place which the
burnt-offering occupies is proportioned to this meaning. It
recurs in every act of worship as an expression of the disposi
tion which was to be always alive in the church of the
OTHER OCCURRENCES ON SINAI. 353
" servants of the Lord." No man might be without a burnt-
offering, and every presentation of another sacrifice was ac
companied by a burnt-offering : it came after the sin-offering
and before the peace-offering. Further, the burnt-offering
was presented every morning and evening, and was to continue
burning throughout the whole night, Lev. vi. 2. It was,
therefore, the perpetual offering of the people of God, who
were thus continually reminded that their life consisted in
surrender to the Lord, in being His servants ; and that it was
their duty to be subservient to all His wishes.
The burnt-offering also had the meaning of atonement, as
appears from the express statement in Lev. i. 4. 5, xiv. 20 ;
also from Lev. xvii. 11, where atoning power is attributed to
all blood that comes upon the altar ; and finally, from the cir
cumstance that in the patriarchal times burnt-offerings still
took the place of the sin-offering first instituted in the Mosaic
time. He who consecrates himself to the Lord is naturally
reminded of his own sinfulness, even if he has just obtained
atonement and forgiveness for his sins ; and the element of
atonement in the burnt-offering was calculated to pacify this
remembrance where it was already awakened, and to call forth
the thought in those to whom it had not originally suggested
itself. Yet in the burnt-offering this element of atonement
was throughout subordinate, which appears from the circum
stance that it is only expressly mentioned in those passages
we have quoted, and that the sprinkling of blood is not in
any way emphasized or made prominent as in the sin-offerings,
but rather takes place in the most general form : the blood
is merely sprinkled round about the altar.
Let us now turn to the peace-offerings, which resemble the
burnt-offerings in this respect, that they proceed from a state
of grace, or can only be presented by those who are in this
state. They bear a twofold name. The one, BTnt, slaughtered
sacrifice — the word means an offering in general — points to
the fact that the offerer participates in the offering, in con
trast to the burnt-offering, which belonged entirely to the
Lord. The other, Wcbv>, goes deeper into the essence of the
thing. The name has been variously interpreted, but only
one explanation is legitimate. tb'& in Kal, from which a?&
is derived, has only the one meaning, integer fuit, to be com-
z
354 SECOND PERIOD — FIRST SECTION.
pletely safe or sound. Hence Wtobw can only mean peace-
offerings, in the LXX. awTrjpiov. And this is consistent
with its application throughout. Everywhere the presenta
tion of the Schelamim stands in connection with salvation.
Outram says, de Sacrificiis, p. 107 : " Sacrificia salutaria in
sacris literis Schelamim dicta semper de rebus prosperis fieri
solebant, impetratis utique aut impetrandis." That the Sche
lamim were presented not merely for salvation which was
already received, but also with reference to salvation to be
received, appears from two reasons. (1.) It is not conceivable
that the sacrifice of prayer should be wanting in the Mosaic
worship, since petitions occupy so important a place in that rela
tion to God which is intended to be fully represented by sacri
fice, as the Psalms already indicate. (2.) The Schelamim are
often presented on occasions of sadness, as in Judg. xx. 26,
after the Israelites had been conquered ; and in xxi. 4, when the
tribe of Benjamin had been almost exterminated. Here they
cannot refer to the salvation already received, but only to that
which was to be received. Yet we must not overlook the fact
that the Schelamim, although they served and were intended to
serve as an expression of prayer, had originally and through
out the character of thank-offerings. The request was offered
in the form of anticipated thanks, as may be seen from a series
of passages in the Psalms, comp. for example, Ps. lvi. 13, 14,
liv. 8 ; a form which testifies to the greatness of the trust that
was placed in God. Faith is already in possession of the future
salvation. Comp. John xi. 41,, where Jesus says, before the
raising of Lazarus : " Father, I thank Thee that Thou hast
heard me."
With regard to the meaning of the thank-offering, there is
an essential distinction between it and the sin-offering and
burnt- offering, in so far as it did not, like these, represent the
person of the offerer, but only a gift on his part ; a peculiarity
which was typified by the circumstance that the whole thank-
offering did not belong to the Lord, but only single portions
of it. This antithesis between it and the burnt- and sin-
offerings, is indicated by a peculiar phraseology, rilblf and
DTQt are frequently connected in such a way that they denote
the sum of the sacrifices, including the sin-offering. So, for ex
ample, in Lev. xvii. 8, Num. xv. 3, 8, Ezra viii. 35, where the
OTHER OCCURRENCES ON SINAI. 355
sin-offerings are expressly reckoned as burnt-offerings. Where
Oloth stands in a general sense, we have the contrast between
those sacrifices which are dedicated entirely to the Lord and
those in which the offerers also participated. The former, the
sin-offerings and burnt-offerings, represented the person of the
offerer; the latter, a single gift from him. The present, the
gift of gratitude, is the usual form of expressing gratitude
among men, and this form is transferred to the relation towards
God. In the symbolism of worship, gratitude was represented
by sacrificial gifts. We learn from many passages that grati
tude formed the soul of the thank-offering. But Ps. 1. is
instar omnium. Then comp. Ps. lxix. 31, 32. This gave rise
to the meaning of the laying on of hands in the thank-offering,
which denoted in general the rapport between the offerer and
his offering. In the sin- and burnt-offerings it was a symbolical
confession, " Such am I ; " in the thank-offering, on the other
hand, the symbolic expression was, " Such is my gift, my grati
tude." The thank-offering might never immediately succeed
asm-offering. Its necessary basis was always the burnt-offer
ing. Consecration and surrender of the whole person to the
Lord must always precede prayer for salvation and subsequent
gratitude. Even in the thank-offering the consciousness of sin found
expression, although it was only presented by such as were in
a state of grace. Here also the shedding and the sprinkling
of blood had an atoning character. The benefits of God
invariably awaken a feeling of one's own unworthiness, the
feeling which Jacob expresses in Gen. xxxii. 10, "I am not
worthy of the least of all the mercies, and of all the truth,
which Thou hast shown unto Thy servant." Sinful man cannot
express gratitude without humbling himself, without seeking
forgiveness for his sinfulness. Yet in the thank-offerings this
element was only a subordinate one, as appears from the cir
cumstance that the sprinkling of blood only took place in the
most universal form.
The custom of heaving and waving was peculiar to the thank-
offering, D'Hn and spn, which was done with the parts which
were separated for the officiating priests. This custom pointed
to the fact that these parts, no less than those burnt upon the
altar, were presented and consecrated to the Lord ; that the
356 SECOND PERIOD— FIRST SECTION.
priests received them only as servants of the Lord. The cere
mony undeniably appears as a symbol of consecration in Num.
viii. 11, when it is done at the consecration of the Levites.
The heaving points to God as enthroned in heaven ; the waving
points to Him as the Lord of earth. " Thou compassest my
path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways:"
Ps. cxxxix. 3.
The time of sacrificial meals was also peculiar to the thank-
offerings. This symbolized the fellowship of the offerer with
the Lord, who revealed Himself to him in granting salvation,
and to whom he revealed himself by his gratitude. But
these sacrificial meals were also love-feasts. The giver invited
widows, orphans, and poor people, Deut. xii. 18, xvi. 11, and
thus made them partakers of his salvation, of his joy, his grati
tude, and praise. These sacrificial meals stand in close connec
tion with the command that every Israelite should appear before
the Lord at the great feasts. Those who possessed no means
were thus enabled to fulfil their religious duty. Bahr and
others place the sacrificial meal in a false light when they
make Jehovah the host. No trace of this is to be found. The
sacrifice, being slaughtered, was not a whole offering, and those
parts were eaten which had not been consecrated to the Lord.
Its only characteristic is the common participation, the Benrvrjam
fier aiiTov koX avTos per ep,ov, Rev. iii. 20.
Thus the great allegory of sacrifice which runs through the
life of Israel formed a continual exhortation, " Seek the for
giveness of your sins ; consecrate yourselves to the Lord, body
and soul," Rom. xii. 1, where we have an explanation of the
burnt-offering : " Call upon Him in the hour of need, thank Him
for His grace." But there is still one element remaining, which
is not represented in what we have already discussed, viz.
diligence in good works, which is a peculiar mark of the true
church of the Lord. According to the locus classicus Ps.
cxii. 2 — comp. my Commentary on the passage — this was re
presented by the bloodless sacrifice, the nroD, a word which
originally signified a gift in general, a present.
These sacrifices are associated with the bloody ones, and
never appear independently. They were never connected with
sin-offerings, but always with burnt-offerings and thank-offer
ings. They consisted of bread and wine. In the Old and New
OTHER OCCURRENCES ON SINAI. 357
Testaments these are the representatives and symbols of nourish
ment. Earthly kings were supplied with bodily food by their
subjects ; the taxes consisted for the most part of products of
nature, comp. Gen. xlix. 20, 1 Kings iv. 7. Here, where the
King is a spiritual, heavenly one, the bodily nourishment pre
sented to Him can only be a symbol of the spiritual. The
petition to God, " Give us this day our bread," and the promise
upon which it rests and is established, go side by side with
the demand made by God, " Give me my bread this day;" for
God never demands without giving, and never gives without
demanding. In the Gospel the Lord hungers for the fruit of the
fig tree, which symbolizes the Jewish nation ; which demand
is satisfied when the church is diligent in good works. The
connection of the meat-offering with the burnt-offering pointed
to the fact that consecration and surrender of the whole person
must necessarily precede good works, and that it is equally
necessary they should be followed by good works ; that
Jehovah, the Holy One, is not adequately served by mere
feelings of dependence, or even of love, but that He desires
zeal in the fulfilling of His commandments; and that the sole
proof of complete surrender is this, " Ye are my friends, if ye
do whatsoever I command you," John xv. 14. The association
of the meat-offering with the thank-offering, indicated that true
gratitude must prove itself not only in confession, which was
represented by the bloody sacrifices, but also in the life : comp.
Ps. xl. The shew-bread was a nriJD of the whole church ;
its name, properly " bread of the face," is explained in Ex.
xxv. 30, " And thou shalt set upon the table shew-bread before
me alway ; " and in Lev. xxiv. 8, " Every Sabbath he shall
set it in order before the Lord continually, being taken from
the children of Israel by an everlasting covenant." This bread
is the offering which the nation brings to its king in God, in
fulfilment of the covenant. The interpretation is given in the
symbolic act in John xxi., where Jesus gives the disciples the
food He had in readiness, and then eats of what the disciples
had prepared.
According to Lev. ii. 11 the meat-offering was to be with
out leaven and honey. Leaven is in Scripture a symbol of
corruption. The name given to the unleavened bread, ITOD,
signifies pure bread ; and Paul represents elXtKplveia and dXn-
358 SECOND PERIOD— FIRST SECTION.
Qeia as corresponding to it in a spiritual sense. By a mixture
of leaven the meat-offerings would, therefore, have, lost the
character of integrity and purity which the symbolical signi
ficance demanded. Good works must not be marred by any
mixture of impure conduct, or made useless as spiritual food
for the holy God. The prohibition of honey, as the favourite
food and dainty of all Easterns, especially of the Israelites,
indicates that whoever will do good works must not seek the
delitias carnis. The prohibition of the admixture of salt and
oil corresponds with the prohibition of leaven and honey. Salt
always appears in Scripture as the seasoning of meat; and
another meaning is the less probable in this case, since we have
here to do with the meat-offering. Paul gives the interpreta
tion in Col. iv. 6, "Let your speech be alway with grace,
seasoned with salt." Salt therefore signifies grace, in contrast
with the unsalted, natural disposition. Oil is here, as it always is
in Scripture, a symbol of the Spirit of God, by whose assist
ance alone good works can be performed. A third addition is
incense, Lev. ii. 15. In Scripture this is always the symbol of
prayer, with which good works must be begun and ended:
comp. the classic passage Ps. cxii. 2.
Thus it is shown that among Israel the whole sphere of reli
gion was filled out by sacrifice.
The laws relative to sacrifice are followed by the account of
the consecration of the priests, already commanded in Exodus,
which presupposes the existence of the institution of sacri
fices. Aaron and his sons now enter upon their office. Fire
goes out from Jehovah and consumes the first sacrifice.
The people exult and worship. It is an actual declaration
on the part of God that the worship of the people is pleas
ing to Him ; that the command is also a promise, and at
the same time a virtual ratification of the Levitical priesthood.
A ratification of another kind follows on the same day. Two
sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, die because they ven
tured to bring strange incense upon the altar of the Lord, in
violation of Ex. xxx. 8, 9, 34 ff., probably in drunkenness, to
which they had been led by the feast ; for we learn that the
judgment was immediately followed by a command that the
priests, mindful of their exalted calling, should abstain from
strong drink. And just as punishments upon the whole nation
OTHER OCCURRENCES ON SINAI. 359
were no less a proof of their election than blessings, so it was
also with the priestly office. This event at once practically
refuted the suspicion that the tribe of Levi owed its elevation
to partiality on the part of Moses or of God. It was a
prophecy of their whole future fate. Because they remained
so far behind their destiny, they never truly enjoyed the privi
leges which God granted them only on the condition of realiz
ing it. Hence those who might have had the advantage over the
other tribes were now at a disadvantage. That is an impor
tant statement which the Lord makes to Moses and Moses
repeats to Aaron : " I will be sanctified in them that come
nigh me," Lev. x. 3. Comp. 1 Pet. iv. 17, Raiph? tov dp%auQai
to Kplfia diro tov o'Ikov tov &eov, and Amos iii. 1 ff. Moses
forbade Aaron and his sons to mourn for those who had fallen,
because, as the mediators of the nation, they must rise com
pletely to their office; comp. the general injunctions in xxi. 10 ff.,
according to which the high priest must never unfit himself
for his office by solemn mourning for the dead, that by the
Mosaic law entailed impurity. The ordinary priest might only
mourn for his very nearest relations, who had the first claim
to his love, and whom he must therefore bury in a suitable
manner ; during which time he was -divested of his priestly
character, Lev. xxi. 1—6. The interpretation of these in
junctions was this : "Follow me, and let the dead bury their
dead," Matt. viii. 22 ; the answer with which our Lord met the
request, " Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father."
The service of the Lord demands unconditional surrender, that
a man should say unto his father and to his mother, I have not
seen him, and should not acknowledge his brethren, nor know
his own children, Deut. xxxiii. 9. If this were required of the
servants of God under the economy of the Old Testament, how
much more under the New should the servants of God have
wife ancUchild as if they had them not ! The idea of celibacy is
absolutely necessary to the church, and is only transferred to
the flesh by the Catholic Church.
This is the proper place to make a few general remarks on
the office of the priests and Levites ; which is the more neces
sary since attempts have recently been made to obscure the
historical truth regarding them.
In the time of the patriarchs, as we have already seen, there
360 SECOND PERIOD— FIRST SECTION.
was no special priestly office. The Mosaic economy, however,
demanded such an office. It i§ but a link in the great chain,
and cannot be taken away without breaking it entirely. As a
proof that the Mosaic institution met a want which really
existed, consider the multiplicity of the ceremonial laws, of
which it was only possible for the priests to obtain an accurate
knowledge when they were handed down from father to son ;
the important support afforded to the theocracy by the fact that
the temporal interest of a definite order was closely bound up
with its existence; the deep-rooted idea thatjthe servants of
God possessed, as it were, a hereditary dignity and sanctity,
which gave rise to the existence of a priestly caste in almost all
ancient nations especially in the East.
The separation of a priestly office is not, however, made a
subject of reproach in itself. The objection is rather directed
to the manner of the separation, and this in a threefold aspect :
1. That Moses chose his own tribe ; 2. The excessive revenue;
3. The inordinate power.
1. If this reproach were just, we should have reason to
expect that Moses would first of all have provided for his own
sons. We find, however, that they are not considered at all,
but are obliged to content themselves with the small portion of
the common Levites. The priesthood proper maintains only
Aaron and his descendants. Then, again, the choice of the
tribe of Levi had the reiterated divine sanction. And that
which was powerful enough to overcome the most obstinate
scepticism among the Israelites, viz. the burning of the first
sacrifice, the death of the sons of Aaron, the budding rod of
Aaron, and the destruction of the company of Korah, ought to
have as much weight with us as the abstract possibility that
Moses here acted from worldly motives; a possibility which
cannot even rise to a probability, since Moses narrates the
shame of this tribe with the same openness as its honour, — re
cording the shameful deed of his ancestor, Aaron's great weak
ness, and the crime of Nadab and Abihu. In other respects,
also, he shows himself superior to personal and worldly motives.
It is a miserable p.eTa/3acn<; et? dXXo 7^0? to imagine Scrip
ture to be pervaded by this self-seeking. Ex. xxxii. 26-29
shows the reason why the divine choice fell upon the tribe
of Levi, comp. Deut. xxxiii. 9. From what is there narrated,
OTHER OCCURRENCES ON SINAI. 361
as well as from the act of Phinehas, Num. xxv., it is evident
that zeal for the Lord had taken the deepest root among this
tribe. 2. The revenues of the Levites certainly appear very con
siderable at the first glance, even if it be taken into account
that, the members of the tribe were scattered throughout all
Israel, and could only have cities and their immediate environs
as a possession, receiving no definite allotment of land, which
greatly increased the portions of the other tribes ; and that they
had to defray the expenses of all public sacrifices. A race con
sisting of not more than 22,000 males received the tithes of
600,000 Israelites. These were in reality presented to Jehovah,
who was regarded as the true landowner from whom Israel had
the land as a loan, under conditions whose non-fulfilment would
result in the land being taken from them again ; and they were
constantly reminded of their dependence by the Sabbath and
jubilee year, in whicli the whole land was to lie fallow : comp.
Lev. xxv. On the Egyptian foundation of these institutions,
comp. The Books of Moses and Egypt. As in Egypt the king
was the sole landowner, among Israel it was Jehovah, who was
intended to be the definite antagonism of a mere abstraction.
On the same principle there could be no purchase of land ;
only the revenue of the land for a certain number of years
was saleable. In the year of jubilee everything returned to the
old order. And this principle formed the basis of the com
mand to leave the produce of the corners of the fields and the
gleaning to the poor, God's clients, as well as that which grew
of itself in the sabbatical and jubilee year. The priests, there
fore, as God's servants, received the tithes of all Israel. They
received also the first-fruits, a portion of the peace-offerings,
Lev. vi. and vii., everything that was consecrated, the ransom-
money of the first-born, and some other revenues : comp. Num.
xviii. 15-32. But consider ; the revenues of the Levites were
all of such a kind that they depended entirely on the goodwill
of the people, which varied according to their piety. If the
lawgiver had wished to favour them, he must have endowed
them in quite a different way, by the possession of land ; and if
the management of it seemed not to accord with the dignity of
their office, it might have been managed by slaves, or rented
after the manner of the Egyptian priests. It cannot be main-
362 SECOND PERIOD— FIRST SECTION.
tained that what ensued was unexpected by him, neither can
we suppose that he had omitted to take it into account. For
he saw and predicted throughout that idolatry would at a
future time spread fearfully among the nation, and would at
last entail tlie punishment of captivity. It cannot, therefore,
be doubted that he chose this mode of endowment by design.
It was part of his plan that the Levites should be in circum
stances to suffer want. If the nation remained faithful to the
Lord, they had a comfortable competency ; and if the nation
apostatized from the Lord, their revenues ceased. But such
an apostasy presupposes an apostasy of the Levites themselves ;
a nation always falls through its priests, although the converse
is likewise true. The thing was, therefore, so arranged from
the beginning that the divine jus talionis, as it is strongly ex
pressed by Malachi with reference to this very relation, operates
through the relation itself.
If we look at the history, we cannot doubt that the tribe
of Levi had outwardly a far less favoured lot than the other
tribes.- With the exception of a few bright, isolated periods,
when they themselves and the nation fulfilled their destination,
particularly the times of Joshua and David, it had a melan
choly existence. During the long period of the Judges, we can
not expect, from the state of the nation, that their revenues were
more than moderate. Scarcely had the Davidic and Solomonic
period passed away than the theocratic consciousness decayed,
beginning with the priests themselves. On the separation of
the kingdom they lost all revenues from the ten tribes ; and
even from Judah they received only the smaller portion of
that which was their due, except in the reigns of the few pious
kings. Even in the outwardly God-fearing time of the exile,
the priests were often exposed to the greatest want: comp.
Mai. iii. 8-12; Neh. xiii. 10-12. Dead orthodoxy could not
overpower living selfishness.
3. It is equally easy to refute the objection to the power
of the priesthood. A single glance at the history shows its
worthlessness. An influence of the priesthood on civil affairs
is at no period perceptible in the times of the independent
state. And it can easily be proved that what it did not receive,
it was not intended to receive in the designs of the lawgiver.
(1.) No direct influence in civil matters is given to the priest-
OTHER OCCURRENCES ON SINAI. 363
hood in the Pentateuch, except that they had a certain share
in the administration of justice. Rationalism has asserted that
the decision of every important question depended upon the
high priest through the interrogation of the Urim and Thummim.
Let us take this opportunity of entering somewhat more closely
into the nature of the Urim and Thummim. As far as the
name is concerned, Urim and Thummim can only mean " lux
et integritas, BtfXmcrts Kal dXijdeia," as the LXX. translate
it. The plural is a plural excellentiae, analogous to that
in DTlta. In Hebrew, the plural frequently denotes inten
sity of meaning; for example niD3n, wisdom par excellence.
The name also points to the higher illumination, and the in
fallible instruction gained through this medium. There are
many views as to what constituted the Urim and Thummim.
The following is the correct one, which has been defended by
Braun, de vesiitu sacerd., Amstel 1682, 2, p. 613 ff., and by
Bellermann, die Urim und Tummim, Berlin 1824. The proper
official robe of the high priest was of three colours, — a splen
did garment, richly embroidered with gold, the ephod, which
bore some similarity to the chasuble of the Romish priests.
This dress was attached to the body by means of a scarf em
broidered with gold. It was surmounted by a costly-worked
vest, |ti>n or Batman }BTi. In this vest were twelve polished pre
cious stones, set in gold, with the names of the twelve tribes
engraved on them. These twelve stones were materially iden
tical with the Urim and Thummim, but formally distinct ; i.e.
the twelve precious stones, were not themselves the Urim and
Thummim, but only became so by the circumstance that God
invested them with the dignity of a symbol: the divine illumina
tion of the high priest was dependent on his wearing them and
contemplating them. This formal difference explains why, in
Ex. xxviii. 30, which is the principal passage, comp. Lev. vii. 8,
after the twelve precious stones have been mentioned, it is said,
" And thou shalt put in the breastplate of judgment the Urim
and the Thummim; and they shall be upon Aaron's heart
when he goeth in before the Lord," as if treating of something
new, distinct from the twelve precious stones. On the other
hand the following are the arguments for the material identity
of the Urim and Thummim with the precious stones: — (1)
Moses describes most minutely every part of the high priest's
364 SECOND PERIOD— FIRST SECTION.
dress, colour, material, form, and use. If now the Urim and
Thummim were materially distinct from the precious stones,
we certainly might expect to find a description of this, the most
important piece of all. But no such description is to be found.
(2) If the Urim and Thummim are materially identical with
the precious stones, it is self-evident why, in the detailed and
ample description of the priestly dress in Ex. xxxix., the pre
cious stones only are mentioned, and no allusion whatever is
made to the Urim and Thummim ; while in Lev. viii. 8 only the
Urim and Thummim are spoken of, without any reference to
the precious stones. (3) The name Urim and Thummim evi
dently refers to the physical quality of the precious stones.
The principal characteristics of precious stones are splendour
and solidity. Hence they are well adapted to symbolize divine
truth. (4) If the precious stones are at the same time Urim
and Thummim, it appears quite fitting that they should be
called by the names of the twelve tribes. This pointed to the
fact, that the divine revelation was given to the high priest only
as the representative of the covenant-nation.
If it be established that the Urim and Thummim were mate
rially identical with the precious stones, there can be no doubt
concerning the mode and manner of the revelation by Urim
and Thummim. It could only result from an inner illumina
tion of the high priest, which essentially corresponded to the
prophetic spirit ; but with this difference, that it was associated
with an external condition.
As to the use of the Urim and Thummim, according to
Num. xxvii. 21, the priest was only to be interrogated by the
rulers of the nation in cases of difficulty. There is not a trace
in the whole history of revelations spontaneously given by the
high priest. All cases which appear in the history show that it
was customary to consult the Urim and Thummim only when
there was no other resource, where ordinary knowledge did not
suffice; not in questions of faith and justice, when they were
referred to " the law and the testimony ; " comp. Deut. xvii.
9-11, where the written law is expressly pointed out as the sole
source for determining all such questions. Nor were they to
be consulted in trivial and private matters, but as Carpzov
truly says (Apparatus Hist. Crit. p. 81), "in causis arduis, de
bello et pace, de patria, de rege, de salute populi et reipublicae,
OTHER OCCURRENCES ON SINAI. 365
cum velut heroicum esset remedium eruendi occulta, vel rescis-
cendi futura, quo abuti non erat integrum."
With regard to the history of the Urim and Thummim, there
is not a single instance of their having been interrogated after
the time of David ; a circumstance which is easily explained
from what we have said in the description of the Urim and
Thummim. According to this, everything rested upon the
personality, the believing standpoint of the high priest. In
the time after David the high priests were deficient in religious
depth and inspiration; they became more and more servants
of the king. The fact that the Urim and Thummim quite
disappear from history is intelligible on the same ground as
the circumstance that in the period of the Kings we find the
priesthood entirely wanting in penetrating activity. From
these remarks on the Urim and Thummim it will be evident in
what estimate we are to hold the assertion that through them
the priests had the whole guidance of the state in their hands.
We saw that the high priest spoke only when he was inter
rogated. It was left entirely to the priests whether they would
ask or not. They were not laid under any obligation to do so,
but only the right was given to them. If the priest were not
recognised as a man of God, the asking ceased of itself, just as
in the times when rationalism predominated, nobody thought of
drawing a response from theological faculties ; as now when
there is an unbelieving preacher, the care for souls ceases of
itself. If, in some isolated case, a question was asked, God
took care that there should be no answer; and if the high
priest were hypocrite enough to give it on his own authority,
God put him to shame, by the result. From what we have
said respecting the occasions on which the Urim and Thummim
were interrogated, it follows, therefore, that it was a great risk
for the high priest to answer ; and those who envy him this
privilege would do well earnestly to decline it, if it were offered
to them. In all history there is no instance of an attempt to
make it subservient to self-interest and priestly assumption.
The civil power was first of all in the hands of the rulers, who
were not arbitrarily chosen by Moses, but as the chiefs of the
nation by birth, were left in possession of their rights ; a cir
cumstance which made it appear that the state-power had
properly no representatives in Israel, a phenomenon by which
366 SECOND PERIOD— FIRST SECTION.
Bertheau (p. 252 ff.) and Ewald have been completely deceived.
And it is because Moses here allowed that which had become
historical to remain, that the civil rulers are only casually men
tioned in the Pentateuch. It is they who appear so frequently
under the name of princes and elders, or as those who were
called to the assembly, i.e. the high council. They were the
heads of tribes and of families. Every tribe, with regard to
its private affairs, formed a separate whole : each one had its
own council and judicial assembly, consisting of the elders :
comp. J. D. Michaelis, Mos. Recht, i. § 45, 46 ; Jahn, Bibl.
Archdol. i. § 11. The affairs of the whole nation were dis
cussed at these assemblies, to which the deputies of the separate
tribes repaired, and where they decided all matters quite inde
pendently. Josh, xxiii. 24 gives an example of an assembly
of this kind : comp. J. D. Michaelis, Mosaisches Recht, i. § 46 ;
Jahn, i. c. § 14. Besides these rulers belonging to the patri
archal constitution, we find among the Israelites of the Mosaic
time, and even later, proper officials called Schoterim or scribes,
an institution necessitated by advanced civilisation, and resting
on an Egyptian basis. In Egypt the scribes played a very
important part : comp. The Books of Moses and Egypt, p. 86 ff.
We find similar institutions in all cases where the rulers of the
people are called to their position by birth. In such a consti
tution scribes, jurists, are indispensable so soon as the relations
become at all involved.
This was the ordinary magistracy ; and just as it was inde
pendent of the influence of the priesthood so also were those
whom God promised to raise up at intervals under the name of
judges, Deut. xvii. 12. In a certain ¦ sense they were civil
dictators, but only in a certain sense, in everything pertaining
to peace and war ; for in other respects the princes, and elders,
and scribes retained their authority, under the influence of the
EStS', it is true ; but though great, this was generally free : comp.
J. D. Michaelis, i. c. § 53. - Nor was royalty subject to the
priests in later times. The law respecting the king, Deut. xvii.
14-20, shows that Moses foresaw the establishment of kingship,
and regarded it as compatible with the theocracy, which the
evil-intentioned alone can confound with hierarchy. All deter
minations respecting it are directed solely to prevent king
ship encroaching upon the theocracy, and are not designed to
OTHER OCCURRENCES ON S1NAL 367
exalt the hierarchy. How completely different the whole
thing would have been if the latter had been intended, is
clearly shown by the forced treatment which the older ration
alism had to adopt to bring in this aim. It maintained that
the words, "Thou shalt set him king over thee whom the
Lord thy God- shall choose," placed the choice of the king in
the hands of the priests. But how strange that the entire
history has no example of an elevation to the throne in which
priests were active ! In 2 Chron. xxiii. the question is only of a
preservation of royalty for him to whom it belonged by divine
right, and from whom it had been wrested by unrighteous
usurpation. Samuel was not a priest, yet he was the instru
ment of the Lord in the choice of Saul and David, in whose
family the supremacy of the kingdom of Judah was always
to remain, and did so. In the kingdom of Israel the tribe of
Levi did not exist. Elevations to the throne, in which divine
co-operation is present, originate only with the prophets.
Among the remaining ordinances there is not even an appear
ance of subservience to the interests of the priesthood. The
king is to have a copy of the law beside him, in which he is to
read daily, making it the rule of his conduct. On the assump
tion of a hierarchical tendency, the book of the law would
rather have been given into the hands of the priests, to whom
the king would have been directed. But in fact he was for
mally emancipated. He had as much right as they to draw
independently from the source of all divine and human justice.
The king is not to keep many horses, nor to amass large
treasures. The possession of great earthly power, and the
restless seeking for it, to which the law has especial reference,
easily alienates from God. And in this case it was the less
necessary, because God wished to manifest Himself as the
helper of His people in their time of need, and to prove Him
self mighty in their weakness. Finally, the king is forbidden
to have many wives. The reason of this prohibition is best
ascertained from the consequences of its violation in history.
No trace of hierarchical interest is therefore to be found.
In order rightly to apprehend the distinction between the
theocracy and the hierarchy, compare the position of the
Egyptian kings with that of the Israelitish. All the counsellors
of the Egyptian king, the judges, and the first officers, were
33S SECOND PERIOD — FIRST SECTION.
from the priesthood ; comp. Wilk. part i. p. 257. Their whole
conduct, even to the smallest details, was regulated by priestly
prescriptions, and stood under priestly supervision. For in
stance, they were not at liberty to drink a glass of wine above
the measure allotted by the priests, by whom the whole disposi
tion of their day was regulated ; comp. Wilk. p. 249 ff.
(2.) But it might appear that the Levites would gain the
influence outwardly denied to them the more certainly and
powerfully by their spiritual ascendency. Here again history
gives a negative answer ; and it may easily be proved that
even in this respect nothing happened which had not been
designed by the lawgiver. The priests had certainly the best
opportunity of getting education, but this education was by no
means their monopoly. Every one who wished had equal
facilities. The decree in Deut. xxxi. 11, 12, according to which
the book of the law was to be read to the people every seven
years, shows how little this, the main source of Israelitish
education, was designed for them alone. Apart from this book
of the law there was no religious mystery, least of all a scientific
one. All those means which the priesthood in other countries of
antiquity employed with such effect to promote superstition, and
at the same time to increase their own importance — viz. witch
craft, necromancy, astrology, soothsaying, etc. — were strictly for
bidden to the priests, no less than to all other Israelites, and
mostly under pain of death : comp. Deut. xviii. 9-14. Just as
distinctly as the law insists upon faith is it opposed to supersti
tion, to further which is at all times the principal artifice of a
supremacy-seeking priesthood. Here the Old Testament is
distinctly on the side of the Evangelical Church against the
Catholic, which has always spared superstition at least in
practice, even fostering it, and using it as a means for its
own purposes. The divine law shows relentless severity towards
it. But the law concerning the prophets shows most plainly
how little Moses intended this indirect influence, which cer
tainly might and must have become important if the Levites
had remained faithful to God, to be made subservient to self-
interest. We cannot imagine a more powerful opponent
against hierarchical interest. How could one and the same
man have wished to raise the tribe of Levi to absolute supre
macy, and yet have placed another class in opposition to it,
OTHER OCCURRENCES ON SINAI. 369
whose members were to stand in a far more immediate relation
to God ? And how great a contrast in this respect was pre
sented by Egypt, where the prophets were only one class of
.priests! comp. Clem. Al. Stromat. i. p. 758 ; Wilk. i. p. 264.
We have only to glance at the history to see how far the
spiritual influence of the prophets outweighs that of the priests.
After the establishment of royalty scarcely an important event
happened in which the prophets had not the greatest share;
and no important event took place in which traces of predomi
nant priestly influence can be proved. The activity of the
priesthood was at all times calm and noiseless. Instead of
entering into the history in a grand way, like the prophets, they
contented themselves with caring for the worship and in
structing the people in the fear of God, to which last office
they had been appointed by the lawgiver, Lev. x. 10, 11, and
Deut. xxxiii. 10. For the fact that, on the whole, they fulfilled
their insignificant but important calling satisfactorily, we have
the unsuspected testimony of Malachi the prophet, in chap. ii.
5 ff., where, among other things, he says : " He feared me, and
was afraid before my name. The law of truth was in his
mouth, and iniquity was not found in his life : he walked with
me in peace and equity, and did turn many away from iniquity."
Again, we see how little intention there was to raise the priests
to spiritual rulers from the high dignity which Moses bestows
upon all members of the community, filling their hearts with a
consciousness of it, and pointing to the danger of abuse and
misinterpretation, which was soon exemplified in the company
of Korah. In Ex. xix. 6 he characterizes the whole com
munity as a kingdom of priests, an holy nation, and therefore
attributes the sacerdotal dignity to all their members ; by his
appointment the whole nation exercised priestly functions at
the passover. The same thing appears from the wish which
he expresses in Num. xi. 29, that " all the Lord's people were
prophets, and that the Lord would put His Spirit upon
them." The establishment of the priesthood is followed in the Penta
teuch by the regulations treating of the distinction between clean
and unclean, evidently because it was neglected at that time.
Sin was not limited in its consequences merely to the province
of the spirit. It also entered deeply into the corporeal region.
2 A
370 SECOND PERIOD— FIRST SECTION.
The consequence is, first of all, death ; then the whole army of
diseases ; its dominion extending even to the brute creation, in
which there is much that cannot belong to the original creation,
and which plainly reflects the image of sin, — much that is
distasteful, foul, impure, loathsome, which is shown to have
arisen after the fall and in consequence of it, by the example
of the serpent in Genesis, and again by the statement that all
animals fed on grass : comp. Is. xi. These effects of sin in
the region of visible things are designed to bring it to our
consciousness. We ought not to shut our eyes to them, but
should take to heart their complaining and accusing voices.
Not to do this is a sign of a rude, irreligious mind; for ex
ample, to be indifferent to the sight of a corpse, instead of
striking the breast and crying out, " God be gracious to me a
sinner." The Mosaic law, which is in all respects adapted to
awaken remembrance of sin, partly gave expression to these
natural feelings, partly tended to educate the rudes to them,
and partly, by the prescribed purifications and atonements, led
those whose consciousness of sin was in this way strongly
aroused to the knowledge of forgiveness, which, together with
the conviction of sin and by means of it, is the privilege of
the people of God. The peculiar and transitory element is
only this, that the feelings, in accordance with the symbolic
spirit of antiquity, embody themselves in external acts and
states : thus, whoever had touched a corpse, became outwardly
impure and must purify himself; arid none might eat of an
animal bearing the image of sin.
But the Mosaic law did not include in the circle of these
outward representations everything corporeal that stands in
relation to sin. Otherwise it must have comprehended the
whole circle of diseases. It limited itself to those points which
were most prominent. The various kinds of legal unclean
ness are the following : —
1. The uncleanness of death. Death is the wages of sin,
Rom. vi. 23 ; those who are carnally dead are the terrible
image of the veKpol toI$ TrapairTuijxacn koI t cannot be misunderstood. The serpent means burning,
because its poison resembles consuming fire. For similar
reasons, certain serpents were called Trpr)crTrjpe<; and Kavaaves
in Greek. The Vulgate renders epB> by serpens flatu adurens.
According to this, the poison in the serpent must be the special
point under consideration ; a property which must be excluded,
if it be regarded as a symbol of the healing power of God.
There is only one way in which we can do justice to the fiery
serpent here, in its connection with ver. 6 — "And the Lord
sent fiery serpents among the people " — viz., by assuming that
the brazen serpent, no less than the living one, denotes the
power of evil : the distinction consisting only in this, that the
brazen serpent is the evil power overcome by God's power. It
is noteworthy that Moses does not take a living serpent, but a
dead image of it, as a sign of its subjugation by the healing
power of the law. If the meaning of the serpent be here
rightly determined, then its typical character, which our Lord
teaches in John iii. 14, 15, also appears in its true light.
Christ is the antitype of the serpent, in so far as He took upon
Himself the most injurious of all injurious powers, sin, and
atoned for it by substitution. What here happened with re
gard to the lower hostile power, was a guarantee that similar
effectual assistance would be granted in the future against this
worst enemy; what here happened for the preservation of
corporeal life, was an actual prophecy of that future event
which was to effect the preservation of eternal life. And those
who are inclined summarily to reject the healing of the Israel
ites, by looking at the brazen serpent as mythical, may learn
modesty from the fact, that the Egyptian serpent-charmers
are able to protect themselves and others from the bite even of
the most poisonous serpents in a way that has never yet been
satisfactorily explained. The scholars of the French expedi
tion, notwithstanding their tendency to deride everything as
superstition and charlatanry, are yet obliged to concede this.
Jollois in the Descript., 1. 18, p. 333 ff., says : " We confess
that, though far removed from all credulity, we have ourselves
been witnesses of an event so remarkable, that we are not able
to regard the art of the serpent-tamers as altogether chime
rical." If we are here obliged to acknowledge a mystery even
SECOND PERIOD — FIRST SECTION.
in the province of nature, how much less can we make the in
telligible a criterion of the true !
3. The victory over the kings Sihon and Og. — The English
edition of Burckhardt still maintains that the Israelites passed
through the middle of the land of Moab, after the Edomites
had allowed them a free passage. But this is manifestly at
variance with the narrative, comp. Num. xxi. 11 ff. The
Israelites first journeyed eastwards through the wilderness, round
the southern part of the land of Moab, with whose inhabitants
they were forbidden to commence warfare. Then they crossed
over the Upper Sared, which is probably the Wadi Kerek.
And here the punishment came to an end, comp. Deut. ii.
14-16. Without touching the inhabited land of the Moabites,
they now kept closer to the eastern boundary, crossed the
Arnon near its sources in the wilderness; so that after the
passage they were not yet in the territory of the Amorites, but
to the east of it. This is in harmony with Deuteronomy, which
does not refer to a passing through the actual territory of the
Moabites, and according to which the Israelites, after having
passed over the Arnon, sent ambassadors from the wilderness
of Kedemoth to Sihon, chap. ii. 24 ff. If they had gone through
the middle of the Moabite country, they would have crossed the
Arnon at the place where they entered the land of the Amorites.
Compare also the explicit statement in Judg. xi. 18 : " Then
they went along through the wilderness, and compassed the land
of Edom and the land of Moab, and came by the east side of
the land of Moab, and pitched on the other side of Arnon, but
came not within the border of Moab." The Canaanitish popula
tion of the Amorites had their proper seat in the cis-Jordanic
country, in what was afterwards the mountainous district of
Judah, comp. Num. xiii. 30. But not long before the occupa
tion of Canaan by the Israelites, the Amorites had undertaken
a war against the Moabites, and had taken the greater part of
their territory from them, so that they retained only the land
from the Arnon to the southern portion of the Dead Sea, or the
border of the Idumaeans. The Amorites had made Heshbon
their capital. We learn from Num. xxi. 29 that the Sihon
conquered by the Israelites had previously taken this town
from the Moabites. The land then in possession of the
Amorites was promised to the Israelites ; for, according to the
FROM THE BREAKING UP ON SINAI TO MOSES' DEATH. 389
promise, all that country belonged to them which was in the
possession of Canaanitish nationalities. But we have already
proved that these districts were- not only a temporary, but also
an original, possession of Canaan. We have shown that the
Amorites only reconquered under the visible guidance of divine
providence what had formerly belonged to them. Only in this
way could the land come into the possession of the Israelites,
for they were not allowed to take away anything from the
Moabites. At first, however, they only asked a free passage
from Sihon ; and it was not until this had been refused, and
an attack had been made upon them by Sihon himself, who
marched against them in the wilderness, that they conquered
him and took possession of his territory. It has been a fre
quent matter of perplexity that the Israelites at the divine
command should have sent an embassy to Sihon while his
territory belonged to them irrevocably. But contradiction falls
away if we only consider that Sihon's rejection of the proposal
was foreseen by God. The object of the embassy was not to
move him to grant that which was requested, but only to show
him how those whom God intends to punish must run blindly
to their own destruction. The deliverance is put into his own
hand, but he must cast it away from him, comp. Deut. ii. 30.
The customary opinion is, that the Israelites journeyed north
wards into the country of the king of Bashan, who was also a
Canaanite, and in whose territory the Canaanitish supremacy
had continued without interruption. After he also had been
conquered, they returned to that district which was best calcu
lated to afford them an entrance into the cis-Jordanic country,
viz. the west, that part of the land of the Amorites which lay
along the river Jordan, opposite Jericho, still called 3K1D mill?
from its earlier inhabitants, i.e. the Moabitic part of the Arabah,
or the valley which extends from the sea of Gennesareth to the
Aelanitic Gulf : comp. Balaam, p. 227. But the correct view is
this : After the power of Sihon had been broken in battle, the
main camp of the Israelites, leaving the wilderness, moved
towards the west, across Mattana, Nahaliel, and Bamoth, to the
valley before the Nebo, which, according to the argument in
the work on Balaam, lies about an hour west of Heshbon ; a
view which has also been recognised as the correct one by
Ritter, Erdkunde, 15 (1851), p. 1177. By separate detach-
390 SECOND PERIOD — FIRST SECTION.
ments sent out from these stations the whole land of Sihon was
conquered. Then, making this place their headquarters, the
Israelites undertook a march against Og : comp. Balaam, p. 25
ff., for proof that all Israel did not take part in the march
against upper Gilead and Bashan. After the return of the
expedition, the Israelites left their headquarters and encamped
in the plains of Moab, immediately facing the land of promise,
and only separated from it by the Jordan. Here a series of
remarkable events took place: Balaam's blessing, Israel's sin
by participation in the worship of Baal, the conquest of Midian,
the conclusion of a new covenant, the death of Moses.
4. Balaam. — The centre of this whole narrative, Num. xxii.-
xxiv., which Gesenius on Is., p. 504, called "a truly epic
representation, worthy the greatest poet of all times," is the
blessing which a strange prophet, summoned with hostile in
tent, with a disposition to curse, is constrained by Jehovah's
power to pronounce upon His people. The object was, to
show Israel for all times the height of their calling, and, in a
living picture of God, to place them in a relation towards His
church which should continue through all time. Balak, the
king of the Moabites, had, it is true, nothing to fear from the
Israelites. They had assured him that his people were safe
from them. But he had no faith in the assurance. He believed
that, when the Israelites had done with the other nations, his
turn would come. He therefore allied himself on mutual
terms with the neighbouring Midianites dwelling in that part
of Arabia which lay nearest to Moab. The Israelites them
selves ascribed their victory, not to their own power, but to the
help of their God. He therefore thought that he could effect
nothing against them until he had deprived them of the pro
tection of this God. For this purpose he wished to make
use of means which were held to be effectual among almost
all heathen nations. They had a distortion of the true-
religion doctrine of the power of intercession, in the opinion
that men who stand in close relation to a deity exercise a sort
of constraint upon him, and by uttered imprecations can plunge
individual men and whole nations into inevitable misfortune.
Plutarch, for example, in his Life of Crassus, relates how a
tribune of the people who did not wish Crassus to conquer the
Parthians ran to the gate, there set down a burning censer,
FROM THE BREAKING UP ON SINAI TO MOSES' DEATH. 391
strewed incense upon it, and gave utterance to awful and terrible
curses, calling upon fearful deities. Plutarch adds, that the
Romans attribute such power to these mysterious and ancient
formulas of cursing, that the person against whom they are
directed is overtaken by inevitable misfortune. Macrobius, iii.
9, has preserved a formula of this kind for us. Balak believed
that no one was better adapted for the carrying out of his
wish than Balaam, a far-famed soothsayer, prophet, and sor
cerer who dwelt at Pethor in Mesopotamia ; particularly since
he performed his acts in the name of the same God whose pro
tection was to be withdrawn from Israel. The name is composed
of 5>?3, devouring, and Otf, people. Balaam bore it as a dreaded
sorcerer and enchanter. John follows this interpretation in
the Apocalypse, translating the name of Balaam by NikoXuos.
The judgments on Balaam's personality are directly at vari
ance with one another. Many, after the example of Ambrose,
Cyril, and Augustine, regard him as a hardened villain, an
enchanter who, by the help of evil spirits, was able to pro
phesy and perform wonders. Others, following Tertullian
and Jerome, maintain that he was a true prophet and a
thoroughly upright man, who afterwards fell grievously. So,
for example, Buddeus, who calls him horrendum dTroaTao-la toutw. f) yap KapBia gov ovk
ecTTtv evdela evdiiriov tov Qeov. He certainly was not a com
plete hypocrite. Nor was Simon. For if his heart had been,
wholly untouched, how could the apostle have baptized him ?
Without assuming a basis of true fear of God, it is impossible to
explain Balaam's conduct on receiving the offer of the Moabites,
his subsequent behaviour, and the fact that he afterwards
blessed instead of cursing. But he had not turned to the truth
with his whole heart, otherwise he would at once have rejected
the proposal of the Moabites with horror ; nor could he have
hoped that God would alter His will after He had once revealed
it to him. It is therefore not quite correct to characterize
his subsequent conduct as horrendum divoaTaala'; exemplum.
Apostasy presupposes perfect union before. But in his case
this had not existed ; the pure and the impure elements had
been present in him in troubled confusion. After God, in ful
filment of His design, had entered into the former element
without whose existence the whole appearance of the prophet
is incomprehensible, he was swayed by the latter alone, and this
by his own fault, because he loved the wages of unrighteous
ness, 2 Pet. ii. 15. The same confusion which prevailed in his
heart is also apparent iu his judgment. In spite of all his
religious insight he follows auguries, chap, xxiii. 3 and xxix. 1 ;
thus showing how faint and indistinct the voice of God was
394 SECOND PERIOD — FIRST SECTION.
within him. If his union with the Lord had been perfectly
true and intimate, he would not have sought Him in nature, but
only in the word. In Josh. xiii. 22 he is called &D1P, "the
soothsayer." Only by virtue of preconceived theory has it
been maintained that W&ra, which always means auguries, such
as were strictly repudiated among Israel, and DDlp may also be
used in a good sense.
We shall now occupy ourselves with the occurrence by the
way. Balaam is so far led astray by covetousness and avarice
that he does not at once reject the proposal of the king, as he
ought to have done ; but still retains so much fear of God
that he does reject it after the Lord has expressly forbidden
him to comply with it. He met a second embassy of the king
with the distinct declaration that he would speak only what the
Lord commanded him ; yet his passion leads him to ask the
Lord a second time whether he may not comply with the desire
of the king. And this time he receives permission to under
take the journey, but under a condition which made it utterly
aimless and impracticable, as any one not blinded by passion
would at once have seen. But Balaam grasps the permission
in both hands, without examination, and sets out with the
princes of Moab. The nearer he came to the end of his
journey, the more he was influenced by the possessions and
honours which there awaited him, in event of his compliance
with the desire of the king. If he were left to himself, it was
to be expected that he would curse Israel. In itself this curse
would have had no weight; for an unworthy servant can exercise
no constraint upon the God of Israel. But for the conscious
ness of Israel and of their enemies it had great significance.
If, on the other hand, he were to pronounce a blessing instead of
the desired curse, the effect produced would be the more marked,
since he would' here be acting contrary to his own advantage.
An influence of God interrupting the influence of nature was
here sufficiently indicated. The way in which Balaam at first
acted towards this divine manifestation shows how low he had
fallen ; and how necessary this influence was if the curse were to
be hindered. The appearance of the Lord, which inspires even
the ass with terror, is invisible to his sin-darkened eye. The re
sistance of the ass, caused by the threatening aspect of the Angel
of the Lord, causes him to look inward ; the power of sin is
FROM THE BREAKING UP ON SINAI TO MOSES' DEATH. 395
broken, and, thus prepared, God is able to open his eyes to see
the angel standing before him in the way with a drawn sword.
The earnest warning and threat addressed to him by the angel
finds access to his mind ; he confesses that he has sinned, and
offers to turn back. But since it was God's design not only
that he should refrain from cursing, but also that he should
bless, he is directed to continue his journey ; but he is not to
say anything except what God tells him. It is a question of
very minor importance whether the speaking of the ass is to be
regarded as an internal or an external event ; whether God suf
fered the animal to speak to Balaam subjectively or objectively.
The principal argument for the acceptance of an external
occurence, viz. that it is arbitrary to assume the interiority of
an event when it is not expressly stated, has been set aside
by what has already been said. When Kurtz, in his desire to
maintain the externality of the occurrence, states that there is
nothing in the vision of which this is not expressly predicated
in the narrative, we have only to call to mind the Mosaic
account of the burning bush, which, according to Acts, was a
vision. The following are some of the arguments which speak
for the subjective nature of the occurrence: 1. In Numbers
xii. 6 visions and dreams are characterized as the ordinary
methods of 'God's revelation to the prophets. 2. In the intro
duction to his third and fourth prophecies, Balaam calls himself
a seer by profession ; and in chap. xxii. 8 and 19 he invites the
Moabitish ambassadors to remain with him over night, the time
of prophetic visions, that he might receive divine revelations.
The appearance of the angel, which preceded the speaking of
the ass, had an internal character ; but here we must strictly
separate between interiority and identity with fancy, a con
fusion into which Kurtz has recently fallen. The objectivity
of the appearance cannot be doubted. The only question is
in what way that which was objectively present was appre
hended and recognised. The interiority of the occurrence
is proved by one argument alone, viz. that God is obliged to
open Balaam's eyes before he can see the angel. Such an
operation is unnecessary in that which falls within the sphere
of the five senses. For these two reasons we gain a distinct
advantage in favour of the interiority of the event. 3. Not
only is there no mention of surprise on the part of Balaam, but
396 SECOND PERIOD— FIRST SECTION.
its existence is quite excluded by chap. xxii. 29. The speaking
of the ass, in itself, makes no impression on him, but he is
led to reflection by what it says. 4. In the company of Balaam
were the two servants and the Moabitish ambassadors; but
they guessed nothing whatever of all that passed. Jehovah
opened the mouth of the ass ; He caused the ass to speak to
Balaam in the vision ; He gave it words corresponding to its
whole appearance and expression. He made the ass to speak
for Balaam, while for all the rest of the world the beast of
burden remained dumb.
There can be no doubt that the prophecies of Balaam must
be attributed to divine revelation ; and it is scarcely conceiv
able how Steudel can deny it, as he does in his treatise " die
Geschichte Bileam's und seine Weissagungen," in the Tubingen
Periodical, 1831. Only in this way can we explain the accept
ance of the whole narrative by the author. It is not his object
simply to give a short history. Moreover, the later prophets '
employed these utterances of God as such. Samuel brings the
utterance in chap, xxiii. 19 to bear upon Saul, 1 Sam. xv. 29.
David's last words in 2 Sam. xxiii. 1 rest upon Balaam's words.
Habakkuk in chap. i. 3, 13 brings before God the words which
He has spoken through Balaam. The prophecy of Jeremiah,
chap, xlviii. 45, against Moab, is a repetition of that of Balaam,
chap. xxiv. 17. The narrative itself expressly says, "The Spirit
of God came upon Balaam," chap. xxiv. 2 ; " The Lord put a
word in Balaam's mouth," chap, xxiii. 5; and one argument alone
is sufficient to refute Steudel's strange view, that the narrative
originated with Balaam himself, and was taken unaltered by
Moses into the Pentateuch, viz. the use of the divine names.
When Balaam himself is introduced speaking, he employs the
name Jehovah, with a few exceptions which may all be re
duced to one ground. Where He is spoken of, on the other
hand, we generally find DTita, to indicate that Balaam stands
in relation only to the Godhead, not to the living and holy God
of Israel. So, for example, throughout the narrative of his deal
ings with the ambassadors of the Moabitish king, in chap. xxii.
8-20. This Elohim points to the fact that it was presumption
in Balaam to boast of a nearer relation. The author places
Jehovah in relation to Balaam only in that one prophecy, upon
whose Jehovistic origin the whole meaning of the event rested.
FROM THE BREAKING UP ON SINAI TO MOSES' DEATH. 397
Rewarding Balaam as the author, this use of the name of God
is quite unintelligible. And God is elsewhere expressly declared
to be the author of the prophecies of Balaam. So, for example,
in Deut. xxiii. 5 : " Nevertheless the Lord thy God would not
hearken unto Balaam ; but the Lord thy God turned the curse
into a blessing unto thee." But even in the absence of these
external arguments, the prophecies themselves would bear evi
dence, not only because they reveal circumstances lying beyond
the range of human knowledge, but still more by the living and
deep conception of the idea, which places them on a level with
the most lofty productions of prophethood, to which they are
not inferior even in form.
The theme lying at the basis of all the four discourses is
the blessing of the people of God, and especially the predic
tion of their supremacy over the world. The last of these dis
courses is again divided into four sections, distinguished by the
WO Kfe^l, and he took up his parable, which occurs altogether
seven times, in harmony with the number of the altars erected by
Balaam ; cutting away beforehand all attempts to assume late
interpolations, such as have been made by Bertholdt and Bleek.
The double four and the seven are destroyed by these attempts.
Only with the last discourse can we occupy ourselves at greater
length. In the first three the idea appeared in a much purer
form ; in the last it had a special application. We have here a
sketch of the whole fate of the people of God. They conquer
all their enemies : Moab (the Moabites are named first because
their attempt to subjugate Israel first called forth Balaam's pre
diction of the supremacy of the Israelites over their enemies),
Edom, Amalek, and the Kenites — a Canaanitish people who are
here named as the representatives of all the Canaanites because
they lived nearer than any other to the place of the prophecy.
Rapt by the spirit into the distant future, Balaam sees how a
star rises from Jacob, a sceptre from Israel — both symbols of
the kingdom which should emerge from Israel ; and how this
supremacy proceeding from Israel proves itself destructive to
all that opposes it. This victory is followed by temporary
humiliation. Asshur, including the Chaldean and Persian
powers, which were developed out of the Assyrian, leads Israel
into captivity. But the oppressors of the people of God are
humbled by means of ships which come from the region of
398 SECOND PERIOD— FIRST SECTION.
Kittim, from near Cyprus, an indefinite name for that power
which arose out of Europe to destroy the former Asiatic
dominion, and was applied first to the Greeks and afterwards
to the Romans. Go'd arms the far West against the sinful
East. He oppresses Asshur, the oppressor of Israel ; oppresses
also the land beyond the Euphrates, whose rulers (this is pre
supposed) resemble Asshur in their enmity against Israel.
Destruction overtakes these enemies of the future as well as
those of the present.
The history of Balaam now concludes with the words : " And
Balaam rose up, and went and returned to his place; and
Balak also went his way." A detailed account of the further
course of his fate did not belong to the plan of the author, for
whom Balaam has significance only in one aspect. He began
by telling how Balak sent for Balaam to destroy Israel: he
concludes with the way in which Balaam separates from Balak,
without the latter having attained his wish. Yet we are able
to fill out the story from isolated hints. Balaam prepared to
return home after having uttered the prophecy. But his
covetousness and vanity moved him to still further digression
— to an attempt to gain that satisfaction which had been
denied him on the part of the Moabites, by God's intervention,
among the Israelites. We conclude that he went to the
Israelites from the fact that there is no other way in which we
can explain how Moses had such accurate knowledge of all
that had befallen him. Moses probably treated him just as
Peter and John treated Simon Magus. Angry, and deceived
in his hope, he repaired to the enemies of Israel, the Midianites ;
for he did not venture to go back to the king of the Moabites,
who had left him so wrathfully. The counsel which he gave
the Midianites to destroy the Israelites, by seducing them to
idolatry through sensuality, attests the depth of his earlier
religious insight. Without this he would certainly not have
been able to discover the only spot in which the covenant-
nation was vulnerable. The counsel had apparently the
highest success. A great number of the Israelites were led
away. But God raised up Phinehas to be zealous for His
honour ; and just as the crime was checked in the midst of its
course, so also was the punishment which had already begun.
From the midst of the people there arose a powerful reaction
FROM THE BREAKING UP ON SINAI TO MOSES' DEATH. 399
against the depravity — a prelude of that which has taken place
among the people of God in every century ; and after punish
ment has snatched away the guilty, the favour of the Lord
returns to His church. The advice now recoiled upon the
head of the seducers ; and in the war of extermination under
taken against the Midianites, Balaam also met his death, for
he still remained among them : Num. xxxi. 8, 16 ; Josh. xiii.
22. If the former event made Israel fully conscious that, if
God be with us, no man can be against us, this one loudly
exhorted them to work out their own salvation with fear and
trembling : from without the election cannot in any way be
nullified, but it may be so by the apostasy of the nation.
Foolish is he who despairs of the mercy of God : foolish is he
who attributes it to caprice.
The act of Phinehas, in Num. xxv. 7 ff., has frequently been
falsely apprehended, and in this false conception has exercised
an injurious influence. The zealots in the time of the war
against the Romans appealed to his example. The judgment
on the faithless was pronounced by Moses, the legal authority,
ver. 5. The lawful rulers of the people, to whom the executive
power belonged, had the best intention to perform their duty,
but they lacked the requisite energy, — they wept before the
door of the tabernacle of assembling, ver. 6. Then Phinehas
stepped forward, who possessed what they lacked, and acted in
their stead, as their servant and instrument. His act is rightly
characterized in Ps. cvi. 30 as one of judgment ; and those who
would resist crime by crime have no pattern in him. The fact
that the Israelites should have suffered almost no loss in the
battle against Midian has given rise to. suspicion. But it has
been shown, in my treatise on Moses and Colenso, that the
warlike men of the Midianites, in so far as they had not already
fallen in the campaign against Sihon, sought safety in flight,
so that it was not really a battle, but rather an execution.
The second giving of the law, and the renewal of the
covenant on Sinai, form a worthy conclusion to the events in
the plains of Moab; appended to which are earnest exhorta
tions, warnings, threats, and promises, which at last culminate
in the song of Moses and his blessing. The theme of the song
of Moses in Deut. xxxii. is given in vers. 4, 5 : the love and truth
of God, the faithlessness and apostasy of the nation. Moses
400 SECOND PERIOD— FIRST SECTION.
foresees that the nation will fall into heavy sorrow and affliction
in consequence of their apostasy. His aim is to take care that
they are not led astray by their conception of God, but are
led by it to repentance. He first describes the glorious deeds
of God, then the shameful ingratitude of the people, then the
affliction, which appeared now as a deserved punishment ; and,
finally, to protect the people against despair, the dangerous
enemy of repentance, he points to God's saving mercy, which
infallibly returns to His people after punishment. This song
forms the key to the whole history of Israel, the text on which
all the prophets comment, and to which they frequently refer
even verbally ; for example, Isaiah opens his first discourse
with a reference to the piece.
The blessing of Moses, in Deut. xxxiii., begins and concludes
in vers. 2-6 and 26-29 with an allusion to the basis and source
of the blessing, the covenant relation in which Israel stands to
the Lord since that exalted moment on Sinai. Then follow
blessings on the separate tribes, which refer to particulars far
less than is generally supposed. In general they are only
individual applications of the blessing to be given to the whole
nation, especially by the distribution of the land of Canaan,
which here appears clothed with the enchantment of a hoped-
for possession. The series begins with those tribes which were
in any way distinguished : Reuben as the first-born ; Judah, be
cause in the blessing of Jacob he is destined to be the bearer
of the sceptre ; Levi, as the servant of the sanctuary ; finally
Joseph, on account of the distinction of his ancestor in Egypt.
Moses dies after he has surveyed the land of promise from
Mount Nebo. No man knew his grave. According to Deut.
xxxiv. 6, he was not to be honoured in a useless way, in his
bones ; but in a real way, in the keeping of the law which had
been given through him. When we read, " And He buried
him in the valley in the land of Moab," from what goes before
we can only supply Jehovah as the subject. God's care for
the corpse of Moses forms a counterpart to the condemnatory
judgment by which he was shut out from the land of promise ;
and was at the same time a comforting pledge of His grace
for the whole nation. But only the burial of Moses is spoken
of ; there is not a word to indicate that he was raised up before
the resurrection ; nor does this follow from Matt. xvii. 3, for
FROM THE BREAKING UP ON SINAI TO MOSES' DEATH. 401
even Samuel appears without having been raised up. The
idea of a raising up is rather opposed to the words, " The
Lord buried him." In ver. 9 of the Epistle of Jude mention is
made of a dispute between Michael the archangel and Satan for
the body of Moses, in which Michael says, " The Lord rebuke
thee." There we have little more than a commentary on the
words of the Pentateuch. What Jehovah does for His people,
He does, according to the Pentateuch, always by His angel or
Michael ; and when Jehovah wishes to do anything for His
people, or for His saints, in the view of the Pentateuch, as
given in Lev. xvi., Satan is always busy to prevent it. The
means employed by Satan for this object, were the sins of the
people and of their leader, as we learn from this chapter and
from Zech. iii., to which there is a reference in the words,
"The Lord rebuke thee." But the Lord does not desist on
account of Satan's protest. He shows this by the fact that He
is merciful and gracious, and of great mercy toward His own
people. There are still a few words to be said with reference to the
chronology of this period. Respecting the duration of the
residence of the Israelites in Egypt, we have two principal
sources. In the former, Gen. xv. 13, in accordance with its
prophetic character, the length of time is only determined in
general, and is fixed at 400 years. We have a more exact
determination in the properly historic passage, Ex. xii. 40 :
" Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in
Egypt, was 430 years ; and it came to pass at the end of the
430 years that all the hosts of the Lord went out from the
land of Egypt." This passage says so plainly that 430 years
elapsed from the coming in of the Israelites to their exodus,
that it is scarcely conceivable how some chronologists have
imagined that they could limit the time to 215 years without
contradicting it. They have recourse to an interpolation,
"first Canaan, and then;" but they gain nothing even by this
forced treatment, since they are still opposed by " the children
of Israel," which cannot refer to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Gen. xv. is also against them, where the whole residence in the
strange land is expressly fixed at 400 years ; for the passage
does not refer to the whole period from Abraham to the return
to Palestine, as Baumgarten thinks. Nor is anything proved
2 C
402 SECOND PERIOD— FIRST SECTION.
by Gal. iii. 17, which is appealed to as the foundation for
these operations, and according to which 430 years intervened
between the promise and the law ; for we are not justified in
accepting the first giving of the promise as the starting-point,
but might much more reasonably believe that Paul regards the
entrance into Egypt as the terminus a quo, the conclusion of the
period of the promise. There is just as little definite meaning
in the circumstance that in the genealogy of Moses and Aaron,
in Ex. vi., only four generations are given from Levi to Moses.
It must be assumed that some subordinate members in the
genealogy are left out, according to a usage which is almost
universal. The passage, Num. xxvi. 59, has been employed
against such an abbreviation, where the words, " Jochebed, the
daughter of Levi, whom her mother bare to Levi in Egypt,"
are understood of an immediate daughter of Levi. But this is
arguing from our use of language to that of the Old Testament,
which is essentially distinct. According to the latter, the words
only imply that Jochebed was of Levitical descent. Amram, the
head of one of the families of the Kohathites, which in the time
of Moses already consisted of thousands of members, Num. iii.
27, 28, took Jochebed to wife, not in his own person but in one
of his descendants, whose nearest name we do not know. She
was not an actual daughter of Levi, but only belonged to his
posterity; was a Levite whose origin went back to Levi only
through a series of intervening members. When it is asserted
that the ages assigned to Levi, Koliath, and Amram make it
impossible to extend the sojourn in Egypt to 430 years,. the
fact is overlooked that it is not stated in what year each one
begat his first-born ; as is always done in the books of Moses
when the genealogies are intended to carry on the chrono
logical thread. The statement of age has therefore a purely
individual meaning, and a chronological calculation cannot be
based upon it. The age of the principal persons is given in a
purely personal interest. We may remark in passing, that it
is evident how little Egyptologists are to be depended on
in Old Testament chronology, from the circumstance that
Bunsen declares the 430 years to be far too short; while
Lepsius, on the other hand, tries to reduce them to 90. This
is evidently a sphere which admits only of hypothesis. We
must adhere, therefore, to 430 years for the residence in
FROM DEATH OF MOSES TO CONQUEST OF JERICHO. 403
Egypt ; and, if we add the 40 years of the march through the
wilderness, we get 470 years. The ordinary chronology makes
the entry into Egypt to have happened in the year of the world
2298 ; but this gives 60 years too many, falsely assuming that
Abraham's departure from Haran only took place after Sarah's
death, and overlooking the fact that this is narrated per pro-
lepsin. The death of Moses is therefore placed in 2768.
SECOND SECTION.
HISTORY OF JOSHUA.
§ I-
FROM THE DEATH OF MOSES TO THE CONQUEST OF JERICHO.
Moses was not permitted to lead his people into the promised
land. Very shortly before his death he had consecrated
Joshua, one of the heads of the people (Num. xiii. 2, 3), his
truest disciple and help (Ex. xxiv. 13, xxxiii. 11 ; Num. xi. 28),
to this office. When Joshua is called " the servant of Moses,"
this is not equivalent to his attendant, but rather his right
hand, the man of action, as Moses was the man of counsel.
Moses changed the original name Hosea into Joshua, the
salvation of God, because he was to be the mediator of
God's salvation to Israel. As a general and a reconnoitrer
he had already given proofs of his resoluteness in the service
of the Lord, of his wisdom and his courage ; comp. Ex. xvii.
and Num. xiv. His task was very clearly defined : he was
to be the minister of divine justice to the Canaanites, and
at the same time an instrument of mercy to Israel; for the
possession of the land was the presupposition and fundamental
condition of the complete realization of the preparation given
to him by God through Moses. For the realization of this
task there was no spirit equal to that of Moses in its independ
ence, depth, and originality. But it also required what Joshua
possessed, a spirit of unconditional surrender to the Lord and
an energy sanctified by living faith.
404 SECOND PERIOD — SECOND SECTION.
The time to enter Canaan had now come. The first thing
which the Israelites had to do was to cross the Jordan. If this
wrere accomplished, it would be a matter of great importance
for them to take the fortified town Jericho, because it was the
principal fortress at the entrance of what was afterwards the
wilderness of Judah, and opened up the way into all the rest
of the country. According to Josephus, the city lay 60 stadia
from the Jordan and 150 from Jerusalem. The surrounding
country was an oasis in the midst of the wilderness, bounded on
the east by the waste and unfruitful Valley of Salt, which lay
north of the Dead Sea ; and on the west by the stony, rocky
wilderness. Surrounded by the first chalk mountain of the
Judaic chain as by a continuous wall, and watered by rich
springs, it formed a fruit-garden, in the time of Josephus, 70
stadia long and 20 wide, in which the choicest productions of
the earth were cultivated.
The task of Israel was a very difficult one. The Canaanites
stood at that time in their most flourishing condition. They
were skilled in the art of warfare, had horses and chariots, and
a multitude of fortified places. (The world now presents an
analogy in the sphere of science.) Moreover, knowledge of the
locality was in their favour; and Israel had nothing to place in
opposition to all this, but their God and their faith. Only by
these could they overcome the world. Joshua's greatness con
sists in the superiority of his faith over that of the nation — he
set them an example.
After Joshua had been strengthened in faith by an imme
diate divine revelation (that mention is here made of an imme
diate revelation appears from the analogy of chap. vi. 2, where
it is related how the Angel of the Lord appeared to Joshua),
after he had exhorted the people, had told them of the coming
passage over the Jordan, and had received from them the
unanimous assurance of faithfulness, he made all necessary
preparations for the passage, and for the attack on Jericho.
He had already sent two spies from his camp to Jericho ; for he
combined human wisdom with the firmest trust in God. It is
evident that the spies had been sent before Joshua told the
people of the passage across the Jordan, which was to take
place in three days ; though many have maintained the contrary,
from the fact that the business of the spies, who, according to
FROM DEATH OF MOSES TO CONQUEST OF JERICHO. 405
chap, xxii., only kept themselves concealed for three days in
the mount of Jericho, could not have been accomplished in so
short a time. After the spies had executed their commission,
and had sufficiently ascertained the position and state of the
city (that they did this appears from the account which they
£;ive to Joshua), they took refuge in the house of the harlot
Rahab. Since very early times this has been a stumbling-
block; hence every expedient has been tried to turn the
harlot into an innkeeper. The Chaldee renders H31T by a word
corrupted from the Greek TravBoKevTpia. And even Buddeus
is not averse to this explanation. But it cannot be verbally
justified ; and there are no real arguments for the rejection of
that which is verbally established. Above all we must maintain
that Joshua, in choosing the spies, did not look only to subtlety,
as Michaelis maintains, but at the same time to an earnest and
pious mind. Like Moses, he never sacrificed the higher view
to the lower ; he never lost sight of the fact that the warfare
which he waged was holy. But it is impossible to see why,
for the attainment of their good object, the spies should have
repaired to a house to which others resorted for sinful purposes.
Whether hotels were at that time general, is very doubtful.
It appears that in this sinful city houses of entertainment
were all at the same time houses of bad repute : infamous
houses had usurped the place of houses of entertainment ; and
even supposing that there were hotels in Jericho, they were
not adapted for the aim of the spies. In the house of Rahab
uhey might at least hope to remain unnoticed, for it was situated
in a retired part of the town, immediately beside the town-wall,
or rather on it, so that the wall of the town formed the back
wall of the house. The argument which has been drawn from
the fact that Rahab was afterwards received among the cove
nant-people, and gave proofs of a living faith, has already been
excellently refuted by Calvin : " The circumstance that the
woman who formerly sacrificed herself for the sake of shameful
gain, was soon afterwards accepted among the chosen people,
places the mercy of God in a clearer light, since it penetrated
into an unchaste house, to save not only Rahab, but also her
father and her brothers." Just, as ill applied is the trouble
which many have given themselves to justify the lie by which
Rahab deceived the ambassadors of the king. Buddeus main-
406 SECOND PERIOD — SECOND SECTION.
tains that since Rahab, by her faith in the God of Israel, was
incorporated into His nation, and was thus freed from her obli
gations to the king and the citizens of Jericho, who were in
opposition to God's counsel respecting her, the king of Jericho
had no right to demand the truth from her. But at the basis
of this view lies a false theory of the duty of truthfulness. We
should speak the truth, not because any one has a right to
demand it from us, but because we are called to imitate God,
who is a God of truth. There is, therefore, no doubt that
Rahab made use of bad means for the furtherance of a good
end. We cannot listen to arguments such as that of Grotius :
" Ante evangelium mendacium viris bonis salutare culpae non
esse ductum." The other question is more difficult, whether
Rahab did right in assisting the Israelites, to the injury of her
native town. But here the question can only be how, not
whether, the act is to be justified; for the faith of Rahab, and
the act to which it gave rise, are commended in two passages
in the Holy Scriptures, Heb. xi. 31 and James ii. 25. The
remark by which Buddeus tries to justify Rahab against the
former objection, applies better here. The belief that the God
of Israel was the true God, that the possession of the town
belonged to His people and would accrue to them, released her
from obligations from which no human argument can ever
release, since she was already spiritually accepted by this faith.
Her act cannot be condemned unless the bestowment of the
land of Canaan on the Israelites be regarded as an error. If
this be established, she did nothing further than assent to the
divine decree. In this, indeed, there might have been a mixture
of sinful self-seeking, without which it might not have hap
pened. As to the faith of Rahab, extolled by the apostles,
Calvin has already well shown how it revealed itself. Fear
of the Israelites, produced by the account of their wonderful
passage through the Red Sea (comp. Ex. xv. 14 ff.), and by
their victories over the kings beyond the Jordan, in which the
Israelites had shown that the servile and cowardly spirit which
they had brought with them out of Egypt had now quite left
them (comp. Num. xxii. 2 ; Josh. ii. 10, 11), was common to
Rahab with her people. But she differed from them in this
respect, that while they made impotent resistance, she on the
other hand grasped the only expedient, calm and joyful sub-
FROM DEATH OF MOSES TO CONQUEST OF JERICHO. 407
mission to the decree of God. Her people might conclude
from what had occurred, the truth of which they could not
deny, that the Israelites were favoured by a God of exceptional
power ; but she rises above these polytheistic notions : for her
the God of Israel is the only and almighty Ruler of heaven and
earth. Her companions put their trust in the strong and lofty
walls of Jericho : Rahab in faith rises above the visible ; she
sees the walls already thrown down, the Israelites masters of
the town. With reference to this narrative, we must remark
in passing, that Luther is quite correct in his opinion that the
spies were concealed under flax-stalks. The opinion of many,
that the text refers to cotton, which ripens about the time at
which the spies came to Jericho, and whose capsules were laid
on the roof to dry, is now acknowledged to be erroneous ; comp.
Keil on Josh. ii. 6. They were flax-stalks (in those districts-
flax attains a height of more than three feet, and the thickness
of a reed — hence tree-flax), which were piled up on the flat
roof, to be dried by the hot sun-rays. The mountain in which
the spies concealed themselves is probably that situated to
the west, near Jerusalem, where none would look for them,
because it lay deeper in the land. From here they could return
in safety to Joshua, after the space of three days, when all
search for them had been relinquished and they were believed
to be far beyond the Jordan. Joshua now advanced with the
Israelites to the Jordan. This happened, as we learn from
chap. iii. 2, three days after the summons to the people to pre
pare for crossing the river. On the evening of the same day
on which they arrived at the Jordan — and not, as Buddeus and
others maintain, on the evening of the following day — the
Israelites were instructed by the elders how they should act on
the march. They were enjoined not to approach within a cer
tain distance of the ark of the covenant. The object of this
prohibition is expressly given in chap. iii. 4. The words, " for
ye have not passed this way heretofore," show Israel how very
much they were in need of this guiding-star in a way which was
quite unknown to them and full of danger. In this respect
the ark of the covenant performed the same service for Israel
as the pillar of cloud in the march through the wilderness,
which had ceased to go before them since the time of Moses.
" But if the nation had followed the ark on foot, then those
408 SECOND PERIOD — SECOND SECTION.
who were next to it would have so concealed it that those
farther away from it would neither have seen it, nor have been
able to recognise the way whither it led." Joshua further
commands the people to sanctify themselves, because on the
following day God will do great things among them. This
consecration consisted first of all in outward ceremonies, in the
washing of clothes, etc., comp. Ex. xix. 14. But it is clear that
the proximate was not the ultimate, from the whole conception
of God which is set up in the New Testament, according to
which outward consecration can only be a symbol of that which
is internal, and can only come into consideration as a means of
exhorting to it. The passage took place, we are expressly told,
at a time when the Jordan, otherwise comparatively easy to
cross, was very much swollen, so that it filled its high bed, and
even overflowed it, which is always the case in harvest time.
The cause of this rising in the middle of April (for this is
harvest time in Palestine) is probably not the melting of the
snow on the high mountains of Lebanon and anti-Lebanon,
but an emptying of the Sea of Tiberias, which reaches its
highest level at the end of the rainy season : comp. Rob. ii.
p. 506. Jesus Sirach also bears witness to this swelling when
he says, chap. xxiv. 36, " Knowledge has come from the law of
Moses, as the Euphrates and the Jordan at the time of harvest;"
comp. 1 Chron. xiii. 15, where it is mentioned as an act of
heroism that some had crossed the Jordan at this time. The
accounts of later travellers are in harmony with this. Volney
says that the Jordan towards the Dead Sea is in no part more
than from 70 to 80 feet wide, and 10 to 12 feet deep ; but in
winter it swells to the breadth of a quarter of an hour (?). In
March it is at the fullest. When Buckingham passed over the
Jordan in January of the year 1816, the horses waded through
without fatigue. Already, in February, he found a river near
the Jordan, the Hieromax or Mandhur, far broader and deeper
than the Jordan in the neighbourhood of Jericho ; which was
120 feet wide when it reached the Jordan, and so deep that the
horses could scarcely wade through. On this point compare
Robinson, ii. p. 502 ff., who strongly opposes the false notion
that the Jordan with its waters covers the whole Ghor. But he
is wrong in denying that the vnvu b bv aba in chap. iii. 15
means, it overflowed its banks : compare the parallel passage,
FROM DEATH OF MOSES TO CONQUEST OF JERICHO. 409
Isa. viii. 7, and Keil on this passage. The overflow did not
extend over the whole breadth of the Ghor, but probably that
part of the shore where there was vegetation, comp. Keil. How
little the passage over the Jordan can be explained from natural
causes, already appears from the fact that afterwards, even at
the time when the Jordan was not swollen, it was no uncom
mon occurrence for whole bands of enemies to be drowned in
its tides, when they had to pass over it on their retreat from
Jerusalem, and missed its few fords. The great aversion of
rationalistic interpreters appears from the remark of Maurer,
that the river had probably before that time flatter shores and
less depth. Indeed, we learn from Josh. ii. 7, that even in the
time of the swelling the fords of the Jordan could be crossed
by some at a venture, but for a whole army, a whole nation,
these fords were of no avail. And the story of the miraculous
passage could never have been formed and retained among
Israel if a natural passage had been possible. The natural
relations lay constantly before the eyes of the people, among
whom faith in this miracle had the deepest root. The way in
which the passage through the Jordan took place is thus given
in ver. 16 : As soon as the priests that bare the ark of the
covenant touched the water of the Jordan, the waters which
came down from above stood up, not in the place where the
priests stood, but far higher, at a town called Adam, not other
wise known, situated on the same side as Zarethan, which was
better known at that time : jmv 1SD 15W T>j>n D1N3 1K» pmn,
where the Masoretes try to read D1ND instead of the D1N3
which they misunderstood. The water of the lower part of the
river now flowed upwards into the Dead Sea. Thus there
arose a long, dry stretch, through which the Israelites could
pass in very wide columns, and therefore in a comparatively
short space of time. The priests did not remain standing on
the near shore, as Buddeus maintains ; but as soon as the water
left the place where they first touched it, they stepped into the
middle of the stream with the ark of the covenant, comp.
ver. 17. There they served the whole nation for a northern
bulwark, as it were, and did not leave this place until the
whole passage was accomplished. We have still a few general
remarks to make on the whole occurrence. It will not do to
place it in the sphere of the impossible, for even the ordinary
410 SECOND PERIOD— SECOND SECTION.
course of nature presents analogies. It is known that in earth
quakes; and even apart from these — as, for example, the Zacken
in Silesia, or Zinksee— rivers, and seas have frequently remained
standing for a time, have gone back, emptied themselves, and
dried up in a short space of time. This does not indeed explain
our event. The drying up would not have taken place just
when the bearers of the ark of the covenant set their feet into
the river, and have continued just till the whole passage was
accomplished, etc. Yet the analogy shows this much, that we .
need have no hesitation in assuming that, by an extraordinary
working of divine omnipotence, a thing happened in this case
which appears elsewhere as produced by an ordinary working
of the same power, provided that causes can be proved worthy
such an extraordinary working of God. And this is here the
case in the highest degree. Everything was intended to bring
to the consciousness of the Israelites the fact that they owed
the occupation of the land, not to their own might, but only to
divine power. In the justification of the miraculous passage
through the Red Sea, the miraculous passage across the Jordan
is also justified. The former, which had taken place forty
years before, had already passed Very much away from the
eyes of the present generation. In the face of such great
and manifold dangers, they were the more in need of being
strengthened in faith, in proportion to the fewness of the mani
festations of divine grace during the long period which had
elapsed in the dying out of the sinful generation. The object
was to show the nation that God's power was not limited to
His instruments, that its operations had not ceased with the
death of Moses. It was necessary to awaken them to confidence
in their new leader, Joshua, in order to secure his efficacy. It
was likewise necessary that the assertion of the Israelites, that
God had given them the land of Canaan, should be confirmed
in a solemn way. At the same time it was made impossible for
insolent arrogance to excuse itself by their example. Only.
thus did the conquest of Canaan appear in its true light, as a
divine judgment.
When the passage through the Jordan had been accom
plished, Joshua sought to perpetuate the remembrance of the
event by a twofold memorial. Twelve men, whom he had
already chosen for this object before the passage (comp. chap.
FROM DEATH OF MOSES TO CONQUEST OF JERICHO. 411
iii. 12), had to bring twelve stones from the place in the middle
of the Jordan where the ark of the covenant, rested, and of
these a monument was erected, chap. iv. 1-8. Twelve other
stones were set up in the middle of the Jordan, in the spot
where the priests had stood ; perhaps piled one upon another
in such a way that they were visible at low water-mark.
Thus a new monument was added to those which had come
down from the time of the patriarchs, and which the Israelites
in their relation to God remembered now, immediately on re
entering the land after so long an absence — a herald which, if
dumb, yet none the less loudly testified that heaven and earth
were subject to the. God of Israel ; that Israel owed their land
to this God alone, and could only retain possession of it by
faithful adherence to Him ; and to this, the new monument
urgently exhorted. It is impossible to compute the influence
which must have been exercised by the fact, that gradually
almost every town in the promised land brought back to the
memory of the Israelites the history of former times, by the
remembrance of events which happened there, by its name, or
by monuments. On all sides they were surrounded by testi
monies of God's omnipotence and mercy, and of the faith of
their forefathers. And just because the sacred historians re
cognised the importance of such a testimony, are they so care
ful to record the fact of any place in the promised land being
hallowed in this way.
After the passage the army set up their camp in the place
which was afterwards called Gilgal. Then Joshua undertook
the circumcision, which had been neglected for so long a period.
The cause of this omission is attributed to the fact, that Moses
attached no great importance to circumcision, not to mention
views which are wholly untenable, such as that of Bertheau ;
but the general opinion is this (comp. Clericus, Buddeus), that
circumcision could not well have been performed, because they
had no permanent abode, but were always obliged to break up
when the pillar of cloud and fire gave the sign, and because
the children, who were sick from circumcision, could not so
easily be removed. , But it is evident that this reason does not
suffice to explain the omission, as Calvin shows very satisfac
torily. However much the neglect might have been excused
by circumstances, no inconvenience, no danger, could absolve
412 SECOND PERIOD — SECOND SECTION.
from obedience to so holy a command, which had been given
to Abraham with the words, <'The uncircumcised soul shall
be cut off from his people," and the neglect of which, had
threatened the lawgiver himself with death. Circumcision
was the act by which membership in the covenant-nation was
sealed, the basis of acceptance among the people of God, of
participation in all their blessings. The assertion of Clericus,
that circumcision was given up because it could not always be
accomplished on the eighth day after birth, to which by the
law it was unalterably attached, comp. Gen. xvii. 12, is re
futed by the circumstance that Joshua now has all the Israelites
circumcised, without distinction of age. From this it follows
that the performance of circumcision on the eighth day was
not so indispensable as circumcision itself, which is equally
shown by the example of Moses' son. Again, this view rests
on the utterly incorrect idea, that during the last thirty-eight
years of the wandering the Israelites were continually on the
march. We have already remarked, that during nearly the
whole of this period they had their headquarters in the Ara
bah. Calvin has apprehended the right view. When it is
said that all the people born in the wilderness are uncircum
cised, the short period from the exodus out of Egypt to the
sinning of the Israelites is left out of account. The conse
quence of this sin was the rejection of the whole generation
then living — they were doomed to destruction. As a sign of
this rejection, Moses would not suffer circumcision to continue;
the fathers were strongly reminded of their sin when they saw
that their children lacked the sign which distinguished them
from the heathen. The objection which has been brought
against this recently by Kurtz, viz. that God still gave the Israel
ites other tokens of His mercy that had not yet quite departed
from them, such as the presence of the pillar of cloud and
fire, the manna, etc., Calvin meets by comparison with a father
who wrathfully lifts his hand against his son, as if he would
drive him away altogether, while with the other hand he
holds him back, frightening him by blows and threats, but
yet not wishing him to leave his home. And now, on the en
trance into the land of promise, immediately after God had
again made Himself particularly known to Israel, the act was
undertaken which restored to the people their dignity as a
FROM DEATH OF MOSES TO CONQUEST OF JERICHO. 413
people of God. It was a proof of living faith that Joshua
and the people performed this act just at this time. This
follows even from what has been said on the subject by a
writer, who looks at the thing merely from the standpoint of
natural, carnal wisdom. Bauer says, Handb. d. Hebr. Nation,
vol. ii. p. 10 : " It might have been expected that he would at
once have fallen upon the terrified inhabitants ; but instead of
this, he occupies his army with religious ceremonies — with cir
cumcision. During this whole time the nation was incapable
of taking up arms and driving away the enemy. To what
danger did Joshua expose himself and his people from holy
zeal!" This must be partially conceded. The greatness of
the danger appears from the narrative, Gen. xxxiv. Circum
cision could have been done much more conveniently and
safely before the passage over the Jordan. But, on the other
side, it must not be overlooked that there was much which had
lightened this struggle of faith to Joshua and the Israelites.
They had just experienced God's miraculous power. How
could they doubt that this power would protect them in a
matter which they had undertaken at His command ? It was
not possible that God would take away beforehand the panic
fear which had fallen upon the Canaanites, in consequence of
the passage through the Jordan. This is expressly stated in
chap. v. 1, in order to remove the incomprehensibility of Joshua's
determination to perform circumcision. And Michaelis has
observed that a part of the nation was already circumcised :
all those who had been born before the ban was laid upon
Israel, which only snatched away those who had been grown
up at the time of the exodus from Egypt. This will teach us
what estimate is to be placed on the views of Paulus and
Maurer, who attack even the historical truth of the event by the
remark : " The resolve to make the whole army sick at one
time, and incapable of fighting, would have been impossible."
The historical truth is confirmed not only by this narrative,
and by the name of the place, whose legitimate derivation even
Maurer is obliged to confess, but also by the great honour
which Gilgal afterwards enjoyed as a place consecrated by the
memory of former times, comp. Hosea iv. 15, ix. 15, xii. 12 ;
Am. iv. 1, 4, 5, if we follow the prevalent view, according to
which the Gilgal in the passages referred to is identical with
414 SECOND PERIOD— SECOND SECTION.
ours. Keil, in his Commentary on Joshua, chap. v. 9 and ix. 6,
and on the Books of the Kings, Leipzig 1845, p. 323 ff., has com
bated this view. He has endeavoured to prove that our Gilgal
occurs only in Micah vi. 5, where the prophet alludes to this
event as well-established and universally known, that it never
rose to a district, and that all other passages of the Old Testa
ment refer to another Gilgal, in the neighbourhood of Mounts
Ebal and Gerizim. But against Keil there is this argument,
that there is no foundation for the sanctification of his Gilgal.
In the conclusion of the account of the circumcision, chap.
v. 9, we read, " This day have I rolled away the reproach of
Egypt from off you. Wherefore the name of the place is
called Gilgal unto this day." These words have been very
variously interpreted. The explanation most worthy of note
is Spener's, de legib. ritual, i. c. 4, sec. 4, allowed by Clericus
and Michaelis. According to them, the circumcised Egyptians
despised the uncircumcised Hebrews. To take away the re
proach, that it might no longer be cast at them. This view
is untenable, because, even granting that circumcision had
already been introduced among the Egyptians, the whole
nation was not circumcised, but only the priests. How then
could those who were themselves uncircumcised reproach
others with neglect of circumcision? The true explanation
has already been given on another occasion. The reproach
of the Egyptians is unquestionably what put Israel to shame
in the eyes of the Egyptians, giving cause for mockery; but
this mockery did not extend to neglect of circumcision in
abstracto, but to the special circumstances under which this
neglect took place, regarded as a real declaration by God that
He had rejected His people. The giving back of circumcision
is looked upon as the restoration of the covenant, and thus a
setting aside of the mockery which was based upon its aboli
tion. In this sense mockery concerning the neglect of circum
cision might proceed even from those who were not themselves
circumcised. Soon after the circumcision the Israelites cele
brated the passover also at Gilgal. This, too, had not bean
observed since the passover of the second year after the exodus
out of Egypt, on Mount Sinai, Num. ix. 1, 2. Here also the
reasons assigned by Clericus, Buddeus, and others, for the
neglect are very insufficient. They suppose that the Israelites
FROM DEATH OF MOSES TO CONQUEST OF JERICHO. 415
had not enough of sheep. But the close connection in which
the celebration- of the passover-feast stands with circumcision
in the book of Joshua points to another cause. We learn
this more accurately from Ex. xii. 48, where it is said, " No
uncircumcised person shall eat thereof." How, and why the
keeping of the passover presupposes circumcision, we have
already shown. Participation in the sacrament of the passover
gave those who were members of the covenant-nation a pledge
of the forgiveriess of their sins of weakness. How then could
the passover be celebrated when there was no longer any cove
nant, no covenant-nation, no covenant-sign ? According to
this, it is apparent that the passover was not kept during the
thirty-eight years, and there can be no doubt whatever as to
the explanation of the circumstance. On the sixteenth day
of the first month, the day following the principal day of the
passover, the Israelites began to eat of the new corn of the
land. Hitherto they had eaten of the older stock. This day
was, to wit, that on which the Israelites were obliged by the
law to present to God the first ears of corn, Lev. xxiii. 9 ff.
They were in this way reminded to regard all natural benefits
of God as products of the land of promise, as covenant-gifts
from God, whose continuance was dependent on that of the
covenant, which was sealed to them through the passover.
They were reminded of the duty to be grateful, to repay the
blessing of the covenant by faithful adherence to it. This is
the ground of the union between the natural and the historical
sides of the passover.
Joshua then marched upon Jericho with his army. While
he was there alone, probably occupied in deliberation how the
town could best be attacked ; almost despairing on account of
the difficulty of taking a well-fortified town, defended by a
numerous nation, with a people utterly ignorant of the tactics
of besieging; praying to the Lord that he would be mighty
in the weakness of His people, in an eWraa-t? he had a
yision. An unknown man appears to him with a drawn
sword, whom at first he takes for a warrior, as we learn
from his question whether he is friend or enemy, but soon be
comes aware of his more than human dignity. That he could
not have regarded him as a common angel, but rather as the
Angel of God kut' e^o^v — His messenger and revealer — is
416 SECOND PERIOD — SECOND SECTION.
most clearly shown by the circumstance that he calls himself
the prince of the army of Jehovah — i.e. the prince and ruler of
the angels, of the heavenly host of God, whose name Jehovah
Zebaoth he bears — in contradistinction to the earthly one which
Joshua commanded. The denotation has reference to Joshua's
fears and embarrassments. The courage of the earthly general
is raised by the sight and the word of the heavenly General,
who, with all his host, will contend for him and with him.
Moreover, he commands Joshua to put off his shoes, because
the place where he stands is holy ; and in chap. vi. 2 he is
called Jehovah. There is no doubt that the speech of Jehovah
to Joshua, given in chap. vi. 2 ff., was communicated to him
by this angel-prince. For otherwise the apparition would
have no object, the angel-prince would say nothing more than
served as a preparation for a subsequent revelation, while he
made Joshua acquainted with his person, and filled him with
holy awe, thus securing the impression of the communications
he was .about to make. Even Clericus, who maintains that
chap. vi. has reference to another divine revelation, is obliged
to confess : Mirum est angelum ad Josuam venisse sine ullis
mandatis ullisae promissio. This false notion is due to the
circumstance, that it has not been observed that chap. vi. 1
only forms a parenthesis, which explains the contrast between
the visible and the divine command — a firmly-closed town was
to be taken by a mere ceremony. The fact that the Angel of
the Lord appears with a drawn sword, and that he calls him
self the commander of the army of God, points primarily to
that which he intends to do with reference to Jericho, and then
generally to that character of the activity of God, which was
the prevailing one in the time of Joshua, to the problem which
had to be resolved in those days, giving strength in the opposi
tion which was then directed specially against the people of
God. The Angel of God with the drawn sword is the fitting
emblem of the time of Joshua. This vision, in connection with
that recounted in the very beginning of the book, which was
granted to Joshua while he was still beyond the Jordan, and
which serves to supplement this, forms the counterpart to the
call of Moses on Sinai, comp. Josh. v. 15 — " Loose thy shoe
from off thy foot," etc. — which agrees almost verbally with
Ex. iii. 5, and serves to connect the two events. The shoes
FROM DEATH OF MOSES TO CONQUEST OF JERICHO. 417
are simply to be put off because they are dusty and soiled ; and
the artificial explanations of Baumgarten, Bahr, and Keil are
already rejected, because the same custom of putting off the
shoes before entering the sanctuary is found even among the
heathen and Mohammedans, from' whom the thought of " the
impure earth lying under a curse," which was trodden with the
shoes, is far removed. The following are the commands which
the Angel of the Lord gives to Joshua, after the promises con
tained in his appearance and name : For six days the army is
to compass the city in silence, and the seven priests who pre
cede the ark of the covenant are to play on the trumpets. On
the seventh day the same thing is to be repeated seven times.
After this has been done for the seventh time, the people are
to raise a loud war-cry. Then the walls are to fall in. The
number seven points to the fact, that the whole thing rests
upon the covenant of the Lord with Israel. Blowing- with
trumpets is a symbolic act, consecrated by the law. In Num.
x. 9 we read : " And if ye go to war in your land against the
enemy that oppresseth you, then ye shall blow an alarm with
the trumpets ; and ye shall be remembered, before the Lord
your God, and ye shall be saved from your enemies." Accord
ing to this, the blowing with the trumpets was a signal by
which the Lord's people showed Him their need, and besought
-His help — a symbolic Kvpoe iXrjioov. And because the Lord
Himself appointed this signal, just as certainly as they heard
the sound of the trumpets so certainly might they believe that
the Lord would come to their assistance. Calvin has already
shown well what a great trial of faith this command was for
the Israelites. To the carnal mind the thing must have ap
peared most absurd. It speaks in its latest representatives of
" a tedious and ineffectual seven days' marching round. " Carnal
zeal must have led to impatience, since apparently nothing was
done; carnal wisdom must have feared that the Canaanites,
perceiving the foolishness of their enemy, and encouraged by
it, would venture upon dangerous sallies. Because the Israel
ites followed the command absolutely, turning their gaze, com
pletely from the visible, and resisting all these temptations, the
author of the Epistle to the Hebrews says truly, that the walls
of Jericho fell down by faith. What Ewald observes with
reference to this narrative, which in his opinion is traditionary,
2D
418 SECOND PERIOD— SECOND SECTION.
applies much better to the event itself, viz. : " The inner truth,
that even the strongest walls must fall before Jehovah's will
and the fearless obedience of His people, has clothed itself in a
palpable, external garment." The event was designed to im
press, this truth upon the minds of Israel for all time, the truth
contained in the words, " By my God I leaped over a wall,"
and " Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world." Jericho
has a symbolic signification. That which happened to the
fortress commanding the entrance into the territory of the
Canaanites, prefigured first of all what would universally
happen to Canaanitish supremacy. In the walls of Jericho,
at the last blowing of the trumpets, faith saw the overthrow of
the Canaanitish power, which to natural reason was apparently
insuperable.^ But if Jericho primarily represents the Canaan
itish supremacy, it is also excellently adapted to be a type of
the dominion of the world generally. We have even before
us a speaking symbol of the victory of the church over all the
powers of the world. The narrative has been falsely inter
preted, as showing that all action on the part of Israel was
absolutely excluded in the falling of the walls. We can infer
only this, that the result of the action proceeded from God
alone. For this reason the action itself is put quite into the back
ground ; but it is not denied by a single word. In the TrecreiTai
avTopaia rd Telyr) of the LXX. the ainopaTa is a pure inter
polation. If it had been the author's intention to say this,
he would have said it more distinctly, as in ver. 20. It is
natural to the pious, thankful mind to pay little attention to
the mere human element. Here, indeed, it was insignificant
throughout, for in this case all human hope of success was
wanting, all natural conditions were absent. By divine com
mand, the whole town was devoted to destruction, and in de
struction, to God ; what could not be destroyed (metal) fell to
the treasure of the sanctuary, which is already mentioned in
the time of Moses (Num. xxxi. 54), according to which a por
tion of the spoil taken from the Midianites was brought into
the sanctuary, no part of the booty being given to the Israelites.
Joshua pronounced a curse on any one who should build up
the town again. This proceeding at the conquest of Jericho,
so different from that characterizing the conquest of later
towns — which Ewald in vain tries to reduce to a political reason,
FROM DEATH OF MOSES TO CONQUEST OF JERICHO. 419
in the spirit of J. D. Michaelis, and that a very shallow one —
is explained in this way. We have already remarked, that the
judgment on the Canaanites differed only from the Deluge and
the judgment on Sodom and Gomorrha in this respect, that the
latter took place immediately, and was totally destructive ; while
the former was indirect, and for the advantage of those who
were the instruments of its accomplishment. This latter
method caused the punitive judgment to be readily misunder
stood ; to guard agairist which misunderstanding, it was neces
sary that the destruction in the first conquered city should be
completei It was designed to serve as a lasting memorial of
divine punitive justice. The former invariably represents the
compulsory dedication to God of those who have obstinately
refused to consecrate themselves voluntarily to Him : it is the
manifestation of divine justice in the destruction of those who,
during their existence, would not serve as a mirror for it. The
curse pronounced on the Canaanites was in general directed
only against those persons alone who properly formed the
object of it. But in order to show that the earlier possessors
were exterminated, not through human caprice, but through
God's revenge, that their land and possessions did not come
to the Israelites as a robbery, but only as a God-given loan,
which He now again bestowed upon another vassal, to see if
perhaps this one would faithfully perform the services to which
he was bound, the curse on the first conquered place extended
to the city itself, and to all possessions. Again, it was neces
sary to awaken the Israelites to a consciousness of the fact,
that the whole possession which was given to them was only a
gift of the free grace of God. And how could this be done
more effectually than by God externally reserving to Himself
His right of property in the first town ? Finally, this also was
for the Israelites a trial of faith and obedience. It must have
been difficult for them, after such long hardship, to destroy the
houses which offered them a convenient dwelling, and the pos
sessions which promised abundant maintenance.
When Joshua lays a curse on him who would build up the
town again, it is to be observed that to build a town is here
equivalent to restoring it as such ; fortifying it with walls and
gates : for it is these which make a place a town in the Hebrew
idea. Already, in the time of the Judges and of David, there
420 SECOND PERIOD— SECOND SECTION.
was another Jericho on the same site, which might be called a
town in a wide sensfe: comp. Judg. iii. 13 ; 2 Sam. x. 5. Not
until Ahab's time was the curse of Joshua literally fulfilled on
Hiel, who, disregarding it, ventured to restore the town, 1
Kings xvi. 34. The arguments by which the fact that Joshua
pronounced a curse on Jericho has been attacked in recent
times, are self-condemnatory. It is said that the curse put
into the mouth of Joshua bears a poetic character, as if this
were not necessarily involved in the nature of the thing ; and
again, " It would have been unworthy a wise man to prevent
his own people rebuilding a town in a place so well situated,
near the fords of the Jordan," — an opinion expressed by Paulus,
and based on a total misapprehension of the power of religion
on the mind, and of the spirit which animated Joshua, and
which may be considered as a recognition of the higher life
prevailing in Israel, as a testimonium ab hoste. Moreover there
are events externally analogous even in heathen antiquity.
Curses were also pronounced on Ilion, Fidenae, Carthage :
comp. Maurer, The Book of Joshua, 1831, p. 60.
Rahab, with her household, was received into the covenant-
nation. The statement in Josh. vi. 23, that she and her
people were obliged to remain without the camp, refers only
to the time before her change. She married Salma, an ancestral
prince in Judah. Boaz was descended from them ; and from
Boaz and Ruth the kings of Judah ; so that Rahab appears in
the genealogy of Christ, the son of David after the flesh : comp.
Ruth iv. 20 ff. ; 1 Chron. ii. 11 ff. ; Matt. i. 5, where Rahab
is first mentioned.
§2.
FROM THE TAKING OF JERICHO TO THE DIVISION OF
THE LAND.
These happy events were soon followed by a very sad one,
equally adapted, however, to confirm Israel in the faith, since
it brought to their consciousness the dangerous consequences
of even the smallest violation of fidelity to God. One Achan,
FROM TAKING OF JERICHO TO DIVISION OF THE LAND. 421
called Achar in Chronicles — that the nomen may at the same
time be an omen, comp. Josh. vii. 26, where the valley of the
deed of Achan receives the name Achor, trouble — had stolen
a portion of the spoil which had been consecrated to God
by His own express command; and his guilt was increased
by the circumstance that it was not stolen from want but
through base covetousness ; for we learn from a later account
that he was a man of property, since his oxen, asses, and sheep
were burnt with him, and all his possessions. We read, " The
anger of the Lord was kindled against the children of Israel."
The fact that a crime committed by a single individual should
have been imputed to the whole nation has proved a great
stumbling-block. Calvin, on the other hand, appeals to the
inscrutability of the divine decrees. " It is best," he says,
"that we should withhold our judgment until the books be
opened, when the divine decrees, now obscured by our dark
ness, shall come forth clearly to light." But in this instance
there is not the slightest indication of any such absolute
eire^eiv. The outward act of Achan was certainly an indi
vidual one, but the disposition from which it sprang was widely
diffused through the nation : as human nature is constituted,
it could not have been otherwise ; and, in most cases, only fear
of that God whose omnipotence and justice had been so pal
pably set forth, hindered it from manifesting itself in action.
If the whole nation had been animated by a truly pious
spirit, the individual would not have arrived at this extreme
depravity. The crime of the individual is in all cases only
the concentration of the sin of the mass. God cannot, there
fore, be accused of injustice, if He visits an apparently isolated
crime on the whole nation ; but, at the same time, it is clear
that pious long-suffering forbearance would in this and similar
cases have been severity, not mildness. To visit the crime of
the individual on the whole nation would tend powerfully to
awaken their pious zeal. In this way the evil was stifled in
its origin, and prevented from spreading. Each one watched
himself the more closely, knowing how much depended on his
own fidelity, while, at the same time, he watched others also.
There is nothing easier, however, than by a counter-question
to embarrass those who take exception to this, if they only
acknowledge the operation of a special providence. How can
422 SECOND PERIOD— SECOND SECTION.
we reconcile with the justice of God the fact that the innocent
must suffer with the guilty in public calamities, in plagues,
war, and floods, in which even the heathen recognised divine
judgments ? In both cases the solution of the knot lies in the
circumstance that the innocence is always relative. An oppor
tunity was given for the expression of divine disapprobation in
an undertaking against the city of Ai, concerning whose site
investigations have recently been made by Thenius in the bibl.
Studien von Kauffer, ii. p. 129. It is probably the present
village Turmus Aja, in the neighbourhood of Sindjil, which
occupies the site of the former Bethel. Externally considered,
the loss of thirty-six men, which the Israelites suffered on
this occasion, was very small and trifling. Nevertheless
there was reason in the sorrow manifested by Joshua and the
nation. For the Israelites, accustomed to recognise the finger
of God in all that befell them, such an event had quite a
different meaning from what it could have had for a heathen
nation. God had promised His people constant victory ; and
from the fact that, in this case, the promise was not fulfilled,
they justly concluded that God had withdrawn His favour
from them. Hence they abandoned themselves to the most
anxious solicitude respecting the future. Joshua at once
adopted the right course. He turned to the Lord in earnest
prayer. He fell on his face with the elders, and remained
prostrate until the evening, praying and fasting. He did not
indeed keep within suitable limits in his prayer, as Calvin has
already remarked. True to human nature, he is inclined to
seek the cause of the misfortune in God and His guidance.
Instead of first looking into his own breast, he ventures to
expostulate with the Lord, why has He led the people across
the Jordan ; and to express the wish that they had remained
on the other side. But God overlooks this weakness, from
which none of His saints is free ; for He sees that the prayer
proceeds from a true motive. Joshua shows himself more
concerned for the honour of God, compromised by His people's
disaster, than for the disaster itself. " Get thee up," God says
to him, " wherefore liest thou thus upon thy face ? " Not by
sorrowing and supplication can the matter be set right, since
the cause lies not in me, but in you. By stealing from the
accursed, the curse has fallen upon the nation itself. The
FROM TAKING OF JERICHO TO DIVISION OF THE LAND. 423
nation can only free itself from participation in the punish
ment by a powerful reaction against participation in the guilt :
they must show their horror of the crime by punishing the
evil-doer. Measures are then given to Joshua for the discovery
and punishment of the evil-doer, and are carried out by him
on the following morning. The people are to purify them
selves before they appear in God's judicial presence, a custom
which could not fail to impress rude minds. First of all the
tribes come before Joshua, then the families, then the house
holds, and finally the individuals. The lot first falls upon the
tribe, then the family, etc. It is uncertain whether the de
termination took place by lot or by the Urim and Thummim.
The expression in 1 Sam. xiv. 42 is somewhat in favour of the
former, so also the way in which it was managed ; which, how
ever, can also be explained if we suppose that the determina
tion was made by the Urim and Thummim. The gradual
progression was designed to cause great suspense among the
nation, to make each one look into himself, asking himself the
question, " Is it I ? " In favour of the Urim and Thummim
we have the fact that this was the customary means, appointed
by God, of inquiring into that which was concealed — a means
to which Joshua had been expressly referred; comp. Num.
xxvii. 21, "And Joshua shall stand before Eleazar the priest,
who shall ask counsel for him after the judgment of Urim
before the Lord." If we decide in favour of the determina
tion by lot, it is scarcely necessary to say that no universal
justification of this mode of selection can be drawn from the
circumstance. Joshua must, in this case, have had the definite
promise that God would in this way reveal what was hidden.
Without such a promise it would have been foolish and impious
to leave the determination to lot. Achan remains hidden,
doubting God's omniscience, like every criminal, until judg
ment singles him out. But then Joshua's truly paternal
address brings him to confession, — a mighty proof for Israel
how God's infallible eye looks into the most hidden things.
Thereupon followed the punishment. Achan was first stoned,
with his whole family, then burnt — for burning itself was
never a capital punishment among the Israelites ; finally, a
great heap of stones was erected on the place of execution.
Formerly theologians were very much perplexed by the fact
424 SECOND PERIOD — SECOND SECTION.
that Achan's sons and daughters were destroyed with him.
Most critics — for example, Clericus, Buddeus, and others-
agree in maintaining that it can only be reconciled with divine
justice on the presupposition that Achan's children were con
scious of and accessory to his crime. They appeal specially
to Deut. xxiv. 16, " The fathers shall not be put to death for
the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the
fathers : every man shall be put to death for his own sin."
But this passage is clearly inapplicable to our event. It has
reference to those axioms which the rulers were to follow
when left to their own method of punishment. Here, on the
other hand, the matter is not left to Joshua's decision, but is
regulated by God's immediate determination. To this case
we might far more appropriately apply the declaration of God,
that He would visit the sins of the fathers on the children to
the third and fourth generation. In applying this decree we
are doubtless led to a presumption of the participation of
Achan's family in his guilt, in a certain sense ; for this threat
of the law, like all similar passages of Scripture, is only
directed against such children as tread in the footsteps of their
fathers : comp. Lev. xxvi. 39 ff., a passage which must be re
garded as the best commentary. But the participation is not
to be attached to the guilt, as something isolated, but to the sin
fulness, of which this special offence was an individual expres
sion. The fact that Achan's family were involved in his
punishment presupposes that the apples had not fallen far
from the branch ; that they were closely connected with him in
his sin. Without any inconsistency they might still have been
perfectly innocent in the present case. Man, who can judge
only the act, not the secrets of the heart, dare not have inflicted
the punishment on them.
After the guilt had thus been turned aside from the nation,
the inarch against Ai was at once undertaken. Here Joshua
had recourse to a stratagem. In the night he sent out a
detachment of the army, who were to go by a secret way, and
lie in ambush west of the town, between it and Bethel. Much
difficulty has here arisen from the fact that this ambush is
given in chap. viii. 3 at 30,000, in verse 12 as 5000 men.
The subterfuge to which most expositors resort is certainly
unsatisfactory, viz. that Joshua sent out a double ambuscade.
FROM TAKING OF JERICHO TO DIVISION OF THE LAND. 425
For there could have been no object in this ; since the 30,000
and the 5000 were sent to the very same place. Moreover, it
is quite inconceivable how an ambuscade of 30,000 men to
gether could have escaped the notice of the enemy, though this
might readily be explained in the case of a smaller number,
from the mountainous nature of the district. The true recon
ciliation is the following : At ' Joshua's command the whole
nation prepared for the march against Ai. Joshua, however,
does not wish all to go, but selects 30,000 men. Of these,
5000 are now sent as an ambuscade : with the residue he
marches direct and openly against the city. The apparent
discrepancy has arisen from the circumstance that the mean
ing is not clearly set forth in ver. 3. The author relates the
command for the nightly departure, etc., as if it referred to
the whole 30,000 men, — a want of precision of which he after
wards becomes sensible, and which he tries to remove by the
supplementary account of the strength of the ambuscade.
Joshua now marches against Ai in the morning with the re
maining 25,000 men. The inhabitants of Ai, without any
suspicion of the stratagem, advance to meet the Israelites ; and
when these retire in pretended flight, all who had remained in
the city flock out. According to ver. 17, the inhabitants of
Bethel also take part in the pursuit of the Israelites, which
may probably be explained in this way : Many of those in
habitants of Bethel who were able to bear arms had resorted
to the larger and stronger Ai, which was allied to them, or to
which they were subject, in order by this means to meet the
common enemy in a more effectual way than was possible while
their active forces were divided. When the enemy found them
selves at a suitable distance from the town, Joshua stretched
out his lance towards Ai at the command of the Lord. Very
unnecessary difficulties have here been made. Because it is
said in ver. 19, " And the ambush arose quickly out of their
place," it has been assumed that they broke forth at the
stretching out of the lance as at a preconcerted signal. This
has given rise to great embarrassment. The ambush was too.
far away to be able to see the outstretched spear. If it had
been so near, the people of Ai must have been blind to have
seen nothing of it. Here a multitude of expedients have been
devised. Some substitute a shield for the spear, contrary to
426 SECOND PERIOD— SECOND SECTION.
all use of language ; others suppose that a banner was attached
to the spear, or, as Maurer and Keil, a shield plated over with
gold ; others again maintain that posts were placed between
the ambuscade and the army, by which means the ambuscade
was made aware that the preconcerted signal had been given :
all arbitrary assumptions, and yet not satisfactory. There is
not a word in the text which would lead us to infer that the
stretching out of the spear was a preconcerted signal for the
ambush. It is more natural to conclude from the account in
ver. 26, that Joshua did not withdraw the outstretched lance
until all the inhabitants of Ai were proscribed, that this symbolic
action had quite another object. The outstretched lance was
a sign of war and victory to the army of Joshua itself. It was
quite natural that the ambush should break forth at the same
time, if Joshua had before arranged with them that they should
advance upon the town as soon as the enemy had withdrawn to
a certain distance from it, which they could easily ascertain
from the mountain heights behind which they lay hidden.
After the city had been taken, the ambuscade set fire to it.
This, however, was done only in order to give the army a sign
of the taking, and to deprive the enemy of courage. Other
wise the Israelites would have robbed themselves of the booty
which belonged to them ; for this case was not similar to the
taking of Jericho. Joshua did not set fire to the whole town
till the Israelites had possession of the spoil. In the account
of the defeat of the enemy no express mention is made of the
inhabitants of Bethel. We cannot, however, with Clericus,
infer from this that they succeeded in saving themselves by
flight. Doubtless they were included among the inhabitants
of Ai, owing to their comparatively small number. But
Bethel itself was not conquered until later by the Josephites,
comp. Judg. i. 22-26. For at that time the only object was
to take the most important points ; conquest in detail was left
to a later time. According to ver 28, Ai was made an eternal
heap of ruins; but instead of the earlier town, which was
.destroyed utterly and for ever, a new place afterwards arose of
the same name, mentioned in Isa. x. 28.
Joshua made use of this first opportunity for carrying out
a decree which Moses had given to his people on his depar
ture, Deut. xxvii. They were to write down upon stones,
FROM TAKING OF JERICHO TO DIVISION OF THE LAND. 427
plastered over with plaster, the whole sum of the law which
Moses had declared to them, the quintessence of the Tora,
which forms the germ of Deut. iv. 44-xxvi. 19. At the same
time they were solemnly to pronounce a blessing on those who
would keep this law, and a curse on those who should break it.
Moses himself had fixed the place where this solemn act was to
be performed. It was the region of Sichem, forty miles from
Jerusalem, even now one of the most charming, most fruitful,
and well cultivated districts of all Palestine and Syria; and,
what was here specially considered, had been consecrated by
the earlier history of the patriarchs. Here, according to
Gen. xxxiii. 18, Jacob had first set up his tent for a length of
time, . when he returned from Mesopotamia. Here, full of
gratitude for the divine protection and blessing, he had erected
an altar and called it " The Mighty God of Israel." Here, •
before going to Bethel to make an altar to the God who had
heard him in the time of his affliction, he commanded his
people to put away the strange gods which they had brought
with them out of Mesopotamia, and to purify themselves.
Here they had given him all the strange gods that were in
their hands, and he had buried them under the oak which
stood near Sichem, Gen. xxxv. 1 ff. By the possession of Ai
the way was opened to this holy city, situated north of Ai in
what was afterwards the district of Samaria. The distance
occupies about five hours, if Turmus Aja be identical with Ai.
The narrative of the solemn event is short, because it presup
poses the appointment in Deuteronomy. By a comparison of
both passages the event was as follows :' Sichem lies between
two mountains, Ebal on the north, and Gerizim on the south.
On the former Joshua caused an altar of rough stones to be
erected, which had not been hewn with any iron tool ; the first
which had there been consecrated to the true God since the
patriarchs had journeyed through Palestine. The reason why
unhewn stones were taken for the altar is thus given by Calvin
and others. According to the law of God, Deut. xii., there was
to be only one national sanctuary in all Canaan, because multi
plicity of places for the worship of God would interfere with reli
gious unity and the development of a religious public spirit ;
and while hindering the expression of that united spirit, would
give free scope to the edeko9pi) with ba betokens in itself not
the desired goal, but only the turning towards it. But it is
scarcely conceivable that Joshua had already the design of re
turning, and had begun to carry it out. Could it have entered
his mind to rob himself of all the fruits of his victory by a pre
cipitate retreat to Gilgal, and not to avail himself of the excellent
opportunity which was here given him to occupy the whole of
the enemy's country, which he would afterwards have been com
pelled to do with infinitely greater exertion and danger? More
over if the words, " And he returned," were intended to denote
merely intention and beginning in contrast to performance,
this must necessarily have been expressly noted in what follows,
which is not the case. Add to this, that in ver. 43 the same
words are literally repeated ; and if they are there to be under
stood of an actual return, another interpretation of this passage
can scarcely pass for anything but an inadmissible shift. Others
again appeal to the insufficiency of Oriental historiography.
The author, they think, at first intended to conclude his whole
narrative with ver. 15. Then it occurred to him that he had
still to record some not unimportant circumstances. These,
without consideration, he joined to that which went before,
where we should insert, " But previously that which fol
lows happened." This view is also inadmissible. How is it
FROM TAKING OF JERICHO TO DIVISION OF THE LAND. 441
conceivable that it could have been the author's first inten
tion to pass by in silence the whole contents of vers. 16-43 ?
For his object, this is just the most important thing. The
battle is of importance to him only as a means of obtaining
possession, which is properly the subject of his book ; and
there is not a word before ver. 16 of the other great con
sequences of the victory, of the subjection of the whole southern
half of Palestine. Moreover the poetical character is not only
unmistakeable in ver. 12 and the first half of ver. 13, but also
in the second half of ver.- 13 and in ver. 14. Even Masius
acknowledges this, although he adheres to the current idea. He
says : " There can be no doubt that the words, ' So the sun stood
still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a
whole day,' are rhythmic, and are taken from the Book of the
Just. The whole mode of expression and construction shows it
most clearly." On the other hand, appeal is made to the fact
that ver. 15 has nothing poetical about it. But this is not at
all necessary, since analogies, such as that of Ex. xv. 19, show-
that it was not unusual to give songs glorifying the mighty
deeds of the Lord, a prosaic conclusion closely connected with
them. The fact that this verse is repeated almost word for
word in ver. 43 proves nothing. The author of the book
intentionally makes use of the words of the poetic passage he
had previously quoted.
We only remark further, what would certainly not in
itself be a sufficient proof, that the miracle of a standing still
of the sun, alleged to have been performed by Joshua, is no
where else mentioned in Scripture ; that the prophets, whose
writings are completely interwoven with references to the
histories of previous times, in which they saw more than dead
facts, in which they saw just so many prophecies' of the future,
have not a syllable respecting it, nor have the psalmists, who
frequently make God's mercy in past times the theme of very
long disquisitions ; and in all the New Testament, with its
numerous allusions to the mighty deeds of God under the
Old, we find nothing of this miracle. The author of the
Epistle to the Hebrews, in his representation of the effects of
faith under the old covenant, also makes no reference to it,
although he mentions the act of Rahab, the destruction of the
walls of Jericho, etc. Attempts, indeed, have been made to
442 SECOND PERIOD— SECOND SECTION.
find a reference to this event in one passage of the Old Testa
ment, Hab. iii. 11; but it is only possible to do so by an
offence against the laws of language. The passage is trans
lated, " Sun and moon stand still in their habitation ;" but the
nbat 105? rrv b>de> can only mean, " they stand towards their
habitation," they repair to their habitation, and there remain
still. The setting of the sun and moon is poetically repre
sented as their withdrawal into their habitation. The symbols
of divine grace no longer shine with a friendly light ; the fear
ful darkness which has arisen is now illuminated by another
light, the lightning, by which God destroys His enemies.
The passage is parallel to those numerous other ones in the
prophets, in which the sun and moon are represented as dark
before and during the manifestation of divine judgments.
Isa. xiii. 10 : " For the stars of heaven, and the constellations
thereof, shall not give their light ; the sun shall be darkened
in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to
shine;" comp. Joel ii. 10, iv. 15 (3, 4); Amos viii. 9. From
this it is clear, that the passage in Habakkuk contains exactly
the contrary of that which is said to be recorded in Joshua.
Here the sun and moon remain beyond their time ; there they
set before their time.
But the defenders of the historical conception assert that, if
the author had wished the quoted poem to be understood
figuratively, he must expressly have said so, otherwise the
reader must necessarily come to the conclusion that the quota
tion contains pure historical truth. But the question is whether
the connection does not involve an actual declaration, which is
equivalent to a verbal one. The author details the actual
course of events in vers. 8-11, up to a point of time which goes
beyond that in which the event of vers. 12-14 occurs. The
enemy is already conquered, and far advanced in flight. And
when the author now interrupts his narrative, returning to the
time of the battle in order to give another account of it from
a poetical book, the natural, self-evident conclusion is, that this
account gives no new historical particular, but is only intended
as a repetition, in a poetical form, of what had been previously
given in a historical form ; and the author shows this plainly
enough by the fact, that on beginning the history again in
ver. 16, he connects it immediately with ver. 11, where the
FROM TAKING OF JERICHO TO DIVISION OF THE LAND. 443
history left off. Compare the OT in ver. 16 with the W
DD33 in ver. 11. It must not be overlooked, however, that the
poetical representation differs from the historical only in form.
It is essentially the same whether God lengthened one day
into two, or whether He did in one day the work of two ; the
expression of mercy towards Israel is equally great. But just
because the carnal mind is so slow to recognise this, the more
palpable form is substituted for that which is less apparent
to the sight ; as in Ps. xviii. David represents his enemies as
destroyed by a storm, in order to show that he recognises the
concealed mercy of God no less than the palpable.
We shall now give a brief sketch of our view of the whole
passage. After having narrated the two mighty manifestations
of divine mercy towards Israel, the victory which He gave to
their arms at Gibeon, and the hail by which He punished the
flying enemy, the author abruptly breaks the thread of the
narrative, in order to insert a passage from a contemporary
song, in which the great deeds of this day are extolled. The
singer tells how Joshua said unto the Lord, " Sun, stand thou
still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon."
It is easy to explain how Joshua may be said to have spoken
to the Lord, since the address to the sun and moon imme
diately follows. For his desire is only apparently addressed
to them ; it was properly directed to the Lord of hosts. The
first question which now rises is, at what time and in what
place Joshua expressed this wish, or rather at what time the
singer made him express it. The ia, "at that time," cannot
help us in determining this. For it is plain that it does not
refer to what immediately precedes it — viz., to the flight of the
enemy as far as Azekah, so that Joshua could have given utter
ance to the prayer when he first arrived at this place — but to
the whole events of the day, the entire conquest of the enemy.
This follows from the words, " In the day when the Lord de
livered up the Amorites before the children of Israel," which
form a closer explanation of the word then. We must there
fore look round us for other signs. In ver. 13 we read that
the sun remained standing in the midst of the heavens. It was
therefore towards mid-day when Joshua expressed the wish.
The determination of place, which follows from ver. 12, fully
agrees with the determination of time. The words, " Sun,
444 SECOND PERIOD— SECOND SECTION.
stand thou still upon Gibeon ; and thou, Moon, in the valley of
Ajalon," are only intelligible on the supposition that they were
spoken at Gibeon. There, in the thick of the fight, Joshua
wishes the sun to stand still, that he may have time to conquer
the enemy completely ; at the time of moonlight he hopes to
be at Ajalon, in pursuit of the fleeing enemy, and there the
moon is not to withdraw her light until he no longer requires
it. According to chap. xix. 42, Ajalon lay in what was after
wards the territory of the tribe of Dan, south-west of Gibeon, and
therefore in the region towards which the fleeing kings must
first turn, and where they afterwards actually went, near to
Azekah: Robinson, part iii. p. 278. The singer, therefore,
makes Joshua express the wish in the midst of the battle at
Gibeon, that the- sun and the moon might remain standing —
i.e. that the day might not draw to a close until the defeat of
the enemy should be complete. This wish was fully accom
plished ; and the singer narrates this in ver. 15, in such a way
as to continue the image which he has begun. Joshua con
quered the enemy so completely, that the day appeared to have
been lengthened, and to have become a double day. Then, in
ver. 14, the singer goes on to a general eulogium on the
splendour of this day. When he says that no day before or
after was so glorious as this, the words must be pressed in an
inadmissible way in order to draw from them a proof for the
miraculous lengthening of the day : comp. Ex. x. 14 ; 2 Kings
xviii. 5, xxiii. 25. Every great salvation presents certain
aspects in which it surpasses all others ; comp. Deut. xxxiii. 24,
where Asher is characterized as blessed among the sons of
Jacob, which might with equal truth be said of the rest.
According to Judg. v. 24, Jael appears as the most favoured
among women, which she was, however, only from certain
points of view. But the importance of this day must not be
estimated too low : it was in reality one of the greatest days of
Israelitish history ; it may be regarded as the day of the con
quest of Canaan.
The singer now concludes with the return of Joshua to
Gilgal. The details concerning the pursuit of the kings, the
occupation of their towns, etc., belonged to the history whose
thread he now takes up again with the author of the book of
Joshua.
FROM TAKING OF JERICHO TO DIVISION OF THE LAND. 445
When Joshua arrived in the vicinity of Makkedah, he re
ceived information that the five hostile kings had concealed
themselves in a cave near this town, which has never been re
discovered. He himself now set up his camp at Makkedah,
after having closed the mouth of the cave ; the lighter troops
he allowed to continue in pursuit of the enemy. These re
turned after they had pursued the enemy to their fortified
towns. The five kings were then drawn forth from their
hiding-place, and Joshua allowed his generals to tread upon
their necks. This symbolical act was intended to show Israel
in a palpable form the fulfilment of the promise, Deut. xxxiii.
29, and to fill them with courage for their future undertak
ings. In the person of the five kings, all Canaan as it were,
with its apparently invincible heights and fortresses, lay under
their feet. After Makkedah also had been taken, the army
again moved on, and conquered several more towns, almost all
in the territory of the tribe of Judah. The whole extent of
the conquests made in this march is thus described by the
author in ver. 41 : " And Joshua smote them from Kadesh-
barnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen even
unto Gibeon." Gaza is here named as the western limit of
the conquered territory ; Gibeon as the most northern, and as
the south-eastern Kadesh-barnea, in the wilderness of Pharan,
more particularly in the wilderness of Zin, which are related
to one another as the universal to the particular : comp. Keil
on Joshua x. 41. The land of Goshen was situated in the
southern part of the tribe of Judah. The enemy afterwards
succeeded in re-establishing themselves in some of the con
quered places. Hebron (with its Canaanitish race of giants,
the Anakim, which is not really nom. propr., but denotes men
of giant stature), which is here named among them, according
to chap, xv., must have been afterwards retaken by Caleb;
Debir, according to xv. 16, 17, by Caleb's son-in-law, Othniel.
This lay in the nature of the thing. There could be no
complete and continuous conquest except in connection with
colonization. When the complete and final expulsion of the
original inhabitants from Hebron, Debir, and other places is
elsewhere attributed to Joshua, Josh. xi. 21, he is only to
be regarded as the general under whose auspices individuals
carried out their conquests.
446 SECOND PERIOD— SECOND SECTION.
The victory over the kings of southern Canaan was. followed
by that over the northern Canaanites; like the former, the
result of a great campaign. The inhabitants of the region
round about the Sea of Gennesareth, and about the sources of
the Jordan at the foot of Antilebanon, had not yet been stirred
out of their indolent rest; they had not combined with the
inhabitants of the southern districts against the Israelites, in
which circumstance Calvin rightly perceives clear traces of
divine providence. Not until after these nations had been
conquered, when their danger had therefore become doubly
great, was their attention drawn to the Israelites ; and they
combined in one joint undertaking. At the head of this stood
Jabin, the king of Hazor, a town, according to Josh. xix. 39,
situated in the later territory of the tribe of Naphtali; according
to Josephus, Ant. v. 1, above the Samochonitic Sea. From the
fact that in the time of the Judges there was also a Canaan
itish king of the name of Hazor, it seems to follow that Jabin,
the Wise, was not nom. propr., but a hereditary title of the
kings of Hazor. From Josh. xi. 10 we infer that all the other
kings of that northern district stood in a certain relation of
dependence to the king of Hazor — a state of things which must
very easily have arisen in the constitution of the Canaanites,
and which also existed afterwards among the Phcenicians. The
danger of Israel was the greater, since the enemy had a large
number of warlike chariots. The enemy assembled near the
sea Merom — High Sea — so called as the uppermost of the seas
which the waters of the Jordan flow through; in Josephus,
Samochonitis — a shallow sea in which, after a short course of
three hours, the various sources of the Jordan collect, swelling
up at the time when the snow melts ; at other times generally a
swamp of rushes, now for the greater part of the year quite
dry, and used as a hunting-ground. In the plains of this sea
Joshua encountered the enemy, whose attack he had not ex
pected, thougli he had gone out to meet them; and here he
gained a glorious victory over them. Their fleeing remnant
he pursued to the region of Sidon, as far as Misrephot Mayim —
properly, " Burning of the waters ;' — a place having water with
which one can burn one's self ; in all probability hot springs,
not far from Sidon, as seems to follow from chap. xiii. 6.
Joshua commanded the horses which were taken to be houghed,
FROM TAKING OF JERICHO TO DIVISION OF THE LAND. 447
by which the horses not merely become useless, as is generally
supposed, but soon bleed to death ; the chariots he burnt.
The reason of this measure was not that the Israelites did not
then understand how to handle horses and chariots; it had
a higher aim. It symbolized what the Psalmist expresses:
" Some trust in chariots, and some in horses ; but we will re
member the name of the Lord our God:" Ps. xx. 7. This
was brought to his mind by the symbolic act. We must
not, however, conclude that the Israelites acted, or were in
tended to act, just in the same way in all similar cases. The
idea was satisfied by the one symbolic representation. This
formed a permanent exhortation to Israel : " If riches increase,
set not your heart upon them." The act considered as con
tinual would bear a fanatical character, and could not be ex
onerated from the reproach of being a tempting of God.
David had chariots and riders, and yet put his trust only in
the Lord. Joshua then conquered Hazor and the other towns
of the hostile kings, but only Hazor was burnt, as the head of
the impotent resistance against the Lord and His people, in
which, as in Jericho, the idea of the curse receives its outward
representation. The author then gives a recapitulation of all
the country which the Israelites conquered in this and the
former campaign, chap. xi. 16, 17 : " So Joshua took all that
land, the hills, and all the south country, and all the land of
Goshen, and the valley, and the plain, and the mountain of
Israel, and the valley of the same; even from the Mount
Halak, that goeth up to Seir, even unto Baal-gad, in the valley
of Lebanon, under Mount Hermon." The " smooth or bald
mountain," p?n in, bordering on Idumea, is here named as the
most southern part of the whole conquered district, and is not
mentioned elsewhere, but is certainly situated south of the
Dead Sea. The northern boundary, Baal-gad, is spoken of as
lying in the valley of Lebanon, .beneath Mount Hermon, and
therefore in the valley which separates Lebanon and the
majestic Hermon, the proper western boundary of Palestine,
the main source of the Jordan. Besides these, several separate
portions of the conquered land are given ; especially those
which had been taken in the previous campaign, because' those
taken on this occasion had already been mentioned. The
mountain range, the southern region, the land of Goshen, and
448 SECOND PERIOD — SECOND SECTION.
the depression, the Arabah, together form parts of the after-
tribe of Judah. The mountain range is the mountainous part
which forms the centre of the country, — the low country, the
district bordering on the Mediterranean Sea. The Arabah is
the hollow into which the Jordan flows, — hence the most
eastern part, in contradistinction from the low country, as the
most western. The other places named — the mount of
Israel and its depression (every place before mentioned was
already conquered in the first campaign) — formed principally
the after-territory of the tribe of Joseph. The mountain of
this tribe had been previously designated the mountain of
Israel, in contrast to the mountain of Judah, because already,
long before the separation of the two kingdoms, there was
a contrast between Judah and the rest of Israel, or the ten
tribes, which were represented by Joseph as the most impor
tant. The time when these conquests were made is not more
closely determined in the book of Joshua. It is merely stated
in chap. xi. 18 : " Joshua made war a long time with all those
kings." But the nearer determination may be indirectly drawn
from chap, xiv., if we assume, what is highly probable, that the
first division of land at Gilgal followed immediately upon the
termination of this war. Immediately before it, Caleb says,
in a speech to Joshua, that he is now eighty-five years of age.
And since Caleb, according to chap, xiv., was sent by Moses as
a spy in his fortieth year, in the beginning of the second year
after the exodus out of Egypt, therefore, from thirty-eight to
thirty-nine years of the life of Caleb passed away during the
march through the wilderness, leaving from six to seven years
for the conquest of Canaan. In the conclusion of chap. xi.
we read : " So Joshua took the whole land, according to all
that the Lord said unto Moses ; and the land rested from war."
These words must necessarily be understood with a certain
limitation. Their sense can only be this, that already, at that
time, when the power of the Canaanites had been broken by
the two great campaigns, the divine promise given to Moses was
fulfilled in its most important sense. Some of those nations
whose country had been given to the Israelites as an inheri
tance, had not yet been attacked by them at all. This was the
case with all the Phoenicians dwelling on the sea-coast, and with
all Lebanon, from Baal-gad northward, as far as Chamat in
DIVISION OF THE LAND. 449
Syria, the uttermost settlement of the Canaanitish race : comp.
the narrative in chap. xiii. 1-6. Eveii within the conquered
territory, some nationalities were either never completely sub
jugated, or soon recovered themselves. This is evident from
several statements of this book itself, and of the book of
Judges : it lies in the nature of the thing. It is impossible
that a nation so numerous and powerful as the Canaanites
could be completely exterminated, or driven away in two
campaigns. The principal event had already been accom
plished ; the power of the Canaanites in the south and north
was completely broken. But there was still great scope left
for the further activity of Israel, for further divine assistance.
The fulfilment of the divine promise, which had previously
been imperfect, served as a means for realizing the divine
plan. In the country of the Israelites themselves, and in its
nearest vicinity, God had prepared an instrument of punish
ment by which to avenge the apostasy of His people, as had
been already foretold by Moses.
§3.
DIVISION OF THE LAND.
Concerning this, Moses had already given instructions, Num.
xxvi. 52-56, comp. with chap, xxxiii. 54, which must here be
more particularly explained, because at the first glance they
seem to contain a contradiction. In the first passage we read :
"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Unto them the land
shall be divided for an inheritance, according to the number of
names. To many thou shalt give the more inheritance, and to
few thou shalt give the less inheritance ; to every one shall
his inheritance be given according to those that were num
bered of him. Notwithstanding the land shall be divided by
lot," etc. The twofold determination contained in these words,
that the land should be divided according to the greater or
smaller number, and that it should be parcelled out by lot,
appear to contradict one another. But the explanation is this :
The region which each tribe was to occupy is only generally
determined by lot, whether in the southern or northern part of
2 F
450 SECOND PERIOD SECOND SECTION.
the land, whether on the sea or on the Jordan, etc. By this
determination a multitude of otherwise unavoidable quarrels
were prevented. All opposition to the result obtained by lot
must appear as a murmuring against the providence of God,
because, in appointing this method, He gave the most definite
promise of His guidance. And when the territory was fixed in
this way, it lay with those who had been commissioned to carry
out the division to determine the extent and limits according to
the greater or smaller number of souls in each tribe, and at the
same time with reference to the fruitfulness of the country. '
The tribes among which the land was to be divided were
twelve in number; although Levi, in accordance with the
special destiny to which it had been appointed by God, re
ceived no territory, but was commanded to dwell in separate
towns which should be allotted to it, scattered throughout all
Israel. For Jacob had received Joseph's two sons, Ephraim
and Manasseh, in the stead of children, and had placed them
in exactly the same relation with his other sons, Gen. xlviii. 5.
He had taken away from Reuben his right to a double portion
of the inheritance, which was connected with the birthright,
Deut. xxi. 17, on account of his incest, and had transferred it
to Joseph on account of the great benefits which he had shown
to his family in Egypt.
As already recorded, Moses directed that the land should be
divided among these twelve tribes in the same way and at the
same time. But circumstances occurred which hindered the
complete carrying out of this regulation. First, the demand of
the tribes of Reuben and Gad that the region already con
quered beyond the Jordan should be allotted to them on
account of their wealth in flocks, which made this district
specially appropriate for them. Moses yielded to their de
mand, but under the condition that they should none the
less cross the Jordan, and help to take Canaan proper. He
also granted the demands made by a portion of the tribe of
Manasseh to the most northern part of the trans-Jordanic terri
tory, by permitting them alone to complete the conquest of it.
From the analogy of the half-tribe of Manasseh we can reason
respecting the two other tribes. If Manasseh's territory, the
former kingdom of Og of Bashan, were assigned to him because
he had conquered it, the same would hold good with reference
DIVISION OF THE LAND. 451
to Reuben and Gad. They certainly do not expressly mention
the claim which they had gained to the country by their deeds
of arms ; but this is only modesty. They say, " The country
which the Lord smote before the congregation of Israel," with
drawing behind Jehovah and Israel, in whose service and
stead they had acted ; but the claim stands in the background.
The mere number of their flocks, which they doubtless gained
in conquering the land of Sihon, would not have been a
sufficient motive ; the demand would have been presump
tuous, and would not have been regarded by Moses if it had
not had such a foundation. The country beyond the Jordan
was therefore assigned to these two and a half tribes without
lot ; the first among the three general divisions which occurred.
Let us learn somewhat more accurately the district and seat
which the tribes received. The western boundary of it is the
Jordan, the eastern the Arabian desert, the southern the brook
Arnon, the northern Mount Hermon. This whole district
bears in Scripture in a wide sense the name of Gilead. Accord
ing to other passages, when Gilead is taken in a stricter sense
it is divided into the two districts Gilead and Bashan. The
tribe of Reuben receives the most southern part of this whole
district, separated on the south from the Moabites by the brook
Arnon. Its northern boundary began somewhere above the
Dead Sea. This region had been completely in possession of
the Amorites, was then taken from them by the Moabites, and
was finally retaken by them. On its borders, parallel to the
north end of the Dead Sea, lay its old royal city Hesbon, now
Hesban. Reuben was followed by Gad, separated by Jabbok
on the east from the country of the Amorites, whom the Israel
ites might not drive out from their possessions because they
were blood-relations. The half-tribe Manasseh received the
most northern part of the country beyond the Jordan, the most
northern part of Gilead in a strict sense, and all Bashan. Of
this portion of territory North Gilead fell to the race of
Machir, by whom it had been taken. Bashan was assigned
to Jair, a valiant hero.
According to this division, made by the authority of Moses,
there were therefore only nine and a half tribes to provide for.
The main camp was still at Gilgal. There, at the time already
named, after the close of the campaign narrated, Joshua deter-
452 SECOND PERIOD — SECOND SECTION.
mined to undertake the division of the land. The reason
which called forth this determination just at the present time
was probably the conviction, that permanent possession of the
country in all its various parts could only be obtained in con
nection with colonization. Yet this determination was very
imperfectly fulfilled at that time. Only the tribes of Judah,
Ephraim, and half-Manasseh received their territory. The
cause of the incomplete accomplishment is not expressly given
in the narrative. Yet it may be gathered with some proba
bility from several hints, although considerable obscurity
remains, and the matter requires far more thorough and pro
found discussion than it has recently received from Keil. In
the division Joshua acted on the fundamental axiom, that all
the land not yet conquered should be considered as conquered,
and must also be parcelled out by lot, ch. xiii. 6. In this spirit
he regulated the size of the first-drawn lot of the tribe of
Judah and of the tribe of Ephraim. So great an extent was
given to these tribes, that the greater part of the country
which was already conquered fell to them alone. But the
remaining tribes were not satisfied with this. Their confidence
in the divine promise was not so great that, like Joshua, the
hero of faith, they could be as sure of the land that had
still to be conquered as of that already conquered. They
would prefer still to continue their unsettled life for a period
rather than acknowledge the division. They wished to see
first how it would go with the further occupation of the land,
in order, in case it should prove unfavourable, to lay claim to
a portion of the territory of the tribes of Judah and Joseph.
That this was the case appears from the fact that, in the later
third division at Shiloh, the promised land was not parcelled
out, but only the conquered land, and that the tribes of Judah
and Ephraim were obliged to give up part of their territory.
The tribe of Benjamin was inserted between the two ; the
tribe of Dan received its possessions westwards, between the
two ; then Judah was obliged to cede a portion of Simeon.
Let us now speak particularly of the distribution at Gilgal.
Before the drawing of lots had commenced, according to Josh.
xiv. 6 ff., Caleb, called the Kenezite— i.e. the descendant of a
certain Kenaz, of whom nothing further is known — came
before Joshua, accompanied by the representatives of the tribe
DIVISION OF THE LAND. 453
of Judah, which, in order to give more weight to the private
petition of one of its citizens, treated it as a general one, and
demanded the region round about Hebron, as promised to him,
in reward for his faithfulness to the Lord amid the unfaithful
ness of the other spies who were sent out with him. The
event may be found narrated in Num. xiii. and Deut. i. In
the latter passage, in ver. 36, mention is made of a promise
given by Moses to Caleb, yet without an exact definition of the
portion of land to be given to Caleb, which is also wanting in
Num. xiv. 24. It is only stated, that the Lord would give him
and his sons the land which he had trodden. That this has re
ference to Hebron and its environs, where, according to Num.
xiv. 24, the spies remained for a long time, we first learn
with full certainty from the narrative in the book of Joshua.
Caleb's intention in now demanding the fulfilment of this obli
gation was probably to separate his fate from that of his
tribe, which was to be settled by lot. Joshua does nothing
further than to give him Hebron ; and, according to ch. xv. 1,
the tribe of Judah received its territory by lot. It was a
decree of divine providence that the lot should have fallen so
that Caleb received his inheritance in his tribe. Moreover, it
follows from ch. xx. 7, comp. with ch. xxi. 4, that the town
of Hebron was afterwards ceded by Caleb to the Levites, as
part of their possession, in consequence of its choice as a free
city for unintentional murder, — for such cities were always
obliged to be Levitical. Caleb could accede to this the more
readily, since he retained what was most important for him,
viz. the surrounding district.
In all probability the drawing of lots was so ordered that in
one of the vessels were placed the names of the twelve tribes, in
the other the designations of the twelve portions of land. As
soon as the lot of one tribe was drawn, before proceeding
further, the limits of this tribe were determined in proportion
to the number of its members. Some — for example, Masius and
Bachiene — have thought that Joshua's previous intention at
Gilgal was only to allow the two tribes, Judah and Joseph, to
draw lots* between themselves, and to defer the distribution of
the land among the other tribes until the remaining territory
should be conquered. But this view is at variance with the
narrative in the book of Joshua. According to chap. xiv. 1 ff.
454 SECOND PERIOD — SECOND SECTION.
Joshua and the high priest had no other idea than to allow all
the tribes to draw lots. The drawing of lots can therefore only
have been interrupted by the circumstances already mentioned.
If this were not so, we cannot see why at least a few of the
tribes besides Judah and Ephraim should not also have drawn
lots, since in any case there would have been space enough for
them in the land already conquered, even if Judah and Joseph
had retained the whole of their territory ; as is sufficiently
shown by the subsequent division at Shiloh, between which and
that at Gilgal no important conquests were made.
The first lot fell to the tribe of Judah. As the most
numerous tribe, he received the largest territory, the district
south of Gilgal in its whole extent between the Dead Sea and
the Mediterranean.
The next lot fell to the children of Joseph. Several, as for
example Calvin, think that Ephraim and Manasseh had each a
separate lot. The fact that the lots are in close succession,
and that both districts immediately adjoined one another, they
attribute to a special working of divine providence. But this
already gives more probability to the other view, which supposes
that there was only a common lot for Ephraim and Manasseh,
and that they afterwards divided the land which they had
received in this way by lot between themselves. This view is
confirmed by the narrative, chap. xvi. 1 ff., where mention is
made only of a common lot of the children of Ephraim. In
this way it came about that the brethren received their inherit
ance together. Of this common inheritance the tribe of
Ephraim received the southern portion. The brook Cana
formed the boundary between the two. Ephraim occupied
the whole breadth of the land. For both sea and Jordan
come into the settlement of the boundary. Between it and
Judah lay the tribes of Dan and Benjamin, according to the
later determination at Shiloh, which lies at the basis of the
statement of the boundaries.
The third division among the seven tribes which still
remained occurred at Shiloh, a place whose ruins even now bear
the name Seilun : comp. Robinson, iii. p. 303 ff. Thither the
tabernacle of the covenant was transferred from Gilgal. Joshua
chose Shiloh, probably because it lay in the tribe of Ephraim, to
which he himself belonged, in order to have the tabernacle of
DIVISION OF THE LAND. 455
the covenant in the neighbourhood. Add to this that Shiloh
was almost in the middle of Canaan, and was therefore easily
accessible to all the tribes. There the sanctuary remained for
some centuries, during the whole time of the Judges, until,
towards the end of this period, it was transferred to Nob, owing
to a cause which will be narrated hereafter.
Joshua had by this time perceived that the indolence and
want of faith of the Israelites would render the accomplishment
of the earlier plan, viz. the whole distribution of the promised
land, impossible. Since the distribution at Shiloh nothing of
any consequence had been done towards the conquest of the
land that still remained. He must therefore content himself
with the distribution of the country already conquered, at least
in the mass, in order not to leave undone the commission given
him by the Lord to distribute the land. The division was
now carried out with the greatest precision and foresight. By
Joshua's command Judah and Joseph were to retain their
inheritance in those districts which had formerly been allotted
to them. One-and-twenty men from the tribes which still
remained, three out of every tribe, were to traverse the country,
take a geographical survey of it, and divide it into seven parts.
In this the Israelites were doubtless assisted by the Egyptian
school. Ancient authors, especially Herodotus, ii. 109, Strabo,
xvii. 787, Diod. Sic. i. 69, agree in maintaining that Egypt was
the fatherland of geographical survey and measurement. The
condition of the country must necessarily have led to this
invention at a very early period ; for, by the overflow of the
Nile, boundaries were annually made unrecognisable. We can
scarcely suppose but that the persons who were sent out by
Joshua made plans or charts of the land, although this is not
expressly stated : comp. Clericus on chap. xvii. 2. But there
was probably no geometrical measurement of the land in detail:
comp. Keil on the other side. After the land had been sur
veyed in this way, the districts were assigned to the seven tribes
by lot. The first lot fell upon the tribe of Benjamin. Its
northern limit was the southern boundary of the tribe of
Ephraim, already mentioned; its southern limit the northern
boundary of Judah ; on the east it bordered on the Jordan ;
and on the west, about the centre of the country, on the tribe
of Dan, by which it was shut out from the Mediterranean Sea.
456 SECOND PERIOD— SECOND SECTION.
After Benjamin's lot came that of Simeon. Of him we read in
Josh. xix. 1 : " And their inheritance was within the inheritance
of the children of Judah." This is generally understood to
mean that Simeon had a district with definite boundaries, but
enclosed round about by the tribe of Judah. But such is not
probable, for the reason that, in this case, the boundaries of
Simeon are not given, as in all the other tribes, but only
an enumeration of the towns in his possession. And these
towns are too far distant from one another to give any proba
bility to the hypothesis of a common territory. Moreover, on
this supposition, it would be impossible to explain the statement
of the dying Jacob in Gen. xlix. 7, that the descendants of
Simeon should be no less scattered than those of Levi, on
account of the crime perpetrated by the two ancestors together.
According to this, therefore, it is far more probable that Simeon
only received mere unconnected towns in Judah, with their
environs, which also explains why he is omitted in the bless
ing of Moses. The blessing of Judah concerned him also.
The third place was taken by Zebulun. It seems that this tribe
must have touched' the sea ; for, otherwise, neither would the
blessing of Jacob have been fulfilled — where special prominence
is given to the fact that Zebulun would enjoy the privilege of
living on the sea-coast — nor the blessing of Moses, where the
sea is also assigned to him as a limit. But the bordering on
the sea seems to be entirely excluded by the passage Josh.
xvii. 10, comp. with xix. 26, where we read that the tribe
of Manasseh bordered northwards on Asher, and that Asher
stretched as far as the promontory Carmel, on the Mediterranean
Sea. The explanation is this : In the blessing of Jacob and
Moses no special mention is made of the tribe of Zebulun as
such ; but only in connection with the name Zebulun, dwelling,
prominence is given to the advantages which Israel generally
enjoyed by their dwelling on the sea, since most of the blessings
are not individual, but are only applications of the universal
blessing. It is only false interpretation which would draw
from Josh. xix. 11 that Zebulun bordered on the sea. DD^
does not there mean usque ad mare, but westwards.
The tribe of Issachar received the fourth lot. Its northern
boundary was the tribe of Zebulun ; its eastern boundary, the
lowest part of the Sea of Tiberias, and the Jordan ; its southern
DIVISION OF THE LAND. 457
boundary, the tribe of Ephraim ; its western boundary, the
tribe of Manasseh, by which it was cut off from the Mediter
ranean Sea. To it belonged the eastern part of the extremely
fruitful plain of Israel, now Esdraelon. The fifth lot fell upon
the children of the tribe of Asher. It was a narrow, but very
long stretch of land, extending from Carmel northwards to
Lebanon and Hermon ; yet the most northern districts probably
never came completely into possession of the tribe. Its western
limit was partly the Mediterranean Sea, partly Phoenicia ; its
eastern limit was reckoned from north to south. The colony
of the Danites in the spring-land of the Jordan, the tribes of
Naphtali, Zebulun, and Issachar. Its southern boundary the
tribe of Manasseh. The sixth lot fell to the children of Naph
tali. It bordered, we read in Josh. xix. 34, on the south on
Zebulun, on the west on Asher, and on the east on Judah at
the Jordan. These latter words have given great difficulty to
expositors. The correct explanation has been established by
Raumer, in his Palestine, 4th edit. p. 233, and in his contri
butions to Biblical Geography. Judah on the Jordan is the
district of Bashan, the inheritance of Jair, who was descended
on his father's side from Judah, on his mother's side from
Manasseh, comp. the genealogy in 1 Chron. ii. 21-23, to which
latter tribe he is generally reckoned, because he was a bastard
son. The seat of the last tribe, Dan (already sufficiently
denoted), was between Judah, Ephraim, the Mediterranean
Sea, and Benjamin. He had a territory difficult 'to conquer,
and still more difficult to maintain. Afterwards the Danites,
oppressed by the Amorites, who had re-established themselves
in their former territory and robbed them of the best part of
their land, undertook a march into the most northern part of
Palestine, the cradle-land of the Jordan, above the tribe of
Naphtali, and there founded a colony whose capital, Leshem or
Laish, which they had conquered, received through them the
name of Dan.
After the division had been completed, progress was made
towards the execution of the Mosaic decree respecting the
establishment of free cities. Moses found the habit of blood-
revenge common among his people, or the custom that the
relatives of a murdered man must kill the murderer, under
penalty of indelible shame ; a custom so firmly rooted among the
458 SECOND PERIOD — SECOND SECTION.
race allied to the Hebrews — the Arabians — that it could not
be eradicated by the means which Mohammed instituted against
it in the Koran. The injurious consequences of this custom
need scarcely be pointed out. The punishment often fell upon
those who were quite innocent, because the avenger of blood
allowed himself to be deceived by a false report. It involved
the rash manslaughterer no less than the intentional murderer.
One murder gave rise to an endless succession of others,
especially since a private affair was frequently taken up by
the tribe, as the history of the Arabs shows. The nimbus in
which the blood-revenge was clothed must on the whole have
had a strong tendency to promote coarseness and cruelty ; as
we have melancholy proof in the writings of the Arabs before
Mohammed. But this very nimbus made it extremely difficult
to root out the custom, as we may perceive from the analogy
of duels. The manner in which Moses sought to eradicate the
injurious custom justified itself by the result. He ordained
that the Israelites, after the occupation of the land, should
establish free cities of refuge from the avengers of blood,
Num. xxxv. ; Deut. xix. The roads to these cities, which were
situated in all parts of the land, were to be kept carefully in
repair. In order to give the places a special sanctity, they
were all to be Levitical towns. If the perpetrator fortunately
arrived in one of these cities, investigation was first of all made
whether he was a murderer or a manslaughterer. If the
former, he was given up by justice to the avenger of blood —
in which respect the law gave way to established custom. By
the enactment that the murderer was to be dragged away, even
from the altar, and was to die, Ex. xxi. 14, the asylums of
the Israelites were essentially distinguished from those of the
Greeks and Romans, and also of the middle ages, which
afforded protection to criminals of every kind. If the perpe
trator were found innocent, the free city was a sure place of
refuge for him. He dared not, however, venture beyond the
limits of it. If the avenger of blood were to meet him outside
the city, he might kill him ; in which circumstance there was
also a concession to the prevailing custom. Not until after the
death of the then high priest, which, as a country-wide calamity,
had a softening and conciliating effect upon the minds of all,
durst the murderer return to his native town with perfect safety.
DIVISION OF THE LAND. 459
In vain do Baumgarten and Keil attribute atoning significance
to the death of the high priest. This banishment served a
double end. It spared the pain of the relatives of the murdered
man, which, aroused by the constant sight of the murderer,
might easily have driven them to the perpetration of revenge ;
and at the same time testimony was borne to the value of man's
blood iu the sight of God, who thus punished even an unin
tentional shedding of it. Compare the copious exposition in
Michaelis, Mos. Recht, ii. § 131 ff.
The time had now come when the Levites were also to
receive the maintenance destined for them. It was enjoined
by law, Num. xxxv., that every tribe, in proportion to its size,
should cede certain cities, with their immediate environs — as
much as would suffice to pasture their cattle. The number of
these cities amounted in all to forty-eight. At first sight this
provision appears too large, for a tribe so comparatively small
in numbers. But this semblance disappears when we consider
that the cities were inhabited not by the Levites alone, but
also by their artisans, etc., from other tribes, who in some cases
constituted the greater part of the population : comp. Lev.
xxv. 33 ; 1 Chron. vi. 40, 41. The distribution of these cities
among the Levites was accomplished in the following manner :
The tribe of Levi was divided into four minor sections. Levi
had three sons : Gershom, Kohath, and Merari. The race of
the Kohathites was again divided into a double section, the
priestly and the non-priestly. Thus Aaron was Kohath's
descendant through Amram, and in his posterity, by the Mosaic
decree, the hereditary priesthood was exclusively bound up.
Of the four sons of Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and
Ithamar, the two former died in his lifetime, leaving no chil
dren. Eleazar and Ithamar therefore became the ancestors of
the whole priestly race. These, so far as we can judge, were,
even in the Mosaic time, surrounded by a considerable number
of sons and grandsons ; and it is only by a misunderstanding
of Num. iii. 4 that Colenso assumes that there were at that
time only three priests. He takes Eleazar and Ithamar to
be merely individuals, whereas they ought rather to be con
sidered as heads of races. Aaron died in the last year of the
march through the wilderness, at an age of 123 years, so that
the priestly race at his death might already have branched out
460 SECOND PERIOD— SECOND SECTION.
far and wide. After these four divisions, the forty-eight cities
were divided into four lots. By a special decree of divine pro
vidence it happened that the priestly race received the cities in
Judah, Simeon, and Benjamin, and therefore in the neighbour
hood of Jerusalem, afterwards the seat of the sanctuary. The
discrepancies between the list of the Levitical towns in the
book of Joshua and that in 1 Chron. vii. are most easily
explained by the fact that a few of the towns assigned to the
Levites were at that time still in possession of the Canaanites,
and because the hope of immediate conquest proved deceitful,
were provisionally replaced by others, which were afterwards
retained to escape the inconvenience of changing.
§4.
RETURN OP THE TRANS-JORDANIC TRIBES. — JOSHUA'S LAST
EXHORTATIONS. — ACCOUNTS GIVEN IN OTHER PLACES
OF THE HISTORY OF JOSHUA. — CONDITION OE THE
ISRAELITES UNDER HIM.
After the distribution of the land, the two and a half tribes
were dismissed to their territory by Joshua. The departure
took place at Shiloh. A decree which met them upon their
way back had almost given rise to a bloody civil war ; the
event is of importance so far as it shows us how the strict
judgments of God in the wilderness, and His manifestations
of grace on the taking of the land, did not fall short of their
aim, since they had inspired even the mass of the people with
the desire to be well-pleasing to the Lord, and with holy awe
of incurring His displeasure by neglect of His commands.
When the tribes had come to the Jordan, therefore to the
eastern boundary of the land of Canaan in the stricter sense,
they there built an altar, on the shore on this side, not on the
opposite side, as some have supposed, contrary to the clear,
literal sense, and with total misapprehension of the meaning of
the act. Their intention was that this altar, an image of the
altar in the tabernacle of the covenant, should bear witness to
posterity that its builders had communia sacra with those in
RETURN OF THE TRANS-JORDANIC TRIBES. 461
whose land it was built, had part and inheritance in the Lord.
The trans-Jordanic country was never expressly mentioned in
the promises to the patriarchs, which is remarkable, and shows
that they were not made only post eventum. They feared that
because the land on their side of the Jordan was the true land
of promise, the seat of the sanctuary of the Lord, the de
scendants of the tribes on this side might, at a future time,
contest with them the participation in the prerogatives of the
covenant-nation, and exclude them from the sanctuary of the
Lord. In accordance with the spirit of antiquity, as it speaks
most characteristically in the words of Joshua to the nation on
another opportunity, chap. xxiv. 27, " Behold this stone shall
be a witness unto us ; for it hath heard all the words of the
Lord which He spake unto us," they believed that they could
meet this danger in no better way ; and the very fact that they
sought so carefully to meet it shows that faith had struck its
roots into them. They did not transgress the command of
Moses to build no other altar besides that in the tabernacle of
the covenant. What they erected bore the name of an altar
only in a figurative sense. They had no intention of sacri
ficing there, in opposition to Deut. xii. 13, " Take heed to thy
self that thou offer not thy burnt-offerings in every place that
thou seest." Their altar was nothing more than an image and
memorial. They were to blame only in not telling their plan
and design previously to Joshua and the high priest Eleazar,
and obtaining their approval.
The news of their undertaking caused great disturbance
among the tribes on this side, who were ignorant of its object.
It did not indeed occur to them that the altar was dedicated
to another god than the God of Israel ; so flagrant an apostasy
could not have been imagined at that time. But the opinion
was that they wished to honour the true God by sacrifice in
a self-chosen place, and even this appeared as the beginning of
a greater and complete apostasy, to guard against which had
been the very object of the law relative to the unity of the
sanctuary. The e&eXodpno-Keia with regard to places leads to
the e6eXodpr}o-Kela with regard to objects of worship. This is
the deepest reason of the Mosaic regulation. Worship must
be withdrawn from the province of caprice, from the invention
of the nation. Just as they were to worship God not after
462 SECOND PERIOD— SECOND SECTION.
their own subjective ideas, but as He had revealed Himself, so
also they were to worship Him where He had revealed Himself,
where He had promised to be. The people flocked together
to Shiloh, determined to prevent the intended evil. But before
going any further, Phinehas, the son of Eleazar the high
priest, who had formerly distinguished himself by his zeal for
the Lord, comp. Num. xxv., was sent in company with the
ten princes of the tribes to the two and a half tribes, in har
mony with the regulation in Deut. xiii. 15, according to which
the truth of the report of such evil was first to be examined
into, before proceeding to punishment. His address to them
is earnest and severe. The answer of the two and a half tribes
removes the misunderstanding, restores peace, and awakens
great joy.
With the distribution of the land Joshua had fulfilled his
vocation. He now retired to his town Timnath-Serach upon
Mount Ephraim, chap. xix. 50, and there spent the last years
of his pilgrimage in quiet retirement. When he perceived
that his end was approaching he sent for the people — i.e., as
appears from the limiting definition in chap, xxiii. 2 and xxiv.
1, the representatives and officers of the nation, perhaps also
those who had repaired voluntarily to the prescribed place of
assembling — and there addressed them in the affecting speeches
related in chaps, xxiii. and xxiv. Some — for example, Calvin
and Maurer — have assumed that both chapters contain one and
the same address of Joshua, uttered at Sichem — the former by
extract, the latter in detail. But Masius, on chap, xxiii., has
already pointed out the contrary very clearly. The new men
tion of the assembly of the whole people, and of the place
where it was convened, in chap, xxiv., is totally inexplicable on
the other hypothesis. The place where the first discourse was
held— -in which Joshua begins by reminding the nation of all
the mercies of the Lord, and then represents to them the bless
ings which they have to expect if they are faithful, and the
punishments if they are unfaithful — is not defined. And just
because this is not done, we must conclude that the assembly
was held at Shiloh, beside the holy tent, which from Josh.
xviii. 1 to the death of Joshua appears throughout as the
centre of the nation.
JOSHUA'S LAST EXHORTATIONS. 463
The second, and far more solemn assembly, was called at
Sichem. The reason why a second assembly was convened
lies in the character of the place. It gave the people an in
citement which had been wanting in Shiloh. The LXX.
regarded it as so strange that Shiloh should not rather have
served for the place of assembling, that they substituted Shiloh
for Sichem. Some think they can explain it from the sole
circumstance that Sichem was the place where the rulers of the
people were assembled in order to bury the bones of Joseph,
comp. xxiv. 32. It is at least possible that this happened at
that time, although it might equally well have happened before
(which is even more probable), since in the passage referred to
it is only told by way of supplement. But in no case is this
supposition necessary to explain the choice of Sichem. We
have already seen that it was a place especially hallowed by
memorials of the patriarchs. There the patriarch Jacob had
undertaken a similar consecration of his house, comp. Josh.
xxiv. 23, 26 with Gen. xxxv. 2-4. Shiloh had nothing of the
kind to show; already the name of the town, from fw, to
be at rest, and the way in which, in the book of Joshua, it
is combined with the observation that the whole land rested
from war, chap, xviii. 1, appears to indicate that the town
was first founded by the Israelites, and increased rapidly ; be
cause, by means of the national sanctuary, it had become the
national centre. Sichem had received new meaning through
Joshua himself, who there solemnly renewed the covenant with
the Lord, immediately after the first entering the land ; and
perpetuated this renewal by a memorial. Owing to this very
circumstance, it must have appeared to Joshua specially fitted for
his present design, because it was his intention, before his end,
to constrain the people once more to keep the covenant. From
the circumstance that in ver. 1 it is said that the Israelites
appeared before the Lord at. Sichem, many have supposed that
Joshua had either the ark of the covenant alone, or else the
whole sacred tabernacle brought to Sichem. iTifV "oafs, cer
tainly, is not unfrequently used of the ark of the covenant, and
there is no lack of examples of its having been brought from
its usual place to another on special occasions. But it follows
from chap. xxiv. 26 that this was not the case here; at least
we are not at liberty to assume that the words " before God,"
464 SECOND PERIOD— SECOND SECTION.
Wrban Vtb, have reference to it. Here we read : " And Joshua
took a great stone, and set it up there under the oak (not, as
some maintain, an oak) that was by the sanctuary of the Lord."
By the " sanctuary of the Lord" it is impossible here to under
stand the ark of the covenant, or the tent, because we read that
the oak stands in it. But even if we were to grant that the
sy'lpDl might here mean " in the neighbourhood of the sanc
tuary," although the 3 can never exactly mean " near to," it
would yet be quite unsuitable to say that the oak was beside
the ark of the covenant, since the latter would rather have been
beside the former. The ark would only have been here tem
porarily, while the oak remained permanently. Evidently it
is the author's object to give an exact definition of the place
where the memorial was. But how could the ark of the cove
nant or the tent serve as such, when it might perhaps be carried
away again on the following day? Without doubt the correct
view is the following : The oak is that tree under which
Abraham had his first vision of the Lord, after his immigration
into Canaan, and near which he had built an altar : comp. Gen.
xii. 6, 7. Under the same oak Jacob had afterwards buried
the idols which his wives had brought with them from Meso
potamia, ch. xxxv. 4. The environs of this oak were sacred by
the events which had occurred there. They were therefore
called BHpD, sanctuary ; just as Jacob called the place where
he had a vision ba rVO, " the house of God." Great was the
number of sanctuaries in this sense in Canaan, because great
had been the revelations of the Lord in the past. Their recog
nition was not at variance with the law respecting the unity of
the sanctuary. For this had reference only to the sanctuary as
a place of sacrifice. Here, therefore, where the nearness of
God was especially palpable, Joshua summoned the nation
before God. And here he begins by recounting to the
Israelites the whole series of the benefits of God, beginning
with the call of Abraham. The only difficulty we have is that
in ver. 12 it is said that the Lord sent hornets before the
Israelites, which destroyed the Canaanites out of their land.
We find no mention of this in the book of Joshua. Never
theless many expositors have thought it necessary to assume
that a number of the Canaanites were really driven away by
hornets. The Catholics were the less able to do otherwise,
JOSHUA'S LAST EXHORTATIONS. 465
since in the Book of Wisdom, chap. xii. 8, the plague of hornets
seems to be narrated as a historical occurrence. Some try to
meet the objection drawn from the silence of the book of
Joshua by supposing that reference is here made to an event
prior to the occupation of the Israelites — a view whose unten-
ableness, however, may readily be shown. In order to prove
the possibility of the thing, those passages have carefully been
collated which tell of great damages caused by flies, wasps, etc. :
comp. Bochart, Hieroz. ii. 4, 13. But neither here nor in the
promises, Ex. xxiii. 28, Deut. vii. 20, to which Joshua alludes,
and which he characterizes as fulfilled, is there any argument
in favour of the view that the sending of hornets by the Lord
is to be understood literally ; which would only be the case if
the history told of a literal fulfilment. With equal justice we
might also maintain that ch. xxiii. 13 is to be understood
literally, where we read that the Canaanites were made " snares
and traps " to the rebellious Israelites, 'scourges in their side and
thorns in the eyes. We find similar images elsewhere : comp.
Deut. i. 44; Isa. vii. 18. The hornets are an image of the
divine terror, by which the minds of the Canaanites were first
made soft and cowardly, so that they lost the power of resist
ance, as appears from Ex. xxiii. 28, comp. with ver. 27.
Augustine already takes this view, August. Qucest. 27 in Josh. :
"Acerrimos timoris stimulos quibus quodammodo volantibus
rumoribus pungebantur ut fugerent." Joshua then puts to the
nation the solemn question, whether they will continue to serve
the Lord. And when this is answered in the affirmative, and
reiterated in the affirmative, after he has placed before the
nation all the greatness of the promise, he solemnly renews the
covenant of the Lord with them. On this renewal a document
was written and appended to the law of Moses, to the Pen
tateuch, which lay by the side of the ark of the covenant.
Later, when the book of Joshua had been composed, and the
original documents had been incorporated in this, it ceased to
be appended to the Pentateuch. Some, indeed, try to under
stand ver. 26, where this particular is recorded, as referring to
the whole book of Joshua ; but the entire context speaks so
clearly against this view, that its origin can only be attributed
to the effort to make the book itself bear testimony to its having
been composed by Joshua. Not long afterwards Joshua
2G
466 SECOND PERIOD— SECOND SECTION.
died at the age of 110 years (about the year of the world
2570). In ancient times much trouble was taken to find in heathen
authors confirmations of the history of Joshua. In this respect
those were most in error who made him the Hercules of
the Greeks, a jeu d 'esprit which now scarcely deserves men
tion. But, with special interest, in the same spirit in which
people now in England inquire concerning the ten tribes of
Israel, investigations were made concerning the region to which
the Canaanites who fled before Israel repaired. There is
scarcely any country of the earth in which some one has not
placed the escaped Canaanites, drawing a strong proof for his
assumption from the names of countries, places, and nations.
It would be loss of time for us to subject these productions of
a vain imagination to profound examination. Even the opinion,
which has comparatively the best foundation, that the Canaan
ites fled to Africa, and especially to Numidia, of which theory
the main support is a passage from the late and uncertain
Procopius (Vand. ii. 20), does not deserve a thorough exa
mination. We refer to the discussion of Anton v. Dale,
at the end of the work de origine et progressu idololatrias,
Amstld. 1696, p. 749 sqq., after reading which it will ap
pear incomprehensible how Bertheau can still, maintain that
scarcely any objection can be made to its authenticity ; or how
Lengerke can speak of the well-known authentic inscription.
At all events it is certain that the Canaanites were not all de
stroyed by the sword of the Israelites. Yet there is nothing
inconsistent with the supposition that those who did not perish,
nor, like the Jebusites, maintain themselves for a long period in
the land taken by the Israelites, in that part of the country
which had not been reached by the conquests of the Israelites,
may have found refuge in Phoenicia and in the district of
Lebanon and Antilebanon. It is also possible that a portion of
these fugitive Canaanites may have helped to form Phcenician
colonies. But it is improbable that great hosts of them emi
grated and peopled whole countries, which is certainly not war
ranted by any consideration.
We shall now make a few observations on the history of,
religion in Joshua's time. That in this period there was no
further advance of the Old Testament principle, such as took
RELIGION IN JOSHUA'S TIME. 467
place afterwards by the prophets, may be inferred from the
character of it, as portrayed in the previous historical sketch ;
so that we must regard it a priori as a totally useless under
taking when Ewald here tries to insert a whole series of religious
institutions, which he has torn away from their natural soil, that
of the Mosaic time. Inter arma silent leges. The main theme
of the age was rather an external one — that of putting Israel in
possession of the promised land, and so securing the condition
of future development. The most fitting emblem for this
period is the Angel of God with the drawn sword^ which meets
us just on its threshold. Joshua himself, the representative of
Israel at this time, is throughout a warlike figure. Already
the Pentateuch places him in remarkable contrast with Moses.
But at the same time this period was entrusted with the
task of exercising the nation in obedience to the law given
by Moses, of teaching them to learn this law by heart. And
the latter aim, as we have already fully seen, was attained
in a high degree. In Judg. ii. 7 we read : " And the people
served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of
the elders that outlived Joshua, who had seen all the great
works of the Lord that He did for Israel." Yet this ap
plies, as is self-evident, only to the mass of the people ; it
would clash with all experience and with the scriptural idea
of human nature if we were to assume that every individual
among the Israelites was free from idolatry. Idolatry was, as
unbelief is now, the form in which at that time the mind of
the natural man appeared. We can never separate it from this
its basis, and regard it as something accidental, as an incom
prehensible absurdity. Among the mass of the Israelites this
natural tendency was suppressed and hindered from breaking
out, if not completely destroyed, partly through love to the
true God, whose magnanimous acts they had just experienced,
partly through fear of Him and of the strict control of His
servant Joshua. How distinctly Joshua stands out in the fore
ground at this time, and how little it helps the current inter
change of theocracy and hierarchy, appears from the remark of
Paulus : "This high priest (Eleazar) must have led Joshua with
great delicacy, since his name appears so little in the history,
while Joshua seems to do everything." Nevertheless we cannot
but suppose that individuals transgressed this barrier, and if
468 SECOND PERIOD— SECOND SECTION.
not openly, yet in secret, practised idolatry — or at least did
homage to subordinate gods besides the true God. For it is very
difficult to conceive the complete non-existence of the heathen
deities, those giant images, which had the consensus gentium
against it. But we can prove by definite testimony that it was
so. Joshua says in his farewell speech, chap. xxiv. 14 : " And
put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side
of the flood, and in Egypt ;" and ver. 23 : " Now, therefore, put
away the strange gods which are among you." It is true that
Augustine in the Quaest. 29 in Josuam, Calvin, and recently
Keil, have supposed that reference was here made, not to exter
nal idolatry, but to idolatrous fancies and thoughts. But if
these cannot be excluded in any way, the words clearly imply
the putting away of literal idols. And, moreover, it is impossible
to conceive of idolatrous thoughts without an effort after their
realization in idolatrous worship. That the fear of God had
not become absolutely universal also appears from chap. xxii.
17, where the messengers of the ten tribes say to the two and a
half tribes to which they are sent : "Is the iniquity of Peor too
little for us, from which we are not cleansed until this day ? "
Some understand these words in a sense according to which
they would not belong here. Thus Calvin thinks that "from
which we are not cleansed until this day" is equivalent to
" which we still have fresh in our memories ; " Michaelis :
"which even now tends to our reproach and shame." But
already Masius has shown that this meaning does not satisfy
the text. The being cleansed from a fault means the granting
of forgiveness for it, according to the prevailing usage of
Scripture, which cannot be abandoned even here. It had, in
deed, already been granted, after the heroic act of Phinehas,
with regard to the whole nation, in so far that a stop was put
to the destructive punishment, comp. Num. xxv. 2. But the
absolute bestowment of forgiveness was not yet implied in the
cessation of the punishment. This was attached to a condition,
the 'repentance of the individuals involved in the guilt; and,
since the whole nation had more or less participated in it, to the
repentance of the whole nation. Phinehas here explains that
the unconditional bestowment of forgiveness had not yet come
to pass ; and hence we are justified in concluding that, even at
that time, a considerable portion of the nation continued in a
RELIGION IN JOSHUA'S TIME. 469
perverse mind ; for if they had truly turned away from the
sin, they would also have been freed from the divine anger
which rested upon them. Concerning the external form of
religion in this period there is little to be said. The sole
remarkable change which took place in that respect, viz. the
transfer of the sanctuary to Shiloh, has already been com
mented on.
The impression made on the after-world by the events of
Joshua's time, the incitement thus afforded to the love of God,
and their significance for the religious development of the nation,
we and others learn from the beginning of the 44th Psalm :
"We have heard with our ears, O God, our fathers have told us,
what work Thou didst in their days, in the times of old. How
Thou didst drive out the heathen with Thy hand, and plantedst
them ; how Thou didst afflict the people, and cast them out.
For they got not the land in possession by their own sword,
neither did their own arm save them : but Thy right hand,
and Thine arm, and the light of Thy countenance, because
Thou hadst a favour unto them."
THE END.
MURRAY AND GIEB, EDINBURGH,
PEIKTERS TO HER MAJESTY'S S1ATIOUEKY OFFICE.