Skip to main content

Full text of "History of the old covenant"

See other formats 


PI 


[}'/,■:■<'■  ■■ 


MM 


wifM 


w 

is 

KS':';'.''''!;''/ 

mm 


W::i}'\ 


^ 


PBI^'' 


y.  •'■ 


£)S\\^1 


/  ' 


f 


HISTORY 


THE   OLD   COVENANT, 


FROM  THE  GERMAN  OF 


J.  H.  KUETZ,  D.D., 

PliOFESSOU  OF  TilEOLOGV  AT  DOUI'AT, 


VOL.  III. 


TRANSLATED 

By   JAMES   MARTIN,   B.A., 


NOTTINGHAM. 


PHILADELPHIA: 
LINDSAY    AND    B  L  A  K  I  S  T  O  N. 

1  8  5  9. 


CONTENTS  OF  VOL.  III. 


SECOND  STEP  TOWAEDS  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  NATION. 

SOJOURN  OF  ISRAEL  IN  ARABIA  PETR.EA,  AND  THE  FIELD  OF  MOAB  ; 
OR,  THE  GIVING  OF  THE  LAW.       A  PERIOD  OF  FORTY  TEAKS. 

PART  I. 

HISTORICAL  GROUNDWORK,  AND  CIRCUMSTANCES 
CONNECTED  WITH  THE  GIVING  OF  THE  LAW. 


General  Remarks, 


Page 
3 


SECTION  I. 

ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OP  SINAI. 

Halt  at  Marah  and  Elira,              ......  9 

Halt  in  the  Desert  of  Sin,              ......  24 

Halt  at  Rephidim,              .......  44 

Geographical  Survey  of  the  Road  to  Rephidim  and  the  Country  round  Sinai,  61 

Preparations  for  Giving  the  Law  and  Concluding  the  Covenant,           .  102 

Promulgation  of  the  Fundamental  Law,                                                      .  117 
The  Sinaitic  Covenant,     .             .             .             .             .             .             .140 

Orders  for  the  Erection  of  a  Sanctuary,               ....  146 

The  Worship  of  the  Calf,             .            .            .            .            .            .  151 

Negotiations  for  a  Renewal  of  the  Broken  Covenant,    .            .            .  169 

Erection  of  the  Sanctuary,            ......  188 

The  Law  of  Sacrifice  and  the  Institution  of  the  Lcvitical  Priesthood,  191 

Continuation  and  Conclusion  of  the  Sinaitic  Legislation,          .            .  195 

Preparations  for  Leaving  Sinai,  ......  199 

SECTION  II. 

ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  TARAN. 

Geographical  Survey,        .  .  .  .  .  .  .217 

The  Place  of  Burning,  and  the  Graves  of  Lust,              .            .            .  255 

Occurrences  at  Chazeroth,            .            .            .            .            .            .  271 

The  Spies  sent  into  the  Promised  Land,              ....  279 

Rebellion  of  the  People  and  Judgment  of  God  at  Kadesh,        .            .  285 
Rebellion  of  the  Korah  Faction,  and  Confirmation  of  the  Aaronic  Priest- 
hood,              ........  293 

The  Thirty-seven  Years'  Ban,      ......  ."500 


CONTENTS. 


The  Second  Halt  at  Kadesh, 

The  March  Round  the  Country  of  the  Edomites, 

SECTION  III. 

ISRAEL  IN  THE  ARBOTH  MOAB. 

Geographical  Introduction, 
Ethnographical  Introduction, 
Conquest  of  the  Land  on  the  East  of  the  Jordan, 
Balaam  and  his  Prophecies, 
Conflict  with  the  Midianites, 
Division  of  the  Land  on  the  East  of  the  Jordan.     Regulations  with  re- 
gard to  Conquest  of  the  Country  to  the  West  of  the  Jordan, 
Repetition  and  Enforcement  of  the  Law, 
Death  of  Mosea,    ....... 

Composition  of  the  Pentateuch,  .... 


INDEX. 


Principal  Matters, 
Passages  of  Scripture, 


Page 
325 
337 


359 
371 
377 
386 
455 

464 
470 
490 
502 

523 
531 


INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURE  PASSAGES  TREATED  OF  IN  THIS 

VOLUME. 


Page 

Page 

Exod.  XV.  22— xvi.  1,    . 

.       9 

Num.  xvi. 

.  293 

Exod.  xvi. 

.     24 

Num.  xvii.     . 

.  296 

Exod.  xvii.  1  — xix.  2,    . 

.     44 

Num.  xxiii.  8-11, 

.       9 

Exod.  xix.  3-15,    . 

.   102 

Num.  XX.  1-13, 

.  325 

Exod.  xix.  16 — xxiii.     . 

.   117 

Num  XX.  14-21 — xxi.  1-3, 

.  329 

Exod.  xxiv.  l-ll, 

.   140 

Num.  XX.  22-29,    . 

.  337 

Exod.  xxiv.  12 — xxxi.  18, 

.   146 

Num.  xxi.  4-9, 

.  342 

Exod.  xxxii.  1-29, 

.   151 

Num.  xxi.  10 — xxii.  1,  . 

.  377 

Exod.  xxxii.  30 — xxxiii.  11, 

.  169 

Num.  xxii.  2-21,   . 

.  386 

Exod.  XXXV. — xl. 

.   188 

Num.  xxii.  22-35, 

.  405 

Lev.  i. — viii. 

.   191 

Num.  xxii.  36 — xxiii.  24, 

.  425 

Lev.  ix. — X.  . 

.   192 

Num.  xxiii.  15 — xxiv.  25, 

.  433 

Lev.  xi. — xxvii.     . 

.   195 

Num.  XXV. — xxxi. 

.  455 

Num.  i. — vi.  . 

.   199 

Num.  xxxii. — xxxvi.     . 

.  464 

Num.  vii. — viii. 

.  207 

Num.  xxxiii.  19-36, 

.  300 

Num.  ix.  1 — X.  10, 

.  210 

Deut.  i. — XXX. 

.  470 

Num.  X.  11 — xi.  3, 

.  255 

Deut.  i.  19-25, 

.  279 

Num.  xi.  4-35, 

.  259 

Deut.  i.  26-39, 

.  285 

Num.  xii. 

.  271 

Deut.  ii.— iii. 

.  377 

Num.  xii. 

.  279 

Deut.  V.          .         .         . 

.  117 

Num.  xvi.  1-38,     . 

.  285 

Deut.' ix.  7-21, 

.   151 

Num.  xiv. 

.  291 

Deut.  xxxi.— xxxiv. 

.  490 

SECOND    STEP 

TOWARDS  THE 

DEVELOPMENT   OF   THE   NATION. 


SOJOURN  OF  ISRAEL  IH  ARABIA  PETR.EA, 

AND  THE 

FIELD  OF  lOAB; 

OR, 

THE  GIVING  OF  THE  LAW. 

A  PERIOD  OF  40  TEARS. 


PART   I. 

HISTORICAL  GROUNDWORK,  AND  CIRCUMSTANCES  CONNECTED 
WITH  THE  GIVING  OF  THE  LAW. 


VOL.  III. 


THE    OLD    COVENANT. 


GENERAL  RE:\^IARKS. 

§  1.  From  the  time  of  the  Exodus  from  Egypt,  the  Israehtes 
had  borne  the  character  of  a  redeemed  people,  a  people  delivered 
by  the  strong  hand  of  their  God  from  the  house  of  bondage,  where 
the  chosen  seed,  through  which  all  nations  of  the  earth  were  to  be 
blessed,  had  been  treated  with  contempt  as  a  worthless  mob,  and 
oppressed  as  a  horde  entirely  destitute  of  rights.  But  now,  not 
only  had  Jehovah  Kberated  the  captive  maid  from  the  house  of 
bondage,  but  He  had  also  selected  her  as  His  bride ;  and  was 
leading  her  to  the  marriage-altar  at  Sinai,  where  the  covenant 
was  to  be  concluded,  the  result  of  which  would  be  the  birth  of 
chikh'en  like  the  morning  dew.  From  Sinai,  again.  He  led  her 
as  His  bride  into  His  own  house,  to  His  own  hearth,  into  the 
land  flowing  with  milk  and  honey.  Thus  the  sojourn  in  the 
desert  may  be  regarded  under  the  aspect  of  the  marriacje  state, 
as  setting  before  us  a  picture  of  wedded  love.  And  in  the 
prophecies  of  Jeremiah  (ii.  2,  3)  Jehovah  is  represented  as 
saying,  "  I  remember  thee,  the  kindness  of  thy  youth,  the  love 
of  thine  espousals,  when  thou  wentest  after  ]\Ie  in  the  desert,  in 
a  land  that  Avas  not  so^ai.  Israel  was  holiness  to  the  Lord,  the 
first-fruits  of  his  increase.  All  that  devoured  him,  offended ; 
evil  came  upon  them,  saith  the  Lord." 

According  to  another  figure,  Israel  was  Jeliovalis  frst-horn 
son  (vol.  ii.  §  21),  brought  forth,  luider  the  anguish  of   tlie 


4  GENERAL  REMARKS. 

Egyptian  bondage,  by  the  aid  of  a  heavenly  midwife.  He 
was  brought  out  of  Egypt,  the  womb  in  which  the  embryo 
had  attained  matmity ;  and  at  Sinai  he  was  set  apart  and 
consecrated  as  a  priestly  kingdom,  a  holy  nation,  a  pecuhar 
people. 

But  the  son  needs  a  tutor  during  the  years  of  his  youth  ;  he 
requires  to  be  educated  for  his  vocation,  that  the  f olHes  of  his 
}'0uth  may  be  overcome,  that  firmness  may  take  the  place  of 
ficlvleness,  and  his  weakness  may  give  place  to  strength.  Hence 
Jehovah  was  not  only  a  loving  Father,  a  faithful  Protector  to 
His  first-born,  delivering  him  from  every  trouble  and  shielding 
him  in  eveiy  danger,  but  a  faithful  Teacher,  exercising  strict 
discipline,  punishing  every  fault  -svithout  reserve,  and  following 
the  wanderer  with  unwearied  diligence  and  fidelity,  that  He 
might  reclaun  him  from  all  his  errors. 

And  even  to  the  newly-married  bride  Jehovah  was  not  only 
a  tender  Lover,  spreading  the  wings  of  love  over  the  chosen  one, 
but  also  a  strict  and  jealous  Husband,  demanding  fidelity  and 
love,  pimishing  unfaithfulness  and  apostasy,  requiring  a  royal 
heart  in  the  royal  bride,  seeking  by  love  and  discipline  to  train 
her  weU,  and  trying  and  proving  her,  to  see  whether  her  love 
would  remain  stedfast  in  the  midst  of  calamity  and  trouble. 

Thus  the  period  spent  in  the  wilderness  was  at  the  same 
time  one  of  education  and  discipline,  of  trial  and  temptation,  of 
punishment  and  purification.  "  Remember,"  says  Jehovah  (Deut. 
viii.  2  sqq.),  "  all  the  way  which  the  Lord  thy  God  hath  led 
thee  these  forty  years  in  the  wilderness,  to  humble  thee  and  to 
prove  thee,  to  know  what  was  in  thy  heart,  whether  thou 
wouldest  keep  His  commandments,  or  no.  And  He  humbled 
thee,  and  suffered  thee  to  hunger,  and  fed  thee  with  manna, 
which  thou  knewest  not,  neither  did  thy  fathers  know  ;  that  He 
might  make  thee  know  that  man  doth  not  live  by  bread  alone, 
but  by  every  word  that  proceedeth  out  of  the  mouth  of  Jehovah 
doth  man  live.  Thy  raiment  waxed  not  old  upon  thee,  neither 
did  thy  foot  swell,   these  forty  years.     Consider  then  in  thy 


GENERAL  REMARKS.  5 

heart,  that,  as  a  man  chasteneth  liis  son,  so  the  Lord  thy  God 
chasteiieth  thee,"  etc.  (1). 

In  order  that  the  Israelites  might  be  entirely  set  free  from  the 
ungodliness  of  Egyj^t,  to  which  they  were  naturally  so  addicted 
and  inclined  ;  in  order  that  they  might  be  proved,  piuified,  and 
bound  more  and  more  closely  to  God  by  the  bands  of  love,  of 
confidence,  and  of  gratitude ;  and  in  order  that  they  might  be 
delivered  from  the  broken,  cowardly  spirit  which  had  been  en- 
gendered by  a  long-continued  slavery,  and  strengthened  till  they 
grew  into  a  free,  spirited,  and  courageous  race, — Jehovah  led 
His  chosen  people  through  the  desert.  While  there,  they  were 
to  hold  intercourse  with  their  God  alone,  as  in  a  secret  place, 
and  to  become  familiarised  with  the  new  relation  into  which 
they  had  entered  with  Him.  There,  too,  amidst  the  troubles  and 
calamities,  the  dangers  and  privations  of  a  desert  life  (3),  they 
were  to  receive  continual  proofs  of  the  mercy  and  faithfulness 
of  Jehovah  on  the  one  hand,  and  of  their  own  unworthiness  and 
natural  obduracy  on  the  other.  But  what  was  to  have  been 
only  a  brief  period  of  trial,  according  to  the  original  design  and 
intention  of  God,  became,  on  account  of  the  guilt  of  the  people 
and  the  judgment  of  Jehovah,  a  long  period  of  detention  and 
purification.  Instead  of  the  two  years'  sojourn  in  the  desert, 
which  would  have  sufficed  for  the  original  pm-poses,  forty  years 
were  required  to  answer  the  new  ends  which  had  to  1)e  accom- 
plished now  (2). 

The  pilgrimage  of  Israel  through  the  desert  to  the  promised 
land  presents  three  points,  around  which  all  the  rest  is  grouped, 
as  around  so  many  generative  centres  :  first,  the  rest  at  Sinai, 
where  they  were  set  apart  as  the  people  of  God,  and  where  the 
covenant  with  Jehovah  was  concluded  ;  secondly,  the  sojourn  at 
Kadesh,  in  the  desert  of  Paran,  where  the  unbelief  of  tlie 
Israelites  came  to  a  head,  and  the  Divine  sentence  was  pro- 
nounced, that  they  should  l>e  detained  in  the  ANalderness  for 
forty  years  ;  and  tliirdly,  their  stay  in  the  plains  of  Moab,  where 
the  period  of  the  curse  came  to  an  end,  and  the  new  generation 


6  GENERAL  REMARKS. 

arrived  at  the  goal  of  its  pilgrimage  and  the  borders  of  the 
promised  land.  Taking  these,  then,  as  the  central  points,  the 
history  of  this  period  may  be  divided  into  three  epochs  :  (1) 
Israel  in  the  desert  of  Sinai ;  (2)  Israel  in  the  desert  of  Paran ; 
(3)  Israel  in  the  plain  of  Moab. 

(1.)  On  the  desert  itself,  and  the  sojourn  of  the  Israelites 
there,  as  a  place  and  period  of  temjjtation  and  purification,  see 
Hengstenherg'  s  excellent  remarks  in  his  Christolog}",  vol.  i.,  p. 
247  sqq.  (translation). 

(2.)  The  trial  and  discipline  of  the  forty  years'  sojourn  in 
the  desert  were  not  without  fruit.  Even  whilst  they  were 
encamped  in  the  plain  of  Moab,  there  w^ere  evident  signs  that  a 
new  generation  had  grow^n  up,  in  wdiicli  the  hard,  rebellious, 
and  unbelieving  heart  had  been  overcome.  This  was  stiU  more 
apparent  in  the  period  immediately  following — viz.,  the  age  of 
Joshua — when  the  people  displayed  a  liveliness  and  strength  of 
faith,  and  a  pure,  deep,  full  consciousness  of  God,  such  as  never 
prevailed  to  so  great  an  extent  in  any  subsequent  period. 

(3.)  On  the  possihility  of  finding  siqyplies  in  the  desert,  suffi- 
cient to  sustain  so  great  a  number,  see  Hengstenherg  on  Balaam 
and  his  Prophecies  (p.  561,  translation).  There  are,  at  the  present 
time,  in  the  entu^e  desert  not  more  than  5000  inhabitants,  who 
obtain  but  scanty  supplies,  and  that  with  the  gi'eatest  difficulty. 
In  fact,  they  are  not  maintamed  from  then-  own  resources  ;  for, 
were  it  not  for  what  they  earn  as  guides  and  servants  to  tra- 
vellers, even  they  would  be  unable  to  exist.  How  then,  it  is 
asked,  is  it  conceivable  that  two  or  three  millions  of  people,  with 
a  proportionate  quantity  of  cattle,  should  have  lived  in  the  desert 
for  forty  years  ?  It  is  evident  at  once,  that  at  the  present  day, 
and  under  existing  circumstances,  this  would  be  an  absolute 
impossibility.  But  it  may  also  be  shown,  that  in  many  respects 
the  circumstances  were  formerly  very  different.  (1.)  The  desert 
must  have  contained  a  much  greater  niunber  of  oases,  abomidmg 
in  grass  and  springs  of  water.  Even  apart  from  Biblical  testi- 
mony, we  have  evidence  that  the  desert  was  inhabited  by 
numerous  hordes,  both  before  the  Christian  era  (though  subse- 
quent to  the  days  of  Moses)  and  in  the  Byzantine,  Christian  age. 
On  this  subject  K.  Bitter  Avrites  (in  the  Evang.  Kalender  1852, 


GENEEAX,  EEMAEKS.  7 

p.  48)  :  "  The  number  of  inscriptions  left  by  a  native  population 
of  shepherds,  which  at  some  period  or  other  settled  there  (see 
§  5,  2),  is  so  great  in  many  of  the  valleys,  where  they  cover  the 
face  of  the  rocks  even  to  the  very  smnmit,  that  at  the  time  when 
they  were  first  made,  there  must  have  been  a  very  numerous 
popiilation  in  this  part  of  the  wilderness ;  though  they  have 
remained  entirely  miknown,  and  no  contemporaneous  accomit  of 
them  is  to  be  found  in  any  records  as  far  back  as  the  age  in 
which  the  IMosaic  pilgrimage  occurred.  But,  in  any  case,  they 
f m-nish  a  strildng  proof  of  the  fact,  that  in  the  centuries  imme- 
diately before  and  after  our  reckoning,  the  baiTcnness  of  this 
cUstrict  was  by  no  means  so  great,  as  to  render  it  impossible  for  a 
considerable  body  of  people  to  remain  in  it  for  a  very  lengthened 
period.  The  objections,  therefore,  which  have  been  offered  to 
the  statement,  that  so  large  a  nmnber  of  Israelites  sojourned  for 
half  a  centmy  in  the  peninsula  of  Sinai,  and  which  have  all 
been  founded  upon  the  scanty  population  of  Bedouins  at  present 
inhabiting  that  district,  necessarily  fall  entirely  to  the  ground." — 
(2.)  The  Israelites  brought  a  great  quantity  of  cattle  vnt\\  them 
from  Egypt  (Ex.  xxxiv.  3  ;  Nmn.  xx.  19,  xxxii.  1)  ;  and  whilst, 
on  the  one  hand,  the  cattle  required  a  plentifid  supply  of  gi'ass, 
on  the  other,  it  fm^nished  a  by  no  means  insignificant  provision 
of  milk  and  flesh  for  the  sustenance  of  the  people,  and  of  leather, 
wool,  and  hair  for  their  clothing. — (3.)  When  the  Israehtes 
w^ere  assm-ed,  after  their  rejection  at  Kadesh,  that  they  would 
have  to  remain  in  the  mlderness  for  thirty-seven  or  thii'ty-eight 
years,  they  may,  in  fact  must,  have  set  up  domestic  establishments 
there  (vid.  §  41).  If,  then,  even  at  the  present  time,  there  are 
particular  spots  to  be  found  in  the  desert  in  which  the  Bedouins 
sow  and  reap,  we  may  certainly  assume  that  the  Israelites,  who 
had  learnt  the  arts  of  agricultm'e  and  horticvdtm'e  in  Egypt, 
and  had  acquired  a  taste  for  such  pm'smts,  carried  the  same 
thing  out  to  a  far  greater  extent,  since  the  state  of  the  country 
was  apparently  much  more  favom^able  at  that  time  than  it  is 
now. — (4.)  Wc  learn  from  Deut.  ii.  6,  7,  that  the  Israehtes,  at 
least  on  the  eastern  side  of  the  land  of  Idumfca,  purchased 
provisions  of  the  inhabitants  for  money.  We  may  suppose  the 
same  to  have  taken  place  on  the  western  side.  The  desert  was 
at  that  time  intersected  by  several  caravan  roads.  With  the 
acti\e  trade  which  was  carried  on  between  Egypt  and  Asia,  the 


8  GENEKAL  KEMAEKS. 

desert  must  have  been  traversed  frequently  enough  by  caravans, 
from  which  the  Israelites  may  have  obtained,  by  barter  or  for 
money,  such  provisions  as  would  otherwise  have  been  beyond 
their  reach.  We  must  bear  in  mind  that  they  came  out  of 
Egypt  "with  great  substance." — (5.)  But,  notwithstanding  all 
this,  the  Scriptiu'es  describe  the  wilderness  as  "  great  and 
terrible,"  and  contain  accounts  of  many  instances  in  which  want 
and  privation  caused  the  people  to  murmur  and  complain. 
Hence,  in  addition  to  the  natural  supplies,  which  were  far  from 
sufficing  for  so  great  a  number,  and  were  not  always  at  hand,  a 
special  pro\asion  was  required  on  the  part  of  God ;  and  such  a 
provision  was  amply  made,  not  only  in  a  natural  way — namely, 
through  the  ordinary  blessings  of  His  providence — but  in  a 
supernatural  manner  also,  by  extraordinary  manifestations  of 
His  miraculous  power. 


SECTIOW    I. 

ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

Compare  the  works  cited  at  vol.  ii.  §  10  ;  also  K.  Bitter,  "  die 
sinaitische  Halbinsel  und  die  Wege  der  Kinder  Israel  zuin 
Sinai,"  in  F.  Pipers  "  Evang.  Kalender,"  vol.  iii.,  Berlin  1852, 
p.  31  sqq. — R.  Lepsius,  "  Eeise  von  Tlieben  nach  der  Halbinsel 
des  Sinai,"  Berlin  1846  ;  and  his  "  Briefe  aus  Aegypten,  Aethi- 
opien  nnd  der  Halbinsel  des  Sinai,"  Berlin  1852. — J.  Val. 
Kutscheit,  "Herr  Prof.  Lepsius  und  der  Sinai,"  Berlin  1846. — 
Fr.  Dieterici,  "  Keisebilder  aus  dem  Morgenlande,"  Berlin  1853, 
vol.  ii.  13  sqq. — K.  Graul,  "Reise  nach  Ostindien  iiber  Paliistina 
und  Aegypten,"  Leipzig  1854,  vol.  ii. 

HALT  AT  MAEAH  AJSID  ELIM. 

§  2.  (Ex.  XV.  22-xvi.  1,  and  Num.  xxxiii.  8-11.)— The  first 
place  of  encampment  on  the  eastern  side  of  the  gulf,  Avas  un- 
doubtedly in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  modern  Ayun  Musa  (5) 
(i.e.,  the  fountains  of  Moses).  The  people  proceeded  thence  in 
a  south-easterly  direction,  along  the  eastern  shore  of  the  gulf, 
and  travelled  three  days  through  the  desert  of  Shur  (5)  without 
finding  water.  At  length  they  reached  a  well,  in  which  there 
was  an  abundance  of  water,  that  promised  to  relieve  their  press- 
ing wants.  But  the  water  proved  to  be  so  bitter,  that  it  was 
impossible  to  partake  of  it;  and  hence  the  place  received  the 
name  of  Marah  (i.e.,  bitterness).  It  is  probably  identical  with 
the  modern  well  called  Ain  Tlowarah  (5).     This  grievous  dis- 


10  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

appointment  of  their  hopes  stirred  up  the  fainting  people  to  mur- 
mur against  their  leader.  In  his  distress  of  mind,  Moses  turned 
to  Jehovah  and  implored  assistance.  It  was  granted  him.  Jeho- 
vah pointed  ovit  to  him  a  tree,  which  he  cast  into  the  well,  and 
the  water  was  immediately  sweetened  (1).  This  was  the  first 
test  to  which  the  Israelites  were  subjected  during  their  proba- 
tionary sojourn  in  the  wilderness  (§  1)  ;  and  the  first  proof  that 
had  been  given  of  the  mercy  and  faithfulness  of  God,  in  contrast 
with  the  obdui'acy  of  the  people,  since  the  time  when  they  first 
became  a  redeemed  nation  (2). — The  next  station  was  Elim, 
where  twelve  wells  of  water  and  seventy  palm-trees,  from  the 
very  significance  of  the  numbers,  invited  the  people  to  rest  (3). 
There  is  hardly  any  doubt  that  this  resting-place  was  identical 
with  the  modern  Wady  Gharandel  (5).  On  lea\'ing  Elim  they 
entered  a  plain  hy  the  Red  Sea  (Num.  xxxiii.  10),  probably  at 
the  point  where  the  modern  Wady  Tayibeh  (Taibeh)  oj)ens  into 
the  plain  by  the  promontory  of  Ras  Ahu-Zelimeh.  On  the  15th 
day  of  the  second  month  (4)  they  encamped  in  the  desert  of 
Sin  (5). 

(1.)  Even  Josephus  (Antiquities  iii.  1,  2)  attempts  to  give 
a  natiu'al  explanation  of  the  miracle  at  Mar  ah ;  but  his  attempt 
is  at  all  events  so  far  a  failure,  that  there  appears  to  have  been 
no  reason  whatever  for  casting  the  tree  into  the  well.  He  says 
that,  after  Moses  had  thro"s\ai  the  tree  into  the  water,  he  caused 
the  well  to  be  more  than  half -emptied,  and  then  the  water  (which 
flowed  fresh  into  the  well)  was  di'inkable. — Burckhardt  endea- 
voured to  find  a  clue  to  the  miracle  of  Moses.  He  thought  he 
could  sweeten  the  bitter  water  at  Howarah  by  the  berries  of  the 
Ghm'kud  shrub  {Peganum  7'etusum),  which  is  veiy  abmidant  in 
that  district.  But,  apart  from  the  fact  that  the  scriptural  record 
speaks  of  wood  and  not  of  berries,  and  that  the  berries  cannot 
have  been  ripe  at  that  period  of  the  year  (yid.  Robinson,  98), 
the  residt,  at  which  Moses  aimed,  was  not  in  any  way  connected 
with  such  means  as  these.  Both  Burchhardt  and  Robinson  in- 
quired in  vain  of  the  native  Ai'abs,  whether  they  were  acquainted 
with  any  method  by  which  the  bitter  water  could  be  made 


HALT  AT  MARi\JI  A2s^D  ELIM.  1 1 

di'inkable.  For  this  reason  Lepsius  determined  to  institute  an 
inquiry,  that  he  might  get  to  the  root  of  the  matter ;  but  unfor- 
tunately he  found  no  opportunity  of  gi'atifjdng  his  ciu'iosity. 
He  says  in  his  "Reise"  (p.  25):  "The  means  employed  by 
Moses  for  making  the  water  drinkable — viz.,  with  the  wood,  the 
bark,  or  the  fniit  of  a  tree  or  shrub,  which  must  have  abounded 
in  those  valleys — have  undoubtedly  been  lost ;  but  a  lengthened 
search  upon  the  spot  would  possibly  lead  to  then'  recoveiy.  I 
have  brought  home  a  number  of  the  most  common  trees, — 
gathered,  it  is  true,  in  the  higher  valleys  ;  but  as  yet  I  have  had 
no  opportunity  of  maldng  experiments  with  them."  Kutscheit 
(p.  12)  ridicules  this  idea  of  "  the  veiy  learned  German  pro- 
fessor,"— in  our  opinion  somewhat  unjustly.  For  the  scriptural 
record  does  not  necessarily  shut  us  up  to  the  conclusion  that  a 
miracle  was  j)erf ormed :  Moses  prayed  to  Jehovah,  and  Jehovah 
showed  him  a  tree,  etc.  The  words  leave  it  open  to  us  to  infer 
that  the  means  employed  were  perfectly  natm'al,  and  such  as 
would  have  sufficed  to  produce  a  similar  effect  at  any  time,  even 
under  different  circumstances.  Nor  is  it  in  itself  incredible 
that  there  may  have  been  some  kind  of  tree  in  existence,  which 
acted  chemically  upon  the  water  so  as  to  deprive  it  of  its  bitter- 
ness. Probable,  however,  we  do  not  think  it ;  and  the  naive 
assurance  with  which  Lepsius  assumes  that  the  process  was 
perfectly  natvu-al,  and  therefore  may  be  imitated  still,  reminds 
us  of  the  respectable  German  nationalism  of  a  bygone  age. 
For  om*  part,  we  agree  with  Luther,  who  says  :  "  The  water 
was  naturally  bitter ;  but  as  they  were  to  drink  it  on  this  occa- 
sion, the  Lord  ordered  a  tree,  or  piece  of  wood,  to  be  thrown  in, 
and  it  became  sweet.  Not  that  the  wood  possessed  this  property ; 
but  it  was  a  miracle  which  God  determined  to  perform  by  His 
word,  without  any  co-o})eration  on  the  part  of  JSIoses,  and  the 
water  soon  lost  the  bitterness  which  it  had  before."  LahorJe 
correctly  says  (Comment.,  p.  84)  :  "  S'il  existait  un  moyen 
naturel  de  rendre  douces  des  eaux  saumatrcs,  moyen  avissi  simple 
et  aussi  rapide,  que  celui  dont  Moyse  fit  usage  a  IMarah,  soyons 
persuades,  qu'il  ne  se  serait  jamais  perdu,  et  que  les  Arabes  du 
Sinai  Tam'aient  conserve  comme  le  don  le  plus  precyeux,  qu  on 
pourrait  leur  faire  ;  si  meme  ce  moyen  avait  existe  ou  existait 
quclque  part,  il  aurait  etendu  son  pouvoir  sur  toutes  ces  con- 
trees,  qui  plus  ou  moins  en  pouvaient  profiter  avec  les  memes 


12  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

avantages."  Such  a  view  as  this  undoubtedly  imposes  upon  us 
tlie  obhgation  to  inquire,  what  end  was  answered  by  the  tree,  if  the 
change  in  the  water  belonged  to  the  department  of  pure  miracle  ? 
We  reply  :  The  sweetening  of  the  bitter  water  of  Marah  stands 
in  evident  and  intentional  contrast  to  the  change  in  the  Nile,  by 
which  the  sweet  and  pleasant  water  was  rendered  unfit  for  use. 
The  latter  was  the  commencement  of  the  penal  discipline  inflicted 
by  Jehovah  upon  the  Egyptians ;  in  the  former,  we  see  the 
commencement  of  the  educational  discipline  to  which  Jehovah 
was  about  to  subject  the  Israelites.  In  the  one  case,  the  staff  of 
Moses  touched  the  sweet  Nile,  and  its  water  became  corrupt  and 
stinking ;  in  the  other,  the  opposite  effect  was  produced  by 
wood.  There,  the  (dead)  stick  made  the  healthy  water  un- 
Avholesome;  here,  a  (living)  tree  made  the  unhealthy  water 
whole.  This  first  miracle  in  the  desert  ushered  in  and  guaran- 
teed a  whole  series  of  miracles  in  the  desert  for  the  recovery 
(chap.  XV.  26  :  "  For  I  am  Jehovah,  thy  Physician")  and  weU- 
being  of  Israel ;  just  as  the  first  miraculous  plague  in  Eg)^:)t 
ushered  in  an  entire  series  of  pimishments  inflicted  upon 
Mizraim. — Typologists  have  not  failed  to  make  the  attempt  to 
find  in  this  arj/jbelov  a  certain  connection  with  the  plan  of  salva- 
tion. Tertullian  observes  (de  bapt.  9)  :  "  Lignum  illud  erat 
Christus  venenatcB  et  amarce  retro  naturoe  venas  in  sahd>errimas 
aquas  haptismi  remedians.^'  Theodoret  says  :  to  fyap  (TWTrjpiov 
Tov  aravpov  ^vKov  T'y-jV  iriKpav  tmv  edvwv  ijXvKave  OaKxmav. 
But  Luther's  explanation  is  the  finest.  He  says  :  "  Two  things 
are  manifested  here  :  first,  that  the  water,  i.e.,  the  law,  is  not 
sweetened  without  the  interposition  of  Moses,  who  causes  man 
to  murmiir  by  the  terrors  of  the  law,  and  thus  pains  him  with 
bitterness,  so  that  he  longs  for  help  ;  and  then,  when  the  Holy 
Spirit  comes,  at  once  it  is  made  sweet.  Now,  this  tree  of  life  is 
the  Gospel,  the  word  of  the  grace,  the  mercy,  and  the  goodness 
of  God.  Wlien  the  Gospel  is  plunged  into  the  law  and  the 
knowledge  of  sin  which  the  law  produces,  and  when  it  touches  a 
heart  in  which  the  law  has  caused  sadness,  anxiety,  terror,  and 
confusion,  it  is  at  once  delightful  to  the  taste."  Compare  Sal. 
Deyling,  de  aquis  amaris  ligni  injectione  a  Mose  mitigatis,  in  his 
Obserw.  ss.  iii.,  p.  62  sqq. 

(2.)  The  scriptural  record  expressly  describes  the  event  at 
Marah  under  the  aspect  of  a  trial  (ver.  25,  "there  He  tried 


HALT  AT  MARAH  AND  ELIM.  13 

tliein").  Thus  their  journey  through  the  wilderness  was  oj^ened 
with  a  trial ;  just  as  Abraham  was  put  to  the  proof  when  he  first 
entered  the  land  of  his  pilgrimage  (vol.  i.  §  52,  on  Gen.  xii.  10 
sqq.).  Jehovah  chose  and  redeemed  tlie  Israelites  ;  He  led  them 
out  of  Egypt  into  the  desert ;  and  thus  took  upon  Himself  the 
obligation  to  protect  and  maintain  them  there.  The  Israelites,  on 
the  other  hand,  who  had  already  experienced  how  miraculously 
Jehovah  rescues  and  aids,  were  requu-ed  to  trust  in  God  and  give 
proof  of  their  faith,  even  where  the  eye  of  man  could  detect  no 
way  by  which  help  or  deliverance  coidd  come.  This  was  the 
position  in  which  the  people  were  now  placed.  They  had  left 
Egyjjt,  with  its  abundance  of  sAveet  and  wholesome  water,  for  the 
purpose  of  escaping  from  slavery ;  but  the  desert,  the  place  of 
freedom,  the  asylum  of  safety,  threatened  them  with  death  from 
exhaustion.  Then  they  mm*mured  against  Moses ;  and  to  mur- 
mm*  against  Moses  was,  in  fact,  to  miu'mur  against  Jehovah. 
How  ungrateful  and  unbelieving,  and  yet  how  natiu'al !  But 
this  was  just  the  intention  of  the  trial.  The  unholy,  natm'al  root 
of  the  heart  was  to  be  laid  bare,  that  it  might  be  healed  and 
sanctified  by  the  discipline  and  mercy  of  God ;  it  was  necessary 
that  the  murmuring  should  be  heard,  in  order  that  it  might  be 
broiight  to  shame,  and  counteracted  by  the  mercy  and  faithful- 
ness of  God.  This  really  occurred :  the  bond  by  which  Israel 
was  united  to  his  God  was  thus  drawn  closer  and  knit  more 
firmly ;  and,  as  a  seal  thereof,  God  gave  the  people  on  this  occa- 
sion "  a  statute  and  an  ordinance,"  and  said :  "  If  thou  wilt 
diligently  hearken  to  the  voice  of  Jehovah  thy  God,  and  do  that 
which  is  right  in  His  sight,  etc.,  I  mil  put  none  of  these  diseases 
upon  thee,  which  I  have  brought  upon  the  Egyptians,  for  /  am 
Jehovah,  thy  Physician^  Thus  the  difference,  Avhich  Jehovah 
had  already  made  in  Egypt  between  Israel  and  the  Egyptians, 
was  to  be  still  perpetuated,  so  long  as  Israel  would  maintain  its 
own  distinction  from  the  heathen,  as  the  people  of  God,  by  obedi- 
ence to  Jehovah's  will. 

(3.)  Elbn  presents  the  same  contrast  to  Marah,  as  the  tempta- 
tion on  the  })art  of  God  to  the  fruit  of  that  temptation,  or  as 
the  state  of  heart  evhiced  by  the  murmuring  people  to  the 
loving-ldndness  and  mercy  of  Jehovah.  Marah  was  the  repre- 
sentative of  the  desert,  so  far  as  it  was  the  scene  of  trial  and 
discipline  ;  Elun,  so  far  as  it  was  the  place  in  which  a  covenant 


14  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

was  made  with  God,  and  His  gracious  guidance  was  enjoyed. 
Elini  was  a  place  expressly  prepared  for  Israel ;  for  it  bore  the 
characteristic  mark  of  the  nation,  in  the  number  of  its  wells  and 
palm-trees  :  there  was  a  well  for  every  tribe  ready  to  refresh 
both  man  and  beast,  and  the  shade  of  a  palm-tree  for  the  tent  of 
every  one  of  the  elders  of  the  people  (chap.  xxiv.  9). 

(4.)  The  people  encamped  in  the  desert  of  Sin  on  the  fifteenth 
day  of  the  second  month.  On  the  fifteenth  day  of  the  first 
month  they  prepared  to  depart  from  Egypt.  There  were  only 
seven  stations  between  Rameses  and  Sin,  and  a  full  month  had 
been  occupied  in  the  journey.  In  this  we  find  another  confirma- 
tion of  the  exj)lanation  we  have  given  at  vol.  ii.  §  36,  7.  More- 
over, this  clironological  datum  serves  evidently  and  completely 
to  explain  the  account,  which  immediately  follows,  of  the  general 
want  of  bread.  The  supply  which  they  brought  from  Egyjit 
had  all  been  consumed  during  their  thirty  days'  journey. 

(5.)  We  bring  this  paragraph  to  a  close  with  a  Geographi- 
cal Survey  of  the  district  traversed.  After  the  Israelites  had 
crossed  the  gulf,  they  marched  for  three  days  tlrrough  the  desert 
of  Shur  (or  Etham,  as  it  is  called  in  Num.  xxxiii.)  without 
finding  water.  There  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  the  direction  which 
they  took.  They  marched  towards  Sinai  in  a  south-easterly 
direction  from  the  point  at  which  they  crossed  the  sea,  in  a  line 
parallel  with  the  eastern  shore  of  the  gulf.  Hence  the  desert  of 
Shur  or  Etham  must  have  extended  at  least  a  three  days'  jour- 
ney from  the  northern  extremity  of  the  gulf,  before  Marah  was 
reached.  But  we  have  good  ground  for  placing  its  bomidaries 
beyond  these  limits  towards  both  north  and  south.  For  it  is 
nowhere  stated  that  Marah  and  Elim  were  not  in  the  desert; 
and  it  is  not  till  the  next  station  but  one  after  Elim  that  a  fresh 
desert  is  spoken  of,  viz.,  the  desert  of  Sin.  We  should  therefore 
place  the  southern  bomidary  of  the  desert  of  Shvu*  at  the  point 
where  the  steep  promontoiy  of  Hammam  Faraun  intersects  the 
northern  shore  of  the  sea.  It  is  not  so  easy  to  determine  the 
northern  hmits  of  the  desert  of  Shm'  or  Etham.  We  must  first 
of  all  examine  the  names  themselves.  It  has  already  been  sho'v\ii, 
at  vol.  ii.  §  42,  1,  that  Etham  was  an  Egyptian  border  for- 
tress at  the  northern  extremity  of  the  gulf;  and  from  this 
fortress  the  desert,  which  touched  it  on  the  west,  received  the 
name  of  Etham.     Shur  was  also  a  city  on  the  Egyptian  frontier, 


HALT  AT  MAEAH  AND  ELIM.  15 

as  we  may  gather  from  Gen.  xvi.  7,  xx.  1,  xxv.  18 ;  1  Sam. 
XV.  7,  xxvii.  8.  Wlien  Hagar  fled  from  Palestine  to  Egypt, 
the  angel  of  the  Lord  fovmd  her  by  a  fountain  m  the  desert  on 
the  way  to  Slim*.  Abram  lived  for  some  time  at  Gerar,  between 
Kadesh  and  Shur.  According  to  the  other  passages,  Shur  stood 
"  in  front  of  Egj-j^t  (D"''iV^"'':S)  ?y)."  The  whole  of  these  passages 
lead  to  the  conclusion,  that  Shiu'  is  to  be  regarded  as  an  eastern 
frontier  town  of  Egypt,  between  the  Mediterranean  and  the 
northern  end  of  the  Heroopolitan  Gulf,  and  hence  that  the  desert 
of  Shur  was  the  entire  tract  of  desert  by  which  Egypt  was 
bounded  on  the  east.  Josephus  substitutes  Pelusium  for  Shur 
in  1  Sam.  xv.  7,  and  hence  J.  D.  Michaelis  identified  the  two 
cities.  Boediger,  on  the  other  hand  (in  Gesenius'  Thesaurus,  s.  v.), 
conjectures  that  Slnu'  was  at  the  northern  end  of  the  gulf,  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  the  modern  Suez, — an  assumption  to  which 
we  cannot  possibly  subscribe,  as  we  have  ah'eady  seen  (vol.  ii. 
§  39, 1)  that  formerly  the  gulf  must  have  extended  much  farther 
towards  the  north.  But  if  Etham  was  situated  at  this  conjec- 
tural northern  extremity,  we  must  certainly  seek  for  Shur  much 
farther  towards  the  north.  Saadias  renders  Shur  el  Jifar.  But  by 
the  desert  of  el  Jifar  the  modern  Arabians  miderstand  the  tract 
of  desert  which  Hes  between  Egypt  and  the  more  elevated  desert 
of  et-Tih,  and  stretches  from  the  Mediterranean  to  the  Gulf  of 
Suez.  And  the  Biblical  notices  of  the  desert  of  Shur  harmonise 
very  well  with  these  boundaries,  ^^^th  the  single  exception  that 
the  desert,  as  we  have  just  seen  from  Ex.  xv.,  must  have  ex- 
tended still  farther  in  a  southerly  direction,  along  the  eastei'n 
shore  of  the  gulf.  (Consult  especially  Fr.  Tuch,  in  the  Zeit- 
schrift  der  deutsch-morgenlandischen  Gesellschaft,  vol.  i.  pt.  2, 
p.  173  sqq. 

The  first  resting-place,  after  the  successful  passage  tlu'ough 
the  Red  Sea,  may  undoubtedly  be  still  seen  in  the  group  of 
Moses-SprinfjSj  Ayun  ]\1usa.  It  is  situated  opposite  to  Suez 
towards  the  south-west.  Even  if  we  have  to  seek  the  spot  where 
the  Israelites  first  trod  the  soil  of  Ai'abia  somewhat  farther 
towards  the  north,  tliis  is  by  no  means  at  variance  with 
such  an  assumption ;  for  Moses  would  be  sm'e  to  select  as  his 
place  of  encampment  the  nearest  spot  in  which  water  and  vege- 
tation could  be  found,  and  no  other  choice  remained  than  this 
place  of  springs.      "  It  is  certainly  not  without  reason,"  says 


16  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OP  SINAI. 

Dieterici,  ii.  16,  "  that  the  springs  have  been  called  by  this  name  : 
this  is  the  only  green  spot  in  the  northern  part  of  the  barren 
wilderness  in  which  water  can  be  obtained,  and  which  is  close 
upon  the  sea-shore."  For  some  years  past  this  lovely  and  fertile 
oasis  of  the  desert  has  been  ornamented  by  some  of  the  richer 
inhabitants  of  Suez  with  a  summer-house  and  pleasure-grounds 
(Tischendorf,  i.  172).  In  the  year  1810  Seetzen  fomid  only 
seventeen  wells  open,  whereas  formerly  there  had  been  twenty ; 
and  counted  only  twenty-five  yomig  palm-trees,  where  a  hundred 
thousand  might  be  grown  with  care  (Monatl.  Corresp.  xxvii.  72). 
Robinson,  again,  counted  only  seven  wells,  some  of  which  appeared 
to  have  been  but  lately  recovered  by  digging  in  the  sand.  The 
water  of  these  wells  is  rendered  brackish  and  bitter  by  their  proxi- 
mity to  the  sea,  as  is  the  case  all  along  the  eastern  coast ;  at  the 
same  time  it  is  diinkable,  and  better  than  any  other  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood, especially  that  which  is  fomid  at  Suez.  (See  Bitter, 
Erdkunde  xiv.  824,  825.) 

The  place  of  encampment  at  Marah  has  been  almost  uni- 
versally recognised,  since  the  time  of  Burckliardt,  as  identical 
with  the  well  (Ain)  Howarah,  which  had  never  been  mentioned 
before.  It  is  situated  at  a  distance  of  fifteen  or  sixteen  hours' 
journey  from  the  wells  of  Moses, — a  distance  which  answers  ad- 
mirably to  the  three  days'  journey  of  the  Israelites.  The  countr}'^ 
between  is  a  sandy  desert,  entu-ely  destitute  of  water.  The 
water  of  the  Howarah  well  is  impregnated  with  alum  and  salt, 
and  more  bitter  than  any  other  water  that  is  met  ^vith  in  the 
ordinary  routes  of  the  peninsula.  The  basin,  whose  white  rocky 
substance  has  evidently  been  formed  in  the  course  of  time  by  a 
precipitate  from  the  water,  is  said  by  Robinson  (i.  96)  to  be  six 
or  eight  feet  across,  whilst  the  water  is  about  two  feet  deep. 
"  Eound  the  well  there  are  some  stunted  palm-trees,  and  a  large 
number  of  bushes  of  the  Ghm-kud  shrub,  which  bears  juicy  and 
slightly  acidulous  berries,  resembling  the  barbeny."  Dieterici 
says  (ii.  20)  :  "  The  small  bitter  well  in  the  barren  sand,  and 
the  scanty  vegetation,  make  it  difficult  to  form  any  conception 
of  the  manner  in  wliich  the  people,  who  so  soon  forgot  the  mercy 
of  God,  can  have  encamped  on  this  spot,  and  how  so  many 
thirsty  lips  can  have  been  refreshed  from  a  basin  which  is  so 
diminutive  now.  But  the  Avell,  which  is  now  choked  with  sand, 
may  formerly  have  flowed  more  copiously ;  and  even  the  gifts  of 


HALT  AT  MARAII  AND  ELIM,  17 

the  desert  may  be  increased  by  perseverance.  Since,  then,  all 
the  signs  evidently  tend  to  show,  that  at  the  time  of  the  Israelitish 
wanderings  the  peninsula  was  cultivated  to  a  much  greater  ex- 
tent than  it  is  now,  we  are  forced  to  the  conclusion,  that  even 
this  Avell  was  maintained  with  greater  care.  Its  present  neglected 
state  is  the  cause  of  its  scanty  supply." 

"  It  was  not  till  after  my  return  from  Sinai,"  says  Graul 
(ii.  254),  "  that  I  learned  at  Cairo  that  the  well-known  sheikh, 
Tuweileb,  was  acquainted  with  a  well  on  the  hills  to  the  right 
of  Ain-IIawarah,  the  water  of  Avhich  is  so  bitter  that  neither 
man  nor  beast  can  drink  it.  From  this  spot  the  road  leads  direct 
to  the  site  of  the  W.  Gharandel,  where  water  may  be  obtained." 
The  next  place  of  encampment,  Elim,  is  said  by  Kosmas 
Indikopleustes  (about  a.  d.  540),  in  his  Topography,  to  have  been 
called  'Paidov  in  his  day.  From  the  context,  however,  it  is  evi- 
dent that  this  Raithu  cannot  be  identical  with  the  modern 
Raithu,  near  the  southern  harboiu'  Tor  or  Tm',  which  was  fixed 
upon  by  later  tradition  as  the  site  of  Elim,  but  must  have  been 
situated  much  farther  to  the  north  (cf.  K.  Ritte)\  xiv.  14). 
Breydenhach,  who  visited  the  peninsula  in  the  year  1483,  was  of 
opinion  that  the  Wady  Gharandel,  which  is  some  hours'  journey 
to  the  south  of  Howarah,  corresponded  to  the  Biblical  Elim. 
("  In  torrentem  incidimus,  dictum  Orondem,  ubi  figentes  tentoria 
propter  aquas,  qufc  illic  reperiebantur,  nocte  mansimus  ilia. 
Sunt  enim  in  loco  isto  plures  fontes  Aavi,  aquas  claras  scaturien- 
tes.  Sunt  et  palmse  multae  ibi,  unde  suspicabamur  illic  esse 
desertum  Hehjmr  See  Raumer,  p.  24.)  Nearly  every  modern 
traveller  coincides  in  this  opinion.  "  Three  hours  after,"  says 
Burckhardt  (reckoning  from  Howarah),  we  reached  Wady  Gha- 
randel, which  I'mis  towards  the  north-cast.  It  was  nearly  a  mile 
broad,  and  full  of  trees.  About  half  an  li(Kir  from  the  spot 
where  we  halted,  in  a  southern  direction,  there  is  a  copious  spring 
and  a  small  brook,  which  render  this  valley  the  principal  halting- 
place  in  the  entire  route."  liohinson  speaks  to  the  same  effect 
(i.  110) :  This  Wady  "is  deeper  and  better  supplied  with  bushes 
and  shrul)s  than  any  we  had  yet  seen ;  and,  like  Sudr  and 
Wardau,  it  bore  marks  of  havino;  had  water  running  in  it  the 
present  year.  Straggling  trees  of  various  kinds  are  found  in  it. 
A  few  small  palm-trees  are  scattered  through  the  valley." 

Tiscliendorf  says  (i.  189)  :  "  This  is  a  glorious  oasis  :   at  the 

VOL.  III.  B 


18  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

place  where  we  rested,  it  lies  enclosed  like  a  jewel  between  the 
chalky  cliffs.  We  reposed  for  a  long  time  in  the  grass,  which 
was  as  tall  as  ourselves  ;  tamarisks  and  dwarf  palms  stretched 
like  a  garland  from  east  to  west."  Every  traveller  pronounces 
the  water  of  this  valley  disagreeable,  as  it  has  a  brackish  taste, 
but  it  is  by  no  means  so  bitter  as  that  at  Howarah.  Water  is 
also  found  on  digging  to  a  little  depth  in  the  sand. — Graul  is 
fully  convinced  that  the  Wady  Gharandel  is  identical  wath  the 
Biblical  Elim.  He  describes  the  valley  as  a  combination',  of 
f ertiUty  and  loveliness,  to  which  the  Wady  Feiran  alone  presents 
any  parallel  in  the  whole  of  the  peninsula. — As  the  Wady 
Gharandel  extends  as  far  as  the  sea,  Dieterici  (ii.  22)  is  of 
opinion  that  the  encampment  of  the  Israehtes  may  have  stretched 
to  the  sea-shore ;  and  to  this  he  refers  the  expression  Ex.  xv. 
27,  "  And  they  encamped  there  by  the  waters."  But  there  can 
be  no  doubt  that  it  is  much  more  appropriate  to  refer  this  ex- 
pression to  the  twelve  wells  of  water  in  the  valley. — Lahorde 
protests  against  this  identification  of  Elim  and  Gharandel,  on 
the  ground  that  the  distance  from  Howarah  to  Gharandel  is  too 
short  (three  hours),  and  that  it  is  too  far  from  Gharandel  to  the 
next  station  on  the  Red  Sea  (eight  hours)  for  the  Israelites  to 
have  reached  it  in  a  single  day's  march.  He  places  Elim,  there- 
fore, at  the  Wady  Useit  (Osseita),  which  is  situated  at  a  distance 
of  three  lioiu's  farther  to  the  south,  and  thus  di-\ddes  the  whole 
distance  into  two  day's  journeys  of  five  or  six  hours  each.  With 
reference  to  Wady  Useit,  Robinson  says  (i.  102)  :  "  This  valley 
resembles  Ghurundel,  though  not  so  large ;  and  has  a  few  small 
palm-trees,  and  a  little  brackish  water  standing  in  holes." 

Lahorde,  on  the  other  hand,  speaks  of  a  "  source  assez  bonne  et 
de  palmiers  nombreux."  Robinson  appears  to  us  to  have  offered  a 
complete  reply  to  his  objections.  He  says  (i.  105)  :  "  As  Ghu- 
rundel is  one  of  the  most  noted  Ai-ab  watering-places,  and  the 
Israelites  probably  would  have  rested  there  several  days,  it  would 
not  be  difficult  for  them  for  once  to  make  a  longer  march,  and 
thus  reach  the  plain  near  the  sea.  Besides,  in  a  host  like  that 
of  the  Israelites,  consisting  of  more  than  two  millions  of  people, 
with  many  flocks,  it  can  hardly  be  supposed  that  they  all  marched 
in  one  body.  INIore  probably  the  stations,  as  enmnerated,  refer 
rather  to  the  head-quarters  of  !Moses  and  the  elders,  with  a  por- 
tion of  the  people,  who  kept  near  them ;  wliile  other  portions 


HALT  AT  MAEAH  AND  ELIM.  19 

preceded  or  followed  them  at  various  distances,  as  the  conve- 
nience of  water  and  pasturage  might  dictate." 

The  next  station,  "by  the  Red  Sea"  (Num.  xxxiii.),  not- 
withstanding this  indefinite  announcement,  may  be  fixed  upon 
with  greater  certainty  and  precision  than  any  of  the  foregoing,  on 
account  of  our  intimate  acquaintance  with  the  ground.  If  the 
caravan  proceeded  south  from  the  Wady  Gharandel  or  the 
Wady  Useit,  it  cannot  have  reached  the  Red  Sea  by  any  other 
route  than  through  the  Wady  Tayiheh  (or  Taibe)  ;  for  there  is  a 
range  of  mountains  at  the  south  of  the  Wady  Useit,  which  ter- 
minates in  the  steep  promontory  of  Hamtnam  Bluff,  or  Faraun 
(which  is  pointed  out  in  Arabian  legends  as  the  scene  of  Pha- 
raoh's destruction),  and  approaches  so  nearly  to  the  sea  as  to 
render  it  impossible  to  pass  along  the  shore.  The  Israelites 
must  therefore  have  gone  round  these  mountains.  The  next 
valley,  the  Wady  Thai,  which  passes  through  the  momitains  to 
the  sea  merely  as  a  narrow  gorge,  must  also  have  been  crossed. 
They  then  arrived  at  Wady  Shehekeh  (Shubeikeh),  from  which 
the  Wady  Tayibeh  branches  off  towards  the  east,  and  leads  to 
the  sea-shore.  "  We  reached,"  says  Strauss  (p.  142),  "  the 
broad  and  beautiful  valley  of  Tayibeh,  which  is  covered  \^dth 
tamarisks  and  fresh  herbage,  and  where  we  found  the  rain  of 
the  previous  autumn  still  remaining  in  many  a  deep  pool.  The 
valley  winds  about  between  steep  rocks,  and  fi'equently  it  appears 
to  lead  into  an  enclosm'e  from  which  there  is  no  outlet,  until 
suddenly  an  opening  is  discovered  at  the  side.  After  travelling 
about  eight  hours  from  Ghurundel,  we  arrived  once  more  at  the 
Red  Sea  (near  Ras  ZeHmeh).  To  the  north  tlie  mountains  and 
rocks  came. close  upon  the  sea,  but  towards  the  south  a  plain 
opened  before  us,  which  was  bounded  on  the  east  by  Avild  and 
rugged  rocky  formations."  This  was  undoubtedly  the  station  of 
the  children  of  Israel  by  the  Red  Sea.  The  sandy  plain,  on 
which  thci'e  is  a  great  quantity  of  vegetation,  runs  along  by  the 
sea-shore  for  three  or  four  miles,  and  is  about  three  quarters  of  a 
mile  in  breadth  ;  but  after  this  the  rocky  wall  approaches  so 
nearly  to  the  sea,  that  it  is  only  at  the  ebb  that  there  is  any 
road  at  all.  The  road  then  leads  into  a  much  more  extensive 
desert  plain,  which  is  of  considerable  breadth,  and  runs  by  the 
side  of  the  sea  as  far  as  Ras  Mohammed,  at  the  southern  ex- 
tremity of  the  peninsula.     The  present  name  of  the  plain  is 


20  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

JEl-Kaa,  and  it  is  probable  tbat  the  Desert  of  Sin  had  the 
same  boundaries.  The  halting-place  of  the  children  of  Israel  in 
the  desert  of  Sin  must  be  sought  for  in  the  northern  part  of  this 
desert  plain,  probablj  near  to  the  spot  where  the  fountain  of 
MurJcah  (Marcha)  still  offers  to  the  traveller  a  resting-place 
abundantly  supplied  "with  drinkable  water. — The  foregoing  de- 
scription of  the  desert  of  Sin  is  adopted  by  Robinson,  Bitter,  and 
others.  Raumer,  Labor'de,  and  Kutscheit,  on  the  other  hand, 
place  the  encampment  "  by  the  Ked  Sea"  at  the  spot  which  we 
suppose  to  have  been  the  next  station  (namely,  at  Ain  Murkah 
in  the  plain  of  El-Kaa),  and  seek  for  the  commencement  of  the 
desert  of  Sin  to  the  east  of  the  plain  of  El-Kaa,  in  one  of  the 
wadys  by  which  you  reach  the  mountains  of  Sinai,  namely,  in 
the  Wady  Nasb  or  the  Wady  Mokatteb  (cf.  §  5,  1,  2).— The 
opinion  which  Lepsius  has  attempted  to  establish  is  wddely  dif- 
ferent from  both  of  these.  Tliis  celebrated  Egyptologist,  who 
landed  at  Tor,  and,  after  making  an  excursion  into  the  moun- 
tains of  Sinai,  embarked  again  at  the  harbour  of  Zelimeh,  has 
pronounced  the  ordinary  notions  respecting  the  Israelitish  sta- 
tions for  the  most  part  decidedly  eiToneous,  appealing  to  his 
own  observations  in  proof  of  his  assertion.  He  rejects  at  once 
the  idea  of  transferring  the  station  at  Marah  to  the  Howarah 
spring  (Reise,  p.  24),  for  "  it  is  not  even  situated  in  a  wady,  and 
therefore  the  flocks  could  have  found  no  pasture  ;  moreover,  the 
only  thing  by  which  it  is  distinguished  is  bad  water,  and  hence 
there  was  no  reason  why  the  name  of  a  station  should  have  been 
given  to  it  even  in  ancient  times  Q  ! !)."  It  is  quite  as  errone- 
ous, he  says,  to  place  Elim  in  the  Wady  Gharandel.  On  the 
contrary,  JMarah  ought  to  be  placed  at  Gharandel,  and  Elim  at 
the  point  where  the  Wady  Tayibeh  opens  into  the  plain  of 
Zelimeh.  The  next  station,  "by  the  Red  Sea,"  must  therefore 
be  sought  at  the  harbour  of  Zelimeh.  The  proximity  and 
close  connection  of  these  two  stations  sufficiently  explain  the 
fact,  that  in  the  leading  account  (Ex.  x\^)  the  station  by  the 
Red  Sea  is  omitted.  The  reason  evidently  was,  that  "  there 
Avas  nothing  particular  to  distinguish  it  from  Elim,  the  water- 
ing-place of  the  harbour,  which  bore  most  probably  the  same 
name"  (Briefe,  p.  343).  But  if  the  Israelites  encamped  at 
the  opening  of  the  Wady  Tayibeh,  it  may  be  assumed  as 
certain,    that  their  camp  must  have  extended  as  far   as   the 


HALT  AT  MAEAH  AND  ELIM.  21 

sea-shore,  which  was   scarcely  half  an  hoxir  s  journey  distant. 
The  two  stations  would  then  coincide  ;  and  the  writer  of  Num. 
xxxiii.  must  have  trifled  in  a  most  incomprehensible  manner, 
when  he  wrote,  "  And  they  departed  from  Elim,  and  encamped 
by  the  Red  Sea." — Lepsius  has  also  started  a  new  theory  respect- 
ing the  boundary  of  the  desert  of  Sin.     The  expression  employed 
in  Ex.  xvi.  1,  "  which  lies  between  Elim  and  Sinai,"  he  interprets 
as  meaning  that  the  whole  tract  of  desert  from  Zelimeh  to  Mount 
Sinai  (i.e.,  Serbal,  in  his  opinion)  was  called  the  Desert  of  Sin. 
"  For,"  he  says  (Briefe,  p.  344),  "there  would  be  no  sense  in  the 
statement  that  the  desert  of  Sin  was  situated  between  Elim  and 
Sinai,  unless  we  were  to  understand  that  it  extended  to  Sinai,  or 
even  farther.     Hence,  when  we  read  that  the  next  time  they 
removed,  they  went  from  the  desert  of  Sin  to  Rephidim,  we 
are  not  to  suppose  that  they  left  the  desert ;  on  the  contrary, 
they  remained  there  till  they  reached  Sinai,  whose  name  Sini 
(i.e.,  the  mountain  of  Sin)  was  evidently  first  derived  from  the 
district,  and  which  must,  therefore,  not  be  looked  for  ou^tside  the 
limits  of  the  desert.     The  same  inference  may  be  di'awn  from 
the  account  of  the  manna,  which  the  Israelites  received  in  the 
desert  of  Sin ;  for  the  first  place  in  which  we  meet  with  manna 
is  in  the  valleys  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Fu*an,  and  it  is  no  more 
to  be  found  in  the  sandy  plains  by  the  sea-shore,  than  in  the 
more  elevated  district  of  Jebel  Musa."     The  objection  drawn 
from  the  manna  is  founded  upon  the  assumption,  that  the  manna 
which  still  trickles  from  the  tarfah  shrub  is  exactly  the  same  as 
the  manna  of  the  Bible.     Bvit,  to  say  the  least,  such  an  assump- 
tion lacks  that  undoubted  certainty  which  alone  could  justify  us 
in  making  it  the  foundation  of  further  argmuents.     And  even  if 
it  possessed  this  certainty,  it  would  not  sustain  what  it  is  meant 
to  prove.     For  how  does  Lepsius  know  that  the  plain  of  El-Kaa 
was  just  as  destitute  of  tarfah  shrubs  three  thousand  years  ago 
as  it  is  now?     The  growth  of  the  tai-fah,  and  therefore  the 
existence  of  manna,  is  confined  at  present  to  the  wadys  which 
surround  or  intersect  the  two  mountain-groups  of  the  peninsula ; 
farther  north  no  traces  of  either  arc  anywhere  to  be  found.    Yet 
if  we  reduce  the  Biblical  account  of  the  distribution  of  manna 
among  the  people  to  the  smallest  possible  scale  (of.  Hengstenherg, 
Balaam,  p.  oGl  sqq.,  translation),  it  Avill  be  impossible  for  any 
one  to  deny  that  the  Lsraelites  must  have  partaken  of  manna  in 


22  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

many  parts  of  the  peninsula,  where  there  are  no  signs  of  the 
tarfah  bushes  to  be  met  with  now  (see  Exodus  xvi.  35,  and 
below,  §  3,  2). — Again,  the  argument  of  the  learned  Egyptologist 
falls  to  the  ground,  if  it  can  be  proved,  as  we  shall  presently  see 
that  it  can  (§  8,  3),  that  his  assertion  as  to  the  identity  of  the 
Serbal  and  the  mountain  on  which  the  law  was  given  is  mthout 
foundation.  And,  on  the  other  hand,  the  assertion  that  Serbal 
is  equivalent  to  Sinai  cannot  possibly  be  correct,  if  the  alleged 
boundary  of  the  desert  of  Sin  is  erroneous. — We  shall  now  pro- 
ceed to  the  proofs  of  the  latter.  We  observe  at  the  outset,  that 
the  derivation  of  the  name  of  Mount  Sinai  from  the  desert  of 
Sin,  which  is  supposed  to  have  touched  it,  appears  to  us  a  very 
strange  one.  It  is  quite  as  unnatural  in  itself,  as  it  is  opposed  to 
all  analogy.  For  in  every  other  case,  without  -exception,  the 
deserts  and  wadys  are  named  after  the  mountains,  and  not  the 
mountains  after  the  adjoining  plains ;  and  it  is  a  priori  most  un- 
natural to  suppose  "  that  the  most  prominent  object  in  a  country 
derived  its  name  from  some  insignificant  object  which  happened 
to  be  near  it"  (Kutscheit,  p.  17).  But  we  cannot  possibly  con- 
ceive what  it  was  that  led  the  learned  professor  to  maintain  that 
all  the  subsequent  stations  up  to  Sinai  must  have  been  situated 
witliin  the  desert  of  Sin.  Read,  for  example,  Num.  xxxiii.  12 
sqq.  (cf .  Ex.  xvii.  1)  :  "  And  they  took  their  journey  out  of  the 
desert  of  Sin,  and  encamped  in  Dophkah.  And  they  departed 
from  Dophkah,  and  encamped  in  Alush.  And  they  removed  from 
Alush,  and  encamped  at  Rephidim.  .  .  .  And  they  departed 
from  Rephidim,  and  pitched  in  the  wilderness  of  Sinai.''  Who, 
on  reading  this,  cordd  possibly  imagine  that  they  were  all  the 
while  in  the  desert  of  Sin,  and  that  even  the  wHdemess  of  Sinai 
itself  was  part  of  the  same  desert  1  It  seems  to  us  as  clear  as  it 
possibly  can  be,  that  the  station  of  Dophkah  was  outside  the 
desert  of  Sin.  Moreover,  the  first  look  at  a  map  convinces  us  at 
once  of  the  impossibility  of  Lepsius  explanation.  It  is  very 
conceivable  that  the  whole  of  the  plain  along  the  coast,  which 
stretches  almost  ^athout  interruption  to  the  southern  extremity 
of  the  peninsula,  may  have  been  called  by  the  common  name  of 
desert  of  Sin.  The  similarity  in  the  character  of  the  whole  of 
the  district  would  sufficiently  account  for  this.  But  it  is  utterly 
inconceivable  and  impossible  that  the  whole  of  the  tract  between 
Ras  Zelimeh  and  Serbal  should  have  been  classed  as  one  district, 


HALT  AT  MARAH  AND  ELIM.  23 

and  (listingviislied  from  the  rest  by  a  common  name.  The  broad, 
level,  sandy  plain  on  the  one  hand,  and  on  the  other  the  intricate 
lab}Tinth  of  valleys,  gorges,  cliffs,  and  mountains,  by  which  the 
plain  is  bounded  on  the  east  (and  in  which  Lepslus  placed  the 
whole  of  the  stations  between  Sin  and  Sinai),  present  so  complete 
and  striking  a  contrast  to  each  other,  that  it  would  never  have 
entered  into  any  one's  mind  to  class  them  both  under  the  com- 
mon name  of  "Desert  of  Sin."  There  is  something  plausible,  no 
doubt,  in  the  argument  based  upon  the  expression  in  Ex.  xvi.  1, 
"which  is  between  Elim  and  Sinai,"  but  only  so  long  as  we  in- 
terpret this  passage  without  reference  to  Ex.  xvii.  1  and  Num. 
xxxiii.  12  ;  for  it  is  evident  from  these  passages  that  not  the  desert 
of  Sin  alone,  but  the  resting-places  at  Dophkah,  Alush,  Rephi- 
dim,  and  also  the  desert  of  Sinai,  lay  between  Elim  and  Sinai. 
On  closer  inspection,  in  fact,  we  must  maintain  that  both  the 
words,  "they  encamped  in  the  desert  of  Sin,"  and  the  clause, 
"  which  is  between  Elim  and  Sinai,"  are  irrelevant  and  incom- 
])rehensible  if  the  supposition  of  Lepshis  be  correct.  For 
nothing  but  the  fact  that  the  context  limited  the  more  compre- 
hensive term  "  desert  of  Sin,"  to  such  an  extent  as  to  compel  us 
to  think  only  of  a  certain  point  in  this  wide-spread  desert  (viz., 
the  northern  extremity),  would  explain  the  omission  of  any 
special  designation  of  this  particular  station.  If  Dophkali, 
Alush,  Rephidim,  and  others,  were  also  in  the  desert  of  Sin,  we 
should  naturally  expect  the  name  of  the  first  station  to  be  given 
as  well  as  the  names  of  the  rest.  The  clause,  "  which  is  between 
Elim  and  Sinai,"  is  neither  required,  nor  intelligible,  unless  we 
regard  it  as  a  more  precise  f onn  of  the  indefinite  phrase,  "  they 
encamped  in  the  desert  of  Sin."  If  the  desert  of  Sin  extended 
along  the  sea-coast  for  some  distance  towards  the  south  (possibly 
as  far  as  Ras  Mohammed),  there  is  no  difficulty  at  all.  The 
meaning  of  the  clause  would  then  be,  that  the  point  or  portion 
referred  to  was  that  part  of  the  desert  of  Sin  which  was  situated 
between  Elim  and  Sinai ;  in  other  words,  that  Israel  encamped 
just  where  the  road  to  Sinai  intersected  the  desert  of  Sin.  Elim 
woiild  then  stand  oixt  as  the  principal  halting-place  on  the  road 
from  Eg}^t  to  Sinai.  And  to  the  present  day  the  Wady 
Gharandel  answers  this  description. 


24  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

HALT  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SIN. 

§  3.  (Ex.  xvi.) — The  supply  of  bread,  wliicli  the  Israelites 
took  with  them  from  the  land  of  Egypt,  was  all  consumed  by  the 
time  they  arrived  at  the  Desert  of  Sin,  and  there  was  no  prospect 
of  their  obtaining  a  fresh  supply.  The  flocks  they  had  with 
them  were  no  doubt  sufficient  to  secui'e  them  from  actual  starva- 
tion for  some  time  to  come ;  but  a  thoughtful  glance  at  the 
futiu'e  must  have  shown  at  once,  that  it  would  be  impossible  to 
continue  to  slaughter  the  cattle,  as  they  had  been  accustomed  to 
do.  Israel,  it  is  true,  had  already  had  su^fficient  experience  of 
the  providential  care  of  God,  to  be  able  to  trust  it  still  further. 
But  there  was  too  much  of  the  original  heathen  root  left  in 
the  people,  for  them  to  avoid  asking  the  question,  in  such  cir- 
ciunstances  as  those  in  which  they  were  placed,  T\liat  shall  we 
eat,  and  what  shall  we  drink  ?  It  was  necessary  that  this  root 
should  be  brought  to  the  light,  to  be  punished  by  the  light. 
For  this  reason  Jehovah  did  not  anticipate  the  pressing  and  evi- 
dent need,  but  employed  it  as  a  means  of  temptation,  before  He 
removed  it.  And  now  first  could  it  rightly  be  seen  how  Avide- 
spread  and  strong  was  the  heathenish  disposition  of  the  chosen 
and  redeemed  people.  All  the  people  murmured  against  Moses 
and  Aaron.  "  Would  to  God  we  had  died  in  Eg-j^^t,"  they  ex- 
claimed, "  when  we  sat  by  the  flesh-pots,  and  when  we  did  eat 
bread  to  the  full.  For  ye  have  brought  us  forth  into  this  wil- 
derness, to  kill  this  whole  assembly  with  hmiger."  They  put  all 
the  blame  upon  their  human  leaders,  and  therefore  seemed  to 
themselves  to  be  very  pious  still,  because  they  did  not  murmur 
against  God.  But  Moses  stripped  them  of  this  self-deception : 
"  What  are  we,  that  ye  murmur  against  us  ?  Your  murmuring 
is  not  against  us,  but  against  Jehovah;"  and  Aaron  announced 
to  the  assembled  congregation,  that  Jehovah,  whom  they  despised, 
would  give  them  in  the  evening  flesh  to  eat,  and  in  the  morning 
would  cause  it  to  rain  bread  from  heaven.  While  he  was  speak- 
ing the  attention  of  the  people  was  attracted  towards  the  desert, 


HALT  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SIN.  25 

where  the  glory  of  Jehovah  flashed  out  from  the  cloud  with 
majestic  brilliancy,  to  attest  the  truth  of  the  words  of  reproof 
and  promise  which  were  spoken  by  His  servants. 

As  soon  as  the  evening  came  on,  a  flock  of  quails  came  up 
and  covered  the  camp  (1)  ;  and  in  the  morning  the  dew  lay  round 
about  the  host :  and  when  the  dew  was  gone  up,  behold  it  lay 
upon  the  face  of  the  Avilderness,  small  and  scaly,  like  the  hoar- 
frost on  the  ground.  The  Israelites  called  it  Man  (manna),  for 
they  discovered  therein  the  gift  (jd)  and  bounty  of  God;  and 
Moses  said :  "  This  is  the  bread  which  Jehovah  hath  given  you 
to  eat"  (2). — By  this  gift  of  God  they  were  to  be  weaned  from 
all  heathenish  anxiety.  It  served  to  point  them  to  the  grace 
of  God  alone,  and  taught  them  to  trust  that  He,  who  had  fed 
them  this  day,  both  could  and  would  in  all  time  to  come  amply 
provide  for  their  wants  with  this  miraculous  food.  Hence  Moses 
gave  them  two  commands :  they  were  only  to  gather  sufficient 
for  the  wants  of  a  single  day,  namely,  one  gomer  each ;  and  they 
were  not  to  leave  any  from  one  day  to  another.  Some  of  the  con- 
gregation disobeyed  both  of  these  orders ;  but  in  both  respects 
God  disappointed  them.  Those  who  had  taken  the  trouble,  by 
dint  of  extra  exertions,  to  gather  a  larger  quantity  than  was 
actually  required  for  the  day's  supply,  fovuid  to  their  shame,  on 
measuring  what  they  had  collected,  that  they  had  no  more  than 
the  quantity  allowed ;  and  those  who  were  led  by  an  unbelieving 
parsimoniousness  to  keep  a  portion  till  the  next  day,  found  it  on 
the  following  morning  in  a  state  of  corruption  and  decomposi- 
tion. But  when  they  had  gathered  it  on  the  sixth  day,  they  found 
they  had  double  the  usual  quantity.  Moses  explained  the  enigma. 
The  primeval  consecration  of  the  seventh  day  as  a  day  of  rest, 
which  had  probably  fallen  into  disuse  in  Egj'pt,  was  now  to  be 
restored,  and  to  become  one  of  the  fundamental  characteristics 
of  the  life  of  the  community  (3).  The  double  quantity  collected 
on  the  sixth  day  was  intended  to  provide  for  the  wants  of  the 
seventh  also,  that  the  rest  of  that  day,  which  was  holy  to  God, 
might  not  be  disturbed  by  the  collection  and  preparation  of  earthly 


26  .    ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

food.  And  behold,  on  the  following  morning,  that  which  had  been 
left  from  the  previous  day  had  not  become  corrupt  and  decom- 
posed, as  on  other  occasions,  but  had  remained  perfectly  sweet 
and  uninjvired.  In  spite  of  the  prohibition,  however,  some  of 
the  people  went  out  into  the  field  to  collect  a  fresh  supply,  but 
they  found  nothing.  As  a  memorial  for  future  generations, 
Moses  (afterwards)  caused  a  gomer  full  of  the  miraculous  food  of 
the  desert  to  be  placed  in  the  sanctuary  (4).  For  forty  years 
from  this  time  the  children  of  Israel  continued  to  eat  the  manna, 
till  they  reached  the  border  of  the  land  of  Canaan.  Their  un- 
usually long-continued  sojourn  in  the  desert  of  Sin  (viz.,  for 
seven  days)  answered  the  double  purpose  of  allowing  the  people 
to  rest  after  enduring  so  much  fatigue,  and  of  fm'nishing  a 
historical  basis  for  the  renewal  of  the  law  of  the  Sabbath. 

(1.)  The  birds  which  covered  the  camp  of  Israel  in  such  im- 
mense numbers,  and  furnished  the  Israelites  with  food,  are  called 
in  the  original  w.     The  rendering  quails  is  confirmed  by  the 

/    O     / 

Arabic  ^_^»Lo-     In  the  Septuagint  it  is  translated  oprvyofjU'qTpa 

(probably  the  so-called  quail-king,  which  is  described  by  Pliny 
as  leading  the  flock  of  quails,  h.  n.  10,  33).  In  the  Vulgate  it  is 
called  coturnix ;  and  Josephus  calls  the  bird  in  question  oprv^. 
Accorchng  to  many  accounts,  both  ancient  and  modern,  quails 
(tetrao  coturnix)  are  found  in  immense  numbers  in  Arabia 
Petrffia  and  the  adjoining  countries.  They  generally  fly  very 
low  (a  yard  or  two  above  the  ground),  and  in  such  dense  masses, 
that  the  inhabitants  catch  great  numbers  in  their  hands,  or 
knock  them  do-svn  with  sticks  (cf.  Winer,  Real-lex.  ii.  666,  667). 
Still,  expositors  differ  in  opinion  as  to  the  bird  actually  referred 
to  ;  and  some  suppose  that  another  bird  is  meant,  which  abounds 
in  the  whole  of  Arabia,  in  Palestine,  and  in  Syria,  namely,  the 
Kata  of  the  Arabs.  This  bird  is  about  the  size  of  a  turtle-dove ; 
its  flesh  is  rather  dry  and  tough,  but  it  is  eaten  with  relish  and 
in  great  quantities  by  the  inhabitants,  who  catch  the  birds  with 
the  greatest  ease.  It  belongs  to  the  partridge  tribe  (though 
Ilasselquist  still  calls  it  Tetrao  Alchata),  and  is  not  a  bird  of 
passage.     But  the  description  in  Ex.  xvi.,  and  that  in  Num.  xi. 


HALT  IX  THE  DESEET  OF  SIN.  27 

31  sqq.,  can  hardly  apply  to  any  but  a  bird  of  passage.  Moreover, 
the  occm-rence  took  place  in  the  spring,  when  the  birds  of  passage 
retui'n  from  their  winter  quarters  in  the  south  to  their  northern 
home ;  and  therefore  we  abide  by  the  interpretation,  in  which 
the  oldest  authorities  agree.  The  fact,  that  the  flocks  of  migra- 
tory bu'ds  frequently  direct  their  course  across  the  peninsula,  is 
fully  established  by  many  authorities.  Tuch  (Deutsch-morgenl. 
Zeitschr.,  vol.  i.  2,  p.  174)  cites  a  passage  from  Kazioini,  in 
which  he  says  :  "  In  the  desert  of  Jif ar  (Shur)  there  is  a  species 
of  bird  called  el-Morgh,  which  comes  from  Emnana.  It  re- 
sembles the  quail,  and  arrives  at  a  particular  period  of  the  year. 
The  people  catch  as  many  of  them  as  possible,  and  salt  them." 
"Wlien  Schubert  (ii.  358)  was  near  the  scene  of  the  occurrence 
described  in  Nmn.  xi.  31  sqq.,  whole  flocks  of  migratory  birds 
passed  by  at  some  distance  from  the  traveller,  of  such  a  size  and 
such  density  as  he  had  never  seen  before.  They  had  come  from 
their  winter  quarters,  and  were  hastening  to  their  home  on  the 
sea-shore.  The  most  natm-al  interpretation  of  the  expression, 
"  they  came  up  and  covered  the  camp,"  is  certainly  this,  that 
they  came  from  the  neighbourhood  of  the  Nile,  and  fell  do^^^^, 
weary  with  their  flight,  in  the  midst  of  the  camp.  It  would  then  be 
an  easy  thing  to  catch  or  kill  the  birds,  which  were  too  exhausted 
to  fly  any  farther. — After  what  we  have  already  said,  it  will  be 
unnecessary  to  say  anything  fm-ther  in  opposition  to  other  explana- 
tions of  IX'j — such,  for  example,  as  locusts  (see  Lxidolf,  hist.  Aeth. 
i.  13,  No  96  ;  and,  in  reply  to  him,  Lahorcle,  Comment.  90  sqq.), 
or  flying  fishes  (of  the  Trigla  species  ;  as  Ehrenherg  supposed, 
because  he  saw  many  of  these  fishes  Mng  dead  upon  the  shore). 
(2.)  From  the  numerous  works  which  have  been  written  on 
the  Manna,  we  select  for  reference  J.  Buxtorfs  Exercitationes 
ad  Historiam  (Basil  1659,  4  Diss,  iv.,  hist.  Mannse,  p.  336-390)  ; 
and  still  more  particularly,  the  exhaustive  siunmaryof  the  results  of 
modem  researches  in  K.  Ritiers  Erdkmide  xiv.  665-695.  Three 
things  lie  before  us  for  examination  :  the  manna  of  the  Bible ;  the 
manna  of  the  present  day  ;  and  their  relation  to  each  other. 

a.  The  ISLvxna  of  the  Bible. — The  derivation  of  the  name 
is  doubtful.  In  ver.  15  we  read  :  "  When  the  children  of  Israel 
saw  it,  they  said  one  to  another  :  i^'in  I9,  for  N=in"no  ^y'j"'^  N7." 
By  the  Septuagint  and  Vulgate  translators,  and  by  Josephus, 
p  is  regarded   as  an   inteirogative  particle,  equivalent  to  HD. 


28  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

By  the  first  it  is  rendered  rl  icm  tovto  ;  by  the  second,  dixer- 
unt  ad  invicem  :  Manhu  f  quod  signijicat :  Quid  est  hoc  ?  From 
this  question  of  surprise,  the  thing  itself,  Avhich  had  been  hitherto 
unknown,  is  supposed  to  have  received  the  name  p  (cf.  ver. 
31,  "And  the  house  of  Israel  called  it  Mmi").  This  deri- 
vation continued  to  be  the  usual  one  as  late  as  oiu*  own  days. 
But  very  little  can  really  be  said  in  its  favour;  for  jo,  as  an 
equivalent  for  HD,  is  not  Hebrew,  but  Aramasan.  ISIoreover,  we 
can  hardly  imagine  the  interrogative  particle,  what  I  being 
adopted,  without  any  further  reason,  as  the  name  of  an  object 
which  was  previously  unknown.  Hence  we  agree  with  most 
modern  authorities  in  giving  the  preference  to  the  derivation 
from  ptD  or  njD   {partitus  est,  mensus  est,  admensus  est),   and 

render  the  "word :   allotment,  present,  gift.     In  the  Arabic,    ^^ 

is  equivalent  to  donum,  and  is  used  with  the  predicate  coeleste  to 
designate  the  manna. 

With  regard  to  the  origin,  the  appearance,  and  the  nature  of 
the  manna,  the  Bible  contains  the  following  particulars  :  Jehovah 
rained  it  from  heaven  (Ex.  xvi.  4)  ;  when  the  dew  fell  by  night 
upon  the  camp,  the  manna  fell  upon  it  (Num.  xi.  9)  ;  when  the 
dew  had  ascended,  it  lay  upon  the  svu'face  of  the  desert,  fine  (P"?), 
and  like  scales  (DBpno),  as  fine  as  the  hoar-frost  upon  the  earth 
(Ex.  xvi.  14)  ;  it  w^as  like  white  coriander  seed,  and  tasted  like 
cake  and  honey  (Ex.  x\i.  31).  When  the  heat  of  the  sun  became 
great,  it  melted  (Ex.  xvi.  21),  and  therefore  had  to  be  gathered 
early  in  the  morning.  It  is  repeatedly  stated  most  emphatically, 
that  it  supplied  the  place  of  bread.  In  Num.  xi.  7  sqq.  it  is  com- 
pared to  coriander  seed,  and  its  appearance  to  that  of  the  (bright, 
transparent)  bdellium ;  the  people  ground  it  in  mills  or  crushed  it 
in  mortars,  and  then  boiled  it  in  pots  and  made  cakes  of  it,  the 
flavour  of  wdiich  resembled  the  (mild)  flavom*  of  oil-cakes.  If  it 
was  kept  till  the  morning,  it  stank  and  bred  worms  (Ex.  xvi.  20). 
We  may  form  some  idea  of  the  quantity  of  manna  collected,  if 
we  consider  that,  according  to  Ex.  xvi.  16  sqq.,  a  gomer  full  (not 
less  than  a  pound)  w^as  gathered  daily  (at  least  in  the  early  part 
of  the  sojourn  in  the  desert)  for  every  member  of  the  congi'ega- 
tion,  and  that  it  is  stated  in  ver.  35  that  the  chikh'en  of  Israel 
ate  manna  for  forty  years,  vmtil  they  arrived  at  the  border  of 
Canaan,  the  land  in  which  they  were  to  dwell. 


HALT  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SIN.  29 

The  statements  just  referred  to  have  been  chosen  by  Heng- 
stenherg  as  the  subject  of  a  special  article,  which  is  headed, 
"Mistakes  in  reference  to  the  Manna"  (Balaam,  p.  561  sqq., 
translation).  lie  first  of  all  attacks  the  assertion  of  K.  v.  Raumer 
(Zug  d.  Isr.,  p.  27),  that  "the  Israelites  ate  manna  till  they 
reached  Edrei,  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Damascus,  and  then  on 
their  journey  back  to  the  plains  of  Jericho."  In  opposition  to 
this,  Ilengstenherg  endeavours  to  prove  that  the  Israelites  received 
no  manna  outside  the  Sinaitic  peninsula, — that  is,  during  their 
journey  through  the  countiy  of  the  Edomites  and  the  land  to 
the  east  of  the  Jordan.  He  says,  "  The  country  beyond  Jordan 
presented  at  that  time  such  abundant  supplies  of  food,  that  the 
necessity  for  the  manna  altogether  ceased.  A  continuance  of  the . 
manna  in  a  cultivated  coumtry  would  have  been  just  as  if  the 
Israelites,  when  on  the  banks  of  the  Jordan,  had  been  supplied 
with  water  from  the  rock  (§  4,  1).  The  Israelites  would  never 
have  eaten  it.  They  were  tired  of  it  in  the  desert.  For  what 
purpose  bestow  a  gift  which  the  receivers  could  not  make  use 
of,  and  their  disgust  at  which  might  be  foreseen"?"  (p.  562). 
But  in  Ex.  xvi.  35,  it  is  expressly  stated  that  they  ate  the 
manna  forty  years,  until  they  came  to  the  land  in  which  they 
were  to  dwell,  to  the  borders  of  the  land  of  Canaan.  And  even 
Hengstenherg  cannot  deny  that  the  land  referred  to  here  was 
the  country  to  the  west,  and  not  on  the  east  of  the  Jordan. 
Consequently  it  is  most  certainly  implied  in  this  passage,  that 
the  children  of  Israel  did  eat  the  manna,  when  they  were  in  the 
country  to  the  east  of  the  Jordan.  Still  we  admit  that,  from 
the  summary  character  of  this  passage,  which  renders  it  some- 
what indefinite,  it  must  not  be  too  strongly  pressed.  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  words  of  Joshua  v.  10-12  are  so  definite  and 
distinct,  so  exact  and  free  from  ambiguity,  that  Hengstenherg' s 
critical  trifling  cannot  possibly  be  sustained.  We  read  there  : 
"  The  children  of  Israel  encamped  at  Gilgal,  and  kept  the 
passover  on  the  fourteenth  day  of  tlie  month  at  even  in  the 
plains  of  Jericho.  And  they  did  eat  of  the  old  corn  on  the 
morrow  after  the  passover,  unleavened  cakes,  and  parched  corn 
in  the  self-same  day.  And  the  manna  ceased  on  the  morroio 
after  they  had  eaten  of  the  old  com  of  the  land ;  neither  had  the 
cliildren  of  Israel  manna  any  more."  Wliat  force  is  there  in  the 
following  remark,  when  the  words  of  the  passage  itself  are  so 


30  ISRAEL  rNT  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

clear  :  "  There  is  an  indication  here  that  now  the  period  of 
manna  made  way  definitively  for  the  period  of  bread"  ?  Defini- 
tively, no  donbt ;  but  the  period  of  the  manna  had  continued  up 
to  this  ver\-  moment.  Hengstenherg  refers,  however,  to  Josh, 
i.  11  :  "Prepare  you  ^dctuals,  for  Avithin  three  days  ye  shall 
pass  OYQV  this  Jordan  ;" — which  passage,  he  says,  "  is  miintel- 
licfible,  if  it  be  assumed  that  the  manna  followed  the  Israelites 
over  the  Jordan  ;  and  it  is  perfectly  absurd  to  suppose  that  they 
began  to  eat  bread  on  the  very  first  day  after  the  passover."  This 
is  a  flom'ish  in  the  air ;  for  no  one  maintains  that  the  Israelites 
had  not  previously  eaten  bread  whenever  they  could  procure  it. 
The  preparation  of  a  supply  for  the  passage  over  the  Jordan 
may  easily  be  accomited  for,  even  on  the  supposition  that  the 
manna  stiU  continued  to  fall.  For  Raumer  himself  has  not 
asserted  that  the  IsraeKtes  ate  manna  and  nothina;  else,  diu^n^ 
the  whole  period  of  forty  years.  On  the  contraiy,  we  believe 
that  the  Israehtes  were  constantly  in  the  habit  of  eating  flesh, 
and  any  other  lands  of  meat  mthin  their  reach,  at  the  same 
time  as  they  were  recei^dng  the  manna.  The  manna  was  to  be 
a  substitute  for  the  bread,  which  had  failed ;  and  whenever  bread 
could  be  obtained,  but  not  in  sufficient  quantities  to  supply  the 
wants  of  so  lai'ge  a  number,  the  deficiency  was  made  up  by  the 
manna.  For  this  reason  it  followed  them  till  they  reached  the 
productive  fields  of  the  land  in  which  they  were  to  dwell,  and 
where  they  Avere  to  sow  and  reap.  The  manna,  wliich  fell  with 
the  dew  from  heaven,  was  a  han-est  which  Jehovah  gave  them 
without  then-  haAang  soA^ai ;  but  as  soon  as  they  reached  the 
land  where  tillage  was  possibloj  and  where  they  were  to  sow, 
Jehovah  ceased  to  give  them  a  harvest  without  a  seed-time.  See 
also  Keil  on  Joshua  v.  12. 

From  what  we  have  already  said,  it  will  be  apparent  that  our 
opinion  coincides  to  a  much  gi'eater  extent  with  that  of  Heng- 
stenherg, when  he  proceeds  to  refute  the  mistaken  notion  that 
the  manna  constituted  the  sole  nourishment  of  the  Israelites 
during  the  whole  of  the  forty  years  which  they  spent  in  the 
desert,  and  when  he  adduces  proofs  that  many  other  soiu'ces  of 
supply  must  have  been  within  their  reach :  cf .  §  1, 3.  But  even  here 
he  gives  way  too  much  to  his  well-knoAvn  inclination  to  contract 
to  the  greatest  possible  extent  the  scope  and  force  of  the  miracle, 
in  order  that  he  may  bring  it  as  far  as  possible  within  the  natm-al 


HALT  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SIN.  31 

limits  of  the  special  providence  of  God.  Plence  he  maintains, 
without  the  least  foundation,  that  the  account  given  in  Ex.  xvi. 
16  of  the  quantity  which  fell  (a  gomer  daily  for  each  individual) 
merely  apphed  to  the  earliest  period  ;  and  even  the  daihj  fall  of 
the  manna  during  the  entire  period  of  forty  years,  which  is 
clearly  to  be  gathered  from  Ex.  xvi.  35,  compared  with  ver.  IG 
sqq.,  he  wotdd  gladly  set  aside. 

h.  The  daily  Manna. — Josephm  states  (Antiquities,  iii. 
1,  6),  that  in  his  day  the  same  food,  which  had  been  called  manna 
by  the  Hebrews,  continued  to  rain,  by  the  goodness  of  God,  in 
the  same  locality  as  in  the  time  of  Moses,  viz.,  at  Sinai.  And 
the  German  traveller  Breydenhach  (in  the  year  1483)  says,  that 
in  the  month  of  August  this  bread  of  heaven  is  still  found  in  the 
valleys  round  about  Sinai,  and  is  collected  by  the  monks  and 
sold  to  pilgrims.  The  subject  of  the  Sinaitic  manna  was  very 
rarely  referred  to  by  travellers  until  Seetzen  (1807)  confirmed 
the  fact,  which  had  been  forgotten  in  Em'ope,  or  was  regarded  as  a 
fiction,  and  thoroughly  investigated  it.  He  was  the  first  to  make 
the  discovery  that  this  manna  owes  its  origin  to  a  tamarisk 
shrub,  which  abounds  in  that  district  (called  by  the  Ai'abs  el- 
Tarfah),  from  the  branches  of  which  it  trickles  down.  Since 
then  every  traveller  has  paid  particular  attention  to  this  pheno- 
menon. In  1823  Dr  Ehi^enherg  first  made  the  discovery  that 
the  manna  produced  on  the  tarfah  shrub  is  caused  b}'  the  priclv 
of  an  insect. 

From  this  we  perceive  that  the  production  of  the  Sinaitic 
manna  of  the  present  day  is  dependent  upon  two  conditions — the 
existence  of  the  tarfah  shrub,  ajid  the  presence  of  the  insect  in 
question.  The  insect  is  a  species  of  louse,  very  small,  elliptical, 
and  of  a  yellow,  wax-like  colour  (Coccus  maniparus,  Ehrenb.). 
Hitherto  it  has  only  been  found  on  the  tamarisk  in  the  immedi- 
ate neiffhbomdiood  of  the  mountains  of  Sinai.  The  tamarisk  of 
this  district  (Tarnarix  mannifera,  Ehrenb.)  differs  but  little  from 
the  common  tamarisk  (Tarnarix  gallica).  It  merely  grows  to  a 
greater  height  (sometimes  as  much  as  twenty  feet  high),  is  more 
bushy,  and  more  thickly  covered  with  foliage.  The  very  same 
shrul)  is  also  frequently  found  in  Nuljia  and  Eg}-pt,  in  every 
part  of  Arabia,  in  the  countiy  watered  by  the  Euphrates,  and 
in  other  places  ;  but  the  mountainous  district  of  Sinai  is  the  only 
place  in  which  it  produces  manna,  for  the  simple  reason,  as  Ehren- 


32  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESEET  OF  SINAI. 

herg  supposes,  that  the  insect  is  only  to  be  met  with  there. — The 
appearance  of  the  insect  even  here,  and  therefore  the  crop  of 
manna,  is  dependent  upon  the  humidity  of  the  season.  The 
sap  is  merely  exuded  from  the  outer  branches,  that  is,  from  the 
very  tender  twigs  of  the  manna-tree.  In  productive  seasons  a 
twig  of  two  or  three  inches  long  yields  from  twenty  to  thirty 
drops,  an  entire  tree  of  average  dimensions  eighty  thousand. 
The  twdgs  are  completely  covered  by  the  perforations,  and  ac- 
quire a  wart-like  appearance  in  consequence.  Out  of  the  punc- 
ture, which  is  scarcely  visible  with  the  naked  eye,  a  drop  of 
transparent  juice  exudes,  Avhich  gradually  coagulates  and  at 
length  falls  to  the  ground.  The  colour  is  described  as  reddish, 
or  of  a  dull  yellow.  Before  sunset  the  drops  acquire  the  con- 
sistency of  wax,  and  then,  if  they  have  fallen  upon  clean  wood 
or  upon  stone,  they  are  said  to  look  as  white  as  snow.  The 
manna  melts  in  the  heat  of  the  sun.  The  flavour  resembles  that 
of  honey ;  and  when  taken  in  considerable  quantities  it  acts  as 
a  mild  aperient.  It  first  appears  towards  the  end  of  May ;  the 
real  harvest  time  is  in  June.  The  Arabs  gather  it,  partly  from 
the  branches,  and  partly  from  the  ground.  They  press  it  through 
a  coarse  woollen  cloth  for  the  purpose  of  removing  impurities, 
and  then  keep  it  in  leathern  bags,  either  for  sale  or  for  private 
use.  It  is  eaten  upon  bread.  When  kept  in  a  cool  place  it 
continues  firm,  in  a  warm  place  it  becomes  soft,  and  heat  melts 
it  altogether.  It  cannot  possibly  serve  as  a  substitute  for  meal 
or  bread,  since  it  can  neither  be  grated  nor  pounded,  and  still 
less  is  it  possible  to  bake  it.  MitscherlicJi  s  chemical  analysis 
showed  that  it  j^delded  no  crystals  of  mannin,  but  consisted  of 
saccharine  matter  alone.  In  diy  seasons  the  manna  juice  does 
not  flow ;  and  it  often  happens  that  for  several  consecutive  years 
the  manna  cannot  be  gathered  at  all.  But  at  such  times  the 
branches  are  so  full  of  saccharine  matter  that  they  have  the  real 
smell  and  taste  of  manna,  and  the  Bedouins  eat  them  both  raw 
and  boiled. — Of  late  years,  however,  it  has  been  disputed  whether 
the  origin  of  the  manna  can  really  be  traced  to  the  pmicture  of 
an  insect.  Liepshis  especially  has  opposed  this  explanation  (see 
K.  Riiters  Erdlvunde,  xiv.  675,  676).  On  entering  the  tarfah 
grove  in  the  Wady  Feiran,  on  the  28th  March,  a  fragrant  smell  of 
manna  met  him,  which  he  found,  on  closer  examination,  to  proceed, 
not  from  the  leaves  or  flowers,  but  solely  from  the  tender  sprouts. 


HALT  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SIN.  33 

The  twigs,  on  which  a  large  quantity  of  manna  was  ah'eady 
visible,  seemed  to  him  to  emit  less  odour  than  those  which  were 
just  about  to  exude  it.  This  appeared  to  him  at  variance  with 
the  notion  that  the  manna  was  caused  by  the  puncture  of  an 
insect,  and  not  connected  with  the  natural  development  of  the 
tree  itself.  Moreover,  the  large  quantity  exuded  from  a  single 
tree  in  the  manna  season  (from  fifty  to  a  hundred  thousand 
drops)  does  not  harmonise,  in  his  opinion,  with  such  a  supposi- 
tion, any  more  than  the  fact  that  the  manna  is  not  exuded  on 
any  day  on  which  there  has  been  no  moisture  to  facilitate  it. 
Tischendorf,  again,  who  entered  the  wood  in  the  Wady  Sheikh 
about  the  end  of  May,  was  surprised  at  the  strong  fragi'ant 
odom',  which  generally  surrounded  the  entire  shrub.  He  saw 
the  manna  drop  from  the  trees  in  thick  glutinous  masses,  but 
could  never  find  the  coccus  itself. 

In  the  present  day  the  tamarisk-manna  is  only  to  be  met 
with  in  the  Sinaitic  peninsula,  and  even  there  the  locality  in 
which  it  occurs  is  very  circumscribed.  The  tarfah  shrub  grows 
only  in  the  immediate  neighboiu^iood  of  the  mountains  Sinai 
and  Serbal,  and,  in  fact,  merely  in  the  fertile,  well-watered 
wadys  of  the  district.  Higher  up  the  mountains  it  never  grows 
at  all.  But  even  where  the  tamarisk  still  grows,  manna  is  not 
always  produced  by  it.  The  principal  supply  is  obtained  from 
the  Wady  Feiran  and  the  Wady  es-Sheikh.  The  entire  quantity 
of  manna  collected  in  a  single  year  over  the  whole  of  the  penin- 
sula does  not  exceed  five  or  six  hunrh'ed  pounds,  according  to 
Burckhardt,  even  in  the  most  productive  seasons. 

c.  Connection  between  the  IVL^sna  of  the  present 
DAY  AND  the  ]VIanna  OF  THE  ISRAELITES. — Very  different 
opinions  have  been  entertained  as  to  the  identity  between  these 
two.  Many  travellers  and  scholars  (among  others,  K.  Bitter) 
regard  them  as  essentially  one  and  the  same.  But  if  this  view 
be  adopted,  the  incongruity  between  the  Biblical  naiTativc  and 
the  descriptions  given  by  modern  travellers  is  so  great,  so  ap- 
parent, and  so  irreconcileable,  that,  by  the  side  of  the  well- 
established  facts  of  modern  times,  one  is  forced,  with  Winer  and 
others,  to  regard  the  Biblical  accounts  as  a  mythical  and  mar- 
vellous distortion  of  a  simple,  natural  occuiTencc.  Even  the 
theory,  which  Hengstenberg  advocates,  of  an  increase  and  inten- 
sification of  the  existing  powers  and  gifts  of  nature,  could  not 

VOL.  TIT.  C 


34  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

preserve  the  honest  inquh'er,  who  guards  against  every  form  of 
self-deception,  from  arriving  at  this  conclusion.  For  if  his  theory 
be  seriously  adopted,  we  must  assume  that  all  the  manna,  which 
the  Israelites  gathered  and  ate  during  their  forty  years'  sojourn 
in  the  desert,  actually  fell  from  the  tarfah  shrubs.  Now  a 
miraculous  increase  of  this  produce,  even  if  we  suppose  it  to 
have  been  carried  to  such  an  extent  that  every  shrub  yielded  a 
thousand,  ten  thousand,  or  even  a  million  times  as  much  as  the 
most  abmidant  crop  ever  gathered  now,  woidd  fall  very  far  short 
of  the  Biblical  accomits,  and  still  leave  them  open  to  the  charge 
of  exaggeration.  Let  us  confine  our  attention  at  present,  for 
example,  to  the  first  station  in  which  the  Israelites  partook  of  the 
manna,  namely,  the  Desert  of  Sin.  This  station,  as  we  have 
seen,  is  most  probably  to  be  found  in  the  barren  sandy  plain  of 
El-Kaa,  on  the  sea-coast,  where  not  a  single  tarfah  shrub  is  to  be 
met  with  now.  But  even  if  we  transfer  the  place  of  encamp- 
ment from  the  sandy  desert  to  the  most  fruitful  and  best  watered 
wady  in  the  district,  viz.,  the  Wady  Feiran,  and  assmning  that 
the  tarfah  shrubs  in  this  wady  were  incomparably  more  abundant 
at  that  time  than  they  are  now,  it  would  still  be  inconceivable 
that  the  shrubs  within  the  limits  of  this  single  encampment  can 
have  exuded  14,000,000  gomers,  or  (at  least)  as  many  pounds, 
of  manna,  the  quantity  actually  required  to  feed  two  millions  of 
people  for  the  space  of  six  days  (Ex.  xvi.),  whereas,  at  the  present 
day,  the  entire  peninsula  does  not  yield  more  than  five  or  six 
hundred  pounds  in  three  hundred  and  sixty-five  days  in  the  most 
productive  seasons.  We  must  also  bear  in  mind  that  the  IsraeKtes 
arrived  at  the  desert  of  Sin  on  the  fifteenth  day  of  the  second 
month,  that  is,  about  the  beginning  or  middle  of  May ;  whereas 
now  the  season  in  which  the  manna  flows  most  freely  is  in  the 
months  of  June  and  July.  Moreover,  the  production  of  manna 
is  restricted  at  the  present  time  to  the  smnmer  months  ;  but  the 
Israelites  required  it  just  as  much  in  spring,  autumn,  and  winter, 
as  they  cUd  in  summer.  Now,  if  the  supposed  miraculous  en- 
largement of  the  natural  basis  must  have  been  carried  to  such  an 
extent,  that  the  tarfah  shrub  yielded  quite  as  much  manna  in  the 
winter  time,  when  its  vitality  was  natm^ally  suspended,  as  it  did  in 
summer,  we  must  be  honest  enough  to  confess  that  the  natural 
basis  cannot  be  sustained,  and  that  Hengstenherg' s  theory  has  no 
fomidation  whatever. — But  we  must  go   still   fm-ther.     The 


HALT  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SIN.  35 

Israelites  spent  but  one  year  in  the  midst  of  the  mountains  of 
Sinai,  the  only  place  in  which  manna  is  to  be  met  with  now. 
The  other  thirty-nine  years  were  passed  in  the  eastern  and 
northern  parts  of  the  peninsula,  where  not  a  single  tarfah  shrub 
is  to  be  found  at  the  present  day,  and  where,  to  judge  from  the 
character  of  the  soil,  no  such  shrub  ever  can  have  grown  (to  say 
nothing  of  whole  forests  of  tarfah,  with  tens  of  thousands  of 
shrubs).  Lastly,  the  Biblical  narrative  states  expressly,  that 
Jehovah  rained  the  manna  from  heaven,  that  it  fell  with  the 
dew  from  heaven.  Now,  how  can  Moses  have  thought  for  a 
moment  of  persuading  the  people  that  Jehovah  rained  the  manna 
from,  heaven^  that  it  came  down  with  the  dew,  if  they  could  see 
for  themselves  every  day  that  the  manna  juice  came  oiit  of  the 
tarfah  twigs,  that  it  hung  in  di'ops  upon  the  branches,  and 
eventually  fell  in  solid  grains  upon  the  ground  ?  Or  are  we  to 
suppose  that  the  Israelites  had  not  such  good  eyes  to  see  all 
this  as  modem  travellers  have  ?  But,  it  will  be  replied,  the 
modern  Bedouins  and  monks  also  call  the  manna  "heaven's 
gift,"  and  say  that  it  rains  from  heaven.  To  this  we  answer, 
Wlien  Moses  said  to  the  people,  in  the  name  of  Jehovah,  "  I  will 
rain  bread  from  heaven,"  and  when  he  himself  affirmed  that  the 
manna  fell  with  the  dew  from  heaven,  he  intended,  undoubtedly, 
to  persuade  the  people  and  his  readers  that  the  manna  was  an 
immediate  gift  of  God  (and  not  one  produced  by  the  instrmnen- 
tality  of  tarfah  shrubs  and  lice)  ;  but  when  modern  Bedouins  and 
monks  speak  of  Heaven's  gifts  and  rain  from  heaven,  this  is  a  mode 
of  speech  taken  from  the  Biblical  narrative  or  from  the  lips  of 
pilgrims,  wliich  either  vanity  or  interest  leads  them  to  perpetuate. 
With  the  facts  before  us  to  which  we  have  just  referred,  and 
which  are  thoroughly  undeniable,  we  are  shut  up  to  the  following 
alternative :  either  we  must  admit  that  by  far  the  largest  portion 
of  the  manna  eaten  by  the  Israelites  for  forty  years  was  supplied 
to  them  without  the  intervention  of  tarfah  shrubs;^  or,  if  our 

^  Tiacliemlorf  (i.  205)  endeavours,  in  a  very  peculiar  way,  to  preserve  the 
natural  basis  of  the  miraculous  gift  of  manna.  He  says:  "Does  not  the 
mirticle  still  retain  its  true  character,  if  we  suppose  that  the  qualities  of  the 
manna  of  the  present  day  were  intensified  in  all  respects  by  the  gi-ace  of 
God,  and  thus  the  manna  of  the  Isi'aelitos  was  produced '?  If  it  were  not 
too  great  a  stretch  of  ingenuity,  I  would  say,  that  the  vapour  ascending  from 
the  tamarisk  forests  may  not  improbably  have  fallen  again  to  the  earth  in  the 


36  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

tlieoiy  of  a  natural  basis  to  tlie  miracle  be  too  dear  for  us  to 
relinquish  it  even  in  view  of  those  facts,  we  must  not  shrink  from 
the  legitimate  consequence,  but  must  freely  admit  that  the 
account  in  the  Pentateuch  is  embellished  and  exaggerated  with 
miraculous  legends ;  in  other  words,  its  historical  credibility  must 
be  given  up.  With  such  as  prefer  the  latter  we  have  at  present 
nothing  to  do ;  but  those  who  decide  in  f avom*  of  the  former,  we 
refer  to  the  New  Testament  miracle  of  the  changing  of  water 
into  wine,  which  is  perfectly  analogous,  at  least  in  its  leading 
featm-es.  If  the  almighty  power  of  God  on  that  occasion 
changed  the  water  into  wine  without  the  intervention  of  the 
vine  and  vine-dresser,  which  the  natm-al  process  would  absolutely 
require,  there  is  certainly  no  obstacle  in  the  way  of  om*  believing 
that  the  same  Omnipotence  could  create  manna  with  the  dew 
without  the  intervention  of  a  tarf  ah  shrub ;  or,  if  the  Israehtish 
manna  was  more  than  this, — if,  as  the  scriptm'al  record  says,  it 
was  heavenly  bread, — that  the  same  Omnipotence  could  produce  a 
gift  resembling  meal  or  bread  from  the  moistm-e  of  the  dew 
which  fructifies  the  earth,  without  the  intervention  of  the  field, 
the  grain,  and  the  husbandman. — ^We  cannot  conclude  this  dis- 
cussion without  quoting  an  excellent  and  appropriate  remark  of 
Baumgarten  (i.  1,  p.  504),  with  reference  to  the  connection 
between  the  dew  and  the  manna,  on  which  so  much  stress  is  laid 
in  the  Scriptm'es  (Ex.  xvi.  13,  14 ;  Num.  xi.  9).  He  says : 
"  The  dew  is  the  gift  of  Heaven,  which  fertilises  the  ground  and 
causes  it  to  bring  forth  bread.  But  in  the  desert  the  dew  can 
produce  no  effect,  because  there  is  nothing  so^\^l.  If,  then,  not- 
withstanding this,  the  dew  still  brought  them  bread,  it  was  tiidy 
the  bread  of  heaven." 

The  foregoing  argimient  is  based  upon  the  assumption,  that 
the  manna  of  the  Bible  and  the  tamarisk-manna  are  precisely 
the  same,  both  as  to  their  essence  and  properties,  and  that  there 
is  merely  a  slight  difference  in  the  mode  of  their  origin  ;  and  on 

shape  of  dew.  At  any  rate,  this  thought  is  just  as  admissible  as  the  notion 
that  the  manna  of  the  present  day  is  a  faint  imitation  of  the  scriptural  bread 
from  heaven."  The  problem  in  natural  history  involved  in  this  explanation 
we  leave  untouched,  and  merely  ask,  from  a  Biblical  point  of  view,  What  was 
the  process  in  the  eastern  and  northern  part  of  the  peninsula,  where  Israel 
lived  and  ate  manna  for  thirty-eight  years,  and  where  there  is  not  a  single 
tarfah  shrub,  and  therefore  no  manna  vapour  can  possibly  have  ascended  ? 


HALT  IX  THE  DESERT  OF  SIN.  37 

this  assumption  it  seeks  to  explain  the  data  of  the  Pentateuch. 
But  we  now  proceed  to  inquire,  Is  this  assumption  well  founded 
and  true  ?  We  find  men  of  the  most  diverse  opinions  answering 
the  question  without  reserve  in  the  negative  {e.g.,  Wellstedt, 
Schubert,  Robinson,  liaumer,  LengerJce,  Lahorde,  and  many 
otliers).  The  weight  of  such  authorities  is  sufficient  to  urge  us 
to  make  a  searching  investigation. 

The  supporters  of  this  assumption  (the  most  thorougli  and 
circumspect  among  them  is  K.  Ritter)  bring  foi'ward  with  great 
care  the  real  or  supposed  points  of  agreement  between  these  two 
products,  which  they  regard  as  thoroughly  decided,  and  consider 
the  apparent  differences  as  of  trifling  importance,  when  compared 
with  the  great  preponderance  of  these  points  of  coincidence  (cf. 
Ritter,  xiv.  682).  The  first  argument  adduced  is,  that  "the 
time  of  year  in  which  the  Israelites  first  partook  of  the  manna 
coincides  with  the  season  in  which  the  manna  of  Sinai  is  gathered 
still."  It  has  already  been  noticed,  in  passing,  that  the  two 
periods  do  not  exactly  correspond  :  the  first  plentiful  harvest  of 
manna  collected  by  the  Israelites  occurred  in  the  beginning  or 
middle  of  May,  whereas  the  manna  harvest  of  the  Bedouins 
does  not  take  place  before  the  months  of  June  and  July.  Still 
we  shall  not  lay  any  great  stress  upon  this  fact ;  but  we  shall 
lay  all  the  greater  emphasis  upon  the  other  fact,  which  has  also 
been  mentioned,  that  the  Israelites  gathered  manna  in  sufficient 
quantities  at  every  season  of  the  year. — It  is  also  said,  that  "  the 
tamarisk-manna  is  not  met  with  in  any  other  spot,  over  the 
whole  siu-face  of  the  globe,  than  in  the  peninsula  of  Sinai,  where 
the  Israehtes  found  it."  That  this  argmnent  is  not  without 
weight  has  been  admitted  by  the  most  zealous  opponents  of  the 
view  in  question  {e.g.,  Raunier,  p.  28).  But  it  ought  to  be  as 
candidly  admitted  by  its  supporters,  that  this  is  more  than 
counterbalanced  by  the  fact,  that  the  Israelites  spent  thirty-eight 
years  in  those  parts  of  the  peninsula  in  which  there  is  not  the 
least  trace  of  tarfah  shrubs,  and  yet  ate  manna  till  they  were 
sui'feited  and  disgusted  with  it  (Num.  xi.  6,  xxi.  5). — Again  we 
read,  "  The  tamarisk-manna  tvu-ns  soft  and  melts  in  the  heat  of 
the  sun ;  and  this  was  also  the  case  with  the  manna  of  the 
Israelites."  But  there  are  many  other  things  on  which  the  same 
effect  is  produced  by  heat,  yet  it  does  not  follow  that  they  are 
manna. — Ae;ain :  "  The  Bedouins  o;atlier  their  manna  in  the 


38  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

morning  before  sunrise ;  tlie  Israelites  did  the  same,  and  for  the 
verj  same  reason."  We  have  here  an  argmiient  which  proves 
much  less  than  the  foregoing  one. — Fm'ther  :  "  They  are  both 
produced  during  the  night."  But  Tischendorf  and  many  others 
have  seen  the  drops  of  manna  suspended  on  the  branches  in 
broad  daylight ;  and  Schubert  says  (ii.  344)  :  The  Bedouins  gene- 
rally gather  it  in  the  cool  of  the  morning,  when  it  hangs  upon 
the  branches  in  the  form  of  small,  firm  globules ;  but  they  also 
collect  at  the  same  time  whatever  may  have  fallen  in  the  sand  on 
the  previous  day. — "  The  manna  of  the  Bedouins  has  a  taste  re- 
sembling honey,  as  the  Biblical  manna  had."  But  the  fact  is 
overlooked,  that  the  Biblical  manna  is  said  to  have  tasted  "  like 
cake  and  honey  "  (Luther :  hke  wheaten  bread  with  honey)  ;  and 
in  another  place  it  is  described  as  tasting  like  "  oil-cakes."  Now 
what  is  there  in  the  manna  of  the  present  day  at  all  resembhng 
cakes  or  wheaten  bread?  Hitter  appeals  to  the  fact  that  the 
modern  Bedouins  also  eat  the  manna  upon  bread!  But  who 
would  ever  think  of  saying  that  butter,  for  example,  tastes  like 
bread  with  grease  upon  it? — "The  form,  the  colour,  and  the 
general  appearance  "  are  said  to  "  correspond."  The  wavering 
and  chscordant  statements  of  travellers  render  it  impossible  to 
subject  this  argvmient  to  any  searching  test ;  for  sometimes  the 
manna  is  described  as  reddish,  at  other  times  as  a  dirty  yellow, 
then  again  as  white  like  snow,  and  so  on. — "In  the  Biblical 
accomit  the  manna-insect  is  actually  mentioned  "  (Ex.  xvi.  20). 
Sic  ! — ^^Josephus  regarded  the  two  as  identical ;  and  a  mistake 
could  not  possibly  be  made,  for  a  vessel  of  manna  was  ordered 
by  Moses  to  be  deposited  in  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant  as  a  per- 
petual memorial  and  wdtness  of  the  food  of  the  desert"  {Ritter, 
xiv.  680).  As  if  the  pot  of  manna  was  still  in  existence  in  the 
Holy  of  Holies  in  the  time  of  Josephus  (the  Holy  of  Holies  is 
known  to  have  been  quite  empty  in  the  second  Temple,  and  even 
in  connection  with  the  first  Temple  we  never  read  anything  about 
a  pot  of  manna),  and  as  if  the  Holy  of  Holies  had  been  open  to 
everybody  (whereas  no  one  but  the  high  priest  was  pennitted  to 
enter  it,  and  he  only  once  a  year  with  the  cloud  of  incense). ! ! 

So  much  with  reference  to  the  supposed  points  of  agreement : 
let  us  now  pass  to  the  mideniable  differences  in  the  nature  of  the 
two  products.  Schubert  (ii.  345)  says  :  "  If  this  insect-manna 
formed  the  entire  nom-ishment  of  the  hosts  of  Israel  in  the 


HALT  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SIN.  39 

desert,  tliey  were  greatly  to  be  pitied.  It  contains  absolutely 
none  of  those  substances  which  are  indispensably  necessary  for 
the  daily  nourishment  and  support  of  the  animal  frame,  and  in 
which  worms  of  decomposition  could  be  generated.  ...  I 
agree,  therefore,  with  K.  v.  Raumer,  with  the  intelligent,  sober- 
minded,  inquiring  Englishman,  the  naval  lieutenant  Wellstedt, 
and  with  many  other  honourable  travellers  and  Biblical  stu- 
dents, in  the  opinion  that  the  angels'  food,  the  manna  from 
heaven,  was  not  the  same  as  the  manna  produced  by  lice  and 
chafers."  This  has  always  been  om*  opinion,  and  Bitter  s  argu- 
ments have  not  been  sufficient  to  induce  us  to  give  it  up. — The 
mann-a  of  the  Israelites  was  ground  in  mills  or  j)ounded  in  mor- 
tars ;  and  travellers  are  all  agi'eed  that  this  would  be  impossible 
with  the  manna  of  the  present  day.  Bitter  (p.  682)  makes  a 
futile  attempt  to  set  aside  this  important  fact.  "  It  all  depends," 
he  says,  "upon  the  manner  in  which  mills  and  mortars  were 
employed  at  that  time  for  bruising  solid  bodies,  whether  they 
may  not  have  been  used  for  simply  crushing  things  which  were 
moderately  hard,  but  not  as  hard  as  stone.  If  so,  this  would 
apply  very  well  (?  !)  to  the  manna,  for  in  cold  situations  it  is 
constantly  described  as  becoming  hard  like  wax"  But  is  it 
jiossible,  under  any  circumstances,  to  gi'ind  wax  in  mills,  or 
bruise  it  in  mortars  ?  The  cohesion  of  the  particles  of  the 
Israelitish  manna  cannot  have  resembled  that  of  wax  or  of  the 
tamarisk-manna,  but  must  have  been  more  like  certain  kinds  of 
gum,  which  can  be  pounded  and  pulverised. — Again,  the  Israelites 
boiled  it  in  pots,  and  made  cakes  of  it ;  and  the  manna  of  the 
present  day  is  confessedly  unsviitable  for  this.  Bitter  remarks, 
on  the  other  hand  (p.  677) :  "It  was  not  pounded  into  meal,  but 
it  was  mixed  with  meal  and  made  into  balls,  and  it  was  in  this 
shape  that  it  was  used.  This  was  probably  the  baked  manna- 
bread  (Ex.  xvi.  23)"  (?!!).  But  the  Israelites  had  no  meal  or 
bread  left,  and  the  manna  was  expressly  intended  to  supply  the 
place  of  the  meal  and  bread.  Hence  the  manna  of  the  Bible 
must  have  contained  some  nutritiovis  ingredients  of  the  natm'e 
of  meal  as  well  as  the  saccharine  matter,  or  it  could  not  have 
been  lioiled  and  baked  without  being  mixed  with  meal ;  but  the 
manna  of  the  present  day  consists  entirely  of  saccharine  matter 
without  nutritious  properties,  and  quite  unsuitable  for  cooking. — 
Lastly,  if  the  ancient  manna  was  kept  till  the  morning,  icoiins 


40  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

were  generated  in  it  and  it  stank ;  in  other  Avords,  it  fermented 
and  passed  into  a  state  of  decomposition,  and,  as  is  usually  the 
case,  maggots  were  formed  in  the  corruption.  The  manna  of 
the  present  day,  on  the  contrary,  is  kept  for  years  without  show- 
ing the  least  sign  of  decomposition  and  maggots.  It  is  to  our 
mind  inconceivable  that  so  careful  and  conscientious  an  inquirer 
as  Ritter  should  have  adduced  this  circumstance  (p.  682)  as  one 
of  the  evidences  of  the  identity,  after  having  tried  in  vain  (p.  681) 
to  destroy  its  force  as  an  argument  on  the  opposite  side.  "  When 
Ave  read,"  he  says,  "  in  Ex.  xvi.  20,  that  if  the  manna  was  kept 
too  long,  worms  (grew)  in  it  and  the  supply  was  spoiled ;  this  is 
not  so  incredible,  if  we  bear  in  mind  the  insect  which  appears 
with  the  manna ;  and  the  Israehtes  may  not  have  been  acquainted 
with  the  plan  adopted  by  the  modern  Arabs  for  removing  the 
impurities  that  are  mixed  mth  it.  The  latter  strain  it  through 
a  coarse  cloth,  and  boil  it  also,  that  they  may  be  able  to  keep  it 
for  a  long  time."  But  what  are  the  impurities  which  the 
Israehtes  must  have  gathered  along  with  the  manna  ?  Sand, 
earth,  and  perhaps  fragments  of  withered  leaves — all  of  them 
materials  which  are  as  little  likely  to  decompose  and  become 
offensive  as  amorphous  saccharine  matter.  But  modern  travel- 
lers have  made  the  discovery  that  many  of  the  insects,  whose 
punctm'e  causes  the  sap  to  exude,  are  enveloped  by  the  sap  as 
it  flows  from  the  tree,  and  fall  to  the  ground  with  the  di'ops  of 
manna.  Tlieir  decomposition  might  have  produced  the  offensive 
odour.  Is  this  really  the  case,  however?  If  so,  does  it  occur 
within  twenty-f om'  hom's  I  And  are  the  Bedouins  accustomed 
to  practise  their  method  of  purification,  with  which  the  Israelites 
were  miacquainted,  on  the  very  same  day  on  which  the  manna 
is  gathered?  We  very  much  doubt  it.  Still  even  this  has 
nothing  to  do  with  the  question.  The  point  of  greatest  importance 
is,  that  there  were  no  woi^ms  in  the  manna  when  the  Israelites 
first  collected  it,  but  thei/  were  bred  in  it  if  it  was  kept  till  the 
morning.  This  is  as  clear  as  day ;  how,  then,  does  it  harmonise 
with  Hitter's  hypothesis'? — We  shall  lay  no  stress  upon  the 
slightly  aperient  effect  produced  by  the  manna  of  the  present 
day,  wliich  has  been  adduced  as  an  additional  argument  by  the 
opponents  of  the  identity-theory,  since  the  daily  consumption  of 
the  manna  on  the  part  of  the  Israelites  might  have  removed  any 
susceptibility  to  this,  which  previously  existed. 


HALT  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SIN.  41 

All  the  rest  inevitably  forces  us  to  the  conclusion,  if  we  exa- 
mine the  question  conscientiously  and  impartially,  that  "  the 
manna  of  heaven  must  have  been  something  different  from  the 
manna  of  lice  and  chafers ;"  that  there  were  properties,  powers, 
and  component  elements  in  the  former,  which  are  wanting  in  the 
manna  of  the  present  day. 

From  this  indisputable  result  we  must  now  retrace  om'  steps, 
that  we  may  do  justice  to  those  striking,  though  only  partial 
points  of  agreement,  which  existed  between  the  ancient  and 
modern  manna,  both  as  to  time  and  place,  and  also  as  to  the 
material  itself.  Raumer  concludes  his  argument  against  the 
identity-hypothesis  with  the  words  :  "  Notwithstanding  this,  it 
is  still  very  remarkable  that  the  tainarisk-manna  should  be  found 
just  (and  only)  in  that  district  of  the  Sinaitic  peninsula  in  which 
it  is  probable  that  the  heavenly  manna  fell,  for  the  first  time, 
upon  the  camp  of  the  Israelites."  Schubert  also  feels  constrained 
to  close  his  objections  to  the  identity-theory  with  the  reservation 
"  and  yet  -  -,"  and  to  attempt  some  kind  of  reconciliation  be- 
tween the  two  phenomena.  "  And  yet,"  says  this  shrewd  and 
thoughtful  traveller  (ii.  345,  346),  "  the  natural  phenomenon 
observable  in  the  peninsula  of  Sinai  is  well  worthy  of  notice  for 
the  friend  of  the  Bible.  When  once  the  mighty  hand  of  the 
artificer  has  opened  a  channel  through  the  rock,  the  water  con- 
tinues to  flow  through  it  in  all  subsequent  ages.  A¥lien  once 
the  forms  of  the  various  genera  and  species  of  visible  things  had 
been  created  by  the  almighty  word  of  God,  they  were  j^erpe- 
tuated  by  the  ordinary  process  of  reproduction.  And  in  a  similar 
manner  has  the  exciting  cause  in  which  the  manna  originated, 
and  which  at  one  time  pervaded  the  whole  atmosphere  and  all 
the  vital  energies  of  the  country,  continued  to  act,  if  nowhere 
else,  at  least  in  the  living  bushes  of  the  manna-tamarisk." 

But  whilst  we  adopt  this  acute  interpretation  for  the  simple 
reason  that  it  does  justice  to  the  differences  as  well  as  the 
congruities  in  the  two  phenomena,  we  would  expressly  guard 
against  being  supposed  to  regard  it  as  the  only  pos.^ible  or 
admissible  solution  of  the  problem  (a  view  which  wc  are  sure 
the  author  himself  did  not  entertain).  On  the  contraiy,  we 
merely  look  upon  it  as  the  most  successful  attempt  to  solve  the 
enigma,  by  bringing  the  processes  of  nature  and  grace  within 
the  same  point  of  view, — The  following  resiUts  of  oui'  inquiry 


42  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

we  regard  as  firmly  established :  1.  That  the  food  which  the 
Israelites  ate  for  forty  years  was  not  produced  by  the  tarfah 
shrubs  in  the  desert,  but  was  prepared  in  the  atmosphere  by  the 
almighty  power  of  God,  and  fell  to  the  earth  along  wdth  the  dew ; 
and  2.  that  there  were  nutritious  ingredients  and  properties  in 
this  heavenly  manna,  which  are  not  to  be  found  in  the  Sinaitic 
manna  of  the  present  day.  All  the  rest  belongs  to  the  region  of 
conjecture  and  h}^othesis. 

The  design  of  the  pro\dsion  of  manna  is  described  by  Moses 
in  the  book  of  Deuteronomy  as  follows  (chap.  viii.  3)  :  "  Jeho- 
vah humbled  thee,  and  suffered  thee  to  hunger,  and  fed  thee 
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."  Moses  clearly  states  in  this  passage, 
that  he  looked  upon  the  production  of  manna  as  the  creation  of 
something  new.  The  antitheses  are,  bread  and  the  word  of  God : 
the  former  is  the  natm-al  product  created  in  the  beginning,  the 
latter  is  the  creative  power  of  God,  which  is  always  in  operation 
(Ps.  xxxiii.  9)  ;  the  former  indicates  the  process  of  nature,  the 
latter  that  of  gi*ace.  AMiere  the  processes  of  nature  prove  to  be 
insufficient,  on  account  of  the  perturbation  to  which  they  have 
been  exposed  (Gen.  iii.  17),  then,  by  vu'tue  of  the  counsel  of 
salvation,  the  j^rocesses  of  grace  interv^ene  to  complete,  relieve, 
and  save.  Now,  such  is  the  constitution  of  man,  that  he  naturally 
relies  upon  the  processes  of  natm'e ;  and  where  these  cease  to 
operate  he  falls  into  despair.  This  false  confidence,  however, 
requires  to  be  condemned  and  destroyed,  in  order  that  true  con- 
fidence, that  is,  faith,  may  be  brought  into  exercise  and  strength- 
ened. The  foundation  of  nature  must  be  broken  up,  that  that 
of  grace  may  be  laid  and  preserved.  This  end  is  subserved 
objectively  by  the  humiliation  resulting  from  the  failure  of  the 
supplies  of  nature,  subjectively  by  mistrust  in  her  powers. 

(3.)  Liehetrut  (Die Sonntagsfeier,  Hamburg  1851)  proves  from 
ver.  23,  that  a  pre^dous  acquaintance  with  the  Sabbath  is  taken 
for  granted.  Hengstenherg,  on  the  other  hand  (The  Lord's  Day, 
p.  7,  translation),  adduces  three  proofs  (from  vers.  22,  26,  27) 
that  the  Sabbath  was  till  then  entirely  imknown  to  the  Israelites. 
We  are  persuaded  that  neither  of  them  has  j'^roved  an}i:hing 
(see  vol.  ii.  §  8,  2),  and  that  the  question  cannot  be  decided  from 


HALT  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SIN.  43 

the  chapter  before  us.  Everything  depends  npon  whether  tlie 
history  of  the  creation,  in  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis,  was  a  pre- 
Mosaic  conception  or  not.  If  it  was  a  revehition  made  to  Moses 
subsequently  to  the  period  at  which  we  have  arrived,  there  can 
be  no  doubt  that  Hengstenherg  is  right ;  but  there  is  just  as  httle 
doubt  tliat  ITengstenhe7'g  is  -wrong,  if  the  accovmt  of  thedistrilm- 
tion  of  the  work  of  creation  over  six  days,  and  the  rest  which 
followed  on  the  seventh  day,  is  traceable  to  a  primeval  revelation 
and  tradition.  We  do  not  hesitate  for  a  moment  to  declare  om*- 
selves  most  decidedly  in  favour  of  the  latter  (see  my  Bibel  und 
Astronomic,  3d  ed.,  p.  54  sqq.).^  Hence  we  regard  the  sabbatic 
festival  as  ante-legal, — in  other  words,  as  an  institution  of  para- 
dise ;  but  we  are  very  far  from  intending  thereby  to  support  that 
unspiritual,  unevangelical  bondage,  which  prevails  both  in  exe- 
gesis and  practice  on  the  other  side  of  the  Channel.  The  insti- 
tution of  the  Sabbath  received  its  legal  character  for  the  first  time 
in  connection  with  the  giving  of  the  law  at  Sinai,  and  lost  it 
again  through  that  love  which,  in  the  New  Testament,  is  the 
fulfilment  of  the  law  (Col.  ii.  16,  17)  ; — but  the  institution  of  the 
Sabbath  continued  to  exist  after  the  law  was  fulfilled,  as  it  had 
already  existed,  or  rather  as  it  ought  to  have  existed,  before  the 
law  was  given, — and  it  is  destined  to  continue  until  it  has  attained 
to  its  fulfilment  and  completion  in  the  eternal  Sabbath  of  the 
creatiu-e. — The  occurrence  under  review  fonued  the  historical 
l^reparation  for  the  announcement  of  the  laiv  of  the  Sabbath,  as 
an  inviolable  command,  carefully  defined,  and  requiring  literal 
observance, — a  law  which  became  the  sign  of  the  covenant,  and 
the  breach  of  which  involved  the  breach  of  the  covenant  also. 
But  as  God  never  requires  without  Jirst  giving,  so  do  we  find  it 
here.  Israel  received  a  positive  assurance  and  pledge,  that  the 
blessing  of  God  would  richly  compensate  him  for  the  cessation 
from  work,  which  the  law  of  the  Sabbath  required. 

(4.)  In  reading  the  injunction,  that  a  gomer/m//  of  manna 
should  be  laid  up  "  before  the  testimony"  as  a  memorial  for 
future  generations,  the  first  thing  which  strikes  us  is  the  explana- 
toiy  clause,  that  a  gomer  ("i^V)  is  the  tenth  part  of  an  ephah 
(Ex.  xvi.  36).  Vater  and  Bohlen  adduced  this  clause  as  an 
argument  against  the  early  composition  of  the  Pentateuch,  on 
the  ground  that  a  gomer  must  by  this  time  have  become  anti- 
^  Pages  9  sqq.  of  the  translation  with  wliich  vol.  i.  of  this  work  is  prefaced. 


44  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

quated.  Tlie  rashness  of  such  an  inference  is  quickly  apparent ; 
for  the  worst  result  to  which  we  could  be  brought  would  be,  to 
regard  the  clause  as  a  gloss  of  later  date.  Hengstenberg  (Penta- 
teuch, vol.  ii.  p.  172  sqq.,  translation)  follows  J.  D.  Micliaelis  and 
Kanne,  and  gets  rid  of  the  difficulty  by  assuming  that  a  gomer 
was  not  an  actual  measure,  but  a  vessel  in  ordinary  use,  which 
was  always  about  the  same  size,  and  could  therefore  serve  as  a 
measure  in  case  of  need.  There  are  many  places  in  Avhich 
instances  of  this  might  still  be  found. — Bertheau  (Zur  Geschichte 
der  Israeliten,  p.  73)  infers,  from  the  inquiries  made  by  Bockh, 
that  the  superficial  dimensions  of  the  ephah  were  1985*77  Pari- 
sian cubic  feet,  and  that  it  held  739,800  Parisian  grains  of  water. 
Thenius,  on  the  other  hand,  sets  down  the  dimensions  at  1014*39 
cubic  inches  (Stud.  u.  Krit.  1846, Pt.  1,  2). — The  statement  in  ver. 
34,  that  Aaron  laid  up  a  gomer  full  of  manna  ninyn  ""pSPj  as  the 
Lord  commanded  Moses,  has  caused  unnecessary  difficulty.  The 
historian  here  evidently  anticipates,  and  mentions  the  execution 
of  the  command,  which  occm-red  at  a  later  period,  at  the  same 
time  as  he  records  the  command  itself.  (See  Hengstenberg,  Pen- 
tateuch, vol.  ii.  p.  169,  translation.) 

HALT  AT  REPHIDIM. 

§  4.  (Ex.  xvii.  1-xix.  2.) — The  next  stations  after  the  desert 
of  Sin  were  Bophkah,  Alush  (Num.  xxxiii.  12-14),  and  Rephidim, 
from  which  place  the  procession  at  length  passed  into  the  desert 
of  Sinai  on  the /Irst  day  of  the  third  month  (5). — At  Rephidim 
there  was  no  water.  The  people  tempted  Jehovah  in  conse- 
quence, and  said:  "  Is  Jehovah  among  us,  or  not?"  They  also 
mm-mm'ed  against  Moses  for  having  brought  them  out  of  Egypt 
to  let  them  perish  with  thirst  in  the  Avilderness.  The  anger  of  the 
people  assumed,  in  fact,  so  threatening  an  aspect,  that  Moses  com- 
plained to  his  God :  "  They  are  almost  ready  to  stone  me."  The 
intention  and  effect  of  temptation  are  to  prove.  Now  Jeliovali  was 
perfectly  justified  in  tempting  the  people,  for  they  had  not  as  yet 
been  by  any  means  sufficiently  proved ;  but  the  people  were  by  no 
means  justified  in  tempting  their  God,  who  had  delivered  them  out 
of  Egypt,  and  led  them  miraculously  through  sea  and  desert,  and 


HALT  AT  REPIIIDIM.  45 

had  thus  given  sufficient  and  superabundant  proofs  of  His 
fidelity.  But  the  unconfiding,  luibelieving  nature  of  the  people, 
displayed  itself  more  and  more ;  and  Jehovah  proceeded  to  meet 
it  with  discipline  and  mercy.  Moses  was  ordered  to  go  into  the 
mountain,  with  some  of  the  elders,  to  be  witnesses  of  the  great 
miracle  which  was  about  to  be  performed.  Jehovah  manifested 
Himself  to  them  there,  standing  upon  a  rock.  Moses  struck  the 
rock  with  his  staff,  and  a  stream  flowed  out,  which  furnished  an 
ample  supply  to  the  whole  congregation.  The  place  in  which 
the  miracle  occurred  received  the  name  of  Massali  and  Merihah 
(temptation  and  miu'muriiig),that  the  lesson  and  warning,  involved 
in  the  event,  might  be  the  more  deeply  impressed  upon  the  minds 
of  the  people  (1).— The  encampment  at  Rephidim  also  acquired 
memorable  importance  from  another  event.  The  Israelites  had 
been  rescued  from  the  enmity  of  the  mighty  Egyptians  by  the 
strong  hand  of  their  God.  But  the  principle  of  hostility  to 
the  people  of  God  was  not  Egyptian  merely,  it  was  common  to 
all  the  heathen.  The  Israelites  stood  in  the  same  position  to- 
wards every  Gentile  nation  as  towards  the  Egyptians ;  for 
their  election  and  separation  were  a  direct  opposition  and  pro- 
test against  heathenism  of  every  kind.  Wlien  the  hostility  of 
Egypt  was  sentenced,  all  the  nations  that  heard  of  it  trembled 
(vol.  ii.  §  30,  2)  ;  for  they  felt  that  tlie  judgment  on  Eg'>^:)t  affected 
them,  and  the  enmity,  which  had  hitherto  perhaps  been  merely 
an  ujiconscious  one  on  their  part,  ceased  henceforth  to  be  dor- 
mant or  concealed.  Thus  the  Israelites  had  hardly  escaped  the 
dangers  of  Egypt,  when  new  dangers  of  the  same  description 
appeared  in  their  way.  The  first  nation  which  ventured  to  give 
expression  to  its  natural  enmity  towards  Israel  was  Amalek. 
As  the  Amalekites  belonged  to  a  kindred  race,  namely,  the  family 
of  Edom  (2),  they  ought  to  have  been  the  last  to  feel  themselves 
called  upon  to  rise  against  Israel  in  defence  of  the  general 
interests  of  heathenism ;  but  so  completely  had  the  heathen 
nature  entered  into  the  heart  of  this  people,  and  so  thoroughly 
had  it  ti'ansformed  them,  that  the  tie  of  blood-relationship  only 


46  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OP  SINAI. 

widened  tlie  breach,  and  heightened  the  heathen  hatred  of  the 
Israehtes.  Without  provocation,  the  Amalekites  rose  against  the 
chosen  people  as  the  first  champions  of  heathenism ;  and  thus 
forfeited  their  claim  to  be  exempted  from  destruction,  in  common 
with  all  the  other  tribes  that  were  related  to  the  Israelites  (yid. 
§  46).  They  treacherously  attacked  the  exhausted  rear  of  the 
Israelitish  army  (Deut.  xxv.  18).  Moses  then  directed  Joshua, 
the  son  of  Nun,  of  the  tribe  of  Ephraim,  to  lead  a  band  of  picked 
men  against  the  foe,  and  went  himself,  along  with  his  brother 
Aaron  and  his  brother-in-law  (?)  HuTy  to  the  summit  of  a  hill, 
within  sight  of  the  field  of  battle,  that  he  might  superintend  the 
conflict  through  the  aid  of  the  powers  of  a  higher  world.  The 
staff  of  God,  which  he  held  in  his  hand,  was  the  banner  of  \dctory 
to  the  army  of  Israel,  that  was  fighting  in  the  plain  below.  As 
long  as  the  hand  of  Moses  was  held  up  Israel  prevailed ;  but 
whenever  he  let  it  down  from  Aveariness,  the  Amalekites 
triumphed.  Thus  the  issue  of  the  conflict  was  for  a  long  time 
undecided.  At  length  Aaron  and  Hur  placed  a  stone  vmder 
Moses'  arm,  and  helped  to  hold  it  up,  grasping  the  banner  of 
victory,  till  the  setting  of  the  smi.  At  length  Joshua  discomfited 
Ainalek  with  the  edge  of  the  sword.  Moses  then  received  direc- 
tions to  commit  this  important  and  instructive  event  to  writing. 
He  also  built  an  altar,  which  he  called  "  Jehovah  my  banner^' 
C'tpj  nin"|).  By  their  heathenish  malice  towards  their  kindred,  the 
Amalekites  had  forfeited  for  ever  the  right  to  protection,  to  which 
it  might  have  laid  claim  on  the  ground  of  relationship,  as  well  as 
the  other  branches  of  the  Terahite  tribe  (including  the  tribe  of 
Edom,  cf .  Deut.  ii.  4-6 ;  xxiii.  8,  9).  "  The  war  of  Jehovah 
against  Amalek  from  generation  to  generation,"  was  henceforth  to 
be  the  watchword  whenever  they  came  into  contact  with  this  tribe, 
which  was  to  be  exterminated,  like  the  Hamite  tribes  of  Canaan 
(Deut.  xxv.  19),  whose  iniquity  was  now  full  (Gen.  xv.  16)  (3). — 
The  report  of  the  glorious  issue  of  the  conflict  with  Amalek  must 
undoubtedly  have  filled  the  minds  of  surrounding  nations  with 
terror,  as  the  fate  of  the  Egyptians  had  done  before.     It  reached 


HALT  AT  REPIIIDIM.  47 

even  to  Jetlivo,  Moses'  father-in-law  (vol.  ii.  §  19,  7),  with  whom 
he  had  left  his  wife  and  children  (vol.  ii.  §  21,  3,  4) ;  and  he  at 
once  determined  to  bring  them  to  him.  When  Jethro  joined  the 
procession,  it  had  probably  already  arrived  at  the  desert  of  Sinai. 
The  Avonderful  works  of  Jehovah,  which  were  fully  narrated  to 
him  by  Moses,  excited  him  also  to  praise  the  God  above  all  gods ; 
and  the  elders  of  Israel  joined  in  a  covenant-meal,  by  which  they 
extended  the  bond  between  the  tw^o  chiefs  to  an  alliance  between 
the  two  nations.  On  the  following  day  Moses  was  occupied  from 
morning  till  evening  in  judging  the  people.  This  led  Jethro  to 
advise  him  to  select  out  of  every  tribe  able  men,  who  feared  God 
and  hated  covetousness,  and  to  appoint  them  as  inferior  judges 
over  every  ten,  every  fifty,  eveiy  hundred,  and  every  thousand 
of  the  people.  All  questions  of  minor  importance  were  to  be 
settled  by  them ;  and  thus  Moses  himself,  by  reserving  only  the 
more  serious  disputes  for  his  own  decision,  would  gain  time  for 
the  miinterrupted  discharge  of  the  duties  of  his  office  as  media- 
tor before  God.  Moses  adopted  this  advice,  and  Jethro  returned 
to  his  own  land  (4). 

(1.)  The  miraculous  gift  of  water  from  the  rock  is 
frequently  referred  to  in  the  Scriptures  (Ps.  Ixxviii.  16,  cv.  41, 
cxiv.  8  ;  Is.  xlviii.  21),  and  was  repeated  in  Kadcsh  at  the  ter- 
mination of  their  pilgrimage  through  the  desert  (Num.  xx.). 
As  the  rock  is  described  as  a  rock  in  Horeb,  we  must  suppose 
the  outer  hills  of  the  Sinaitic  group  to  have  been  already  reached. 
But  there  is  not  the  least  ground  for  identifying  the  rock  in 
Horeb  with  the  mountain  of  God  in  Horeb  (the  mountain  of  the 
law).  Whether  the  brook  which  Moses'  staff  called  forth  from 
the  rock  continued  to  flow,  though  less  copiously  than  at  first, 
and  may  still  be  discovered,  must  remain  undecided.  Yet 
(taking  as  an  analogy  the  gift  of  manna)  an  answer  in  the  affir- 
mative appears  to  us  more  plausible  than  one  in  the  negative. — 
Lepsius  (Reise,  p.  41)  ehminates  every  miraculous  feature  con- 
nected with  the  event.  "Hitherto,"  he  says,  "the  Israelites 
had  tasted  no  water  from  the  primary  rocks  ;  and  though  they 
had  found  a  well  in  Dophkah  and  Alush,  the  supply  was  proba- 
bly scanty  for  so  large  a  multitude,  and  the  water  less  agreeable 


48  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESEET  OF  SINAI. 

than  that  obtained  from  the  chalk  or  sandstone.  The  people 
therefore  began  to  mui'mur  during  the  next  day's  journey,  and 
clamoured  for  water.  .  .  .  Upon  this,  Moses  led  them  to 
Rej)hidim,  which  was  six  hom's  distant,  and  gave  them  to  drink 
of  the  sparkling  and  pleasant  fountain  of  the  Wady  Firan."  If 
this  view  be  connect,  we  must  assume,  either  that  the  whole  story 
is  mythical,  or  that  Moses  resorted  to  some  conjuror's  tricks ; — 
which  of  the  two  we  are  to  prefer  the  author  does  not  tell  us. — 
The  statement  of  Tacitus  (Hist.  5,  3)  probably  has  reference  to 
this  occurrence.  He  says :  "  The  Jews,  on  their  exodus  from 
Egy])t,  were  thoroughly  exhatisted  for  want  of  water.  Moses, 
however,  observed  a  herd  of  wild  asses  climbing  to  the  top  of  a 
rock  covered  with  trees.  He  followed  them,  and  found  a  well 
with  a  copious  supply  of  water.  This  led  him  to  set  up  the 
image  of  an  ass  to  be  worshipped  in  the  holy  place." 

(2.)  The  Amalekites  were  a  rapacious  Bedouin  tribe,  who 
had  their  settlement  to  the  south  of  Palestine  in  Arabia  Petrgea, 
and  extended  as  far  as  the  mountains  of  Sinai.  They  were  en- 
circled by  the  Egyptians,  the  Philistines,  the  Amorites,  the 
Edomites,  and  the  IVIidianites  (Gen.  xiv.  7  ;  Ex.  x\ai.  8  ;  Num. 
xiii.  30  ;  Judg.  vi.  3  ;  1  Sam.  xv.  7,  xxvii.  8  ;  1  Chron.iv.  43). 
From  this  locality  they  appear  to  have  penetrated  at  one  time 
into  the  interior  of  Canaan ;  at  least  we  find  a  mountain  in  the 
tribe  of  Eplu'aim  which  bore  the  name  of  "  the  mount  of  the 
Amalekites"  (Judg.  xii.  15,  v.  14;  ci.  Eivald,  Gesch.  i.  296, 
Anm.  3).  The  Mosaic  list  of  tribes  (Gen.  x.)  does  not  include 
their  name ;  but  in  Gen.  xxxvi.  12,  16,  and  1  Chron.  i.  36,  there 
is  an  Amalek  mentioned,  who  was  the  grandson  of  Esau  (Edom). 
This  omission  of  their  name  from  the  list,  which  embraces  all 
the  tribes  mth  whom  the  Israelites  came  into  contact  (excepting 
the  Terahite  tribe,  the  various  branches  of  which  are  given  in 
Gen.  xii.  sqq.),  and  the  insertion  of  the  name  in  the  Edomitish 
genealogy,  remove  all  doubt  that  the  author  of  the  book  of 
Genesis  looked  upon  the  Amalekites  as  a  branch  of  the  Edomites. 
Accordingly  Josephus  (Ant.  ii.  1,  2)  also  describes  them  as  an 
Edomitish  tribe,  and  their  territoiy  as  a  portion  of  Idumsea. 
Clericus  was  the  first  to  dispute  this  combination ;  and  J.  1). 
Michaelis  (Spicil.  i.  171  sqq.),  who  followed  him,  has  ^mtten 
still  more  elaborately,  maintaining  that  there  was  no  connection 
whatever  between  the  grandson  of  Esau  and  the  tribe  of  the 


HALT  AT  EErniDIM.  49 

Amalekites.  Among  modern  wTiters,  sucli  as  Beriheau,  EwaJd, 
Lengerhe,  Knohel,  Tuch,  K.  Hitter,  etc.,  this  has  hecome  tlie  pre- 
vaihng  opinion, — with  this  difference,  however,  that  in  order  to 
account  for  the  statement  in  Gen.  xxxvi.,  it  has  been  assumed 
by  some  (Eicald,  i.  296)  that  a  branch  of  the  original  Amalekites 
sacrificed  their  national  independence,  and  connected  themselves 
with  the  kingdom  of  the  Idimia^ans,  and  that  this  gave  occasion 
to  the  introduction  of  Amalek  into  the  Edomitish  genealogy  as 
a  grandson  of  Esau  (Gen.  xxxvi.).  Knohel,  who  adopts  this 
view,  traces  the  Amalekites  to  the  Semitic  tribe  Lud  (Gen.  x. 
22  ;  Arabic,  Laud  or  Lawad),  on  the  authority  of  Arabic  tradi- 
tion (Volkertafel,  p.  199  sqq.).  Hengstenherg  alone  adheres  firmly 
to  the  old  opinion,  and  we  cannot  but  agree  with  him.  The 
arguments  adduced  on  the  opposite  side  are  the  following  :  (1.) 
"  According  to  Gen.  xii.  7,  there  were  Amalekites  in  Abraham's 
time, — that  is,  long  before  Esau."  But  Hengstenherg  neutralises 
the  force  of  this  argiiment  entirely  by  remarking,  that  it  is  not 
the  people,  but  a  field,  of  the  Amalekites  that  is  here  referred  to, 
and  that  it  is  evident  from  the  whole  tenor  of  the  account  that 
this  expression  is  used  proleptically. — (2.)  "In  Balaam's  oration 
(Num.  xxiv.  20),  they  are  described  as  the  firstling  of  the 
nations  (D^iS  rT'^ii'^n),  in  other  words,  as  one  of  the  earliest  tribes." 
This  expression  is  employed,  however,  as  Hcngsteiiherg  has  proved 
from  the  words  themselves,  and  from  the  context  of  the  passage 
(Balaam,  pp.  489,  490),  to  denote  that  Amalek  was,  not  the  oldest 
of  the  nations,  but  the  first  to  oppose  the  people  of  God  (after 
their  deliverance  from  Eg^qit), — tlie  prototype  of  heathenism  in 
its  hostile  relation  to  the  kingdom  of  God. — (3.)  "In  the  period 
\vhicli  elapsed  between  the  grandson  of  Esau  and  ]\Ioscs  (four 
or  five  hundred  years)  there  was  not  time  for  so  large  a  body 
of  people  to  spring  up,  as  Ex.  xvii.  presupposes."  To  this  we 
reply,  that  it  was  just  as  easy,  as  for  Israel  to  grow  into  a  much 
larger  body  during  the  same  period.  In  the  formation  of  the 
Amalckite  nation  a  large  number  of  servants  (Gen.  xxxii.  7,  8) 
and  tributaries,  and  more  particularly  the  incorporated  remnants 
of  subjugated  tribes,  may  have  contributed  a  very  important 
contingent  towards  its  rapid  growth. — (4.)  "  There  is  no  indica- 
tion of  the  existence  of  so  close  a  relationship  between  the 
Edomites  and  the  Amalekites,  either  in  their  spnpathies  or  their 
antipathies ;  and  there  is  no  reference  whatever  in  the  Biblical 

VOL.  III.  D 


50  ISRAEL  IX  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

history,  to  any  claim  on  the  part  of  Amalek  to  that  protection 
which  the  Israelites  were  to  extend  to  every  kindred  tribe."  We 
have  already  replied  to  the  latter  part  in  the  paragraph  above. 
In  reply  to  the  former,  it  is  sufficient  to  say,  that  the  early  separa- 
tion of  this  minor  branch  from  the  main  body  suffices  to  explain 
their  subsequent  estrangement. — (5.)  "Ai'abian  traditions  also 
describe  the  Amalekites  as  a  veiy  ancient,  wide-spread,  and 
powerful  people."  But  even  Tuch  himself  {Shiaitische  Inschrif- 
ten,  in  the  Zeitschrift  der  deutsch-morgenlandischen  Gesellschaft, 
ii.  150)  is  obliged  to  acknowledge  that  this  legend  is  a  very 
vague  one  :  "  The  term  Amalek,"  he  says,  "  as  employed  by  the 
Ai'abians,  is  very  comprehensive  and  indefinite ;  for  instance,  they 
mix  wp  together  the  traditions  of  the  Amalekites  themselves  and 
those  of  the  giant-tribes  of  Canaan,  of  the  Hyksos,  and  of  the 
Philistines." — On  the  other  hand,  Hengstenherg  adduces  as  proofs 
of  the  descent  of  the  Amalekites  from  the  grandson  of  Esau — (1.) 
not  only  the  identity  of  name,  but  that  of  their  settlement  also 
(1  Chron.  V.  42,  43)  ;  (2.)  the  fact  that  in  Gen.  xii.  7,  vAi\\ 
evident  intention,  and  in  contrast  wdth  the  whole  of  the  context, 
there  is  no  jjeojyle,  but  only  afield  mentioned, — an  e\ddent  intima- 
tion that  there  was  not  as  yet  any  people  of  this  name  ;  and  (3.) 
lastly,  the  improbability  of  a  tribe,  with  which  the  Israehtes 
came  so  frequently  into  contact,  and  which  stood  in  so  impor- 
tant a  relation  to  their  history,  being  introduced  entirely  wye- 
vea\oj7]TO';, — a  coiu'se  which  would  have  been  completely  opposed 
to  the  plan  invariably  adopted  in  the  Pentateuch.  EioaMs  remark 
(i.  296),  that  "the  Amalekites  are  passed  over  in  the  list  of 
tribes  because  they  had  lost  their  origiual  importance  at  the 
time  when  the  catalogue  was  drawn  up,"  by  no  means  weakens 
this  argument ;  for  in  that  case,  as  there  were  other  nations  which 
had  lost  their  importance  even  before  the  Amalekites  (the 
Amorites,  for  example),  they  ought  much  rather  to  have  been 
omitted. 

(3.)  According  to  Dent.  xxv.  18,  the  Amalekites  attacked 
the  exhausted  rear  of  the  Israelitish  procession.  "  Kemember," 
says  Moses,  "  what  Amalek  did  unto  thee  by  the  way,  when  ye 
w^ere  come  forth  out  of  Egyj^t ;  how  he  met  thee  by  the  way, 
and  smote  the  hindmost  of  thee,  even  all  that  were  feeble 
behind  thee,  when  thou  wast  faint  and  weary."  The  course  of 
events  may  be  supposed  to  have   been  the  following :     The 


HALT  AT  REPHIDIM.  51 

murmuring  on  account  of  tlie  want  of  water,  and  tlie  relief 
afforded,  took  place  immediately  after  the  arrival  of  the  main 
body  at  Rephidim ;  while  the  rear,  which  had  been  prevented 
by  fatioiie  from  arriving  earlier,  was  still  on  the  road.     And  it 
was  upon  the  latter  that  the  attack  was  made. — We  learn  from 
Num.  xiii.  17   (10),  that  Joshua's  original  name  was  Rosea. 
The  change  in  his  name  Avas  no   douljt  connected  with  this 
victory  over  the  Amalekites,  even  if  it  was  not  made  immechately 
(§  35,  3)  :    Moses  called  Rosea  (Vt^'in^   i.e.,  deliverance,  help) 
Joshua  (J't^'iiT'.,  i.e.,  Jeliovah  is  a  help,  Sept.  'lrj(Tov<;),  because  he 
had  proved  himself  a  help  to  Israel.     The  change  was  made  to 
shoAv  whence  the  help  really  came.     The  alteration  in  his  name 
had  also  a  prophetic  signification.     It  was  his  ordination  to  a 
new  course,  upon  which  he  had  noAV  entered,  and  which  was 
destined  to  become  still  more  glorious  in  its  future  stages  than 
in  its  first  commencement ;  and  the  new  name  served  to  excite 
in  him  a  consciousness  of  his  new  vocation. — Rur  is  frequently 
mentioned  (chap.  xxiv.  14,  xxxi.  2)  as  an  assistant  of  Moses, 
and  a  man  of  great  distinction,     Josephus  (Ant.  ii.  2,  4)  follows 
the  Jewish  tradition,  which  is  by  no  means  improbable,  and 
describes  him  as  the  husband  of  Mmam,  Moses'  sister. — Tlte 
attitude  of  Moses,  with  his  liand  raised,  is  frequently  supposed  to 
have  been  that  of  a  man  in  prayer.    But  there  is  nothing  in  the 
account  itself  to  sustain  such  a  view ;  and  it  is  the  less  admissible, 
since  it  attributes  an  importance  to  the  outA\'ard  form  of  prayer 
which  has  no  analogy  even  in  the  Old  Testament.     The  power 
of  prayer  is  in  the  desire  of  the  heart  towards  God,  and  not  in 
the  elevation  of  the  hands  to  God ;  and  so  far  as  this  desire  is 
in  need  of  a  vehicle  and  outward  expression,  it  is  to  be  found  in 
the  icord  of  prayer.     The  attitude  of  IMoses  was  rather  that  of  a 
commander,  superintending  and  directing  the  battle.     This  is 
evident  from  the  simple  fact,  that  the  elevation  of  tlio  hand  wf  s 
only  a  means  ;  the  raising  of  the  staff,  which  was  held  up  before 
the  warriors  of  Israel  as  the  signal  of  victory,  was  really  the 
end.     It  was  not  to  implore  the  assistance  of  Jehovah  that  the 
hand  and  staff  were  raised,  but  to  assiire  the  Israelites  of  the 
help  of  Jehovah,  and  serve  as  the  medium  of  communication. 
It  was  not  a  sign  for  Jehovah,  Imt  for  Israel :  it  was  rather 
a  sign  from  Jehovah,  of  whom  jSIoses  was  the  mediator.     So 
long,  therefore,  as  the  warriors  of  Israel  could  see  the  staff  of 


52  ISEAEL  IX  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

God  lifted  up,  by  which  so  many  miracles  had  already  been 
wrought,  their  f  {\^th  was  replenished  with  Divine  power,  inspiring 
confidence  and  insuring  victory ;  and  they  became  strong  to 
smite  Amalek  in  the  name  of  the  Lord.  But  the  mediator,  by 
whom  this  power  was  conveyed,  was  only  a  feeble  man.  His 
arm  was  wearied,  and  almost  crippled,  by  the  long  continuance 
of  the  conflict ;  and  he  was  obliged  to  let  it  fall.  At  the  same 
time,  the  courage  and  confidence  of  Israel  fell  with  it ;  for  their 
weak  faith  still  required  an  outward,  visible  sign.  It  is  evident 
from  ver.  9  that  this  is  the  correct  interpretation.  Moses  there 
says  to  Joshua,  "  Go  out,  fight  with  Amalek  ;  to-morrow  I  will 
stand  on  the  top  of  the  hill  with  the  rod  of  God  in  mine  hand.' 
And  it  is  further  confirmed  by  ver.  15,  where  Moses  calls  the 
altar,  which  he  built  as  a  memorial,  Jeliovah  Nissi  (Jehovah  my 
banner).  His  design  in  giving  this  name  was  precisely  the 
same,  as  that  which  led  him  to  change  the  name  Hosea  (help) 
into  Joshua  (Jehovah  is  help).  It  was  not  Joshua  who  was  the 
heljy  of  Israel,  but  Jehovah  through  him ;  and  neither  Moses 
nor  his  staff  was  the  banner  of  victory  for  Israel,  but  Jehovah 
through  him.  Jehovah  was  the  banner,  the  staff  was  His 
symbol ;  and  this  banner  was  held  by  the  hand  of  Moses.  Hence 
Moses  says,  ver.  16  :  "  The  hand  is  on  the  banner  of  Jali ;" — for 
we  agree  with  the  majority  of  commentators  in  regarding  it  as 
probable,  that  dj  should  be  the  reading  adopted  here,  instead  of 
D3  (equivalent  to  5<B3),  which  is  not  met  with  aii;)"\vhere  else. — 
When  Moses  received  the  command  to  record  the  occurrence  in 
THE  BOOK  ("ISD3),  the  article  shows  that  it  was  not  any  book 
that  was  meant,  but  one  particular  book,  which  had  either  been 
already  provided,  or  the  idea  and  plan  of  which  existed  in  Moses' 
mind.  So  much,  at  any  rate,  we  may  learn  from  this  passage, 
that  the  leading  facts  connected  with  the  history  of  Israel  were 
written  in  a  book  by  Moses  himself,  though  it  does  not  neces- 
sarily follow  that  this  book  was  the  Pentateuch  in  its  present 
shape  {Hengstenhenj,  Pentateuch,  vol.  ii.  p.  122  sqq.,  transL). — 
And  when,  again,  Jehovah  commanded  JSIoses  to  enjoin  ujaon 
Joshua  the  extermination  of  Amalek,  it  became  at  once  apparent 
that  Joshua  was  destined  to  be  the  successor  of  Moses ;  and 
what  we  have  already  said  respecting  the  alteration  of  his  name 
is  thereby  confirmed. 

(4.)  It  is  questionable  whether  the  visits  of  Jethko  oc- 


HALT  AT  REPIIIDIM.  53 

ciuTed  diu-ing  the  halt  at  Rephitlini,  or  not  till  they  reached  the 
next  station  (the  desert  of  Sinai).  In  support  of  the  former,  it 
is  said  that  the  departure  from  Rephidim  is  first  recorded  in  the 
next  chapter  (xix.  2)  ;  but  to  this  it  is  replied,  that  in  chap, 
xviii.  5  Jethro  is  expressly  stated  to  have  brought  the  wife  and 
children  of  Moses  "into  the  wilderness,  where  he  encamped 
at  the  mount  of  God."  The  former  cannot  possibly  be  main- 
tained, unless  it  be  assumed,  either  that  the  mountain  of  God 
here  referred  to  was  a  different  mountain  from  the  mount  of 
God  in  Horeb  mentioned  in  chap.  iii.  2,  and  the  "  mountain"  by 
Avliich  Moses  Avent  up  "  to  God,"  namely,  the  mountain  of  the 
law  (chap.  xix.  2,  3)  ;  or  that  the  place  of  encampment  at 
Rephichm  was  so  near  to  Sinai,  that  it  could  very  properly  be 
described  as  a  place  where  he  encamped  at  the  mount  of  God- 
Either  of  these,  however,  appears  to  us  entirely  out  of  the 
question.  It  is  a  sufficient  objection  to  the  last,  that,  however 
near  to  each  other  Rephidim  and  the  desert  of  Sinai  may  be 
supposed  to  have  been,  they  still  formed  two  dif event  stations ; 
and  that  the  account  would  have  been  confused  indeed,  if 
Rephidim  had  been  called  the  place  of  encampment  at  the 
mountain  of  God,  and  then  the  author  had  proceeded  to  state, 
in  chap.  xix.  2,  that  "  they  departed  from  Rephidim,  and  came 
to  the  desert  of  Sinai  (after  at  least  a  day's  journey),  and  camped 
there  before  the  momit  (of  God)."  We  are  surely  not  to  infer 
that  this  day's  journey  had  led  them  farther  from  the  mount  of 
God,  rather  than  brought  them  towards  it. — The  other  opinion, 
that  the  mountain  of  God  in  Rephidim  is  to  be  distinguished 
from  the  mount  of  God  in  the  desert  of  Sinai,  is  supported  by 
K.  Ritter  (Erdkunde  xiv.  741).  He  supposes  the  mountain  at 
which  Jethro  met  with  Moses  to  have  been  the  Serbal,  which 
had  received  the  appellation  "  mountain  of  God,"  as  a  place  of 
heathen  worship,  and  distinguishes  it  from  the  mountain  of  the 
law,  which  was  afterwards  called  the  mount  of  God  (that  is,  of 
the  true  God)  on  account  of  the  giving  of  the  law.  He  thinks 
that  this  view  is  sustained  by  chap.  xix.  2,  where  Mount  Sinai 
is  merely  spoken  of  as  "  the  mountain,"  not  "  the  mountain  of 
God,"  because  it  had  not  yet  been  rendered  a  holy  mountain  by 
the  giving  of  the  law.  But  Lepsius  (p.  428)  refers  him  to  the 
next  verse  (ver.  3),  where  INIoses  is  said  to  have  gone  up  the 
mountain  "  mito  God,"  and  Jehovah  to  have  called  to  him  out  of 


54  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

the  mountain.  To  tliis  we  would  further  add  a  reference  to 
chap.  iii.  1,  12,  and  iv.  27,  which  equally  demonstrate  the 
futilit}'  of  Eitter's  reasoning.  Still  more  untenable  is  the  sup- 
position that  the  Serbal  was  called  the  mount  of  God,  "  because 
the  Amalekites  and  Philistines  regarded  it  as  a  sacred  moun- 
tain." If  this  was  the  case  (and  for  many  reasons  it  is  by  no 
means  improbable,  §  5),  and  if  the  Amalekites  really  called  it 
the  mount  of  God  (though  they  would  have  been  far  more  likely 
to  call  it  the  mount  of  Baal),  it  is  altogether  inconceivable  that 
this  name  should  have  been  so  unreservedly  adopted  in  the 
Bible,  especially  as  the  same  name  had  already  been  given. to 
another  mountain,  as  the  place  in  which  the  true  God  was 
Avorshipped  (Ex.  iii.  1,  vi.  27).  In  what  way  the  expression  of 
Jethro  at  Eephidim  (chap,  srvnii.  11),  "  Now  I  know  that  Jehovah 
is  greater  than  all  gods,"  can  have  been  enlisted  in  support  of 
this  hypothesis,  I  cannot  di^ane.  In  fact,  the  most  unfortunate 
of  all  the  explanations  that  have  been  given,  is  that  commended 
by  Ritter.  There  is  an  earlier  one,  which  has  much  more  to 
recommend  it,  viz.,  that  the  roch  at  Rephidim,  from  which  Moses 
brought  the  water,  was  also  called  the  momit  of  God,  because 
Jehovah  stood  upon  it  in  the  presence  of  Moses  (chap.  xvdi.  6). 
But  even  this  explanation  is  inadmissible,  for  a  rock  is  not  a 
mountain  ;  and  (what  is  of  the  greatest  weight  of  all)  as  the 
mountain  of  the  law  has  no  parallel  in  history,  so  must  the  title 
given  to  it,  the  mountain  of  God,  have  remained  in  the  language 
as  the  designation  of  this  mountain  alone. 

We  are  shut  up,  therefore,  to  the  other  assumption,  that  the 
visit  of  Jethro  did  not  occur  diu'ing  the  halt  at  Eephidim,  but 
at  the  next  resting-place  (the  desert  of  Sinai).  But  how  is  this 
to  be  reconciled  ^^dth  chap.  xix.  2  f  Only  on  the  supposition 
that  the  position  assigned  to  the  account  of  Jethro' s  visit  is 
clironologically  inaccurate,  though  it  is  actually  correct  and 
appropriate ;  i.e.,  that  accordmg  to  a  strict  chronological  arrange- 
ment, it  would  more  properly  have  stood  immediately  after  chap, 
xix.  2,  or  perhaps  even  later,  but  that  there  were  still  stronger 
reasons  for  placing  it  here.  It  makes  no  essential  difference  to 
cm'  pm-pose,  whicli  is  purely  historical,  whether  this  inversion 
was  made  by  a  later  compiler  of  the  Pentateuch  records,  or  by 
the  single  author  of  the  entire  Pentateuch.  We  may  therefore 
leave  this  question  mianswered,  and  proceed  to  point  out  the 


HALT  AT  EEnilDIIM.  55 

motive  which  may  have  induced  the  one  or  the  other  to  make 
such  an  inversion.  Ranhe  {Untersuchungen  fiber  den  Pentateucli, 
i.  83)  has  also  pointed  this  out  with  his  usual  circumspection  : 
"  The  mountain  of  God,"  he  says,  "  and  not  Eephidim,  is  de- 
scribed as  the  place  of  encampment  at  that  time  (ver.  5). 
jNIoreovcr,  the  circumstances  in  which  we  find  the  people  are 
adapted,  not  to  their  flying  halt  at  Rephidim  (only  half  a  month 
intervened  between  their  arrival  at  the  desert  of  Sin  and  their 
encampment  in  the  desert  of  Sinai),  but  to  theii*  longer  stay  at 
Sinai.  Hence  this  chapter  departs  from  the  chronological  order, 
and  anticipates  the  occurrence.  As  our  examinations  thus  far 
have  shoAAai  that  we  have  here  a  well-arranged  and  orderly  work, 
we  must  inquire  into  the  reason  of  this  singular  deviation.  The 
author  is  now  standing  at  the  commencement  of  an  important 
section  in  his  history,  which  extends  from  Ex.  xix.  to  Kum.  x., 
and  contains  the  account  of  the  giving  of  the  law  at  Sinai.  AJl 
the  directions  embraced  in  this  section  are  given  through  ]Moses 
by  Jehovah,  and  bear  throughout  the  character  of  Divine  com- 
mands. It  is  different  with  the  appointment  of  the  judges,  the 
origin  of  which  is  recorded  in  chap,  xviii.  This  was  not  ordered 
by  Jehovah,  but  recommended  by  Jethro.  .  .  .  And  hence 
we  are  led  to  conjecture  that  the  author  pui'posely  separated  th 
human  institution  from  such  as  were  Divine,  and  pointed  out  tlie 
distinction  by  the  position  assigned  to  it." 

AYe  have  something  to  add  to  this  excellent  exposition,  which 
will  sen'e  still  fvurther  to  establish  its  correctness.  First  of  all 
we  would  observe,  that  the  chronological  inversion  is  only  a 
partial  one,  and  is  not  made  entirely  without  preparation.  For 
the  commencement  of  the  account  of  Jethro' s  visit  (cha]>.  x\iii. 
1-4)  is  to  all  appearance  fitly  placed,  even  chronologically  con- 
sidered, in  the  position  in  which  it  stands.  "And  Jethro  heard 
all  that  God  had  done  for  Moses  and  for  Israel."  The  words,  "  All 
that  God  had  done  for  Moses  and  for  Israel,"  undoubtedly  refer 
primarily,  though  not  exclusively,  to  the  i-ictory  over  Amalek, 
recorded  immediately  before.  The  news  of  this  Aactory  first 
convinced  Jethro  that  he  nu'ght  restore  his  daughter  and  grand- 
chikh'cn  to  Moses  without  anxiety  or  danger.  Before  he  reached 
the  camp,  the  Israelites  had  no  doubt  departed  from  Rephidim, 
and  entered  the  desert  of  Sinai.  If  we  assume — what  is  -sery 
probable  for  the  reasons  akeady  assigned  (vol.  ii.  §  19,  6) — that 


56  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

Jetliro  was  living  at  the  time  on  the  other  side  of  the  Ehmitic 
Gulf,  a  whole  month  or  more  may  easily  have  intervened  between 
the  victoiy  over  Amalek  and  the  arrival  of  Jethro  in  the  camp 
at  "the  mount  of  God;"  and  in  that  case  his  arrival  would  not 
even  fall  in  the  very  earliest  period  of  the  sojourn  at  Sinai,  but 
after  the  promulgation  of  the  first  Sinaitic  law. 

There  is  another  view,  which  will  probably  sem^e  to  confirm 
our  opinion.  When  Moses  left  his  wife  and  children  with  his 
father-in-law,  he  will  certainly  have  given  him  to  understand 
when,  where,  and  under  what  cu'cumstances  he  intended  to  re- 
ceive them  back  again.  According  to  Ex.  iii.  12,  he  knew  for 
certain  that  he  would  return  to  Sinai,  and  remain  there  for  a 
considerable  period.  Now,  is  it  not  very  probable  that  he  had 
instructed  his  father-in-law  to  bring  his  wife  and  children  to 
join  him  there  ? — But  the  history  of  the  Israelitish  jom-ney  itself 
furnishes  still  more  decisive  argrunents  in  support  of  oru'  opinion. 
The  period  which  elapsed  between  the  arrival  of  the  Israelites  in 
the  desert  of  Sin,  and  their  arrival  in  the  desert  of  Sinai,  was 
only  fourteen  days  (chap.  xvi.  1,  and  xix.  1).  Of  these  fourteen 
days,  seven  were  absorbed  by  the  halt  in  the  desert  of  Sin  alone 
(according  to  chap.  x\a.  22  sqq. ;  see  §  3).  Consequently  their 
stay  at  Rephidim  must  have  been  brief  and  hurried,  and  (as  the 
battle  itself  occupied  a  whole  day,  chap.  xvii.  12)  cannot  have 
left  sufiicient  time  for  such  transactions  as  are  described  in  chap. 
x:\iii.,  viz. :  first,  the  lengthened  confidential  inter\dew  between 
Moses  and  Jethro  (ver.  8  sqq.) ;  then  the  sacrifices  oifered  by 
Jetliro,  and  the  festal  meal  in  which  Jethro  united  with  the 
elders  of  Israel  (ver.  12)  ;  after  that,  the  day  spent  by  Moses  in 
judging  the  people  (ver.  13)  ;  and,  lastly,  the  organisation  of  the 
new  plan,  recommended  by  Jethro,  which  must  have  occupied 
a  considerable  time,  especially  as  we  find,  from  Deut.  i.  13,  that 
the  judges  were  elected  by  the  suffrages  of  the  people.  More- 
over, it  is  difficult  to  reconcile  chap,  xviii.  27  mth  the  opposite 
view.  If  Jethro' s  visit  took  place  at  Rephidim,  his  journey 
homewards  would  have  lain  in  the  same  direction  as  that  taken 
by  Moses, — and  as  jSIoses  must  have  left  Rephidim  at  the  same 
time  as  his  father-in-law,  we  cannot  understand  why  Jethro  did 
not  travel  in  company  with  JSIoses  until  their  roads  separated. — 
Lepsius  also  maintains  (Briefe,  p.  437)  that  Jethro's  visit  did 
not  take  place  during  the  halt  at  Eephidim,  but  when  they  were 


HALT  AT  REPHIDIM.  57 

encamped  at  Sinai  (i.e.,  according  to  liis  theory,  at  the  foot  of 
the  Serbal).  But  when  he  accounts  for  the  error  in  the  order 
of  events  by  asserting  that  chap.  xix.  1,  2  is  a  later  interpola- 
tion, or,  if  not,  that  it  must  have  stood  before  chap.  x\'iii.,  Ave 
cannot  agree  with  him.  We  must  also  dissent  from  him  when 
he  places  Jethro's  visit  in  the  very  earliest  part  of  the  halt  at 
Sinai ;  i.e.,  in  the  period  which  intervened  between  the  arrival  of 
the  Israelites  and  the  promulgation  of  the  law  (according  to  him, 
in  the  first  three  days).  We  cannot  believe  that  everything 
connected  with  Jethro's  visit  can  have  been  transacted  in  these 
three  days  (in  fact  there  would  not  be  three  days,  but  two,  if  his 
intei-pretation  of  chap.  xix.  11,  15  were  correct;  for  we  find  in 
vers.  11,  15,  not  "on  i\\Q  fourth  day,"  but  on  the  third).  Still 
less  can  we  believe  that  the  two  or  three  days,  w^hich  were  set 
apart  for  the  purpose  of  preparing  for  the  gi\^ng  of  the  law, 
were  spent  in  such  tedious,  noisy,  and  distracting  occupations 
(as  Jethro's  feast  with  the  elders  of  Israel,  the  day  spent  by 
Moses  in  settling  disputes,  and  the  election  and  installation  of 
the  new  judges). — We  observe,  in  conclusion,  that  Josephtis  (Ant. 
iii.  2-5)  interpreted  the  text  as  meaning  that  Jethro's  visit  was 
not  paid  till  after  the  Israelites  were  encamped  at  Sinai. 

Tavo  objections  have  been  offered  by  critics  to  the  credibility 
of  the  account  before  us.  Vatke  (bibl.  Theol.  i.  296)  attacks  the 
decimal  division  in  the  new  institution,  as  inappropriate  and  not 
historical.  But  Hengstenherf)  (Pentateuch,  ii.  342)  has  com- 
pletely set  aside  this  objection,  by  showing  that  the  new  arrange- 
ment itself  was  merely  the  restoration  of  an  ancient  institution, 
which  naturally  arose  out  of  the  organisation  common  to  nomadic 
and  patriarchal  communities.  In  Eg}qot  the  judicial  cvistoms 
of  the  patriarchs  had  fallen  to  some  extent  into  disuse ;  as  we 
may  infer  from  the  occurrence  described  in  Ex.  ii.  11  sqq.  A 
monarchical  principle,  of  which  Moses  was  the  representative, 
was  introduced  into  the  Israelitish  commmiity  on  its  departure 
from  Eg}'pt,  and  therefore  all  jucUcial  authority  centred  in  him. 
But  Jethro's  advice  led  to  the  restoration  of  the  ancient  judicial 
institutions,  which  were  henceforth  associated  with  the  new 
monarchical  principle.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  new 
arrangement  was  essentially  identical  Avith  the  ancient  custom, 
which  had  fallen  for  some  time  into  disuse.  The  AA'ord  V^  (a 
thousand)   is  frequently  employed  to  denote  a  large,  natural 


58  ISRAEL  IX  THE  DESERT  OF  SIXAI. 

section  of  a  tribe,  as  every  lexicon  proves ;  and  it  is  apparent 
enough  that  the  numeral  employed  here  is  merely  approximative, 
and  not  mathematically  exact,  Why  may  not  the  same  principle 
of  classification  have  been  carried  ovit  still  further,  and  thus 
groups  of  a  hundred,  fifty,  and  ten  individuals  have  formed 
larger  or  smaller  family  circles,  with  a  common  judicial  head  ? 

In  Arabic  the  family  is  called  2^.aAx.,  from  the  numeral  ten, 

thou^li  a  family  does  not  always  consist  of  ten  persons.  In  Deut. 
i.  13,  15,  it  is  also  expressly  stated,  that  the  judicial  plan  adopted 
on  Jethro's  advice,  was  made  to  conform  as  closely  as  possible 
to  the  existing  divisions  into  families  and  tribes. 

De  Wette  (Einleitung,  §  156,  2)  finds  a  contradiction  in  the 
fact,  that  in  Deut.  i.  6-18,  where  the  introduction  of  the  judicial 
plan  is  again  referred  to,  no  mention  whatever  is  made  of  Jethro  ; 
and  even  KOster  (Die  Projjlieten  der  alten  mid  neuen  Test.,  p. 
23)  says:  "According  to  Ex.  xviii.  17,  Jethro  recommended 
that  judges  should  be  appointed  over  the  people  according  to  a 
decimal  system  of  classification ;  and,  according  to  Deut.  i.  15, 
Moses  adopted  this  plan  by  the  direction  of  God.  Thus  we  see 
that  the  good  advice  of  a  friend  was  regarded  as  the  word  of 
God."  But  it  is  not  true  that  the  institution  is  traced  to  the 
direction  of  God  in  Deut.  i.  15  ;  and  Stdhelin  himself  (Krit. 
[Inter suclmng en  iiher  den  Pentateuch,  p.  79)  admits  the  futihty 
of  De  Wette' s  objection  :  "  The  omission  of  any  reference  to 
Jethro  in  Deuteronomy  does  not  amovmt  to  a  contradiction  ;  for 
the  intention  of  the  -v^Titer  was  simply  to  state  the  fact  of  the 
appointment  of  judges,  and  not  to  describe  the  manner  of  their 
appointment." 

(5.)  In  chap.  xix.  1  it  is  stated,  that  "  in  the  third  ]\ionth 
(''E^'''^ti'^  t^'nhli)  after  the  departm'e  of  the  chikben  of  Israel  from 
Egypt,  ON  that  day  (njn  DV3)  they  came  into  the  desert  of 
Sinai."  What  day  does  this  mean  ?  Nearly  every'  expositor, 
from  Jonathan  downwards,  has  taken  it  to  mean  the  day  of  the 
new  moon,  basing  the  explanation  upon  the  primary  meaning  of 
Vih  =  novilmmwi, — a  meaning  which  the  word  always  retained 
(1  Sam.  XX.  5,  18,  24  ;  Hosea  v.  7  ;  Amos  viii.  5  ;  Is.  i.  13,  14  ; 
2  Chron.  ii.  3,  viii.  13  ;  Keh.  x.  34,  etc.)  ;  thus  Gesenius  renders 
it  tertio  novilunio,  i.e.,  calendis  mensis  tertii  (Thesamnis,  p.  449). 
But  Lepsius  protests  most  strongly  against  such  an  interpreta- 


HALT  AT  REPIIIDI3I.  59 

tioii.^  If  tliis  were  the  meciiiing,  he  saj's,  we  should  find  inNS 
tnn?,  as  in  Ex.  xh  2,  17  ;  Num.  i.  33,  38.  Now  no  one  can 
deny  that  this  wouki  be  the  more  exact  expression  ;  but  the  use 
of  the  less  exact  (as  in  this  passage,  and  in  Nmn.  ix.  1,  xx.  1)  is 
not  thereby  precluded,  especially  in  the  present  case,  where  any 
misunderstanding  is  prevented  by  the  words  nrn  dYl  (in  that 
day).  But  when  he  fui'ther  maintains,  that  the  Jewish  trachtion 
cannot  have  taken  this  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  word,  since  it 
fixes  the  fiftieth  day  after  the  Exodus — i.e.,  the  fifth  or  sixth  day 
of  the  third  month — as  the  day  of  the  promulgation  of  the  law 
(which,  according  to  Ex.  xix.  11,  15,  took  place  on  the  third  day 
after  the  arrival  of  the  Israelites  at  Sinai),  and  must  therefore 
have  taken  the  second  or  third  of  the  month  to  be  the  day  of 
arrival,  he  is  evidently  in  error.  For  it  is  not  stated  anwhere, 
that  the  third  day  was  reckoned  from  the  moment  of  their 
arrival  at    Sinai ;   on  the   contrary,   such   an  interpretation   is 

^  Both  Hengstcnhcrg  (Pentateuch,  ii.  p.  297,  transl.)  and  Bertheau  (Siehen 
Gruppen^  p.  62)  object  to  the  rendering  noviluniian,  thongh  for  a  totally 
different  reason.  Their  argument  is  directed  against  IIit~ig,  who  asserts 
(Ostern  und  Pfiugsten,  p.  21  sqq.)  that,  in  contradiction  to  Ex.  xii.  and 
other  passages,  Ex.  xxxiv.  18  fixes  the  first  of  the  month  Abib  (="=^v  "'^"^'^^)? 
instead  of  the  fourteenth,  for  the  celebration  of  the  Passover.  In  addition 
to  many  other  correct  and  conclusive  arguments,  which  they  bring  forward 
in  opposition  to  this  unheard-of  assertion,  they  state  that  the  word  'i;-l-i  does 
not  occur  a  single  time  in  the  whole  of  the  Pentateuch  with  the  meaning 
"the  day  of  the  new  moon."  But  this  is  unquestionably  the  primary 
meaning  of  the  word ;  and  it  is  also  certain  that  this  meaning  was  preserved 
through  the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament  (see  the  passages  quoted  above). 
Still,  in  the  passage  before  us,  Hengstenberg  does  not  regard  the  expression 
as  refemng  to  some  day  in  the  third  month,  which  is  not  more  particu- 
larly defined,  but  agrees  with  iis  in  supposing  the  day  intended  to  be  the 
first  of  the  month.  He  does  not  found  this  opinion,  hoAvever,  upon  the 
words  's^V'i-n  z-T-a,  but  upon  the  expression  "  on  that  day,"  which  is  em- 
ployed to  define  more  precisely  the  general  expression  "  in  the  third  month." 
for  "on  that  day"  means,  "on  the  day  in  which  the  month  commenced.''' 
The  incorrectness  of  such  reasoning  is  very  apparent ;  for  if  s-in  did  not  of 
itself  denote  the  beginning  of  the  month,  the  clause,  "on  that  day,"  could 
not  suffice  to  indicate  the  first  day  of  the  month.  Hengstenhergh  objection, 
that  in  this  case  ntn  n-.-^a  would  be  superfluous,  has  already  been  refuted  by 
Bainngarfen  (i.  2,  p.  519)  :  "The  analogous  passage,"  he  says,  "in  Gen. 
vii.  13,  demonstrates  the  opposite.  The  words,  'on  that  day,' point  em- 
phatically to  the  day  just  mentioned,  and  are  only  a  little  weaker  than  '  on 
the  self-same  day,'  which  also  refers  to  a  day  already  indicated,  and  not  to 
any  longer  space  of  time." 


60  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OP  SINAI, 

excluded  by  tlie  context.  Sliortly  after  their  arrival,  probably 
not  till  tlie  second  day  (on  account  of  the  fatigue  of  the  journey), 
Moses  ascended  the  mountain  and  received  the  preliminaries  of 
the  covenant  (vers.  3-6).  On  his  return  he  collected  the  elders 
together,  to  make  known  to  them  the  words  of  Jehovah  (this 
was  on  the  thu'd  day).  He  then  brought  back  to  Jehovah  the 
answer  of  the  people,  and  received  a  command  to  make  the 
people  ready  for  the  promulgation  of  the  law  on  the  third  day 
from  that  time  (that  is,  on  the  fifth  or  sixth  of  the  month). 
Thus  the  fiftieth  day  from  the  Exodus  is  seen  to  correspond 
quite  correctly  to  the  fifth  or  sixth  day  from  the  arrival  at 
Sinai ;  and  it  is  evident  that  the  Jewish  tradition  intei-preted 
ntn  DV3  in  the  same  manner  as  we  have  done. — Lej)sius  supposes 
"that  day"  to  have  been  the  day  of  the  battle  with  Amalek 
(for,  in  the  learned  critic's  opinion,  chap.  xix.  1,  2,  is  put  in  the 
wTong  place,  and  ought  to  stand  before  chap.  xA-iii.  1).  That  is 
to  say,  on  the  same  day  on  Avhich  Israel  had  maintained  a  severe 
conflict  with  Amalek,  from  the  first  thing  in  the  morning  till 
late  in  the  evening  (xvii.  9,  12),  and  on  which  Moses  had  crippled 
his  hands  with  the  exhaustion  caused  by  holding  them  up  (xvii. 
12), — on  tlie  very  same  day,  though  it  was  a  long  time  past  sun- 
set (x\-ii.  12),  Moses  not  only  built  an  altar  at  Rephichm  (xvii. 
15),  but  after  erecting  the  altar,  directed  the  people,  who  were 
worn  out  partly  with  terror  and  anxiety,  and  partly  from  the 
twelve  hours'  engagement,  to  leave  Rephidim  and  march  through 
the  Wady  Aleyat  to  the  Sinai-Serbal ; — yes,  and  on  the  same  day, 
notwithstanding  all  the  strain  that  had  akeady  been  put  upon 
both  body  and  mind,  Moses  ascended  to  the  top  of  the  fearfully 
precipitous  Serbal,  which  is  6342  feet  high,  and  conversed  with 
Jehovah  there ;  again,  on  the  same  day,  he  came  down  from  the 
mountain  (we  will  hope  that  he  did  not  find  the  same  difficulty 
as  the  Egyptologist,  who  was  quite  fresh  when  he  went  up,  and 
who  says,  with  regard  to  himself  and  his  companions  Q).  332]  : 
"  We  were  obliged  to  leap  from  rock  to  rock  like  the  chamois, 
and  by  this  pathless  route,  the  most  difficult  and  exliausting  that 
I  ever  travelled  in  my  life,  we  arrived  at  our  tent  with  trembling 
knees  in  two  hours  and  a  half  ")  ;  and  even  then  the  indefatig- 
able Moses  had  not  yet  finished  his  day's  Avork,  but  on  the  same 
day  again  he  assembled  the  elders  of  the  people,  and  then  again 
reported  the  answer  of  the  people  to  Jehovah, — all  this  n-rn  Di'3j 


GEOGRAPHICAL  SURVEY.  61 

for  all  this  occurred  on  the  day  of  their  ari'ival,  with  which  the 
three  days'  preparation  for  the  promulgation  of  the  law  com- 
menced.— Indeed !  Then  let  no  one  say  that  Lepsius  does  not 
believe  in  miracles !  But  that  is  the  way  with  these  critics  :  the 
actual  miracle  (e.g.  the  sweetening  of  the  bitter  water  at  Marah, 
and  tlie  flowing  of  the  water  from  the  rock  at  Eephidim)  is  pro- 
nounced a  purely  natural  occurrence  ;  and  the  simplest  and  most 
natural  event  in  the  world,  which  really  required  no  miracle  at 
all,  is  so  interpreted  as  to  be  absolutely  inconceivable  without 
the  performance  of  miracles  of  a  most  colossal  description. 


GEOGRAPHICAL  SURVEY  OF  THE  ROAD  TO  REPHIDIM  AXD  THE 
COUNTRY  ROUND  SINAI. 

§  5.  As  the  route  of  the  Israelites  from  Ayun  Musa  to  the 
plain  of  el-Kaa  may  be  determined  with  tolerable  certainty,  so 
may  also  the  course  which  they  took  from  the  latter  place  to 
Sinai.  From  the  northern  extremity  of  the  plain  of  el-Kaa 
(whether  w^e  suppose  this  spot  to  have  been  the  station  "  by  the 
Red  Sea,"  or  the  station  in  the  desert  of  Sin),  the  Israelites,  like 
the  modern  traveller,  had  to  choose  between  three  different 
roads,  which  led  to  the  Jebel  Musa,  the  mountain  appointed  for 
the  giving  of  the  law  (§  8).  They  could  traverse  the  plain 
of  el-Kaa  towards  the  south,  along  the  sea-coast  as  far  as  the 
Wadi/  Hehrau,  and  then,  turning  to  the  east,  reach  ISIount  Sinai 
through  this  wady  to  the  south  of  the  Serbal  group.  This  is 
the  route  which  Kosmas,  the  Indian  traveller  (in  the  sixth  cen- 
tury), supposed  the  Israelites  to  have  taken.  The  first  part  of 
the  way  is  very  easy,  but  the  latter  i)art  is  so  full  of  difficulties, 
that  Moses,  who  knew  the  countiy,  is  not  likely  to  have  selected 
it.  The  northern  route,  which  leads  through  the  Wadi/  Nasb 
to  the  table-land  Debbet  er-Ramleh,  on  the  north  of  the  Serbal 
and  Sinaitic  groups,  is  also  not  likely  to  have  been  chosen,  not- 
wdthstanding  its  superior  facilities, — less,  perhaps,  because  it 
would  be  more  circuitous  and  badly  supplied  with  water,  than 
because  the  Israelites  would  be  directly  exposed  to  the  attacks 


G2  ISRAEL  IX  THE  DESERT  OF  SIXAI. 

of  tlie  barbarous  hordes  of  Amalekites  who  inhabited  that  region 
(1). — The  shortest,  best  watered,  and  safest  route,  led  through 
the  Wadvs  Mokatteb,  Feu-an,  and  es-Sheikh,  by  a  tolerably 
direct  and  easy  way,  to  the  Jebel  Musa ;  and  there  is  scarcely 
ground  for  a  single  doubt  that  this  was  the  road  by  which  the 
Israehtes  travelled.  In  this  opmion  both  travellers  and  exposi- 
tors are  now  imanimously  agreed.  We  shall  therefore  dwell  a 
Kttle  longer  upon  the  description  of  this  route. 

A  little  to  the  south  of  the  Wady  Xasb,  the  Wadi/  Mokatteb 
opens  into  the  plain  of  el-Kaa.  This  wady  owes  its  name 
(Valley  of  Inscriptions)  to  the  ancient  inscriptions  in  the  rocks, 
for  which  it  has  become  so  celebrated  (2). — It  is  from  three- 
quarters  of  a  mile  to  a  mile  in  breadth,  and  runs  S.S.E.  for  a 
distance  of  four  or  five  hours'  journey  between  rocky  hills.  At 
length  it  joins  the  Wadi/  Feiran,  which  also  opens  into  the 
plain  of  el-Kaa.  The  latter  wady  turns  somewhat  more  towards 
the  east,  and,  after  a  journey  of  about  six  hours,  brings  the 
traveller  to  the  northern  promontories  of  the  Serbal  group. 
The  Fenian  valley  is  "  the  largest,  the  most  fertile,  and  the 
broadest  of  all  the  valleys  in  that  region,  and  the  only  one 
through  Avhich  a  clear  ri\-ulet  is  still  flowing  for  several  miles. 
The  exact  source  of  this  stream,  and  its  disappearance  beneath 
the  rocky  soil,  have  not  been  by  any  means  sufficiently  investi- 
gated. Again,  in  all  that  rocky  wilderness  there  is  no  other 
oasis  so  beautifully  studded  with  palm-gi'oves,  fniit-gardens,  and 
corn-fields,  as  the  Wady  Feiran"  (3). — "  From  the  higher  and 
most  fertile  portion  of  the  Wady  Feiran,  where  the  ruins  of  the 
ancient  Pharan  stiU  bear  testimony  to  an  age  which  miderstood, 
far  better  than  the  present  degenerate  race,  how  to  turn  its  fer- 
tihty  to  account,  the  Wady  Aleyat,  an  hour's  journey  in  length, 
opens  into  the  Wady  JFeiran,  and  conducts  through  a  nari'ow 
defile  to  the  group  of  the  lofty  and  majestic  Serhal,  whose  tall 
peaks  rise  to  a  height  of  6000  feet,  and  command  all  the  valleys 
on  every  side.  From  the  most  remote  distance,  even  from  Elim, 
it  serves  as  a  landmark  to  guide  the  traveller  from  Eg^^it,  the 


GEOGKAPHICAL  SURVEY.  63 

loftier  but  more  distant  group  of  Sinai  being  concealed  for  a 
time  behind  it"  (4). — A  little  farther  to  the  east  of  the  ruins  of 
the  ancient  Pliaran,  you  ascend  from  the  Wadj  Feiran  to  the 
broad  and  extensive  Wady  es  Sheikh,  which  continues  winding  for  a 
distance  of  about  ten  horn's'  jom'ncy,  till  it  forms  a  complete  semi- 
ch'cle,  and  eventually  opens  into  the  plain  of  er-Rahah,  on  the 
northern  side  of  the  central  group  of  the  mountains  of  Sinai  (5). 

(1).  As  the  most  decisive  reason  for  not  passing  through  the 
Wady  Nasb  (copper  valley),  R'ltter  (Ev.  Kal.,  p.  45)  mentions 
the  circumstance,  that   a  considerable  number  of   Egjiitians, 
whom  liG  had  every  reason  for  wishing  to  avoid,  had  already 
settled  in  this  valley  for  the  sake  of  the  mining,  which  was 
carried  on  there  Avith  spirit.     "  For  it  was  here,"  he  says,  "  that 
the  ruined  edifices  of  an  ancient  Egyptian  colony  were  discovered 
by  Niehiihr,  at  the  northern  outlet  of  the  wady,  into  which  he 
had  wandered  by  mistake.     The  nuns  consisted  of  a  temple, 
several  tombs,  and  blocks  of  stone,  all  covered  with  hierogl}'phics. 
They  are  surrounded  by  a  district  which  is  full  of  the  excava- 
tions made  in  connection  with  ancient  mining  operations,  witli 
copper   mines    and   furnaces,  that   point   to  a  \qvj  early  pre- 
Mosaic  period.     This  mining  was  still  carried  on  at  the  time 
of  ISIoses,  and  had  Ijeen  piu-sued  at  the  same  spot  a  thousand 
years  before  (?  !  !)  ;  for  we  find  the  name  of  the  Pharaoh  of  the 
Exodus — namely,  Menephtha — in  hieroghq^hics  on  the  monu- 
ments, with  those  of  many  of  his  ancestors  of  a  much  earlier 
date.     The  name  given  to  the  place  by  the  modem  Bedouins  is 
Sarhat-el-Khadhn,  i.e.,  hill  of  the  rings,  from  the  rings  which 
surromid  the  names  of  the  kings  on  the  stone  tablets,  according 
to  the  general  and  traditionary  custom  of  the  Egy[)tians."     (For 
fm-ther  particulars,  see  Ritter  s  Erdhinde,  xiv.  703  sqq.)     This 
argument  has  little  weight  in  our  estimation,  since  it  presupposes 
the  unconditional  correctness  of  the  fallacious  results  of  the 
chronology  of  Lepsius   (vol.  ii.   §  45,  1).     Moreover,   even  if 
there  liad  been  still,  or  had  been  already,  EgA^otian  colonists 
engaged  in  mining  there,  it  is  not  very  likely  that  they  would 
be  provided  with  a  mihtary  garrison  of  sufficient  strength  to 
cause  the  Israelites  any  anxiety. 

(2.)  In  the  Wady  Mok^vtteb  there  are  several  side  open- 
ings, containing  traces  of  Eg}'i)tian  architectm-e,  with  ruins  of 


64  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SIXAI. 

temples,  shafts  of  mines,  etc.,  on  some  of  wliicli  there  are  the 
names  of  kings  of  still  greater  antiquity  than  those  at  Sarbat-el- 
Khachm.  The  fact  that  these  are  not  noticed  in  the  Mosaic 
account  of  the  journey  of  the  Israelites,  is  explained  by  K.  Bitter, 
on  the  supposition  that  either  the  mines  had  been  already  for- 
saken as  being  older  than  the  others,  or  the  Israelites  passed  bv 
them  without  obser^'ing  them,  as  they  were  somewhat  hidden  in 
the  clefts  which  are  found  at  the  end  of  the  side  valleys. — But 
the  Wady  JMokatteb  has  derived  much  greater  interest  than  that 
which  is  imparted  to  it  by  the  remains  of  mines,  from  the  quan- 
tity of  inscriptions  in  the  sandstone  rocks,  which  cover  nearly 
every  spot  where  room  could  be  found  to  engrave  them.  As  in- 
scriptions of  just  the  same  character  are  frequently  met  with  in 
other  places  in  the  neighbourhoods  of  the  mountains  of  Sinai,  they 
are  called  by  the  general  name  of  the  Sixaitic  Inscriptions. 

"  They  are  found,"  says  Robinson  (i.  188,  189),  "  on  all  the 
routes  wdiich  lead  from  the  west  toward  this  mountain,  as  far 
south  as  Tur.  They  extend  to  the  very  base  of  Sinai,  aboAc  the 
convent  el-Arbain,  but  are  found  neither  on  Jebel  Musa,  nor 
on  the  present  Horeb,  nor  on  St  Catherine,  nor  in  the  valley  of 
the  convent ;  while  on  Serbal  they  are  seen  on  its  very  summit. 
Not  one  has  yet  been  found  to  the  eastward  of  Sinai.  But  the 
spot  wdiere  they  exist  in  the  greatest  niunber  is  the  Wady  Mu- 
katteb,  '  Written  Valley,'  through  which  the  usual  road  to  Sinai 
passes  before  reaching  Wady  Feiran.  Here  they  occur  by  thou- 
sands on  the  rocks,  chiefly  at  such  points  as  Avould  form  con- 
venient resting-places  for  travellers  or  pilgrims  during  the  noon- 
day smi ;  as  is  also  the  case  with  those  we  saw^  upon  the  other 
route.  Many  of  them  are  accompanied  by  crosses,  sometimes 
obviously  of  the  same  date  with  the  inscription,  and  sometimes 
apparently  later  or  retouched.  The  character  is  everywhere  the 
same  ;  but  imtil  recently  it  has  remained  undeciphered,  in  spite 
of  the  efforts  of  the  ablest  paleographists.  The  inscriptions  are 
usually  short ;  and  most  of  them  exliibit  the  same  initial  charac- 
ters.    Some  Greek  inscriptions  are  occasionally  intermingled." 

The  earliest  notice  of  the  existence  of  these  inscriptions  we 
find  in  the  work  of  the  Indian  traveller  Kosmas  (about  530). 
But  even  then  eveiy  historical  tradition  of  their  origin  had  dis- 
appeared, as  Avell  as  the  ability  to  read  and  interpret  them. 
Kosmas  himself  Avas  led  to  believe,  on  the  testimony  of  some 


GEOGRAPHICAL  SURVEY.  65 

Jews,  wlio  professed  to  have  read  them,  tliat  they  were  rehes  of 
tlie  pilirrimage  of  the  children  of  Israel  under  Moses.  He  savs 
(accordhig  to  Hitter,  xiv.  28)  :  "  When  the  people  received 
the  written  law  of  God  through  Moses  at  this  spot,  they  were 
made  acquainted  for  the  first  time  with  the  art  of  writing ;  and 
during  their  prolonged  stay  there,  they  had  time  and  leisiu'e 
enough  to  exercise  themselves  in  the  practice  of  that  art.  Plence 
at  every  station  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Sinai,  at  which  the 
people  rested,  you  may  see  the  blocks  of  stone  Avhich  have  been 
rolled  from  the  heights,  and  the  sui'f ace  of  the  rock  itself,  covered 
wdth  Hebrew  characters.  The  writing  itself  consists  of  names 
and  dates  connected  with  their  joui'ney,  the  names  of  tribes,  the 
months,  etc." — Since  his  time,  it  was  not  till  the  last  century 
that  attention  was  again  directed  to  these  inscriptions.  Several 
copies  were  made  and  brought  to  Europe  ;  but  for  a  long  time 
the  attemj)ts  of  antiquarians  to  decipher  them  entirely  failed. 
Professor  Beer  of  Leipzig  made  the  first  successful  beginning  in 
1839  (^Tnscrijytio^ies  vett.  ad  montem  Sinai  servatce,  Ljds.  1840). 
Credner,  in  a  review  of  Beer's  w^ork,  carried  the  investigation 
considerably  further  (Heidelberg  Jahrbiicher  1841,  p.  908  sqq.)  ; 
and  more  recently  Fr.  Tiich  has  subjected  the  researches  of  his 
predecessors  to  so  strict  a  scrutiny,  and  carried  them  out  to  such 
an  extent,  that  hardly  any  essential  improvements  remain  to  be 
made  (^Versuch  einer  Erhldrung  von  21  Svnaitischen  Inschriften,  in 
the  Zeitschrift  der  deutscli-morgenl.  Gesellschaft  iii.  H.  2,  pp. 
129-215,  Lpz.  1849).  Beer  was  misled  by  the  frequent  recur- 
rence of  the  cross  in  these  inscriptions,  and  attributed  tliem  to 
Christian  pilgrims  belonging  to  the  first  centuries  of  the  Chris- 
tian era.  But  such  a  theory  coidd  hardly  be  reconciled  wdth 
the  fact,  that  all  the  names  which  he  deciphered  were  purely 
heathen  names,  and  that  not  a  single  Jewish  or  Christian  name 
could  be  found  among  the  whole  of  them.  ISloreover,  where 
could  the  pilgrims  ha\e  come  from,  who  ■v^Tote  in  characters 
of  which  we  cannot  find  the  slightest  trace,  and  to  which  no 
analogy  can  be  discovered  among  all  the  languages  of  antiquity? 
Tlie  assumption,  that  the  winters  lived  in  the  peninsula  itself, 
seems  altogether  impossible,  if  we  suppose  them  to  have  been 
Christians  ;  for  the  only  Christians  who  inhabited  those  regions 
in  the  first  centimes  of  the  Church,  are  known  to  have  been 
nearly  all  monks  and  hermits,  -whose  lives  were  constantly 
VOL.  III.  E 


QQ  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

threatened  by  the  wild  heathen  natives,  the  so-called  Saracens. 
lucJis  researches,  however,  have  estabhshed  it  as  an  undoubted 
fact,  that  these  inscriptions  are  written  in  a  dialect  of  Arabic,  and 
that  the  authors  belonged  to  the  native  population  of  the  penin- 
sula, and  were  most  Hkely  of  Amalekite  descent.  Their  religion 
he  has  since  discovered  to  have  been  the  Sabgean  worship  of  the 
stars  ;  and  the  occasion  of  the  inscriptions  themselves  he  supposes 
to  have  been  the  pilgrimages  made  to  the  Serbal,  the  momitain 
consecrated  to  Baal  from  time  immemorial,  for  the  celebration 
of  religious  festivals.  The  date  of  their  composition  he  imagines 
to  have  been  the  last  centuiies  before  Christ,  and  the  fii'st  cen- 
tm-ies  of  the  Christian  era.  The  difficulty  arising  from  the 
frequent  recurrence  of  crosses  he  removes  by  the  supposition, 
which  a  single  glance  in  most  cases  confirms,  that  they  were 
added  afterwards  by  Christian  pilgrims,  just  as  trees,  camels, 
goats,  and  a  hmidred  other  things,  were  inserted  at  a  still  later 
period  by  the  hands  of  shepherds.  The  inscriptions  generally 
consist  of  a  short  salutation,  and  the  name  of  the  A^Titer. 

(3.)  Travellers  are  all  enraptured  at  the  paradise-like  fertihty 
and  lovelmess  of  the  Wady  Feiran,  Lepsius  {Briefe,  p.  332) 
calls  it  the  most  precious  jewel  of  the  peninsula,  praises  its 
luxm-iant  forests  of  palms  and  tarfah,  and  the  lovely  banks  of  the 
brook,  which  flows  rapidly  through  the  wady,  winding  along 
amidst  bushes  and  flowers.  "Everything  that  I  had  hitherto 
seen,  and  all  that  I  saw  afterwards,  was  bare  stony  desert,  in 
comparison  mth  this  fertile,  woody,  and  well-watered  oasis.  For 
the  first  time  since  we  left  the  Nile  we  trod  upon  soft  black 
earth,  had  to  keep  off  the  overhanging  branches  with  our  arms 
as  we  walked  along,  and  heard  bu'ds  singing  among  the  thick 
foliage  of  the  trees."  Though  the  wTiter,  from  sjonpathy  ^\\t\\ 
the  Israelites,  who,  according  to  his  theory,  spent  a  whole  year 
on  this  spot  (as  Sinai),  or  rather  from  partiality  to  this  hypo- 
thesis of  his  own,  may  have  used  too  brilHant  colom-s  in  his 
painting  (most  decidedly  he  has  done  so  in  the  negative  por- 
tions), there  is  still  no  doubt  that  the  Wady  Feiran  is  one  of  the 
most  fertile  spots  in  the  whole  of  the  peninsula  (cf.  Dieterici,  ii. 
31).  According  to  Lepsius  (p.  334),  the  most  fruitful  part  of 
the  valley  is  situated  between  two  rocky  kills,  which  rise  from 
the  plain  in  the  midst  of  the  wady.  Of  these,  the  upper  one, 
which  stands  at  the  opening  of  the  Wady  es-Sheikli,  is  named 


GEOGRAPHICAL  SURVEY.  67 

elr-Bueb ;  tlie  other,  which  is  opposite  to  the  entrance  to  the 
Wady  Aleyat,  Hererat.  Near  the  latter  stood  the  ancient 
populous  city  of  Pharan,  which  CI.  Ptolemceus  inserted  in  the 
geographical  tables  drawn  up  by  him  about  the  middle  of  the 
second  centmy,  and  which  in  the  time  of  Kosmas  was  an 
episcopal  see  of  considerable  importance.  On  the  Hererat, 
which  is  smTOunded  by  two  arms  of  the  brook  Feu-an,  there 
stood  a  splendid  monastery,  the  site  of  which  is  still  marked  by 
its  ruins.  Immediately  behind  the  hill,  Lepsius  (p.  334)  found 
"  the  narrow  valley  as  stony  and  barren  as  the  upper  valleys, 
though  the  brook  flowed  for  half  an  hour  at  their  side.  It  was 
not  till  the  next  sharp  tm*n  in  the  valley,  which  he  calls  el-Hessun 
{Burckhardt,  Hosseye),  that  some  groups  of  palm-trees  were  seen 
again.  Here  the  brook  disappeared  in  a  cleft  in  the  rock,  just 
as  suddenly  as  it  had  issued  forth  behind  the  Bueb,  and  we  saw 
it  no  more."  According  to  Ritter  (xiv.  739),  the  brook,  at  the 
present  day,  is  the  natural  result  of  the  confluence  of  the  waters 
from  the  large  Wady  es-Sheikli  and  the  nmnerous  valleys  in 
its  vicinity. 

(4.)  In  the  Wady  Aleyat  the  traveller  passes  by  innumerable 
inscriptions  in  the  rock,  to  a  well  surrounded  by  palm-trees,  from 
which  Lepsius  (p.  333)  enjoyed  a  full  prospect  of  the  majestic 
Serbal.  "  Separated  from  all  the  other  mountains,  and  forming 
one  solid  mass,  the  Serbal  rises  to  the  height  of  6000  feet 
(according  to  Riippell,  6342  feet)  above  the  level  of  the  sea.  At 
first  the  ascent  is  gentle,  but  higher  up  there  are  only  steep  pre- 
cipitous rocks."  "  We  were  obliged,"  says  Lepsius  (p.  330), 
"to  go  round  the  south-eastern  side  of  the  mountain,  and  to 
ascend  it  from  behind — that  is,  from  the  south,  as  it  would  have 
far  exceeded  our  powers  to  climb  to  the  top  through  the  Rim- 
cleft,  which  separates  the  two  eastern  peaks,  and  the  ascent 
through  which  is  straight  and  very  steep.  After  about  four 
hours'  exertions,  we  reached  a  small  piece  of  table  land,  lying 
between  the  (five)  peaks.  There  was  a  road  across  it,  leading  to 
the  western  edge  of  the  mountain.  .  .  .  From  this  point 
the  mountain-path  suddenly  descended  through  rugged  rocks 
into  a  deep,  wild  ra\'ine,  aromid  which  the  five  peaks  of  the 
Serbal  rose  in  a  semicircle,  forming  a  majestic  coronet.  In  the 
heart  of  this  ravine  lay  the  ruins  of  an  ancient  monastery." 
L^epsius  went  back   from  this  spot  across  the  table   land,  and 


68  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESEET  OF  SIXAI. 

ascended  first  the  southernmost  peak,  and  afterwards  the  one 
next  to  it,  which  appeared  to  be  somewhat  higher.  As  it  was 
beoinnino-  to  get  dark,  he  returned  by  the  steep  cleft  in  the  rock, 
which  led  straight  to  the  travellers'  encampment  (compare  §  4,  5). 
See  also  the  lively  description  given  by  Dieterici,  ii.  p.  31  sqq. — 
The  name,  Serbal,  is  derived  by  Eddiger  (on  Wellstedfs  Eeisen 
in  Arahien,  vol.  ii.  last  page)  from  the  Ai-abic  <_^  (jjalmarmn 
copia)  and  Baal,  and  most  Arabic  scholars  agree  with  him.  It 
is  equivalent,  therefore,  to  "  the  palm-grove  of  Baal."  The  name 
itself  points  to  the  idolatrous  worship  which  was  offered  upon 
it  in  ancient  times  ;  and  the  inscriptions  that  cover  it  to  the  very- 
summit  are  proofs,  that  this  was  the  spot  whither  the  festal 
pilorimages  were  made,  memorials  of  which  have  been  handed 
down  by  inscriptions  on  the  cliffs  of  every  road  through  which 
it  can  be  approached.  The  Serbal,  in  fact,  seems  made  for  the 
Sabsean  worship  of  the  stars.  "  The  fine,  bold,  rugged,  hardly 
accessible  rocky  peaks,  which  crown  the  summit  in  so  royal  a 
form,  seem  better  fitted,"  says  K.  Ritter,  "  for  the  five  pyramidal 
thrones  of  the  five  great  planets,  than  for  the  seat  of  the  one 
God ;  for  the  other  two  of  the  seven  planetary  deities,  the  sun 
and  the  moon,  had  undoubtedly  their  owm  special  sanctuaries  in 
the  Serbal  itself  and  the  immediate  neighbom'hood.  Autonius 
the  Mart}T,  at  the  end  of  the  sixth  century,  found  this  opinion 
still  prevailing  among  the  inhabitants  of  tlie  district,  whom  he 
called  Saracens.  And  even  to  the  present  day  the  Bedouins  of 
the  tribe  of  Tawarah,  in  that  locality,  who  are  probably  the 
latest  descendants  of  the  ancient  heathen  population,  and  who 
have  adopted  but  little  of  the  religion  of  Islam,  only  approach 
the  summit  mth  dgemoniacal  reverence,  barefooted  and  prajang. 
On  occasions  of  prosperity  they  offer  sacrifices  on  the  momitain, 
and  regard  it  as  a  desecration  of  the  sacred  momitain  to  bring 
strangers  thither. 

(5.)  The  Wady  es-Sheikh  (ShecJi)  is  described  by  Ritter, 
in  the  heading  to  his  excellent  description  (xiv.  645  sqq.),  as 
"  the  large,  crooked,  principal  yalley,  the  cleft  which  connects 
the  Sinai  and  the  Serbal  groups  in  the  central  range,  and  the 
only  convenient  road  by  which  the  two  are  connected."  Lnme- 
diately  behind  the  spot  at  wliich  the  rocky  hill  el-Bueb  (Note  4) 
contracts  the  Felran  valley  to  so  great  an  extent,  you  enter  the 
longer  and  broader  Sheikh  valley,  which  derives  its  name  from 


GEOGRAPHICAL  SURVEY.  69 

the  tomb  of  an  Arab  sheikh  who  was  considered  a  saint,  and 
who  hes  buried  there.  It  winds  first  towards  the  north-east, 
then  towards  the  east  and  south-east,  and  lastly  towards  the 
south,  and  thus  describes  almost  a  perfect  semicircle  of  ten 
hom-s'  journey  in  length.  This  great  wady  continues  to  ascend 
gently,  but  constantly ;  so  that  at  the  point  at  Avhich  it  issues  into 
the  j)laiti  of  er-Eahah,  at  the  foot  of  the  Sinaitic  group,  it  is 
more  than  2300  feet  higher  than  at  its  junction  with  the  Wady 
Feiran.  The  waters  of  the  innumerable  side  wadys  flow  into 
this  one ;  and  hence  it  is  w^ell  watered  for  a  considerable  portion 
of  the  year,  and  contains  many  tracts  of  meadow  land,  with  a 
large  number  of  tarfah-trees.  It  is  especially  noted  as  j^ielding 
the  largest  supply  of  manna  at  the  present  day.  Moreover, 
there  is  no  spot  in  the  whole  peninsula,  so  densely  populated  as 
this  wady  and  its  numerous  side  valleys.  Towards  the  middle 
of  the  wady,  at  the  point  at  which  its  direction  changes  from 
the  east  to  the  south,  the  broad  valley  is  contracted  into  a  defile 
of  not  more  than  forty  feet  in  breadth,  which  rims  between 
cliffs  that  rise  on  either  side  like  granite  walls.  In  a  part  of 
this  pass,  which  is  a  little  broader  than  the  rest,  the  Bedouins 
point  out  a  block  of  stone  five  feet  high,  which  looks  like  a  seat 
provided  by  nature,  and  to  which  they  have  given  the  name  of 
Mokad  Seidna  Musa  (resting-place  of  the  lord  Moses).  Beyond 
this  pass  the  valley  widens  again,  and  there  is  an  opening  in 
the  eastern  wall  of  rock,  at  the  farther  extremity  of  which  is 
a  well  with  excellent  water,  called  the  Moses-ioell  (Bir  Musa). 
After  travelling  an  hour  from  the  so-called  resting-place  of 
Moses,  you  enter  a  second  defile,  in  a  side  opening  of  which  you 
find  the  well  of  Ahu-Suiveirah  (Abu-Szueir).  When  you 
emerge  from  this  pass,  the  valley  attains  a  considerable  breadth, 
and  you  proceed  for  some  hom's  in  a  southerly  direction,  rising 
gently  the  whole  way,  mitil  at  length  you  reach  the  table  land 
of  er-Rahah. 

§  6.  As  the  cm'vilinear  Wady  es-Sheikh  affords  to  the  tra- 
veller a  convenient  road  from  the  Serbal  group  to  that  of  Sinai, 
so  are  the  two  groups  also  connected  by  the  "Windy  Pass;" 
but  the  difficult  passes  of  this  range  of  hills  repel  the  traveller 
from  going  to  them  for  a  shorter  road  from  Serbal  to  Sinai. 


70  ISEAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

We  shall  content  ourselves,  therefore,  for  the  present,  with  our 
acquaintance,  if  not  with  the  shortest  road,  yet  with  the  one 
which  was  most  suited  for  the  joumeyings  of  Israel,  and  will 
proceed  at  once  to  survey  the  Sinaitic  group  and  its  immediate 
neighbourhood. 

"  Wliichever  peak  may  be  regarded  as  the  seen*  of  the 
giving  of  the  law,  the  ordinary  notion,  that  there  is  a  large 
plain  at  the  foot  of  the  mountain,  on  which  the  Israelites  may 
all  have  assembled,  is  altogether  a  mistaken  one.  On  the  con- 
trary, it  is  completely  surrounded  by  a  labyrinth  of  valleys  and 
clefts,  so  that  the  whole  nation  can  hardly  have  witnessed  what 
was  taking  place  at  the  summit  of  the  mountain." — We  have 
here  an  assertion  which  so  circumspect  a  scholar  as  Winer  was 
able  to  make  (as  he  imagined,  with  perfect  certainty)  but  a  veiy 
short  time  ago  (Reallexicon,  ed.  2,  ii.  550).  Since  then,  how- 
ever, our  acquaintance  with  the  environs  of  Sinai  has  been  so 
improved  and  extended,  that  we  know  of  not  07ie  merely,  but 
tioo  large  plains  in  the  immediate  neighbourhood  of  the  moun- 
tains, either  of  which  woidd  perfectly  satisfy  all  the  requirements. 

The  heart  of  the  Sinai-  (et-Tur-)  mountains  consists  of  a 
group  of  three  immense  parallel  ranges,  running  from  the  north- 
west to  the  south-east.  The  centre  of  the  three  is  Horeh,  which 
has  two  peaks, — Ras-es-Sufsdfeh  towards  the  north,  and  Jehel- 
Musa  to  the  south.  The  eastern  portion  of  the  group  is  called 
Jehel  ed-Deir,  and  the  western  Jehel  el-Hornr.  The  last  of 
the  three  extends  much  farther  towards  both  north  and  south 
than  either  of  the  others,  and  rises  in  the  south  into  the  highest 
mountain  of  the  entire  group.  Mount  Catlier'me  (1.) — At  the 
north  of  the  Horeb,  the  broad  Wady  es-Sheikh  (§  5,  5),  leaduig 
from  the  north-east,  joins  the  still  broader  table-land  of  er-Eahah, 
Avhich  extends  two  English  miles  towards  the  north-west,  when 
it  is  closed  by  the  Windy  Pass,  which  joins  the  Jebel  el-Homr 
and  the  table-land  of  the  Jebel  el-Fm-eia,  that  bounds  it  on  the 
north  (2).  The  two  narrow  defiles,  which  separate  the  tlu'ee 
mountains  from  one  another,  open  into  this  plain.     The  w^estern 


GEOGRAPHICAL  SURVEY.  7l 

defile  (between  Jebel  el-Homr  and  Horeb)  is  called  Wady 
el-Leja ;  it  lias  no  outlet  towards  the  south,  as  the  Jebel  Musa 
and  the  Jebel  el-Homr  are  connected  together  by  a  ridge,  from 
which  you  ascend  IVIount  Catherine.  The  eastern  defile,  between 
Horeb  and  Jebel  ed-Deir,  is  nam^d  Wady  Shoeib ;  this  also 
forms  a  cul-de-sac,  the  two  mountains  being  joined  together 
towards  the  south  by  a  saddle-shaped  ridge  (the  Jebel  es-Sehaye) 
(3).  On  the  other  hand,  a  broad  valley  curves  round  the  eastern 
and  southern  side  of  the  Jebel  ed-Deir,  the  Wady  es-Sehaye, 
which  may  be  regarded  as  a  continuation  of  the  Wady  es-Sheikh, 
and  is  also  connected  with  the  plain  of  er-Rahah.  This  wady 
forms  the  only  open  and  convenient  approach  to  a  large  and 
broad  plain,  which  surrounds  the  Jebel  ^lusa  on  the  south  in 
the  form  of  an  amphitheatre,  and  touches  the  western  foot  of 
]\Iount  Catherine.     The  name  of  this  plain  is  Sebaye  (4). 

H.B. — An  excellent  and  graphic  representation  of  the  Sinaitic 
group  is  attached  to  Robinson  s  Researches.  In  general,  it  ac- 
cords with  the  map  of  Sinai  which  Laborde  has  incorporated  in 
his  Coynmentaire  GhgrapMque,  and  in  which  (though  in  other 
respects  it  is  inferior  to  Robinson's)  one  feature  overlooked  by 
Robinson  is  very  accurately  given,  viz.,  the  plain  of  Sebaye. 

(1.)  The  central  range  (Horeb,  Sma?,  Jebel  et-Tur,  etc.) 
rises  almost  perpendicvilarly  from  the  plain  of  er-Rahah,  like  a 
wall  of  rock,  to  the  height  of  about  1500  feet  above  the  plain, 
and  5366  feet  above  the  level  of  the  sea.  Its  highest  point  is 
called  Ras  es-Sufsafeh  (by  Lepsiiis,  Sefsdf).  The  summit  is 
crowned  by  three  distinct  peaks, — two  of  them  conical,  the 
central  one  resembling  a  dome.  From  this  point  you  command 
a  view  of  the  plain  of  er-Rahah  in  its  whole  extent,  and  also  of 
a  large  portion  of  the  Wady  es-Sheikh.  The  three  peaks  all 
rise  about  500  feet  above  the  main  body  of  the  momitain-range, 
the  southern  extremity  of  which  is  almost  an  hour's  jom^ney 
distant,  where  it  rises  into  another  and  still  larger  peak,  the 
so-called  mountain  of  Moses,  or  Jebel  Musa  (according  to 
Russegger,  about  7097  feet  high).  The  plain  is  hidden  from 
this  point  by  the  Ras  es-Sufsafch,  and  the  view  of  the  southern 
plain  of  es-Sebaye,  which  lies  at  its  foot,  is  somewdiat  contracted 


72  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

by  the  low  hills  in  the  foreground. — The  eastern  range — which 
Rohmson  calls  Jehel  ED  Deir  ;  Laborde,  Epistemi — is  not  much 
inferior  either  in  magnitude  or  height. — Jehel  el-Homr  is  larger 
and  more  lofty  than  either.  Its  highest  point  in  the  southern 
part  of  the  range,  according  to  Russegger  s  measurement,  is 
8168  feet  above  the  level  of  the  sea. 

(2.)  The  Wady  er-Rahah  was  certainly  seen  and  trodden 
by  many  a  traveller  before  the  time  of  Robinson;  but  none 
of  them  had  ever  paid  particular  attention  to  it,  or  observed  its 
importance  in  connection  with  the  configuration  of  the  Sinaitic 
group.  The  merit  of  this  unquestionably  belongs  to  Robinson 
(i.  130  sqq.),  however  JLabordeinay  endeavour  to  detract  from  it 
{Comment.  Geogr.,  pp.  41,  42  of  the  Appendix).  As  Robinson 
and  his  companion  Smith  were  descending  by  the  Windy  Pass 
from  the  north-west  towards  the  south-east,  they  were  struck  with 
the  view  which  unexpectedly  presented  itself,  and  both  of  them 
involuntarily  exclaimed,  "  There  is  room  enough  here  for  a 
large  encampment !"  "  Before  us,"  says  Robinson,  "  lay  a  fine 
broad  plain,  enclosed  by  rugged  and  venerable  mountains  of 
dark  granite,  stern  and  naked,  splintered  peaks  and  ridges  of 
indescribable  grandeur,  and  terminated  at  the  distance  of  more 
than  a  mile  by  the  bold  and  awful  front  of  Horeb,  rising  per- 
pendicularly, ill  frowaiing  majesty,  from  twelve  to  fifteen  hundred 
feet  in  height.  It  was  a  scene  of  solemn  grandeur,  wholly 
unexpected,  and  such  as  we  had  never  seen  ;  and  the  associations 
which  at  the  moment  rushed  upon  our  minds  were  almost  over- 
whelming." The  whole  plain  is,  on  an  average,  from  one  to 
two-thirds  of  a  mile  broad  and  two  miles  long,  making  in  all 
more  than  a  square  mile.  This  space  is  nearly  doubled  by  a 
broad  ciu've  towards  the  south-west,  which  leads  to  the  Wady 
el-Leja,  and  by  the  level  ground  of  the  Wady  es-Sheikli,  which 
is  very  little  narrower,  and  which  nins  at  right  angles  to  the 
plain  of  er-Eahah,  from  which  it  is  separated  by  a  deep  mountain 
torrent. 

(3.)  The  western  defile,  Wady  el-Leja,  conceals  in  the 
background  the  deserted  monastery  of  el-Arbai7i  (i.e.,  the  forty, 
sc.  martyrs),  with  its  rich  olive  plantations.  (For  further  par- 
ticulars of  the  monastery,  see  §  8, 1.)  The  eastern  defile,  WiU)Y 
el-Shoeib,  is  better  known,  as  it  is  from  this  point  that  the 
ascent  of  Jebel  Musa  is  generally  made.     Shoeib  is  the  Arabic 


GEOGRAPHICAL  SURVEY.  73 

name  of  Jetliro  (vol.  ii.  §  19,  7)  ;  and  the  valley  is  named  after 
him,  because  the  flocks  of  this  prince  and  priest  in  JVIidian 
are  supposed  to  have  been  driven  hither  for  pasture.  In  the 
heart  of  this  valley  lies  the  hospitable  monastery  of  St  Catherine, 
with  its  pleasm'e  grounds  and  frmtfid  gardens,  in  which  every 
traveller  to  Sinai  finds  a  welcome  home  (see  Bitter,  xiv.  598 
sqq.). 

(4.)  The  existence  of  so  extensive  a  plain  at  the  foot  of  the 
Jebel  Musa,  as  the  Plain  of  es-Sebaye  (Zbai,  according  to 
Lepsius)  proved  to  be,  had  escaped  the  notice  of  all  the  earlier 
travellers,  not  excepting  even  liobinson  himself.  The  cause  of 
this  remarkable  circumstance  is  to  be  fou.nd  in  the  fact,  that  the 
\'iew  from  the  Jebel  Musa  is  by  no  means  an  advantageous  one, 
as  there  is  a  row  of  small  gi'avel  hills  at  the  foot  of  the  mountain, 
which,  though  they  do  not  quite  conceal  the  plain,  prevent  your 
discoverino;  its  actual  extent.  Lahorde  can  claim  the  merit  of 
having  been  the  first  to  perceive  the  importance  of  this  plain, 
and  of  having  included  an  outline  of  it,  though  somewhat 
inaccurate  and  confused,  in  his  topographical  sketch  of  Sinai. 
W.  Krafft  and  F.  A.  Strauss  examined  this  remarkable  plain 
with  greater  minuteness  and  care  (compare  Strauss's  Sinai  und 
Golgotha,  p.  136,  and  his  manuscript  communications  quoted  by 
Bitter,  xiv.  59G  sqq.).  "  The  Sinai,"  he  says,  "  descends  abruj^tly 
for  about  2000  feet,  and  at  the  foot  there  are  low  gravel  hills,  and 
behind  them  a  broad  plain,  which  rises  like  an  amphitheatre 
towards  the  south  and  east.  ...  If  the  view  from  the 
summit  of  the  Jebel  Musa  was  such  as  to  astonish  us  at  its 
majestic  situation,  om'  amazement  was  equally  aroused  when  vre 
looked  from  the  plain  at  the  grandeiu'  of  the  altar  of  God,  which 
rose  abruptly  before  us  in  the  most  magnificent  form."  "  On  the 
side  on  which  the  Wady  es-Sebaye  enters,  the  plain  is  1400  feet 
in  breadth  ;  at  the  south-western  foot  of  the  mountain,  1800 
feet.  The  latter  is  the  breadth  at  its  central  part,  and  its  length 
from  east  to  west  is  12,000  feet.  Its  suj^erficial  dimensions, 
therefore,  are  greater  than  those  of  er-Bahah.  (Accoixling  to 
BoUnson,  i.  140,  er-Rahah  is  2700  feet  broad  and  7000  feet 
long, — though  this  space  is  nearly  doubled  when  we  add  the 
broad  plain  of  the  Wady  es-Sheikh.)  Towards  the  south  the 
plain  of  es-Sebaye  rises  very  gradually  ;  and  even  the  mountains, 
which  bomid  it  on  the  south,  have  a  gentle  slope,  and  do  not 


74  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

reach  any  very  great  height ;"  so  that  the  plain  and  mountains 
together  form  a  natm:'al  amphitheatre  aromid  the  majestic  Moses' 
mountain. 

Graul  (ii.  218)  writes  as  follows  : — "  I  crossed  the  hills  in 
the  foreground,  which  are  connected  with  the  Jebel  Musa,  and 
with  some  difficulty  reached  the  low-lying  plain  of  Sehayeh, 
which  I  found  on  closer  ins]3ection  to  be  considerably  larger 
than  it  had  appeared  to  be  when  I  looked  at  it  from  the  summit 
of  the  Jebel  Musa.  I  walked  straight  forwards,  with  the  deter- 
mination to  keep  right  on  till  the  summit  of  the  Jebel  Musa  was 
lost  to  view  ;  but,  as  the  sun  was  very  hot,  I  turned  back  long 
before  there  was  any  prospect  of  reaching  the  point  I  had 
intended.  The  road  still  continued  to  ascend  between  the  moun- 
tains. From  the  point  at  which  I  turned  I  counted  1500  steps, 
over  partly  hilly  ground  and  partly  a  gentle  slope,  and  then 
1500  more  over  level  ground,  to  the  point  at  which  the  Wady 
Sebayeh  curves  round  the  Jebel  ed-Deir,  and  the  smnmit  of 
Jebel  Musa  is  lost  for  a  short  distance.  As  soon  as  it  was 
\dsible  again,  I  walked  forward  1500  steps  into  the  Wady 
Sehayeh,  and  was  unable  to  perceive  any  point  at  which  it  was 
likely  to  be  obscured  again.  The  wady  is  from  two  to  foiu' 
hundred  paces  broad,  apart  from  the  gentle  slope  of  the  moun- 
tains to  the  east." 

§  7.  In  what  part  of  the  valleys  and  plains,  which  we  have 
now  traversed  with  the  help  of  experienced  guides,  are  we  to 
look  for  the  stations,  Dofhah,  Alush,  and  Rephidim  ?  Where 
was  the  encampment  in  the  desert  of  Sinai  ?  And  which  of  the 
giants  of  the  desert,  that  we  are  now  acquainted  with,  was  the 
mountain  of  the  law,  the  Mount  of  God  in  Horeb  ?  We  have 
no  clue  at  all  to  the  exact  position  of  Dofkah  and  Alush,  and 
even  with  regard  to  the  station  at  Eephidim  we  are  not  much 
better  off.  We  can  only  decide  with  tolerable  certainty,  that 
they  must  all  three  have  been  on  the  road  which  leads  from  the 
plain  on  the  coast,  el-Kaa,  to  the  Jebel  Musa.  A  comparison 
between  the  number  of  the  stations  and  the  length  of  the  road 
will  not  even  enable  us  to  get  a  general  idea  of  the  distance  be- 
tween the  stations ;  for  our  previous  investigations  have  shown 


GEOGRAPHICAL  SURVEY.  75 

most  conclusively  that  there  was  the  greatest  inequality  in  the 
length  of  the  various  stages, — sometimes  they  were  hardly  a 
day's  journey,  and  at  other  times  they  occupied  three  whole  days, 
if  not  more.  At  Rephidim  there  was  a  dearth  of  water  :  Moses 
smote  the  rock,  and  a  spring  issued  from  it.  How  far  will  this 
fact  help  us  ?  There  are  thousands  of  rocks  on  the  road  at 
which  this  might  have  occurred.  We  do  not  even  know  whether 
we  are  to  look  for  a  particularly  parched  locality,  which  might 
answer  the  description  given,  or  for  a  peculiarly  well-watered 
district,  which  would  testify  to  the  results  of  the  miracle  AATOUght 
by  Moses.  For  who  can  inform  us  whether  the  spring,  which 
Moses  called  forth  from  the  rock,  was  merely  intended  for  the 
time  of  their  sojourn  at  Rephidim,  or  continued  to  flow  after  the 
Israelites  had  departed  ?  Again,  we  read  of  the  battle  between 
the  Israelites  and  the  Amalekites,  and  of  a  hill  from  which  Moses 
looked  down  upon  the  battle-field.  But  both  the  Wady  Feiran 
and  the  Wady  es-Sheikh  are  of  very  nearly  the  same  breadth 
throughout ;  and  there  are  so  many  hills  on  the  road,  that  it  is 
impossible,  if  we  examine  without  prepossession,  to  fix  with  con- 
fidence upon  any  one  spot  as  more  adapted  for  this  purpose  than 
all  the  rest.  And  is  it  absolutely  certain  that  the  battle-field 
must  have  been  a  broad  and  extensive  plain,  when  we  consider 
that  the  conflict  merely  arose  from  a  predatory  attack  of  Be- 
douins ? — We  have  now  exhausted  all  the  special  data  from 
which  we  might  hope  to  obtain  a  clue  to  the  exact  position  of 
Rephidim.  It  appears,  therefore,  that  we  must  for  ever  re- 
nounce the  hope  of  discovering  the  rock  from  which  the  waters 
gushed  out,  and  the  spot  where  Moses  stood  when  his  uplifted 
staff  brought  victory  to  the  combatants.  Only  one  hope  still 
remains,  namely,  that  possibly  the  ancient  names  Dofkah,  Alush, 
Rephidim,  might  be  unexpectedly  heard  from  the  lips  of  the 
Bedouins  as  faithfully  guarded  reminiscences  of  the  most  remote 
antiquity  (an  occurrence  by  no  means  without  analogies).  Yet 
even  this  we  can  hardly  speak  of  as  possible ;  for  in  that  portion 
of  the  peninsula  which  is  the  most  frequented  and  the  most 
thickly  populated,  travellers  have  asked  the  name  of  every  little 


76  ISKAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OP  SINAI. 

Avady,  eyery  opening,  every  rock,  and  every  liill,  a  thousand 
times,  without  once  detecting  the  least  resemblance  to  the  ancient 
names. 

(1.)  Under  the  circumstances  described  above,  we  shall  con- 
tent ourselves  with  giving  a  cursory  sketch  of  the  conjectiu'es  of 
the  most  celebrated  travellers  and  expositors  as  to  the  situation  of 
Rephidim.  The  most  westerly  spot  of  all  has  been  selected  by 
Lepsius,  who  supposes  the  Serbal  to  have  been  the  mountain  of 
the  law.  He  places  it  at  el-Hessun  (§  5,  3),  where  the  Feiran 
brook  suddenly  disappears  behind  a  cleft  in  a  rock,  and  never 
emerges  again.  To  this  spot,  with  which  he  was  well  acquainted, 
Moses  is  supposed  by  him  to  have  led  the  mui'muring  people, 
that  they  might  taste  for  the  first  time  the  water  of  the  primeval 
mountains.  To  this  he  reduces  the  whole  miracle  at  ^lassah 
and  Meribah  (§  4,  1).  But  even  apart  from  the  triviality  of  his 
mode  of  explaining  the  miracle,  this  hypothesis  cannot  be  sus- 
tained ;  for  the  original  record  points  to  the  origin,  not  to  the 
end,  of  a  stream ;  and  Hitter  (xiv.  740)  has  conclusively  rephed : 
"  The  staff  of  Moses  cannot  possibly  have  caused  the  water  to 
issue  forth  at  the  spot  where  it  bui'ies  itself  in  the  ground ;  this 
can  only  have  taken  place  at  the  point  at  which  it  takes  its  rise, 
even  if  it  be  correct  to  regard  the  stream  of  the  Wady  Feiran 
as  identical  with  Moses'  spring."  The  paradise,  wliich  com- 
mences half  an  hour  behind  el-Hessun,  between  the  two  hills 
Hererat  and  ei-Bueb  (§  5,  3),  is  supposed  by  Lepsius  to  have 
been  occupied  by  the  Amalekites,  who  were  afraid  that  Israel 
might  intend  to  dispossess  them,  and  therefore  had  reason 
enough  for  the  attack  which  they  made.  Lepsius  also  appeals 
to  the  fact  that  Eusehius  and  Jerome  place  Rephidim  €771;? 
^apdv  {jDrope  Pharaii).  But  the  most  conclusive  argument  he 
supposes  to  be,  that  Massah  and  Meribah  were  a  "  rock  in 
Horeb,"  and  that  Jethro  visited  his  son-in-law,  when  there,  at 
the  "  mount  of  God  in  Horeb,"  i.e.,  at  the  momitain  of  the  law 
(or  Serbal)  (§  4,  4 ;  8,  3). 

K.  Hitter  is  of  opinion  that  we  must  look  for  Repliidim 
higher  up,  namely,  in  the  most  fertile  parts  of  the  valley  between 
Hererat  and  el-Bueb  (xiv.  739  sqq.).  In  this  case,  the  hill 
Hererat  would  be  the  spot  upon  which  Moses  stood  when  Israel 
fought  against  Amalek,   and  the  rock  Massah  and  Meribah 


GEOGKAPHICAL  SURVEY.  77 

would  be  identical  with  the  naiTOW  cleft  el-Bueb  (§  5,  3),  where 
the  brook  of  Feiran  suddenly  issues  from  the  rock.  In  the  pre- 
sent day,  it  is  true,  the  brook  takes  its  rise  in  a  natiu'al  manner 
from  the  confluence  of  the  waters  of  the  Wady  es-Sheikh.  But 
may  not  "  the  staff  of  Moses  have  first  opened  a  passage  for  the 
brook  into  the  Wady  Feiran,  through  the  narrow  cleft  el-Bueb  ?" 
If  so,  "  this  wady  will  not  have  been  a  cultivated  valley,  as  it 
afterwards  was,  nor  a  treasure  of  such  importance  for  the  sons 
of  Amalek  to  defend."  For  "  if  this  was  the  case,  the  luxuri- 
ance and  cultivation  of  the  Wady  Feiran  cannot  be  of  a  more 
ancient  date  than  the  age  posterior  to  Moses."  The  Mount  of 
God  at  Rephidim,  where  Jethro  visited  Moses,  must  have  been 
Serbal,  in  Ritter's  opinion;  and  there  were  therefore  two  distinct 
mountains  of  God — the  Serbal,  the  mountain  of  heathen  wor- 
ship, and  the  Jebel  Musa,  which  afterwards  hecame  the  moun- 
tain of  (the  true)  God  in  consequence  of  the  promulgation  of 
the  law  (§  4,  4).  The  mention  of  Horeh  in  connection  with  the 
smiting  of  the  rock  (chap.  xvii.  6),  is  accounted  for  by  Ritter  on 
the  ground  that  the  name  Horeb  is  used  in  the  Pentateuch  to 
denote  the  whole  of  the  Sinaitic  group  of  mountains,  including 
even  its  most  extensive  outlying  hills  (§  8,  1). 

Robinson,  Laborde,  Raumer,  and  others,  go  farther  \vp  the  road 
through  the  Wady  es-Sheikli  in  their  search  for  Rephidim.  La- 
borde fixed  upon  a  site  between  the  two  defiles  of  Mokad  Seidna 
Musa  and  Abu-Sviweirah  (§  5,  5)  ;  but  Robinson  decides  in  favour 
of  the  point  above  the  well  Abu-Suweirah,  at  which  the  valley 
widens  again  into  a  broad  plain,  about  five  hours'  journey  from 
the  junction  of  the  Wady  es-Sheikh  with  the  plain  of  er-Rahah. 
This  site,  says  Robinson,  answers  very  well  to  the  description  of 
Rephidim  as  the  last  station  before  the  encampment  in  the  desert 
of  Sinai,  and  also  enables  us  to  explain  the  fact  that  the  rock  is 
said  to  have  been  "  in  Horeb,"  and  that  Jethro  came  to  Rephidim 
"  at  the  mount  of  God;"  for  the  outermost  hills  of  Sinai  actually 
commence  here,  and  the  people  were  ah'cady  in  the  neighboiu'- 
hood  of  the  mountain  of  the  law.  Robinson  is  only  acquainted 
with  one  objection  which  can  be  offered  to  this  opinion,  namely, 
that  neither  at  this  spot,  nor  throughout  the  entire  Wady 
es-Sheikh,  is  there  any  particular  dearth  of  water  at  the  present 
day.  This  difficulty  he  cannot  meet  in  any  other  way,  than  by 
supposing  that,  as  the  people  appear  to  have  remained  at  Rephi- 


78  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

dim  for  a  considerable  length  of  time,  the  small  supply  (from 
the  well  Abu-Suweirah)  was  soon  exliausted. 

The  legend  of  the  monastery  at  Sinai  places  the  site  of  Rephi- 
dim  farthest  up,  and  is  decidedly  inadmissible.  .It  points  out  an 
immense  mass  of  rock,  in  the  western  cleft  of  Horeb,  the  Wady 
el-Leja  (§  6,  3),  as  the  rock  from  which  the  water  was  brought 
by  the  rod  of  Moses. 

§  8.  But  the  most  interesting  and  important  question  of  all 
is,  which  was  the  mountain,  or  mountain-peak,  upon  which 
Jehovah  descended  amidst  thunder  and  lightning  and  a  mighty 
trumpet  blast,  and  whence  He  proclaimed  to  the  assembled 
peoj)le,  in  fire  and  with  the  voice  of  thunder,  the  fmidamental 
law  of  the  covenant  (Ex.  xix.  16  sqq.)  ?  Where  did  the  people 
encamp  in  the  "Desert  of  Sinai ;"  and  where  are  we  to  look  for 
the  spot  to  which  Moses  "  brought  forth  the  people  out  of  the 
camp  to  meet  God"  (xix.  17),  and  from  which  the  people  fled 
away  and  stood  afar  off,  "  when  they  saw  the  thunderings,  and 
the  lightnings,  and  the  noise  of  the  trumpet,  and  the  mountain 
smoking"  (xx.  14  [18])? 

We  have  every  reason  for  keeping  at  a  distance  from  the 
opinion  to  which  Lepsius  has  given  utterance,  and  which  he  has 
advocated  with  such  a  show  of  eloquence  and  such  persuasive 
arts,  viz.,  that  the  Serhdl  was  the  mountain  of  the  law, — to  say 
nothing  of  other  conjectures  of  travellers  in  search  of  discoveries. 
A  calm  examination  of  the  Biblical  statements,  a  thoughtful 
comparison  of  the  localities  referred  to  (1),  and  a  proper  atten- 
tion to  the  testimony  of  tradition  (2),  which  is  by  no  means  so 
gromidless  in  this  case  as  it  frequently  is,  compel  us  to  decide  in 
favom-  of  the  mountain-range  of  the  Jebel  Musa  (§  6,  1)  (3). 
The  only  thing  about  which  there  is  still  some  uncertainty,  is 
whether  we  should  side  with  Robinson,  who  fixes  upon  the 
northern  peak  of  this  range,  namely,  the  Ras  es-Sufsafeh  (4), 
as  the  spot  to  which  the  Lord  descended  in  the  fire,  or  should 
follow  tradition  and  many  modern  travellers,  and  give  the  pre- 
ference to  the  southern  peak,  or  Jebel  Musa,.  A  careful  ex- 
amination of  the  neighbouring  valleys  and  plains  may  enable  us 


GEOGRAPHICAL  SURVEY.  79 

to  arrive  at  some  certainty  as  to  this  contested  point.  And, 
happily,  the  latest  researches  have  added  so  considerably  and 
essentially  to  our  knowledge  of  the  locality  in  question,  that  we 
can  now  assert  with  tolerable  confidence,  that  the  place  of 
encampment  in  the  desert  of  Sinai  was  the  plain  of  er-Rahah, 
with  the  adjoining  valleys  and  patches  of  pastm'e  land ;  that 
the  mountain  on  which  the  law  was  promulgated  was  the  Jehel 
Musa ;  and  that  the  spot  to  which  Moses  conducted  the  people 
of  God  was  the  idIiuii  of  es-Sehaye  (5). 

(1.)  The  use  of  the  names  Sinai  and  Horeb  (^Choreh) 
has  always  been  very  variable.  Hengstenherg  (Pentateuch,  vol. 
ii.  p.  325  sqq.,  translation)  and  Robinson  (i.  177,  551  sqq.) 
decide  that,  in  the  Pentateuch  and  the  Bible  generally,  Iloreh  is 
used  as  the  original  name  of  the  entire  gi'oup,  whilst  Sinai  is 
restricted  to  one  particular  mountain  (that  of  the  law)  ;  and  in 
this  decision  Rodiger  (on  Wellstedt's  Reise,  ii.  89-91)  and  Ritter 
(xiv.  743)  concur.  Gesenius,  however  (on  Burckhardt,  p.  1078), 
comes  to  the  very  opposite  conclusion  ;  and  Lepsius  (Briefe, 
pp.  352,  439)  declares  that  the  two  names  are  continually  applied 
to  the  mountain  of  the  law,  with  exactly  the  same  signification. 
It  is  certain,  at  the  outset,  that  if  either  of  the  two  names  is 
more  comprehensive  than  the  other,  it  must  be  the  name  Horeb  ; 
for  there  is  not  a  single  passage  in  the  Old  Testament,  in  Avhich 
the  name  Sinai  is  employed,  where  the  context  shows  that  it 
necessarily  refers  to  the  entu'e  gi'oup  of  mountains.  But  this  is 
the  case  in  Ex.  xvii.  G,  where  the  name  Horeb  occui's.  \^^len 
the  rock  Massah  and  Meribah  is  described,  as  it  is  there,  as  "  a 
rock  in  Horeb,"  we  think  at  once  of  the  outlying  mountains  of 
the  entire  Sinaitic  group,  not  of  the  mountain  of  the  law ;  for 
Eephidim  (where  the  rock  was  situated)  and  the  desert  of  Sinai 
(at  the  foot  of  the  mountain  of  the  law)  were  two  different 
stations,  at  least  a  day's  journey  apart  (chap.  xix.  2).  This 
more  comprehensive,  and  therefore  more  indefinite  meaning  of 
the  name  Horeb,  is  still  further  confirmed  by  Ex.  iii.  1 :  "  Moses 
led  the  flock  of  Jethro  to  the  mountain  of  God,  to  Horeb 
('^97.^)7"  where  the  mountainous  district  of  Horeb  is  evidently 
referred  to,  and  not  one  particular  mountain.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  fact  that  the  name  Sinai  originally  denoted  the  par- 


80  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESEET  OF  SINAI. 

ticular  mountain,  is  evident  from  this  among  other  reasons,  that 
the  plain  at  the  foot  of  the  mountain  is  always  called  the  "  desert 
of  Sinai^^  never  the  "  desert  of  Horehr  On  the  other  hand,  it 
cannot  be  dispiited  that  the  name  Horeb  is  frequently  employed 
in  cases  in  which  we  can  only  think  of  the  one  momitain  of  the 
law,  and  that  in  the  later  books  this  actually  became  the  pre- 
vailino-  name.  There  is  nothing  strange  in  such  an  interchange 
of  names,  especially  as  it  takes  place  according  to  a  definite  law, 
as  Hengstenherg  has  fully  proved.  Dmnng  the  whole  period  of 
the  sojourn  of  tlie  Israelites  at  the  mountain  of  the  law,  when 
the  number  of  mountains  round  about  them  rendered  it  neces- 
sary that  a  distinction  should  be  made,  this  particular  mountain 
was  called  Sinai  (with  the  single  exception  of  Ex.  xxxiii.  6). 
But  in  the  history  of  the  IsraeHtes  subsequently  to  their  departure 
from  that  district — for  example,  in  the  whole  of  the  Book  of 
Deuteronomy,  with  the  exception  of  Dent,  xxxiii.  2 — the  name 
Horeh  is  apphed  to  the  momitain  on  which  the  law  was  given. 
There  was  no  longer  the  same  necessity  for  distinguishing  the 
one  mountain  from  all  the  rest,  as  during  their  stay  in  the  imme- 
diate neighboiudiood;  and  the  more  general  name  became  cm'rent 
again. — The  name  Horeb  was  probably  of  Eg}^tian  origin,  and 
Sinai  the  name  given  in  the  district  itself.  If  so,  the  more 
general  and  indefinite  use  of  the  former  could  be  very  easily 
explained. — In  the  later  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  two 
are  used  promiscuously  (but  Horeb  the  more  frequently  of  the 
two).  In  the  New  Testament  we  meet  with  Sinai  alone ;  and 
this  is  also  the  case  in  Josephus.  After  the  time  of  the  Cru- 
sades, travellers  varied  considerably  in  their  use  of  the  two 
names  ;  but,  since  the  last  century,  this  diversity  has  ceased 
among  Christian  writers, — Jebel  Musa  being  almost  invariably 
designated  Sinai,  and  the  northern  part  of  the  same  range 
Horeb. 

2.  The  remarks  of  K.  Bitter  (xiv.  729,  730),  with  reference 
to  the  perpetuity  of  the  tradition  concerning  the  situation 
or  THE  MOUNTAIN  OF  THE  LAW,  are  Undoubtedly  correct.  He 
says,  "  The  stupendous  events  connected  with  the  sojourn  of 
the  Israelites  at  Sinai  "svere  intended  to  produce  a  far  greater 
effect  upon  their  immediate  descendants,  the  people  on  the 
Jordan,  than  merely  to  fix  their  attention  upon  locahties,  namely, 
to  work  upon  their  minds  in  such  a  way  as  to  contribute  to  their 


GEOGRAPHICAL  SURVEY,  81 

eternal  salvation.  Hence  the  transient  terrestrial  phenomena 
only  needed  to  be  so  far  hinted  at,  as  to  connect,  to  some  extent, 
the  brief  occurrences  of  the  time  "with  the  local  circumstances 
that  attended  their  wanderings.  At  the  same  time,  but  little 
weight  was  attached  to  details,  since  Jehovah  did  not  remain 
behind  at  Sinai  and  in  the  desert,  but  went  along  with  His  people 
Israel  to  Canaan  and  to  Sion.  Hence,  in  all  futui'e  ages,  though 
the  attention  of  the  IsraeHtes  was  directed  to  the  laiv,  it  was  not 
fixed  upon  the  mountain  of  the  law.  For  the  glorious  event  was 
not  concentrated  exclusively  upon  this  particidar  mountain.  .  .  . 
Moreover,  this  one  mountain,  Sinai,  Avas  never  an  object  of  adora- 
tion, like  the  sacred  places  of  other  nations,  nor  were  the  pil- 
gi'imao-es  of  the  Israelites  directed  thither." — Still,  we  must  not 
carry  this  out  so  far,  as  to  suppose  that  the  Israelites  of  a  later 
age  lost  all  interest  in  the  spot  where  the  law  had  been  dehvered, 
and  that  even  their  acquaintance  with  the  locality  became  less 
and  less,  if  it  did  not  cease  altogether.  The  frequent  references 
made  by  the  psalmists  and  the  prophets  to  the  mountain  of  the 
law,  could  not  fail  to  excite  and  perpetually  renew  inquiry  as  to 
its  exact  situation.  It  did  not  follow  that,  because  the  people  were 
spiritually  minded,  or  were  intended  to  be  so,  therefore  this 
question  excited  no  longer  any  interest  in  then*  minds.  We  have 
evidence  enough  that  the  places  in  the  Holy  Land,  which  had 
been  rendered  sacred  by  the  events  connected  Avith  the  history 
of  the  patriarchs  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  were  regarded 
with  perpetual  interest  by  their  descendants  (sometimes,  in  fact, 
with  more  than  was  right),  and  that  this  was  in  itself  quite  a 
proper  thing  (of  coiu'se  Avathin  proper  bounds).  The  book  of 
Genesis,  with  its  vivid  descriptions  of  the  patriarchal  adventm'es, 
Avas  evidently  designed  to  stimulate  this  interest,  and  keep  it 
alive.  Abraham  laid  the  foundation  of  it  by  piux'hasing  the 
family  grave  at  Machpelah  (vol.  i.  §  66).  Moriah,  Bethel,  Ma- 
hanaim,  and  many  other  places,  consecrated  by  manifestations 
of  God  Himself,  demanded  it  by  their  very  names.  The 
temple  at  Moriah  was  founded  upon  a  spot,  which  had  al- 
ready been  marked  out  for  the  purpose  by  the  culminating 
points  in  the  lifetime  of  Abraham.  Jeroboam  selected  Bethel 
for  the  worship  of  the  calves,  doubtless  in  order  to  give  a  colour 
to  what  he  did  by  the  recollections  which  the  name  excited. 
And  the  worship  offered  on  the  high  places  was  able  even  to 
VOL.  III.  F 


82  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OP  SINAI. 

maintain  a  successful  opposition  to  the  temple-worship  at  Jeru- 
salem, since  it  called  to  mind  the  fact,  that  the  patriarchs  them- 
selves had  sacrificed  on  the  very  same  high  places.  And,  even 
if  we  had  no  direct  testimony  to  the  fact,  it  would  be  natural  to 
assume  that  the  people  cherished  similar  feelings  with  reference 
to  the  place  at  which  the  law  was  proclaimed.  But  we  are  not 
altogether  without  such  testimony.  Elijah  made  a  pilgrimage 
to  the  mountain  on  which  Jehovah  in  His  majesty  had  given  the 
law  to  the  people,  that  he  might  there  utter  liis  complaints  to 
God,  of  the  manner  in  which  the  people  of  his  times  had  fallen 
away  from  the  law.  Elijah,  and  the  men  of  his  age,  therefore, 
were  undoubtedly  acquainted  with  the  situation  of  this  holy 
ground  (cf.  1  Kings  xix.  8).  The  Apostle  Paul  was  even  in  a 
position  to  infonn  his  readers  of  the  name  which  the  mountain 
of  the  law  bore  among  the  native  Arabs  at  that  time  (Gal.  iv.  25  : 
for  Mount  Sinai  is  called  Hagar  by  the  Arabs).  He  had  been 
in  Arabia  (Gal.  i.  17)  :  vei-y  possibly  he  had  ascended  the  moun- 
tain with  feelings  akin  to  those  with  which  Elias  had  climbed  it 
before  him ;  for,  like  Elias,  he  also  had  had  to  complain  of  the 
obdm-acy  and  persecution  of  his  nation.  We  may  assume  that 
he  also  was  still  acquainted  with  the  situation  of  the  mountain, 
or  that  he  thought  he  was.  Christian  chm'ches  were  formed  in 
Arabia  at  a  very  early  period,  namely,  in  the  second  century ;  and 
Christian  hermits  withdrew  from  the  world  into  the  mountains 
and  valleys,  which  had  been  consecrated  by  the  wonderful  works 
that  God  had  performed  for  His  people.  Dionysius  of  Alexan- 
diia  (about  the  year  250)  mentions,  that  in  his  day  Mount  Sinai 
w^as  the  resort  of  Egyptian  Christians  during  the  time  of  perse- 
cution, and  that  the  Saracens,  who  frequented  it,  often  made 
them  slaves  {Eusehms  Historia,  6,  42).  We  also  learn  from 
many  authorities  of  the  fomlh  century,  that  Moimt  Sinai  was 
the  seat  of  many  a  hermitage ;  and  that,  although  the  hermits 
themselves  inhabited  separate  cells,  they  had  a  common  president, 
and  were  in  constant  intercourse  with  one  another.  One  of 
these  rulers  of  the  hermits  was  Sylvanus  the  Egyptian  (about 
the  year  365),  who  had  laid  out  a  garden  upon  Mount  Sinai, 
which  he  cultivated  and  watered  with  his  own  hand.  In  the 
year  373  the  monk  Macarius  made  a  pilgrimage  to  Sinai,  and 
reached  it  eighteen  days  after  his  departure  from  Jerusalem. 
He  met  with  a  number  of  anchorites  there ;  and  during  his  stay 


GEOGRAPHICAL  SURVEY.  83 

an  attack  was  made  upon  them  by  the  Saracens,  in  which  forty 
of  the  Christian  fathers  were  slain.  Such  massacres  as  these 
were  of  frequent  occurrence.  There  was  one,  for  example,  in 
the  time  of  Nilus,  who  lived  among-  the  anchorites  of  Sinai  with 
his  son  Theodulus,  and  has  left  us  a  description  of  an  attack, 
when  he  himself  escaped,  whilst  his  son  was  carried  off  into 
slavery,  from  which  he  was  afterwards  ransomed  by  the  Bishop 
of  Elusa  (in  the  year  390).  At  that  time  Pharan,  in  the  Feiran 
valley,  was  the  seat  of  a  flourishing  Christian  bishoprick.  We 
have  a  letter,  written  about  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century,  by 
the  Emperor  Marcian  to  the  Bishop  Macarius,  and  to  the  Ai'chi- 
mandrites  and  monks  of  Sinai,  warning  them  against  being  led 
away  by  a  heretic,  Theodosius,  who  had  taken  refuge  in  the 
mountains  of  Sinai  after  the  Council  of  Chalcedon.  In  the  year 
548,  a  certain  Theo7ias,  presbyter  Montis  Sinai,  signed  his  name, 
at  a  synod  held  at  Constantinople,  as  legate  from  this  mountain, 
and  from  the  church  at  Pharan  and  Raithou  (=  Elim).  At  the 
the  fifth  oecumenical  council  at  Constantinople  (553),  there  was 
present  a  certain  Constantino,  Bishop  of  Sinai,  etc.  (Compare 
the  still  fuller  accounts  given  by  Robinson  and  E,itter  xiv.  12 
sqq.).  Wlien  we  take  all  these  facts  into  account,  though  we  have 
not  in  any  instance  such  further  details  as  would  enable  us  to 
determine  which  was  the  mountain  referred  to,  it  may  not  per- 
haps be  going  too  far,  if  we  ventm-e  the  assertion,  that  the  exact 
site  of  Sinai  was  kept  in  mind  till  the  time  of  Justinian  by  means 
of  continuous  tradition.  But  just  at  that  period  we  meet,  un- 
doubtedly, with  two  different  accomits  of  the  position  of  the 
sacred  mountain.  Kosmas  Indicopleustes  evidently  identifies  it 
with  Serbal,  when  he  describes  it  as  six  miles  from  the  citv  of 
Pharan  (in  Montfaucon  Coll.  nova  T.  ii.  L.  3,  p.  196 :  ek 
Xcoprj^  TO  opo^,  TOVT  iariv  iv  tm  ^cvai'M,  i'yyv'i  ovn  Tf]<;  ^apav  &>? 
diTo  /jitXlcov  e|)  ;  and  this  is  confirmed  by  his  remarks  concerning 
the  inscriptions  (see  §  5,  2).  Yet,  previously  to  this,  veiy  weighty 
authorities  had  decided  in  favour  of  the  Jebel  Musa.  Accordino- 
to  the  tradition  of  the  existing  monastery  of  Sinai,  in  the  Wady 
Shoeib,  Justinian  I.  was  the  founder  of  the  monastery  (in  the  }'ear 
527),  and  built  it  on  the  site  on  wliich  Helena  had  erected  a  small 
chm-cli  a  long  timebefore.  Theessential  partof  this  legend,  namely, 
the  erection  of  a  large  chm'ch  in  one  of  the  valleys  of  Sinai  for 
the  numerous  monks  in  the  district,  is  confirmed  by  the  historian 


84  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

Procopius,  who  was  almost  contemporaneous  with  the  event  itself 
(de  Eeclificiis,  Justin.  5,  8).  He  states,  that  it  was  impossible  to 
build  the  chiu'ch  on  the  top  of  the  mountain,  on  accomit  of  the 
constant  noise  and  other  supernatural  phenomena,  which  pre- 
vented any  one  from  remaining  there  at  night,  and  therefore  it 
was  placed  lower  down.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  church 
referred  to  is  the  Church  of  the  Transfiguration,  which  is  in 
existence  still.  According  to  Procopius,  the  same  emperor 
erected  a  strong  fortress  at  the  foot  of  the  mountain,  in  which  he 
stationed  a  select  garrison  to  resist  the  attacks  of  the  Saracens. 
The  credible  testimony  of  the  Patriarch  Eutychius  of  Alexandria, 
in  the  ninth  century,  is  more  definite  still.  He  states  that  Jus- 
tinian ordered  a  fortified  monastery  to  be  erected  at  Sinai,  for 
the  purpose  of  protecting  the  monks  from  the  predatory  attacks 
of  the  Ishmaelites,  and  that  this  monastery  embraced  the  tower 
which  had  already  been  built  by  the  anchorites  for  their  own 
defence  (Eutychius,  Annales  ed.  Pococke,  ii.,  p.  160  sqq.). 
This  is  probably  the  existing  monasteiy,  which  Procopius  con- 
founded Avith  a  fortification.  These  statements  are  all  confirmed 
by  the  Itinerarium  of  the  martyr  J[?zto9imMs,  who  made  a  ^iilgrimage 
to  Sinai  at  the  end  of  the  sixth  century.  His  account  removes  the 
possibility  of  a  doubt,  that  the  Jebel  Musa  is  the  momitain  ref  eiTed 
to  {Hitter  xiv.  30) ;  and  such  distinctness  is  thereby  given  to  the 
legend  of  the  church  of  Helena,  and  the  locality  of  the  invasion, 
as  described  by  Nilus,  that  there  can  be  no  question  as  to  its  being 
situated  either  on  the  side  or  smnmit  of  the  Jebel  Musa.  This 
proves,  then,  that  from  the  time  of  Helena  the  general  opinion 
was,  that  ]\Iount  Sinai  stood  just  where  the  tradition  of  the  pre- 
sent day  still  places  it ;  and  there  is  nothing  extravagant,  there- 
fore, in  regarding  it  as  jjossihle  that  the  tradition  might  be  traced 
back  through  Paul  and  Elijah  to  the  time  of  !Moses  himself. 

But  as  this  tradition  is  supported  by  such  general  as  well  as 
ancient  testimony,  how  did  the  Indian  traveller  come  to  entertain 
a  different  opinion?  Hitter  (xiv.  31)  conjectures  that  "possibly 
two  different  traditions  or  party  views  prevailed  in  the  monasteries 
and  among  the  monks  of  Constariti7io2)le  and  Alexandria,  which 
may  have  arisen  from  a  contest  to  seciu'e  for  one  or  the  other  of 
the  two  places  the  highest  repute  for  sanctity.  The  Byzantine 
view,  which  received  such  imperial  support,  would  very  naturally 
prevail  over  that  of  Egypt."     But  we  cannot  find  the  least  indi- 


GEOGRAPHICAL  SURVEY.  85 

cation  anpvhere  of  the  existence  of  such  a  relation,  and  in  itself 
it  is  very  improbable.  The  only  foundation  upon  which  it  could 
possibly  rest,  is  the  fact  that  Kosmas  was  an  "  Egyptian"  monk ; 
but  this  is  at  all  events  a  very  weak  one.  The  difference  between 
the  party  views  entertamed  by  the  two  rivals  on  the  Bosphorus 
and  the  Nile,  must  in  that  case  have  existed  as  early  as  the  times 
of  Dionysius  of  Alexandi'ia  and  the  Empress-mother  Helena,  and 
must  have  continued  for  three  hundi'ed  years.  But  we  should 
certainly  expect  to  find  some  trace  of  it,  when  we  consider  the 
various  ways  in  which  Byzantium  and  Alexandria  came  into 
collision  with  each  other,  and  still  more,  the  very  numerous  and 
sometimes  very  full  notices  which  we  possess  of  the  anchorites  of 
Sinai.  All  the  accounts  of  (?  before)  Kosmas  mention  only  one 
Sinai,  namely,  the  one  upon  which  Justinian  built  the  monastery. 
There  is  no  hint  of  the  possibility  of  any  other  locality  putting 
in  a  claim  to  be  regarded  as  the  scene  of  the  most  wondi'ous 
work  performed  by  God  in  connection  with  the  history  of  Israel. 
Even  Eutyches,  who  was  an  Egyptian,  and  must  therefore  have 
been  acquainted  with  the  Alexandrian  "  party  view,"  and  most 
probably  woidd  share  it — who  possessed,  moreover,  the  most  ac- 
curate knowledge  of  all  such  subjects,  does  not  make  the  slight- 
est allusion  to  the  possibility  of  Mount  Sinai  being  discovered 
anywhere  else  than  where  Justinian  erected  his  cloister-fortress. 
The  claim  of  Serbal  to  the  honour  of  being  the  mountain  of  the 
law  must  have  arisen  at  a  very  late  period,  not  long  before  tlie 
time  of  Kosmas  ;  it  must  have  been  confined  to  a  very  limited 
space,  and  can  only  have  met  with  acceptance  in  a  very  con- 
tracted circle.  We  can  hardly  be  wrong,  therefore,  if  we  trace 
the  oriffin  of  this  notion  to  Pharan.  Pharan  was  at  first  a 
heathen  city.  It  owes  its  proximity  to  Serbal  certainly  not  to 
the  fact  that  the  mountain  was  sacred  to  Jehovah  (if  its  sacred- 
ness  had  anything  to  do  with  it,  it  must  have  been  Baalite  or 
Sabacan),  but  to  the  paradisiacal  fertility  of  the  Feiran  valley, 
that  "  most  costly  jewel"  of  the  whole  peninsula.  But  Pharan 
became  by  degrees  a  Christian  city,  the  centre  of  a  flourishing 
episcopal  see.  Wliat  could  be  more  natvu'al  than  that  the  city, 
which  was  at  all  events  situated  in  the  road  taken  by  the  people 
of  God  under  the  conduct  of  Moses,  should  endeavour  to  fix  as 
many  reminiscences  as  possible  of  the  mighty  works  of  God  for 
Israel  in  its  own  immediate  neighbourhood,  and  especially  of  the 


86  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

greatest  and  most  glorious  of  all  ?  But  these  attempts  cannot 
have  met  with  much  approval,  or  spread  over  a  wide  area 
(they  cannot  have  been  received  either  at  Byzantium  or  Alex- 
andria), probably  because  the  conviction,  that  the  Jebel  Musa 
was  the  moimtain  of  the  law  was  too  ancient,  and  too  firmly  and 
deeply  rooted,  as  well  as  too  widely  diffused  and  too  generally 
adopted.  In  fact,  the  other  opinion  prevailed  to  so  limited  an 
extent,  that  we  should  hardly  have  heard  of  it  at  all,  had  not  a 
credulous  monk  of  the  6th  century,  who  most  likely  never  went 
beyond  Pharan,  allowed  himself  to  be  persuaded  that  the  opinion, 
which  prevailed  in  that  city,  was  the  more  correct  of  the  two. 
It  would  undoubtedly  be  all  the  easier  to  convince  him  of  this, 
on  account  of  the  deep  impression  which  the  aspect  of  the  ma- 
jestic Serbal  must  have  made  upon  his  mind. 

Lepsius  (p.  445  sqq.)  has  taken  great  pains  to  weaken  the 
evidence,  referred  to  above,  in  favour  of  the  antiquity  of  the 
tradition  which  has  come  down  to  us ;  but  more  especially  to 
convince  us  that  the  monasteiy  at  Sinai  cannot  have  been  built 
by  Justinian,  and  that  the  entire  tradition  originated  in  the  11th 
century,  at  the  time  when  the  monastery  was  actually  built. 
But  the  whole  of  his  argument  consists  of  nothing  more  than  an 
assertion  that  Kosmas  Indicopleustes  is  the  only'credible  witness — 
all  the  rest  being  either  spui'ious,  or,  if  genuine,  not  trustworthy. 
Reh-ing  implicitly  upon  Procopius,  he  maintains  that  Justinian 
had  a  fortress  erected  upon  Jebel  Musa  for  pm'ely  military  pur- 
poses, without  the  slightest  reference  to  the  assumed  importance 
of  the  spot  in  connection  with  the  history  of  Moses,  etc. 

(3.)  Burckhardt  (according  to  the  quotation  in  Lepsius, 
p.  418)  was  misled  by  the  references  to  Serbal  occm-ring  in  the 
inscriptions,  which  he  supposed  to  be  of  Christian  origin,  and 
therefore  came  to  the  following  conclusion  :  "  I  am  persuaded," 
he  says,  "  that  ]\Iount  Serbal  was  at  one  period  the  chief  place 
of  pilgrimage  in  the  peninsula,  and  that  this  was  considered  to 
be  the  mountain  where  Moses  received  the  tables  of  the  law ; 
though  I  am  equally  convinced,  from  a  perusal  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, that  the  Israelites  encamped  in  the  Upper  Sinai,  and  that 
either  Jebel  Musa  or  Mount  St  Catherine  is  the  real  Horeb." 
Since  his  time  several  have  written  in  support  of  the  opinion, 
that  the  Serbal  is  the  true  Sinai,  though  this  opinion  has  always 
been  confined  to  individuals.     According  to  Kutscheit's  account 


GEOGRAPHICAL  SURVEY.  87 

(in  Brim's  Repertorium  184G,  ii.,  p.  12),  Hughes,  the  English- 
man, who  pubHshed  a  BibKcal  Atlas  in  1841,  was  the  last  to 
assign  the  promulgation  of  the  law  to  Sinai.  In  1846,  Lepsius 
appeared,  claiming  credit  not  only  for  having  rediscovered  in 
Serbal  the  true  position  of  Sinai  for  the  first  time  for  a  thousand 
years,  but  also  for  having  set  the  question  at  rest  for  all  time  to 
come  (Reise,  pp.  11-50).  Again,  in  1852  he  published  an  elo- 
quent defence  of  his  theory,  though  Ritter,  the  master  in  this 
department,  did  not  adopt  his  view ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  brought 
forward  the  most  conclusive  argmnents  against  it  (xiv.  736  sqq.).'^ 
Hitherto  his  hypothesis  has  met  with  but  little  success,  notwith- 
standing his  reiterated  defence  of  it.  Robinson  has  determinately 
■rejected  it  (Bibliotheca  Sacra,  vol.  iv.,  p.  381  sqq.).  The  ac- 
knowledgment made  by  Dietetnci  (ii.  53,  54)  is  also  worth  notic- 
ing : — "  Professor  Lejysius,"  he  says,  "  was  kind  enough  to  send 
me  his  work  before  my  departm'e.  I  found  it  so  excellent  in 
many  respects,  that  I  determined  to  follow  it  in  the  formation  of 
my  own  plan.  At  the  outset  I  had  almost  made  up  my  mind  to 
regard  the  Serbal  as  Sinai ;  but,  after  having  climbed  the  Ser- 
bal, I  have  formed  a  totally  different  opinion." 

Let  us  look  more  closely,  however,  at  the  arguments  and 
comiter-arguments  employed  by  Lepsius.  First  of  all,  he  fancies 
that  he  takes  away  from  the  prevailing  opinion  its  main  support, 
by  pronouncing  it  a  monk's  fable  of  comparatively  modern  date. 
How  wrong  he  is  in  this  assertion,  is  apparent  from  what  we 

^  Kutscheit's  pamphlet,  which  is  certainly  somewhat  warmly  written,  has 
not  been  deemed  worthy  of  notice  by  Lepsius.  On  the  other  hand,  he  has 
entered  partially  into  Ritter's  objections.  The  fact  that  Ritter  still  adheres 
to  the  traditional  theory,  in  spite  of  his  own  proofs  of  its  fallacy,  he  excuses 
in  the  following  manner  (p.  427)  :  "In  Ritter  s  account  there  was  neces- 
sarily an  a  priori  decision  in  favour  of  one  of  these  two  views.  Hence,  when 
a  new  (?)  view  was  only  presented  to  him  at  the  final  conclusion  of  his  im- 
portant preliminary  labours.,  in  which  the  belief  of  a  thousand  years,  con- 
firmed as  it  had  been  by  every  modern  traveller,  was  for  the  first  time  (?) 
disputed  in  an  occasional  and  necessarily  imperfect  book  of  travels,  it  pre- 
sented but  little  claim  to  his  preference,  especially  as  it  had  neither  been 
critically  reviewed  nor  noticed  by  later  historians."  We  confess  that  we 
have  a  better  opinion  of  the  Hterary  fidelity  and  conscientiousness  of  such  a 
man  as  Putter;  and  we  are  convinced  that  even  ''at  the  conclusion  of  his 
important  preliminary  laboui-s"  (which,  however,  had  but  little  to  do  with 
this  question),  he  would  not  have  shrunk  from  the  trouble  of  changing,  if 
necessary,  the  passages  referred  to. 


88  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

have  already  written.  Then,  again,  he  lays  it  down  as  an 
axiom,  which  is  to  be  maintained  under  all  circumstances,  that, 
generally  speaking,  the  geographical  conditions  of  the  peninsula 
have  continued  essentially  the  same  since  the  days  of  Moses,  and 
particularly,  that  the  amount  and  relative  proportions  of  finiit- 
fulness  and  unfruitfulness  are  exactly  the  same  now  as  they 
were  at  that  time  ;  so  that,  in  his  opinion,  any  one  who  has 
recourse  to  the  opposite  view,  though  he  may  prove  everything, 
will  for  that  very  reason  prove  nothing.  K.  Hitter  may  well 
take  this  to  heart ;  for  he  not  only  maintains,  in  innumerable 
passages  in  his  invakiable  work,  and  adduces  satisfactory  reasons 
to  prove,  that  the  peninsula  was  generally  much  more  fertile  in 
ancient  times  than  it  is  now,  but,  what  is  more  important  still, 
he  is  very  much  inclined  to  trace  the  fruitfulness  of  the  Feiran 
valley,  upon  which  the  whole  of  the  argument  of  Lepsius  rests, 
to  the  miraculous  production  of  the  Feiran  brook  by  means  of 
Moses'  rod  (§  7, 1).  Dieterici  has  pointedly  observed  (ii.  55,  56): 
"  Professor  Lepsius  persists  in  taking  the  present  condition  of 
the  peninsula  of  Sinai,  as  a  standard  by  which  to  measure  the 
past.  We  shall  not  attempt  to  decide  whether  the  learned 
Egyptologist,  when  he  looks  at  Egypt  and  Nubia  in  their  present 
desert  state,  with  the  fields  so  deeply  buried  in  sand,  has  laid 
the  same  stress  upon  the  present  condition  of  the  country  as  in 
the  case  of  Arabia." 

Moreover,  the  effort  of  Lepsius  is  evidently  to  make  as 
much  as  possible  of  the  unfruitfulness  of  the  environs  of  Sinai 
and  of  the  fertility  of  those  of  Serbal,  and  to  place  the  contrast 
between  the  two  in  the  most  glaring  light.  The  Sinai,  with  the 
surrounding  district,  is  said  to  differ  in  no  respect  whatever, 
so  far  as  regards  S'terility,  from  the  dead  and  barren  soil  of  the 
rest  of  the  peninsula,  whilst  a  little  patch  of  garden  is  maintained 
with  the  greatest  difficulty  by  the  skill  of  the  monks.  But  is  it 
really  the  case  that  the  countiy  round  about  the  Jebel  Musa  is 
a  parched  and  barren  desert  ?  Kutscheit  (p.  23)  appeals  to 
Shcnv,  Niehuhr,  Binxkhardt,  de  Lahorde,  Robinson,  Schubert, 
and  a  hundred  other  travellers,  who  were  also  eye-witnesses  and 
trustworthy  men,  and  from  whom  we  receive  very  different  tes- 
timony. One  of  the  latest  travellers,  St  Olin,  the  North  Ameri- 
can, writes  as  follows  (in  the  Zeitschrift  der  deiitsch-morgenldnd- 
ischen  Gesellschaft  ii.  3,  pp.  318,  319  :  "Beautiful  springs  gush 


GEOGRAPHICAL  SUEVEY.  89 

forth  from  the  rocks,  and  form  together  a  magnificent  waterfall, 
which  rushes  down  into  the  ravine  beneath.  .  .  .  We  often 
had  recourse  to  its  cool,  clear  water,  for  the  purpose  of  quench- 
ing our  thirst,"  etc.  K.  Ritter,  who  has  studied  the  character 
of  the  peninsula  more  minutely  than  any  other  of  his  contempo- 
raries, has  given  a  very  different  account  of  the  mountains  of 
Sinai,  and  supports  it  by  the  concurrent  testimony  of  travellers 
in  innumerable  ways.  He  describes  it  as  containing  "  a  cool, 
wide-spread,  elevated,  Alpine  tract  of  meadow  land ;"  and  sees 
no  difference  in  the  Feiran  valley,  except  that  there  is  "  a  greater 
amount  of  fertility  concentrated  within  a  more  limited  space" 
(xiv.  743).  Lepsius  considers  it  inconceivable,  that  Moses  should 
ever  have  thought  of  leading  the  people  away  from  the  fertile 
paradise  of  the  Feu'an  valley,  to  spend  a  year  in  the  barren 
desert  of  Sinai ;  and  believes  that  the  people  themselves  would 
have  politely  declined  to  follow  him,  when  once  they  had  en- 
joyed the  delights  of  such  a  paradise  as  this.  To  this  Kutscheit 
replies,  "  That  is  very  like  sa;)dng  that  the  Israelites  had  no 
other  object  in  view  than  to  find  out  some  fruitful  nook  in  which 
they  might  pitch  their  tents  and  huts,  and  stay  there  for  ever. 
But  the  desire  of  the  Israelites  was  to  reach  the  land  of  their 
fathers,  which  flowed  ^\^tll  milk  and  honey ;  and,  first  of  all,  it 
was  necessary  that  they  should  be  conducted  to  Sinai,  there  to 
lay  aside  the  children's  shoes,  and  be  made  by  the  law  a  perfect 
man,  an  organised  nation."  But  Lepsius  is  very  serious  in  the 
matter.  He  says  (Bi'iefe,  pp.  347,  348)  :  "  The  fact  cannot  be 
overlooked,  that  if  Moses  wanted  to  conduct  so  numerous  a  people 
to  the  peninsula,  the  first  and  principal  thing  that  he  had  to  settle, 
by  means  of  his  Avisdom  and  his  knowledge  of  the  country,  was 
how  to  maintain  them  all.  For,  whatever  conclusion  we  may  come 
to  with  reference  to  the  number  of  the  emigrants  (llohinson  esti- 
mates them  at  two  millions),  we  must  in  any  case  assume  that 
there  were  a  very  large  number,  wlio  had  all  to  be  supported  in 
the  Sinaitic  desert,  and  who  had  taken  no  provisions  Avith  them. 
How  can  we  suppose  it  possible  that,  instead  of  directing  atten- 
tion at  once  to  the  ordy  fniitful  and  well-watered  spot  in  the 
whole  peninsula,  and  striving  to  reach  it  with  all  speed,  Moses 
should  have  led  them  to  a  remote  comer  among  the  mountains, 
where  two  thousand  emigi'ants,  with  their  cattle  and  attendants, 
could  never  have  found  sufficient  food  and  water?     It  would 


90  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

have  been  a  wrong  thing  for  Moses  to  rely  upon  the  mu-acles  of 
God ;  for  tliey  always  commence  just  when  human  wisdom  and 
human  counsel  fail,  and  are  never  intended  to  supersede  them." 
— Very  good ;  but  if  this  line  of  argument  is  really  to  be  taken 
as  seriovis,  it  must  be  admitted,  at  the  very  outset,  that  Moses  was 
the  most  infatuated  and  imprudent  leader  that  ever  existed,  and 
that  the  murmuring  people  were  quite  right  when  they  cried 
out,  "  Are  there  no  graves  in  Egypt  ?  Wast  thou  obliged  to 
bring  us  into  the  desert,  to  kill  us  with  liunger  and  thirst?" — 
Lepsius,  who  reduces  the  430  years  spent  in  Egypt  by  a  bold 
stroke  of  the  pen  to  90,  will  probably  show  the  same  skill  in  re- 
ducing the  two  million  emigrants  to  twenty  thousand,  or,  if 
necessary,  to  a  still  smaller  nimiber;  but  how  quickly  would 
even  these,  with  their  cattle,  have  consumed  the  entire  produce 
of  the  Feiran  valley,  Avhich  is  scarcely  a  mile  long,  and  at  the 
most  500  paces  broad  ?  What  becomes,  then,  of  the  celebrated 
wisdom  of  Moses,  and  his  intimate  acquaintance  with  the 
country  ?  Even  if  he  did  select  the  Feiran  jaaradise  for  his 
principal  halting-place,  he  must  still  from  the  very  first  have 
"  relied  upon  the  miracles  of  God,"  though  Lepsius  considers 
that  this  would  have  been  a  most  improper  proceeding.  Is  there, 
then,  so  great  a  difference  in  this  respect  between  Feiran  and 
er-Rahah,  when  we  take  all  the  circumstances  into  consideration  ? 
K.  Ritter  is  of  a  different  opinion  (xiv.  743)  :  he  thinks,  on  the 
contrary,  that  the  neighbom-hood  of  the  Jebel  Musa  "  is  better 
adapted  than  any  other  spot  in  the  peninsula  for  the  lengthened 
halt  of  such  a  people,  on  account  of  the  many  ramifications  of 
its  different  valleys,  and  even  superior  to  the  Feiran  valley,  in 
Avliich  a  greater  amount  of  fertility  is  concentrat-ed  in  a  smaller 
space."  We  fully  concur  in  this  opinion.  At  the  present  day, 
the  environs  of  the  Wady  es-Sheikh  (§  5,  5),  with  its  innumer- 
able side  valleys  and  clefts,  are  incomparably  more  densely 
populated  than  the  district  surrounding  the  Feiran  valley,- which 
is  more  fertile  in  itself,  but  has  much  smaller  side  valleys,  and 
none  of  equal  fertility  to  those  foiuid  in  the  Wady  es-Sheikh. 
Dieterici  has  very  correctly  observed,  in  opposition  to  Lepsius, 
"  The  only  conception  we  can  form  of  the  encampment  of  the 
Israelites  is,  that  whilst  the  head-quarters  were  fixed  at  the  place 
whose  name  is  given,  the  flocks  were  scattered  far  and  wide  in 
search  of  their  scanty  food,  in  precisely  the  same  manner  as 


GEOGRAPHICAL  SURVEY.  91 

those  of  the  Bedouins  of  the  present  day.  At  the  same  time, 
we  must  never  lose  sight  of  the  extraordinary  supply  which  they 
received  from  the  Lord."  From  this  point  of  view,  Ritters 
opinion,  just  quoted  above,  is  fully  confinned. 

Lepsius  is  certainly  right,  when  he  says,  in  his  reply  to  Hitter, 
that  there  cannot  possibly  have  been  tAvo  different  mountains  of 
God  at  the  time  of  the  Exodus  (viz.,  the  Serbal  and  the  Sinai; 
see  §  4,  4) ;  but  Ritter  is  as  decidedly  correct  when  he  main- 
tains, in  opposition  to  Lepsius,  that  the  mountain  of  the  heathen 
gods  (the  Serbal)  cannot  possibly  liaA-e  been  the  same  as  the 
mountain  of  Jehovah.  Since  Credner  and  Tucli  have  clearly 
proved  that  the  Sinaitic  (or,  as  Ritter  more  correctly  names  them, 
the  Serbalitic)  inscriptions  point  out  the  Serbal  as  the  central 
point,  not  of  Christian  worship,  but  rather  of  the  earliest  heathen 
worship  and  pilgi'image  (Baalite  or  Sab^ean),  the  Serbal  h}^o- 
thesis  has  lost  its  most  plausible  argument.  It  cannot  but  sur- 
prise us,  therefore,  to  find  Lepsius  still  adducing  these  in- 
scrij^tions  in  support  of  his  opinion.  "  To  this  Ave  must  add," 
he  says  at  p.  347,  "  that  the  Sinaitic  inscriptions,  which  are 
found  in  the  greatest  numbers  on  the  road  to  the  Wady  Feiran 
and  in  the  Wady  Aleyat,  leading  up  to  Serbal,  seem  to  indicate 
that  in  a  much  later  age  large  croAvds  of  people  performed  a 
pilgrimage  to  this  mountain,  for  the  purpose  of  celebrating  reli- 
gious festivals."  Sic  !  On  the  contrary,  as  the  Serbal,  from 
its  A'ery  shape,  inAated  the  heathen  inhabitants  of  the  peninsula 
(the  Amalekites)  to  idolatrous  worship  (§  5,  4),  and  therefore 
had  been  abused  to  that  purpose  cA^en  before  the  time  of  Moses, 
it  Avas  for  that  Aery  reason  absolutely  unfit  to  be  the  mountain 
of  the  God  of  Jehovah.  "  The  people,"  says  Dieterici  (ii.  57), 
"  Avere  still  cariying  on  a  fierce  mental  conflict  (Avith  their  deeply- 
rooted  inclination  to  idolatry),  and  were  overcome  by  it  again 
and  again.  And  can  Ave  suppose  that,  whilst  this  conflict  was 
still  going  on,  Moses  selected  the  mountain  of  Baal  as  the  moun- 
tain of  Godl" 

Moreover,  Avhen  "  the  rock  in  Horeb"  (Ex.  xvii.  6),  from 
Avhich  the  people  Avere  supplied  with  Avater  at  Eephidim,  and  the 
Aasit  of  Jetliro  (to  Rcphidim  ?)  at  the  "mount  of  God"  (Ex. 
xviii.  5),  are  referred  to  the  Serbal ;  we  are  just  as  much  at  hberty 
to  refer  the  former  to  the  outlying  mountains  of  Sinai,  as 
Ljepsius  to  those  of  Serbal ; — and  the  latter  simply  proves  that 


92  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

Replildim  was  either  so  near  to  the  mountain  of  the  law  as  to 
justify  an  expression  of  this  kind  (as  Robinson  supposes),  or 
(what  seems  to  us  still  more  correct,  see  §  4,  4)  that  this  visit  is 
narrated  according  to  the  subject-matter,  and  not  in  chronologi- 
cal order ;  an  alternative  which  even  Lepsius  cannot  oppose  (and 
in  fact  assents  to),  for  his  Eephidim  is  not  situated  immediately 
at  the  foot  of  the  Serbal,  but  the  Wady  Aleyat  lies  between. — 
The  remarkable  proof  deduced  from  Ex.  xvi.  1,  that  the  Serbal 
alone  can  have  been  called  Sinai,  or  the  mountain  of  Sin,  because 
it  touched  the  desert  of  Sin,  we  have  already  disposed  of  in  §  2,  5. 
We  see,  then,  that  the  argument  in  f  avom'  of  the  identity  of 
the  Serbal  with  the  mountain  of  the  law  is  very  weak ;  and  we 
cannot  blame  Ritter^  Robinson,  Dieterici,  and  others,  when,  in 
spite  of  the  learning  and  eloquence  of  Lejysiiis,  in  spite  of  his 
challenge  to  ocular  demonstration,  they  still  adliere  to  the  ancient 
system ;  especially  as  this  system  is  supported  by  a  mass  of  the 
most  convincing  arguments  and  proofs.  The  authors  just  named 
have  furnished  such  powerful  arguments  in  proof  of  the  impro- 
bability, or  rather  impossibility,  of  Lepsius'  theory,  and  also  in 

^  Notwitlistanding  the  weighty  arguments  brought  forward  by  Bitter, 
in  opposition  to  Lepsius,  and  in  support  of  the  more  ancient  view,  he  still 
speaks  of  the  latter,  with  which  his  own  opinion  coincides,  as  hypothetical 
(xiv.  740) :  "  We  see,"  he  says,  "  in  the  two  almost  contemporaneous 
authorities,  Jerome  and  Kosmas,  the  great  diversity  that  existed  between  the 
views  entertained  with  reference  to  these  places,  whilst  neither  of  them  is 
supported  by  such  decisive  arguments  as  to  commend  itself,  to  us  at  least,  as 
the  only  one  that  can  possibly  be  maintained.  As  both  of  these  attempts  to 
elucidate  a  text  which  has  been  left  so  indefinite  in  topographical  respects, 
and  to  describe  a  locality  as  yet  so  little  known,  can  only  rest  upon  hypo- 
thetical probabilities,  we  may  be  allowed  to  give  a  brief  explanation  of  our 
own  hypothetical  opinion  on  a  subject  which  will,  probably,  never  be  en- 
tirely extricated  from  obscurity."  The  thought  of  Kosmas,  who  is  certainly 
overrated,  has  given  to  Eitter's  words  an  air  of  uncertainty  here,  which  they 
lose  altogether  afterwards.  He  repeatedly  expresses  himself  in  a  most  decided 
manner  (e.  g.  p.  742).  In  the  Evang.  Kalender,  again  (p.  52),  he  concludes 
his  treatise  with  the  words :  ' '  The  latest  researches  have  contributed  to 
bring  about  at  least  a  negative  result ;  that  is,  to  render  it  impossible  to 
regard  the  Serbal  of  Amalek  as  the  Sinai  of  Israel,  unless  subsequent  disco- 
veries should  furnish  positive  reasons  for  coming  to  an  opposite  conclusion. 
Till  then,  the  noble  range,  at  whose  foot  the  monastery  was  erected  in  the 
time  of  Justinian,  will  be  regarded  by  every  pilgrim  as  the  true  Sinai  and 
Horeb  of  Israel,  which  furnishes  equal  evidence  of  its  ancient  dignity  and 
splendour." 


GEOGEAPHICAL  SURVEY.  93 

confirmation  of  the  ancient  traditional  view,  that  we  have  little 
else  to  do  than  to  let  them  speak  for  themselves,  and  to  arrange 
their  argnments,  which  supplement  one  another,  into  one  con- 
solidated phalanx. 

Robinson  considers  it  a  prerequisite,  in  determining  the  scene 
of  the  giving  of  the  law,  that  there  should  be  sufficient  space  for 
so  large  a  multitude  to  stand  and  behold  the  phenomena  on  the 
summit ;  and  rejects  the  hypothesis  of  Lepsius,  because  this  con- 
dition is  wanting  in  the  case  of  the  Serbal.  Lepsius  himself 
confesses,  that  there  is  certainly  no  plain  at  the  foot  of  the  Serbal, 
on  which  the  whole  of  the  people  could  have  been  collected  to- 
gether. But  he  appeals  to  the  fact,  "  that  the  encampment  of 
the  people  at  Sinai  is  described  in  just  the  same  terms,  as  at  all 
the  earlier  stations.  Hence,  if  we  suppose  the  term  camp  to 
require  a  given  space,  sufficiently  large  for  so  numerous  a  body 
of  people  to  pitch  their  tents,  we  must  be  prepared  to  point  out 
a  plain  of  er-Eaha  at  all  the  earlier  stations.  If  we  imagine  two 
million  people  congregated  together  in  an  enclosed  camp,  which 
must  have  consisted  of  two  hundred  thousand  tents,  reckoning 
one  for  every  ten,  and  these  tents  arranged  as  in  a  regular  mili- 
tary encampment,  even  the  plain  of  Raha  (§  6,  2)  wovild  be  too 
small ;  but  if  we  suppose  that  a  comparatively  small  number 
were  collected  immecUately  around  the  head-quarters  of  Moses, 
whilst  all  the  rest  sought  out  the  shady  spots  and  scanty  pastiu'age 
of  the  surrounding  valleys,  the  Wady  Feiran  would  suffice  for 
the  head-quarters  as  well  as  any  other.  Moreover,  the  Wady 
Feiran,  even  if  we  take  only  the  most  fertile  portion  of  it,  as  far 
as  to  el-Hessun,  along  with  the  broad  Wady  Aleyat,  would  afford 
quite  as  much  space,  nnd  certainly  a  much  more  suitable  situa- 
tion, for  a  continuous  camp  than  the  plain  of  Raha,"  We  readily 
admit  all  this,  but  make  two  remarks : — In  the  Jlrst  place,  the 
argument  just  mentioned  involves  an  acknowledgment,  that  there 
was  not  room  at  the  foot  of  the  Serbal  even  for  the  head-quarters, 
since  it  places  them  as  far  off  as  el-Hessun,  in  the  valley  of 
Feiran  (even  when  the  Israelites  are  said  to  have  encamped  in 
the  "  desert  of  Sinai").  But  the  Feiran  A'alley  corresponds  to 
the  station  at  Rephidim,  which  would  therefore  be  identically 
the  same  as  the  station  in  the  desert  of  Sinai.  The  Israelites, 
however,  had  to  depart  from  the  former  and  march  at  least 
one  day's  journey  farther  before  they  arrived  at  the  latter,  where 


94  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

they  pitched  their  tents  again  (Ex.  xix.  1,  2). — Secondly  (and 
this  is  still  more  important),  Lepsius  has  totally  misunderstood 
Robinsons  argmnents,  or  at  least  has  given  such  an  explanation 
of  it  that  it  was  a  very  easy  matter  to  refute  it.  Robinson  re- 
quired a  large  space  at  the  foot  of  the  mountain,  not  (as  Lepsius 
assumes)  that  all  the  tents  might  be  pitched  within  it,  but  that 
all  the  people  might  be  able  to  see  what  was  going  on  at 
the  summit ;  and  whilst  there  is  every  ground  for  laying  down 
such  a  condition  (Ex.  xix.  17  sqq.,  xx.  18  sqq.),  it  is  quite  cer- 
tain that  it  cannot  possibly  be  satisfied  in  the  neighbom-hood  of 
the  Serbal.  But  let  us  turn  to  Dieterici,  who  went  with  a  decided 
prepossession  in  favour  of  the  hypothesis  of  Lepsius,  and  care- 
fully examined  the  neighbom-hood  with  special  reference  to  that 
hypothesis.  He  says  (ii.  54)  :  "  It  was  impossible  for  either  me 
or  my  companion,  D.  Blaine,  who  showed  a  remarkable  tact  in 
the  examination  of  all  local  circumstances,  to  imagine  the  scene 
in  any  way  as  occm-ring  upon  the  Serbal.  This  mountain  is,  no 
doubt,  visible  from  a  great  distance,  on  accoimt  of  its  height ; 
but  not  in  the  immediate  neighbom-hood,  either  from  the  Wady 
Aleyat  or  the  fertile  valley  of  Feiran.  There  is  only  a  small 
corner  of  the  valley  visible  from  the  Serbal,  just  where  the  fox- 
mer  turns  a  little  more  towards  the  north,  opposite  the  ruins  of 
the  City  of  the  Desert  (Pharan).  In  the  blooming  valley  of 
Feiran  the  mountain  is  hidden  by  the  high  rocky  walls.  The 
Wady  Aleyat  cm'ves  round  at  a  short  distance  from  the  moun- 
tain, and  a  precipitous  cleft,  with  blocks  of  stone  heaped  up  in 
wild  confusion,  leads  up  between  the  rocky  cliffs.  But  the  writer 
of  the  Bible  history  represents  the  scene  as  so  present  to  the 
view  of  all,  that  the  revelation  of  God  was  made  '■  in  the  sight  of 
all  the  people'  (Ex.  xix.  11),  and  Moses  went  up  and  down 
again  several  times  before  their  eyes  (chap.  xix.).  Moreover, 
the  mountain  must  have  risen  abruptly  from  the  plain,  for  it 
Avas  ordered  to  be  fenced  round  (xix.  12).  But  the  ravine  just 
mentioned  (the  Wady  Aleyat)  is  the  only  approach  to  the  Serbal, 
and  it  is  not  vdthout  the  greatest  difficulty  that  any  one  can 
reach  the  mountain  itself ;  if,  then,  this  road  was  guarded  by  the 
elders,  what  necessity  could  there  be  for  a  hedge  ? " 

Another  argument  is  based  upon  Ex.  iii.,  and  is  sufficient  of 
itself  to  decide  the  question.  We  read  there,  that  Moses  kept 
the  sheep  of  Jethro,  the  priest  in  Midian,  and  led  them  behind 


GEOGRAPHICAL  SURVEY.  95 

the  desert  to  the  mountain  of  God  in  Horeb,  Now  Wady 
Feiran  and  the  Serbal  were  in  the  territory  of  the  Amalekites  ; 
but  the  Jebel  Musa  was  in  the  eastern  half  of  the  peninsula, 
within  the  territory  of  the  MitUanites.  And,  as  Dieterici  says, 
even  if  Moses  had  attempted  to  di'ive  his  flock  into  the  country 
of  the  Amalekites,  they  would  certainly  have  prevented  him. 
If  the  Amalekites  guarded  this  treasure  of  theirs  (the  Wady 
Feiran)  with  so  much  jealousy  as  to  attack  the  Israelites  when 
they  passed  through,  they  are  not  likely  to  have  sviffered  the 
flocks  of  foreigners  to  come  and  feed  there  at  pleasure.  "  We 
must  assume,  therefore,  if  we  decide  impartially,  that  this  Horeb 
was  in  the  territory  of  the  ^lidianites.  These  two  tribes  appear 
to  have  been  both  well  organised,  and  to  have  lived  side  by  side 
in  the  peninsula.  Now  there  were  two  large  mountain-ranges 
in  the  peninsula,  the  Serbal  and  the  Sinai.  In  both  of  these  water 
was  to  be  found ;  and  either  of  them  answered  admirably,  as  the 
head-quarters  of  a  pastoral  tribe," — K.  Rltterwas  also  acquainted 
with  this  argument,  and  laid  great  stress  upon  it  (Evang.  Ka- 
lender  1852,  p.  52). 

Lepsius  cannot  possibly  conceive  how  Moses  could  pass  by 
the  majestic  Serbal,  which  was  visible  from  so  great  a  distance 
and  commanded  the  whole  country  like  a  lofty  watch-tower,  and 
go  into  a  corner  of  the  desert,  enclosed  on  all  sides,  to  a  moun- 
tain which  was  not  visible  in  any  direction,  was  almost  entirely 
unknown,  and  by  no  means  remarkable  for  its  shape,  its  positioii, 
or  any  other  pecidiarity.  Robinson  and  Ritter,  on  the  contrary, 
regard  the  concealed  position  of  this  corner  of  the  desert,  and 
the  fact  that  the  mountain  is  completely  enclosed,  as  furnishing 
another  argument  in  favour  of  the  opposite  view.  Robinson 
(i.  176)  describes  it  as  an  adytum  in  the  midst  of  the  gTeat  cir- 
cular granite  region,  with  only  a  single  feasible  entrance, — a 
secret  holy  place  shut  in  from  the  world  by  barren,  solitary  moun- 
tains. Ritter  writes  to  the  same  effect  (xiv.  742).  He  calls 
the  Jebel  Musa  "  the  adytum  of  the  more  central  and  better 
protected  group  of  Sinai;"  and  employs  this  expression,  without 
doubt,  to  indicate  that,  in  his  opinion,  this  mountain  was  selected 
for  the  giving  of  the  law,  because  it  was  the  most  secret  sanc- 
tuary in  the  peninsula.  Just  because  Jehovah  desired  to  speak 
to  Israel  in  secret,  because  He  wished  to  be  alone  with  Israel, 
that  He  might  conclude  tlie  marriac;e  covenant  with  the  nation. 


96  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

He  led  tliem  into  the  most  central  and  secret  adytum  in  the 
desert. 

(4.)  After  the  southern  peak  of  the  Sinaitic  range  had  passed, 
for  more  than  a  thousand  years,  as  the  scene  of  the  promulgation 
of  the  law,  RoBiNSON  pronounced  this  assumption  an  impossi- 
bility, after  a  personal  examination  of  the  various  localities,  and 
transferred  the  grand  event  to  the  northern  peak  of  the  same 
range,  the  Ras  es-Sufsafeh.  His  arguments  appeared  so  forcible, 
that  nearly  every  commentator  embraced  his  opinion ;  but,  latterly, 
still  further  discoveries  have  been  made  in  the  locality  of  Sinai, 
which  have  caused  many  to  alter  their  views  again. — Robinson  s 
argument  was  twofold,  negative  and  positive :  showing,  first,  the 
incompatibihty  of  the  Biblical  data  with  the  position  of  the  Jebel 
Musa ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  demonstrating  the  perfect  har- 
mony between  these  data  and  the  situation  of  the  Ras  es-Sufsafeh. 
The  former  we  shall  have  to  examine  in  the  next  note :  at  jjre- 
sent,  therefore,  we  shall  confine  ourselves  to  the  latter.— Being 
thoroughly  dissatisfied  with  his  ascent  of  the  Jebel  Musa,  Robin- 
son proceeded  to  climb  the  northern  peak.  "  The  extreme  diffi- 
culty," he  writes,  "  and  even  danger  of  the  ascent,  was  well 
rewarded  by  the  prospect  that  now  opened  before  us.  The  whole 
plain  er-Eahah  lay  spread  out  beneath  our  feet,  with  the  adjacent 
wadys  and  momitains ;  while  Wady  esh-Sheikh,  on  the  right,  and 
the  recess  on  the  left,  both  connected  with  and  opening  broadly 
from  er-Eahah,  presented  an  area  which  served  nearly  to  double 
that  of  the  plain.  Our  conviction  was  strengthened,  that  here, 
or  on  some  one  of  the  adjacent  cliffs,  was  the  spot  where  the 
Lord  descended  in  fire  and  proclaimed  the  law.  Here  lay  the 
plain  where  the  whole  congregation  might  be  assembled ;  here 
was  the  mount  that  could  be  approached  and  touched  if  not  for- 
bidden ;  and  here  the  moiuitain-brow,  where  alone  the  lightnings 
and  thick  cloud  could  be  visible,  and  the  thunders  and  the  voice 
of  the  trumpet  be  heard,  when  the  Lord  came  down  on  Sinai" 
(i.  157,  158).  We  shall  presently  show,  that  all  these  points  of 
agreement  with  the  Biblical  text  are  to  be  found  even  more 
completely  in  the  Jebel  Musa ;  whilst,  on  the  other  hand,  there 
are  two  points  in  the  description  of  the  Eas  es-Sufsafeh  and  its 
A-icinity  which  are  not  in  harmony  with  the  Biblical  data.  Robin- 
son himself  has  pictured  the  difficulty  of  ascent  in  glowing  colours  : 
"  We  first  attempted  to  climb  the  side  in  a  dii'ect  course ;  but 


GEOGRAPHICAL  SURVEY.  97 

found  the  rock  so  smooth  and  precipitous,  that  after  some  falls 
and  more  exposures,  we  were  obliged  to  give  it  up,  and  clamber 
upwards  along  a  steep  ravine  by  a  more  northern  and  circuitous 
route.  From  the  head  of  this  ravine  we  were  able  to  climb 
around  the  face  of  the  northern  precipice,  and  reach  the  top, 
along  the  deep  hollows  worn  in  the  granite  by  the  weather  diu'- 
ing  the  lapse  of  ages"  (voL  i.  p.  157). 

Lepsius  (Brief e,  p.  327)  and  Dieterici  (ii.  46)  climbed  this 
peak,  and  both  agree  with  Robinson  as  to  the  danger  and  diffi- 
culty of  the  midertaking.  "This  alone,"  says  Lepsius  with 
perfect  justice,  "  would  have  prevented  me  from  coming  to  the 
conclusion  that  Moses  had  even  stood  upon  one  of  these  rocks, 
which  are  visible  from  the  valley."  And  this  argument  has 
double  force,  when  we  consider  that  on  more  than  one  occasion 
Moses  went  up  and  down  the  Mount  of  God  several  times  on  the 
same  day. 

Moreover,  we  read  in  the  scriptiu'al  record,  that  "Moses 
brought  forth  the  people  out  of  the  cam,p>  to  meet  with  God,  and 
they  came  to  the  foot  of  the  mountain^''  (Ex.  xix.  17)  ;  and  when 
the  people  saw  the  terrors  of  the  majesty  of  God,  which  were 
displayed  before  their  eyes,  "they  fled  and  stood  afar  off"  (Ex. 
XX.  18),  evidently  that  they  might  not  see  and  hear  what  they 
were  quite  unable  to  bear.  But  how  does  this  tally  with  Kas 
es-Suf saf eh  and  the  plain  at  the  foot  ?  If  the  camp  was  in  the 
plain  of  er-Rahah,  that  is,  close  to  the  foot  of  the  mountain, 
what  necessity  was  there  for  JSIoses  to  lead  the  people  out  of  the 
camp  to  the  foot  of  the  mountain  ?  And  whither  could  the  people 
flee,  so  as  to  avoid  seeing  and  hearing  what  had  caused  them  so 
much  alarm  %  There  was  no  spot  in  the  whole  of  the  plain  of 
er-Rahah,  or  the  adjoining  portion  of  the  great  Wady  es-Sheikli, 
from  which  the  Eas  es-Sufsafeh  would  not  be  distinctly  seen. 

Dieterici  also  came  back  from  the  Jebel  Musa  discontented, 
and  climbed  the  Ras  es-Sufsafeh  in  the  hope  of  finding  a  spot 
better  adapted  for  the  giving  of  the  law;  and  in  this  hope  he  was 
not  disappointed.  "  The  broad  plain  of  er-llahah  lay  before  us," 
he  says,  "in  which  were  a  number  of  black  Arab  camel-hair 
tents,  that  reminded  us  of  the  camp  of  the  Israelites.  The  pre- 
cipitous abiaiptness,  with  which  this  rock  rises  almost  jierpen- 
dicularly  from  the  plain,  led  us  to  subscribe  to  liohinson  s  con- 
jecture, that  this  might  be  the  mountain  on  which  Moses  stood 

VOL.  III.  G 


98  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

transfigured  before  tlie  people."  Still,  the  second  objection 
suggested  by  us  appears  to  have  excited  some  scruples  in  his 
mind.  At  any  rate,  he  tries  to  evade  it  by  a  peculiar  combina- 
tion of  the  two  opinions  :  "  As  E,as  es-Suf saf eh  and  Jebel  Musa 
are  actually  two  peaks  of  Mount  Horeb,  we  might  imagine  one 
of  them  (the  more  northerly)  to  have  been  the  point  at  which 
Moses  was  visible  to  the  people,  and  the  other  (the  Jebel  Musa) 
the  place  where  he  was  hidden  from  the  people  in  the  stillness 
of  secrecy  with  God.  We  can  then  imagine  the  scene  exactly. 
The  Jewish  camp  was  in  the  Wady  er-Rahah  ;  the  elders  stood 
in  the  Wady  Shueib,  where  the  monasteiy  has  since  been  built, 
or  in  the  western  opening  (Wady  el-Leja)  ;  on  the  Jebel  Musa 
Moses  was  separated  from  all  the  world ;  and  on  the  Ras  es- 
Suf  saf  eh  he  was  still  present  to  the  eyes  of  all."  But  Robinson's 
hypothesis  gains  nothing  from  this  modification.  Wliich  was 
the  peak  upon  which  the  Lord  came  down  in  the  fire  ?  The 
Ras  es-Sufsafeh  1  In  that  case  both  of  our  objections  remain 
in  full  force.  The  Jebel  Musa  ?  Then  Robinson's  difficulties, 
wdiicli  Dieterici  shares,  are  not  removed.  But,  beside  this,  the 
notion  of  there  being  two  mountains  of  God,  upon  the  one  of 
which  everything  was  visible,  whilst  upon  the  other  all  was  hidden 
from  view,  is  altogether  arbitrary  and  unfounded,  and  thoroughly 
irreconcilable  with  the  Biblical  account. 

(5.)  We  come,  lastly,  to  the  opinion  which  has  generally 
prevailed  from  the  very  earliest  times,  though  Lahorde  was  the 
first  to  test  it  by  an  examination  of  the  locality  itself,  and  which 
has  been  thoroughly  and  conclusively  expounded  by  F.  A. 
Strauss  and  Krafft,  and  warmly  commended  by  Ritter.  To 
this  opinion  we  at  once  acknowledge  our  adhesion. 

Robinson  (i.  153)  says,  w4th  reference  to  his  ascent  of  the 
Jebel  Musa :  "  My  first  and  predominant  feeling,  while  upon  this 
siunmit,  was  that  of  disappointment.  Although,  from  our  exami- 
nation of  the  plain  of  er-Rahah  below,  and  its  correspondence  to 
the  scriptural  narrative,  we  had  arrived  at  the  general  convic- 
tion that  the  people  of  Israel  must  have  been  collected  in  it  to 
receive  the  law  ;  yet  we  still  had  cherished  a  lingering  hope  or 
feeling  that  there  might,  after  all,  be  some  foundation  for  the 
lonff  series  of  monkish  traditions,  which  for  at  least  fifteen  cen- 
turies  has  pointed  out  the  summit  on  which  we  now  stood,  as  the 
spot  where  the  ten  commandments  were  so  awfully  proclaimed. 


GEOGEAPHICAL  SURVEY.  99 

But  scriptural  narrative  and  monldsli  tradition  are  very  different 
things.  In  the  present  case,  there  is  not  the  slightest  reason  for 
supposing  that  Moses  had  anything  to  do  witli  the  summit  which 
now  hears  his  name.  It  is  three  miles  distant  from  the  plain  on 
which  the  Israelites  must  have  stood,  and  hidden  from  it  by  the 
intervening  peaks  of  the  modern  Iloreb.  No  part  of  the  plain 
is  visible  from  the  summit ;  nor  are  the  bottoms  of  the  adjacent 
valleys  ;  nor  is  any  spot  to  be  seen  around  it,  where  the  people 
could  have  been  assembled.  The  only  point  in  which  it  is  not 
immediately  surrounded  by  high  mountains  is  towards  the  S.E., 
where  it  sinks  down  precipitously  to  a  tract  of  naked  gravelly 
hills.  Here,  just  at  its  foot,  is  the  head  of  a  small  valley,  Wady 
es-Sebaiyeh,  running  towards  the  N.E.  beyond  the  Mount  of 
the  Cross  into  Wady  esh-Sheikh,  and  of  another  not  larger, 
called  el-Warah,  running  S.E.  to  the  Wady  Nusb  of  the  Gvilf 
of  Akabah  ;  but  both  of  these  together  hardly  afford  a  tenth 
part  of  the  space  contained  in  er-E,ahah  and  Wady  esh-Sheikh." 
Dieterici  writes  to  the  same  effect :  "  The  view  from  this  point 
is  exhilarating,  though  the  first  feeling  is  one  of  disappointment. 
We  look  in  vain  for  any  large  valley  in  which  the  numerous  host 
would  have  pitched  their  tents  ;  for  the  valley  of  the  Jews 
(?  probably  the  plain  of  es-Sebayeh,  §  7,  4),  which  lies  below, 
shut  in  by  mountains,  is  evidently  by  no  means  sufficient.  Nor 
does  the  mountain  itself  appear  to  be  so  detached  from  the 
others,  that  it  could  easily  have  been  touched." 

Let  us  turn,  however,  to  what  Hitter  says  (xiv.  589,  590)  : 
"  Further  examination  leads  to  a  totally  different  conclusion.  It 
is  not  a  fact,  that  the  only  large  plain,  adapted  for  the  encamp- 
ment of  a  tribe,  lies  hy  the  northern  cliff  of  the  Horeb;  but  there 
is  an  equally  large  one  immediately  adjoining  the  southern  cliff 
of  the  Sinai,  from  which  there  is  a  direct  road  to  the  Wady 
Sheikh,  through  the  broad,  capacious  Wady  Sebayeh  ;  and  from 
this  large,  soutlicrn  flain  of  Sehayeh  (§  7,  4),  the  peak  of  the 
lofty  Sinai  of  tradition,  which  rises  like  a  pyramid  to  the  north, 
would  be  just  as  visible  to  a  whole  tribe  as  the  Sufsafeh,  which 
is  supported  by  no  ancient  tradition  whatever."  On  a  closer 
acquaintance  with  this  plain,  every  difficulty  vanishes  in  the 
clearest  and  most  satisfactory  manner.  It  meets  the  recjuire- 
nients  of  the  case,  as  described  in  the  Bible,  even  to  the  most 
minute  details :  "  For  it  is  large  cnouoh  to  contain  an  immense 


100  ISEAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

crowd  of  people ;  it  lies  close  at  the  foot  of  Sinai,  wliicli  rises 
in  front  of  it  and  towers  above  it  like  a  great  monolithic 
granite  wall  to  the  height  of  2000  feet :  and  the  buildings  at 
the  top — the  mosqne,  the  Christian  chapel,  and  even  the  stone  of 
Moses — are  clearly  discernible  by  any  one  looking  up  from  be- 
low. There  is  not  a  single  spot  in  the  whole  peninsula  in  which 
the  topographical  data  (given  in  the  Bible)  can  all  be  found 
united  more  perfectly  than  they  are  here."  This  is  Hitter  s 
opinion. — Tischendorf  (i.  232)  says:  "This  wady  (this  plain) 
of  Sebayeh  has  been  regarded,  and  not  without  reason,  as  the 
spot  on  which  the  children  of  Israel  were  encamped  during  the 
Mosaic  legislation.  It  is  of  considerable  extent,  and  looks  as  if 
it  had  been  made  for  some  such  festival  as  this.  It  also  enables 
us  to  understand  the  expression  employed  by  Moses,  '  Whoever 
touches  the  mountain.'  In  the  Wady  Sebayeh  the  momitain 
may  literally  be  touched;  for  it  rises  so  precipitously,  that  it 
stands  before  your  eyes  a  distinct  object  from  the  foot  to  the 
summit,  evidently  detached  from  everything  around.  The  same 
remark  applies  to  the  words,  '  And  the  people  came  up  to  the 
foot  of  the  mountain.'  It  is  very  rarely  possible  to  see  the 
summit  of  a  momitain,  and  yet  stand  so  near  to  the  foot  as  you 
can  here."  At  the  same  time  Tischendorf  discovers  difficulties, 
which  make  it  almost  more  advisable  to  adhere  to  Robinson's 
views  :  first,  because  there  is  not  a  good  road  direct  to  the  sum- 
mit from  the  plain  of  Sebayeh ;  again,  because  the  way  by 
which  the  Israelites  must  have  gone  from  the  Sheikh  valley  to 
the  foot  of  the  momitain  would  be  "too  narrow  and  difficult ;" 
and,  lastly,  because  the  words,  "  Moses  led  the  people  out  of  the 
camp  to  meet  God,  and  they  came  to  the  foot  of  the  mountain, 
seem  to  imply  that  there  was  a  considerable  distance  between 
the  mountain  and  the  camp."  But  there  is  no  ground  for  the 
assumptions,  from  which  these  difficulties  arise.  The  plain  of 
Sebayeh  was  not  the  place  in  which  the  people  encamped,  and  also 
that  in  which  thei/  loent  out  of  the  camp  to  the  foot  of  the  moun- 
tain to  receive  the  law.  It  only  answered  the  latter  purpose. 
The  head-quarters  of  the  encampment  were,  "odthout  doubt,  in 
the  plain  of  er-Rahah  and  the  Wady  es-Sheikh.  From  this 
spot  Moses  conducted  the  people  out  of  the  camp,  through  the 
broad  thoiigh  short  Wady  es-Sebayeh,  into  the  plain  of  es- 
Sebayeh,  to  the  foot  of  the  Jebel  Musa,  to  meet  with  God ;  a  dis- 


GEOGRAPHICAL  SURVEY.  101 

tance  wliicli  the  Englisliinen  who  accompanied  Strauss  and 
Kraft  were  able  to  accomplish,  with  fast  walking,  in  three  quar- 
ters of  an  hour.  The  people  were  collected  together  in  this 
broad  plain,  Avhich  surrounds  the  steep  rocky  cliff  of  the  Jebel 
Musa  like  an  amphitheatre.  On  account  of  the  precijDitous 
character  of  the  mountain,  even  the  front  ranks  could  see  every- 
thing that  passed  at  the  top  of  the  mountain  ;  and  as  the  plain 
itself  rises  gradually  towards  the  south,  and  therefore  every  row 
stood  on  somewhat  higher  ground  than  the  one  before  it,  there 
was  nothing  to  prevent  the  hindermost  ranks  from  seeing  clearly 
the  summit  of  the  mountain.  Moreover,  as  the  mountains 
which  bound  the  plain  on  the  south  are  neither  steep  nor  lofty, 
a  considerable  nmnber  of  people  could  take  their  stand  upon  the 
mountains,  if  there  was  not  sufficient  room  in  the  plain.  Wlien 
the  people,  overpowered  by  the  sublime  spectacle  attendant  upon 
the  giving  of  the  law,  were  seized  with  a  panic  and  rushed  away 
from  the  spot,  they  ran  through  the  Wady  Sebayeh,  and  hurried 
back  to  their  tents  in  the  valleys  and  openings  of  Sheikh  and 
Rahah,  from  which  they  were  no  longer  able  to  see  wdiat  was 
taking  place  on  the  Jebel  Musa,  as  the  steep  cliff  of  Ras  es-Suf- 
safeh  stood  between. — If  the  question  be  asked,  By  what  road 
did  Moses  ascend  the  momitain  ?  the  most  natm-al  assumption 
is,  that  he  ascended  from  the  plain  of  Sebayeh,  crossing  the 
Hutberg  (which  connects  the  Jebel  Musa  with  the  Jebel  ed- 
Deir  in  the  form  of  a  saddle) ;  in  which  case  his  ascent 
would  be  "witnessed  by  no  stranger's  eye,  and  concealed  from 
all  below."  Subsequently,  hoAvever,  when  starting  from  the 
camp  in  the  valley  of  Kahah,  he  will  probably  have  gone 
through  one  of  the  ravines  which  intersect  the  range  (vol.  ii.  §  42, 
3),  either  Wady  Leja  or  Wady  Shoeib  (probably  the  latter, 
which  is  still  the  more  usual  route  for  ascending  the  momitain). 
The  seventy  elders,  whom  Moses  took  with  him,  after  the  con- 
clusion of  the  covenant,  within  the  boundary  of  the  sacred 
mountain,  that  they  might  see  God  (Ex.  xxiv.  10)  and  partake 
of  the  covenant-meal  (ver.  11),  and  whom  he  left  behind  him 
(ver.  14)  when  he  went  up  to  the  top  of  the  mountain,  were 
probably  stationed  in  the  Wady  Shoeib  at  the  foot  of  the  Hut- 
bei-g,  or  they  may  possibly  have  accompanied  Moses  to  the  top 
of  the  main  body  of  the  mountain-range,  and  remained  standing 
there  while  he  went  up  the  highest  peak. 


102  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

In  Hitter  s  opinion  (xiv,  591),  if  we  look  upon  the  plain 
of  Sebayeh  as  the  spot  from  which  the  giving  of  the  law 
was  witnessed,  we  need  only  assume  that  it  was  not  the  whole 
of  the  people  who  were  led  there  to  meet  with  God,  but 
only  a  very  large  portion  of  them.  For  "the  whole  people, 
even  though  they  had  only  numbered  hundreds  of  thousands, 
could  not  possibly  have  passed  in  one  day  through  such  narrow 
valleys  as  all  the  wadys  of  the  Sinaitic  group,  even  the  broadest, 
are ;  and  this  they  must  have  done  before  they  could  reach  the 
mountain."  The  same  assumption,  however,  would  be  quite  as 
necessary  if  we  removed  the  scene  to  the  plain  of  Eahah.  And 
he  does  not  consider  that  this  presents  any  difficulty ;  for  very 
frequently  (e.g.,  chap.  xix.  7-9)  the  elders,  who  were  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  whole  people,  are  actually  spoken  of  as  though 
they  were  themselves  "  all  the  people."  Still,  although  such  a 
limitation  is  certainly  admissible,  in  our  opinion  it  is  by  no 
means  necessary.  As  a  matter  of  course,  the  old  men,  the 
women,  and  the  children,  would  not  be  there.  Hence  there 
would  not  be  more  than  600,000  men  present  (Ex.  xii.  37)  ;  and 
we  do  not  see  that  it  would  be  impossible  for  this  number  to  pass 
through  the  Wady  es-Sebayeh,  which  is  A^ery  short  and  from 
two  to  fom"  hundred  paces  broad,  into  the  plain  of  es-Sebayeh, 
and  back  again  to  the  camp  in  the  course  of  a  day. 

We  conclude  with  an  extract  from  Graul.  He  says  (ii. 
260)  :  "I  am  not  the  man  to  take  up  the  cause  of  monastic 
traditions,  and  least  of  all  those  of  Sinai,  which  rest  as  traditions 
upon  very  feeble  foundations.  But  I  cannot,  and  do  not  wish 
to  conceal  the  fact,  that  of  all  the  spots  in  the  peninsula  which 
I  have  visited,  not  one  has  seemed  to  me  to  harmonise  so  com- 
pletely with  the  Biblical  account  of  the  gi^ang  of  the  law,  as  the 
Jebel  ]Musa  and  its  neio;hbourhood.  At  the  same  time,  I  must 
candidly  confess  that  I  visited  the  Jebel  Musa  with  a  decided 
prejudice  in  favour  of  the  hypothesis  of  Lepsius." 

PREPARATIONS  FOR  GIVING  THE  LAW  AND  CONCLUDING 
THE  COVENANT. 

§  9.  (Ex.  xix.  3-15). — Wlien  the  procession  had  reached  the 
desert  of  Sinai,  and  the  tents  had  been  pitched  there,  Moses 
went  up  the  mountain  to  God.    Probably  the  pillar  of  cloud  and 


PKEPARATIONS  FOR  GIVING  THE  LAW.  103 

fire  (vol.  ii.  §  36,  3)  may  have  rested  on  the  mountain,  to  show 
that  tliat  woukl  now  be  the  dwelling-place  of  God  for  a  con- 
siderable time,  and  that  He  would  continue  there  in  the  midst  of 
His  people,  who  were  encamped  in  an  amphitheatrical  form  on 
the  north  of  the  mountain.  At  the  same  time,  the  cloud  was 
hidden  from  the  view  of  the  people,  by  the  rocky  cliff  of  the 
Ras  es-Sufsafeh  which  stood  between.  From  the  period  of  His 
call  (Ex.  iii.  12),  Moses  had  known  that  the  people  were  to  serve 
God  on  this  momitain.  He  went  up  the  mountain,  therefore, 
to  ascertain  in  what  manner  this  was  to  be  done.  The  answer 
which  he  received  was  the  following :  "  Ye  have  seen  lohat  1 
did  unto  the  Egyptians,  and  hoio  I  hare  you  on  eagles  wings,  and 
brought  you  unto  Myself.  Noio,  therefore,  if  ye  will  obey  My 
voice  indeed,  and  keep  My  covenant,  then  ye  shall  he  a  peculiar 
treasure  unto  Me  above  all  p>eople;  for  all  the  earth  is  Mine:  and 
ye  shall  he  unto  Me  a  kingdom  of  priests,  and  a  holy  nation." 
These  were  the  preliminaries  of  the  covenant  (1), — a  promise  and 
a  demand  on  the  part  of  God,  to  which  the  people  were  required 
to  respond  with  cheerful  faith  and  obedience.  Moses  came 
down  the  mountain  with  this  message,  and  delivered  it  to  the 
elders,  who  at  once  announced  their  readiness  to  enter  into  the 
covenant  on  these  terms.  As  the  covenant  was  to  be  concluded 
through  the  medium  of  Moses,  it  was  necessaiy  that  he  should 
receive  special  credentials  in  the  sight  of  the  people;  and  for  this 
purpose,  God  promised  to  come  down  to  him  in  a  visible  manner, 
and  converse  with  him  before  all  the  people.  Moreover,  as  the 
mountain  was  set  apart  as  the  Holy  of  Holies  in  which  God  was 
about  to  reveal  Himself,  it  was  requisite  that  it  should  be  conse- 
crated, that  is,  separated  and  distinguished  from  the  hills  round 
about.  This  was  done  by  placing  a  hedge  around  it ;  and  as  it 
was  now  no  longer  a  similar  mountain  to  the  rest,  but  a 
mountain  of  Divine  manifestation,  it  had  become  an  unap- 
proachable sanctuary,  that  might  not  be  touched  by  either  man 
or  beast  (2).  Moreover,  as  the  people  were  to  ch'aw  near  to 
Jehovah  to  receive  the  law,  the  groundwork  of  the  covenant, 
they  also  must  sanctify  themselves  and  make  ready  for  the  third 


104  ISRAEL  IX  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

day  (3)  ;  for  on  the  third  day  Jehovah  would  come  down  upon 
Mount  Sinai  before  the  eyes  of  all  the  people,  to  use  it  as  His 
throne  from  which  to  proclaim  the  law. 

(1.)  The  first  message  which  Moses  had  to  bring  to  the 
people  from  the  sacred  mountain,  contained  the  preliminaries 
OF  THE  C0"V^isrANT.  It  laid  before  them,  for  their  acceptance, 
a  general  outline  of  the  nature,  conditions,  and  design  of  the 
covenant  which  was  now  about  to  be  concluded.  On  the  basis 
of  this  covenant  a  pohtico-religious  commonwealth  was  to  be 
formed,  which  should  include  both  Israel  and  its  God,  and  the 
distinctive  characteristic  of  which  Josephus  (c.  Ap.  2,  16)  first 
appropriately  designated  the  theocracy,  or  rule  of  God. 
Referring,  by  way  of  contrast,  to  the  various  constitutions  of 
other  states,  he  says  :  o  he  r)/jLeT€po<;  vofioderrj^;  et?  fiev  tovtcov 
ovBoTiovv  aireihev,  o)?  S  av  rt?  eliroi  ^iacrdfievo<i  top  Xojov,  6eo- 
Kpanav  airehet^e  ro  7rok[rev[ia,  Oeo)  rrjv  ap-yrjv  koX  to  KpdTO<i 
dvadei'i.  A^Hiat  the  theocracy  actually  involved,  can  only  be 
learned  from  the  legislation  itself,  in  which  its  nature  was  fully 
unfolded  in  the  most  minute  details.  At  present,  we  have  only 
to  seek  to  understand  the  fundamental  idea,  which  was  first 
expressed  in  a  general  form  in  the  prehminaries  of  the  covenant. 

The  first  prerequisite,  the  conditio  sine  qua  nan,  of  the  esta- 
blishment of  the  theocracy,  was  the  deliverance  of  the  people 
from  Eg}^t.  As  the  Redeemer  of  Israel,  Jehovah  claimed  to  be 
the  King  of  Israel.  Hitherto  He  had  served  for  the  sake  of 
Israel,  and  had  thus  earned  the  right  to  govern  it ; — He  had 
sued  for  Israel,  as  for  a  bride ;  as  a  Bridegi'oom,  He  had 
attested  His  love  and  fidelity  to  the  bride  (§  1),  and  therefore 
He  now  claimed  to  enter  upon  the  rights  and  supremacy  of  a 
Husband.  As  a  Father,  He  had  begotten  Israel  for  His  first- 
bom,  and  now  He  asserted  his  paternal  rights,  and  demanded  filial 
obedience  and  love.  As  the  Creator  and  Governor  of  the  world, 
He  was  the  Lord  and  King  of  ever>^  nation ;  but  He  did  not 
base  His  kingly  relation  to  Israel  upon  this  foundation.  He 
founded  it  rather  upon  what  He  had  done  especially  for  Israel : 
it  was  not  as  Elohim,  but  as  Jehovah,  that  He  desired  to  reign 
over  Israel.  Moral  freedom  and  necessity  were  united  in  the 
establishment  of  this  covenant,  for,  as  the  son  of  Jehovah,  Israel 
was  bound  to  obev  ;    but  Jehovah  had  made  Israel  a  bride 


PEEPARATIONS  FOR  GIVING  THE  LAW.  105 

merely  as  the  result  of  its  own  free  choice  and  consent.  As 
Elohini,  He  was  a  King  over  Israel,  as  He  is  over  every  nation, 
by  virtue  of  unconditional  necessity  ;  as  Jehovah,  He  was  King 
over  Israel  in  consequence  of  the  free  conciuTence  of  the  people, 
and  in  a  sense  in  which  no  other  nation  could  claim  Him  as 
King. 

For  this  reason  the  preliminaries  of  the  covenant  connnenced 
with  a  reference  to  the  deliverance  from  Egypt.  "  Ye  have  seen 
tvhat  I  did  unto  the  Egt/ptiana,  and  hoiv  I  bare  you  on  eagles 
wings,  and  brought  you  unto  Myself ^  He  had  rescued  from  the 
house  of  bondage  the  bride,  whom  He  had  chosen  by  His  free 
grace,  and  He  had  carried  her  home  to  His  own  home  on  the 
eajrles'  winss  of  love.  He  gave  before  He  demanded  ;  He  gave 
proofs  of  His  love,  before  He  asked  for  obedience ;  He  gave 
Himself  to  Israel,  before  He  required  Israel  to  give  itself  to 
Him.  Now  came  the  demand;  but  even  here  it  was  not  without 
a  promise :  "  Now,  therefore,  if  ye  ivill  obey  My  voice  indeed, 
and  keep  My  covenant,  then  ye  shall  be  a  pecidiar  treasure  unto 
Me  above  all  people,"  etc.  What  commandments  His  voice 
w^ould  give,  what  duties  His  covenant  would  impose  upon  the 
people,  could  not  be  fully  explained  in  these  brief  preliminaries. 
But  the  essence  and  intention  of  the  covenant  were  made  known, 
and  the  duties  of  the  covenant  were  affected  and  determined  by 
these.  Moreover,  the  guidance  afforded  thus  far  by  Jehovah, 
constituted  a  title  to  unconditional  confidence.  At  present, 
how^ever.  He  merely  required  a  provisional  assent.  It  was  not 
till  His  will  had  been  fully  explained  in  the  giving  of  the  law, 
that  the  people  made  a  solemn  declaration,  and  gave  a  distinct 
and  definite  pledge  (Ex.  xxiv.  3). 

The  first  position  assigned  to  Israel  by  the  covenant  of 
Jehovah  was  this :  "  Ye  shall  be  My  property  out  of  (before)  all 
nations,  for  the  ivhole  earth  is  Mine^  All  the  nations  of  the  earth 
are  God's  property, — they  are  so  by  virtue  of  their  creation. 
Israel,  however,  was  to  be  so,  not  by  virtue  of  creation  only,  but 
by  virtue  of  redemption  also.  God  created  the  nations  ;  but,  in 
addition  to  this.  He  begat  Israel  as  His  son  ;  He  wooed  Israel 
as  his  bride  ;  He  purchased  Israel,  wdien  it  was  in  foreign 
slavery,  to  be  in  a  far  higher  sense  His  own  property.  Hence 
this  possession  was  of  double  worth  to  the  Possessor;  and  tlie 
nation  Avas  under  double  obligation  to  show  affection  and  attach- 


106  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

ment  to  its  Lord.  "  The  tvhole  earth  is  Mine:"  this  fact,  which 
was  the  groundwork  of  their  consciousness  of  God,  was  to  be 
kept  perpetually  present  before  the  minds  of  the  people  of  the 
covenant.  On  the  consciousness  that  Jehovah  was  the  God  of 
all  gods,  and  the  King  of  all  kings,  was  built  the  consciousness 
of  the  peculiar  relation  in  which  they  stood  to  Him  as  a  nation. 
Nothing  can  be  more  unwarrantable,  therefore,  than  to  assume 
that  the  Israelites  regarded  Jehovah  as  merely  a  national  Deity  ; 
for  they  knew  that,  as  the  Creator,  theh*  God  was  the  God  of  all 
nations ;  but  they  also  knew  that,  as  their  Eedeemer,  He  stood  in 
a  peculiar  relation  to  them  (Dent.  iv.  7).  The  notion  of  national 
deities  involves  the  idea  of  co-ordination.  As  the  nations  are 
co-ordinate  one  with  another,  so  are  also  the  national  deities. 
Their  power  is  measured  accorchng  to  the  power  and  strength, 
which  they  are  supposed  to  confer  upon  the  people  who  serve 
them.  Hence  the  gods  of  one  nation  may  appear  to  be  stronger 
than  those  of  another ;  the  deity  of  one  nation  may  be  regarded 
by  a  heathen  as  having  gained  a  victory  over  that  of  another  ; 
but,  originally  and  essentially,  they  are  supposed  to  be  equal. 
With  the  God  of  the  Israelites  it  was  altogether  different.  The 
idea  which  they  entertained  of  their  Deity  did  not  even  permit 
a  comparison  with  the  gods  of  the  heathen  ;  and  these  gods  were 
not  only  not  co-ordinate  and  equal  to  the  God  of  Israel,  they 
were  not  even  beings  of  simply  inferior  power.  On  the  con- 
trary, in  distinction  from  Him,  they  were  pm-e  QyV.i^,  i.e., 
nothings  (vol.  ii.  §  23,  1). — It  is  a  most  reprehensible  frivolity, 
therefore,  on  the  part  of  Stdhelin  (Krit.  Unters.  uher  d.  Penta- 
teuch, p.  19),  and  v.  Lengerke  (i.  460),  who  copies  him  word  for 
word,  to  take  this  passage,  which  is  expressly  designed  to  guard 
against  the  notion  of  a  national  god,  and  make  it  teach  this 
very  notion,  as  they  do  when  they  say  that  "Moses  ascended 
the  mountain,  and  Jehovah  commissioned  him  to  ask  the  people 
whether  they  would  acknowledge  Him,  under  certain  circmn- 
stances,  as  their  national  God." 

"  And  ye  shall  be  to  Me  a  kingdom  of  priests  (^''^il'^  ^^r.P^)? 
and  a  holy  people : "  in  these  terms  they  received  again  a 
message  and  a  promise.  There  was  to  be  a  kingdom  founded 
by  the  covenant.  But  a  kingdom  must  have  a  Jchig,  and,  as  a 
matter  of  com'se,  this  king  could  be  no  other  than  Jehovah  ;  for, 
if  the  members  of  a  kingdom  are  priests,  the  ruler  must  be  God; 


PREPAEATIONS  FOR  GIVING  THE  LAW.  107 

and  if  the  subjects  in  this  kingdom  were  the  property  of  Jehovah 
above  all  nations — His  property  in  a  sense  in  wliich  no  others  are 
— the  sovereignty  of  .Jehovah  over  Israel  must  also  have  been 
luiique.  Moreover,  as  Jehovah  Himself  desired  to  be  King  over 
Israel,  not  merely  on  the  ground  on  which  He  ruled  over  every 
other  nation,  viz.,  because  the  whole  earth  was  His,  but  for  a 
reason  altogether  peculiar  to  itself,  viz.,  because  He  had  redeemed, 
won,  and  earned  it  as  His  own  special  property;  His  intention 
to  be  Israel's  King  could  only  be  understood  as  meaning,  that  in 
the  case  of  Israel  He  woidd  raise  and  consolidate  His  universal 
rule  into  one  of  a  special  natm^e;  that  in  His  own  person  He 
would  undertake  the  duties  and  claim  the  privileges  of  sover- 
eignty, which  He  left  in  other  cases  to  earthly,  human  kings.  In 
a  word,  Jehovah  was  about  to  stoop  to  be  not  merely  heavenly, 
l)ut  earthly  King  over  Israel.  So  far  as  Israel  was  a  nation,  an 
earthly  political  commonwealth.  He  did  not  refuse  to  place 
Himself  in  the  list  of  earthly  kings.  As  such.  He  undertook  the 
obligations,  and  laid  claim  to  the  rights  of  a  king.  Among  these 
Avere,  in  home  affairs,  the  giving  and  administration  of  the  law ; 
and  in  foreign  affairs,  the  determination  of  peace  and  war. 
Hitherto  He  had  given  to  the  people  a  visible  sign  and  pledge 
of  Plis  presence  as  then'  guide,  by  sending  the  Angel,  who  \^'as 
His  personal  representative  (Ex.  xxxiii.  14,  15),  and  in  whom 
Avas  His  name  (Ex.  xxiii.  20,  21),  to  go  before  them  in  the  pillar 
of  cloud  and  fire  (vol.  ii.  §  36,  3).  This  was  done  because  He 
desired  to  conclude  a  covenant  with  Israel.  By  the  conclusion 
of  the  covenant  itself,  this  sign  of  His  presence  was  still  more 
firmly  united  to  the  congregation  of  Israel.  But  whereas 
hitherto  He  had  only  spoken  to  the  people  by  Closes,  though 
always  present  Himself,  henceforth  He  would  make  use  of 
other  human  agents  for  announcing  and  executing  His  will. 
Various  theocratical  oflSces  would  be  associated  with  the  new 
organisation  of  the  covenant  constitution ;  and  through  these, 
tlie  different  theocratical  functions  would  be  discharged.  Before 
and  during  the  process  of  organisation,  these  functions  had  all 
been  imited  in  Moses  ;  but  as  soon  as  the  organisation  was 
complete,  they  were  to  be  distributed  and  arranged  as  present 
or  future  circumstances  might  require  (they  included  priests, 
elders,  judges,  kings,  prophets,  etc.). 

But  Jehovah  was  not  the  less  Israel's  God,  because  He  became 


108  ISEAEL  IN  THE  DESEET  OF  SINAI. 

Israel's  King.  The  peculiarity  of  the  new  relation  was  just  this, 
that  He  was  God  and  King  in  one  person  ;  in  other  words,  was 
God-King.  And  as  divinity  and  royalty  were  thus  combined  in 
the  Head  of  the  new  commonwealth  (their  God  manifesting  Him- 
self and  acting  as  then-  King,  and  their  King  as  their  God),  all 
His  commandments  bore  this  twofold  character :  the  religious 
commandments  were  also  political,  and  the  political  at  the  same 
time  religious.  The  breach  of  a  religious  commandment  was 
also  a  civil  crime;  and  the  violation  of  a  civil  and  political  insti- 
tution was  treated  at  once  as  sin.  The  moral,  civil,  and  cere- 
monial laws  were  not  in  any  way  subordinated  the  one  to  the 
other,  but  were  in  all  respects  equal ;  and  whenever  they  were 
broken,  they  all  required,  according  to  the  heinousness  of  the 
offence,  in  precisely  the  same  way,  religious  expiation  and  civil 
punishment.  A  faithful  subject  was  therefore,  eo  ipso,  a  pious 
child  of  God,  and  vice  versa.  And  this  did  not  apply  to  the 
commands  alone ;  but  the  gifts  and  promises  of  this  God  and 
King  partook  of  the  same  twofold  character.  What  He  pro- 
mised as  God,  He  performed  as  King ;  and  what  He  did  as  King, 
subserved  His  Divine  purposes,  viz.,  the  accomplishment  of  His 
eternal  plan  of  salvation. 

This  was  still  more  clearly  indicated  by  the  f  m'ther  announce- 
ment, that  the  kingdom  about  to  be  established  in  Israel  was  to 
be  a  "  kingdom  of  priests."  A  priest  is  a  mediator  between  God 
and  man :  hence  the  idea  of  a  priest  implies  the  existence  of  a 
God  who  allows  of  mediation,  and  of  men  who  need  it.  But 
the  whole  nation  of  Israel  consisted  of  none  but  priests.  The 
nation,  as  such,  was  to  sustain  the  character  and  discharge  the 
obligations  of  a  priest ;  and  therefore  it  is  evident  that  the  men 
in  need  of  mediation,  those  who  required  this  priesthood,  were 
not  to  be  found  in  Israel  itself,  but  outside  its  limits, — in  other 
words,  that  the  priestly  vocation  of  Israel  had  reference  to  other 
(i.  e.,  heathen)  nations.  Wliat  the  priest  in  a  particular  nation 
is  to  the  individuals  composing  the  nation,  that  was  Israel  as  a 
people  to  be  to  the  sum-total  of  the  tribes  composing  the  great 
(Elohistic)  kingdom  of  God  in  this  terrestrial  Avorld.  It  is  the 
province  of  the  priest  to  receive  and  preserve  the  revelations, 
promises,  and  gifts  of  God,  of  which  the  nation  stands  in  need, 
to  make  them  known  to  the  people,  and  transmit  them  to  futm'e 
generations.     And  thus  was  it  Israel's  vocation,  as  a  priestly 


PREPAEATIONS  FOR  GIVING  THE  LAW.  109 

nation,  to  communicate  to  every  other  nation  the  revelations 
which  it  received  from  God.  Hence  the  promise  of  a  covenant 
with  the  nation  leads  us  back  to  the  promise  formerly  made  of  a 
covenant  with  the  family  ("  In  thee  and  in  thy  seed  shall  all  the 
nations  of  the  earth  be  blessed,"  see  vol.  i.  §  51,  4) ;  and  it  be- 
comes apparent  that  the  covenant  at  Sinai  was  precisely  the  same 
as  that  which  had  formerly  been  concluded  at  Mamre.  The  one 
was  merely  a  renewal  of  the  other — a  transference  to  the  nation, 
which  had  sprung  from  the  family,  of  the  promise  and  call 
which  the  family  itself  had  already  received.  The  individuality 
and  exclusiveness  which  characterised  the  former  covenant,  w  ere 
equally  manifest  in  the  latter,  for  out  of  all  nations  Israel  was 
the  property  of  Jehovah ;  but  the  fact  that  the  covenant  was 
destined  for  the  most  unlimited  universaHsm,  appeared  in  the 
latter  also,  bright  and  clear,  as  the  pole-star  of  the  future.  Here 
also  was  the  truth  exhibited  and  confirmed — that  Israel  was  merely 
the  Jirst-born,  not  the  only  child  of  Jehovah  ;  that  the  other 
nations,  as  younger  members  of  the  family  of  Jehovah,  were  to 
be  made  partakers  of  the  same  sonship  which  Israel  was  the  first 
to  receive,  but  w^hich  it  received  as  the  pledge  of  the  future 
adoption  of  the  other  nations  of  the  earth  (vol.  ii.  §  21,  1)  ;  "  for 
the  whole  earth  is  Mine,"  saith  the  Lord. 

Lastly,  Israel  was  to  be  "  a  holy  nation^  The  primary 
notion  of  holiness  is  that  of  separation ;  but  the  merely  negative 
idea  of  separation  is  not  complete  without  the  addition  of  the 
positive  side,  that  of  separation  to,  as  well  as  from.  According 
to  the  idea  of  holiness,  God  is  the  source  of  all  holiness  :  He  is 
revealed  as  the  only  Holy  One.  This  fact  detennines  what  holiness 
is,  both  on  its  negative  and  positive  sides.  It  is  a  loosening  and 
sei)aration  from  everything  that  is  opposed  to  God,  estranged 
from  God,  everything  god-less ;  it  is  also  dedication  to  God  and 
His  purposes,  an  entrance  into  His  saving  plans,  the  return  of  a 
godless  creature  to  fellowship  with  God,  the  reception  of  those 
saving  influences  from  God  Himself,  by  which  a  man  becomes 
holy  again,  or  in  other  words,  conformed  to  God,  and  well-pleasing 
in  His  sight.  This  state  of  holiness  was  demanded  of  the  people 
of  the  theocracy :  "  Be  ye  holy,  for  I  Jehovah,  your  God,  am 
holy"  (Lev.  xix.  2).  But  in  the  passage  before  vis,  where  w^e 
first  meet  with  this  demand,  it  appeared  in  the  form  of  a  promise, 
to  testify  that  the  sanctification  of  the  people  could  only  take 


110  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

place,  and  at  the  same  time  assuredly  would  take  place,  as  the 
result  of  the  covenant  of  God  with  Israel,  by  \-irtue  of  the 
covenant  acts  of  God,  to  which  He  bound  Himself  when  the 
covenant  was  concluded.  Hence,  as  the  nation  was  to  become 
a  holy  nation  under  the  theocracy,  the  latter  was  also  a  reme- 
dial institution  :^  in  fact,  this  was  its  actual  kernel,  its  centre  and 
soul ;  for  all  the  preHminaries  of  the  covenant  culminated  in  the 
promise,  "  Ye  shall  be  a  holy  nation  unto  Me."  Eveiy  other 
piu'pose  was  subservient  to  this  one  ;  every  other  institution 
(political  and  magisterial)  subserved  the  purposes  of  salvation, 
which  they  were  merely  intended  to  protect  and  define.  The 
kingly  office  of  the  God-King  was  merely  a  foil  to  His  saving 
work;  the  theocratical  state-institutions  were  merely  the  outer 
form  in  which  the  Church  was  for  the  time  enclosed  ;  and  the 
position  of  subjects,  assigned  to  the  people  of  the  theocracy,  was 
merely  the  setting  which  enclosed  its  higher  position  as  a  nation 
of  worshippers  of  God. 

Israel  was  a  priestly  nation ;  but  a  priesthood,  the  essence 
and  office  of  which  is  mediation,  can  only  continue  so  long  as 
mediation  is  necessary ;  and  therefore  the  priesthood  of  Israel 
only  lasted  till  its  task  of  conveying  to  heathen  nations  the  reve- 
lations of  God  had  been  fully  accomplished.  After  this  the 
Israelites  had  no  essential  superiority,  either  in  rights  or  duties. 
From  this  it  is  evident  that  the  /orw  of  the  theocracy,  in  which 
the  Sinaitic  covenant  was  embodied,  was  not  an  end,  but  merely 
a  means  to  an  end, — that  it  was  not  permanent  and  eternal,  but 
changeable  and  temj)orary.  There  are  other  considerations  which 
lead  to  the  same  result.  If  God  became  a  King,  that  as  a  King 
He  might  accomplish  His  divine  purposes,  viz.,  the  plan  of  sal- 
vation, it  followed  that  He  would  cease  to  be  a  King,  in  this  sense, 
as  soon  as  His  pm-poses  of  salvation  had  been  realized. 

But  it  was  merely  the  form  of  the  theocracy  which  was 
changeable  and  temj)oraiy.  Its  essence,  like  the  pru'poses  of  sal- 
vation from  which  it  had  sprung,  was  imperishable :  it  existed 

^  There  is  a  play  upon  the  word  here,  wliich  cannot  be  rendered  into 
English.  A  Heihanstalt  is,  strictly  speaking,  an  infirmary  or  hospital. 
The  theocracy,  says  Kurtz,  was  a  Heils-anstalt  (an  institution  for  making 
men  zvhole),  because  its  purpose  was  to  make  men  heil-ig,  holy.  In  German 
the  words  Hell,  soundness,  salvation,  Heiland,  Saviour,  keilen,  to  heal,  and 
heilig,  holy,  are  aU  formed  from  the  one  root  Heil.  — Tr. 


PREPARATIONS  FOR  GIVING  THE  LAW.  Ill 

before  the  establishment  of  the  ancient  covenant,  and  continued 
to  exist  when  the  design  of  the  covenant  had  been  fully  accom- 
plished. The  kingdom  of  God  on  earth  then  passed  beyond  the 
national  limits,  within  which  the  wisdom  of  God  had  confined  it 
during  the  time  of  the  ancient  covenant;  the  sphere  of  the 
operations  of  Jeliovali  henceforth  embraced  all  nations,  and  was 
co-extensive  with  that  of  the  operations  of  Elohim.  Jehovah 
was  still  a  King,  as  He  had  been  before ;  but  His  kingdom  was 
no  longer  a  national  one,  and  His  government  no  longer  political 
and  magisterial.  For  the  political  affairs  of  a  state  arise  out  of 
its  separation  from  other  states,  and  its  connection  with  or  oppo- 
sition to  them ;  but  in  the  new  Di\ane  state,  in  the  kingdom  of 
God  under  the  New  Testament,  all  distinction,  separation,  and 
opposition  between  tribes  and  nations  have  been  abolished, — 
"  there  is  neither  Jew  nor  Greek,  but  all  are  one  in  Christ." 
In  the  same  way  are  the  magisterial  f mictions  {lit.  the  police 
administration)  of  the  Divine  government  entrusted  (or  rather, 
like  the  political,  they  natm*ally  fall  again)  to  the  very  same 
authorities  to  which  they  had  been  entrusted  from  the  beginning, 
under  the  universal  government  of  Elohim.  But  the  real,  eter- 
nal, imperishable  kernel  of  the  theocracy,  the  personal  interpo- 
sition on  the  part  of  God  to  carry  out  His  plans  of  salvation,  His 
personal  activity  in  connection  with  human  affairs.  His  incor- 
poration in  the  creature,  have  not  come  to  an  end,  but,  on  the 
contrary,  have  now  received  then'  complete  and  highest  f  idfilment. 
(2.)  "  Make  a  pence  around  the  mountain,  and  sanctify 
it"  (ver.  23).  Hofmann  (Schriftbeweis  i.  79)  says,  that  ^'3Jn 
denotes  a  separation  from  what  is  without,  K'^ip  the  setting  apart 
of  that  which  is  within.  I  cannot  agTee  with  this.  The  vav  is 
not  disjunctive,  but  explanatory.  It  does  not  shoAv  that  a  second 
thing  Avas  to  be  done  in  addition  to  the  fencing,  namely, 
sanctifying ;  but  the  adchtional  clause,  "  and  sanctif}-  it,"  shows 
what  was  the  design  of  the  fencing,  what  it  really  signified.  If 
the  tnp  had  been  different  from  the  ^3Jn,  an  explanation  would 
necessarily  have  been  given  of  the  manner  in  which  it  was  to  be 
performed.  By  the  fencing,  the  mountain  was  separated  and 
distinguished  from  all  the  other  mountains  romid  about ;  and,  by 
the  separation  itself,  was  set  apart  for  other — ^that  is  to  say,  for 
Divine  purposes.  The  fence  arouiid  the  sacred  mountain  was 
also  a  fence  around  the  miholy  people  (ver.  12)  ;  for  it  warned 


112  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OE  SINAI. 

them  against  presumptuously  touching  the  mountain,  and  guarded 
them  from  doing  so  accidentally  (unintentionally).  The  latter 
was  rendered  impossible  by  the  fence,  and  therefore  the  former 
could  all  the  more  justly  be  threatened  with  the  punishment  of 
death.  The  reason  of  the  infliction  of  such  a  punishment  was, 
that  a  presumptuous  approach  or  ascent  of  the  mountain,  on 
which  the  hohness  of  God  was  about  to  be  manifested,  would 
have  indicated  a  thorough  contempt  of  the  conditions  which 
were  indispensable  to  the  conclusion  of  the  covenant.  If  the 
Holy  One  was  to  make  a  covenant  with  those  who  were  unholy, 
the  latter  must  first  make  themselves  holy  (ver.  10)  ;  if,  however, 
the  latter  should  attempt  to  climb  the  mountain,  i.  e.,  to  draw 
near  to  God,  without  a  previous  sanctification,  or  before  their 
sanctification  was  complete,  this  would  be  equivalent  to  a  declara- 
tion that  the  conditions  were  unnecessary,  either  because  they 
themselves  were  holy,  or  because  God  was  unholy. 

It  is  very  difficult  to  give  a  more  particular  explanation  of 
the  prohibition  in  question. — In  ver.  12  we  read :  "  Take  heed 
to  yourselves  that  ye  go  not  up  into  the  mount  pniini^y),  or 
touch  the  border  of  it ;"  but  in  ver.  13,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is 
said,  that  "  when  the  horn  is  sounded  thei/  are  to  ascend  the 
mount"  (in3  vV^  '^^[})-  Hence  that  which  was  prohibited  to 
the  people  for  the  time  being,  was  permitted,  or  rather  com- 
manded, for  a  subsequent  period,  when  the  signal  should  be  given 
by  the  sound  of  the  horn.  But  this  again  appears  to  be  con- 
trachcted  by  what  follows.  For,  according  to  ver.  16,  "  it  came 
to  pass  on  the  thu'd  day,  that  there  were  thunders  and  lightnings, 
and  the  voice  of  the  trumpet  exceeding  loud;"  whereupon  Moses 
led  the  people  out  of  the  camp  to  the  foot  of  the  mountain  to 
meet  with  God.  Wliilst  the  sound  of  the  trumpet  continued  to 
grow  louder  and  louder,  Moses  ascended  to  the  top  of  the  moun- 
tain, but  was  obliged  to  come  do^vn  again,  to  charge  the  people 
once  more  not  to  break  through  (the  fence)  to  Jehovah  to  gaze 
(ver.  21,  24) ;  so  that  what  seemed  to  be  permitted,  and  even 
commanded  in  ver.  13,  appears  in  this  verse  to  be  strictly  and 
unconditionally  forbidden. 

Various  attempts  have  been  made  to  solve  the  difficulty. 
0.  V.  Gerlach  refers  the  nan  (they),  in  ver.  13,  not  to  the  people, 
but  to  the  elders,  mentioned  in  ver.  7 ;  and  supposes  that  dm'ing 
the  promulgation  of  the  law  they  were  allowed  to  pass  beyond 


PREPARATIONS  FOR  GIVING  THE  LAAV.  113 

tlie  fence,  just  as  we  find  in  chap.  xxiv.  9,  10,  that  after  the 
covenant  was  conckided,  they  passed  beyond  the  fence  to  look  at 
God.  But  tliis  solution  is  not  only  inadmissible,  on  account  of 
the  intolerable  harshness  of  referring  the  pronoun  "  they^^  to  the 
elders,  who  had  been  mentioned  a  long  time  before,  and  in  a 
totally  different  connection,  but  it  is  also  at  variance  with  ver. 
24,  wliere  the  warning,  "  Let  not  the  priests  and  the  people  break 
tlu'ough  to  come  up  to  Jehovah,"  is  repeated  immediately  before 
the  giving  of  the  law.  What  is  here  forbidden  to  the  priests 
was  certainly  forbidden  to  the  elders  also ;  or,  at  any  rate,  the 
expression,  "  the  priests  and  people,"  which  embraced  the 
whole  nation,  must  assru'edly  have  included  the  elders  as  well. — 
Baumgarten  (i.  1,  p.  522),  on  the  other  hand,  interprets  "in3  riipy, 
in  ver.  13,  as  denoting  merely  the  approach  of  the  people  to  the 
fence  itself.  But  if  the  expression  in  ver.  13  denotes  an  apj)roach 
to  the  fence,  it  must  have  the  same  meaning  in  ver.  12,  where 
the  woixls  are  precisely  the  same ;  and  it  is  an  unjustifiable  act 
of  capriciousness  on  the  part  of  Luther  to  render  it  "  auf  den 
Berg  steigen"  (go  up  the  mountain)  in  ver.  12,  and  "  art  den 
Berg  gehen"  (go  up  to  the  mountain)  in  ver.  13.  It  is  impera- 
tively required  by  a  correct  exegesis,  that  the  whole  passage 
should  be  interpreted  as  prohibiting  the  "ina  lyhv  until  the  horn 
icas  sounded,  and  then  commanding  it. — The  Septuagint  adopts 
a  different  method.  The  thii'teenth  verse  (inn  ?,^j;>  n^n  b^n  -ib'Jpli) 
is  translated,  or  rather  paraphrased,  as  follows  :  "Orav  al  (ficoval 
KoX  al  aa\,7nyye<i  koX  i)  ve^ekTj  airikOr)  airo  tov  opovi,  di'a^7]crov- 
rac  ivrl  to  6po<;.  By  taking  the  sounding  of  the  horn  to  mean 
the  time  when  it  left  off  sounding,  the  difiiculty  undoubtedly 
vanishes.  But  is  such  a  rendering  of  TjC'?^  warrantable  ?  The 
Vulgate  gives  the  very  opposite  meaning :  cum  ccvperit  clangere 
buccina,  etc. 

As  the  whole  of  the  lOtli  chapter  was  certainly  the  produc- 
tion of  the  same  author,  and  there  are  no  various  readings  to  be 
met  with,  criticism  cannot  render  any  assistance  in  getting  rid  of 
the  difticidty.  Moreover,  as  it  is  not  conceivable  that  the  author 
should  have  written  such  contradictions  as  ver.  12  and  13  appear 
to  contain,  when  compared  with  ver.  16, 19,  and  21,  the  expositor 
need  not  despair  of  finding  a  solution.  According  to  the  law 
of  exegesis,  we  hold  it  as  a  priori  indisputable,  that  "ina  nry 
must  mean  precisely  the  same  in  ver.  12  as  it  does  in  ver.  13; 
VOL.  III.  H 


114  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

and  therefore,  that  what  had  been  previously  forbidden  was 
allowed,  or  rather  commanded,  when  the  trumpet  gave  the  signal 
(73*n  tjb'pzi).  It  is  also  quite  as  indisputably  evident  (from  Josh,  vi.) 
that  the  trumpet  ("i^^^)  in  ver.  16  and  19  was  exactly  the  same 
instrument  as  the  horn  in  ver.  13.  With  these  premises,  it 
appears  to  us  that  there  are  only  two  ways  open  in  which  the 
apparent  discrepancy  can  be  solved,  viz.,  either  by  assuming 
that,  notwithstanding  the  identity  of  the  instruments  refen*ed  to, 
the  sounding  of  the  horn  in  ver.  13  was  different  from  the  voice 
of  the  trumpet  in  ver.  16  and  19  ; — or  else,  by  supposing  that  the 
ascent  of  the  mountain  in  ver.  12,  13  was  altogether  different 
from  the  "  breaking  through  to  Jehovah,"  in  ver.  21  and  24. 

The  former  of  these  could  only  be  established  in  some  such 
way  as  this  :  the  term  ordinarily  employed  to  denote  the  blowing  of 
the  horn  is  V\>n  (Josh.  vi.  4,  8,  9,  13, 16,  20),  and  "^^^  only  occm's 
twice  (Ex.  xix.  13  and  Josh.  vi.  5).  But  are  the  two  perfectly 
identical  1  We  feel  obliged  to  differ  from  Gesenius  and  others, 
and  answer  this  question  in  the  negative,  ypn  means  to  strike, 
to  thrust;  Tjti'O  to  draiv.  The  apphcation  of  these  two  different 
expressions  to  the  blast  of  a  trumpet,  leads  to  the  conclusion 
that  each  refers  to  some  particular  kind  of  blast :  the  former 
denoting  a  short,  sharp,  crashing  sound ;  the  latter  a  blast,  sus- 
tained and  lono;  di'awn  out.  This  difference  we  believe  to  be 
indicated  here  ;  for  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  tone  of  the 
VpT\  is  referred  to  in  ver.  16  and  19,  where  the  voice  of  the  trumpet 
is  associated  with  the  thunder  and  lightning.  Hence  the 
^Tn  ■qti'O  in  ver.  13  does  not  mean  "  when  the  blowing  ceases," 
as  the  Septuagint  renders  it,  nor  "  at  the  commencement  of  the 
blowing,"  as  the  Vulgate  has  it,  but  denotes  a  peculiar  long-drawn 
note ;  and  Luther,  therefore,  has  hit  upon  the  coiTect  interpre- 
tation, when  he  translates  the  clause  in  ver.  13,  "  but  when  the 
blowing  continues  long."  The  meaning  of  the  announcement  in 
ver.  13  would  in  that  case  be  the  following :  the  people  were 
forbidden  to  ascend  the  mountain,  until  the  long-drawn  blast  of 
the  trumpet  gave  the  signal  that  they  were  now  at  liberty  to 
ascend  it  and  draw  near  to  Jehovah.  This  could  not  occur,  as 
ver.  21  and  24  clearly  show,  either  before  or  during  the  promul- 
gation of  the  law,  and  must  therefore  have  followed  the  giving 
of  the  law.  This  is  confirmed  by  chap.  xx.  18  (15),  where  we 
are  told  that  thunder,  lightning,  and   the   sound  of  trumpets 


PREPAEATIONS  FOR  GIVING  THE  LAW.  115 

(which  must  certamly  have  been  silent  during  the  utterance  of 
the  ten  commandments)  concluded  the  promulgation  of  the  law, 
just  as  they  had  previously  introduced  it  (chap.  xix.  16).  The 
time  had  now  arrived  wdien,  according  to  the  announcement  in 
chap.  xix.  13,  the  people  ought  to  have  ascended  the  mountain ; 
that  isj  if  the  evolution  of  the  drama  had  taken  place  according 
to  the  original  design.  But  this  had  not  been  the  case :  the 
Divine  plan  laid  down  in  chap.  xix.  13  had  not  been  followed. 
The  people  endured  the  introductory  phenomena;  they  even 
stood  their  groiuid  diu-ing  the  utterance  of  the  ten  "  words."  But 
the  majestic  voice  of  Jehovah,  in  which  He  proclaimed  the  fun- 
damental principles  of  that  holiness  \vhich  He  demanded  of  the 
nation,  made  so  powerful  and  alarming  an  impression  upon  the 
people,  who  had  ah'eady  been  made  conscious  of  their  unho- 
liness,  that  when  the  giving  of  the  law  was  ended,  and  they 
heard  the  thunder,  and  lightning,  and  the  sound  of  the  trmn- 
pets,  they  lost  all  their  courage,  and  coiild  stand  it  no  longer ; 
and,  instead  of  waiting  for  the  promised  signal,  and  then  ascend- 
ing the  mountain  to  Jehovah,  as  Moses  had  arranged,  they  were 
overpowered  by  fear  and  anxiety,  and  ran  from  the  spot,  crying 
out  to  Moses  (chap.  xx.  19)  :  "  Speak  thou  with  us,  and  we  will 
hear ;  but  let  not  God  speak  with  us,  lest  we  die." 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  this  solution  has  the  appearance  of 
being  somewhat  forced;  still,  I  should  be  sorry  to  reject  it 
summarily  on  that  account.  If  it  is  inconceivable,  that  the 
writer  should  have  set  down  two  things  so  contradictory  in  such 
close  connection ;  the  appearance  of  contradiction  must  arise 
from  some  looseness  in  the  terms  employed,  which  has  caused 
them  to  be  misunderstood,  and  in  such  cases  there  is  almost  sure 
to  be  something  apparently  forced  in  any  solution  that  may  be 
suggested.  The  second  solution,  which  has  been  mentioned  as 
also  a  possible  one,  has  the  same  appearance  of  being  forced ; 
but  I  am  inclined  to  give  it  the  preference.  In  this  case,  the 
difficulty  is  removed  by  miderstanding  the  "breaking  through  to 
Jehovah,"  in  ver.  21  and  24,  in  a  different  sense  from  the  T\S7V 
inn  (going  up  to  the  mount)  in  ver.  12  and  13.  I  do  not  think 
this  impossible.  The  foi'mer  (the  brealdng  through)  evidently 
refers  to  the  fence  placed  around  the  mountain,  and  denotes  a 
forcible  attempt  to  break  through  or  climb  over  the  fence.  But 
the  latter  may  be  interpreted  as  meaning  merely  an  ascent  from 


116  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESEET  OF  SINAI. 

the  camp,  which  stood  upon  the  low  ground,  to  the  foot  of  the 
"mountain,  which  was  on  a  higher  leveL  In  this  case,  the  meaning 
of  the  announcement  in  ver.  13  and  14  w^ould  be  the  follomng  : 
The  IsraeKtes  were  not  even  to  approach  the  mountain  (the 
foot  of  the  mountain)  during  the  three  days  of  preparation.  As 
soon  as  the  signal  was  given  by  the  trumpet-blast  from  the 
mountain,  they  were  to  go  up  to  the  foot ;  but  even  then 
they  were  not  to  break  through  the  fence  (ver.  21).  This 
is  in  harmony  with  the  epexegesis  in  ver.  12  :  "  Take  heed  that 
ye  do  not  go  up  to  the  mount  and  touch  the  extremity  of  it."  It 
is  also  in  harmony  with  what  actually  took  place;  for,  when  the 
trumpet  sounded,  Moses  brought  forth  the  people  out  of  the 
camp  to  meet  with  God,  and  they  came  to  the  foot  of  the 
mountain  (ver.  17), — for  "  touching  the  extremity  of  the  moun- 
tain," and  "coming  to  the  foot  of  the  mountain,"  may  very 
well  be  taken  as  identical  expressions.  This  rendering  of  nh]} 
"inn  is  justified  by  the  well-known  usage  of  the  language,  in 
which  n!?y  is  the  standing  expression  for  going  to  any  place  that 
stood  upon  a  higher  level.  It  is  also  confirmed  by  the  fact,  that 
the  phrase  ordinarily  employed  to  denote  the  ascent  of  a  moun- 
tain is  "ini|i  p^  npy  or  "in  -'V,  or  still  more  precisely  inn  ti'si  ?x  (see 
Ex.  xix.'20,"  23,  xxiv.  13,  15,  16,  18;  Num.  xiiiii.  37J  38; 
Deut.  xxxii.  49),  and  by  the  meaning  of  "ins  itself,  which  is  usually 
employed  in  other  cases  to  denote,  generally :  "  by  the  movm- 
tain"  (Ex.  iv.  27;  Num.  xxviii.  6  ;  Deut.  i.  6),  or  "  among  the 
mountains  "  (Gen.  xxxi.  23,  25,  54),  or  "  in  the  neighboiu'hood 
of  the  mountain  "  (Ex  xxxiv.  3 ;  "inn  733  all  round  the  moun- 
tain). 

3.  The  SANCTiFiCATiON,  by  which  the  people  were  to 
prepare  themselves  during  three  days  for  receiving  the  law, 
consisted  chiefly  of  two  things — washing  their  clothes  (ver.  10), 
and  abstaining  from  their  wives  (ver.  15).  Sommer  pronounces 
the  latter  imhistorical  (bibl.  Abhandl.  Bonn  1846,  p.  226  sqq.). 
He  thinks  that  he  has  proved  that  Lev.  xv.  18  does  not  relate  to 
conjugal  connection ;  and  (to  use  his  own  words)  that  "  the 
opinion  which  so  generally  prevailed  in  ancient  times,  of  the 
un cleanness  of  conjugal  connection,"  was  not  adopted  in  the 
Mosaic  law,  but  found  admission  among  the  Jews  at  a  much 
later  period.  Plis  reasons  are  certainly  plausible,  but  we  have 
not  been  convinced  by  them.      However,  we  must  defer  our 


PROMULGATION  OF  THE  FUNDAMENTAL  LAW.      117 

exposure  of  the  fallacy  of  his  argument  till  we  come  to  our  own 
systematic  account  of  the  Mosaic  legislation.  We  shall  also  find 
a  more  fitting  opportunity  for  the  examination  of  the  meaning 
and  design  of  these  forms  of  purification,  when  Ave  come  to  that 
section  of  the  laAv  which  treats  of  the  subject  in  question. 


PROMULGATION  OF  THE  FUNDAMENTAL  LAW. 

§  10.  (Ex.  xix.  16-xxiii.  33;  Deut.  v.)— On  the  third  day 
after  the  announcement  of  the  preliminaries  of  the  covenant 
(probably  the  fiftieth  after  the  departure  from  Egypt,  §  4,  5), 
thunder  and  lightning  biu'st  forth  ;  a  loud  blast  of  trumpets  was 
heard,  and  the  mountain  was  covered  with  a  black,  hea\y  cloud. 
The  people  were  greatly  alarmed,  and  Moses  led  them  out  of 
the  camp  to  the  foot  of  the  mountain  to  meet  with  God  (§  8,  5). 
The  whole  of  the  mountain  of  Sinai  smoked,  and  shook  to  its 
very  foundations  ;  for  Jehovah  had  come  down  upon  it  in  fire  (1). 
Moses  ascended  the  mountain,  but  was  ordered  to  come  down 
again,  and  repeat  the  warning  to  the  people  not  to  break  through 
the  fence.  Whilst  he  was  below  among  the  people,  Jehovah  (2) 
Himself  addressed  the  assembled  congregation,  face  to  face, 
from  out  of  the  midst  of  the  fire  and  darkness,  and  proclaimed 
with  a  loud  voice  the  ten  fundamental  "  words "  of  the  law  of 
the  covenant  (3).  All  the  people  hoard  the  voice  of  God,  and 
the  moimtain  burned  with  fire  (Deut.  iv.  33,  v.  4,  22).  Upon 
this  the  people  fled  in  the  greatest  terror ;  and  the  heads  of  the 
tribes  and  elders  came  to  ]\Ioses,  and  said  (Deut.  v.  23)  :  "  Speak 
thou  to  us,  and  we  will  hearken  ;  but  let  not  God  speak  to  us, 
lest  we  die."  Thus  the  people  abandoned  the  privilege  of  a 
priesthood,  of  coming  directly  into  the  presence  of  God,  and 
holding  immediate  communion  with  Him.  In  the  conscious- 
ness of  their  unholiness,  they  felt  that  they  were  not  yet  fitted 
to  enter  upon  the  priestly  office  in  its  fullest  extent,  and  that 
tliey  were  still  in  need  of  a  mediator  to  conduct  their  intercourse 
M'itli  God.  The  nation  retained  its  priestly  vocation,  but  the 
full  realisation  of  it  was  postponed  to  a  very  remote  futm'e  on 


118  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

account  of  this  change  of  affairs.  This  was  necessarily  the  case, 
and  it  was  intended  that  it  should  be  so.  The  designs  of  God 
in  connection  with  the  covenant  pointed  to  this  from  the  very 
first;  but  the  people  themselves  were  to  learn  by  experience, 
that  for  a  time  it  could  not  be  otherwise.  Jehovah  therefore 
approved  of  the  people's  words  (Deut.  v.  28)  ;  and  Moses  was 
solemnly  aj)pointed  by  hotli  parties,  and  recognised  henceforth 
as  the  mediator  of  the  covenant.  In  this  capacity  he  now 
ascended  the  mountain  a  second  time  (with  Aaron,  Ex.  xix.  24) 
to  receive  Jehovah's  further  commands.  The  ten  words,  which 
the  people  themselves  had  heard  from  the  mouth  of  God,  had 
laid  the  fomidation  of  all  futm'e  legislation. 

(1.)  The  design  of  those  terrific  phenomena  of  nature,  which 
introduced  and  accompanied  the  promulgation  of  the  law,  is 
pointed  out  in  chap.  xx.  20.  Moses  addi'esses  the  people  thus  : 
"  Fear  not ;  for  God  is  come  to  tempt  you,  and  that  His  fear  may 
he  before  your  eyes,  that  ye  sin  not."  The  whole  path  of  the 
Israelites,  from  their  departure  out  of  Egypt  to  the  present  hour, 
had  been  one  series  of  temptations,  intended  to  bring  the  people 
to  a  knowledge  of  themselves  and  of  their  God,  and  to  estabhsh 
the  normal  relation  between  the  two.  Amidst  the  temptations 
of  the  desert,  the  natural  obdui-acy  and  unholiness  of  the  people 
unfolded  itself  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  faithfulness  and  mercy, 
the  power  and  glory  of  Jehovah,  were  revealed  upon  the  other. 
The  previous  temptations  had  served  to  reveal  the  ungrateful 
and  unbelieving  disposition  of  the  people,  and  to  put  it  to  shame 
by  attesting  the  mercy  and  faithfulness  of  Jehovah.  The  Avords 
of  Moses,  "  Where  is  there  a  nation  to  whom  God  is  so  near,  as 
Jehovah  our  God  when  we  call  upon  Him?"  (Deut.  iv.  7),  were 
confirmed  on  every  hand.  The  Redeemer  from  the  Egyjjtian 
house  of  bondage  showed  Himself  also  as  the  Deliverer  from  all 
the  straits  and  necessities  of  the  desert.  But  Jehovah  intended 
to  be  not  merely  the  Redeemer,  but  also  the  Lawgiver  of  Israel. 
As  the  Redeemer  of  the  people.  He  had  shown  them  His  faith- 
fulness and  mercy.  His  patience  and  long-suffering  ;  and  now  it 
was  requisite  that  as  theu'  Lawgiver  He  should  make  known  to 
them  the  whole  majesty  of  His  glorj^,  and  the  fearful  severity  of 
His  holiness.     Israel  was  also  to  be  tempted,  that  it  might  not 


PROMULGATION  OF  THE  FUNDAMENTAL  LAW.     119 

place  so  false  a  confidence  in  the  goodness  and  mercy  of  God,  as 
to  attribute  them  to  its  own  worthiness,  and  thus  forget  His 
holiness  and  majesty.  The  Israelites  again  were  tempted,  that  it 
might  be  seen  whether  they  could  stand  before  the  majesty  of 
God.  They  were  to  learn  by  experience  that  they  could  not  do 
this ;  that  however  near  Jehovali  might  draw  to  them,  they  were 
not  in  a  concUtion  to  di*aw  near  to  Jehovah,  but  still  needed  a 
mediator  to  act  on  their  behalf.  In  the  terrors  of  Sinai  there  was 
a  representation  of  the  terrors,  which  the  holiness  of  God  always 
lias  to  an  unholy  man  ;  in  other  words,  of  the  terrors  of  the  law 
towards  the  sinner  by  whom  it  has  been  transgressed.  But  even 
in  the  midst  of  the  terrors  of  Sinai  there  was  a  manifestation  of 
mercy  as  well ;  for  the  fire  of  holiness  did  not  appear  uncovered, 
but  hidden  in  a  thick,  black  cloud ;  and  even  unholy  Israel  learned 
that  day,  "  that  God  may  talk  with  man,  and  man  remain  alive  " 
(Dent.  V.  24). 

(2.)  The  manifestation  of  God  at  Sinai  was  made  through 
the  same  representative  of  God  who  had  formerly  spoken  to 
Moses  out  of  the  burning  bush  (Ex.  iii.  2  sqq.),  and  who  had 
hitherto  conducted  Israel  in  the  pillar  of  cloud  and  fire  (Ex.  xiii. 
21  scjcp).  It  was  the  majesty  of  God  Himself  which  came  down 
upon  Sinai  in  the  fire ;  but  the  majesty  of  the  invisible  God 
was  brought  within  the  cognisance  of  the  senses  in  the  Angel 
who  represented  Him.  It  was  the  voice  of  God  and  the  com- 
mandment of  God  which  entered  the  ears  of  the  people ;  but  the 
voice  came  from  the  mouth  of  the  Angel,  in  whom  was  Jehovah's 
name  (Ex.  xxiii.  20,  21).  We  refer  the  reader  to  our  remarks 
at  Vol.  i.  §  50,  2,  and  also  append  the  clear  and  pointed  remarks 
of  Hofmann  (Weissagung  und  Erfiillung,  i.  136),  with  which 
we  entirely  concur,  in  further  explanation  of  the  occurrence 
under  review.  He  says  :  "  What  the  people  heard,  and  Avhat 
Moses  heard,  were  both  angelic  words.  When  Moses  on  a  sub- 
sequent occasion  called  to  mind  the  great  day  on  which  the 
holiness  of  Jehovah  appeared  on  Sinai,  he  said  (Deut.  xxxiii. 
2)  :  He  came  in  the  midst  of  His  holy  myriads.  But  in  the  book 
of  Exodus  we  read  of  nothing  but  thunder  and  lightning,  and  a 
sound  resembling  a  trumpet.  Yet,  as  all  the  natural  operations 
employed  by  Jehovah  to  make  knoAvn  His  presence  are  opera- 
tions of  His  spirits,  Moses  was  right  in  recognising  the  presence 
of  the  multitude  Jf  heavenly  hosts.     It  was  the  voice  of  God, 


120  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

and  not  of  a  man,  which  the  people  heard  (Dent.  iv.  12,  32,  33, 
V.  4)  ;  but,  notwithstanding  this,  it  is  still  certain  that  God  only 
spoke  through  the  medium  of  his  finite  spirits.  Hence  it  is 
stated  in  the  New  Testament  that  the  law  was  spoken  by  angels 
(Heb.  ii.  2,  6  Bt  ccyyekcov  \a\r]6el(;  X0709),  was  given  to  the 
people  through  their  mediation  (Acts  vii.  53,  iXd^ere  rov  vo/xov 
€t9  Siaraja'i  dyyeXcov ;  Gal.  iii.  19,  Biarayel';  Bi  a/yyekcov  iv 
^etpl  fiealrov).  No  other  part  is  ascribed  to  the  angels  in 
connection  with  the  giving  of  the  law.  The  BiardcrcreLv  top 
vofiov  was  exclusively  the  work  of  God,  but  He  made  use  of 
angels  to  publish  his  will.  All  that  the  words  of  Acts  vii.  53 
say  is,  'Ye  received  the  law  as  the  connnands  of  an  angel.' 
^^Tien  ISIoses,  therefore,  ascended  the  mountain  to  hear  the 
words  of  Jehovah  alone,  he  saw  the  God  of  Israel  close  by  him, 
as  the  people  saw  Him  in  the  distance,  namely,  like  a  consum- 
ing fire  (Ex.  xxiv.  10,  17).  But  Stephen  says,  an  angel  spoke 
to  Moses  on  Sinai,  as  He  had  done  before  out  of  the  burning 
bush  (Acts  vii.  38,  30,  35).  Moses  himself  was  the  mediator 
between  God  and  the  people,  and  not  the  angel,  as  Schmieder 
infers  from  Gal.  iii.  19  (in  his  treatise  on  that  passage,  1826)  ; 
for  the  words  iv  %et/3t  fiea-irov  (in  the  hand  of  a  mediator)  refer 
to  the  position  in  which  Moses  stood,  and  of  which  he  himself 
says  (Deut.  v.  5),  '  I  stood  between  Jehovah  and  you.'  But 
the  revelation  of  Jehovah  to  Moses  was  made  through  the  me- 
dium of  the  same  angel  who  went  before  the  people  as  a  pillar 
of  smoke.  Moses  did  not  learn  the  will  of  Jehovah  concerning 
His  people  apart  from  Him." 

3.  In  the  year  1836  a  lively  and  learned  discussion  originated 
with  Fr.  Sonntag  (Ueher  die  Eintlieilung  der  zeJin  Gehote ;  theo- 
logische  Studien  und  Kritiken  1836,  pp.  61-89)  respecting  the 
form  and  contents  of  the  decalogue.  E.  J.  Zidlig  answered 
him  in  1837  in  the  same  periodical,  pp.  47-122  {fur  die  calvin- 
ische  Eintlieilung  und  AusJegung  des  Dekalogs),  and  Rinch  in  the 
Badisches  Kirchenblatt  (1836,  No.  24).  Sonntag  defended  his 
position  in  a  second  article  in  the  Studien  tmd  Kritiken  1837, 
pp.  253-289  (noch  einiges  iiher  die  Eintlieilung  des  Decalogs  zur 
Reclitfertigung  meiner  Ansicht);  but  another  weighty  opponent 
rose  up  in  the  person  of  J.  Geffhen  (JJeher  die  verschiedene  Ein- 
tlieilung des  Dehcdogus  und  den  Einfiuss  derselhen  aufden  Cultus, 
Hamb.  1838).   Hengstenherg  (Pentateuch  ii.  317  sqq.),  Bertheau 


PROMULGATION  OF  THE  FUNDAMENTAL  LAW.     121 

(die  siehen  Gruppen  mosaischer  Gesetze  in  den  mittl.  Bilchern  des 
Pe7itateuchs,  Gottingen  1840,  p.  7  sqq.),  and  others,  wrote  in  the 
same  strain  as  Geffken. — S.  Preisicerk  defended  another  view 
(Morgenland  1838,  No.  11,  12);  and  with  both  sldll  and  good 
practice  in  connection  with  unsupported  criticism,  JE.  Meier  has 
discovered  and  restored  "  tlie  original  form  of  the  decalogue. 
Mannheim  1846." 

We  must  defer  till  a  more  fitting  occasion  our  examination 
of  the  religious  and  ethical  elements  of  the  decalogue.  At 
present,  only  a  few  questions  will  engage  our  attention,  which 
bear  more  immediately  upon  its  external  form. 

a.  With  regard  to  the  scriptural  names  of  the  deca- 
logue, we  observe  at  the  outset  that  the  name  which  is  usually 
given  to  it  now,  "  the  ten  commandments^^  is  nowhere  to  be  met 
with  in  the  Sacred  Writings.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  fre- 
quently called  "  the  ten  woixls  "  (Q''"!^'^l'  ^1K!V)  ;  e.g.,  Ex.  xxxiv. 
28 ;  Deut.  iv.  13,  x.  4.  As  the  earliest  document  of  the 
covenant,  it  is  also  often  called  "  the  covenant "  (^''l^ri ;  Ex. 
xxxiv.  28;  Deut.  iv.  13;  1  Kings  \Tii.  21;  2  Chron.  \i.  11,  etc.). 
A  very  favourite  name  is  ri^nyn,  the  testimony.  Hengstenherg 
maintains  (Pent.  ii.  319)  that  this  name  is  to  be  traced  simply 
to  the  design  of  the  decalogue,  as  the  accuser  and  judge  of  the 
sinner, — an  opinion  which  I  have  shown  at  some  length  (in  my 
Beitriige  zur  Symbolik  des  alttestl.  Cultus,  Leipzig  1851)  to  be 
thoroughly  inadmissible,  and  to  which  I  shall  have  to  refer 
when  describing  the  ark  of  the  covenant  as  the  receptacle  of  the 
testimony.  The  only  possible  meaning  of  the  word  is  "  attesta- 
tion of  the  Divine  xoill  to  the  people."  At  the  time  Avhen  the 
New  Testament  was  written,  the  decalogue  appears  to  have  been 
known  as  al  ivToXai  (Luke  xviii.  20). 

h.  It  is  evident  from  the  standing  expression,  "the  ton 
words,"  that  the  number  ten  was  intentionally  chosen,  and 
therefore  not  without  meaning.  In  any  case,  then,  we  must 
look  back  to  the  symbolical  importance  of  this  number.  In  my 
work,  iiber  d.  symholische  Dignitdt  der  Zahlen  an  der  Stiftshiltte 
(Stud.  u.  Krit.  1844,  p.  352  sqq.),  and  in  my  Einheit  d.  Genesis 
(Berlin  1846),  I  have  traced  the  symbolical  meaning  of  the 
number  ten,  as  the  sign  of  completeness  and  independence,  to 
the  isolated  position  in  Avhich  this  number  stands  in  the  series, 
and  I  still  adhere  to  my  opinion.    Bdhr,  Hengstenherg,  Bertheau, 


122  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

Baumgarten,  and  others,  have  given  the  same  explanation. 
Hofmann  has  taken  a  different  com'se,  but  it  leads  eventually  to 
the  same  result  (see  also  Delitzsch,  Genesis  Ed.  2,  ii.  225).  He 
starts  from  the  number  of  fingers  on  a  man's  hand,  and  finds 
from  this  that  ten  is  the  number  which  represents  human 
capacity, — in  other  words,  the  manifold  development  of  humanity. 
It  does  not,  therefore,  denote  absolute  perfection,  but  human 
perfection  ;  and  in  this  sense  the  number  ten  sets  the  seal  of 
perfection  upon  any  object.  A  simple  fact  may  serve  to  connect 
these  two  opinions,  namely,  that  the  decimal  system  of 
numeration  undoubtedly  originated  in  the  number  of  the 
fingers.  Delitzsch  explains  the  use  of  the  number  ten  as  the 
sign  of  perfection  in  another  way  still.  Three  is  the  nvimber  of 
the  only  absolute,  self-existent  God;  seven,  on  the  other  hand,  is 
the  number  of  divinity,  as  manifested  in  the  created  world  : 
hence  ten  (3  +  7)  denotes  the  complete  revelation  of  God,  both 
in  relation  to  Himself  and  outwardly  towards  the  world,  the 
sevenfold  radiation  of  that  which  in  itself  is  threefold. — Grotius 
(de  decal.  p.  36)  thinks  that  the  number  of  the  commandments 
was  fixed  at  ten,  because  men  were  in  the  habit  of  counting  with 
the  ten  fingers,  and  that  number  would  therefore  be  more  likely 
than  any  other  to  impress  them  upon  the  memory.  The  bald 
utilitarian  theory  on  which  this  opinion  is  based,  is  well  deserving 
of  the  two  notes  of  admiration  with  which  Bdhr  (Symbolik,  i.  181) 
expresses  his  amazement.  But  when  this  view  is  traced  back  to 
still  deeper  roots,  as  it  has  been  by  Hofmann,  it  is  really  worthy 
of  attention ;  and  if  the  division  of  the  decalogue  into  two 
pentads,  to  which  we  shall  refer  more  particrdarly  presently,  can 
be  established,  the  agreement  with  the  number  of  fingers  -vvill 
then  be  so  striking,  that  it  will  hardly  be  possible  to  dispute  it. 
But  when  Friedrich  (Symbolik  d.  mos.  Stiftshutte^  p.  120)  brings 
forward  Deut.  vi.  8,  xi.  18,  and  Prov.  vii.  8,  in  support  of  the 
view  expressed  by  Grotius,  he  is  most  decidedly  in  the  wrong ; 
for,  in  the  first  place,  there  is  no  reference  to  the  ten  command- 
ments in  either  of  these  passages  ;  and,  in  the  second  place,  it  is 
not  the  fingers  that  are  spoken  of,  but  the  hand,  the  space 
between  the  eyes  and  the  table  of  the  heart.  We  may  safely 
infer  that  the  ten  commandments  were  divided  into  two  parts 
by  the  Lawgiver  Himself,  from  the  fact  that  the  ten  words 
were  written  upon  two  tables.     No  further  information  is  given. 


PROMULGATION  OF  THE  FUNDAMENTAL  LAW.      123 

however,  as  to  the  division  itself.     But  we  shall  retui'ii  to  this 
subject  again  (Note  1). 

c.  In  addition  to  the  cojjy  of  the  decalogue  in  Ex.  xx., 
which  is  evidently  the  original  and  authentic  one,  we  have  a 
second,  and  in  many  respects  a  different  copy,  in  Deut.  v.  (see 
Ranke,  Unterss.  ii.  399  sqq.,  and  Baumgarten,  Comm.  i.  2,  pp. 
443,  444).  The  differences  are  merely  formal,  and  for  the 
most  part  very  immaterial.  They  may  be  explained  on  the 
ground  that  the  Deuteronomist  took  the  decalogue,  which 
stands  in  Ex.  xx.  in  its  fixed,  statutory  form,  and  repeated  it  to 
the  people  with  a  certain  amount  of  freedom,  when  he  made  it 
the  gi'ound  of  his  exhortations  to  them.  There  is  only  one 
variation  to  which,  on  certain  suppositions,  some  importance 
may  be  attached ;  but  even  in  this  case  the  difference  is  simply 
in  the  form.  In  the  book  of  Exodus,  the  Hst  of  things  which  it 
was  unlawful  to  covet  is  given  in  the  following  order:  house ||, 
wife,  man-servant,  maid-servant,  ox,  ass,  anything  that  is  thy 
neighbour's  ;  in  the  book  of  Deuteronomy,  wife||,  house,  man- 
servant, maid-servant,  ox,  ass,  anything  that  is  thy  neighboui''s. 
See  below,  under  Note  h. 

d.  The  most  difficult  question  which  we  have  to  examine 
relates  to  the  division  of  the  decalogue  into  its  ten  words  or 
commandments,  and  the  two  tables  upon  which  it  was  written 
(Ex.  xxxi.  18,  etc.).  The  following  divisions  have  been  made 
at  different  times,  and  most  of  them  date  from  a  very  early 
period  (see  Gefhen,  p.  9  sqq.  123  sqq.).  (i.)  The  words,  "  I 
am  Jehovah  thy  God,  which  brought  thee  out  of  the  land  of 
Egypt,"  have  been  taken  as  the  first  commandment ;  in  which 
case  the  second  includes  the  prohibition  to  Avorship  other  gods 
and  to  make  any  graven  image,  and  the  tenth  embraces  both 
the  clauses  which  treat  of  coveting.  This  is  the  division  which 
has  been  current  amons  modern  Jews  from  the  time  of  the 
Talmud.  It  was  adopted  by  the  Emperor  Julian,  Gcorgius 
Syncellus,  and  Cedrenus  ;  and  lately  Freiswerk  has  declared  in 
favoui'  of  it,  with  this  exception,  that  he  does  not  regard  the 
w^ords,  "  I  am  Jehovah  thy  God,"  as  a  commandment  in  itself, 
but  as  an  introduction  to  the  (nine)  commandments.  In  support 
of  his  opinion,  he  appeals  to  the  fact  that  the  Pentateuch  never 
speaks  of  ten  commandments,  but  simply  of  ten  icords. — E.  Meier, 
who  agrees  with  this  to  some  extent,  but  who  has  adopted  a 


124  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

totally  dijfferent  and  new  division  for  the  rest,  looks  uj)on  the 
introductory  words  as  a  command  to  acknowledge  the  national 
God  of  the  Israelites  (p.  14). — (ii.)  According  to  a  second 
division,  the  law  against  idolatry  is  the  lirst  commandment,  that 
against  the  making  of  images  the  second,  and  that  agamst 
coveting  the  tenth.  This  division  was  unhesitatingly  adopted 
by  Philo,  Joseplius,  and  Origen;  and  they  were  followed  by 
nearly  all  the  Greek  fathers,  and  by  all  the  Latin  till  the  time  of 
Augustine.  In  the  Greek  Church  it  continued  to  prevail  (the 
law  against  the  worship  of  images  being  of  course  interpreted 
as  referring  to  XaTpela,  not  to  hovkela)^  and  the  Swiss  reformers 
introduced  it  again  in  connection  with  the  Reformed  Church.  It 
has  been  most  warmly  and  thoroughly  defended  by  Ziillig  and 
Geffken,  and  is  almost  universally  adopted  by  modern  theologians 
(both  Lutheran  and  Reformed). — (iii.)  According  to  a  third 
division,  the  law  against  worshipping  other  gods  and  that  against 
serving  images  form  but  one  commandment,  namely,  the  first ; 
and  the  law  against  coveting  is  divided  into  two  commandments, 
the  ninth  and  tenth.  This  division  cannot  be  traced  to  an 
earlier  source  than  Augustine  (Qusestiones  in  Ex.  71).^  Augus- 
tine takes  the  edition  of  the  decalogue  in  Deuteronomy,  and 
makes  the  ninth  commandment  to  consist  of  the  law  against 
coveting  a  neighbour's  wife,  the  tenth  that  against  coveting  a 
neighbour's  house,  man-servant,  maid-sei'vant,  ox,  ass,  or  any- 
thing that  is  his.  This  division  became  the  current  one  in  the 
West,  with  this  unimportant  difference,  however,  that  instead  of 
the  edition  in  Deuteronomy,  the  more  authentic  coj)y  in  Exodus 
was  taken  as  the  basis;  and  thus  the  law  against  coveting  the 
house  formed  the  ninth  commandment,  and  that  against  coveting 
the  wife,  man-servant,  and  others,  the  tenth.  The  CathoHc  and 
Lutheran  Church  continue  to  adopt  this  division  to  the  present 

■^  There  is  a  passage  of  Clemens  Alexandrinus  (Strom,  vi.  p.  682,  ed.  Colon. 
1688)  which  has  freqviently  been  appealed  to  as  an  earlier  proof  of  the 
division  adopted  by  Augustine  (and  ZiilHg  still  admits  its  validity).  In 
this  passage  he  connects  the  prohibition  of  image -worship  with  the  first 
commandment,  calls  the  command  not  to  take  the  name  of  the  Lord  in  vain 
the  second,  and  the  command  to  keep  holy  the  Sabbath  day  the  third ;  but 
he  passes  over  the  fourth,  and  still  calls  the  command  to  honour  father  and 
mother  the  fifth,  and  expressly  mentions  all  the  objects  referred  to  in  the 
command  against  coveting  as  contained  in  one  commandment  (Se'xaro;  Be 
ioTiv  6  xipi  i'xtdvf/Juu  u'jT ctaZiu) .     See  Gcffken^  pp.  159,  20,  159  sqq. 


PROMULGATION  OF  THE  FUNDAMENTAL  LAW.      125 

day.  Sonntag  (11.  cc.)  returned  to  the  form  given  in  Deuter- 
onomy, and  defended  the  arrangement  of  the  ninth  and  tenth 
commandments  founded  upon  that  form  with  acuteness  and 
learning. — The  Parashoth,  into  which  the  law  is  divided  in  the 
s^Tiagogue-rolls  and  most  of  the  Codices,  are  in  favour  of 
uniting  the  introduction  and  the  prohibition  of  idolatry  and 
image-worship  into  one  commandment,  and  separating  the 
various  objects  mentioned  in  the  law  against  coveting  into  two. 
But  this  gives  rise  to  the  following  discrepancy :  According  to 
the  book  of  Exodus,  the  ninth  commandment  is,  "  Thou  shalt 
not  covet  thy  neighbour's  loife;^^  but  according  to  that  of 
Deuteronomy  it  is,  "  Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbour's 
house. ^' — (iv.)  Lastly,  E.  Meier  has  very  recently  discovered 
the  "  original  form  of  the  decalogue."  It  consists  of  two 
pentads,  and  the  different  members  of  the  first  series  correspond 
exactly  to  those  of  the  second.  The  order  is  as  follows : — 
I.  (1.)  I  am  Jehovah  thy  God !  (2.)  Thou  shalt  have  no  other 
gods  beside  Me !  (3.)  Thou  shalt  not  make  to  thyself  any 
graven  image  !  (4.)  Thou  shalt  not  take  the  name  of  Jehovah 
thy  God  in  vain  !  (5.)  Remember  the  Sabbath  day,  to  keep  it 
holy ! — II.  (1.)  Honour  thy  father  and  thy  mother  !  (2.)  Thou 
shalt  not  commit  adultery!  (3.)  Thou  shalt  do  no  murder! 
(4.)  Thou  shalt  not  bear  false  witness  against  thy  neighboiu* ! 
(5.)  Tliou  shalt  not  steal! — These  were  the  entire  contents; 
there  was  not  a  single  word  more  or  less;  and  this  was  the  way 
in  which  the  commandments  were  arranged  in  the  two  tables  ! ! 

e.  A  closer  examination  of  such  of  the  methods  referred  to 
as  are  worth  noticing,  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  the  intro- 
ductory WORDS,  "  I  am  Jehovah  thy  God,  that  brought  thee 
out  of  the  land  of  Eg}'pt,"  cannot  be  reckoned  as  the  first 
(independent)  word  or  commandment.  If  w^e  regard  this  clause 
as  the  first  commandment, — /'.  e.,  as  annomicing  the  duty  to  serve 
and  acknowledge  Jehovah  as  the  one  and  only  God, — it  is 
inseparably  connected  with  the  next  clause,  which  passes  as  the 
second  commandment,  "  Thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  beside 
^le."  But  if  we  take  it  to  be  merely  the  first  word,  which  does 
not  contain  any  commandment  in  itself,  but  simply  introduces 
and  lays  the  foundation  of  the  commandments  which  follow, 
the  decalogue  contains  only  nine  commandments.  But  as  both 
of   these    are  equally  untenable,   the  Jewish  division   and    all 


126  ISEAEL  IN  THE  DESEET  OF  SINAI. 

kindred  modes  of  reckoning  fall  at  once  away. — Nor  does  it 
seem  to  us  that  the  method  adopted  by  Catholics  and  Lutherans 
can  be  sustained.  For  the  command  not  to  covet  your  neigh- 
bour's house  cannot  stand  by  itself  as  an  independent  command, 
by  the  side  of  the  command  not  to  covet  your  neighbour's  wife, 
or  his  man-servant,  or  maid-servant,  or  his  ox,  or  his  ass,  or 
anything  that  is  his.  The  solution  of  the  difficulty,  adopted  by 
early  Lutheran  controversialists  (cf.  Geffhen,  p.  12),  that  the 
ninth  commandment  prohibits  actual,  impure  lust,  the  tenth, 
merely  covetousness,  need  only  be  mentioned  to  be  at  once 
disproved.  There  remain,  then,  only  the  division  adopted  by 
Philo  and  Origen  (the  Grgeco- Reformed  method),  and  that 
defended  by  Augustine,  and  lately  by  Sonntag. 

/.  On  both  sides  the  early  Jewish  and  Christian  tradition 
has  been  appealed  to,  and  great  learning  has  been  displayed,  but 
without  any  decided  advantage  on  either  side.  The  supporters 
of  the  Reformed  division  attach  excessive  importance  to  the  fact, 
that  the  oldest  writers,  who  give  any  account  of  the  method 
which  prevailed  in  their  day  {Philo  and  Josephus),  confirm  the 
correctness  of  the  view  adopted  by  them.  But  who  will  answer 
for  it,  that  Philo  and  Josephus  have  really  reported  the  view 
which  prevailed  in  their  time,  and  not  merely  their  own  private 
opinion  ?  Why  may  there  not  have  been  variou^s  methods 
cm'rent  among  the  Jews  of  that  time,  from  which  Philo  and 
Josephus  selected  the  one  which  pleased  them  best?  At  all 
events,  we  know  that  Pseudo-Jonathan  adopted  the  opinion 
which  still  prevails  among  the  Jews.  But  even  granting  that 
Philo  and  Josephus  have  merely  given  utterance  to  the  current 
opinion  of  their  day,  what  guarantee  have  we  that  this  opinion 
was  correct,  and  had  been  handed  down  from  the  earliest  times  ? 
It  can  be  proved  that  in  the  time  of  Josephus  the  views  en- 
tertained by  the  teachers  of  the  law,  with  reference  to  in- 
numerable questions  connected  with  the  Jewish  ritual,  were 
doubtful,  fluctuating,  and  contradictory.  Li  the  whole  of  the 
Old  Testament  we  cannot  find  a  single  instance  in  which  the 
commandments  are  referred  to  by  their  numerical  position  in  the 
decalogue.  This  does  not  appear  to  have  been  at  all  a  usual 
thing.  And  if  it  was  not,  the  practice  in  the  time  of  Josej)hus 
is  of  no  importance  at  all.  The  New  Testament  is  also  appealed 
to  (Matt.  V.  27,  28,  xix.  18,  19  ;  Mark  x.  19 ;  Luke  xviii.  20 ; 


PROMULGATION  OF  THE  FUNDAMENTAL  LAW.      127 

1  Tim.  i.  9,  10  ;  Rom.  vii.  7,  xiii.  9).  But  even  Geffhen  admits 
(p.  136)  that  these  passages  do  not  furnish  a  convincing  proof 
of  the  correctness  of  his  arrangement.  For  our  part,  we  can- 
not admit  that  they  favour  the  system  of  Origen  any  better 
than  that  of  Augustine. — Again,  we  attach  no  importance 
whatever  to  the  real  or  supposed  adoption,  of  the  division  cuiTent 
in  tlie  Reformed  Church,  by  all  the  fathers  anterior  to  Augustine. 
On  the  other  hand,  we  cannot  admit  that  there  is  much 
weight  in  the  evidence  adduced  on  the  opposite  side.  Sonntag 
attaches  most  importance  to  the  ParasJwth-arrangement.  In  the 
Hebrew  MSS.  the  decalogue  is  marked  off  by  a  Pethuchah  in 
both  recensions,  viz.,  after  Ex.  xx.  6,  and  Deut.  v.  10,  and  is 
divided  into  its  ten  sections  by  nine  Sethumoth.  "  There  might 
even  be  ten  Sethumoth;  for  it  depended  entu'ely  upon  accident, 
namely,  upon  the  size  of  the  open  space  in  a  ^^articular  line, 
whether  the  Parashah  was  a  closed  or  an  open  one.  It  made  no 
difference  as  to  the  worth  and  importance  of  the  division  itself, 
whether  it  was  marked  by  a  Sethumah  or  a  Pethuchah"  (Bertheauy 
p.  14).  Now,  undoubtedly,  according  to  this  division,  the  in- 
troductory clause  and  the  prohibition  of  idolatry  and  image- 
worship  form  one  connected  whole, — i.e.,  they  constitute  one  of 
the  ten  words  or  commandments ;  and  it  is  just  as  indisputable 
that  the  authors  of  the  Parashoth  have  divided  the  law  against 
coveting  into  two  commandments,  the  ninth  and  tenth.  Bertheau 
(p.  17)  finds  it  remarkably  easy  to  solve  the  enigma  of  this 
Parashoth-arrangement,  which  is  directly  opposed  to  the  Jewish 
division,  so  far  as  we  have  been  able  to  trace  the  latter  up  to  a 
distant  date  :  "  It  must"  (?  ! !),  he  says,  "  have  been  introduced 
into  the  Hebrew  MSS.  under  Christian  influence  (! !),  probably 
since  the  14th  century,  as  the  history  of  the  division  of  the 
decalogue  indisputably  (? ! !)  proves.  It  is  only  necessary  to 
bear  in  mind  the  division  into  chapters,  which  originated  with 
Christians,  but  yet  has  been  adopted  by  Jews." — Sic  ! — There 
is  nothing  surprising  in  the  fact  that  the  Christian  plan  of 
dividing  the  chapters  should  have  been  adopted  in  the  Jewish 
MSS. ;  the  matter  was  one  of  perfect  indifference,  and  did  not 
in  any  way  bring  the  Jews  into  collision  with  their  early  tra- 
ditions, or  the  dicta  of  their  ancient  teachers.  But  with  the 
numbering;  of  the  commandments  it  was  altoo;ether  different. 
From  the  time  of  the  Talmudists,  they  liave  had  a  fixed  and 


128  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

inflexible  arrangement,  which  differed  entirely  from  that  cmTent 
among  the  Christians.  And  this  being  the  case,  it  is  as  thought- 
less as  it  is  unhistorical  to  maintain  that  in  the  14th  century  the 
Jews  introduced  the  Christian  an-angement  into  their  Biblical 
MSS.,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  it  was  directly  opposed  to 
that  which  they  had  inherited  from  their  fathers.  How  much 
more,  then,  does  this  apply  to  their  synagogue-rolls,  into  which 
they  would  not  even  admit  the  system  of  vowels  and  accents,  which 
had  been  transmitted  to  them  by  their  own  honoured  fathers  ! 
Of  all  inconceivable  things,  sru'ely  this  is  the  most  inconceivable. 
— Geffken  appeals  in  preference  to  the  facts  of  the  case  them- 
selves. For  instance,  Kennicott  has  collated  694  of  the  most 
ancient  MSS.,  and  has  discovered  that  in  the  law  against 
coveting,  the  Sethumah  is  wanting  in  234  codices  of  the  book  of 
Exodus,  and  in  184  of  that  of  Deuteronomy  (in  the  Samaritan 
Pentateuch  he  did  not  find  it  in  a  single  MS.  which  he  con- 
sulted). Zidlig  calculates  that  the  proportion  was  as  follows : 
two-thirds  of  the  MSS.  have  the  Sethumah,  and  in  one-third  it 
is  wanting.  But  Sonntag  becomes  magnanimous  from  his  con- 
fidence of  victory,  and  makes  more  liberal  admissions.  In  his 
opinion,  the  proportion  may  have  been  just  the  reverse,  since 
the  MSS.  of  Kennicott  did  not  all  of  them  contain  the  whole  of 
the  Old  Testament.  But  he  was  evidently  not  warranted  in 
making  so  sweeping  an  assertion.  Geffken,  however,  accepts  it 
without  hesitation,  and  constantly  argues  as  if  the  Sethumah 
were  wanting  in  two-thirds  of  the  MSS.  But  even  if  it  were, 
how  did  it  find  its  way  into  the  other  third  1  How  did  it  get 
into  all  the  synagogue-rolls;  and  how  are  we  to  explain  the  fact, 
that  there  is  not  a  single  MS.  in  which  the  prohibition  of  image- 
worship  is  separated  by  a  Sethumah  from  the  prohibition  of 
idolatry  ?  It  must  be  admitted  that  the  enigma  of  the  Sethumoth 
of  the  decalogue  is  by  no  means  solved  ;  and  it  is  still  possible, 
notwithstanding  the  ridicule  in  which  Geffken  indulges,  that 
these  Sethumoth  may  be  traced  to  an  authority  of  more  ancient 
date  than  Philo  and  Josephus. — Still,  in  our  opinion,  it  is 
impossible  to  deduce  from  this  any  clear  or  probable  evidence  of 
the  authenticity  of  the  numbering  ado]:)ted  by  Augustine.  It  is 
also  just  as  impossible  to  deduce  any  certain  proof  from  the 
pi'actice  of  accentuation.  See  Bertheau  pp.  15,  16,  and  Sonntag 
1837,  p.  277  sqq. 


PROMULGATION  OF  THE  FUNDAlilENTAL  LAW.  129 

g.  If  the  question  is  to  be  decided  at  all,  we  can  only  hope 
that  the  solution  will  be  obtained  from  the  decalogue  itself.  The 
first  question  which  arises  is  this  :  Are  the  laws  against  having 
other  gods  (idolatry)  and  making  graven  images  (image-worship) 
so  related  to  each  other,  that  we  may  assume  that,  according  to 
the  ancient  Israelitish  notion,  they  must  necessarily  have  formed 
one  commandment,  or  that  they  could  only  be  regarded  as  two 
distinct  commandments  ?  In  other  words,  was  the  early  Israelit- 
ish (Mosaic)  notion  of  the  worship  of  images  identically  the 
same  as  that  of  the  worship  of  foreign  gods,  or  were  they  kept 
apart  as  two  totally  distinct  notions?  In  Ex.  xx.  3  we  read, 
"  Thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  beside  Me ;"  and  in  ver.  4, 
"  Thou  shalt  not  make  to  thyself  any  (idol-)  image  (/9.^),  nor 
any  likeness  (nj^'^ri)  of  that  which  is  in  heaven  above,  or  on  the 
earth  beneath,  or  in  the  water  under  the  earth ;  thou  shalt  not 
worship  it,  nor  suffer  thyself  to  be  brought  to  serve  it."  Accord- 
ing to  the  explanation  given  by  the  supporters  of  Origen's  opi- 
nion, ver.  3  prohibits  the  worship  of  other  gods  (such  as  Baal, 
Apis,  etc.),  and  ver.  4  the  worship  of  Jehovah  under  the  figure 
or  symbol  of  any  creatui'e  whatever.  As  a  proof  of  this  inter- 
pretation, they  refer  to  the  historical  fact,  that  this  untheocrati- 
cal  and  illegal  form  of  worship  was  actually  resorted  to  very 
shortly  after  in  the  worship  of  Aaron's  calf,  and  also  to  the 
essential  difference  which  there  was  between  Ahab's  worship  of 
Baal  and  Jeroboam's  worship  of  the  golden  bvdls.  But  even 
granting  that  by  ^DQ  and  njlOD  we  are  to  understand  merehi 
images  and  symbols  of  JeJwrah,  boiTowed  from  the  created 
world,  it  does  not  necessarily  follow  that  the  law  may  not  ha"se 
included  this  in  the  same  commandment  with  actual  idolatry, 
and  ranked  it  as  a  species  under  the  genus  of  idolatry.  On  the 
contrary,  the  stringency  and  exclusiveness  of  the  ^losaic  mono- 
theism, and  the  earnestness  with  which  it  held  fast  to  the  notion 
of  the  absolute  spirituality  of  God,  required  that  the  one  should 
be  held  up  as  equally  reprehensible  with  the  other,  that  both 
should  be  punished  as  rebellion  against  Jehovah ;  in  fact,  that 
both  should  be  represented  under  exactly  the  same  point  of  view. 
It  is  easy  enough  to  distinguish  them  in  theory ;  but  in  practice 
the  limits  drawm  by  theory  are  quicldy  disregarded  and  over- 
stepped. Aaron  was  a  theorist  of  this  kind  :  he  said  (Ex.  xxxii. 
5)  :  "  To-morrow  is  the  feast  of  Jehovah ;"  but  the  people  had 
VOL.  III.  I 


130  TSEAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

"  asked  for  a  God  to  go  before  tliem"  (Ex.  xxxii.  1).  Hence 
they  had  rejected  the  God,  who  had  gone  before  them  in  the 
pillar  of  cloud  and  fire,  and  demanded  to  be  led  in  a  different 
way ;  they  wanted  a  god  to  go  before  them  in  a  more  tangible 
form,  and  not  enveloped  in  the  pillar  of  cloud.  They  probably 
had  no  intention  of  rejecting  and  denying  their  God  Jehovah, 
for  they  said :  This  is  the  God  who  brought  us  up  out  of  the 
land  of  Egypt  (Ex.  xxxii.  8) ;  but  they  merely  retained  the 
name  of  Jehovah,  and  substituted  a  different  and  totally  hetero- 
geneous idea.  The  Jehovah  worshipped  by  the  people  in  the 
form  of  the  golden  calf,  was  as  much  an  idol  as  Apis,  ISIoloch, 
and  Dagon ;  and  the  people  acted  in  violation  of  the  command  in 
Ex.  XX.  3,  quite  as  much  as  of  that  in  Ex.  xx.  4.  In  the  same  way 
may  Jeroboam  have  set  up  the  bulls  at  Dan  and  Bethel  as 
images  of  Jehovah,  but  in  practice  the  jjeople  were  not  able  to 
make  so  nice  a  distinction  as  he.  Now,  such  dangerous  distinc- 
tions as  these  the  law  would  at  once  cut  up  by  the  root,  if  it 
placed  the  false  worship  of  Jehovah  in  precisely  the  same  cate- 
gory as  the  worship  of  idols.  And  this  it  has  done.  For  it  is  a 
false  idea  to  suppose  that  ver.  4  refers  to  (symbolical)  images  of 
God  alone,  and  not  to  idolatrous  images  also.  Wliere  can  we 
find  the  least  indication  that  ^03  and  njion  are  to  be  interpreted 
as  referring  to  symbolical  representations  of  Jehovah  alone'? 
The  usage  of  the  language  is  most  decidedly  opposed  to  this  arbi- 
trary limitation  of  the  word  ^D2.  In  Is.  xhv.  9-17,  for  example, 
the  word  is  apphed  four  times  to  heathen  deities ;  and  three  times 
in  the  same  connection  (ver.  10,  15,  17)  the  manufactm*e  of  a 
ijDa  is  called  the  preparation  of  a  god.  And  when  we  read  in 
the  Pentateuch  of  Elohim  of  wood  and  stone  (Deut.  iv.  28),  or 
Elohim  of  silver  and  gold  (Ex.  xx.  20),  or  molten  Elohim  (Ex. 
xxxiv.  17 ;  Lev.  xix.  4),  what  does  the  author  mean  but  D''^DS  ? 
And  are  not  these  Elohim  to  be  regarded  as  the  "  other  gods" 
prohibited  in  Ex.  xx.  3  ?  Does  not  this  prove,  beyond  a  doubt, 
that  Ex.  XX.  4  contains  a  special  prohibition  of  the  very  same 
thing,  which  had  been  j)i'ohibited  generally  in  Ex.  xx.  3 1  Or 
rather,  strictly  spealdng,  the  relation  betM^een  the  two  is  not  that 
of  genus  and  species,  but  that  of  the  idea  and  the  actual  mani- 
festation. Pesg^-worship  is  not  a  subdivision  of  idolatry  in 
general,  but  is  the  very  same  thing :  the  two  notions  entirely 
coilicide.     For  wherever  idolatry  shows  itself,  the  form  which  it 


PROMULGATION  OF  THE  FUNDAMENTAL  LAW.      131 

assumes  is  that  of  Pesel  (image-)  worsliip.    Idolatry  is  the  abstract, 
PeseWorship  the  concrete  sin. 

We  may  therefore  regard  it  as  a  safe  conchision  from  all 
that  has  been  said,  that  the  worship  of  a  Pesel  or  Themunah  (an 
image  or  likeness)  is  merely  a  particular  species  of  the  "  worship 
of  other  gods  ;"  and  hence  it  necessarily  appears  to  us  more  than 
probable,  that  the  two  verses  (Ex.  xx.  3,  4)  contain  together  but 
one  single  command.  This  is  still  further  confirmed  by  ver. 
5,  6 ;  for  if  we  regard  the  fourth  verse  as  a  second  independent 
commandment,  the  strildng  and  expressive  words,  with  reference 
to  the  blessing  and  cui'se  to  come  upon  the  children  and  chil- 
dren's children,  would  apply  merely  to  the  worsliip  of  images, 
and  not  at  all  to  idolatry,  to  which  confessedly  it  most  strictly 
belongs. 

h.  We  now  turn  to  the  law  against  coveting.  If  we  look, 
first  of  all,  at  its  external  form,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  repe- 
tition of  the  words,  "  Thou  shalt  not  covet"  (in  Exodus  i?onri"N7 
is  repeated,  in  Deuteronomy  we  find  ionrrN?  and  n-ixnri"^?)^  seems 
to  indicate  that  they  are  two  distinct  commands.  But  when  we 
turn,  on  the  other  hand,  to  the  subject-matter,  it  can  just  as 
little  be  denied  that  the  opposite  opinion  has  its  strongest  support 
here,  and  that  the  arguments  based  on  this  are  unanswerable,  if 
we  regard  the  present  text  of  the  two  recensions  as  a  genuine 
copy  of  the  original.  The  prohibition  "  Thou  shalt  not  covet" 
is  essentially  one,  it  is  argued,  however  various  the  objects  coveted 
may  be.  And  this  is  raised  into  indisputable  certainty  by  the 
fact,  that  in  Exodus  the  house  stands  first,  in  Deuteronomy  the 
wife.  If  therefore  there  were  two  commandments,  according  to 
the  book  of  Exodus  the  ninth  commandment  would  be,  "  Thou 
shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbour's  house,"  whilst  in  Deuteronomy 
it  would  read,  "  Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbour's  wife." 
Such  a  difference  as  this,  however,  would  constitute  a  complete 
and  insoluble  discrepancy.  But  if  all  the  objects  mentioned  were 
included  in  the  same  commandment,  the  transposition  would  be 
perfectly  indifferent  and  unessential,  and  not  more  strildng  than 
the  rest  of  the  changes  made  by  the  Deuteronomist  in  his  free  ver- 
sion of  the  decalogue.  All  this  we  are  compelled  to  admit.  But  the 
question  would  assume  a  very  different  form,  if  we  were  at  liberty 
to  sup])0se  that  the  arrangement  in  Deuterononi}^,  where  the  wife 
is  placed  first,  is  original  and  authentic,  and  that  by  some  mis- 


132  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

take  the  words  have  been  transposed  in  our  present  text  of  the 
book  of  Exodus.  In  that  case  we  shoukl  be  waiTanted  in  assum- 
ing, or  rather  the  recurrence  of  the  words  "  Thou  shalt  not 
covet"  would  force  us  to  assume,  that  there  were  two  command- 
ments ;  and  this  woukl  harmonise  completely  with  the  arrangement 
of  the  decalogue  in  every  other  respect.  For  example,  the  deca- 
logue is  divided  into  two  parts :  duty  towards  God,  and  duty 
towards  our  neighbour.  Both  of  these  are  represented  under 
a  threefold  point  of  view,  as  they  relate  to  the  heart,  the  mouth, 
and  the  action.  In  the  first  part,  the  desire  for  other  gods  is  a 
sin  of  the  heart ;  the  misuse  of  the  name  of  God  is  a  sin  of  the 
mouth ;  the  desecration  of  the  Sabbath,  an  act  of  sin  committed 
against  the  God-King  of  Israel.  In  the  second  part  this  order 
is  inverted.  First  of  all,  after  the  commandment  enjoining  love 
to  parents,  which  links  the  two  together,  the  acts  of  sin  against 
a  neighbour  are  divided  into  three :  injmy  done  to  his  hfe,  his 
marriage,  and  his  property.  This  is  followed  by  the  command- 
ment against  injiu'ing  one's  neighbour  with  a  word,  attacking 
his  honour.  And  lastly,  the  neighbour  is  protected  against  those 
sinful  desires,  by  which  he  might  be  disturbed  in  the  peaceable 
possession  and  enjoyment  of  the  goods  and  rights  which  Ins 
God  had  conferred  upon  him.  This  sinful  desire  is  parallel  to  the 
actual  violation  of  a  neighbour's  rights ;  but  it  stands  to  reason, 
that  of  the  three  objects  which  may  lead  to  actual  sin  (life,  mar- 
riage, and  property),  only  the  last  two  could  be  cited  as  objects 
that  it  was  possible  to  covet.  Hence  the  ninth  commandment 
(answering  to  the  sixth)  prohibits  any  desire  to  invade  the  married 
rights  of  another ;  and  the  tenth  (answering  to  the  seventh)  pro- 
hibits every  desire  to  interfere  with  his  rights  of  property.  Hence 
the  division  of  the  law  against  coveting  into  two  commandments,  is 
warranted  by  the  parallel  thus  presented  to  the  corresponding 
cUvision  of  the  law  against  actual  sin.  Moreover,  it  is  confirmed 
by  the  fact,  that  the  desire  to  obtain  possession  of  another's  wife 
belongs  to  a  totally  different  department  of  the  moral  (or  rather 
inmioral)  life,  from  that  to  which  a  longing  for  another's  house 
and  property  belongs.  If  lust  and  coyetousness  can,  or  rather 
must,  be  regarded  as  two  different  genera  of  sin,  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  the  law  against  them  may  also  be  divided  into  two 
different  commandments.  Bertheaus  objection  to  this  is  quite 
unintelligible.     He  says  (p.  12)  :  "  There  would  be  just  as  much 


TROMULGATION  OF  THE  FUNDAMENTAL  LAW.      133 

reason  for  dividing  the  six  objects  named  in  the  law  into  six 
different  commandments."  But  house,  fiekl,  man-servant,  maid- 
servant,  ox,  and  eveiy thing  that  is  one's  neighbour's,  are  all 
included  in  the  general  notion  of  property.  Wife  and  pro- 
perty are  kept  distinct  in  the  sixth  and  seventh  commandments, 
and  they  could  be  separated  in  the  same  way  in  the  ninth  and 
tenth ;  but  if  the  tenth  admits  of  being  divided,  then  the  seventh 
might  also  be  divided  into  five,  or  even  a  hundred  commandments. 
We  have  been  fidly  convinced,  by  what  we  have  WTitten 
above,  that  if  the  arrangement  in  Deuteronomy  be  really  the 
original  one,  the  division  adopted  by  Augustine  is  unquestion- 
ably correct.  But  are  we  warranted  in  coming  to  this  conclu- 
sion? Must  we  not  give  the  preference  to  the  recension  in 
Exodus,  which  is  so  evidently  both  legal  and  authentic  ?  Un- 
doubtedly ;  yet  it  does  not  follow  that  an  alteration,  which  makes 
no  difference  as  to  the  subject-matter,  but  a  considerable  differ- 
ence as  to  the  form,  may  not  have  crept  in  at  an  early  date, 
through  the  oversight,  mistake,  or  carelessness  of  a  copyist. 
Undoubtedly  the  critical  evidence  in  favour  of  such  a  conjecture 
is  very  weak.  Among  all  the  codices  of  the  book  of  Exodus 
collated  by  Kermicott,  he  found  only  one  in  which  the  wife  was 
mentioned  first ;  and  he  also  found  three  codices  of  Deuteronomy 
in  which  the  house  stood  first :  but  both  of  them  had  evidently 
arisen  from  the  attempt  of  a  copyist  to  remove  the  discrepancy. 
We  might  attach  greater  importance  to  the  circumstance,  that 
the  Septuagint  places  the  wife  first,  even  in  the  book  of  Exo- 
dus, if  we  did  not  know  how  little  weight  it  possesses  as  an 
authority  in  such  questions  as  these.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
Samaritan  Pentateuch  places  the  house  first  in  Deuteronomy,  as 
well  as  in  Exodus.  This  leads  us  to  the  conckision,  at  any  rate, 
that  at  the  very  distant  date  at  which  these  two  versions  arose, 
the  whole  question  was  a  doubtful  one. — Let  us  keep,  therefore, 
to  the  words  of  the  text.  Which,  we  ask,  is  the  more  natural, 
the  more  suitable,  and  thei'efore  the  more  probable,  that  the  house 
should  stand  first,  or  the  wife  ?  There  are  only  two  h}^otheses 
upon  which  the  former  could  be  defended,  namely :  either  that 
the  ivife  was  placed  in  the  same  category  with  the  "  man-ser\ant, 
the  maid-servant,  the  ox,  and  the  ass,  and  everything  that  is  his," 
and  was  thus  regarded  as  an  article  of  property,  a  mancqnum ;  or 
that  the  word  house  was  used  in  its  more  general  sense,  as  inclusive 


134  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

of  the  entire  family  and  everything  connected  with  it.  Both  of 
these  hypotheses  would  be  false.  With  regard  to  the  former, 
we  must  refer  the  reader  to  a  future  volume  {cf.  Sonntag  1.  c. 
1837,  pp.  264,  265).  That  the  word  house  cannot  have  been 
employed  in  this  broad  and  general  sense — that  it  must  have  been 
used  as  a  species,  not  as  a  genus — wall  be  apparent  at  once,  if  we 
bear  in  mind  that  in  this  general  sense  a  house  not  only  included, 
but  sometimes  consisted  entu'ely  of  such  objects  as  could  not  be  re- 
ferred to  in  the  law  against  coveting ;  e.  g.,  sons,  daughters,  grand- 
sons, and  other  descendants.  If,  however,  the  word  Jiouse  is  used 
here  in  its  literal  signification,  it  is  clear  that  the  only  natural,  suit- 
able, and  worthy  arrangement,  is  for  the  wife  to  be  mentioned  first. 
i.  There  still  remains  a  fact  of  some  importance,  which  may 
contribute  towards  the  settlement  of  the  dispute,  namely,  the 
division  of  the  ten  commandments  into  two  tables.  It  has  never 
been  doubted  that  the  first  table  contained  the  duties  towards 
God — the  second,  those  towards  man.  But  the  question  arises, 
how  far  the  former  extended.  Philo  divided  the  decalogue  into 
two  pentads.  In  this  case,  not  only  must  the  law  against 
idolatiy  and  image-worship  be  separated  into  two  command- 
ments, but  the  command  to  honour  one's  parents  must  be 
included  in  the  first  table.  Nearly  all  the  modem  writers  have 
adopted  this  arrangement ;  but  we  must  pronounce  the  latter 
quite  as  inadmissible  as  the  former  (see  above,  under  Note  ^). 
On  the  side  of  our  opponents,  it  is  argued  that  parents  are  placed 
upon  the  first  table,  because  they  w^ere  regarded  as  representa- 
tives of  God.  We  have  no  doubt  that  the  pious  feelings  of  the 
early  Israelites  led  them  to  look  upon  parents  (and  rulers) 
in  this  light ;  but  when  we  consider  the  strict  and  jealous 
exclusiveness  with  wdiich  the  law  protected  its  monotheism,  and 
the  marked  distinction  which  it  made  between  the  creatiu'e  and 
the  Creator — between  God  and  man,  we  cannot  but  declare  it 
inconceivable,  that  a  commandment  having  reference  to  men 
should  have  been  placed  in  the  first  table,  when  every  other 
commandment  of  the  same  character  was  placed  in  the  second. 
If  the  command  to  honour  one's  parents  was  WTitten  upon  the 
first  table,  the  worship  of  parents  was  placed  upon  a  level  with 
the  worship  of  God.  But  such  co-ordination  must  have  been 
regarded  as  idolatry  in  the  eye  of  the  law ;  for  the  first  com- 
mandment says :  Thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  by  the  side  of 


PROMULGATION  OF  THE  FUNDAMENTAL  LAW.     135 

Me.  It  is  said,  indeed,  that  in  one's  parents  the  wiage  (the 
representation)  of  God — in  other  words,  God  Himself — was  to 
be  honoured.  Very  good !  But  wliy,  then,  does  the  next  com- 
mandment prohibit  mui'der  ?  Undoubtedly  for  the  very  same 
reason — that  a  man  bears  the  image  of  God ;  as  the  law  given 
to  Noah  most  clearly  and  emphatically  declares  (Gen.  ix.  6). 
He  who  attacks  the  life  of  a  man,  attacks  the  image  of  God, 
and  therefore  God  Himself  ; — consequently,  this  commandment 
ought  to  have  been  placed  upon  the  first  table.  In  fact,  there 
would  at  last  be  nothing  left  for  the  second  table  at  all.  For 
it  is  God  who  has  bestowed  my  property  upon  me  ;  and  there- 
fore whoever  attacks  my  property,  makes  an  attack  upon  God 
Himself. 

The  division  of  the  commandments  into  two  tables  has  been 
arranged  upon  a  very  different  principle.  The  first  tal)le  directs 
the  eye  of  man  upwards,  to  God, — to  the  Person  of  the  one, 
holy,  spiritual  God ;  the  second  downwards,  to  the  relations  of 
earth,  which  God  has  instituted,  and  which  he  is  required  to 
maintain.  The  first  commandment  on  the  second  talkie  has 
respect  to  the  suprem^acy  of  one  man  over  another,  in  which 
there  is  a  reflection  of  God's  absolute  supremacy.  The  other 
commandments  refer  to  those  relations  in  which  there  is  no  such 
distinction,  and  arrange  them  under  the  threefold  division  of 
life,  marriage,  and  property.  It  also  describes  the  sins  to 
which  these  give  rise,  under  a  threefold  point  of  view:  action 
(murder,  adultery,  theft),  word  (false  witness),  and  desu'e  (lust 
and  covetousness). 

We  are  led  to  the  same  result  by  another  consideration.  If 
it  be  inchsputable,  as  is  generally  admitted,  that  the  number  ten 
was  symbolical,  it  is  at  least  highly  probable  that  the  division 
of  the  decalogue  into  two  series  of  commandments  was  regulated 
by  the  ordinary  laws  of  the  symbolism  of  nmubers.  Noav,  the 
division,  which  we  have  just  shown  to  be  rendered  necessary  by 
the  subject-matter  of  the  commandments  themselves,  gave  us  the 
numbers  three  and  seven.  And  we  may  very  soon  see  that  pre- 
cisely the  same  division  is  required  by  the  symbolism  of  numbers. 
When  Augustine  says,  "  Mihi  tamen  videntur  congruentius 
accipi  tria  ilia  et  ista  septem,  quoniam  Trinitatem  videntur  ilia, 
quffi  ad  Dcum  pertinent,  insinuare  diligcntius  intuentibus,"  he 
miconsciously  tUsregards  the   Old  Testament  stand-point,  and 


136  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

anticipates  that  of  the  New.     Nevertheless  it  is  a  settled  fact, 
that  even  in  the  Old  Testament  the  number  three  is  the  symbol 
of  God  in  His  essential  existence  {cf.  Bahr  Symbohk  i.  115  sqq., 
and  my  treatise  in  the  Studien  und  Kritiken  1844,  p.  336  sqq,). 
This  use  of  the  number  three  was  not  first  derived  from  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  but  was  based  upon  a  speculative  con- 
sideration of  the  number  itself.    It  is  equally  certain  that  seven  is 
the  symbol  of  Divine  things,  so  far  as  they  are  brought  out  to 
view  in  the  world,  in  the  creatiu'e,  and  more  particularly  in  the 
kingdom  of  God.     It  was  the  covenant-number,  the  nmnber 
of  the  covenant  of  God  with  His  people;  and  therefore  Kar 
i^o^/^v  the  sacred  nmuber.     As  seven  is  formed  by  adding  tlu'ee 
to  four,  the  holiness  that  is  in  the  world  (in  the  kingdom  of 
God)  arises  from  the  covenant  which  God  has  made  with  man  ; 
and  thus  seven  denotes  the  life  of  the  creature,  so  far  as  it  has 
received  a   divine   and   holy   character  from  union  with  God 
Himself.      Now,    in   the   theocracy,    the   relation   of   parents, 
personal  existence,  marriage,  and  the  rights  of  property  (as  we 
shall  show  more  fully  in  the  second  part  of  this  volume),  did 
acquire  such  a  character ;  and  the  piu'pose  of  the  seven  com- 
mandments on  the  second  table  was  to  guard  it  agamst  actual 
violence,  as  well  as  the  attacks  of  calumny  and  covetousness. 

From  this  it  is  apparent  that  the  division  of  the  decalogue 
into  three  and  seven  is  as  natural  and  fitting  as  it  is  sym- 
bolically significant.  If  it  were  divided  into  four  and  six,  it 
would  lose  all  its  symbohcal  meaning,  and  even  jive  plus  Jive  has 
less  significance  than  three  plus  seven.  Though  Jive  is,  no  doubt, 
to  be  reckoned  among  the  symbolical  numbers,  yet,  as  the  half 
of  ten,  it  can  only  denote  that  a  thing  is  half  complete;  i.e.,  that 
in  the  attempt  to  attain  perfection,  it  is  half  way  towards  the 
goal.  It  would  be  difficult,  however,  in  the  present  case,  to  find 
a  fitting  occasion  for  any  such  sjTubolical  meaning.  At  any 
rate,  such  a  di\T[sion  would  have  no  connection  whatever  with 
the  distinctive  character  of  the  two  tables;  whereas,  in  the  other 
division  (3  +  7),  this  is  most  eiadently  and  strikingly  the  case. 

h.  The  RESULT  of  the  whole  inqmiy  is  the  followmg.  If 
we  follow  the  version  of  the  decalogue  which  is  given  in 
Deuteronomy,  and  assume  that,  according  to  the  primaiy  and 
correct  arrangement,  the  wife  stood  first  among  the  objects 
mentioned  in  the  law  against  coveting ;  the  most  simple,  natural, 


PROMULGATION  OF  THE  FUNDAMENTAL  LAW.      137 

and  suitable  way  in  wlilch  tlie  entire  decalogue  can  in  all 
respects  be  arranged,  is  that  adopted  by  Augustine.  But  this 
method  is  clearly  inadmissible  if  we  place  the  house  first,  as  in 
the  book  of  Exodus.  In  that  case,  we  are  compelled  to  give  the 
preference  to  the  arrangement  proposed  by  Origen.  But  the 
many  inconveniences,  incongruities,  and  difficulties,  which  it  be- 
comes impossible  to  solve  and  reconcile,  form  such  obstructions 
to  the  adoption  of  this  view,  that,  even  without  sufficient 
external  critical  evidence,  we  feel  warranted  in  giving  the 
})reference  to  the  reading  in  Deuteronomy,  and  therefore  sub- 
scribe without  hesitation  to  the  Augustinian  arrangement. 

(4.)  E.  Bertheau  {Die  siehen  Griqojien  mosaischer  Gesetze  in 
den  drei  mittlern  Bilchern  des  Pentateuchs,  Gottingen  1840) 
maintains  that  the  entire  Mosaic  legislation  (including  Deutero- 
nomy) consists  of  seven  groups,  of  seven  decalogues  each ;  and 
has  endeavoiu'ed  to  carry  out  this  hypothesis  with  gi'eat  acuteness, 
but  not  without  much  that  is  forced  and  arbitrary.  The  hypo- 
thesis itself  has  much  to  recommend  it.  Such  an  arrangement 
of  the  contents  of  the  law,  according  to  numerals  that  were  held 
to  be  sacred,  Avould  be  thoroughly  in  keeping  with  the  spirit  of 
Israelitisli  antiquity.  The  whole  law,  too,  would  thus  present 
an  appearance  of  miity  and  plan ;  it  would  look  at  once  well 
organised  and  complete  in  itself.  It  was  with  a  strong  prejudice 
in  its  favoiu",  therefore,  that  I  proceeded  to  examine  this  hypo- 
thesis, and  with  a  hope  that  I  might  find  it  based  upon  solid 
arguments ;  but  I  was  thoroughly  disappointed.  Not  one  of  the 
forty-nine  decalogues  discovered  by  Bertheau  (with  the  exception 
of  the  first)  has  the  appearance  of  being  a  simple  and  natural 
division  into  exactly  ten  commandments.  Of  the  supposed  intro- 
ductory formula',  by  which  the  particular  commanchnents  are 
distinguished,  sometimes  there  are  more  than  ten,  sometimes  less. 
Thoroughly  heterogeneous  elements  are  mixed  together  in  the 
sa;me  commandment ;  whilst  others,  which  are  undoubtedly  con- 
nected together,  and  mvist  have  been  looked  at  from  the  same 
point  of  view,  are  kept  distinct  as  separate  commandments.  And 
sometimes  the  very  things,  which  had  been  combined  together  in 
one  case,  hav'e  to  be  torn  asunder  in  another,  althovigh  the  circum- 
stances may  be  perfectly  analogous.  For  example,  the  instruc- 
tions to  make  the  curtain  of  the  Holy  of  holies,  mid  the  pillars 
thereof,  are  said  to  constitute  one  commandment ;  but  imme- 


138  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

diately  afterwards  the  directions  to  make  the  curtain  of  the  Holy 
Place  and  the  necessary  pillars  must  be  divided  into  tico  com- 
mandments (simply  because  the  words  "  and  make"  happen  to 
be  written  twice).  Again,  whole  series  of  commandments  and 
ordinances,  both  within  and  outside  the  supposed  decalogues,  are 
passed  over  on  sundry  pretexts,  and  not  counted  at  all.  In  other 
places  the  text  must  be  fearfully  twisted  about,  and  an  entirely 
new  arrangement  made,  before  it  is  possible  to  divide  it  into  ten 
at  all.  In  the  Pentateuch  itself  there  is  no  hint  whatever  at 
any  siich  general  division  into  tens  and  sevens.  It  only  speaks 
of  one  decalogue,  which  would  hardly  have  been  so  exclusively 
designated  "  the  ten  words"  if  there  had  been  forty-eight  other 
"  ten  words"  besides. — We  are  therefore  obliged  to  give  up 
Bertheaiis  hypothesis,  however  it  commends  itself  at  first  sight, 
however  much  acuteness  the  author  may  have  displayed,  and 
however  successful  he  may  appear  to  have  been  in  different 
instances  in  carrying  it  out. 

The  first  sevenfold  group  of  decalogues,  according  to  Ber- 
tlieau  (and  Baumgarten,  who  has  adopted  his  hypothesis),  is  the 
series  of  laws  contained  in  the  so-called  Book  of  the  Cove- 
nant (chap,  xix.-xxiii.) ;  and  in  this  case,  though  with  some  slight 
difficulties,  his  mode  of  reckoning  and  arrangement  might  at 
first  be  carried  out  and  made  to  appear  intentional.  This  Book 
of  the  Covenant  (Ex.  xxiv.  7)  contains  the  historical  and  legal 
prehminaries  to  the  conclusion  of  the  covenant.  There  is,  first 
of  all,  a  historical  introduction,  giving  a  description  of  the  pre- 
liminary negotiations  respecting  the  intended  covenant,  and  of 
the  preparations  to  be  made  for  the  reception  of  the  law  (chap, 
xix.).  This  is  followed  by  the  fundamental  law  of  the  theocracy, 
of  which  the  covenant  was  to  be  the  foundation — in  other  words, 
by  a  declaration  of  the  covenant-duties  of  the  nation  (chap,  xx.- 
xxiii.  19)  ;  and  lastly,  by  the  promises  which  Jehovah  made  to  the 
people  (chap,  xxiii.  20-33).  We  have  first  a  compendious 
account  of  the  covenant  obligations  of  the  people,  arranged 
according  to  their  most  essential  and  indispensable  characteris- 
tics, as  they  were  directly  announced  by  God  to  the  people ;  and 
then  a  further  expansion,  which  was  given  through  Moses  (chap, 
xxi.-xxiii.).  For,  notwithstanding  the  objections  urged  by  Ber- 
theau,  Rmikes  assertion  (i.  87)  is  perfectly  correct,  that  the 
laws  in  chap,  xxi.-xxiii.  are  merely  a  more  copious  expansion  of 


PROMULGATION  OF  THE  FUNDAMENTAL  LAW.     139 

those  contained  in  the  decalogue.  The  difference  between  the 
first  group  of  laws  (which  is  found  in  the  Book  of  the  Covenant) 
and  the  subsequent  groups  which  were  based  upon  it  is  this  :  the 
former  laid  down  the  conditions  on  which  the  covenant  was  to 
be  concluded,  and  the  basis  of  the  theocratical  constitution ;  the 
latter  contained  their  further  development,  especially  in  a  litur- 
gical point  of  view.  The  first  group  related  to  such  departments 
of  life,  as  embraced  the  most  general  and  fundamental  featm'es  of 
the  theocratical  commonwealth.  It  contained  laws  that  equally 
affected  the  whole  nation  and  every  individual  belonging  to  it ; 
whereas  the  following  gi'oups  related  to  more  special  departments 
of  life  and  worshij^,  and  contained  commandments,  the  observance 
of  which  depended  upon  the  sanctuary,  which  was  not  yet  erected, 
and  the  existence  of  a  priesthood  that  had  not  yet  been  instituted. 
(5.)  The  demands  of  Jehovah,  which  are  imposed  upon  the 
people  in  the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  are  f  ollow  ed  by  the  PIIOMISES 
of  Jehovah,  or  the  covenant  obligations  which  Jehovah  imposed 
uj)on  Himself  (chap,  xxiii.  20-33).  According  to  Bertheau 
(p.  72  sqq.),  these  promises  also  foinn  a  decalogue  upon  the  fol- 
lowing plan  :  1.  The  special  guidance  of  Israel  by  the  Angel,  in 
whom  was  Jehovah's  name  (ver.  20-22 ;  cf.  §  14,  3)  ;  2.  the 
entrance  of  Israel  into  the  land  of  Canaan,  and  the  extermina- 
tion of  the  inhabitants  (ver.  23,  24)  ;  3.  the  blessing  of  bread 
and  water ;  4.  inmiunity  from  diseases  (ver.  25) ;  5.  freedom 
from  premature  births  and  barrenness  on  the  part  of  the 
Israelitish  women ;  6.  long  life  (ver.  26) ;  7.  di*ead  of  God 
among  all  the  enemies  of  Israel  (ver.  27)  ;  8.  hornets,  which 
should  di'ive  out  the  Hivites,  Canaanites,  and  Hittites  (ver.  28)  ; 
9.  a  gradual  extermination  of  the  inhabitants  of  Canaan,  that 
the  country  might  not  become  waste,  or  be  overrun  by  wild 
beasts  (ver.  29,  30)  ;  10.  the  determination  of  the  boundaries  of 
the  promised  land  (Israel  was  to  take  possession  of  the  country 
between  the  Red  Sea,  the  sea  of  the  Philistines  or  Mediterranean, 
the  desert  of  Arabia  Petra^a,  and  the  river  or  Euphrates ;  see 
vol.  i.  §  38,  1). — We  cannot  persuade  ourselves  that  this  division 
is  natural  and  unconstrained,  and  therefore  do  not  adopt  it. 

With  regard  to  the  promise  in  ver.  28,  which  recurs  in  Dent.  vii. 
20,  and  is  represented  in  Josh.  xxiv.  12  as  already  fulfiWed, Bochart 
has  collected  the  following  partici;lars  (Ilieroz.  ed.  Kosenmiiller, 
iii.  407  sqq.).     Several  of  the  Fathers  (e.r/.  Eusehius,  Augustine, 


140  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OE  SINAI. 

etc.)  thought  that  the  passage  must  be  interpreted  as  figurative 
(representing  the  dread  of  God,  or  something  of  that  kind), 
since  we  liave  no  account  whatever  in  the  Bible  of  the  Canaanites 
being  driven  out  by  hornets.  On  the  other  hand,  there  have 
not  been  wanting  expositors  {Theodoret,  etc.)  w^ho  beheve  that 
it  should  be  interpreted  literally;  and  Bochart  acknowledges 
himself  to  be  one  of  these.  In  Josh.  xxiv.  12,  the  promise  given 
here  is  mentioned  in  passing  as  having  been  fulfilled.  The  fact 
that  there  is  no  express  and  detailed  account  of  the  occurrence 
itself  in  the  historical  narrative,  proves  nothing ;  for  the  sacred 
historians  frequently  pass  over  different  events,  which,  as  we 
learn  from  incidental  allusions  in  other  passages,  must  actually 
have  occurred.  Bochart  then  cites  a  number  of  passages  from 
ancient  authors,  to  show  that  small  animals,  such  as  frogs,  mice, 
snakes,  w^asps,  etc.,  frequently  increased  to  such  an  extent,  that 
the  inhabitants  were  obliged  to  leave  the  country  in  order  to 
escape  from  the  plague.  But  he  lays  particular  stress  upon  an 
account  given  by  yElian  (ii.  28),  to  the  effect  that  the  Phasalians 
were  once  driven  out  of  their  settlement  by  wasps  (o-^?}/ce<?). 
These  Phasalians  or  Solymites  were  a  tribe,  whom  Strabo  (L.  14) 
describes  as  inhabiting  the  Solymite  momitains  on  the  borders 
of  the  (Dead)  Sea ;  and,  according  to  other  ancient  accounts, 
they  were  of  Phoenician  (Canaanitish)  origin,  and  spoke  the  Phoe- 
nician language.  Bochart  believes  that  he  has  here  discovered 
a  confirmation  of  the  Biblical  account,  according  to  its  literal 
interpretation ;  and  M.  Baumgarten  is  not  disinclined  to  agree 
with  him.  0.  v.  Gerlach,  on  the  other  hand,  interprets  it  as 
referring  to  the  different  plagues  and  terrors  by  which  God 
effected  the  overthrow  of  those  tribes ;  and  with  this  opinion  we 
agree. 

THE  SINAITIC  COVENANT. 

§  11.  (Ex.  xxiv.  1-11.) — After  a  solemn  and  unanimous 
declaration,  on  the  part  of  the  people,  that  they  would  observe 
all  the  words  which  Jehovah  had  spoken,  Moses  wrote  the  words 
themselves  in  a  book  (the  so-called  Book  of  the  Covenant),  as 
the  recognised  concHtions  of  the  covenant  which  was  about  to  be 
established  (1).  He  then  built  an  altar  at  the  foot  of  the 
mountain  with  twelve  pillars  (stones  of   memorial)   (2)  ;  and 


THE  SINAITIC  COVENANT.  141 

selected  twelve  young  men  (3)  to  offer  tlie  covenant-sacrifice. 
Half  of  the  blood  he  sprinkled  upon  the  altar,  and  then  read  the 
Book  of  the  Covenant  to  the  people;  and  after  they  had  once  more 
solemnly  promised  obedience,  he  sprinkled  them  with  the  other 
half  of  the  blood,  which  had  been  kept  in  a  bason,  saying,  as  ho 
did  so:  "Behold,  this  is  the  Mood  of  the  covenant,  which  Jehovah 
has  concluded  with  you  on  all  these  laws"  (4).  lie  then 
ascended  the  sacred  mountain,  attended  by  Aaron,  and  his  sons 
Nadah  and  Abihu,  and  by  seventy  of  the  elders.  There  they  saw 
the  God  of  Israel,  and  celebrated  the  covenant-meal  as  an 
attestation  of  the  covenant-fellowship  which  they  now  en- 
joyed (5). 

(1.)  The  Book  of  the  Covenant  is  supposed  by  Hdver- 
nick  (Introduction)  to  have  been  a  INlosaic  work  of  considerable 
extent,  embracing  the  whole  of  the  Pentateuch,  so  far  as  it  was 
then  completed;  but  IIengste7iberg  has  shown  that  it  cannot  have 
contained  more  than  Ex.  xx.-xxiii.  (Dissertations  on  Penta- 
teuch, vol.  i.  435,  and  ii.  125,  transl.). 

(2.)  In  Ex.  XX.  24,  25  we  find  that  Jehovah  had  already 
given  directions  concerning  the  erection  of  the  altar,  on  which 
the  covenant-sacrifice  Avas  to  be  offered.  AVhen  Israel  built  an 
altar,  it  was  to  be  constructed  of  earth,  or  unhewn  stones  :  "  If 
thou  lift  up  thy  tool  upon  it,  thou  hast  polluted  it."  The  altar 
was  the  place  at  which  Jehovah  w  oidd  "  cause  His  name  to  be 
praised,  and  come  down  to  Israel  and  bless  it."  For  this  reason 
He  appointed  both  the  place  where  the  altar  was  to  be  erected, 
and  the  material  of  ivhich  it  Avas  to  be  constructed.  But  an 
altar  was  also  a  stepping-stone  by  which  man  ascended  to  God, 
and  on  which  he  offered  the  gifts  which  he  presented  to  God. 
It  was,  therefore,  necessary  that  the  altar  should  be  erected  by 
man  himself.  When  Jehovah  came  doAvn — not  to  receive  gifts 
and  sacrifices  from  the  people,  but  to  give  him  laAvs  and  pro- 
mises— Sinai  was  the  altar  on  which  He  revealed  Himself.  The 
people  durst  not  ascend  Mount  Sinai  to  offer  their  gifts  to  God  ; 
it  was  necessaiy,  therefore,  that  they  should  build  an  altar  them- 
selves, which  should  bear  the  same  relation  to  Sinai  as  the  work 
of  man  to  the  work  of  Gcd.  At  the  same  time,  its  connection 
with  Sinai  was  to  be  made  known  by  the  fact  that  it  was 


142  ISEAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SIXAI. 

constructed  of  earth  and  unhewn  stones.  As  the  gift  itself, 
which  man  offers  upon  the  altar,  is  really  hoth  the  work  and 
gift  of  God,  which  has  been  first  presented  by  Him  to  man ;  so 
was  the  material  of  which  man  built  an  altar,  for  offering  his 
gifts  to  Jehovah,  to  be  the  work  of  God,  and  not  of  an  impure 
human  hand. 

Although  these  directions  were  given  first  of  all  merely  with 
reference  to  a  particular  case,  the  fundamental  idea  was  neces- 
sarily of  universal  validity.  This  appears,  indeed,  to  be  at 
variance  with  the  directions  afterwards  given  respecting  the 
erection  of  the  altar  of  burnt-offering  for  the  fore-court  of  the 
tabernacle  (Ex.  xxvii.)  ;  since  the  very  thing  which  had  been 
forbidden  in  the  former  case  was  actually  required  in  this, 
namely,  that  the  art  of  man  should  be  engaged  in  its  con- 
struction. But  the  difference  between  the  two  altars  was  not  so 
great  as  might  be  imagined.  For,  even  in  the  altar  in  the  fore- 
court, the  material  itself,  on  which  the  offering  was  presented, 
was  earth;  the  wooden  case,  which  was  covered  with  copper, 
merely  serving  to  enclose  the  earth  and  keep  it  together.  But 
there  was  no  such  enclosure  in  the  case  of  the  altar  erected  at 
the  conclusion  of  the  covenant,  nor  could  there  be,  since  the 
sacred  institutions  of  the  Old  Testament  first  received  their  (in 
some  respects  artistic)  form  in  consequence  of  the  conclusion  of 
the  covenant. 

We  ai'e  not  told  in  Ex.  xxiv.  whether  the  altar  which  Moses 
caused  to  be  built  for  the  covenant-sacrifice  was  constructed  of 
wood,  or  stone  ;  probably  of  both.  It  is,  at  any  rate,  a  mistake 
to  suppose  that  the  clause,  "he  built  an  altar  and  twelve 
Mazehoth  (stones  of  memorial)  according  to  the  twelve  tribes 
of  Israel,"  means  that  the  twelve  pillars  were  intended  to 
support  the  altar.  This  would  have  been  quite  as  irreconcileable 
with  Ex.  XX.  24,  25,  as  mth  the  meaning  of  the  word  Mazehah 
(cf.  Gen.  xxxi.  45).  The  Mazehoth  were  placed  round  the  altar. 
And  as  the  altar  is  described  in  chap.  xx.  24  as  the  place  where 
Jehovah  would  meet  with  Israel  and  cause  His  name  to  be 
praised,  the  twelve  pillars  represented  the  people  assembled 
round  Jehovah. 

(3.)  The  sacrifices  were  offered  by  youths  of  the  children 
of  Israel.  Jewish  expositors  suj^pose  that  these  were  the  first- 
born, who  had  been  set  apart  (chap.  xiii.  2),  and  who  were 


THE  SINAITIC  COVENANT.  143 

therefore  the  priests  at  that  time  (see  our  answer  to  this  at  vol. 
ii.  §  35,  5).  Vitringa  (observv.  ss.  i.,  p.  281)  is  of  opinion  that 
they  were  the  priests  mentioned  in  cliap.  xix.  22,  24,  whom  0.  v. 
Gerlach  identifies  with  the  elders  in  chap.  xxiv.  9.  But  it  is 
inconceivable  that  the  elders  (D''JpT=the  old  men)  should  be 
called  youths ;  and  it  is  just  as  inconceivable  that  the  loriests 
should  all  at  once  either  be,  or  be  called,  young  men.  We 
cannot  for  a  moment  suppose  that  the  reference  is  to  those 
who  had  been  priests  before  ;  for  their  priesthood  was  anti- 
quated (this  is  implied  in  chap.  xix.  24),  and  no  new  priesthood 
had  as  yet  been  instituted,  or  even  chosen.  Moreover,  it  is  not 
true  that  the  "  youths  "  were  called  upon  to  exercise  priestly 
functions  on  this  occasion  ;  at  least,  in  the  ritual  of  later  times 
it  was  no  part  of  the  priest's  office  to  slay  and  offer  the  sacrificial 
animals  that  were  presented  in  sacrifice.  The  special  work  of 
the  priest,  to  receive  and  sprinkle  the  blood,  was  performed  by 
Moses,  to  whom  the  priestly  mediatorship  was  entrusted  until 
the  appointment  of  a  new  and  peculiar  order  of  priests.  The 
youths  represented  the  people,  by  whom  the  sacrifice  was  pre- 
sented, and  wdiose  attitude  as  a  nation  resembled  that  of  a 
youth  just  ready  to  enter  upon  his  course. 

(4.)  The  sacrijices,  which  were  oifered  to  complete  the 
covenant  and  the  consecration  of  the  people  as  a  covenant 
nation,  were  burnt-offerings  and  thank-offerings.  The  sin- 
offerings,  of  which  as  yet  we  have  found  no  trace,  were  also 
wanting  on  this  occasion,  probably  because  they  were  first  intro- 
duced in  coniiection  with  the  nioi'e  fully  organised  ritual  of  a 
later  age.  The  more  immediate  object  of  the  sacrifice,  on  this 
as  on  every  other  occasion,  was  expiatory.  Before  Jehovah 
could  enter  into  a  covenant  relation  to  the  people,  it  Avas 
necessary  that  expiation  should  be  made  for  the  sin  of  the 
people.  But  every  point,  in  which  this  sacrificial  ceremony 
differed  from  the  ordinary  practice,  was  sul)servient  to  the 
conclusion  of  the  covenant  itself.  For  example,  the  division  of 
the  blood  into  two  halves,  one  of  which  was  sprinkled  upon  the 
altar,  the  other  upon  the  people.  This  double  application  of 
the  blood  corresponded  to  the  twofold  manner  in  which  the  flesh 
was  disposed  of,  ])art  being  burnt  on  the  altar,  whilst  the  other 
part  was  kept  for  the  sacrificial  meal.  By  the  sacrifice  of  the 
animal,  both  the  blood  and  the  flesh  became  the  property  of 


144  ISEAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

Jeliovali.  The  blood  was  sprinkled  upon  the  altar  as  a  sign 
that  God  accepted  the  sacrifice  as  a  vicarious  atonement.  As 
soon  as  the  blood  was  sprinkled  upon  the  altar,  the  people  were 
regarded  as  reconciled,  and  therefore  fit  to  enter  into  covenant 
alliance  with  God. — Wlien  the  people  had  thus  received  a 
neo;ative  consecration  through  the  removal  of  then'  sin,  the 
whole  law  of  the  covenant  was  laid  before  them ;  and  when 
they  had  pledged  themselves  to  obedience,  they  received  a 
positive  consecration  as  the  covenant  people,  by  being  sprinkled 
with  the  other  half  of  the  blood.  The  exinatory  virtue  of  the 
blood  was  derived  from  the  fact,  that  the  life  of  the  animal 
sacrificed  was  in  the  blood.  Aiid  it  was  from  this  also  that  it 
derived  its  virtue  as  a  positive  consecration.  The  life  was  taken 
from  the  animal  that  the  people  might  have  the  advantage  of  it. 
In  the  place  of  the  sinful  Kfe  of  the  sinful  nation,  the  innocent 
life  of  the  animal  was  given  up  to  death;  and  Jehovah  accepted 
it  as  a  valid  atonement.  But  when  the  life  that  had  been  sacrificed 
was  proved  by  God's  acceptance  of  it  to  have  power  to  expiate 
guilt  which  merited  death,  it  was  also  proved  as  a  gift  of  God  to 
have  power  to  effect  the  restoration  of  life.  The  former  was 
exliibited  in  the  use  that  was  made  of  the  first  half  of  the  blood, 
the  latter,  in  the  pui'pose  to  which  the  second  was  applied.  For 
the  people  stood  in  need  not  only  of  the  extermination  of  sin, 
that  they  might  be  negatively  prepared  for  entering  into  cove- 
nant-fellowship with  Jehovah,  but  also  of  the  restoration  of  life, 
that  they  might  be  positively  fitted  for  that  fellowship.  By 
being  sprinkled  with  the  blood,  they  received  the  necessary 
consecration. — The  covenant,  thus  conckided,  had  a  fundamental 
character ;  it  was  concluded  once  for  all,  and  every  member  of 
the  covenant  nation  had  eo  ipso  a  part  in  the  covenant  itself.  No 
doubt  the  covenant  relation  might  be  disturbed  by  fresh  sins, 
which  rendered  a  fresh  expiation  necessary;  but  the  covenant 
consecration  retained  its  validity  as  long  as  the  covenant  lasted. 
It  was  this  which  constituted  the  difference  between  the  sacri- 
fices which  were  offered  within  an  existing  covenant,  and  the 
sacrifice  which  accompanied  the  first  establishment  of  the 
covenant.  This  will  also  explain  the  fact  that,  whilst  the 
subsequent  law  of  sacrifice  made  provision  for  the  continued 
offering  of  an  exjnatory  sacrifice  by  the  sprinkling  of  the 
sacrificial  altar,  nothing   more   is   said   about   consecration   by 


THE  SINAITIC  COVENAJS^T.  145 

sprinkling  the  blood  upon  the  peoj^le,  or  the  individual,  who 
offered  the  sacrifice. — ^According  to  Jewish  tradition,  which  the 
writer  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  adopts  (chap.  ix.  18-20), 
the  ceremony  of  consecration  was  even  more  complicated  than 
the  account  in  the  Pentateuch  would  lead  us  to  suppose.  Not 
only  blood,  but  water,  coccus-wool,  and  hyssop,  were  used  in 
the  sprinkling  of  the  people  ;  and  the  Book  of  the  Covenant 
was  sprinkled  as  well  as  the  people.  These  supplementary 
details  are  mostly  borrowed  from  the  consecration  of  the  leper 
(Lev.  xiv,  4-8),  which  certainly  resembled  it  in  several  par- 
ticulars.— For  a  fuller  examination  of  the  covenant-sacrifice,  see 
my  Mosauclies  Opfer,  p.  236  sqq. 

(5.)  In  the  fact  that  Aaron  and  his  sons  Nadah  and  Ahihu 
ascended  the  mountain  with  Moses,  there  was  already  an 
intimation  of  their  future  priesthood.  The  elders  were  taken 
as  representatives  of  the  people.  As  it  was  of  course  impossible 
that  all  the  elders  of  the  assembled  people  should  go  up  the 
mountain  with  Moses,  a  selection  must  have  been  made  for  the 
•purpose.  Now,  the  number  seventy  was  both  historically  and 
symbolically  significant,  as  well  as  twelve,  the  number  of  the 
tribes  (see  vol.  ii.  §  2,  3).  The  number  of  Jacob's  sons  who 
founded  tribes  was  twelve,  and  that  of  his  grandsons,  who  went 
down  with  him  to  Egypt  and  founded  families  (Mishpachoth), 
was  seventy. — It  is  evident  from  ver.  14  that  Aaron  and  the 
elders  did  not  go  with  Moses  to  the  summit  of  the  sacred  moun- 
tain, but  only  to  the  lower  part  of  its  lofty  peak.  In  any  case, 
however,  they  went  beyond  the  fence.— The  purpose  of  their 
ascent  was  to  celebrate  the  sacrificial  feast,  which  could  only  be 
kept  in  the  neighboiu'hood  of  what  was  then  the  sanctuary,  or 
dwelling-place  of  God,  since  it  was  a  feast  at  which  God 
was  both  the  Head  of  the  household  and  the  Host.  For  this 
reason,  the  guests  invited  saw  the  God  of  Israel,  before  they  pro- 
ceeded to  partake  of  the  meal ;  "  and  under  His  feet  there  was, 
as  it  were,  a  work  of  transparent  sapphire,  and  like  the  sky 
itself  for  clearness."  For  the  rest,  we  can  appropriate  Hof- 
mamis  words  (Schriftbeweis  i.  336):  "They  saw  in  the  midst  of 
the  darkness  the  God  of  Israel.  .  .  .-It  was  not  to  mark 
the  imperfection  of  their  vision,  that  nothing  was  said  about  the 
appearance  which  God  assumed;  nor  was  it  as  a  sign  that  the  God 
of  Israel  was  enthroned  above  the  sky,  that  under  Him  it  was 
,     VOL.  III.  K 


146  ISEAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

like  the  brightness  of  the  sky;  but  what  they  saw  was  only  so  far 
different  from  what  the  people  had  seen  all  along,  that  after 
they  had  entered  the  darkness  in  which  the  mountain,  whose 
summit  bm^ned  as  with  fire,  was  enveloped,  they  saw  the  fiery- 
sign  separate  itself  from  the  cloud  and  assume  a  shape,  under 
which  everything  was  light  and  clear.  In  this  there  was  a 
representation  of  undistui'bed  blessedness,  intended  to  impress 
upon  their  minds  the  fact  that  the  holy  God  is  a  terror  to  the 
sinner  alone, — that  to  His  own  people  He  is  a  God  of  peace." 

The  flesh  of  the  covenant-sacrifices  was  no  doubt  disposed  of 
in  the  usual  way, — the  lohole  of  the  burnt-offering  being  burned, 
but  of  the  thank-offerings  only  the  best  portions  (the  fat  parts), 
the  remainder  being  set  aside  for  the  sacrificial  meal.  In  the 
offering  which  was  bui'ned  upon  the  altar  for  a  sweet-smelling 
savom-  to  Jehovah  (Gen.  viii.  20),  the  nation  consecrated  itself, 
with  all  its  members  and  all  its  powers,  to  the  God  of  Israel, 
who  had  received  it  into  His  covenant;  and  in  the  sacrificial 
meal  Jehovah  entertained  His  covenant-ally  at  His  own  table, 
as  a  seal  and  attestation  of  the  covenant  which  had  just  been 
concluded. 

ORDERS  FOR  THE  ERECTION  OF  A  SANCTUARY. 

§  12.  (Ex.  xxiv.  12-xxxi.  18.) — As  Jehovah  had  now  entered 
into  covenant  association  with  the  people  of  Israel,  and  in  attes- 
tation of  the  covenant  was  about  to  dwell  in  the  midst  of  the 
people  as  their  God-King,  the  first  thing  reqviired  was,  that  they 
should  build  a  sanctuary  for  Him  to  reside  in  (chap.  xxv.  8). 
But  as  it  was  for  a  specific  purpose  that  God  was  about  to  dwell 
among  the  Israelites, — namely,  for  the  accomplishment  of  His 
own  predetermined  plan  of  salvation, — it  was  necessary  that  both 
the  mode  in  which  He  dwelt  among  them,  and  the  style  of  His 
dwelling-place,  should  be  subservient  to  this  end  (1).  Neither 
Moses,  however,  nor  the  people  had  any  full  or  distinct  idea  of 
what  the  plan  of  salvation  was  ;  it  was  equally  necessary,  there- 
fore, that  God  Himself  should  issue  directions  for  both  the  erec- 
tion and  the  arrangements  of  the  sanctuary.  For  this  purpose 
Jehovah  summoned  Moses  once  more  to  the  sacred  mountain, 


ORDERS  FOR  THE  ERECTION  OF  A  SANCTUARY.  147 

after  the  covenant  had  been  f  iilly  concluded.  During  the  period 
of  his  absence,  Moses  entrusted  the  superintendence  of  the  con- 
gregation to  Aaron  and  Hur,  and  then  ascended  the  mountain, 
attended  by  his  servant  Joshua  (§  4,  3).  On  the  seventh  day- 
he  was  called  into  the  darlviiess  of  the  cloud,  where  the  glory  of 
Jehovah  was  enthroned.  There  Jehovah  showed  him  (in  a 
vision)  a  representation  of  the  dwelling  which  He  required,  and 
of  all  the  articles  of  furniture  (2)  which  were  to  be  placed  in  it, 
and  gave  him  the  necessary  instructions  (3)  for  its  erection.  AVlien 
He  had  completed  His  directions.  He  gave  him  tioo  tables  of 
stone,  on  which  the  ten  words  of  the  fundamental  law  had  been 
inscribed  by  the  finger  of  God  (4).  These,  they  were  ordered  to 
preserve,  as  a  witness  (nnj?)  of  the  covenant,  in  the  sanctuary 
which  was  about  to  be  erected. 

(1.)  We  must  reserve  any  more  minute  description  of  the 
sanctuary  and  its  furniture,  as  well  as  the  examination  of  its 
design  and  importance,  till  we  enter  upon  a  systematic  account 
of  the  entire  legislation. — In  the  meantime  I  refer  the  reader  to 
my  smaller  work,  entitled  Beitrdge  ziir  Symholik  des  alttest.  Cultus, 
I.  Vie  Cultusstdtte,  Leipzig  1851. 

(2.)  We  have  already  pointed  out  in  vol.  i.  §  22,  3,  the  great 
significance  and  peculiar  importance,  in  connection  with  the 
history  of  salvation,  of  the  fact  stated  here,  that  Jehovah  showed 
to  Moses  when  on  the  momit  the  heavenly  original  of  the  sanc- 
tuary, as  a  model  to  be  copied  in  the  erection  of  the  earthly 
sanctuary  (Ex.  xxv.  9,  40,  xxvi.  30,  xxvii.  8 ;  cf .  Heb.  viii.  5). 
A  full  discussion  of  these  allusions  will  be  found  at  the  proper 
place. 

(3.)  The  historical  narrative  is  interrupted  at  chap.  xxiv.  18, 
by  the  account  of  the  Divine  instructions  with  reference  to  the 
erection  and  furnishing  of  the  sanctuary,  and  is  not  continued 
till  chap.  xxxi.  18.  Bertheau  (1.  c.  p.  82)  asks  :  Why  this  inter- 
ru][)tion '?  and  answers  the  question  in  the  following  way.  In 
the  course  of  the  narrative  (chap,  xxxiii.  7-11)  there  occuiTcd 
the  statement  that  Moses  took  the  tent,  pitched  it  outside  the 
camp,  and  called  it  the  Tent  of  Assembly  (§  14,  4).  But  there 
had  been  no  mention  made  of  this  tent,  either  in  the  previous 


148  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SIXAI. 

history  or  in  the  law  of  the  covenant.  To  guard  against  the 
surprise  which  such  an  omission  would,  have  excited  in  the 
reader's  mind,  the  editor  of  the  Pentateuch  (whom  Bertheaii 
supposes  to  have  lived  in  the  time  of  Ezra)  interpolated  this 
second  group  of  laws,  containing  an  account  of  the  tent. — But 
such  a  \iew  is  as  arbitrary  as  it  possibly  can  be.  For,  as  Ber- 
theau  himself  confesses,  it  does  not  give  the  least  explanation  of 
the  reason  why  these  laws  should  be  interpolated  just  at  this 
particiilar  point;  and  the  actual  difficulty  is  not  in  the  least 
removed,  namely,  that  a  tent  of  assembly  is  spoken  of  before  the 
erection  of  the  tabernacle,  which  is  first  described  in  chap,  xxxa*. 
sqq.  But  the  entire  question  is  altogether  superfluous.  For,  the 
simple  reason  why  the  group  of  laws  in  question  is  placed  between 
Ex.  xxiv.  18  and  Ex.  xxxi.  18,  is  no  other  than  this,  that  the  laws 
themselves  were  published  between  these  two  historical  dates. 
The  order  of  time,  and  nothing  else,  determined  the  order  of  the 
narrative.  Moses  was  summoned  to  the  momitain  (according  to 
chap  xxiv,  13),  to  receive  the  tables  of  the  law  that  were  written 
with  the  finger  of  God.  The  question  immediately  arose.  What 
should  he  do  with  them,  where  should  he  keep  them  ?  To  this 
question  an  answer  is  given  in  the  group  of  laws  contained  in 
chap,  xxv.-xxxi.  The  ark  of  the  law  was  to  be  placed  in  the 
ark  of  the  covenant  (Ex.  xxv.  16,  21)  ;  and  this  again  was  to 
be  placed  in  the  sanctuary,  which  was  destined  for  the  service 
of  the  priests.  But  as  there  was  neither  ark,  nor  sanctuary,  nor 
priesthood  in  existence  at  that  time,  it  was  necessary  that  direc- 
tions should  be  given  for  the  prepai'ation  and  appointment  of  all 
of  these ;  and  when  they  had  been  given,  Jehovah  delivered  to 
Moses  the  tables  of  the  law  (chap.  xxxi.  18). 

Bertheau  also  objects  to  the  division  of  the  subject-matter 
of  this  group  of  laws,  as  unnatural  and  not  original.  By  dint 
of  various  transpositions  and  arbitrary  numberings,  he  succeeds 
in  making  a  better  arrangement,  and  dividing  the  whole  into 
7  X  10  commandments,  which  he  declares  without  hesitation  to 
have  been  indisputably  the  original  plan.  We  cannot  follow 
him  through  these  critical  operations.  We  may  observe,  \\o\\- 
ever,  that  the  arrangement  adopted  in  the  text  is  by  no  means  so 
accidental  and  confused,  as  a  cursoiy  glance  might  lead  one  to 
suppose.  The  difficulty  has  akeady  been  essentially  removed  by 
Ranhj  i.  89  sqq.     Bertheau  effectually  prevented  himself  from 


ORDERS  FOR  THE  ERECTION  OF  A  SANCTUARY.  149 

understanding  the  plan  pursued  in  the  text,  by  detaching  the 
passage  entirely  from  the  historical  basis  on  which  it  rests 
(chap.  xxiv.  12-18).  The  actual  arrangement  is  as  follows : 
After  some  general  commandments  about  procuring  materials  for 
building  a  sanctuary,  there  follow  first  of  all  directions  how  to 
make  the  ark,  in  which  the  tables  of  the  law  were  to  be  preserved. 
This  reference  to  chap.  xxiv.  12  was  in  itself  sufficient  to  cause 
the  ark  of  the  covenant  to  stand  first  in  the  list.  The  same 
arrangement  w^as  also  required,  by  the  fact  that  the  ark  of  the 
covenant  was  to  be  the  innermost  centre  of  the  building,  the 
sanctuary  of  the  sanctuary,  the  depository  of  the  most  valuable 
treasure  (namely,  the  record  of  the  covenant),  and  the  throne  of 
Jehovah.  The  thrections  as  to  the  table  of  shew-bread  and 
the  candlestick  follow  in  perfectly  natural  order  :  the  only  thing 
to  cause  astonishment  is  the  fact,  that  the  altar  of  incense,  which 
stood  in  the  same  category  as  these,  should  not  be  mentioned  at 
the  same  time.  The  precepts  concerning  the  erection  of  the 
tent  follow  quite  as  naturally  (chap.  xx\'i.)  ;  and  after  these  the 
instructions  to  build  the  altar  of  burnt-offering  and  the  coui-t  of 
the  tabernacle  (chap,  xx^di.  1-19).  The  furnitiu'e  was  the  prin- 
cipal thing ;  for  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  the  table,  and  the 
candlestick,  were  not  prepared  for  the  sake  of  the  tent,  but  vice 
versa  the  tent  was  made  for  their  sake.  And  this  is  the  reason 
why  they  are  mentioned  first.  (On  the  other  hand,  it  is  quite 
as  natm-al  that  when  the  accovmt  is  given  of  the  actual  constnic- 
tion  of  the  sanctuary  [chap,  xxxvi.  sqq.],  the  tent  is  men- 
tioned first  and  then  the  furniture ;  for  the  very  fact,  that  the 
latter  was  the  most  important,  rendered  it  necessaiy  that  the 
tent,  in  which  they  were  to  be  placed,  shordd  be  first  made  ready 
to  receive  them.)  This  description  of  the  principal  furniture  of 
the  sanctuary,  and  of  the  sanctuarj^  itself,  is  followed  by  instnic- 
tions  as  to  the  kind  of  oil  to  be  used  in  the  lamp,  the  lights  of 
which  were  to  be  kept  always  burning.  It  was  part  of  the  priests' 
duty  to  look  after  this.  But,  as  the  priests  had  not  yet  been 
appointed,  the  text  proceeds  to  describe  the  an'angements  made 
to  supply  this  want.  Aaron  and  his  sons  are  pointed  out  as 
priests.  But  they  were  not  actually  priests  till  their  investiture 
and  consecration.  There  follow,  therefore,  directions  as  to  the 
priests'  robes  (chap,  xxviii.),  and  notices  of  the  manner  in  which 
the  priests  themselves  Avere  to  be  ordained  (chap.  xxix,).     Up  to 


150  ISRAEL  IX  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

this  point,  apart  from  the  omission  of  the  altar  of  incense,  every- 
thing is  aiTanged  in  the  most  natural  and  orderly  manner.  But 
the  instructions  respecting  the  altar  of  incense  are  not  mentioned 
till  now  (chap.  xxx.  1-10).  This  is  certainly  a  very  remark- 
able inversion.  The  only  explanation  which  we  can  suggest 
(and  it  is  not  satisfactory  to  my  own  mind)  is,  that  the  altar  of 
incense  was  a  higher  form  of  the  altar  of  burnt-offering,  and 
presupposed  its  existence ;  and  also,  that  the  attendance  at  the 
altar  of  incense  was  the  crowning  point  of  the  general  duties  of 
the  priesthood,  and  therefore  presupposed  that  the  priests  had 
already  been  installed.  No  doubt  the  latter  might  be  said  of 
the  lamp,  the  table  of  shew-bread,  and  the  altar  of  burnt-offering ; 
but  neither  of  these  was  so  essentially  and  exclusively  associated 
with  the  priesthood  as  the  altar  of  bumt-ofering  was.  All  the 
rest, — such,  for  example,  as  the  instinictions  with  regard  to  the 
erection  of  the  sanctuary,  the  construction  of  the  laver,  the  pre- 
paration of  the  anointing  oil  and  the  incense, — were  so  subor- 
dinate to  what  had  been  mentioned  before,  that  there  is  nothing 
remarkable  in  their  being  mentioned  last. — A  much  greater  dif- 
ficulty arises  from  the  introduction  of  what  appears  to  be  an 
incongruous  section,  describing  a  more  stringent  renewal  of  the 
law  of  the  Sabbath  (chap.  xxxi.  12-17),  into  the  gi'oup  of  laws 
which  treat  of  the  restoration  of  the  sanctuary  and  priesthood. 
We  explain  this  in  the  following  manner.  As  soon  as  these 
laws  of  worship  had  all  been  given,  Jehovah  delivered  to  Moses 
the  two  tables  of  the  law.  These  tables  contained  the  funda- 
mental commandments  of  the  covenant.  Among  those  command- 
ments the  law  of  the  Sabbath  held  a  particularly  prominent 
place.  The  consecration  of  the  Sabbath  was  the  sign  of  the  new 
(Mosaic)  covenant  (niK  ver.  13),  just  as  the  rainbow  was  the 
sign  of  the  covenant  with  Noah,  and  circumcision  the  sign  of 
the  Abrahamic  covenant.  The  violation  of  this  sign  was  a  breach 
of  the  covenant,  and  was  immediately  punished  with  death  (ver. 
14).  It  was  very  fitting,  therefore,  that  when  Jehovah  delivered 
up  the  tables,  which  were  the  memorial  of  the  covenant,  he 
should  lay  stress  again  upon  the  sign  of  the  covenant  and  its 
inviolable  character.  The  words  of  ver.  13-17,  then,  we  regard 
as  the  words,  with  which  Jehovah  handed  over  the  tables  to 
Moses ;  and  suppose  them  to  have  been  occasioned  by  the  event, 
and  to  refer  to  it  alone. 


THE  WOESniP  OF  THE  CALF.  151 

(4.)  As  Jeliovah  had  previously  declared  the  fundamental 
law  to  the  people  without  human  intervention,  so  did  He  now 
engrave  them  Himself  upon  the  TWO  tables,  for  a  memorial  of 
the  covenant.  They  were  engraven  on  tables  of  stone  to  indi- 
cate their  perpetuity,  and  their  indissoluble  validity.  The  fact 
that  the  tables  were  wTitten  on  hoth  sides  (Ex.  xxxii.  15),  is 
correctly  explained  by  Bdhr  (Symbolik  i.  385)  as  being  occa- 
sioned by  the  importance  of  the  document  itself,  to  which  the 
words  of  Deut.  iv.  2,  respecting  the  whole  law  most  peculiarly 
applied,  namely,  that  nothing  should  be  added  or  taken  away 
(compare  Rev.  xxii.  18,  19).  The  dimensions  of  the  tables  were 
probably  the  same  as  those  of  the  ark  of  the  covenant  (two 
cubits  and  a  half  long  and  one  cubit  and  a  half  broad ;  cf .  Ex. 
xxxvii.  1),  as  the  only  design  of  the  ark  was  to  hold  the  tables 
of  stone.  As  the  tables  of  the  law  were  not  intended  to  be  exhi- 
bited before  the  eyes  of  the  people,  but  to  be  hidden  and  shut  up 
in  a  chest  (like  a  costly  treasure),  both  sides  could  very  well  be 
written  upon.  The  design  of  this  was  not  that  the  letters  might 
be  large  and  legible  at  a  distance ;  and  therefore  the  difficulty 
which  has  been  suggested,  as  to  the  possibility  of  finding  room 
on  the  two  tables  for  the  whole  of  the  decalogue,  as  given  in 
Ex.  XX.  and  Deut.  v.,  falls  at  once  to  the  ground. 

THE  WORSHIP  OF  THE  CALF. 

§  13.  (Ex.  xxxii.  1-29;  Deut.  ix.  7-21.)— At  the  very  time 
when  Jehovah  was  occupied  on  the  top  of  the  mountain,  in 
giving  directions  for  the  organisation  of  such  a  system  of  wor- 
ship and  the  erection  of  such  a  sanctuary  as  should  be  adapted 
to  the  call  of  the  people  to  be  different  from  the  heathen,  the 
people  themselves  were  consulting  at  the  foot  of  the  mountain 
how  they  should  make  a  god,  and  organise  a  system  of  worship 
after  the  manner  of  the  heathen.  As  Moses  had  remained  on 
the  mountain  for  forty  days  and  forty  nights,  the  people  began 
to  doubt  whether  he  would  ever  return.  It  was  soon  made  evi- 
dent, now,  that  the  groundwork  of  Nature  still  remained  in  the 
nation,  seeing  that  it  preferred  the  worship  of  Apis  to  that  of 
Jehovah,  and  would  rather  have  to  do  with  a  visible  but  dumb 


152  ISKAEL  IN  THE  DESEET  OF  SINAI. 

idol  than  with  an  invisible  God,  who  had  spoken  to  it  from  the 
midst  of  the  tlnmders  of  Sinai,  and  required  it  to  be  holy  as  He 
was  holy.  So  long  as  the  powerful  influence  of  Moses  had  been 
brought  to  bear  upon  the  people,  this  unconquered  tendency  of 
their  nature  had  not  dared  to  show  itself.  But  when  weeks  and 
weeks  passed  by  without  Moses  returning  (1),  the  people  turned 
to  Aaron,  who  was  the  interim  ruler  of  the  community  (chap, 
xxiv.  14)  with  the  stormy  demand  :  "  Up,  make  us  gods,  which 
shall  go  before  us  ;  for  as  for  this  Moses,  we  know  not  what  is 
become  of  him."  Aaron  perceived  the  evil  of  this  demand  (2); 
but  he  had  not  the  courage  to  offer  an  open  resistance.  He  sought 
refuge  in  worldly  wisdom.  "  Break  off,"  he  said,  "  the  golden 
ear-rings  which  are  in  the  ears  of  your  wives,  of  your  sons,  and 
of  your  daughters,  and  bring  them  to  me."  He  counted  upon 
the  vanity  of  the  women  and  youth,  and  their  love  for  golden 
ornaments,  and  he  hoped  that  in  this  way  he  would  excite  such 
opposition  in  the  community  itself,  as  would  suffice  to  save  him 
from  having  to  offer  a  resistance  which  appeared  to  be  danger- 
ous. But  he  had  entirely  miscalculated.  He  knew  but  the 
surface  of  the  human  heart,  the  depths  of  its  natural  disposition 
were  beyond  his  reach.  All  the  people  cheerfully  broke  off  the 
golden  ornaments  from  their  ears,  for  they  were  about  to  accom- 
plish an  act  of  pure  self-will ;  and  in  that  case  there  is  no  sacri- 
fice which  the  human  heart  is  not  ready  to  make.  Aaron  now 
foimd  that  he  was  caught  in  the  trap  which  his  own  sagacity 
had  laid.  He  collected  the  ornaments  together,  made  the  image 
of  a  hull  (4),  built  an  altar,  and  caused  proclamation  to  be  made 
to  all  the  people,  " To-morrow  is  the  feast  of  Jehovah"  We 
see  from  this  that  he  wanted  to  quiet  his  own  conscience,  to  per- 
suade the  people  to  regard  the  image  of  the  bull  as  no  other  than 
the  God  who  had  brought  them  out  of  Eg^qjt,  and  perhaps  to 
convince  the  Holy  One  of  Israel  Himself  that  they  were  not 
about  to  be  guilty  of  an  act  of  rebellion.  The  people,  at  any 
rate,  did  him  the  pleasm-e  to  enter  into  his  theory ;  for  the  next 
day,  when  they  celebrated  a  festival  to  the  new  idol,  they  shouted 


THE  WORSHIP  OF  THE  CALF.  153 

joyfully  :  "  This  is  thy  God,  O  Israel,  who  brought  thee  out  of 
the  land  of  Egypt."  Not  so  the  Holy  One,  who  had  declared 
His  will  from  Sinai.  For  whilst  the  people  below  were  shout- 
ing and  singing,  eating  and  drinking,  dancing  and  playing  around 
the  new  deities,  the  living  God  said  to  Moses  :  "  Away,  get  thee 
do\ATi !  For  thy.  people,  which  tho^i  broughtest  out  of  the  land 
of  Egypt,  have  corrupted  themselves ;  they  have  turned  aside 
quickly  out  of  the  way  which  /  commanded  them.  Behold,  I 
look  upon  this  people,  and  it  is  a  stiffnecked  people.  Now, 
therefore,  let  Me  alone,  that  my  wrath  may  wax  hot  against  them, 
and  I  may  consume  them ;  so  will  I  make  of  thee  a  great  nation." 
But  Moses  knew  what  his  position  as  mediator  requu'ed;  he 
knew  that  it  was  both  his  right  and  duty  to  say,  "  /  will  not  let 
Thee  go."  He  boldly  repeated  the  words  "  Thou"  and  "  Thy 
people,"  and  applied  them  in  retm-n  to  God.  "  Why,"  said  he, 
"  why,  O  Jehovah,  should  Thine  anger  burn  against  Thy  people, 
which  Thou  broughtest  out  of  Egypt  with  great  power  and  with 
a  mighty  hand  I  Wliy  shoidd  the  Egyptians  say.  For  mischief 
did  He  bring  them  out,  to  destroy  them  in  the  mountains  ?  Turn 
from  Thy  fierce  wrath,  and  repent  of  this  evil  against  Thy  people. 
Remember  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Israel,  Thy  servants,  to  whom 
Thou  swarest  by  Thine  own  self,  I  will  multiply  your  seed  as 
the  stars  of  heaven,  and  will  give  you  all  this  land  for  an  ever- 
lasting possession."  And  the  voice  of  the  mediator  prevailed  : 
"  Jehovah  repented  of  the  evil  which  He  had  spoken  against  His 
people"  (5). 

Thus  did  the  mediator  address  Jehovah,  wdien  he  interceded 
for  the  salvation  of  the  people.  But  a  mediator  is  not  a  media- 
tor of  one.  He  had  also  to  defend  the  hoHness  of  Jehovah  in 
the  presence  of  the  people ;  and  this  he  now  prepared  to  do. 
He  came  out  of  the  darkness,  in  which  he  had  conversed  with 
Jehovah  for  forty  days,  and  hm-ried  with  Joshua  down  the 
mountain.  AVhen  they  were  half-way  down,  the  shouting  of 
the  people  reached  their  ears.  Joshua  thought  it  was  a  war- 
cry.     But  they  soon  discerned  the  golden  calf  in  the  camp,  and 


154  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

the  people  dancing  round  it  in  festive  circles.  The  indignation 
of  Moses  burned  at  the  sight.  He  threw  down  the  tables  of  the 
law,  which  Jehovah  had  given  him,  and  broke  them  in  pieces  at 
the  foot  of  the  momitain.  The  people  had  broken  the  covenant 
itself,  and  therefore  Moses,  the  messenger  of  God,  broke  the 
memorial  of  it.  He  then  tore  down  the  idolatrous  image,  burned 
it  with  fire,  and  crushed  it  to  powder  at  the  brook  of  Horeb, 
that  the  wicked  worshippers  might  be  compelled  to  drink  it  (6). 
Aaron  was  then  subjected  to  examination  :  "  Wliat  did  the 
people  unto  thee,  that  thou  hast  brought  so  great  a  sin  upon 
them  I"  Aaron's  wisdom  had  been  put  to  shame,  when  he  at- 
tempted to  outwit  the  people ;  it  was  now  turned  into  miserable 
follj,  when  he  tried  to  defend  himself  in  the  presence  of  judicial 
wrath  :  "  They  gave  me  the  gold,  I  threw  it  into  the  fire,  and 
there  came  out  this  calf!"  Moses  now  entered  the  camp  and 
cried  out,  "Whoever  is  on  the  Lord's  side,  let  him  come  to  me." 
This  would  show  how  many  repented  of  their  sin,  and  were  willing 
to  return  to  the  service  of  Jehovah.  All  the  sons  of  Le^d  gathered 
round  him.  They  were  willing  to  return  and  obey.  But  their 
obedience  had  to  be  put  to  a  severe  test.  They  were  ordered  to  go 
sword  in  hand  through  the  camp,  and  put  all  they  met  to  death  ; 
not  even  a  brother  or  a  friend  was  to  be  spared.  It  was  a  stem 
but  just  judgment  which  befell  the  sinners  ;  and  it  was  doubly 
deserved,  because  they  had  despised  the  amnesty  offered  them  (7). 
There  fell  that  day  about  three  thousand  men.  By  this  painful  and 
willing  act  of  obedience,  Levi  expiated  the  curse  which  had  hitherto 
rested  upon  his  house  (Gen.  xlix.  5-7).  It  had  been  inciuTed  by  an 
act  of  ungodly  rage  and  self-willed  revenge  ;  it  was  now  wiped 
away  and  turned  into  a  blessing  by  their  obedience  in  executing 
the  wrath  and  vengeance  of  God.  In  proof  of  this,  Moses  called 
the  house  of  Levi,  and  consecrated  it  temporarily  to  discharge  the 
duties  of  the  priesthood  which  was  to  be  established  in  Israel  (8). 

(1.)  We  have  here  another  scene  of  proof  and  temptation 
unfolding  itself  before  us.     The  people  w^ere  tempted,  to  see  how 


THE  WORSIIir  OF  THE  CALF.  155 

tliey  would  act  as  a  covenant  people  ;  and  Moses,  to  see  how  lie 
would  act  as  the  mediator  of  the  covenant.  Aaron,  the  futiu'e 
high  priest,  and  Levi,  the  future  priestly  tribe,  were  also  put  to 
the  proof.  Aaron,  the  head  of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  and  the  people 
did  not  stand  the  test ;  but  Moses,  the  head  of  the  people,  and 
the  tribe  of  Levi  came  out  of  it  unscathed.  For  the  sake  of 
the  strong  the  weak  were  spared  (Gen.  xviii.  22  sqq.)  ;  and  the 
imrighteousness  of  the  many  was  covered  on  account  of  the  right- 
eousness of  the  few,  which  came  to  light. — The  originating  cause 
of  the  temptation  was  the  fact,  that  Moses  remained  so  incon- 
ceivably long  a  time  upon  the  mountain.  The  people  fancied 
that  he  had  either  died  or  disappeared  ;  and  now,  when  left  to 
themselves,  they  showed  how  far  they  were  from  entering  into 
the  covenant  with  all  their  heart  and  soul,  and  how  slightly  they 
were  rooted  in  it.  The  forty  days  had  been  days  of  temptation 
for  Israel ;  and  if  the  number  forty  did  not  already  possess  a  sym- 
bolical importance  as  a  period  of  temptation,  it  acquired  it  now, 
and  henceforth  continued  to  retain  it. — By  the  fall  of  the  people 
Moses  was  exposed  to  temptation,  in  which  he  showed  himself 
faithful  and  conscientious  in  his  mediatorial  office  (see  Note  5). 
And  Aaron,  who  was  destined  to  be  the  high  priest  of  the  cove- 
nant nation,  was  exposed  to  temptation  in  consequence  of  the 
rebellious  desire  of  the  people,  and  proved  how  unfit  he  was  by 
nature  for  siich  an  office.  But  as  the  people  had  received  their 
call  to  be  the  chosen  nation,  not  for  any  merit  of  their  own,  but 
from  the  mercy  of  Him  who  had  called  them,  so  was  it  with 
Aaron  also.  It  was  necessar)^,  however,  that  his  natural  weak- 
ness and  unfitness  shoiild  be  made  apparent  before  he  entered 
upon  the  office,  that  he  might  not  be  highminded  afterwards. 
The  strange  anomaly,  presented  by  the  priesthood  in  Israel 
(Avhich  showed  so  clearly  that  it  was  not  the  perfect  and  absolute 
priesthood),  was  to  be  brought  out  at  the  very  first,  namely,  that 
the  man  who  offered  an  atonement  for  sin  was  himself  a  sinner 
in  need  of  an  atonement.  At  the  same  time,  if  we  would  be  just 
in  our  estimate  and  comparison  of  Moses  and  Aaron,  we  must  not 
forget  that  Moses  was  already  in  office,  and  in  possession  of  the 
grace  of  office,  and  that  Aaron  was  not ;  and  also,  that  the  firm- 
ness of  Moses  when  in  office  had  been  preceded  by  weakness  and 
pusillanimity  before  the  office  was  conferred  upon  him  (Ex.  iii.  4). 
— On  the  temptation  of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  see  below.  Note  8. 


15G  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

(2.)  Israel  had  just  been  chosen  above  all  the  nations  of  the 
earth,  and  exalted  to  fellowship  with  that  God  who  is  above  all 
gods.  But  its  natural  disposition  soon  broke  forth,  and  it  began 
to  feel  uncomfortable  in  the  possession  of  such  privileges.  It 
would  rather  have  been  a  nation  like  other  nations,  possessing 
gods  like  the  heathen.  Still,  as  it  was  Jehovah  who  had  brought 
it  out  of  Egypt,  and  fed  it  with  bread  from  heaven  and  water 
out  of  the  rock,  it  did  not  wish  to  give  Him  up,  but  rather  to 
draw  Him  down  to  the  level  to  which  it  had  fallen  itself, — in 
other  words,  to  shut  up  the  holy,  spiritual,  and  transcendental 
God,  with  the  power  He  had  so  richly  displayed,  in  the  realm  of 
Natm*e  alone,  that  He  might  be  nearer  and  more  completely 
within  its  grasp.  Jehovah  sought  to  raise  up  the  Israelites  to 
His  own  holiness ;  but  they  were  desirous  of  bringing  Him  down 
to  their  own  worldliness.  Instead  of  becoming  assimilated  to 
Jehovah  in  the  way  of  holiness,  they  found  it  more  convenient 
to  assimilate  the  supernatiu'al  God  to  then'  own  natural  condi- 
tion. They  had  still  but  little  notion  of  the  spiritual  blessings 
of  salvation  ;  and  therefore  the  spirituality  of  God  appeared  to 
them  to  be  something  altogether  superfluous.  Their  minds  were 
still  fixed  upon  temporal  blessings ;  and  therefore  it  was  enovigh 
for  them  to  have  a  God  who  had  shown  Himself  mighty  in  this 
lower  sphere. — The  gods  of  the  heathen  were  regarded  as  con- 
crete embodiments  of  natural  powers.  Hence  any  objects,  in 
which  the  power  in  question  was  manifested  with  peculiar  energ)^, 
were  looked  upon  as  the  concentration,  embodiment,  or  repre- 
sentation of  these  powers  of  Nature.  Physical  power  was  re- 
garded much  more  than  mental ;  and  hence  it  was  chiefly  the 
various  objects  of  the  (vegetable  and)  animal  world  to  which  this 
process  of  deification  extended.  The  worship  of  Nature  was 
much  more  direct  and  outward,  wdiere  actual  (living)  specimens 
were  selected  as  the  objects  of  worship.  It  was  more  mental 
and  ideal,  where  ideal  representations  of  the  same  objects  were 
employed,  and  when  there  was  not  only  the  idea  of  the  incarna- 
tion of  the  Deity  in  the  objects  of  Nature,  but  where  that  incar- 
nation was  represented  in  such  a  manner  as  to  pave  the  way  for 
symbols.  The  latter  (higher)  form  of  Nature-worship  was  the 
one  which  Israel  chose.     See  below.  Note  4. 

(3.)  The  manufacture  of  the  golden  calf  is  thus  described  in 
ver.  4 :  "  And  he  received  (the  golden  ear-rings)  at  their  hand, 


THE  WORSHIP  OF  THE  CALF.  157 

D^nn  inx  "IV'I,  and  he  made  it  a  molten  calf."  The  middle  clause 
has  been  translated  and  interpreted  in  the  most  various  ways. 
The  word  t)"in  (^from  the  root  D~in  =  '^apdrroi,  to  scratch,  engrave, 
hollow  out)  is  only  found  in  this  passage  and  Is.  viii.  1,  and  in 
the  latter  case  it  denotes  undoubtedly  a  pencil  for  writing  (for 
enOTavino-).  From  this  some  have  dedu^ced  the  kindred  mean- 
ing  "  chisel,"  and  have  rendered  the  passage  before  us  :  He 
formed  (fi'om  the  root  "i-iV,  cf.  1  Kings  vii.  15)  it  (viz.,  the  calf) 
with  a  chisel.  But  this  meaning  is  inadmissible,  both  gram- 
matically and  as  a  question  of  fact ; — grammatically,  because 
inx  can  only  refer  to  something  that  has  gone  before  (the  golden 
ornaments),  not  to  the  calf,  which  is  not  mentioned  till  after- 
wards ;  and  as  a  matter  of  fact,  because  the  calf  is  expressly  de- 
scribed as  molten,  and  files,  not  chisels,  are  used  to  polish  up 
metal  casts. — J.  D.  Michaelis  renders  it :  He  formed  it  with  a 
pencil ;  i.e.,  he  made  a  drawing  of  it  with  a  pencil.  M.  Baum- 
garten  gives  a  similar  rendering  :  He  formed  it  with  the  chisel ; 
i.e.,  he  made  a  wooden  model  from  which  to  form  the  mould. — 
Others  are  of  opinion  that  the  word  t^nn  itself  means  a  model 
(see,  for  example,  the  two  Arabic  versions,  Erpenius,  Aben-ezra, 
J.  D.  ISiichaelis,  and  others).  But  all  these  renderings,  and 
others  beside  them,  which  may  be  seen  in  JRosemnilller  s  Scholia, 
are  so  forced,  that  one  can  hardly  feel  satisfied  with  any  of  them. 
The  most  natural  of  all  is  that  of  ,Tonathan,  which  has  been 
adopted  by  Bochart  (Hieroz.  ed.  Rosenm.  i.  334),  Schroder, 
Kosenmiiller,  and  others.  He  takes  D"in  in  the  sense  of  t3''"in 
(=  something  hollow,  a  pocket,  a  purse),  and  derives  "!>'*}  from 
"nv  (to  bind,  or  bind  together)  :  "  And  he  bound,  i.e.,  collected 
them  in  a  pocket."  In  precisely  the  same  terms  is  it  said  of 
Elisha  s  servant  (2  Kings  v.  23)  :  And  he  tied  up  (iV"''))  the  two 
talents  in  two  purses  (D''D''")n). 

(4.)  On  the  Israelitish  Calf-WORSHIP  see  Bochart  (Hieroz. 
i.  339  sqq.  ed  Eosenm,),  Seidell  {Syntafjma  i.  4),  Hengstenhera 
(Beitr.  ii.  155  sqq.). — In  the  worship  of  Nature,  the  calf  (repre- 
sented sometimes  as  a  bull,  at  other  times  as  a  cow)  has  passed 
from  the  very  earliest  times,  and  with  veiy  general  agreement, 
as  an  idol  or  symbol  of  the  generative  (or  the  receptive  and  repro- 
ductive) powers  of  Nature.  The  fact  that  Israel  derived  this 
notion  from  Eg;yq)t,  and  therefore  that  the  Israelitish  calf-^^  or- 
ship  was  a  coj>y  of  the  Eg}q)tian,  has  been  first  denied  in  modern 


158  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

times  by  Vatke  (^Religion  des  aUen  Testamentes  i.  393  sqq.),  who 
maintains  that  calf-worship  was  the  primitive  Canaanitish  sym- 
bolism, the  oldest  historical  form  of  the  national  rehgion  of  the 
Israelites,  which  prevailed  universally  till  the  division  of  the 
kingdom  under  Rehoboam,  and  was  afterwards  perpetuated  in 
the  kingdom  of  Ephraim  until  its  eventual  overthrow  (consult 
Hengstenherg  s  reply  to  this).  The  principal  argument  adduced 
by  Vatke  is,  that  only  living  animals  were  considered  sacred  in 
Egypt,  figures  of  animals  being  only  employed  as  masks  or  in 
casts.  This  purely  imaginary  argument  is  completely  set  aside 
by  the  authority  of  Mela  (i.  9,  §  7)  :  colunt  effigies  raultorum 
animalimn  atque  ipsa  magis  animalia ;  and  of  Straho  (xvii.  p. 
805),  who  says,  that  wherever  images  were  found  in  the  Egyptian 
temples,  they  were  in  the  form  of  animals,  not  of  men.  (See 
also  Herodotus  ii.  129  sqq.,  Plut.  de  Is.  et  Osh\  ii.  p.  366,  and 
also  Hengstenherg  ut  sup?) — The  derivation  of  the  Israelitish  calf- 
worship  from  the  Egyptian  is  expressly  asserted  in  Josh.  xxiv.  14 ; 
Ezek.  XX.  7,  8,  xxiii.  3,  8.  And  Hengstenherg  has  akeady  called 
attention  to  the  remarkable  agreement  between  Ex.  xxxii.  and 
the  description  of  an  Egyptian  festival  given  by  Herodotus 
(ii.  60)  :  al  fiev  rLve<;  tcov  <yvvaiKO}v  KporaXa  e-^ovcrat  KporaXu- 
^ovcTL,  al  Ze  avkeovcTL,  al  he  Xonral  yvvalKe<;  koI  dvhpe^  aelSovcn  koI 
ra?  x^^P^'^  Kporeovcrc.     Cf.  Herodotus  iii.  27. 

Of  coui'se  the  Moloch-hunters  scent  the  worship  of  Moloch 
even  here  (cf.JDaumer  and  GhUlany,  11.  cc.  vol.  i.  §  15,  4).  The 
three  thousand  men  who  were  slain  by  the  sword  of  Levi,  were 
victims  to  the  worship  of  Nature  in  a  very  different  sense  from 
that  described  in  the  falsified  statements  of  the  Biblical  record. 
They  were  offered  by  ]\Ioses,  who  was  a  zealous  worshipper  of 
Moloch,  as  Abraham  had  been  before  him,  to  the  image  of 
Moloch  which  Aaron  had  set  up,  to  celebrate  the  gi^ang  of  the 
law  and  the  sealing  of  the  covenant  with  Moloch-Jehovah  ! ! 

It  is  very  characteristic  of  the  historical  style  of  Josephus, 
that  he  makes  no  mention  at  all  of  the  golden  calf  in  his  Anti- 
quities, but  describes  the  people  as  shouting  for  joy  (j(apa<i  S' 
iviirXTjcre  rrjv  arpariav  iirKpavels:),  when  Moses  returned  from 
the  mountain  after  an  absence  of  forty  days  (Ant.  iii.  5,  8). 

(5.)  In  the  interview  between  Jehovah  and  Moses  on  the 
moimtain,  there  is  sometliing  in  the  part  performed  hy  Jehovah 
which  may  at  first  sight  be  regarded  as  strange.     The  principal 


THE  WORSniP  OF  THE  CALF.  159 

point  undoubtedly"  is  the  temptation  of  Moses  in  his  vocation  of 
mediator,  not  in  order  that  Jehovah  might  discover  whether 
Moses  would  stand  firm,  as  though  He  could  not  foresee  the 
issue,  but  in  order  that  Moses  might  have  an  oj)portunity  of  ex- 
ercising his  vocation  with  perfect  freedom.  If,  however,  the 
threat  to  exterminate  Israel  on  account  of  its  sin,  and  the  offer 
to  make  of  Moses  a  great  nation,  i.e.,  to  transfer  all  the  promises 
made  to  the  fathers  to  Moses  alone,  were  merely  intended  to  put 
Moses  to  the  proof,  and  try  whether  he  had  courage  and  gene- 
rosity enough  to  perform  his  task  as  mediator,  notwithstanding 
the  greatness  of  the  nation's  apostasy,  the  power  of  the  devouring 
Avrath  of  God,  and  the  plenitude  of  His  offers  to  him  ;  and  if  it 
Avas  the  Avill  of  God  that  Moses  should  stand  this  test :  it  mifrht 

o 

appear  as  though  neither  the  threat  nor  the  offer  was  meant  in 
earnest,  and  both  would  in  that  case  appear  to  be  illusorj',  and, 
like  everything  illusory,  unworthy^  of  God.  But  this  appearance 
only  lasts  so  long  as  we  forget  that  in  God  justice  and  mercy  are 
not  opposed  to  each  other,  and  cannot  possibly  clash,  since  they 
are  eternally  and  essentially  one  in  the  One  holy  and  perfect 
Being ;  and  that  it  is  for  us  only  that  they  are  distinguished, 
since  we  are  obliged  to  isolate  the  particular  sides  of  the  many- 
sided,  in  order  to  comprehend  them. 

In  Jehovah,  the  wTath,  which  would  have  exterminated  the 
apostate  nation,  was  just  as  true  and  earnest  as  the  power  of  the 
love,  which  would  see  it  saved  in  spite  of  its  rebellion.  But  they 
were  both  united  in  the  eternal  counsel  of  salvation,  which  was 
the  combined  product  of  the  two ;  for  in  that  counsel  wrath  was 
appeased  by  love,  and  love  sanctified  by  wrath.  Wrath  and  love 
were  made  one  in  the  counsel  of  salvation  ;  but  they  were  not 
extinguished.  Yet  as  they  both  equally  continued  to  exist  in 
absolute  fulness  and  energy,  it  was  necessary  that  man  shoidd 
have  equal  evidence  and  experience  of  both  ;  and  for  this  end  it 
was  requisite  that,  /or  Aim,  they  shoidd  be  separated,  that  is,  that 
they  should  operate  upon  him  singly.  As  the  Divine  counsel  of 
salvation  was  the  product  of  the  union  of  Avi'ath  and  love,  the  hum  an 
consciousness  of  sajvation  could  only  result  from  his  experiencing 
alike  the  ardour  of  both  the  A\Tath  and  love  of  God.  Though 
the  two  are  one  and  eternal  in  God,  yet  to  man,  mIio  lives  in  time, 
they  must  be  manifested  successively  according  to  the  laws  of  time. 
When  thus  distingiushed,  wrath  is  naturally  and  neccssai-ily  ex- 


160  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

perienced  first ;  because  sin  furnishes  the  first  occasion  to  the 
entire  movement.  It  is  not  till  man  has  experienced  wrath,  that 
he  feels  the  need  and  longing  for  mercy  ;  and  the  consciousness 
of  need  first  paves  the  way  for  the  reception  of  mercy. 

These  two,  wrath  and  mercy,  were  first  of  all  displayed  sepa- 
rately to  Moses,  the  mediator  between  the  sinful  nation  and  the 
holy  God.  The  wrath  of  God  on  account  of  the  sin  of  the 
people  was  made  known  to  him,  in  order  that  he  might  remember 
his  vocation  of  mediator,  and,  by  appeasing  the  wrath,  open  the 
way  for  the  proclamation  of  mercy.  "  Let  Me  alone,"  says  the 
wrath,  "  that  I  may  destroy  them,  and  I  will  make  of  thee  a 
great  nation."  This  was  not  appearance  and  pretence,  but 
thorough  earnestness  and  truth ;  on  one  side  only,  however,  of 
the  Divine  nature,  namely,  that  of  wrath  on  account  of  sin.  The 
other  not  less  powerful  attribute  of  the  one  Divine  Being,  viz., 
love,  was  still  silent,  waiting  till  wrath  had  produced  its  due  re- 
sults before  it  appeared  at  all.  But  the  fact  that  wi'ath  felt 
itself  fettered  even  in  this  isolation,  betrayed  itself  in  the  words, 
"  Let  Me  alone."  It  could  not  work  unrestrained ;  for  by  its 
union  with  love,  the  product  of  which  was  the  plan  of  salvation, 
limits  were  set  to  its  exercise.  The  counsel  of  salvation,  or  Moses 
the  mediator  of  it,  stood  between  the  wrath  of  God  and  the  sin 
of  man. 

In  this  instance  Moses  was  the  only  righteous  man  among 
the  many  unrighteous.  The  wrath,  therefore,  could  not  reach 
Mm.  But  if  free  course  had  been  given  to  the  wrath,  he  alone 
would  have  been  spared,  and  a  new  commencement  would  have 
been  made  with  him,  as  formerly  with  Abraham.  A  retrograde 
movement  would  have  taken  place,  and  Moses  would  have  stood 
upon  the  same  footing  as  Abraham.  This  is  indicated  in  the 
words,  "And  I  will  make  of  thee  a  great  nation."  But  we  can 
only  admit  the  abstract,  not  the  concrete  possibility  of  such  a 
result.  If  Moses  had  yielded  before  the  -\vrath  of  God,  which 
it  was  his  duty  as  mediator  to  withstand,  and  which  he  was 
bound  to  overcome  by  intercession  and  by  appealing  to  the 
counsel  of  salvation,  he  would  have  displayed  his  unfitness  for 
the  high  office  conferred  upon  him.  In  that  case,  however,  it 
would  have  been  apparent  that  Jehovah  had  made  a  mistake 
in  appointing  him  mediator — a  mistake  which  would  have 
threatened  the  whole  plan  of  salvation,  as  Moses  was  for  the 


THE  WORSHIP  OF  THE  CALF.  161 

time  beino-  all  in  all.  But  such  a  mistake  is  inconceivable  in 
the  case  of  God ;  and,  consequently,  any  misapprehension  or 
neglect  of  duty  in  the  case  of  Moses  is  also  inconceivable ;  for, 
when  God  called  him  to  the  office  He  must  have  foreseen  that 
he  would  discharge  its  duties  faithfully.  From  this  it  is  evident 
that  the  words,  "let  Me  alone,  and  I  will  make  of  thee  a  great 
nation,"  were  intended  as  means,  not  as  the  end:  that  the 
purpose  they  were  designed  to  serve,  according  to  the  v\dll  of 
God,  and  which,  from  Moses'  state  of  mind,  they  must  inevitably 
serve,  was  to  furnish  Him  with  an  opportunity  of  maldng  a 
glorious  display  of  His  mediatorial  vocation. 

The  announcement  of  wrath  produced  upon  Moses  the  effect 
which  was  intended.  He  did  not  let  God  alone;  on  the  contrary^, 
he  held  up  before  Him  His  own  purpose  and  promises  of  sal- 
vation, as  well  as  His  own  glory.  Like  Jacob,  he  fought  and 
wrestled  with  the  wrath  of  Jehovah;  with  Jacob  he  said,  "I 
will  not  let  Thee  go  except  Thou  bless  me ;  "  and,  like  Jacob, 
he  also  gained  the  victory  and  came  forth  from  the  conflict 
as  a  second  Israel  (cf.  vol.  i.  §  80,  4),  for  "  Jehovah  repented 
of  the  evil  which  He  had  said  that  He  would  do  to  His  people" 
(ver.  14). 

It  looks  somewhat  at  variance  with  the  statement  that 
Jehovah  ceased  at  once  from  His  wrath  at  the  intercession  of 
Moses,  when  we  afterwards  read  (chap  xxxii.  30  sqq.),  that 
Moses  still  continued  anxious  and  uncertain  as  to  his  success  in 
appeasing  the  wrath  of  Jehovah,  and  that  Jehovah  was  still 
angry,  His  purposes  of  wrath  but  slowly  giving  place  to  those 
of  mercy.  But  this  difficulty  ceases  at  once,  when  we  consider 
that  ver.  14  does  not  contain  the  words  of  God  but  the  words  of 
the  writer,  who  thereby  informs  the  reader  that  the  intercession 
of  Moses  was  not  without  effect.  Moses  himself  did  not  as  yet 
receive  any  answer  to  his  intercession,  nor  any  assurance  of 
formveness. 

(6.)  The  burning  zeal  of  Moses,  and  the  firmness  which  ho 
displayed,  so  powerfully  affected  the  guilty  consciences  of  the 
people  that  they  let  him  do  as  he  pleased,  and  did  not  even  oppose 
the  steps  he  took  for  the  destruction  of  the  new  cjod.  In  what  way 
Moses  had  the  golden  calf  burned  with  fire  (eiib')  and 
pounded  (ground  |nD)  to  powder,  and  then  gave  it  to  the  people 
to  di'ink  along  with  the  water  of  the  brook  of  Horeb  (Ex.  xxxii. 
VOL.  III.  L 


162  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OP  SINAI. 

20;  cf.  Deut.  ix.  21),  is  a  problem  that  lias  never  yet  been 
solved.  If  we  are  merely  to  understand  that  he  destroyed  the 
form  of  the  calf  with  the  fire  and  then  reduced  the  material  to 
powder  (possibly  by  means  of  files),  and  strewed  it  upon  the 
brook  of  Horeb,  the  whole  process  is  simple,  natural,  and  intelli- 
gible ;  but  the  description  is  somewhat  obscure  and  wanting  in 
precision.  Still,  we  are  not  prepared  for  an  unconditional  rejec- 
tion of  this  hypothesis.  The  first  thing  to  be  accomplished  was  to 
destroy  thefot^m  of  the  idol,  for  it  was  that  alone  which  constituted 
it  an  idol.  And  this  might  be  regarded  as  burning,  since  it  was 
actually  destruction  by  fire.  This  may  at  first  have  been  all  that 
Moses  intended  to  do;  and  possibly  it  was  not  till  this  was  accom^ 
plished,  that  he  saw  the  necessity  for  destroying  the  material  also, 
as  the  instrument  of  sin.  Of  course,  as  soon  as  the  gold  dust 
was  strewed  upon  the  water,  it  would  sink  to  the  bottom.  But 
even  in  that  case  the  expression  might  still  be  used,  "he  strewed 
(it)  upon  the  water,  and  made  the  children  of  Israel  drink  (it)." 
For  the  object  of  the  whole  symbolical  transaction  undoubtedly 
was,  that  the  curse  and  uncleanness  attaching  to  the  gold,  which 
had  been  abused  for  the  purposes  of  sin,  should  be  conveyed  to 
the  water,  and  pass  along  with  the  water  into  the  bowels  of 
those  who  drank  it, — not  that  they  should  drink  the  gold  itself. 
It  must  be  admitted  that  this  explanation  does  not  remove  the 
difficulty  altogether.  And  the  question  may  still  be  entertained, 
whether  it  is  not  preferable  to  assume  that  the  ancient  Egyptians 
were  acquainted  with  some  chemical  process  of  calcining  gold, 
i.e.,  of  changing  it  by  the  application  of  heat  into  a  friable 
metallic  oxyde,  or  with  some  other  process  of  a  similar  kind, 
and  that  Moses  learned  it  from  them.  We  could  not  in  any 
case  have  recoiu'se  to  so  unnatural  an  explanation  as  that  of 
Baumgarten  (i.  1,  p.  105) ;  "  As  there  are  no  natm'al  means  of 
calcining  gold,  we  must  suppose  the  elementary  fire  to  have  been 
miraculously  intensified  by  the  glow  of  the  godly  zeal  wliich 
burned  in  Moses.  It  presents  an  analogy  to  the  fire,  which  will 
melt  the  elements  of  the  world  on  the  day  of  the  wrath  of 
God  (see  2  Pet.  iii.  10)." — Winer  (Reallex.  1  645)  is  of  opinion, 
that  the  principal  difficulty  is  to  be  found  in  the  words  K^'^^l 
t^'^{3J  which  are  not  applicable  to  any  chemical  decomposition, 
nor  even  to  the  calcination  of  gold,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  are 
equally  inapplicable  to  the  mere  process  of  melting.     "There 


THE  WORSHIP  OF  THE  CALF.  168 

remains,  therefore,  only  tlie  mistaken  opinion,  or  at  least  mis- 
taken expression,  of  an  editor  who  was  not  acquainted  with  tlie 
subject."  We  cannot  take  advantage  of  this  escape  from  the 
difficulty.  It  is  certain,  we  admit,  that  the  w^ord  f\-\t^  is  not  the 
proper  term  to  apply  to  the  fusion  of  metals ;  but,  as  Ave  have 
ah'eady  remarked,  it  was  not  the  process  of  melting,  but  the 
destruction  of  the  form  of  the  calf,  which  was  the  main  tinner 
referred  to  here.  And,  if  the  Egyptians  were  really  acquainted 
with  any  process  of  calcining  metals,  Ave  see  no  difficulty  in  the 
assumption  that  f\-\\i^  was  applied  as  a  technical  term  to  that 
particular  process.  It  is  Avell  known  hoAv  far  from  appropriate 
the  names  given  to  such  processes  frequently  are  :  e.g.,  to  cite 
only  one — our  "burning  lime"  and  "slaking  hme  "  are  perhaps 
quite  as  inadequate  as  the  term  f|"ib>,  when  applied  to  the  calcin- 
ation of  metals.  The  Avord  f\i\^  is  used  in  Gen.  ii.  3  to  denote 
the  bm*ning  of  bricks ;  and,  in  this  case,  the  notion  of  consmning 
can  no  more  be  preserA'ed  than  in  that  of  birrning  the  gold. 
The  kindred  A\^ord  Fi"iv  is  the  term  actually  applied  to  the 
melting  of  metals,  but  this  word  is  first  met  Avith  in  books  of 
a  later  date. 

(7.)  The  PUNISHMENT  inflicted  by  the  command  of  Moses 
(ver.  27)  has  often  been  described  as  an  act  of  inhuman  cruelty. 
If  there  is  any  ground  for  such  a  charge,  it  not  only  aj^plies  to 
this  particular  case,  but  to  the  spirit  and  essence  of  the  whole 
code  of  laws,  and  to  the  entire  course  of  history  of  which  they 
formed  the  guiding  principle.  The  law  represents  every  act  of 
apostasy  from  Jehovah,  every  kind  of  idolatry,  and  eveiy  species 
of  heathen  superstition,  as  a  capital  crime.  If,  then,  the  laAv 
itself  is  not  to  be  condemned  for  such  stringency  as  this, 
the  command  of  Moses,  Avhich  merely  carried  the  spirit  of  the 
law,  is  perfectly  justifiable.  Such  stringency  Avas  perfectly 
justifiable  on  the  part  of  the  law  ;  for  it  was  demanded  as  well 
as  dictated  by  the  peculiar  position  and  character  of  the  Old 
Testament  theocracy.  It  Avas  first  of  all  demanded  by  the  fact 
that  the  God  of  Israel  was  also  the  King  of  Israel.  Every 
sinful  disregard  or  violation  of  the  dignity  of  Jehovah,  the  one 
God  in  Israel,  Avas  also  a  crime  against  the  sole  monarchy  of 
the  King  Jehovah ;  every  religious  crime  was  a  state  crime  as 
well.  When  the  AA^orship  of  God,  and  loyalty  to  a  sovereign, 
church  and  state,  religion  and  politics,  belong  to  tAVO  different 


164  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

and  independent  spheres,  however  close  the  relationship  in 
which  they  stand  to  each  other,  the  crimes  connected  with  each 
department  must  also  be  kept  distinct,  and  be  separately  judged 
and  punished.  Crimes  against  the  state,  being  a  violation  of 
earthly  order,  must  be  followed  by  earthly  punishment;  and,  in 
the  case  of  a  capital  crime,  which  threatens  the  existence  of 
the  state  itself  (high  treason),  by  absolute  excision  from  the 
community,  i.e.,  the  punishment  of  death.  Religious  crimes,  being 
sins  against  God,  must  be  left  to  the  judgment  of  God,  and 
so  far  as  they  threaten  the  existence  of  the  religious  community 
(the  Church),  be  punished  by  exclusion  from  that  community. 
But  when  Church  and  state  are  identical,  as  in  the  theocracy, 
absolute  exclusion  from  the  religious  community  is  eo  ipso 
absolute  exclusion  from  the  state,  that  is,  the  punishment  of 
death.  From  this  point  of  view,  then,  the  calf-worship  of 
Israel  could  only  be  regarded  and  punished  as  an  act  of  treason 
against  the  God-king  of  Israel ;  and  high  treason  has  always 
been  punished  by  death. — Secondly,  the  severity  and  exclusive- 
ness,  which  are  sometimes  complained  of  in  the  Old  Testament 
institvitions,  were  required  by  the  character  and  design  of  the 
Old  Testament  itself,  as  the  introductory  part  of  the  plan  of 
salvation.  It  bore  a  strictly  legal  character,  and  must,  therefore, 
be  upheld  by  strict  laws;  for,  as  the  Apostle  says,  the  law  was  a 
schoolmaster  to  bring  to  Christ  (a  subject  which  will  be  treated 
of  more  fully  in  the  next  volume). — Thirdly,  if  there  was  such 
recldessness  in  the  spirit  and  character  of  all  antiquity,  it  must 
have  been  because  Christianity,— the  only  thing  which  could 
destroy  the  root  of  it, — was  not  yet  in  existence.  If,  however, 
there  was  such  recklessness  in  the  spirit  of  the  age,  it  must  also 
have  been  a  necessity  of  the  age.  If  it  appeared  to  eveiy  one 
a  natural  thing,  as  being  a  product  of  the  spirit  of  the  time,  and 
if  every  one  therefore  expected  it,  it  must  have  been  required 
both  as  a  guiding  principle,  and  also  for  the  maintenance  of 
order.  The  legislation  of  the  Old  Testament,  which  was  as 
far  as  possible  from  everything  unhistorical  and  purely  ideal, 
took  the  circumstances  as  it  found  them,  and  was  obliged  to  do 
so,  since  it  sought  to  found  and  erect  its  institutions,  not  in  the 
cloudy  regions  of  merely  imaginary  circumstances,  but  on  the 
firm  foundation  of  a  concrete  reality. 

If,  however,  the  f  ore  coin  g   considerations  are  sufficient  to 


THE  WORSHIP  OF  THE  CALF.  105 

justify  the  severe  procedure  of  INIoses  in  general,  liis  ruthless- 
ness  and  severity  had  also  a  mild  and  considerate  side,  which 
has  been  entirely  overlooked  by  those  who  make  this  charge. 
The  course  he  adopted  was  of  such  a  nature,  as  to  give  to  every 
one  time  and  opportunity  to  escape  the  sentence  before  it  began 
to  be  executed.  The  children  of  Levi  saved  themselves  before 
the  judgment  fell ;  and  the  harbour  of  refuge,  which  was  open 
to  them,  was  equally  open  to  all  the  rest.  For,  it  is  nowhere 
stated,  and  there  is  no  ground  for  the  supposition,  that  the 
children  of  Levi  opposed  tlie  introduction  of  the  worship  of  the 
calf,  or  abstained  from  taking  part  in  the  festival.  When  Moses 
called  out,  "  Vfho  is  on  the  Lord's  side,  let  him  come  hither  to 
me,"  he  addressed  not  merely  the  Levites,  but  all  the  people. 
He  did  not  summon  to  his  side  those  who  were  innocent  of  the 
crime  of  worshipping  the  calf — for  there  were  no  such  persons  in 
the  camp — but  those  who  were  willing  to  return  to  Jehovah,  not- 
withstanding their  rebellion  against  him.  Hence,  by  these 
words,  he  offered  an  amnesty  to  all  without  exception  ;  and  those 
who  would  not  attend  to  his  summons,  proved  by  that  fact  that 
they  still  adhered  impenitently  to  their  self-chosen  worship,  and 
that  they  despised  and  rejected  the  amnesty  offered.  After  this 
they  doubly  deserved  death.  But  there  are  other  things  con- 
nected with  these  proceedings,  of  a  more  special  character,  which 
have  also  excited  surprise.  Among  these  axe,  first,  that  although 
all  who  did  not  obey  his  summons  were  equally  (doubly)  guilty, 
the  punishment  was  not  inflicted  upon  all,  but  only  upon  three 
thousand  men  ;  and  that  the  selection  of  those  who  were  put  to 
death  was  not  made  in  a  judicial  manner,  according  to  their 
relative  guilt,  but  was  left  to  chance,  the  first  who  came  in  the 
way  of  the  swords  of  the  avengers  being  immediately  slain. 
But  this  again  was  necessary.  All  were  equally  guilty :  but  for 
reasons  which  lie  upon  the  surface,  it  was  sufficient  for  a  portion 
only  to  be  executed,  as  the  representatives  of  the  whole  and  the 
bearers  of  the  common  guilt.  Under  such  cu'cumstances  the 
practice  of  decimation  was  very  frequent  in  ancient  times.  The 
selection  was  left  to  chance  or  to  the  lot,  i.e.,  to  the  gods.  Thus 
was  it  in  the  present  instance ;  with  this  difference,  however,  that 
Moses  knew  that  the  issue  was  in  the  hands  of  the  living  God. 
The  same  thing,  which  was  afterwards  done  at  Tabcrah  (Num. 
xi.  3),  and  on  the  occasion  of  other  similar  judgments  by  the  im- 


166  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

mediate  interposition  of  God,  was  here  accomplished  by  the  swords 
of  the  Levites.  In  the  instance  referred  to,  the  pestilence  seemed 
to  be  guided  by  chance,  smiting  one  here  and  another  there,  yet 
there  was  certainly  something  more  than  chance  directing  it, 
namely,  the  hand  of  God,  without  whose  will  not  a  hair  of  the 
head  can  fall. — This  leads  us  to  the  second  difficulty  presented 
by  the  conduct  of  Moses.  We  find  this  in  the  fact  that,  although 
the  Levites  who  had  received  an  amnesty  were  as  guilty  as  the 
rest,  and  had  been  accomplices  with  them,  Moses  intnisted  the 
execution  of  vengeance  to  the  hands  of  these  evil-doers ;  and, 
apparently  losing  sight  of  all  considerations  of  friendship,  re- 
lationship, and  humanity,  made  the  pardon  of  the  Levites  de- 
pendent upon  this  sanguinary  act  of  obedience,  from  which  their 
natural  feelings  must  instinctively  have  revolted.  Now,  all  this 
might  certainly  have  been  avoided,  if  God  Himself  had  executed 
the  judgment  by  means  of  His  destroying  angel.  But,  as  the 
extermination  of  the  Canaanites  was  afterwards  effected,  not  by 
the  hand  of  God,  but  by  the  Israelites,  to  whom  the  execution 
of  judgment  was  intrusted  by  God  Himself,  in  order  that  a  deep 
and  lasting  impression  might  be  made  upon  their  minds,  of  the 
severe  and  unsparing  punishment  which  falls  upon  a  nation 
when  the  measure  of  its  iniquity  is  full,  and  that  they  might 
acknowledge  in  the  act  itself  that  they  would  merit  and  expect 
a  similar  punishment  if  they  fell  into  the  same  sin  ; — so  was  it  on 
the  present  occasion  :  penitent  Israel  was  called  upon  to  inflict 
punishment  upon  impenitent  Israel,  that  their  own  guilt,  which 
had  been  forgiven,  and  the  mercy  which  had  been  shown  them 
on  account  of  their  penitence,  might  be  impressed  upon  their 
minds  in  its  fullest  extent  as  a  warning  for  future  times.  Before 
such  considerations  and  designs  all  considerations  of  a  senti- 
mental character  must  give  way,  as,  in  fact,  sentimentality  of 
every  kind  is  out  of  place  in  matters  concerning  the  judgment 
of  God  on  the  impenitent  sinner. 

The  Vulgate,  without  any  other  authority,  makes  the  3000 
men  who  fell  on  one  day  23,000.  This  false  emendation  may 
probably  be  traceable  to  Num.  iii.  43,  where  the  children  of 
Le-va  are  said  to  have  numbered  23,000  men.  The  author  of 
the  emendation  probably  thought  that  each  of  the  22,273  Levites 
must  necessarily  have  found  a  man  to  slay.  But,  if  so,  in  the 
first  place,  the  fact  is  overlooked,  that  in  Nmn.  iii.  43,  all  the 


THE  WORSHIP  OF  THE  CALF.  167 

children  from  a  month  old  and  all  the  old  men,  who  could  not 
have  enfraijed  in  such  work  as  this,  are  reckoned  with  the  others. 
Moreover,  the  entire  view  of  the  transaction  before  us,  which 
has  given  rise  to  such  a  conjecture,  is  a  mistaken  one.  The 
text  does  not  say  that  when  Moses  called  out  "  come  hither  to 
me,"  only  Levites  gathered  round  him.  We  may  be  sui'e  that 
there  were  many  belonging  to  other  tribes  who  responded  to  his 
appeal ;  but  the  reporter  had  not  the  same  reason  for  mentioning 
them  by  name,  as  the  29th  verse  shows  him  to  have  had  in  the 
case  of  the  Levites.  Undoubtedly  his  statement  does  imply 
that  the  tribe  of  Levi  distinguished  itself  above  the  rest  of  the 
tribes,  that  it  came  in  a  body  to  profess  repentance  and  obedience, 
whereas  it  was  more  as  indi\dduals  that  members  joined  them 
from  other  tribes.  But  this  view  only  heightens  the  difficulty 
at  wdiich  the  Latin  translator  stumbled.  It  vanishes  completely, 
however,  when  we  picture  to  ourselves  the  events  as  they  proba- 
bly occurred.  From  first  to  last  it  is  the  men  who  are  spoken 
of,  not  the  women  and  children, — the  representatives  of  the 
nation,  not  the  entire  nation  itself.  Moses  treats  with  the  elders 
and  the  heads  of  families,  as  representing  both  the  families  and 
the  nation.  When  Moses  called  out  "  come  hither  to  me,"  tlxey 
divided  themselves  into  two  camps  ;  and  when  he  ordered  those 
who  had  assembled  round  him  to  slay  any  whom  they  might 
meet  belonging  to  the  opposite  party,  it  is  probable  that  an 
actual  conflict  took  place  between  the  two  parties,  in  which 
individuals  of  Moses'  party  may  have  fallen,  though  there  was 
no  necessity  to  make  a  special  record  of  the  fact.  It  was  suffi- 
cient for  the  Scriptural  record  to  mention,  that  the  men  who 
adhered  to  Moses  gained  a  complete  victory,  that  3000  of  the 
opposite  party  suffered  death  in  one  day  for  their  obstinacy  and 
crime,  and  that  this  defeat  completely  deprived  them  of  the 
power  to  offer  further  resistance. 

(8.)  According  to  ver.  29,  Moses  said  to  the  Levites  who 
had  executed  his  commands :  "  Fill  to-day  your  hands  for 
Jehovah,  for  every  one  (ti'"'5<)  is  in  his  son  and  in  his  brother, 
that  ye  may  bring  blessings  upon  yom'selves  to-day."  These 
words  are  generally  supposed  to  have  been  spoken  earlier  (quite 
contrary  to  the  order  of  the  text),  and  are  interpreted  thus : 
bring  to-day  an  acceptable  offering  of  obedience  to  the  Lord, 
each  one  against  his  son  and  his  brother,  etc.     But  neither  do 


168  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

the  words  admit  of  such  an  interpretation,  nor  is  there  room  for 
the  assumption  that  they  were  spoken  before.  This  has  been 
correctly  pointed  out  by  M.  Baumgarten  (i.  2  p.  107).  But 
his  own  explanation  I  cannot  subscribe  to,  in  fact  I  am  not  even 
able  to  comprehend  it. — It  is  e\ddent  enough  that  ver.  29  con- 
tains an  order  to  the  Levites  to  offer  a  sacrifice  to  Jehovah  on 
that  very  day.  The  necessity  for  such  a  sacrifice  is  explained 
in  the  words  I'^nsn^  1323  C'^X  ""S,  and  the  object  of  it  is  said  to 
have  been  i^^?*^  ^^'-  ^^''r!^  ^^v  Every  sacrifice  points  to  recon- 
cihation,  to  the  renewal  of  something  that  has  disturbed  the 
relation  between  God  and  the  worshipper.  We  might  fancy 
that  the  sacrifice  required  of  the  Levites,  on  the  present  occasion 
had  reference  to  their  participation  in  the  worship  of  the  calf, 
but  in  that  case  the  words  C'"'N  ""S,  etc.,  would  be  thoroughly 
superfluous  and  unintelligible.  These  words  might  be  rendered, 
"  for  every  one  is  in  his  son  and  brother,"  or,  what  appears  to 
us  still  more  natui'al  and  plain  :  "  for  every  one  (of  you)  was 
against  his  son  and  brother."  In  either  case,  however,  they 
refer  to  the  fact  that  the  disturbance,  which  rendered  the  present 
sacrifice  necessary,  arose  from  the  unhesitating  manner  in  which 
the  Levites  had  risen  against  their  blood-relations.  It  is  true, 
the  act  of  the  Levites  was  an  act  of  obedience  to  the  will  of 
God ;  an  act  intended  to  vindicate  the  injiu'ed  honour  of  Jehovah. 
But  it  had  also  made  a  rent  in  the  unity  of  the  congregation,  and 
had  placed  those  who  were  united  by  the  tie  of  blood,  in  hostihty 
one  to  another.  There  was  in  this  the  disturbance  of  a  natural 
and  divdnely  appointed  relation,  intended,  no  doubt,  to  remove  a 
much  greater  disturbance,  and  restore  an  infinitely  higher  and 
more  important  relation,  but  still  a  disturbance  which  was  very 
likely  to  leave  behind  it  conscientious  scruples  on  the  one  hand, 
and  bitterness  of  spirit  on  the  other.  And  this  was  the  disturb- 
ance, for  the  removal  of  which,  as  it  appears  to  us,  the  Levites 
were  ordered  to  fill  thek  hands,  that  is,  to  offer  sacrifice. 

We  regard  it  as  altogether  a  misapprehension,  to  suppose 
that  Moses  summoned  the  Levites  "  to  consecrate  themselves  to 
the  priesthood."  !Moses  undoubtedly  had  already  been  informed 
by  God  (Ex.  xxviii.  41,  xxix.  9)  that  Aaron  and  his  sons  were 
selected  for  the  priesthood ;  but  this  only  related  to  the  family 
of  Aaron,  and  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  whole  body  of  the 
Levites.    The  Levites,  who  were  not  set  apart  to  the  priesthood, 


NEGOTIATIONS  FOR  RENEWAL  OF  BROKEN  COVENANT,    169 

could  not  be  set  apart  to  it  on  the  present  occasion,  either  by 
Moses,  or  by  their  own  voluntary  act.  At  the  same  time,  this 
act  of  the  tribe  of  Le^^  certainly  bore  some  reference  to  its 
futm'e  appointment  to  be  the  K\7]po<i  of  Jehovah,  as  the  Song  of 
Moses  (Deut.  xxxiii.  9)  clearly  shows.  By  his  untimely  and 
ungodly  zeal  for  the  honour  of  his  own  house,  the  forefather  of 
the  tribe  of  Levi  had  brought  a  curse  upon  himself,  which  still 
rested  upon  his  tribe  (Gen.  xlix.  5-7,  xxxiv.  25  sqq.)  ;  by  their 
well-timed  and  holy  zeal  for  the  honour  of  the  house  of  God, 
his  descendants  had  now  extinguished  the  curse  and  changed  it 
into  a  blessing.  If  their  ancestor  had  violated  truth,  fidehty, 
and  justice,  by  the  vengeance  which  he  took  vipon  the  Sichemites 
from  a  mistaken  regard  to  blood-relationship,  his  descendants 
had  now  rescued  truth,  justice,  and  the  covenant,  by  executing 
the  vengeance  of  Jehovah  upon  their  own  blood-relations.  Hence 
Moses  referred  to  this  tribe  in  the  following  words  (Deut.  xxxiii. 
9)  :  "  Who  says  of  his  father  and  mother,  I  saw  them  not ;  who 
is  ignorant  of  his  brother,  and  knows  nothing  of  his  own  sons." 
The  disposition  manifested  by  Levi  on  this  occasion,  and  his 
obedience  in-  such  difficult  circumstances,  viz.,  his  readiness  to 
esteem  father  and  mother,  friend  and  brother,  but  lightly  in 
comparison  with  Jehovah,  was  that  which  qualified  the  tribe  of 
Levi  above  every  other  to  serve  in  the  house  of  Jehovah,  and 
rendered  it  worthy  to  be  chosen  as  the  lot  and  inheritance  of 
Jehovah  (c/.  Deut.  xxxiii.  9,  10). — The  command  of  Moses  to 
the  Levites,  who  were  assembled  round  him,  to  avenge  the 
honour  of  Jehovah  on  those  who  persisted  in  their  rebellion,  was 
a  temptation  intended  to  prove  whether  they  were  fit  for  their 
future  vocation,  namely,  to  devote  themselves  entirely  to  the 
service  of  Jehovah. 


NEGOTIATIONS  FOR  A  RENEWAL  OF  THE  BROKEN  COVENANT. 

§  14.  (Ex.  xxxii.  30-xxxiii.  11.) — Moses  had  no  sooner  re- 
ceived the  first  tidings  of  the  apostasy  of  the  people  (chap, 
xxxii.  7,  8),  and  heard  the  first  threat  of  their  rejection  (ver. 
9,  10),  than  he  put  forth  all  the  power  of  his  mediatorial  office 
to  appease  the  righteoiis  indignation  of  Jehovah,  and  avert 
from  his  nation  the  sentence  of  rejection.     Ilis  mediation  was 


170  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

not  without  effect,  though  the  issue  was  not  revealed  to  him  at 
the  time.  He  was,  first  of  all,  to  go  down  and  look  with  his  own 
eyes  upon  the  abomination  which  the  peoj)le  had  committed  at 
the  foot  of  the  mountain.  He  must  first  learn  the  extent  of  the 
crime,  that  he  might  be  able  to  measure  the  greatness  and  diffi- 
culty of  his  demand,  and  the  greatness  and  depth  of  the  mercy 
of  God,  which  hearkened  to  his  prayer.  And,  in  addition  to  this, 
since  Moses,  as  mediator,  was  not  merely  the  representative  of  the 
people  with  God,  but  also  the  representative  of  God  with  the 
people,  he  must  uphold  the  honour  of  God  in  the  presence  of 
the  people,  with  the  same  zeal  and  firmness  with  which  he  had 
pleaded  for  the  good  of  the  nation  in  the  presence  of  Jehovah, 
before  his  intercession  could  be  crowned  with  success.  The  two 
sides  of  his  mediatorial  w^ork  are  closely  related,  and  stand  or 
fall  together.  The  earnestness  with  which  he  pleaded  with 
Jehovah  on  behalf  of  the  nation,  gave  him  a  right,  and  imposed 
upon  him  the  duty,  to  avenge  the  violated  honour  of  the  Lord ; 
and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  execution  of  his  mediatorial  %orath 
upon  the  people,  gave  a  fresh  warrant  and  new  force  to  his  me- 
diatorial intercession  with  Jehovah.  And,  lastly,  the  people 
themselves  must  give  signs  of  sorrow  and  repentance,  before 
they  could  be  assured  of  mercy  and  forgiveness. 

In  his  anxiety  to  know  whether  the  sin  of  the  people,  the  full 
extent  of  which  he  had  now  beheld,  admitted  of  any  atonement 
whatever,  Moses  ascended  the  mountain  the  following  morning. 
"  Oh !  this  people,"  said  he  to  Jehovah,  "  have  sinned  a  great 
sin.  But  O  that  Thou  wouldest  forgive  their  sin !  If  not,  blot 
me,  I  pray  Thee,  out  of  Thy  book  which  Thou  hast  -svritten"  (1). 
Upon  this  he  received  the  first  reply  to  his  intercession.  The 
anger  of  God  was  so  far  subdued,  that  the  first  threat,  namely, 
that  the  nation  should  be  immediately  and  utterly  exterminated, 
was  withdrawn.  The  nation,  as  a  nation,  was  to  continue  in 
existence  and  be  the  bearer  of  the  promises  still :  Moses  was  to 
conduct  the  people  to  Canaan,  as  heretofore;  and  Jehovah 
would  send  an  angel  before  them,  as  He  had  previously  promised 


NEGOTIATIONS  FOR  RENEWAL  OF  BROKEN  COVENANT.  I7l 

(Ex.  xxiii.  20  sqq.),  to  drive  all  the  Canaanites  out  of  the  land. 
But  these  renewed  concessions  were  couched  in  very  severe 
terms.  For,  first  of  all,  the  nation,  as  a  whole,  was  to  be  pre- 
served, but  the  individuals  of  whom  it  was  composed  were  not 
to  escape  the  punishment  they  deserved :  "  Nevertheless,  in  the 
day  when  I  visit,  I  will  -visit  their  sin  upon  them"  (2).  Secondly, 
Jehovah  announced  that  He  would  certainly  send  an  angel  before 
them,  to  prepare  the  way  for  them  to  enter  into  possession  of 
the  promised  land,  but  that  He  Himself  would  not  go  up  in  the 
midst  of  them  any  more  (3),  "  for  thou  art  a  stiff-necked  people, 
lest  I  consume  thee  in  the  way."  "  When  the  people  heard 
these  evil  tidings  they  moiu'ned,  and  no  man  did  put  on  him  his 
ornaments."  This  was  the  first  sign  of  genuine  and  volmitary 
repentance  on  the  part  of  the  people.  And  it  did  not  remain 
unnoticed.  A  fresh  ray  of  hope  burst  forth  from  the  words  of 
Jehovah  :  "  Put  off  thy  ornaments  from  thee,  that  I  may  know 
what  to  do  unto  thee." 

But  the  sentence  was  not  revoked,  that  Jehovah  would  no 
longer  dwell  in  the  midst  of  the  apostate  nation.  Moses  took  his 
tent,  therefore,  pitched  it  outside  the  camp,  and  called  it  the  tent 
of  meeting  (^V)^  ^[}i^,  tent,  tahernacle).  It  is  true,  Moses  had 
received  instructions,  even  before  the  apostasy  of  the  nation,  to 
set  up  a  tent  of  meeting,  that  God  might  dwell  in  the  midst  of 
the  people  (Ex.  xxv.  9),  and  to  make  it  according  to  the  pattern 
which  had  been  shown  him  in  the  mountain ;  but  the  present 
was  by  no  means  the  time  for  carrying  these  instructions  into 
effect.  As  the  negotiations,  however,  for  the  restoration  of  the 
broken  covenant  had  been  renewed,  and  there  was  a  prospect  of 
their  being  crowned  w^th  success,  Moses  set  up  a  temporary  tent 
of  meeting,  as  a  substitute  for  the  true  sanctuary,  until  the  latter 
should  be  erected.  And  Jehovah  consented  to  this  arrangement ; 
for,  when  Moses  went  out  to  the  tent  the  pillar  of  cloud  descended 
(from  the  mountain)  and  stood  at  the  door  of  the  tent,  and 
Jehovah  talked  with  ISIoses,  face  to  face,  as  a  man  talketh  with 
his  friend  (4) .    The  people  also  gave  a  fresh  sign  of  the  sincerity  of 


172  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

their  repentance  by  submitting  cheerfully  to  this  discipline  and 
humiliation.  Whoever  had  to  inquire  of  Jehovah  went  out  to 
the  tent,  that  he  might  obtain  an  answer  through  the  mediation 
of  Moses.  And  when  Moses  went  out  to  the  tent,  every  one 
went  to  the  door  of  his  tent,  looked  after  him  with  reverence, 
and  prostrated  himself  before  the  sign  of  the  Divine  presence 
(the  pillar  of  cloud),  which  came  down  to  talk  with  Moses. 

(1.)  In  reading  the  words  of  Moses,  "  if  not,  blot  me  out  of  Thy 
book,""  we  must,  undoubtedly,  think  of  the  language  of  affection, 
which  forgets  itself  and  the  entire  world  in  the  thought  of  the  one 
object  by  which  the  soul  is  moved.  Hence  they  are  certainly 
wanting  in  objective  certainty,  and  in  a  general  and  simultaneous 
consideration  of  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case ;  but  with  all 
the  greater  life,  freshness,  and  directness,  and  also  with  the 
greater  boldness  and  freedom,  have  the  truth,  the  deiith,  and  the 
strength  of  this  07ie  feeling  been  embodied  in  his  words.  The 
fact  that  the  justice  of  God  would  prevent  him  from  acceding  to 
the  wish  and  request  of  Moses  (ver.  33),  does  not  change  nor 
diminish  in  the  least  its  objective  truth,  and  depth  and  force. — 
Moreover,  the  desire  expressed  by  Moses  was  founded  in  his  voca- 
tion, and  in  the  post,  which  he  occupied,  as  the  leader  and  mediator 
of  the  people.  He  was  so  thoroughly  absorbed  in  his  vocation,  that 
every  thought  and  imagination,  all  his  hopes  and  ardent  desires 
were  concentrated  there.  His  life  and  being  were  so  inter- 
twined and  blended  with  it,  that  it  had  actually  become  his  life 
and  existence  itself.  A  life  without  this  vocation,  or  a  life  apart 
from  it,  was  to  him  an  inconceivable  thought,  a  contradiction 
which  refuted  itself.  If  God  were  to  do  what  He  had  threatened, 
to  give  free  course  to  His  righteous  indignation,  and  consequently 
to  exterminate  the  nation  at  once  from  the  earth,  the  vocation  of 
Moses  would  also  be  brought  to  an  end,  life  would  have  no  more 
value  in  his  esteem,  for  his  vocation  was  his  life.  If  the  wrath 
of  Jehovah  should  slay  the  people,  it  would  slay  Closes  as  well, 
for  it  would  put  an  end  to  his  vocation.  But,  because,  on  the 
one  hand,  Moses  had  continued  righteous,  when  the  whole  nation 
had  fallen  into  unrighteousness  deserving  of  death,  and  therefore 
he  would  necessarily  be  preserved  from  the  judginent  which 
threatened  the  rest ;  and,  because,  on  the  other  hand,  Moses  had 


NEGOTIATIOXS  FOR  RENEWAL  OF  BROKEiSr  COVENANT.    1  73 

not  selected  his  vocation  himself,  but  had  been  appointed  to  it 
by  Jehovah,  and  therefore  it  was  in  accordance  with  the  will  and 
purposes  of  God  that  his  life  should  be  absorbed  in  his  vocation, 
Jehovah  laid  Himself  under  the  necessity  to  execute  the  judg- 
ment upon  the  nation  in  such  a  way,  that  whilst  the  people  suf- 
fered the  pvniishment  they  deserved,  the  vocation  and  office  of 
Moses,  which  had  respect  to  the  nation,  should  not  be  abolished 
or  destroyed,  since  the  life  and  happiness  of  Moses  were  bound  up 
with  his  office  and  vocation.  But  the  only  way  in  which  this  could 
be  effected  was,  that  instead  of  the  sudden  and  simultaneous  inflic- 
tion of  punishment  on  all  the  guilty,  the  individuals  who  had 
sinned  should  be  punished  one  by  one  ;  and  thus  the  nation,  so 
far  as  it  embodied  the  notion  of  a  species,  would  be  ])reserved, 
and  the  continuity  of  its  history  sustained.  This  method  of 
reconciling  the  discrepancy  would  also  be  supported  by  the  fact, 
that  the  apostate  nation  was  still  the  seed  of  Abraham,  to  whom 
the  promise,  which  cannot  be  broken,  had  been  made,  and  that 
the  basis  for  the  continuation  of  its  history  was  already  to  be 
found  in  the  children  and  infants. — Jehovah's  reply,  accordingly, 
rejected  the  conditional  request  of  Moses  as  inadmissible  :  "  Who- 
ever hath  sinned  against  ]\Ie,  him  will  I  blot  out  of  My  book." 
At  the  same  time  it  contained  an  assurance  that  the  liistory  of 
Israel  should  not  be  broken  off :  "  Go,  lead  the  people  unto  the 
place  of  which  I  have  spoken  unto  thee :  behold  Mine  angel 
shall  £0  before  thee."  On  the  other  hand,  it  adheres  to  the 
necessity  for  punishing  the  sin :  "  Nevertheless,  in  the  day  of 
My  visitation,  I  will  visit  (punish)  their  sin." 

(2.)  "/n  the  day  of  My  visitation  I  will  visit  their  sin.''  Is 
it  possible  to  determine  the  period  of  history  which  constituted 
the  day  of  visitation,  and  the  manner  in  which  the  visitation  itself 
took  place  ?  We  believe  that  it  is.  It  commenced  at  the  time 
when  the  Israelites  were  at  Kadesh  (§  36.  2),  and  when  the 
judicial  sentence  was  pronounced  upon  the  nation,  that  the 
bodies  of  all  those  who  were  twenty  years  old  and  upwards 
should  die  in  the  wilderness,  and  that  not  one  of  them  should 
enter  the  land  of  promise  (Num  xiv.)  ;  and  it  extended  over  the 
thirty-eight  years,  during  which  they  wandered  about  without 
an  object  in  the  wilderness.  It  was  at  Kadesh  that  the  measure 
of  their  iniquity  was  filled  up.  At  Sinai  they  had  rejected 
Jehovah,  who  led  them  out  of  Egyj^t,  and  had  desu'ed  a  god 


174  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

such  as  they  formerly  possessed  in  Egypt ;  at  Kadesh  they 
rejected  tlie  land  of  Jehovah — the  land  of  promise,  and  wished 
to  return  to  Egypt  (Num.  xiv.  3). 

(3.)  In  consequence  of  the  intercession  of  Moses,  Jehovah 
gave  a  fresh  assurance  that  the  history  of  Israel  should  not  be 
broken  off.  Moses  was  to  lead  the  people  to  Canaan ;  and  for 
the  future  Jehovah  would  send  His  angel  before  them,  and 
drive  out  the  Amorites.  This  sounds  like  the  promise  in  Ex. 
xxiii.  20-23.  It  might  be  regarded  as  simply  a  repetition  of  the 
promise,  were  it  not  for  the  stern  and  momentous  words  which 
follow :  "  For  I  will  not  go  up  in  the  midst  of  thee,  for  thou  art 
a  stiff-necked  people,  lest  I  consume  thee  in  the  way."  With 
reference  to  the  angel  who  was  promised  to  accompany  them, 
it  was  stated  in  Ex.  xxiii.  21:  "My  name  is  in  him"  (''J3B' 
^^li??) ;  in  other  words,  he  was  to  be  the  medium  of  the  persotud 
presence  of  Jehovah.  This  angel  was  to  represent  Jehovah 
in  such  a  manner  that  the  personal  and  essential  presence  of 
Jehovah,  which  cannot  be  seen  by  any  creature  in  its  own 
purely  divine  form  of  existence,  when  divested  of  all  material 
clothing  (1  Tim.  vi.  15,  16),  might  be  brought  to  view  in  him, 
its  representative  and  pledge  (see  vol  i.  §  50.  2).  But  on  this 
occasion  Jehovah  declared  that  He  Himself  would  not  go  up  in 
the  midst  of  them.  The  angel,  therefore,  who  was  still  to  lead 
them,  could  not  be  any  longer  the  representative  of  the  personal 
presence  of  Jehovah ;  he  was  nothing  more  than  every  angel 
naturally  is, — a  messenger  and  delegate  of  God.  To  punish 
Israel  Jehovah  declared  that  He  would  withdi'aw  from  the  anxrel 
the  U"ip3  ""DLy".  But  the  fulfilment  of  this  threat  would  deprive 
Israel  of  the  very  thing  which  distinguished  it  above  every 
other  nation  (Ex.  xxxiii.  16),  for  the  fact  of  an  angel  presiding 
over  a  nation  or  kingdom  on  behalf  of  God,  and  guiding  its 
affairs,  was  not  so  unparalleled  a  circumstance  that  it  applied  to 
the  chosen  people  of  God  alone.  Such  a  mission  as  this  does 
not  belong  to  the  province  of  the  Jeho\'istic,  but  rather  to  that 
of  the  Elohistic  government,  and,  therefore,  not  only  could  be, 
but  actually  was  possessed  by  heathen  nations  and  kingdoms 
as  well  (Dan.  x.  13-21,  xi.  1).  The  commonwealth  of  Israel 
ceased  to  be  a  theocracy  in  consequence ;  for  the  maintenance 
of  the  theocracy  (§  9.  1)  was  dependent  upon  the  personal 
presence  of  God  in  the  midst  of  the  nation.     The  announce- 


NEGOTIATIONS  FOR  RENEWAL  OF  BROKEN  COVENANT.  175 

ment,  therefore,  that  Jehovah  woukl  no  longer  dwell  in  the 
midst  of  the  nation,  was  equivalent  to  an  announcement  that  the 
theocracy  would  be  brought  to  an  end; — whether  temporarily  or 
for  ever,  whether  in  the  shape  of  suspension  or  of  abolition,  the 
connection  of  the  words  would  hardly  leave  in  doubt.  Since 
it  was  not  upon  the  nation,  as  such,  that  the  judgment  was  to 
fall,  but  only  upon  incUviduals,  and  in  the  meantime  the  out- 
ward course  of  events  was  to  continue  as  before,  nothing  more 
could  be  intended  than  a  suspension,  which  would  last  until  all 
the  individuals  at  present  composing  the  nation  had  been  swept 
away,  and  a  new  generation  had  grown  up  which  had  not  partici- 
pated in  the  apostasy  of  the  fathers.  This  was  what  Israel  had 
to  expect  if  this  sentence  of  God  was  carried  into  effect.  And 
this  was  the  reason  that  Israel  mourned  and  complained  so 
bitterly  on  account  of  the  evil  tidings.  But  we  shall  soon  see 
that  by  his  unwearied  intercession  Moses  succeeded  in  pro- 
cm'ing  another,  still  milder,  sentence  from  the  forgiving  mercy 
of  God. 

We  have  already  shown  (vol.  i.  §  50.  2)  that  Ex.  xxiii.  20 
sqq.,  when  compared  with  Ex.  xxxii.  34,  is  perfectly  irrecon- 
cilable with  the  hypothesis  that  the  Maleach  Jehovah  was  not 
merely  a  representative,  mediator,  and  bearer  of  the  personal 
presence  of  Jehovah,  but  was  that  presence  itself,  namely,  the 
Logos,  the  second  person  of  the  Trinity.  For  in  the  former 
passage,  as  well  as  the  latter,  Jehovah  calls  this  angel  ''^t<70j 
"My  angel,"  equivalent  to  nin)  Tjspctj  and  in  the  former  the 
same  task  is  assigned  to  him  as  in  the  latter  (chap,  xxxiii.  2), 
.with  the  simple  exception,  which  indeed  is  of  great  importance 
in  other  respects,  that  in  the  former  the  name  of  Jehovah  is  in 
him,  and  in  the  latter  this  is  no  longer  the  case.  In  opposition 
to  this  Hengstenherg  says :  "  The  threatening  of  the  Lord  be- 
comes unintelligible,  and  the  grief  of  the  people  incompre- 
hensible, if  by  the  angel  in  chap,  xxiii.  an  ordinary  angel  be 
understood"  (Christology  vol.  i.  p.  119  transl.). —  (As  if  we 
imagined  him  to  be  an  ordinary  angel,  and  nothing  more ;  an 
ordinary  angel  he  was,  but  with  the  unusual  circumstance,  that 
"the  name  of  Jehovah  was  in  him.")  Hengstenherg  proceeds: 
"  But  everything  becomes  clear  and  intelligible  if  we  admit  that 
in  chap,  xxiii.  there  is  an  allusion  to  the  angel  of  the  Lord, 
Kar  €^o^i']v,  who  is  connected  with  Him  by  unity  of  natm'e,  and 


176  ISr.AEL  IX  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

who,  because  the  name  of  God  is  in  Plim,  is  as  zealous  as  He  is 
Himself  in  inflicting  punishment,  as  Avell  as  in  bestowing 
salvation;  whilst  in  chap,  xxxii.  34,  the  allusion  is  to  an  inferior 
angel,  who  is  added  to  the  highest  revealer  of  God  as  His  com- 
panion and  messenger,  and  who  appears  in  the  book  of  Daniel 
under  the  name  of  Gabriel,  while  the  angel  of  the  Lord  appears 
under  the  name  of  MichaeV  Then  "  everything  becomes 
clear  and  intelligible  1 "  What  even  the ''^^5?^  (my  angel)  in 
chap  xxxii.  34?  Hengstenherg  boldly  replies,  "  Yes,  even  this  ;" 
and  notwithstanding  Hofmanrts  complete  answer  (Schriftbeweis 
i.  156  seq.),  he  brings  forward  again  the  indescribably  weak 
and  palpably  worthless  h}']Dothesis  of  a  Maleach  of  the  Maleach. 
"  In  Ex.  xxxii.  34,  after  Israel  had  sinned  in  worshij)ping  the 
calf,  their  former  leader,  Jehovah,  i.e.,  the  angel  of  Jehovah, 
told  them  that  He  should  be  their  leader  no  longer."  Then 
for  "  Jehovah,"  the  leader  of  Israel,  we  may  substitute  the 
"Maleach  Jehovah?"  Very  good!  But  in  Ex.  xxiii.  20  sqq. 
the  former  leader  Jehovah,  i.e.,  the  angel  of  Jehovah,  says, 
"Behold  I  send  an  angel  before  thy  face,"  etc,  and  the  angel  to 
be  sent  is  one  of  whom  it  is  affirmed,  "  the  name  of  Jehovah  is 
in  him."  Consequently,  as  we  infer  from  Hengstenherg' s  pre- 
mises, this  angel,  in  whom  the  name  of  Jehovah  dwelt,  was  the 
Maleach  of  the  Maleach  Jehovah  ;  ergo,  we  have  two  Logoi  in 
the  Deity,  two  uncreated  revealers  of  God,  "  for  the  name  of 
God  can  only  dwell  in  him  who  is  originally  of  the  same 
nature;"  ergo,  we  must  expunge  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
from  our  system,  and  insert  in  its  place,  "  four  persons  in  one 
Godhead." — The  relation  of  Gabriel  to  Michael  in  the  book  of 
Daniel  is  also  very  different  from  Hengstenherg'' s  account ;  but 
we  cannot  enter  into  this  question  at  present. 

(4.)  The  Ohel-Moed  which  Moses  pitched  outside  the  camp 
has  been  regarded  by  many  critics  as  identical  with  the  sanctuary 
of  the  same  name,  which  was  afterwards  constructed  by  Bezaleel 
and  Oholiab,  according  to  the  pattern  shovni  to  Moses  in  the 
Mount;  and  upon  this  supposition  they  have  based  the  con- 
clusion that  om*  records  contain  two  different  and  discordant 
myths  respecting  the  building  of  the  tabernacle.  (In  reply  to 
this  see  Ranhe,  vol.  ii.  p.  61.) 

§  15.  (Ex.  xxxiii.  12-xxxv.  3.) — So  much,  then,  had  Moses 


NEGOTIATIONS  FOR  RENEWAL  OF  BROKEN  COVENANT.  177 

obtained  by  his  intercession,  that  the  covenant  was  not  to  be 
abolished,  but  merely  suspended ;  and  that  an  angel  (not  indeed 
an  angel  in  whom  the  name  of  Jehovah  was,  but  still  an  angel), 
that  is,  at  any  rate  a  messenger  from  the  heavenly  world,  should 
conduct  the  nation  to  Canaan,  and  drive  out  the  Canaanites  be- 
fore them.     But  Moses  was  not  content  with  this  result.     He 
persisted  in  the  prayer,  that  the  covenant  might  be  perfectly 
restored,  and  that  the  face  of  God,  that  is.  He  Himself,  in  the 
angel  in  whom  His  name  was  (§  14,  3),  would  undertake  the 
guidance  of  the  people,  and  take  up  his  abode  in  the  midst  of 
them.     And  this  was  also  granted.     Emboldened  by  these  con- 
cessions, Moses  desired — as  a  confirmation  of  the  promise,  and  a 
proof  that  he  had  found  mercy  with  Jehovah,  and  also  to  perfect 
his  mediatorial  character — that  he  might  see  the  glory  of  Jehovah, 
that  is  His  face  as  it  is,  uncovered,  without  the  veil  of  the  cloud, 
or  the  mediation  of  an   ano;el.     He  asked  for  what  no  mortal 
could  possibly  bear.    His  petition,  therefore,  could  not  be  granted ; 
but  Jehovah  promised  that  he  should  see  and  feel  all  that  he 
could  bear :  "I  will  cause  all  my  goodness  ("'^^'2)  to  pass  before 
thee,   and  I  will  proclaim  the  name  of  Jehovah  before  thee." 
For  this  pm'pose  Moses  was  to  ascend,  the  following  morning,  to 
the  top  of  the  mountain,  and  station  himself  in  a  hole  in  the 
rock.     Jehovah  would  then  cause  His  glory  to  pass  by,  and  keep 
His  hand  upon  him  till  the  vision  was  over.     He  would  then  be 
allowed  to  look  after  it,  that  his  eye  might  still  catch  a  ray  of 
the  Majesty  which  had  abeady  departed  (1).    In  this  unparalleled 
manifestation  of  God,  Moses  received  a  pledge  of  the  success  of 
his  mediatorial  intercession, — a  fresh  seal  and  elevation  of  his 
mediatorial  work, — based  upon  the  willingness  of  Jehovah  to 
restore  the  covenant  in  all  its  completeness.     With  this,  there- 
fore, there  would  be  associated  the  restoration  of  the  covenant- 
records,  as  a  pledge  to  the  jjcople  of  the  restoration  of  the  cove- 
nant ;  and  Moses  received  instructions  to  cut  two  stones  like  the 
former,  and  bring  them  with  him  up  the  mountain  (2).     Moses 
went  the  following  morning,  furnished  with  these,  to  the  place 
VOL.  III.  M 


178  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESEET  OF  SINAI. 

appointed.  Jehovah  came  down  in  the  cloud,  and  stood  beside 
him.  He  had  asked  to  look  with  his  bodily  eyes  upon  the  un- 
veiled face  of  God ;  but  it  is  only  in  the  mirror  of  the  Word,  with 
the  inward  spiritual  eye  of  faith,  that  a  man  can  look  upon  the 
Divine  Being,  whose  features,  as  manifested  outwardly,  are  called 
His  face.  In  the  word,  therefore,  Jehovah  permitted  him  to 
behold  His  essence ;  but  it  was  in  a  word  of  such  comprehensive- 
ness, such  depth  and  fulness,  as  had  never  fallen  upon  human  ears 
before.  As  He  passed  by  Moses,  He  proclaimed  to  him  who  and 
what  He  was :  "  Jehovah,  Jehovah,  a  merciful  and  gracious  God, 
long-suffering,  and  abundant  in  goodness  and  truth, keeping  mercy 
for  thousands,  forgiving  iniquity,  and  transgression,  and  sin,  and 
that  will  by  no  means  clear  the  guilty,  visiting  the  iniquity  of 
the  fathers  upon  the  children,  and  upon  the  children's  children 
unto  the  third  and  to  the  fourth  generation."  Then  Moses  made 
haste,  and  bowed  his  head  to  the  earth,  and  worshipped  (1). 
What  was  here  declared  to  Moses  was  a  far  deeper,  fuller,  and 
more  comprehensive  explanation  of  the  name  Jehovah,  a  com- 
mentary on  the  words  "  I  am  that  I  am"  (Ex.  iii.  14),  by  which 
He  had  previously  given  to  His  servant,  and  through  him  to 
His  people,  a  deeper  insight  into  the  meaning  of  His  name  (vol. 
ii.  §  20,  G).  It  was  quite  in  its  right  place  here ;  for  what  it 
expressed  in  words,  was  immediately  afterwards  confirmed  in  a 
gracious  deed,  viz.,  in  the  renewal  of  the  covenant.  To  this  end 
Jehovah  repeated  the  most  essential  portion  of  the  earher  cove- 
nant promises  (Ex.  xxiii.  20  sqq.),  and  covenant  demands  (Ex. 
xxi.  1,  xxiii.  19)  in  the  book  of  the  covenant,  and  commanded 
Moses  to  commit  these  words  also  to  writing  as  the  basis  of  the 
renewal  of  the  covenant.  He  also  wrote  upon  the  tables,  which 
Moses  had  brought  •v^dth  him,  the  same  ten  words  which  had 
been  engraved  iipon  the  first  tables  (2).  On  this  occasion  also 
Moses  remained  with  Jehovah  on  the  mountain  forty  days  and 
forty  nights;  and  when  he  came  down  the  skin  of  his  face  shone, 
though  he  himself  was  not  aware  of  it.  It  was  the  reflection  of 
what  Moses  had  seen  on  the  Mount,  of  the  glory  of  Jehovah. 


NEGOTIATIONS  FOR  RENEWAL  OP  BROKEN  COVENANT.  179 

Aaron  and  the  princes  of  the  congregation,  when  they  saw  it, 
were  afraid  to  go  near  him.  Bvit,  after  he  had  told  them  all  that 
Jehovah  had  said  and  commanded,  he  put  a  veil  upon  his  face, 
which  he  took  off  whenever  he  went  before  Jehovah  (into  the 
tent  of  meeting,  §  14,  4),  and  put  on  again  when  he  returned  to 
the  camj)  (3). 

(1.)  Wliat  did  Moses  desire  to  see  ?  And  what  was  it  which 
led  him  to  express  the  desire  at  this  particular  time  ?  So  much 
is  certain,  that  he  desired  to  see  and  to  learn  what  he  had  never 
seen  or  learnt  before.  It  must  have  been  something  more,  then, 
than  is  expressed  in  the  words  of  Ex.  xxxiii.  11,  "  Jehovah  talked 
with  him  face  to  face,  as  a  man  talketh  with  his  friend."  And 
however  little  it  was  possible  to  grant  of  his  request,  this  little 
must  have  far  exceeded  all  the  previous  visions  of  God.  More- 
over, if  it  was  something  so  extraordinary  that  Moses  saw  it  but 
once  in  his  life,  it  must  have  far  surpassed  what  is  represented 
in  Num.  xii.  8  as  the  constant  form  of  intercourse  between  Moses 
and  Jehovah,  "  with  Him  I  speak  mouth  to  mouth,  and  let  hira 
see,  not  in  figui'es  (visions  and  dreams,  ver.  6),  but  he  looks  upon 
the  form  of  Jehovah  (p)^''_  DJiori)."  Moses  calls  what  he  wishes 
to  see  the  glory  of  Jehovah  (nin''  ^133,  ver.  1 8)  ;  and  Jehovah 
Himself  also  calls  it  "My  glory"  (ver.  22),  "all  my  goodness^' 
(^3^D-b,  ver  19),  and  "  my  face''  (^JS,  ver.  20).  But  the  gloiy 
of  the  Lord  dwelt  in  the  pillar  of  cloud  and  fire  (vol.  ii.  §  36,  3), 
and  the  angel  of  the  Lord,  who  went  before  Israel  in  this  parti- 
cular symbol,  is  also  called  the  bearer  of  the  face  of  Jehovah 
(Ex.  xxxiii.  14,  15)  ;  and,  therefore,  what  Moses  desired  to  see, 
can  have  been  nothing  else  than  this  same  face  and  this  same 
glory,  but  uncovered  and  without  a  cloud,  immediately  and 
without  angelic  representation, — that  is  to  say,  the  very  essence 
of  God,  in  its  pvirest  form  of  existence,  and  in  its  entire  majesty 
and  glory.  The  name  3it3  leads  to  the  same  conclusion.  The 
corresponding  verb  and  adjective  are  used  to  denote  the  good 
and  beautiful  in  every  form  which  it  can  possibly  assume ;  they 
are  applied  to  tlie  essence  and  substance,  and  also  to  the  form 
and  manifestation,  to  the  inward  power  as  well  as  the  out- 
ward operation.  31D,  therefore,  is  employed  here  to  denote  the 
essence  and  manifestation  of  God,  as  the  ahsolutehj  good  and 


180  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESEET  OF  SINAI. 

beautiful.  ■  But  if  this  3^D  was  to  be  seen,  it  must  of  necessity 
manifest  itself  iii  a  certain  form,  and  hitherto  this  had  been  done 
in  the  angel  who  represented  it,  and  who  went  before  Israel  in 
the  pillar  of  cloud  and  fire.  This  was  the  "  form  of  Jehovah  " 
(nin''  nj^ori),  mentioned  in  Num.  xii.  8.  The  people  looked  upon 
it  merely  from  without,  and  saw  the  splendour  shining  through 
the  pillar  of  cloud ;  the  elders,  at  the  time  of  the  giving  of  the 
law  (Ex.  xxiv.  10)  looked  upon  it  from  beneath  ("and  under 
his  feet  was  as  it  were  a  work  of  transparent  sapphire,  and  as  the 
heaven  itself  in  brilliancy")  ;  Moses,  again,  went  into  the  cloud 
itself  (Ex.  XX.  21),  and  saw  the  Temunali  of  God,  face  to  face, 
and  spoke  with  it  mouth  to  mouth  (Ex.  xxxiii.  11 ;  Num.  xii. 
6-8).  That  njion  does  not  denote  the  immediate,  absolute  form 
of  God,  but  merely  a  form  assumed  by  Him  for  the  purpose  of 
intercourse  with  .man,  is  evident  also  from  the  etymology  of  the 
word.  The  verb  }10  does  not  occur  in  Hebrew.  In  Arabic  it 
means  mentitus  est;  the  primary  meaning  was  undoubtedly  to 
invent,  Ternunah,  therefore,  was  not  a  real  and  essential  form, 
but  a  form  invented  or  assumed,  a  likeness  of  the  real  form,  or 
a  symbol  of  the  ideal.  Hence  it  is  used  to  denote  not  merely 
the  form  in  which  men  picture  God  to  their  own  mind,  or  the 
images  by  which  they  represent  Him  (Ex.  xx.  4  :  Deut.  v.  8 ; 
vi.  16,  23,  25),  but  also  the  form  which  God  assumed  in  order 
to  manifest  Himself  to  man. 

We  proceed  now  to  the  second  question  :  Wliat  was  it  that 
led  Moses  to  express  such  a  desire,  just  at  this  particular  time  ? 
— Hitherto  there  had  been  one  limit  to  the  mediatorial  work  of 
Moses,  namely,  that  he  had  seen  and  became  acquainted  with 
the  nin;'  n3^»n  (the  form  of  Jehovah)  alone,  and  not  with 
nin^  31D"73  (all  the  goodness  of  Jehovah).  His  intercom-se  had 
been  confined  to  the  covered  glory,  the  representative-face  of 
Jehovah,  he  had  not  conversed  directly  with  Himself.  His 
mechatorial  office,  however,  would  necessarily  be  incomplete,  so 
long  as  he  had  not  enjoyed  as  close  and  direct  intercom-se  with 
Jehovah,  on  the  one  hand,  as  with  the  people  on  the  other,  and 
so  long  as  he  had  not  seen  and  known  Jehovah  in  His  true 
and  essential  form.  Instead  of  this,  another  mediator  had 
hitherto  stood  between  him  and  Jehovah  ; — for  it  was  by  an  angel 
that  Jehovah  had  called  him,  by  an  angel  He  had  led  the  people 
out  of  Eg}^t,  by  the  medium  of  angels  He  had  placed  the  law 


NEGOTIATIONS  FOR  RENEWAL  OF  BROKEN  COVENANT.  181 

in  the  hands  of  Moses  ("  ordained  by  angels  in  the  hand  of  a 
mediator."  GaL  iii.  19,  compare  Heb.  ii.  2,  Acts  vii.  53,  also 
§  10,  2).  It  was  evident,  then,  that  a  merely  human  mediator 
did  not  suffice.  Something  more  was  needed  to  give  complete- 
ness to  the  mediation  between  Jehovah  and  the  people.  Another 
superhuman  methator  was  still  required  to  carry  on  the  inter- 
course between  the  human  mediator  and  Jehovah  Himself. — 
But,  on  the  present  occasion,  when  Jehovah  promised  to  restore 
the  broken  covenant,  and  ISIoses  was  therefore  recognised  again 
in  his  mediatorial  capacity  and  confirmed  in  his  office,  we  can 
understand  that  he  should  be  concerned  to  know  whether  the 
limit  was  absolutely  necessary,  or  whether  it  was  not  possible,  if 
only  once  for  all,  that  he  should  have  a  direct  sight  of  God  and 
hold  immediate  intercoru'se  with  Him.  The  answer  was  in  the 
negative.  Hence  the  mediation  of  the  Old  Testament  was  never 
freed  from  this  inevitable  limitation ;  and,  it  was  evident,  that 
however  exalted  the  position  of  Moses  might  be,  he  was  not,  and 
could  not  be,  the  perfect  mediator,  and  that  if  ever  the  desigTi  of 
the  covenant  was  to  be  secui'ed,  it  must  be  by  the  coming  of  one 
still  more  exalted. 

It  was  quite  a  correct  feeling  which  led  Moses  to  conclude 
that  he  was  justified  in  expecting  and  asking,  now  that  the 
covenant  was  about  to  be  restored,  for  a  higher  and  more  glorious 
manifestation  of  Jehovah  than  had  taken  place  at  the  conclusion 
of  the  covenant  ])efore  the  apostasy.  In  the  thunders  of  Sinai, 
the  holiness,  justice,  and  majesty  of  Jehovah  had  been  displayed ; 
but,  it  was  absolutely  necessaiy  now,  if  the  breach  was  to  be 
healed,  that  His  grace.  His  long-suffering,  and  His  mercy  should 
be  brought  into  exercise  as  well. — But  Moses  went  too  far  in  his 
expectations,  when  he  hoped  to  be  able,  all  at  once,  to  pass  the 
limit  which  divides  immediate  perception  from  the  faith  which 
Cometh  by  hearing.  And,  the  fact  that,  instead  of  a  glorious 
vision  of  the  goodness  and  beauty  of  God,  he  had  still  to  be 
satisfied  with  hearing  them  proclaimed,  brought  down  his  ex- 
pectations within  the  proper  bounds.  At  the  same  time,  faith, 
which  is  one  day  to  be  changed  into  sight,  contains  within  itself 
already  the  germ  of  that  which  it  is  eventually  to  become,  an 
instalment  and  pledge  of  the  future  payment,  is  given  even  here. 
Faith  cannot  look  upon  the  essential  nature  of  God,  l)ut  it  sees 
a  reflection  of  it  in  the  visible  traces  of  His  secret  action  which 


182  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

are  left  behind.  This  was  all  that  could  be  granted  to  Moses 
now ;  and  the  promise  was  made  in  a  manner  befitting  the  pecu- 
liar character  of  his  intercourse  with  God.  "  I  will  make  all  My 
goodness  pass  before  thee,"  said  Jehovah  to  him,  "  and  when 
My  glory  passes  by,  I  will  keep  My  hand  over  thee  till  I  have 
passed  by,  then  will  I  take  away  My  hand,  and  thou  shalt  see 
My  back  (''VnSTii*,  that  is,  the  light  which  remains  when  the  full 
glory  has  passed  away),  but  my  face  (''JS)  cannot  be  seen." — In 
the  description  of  the  occmrence  itself,  we  are  not  expressly  told 
when  this  vision  of  the  nin";  ")i^^<  actually  took  place ;  but  the 
point  of  time  is  indicated,  with  sufficient  clearness,  in  chap, 
xxxiv.  6,  "  and  Jehovah  passed  before  him."  The  fact  that  it  is 
not  more  particularly  described  is  to  be  accounted  for  on  the 
ground  that  it  did  not  admit  of  any  description,  that  Moses  had 
no  words  with  which  to  describe  what  he  saw  with  his  eyes,  as 
there  was  no  analogy  in  earthly  phenomena  with  which  it  could 
be  compared. 

(2.)  Hitzig,  in  his  0 stern  und  Pjingsten  im  zweiten  Dekalog 
{Heidelberg^  1838,  p.  40  sqq.),  pretends  to  have  made  the  dis- 
covery that  the  second  tables  of  the  law  did  not  contain  the  ordi- 
nary decalogue,  that  is,  the  ten  words  of  Ex.  xx.,  but  the  ten 
commandments  contained  in  Ex.  xxxiv.  12-26,  and  therefore 
that  there  is  an  evident  discrepancy  between  this  account  and 
Deut.  X.  4,  where  it  is  expressly  stated  that  these  two  tables  con- 
tained the  same  words  as  the  first.  Hengstenberg  (Pentateuch^ 
vol.  ii.  p.  319  trans.)  is  perfectly  willing  to  leave  him  the  honoiu* 
of  having  been  the  first  to  discover  this  second  decalogue.  But 
he  has  no  claim  even  to  the  honour  of  this  discovery ;  for,  as 
early  as  1770  (and  it  is  a  remarkable  thing  that  this  has  been 
overlooked  by  all  who  have  ever  written  on  the  subject)  Goethe 
gave  expression  to  a  similar  view,  in  a  treatise  entitled  '■'■  zwo 
wichtige,  bisher  unerortete  Fragen,  zum  erstenmal  grundlich  beant- 
wortet  von  einem  Landgeistlichen  in  Schwaben."^  Goethe's  leading 
idea  is  the  exclusiveness  of  Judaism.  "  The  Jemsh  nation,"  he 
says,  "  I  regard  as  a  wild,  unfruitful  stem,  which  was  surrounded 
by   other   wild,  unfruitful   trees.     On    this   stem   the  Eternal 

^  This  youthful  work  of  Goethe  was  pu Wished  in  the  forty  volume  edition 
of  1840,  but  sotoe  years  before  this  it  had  been  reprinted  in  Tholuck's 
literarischer  Anzeiger.  It  will  be  found  in  vol.  xiv.  p.  263-270,  of  the 
edition  referred  to. 


NEGOTIATIONS  FOR  RENEWAL  OF  BROKEN  COVENA^STT.    183 

Gardener  grafted  the  noble  twig,  Jesus  Christ,  that  by  gi'owing 
thereupon  it  might  ennoble  the  nature  of  the  stem  itself,  and 
that  grafts  might  be  taken  from  it  to  fertilise  all  the  other  trees. 
The  history  and  doctrines  of  this  nation  are  certainly  exclusive ; 
and  the  very  little  of  a  universal  character  which  may  possibly 
be  found  in  the  anticipations  of  the  grand  event  to  occur  in 
the  future,  is  difficult  to  find  and  hardly  worth  the  seeking." 
Goethe  passes  then  to  his  immediate  subject,  and  says,  the  Lord 
spake  from  Sinai,  for  the  most  part  on  general  truths,  the  know- 
ledge of  which  He  presupposed  in  their  case  as  in  that  of  other 
nations.     The  people  were  terrified,  and  entreated  Moses  to 
speak  to  the  Lord  in  their  stead.     Moses  then  received  the  laws 
of  the  book  of  the  covenant,  wrote  them  down,  read  them  to  the 
people,  and  so  forth.     He  was  then  summoned  up  to  the  moun- 
tain to  receive  the  tables  of  the  law.     He  went ;  and  after  the 
Lord  had  given  him  instructions  for  the  erection  of  the  taber- 
nacle. He  gave  the  tables  into  his  hands.     "  Wliat  was  written 
on  them  no  one  knows.     The  sinful  affair  of  the  calf  ensued, 
and  Moses  broke  them  to  pieces  before  it  was  even  possible  to 
guess  at  their  contents."     After  the  purification  of  the  penitent 
people,  Moses  was  ordered  to  cut  two  new  stones,  on  which  the 
same  words  were  to  be  written  which   stood  upon  the  first. 
When  Moses  went  up  the  mountain  with  these  two  tables,  the 
Lord  announced  to  him  these  ten  words  (chap,  xxxiv.  12-26), 
and  ordered  him  (ver.  27)  to  Avrite  these  w'ords  upon  the  tables, 
for,  according  to  these  words.  He  had  made  a  covenant  with  hun 
and  with  Israel.     "  It  was  written  here  in  the  plainest  terms, 
and  the  human  miderstanding  rejoiced  thereat.    The  tables  were 
witnesses  of  the  covenant  with  which  God  had  bound  Himself, 
in  a  peciUiar  manner,  to  Israel.    How  appropriate,  then,  that  we 
should  find  laws  there,  which  distinguished  Israel  from  every 
other   nation.     .      .      .      How   gladly   do   we    cast    away   the 
awkward,  old,  erroneous  idea,  that  the  most  exclusive  of  all 
covenants    could  be   founded  upon    miiversal  obligations.      In 
short;  the  preamble  of  the  law  (chap,  xx.)  contains  doctrines 
with  which  God  pre-supposed  that  His  people  were  acquairited, 
as  men  and  as  Isi'aelites.     As  men    .    .    .    this  applies  to  those 
of  a  generally  moral  character ;  as  Israelites    .    .    the  know- 
ledge of  one  God  and  the  Sabbatb."    But  how  did  this  mistake, 
on  the  part  of  the  Church,  originate  ?     Answer  :  "  The  author 


184  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

of  the  book  of  Deuteronomy  was  the  first  to  fall  into  the  eiTor. 
It  is  probable,  and  I  believe  that  I  have  read  it  somewhere,  that 
this  book  was  compiled  from  tradition  during  the  Babylonian 
captivity.  The  want  of  ari'angement,  by  which  it  is  characterised, 
makes  this  almost  certain.  Under  such  circumstances  as  these 
a  mistake  was  very  natural.  The  tables  were  lost  along  with 
the  ark,  there  were  very  few  who  possessed  genuine  copies  of 
the  sacred  books  ;  the  ten  commandments  were  dormant  and 
forgotten  ;  the  rules  of  life  were  written  in  every  one's  heart,  or 
at  least  retained  in  his  memory.  And  who  knows  what  may 
have  given  rise  to  this  clumsy  combination."  Nearly  the  same 
line  of  argument  may  now  be  found  in  Hitzig.  But  with  this 
exception,  the  hypothesis  in  question  has  met  with  no  approval. 
JBertheau  rejects  it  as  decidedly  as  Hengstenherg  (I.e.),  and  even 
E.  Meier  holds  fast  to  the  current  belief  (Dehalog,  p.  6-9). 

There  is  no  necessity  to  enter  into  an  elaborate  refutation 
of  this  hypothesis. — (1)  "  According  to  chap  xxxiv.  1,  the  same 
words  were  to  be  written  upon  the  second  tables  which  had 
already  been  contained  by  the  first.  Noav,  it  would  be  a  very 
strange  thing  if  these  words  were  not  made  known  till  the 
second  tables  were  prepared.  They  must  certainly  be  contained 
in  what  goes  before,  and,  therefore,  ver.  12-26  cannot  contain 
the  ten  words  which  were  written  on  the  tables"  {Hengstenherg^. 
— (2)  The  testimony  of  the  Deuteronomist  would  still  retain 
its  force,  even  if  it  really  belonged  to  the  period  of  the 
captivity  ;  for,  if  the  nation  of  Israel  had  a  distinct  recollection 
of  anything  connected  with  its  early  histoiy,  it  would  certainly 
not  have  forgotten  the  fundamental  law. — (3)  The  words  which 
were  to  be,  not  only  the  most  important  in  the  whole  law,  but 
its  very  foundation,  by  the  fact  that  they  and  they  alone  were 
spoken  by  Jehovah  Himself  must  necessarily  have  been  en- 
graven upon  the  tables  as  being  the  "  testimony  to  the 
covenant."  "  The  speaking  and  writing  on  the  part  of  God," 
as  Hengstenherg  says,  "  answer  to  each  other.  The  very  fact 
that  the  author  does  not  consider  it  necessary  to  state  distinctly 
that  the  decalogue,  which  was  proclaimed  by  Jehovah  Himself, 
was  written  doAvn,  is  a  proof  how  completely  this  was  taken  for 
granted ;  not  to  mention  the  circumstance,  that  for  thousands 
of  years  before  the  time  of  Hitzig,  it  never  entered  any  one's 
mind  to  question  the  fact." — (4)  It  could  only  be  a  thoroughly 


NEGOTIATIONS  FOR  RENEWAL  OF  BROKEN  COVENANT.    185 

false  idea  of  the  law  of  Moses,  a  misappreliension  of  its  entii-e 
character,  which  could  ever  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
fundamental  records  of  the  covenant  could  not  possibly  contain, 
in  accordance  with  their  original  design,  moral  precepts  of  a 
universal  character,  which  were  recognised  by  the  heathen  as 
well,  or  such  commandments  as  had  been  binding  upon  the 
Israelites  before  the  time  of  Moses.  For  the  fact  is  hereby 
entirely  overlooked,  that  the  Sinaitic  covenant  was  simply 
a  repetition,  renewal,  and  extension,  of  the  covenant  with 
Abraham,  and  that  even  the  moral  precepts  of  a  universal 
character,  which  are  common  to  heathenism  and  the  Mosaic 
system,  are  altogether  diiferent  in  the  latter  from  what  they  are 
in  the  former :  the  principle,  the  spirit  which  inspires  them,  the 
root  and  the  soil  from  which  they  severally  spring,  being  not 
only  different,  but  entirely  opposed.  The  one  thing  which 
constituted  the  gi'oundwork  and  fundamental  principle  of  the 
religion  of  the  Old  Testament,  as  distinguished  from  every 
form  of  heathenism,  namely,  the  belief  in  one,  personal,  holy, 
and  spiritual  God,  and  the  one  thing  which  was  to  be  main- 
tained as  the  inviolable  sign  of  the  covenant,  and  to  give  a 
shape  to  the  whole  life,  in  accordance  with  it,  namely,  the  com- 
mand to  keep  the  Sabbath  holy,  must  of  necessity  have  been 
incorporated  in  the  fundamental  law  and  original  records, 
whether  they  were  absolutely  new  or  received  by  tradition  from 
the  fathers.  And  if,  by  this  means,  justice  was  done  to  "  the 
most  important  of  the  distinguishing  doctrines  of  Hebraism," 
we  cannot  see  why  the  leading  principles  of  morality  generally 
should  not,  or  rather,  we  can  see  that  they  necessarily  must  be 
included,  seeing  that  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  entire 
law  is  expressly  declared  to  be  contained  in  the  Avords,  "  I, 
Jehovah,  am  holy,  therefore,  be  thou.  My  nation,  holy  also." — 
(5)  It  is  perfectly  obvious  that  Ex.  xxxiv.  11-26,  contains  an 
abridged  repetition,  a  compendium  of  the  law  contained  in  the 
book  of  the  law,  in  Ex.  xxi.-xxiii.  Moses  applies  the  same  terms 
to  the  latter  as  to  the  former  (chap,  xxxiv.  27).  And,  if  the  laws 
contained  in  Ex.  xxi.-xxiii.  cannot  be  identical  with  the  words 
engraved  by  Jehovah  upon  the  first  tables,  this  must  also  be  the 
case  with  the  commandments  in  chap,  xxxiv.  11-2G.  In  botli 
instances  the  writing  of  ]\Ioscs  presupposes  that  of  God. 

Goethe's  hypothesis  derives  a  certain  plausibility  from  chap. 


186  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

xxxiv.  27,  28,  and  from  that  alone.  Jehovah  there  says  to 
Moses,  "  Write  thou  these  words,  for  after  the  tenor  of  these 
words  I  have  made  a  covenant  with  thee  and  with  Israel."  It 
is  then  stated  that  Moses  "  was  there  with  Jehovah  forty  days 
and  forty  nights;  he  did  neither  eat  bread  nor  drink  water; 
and  he  wrote  upon  the  tables  the  words  of  the  covenant,  the  ten 
words."  Everything  turns  in  this  case  upon  the  question,  who 
is  the  subject  of  2nD*\  If  it  be  Moses,  then,  undoubtedly,  the 
expression  "^r^ns  shuts  us  up  to  the  conclusion  that  the  words 
of  ver.  11-26  are  those  which  were  written  upon  the  tables. 
But  Moses  is  not  the  subject  of  the  verb.  Not  only  in 
Deuteronomy  (chap.  x.  2  ^i^^Xl),  but  in  Exodus  also  (chap, 
xxxiv.  1  ''risriS'!),  the  writing  on  the  two  tables  is  referred  to 
Jehovah  Himself.  It  is  true,  JE.  Meier  (^Dekalog,  p.  6)  makes 
an  emendation  here  for  the  pui*pose  of  destroying  the  agree- 
ment between  this  passage  and  Deuteronomy,  and  reads  J^^nai 
(thou  hast  written)  ;  but  such  arbitrary  criticism  as  this  con- 
demns itself.  Bertheau  s  criticism  {Siehen  Gruppen,  p.  98)  is 
much  more  correct :  "  On  a  careful  examination  of  the  contents 
it  is  impossible  to  arrive  at  any  other  conclusion  than  that  mn'' 
is  the  subject  to  :ir\y\,  since  ver.  28  contains  a  palpable  reference 
to  ver.  1.  .  .  .  Moreover,  it  is  not  stated  in  ver.  27  that 
Moses  was  to  write  '  these  words '  upon  the  ttvo  tables ;  on  the 
contrary,  the  analogy  of  chap.  xxiv.  4,  7  would  lead  us  to 
expect  that  he  wrote  them  in  a  book.  The'  name  of  Jehovah  is 
mentioned  just  before  an3''1, — not  as  subject,  it  is  true,  but  the 
vav  consequ.,  I  might  almost  say,  would  lead  us  to  expect  the 
subject  to  be  changed.  At  any  rate,  no  objection  can  be  offered, 
on  philological  gromids,  to  the  hypothesis  that  Jehovah  is  the 
subject ;  and  the  context  renders  such  an  assumption  absolutely 
necessary."  (1)  To  this  we  may  also  add,  that  even  the  command 
to  Moses  in  chap,  xxxiv.  1,  to  hew  out  tables  and  bring  them  vnth. 
him  up  the  mountain,  forces  us,  as  it  were,  to  expect  Jehovah 
to  write  upon  these,  as  He  had  previously  done  upon  the  first 
tables.  .  .  .  With  such  convincing  proofs  as  these  we  must 
reject  the  forced  and  unnatm'al  interpretation  given  by  Welte 
(Machmosaisches,  p.  126),  who  refers  the  verb  3n3"'1  to  Moses,  but 
thinks  that  it  can  be  reconciled  with  Tianai  in  Ex.  xxxiv.  1,  and 
3n3X  in  Deut.  x.  2,  by  the  simple  remark,  that  what  a  prophet  does 
in  the  name  and  by  the  command  of  God,  is  done  by  God  Himself. 


NEGOTIATIONS  FOR  RENEWAL  OF  BROKEN  COVENANT.  187 

The  difference,  then,  between  the  first  and  second  tables  Avas 
simply  this:  the  latter  were  hewn  by  Moses,  whereas  the  former 
were  delivered  to  him  (even  so  far  as  the  material  was  con- 
cerned) by  Jehovah  Himself;  but  both  were  written  by  the 
finger  of  Jehovah.  liengstenherg  regards  this  difference  as  a 
pmiishment :  "  It  was  a  sufficient  punishment,"  he  says,  "  for 
the  nation,  that  the  material  had  to  be  provided  by  Moses." 
But  we  question  whether  we  can  agree  with  him  in  this.  We 
might  almost  as  well,  and  perhaps  with  still  greater  point, 
explain  it  with  Baumgarten  (i.  2,  p.  113)  as  the  mark  of  a 
higher  stage  of  the  covenant,  "  for  the  farther  the  reciprocity 
extends,  the  firmer  the  covenant  becomes,  and,  for  this  reason, 
it  could  only  be  completed  in  a  person  who  was  both  human 
and  diAdne." 

(3.)  The  dazzling  splendour  of  Moses  face  was  the  reflection 
of  the  after  splendour  of  the  gloiy  of  Jehovah  which  had  just 
passed  by.  As  this  was  an  extraordinary  and  unparalleled 
event,  it  was  also  extraordinary  in  its  effects  ; — and,  as  the  sight 
enjoyed  by  Moses  was  related  to  the  restoration  of  the  covenant, 
the  people  also  received,  in  the  splendour  of  the  face  of  the 
mediator,  a  reflection  of  what  he  had  witnessed.  The  distinction 
between  IMoses  and  the  people  was  thus  clearly  set  forth,  and 
he  was  accredited  as  the  representative  of  God  before  the 
people.  The  true  mediator  between  God  and  man  must  bear 
the  nature  of  God  as  well  as  that  of  man,  that  he  may  equally 
and  perfectly  represent  the  two.  Such  a  mediator  as  this 
Moses  certainly  was  not :  but  the  splendour  upon  his  face  bore 
witness  to  the  fact,  that  an  emanation  from  the  Divine  nature 
had  passed  over  to  him,  and  that  he  had  been  holding  inter- 
com'se  with  God  Himself.  Although  the  splendour  on  ISIoses' 
face  was  a  doubly  reduced  reflection  of  the  glory  of  Jehovah, 
it  was  still  too  much  for  the  people  to  bear ;  and  Moses  was 
obliged,  at  least  in  private  intercourse,  to  cover  his  face  with  a 
veil.  The  Apostle  Paul  regards  this  covering  as  a  symbol  of  the 
covering  in  which  the  truths  of  salvation  had  come  down  to  the 
people,  who  could  not  grasp  or  boar  them  when  plainly  revealed 
(2  Cor.  iii.  11)  ;  which  covering,  however,  in  proportion  as  the 
people  become  better  able  to  grasp  the  truth,  grows  more  and 
more  transparent,  until  in  the  fulness  of  time  it  can  be  entirely 
done  aw^ay.     .     .     In  the  Sejjtuagi?^,  the  words  "i''^Q  "ili?  T]^  ^3 


188  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

(ver.  29),  are  rendered,  in  accordance  with  both  the  grammar 
and  the  fact,  otl  SeSo^aarai  rj  0A^t9  rov  '^poifxaro';  tov  TrpoacoTrov 
avTov ;  the  Vulgate,  on  the  other  hand,  renders  it,  to  say  the 
least,  in  an  unintelhgible  manner  (quod  cornuta  esset  fades 
sua).  Compare  Sal  Deyling,  de  vultu  Mosis  radiante,  in  his 
Observationes  iii.  p.  81  sqq.  The  Rationahsts  have  gone  so  far 
in  the  insipidity  of  their  expositors,  as  to  attribute  the  splendour 
of  Moses'  face  to  the  electricity  of  the  mountain.  See  JEich- 
horns  Einleitung  (Ed.  4  vol.  iii.  p.  280)  :  "  When  he  came 
back  in  the  evening  from  the  mountain,  and  those  who  saw 
him  perceived  merely  the  shining  of  his  face,  on  account  of  the 
rest  of  his  body  being  covered  with  clothes ;  since  neither  he 
nor  his  contemporaries  could  understand  the  physical  causes, 
was  it  not  natural  that  Moses  should  trace  it  to,  what  he  was 
fully  convinced  of, — his  intercourse  with  God?" 

ERECTION  OF  THE  SANCTUARY. 

§  16.  (Exod.  xxxv.-xl.) — Now  that  the  covenant  was  re- 
newed, Moses  was  able  to  proceed  to  the  fulfilment  of  the 
instructions  which  he  had  received,  a  long  time  before,  with 
regard  to  the  erection  of  the  sanctuary,  a  plan  of  which  had  been 
shown  him  on  the  Mount.  He  first  called  for  a  voluntary  offer- 
ing of  all  the  requisite  materials ;  and  the  whole  congi'egation 
cheerfully  contributed  golden  ornaments,  costly  cloths  and  skins, 
jewels,  spices,  and  so  forth.  The  silver  was  obtained  by  means 
of  a  tax  of  half  a  shekel,  which  every  adult  was  required  to  pay 
(compare  Ex.  xxx.  15).  Moses  then  summoned  the  master 
workmen,  whom  Jehovah  had  mentioned  to  him  by  name,  and 
who  had  been  specially  endowed  by  the  Spirit  of  God  with  wisdom 
and  understanding  for  the  work  in  question.  The  manage- 
ment of  the  entire  building  was  committed  to  Bezaleel,  of  the 
tribe  of  Judah ;  and  OJwliah,  the  Danite,  was  appointed  as  his 
colleague.  In  addition  to  this,  all  the  men  of  the  congregation, 
who  were  skilful  in  any  department  of  art  or  handicraft,  as  well 
as  all  the  women  who  could  work  embroidered  cloths  and  things 
of  that  description,  offered  their  assistance.  The  work  was  com- 
menced with  spirit,  and  the  voluntary  contributions  accumulated 


ERECTION  OF  THE  SANCTUARY.  189 

to  such  an  extent,  tliat  Moses  was  able  to  restrain  tlie  people 
from  giving  more.  The  gold  which  was  used  amounted  to 
29  talents  and  730  shekels,  the  silver  to  100  talents  and  1775 
shekels,  and  the  copper  to  70  talents  and  2400  shekels  (1).  At 
the  end  of  six  or  seven  months  the  entire  work  was  complete, 
including  the  various  utensils  and  the  priests'  garments  ;  the 
workmen  delivered  them  over  to  JMoses ;  and  on  the  first  day  of 
the  first  month  of  the  second  year  from  the  departm'e  out  of 
Egypt,  the  holy  place  was  set  up  and  consecrated  by  the  anoint- 
ing of  the  dwelling-place  itself,  and  also  of  the  vessels  it  con- 
tained. The  cloud  then  covered  the  sanctuary,  and  the  glory  of 
God  filled  the  dwelling  (2). 

(1.)  De  Wette,  Bolilen,  and  others,  maintain  that  the  whole 
account  of  the  tabernacle  and  its  erection  is  proved  to  be  ficti- 
tious, by  the  fact  that  it  presupposes  such  an  acquaintance  with 
the  arts,  and  the  possession  of  such  an  abundance  of  costly  ma- 
terials, as  is  perfectly  inconceivable  in  the  case  of  a  migrating 
nomad  race.  See,  on  the  other  hand,  Hdvernick'' s  Einleitung  i. 
2,  p.  460  sqq. ;  Bdhrs  Symholik  i.  257  sqq.,  273  sqq. ;  and 
Hengstenher(j  s  Egypt  and  the  Books  of  Moses,  p.  133  sqq. 

The  irpoiTov  •\|re{)So9  in  this  charge  is  the  assumption  that  the 
Israelites  were  a  rude,  uncultivated,  and  unci\alised  nomad  tribe. 
We  have  shown  the  fallacy  of  this  at  vol.  2  §  15.  So  far  as 
the  materials  required  for  the  building  are  concerned,  it  can  be 
proved  that  the  Israelites  were  either  in  possession  of  all  that 
was  wanted,  or,  if  not,  could  easily  have  procured  them  in  the 
desert  itself,  or  from  the  trading  caravans  that  were  passing 
through.  The  most  important  article  of  all,  the  Shittim  (Acacia) 
wood,  could  be  felled  in  the  desert.  Gold,  silver,  and  precious 
stones  they  had  brought  with  them  in  great  abundance  from 
Egypt  (vol.  2  §  35,  4).  The  tachash  skins  were  to  be  found  in 
the  Arabian  Gulf.  The  raw  materials  for  the  cloths,  the  neces- 
sary spices,  etc.,  could  be  pm'chased  from  the  caravans.  There 
is  no  reason  for  astonishment  at  the  quantity  of  gold  and  silver 
that  was  used.  In  comparison  with  the  almost  incredible  wealth 
in  the  precious  metals  which  presents  itself  on  every  hand  in 
ancient  times  (see  BiiJir  i.  257  sqq.),  the  quantity  used  in  con- 
nection with  the  tabernacle  is  a  mere  bagatelle,  in  which  there 


190  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

is  nothing  whatever  to  surprise.  The  entire  mass  of  the  gold 
employed  was  87,730  shekels  (a  talent,  133,  consisting  of  3000 
shekels).  Now,  according  to  the  highest  valuation,  this  was  not 
more  than  300,000  ducats.  Of  the  silver  there  were  301,775 
shekels  (worth  not  quite  300,000  Prussian  thalers,  or  L.45,000), 
to  wliich  every  adult  Israelite  had  contributed  half  a  shekel 
(Bertlieau  values  the  silver  shekel  at  twenty-one  groschen  ;  zur 
Geschiclite  der  Israeliten,  p.  49).  We  must  bear  in  mind  that 
in  this  case  the  tax  was  the  same  for  every  Israelite,  and  there- 
fore that  the  rich  man  did  not  and  was  not  allowed  to  give  more 
than  the  poor  (Ex.  xxx.  15).  The  free-will  offerings,  on  the 
other  hand,  were  presented  according  to  the  circumstances  of  the 
giver.  This  was  intended  to  show  that  all  the  Israelites,  whether 
poor  or  rich,  were  under  the  same  obligations  in  relation  to  the 
sanctuary. 

It  has  been  thought  that  there  was  the  stronger  ground  for 
maintaining  the  want  of  the  requisite  artistic  skill  on  the  part  of 
the  Israelites,  from  the  fact  that  even  Solomon  thought  it  ad- 
visable to  intrust  the  building  of  the  temple  to  Phoenician  work- 
men. But  to  this  we  reply,  that  in  the  building  of  the  temple 
acquaintance  with  architecture,  as  an  art,  was  required  ;  but  in 
the  erection  of  the  tabernacle,  as  a  simple  tent,  proficiency  in 
the  art  was  not  what  was  wanted,  but  simply  skill  as  carpenters, 
founders,  gold-beaters,  weavers,  workers  in  colours,  and  stone 
masons.  Now  Bdhr  and  Hengstenherg  have  fully  proved  that 
this  was  to  be  found,  in  a  very  high  degree,  in  Egjqotian  antiquity; 
and,  it  is  evident  from  1  Chron.  iv.  14,  21,  23,  for  example,  that 
many  of  the  Israelites  had  made  the  best  use,  in  this  respect,  of 
their  sojourn  in  Eg}q)t. 

(2.)  When  it  is  stated  in  chap.  xl.  35,  that  "Moses  was  not 
able  to  enter  into  the  tent  of  the  congregation,  because  the  cloud 
abode  thereon,  and  the  glory  of  Jehovah  filled  the  tabernacle," 
this  corresponds  entirely  to  what  took  place  at  the  dedication  of 
the  temple  (2  Chron.  vii.  2).  On  this  occasion  also,  the  priests, 
were  unable  to  enter  into  the  house  of  Jehovah,  because  the  glory 
of  Jehovah  had  filled  it.  In  both  instances  it  is  merely  a  tem- 
porary inability  that  is  alluded  to  ;  of  course,  the  priests  went  in 
aftei'wards,  and  ISIoses  afterwards  went  with  Aaron  into  the 
tabernacle  (Lev.  ix.  22  ;  compare  Num.  vii.  89).  Hence,  in 
both  instances,  the  filling  of  the  house  with  the  glory  of  Jehovah, 


THE  LAW  OF  SACRIFICE.  191 

must  be  regarded  as  sometliing  altogether  extraordinaryj  and  of 
temporary  duration.  It  was  in  connection  with  the  act  of  first 
taking  possession  of  the  dwelling,  that  the  glory  of  the  Lord 
displayed  itself  in  such  unabated  splendour,  that  even  Moses 
durst  not  enter  in.  At  the  dedication  of  the  dwelling,  Jehovah 
took  possession  of  the  whole ;  but  afterwards  the  cloud,  the 
vehicle  of  His  glory,  withch'ew  into  the  Holy  of  holies,  and 
stationed  itself  there  between  the  cherubim  (Lev.  xvi.  2).  For 
tliis  reason  no  one  was  permitted  to  enter  here,  with  the  sole 
exception  of  the  high  priest,  who  entered  once  a  year,  though 
even  then  not  without  the  enveloping  cloud  of  incense  (Lev. 
xvi.  13),  and  not  till  he  had  offered  sacrifice  for  his  own  sins 
and  that  of  his  house  (Lev.  xvi.  3).  Further  particulars  will  be 
given  in  a  subsequent  portion  of  this  work. 

THE  LAAV  OF  SACRIFICE  AJSTD  THE  INSTITUTION  OF  THE 
LEVITICAX,  PRIESTHOOD. 

§  17.  (Lev.  i.-viii.) — The  sanctuary  was  erected ;  Jehovah 
had  made  His  entrance  into  it ;  and  it  was  now  time  for  the 
service  to  commence.  The  basis  and  centre  of  this  service  was 
sacrifice.  For  this  reason  the  law  of  sacrifice  (Lev.  i.-vii.)  was 
promulgated  first,  and  that  not  merely  from  the  moimtain,  but 
also  from  the  sanctuary- ;  for  the  latter  was  now  the  permanent 
dwelling-place  of  Jehovah,  the  place  into  which  His  glory  had 
entered,  and  upon  which  the  pillar  of  cloud  and  fire  had  come 
down.  Another  prerequisite  of  the  service  of  the  sanctuary  was 
the  institution  of  a  permanent  priesthood.  The  family  of  Aaron 
had  ah'eady  been  singled  out  for  this  office  (Ex.  xxviii.  1)  ;  the 
manner  of  their  consecration  was  determined  (Ex.  xxix.)  ;  the 
priestly  dress  was  selected  and  prepared  (Ex.  xxviii.,  xxix.)  ;  and 
now  the  consecration  and  ordination  of  the  priests  themselves 
took  place  (Lev.  viii.).  The  Avliole  congregation  assembled 
before  the  door  of  the  sanctuary.  Moses  then  brought  Aaron 
and  his  sons,  Nadab,  Abihu,  Eleazar,  and  Ithamar,  and  after 
washing,  clothing,  and  anointing  them,  offered  for  them  a  sin- 
offering,  a  burnt-offering,  and  a  thank-offering.  After  this  he 
touched  their  right  cars  with  the  blood  of  the  latter,  and  also  the 


192  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

thumb  of  tlie  right  hand  and  right  foot.  The  rest  of  the  blood 
he  sprinlded  round  about  the  altar.  He  then  filled  the  hands 
of  Aaron  and  his  sons  with  the  pieces  of  fat  and  meat  for  a 
wave-offering,  and  brought  the  whole  ceremony  to  an  end  by 
appointing  a  sacrificial  meal,  of  which  the  newly  consecrated 
priests  partook. 

(1.)  We  must  reserve,  till  a  future  period,  any  further  in- 
vestigation into  the  law  of  sacrifice,  and  also  into  the  dedication 
of  the  priests  (see,  however,  mj  Mosaisches  Opfer,  Mitau,  1842). 

§  18.  (Lev.  ix.,  X.) — The  consecration  of  the  priests  lasted 
seven  days.  On  the  eighth  Aaron  officiated  for  the  first  time  as 
priest.  He  offered  the  first  sacrifices  for  his  o's\ti  sins  and  those 
of  the  people  ;  and  when  the  blood  had  been  sprinkled,  and  the 
pieces  had  been  waved  and  arranged  upon  the  altar,  Aaron  went 
into  the  sanctuary  by  virtue  of  his  priestly  character.  On  this 
the  first  occasion,  however,  Moses  accompanied  or  introduced  him. 
On  their  return  they  both  blessed  the  people.  The  glory  of  the 
Lord  then  appeared  to  all  the  people ;  and  fire  came  out  from 
the  Lord  and  consumed  the  sacrifice  upon  the  altar.  T^^en  the 
people  beheld  this  gracious  manifestation  on  the  part  of  God, 
they  shouted,  fell  down,  and  worshipped  (1).  But  this  display 
of  mercy  on  the  part  of  Jehovah  was  very  quickly  follow^ed  by 
a  manifestation  of  wrath,  which  was  called  forth  by  an  act  of 
the  most  guilty  wilfulness.  Nadah  and  Abihu,  the  eldest  sons  of 
Aaron,  despised  their  priestly  vocation,  and  contemptuously 
Aaolated  the  rules  laid  down  with  regard  to  it,  by  bringing  strange 
fire  into  the  presence  of  Jehovah,  which  He  had  not  commanded 
them  (2).  But  fire  came  forth  immediately  from  the  Lord  and 
consumed  them.  As  Aaron  and  his  other  two  sons,  Eleazar  and 
Ithamar,  could  not  touch  the  coi*pses  without  defiling  themselves, 
and  thus  desecrating  and  annulling  the  anointing  they  had  just 
received,  Moses  ordered  the  nearest  relations,  among  those  who 
were  not  priests,  to  carry  them  out  of  the  sanctuary  and  biuy 
them  before  the  camp.  Several  new  laws  were  issued  in  conse- 
quence of  this  event  (3). 


THE  LAW  OF  SACRIFICE.  193 

(1.)  The  FIRE  FROM  HEAVEN,  wliicli  consumed  Aaroiis 
first  sacrifice,  was  a  sign  that  God  was  pleased  with  the  sacrifice, 
as  well  as  with  the  priest  by  whom  it  was  offered  (vid.  Gen.  iv. 
4).  The  very  same  thing  occmTed  in  connection  with  the  first 
sacrifice  which  was  offered  in  the  temple  of  Solomon.  We  shall 
hardly  be  \ATong,  therefore,  in  connecting  this  event  with  Lev. 
vi.  9,  12,  13,  where  instrnctions  are  given  that  the  fire  on  the 
altar  is  to  be  kept  constantly  burning,  and  never  allowed  to  go 
out. — The  fire,  therefore,  with  which  the  sacrifices  of  Israel 
were  now  and  ever  after  consumed,  was  originally  not  a  com- 
mon earthly  fire,  but  heavenly  and  divine.  According  to  the 
Jewish  legends,  this  sacred  fire  was  kept  up  "wdthout  interruption 
till  the  time  of  the  Babylonian  captivity ;  and,  according  to  2 
Mace.  i.  19,  till  a  later  period  still.  The  Talmud  and  most  of 
the  Rabbins  reckon  it  as  one  of  the  five  things  which  were 
wanting  in  the  second  temple  {Ignis,  Area,  Unm  et  Tummim, 
Oleum  unctionis,  Spiritus  sanctitatis).  Compare  J.  Biixtorf, 
hist,  de  igne  sacro,  in  his  Exercitationes,  p.  229  sqq.,  and  S. 
Bochart,  de  igne  ccelitus  in  sacrifixia  delapso,  in  his  Hieroz., 
Rosenmiiller's  edition,  i.  375  sqq. 

(2.)  It  is  difficult  to  determine  more  precisely  what  was  the 
crime  of  which  the  two  elder  sons  of  Aaron  were  guilty.  Hof- 
mann  ( Weissagung  und  Erfidlung,  i.  144)  is  of  opinion,  that  "  it 
consisted  in  the  performance  of  an  act  of  worship  completely  at 
variance  with  the  law,  and  entirely  chstinct  from  tlie  offering  of 
incense  upon  the  golden  altar."  But  this  does  not  touch  the 
account.  We  can  by  no  means  agree  with  the  same  wi'iter 
when,  in  a  subsequent  work  {Schriftbeiveis,  ii.  1,  p.  360),  he  ex- 
plains the  crime  as  consisting  in  the  fact,  that  without  authority 
they  carried  their  incense  into  the  Holy  of  Holies,  instead  of  the 
Holy  Place  alone.  "  When  Nadab  and  Abihu,"  he  says,  "  came 
into  the  Holy  of  Holies,  without  bringing  anything  with  them 
but  their  incense,  and  without  any  further  reason  than  their  own 
supposed  piety  of  will,  God  punished  them  by  a  violent  death  in 
the  sanctuary  itself."  But  in  the  words,  "  they  offered  strange 
fire  before  Jehovah,"  there  is  not  the  slightest  hint  that  they 
carried  their  incense  behind  the  veil  (as  in  Lev.  xvi.  12).  The 
crime  consisted  simply  and  solely  in  the  fact  that  they  offered 
strange  fire  before  the  Lord, — fire,  that  is,  "  which  He  had  not 
commanded."  There  are  two  ways  in  which  this  may  be  inter- 
VOL.  III.  N 


194  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

preted.  The  explanation  which  most  naturally  suggests  itself, 
after  reading  the  account,  which  immediately  precedes,  of  the 
sacred  fire  that  came  down  from  heaven,  and  also  when  we 
compare  Lev.  xvi.  12,  where  the  high-priest  was  directed  to 
kindle  the  incense  with  this  sacred  iire  when  he  went  into  the 
Holy  of  Holies  on  the  great  day  of  atonement,  is,  that  instead  of 
taking  the  fire  from  the  altar,  they  kindled  their  incense  with 
other  (common)  fire.  For  it  is  very  probable  that  this  precept 
had  reference  to  the  daily  priestly  incense,  as  well  as  to  the 
yearly  mcense  which  the  high-priest  offered.  No  doubt,  if  this 
view  be  adopted,  it  is  somewhat  strange  that  among  the  laws 
that  have  hitherto  been  issued,  there  was  no  command  relating 
to  this  point  at  all.  For  this  reason  it  would,  perhaps,  be  better 
to  interpret  the  expression,  "strange  fire,"  as  relating  to  the 
incense  which  was  burned  (an  interpretation  which  the  context 
will  certainly  allow),  and  to  regard  the  crime  of  Aaron's  sons  as 
consisting  in  the  \dolation  of  tlie  law  already  given,  which  for- 
bade the  offering  of  strange  incense  upon  the  altar  of  mcense. 

(3.)  The  commandments  which  follow  were  based  upon  the 
foregoing  event.  The  command  to  the  priests  not  to  uncover 
their  heads  or  tear  their  clothes  (both  signs  of  mourning)  was 
based  upon  the  fact  that  their  clothes  and  head-dress  formed 
part  of  their  official  costmne,  and  therefore,  by  laying  aside  or 
tearing  them,  their  priestly  vocation  and  character  would  be 
affected.  As  the  heads  of  the  priests  had  been  anointed  with 
holy  oil,  the  uncovering  of  the  head,  which  was  required  by 
custom  in  times  of  mourning  (Lev.  xiii.  45),  would  have  been 
an  act  of  profanation.  But  whilst  it  cannot  be  denied,  that  there 
was  a  connection  between  the  prohibition  to  partake  of  strong 
drink  before  entering  the  sanctuary,  and  the  event  which  had 
just  occurred,  it  would  be  going  too  far  to  infer  from  this,  that 
Nadab  and  Abihu  committed  the  crime  in  a  state  of  intoxication. 
"  There  is  a  connection,  however,"  as  Baumgarten  says,  "  between 
the  state  of  mind  in  Avhich  Nadab  and  Abihu  forced  their  way 
into  the  sanctuary,  and  a  state  of  intoxication,  for  it  was  an  act 
of  presumptuous  audacity,  which  was  altogether  at  variance  with 
calmness  and  moderation  ;"  and  in  the  juxtaposition  of  the  pro- 
hibition to  chink  wine  and  the  command  to  abstain  from  the 
signs  of  mourning,  it  was  distinctly  intimated,  as  0.  von  Gerlach 
says,  that   "whilst  nothing  from   without  should  depress  the 


CONCLUSION  OF  THE  SINAITIC  LEGISLATION.  195 

priest,  he  was  not  to  allow  liis  senses  to  be  taken  away  by  un- 
natural excitement.  His  whole  attention  was  to  be  fixed  u2:>on 
the  sacred  acts  which  he  was  commanded  to  perform. 

CONTINUATION  AND  CONCLUSION  OF  THE  SINAITIC  LEGISLATION. 

§  19.  (Lev.  xi.-xxvii.) — After  the  priests  had  been  conse- 
crated and  had  entered  upon  their  office,  tJie  theocratic  legis- 
lation was  still  further  continued,  and  several  gi'oups  of  laws 
were  issued  respecting  Levitical  impiu-ity,  marriage,  festivals, 
etc.  (1).  In  the  midst  of  these  laws  (Lev.  xxiv.  10-23)  we  find 
an  account  of  the  punishment  of  a  blasphemer  (2).  A  man 
whose  father  was  an  Eg3rptian,  and  whose  mother  was  an 
Israelitish  woman,  named  Shelomith,  of  the  tribe  of  Dan, 
quarrelled  with  an  Israelite ;  and  whilst  they  were  contending, 
the  former  cm'sed  the  name  of  Jehovah.  The  witnesses  of  the 
crime  brought  the  guilty  man  to  Moses,  who  detained  him  in 
custody  till  he  had  learned  the  will  of  Jehovah  with  regard  to 
this  extraordinary  occm'rence.  Eventually,  the  blasphemer  was 
led  out  of  the  camp  in  accordance  with  the  Divine  command ; 
and  after  the  witnesses  had  laid  their  hands  upon  his  head,  he 
was  stoned  by  the  whole  congregation  (4).  The  anniversary  of 
the  Exodus  from  Egypt  occmTed  at  this  period,  and  was  cele- 
brated in  the  manner  already  prescribed,  namely,  by  the  feast  of 
the  passover  (Ex.  xii.).  This  was  the  first  passover  which  was 
kept  in  commemoration  of  the  redemption  of  Israel  (Num. 
ix.  1-3). 

(1.)  The  Sinaitic  legislation,  regarded  as  a  whole,  terminates 
with  the  promises  and  threats  contained  in  chap,  xxvi,,  and  is 
closed  by  the  formula  in  chap.  xxvi.  46.  But  as  the  law, 
throughout,  bears  unmistakeable  proofs  of  having  been  delivered 
at  successive  periods,  since  it  is  not  arranged  systematically,  but 
consists  of  smaller  or  larger  groups  of  connnandments  related  to 
one  another,  and  arranged  according  to  the  requirements  of  the 
time  or  of  peculiar  circumstances,  there  is  nothing  to  occasion 
sm'prise  in  the  fact  that,  notwithstanding  this  termination,  from 


196  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

some  cause  which  it  was  not  thought  worth  while  to  mention,  a 
further  supplement  was  necessary,  even  during  the  stay  of  the 
Israehtes  at  Sinai.  Such,  for  example,  are  the  legal  provisions 
contained  in  chap,  xxvii.,  with  regard  to  the  performance  of 
voluntary  vows.  Hence  we  find  the  same  formula  in  ver.  34  of 
this  chapter  as  in  chap.  xxvi.  46:  "These  are  the  command- 
ments wdiich  the  Lord  commanded  Moses  for  the  children  of 
Israel  in  Mount  Sinai."  There  is  also  a  proof  of  the  supple- 
mentary character  of  the  chapter  in  the  contents  themselves, 
seeing  that  it  merely  includes  "  the  free  movements  of  the  spirit 
beyond  the  limits  of  the  law,"  in  the  order  of  things  with  which 
God  is  well  pleased. 

(2.)  Bertlieau  (Sieben  Gruppen,  p.  220  sqq.)  has  attacked 
the  book,  on  the  ground  that  nothing  but  misapprehension  and 
the  want  of  skill  could  have  led  the  author  to  introduce  tlie 
account  of  the  hlasphemer,  and,  in  fact,  the  whole  of  the  24th 
chapter,  in  so  unsuitable  a  place.  But  the  absolute  impossibility 
of  finding  even  the  most  remote  connection  between  the  laAvs  and 
narrative  contained  in  chap.  xxiv.  and  the  context  on  either 
side,  or  of  tracing  any  progress  of  thought  from  one  to  the 
other,  is  the  very  thing  which  compels  us  to  seek  the  reason  for 
this  arrangement  in  the  historical  order  of  events  alone,  and  to 
regard  the  introduction  of  chap.  xxiv.  (ver.  1-9 :  laws  relating 
to  the  candlestick  and  the  table  of  shew-bread;  ver.  10-23: 
account  of  the  blasphemer,  and  laws  to  which  the  occurrence 
gave  rise)  between  chap,  xxiii.,  which  contains  laws  concerning 
the  festivals,  and  chap,  xxv.,  which  relates  to  the  Sabbatic  year 
and  year  of  jubilee,  as  occasioned  by  pm'ely  historical  circum- 
stances. The  ^^Titer  thought  it  w^orth  while  to  notice  the  in- 
cident which  gave  rise  to  the  laws  in  vers.  15-22,  but  we  are  not 
informed  what  it  was  that  occasioned  the  laws  relating;  to  the  oil 
of  the  candlestick  and  the  shew-bread  ; — probably  because  there 
was  nothing  in  the  circumstances  that  seemed  likely  to  interest 
the  future  reader. 

(3.)  The  repetition  of  the  statement,  that  the  blasphemer 
was  the  son  of  an  Egypti/VN  father  and  an  Israelitish  mother, 
shows  clearly  the  design  of  the  author  to  direct  attention  to  the 
^•Angers  incident  to  such  mixed  marriages  as  these.  He  leaves 
as  in  ignorance  as  to  the  inducement  to  take  the  name  of  God 
in  ^ain.     It  is  probable  that  the  adversary  of  the  half-Israelite 


CONCLUSION  or  THE  SIXAITIC  LEGISLATION.  107 

had  cliargecl  the  latter  with  his  Eg^'ptian  descent  as  a  disgrace, 
adding,  it  may  be,  that  he  had  no  part  in  the  God  of  Israel  and 
the  covenant  with  Him ;  and  if  this  were  the  case,  the  latter 
might  easily  have  been  carried  away  by  his  passion  to  sjoeak 
contemptuously  of  Jehovah,  especially  if  his  birth  on  the 
father's  side  had  not  been  without  its  effect  upon  the  state  of 
his  heart  in  relation  to  the  highest  blessings  enjoyed  by  Israel. 
— We  have  already  observ^ed  (vol.  ii.  §  20,  6)  that  it  w^as  from 
tliis  passage  that  the  Kabbins  derived  theu'  prohibition  even  to 
utter  the  name  of  Jehovah. 

(4.)  The  proper  place  for  treating  more  minutely  of  the 
IMPOSITION  OF  HANDS  will  be  in  connection  with  the  laws  of 
sacrifice,  which  will  come  under  our  notice  by  and  by.  At 
present,  therefore,  we  shall  say  no  more  than  is  necessary  to 
enable  us  to  understand  this  particular  occurrence. — A  precisely 
analogous  instance  of  the  imposition  of  hands  we  find  in  the 
History  of  Susannali,  ver.  34.  From  this  it  is  evident  that  the 
custom  was,  or  became,  a  very  general  one  in  such  cases  as 
these. — Bdhr  (^Symbolik  ii.  342)  regards  it  as,  on  the  one  hand, 
"  an  intimation  of  the  relation  in  which  the  hearers  stood  to  the 
blasphemer,  and  on  the  other,  a  sign  of  his  being  given  up,  or 
consecrated  to  death."  There  is  truth  undoubtedly  in  the 
former,  though  it  ought  to  have  been  more  fully  explained 
and  demonstrated.  But  we  are  at  a  loss  to  perceive  in  what 
way  the  imposition  of  hands  could  have  denoted  dedication  to 
death.  Hofmann  has  overlooked  this  passage  in  his  discussion 
of  the  general  meaning  of  the  practice  (^ScJiriftheweis  ii.  1,  p.  155 
seq.).  At  the  proper  place  I  intend  to  show,  that  his  explanation 
of  this  symbolical  act  is  no  more  applicable  to  the  case  before 
us,  than  to  the  custom  of  laying  hands  upon  the  head  of  the 
sacrificial  victim.  With  reference  to  the  latter,  he  says,  "  The 
meaning  of  the  act  is  this  :  he  shows  that  he  intends  to  make 
use  of  his  power  over  the  fife  of  the  animal,  and  therefore 
])uts  it  to  death  as  a  pa^niient  to  God."  I  still  hold  essentially 
the  same  opinion  as  I  have  expressed  in  my  Mosaisehes  Opfer, 
with  which  Baumgarten  (i.  2,  p.  280)  also  agrees.  I  may  be 
allowed  to  quote  his  successful  explanation  :  "  According  to  the 
sentence  of  Jehovah,"  he  says,  "  the  whole  congregation  wai?  to 
be  regarded  as  participating  in  the  crime  of  the  individual, 
because  every  one  was  a  living  member  of  the  whole.     For  this 


198  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

reason  the  punishment  was  committed  to  the  whole  congre- 
gation, Bj  this  punishment,  for  example,  the  congregation  was 
to  give  back  to  the  criminal  its  share  of  the  guilt,  and,  having 
led  him  out  of  the  camp  and  put  him  to  death,  to  wipe  off  the 
sin  from  Israel.  That  this  was  the  light  in  which  the  punish- 
ment was  viewed  is  especially  apparent,  from  the  fact  that  the 
^^dtnesses  who  heard  the  blasphemy,  and  therefore  were  more  im- 
mediately concerned  than  the  rest  of  the  congregation  (Lev.  v.  1), 
were  required  to  lay  their  hands  upon  the  head  of  the  sinner,  and 
thus,  by  their  own  act  and  deed,  to  cast  off  the  guilt  which  they 
had  involuntarily  contracted,  and  transfer  it  to  the  head  of  the 
sinner.  In  this  way  the  outward  punishment  became  a  moral 
act,  performed  by  the  whole  congregation,  and  entered  into 
such  an  inward  relation  to  the  crime,  that  it  could  really  be 
regarded  as  an  extermination  of  the  sin."  In  other  cases,  the 
elders  stood  in  the  breach,  as  the  actual  representatives  of  the 
congi'egation.  But  in  circumstances  such  as  tlie  present,  it  is 
easy  to  see  why  this  representation,  which  would  otherwise  be  so 
perfectly  natural,  should  be  set  aside.  A  sin  of  this  description, 
whose  destructive  character  was  such  that  it  violated  or  set  at 
nought  tlie  very  foundation  of  the  entire  theocratical  common- 
wealth, involved  the  whole  congregation  in  the  guilt  of  the 
criminal  with  whom  it  was  vitally  connected ;  until,  indeed,  the 
sin  itself,  which  proceeded  from  within  itself  and  infected  the 
whole  body,  had  been  rendered  nugatory  and  entirely  removed 
by  the  destruction  of  the  sinner  who  was  the  source  of  the 
infection.  For  all  infection,  which  from  its  very  nature  is 
communicated,  and  not  spontaneous,  becomes  spontaneous ;  in 
other  words,  assumes  the  character  of  participation  in  guilt, 
whenever  it  is  tolerated,  instead  of  being  most  strenuously 
resisted.  But  the  eye  and  ear-witnesses  are  the  most  directly 
and  most  deeply  involved  in  this  infection,  and  the  guilt  to 
which  it  leads ;  and,  therefore,  the  duty  of  resistance  is 
primarily  and  principally  binding  upon  them,  and  it  is  they  who 
have  to  stand  in  the  breach  on  such  an  occasion  as  representa- 
tives of  the  whole  congregation.  By  laying  their  hands  upon 
the  head  of  the  sinner,  then,  they  give  back  the  infection  which 
they  have  received,  to  the  man  from  whom  it  first  proceeded. 
Henceforth  he  alone  has  to  bear  the  entire  sin,  and  this  is 
expiated  by  his  death. 


PREPARATIONS  FOR  LEAVING  SINAI.  199 

The  mode  of  execution  which  was  here  employed,  namely, 
that  of  stoning,  was  one  of  great  importance,  seeing  that  this 
was  tlie  only  mode  of  capital  punishment,  in  which  the  whole 
nation  could  participate  in  the  execution  of  the  sentence. 

PREPARATIONS  FOR  LEAVING  SINAI. 

§  20.  (Num.  i.-vi.) — The  design  of  the  encampment  at 
Sinai  was  now  fulfilled.  The  covenant  was  concluded  ;  the  law 
had  been  given ;  the  sanctuary  was  erected ;  the  priests  were 
consecrated ;  the  worship  had  been  aiTanged  ;  and  Jehovah  dwelt 
in  the  midst  of  His  chosen  people.  It  was  now  time  to  think  of 
departing,  in  order  that  the  purpose  to  which  the  Israelites  had 
been  set  apart  might  be  accomplished.  The  immediate  object 
was  to  take  possession  of  the  promised  land.  But  this  could  not 
be  done  in  a  peaceable  manner,  for  Canaan  was  inhabited  by 
powerful  and  warlike  tribes  (Ex.  xxiii.  23,  xxxiv.  11).  It  must 
be  conquered,  therefore;  and  the  conquest  of  the  land  was  to  be 
connected  with  the  extermination  of  the  inhabitants,  for  the 
iniquity  of  the  Amorites  was  now  full  (Gen.  xv.  16).  They 
had  become  ripe  for  judgment,  and  Israel  was  to  execute  it  in 
the  name  and  by  the  command  of  Jehovah.  It  was  necessary, 
therefore,  that  the  Israelites  should  be  organised  as  an  army  of 
Jehovah.  To  this  end  a  census  was  taken  of  those  who  were 
fit  for  war,  viz.,  all  the  men  of  twenty  years  old  and  upward. 
The  tribe  of  Levi  alone  was  omitted.  For  this  tribe,  which  had 
changed  the  curse  of  the  patriarch  Jacob  into  a  blessing,  through 
its  zeal  for  the  honour  of  God  (§  13,  8),  was  to  be  set  apart  from 
the  rest  of  the  tribes,  and  spend  its  life  in  the  service  of  the 
sanctuary.  Through  this  separation  of  an  entire  tribe,  the  sig- 
nificant number,  twelve,  which  had  been  disturbed  by  the  adop- 
tion of  Joseph's  sons  (Gen.  xlviii.),  was  once  more  restored.  As 
the  numbering  of  the  tribes  was  so  closely  related  to  the  vocation 
of  Israel,  it  was  canned  out  with  fitting  pomp  and  ceremony. 
Moses  and  Aaron  performed  the  task  themselves,  attended  by 
one  of  the  princes  from  each  of  the  twelve  tribes.     The  result  of 


200  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

the  censvis  was  the  following : — Reuben,  46,500 ;  Simeon, 
59,300;  Gad,  46,650;  Judah,  74,600;  Issachar,  54,400;  Ze- 
hulon,  57,400 ;  Ephraim,  40,500 ;  Manasseh,  32,200 ;  Benjamin, 
35,400 ;  Dan,  62,700 ;  Asher,  41,500 ;  and  Naphtali,  53,400 : 
in  all,  603,550  fighting  men  (1).  Judah  was  the  strongest  and 
most  numerous,  therefore,  of  all  the  tribes.  This  was  to  be  re- 
garded as  the  first-fruits  of  the  blessing  which  the  patriarch  had 
pronounced  upon  the  founder  of  this  tribe  (Gen.  xlix.  8-12)  ;  and 
in  accordance  with  the  prophecy,  Judah  was  placed  at  the  head 
of  all  the  tribes,  and  the  prince  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  named 
Nahshon  (Nacheshon),  was  the  first  of  all  the  princes  of  Israel. 
After  this  the  Levites  also  were  numbered.  In  this  tribe 
there  were  in  all  22,000  males,  including  the  boys  of  a  month 
old  and  upwards,  and  8580  between  thirty  and  fifty  years  of 
age,  the  period  of  service  (2).  Further  arrangements  were  now 
made,  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  out  the  instructions  already 
given  with  reference  to  the  sanctification  of  all  the  first-born 
(vol.  ii.  §  35,  5).  The  Levites  were  to  take  the  place  of  the 
first-born  of  all  the  tribes, — to  be  set  apart  to  the  service  of  the 
sanctuary,  as  the  Lord's  own ;  and  their  cattle  was  to  be  substi- 
tuted for  the  first-born  of  the  cattle  of  the  whole  congregation. 
But  when  the  first-born  of  the  whole  congregation  had  been 
counted,  they  numbered  22,273.  To  equalise  the  two,  it  was 
determined  that  the  273,  the  number  by  which  the  first-born 
exceeded  the  Levites,  should  be  redeemed  at  five  shekels  each, 
and  the  redemption  money  paid  over  to  the  priests  (3).  As  the 
whole  community  was  to  be  organised  as  an  army  of  Jehovah,  it 
was  necessary  that  the  order  of  march  and  of  encampment  should 
be  precisely  determined.  The  tabernacle  was  to  stand  in  the 
midst  of  the  camp,  that  the  dweUing-place  of  Jehovah  might  be 
literally  in  the  midst  of  the  people.  Next  to  the  tabernacle  stood 
the  tents  of  the  tribe  of  Levi :  those  of  Moses,  and  Aaron,  and 
the  priests,  the  sons  of  the  latter,  on  the  east  side,  immediately 
before  the  entrance  to  the  sanctuaiy ;  those  of  the  family  of  the 
Kohathites  to  the  south  ;  those  of  the   Gershonites  on  the  west ; 


PEErARATIONS  FOR  LEAVING  SINAI.  201 

and  those  of  the  Merarites  on  the  north.  Three  tribes  were  then 
stationed  on  each  of  the  four  sides.  The  principal  tribe  of  the 
three  occupied  the  centre,  and  had  a  banner  which  was  common 
to  all  the  three.  Judah  was  encamped  on  the  front  or  east  side, 
along  with  Issachar  and  Zebvdon ;  Beuhen  on  the  south,  with 
Simeon  and  Gad ;  Ephrahn  on  the  west,  with  Manasseh  and 
Benjamin  ;  and  Dan  on  the  north,  with  Asher  and  Naphtali  (4). 
The  order  of  march  was  to  be  similar  to  this  (5).  Judah's 
banner  led  the  way ;  then  followed  Reuben  ;  after  this  the 
Levites  with  the  tent ;  Ephraim  came  next ;  and  Dan  brought 
up  the  rear  (6).  These  arrangements  were  accompanied  by  a 
series  of  laws  (chaps  v.  and  vi.),  which  principally  related  to  the 
preservation  of  the  holiness  of  the  camp  by  the  removal  of  ma- 
terial and  spiritual  impurities  (7). 

(1.)  There  is  something  striking  in  the  fact,  that  the  census 
which  was  taken  now,  gave  precisely  the  same  result  as  the  poll- 
tax,  which  was  levied  at  the  commencement  of  the  erection  of 
the  tabernacle  about  half-a-year  before  (Ex.  xxxviii.  24—28, 
compare  §  16).  J.  D.  Michaelis,  in  his  Anmerkungen  filr  Unge- 
lehrte,  solves  the  difficulty  in  the  following  manner  :  In  Ex. 
xxxviii.,  he  says,  there  is  no  account  of  an  actual  numbering, 
but  eveiy  one  who  was  more  than  twenty  years  old  paid  his  tax, 
and  was  registered  accordingly.  But  on  the  present  occasion 
Moses  received  instructions  to  arrange  the  lists  and  sum  them 
up  (chap,  i.,  ii.).  The  names  had  been  given  in  before,  though 
the  actual  counting  took  place  now ;  and  therefore  Moses  did 
not  hesitate,  when  recording  the  account  of  the  tax,  to  insert 
what  were  afterwards  found  to  be  the  actual  numbers. — But 
there  is  no  intimation  whatever  of  the  names  being  registered 
when  the  tax  was  levied,  and  in  itself  it  does  not  appear  to  be 
at  all  a  probable  thing.  If  the  niuubers  in  both  instances  are 
founded  upon  one  and  the  same  census,  which  we  also  regard 
as  probably  the  case,  we  must  look  for  the  census  in  question, 
not  to  Ex.  xxxviii.,  but  to  Num.  i.  We  are  shut  up  to  this  by 
the  solemnity  and  formality  with  which  the  census  in  Num.  i. 
was  commanded,  organised,  and  carried  out.  In  Ex.  xxxviii.  we 
have  simply  the  raising  of  a  tax,  and  no  numbering  at  all.  And 
as  the  increase  or  decrease  in  the  number  of  the  people  must 


202  ISEAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

have  been  very  trifling  in  the  brief  space  of  six  or  seven  months, 
the  result  might  be  employed  without  hesitation  in  giving  the 
amomit  which  the  poll-tax  yielded. 

We  are  also  struck  with  the  fact,  that  the  amotmt  is  given 
in  round  hundreds  in  the  case  of  every  tribe  excepting  Gad,  and 
that  in  this  instance  the  fifty  is  inserted.  The  thought  is  hereby 
suggested,  that  the  numbers  were  taken  by  tens,  if  not  by  fifties. 
The  judicial  classification  proposed  by  Jethro  (Ex.  xviii.  21)  was 
probably  taken  as  the  basis  ;  and  if  so,  it  would  be  only  in  the 
case  of  the  chiefs  that  the  numbers  would  be  carried  beyond 
fifty.  In  any  case,  we  prefer  the  conjectm'e  that  there  was 
some  such  want  of  precision  as  this,  to  the  notion  expressed  by 
Baumgarten,  who  regards  the  fact,  that  in  the  case  of  every  tribe 
the  result  yielded  such  round  numbers  as  these,  as  a  proof  of  the 
special  pro^ddence  of  God.  In  his  opinion,  since  the  supposition 
of  any  such  inaccuracy  as  this  is  incompatible  with  the  care  and 
completeness  which  are  apparent  throughout,  and  as  it  could 
not  possibly  apply  to  the  case  of  the  Levites,  whose  numbers 
must  of  necessity  be  given  with  precision,  "  it  must  be  acknow- 
ledged that  in  this  natural  harmony  {Concinnitdt)  in  the  numbers 
of  the  Israelites,  we  have  the  evident  seal  of  the  care  mth  which 
the  increase  of  the  nation  was  superintended  by  Jehovah." 

(2.)  The  numbers  contained  in  the  various  families  into  which 
the  Levites  were  divided  were  as  follows  : — In  the  family  of 
Koliath  there  were,  in  aU,  8600  males,  of  whom  2750  were  fit 
for  service ;  in  that  of  Ger short  7500  males,  with  2630  fit  for 
service ;  and  in  that  of  Merari  6200  males,  of  whom  3200  were 
fit  for  service.  If  we  add  these  figm-es  together,  we  shall  find 
that  they  amount  to  22,300,  whereas,  according  to  chap.  iii.  39, 
there  were  not  more  than  22,000.  The  simplest  solution  of  the 
difficulty  is  to  assume  that,  through  the  fault  of  a  copyist,  an 
error  has  crept  into  one  of  the  numbers.  J.  D.  Michaelis  {An- 
merkungen  fur  UngeUhrte)  is  of  opinion  that  there  is  an  error  in 
the  number  of  the  Kohathites  in  ver.  28  ;  that  the  original  letters 
were  ^'^t^•  instead  of  ^^ ;  and  therefore  that  the  Kohathites 
numbered  not  8600,  but  8300.  A  still  more  natm-al  explanation 
is,  that  the  error  Avas  caused  by  some  change  in  the  numeral 
letters,  such,  for  example,  as  the  substitution  of  D  =  600  for 
^  =  300,  or  of  -|  =  500  for  -i  =  200,  or,  again,  of  i  =  6  for 
3  =  3.     The  careful  and  valuable  investigations  of  Reinke  into 


PREPARATIONS  FOR  LEAVING  SINAI,  203 

the  statement  of  numbers  in  the  Old  Testament  (in  his  Beitrdgen 
zur  Erhldrung  des  Alien  Testametites,  Miinster,  1851),  has  sho%vn 
still  more  convincingly  that  changes  of  this  kind  in  the  numeral 
letters,  both  in  the  text  of  the  Old  Testament  and  also  in  the 
ancient  versions,  have  given  rise  to  a  considerable  number  of 
errors. 

The  favourite  solution  with  most  of  the  Rabbins  and  many 
modern  writers,  viz.,  that  the  three  hundred  deducted  were  the 
first-born,  and  therefore  could  not  be  reckoned  with  the  rest,  is 
inadmissible.  For  if  the  first-bom  were  not  to  be  counted 
along  \\'ith  the  rest,  the  rule  would  apply  to  the  particular 
amounts  as  well  as  to  the  sum  total.  Baumgarten  (i.  2,  p.  263) 
endeavours  to  commend  this  hypothesis  still  further,  by  the  re- 
mark that  "  the  silent  omission  of  the  300  first-born  was  intended 
in  this  particular  instance  to  conceal  the  fact,  that  there  were 
limits  to  the  assumed  holiness  of  Levi,  which  were  manifested 
in  the  inability  to  redeem  Israel,  in  order  that  the  relation  be- 
tween Le\d  and  Israel  might  not  be  disturbed."  But  such  a 
procedure  as  this  would  have  produced  the  very  opposite  result 
from  that  which  was  designed  ;  for  the  omission  of  the  first-born 
from  the  sum  total,  whilst  they  were  included  in  the  smaller 
amounts,  would  have  brought  to  light  the  very  thing  which  it 
was  desired  to  conceal. — Moreover,  the  disproportion  is  too  great 
between  300  first-born  and  the  entire  number,  22,300 ;  this 
would  give  only  one  first-born  to  seventy-four  males. 

If  we  compare  the  number  of  the  tribe  of  Le\-i  with  that  of 
the  other  tribes,  we  find  a  very  striking  disproportion  here.  In 
Manasseh,  the  smallest  of  all  the  tribes,  there  were  32,200  males 
above  twenty  years  of  age.  The  entire  number  of  the  males 
contained  in  this  tribe  must  have  amounted,  therefore,  to  about 
50,000 ;  whereas  in  Levi  there  w^ere  not  more  than  22,000. 
We  accept  this  as  a  simple  fact,  without  looking  further  for  the 
historical  causes  or  design.  Baumgarten^ s  remark,  that  "the 
importance  of  this  tribe  rested  upon  that  which  was  within,  and 
not  upon  anything  outward,"  really  explains  nothing.  We 
should  be  rather  inclined  to  think  of  the  curse  in  Gen.  xlix.,  were 
it  not  that  this  was  altogether  precluded  by  the  population  of 
Simeon,  on  which  the  same  curse  had  been  pronounced. 

(3.)  It  had  been  already  commanded  (Ex.  xiii.),  that  all  the 
first-born  both  of  men  and  cattle  should  be  consecrated  to  Jehovah. 


204  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SIXAI. 

From  tlie  niglit  in  which  the  destroying  angel  of  Jehovah  had 
passed  over  the  houses  of  the  Israehtes,  all  the  first-born  of  men 
and  cattle  had  been  holy  to  the  Lord,  and  His  peculiar  property 
(Num.  iii.  12,  13).  The  former  could  only  become  sui  juris, 
and  the  latter  the  disposable  property  of  their  possessors,  after 
Jehovah  had  appointed  a  redemption,  and  the  redemption  had 
been  paid.  This  was  what  took  place  on  the  present  occasion 
(ver.  45).  In  the  place  of  the  first-bom  of  men,  God  chose  the 
Levites,  and  hi  the  place  of  the  first-born  of  cattle,  the  cattle  of 
the  Levites.  Aaron  and  his  sons  did  not  belong  to  the  Levites  ; 
for  they  had  already  been  separated  from  theu*  tribe  and  conse- 
crated to  tlie  priesthood.  In  fact,  the  Levites  were  now  given 
to  them  for  a  possession,  to  be  their  servants  in  the  tabernacle 
(Num.  iii.  6-9,  and  viii.  19).  It  is  very  evident  from  this  that 
the  sanctification  of  the  first-born  commanded  in  Ex.  xiii.  had 
nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  priesthood  (vol.  ii.,  §  35,  5). 
The  Levites  were  not  priests,  but  the  property  of  the  priests ; 
and  the  priests  were  not  appointed  in  the  place  of  the  first-born, 
but  in  the  stead  of  the  w^hole  nation,  which  was  called,  according 
to  Ex.  xix.  6,  to  be  a  kingdom  of  priests,  but  did  not  feel  itself 
to  be  ripe  and  thoroughly  qualified  (Ex.  xx.  19). — In  the  substi- 
tution of  the  cattle  of  the  Levites  for  the  first-born  cattle  of  the 
whole  congregation,  it  was  not  required  that  the  numbers  on 
either  side  should  exactly  correspond.  But  this  was  required  in 
the  substitution  of  the  Levites  for  the  first-born  sons.  The 
excess  of  273,  therefore,  on  the  side  of  the  latter,  had  to  be  re- 
deemed by  the  payment  of  five  shekels  each,  which  were  handed 
over  to  the  priests  in  the  sanctuary  (ver.  50).  But  it  was  not 
merely  the  first-bom  then  living  w^ho  were  to  be  holy  to  the 
Lord ;  all  that  should  be  afterwards  born  were  to  be  the  same. 
Hence  the  obligation  to  redeem  the  first-born  continued  even 
after  the  substitution  of  the  Levites.  The  necessary  instructions 
with  reference  to  these  are  given  in  Nmu.  xviii.  14—18. 

It  may  appear  strange,  that  in  a  nation  containing  603,550 
fighting  men,  there  should  be  only  22,273  first-born.  For  if 
there  were  600,000  males  of  twenty  years  old  and  upwards,  the 
whole  number  of  males  may  be  estimated  at  900,000  at  least ; 
in  w^hich  case  there  would  be  only  one  first-born  to  forty-two 
males.  At  the  first  glance  this  appears  thoroughly  incredible ; 
for  the  conclusion  to  which  it  seems  to  lead  is,  that  the  number 


PREPARATIONS  FOR  LEAVING  SINAI.  205 

of  boys  in  every  family  must  have  been,  on  an  average,  forty- 
two.  J.  D.  Michaelis  (Mosaisches  Recht  ii.,  §  94)  adheres 
firmly  to  this,  and  endeavours  to  account  for  it  from  the  pre- 
valence of  polygamy  among  the  Israelites  ! ! !  But  even  if  we 
could  make  up  our  minds  to  believe  anything  so  incredible,  the 
difficulty  would  not  be  removed ;  for  it  is  beyond  all  question 
that  it  is  not  the  first-begotten  of  the  fathers,  but  the  first-born 
of  the  mothers,  who  are  referred  to  here  (chap.  iii.  12).  In  this 
case,  the  existence  of  polygamy,  as  may  easily  be  conceived, 
would  only  serve  to  render  the  difficulty  perfectly  colossal. — 
We  must  inquire,  therefore,  whether  there  are  no  other  means 
of  ex])laining  the  fact,  that  on  an  average  there  was  only  one 
first-born  to  forty-two  males.  There  are  plenty.  The  first  is 
the  rarity  of  polygamy,  which  lessened  the  proportion  of  the 
first-born.  A  second,  the  large  number  of  children  to  ^A'hom  the 
Israelitish  mothers  gave  birth.  Again,  the  constantly  recui'ring 
expression,  "  Every  first-born  that  openeth  the  womb,"  which 
Ave  find  even  in  Nmn.  iii.  12,  warrants  the  conclusion  that  the 
first-born  of  the  father  was  not  reckoned,  unless  it  was  at  the 
same  time  the  first-born  of  the  mother,  and  also  to  the  still  more 
important  assumption,  that  if  the  first-born  was  a  daughter,  an-v 
son  that  might  be  born  afterwards  would  not  be  reckoned  at  all. 
Now,  statistical  tables  show  that  the  first-born  is  more  frequently 
a  female  than  a  male. — Lastly,  such  of  the  first-born,  as  were 
themselves  heads  of  families,  were  not  reckoned  at  all  as  first- 
born who  had  to  be  redeemed,  but  only  their  first-born  sons.  If 
we  carry  out  the  last  ai'gument,  and  bear  in  mind  the  early  age 
at  which  marriage  is  usually  contracted  in  the  East,  Ave  shall 
have  to  seek  the  first-born  exclusively  among  those  who  were 
luider  fifteen  or  sixteen  years  of  age.  In  this  case,  the  pro- 
portion is  essentially  altered.  With  a  population  of  000,000 
men  above  twenty  years  of  age,  we  may  assume  that  there 
woidd  be  200,000  under  fifteen ;  if  so,  the  number  of  the  first- 
born (22,273),  in  proportion  to  the  whole  number  of  males, 
would  be  one  in  nine.  But  for  the  reason  mentioned  under 
No.  3,  this  ratio  must  be  reduced  by  a  half  ;  and  the  average 
luimber  of  children  in  a  family  Avould  be  nine,  of  Avhom  four  or 
five  would  be  sons, — by  no  means  an  extravagant  number,  when 
we  consider  how  prolific  the  Hebrew  women  Avcre. — J/.  Baum- 
garten  (i.  2,  p.  204)  has  suggested  a  totally  different  and  very 


206  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

peculiar  method  of  solving  the  difficulty.  In  his  opinion,  we 
are  warranted  in  inferring  from  Lev.  xxvii.  6,  that  in  this 
instance  only  such  of  the  first-born  were  counted,  as  had  been 
born  within  the  last  six  years.  The  passage  referred  to  deter- 
mines the  redemption  fee,  to  be  paid  by  those  who  have  made 
voluntary  personal  vows  ;  and  the  sum  to  be  paid  for  a  boy  from 
a  month  to  five  years  old  is  the  same  as  that  required  here  in 
the  case  of  all  the  first-born,  viz.,  five  shekels,  whereas  a  man 
between  twenty  and  sixty  years  old  was  required  to  pay  fifty 
shekels.  But  the  command  in  Num.  iii.  40  ran  thus:  "Number 
all  the  first-born  of  the  males  from  a  month  old  and  iqncardr 
If  there  had  been  any  age,  then,  beyond  which  the  numbering 
was  not  to  go,  it  would  undoubtedly  have  been  mentioned  here. 
But  there  is  nothing  of  the  kind.  And  on  what  could  an 
arbitrary  and  unmeanmg  Imiitation  of  this  kind  possibly  be 
founded?  The  argument  adduced  by  Baumgarten  in  support 
of  his  view,  namely,  that  all  the  first-born  of  the  Israelites  who 
partook  of  the  passover  in  Egypt  had  been  ah'eady  redeemed 
by  so  doing,  has  no  foundation  in  anything  contained  in  the 
Bible.  And  if  this  were  the  case,  why  should  not  the  boys  of 
three  or  four  years  old  have  eaten  of  the  passover,  and  thus  have 
been  already  redeemed  ? 

The  reason  why  the  numbering  was  to  commence  with  the 
boys  of  a  month  old  is  to  be  fomid  in  the  fact  that,  according  to 
the  directions  contained  in  the  law,  the  redemption  was  to  take 
place  at  the  end  of  the  second  month. 

(4.)  In  the  plan  of  the  camp,  care  was  taken  that  two  things 
should  be  secured — first,  that  the  dwelling-place  of  Jehovah 
should  be  as  nearly  as  possible  in  the  centre  of  the  camp,  and 
secondly,  that  the  tribes  should  form  themselves  into  a  square, 
the  priests  and  Levites  being  nearest  to  the  tabernacle,  and  the 
others  surrounding  them.  There  was  evidently  a  s}Tnbolical 
meaning  in  both  cases.  The  former  represented  the  presence 
of  Jehovah  in  the  midst  of  His  people  ;  the  latter,  by  pointing  to 
the  four  quarters  of  the  heavens,  as  well  as  from  its  quadrate 
form,  exhibited  the  camp  as  a  microcosm.  Of  course,  a 
perfect  square  could  not  be  secured  in  eveiy  place  of  en- 
campment ;  the  nature  of  the  ground  would  frequently  render 
tliis  impossible.  In  such  cases,  all  that  could  be  done  was  to 
come  as  near  to  the  plan  laid  down  as  the  ground  would  allow. 


PREPAKATIONS  FOR  LEAVING  SINAI.  207 

It  was  only  upon  a  broad  level  that  tlie  fonn  enjoined  could  be 
fully  secured. 

(5.)  ^^Hien  the  camp  was  broken  up,  the  work  of  the  priests 
was  to  ^\Tap  up  the  furniture  of  the  sanctuary  carefully  in 
cloths,  and  prepare  them  for  being  carried  away, — a  task  which 
they  alone  could  perform,  seeing  that  no  one  else  was  allowed  to 
enter  the  tabernacle,  or  to  look  upon  the  things  contained 
therein.  The  family  of  the  Kohathites,  to  which  Moses  and 
Aaron  belonged,  and  of  which  Eleazar,  the  son  of  Aaron,  had 
been  appointed  prince,  was  the  most  holy ;  and  to  his  family, 
therefore,  was  allotted  the  duty  of  bearing  upon  their  shoulders 
the  sacred  vessels  of  the  sanctuary.  The  Gershonites  attended 
to  the  furnitiure,  the  ciu'tains,  the  covering,  the  carpets,  and  so 
forth;  and  the  Merarites  to  the  boards,  the  bolts,  and  the  pillars 
(comj^are  §  24,  1). 

(6.)  According  to  Num.  ii.  17  and  x.  21,  the  dwelling-place 
and  its  furniture  were  carried  by  the  Kohathites  in  the  midst  of 
the  procession.  But  it  is  evident  from  Num.  x.  33  (compare 
Josh.  iii.  3-6),  that  the  arh  of  the  covenant  was  separated  from  the 
sanctuary,  and  carried  at  the  head  of  the  entire  procession. 
Tliis  was  occasioned  by  the  connection  between  the  ark  of  the 
covenant  and  the  pillar  of  cloud  and  fire.  The  lid  of  the  ark, 
the  Capporeth,  was  the  throne  of  Jehovah,  Avho  was  represented 
by  the  pillar  of  cloud.  But  the  latter  went  in  front  as  the 
leader  and  guide  ;  and  this  determined  the  place  of  the  ark. 

(7.)  On  the  position  of  the  commands  contained  in  Num. 
v.,  vi.  see  liankes  Untersuchungen,  iii.  138  sqq. 

§  21.  (Num.  vii.,  viii.) — The  princes  of  the  tribes  then 
brought  their  offerings  for  the  sanctuary,  \dz.,  every  man  an  ox ; 
a  carriage  for  every  two,  to  carry  the  sanctuaiy  on  the  march 
that  was  before  them ;  every  man  a  silver  dish  worth  130  shekels, 
and  a  silver  bowl  worth  70  shekels,  for  the  altar  of  burnt-offer- 
ing, both  full  of  flour  mingled  with  oil  for  a  meat-offering ;  a 
golden  cup,  weighing  ten  shekels,  full  of  incense  ;  and,  lastly, 
an  ox,  a  ram,  and  a  lamb  for  a  burnt-offering,  a  goat  for  a  sin- 
offering,  also  two  bullocks,  five  he-goats,  five  rams,  and  five 
lambs  for  a  thank-offering.  They  all  brought  their  offerings 
on  separate  days.     Nahesson,  the  prmce  of  the  tribe  of  Judah, 


208  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OP  SINAI. 

was  the  first  in  tlie  series  (1).  They  were  free-will  offerings,  by 
which  the  princes  of  the  community  displayed  their  zeal  for  the 
dwelling-place  of  Jehovah,  and  also,  as  the  representatives  of 
the  congregation,  consecrated  the  place,  Avhich  had  already  been 
consecrated  by  Moses  and  Aaron  as  the  representatives  of  God. 
With  this  was  connected  the  appointment  of  the  Levites  to  the 
service  of  the  sanctuary  in  place  of  the  whole  congregation  (§ 
20,  3).  To  this  end  the  Levites  were  ordered  to  shave  their 
whole  body,  to  wash  their  clothes,  and  to  offer  sacrifices  as  their 
atonement.  The  elders  then  laid  their  hands  upon  them,  as  a 
sign  that  they  were  given  to  the  sanctuary  as  substitutes  for  the 
congregation,  and  they  were  "  waved  "  before  Jehovah,  probably 
in  the  f  ore-coiu't  of  the  sanctuary ;  that  is  to  say,  they  were  con- 
ducted backwards  and  forwards  to  the  four  quarters  of  the 
heavens,  to  show  that  they  belonged  to  the  place,  to  the  service 
of  which  their  hfe  was  to  be  henceforward  entirely  dedicated  (2). 

(1).  The  word  C)i''3  (on  the  day)  in  vers.  1  and  10,  has  led 
critics  to  the  conclusion  that  the  tenth  chapter  of  Numbers  is 
not  in  its  proper  place,  but  should  stand  immediately  after  the 
account  of  the  erection  and  dedication  of  the  sanctuary,  which 
we  find  in  Ex.  xl.  16.  On  this  Ranke  observes  (ii.  146)  :  "This 
would  be  very  unfortunate  in  the  case  of  a  section  which  presents 
so  fine  a  view  of  the  Sinaitie  history.  After  such  extraordinary 
acts  on  the  part  of  Jehovah,  which  might  almost  all  be  immedi- 
ately recognised  as  acts  of  mercy,  it  would  naturally  be  expected 
that  there  should  be  some  mark  of  grateful  acknowledgment 
and  cheerful  submission  on  the  part  of  the  peoj^le.  It  had  been 
to  a  very  great  extent  with  free-will  offerings  that  the  sanctuar}'^ 
had  been  erected.  But  what  progress  the  revelation  of  God  had 
made  since  then  !  It  affords  a  pecuhar  satisfaction  to  witness 
in  the  present  section  the  abundance  of  the  gifts  presented  to 
the  sanctuary  by  the  Avhole  of  the  princes  of  the  tribes.  For 
twelve  days  in  succession  the  princes  brought,  each  on  his  own 
appointed  day,  gifts  and  sacrifices,  and  in  every  case  precisely 
the  same ;  as  if  each  tribe  was  desirous  of  showing  that  it  had 
the  same  part  in  the  sanctuary  as  all  the  rest.  By  being  re- 
corded in  the  book  of  the  law,  these  gifts  became  at  the  same 


PREPARATIONS  FOR  LEAVING  SINAI.  209 

time  an  encouragement  to  subsequent  generations,  to  imitate  the 
fathers  in  rendering  voluntary  service  to  the  house  of  Jehovah." 
— At  an  earlier  period,  no  doubt,  the  congregation  had  brought 
their  voluntary  offerings  in  great  abundance  for  erecting  and 
furnishing  the  dwelling-place  of  Jehovah  (§  16),  but  they  had 
done  this  in  consequence  of  the  appeal  of  Moses  and  the  com- 
mand of  Jehovah  (Ex.  xxv.  2,  xxxv.  5)  ;  and  even  if  no  one 
was  compelled  to  contribute,  the  voluntary  character  of  the 
offering  was  still  affected  by  the  appeal.  But  after  such  dis- 
plays of  mercy  on  the  part  of  Jehovah,  we  certainly  look  for  an 
expression  of  gratitude  in  the  shape  of  a  perfectly  voluntary 
offering,  for  which  no  appeals  or  instructions  were  necessary, 
but  which  would  be  the  simple  impulse  of  the  heart  of  the 
giver.  We  are  not  deceived  in  our  expectation.  This  was  done 
by  the  princes  of  the  congregation.  That  the  expression  of 
gratitude  was  in  its  proper  place  is  a  fact  which  no  one  can 
deny.  It  would  never  have  occurred  to  them  to  offer  carriages 
and  beasts  of  burden,  had  it  not  been  for  their  anticipated  de- 
parture. And  even  the  twelve  days'  sacrifices,  and  gifts  for  the 
consecration  of  the  altar,  were  in  their  proper  place  here.  On 
any  previous  occasion  such  an  offering  as  this  would  have  been 
regarded  as  an  officious  and  reprehensible  work  of  supereroga^ 
tion.  So  long  as  Jehovah  was  issuing  instructions  and  com- 
mands respecting  the  erection  of  the  sanctuary,  and  the  worship 
to  be  performed  within  it,  it  would  have  been  an  act  of  unseemly 
haste  and  forwardness  for  them  to  anticipate  His  instructions  by 
any  act  of  their  own. — So  far  as  the  expression  DV2  is  concerned, 
there  is  not  much  force  in  the  argument  which  has  been  based 
upon  it ;  for  the  very  fact  that  twelve  entire  days  were  so 
occupied,  is  a  proof  that  the  expression  cannot  be  taken  literally. 
We  can  subscribe  to  BaumgarteiTb  s  opinion,  therefore,  when  he 
says  :  "  The  relation  in  which  DVl  stands  to  the  account  which 
follows  is  this  :  in  its  inner  ground  the  offering  originated  in  the 
day  of  the  dedication  (by  Moses),  inasmuch  as  the  sanctuan', 
when  consecrated  and  filled  with  the  glory  of  Jehovah,  had 
given  pleasure  to  the  Israelites,  and  excited  a  disposition  to  do 
it  honour."  With  regard  to  the  consecration  on  the  part  of  the 
nation,  as  well  as  on  the  part  of  God,  the  same  commentator 
writes  :  "  The  first  consecration  which  the  altar  received,  when 
it  was  anointed  by  Moses,  excited  a  desire  on  the  part  of  Israel 

*      VOL.  III.  O 


210  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SINAI. 

to  consecrate  the  place,  and  the  thought  was  carried  into  execu- 
tion as  soon  as  the  congregation  was  organised  into  a  camp  of 
God."  The  laudable  self-restraint  and  modesty,  which  we 
pointed  out  in  the  fact  that  the  princes  waited  for  all  the  in- 
structions of  Jehovah  with  regard  to  the  sanctuary  to  be  com- 
pleted before  they  brought  their  gifts,  is  apparent  also  in  a 
manner  equally  worthy  of  recognition,  in  the  fact  that  they 
confined  themselves  altogether  to  a  consecration  of  the  altar  of 
burnt-offering,  and  did  not  presume  to  consecrate  the  furniture 
of  the  inner  sanctuary,  the  latter  belonging  exclusively  to  the 
priestly  worship,  whereas  the  former  was  the  place  where  every 
member  of  the  congregation  could  offer  his  gifts  to  Jehovah. 

The  six  carriages  with  the  twelve  oxen  were  naturally 
assigned  to  the  Levites,  since  they  were  intended  for  the  convey- 
ance of  the  sanctuary,  and  were  allotted  to  them  according  to 
the  service  which  they  had  to  perform.  The  Kohathites  received 
none,  therefore,  because  the  articles  which  they  had  to  remove 
were  required  to  be  carried  upon  their  shoulders,  on  account  of 
their  superior  holiness.  The  Gershonites  received  two  wagons 
and  foin'  oxen  ;  and  the  Merarites,  who  had  to  convey  the 
heaviest  and  most  bulky  of  the  articles,  received  four  wagons 
and  eight  oxen  (compare  §  20,  5). 

(2.)  We  shall  enter  more  minutely  into  the  ceremonies  that 
were  performed  in  connection  with  the  substitution  and  dedica- 
tion of  the  Levites,  in  our  systematic  treatment  of  the  general 
question  of  the  worship  of  God. — On  the  injunctions  contained 
in  Num.  viii.  1-4,  see  Ranke,  ii.  153  sqq. — Also  with  regard  to 
the  apparent  discrepancy  between  Num.  viii.  24  sqq.  and  Num. 
iv.  3,  from  the  one  of  which  the  Levitical  age  of  service  appears 
to  have  been  between  twenty-five  and  fifty  years  of  age,  and 
from  the  other  between  thirty  and.  fifty,  I  must  refer  the  reader 
to  a  later  portion  of  this  work.  In  the  meantime  see  Ranke, 
Untersucliungen,  ii.  158  sqq. ;  Hengstenherg,  Pentateuch,  ii.  321 
sqq. ;  and  Keil,  Lehrbuch  der  historisch-kritischen  EinLeitung,  p. 
91. 

§  22.  (Num.  ix.  1-x.  10.) — In  the  midst  of  these  pro- 
ceedings, the  anniversary  of  the  departure  from  Egypt  arrived. 
In  accordance  with  the  instructions  of  Moses,  therefore,  the 
congregation  celebrated,  for  the  first  time,  the  memorial  festival 


PREPARATIONS  FOR  LEAVING  SINAI.  211 

of  the  passover,  in  tlie  manner  prescribed  by  the  law  (1).  But 
there  were  certain  men  in  the  congregation,  who,  just  at  this 
time,  had  been  defiled  by  the  dead  body  of  a  man,  and  were, 
therefore,  disqualified  for  partaking  of  the  paschal  lamb;  and 
they  complained  bitterly  to  Moses  that  they  should  be  excluded 
when  they  had  not  been  to  blame.  This  circumstance  furnished 
the  occasion  for  a  legal  provision,  that  any  who  might  be  prevented 
from  taking  part  in  the  regular  passover,  by  causes  which  left 
them  free  from  blame,  should  be  allowed  to  keep  a  supple- 
mentary feast  on  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  second  month. — 
Lastly,  we  have  an  account  of  the  signals  which  were  to  re- 
gulate the  march  through  the  desert  (2). 

(1.)  It  is  by  no  means  an  easy  matter  to  picture  to  one's 
mind  the  plan  pursued,  in  the  celebration  of  this  the  first 
memorial-feast  of  the  passover.  The  difficulty  arises  from  the 
small  number  of  priests  wJio  could  be  employed.  There  were 
only  three  left  after  the  death  of  Nadab  and  Abihu,  namely, 
Aaron,  Eleazar,  and  Ithamar.  Now,  if  we  assume  that  all  the 
lambs  were  slain  at  the  sanctuary,  according  to  the  injunction 
contained  in  Deut.  xvi.  2,  5,  6  (cf.  Ex.  xxiii.  17),  and  consider 
further  that  but  a  very  few  hours  were  set  apart  for  the 
slaughter  of  the  lambs  (vol.  ii.,  §  34,  3),  whilst,  according  to  the 
laws  of  sacrifice  which  were  then  in  force,  the  sprinkling  of  the 
blood  was,  at  all  events,  to  be  performed  by  the  priests,  it  might 
be  thought  that  the  number  of  priests  whose  services  could  be 
obtained  would  hardly  suffice  for  the  work  to  be  done.  For  if 
we  suppose  the  people  to  have  numbered  about  two  million  souls, 
and  reckon,  on  an  average,  one  lamb  to  every  fifteen  or  twenty 
persons  (the  proportion  laid  down  in  Ex.  xii.  4),  there  must 
have  been  from  a  hundred  thousand  to  a  hundred  and  forty 
thousand  lambs  slain,  and  the  blood  sprinkled  on  the  altar, — a 
process  for  which  neither  the  time  allowed,  nor  the  number  of 
the  priests,  can  by  any  possibility  have  sufficed. — But  are  we 
justified  in  making  such  an  assumption  ?  It  is  nowhere  stated 
that,  on  the  occasion  of  this  first  festival  in  commemoration  of 
the  Exodus,  the  lambs  were  slaughtered  at  the  sanctuaiy,  or 
that  their  blood  either  was,  or  was  to  be,  sprinkled  upon  the 


212  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  SIXAI. 

altar  ;  nor  is  there  any  notice  of  the  services  of  the  priests  being 
required.  But  does  this  silence  give  us  a  right  altogether  to 
deny  that  the  work  in  question  was  performed  by  the  priests  ? 
In  Ex.  xxiii.  17  it  is  commanded,  that  at  the  annual  feast  of  the 
passover,  all  the  men  in  Israel  are  to  appear  before  the  face  of 
Jehovah.  In  Deut.  x\i.  2,  5,  6,  it  is  expressly  forbidden  to  slay 
the  paschal  lambs  anywhere  else,  than  at  "  the  place,  which  the 
Lord  shall  choose  to  place  His  name  there."  And  according  to 
2  Chr.  XXX.  16,  and  xxxv.  11  (though  it  is  nowhere  expressly 
commanded  in  the  Pentateuch),  the  blood  of  all  the  paschal 
lambs  was  sprinkled  on  the  altar  by  the  priests.  At  the  same 
time,  there  is  certainly  good  ground  for  questioning,  whether  the 
same  course  was  adopted  in  all  respects  in  connection  with  the 
passover  at  Sinai.  Ex.  xxiii.  17,  and  Deut.  x^a.  2,  5,  6,  relate 
particularly  to  the  time,  when  the  Israelites  would  he  scattered  in 
the  various  cities  of  the  promised  land,  and  far  removed  from 
the  sanctuary ;  and  the  passages  in  the  Chronicles  refer  to  the 
reigns  of  the  last  kings,  just  before  the  destruction  of  the  king- 
dom of  Judah.  These  facts  might  lead  us  to  suppose  that  the 
slaughter  of  the  lambs  did  not  take  place  at  the  sanctuary  till  after 
the  Israelites  had  taken  possession  of  the  Holy  Land ;  and  the 
sprinkling  of  the  blood  on  the  part  of  the  priests  was  probably 
first  introduced  at  a  still  later  period.  To  such  a  supposition, 
however,  there  are  by  no  means  unimportant  objections.  For  if 
the  slaughter  of  the  lambs  was  to  take  place  at  the  sanctuaiy  in 
the  time  of  Joshua,  it  is  difficult  to  see  why  this  should  not 
also  have  been  the  case  in  the  time  of  Moses,  seeing  that  the 
tabernacle  was  already  erected,  and  the  services  in  connection 
with  it  were  regularly  performed ;  and  if  the  slaughter  of  the 
lamb  was  necessarily  associated  with  the  sanctuary,  the  sprink- 
ling of  the  blood  appears  to  have  been  associated  with  it  as  a 
matter  of  course,  for  this  alone  could  give  significance  to  all  the 
rest  (hnd,  according  to  all  analogy,  it  must  be  done  by  priestly 
hands). 

Let  us  look  again,  however,  and  a  little  more  closely,  at  the 
16th  chapter  of  Deuteronomy.  We  have  been  led  away  by 
recent  custom,  and  in  what  we  have  already  written,  have  in- 
terpreted it  as  commanding  the  paschal  lamb  to  be  slain  in  the 
forecourt  of  the  tabernacle.  But  there  is  not  a  word  to  that 
effect.     The  passage  is  worded  thus  ;  "  Thou  niayest  not  sacri- 


PREPARATIONS  FOR  LEAVING  SINAI.  213 

fice  the  passover  in  one  of  thy  cities,  which  Jehovah  will  give 
thee ;  but  at  the  place  which  Jehovah  shall  choose  to  place  His 
name  in,  there  thou  shalt  sacrifice  the  passover  at  even."  This 
place  is  not  the  tabernacle,  nor  the  forecourt  of  the  tabernacle, 
but  the  city  (or  the  camp)  in  the  midst  of  which  the  tabernacle 
was  erected.  The  pilgrimage  to  this  place,  which  is  here  en- 
joined, was  required  by  the  distance  of  the  cities  of  the  land  in 
which  Israel  dwelt.  By  means  of  this  pilgrimage  on  the  part  of 
all  the  Israelitish  men  to  the  city  of  the  sanctuary,  the  same  state 
of  things,  which  existed  Avhen  all  Israel  lived  in  the  immediate 
neighbourhood  of  the  sanctuary,  was  to  be  restored  at  least 
three  times  a-year.  Hence  it  was  no  violation  of  the  precept  in 
Deut  xvi.,  if  every  family  killed  its  own  lamb  in  its  own  house 
or  tent ;  for,  even  in  this  case,  the  lamb  was  slain  at  the 
sanctuary,  seeing  that  the  camp,  which  su^rrounded  the  taber- 
nacle on  all  sides  in  the  same  manner  as  the  forecourt  (though 
with  a  much  wider  circumference),  or  the  city  in  the  midst  of 
which  the  tabernacle  was  erected,  was,  as  it  were,  a  second  and 
larger  forecourt,  which  was  also  holy,  though  not  in  the  same 
degree.  It  was  commanded,  it  must  be  remembered,  that  every- 
thing unclean  should  be  removed  from  the  camp. — The  large 
number  of  lambs  to  be  slain,  imperatively  demanded  that  this 
second  and  more  extensive  forecourt  should  be  provided  for  the 
slaughter  of  the  paschal  lambs ;  for  how  could  more  than  a 
hundred  thousand  lambs  by  any  possibility  be  killed  in  a  short 
space  of  time  within  an  area  of  about  4600  square  yards,  which 
was  the  utmost  extent  of  the  actual  forecom't  ?  We  are 
brought  to  the  conclusion,  therefore,  that  the  Mosaic  law  per- 
mitted the  lambs  to  be  killed  in  private  houses,  provided  the 
houses  were  within  the  camp  or  city,  in  which  the  tabernacle 
was  erected.  The  circumstance  which  first  led  to  this  ceased 
after  the  erection  of  the  temple ;  as  the  forecourt  was  then  of 
an  incomparably  greater  extent,  and  the  custom  of  sla}ang  all 
the  lambs  at  the  temple,  which  we  meet  with  in  2  Chr.  xxx. 
and  XXXV.,  may  have  been  introduced  as  soon  as  the  temple  was 
built. 

A  far  greater  difficulty  presents  itself  in  the  supposed 
sprinkling  of  the  blood  by  the  priests.  But  what  were  the 
actual  facts  of  the  case  ? — When  the  tabernacle  was  first  insti- 
tuted, it  was  commanded  that  the  blood  of  the  lambs  should  be 


214  ,  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESEET  OF  SINAI. 

smeared  on  the  door-posts  of  the  respective  houses  (Ex.  xii.  7). 
This  command  is  nowhere  expressly  revoked  or  changed.  We 
are  of  opinion,  nevertheless,  that  the  altered  circumstances  led, 
as  a  matter  of  course,  after  the  erection  of  the  sanctuaiy,  to  the 
sprinkling  of  the  blood  on  the  altar,  in  the  place  of  smearing  it 
upon  the  door-posts ;  and  the  book  of  Chronicles  shows  that 
this  actually  was  the  custom.  But  the  exceptional  character  of 
the  passover  warrants  the  assumption,  that  on  every  occasion, 
just  as  on  the  first  celebration,  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  might 
be  performed  by  the  head  of  the  household  himself.  If  this  had 
not  been  the  case,  we  should  most  likely  have  found  some  in- 
timation in  the  passage  before  us  (Num.  ix.)  of  the  co-operation 
of  the  priests.  We  are  warranted,  therefore,  in  adopting  the 
conclusion,  to  which  many  other  circumstances  point,  that  on 
the  celebration  of  the  passover  the  priestly  vocation  which, 
according  to  Ex.  xix.  6,  originally  belonged  to  all  the  Israelites, 
retained  its  validity  as  an  exceptional  case,  for  the  purpose  of 
keeping  in  mind  the  calling  which  they  had  volmitarily  declined 
from  a  consciousness  of  their  weakness  (Ex.  xx.  19),  the  realisa- 
tion of  which  was  merely  postponed,  and  not  suspended  alto- 
gether, and  to  the  full  possession  of  which  they  would  certainly 
eventually  attain.  The  outward  warrrant  for  the  discharge  of 
this  exceptional  priestly  function,  on  the  occasion  of  the  pass- 
over,  might  possibly  be  found  in  the  fact  that  the  words  of  Ex. 
XX.  19  had  not  been  spoken, — that  is  to  say,  the  suspension  of 
the  priestly  calling  had  not  been  solicited,  or  granted,  at  the 
time  when  the  passover  was  first  instituted. — It  is  true  that  the 
passages  already  quoted  from  the  Chronicles  prove  that,  at  a  later 
period,  it  w^as  the  custom  for  the  blood  to  be  sprinkled  by  the 
priests,  even  on  the  occasion  of  the  passover ;  but  this  may  have 
been  one  of  the  very  numerous  modifications  which  were  intro- 
duced into  the  worship,  in  consequence  of  the  erection  of  the 
temple. 

(2.)  The  signals  which  regulated  the  breaking  up  of  the 
camp,  and  the  march  itself,  were  of  two  kinds — namely,  those 
which  proceeded  from  Jehovah,  and  those  which  were  given  by 
Moses  or  the  priests.  The  former  were  made  by  means  of  the 
different  positions  assumed  by  the  pillar  of  cloud  and  fire.  It 
had  come  down  upon  the  sanctuary  on  the  occasion  of  its  conse- 
cration (Ex.  xl.  34  sqq.).     When  it  rose  up  from  the  tent,  this 


PEEPARATIONS  FOR  LEAVING  SINAI,  215 

was  the  signal  on  tlie  part  of  Jehovah  that  the  camp  was  to  be 
broken  up ;  and  whenever  it  came  down  ujjon  any  spot,  the 
IsraeHtes  saw  in  this  a  sign  that  they  were  to  encamp  upon  that 
spot.  But  as  this  signal  only  presented  itself  to  the  eye,  and 
could  therefore  be  easily  overlooked  by  many,  another  signal 
was  added  by  Moses  or  the  priests,  as  the  mediators  between  the 
Shechinah  and  the  nation,  which  appealed  to  the  ear  as  well. 
For  this  purpose  Moses  had  provided,  at  the  command  of 
Jehovah,  two  silver  trumpets  (Diviv).  When  both  trumpets 
were  blown  (ypn),  this  was  a  sign  for  the  whole  congregation 
(i.e.,  probably  all  the  elders)  to  assemble  at  the  tabernacle.  If 
only  one  was  blown,  it  was  a  summons  to  the  (twelve)  princes 
of  the  congregation  to  come  to  the  tabernacle.  When  a  blast 
was  blown  with  both  the  trumpets  (nj?i"in  Vi^J^),  this  was  the 
signal  for  the  whole  congregation  to  break  up  the  encampment. 
At  the  first  blast,  the  tents  on  the  eastern  side  were  struck ; 
at  the  second,  those  on  the  south  side,  and  so  forth  (§  20). 


SECTION  II. 

ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PARAN. 

Vide  J.  Roidancts  appendix  to  G.  Williams'  "  Holy  City,"  p. 
488  sqq. — Fr.  Tuch  Bemerkungen  zu  Gen.  xiv.,  in  the  "  Zeit- 
sclirift  der  deutscli-morgenlandisclien  Gesellschaft,"  vol.  i.  Heft, 
ii.,  p.  160  sqq.  (especially  p.  169  sqq.) — W.  Fries,  "  iiber  die  Lage 
von  Kades  und  den  hiemit  zusammenhangenden  Theil  der 
Geschichte  Israels  in  der  Wiiste :"  in  the  "  Theologische  Stu- 
dien  nnd  Kritiken,"  1854,  i.  p.  50-90. — Rabbi  J.  Schwarz  (of 
Jerusalem),  "  das  heilige  Land,"  Frankfort  1852,  p.  347  sqq. — 
Also  the  works  of  K.  v.  Raumer,  Robinson,  Laborde,  and  K.Ritter, 
mentioned  at  the  commencement  of  §  1.  The  last-named  author 
has  also  published  a  small  treatise  in  Piper's  "  Evangelischer 
Kalender,"  1854,  p.  41-55,  entitled  "  die  Wandning  des  Volkes 
Israel  durch  die  Wiiste  zum  Jordan." 

GEOGEAPHICAL  SURVEY. 

§  23.  The  borders  of  the  biblical  desert  of  Paran  correspond, 
on  the  whole,  to  the  boundaries  assigned  by  the  modern  Bedouins 
to  the  desert  of  et-Tih  (vol.  ii.  §  12).  It  embraces  the  tract  of 
desert  between  Egypt,  Palestine,  and  the  mountains  of  Seir, 
which  is  separated  from  the  Sinaitic  peninsula  (in  the  strictest 
sense)  by  the  border  mountains  of  et-Tih.  This  broad,  desert 
tract  of  table-land  is  completely  surrounded  by  a  fringe  of  desert 
on  a  lower  level.  The  desert  of  Jifar  (or  Shur)  divides  it  07i  the 
west  from  the  Egyptian  territory  (§  2,  5),  on  the  south-ioest  be- 


218  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESEET  OF  PAEAN. 

yond  tlie  mountains  of  er-Ealiah,  from  the  Heroopolitan  gulf, 
and  on  the  north-ivest  from  the  [Mediterranean.  On  the  north  it 
is  separated  from  the  mountains  of  the  Amorites,  the  southern 
slope  of  the  table-land  of  Palestine,  by  the  broad  valley  of 
MiuTeh  (or  the  desert  of  Sin,  §  26,  1).  On  the  east  it  falls 
abruptly  into  the  Arabah,  which  divides  it  from  the  mountains 
of  the  Edomites ;  and  on  the  south,  on  the  other  side  of  the 
mountains  of  et-Tih,  stretches  the  sandy  desert-plain  of  er- 
Kamleh,  out  of  which  the  promontories  of  the  mountains  of 
Serbal  and  Sinai  immediately  rise.  The  old  Testament  fur- 
nishes indisputable  proofs  that  the  desert  of  Paran  was  quite  as 
extensive  as  this. 

(1.)  To  Tuch  belongs  the  merit  of  having  been  the  first  to 
throw  light  upon  what  is  meant  in  the  Old  Testament  by  the 
desert  of  Paran  (see  his  excellent  treatise  mentioned  above). — 
Such  was  the  nature  of  the  desert  between  Eg}pt,  Palestine, 
and  Edom,  that  it  could  hardly  fail  to  be  regarded  as  one  desert, 
and  called  by  a  common  name.  This  Avas  really  the  case,  then, 
in  ancient  as  well  as  modern  times.  That  it  was  situated  between 
Edom,  Midian,  and  Egypt,  is  evident  from  1  Kings  xi.  18.  A 
number  of  passages  may  be  brought  to  show  that  on  the  north 
it  touched  the  southern  bomidary  of  Palestine  {e.g.  Gen.  xxi.  21, 
comjjare  ver  14  ;  Num.  xiii.  4, 18,  27,  etc.).  That  it  reached  as 
far  as  the  Elanitic  gulf  on  the  south-east,  is  evident  from  Gen. 
xiv.  6,  where  Chedorlaomer  is  represented  as  marching  through 
the  mountains  of  Seir  on  the  eastern  side  from  north  to  south  as 
far  as  El-Paran  (|"]X3"?S)j  and  then  turning  round  and  proceed- 
ing in  a  northerly  direction  along  the  western  side  of  the  moun- 
tains of  Seir  to  Kadesh  (on  the  southern  borders  of  Palestine). 
This  El-Paran  (=  Terebinth-grove  of  Paran),  as  Tuch  has  sho^vn 
(p.  170),  cannot  be  any  other  than  the  ancient  Elath  or  Aileh, 
at  the  northern  extremity  of  the  Elanitic  gulf  to  which  it 
has  given  the  name.  Elath  fonned  the  actual  gate  of 
Arabia  Petrsea,  and  as  such  is  distinguished  here  by  the  cogno- 
men Paran.  It  is  for  this  very  reason  that  it  is  described  as 
situated  "  at  the  entrance  to  the  desert"  ("il^lGH'^y).  The  march 
of  the  Israelites  from  Sinai  to  the  southern  borders  of  Palestine, 
which  brought  them  into  the  desert  of  Paran  at  the  end  of  three 


GEOGRAPHICAL  SURVEY.  219 

da^'s  (Num.  x.  12,  33),  though  they  were  still  in  the  desert  of 
Paran  when  they  had  reached  their  destination  (Num.  xiii.  1,  4, 
27),  confirms  the  statement  as  to  its  extent  from  north  to  south. 
The  mountains  of  et-Tih  (which  commence  immediately  at  the 
western  shores  of  the  Elanitic  gulf,  with  the  promontory  of  Eas 
Um  Haiyeh,  and  continue  in  an  uninterrupted  cu^rve  to  the 
vicinity  of  the  gulf  of  Suez),  along  with  the  mountain  chain 
Jebel  er-Rahah,  which  joins  them  here  and  runs  parallel  to  the 
coast  of  that  gulf,  form  the  southern  and  south-western  bound- 
ary of  the  desert  of  Paran ;  and  this  is  rendered  the  more  indis- 
putable by  the  fact  that  the  table-land  enclosed  by  this  mountain 
chain  has  just  the  same  character  throughout.  The  desert  of 
et-Tih  is  certainly  divided  into  two  halves  by  the  Jebel  el-Oejmeh 
and  the  large  Wady  of  el-Arish,  which  run  directly  across  it  from 
north  to  south ;  but  that  the  western  half  was  formerly  regarded 
as  belonging  to  the  desert  of  Paran,  just  as  it  does  now  to  that 
of  et-Tih,  is  evident  from  the  relation  in  which  the  desert  of 
Paran  stood  to  the  desert  of  Shur  and  to  Egypt  (Gen.  xvi.  14, 
XX.  1,  xxi.  21,  XXV.  18),  as  well  as  to  the  country  of  the  Amale- 
kites.  It  is  obvious  from  Gen.  xiv.  6,  and  Dent.  i.  1,  that  the 
Arabah  formed  its  eastern  boundary. 

(2.)  Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  desert  of  et-Tih  is 
so  completely  shut  in  towards  the  south  by  the  mountains  of 
et-Tih,  it  is  still  questionable  whether  the  ancient  desert  of  Paran 
did  not  extend  still  further  southwards,  viz.,  to  the  promontories 
of  Sinai  and  Serbal,  so  as  to  include  the  present  desert  of  er- 
Ramleh.  Two  things  might  be  adduced  in  support  of  this. 
First,  the  name  of  the  Wady  Feiran,  which  passes  round  the 
mountains  of  Serbal  in  a  northerly  direction  (§  5,  3).  In  this 
exceedingly  fertile  valley  there  are  still  to  be  seen  the  ruins  of 
a  city  called  Pharan,  which  was  once  a  place  of  some  import- 
ance. But  in  spite  of  the  similarity  in  the  names,  with  so  clearly 
denned  a  natural  boundary  as  the  Jebel  et-Tih,  we  are  not  at 
liberty  to  place  the  boundaries  of  the  desert  of  Paran  so  far 
south  as  this ;  still  less  can  we  follow  Raumer  (Zug  der  Israel- 
iten,  p.  38),  who  supposes  that  two  deserts  of  the  same  name 
occur  in  Scripture,  the  one  on  the  one  side  and  the  other  on  the 
other  side  of  the  mountains  of  et-Tih.  It  should  be  mentioned, 
however,  that  he  has  retracted  this  opinion  in  the  third  edition 
of  his  Geography  of  Palestine. 


220  ISRAEL  IX  THE  DESERT  OF  PARAN. 

(3.)  The  second  argument  which  might  be  adduced  to  prove 
that  the  desert  of  Paran  extended  further  towards  the  south,  is 
founded  upon  Num.  x.  12,  "the  children  of  Israel  took  their 
journeys  out  of  the  wilderness  of  Sinai,  and  the  cloud  descended 
in  the  desert  of  Paran."  According  to  this,  the  first  halting-place 
after  leaving  Sinai  (the  "  place  of  burning,"  or  "  graves  of  lust"), 
which  was  reached  in  three  days  (Num.  x.  33),  was  in  the  desert 
of  Paran.  But  if  we  turn  to  Num.  xii.  16  ("  the  people  removed 
from  Hazeroth,  and  pitched  in  the  wilderness  of  Paran"),  the  third 
station  from  Sinai  appears  to  have  been  the  first  which  was 
situated  in  the  desert  of  Paran.  Tuch  (p.  177)  reconciles  the  two 
statements  in  this  way.  He  assigns  them  to  two  different  authors, 
both  of  whom  had  the  same  point  in  their  mind  (namely,  the 
northern  boundary  of  the  desert  of  Paran),  but  "  the  earlier  of 
whom  passed  over  a  series  of  halting-places,  whilst  the  later  sup- 
plemented chap.  xii.  16,  and  mentioned  the  fact  that  the  Israel- 
ites reached  Paran  from  Chazeroth  by  crossing  the  ridge  of  the 
momitain."  Raiike  (ii.  198  seq.)  and  Hengstenherg  (QdXsiSiVOL)  adopt 
the  same  view,  except  that  they  maintain  the  unity  of  authorship 
notwithstanding.  "  Before  entering  more  minutely  into  the  de- 
tails of  the  march,"  says  Ranhe,  "  which  he  does  from  chap.  x.  33 
onwards,  the  author  mentions  at  the  very  outset  (chap.  x.  12)  the 
ultimate  destination,  viz.,  Paran  on  the  borders  of  the  promised 
land."  Hengstenherg  also  writes  to  the  same  effect :  "  After  the 
terminus  a  quo  (Sinai)  and  the  terminus  ad  quem  (Paran)  have 
been  given,  there  follow  the  particulars  of  the  march :  the  place 
of  bm-ning,  the  graves  of  lust,  Chazeroth,  and  the  desert  of 
Paran."  But  this  solution  appears  to  us  a  forced  one.  The 
natural  course  of  the  narrative  in  chap.  x.  compels  us  to  refer 
ver.  12  to  the  first  place  of  encampment.  The  statement  con- 
tained in  ver.  12  is  repeated  in  ver.  33,  after  a  few  parenthetical 
remarks,  and  carried  out  still  further.  We  adhere,  therefore,  to 
the  view  already  expressed,  that,  according  to  Num.  x.  12,  the 
first  station  was  situated  within  the  Kmits  of  the  desert  of  Paran. 
Chapter  x.  12  gives  us  the  most  southerly,  and  chap.  xiii.  1  the 
most  northerly  station  in  that  desert.  In  this  case  the  desert  of 
Paran  must  undoubtedly  have  extended  farther  towards  the 
south,  than  the  principal  chain  of  the  mountains  of  et-Tih.  For, 
according  to  Deut.  i.  2,  the  entire  distance  from  Sinai  to  Kadesh 
(to  which  we  are  brought  in  Num.  xiii.  1,  compare  ver.  27)  was 


GEOGRAPHICAL  SURVEY.  221 

eleven  days'  journey ;  and  if  we  divide  the  road  from  Sinai  to 
Kadesh  (on  the  southern  border  of  Canaan)  into  eleven  equal 
parts,  the  end  of  the  third  day's  journey  (chap.  x.  33)  will  fall 
at  any  rate  to  the  south  of  the  Jebel  et-Tih.  But  this  need  not 
astonish  us,  for  it  is  well  knowm  that,  in  addition  to  the  principal 
chain  of  these  mountains  (which  runs  close  up  to  the  sea  in  the 
vicinity  of  Ras  Um  Haiyeh),  there  is  a  side  branch  towards  the 
south,  which  not  only  bears  the  same  name,  et-Tih,  but  which 
also  runs  in  a  south-easterly  direction,  and  approaches  the  sea- 
coast.  The  end  of  the  third  day's  joui^ney  falls  within  the  tri- 
angle formed  by  the  two  branches  of  the  Jebel  et-Tih  and  the 
coast  (according  to  the  measurement  afforded  by  Deut.  i.  2),  and 
we  have  no  hesitation  in  reckoning  this  triangle  as  a  portion  of 
the  desert  of  Paran,  on  the  gi'ound  of  the  passage  before  us 
(chap..  X.  12),  for  the  very  same  reason  that  the  southern  branch 
of  the  mountain  rano;e  is  still  called  Jebel  et-Tih. 


§  24.  The  large  tract  of  desert  which,  as  we  have  seen,  is 
called  in  the  Old  Testament  by  the  common  name  of  the  Desert 
of  Paran,  slopes  generally  downwards  in  the  direction  from 
south  to  north,  and  rises  from  west  to  east,  until  it  falls  abruptly 
into  the  Arabah.  In  Deut.  i.  19  it  is  most  appropriately  desig- 
nated a  "  great  and  terrible  desert."  In  general,  it  consists  of 
table-land,  on  which  bare  limestone  and  sandstone  rocks,  dazzling 
chalk  and  red  sand-hills,  are  almost  the  sole  relief  from  the  parched 
and  barren  tracts  of  sand,  interspersed  with  gravel  and  black  flint- 
stones.  At  the  same  time,  so  much  water  falls  in  the  wadys  during 
the  rainy  season,  that  a  scanty  supply  of  grass  and  herbs  may 
be  found  for  the  support  of  passing  herds.  The^  are  also 
a  few  wells  and  fountains  with  a  constant  supply  of  water. 
The  desert  is  divided  into  two  halves,  an  eastern  and  a  western, 
by  the  Wady  el-Ai^ish  (called  in  the  Old  Testament  "  brook  of 
Egypt,"  by  the  Greeks,  "  Rhinokolm'a")  which  runs  completely 
from  north  to  south.  Although  there  are  several  by  no  means 
inconsiderable  mountains  in  the  western  half,  it  is  distin- 
tinguished  from  the  eastern  by  a  far  greater  regularity  and 
flatness  in  the  soil.     We  need  not  enter  into  any  minute  de- 


222  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PARAN. 

scrip tlon  of  the  western  half,  as  the  sojourn  of  the  Israelites 
was  confined  exclusively  to  the  eastern.  In  the  latter  a  large 
mountain-range,  the  Jehel  el-Oejmeh,  branches  off  from  the 
Jebel  et-Tih,  near  to  the  mouth  of  the  Wady  el-Arish,  and  rmis 
parallel  to  the  latter.  The  southern  portion  of  this  eastern 
half  (about  two-thirds  of  the  whole)  has  tliroughout  a  similar 
character  to  the  western.  It  consists  of  barren,  sandy  table- 
land, the  surface  of  which  is  broken  by  but  a  very  small  num- 
ber of  isolated  mountains.  Its  slope  towards  the  north-east  is 
indicated  by  the  large  Wad}/  el-Jerdfeh,  which  commences  at 
the  foot  of  the  Jebel  et-Tih,  and  runs  in  a  north-easterly  direc- 
tion to  the  Arabah,  where  it  opens  into  the  Wady  el-Jib,  through 
which  it  pours  the  waters  of  the  desert  into  the  Dead  Sea. — 
But  the  last  part,  the  northern  third  of  this  eastern  half,  has  a 
totally  different  character.  There  suddenly  rises  from  the  plain 
a  strong  mountain  fastness,  of  a  rhomboid  shape  and  of  the 
same  breadth  as  the  Wady  el-Jerafeh,  at  the  point  where  it 
joins  the  Arabah ;  and  this  mountain  covers  the  whole  of  the 
northern  portion  of  the  eastern  half  of  the  desert.  At  the  pre- 
sent day  it  is  called,  after  its  inhabitants,  the  mountain  country 
of  the  Azdzimeh,  or  simply  the  Azdzimat. 

§  25.  The  interior  of  the  mountain  district  of  the  Azazi- 
meh,  which  covers  an  area  of  about  forty  square  miles,  is  still 
almost  entirely  a  terra  incognita.  The  inhospitable  character 
of  the  district  and  the  rapacity  of  its  di'eaded  inhabitants  have 
deterred  travellers  from  penetrating  further ;  and  it  is  only 
qmte  recently  that  Rowlaiids  has  prepared  the  way  for  a  more 
thorough  investigation  of  this  land,  which  is  so  important  for 
biblical  geography. — The  Azdzimat  forms  a  square,  or,  to  speak 
more  exactly,  a  rhomboid  mountain  fastness,  which  rises  pre- 
cipitously, almost  perpendicularly,  from  the  smTounding  val- 
leys or  plains  on  the  south,  the  east,  and  the  north;  and  it 
is  only  on  the  western  side  that  it  slopes  off  more  gradually 
towards  the  Wady  el-Arish.     As  it  is  completely  detached  on 


GEOGRAPHICAL  SURVEY.  223 

every  side,  and  forms  a  compact  mass  with  its  gigantic  moun- 
tain groups,  it  presents  the  most  striking  contrast  to  the  desert 
by  which  it  is  surrounded,  and  woukl  be  altogether  isolated, 
"  were  it  not  that,  towards  the  north-west,  instead  of  terminat- 
ing abruptly  in  a  comer  column,  a  line  of  mountains  inter- 
venes, and  thus  prevents  entire  separation  from  the  Amorite 
mountains."  The  southern  boundary  wall  of  this  mountain  for- 
tress is  formed  by  a  range  which  rises  steeply  and  in  an  imposing 
manner  from  the  desert,  and  runs  in  a  straight  line  from  west 
to  east,  and  which  towers  up  to  an  immense  height  at  both 
the  eastern  and  western  ends.  The  corner  column  towards  the 
east,  quite  close  to  the  Arabah,  is  called  Jehel  el-3Iekrah,  and 
that  towards  the  west  Jehel  * Araif  en-Nahali.  The  eastern  wall 
rises  wdth  equal  abruptness  from  the  Arabah,  but  is  intersected 
by  several  defiles,  which  furnish  approaches  of  more  or  less 
difficulty  into  our  mountain  fortress.  The  northern  boundary 
wall,  Jebel  Halal,  which  had  remained  altogether  unknown  until 
very  recently,  is  cut  off  almost  vertically  by  a  broad  defile,  the 
Wady  Murreh,  which  runs  from  east  to  west,  and  opens  into 
the  Ai'abah.  On  the  other  side  of  this  valley,  the  plateau 
er-RaJcmah,  the  southern  rampart  of  the  Palestinian  mountains 
of  the  Amorites,  rises  perpendicularly.  The  AVady  Mui-reh  is 
as  much  as  ten  or  fifteen  miles  broad.  At  the  eastern  extremity 
the  solitary  mountain  of  Madurah  (!Moddera)  rises  in  the  very 
midst  of  the  valley.  To  the  south  of  this  mountain  the  prin- 
cipal valley  bends  in  a  south-easterly  direction  towards  the 
Arabah,  still  bearing  the  name  of  Wady  Murreh,  and  to  the 
north  of  the  Madurah  a  side  branch  of  the  valley  leads  through 
el-Ghor  to  the  Dead  Sea,  under  the  name  of  Wady  Fihreh. — 
When  passing  through  the  Wady  Murreh,  the  ascent  is 
constant  from  the  lowest  level  of  the  Arabah,  and  therefore  the 
relative  height  of  the  mountain  walls,  by  which  it  is  enclosed 
on  the  north  and  south,  is  continually  diminishing.  You  pro- 
ceed westwards,  and  arrive  at  length  at  the  link,  already  referred 
to,  by  which  the  south-western  corner   of  the  Amoritish  pla- 


224  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PARAX. 

teau  of  Rakmah  is  connected  with  the  north-western  corner  of 
the  Azazimat.  This  Hnk  is  formed  by  an  eminence  to  the  east 
of  Eboda  (el-Abdeh),  "  from  which  the  Jehel  Garrah  and 
Jehel  Gamar  emerge,  the  former  towards  the  north-west,  and 
the  latter  to  the  south-west,  and  encircle  Eboda  in  the  form 
of  an  amphitheatre."  The  western  wall  of  the  mountain  for- 
tress runs  in  a  straight  line  from  its  south-eastern  corner  (Jebel 
Araif  en-Nakah)  to  the  north-eastern  heights,  which  imite  it 
with  the  Rakmah,  and  bears  the  names  of  Jebel  Yaled  and 
Moyleh  (or  Moilahi).  It  is  a  lofty  mountain  range,  from  three 
to  four  hundred  feet  high,  which  is  intersected  by  nmnerous 
wadys,  running  parallel  to  one  another  from  north  to  south, 
and  all  opening  into  the  Wady  el-Arish.  The  road  from 
Sinai  to  Hebron  passes  at  the  foot  of  this  western  wall  of  the 
Azazimat,  and  through  the  undulating  tract  of  desert  land  which 
lies  between  it  and  the  Wady  el-Arish. 

(1.)  The  reason  why  the  northern  boundary  of  the  mountain 
land  of  the  Azazimeh  remained  for  so  long  a  period  miexplored  has 
been  satisfactorily  explained  by  Fries  (p.  QQ\  "  So  long,"  he  says, 
"  as  the  plateau  of  the  Amorites  was  either  ascended  on  the  south- 
eastern side,  viz.,  from  the  Arabah  through  the  passes  near  es- 
Sufah,  or  sldrted  on  the  western  side  by  the  road  to  Hebron  above 
Eboda  and  Elusa,  the  whole  district  from  Jebel  Madurah  west- 
wards towards  the  Hebron  road  could  only  be  given  hypotheti- 
cally  in  the  maps  ;  and  it  was  made  to  appear  that  the  modern 
mountain-land  of  Azazimat  was  a  broad  and  uninterrupted  con- 
tinuation of  the  Amoritish  mountains,  extending  as  far  as  the 
mountains  of  Araif  and  Mekrah.  But  our  views  have  neces- 
sarily been  changed,  since  G.  Williams  and  J.  Rowlands, 
instead  of  proceeding  towards  the  south-east  to  the  pass  of 
es-Sufah,  set  out  from  Arar,  and,  after  travelling  to  the  south- 
west along  hitherto  untrodden  roads,  and  crossing  several  lofty 
plateaux,  at  length  reached  a  point  on  the  edge  of  the  table- 
land of  Rakmah  (the  last  of  the  Amoritish  mountains  towards 
the  south-west),  which  left  no  room  for  doubt  as  to  the 
northern  slope  of  the  Azazimat,  and  the  fact  that  the  divi- 
sion between  this  mountain  land  and  the  Amoritish  moimtains 


GEOGRAPHICAL  SURVEY.  225 

was  earned  to  a  veiy  great  distance  in  the  dii'ection  from  east 
to  west." 

In  October  1842  (according  to  the  account  given  by  Williams 
in  his  "  Holy  City,"  p.  487  sqq.),  the  two  friends  made  an  excur- 
sion beyond  Hebron,  for  the  pm'pose  of  puttmg  to  the  test  on 
tlie  veiy  spot,  the  accounts  which  still  wavered  as  to  the  southern 
bomidary  of  Palestine.  They  went  from  Arar  (Ararah,  Aroer) 
towards  the  south-west,  and  ascended  from  the  table-land  of 
Arar,  the  first  momitain  rampart,  by  which  it  is  bounded  on 
the  south.  They  now  fomid  themselves  upon  a  still  higher 
plateau,  which  stretches  from  east  to  west,  and  is  called  the 
AVady  Kakmah.  It  answers  to  the  district  of  the  Dhullam  and 
Saidiyeh  on  Robinson's  map.  After  going  still  farther  south, 
they  ascended  a  second  mountain-range,  from  the  summit  of 
which  a  scene  presented  itself  to  the  view  of  the  most  magni- 
ficent character.  (From  statements  made  by  Williams  else- 
where, the  point  at  which  they  now  stood  was  somewhere  about 
the  longitude  of  Beersheba,  twenty  miles  to  the  south  of  this 
place,  near  31°  north  latitude,  32^°  longitude.)  A  gigantic 
momitain  towered  above  them  in  savage  grandem',  wdth  masses 
of  naked  rock,  resembling  the  bastions  of  some  Cyclopean  archi- 
tecture, the  end  of  which  it  was  impossible  for  the  eye  to  reach 
towards  either  the  west  or  the  east.  It  extended  also  a  long 
way  towards  the  south;  and  with  its  rugged,  broken,  and 
dazzling  masses  of  chalk,  which  reflected  the  biu'ning  rays  of 
the  sun,  it  looked  like  an  unapproachable  furnace,  a  most  fearful 
desert  without  the  slightest  trace  of  vegetation.  A  broad  defile, 
called  TT  acZy  Miu'reh,  ran  at  the  foot  of  this  bulwark  towards 
the  east,  and  after  a  course  of  several  miles,  on  reaching  the 
strangely  formed  mountain  of  Moddera  (ISIadurah),  it  di-vided 
into  two  parts,  the  southern  branch  still  retaining  the  same 
name  and  running  eastwards  to  the  Arabah,  whilst  the  other 
was  called  Wady  Fila-eh,  and  ran  in  a  north-easterly  direction 
to  the  Dead  Sea.  "  This  momitain  barrier,"  says  Williams, 
"  proved  to  us  beyond  a  doubt,  that  we  were  now  standing  on  the 
southern  boundary  of  the  pi'omised  land."  They  were  confirmed 
in  then*  opinion  by  the  statement  of  the  guide,  that  a  few  hom's' 
journey  towards  the  south-west  would  bring  them  to  Kadesh. 

§  26.  As  you  pass  along  the  ordhiary  road  to  Hebron,  on  the 

»      AOL.  III.  P 


226  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PARAN. 

western  side  of  the  mountainous  district  of  tlie  Azazlmeh,  the 
whole  of  the  mountain-slopes  between  Jebel  Araif  and  Jebel 
Khalil  (or  the  heights  of  Hebron)  appear  to  form  a  continued 
and  unbroken  range.  But  just  as  the  separation  of  the  moun- 
tains of  the  Amorites  from  the  northern  wall  of  the  A2;azimat, 
by  the  Wady  Murreh,  is  concealed  by  the  hnk  which  connects 
the  two  together  to  the  east  of  Eboda;  so  do  the  projecting 
ranges  of  the  western  wall  of  the  Azazimat  keep  out  of  sight  an 
extended  desert  plain,  which  runs  for  many  miles  into  the  heart 
of  the  Azazimat  on  the  other  side  of  the  Jebel  Moyleh,  and 
into  which  several  wadys  open  from  the  eastern  side  of  the 
mountain  (e.g.  the  Wady  Kesaimeh,  the  Wady  Muweilih 
[Moilahi],  and  the  Wady  Retemat).  "  In  the  remote  back- 
ground, surrounded  by  the  wilderness,  there  stands  in  a  state  of 
remarkable  isolation  the  strong  rock  with  its  copious  spring, 
— the  spot  which  still  bears  the  ancient  name  of  Kadesh  (Ain 
KudSs)  (1),  and  of  which  Rowlands  was  the  discoverer,"  That 
this  is  the  wilderness  of  Kadesh,  which  plays  so  important  a 
part  in  the  history  of  the  sojourn  of  the  Israelites,  is  apparently 
no  longer  open  to  dispute  (3).  From  the  peculiar  configuration 
of  the  soil,  we  may  easily  understand  why  this  plain,  which  has 
a  distinct  name  of  its  own  (viz.,  Kadesh),  should  sometimes  be 
regarded  as  a  part  of  the  desert  of  Paran  (et-Tih),  and  at  other 
times  as  belonging  to  that  of  Zin  (the  plain  of  JSIm-reh)  (2). 

(1.)  When  Roiolands  was  standing  with  Williams  on  the 
southern  slope  of  the  table-land  of  Rakmah,  he  learned  from 
the  Sheikh  who  acted  as  their  guide,  that  Kadesh  lay  towards 
the  south-west  on  the  other  side  of  the  plain  of  Murreh.  Cir- 
cumstances did  not  permit  the  travellers  to  follow  up  at  the 
time  the  clue  Avhich  they  had  so  unexpectedly  found  to  the 
situation  of  this  important  place.  But  on  a  second  excursion 
Rowlands  determined  to  seek  out  the  spot ;  and  not  only  suc- 
ceeded in  his  immediate  object,  but  was  fortunate  enough  to 
discover  several  other  important  localities.  He  started  from 
Gaza ;  and  following  the  road  to  Khalasa,  at  the  end  of  the  first 
three  hom*s'  journey  towards  the  S.S.E.  he  came  upon  the  site  of 


GEOGRAPHICAL  SURVEY.  227 

the  ancient  Gerar^  in  the  present  Jurf  (Torrent)  el  Jerar  (voL 
i.  §  63,  1).  The  next  point  at  which  he  arrived  was  Khalasa 
(according  to  Robinson,  the  same  as  Elusa),  in  which  he  recog- 
nised the  Chesil  of  the  Bible.  After  a  further  journey  of  two 
hours  and  a  half  in  a  south-westerly  direction,  he  found  some 
ruins,  which  the  Arabs  called  Zeputa.  {Robinson  also  visited 
this  spot,  but  could  not  discover  the  name  of  the  ruins.)  Row- 
lands could  not  for  a  moment  doubt  that  this  was  the  site  of  the 
ancient  Zephaih  (or  Hormah,  vid.  Josh.  xv.  30  and  Judg.  i.  17). 
A  few  hours'  journey  to  the  east  of  Zepata,  the  Sheikh  informed 
him  that  there  was  an  ancient  place  called  Ashij  or  Kasluj,  and 
the  pronunciation  of  the  word  reminded  him  of  Ziklag  (which 
w^as  somewhere  in  the  neighbourhood,  according  to  Josh.  xv.  31). 
They  proceeded  from  Zepata  to  the  south-west,  and  in  a  quarter 
of  an  hour  reached  the  ancient  Bir  Riihaibeh  (the  Rehoboth 
of  the  Bible ;  vid.  vol.  i.  §  71,  3).  Ten  houi*s'  journey  farther 
south,  five  hours  to  the  south  of  Eboda,  they  reached  Moyleh, 
the  chief  place  of  encampment  for  the  caravans ;  from  which 
the  Moyleh,  a  moimtain  in  the  immediate  neighboiu'hood,  takes 
its  name,  and  in  which  there  was  a  spring  (§  25).  This 
spring  is  called  Muweilih  by  Robinson  ;  but  the  Arabs  called 
it  IVIoilahhi  Kadesah,  and  pointed  out  at  no  great  distance  the 
Beit  Hajar  (House  of  Ilagar),  a  rock  in  which  there  were 
chambers  excavated.  In  this  rock  Rowlands  discovered  Hagar's 
well  (Beer-Lachai),  the  modem  name  of  which  is  almost  the 
same  as  the  ancient  one,  since  Moi  (water)  could  very  easily 
take  the  place  of  Beer  (a  well).^  It  is  worthy  of  note,  that  Eabbi 
Schwarz  (das  heilige  Land,  p.  80)  also  came  to  the  conclusion, 
quite  independently  of  llowlands,  that  Moilahhi  was  Hagar's 
well. 

The  name,  Moilahhi  Kadesah,  and  the  expression  in  Gen.  xvi. 
14,  "  between  Kadesli  and  Bered,"  both  pointed  to  the  fact  that 
the  Kadesh  in  question  was  in  the  immediate  neighbourhood  ; 
and  the  rock  and  spring  were  soon  discovered  in  the  plain  which 
stretches  far  to  the  east,  but  had  hitherto  been  concealed  by  the 
mountain-range  of  the  Jebel  Moyle.  This  plain,  which  we 
may  confidently  set  down  as  the  ancient  desert  of  Kadesh,  em- 
braces a  superficial  area  of  about  nine  or  ten  English  miles  in 

^  It  will  be  seen  from  this,  that  \\c  retract  the  observations  wliieli  we  made 
rather  hastily  iu  vol.  i.  §  57,  1. 


228  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PARAN. 

length,  and  five  or  six  in  breadth.  The  rock  with  the  Ain  Kades 
is  situated  at  the  north-east  of  the  plain,  where  it  presents  the 
appearance  of  a  solitary  promontory  of  the  Jebel  Halal  (§  25). 
It  is  a  bare  rock,  at  the  foot  of  which  there  issues  a  copious 
spring,  which  falls  in  beautiful  cascades  into  the  bed  of  a  moun- 
tain torrent,  and  after  flowing  about  four  hundred  paces  in  a 
westerly  direction,  is  lost  in  the  sand.  "I  have  discovered 
Kadesh  at  last,"  writes  Rowlands  to  Williams.  "  I  look  with 
amazement  upon  the  stream  from  the  rock  which  Moses  smote 
(Num.  XX.  11),  and  the  lovely  waterfalls  in  which  it  descends 
into  the  bed  of  the  brook  below\"  According  to  the  data  fur- 
nished  by  Rowlands  (which  might,  by  the  by,  be  more  minute), 
the  site  of  Ain  Kades  is  abou.t  twelve  English  miles  to  the  E.S.E. 
of  Moilahhi,  almost  due  south  of  Khalasah,  near  the  point  at 
which  the  longitude  of  Khalasah  intersects  the  latitude  of  Ain 
el-Weibeh  (in  the  Arabah).  Ritter's  account  is  decidedly  cal- 
culated to  mislead.  He  says  at  xiv.  1085,  "  The  site  of  Kadesh, 
therefore,  must  be  on  the  western  slope  of  the  table-land  of  er- 
Eakmah,  that  is  to  say,  near  the  point  at  which  the  names  of 
the  Saidiyeh  and  the  A2;azimeh  meet  on  Robinson's  map ;"  and 
again  at  p.  1082,  "  somewhere  near  31°  north  lat.,  and  32^ 
long."  But  this  was  very  nearly  the  spot  upon  which  Rowlands 
and  Williams  were  standing  when  they  discovered  the  southern 
bomidary  of  Palestine  from  the  slope  of  the  Rakmah  (§  25, 1). — 
There  is  also  an  UTeconcileable  discrepancy  between  this  state- 
ment and  another  of  Ritter's  (xiv.  1088),  to  the  effect  that  it 
was  "  in  the  neighbom^hood  of  the  double  well  of  Bii-ein  on 
Robinson's  map,"  though  the  latter  is  also  quite  erroneous. 
Raumer  (Pal.  448),  Tuch  (186),  Winer  (Real-lexicon,  1,  642), 
and  Fries,  all  agree  with  the  account  given  above  of  Rowlands' 
Ain  Kades.  To  the  west  of  Kadesh,  Roivlands  found  the  two 
wells  Adeirat  and  Aseimeh,  which  were  also  called  Kadeirat  and 
Kaseimeh  (in  Robinsons  map :  Ain  el-Kiideirat  and  Wady  el- 
Kiiseimeh).  In  these  he  detected  the  names  of  the  two  border 
towns  Addar  and  Azmon  (Nmn.  xxxiv.  4).  The  correctness  of 
this  conclusion  is  attested  by  the  fact  that  Jonathan  calls  the 
Azmon  of  Num.  xxxiv.  4  and  Josh.  xv.  4,  Kesam. — Even 
Zimmermanri  s  map,  which  was  not  published  till  1850,  does 
not  contain  a  single  one  of  the  many  important  discoveries  made 
by  Rowlands. 


GEOGRAPHICAL  SURVEY.  229 

(2.)  It  is  greatly  to  be  lamented  that  Rowlands  did  not  cany 
out  his  extraordinarily  successful  researches  still  more  minutely, 
and  to  a  greater  extent.  For,  however  much  light  the  results 
already  obtained  have  miexpectedly  thrown  upon  this  terra 
incognita,  there  are  many  questions  that  force  themselves  upon 
us,  and  which  still  remain  unanswered.  For  example,  he  omitted 
to  inquire  whether  there  were  not,  perhaps,  some  ruins  in  the 
neighboiirhood  of  the  Kadesh  rock,  which  might  indicate  the 
site  of  the  town  mentioned  in  Num.  xx.  14.  The  country  sm- 
rouncUng  the  plain  of  Kadesh  is  also  still  involved  in  great  ob- 
scurity. But  Avhat  is  especially  desirable,  for  the  sake  of  the 
Biblical  history,  is  a  more  minute  investigation  of  the  plain  of 
Miu'reh  throuohout  its  whole  extent,  includino;  both  the  road 
towards  the  east,  which  leads  through  the  Arabah  and  the 
mountains  of  Seir  to  the  country  beyond  the  Jordan,  and  also 
the  road  towards  the  north  to  the  table-land  of  Rakmali.  For 
by  this  means  the  question  might  have  been  definitively  settled, 
as  to  the  relation  in  which  the  ivilderness  of  Zin  stood  to  that  of 
Kadesh,  the  way  taken  by  the  spies  (Num.  xiii.),  the  road  by 
which  the  Israelites  ascended  the  mountains  of  the  Amorites 
(Num.  xiv.  44),  and  lastly  the  route  referred  to  in  Num.  xx. 
17  sqq. 

In  general,  it  is  true,  there  can  hardly  be  any  question  as  to 
the  position  and  extent  of  the  desert  of  Zin  (!>*).  We  commend 
especially  the  remarks  of  Tuch,  who  says  (p.  181  sqq.)  :  "Accord- 
ing to  Num.  xiii.  26,  Kadesh  was  within  the  hmits  of  the  desert 
of  Paran  ;  but  according  to  chap.  xx.  1,  and  xxvii.  14,  it  was  in 
the  desert  of  Zin ;  and  in  chap,  xxxiii.  36  the  Israelites  are  said 
to  have  pitched  in  '  the  wilderness  of  Zin,  which  is  Kadesh.' 
From  this  it  clearly  follows,  that  Zin  must  have  formed  a  part  of 
the  still  more  extensive  desert  of  Paran ;  and  if  the  spies,  who 
were  sent  from  the  desert  of  Paran  (Num.  xiii.  3),  surveyed  the 
land  'from  the  wilderness  of  Zin  unto  Rehob'  (ver.  21),  it  must 
have  lain  close  to  the  southern  border  of  Canaan.  But  the 
relative  position  of  the  various  localities  may  be  seen  still  more 
clearly  from  Num.  xxxiv.  3  sqq.  and  Josh  xv.  1  sqq.,  where  the 
southern  bomidary  of  Judah  from  the  Dead  Sea  to  the  brook  of 
Egypt  on  the  Mediterranean — that  is,  from  east  to  west — is  said 
to  have  started  from  the  southern  extremity  of  the  Dead  Sea, 
sldrted  the  Scorpion  Steps  (Maaleli  Aki'abbim ;  that  is,  as  Robin- 


230  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PARAN. 

son  correctly  observ'es,  the  row  of  cliffs  wliicli  runs  diagonally 
across  tlie  el-Glior  in  tlie  form  of  an  irregular  cur^'C,  and  con- 
stitutes the  bomidar)^  between  this  valley  and  the  more  elevated 
Arabah),  whence  it  passed  along  to  Zin  (i^|y),  and  then  upwards 
to  the  south  of  Kadesh-Barnea.  If  we  take  this  according  to 
the  Kteral  signification  of  the  words,  it  is  e-sddent  that  Zm  com- 
prehended the  tract  of  desert  which  runs  from  the  Ghor  in  a 
westerly  direction,  winding  round  the  steep  walls  of  the  mountains 
of  the  Amorites,  and  is  bounded  on  the  south  by  a  range  which 
runs  parallel  to  the  northern  mountain  rampart."  Hence  it 
consisted  chiefly  of  the  broad  valley  of  MmTeh,  including  the 
Wady  Fiki'eh  and  the  Delta  enclosed  within  the  two.  It  may 
also  have  been  used  in  a  still  wider  sense,  namely,  as  including  the 
plain  of  Kadesh  also,  since  the  rampart  which  separated  this  plain 
from  the  Wady  MuiTeh  cannot  have  been  veiy  high,  and  the 
desert  has  very  much  the  same  character  as  the  plain. 

In  the  absence  of  positive  data,  Fries  has  sho^vn,  by  acute  and 
happy  combinations,  that  it  is  at  least  probable  that  the  road  taken 
by  the  spies,  and  also  by  the  Israelites  when  invading  the  country 
of  the  Amorites  (Num.  xiii.  22  and  xiv.  44), — namely,  in  a 
diagonal  direction  across  the  valley  of  Murreh,  and  thence  pro- 
bably over  the  connecting  link  (on  the  east  of  Eboda)to  the  plateau 
er-Eakmah, — cannot  have  been  one  of  extraordinary  difficulty. 
"If  we  bear  in  mind,"  he  says,  "on  the  one  hand,  that  the  Wady 
Murreh,  which  at  its  Madurah  stage  is  already  considerably  higher 
than  the  Ai'abah,  must  reach  a  very  high  level  as  it  approaches 
the  longitude  of  Kadesh,  and  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  plain  of 
Kadesh,  judging  from  the  analogy  of  the  neighbouring  wadys, 
must  be  one  stage  higher  than  ^Moilahhi,  which  Eussegger  found 
by  actual  measurement  to  be  1012  feet  above  the  level  of  the 
sea,  and  if  we  add  to  this,  that  the  mountain-ranges  of  the 
district  in  question,  when  seen  from  Hebron,  do  not  appear  to 
be  very"  lofty ;  we  may  certainly  assume,  Avithout  risking  very- 
much,  that  even  if  there  was  no  valley  at  all  which  led  in  a 
diagonal  dii-ection  from  the  Wady  Murreh  into  the  plain  of 
^  Kadesh,  the  passage  across  the  plateau  itself,  which  is  lower  here 
than  it  is  elsewhere,  would  not  be  a  ver}'^  arduous  one."  But 
even  if,  contrary  to  all  expectation,  the  mountain  rampart  be- 
tween the  plain  of  Kadesh  and  the  Wady  Murreh  should  be 
proved  to  be  too  difficult  a  passage,  there  is  nothing  in  the  way 


GEOGRAPHICAL  SURVEY.  231 

of  the  assumption,  that  the  spies  and  the  Israehtes  in  Nmn.  xiv. 
44  reached  the  Hebron  road  through  one  of  the  western  ap- 
proaches to  the  plain  of  Kadesh,  and  thus  went  up  to  Canaan. 

(3.)  The  positive  arguments  which  may  be  adduced  in  favour 
of  the  identity  of  Rowlands'  Ain  Kades  and  the  Biblical  Kadesh, 
will  appear  as  we  proceed  fm'ther  with  our  researches.  They 
are  to  a  great  extent  so  clear  and  conclusive  in  their  character, 
that  even  before  the  discoveries  of  Roiolands  were  published, 
several  scholars  {e.g.  Rahhi  Schwarz,  Eioald,  and  K.  Hitter), 
Avdth  more  or  less  assurance,  placed  Kadesh  to  the  west  of  the 
Ai'abah,  in  very  nearly  the  same  locality  in  which  Rowlands 
actually  found  it.  Since  then,  Ewald,  Tuch,  Winer,  and  Fries 
have  taken  Rowlands'  side  ;  whilst  Hitter,  who  could  only  refer 
to  the  discoveries  of  Rowlands  in  a  supplement  to  his  work  (xiv. 
1083  sqq.),  seems  to  have  been  afterwards  in  perplexity  as  to  the 
side  he  should  take.  Robinson,  on  the  contrary,  and  K.  v. 
Raumer  adliere  to  their  former  opinion,  that  Kadesh  was 
situated  in  the  Arabah.  The  former  has  taken  the  trouble  to 
enter  into  a  very  elaborate  refutation  of  Rowlands'  views,  in  his 
Notes  on  Biblical  Geography  (Mayl849,  p. 377  sqq.),and  Raumer 
repeats  Robinsons  arguments  with  approval  in  his  Palastina,  p. 
447  sqq.  But  Fries  has  most  conclusively  demonstrated  the 
weakness  of  the  refutation,  in  his  excellent  treatise  on  the  ques- 
tion before  us  (p.  73  sqq.).     See  also  Rabbi  Schwarz,  p.  380 

Robinsoris  first  argument  is  cited  by  Raumer  in  the  following 
words :  "  The  Israelites  were  to  avoid  the  land  of  the  Philistines 
on  their  way  from  Egypt  to  Canaan  ;  but  if  they  had  taken  the 
route  which  Rowlands  thinks  they  did,  they  would  have  arrived 
at  Beersheba,  which  was  on  the  borders  of  Philistia."  This 
objection  rests  upon  nothing  but  the  following  unfounded  as- 
smnptions  :  (1.)  That  the  reason  assigned  in  Ex.  xiii.  17  ("  And 
it  came  to  pass,  when  Pharaoh  had  let  the  people  go,  that  God 
led  them  not  through  the  way  of  the  land  of  the  Philistines, 
although  that  was  near ;  for  God  said.  Lest  peradventure  the 
people  repent  when  they  see  war,  and  they  retm*n  to  Egypt ") 
was  still  in  force,  notwithstanding  the  fact,  that  since  their  pas- 
sage through  the  Red  Sea  (Ex.  xv.  14),  the  nations  had  been 
shaken  and  the  Philistines  were  seized  with  fear ;  that  Israel 
waij  now  accustomed  to  war  and  victory  (Ex.  xvii.  8  sqq.),  and 


232  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PARAN. 

had  received  its  highest  consecration  at  Sinai ;  and  that  it  was 
now  being  led,  in  the  second  year  of  its  journey  through  the 
desert,  to  make  war  upon  the  tribes  of  Canaan ; — (2.)  That  it 
was  the  Philistines  alone  who  were  to  be  dreaded  both  then  and 
now,  and  not  the  Amorites  also,  who  were  at  least  equally  strong 
and  quite  as  used  to  war ; — (3.)  That  the  south-western  slope 
of  the  mountains  of  the  Amorites  belonged  to  the  Philistines, 
along  with  the  neighbovu"hood  of  Beersheba,  which  was  decidedly 
not  the  case ; — and  (4.)  That  the  Israelites,  after  lea\ang  Kadesh, 
must  of  necessity  pass  by  Beersheba,  whereas,  in  fact,  if  they 
went  up  from  the  plain  of  MiuTeh  (or  desert  of  Zin)  they  would 
leave  it  to  the  west. 

JRaumer  says  still  further :  "  When  the  Israelites  reached 
Kadesh,  Moses  addi'essed  them  thus  :  'Ye  are  come  to  the 
mountain  of  the  Amorites.'  But  Rowlands'  Kadesh  is  about 
fifty  miles  from  the  mountains  of  Southern  Judea,  which  begin 
to  rise  between  Beersheba  and  Hebron.  When  Russegger  went 
from  Sinai  to  Jerusalem,  he  caught  sight  of  these  mountains  for 
the  first  time  when  he  was  in  the  Wady  Ruhaibeh,  and  they 
were  then  a  considerable  distance  off,  though  he  was  not  half  so 
far  away  from  them  as  Rowlands'  Kadesh  is."  But  there  is  no 
reference  whatever  to  these  "mountains  of  Southern  Judea," 
that  is  to  say,  to  the  heights  of  Hebron.  We  need  only  look  at 
either  Raumer's  and  Robinson's  own  maps,  on  both  of  which 
the  south-western  slope  of  the  mountains  of  the  Amorites  reaches 
as  far  as  the  Azazimat,  and  the  only  fault  is,  that  there  is  no 
space  left  for  the  Wady  Murreh,  which  runs  between  the  two. 
When  Russegger  was  at  Ruhaibeh,  and  saw  the  mountains 
of  Khalil  (Hebron)  a  long  way  off  towards  the  north,  if  he 
could  have  looked  to  the  east  he  would  have  seen  the  south- 
western slope  of  the  mountains  of  the  Amorites  (the  table-land 
of  Rakmah)  at  no  gi'eater  distance  than  an  hour  and  a  half's 
journey. 

The  appeal  to  Jerome  (^Onomasticon,  on  En-Mishpat,  Gen. 
xiv.  7)  is  still  weaker.  Jerome  says  :  "  Significat  locum  apud 
Petram,  qui  f ons  judicii  nominatur ; "  "  and  therefore,"  says 
Ranmer,  "  Kadesh  must  be  looked  for  somewhere  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood of  Petra,  whereas  Rowlands'  Kadesh  is  about  fifty  (?) 
miles  away."  But  if  this  passage  is  to  be  taken  as  conclusive, 
it  follows  that  Robinson,  who  fixes  upon  Ain  el-Weibeh,  and 


GEOGRAPHICAL  SURVEY.  233 

JRaumer,  who  places  Kadesli  at  Ain  el-Hasb,  are  both  wrong ; 
for  these  places  are  neither  of  them  near  enough  to  Petra  for 
the  expression  ajmd  Petram  to  be  applied  to  them.  But  Jerome  s 
statement  is  worth  notliing.  He  knew  just  as  little  about  the 
situation  of  Kadesh  as  the  learned  men  who  have  followed  him, 
down  to  the  time  of  Rowlands.  He  merely  adopted,  without 
any  fiu'ther  examination,  the  rabbinical  notion,  that  En-Zadekeh 
(En-Zodokatah),  fom"  hours'  journey  to  the  south-east  of  Petra, 
was  the  same  as  En-Mishpat.  In  the  next  section  we  shall  show 
that  this  is  quite  a  mistake. 

We  have  one  more  arg-ument  to  answer,  which  is,  apparently 
at  least,  of  some  importance.  Raumer  says,  that  "  Kadesh  was 
close  upon  the  borders  of  the  land  of  Edom,  whereas  Rowlands' 
Kadesh  was  twenty-five  or  thirty  miles  away  from  the  border." 
At  first  sight  this  appears  to  be  a  conclusive  argument ;  but  when 
we  look  close,  it  is  nothing  but  arguing  in  a  cu'cle.  It  is  pretty 
generally  admitted,  that  the  Arabah,  from  one  end  to  the  other, 
formed  the  western  boundary  of  the  land  of  Edom.  But  on 
what  is  this  notion  founded  ?  Chiefly  upon  the  very  assumption 
which  it  is  now  adduced  to  prove,  namely,  that  Kadesh  was 
situated  in  the  Arabah.  But  as  Kadesh  has  now  been  dis- 
covered on  the  west  of  the  Azazimat,  it  necessarily  follows  that 
the  boundaiy  of  Edom  was  outside  these  mountains.  Even 
before  the  discovery  made  by  Rowlands,  several  men  of  note 
(e.g.  Seetzen,  Ewald,  and  Ritter)  had  emancipated  themselves 
from  the  yoke  of  this  preconceived  opinion,  that  the  Arabah 
throughout  was  the  boundary  of  Edom.  Seetzen  found  the  name 
Seir  so  common  on  the  et-Tih  j^lc^teau,  that  he  could  not  resist 
the  temptation  to  apply  this  name  to  the  whole  of  the  desert 
table-land  to  the  west  of  the  Arabah  (Ritter,  xiv.  840)  ;  and  Rozv- 
lands  found  that  even  to  the  present  day  the  border  plateau  by 
the  Wady  Mm-reh  is  stiU  called  "  Serr."  The  only  ground 
which  can  be  assio;ned  for  excludino;  the  mountainous  district  of 
the  Azazimeh  from  the  territoiy  of  Edom,  is  the  fact  that  the 
two  are  so  completely  separated  by  the  Arabah.  But  this  momi- 
tainous  district  is  quite  as  completely  separated  from  the  country 
of  the  Amorites  by  the  Wady  Mm-reh.  "  If  we  bear  in  mind 
the  remarkable  and,  politically  considered,  extremely  important 
position  which  the  strong  mountain  fortress  of  the  Azazimeh 
occupied,  stanchng  out  as  it  does  in  sharp  contrast  with  the 


234  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PAEAN. 

desert  of  Petrsea/  at  the  northern  extremity  of  which  it  was 
situated ;  and  being,  therefore,  brought  into  all  the  closer  con- 
nection with  Canaan  and  Edom,  it  cannot  but  appear  to  us  an 
inconceivable  thing  that  neither  the  one  nor  the  other  of  the 
two  opposing  powers,  which  met  together  there,  should  have 
taken  possession  of  so  important  a  tract  of  table-land.  Of 
Canaan  it  certainly  never  formed  a  part.  In  the  time  of  the 
Amoritish  supremacy  it  did  not,  as  we  may  infer  from  Judges 
i.  36,  and  also  from  Num.  xxi.  1 ;  nor  during  the  history  of 
Israel,  a  fact  which  can  only  be  explained  from  Deut.  ii.  5. 
And  if  the  Israelites  did  hold  it  at  a  later  period,  it  was  in  con- 
sequence of  the  splendid  victories  which  they  gained,  especially 
over  Edom.  There  is  no  mention  anywhere  of  a  tliird  contem- 
poraneous power,  which  held  the  country  from  the  southern  tract 
of  desert  to  the  frontier  of  Canaan,  and  therefore  had  resisted 
the  power  of  Edom ;  and  if  we  should  think  of  filling  up  the 
gap  with  the  Ishmaelitish  nomads,  or,  what  would  be  still  more 
plausible,  the  predatory  hordes  of  the  Amalekites,  the  question 
wou^ld  arise,  Wliy  should  Edom  be  always  mentioned  as  the 
neighbouring  country,  and  never  Amalek?"  (Fries,  p.  79  sqq.). 
The  former  is  the  case  in  every  instance  in  which  the  southern 
bomidary  of  Canaan  is  acciu'ately  given  (Nmn.  xxxiv.  3,  4 ; 
Josh.  XV.  1,  2,  and  21).  The  whole  of  the  data  given  here  are 
absolutely  irreconcileable  with  the  supposition  that  the  boundaries 
of  Canaan  and  Edom  did  not  coincide  anywhere  else,  than  at 
the  single  point  where  the  north-west  corner  of  Edom  touches 
the  south-east  corner  of  Canaan.  "More  minute  details  are 
prefaced  by  a  statement  of  the  common  characteristic  of  the  whole 
of  the  southern  boundary  line,  viz.,  that  it  extended  to  the 
borders  of  Edom  ('X  ^^3r^),  or  along  Edom  ('«  ^Tr^y)."— The 
boundary  line  between  Edom  and  Judah  is  more  precisely  de- 
scribed in  Josh.  XV.  3,  where  we  are  told,  that  after  compassing 
the  cliffs  of  the  Scorpions  {Ahrahhitn),  which  cross  the  Arabah 
in  a  diagonal  direction,  it  passed  along  to  the  desert  of  Zin :  the 

^  "Apart  altogether  from  the  question  before  us,  Robinson  felt  obliged 
to  separate  the  mountains  of  the  Azazimeh,  which  he  has  left  without  a 
name,  from  the  Tih  plateau  ;  and  K.  Ritter  also,  without  any  reference  to 
this  question,  and  before  he  knew  anything  of  Rowlands'  discovery,  de- 
scribed the  Jebel  Moyle  of  the  Azazimeh  as  the  '  boundary  stone  of  the 
dispersion  of  the  nations.'  "     (^Fries,  p.  81.) 


GEOGRAPHICAL  SURVEY.  235 

latter,  therefore,  which  unquestionably  corresponds  to  our  Wad]/ 
Miirreh,  formed  a  boundary  line  between  Canaan  and  Edom  to 
the  west  of  tlie  Arabah,  extending  as  far  as  to  Kadesh.  The 
same  conclusion  is  forced  upon  us  by  Josh.  xv.  21  sqq. ;  "for 
in  this  case  it  is  stated  of  all  the  separate  cities  of  the  tribe  of 
Judah,  that  the  boundary  line  of  Edom  lay  towards  the  south." 
And  when  Joshua's  conquests  on  tliis  side  of  the  Jordan  are  de- 
scribed in  Josh.xi.  17  and  xii.  7,  as  the  wdiole  country  "from 
the  bald  mountain  that  goeth  up  towards  Seir,  even  unto  Baal- 
Gad  in  the  valley  of  Lebanon,  at  the  foot  of  Hermon," — what 
in  the  world  can  "the  bald  mountain  that  goeth  up  to  Seir" 
mean,  but  the  northern  mountain  rampart  of  the  Azazimat  ? 
How  thoroughly  appropriate,  too,  is  the  expression  "the  bald 
mountain  "  to  the  "  gigantic  mountain,  with  its  bare  masses  of 
rock  or  chalk,"  which  Williams  and  Roiv lands  saw  from  the 
Rakmah  plateau  (§  25,  1)  !  Hitherto  the  commentators  have 
not  known  what  to  do  with  this  "  bald  mountain."  Keil  (on 
Josh.  xi.  17)  supposes  it  to  be  the  cliffs  of  Akrabbim  ;  but  how 
inapplicable  would  the  term  inn  be  to  such  cliffs  as  these,  and 
how  little  are  they  adapted,  from  their  geographical  situation, 
to  show  the  southern  limits  of  the  country  on  this  side  of  the 
Jordan  ! 

Raumer  observes  still  further,  "  Wlien  Edom  refused  a  pas- 
sage to  the  Israelites,  they  turned  aside  and  went  to  Mount  Hor. 
But  if  Kadesh  was  situated  where  Roiolands  imagines  that  he 
found  it,  and  was  also  on  the  western  border  of  Edom,  the 
Israelites,  as  a  single  glance  at  the  map  will  show,  must  have 
marched  for  several  days  in  an  easterly  direction  through  the 
land  of  Edom,  before  they  could  reach  ]\Iount  Hor."  This 
argument  would  have  some  force,  if  the  Avhole  of  the  desert  of 
et-Tih  to  the  south  of  the  Azazimat,  from  which  it  is  as  completely 
separated  as  it  possibly  can  be,  must  of  necessity  have  formed 
])art  of  the  territory  of  Edom.  But  if  the  dominion  of  Edom 
on  this  side  of  the  Arabali  was  restricted  to  the  north-eastern 
mountain  fortress  (and  we  can  hardly  imagine  it  to  have  been 
otherwise),  there  is  no  force  whatever  in  Raumei^s  objection. 
The  IsraeHtes  retreated  through  the  Wady  Retemat,  thus  leaving 
the  country  of  Edom  altogether,  and  reached  Momit  Hor  by 
goinfj  round  the  south-east  of  the  Azazimat. 

But  another  objection  to  Rowlands  discovery  may  possibly 


236  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PARAN. 

be  founded  upon  Num.  xx.  14  sqq.  The  Israelites  request  the 
king  of  Edom  to  allow  them  a  free  passage  through  his  land;  but 
this  is  at  once  refused.  By  what  road  did  the  Israelites  think 
of  passing  through  ?  Tuch  supposes  the  Wady  Murreh  and  Wady 
Fila-eh  ;  but  this  solution  is  inadmissible,  since  both  these  wadys 
merely  led  by  the  border  of  Edom,  betioeen  Edom  and  the 
Amorites,  and  therefore  could  not  possibly  have  led  through  the 
land.  According  to  the  distinct  and  unequivocal  statement  of 
the  Bedouins  who  accompanied  Rowlands,  there  was  an  easy 
road  through  broad  wadys,  which  led  direct  from  Kadesh  to 
Mount  Hor.  The  point  at  which  this  road  enters  the  Arabah 
is  probably  to  be  looked  for  opposite  to  the  broad  Wad}/  Ghuweir 
of  the  es-Sherah  mountains,  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Ain  el- 
Weibeh,  where  the  eastern  wall  of  the  Azazimat  is  intersected  by 
numerous  wadys,  and  where  Robinson  went  up  a  very  accessible 
pass  called  ISiirzabah.  .  .  .  This  broad  road,  which  leads 
through  the  heart  of  the  Azazimat,  and  is  continued  on  the 
other  side  of  the  Arabah  in  the  broad  Wady  Ghuweir  of  Eastern 
Edom,  passing  across  Tafileh  to  Moab,  was  most  probably  the 
route  which  the  Israelites  wished  to  take,  and  for  which  they 
required  the  consent  of  Edom.     (Compare  §  45,  1.) 

§  27.  In  Be7'ghauss  map,  Kadesh  is  placed  in  the  vicinity  of 
Eziongeber,  on  the  Elanitic  Gulf,  probably  on  the  ground  of 
Num.  xxxiii.  35,  36.  L.de  Labor de  (Comment,  p.  127  sqq.)  in- 
cludes the  mountainous  district  of  the  Azazimeh  in  the  territory 
of  the  Amorites,  and  transfers  Kadesh  into  the  Wady  Jerafeh, 
a  day's  journey  to  the  north  of  Eziongeber,  and  about  the  same 
distance  to  the  south-east  of  Hor.  Robinson,  on  the  other  hand, 
is  convinced  that  Kadesh  is  to  be  sought  in  Ain  el-Weibeh,  in 
the  north  of  the  Arabah  (1)  ;  and  K.  v.  Raumer  maintains  that 
it  must  be  looked  for  in  a  still  more  northerly  part  of  the  Arabah, 
somewhere  near  Ain  El-Hasb  (2).  But  in  opposition  to  aU 
these  views,  it  can  be  demonstrated  most  conclusively,  that 
Kadesh  was  not  situated  in  the  Arabah  at  all  (3).  The 
rabbinical  tradition,  which  connects  it  with  Petra,  must  be  at 
once  rejected  (4). 

(1)  Robinson  (ii.  582,  610)  has  employed  all  his  eloquence 


GEOGRAPHICAL  SURVEY.  237 

to  convince  liis  readers  that  Ain  eUWeiheh  and  the  ancient 
Kadesh  are  one  and  the  same.  He  says :  "  We  were  much 
struck,  while  at  el-Weibeh,  with  the  entire  adaptedness  of  its 
position  to  the  scriptural  account  of  the  proceedings  of  the 
Israelites  on  their  second  arrival  at  Kadesh  (Num.  xx.). 
There  was  at  Kadesh  a  fountain,  called  also  En-]\Iishpat  (Gen. 
xiv.  7)  :  this  was  then  either  partially  dried  up  or  exhausted  by 
the  multitude ;  so  that  there  was  no  water  for  the  concreo-ation. 
By  a  miracle,  water  was  brought  forth  abundantly  out  of  the 
rock.  Moses  now  sent  messengers  to  the  king  of  Edom,  in- 
forming him  that  they  were  in  Kadesh,  a  city  in  the  uttermost 
of  his  border,  and  asking  leave  to  pass  through  his  country,  so 
as  to  continue  their  covrrse  around  Moab,  and  approach  Pales- 
tine from  the  east.  This  Edom  refused;  and  the  Israelites 
accordingly  marched  to  Mount  Hor,  where  Aaron  died;  and 
then  along  the  Arabali  to  the  Red  Sea  (Num.  xx.  14  sqq.). 
Here,  at  el-Weibeh,  all  these  scenes  were  before  our  eyes. 
Here  was  the  fomitain,  even  to  this  day  the  most  frequented 
watering-place  in  all  the  Arabah.  On  the  north-west  is  the 
mountain  by  which  the  Israelites  had  fonnerly  assayed  to  ascend 
to  the  land  of  Palestine,  and  were  driven  back.  Over  against 
us  lay  the  land  of  Edom ;  we  were  in  its  uttermost  border;  and 
the  great  Wady  el-Glmweir,  affording  a  direct  and  easy  passage 
through  the  mountains  to  the  table-land  above,  was  directly 
before  us ;  while  farther  in  the  south  !Mount  Hor  formed  a  pro- 
mment  and  striking  object,  at  the  distance  of  two  good  days' 
journey  for  such  a  host.  .  .  .  Yet  the  surrounding  desert 
has  long  since  resumed  its  rights ;  and  all  traces  of  the  city  and 
of  its  very  name  have  disappeared." 

(2.)  K.  V.  Raumer  (Pal.  444),  on  the  contrary,  is  of  opinion 
that  "this  fact  appears  to  be  in'econcileable  with  Robinson^ s  hy- 
pothesis. The  Ai-abs,  who  acted  as  his  guides,  were  not  ac- 
quainted with  any  direct  road  from  Ain  el-Weibeh  to  the  pass 
of  es-Sufah,  but  were  accustomed  to  proceed  along  the  Arabah 
as  far  north  as  the  Wady  el-Khurar,  and  ascend  the  pass  from 
that  point.  Should  we  not  seek  Kadesh  itself  also  to  the  north 
of  Ain  el-Weibeh — namely,  where  the  road  ascends  through  the 
Wady  el-Khurar  to  the  pass  of  es-Sufah  ?  Must  it  not  have 
been  situated  at  a  point  at  which  the  Israelites  w^ould  be  nearer 
to  this  pass  than  at  Ain  el-Weibeh,  and  wdiere  the  pass  itself 


238  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PARAN. 

would  be  in  sight  ?  Is  not  Ain  Hash,  which  is  near  Ain  el- 
Khiirar,  most  Hkely  to  have  been  Kadesh  1  It  is  only  twelve 
miles  from  the  pass  of  Sufah,  whereas  Ain  el-Weibeh  is  more 
than  twenty  miles  off.  There  are  no  ruins  in  the  latter ;  and 
is  it  not  probable  that  the  ruins  at  Ain  Hash  are  the  remains  of 
Kadesh  ?  The  water  in  the  pond  there  evidently  indicates  the 
existence  of  a  spring." 

(3.)  For  a  refutation  of  the  hypotheses  of  Raumer  and 
Robinson  (that  of  Lahorde  does  not  stand  in  need  of  any),  we 
need  only  appeal  to  the  two  admirable  treatises  of  Tuch  and  Fries 
(especially  the  latter).  There  are  many  passages  of  the  Bible 
which  compel  us  to  look  for  Kadesh  a  long  way  to  the  west  of 
the  Arabah.  (1.)  The  very  first  passage  in  which  Kadesh  is 
mentioned  (Gen.  xiv.  7,  En-Mishpat,  which  is  Kadesh),  is  a 
case  in  point.  "For  if  we  assume,"  says  Fries,  "that  En- 
Mishpat  was  situated  in  the  northern  part  of  the  Ai'abah, 
Chedorlaomer  must  have  been  close  to  the  very  entrance  of  the 
vale  of  Siddim,  and  would  not  have  required  first  of  all  to  pass 
through  the  country  of  the  Amorites  by  Engedi  in  order  to 
reach  the  territory  of  the  four  kings ;  still  less  through  the  whole 
of  the  plain  of  the  Amalekites,  which  was  far  away  to  the  west 
of  the  Ai'abah,  and  to  which  he  is  said  to  have  proceeded  direct 
from  En-Mishpat.  If,  in  addition  to  this,  we  bear  in  mind  the 
political  motives  for  this  expedition,  the  leading  featm'es  of 
which  are  noticed  in  Gen.  xiv.,  and  which  have  been  discussed 
in  a  masterly  way  by  Dr  Tuch,  supposing  En-Mishpat  to  have 
been  either  Ain  Hash  or  Ain  el-Weibeh,  it  would  not  have  been 
of  sufficient  importance  to  be  mentioned  as  the  point  which 
Chedor  had  in  view  when  he  left  El-Paran  (Elath)."— (2.) 
"  Such  a  supposition  is  not  less  at  variance  with  Gen.  xvi.  14 
(comp.  ver.  7),  where  the  situation  of  the  well  of  Lachai  Eoi  is 
described.  For,  whilst  the  western  point  mentioned  is  Bared, 
which  was  certainly  close  by,  and  is  identical  with  Shur  (i.e. 
Jifar),  the  eastern  point  selected  would  be  a  spot  in  the  Arabah 
lying  far  away,  and  separated  from  the  road  to  Shur  by  the  whole 
of  the  mountainous  district  of  the  Azazimat,  which  is  about 
eighty  miles  broad." — (3.)  "In  Gen.  xx.  1  we  are  either  met 
with  precisely  the  same  difficulty,  or  (considering  the  distance 
between  Gerar  and  Ain  Hash)  a  much  greater  one;  not  to 
mention  the  fact,  that  the  connection  between  Gen.  xix.  and  xx.  1 


GEOGRAPHICAL  SURVEY.  239 

would  lead  us  to  expect  Abraham  to  fix  upon  a  spot  considerably 
farther  removed  from  the  Dead  Sea  than  Ain  Hash,  as  the 
eastern  boundary  of  his  place  of  sojourn." — (4.)  "  If  we  turn  to 
the  passages  in  which  Kadesh  is  given  as  one  of  the  points 
determining  the  southern  boundary  of  Canaan  (Num.  xxxiv. 
2-5,  Josh.  XV.  2-4,  Ezek.  xh-ii.  19),  it  is  absolutely  impos- 
sible, especially  in  the  case  of  Ezek.  xlvii.  19,  where  only  three 
points  are  given,  to  suppose  that  the  middle  point  of  the  three, 
viz.  Kadesh,  instead  of  being  in  the  middle  of  the  line,  is  to  be 
looked  for  at  Ain  el-Hasb  or  Ain  el-Weibeh,  in  the  immediate 
neighbourhood  of  Tamar,  the  most  easterly  point  of  the  three. 
And  in  the  other  passages  also,  the  disproportion  would  be  im- 
mense, if  three  points  were  named  in  a  small  line  di'^wn  dia- 
gonally across  the  Arabah  from  Akrabbim  to  Ain  Hash,  of  not 
more  than  ten  or  twelve  miles  long ;  whereas  in  all  the  rest  of 
the  southern  boundary  to  the  opening  of  the  Wady  el-Arish, 
which  is  about  120  miles,  only  three,  or  at  the  most  five  points 
are  named." — (5.)  "  Judg.  i.  36  is  also  a  case  in  point.  J??Ein 
(viz.  the  rock,  which  had  acquired  importance  from  the  circum- 
stance recorded  in  Num.  xx.  8 ; — Pe^m,  which  bore  the  same  name, 
2  Kings  xiv.  7,  cannot  for  a  moment  be  thought  of  here)  answers 
to  om-  Kadesh,  and  must  of  necessity  have  been  situated  at  a  great 
distance  to  the  west  of  Akrabbim;  since  otherwise  the  boundary 
line  of  the  Amorites,  which  is  given  in  this  passage,  would  not 
l)e  really  indicated  at  all." — (6.)  In  Num.  xx.  23  and  xxxiii.  37, 
where  the  Israelites  start  from  Kadesh  and  pass  round  the  ter- 
ritory of  the  Edomites,  Mount  Hor  is  called  the  border  of  Edom. 
But  if  the  whole  line  from  Ain  el-Hasb  (or  Ain  el-Weibeh)  to 
Eziongeber  formed  the  western  boundary  of  Edom,  it  would  be 
an  inexplicable,  and  in  fact  an  unmeaning  thing,  that  this  one 
point  should  be  singled  out,  when  eveiy  point  in  the  Avholc  line 
liad  just  the  same  claim,  and  that  this  alone  should  be  called  the 
l)0undaiy  of  Edom.  But  if  Kadesh  was  situated  to  the  west  of  the 
Arabah,  so  that  the  whole  of  the  mountainous  district  to  the 
north-east  was  included  in  the  territory  of  Edom,  Mount  Hor, 
wliich  stood  just  at  the  point  where  the  Arabah  first  began  to 
form  part  of  the  territory  of  Edom,  and  where  two  of  the  boun- 
daiy  lines  of  the  Edomitish  teiTitory  met  in  a  right  angle,  would 
undoul)tcdly  be  a  marked  and  distinguished  point  in  the  boun- 
dary of  the  country,  forming  as  it  were  a  strong  rocky  watch- 


240  ISEAEL  m  THE  DESEET  OF  PAKAIS. 

tower,  whicli  commanded  these  two  bomidaiy  lines, — (7.)  If  the 
mountainous  district  of  the  Azazimeh  belonged  to  the  territoiy 
of  Edom — and  this  can  he  proved  independently  of  the  Kadesh 
question  (§  26,  3) — it  follows,  as  a  matter  of  com'se,  that  Kadesh 
could  not  be  situated  in  the  northern  Ai'abah. — (8.)  "  If,  in  ad- 
dition to  this,  we  take  into  consideration  the  form  of  the  valley 
of  the  Arabah,  which  runs  between  lofty  mountain  walls,  and  in 
the  northern  half  especially  is  hedged  hi  by  high  and  pei-jjendi- 
cular  walls  of  rock,  and  at  the  north-western  extremity  leads  to 
the  wildest  precipice  and  most  inaccessible  passes  of  the  Amor- 
itish  mountains,  it  is  perfectly  mcredible  that  Moses  should  have 
contemplated  making  his  attack  upon  Canaan  from  this  point, 
and  we  cannot  imagine  it  possible  that  the  mp'iads  of  Israel 
should  have  maintained  themselves  for  a  whole  generation 
crowded  together  in  such  a  contracted  space,  between  the 
elevated  desert  of  Paran  and  the  rocky  walls  of  Eastern  Edom, 
and  wandering  backwards  and  fonvards  between  the  Dead  and 
Eed  Seas,"  (Fries,  62  seq.)  Since  the  time  of  Robinson, 
indeed,  it  has  become  a  very  common  custom  to  fix  upon  the  pass 
of  es-Safah,  the  very  name  of  which  is  supposed  to  be  a  relic 
of  the  ancient  name  Zephath  {i.e.  Hormah,  Judg.  i.  17  and 
Num.  xiv.  45,  xxi.  3),  as  the  point  at  which  Moses  intended  to 
enter  Canaan,  and  where  the  people  afterwards  made  the  attempt 
(Num.  xiv.  40  sqq.).  But  if  we  consider  the  mianimous  testi- 
mony of  travellers  with  regard  to  this  naiTow,  steep,  and  most 
difficult  pass,  we  cannot  but  pronounce  this  an  impossibility. 
It  was  with  the  greatest  toil  that  Robinson  himself  ascended  it 
(ii.  588).  Schubert  looks  upon  it  as  one  of  the  most  painful 
tasks  he  ever  performed  (ii.  447),  and  says,  "  The  pass  was  so 
steep,  that  I  frequently  felt  as  if  I  was  gasping  for  breath  in  the 
midst  of  a  furnace."  Tuch  adds  to  this  (p.  184),  '^^  Robinson 
(ii.  590)  had  a  similar  description  given  to  him  of  the  more 
easterly  pass  of  es-Sufei ;  and  the  steep  and  dangerous  ascents 
from  the  Dead  Sea  to  the  land  of  Canaan  are  stiU  better  known. 
And  even  if  these  difficult  passes  do  not  present  insuperable 
obstacles  in  the  way  of  peaceful  commerce  (the  Romans  not 
only  placed  garrisons  in  the  pass  of  es-Safah,  the  direct  road  to 
Petra,  for  the  purpose  of  defence,  but  made  steps  which  rendered 
it  both  easier  and  safer),  we  have  still  good  ground  for  asking 
whether  they  were  also  adapted  for  a  warlike   expedition,  as 


GEOGRAPHICAL  SURVEY.  241 

points  from  wliicli  to  enter  upon  the  conquest  of  the  land  ;— tliese 
passes,  I  say,  which  were  not  only  inaccessible  even  with  the 
utmost  exertions,  but  which  the  smallest  force  would  have  been 
sufficient  to  defend.  On  this  side,  Canaan  was  naturally  im- 
pregnable ;  and  if  Moses  had  conducted  the  people  hither,  and 
then  urged  them  to  commence  the  conquest  of  the  land  from 
this  point,  he  would  have  deserved  the  charges  which  pusillanimity 
unjustly  brought  against  him." — Lastly,  (9.)  With  the  Ai*abah 
so  well  known  as  it  is,  it  does  at  least  appear  extremely  strange, 
that  if  a  town  of  such  celebrity,  as  Kadesh  has  had  from  the  very 
earliest  times,  was  really  situated  there,  and  if  the  Israelites 
wandered  about  in  it  for  thirty-eight  years,  there  should  not  be 
the  slightest  trace  left  of  either  the  name  Kadesh,  or  the  names 
of  the  other  stations  mentioned  in  Num.  xxxiii.,  with  the  single 
exception  of  Mount  Ilor. 

(4.)  The  mere  fact  of  the  Rabhimcal  tradition  with  regard  to 
the  situation  of  Kadesh,  which  Robinson  has  involved  in  greater 
obscurity,  instead  of  clearing  it  up,  and  which  Rabbi  Schwarz 
(p.  376  seq.,  cf.  §  30,  2)  has  entirely  misunderstood,  has  been 
fidly  explained  by  Tucli  (p.  179  seq.  note).  In  the  Targums, 
the  Peshito,  and  the  Talmud,  Kadesh  is  always  rendered  Kekam  ; 
and  Kadesh-Barnea  (Deut.  i.  2,  19,  etc.)  Rekam  Geia  (nx\3  D^n). 
This  Geia,  which  is  placed  in  apposition  (answering  to  Barnea), 
is  undoubtedly  the  same  as  el^Ji,  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Petra, 
in  the  Wady  Musa,  Avhich  is  still  an  important  village.  Jerome 
refers  to  this  in  the  Onomasticon  as  follows :  "  Gai  in  soli- 
tudine  usque  hodie  Gcda  m-bs  juxta  civitatem  Petra"  From 
this  it  is  e\ddent  that  Rekam  was  understood  to  be  Petra,  as 
Josephus  states  in  his  Anti(|uities  iv.  4,  7 ;  vii.  1 ;  and  in  con- 
sequence of  this,  the  Jewish  tradition  identified  Kadesh  with 
Petra.  All  the  reasons  which  we  have  adduced  to  show  that 
Kadesli  cannot  have  been  situated  in  the  ^\rabah,  apply  with  ten- 
fold force  to  the  notion  that  it  was  situated  in  the  Wady  Musa. 

§  28.  There  were  three  ways  open  to  the  Israelites  from 
Sinai  to  the  southern  boundary  of  Canaan,  so  far  as  the  nature 
of  the  ground  was  concerned;  and  from  these  they  had  to  choose. 
The  most  easterly  led  them  along  the  western  shore  of    the  A 
Elanitic  Gulf  to  the  Ai'abah,  and  then  through  the  Arabali  to 

VOL.  III.  Q 


1. 


242  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PARAN. 

the  south-eastern  border  of  Canaan.  This  road  is  regarded  by 
Robinson  as  the  most  probable.  But, however  well  adapted  the  road 
through  the  broad  valley  of  the  Arabah  may  appear,  the  narrow 
way  along  the  shore  of  the  Elanitic  Gulf  appears  to  be  quite  as 
little  adapted  for  a  mass  of  people,  comprising  no  less  than  two 
million  souls.  And,  in  addition  to  this,  as  Raumer  has  correctly 
observed  (Palestine,  446),  such  a  supposition  is  inconsistent  with 
Deut.  i.  19,  where  the  Israelites  are  said  to  have  traversed  "the 
whole  of  the  great  and  terrible  desert,"  by  which  we  can  only 
understand  the  desert  of  et-Tih ;  and  this  they  would  never  have 
touched  at  all  if  they  had  taken  the  road  indicated  by  Robinson. 
Raumer  himself,  who  is  obliged  to  bring  them  to  the  pass  of 
es-Saf  ah,  as  Robinson  has  done,  supposes  them  to  have  crossed  the 
border  mountain  of  et-Tih,  and  then  to  have  passed  through  the 
Wady  el-Jeraf eh,  at  the  mouth  of  which  they  first  entered  the 
Arabah.  But,  according  to  om'  previous  investigations,  this  road 
cannot  possibly  have  been  the  one  selected  by  Moses.  The  fact 
that  Canaan  was  so  inaccessible  from  this  side  (through  the  pass 
of  es-Saf  ah),  is  sufficient  to  stamp  both  these  views  as  inadmissible 
(§  27,  3).  And  if  Kadesh,  the  immediate  object  of  then'  journey, 
was  situated  where  Rowlands  discovered  its  well-preserved  names 
(§  26),  the  Israelites  will  not  have  gone  near  the  Arabah  on  this 
march.  It  is  true  that  the  procession  might  have  tm'ued  round 
from  the  most  northerly  part  of  the  Arabah  into  the  Wady 
Murreh,  and  so  have  reached  the  plain  of  Kadesh ;  but,  apart 
altogether  from  the  fact  that  this  would  have  been  a  very  round- 
about way,  it  wovJd  have  led  them  through  the  heart  of  the  ter- 
ritory of  the  Edomites  (i.  e.,  through  the  northern  part  of  the 
Arabah,  §  26,  3),  and,  according  to  Num.  xx.  14  sqq.,  this  was 
shut  against  them.  There  is  left,  therefore,  only  the  third  (the 
most  westerly)  road,  which  leads  from  Horeb  to  Hebron  across 
the  mountains  of  et-Tih  and  the  large  tract  of  table-land  of  the 
same  name,  by  the  western  foot  of  the  Jebel  el-Araif,  and 
which  is  taken  by  most  of  the  travellers  to  Sinai  even  at  the 
present  day.  Ewald,  Tuch,  Winer,  R.  ScJnvarz,  and  Fries  are 
all  agreed  in  this. 


GEOGRAPHICAL  SURVEY.  243 

§  29.  A  tolerably  complete  catalogue  of  tlie  resting-places  of 
Israel  in  the  desert  is  given  in  Num.  xxxiii.  The  first  two,  rec- 
koning from  Sinai,  are  the  graves  of  lust  (Kibroth-Taavah)  (1), 
and  Chazeroth  (2).  The  former  of  these  was  reached  after  a 
three  days^  march  (Num.  x.  33);  and,  according  to  Num.  x.  12, 
it  was  situated  in  the  desert  of  Paran,  probably  on  the  other  side 
of  the  south-eastern  arm  of  the  mountains  of  et-Tih  (vide  §  23,  3). 
The  passing  remark  in  Deut.  i.  2,  where  the  journey  from  Horeb 
to  Kadesh-Bamea  is  said  to  take  eleven  days,  is  of  great  impor- 
tance when  taken  in  connection  with  Num.  x.  33  ;  for  the  route 
(to  Kadesh)  taken  by  the  Israelites  being  known,  and  the  char- 
acter of  the  ground  being  taken  into  consideration,  we  are  able 
to  determine  the  situation  of  Kibroth-Taavah  with  tolerable  cer- 
tainty. There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  road  ran  from  the  plain 
of  er-Rahah  (§  6,  2),  through  the  Wady  es-Sheikh  (§  5,  5),  to 
the  most  northerly  point  of  the  arc  which  it  describes,  and  then 
turned  towards  the  north-east  through  the  Wady  ez-Zalazah, 
which  enters  it  at  that  point.  The  latter  wady  intersects  the 
south-eastern  arm  of  the  Jebel  et-Tih,  and  so  leads  within  the 
limits  of  the  desert  of  Paran.  The  end  of  the  first  three  days' 
journey,  and  therefore  the  site  of  the  graves  of  lust,  must  be 
sought  on  the  other  side  of  this  range  of  mountains,  somewhere 
in  the  neighbourhood  of  el-Ain.  From  this  point  the  Hebron 
road  runs  almost  in  a  straight  line,  from  south  to  north,  across 
the  principal  arm  of  the  Jebel  et-Tih,  and  the  table-land  of  the 
same  name.  And,  judging  from  the  analogy  of  the  three  days' 
march  to  the  first  station,  Chazeroth  (which  was  the  second  rest- 
ing-place from  Sinai)  would  be  somewhere  in  the  neighbourhood 
of  Bir  et-Themed. 


(1.)  Even  Raiimer  admits  (Pal.  442)  that,  according  to  Deut. 
i.  2,  the  most  natural  supposition  is,  that  the  Israelites  took  the 
nearest  road  to  Kadesh,  which  leads  through  "Wady  Zalazah  to 
el-Ain,  and  takes  eleven  days.  "  There  arc  objections,  however," 
he  says,  "to  this  supposition.  For  example,  the  Israelites  left 
Sinai,  and  journeyed  three  days  to  the  resting-place  at  the  graves 


244  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PARAN. 

of  lust.  Wlien  there,  the  wind  brought  them  quails  from  the 
sea  (Num.  xi.  31).  Does  not  this  seem  to  indicate  a  place  of 
encampment  by  the  sea-shore  ?  And  so  again,  when  Jehovah 
promised  to  give  the  people  flesh  in  superfluous  abundance, 
Moses  exclaimed,  '  Shall  all  the  fish  of  the  sea  be  gathered  to- 
gether for  them,  to  suffice  them  f — a  question  which  would  have 
sounded  very  strange  in  the  midst  of  the  desert,  at  a  great  dis- 
tance from  the  sea,  but  would  be  natvu'al  enough  by  the  sea- 
shore." Now,  in  Dent.  i.  1,  Di  Zahah  is  mentioned  along  with 
Chazeroth,  as  one  of  the  places  where  Moses  spoke  to  the  people ; 
and  therefore  it  must  have  been  one  of  the  resting-places  of 
the  Israelites.  But  Di  Zahab  is  probably  the  modern  Dahah, 
on  the  western  shore  of  the  Elanitic  Gulf,  in  pretty  nearly  the 
same  latitude  as  Sinai ;  consequently,  v.  Raumer  thinks  himself 
warranted  in  fixing  upon  this  place  on  the  sea-coast  as  identical 
with  "  the  graves  of  lust,"  and  Lengerke  (i.  558)  agrees  with 
him.  But  this  is  certainly  by  no  means  a  happy  combination. 
What  in  the  world  could  induce  the  Israelites  to  go  directly  east, 
instead  of  directly  north  ?  Raumer  replies :  Possibly  to  avoid  a 
second  conflict  with  the  Amalekites,  who  might  have  attacked 
them  on  their  road  through  the  Wady  es-Sheikh.  But  it  is  not 
only  by  no  means  certain,  but  extremely  improbable,  that  the 
Amalekites  had  their  seat  in  the  Sheikh  valley;  and  we  cannot 
help  thinking,  that  after  the  complete  victory  which  the  Israel- 
ites gained  over  Amalek  (Ex.  xvii.  13),  they  would  not  have 
much  to  fear  from  that  quarter.  But  even  assuming  the  cor- 
rectness of  both  suppositions,  the  problem  is  still  not  solved ;  for 
there  would  have  been  no  occasion  to  go  so  far  out  of  the  road 
as  the  sea-coast. — The  fact  that  the  quails  came  "  from  the  sea," 
however,  is  certainly  no  proof  that  the  Israelites  must  neces- 
sarily have  encamped  on  the  sea-shore ;  and  the  question  put  by 
Moses  (Shall  all  the  fish  of  the  sea  be  gathered  together  for  them, 
to  suffice  them  ?)  would  not  be  so  very  much  out  of  place,  if  the 
graves  of  lust  were  in  the  neighbourhood  of  el-Ain,  i.  e.,  not  more 
than  twenty  miles  from  the  sea,  especially  if  we  bear  in  mind 
that,  according  to  Num.  xi.  5,  the  lusting  of  the  people  was 
directly  and  expressly  for  fish.  But  lastly,  the  basis  upon  which 
this  hypothesis  rests  is  purely  imaginary,  and  therefore  the 
hypothesis  itself  vanishes  altogether.  However  we  may  inter- 
pret Deut.  i.  1,  which  is  certainly  difficult  and  obscm'e  (see 


GEOGEArniCAL  SURVEY.  245 

Hengstenberg,  Dissertation  on  Balaam,  p.  515  sqq.  translation, 
and  Fries,  p.  87  sqq.),  in  any  case,  it  is  not  affirmed  that  Moses 
addressed  the  people  in  Di  Zahab,  and  therefore  it  is  not  stated 
that  he  encamped  there  with  the  people.  On  the  contrary,  cer- 
tain prominent  points  are  selected,  between  which  the  Israelites 
were  encamped,  for  the  purpose  of  indicating  the  locality  of 
either  the  first  or  second  giving  of  the  law. 

(2.)  The  majority  of  commentators  regard  it  as  indisputable 
that  the  second  resting-place,  Chazeroth,  was  the  modern  Ain 
el-Uadherah,  about  ten  miles  from  the  Gulf.  But  notMath- 
standing  the  great  similarity  between  the  two  names,  we  must 
nevertheless  reject  the  conclusion  as  inadmissible.  We  repeat 
om'  former  question :  Why  go  so  far  round  ?  The  road  by 
Hadherah  would  lead  them  direct  to  the  Arabali,  but  not  to  the 
Wady  el-Jerafeh,  and  still  less  to  the  Hebron  road.  And  what 
becomes  of  the  eleven  days'  journey  of  Deut.  i.  2  ?  When  the 
Israelites  reached  the  graves  of  lust,  they  had  travelled  three  of 
these,  and  at  Chazeroth  possibly  three  more ;  hence  Chazeroth 
would  be  about  half-way  from  Sinai  to  Kadesh.  But  Ain  el- 
Hadherah  is  about  forty  miles  from  Sinai  in  a  north-easterly 
direction ;  whereas  Raumer's  Kadesh  (Ain  el-Hasb)  is  about  165 
miles  from  Hadherah,  and  Rowlands'  abovit  150. — The  next 
halting-place  was  Ritmah.  Now  there  is  a  wady  called  Retemat 
close  in  the  vicinity  of  Rowlands'  Kadesh :  and  certainly  there 
is  as  close  a  resemblance  between  the  two  names,  if  not  a  much 
closer  one,  than  between  the  names  Chazeroth  and  Hadherah. 
But  reckoning  the  distance,  it  is  absolutely  certain  that  Rete- 
mat cannot  be  Ritmah,  if  Chazeroth  is  Hadherah,  and  vice 
versa.  One  of  the  two  resemblances  must  be  given  up  as  decep- 
tive; and  the  question  is  simply,  which?  We  reply:  Undoubtedly 
the  latter.  For,  whatever  force  there  may  be  in  the  similarity 
between  the  names  Chazeroth  and  Hadherah,  it  is  weakened  by 
the  fact  that  there  are  no  other  circumstances  to  support  it; 
whereas  in  the  case  of  Retemath  and  Ritmah,  all  the  circum- 
stances lead  to  the  same  conclusion. — Rabbi  Schivarz  was  led  so 
far  astray  by  a  perfectly  analogous  resemblance  between  Chaze- 
roth and  Ain  el-Chuteiroth  (called  Ain  el-Kadeii'at  by  Robinson), 
that  he  set  them  down  as  one  and  the  same.  The  supposition 
was  confirmed  in  his  opinion  by  the  fact,  that  rather  more  than 
twenty  miles  to  the  S.S.E.  of  this  spring,  there  was  another  called 


2iQ  ISRAEL  m  THE  DESERT  OF  PARAX. 

Ain  el-Shcihaioah,  the  name  of  which  was  evidently  identical 
with  Kibroth-Hataavah  (the  graves  of  lust).  But  the  fountain 
of  Kadeirat  is  in  the  immediate  neighbourhood  of  Wady  Rete- 
mat  (or  Ilitmah),  and  therefore  cannot  possibly  be  the  same  as 
Chazeroth,  which  must  have  been  several  days'  journey  from 
Kitmah. 

§  30.  In  the  list  of  stations  given  in  Num.  xxxiii.,  Kaclesh  is 
the  twenty-first  name  from   Sinai,   and  therefore  there  were 
seventeen  stations  between  Chazeroth  and  Kadesh.      Yet  the 
very  next  station  after  Chazeroth,  the  Wady  Retemat  or  Rit- 
mah,  is  in  the  immediate  neighbourhood  of  Kadesh ;  and  in  the 
historical  accomit  of  the  march  in  Num.  xiii.,  Kadesh  is  the  very 
next  station  after  Chazeroth  (vid.  ver.  27).    This  apparent  discre- 
pancy has  long  ago  been  reconciled  by  nearly  every  writer  in  a  very 
simple  manner, — namely,  by  appealing  to  the  fact,  which  is  clear 
enough  from  other  passages,  that  Israel  encamped  at  Kadesh 
twice — the  first  time  on  the  way  from  Sinai  to  the  southern 
border  of  Canaan  (Num.  xiii.),  the  second  time  after  wandering 
about  for  thirty-seven  years  in  the  desert  of  Tih  (Num.  xrx.). 
This  renders  the  supposition  that  there  were  two  places  called 
Kadesh,  as  unnecessary  as  it  is  inadmissible  (2).     It  is  equally 
erroneous  to  suppose  that  the  Kadesh,  mentioned  in  the  list  of 
stations  in  Num.  xxxiii.  36,  refers  to  the  first  sojourn  at  Kadesh 
(Num.  xiii.)  (3)  :  the  reference  is  rather  to  the  second  encamp- 
ment therf?,  of  which  we  have  an  account  in  Num.  xx.     But 
the  question  arises.  Which  of  the  stations  named  in  Num.  xxxiii. 
are  we  to  connect  with  the  first  encampment  at  Kadesh,  and 
what  can  have  given  rise  to  the  substitution  of  another  name, 
in  this  particular  instance,  for  so  cm'rent  and  celebrated  a  name 
as  Kadesh  ?     K.  v.  Raumer  fixes  upon  Tachath  (Num.  xxxiii. 
26),  and   Hengstenberg  speaks  of   Bne-Jaakan   (Nmn.  xxxiii. 
31),  as  absolutely  certain ;    but   both   conjectures  are  equally 
arbitrary  and  untenable  (4).     The  correct  view  undoubtedly  is 
that  of  Fries,  that  Eithmah  denotes  the  first  halt  at  Kadesh. 
For  the  Wady  Retemat,  which  answers  exactly  to  the  ancient 
Rithmah,  forms  the  entrance  to  the  plain  of  Kadesh,  which 


GEOGRAPHICAL  SURVEY.  247 

Rowlands  has  so  recently  discovered.  The  spies  proLably  set 
out  from  this  wady  (Num.  xiii.  2),  whilst  the  rest  of  the  people, 
who  awaited  their  return,  spread  themselves  out  in  the  plain  of 
Kadesh,  where  they  were  both  protected  and  concealed  (5). 

(1.)  The  assertion  that  Israel  encamped  twice  in  Kadesh,  is 
pronounced  by  Ewald  (ii.  207)  "  a  perfectly  arbitrary  assump- 
tion, which  cannot  be  defended  by  a  single  argument  of  any 
worth." — This  may  be  easily  explained,  when,  first  of  all,  with  the 
usual  caprice  of  the  critics  when  dealing  with  Biblical  accounts, 
everything  has  been  turned  upside  down,  and  every  argument 
of  any  worth  has  been  swept  away  (car  tel  est  mon  bon  plalsir). 

The  fact  that  the  Israelites  encamped  twice  at  Kadesh,  has 
been  proved  by  K.  v.  Eaumer  (Zug  der  Israeliten,  p.  39,  and 
PalaBstina,  p.  446),  Robinson  (ii.  611),  and  Fries  (pp.  53-60). 
The  following  are  the  proofs  :  —  (1.)  On  the  twentieth  day 
of  the  second  month  (early  in  May),  in  the  second  year  of  the 
Exodus,  the  people  departed  from  Sinai  (Num.  x.  11).  On 
their  arrival  at  the  desert  of  Paran,  they  sent  out  spies  to 
Palestine  (from  Kadesh-Barnea,  Num.  xxxii.  8 ;  Deut.  i.  19 
sqq. ;  Josh.  xiv.  7)  at  the  time  of  the  first  grapes  (Num.  xiii.  21), 
that  is,  in  August.  Forty  days  afterwards,  the  spies  retm'ned 
to  the  camp  at  Kadesh  (Num.  xiii.  27).  Tlie  people  murmured 
at  the  report  of  the  spies ;  and  Jehovah  pronomiced  the  sentence 
upon  them,  that  not  they,  but  their  children  only,  should  enter 
the  promised  land,  and  that  only  after  wandering  about  for 
forty  years  in  the  desert  (Num.  xiv.  29  sqq.).  At  the  same 
time  they  were  ordered  to  turn  back,  and  go  into  the  desert  to 
the  Red  Sea  (Num.  xiv.  25 ;  Deut.  i.  40).  A  departure  from 
Kadesh,  therefore,  evidently  did  take  place.  Thirty-seven  years 
and  a  half  elapsed  after  this,  which  are  passed  over  by  the 
historian  in  perfect  silence.  But  in  the  first  montli  (of  the 
fortieth  year,  compare  Num.  xx.  28  with  Num.  xxxiii.  38)  the 
whole  congregation  came — evidently  the  second  time  therefore — 
to  Kadesh  (Num.  xx.  1).  —  (2.)  That  there  were  two  arrivals  at 
the  southern  border  of  Palestine  (i.  e.,  at  Kadesh),  is  a])parent 
from  a  comparison  of  the  list  of  stations  in  Num.  xxxiii.  with 
Deut.  X.  6,  7.  In  the  latter  we  have  an  accoimt  of  a  march  of 
the  Israelites,  in  which  the  stations  Bne-Jaahan,  Moserah,  Gud- 


248  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PARAN- 

^odah,  JotJibatah,  follow  in  succession.  The  object  of  this  list 
is  simply  to  show  the  spot  where  Aaron  died,  viz.,  at  Moserah. 
But,  according  to  Num.  xx.  22  sqq.,  and  Num.  xxxiii.  38,  Aaron 
died  upon  Mount  Hor.  This  Moserah,  therefore,  must  have 
been  situated  somewhere  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Mount  Hor. 
Now,  if  we  turn  to  Num.  xxxiii.,  we  find  that  the  third  station 
from  Sinai  was  Rithmah,  or  Eetemath,  at  the  northern  extremity 
of  the  desert.  The  twelfth  station  from  this  is  Moseroth, 
which  is  evidently  the  same  as  Moserah  ;  and  then  follow  Bne- 
Jaahan,  Gidgad,  Jotbathah,  Abronah,  Eziongeber  (at  the  ex- 
treme end  of  the  Elanitic  Gulf),  Kadesh,  and  Hor,  where  Aaron 
died.  This  is  the  place,  therefore,  at  which  the  stations  men- 
tioned in  Deut.  x.  6,  7  must  be  inserted.  But  as  we  have 
already  found  the  same  stations,  Bne-Jaakan,  Moserah,  Gud- 
god,  Jothbathah,  in  Nimi.  xxxiii.,  it  follows  that  the  Israelites 
must  have  traversed  the  whole  desert  from  north  to  south  twice, 
anr"  must  have  come  on  two  separate  occasions  to  the  southern 
boundary  of  Palestine. 

But  what  does  Ewald  do  to  banish  these  weighty  reasons 
from  the  sphere  of  reality  into  that  of  non-existence  ?  "  iVo- 
thing  further,'^  he  says,  "  is  required,  than  to  remove  the  encamp- 
ment at  Kadesh  and  the  following  one  by  Movmt  Hor,  recorded 
in  Num.  xxxiii.  36-39,  a  little  further  back,  and  place  them 
after  vers.  30,  31,  because  they  do  not  hannonize  loith  Ezion- 
geber ^  !  !  — Moreover,  he  looks  upon  the  coming  to  Kadesh,  of 
which  an  account  is  given  in  Num.  xx.  1,  as  a  repetition  of  the 
previous  account  in  Nmn.  xiii.  of  the  first  and  only  amval  at 
Kadesh, in  spite  of  all  the  express  and  unanswerable  tes- 
timonies to  the  contrary  !     (Comp.  §  41,  1.) 

(2.)  The  hypothesis,  that  there  were  two  different  places  with 
the  same  name,  may  be  proved  on  every  ground  to  be  unten- 
able. Some,  for  example,  suppose  the  Kadesh  in  the  desert  of 
Paran  (Num.  xiii.  27)  to  be  the  same  as  the  Kadesh-Barnea 
in  Nmn.  xxxii.  8,  and  Deut.  i.  2,  19  ;  and  that  in  the  desert  of 
Zin  (Num.  xx.  1)  to  be  equivalent  to  the  Me-Meribah,  or  waters 
of  strife  (Num.  xx.  13), — of  which  the  former  was  situated  in 
the  south  of  Canaan,  the  latter  in  the  south  of  Edom.  But 
"  there  is  one  passage  in  Ezekiel  (chap,  xlvii.  19)  which  so  com- 
pletely overthrows  this  hypothesis,  when  compared  with  Num. 
xxxiv.  4j  that  it  would  be  quite  superfluous  to  refer  to  Nimi. 


GEOGRArniCAL  SURVEY.  249 

xiii.  22  compared  with  chap.  xx.  1,  or  to  Deut.  x.  6,  7  compared 
with  Nmn.  xxxiii.  30-35,  or,  lastly,  to  Num.  xxi.  4  compared 
with  Deut.  ii.  8,  from  which  passages  it  evidently  follows  that 
the  deserts  of  Zin  and  Paran  were  connected,  and  that  on  their 
last  depai'ture  from  Kadesh  the  Israelites  went  towards  the  south, 
to  Eziongeber"  {Fiies,  p.  54).     Nevertheless,  this  obsolete  view 
has  been  reproduced  quite  lately  by  Rabbi  Schwarz  (p.  170  seq. 
375  sqq.) ;  who  seeks  to  strengthen  it  by  adducing  Gen.  xiv.  7 
and  the  Rabbinical  tradition  (yid.  §  27, 4).    In  his  opinion  "  En- 
Mishpat,  that  is  Kadesh,"  in  Gen.  xiv.  7,  is  the  same  as  the 
waters  of   Meribah  (Num.  xx.  13),  and  the  two  are  identical 
with  Kadesh  m  th^  desert  of  Zin  (Num.  xx.  1),  and  with  the 
modern  A  in  el-Sedakah  (called  by  Robinson,  Ain  el-Usdakah 
or  Zodokatha),  which  is  about  ten  or  twelve  miles  to  the  south 
of  Petra.     He  finds  a  proof  of  this  in  the  fact  that  the  names 
nn''"U3,   LiSJ^O  and  npl^  are  synonymous.      The  second  Kadesh^ 
or  Kadesh-Barnea,  which  was  situated  in  the  desert  of  Poran, 
he  removes,  on  the  authority  of  the  Rabbinical  tradition,  which 
connects    Kadesh-Barnea  with    Rekam   Gaia,   into  the  Wady 
el-Abyad  (to  the  north-west  of  the  momitainous  district  of  the 
Azazimeh),  to  which  it  is  said  to  have  given  the  name  Wady 
Gaian.      But  there  is  not  the  slighest  foundation   for  any  of 
these  combinations.     They  are  at  variance  with  Ezek.  xlvii.  19. 
They  are  irreconcileable  w4th  Gen.  xiv.  6,  7  ;  for  it  was  not  till 
the  whole  of  the  mountains  of  Seir  had  been  conquered  that 
Chedorlaomer  proceeded  from  El-Paran  (Elath,  Ailah)  to  En- 
Mishpat,  for  the  purpose  of  invading  the  country  of  the  Amor- 
ites    and   Amalekites,    whereas    the    modern   Ain    el-Zedakah 
was  in  the  heart  of  the  mountains  of  Seir.     Again,  the  Rabbi- 
nical tradition  with  regaixi  to  Rekam-Gaia  has  been  entirely 
misunderstood    (§   27,   4)  ;    and,   lastly,   Rithmah,  which  even 
Schwarz  identifies  with  Retemath,  and  which  he  regards  as  the 
corresponding  station  to  Kadesh-Barnea  in  the  list  of  stations  in 
Num.  xxxiii.,  is  too  far  from  Wady  Abyad  to  be  used  inter- 
changeably with  it  as  the  name  of  one  and  the  same  station. 

(3.)  0.  V.  Gerlach,  who  differs  from  Lahorde  and  agrees  ynth 
Robinson,  with  reference  to  the  situation  of  Kadesh,  follows 
Laborde  in  this,  that  in  his  Erkldrvng  der  heiligen  Sclirift  (i. 
509)  he  speaks  of  it  as  the  most  natural  supposition,  "  that  the 
stations  in  the  desert,  Avhich  are  given  in  Num.  xxxiii.  16-3G, 


250  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PARAX. 

all  belong  to  the  period,  anterior  to  the  return  of  the  spies  and 
the  events  which  occurred  at  Kadesh-Barnea.  Like  the  modem 
Arabs,  the  people  passed  quickly  (! !)  from  one  fomitain  and 
oasis  to  another,  and  halted  at  twenty-one  places,  before  they 
reached  Kadesh  on  the  southern  border  of  Canaan,  where  they 
met  the  spies.  From  this  time  forth  the  sacred  history  is  com- 
pletely silent  with  regard  to  the  wanderings  in  the  desert,  not 
even  the  halting-places  being  given ;  and  after  thirty-eiglit  years 
we  find  the  people  at  Kadesh  again."  It  is  really  inexplicable 
that  a  commentator,  who  is  generally  so  very  circumspect,  should 
have  been  able  to  adhere  to  so  unfortunate  a  supposition,  which 
is  expressly  contradicted  on  all  hands  by  the  Biblical  narrative, 
and  even  in  itself  is  inconceivable.  But  our  astonishment  in- 
creases, when  we  find  that  K.  Bitter  has  also  adopted  it.  In 
the  Evangelischer  Kalender,  1854,  p.  49  seq.,  he  says  :  "  In  the 
meantime  (after  the  spies  had  been  sent  out)  the  people  left 
their  camp  at  Plazeroth  (i.e.,  Ain  el-Hadherah),  and  proceeded 
northward  towards  Canaan."  They  went  first  of  all  past  seven- 
teen intermediate  stations  to  Eziongeber,  at  the  northern  ex- 
tremity of  the  Elanitic  Gulf,  and  proceeded  thence  to  Kadesh, 
"  the  border  station  at  the  northern  edge  of  the  desert."  The 
latter  portion  of  the  journey  "  is  particularly  refeiTed  to  in  Num. 
xxxiii.  36,  but  no  intermediate  encampments  are  mentioned." 
.  .  .  "That  it  cannot  have  been  accomplished  in  a  short 
space  of  time,  is  evident  from  the  fact,  that  the  spies  who  were 
sent  to  Canaan  had  completed  their  journey  throughout  the 
whole  length  of  Canaan,  even  beyond  the  Lebanon  to  Hamath 
on  the  river  Orontes,  when  they  met  with  the  Israelites  in  the 
eventful  camp  at  Kadesh  or  Kadesh-Barnea." 

We  have  met  with  nothing  for  a  long  time  which  has  caused 
us  so  much  astonishment  as  this  hypothesis.  (1.)  Why  should 
the  list  in  Num.  xxxiii.  contain  the  names  of  so  many  stations  in 
the  short  space  between  Chazeroth  (i.e.,  Ain  el-IIadherah)  and 
Eziongeber,  and  only  one  single  station  between  Eziongeber  and 
Kadesh,  which  was  twice  as  far,  whether  Kadesh  was  situated 
on  the  eastern  or  western  side  of  the  Azazimeh  ? — (2.)  The 
spies  returned  in  forty  days.  And  are  we  to  understand  that 
these  forty  days  embrace  not  merely  the  eighteen  stations  be- 
tween Chazeroth  and  Eziongeber,  but  the  stations  whose  names 
are  not  given  in  the  far  longer  jom-ney  from  Eziongeber  to 


GEOGRAPHICAL  SURVEY.  251 

Kadesh  ?  !  As  the  Israelites  were  waiting  for  the  return  of  tht; 
spies,  and  therefore  there  was  no  necessity  for  their  hastening 
to  reach  the  southern  border  of  Canaan,  we  should  not  be  sur- 
prised to  find  the  eighteen  stages  between  el-Hadherah  and 
Eziongeber  (a  distance  of  about  seventy  miles)  reduced  to  the 
very  mmimum.  What  we  really  find  is  a  want  of  time.  The 
people  pitched  then*  tents  eighteen  times  before  they  reached 
Eziongeber ;  and  even  if  they  passed  much  more  quickly  over 
the  longer  piece  of  ground  between  Eziongeber  and  Kadesh 
(though  we  are  not  acquainted  with  any  good  ground  for  such 
a  supposition),  there  must  have  been  in  all  thirty  or  forty  stages 
between  el-Hadherah  and  Kadesh — and  consequently  the  number 
of  encampments  would  be  almost  as  great  as  the  number  of  days 
which  Avere  occupied  in  the  joiu'uey.  Xow,  consider  for  a 
moment  how  much  time  must  have  been  required  to  pitch  all 
the  tents,  erect  the  tabernacle,  and  perform  the  numerous  other 
things  connected  with  an  encampment.  Neither  Gerlacli  nor 
Ritter  would  call  a  halt  for  the  night  a  station.  We  believe  that 
at  every  station  at  least  three  days'  rest  must  have  been  requked. 
— (3.)  A  comparison  of  Num.  xxxiii.  with  Deut.  x.  6,  7,  proves 
incontrovertibly  {vid.  note  1)  that  the  procession  was  at  Mount 
Hor  (i.e.,  Moseroth)  before  it  reached  Eziongeber ;  and  it  is  well 
known  that  Mount  Hor  is  not  situated  between  el-Hadherah 
and  Eziongeber.  .  .  .  Lastly,  (4.)  It  is  stated  expressly  and 
repeatedly  in  the  Scriptures  themselves  (Num.  xxxii.  8  ;  Deut.  i. 
19  sqq. ;  Josh.  xiv.  7),  that  Moses  did  not  send  out  the  spies  till 
AETER  the  arrival  of  the  Israelites  at  Kadesh-Barnea  ! ! ! 

(4.)  K.  V.  Raumer  {Zug  der  Israeliten,  p.  41)  conjectures 
that  the  first  halt  at  Kadesh  coincided  with  the  station  marked 
Tachath,  in  the  list  of  stations  in  Num.  xxxiii.  In  his  opinion, 
this  is  rendered  probable  by  the  fact  that  Tachath  signifies  a 
lower  place  (and  this  would  answer  to  the  situation  of  el-Hasb)  ; 
and  still  more  so  by  Deut.  i.  2  ("  there  are  eleven  days'  journey 
from  Iloreb  to  Kadesh-Barnea"),  since  Tachath  is  exactly  the 
eleventh  station  from  Sinai.  But  is  it  necessary  to  remind  the 
learned  author,  with  what  zeal,  and  certainly  with  what  justice, 
he  opposed  the  favourite  hypothesis  that  the  days'  marches  and 
the  stations  coiTespond  ?  However,  Eaumer  laid  no  stress  upon 
this  conjecture,  and,  so  far  as  we  know,  never  brought  it  for- 
ward  again. — Ilengstenherc/  claims    a   great   deal   more   credit 


252  ISRAEL  IISI  THE  DESERT  OF  PAEAN. 

for  liis  discovery  that  Bne-Jaahan  is  the  station  in  question. 
This  is  said  to  be  no  mere  conjectm'e  or  hypothesis,  but  a  well 
established  and  unanswerable  result  of  close  investigation,  which 
may  be  held  up  with  triumph,  instar  omnium,  in  the  face  of  any 
who  take  pleasure  in  foisting  contradictions  upon  the  Pentateuch. 
But  on  what  is  this  confidence  based  ?  On  a  comparison  of 
Deut.  X.  6,  7,  and  Num.  xxxiii.  30-33.  In  Deut.,  where  there 
is  not  the  slightest  room  to  doubt  that  the  direction  taken  by  the 
procession  is  from  north  to  south,  the  order  in  which  the  names 
occur  is,  Bne-Jaakan,  Moseroth,  Gudgod,  and  Jotbathah.  In 
the  second  passage  the  order  is  changed  into  Moseroth,  Bne- 
Jaakan,  Gidgad,  Jotbathah.  This  apparent  discrepancy  can 
only  be  explained  on  the  supposition,  that  on  the  occasion  re- 
ferred to  in  Num.  xxxiii.  21,  the  procession  turned  round  ;  and 
this  completely  removes  the  diflSculty.  The  people,  on  starting 
from  Sinai,  travelled  from  south  to  north  till  they  came  to 
Moseroth,  and  thence  to  Bne-Jaakan,  at  which  point  they  turned 
from  north  to  south  again,  and  naturally  arrived  first  of  all  at 
Moseroth  (which  is  omitted  on  principle,  as  it  had  been  men- 
tioned before),  and  then  passed  on  to  Gidgad,  Jotbathah,  etc. 
Now,  we  find  from  the  historical  account  in  Num.  xiv.  25, 
that  the  place  at  which  the  procession  turned  was  Kadesh ;  con- 
sequently Bne-Jaakan  and  Kadesh  are  one  and  the  same. — This 
is  Hengstenhergs  account.  But  he  does  not  touch  upon  the 
main  difiiculty,  namely,  the  reason  why  the  author  in  Num. 
xxxiii.  should  speak  of  the  very  same  station,  first  of  all  (ver. 
31),  as  Bne-Jaakan,  and  then  immediately  after\^"ards  (ver.  36) 
as  Kadesh,  and  why  the  author  of  Deuteronomy,  who  so  con- 
stantly uses  the  name  Kadesh-Barnea,  should  employ  another 
name  in  chap.  x.  6.  And  so  long  as  this  is  not  exj)lained,  we 
can  attach  no  weight  whatever  to  the  areument  as  a  whole. 
The  transposition  of  the  names  ^Moseroth  and  Bne-Jaakan, 
which  is  certainly  striking,  by  no  means  compels  us  to  regard 
the  latter  as  another  name,  employed  to  denote  the  fiurst  halt  at 
Kadesh  {ef.  §  31,  2). 

(5,)  We  append  a  few  remarks  in  relation  to  the  names  of 
the  most  northerly  station.  Beside  the  simple  name  Kadesh,  we 
find  in  Nmn.  xxxii.  8,  and  constantly  throughout  Deuteronomy, 
as  well  as  in  other  parts  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  compound 
name  Kadesh-Barnea.     According  to  Num.  xx.  13,  the  place 


GEOGEAPHICAL  SURVEY.  253 

also  received  the  name  Me-Merihah  (Strife-water),  and  in  Gen. 
xiv.  7,  it  occurs  under  the  name  of  En-Mishpat  (fountain  of 
judgment  or  decision).  From  the  last-mentioned  name,  Ewald 
concludes  that  in  olden  time  there  was  an  oracle  here — a  sup- 
position which  we  have  no  desire  either  to  contest  or  defend. 
The  explanatory  words,  " that  is  Kadesh"  which  occur  in  Gen. 
xiv.  7,  are  of  more  importance  to  us.  They  seem  to  imply  that 
En-]\lishpat  was  the  original  name,  and  Kadesh  a  more  recent 
one,  which  was  not  in  existence  in  the  time  of  Abraham. 
[Lengerke,  on  the  other  hand,  explains  the  names,  En-]\Iishpat 
and  Me-Meribah  (erroneously  we  believe)  as  synonymous,  and 
therefore  regards  the  use  of  the  former,  in  Gen.  xiv.  7,  as  a  pro- 
lepsis.']  But  if  the  Kadesh  in  Gen.  xiv.  7  is  a  prolepsis,  the 
conjecture  is  a  very  natural  one,  that  the  place  referred  to  re- 
ceived the  name  for  the  first  time  when  the  Israelites  were 
sojouniing  there,  as  being  the  place  where  the  holiness  of 
Jehovah  was  manifested  to  the  people  (Num.  xviii.  22  sqq.),  or 
to  Moses  and  Aaron  (Nmn.  xx.  13  D3  t^np^l),  by  an  act  of 
judgment.  Possibly  this  may  furnish  another  explanation  of 
the  fact,  that  in  Num.  xxxiii.  18  the  place  is  called  Eitmah,  and 
not  Kadesh  ;  whereas  in  Num.  xxxiii.  36,  after  the  infliction  of 
the  judgment,  it  is  not  called  Ritmah,  but  Kadesh.  The  name 
Kadesh-jSarnea  we  regard  as  a  more  precise  definition  of  the 
situation,  by  the  addition  of  the  name  of  the  Edomitish  town 
alluded  to  in  the  message  sent  to  the  Edomites  (Nmn.  xx.  16)  : 
"We  have  come  to  Kadesh,  to  the  town  in  thy  uttermost 
border." 

§  31.  The  stations,  lohose  names  occur  between  Ritmah  and 
Kadesh  (Num.  xxxiii.  19-36),  undoubtedly  refer  to  the  principal 
quarters  occupied  by  the  Israelites  (with  the  tabernacle,  the  ark 
of  the  covenant,  and  the  pillar  of  cloud)  during  then'  thirty-seven 
years'  wandering  in  the  desert.  But  of  all  these  places,  Ezion- 
geher  (at  the  northern  end  of  the  Elanitic  Gvilf)  and  Mount  Hor 
(or  Mount  Seir,  to  the  west  of  Petra)  are  the  only  two  which 
can  be  set  down  upon  the  map  with  any  degree  of  certainty  (1). 
The  apparent  discrepancy  between  Deut.  x.  6,  7,  and  Num. 
xxxiii.  30-33 — in  the  former  of  which  the  Israelites  are  said  to 
have  come  first  of  all  to  Beeroth-Bne-Jaakan,  and  after  this  to 


254  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PARA^^T. 

Moserali,  Gudgocl,  and  Jotbatliali ;  whereas,  according  to  the 
other,  they  came  first  of  all  to  Moseroth,  and  thence  to  Bne- 
Jaakan,  Chor-Gidgad,  and  Jotbathah, — can  be  very  easily  ex- 
plained, if  we  simply  bear  in  mind  the  fact  that  the  journeys  de- 
scribed in  the  two  passages  are  very  different  in  their  character  (2). 

(1.)  It  is  true,  there  are  two  other  names  to  be  met  with  in 
the  modern  geography  of  the  desert,  which  strikingly  remind  us 
of  names  which  occur  in  the  Bible.  Fifteen  miles  to  the  south 
of  Wady  Retemat,  we  find  a  wady  Muzeirah  marked  upon  the 
maps,  and  thirty  miles  to  the  south  of  the  latter  a  Wady  el- 
Gudhagidh.  But,  however  unmistakeable  the  corresjoondence 
between  these  names  and  the  Biblical  stations  Moserah  and  Chor- 
hsi-Gidgad  (Gudgod)  may  be,  yet,  so  far  as  the  situation  of  these 
wadys  is  at  present  determined,  it  is  impossible  that  they  should 
coincide  with  the  names  in  the  Bible.  When  we  compare  Deut. 
X.  6  with  Num.  xx.  22  sqq.  and  xxxiii.  38,  it  is  evident  that 
Moserah  must  have  been  situated  in  the  immediate  neiohbour- 

O 

hood  of  Mount  Hor,  probably  in  the  Arabah,  at  the  foot  of  the 
mountain. — In  that  case,  the  stations  between  Moserah  and 
Ezioncjeber  would  have  to  be  sought  for  in  the  Arabah  also. 
Hengstenherg  is  undoubtedly  correct  in  calKng  attention,  in  con- 
nection with  the  name  Bne-Jaakan,  to  the  fact,  that  we  find  an 
AJcan  (Gen.  xxxvi.  27),  or  Jaakan  (1  Chr.  i.  42),  mentioned 
among  the  descendants  of  Seir  the  Horite,  whose  land  was  taken 
by  the  Edomites.  The  station  called  Bne-Jaakan,  therefore, 
probably  denotes  the  former  possessions  of  this  branch  of  the 
Horites,  but  it  does  not  follow  that  it  must  of  necessity  have 
been  situated  in  the  Arabah.  If  we  bear  in  mind  (§  26,  3)  that 
the  territory  of  the  Edomites  extended  far  away  beyond  the 
Arabah  towards  the  west,  it  is  very  conceivable  that  the  "  well 
of  the  sons  of  Jaakan"  (Beeroth  Bne-Jaakan)  may  have  been 
on  this  side  of  the  Arabah. 

(2.)  If  we  look  at  the  difference  between  the  jormiey  described 
in  Num.  xxxiii.  30-33,  and  the  one  referred  to  in  Deut.  x.  6,  7, 
there  is  no  difficulty  in  untying  the  knot,  which  seems  to  be 
formed  by  a  comparison  of  these  two  passages.  The  journey 
mentioned  in  Deut.  x.  6,  7,  was  undertaken  with  a  definite 
object,  namely,  to  pass  round  Mount  Seir,  for  the  purpose  of 


THE  PLACE  OF  BURNING,  AND  THE  GRAVES  OF  LUST.    255 

entering  the  promised  land.  On  tliis  occasion,  therefore,  an 
unnecessarily  circuitous  route  will  have  been  avoided,  and  the 
shortest  possible  way  selected.  The  order  in  Avhich  the  stations 
occur,  therefore,  in  Deut.  x.  6,  7,  is  to  be  regarded  as  answering 
to  their  geographical  situation,  so  that  Bne-Jaakan  must  be 
sought  for  on  the  north,  or  west,  or  north-west  of  Moserah. 
The  journey  described  in  Num.  xxxiii.  30-33  was  of  a  totally 
different  character.  At  this  time — that  is,  during  the  thirty-seven 
years'  rejection — the  Israelites  had  dispersed  themselves  in  larger 
or  smaller  parties  over  the  entire  desert,  and  settled  down  by  any 
meadows  and  springs  which  they  could  find  (we  shall  enter  more 
fully  into  this  qviestion,  and  prove  our  assertion,  at  §  41).  On  the 
other  hand,  the  stations  whose  names  occur  in  Num.  xxxiii.  19-36, 
are  the  head-quarters,  where  Moses  encamped  with  the  tabernacle, 
which  made  a  circuit  of  the  whole  desert,  to  \dsit  the  various 
sections  of  the  nation  which  were  scattered  over  it,  and  remained 
some  time  with  each  of  them.  There  was  no  end  to  be  served 
by  always  going  in  a  straigJit  line  ;  but  when  circumstances 
rendered  it  advisable,  the  course  might  be  turned  towards  the 
east  or  west,  the  north  or  south,  without  the  slightest  hesitation. 
There  is  nothing  surprising,  therefore,  in  the  fact,  that  on  one 
occasion  a  zigzag  course  was  taken,  viz.,  from  Kadesh  to  Mose- 
rotli,  and  thence  to  Bne-Jaakan,  and  that  on  another  occasion, 
when  it  was  a  matter  of  importance  to  take  the  most  direct  route 
to  a  certain  point,  Bne-Jaakan  should  come  before  Moseroth. 
There  is  even  less  difficulty  in  adopting  this  explanation,  if  we 
assume,  as  we  are  certainly  warranted  in  doing,  that  one  or 
other  of  the  names  in  question  may  have  been  used  to  denote  a 
wady  in  its  entire  length,  and  that  the  point  at  which  the  pro- 
cession touched  the  wady  may  not  have  been  the  same  on  both 
occasions. 


THE  PLACE  OF  BURNING,  AND  THE  GRAVES  OF  LUST. 

§  32.  (Num.  X.  11-xi.  3.)— On  the  twentieth  day  of  the 
second  month,  in  the  second  year  after  the  departure  of  the 
children  of  Israel  from  Egypt,  the  cloud  ascended  (§  22,  2), 
and  the  Israelites  left  Sinai,  where  they  had  been  encamped  for 
almost  an  entire  year  (a  year  all  but  ten  days,  cf.  §  4,  5).  They 
set  out  in  the  order  (1)  already  prescribed  (yid.  §  20).    The  pillar 


256  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PARAN. 

of  cloud  was  really  the  guide  of  the  people,  as  a  whole ;  but  this 
by  no  means  precluded  the  employment  of  human  counsel  and 
assistance,  or  even  rendered  them  unnecessary.  Hence  Moses 
invited  Hohah,  his  brother-in-law  (vol.  ii.  §  19,  7),  to  accompany 
them  and  give  his  advice,  which  could  not  fail  to  be  of  great 
advantage,  on  account  of  his  accurate  acquaintance  vnth  the 
country  through  which  they  were  about  to  pass  (2). — After  a 
three  days'  journey,  the  Israelites  reached  the  desert  of  Paran, 
and  pitched  their  tents  there,  with  the  prospect  of  a  longer  halt. 
The  people,  who  had  been  spoiled  by  their  long  and  compara- 
tively agreeable  sojourn  at  Sinai,  no  sooner  entered  the  inhospit- 
able desert  than  they  lost  all  patience,  and  gave  utterance  to 
their  discontent.  But  the  fire  of  the  wrath  of  Jehovah  broke 
forth  and  consumed  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  camp.  Moses 
immediately  interceded  with  God,  and  the  fire  (3)  was  stayed. 
In  conseqiience  of  this  circumstance,  the  place  was  called 
TaheSrah  (i^^y?1i),  or  place  of  burning  (4). 

(1.)  According  to  Num.  ii.  17,  when  the  camp  broke  up^ 
Judah  was  to  lead  the  van,  Eeuben  was  to  follow,  and  after 
him  the  Levites  with  the  tent  of  assembly  (§  20).  This  was  a 
general  and  temporary  arrangement.  Nothing  further  could  be 
said  at  that  time  with  reference  to  the  precise  manner  in  which 
the  Levites  were  to  be  linked  into  the  procession,  since  it  is  only 
in  the  chapters  which  follow  (chap.  iii.  and  iv.)  that  an  account 
is  given  of  the  numbering  and  organisation  of  the  tribe  of  Levi. 
But  now,  on  the  breaking  up  of  the  camp  for  the  first  time,  the 
general  notice  is  more  fully  explained  in  the  account  of  the 
arrangements  actually  made.  The  ark  of  the  covenant  led  the 
way,  carried  by  the  Kohathites  (§  20,  6),  and  the  tribe  of  Judah 
followed.  After  Judah  came  the  Gershonites  and  Merarites, 
with  the  external  portions  of  the  tabernacle ;  then  the  tribe  of 
Reuben ;  and  behind  them  the  rest  of  the  Kohathites,  with  the 
sacred  vessels  (as  the  real  sanctuary ;  cf.  §  20,  5).  This  order 
of  march  may  possibly  at  first  sight  appear  strange ;  but,  on  a 
closer  inspection,  we  find  it  to  be  very  simple  and  natural.  The 
ark  of  the  covenant,  as  the  abode  of  the  Shechinah,  which  had 
undertaken  the  guidance  of  the  whole  procession,  necessarily  led 


THE  PLACE  OF  BURNING,  AND  THE  GllAVES  OF  LUST.      257 

the  way.  But  in  all  other  respects,  on  the  march  as  well 
as  in  the  camp,  the  place  for  the  tabernacle  was  in  the  midst 
of  the  people.  The  reason  why  the  bearers  of  the  various 
portions  of  the  building  were  separated  from  the  bearers  of  the 
furniture  by  the  tribe  of  Reuben,  is  explained  in  Num.  x.  21  to 
have  been  in  order  that,  when  they  arrived  at  a  new  place  of 
encampment,  the  tabernacle  might  be  erected  before  the  sacred 
vessels  arrived,  so  that  the  latter  might  be  put  into  their  places 
■)Aithout  further  delay. 

(2.)  How  lIoBAB  (vol.  ii.  §  19,  7)  came  to  meet  with  Moses 
here,  we  are  not  informed.  The  assmnption,  that  when  his 
father  Eeguel  (Jethro)  visited  Moses  at  Eephidim  (Ex.  xviii.) 
Ilobab  was  with  him,  and  had  since  that  time  remained  with 
Moses,  is  certainly  by  no  means  a  probable  one.  It  is  a  much 
more  likely  supposition,  that  at  the  close  of  their  three  days' 
journey,  the  Israelites  came  near  to  the  spot  where  the  friendly 
Midianitish  tribe  was  feeding  its  flocks  (vol.  ii.  §  19,  6),  and 
that  Ilobab,  whose  father  Reguel  had  probably  died  in  the  mean 
time,  paid  a  visit  to  Moses,  his  brother-in-law,  or  vice  versa.  At 
first,  Hobab  declined  the  invitation  of  Moses,  to  join  company 
Avith  the  Israelites  ;  and,  so  far  as  prudential  considerations  were 
concerned,  he  had  certainly  good  grounds  for  his  refusal.  He 
would  have  to  give  up  his  free,  unfettered,  nomad  life,  by  which 
he  secui*ed  an  ample  pi-ovision  for  himself  and  his  flocks,  and 
join  an  immense  multitude  in  a  journey  through  the  barren  and 
inhospitable  desert,  where  he  would  have  to  endure  all  sorts  of 
liardships  and  privations.  There  can  be  no  doubt,  ho^^"ever, 
that  eventually  he  yielded  to  the  solicitations  of  Moses.  The 
scriptm'al  account  leaves  very  little  room  to  doubt  of  this  ;  for, 
othen^^[se,  the  renewed  and  earnest  entreaty  on  the  part  of 
Closes  (in  vers.  31,  32)  would  certainly  be  followed  by  a  second 
refusal.  In  fact,  it  is  fully  proved  by  Judg.  i.  16,  iv.  11,  and 
1  Sam.  XV.  6,  where  the  descendants  of  Ilobab,  who  are  called 
children  of  the  Kenite,  the  name  by  which  they  were  distinguished 
from  the  rest  of  the  Midianites,  are  said  to  have  gone  up  with 
the  Israelites  into  Canaan,  and  to  have  settled  among  them 
there,  probably  without  relinquishing  their  nomadic  mode  of 
life. — We  may  see  what  it  was  which  ultimately  prevailed  upon 
Hobab  to  yield  to  the  persuasion  of  Moses,  from  the  words  of 
the  latter  in  vers.  29,  32  :  "  We  are  journeying  to  the  place  of 

^      VOL.  III.  Ft 


258  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PARAN. 

which  Jehovah  said,  I  will  give  it  you :  come  thou  with  us,  and 
we  will  do  thee  good ;  for  Jehovah  hath  spoken  good  concerning 
Israel."  It  was  faith  in  the  God  of  Israel  which  induced  him 
to  consent,  and  a  hope  of  participating  in  the  blessings  which  had 
been  promised  to  Israel. — The  advantage  which  Moses  hoped  to 
derive  from  the  company  of  Hobab  is  explained  by  himself  in 
ver.  31 :  "  Leave  us  not,  I  pray  thee  ;  for  thou  knowest  where 
we  should  encamp  in  the  desert,  and  therefore  be  our  eye ! " 
That  an  accurate  knowledge  of  the  country  to  be  traversed, 
with  its  mountains,  valleys,  and  wadys,  its  pasturage,  springs, 
etc.,  might  be  very  advantageous,  and  was  by  no  means  ren- 
dered superfluous  by  the  pillar  of  cloud,  is  at  once  apparent. 
The  pillar  of  cloud  would  undoubtedly  determine  the  route  to 
be  taken,  and  the  place  of  encampment  (§  22,  2) ;  but  both  on 
the  march  and  when  encamping,  many  difficulties  would  arise, 
which  could  be  set  at  rest  at  once  by  one  Avho  was  well 
acquainted  with  the  ground. 

(3.)  At  Sinai  the  Israelites  had  been  sealed  as  the  nation  of 
God,  and  the  covenant  of  their  fathers  with  Jehovah  had  been 
renewed  and  confirmed.  In  the  law,  the  nation  had  received  a 
fresh  armament  and  defence  against  everything  of  an  ungodly 
and  heathenish  character,  which  might  threaten  to  interfere 
with  its  vocation  either  from  without  or  within  ;  but  in  spite  of 
this  defence,  the  ungodly  elements  of  their  natiu'e  very  soon 
broke  forth  again  in  the  national  life.  The  people  had  hardly 
entered  the  "  great  and  terrible  desert,"  Deut.  i.  19,  which  it 
had  to  cross  before  it  could  reach  the  land  of  promise,  the  land 
flowing  with  milk  and  honey,  when  they  broke  out  again  with 
unbelie^dng  complaints.  "  The  fact  that  no  cause  or  occasion  is 
mentioned,  undoubtedly  indicates  that  that  state  of  general  in- 
ward discontent  is  intended,  which  secretly  quarrels  with  every- 
thing that  occm's.  But  whilst  the  murmuring  proceeded  from 
the  nature  of  Israel,  and  therefore  was  merely  the  repetition  of 
similar  complaints  into  which  the  people  had  broken  out  before, 
Jehovah  now  presented  Himself  in  a  totally  different  light.  On 
the  journey  from  the  TJed  Sea  to  Sinai,  He  had  borne  with  great 
long-suffering  and  patience  the  frequent  manifestations  of  the 
weakness  of  Israel :  now,  however,  not  merely  did  He  hear  the 
first  slight  whisperings  of  complaint,  but  the  fire  of  His  wrath 
broke  out  immediately,  and  destroyed  the  people  who  thus  in- 


THE  PLACE  OF  BURNING,  AND  THE  GRAVES  OF  LUST.  259 

wardly  rebelled.  The  reason  for  this  difference  is  evidently  to 
be  found  in  the  fact,  that  the  Israelites  had  now  been  placed 
under  the  law  of  Jehovah,  and  had  the  dwelling-place  of 
Jehovah  in  the  midst  of  them.  It  was  !Moses  again  who  re- 
mained faithful  and  firm ;  and  the  stiffnecked  nation  came  so 
far  to  its  senses,  that  when  the  punishment  came  upon  it,  it 
turned  to  him  as  the  mediator.  And  the  result  of  the  inter- 
cession of  Moses  proved  that  he  still  retained  his  mediatorial 
character.  The  fact  that  the  first  place  in  the  desert  of  Paran, 
at  which  Israel  halted  on  its  journey  from  Sinai  to  Canaan, 
received  its  name  from  the  destructive  burning  of  the  wrath  of 
God,  was  certainly  a  very  bad  omen  of  the  fu.tui'e." — (Bamn- 
garten^ 

As  the  "  fire  of  Jehovah,"  which  burned  among  the  people, 
destroyed  their  outermost  tents,  we  have  not  to  think  of  the  fire 
as  issuing  from  Jehovah — that  is  to  say,  from  the  dwelling- 
place  of  His  hohness — in  the  same  sense  as  in  Lev.  x.  2.  We 
adopt,  on  the  contrary,  the  interpretation  given  by  Rosenmi'dler : 
"  The  simple  meaning  appears  to  be,  that  the  fire  commenced 
among  the  tents  on  the  outside,  no  doubt  to  the  terror  of  the 
rest.  But  the  flame  seems  to  have  burned  up  the  shrubs  and 
bushes,  which  are  very  abundant  in  this  part  of  the  desert,  and 
in  the  midst  of  which  the  Israelites  had  encamped.  Such  a  fire 
would  be  diflicult  to  extinguish ;  and  spreading,  as  it  quickly 
would,  in  all  directions,  many  tents  might  be  destroyed  in  a 
short  space  of  time."  This  was  the  first  commencement  of 
the  fulfilment  of  the  threat  contained  in  Ex.  xxxii.  34  (§  14, 
2),  which  had  been  hanging  over  the  heads  of  the  people  ever 
since  the  apostasy  at  Sinai :  "  In  the  time  of  My  visitation  I  will 
■vasit  their  sin." 

(4.)  On  the  probable  site  of  Tabeerah,  compare  §  20,  and 
§  33,  5. 

§  33.  (Num.  xi.  4-35.) — Notwithstanding  the  consecration 
which  the  people  had  received  at  Sinai,  the  extent  to  which  the 
ungodly  elements  of  nature  still  retained  their  hold  was  soon 
apparent,  and  that  in  a  most  fearful  manner.  The  fire,  which 
had  destroyed  their  outermost  tents  as  a  punishment  for  their 
discontent,  was  no  sooner  extinguished   at  the  intercession  of 


260  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PARAN. 

Moses,  than  the  discontent  of  .the  people,  which  was  repressed 
but  not  overcome,  broke  forth  again  in  bitter  and  reckless  vaui'- 
numng.  The  lead  was  taken  this  time  by  the  multitude  of 
foreigners,  who  had  joined  the  Israelites  when  they  set  out  from 
Egypt  (vol.  ii.  §  35,  7).  They  no  sooner  entered  the  barren 
desert,  than  they  began  to  lust  after  the  enjoyments  of  Egypt, 
which  they  had  missed  so  long ;  and  with  loud  murnnu'ings  and 
lamentations  they  began  to  complain  of  the  impossibility  of 
satisfying  their  wants.  The  Israelites  were  influenced  by  their 
example,  and  carried  away  by  the  same  desires ;  so  that  in  a  very 
short  time  there  were  no  bounds  to  the  weeping  and  lamentation 
throughout  all  the  tents  (1).  The  anger  of  Jehovah  was 
kindled  once  more.  Hoses,  with  the  wrath  of  God  pressing  on 
the  one  side,  and  the  violence  of  the  people  on  the  other,  and 
called  by  his  mediatorial  office  to  appease  them  both,  was  utterly 
at  a  loss  to  know  what  to  do.  He  was  to  conduct  the  Israelites 
through  the  desert  to  the  promised  land.  But  it  was  only  as  the 
people  of  God,  only  by  remaining  faithful  to  their  God  and  the 
covenant  with  Him,  that  they  could  ever  obtain  possession. 
Hence  Closes  had  to  uphold  the  fidelity  and  obedience  of  the 
whole  nation  to  Jehovah ;  and  his  experience  of  the  nation,  thus 
far,  was  enough  to  convince  him  that  he  was  miequal  to  the 
task.  Here,  at  the  very  commencement  of  the  great  and  terrible 
desert  which  they  had  to  cross,  the  whole  nation  was  refractory 
and  in  utter  confusion.  Wliat,  then,  was  the  futm-e  likely  to 
produce,  seeing  that  the  difficulty  v/ould  be  sure  to  increase? 
Where  could  he  find  flesh  enough  to  satisfy  so  great  a  multi- 
tude, and  appease,  if  only  for  a  time,  the  violent  longings  of  the 
people?  How  could  he  alone  sustain  the  biu'den  of  such  a 
nation  as  this  ?  He  poured  out  all  these  complaints  to  his  God ; 
and  such  was  his  despondency,  that  he  would  gladly  have  been 
relieved,  by  an  early  death,  of  the  burden  he  could  not  sustain 
(2).— For  the  twofold  complaint  of  His  servant,  Jehovah  had 
also  a  twofold  consolation  and  aid.  Moses  was  directed  to 
select  seventy  men  from  the  elders  and  Shoterim  (^'ol.  ii.  §  16), 


THE  PLACE  OF  BURNING,  AND  THE  GRAVES  OF  LUST.    261 

and  to  brill*];  tliem  to  the  tabernacle.  Jeliovab  would  then  take 
of  the  Spirit  which  was  in  ISIoses,  and  put  it  upon  tliem,  that 
they  might  help  him  to  bear  the  burden  of  the  people  (3).  As 
the  desires  of  the  people  were  the  source  of  trouble  and  anxiety 
to  Moses,  they  were  also  to  be  satisfied.  The  people  were 
directed  to  sanctify  themselves  by  the  mori'ow ;  for  Jehovah 
would  then  give  them  flesh,  not  for  one  day,  nor  for  two,  nor 
for  five,  nor  for  ten,  nor  for  twenty,  but  for  a  whole  month, 
until  they  became  disgusted  with  it  (4).  Closes,  who  thought 
more  of  the  two  million  eaters  than  of  the  omnipotence  of  God, 
exclaimed :  "  Shall  the  flocks  and  the  herds  be  slain  for  them, 
to  suffice  them  ?  Or  shall  all  the  fish  of  the  sea  be  gathered 
together  for  them,  to  suffice  them  ?  "  But  Jehovah  replied : 
"  Is  the  hand  of  Jehovah  too  short,  then  ?  Thou  shalt  see  now 
whether  My  word  shall  come  to  pass  or  not." 

When  Moses  brought  the  elders  whom  he  had  chosen  to  the 
tabernacle,  Jehovah  came  down  in  the  cloud,  and  took  of  the 
Spirit  which  was  upon  Moses  and  gave  it  also  to  them ;  and 
when  the  Spirit  came  upon  them  they  prophesied.  But 
two  of  the  seventy  who  had  been  selected,  Eldad  and  Medad, 
had  by  some  accident  or  other  remained  in  the  camp.  Never- 
theless the  Spirit  came  upon  them,  and  they  also  prophesied  in 
the  camp.  This  striking  phenomenon  was  at  once  made  known 
to  Moses ;  and  Joshua,  in  his  zeal  for  the  honour  of  JSIoses, 
tliouo;ht  that  it  ouo-lit  to  be  forbidden.  But  Moses  was  of  a 
different  opinion.  "  Art  thou  zealous  for  my  sake  ?  "  he  said  : 
"  Would  God  that  all  people  of  Jehovah  prophesied,  and  that 
Jehovah  had  put  Plis  Spirit  upon  them !  "  (3). 

As  soon  as  Moses  returned  with  the  elders  into  the  camp, 
the  second  promise  was  fulfilled.  A  wind  came  forth  from 
Jehovah,  and  brought  quails  from  the  sea,  and  let  them 
fall  by  the  camp,  a  day's  journey  on  every  side,  and  lying  two 
cubits  deep  u})on  the  ground.  The  peo})le  immediately  set  to 
work  to  collect  them,  and  continued  gathering  quails  all  that  day, 
and  throughout  the  night,  and  the  whole  of  the  following  day. 


262  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PARAN. 

The  people  had  complied  hut  hadly  with  the  injunction  to 
sanctify  themselves  for  this  gift  of  God.  Greedy  and  unsancti- 
fied  as  they  were,  they  rushed  upon  them  at  once.  And  the 
flesh  was  still  between  their  teeth,  when  the  wrath  of  Jehovah 
was  kindled  against  them,  and  smote  the  people  with  very  great 
destruction  (4).  In  consequence  of  this  occm-rence,  the  place 
was  called  Kibroth-Taavah  (njxrin  niiaip^  i.e.,  graves  of  lust),  for 
there  they  hm-ied  the  people  that  lusted  (5). 

(1.)  The  LUSTING  OF  THE  PEOPLE  was  more  especially  for 
animal  food.  This  may  appear  somewhat  sui'prising,  as  they 
had  brought  their  flocks  with  them  from  Egypt.  But  it  must 
be  borne  in  mind,  that  their  flocks  were  very  unequally  divided. 
According  to  Num.  xxxii.,  it  appears  to  have  been  only  the 
tribes  of  Reuben  and  Gad,  and  the  half  tribe  of  Manasseh,  which 
possessed  any  considerable  quantity.  The  other  tribes  may 
possibly  have  exchanged  their  nomad  mode  of  life  for  agricul- 
tural pursuits,  even  before  leaving  Egypt  (vol.  ii.  §  15),  and 
therefore  have  scarcely  possessed  any  flocks  at  all.  Moreover, 
the  consumption  of  animal  food  in  the  desert  may  have  exceeded 
the  supply ;  and  therefore  there  may  have  been  reason  enough 
for  confining  it  within  the  narrowest  possible  limits. — Again,  in 
their  desire  for  animal  food,  they  thought  chiefly  of  the  excellent 
fish  which  they  had  formerly  obtained  in  such  abundance  from 
the  Nile.  They  complained  to  Moses  :  "  Who  gives  us  Jlesh  to 
eat  ?  For  we  remember  the  Jish  which  we  did  eat  in  Egypt 
freely,  the  cucumbers  and  the  melons,  and  the  leeks  (^grass),  and 
the  onions,  and  the  garlic  ;  but  now  our  palate  is  dry ;  there  is 
nothing  at  all,  and  our  eyes  fall  upon  this  manna  alone." — The 
articles  of  produce  here  mentioned  are  suggestive  of  horticulture 
and  agriculture,  rather  than  of  the  rearing  of  cattle.  It  is  well 
known  that  they  are  of  superior  quality  in  Egypt,  and  may  be 
obtained  even  by  the  poorest  in  great  abundance  (yid.  Hengsten- 
herg :  Egypt  and  the  Books  of  Moses,  p.  208  sqq.,  and  Laborde, 
Comment.,  p.  116  sqq.).  The  only  thing  at  all  surprising  is  the 
fact  that  grass  ("f^n)  should  be  mentioned  as  an  object  of  desire. 
As  reference  is  made  to  the  food  of  man  alone,  and  not  to  that 
of  cattle,  of  course  it  cannot  be  common  grass  that  is  meant.  In 
the  Septuagint  and  Aquila's  version,  the  word  is  rendered  Trpdaa 


THE  PLACE  OF  BURNING,  AND  THE  GRAVES  OF  LUST.  263 

(leek)  ;  in  tlie  Vulgate  porri,  and  the  latter  is  the  rendering 
adopted  bj  Onkelos  and  Saadias,  and  in  the  S}Tiac  version. 
Rosenmilller  (on  this  passage),  Gesenius  (Thesaurus),  and  most 
of  the  modern  expositors,  al)ide  by  this  rendering ;  but  Ileng- 
stenherg  and  Lahorde  have  departed  from  it.  The  former  says : 
"  T'Vn  has  etymologically  the  meanhig  of  food  for  cattle  :  its 
primary  signification  is  not  grass,  but  pastm'age,  fodder.  The 
first  criterion  of  the  correctness  of  any  interpretation,  therefore, 
is  that  the  article  of  food  with  which  "T'Vri  is  identified,  be,  from 
its  very  nature,  a  food  of  beasts  ;  so  that  man,  as  it  were,  sits 
down  to  dinner  with  them.  Now,  one  of  the  curiosities  of 
natural  history  in  connection  with  Egypt,  of  which  travellers 
make  mention,  is  this,  that  the  common  peo})le  eat  with  peculiar 
relish  a  kind  of  fodder  resembling  clover.  This  is  the  so-called 
flelheh  (Trigonclla  foenum  Grcvciim,  Linnceus),  of  Avhicli  the 
modern  Egyptians  of  the  lower  classes  are  very  fond,  and  which 
they  regard  as  a  specific  for  strengthening  the  stomach,  and  as 
a  preservative  from  many  diseases."  .  .  .  But  as  the  grass- 
like form  of  the  leek  would  very  natm'ally  lead  to  its  being 
called  T'vn,  and  as  it  is  quite  in  place  by  the  side  of  the  garlic 
and  the  onions,  as  being  a  vegetable  of  a  similarly  piquant 
character,  and  as  all  the  ancient  translators,  who  were  so  well 
acquainted  with  the  customs  of  the  countr}',  have,  without  ex- 
ception, fixed  upon  the  leek,  it  certainly  appears  advisable  to 
give  the  preference  to  so  strongly  attested  a  rendering,  rather 
than  to  that  of  Hengstenherg. 

The  longing  for  the  juicy  and  pungent  vegetables  of  Egj^^t, 
is  connected  Avith  a  contemptuous  allusion  to  the  heavenly  food 
of  the  manna,  which  God  had  bestowed  upon  the  nation.  On 
this  Baumgarten  has  forcibly  remarked  (i.  2,  p.  297)  :  "It  was 
the  gift  of  Jehovah  from  heaven,  with  which  the  Israelites  were 
satiated,  and  which  they  treated  with  contempt,  preferring  the 
meat  and  spices  of  Egypt.  Such  is  the  perversity  of  human 
nature,  which  cannot  be  content  with  the  quiet  enjoyment  of 
what  is  pure  and  unmixed,  but,  from  its  disorganised  state 
within,  longs  for  the  additional  charm  of  something  pungent  or 
sour."  He  then  points  out  the  analogy  which  we  find,  when  we 
turn  to  the  spirit's  food.  The  sinful  nature  of  man  is  soon 
satiated  with  the  pure  food  of  the  word  of  God,  and  turns  with 
longing  desires  to  the  more  exciting  pleasures  of  the  world. 


264  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PARAN. 

(2.)  "Moses  heard  the  people  weep,  everyone  in  the  door 
of  his  tent.  And  the  anger  of  Jehovah  was  kindled  greatly, 
and  it  was  evil  in  the  eyes  of  Moses."  It  appears  to  iis  that 
those  who  refer  the  displeasure  of  Moses  exclusively  to  the  mur- 
muring of  the  people,  and  those  who  refer  it  to  the  va'ath  of 
Jehovah  alone,  are  equally  in  the  wrong.  The  whole  attitude 
of  Moses  shows  that  his  displeasure  was  excited,  not  merely  by  the 
unrestrained  rebellion  of  the  people  against  Jehovah,  but  also  by 
the  unrestrained  wrath  of  Jehovah  against  the  nation.  For  the 
wrath  of  Jehovah  appeared  to  him  to  be  too  regardless  of  the 
weakness  of  the  people,  and  too  regardless  of  himself,  the  mediator 
of  the  people.  "  Wherefore  dost  Thou  afflict  Thy  servant,"  he  ex- 
claims, "  that  Thou  layest  the  burden  of  all  this  people  upon  me? 
Have  I  conceived  this  whole  nation,  have  I  brought  it  forth, 
that  Thou  sayest  to  me.  Carry  it  in  thy  bosom,  as  the  niu'se 
carries  the  sucking  child,  into  the  land  which  Thou  swearest 
unto  their  fathers  ? "  We  cannot  agi'ee  with  Baumgarte?i, 
therefore,  who  thinks  that  it  was  only  a  spirit  of  love,  and  not  a 
spirit  of  discontent  or  ill-will,  which  dictated  the  words  of 
Moses.  Discontent  is  unmistakeably  indicated  by  his  words, 
and  discontent  is  the  offspring  of  evil.  But  the  wTath  of 
Jehovah  did  not  burn  against  the  evil,  which  prompted  the  words 
of  Moses,  as  it  bmnied  against  the  evil  apparent  in  the  words  of 
the  people ;  the  discontent  of  the  people  being  essentially  differ- 
ent from  that  of  Moses,  and  not  merely  differing  in  degree. 
The  ground  of  his  complaint  was  a  just  one ;  for  the  shoulders  of 
one  man  were  really  not  sufficient  to  bear  the  burden  of  the 
whole  nation.  Jehovah  acknowledged  this,  by  giving  him 
seventy  assistants  to  help  him  to  sustain  the  burden.  The 
impulse  was  also  a  laudable  one;  for  it  proceeded  from  his  voca- 
tion of  mediator  :  Moses  had  not  merely  the  right,  it  was  also 
his  duty,  to  make  such  representations  to  Jehovah.  Nor  was 
there  anything  essentially  e\'il  in  the  substance  and  form  of  his 
complaint.  He  had  a  right  to  appeal  from  the  wrath  to  the 
mercy  of  Jehovah.  He  had  also  a  right  to  represent  to  Jehovah 
that  the  people  had  claims  upon  His  mercy,  since  it  was  He 
Himself  who  had  given  them  such  claims.  It  was  not  Moses 
but  Jehovah  who  had  conceived  and  brought  forth,  and  not 
Moses  but  Jehovah  who  had  sworn  to  cany  the  people  as  upon 
eagles'  wings  to  the  land  of  their  fathers.     At  the  same  time, 


THE  PLACE  OF  BURNING,  AND  THE  GRAVES  OF  LUST.  265 

Moses  neither  could,  nor  Avislied  to  dispute  the  justice  of  the 
wrath  of  God :  on  the  contrary,  his  whole  complaint  rested  upon 
an  admission  of  its  justice.  It  was  precisely  because  the  wrath 
of  God  was  just  and  well-deserved,  that  he  felt  himself  unequal 
to  the  claims  of  an  office  which  required  of  him  that  he  should 
watch  over  the  people,  and  take  care  that  they  did  not  excite 
the  anger  of  Jehovah  by  their  obstinacy  and  rebellion.  Still, 
he  did  not  wish  to  be  entirely  released  from  the  office.  He 
merely  desired  to  have  the  burden  lightened,  and  to  be  assisted 
in  sustaining  it.  For  his  own  part,  he  felt  that  his  office  had 
become  so  much  a  part  of  himself,  that  office  and  life  were 
identical.  Hence  he  entreated  of  Jehovah  that  He  would  rather 
take  him  away  by  a  sudden  death,  than  suffer  him  to  sink  and 
perish  beneath  the  hca\y  and  undivided  burden  of  his  office. 
"  I  am  not  able,"  he  said,  "  to  bear  all  this  people  alone,  because 
it  is  too  heavy  for  me.  And  if  Thou  deal  thus  with  me,  kill  me, 
I  pray  thee,  ovit  of  hand,  if  I  have  found  favour  in  Thy  sight, 
that  I  may  not  see  my  wretchedness !"  His  language  was  bold, 
as  we  perceive,  but  not  wanting  in  the  humility  which  sets  forth 
the  boldness  of  prayer,  as  a  golden  setting  a  costly  jewel.  At 
the  same  time,  his  language  was  enveloped  in  the  mist  of  dis- 
content ;  it  was  characterised  by  impatience,  which  had  not  yet 
learned  to  be  still  and  quietly  wait,  and  by  self-Avill,  which 
would  determine  the  time  and  method  of  the  help  requu'ed 
according  to  its  own  ideas. 

That  Moses  was  a  real  mediator  and  leader  of  the  people, 
was  evident  from  all  he  said.  The  burden  of  the  people  was 
his  burden.  The  wrath  which  was  Idndled  against  the  people 
was  felt  by  him.  His  office  was  identical  with  his  life.  But  it 
was  also  evident  that  the  true  Mediator  and  perfect  Head  of  the 
people  of  God  had  not  yet  come.  The  burden  of  the  people 
was  too  heav}'  for  him :  he  was  unable  to  bear  it,  and  sank 
beneath  the  weight.  He  was  not  the  man  who  gave  utterance 
to  no  murmuring  under  the  weight  of  the  mediatorial  office,  in 
whose  mouth  there  was  no  complaint,  but  who  was  like  a  sheep 
dumb  before  its  shearers. 

(8.)  Most  incredible  things  have  been  done  by  the  critics 
(e.g.,  Vater,  De  Wette,  TIartmann),  in  connection  with  the  ac- 
covmt  of  the  incorporation  of  a  body  of  seventy  elders.  In  the 
first  place,  the  institution  alluded  to  here,  is  said  to  be  identical 


266  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PARAN. 

with  tlie  judicial  organisation  which  was  introduced  by  the  ad- 
vice of  Jethro  (Ex.  xviii. ;  vid.  §  4,  5) ;  and,  consequently,  the 
accounts  are  both  set  aside  as  incredible,  on  account  of  the  dis- 
crepancies which  they  contain.  A  second  discovery,  on  the 
other  hand,  is,  that  the  company  of  seventy  elders,  which  the 
account  before  us  states  to  have  been  organised  for  the  first 
time  now,  is  proved  by  Ex.  xxiv.  1,  9  to  have  been  really  in 
existence  from  time  immemorial.  With  reference  to  the  first 
discovery  of  the  critics,  Ranke  has  written  as  follows,  and  much 
more  forcibly  than  we  are  able  : — "  This  is  excellent !  Moses 
was  overwhelmed  with  business  when  Jethro  came  f  oi*M'ard  with 
his  ad\dce.  From  morning  till  evening  he  was  surrounded  by  a 
crowd,  waiting  for  him  to  settle  their  legal  disputes.  To  hghten 
this  pressure  of  business,  six  hundred  chiHarchs,  six  thousand 
heptakontarchs,  twelve  thousand  pentekontarchs,  and  sixty  thou- 
sand dekadarchs  were  chosen.  But  of  what  use  was  this  army 
of  overseers  and  judges  at  the  graves  of  lust?  In  this  case,  it 
was  no  question  of  petty  disputes  among  the  people.  The  whole 
of  them,  not  excepting  the  leaders,  were  in  a  state  of  rebellion 
against  Jehovah  and  against  ISIoses ;  and  when  the  latter,  in  the 
bitterness  of  his  disappointment,  desired  to  die,  it  was  not  the 
pressure  of  business  which  overwhelmed  him,  but  the  unfaith- 
fulness of  the  redeemed  and  chosen  people.  He  anticipated  the 
disastrous  issue.  He  felt  unable  to  preserve  the  people  in  a 
state  of  fidelity  towards  Jehovah,  and  therefore,  unable  to  lead 
them  into  the  promised  land.  Jehovah  now  came  to  his  help 
with  the  institution,  consisting  of  seventy  elders  filled  mtli  the 
spirit  of  prophecy,  who  could  stand  side  by  side  with  Moses  as 
the  chosen  servants  of  Jehovah, — a  Divine  institution,  which 
confirmed  afresh  both  the  election  of  Moses  and  the  law  com- 
municated through  him.  It  was  another  attempt  on  the  part 
of  Jehovah,  to  lead  His  people  to  then*  destination,  notwith- 
standing their  present  display  of  unbelief;  and  consequently 
there  is  nothing  to  support  the  hypothesis,  that  there  is  some 
connection  between  the  account  before  us  and  the  one  narrated 
before.  There  is  also  another  question  :  Whom  did  the  seventy 
elders  represent? — the  six  hundred  chiliarchs  ? — the  sixty 
thousand  dekadarchs  ?  —  or  the  whole  of  the  seventy-eight 
thousand  six  hundred  leaders'?  There  would  certainly  be 
differences  enough  between  these  two  forms  of  the  same  tradi- 


THE  PLACE  OP  BURNING,  ^VND  THE  GRAVES  OF  LUST.  267 

tion,  and  differences  of  such  magnitude,  that  we  shoukl  be 
ovenvhehned  with  astonishment  at  the  sagacity  of  the  critics 
who  discovered  the  secret  identity  beneath  so  thick  a  covering 
of  complete  diversity." 

AccortUng  to  Ex.  xxiv.  1,  9,  Moses  chose  seventy  of  the 
elders  of  Israel,  as  he  had  been  directed  by  God,  and  conducted 
them,  along  with  Aaron,  Nadab,  and  Abihu,  to  the  mountain  of 
the  law,  where  they  saw  the  God  of  Israel,  and  partook  of  the 
sacrificial  meal  connected  with  the  covenant-sacrifice.  A  year 
later,  ISIoses  again  selected  seventy  men  from  the  elders  and 
Shoterim,  according  to  instructions  received  from  God,  and 
brought  them  to  the  tabernacle,  that  the  Spirit  which  was  in 
Moses  might  be  communicated  to  them  also,  and  that  they 
might  be  qualified  for  assisting  him  in  the  task  of  leading, 
watching,  and  admonishing  the  people.  Are  we  warranted  (not 
to  say  compelled)  in  regarding  the  two  as  identical  ?  Certainly 
not.  In  the  first  instance,  a  temporary  representation  w^as  all 
that  was  required,  under  circumstances  in  which  it  was  impos- 
sible that  the  whole  of  the  elders  should  be  brought  together, 
amounting  as  they  did  to  several  thousands.  On  the  occasion 
referred  to  here,  a  permanent  institution  was  to  be  organised, 
and  that  for  a  totally  different  piu'pose.  But,  we  are  told  in 
reply,  seventy  elders  were  appointed  then,  and  there  are  seventy 
elders  here.  No  doubt.  But  is  it  inconceivable  that  a  certain 
number  of  elders  should  have  been  chosen  as  a  committee  for 
merely  temporaiy  purposes,  and  that  a  permanent  committee 
should  afterwards  have  been  formed,  consisting  of  the  same 
number  ?  Can  anything  fm'ther  be  reasonably  inferred  from 
this,  than  that  in  both  instances  the  number  seventy  possessed 
either  a  real  or  a  symbolical  importance  ? 

Our  first  inquiry,  therefore,  is,  why  was  the  number  of  elders 
to  be  chosen  fixed  at  seventy,  and  that  on  both  occasions  ?  In 
the  eyes  of  the  ancient  Hebrews,  the  number  undoubtedly 
possessed  a  symbolical  worth.  Ten  was  the  number  which 
denoted  perfection  ;  seven,  the  seal  of  the  covenant  with  Jeho- 
vah. Seventy,  therefore,  was  the  number  which  combined  the 
two  ideas.  How  suitable,  then,  was  this  niimber  on  both 
occasions,  if,  as  we  have  not  the  slightest  doubt,  the  symbolical 
meaning  helped  to  determine  the  selection !  But  in  addition  to 
the   symbolical  importance  of  the  number  itself,  the  circum- 


268  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PARAN. 

stances  may  have  also  determined  the  selection — just  as  the 
number  of  the  tribes  was  determined  by  the  number  of  the  sons 
of  Jacob — and  yet  retained  its  symbolical  importance  (as  the 
arrangement  of  the  camp  clearly  showed,  vid.  §  38,  5).  Jahn 
(Archdologie,  ii.  1,  p.  59)  calculates,  from  Num.  xxvi.,  that  the 
number  of  MishpacJioth  was  seventy-one,  and  infers  that  one 
elder  was  chosen  for  every  Mishpacliali.  His  calculation,  it  is 
true,  is  not  correct ;  for,  in  cases  where  a  Mishpachah  was  so 
strong  that  several  subchvisions  were  formed,  each  possessing 
the  rights  of  an  independent  31ishpachah,  he  has  also  reckoned 
the  original  Mishp>achah,  which  is  certainly  inadmissible.  But 
notwithstanding  this,  the  numbers  very  nearly  agree,  and 
nothing  further  was  required  (vid.  vol.  ii.  §  1,  3). 

The  23urpose  of  this  college  of  elders  was  to  support  Moses 
in  his  office,  as  the  chief  and  leader  of  Israel.  We  may  there- 
fore safely  assmne,  that  it  continued  in  existence  till  the 
conquest  of  the  jDromised  land,  but  hardly  longer.  There  is,  at 
any  rate,  no  foundation  whatever  for  the  boast  of  the  later  Jews, 
that  their  Sanhedrim  (which  was  certainly  an  imitation  of  the 
college  of  elders)  was  founded  by  Moses,  and  continued  with- 
out interruption,  with  the  sole  exception  of  the  time  of  the 
Captivity. 

We  are  not  informed  m  what  way  the  communication  of  the 
Spirit  to  the  seventy  elders  took  place, — possibly  in  a  manner 
somewhat  analogous  to  that  described  in  Acts  ii.  Wlien  it  is 
stated  that  Jehovah  took  of  the  Spirit,  which  was  upon  Moses, 
and  put  it  upon  the  seventy,  it  is  not  meant  that  the  fuhiess  of 
the  Spirit  in  Moses  was  diminished  thereby.  As  one  candle 
can  kindle  many  others  without  losing  any  of  its  own  light  in 
consequence,  so  did  the  Spirit  pass  from  Moses  to  those  who 
were  destined  to  be  his  helpers,  without  involving  the  slightest 
loss  to  Moses  himself. 

Whether  Eldad  and  Medad  remained  in  the  camp  from 
feelings  of  modesty,  because  they  did  not  think  themselves 
worthy  of  so  great  an  honour,  as  Jonathan  and  Jerome  suppose, 
or  whether  there  was  some  other  reason  for  their  absence,  it  is 
impossible  to  determine.  Their  names  were  contained  in  the 
list  of  those  who  had  been  selected  (ver.  26  :  D^n^iD^a  nsni)  ;  and 
as  a  proof  that  the  selection  which  Moses  had  made  was  the 
right  one,  the  same  gift  was  bestowed  upon  them  as  upon  all 


THE  PLACE  OF  BURNING,  AND  THE  GRAVES  OF  LUST.  269 

the  rest.  Joshua,  who  thought  there  was  something  very  dis- 
orderly in  their  prophesying,  and  imagined  that  the  authority 
of  Moses  woukl  be  weakened  in  consequence — probably  because 
they  had  received  the  gift  without  any  visible  intervention  on 
the  part  of  Moses — ^Avanted  to  prohibit  them  from  exercising  it, 
like  the  Apostle  John  in  Mark  ix.  38.  But  Moses  made  just 
the  same  reply  to  Joshua,  as  Christ  to  John :  "Forbid  them 
not." 

The  lyropliesying  of   the  elders  is  not  to  be  regarded  as 
merely  a  prediction  of  future  events  (this  by  no  means  exhausts 
the  idea  of  N33rin),  but  as  a  divinely-inspired  utterance  in  the 
widest  sense  of  the  term,  in  which  a  more  elevated  tone  in  the 
language  itself,  as  well  as  the  outward  demeanoiu"  of  the  speaker, 
proved  that  he  forgot  himself,  was  raised  above  himself,  and 
spoke  words  of  Divine  and  not  merely  of  human  wisdom.      It 
is    worthy  of   remark,  that    it    is    expressly  stated,    that    this 
prophes}ang  only  occm'red  once,  and  was  never  repeated  again 
(ver.  25 :  ^sp^  vb^  which  is  eroneously  rendered  in  the  Vulgate 
nee  ultra  cessaverunt ;   also  by  Luther,  "  Sie  hurten  nicht  aiif;^'^ 
but   which  is    correctly  given  in  the    Septuagint,  koI  ovk  ert 
irpoo-Wevro).     We  see  at  once  that  their  spealdng  was  of  an 
ecstatic  character, — like  the  speaking  with  tongues,  which  gene- 
rally  followed   immediately   upon   the  communication    of   the 
Spirit  in  the  apostolic  times,  and  in  most  instances  probably 
occurred  only  once,  as  in  the  case  before  us, — Of  coui'se,  it  can- 
not be  inferred  from  the  expression  ^Sp^^  K7,  that  the  Spirit  de- 
parted from  them  after  this  first  striking  proof  of  His  presence. 
(4.)   On  the  quails,  see  §   3,   1,  and  Bochart,  Ilieroz.  ed. 
Rosenmilller,  ii.  648-676.     There  is  nothing  sm'prising  in  the 
fact,  that  the  critics  should  have  pronounced  this  gift  of  quails 
as  identical  with  that  described  in  Ex.  xvi.,  and  only  separated 
in  consequence  of  the  want  of  critical  acvunen  on  the  part  of 
the  compiler  of  the  Pentateuch  records.     On  the  first  occasion 
it  was  an  act  of   mercy  alone :   here,   it  met  the   heightened 
murmuring  of  the  people  in  thirt^-fold  greater  abundance,  but 
was  the  instrument  of  judicial  punishment  as  Avell.     So  greatly, 
however,  did  mercy  preponderate  even  here,  that  if  the  people 
had  but  sanctified  themselves   beforehand,  as   they  were  ex- 
pressly instructed  to  do  (ver.  18),  they  might  have  averted  the 
^  "  They  did  not  cease."    Our  English  Version  gives  the  same  rendering. 


270  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PAEAN. 

judgment. — The  quails  fell  in  such  abundance,  that  those  who 
gathered  only  a  few  had  ten  omers  full.  According  to  Bertlieau 
{jihhandlung  zur  GescMchte  der  Israeliten,  p.  73),  an  omer  was 
not  less  than  two  cubic  feet, — a  quantity  which  might  certainly 
be  made  to  suffice  for  a  whole  month.  The  birds  were  spread 
out  in  the  camp  to  dry,  for  the  purpose  of  preserving  them, — of 
course,  after  having  undergone  some  previous  preparation  to  pre- 
vent decomposition. 

In  the  paragraph  above,  we  have  described  the  fall  of  quails 
in  the  words  of  the  Biblical  account.  It  is  difficult,  however, 
to  determine  what  the  author  meant  by  the  expression  "  two 
cubits  above  the  ground"  Q*^,^^  'pS'^y  D^nsX3l).  The  verb  is 
L'*t3*1 :  the  wind  strewed,  cast  them  (^Sept. :  eire^aXev)  upon  the 
camp  two  cubits  high.  This  may  be  understood  as  meaning 
that  the  quails,  which  were  brought  by  the  force  of  the  wind 
and  wearied  with  flight,  fell  upon  the  gromid  in  such  immense 
numbers,  that  for  a  whole  day's  journey  round  the  camj)  they 
were  lying  two  cubits  deep  upon  the  ground.  But  it  may  also 
mean,  that  the  wind  compelled  them  to  fly  two  cubits  above  the 
ground.  This  meaning  may  certainly  be  implied  in  the  Septu- 
agint  rendering,  airo  t7]<;  7?}?;  but,  to  prevent  any  misunder- 
standing, the  Vulgate  supplies  volabantque ;  and  Jonathan,  Philo, 
and  others  have  done  the  same.  The  Psalmist,  however,  ap- 
pears to  have  understood  the  passage  in  the  former  sense  (and 
this  certainly  is  the  most  natural  interpretation) ;  for  he  describes 
the  miracle  in  these  terms :  "  He  caused  an  east  wind  to  blow 
in  the  heaven,  and  by  His  power  He  brought  in  the  south  wind ; 
He  rained  flesh  also  upon  them  as  dust,  and  feathered  fowls 
like  as  the  sand  of  the  sea,  and  He  let  it  fall  in  the  midst  of 
their  camp,  round  about  their  habitations."  If  we  give  the 
preference  to  this  explanation,  of  course  the  words  are  not  to  be 
interpreted  with  strict  literality,  as  meaning  that  a  circle,  the 
diameter  of  which  was  two  days'  journey,  was  covered  with 
quails,  to  a  uniform  depth  of  two  cubits.  Such  a  colossal 
absurdity  as  this,  none  but  the  most  ignorant  could  think  of 
attributing  to  om'  author.  The  3  in  DTiOND  is  in  itself  a  suffi- 
cient proof  that  this  is  not  his  meaning.  We  have  simply  to 
imagine  the  quails  lying  about  in  such  quantities,  that  in  many 
places  they  were  two  cubits  deep. 

(5.)  As  only  one  halting-place  is  mentioned  between  the 


OCCURKENCES  AT  CHAZEEOTH.  271 

desert  of  Sinai  and  Chazeroth,  in  the  exact  list  of  stations  con- 
tained in  Num.  xxxiii.,  vie,  the  graves  of  lust,  and  as  no  allusion 
is  made  in  the  account  before  us  to  any  removal  from  the  2Ji<^ice 
of  burning  to  the  graves  of  lust,  there  can  he  no  doubt  that  they 
are  different  names  of  the  same  station.  The  name  Tabeerah 
applies  to  one  particular  part  of  the  place  of  encampment, 
Kibroth-Taavah  to  the  whole  locality. 


OCCURRENCES  AT  CHAZEEOTH. 

§  34.  (Num.  xii.) — The  Israelites  departed  from  the  graves 
of  lust,  and  proceeded  to  Chazeroth  (§  29,  2).  A  new  trial 
awaited  Moses  here,  and  one  in  which  his  patience  and  meek- 
ness (1)  were  once  more  displayed  in  a  most  distingviished 
manner.  Even  those  who  were  most  closely  related  to  him,  and 
who  were  connected  with  him  not  only  by  the  ties  of  nature,  but 
also  by  their  appointment  as  his  colleagues  in  office, —  even  his 
sister  Miriam,  and,  through  her  persuasion,  his  brother  Aaron  (2), 
turned  against  him.  They  despised  him  on  account  of  his  mar- 
riage with  a  Cushite  woman,  and  maintained  that  he  was  not 
superior  to  them,  since  Jehovah  spoke  through  them  as  well  as 
through  him.  INIoses  endured  in  silence.  But  Jehovah  was  not 
silent ;  and  Miriam  and  Aaron  were  summoned  to  the  tabernacle. 
The  pillar  of  cloud  entered  into  the  door  of  the  tabernacle,  and 
Jehovah  declared  from  within  that  His  servant  Moses  was  en- 
trusted with  all  His  house,  and  that  not  one  of  all  the  prophets 
was  equal  to  him  (4).  The  cloud  then  left  the  tent,  and  ]\Iiriam 
became  leprous,  as  snow.  Aaron,  who  Avas  greatly  alarmed  at 
this  judgment  of  God,  and  deeply  repented  of  the  sin  which  had 
occasioned  it,  entreated  Moses  to  intercede  for  their  sister.  Moses 
cried  to  the  Lord,  "  O  God,  heal  her!"  His  prayer  was  heard; 
but  Miriam  was  to  be  shut  out  for  seven  days  from  all  intercourse 
with  the  people  as  one  unclean,  and  to  pass  the  time  in  a  solitary 
place  outside  the  camp.  The  people  remained  at  Chazeroth  till 
Miriam  was  restored  (5). 


272  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PARAN. 

(1.)  The  historian,  Avhen  relating  the  glorious  manner  in 
which  ]Moses  sustained  this  fresh  trial  of  liis  patience,  breaks  out 
into  the  laudatory  words  :  "  The  man  Closes  was  very  meek, 
above  all  the  men  which  were  upon  the  face  of  the  earth."  As 
the  self-praise  involved  in  these  words  presents  considerable  dif- 
ficulties,— on  the  assmuption,  that  is,  that  Moses  was  the  author 
of  the  entire  Pentateuch  in  its  present  form, — critics  have  not 
been  backward  in  founding  an  argument  upon  it  against  the 
authenticity  of  the  Pentateuch  ;  and  Hengstenhei^g  has  attempted 
an  elaborate  refutation  of  the  argument  on  psychological  grounds 
(yid.  Dissertations  on  the  Pentateuch,  vol.  ii.  p.  141  sqq.).  His 
argument  amounts  essentially  to  this,  that  it  is  only  within  the 
limits  of  Phariseeism  or  Pelagianism  that  a  man  looks  upon  his 
actions  as  implying  soniething  meritorious  on  his  own  part,  and 
that  self-praise  is  a  result  of  sinful  vanity ;  but  where  there  is  a 
lively  consciousness  of  the  grace  of  God,  which  enables  a  man 
to  accomplish  great  things,  an  expression  of  this  kind  is  rather  a 
proof  of  genuine  humility  and  thorough  sincerity.  AYe  fully 
admit  the  soundness  of  tliis  argmnent,  and  maintain,  with  Heng- 
stenherg,  that  a  humility  which,  of  necessity,  durst  not  gratefully 
and  joyfully  acknowledge  and  make  laiown  whatever  of  a  great 
and  remarkable  character  it  may  have  been  enabled  by  God  to 
perforai,  through  peculiar  gifts,  whether  of  nature  or  of  grace, 
is  at  the  best  not  sure  of  itself,  and  in  most  cases  is  nothing  but 
vanity  in  disguise.  At  the  same  time,  we  must  confess  that 
Hengstenherg''  s  arguments  have  not  set  all  oiu"  difficulties  and 
doubts  at  rest  in  this  particular  instance.  We  have  still  the 
impression,  after  all,  that  the  words  vrere  not  -waitten  by  Moses 
himself. 

Hengstenherg  says  (vol.  ii.  p.  141)  :  "  It  is  remarkable,  at  the 
outset,  that  in  the  whole  work  (namely,  the  Pentateuch)  there  is 
only  this  one  passage  which  can  by  any  possibility  be  intei'preted 
as  self-praise ;  for  the  other  passage  Avhich  is  cited,  Deut.  xxxiv. 
10,  belongs  to  the  author  of  the  supplement,  and  not  to  Moses. 
The  proof,  therefore,  is  changed  into  the  very  opposite.  It  is 
inconceivable,  that  in  the  case  of  a  later  author,  there  should  not 
have  been  more  strikino;  indications  of  the  mfluence  of  the  reve- 
rential  love  of  the  nation  to  its  lawgiver.  We  may  see  from  the 
supplement,  what  the  entire  work  would  have  been  under  such 
cu'cumstances  as  these." — But  just  because,  on  the  one  hand,  tlie 


OCCURRENCES  AT  CHAZEROTH.  273 

passage  in  the  supplement  (Dent,  xxxiv.  10  sqq.)  was  evidently 
and  indisputably  not  written  by  Moses,  and,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  passage  before  us  (Num.  xii.  3  sqq.)  is  perfectly  analogous 
in  the  style  of  its  praise,  we  are  warranted  in  conjecturing  that 
it  was  also  the  production  of  some  other  pen.  The  rarity  of 
such  laudatory  passages  cannot  be  adduced,  as  Hengstenherg 
supposes,  as  a  proof  that  the  Pentateuch  was  not  partially  written 
by  another  hand.  This  absence  of  praise,  which  is  certainly 
characteristic,  is  to  be  accounted  for  on  totally  different  grounds, 
which  no  one  has  explained  so  thoroughly  and  satisfactorily 
as  Hengstenherg  himself.  This  is  in  fact,  throughout,  the  dis- 
tinctive feature  of  sacred  history,  especially  of  that  of  the  Old 
Testament,  that  it  never  goes  out  of  its  w^ay  to  praise,  extol,  or 
glorify  the  most  celebrated  of  the  fathers,  the  greatest  benefac- 
tors, or  the  most  splendid  heroes.  It  has  continually  but  one 
object  in  view,  namely,  to  praise  God,  in  the  record  of  the  sins 
and  transgressions,  as  well  as  in  that  of  the  more  renowned  per- 
formances, of  the  men  of  God.  But  when  we  meet  with  direct 
commendation,  as  in  the  passage  before  us,  and  Dent,  xxxiv.  10 
sqq.,  it  is  simply  an  exception  from  the  rule ;  the  writer  having 
been  so  completely  overpowered  by  the  impression  made  upon 
him  by  the  grandem'  and  rarity  of  the  events  recorded,  that  he 
was  unable  to  suppress  his  admiration.  This  was  the  case  here 
(Num.  xii.),  where  the  meekness  of  Moses  was  more  strikingly 
displayed  than  on  any  other  occasion ;  and  also  in  Deut.  xxxiv., 
where  the  historian  was  taking  one  more  look  at  the  entire  and 
now  finished  course  of  this  wonderful  man.  In  our  opinion, 
both  expressions  (the  one  in  Num.  xii.,  as  well  as  that  in  Deut. 
xxxiv.)  would  come  well  from  the  mouth  of  a  contemporary  of 
Moses,  who  survived  the  great  man  of  God,  and  still  retained 
the  impression  made  upon  him  by  actions  which  he  himself 
had  witnessed. — That  the  authorship  of  every  portion  of  the 
Pentateuch  must  be  assigned  either  to  Moses  himself,  or  to 
(younger)  contemporaries,  has  been  already  maintained  {iml.  vol. 
i.  §  20,  1). 

The  examples  cited  by  Hengstenherg,  of  analogies  to  this  sup- 
posed self-praise,  appear  to  us  to  bear  no  resemblance.  The  pas- 
sages from  the  book  of  Daniel,  which  are  adduced  in  a  similar  man- 
ner as  proofs  that  it  was  not  the  work  of  Daniel  himself  {e.g.  ch.  i. 
19,  20,  V.  11, 12,  ix.  23,  x.  11),  we  could  very  well  conceive  to  have 
,      VOL.  III.  s 


274  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PARAX, 

been  written  by  Daniel  himself ;  just  as  we  believe  tbat  Num.  xii, 
6-8  (considered  as  the  objective  testimony  of  Jeliovah  with  regard 
to  him)  might  very  well  have  proceeded  from  the  pen  of  Moses. — 
The  words  of  Christ,  "  I  am  meek  and  lowly  in  heart,"  which  are 
cited  as  analogous,  are  not  to  the  point,  as  every  one  must  admit. 
Christ  could  say,  "Wliich  of  you  convinceth  Me  of  sin?"  with- 
out the  slightest  symptom  of  vanity  or  pride,  of  excitement  or 
passion,  being  apparent  in  His  heart.  But  Moses  was  a  sinful 
son  of  man,  like  every  other ;  and  his  patience  and  meekness, 
which  were  certainly  wonderful,  were  not  entirely  and  under 
all  circumstances  free  from  the  rust  of  sinful  impatience,  excite- 
ment, and  passion.  I  will  not  refer  to  the  incident  narrated  in 
Ex.  ii.  11  sqq. ;  but  a  few  days  before,  he  had  manifested  some- 
thing like  impatience  or  discontent  (§26,  2),  and  on  a  subse- 
quent occasion  his  dissatisfaction  broke  out  into  evident  passion 
(Num.  XX.  11-13,  and  Ps.  c\-i.  32,  cf.  §  44,  4).  Notwithstand- 
ing all  this,  it  is  still  true,  that  the  man  ]\Ioses  was  meek  above 
all  the  men  that  were  upon  the  face  of  the  earth ;  but  what  I 
mean  is,  that  he  would  hardly  have  thought  or  said  this  of  him- 
self, since  he  could  not  blind  his  eyes  to  the  fact,  that  even  his 
meekness  was  imperfect.  I  should  have  thought  it  a  very  proper 
thing,  if  he  had  met  the  presumptuous  conduct  of  Miriam  and 
Aaron,  by  asserting  in  the  strongest  terms  that  he  had  accom- 
plished infinitely  more  than  they,  through  the  mercy  and  call  of 
God ;  for  that  would  have  been  something  purely  objective : 
just  as  I  regard  it  as  a  veiy  natural  thing,  that  Paul  should  have 
declared,  in  rej)ly  to  those  who  impeached  his  apostolic  call,  "  I 
have  laboui'ed  more  than  all  the  other  apostles."  But  to  exalt 
his  own  meekness,  as  unparalleled  in  the  history  of  the  world, 
would  be  a  totally  different  matter,  and  would  at  least  be  so 
liable  to  misinterpretation  on  his  own  part  and  that  of  his  readers, 
that  some  precaution  would  be  needed  to  prevent  it.  Paul  would 
hardly  have  said  of  himself,  even  when  provoked  to  do  so  by 
unjust  accusations,  that  he  exceeded  all  other  Christian  men  on 
the  face  of  the  earth  in  the  holiness  of  his  heart.  But  in  the 
case  before  us  there  was  nothing  at  all  to  provoke  Moses  to 
appeal  to  his  meekness ;  for  it  was  not  his  meekness  that  Miriam 
had  disputed,  but  his  claim  to  superiority  over  them  on  the 
ground  of  his  prophetic  call. 

(2.)  That  ]\IiRiAM  is  to  be  regarded  as  the  leader  in  the 


OCCURRENCES  AT  CHAZEROTH.  275 

opposition,  is  evident  from  the  fact,  that  her  name  stands  first 
(before  that  of  Aaron)  in  ver.  1,  as  well  as  from  the  feminine 
form  of  the  common  predicate  '^^']^).  (and  she  said)  ;  and  it  is  still 
further  confirmed  by  the  subsequent  punishment.  Miriam  and 
Aaron  do  not  appear  here  exclusively,  or  even  primarily,  as  the 
brother  and  sister  of  Moses,  but  as  his  assistants  in  the  guidance 
of  Israel.  Aaron,  at  the  very  outset,  was  called  the  "  mouth" 
and  "prophet"  of  Moses,  who  was  to  be  Aaron's  "god"  in 
return  (vol.  ii.  §  20,  8).  Miriani!s  part  in  the  duty  assigned  to 
Moses  is  not  so  clearly  stated.  That  she  had  some  share  is  evi- 
dent from  Ex.  xv.  20,  where  she  stands  at  the  head  of  the 
women,  and  is  expressly  described  as  a  proijlietess.  In  JSIicah  vi. 
4,  also,  Moses,  Aaron,  and  ISIiriam  are  classed  together  as  the 
leaders  of  Israel  through  the  desert. 

(3.)  The  occasion,  or  rather  the  excuse  for  the  opposition, 
offered  by  the  brother  and  sister,  to  their  brother  who  was  placed 
above  them,  was  furnished  by  his  marriage  with  a  Cushite  looman. 
As  we  have  no  account  of  any  such  marriage,  the  most  probable 
conjecture  is,  that  Zipporah,  the  ]\iidianite,  is  referred  to  (vol.  ii. 
§  19,  7).  Cusli,  when  used  as  a  geographical  name,  was  a  very 
comprehensive  term.  According  to  Gen.  x.,  it  embraced  the 
countries  of  the  southern  zone ;  that  is,  all  the  lands  to  the  south, 
which  fell  within  the  horizon  of  the  Israelites,  and  which  were 
bounded  towards  the  east  by  the  Euphrates  and  the  Persian 
Gulf,  and  towards  the  west  by  the  Nile  and  the  almost  unex- 
plored deserts  to  the  west  of  the  Nile.  The  land  of  Gush  had 
no  boundary  towards  the  south  (JBertheau,  Paradis,  p.  17). 
These  being  the  limits  witliin  which  the  use  of  the  name  was 
confined,  ^liriam  and  Aaron  might  have  intentionally  confounded 
together  the  genealogical  and  geographical  application  of  the 
Avord,  and  so  have  called  their  sister-in-law  a  Cushite  or  Haniite, 
for  the  purpose  of  giving  the  strongest  possible  expression  to 
their  contempt.  But  this  view  is  at  variance  with  the  fact,  that 
it  is  expressly  stated  in  the  Biblical  account  that  "  he  had  taken 
a  Cushite  woman."  This  statement  compels  us  to  understand 
the  name  Cushite  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word.  In  this  case, 
two  tilings  are  conceivable, — either  that  Moses  had  married  the 
Cushite  woman  previous  to  his  flight  from  Egypt  (this  appears 
to  be  the  idea  embodied  in  the  legend  of  his  marrian;e  with  an 
Ethiopian  princess :  cf.  vol.  ii.  §  19,  4),  or,  that  he  had  marrie 


276  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PARAN. 

her  but  a  short  time  before,  namely,  during  the  sojourn  in  the  wil- 
derness. As  the  contemptuous  speech  of  Miriam  and  Aaron 
seem  more  in  accordance  with  the  latter  view,  we  are  inclined  to 
give  it  the  preference.  We  are  consequently  disposed  to  proceed, 
with  the  majority  of  commentators,  to  the  further  assumption, 
that  Zipporah  had  died  in  the  meantime, — for,  though  the  Mosaic 
law  tolerated  polygamy,  it  by  no  means  favoured  it.  Among 
the  mixed  population  collected  together  from  foreign  nations, 
which  accompanied  the  Israelites  on  their  departure  from  Egypt, 
there  might  possibly  have  been  some  Cushites;  or,  if  this  hypo- 
thesis be  thought  objectionable,  there  is  still  another  left  open, 
viz.,  that  there  was  a  Cushite  tribe  leading  a  nomad  life  in  the 
desert,  with  which  Moses  came  into  contact. 

Many  interpreters  give  to  this  marriage  with  a  Cushite 
woman  a  symbolical  or  typical  signification.  Baumgarien,  for 
example,  says  (i.  2,  p.  303)  :  "  Since  the  marriage  of  Joseph  with 
the  Egyptian  woman,  and  the  first  marriage  of  Moses  with  the 
Midianitish  woman,  were  not  without  a  meaning,  so  far  as  the 
relation  of  Israel  to  the  Gentiles  was  concerned ;  there  is  the 
more  reason  to  believe  that  the  second  marriage  of  Moses  vnX\\  a 
foreign  w'oman,  especially  one  contracted  by  him  as  lawgiver, 
and  under  the  law,  must  have  had  some  important  design.  By 
his  marriage  with  the  Hamite,  Moses  set  forth  the  fellowship 
between  Israel  and  the  Gentiles,  so  far  as  it  could  possibly  take 
place  mider  the  law,  and  thus  actually  exemplified  in  his  own 
person  that  equality  of  foreigners  with  Israel,  which  the  law  so 
constantly  demands.  But  this  was  a  liberty  of  the  spirit  which 
Miriam  and  Aaron  could  not  comprehend,  not  to  mention  the 
inability  of  the  people  to  understand  it."  0.  v.  Gerlach  also 
regards  the  marriage  as  typical.  He  says :  "  Moses  had  probably 
taken  a  wife  from  a  Cushite  tribe,  for  the  purpose  of  setting 
forth,  by  this  example,  the  union  of  Israel  with  the  most  distant 
heathen  at  some  futu.re  day."  The  latter  view,  if  it  be  held  at 
all,  must  at  least  be  differently  expressed ;  for,  in  its  present 
shape,  it  is  liable  to  the  charge  of  arbitraiy  and  unhistorical 
spiritualizing. 

At  any  rate,  we  see  in  the  reproaches  of  the  brother  and 
sister,  a  striking  example  of  that  carnal  exaggeration  of  the  worth 
of  the  Israelitish  nationality,  by  which  the  people  have  so  univer- 
sally been  characterised,  and  which  is  the  more  reprehensible,  on 


OCCURRENCES  AT  CHAZEROTH.  277 

account  of  its  resting  simply  upon  a  natural  basis,  and  not  upon 
tlie  spiritual  call  of  Israel.  JSIiriam  and  Aaron  fancied  that  their 
family  was  disgraced  by  the  marriage ;  and  the  circumstance 
also  furnished  an  opportunity  for  the  display  of  the  envy  and 
discontent  at  their  subordinate  position,  which  had  probably  for 
a  very  long  time  been  secretly  cherished  within  their  hearts. 
Jealous  as  they  were  for  the  honour  of  their  family,  and  attach- 
ing so  much  importance  as  they  did  to  its  purity  of  blood,  they 
imagined  that,  now  that  their  brother,  of  whom  they  were  already 
envious,  had  so  thoroughly  forgotten  himself,  they  had  a  perfect 
right  to  refuse  any  longer  to  be  subordinate  to  him. 

(4.)  In  explanation  of  the  proofs  which  are  given  by  God 
Himself,  of  the  superiority  and  unique  character  of  the  prophetic 
gift  possessed  hy  Moses  (ver.  6-8  compared  with  Deut.  xxxiv. 
10,  11),  we  have  but  little  to  add  to  what  has  already  been  stated 
in  §  15,  1.  The  words  of  Jehovah  are  as  follows  :  "  If  there  is 
a  prophet  among  you,  I  make  ISIyself  kno\Aai  to  lum  in  vision 
(nx-i?33)  ;  I  speak  to  him  in  a  dream.  Not  so  ISIy  servant  ]\Ioses  : 
he  is  entrusted  with  ]SIy  whole  house ;  with  him  1  speak  mouth 
to  mouth ;  I  cause  him  to  see,  and  that  not  in  pictures  (niT'nii,  lit. 
in  riddles ;  it  is  very  well  paraphrased  by  Luther,  "  through  dark 
words  or  parables")  ;  he  sees  the  form  of  Jehovah  i^'^p''.  DJlon). 
Why  then  are  ye  not  afraid  to  speak  against  j\Iy  servant  Moses  ?" 
Thus  Jehovah  makes  a  difference  between  the  prophetic  charac- 
ter of  Moses,  and  that  of  all  the  rest  of  the  Israelitish  prophets. 
With  the  latter,  the  reception  of  Divine  revelations  was  something 
extraordinary.  Before  they  were  in  a  condition  to  receive  them, 
it  was  necessary  that  they  should  pass  out  of  the  sphere  of  the 
senses,  and  that  of  intelligent  consciousness,  into  a  state  of  super- 
sensual  perception.  It  was  only  in  dreams  and  (ecstatic)  visions 
that  a  revelation  was  made  to  them ;  and  for  that  very  reason, 
whatever  was  revealed — being  in  the  form  of  imagery,  symbols, 
and  parables,  and  not  brought  within  the  range  of  ordinary  per- 
ception and  thought — needed  to  be  translated  into  different  lan- 
guage before  it  could  be  submitted  to  the  senses  and  the  under- 
standing. It  was  different  with  !Moses.  He  was  in  constant 
communication  with  Jehovah  ;  he  saw  the  Temunah  of  Jehovah 
(§  15,  1)  ;  Jehovah  spoke  to  him  mouth  to  movith  ("  as  a  man  to 
his  friend,"  P^x.  xxxiii.  11);  he  received  the  Divine  revelations 
in  clear,  intelligent  consciousness ;  and  they  were  made,  not  in 


278  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PARAN. 

the  imagery  of  dreams  or  visions, — not  in  parables,  symbols,  and 
riddles, — but  in  direct,  clear,  and  intelligible  words. 

However  great,  therefore,  the  difference  may  have  been, 
between  IMoses  and  the  other  prophets  of  his  nation ;  it  was  not 
an  essential  difference,  but  simply  one  of  degree.  For  even 
Moses  did  not  see  the  unveiled  glory  of  Jehovah  :  he  did  not 
look  upon  His  face  as  it  is  in  itself ;  he  merely  saw  nin]'  n3l?ori 
and  not  U^t3"?3  (§  15, 1).  The  revelation  in  the  Temunah  was 
indeed  a  far  higher  manifestation  of  God,  than  the  revelation  in 
dreams  and  visions,  through  obscure  words  and  parables ;  but 
even  the  former  was  very  far  from  being  the  absolute  glory  of 
God, — was  merely  a  personal  representation  of  the  absolute  glory. 
Hence  even  this  was  not  the  thing  itself,  but  merely  a  resem- 
blance. The  Temunah  bore  the  same  relation  to  the  actual  and 
absolute  form  of  God,  as  the  riiT'H  to  clear  and  intelligible  words. 

The  further  distinction  between  Moses  and  all  the  other  pro- 
phets of  his  nation  was,  that  he  was  entrusted  with  Jehovah's 
whole  house ;  i.e.,  he  was  the  sole  head  of  the  Israelitish  com- 
monwealth, and  therefore  the  visible  representative,  mediator, 
and  interpreter  of  the  invisible  God-King;  and  all  others, 
whatever  the  part  they  performed,  and  whatever  the  powers  with 
which  they  Avere  endowed  by  God,  were  subordinate  to  him. 
This  is  the  essential  point  in  the  Divine  declaration,  for  it  was 
this  which  had  been  disputed  by  Miriam  and  Aaron ;  and  all 
that  is  said  respecting  the  superiority  of  Moses  as  a  prophet,  merely 
served  to  establish  this  conclusion. 

The  passage  before  us  is  usually  understood  as  contrasting 
Moses,  not  only  with  contemporaneous  prophets,  but  with  those 
of  future  ages  as  well,  at  least  under  the  Old  Testament.  This 
view,  however,  is  not  absolutely  correct.  The  occasion,  and  the 
form  of  the  expression,  simply  warrant  us  in  thinking  of  con- 
temporaneous prophets.  They  do  not  expressly  affirm  that  it 
could  never  by  any  possibility  happen,  that  prophets  should  arise 
in  the  subsequent  stages  of  the  covenant-history,  equal,  or  per- 
haps even  superior,  to  Moses  in  the  points  alluded  to.  When 
the  editor  of  the  Pentateuch  states,  in  chap,  xxxiv.  10,  that 
"  there  arose  not  a  prophet  since  in  Israel  like  unto  Moses," 
etc.,  his  words  apply  simply  to  the  period  which  had  already 
elapsed,  and  not  at  all  to  the  future.  So  far  as  it  had  alreadj* 
been  made  apparent,   or  so  far  at  least  as  subsequent  events 


THE  SPIES  SENT  INTO  THE  PROMISED  LiVND.  279 

proved,  that  the  one  thing  which  distinguished  ISIoses  above 
all  his  contemporaries  (namely,  that  he  was  entrusted  with 
the  whole  house  of  Jehovah),  was  never  to  be  met  with  in  any 
single  individual  again,  throughout  the  whole  course  of  the 
covenant-histoiy  imtil  its  completion  and  close ;  but  that  in  all  its 
subsequent  stages,  the  government  of  the  theocracy  was  to  be 
chstributed  among  several  co-ordinate  offices  and  classes  (judges, 
kings,  prophets,  and  priests)  : — so  far,  we  say,  as  this  had  already 
been  made  apparent,  it  was  perfectly  justifiable  to  extend  the 
declaration  to  the  future  also.  But  even  if  the  ancient  Israelite 
was  well  assured,  that  previous  to  the  fulfilment  of  all  prophecy 
no  second  Moses  would  arise,  who  would  be  one  and  all  in 
the  house  of  Jehovah  ;  it  was  nowhere  stated  that  the  particular 
functions,  which  were  combined  in  Moses,  but  which  were  after- 
wards separated,  would  never  be  manifested  again  in  so  exalted 
a  form,  or  even  in  one  more  exalted  still.  If  Divine  revelation, 
instead  of  remaining  stationary,  was  to  continue  to  progress  after 
the  time  of  Moses,  the  latter  was  absolutely  necessary.  A  David 
was  superior  to  Moses,  as  the  political  head  of  Israel,  and  an 
Isaiah,  as  the  herald  of  the  word  of  God  to  Israel ;  but  both 
David  and  Isaiah  were  inferior  to  Moses,  inasmuch  as  neither 
of  them  either  did  or  could  combine  the  two. 

We  cannot  infer  from  this  passage,  therefore,  that  what  is 
stated  here  of  contemporaneous  prophets  is  equally  applicable  to 
aU  the  prophets  of  subsequent  ages.  At  this  particular  time 
Moses  was  the  only  prophet  who  saw  Jehovah  in  His  nj^OPij  the 
only  one  to  whom  Jehovah  did  not  reveal  Himself  riiT'nn ;  but 
after  his  death  there  may  have  been  others  upon  whom  the  same 
gift  was  conferred. 

(5.)  As  the  laws  relating  to  the  piu'ification  of  lepers  (Lev. 
xiv.)  had  already  been  promulgated,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
Miriam  submitted  to  the  rites  of  pm'ification  which  are  there 
prescribed.  This  will  explain  the  seven  days,  during  which  she 
was  to  be  excluded  from  associating  with  her  people  (yid.  Lev. 
xiv.  9,  10).  y 

THE  SPIES  SENT  INTO  THE   PROMISED  LAND. 

§  35.  (Num.  xiii.  ;  Deut.  i.  I9725.)— From  Chazeroth  the 
people   proceeded   to  Ritmah   (in  the  Wady  Beterndth,  which 


280  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PARAN. 

leads  into  tlie  plain  of  Kadesli;  vid.  §  26),  and  encamped 
tliere.  They  were  now  at  the  very  gates  of  the  promised 
land.  Another  step  taken  in  faith,  and  the  end  of  all  their 
wanderings  would  be  attained.  Moses  called  upon  the  people 
to  take  the  final  step  (Deut.  i.  20).  They  did  not  positively 
refuse ;  but  they  desired  that  spies  should  first  of  all  be  sent, 
to  obtain  more  definite  information  respecting  the  land  and  its 
inhabitants.  Moses  had  no  objection  to  offer  to  this  (Deut. 
i.  23) ;  and  by  the  command  of  Jehovah  (Num.  xiii.  2  sqq.),  he 
chose  twelve  distinguished  men,  one  from  each  tribe,  to  cany 
out  this  measure  of  prudence  (1).  The  spies  went  through  the 
whole  land,  and  returned,  after  forty  days,  to  the  camp  at 
Kadesh.  From  a  valley  named  Eshcol,  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
Hebron,  they  brought  a  bunch  of  grapes,  and  some  specimens 
of  pomegranates  and  figs,  to  shoAV  the  fertility  of  the  country. 
In  the  account  which  they  brought  back,  they  spoke  highly  of 
the  fruitfulness  of  the  land  they  had  explored,  and  described  it 
as  a  land  flowing  with  milk  and  honey ;  but  they  laid  far  greater 
stress  upon  the  strong  fortifications,  the  warlike  inhabitants,  the 
gigantic  chikken  of  Anak,  by  the  side  of  whom  they  felt  like 
grassho])pers.  Moreover,  it  was  a  land  which  ate  up  its  inhabit- 
ants. Thus  they  brought  back  an  evil  report  of  the  land  which 
they  had  explored,  and  declared,  "  We  cannot  go  up  against  the 
people  of  the  land,  for  they  are  stronger  than  we"  (2).  Two  only 
of  the  spies — namely,  Joshua,  the  son  of  Nun,  of  the  tribe  of  Eph- 
raim,  and  Caleb,  the  Kenizzite,  of  the  tribe  of  Judah  (3) — were  of  a 
chfferent  opinion.  They  did  all  they  could  to  keep  up  the  corn-age  of 
the  people,  and  advised  that  they  should  proceed  at  once  to  take 
possession  of  the  land,  trusting  in  the  promises  of  Jehovah,  which 
were  stronger  than  the  children  of  Anak,  with  all  their  fortresses. 

(1.)  Even  V.  Lengerhe  admits  that  there  is  no  discrepancy 
between  the  account  in  Numbers,  where  the  sending  of  the  spies 
is  attributed  to  a  command  of  God,  and  that  in  Deuteronomy, 
in  which  it  is  said  to  have  originated  in  the  wish  of  the  people. — 
We  cannot  trace  this  desire  immediately  and  without  reserve,  as 


THE  SPIES  SENT  INTO  THE  TOOMISED  LAND.  281 

is  too  frequently  clone,  to  unbelief,  or  weakness  of  faith  in  the 
promises  of  God,  with  regard  to  the  possession  of  the  land,  and 
in  His  assui'ance  of  its  excellence.  We  have  here  a  perfectly 
analogous  case  to  the  request  of  Moses  to  Hobab  (§  32,  2).  As 
in  that  case,  notwithstanding  the  guidance  of  God  afforded 
through  the  pillar  of  cloud  and  fire,  important  service  could  be 
rendered  by  a  man  acquainted  with  the  different  localities  in  the 
desert,  and  the  wish  to  seciu'e  that  assistance  was  not  weakness 
of  faith,  much  less  unbelief ; — so  here,  a  survey  of  the  land  to  be 
conquered  would  afford  advantages,  from  the  worth  of  which  the 
Divine  promise  did  not  detract,  and  of  which,  in  fact,  it  was  their 
duty  to  avail  themselves ;  inasmuch  as  the  help  of  God  demands, 
rather  than  excludes,  the  thoughtful,  circumspect,  and  zealous 
employment  of  all  human  resoiu'ces  and  powers.  In  itself,  there- 
fore, the  sending  of  the  spies  might  have  been  a  proof  of  strong, 
quite  as  well  as  of  weak,  faith ;  but  the  issue  undoubtedly  laid 
bare  the  feelings  which  generally  prevailed.  Since  the  wish  of 
the  peoj^le,  therefore,  was  certainly  justifiable  in  itself,  it  "  pleased" 
Moses  (Deut.  i.  23) ;  and  Jehovah  also  adopted  it  into  his  own 
plans,  for  which  reason  it  is  represented  in  Numbers  as  the  com- 
mand of  Jehovah.  But  the  pleasure  which  Moses  took  in  the 
request  was  human  and  short-sighted ;  and  tlierefore  his  expec- 
tations were  disappointed.  On  the  other  hand,  Jehovah,  the 
Searcher  of  hearts,  detected  the  hidden  motive,  of  which  the 
people  themselves  were  possibly  still  unconscious,  and  approved 
of  their  desire,  as  calculated  to  bring  to  light  this  hidden  motive, 
that  it  might  be  overcome  or  judged.  If  we  consider  of  what 
importance  it  was,  that  the  people  should  not  proceed  to  take 
possession  of  the  land,  in  such  a  state  of  mind  as  was  brought 
out  in  a  most  fearful  degree  by  the  report  of  the  spies ;  that 
such  a  work,  to  be  successful,  must  be  one  of  cheerful  faith ; 
and  that  the  disgrace  of  failure  would  fall  upon  Jehovah  and  His 
covenant  in  the  eyes  of  the  heathen :  we  shall  understand  at 
once  how  it  is  that  the  act  of  Jehovah  is  described  in  Num^.  2  -kin 
seq.,  not  as  an  indifferent  consent  to  the  wishes  of  the  people,  but 
as  a  command,  in  the  strictest  sense  of  the  word. 

The  reason  why  the  tribe  of  Levi  did  not  send  a  spy,  was, 
evidently,  that  the  duties  and  prospects  of  this  tribe  were  totally 
different  from  those  of  all  the  rest.  Levi  was  not  to  receive  a 
share  of  the  promised  land  in  the  same  manner  as  the  other 


282  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PARAN. 

tribes,  and  therefore  had  not  to  take  part  in  the  conquest.  The 
inheritance  of  Levi  was  Jehovah  (Num.  xviii.  20 ;  Deut.  x.  9, 
xii.  12,  xiv.  27,  29),  and  the  sanctuary  of  Jehovah  was  the  sphere 
of  his  labours.  We  may  see,  from  the  incident  narrated  here, 
that  the  reorganisation  of  the  tribes  had  ah*eady  been  fully 
effected,  so  as  to  restore  the  significant  number  twelve,  which 
the  separation  of  the  tribe  of  Levi  had  interfered  mth,  but 
which  was  restored  through  the  division  of  the  tribe  of  Joseph 
into  two  separate  tribes,  Ephraim  and  Manasseh  (yid.  Gen.  xlviii.). 

(2.)  Robinson  (i.  316)  passed  through  the  valley  which  is 
commonly,  and  with  very  good  reason,  regarded  as  the  Eshcol 
of  the  Old  Testament,  on  his  road  from  Hebron  to  Jerusalem. 
"  The  road  passes  between  the  walls  of  vineyards  and  olive-yards, 
the  former  chiefly  in  the  valley,  and  the  latter  on  the  slopes  of 
the  hills,  which  are  in  many  parts  built  up  in  terraces.  These 
vineyards  are  very  fine,  and  produce  the  largest  and  best  gra2Jes 
in  all  the  country.  The  character  of  the  fruit  still  corresponds 
to  its  ancient  celebrity ;  and  pomegranates  and  figs,  as  well  as 
apricots,  quinces,  and  the  like,  still  grow  there  in  abundance." 

The  situation  of  the  valley  of  Eshcol  is  not  minutely  de- 
scribed in  the  passage  before  us,  but  the  context  evidently 
points  to  the  neighbom-hood  of  Hebron  ;  and  in  Gen.  xiv.  24 
we  read,  that  when  Abraham  started  from  Hebron  in  pursuit 
of  the  four  kings,  he  was  accompanied  by  his  friends  Aner, 
Eshcol,  and  Mamre.  Now,  Mamre  gave  the  name  to  the  Tere- 
binth-grove at  Hebron  (Gen.  xiii.  18),  and  it  is  not  improbable 
that  the  name  of  the  valley  is  to  be  traced  in  the  same  way  to 
Eshcol. 

The  BUNCH  or  grapes,  which  the  spies  brought  as  a  specimen 
of  the  fruit,  was  carried  by  two  of  them  upon  a  pole.  This  is 
generally  supposed  to  have  been  in  consequence  of  the  enormous 
size  of  the  bunch,  which  was  too  large  and  heavy  for  one  to 
cany ;  and  this  idea  has  given  rise  to  most  absurd  exaggerations. 
The  peculiar  mode  of  transport  was  evidently  adopted,  not 
because  the  brmcli  of  grapes  was  more  than  one  man  could 
carry  on  account  of  its  size  and  weight,  but  from  a  wish  to 
bring  it  to  the  camp  without  receiving  any  injury  from  pressure. 

When  the  spies  reported  that  the  land  was  flowing  with  milk 
and  honey,  this  was  evidently  an  Oriental  and  poetical  form  of 
expression,  meaning  nothing  more  than  that  the  fertility  of  the 


THE  SPIES  SENT  INTO  THE  PROMISED  L.VND.  283 

land  was  such,  as  to  present  a  most  promising  field  for  agricul- 
ture, and  the  rearing  of  cattle. 

The  "warlike  nations  by  whom  the  spies  reported  that  the 
Israelites  would  be  opposed  in  their  efforts  to  conquer  the  country, 
were  the  Amalekites,  who  dwelt  towards  the  south, — that  is,  on  the 
southern  slope  of  the  highlands  of  Judea ;  the  Ilittites,  Jehusites, 
and  Amorites,  who  lived  on  the  mountains  of  Judah  themselves ; 
the  Canaanites  (a  collective  name),  who  dwelt  in  the  low  country 
by  the  sea,  and  in  the  plain  of  the  Jordan ;  and  also  the  Anakim, 
the  last  remains  of  the  aboriginal  inhabitants  of  the  land  (vid. 
vol.  i.  §  45,  1).  The  imbelieving  spies  were  especially  terrified 
by  the  aspect  of  the  last  named,  on  account  of  their  gigantic 
stature. 

It  is  not  easy  to  determine  exactly  what  the  spies  meant  by 
saying,  "  The  land  eatetli  up  the  inhabitants  thereof."  0.  v. 
Gerlach  paraphrases  it  in  this  way :  "  All  the  inhabitants  of  the 
land  are  obliged  to  go  constantly  armed,  on  account  of  their 
being  exposed  to  incessant  attacks  from  their  neighbours,  whom 
they  are,  nevertheless,  unable  to  resist."  Baumgarten  explains 
it  in  a  similar  manner :  "  Allusion,"  he  says,  "  is  probably  made 
to  the  self-exhaustive  conflicts  of  the  different  tribes  by  whom 
the  land  was  inhabited,  viz.,  the  aborigines,  the  Canaanites,  and 
the  Philistines  ;  but  it  is  also  possible  that  they  had  in  view  the 
destruction  of  the  beautiful  valley  of  Siddim  (Gen.  xix.)."  The 
latter  event,  however,  which  took  place  more  than  600  years 
before,  can  hardly  have  been  intended ;  and  the  former  does  not 
suit  the  words.  We  should  be  more  inclined  to  think  of  some 
general  plague,  which  had  pressed  heavily  upon  the  countiy  a 
short  time  before,  and  was  still  fresh  in  the  memory  of  the  people. 

(3.)  The  fact  that  Ilosea  (V^!^^\  who  now,  for  the  first  time, 
received  from  Moses  the  name  Joshua  (V^'i"^^.)  (according  to 
ver.  16  (17)  ),  is  called  by  the  latter  name  in  Ex.  xvii.  9, 
xxiv.  13,  and  Num.  xi.  28,  has  presented  gi'eat  difficulties  to 
the  critics.  Hengstenherg  (Pentateuch,  vol.  ii.,  p.  323  sqq. 
transl.)  mentions  three  ways  in  which  the  difficulty  may  be 
solved :  (1)  By  supposing  n  jyrolepsis,  of  which  we  hav^e  so  many 
examples  in  the  Pentateuch;  (2)  by  assuming  that  Moses 
merely  renewed  the  name  Joshua  on  this  occasion,  on  which 
he  was  once  more  to  attest  his  fidelity ;  and  (3)  by  the  hypothesis, 
that  we  have  something  narrated  here  which  occurred  a  long 


284  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PARAN. 

time  before,  either  when  Hosea  first  entered  the  service  of 
Moses,  or  before  the  engagement  with  the  Amalekites  (Ex. 
xvii.).  Ilengstenberg  himself  decides  in  favour  of  the  thu'd,  and 
Ranke  (ii.  202)  agrees  with  him.  In  our  opinion,  the  first  is 
correct.  For  even  if,  according  to  the  rviles  of  gi'ammar,  the 
Vav  consec.  in  mp'')  (ver.  17),  may  be  referred  to  the  order  of 
thought  (instead  of  the  order  of  time),  it  is  more  natural, 
lookino;  to  both  the  Grammatical  construction  and  the  circum- 
stances  of  the  case,  to  refer  it  to  the  order  of  time.  In 
Hengstenherg' s  opinion,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  an  objection  to 
our  explanation,  that  there  was  nothing  in  the  occasion  before  us, 
to  lead  even  to  a  renewal  of  the  sacred  name  of  Joshua,  much 
less,  then,  to  lead  to  its  being  given  him  for  the  first  time.  And 
it  can  hardly  be  thought  probable,  he  says,  that  Moses  should 
have  waited  (?)  till  now,  before  changing  the  name  ;  when  the 
victory  gained  by  Joshua  over  the  Amalekites  had  already 
furnished  so  good  an  opportunity.  .  .  .  That  Moses  should 
have  "  waited "  so  long,  would  certainly  have  been  strange 
enough.  But  he  did  not  wait ;  for  it  was  only  now  that  he  first 
thought  of  giving  Joshua  another  name.  The  appointment  of 
the  spies,  of  whom  Joshua  undoubtedly  stood  at  the  head  {vid. 
Ex.  xvii.  9,  xxiv.  13),  both  as  being  the  most  distinguished  of 
the  whole,  and  also  as  the  servant  of  Moses  (his  alter  ego), 
fm'nished  just  the  occasion  required.  The  alteration  in  Joshua's 
name  was  a  God  speed!  which  he  gave  to  the  spies  on  their 
departure.  There  was  something  apparently  significant  in  the 
fact  that  they  had  a  Hosea  among  them :  Moses  not  only 
brought  this  to  mind,  but  strengthened  it,  by  connecting  the 
name  of  Jehovah,  which  brings  salvation,  with  that  of  Hosea, 
which  promised  salvation,  whilst  his  previous  life  was  a  pledge 
that  "  Jehovah  is  salvation." 

Caleb,  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  is  called  the  Kenizzite  (''^^ipn) 
both  here  and  in  Josh.  xiv.  6,  14.  Bertheau  {zur  Gesch.  p.  16,  and 
Comm.  on  Judges,  i.  13),  Ewald  (i.  298),  and  v.  Lengerke  (i.  ,204), 
are  of  opinion  that  we  have  here  one  of  the  Kenizzites,  who  are 
spoken  of  in  Gen.  xv.  19  as  belonging  to  the  original  inhabitants 
of  Palestine.  Ewald  says:  "  Of  these  Kenizzseans  (Qenizzaern), 
one  portion  was  scattered  over  the  southern  districts  of  the  land 
at  the  time  of  the  conquest  of  Canaan  by  Israel,  most  probably 
in  a  few  leading  families.     When,  for  example,  'Othniel,  the 


REBELLION  AJSD  JUDGMENT  AT  ICADESH.  285 

younger  brother  of  Kenaz,  who  was  also  his  daughter's  husband,  is 
called  a  son  of  Kenaz  (Josh.  xv.  17  ;  Judg.  i.  13,  iii.  9),  whilst 
Caleb  himself,  the  son  of  Jephunneh,  bears  the  cognomen  of 
the  Kenizzean,  this  evidently  means  nothing  more  than  that 
Caleb  with  his  retinue  had  entered  into  alliance  with  the  Keniz- 
zeans,  who  were  settled  in  the  southern  part  of  Canaan,  and  was 
recognised  as  a  member  of  the  tribe,  possessing  equal  rights  with 
the  rest.  But  if  these  Kenizzeans  were  subsequently  obliged  to 
enter  into  a  dependent  relation  to  his  descendants,  Kenaz  might 
also  be  called  his  grandson  (1  Chr.  iv.  15).  But  another  part 
dwelt  in  Edom,  and  is  introduced  there  as  one  of  the  grandsons  of 
Esau  through  Eliphaz  (Gen.  xxxvi.  11,  15,  42).  It  must  have 
sacrificed  its  independence,  therefore,  and  entered  into  con- 
nection with  the  kingdom  of  the  Idunieans,  just  as  these  Caleb- 
allies  had  united  with  that  of  the  Israelites." — Sic  !  This  is 
the  way,  then,  in  which  all  traditional  history  is  to  be  tui'ned 
upside  down,  and  history  may  be  constructed  at  pleasure.  In 
reply  to  this,  see  Keil  on  Joshua,  p.  356  transl.  The  name 
Kenizzite  in  Gen.  xv.  19,  is  the  name  of  a  tribe ;  in  the  other 
passages  it  is  a  patronymic  ;  and  the  similarity  in  the  names  is 
simply  an  accident.  The  name  TJjp  was  a  frequently  reciu'ring 
one  in  the  family  of  Caleb  (on  the  frequent  recurrence  of  the 
same  names  among  the  Arabs,  see  Kosegarten  in  the  Zeitschrift 
fur  die  Kunde  des  Morgenlandes  i.  3,  p.  212).  Caleb's  younger 
brother,  the  father  of  Othniel,  was  called  by  this  name,  and  so 
was  also  the  grandson  of  Caleb.  Judging  from  appearance, 
the  name,  which  was  peculiarly  appropriate  in  the  case  of  such 
a  family  of  heroes,  had  been  a  very  common  one  even  before 
this  time.  And  the  name  (from  a  verb  signifying  to  hunt)  was 
equally  suitable  to  the  family  of  Edom,  which  was  well  known 
as  a  race  of  hunters.  It  cannot  surprise  us,  therefore,  that  we 
find  it  amonfj  them. 


REBELLION  OF  THE  PEOPLE  AND  JUDGMENT  OF  GOD  AT 
KADESH. 

§  30.  (Num.  xiv.  1-38 ;  Deut.  i.  26-39.)— The  report  of 
the  spies  threw  the  peo^^le  into  a  state  of  utter  despair.  They 
wept  the  whole  night,  complained,  murmured,  and  were  on  the 


286  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PARAN. 

point  of  breaking  out  into  open  mutiny,  and  choosing  another 
leader  to  conduct  them  back  to  Egypt.  The  cheering  words  of 
Joshua  and  Caleb  only  tended  to  excite  them  still  further. 
The  prospect  of  death  was  all  that  awaited  these  heroic  men, 
along  with  Moses  and  Aaron;  for  the  people  talked  of  stoning 
them  all.  But  at  this  moment  the  glory  of  Jehovah  appeared 
in  the  tabernacle  before  all  the  people.  Jehovah  declared  to 
Moses  that  He  would  smite  the  people  with  pestilence,  and 
destroy  them  as  one  man,  and  make  of  him  a  great  nation. 
But  even  in  this  hour  of  distress,  Moses  did  not  forget  the 
duties  and  privileges  of  his  office.  He  reminded  the  Lord  of 
all  His  promises ;  appealed  to  His  former  manifestations  of 
mercy;  called  to  mind  what  Jehovah  Himself  had  formerly 
declared  concerning  the  name  of  Jehovah  (Ex.  xxxiv.  6,  cf. 
§  15),  that  He  was  long-suffering,  of  great  mercy,  forgiving 
iniquity  and  transgression.  He  spoke  of  the  rejoicing  of  Egypt 
and  heathen  Canaan,  when  it  should  come  to  their  ears ;  and 
prayed  for  mercy  and  forgiveness  for  the  nation.  His  request 
was  granted,  but  only  within  such  limits  as  the  unbelief  of  the 
people,  which  had  thus  come  to  a  head,  imperatively  requhed 
{viid.  §  14,  2).  The  nation,  as  a  nation,  was  to  be  preserved ; 
but  the  individuals  were  all  to  suffer  the  punishment  they 
deserved.  The  time  had  now  arrived  of  which  Jehovah  had 
spoken,  when  He  said  (Ex.  xxxii.  34),  "  At  the  time  of  My 
visitation  I  will  visit  their  sin."  Hence  the  sentence  of  rejec- 
tion on  the  part  of  Jehovah  did  not  reach  the  nation,  did  not 
fall  upon  the  seed  of  Abraham,  with  which  the  covenant  and 
the  promise  still  remained ;  but  it  embraced  all  the  individuals 
who  had  despised  and  rejected  Jehovah  and  His  promises.  The 
sentence  ran  thus  :  "  All  those  men,  of  twenty  years  old  and 
upwards,  who  have  seen  My  glory  and  My  miracles  which  I  did 
in  Egypt  and  in  the  wilderness,  and  who  have  tempted  Me  now 
ten  times  (1),  not  one  of  them  shall  see  the  land,  which  I  sware 
imto  their  fathers:  their  bodies  shall  fall  in  the  desert,  except 
Caleb  and  Joshua,  who  have  followed  Me  faithfully.     After  the 


REBELLION  AND  JUDGMENT  AT  KADESII.  287 

nmnber  of  the  days  in  which  yc  searched  the  land,  shall  ye  bear 
your  iniquities,  even  forty  years.  But  your  children,  which  ye 
said  should  be  a  prey,  shall  enter  in  and  know  the  land  which 
ye  have  despised.  Therefore,  to-morrow  turn  you,  and  get  you 
into  the  desert  by  the  way  of  the  Red  Sea."  And  as  a  proof 
how  earnestly  the  threat  was  meant,  the  ten  spies,  whose 
unbelief  had  been  the  primary  cause  of  the  unbelief  of  the 
people,  were  smitten  with  sudden  death. 

(1.)  Wlien  it  is  stated  in  ver.  22  that  the  people  had  tempted 
Jehovah  "  now  ten  times,"  the  most  natural  supposition  is,  that 
ten  is  merely  a  round  and  symbolical  number,  intended  to  intimate 
that  the  measure  of  iniquity  was  now  full, — ten  being  the  num- 
ber of  completion  and  termination.  We  adhere  to  this  opinion ; 
for  the  various  attempts  that  have  been  made  to  reckon  up 
exactly  ten  temptations  in  the  course  of  their  history,  have  never 
attained  their  object  without  force.  Ranhe  cites  the  follomng 
passages :  1.  Ex.  v.  20,  21  (for  even  then  Jehovah  had  already 
given  signs  :  vid.  Ex.  iv.  29-31)  ;  2.  Ex.  xiv.  11,  12  ;  3.  Ex.  xv. 
22-27  ;  4.  Ex.  xvi.  2,  3 ;  5.  Ex.  xvi.  20 ;  6.  Ex.  x^di.  1-7  ; 
7.  Ex.  xxxii. ;  8.  Num.  xi.  1-4 ;  9.  Num.  xi.  4-35 ;  10.  Num. 
xiv.  But  Ex.  V.  20,  21  can  hardly  be  thought  suitable.  0.  v. 
Gerlachj  therefore,  omits  this  passage.  But  he  substitutes  Ex. 
xvi.  27,  a  passage  which  creates  even  greater  difficulties  than 
the  one  which  he  has  erased. 

(2.)  The  decision,  that  of  those  who  were  ticenty  years  old 
and  upwards  at  the  time  of  the  departure  from  Egypt,  not  one 
should  enter  the  promised  land,  was  evidently  founded  upon  the 
fact,  that  they  had  not  only  been  witnesses  of  all  the  wonders 
of  God  in  Egypt  and  the  desert,  but  were  so  at  a  time  when 
they  had  fully  arrived  at  years  of  discretion,  and  there- 
fore their  unbelief  was  the  less  excusable.  When  the  census 
was  taken  in  the  last  year  of  the  wanderings  in  the  desert,  it  was 
found,  according  to  Nmu.  xxvi.  64,  that  with  the  exception  of 
Caleb  and  Joshua,  every  member  of  this  generation  was  already 
dead.  It  appears  doubtful,  however,  whether  this  was  literally 
the  case,  both  because  Eleazar  and  Ithamar^  the  sons  of  Aaron, 
were  invested  with  the  priesthood  at  the  commencement  of  the 
second  year  after  the  Exodus  (Lev.  x.  6,  7,  vid.  chap,  viii.),  and 


288  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  FARAX. 

yet  Eleazar  retained  the  priesthood,  at  all  events  till  after  the 
conquest  of  the  Holy  Land  (Josh.  xiv.  1,  xvii.  4,  5,  etc.) ;  and 
also  from  Josh.  xxiv.  7,  where  a  great  number  of  eye-witnesses 
of  the  works  of  God  in  Egypt  are  said  to  have  been  still  alive. 
But  this  exception  in  the  case  of  the  sons  of  Aaron,  if  such  an 
exception  was  really  made,  might  possibly  be  explained  on  the 
supposition  that  the  tribe  of  Levi  was  not  included  at  all  in  this 
sentence  of  rejection  (Num.  xiv.).  Since  the  time  when  this 
tribe  was  set  apart  to  the  service  of  the  sanctuary,  it  had  ceased 
to  be  on  an  equality  vnth.  the  rest.  Levi  was  no  longer  07ie  of 
the  twelve  tribes;  and,  as  we  have  seen,  there  was  no  represen- 
tative of  the  house  of  Levi  among  the  twelve  spies.  Levi,  again, 
was  7iot  included  in  the  census  mentioned  in  Num.  i. ;  and  it 
was  precisely  tJiis  census  which  was  to  determine  on  whom  the 
sentence  of  rejection  should  fall ;  for  it  is  stated  expressly  in 
Num.  xiv.  29  :  "  All  of  you,  who  have  been  numbered  accord- 
ing to  your  whole  number,  from  twenty  years  old  and  ujDward." 
Now  we  may  very  well  suppose  that  to  this  exceptional  position, 
which  was  purely  objective,  one  of  a  subjective  character  cor- 
responded. For  we  may  safely  assume,  that  since  the  worship 
of  the  golden  calf,  when  the  tribe  of  Le^d  distinguished  itself 
so  remarkably  by  its  zeal  for  the  glory  of  Jehovah  (§  13,  8), 
this  tribe,  regarded  as  a  whole,  had  always  been  found  on  the 
side  of  Jehovah  and  JSIoses. — At  the  same  time,  we  are  under 
no  necessity  to  rely  upon  the  correctness  of  these  remarks.  The 
thing  admits  of  a  much  more  simple  explanation.  It  is  true 
that  the  period  of  service  prescribed  for  the  Levites  was  from 
thirty  years  old  to  fifty,  according  to  Num.  iv.  3,  23,  30,  47 ; 
from  twenty-five  to  fifty,  according  to  Deut.  viii.  32-36  ;  but 
there  is  no  rule  laid  down  in  any  single  passage  in  the  Penta- 
teuch with  reference  to  the  age  of  the  priests  (the  first  definite 
rule  which  we  meet  with  is  in  2  Chr.  xxxi.  17;  and  according  to 
this,  they  were  not  to  be  under  twenty  years  of  age).  Now,  we 
have  certainly  no  right  to  apply  the  laws  relating  to  the  age  of 
service  of  the  Levites,  without  reserve,  to  that  of  the  priests. 
For  the  service  of  the  Levites,  which  included  all  the  laborious 
work  connected  with  the  tabernacle,  it  was  absolutely  necessaiy 
that  they  should  be  full-grown  men :  this  was  not  so  requisite 
for  the  infinitely  lighter  work  of  the  priests.  Eleazar  therefore 
may  have  been  only  twenty  or  twenty-two  years  of  age,  when 


EEBELLION  AISTD  JUDGMENT  AT  KADESII.  289 

lie  received  his  priestly  consecration,  and  not  quite  twenty  when 
he  left  Egypt,  This  assumption  is  also  favoured  by  Ex.  xxiv.  1, 
where  Nadab  and  Abihu  alone  are  said  to  have  gone  up  the 
holy  mountain,  and  not  Eleazar  and  Ithamar.  For  otherwise 
the  latter  would  have  had  equal  rights,  and  would  in  all  respects 
have  been  on  an  equality,  with  the  former. 

The  second  passage,  viz.,  Josh.  xxiv.  7,  proves  nothing  at 
all.  To  show  this,  it  would  probably  be  sufficient  to  point  to 
the  unity  of  the  nation,  regarded  as  a  species ;  but  since  we  find 
in  Num.  xiv.  all  who  were  under  twenty  years  of  age  at  the 
time  of  the  Exodus,  expressly  exempted  from  the  sentence  of 
rejection,  and  since  these  had  certainly  e^/es  to  see,  there  may 
have  been  many  eye-witnesses  of  the  miracles  in  Egypt  still  alive 
at  the  period  referred  to  in  Josh.  xxiv.  7. 

(3.)  That  the  number  of  years  of  their  compulsory  sojourn 
in  the  desert  should  have  been  made  to  correspond  to  the  num- 
ber of  days,  dmnng  which'  the  spies  remained  in  the  promised 
land,  can  only  appear  strange  or  trifling  to  one  who  has  lost 
all  that  susceptibility  Avhicli  would  enable  him  to  comprehend 
and  appreciate  the  history  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  as  a  historj', 
the  most  minute  and  outward  details  of  which  have  all  a  mean- 
ing and  are  all  according  to  plan ;  and  who  forgets  that  one 
who  has  the  education  of  children,  must  act  as  a  child  himself. 
The  Oriental  nations  of  antiquity,  including  the  Israelites,  stood 
upon  a  very  childlike,  concrete  stand-point  in  this  respect. 
They  looked  upon  the  outward  events  of  life  with  very  different 
eyes  from  those  with  which  we,  abstract  moderns  of  the  West, 
regard  them,  and  attached  an  importance  to  any  harmony  or  dis- 
cord in  their  arrangement,  for  which  we  have  no  sense  whatever. 
In  the  present  instance,  however,  the  connection  between  the 
forty  years'  wanderings  and  the  forty  days  spent  by  the  spies 
in  the  land,  was  important  and  instimctive  from  various  points 
of  view.  How  vividly  must  it  have  presented  to  their  minds 
the  contrast  between  the  life  in  the  promised  land,  which  they 
had  despised,  and  the  life  in  the  desert  which  was  inflicted  as  a 
punishment! — how  forcibly  must  it  have  impressed  upon  them 
the  connection  between  cause  and  effect,  sin  and  punishment ! 
Every  year  that  passed,  and  was  deducted  from  the  years  of 
pvmishment,  was  a  new  and  solemn  appeal  to  repentance,  call 
ing  to  mind,  as  it  did,  the  original  cause  of  rejection. 
^      VOL.  III.  T 


290  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESEET  OF  PAEAN. 

§  37.  (Num.  xiv.  39-45 ;  Deut.  i.  40-46.)— The  announce- 
ment of  the  sentence  made  a  deep  hnpression  upon  the  people. 
The  magnitude  of  the  loss,  which  they  had  sustained  through 
their  unbelieving  ohdiu'acy,  now  flashed  upon  them  for  the  first 
time.  So  close  to  the  goal,  and  yet  for  ever  excluded  from  the 
possession  of  the  dear  and  promised  land  !  Sent  back,  and  con- 
demned to  pass  their  wdiole  life  in  the  barren  and  inhospitable 
wilderness— their  only  prospect  a  grave  in  the  sand!  Gladly 
would  they  have  retrieved  their  error.  In  fact,  they  declared 
themselves  ready  to  advance,  and  even  persisted  in  doing  so, 
notwithstanding  the  earnest  prohibition  of  Moses.  "  You  will 
not  succeed,"  he  said.  "  Go  not  up,  for  Jehovah  is  not  among 
you"  (1).  The  pillar  of  cloud  did  not  move,  and  Moses  re- 
mained in  the  camp.  But  they  went  up,  notwithstanding ;  and 
the  AmaleMtes  and  Amorites  (2)  came  down  from  the  mountams, 
and  drove  them  back  to  Ilormah  (3). 

(1.)  In  their  unbelief  in  the  force  of  the  Divine  promises, 
the  Israelites  had  refused  to  enter  upon  a  war  with  the  inhabi- 
tants of  Canaan,  and  attack  their  impregnable  fortresses ;  and  in 
their  iinhelief  in  the  seriousness  of  the  Divine  sentence,  which 
had  been  pronounced  upon  them  in  consequence,  they  now 
resolved  to  make  up  for  their  neglect,  and  recover  what  they 
had  lost  by  their  folly.  In  the  one  case,  they  had  too  little 
confidence  in  God ;  in  the  other,  too  much  confidence  in 
themselves.  In  both  instances,  they  despised  and  overlooked 
the  truth,  that  everything  depended  upon  the  blessing  of  God. 
In  the  first  instance,  they  contemned  God ;  in  the  second,  they 
tempted  Him.  They  said,  it  is  true,  "  We  have  sinned :  behold, 
here  we  are  !"  But  this  change  of  mind  was  no  improvement 
of  mind.  Their  remorse  was  no  repentance.  Their  hearts  re- 
mained the  same :  the  only  difference  being,  that  instead  of 
showing  the  one  ungodly  side,  viz.,  that  of  unbelieving  obstinacy, 
they  showed  the  other,  of  proud  and  insolent  self-exaltation. 
"  Such  is  the  superficial  character  of  the  old  man,  that  when  his 
sin  is  pointed  out,  instead  of  looking  deeply  into  it  and  finding 
out  its  dark  ground,  he  regards  it  as  an  accidental  phenomenon; 
and   therefore,    although    he    remains    in    precisely   the    same 


REBELLION  AND  JUDGMENT  AT  K^VDESH.  291 

condition,  he  immediately  sets  about  reforming  his  sins."  — 
(il/.  Baumgarten?) 

(2.)  The  critics  have  liglitod  upon  another  discrepancy  here : 
"  In  Dout.  i.  44  the  Amorites  are  mentioned,  and  in  Num.  xiv. 
45,  in  the  very  same  connection,  the  Amalekites."  But  there  is 
no  necessity  to  expose  the  deception  practised  here,  in  order  to 
bring  out  the  futihty  of  the  objection.  In  Num.  xiv.,  Amalekites 
and  Canaanites  are  mentioned;  in  Deut.  i.,  Amorites  alone. 
Now,  it  is  well  known  that  the  Amorites  were  the  most  powerful 
of  the  Canaanitish  tribes ;  and  for  this  reason  the  two  names  are 
used  promiscuously  in  innumerable  passages  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. The  whole  difference  resolves  itself  into  this,  that  in  the 
passage  in  which  the  historical  facts  are  narrated  with  greater 
precision,  Amalekites  are  spoken  of  along  with  the  Amorites  or 
Canaanites,  whereas  in  Deuteronomy  the  Amorites  (i.e.,  Canaan- 
ites), who  were  incomparably  the  more  important,  are  mentioned 
alone. 

(3.)  On  Hormah,  see  §  26,  1,  and  §  27,  3;  but  more  espe- 
cially §  45,  2. 

§  38.  (Num.  XV.) — The  sentence  of  rejection  was  pronounced 
on  the  existing  generation  of  the  people ;  but  the  covenant  was 
not  dissolved,  nor  was  the  history  of  the  nation  at  an  end.  For, 
even  if  the  history  remained  precisely  at  the  same  point,  so  far 
as  the  present  generation  was  concerned,  yet,  for  the  rising 
generation,  the  first  step  in  its  onward  progress  was  guaranteed, 
namely,  the  possession  of  the  promised  land. — That  the  sentence 
pronounced  upon  the  existing  generation  was  an  irrevocable  one, 
had  been  made  apparent  by  the  futile  attempt  to  penetrate,  in 
spite  of  it,  into  the  land.  And  even  the  promise  associated  with 
this  rejection  was  not  left  without  Divine  attestation,  though  it 
applied  to  the  rising  generation.  An  assiu'ance  was  given  to 
those  who  had  been  rejected,  that  the  rejection  was  not  an 
absolute  one,  but  was  restricted  to  their  exclusion  from  the 
promised  land,  of  which  they  had  themselves  refused  to  take 
possession.  This  was  also  implied  in  the  fact,  that  immediately 
after  the  announcement  of  the  sentence,  the  giving  of  the  law  was 
continued,  just  as  if  no  further  disturbance  had  arisen  from  what 


292  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PARAJSf. 

had  just  occurred  (1).  And  whilst,  by  thus  continuing  the 
covu'se  of  legislation,  Jehovah  gave  to  the  people  a  proof  that 
His  relation  to  them  was  still  the  same  as  before,  a  circumstance 
which  occurred  just  at  this  time  (2)  was  sufficient  to  prove,  not 
only  that  He  was  not  disposed  to  relax  the  severity  of  His 
demands,  although  the  course  of  the  nation's  history  had  been 
interrupted,  but  also  that  the  people  perceived  and  acknowledged 
the  obliojation. 

(1.)  The  fact  that  Jehovah  continued  to  give  the  people 
laws,  was  a  sufficient  proof  that  the  rejection  was  not  an  absolute 
one.  This  becomes  still  more  apparent,  if  we  look  at  the  form 
and  substance  of  the  laws  ivliicli  were  issued  noio.  The  two  prin- 
cipal groups  are  introduced  by  the  words  :  "  When  ye  be  come 
into  the  land  of  your  habitations,  which  I  give  unto  you" 
(ver.  2)  ;  and,  "  When  ye  come  into  the  land,  whither  I  bring 
you"  (ver.  18).  It  is  also  not  without  significance,  that  these 
laws  have  reference  to  the  sacrificial  worship.  The  theocratic 
worship  was  so  far  from  being  abolished  by  the  sentence  of 
rejection,  that  additions  were  made  to  it  at  this  very  time.  The 
third  group,  on  the  other  hand  (ver.  37  sqq.),  contained  injunc- 
tions which  were  to  be  carried  out  immediately,  and  not  merely 
after  they  had  taken  possession  of  the  land.  Every  Israelite 
was  to  wear  tassels  on  his  clothes,  the  object  of  which  is  said  to 
have  been,  to  remind  him  of  his  duty  in  relation  to  the  command- 
ments of  God.  The  tassels,  with  their  various  shades  of  blue, 
hanging  from  a  single  knob,  by  which  they  were  bound  together 
and  made  one,  were  to  be  a  symbol  of  the  Divine  law,  which 
consisted  of  many  members,  but  was  essentially  one.  The  solemn 
words  with  which  this  group  concludes  are  full  of  meaning :  "  I 
am  Jehovah,  your  God,  who  brought  you  out  of  the  land  of 
Egypt,  to  be  yom-  God :  I  am  Jehovah,  your  God." 

(2.)  The  incident  mentioned  is  the  stoning  of  the  Sabbath- 
breaker.  An  Israelitish  man  was  found  gathering  sticks  on  the 
Sabbath.  The  persons  who  had  seen  him  informed  IMoses,  who 
received  a  command  from  Jehovah  to  have  the  culprit  stoned  by 
the  whole  congregation.  In  the  cu'cumstance  itself,  and  the 
punishment  inflicted,  there  is  an  analogy  between  this  occurrence 
and  the  history  of  the  blasphemer  (§  19). 


REBELLION  OF  KOEAH.  293 

REBELLIOX  OF  THE  KORAH  FACTION,  AND  CONFIRilATION  OF 
THE   AARONIC    PRIESTHOOD. 

§  39.  (Xiim.  x\-i.) — Whilst  the  Israehtes  were  still  at  Kadesh, 
a  new  rebellion  broke  out.  Korah  the  Levite,  of  the  tribe  of 
the  Kohathites,  combined  with  the  Reubenites,  Dathan,  Abiram, 
and  Oil,  to  overthrow  the  existing  order  of  things.  On  the 
gi'ound  that  the  whole  congregation  of  Jehovah  was  holy,  and 
therefore  Moses  and  Aaron  had  no  right  to  assume  any  superiority 
over  the  others,  they  wanted  to  set  up  a  new  constitution,  and 
restore  the  rights  of  the  people,  which,  they  pretended,  had  been 
suppressed  by  the  supremacy  of  Moses.  The  especial  object 
was,  no  doubt,  to  place  Korah  at  the  head  of  a  priesthood  chosen 
by  a  popular  election  from  the  various  tribes ;  and  possibly  also 
to  restore  the  tribe  of  Reuben  to  the  rights  of  the  firstborn,  of 
which  it  had  been  deprived.  The  rebels,  first  of  all,  succeeded 
in  gaining  over  two  hmidred  and  fifty  of  the  most  distinguished 
men  of  the  congregation  to  their  views.  Moses  summoned  the 
conspirators  to  appear  the  next  day  at  the  sanctuary,  with 
censers  in  their  hands,  that  they  might  put  the  common  priest- 
hood, to  wliich  they  laid  claim,  to  an  immediate  proof,  by  dis- 
chai'ging  the  priestly  function  of  offering  incense.  Jehovah 
could  then  decide  for  Himself,  Avho  was  henceforth  to  come 
before  Him  with  priestly  authority.  It  was  in  vain  that  he 
ui'ged  upon  Korah  and  the  Levites  of  his  party  the  distinction 
which  had  been  conferred  upon  them,  their  ingratitude,  and 
consequently  the  magnitude  of  their  guilt.  T^Hien  Dathan  and 
Abiram  received  the  summons,  they  positively  refused  to  obey, 
and  sent  back  contemptuous  answers  and  insolent  accusations. 
"  Is  it  not  enough,"  they  said,  "  that  thou  hast  brought  us  out 
of  the  land  that  floweth  with  milk  and  honey,  to  kill  us  in  the 
■v\dlderness,  that  thou  makest  thyself  a  ruler  over  us  ?  Is  this 
bringing  us  into  a  land  flowing  with  milk  and  honey,  and  giving 
us  f ruitf id  fields  and  vineyards  for  a  possession  ? " 

The  day  of  decision  arrived.    Korah  came,  with  his  attendants, 
to  the  sanctuary  to  offer  incense.     The  whole  congregation, 


294  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PAR  AN. 

which  was  ah*eady  beginning  to  take  his  side,  also  assembled 
there.  And  the  glory  of  Jehovah  appeared  before  the  eyes  of 
all;  but,  through  the  intercession  of  Moses  and  Aaron,  the  -wTath 
and  judgment  were  confined  to  the  leaders  and  most  determined 
of  the  rebels.  The  whole  congregation  went  away  to  a  distance 
from  the  tents  of  Korah,  Dathan,  and  Abiram,  in  accordance 
with  the  instructions  of  Moses.  "  Hereby,"  said  he,  "  ye  shall 
know  whether  Jehovah  hath  sent  me  :  If  these  men  die  as  every 
man  dieth,  Jehovah  hath  not  sent  me.  But  if  Jehovah  perform 
a  miracle,  and  the  earth  open  her  mouth  and  swallow  them  up, 
with  all  that  appertain  unto  them,  ye  shall  understand  that  they 
have  rejected,  not  me,  but  Jehovah."  He  had  hardly  finished 
speaking  when  his  words  were  fulfilled.  The  earth  swallowed 
up  the  ringleaders,  with  everything  belonging  to  them  (2)  ;  and 
at  the  same  moment  fire  issued  from  Jehovah  and  consumed  the 
two  hundred  and  fifty  men,  who  had  taken  upon  themselves  to 
offer  incense  in  the  sanctuary  (3).  As  a  warning  for  futm-e 
generations,  the  copper  censers  of  the  sinners  were  beaten  out, 
and  the  altar  (of  burnt-offering)  covered  with  the  plates. 

(1.)  That  all  this  occurred  at  Kadesh  may  be  inferred  with 
tolerable  certainty,  not  only  from  the  fact  that  there  is  no 
account  of  their  removing  first,  but  still  more  from  the  character 
of  the  entire  naiTative.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that,  according 
to  the  author  s  plan,  all  the  events  which  occurred  during  the 
thirty-seven  years,  which  intervened  between  the  first  and  second 
visits  to  Kadesh,  were  to  be  passed  over  in  silence.  When  the 
congregation  arrived  at  Kadesh,  it  was  at  the  very  gate  of  the 
promised  land,  the  point  to  which  it  was  journeying ;  and  when 
it  assembled  once  more  at  Kadesh,  thirty-seven  years  afterwards, 
neither  the  congregation  itself  nor  the  course  of  its  histoiy  had 
made  the  slightest  progress.  In  the  view  of  the  author,  there- 
fore, there  was  no  history  at  all  between  Kadesh  and  Kadesh 
(vid.  §  42). — No  doubt  Jehovah  had  commanded  in  Num.  xiv. 
25  :  "To-morrow  tui'n  you,'^and  get  you  into  the  Avilderness,  to 
the  Red  Sea."  But  instead  of  obeying  this  command,  they  had 
gone  up  of  then'  o^vn  accord,  and  made  an  attempt  to  invade  the 


REBELLION  OF  KORAH.  295 

land  from  which  they  were  now  exckided  (Num.  xiv.  40  sqq.). 
And  we  are  expressly  told  in  Deut.  i.  46,  that  they  remained  at 
Kadesh  a  long  time. 

(2.)  To  picture  the  scene  clearly  to  our  minds,  it  is  essential 
that  we  sliould  bear  in  mind,  that  the  family  of  the  Kohathites, 
to  which  Korah  belonged,  had  its  place  in  the  camp  immediately 
in  front  of  the  entrance  to  the  sanctuary,  and  that  the  tents  of 
the  tribe  of  lleuben,  to  which  the  rest  of  the  ringleaders  belonged, 
were  just  behind  those  of  the  Kohathites.  The  tents  of  Korah 
the  Levite,  therefore,  and  of  Dathan  and  Abiram  the  Reubenites, 
may  have  been  close  together,  and  neither  of  them  at  any  great 
distance  from  the  sanctuary. — Nothing  further  is  said  about  the 
third  Reubenite,  On ;  possibly,  we  may  infer  from  this  that  he 
repented  in  time,  and  so  was  saved. — In  Num.  xxvi.  11,  we  are 
expressly  told  that  the  sons  of  Korah  were  not  smitten  by  the 
judgment  which  fell  upon  their  father.  Their  descendants 
(among  whom  were  Samuel,  and  his  grandson  Heman  the  singer) 
are  mentioned  in  1  Chr.  vi.  22-28.  This  exemption  cannot  be 
regarded  as  inexplicable,  after  what  is  stated  in  ver.  27. 

(3.)  Stcihelin  (^Kritische  Untersucliungen  i'lhcr  den  Pentateuch, 
Berlin  1843,  p.  33  sqq.)  has  made  the  discovery,  that  the  com- 
piler has  mixed  up  two  different  legends  here  in  a  most  unsldlful 
manner.  In  the  original  document  there  was  simply  an  account 
of  the  rebellion  of  the  Korahites;  but  the  compiler  had  also 
heard  of  a  rebellion  of  the  Reubenites,  and  here  he  has  con- 
founded the  two  together.  Stdkelln  is  not  a  little  proud  that  he 
has  "succeeded  in  restoring  the  original  account;"  and  believes 
that  by  so  doing  he  has  rendered  it  "  very  easy  to  explain  the 
contradictions,  which  we  find  in  the  account  as  we  have  received 
it:  for  example,  in  ver.  19,  Korah  is  at  the  tabernacle  with 
incense,  whereas,  according  to  ver.  27,  he  was  in  his  own  tent 
along  with  the  rebels  at  the  very  same  time;  and  in  ver.  12, 
they  are  said  to  have  refused  to  come  to  Moses,  and  to  have  been 
swallowed  up  by  the  earth  in  consequence,  whereas  in  vers.  35, 
39,  40,  they  are  said  to  have  been  destroyed  by  fire."  Whether 
the  "  original  document"  contained  merely  an  account  of  Korah's 
mutiny,  and  said  nothing  about  Dathan  and  Abiram  participating 
in  it,  we  shall  not  stop  to  inquire.  But  that  the  "  compiler" 
introduced  contradictions  into  the  account  in  consequence  of  his 
"  compilations,"  and  that  it  was  any  good  fortune  which  enabled 


296         ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESEET  OF  PAEAX. 

our  critic  to  make  the  discovery,  we  most  firmly  deny.  It  is 
not  stated  in  ver.  19  that  Korah  had  come  to  the  tabernacle  with 
incense.  ^loreover,  it  is  not  true  that,  according  to  ver.  27,  he 
was  in  his  axon  home  at  the  same  time.  And  still  less  is  it  true 
that,  in  ver.  32,  he  is  said  to  have  been  swallowed  np  by  the 
earth,  and  in  ver.  35,  to  have  been  consumed  by  fire.  In  ver. 
35,  Korah  is  not  named  at  all.  It  is  merely  stated  that  the  two 
hundred  and  fifty  men  that  offered  incense  were  consumed  by  fire. 
In  ver.  27,  it  is  simply  the  tent  of  Korah  that  is  alluded  to ;  and 
not  only  is  it  not  stated  that  he  was  in  the  tent  at  the  time,  but, 
from  what  follows,  it  is  pretty  e^ddent  that  this  was  not  the  case. 
Korali  is  certainly  to  be  distinguished  from  the  two  hundred  and 
fifty  men  who  formed  his  party.  It  was  the  latter  alone  who 
came  with  censers  to  the  sanctuary.  Korah  himself  was  the 
soul  of  the  entire  rebellion,  and  therefore  had  to  be  present 
wherever  there  was  an}i:hing  of  a  decisive  character  to  be  done. 
When  ISIoses  and  Aaron  came  to  the  tabernacle,  he  was  there, 
and  excited  the  whole  congi'egation  against  them  (ver.  19). 
When  ]\Ioses  went  away  from  the  tabernacle  to  the  tents  of 
Korah,  Dathan,  and  Abu'am,  Korah  wiU  certamly  have  followed 
him  thither;  and  as  he  would  be  the  last  to  pay  any  heed 
to  the  summons  of  INIoses  to  the  congregation  to  keep  away 
from  their  tents,  there  is  good  reason  to  suppose  that  he  was 
involved  in  the  fatal  catastrophe.  This  supposition  is  expressly 
confirmed  by  Num.  xxrvd.  10  (a  passage  to  which  Stdhelin  has 
never  once  refeiTed).  We  wonder,  too,  how  any  man  could 
make  so  reckless  an  assertion,  as  that  vers.  19  and  27  are  con- 
temporaneous, when  ver.  25  comes  between. 

§  40.  (Num.  xvii.) — The  judgment  on  the  rebels  had  filled 
the  people,  who  were  looking  on,  with  horror  and  alarm.  But  it 
had  not  produced  horror  and  alarm  at  the  sin  which  had  led  to 
the  punishment.  This  explains  the  fact,  that  discontent  and 
mm'nuu'ing  soon  took  possession  of  the  hearts  of  the  people,  on 
account  of  the  stroke  which  had  fallen  upon  the  congregation. 
Moses  and  Aaron  were  looked  upon  as  the  sole  authors  of  the 
calamity.  "  Ye  have  killed  the  people  of  Jehovah,"  they 
exclaim.  The  whole  nation  was  on  the  point  of  rising  in  a  fresh 
and  general  mutiny ;  and  Moses  and  Aaron  took  refuge  in  the 


EEBELLION  OF  KORAH.  297 

sanctuaiy.  The  glory  of  Jeliovali  appeared  once  more,  tlireat- 
ening  destruction.  "  Get  you  up  from  among  this  congrega- 
tion," said  Jehovah  to  Moses,  "  that  I  may  consume  them  as  in 
a  moment."  The  ])lague  immediately  broke  out.  Moses  now 
urged  upon  Aaron  that  he  should  perform  as  quickly  as  possible 
the  duties  of  his  office.  Aaron  ran  into  tlie  midst  of  the  con- 
gregation, and,  standing  between  the  living  and  the  dead,  offered 
incense  and  made  an  atonement  for  the  people.  The  plague 
was  stayed  immediately  ;  but  foiu'teen  thousand  seven  hundred 
men  had  ah'eady  been  carried  off. 

The  true  priesthood  had  thus  been  attested,  not  only  by  the 
fideHty,  but  also  by  the  power,  of  the  office.  The  priesthood, 
wdiich  the  Korah  faction  had  assumed  in  so  ungodly  a  manner, 
had  brought  death  and  destruction  upon  itself  by  offering 
incense  ;  but  the  divinely  ordained  priesthood  of  Aaron  averted 
death  and  destruction  from  the  congregation  by  offering  incense, 
and  stayed  the  well-merited  judgment  which  had  broken  out 
upon  them.  But  Jehovah  did  something  more  than  this,  for  the 
pm'pose  of  attesting  the  genuineness  of  the  priesthood  which  He 
had  chosen  in  the  eyes  of  future  generations  also.  As  the 
censers  of  the  Korah  faction  were  covered  by  those  of  the  altar 
of  biu"nt-offering,  in  the  forecourt  of  the  tabernacle  (a  negative 
proof  of  the  legitimacy  of  the  Aaronic  priesthood),  so  was 
there  now  to  be  placed  a  positive  and  permanent  proof  in  the 
sanctuary  itself.  To  this  end,  every  one  of  the  twelve  tribes 
brought  a  rod  of  almond-wood,  w^ith  the  name  of  the  prince 
of  the  tribe  inscribed  upon  it  (1).  These  rods  were  deposited 
in  the  Holy  of  Holies,  before  tlie  ark  of  the  covenant,  that 
Jehovah  might  show,  by  a  miracle,  v.liich  of  the  twelve  tribes 
He  had  called  and  fitted  for  the  priesthood.  When  the  rods 
were  taken  ovit  on  the  following  day,  behold,  the  rod  of  the 
tribe  of  Levi,  on  which  the  name  of  Aaron  Avas  inscribed,  had 
"  brought  forth  buds,  and  bloomed  blossoms,  and  yielded 
almonds  ; "  whilst  the  rest  of  the  eleven  rods,  on  the  contrary, 
had  continued  barren  as  before  (2).     Aaron's  rod  was  then 


298  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PARAN. 

taken  into  the  Holy  of  Holies,  to  remain  there  before  the  ark  of 
the  covenant,  as  a  permanent  memorial  of  the  event  (3). 

After  this  occurrence,  the  supplementary  legislation  was  still 
further  continued  (Num.  x\iii.  xix.)  ;  in  fact,  we  have  first  of 
>-i>ttt .  all  a  group  of  laws  in  chap.  xix.  respecting  the  rights  and  duties 
of  the  priesthood,  which  come  in  very  appropriately  in  con- 
nection with  the  renewal  and  confirmation  of  the  previous 
appointment.  The  group  which  follows  in  chap,  xix.,  with 
regard  to  defilement  caused  by  contact  with  a  corpse,  is  also 
closely  connected  with  these  events;  for  the  plague,  which  carried 
off  in  so  sudden  a  manner  no  less  than  fourteen  thousand 
persons,  had  caused  a  large  number  of  the  living  to  defile  them- 
selves by  contact  with  the  corpses. 

(1.)  The  question  has  frequently  been  asked,  whether  twelve 
or  thirteen  rods  were  placed  in  the  Holy  of  Holies  (vid.  Buddei 
hist.  eccL  V.  T.  i.,  p.  508  seq.,  Ed.  iv.).  It  is  true  that  twelve 
rods  are  expressly  and  repeatedly  mentioned,  but  in  a  connection 
which  leaves  room  to  suppose  that  Aaron's  rod  was  not  reckoned 
as  one  of  the  twelve.  But  we  must  call  in  question  the  correct- 
ness of  such  a  supposition ;  for  the  words,  "  twelve  rods,  and  the 
rod  of  Aaron  was  among  them"  (ver.  6),  are  certainly  more 
naturally  interpreted  as  meaning  that  Aaron's  was  the  twelfth 
rod.  No  one  would  ever  have  thought  of  inferring  from  the 
words  of  Scripture  that  there  were  thirteen  rods,  if  the  existing 
division  of  the  tribe  of  Joseph  into  two  tribes  (Ephraim  and 
Manasseh)  had  not  suggested  the  idea.  But  this  point  of  view  is 
not  a  correct  one.  The  fact  of  Levi  being  reckoned  as  one  of  the 
tribes,  and  the  division  of  Joseph  into  two  tribes,  exclude  each 
other.  Whenever  Levi  was  numbered  with  the  rest,  Josej)h  was 
taken  as  one  tribe.  The  importance  of  retaining  the  number 
twelve,  under  all  circumstances,  rendered  this  absolutely  necessary. 

(2.)  That  the  miracle  of  the  budding  and  blooming  rod  was 
a  crr]fMelov,  i.e.,  a  miracle  representing  symbolically  the  things  it 
was  to  prove,  is  at  once  apparent.  The  rod,  severed  from  the 
root  of  the  tree,  and  therefore  prevented  from  deriving  a  fresh 
supply  of  sap  from  its  natural  source,  could  not  possibly  blossom 
and  beai"  fruit  in  a  natm'al  way.     But  this  result  was  produced, 


REBELLION  OF  KORAH.  299 

notwithstanding,  by  means  of  an  extraordinary  and  snpematural 
supply  of  sap.  In  this  there  was  a  clear  and  expressive  symbol 
of  the  position  and  essential  character  of  the  priesthood  in  Israel; 
both  of  the  priesthood  to  Avhich  the  whole  nation  was  called 
(§  9),  but  for  which  it  had  declared  itself  as  yet  unqualified 
(§  10,  1),  and  also  of  the  special  (Levitical)  priesthood,  which 
took  the  place  of  the  hitherto  undeveloped  universal  priesthood. 
That  which  took  place  in  the  priestly  rod  was  the  very  thing  to 
which  Israel  had  been  set  apart,  and  still  continued  to  be  set 
apart.  Israel  was  naturally  a  nation  like  all  the  rest, — cut  off 
along  with  all  the  rest  of  the  human  family,  from  the  Eternal 
Fountain  of  life  by  the  universality  of  sin, — torn  out  by 
the  roots  fi'om  the  soil,  in  which  alone  a  true  national  life  can 
blossom  and  bear  fruit.  But  from  the  saving  counsel  of  God, 
who  chose  it  out  of  all  nations  to  be  a  holy  people  and  a 
kingdom  of  priests,  and  from  a  fostering  revelation  by  which  it 
was  nourished  and  matured,  it  constantly  received  fresh  sap  of 
a  supernatural  kind,  by  virtue  of  which  it  sprouted,  flourished, 
and  bore  fruit.  The  relation  in  which  the  family  of  Aaron 
stood  to  the  other  families  of  Israel,  and  the  priestly  character 
of  Aaron  to  the  unpriestly  character  of  the  priestly  nation,  was 
the  same  as  that  in  which  the  nation  of  Israel  stood  to  the  other 
nations  of  the  earth.  Aaron  and  his  sons  were  no  more 
qualified  by  nature  for  the  true  priesthood  than  the  rest  of  the 
nation ;  but,  from  the  call  and  election  of  Jehovah,  they  received 
those  streams  of  life  by  which  they  were  fully  qualified.  As 
Israel,  through  the  full  enjoyment  of  Divine  revelation,  was  (or 
at  least  could  and  ought  to  have  been)  the  fruitful  nation  among 
the  barren  nations  of  the  earth ; — so  was  the  family  of  Aaron 
the  one  fruitful  family  among  the  comparatively  barren  families 
of  Israel, — not,  however,  by  any  merit  of  its  o^^n,  but  by  the  call 
and  grace  of  Jehovah. — It  was  not  without  significance  that  the 
rods  were  of  almond-wood.       W.  Neumann  has  the  following 

o 

excellent  remarks  on  the  subject :  "  npU'  is  the  almond-tree  ;  so 
called  as  being  the  waking  tree  (Ezra  viii.  29  ;  Prov.  viii.  34 ; 
Is.  xxix.  20),  which  blossoms  in  January,  and  the  fruit  of 
which  is  ripe  by  March  {Pliny  Nat.  hist.  46,  25)  ;  the  tree  xchich 
is  axoake  when  the  rest  of  nature  is  still  deeply  sunk  in  the  sleep 
of  death,  and  which  seems  to  sliout  to  all  the  rest  the  call  of  God, 
'Awake'"   (Jcremias  v.  Anathoth,  i.  134  sqq.,  Leipzig  1854). 


300  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PAEAN. 

(3.)  It  is  nowhere  affirmed  that  Aaron's  rod,  which  was 
carried  back  into  the  Holy  of  Holies,  budding  and  blossoming,  to 
be  preserved  there  as  a  memorial  of  the  election  of  JehoA^ah,  con- 
tinued henceforth  to  bud  and  blossom;  and  we  are  not  w^arranted 
in  looking  for  mu'acles  in  the  Scriptures,  where  they  themselves 
do  not  expressly  furnish  either  the  warrant  or  obligation. 

THE  THIRTY-SEVEN  YEARS'  BAN. 

§  41.  (Num.  xxxiii.  19-36.)— We  left  the  Israelites  at 
Kadesh  towards  the  end  of  the  second  year ;  and  at  KadesJi  we 
find  them  in  the  first  month  of  the  fortieth  year  (Num.  xx.  1). 
As  Rithnah  (Num.  xxxiii.  18)  coincides  geographically  with 
Kadesh  (vid.  §  30),  the  seventeen  stations  whose  names  occur  in 
Num.  xxxiii.  19-36,  must  have  lain  between  the  first  and  second 
visits  to  Kadesh.  And  as  these  seventeen  stations,  the  last  of 
which,'  Eziongeber,  is  situated  at  the  northern  extremity  of  the 
Elanitic  Gvdf,  intersect  the  desert  from  north  to  south,  we  may 
reckon  pretty  nearly  the  same  number  of  intermediate  stations, 
consisting  for  the  most  part  of  the  very  same  places,  on  the  road 
back  from  Eziongeber  to  Kadesh,  although  no  stations  at  all  are 
named  between  the  two ;  and  the  silence  of  the  author  must  be 
attributed  to  the  fact  that,  as  the  circumstances  continued  pre- 
cisely the  same,  it  was  not  in  accordance  with  his  plan  to  repeat 
the  names  of  stations  which  had  been  Aasited  before.  In  this 
case,  the  number  of  stations  w^ould  correspond  very  nearly  to  the 
number  of  years  spent  in  the  desert,  and  the  average  stay  at 
•each  station  would  be  a  year.  Now,  if  we  call  to  mind  the  ne- 
cessities and  circumstances  of  the  people  during  the  period  of 
the  thirty-seven  years'  ban,  which  rested  upon  them,  we  shall 
soon  see  that  it  must  have  been  utterly  impossible,  even  during 
this  period,  for  a  close  connection  to  be  maintained  throughout 
the  whole  congregation.  It  was  only  here  and  there  that  the 
general  barrenness  of  the  desert  was  broken  by  fertile  and  watered 
oases,  and  nowhere  did  it  present  a  sufficiently  extensive  tract 
of  meadow-land  to  meet  the  wants  of  the  cattle  of  the  lohole 
congregation.     We  are  therefore  forced  to  the  conclusion  (to 


THE  THIETY-SEVEN  TEARS'  BAX.  301 

wbicli  many  allusions  throughout  the  Bible  would  othermse  have 
brought  us),  that  shortly  after  the  sentence  of  rejection  was  pro- 
nounced, the  congregation  dispersed,  in  larger  or  smaller  parties, 
over  the  entire  desert,  and  settled  down  in  the  oases  which  pre- 
sented themselves,  until  the  time  arrived  when  Moses  summoned 
them,  at  the  end  of  the  thirty-seven  years  of  punishment,  to  meet 
again  at  Kadesh.  The  stations  mentioned  in  Num.  xxxiii.  19-36 
Avould  in  this  case  be  merely  the  places  selected  in  succession  as 
the  head-quarters,  in  the  midst  of  which  were  Closes  and  the 
sanctuar)^  It  is  not  difficult  to  understand  the  reason,  why  the 
head-quarters  did  not  remain  in  the  same  place  throughout ;  for 
it  was  absolutely  necessary  that  the  scattered  parties  should  be 
visited  by  Moses  and  the  sanctuary,  to  prevent  theii'  connection 
with  one  another,  and  more  especially  their  connection  with 
Moses  and  the  sanctuary,  from  being  entu'ely  dissolved  during 
so  long  a  period  as  thirty-seven  years.  Hence  the  stations  named 
in  Num.  xxxiii.  19-36  must  be  regarded  in  the  light  of  a  circuit, 
which  was  made  through  the  desert  by  Moses  and  the  tabernacle. 

(1.)  It  will  be  sufficient  simply  to  record  Hltzi(Js  opinion, 
that  the  sojourn  of  Israel  in  the  desert  did  not  last  longer  than 
four  years  {Vrgeschichte  und  Mytlwlogie  de?'  Philister,  p.  172 
sqq.).  He  arrives  at  this  result  by  obserAdng,  that  forty  is  a 
round  number,  and  that  the  length  of  their  stay  at  the  eighteen 
stations  mentioned  in  the  catalogue  (Num.  xxxiii.  19-35),  Avhicli 
are  passed  over  in  the  history,  must  be  measm-ed  by  the  stay 
made  at  the  other  twenty-five  stations.  This  gives  a  period  of 
not  less  than  one  year,  and  not  more  than  tico.  But  the  stay  in 
the  desert  closed  altogether  before  chap.  xx.  1,  and  terminated 
with  the  year  itself ;  it  embraced  the  whole  of  this  year,  there- 
fore, and  what  yet  remained  of  the  second  year,  when  the  Israel- 
ites left  Hazeroth,  that  is,  not  quite  ten  months.  We  should 
thus  have  four  years  in  all.  But  in  a  popular  legend  four  could 
easily  become  forti/.  That  the  myth  has  "  violently"  exagge- 
rated, is  confirmed  by  the  fact,  that  "  in  this  desert  the  amount 
of  space  is  inconsiderable  (?  !),  and  that  it  was  to  some  extent 
akeady  occupied,  so  that  it  could  not  possibly  afford  nourishment 
to  a  tenth  part  of  the  number"  (in  answer  to  this,  see  §  i.  3)  ; 


302  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PARAN. 

"  consequently  tlie  natural  impulse  to  self-support  would  very- 
early  have  excited  a  desire,  and  even  made  it  a  necessity,  to 
escape  from  the  desert  at  any  cost."  Another  proof  of  the 
exaggerated  character  of  the  myth  is  the  fact,  that  the  giants, 
"  who  lived  at  Hebron  in  the  second  year  of  the  joiu'ney  (Num. 
xiii.  22),  are  said  to  have  been  all  three  found  there  (Josh.  xv. 
14 ;  Judg.  i.  10)  no  less  than  forty-five  years  afterwards  (Josh, 
xiv.  7,  10)."  Such  empty  arguments  as  these  are  truly  not 
worth  refuting. 

GoTHE,  however,  has  acted  more  foolishly  still  (  West-ostlicher 
Divan :  "  Israel  in  der  IFSste").  The  compilation  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch is  "  extremely  sad,  confused,  and  incomprehensible," 
"  aiming,  as  it  evidently  does,  in  so  trivial  a  manner  to  multiply 
the  quantity  of  religious  ceremonies."  The  joiu"ney  through  the 
desert,  he  says,  did  not  occupy  quite  so  long  as  two  years ;  the 
eighteen  stations  in  Num.  xxxiii.  19-35  are  pure  inventions, 
intended  to  give  some  colour  to  the  fable,  which  is  served  up,  of 
a  forty  years'  sojoiu'n  in  the  desert. — The  reader  would  probably 
like  to  see  a  brief  sketch  of  the  leading  ideas  of  this  remarkable 
treatise.  Any  further  criticism  we  must  beg  to  be  spared. — 
According  to  Gotlie,  Moses  was  of  a  wild  character,  shut  up  in 
himself,  muddy  in  his  brains,  extremely  contracted,  quite  unable 
to  think;  and  the  careful  training  which  he  received  at  the 
Egyptian  court  was  entirely  thrown  away  upon  him.  Under  all 
circumstances,  he  continued  just  what  he  was — boorish,  power- 
ful, reserved,  incapable  of  sympathy,  not  born  for  thought  and 
meditation,  unable  to  project  a  sensible  plan,  unskilful  in  every- 
thing he  took  in  hand,  etc.,  etc.  Wlien  Pharaoh  had  refused 
the  application  of  Moses  that  he  would  let  the  people  go,  some 
land  plagues  accidentally  came  in  to  favour  his  enterprise,  and 
he  and  his  people  immediately  broke  through  all  their  obliga- 
tions. "  Under  the  pretence  of  celebrating  a  general  festival, 
they  obtained  vessels  of  gold  and  silver  from  their  neighbours ; 
and  at  the  very  moment,  when  the  Egyptians  believed  the  Is- 
raelites to  be  partaking  of  a  harmless  meal,  an  inverted  Sicilian 
vesper  was  in  hand.  The  foreigner  miu'dered  the  native,  the 
guest  the  host ;  and,  under  the  influence  of  a  cruel  policy,  they 
slew  none  but  the  first-born,  in  order  that,  in  a  country  where 
primogeniture  has  so  many  privileges,  the  selfish  feelings  of  the 
younger  might  be  excited,  and  their  immediate  revenge  avoided 


THE  THIRTY-SEVEN  YEAES'  BAN.  303 

by  a  rapid  flight.  The  scheme  was  successful ;  the  murderers 
were  thrust  out  instead  of  being  punished.  It  was  not  till  some 
time  afterwards  that  the  king  collected  an  army ;  but  his  horse- 
men and  scythe-chariots  fought  at  a  great  disadvantage  on  a 
marshy  soil  with  the  light-armed  rear."  Under  the  difficulties 
of  a  journey  tln'ough  the  desert,  Moses  was  always  at  a  loss  how 
to  satisfy  his  discontented  followers.  He  felt  that  he  was  "  born 
to  act  and  govern,  but  natm'e  had  refused  him  the  necessaiy 
materials  for  so  dangerous  an  occupation."  He  imagined  that, 
as  ruler,  he  ought  to  trouble  himself  about  the  smallest  trifles. 
"  It  was  Jethro  who  first  suggested  the  plan,  which  he  ought  to 
have  thought  of  himself,  of  classifying  the  people  and  appoint- 
ing inferior  officers."  The  only  road  that  any  reasonable  man 
Avould  have  thought  of  taking  from  Sinai  to  Palestine,  was  the  one 
Avhich  goes  along  the  east  of  the  land  of  the  Edomites,  and  passes 
through  the  cultiAated  country  of  the  Midianites  and  Moabites  to 
the  Jordan.  But  Moses  was  blockhead  enough  to  listen  to  the 
crafty  Midianite,  who  persuaded  him  to  lead  the  people  right 
across  the  desert,  from  one  corner  to  the  other.  "  Unf ortmiately, 
Moses  possessed  even  less  military  than  administrative  talent." 
Hence  he  was  altogether  at  a  loss  what  to  do,  when  there  was  a 
division  of  opinion  at  Kadesh.  He  first  of  all  gave  orders  for 
the  attack ;  and  then  afterwards,  even  he  discovered  that  there 
were  dangers  in  an  attack  from  this  side.  He  then  applied  for 
a  free  passage  through  the  Edomites'  country ;  but  the  Edomites 
were  too  wise  for  this,  and  gave  him  a  direct  refusal.  The  Is- 
raelites were  now  compelled  to  turn  back,  and  take  the  route 
which  a  very  little  reflection  would  have  induced  their  leader  to 
decide  upon  when  first  they  set  out  from  Sinai.  Henceforth 
everything  went  well.  "In  the  meantime  Miriam  had  died,  and 
Aaron  had  disappeared,  shortly  after  their  opposition  to  Moses." 
The  Midianites  were  exterminated,  and  the  country  to  the  east  of 
the  Jordan  conquered.  But  instead  of  hiuTying  forwards  in  their 
course  of  victory,  laws  were  given  and  fresh  arrangements  made, 
in  precisely  the  old  style.  "  In  the  midst  of  all  this  work,  Moses 
himself  disappeared,  just  in  the  same  way  in  which  Aaron  had 
disappeared  before ;  and  we  are  "ery  much  mistaken  if  Joshua 
and  Caleb  were  not  glad  to  see  the  government  of  a  man  of  con- 
tracted mind,  which  they  had  borne  for  so  many  years,  brought 
to  an  end,  and  to  send  him  after  the  many  whom  he  had  been 


304  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PARAN. 

the  means  of  sending  before  him,  in  order  that  they  might  put 
an  end  to  the  whole  matter,  and  go  seriously  to  work  to  take 
possession  of  the  whole  of  the  right  bank  of  the  Jordan,  and  the 
country  which  it  bounded."  Two  years  are  amply  sufficient  for 
everything  that  the  historical  account  contains.  And  the  arti- 
ficial chronology  of  the  Old  Testament  is  sufficient  to  explain 
how  it  was  that,  in  the  hands  of  a  confused  compiler,  the  two 
grew  into  forty.  It  was  necessary  that  the  whole  should  admit 
of  being  divided  into  definite  periods  of  forty-nine  years  each 
(or  jubilee  periods) ;  and,  in  order  to  bring  out  these  mystical 
epochs,  many  historical  numbers  had  to  be  altered.  "  And 
where  would  it  be  possible  to  find  a  better  opportunity  for  inter- 
polating the  thirty-eight  years,  which  were  wanting  in  one  of  the 
cycles,  than  in  an  epoch  involved  in  such  deep  obsciu'ityl" 
"  ]Moreover,  forty  is  a  round  and  sacred  number,  for  which  the 
editor  had,  no  doubt,  a  peculiar  lildng.  But,  in  order  that  the 
interpolated  years  might  not  appear  to  be  altogether  visionary, 
he  drew  from  his  own  resoiu'ces  a  whole  series  of  stations,  as  the 
last  of  which  he  gave  Eziongeber,  on  the  Red  Sea,  from  a  mis- 
interpretation of  Num.  xiv.  25  ('  To-morrow  turn  you,  and  get 
you  into  the  wilderness,  by  the  way  of  the  Red  Sea')." 

In  Josh.  V.  6  the  forty  years  are  altered  into  two-and-forty 
in  the  Vatican  codex  of  the  Septuagint,  evidently  from  an  idea 
that  the  forty  years  were  to  be  reckoned  from  the  sentence  pro- 
nounced at  Kadesh,  and  not  from  the  exodus  from  Egypt. 

(2.)  We  have  ah'eady  proved,  in  opposition  to  Eivald,  that 
there  were  tioo  separate  encampments  at  Kadesh  (yid.  §  30,  1). 
— As  we  observed  before,  he  will  not  admit  that  the  Israelites 
came  more  than  once  to  Kadesh.  Yet  even  he  acknowledges 
that  the  places,  which  are  mentioned  in  the  catalogTie,  between 
Eithmah  (i.e.,  Kadesh)  and  Kadesh,  have  reference  to  the 
thirty-seven  years  dui'ing  which  the  ban  rested  upon  Israel. 
But,  according  to  his  explanation,  these  seventeen  stations  merely 
point  out  the  southern  line  of  the  space  over  which  the  peo^^le 
scattered  themselves,  whilst  Moses  remained  at  Kadesh  wdth  the 
sanctuary  and  a  small  portion  of  the  people.  But  this  explana- 
tion is  as  wide  of  the  mark  as  it  possibly  can  be.  It  was  not  by 
the  separate  parties  which  were  scattered  over  the  desert  in 
search  of  pasture,  that  the  Israel  who  was  condemned  to  wander 
in  the  desert  was  represented,  but  by  Moses  and  the  sanctuary ; 


THE  THIRTY-SEVEN  YEARS'  BAN.  305 

and  "  the  constantly  recurring  expressions,  '  tliey  broke  up,'  and 
'  they  encamped,'  are  inseparably  connected  with  the  pillar  of 
cloud  and  the  tabernacle." 

This  question  has  been  most  fully  discussed  in  all  its  bearings 
by  Tuch  (in  the  treatise  ah'eady  referred  to  at  §  23).  He  says : 
"  There  is  doubtless  some  difficulty  connected  with  the  statement, 
that  in  the  last  year  of  the  wanderings  of  the  Israelites,  when 
they  had  made  up  their  minds  to  cross  the  Jordan  and  enter 
Canaan  from  the  east,  they  were  summoned  back  from  Eziongeher 
to  the  southern  border  of  Canaan,  which  they  had  left  thirty- 
seven  years  before  ;  especially  as  the  only  result  was,  that  after 
the  failure  of  negotiations  with  the  kino;  of  Edom,  Avhich  mio-ht 
have  been  carried  on  from  a  point  much  farther  to  the  south, 
they  were  led  southwards  once  more,  into  the  neighbourhood  of 
Eziongehe?',  and  eventually  started  thence  on  their  journey  to 
the  land  on  the  east  of  the  Jordan.  But  we  shall  not  find  any- 
thing to  astonish  us,  if  we  consider,  in  the  first  place,  that  Israel 
did  not  come  twice  from  the  south  to  Kadesli  in  full  marching 
order — that,  in  fact,  in  a  certain  sense  it  had  never  left  Kadesh, 
and  during  the  thirty-seven  years  this  place  had  formed  the 
northern  boundary,  and  principal  point  in  that  portion  of  the 
desert  over  which  it  was  scattered,  the  soutliern  boundary  being 
on  the  Elanitic  Gulf ;  and,  secondly,  that  it  was  a  matter  of 
great  importance,  in  connection  with  the  general  training  of  the 
Israelites,  that  at  the  close  of  the  period  of  the  curse  inflicted  by 
God,  they  should  assemble  together  in  the  very  same  spot  in 
which  the  sentence  was  first  pronounced." 

We  shall  reserve  any  f  m'ther  discussion  of  this  second  reason 
till  §  44,  1  ;  but,  in  the  meantime,  we  may  add,  that  when  the 
Israelites  resolved  to  pass  through  the  land  of  the  Edomites, 
they  could  not  have  had  any  ground  for  doubting  the  success  of 
their  negotiations,  seeing  that  they  could  hardly  have  expected 
from  a  brother-nation  so  unbrotherly  a  refusal  as  they  actually 
received.  If  they  had  had  any  reason  to  fear,  that  they  might 
possibly  receive  a  negative  reply  to  their  modest  request ;  then, 
and  then  only,  it  might  have  been  advisable  to  carry  on  tlie 
negotiations  from  Eziongeber,  when  they  would  have  been  in  a 
position,  in  case  of  refusal,  to  skirt  the  country  of  the  Edomites 
without  going  very  far  round,  or  even  \nth  very  little  difficulty 
to  force  a  passage  through  the  country  on  the  eastern  side  of  the 
^      VOL.  III.  U 


306  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PARAN. 

mountains ;  whereas  from  Kadesli  it  would  be  impossible  to 
force  a  passage,  and  to  skirt  the  country  would  take  them  an 
enormous  way  round.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Israelites  had 
every  reason  to  anticipate  an  affirmative  reply  from  the  Edomites; 
then,  from  a  regard  to  the  Edomites  themselves,  they  would 
prefer  to  commence  the  march  from  Kadesh  rather  than  from 
Eziongeber,  as  a  line  drawn  through  the  countiy  from  the 
former  (from  west  to  east)  would  be  much  shorter  than  from 
the  latter  (from  south  to  north). 

There  is  nothing  irreconcileable  in  the  two  statements,  that, 
on  the  one  hand,  Israel  had  never  left  Kadesh,  and  on  the  other, 
came  to  Kadesh  a  second  time.  The  great  mass  of  the  people 
scattered  themselves  in  smaller  or  larger  groups  about  the  penin- 
sula, for  the  piu'pose  of  seeking  sustenance ;  but  if  any  con- 
siderable portion  of  the  nation  remained  at  Kadesh,  after  the 
dispersion  of  the  others,  then  Kadesh  would  still  be  to  a  certain 
extent  the  place  of  encampment  and  rendezvous.  At  the  same 
time,  repeated  departures  and  encampments  might  be  spoken  of, 
as  in  Num.  xxxiii.  19-36,  if  the  head-quarters,  with  Moses  at  the 
head  and  the  sanctuary  in  the  midst,  made  the  circuit  of  the 
desert  in  the  thirty-seven  years,  for  the  purpose  of  visiting  the 
different,  parties  which  were  dispersed  about  in  search  of  food, 
and  making  with  each  a  certain  stay. 

With  this  explanation,  all  the  separate  notices,  which  are 
scattered  throughout  the  Pentateuch,  become  clear  and  intelh- 
gible.  And  there  is  also  no  difficulty  in  explaining  how  it  is, 
that  in  the  historical  account  in  Num.  xiii.— xx.,  there  is  no  notice 
of  any  formal  departure  from  Kadesh,  as  in  the  case  of  all  the 
previous  stations,  for  no  departure  ever  took  place  in  the  same 
sense  as  before. — This  will  also  explain  the  otherwise  singular 
expression  in  Deut.  i.  46,  "  So  ye  abode  in  Kadesh  many  days, 
according  unto  the  days  that  ye  abode  there,"  as  well  as  the 
words  which  immediately  follow  in  Deut.  ii.  1,  "  Then  we  turned, 
and  took  our  journey  into  the  wilderness  by  the  way  of  the  Red 
Sea."  The  change  of  subject  does  not  appear  to  be  merely 
accidental  and  unmeaning.  In  Deut.  i.  46,  the  second  person 
("ye")  is  employed,  because  only  a  portion  of  the  congregation 
continued  the  whole  time  in  Kadesh,  and  Moses  and  the  taber- 
nacle did  not  remain  constantly  there.  In  chap.  ii.  1,  the  first 
person  ("  we ")  is  used,  on  account  of  the  whole  congregation 


THE  THIRTY-SEVEN  YEARS'  BAN.  307 

being  now  assembled  once  more  at  Kadesli,  and  departing  thence 
as  a  body  to  the  Red  Sea,  for  the  pm'pose  of  proceeding  round 
the  mountains  of  Seir. — Moreover,  "the  commencement  and 
close  of  this  intermediate  period  are  brought  into  connection 
with  each  other,  by  the  characteristic  expression  •T^J?i]}"''3  ("  all 
the  congregation,"  Num.  xiii.  26,  and  xx.  1).  This  express 
reference,  which  we  meet  with  nowhere  else,  to  the  fact  that  the 
wlioh  congregation  was  at  Kadesh  on  these  two  occasions,  ap- 
pears to  lead  to  the  conclusion,  that  the  congregation  was  dis- 
persed during  the  intermediate  period.  "  In  precisely  the  same 
manner  Ave  find  the  same  expression  mj;n~^3  (all  the  congrega- 
tion) employed  in  Num.  xx.  22,  for  the  purpose  of  distinguishing 
the  later  visit  to  Mount  Hor  from  the  earlier  one  mentioned  in 
Num.  xxxiii.  30  (Moseroth,  i.e.,  Hor ;  vid.  §  30,  1),  and  of 
showing  that  the  wlwle  nation  had  now  for  the  first  time  taken 
its  departm'e  from  Kadesh"  {Fnes,  p.  53). — Lastly,  no  other 
view  than  this — namely,  that  the  people  were  scattered  over  the 
whole  desert,  and  therefore  did  not  continue  in  uninteiTupted 
communication  with  Moses  and  the  sanctuary — will  explain  the 
statement  made  in  Ex.  xx.  25,  26,  where  the  description  given 
of  the  idolatrous  practices  of  the  Israelites  cannot  possibly  be 
understood  as  referring  to  any  other  period  than  to  these  thirty- 
seven  years  (yid.  §  43,  2). 

We  close  these  remarks  with  a  passing  quotation  of  the 
words  of  the  excellent  author,  whose  thorough  investigation  has 
so  essentially,  and  in  so  many  respects,  facilitated  the  solution  of 
the  difficult  question  respecting  Kadesh.  "As  the  Israelites 
knew  that  they  were  to  remain  in  the  desert  for  the  period  of  an 
entire  generation,  the  thought  forces  itself  upon  us,  that  a  nation 
containing  three  (?  two)  millions  of  men,  possessing  considerable 
flocks  and  herds,  and  limited  to  an  area  of  about  130  miles  long 
and  50  miles  broad,  would  not  be  likely  to  prepare  for  perpetu- 
ally travelling  about,  but  would  rather  distribute  itself  about 
the  district  assigned  it,  and  make  arrangements  for  temporary 
settlements,  in  which  to  wait  for  the  period  when  it  would  again 
assemble  as  a  body  in  one  spot,  and  proceed  to  its  final  destina- 
tion. But  we  can  easily  understand  why,  at  this  point  of  time, 
when  there  was  no  reason  for  anticipating  a  refusal  on  the  part 
of  Edom,  instead  of  that  ])ortiou  of  the  nation,  which  was  in 
Kadesh  and  the  northern  district,  proceeding  to  Eziongebcr,  the 


308  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PAEAN. 

other  portion  wliicli  was  in  Eziongeber  and  the  southern  dis- 
trict, should  proceed  to  Kadesh,  in  which,  as  K.  Ritter  says, 
all  the  desert  roads  meet  together"  (yid.  Fries,  p.  56). 

§  42. — The  period  of  the  thirty-seven  years'  ban,  which  lies 
between  the  first  and  second  encampments  at  Kadesh,  has  not 
been  included  in  the  formal  history  of  the  theocracy  (Num. 
13  sqq.).  The  cause  of  this  omission  is  hardly  to  be  sought  in 
the  fact,  that  nothing  occuiTed,  during  the  whole  of  these  thirty- 
seven  years,  either  worth  recording,  or  that  would  have  been 
recorded  under  other  circumstances.  Nor  is  it  to  be  discovered 
merely  in  the  fact,  that  the  existing  generation  was  under  the 
ban  of  rejection  ;  for  the  rejection  was  not  an  absolute  one,  but 
merely  relative  :  even  the  rejected  generation  was  only  excluded 
from  the  possession  of  the  land,  and  not  from  the  covenant  with 
Jehovah,  and  the  blessings  of  His  salvation.  How  far  the  re- 
jection was  from  being  the  sole  ground  of  the  silence,  is  evident 
from  the  fact,  that  the  history  does  not  break  off  immediately 
after  the  rejection,  but  embraces  several  events,  as  well  as  several 
groups  of  laws,  which  belong  to  the  period  subsequent  to  the 
rejection.  Moreover,  the  period  of  rejection  was  not  completed, 
when  the  whole  congregation  assembled  once  more  at  Kadesh, 
in  the  first  month  of  the  fortieth  year ;  and  yet  the  thread  of 
the  history  is  resumed  at  this  point  (Num.  xx.  1).  It  is  apparent, 
therefore,  that  there  must  have  been  other  considerations,  which 
determined  what  should  be  omitted  from  the  sacred  records,  and 
how  much  they  should  preserve.  So  far  as  the  sacred  records 
were  concerned,  there  was  wo  history  between  the  first  and  second 
encampments  at  Kadesh.  But,  whatever  happened  lohile  the 
first  encampment  lasted,  and  whatever  occmTed  after  the  second 
encampment  had  taken  place,  was  regarded  as  forming  part  of 
the  history  to  be  recorded.  If  Ave  endeavour  to  ascertain  the 
causes,  of  what  appears  at  first  sight  to  be  a  somewhat  strange 
and  arbitraiy  limitation  of  the  history,  there  are  two  points  of 
view  from  which  it  admits  of  explanation.  In  the  first  place, 
so  far  as  the  wanderings  in  the  desert  are  concerned,  nothing  of 


THE  THIRTY-SEVEN  YEARS'  BAN.  309 

a  stationary  (or  retrograde)  cliaracter  was  regarded  as  forming 
part  of  the  history  to  be  recorded,  but  only  that  which  was  pro- 
gressive.  (Allusion  has  already  been  made  to  this  in  §  39,  1.) 
From  Sinai  to  Kadesh  the  Israelites  were  moving  forwards.  At 
Kadesh  the}'  were  on  the  very  borders  of  Canaan  :  only  one  step 
further,  and  their  feet  woidd  stand  upon  the  holy  land  of  the 
pilgrimage  of  their  fathers,  which  was  destined  to  be  their  owti 
inheritance.  But  during  the  thirty-seven  years,  about  which  the 
scriptural  records  are  silent,  the  history  of  Israel  did  not  ad- 
vance a  single  step  towards  its  immediate  object,  the  conquest  of 
the  promised  land.  On  the  contrary,  for  thirty-seven  years  it 
remained  perfectly  still.  It  was  very  different  in  the  fortieth 
year,  when  they  were  journeying  from  Kadesh  to  the  plains  of 
Moab.  The  events  which  took  jAnce  during  this  year  were  not 
of  a  stationary  character,  but  steadily  progressive,  and  brought 
them  nearer  and  nearer  to  the  end  in  view.  Under  the  un- 
favourable circumstances  of  the  times,  their  nearest  way  from 
Kadesh  to  Canaan  M^as  round  ISIount  Seir,  through  the  plains 
of  Moab,  and  across  the  Jordan.  Even  the  journey  from 
Kadesh  to  the  Red  Sea,  which  was  a  retrograde  movement 
geographically  considered,  Avas  a  progressive  movement  so  far  as 
the  history  was  concerned. — In  the  second  place,  the  thirty-seven 
years  were  not  only  stationary  in  their  character — years  of  deten- 
tion, and  therefore  without  a  history, — but  they  were  also  years 
of  dispersion.  The  congregation  had  lost  its  unity,  had  ceased 
to  be  one  compact  body ;  its  organisation  was  broken  iip,  and 
its  members  were  isolated  the  one  from  the  other.  In  order  to 
procure  its  daily  sustenance,  Israel  had  been  obliged  to  scatter 
itself  far  and  wide  in  the  desert,  one  family  settling  here,  and 
another  there.  But  it  was  only  Israel  as  a  whole,  the  com- 
bination of  all  the  component  parts,  the  ichole  congregation, 
with  the  ark  of  the  covenant  and  the  pillar  of  cloud  in  the  midst, 
which  came  within  the  scope  of  the  sacred  records  ; — not  the 
scattered  and  isolated  fragments,  the  solitary  and  disconnected 
members. 


310  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PARAN. 

§  43.  (Deut.  viii.  2-6 ;  Josh.  v.  4-9  ;  Ezek.  xx.  10-26  ; 
Amos  V.  25,  26.) — But  even  if  the  direct  history  is  silent  re- 
specting these  thirty-seven  years,  there  are  occasional  allusions 
in  other  portions  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  which  throw  a  few 
rays  of  light  upon  the  obscurity  of  this  period.  In  the  exhorta- 
tions of  the  Deuteronomist,  for  example  (particularly  in  Deut. 
viii.),  reference  is  repeatedly  made  to  it;  and  even  the  later 
prophets  make  very  instructive  remarks  with  regard  to  it.  The 
Deuteronomist  addresses  the  Israelites,  who  are  now  arrived  in 
the  plains  of  Moab,  in  such  words  as  these  :  "  Remember  all  the 
way  which  Jehovah,  thy  God,  hath  led  you  these  forty  years  in 
the  desert ;  to  humble  thee,  to  prove  thee,  to  know  what  was  in 
thy  heart,  whether  thou  wouldest  keep  His  commandment,  or 
no.  And  so  He  humbled  thee,  and  suffered  thee  to  hunger, 
and  fed  thee  with  manna.  .  .  .  Thy  raiment  waxed  not  old 
upon  thee,  neither  did  thy  foot  swell,  these  forty  years  (1).  See, 
therefore,  that  as  a  man  traineth  up  his  son,  so  Jehovah  traineth 
thee."  According  to  this,  the  whole  forty  years,  including  the 
thirty-seven  years  of  detention,  may  be  regarded  in  the  same 
light,  as  years  of  training  and  temptation,  of  humiliation  and 
blessing,  of  natural  wants  and  supernatural  assistance.  And 
here  again  we  also  see,  that  we  are  not  warranted  in  making  so 
broad  a  distinction  throughout,  as  is  commonly  made,  between 
the  three  years  of  progress  and  the  thirty-seven  years  of  deten- 
tion. The  relation  in  which  Jehovah  stood  to  the  nation  was 
not  altered  by  the  sentence  of  detention ;  and  the  people  con- 
tinued essentially  the  same  in  their  relation  to  Jehovah,  always 
ready  to  despair,  constantly  miu'muring,  easily  excited  to  re- 
bellion ;  but  always  rising  again  after  their  fall,  and  penitent  after 
their  sin.  And  the  prophet  Jeremiali  could  just  as  truly  say, 
with  reference  to  one  side  of  the  national  character  at  this  time, 
"  Thus  saith  Jehovah  :  I  remember  the  kindness  of  thy  youth, 
the  love  of  thine  espousals,  how  thou  wentest  after  Me  in  the 
wilderness,  in  a  land  that  was  not  sown  ;  Israel  was  holiness  unto 
Jehovah,  the  first-fruits  of  His  increase"  (chap.  ii.  2,  3),  as  the 


THE  THIRTY-SEVEN  YEARS'  BAN.  311 

prophet  Ezehiel,  with  regard  to  the  other  side,  "  But  the  house  of 
Israel  rebelled  against  Me  in  the  wilderness.  .  .  .  Then  I 
said  that  1  wovild  pour  out  INIy  fury  upon  them  in  the  wilder- 
ness to  consume  them  ;  nevertheless  I  withdrew  jMy  hand,  and 
wi'ought  for  My  name's  sake,  that  it  should  not  be  polluted  in 
the  sight  of  the  heathen,  in  whose  sight  I  brought  them  forth. 
I  lifted  up  my  Mine  hand  unto  them  also  in  the  wilderness,  that 
I  would  not  bring  them  into  the  land  which  I  had  given  them  ; 
.  because  they  despised  My  judgments,  and  walked  not 
in  My  statutes,  but  polluted  My  Sabbaths,  for  their  eyes  were 
after  their  fathers'  idols"  (chap.  xx.). — This  is  how  the  prophet 
speaks  of  the  whole  forty  years  in  the  desert,  and  therefore  of 
the  generation  of  the  fathers  as  well  as  of  that  of  the  sons  (2). 
— On  the  other  hand,  what  the  prophet  Amos  says  with  reference 
to  star-worship,  on  the  part  of  the  Israelites,  does  not  relate  to 
Israel  in  the  desert.  It  is  true  the  passage  in  question  ap- 
pears to  say,  that  the  sacrificial  rites  prescribed  by  the  law  were 
not  maintained  in  their  full  extent — and,  in  fact,  they  could  hardly 
have  been  carried  out  under  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  the 
life  in  the  desert,  especially  during  the  period  of  the  tliirty-seven 
years'  dispersion.  But  Amos  does  not  charge  Israel  with  any 
sin.  On  the  contrary,  he  simply  calls  attention  to  the  fact,  that 
notwithstanding  all  this,  the  time  of  their  sojourn  in  the  desert 
was  richer  than  any  other  in  glorious  manifestations  of  the  grace 
of  Jehovah  (3). — That  the  circumcision  of  those  who  were  born 
in  the  desert  was  frequently  neglected,  is  evident  from  Josh.  v. 
4-9  ;  and  it  stands  to  reason  that  the  annual  celebration  of  the 
Passover  cannot  have  taken  place  (4). 

(1.)  The  history  of  the  exposition  of  Deut.  viii.  4  and  xxix.  5 
(cf.  Nell.  ix.  21)  furnishes  one  of  the  most  striking  examples,  of 
the  extent  to  which  a  merely  literal  exegesis  of  the  Scriptures 
may  go  astray.  A  whole  series  of  both  Jewish  and  Christian 
commentators  interpret  these  passages,  without  the  least  hesita- 
tion, as  meaning  that  the  clothes  and  shoes  of  the  Israelitish 
children  grew  ^\■itll  their  growth,  and  remained  for  the  whole  of 


312  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PARAN. 

the  forty  years  not  in  the  least  the  worse  for  wear.     Thus,  for 
example,  Justin  says  (Dial.  c.  Tryph.  c.  131)  :  "  The  strings  of 
whose  sandals  never  broke ;  nor  did  the  sandals  themselves  get 
old,  nor  their  clothes  wear  out,  hut  those  of  the  children  grew  with 
their  growth  (avvrjv^ave)"     In  A.  Pfeiffer  (dab.  vea-ata,  p.  305) 
the  Decisio  runs  as  follows  :  "  By  a  remarkable  miracle,  not 
only  did  the  clothes  of  the  Israelites  in  desert  never  get  old,  but 
they  grew  with  the  growth  of  the  Israelites  themselves,  so  as  to 
fit  both  boys  and  men  in  sviccession."     Pfeiffer  also  quotes  a 
Rabbinical  saying  with  approbation  :  "  Go  and  learn  from  the 
snail,  whose  shell  grows  with  its  body."     Other  Rabbins  svippose 
the  angels  of  God  to  have  acted  as  tailors  to  the  Israelites,  while 
they  were  in  the  desert ;   and  interpret  Ezek.  xvi.  10-13  as 
containing   a   literal  allusion  to  the  fact. — Without  going   to 
such  an    absui'd  length  as   this,  Augustine,   Chri/sostom,   Theo- 
doret,  Grotius,  and  even  Deyling  {De  miraculosa  vestium  Israel. 
conservatione  in  deserto ;   Ohss.  ii.  242  sqq.),  abide  by  the  literal 
explanation,  that  through  the  blessing  of  God,  the  clothes  and 
shoes  never  wore  out ;  so  that  those  who  grew  to  manhood  were 
able  to  hand  them  over,  as  good  as  new,  to  the  rising  generation. 
By  thus  assuming  a  succession  of  wearers,  these  commentators, 
at  least,  escaped  the  fatal  notion  that  the  clothes  and  shoes  grew 
with   the   bodies    of   the  wearers. — When  first  Is.  Peyreiius, 
the  "  infelicissimus  fabulae  PrseadamiticaB  auctor,"  denied  that 
the  clothes  and  shoes  of  the  Israelites  were  miraculously  pre- 
served for  forty  years,  and  maintained,  that  "  the  meaning  of 
the  ]\Iosaic  account  was  nothing  more  than  this,  that  the  Jews 
were  never  in  want  of  anything  during  the  whole  of  the  forty 
years   that  they  were  in  the  desert,  but  had  so  abundant  a 
supply  of  everything,   especially  of  wool  from  their  flocks,  of 
cloth,  of  skins,  and  of  leather,  that  they  were  never  without 
materials  from  which  to  make  their  clothes," — Deyling^  who  is 
usually  so  very  temperate,  protested  most  vehemently  against 
such  ^'  petidantia  et  impietas."     Nevertheless,  the  opinion  ex- 
pressed by  PejTerius  became  gradually  the  prevailing  one.     We 
find  it  advocated,  for  example,  by  Clericus,  Buddeus,  and  Lili- 
enthal  (ix.  260  sqq.).     The  last  of  the  three,  however,  thinks 
it  necessary  to  point,  not  only  to  the  flocks  possessed  by  the 
Israelites,  from  which  they  could  obtnin  both  wool  and  leather 
in  great  abundance,  but  also  to  the  fact,  that  every  Israelite 


THE  THIRTY-SEVEN  TEARS'  BAN.  313 

must  certainly  have  brought  some  clothes  and  shoes  with  him 
out  of  Egypt ;  that  they  asked  the  Egyptians  for  clothes,  and 
obtained  them  (Ex.  iii.  22,  xii.  35)  ;  that  they  would  no  doubt 
take  off  the  clothes  of  the  Egyptians  who  were  drowned  in  the 
lied  Sea,  and  afterAvards  washed  on  shore  (Ex.  xiv.  30) ;  and 
lastly,  that  they  took  the  booty  of  the  conquered  Amalekites, 
including,  according  to  Josephus,  a  (|uantity  of  clothes. 

(2.)  Ezekiel  (chap.  xx.  10-2G)  makes  a  distinction  between 
the  two  generations  in  the  desert,  the  fathers  and  the  children, 
though  only  so  far  as  the  time  is  concerned ;  for  all  that  he 
says  in  vers.  10-17  of  the  generation  of  the  fathers,  he  repeats 
almost  word  for  word,  in  vers.  18-26,  of  the  generation  of  the 
children.  The  prophet  makes  no  allusion  whatever  to  the  fact, 
that  in  the  children  there  had  grown  up  a  race,  of  strong  and 
living  faith,  and  differing  essentially  from  the  generation  of 
their  fathers.  And  even  the  Pentateuch  does  not  say  that  this 
was  the  case.  According  to  the  Pentateuch,  the  Israel  of  the 
fortieth  year,  as  Num.  xx.  2  sqq.  and  xxi,  5  plainly  show,  was 
in  general  the  same  discontented,  murmuring,  God-tempting 
race,  as  the  Israel  of  the  first  and  second  years. 

The  greatest  difficulty  arises  from  the  words  of  the  prophet 
in  vers.  23-26.  After  saying  of  the  fathers  in  ver.  15,  "I 
lifted  up  My  hand  unto  them  in  the  wilderness  "  (because  they 
walked  not  in  My  statutes,  and  polluted  My  Sabbaths,  and 
their  heart  went  after  their  idols),  "that  I  might  not  bring 
them  into  the  land  which  I  had  given  them,  flowing  with  milk 
and  honey ;"  Pie  speaks  of  the  sons  in  such  terms  as  these  :  "  I 
lifted  up  Mine  hand  unto  them  in  the  wilderness,  to  scatter 
them  among  the  nations,  and  disperse  them  among  the  lands ; 
because  they  had  not  executed  My  judgments,  but  had  de- 
spised My  statutes,  and  had  polluted  My  Sabbaths,  and  their 
eyes  were  after  their  fathers'  idols.  .  .  .  And  J  also  gave 
them  statutes  that  were  not  good,  and  judgments,  ivherehi/  they 
(should)  not  live ;  and  I  polluted  them  through  their  gifts,  in  that 
they  offered  all  the  jirst-horn,  that  I  might  destroy  them,  that 
they  might  know  that  I  am  Jehovah." 

The  majority  of  commentators  understand  ver.  23  to  be 
a  prediction  and  threat  of  their  future  banishment  from  the 
promised  land  (in  the  Assyrian  and  Babylonian  captivities).  I 
must  however  regard  this  explanation  as  inadmissible.     If  ver. 


314  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PARAN. 

15,  with  its  threatening  to  the  fathers,  undoubtedly  relates  to 
their  exclusion  from  possessing  the  promised  land,  which  took 
effect  immediately,  the  threatening  contained  in  ver.  23  must 
also  be  understood  as  relating  to  the  immediate  fviture,  that  is, 
to  the  years  of  their  sojourn  in  the  desert.  This  is  placed  be- 
yond all  doubt  by  the  words  of  Jehovah  :  "  I  lifted  up  My  hand 
unto  them  in  the  wilderness"  etc.  And  this  explanation  is  in 
perfect  harmony  with  the  history  given  in  the  Pentateuch, 
which,  as  we  have  shown  above,  presupposes  the  splitting  up  of 
the  congregation  into  a  number  of  smaller  parties,  and  their  dis- 
persion over  the  great  desert.  Undoubtedly  there  is  something 
striking  in  the  expression  which  the  prophet  employs :  "  I  will 
scatter  them  among  the  nations,  and  disperse  them  among  the 
lands," — an  expression  which  immediately  suggests  the  thought 
of  the  Assyrian  and  Babylonian  captivities,  to  which  it  is  much 
more  applicable  than  to  the  sojourn  in  the  desert.  But  un- 
doubtedly the  prophet  mshes  to  recall  the  latter  to  mind.  It  is 
evidently  his  intention,  to  represent  the  thirty-seven  years'  dis- 
persion in  the  desert,  as  a  type  of  the  Assyrian  and  Babylonian 
dispersion.  And,  in  fact,  they  may  both  be  looked  at  from  pre- 
cisely the  same  point  of  view.  In  both  we  have  punishment  for 
the  unbelief  and  disobedience  of  the  nation ;  in  both,  exclusion 
from  the  land  of  promise ;  and  in  both,  division  and  dispersion. 
The  expressions,  "  among  the  lands,"  and  "  among  the  nations," 
are  more  applicable  to  the  Assyrio-Babylonian  exile,  and  it 
was  from  this  that  the  prophet  borrowed  them ;  but  in  order 
that  he  might  show  how  unmistakeable  a  parallel  existed  be- 
tween the  two  periods,  he  transferred  them  to  the  exile  in  the 
desert.  And  they  may  be  appropriately  used,  even  with  refer- 
ence to  this,  though  possibly  in  not  quite  so  natural  a  way; 
for  the  large  and  wide-spread  desert,  to  the  uttermost  ends  of 
which  the  people  dispersed  themselves,  was  not  altogether  unin- 
habited. There  were  certain  Amalekitish,  Midianitish,  and 
possibly  other  tribes,  who  led  a  nomad  life  in  the  desert  itself ; 
and  it  was  surrounded  by  the  most  diverse  nations — Eg}qitians, 
Philistines,  Amalekites,  Amorites,  Edomites,  and  Midianites. 

But  confessedly  the  most  difficult  passage  of  all  is  vers.  25, 
26:  ^' But  I  also  gave  them  statutes  that  were  not  good,  and 
judgments,  whereby  they  (should)  not  live  ;  and  I  polluted  them 
through  their  own  gifts"  etc.     (See  the  commentaries  on  this 


THE  THIETY-SEVEN  YEARS'  BAN.  315 

passage:  also  S.  Dei/ling,  De  statutts  non  bonis,  in  his  Ohss.  ss.  ii. 
300  sqq.;  Vitfinga,  Obss.  ss.  i.  261  sqq.;  Ilacspan,  Notce  pkiloL, 
ii.  837  sqq. ;  Lilienthal,  gute  Sache,  iii.  §  111-119  ;  and  others.) 
— The  ^lanicheans  made  use  of  this  passage  to  justify  their  re- 
jection of  the  Okl  Testament.  The  folloAving  explanations  have 
been  given  of  the  "  statutes  that  were  not  good."  (i.)  Human 
traditions,  to  which  God  gave  them  up.  Jerome,  for  example, 
says  there  were  "the  commentaries  of  men;  a  large  mass  of 
errors  and  superstitions,  in  which  there  was  no  light,  no  life,  and 
no  salvation  :  possibly  the  constitutions  of  the  Talmud  and  other 
similar  trifles,  wliich  prevailed  among  the  later  Jews,  and  by 
which  they  were  blinded  and  led  astray."  Ilacspan,  Grotius, 
J.  H.  Michaelis,  Maurer,  and  others,  give  a  similar  explana- 
tion. But  there  is  not  the  slightest  indication  of  anything  of 
this  kind  previous  to  the  captivity. — (ii.)  Tlie  laios,  which  they 
were  to  receive  from  their  enemies,  into  whose  hands  God  sub- 
seqviently  gave  them  up.  This  is  D.  KimcMs  explanation. — (iii.) 
The  threats  and  denunciations  of  punishment,  which  were  an- 
nounced to  them  by  Moses  in  the  name  of  God,  and  which  took 
effect  immediately.  Glassius,  Lilienthal,  Rose^imiiller,  and 
others,  adopt  this  interpretation.  But  threats  are  one  thing ; 
statutes  and  judgments  are  something  very  different. — (iv.)  The 
laio  generalhj,2LS  contrasted  with  the  Gospel;  or  else  the  ceremonial 
laio,  as  contrasted  with  the  moral  laiv.  Ambrosius,  Augustine, 
and  others,  adopt  the  former  view ;  Marsham,  Spencer,  and 
others,  the  latter.  Spencer  s  interpretation  is  the  following : 
"  I  gave  laws  to  the  Israelites,  who  had  recently  been  delivered 
from  their  bondage  in  Egy[:>t — laws  adapted  not  for  slaves,  but  for 
freeborn  men  ;  svicli  as  were  commended  by  their  own  native 
goodness,  and  would  promote  the  well-being  of  those  who  obeyed 
them.  But  because  they  transgressed  these  laws,  on  account  of 
their  being  new,  and  not  in  harmony  with  their  previous  habits, 
and  were  perpetually  tuniiiig  to  idolatry;  at  length  I  gave  them 
other  laws,  which,  though  not  essentially  good,  acted  as  a  yoke 
to  break  the  stiffneckedncss  of  the  people,  and  take  away  from 
them  eveiy  opportunity  and  all  possibility  of  returning  to  the 
manners  and  customs  of  Egypt."  But  both  of  these  explanations 
must  be  most  decidedly  rejected.  The  prophet,  in  this  case, 
would  not  only  be  at  variance  with  the  Pentateuch  (vid.  Deut. 
xxxii.  47,  "  For  it  is  not  a  vain  word  for  you,  but  it  is  your  life  "), 


316  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PAR  AN. 

but  lie  would  most  thoroughly  contradict  himself ;  for  in  vers. 
11,  13,  and  21,  he  speaks  distinctly  of  the  statutes  and  judg- 
ments of  the  Mosaic  law,  as  being  of  such  a  character  that  the 
man  who  did  them  would  live  by  them.  And  to  think  of  only  the 
moral  law  in  this  connection,  would  be  perfectly  absurd,  apart 
from  all  other  considerations,  for  the  simple  reason,  that  in  every 
instance  the  desecration  of  the  Sabbath  is  distinctly  mentioned. 
And  it  shows  just  as  grievous  a  misapprehension  to  appeal,  as 
some  do,  in  confirmation  of  this  opinion,  to  the  remarks  made 
by  the  Apostle  Paul  as  to  the  obligation  to  observe  the  ceremonial 
law. — (v.)  Heathen,  or  idolatrous  customs,  to  which  Jehovah 
gave  them  up  as  a  punishment  for  their  sins, — in  the  sense  of 
Rom.  i.  24,  25.  This  is  the  view  entertained  by  Calvin,  Vitringa, 
Havernick,  and  others. —  (vi.)  The  laws  of  worship,  which  were 
given  by  Jehovah,  but  misinterpreted  and  perverted  by  the  people 
in  a  godless  and  heathen  manner.  This  is  Umbreifs  explanation. 
The  last  two  are  essentially  one,  seeing  that  they  both  of  them 
bring  against  the  Israelites  the  charge  of  carrying  on  heathen 
worship  in  the  desert,  and  both  perceive  in  this  a  proof  of  the 
judicial  will  of  God.  Havernick  traces  an  analogy  between  the 
expression,  "  I  gave  them  statutes,"  and  two  expressions  in  the 
New  Testament,  viz.,  Acts  vii.  42,  "  God  gave  them,  up  to  wor- 
ship the  host  of  heaven,"  and  Rom.  i.  26,  "  God  also  gave  them 
up  unto  vile  affections."  But  Hitzig  has  very  properly  objected 
to  this,  that  the  passages  would  be  parallel,  if  the  words  of 
Ezekiel  were,  "  /  gave  them  up  to  such  statutes,""  and  not  other- 
wise ;  for  in  that  case  some  other  than  Jehovah  might  have 
given  them  the  statutes.  But  the  same  objection  does  not  apply 
to  the  third  passage  adduced  by  Hdve7iuck  as  analogous,  viz.,  2 
Thess.  ii.  11,  "For  this  cause  God  shall  send  them  strong  de- 
lusion, that  they  should  believe  a  lie  ;"  to  which  we  might  add 
Ps.  cix.  17,  "As  he  loved  cursing,  so  let  it  come  unto  him ;  as 
he  delighted  not  in  blessing,  so  let  it  be  far  from  him."  But 
these  analogies  may  be  appealed  to,  as  favouring  Umbreiis  ex- 
planation quite  as  much  as  Havernick^  s.  And  we  prefer  Um- 
brei£s;  in  the  first  place,  because  the  analogy  of  the  calf- worship 
at  Sinai  shows,  that  at  this  time  the  idolatrous  tendencies  of  the 
Israelites  did  not  lead  them  to  give  themselves  up  directly  to 
heathenism,  but  rather  to  retain  the  name  and  forms  of  the 
worship  of  Jehovah,  whilst  they  gave  it  a  heathenish  nature ; 


THE  THIRTY-SEVEN  YEARS'  BAN.  317 

and,  in  the  second  place,  because  the  prophet  himself  explains 
what  he  says  by  citing  an  example,  which  evidently  points  to  a 
law  of  the  theocracy  (Ex.  xiii.  12,  13),  namely,  the  untheocratical 
offerino;  of  the  fin'st-born.  The  offerincj  of  all  the  first-born  of 
man  and  beast  was  commanded  by  Jehovah  Himself.  It  was 
good  in  itself,  and  subservient  to  the  well-being  of  the  citizen  of 
the  theocracy,  whenever  he  carried  it  out  in  the  sense  and 
manner  required  by  God.  But  it  was  not  good,  and  instead  of 
promoting  life  and  salvation,  it  polluted  and  corrupted  him, 
when  it  was  practised  in  a  heathen  sense  and  in  a  heathen 
manner.  Now  the  prophet  distinctly  tells  us  that  the  latter  was 
the  case  in  the  desert.  But  even  when  abused  in  this  ungodly 
manner,  the  statute  itself  still  continued  to  be  one  given  by 
Jehovah ;  and,  still  more  than  this,  even  the  fact  that  it  was 
misinterpreted  and  abused,  and  that  it  afterwards  polluted  and 
corrupted,  was  to  be  traced  to  Jehovah,  so  far  as  it  was  a  realisa- , 
tion  of  His  determination  to  punish  Israel. 

The  information  which  we  obtain  from  the  prophet's  words, 
respecting  the  religious  condition  of  Israel  in  the  desert,  is  in 
general  this,  that  they  either  despised  the  statutes  of  Jehovah, 
or  else  abused  them,  so  as  to  render  them  heathenish  in  their 
character.  Two  special  examples  are  given  :  viz.,  Jirst,  the 
desecration  of  the  Sabbaths  of  Jehovah — a  neglect  of  the  times 
appointed  for  the  Sabbath  and  for  religious  worship,  which  could 
hardly  take  place  without  the  whole  of  the  M^orship  of  the 
theocracy  being  neglected ;  and  secondly,  a  false  and  ungodly, 
that  is,  heathenish  observance,  of  the  command  to  sanctify  all 
the  first-born.  With  regard  to  the  latter,  it  is  still  questionable, 
how  far  this  abuse  to  heathenish  ends  proceeded.  The  prophet 
says  that  Israel  was  polluted,  through  offering  all  the  first-born. 
The  law,  in  Ex.  xiii.  12,  13,  did  not  command  that  all  the  first- 
born should  be  sacrificed,  but  only  the  first-born  of  clean  beasts  : 
those  of  men  were  to  be  redeemed,  and  those  of  unclean  beasts 
either  put  to  death  (without  sacrificing)  or  redeemed.  The 
crime  of  the  Israelites  probably  consisted  in  the  fact,  that  they 
actually  sacrificed  the  first-born,  as  Avas  the  case  in  connection 
with  heathen  worship.  In  fact,  the  dedication  of  the  first-born,  in 
the  manner  practised  in  connection  with  the  worship  of  ISIoloch, 
is  as  good  as  expressly  mentioned,  seeing  that  the  word  employed 
by  the  prophet  (i''?i?[',  i.e.,  to  cause  to  pass  through,  sc.  the  fire; 


318  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PARAN. 

cf.  ver.  31)  was  a  technical  term  peculiar  to  the  Moloch  wor- 
ship.^ 

It  is  by  no  means  incredible,  or  improbable,  that  during  the 
time  when  the  Israelites  were  scattered  about  in  the  desert,  and 
isolated  from  the  sanctuary,  particular  instances  may  have  oc- 
curred of  human  sacrifices  (the  offering  of  the  first-born).  If  we 
only  consider  the  magic  power  of  the  Nature-worship  of  that 
time,  the  tendency  of  the  Israelites  to  give  way  to  it,  the  deep 
religious  element  which  pervaded  a  worship  characterised  by 
human  sacrifices,  notwithstanding  the  fearful  cruelty  connected 
with  it  (vol.  i.  §  65, 1),  the  force  of  temptation,  and  the  example 
of  the  heathen  round  about  (think  of  Serbal,  for  instance,  §  5, 4) 
— we  shall  not  think  it  incomprehensible,  that  there  should  have 
been  so  thorough  a  perversion  of  the  religious  feeling  on  the  part 
of  the  Israelites  ;  especially  if  we  bear  in  mind,  that  the  greater 
part  of  the  nation  was  scattered  about  and  left  to  itself,  and  not 
only  isolated  from  the  tabernacle,  but  deprived,  in  consequence, 
of  the  instructions,  warnings,  and  exhortations  of  Moses,  the  re- 
velations and  chastisements  of  Jehovah,  and,  in  fact,  of  the 
whole  spiritual  support  furnished  by  the  worship  of  the  sanc- 
tuary. 

But  the  words  of  the  prophet  are  not  to  be  strained  unrea- 
sonably, so  as  to  be  made  to  mean  that  the  e^dls  referred  to  were 
usually,  and  in  fact  invariably,  associated  with  the  religious 
worship  of  this  period.  Ample  justice  will  be  done  to  the  words 
of  the  prophet,  if  we  merely  suppose  him  to  mean  that  there 
were  cases  of  this  kind,  of  more  or  less  frequent  occurrence,  not 
that  they  were  by  any  means  universal,  or  even  the  general  rule. 
The  tone  of  the  prophet's  address  is  that  of  denunciation ;  and, 
under  such  circumstances,  it  is  neither  expected  nor  required  that 
the  state  of  things  on  all  sides  should  be  fully  described,  and  that 
if  there  was  anything  good,  anything  noble,  any  fidelity  or  truth 
at  all,  it  should  be  carefully  recorded  side  by  side  with  the  moral 

'^  This  is  certainly  incorrect.  The  term  ^"'a^'T  is  no  doubt  employed  on  many 
occasions  in  connection  with  the  dedication  of  children  to  Moloch,  and  in 
two  or  three  instances  "iJ^iiS:  is  added,  to  show  that  children  so  dedicated  passed 
through  the  fire.  But  the  word  •^'^n^'n  occurs  as  early  as  Ex.  xiii.  12,  in 
connection,  not  with  the  worship  of  Moloch,  but  the  worship  of  Jehovah 
("  And  thou  shalt  set  apart — ti^l??",  cause  to  pass  over — to  the  Lord  all  that 
openeth  the  matrix,  etc."). — TV. 


THE  THIETY-SEYEN  YEARS'  BAN.  319 

and  religious  transgressions  and  sins.  From  an  address,  tlie 
purport  of  which  is  to  administer  only  a  severe  rebuke,  we 
naturally  expect  to  obtain  merely  a  one-sided,  faulty  picture  of 
the  period  to  which  it  refers.  And  we  repeat  what  we  have 
already  said,  that  the  love-song  of  Jeremiah,  with  reference  to 
the  bridal  condition  of  Israel  in  the  desert  (Jer.  ii.  2,  3),  may 
stand  side  by  side  with  the  denunciations  of  Ezekiel  (y id.  §  1,  2). 
(3.)  For  the  interpretation  of  the  very  difficult  passage, 
Amos  v.  25-27,  of  which  the  excellent  and  learned  Selden  was 
obliged  to  admit,  "  in  loco  isto  Amos  prophets  obscm'o  me  tam 
/cotL  coecutire  sentio,  ut  nihil  omnino  videam,"  consult  not  only  the 
commentators,  siTch  as  Rosenmilller,  Hitzig,  Maurer,  Ewald, 
Umbreit,  and  G.  JBaur,  but  also  Braun  (Selecta  ss.,  p.  477  sqq.), 
Vitringa  (Obserw.  ss.,  1,  241  sqq.),  Witsius  (Miscellanea  ss.,  1, 
608  sqq.),  Deyling  (Obserw.  ss.,  ii.  444  sqq.),  Lilienthal  (Gute 
Sache,  iii.  327  sqq.),  Speiicer  (de  legg.  Hebr.,  iii.  c.  3,  1),  iV. 
G.  Schroder  (de  tabernaculo  Mosis  et  stellae  Dei  Rempha,  ]\Iarp. 
1745),  Jahlonshy  (Remphan  yEgyptiorum  Deus,  Opusc.  ii.  p.  1 
sqq.),  J.  D.  Micliaelis  (Supplem.  ad  Lex.  p.  1226  sqq.),  Gese- 
nius  (Thesaurus,  p.  669),  Vatke  (bibl.  Theol.  i.  190  sqq.), 
liengstenherg  (Beitr.  ii.  108  sqq.),  Movers  (Phonizier,  i.  289 
sqq.),  Winer  (Reallex.  s.  v.  Satm'n),  E.  Meier  (Studien  und 
Kritiken,  1843,  p.  1030  sqq.),  Fr.  Diisterdieck  (Studien  und 
Kritiken,  1849,  p.  908  sqq.). 

This  passage  has  recently  acquired  even  greater  importance 
than  it  possessed  before,  from  the  fact  that  Vatke  and  others 
have  taken  it  as  the  basis  of  an  entirely  new  religious  histoiT  of 
the  Israelitish  nation.  Vatke,  for  example,  seeks  to  prove  that  the 
Pentateuch  contains  the  priests'  legend,  in  which  the  early 
history  is  altered  to  suit  private  ends.  In  the  prophets,  on  the 
other  hand,  there  is  another  stream  of  tradition,  which  has  pre- 
served the  early  history  of  the  nation  in  a  pure  and  unadulterated 
form,  and  to  which  we  nuist  therefore  look  for  means  to  rectify 
the  myth  of  the  priests.  From  the  passage  in  Amos  (in  con- 
nection with  that  in  Ezekiel  xx.)  Vatke  then  proceeds  to  demon- 
strate, that  the  Israelitish  nation  was  at  first  addicted  to  the 
worship  of  Nature,  which  prevailed  among  the  Canaanites  and 
Phoenicians ;  and  that  it  was  only  at  a  later  period,  and  very 
slowly,  that,  under  the  influence  of  the  prophets,  the  Avorship  of 
Jehovah  prevailed  over  that  of  Nature.  Daumer  calls  the  passage 


320  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PARAN. 

in  Amos  "  a  monstrous  assertion,  which  destroys  the  whole  of 
our  traditional  theology  with  one  blow"  {Feuer-und  Molochs- 
dienst  der  alien  Isr.,  p.  47). 

In  vers.  21-24,  the  prophet  declares  to  the  people  that 
Jehovah  takes  no  pleasure  in  the  outward,  hjpocritical  observance 
of  feasts,  sacrifices,  and  prayers,  without  the  corresponding  feel- 
ing, without  purity  of  heart  and  uprightness  of  life.  He  then 
proceeds  to  say  in  ver.  25  :  '■'■  Have  ye  offered  unto  Me  sacrifices 
and  offerings  in  tlie  wilderness  forty  years,  0  house  of  Israel  ? 
(Ver.  26.)  And  now  ye  carry  (?  then  ye  carried)  the  tabernacle 
of  your  King,  and  the  stand  of  your  images  (riX'l  D33?0  ni3p  nt? 
^?''P?V  1''*?)?  the  star  of  your  god,  which  ye  made  to  yourselves. 
(Ver.  27.)  Therefore  I  lead  you  captive  beyond  Damascus,  saith 
Jehovah,  ivhose  name  is  the  God  of  hosts." 

That  the  n  in  Cnn-^n  (ver.  25)  is  neither  the  article,  nor  the 
demonstrative  pronoun,  as  Maurer  and  others  suppose,  but  the 
interrogative  particle,  is  admitted  by  nearly  all  modem  commen- 
tators. But  if  the  verse  is  to  read  as  a  question,  which  it  certainly 
is,  it  still  remains  doubtful  whether  an  affirmative  or  a  negative 
reply  is  expected ;  in  other  words,  whether  the  prophet  intended 
to  affirm  that  the  Israelites  had,  or  that  they  had  not,  offered 
sacrifices  and  offerings  duiing  the  forty  years  spent  in  the  desert. 
Umbreit  supports  the  former  view,  the  majority  of  commentators 
the  latter.  It  is  equally  difficult  to  decide  whether  ver.  26 
(m2p  n^^  Drisb*3^)  is  to  be  understood  as  referring  to  the  past,  i.e., 
to  the  forty  years'  sojourn  in  the  desert,  as  Hitzig,  Baur,  and  the 
majority  of  commentators  of  both  ancient  and  modern  times 
suppose,  or  to  the  prophet's  own  days,  as  Rilckert,  Umbreit,  and 
Dilsterdiech  think,  or  whether  Ewald  is  right  in  regarding  it  as 
a  prediction  of  the  future.  And  whichever  we  select,  a  still 
fiu'ther  question  arises :  In  what  relation  does  ver.  25  stand  to 
ver.  26  '? — There  can  be  no  doubt  whatever  that  ver.  27  refers 
to  the  futui'e. 

Umbreit  gives  this  exposition  :  "  Wliat  a  miserable  inconsis- 
tency you  children  of  Israel  are  guilty  of !  You  first  sacrifice 
for  forty  years  to  the  one  holy  God,  and  then  carry  about  the 
images  of  strange  and  false  gods."  But,  assuming  that  an 
affirmative  answer  is  implied  in  ver.  25,  it  would  perhaps  be 
more  in  harmony  with  the  context,  both  before  and  afterwards, 
to  interpret  it  thus :  "  Dui'ing  your  forty  years'  sojourn  in  the 


THE  THIRTY-SEVEN  YEARS'  BAN.  321 

desert  you  offered  sacrifices  to  Me ;  yet  (ver.  26)  at  the  same 
time  you  practised  idolatry." — The  connection  between  ver.  25 
and  the  preceding  and  following  verses  is  variously  explained, 
by  those  who  are  of  opinion  that  the  answer  should  be  in  the 
negative.  Jerome^  for  example,  laid  the  emphasis  upon  the  v, 
"  not  to  Jig,  but  to  idols  ye  offered  sacrifices."  Eioald  interprets 
the  passage  in  this  way :  "  At  one  time  the  Israelites  offered  no 
sacrifices  to  Jehovah  for  forty  years"  (for  in  the  wretched, 
barren  desert,  they  could  not  offer  them ;  at  least,  as  individuals, 
they  had  no  means  of  doing  so,  even  if  it  were  the  case  that  at 
times  there  was  offered  in  the  name  of  the  congregation  a 
miserable  sacrifice,  not  worthy  to  be  named  by  the  side  of  the 
fat  beasts  which  were  afterwards  sacrificed  even  by  private 
individuals;  cf.  Hos.  ii.  5-16;  Jer.  vii.  22,  23);  "and  yet  this 
was  the  golden  age  of  Israel,  with  which  Jehovah  was  so  well 
pleased.  So  little  does  it  depend  upon  such  sacrifices  as  these !" 
He  then  connects  vers.  26,  27  with  vers.  21-24,  in  the  following 
manner :  "  If  they  (viz.,  the  Israelites  of  the  prophet's  own  days) 
are  such  infatuated  traitors  to  the  true  religion,  they  will  be 
suddenly  overpowered  and  put  to  flight  by  the  enemy,  as  a 
proper  punishment ;  and,  taking  upon  their  backs  the  wi'etched 
idols  of  every  kind,  which  their  own  hands  have  made,  to  see  if 
they  might  possibly  help  them,  they  will  be  carried  far  away  to 
the  north  into  captivity  by  the  true  God  whom  they  despise." 

In  our  opinion,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  question  in 
ver.  26  should  receive  a  negative  reply.  This  is  more  in  harmony, 
not  only  with  the  Pentateuch,  but  also  with  the  context  of  the 
passage  itself.  It  is  true  that,  according  to  the  account  contained 
in  the  Pentateuch,  the  period  spent  in  the  desert  was  by  no 
means  altogether  without  sacrifices.  In  fact,  it  was  to  this 
period  that  the  fundamental  sacrifices  connected  with  the  con- 
clusion of  the  covenant,  the  first  consecration  of  the  priesthood, 
the  dedication  of  the  sanctuary,  and  other  things,  belonged. 
But  notwithstanding  this,  the  prophet  could  very  well  say :  "  Did 
ye  then  offer  Me  sacrifices  in  the  desert  ?  " — for  he  was  thinking 
of  the  number,  the  universality,  and  the  variety  of  the  sacrifices 
offered  in  his  own  day.  In  the  context  of  the  passage,  especially 
in  vers.  21-24,  he  refers  not  to  an  absolute,  but  merely  to  a 
relative  want  of  sacrifices  in  the  desert.  In  contrast  with  the 
requirements  of  the  fully  developed  laws  of  the  Pentateuch,  as 

VOL.  III.  X 


322  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OP  PARAN. 

well  as  with  the  practice  of  the  prophet's  own  times,  the  period 
spent  in  the  desert  was  apparently  without  sacrifice.  The  rare, 
and  comparatively  insignificant  sacrifices  which  were  offered  in 
the  desert,  were  lost  in  the  general  barrenness  of  the  period.  It 
was  just  as  if  there  were  no  offerings  presented  at  all.  To  give 
effect  to  all  the  laws  of  sacrifice  which  were  laid  down  by  the 
great  lawgiver,  and  actually  carried  out  by  a  later  age,  was  an 
absolute  impossibility  imder  the  unfavourable  circumstances  in 
which  they  were  placed.  From  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  and 
therefore  according  to  the  expectation  and  intention  of  Moses 
himself,  the  ceremonial  law  could  not  be  earned  out  in  its  full 
extent,  till  after  the  settlement  of  the  nation  in  the  promised 
land.  Hence  the  omission  of  sacrifice  in  the  desert  would  not 
of  itself  preclude  the  favour  of  God  from  resting  upon  the 
youthful  community.  And  this  is  just  the  point  of  the 
prophet's  argument.  The  fact  that  feasts  and  sacrifices  are 
not  sufiicient  of  themselves,  apart  from  the  proper  state  of 
mind,  and  merely  regarded  as  an  opus  operatum,  to  ensiu'e  the 
favour  and  good  pleasure  of  Jehovah,  is  estabhshed  by  a  refer- 
ence to  this  period,  in  which  the  feasts  and  sacrifices  were  inter- 
rupted to  such  an  extent,  and  were  so  meagre  and  imperfect, 
that  they  might  be  regarded  as  having  no  existence  at  all,  though 
it  was  nevertheless  a  period  more  highly  distinguished  for  mani- 
festations of  the  grace  of  God  than  any  succeeding  age  (cf. 
chap.  ii.  10). 

Moreover,  with  regard  to  ver.  26  itself,  we  are  thoroughly 
convinced  that  the  only  admissible  explanation  is  that  which 
refers  it  to  the  prophet's  own  times.  If  the  idolatry  alluded  to 
in  ver.  26  belonged  to  a  past  age,  then  ver.  27,  with  its  threats 
of  piuiishment,  has  nothing  whatever  to  rest  upon.  The  captivity 
predicted  can  only  be  regarded  as  a  direct  punishment  for  the 
sins  of  the  existing  generation,  certainly  not  for  the  idolatry 
practised  in  the  earliest  period  of  the  nation's  history ;  yet  it  is 
upon  the  statement  made  in  ver.  26  that  the  threat  in  ver.  27 
apparently  rests.  It  is  quite  as  much  out  of  the  question  to 
refer  ver.  26  to  the  future,  as  Eicald  has  done.  The  close  con- 
nection between  ver.  25  and  ver.  26,  and  the  progress  of  thought 
from  the  one  to  the  other,  prohibit  this.  Nor  is  it  only  the  want 
of  a  basis  for  ver.  27,  which  compels  us  to  interpret  ver.  26  as 
alluding  to  the  prophet's  own  times.     We  are  equally  shut  up 


THE  THIRTY-SEVEN  YEARS'  B.VN.  323 

to  this  by  the  connection  between  the  latter  and  ver.  25,  as  well 
as  by  its  relation  to  vers.  21-24.  The  three  verses  set  before  us 
the  past,  the  present,  and  the  future.  In  the  period  of  its  youth, 
which  was  so  rich  in  manifestations  of  the  grace  of  Jehovah, 
the  Israelites  offered  hardly  any  sacrifices  at  all.  In  the  prophet's 
day  they  offered  sacrifices  in  rich  abundance,  and  fancied  that 
by  so  doing  they  had  fully  satisfied  Jehovah.  But  it  was  all 
vain  hypocrisy,  a  religion  of  works ;  for,  whilst  outwardly  sacri- 
ficing to  Jehovah  with  all  conceivable  pomp,  they  tolerated  and 
practised  at  the  same  time  every  possible  abomination  of  idolatry. 
But  the  judgment  of  Jehovah  was  already  hanging  over  it  for 
such  h_y^ocrisy  and  doublefacedness. 

G.  Bauer  objects  to  the  supposition  that  ver.  26  relates  to 
the  prophet's  own  times,  on  the  ground  that  there  is  no  evidence 
of  the  existence  of  any  such  idolatry  as  is  here  depicted,  in  the 
time  of  Amos.  But  we  know  far  too  little  of  the  idolatrous 
tendencies  of  the  Israelites  in  the  time  of  Amos,  for  such  an 
objection  to  have  any  force.  That  the  star-Avorship  alluded  to 
is  only  conceivable  in  the  desert,  and  then  again  in  the  Assyrian 
age,  is  a  thoroughly  groundless  assumption.  There  is  much 
more  weight  in  the  argument  based  upon  the  words  of  the 
protomartyr  Stephen,  in  Acts  vii.  42,  43 ;  but  these  words  are 
merely  quoted  from  the  Septuagint,  the  renderings  of  which  are 
not  to  be  unconditionally  adopted. 

Having  arrived  at  this  result,  that  ver.  26  relates  to  the 
prophet's  own  times,  we  may,  in  fact  must,  decline  entering  into 
any  more  minute  examination  of  the  special  difiiculties  connected 
wdth  the  verse  in  question.  We  simply  content  ourselves  with 
the  remark,  that  we  agree  with  Gesenius,  Hengstenherg,  Movers^ 
Ewald,  Ilitzig,  Umhreit,  DustercUeck,  and  others,  in  regarding 
1^*3  as  a  common  noun,  meaning  pedestal  (Gestell,  stand),  and 
reject  the  notion  supported  by  Winer,  Baur,  E.  Meier,  and 
others,  that  it  is  to  Saturn  that  the  prophet  refers.  In  tliis  case 
the  word  is  pointed  1^3  or  IV3,  and  regarded  as  identical  with 
the  Perso-Arabic  name  of  Saturn — viz.,  Kaiwan,  which  tlie 
Egyptians  are  said  to  have  called  Raiphan  or  Remphan,  the 
rendering  adopted  by  the  Septuagint. 

(4.)  In  Joshua  v.  4-9,  we  are  told,  that  when  the  Israelites 
left  Egypt,  all  the  men  and  male  children  were  circumcised,  but 
that  the  rite  had  been  omitted  in  the  case  of  those  wlio  were 


324  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PARAN. 

born  in  the  desert,  and  was  not  performed  till  after  their  entrance 
into  the  holy  land,  when  Joshua  commanded  it,  preparatory  to 
the  celebration  of  the  second  Passover.  It  is  not  merely  from 
the  period  of  the  rejection,  but  from  the  Exodus  itself,  that  the 
book  of  Joshua  dates  the  suspension  of  circumcision.  Thus  in 
ver.  5  we  read :  "  All  the  people  that  were  born  in  the  wilder- 
ness by  the  way  as  they  came  forth  out  of  Egypt,  they  had  not 
circumcised."  The  reason  assigned  for  the  omission  in  ver.  7  is 
this :  "  Because  they  had  not  circumcised  them  hy  the  icay 
(auf  dem  Wege,  on  the  road).  It  is  evident  from  this,  that  the 
ordinary  opinion  is  incorrect,  namely,  that  it  was  not  till  after 
the  rejection  at  Kadesh — in  fact,  in  consequence  of  the  rejection, 
which  is  regarded  as  a  suspension  of  the  covenant — that  circum- 
cision was  omitted.  We  have  abeady  shown  (§  42)  that  the 
rejection  was  limited  to  the  postponement  for  forty  years  of  their 
possession  of  the  land,  and  did  not  involve  a  suspension  of  the 
covenant.  And  there  is  all  the  less  reason  for  the  supposition, 
that  the  presumed  suspension  of  the  covenant  was  the  cause  of 
the  omission  of  circumcision,  from  the  fact  that  the  rishig  gene- 
ration vfas  expressly  exempted  from  the  sentence  of  rejection. 
According  to  the  representation  contained  in  the  book  of  Joshua, 
the  following  is  the  correct  view : — The  circumcision  of  the  new- 
born was  omitted  from  the  time  of  the  departure  from  Egj^pt, — 
at  first,  no  doubt,  on  account  of  the  difficulty  of  the  joiu'ney ; 
for  when  the  camp  was  broken  up,  and  the  orders  were  given  to 
advance,  it  was  impossible  to  make  any  allowance  for  any  of  the 
families  which  might  require  longer  rest,  on  account  of  the 
new-bom  infants  being  ill  at  the  time  with  the  fever  which 
followed  circmncision.  On  the  other  hand,  they  could  not  be 
left  behind ;  and  therefore  nothing  remained  but  to  suspend  the 
circumcision  altogether.  The  whole  period  of  the  journey  through 
the  desert  was  one  of  affliction,  which  fully  warranted  the  omission. 
It  was  undoubtedly  their  intention  at  the  time  to  repair  the 
omission  on  reaching  the  holy  land.  And  this  continued  to  be 
the  case  even  after  the  sentence  of  rejection,  by  which  the 
entrance  into  the  promised  land  was  postponed  for  thii'ty-eight 
years. 


THE  SECOND  HALT  AT  KADESH.  325 


THE  SECOND  HALT  AT  KADESH. 

§  44.  (Num.  XX.  1-13.) — At  the  beginning  of  the  fortieth 
year  from  the  time  of  the  Exodus,  we  find  the  whole  of  tlie  people 
assembled  once  more  atKadesh  (1).  There  Miriam  died.  The 
want  of  water  caused  the  people  to  nuirmur ;  and  though  the 
old  generation  had  now  for  the  most  part  passed  away,  the 
same  presumptuous  speeches  against  ISIoses  and  Aaron  were 
lieard  again :  "  Why  have  ye  brought  up  the  congregation  of 
the  Lord  into  this  wilderness,  that  we  and  our  cattle  should  die 
there  ?  ^^liy  have  ye  brought  us  out  of  the  fruitful  and  well- 
watered  land  of  Egypt  into  the  waste  and  barren  desert? 
Would  that  we  had  perished  when  our  brethren  perished  before 
Jehovah !"  (Num.  xiv.  36). — Moses  and  Aaron  received  from 
God  the  same  command,  as  formerly  at  Rephidim  (§4,  1),  to 
bring  water  out  of  the  rock  with  their  staff  (3).  But  Moses 
was  so  excited  by  the  hard-hearted,  impenitent,  and  rebellious 
disposition  of  the  nation,  which  proved  to  be  as  little  subdued, 
after  all  the  punishment,  as  it  was  before,  that  he  lost  the  calm, 
temperate,  and  firm  bearing  which  had  hitherto  been  sustained 
by  the  self-reliance  of  his  faith.  In  the  height  of  his  passion, 
and  overpowered  by  his  ill-will,  he  abused  the  people,  and  smote 
the  rock  ivAcQ  in  an  angry  and  impatient  manner  (4).  The 
firmness  of  his  faith,  and  his  fidelity  as  a  mediator,  which  had 
been  maintained  thus  far,  had  given  way  at  last ;  and  as  it  is 
right  that  judgment  should  begin  at  the  house  of  God  (1  Pet. 
iv.  17),  the  Divine  sentence  was  pronounced  upon  him,  that  he 
should  not  bring  the  congregation  into  the  promised  land.  The 
sentence  also  included  his  brother  Aaron,  who  stood  by  his  side, 
and  was  involved  in  the  wavering  of  his  faith.  On  account  of 
what  occurred  here,  the  well  was  called  Me-Merihah  (strife- 
waters)  (5) ;  vid.  §  30,  5. 

(1.)  "  That  it  was  of  gi'eat  importance,  that  at  the  close  of 
the  thirty-seven  years  Israel  should  assemble  once  more  in  the 


326  ISKAEL  IN  THE  DESEET  OF  PAEAN. 

veiy  same  Kadesh  in  wliicli  the  sentence  had  been  first  pro- 
nounced, must  be  intuitively  evident,  from  the  simple  fact  that 
this  would  be  the  most  impressive  mode  in  which  the  termina- 
tion of  the  period  of  curse  could  be  pointed  out.  But  it  was  a 
matter  of  intense  significance,  that  Israel  should  a  second  time 
turn  what  was  meant  for  a  blessing  into  a  cvirse,  and,  tlu'ough 
its  sin  against  God,  should  make  Kadesh  once  more  what  it  had 
formerly  been,  the  scene  of  a  tragical  catastrophe.  That  the 
Israelites,  though  remembering  what  had  taken  place  on  this 
very  spot  thirty-seven  years  before,  instead  of  earnestly  repent 
ing,  should  only  commit  fresh  sin,  is  a  sufficient  explanation  of  the 
extreme  indignation  of  Moses  and  Aaron.  The  first  and  last 
sojourn  at  Kadesh  came  mider  precisely  the  same  category,  as 
distinguished  by  a  tragical  catastrophe,  and  under  this  charac- 
ter they  were  both  deeply  impressed  upon  the  minds  of  the 
IsraeHtes"  {Fries,  pp.  58,  59). 

(2.)  As  it  is  stated  in  ver.  9  that  Moses  took  the  rod  ''ps?p 
nin^j  i.e.,  out  of  the  sanctuary,  some  commentators  have  sup- 
posed that  the  rod  intended  must  have  been  Aaron's  rod  of 
almond-wood  which  budded,  since  this  rod  was  laid  up  in  the 
sanctuary.  But  in  ver.  11  it  is  expressly  called  "his  {i.e. 
Moses')  rod."  The  same  rod  undoubtedly  is  meant,  with  wdiich 
Moses  performed  all  the  miracles  in  Egypt,  and  brought  water 
out  of  the  rock  at  Rephidim ;  and  we  leani  from  the  passage 
before  us,  that  this  rod  was  also  laid  up  in  the  sanctuary  (pro- 
bably immediately  after  the  erection  of  the  tabernacle). 

(3.)  As  the  article  in  V?^n  in  ver.  8  points  to  some  well- 
known  EOCK,  that  has  been  already  mentioned,  several  Rabbins 
have  imagined  that  the  rock  alluded  to  must  be  the  rock  at 
Rephidim  (§  4,  1),  which  had  constantly  followed  Israel  through 
the  desert,  and  hitherto  had  provided  it  with  water.  Others,  to 
whom  such  a  miracle  appeared  to  be  something  by  far  too 
monstrous,  were  of  opinion  that  the  stream  which  flowed  from 
the  rock  at  Rephidim  continued  to  follow  the  camp ;  and  in 
Deut.  ix.  21,  and  Ps.  Ixxviii.  16-20  and  cv.  41,  they  found  this 
view  confirmed.  But  the  most  that  could  possibly  be  infeiTed 
from  these  passages  would  be,  that  the  fountain,  which  was 
opened  by  Moses'  rod,  still  continued  to  flow.  In  1  Cor.  x.  4 
("  And  did  all  drink  the  same  spiritual  drink :  for  they  drank 
of  that  spiritual  Rock  that  followed  them ;  and  that  Rock  was 


THE  SECOND  HALT  AT  KADESH.  327 

Christ  ')  the  Apostle  Paul  evidently  alludes  to  the  Eabbinical 
fable,  with  which  he  was  Avell  acquainted,  and  shows  that  Avhat 
was  fictitious  in  the  Rabbinical  traditions,  was  really  true  in  a 
spiritual  sense.  Aharhanel,  however,  was  also  acute  enough  to 
give  a  spiritual  interpretation  to  the  llabbinical  legend.  His 
words  are :  "  But  the  true  meaning  of  the  passage  is  this,  that 
the  waters  which  issued  in  Horeb  were  a  gift  of  God,  be- 
stowed upon  the  Israelites,  and  continued  throughout  the  desert, 
like  the  manna.  For,  wherever  they  went,  sources  of  living 
water  were  opened  to  them  according  to  their  need.  And  for 
this  reason  the  rock  in  Kadesh  was  the  same  rock  as  that  in 
Horeb ;  that  is  to  say,  the  water  of  the  rock  in  Kadesh  was  the 
same  water  as  that  which  issued  from  the  rock  in  Horeb,  inas- 
much as  it  came  from  a  miraculous  source,  which  followed  them 
through  all  the  desert "  {cf.  J.  Buxtorf ;  Hist.  Petrse  in  deserto, 
in  his  Exercitt.  p.  422  seq.). 

(4.)  The  question  is  not  altogether  without  difficulty,  what 
was  the  sin  of  Moses,  which  drew  down  so  severe  a  sentence  ? 
And  a  great  variety  of  answers  have  been  given  (yid.  Buxtorf, 
p.  426  sqq.).  It  is  very  obvious  that  we  must  seek  for  it  in  the 
want  of  harmony  between  the  instructions  given  by  God  and 
the  execution  of  these  instructions  on  the  part  of  Moses.  At 
the  very  outset,  however,  we  must  ex])ress  our  agreement  with 
Hengstenberg  (Pentateuch,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  349,  350),  and  pronounce 
the  opinion  entertained  by  the  majority  of  commentators  alto- 
gether erroneous,  viz.,  that  Moses'  sin  consisted  in  the  fact,  that 
instead  of  speaking  to  the  rock,  as  Jehovah  expressly  com- 
manded, he  smote  it.  Wliy  should  he  have  taken  the  rod,  if  he 
was  not  to  use  it  ?  The  command,  "  Take  the  rod,"  involved  a 
command  to  use  it ;  and  the  manner  in  which  it  was  to  be  used, 
did  not  require  to  be  more  fully  explained,  but  followed  as  a 
matter  of  course,  from  the  similar  miracle  that  had  been  per- 
formed at  Rephidim  (Ex.  xvii.  5,  6).  On  the  other  hand,  we 
do  regard  the  fact  that  he  smote  the  rock  impetuously,  and 
smote  it  twice,  as  a  part  of  the  sin,  inasmuch  as  this  was  the 
unmistakeable  effect  of  excitement  caused  by  impatience  and 
ill-will.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  evident  from  Ps.  c\d.  32,  33, 
"  They  angered  him  also  at  the  waters  of  strife,  so  that  it  went 
ill  Avith  Moses  for  their  sakes :  because  they  provoked  his  spirit, 
so  that  he  spake  unadA-isedly  with  his  lips," — that  the  sin  was  not 


328  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PAEAN. 

confined  to  the  two  passionate  strokes,  bnt  embraced  also  his 
passionate  words.  According  to  the  account  before  us,  Moses 
said  to  the  people :  "  Hear  now,  ye  rebels ;  must  we  fetch  you 
water  out  of  this  rock?"  And  in  the  Divine  sentence  pro- 
nomiced  on  both  Moses  and  Aaron,  the  fact  is  distinctly  ex- 
pressed, that  the  actions  and  words  of  the  former  evinced  a 
temporary  wavering  of  his  faith :  "  Because,  said  Jehovah,  ye 
believed  Me  not  (or  did  not  place  confidence  in  Me,  Dri30J5n"N7 
^^),  to  sanctify  Me  in  the  eyes  of  the  children  of  Israel,  there- 
fore ye  shall  not,"  etc.  According  to  these  words,  the  sin  of 
jSIoses  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact,  that  although  he  had  no  doubt 
as  to  the  power  of  God,  he  had  not  in  this  instance  the  true  and 
absolute  confidence  which,  as  mediator,  he  should  have  had  in  the 
mercy  of  God ;  that  he  was  overpowered  by  the  manifestation 
of  discontent  on  the  part  of  the  Israelites,  which  led  them,  now 
that  they  had  been  brought  a  second  time  to  the  borders  of  the 
promised  land,  a  land  flowing  with  milk  and  honey,  to  declare 
that  it  would  have  been  better  to  remain  in  Egypt,  the  slaves 
of  a  heathen  king,  than  to  endure,  as  the  people  of  God,  a  brief 
and  by  no  means  intolerable  inconvenience  in  the  desert.  The 
discovery  of  this  sin,  on  the  part  of  the  Israehtes,  produced  such 
an  effect  upon  his  mind,  that  he  lost  sight  of  the  mercy  of  Je- 
hovah ;  whereas  it  was  his  duty,  and  his  special  vocation  as  the 
mediator  between  the  two,  to  keep  both  before  his  eyes  with 
equal  distinctness,  and  not  to  suffer  the  one  in  any  way  to  inter- 
cept his  view  of  the  other.  The  sin  of  Moses  bears  more  the 
asj)ect  of  an  offi,cial,  than  of  a  personal  sin  ;  and  this  would 
explain  the  severity  of  the  punishment  by  which  it  was  followed. 
— As  Hengstenherg  has  aptly  said  (p.  349),  we  have  here  a 
proof  of  exhaustion,  such  as  is  only  conceivable  after  the  tempta- 
tions of  many  long  years.  Moses  had  never  forgotten  himself 
before  the  people  until  now. 

(5.)  On  the  relation  in  which  the  account  before  us  stands 
to  the  similar  account  in  Ex.  xvii.,  of  the  miraculous  gift  of 
water  at  Rephidim,  see  Kanne,  Untersuchungen,  ii.  103  sqq. ; 
Haevernick,  Einleitung,  i.  2,  pp.  438,  495;  and  Ranke,  ii.  225  sqq.; 
but  especially  Hengstenherg,  Pentateuch,  vol.  ii.,  p.  310  sqq. — 
Rationalistic  critics  maintain  that  the  two  accounts  are  based 
upon  one  and  the  same  event,  which  has  been  dressed  up  in  the 
legends  in  two  different  ways.     In  both  cases  there  is  the  same 


THE  SECOND  HALT  AT  E^U)ESH.  329 

want  of  water ;  in  both,  discontent  and  murmuring  on  the  part 
of  the  people ;  in  both,  relief  is  afforded  in  precisely  the  same 
manner ;  and  the  names  of  the  two  places  are  very  nearly  the 
same  (^Me-Merihah  is  the  name  of  the  one,  ISIassah  and  INIeribah 
that  of  the  other).  But  is  it  absolutely  impossible  that  the  con- 
gregation should  have  suffered  twice  from  want  of  water  in  the 
thirsty  desert  ?  And  if  this  is  not  impossible,  it  cannot  certainly 
appear  strange  that  the  discontent  of  the  people  should  be  ex- 
pressed, and  the  help  of  Jehovah  afforded,  in  precisely  the  same 
way  on  two  separate  occasions.  So  far  as  the  names  are  con- 
cerned, they  are  not  the  same,  but  simply  related.  Identity  was 
avoided,  that  the  two  names  might  be  kept  distinct.  A  connec- 
tion between  the  two  was  intended,  that  the  two  events  might 
thus  be  brought  together  under  the  same  point  of  view. — And 
when  we  look  at  the  essential  character  of  the  two  occurrences, 
what  a  radical  difference  Ave  find  between  them  f  In  the  former 
case,  the  mm-muring  of  the  people  and  the  help  of  Jehovah  are 
placed  most  decidedly  in  the  foreground ;  in  the  latter,  although 
they  are  both  present  in  precisely  the  same  form,  they  are  placed 
completely  in  the  background.  And  such  prominence  is  given 
to  the  sin  committed  by  the  two  leaders  of  the  nation,  and  to  the 
judicial  sentence  pronounced  by  Jehovah,  that  the  interest  of 
the  reader  not  only  is  absorbed,  but  is  intended  to  he  absorbed 
by  these  alone.  In  fact,  it  is  upon  this  that  all  the  rest  {viz., 
the  death  of  Aaron,  the  consecration  of  a  new  high  priest, 
the  parting  words  of  Moses,  the  election  of  Joshua  to  be  his 
successor,  and  so  forth)  is  based. — (Consult  Hengstenberg,  ut 
siqjra. 

§  45.  (Num.  XX.  14-21,  xxi.  1-3.) — Notwithstanding  the 
sentence  passed  upon  Moses,  that  he  was  not  to  enter  into  the 
promised  land,  there  was  no  diminution  of  the  zeal  and  energy 
with  which  he  sought,  at  any  rate,  to  prepare  the  way  for  the 
nation  to  enter.  It  is  probable  that  ever  since  that  unfortunate 
attempt,  which  was  made  thirty-seven  years  before,  in  opposi- 
tion to  his  own  directions  and  the  will  of  God  (§  37),  he  had 
given  up  the  idea  of  effecting  the  conquest  of  Canaan  from  the 
south,  on  account  of  the  nature  of  the  ground.  At  any  rate,  his 
present  plan  was  to  cross  the  Jordan,  and  enter  the  country  from 


330  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PAEAN. 

the  east.     The  most  direct  road  from  Kadesh  lay  tlirough  the 
heart  of  the  territory  of  the  Edomites  and  Moabites.     He  sent 
delegates  to  both  nations,  to  request  a  free  passage.  The  delegates 
related  the  manner  in  which  the  strong  arm  of  Jehovah,  their 
God,  had  rescued  them  from  Egypt,  and  led  them  thus  far 
through  the   wilderness ;    they   pleaded   the  close  relationship 
which  existed  between  the  two  nations ;  and  promised  that  they 
would   neither  trample  upon   their  fields  and   vineyards,  nor 
drink  the  water  out  of  their  wells,  but  would  purchase  of  the 
inhabitants   whatever  water  they  might    drink,  and   whatever 
other  necessaries  they  might  require.     But,  contraiy  to  expecta- 
tion, both  nations  gave  a  most  decided  refusal ;  and,  to  make  the 
refusal  still  more  emphatic,  the  Edomites  placed  strong  forces 
to  guard  all  the  approaches   to  the   country  (1).      Thus   the 
main   body  of   the  Edomites  jjlaced  themselves   in   the   same 
position   of   heathen  hostihty   to  Israel,  which  the   Edomitish 
branch  of  the  Amalekites  had  displayed  twice  before  (§  4,  2 ; 
75,  2).      But   the   Israelites   were   prohibited   from   engaging 
in   hostilities   with   the  kindred   tribe   of   Edom    (Deut.  ii.  4, 
xxiii.  7),   so  long  as  the  latter  did  not  carry  out  their  hostile 
disposition  into  an  actual  attack.     For  the  present,  Edom  did 
not  allow  its  hatred  to  Israel  to  carry  it  so  far  as  this.     But  an 
Amoritisli  tribe,   which   inhabited   the  southern   slope   of   the 
Canaanitish  highlands,  did  so.     The  king  of   Arad  made  an 
unexpected  attack  upon  the  Israelites,  and  took  some  of  them 
prisoners.      The  Israelites  were  stirred   up  by  this.     IViindful 
of  the  duty  imposed  upon  them,  to  put  all  the  Canaanites  under 
the  ban,  they  vowed  a  vow  to  Jehovah  that  they  would  make 
an  attack  upon  the  territory  of  the  king  of  Arad,  and  put  all  the 
cities  which  they  might  be  able  to  conquer  under  the  ban.     The 
attempt  was  successful.     Several  cities  on  the  southern  slope  of 
the  mountains  were  taken  and  destroyed.     In  commemoration 
of  this  event,  the  place  was  henceforth  called  Hormah  (2). 

(1.)  On  the  NEGOTIATIONS  WITH  THE  Edomites  we  have 
a  few  further  explanations  to  add.     We  have  already  spoken 


THE  SECOND  HALT  AT  KADESII.  331 

about  tlie  road  which  JMoses  thought  of  taking  through  the 
Ecloniitish  territoiy  {vid.  §  26,  3).  It  was  unclouhtedly  the 
broad  road  leading  to  the  Arabah,  through  the  heart  of  the 
highhmds  of  Azazimat,  of  which  Rowlands  W'as  told  by  his 
Bedouin  attendants.  This  road,  as  we  have  already  seen,  is 
supposed  to  enter  the  Arabah  at  Ain-el-Weibeh,  and  is  con- 
tinued on  the  other  side  of  the  Arabah  in  the  Wady  Ghuiveir 
(Ghoeir).  According  to  the  invariable  testimony  of  travellers, 
this  large  and  broad  wady  furnishes  a  good  road,  suited  even 
for  large  bodies  of  troops,  through  the  heart  of  the  Edomitish 
territory,  which  is  otherwise  inaccessible  from  the  Arabah,  on 
account  of  its  steep  mountain  ranges  (vide  Leake  s  preface  to 
Burckhardt,  pp.  21,  22,  and  Bohmson,  iii.  140).  The  messengers 
sent  by  Moses  describe  this  road  as  '^^f^n  "i]"}^^  the  king's  road. 
"  Movers^''  says  v.  Lengerke  (i.  570),  "  is  wTong  in  supposing  that 
the  road  referred  to  is  the  Moloch's  road  (vid.  Plwnizien  i.  155). 
Highways,  of  which  there  were  not  so  many,  and  wdiich  were  not 
so  well  maintained,  before  the  times  of  the  Persians  and  Greeks, 
as  in  the  Roman  Empire  and  in  modern  Europe,  were  chiefly 
made  by  kings  and  princes  for  their  own  convenience.  Solomon, 
for  example,  made  roads  to  elerusalem  (Josephus,  Antiquities  8, 
7, 1).  Hence  the  name,  king's  road."  Baumgarten  (i.  2,  p.  340) 
cites  examples  from  Grimm  s  deutsch.  Reichsaltertlium,  p.  552, 
and  Haltaus  Gloss,  p.  1115,  to  prove  that  even  among  the 
Germans  the  public  highway  was  called  the  king's  road  ;  and 
Ewald  (i.  77)  shows  from  Isenherg's  Dictionary,  pp.  33,  102, 
that  the  same  expression  is  met  with  in  Amharic. 

In  Numbers,  there  is  simply  an  account  of  a  message  to  the 
Edomites.  But  according  to  Judg.  xi.  17,  messengers  were 
despatched  at  the  same  time  to  present  a  similar  request  to  the 
Moahites.  "  The  refusal  of  the  ISIoabitish  king,  however,  was  of 
no  importance;  and  therefore  the  wdiole  account  of  the  embassy 
might  very  properly  be  passed  over  in  silence  in  the  passage 
before  us.  For  if  the  Israelites  could  not  pass  through  Edom, 
the  permission  of  the  Moabites  would  have  been  of  no  use 
whatever.  The  request  was  only  made  conditionally.  And  no 
allusion  is  made  to  it  till  the  book  of  Judges,  where  other 
circumstances  are  recorded  which  gave  it  an  importance  that 
did  not  originally  belong  to  it."  (Ilengstenberg,  Pentateuch, 
vol.  ii.,  p.  233.)  • 


332  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESEET  OF  PAEAN. 

There  is  more  plausibility,  at  anj  rate,  in  another  difference 
which  has  been  adduced  as  a  discrepancy  by  rationalistic  critics. 
In  Num.  XX.,  the  Edomites  (and,  according  to  Judg.  xi.,  the 
Moabites  also)  are  said  to  have  refused  the  petition  of  the 
Israelites  for  a  free  passage,  and  their  offer  to  pay  for  bread 
and  Avater;  but  in  Deut.  ii.  29,  on  occasion  of  a  message  sent 
to  Sihon,  king  of  the  Amorites,  the  Edomites  and  Moabites 
are  praised  for  having  provided  the  Israelites  with  food  and 
water  for  money,  when  they  passed  through  the  land.  But  a 
very  simple  solution  of  this  apparent  discrepancy  is  furnished 
by  the  old  rule,  "  distingue  tempora  et  concordabit  Scriptura." 
This  has  been  pointed  out  by  Leake  in  his  preface  to  Burck- 
hardt  (vol,  i.,  p.  23).  "The  same  people,"  he  says,  "who 
successfully  resisted  the  attempt  of  the  Israelites  to  cross  the 
strongly  fortified  western  frontier,  were  terrified  when  they  saw 
that  they  had  gone  completely  round,  and  reached  the  weakly 
defended  (eastern)  border."  On  the  western  side,  the  moun- 
tains of  Edom  rise  abruptly  from  the  Ai'abah.  There  are  only 
a  few  passes  which  are  at  all  accessible  from  this  side,  and  these 
can  easily  be  occupied.  But  on  the  east,  the  mountains  slope 
gently  off  into  a  desert  tract  of  table-land,  which  is  still  at  least 
a  hundred  feet  higher  than  the  desert  of  et-Tih.  On  this  side, 
therefore,  the  land  was  open  ;  and  they  were  not  very  likely  to 
assume  a  hostile  attitude  towards  the  600,000  fiffhtincr  men  of 
Israel.  And  the  very  fact  that  they  had  offended  the  Israelites, 
by  opposing  them  on  the  western  border,  would  make  them  the 
more  eager  to  avoid  everything  that  could  give  occasion  for 
anger  or  revenge,  now  that  they  had  come  round  to  the  eastern 
side.  Vide  Hengstenherg,  Pentateuch,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  231,  232 ; 
Ranke,  ii.  278  ;  Welte,  Nachmosaisches,  pp.  130,  131 ;  Haumer, 
Zug  der  Israeliten,  pp.  44,  45. 

(2.)  With  reference  to  the  battle  between  the  Israel- 
ites AND  the  peoele  OF  Aead,  the  time  of  its  occurrence  has 
furnished  occasion  for  dispute.  If  the  Biblical  arrangement  is 
to  be  regarded  as  exactly  true  to  the  order  in  which  the  events 
occurred,  the  attack  made  by  the  king  of  Arad,  and  the  in- 
vasion of  his  territory  by  the  Israelites,  cannot  have  taken  place 
till  after  Aaron's  death.  In  this  case,  the  Israelites  would  have 
left  Kadesh,  and  gone  at  least  as  far  as  Mount  Hor  before  the 
battle  was  foughT;.     But  in  itself  it  is  a  very  improbable  thing, 


THE  SECOND  HALT  AT  KADESH.  333 

that  the  king  of  Aracl  slioukl  have  waited  till  the  Israelites 
had  left  his  borders  and  marched  so  far  away,  before  he  made 
his  attack ;  and  it  is  still  more  improbable,  that  the  Israelites 
should  have  turned  back  from  Mount  Hor  (or  possibly  from  a 
point  still  farther  south),  and  gone  northwards  beyond  Kadesh, 
for  the  purpose  of  avenging  the  wrong,  when  they  would  very 
soon  have  been  engaged  in  the  conquest  of  the  whole  land,  and 
the  king  of  Arad  woidd  have  been  attacked  in  his  turn.  More- 
over, this  view  is  expressly  excluded  by  the  passage  itself,  in 
which  it  is  stated  that  "  the  king  of  Arad  heard  that  Israel 
CAME  by  the  road  to  Atarim  (?  by  the  road  of  the  spies),  and 
he  fought  against  Israel,"  etc.  The  time  is  given  clearly  enough 
here :  Israel  came,  and  the  king  fought.  It  was  when  the 
Israelites  approached  his  borders,  therefore,  not  wdien  they  went 
away,  that  he  made  the  attack.^  Consequently,  the  event 
occurred  before  the  departm'e  from  Kadesh,  probably  during 
the  period  in  which  the  Israelites  were  awaiting  the  return  of 
their  messengers  from  Edom  and  Moab. — The  arrangement, 
therefore,  is  not  strictly  chronological,  but  determined  by  a 
train  of  thought  which  it  is  by  no  means  difficult  to  under- 
stand. The  historian  mentions  the  departure  of  the  messengers 
to  Edom,  and  very  natui'ally  proceeds  at  once  to  the  reply 
with  which  they  returned.     But  if  the  war  with  the  Aradites 

1  Hengsteriberg  (Pentateuch,  vol.  ii.,  p.  179)  gives  a  different  explanation 
of  the  *<s  ^3  in  Num.  xxi.  1  {cf.  Num.  xxxiii.  40).  The  king  of  Arad,  he  says, 
looked  ujDon  the  marcluncj  away  from  Kadesh  as  an  actual  coming ;  because  the 
intention  of  this  departui'e  (viz.^  to  enter  Canaan  from  the  east)  was  not 
concealed  from  hira.  In  this  case,  undoubtedly,  Num.  xxi.  1-3  may  be  in 
its  right  place,  from  a  chronological  point  of  view;  and  it  must  be  admitted, 
that  with  this  explanation,  Num.  xxxiii.  40,  41  accords  much  better  with 
the  context.  At  the  same  time,  I  cannot  make  up  my  mind  to  give  the 
preference  to  this  explanation.  For  the  supposition,  that  the  king  of  Arad 
guessed  what  were  the  intentions  of  the  IsraeUtes  in  departing  from  Kadesh 
is  not  very  probable,  if  we  consider  that  they  had  already  been  wandering 
about  in  the  desert  for  thirty-nine  years,  without  either  purpose  or  plan. 
Moreover,  such  a  use  of  the  word  "  come  "  would  be  too  artificial,  I  might 
say,  too  much  in  the  modern  style  of  thought,  for  the  simple,  straight- 
forward character  of  the  narrative  before  us :  and  I  should  still  sec  the  same 
imi^robability  in  what  would  be  a  necessary  conclusion,  r/c,  that  Israel 
went  all  tliis  way  back  after  reacliing  Mount  Hor.  There  is  only  one 
thing  that  could  lead  me  to  the  determination  to  adopt  Hengsteiiherg's  view, 
viz.,  if  the  unexpected  discovery  should  be  made,  that  the  enigmatical  "^7. 
a-iTsn  in  Num.  xxi.  1,  meant  the  road  round  Mount  Seii: 


334  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PARAN. 

(or  only  the  first  half  of  it,  namely,  the  attack  made  by  the 
king  of  Arad)  occurred,  as  it  probably  did,  between  the  de- 
parture of  the  messengers  and  their  return,  the  strict  chrono- 
loo-ical  order  would  be  interrupted  already.  How  much  more 
reason  would  there  be  for  his  relating  the  departure  from 
Kadesh,  which  was  most  closely  connected  with  Edom's  reply — 
in  fact,  determined  by  it — before  he  felt  called  upon  to  resume 
the  chronological  thread  of  his  narrative! — Fries  (pp.  53,  54, 
note)  goes  still  further  back.  He  says  :  "  Two  occurrences, 
which  were  most  intimately  connected  with  the  sin  of  Moses 
and  Aaron,  and  Edom's  refusal, — namely,  the  retreat  from 
Kadesh,  and  Aaron's  death  upon  Mount  Hor, — were  placed  by 
the  sacred  historian  in  immediate  juxtaposition  with  these 
events;  and  when  once  the  twentieth  chapter  had  been  com- 
menced with  an  account  of  these  tragical  occurrences,  there  was 
no  opportimity  for  introducing  the  conflict  with  Arad.  By  the 
side  of  this  combination  of  memorable  events,  which  filled  up 
the  interval  between  the  death  of  JVIiriam  and  that  of  Aaron,  the 
conflict  with  Arad  properly  falls  into  the  second  rank.  As 
examples  of  this  arrangement,  which  regards  the  subject-matter 
alone  at  the  cost  of  chronology,  the  first  which  suggest  them- 
selves are  Deut.  x.  6,  7,  and  Deut.  i.  37."  A  perfectly  analogous 
example  we  have  already  pointed  out  in  §  4,  4. 

It  is  also  a  disputed  point,  what  we  are  to  understand  by  the 
D''"insn  '?]n^j  by  which  the  Israelites  are  said  to  have  come  to  thd 
borders  of  the  king  of  Ai'ad.  Onhlos,  the  Syriac  and  Vulgate 
translators,  and  also  Luther,  regard  D''"inx  as  equivalent  to 
nnri  (with  Aleph  prosthetic)  in  Num.  xiv.  6 ;  and  render  it  "  by 
the  loay  of  the  spies,""  i.e.,  by  the  same  road  by  which  the  twelve 
Israelitish  spies  had  travelled  thirty-seven  years  before.  But  this 
is  at  variance  with  the  history ;  for  the  way  of  the  spies  could 
only  be  the  road  which  led  northwards  from  Kadesh,  whereas 
Israel  Avas  not  to  the  north  of  Kadesh  now.  We  feel  bound, 
therefore,  to  follow  the  Septuagint  and  Arabic,  and  regard  Atarim 
as  the  name  of  a  town  or  district,  whence  the  road  to  Kadesh, 
by  which  Israel  travelled,  derived  its  name. 

Arad,  which  was  afterwards  allotted  to  the  tribe  of  Judah 
(Josh.  xii.  14),  and  which,  according  to  Judg.  i.  16,  is  to  be 
sought  for  at  the  north  of  the  desert  of  Judah,  is  said  by  Euse- 
bius  (s.  V.  'Apa/u,a)   and  Jerome  {s.  v.  Ai'ath)  to  have  been  situ- 


THE  SECOND  HALT  AT  ICADESH.  335 

ated  about  twenty  miles  to  the  south  of  Hebron.  On  his  road 
from  Hebron  to  the  Wady  Musa  (near  Petra),  after  travelling 
on  a  camel  for  eight  hom'S,  Robinson  saw  a  hill  towards  the  west, 
which  his  guides  called  Tell-Ardd.  They  knew  nothing  of  ruins 
in  the  neighbourhood,  however,  but  simply  of  a  cave.  Yet,  not- 
withstanding this,  the  fact  that  the  distance  from  Hebron  is  the 
same,  renders  it  very  probable  that  this  was  the  site  of  the  ancient 
Ai'ad,  especially  as  the  absence  of  ruins  is  not  fully  established 
by  the  simple  assertion  of  the  Bedouins. 

PIoRMAH  was  already  mentioned  in  connection  with  the  first 
sojom'n  at  Kadesh  {viz.  §  37).  According  to  Josh.  xii.  14, 
Joshua  defeated  the  king  of  Hormah  and  the  king  of  Arad. 
But,  according  to  Judg.  i.  17,  it  was  not  till  after  the  death  of 
Joshua  that  the  tribe  of  Judah,  along  Avitli  that  of  Simeon,  con- 
quered the  city  of  Zephath,  laid  it  under  the  ban,  and  gave  it 
the  name  of  Hormah.  In  these  different  accounts  a  mass  of 
contradictions  has  been  found.  The  discrepancy  between  Josh, 
xii.  14  and  Judg.  i.  17  is  easily  removed,  if  we  bear  in  mind 
that  in  Josh.  xii.  14  the  hing  of  Hormah  is  said  to  have  been 
defeated,  whilst  there  is  no  mention  of  the  conquest  of  his  city, 
and  therefore  the  city  might  have  been  left  standing,  notwith- 
standing the  defeat  of  the  king.  It  is  possible  also  that  Hormah 
may  have  been  conquered  by  Joshua,  and  recovered  by  the 
Canaanites,  and  only  definitively  conquered  and  placed  under 
the  ban  at  the  time  alluded  to  in  Judg.  i.  17. — That  the  city  is 
called  Hormah  in  Num.  xiv.  45  (in  connection  with  the  first 
encampment  at  Kadesh),  whereas,  according  to  Num.  xxi.  3,  it 
was  during  the  second  encampment  that  the  name  was  given  to 
it  for  the  first  time,  is  nothing  more  than  a  simple  prolepsis,  of 
which  we  have  a  hundred  examples  in  the  Old  Testament. 
"  But  it  is  an  intentional  and  most  significant  prolepsis,  pointing 
to  the  fact,  that  the  two  events  involved  the  very  same  idea,  that 
the  place  was  sanctified  by  the  judgment  on  the  house  of  God, 
long  before  it  derived  its  name  from  the  judgment  on  the  world. 
The  nominal  prolepsis  was  indicative  of  a  real  one"  {Hengsten- 
herg,  Pentateuch,  vol.  ii.  p.  191). — On  comparing  Num.  xxi.  3 
\y\\\\  Josh.  xii.  14,  lieland  {Palcest.  p.  721)  has  detected  a  dis- 
crepancy, which,  in  his  opinion,  can  only  be  solved  on  the  sup- 
position that  "  the  victory  appears  to  have  taken  place  at  the 
time  when,  with  Joshua  as  their  leader,  and  after  crossing  the 


336  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  RARAN. 

Jordan,  they  celebrated  their  triumph  over  king  Arad  (Josh.  xii. 
14),  and  to  have  been  narrated  per  prolepsin  in  Num.  xxi.  3. 
For  why  should  they  have  gone  out  of  the  land  in  which  they  were 
already  triumphant  V^  Bertheau  (on  Judg.  i.  17)  adopts  this 
solution,  except  that  he  refers  \h.e  prolep)sis  to  Judg.  i.  17  instead 
of  Josh.  xii.  14.  But  there  is  one  thing  which  is  necessarily 
required,  namely,  that  we  should  admit  that  the  Pentateuch  was 
either  written  after  the  period  of  the  Judges,  or  at  all  events 
that  Num.  xxi.  1-3  (and  xiv.  45)  was  interpolated  by  a  later 
hand. — Hengstenherg  has  shown  that  such  a  solution  is  not  only 
unnecessary,  but  inadmissible  (Pentateuch,  vol.  ii.  p.  180  sqq. 
See  also  Keil  on  Joshua,  p.  312,  English  translation).  No  proof 
whatever  is  required,  that  in  Nmn.  xxi.  3  the  proscription  of  the 
Aradite  towns  is  represented  as  taking  place  immediately,  and 
not  as  being  reserved  for  some  future  time. — But  Reland^s  ques- 
tion, "  Why  did  they  ever  leave  the  countiy  if  they  gained  such 
a  triumph  as  this?"  still  demands  a  satisfactory  reply.  And  it 
is  by  no  means  difficult  to  find  one.  It  is  not  stated  in  Num.  xxi. 
that  Israel  conquered  the  whole  of  the  country  of  the  king  of 
Arad,  and  laid  it  under  the  ban,  at  so  early  a  period  as  this. 
And  even  if  several  proscribed  cities  are  mentioned,  it  is  beyond 
all  doubt  that  Arad,  the  capital,  was  not  among  them ;  for  in 
ver.  3  we  are  told  that  "  they  called  the  name  of  the  place  Ilor- 
mah"  But,  from  Judg.  i.  17,  we  find  that  the  former  name  of 
this  place  was  Zephath;  and  if  Ai'ad  had  been  taken  and  de- 
stroyed, they  would  no  doubt  have  given  the  name  Hormah  to  it, 
and  not  to  a  subordinate  place  like  Zephath.  Zephath  was,  no 
doubt,  by  far  the  most  important  of  the  cities  that  were  laid 
under  the  ban.  That  it  was  not  situated  on  the  mountains 
themselves,  but  on  the  southern  slope,  is  evident  from  Num.  xi^^ 
45  :  "  The  Amalekites  and  Canaanites  who  dwelt  in  the  moun- 
tams  came  down  and  smote  them,  and  discomfited  them,  even 
unto  Hormah."  Robinson  thought  that  he  had  discovered  a 
relic  of  the  ancient  Zephath  in  the  pass  of  es-Safah.  This  would 
suit  our  present  purpose  very  well ;  at  the  same  time  there  are 
other  reasons  for  rejecting  his  conclusion  (yid.  §  27,  3).  We 
would  refer,  on  the  other  hand,  to  Rowlands,  who  discovered 
the  ruins  of  Zepdta  at  a  distance  of  about  seven  miles  to  the 
south-west  of  Khalasa  (Chesil)  ;  for  we  have  no  more  doubt  than 
he  has,  that  this  is  the  site  of  the  ancient  Zephath  (§  26,  1).    In 


MARCH  ROUND  THE  COUNTRY  OF  THE  EDOMITES.   337 

any  case  Horinali  was  on  this  side  of  the  mountains ;  and  even 
if  Zephath  was  conquered,  along  with  the  rest  of  the  cities  on 
this  side,  during  the  second  sojourn  in  Kadesh,  nothing  would 
be  gained  in  consequence  towards  the  conquest  of  Canaan.  The 
mountains,  which  were  impassable  to  such  a  procession  as  that 
of  the  Israelites,  were  still  before  them ;  and  the  strongholds  of 
the  king  of  Arad  on  the  mountains  themselves  were  not  yet 
taken.  "  And  if  this  were  the  case,  it  would  follow  as  a  matter 
of  course,  that  wdien  the  Israelites  left  the  neighbourhood,  Ilor- 
mah  would  soon  become  Zephath  again,  and  at  a  later  period 
they  would  have  to  perform  the  task  of  turning  it  into  Hormah 
once  more"   {Hengstenbenj). 

THE  MARCH  ROUND  THE  COUNTRY  OF  THE  EDOMITES. 

§  46.  (Num.  XX.  22-29.) — The  Israelites  were  prevented 
from  attempting  to  force  a  passage,  not  only  by  the  nature  of 
the  soil,  but  also  by  their  relation  to  the  Edomites  themselves  (1). 
Hence  there  was  no  other  alternative  left,  than  to  yield  to  ne- 
cessity, and,  notwithstanding  the  enormous  circuit  they  would 
have  to  make,  to  go  round  the  land  of  the  Edomites.  The  road 
led  them  round  the  Azazimat  and  through  the  Arabah  to  the 
Ked  Sea,  after  which  they  turned  to  the  north,  and  passed  along 
the  eastern  side  of  the  mountains  of  Seir,  and  thus  eventually 
reached  the  Jordan.  When  they  arrived  at  the  Arabah,  they 
encamped  at  the  foot  of  the  Edomitish  mountain  Ilor  (2).  The 
hour  had  now  arrived  when  Aaron,  the  high  priest,  was  to  die 
on  account  of  his  sin  at  the  Waters  of  Strife.  But  the  office, 
Avhich  he  had  held  for  the  good  of  Israel,  was  not  to  terminate 
with  his  life,  but  to  be  transferred  to  his  eldest  son,  Eleazar. 
To  this  end,  it  was  necessary  that  Aaron  should  be  divested  of 
his  high-priestly  dress,  and  that  it  should  be  put  upon  Eleazar. 
But  neither  the  investiture  of  Eleazar,  nor  the  death  of  Aaron, 
was  to  take  place  amidst  the  bustle  of  the  crowd  in  the  camp 
below.  Moses  went  up  with  both  of  them  to  the  summit  of  the 
mountain  ;  and  there  Aaron  died,  after  the  office  of  high  priest 
had  been  transferred  to  his  son  in  the  manner  prescribed.     The 

VOL.  HI.  Y 


338  ISEAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PAEAN. 

whole  congregation  mourned  for  him  thirty  days, — and  mourned 
at  the  same  time  for  its  own  sin,  which  had  been  the  occasion  of 
Aaron's  fall,  and  of  the  consequent  punishment  which  had  just 
been  inflicted  upon  him.  The  death  of  Aaron  was  also  a  pledge 
and  foreboding  of  a  still  more  bitter  loss,  because  an  irreparable 
one,  which  the  Israelites  were  soon  to  be  called  to  suffer  (§  44). 

1.  Of  all  the  Terahite  nations,  there  were  none  that  were  so 
closely  allied  to  the  Israelites  as  the  Edomites  were ;  for  the 
progenitors  of  the  two  nations,  Esau  and  Jacob,  were  not  only 
full  brothers,  the  sons  of  one  mother,  but  were  born  at  one  birth. 
It  is  true  that  the  hostile  relation  in  which  the  two  nations  stood 
to  each  other,  both  from  their  nature  and  history,  not  only  had 
its  foimdation,  but  was  typically  exhibited,  in  the  lives  of  the 
founders  ;  and  consequently,  even  at  that  early  age,  prophecy 
had  cast  a  glance  forward  to  the  hostile  relation  in  which  the 
descendants  would  stand  to  each  other  (vol.  i.  §  69  sqq.),  and  espe- 
cially to  the  fact,  that  the  elder  would  serve  the  younger.  This 
was  Edom's  appointed  destiny  ;  but  Israel  was  not  to  originate  or 
accelerate  this  destiny  in  a  forcible  manner.  On  the  contrar}^, 
it  was  to  discharge  all  the  duties  of  relationship  in  an  honour- 
able and  faithful  manner,  until  Edom,  by  its  increasing  hostility, 
should  bring  its  fate  upon  itself.  At  this  very  time,  therefore, 
when  the  hostile  disposition  of  Edom  had  begun  to  manifest  it- 
self, but  was  not  yet  fully  ripe,  Jehovah  commanded  His  people, 
"  Meddle  not  with  them,  for  I  will  not  give  you  of  their  land,  no, 
not  so  much  as  a  foot's  breadth,  because  I  have  given  Mount  Seir 
unto  Esau  for  a  possession"  (Deut.  ii.  5) ;  and,  "  Thou  shalt  not 
abhor  the  Edomite,  for  he  is  thy  brother"  (Deut.  xxiii.  7). 

On  the  early  HISTORY  OF  the  Edomites,  see  B.  Michaelis 
de  antiquissima  Idumceorum  hist07na,  Hal.  1733  (also  in  Pott, 
Sylloge  vi.  203  sqq.),  and  Hengstenherg,  Pentateuch,  222  sqq. — 
Esau,  who  is  introduced  in  Gen.  xxiii.  6  vdth  a  warlike  retinue 
of  four  hundred  men,  was  estranged  from  his  family,  and  founded 
a  new  home  for  himself  on  the  mountains  of  Seir.  He  con- 
quered and  expelled  the  Horites,  who  had  dwelt  there  from  time 
immemorial  (Deut.  ii.  22) ;  and  his  descendants,  mixing  with 
those  that  were  left  behind,  grew  into  a  powerful  royal  state, 
which  was  now  apparently  at  the  height  of  its  glory  and  power. — 


MARCH  EOUXD  THE  COUNTRY  OF  THE  EDOMITES.   339 

Even  as  early  as  Gen.  xxxvi.  {cf.  1  Clir.  i.  30-54)  it  was  possible 
to  give  a  long  list  of  Edomitisli  princes  (D'DIPX)  and  kings.    But 
the  Pentateuch  claims  to  have  been  wi'itten  in  the  time  of  Moses, 
and  therefore  the  history  of  Edom  cannot  be  brought  lower  than 
that  in   Gen.  xxxvi.     The  last  of  the  eight  kings,  as   Eicald 
has  correctly  observed,  is  described  as  minutely  as  if  the  writer 
was  personally  acquainted  with  him  (Gen.  xxxvi.   39).     But 
critics  have  disputed  the  possibility  of  his  being  a  contemporary 
of  jMoses,  chiefly  on  the  ground  that  there  was  not  a  sufficient 
length  of  time  between  Esau  and  ISIoses  for  fourteen  princes, 
and  eight  kings,  and  then  eleven  princes  more.     This  objection 
is  said  to  be  confirmed  and  raised  into  a  certainty,  both  by  the 
expression  employed  in  Gen.  xxxvi.  31,  "  These  are  the  kings  that 
reigned  in  the  land  of  Edom,  before  there  reigned  any  Icing  over 
the  children  of  Israel ;"  and  also  by  the  fact,  that  according  to 
1  Kings  xi.  14,  Hadad,  the  fourth  king  of  Edom  (in  Gen.  xxx\a. 
35),  was  a  contemporary  of  Solomon  (yid.  v.  Bohlen,  Genesis, 
p.  342). — So  far  as  Gen.  xxx\-i.  14  is  concerned,  Ewald  is  of 
opinion,  that  "  at  the  time  when   the    author  of  the  book  of 
Genesis  wrote,  there  was  a  king  in  Israel;  and  we  cannot  read 
the  historian's  words  without  feeling  that  he  was  inclined  to  enw 
Edom,  for  lia^ang  enjoyed  the  advantages  of  an  organised  king- 
dom at  so  much  earlier  a  period  than  Israel."     But  it  has  been 
long  and  frequently  shown,  that  such  a  feeling  is  altogether  a 
deceptive  one.     Delitzsch,  who  is  the  last  that  has  ^vl■itten  on 
the  subject,  observes  (Gen.,  ed.  ii.,  vol.  ii.,  p.  63),  "  The  historian 
writes  from  the  stand-point  of  the  patriarchal  promise  ;  for  he 
(the  compiler)  is  careful  to  observe  that  kings  are  to  spring 
from  Aljraham  and  from  Jacob  (Gen.  xvii.  4-G,  16,  and  xxxv. 
11).     Unless,  then,  any  one  is  daring  enough  to  pronounce  this 
promise  a  vaticinium  pest  eventmn,  which  has  been  introduced 
without  foundation  into  the  patriarchal  history,  such  a  remark 
on  the  part  of  a  writer  of  the  time  of  Moses  is  by  no  means  chf- 
ficult  to  explain.     That  Israel  was  destined  eventually  to  become 
a  kingdom,  governed  by  native  sovereigns,  was  a  hope  inherited 
from  the  fathers,  which  the  sojourn  in  Egypt  was  thorouglily 
adapted  to  sustain.    And  how  strange  a  thing  would  it  appear, 
that   Edom    should   have  become  a  Idngdom   so  much  earlier 
than  Israel, — that  the  rejected  shoot  should  have  attained  to 
such  matm'ity,  independence,  and  consolidation,  before  the  seed 


340  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  TAR^VN. 

of  the  promise  !  The  world  appears  in  this  instance,  as  in  so  many 
others,  to  have  outstripped  the  Church  of  the  Lord;  but  eventually 
it  was  overtaken,  and,  according  to  the  promise,  the  elder  served 
the  younger  (Gen.  xxv.  13).  If  we  would  find  the  indication  of 
any  particular  feeling  in  the  words  of  the  historian,  it  is  such 
thoughts  as  these  that  arise  in  his  mind." 

There  is  incomparably  less  force  in  the  argument  founded 
upon  1  Kings  xi.  14.  Hengstenherg  has  most  conclusively  de- 
monstrated, that  the  Hadad  mentioned  there  cannot  be  the  same 
as  the  Hadad  whose  name  occurs  in  Gen.  xxxvi.  35  (vid.  Dis- 
sertation on  the  Pentateuch,  vol.  ii.,  p.  235).  The  Hadad  of 
the  book  of  Kings  was  a  king's  son,  the  other  Hadad  was  not ; 
but  the  latter  w\as  actually  king,  whilst  the  former  was  only  pre- 
tender. The  Hadad  of  the  Pentateuch  smote  the  Midianites 
in  the  fields  of  Moab ;  but  the  Midianites  had  vanished  from 
history  ever  since  the  time  of  Gideon.  Moreover,  the  Edomites 
had  kings  in  the  days  of  Moses  (Num.  xx.  14).  How  then  could 
the  foui'th  by  any  possibility  be  a  contemporary  of  Solomon  ? 
According  to  ver.  31,  the  Edomitish  kings  mentioned  in  Gen. 
xxxvi.  all  reigned  before  Israel  had  kings  ;  the  eighth  of  the  line, 
therefore,  must  have  reigned  before  the  time  of  Saul ; — and  yet 
the  fourth  was  a  contemporary  of  Solomon  ! 

So  far  as  the  number  of  the  kings  and  princes  is  concerned, 
this  difficulty  has  no  force  at  all,  except  on  the  supposition  that 
the  whole  of  the  14  +  8  +  11  persons,  whose  names  are  given, 
ruled  one  after  another  over  the  whole  land ;  and  even  then  the 
difficulty  is  but  a  small  one,  for  we  could  certainly  find  room 
for  thh-ty-three  princes  in  nearly  five  hundred  years.  But  the 
supposition  itself  may  be  shown  to  be  erroneous.  It  is  perfectly 
obvious  from  Gen.  xxxvi.,  that  the  Edomitish  sovereignty  was 
not  hereditary,  but  elective ;  for  not  one  of  the  kings  mentioned 
here  is  the  son  of  his  predecessor,  and  even  the  birth-places 
mentioned  are  all  different.  But  if  the  kings  were  elective 
sover-eigns,  there  must  have  been  electors ;  and  we  are  warranted 
in  seeking  the  latter  in  the  princes  (CSl^X)  whose  names  are 
given  here.  Along  with  the  kings,  therefore,  but  subordinate  to 
them,  there  were  always  Alluphim  or  princes  of  the  tribe.  This 
association  of  Phylarchi  and  kings  is  also  obvious  from  a  com- 
parison of  the  song  of  Moses,  in  Ex.  xv.  15,  with  Num.  xx.  14. 
In  the  former  the  dulvcs  of  Edom  {Allufe-Edom)  are  said  to 


MARCH  ROUND  THE  COUNTRY  OF  THE  EDOMITES.   341 

tremble  with  fear,  yet  in  the  Latter  the  king  of  Edom  is  intro- 
duced. In  Ezek.  xxxii.  29,  also,  princes  of  Edom  are  mentioned 
alono;  with  its  kino-. 

The  mere  arrangement  of  the  thirty-sixth  chapter  of  Genesis 
is  a  sufficient  proof  that  this  must  have  been  the  relation  in 
which  they  stood.  In  vers.  1-8  we  have  an  account  of  Esau's 
family  before  his  removal  to  Seir ;  in  vers.  9-14,  an  account  of 
his  family  after'  his  removal.  In  vers.  15-19  the  tribes  of  the 
Edomites  are  given, — the  names  being  taken,  like  those  of  the 
Israelites,  from  the  immediate  descendants  of  Esau,  and  each 
tribe  possessing  its  own  Alluph  or  prince.  In  vers.  20-30  we 
have  the  genealogy  of  Seir  the  Horite,  whose  descendants  had 
to  give  way  to  the  Edomites.  Vers.  31-39  contain  a  list  of 
Edomitish  kings  ;  and  in  vex's.  40-43  the  choelling-places  of  the 
princes  of  the  tribes  are  given,  as  we  are  expressly  told  in  ver. 
40.  This  solution  is  supported  by  Hengstenherg  (Pentateuch)  ; 
but  he  does  not  touch  upon  the  difficulty,  that  in  vers.  15-19 
there  are  fom-teen  Allupldm  mentioned,  and  in  vers.  40-43  only 
eleven.  In  our  opinion,  the  solution  of  the  difficulty  is  probably 
the  folloAvino; :  In  vers.  15-19  the  orio-inal  number  of  the  leaders 
of  the  tribes  is  given, — possibly  at  the  time  when  the  princes 
created  for  themselves  a  centre  by  the  election  of  a  king, — 
whereas  vers.  40-43  refer  to  the  time  of  the  historian  himself, 
i.e.,  under  the  last  king,  Hadar.  By  some  circumstance  or 
other,  with  wdiich  we  are  not  acqviainted,  the  number  of  the 
leaders  of  the  tribes  may  easily  have  been  reduced,  during  the 
reigns  of  the  eight  kings,  from  fourteen  (or  thirteen^)  to  eleven, 
or  (if  the  king  Avas  chosen  from  the  leaders,  which  is  most 
probable)  to  twelve. 

The  Edomites,  who  were  a  warlike  people,  had  a  strong 
bulwark  in  their  mountains,  wdaich  had  all  the  character  of 
natural  fortresses.  Their  occupations  embraced  hunting,  agri- 
culture, the  rearing  of  cattle,  the  cultivation  of  the  vine,  and  trade. 
The  last  was  greatly  facilitated  by  the  situation  of  the  country, 
which  constituted  them  the  carriers  between  the  harbours  on 
the  Persian  and  Arabian  Gidf  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  sca- 

^  Delitzsch  is  of  opinion  that  the  Alluph-Korah,  in  ver.  IG,  "has  uu- 
doubtedly  passed  over  from  ver.  18,  and  should  therefore  be  erased,  as  it  is 
in  the  Samaritan  version."  And,  in  fact,  it  is  hardly  conceivable  that  in 
one  nation  there  should  ha^'c  been  two  tribes  of  the  same  name. 


342  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PAEAN. 

port  towns  of  Phllistia  and  Phoenicia  on  tlie  other  (vid.  Heereiis 
Ideen,  i.  2,  p.  107).  "The  capital  of  the  Edomites,"  says  Baur 
(Amos,  p.  100),  "  which  was  equally  important  in  a  mercantile 
and  a  military  point  of  view,  the  impregnable  rock-city  of  Sela 
or  Petra,  in  which  two  caravan  roads  intersected  each  other,^  is 
a  very  exact  representation  of  the  peculiar  life  of  the  Edomites 
themselves."  The  next  in  importance  to  Petra  was  Bozrah 
(Sept.  Bocrop,  now  called  Besseyi'a — vid.  Robinson,  ii.  570,  571 — 
which  must  not  be  confounded  with  Bostra,  the  capital  of 
Am'anitis,  so  frequently  referred  to  in  the  time  of  the  Eomans), 
whose  rocky  situation  rendered  it  a  strong  military  support  to 
the  Edomitish  power.  The  two  sea-port  towns,  Elath  and  Ezion- 
geher,  were  the  leading  commercial  cities. 

On  the  religion  of  the  Edomites  we  have  no  precise  informa- 
//y.  tion.  In  2  Chr.  xxv.  13,  allusion  is  made  to  polygamy ;  and  in  /^x^itu 
1  Kings  xi.  1,  Edomitish  women  are  mentioned  among  the 
foreign  wives  of  Solomon.  But  even  here  there  is  no  reference 
made  to  any  pecvdiar  form  of  Edomitish  worship,  at  least  not 
apart  from  the  rest  (ver.  8).  From  the  frequent  recurrence  of 
the  name  Iladad,  which  belonged  to  ti^  smi  in  the  Aramaaan 
mythology,  v.  Lengerke  infers  that  the  suii  was  also  worshipped 
by  the  Edomites  (vid.  Kenaan,  i.  298). 

(2.)  On  Mount  Hor,  see  K.  Bitter,  xiv.  p.  1127  sqq. 
"  Above  the  mounds  of  the  ruined  city  of  the  living,  and  the 
rocky  bm*ial-place  of  the  dead  {Petra),  there  towers  high  towards 
the  north-west  the  lofty  double  horn  of  Mount  Hor,  which  rises 
in  majesty  and  solitude  into  the  blue  air,  with  cliffs,  steep  preci- 
pices, jagged  edges,  and  naked  peaks  of  various  kinds,  and 
stands  there  like  a  strong,  monster  castle  in  ruins."  Rohinson 
(vol.  ii.  508)  describes  the  shape  of  the  mountain  as  that  of  "  a 
cone,  irregularly  truncated,  having  three  ragged  j)oints  or  peaks, 
of  which  that  on  the  north-east  is  the  highest,  and  has  upon  it 
the  Mohammedan  Wely  or  tomb  of  Aaron  (Wely  Harun)." 
The  Arabs  still  offer  animal  sacrifices  upon  the  mountain,  and 
call  upon  Harun. 

§  47.  (Num.  xxi.  4-9.) — Wlien  the  Israelites  departed  from 
Mount  Hor,  and  marched  towards  the  Red  Sea,  for  the  pm-pose 

1  "  Hue  convenit  utriimque  bivium,  eorum  qui  Syi'ise  Palmyi'am  petiere,  et 
eorum,  qui  ab  Gaza  venerunt"  {Pliny  Hist.  Nat.^  p.  28 ;  vid.  Robinson,  ii.  573).     . 


MAliCH  ROUND  THE  COUNTRY  OF  THE  EDOMITES.         343 

of  passing  round  the  country  of  the  Edomites  (1),  the  thought 
of  the  enormous  circuit  that  they  had  to  make,  and  the  difficulty 
of  the  march  through  the  sandy  desert  of  the  Arabah,  made  the 
people  so  discontented  and  impatient,  that,  forgetting  all  the 
mercy  and  discipline  of  their  God,  they  gave  utterance  to  the 
wicked  exclamations,  "  Wherefore  have  ye  brought  us  up  out  of 
Egypt  to  die  in  the  wilderness  ?  For  there  is  no  bread,  neither  is 
there  any  water ;  and  our  soul  loatheth  tlds  light  bread."  To 
punish  such  wickedness,  Jehovah  sent  /Sarap/t-snakes  (2),  whose 
fatal  bite  caused  many  of  the  people  to  die.  The  people  then 
confessed  their  sin  Avith  penitence,  and  said  to  Moses,  "  We  have 
sinned,  for  we  have  spoken  against  Jehovah  and  against  thee  : 
pray  unto  the  Lord,  that  He  may  take  away  the  serpents  from 
us."  At  the  command  of  Jehovah,  Moses  made  a  copper  SarapJi, 
and  set  it  up  in  the  camp  as  the  standard  of  salvation.  And 
when  any  one  was  bitten  by  a  snake,  he  looked  up  at  the  copper 
snake  and  lived  (3). 

(1.)  It  is  evident,  from  ver.  4,  that  this  occm'rence  took  place 
on  this  side  of  the  Edomitish  mountains  (in  the  Arahali  there- 
fore), though  probably  somewhere  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the 
sea.  The  precise  locality  is  not  given.  But  Ligldfoot's  con- 
jectm'e  {0pp.  1,  37)  is  at  least  worth  mentioning  :  "  ^Eneus  hie 
serpens  videtur  loco  nomen  Zalmonw  indidisse,  i.e.,  locus  inia- 
ginis."  According  to  Num.  xxxiii.  41,  Zalmonah  was  the  station 
immediately  following  Movmt  Ilor. — Burchhardt  states  that  the 
snakes  in  the  neighbom-hood  of  the  Gulf  are  still  very  numerous 
(vol.  ii.,  p.  814)  :  "  The  sand  on  the  shore  showed  traces  of 
snakes  on  every  hand.  They  had  crawled  there  in  various  di- 
rections. Some  of  the  marks  appeared  to  have  been  made  by 
animals  which  could  not  have  been  less  than  two  inches  in  dia- 
meter. My  guide  told  me  that  snakes  were  very  connnon  in  these 
regions,  and  that  the  fishermen  were  very  much  afraid  of  them, 
and  put  out  their  fires  at  night  before  going  to  sleep,  because  the 
light  was  k)iown  to  attract  them."  Schubert  also  states,  in  his 
Journey  from  Alcabah  to  the  Hor  (ii.  406),  that  "  in  the  after- 
noon a  large  and  very  mottled  snake  was  brought  to  us,  marked 
with  fieri/  spots  and  spiral  lines,  which  evidently  belonged,  from 


344  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PARAN. 

the  formation  of  its  teeth,  to  one  of  the  most  poisonous  species. 
It  was  dead,  and,  on  account  of  the  heat,  decomposition  had 
already  commenced.  The  Bedouins  say  that  these  snakes,  of 
which  they  have  great  dread,  are  very  numerous  in  this  loca- 
lity."— That  Zalmonah  was  on  the  eastern  side  of  the  moun- 
tains, as  Raiimer  conjectures  (^Zug  der  Israeliten,  p.  45  :  "I 
imagine  that  this  is  the  same  as  Maan,  which  Seetzen  calls 
Alam-Maan"),  is  very  improbable.  The  distance  of  Maan  from 
Mount  Hor  is  so  great,  that  it  could  not  possibly  have  been  the 
first  place  at  which  the  Israelites  encamped. 

(2.)  In  the  scriptural  account  the  snakes  are  called  D"'C'n3 
n''S")b^,  SARAPH-SNAKES,  i.e,  fire-snakes.  The  name  Saraph  is 
given  to  this  species  of  snake,  either  because  of  its  fiery,  that 
is,  inflammatory  bite,  or,  as  seems  probable,  from  the  passage 
just  quoted  from  Schubert,  on  accomit  of  the  spots  of  fiery  red 
upon  its  head. — Isaiah  speaks  of  flying  Saraphs  (Is.  xiv.  29, 
XXX.  6).  Snakes  of  this  description  are  frequently  referred  to 
by  ancient  writers  (vid.  Herod.  2,  75  ;  3,  109  ;  Aelian.  anim. 
2,  38  ;  Pomp.  Mel.  3,  8,  and  others)  ;  and  even  modern  travel- 
lers profess  to  have  seen  or  heard  of  them  in  the  East  (vid. 
Oedmann,  Sammlungen  cms  der  Naturkunde  zur  Erkldrung  der 
heiligen  Schrift,  vi.  71  sqq.).  But  Winer  has  observed  {Reallex. 
ii.  413),  and  on  good  ground,  that  these  statements  are  ver}' 
uncertain  ;  and  as  the  most  trustworthy  of  those  who  have 
written  on  the  subject  expressly  mention  feet,  there  is  reason 
to  conjecture  that  they  confounded  snakes  with  lizards,  some 
species  of  which  have  really  a  kind  of  wing-skin  between  the 
feet  (^nd.  Aken  Zoologie,  ii.  310  sqq.).  In  Isaiah  we  may  as- 
sume that  we  have  merely  a  poetical  representation,  and  not  the 
literal  account  of  a  natural  historian.  Vid.  Link,  die  Uru^elt 
und  das  Alterthum,  ii.  197  sqq. 

Bocliart  (iii.  211  sqq.,  ed.  Rosenmiiller)  supposes  the  Saraph 
to  have  been  the  Hydra  or  poisonous  water-snake,  which  lives 
in  the  brooks  of  the  desert,  and  on  the  land  when  these  are  dry. 
In  the  latter  case  it  is  called  '^epavSpo^.  Its  bite  is  very  inflam- 
matory, and  causes  a  most  burning  pain,  esj^ecially  during  the 
time  that  it  lives  on  land. 

(3.)  A  large  collection  might  be  made  of  works  that  have 
been  AATitten  on  the  brazen  serpent.  See  especially  BtLvtorf, 
hist.  serp.  sen.,  in  his  Exercitt.,  p.  458  sqq. ;  Deyling,  in  his  Ob- 


MAECn  ROUND  THE  COUNTRY  OF  THE  EDOMITES.    345 

serw.  ss.  ii.  207  sqq. ;  Vitringa,  Obss.  ss.  i.  403  sqq. ;  ITuth, 
serpens  exaltatus  non  contritoris  sed  conterendi  imago,  Erlangen 
1758;  G.  Menken,  iiber  die  eherne  Schlange,  Ed.  2,  Bremen 
1829 ;  G.  C.  Kern,  die  eherne  Schlange,  in  Bengets  theol. 
Ai'chiv.  V.  Parts  1-3 ;  B.  Jacohi,  iiber  die  Erhohung  des  ]\Ien- 
schensohnes,  Studien  und  Kritiken  1835,  i. ;  Sack,  Apologetik, 
Ed.  2,  p.  355  sqq. ;  Ilofmann,  Weissagnng  nnd  Erfiillung,  ii. 
140,  142,  143 ;  Stier,  Words  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  vol  iv.,  p.  444 
sqq.,  translation  ;  Lilcke,  Olshausen,  Tholuck,  Baumgarten-Cru- 
siiis,  Meyer,  Be  Wette-Briickner  on  John  iii.  14,  15  ;  Winer, 
Reallex.  ii.  414  seq. 

A  collection  of  natural  interpretations  is  given  by  Winer  : 
"  The  lovers  of  natural  interpretations  of  Biblical  miracles  either 
pronounced  the  healing,  which  resulted  from  looking  at  the  ser- 
pent, a  merely  psychical  process,  and  extolled  the  power  of  faith, 
that  is,  of  fancy,  to  remove  bodily  ailments, — though  ISIoses  is 
said,  after  all,  to  have  contributed  to  the  result  by  administering 
appropriate  remedies ; — or  else  they  came  to  the  conclusion,  that 
the  brazen  serpent  was  set  up  to  represent  the  poisonous  snakes, 
in  order  that  every  Israelite  might  be  put  upon  his  guard;  and 
that  even  in  the  case  of  those  who  had  already  been  bitten,  when 
they  came  from  the  fields  round  about  to  look  at  the  image,  the 
exercise  itself  cured  them  (as  is  said  to  be  the  case  with  the  bite 
of  the  tarantula).  There  were  others,  who  set  down  the  image 
of  the  serpent  at  once  as  being  merely  the  sign  of  the  military 
hospital,  where  all  who  came  found  j^hysicians,  and  remedies, 
and  therefore  healing  (especially  by  sucking  out  the  poison)." 
Winer  is  certainly  right  in  saying  that  these  explanations  are  all 
of  them  more  or  less  ridiculous.  We  may  add  another  inter- 
pretation to  those  given  by  Winer,  viz.,  that  of  Marsliam  (Canon. 
Chron.,  p.  149),  who  traces  the  whole  to  the  art  of  snake- 
charming,  which  Moses  had  brought  Avith  him  out  of  Egypt. 
It  is  quite  as  unnecessary  to  stop  to  refute  this  explanation,  as 
any  of  the  other  natural  interpretations. 

Winer  himself  supposes  the  brazen  serpent  to  have  been  set 
up  as  a  symbol  of  the  healing  power  of  God.  The  miraculous 
cures,  which  are  said  to  have  been  effected  by  merely  looking  at 
the  serpent,  he  probably  places  in  the  class  of  myths,  since  he 
looks  upon  the  idea  of  a  psychical  process  as  something  ridicu- 
lous.    But  the  recoiu'se  to  a  myth  here  is  a  very  questionable 


346  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PARAN. 

procedure.  The  fact  of  the  erection  of  the  brazen  serpent  in 
the  desert  is  fully  confirmed  by  2  Kings  xviii.  4.  We  are  there 
told  that  the  brazen  serpent,  which  Moses  had  made,  was  pre- 
served till  the  time  of  Hezekiah,  and  called  Nehushtan  {^^^^  = 
brass,  copper)  ;  that  it  had  become  an  object  of  divine  w^orship 
(through  the  offering  of  incense)  ;  and  that  it  was  destroyed  by 
Hezekiah  himself,  who  broke  it  to  pieces.  But  if  it  is  fully 
established  as  a  historical  fact,  that  Moses  did  erect  the  serpent; 
it  can  hardly  be  doubted  that  he  set  it  up,  not  as  a  (mere)  symbol 
only,  but  also  as  a  means  of  healing.  And  if  the  Israelites  pre- 
served it,  and  subsequently  paid  it  divine  honours,  this  is  only 
conceivable  on  the  supposition  that  they  associated  with  it  the 
liistorical  recollection  of  the  cure  that  had  been  >AT0ught,  whether 
it  was  effected  by  the  psychical  power  of  faith  (i.e.  imagination), 
or  the  objective  miraculous  power  of  God. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  serpent  did  partake  of  the 
character  of  a  symbol;  but  what  the  precise  character  may  have 
been  is  doubtful. — Hengstenberg  is  the  only  modern  theologian 
who  denies  this  {vid.  Dissertation  on  the  Pentateuch,  Daniel,  p. 
133)  :  in  his  opinion,  the  single  point  of  importance  was  to  se- 
lect some  outward  sign,  it  did  not  matter  what,  that  the  idea  of 
a  natural  ciu'e  might  be  entirely  precluded. — The  views  which 
have  prevailed  on  this  subject  divide  themselves  at  the  outset 
into  two  distinct  classes.  In  the  Jio'st  place,  there  are  some  who 
suppose  the  snake  to  have  been  a  symbol  or  representative  of  the 
healing  power : — either  with  a  typical  reference  to  Christ,  who 
came  in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh,  was  made  man  for  us,  and 
hung  upon  the  accursed  tree  (vid.  Deyling,  Olshausen,  Stier^  and 
most  of  the  fathers  and  early  theologians) ;  or  with  simply  a 
symbolical  reference  to  the  notion  prevalent  in  antiquity,  that 
the  snake  was  the  Agatho-dcemon,  the  symbol  of  health  and 
healing  (vid.  Winer,  etc.).  In  the  second  place,  others  regard  the 
suspended  serpent  as  an  image  and  representation  of  the  poisonous 
snake,  which  was  rendered  harmless  by  the  grace  of  God, — a  sign 
of  its  subjugation,  imago  non  contritoris  sed  conterendi  vel  con- 
triti.  Of  the  latter,  some  refer  to  Gen.  iii.  15.  As  the  living 
poisonous  snakes  called  to  mind  the  seed  of  the  serpent  which 
was  to  pierce  the  heel  of  the  seed  of  the  woman,  so  the  sus- 
pended serpent  called  to  mind  the  seed  of  the  serpent  whose 
head  should  be  crushed  by  the  seed  of  the  woman  (vid.  Ilutli, 


MAECII  ROUND  THE  COUNTRY  OF  THE  EDOMITES.        347 

Vitringa,  Menhen,  Bengel,  Kern,  Sack,  M.  Baiimgarten,  etc.). 
Others,  again,  deny  that  there  was  any  allusion  to  Gen.  iii.,  and 
suppose  the  reference  to  have  been  solely  and  exclusively  to  the 
plague,  from  which  the  Israelites  were  suffering.  Thus  Eioald 
(ii.  177)  explains  it  as  being  "  a  sign,  that  just  as  this  snake  was 
bound  by  the  command  of  Jehovah,  and  living  harmless  in  the 
air,  so  every  one  who  looked  upon  it  with  faith  in  the  redeeming 
power  of  Jehovah,  would  be  seciu'e  from  evil." 

Against  the  second  explanation  (especially  if  it  be  assumed 
that  there  was  a  conscious  and  intentional  reference  to  Satan), 
the  follo^^^llg  are  conclusive  arguments.  First,  a  believing  look 
at  this  (Tv/j,/3o\ov  acoTrjpLa<;  (Wisdcfm  xvi.  6)  was  to  save  those 
who  had  been  bitten  by  the  snakes  from  the  effects  of  the  bite, 
which  would  otherwise  have  been  irremediable.  The  symbol 
was  therefore  an  image  and  representation  of  the  power  from 
which  healing  proceeded ;  of  the  source  of  deliverance,  not  of 
the  source  of  death. — Secondly,  the  lifting  up  (exaltation,  sus- 
pension) of  the  serpent  did  not  serve  to  exhibit  it  as  bound  and 
conquered,  as  slain  and  crushed,  but  merely  to  display  it  before 
the  eyes  of  all. — Thirdly,  looked  at  in  this  light,  the  brazen 
serpent  might  be  a  very  suitable  memorial  of  the  plague  and 
wonderful  deliverance,  but  could  not  be  an  appropriate  spnbol 
and  means  of  the  deliverance  to  be  sought  and  expected. — 
Fourthly,  the  idolatrous  worship,  which  was  afterwards  paid  to 
the  brazen  serpent,  furnishes  sufficient  evidence  that  the  healing 
power  was  supposed  to  have  proceeded  from  it,  that  is  to  say, 
that  it  was  regarded  as  representing  the  possessor  of  the  healing 
power. 

If  now  we  are  shut  up  to  the  first  explanation,  we  must  at 
once  reject  the  old  typical  view,  according  to  which,  the  fact 
that  Christ  was  afterwards  to  be  lifted  up  upon  the  cross 
furnished  the  sole  reason  for  the  selection  of  this  particular 
symbol.  Undoubtedly,  the  crucifixion  of  Christ  was  present  to 
the  mind  of  Him  who  appointed  the  symbol  (viz.,  Jehovah), 
but  it  was  not  present  to  the  minds  of  those  to  whom  the  symbol 
was  to  be  a  arjfMelov  a(orr)pLa<i.  Moses  did  not  say  to  the  people 
then,  "  As  the  seri)ent  is  lifted  up  now,  so  shall  the  JNIessiah  be 
one  day  lifted  up  ;"  but  Christ  first  said,  in  the  fulness  of  time, 
"  As  jSIoscs  lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the  wilderness,  even  so  must 
the  Son  of  jSIan  be  lifted  up  "  (John  iii.  14).     The  occiuTence 


348  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESEET  OF  PAEAN. 

wMcli  took  place  in  the  desert  was  intended  as  a  sign  which 
Israel  itself  might  understand,  and  not  as  a  riddle  which  should 
remain  insokible  for  thousands  of  years,  and  be  first  rendered 
intelligible  by  the  words  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Let  us  look  first  of  all,  then,  altogether  away  from  any 
typical  allusion  in  the  lifting  up  of  the  snake,  that  we  may 
gather  from  the  views  entertained  at  the  time,  what  Moses  him- 
self and  the  intelligent  portion  of  the  Israehtes  probably  thought 
of  the  transaction. 

In  heathen  as  well  as  Israelitish  antiquity,  the  snake  was 
regarded  as  the  bearer  and  representative  of  poison.  To  both, 
therefore,  the  snake  was  an  object  of  fear  and  terror,  of  abomi- 
nation and  horror ;  and  to  both  the  emnity  was  well  kno^^m 
which  urges  man  to  crush  the  serpent's  head,  and  the  serpent  to 
inflict  upon  the  heel  a  mortal  wound.  But  notwithstanding 
this,  in  the  symbolico-religious  view  of  all  heathen  antiquity,  the 
snake  came  to  be  regarded  as  a  beneficent  power,  promoting 
health,  and  healing  disease ;  and,  as  such,  it  was  an  object  of 
religious  adoration.  "  In  Egyptian  theology,  it  was  regarded 
from  the  highest  antiquity  as  a  symbol  of  the  healing  power. 
It  was  worshipped  in  Thebais  {Herodotus  ii.  74)  ;  and  it  is 
found  upon  the  monuments  in  very  many  connections,  some- 
times along  with  the  mild  beneficent  Isis,  and  at  other  times 
with  the  head  of  Serapis,  as  the  good  Deity "  (vid.  Creuzers 
Symholik,  i.  504,  505  ;  ii.  393).  Throvighout,  it  is  introduced 
as  Agatho-dcemo7i,  as  a  representation  of  Ich-nuphi  (Kneph, 
Knuph) — that  is,  the  good  spirit,  the  author  of  all  beneficent 
and  propitious  events  (Jablonshj,  Pantli.  vEgypt.  i.  4,  p.  81 
sqq.).  Among  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  the  snake  was  the 
constant  attendant  or  representative  of  the  gods  of  healing,  and 
the  regular  symbol  of  the  medical  art  (vid.  Fanofka,  Asklepios 
und  die  Asklepiaden,  in  the  Ahhandlungen  der  Berliner  Akad. 
of  the  year  1845,  pJiilologische  und  MstoriscJie  Ahhandlungen,  p. 
271  sqq. —  C.  A.  Buftiger,  die  heilhringenden  Gutter,  Kleine 
Schriften  collected  by  J.  Sillig,  i.  93  sqq.),  and  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  the  worship  was  introduced  from  the  East. 

A^^iat  can  have  given  rise  to  this  striking  dualism  in  the 
ancient  opinion  respecting  the  snake  ?  Whence  this  strange 
contradiction,  that  an  animal,  which  actually  causes  only  death 
and  destruction,  and  is  therefore  justly  an  object  of  fear  and 


MARCH  ROUND  THE  COUNTRY  OF  THE  EDOMITES.    349 

abomination,  should  have  been  so  generally  selected  in  the 
religious  symbolism  of  antiquity  to  represent  the  vis  medicatrix  ? 
Of  the  earlier  theologians,  some  attribute  this  to  the  cunning  and 
deceit  of  the  devil.  They  say  that  it  is  a  proof  of  the  victory  which 
he  achieved  in  heathenism,  that  he  succeeded  in  overcoming 
the  innate  horror,  with  which  this  his  type  and  instrument  was 
regarded  by  man,  and  in  it  secured  for  himself  veneration  and 
religious  homage.  Others  trace  it  to  the  KaKo^ri\[a  of  heathenism, 
heathen  mythology  being  in  general  merely  a  mendacious  per- 
version and  distortion  of  the  Biblical  history,  with  fantastic 
additions  and  embellishments  ;  and,  in  the  case  before  us,  they 
suppose  Asclepius  with  the  snake  to  have  been  simply  a  mytho- 
logical caricature  of  Moses  and  the  brazen  serpent  (yid.  Iluet, 
Demonstr.  evang.  Propos.  iv.  c.  7,  §  6).  We  shall  hardly  be 
expected  to  enter  into  a  refutation  of  these  views. — There  are 
other  explanations,  but  we  shall  pass  them  by  (yid.  K.  Sprengel, 
Geschichte  der  Medicin,  Ed.  3,  i.  190  sqq.). 

It  is  generally  supposed  that  the  worship  of  the  snake,  as  the 
representative  of  the  healing  power,  commenced  with  snakes 
which  had  no  poison,  and  were  therefore  harmless.  There  can 
be  no  doubt  that  snake-worship  originated  in  Egypt,  where  it 
was  probably  connected  with  the  magical  art  of  snake-charming, 
Avhich  formed  the  heart  of  Egjqjtian  magic.  But  it  hardly 
admits  of  dispute,  that  it  was  to  the  power  of  charming  poisonous 
snakes,  that  the  magic  of  Egypt  owed  its  worth  and  renown, 
^loreover,  on  the  assumption  that  the  snakes  were  harmless,  it  is 
difficult  to  see  in  what  way  it  can  have  suggested  the  idea  of 
the  healing  power,  whereas,  if  they  were  poisonous,  it  is  easy  to 
imagine  such  a  connection.  We  should  be  disposed,  in  fact,  to 
look  for  the  solution  of  the  problem  to  the  fact,  which  was 
obvious  even  to  the  medical  science  of  the  veiy  earliest  times, 
that  the  most  efficacious  remedies  in  natm-e  are  to  be  found  in 
poisons ;  that  disease,  therefore,  is  cured  and  eradicated  by 
what  would  otherwise  produce  disease, — poison  conquered  by 
})oison.  A  very  significant  clue  to  this  we  may  find  in  the 
Greek  word  ^upfiaKov,  which  is  used  for  poison  as  well  as 
medicine,  healing  remedies  as  well  as  charms.  From  this  we 
leani,  on  the  one  hand,  that  magic  and  medicine  sprang  from 
the  same  source;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  earliest 
medical  art  must  have  gone  chiefly  to  poisons  for  the  remedies 


350  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PARAN". 

it  employed ;  and  even  in  the  present  state  of  medical  science, 
the  connection  between  poison  and  medicine  is  veiy  apparent. 
The  fatal  effects  of  poison  are  generally  produced,  not  by  its 
suspending  the  vital  functions,  but  by  its  accelerating  their 
action  to  so  great  an  extent,  that  the  organism  of  the  body 
cannot  sustain  it,  and  becomes  so  thoroughly  worn  out  and 
exhausted  that  it  eventually  succumbs.  If,  however,  science  be- 
comes so  perfectly  acquainted  with  the  nature  and  operation  of 
poison,  as  well  as  of  its  relation  to  the  general  organism  of  the 
body,  that  it  can  administer  it  with  actual  certainty  of  the  result, 
in  cases  where  it  is  needed  and  just,  to  the  extent  to  which  the 
organism  of  the  body  at  any  particular  time  can  sustain  and 
really  requires  it,  the  death-bringing  poison  is  changed  into 
medicine,  the  elixir  of  life.  To  a  sick  man,  the  very  same 
food  is  often  poison,  which  gives  to  a  healthy  man  renewed 
powers  of  life  and  health.  The  notion  of  poison  is  therefore 
a  relative  one.  If  we  were  to  become  possessed  of  absolute 
health,  there  would  no  longer  be  any  poisons  in  existence ;  on 
the  contrary,  what  we  now  call  poison  would  probably  be  the 
highest  and  most  effectual  means  of  promoting  growth,  and  sus- 
taining vital  energy. 

But  to  return  to  the  snake.  It  is,  so  to  speak,  the  personifi- 
cation of  poison.  And  as  poison  is  medicine  in  the  hands  of  an 
intelligent  physician  who  knows  how  to  use  it,  the  snake  was  a 
very  appropriate  symbol  of  the  healing  power,  and  of  the  gods 
of  health, — especially  when  we  consider  that  by  means  of  snake- 
charming,  magic,  which  originally  coincided  with  the  science 
of  medicine,  succeeded  in  taming  and  subduing  the  most 
poisonous  snakes,  and  making  them  subservient  to  the  will  of 
the  mamcian. 

By  some  such  method  as  this,  we  might  explain  and  justify 
the  enigmatical  contrariety,  which  we  find  in  the  light  in  which 
the  snake  was  regarded  in  ancient  times.  But  whether  we  are 
correct  in  this  or  not,  it  is  an  indisputable  fact,  that  in  all 
antiquity  the  snake  was  a  symbol  of  the  healing  power.  And 
this,  we  maintain,  is  the  explanation  to  be  given  of  the  brazen 
serpent,  which  was  set  up  in  the  desert. 

There  are  two  things  which  appear  to  be  irreconcileable  with 
this  view.  First,  that  everywhere  else  in  the  Bible  the  snake  is 
introduced  as  a  symbol,  not  of  health  and  the  healing  power,  but 


of  evil  and  calamity,  as  the  instrument  and  representative  of  tlie 
devil ;  and  secondly,  that  by  setting  up  the  sei-pent  as  the  symbol  of 
the  healing  power  of  God,  Moses  would  have  acted  at  variance 
with  the  command  of  the  decaloo;ue  in  Ex.  xx.  4. 

For  the  reasons  just  assigned,  Menken,  Kern,  and  Sack  re- 
gard it  as  impossible  that  the  serpent  was  set  up  to  represent  the 
healing  power.  "Such  an  opinion  appears  untenable,"  says  Sack, 
"  if  we  bear  in  mind,  that  not  only  in  the  Bible,  but  throughout 
nearly  the  whole  of  the  religious  world  (?  !),  the  serpent  is  a 
symbol  of  Satan.  And  in  the  case  before  us,  this  ^dew  would 
the  more  readily  suggest  itself,  from  the  fact  that  it  was  in  the 
form  of  serpents,  that  the  hand  of  God  had  just  caused  the  de- 
structive powers  of  nature  to  appear.  If,  then,  the  serpent 
which  Moses  set  up  at  the  command  of  God  was  to  be  looked 
at,  of  covu'se  with  believing  confidence  in  Jehovah,  who  was 
ready  to  save  on  this  condition,  the  serpent  cannot  have  ceased 
to  be  a  symbol  of  evil ;  but  the  fixing  np  (J)  of  the  serpent  was 
just  a  symbol  of  its  subjugation,  taming,  and  crucifixion.  The 
brazen  serpent  represented  the  destructive  snakes,  along  with 
sin  and  Satan,  in  whose  train  they  had  come  by  permission  of 
Jehovah.  Its  erection,  whether  accompanied  with  the  pierc- 
ing of  the  head  or  not,  served  to  represent  its  conquest ;  and  the 
promise  implied  that  Jehovah  either  was  or  would  be  the  con- 
queror." 

First  of  all,  I  miist  most  decidedly  oppose  the  theory,  that  in 
the  brazen  serpent  there  was  an  allusion  to  the  serpent  of  para- 
dise (Gen.  iii.).  The  sole  allusion  was  to  the  existing  plague. 
There  is  nothing  whatever  to  warrant  us  in  connectino-  this 
occurrence  ^\^th  the  serpent,  or  the  seed  of  the  serpent,  men- 
tioned in  Gen.  iii.  15.  There  is  quite  as  much,  that  is  quite  as 
little,  ground  to  think  of  the  devil  in  this  connection,  as  to  asso- 
ciate the  fire  which  consumed  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  camp 
at  Tabeerah  (§  33)  with  the  fire  of  hell. — It  is  true  that  through- 
out the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament  we  find  no  further  con- 
firmation of  the  opinion,  that  the  Israelites  employed  the  serpent 
as  a  symbol  of  the  healing  power ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  we  also 
find  no  fm'ther  confirmation  of  the  opinion,  that  they  regarded 
it  as  a  symbol  of  the  devil.  The  account  of  the  temptation  of  the 
first  man  had  been  handed  down  as  a  historical  tradition  from  the 
primeval  age,  genuine  and  unadulterated,  but  at  the  same  time 


352  ISKAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PAEAN. 

unfathomed  and  obscure.     The  serpent  of  paradise  was,  as  it 
were,  a  hieroglj'pliic  upon  the  portal  of  the  sacred  history,  which 
the  specrdative  mind  of  man  had  to  spend  thousands  of  years  in 
the  attempt  to  interpret,  and  which  even  to  the  present  day  is 
far  from  being  fully  and  satisfactorily  explained.     That  this 
mysteriitm  miquitatis  was  but  little  understood  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament times,  is  evident  enough  from  the  meagre  and  elemen- 
tary character  of  its  Satanology.      It  was  not  till  after  the 
Captivity  that  any  considerable  progress  was  made  in  its  further 
development,  or  towards  establishing  it  upon  a  firmer   basis. 
Another  proof  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact,  that  throughout  the 
whole  of  the  Old  Testament,  there  is  not  one  certain  allusion  to 
the  temptation  of  the  first  man  by  the  serpent.     The  earliest 
instance  of  this  is  to  be  found  in  the  apocryphal  Book  of  Wis- 
dom (chap.  ii.  24).     How  httle,  therefore,  must  the  Israelites  in 
the  desert  have  understood  of   this  mystery  of   iniquity,  even 
supposing  that  the  fact  itself  was  generally  known  to  them  and 
constantly  before  their  minds, — a  supposition  which  we  may 
certainly  be  allowed  to  call  in  question!     The  Egyptian  view 
of  the  snake,  as  a  symbol  of  the  heahng  power,  must  certainly 
have  been  more  vividly  and  more  immediately  present  to  their 
minds.    If  the  image  of  a  snake  was  set  up  as  cnj/ji/3o\ov  crwTT^pta?, 
with  the  promise  that  whoever  looked  upon  it  should  recover,  it 
would  certainly  not  be  regarded  by  the  people  as  anything  more 
than  a  symbol  of  the  healing  power,  which  it  was  designed  to 
set  before  them  for  their  immediate  appropriation.     The  thought 
which  occupied  their  minds,  when  they  looked  upon  the  serpent, 
could  hardly  have  been  any  other  than  this :  poison  to  poison, 
death  to  death,  through  the  mercy  of  Jehovah,  who  had  said, 
"/  am  Jehovah,  thy  ■physician''''  (Ex.  xv.  26);  or,  as  Hosea  ex- 
presses it,  "  O  death,  I  will  be  a  poison  to  thee ;  O  hell,  I  will 
be  a  pestilence  unto  thee"  (Hos.  xiii.  14).     That  such  antitheses 
were  not  alien  to  the  spirit  of  the  law,  is  evident  from  the  name 
and  institution  of  the  sin-offering.     It  was  called  nXDH,  i.e.  sin, 
because  it  was  made  sin ; — sin  versus  sin,  made  sin  versus  real 
sin,  as  in  the  case  before  us  an  image  of  a  serpent  versus  the  live 
serpents.     Sin  was  destroyed  by  sin,  just  as  here  the  serpent 
was  rendered  harmless  by  a  serpent. 

The  second  objection  to  our  view  is  fomided  upon  the  deca- 
logue.    If  Moses  set  up  an  image  of  the  lieaKng  power  of  God, 


MARCH  ROUND  THE  COUNTRY  OF  THE  EDOMITES.   353 

would  he  not,  it  is  asked,  have  been  guilty  of  the  very  same  sin, 
which  he  condemned  so  severely,  and  punished  so  remorselessly 
in  the  case  of  Aaron  and  the  IsraeHtes  generally  (§13)?  Could 
Moses  have  forgotten  so  quickly  the  command  which  was  uttered 
amidst  the  thunders  of  Sinai :  "  Thou  shalt  not  make  to  thyself 
any  graven  image,  nor  the  likeness  of  anything  f  And  would 
not  Jehovah,  in  fact,  be  made  to  contradict  Himself,  if  He  were 
represented  as  commanding  to-day  the  very  thing  which  He 
prohibited  yesterday  1 

If  the  command  in  the  decalogue  is  to  be  interpreted  in  so 
contracted  a  manner,  as  this  objection  presupposes ;  the  various 
symbolical  representations  in  and  about  the  tabernacle  would 
fall  under  the  same  sentence  of  condemnation.  In  fact,  the 
setting  up  of  the  image  of  a  serpent  at  all,  whatever  meaning 
we  might  attach  to  it,  would  then  apparently  become  a  repre- 
hensible procedure.  But  this  is  by  no  means  the  character  of 
the  command  in  the  decalogue.  (1.)  In  the  first  place,  stress  is 
certainly  to  be  laid  upon  the  fact,  that  the  command  runs  thus : 
"  Thou  shalt  not  make  to  thyself  any  gi'aven  image,  nor  the 
hkeness  of  anything."  This  does  not  preclvide  the  possibility 
of  Jehovah  Himself  prescribing  some  image  or  likeness,  and 
causing  it  to  be  set  up  for  Israel.  On  the  contrar\^.  He  had 
actually  done  so  already.  In  the  pillar  of  cloud  and  fire,  in 
the  angel  of  the  Lord,  He  had  given  them  a  visible  Temunah 
of  Himself ;  and  in  the  tabernacle,  as  well  as  in  its  vessels  and 
imageiy,  He  had  appointed  symbolical  Temunoth  of  the  thoughts 
and  things  of  God.  But  in  this  case  it  was  done  hy  Himself. 
The  Israelites,  on  the  other  hand,  were  prohibited  from  making 
images  and  symbols  of  God  and  of  the  things  of  God,  accord- 
ing to  their  own  conceptions,  just  because  such  conceptions 
would  be  carnal,  heathenish,  and  false.  And  even  the  images 
and  likenesses,  which  had  been  approved  by  Jehovah  (e.g.  the 
vessels  and  symbols  of  the  tabernacle),  were  not  to  be  made  by 
the  Israelites  for  themselves  ;  because  there  was  only  one  place  in 
which  Jehovah  would  cause  His  name  to  dwell,  and  in  Avhich  He 
would  1)0  worshipped;  and  inasmuch  as  private  and  hole-and-corner 
worship  was  sure  to  degenerate  into  idolatry,  it  was  an  abomina- 
tion in  His  esteem.  The  setting  up  of  the  brazen  serpent,  there- 
fore, was  not  a  violation  of  this  command ;  for  Jehovah  Himself 
directed  and  enjoined  it. — (2.)  Secondly,  the  rendering,  "  image 
^      VOL.  III.  Z 


354  ISRAEL  EST  THE  DESERT  OF  PARAN. 

and  likeness^'  does  not  give  the  exact  meaning  of  the  Hebrew 
words.  ^pQ  is  a  false  deity  or  idol  (§  10,  3,  g.),  and  it  was  to 
this  that  the  command  immediately  referred.  HillDri  is  any  form, 
in  which  God  Himself  or  some  attribute  of  God  is  embodied 
and  presented  to  the  eye  (§  15,  1).  A  Temunah  becomes  a 
Pesel,  whether  it  is  a  symbol  or  mere  hmnan  invention,  when 
worship  is  paid  to  it,  which  is  due  to  the  personal  Deity  alone. 
For  this  reason  the  Temunah  was  prohibited  as  well  as  the  Pesel. 
The  brazen  serpent  was  a  symbol  appointed  by  God ;  and,  so  far, 
it  was  not  within  the  range  of  this  command  of  the  decalogue. 
But  when  the  brazen  serpent  was  perverted  to  some  other  use 
than  that  which  Jehovah  designed, — when  worship  was  paid  to 
it,  such  as  was  due  to  the  personal,  spmtual  God  alone  (which 
we  find,  from  2  Kings  xviii.  4,  to  have  been  actually  the  case  in 
after  ages),  it  became  at  once  a  Pesel,  and  was  condemned  by 
this  command. — (3.)  The  last  and  most  important  design  of  the 
command  is  to  be  gathered  from  the  words  :  "  Thou  shalt  not 
how  down  thyself  to  them,  nor  worship  them."  To  make  an 
image  or  symbol  of  God,  or  of  any  attribute  of  God,  is  not  a 
wrong  thing  in  itself,  provided  the  image  is  worthy  of  God  and 
really  in  harmony  with  His  natm'e.  It  becomes  sinful  when 
there  is  an  intention  to  set  it  up  as  an  object  of  Divine  worship. 
But  from  educational  and  precautionary  considerations,  this  ride, 
however  correct,  could  not  be  maintained  under  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. Visible  representations  of  the  person  of  God,  even  when 
they  were  appropriate  and  worthy  in  themselves,  were  not  to  be 
allowed  under  any  circumstances  ;  for  the  simple  reason,  that  the 
jewel  of  the  Israehtish  consciousness  of  God,  the  idea  of  a  spm- 
tual, holy,  transcendent  Deity,  would  thereby  be  threatened  and 
impaired.  Symbols,  on  the  other  hand,  of  Divine  thoughts, 
attributes,  and  operations  were  tolerated ;  but  only  in  the  mode 
and  measure  prescribed  by  Jehovah  Himself,  whether  for  the 
regular  worship  of  the  tabernacle,  or,  as  in  the  case  of  the  brazen 
serpent,  under  extraordinary  circumstances,  and  therefore  for 
merely  passing  objects,  outside  the  tabernacle  also.  But  sym- 
bols of  Divine  things  were  prohibited  from  being  employed  in 
any  other  way,  because  such  was  the  liking  of  the  people  for 
Nature-worship  and  idolatry,  that  they  would  be  ine^dtably  in 
danger  of  being  misinterpreted  and  abused. 

It  is  obvious,  therefore,  that  the  prohibition  of  images  con- 


MARCH  ROUND  THE  COUNTRY  OF  THE  EDOMITES.   355 

tained  in  the  decalogue,  was  not  violated  by  the  setting  u])  of 
the  brazen  serpent,  in  accordance  with  the  command  of  Jehovah 
Himself,  as  a  symbol  of  tlie  healing  power  that  proceeded  from 
Him. — Aaron's  golden  calf  does  not  bear  the  slightest  compari- 
son in  any  respect ;  for  the  three  essential  elements  of  the  com- 
mand in  the  decalogue,  which  we  have  pointed  out  above,  were 
all  violated  by  the  making  of  the  calf,  whereas  not  one  of  them 
was  touched  by  the  setting  up  of  the  brazen  serpent.  For,  in 
the  first  place,  it  was  not  Jehovah  but  Aaron,  who  made  the 
image  of  the  calf  to  gratify  the  wishes  of  the  people.  Secondly, 
the  golden  calf  was  a  Pesel  (a  graven  image),  in  the  strictest 
sense  of  the  term, — a  representation  of  the  person  of  God,  and 
that  entirely  according  to  heathen  ideas.  And  thirdly,  this  was 
done  with  the  intention  and  for  the  purpose  of  bowing  down  to 
it  and  worshipping  it. 

We  have  a  proof  of  the  manner  in  which  the  pious  and 
intelligent  Israelite  understood  and  explained  the  histoiy  of  the 
brazen  serpent  in  the  Book  of  Wisdom  xvi.  5-8.  The  wi'iter 
of  this  book  regarded  the  image  of  the  serpent  as  a  a-vfi/SoXov 
a(OTr]pLa<;.  He  was  persuaded  that  "  he  that  turned  himself 
toward  it  was  not  saved  by  the  thing  that  he  saw,  but  by  God 
the  Saviour  of  all ;"  and  in  this  he  found  a  positive  proof  of  the 
faith,  "  that  it  is  God  who  delivers  from  all  evil." 

We  have  still  to  notice,  in  conclusion,  the  typical  meaning  of 
the  occm'rence.  Such  a  meaning  we  admit  that  it  possessed, 
not  merely  from  the  stand-point  of  the  New  Testament,  but 
from  that  of  the  Old  Testament  also.  We  cannot,  indeed,  per- 
suade ourselves  that  Moses,  and  the  Israel  of  his  own  or  of  any 
subsequent  period,  could  possibly  have  learned,  or  were  intended 
to  learn,  from  the  setting  up  of  the  brazen  serpent,  that  as  the 
sequent  was  here  lifted  up  as  a  symbol  for  the  salvation  of  Israel, 
so  the  Messiah  would  one  day  be  lifted  up  for  the  salvation  of 
the  whole  world.  But  we  find  a  typical  intention  and  fitness  in 
the  Divine  appointment,  in  the  fact,  that  an  opportunity  was 
thereby  afforded  to  the  believing  Israelite  to  become  familiar 
with  the  idea,  that  an  image  of  what  was  repulsive  to  the 
natural  man,  might  become  in  the  hand  of  God  a  av/x^o\ov 
aaiT7}pta<;,  a  sign  of  salvation,  to  the  spiritual  and  believing  man  ; 
in  order  that  when  at  some  future  day  the  Man  Avho  was  made 
a  cui'se,  and  hung  as  a  malefactor  upon  the  cross,  was  set  before 


356  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESEUT  OF  PAP. AN. 

liim  and  proclaimed  to  be  the  Redeemer  from  all  curse  and  the 
Saviour  of  the  world,  he  might  not  be  offended  : — that  is  to  say, 
that  in  the  case  of  the  spiritually-minded  Israelite,  the  evil  might 
be  prevented,  which  took  place  notwithstanding  all  precautions 
in  the  case  of  those  whose  minds  were  carnal  (1  Cor.  i.  23,  "We 
preach  Christ  crucified,  to  the  Jews  a  stumbling-block  "). 

Now,  when  Christ  said  to  Nicodemus,  "  As  Moses  lifted  up 
the  serpent  in  the  wilderness,  even  so  must  the  Son  of  Man  be 
Hfted  up :  that  whosoever  beheveth  in  Him  shoiild  not  perish, 
but  have  eternal  life"  (John  iii.  14, 15),  we  cannot  suppose  that 
at  first  this  master  in  Israel  had  any  fuller  or  deeper  insight  into 
the  meaning  of  the  type  referred  to,  than  tlie  author  of  the  Book 
of  Wisdom  in  the  passage  quoted  above.  If  so,  he  can  only  have 
understood  Christ  at  the  time  as  intending  to  say,  that  as  the 
serpent  was  lifted  up  in  the  desert,  before  the  eyes  of  all,  as  a 
av/ji/3o\ov  acor7)pia<;  for  the  faith  of  the  fathers  of  his  nation,  so 
Jesus  would  be  lifted  up  in  the  sight  of  the  whole  world  as  the 
promised  Messiah,  the  Savioiu'  and  Redeemer  of  all  who  should 
beheve.  But  it  was  just  the  same  with  Nicodemus  here  as  with 
the  disciples  of  Jesus,  in  connection  with  so  many  of  the  words 
of  Jesus — namely,  that  it  was  not  till  after  His  sufferings,  death, 
and  resurrection,  that  their  true  meaning  was  fully  understood. 
When  he  saw  Christ  afterwards  suspended  on  the  cross,  a 
t^y'pe  of  the  curse  and  transgression,  and  when  the  ascension  of 
Christ  had  taught  him  that  the  hfting  up  on  the  cross  was  the 
condition  and  first  step  of  His  ascension  to  the  throne  of  glor}-, 
a  far  different  and  deeper  meaning  must  have  unfolded  itself  in 
this  saying  of  Christ  to  his  thoughtful  and  inquiring  mind. 

Most  certainly  all  those  commentators  who  regard  the  brazen 
serpent  as  a  representation  of  the  plague  of  serpents,  to  the 
injurious  effects  of  which  it  was  lifted  up  as  an  antidote,  or  as 
an  image  of  Satan  who  was  to  be  overcome,  are  bound  to  protest 
against  any  parallel  being  cbawn  between  Christ  and  the  brazen 
serpent,  for  it  is  self-evident  that  an  image  of  Satan  could  not 
be  a  type  of  Christ.  Hence,  according  to  theu*  interpretation, 
the  comparison  instituted  by  Christ  had  reference,  not  to  the 
serpent,  but  simply  to  the  lifting  up,  so  far  as  this  was  a  sign  of 
suffering  and  conquest  in  the  case  of  the  serpent  (the  image  of 
Satan),  and  also  in  the  case  of  Christ.  There  is  the  same 
double  entendre,  according  to  this  explanation,  in  the  expression 


MAPtCH  ROUND  THE  COUNTRY  OF  THE  EDOMITES.       357 

vi^(x)6rjvai  (lifted  up),  when  applied  to  the  two  different  sidijects, 
us  in  the  v\v:}  (^Aiujl.  bruise)  in  Gen.  iii.  35,  and  in  the  nj?"i2  NO-"" 
'^t:'KTnx  (Pharaoh  shall  lift  up  thine  head)  in  Gen.  xl.  13  and 
19.     It  is  indeed  quite  correct,  that,  grammatically,  /ca^oo?  and 
oi/TW?  can  only  refer  to  {n\rui6r)vaL.     But  no  one  can  maintain 
that  this  precludes  any  reference  in  the  comparison  to  the  0(^t9 
as  well ;  and  the  notion  that  {nlrcodrjvac  is  used  in  two  different 
senses,  is  shown  to  be  unfounded  by  the  rest  of  the  passage, 
where  the  design  of  the  lifting  up  is  referred  to,  as  being  in  both 
instances  to  bring  salvation,  and  where  saving  effects  are  attri- 
buted to  both  the  serpent  and  the  Son  of  Man. — Hofmann  (p. 
143)  makes  two  objections  to  this.     He  says :  "  A  comparison 
cannot  be  instituted  between  the  Son  of  Man  and  the  brazen 
serpent,  for  the  simple  reason,  that  the  former  bore  the  likeness 
of  the  persons  who  were  to  obtain  deliverance,  the  latter,  on  the 
contrary,  the  hkeness  of  the  animals  which  had  inflicted  the  evil ; 
and  whilst  the  former  was  capable  of  enduring  suffering,  as 
possessing  the  same  life  with  those  whom  He  came  to  deliver,  the 
latter  was  altogether  incapable  of  suffering,  for  it  possessed  no 
life  at  all."     The  last  objection  is  a  striking  faiku'e ;  for,  in  any 
case,  the  worth  of  the  brazen  serpent  depended  entirely  upon  its 
being  a  symbol,  whether  we  regard  it  as  a  representation  of  the 
poisonous  snakes  then  present,  or  as  a  type  of  the  Son  of  Man, 
who  was  afterwards  to  come  and  to  be  lifted  up  upon  the  cross. 
But  it  belongs  to  the  very  nature  and  essence  of  a  symbol,  that 
it  is  without  life.     The  first  objection  certainly  appeal's  to  be  a 
forcible  one.     But  it  is  merely  in  appearance.     The  question  is, 
Where  does  the  comparison  lie  ?     The  point  of  resemblance 
between  the  brazen  serpent  and  the  Son  of  Man  was  this,  that 
both  alike  were  media  of  salvation — the  former  symbolically,  the 
latter  actually.     To  the  harmless  brass  there  was  given  the  form 
of  the  poisonous  serpent,  by  whose  bite  the  Israelites  had  been 
mortally  wounded,  in  order  that  when  the  Israelite  looked  with 
faith,  the  bite  might  be  rendered  harmless,  and  the  death  averted. 
If  we  pass  to  the  New  Testament,  we  find  the  same,  mutatis 
mutandis,  in  the  crucified  Chiist.    The  analogy  is  expressed  most 
clearly  in  2  Cor.  v.  21 :  "  For  lie  luith  made  Ilim  to  he  sin  for  us 
who  knew  no  sin,  that  we  might  be  made  the  righteousness  of  God 
in  Him."     The  serpent,  by  whose  poisonous  bite  we  ha^e  been 
mortally  wounded,  is  sin  ;  and  Christ,  the  sinless,  has  been  made 


358  ISRAEL  IN  THE  DESERT  OF  PAEAN. 

sin  for  us,  that  we  may  be  delivered  from  sin  and  death  through 
faith  in  Him.  The  resemblance,  therefore,  which  is  borne  by 
the  crucified  Christ,  as  such,  is  not  to  those  who  are  to  obtain 
deliverance,  but,  precisely  as  in  the  case  of  the  brazen  serpent,  to 
the  inflictor  of  the  evil,  namely,  sin.  If  any  one  is  disposed  to 
regard  this  comparison  as  forced,  unnatural,  and  artificial,  let 
him  throw  the  first  stone  at  the  Apostle  Paul,  from  whom  we 
have  bori'owed  it.  But  even  the  Apostle  did  not  invent  it.  It 
was  taken  by  him  from  the  typical  worship  of  the  Old  Testament, 
wdiere,  as  is  well  known,  the  sacrifice  by  which  sin  was  to  be 
removed  from  the  congregation  of  the  people  of  God,  is  expressly 
denominated  sin,  nstan.  The  sacrificial  animal  was  made  sin, 
when  it  was  brought  to  the  altar  as  the  means  of  saving  from 
sin ;  just  as  Christ  was  made  sin,  according  to  2  Cor.  v.  21, 
when  He  offered  Himself  upon  the  cross  as  a  sacrifice  for  our 
sin. — We  refer  the  reader  to  Gen.  iv.  7,  however,  as  a  proof 
that,  according  to  the  Biblical  view,  sin  undoubtedly  does  bear 
some  resemblance  to  a  serpent,  which  attacks  men  with  its 
fatal  bite;  or  to  a  wild  beast,  which  lies  in  wait  to  tear  liim 
in  pieces. 

§  48.  (Deut.  ii.  1-8.) — The  road  taken  by  the  Israelites, 
with  the  design  of  skirting  the  territory  of  the  Edomites,  led 
them  into  the  immediate  neighbourhood  of  the  Gulf,  where  the 
Wady  el-Ithm  (Getum)  afforded  a  good  opening  through  the 
mountains,  by  which  they  could  cross  without  interruption  to  the 
eastern  side.  Wlien  the  Edomites,  who  had  hitherto  assumed 
such  an  attitvide  of  defiance,  saw  that  the  Israelites  were  really 
on  the  eastern  side,  which  was  so  completely  exposed  to  any 
hostile  attack,  they  were  seized  with  alarm.  But  the  Israelites 
were  not  allowed  to  attack  this  brother-tribe;  and,  in  fact,  had  no 
reason  for  doing  so,  as  the  Edomites  met  them  now  in  a  most 
obliging  manner  (§  45,  1).  The  road  of  the  Israelites  now 
turned,  without  doubt,  to  the  north,  and  led  to  the  caravan  road, 
which  is  still  in  existence,  "  on  a  ridge  which  forms  the  western 
boundary  of  the  desert  of  Arabia,  and  the  eastern  boundaiy  of 
the  cultivated  country,  and  leads  from  the  land  of  Edom  to  the 
sources  of  the  Jordan  on  the  eastern  side  of  the  Ghor." 


SECTION  III. 

ISRAEL   IN  THE  ARBOTH  MOAB. 
GEOGRAPniCAL   INTRODUCTION. 

§  49.  The  deep  rocky  valley  of  tlie  Wadi/  el-Ahsy  (Ahsa), 
the  lower  end  of  which  is  called  eUKurahy,  divides  the  land  of 
the  Edomites  from  the  Moabitish  mowitains.  In  the  time  of 
Moses,  and  also  in  later  periods  of  the  Old  Testament  histor}', 
the  country  of  the  Moabites  extended  northwards  as  far  as  the 
Wady  el-Mojeb,  through  whose  deep  rocky  bed,  the  sides  of 
which  are  almost  perpendicular,  the  river  Amon  flows  to  the 
Dead  Sea.  At  present,  the  whole  country  is  called  Kereh 
(Kerak,  Karak),  from  the  name  of  the  capital  (vid.  vol.  ii.  §  13). 
A  little  to  the  south  of  this  city  the  Wady  Kerek,  which  is  most 
probably  identical  with  the  Brook  Zered  (T^f)  of  the  Bible 
(1),  intersects  Moabitis,  and  divides  it  into  two  nearly  equal 
halves.  Both  before  and  dui'ing  the  Koman  occupation — in 
fact,  as  long  as  it  received  a  certain  amount  of  ciiltivation — 
Moabitis  was  an  extraordinarily  fertile  country;  but  now  that 
all  cultivation  has  been  suspended  for  many  centuiies,  it  is 
barren  and  waste. — The  ancient  capital  was  J.r  (^V  equivalent 
to  'T'V,  the  city  /car'  e^o-^rjv),  or  Ar-3foab,  on  the  left  bank  of  the 
Arnon.  Rabba,  or  Eabbath-Moab,  which  was  the  second  capital, 
was  situated  in  the  heart  of  the  country.  The  fortified  city  of 
Kir  ('T'i?,  i.e.,  a  wall  or  fortification),  or  Kir-JSloab,  the  modern 
Kerek  (2),  was  in  the  south,  and  stood  upon  a  rocky  height,  not 
far  from  the  northern  declivity  of  the  Wady  Kerek. 

(1.)  We  follow  K.  V.  Raunier  in  the  identification  of  the 


300  ISRAEL  IN  THE  AKBOTH  MOAB. 

Brook  ZeRED  with  the  Wady  Kerek. — Robinson,  Ewald,  and 
Hitter  (xv.  689),  on  the  other  hand,  are  of  opinion  that  the 
Zered  is  the  same  as  the  Wadj  el-Ahsy,  the  boundary  between 
Moabitis  and  Edomitis.  The  principal  argument  adduced  in 
support  of  this  view  is,  that  according  to  Num.  xxi.  12  (cf.  Deut. 
ii.  13,  14,  18),  it  was  at  the  brook  Zered  that  the  IsraeHtes  ap- 
proached the  territory  of  the  Moabites.  But  this  is  a  mistake,  as 
may  easily  be  proved.  It  is  an  unquestionable  fact,  that  the 
Israelites  had  reached  the  borders  of  Moab  before  this  time,  and 
therefore,  in  any  case,  at  a  more  southerly  point  (yid.  Num. 
xxi.  11  and  xxxiii.  44).  Jje-Abarim,  the  station  mentioned 
here,  the  last  station  before  Sared,  is  expressly  described  in  chap, 
xxxiii.  44  as  "  the  border  of  the  land  of  Moab  ;"  and  in  chap, 
xxi.  11  it  is  said  to  have  been  "  in  the  wilderness  which  is  before 
Moab,  toward  the  sunrising."  Ije-Abarim  jnnst,  therefore,  have 
been  a  whole  stage  to  the  south  of  the  brook  Zered.  Conse- 
quently, if  the  latter  was  the  Wady  el-Alisy,  it  must  be  looked 
for  in  the  mountains  of  JebaJ ;  and,  apart  from  every  other 
consideration,  the  name  Abarim  is  sufficient  to  prove  that  it 
could  not  have  been  situated  there  (vid.  §  51,  2). — There  is  far 
more  probability  in  the  oj^inion  expressed  by  Gesenius  (on 
Burckhardt,  ii.  1067),  that  the  Wady  eh-AJisy  is  identical  with 
the  "  brooh  of  the  willows'^  of  Is.  xv.  7. 

(2.)  From  a  barbarous  attempt  to  turn  the  Semitic  name 
Ar  into  Greek,  there  arose  the  later  name  Areopolis.  Gesenius, 
Raumer,  Robinson,  Rabbi  Schivarz,  and  others,  identify  the 
Biblical  Ar-Moab  vnth  the  modern  ruins  of  Rabba  or  Rabbath- 
Moab.  This  name  is  not  met  with  in  the  Bible  ;  but  'Pa^dd- 
fico^a  is  mentioned  in  Ptolemgeus  as  the  chief  city  of  the  Moab- 
ites (and  also  by  Stephanus  Byz.)  ;  and  in  Christian  times  this 
Rabbath-Moab  is  constantly  called  Areopolis.  As  Rabba  (n3"i  = 
magna,  multa ;  i.e.,  metropolis,  caput  regni,  the  capital)  has  just 
the  same  meaning  as  Ar  (^^V,  i.e.,  the  city,  kut  e^o-^^fiv),  the  as- 
sumption of  Geseiiius  and  the  others  appears  to  be  thoroughly 
warranted,  both  grammatically  and  historically.  But  geographi- 
cally this  is  not  the  case ;  on  the  contrary,  the  statements  of  the 
Bible  with  reference  to  the  situation  of  Ar-Moab,  are  altogether 
unsuitable  to  the  position  of  the  ruins  of  Rabbath-Moab.  To 
Hengstenberg  belongs  the  credit  of  having  been  the  first  to  de- 
monstrate this  conclusively  (vid.  his  Balaam,  p.  52b  sqq.,  trans- 


GEOGRAPHICAL  INTRODUCTION.  361 

lation;  also  K.  Rltter,  xiv.  117,  118;  xv.  1210,   1211,   1221, 
1222).     Rahba  is  in  the  heart  of  the  land,  six  hours'  jom*ney  to 
the   south  of  the  Wady  Mojeb,  and  about  the  same  distance  to 
the  north  of  the  Wady  Kerek ;  Ar,  on  the  contrary,  is  always 
described  in  the  Bible  as  a  city  on  the  northern  border  of  Moab, 
and  situated  in  the  vaUey  of  the  Ai-non  (Wady  IVIojeb  ;  vicL 
Num.  xxi.  15,  xxii.  36  ;  Deut.  ii.  36).     It  is  particularly  to  be 
noticed,  that  in  descriptions  of  the  northern  border  of  Moab,  Ar 
is  frequently  connected  with  Aroer  (Deut.  ii.  36  ;  Josh.  xiii.  9, 
16)  : — the  latter,  which  stood  on  an  eminence  near  the  right 
bank  of  the  Arnon,  being  given  as  a  point  within  the  boundary- 
line  ;  the  former,  which  was  in  the  valley  on  the  left  bank  of 
the  Arnon,  as  a  point  on  the  outside  (see  Keil  on  Joshua,  p. 
329,  translation).     A  distinct  clue  to  the  exact  site  of  Ar  in  the 
valley  of  the  Arnon  is  to  be  found  in  Num.  xxi.  15.     We  read 
there  of  "  the  stream  of  the  brooks,  tliat  goeth  do-wn  to  the 
dwelling  of  Ar."     These  Avords  can  only  be  understood  as  re- 
ferring to  a  spot  at  which  tributary  streams  vuiite  mth  the  prin- 
cipal river  (the  Arnon).     And  such  a  spot  is  found,  as  Burck- 
hardt  (ii.  636)  conjectured,  and  Hengstenherg  (Balaam,  p.  526) 
has  conclusively  shown,  at  the  point  where  the  Wady  Lejum  from 
the  north-east  pours  its  waters  into  the  Ai'non,  after  they  have  been 
swollen  in  their  course  by  several  tributary  streams.     Burckhardt 
makes  the  following  allusion  to  the  spot :  "  At  the  confluence  of 
the  Lejum  and  Mojeb  there  is  a  beautiful  tract  of  meadow  land, 
in  the  centre  of  which  is  a  hill  with  ruins."     These  rains  he  calls 
Mehatet  el-Haj.     Not  far  from  these  ruins  he  found  the  remains 
of  a  castle,  and  of  a  reservoir. — Some  difficulty,  however,  is 
created  by  the  fact,  that  the  name  Areopolis^  which  was  borne 
by  Ar  in  the  time  of  the  Romans,  was  undoubtedly  applied  to 
Rabbath-Moab  in  the  Christian  era.     But  since  it  is  impossible, 
as  we  have  already  shown,  to  regard  the  two  cities  as  identical, 
we  are  shut  up  to  the  conclusion,  that  for  some  cause  or  other, 
with  which  we  are  not  acquainted,  the  name  Ai-eopolis  was  trans- 
ferred from  the  older  capital  in  the  north  to  the  more  modern 
capital  in  the  south.     In  the  absence  of  distinct  and  reliable  in- 
formation, K.  Hitter  (xv.  1214)  has  founded  upon  the  statement 
of  Jerome  (on  Is.  xv.) — "  Audivi  quendam  Areopoliten,  sed  et 
omnis    civitas  testis  est,  motu  terrie   magna  in  mca  infantia, 
quando  totius  orbis  littus  transgrcssa  sunt  maria,  eadem  nocte 


3G2  ISRAEL  IN  THE  ARBOTH  MOAB. 

muros  urbis  istius  corruisse," — tlie  sensible  and  admissible  con- 
clusion, that  after  the  destruction  of  the  northern  capital,  its 
(Roman)  name  was  transferred  along  with  its  rank  to  the 
capital  in  the  south,  which  had  hitherto  occupied  the  second 
place.  Hitter  (xv.  1221-2)  also  seeks  to  prove  that  Rabba  was 
not  originally  called  Areopolis,  but  received  the  name  in  Chris- 
tian times,  from  the  inscriptions  on  several  ancient  coins  be- 
longing to  Rabbath-Moab,  which  have  come  down  to  us  from 
the  second  and  thu'd  centuries  of  the  Christian  era.  "  Not  one 
of  these  coins,"  he  says,  "  bears  the  name  of  Ar  or  Areopolis, 
which  had  not  been  transferred  to  the  city  therefore  at  so  early 
a  date  as  this.  They  simply  bear  the  inscription,  Bathmoba, 
Rabatmona,  or,  for  the  most  part,  the  more  correct  name  Ra- 
bathmoba.  ...  If  the  exchange  of  names  mth  the  ancient 
capital  Ar-Moab  had  already  taken  place,  the  Greek  name  Are- 
opolis would  certainly  have  been  found  uj)on  the  coins,  rather 
than  the  barbarian  name  Rabathmoba." 

On  the  city  of  Kereh,  the  present  capital  of  Moabitis,  in 
which  there  is  a  castle,  see  Hitter,  xv.  662  sqq.  There  can  be 
no  question  as  to  its  identity  with  Kir-Moah  (Is.  xv.  7). 

§  50.  The  country  beyond  the  Arnon  (vid.  vol.  i.  §  42)  as  far 
as  the  river  Jahhoh,  now  Wady  Zerha,  bears  the  name  of  el-Belka. 
The  name  most  frequently  given  to  it  in  the  Old  Testament 
is  the  land  of  Gilead.  In  the  Roman  period  it  was  called  Perea. 
The  Belka  is  intersected  throughout  its  entire  extent,  and  di- 
vided into  two  nearly  equal  parts,  by  the  Wady  Heshan,  which 
pours  its  waters  into  the  Jordan  (not  far  from  its  mouth).  The 
southern  half,  between  Wady  Mojeb  (Arnon)  and  Wady 
Hesban,  is  again  divided  in  the  middle  by  the  Wady  Zerha 
Maein  (Meon),  which  flows  into  the  Dead  Sea.  In  the  time  of 
Moses  the  Belka  was  inhabited  and  governed  by  the  Amorites  ; 
but  it  had  previously  been  in  the  possession  of  the  Moabites  and 
Ammonites.  The  former  had  been  driven  southwards  across  the 
Arnon,  the  latter  more  in  an  easterly  direction  (§  52).  This 
serves  to  explain  the  fact,  that  the  broad  plain  on  the  left 
bank  of  the  Jordan  is  constantly  designated  in  the  Pentateuch 
the  Arhoth  Moab  (2iJiD  nuny)  (1).     These  Arhoth  Moah,   the 


GEOGRAPHICAL  mTRODUCTION.  363 

situation  of  which  is  more  particularly  described  as  "  across 
the  Jordan  over  against  Jericho"  (iHT  1^}?'^  "^?i!P),  were  the  head- 
quarters of  the  Israelitish  camp  dm*ing  the  last  period  of  its 
sojourn  beyond  the  Jordan.  The  chief  city  of  the  Amoritish 
government  was  Heshhon ;  that  of  the  Ammonitish,  Rahbath- 
Ammon  (2). — The  comitry  to  the  north  of  the  Jabbok,  as  far  as 
Mount  Hermon,  is  called  in  the  Bible  the  land  of  Bashan  (\f^)  ; 
in  later  times  it  was  called  Hauran.  A  little  to  the  south  of  the 
Lake  of  Tiberias,  the  Jordan  is  joined  by  the  river  Hieromax, 
now  called  Slieriat  el-Mandhur  or  Yarmuk,  the  deep  and  narrow 
rocky  bed  of  which  intersects  the  mountainous  district  thi'ough- 
out  its  entire  breadth.  The  ancient  metropolis  of  Bashan,  and  the 
seat  of  the  Amoritish  government  there,  was  Ashtaroth.  Edrei 
was  the  next  city  in  importance  (2). — The  high  land  on  the  east 
of  the  Jordan  bears  for  the  most  part  the  character  of  table-land, 
with  the  evenness  of  its  surface  broken  here  a'nd  there  by  lofty 
hills.  From  its  rich  wooded  scenery  and  good  pasture  land,  it  is 
better  adapted  for  grazing  than  for  agriculture. — To  the  east  of 
this  plateau  there  is  a  desert,  which  stretches  as  far  as  the 
Euphrates.  The  caravan  road  from  the  harbours  of  the  Elanitic 
Gulf  to  Damascus  runs  along  a  ridge,  which  forms  the  western 
boundary  of  this  desert,  and  the  eastern  bomidary  of  the  culti- 
vated land. 

(1.)  The  LOWLANDS  (Arboth)  OF  Mo^U5,  Israel's  last  place 
of  encampment  to  the  east  of  the  Jordan,  must  not  be  con- 
founded, as  is  often  the  case,  with  the  field  of  Moab  (2Nin  nib) 
in  Num.  xxi.  20.  Hengstenberg  (Balaam,  522  sqq.  and  530 
sqq.,  translation)  has  thrown  gi'eat  light  upon  this  subject  also, 
in  his  lucid  and  careful  exposition  of  the  passages  in  question. 
Arboth  Moab  is  the  name  given  to  that  portion  of  the  Ghor  which 
stretches  along  the  eastern  bank  of  the  Jordan,  from  the  Jabbok 
or  thereabout  to  the  Dead  Sea.  It  answers  to  the  lowlands  of 
Jericho  (Arboth  Jericho,  vid.  Josh.  iv.  13,  v.  10),  on  the  other 
side  of  the  Jordan  ;  and  for  this  reason  it  is  frequently  described  . 
as  being  "  over  against  Jericho."  The  Field  of  Moab,  on  the 
other  hand,  was  undoubtedly  the  large  tract  of  table-land  to  the 


364  ISEAEL  IN  THE  ARBOTH  MOAB. 

east  of  the  Jordan^  which  stretched  pretty  uniformly  from  the 
southern  foot  of  the  momitains  of  Gilead  to  the  Kerek,  and  was 
frequently  called ^Aep/awi  Kar  ^^oyjqv  ("it^'''?!!')  ;  vid.  Deut.  iii.  10 ; 
Josh,  xiii,  9,  16,  21).  This  is  evident,  ^rs^,  from  the  fact,  that 
according  to  Num.  xxi.  20,  the  Israelites  encamped  in  a  valley 
of  the  field  of  Moab,  before  they  reached  the  Arhoth  Moab 
(Num.  xxii.  1)  ;  secondly,  from  Num.  xxi.  20,  where  Bamoth,  or 
more  properly  Bamoth-Baal,  the  heights  of  Baal  (Num.  xxii.  41), 
which  was  situated  between  Dibon  and  Beth-Baal-Meon  (yid. 
§  51,  1),  is  also  described  as  being  in  the  field  of  Moab ;  and 
timidly,  from  the  fact  that  the  cities  of  Heshbon,  Dibon,  Medeba, 
and  others,  were  in  the  ;plain  (lb'"'©:! ;  vid.  Deut.  iii.  10  ;  Josh, 
xiii.  9,  16,  21). 

(2.)  The  Ainoritish  capital  Heshbon  (liati'ni  Sejot.  'EaejSayv), 
which  had  previously  belonged  to  the  Moabites  (Num.  xxi.  26), 
was  situated  upon  a  hill  by  the  Wady  Hesban,  where  extensive 
and  imposmg  ruins,  which  bear  the  name  Hesban,  still  give 
testimony  to  its  former  glory  (vid.  RitUr,  xv.  1169  sqq.). — Of  the 
other  cities  within  the  territory  of  the  Amorites,  the  following  are 
also  mentioned  in  the  course  of  oiu;  history.  Med'bah  (NBTD), 
about  fom*  miles  to  the  south  of  Heshbon,  situated  upon  a  hill 
which  is  still  covered  vdth  ruins.  Jerome  calls  it  Medaba  ;  the 
present  name  is  Madeba- (rzVZ.  Eitter,  xv.  1182). — Dibon  (li3'''n), 
now  called  Dhiban,  an  hour's  journey  to  the  north  of  Amon. 
— Aroer,  on  the  rocky  edge  of  the  right  bank  of  the  Arnon 
(Deut.  ii.  36),  the  ruins  of  which  were  discovered  by  Burck- 
hardt,  under  the  name  of  Araayr. — Beside  these  we  have  a  long 
list  of  cities  within  the  same  territory  in  Num.  xxxii.  34  sqq. — 
The  Ammonitish  capital  was  named  Eabbah  (Rabbath-Ammon), 
afterwards  called  Philadelphia,  and  at  present  Amman,  on  the 
two  banks  of  Nahr  Amman,  a  small  river  which  flows  into  the 
Jabbok.  On  the  magnificent  ruins  of  this  city,  which  belong 
for  the  most  part  to  the  Roman  age,  see  Bitter,  xv.  1145  sqq. — 
The  residence  of  the  king  of  Bashan  was  at  Ashtaroth-Karnaim 
(D^J-ipnnnK^y  Deut.  i.  4).  Not  far  from  this  there  was  another, 
and  probably  still  more  ancient  capital  of  Bashan,  viz.,  Edrei 
(^V11?)j  afterwards  called  Adraa,  Adratum,  now  Draa,  on  a 
tributar}'  stream  of  the  Sheriat-el-Mandhur  (vid.  K.  Bitter,  xv. 
834  sqq.). — According  to  the  Onomasticon  (s.  v.  Astaroth),  the 
two  places  were  six  miles  apart.     About  an  hour  and   three 


GEOGRAPHICAL  INTRODUCTION.  3G5 

quarters'  journey  to  the  west  of  Atlraa  a  hill  has  been  discovered 
called  Tel  A  shtereh.  Botli  the  name  and  distance  answer  to  Ash- 
taroth.  At  the  foot  of  the  hill  there  are  old  foundation-walls 
and  coj)ious  springs. 

§  51.  The  mountainous  district  to  the  east  of  the  Dead 
Sea  was  first  explored,  to  some  extent,  hj  Seetzen  and  Burck- 
hardt.  But  very  little  has  been  done  since  to  confirm  or  ex- 
tend the  information  they  obtained.  It  is  particularly  to  be 
lamented,  that  not  one  of  the  modern  travellers  has  taken  the 
road  leading  from  Jericho  to  Ileslibon :  for  several  of  the  most 
important  places  in  connection  with  this  section  of  oui*  history 
must  be  looked  for  there,  especially  the  three  points  from  which 
Balaam  delivered  his  prophecies  (Bamoth-Baal,  Num.  xxii.  41 ; 
the  Field  of  the  Watchers,  Num.  xxiii.  14  ;  and  Mount  Peor, 
Num.  xxiii.  28),  and  the  scene  of  Moses'  death  {Mount  Nebo, 
Deut.  xxxii.  50,  xxxiv.  5)  (1). — It  is  difficult  to  determine 
exactly  the  situation  of  the  Abarim  mountains.  As  we  meet 
with  the  name  first  of  all  in  the  extreme  south  of  the  Moabitish 
teri'itoiy  (Num.  xxi.  11,  xxxiii.  44),  and  then  again  much  far- 
ther to  the  north,  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  Arboth  Moab 
(Num.  xxxiii.  47  ;  Deut.  xxxii.  48),  and  the  name  itself  (equiva- 
lent to  regiones  idteriores)  seems  to  point  to  a  tract  upon  the 
coast,  we  shaU  hardly  be  wu'ong  if  we  regard  the  name  ~in  or 
D''")Ziyn  "inn  as  a  general  appellation  of  the  Moabitish  mountains 
iu'the  widest  sense,  that  is  to  say,  of  the  whole  of  the  moun- 
tainous district  on  the  eastern  side  of  the  Dead  Sea  (2). 

(1.)  Hengstenberg  (Balaam,  p.  525  sqq.  translation)  has 
attempted  with  great  exactness  and  care  to  determine  the  various 
localities  named,  according  to  the  Biblical  data.  His  results 
have  all  been  adopted  by  K.  Hitter  (xv.  1185  sqq,). — Since  the 
time  of  Seetzen  and  Burckhardt,  Mount  Nebo  (i3^)  has  gene- 
rally been  supposed  to  have  been  found  in  the  Jebel  A  ttdrus, 
the  loftiest  mountain  of  the  land  of  the  Moabites.  But  Heng- 
stenberg (p.  533  sqq.)  has  most  conclusively  demonstrated  the 
inadmissibility  of  such  an  assumption.     The  Jebel  Attaims  is  on 


366  ISRAEL  IN  THE  ARBOTH  MOAB. 

the  southern  side  of  tlie  Wady  Zerka  Maein,  wliereas  tlie  N^eho 
must  be  sought  considerably  more  to  the  north.  According  to 
Deut.  xxxii.  49  and  xxxiv.  1,  it  was  in  the  neighboui'hood  of  the 
head-quarters  of  the  Israehtes  (in  the  Arboth  Moab  therefore), 
and  "  over  against  Jericho/'  a  description  which  does  not  at  all 
apply  to  the  Attarus.  The  name  Attarus  also  points  to  a  locality 
both  very  different  and  at  some  distance  from  the  Nebo.  It 
was  no  doubt  originally  derived  from  the  city  of  Ataroth  (niiDj;, 
Nmn.  xxxii.  3,  34),  which  must  therefore  hscve  been  situated 
either  near  or  upon  the  mountain.  But  in  Num.  xxxii.  3,  there 
are  six  other  names  which  intervene  between  Ataroth  and  Nebo  ; 
and,  according  to  ver.  34,  Ataroth  was  allotted  to  the  tribe  of 
Gad,  whereas  Nebo  was  assigned  to  that  of  Reuben  (ver.  38). 
Both  these  statements  shut  us  up  to  the  conclusion,  that  Ataroth 
and  Nebo  were  separated  from  each  other  by  a  distance  by  no 
means  inconsiderable.  The  true  position  of  Nebo  has  been 
determined  by  Hengstenherg  (p.  534  sqq.) — approximatively,  it  is 
true,  but  with  certainty  and  great  acmnen — from  Num.  xxxii.  3 
and  Niun.  xxxii.  34-38.  In  both  passages  Nebo  occurs  along 
■v\dth  the  names  Heshbon,  Elealeh,  Shebam,  Kirjathaim  (=  el- 
Teym),  and  Beon  or  Baal-Meon,  the  whole  of  which  are  grouped 
within  a  circuit  of  five  English  miles  around  Heshbon,  which 
opens  the  hst  as  being  the  capital  (vid.  K.  v.  Raumer,  Palastina, 
p.  229  sqq.),  Nebo,  therefore,  must  also  be  looked  for  some- 
where in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  same  capital.  This  is  con- 
firmed by  the  statements  of  Eusehius  (s.  v.  ^A^apelfi),  who  gives 
the  following  accomit  of  the  situation  of  Mount  Nebo  (Na/Sav)  : 
avTLKpv^Iepiyo>  vTrep  top  ^lophdvrjv,  eVl  Kopv(f)rjv  ^acrjco  (Pisgah)* 
Kol  SeLKwrai  aviovrwv  anro  At^tdho';  (Livias)  eVt  Eae^ovv 
(Hesbon),  rot?  avrois  ovofiaai  KoXovfievov,  ttXtjctlov  tov  ^oycop 
(Peor)  6pov<;,  ovtw  koX  et?  hevpo  '^rjfxaTl^ovTe';,  evOa  koX  77  %<w/3a 
et9  eVt  vvv  ovofMa^erac  ^aa<y(o. — See  Reland  (Pal.  49  6),  and  the 
more  minute  researches  of  Hengstenherg,  who  closes  with  the 
following  words  :  "  The  evidence  we  have  adduced,  not  merely 
serves  to  upset  the  notion  of  the  identity  of  Nebo  and  Attarus, 
but  also  to  fix  the  true  position  of  Nebo.  It  has  shown  us  that 
it  must  be  sought  for  between  Heshbon  and  the  Jordan  near 
Jericho,  somewhere  about  an  hour's  journey  to  the  west  of  the 
former  city.  A  more  exact  determination  of  the  locality  is  not 
at  present  attainable,  from  the  circumstance  that  no  traveller 


GEOGRAPHICAL  INTRODUCTION.  30)7 

has  recently  taken  the  route  from  Jericho  to  Heshbon.  But 
this  much  is  certain,  that,  in  general,  the  locality  just  described 
admirably  suits  what  is  said  in  Holy  Scripture  respecting  Nebo  " 
{yid.  Deut.  xxxii.  49,  and  xxxiv.  1,  where  Moses  is  said  to  have 
seen  the  whole  land  of  Canaan  from  the  top  of  Nebo).  "  The 
neiirhboui'hood  of  Heshbon  commands  extensive  views,  such  as 
are  scarcely  to  be  obtained  elsewhere,  of  the  country  conquered 
by  the  Israelites  in  the  time  of  Moses.  '  The  town  of  Hhuzbhan,' 
says  Buckingham  (ii.  106  seq.),  'stands  in  so  commanding  a 
situation,  that  the  view  from  it  extends  to  at  least  thirty  miles  on 
every  side.'  "  The  Dead  Sea,  the  Ghor,  Jerusalem,  Bethlehem, 
etc.,  can  be  distinctly  seen. 

BAMOTH-BAi\.L,  in  Nmn.  xxii.  41,  is  evidently  identical  with 
the  Israelitish  encampment,  which  is  called  Bamoth  in  Num. 
xxi.  19,  20.  The  latter  was  between  Nahaliel  and  "  the  valley 
in  the  field  (that  is,  upon  the  table-land,  §  50,  1)  of  Moab,  upon 
the  top  of  Pisgah,  which  rises  above  the  desert"  (i.e.,  the  Ar- 
both  Moab).  Nahaliel  is  the  modern  Wady  Lejum  (see  below, 
§  53,  2),  which  enters  the  Wady  Mojeb  (Arnon)  near  Mehatet 
el-Haj  (§  49,  2).  Bamoth,  therefore,  must  have  been  situated 
to  the  north,  or  rather  to  the  north-west,  of  this  point.  The 
position  of  Bamoth  can  be  more  precisely  determined  from 
Josh.  xiii.  17.  In  thehst  of  the  cities  of  Reuben,  Bamoth-Baal 
is  placed  between  Dihon  (the  modern  Dhiban,  in  the  neighbour- 
hood of  the  Amon)  and  Beth-Baal-Meon  (about  two  miles  and 
a  half  to  the  south  of  Heshbon).  In  exact  accordance  with 
this,  we  find  Bamoth^  in  Is.  xv.  2  (for  with  Hitzig,  Ilengsten- 
herg,  and  others,  we  regard  it  as  indisputable  that  niD3n  is  not 
to  be  taken  as  an  appellative,  but  as  the  name  of  the  well- 
known  city),  between  Dibon  and  Bajitli  (an  abbreviated  name 
of  Beth-Baal-Meon).  But  Bamoth  is  omitted  from  the  catalogue 
of  stations  in  Num.  xxxiii.,  and  Dihon  inserted  (yid.  §  53,  2)  ; 
and  from  this  Hengstenberg  infers,  that  Bamoth  is  unquestion- 
ably to  be  looked  for  somewhere  near  to  Dibon.  Now  there  is 
a  mountain  at  about  half -an-h our' s  jomniey  to  the  north  of 
Dibon,  on  the  south  of  the  Wady  el-AVahleh,  upon  the  summit 
of  which  Burckhardt  found  a  very  beautiful  plain.  In  Heng- 
stenberg's  opinion,  there  is  every  probability  that  this  table-land 
is  identical  with  the  Bamoth-Baal.  We  should  be  perfectly 
^  Rendered  "  the  high  places"  in  our  version. 


368  ISRAEL  IN  THE  ARBOTH  MOAB. 

satisfied  witli  tins  result,  if  it  were  not  that  there  is  another  cir- 
cumstance which  diminishes  the  probability.  According  to  Num. 
xxii.  41  (yicL  §  56,  1),  the  whole  camp  of  Israel  in  the  Arboth 
Moab,  to  the  utmost  part,  could  be  seen  from  the  Bamoth-Baal. 
But  this  would  hardly  have  been  possible  from  the  mountain 
near  Dibon.  The  distance,  both  to  the  east  and  to  the  south, 
would  apparently  be  far  too  great,  and  the  moimtains  between 
would  certainly  hide  the  Arboth  Moab  from  the  view.  More- 
over, this  movintain  near  Dibon,  to  judge  from  the  manner  in  which 
Burckhardt  speaks  of  it, — for  he  merely  alludes  to  it  in  passing, 
— cannot  have  been  of  any  very  considerable  height ;  and  he 
says  nothing  whatever  about  its  commanding  an  extensive  pro- 
spect.— On  the  other  hand,  very  much  might  be  said  in  favour 
of  the  conjectm'e,  that  the  heights  of  Baal  are  identical  with  the 
Jehel  Attarus.  This  is  probably  the  highest  point  in  the  whole 
district,  and  commands  a  very  extensive  view  across  the  Dead 
Sea  and  the  plain  of  the  Jordan.  Its  position  agrees  very  well 
with  the  accomit  that  Bamoth  was  between  Dibon  and  Beth- 
Baal-Meon  (it  stands  exactly  in  the  middle  between  the  two 
places,  with  but  a  very  slight  deviation  from  the  straight  line  in 
a  westerly  direction),  and  also  with  the  other  statement,  that 
Bamoth  formed  an  intermediate  station  between  Nahaliel  and 
the  field  of  ^loab  upon  the  Pisgah. 

The  Field  of  the  Watchers,  on  the  top  of  Pisgah 
(Num.  xxiii.  14,  napsn  ::'N"i"7i?  D''Q\*  ^y^f),  evidently  corresponds 
(we  quote  Hengstenherg  s  words  with  approbation)  in  the  main 
to  the  "  valley  which  is  in  the  field  of  Moab,  upon  the  top  of 
Pisgah,  and  looks  towards  the  desert"  (that  is,  the  Ai'both 
Moab),  which  is  given  in  Num.  x^d.  20  as  the  last  halting-place 
of  the  Israelites  before  they  entered  the  Arboth  Moab,  and  also 
to  the  place  of  encampment  "  in  the  mountains  of  Abarim  before 
Nebo,"  which  is  also  given  in  Nmn.  xxxiii.  47  as  the  last  station 
before  the  Arboth  Moab.  Mount  Nebo,  which  is  referred  to 
here  as  one  of  the  peaks  of  the  mountains  of  Abarim  (see  below, 
note  2),  is  represented  in  Deut.  xxxiv.  1  as  being  "  upon  the  top 
of  Pisgah."  We  have  already  seen  that  the  Neho  is  to  be 
looked  for  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  city  of  Heshbon ;  and 
upon  the  heights  in  the  immediate  vicinity,  if  not  upon  Nebo 
itself,  we  must  look  for  the  Field  of  the  Watchers. 

The  situation  of  Mount  Peor  may  be  determined  with 


GEOGRAPHICAL  INTRODUCTION.  369 

precision  from  the  description  given  in  Num.  xxiii.  27,  28. 
First  of  all  (like  the  place  just  alluded  to  in  Num.  xxi.  20),  it  is 
said  to  have  "  looked  over  the  desert"  Q'^^"^'',^  '.^^-^j;).  That  we 
are  to  understand  by  the  desert  in  both  passages  simply  the 
Ai'both  Moab,  where  Israel  encamped,  is  placed  beyond  all 
question  by  chap.  xxiv.  1,  2,  where  Balaam  is  said  to  have  "  set 
his  face  (from  Peor)  toward  the  wilderness,"  and  there  to  have 
seen  Israel  "  abiding  in  his  tents  according  to  their  tribes."  But 
whereas  he  could  only  see  "  the  end"  of  the  camp  of  Israel  from 
the  Field  of  the  Watchers  (^Zophini),  and  not  the  whole  (Num. 
xxiii.  13),  on  account  of  a  large  portion  of  the  camp  being 
hidden  from  the  view  by  Mount  Peor,  which  intervened  ;  from 
Mount  Peor  itself  he  coidd  see  the  whole  camp,  and  broke  out 
in  the  words,  "  How  goodly  are  thy  tents,  O  Jacob,  and  thy 
dwelling-places,  O  Israel !" — Peo?-,  therefore,  must  have  been  a 
peak  in  the  immediate  neighbourhood  of  the  Arboth  Moab  ; 
whereas  the  Field  of  the  Watchers,  or  Pisgah,  and  Momit  Neho 
were  both  at  some  considerable  distance  to  the  east,  and  the 
Bamoth  Baal  far  away  to  the  south-east.  This  conclusion  is 
supported,  as  Hengstenherg  (p.  537)  has  shown,  by  all  the  state- 
ments in  the  Onomasticon  of  Eusebius. 

(2.)  According  to  Num.  xxxiii.  47,  Mount  Nebo  was  in  the 
Mountains  of  Abarim.  In  Deut.  xxxiv.  1,  on  the  other  hand,  it 
is  said  to  have  been  upon  the  top  of  Pisgah,  over  against  Jericho. 
The  two  statements  may  easily  be  reconciled,  on  the  supposition 
that  the  Nebo  was  a  peak  of  the  Pisgah,  and  that  this  again  was 
one  portion  of  the  larger  range  of  mountains  called  Aharim. 
But  whilst  these  two  accounts  refer  us  to  the  g-eographical  lati- 
tude of  Jericho  and  the  Arboth  Moab,  we  read  in  Num.  xxi.  10 
sqq.,  that  the  Israelites  had  already  encamped  by  the  mountains 
of  Abarim  {Ije-Aharim,  i.e.,  the  hills  of  Abarim),  when  they 
were  to  the  south  of  the  river  Zared,  and  therefore  to  the  ex- 
treme south  of  the  country  of  the  Moabites.  Consequently, 
there  must  have  been  the  whole  length  of  the  Dead  Sea  between 
the  one  point  and  the  other.  Compare  Num.  xxxiii.  45-47 
also,  where  we  are  told  that  the  Israelites  departed  from  lim 
(in  the  mountains  of  Aharim)  and  went  to  Dibon,  and  thence 
to  Almon.  From  Aim  on  they  proceeded  to  the  mountains  of 
Aharim,  and  pitched  he/ore  (i.e.,  on  the  eastern  side  of)  Nebo. 
Thus    they   started   from  Abarim,  and,   after   halting   at   two 

VOL.  III.  2  A 


370  ISRAEL  IN  THE  ARBOTH  MOAB. 

different  stations,  they  arrived  at  Abarim  again.  K.  v.  Raumer 
attempts  to  solve  the  difficidty  in  a  pecuhar,  and  certainly  by 
no  means  successful  manner.  He  says  in  his  Palastina,  p.  62, 
Anm.  166  :  "May  not  the  momitains  of  Abarim  have  formed 
a  continuous  line,  the  southern  extremity  of  which  was  first 
touched  by  the  Israelites,  who  then  turned  away  from  it,  and 
after  halting  at  two  stations,  touched  the  line  again  ?  This  view 
appears  to  receive  the  strongest  confirmation  from  a  remark  of 
Bm'ckhardt's  (p.  638).  There  is  a  chain  of  low  mountains,  com- 
menciag  at  the  southern  side  of  the  Wady  Kerek  (or  Zared,  §  49, 
1),  which  first  of  all  forms  a  curve  towards  the  east,  and  then 
bends  towards  the  north.  This  chain  bears  different  names  {Oro- 
haraye,  Tarfuye,  Goweythe).  The  last  may  be  connected  with 
the  Attarus  at  the  sources  of  the  Wady  Wale.  Now,  this  range 
of  mountains  seems  to  tally  perfectly  with  the  mountains  of 
Abarim.  The  Israelites  touched  the  south-western  extremity  of 
these  mountains  to  the  south  of  the  Wady  Kerek,  then  left 
them,  and  crossed  the  Zared  to  the  east  near  Ar  (Deut.  ii.  18), 
and  after  this  the  Arnon  (Deut.  ii.  24).  During  all  this  time 
the  chain  of  mountains  and  the  land  of  the  Moabites  were  on 
their  left  (Judg.  xi.  18).  It  was  not  till  they  reached  the 
eastern  side  of  the  Nebo  that  they  touched  the  chain  again. 
Mount  Nebo  was  apparently  the  extreme  point  of  the  mountains 
of  Abarim  towards  the  north." — We  confess  that  we  cannot 
comprehend  this  argument.  A  single  glance  at  the  map  wiU 
show  that  the  Israelites,  when  marching  with  the  country  of  the 
Moabites  on  their  left  hand  (that  is,  to  the  west),  cannot  possibly 
have  touched  the  south-western  extremity  of  the  range  in  ques- 
tion to  the  south  of  Zared  (Jebel  Orokaraye)  ;  and  Raumer 
himself  has  set  down  the  line  of  their  journey  upon  his  own  map 
five  geographical  miles  to  the  east  of  this  point.  It  is  equally 
impossible  to  comprehend  how  they  can  have  touched  the 
northern  extremity  of  the  range  referred  to.  (It  is  only  con- 
ceivable on  the  supposition  that  the  Attarus  and  the  Nebo 
are  identical ;  but  Raumer  himself  has  given  this  up  a  long 
time  ago.)  For,  although  it  is  certainly  possible,  though  far 
from  being  probable,  that  the  range  may  be  connected  with  the 
Attarus  at  the  sources  of  the  Wady  Wale ;  yet  it  cannot  for 
a  moment  be  imagined  that  the  chain  stretches  as  far  as  Nebo, 
i.e.,  into  the  neighbourhood  of  Heshbon.     Such  a  fact  would 


ETHNOGEAPHICAL  INTRODUCTION.  371 

certainly  not  have  escaped  the  notice  of  Seetzen  and  Burck- 
hardt. 

But  what  do  all  these  forced  assumptions  and  conjectures 
lead  to  ?  Why  should  not  the  name  ^^  Mountains  of  Abarim" 
have  been  common  to  the  whole  of  the  IVIoabitish  range  of 
mountains  along  the  entire  eastern  coast  of  the  Dead  Sea,  from 
the  Wady  Ahsy  to  the  latitude  of  Heshbon  ?  Tliis  is  just  as 
likely  as  that  the  name  " Mountains  of  Seir^  shotdd  be  given  to 
the  whole  of  the  mountainous  district  of  Edom,  which  covers 
twice  as  much  ground. — The  Ije- Abarim  (i.e.,  the  hills  of  Aba- 
rim) are  probably  some  promontories  on  the  south-eastern  border 
of  the  Kerek,  or  the  ridge  between  the  cultivated  country  and 
the  steppe  of  the  Euphrates,  along  which  the  caravan  road  runs 
(§  48). 


ETHNOGEAPHICAL  INTRODUCTION. 

§  52.  Before  the  land  which  w^as  destined  for  the  Israelites 
came  into  their  possession,  the  tribes  which  were  most  closely 
related  to  them — namely,  the  Aynalekltes  (§  4,  2),  the  Edomites 
(§  46,  1),  the  Moabites  (1),  the  Ammonites  (2),  and  the  Midian- 
ites  (3) — ^liad  fixed  their  settlements  to  the  south,  the  south-east, 
and  the  east  of  the  country.  In  the  sacred  Scriptures  the  terri- 
tory occupied  by  the  nations  generally  is  represented  as  deter- 
mined by  the  superintending  providence  of  God,  with  especial 
reference  to  the  sacred  history  (Deut.  xxxii.  8;  Acts  xvii.  26) ; 
and  the  Terahite  nations,  in  particular,  are  expressly  stated  to 
have  had  their  country  given  to  them  for  a  possession  by  Jeho- 
vah Himself  (Deut.  ii.  5,  9,  19).  Israel  was  to  be  the  heart 
of  the  nations,  and  Canaan  the  hearth  of  the  countries  (vol.  i.  ? 
§  43,  44).  Since,  then,  the  providence  of  God,  which  has 
determined  for  all  the  families  of  the  earth  where  they  shall 
dwell  and  for  how  long  a  time,  appointed  the  settlements  of 
these  affiliated  nations,  immediately  around  the  comitry  which 
was  destined  to  become  the  dwelling-place  of  the  Israelites  ;  it 
provided  thereby  the  conditions,  opportunities,  and  materials  for 
a  historical  I'eciprocity,  which  might,  and  (we  believe  we  may 


372  ISRAEL  IN  THE  ARBOTH  MOAB. 

add)  should,  have  been  equally  advantageous  to  both,  and  of 
great  importance  to  the  sacred  history'.  For  whilst,  on  the  one 
hand,  this  circle  of  closely-related  nations,  by  which  the  IsraeUtes 
were  siuTounded,  might  and  should  have  formed  a  wall  of 
defence,  behind  which  Israel  could  devote  itself  uninterruptedly 
to  the  working  out  of  its  high  vocation ;  these  nations,  on  the 
other  hand,  might  have  enjoyed,  through  their  pre-eminently 
favoured  situation,  the  first  and  largest  share  in  the  blessings  of 
that  salvation  which  was  coming  to  maturity  in  Israel,  and  with 
which  all  the  families  of  the  earth  were  to  be  blessed.  It  is 
true  that,  as  a  question  of  historical  fact,  the  relation  in  which 
Israel  and  the  surrounding;  Terahite  nations  stood  to  each  othei* 
was  very  different  from  this,  and  one  of  decided  hostility ;  but 
this  was  the  fault,  not  of  the  arrangement,  but  of  the  nations 
themselves,  who  misunderstood  and  despised  it,  and  neglected 
and  opposed  alike  its  obligations  and  blessings. — Wliole  centuries 
before,  whilst  the  Israelites  were  growing  into  a  great  nation  in 
Eg}'pt,  these  nations  had  fixed  themselves  in  the  settlements 
appointed  for  them.  But  not  very  long  before  the  return  of  the 
Israelites  to  the  land  of  their  fathers'  pilgrimage,  the  ISIoabites 
and  Ammonites,  who  had  previously  spread  themselves  as  far  as 
the  Jabbok  and  the  Jordan,  were  driven  back  by  the  Amorites 
(4)  towards  the  south  and  east,  and  an  Amoritish  kingdom  w^as 
established  in  Gilead.  This  rendered  it  possible  for  the  Israel- 
ites to  take  possession  of  the  country  to  the  east  of  the  Jordan, 
without  being  obliged  to  engage  in  hostilities  with  any  nations 
that  were  related  to  them  by  birth. 

(1.)  The  MoABiTES  were  descended  from  Moab,  the  son  of 
Lot  (see  vol.  i.  §  62).  It  is  narrated,  that  after  the  catastrophe 
by  which  the  vale  of  Siddim  was  overwhelmed.  Lot  settled  first 
of  all  in  Zoar,  on  the  eastern  shore  of  the  Dead  Sea;  but  not 
thinking  himself  safe  in  this  city,  he  aftei'wards  took  refuge  in 
the  mountainous  district  to  the  east.  This  district,  the  modern 
Kerek,  was  inhabited  by  the  giant  race  of  Emim  (yid.  vol.  i. 
§  45,  1).     The  descendants  of  Moab  succeeded  in  expelling 


ETIIXOGKAnilCAL  INTRODUCTIOX.  373 

tliese  aborigines  of  the  land,  or  at  all  events  in  effecting  their 
subjugation  and  maintaining  themselves  as  the  rulers  of  the 
country  (Deut.  ii.  10).  They  even  extended  their  occupation 
and  rule  as  far  as  the  Jabbok  towards  the  north,  and  thus  be- 
came possessed  of  all  the  country  on  the  east  of  the  sea  and  the 
Jordan,  between  the  Jabbok  and  the  Edomitish  frontier  (the 
Wady  el-Ahsy).  At  the  same  time  their  rule  was  probably  not 
so  firmly  established  to  the  north  as  to  the  south  of  the  Arnon. 
At  all.  events,  not  long  before  the  approach  of  the  Israelites,  an 
Amoritish  tribe  from  the  west,  under  King  Sihon,  succeeded  in 
wresting  from  them  the  whole  country  between  the  Jabbok  and 
the  Arnon  (see  below,  note  4),  so  that  henceforth  the  latter  was 
their  northern  boundary  (Num.  xxi.  13,  2G  ;  Judges  xi'.  18). 
That  the  recollection  of  the  period,  when  the  Moabites  spread 
beyond  the  Arnon,  must  have  been  very  vivid  at  the  date  of  the 
composition  of  the  Pentateuch,  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  the 
plain  of  the  Jordan  and  the  mountainous  district  are  both  called 
by  their  name  (e.g.,  Arboth  Moab,  S'deh  Moab,  vid.  §  50,  1). — 
Tlie  national  god  of  the  ]\Ioabites  was  called  Chemosh  (^i^3), 
and  therefore  the  Moabites  themselves  are  sometimes  called  "  the 
people  of  Chemosh"  (Num.  xxi.  29  ;  Jer.  xlviii.  46).  On  the 
nature  of  this  idol  and  the  mode  of  its  worship,  we  can  gather 
nothing;  certain  either  from  the  Old  Testament  or  anv  other 
soiu'ce.  Even  the  etymology  of  the  name  is  doubtful.  Jerome 
(on  Isa.  XV.  2)  compares  it  to  the  Priapian  deity  Baal-Peor. 
Hyde  (de  rel.  vett.  Pers.  c.  5)  refers  to  the  Arabic  ^_^>i^-*>>-  = 
culex,  which  might  suggest  a  resemblance  to  Baal-Zebuh  {Zevq 
d'jro/xvio';).  Movers  (Phonizier  i.  334  sqq.)  recognises  in  Che- 
mosh the  Semitic  fire-god,  the  same  deity  which  the  Annnonites 
worshipped  under  the  name  of  Moloch.  He  bases  his  conclusion 
upon  the  etymology  of  ^'O'z  (which  means  to  tread  to  pieces,  to 
devastate),  and  appeals  to  the  Onomasticon  of  Eusehiiis  (5.  v. 
'Apiva,  y)  Kol  'AptrjX),  where  the  idol  of  the  inhabitants  of  Areo- 
poHs  is  said  to  have  been  called  Ariel  (the  Fire  of  God).  This 
view  is  apparently  supported  by  the  fact  that,  on  the  one  hand, 
Chemosh  is  inti-oduced  in  Judges  xi.  24  as  an  Ammonitish 
deity,  whilst,  on  the  other  hand,  in  2  Kings  iii.  27  the  king  of 
the  Moabites  is  said  to  have  offered  up  children  as  a  sacrifice  to 
his  god  in  a  time  of  great  distress  (though  the  name  of  the  god 
is  not  given). — There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  ^loabites  also 


374  ISRAEL  IN  THE  AKBOTH  MOAB. 

went  to  the  opposite  pole  of  Nature-worship,  by  connecting 
sexual  orgies  with  the  worship  of  Baal-Peor.  This  is  not  only 
confirmed  by  the  name  Peor,  which  was  given  to  one  of  the 
mountains  in  their  land  (§  51,  1),  but  is  most  decidedly  and  ex- 
pressly stated  in  Num.  xxv.  1-3. 

(2.)  The  origin  of  the  Ammonites  is  traced  to  Ben-Ammi, 
the  second  son  of  Lot.  They  dwelt  (along  with  the  Moabites, 
though  to  the  east  of  them)  in  the  country  between  the  Arnon 
and  the  Jabbok,  from  wMch  they  had  previously  expelled  the 
Zamzummim,  who  are  also  represented  as  a  race  of  giants  (Deut. 
ii.  19  sqq.).  The  establishment  of  the  Amoritish  kingdom  in 
the  country  to  the  east  of  the  Jordan,  by  which  the  Moabites 
were  compelled  to  retreat  to  the  other  side  of  the  Arnon,  also 
forced  the  Ammonites  still  farther  to  the  east,  where  their  capi- 
tal Rabbath-Ammon  was  situated  (§  50,  2).  What  their  former 
relation  to  the  Moabites  on  the  east  of  the  Jordan  was,  whether 
they  were  intermingled  with  them,  or  separated  from  them  by 
some  distinct  boundary,  it  is  not  easy  to  determine.  From  the 
Pentateuch  it  appears  as  though  all  the  land  of  which  the 
Amorites  took  possession,  between  the  Jabbok  and  the  Arnon, 
belonged  exclusively  to  the  Moabites  (yid.  Num.  xxi.  29).  On 
the  other  hand,  at  a  later  period  (Judges  xi.  12,  13)  the  Am~ 
monites  appealed  to  their  former  possession  of  the  country  as 
giving  them  a  claim  to  it  still. — At  all  events  the  Israelites  did 
not  touch  the  existing  territory  of  the  Ammonites  (which  had 
been  diminished  by  the  Amorites)  ;  and  in  fact,  according  to 
Deut.  ii.  19,  they  were  strictly  prohibited  by  Jehovah  from  in- 
flicting any  injury  upon  the  Ammonites,  as  they  had  already 
been  from  interfering  with  Edom  and  Moab. 

(3.)  We  have  akeady  spoken  of  that  branch  of  the  ]\Iidian- 
ITES  which  dwelt  on  the  Elanitic  Gulf  (see  vol.  ii.  §  19,  6,  7). 
The  principal  tribe  inhabited  the  more  northerly  regions  on  the 
eastern  border  of  Moab  and  the  southern  border  of  Ammon. 
There  were  five  Midianitish  chieftains,  however,  bearing  the 
name  of  kings,  who  had  settled  down  with  their  tribes  on  the 
Moabitish  table-lands  ("ii::'''»n  Josh.  xiii.  21,  3XiO  nnb*  Gen.  x'xx\a. 
35,  cf.  §  50,  1).  They  had  already  been  defeated  once  by  the 
Edomites  (Gen.  xxxvi.  35) ;  and  when  Sihon  conquered  the 
country  between  the  Jabbok  and  the  Anion,  they  became  tri- 
butary to  him,  and  on  that  account  are  represented  in  Josh. 


ETHNOGRAPHICAL  INTRODUCTION.  375 

xiii.  21  as  vassals  of  Silion^  (jilT'D  "'^''DJ).  They  seduced  Israel 
to  idolatry,  on  which  account  Moses  carried  on  a  war  of  ven- 
geance against  them,  destroyed  their  cities,  and  put  all  their 
men  to  death  (§  58,  5).  The  main  body  of  the  Midianites, 
which  dwelt  to  the  east,  was  not  affected  by  this  war  of  exter- 
mination ;  and  at  a  later  period  it  maintained  a  long-continued 
and  fearfidly  oppressive  tyranny  over  Israel  (Judg.  vi.-viii.). 
The  ^lidianites  worshipped  Baal-Peor,  and  connected  sexual 
excesses  with  the  worship  (Num.  xxv.  17,  18). 

(4.)  On  the  Amohites  see  vol.  i.  §  45,  1.  At  the  time  of 
Moses  we  find  tico  Amoritish  kingdoms  on  the  other  side  of  the 
Jordan.  The  most  southerly  of  the  two,  between  the  Jabbok 
and  the  Arnon,  we  have  already  met  with.  It  was  founded  by 
King  Sihon  (pn''D ;  vid.  Num.  xxi.  26-30),  who  still  resided  at 
Heshbon  (Num.  xxi.  34 ;  Josh.  xiii.  10).  The  northern  king- 
dom, which  covered  the  whole  land  of  Bashan,  was  governed  by 
King  Og  (jy).  His  palace  was  at  Ashtaroth  (Deut.  i.  4 ;  Josh, 
xiii.  12).  The  territory  of  Og  is  expressly  described  in  Deut. 
xxxi.  4  as  an  Amoritish  kingdom.  According  to  Deut.  iii.  11 
and  Josh.  xiii.  12,  Og  alone  "remained  of  the  remnant  of  the 
Rephaim"  a  race  of  giants,  which  had  formed  part  of  the 
aborigines  of  Canaan.  But  after  the  immigration  of  the  Amor- 
ites,  they  soon  gained  the  upper  hand  over  the  early  inhabitants. 
It  is  the  more  remarkable,  therefore,  that  a  descendant  of  the 
latter  should  now  be  recognised  as  kino;  of  the  Amorites.  Oc; 
himself,  who  descended  from  a  race  of  giants,  was  a  man  of 
enormous  stature.  His  iron  bed,  which  was  kept  at  Eabbath 
Amnion,  was  nine  cubits  long  and  foui'  cubits  broad  (Deut.  iii. 

We  must  look  a  little  more  closely  at  the  passage  just  re- 
ferred to,  which  has  been  attacked  on  various  sides  (see  Heng- 
stenberg's  admirable  vindication  in  his  Dissertation  on  the  Pen- 
tateuch, vol.  2,  p.  198).  Spinoza  and  Peyrerins  were  of  opinion 
that  Og's  bed  is  spoken  of  here,  as  something  belonging  to  a 
very  remote  antiquity,  and  that  the  Israelites  cannot  have  known 
anything  about  the  bed  mitil  the  time  of  David,  when  he  cap- 
tured llabbath  Amnion  (2  Sam.  xii.  30).  Following  out  the 
same  idea,  there  have  been  several  even  of  the  supporters  of  the 
authenticity  of  the  Pentateuch  {e.g.,  Cahnet,  Dathe,  Jahn,  and 
^  English  Version,  "  diikes  of  Sihon." 


376  ISRAEL  IN  THE  ARBOTH  MOAB. 

Rosenmuller),  who  have  pronounced  the  passage  a  gloss  by  a  later 
hand.  But  there  is  really  no  ground  for  this.  For  the  remark 
that  one  cannot  comprehend  why  the  bed  of  the  conquered  king, 
instead  of  being  taken  to  the  camp  of  the  conquerors  (the 
Israelites),  should  have  been  carried  to  the  capital  of  the  Am- 
monites (and  that  immediately,  for  Moses  died  shortly  after  the 
defeat  of  Og),  is  itself  incomprehensible.  We  are  not  told  that 
the  bed  was  not  taken  into  the  city  of  the  Ammonites  till  after 
the  death  of  its  owner;  and  if  we  were,  we  corJd  imagine  many 
things  which  would  show  the  possibihty  of  this  having  been  the 
case.  The  most  probable  supposition,  however,  appears  to  us  to 
be,  that  the  bed  of  Og  was  at  Rabbah,  before  the  Israelites  came 
into  the  neighbourhood  at  all,  that  is,  during  the  lifetime  of  Og. 
It  may  be  assumed  as  certain,  that  the  Terahite  nations  lived  in 
a  state  of  constant  hostility  to  the  Amorites.  This  being  the 
case,  it  is  not  improbable  that  in  a  war  with  Og,  or  after  an  in- 
vasion of  the  country  and  an  attack  upon  Ashtaroth,  the  Am- 
monites may  have  carried  off  the  celebrated  bed  of  Og,  and  set 
it  up  in  their  capital  as  a  trophy  of  the  victory. — At  the  same 
time,  even  Hengstenherg  admits  that  "remarks  like  these  may 
have  been  appended  by  Moses  himself  at  a  later  period,  when  he 
committed  his  address  to  writing ;  and  therefore  it  is  right  to 
enclose  the  verse  in  brackets,  as  De  Wette  has  done."  In  op- 
position to  the  notion  that  the  verse  has  somewhat  of  a  mythical 
character,  Hengstenherg  observes,  that  "  families  of  giants,  from 
which  kings  are  chosen,  are  still  to  be  met  with  among  many 
savage  tribes — in  Australia,  for  example.  Calmet  gives  a  num- 
ber of  instances  of  iron  beds  in  use  in  ancient  times."  There  is 
certainly  no  necessity  for  assuming,  as  Clericus  has  done,  that  Og 
had  his  bed  made  of  iron  because  of  the  bugs. — "  The  size  of 
the  bed  need  not  astonish  us,  for  the  Hebrew  cubit  was  not 
more  than  a  foot-and-a-half  (see  Gesenius,  s.  v.  HDS).  The  bed- 
stead is  always  larger  than  the  man ;  and  in  the  case  before  us 
Clericus  has  conjectured  that  Og  designedly  had  it  made  larger 
than  was  necessary,  in  order  that  posterity  might  form  a  more 
magnificent  idea  of  the  stature  of  the  man,  from  the  size  of  the 
bed  in  which  he  was  accustomed  to  sleep.  It  is  often  the  case 
that  very  tall  people  have  a  wish  to  be  thought  taller  than  they 
really  are."  A  perfectly  analogous  account  is  given  by  Diodorus 
Siculus  (xvii.  95)  of  Alexander  the  Great,  namely,  that  whenever 


CONQUEST  OF  THE  L.NJND  OX  THE  EAST  OF  THE  JORDAN.  377 

he  was  obliged  to  halt  on  his  expedition  into  India,  he  left 
colossal  works  behind  him,  "  representing  a  camp  of  heroes,  and 
furnishing  the  inhabitants  with  striking  proofs  of  the  gigantic 
stature  of  the  invaders  and  their  supernatural  strength."  Thus, 
amongst  other  things,  he  ordered  "two  apartments  to  be  pro- 
vided for  every  foot  soldier,  each  five  cubits  long;  and,  in  addi- 
tion to  this,  two  stalls  for  every  cavalry  soldier,  twice  as  large  as 
those  ordinarily  made."  There  is  not  the  slightest  foundation 
for  Lengerkes  supposition,  that  Og's  enormous  bed  "  must  cer- 
tainly have  been  a  sarcophagus  ;  a  conclusion  which  is  confirmed 
by  the  fact  that  modern  travellers  have  discovered  specimens  of 
sarcophagi  of  basalt  in  this  very  locality."  Basalt,  he  says  (of 
which  Pliny  states  that  "  ferrei  colons  atque  duritie  inde  nomen 
ei  dedit"),  is  probably  called  ii'on  in  Deuteronomy  and  other 
places.  To  this  we  reply  that  iron  is  iron,  and  is  called  iron  and 
not  basalt ;  and  that  the  basaltic  sarcophagi,  which  modern 
travellers  have  discovered  in  this  locality,  all  belong  to  the 
Roman  age,  which  was  fifteen  centuries  later  than  the  period 
here  referred  to. 


CONQUEST  OF  THE  LAND  ON  THE  EAST  OF  THE  JORDAN. 

§  53.  (Num.  xxi.  10-xxii.  1,  cf.  Deut.  ii.  iii.) — The  Israelites 
had  passed  along  the  eastern  border  of  the  Edomites  without 
any  hindrance  on  their  part,  and  were  now  arrived  at  Ije- 
Abarim,  the  south-eastern  border  of  the  Moabites.  As  they 
had  formerly  received  a  positive  refusal  from  the  ^Moabites, 
when  they  sent  from  Kadesli  (Jud.  xi.  17,  cf.  Num.  xx.  14  sqq.) 
to  request  a  friendly  passage  through  their  land,  and  as  they 
were  prohibited  from  applying  force  to  the  Moabites  (Deut.  ii. 
9),  they  were  obliged  to  take  a  circuitous  route  to  the  east  of 
their  land  also,  and  continued  to  follow  the  caravan  road  to 
Damascus  (§  50).  But  the  restriction  ceased  as  soon  as  they 
crossed  the  Arnon,  and  stood  on  the  border  of  the  Amoritish 
kingdom  (1).  As  they  knew  nothing  at  present  (Deut.  ii.  29) 
of  the  fact,  that  the  country  to  the  east  of  the  Jordan  was 
also  destined  to  become  their  possession,  they  endeavoured  first 
of  all,  by  means  of  an  embassage  to   Sihon,  the  Idng  of  the 


378  ISRAEL  IN  THE  ARBOTH  MOAB. 

Amorites,  to  obtain  a  friendlj  passage  through  his  country  to 
the  Jordan.  Sihon,  however,  not  only  refused  their  request, 
but  led  a  powerful  army  against  them  to  Jahaz,  for  the  purpose 
of  chasing  them  away  from  his  borders.  The  Israelites  were  no 
longer  bound  by.  any  of  the  restrictions,  which  had  hitherto 
regulated  their  conduct  towards  the  Edomites,  the  Moabites, 
and  the  Ammonites.  They  prepared,  therefore,  immediately  to 
give  Sihon  battle ;  and,  having  thoroughly  defeated  him  at 
Jahaz,  they  conquered  the  whole  of  his  land,  and  either  de- 
stroyed or  banished  the  inhabitants  (2).  As  Og,  the  king  of 
Bashan,  saw  at  once  that  his  own  country  was  endangered  by 
this  successful  campaign,  he  also  prepared  for  war.  And  he 
met  with  precisely  the  same  fate.  A  decisive  battle  was  fought 
at  Edrei,  in  which  the  army  of  Og  was  utterly  annihilated.  As 
the  whole  of  Bashan  now  came  into  the  possession  of  the  Israel- 
ites, they  established  their  head-quarters  in  the  Arboth  Moab, 
Avithin  sight  of  the  Jordan,  opposite  to  Jericho,  between  Beth- 
Hajeshimoth  and  Abel-Shittim  (2).     (  Vid.  §  59,  2.) 

(1.)  On  Ije-Abarim,  the  first  station  on  the  Moabitish 
frontier,  see  §  51,2,  and  §  49,  1.  It  is  described  as  "  in  the 
wilderness  which  is  to  the  east  of  Moab,  toward  the  svinrising." 
From  Ije-Abarim  the  Israelites  proceeded  to  the  Brook  Zared 
(§  49,  1).  The  next  station  was  on  the  other  side  of  the  Arnon, 
on  the  right  bank  of  this  river,  by  which  the  territory  of  Moab 
was  then  bounded  on  the  north  (§  49).  Bitter  observes  (xv. 
1207)  :  "  So  wild  a  production  of  nature  as  the  Anion  fissure, 
was  vmdoubtedly  well  adapted  in  ancient  times  to  form  a  power- 
ful frontier,  before  the  art  of  war  had  succeeded  in  making 
roads  amongst  the  most  savage  rocks,  and  crossing  impetuous 
streams  by  bridges  instead  of  fords.  ...  It  may  be  difiicult  to 
determine  how  the  people  of  Israel  in  the  time  of  Moses  were 
able  to  overcome  so  powerful  a  natural  and  political  barrier.  It 
cannot  be  supposed  that  a  whole  nation,  migrating  with  all  its 
possessions,  including  numerous  flocks  and  herds,  would  expose 
itself  without  necessity  to  the  dangers  and  enormous  difiiculties 
of  crossing  so  fearfully  wild  and  deep  a  valley,  for  the  pvu-pose 
of  penetrating  into  an  enemy's  country.     For  this  reason,  K.  v. 


CONQUEST  or  THE  LAND  ON  THE  EAST  OF  THE  JORDAN.  379 

Raumer  (Zug  der  Israel'den,  pp.  52,  53)  has  already  shown  that 
the  Israelites  would  most  probably  take  the  road  higher  up, — 
that  is,  farther  to  the  east, — which  is  adopted  by  modern  pilgrim- 
caravans,  who  keep  to  the  higher  ground  of  the  plateau,  and 
thus  avoid  the  deep  precipices  of  the  Anion,  and  merely  have  to 
traverse  the  level  wadys  of  the  desert  districts,  which  distinguish 
the  upper  portion  of  the  Arnon,  though  even  these  are  not  with- 
out their  difficulties." 

(2.)  The  place  from  which  Moses  sent  the  messengers  to 
King  Sihon  is  called  Kedemoth  in  Deut.  ii.  26.  It  will,  no 
doubt,  be  the  same  as  the  station  mentioned  in  Num.  xxi.  13  as 
"on  the  other  side  of  the  Anion."  This  supposition  is  con- 
firmed by  the  name,  which  designates  its  position  as  easttcards, 
bordering  on  the  desert.  The  introduction  of  a  strophe  from  a 
war-song  in  vers.  14,  15,  also  shows  that  this  is  the  place  in 
which,  according  to  the  strict  chronology,  the  warlike  events 
recorded  in  ver.  24  sqq.  ought  properly  to  be  inserted.  The 
stations  which  follow  (vers.  16,  19,  20)  can  also  be  proved  to 
have  been  within  the  territory  of  Sihon.  Hence  it  is  evident 
that  first  of  all  the  list  of  stations  is  given  consecutively,  to  the 
very  last  before  the  Arboth  Moab,  and  then  follows  a  detailed 
account  of  the  events  of  which  they  were  the  scene. 

a.  The  war-song  mentioned  in  ver.  14  is  said  to  have  been 
found  in  the  Book  of  the  Waes  of  Jehovah.  The  destruc- 
tive critics,  from  the  time  of  Spinoza,  have  not  failed  to  turn 
this  passage  to  account ;  and  the  apologetic  critics  {Rosenmuller, 
for  example)  have  had  recourse  to  the  assumption  of  a  gloss. 
(In  answer  to  both,  see  Ilengstenherg  on  the  Pentateuch,  vol.  ii., 
p.  182  sqq.)  A  book,  it  is  argued,  describing  the  wars  of 
Jehovah,  cannot  have  been  in  existence  in  the  time  of  Moses ; 
for  the  wars  of  the  people  of  God  had  then  only  just  com- 
menced. Hengstenherg  replies,  that  at  the  time  when  Moses 
wrote  this,  the  Amalekites,  the  king  of  Arad,  King  Sihon,  Og 
the  king  of  Bashan,  and  the  Midianites  (Num.  xxxi.),  were 
already  conquered.  But,  according  to  the  usage  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, the  expression,  "  wars  of  Jehovah,"  is  much  more  com- 
prehensive than  this  (see  Ex.  xii.  41,  51,  xiv.  14,  25,  xv.  3 ; 
and  Num.  xxxiii.  1).  All  the  signs  and  wonders  in  Egypt  are 
regarded  as  a  war,  on  the  part  of  Jehovah,  against  the  Egyptians 
and  their  gods.     The  journey  through  the  desert  was  the  march 


380  ISRAEL  IN  THE  ARBOTII  MOAB. 

of  an  army,  with  Jehovah  as  commander  at  the  head.  And 
all  the  successes  by  which  Jehovah  prepared  the  way  for  His 
army  to  conquer  Canaan,  are  included  in  the  wars  of  Jehovah. 
"If,  then,"  he  says,  "the  wars  of  Jehovah  included  all  this, 
instead  of  there  being  a  dearth  of  materials  for  the  Book  of  the 
Wars,  there  was  the  greatest  abundance.  And  if  there  was 
such  a  superabundance  of  materials,  there  can  be  no  question 
that  it  would  be  employed.  The  triumph  of  the  idea  over  the 
reality  w^ill  always  call  forth  poetry.  It  is  quite  in  accordance 
with  what  we  learn  elsewhere,  as  to  the  general  culture  of  the 
nation,  and  especially  as  to  the  use  of  writing  among  them,  that 
poetical  productions  should  not  only  be  committed  to  writing, 
but  should  also  be  formed  into  a  collection.  Hence,  by  the  side 
of  the  objective  accounts  in  the  Pentateuch,  there  was  the  sub- 
jective description  in  the  Book  of  the  Wars  of  the  Lord.  The 
relation  in  which  they  stood  to  each  other  we  may  gather  from 
the  passages  already  quoted  (for  vers.  16-18  and  27-30  vm- 
doubtedly  belong  to  the  book  in  question),  and  also  from  Ex. 
XV.,  as  compared  with  the  foregoing  history." — There  is  a  second 
argument,  upon  which  still  greater  stress  is  laid^ — namely,  that 
it  is  inconceivable,  that  a  book  which  had  only  just  been  written 
could  be  cited  as  confirming  the  geographical  statement  con- 
tained in  the  preceding  verse.  But  Hengstenherg  has  shown 
that  the  argument  rests  upon  a  misapprehension.  The  passage 
is  not  quoted  for  the  piu'pose  of  verifying  the  geographical 
statement.  That  the  object  was  a  totally  different  one  from 
this,  is  sufficiently  obvious  from  the  other  two  poetical  quota- 
tions in  vers.  17,  18,  and  27-30.  In  both  these  passages,  the 
impression  made  upon  the  people  by  the  conduct  of  Jehovah 
is  reproduced.  And  this  is  just  the  case  with  vers.  14,  15 : 
"  Therefore  (namely,  because  the  Israelites  had  conquered  the 
country  on  the  Arnon,  by  the  help  of  Jehovah)  it  is  written  in 
the  wars  of  Jehovah  : 

Valieb  (He  took)  in  the  storm, 
And  the  streams  of  Arnon, 
And  the  lowland  of  the  streams, 
Which  tm-neth  to  the  dwelling  of  Ar, 
And  leaneth  upon  the  border  of  Moab^"' 

{Vid.  §49,2.) 

This  is  Hengstenherg' s  translation,  and  he  defends  it  in  the 


.  CONQUEST  OF  THE  LAND  OX  THE  EAST  OF  THE  JORDAN.  381 

following  manner :  "  The  Avords,  '  Jehovah  took/  which  are 
supplied  to  complete  the  sentence,  arc  taken  from  nini  nionpp 
(the  wars  of  Jehovah).  We  are  waiTanted  in  rendering 
Yaheb  as  a  proper  name,  if  only  on  account  of  the  form  of 
the  word  (it  is  very  rarely  that  a  word  begins  with  l).  There 
is  an  analogy  to  riDiDZi  ('in  the  storm')  in  Nahura  i.  3.  Ac- 
cording to  this  explanation,  the  passage  is  to  be  regarded  as  a 
voice  from  the  congregation,  acknowledmno-  what  Jehovah  had 
done  on  its  behalf.  Under  His  command  it  presses  uninter- 
ruptedly forwards.  Whatever  opposes  it.  He  immediately  over- 
throws. The  quotation  stands  in  just  the  same  relation  to  the 
historical  narrative,  as  the  verses  of  KOrner  to  an  account  of 
the  war  of  Liberty,  into  which  they  might  be  introduced  by  a 
historian  who  had  taken  part  in  the  war  himself.  Who  would 
suppose,  for  a  single  moment,  that  when  an  Arabian  historian 
introduces  verses  uttered  by  the  heroes  in  the  heat  of  the 
battle,  he  does  this  for  the  purpose  of  supporting  his  own  ques- 
tionable credibility  ?  " 

h.  The  second  place  of  encampment  after  crossing  the 
Arnon  was  called  Beer  (a  well).  It  must  have  been  between 
these  two  stations  that  Jahzah  (Jaliaz,  ver.  23),  the  field  of 
battle,  was  situated,  and  the  town  of  Vaheb  mentioned  in  the 
war-song  in  ver.  14  ; — chronologically  considered,  I  mean,  hardly 
geograpliicalhj,  for  according  to  ver.  18,  Beer  was  in  the  desert. 
It  is  probable  that  the  army  of  Isi'ael  advanced  from  the  Arnon 
as  far  as  Jahaz,  to  meet  the  forces  of  Sihon  which  were  coming 
against  them ;  and,  having  defeated  them,  took  the  town  of 
Vaheb,  which  was  in  the  immediate  neighbourhood.  In  the 
meantime,  the  head-quarters  of  the  Israelites,  wath  the  rest  of 
the  people  and  their  flocks,  either  remained  upon  the  Aiuion  or 
moved  forward  to  Beer. — Beer  is  also  met  with  in  Judo-,  ix.  21, 
and  is  undoubtedly  the  same  as  Beer-Elim  in  Is.  xv.  8.  The 
people  suffered  here  for  want  of  water ;  but  !Moses  gathered  the 
people  together  at  the  command  of  JehoAah,  avIio  gave  them 
water  again, — not,  however,  by  a  miracle  in  the  ordinary  sense, 
but  by  means  of  their  own  exertions  in  first  dio-oin(r  a  well. 
This  gave  rise  to  the  beautiful  Well-Song  (vers.  17,  18)  : 

Spring  up,  O  well ! 
Sing  to  answer  it ! 
Well,  which  the  princes  dug, 


382  ISRAEL  IN  THE  AEBOTH  MOAB. 

WMch  the  nobles  of  the  nation  bored, 
With  the  sceptre  and  their  staves. 

The  good-will  and  activity  of  the  people,  which  are  manifest 
here,  present  a  glorious  contrast  to  the  bitter  spirit  and  mur- 
miu'iug  of  the  ancient  Israelites. 

c.  The  direction  which  the  Israelites  followed  from  Beer 
through  the  heart  of  the  land  of  the  Amorites,  is  indicated  by 
the  situation  of  Bamoth  (§  51,  1),  which  was  the  third  station 
from  Beer.  The  course  had  hitherto  been  in  a  northerly  direc- 
tion, but  at  this  point  it  made  a  curve  towards  the  west.  The 
next  station,  Mattanah,  is  supposed  by  Hengstenherg  (Balaam, 
p.  527,  translation)  to  have  been  the  same  as  the  Tedun  men- 
tioned by  Burchhardt  (p.  635),  as  situated  at  the  sources  of  the 
Wady  Lejum,  which  runs  into  the  Arnon.  Nahaliel  (stream 
of  God)  is  no  doubt  the  Wady  Lejum  itself  (yid.  Hengstenherg, 
Balaam,  p.  257),  the  lower  portion  of  which  is  still  called  the 
Wady  Eiihlieileh  (yid.  Burckhardf,  p  635). — From  Nahaliel  the 
Israelites  proceeded  to  Bamoth  (§  51,  1),  and  thence  to  "  the 

VALLEY,    WHICH   IS    IN   THE   FIELD  OF  INIOAB,  Upon  the  top    of 

Pisgah."  We  have  already  shown  that  this  station  is  the  same 
as  the  "field  of  the  watchers  on  the  top  of  Pisgah"  (Num.  xxiii. 
14),  and  that  it  was  situated  to  the  west  of  Heshbon  (§  51, 
1). — After  the  whole  land  of  Sihon  had  been  conquered  by 
various  detachments  sent  out  from  the  stations  already  men- 
tioned, the  expedition  against  Og,  the  king  of  Bashan,  was 
undertaken,  and  the  whole  camp  was  moved  forward  into  the 
Arboth  Moab. — It  was  here,  after  the  complete  conquest  of  the 
land  of  the  Amorites,  that  the  Song  of  Victory  was  com- 
posed, in  which  the  subjects  of  Sihon  and  the  peoj)le  of  Moab 
are  classed  together,  and  spoken  of  with  equal  contempt : 

Ver.  27.  Come  home  to  Heshbon  ! 

Let  the  city  of  Sihon  be  built  up  and  restored  ! 

Ver.  28.  For  fire  went  out  of  Heshbon, 

A  flame  from  the  fortress  of  Sihon : 

It  consumed  Ar-Moab,  the  lords  of  the  Ai'non -heights. 

Ver.  29.  Woe  to  thee,  Moab ! 

Thou  art  undone,  0  people  of  Chemosh  ! 
He  made  his  sons  fugitives, 
And  his  daughters  prisoners 
Of  Sihon,  king  of  the  Amorites. 


CONQUEST  OF  THE  LAND  ON  THE  EAST  OF  THE  JORDAN.  383 

Ver.  30.  But  we  burned  them  up — Heshbon  is  gone ! — even  to  Dibou, 
And  we  laid  them  waste  even  to  Nophah, 
With  fire  even  to  Medebah. 

We  cannot  refrain  from  giving  EwalcTs  admirable  exposition 
of  this  very  beautiful  ode,  instead  of  one  of  our  own  (vid. 
Gescliichte  der  Israeliten,  ii.  212  sqq.).  "On  closer  inspection 
it  becomes  more  and  more  obvious,  that  this  song  of  victory  is 
altogether  of  a  sarcastic  character,  and  is  not  a  song  of  thanks- 
giving, like  the  song  of  Deborah,  for  example.  Come  home  to 
Heshbon — to  the  city,  that  is,  which  can  now  no  longer  fm-nish 
either  house  or  shelter ; — restore  (if  you  can)  the  city,  wdiich  is 
now  laid  for  ever  in  ruins !  In  such  terms  of  undisguised  con- 
tempt do  the  victors  address  the  vanquished,  whom  they  had 
di'iven  from  their  homes,  and  certainly  would  not  invite  to  return 
so  soon.  But  in  order  that  the  guilt  of  the  vanquished  may  be 
the  more  loudly  proclaimed,  a  second  voice  is  heard  recalling  their 
earlier  history.  This  Heshbon  is  the  very  same  city  from  which 
the  fire  of  war  once  issued  forth  in  its  most  destructive  form 
against  Moab,  unfortunate  Moab,  for  whose  fall,  and  the 
impotence  of  its  god  Chemosh  (the  god  who  had  suffered  its 
sons  and  daughters — that  is,  all  his  worshippers — to  be  expelled 
and  led  captive  by  Sihon),  the  most  piteous  lamentations  had 
been  uttered  !  But  at  the  very  moment  wdien  these  Amorites, 
who  had  devastated  Moab  with  fire  and  sword,  were  imagining 
themselves  to  be  in  perfect  security  (the  clear  voice  of  the  victors 
now  returns  to  the  opening  of  the  song),  our  fire  of  wai'  biu'st 
forth  from  Heshbon,  as  the  leading  and  central  place,  and  burned 
and  devastated  the  country  to  its  utmost  borders.  Thus  was  ]\f  oab 
avenged  by  Israel.  .  .  .  That  this  ode  dates  immediately  from 
the  period  of  the  conquest,  is  also  obvious  from  the  fact,  that 
shortly  afterwards  (Num.  xxxii.  37)  Heshbon  was  restored  by  the 
tribe  of  Reuben,  and  that  henceforward  it  was  always  a  place  of 
importance." 

d.  There  is  a  marked  difference  between  the  tico  lists  of 
halting-places,  which  we  find  in  Nimi.  xxi.  and  Nrmi.  xxsiii. 
According  to  the  former,  the  last  places  of  encampment  were 
Ije-Aharim,  Sared,  Ai-non,  Beer,  !Mattanah,  Nahaliel,  Bamoth, 
the  valley  upon  the  top  of  Pisgah,  and  Arboth  Moab  ;  whereas 
the  following  is  the  series  as  given  in  the  latter: — Ijc-Aharim, 
Dibon  Gad,  Almon  Diblathaim,  Mount  Nebo,  and  Arboth  Moab. 


384  ISR^USL  IN  THE  ARBOTH  MOAB. 

It  must  be  observed,  however,  at  the  outset,  that  we  are  now  in 
a  cultivated  country,  where  places  with  distinct  and  separate 
names  would  be  crowded  together  in  far  greater  number  and 
in  greater  proximity  to  one  another  than  had  hitherto  been  the 
case ;  and  consequently  the  camping-gromid  of  two  million  men 
would  be  very  likely  to  embrace,  or  at  all  events  to  touch,  two 
or  more  of  such  places.     This  circumstance  alone  would  be  a 
sufficient  explanation  of  the  fact,  if  the  same  station  should  be 
called  by  various  names.     Let  us  proceed,  however,  to  compare 
the  places  mentioned  in  the  two  lists ;  and,  in  doing  so,  let  it  be 
borne  in  mind,  that  we  have  already  found  (§  51,  1)  that  the 
valley  on  the  top  of  Pisgah  (also  called  the  field  of  the  watchers 
upon  Pisgah)  must  have  been  situated  in  the  immediate  neigh- 
bourhood of   Momit  Nebo,  which  was   also  upon  the  top  of 
Pisgah.     We  have,  then,  two  names  in  Num.  xxxiii.,  which  are 
not  to  be  met  with  in  Num.  xxi.,  namely,  Dibon  Gad,  and  Almon 
Diblathaim,  and  six  names  in  the  latter  which  are  not  found  in 
the  former,  viz.,  Sared,  Arnon,  Beer,  Mattanah,  Nahaliel,  and 
Bamoth.     But  for  the  reason  already  assigned,  the  two  names 
which  occur  in  Num.  xxi.  alone  (Dibon  Gad,  and  Almon  Dibla- 
thaim), may  veiy  probably  have  coincided  with  two  of  the  six 
last  named.     If  so,  the  twenty-first  chapter  would  contain  four 
more  names  than  the  thirty-third.     This  is  all  the  more  striking 
from  the  fact,  that  apparently  it  is  quite  at  variance  with  all 
previous  analogy;  for  hitherto,  as  a  rule,  the  list  in  Num.  xxxiii. 
has  been  fuller  and  more  precise  than  the  various  notices  in  the 
historical  account.     In  this  case  the  order  seems  to  be  entirely 
reversed.     Nevertheless,  in  this  apparent  irregularity  and  incon- 
sistency, there  may  probably  be,  after  all,  a  consistent  observance 
of  the  rule  hitherto  adopted.     The  list  in  Num.  xxxiii.  is  pm*ely 
statistical.     The  pm^^ose  of  the  author  was  to  give  a  full  and 
particular  account  of  the  actiial  stations — that  is,  of  the  places 
of  encampment  in  which  the  Israelites  prepared  for  a  lengthened 
stay, — not  merely  forming  a  regular  encampment,  but  also  erect- 
ing the  sanctuary.    The  writer  of  Num.  x.-xxii.  does  not  pretend 
to  give  anything  like  a  complete  account  of  the  various  places  of 
encampment,  and  therefore  many  names   are  wanting  in  the 
latter  which  are  to  be  found  in  the  former.     His  purpose  is 
purely  historical,  and  not  in  any  sense  statistical.     And  this  is 
to  our  mind  an  explanation  of  the  fact,  that  he  mentions  more 


CONQUEST  OF  THE  LAND  ON  THE  EAST  OF  THE  JOIIDAN.  385 

places  of  encampment  between  Ije-Abarim  and  Ai'both  Moab, 
than  we  find  in  Num.  xxxiii. ;  places,  that  is,  in  which  there  was 
not  a  complete  camp  formed,  including  the  erection  of  the 
sanctuary.  They  are  all  of  historical  importance,  partly  as 
showing  that  the  Israelites  intentionally  avoided  the  Moabitish 
territory,  and  partly,  also,  for  the  reason  already  mentioned  (note 
c),  viz.,  because  it  was  from  the  places  mentioned  that  the 
various  expeditions  set  out,  by  which  the  conquest  of  the  whole 
land  of  the  Amorites  was  effected. 

e.  The  place  of  encampment  in  the  wide-spread  Arboth 
Moab  is  more  particularly  described  in  Num.  xxxiii.  49,  as  being 
"  from  Beth-Jeshimoth  to  Abel-Shi ttim."  The  name  Jeshimoth 
(from  DC^•''=DO^')  shows  it  to  have  been  a  barren  and  desolate 
place  (^"  CEdenhaiisen,"  Ewald;  "domum  solitudinis  significat," 
Onomasticon).  In  Ezek.  xxv.  9  it  is  called  a  city  of  Moab.  In 
the  time  of  the  Romans  it  was  a  fortified  city  (Josephus,  Wars 
of  the  Jews  4,  7,  5).  Ahel-Shitthn,  or  Shittim  raQXQly  (U^^'^i 
Num.  xx\%  1 ;  Josh.  ii.  1,  iii.  1),  is  described  in  the  Onomasticon 
as  being  situated  by  INIount  Peor.  Josephus  calls  it  Abila  (Wars 
of  the  Jews  2,  13,  2 ;  4,  7,  5). 

(3.)  On  the  supposed  discrepancy  between  Deut.  ii.  29  and 
Deut.  xxiii.  4,  5  (iii.  4),  see  Hengstenherg  on  the  Pentateuch,  vol. 
ii.,  p.  233  sqq.  In  the  one  passage  it  is  said  to  be  affirmed  that  the 
Edomites  and  Moabites  furnished  bread  and  water  to  the  Israelites, 
whereas  in  the  other  it  is  stated  that  the  Ammonites  and  Moahites 
refused  them  both.  But  Deut.  ii.  29  merely  relates  to  a  request 
to  sell  bread  and  water  to  the  Israelites.  In  Deut.  xxiii.  5,  on 
the  other  hand,  allusion  is  made  to  the  justifiable  but  disappointed 
expectation,  that  tribes  so  nearly  related  as  they  were  would  ^'■meet 
them''''  (D^i?)  with  bread  and  water.  The  meaning  is  e\ddently 
the  same  as  in  Is.  xxi.  14  ("  They  prevented  with  their  bread 
him  that  fled"),  where  the  same  word  DHp  is  employed;  and 
Gen.  xiv.  18,  where  Melchizedek  is  said  to  have  come  to  meet 
Abraham  with  bread  and  wine.  That  the  Moabites  failed  to  do 
this,  was  a  proof  of  their  indifference,  if  not  of  their  hostile 
feelings  towards  the  Israelites ;  that  they  did  the  foi'mer,  was 
simply  a  manifestation  of  their  selfish  and  grasping  disposition. 
— On  the  discrepancy  which  is  thought  to  exist  between  Deut.  ii. 
24  and  vcr.  26  (compared  with  Num.  xxi.  21  sqq.),  see  IIouj- 
stenherg  on  the  Pentateuch,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  347,  348;  vid.  also  §  45,  1. 

.       VOL.     II.  2    B 


386  ISRAEL  IN  THE  AEBOTH  MOAB. 


BALAAM  AND  HIS  PEOPHECIES. 

[On  the  history  and  prophecies  of  Balaam,  see  Lilderwald 
(die  Geschichte  Bileams  deuthch  und  begreiflich  erkliirt) ;  Herder 
(Brief e  iiber  das  Studium  der  Theologie,  zweiter  Brief) ;  B.  R. 
de  Geer  (dissertatio  de  Bileamo,  ejus  hist,  et  vatic.  1816)  ;  Steudel 
(Tiibinger  Zeitschrift  fiir  Theologie  1831,  ii.  6Q  sqq.)  ;  Tholuck 
(literarischer  Anzeiger  1832,  No.  78-80,  also  in  his  vermischte 
Schriften,  i.  406  sqq.)  ;  Hoffmann  (Hall.  Encyclopiidie,  x.  184 
sqq.) ;  and  Hengstenherg  (die  Geschichte  Bileams  nnd  seine 
Weissagungen,  Berlin  1842).] 

§  54.  (Num.  xxii.  2-21.) — The  Israelites,  encamped  in  the 
Arbotli  Moab,  opposite  to  Jericho,  had  now  nothing  but  the 
Jordan  between  them  and  the  land  of  their  fathers'  pilgrimage. 
But  the  conquest  of  the  country  to  the  east  of  the  Jordan  ren- 
dered it  necessary,  that  this  should  be  the  head-quarters  for  some 
time  to  come ;  and  thus  the  crossing  of  the  Jordan  was  postponed 
till  a  future  period.  If  the  conquered  country  was  to  be  held, 
fortifications  must  be  erected  and  garrisoned,  and  such  other  steps 
taken,  as  were  necessaiy  to  guard  against  the  encroachments  of 
surrounding  nations,  who  might  be  actuated  by  a  desire  to  re- 
conquer the  country.  In  the  meantime,  these  nations  were  also 
thinking  of  the  best  way  to  rid  themselves  of  their  dangerous 
neighbours.  Moab  in  particular,  which  had  the  most  to  fear 
from  the  revenge  of  the  Israelites,  on  account  of  the  hostile 
manner  in  which  they  had  met  them  at  first,  would  have  been 
very  glad  to  extend  its  territory  to  the  Jabbok,  which  had  been 
its  original  boundary.  Bcdak,  the  son  of  Zippor,  Avho  was  then 
king  of  IVIoab,  allied  himself  with  the  neighbouring  Midianites. 
But  he  had  learned  from  past  experience,  that  nothing  could 
be  effected  by  the  power  of  the  sword  alone,  against  a  nation 
so  strongly  defended  by  its  God.  Hence  his  first  wish  and 
endeavour  was  to  deprive  it  of  this  protection,  and  if  possible  to 
turn  the  blessing,  which  had  hitherto  borne  it  as  upon  eagles' 


BALAAM  AND  HIS  TROPHECIES.  387 

Avings,  into  a  curse.  And  a  prospect  presented  itself  of  attain- 
ing this  end.  Far  away  to  the  east,  at  Pctlior  on  the  banks  of 
the  Euphrates,  there  dwelt  a  magician,  named  Balaam  the  son 
of  Beor,  who  was  renowned  far  and  wide  for  the  irresistible 
power  of  blessing  and  cursing  which  he  possessed.  The  fact 
that  this  magician  practised  his  magical  arts  in  the  name  of 
Jehovali,  the  very  same  God  who  had  made  Israel  strong,  was 
most  welcome  intelligence  under  the  circumstances ;  for,  if  he 
succeeded  in  inducing  him  to  curse  the  Israelites,  their  power, 
he  thought,  would  be  effectually,  broken.  In  connection  with 
his  allies,  therefore,  he  sent  messengers  to  Pethor  with  the  fol- 
lowing message  :  "  Come,  and  curse  me  this  people ;  for  they 
are  too  mighty  for  me :  for  I  know  that  he  whom  thou  blessest 
is  blessed,  and  he  whom  thou  cui'sest  is  cursed."  The  reward, 
which  was  promised  him,  at  once  excited  the  covetous  mind  of 
the  magician.  Yet  he  did  not  dare  to  promise,  without  first 
asking  God ;  and  the  answer  of  God  ran  thus  :  "  Thou  shalt 
not  go  with  them ;  thou  shalt  not  curse  the  people,  for  they  are 
blessed."  He  sent  the  messengers  home,  therefore,  and  said  to 
them,  "  Get  you  into  your  land,  for  Jehovah  refuseth  to  give 
me  leave  to  go  with  you."  But  in  all  probability  it  did  not 
escape  the  messengers,  that  it  was  with  a  very  reluctant  heart 
that  Balaam  sent  them  away, — that  in  reality  ambition  and 
avarice  were  the  ruling  passions  of  his  soul.  Balak  tlierefore 
sent  a  second  embassy,  consisting  of  still  nobler  princes,  and 
with  still  more  magnificent  promises.  It  is  true  that  the  magi- 
cian replied  to  them  again  this  time  :  "  If  Balak  Avould  give  me 
his  house  full  of  silver  and  gold,  I  cannot  go  beyond  the  word 
of  the  Lord  my  God,  to  do  little  or  much."  But  instead  of 
sending  them  away  at  once,  he  was  so  dazzled  by  the  splendid 
offers  of  glory  and  gold,  that  he  determined  to  try  once  more 
whether  he  could  not  succeed  in  obtaining  the  consent  of  Jeho- 
vah. And,  behold !  a  reply  now  came  from  Jehovah  to  this  effect : 
"  Rise  up,  and  go  with  them;  but  thou  shalt  only  do  what  I  shall 
tell  thee."     In  the  blindness  of  his  passion,  Balaam  did  not  cb- 


388  ISEAEL  IN  THE  ARBOTH  MOAB. 

serve,  that  such  a  condition  as  this,  instead  of  securing  to  hira 
the  permission  he  desired,  defeated  the  very  object  he  had  in 
view,  viz.,  to  obtain  possession  of  Balak's  honours  and  gold.  He 
eagerly  availed  himself  of  the  permission  granted,  and  set  out 
with  the  messengers  of  Balak. 

(1.)  Gesenius  derives  the  NAJIE  Balaam  (DP?;  Sejyt.  Bar- 
\adfi)  from  hi  and  DJ?  (non  populus,  i.e.,  peregrinus).  Heng- 
stenberg  gives  the  preference  to  the  ancient  derivation  from  j;73 
(to  swallow  uj),  destroy,  vanquish)  and  DJ?  (people),  to  which  we 
find  many  analogies  in  other  languages;  e.g.,  Nicolaus,  Nicode- 
mus,  Leonicus,  Andronicus  (and  many  others,  even  in  German, 
vid.  Simonis  Onomast.,  p.  459,  note  e).  Filrst  (in  his  smaller 
dictionary)  regards  the  termination  D—  as  a  terminal  syllable;  in 
which  case,  Balaam  means  simply  the  destroyer,  or  conqueror. — 
All  three  derivations  are  admissible,  according  to  the  rules  of 
the  language.  The  one  adopted  by  Hengstenberg  most  pro- 
bably gave  rise  to  the  name  Nicolaitans,  which  we  meet  with  in 
the  Apocaly])se  (Rev.  ii.  6,  cf.  ver.  14)  ;  for  this  name  can 
hardly  be  traced  to  a  man  named  Nicolaus,  who  was  the  founder 
of  a  sect,  but  is  to  be  regarded  rather  as  a  mystic  name  applied  to 
the  apostolical  Gnostics  (as  being  seducers  of  the  people),  with 
distinct  allusion  to  Balaam,  their  Old  Testament  type.  Even  in 
the  case  of  Balaam  himself,  the  name  may  very  probably  have 
been  a  significant  one ; — that  is  to  say,  "  he  may  have  borne  the 
name  as  a  dreaded  conjurer  and  wizard : — whether  it  was  that 
he  sprang  from  a  family  in  which  the  calling  was  hereditary', 
and  therefore  received  it  at  his  birth,  and  merely  became,  in  the 
course  of  time  and  in  public  opinion,  what  those,  who  first  gave 
him  the  name,  anticipated  and  desired  ; — or  that  the  name  was 
given  him,  according  to  Oriental  custom,  at  a  later  period  of  his 
life,  when  the  thing  itself  became  conspicuous  "  (Hengstenberg). 
In  Hengstenberg' s  opinion,  there  is  a  perfectly  analogous  signi- 
ficance in  the  father's  name  Beor  ("liV^ — Sept.  Becop,  2  Pet.  ii.  15, 
Boaop — from  1^3,  to  burn  up,  to  gTaze  off,  to  destroy).  He 
says :  "  This  name  was  given  to  the  father,  on  account  of  the 
destructive  power  attributed  to  his  curses."  Thus  he  supposes 
that  Balaam  belonged  to  a  family,  in  which  the  prophetic  or 
magical  disposition  was  hereditary;  and  there  is  great  proba- 


BALA.VM  AND  HIS  PROPHECIES.  389 

Inllty  in  sucli  an  assumption,  if  we  bear  in  mind  how  carefully 
and  emphatically  he  speaks  of  himself  in  his  blessings,  as  Balaam 
the  son  of  Beor  (Num.  xxiv.  3,  15),  as  though  he  meant  to  say 
in  other  words,  "  the  celebrated  son  of  a  celebrated  father." — 
Hengstenherg  even  goes  so  far,  as  to  assume  that  there  is  jsome 
connection  between  the  name  of  ■  his  native  town  Pethor,  and  the 
profession  which  he  carried  on,  nns  occvirs  in  Gen.  xli.  8  (cf. 
xl.  8,  11,  xli.  11)  in  connection  with  the  interpretation  of 
dreams  ;  and  therefore  we  are  possibly  warranted  in  assuming, 
that  "  the  dwelling-place  of  Balaam  received  its  name  in  con- 
nection with  the  possessors  of  secret  arts,  of  which  it  was  one  of 
the  principal  seats.  That  the  Babylonian  magicians  in  later 
times  were  in  the  habit  of  assembling  together  in  particular 
towns,  somewhat  after  the  manner  of  the  Egyptian  and  Israel- 
itish  cities  of  the  priests,  is  very  evident  from  Pliny,  Hist.  Nat. 
6,  25,  and  Strabo,  16,  1  (yid.  Milnter,  Religion  der  Babylonier, 
p.  86)." 

(2.)  Various  answers  have  been  given  to  the  question,  how 
did  Balaam  come  to  know  and  serve  Jehovah,  the  God  of  Israel  f 
According  to  the  generally  received  opinion,  which  even  Tho- 
luck  has  defended,  in  the  Jehovah-worship  of  Balaam  there 
was  a  relic  of  the  primeval  and  purer  knowledge  of  God,  which 
had  been  preserved  in  the  midst  of  heathenism,  and  Balaam 
presented,  to  a  certain  extent,  an  analogy  to  IVIelchizedek.  In 
support  of  this  view,  appeal  is  made  to  the  fact  that  Balaam's 
native  coimtry^  was  ISIesopotamia,  the  original  seat  of  the  family 
of  Abraham,  where  a  considerable  branch  of  the  family  (the 
descendants  of  Bethuel)  still  remained. — According  to  another 
view,  which  Hengstenherg  (p.  12  sqq.)  has  thoroughly  established, 
the  knowledge  of  Jehovah  possessed  by  Balaam  is  to  be  traced 
to  the  events  of  his  own  day  :  namely,  to  the  fame  of  the  God  of 
Israel,  which  had  spread  in  the  time  of  Moses  over  all  the  hea- 
then nations  round  about,  and  to  the  overpowering  eifect  pro- 
duced upon  all  these  nations,  according  to  the  express  testimony 
of  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  by  the  mighty  deeds  which  God  did  in 
the  midst  of  His  people.  We  have  already  met  \\4th  an  analo- 
gous example  in  the  case  of  Jethro  (Ex.  xviii.  1  sqq.).  There 
is  another  in  the  history  of  Rahab  (Josh.  ii.  9  sqq.).  The  fraud 
practised  by  the  Gibeonites  (Josh,  ix.)  was  based,  according  to 
ver.  9,  upon  the  assumption  that  the  fame  of  the  mighty  works 


390  ISRAEL  IN  THE  AKBOTII  MOAB. 

of  Jehovah  must  necessarily  have  spread  far  and  wide  through- 
out all  lands,  and  confirmed  the  announcement  which  had 
already  been  made  with  prophetic  foresight  in  the  Song  of 
Moses  (Ex.  XV.  14;  vol.  ii.  §  28,  6).  At  all  events,  a  mere  echo 
of  the  earlier  knowledge  of  Jehovah  which  had  existed  in  the 
country  of  Mesopotamia,  would  not  suffice  to  explain  the  pecu- 
liar position  of  Balaam  and  the  nature  of  his  prophecies ;  for  the 
latter  indicate  a  much  greater  distinctness  in  his  religious  con- 
sciousness, and  a  much  clearer  insight  into  the  position  of  Israel 
in  relation  to  both  the  past  and  future  history  of  the  world,  than 
could  possibly  have  been  derived  from  the  period  referred  to. 
At  the  same  time,  we  cannot  go  so  far  as  Hengstenherg,  who 
denies  that  there  was  any  connection  whatever  between  the 
knowledge  of  God  possessed  by  Balaam,  and  the  reminiscences 
of  the  piu'er  light  wliich  was  formerly  enjoyed  by  his  ancestors. 
However  deeply  the  descendants  of  Bethuel  and  Laban  may 
have  been  by  this  time  immersed  in  heathenism,  it  is  neverthe- 
less possible  that  religious  reminiscences  of  earlier  times  may  have 
been  still  in  existence,  and  may  have  been  revivified  in  Balaam's 
mind  by  the  tidings  of  the  mighty  works  which  Jehovah  had 
done  in  Egypt  and  the  desert. 

(3.)  The  question  as  to  the  precise  nature  of  Balaam's 
CALLING  and  PROPHETIC  GIFT,  is  one  of  far  greater  difficulty. 
From  the  very  earliest  times  the  most  contradictory  opinions 
have  been  entertained.  On  the  one  hand,  he  has  been  regarded 
as  a  thoroughly  godless  and  idolatrous  wizard  and  false  prophet, 
— a  prophet  of  the  devil,  whom  the  Lord  God  comj)elled  to  bless 
instead  of  cm'sing,  for  the  glory  of  His  name  and  the  good  of 
His  people  Israel  {yid.  Philo,  Ambrose,  Augustine,  etc.).  On 
the  other  hand,  it  has  also  been  maintained,  that  he  was  a  true 
prophet  of  God,  who  fell  through  covetousness  and  ambition 
(vid.  Tertullian,  Jerome,  Deyling,  Budde,  and  others).  In  both 
\aews  there  are  certain  elements  of  truth;  but  in  their  par- 
tiality and  exclusiveness,  they  are  both  erroneous.  The  truth 
is  to  be  found  between  the  two.  The  position  of  Balaam  at 
this  particular  time  was  that  of  both  a  heathen  magician  and  a 
Jehovistic  seer.  He  was  still  standing  upon  the  boundary  line 
between  two  spheres,  which  touch  each  other,  but  from  their 
very  nature  are  thoroughly  opposed,  and  cannot  co-exist.  He 
stoodj  as  it  were,  with  one  foot  upon  the  soil  of  heathen  magic 


BALAAM  AND  HIS  PROPHECIES.  391 

and  soothsaying,  and  with  the  other  upon  the  soil  of  Jehovistic 
rehgion  and  prophecy.  Ilengstenherg  (Balaam,  p.  340  trans- 
lation) was  the  first  to  perceive  this  clearly  and  explain  it 
fully. 

On  the  one  hand,  we  find  Balaam  still  unquestionably  in- 
volved in  the  ungodliness  and  absurdities  of  heathen  witchcraft. 
He  is  called  DD'ipn,  the  soothsayer  kut  ^^o-^rjv  (Josh.  xiii.  22)  ; 
and  in  connection  with  his  prophecies,  he  resorted  to  ways  and 
means  which  constitute  the  characteristic  difference  between 
ungodly,  heathen  soothsaying,  and  godly,  theocratic  prophecy. 
Kesem  (QDp)  or  soothsaying  was  unconditionally  prohibited  by 
the  law  in  Israel.  In  Deut.  xviii.  10  it  is  commanded,  "  There 
shall  not  be  found  among  you  a  Kosem;^  for  "  all  that  do  these 
things  are  an  abomination  to  the  Lord  "  (ver.  12).  Kesem  is 
represented  as  a  grievous  sin  in  1  Sam.  y:v.  23  ;  Ezek.  xiii.  23 ; 
and  2  Kings  xvii.  17 ;  and  as  a  characteristic  of  false  prophets 
in  Ezek.  xiii.  9,  xxii.  28 ;  and  Jer.  xiv.  14.  Soothsaying  is 
placed  in  the  same  opposition  to  true  prophecy  in  Is.  iii.  2,  3;  for 
when  it  is  stated  there,  that  Jehovah  will  take  away  from  Jeru- 
salem and  Judah  all  their  supports,  and  among  others  the  pro- 
phets (^''23)  and  the  soothsayers  (DDIp), — the  meaning  evidently 
is,  that  the  state  is  to  be  deprived  both  of  its  real  and  imaginary 
oracles, — of  those  that  have  been  appointed  by  God,  as  well 
as  of  those  that  have  been  chosen  by  itself  in  opposition  to  the 
will  of  God.  In  perfect  accordance  with  .the  character  and 
practice  of  heathen  magic  and  prophecy  (Mantik),  Balaam  re- 
sorts to  augury,  and  hopes  in  this  way  to  be  able  to  find  mate- 
rials and  a  basis  for  a  prophecy  after  Balak's  own  mind  (Num. 
xxiv.  1,  xxiii.  3,  15).  Augury  appears  to  have  been  the  pecu- 
liar and  ordinary  means  employed  by  him  in  his  prophetic 
operations.  "  That  he  availed  himself  of  such  extremely  un- 
certain means  as  augm-y,  the  inefficacy  of  which  even  hea- 
thenism admitted  {Ndgelshach  homerische  Theol.,  p.  154  sqq.), 
and  which  w^as  never  employed  by  a  true  prophet  in  Israel, 
is  a  proof  that  his  religious  and  prophetic  stand-point  was 
a  low  one,  and  can  only  be  explained  from  the  insufficiency 
of  the  excitement  which  he  received  from  the  Spirit  of  God. 
Where  the  Spirit  of  God  works  loith  power,  a  man  has  no 
need  to  look  round  abovit  for  signs  in  natiire,  in  order  to 
arrive  at  certainty  respecting  the  will  of  God "  {Ilengstenherg, 


S92  ISRAEL  IN  THE  ARBOTH  MOAB. 

p.  345). — To  this  we  have  also  to  add  the  character  of  his 
prophetic  inspkation,  into  which  we  shall  enter  more  particu- 
larly below. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  he  possessed  a 
certain  amount  of  the  true  knowledge  of  God,  of  genuine  pro- 
phetic inspiration,  of  subjective  fear  of  God,  and  of  objective 
Theopneustia ;  but  in  his  case  there  was  no  depth  in  all  this, 
it  was  neither  well-founded  nor  tried.  He  knew  and  sought 
Jehovah ;  confessed  Him  openly  and  freely  before  men,  inquired 
of  Him  as  to  His  counsel  and  will,  and  was  ready  to  yield  to  them, 
though  possibly  not  without  resistance,  and  with  only  half  a 
heart.  So  also  there  was  a  real  connection  between  him  and 
Jehovah ;  though  probably  this  also  was  weak  and  fluctuating. 
Jehovah  allowed  him  to  find  Him,  came  to  meet  him,  answered 
him,  and  made  known  to  him  His  purpose  and  His  will.  His 
prophecies,  too,  were  really  uttered  in  a  state  of  mind  produced 
and  controlled  by  the  Spirit  of  God. 

We  must  hold  both  together  then.  He  was  a  heathen  sooth- 
sayer and  a  prophet  of  Jehovah  at  the  same  time ;  a  syncretist, 
who  thought  and  hoped  that  he  might  be  able  to  combine  the 
two  upon  his  peculiar  stand-point,  and  hold  them  both  with  equal 
firmness.  He  was  in  a  transition  state  from  one  to  the  other ; 
and  in  this  transition  state,  and  this  alone,  was  it  possible  for  him 
to  unite  together  two  different  stand-points,  which  from  their 
very  nature  were  entirely  opposed,  and  thoroughly  irrecon- 
cileable.  He  knew  and  confessed  Jehovah;  he  sought  and 
found  Him  ;  and  Jehovah  granted  him  an  answer,  and  made 
him  the  bearer  of  His  revelations.  On  the  other  hand,  he  was  not 
sufficiently  advanced  in  the  knowledge  and  service  of  Jehovah, 
to  throw  overboard  with  disgust  every  kind  of  heathen  augury 
and  soothsaying,  which  had  helped  him  hitherto  to  his  magic  and 
prophecy.  And  the  course  of  his  history  shows  us  clearly  enough, 
where  it  was  that  the  obstacle  lay ;  in  other  words,  how  it  was, 
that  after  Balaam  had  once  recognised  Jehovah  as  the  true  and 
Supreme  God,  and  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  Jehovah  did 
not  fail  to  make  Himself  known  in  word  and  power,  he  did  not 
entirely  lay  aside  his  heathen  incantations,  and  give  himself  up 
to  the  worship  of  Jehovah.  The  cause  was  not  primarily  an  in- 
tellectual one ;  nor  did  it  arise  from  any  disqualification  for  tlie 
calling  of  a  genuine  prophet  of  Jeho^1lh.     It  was  altogether 


BAL.IAM  AND  IIIS  rROrHECIES.  393 

moral,  and  lay  entirely  in  the  will.  Hitherto  Balaam  had  prac- 
tised magic  as  a  trade  ;  for  the  simple  pui-pose  of  procuring  gold, 
honour,  and  reno^vn.  When  he  made  the  discovery  that  Jehovah, 
the  God  of  Israel,  was  stronger  than  the  gods  of  all  the  other 
nations  ;  he  turned  to  Him,  probably  in  the  hope  that  by  this 
means  he  would  be  able  to  secure  more  strildng  results  and  still 
larger  gains.  Thus  he  carried  into  the  new  phase  of  his  life  an 
impure  and  heathen  state  of  mind,  which  inevital^ly  prevented 
him  from  being  more  firmly  established,  or  making  further  pro- 
gress in  his  fellowship  with  Jehovah,  so  long  as  it  remained  un-  • 
conquered.  We  must  not  imagine,  however,  that  his  aims  and 
endeavours  were  entirely  divested  of  nobler  and  loftier  motives  ; 
for  had  this  been  the  case,  Jehovah  would  hardly  have  suffered 
Himself  to  be  found  of  him,  or  have  replied  to  his  inquiries. 
And  the  manner  in  which  he  was  met  by  Jehovah  was  not  with- 
out effect  upon  the  spirit  and  heart,  the  mind  and  will,  of  the 
magician.  This  is  proved  by  his  reply  to  the  messengers  of 
Balak :  "  If  Balak  would  gi^^e  me  his  house  full  of  silver  and  gold, 
etc."  (Num.  xxii.  18).  But  his  whole  conduct,  wavering,  un- 
certain, and  ambiguous  as  it  was,  also  proves  that  his  heathen  dis- 
position was  not  subdued,  and  therefore  that  he  was  not  yet  in  a 
condition  to  lay  the  magical  practices  of  his  previous  heathen  ; 
state  entirely  aside.  Such  oscillation  as  this,  such  half-hearted-  . 
ness  in  connection  with  either  side,  and  such  an  attempt  to  glue 
together  things  utterly  incompatible  the  one  with  the  other, 
could  not  last  long.  It  was  only  possible  for  a  certain  period, 
and  that  the  period  of  transition.  In  the  further  com-se  of  his  life 
he  was  sure  to  give  up  either  the  one  or  the  other  unconditionally, 
and  without  reserve,— to  let  the  one  entirely  go,  that  he  might 
hold  the  other  fast.  Balaam  had  just  now  reached  the  fork  in  his 
road.  He  was  placed  by  circumstances  in  such  a  situation,  that 
he  must  of  necessity  decide  whether  the  ancient  heathen  or  the 
new  Jehovistic  principles  should  gain  the  upper  hand  ;  whether 
he  should  press  forward  so  as  to  become  a  true  and  genuine 
prophet,  or  whether  he  should  revert  to  his  old  stand-point,  and 
eventually  reach  the  most  determined  hostility  to  Jeho^^ah,  to  the 
theocracy,  and  to  the  people  of  God's  election.  The  existing 
comphcation  of  circimistances,  which  was  to  promote  the  glory  of 
Jehovah,  to  rouse  the  com*age  of  the  Israelites,  and  to  alann  the 
enemy  of  Israel,  was  also  of  great  and  decisive  importance  to 


394  ISRAEL  IN  THE  AEBOTH  MOAB. 

Balaam.    And  he  fell.  (  Covetousness  and  ambition  were  stronger 
within  him  than  all  the  attractions  of  salvation.  S 

Analogous  circumstances  to  those,  in  which  Balaam  now 
found  himself,  occur  in  all  the  decisive  transition  stages  of  our 
moral  and  religious  life.  Even  in  the  history  of  modern  missions 
there  are  abundant  illustrations  {Hengstenherg,  Balaam,  p.  349). 
Three  examples  from  the  gospel  and  apostolical  histories  are  par- 
ticularly deserving  of  notice.  The  first  we  find  in  the  words  of 
Christ  in  Matt,  xii.  47,  "  If  I  by  Beelzebub  cast  out  devils,  by 
whom  do  yom'  children  cast  them  out?" — an  explanation  of  which 
is  afforded  by  Mark  ix.  38  and  Luke  ix.  49  ("  Master,  we  saw 
one  casting  out  devils  in  Thy  name,  and  he  foUoweth  not  us"). 
The  second  is  to  be  found  in  Acts  xix.  13,  where  we  read  that 
seven  Jewish  exorcists,  sons  of  the  high-priest  Sceva,  invoked 
the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  ujDon  those  who  had  evil  spirits, 
saying,  "  We  adjure  you  by  Jesus,  whom  Paul  preacheth."  But 
r-the  most  striking  and  most  thoroughly  to  the  point  is  the  example 
•  of  the  New  Testament  Balaam,  Simon  Magus,  in  Acts  viii. 
"  The  new  powers"  (we  are  quotinglTengstenherg' s  words,  p.  348), 
"  which  were  conferred  by  Christianity  upon  mankind,  attracted 
him  also ;  and,  discontented  with  the  previous  results  of  his  art,  he 
hoped  to  participate  in  these  powers.  Vid.  Acts  viii.  13  :  he 
'  wondered,  beholding  the  signs  and  gi*eat  miracles  which  were 
done.'  Observe  also  the  opinion  which  he  formed  of  the 
apostles.  What  the  latter  said  of  him,  '  Thou  hast  neither  part 
nor  lot  in  this  matter ;  for  thy  heart  is  not  right  in  the  sight 
God,'  was  applicable  to  Balaam  also.  At  the  same  time,  even 
Simon's  heart  was  not  altogether  without  a  part  or  lot.  This  is 
evident  from  ver.  13,  where  we  are  told  that  '  Simon  himself 
believed  also ;  and  when  he  was  baptized,  he  continued  with 
Philip.'" 

Steudel  would  set  down  the  prophecies  of  Balaam  respecting 
Israel's  future,  as  being  simply  the  product  of  the  natural  fore- 
thought of  a  keen-sighted  man.  He  says  :  "  An  observant  man 
will  not  fall  to  perceive,  that  the  prophetic  declarations  of  Balaam 
are  all  couched  in  the  most  general  terms.  They  contained,  in 
reality,  nothing  but  what  might  fairly  be  infen-ed  from  ex- 
isting circumstances,  set  forth  in  a  striking  and  poetical  form." 
For  an  answer  to  this,  we  refer  to  Hengstenberg,  p.  35i}_aqq.  At 
the  same  time,  we  would  draw  especial  attention  to  Nmn.  xxiii. 


BALAAM  AND  HIS  PROPHECIES.  395 

5  and  xxiv.  2,  where  it  is  distinctly  stated  tliat  "the  Spirit  of 
God  came  upon  him"  when  he  prophesied,  and  that  "  Jehovah 
put  a  word  into  his  mouth;"  and  also  to  the  speciahties  of  the 
concluding  prophecy  in  Num.  xxiv.  AYehave  there  an  announce- 
ment of  the  captivityof  Israel  by  the  Assp'ians,  implying,  of  course, 
that  the  latter  would  appear  as  concpierors  in  Western  Asia  ;  an 
intimation  that  another  nation,  or  other  nations,  from  beyond  the 
Euphrates,  would  follow  Assyria  in  the  government  of  Western 
Asia  (ver.  24)  ;    and  the  declaration  that  a  power  would  come 
in  ships  from  C^-jDrus,  which  would  subjugate  Assyria  and  the 
comitry  beyond  the  Euphrates.     Beside  this,  it  is  clearly  pre- 
dicted that  a  kingdom  will  be  established  in  Israel  [vid.  Num. 
xxiv.  7,  17-19).     But  what  attests  the  supernatural  character  of  j 
Balaam's  prophecy,  even  more   strongly  than  the  special  an-| 
nomicements  themselves,  is  the  decided  contrast  which  they  pre- 1 
sent  to  Balaam's  wishes,  hopes,  and  intentions.     He  certainly! 
desired  to  answer  the  expectations  of  Balak,  and  hoped,  at  least 
so  far  as  the  first  and  second  prophecies  were  concerned,  that  he 
should  be  able  to  gratify  him  :  it  was  not  till  the  thu:d  prophecy 
that  he  found  it  impossible  to  give  himself  up  to  any  such  illu- 
sions  (vid.  chap.  xxiv.  1).     All  this  would  be  inexplicable,  if 
his  prophecies  were  simply  the  result  of  natural  foresight.     It 
can  only  be  understood  on  the  assumption  that  (as  it  is  expressly    ^ 
declared  in  Deut.  xxiii.  5,  6)  Jehovah  tm-ned  the  intended  curse 
into  a  blessing  by  the  exertion  of  supernatural  power. — SteudeTs 
view  cannot  be  maintained,  apart  from  the  rationalistic  dictum  ,  '■ 
which  he  sets  himself  to  overthrow,  that  the  prophecies  of  Balaam  v^ 
were  composed  at  a  much  later  period,  as  vaticinia  post  eventum, 
and  consisted  simply  of  the  embellishment  of  an  ancient  myth. 

There  is  one  more  peculiar  characteristic  of  Balaam's  pro- 
phesying, of  which  we  have  still  to  speak.  In  the  introductory 
words  to  his  last  prophecy  (Num.  xxiv.  3),  he  describes  himself 
as  "  the  man  with  closed  gyes"  (TV^  onC'  i^v-)-  The  majority  of 
translators  and  commentators  have  rendered  DDtT  opeji ;  and  suj)- 
pose  Balaam  to  represent  himself  as  the  man  with  the  open  eye 
(of  the  mind).  This  explanation  is  based  upon  the  fact,  that  DDti' 
occurs  once  in  the  ISIishnah  (see  Buxtorf,  Lex.  Eabbin.  s.v.) 
with  the  meaning  perforavit.  But  most  of  the  modern  commen- 
tators have  very  properly  abandoned  this  rendering,  as  being  in 
all  respects  untenable  {vid.  Tholuck,  Eiccdd,  Lemjerke^  Ilengsten- 


393  ISr.AEl,  IN  THE  AUBOTII  MOAB. 

herg,  Rodiger,  etc.).  In  Ai'abic  ^l^^  is  the  word  cuiTently 
employed  in  the  sense  of  to  shut,  and  even  in  Hebrew  dhc 
(for  which  we  find  onb'  in  Lam.  iii.  8)  is  frequently  used  with 
the  same  signification.  Ilengstenherg  has  shown  (p.  448)  that  the 
interchange  of  d,  '^,  and  ^,  does  not  present  any  difficulty  here 
(see  also  Eioald,  ausfiihrliches  Lehrbuch,  §  91).  From  the 
construction  of  the  prophecy,  also,  this  rendering  is  apparently 
inadmissible.  For  D^3''y  '''bl  in  the  second  member  would  then 
be  perfectly  synonymous  with  TV^  ^T\p  in  the  first,  and  there 
wovdd  be  simply  an  intolerable  tautology;  whereas,  according 
to  oiu'  translation,  it  forms  the  antithesis  required  to  complete 
the  picture  (with  the  bodily  eyes  closed,  but  with  the  eye  of  the 
mind  open ;  the  former  being,  in  fact,  the  condition  of  the  latter). 
There  is  the  more  reason  to  expect  such  an  antithesis  in  the  two 
predicates,  from  the  fact  that  the  repetition  of  DS3  in  the  second 
member  indicates  a  progress  in  the  thought.  But  to  such  of 
the  earlier  commentators  as  felt  constrained,  on  exegetical 
grounds,  to  render  py  criK'  "  "v^'ith  closed  eye,"  the  expression  was 
always  an  enigma,  which  they  tried  in  vain  to  solve.  Clericus, 
for  example,  supposes  Balaam  to  refer  to  the  fact  that  he  did 
not  see  the  angel  in  the  road ;  and  de  Geer  is  of  opinion  that  he 
meant  to  say  that  his  (mental)  eye  had  hitherto  been  closed,  so 
far  as  future  events  were  concerned.  But  light  has  been  thrown 
upon  the  subject,  by  recent  acquaintance  with  analogous  condi- 
tions in  the  mysterious  departments  of  somnambulism  and 
heathen  augury.  Balaam  describes  himself  as  the  man  with 
closed  (bodily)  eye,  because  a  state  of  ecstasy,  the  essential 
characteristic  of  which  was  the  closing  of  the  outward  senses 
previous  to  the  opening  of  the  inward,  was  the  condition,  means, 
and  basis  of  his  prophetic  visions  and  utterances.  That  this 
explanation  is  the  only  admissible  one,  is  placed  beyond  all  doubt 
by  the  fact,  that  in  Balaam's  description  of  his  state  of  prophetic 
ecstasy,  he  constantly  represents  himself  as  ?Si  (falling  doivn). 
Allusion  is  here  made  to  the  convulsions  and  fits  of  unconscious- 
ness which  have  generally  characterised  the  lower  forms  of 
prophecy,  from  the  Delphic  Pythia  to  the  modern  Sharnanen. — 
An  admirable  explanation  of  these  conditions  has  been  given  by 
Ilengstenherg  (p.  449),  founded  upon  Steinbeck's  "  The  Poet  a 
Seer"  (Leipzig  1836,  p.  121  sqq.).  We  shall  take  the  liberty 
of  quoting  what  is  most  essential.    Steinbeck  says :  "  It  is  natural 


BALAA]VI  AND  HIS  PROPHECIES.  337 

that  in  the  noisy  whirlpool  of  the  outward  world,  the  soul  should 
be  too  much  distracted  and  held  back  from  the  contemplation 
of  higher  objects.  The  soul,  when  actively  employed  in  the  life 
of  sense,  stands  in  dkect  opposition  to  the  spirit,  which  is  obscured 
and  forced  back  by  the  activity  of  the  senses,  and  only  enters 
into  a  state  of  unfettered  action  when  the  senses  are  asleep  or 
unemployed.  For  when  we  are  desirous  of  meditating  closeh' 
upon  anything,  we  withdraw  into  perfect  solitude,  and  close  both 
eyes  and  ears.  .  .  .  As  the  stars  disappear  when  the  sun  rises, 
but  reappear  when  it  sets ;  so  does  the  waking  spirit  obscure  the 
pei'ceptions  of  the  senses,  whilst  its  sleep  or  withdi'awal,  on  the 
other  hand,  brings  them  out  again,  and  all  the  sensations,  wliich 
were  utterly  powerless  during  the  supremacy  of  the  spu'it,  recover 
and  assert  their  full  strength  and  activity."^  On  this  Hengsten- 
herg  observes  (p.  149,  English  translation)  :  "  In  those  who  have 
reached  the  highest  stage  of  inward  advancement,  insph'ation 
may  undoubtedly  take  place  without  the  outward  closing  of  the 
senses ;  the  sensitive  faculty  is  in  them  so  refined,  and  the  spirit 
so  powerful,  that  no  distm'bing  impression  is  to  be  apprehended 
from  the  former.  But  in  men  like  Balaam,  who  stood  upon  a 
lower  stage  of  the  inner  life,  and  who  was  only  raised  above  it 
for  the  moment  by  the  inward  working  of  the  Spirit,  the  closing 
of  the  eyes  formed  the  necessary  condition  of  the  opening  of  the 
spirit.  The  spirit  could  only  open  by  closing,  that  is,  by  forcibly 
tearing  him  away  from  the  impressions  of  the  lower  world,  and 
its  corrupting  influences  upon  one  who  was  akeady  coniipt,  and 
introducing  him  into  the  higher  world.  According  to  this  pas- 
sage, we  have  to  represent  Balaam  to  ourselves  as  uttering  all 
his  prophecies  with  his  eyes  closed ;  but  we  are  not  warranted 

'  This  beautiful  figure  is  capable  of  being  applied  in  a  somewhat  different 
manner,  and  one  which  appears  to  me  to  be  still  more  adapted  to  the  end  in 
view :  namely,  by  regarchng  the  sight  of  the  stars  by  night  as  aualogovis  to 
the  sight  of  supersensual  objects  with  closed  eyes.  The  stars  are  in  the 
heavens  throughout  the  day,  but  the  eye  must  be  equipped  before  it  can  see 
them.  But  as  soon  as  the  night  comes  on,  which  is  the  enemy  of  the  day, 
and  obscures  the  sight,  the  eye  needs  no  equipment  in  order  to  see  them. 
Thus  is  it  with  supei-sensual  objects :  in  the  clear  self-consciousness  of  a 
waking  state,  they  can  only  be  discerned  by  the  vision  of  the  true  prophet, 
who  is  SM/>c /-naturally  equipped  with  a  Divine  keenness  and  length  of  vision ; 
whereas  oi'dinary  (heathen)  soothsivyers  are  able  to  see  them  only  with  the 
unnatural  vision  of  a  state  of  somnambuhsm,  which  is  the  image  or  correlative 
of  night  and  of  death. 


398  ISKAEL  IN  THE  ARBOTH  MOAB. 

in  drawinij  the  conclusion  that  Isaiah's  must  have  been  uttered 
in  precisely  the  same  condition." 

On  the  falling  down  in  connection  with  the  prophecy,  Heng- 
stenherg  says  (p.  451)  :  "  It  shows  the  force  of  the  inspiration, 
which  came  upon  the  seer  like  an  armed  man,  and  threw  him  to 
the  ground.  There  is  a  parallel  in  1  Sam.  xix.  24,  where  it  is 
said  of  Saul :  '  And  he  stripped  off  his  clothes  also,  and  fell 
down  naked  (Dny  ?Si'1)  all  that  day  and  all  that  night.  Where- 
fore they  say.  Is  Saul  also  among  the  prophets?'  Nin  DJ  (is 
Saul  also)  shows  that  the  falling  down  was  common  to  Saul  and 
the  scholars  of  the  prophets.  It  was  only  in  cases  where  there 
was  immaturity  in  the  individual  inspired,  that  the  inspiration 
assumed  so  violent  a  character,  prostrating  both  soul  and  body. 
In  the  case  of  a  Sajviuel,  we  can  hardly  imagine  such  violent 
phenomena.  The  more  the  ordinary  consciousness  is  pervaded 
by  the  Spirit,  the  less  necessity  is  there  for  the  Spirit  to  assume 
a  hostile  attitude  to  the  former,  on  the  occasion  of  its  extraordi- 
nary manifestations.  It  is  then  only  coming  to  its  own."  This 
analogy  between  true  prophecy  in  a  state  of  immaturity^  and 
heathen  soothsajdng,  in  the  external  form  of  their  manifestations, 
is  of  great  importance  to  the  present  question.  It  shows  us,  for 
example,  that  notwithstanding  the  contrast  between  prophecy 
and  soothsaying,  in  every  other  respect  they  have  still  the  same 
natural  basis,  and  both  equally  presuppose  a  natural  faculty  for 
supersensual  vision.  And  this  will  serve  to  render  it  more  in- 
telligible, how  Balaam's  qualification  for  heathen  magic  and 
soothsaying  was  in  some  measure  a  preparation  for  his  subsequent 
change  into  a  prophet  of  Jehovah.  But  when  Balaam,  at  the 
commencement  of  his  prophecy,  mentioned  this  falling  down  in 
convulsions  and  closing  of  the  eyes,  evidently  as  establishing  the 
supernatural  character  and  trustworthiness  of  his  predictions, — in 
other  words,  when  he  was  proud,  and  boasted  of  what  was  simply 
a  proof  of  the  low,  immatm'e,  and  undeveloped  state  of  his  pro- 
phetic gift  and  character, — he  proved,  most  unquestionably,  to 
how  slight  an  extent  he  had  penetrated  into  the  sanctuary  of 
genuine  prophecy,  and  how  thoroughly  his  inmost  spiritual  life 
was  still  imbued  with  his  former  heathenism. 

(4.)  The  point  of  view  from  which  we  may  explain  Balak's 
application  to  Balaam,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  he  kncAv 
him  to  be  a  prophet  of  Jehovah,  the  God  of  Israel,  has  been 


BALAAM  AND  HIS  PROPHECIES.  399 

correctly  described  by  Ilengstenberg,  namely,  that  he  despau"ed  of 
the  power  of  his  own  deities  to  help  him,  and  applied  to  Balaam 
just  because  he  was  a  prophet  of  Jehovah.  Balak,  who  was 
under  the  power  of  the  heathen  delusion,  that  the  will  of  the 
gods  could  be  directed  and  determined  by  the  magical  incanta- 
tions of  those  who  stood  in  close  relation  to  them,  hoped  that 
Balaam's  curse  might  deprive  the  Israelites  of  the  protection  and 
aid  of  Jehovah.  Stdhelin,  on  the  other  hand  (Krit.  Unterss. 
p.  37),  is  of  opinion  that  such  a  supposition  is  at  variance  with 
all  analogy,  and  that  it  is  incredible  that  any  one  should  have 
imagined  it  possible  that  Israel's  God  would  allow  Israel  to 
be  cursed.  But  so  far  as  the  supposed  incredibility  is  concerned, 
it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  in  remote  antiquity  many  things 
appeared  to  be  perfectly  credible  to  the  people,  wdiich  would  be 
very  incredible  now.  The  enlightened  Pliny  says  on  tliis  subject 
(Hist.  nat.  28,  3)  :  "  Maximse  quiestionis  et  semper  incerta3  est, 
valeantne  aliquid  verba  et  incantamenta  carminum.  .  .  .  Sed 
viritim  sapientissimi  cujusque  respuit  fides.  In  universum  vero 
omnibus  horis  credit  vita,  nee  sentit"  (that  is  to  say,  in  the  actual 
practice  of  life,  men  have  universally  given  themselves  up  to  this 
belief,  without  paying  any  attention  to  the  opinions  of  the  wise). 
But  when  Stdhelin  proceeds  to  observe,  that  it  is  thoroughly  at  vari- 
ance with  all  analogy,  he  merely  betrays  his  own  ignorance  of  the 
customs  of  heathen  antiquity.  Hengstenherg  cites  a  nmiiber  of 
analogous  cases,  which  might,  no  doubt,  be  multiplied  to  a  very 
great  extent.  It  will  suffice  at  present  to  quote  a  single  passage 
from  Pliny  (28,  4)  :  "  Verrius  Flaccus  auctores  ponit,  quibus 
credat,  in  oppugnationibus  ante  omnia  solitum  a  Komanis 
sacerdotibus  evocari  deimi,  cujus  in  tutela  id  oppidum  esset, 
promittique  illi  eundem,  aut  ampliorem  apud  Romanos  cultum. 
Et  durat  in  pontificum  disciplina  id  sacrum ;  constatque  ideo 
occultatum,  in  cujus  tutela  Roma  esset,  ne  qui  hostium  simili 
modo  agerent." 

(5.)  Balak  attributed  irresistible  power  to  the  incantations 
of  Balaam.  He  said,  "  I  know  that  he  whom  thou  blessest  is 
blessed,  and  he  whom  thou  cursest  is  cursed."  On  this  Heng- 
stenberg  observes  p.  (366) :  "  Several  have  thought  that  this  was 
not  a  mere  delusion,  but  that  if  Balaam  had  uttered  a  curse  upon 
Israel  it  Avould  really  have  taken  effect ;  and  they  argue  that 
otherwise  there  would  have  been  no  reason  for  speaking  of  it  as 


400  ISRAEL  IN  THE  ARBOTH  MOAB. 

a  great  boon  conferred  upon  Israel,  that  this  curse  had  been 
averted,  as  is  the  case  in  Deut.  xxiii.  5  ;  Josh.  xxiv.  10 ;  Micah 
vi.  5 ;  and  Neh.  xiii.  2.  But  this  argument  is  of  no  force. 
Even  to  avert  a  curse,  which  might  be  powerless  in  itself,  would 
still  be  to  bestow  a  blessing ;  since  the  superstition  of  those  who 
heard  it,  of  the  IsraeHtes  themselves,  as  well  as  of  their  foes, 
would  give  it  an  importance  which  it  did  not  possess  in  itself, 
and  cause  it  to  dispirit  the  Israelites,  and  give  strength  to  their 
foes."  Nevertheless  M.  Baumgarten  maintains,  and,  we  believe, 
not  altogether  without  reason,  that  "  the  scriptural  narrative 
cannot  be  correctly  understood,  unless  it  be  admitted  that  the 
power  of  Balaam  to  bless  and  to  curse  is  fully  acknowledged 
there." — The  argument  just  referred  to,  that  the  Scriptures  re- 
peatedly refer  to  it,  as  a  peculiarly  memorable  and  praiseworthy 
act  of  grace  on  the  part  of  Jehovah,  that  He  would  not  suffer 
Balaam  to  cruise,  but  tm-ned  the  curse  into  a  blessing,  cannot  be 
so  easily  disposed  of  as  Hengstenherg  imagines.  If  the  effectual 
power,  which  the  superstition  of  Moab  and  Israel  attributed  to 
Balaam's  curse,  was  mere  fancy  and  delvision,  so  also  un- 
doubtedly was  that  which  was  ascribed  to  his  blessing.  But  it 
is  very  obvious,  that  the  latter  cannot  possibly  have  been  the 
author's  opinion.  And  even  Hengstenherg,  we  believe,  will  not 
deny,  that  not  only  the  superstitious  in  Israel,  but  the  divinely 
illuminated  author  himself,  was  fully  convinced,  that  of  all  the 
blessings  to  which  Balaam  gave  utterance,  not  one  was  spoken  in 
vain,  not  one  would  fail  to  be  fulfilled.  If  the  conviction  of  the 
efficacy  of  his  blessing  or  cm'se  had  been  merely  delusion  and 
superstition,  it  would  have  been  a  superstition  of  a  most  dangerous 
kind,  and  one  which  the  law  would  have  expressly  and  decidedly 
condenmed.  That  magical  incantations  possessed  a  power  to 
injure  or  to  bless,  was  a  conviction  common  to  all  antiquity;  and 
even  Hengstenherg  admits  that  this  conviction  had  midoubtedly 
taken  root  in  Israel.  And  what  a  powerful  temptation  to  apostasy 
to  heathenism,  if  only  of  a  temporary  dui'ation,  was  to  be  f  omid  in 
this  con\action !  But  incantations  of  this  description  dm'st  not 
take  place  in  Israel.  How  strong  must  have  been  the  induce- 
ment, therefore,  when  occasion  served,  to  apply  to  heathen  magi- 
cians for  that  which  the  priests  and  prophets  of  the  theocracy  re- 
fused !  The  law  contents  itself  with  condemning  in  the  strongest 
terais  every  form  of  magic  and  soothsapng,  without  giving  the 


B.VLAAM  AXD  HIS  PROPHECIES.  401 

slightest  hint,  that  all  such  things  are  mere  superstition,  delusion, 
and  fraud.  INIust  not  this  silence  have  appeared,  to  an  Israelite, 
tantamount  to  an  acknowledgment,  that  the  powers  and  effects 
were  something  more  than  imaginaiy  ?  Considering  the  sinfulness 
of  human  nature,  in  which  the  Nitimur  in  vetitum  is  so  deeply 
rooted,  and  the  tendency  to  spiritual  adultery  even  stronger 
than  to  carnal,  and  the  fact,  that  under  certain  circumstances  a 
prohibition  acts  as  a  spur  to  evil ;  would  not  the  danger  have 
been  more  thoroughly  and  successfully  averted  by  simply  de- 
claring the  vanity,  impotence,  and  nonentity  of  such  things,  than 
by  a  prohibition  which  took  the  reality  for  granted?  And, 
looking  simply  at  the  case  before  us,  would  not  the  enemies  of 
Israel  have  been  more  thoroughly  dispirited  and  confounded, — 
would  not  the  conviction  of  the  nothingness  and  impotence  of 
their  gods  and  idolatrous  rites,  of  their  incantations  and  witch- 
crafts, have  forced  itself  still  more  powerfully  and  irresistibly 
upon  their  minds,  and  those  of  the  Israelites,  if  Jehovah  had 
actually  permitted  Balaam  to  curse  to  his  heart's  desire,  and  the 
immediate  result  had  demonstrated  the  impotence  of  the  curse  he 
uttered  ? 

Undoubtedly,  with  the  thoroughly  mistaken,  unscriptiu'al,  and 
unhistorical  views  which  Hengstenherg  has  formed  {yid.  §  1,  2)  of 
the  gods  of  heathenism,  as  being  merely  empty  names,  without 
any  sphere  of  existence  or  operation,  without  activity  of  any 
Idnd, — with  such  views  as  these,  he  must  believe  that  there  was 
no  effect  whatever  produced  by  either  the  curse  or  blessing,  which 
was  pronounced  in  the  power  of  such  deities  as  these.  But  if, 
as  we  have  already  proved  that  the  Scriptures  affirm  (vol.  ii. 
§  23,  1),  the  heathen  deities  do  possess  a  real  and  personal  ex- 
istence, and  a  sphere  of  activity  and  operations  answering  to 
their  spiritual  power,  the  conclusion  to  which  we  may  and  must 
come  with  regard  to  such  blessings  and  curses  will  be  a  very 
different  one. 

All  that  we  have  said  above  (vol.  ii.  §  23,  2),  respecting 
magic  in  general  (whether  natural,  daemoniacal,  or  godly),  ap- 
plies to  this  particular  form  (viz.,  h\  the  ul^terance  of  either  a 
blessing  or  a  curse).  But  no  one  will  find  it  inconceivable,  that 
a  spoken  Avord  should  serve  as  the  medium  and  vehicle  of  a 
power,  which  either  assists  by  blessing  or  clogs  by  cursing 
(whether  the  power  itself  proceeds  frdm  a  hidden,  natural  power 
^      VOL.  III.  2  c 


•v 


J 


402  ISRAEL  IN  THE  ARBOTH  MOAB. 

within  a  man's  own  mind,  or  from  a  supernatural  soui'ce) ;  if  lie 
properly  estimate  the  meaning,  worth,  and  power  of  human  lan- 
guage, as  the  most  direct  and  immediate  utterance  of  the  human 
mind,  the  royal  insignia  and  sceptre  of  the  power  which  he  pos- 
sesses over  all  terrestrial  nature. 

It  is  thought  indeed  by  some,  that  it  would  be  irreconcileable 
with  the  wisdom,  goodness,    and   righteousness  of  God, — irre- 
concileable with  the  providence  of  God,  without  whose  will  not 
a  hair  falls  from  our  head,  if  it  were  possible  for  the  favour  or 
malice  of  man  to  assist  and  advance,  or  to  injure  and  destroy,  in 
5         an  ungodly  and  unjust  manner,  by  purely  human  (i.e.,  tmgodly) 
<.|         caprice,  and  if  God  Himself  permitted  the  possibility  to  become 
I         a  fact.     To  this  we  reply,  however,  by  simply  asking,  whether  it 
'  is  not  equally  irreconcileable  with  the  wisdom,  goodness,   and 

',  righteousness  of  God,  for  human  cmming  and  malice  to  be  able 

to  produce  unforeseen  and  irresistible  injury  in  a  thousand  other 
ways  ?  If  God  permits  the  power  of  the  human  arm  to  be 
'w,  abused  by  the  mvu'derer,  and  an  acquaintance  with  the  powers 
•^\         of  nature  by  the  poisoner,  and  if  this  does  not  interfere  with  or 

tmihtate  against  the  providence  of  God,  why  should  not  the  same 
rule  apply  to  an  abuse  of  the  secret  and  mysterious  power  of 
{  the  word?     Undoubtedly  it   is    still  the  case,  that  the  provi- 

i  dence  of  God  can  oppose  the  e\al,  either  before  or  after  its  per- 

formance, can  prevent  it  altogether,  or  neutralise  its  effects. 
But  whether  He  will  do  this,  and  if  so  when  and  how,  is  His 
own  affair,  and  short-sighted  man  can  have  nothing  to  say  in 
the  matter.  As  the  arm  can  be  restrained,  when  lifted  up  for 
purposes  of  murder,  and  as  poison  can  be  rendered  harmless  by 
an  antidote,  so  can  the  providence  of  God  either  prevent  the  un- 
godly blessing  and  curse  from  being  uttered  at  all,  or  render 
them  harmless,  turn  them  into  the  veiy  opposite,  even  when 
they  have  been  pronounced. 

In  heathen  antiquity  a  power  was  attributed  to  the  incan- 
tations of  the  magicians,  which  the  gods  themselves  could  not 
resist.  And  this  was  evidently  BalaKs  opinion.  He  looked 
upon  Jehovah  as  nothing  more  than  the  national  God  of  the 
Israehtes,  just  as  Chemosh  was  the  national  god  of  his  own 
people.  His  conviction  therefore  ^^as,  that  Balaam,  as  a  pro- 
])het  of  Jehovah,  could  direct  and  alter  the  will  of  Jehovah, 
could   decide  as  to  His  favom"  or  ill-will,  just  as  the  heathen 


'^ 


BALAAM  AND  HIS  PROPHECIES.  403 

magicians  were  in  the  habit  of  doing,  with  the  deities  whom 
they  served.  He  was  no  doubt  greatly  mistaken  in  this,  as 
Balaam  repeatedly  and  distinctly  assured  him  (Num.  xxii.  13, 
18,  38,  xxiii.  8,  12,  19,  26,  xxiv.  12)  ;  but  his  mistake  arose 
simply  from  the  fact,  that  he  placed  Jehovah  on  a  level  with 
the  heathen  deities,  and  the  prophets  of  Jehovah  with  the 
heathen  magicians.  In  the  sphere  of  purely  heathen  magic  his 
opinion  would  possibly  have  been  correct. — Hengstenherg  has 
made  a  remark,  which  is  both  true  and,  in  relation  to  our  view, 
important  (though,  in  connection  Avith  what  he  has  "written  on 
the  subject,  it  can  only  be  understood  figuratively,  and  therefore 
is  almost  mimeaning),  and  which  we  gladly  appropriate.  He 
says  :  "  Gods  of  human  invention  can  never  deny  their  origin, 
and  never  withdi'aw  themselves  altogether  from  dependence  on 
those  by  whom  they  have  been  begotten."  Wo  take  the  words 
in  their  literal  sense.  Heathen  w^orsliip  is  iOeXodprja-KeLa.  The 
heathen  has  chosen  his  own  gods,  and  therefore  in  a  certain 
sense  they  are  dependent  upon  him.  He  has  forsaken  the  ser- 
\Tlce  of  the  only  true  God,  the  God  with  whom  there  is  no 
respect  of  persons,  whose  power  and  will  are  ever  absolute, 
whether  He  is  served  or  not.  But  the  gods  to  whom  the 
heathen  have  devoted  themselves,  though  they  may  be  real, 
personal,  and  relatively  powerful,  are  still  but  finite  and  created, 
and  as  such  are  necessarily  subject  to  the  laws  of  the  creature. 
The  priests  and  wizards,  by  whom  they  are  served,  are  in  a 
certain  sense  their  masters  ;  they  are  indebted  to  them  for  their 
position  and  the  honour  paid  to  them  as  gods  ;  and,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  priests  and  magicians  are  indebted  for  their  position 
and  honour  to  the  supernatural  powers  which  these  deities  con- 
fer. Thus  the  deities  and  their  worshippers  are  mutually  de- 
pendent the  one  upon  the  other;  and  for  then*  own  interests 
the  demoniacal  powers,  which  were  associated  with  heathenism, 
would  show  themselves  as  subservient  as  possible  to  the  incanta- 
tions of  the  magicians.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  possible  that 
magical  incantations,  on  the  part  of  those  with  whom  they  had 
entered  into  a  biotical  relation,  may  have  exerted  a  constraining 
influence  even  upon  them,  and  one  which  they  were  not  in  a 
condition  to  resist,  even  if  they  had  desired  it. 

It  was  very  different  in  the  case  before  us ;   for  Balaam 
wanted  to  cm'se,  not  in  the  name  of  a  heathen  deity,  but  in  the 


404  ISRAEL  IN  THE  ARBOTH  MOAB. 

name  of  Jeliovali,  the  absolute  God.  Hengstenherg  is  perfectly 
right  when  he  says,  "  In  the  service  of  Jehovah  there  can  be  no 
thought  of  force  and  constraint ;  the  servants  of  Jehovah  are 
unconditionally  dependent  upon  Him,  whether  engaged  in  bless- 
ing or  cursing ;  their  utterances  have  no  worth  at  all,  except  as 
they  are  faithful  interpreters  of  His  will,  the  distinct  perception 
of  which  constitutes  their  sole  prerogative.  It  was  in  this  sense 
alone  that  Noah  cm'sed  Ham,  and  Isaac  blessed  Jacob." — But 
the  truth  of  these  words  does  not  extend  sufficiently  far,  to  prove 
that  the  warding  off  of  the  curse  was  merely  an  imaginary 
benefit,  in  other  words,  that  it  was  not  in  reality  a  benefit  at  all, 
thoiigh  it  was  erroneously  thought  to  be  so  by  those  who  were 
superstitious.  As  the  blessing  of  Balaam,  as  a  prophet  of  Jeho- 
vah, was  not  merely  efficacious  in  the  imagination  of  the  super- 
stitious and  credulous  Israelites  and  Moabites,  but,  through  the 
power  of  Jehovah,  which  dwelt  within  him,  was  also  objectively 
and  actually  sufficient  to  bring  to  pass  whatever  he  had  spoken, 
— so,  on  the  other  hand,  would  a  curse  pronomiced  by  Balaam 
upon  Israel,  in  the  same  character  and  ^nth  the  same  authority, 
have  been  followed  with  the  same  effect.  And  it  was  in  this 
way  that  Balaam  \\ashed  to  be  allowed  to  cirrse  ;  but  Jehovah 
would  not  permit  it,  although  there  was  ground,  and  cause,  and 
occasion  enough  for  a  cui'se  in  Israel's  past  history  and  present 
condition,  and  this  was  the  great  blessing  celebrated  by  IMoses, 
Joshua,  and  Micah.  The  cui'se  of  Balaam,  uttered  in  the  name 
and  power  of  Jehovah,  would  have  been  just  as  effectual  as  his 
blessing ;  but,  as  a  prophet  of  Jehovah,  Balaam  could  neither 
bless  nor  curse,  except  according  to  the  will  and  counsel  of 
Jehovah. — But  it  may  perhaps  be  asked,  Wliat  would  have 
been  the  consequence,  if  Balaam  had  had  sufficient  control  over 
himself  to  curse  instead  of  blessing,  notwithstanding  the  influ- 
ence of  the  Spirit  of  God,  which  was  restraining  him  from 
cursing  and  impelling  him  to  bless  ?  Is  it  not  a  prerogative  of 
human  freedom  to  be  able  to  resist  the  M'ill  of  God  and  do  that 
which  is  ungodly? — Undoubtedly  it  would  have  been  m  the 
power  of  Balaam,  notwithstanding  the  declaration  of  Jehovah's 
will,  to  follow  the  devices  and  desires  of  his  wicked  heart,  and 
so  to  harden  himself  against  the  influence  of  the  Spirit  of  God 
as  to  give  utterance  to  a  curse, — but  he  could  not  have  done 
this  without  going  entirely  away  from  the  sphere  of  a  prophet 


BAL.VAM  AND  IIIS  PROniECIES.  405 

of  Jeliovali,  and  falling  back  into  tliat  of  a  mere  heathen  magi- 
cian. As  long  as  he  was  in  the  service  of  Jehovah,  and  A\'ished 
to  bless  and  to  curse  in  the  name  and  power  of  Jehovah,  as  the 
ser\'ant  of  his  Lord,  his  blessing  and  cm'sing  woiild  be  uncondi- 
tionally dependent  upon  the  will  of  Jehovah.  If  he  broke 
aw^ay  from  Jehovah,  the  constraint  would  cease  ;  he  would  then 
be  able  to  curse,  but  only  in  his  own  name,  or  that  of  a  heathen 
deity.  This,  however,  would  have  been  of  but  little  ser\dce  to 
Balak,  for  he  could  have  seciu'ed  all  this  without  fetching  a 
magician  from  the  Euphrates.  There  were  certainly  magicians 
enough  in  his  OAvn  nation  to  perform  this  service  for  him  (see 
note  4). 

§  55.  (Num.  xxii.  22-35.) — Balaam  set  out,  attended  by  two 
servants  and  the  messengers  of  Balak.  An  event  occvu'red 
upon  the  road,  which  was  calculated  and  well  adapted  to  con- 
vince him  of  the  error  of  his  way,  and,  if  he  was  open  to  cor- 
rection, to  turn  him  from  it.  It  is  true  that  Jehovah  had  given 
him  permission,  at  last,  to  obey  the  summons  of  Balak ;  but  He 
had  given  him  distinctly  enough  to  understand,  that  he  would 
only  be  allowed  to  speak  and  act  according  to  the  will  of 
Jehovah,  and  therefore  must  not  reckon  upon  Balak' s  honour 
and  gold.  But  notA\athstanding  this — as  the  narrative  neces- 
sarily presu})poses — the  corrupt  mind  of  the  magician  was  so 
thoroughly  overpowered  by  avarice  and  ambition,  that  he  still 
flattered  himself  -with  the  hope  that,  as  Jehovah  had  yielded 
so  much  ah'eady,  He  would  comply  with  his  wishes  to  a  still  *- ' 
greater  extent ;  and  the  nearer  he  came  to  his  journey's  end 
the  stronger  became  his  desire,  and  the  more  did  he  think  about 
the  promised  reward.  For  this  reason  the  wrath  of  God  was 
kindled  at  his  departure,  and  the  angel  of  Jehovah  placed 
himself  in  the  road  with  a  draAAii  sword  to  -svithstand  him. 
But  the  eyes  of  the  seer  were  dazzled  by  the  desire  for  earthly 
good,  and  therefore  he  perceived  nothing  of  the  threatening 
apparition  from  the  higher  w^orld,  which  was  standing  in  his 
road.  But  tlie  ass  upon  which  he  was  riding  saw  it,  and  turned 
in  terror  fi'om  the  path;  and,  in  a  naiTow  pass  among  the  vine- 


406  ISRAEL  IN  THE  ARBOTII  MOAB. 

yards,  where  there  was  no  possibility  of  getting  out  of  the  way, 
it  pressed  against  the  rocky  wall  and  injm-ed  Balaam's  foot.  In 
the  blindness  of  his  wi'ath  he  smote  the  poor  beast,  which  had 
fallen  under  him.  Then  Jehovah  opened  the  mouth  of  the  ass; 
and,  as  Balaam  had  been  unable  to  comprehend  the  meaning  of 
what  she  had  done,  she  poured  out  her  complaints  of  the  un- 
merited blows  she  had  received,  in  intelligible  words  and  human 
language  (1).  Jehovah  now  opened  the  eyes  of  the  startled 
seer.  Wlien  Balaam  saw  the  heavenly  apparition  in  its  threat- 
ening attitude,  and  heard  its  severe  reproof  of  the  perverseness 
of  his  way,  he  confessed,  "I  have  sinned,"  and  added,  com- 
plying half-heartedly  with  the  will  of  God,  "  Now,  if  my  way 
displeaseth  Thee,  I  will  tm'n  back  again."  But  this  was  not 
what  Jehovah  wanted.  Balaam  was  to  go  on  his  way  now ;  at 
the  same  time  he  was  distinctly  told,  "  Only  the  word  that  I 
shall  speak  unto  thee,  that  shalt  thou  speak." 

(1.)  There  is  no  other  narrative  in  the  Bible  which  has 
given  rise  to  so  much  dispute,  ridicule,  and  false  exposition,  as 
the  history  of  Balaam's  speaking  ass.  Since  the  time  of  the 
Deists,  no  scoffer  at  the  Bible  has  been  able  to  resist  the  cheap 
gratificiition  of  a  ride  upon  Balaam's  ass.  The  ridicule  is  un- 
doubtedly rendered  all  the  more  piquant  by  the  general  estima- 
tion in  wliich  Master  Long-ear  is  held  in  the  West,  where  he  is 
regarded  as  the  ideal  of  absurdity  and  stupidity,  and  the  target 
for  popular  wit  to  shoot  at.  Tlie  serpent's  conversation  in  the 
history  of  the  temptation  has  not  been  a  subject  of  ridicule  to 
anything  like  the  same  extent,  has  not  been  regarded  as  by  any 
means  so  ludicrous,  as  the  speaking  of  Balaam's  ass.  "  The 
Lord  opened  the  mouth  of  the  ass  !" — "  The  dumb  beast  of 
burden  spoke  with  the  voice  of  a  man  !"  How  naturally  the 
scoffer  (who  cannot  be  prevented  from  jesting  by  the  conscious- 
ness of  being  on  holy  ground,  where  he  ought  first  to  take  off  his 
shoes  from  off  his  feet)  begins  immediately  to  think  of  the  harsh 
and  unmusical  voice  of  the  beast  of  burden,  upon  which  such 
unbounded  contempt  has  been  heaped  in  fables  and  allegories  ! 
And  by  such  untimely  notions  as  these, — untimely  because  they 
are  founded  upon  the  customs  of  a  totally  different  age,  and  the 


BALAAM  AND  HIS  rROPHECIES.  407 

characteristics  of  an  entirely  different  animal, — the  simple  im- 
pression which  the  narrative  is  calculated  to  produce  is  alto- 
gether distorted,  and  the  narrative  itself  is  turned  into  ridicule. 
And  it  makes  no  difference,  whether  it  is  regarded  as  a  fact 
which  actually  occurred,  or  as  a  vision  or  myth.  What  is 
ludicrous,  is  not  the  fact  that  an  animal  should  speak,  but  that 
such  an  animal  should  he  the  speaker.  Now,  eveiy  natural 
history,  and  every  book  of  travels  assure  us,  that  in  the  East  the 
ass  is  not  the  same  lazy  and  submissive  animal  as  in  the  West. 
According  to  Eastern  notions,  therefore,  especially  in  antiquity, 
there  is  no  trace  whatever  of  the  ill  odom*  which  we  associate 
with  the  very  name  of  an  ass. 

But  we  will  leave  the  scoffers  alone.  The  lovers  of  myths 
we  shall  also  pass  by,  so  long  as  they  adhere  to  their  assumption 
that  miracles  are  either  impossible  or  improper,  and  that  the 
Biblical  tales  are  on  a  par  with  the  ancient  legends  of  other 
nations.  We  have  quite  enough  to  do  to  rescue  the  narrative 
from  the  misinterpretations  of  many  of  those  who  believe  as 
firmly  as  we  do  oiu'selves  in  its  historical  character.  Nearly  all 
the  more  modern  believing  theologians,  for  example,  have  en- 
devoured  to  remove  the  difficvdties  connected  with  the  fact  that 
the  ass  should  be  said  to  have  spoken,  by  explaining  the  whole 
affair  as  something  merely  inward, — a  \-ision,  in  fact,  and  not 
an  external,  objective  occmTence.  The  ass,  they  say,  did  not 
really  speak,  but  Balaam  was  thrown  into  a  state  of  ecstasy  by 
the  operation  of  God;  and  in  this  state  the  same  impression  was 
produced  upon  his  mind,  as  if  the  words  had  really  been  spoken 
by  the  ass  herself.  This  opinion  has  been  defended  most 
warmly  and  thoroughly  by  Tholuck  and  Hengstenherg.  De 
Geer,  Baumgarten,  and  0.  v.  Gerlach  alone,  still  adhere  to  the 
interpretation  of  the  narrative  as  recording  a  literal  fact. 

The  following  are  the  arguments  adduced  by  Hengstenherg : 
a.  lie  prepares  the  way  for  the  general  line  of  argument, 
by  asserting  that  in  the  Scriptures  it  is  a  thing  of  very  frequent 
occurrence,  for  inward  processes  to  be  narrated  in  the  general 
course  of  history,  without  any  express  statement  to  the  effect 
that  they  belong  to  the  sphere  of  the  inner  life ;  a  rale  which 
may  be  explained  on  the  simple  ground,  that  the  sacred  writers 
took  but  little  notice  of  the  merely  formal  distinction  between 
inward  and  outward  experiences, — starting,  as  they  did,  with  the 


408  ISRAEL  IX  THE  ARBOTH  MOAB. 

assumption  that  "  appearances  in  visions  and  dreams  tcere  just 
as  real  (1  !)  as  those  in  a  wakuig  condition."  But  how  utterly 
weak  and  futile  is  the  e^'idence  which  Hengstenherg  brings  to 
support  his  assertion  !  For  example,  from  the  fact,  that  in  Gen. 
xxii.  3  Abraham  is  said  to  have  set  out  "  early  in  the  morning''^ 
on  the  road  to  Momit  ^loriah,  which  was  three  days'  jomniey 
distant,  it  necessainly  follows,  that  he  must  have  received  the 
command  to  offer  his  son  as  a  burnt-offering  in  a  vision  (?)  of 
the  night !  !  I  But  how  is  it  possible  to  overlook  the  fact,  that 
if  there  was  any  instance  in  the  whole  course  of  the  sacred 
histor}',  of  a  message  from  God  coming  to  the  man  to  whom  it 
was  addi'essed,  when  he  had  the  clear  consciousness  of  his  waking 
moments,  this  certainly  was  and  necessarily  must  have  been  the 
case  mth  the  command  which  was  given  here — a  command  of 
such  a  natui'e,  that  even  in  a  state  of  the  clearest  self -conscious- 
ness, a  man  might  well  have  been  puzzled  to  detemiine  whether 
what  he  saw  with  open  eyes,  heard  with  open  ears,  and  un- 
derstood with  an  unclouded  mind,  was  not  after  all  a  delusion 
and  a  dream  ! — The  other  proofs  ai-e  not  much  better ;  e.g.,  the 
appearance  of  the  angel  at  Mahanaim  (Gen.  xxxii.  2  ;  see  vol. 
i.  §  80,  1),  Jacob's  wrestling  at  the  ford  of  Jabbok  (Gen.  xxxii. ; 
see  vol.  i.  §  80,  4).  With  such  proofs  as  these  before  us,  we 
can  certainly  content  ourselves  with  what  is  a  rule  of  exegesis, 
to  acknowledge  no  dreams,  visions,  or  trances  in  the  Biblical 
history,  when  they  are  not  mentioned  clearly,  and  without  the 
least  ambiguity,  in  the  sacred  records  themselves. 

But  Hengstenherg  has  not  done  justice  to  the  essential  differ- 
ence between  the  outward  facts  of  the  waking  condition,  and 
the  appearances  which  characterise  a  dream.  It  is  not  true  that, 
according  to  the  Bibhcal  ^^ew,  the  "  appearances  in  visions  and 
dreams  were  just  as  real  as  those  in  a  waldng  condition."  When 
Paul  saw  in  a  vision  a  man  named  Ananias  coming  in,  and  put- 
tuig  his  hand  on  him  that  he  might  receive  his  sight  (Acts  ix. 
12),  this  ^dsionary  appearance  had  by  no  means  the  same  reality 
as  the  event  itself,  recorded  in  vers.  17,  18,  of  which  this  was 
merely  a  representation.  No  effect  whatever  was  produced  bythe 
touch  with  the  hand  in  the  vision.  Paul  continued  just  as  blind 
as  he  was  before.  But  by  what  appeared  to  him  in  his  waking 
condition  his  blindness  was  entirely  removed,  and  "  there  fell 
from  his  eyes  as  it  had  been  scales."     Again,  when  Peter  was 


BALA^VM  AKD  HIS  PROPHECIES.  409 

in  prison,  and  an  angel  waked  him  out  of  his  sleep,  loosed  him 
from  his  chains,  and  led  him  out  (Acts  xii.),  Peter  "  Avist  not 
that  it  was  true  wdiich  was  done  by  the  angel,  but  thought  he  saw 
a  vision  ;"  and  it  was  not  till  he  was  outside  and  came  to  him- 
self, that  he  discovered  that  it  was  not  a  vision,  but  a  reality. 
He  then  said,  "  Now  I  know  of  a  surety,  that  the  Lord  hath 
sent  His  angel,  and  hath  delivered  me."  It  is  indisputably  evi- 
dent from  these  examples,  that,  according  to  the  scriptural 
view,  the  appearances  in  a  vision  are  not  real,  but  only  "  imagi- 
nation." There  is  no  doubt  a  great  difference  between  one  land 
of  imagination  and  another, — for  example,  between  purely  sub- 
jective imagination,  wdien  I  pictm'e  something  to  myself,  or 
when  phantastic  images  present  themselves  to  the  mind  in  con- 
sequence of  fever  or  delirium, — and  objective  imagination,  when 
the  images  are  presented  to  the  mind  by  the  special  operation  of 
God.  In  neither  case  is  there  anything  real  in  the  appearance 
itself ;  but  in  the  former  case,  all  that  the  appearance  may  do 
or  say  is  nothing  but  delusion  and  phantastic  show ;  whereas,  in 
the  latter,  what  is  symbohsed,  represented,  or  revealed  by  the 
appearance  is  perfectly  real,  though  not  the  appearance  itself. 

When  we  read,  however,  the  correct  remark  which  Heng- 
stenberg  makes  immediately  before,  viz.,  that  the  distinction  be- 
tween the  appearances  of  a  vision  and  those  of  a  man's  waking 
condition  (of  course  assuming  that  both  are  equally  produced 
by  God)  is  merely  a  formal  one  ;  it  seems  probable  that,  after 
all,  when  he  says  that  "  appearances  in  A^sions  and  di'earas  are 
just  as  real  as  those  in  a  waking  condition,"  he  means  nothing 
more  than  what  we  are  quite  ready  to  admit,  that  the  Divine 
revelations  communicated  in  visions  and  dreams  are  suhstantialhj 
as  true  and  trustworthy  as  those  received  in  a  waking  condition. 
In  this  case,  the  error  in  his  statement  would  be  limited  entirely 
to  his  want  of  skilf  ulness  in  selecting  his  expression.  Why  should 
we  enter  upon  this  discussion,  then,  if  om'  opponent  is  correct  in 
his  opinion,  and  has  simply  made  use  of  a  wrong  expression  ? 
For  various  reasons.  First,  because  errors  in  expression  soon  lead 
to  en'ors  in  opinion.  Secondly,  because  the  argument  is  con- 
stantly carried  on,  just  as  if  the  words  were  true  in  their  literal 
sense  (which  we  have  shown  that  they  are  not).  Thirdly,  be- 
cause, on  the  gromid  of  this  quid  jyro  quo,  Divine  visions  (/.<?., 
the  power  of  God  operating  immediately  upon  the  soul  of  the 


410  ISRAEL  IN  THE  ARBOTH  MOAB. 

seer  or  hearer  without  the  mediation  of  the  eje  or  ear,  or  ap- 
pearances produced  by  God)  are  continually  confounded  with 
actual  Di\'ine  manifestations,  with  the  visible  appearance  of 
God  and  of  the  things  of  God,  before  the  outward,  waking 
senses.  And  lastly,  because  what  is  true  of  the  one  is  assumed, 
without  anything  further,  to  be  equally  true  of  the  other. 
Visions  are  merely  images  of  what  is  real ;  they  are  simply  in- 
tended for  the  imagination  ;  they  presuppose  an  ecstatic  condi- 
tion, a  momentary  closing  of  the  outward  senses,  a  temporary 
suppression  of  the  intelligent,  reflecting  self-consciousness,  and 
consciousness  of  the  surrounding  world.  But  Divine  appear- 
ances in  a  loal'ing  condition  are  visible  representations  to  the  ex- 
ternal senses  of  that  which  is  divine.  In  visions,  the  instruction 
conveyed  is  of  an  abstract  character ;  here,  on  the  contrary,  it 
is  concrete.  When  Ananias  laid  his  hand  upon  Paul  in  a  vision, 
there  was  no  reality  in  this,  and  it  produced  no  effect.  But 
when  Nebuchadnezzar  looked  into  the  fiery  furnace,  and  saw 
not  only  the  three  friends  of  Daniel,  but  a  fourth  as  well,  this 
was  no  vision  ;  for  Nebuchadnezzar  was  not  in  a  state  of  ecstasy, 
and  the  Divine  protection,  which  was  manifested  to  Nebuchad- 
nezzar's eye  in  the  form  of  an  angel,  was  at  that  very  moment 
really  there.  The  power  of  an  angel,  who  had  been  sent  by 
God,  prevented  the  devom'ing  flame  from  coming  near  to  their 
bodies  (Dan.  iii.  25).  When  God  opened  the  eyes  of  His  ser- 
vant at  the  prayer  of  Elisha,  and  he  saw  the  mountain  full  of 
fiery  chariots  and  horsemen,  this  was  the  way  in  which  there 
was  manifested  to  his  bodily  eyes  the  protection  of  God,  which 
was  actually  and  actively  (ivirMich  und  loirksam)  present ;  there 
is  no  intimation  of  his  being  in  a  state  of  ecstasy  (2  Kings  vi. 
16  sqq.).  Again,  Elijah  was  actually  carried  up  from  the  earth, 
when  Elisha  saw  him  ascend  towards  heaven  in  a  chariot  of  fire 
(2  Kings  ii.  11).  But  if  Peter  had  merely  seen  a  ^asion,  as  he 
at  first  supposed,  when  he  was  in  the  prison,  he  would  still  have 
remained  in  prison  and  in  chains ;  and  the  vision  itself  would 
have  been  nothing  more  than  a  Divine  assurance  of  coming  de- 
liverance.    See  Hofmann  s  Scliriftbeweis,  i.  340  seq. 

h.  Hencjstenberg  affirms  at  p.  382,  that  "  in  Num.  xii.  6  visions 
and  dreams  are  referred  to  as  the  ordinary  means  of  communi- 
cation from  God  to  the  prophets  ;  and  as  Balaam  Avas  one  of 
the  prophets,  and  the  speaking  of  the  ass  was  a  communication 


BALAAM  AND  HIS  PROPHECIES.  411 

from  God,  of  whom  it  is  expressly  stated,  that  He  opened  the 
mouth  of  the  ass,  we  must  assume  from  this  general  ground,  if 
there  is  no  reason  to  the  contrary,  that  the  affair  was  purely  an 
inward  one." — But,  as  we  shall  presently  see,  there  are  many 
reasons  to  the  contrary.  Even  granting,  however,  that  this  was 
not  the  case,  how  thoroughly  inconclusive  such  reasoning  is ! 
Balaam  was  certainly  a  prophet ;  and,  according  to  Num.  xii., 
prophets  as  a  rule  received  the  revelations,  which  they  were  to 
make  known  to  others,  in  visions  and  di'eams,  and  in  an  ecstatic 
state.  This  was  the  case  with  Balaam,  when  he  w^as  discharging 
the  functions  of  a  prophet  in  the  presence  of  Balak.  His  eyes 
were  closed ;  he  fell  upon  the  ground,  and  the  use  of  his  exter- 
nal senses  was  enth'ely  suspended.  But  was  Balaam  discharg- 
ing the  functions  of  a  prophet  on  the  present  occasion,  with 
regard  either  to  his  ass  or  to  the  angel  of  the  Lord  ?  Was  he 
engaged  in  receiving  Di\'ine  revelations,  which  he  was  after- 
w^ards  to  make  known  to  either  the  one  or  the  other  ?  Besides, 
how  thoroughly  mistaken  is  the  notion,  that  the  spealdng  of  the 
ass  was  a  communication  from  God  to  the  prophet  (!),  or  that  in 
substance  its  words  were  a  Di\'ine  revelation  !  The  ass  said, 
"  What  have  I  done  unto  thee,  that  thou  hast  smitten  me  these 
three  times  ?  Am  not  I  thine  ass,  upon  which  thou  hast  ridden 
ever  since  I  was  thine  unto  this  day  ?  Was  I  ever  wont  to  do 
so  unto  thee?"  We  ask.  Are  these  the  words  of  God?  Are 
these  Divine  instructions  and  revelations  ?  Are  they  not  much 
rather  the  simple  utterances  of  the  feelings  of  an  ill-used  animal, 
complaints  of  unmerited  chastisement  and  ill-treatment,  such  as 
every  domestic  animal  is  constantly  uttering,  in  similar  situa- 
tions, if  not  in  "  the  words  of  human  speech,"  yet  by  perfectly 
intellimble  signs  ?  It  is  true  that  we  are  told,  that  "  Jehovah 
opened  the  mouth  of  the  ass,  and  she  spoke."  But  does  this  re- 
fer to  the  substance  of  what  she  said,  and  not  rather  to  the  form 
in  which  she  said  it, — to  the  fact,  that  is,  that  instead  of  giving 
utterance  to  her  feelings  and  sensations  in  her  ovai  natural  way, 
as  the  blindness  of  Balaam  would  have  prevented  him  from  un- 
derstanding her,  she  spoke  to  him,  through  the  power  of  God, 
in  the  words  of  human  speech  ? 

c.  He  still  further  argues  (p.  383)  that  "  Balaam,  in  the  in- 
troduction to  his  third  and  fourth  prophecies  (chnj).  xxiv.  3,  4, 
15,  16),  designates  liimself  as  the  man  with  closed  (bodily)  eyes, 


412  ISRAEL  IN  THE  ARBOTH  iMOAE. 

who  hears  the  words  of  God,  and  sees  the  visions  of  the  Almighty, 
and  whose  eyes  are  opened  when  he  falls  down  in  a  state  of  jiro- 
phetic  ecstasy.  What  such  a  man,  a  seer  by  profession,  sees  and 
hears  in  his  own  pecidiar  province,  decidedly  presupposes  that 
the  process  is  an  internal  one  ;  and  consequently  those  who  hold 
an  opposite  view  ought  to  bring  forward  the  most  unanswerable 
arguments." — No  doubt  this  is  true,  when  he  falls  down  in  a 
state  of  'pro'phetic  ecstasy.  But,  we  ask,  did  Balaam  fall  down  on 
the  present  occasion  in  a  state  of  prophetic  ecstasy,  before  he  was 
able  to  comprehend  the  words  of  the  ass,  which  could  only  be 
heard  by  the  inward  ear  ?  By  all  means,  what  "  sitcA"  a  man 
experiences  "  in  his  own  peculiar  province^^  that  is,  in  connection 
with  his  own  profession,  when  engaged  in  the  duties  of  liis  avo- 
cation, decidedly  presupposes  that  the  process  is  an  internal  one. 
But,  we  inquire  again,  was  Balaam  performing  the  duties  of  his 
avocation  ?  Was  he  not  doing  the  very  opposite  ?  And  does  it 
follow,  that  because  he  was  a  seer  by  profession,  the  fact  of  his 
seeing  and  hearing  what  the  messengers  of  Balak,  and  after- 
wards Balak  hiinself  said  to  him,  when  engaged  in  the  duties  of 
his  vocation,  decidedly  presupposes  that  the  process  was  an 
internal  one  ? 

d.  "  Finally,"  he  proceeds  to  observe  on  the  same  page, 
"  there  can  be  no  doubt,  that  the  appearance  of  the  angel,  which 
immediately  preceded  the  speaking  of  the  ass,  was  of  an  internal 
character,  though  it  is  no  more  stated  in  the  one  case  than  in  the 
other."  The  arguments  by  which  this  is  established  are,  first, 
that  Balaam  did  not  see  the  angel, — a  fact  which  would  be  in- 
conceivable if  the  phenomenon  had  belonged  to  the  gross,  material 
world ;  and  secondly,  that  the  narrative  states  that  "  God  opened 
the  eyes  of  Balaam," — a  statement  which  cannot  possibly  be 
understood  of  anything  but  the  inward  eye. — Seeing  the  angel, 
then,  and  hearing  the  words  of  the  ass  were  precisely  analogous 
processes, — both  internal,  both  simply  perceptions  of  the  in- 
ward sense,  the  one  a  seeing  with  the  mental  eye,  the  other  a 
hearing  with  the  mental  ear  ?  On  looking  more  closely,  how- 
ever, we  find  that  the  two  things  were  by  no  means  analogous, 
even  in  the  opinion  of  Hengstenberg  himself.  There  was,  in 
fact,  a  very  essential  difference  between  them  (if  the  views  of 
our  opponent  be  correct),  and  one  which  he  himself  cannot  deny, 
namely,  that  the  words  which  Balaam  heard  with  his  inward  ear, 


BALAAM  AND  HIS  PROPHECIES.  413 

as  spoken  by  the  ass,  must  have  been  heard  by  him  alone,  and 
not  by  his  two  servants,  or  the  Moabitish  princes  who  were  with 
him,  and,  as  Hengstenberp;  admits,  must  certainly  have  been 
close  by.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  what  Balaam  saio  w'ith  his 
inward  eye  as  the  angel  of  the  Lord,  w^as  seen  by  another,  as 
the  scri])tm'al  record  expressly  declares,  viz.,  by  the  ass,  who 
actually  saw  it  before  Balaam  himself.  The  words  which  he 
heard,  then,  were  purely  subjective — the  vision  which  he  saw 
was  objective  ?  But  what  is  objective  is  outward  ;  and  there- 
fore the  appearance  of  the  angel  must  also  have  been  outward, 
notwithstanding  the  fact,  that  Balaam  did  not  immediately  per- 
ceive it.  The  fact  that  the  ass  saw  the  angel,  is  somewhat  per- 
plexing to  Hengstenherrj  (p.  385)  ;  but  he  imagines  that  he  has 
succeeded  in  removing  the  difficulty.  In  the  first  place,  he  asserts, 
that  the  ass  did  not  see  the  angel  clearly  and  distinctly — (but  it 
is  stated  in  ver.  23,  that  "  the  ass  saw  the  angel  of  the  Lord 
standing  in  the  way,  and  his  sword  drawn  in  his  hand) — "  for  if 
she  had,  she  would  necessarily  have  told  Balaam  precisely  what 
she  had  seen"  (? !)  ;  and  as  she  did  not  do  this,  she  had  "  evidently 
nothing  but  the  obscure  feeling  of  the  presence  of  something 
formidable  and  terrible." — There  was  something  present  then,  oh- 
jectiveli/  jwesent, — present,  that  is,  not  merely  to  Balaam's  inward, 
spiritual  sense,  but  the  outward,  bodily  senses  of  the  ass  as  well ! 
Ilencjstenberg,  it  is  true,  assiu'es  us,  on  the  strength  of  Passavanf  s 
Animal  Magnetism  (p.  316  sqq.),  that  animals  are  gifted  wuth  the 
so-called  second  sight ;  they  start,  become  uneasy,  shy,  and  refuse 
to  advance,  at  times  when  a  susceptible  man  can  perceive  some- 
thing by  means  of  second  sight.  He  could  have  cited  from 
Kemers  Magihon,  and  (if  we  are  not  mistaken)  from  his  Seherin 
von  Prevorst,  a  number  of  instances,  in  which  animals,  particularly 
domestic  animals,  have  seen  ghosts  or  spectres  quite  as  chstinctly 
as  men  hai^e  done.  But  does  this  affect  the  question  ?  If  the 
facts  really  did  occur — and  we  need  not  enter  into  this  subject 
now — they  merely  prove  that  in  cases  of  second  sight,  and  when 
ghosts  really  have  appeared,  there  has  been  some  external  object, 
by  which  the  senses  in  some  way  or  other  have  been  affected. 

No  doubt  there  must  be  something  peculiar  in  such  appear- 
ances, that  one  man  shoiild  see  them  and  another  not.  And  this 
applies  to  the  appearance  of  the  Maleach  Jehovah  here,  who  was 
seen  by  the  ass,  but  was  not  seen  by  Balaam  till  God  opened  his 


414  ISRAEL  IN  THE  ARBOTH  MOAB. 

eyes.  Ilengstenherg  is  right  in  quoting,  as  explanatory  analogies, 
tlie  New  Testament  occiuTences  mentioned  in  John  xii.  28,  29  ; 
Acts  ix.  7,  and  xxii.  9  ;  but  we  must  dissent  from  the  application 
which  he  has  made  of  these  passages. — According  to  John  xii.,  in 
reply  to  the  prayer  of  Christ,  "  Father,  glorify  Thy  name,"  there 
came  a  voice  from  heaven.  The  people  who  stood  by  heard  this 
voice,  and  thought  it  thundered.  Others  thought  an  angel  had 
spoken  to  Jesus.  But  the  Evangelist  himself  knew  that  the  voice 
had  said,  "  I  have  both  glorified  it,  and  will  also  glorify  it  again." 
At  the  conversion  of  Paul,  as  described  in  Acts  ix.  and  xxii.,  Paul 
himself  is  said  to  have  seen  the  risen  and  exalted  Lord,  in  His 
bodily  form,  and  with  the  majesty  of  His  heavenly  glory,  and 
to  have  understood  the  words  which  He  addressed  to  him ; 
whereas  his  attendants  merely  saw  a  brilliant  light,  without 
discerning  the  outlines  of  a  bodily  form,  and  heard  a  voice,  but 
no  articulate  words.  In  both  these  cases,  as  Hengstenherg  sup- 
poses, it  is  obvious  that  "  in  the  main  the  appearances  belonged 
to  the  province  of  the  inner  sense,  whilst  to  the  outer  senses  there 
was  nothing  but  a  hollow  sound  (or  a  flash  of  light  without  shape  or 
form).  ...  It  was  merely  the  outermost  part  of  the  phenomenon 
which  came  within  the  range  of  the  outward  senses."  In  reply 
to  this,  we  have  only  to  ask  two  very  modest  questions.  If  the 
whole  affair  took  place  within  the  souls  of  Christ  and  Paul,  how 
could  the  bystanders  have  seen  or  heard  even  "  the  outermost 
part  I "  Or  are  we  to  suppose,  that  the  brilliant  light  which  the 
latter  saw,  and  the  sound  of  thunder  which  they  heard,  passed 
outwards  from  the  souls  of  Christ  and  Paul  into  their  eyes  and 
ears  ?  And  if  the  outermost  part  only  of  the  appearance  came 
within  the  range  of  the  senses,  whilst  in  the  main  it  belonged  to 
the  province  of  the  inner  sense,  we  should  like  to  know  what 
was  the  main.  Was  it  not  the  self-conscious,  discriminating 
perception  of  what  was  seen  and  heard  ?  But  even  in  the  case 
of  simple  hearing  and  seeing,  perception  is  never  an  affair 
of  the  bodily  eye  and  ear,  but  always  of  the  inward  eye  and 
ear  of  the  mind.  Therefore  such  inward  experience  is  not 
essentially  different  from  that  which  is  outward.  If  this  be 
clearly  understood,  it  will  not  be  so  difficult  to  explain  the  matter. 
Hengstenherg  is  quite  right  in  saying,  that  "  only  those  who  have 
received  a  certain  amount  of  spiritual  development  perceive 
distinct  words.     Those  who  are  less  advanced  may  certainly  ob- 


BAL-VAM  AND  HIS  PROPHECIES.  415 

serve  the  fact,  that  something  is  said,  but  cannot  tell  what.  The 
great  mass  hear  nothing  but  a  noise,  .  .  .  see  nothingbut  a  light." 
Just  as  the  words  spoken  in  a  foreign  language  are  undei'stood  by 
none  but  those  who  understand  the  language,  and  it  is  to  them 
alone  that  they  convey  intelligent  thoughts  ;  or  just  as  the  lan- 
guage of  a  philosopher  is  intelligible  to  none  but  those  who  have 
received  a  philosophical  training:  so  is  it  with  appearances  from 
the  heavenly  world.  To  understand  them  fully  and  clearly,  it 
is  absolutely  necessary  that  there  should  be  a  mental  fitness,  a 
heavenly  mind,  an  abstraction  from  earthly  pursuits,  and  a  sus- 
ceptibility of  soul  for  Divine  operations.  Whoever  is  destitute  of 
all  this,  and  is  bound  up  in  low,  w^orldly  pursuits,  the  slave  of 
covetousness,  ambition,  love  of  pleasure,  and  other  such  things, 
either  perceives  nothing  at  all  of  the  heavenly  vision,  or  receives 
nothing  but  an  indistinct  impression.  The  former  Avas  the  case 
with  Balaam.  He  was  thinldng  of  Balak's  treasures,  consider- 
ing how  he  could  make  sm-e  of  tliem.  At  the  moment,  therefore, 
he  had  no  mind  for  anything  higher  than  this,  and  with  his  eyes 
wide  open  was  dreaming  of  Balak's  glory  and  gold.  It  was  not 
till  he  was  drawn  away  by  force  from  this  dreamy  state,  and  his 
thoughts  and  reflections  were  violently  torn  away  from  the 
earthly  objects  in  wdiich  they  w^ere  fettered,  and  turned  to  higher 
and  heavenly  things,  not  till  "  God  opened  his  eyes,"  that  he  per- 
ceived the  heavenly  appearance,  which  was  already  there.  He 
saio  it  with  the  outward  eye,  but  he  perceived  it  with  the  eye  of 
his  mind  ;  for  the  eye  of  the  mind  is  reached  through  that  of  the 
body. 

Such  are  the  arguments  with  which  Hengstenherg  supports  his 
own  opinion.  We  will  now  proceed  to  the  objections  which  he 
offers  to  our  opinion,  and  the  arguments  by  which  it  may  be  de- 
fended. 

e.  "  There  would  be  7io  meaning  whatever,"  he  says,  "  in  the 
fact  of  an  ass  speaking.  The  point  of  real  importance  was 
what  was  said, — not  the  mere  fact  of  its  being  said  by  the  ass. 
It  was  not  the  latter,  but  the  former,  which  put  Balaam  to  shame. 
And  the  substance  of  the  address  remains  the  same,  even  if  the 
affair  is  regarded  as  pm^ely  inward." — Hengstenherg  looks  upon 
the  speech  of  the  ass  as  a  message  from  God  to  Balaam.  This 
is  a  thoroughly  mistaken  notion,  as  we  have  already  shown  under 
letter  h.     Her  words  were  simply  an  utterance  of  animal  feelings 


416  ISKAEL  IN  THE  ARBOTH  MOAB. 

and  emotions.  We  should  be  glad  if  Hengstenberg  would  tell  us, 
where  the  divine  elements  of  the  speech  are  to  be  found.  If  he 
cannot  do  this, — and  he  certainly  cannot, — he  must  then  admit, 
that  the  point  of  chief  and  primary  importance  was  the  fact  of 
its  speaking ,  and  not  ivhat  it  said.  The  ass  had  already  by  its 
actions  given  expression  to  just  the  same  feelings  as  it  now 
uttered  in  words  ;  and  it  had  done  this  in  so  unmistakeable  a 
manner,  that  any  thoughtful  rider,  unless  absorbed  like  Balaam 
in  other  thoughts,  might  and  would  have  gathered  quite  as  much 
from  her  actions,  as  she  afterwards  expressed  in  words,  when 
God  had  opened  her  mouth. — Hengstefiherg  saw  that  the  design  of 
the  whole  occurrence  was  to  put  Balaam  to  shame.  "  The  affair 
with  the  ass,"  he  says,  "  was  necessary  to  startle  him,  put  him  to 
shame,  scatter  the  mists  of  passion,  and  open  his  mind  to  Divine 
impressions."  If  his  thoughts  and  meditations  had  not  been 
engrossed  to  so  great  an  extent  by  discordant  and  ungodly  ob- 
jects, if  his  heart  had  not  been  enslaved  and  blinded  bj-  avarice 
and  ambition,  he  would  have  seen  the  angel  as  soon  as  he  stood 
in  the  way,  and  the  occurrence  with  the  ass  would  never  have 
taken  place.  But  Balaam'  did  not  see  the  majestic,  threatening 
appearance,  though  it  was  visible  enough  to  the  ass.  Yet  the 
conduct  of  the  ass,  which  backed,  shied,  and  eventually  fell  to 
the  ground,  might  and  ought  to  have  led  him  to  the  conclusion, 
that  there  was  some  outward  cause  for  its  acting  in  a  refractory 
manner,  such  as  he  had  never  seen  before.  And  as  a  seer, 
travelling  by  such  a  road,  engaged  in  such  a  calling,  and  after 
such  antecedents,  he  might  well  have  surmised,  or  rather  have 
assumed  with  certainty,  that  there  was  some  unearthly  power  or 
apparition  in  the  way.  The  fact  that  the  ass  saw  what  he,  a 
seer,  could  not  see, — this  was  the  som'ce  of  shame,  which  was  to 
scatter  the  mists  of  his  passion,  and  open  his  mind  to  Divine  im- 
pressions. If  he  had  paid  attention  to  her  whole  conduct  (tm-n- 
ing  aside,  then  backing,  and  ultimately  falling  to  the  ground), 
and  had  reflected  upon  it  till  he  could  understand  it;  this  would 
have  been  quite  sufficient,  and  there  would  have  been  no  ne- 
cessity at  all  for  the  ass  to  speak.  But  he  was  too  deeply  sunk 
in  thoughts  at  variance  with  his  calling,  too  beclouded  by  passion, 
for  this.  It  was  necessary,  therefore,  that  he  should  receive  a 
more  powerful  shock,  before  his  gift  as  a  seer  could  be  awakened 
out  of  sleep,  and  his  consciousness  aroused  from  the  dreamy  state 


BALAAM  AND  HIS  PROPHECIES.  417 

into  Avhich  it  had  fallen.  And  when  natural  resources  failed,  the 
effect  of  miracles  must  be  tried.  By  the  power  of  God,  there- 
fore, the  complaint  of  the  ass,  which  had  hitherto  found  utterance 
in  its  actions  alone,  was  now  expressed  in  the  complaining  tones 
of  a  human  voice.  And  a  phenomenon,  so  unnatural  and  un- 
heard-of as  this,  eventually  roused  the  seer  from  his  lethargy, 
startled  him,  recalled  him  to  self-consciousness,  scattered  the 
mists  of  passion,  and  opened  his  mind  to  impressions  from  the 
divine  objects  by  which  he  was  surrounded. 

/.  "What  rider,"  says  Tholuck,  p.  410,  "would  sit  quiet,  if 
his  beast  should  really  utter  such  a  complaint,  and  would  not 
leap  off  and  cry  for  help,  rather  than  stop  to  give  it  an  intelli- 
gent answer?"  Hengstenberg  also  says  (p.  386),  "The  advo- 
cates of  the  external  view  have  always  been  greatly  perplexed 
by  the  fact,  that  Balaam  expressed  no  astonishment  at  the 
circumstance  of  an  ass  speaking." — We  cannot  admit,  however, 
that  this  has  caused  us  any  very  great  perplexity.  For,  as 
Hengstenberg  himself  acknowledges,  there  is  not  much  force  in 
an  argumentum  e  silentio.  This  may  all  have  taken  place,  and 
yet  there  may  have  been  no  necessity  for  expressly  mentioning 
it  in  the  Biblical  account.  Hengstenberg,  however,  is  of  opinion, 
that  the  supposition  that  he  was  at  all  astonished  is  precluded  by 
Balaam's  first  reply  in  ver.  29  (to  the  question.  What  have  I 
done  unto  thee,  that  thou  hast  smitten  me  these  three  times  1 
Balaam  replies,  "  Because  thou  hast  mocked  me  :  I  would  there 
were  a  sword  in  mine  hand,  for  now  would  I  kill  thee  ").  We 
certainly  cannot  see  that  the  supposition  that  he  had  been 
astonished  before,  or  was  astonished  at  the  time,  is  absolutely 
precluded  by  this  reply.  Moreover,  we  would  call  attention 
to  the  fact,  that  the  reply  was  an  utterance  of  passionate  and 
inconsiderate  wrath  and  excitement,  which  may  have  restrained 
his  astonishment  within  narrower  bounds. 

g.  Another  argument  of  Hengstenberg' s  is  this: — "There 
were  two  servants  with  Balaam  (ver.  22),  as  well  as  the 
Moabitish  messengers  (vers.  20,  21,  35).  Now,  if  the  events 
which  occurred  had  been  really  of  an  outward  character,  they 
would  certainly  have  been  eye-witnesses  of  the  whole. 
But  it  is  remarkable  that  the  feeling  of  the  advocates  of  the 
external  view  is  decidedly  opposed  to  such  a  supposition,  though 
they  have  failed  to  discover  the  reason  why  it  is  actually  ini- 
»      VOL.  III.  2  D 


418  ISRAEL  IN  THE  ARBOTH  MOAB. 

possible  (?  !),  namely,  because  the  Moabitisli  messengers  could 
not  have  the  least  idea  of  what  was  taldng  place." — To  this  we 
reply:  (1.)  That  it  by  no  means  so  clearly  proved,  as  Hengsten- 
herg  supposes,  that  the  ISIoabitish  messengers  were  present  at  the 
time.  It  is  true,  the  idea  which  immediately  suggests  itself, — 
viz.,  that  as  soon  as  they  approached  the  Moabitish  territory, 
the  messengers  hastened  forward  to  inform  Balak  that  the  ex- 
pected magician  was  on  the  way, — is  apparently  precluded  by 
ver.  35,  where  we  read,  "  The  angel  said  unto  Balaam,  Go  with 
the  men;  .  .  soBalaam  went  with  the  princes  of  Balak;"  although 
it  is  evidently  favoured  by  ver.  36,  which  states,  that  "  Balak 
went  out  to  meet  him  vinto  a  city  of  Moab."  But  ver.  22 
renders  it  probable  that,  from  some  cause  or  other,  they  were 
not  present.  For  the  express  statement,  that  Balaam's  two 
servants  were  with  him,  is  apparently  equivalent  to  saying  that 
no  one  else  was  with  him  at  the  time.  And  it  is  certainly  not  an 
unlikely  thing,  that  Balaam  and  his  two  servants  may  have  gone 
a  little  way  ahead  of  the  main  body,  or  may  have  remained  a 
little  behind;  and,  in  such  a  road  as  this  (in  the  midst  of  the  vine- 
yards), with  its  windings,  corners,  and  passes,  the  distance  would 
not  require  to  be  very  great,  for  all  that  occm^red  to  be  hidden  from 
the  messengers  of  Balak. — (2.)  Even  supposing  that  the  mes- 
sengers were  present,  as  well  as  Balaam's  servants,  though  they 
would  no  doubt  hear  what  the  ass  said,  yet  there  was  not  any- 
thing in  what  she  said  "  of  which  it  was  necessary  that  they 
should  not  have  the  least  suspicion  ;"  and,  so  far  as  seeing  the 
angel  and  hearing  his  words  were  concerned,  it  may  possibly 
have  been  the  same  with  them  as  it  was  with  the  persons  re- 
ferred to  in  John  xii.  28,  29 ;  Acts  ix.  7,  and  xxii.  9  (see  above, 
under  letter  f/).— (3.)  And  lastly,  granting  that  Balak's  messen- 
gers were  not  only  present,  and  heard  the  ass  speak,  but  saw  the 
form  of  the  angel,  and  heard  what  he  said,  even  this  would  not 
disconcert  us  in  the  least.  On  the  receipt  of  the  very  first 
message,  Balaam  said  to  the  messengers  (ver.  13),  "  Get  you 
into  your  own  land,  for  Jehovah  refuseth  to  give  me  leave  to 
go  with  you  ;"  but  notwithstanding  this,  Balak  persisted  in  his 
desire,  and  in  the  hope  of  seeing  it  fulfilled.  If  there  were  any 
force  in  the  argument,  that  his  ambassadors  ought  not  to  have 
had  the  least  suspicion  of  what  took  place  upon  the  road,  Balaam 
ought  not  to  have  said  to  the  first  messengers,  "  Get  you  into 


BALAAM  AND  HIS  PROPHECIES.  419 

vour  own  land,  for  Jehovah  rcfuseth  to  ffive  me  leave  to  "o 
with  you  ;"  and  after  his  arrival  in  the  countiy  of  the  Moabites, 
he  ou<j;lit  not  to  have  spoken  to  Ixilak  in  a  doubting  tone,  as  he  is 
said  to  have  done  in  ver.  38,  where  the  very  words  are  repeated, 
which  the  angel  had  addressed  to  him  by  the  way  :  "  The  word 
that  God  putteth  into  my  mouth,  tliat  shall  I  speak."  It  had 
not  been  expressly  and  unconditionally  declared  to  him,  that  he 
would  only  be  permitted  to  bless,  and  not  to  curse.  He  was 
merely  told  that  he  would  have  to  speak  the  words  that  Jehovah 
commanded  him.  Upon  this  ambiguity  in  the  words  of  Jehovah, 
the  heathen  minds  of  Balaam  and  Balak  could  always  found  the 
hope,  that  after  all  they  might  possibly  succeed  in  their  designs. 
And  they  could  easily  construe  the  gradual  change  in  the 
answers  received  from  Jehovah,  from  the  first  absolute  proliihi- 
tion  (ver.  12)  to  a  conditional  permission  to  go  (ver.  20),  and 
then  again  to  a  command  to  go  (a  conditional  one,  no  doubt, 
but  with  the  conditions  expressed  in  a  very  ambiguous  form), 
into  a  constantly  increasing  connivance  on  the  part  of  Jehovah, 
from  which  more  might  still  be  expected..  It  might,  indeed,  be 
thought  that  it  was  a  necessary  thing  for  Balak' s  messengers  to 
be  eye-witnesses  of  these  occurrences,  that  it  was  important  and 
essential  to  the  further  development  of  the  drama — ^essential  for 
Balak — to  convince  him  more  strongly  of  the  futility  of  his 
undertaking,  and,  if  he  was  still  open  to  instruction,  to  induce 
him  to  desist  from  his  perverse  attempt. 

A.  Lastly,  Hengstenherg  argues  (p.  387),  that  "  the  speaking 
of  the  ass,  when  transferred  into  the  province  of  external  reality, 
appears  to  disturb  the  eternal  laws  which  are  laid  down  in  Gen. 
i.,  and  which  establish  the  boundary  between  the  human  and 
the  brute  creation."  We  will  not  cite  the  example  of  the 
serpent's  speaking  in  Paradise ;  for  that  would  no  doubt  be  ex- 
plained away  by  our  author  as  an  interiial  process,  or  something 
of  the  kind.  Nor  will  we  adopt  Jhumgarten  s  reply  (p.  359)  : 
"  This  is  the  argument  employed  by  those  who  deny  the  possi- 
bility of  a  miracle ;  for  if  there  ai'e  eternal  boundaries  fixed  in 
creation  which  cannot  possibly  be  passed,  no  miracle  can  ever 
take  place."  I/engstenberg  certainly  did  not  mean  anything  so 
bad  as  this ;  and  we  regard  it  as  luigenerous  to  twist  the  words 
of  an  opponent,  which  were  no  doubt  spoken  incautiously,  in 
such  a  way  as  this,  just  because  they  were  not  sufliciently  ex- 


420  ISRAEL  IN  THE  ARBOTH  IMOAB. 

plained  and  defended.  There  are  limits  laid  do-v\Ti  in  Gen.  i. 
(in  tliis  Ave  agree  with  Hengstenberg  and  not  with  Baumgarten), 
which  no  miracle  ever  will  or  can  set  aside.  We  should  imagine 
that  Baumgarten  himself  would  admit  that  Ovid's  Metamorphoses 
are  inconceivable,  even  with  the  firmest  belief  in  miracles,  within 
the  range  of  sacred  history. — There  must  be  limits,  therefore, 
which  miracles  cannot  break  through,  just  because  God,  from 
whom  the  power  of  working  miracles  comes,  and  who  has 
determined  these  limits,  never  will  allow  them  to  be  broken 
down.  The  limit,  it  appears  to  us,  may  be  easily  pointed  out. 
It  is  the  line,  which  is  drawn  between  nature  and  spirit,  be- 
tween the  free,  personal  creature,  and  the  impersonal,  which  has 
not  been  endowed  with  freedom.  This  line  God  will  not,  and 
cannot  disturb.  For  example.  He  can  never  will  to  change  a 
beast  into  a  man,  or  a  man  into  a  beast.  In  the  province  of 
nature  His  interference  is  absolute  ;  but  where  a  created  spirit 
is  concerned,  it  is  regulated  by  certain  conditions :  for  He  has 
created  man  in  His  own  image, —  has  endowed  him  with  free- 
dom and  personality,  which  have  been  denied  to  all  other  earthly 
creatvires.  And  because  He  has  willed  that  man  should  be  free. 
He  has  regard  to  the  liberty,  though  in  a  fallen,  rebellious,  and 
even  hardened  man.  And  because  God  has  willed  that  the 
beast  should  be  a  beast,  and  the  plant  a  plant.  He  will  and 
must  also  will  that  they  should  remain  what  He  made  them,  for 
otherwise  He  would  contradict  Himself.  A  miracle,  therefore, 
of  which  any  creature  is  the  medium,  will  of  necessity  be  kept 
within  the  limits  that  circumscribe  the  creature  itself ;  in  other 
words,  it  will  never  take  a  creature  out  of  its  own  sphere,  and 
transfer  it  to  the  sphere  of  another,  essentially  different  from 
itself.  And  if  the  ass's  speaking  broke  through  these  limits,  we 
should  certainly  give  our  support  to  Hengstenberg.  But  this  is 
just  what  we  deny.  We  shall  be  told,  perhaps,  that  the  gift  of 
speech  is  one  of  the  most  essential  characteristics  of  hmnanity. 
But  not  speech  as  a  mere  form,  not  the  ability  to  give  utterance  to 
certain  articulate  tones  by  means  of  the  organs  of  speech  ;  but 
the  material  elements  of  speech — viz.,  that  the  words  are  utter- 
ances of  the  mind,  vehicles  of  thought, — this  is  the  essential  cha- 
racteristic of  humanity.  Experience  has  proved  that  many 
animals — for  example,  parrots,  magpies,  etc.,  and  even  some 
quadrupeds — may  be  trained  to  utter  words  of  human  language. 


BALAAM  AND  HIS  PROPHECIES.  421 

But  the  gift  of  speech,  so  far  as  it  distinguishes  man  from  Least, 
is  as  remote  and  foreign  as  it  was  before.     If,  then,  when  lan- 
eruao-e  is  referred  to,  as  one  of  the  features  which  distinguish 
man  from  the  rest  of  the  animal  creation,  it  is  not  the  mere  words, 
])ut  the  entire  substance  of  speech  ;  then  a  miracle,  which  puts 
the  words  of  human  speech  into  the  mouth  of  an  animal,  does 
not  transgress  the  limits  which  separate  the  two,  provided  the 
meaning  of  the  words  is  still  beyond  the  comprehension  of  the 
animal  that  utters  them.     If  Balaam's  ass,  to  come  back  to  the 
case  before  us,  had  received  the  commission  which  was  entrusted 
to  the  angel  of  the  Lord ;  if  it  had  been  the  ass  which  heaped 
reproaches  upon  Balaam,  for  resisting  the  will  of  God  from  ava- 
rice and  ambition,  and  for  setting  out  with  the  desire  to  curse, 
where  he  should  only  bless,  it  might,  indeed,  have  been  justly- 
said  that  the  limits  set  by  Gen.  i.  had  been  overstept.     But 
there  is  not  the  least  trace  of  this  in  the  words  of  the  ass  (see 
above,    under  letter  b).      All  that  it  said,  was  nothing  more 
than  an  expression  of  feelings,  in  accordance  with  the  nature 
given  to  it  at  the  first.     Even  an  animal  has  a  soul ;  even  an 
animal  has  sensations  and  emotions,  and  (at  least  in  the  higher 
stages  of  animal  existence)  has  a  sense  of   right  and  wrong 
within  its  proper  sphere.      It  can  also  give  utterance  to  these 
sensations  and  emotions,  though  only  imperfectly,  by  peculiar 
actions,  and  by  certain  modulations  of  its  animal  voice.     What 
the  ass  said  in  the  case  before  us,  was  not  a  revelation  of  God  to 
Balaam,  but  a  declaration  made  by  the  animal   itself.     There 
was  nothing  pneumatical  in  what  it  said,  it  was  purely  psychical. 
When  the  ass,  urged  forwards  on  the  one  hand  by  Balaam,  who 
continued  to  strike  it  in  a  most  irrational  manner,  and  kept  back 
on  the  other  hand  by  the  drawn  sword  of  the  angel,  gave  utter- 
ance to  its  emotions,  to  its  terror  and  pain,  and  to  the  feeling  of 
injustice,  both  by  its  actions  and  voice  ;  this  was  undoubtedly 
the  result  of  a  purely  animal  impulse.     But  when  such  modu- 
lations were  given  to  this  animal  voice,   that  they  fell  upon 
Balaam's  ears  as  words  of  lunuan  speech;  this  was  the  result 
of  an  immediate  interposition  on  the  part  of  God, — in  other 
words,  it  was  a  miracle. 

In  attempting  to  demonstrate  the  necessity  for  regarding  the 
occurrence  as  an  outward  one,  we  may  be  somewhat  more  biief 
after  what  has  already  been  said. 


422  ISRAEL  IN  THE  ARBOTH  MOAB. 

In  the  first  place,  there  is  not  the  slightest  indication  of 
Balaam  having  fallen  into  a  state  of  ecstasy.  We  have  already 
shown  (under  letter  d)  that  this  interpretation  cannot  be  given 
to  the  words,  "  God  opened  the  eyes  of  Balaam."  And  even  if 
such  an  interpretation  were  the  correct  one,  and  the  words 
really  did  denote,  as  Hengstenherg  supposes,  an  opening  of  the 
inward  eye,  and  a  consequent  closing  of  the  outward,  we  should 
be  compelled  to  regard  the  affair  with  the  ass  as  an  outward 
one;  for  we  should  then  have  an  express  statement  in  the  narra- 
tive itself,  to  the  effect  that  the  ass  spoke  before  the  ecstasy  com- 
menced. Or  will  any  one  suggest,  perhaps,  that  although  Balaam 
was  thrown  into  a  state  of  ecstasy,  in  order  that  he  might  hear 
the  ass  speak,  it  was  nevertheless  also  necessary  that  he  should 
be  thrown  again  into  a  peculiar  condition,  to  enable  him  to  see 
and  hear  the  angel "?  The  outward  senses  are  five  in  number, 
they  are  distinct  the  one  from  the  other,  and  may  therefore  be 
opened  separately.  But  the  inward  sense  is  so  purely  one,  that 
if  it  be  opened  for  hearing,  it  is  also  eo  ipso  opened  for  seeing 
as  well.  And  why  does  not  the  narrative  state  that  God  opened 
his  ears,  as  it  afterwards  mentions  that  God  opened  his  eyes  *? 

Secondly.  The  words  of  ver.  28,  "  Then  Jehovah  opened  the 
mouth  of  the  ass,^'  irresistibly  compel  us  to  the  conclusion,  that 
it  was  the  ass  which  was  the  object  of  the  Divine  operations ; 
whereas,  according  to  Hengstenherg,  God  did  not  operate  upon 
the  ass  at  all,  but  simply  and  solely  ujjon  the  mind  of  Balaam. 
It  manifests  extraordinary  self-delusion  on  the  part  of  Hengsten- 
herg, that  he  should  imagine  that  this  argument  can  be  set  aside 
by  simply  replying  that,  "  although  the  words  represent  the 
result  as  produced  by  the  power  of  God,  they  do  not  inform  us 
how  it  was  produced,  and  whether  it  affected  the  inward  or  the 
outward  sense." — But  the  passage  does  not  contain  a  single 
allusion  to  any  effect  produced  upon  the  ear  of  Balaam  (either 
inward  or  outward),  it  refers  exclusively  to  the  mouth  of  the 
ass. — The  words  of  2  Pet.  ii.  15,  16,  are  still  more  precise  and 
conclusive.  "  Balaam,  the  son  of  Bosor,"  he  says,  "  loved  the 
wages  of  unrighteousness,  but  was  rebuked  for  his  iniquity  ;•  the 
dumb  ass,  speaking  icith  mans  voice,  forbade  the  madness  of  the 
prophet." — The  prophet,  it  is  true,  was  rebuked  (put  to  shame), 
not  so  much  by  the  ass's  speaking,  as  by  the  fact  that  an  irra- 
tional animal  should  see  what  was  hidden  from  so  gifted  a  seer. 


BALA^VM  AND  HIS  PROPHECIES.  423 

just  because  lie  was  degraded  by  his  passion  below  the  level  of 
the  brute.  But  it  was  from  the  fact  of  its  speaking,  that 
Balaam  fii*st  became  conscious  that  it  had  actually  seen ;  and 
therefore  it  was  really  its  speaking  which  put  him  to  shame. 

Thirdly,  as  the  ass  itself  was  visible  as  an  outward  and 
corporeal  object,  its  words  must  have  been  audible  as  something 
also  external.^ 


*  Balaam's  speaking  ass  is  a  convincing  proof,  according  to  Daumer  (der 
Feuer-  und  Molochsdienst  der  alten  Hebrder.  Brunswick  1842,  p.  136 
sqq.)^  that  Balaam  was  a  priest  of  the  Baccho-Priapian  ass-worship  of  Baal- 
Peor.  It  was  of  course  a  falsification  of  a  later  date,  which  led  to  his  being 
introduced  in  tlie  passage  before  us  as  a  prophet  of  the  Moloch- Jehovah.  That 
this  ass-worship,  which  enhsts  Daumer's  undivided  sympathy,  prevailed  in 
Israel  along  with  the  old  orthodox  cannibal  form  of  Moloch-worship,  may  be 
proved,  in  Daumer's  opinion,  from  the  statements  of  classical  writers,  who 
affirm  that  when  the  Jews  were  in  the  desert,  and  were  on  the  point  of 
perishing  from  exhaustion,  they  were  led  by  a  troop  of  wild  asses  to  some 
copious  springs  of  water ;  in  commemoration  of  which  event,  the  image  of 
an  ass  was  set  up  in  the  temple  as  an  object  of  worsliip  (^oid.  Tacitus,  Hist. 
5,  3  ;  Plut.  Symp.  4,  5).  It  is  apparent,  however,  he  maintains,  from  the 
account  before  us,  that  it  was  Balaam  who  introduced  this  ass-worship  into 
Israel  (particularly  from  chap,  xxv.,  as  compared  witli  chap.  xxxi.  16). 
Though  constantly  persecuted  by  the  supjjorters  of  the  iloloch- Jehovah  wor- 
ship, and  suppressed  by  the  most  cruel  means  {dd.  Num.  xxiv.  7  sqq.^  xxxi.  1 
sqq.)^  this  form  of  worship  was  maintained  till  the  time  of  Christ,  with  whose 
history  the  legends  have  interwoven  elements  taken  from  both  forms,  though 
with  a  most  decided  preponderance  of  the  Moloch-worship  with  its  human  sacri- 
fices. In  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  especially,  which  was  a  primitive  Canaan- 
itish  festival  of  the  ass,  associated  with  Bacchic  and  Phallian  pleasures,  we 
find  a  relic  of  tliis  ancient  worship.  Daumer  has  a  great  deal  to  say  in 
favour  of  this  Priapian  ass-worship.  According  to  his  account  (p.  144),  it 
was  of  an  intensely  speculative  character,  pervaded  by  a  spirit  of  mildness 
and  humanity,  which  did  it  the  greatest  honour,  so  that  even  Christianity 
itself  would  not  be  disgraced  by  a  comparison  with  it.  "  It  was  perfectly 
harmless,  very  gentle,  and  free  from  cruelty.  .  .  .  Its  god  was  a  god  of 
light,  of  water,  of  wine,  of  Bacchic  and  Phallian  pleasures,  of  what'>;ver  would 
support  and  excite  the  most  unbridled  hilarity.  Christianity,  unhappily,  has 
taken  most  from  the  gloomy,  unfriendly,  and  cruel  form  of  Moloch-worship. 
The  unnatural  elements  of  Moloch-worship  predominate,  and  the  necessity 
for  human  sacrifice  has  been  made  the  very  centre  of  the  Christian  religion ; 
whereas  tlie  beautiful,  intelligent,  deeply  speculative  and  humane  ass-worship, 
with  its  apotheosis  of  fleshly  desires,  has  been  thmst  into  the  background,  and 
appears  at  tlic  most  not  more  than  once,  viz.^  in  the  truly  Bacchic  conduct 
of  Christ  at  the  marriage-feast  at  Cana  (John  ii.)" — We  congratulate  Young 
Germany  on  the  antiquity  of  its  family. 


424  ISRAEL  IN  THE  AEBOTH  MOAB. 

(2.)  The  behaviour  of  Jehovah  towards  Balaam  has  been 
sometimes  regarded  as  extremely  sm'prising.  "  The  unchange- 
able God,"  says  Hartmann  (p.  499),  "  one  day  forbids  Balaam 
to  go  with  the  people  (ver.  12),  and  the  next  day  alters  His  mind, 
and  commands  him  to  undertake  the  journey  in  their  company 
(ver.  20).  And  then,  when  Balaam  has  set  out  upon  the  road, 
the  anger  of  Jehovah  is  kindled  against  him  (ver.  22).  But 
directly  Balaam,  who  is  overpowered  by  so  inexplicable  a  phe- 
nomenon, offers  to  return,  he  is  met  by  the  answer,  '  No,  thou 
shalt  go  with  the  people.' " 

To  this  Hengstenberg  very  properly  replies  :  "  It  is  apparent, 
at  the  very  outset,  that  the  argument  is  based  upon  a  misunder- 
standing. The  very  name  Jehovah  ('  I  am  that  I  am,'  Ex.  iii. 
14)  is  a  sufficient  pledge,  that  it  could  never  have  entered  into 
the  mind  of  an  Israelite,  to  attribute  such  childish  fickleness  to 
God.  Aiid  Balaam  himself  says  immediately  afterwards  (chap, 
xxiii.  19),  '  God  is  not  a  man,  that  He  should  lie ;  neither  the  son 
of  man,  that  He  should  repent.  Hath  He  said,  and  shall  He 
not  do  it?  or  hath  He  spoken,  and  shall  He  not  make  it 
good?'" 

On  the  receipt  of  the  first  message,  the  only  question  was, 
should  he  go  for  the  express  purpose  of  cursing?  This  was 
forbidden ;  and  the  prohibition  was  never  recalled.  When  the 
second  message  came,  he  received  permission  to  go,  but  only  on 
condition  that  he  went  to  say  what  God  commanded.  This  was 
a  step  in  advance  in  the  conduct  of  Jehovah  towards  Balaam, 
which  was  regulated  according  to  the  conduct  of  Balaam  him- 
self, but  it  was  not  an  inconsistency.  From  the  very  beginning 
it  was  the  will  of  God,  that  Balaam  should  either  not  go  at  all, 
or  that  he  should  go  to  discoiu'age  Moab  and  inspirit  Israel  by 
what  he  said,  and  by  both  to  glorify  Israel's  God.  But  as  such 
going  as  this  would  necessarily  bring  Balaam  loss  and  disgrace, 
instead  of  glory  and  gain,  God  did  not  demand  it  of  him.  He 
merely  lorohibited  his  going  as  he  desired,  namely,  unfettered  by 
any  conditions,  to  do  whatever  Balak  might  require.  When 
the  second  message  came,  if  Balaam's  heart  had  not  been  cor- 
rupt, he  would  not  have  asked  permission  again,  before  giving  a 
reply.  This  was  what  he  did,  however ;  for  he  would  have  been 
only  too  glad  to  obtain  the  reward.  This  time  God  permitted 
him  to  go,  but  conditionally:  he  was  to  say  whatever  God  com- 


Balaam's  prophecies.  425 

manded  him ;  and,  on  unbiassed  reflection,  lie  might  at  once 
have  concluded  that  the  words  put  into  his  mouth  would  be 
words  of  blessing  and  not  of  cursing.  Balaam's  sinful  desires 
■were  certainly  not  satisfied  by  a  conditional  permission  of  this 
kind;  but  he  thought  that  if  he  could  once  obtain  permission  to 
ffo,  the  rest  would  folloAv  in  due  time.  And  he  set  out  with  the 
wish  and  intention  to  curse  and  not  to  bless.  It  was  on  this 
account  that  the  wrath  of  God  was  kindled  against  him,  and  He 
met  him  with  reproof.  Balaam  now  replied,  yielding  with  half 
a  heart,  that  he  would  go  back  again ;  but  God  commanded  him 
to  go  forward,  and  bless  the  Israelites.  Balaam  wanted  to  use 
God  merely  as  the  means  of  fm'thering  his  own  designs;  and,  as 
a  punishment,  he  was  now  to  be  compelled  to  further  the  designs 
of  God.  Though  even  now  his  position  was  not  altogether  a 
hopeless  one.  He  ivas  obliged  to  submit,  it  is  true,  to  further  the 
designs  of  God;  but  he  might  still  have  done  this  of  his  own  free 
will.  He  was  ohl'ujed  to  do  what  would  bring  him  nothing  but 
anger  and  scorn  from  theMoabites,  instead  of  gold  and  renown; 
but  he  might  still  have  done  it  in  such  a  manner,  that  it  would 
bring  him  honour  and  favour  from  God.  Bless  he  must ;  but 
everything  depended  upon  whether  he  did  this  with  willingness 
and  pleasure,  \\\i\\  a  ready  mind  and  cheerful  obedience,  or 
merely  with  reluctance  and  of  constraint  (yid.  Hengstenberg,  Pen- 
tateuch, vol.  ii.,  pp.  385-487,  and  Balaam,  p.  373  sqq,). 

baLjVAm's  prophecies. 

§  56.  (Num.  xxii.  36-xxiii.  24.)— To  do  all  honour  to  the 
seer,  Balak  went  to  the  very  borders  of  his  kingdom  to  meet 
him.  But  Balaam  somewhat  damped  the  pleasure  caused  by 
his  arrival,  by  distinctly  telling  him  that  he  could  only  speak  the 
word  which  Jehovah  put  into  his  mouth.  He  knew  that  it  vvas 
possible,  or  rather  probable,  that  the  issue  might  be  altogether 
at  variance  with  the  expectations  of  the  king,  and  he  thought  it 
advisable  to  prepare  his  mind.  The  next  morning  they  both 
proceeded  to  the  wox'k  in  hand.  Balak  conducted  the  seer  to 
the  Heights  of  Baal  (Bamoth  Baal),  from  which  he  could  see 
the  whole    camp  of  Israel    to  its  utmost  extremity  (1).      By 


426  ISRAEL  IN  THE  AEBOTII  MOAB. 

Balaam's  direction  seven  altars  were  erected,  and  npon  eveiy 
one  of  them  there  were  offered,  not  only  by  Balaam  himself,  but 
by  Balak  also,  a  bullock  and  a  ram,  to  secure  the  favoiu'  of  Je- 
hovah and  incline  Him  to  prosper  their  undertaking.  Balaam 
then  went  aside  to  a  hill,  that  he  might  prepare  himself  for 
prophesying,  in  heathen  fashion,  by  means  of  auguries  (2). 
On  his  retm'n,  he  gave  utterance  to  the  following  words,  which 
Jehovah  had  put  into  his  mouth  : 

(Ver.  7.)  Balat  sent  for  me  from  Aram, 

The  king  of  Moab  from  the  mountains  of  the  east : 

"  Come,  curse  me  Jacob, 

And  come,  defy  Israel !" 
(Ver.  8.)  But  how  shall  I  curse,  whom  God  hath  not  cursed, 

And  how  defy,  whom  Jehovah  hath  not  defied  ? 
(Ver.  9.)  For  from  the  top  of  the  rocks  I  see  him, 

And  from  the  hills  I  behold  him  : 

Behold,  it  is  a  peo^^le,  dwelling  apart. 

Not  reckoning  itself  among  the  heathen. 
(Ver.  10.)  Who  tells  the  dust  of  Jacob, 

And  the  fourth  part  of  Israel  by  number  ? 

Let  me  die  the  death  of  the  righteous. 

And  let  my  last  end  be  like  his!  (3). 

Balak  was  highly  incensed,  that  his  enemies  should  be  blessed 
instead  of  cursed,  but  comforted  himself  with  the  hope,  that 
possibly  the  unfavourable  nature  of  the  place  itself  might  be  to 
blame.  He  took  the  seer  therefore  to  the  field  of  the  icatchers, 
upon  the  top  of  Pisgah,  from  which  only  a  small  portion  of  the 
camp  coidd  be  seen  (1).  The  same  preparations  were  made  as 
upon  the  heights  of  Baal,  after  which  Balaam  spoke  as  follows  : 

(Ver.  18.)  Rise  iip,  Balak,  and  hear ! 

Hearken  to  me,  0  son  of  Zippor  ! 
(Ver.  19.)  God  is  not  a  man,  that  He  should  lie ; 

Neither  the  son  of  man,  that  He  should  repent : 

Should  He  say,  and  not  do  it  ? 

Should  He  speak,  and  not  carry  it  out  ? 
(Ver.  20.)  Behold,  I  have  received  words  of  blessing  : 

He  hath  blessed,  and  I  cannot  reverse  it, 
(Ver.  21.)  He  beholdeth  not  iniquity  in  Jacob, 

And  seeth  no  wrong  in  Israel : 

Jehovah,  his  God,  is  with  him, 

And  the  shout  of  a  king  is  in  tlie  midst  of  him  (3).  -»- 


Balaam's  prophecies.  427 

(Ver.  22.)  God  brought  them  out  of  Egypt : 

Their  strength  is  like  that  of  a  buffalo. 
(Ver.  23.)  For  there  is  no  augury  in  Jacob, 

And  no  divination  in  Israel : 

At  the  time  is  told  to  Jacob, 

And  to  Israel,  what  God  pcrformeth. 
(Ver.  2-i.)  Behold,  the  people  riseth,  like  the  lioness, 

And  raiseth  himself  like  the  lion  : 

He  lieth  not  down  till  he  eat  of  the  prey,  " 

And  drink  the  blood  of  the  slain. 

(1.)  On  the  heights  of  Baal,  and  the  field  of  the  watchers 
upon  the  top  of  Pisgah,  see  §  51,  1. — If  we  compare  Num.  xxii. 
41  with  xxiii.  13,  a  difficulty  presents  itself,  which  Hengstenherg 
has  not  only  by  no  means  satisfactorily  solved,  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, appears  to  have  rather  increased  (Balaam,  p.  421).  In 
the  former  passage  we  read,  that  from  the  heights  of  Baal  Balaam 
could  see  the  end  of  the  people  (pV^  i^"?!?).  But  when  the  oracle, 
as  uttered  by  Balaam  from  this  spot,  proved  to  be  so  thoroughly 
opposed  to  the  wishes  and  expectation  of  Balak,  it  was  attributed 
by  the  latter  to  the  unpropitious  character  of  the  locality,  and 
he  said  to  the  seer,  "  Come,  I  pray  thee,  with  me  unto  another 
place,  from  whence  thou  mayest  see  it  (the  people);  but  only  the 
outermost  of  its  end  (^'^)iP^  1^?^)  wilt  thou  see,  and  the  whole  of  it 
thou  wilt  not  see "  (chap,  xxiii.  13).  It  is  obvious  at  once, 
that  there  must  have  been  a  certain  difference,  in  the  views  ob- 
tained from  the  two  points  of  the  camp  of  the  Israelites.  This 
even  Hengstenherg  admits.  But  he  starts  with  the  assumption, 
that  in  both  j)assages  the  meaning  is  the  same,  namely,  that  only 
the  end  (i.e..,  a  small  portion)  of  the  people  could  be  seen ;  and 
consequently,  in  his  opinion,  nothing  remains,  but  to  regard  "  the 
end"  in  the  second  passage  as  embracing  more  than  in  the  first, 
where  only  the  outermost  end  is  intended.  But  such  an  explana- 
tion is  as  much  at  variance  with  the  words  themselves,  as  with 
the  context.  For  it  is  not  in  the  first  of  the  two  passages,  l)ut  in 
the  second,  that  the  outermost  end  is  spoken  of ;  and  since  there  is 
unquestionably  a  contrast  between  the  two  places,  the  words,  "only 
the  end  of  the  people  wilt  thou  see,  but  the  tchole  thou  loilt  not  see" 
necessarily  lead  to  the  conclusion,  that  the  distinction  consisted 
in  this,  that  from  the  first  point  the  whole  of  the  people  could 
be  seen,  and  that  they  could  not  be  all  seen  from  the  second. 
The  Tvponov  ^jrevSo^  in  Ilcngstenberg's  explanation  is  this,  that 


428  ISRAEL  IX  THE  ARBOTH  MOAB. 

ill  both  passages  lie  puts  "  only"  into  the  text.     In  tlie  second 
passage  the  context  unquestionably  warrants  this,  or  rather  ren- 
ders it  imperative ;    but   in  the  first  passage  there  is  not  the 
slightest  warrant  for  it,  to  say  nothing  of  necessity.     And  if  we 
remove  the  "  only,"  which  inevitably  misleads,  and  abide  by  the 
simple  words  of  the  text,  "  and  he  saw  from  thence  the  end  of 
the  people,"  there  is  nothing  (at  least  so  it  appears  to  us)  to 
hinder  us  from  understanding  this  expression  as  meaning,  that 
"  he  surveyed  the  whole  people,  even  to  the  very  extremity." 
Gesenius  adopts  this  explanation  :  "  Vidit  extremum  populum,  i.e., 
universum  populum  usque  ad  extremitates  ejus"   (^Thesaurus, 
p.  1227).     There  can  be  no  doubt  that  }i)ip  is  used  in  this  sense. 
Compare,  for  example.  Gen.  xlvii.  2,  where  Joseph  is  said  to 
have  taken  vns  ^"^^^  (i.e.,  from  the  whole  number,  from  the 
entire  body  of   his    brethren)  five  men,  to  present  them  unto 
Pharaoh.      The  word  is  used  in  precisely  the  same  sense  in 
Ezek.  xxxiii.  2.     And  just  because  Dyn  n!»ip  in  the  verse  before 
us  denotes  the  sum-total  of  the  people,  it  was  necessary  that  in 
Num.  xxiii.  13,  where  only  a  fragment  of  the  whole  is  alluded 
to,  the  limiting  word  D3S  should  be  introduced  as  nomen  regens. 
The  real  meaning  of  DSi<  is  A'-anishing,  ceasing,  coming  to  an 
end.     Dyn  nvj?  DSS,  therefore,  can  only  mean  the  outermost  ex- 
tremity of  the  whole  people,  the  end  of  the  entire  body  of  the 
people.     What  an  intolerable  tautology  would  it  be,  to  say  here 
also,  the  end  of  the  end  of  the  people  ;  and  how  thoroughly  un- 
meaning would  such  an  expression  be,  if  the  "  end  of  the  end  " 
was   applied  to   a  larger   portion,  and   the   "end"   denoted   a 
smaller  part  of  the  whole!      Hengstenberg  falls  back,  it  is  true, 
upon  his  conclusions  with  regard  to  the  geographical  situation 
of  the  two  places,  according  to  which  the  heights  of  Baal  were 
at  a  very  much  greater  distance  from  the  camp  of  Israel  than 
the  Pisgah  was.     But  so  long  as  the  rule  holds  good,  that  what 
is  uncertain  and  questionable  must  be  determined  from  what  is 
certain  and  unquestionable,  and  not  vice  versa,  his  conclusions, 
with  regard  to  the   situation  of  the  Bamoth  Baal,  which  rest 
upon  such  uncertain,  vague,  and  questionable  conjectures  and 
combinations,  must  be  pronounced  entirely  false,  if  they  are  not 
in  harmony  with  what  we  have  proved  above  to  be  the  actual 
meaning  of  Num.  xxii.  41. 

Balak  took  for  granted,  as  Hengstenberg  correctly  observes. 


Balaam's  prophecies.  429 

that  Balaam  must  necessarily  have  Israel  in  sight,  if  his  cm'se 
was  to  have  any  effect.  He  therefore  selected,  as  the  first  stand- 
ing-place, a  spot  from  which  the  seer  could  overlook  the  lohole 
of  the  people.  But  when  the  result  was  the  very  opposite  of 
what  he  had  expected,  he  thought  that  the  sight  of  the  whole  of 
the  vast  camp,  with  its  myriads  of  tents,  was  too  overpoAvering 
for  the  mind  of  the  seer.  To  prevent  the  recurrence  of  this, 
when  the  second  attempt  was  made,  he  selected  a  spot  from 
which  only  a  very  small  fragment  of  the  camp  could  be  seen. — 
This  is  the  only  explanation  which  renders  his  words  in  chaj). 
xxiii.  13  at  all  intelligible  ;  on  every  other  supposition  they  are 
perfectly  unmeaning. 

There  is  only  one  thing  which  might  appear  to  throw  some 
difficulty  in  the  way  of  our  explanation,  namely,  that  Balak  se- 
lected Mount  Peor  as  the  third  spot,  and  thence,  according  to  the 
prophecy  itself  (chap.  xxiv.  5),  and  the  express  statement  of  the 
wTiter  (chap,  xxiii.  28,  xxiv.  2),  Balaam  could  see  the  whole  of 
Israel  according  to  their  tribes,  and  the  orderly  arrangement  of 
the  camp  and  its  tents,  both  distinctly  (from  no  great  distance) 
and  at  one  glance.  But  we  need  not  be  greatly  surprised  at  this. 
For  the  f  ailiu'e  of  the  second  attempt  must  have  convinced  Balak, 
that  the  supposed  cause  of  the  first  failure  was  not  the  real  one ; 
and  he  would  naturally  be  induced  to  try  again,  from  some  spot 
which  commanded  quite  as  complete  a  view,  and  one  much  clearer 
and  more  distinct,  than  the  spot  from  which  the  first  attempt  had 
been  made. 

(2.)  After  the  sacrifice  had  been  offered,  Balaam  went  out 
for  AUGURIES  (D^t^'n:,  Num.  xxiv.  1).  "I  will  go,"  he  said  to 
Balak  in  chap,  xxiii.  3  ;  "  peradventui*e  Jehovah  will  come  to 
meet  me  ;  and  whatsoever  He  causes  me  to  see,  I  will  re})ort  to 
thee."  And  Jehovah  "  came  to  meet  him  (ver.  4),  and  put  a 
word  into  his  mouth."  Then  he  returned  to  Balak  filled  with 
the  Spirit,  and  uttered  his  saying  (''^'^).  This  was  also  the  case 
with  the  second  prophecy  (chap,  xxiii.  15,  16).  But  the  third 
and  fourth  times  he  did  not  go  ("  And  when  Balaam  saw  that 
it  pleased  Jehovah  to  bless  Israel,  he  went  not,  as  at  other  times, 
for  auguries").  It  was  a  custom  with  heathen  soothsayers,  if 
the  auguries  were  unfavourable  at  first,  to  repeat  them  in  still 
greater  number,  in  the  hope  that  the  gods  might  be  influenced 
by  their  importunity,  and  more  favom'able  signs  might  be  ob- 


430  ISRAEL  IX  THE  ARBOTH  MOAB. 

tained.  This  was  Balaam's  notion  also ;  but  when  he  was 
disappointed  a  second  time,  he  left  off  seeking  for  anguries 
altogether,  and  gave  himself  up  entirely  to  the  immediate  in- 
spiration of  Jehovah. 

(3.)  In  both  prophecies  Balaam  speaks  of  Israel  as  an  up- 
right and  righteous  nation,  a  nation  in  which  Jehovah 
could  find  no  spot  or  blemish,  and  which  was  therefore  free 
from  suffering  and  oppression.  Of  course  this  did  not  apply  to 
the  Israelites  as  individuals,  to  their  personal  sins  and  sufferings, 
but  to  Israel  as  a  whole,  and  its  character  as  a  nation.  Still, 
even  then,  there  is  something  in  such  a  description  which  cannot 
fail  to  astonish  us,  so  vivid  is  the  recollection  of  their  constant 
rebellion,  disobedience,  and  mgratitude,  of  the  trouble  they 
caused  their  God,  and  of  the  numerous  punishments  and  plagues 
with  which  He  had  to  visit  them.  It  is  evidently  not  sufficient 
to  appeal  to  the  fact,  that  the  generation  which  had  been  re- 
jected was  now  perfectly  extinct,  and  that  a  new  race  had 
grown  up,  of  better  and  more  obedient  hearts  ; — for  the  existing 
generation  had  taken  part  in  the  perversities  of  the  former  one, 
which  had  continued  to  the  very  last  year,  and  the  next  chapter 
shows  that  enough  of  the  perverseness  of  the  old  generation  was 
still  left  in  the  young  one.  We  must  look  deeper  for  an  ex- 
planation. Balaam's  prophetic  glance  and  saving,  just  because 
they  were  tridy  prophetic,  pierced  through  the  merely  outward 
shell  to  the  very  heart  and  essence  of  things.  This  discourse 
was  not  concerned  with  what  Israel  might  be  at  any  one  parti- 
cular time,  in  its  outward  and  variable  appearance,  but  with  its 
calling  and  election  in  every  age.  In  this  sinful  world,  there  is 
always  a  contrast,  of  less  or  greater  strength,  between  the  idea 
and  the  outward  manifestation.  We  find  it  in  Israel ;  and  on 
many  occasions  it  became  most  terribly  glaring.  But  the  im- 
perishable seed  of  the  promise,  which  had  been  deposited  in  the 
outward  Israel  by  Him  who  had  begotten  the  spiritual  Israel, 
was  still  there.  A  genuine  Israel,  to  whom  the  predicate  of 
honourable  and  righteous  might  justly  be  ajiplied,  still  continued 
to  exist,  in  the  most  deeply  degraded  periods,  as  a  counteracting 
leaven,  though  it  miixlit  be  confined  to  the  seven  thousand  who 
had  not  bowed  the  knee  to  Baal.  And  even  at  such  periods  as 
these,  according  to  its  calling  and  election,  which  must  eventu- 
ally be  realised,  Israel  was  a  nation  of  just  and  righteous  men 


Balaam's  rnoPHECiES.  431 

^Cn^'i^.  So  essential  a  characteristic  was  this  of  Israel,  so  inse- 
parable was  the  inward  call  from  the  outward  manifestation, 
that  the  Deuteronomist,  whom  no  one  could  charge  with  un- 
duly glorifying  and  idealising  his  nation,  has  incorporated  this 
idea  in  the  word  Jeshurun  (P^^.),  which  he  adopts  as  a  proper 
name  for  Israel^  (yid.  Deut.  xxxii.  15,  xxxiii.  5,  26  ;  Is.  xliv.  2). 
Balaam  looked  upon  Israel  in  its  separation  from  the  heathen 
(ver.  9)  ;  and  in  this  respect,  notwithstanding  all  its  wanderings, 
it  was,  and  remained,  a  people  of  Jesliarim,  a  Jesiiurun ;  since 
its  wanderings  were  only  for  a  time.  Under  the  guidance,  and 
teaching,  and  chastisement  of  Jehovah,  it  always  returned  from 
its  wanderings  and  rose  up  from  its  fall,  whereas  the  Avay  of  the 
heathen  was  from  first  to  last  a  false  way. 

It  is  very  striking,  that  in  ver.  10  Balaam  should  pour  out  the 
longings  of  his  mind  (his  better  self)  for  fellowship  Avitli  Israel, 
not  in  a  wish  to  be  united  to  Israel  in  life,  and  to  participate  in 
the  privileges  it  enjoyed,  but  in  a  desu'e  that  he  might  die  such 
a  death  as  the  righteous  Israelite  died.  We  cannot  subscribe 
to  Hengstenherg" s  opinion,  that  he  gave  utterance  to  this  desire 
from  a  foreboding  of  the  death  which  he  really  died  (Num. 
xxxi.  8),  viz.,  by  the  avenging  sword  of  Israel.  The  wish  to  die 
the  death  of  the  Israelite  involved  something  more  and  some- 
thing loftier,  than  the  wish  to  live  his  life.  The  former  includes 
the.  latter,  but  goes  very  far  beyond  it.  For  death  is  the  end  of 
life ;  and  such  a  death  as  Israel  died,  presupposes  the  life  that 
Israel  lives.  Balaam  wished  to  enjoy  the  full,  complete,  inde- 
structible, and  inalienable  blessedness  of  the  Israelite,  of  which 
death  is  the  conckision  and  completion,  the  attestation  and  seal. 
Only  he  who  remains  an  Israelite  until  death,  preserving  the 
disposition  of  an  Israelite,  amidst  all  the  trials  and  temptations 
of  this  life,  till  the  hour  of  his  departui-e,  can  be  pronounced  an 
Israelite  indeed. 

^  According  to  tlie  cuiTcnt  interpretation,  the  Avord  Jeslmrun  is  an  ap- 
pellatio  poetica  eaque  hlanda  et  ccu-itativa,  and  denotes  the  beloved,  righteous 
nation,  the  righteous  one.  But  Heinjstenbcrg  has  proved  that  the  termina- 
tion un  in  Hebrew  generally,  and  particularly  in  this  word,  is  not  a  diminu- 
tive of  affection,  but  simply  serves  to  form  a  proper  name.  Kimchi  admits 
that  the  name  Jeslmrun  is  applied  to  Israel,  in  contradistinction  to  the 
heathen,  as  being  the  righteous  nation,  "  ita  appellatur  Israel,  quoniam  est 
Justus  inter  populos." 


432  ISEAEL  IN  THE  AKBOTH  MOAB. 

The  question  arises,  however,  What  did  Balaam,  with  the 
light  which  he  possessed,  suj)pose  to  be  included  in  the  peculiar 
happiness  of  an  Israelite's  death,  that  he  should  wish  to  die  such 
a  death  himself  ?  The  earlier  commentators  were  unanimous 
in  regarding  this  as  a  clear  proof,  that  belief  in  the  retribution 
of  the  life  to  come  was  the  source  of  consolation  and  hope  to 
believers,  even  under  the  Old  Testament.  But  the  words  of 
Balaam  express  nothing  more,  than  that  the  death  of  a  pious 
Israelite  was  happier  than  the  death  of  a  heathen.  In  what  the 
greater  happiness  consisted,  they  do  not  say.  This  must  be  sup- 
plied, therefore,  from  what  are  known  to  have  been  the  eschato- 
logical  views  of  that  particular  age.  Now,  the  conclusion  to 
which  we  are  brought  by  an  impartial  exegesis,  and  which  is 
hardly  ever  disputed  in  the  present  day,  is  this  :  that  up  to  the 
time  of  the  Capti\'ity,  the  doctrine  of  eternal  retribution  beyond 
the  grave  fell  into  the  background,  behind  that  of  retribution  in 
the  present  life  ;  and  that  a  full,  clear,  and  well-defined  deve- 
lopment of  eschatolog}^  was  reserved  for  subsequent  stages  in 
the  history  of  revelation  (vol.  ii.  §  8,  1).  And,  altogether  apart 
from  a  clear  conception  and  expectation  of  retribution  in  the 
life  to  come,  there  was  quite  enough  in  the  views  which  then 
prevailed,  to  excite  the  wish  in  Balaam's  mind  to  die  a  true 
Israelite's  death.  The  pious  Israelite  could  look  back  with 
calm  satisfaction,  in  the  hour  of  his  death,  upon  a  life  rich  in 
"  proofs  of  the  blessing,  forgiAang,  protecting,  delivering,  saving 
mercy  of  God."  With  the  same  calm  satisfaction  would  he 
look  upon  his  children,  and  children's  children,  in  whom  he 
lived  again,  and  in  whom  also  he  would  still  take  part,  in  the 
hiffh  callino;  of  his  nation  and  the  ultimate  fulfilment  of  the 
glorious  promises  which  it  had  received  from  God.  "  The  more 
an  individual  lived  in  the  whole  nation,  and  the  father  regarded 
his  posterity  as  the  continuation  of  his  ovm.  existence,  the  more 
would  his  mind  be  occupied  in  the  hour  of  his  death  by  the 
future  which  God  had  promised  to  his  race,  and  thus  the  bitter- 
ness of  death  be  taken  away"  (^Hencjstenherg).  And  for  himself, 
the  man  who  died  in  the  consciousness  of  possessing  the  mercy 
and  love  of  God,  knew  also  that  he  would  carry  them  with  him 
as  an  inalienable  possession,  a  light  in  the  darkness  of  Sheol. 
He  knew  that  he  would  be  "  gathered  to  his  fathers," — a  thought 
which  must  have  been  a  very  plenteous  som-ce  of  consolation,  of 


Balaam's  prophecies.  433 

hope,  and  of  joy,  to  an  Israelite  who  looked  upon  his  fathers 
with  the  greatest  reverence  and  love. 

The  ^'  sJiout  of  a  king"  of  Avhich  Balaam  speaks  in  ver.  21, 
was  evidently  a  shout  of  joy  caused  by  the  fact,  that  Jehovah 
Himself  was  King  in  Israel,  as  the  parallelism  clearly  proves. 
There  is  no  ground  whatever  for  Baumgca-ten  s  supposition, 
that  the  Messiah  is  specially  alluded  to, — the  futui'e  King  in 
Israel. 


§  57.  (Num.  xxiii.  25-xxiv.  25.) — When  the  second  attempt 
had  also  failed,  Balak  was  at  first  inclined  to  have  nothing 
fiu'ther  to  do  with  the  seer,  who  had  so  thoroughly  failed  to 
answer  his  expectations.  But  he  soon  altered  his  mind,  and 
requested  him  to  make  a  third  attempt  in  another  place.  It 
was  now  doubly  important  that  he  should  attain  his  end ;  since 
the  double  blessmg  had  injured  his  cause.  He  led  Balaam  this 
time  to  the  top  of  Mount  Peor,  which  rose  immediately  above 
the  plain  in  which  Israel  was  encamped,  and  where  the  whole 
camp  lay  spread  out  before  the  eyes  of  the  seer,  Hke  the  con- 
tents of  an  open  book  (§  56,  1).  Altars  were  erected,  and 
sacrifices  offered,  as  before  ;  but  Balaam  did  not  go  and  seek 
for  augm'ies.  As  soon  as  he  lifted  up  his  eyes  and  saw  Israel 
encamped  according  to  its  tribes,  the  Spu'it  of  God  came  upon 
him,  and  he  prophesied : 

(Ver.  3.)  "  Thiis  saith  Balaam,  the  son  of  Beor, 

And  thus  saith  the  man  with  closed  eye, 
(Yer.  4.)  Thus  saith  the  hearer  of  the  words  of  God, 

Who  seeth  visions  of  the  Ahnighty, 

FalKng  down,  and  with  open  eye. 
(Ver.  5.)  How  fine  are  thy  tents,  0  Jacob  ! 

And  thy  dwellings,  0  Israel ! 
(Ver.  6.)  Like  valleys  are  they  spread  out, 

Like  gardens  by  the  river's  side, 

Like  aloes,  which  Jehovah  planted. 

Like  cedars  by  the  waters. 
(Ver.  7.)  Water  will  flow  from  his  buckets. 

And  his  seed  dwelleth  by  many  waters  ; 

And  higher  tlian  Ar/o;/,  be  his  King ! 

And  let  his  kingdom  be  exalted  !  (2) . 
^      VOL.  III.  2  E 


434  ISRAEL  IN  THE  ARBOTH  MOAB. 

(Ver.  8.)  God  leadeth  him  out  of  Egypt ; 

His  strength  is  like  that  of  a  buffalo ; 

He  will  eat  up  the  heathen,  his  enemies, 

And  crush  their  bones. 

And  break  their  arrows  in  pieces. 
(Ver.  9.)  He  stretcheth  himself  out,  he  heth  down  like  a  lion. 

And  like  a  honess,  who  can  rouse  him  up  ? 

Blessed  be  he  who  blesseth  thee  ! 

And  cvirsed  he  who  curseth  thee  !  " 

Balak's  wrath  was  kindled  at  this ;  and  he  drove  the  seer  from 
his  presence,  with  violent  words  of  reproach  and  threatening. 
Balaam  was  ready  enough  to  go.  But  the  Spirit  constrained 
him  to  finish  his  prophecy ;  and  before  his  departure  he  an- 
nounced to  the  Moabitish  king  what  glory  awaited  Israel,  and 
what  destruction  was  in  reserve  for  their  heathen  foes : 

(Ver.  15.)  "  Thus  saith  Balaam,  the  son  of  Beor, 

And  thus  saith  the  man  with  closed  eye, 
(Ver.  16.)  Thus  saith  the  hearer  of  the  words  of  God, 

And  he  who  knoweth  the  knowledge  of  the  Most  High ; 

Who  seeth  visions  of  the  Ahnighty, 

Falling  down,  and  with  open  eye. 
(Ver.  17.)  /  see  Mm,  but  not  now  ; 

I  behold  Mm,  hut  not  nigh. 

Out  of  Jacob  goeth  forth  a  Star, 

And  out  of  Israel  riseth  up  a  Sceptre  (1), 

And  shattereth  Moab  right  and  left, 

And  destroyeth  aU  the  sons  of  tumult. 
(Ver.  18.)  And  Edom  becometh  his  possession. 

And  Seir  becometh  his  possession,  his  enemies, 

And  Israel  doeth  mighty  things. 
(Ver.  19.)  A  ruler  riseth  out  of  Jacob, 

And  he  destroyeth,  what  remaineth,  out  of  the  cities." 

And  he  saw  Amalek,  and  took  up  his  saying,  and  said  : 

(Ver.  20.)  "  The  beginning  of  the  heathen  is  Amalek, 
But  his  end  is  destruction." 

And  he  saw  the  Kenites,  and  took  up  his  saying,  and  said : 

(Ver.  21.)  "  Durable  is  thy  dwelling. 

And  placed  on  a  rock  thy  rest. 
(Ver.  22.)  Nevertheless  Kain  is  for  a  desolation, 

How  long,  till  Asshur  carries  thee  captive." 


B-Axaam's  prophecies.  435 

And  he  took  up  his  saying,  and  said  : 

(Ver.  23.)  "  Woe !  who  will  live,  when  God  does  that, 
(Ver.  2-1.)  And  ships  come  from  the  side  of  the  Chittim, 
And  press  Asshur^  and  press  Ehei\ 
And  he  also  hastens  to  destruction  !  "  (2). 

(1.)  Balaam  introduced  his  fourth  prophecy  with  this  ad- 
dress to  Balak  :  "  And  now,  behold,  I  will  counsel  thee  what 
this  people  will  do  to  thy  people  at  the  end  of  the  days  (n''"jnK3 
Cp'ri)."  As  this  prophecy  represented  the  victory  of  Israel 
over  all  the  heathen,  as  the  ultimate  issue  of  the  world's  history, 
it  was  well  adapted  to  convince  Balak  of  the  absolute  hopeless- 
ness and  pervei'sity  of  his  attempts,  and  to  lead  him  to  reflec- 
tion and  conversion  ;  and  consequently  it  could  justly  be  de- 
scribed as  a  well-intentioned  and  thankworthy  counsel. 

The  period  when  the  events  announced  by  Balaam  were  to 
take  place,  is  called  the  "end  op  the  days;"  and  this  expression 
denotes,  not  only  here  but  in  every  other  place,  the  time  when 
the  promises  and  hopes  of  salvation,  indulged  by  any  age, 
should  all  be  fulfilled.  As  Hdvernick  has  aptly  observed,  they 
always  denote  the  horizon  of  a  prophetic  announcement  (yid.  vol. 
ii.  §  4,  1).  For  any  particular  age,  the  end  of  days  commences 
when  such  anticipations  of  salvation,  as  are  not  yet  fulfilled, 
but  occupy  the  forefront  of  hope,  patient  waiting,  and  ardent 
longing,  first  begin  to  pass,  by  means  of  their  fulfilment,  into 
the  sphere  of  reality.  The  commencement,  therefore,  was  not 
the  same  for  every  period  and  stage  of  sacred  history.  On  the 
contrary,  the  more  the  actual  fulfilment  advanced,  the  fmrther 
the  end  of  days  receded  into  the  distant  future.  For  Jacob,  the 
horizon  of  whose  hopes  and  prophecies  was  bounded  by  the 
settlement  of  his  descendants  in  the  promised  land,  the  "  end  of 
the  days "  commenced  with  the  time  when  these  hopes  were 
fulfilled,  in  other  words,  with  the  time  of  Joshua  (vol.  ii.  §  4). 
For  Moses  and  Balaam,  who  lived  immediately  before  the  fulfil- 
ment of  all  that  Jacob  had  desired  and  predicted, — or  rather  in 
whose  days  the  fulfilment  had  already  begun,  but  who  could 
also  see,  from  the  hostile  attitude  of  surromiding  nations,  that 
the  possession  of  the  promised  land  would  not  be  followed  by 
perfect  rest,  and  that  the  struggle  for  its  possession  would  even 
then  not  be  entu'ely  over, — the  "  end  of  the  days  "  had  ah'eady 


436  ISKAEL  IN  THE  ARBOTH  MOAB. 

receded  into  a  more  remote  future.  The  commencement  would 
consequently  be  looked  for  at  a  period  when  these  obstacles 
should  all  be  removed,  and  when  the  hostile  nations,  whose 
friendly  accession  could  no  longer  be  hoped  for,  would  be  de- 
feated, subjugated,  and  destroyed.  It  was  Avith  David  that  this 
period  actually  commenced.  Consequently  it  was  in  David's  time 
that  the  Acharith-hajamim  (the  "  end  of  the  days  ")  of  Balaam 
began.  But  just  as  the  hope  of  rest,  which  Jacob  cherished, 
was  only  provisionally  and  imperfectly  fulfilled  with  the  con- 
quest of  the  promised  land,  and  therefore  the  fact  of  its  non- 
fulfilment  became  a  prophecy  of  a  subsequent  fulfilment  of  a 
more  perfect  and  decisive  character ; — so  did  it  also  become 
apparent  in  David's  time,  that  although  his  victories  were,  in 
their  o^vn  way — that  is  to  say,  relatively — perfect,  they  by  no 
means  effected  the  complete  subjugation  of  hostile  heathenism 
in  every  form.  So  that,  even  after  this  first  and  provisional  fulfil- 
ment of  Balaam's  prophecy,  there  still  remained  a  considerable 
ingredient,  the  fulfilment  of  which  could  only  be  anticipated  in 
a  future  still  more  remote. 

If  we  look  more  closely  at  the  prophecy  itself,  it  is  very  soon 
apparent  that  the  centre  and  heart  are  to  be  found  in  ver.  IT, 
namely,  in  the  announcement  of  the  Star  out  of  Jacob,  and 
the  Sceptre  out  of  Israel.  Even  if  the  whole  substance 
and  context  of  the  prophecy  did  not  lead  to  this  conclusion, 
the  parallel  between  the  sceptre  and  the  star  would  convince  us, 
at  the  very  first  glance,  that  we  have  here  the  description  of  a 
royal,  renowned,  and  victorious  ruler.  "  The  star  is  so  natural 
an  image  and  symbol  of  the  greatness  and  splendour  of  a  ruler, 
that  nearly  all  nations  have  employed  it.  And  the  fact  that 
it  is  so  natiu'al  an  image  and  symbol,  may  explain  the  general 
belief  of  the  ancient  world,  that  the  birth  or  accession  of  great 
kings  was  announced  by  the  appearance  of  stars  "  (^Hengsten- 
herg).  There  is  greater  difficulty  in  the  question,  whether  by 
this  king,  we  are  to  understand  one,  single,  personal  king  of 
Israel,  or  merely  an  ideal  person,  namely,  the  personified  Israel- 
itish  monarchy  ;  and  if  the  former,  whether  David  or  Christ  is 
intended.  Hengstenberg,  who  denied,  in  the  first  vohime  of  his 
Christology,  that  there  was  any  allusion  whatever  to  the  Mes- 
siah, has  since  altered  his  opinion,  and  now  maintains  the  possi- 
bility, or  rather  necessity,  of  such  an  allusion ;   in  this  sense, 


Balaam's  pkophecies.  437 

however,  that  the  star  and  sceptre  do  not  denote  any  one  par- 
ticular king,  eitlier  David  or  the  Messiah  exclusively,  but  the 
whole  Israelitish  monarchy,  and  that  they  represent  its  two 
culminating  points — David  the  tyjje,  and  Christ  the  antitype. 
Ilofmann,  on  the  other  hand,  appears  to  refer  them  exclusively 
to  David  (yid.  Weissagung  und  Erfullung  i.  153  sqq.) ;  Baum- 
garten  and  Belitzsch,  exclusively  to  Christ. 

All  that  has  been  said  against  the  admissibility  of  any  allu- 
sion (either  exclusively  or  jointly)  to  the  Messiah,  we  feel  con- 
strained to  pronounce  utterly  insignificant.  We  are  told  that 
Balaam's  prophecy  is  completely  exhausted,  if  we  refer  it  to 
David  alone,  since  David  really  conquered  and  svibjugated  the 
]SIoabites  and  Edomites,  and  all  the  other  neighbouring  nations 
that  were  hostile  to  the  theocracy  (2  Sam.  viii.  2,  11,  12,  14). 
But  this  does  not  exhaust  the  prophecy.  Such  a  total  extinc- 
tion of  the  Moabites,  for  example,  as  is  here  predicted,  did  not 
take  place  under  David.  For,  not  only  did  they  recover  their 
freedom  (2  Kings  i.  1)  and  maintain  it  (2  Kings  iii.  4  sqq. 
13,  20),  but  in  many  prophetic  passages  (e.g.,  Is.  xv.  16,  xxv. 
10;  Jer.  xlviii. ;  Amos  ii. ;  Zeph.  ii.)  they  are  still  classed 
among  the  enemies  of  the  theocracy,  and  their  complete  de- 
struction is  still  spoken  of  as  a  future  event.  But  this  is  not 
only  not  the  sole  point,  but  not  even  the  principal  point  in  hand. 
Ilengstenherg  has  very  properly  said  (Balaam,  p.  479),  "  Even 
supposing  that  the  Moabites  had  been  completely  destroyed  by 
David,  the  prophecy  could  not  be  said  to  have  been  completely 
fulfilled  by  him.  What  is  said  here  of  the  ISIoabites,  is  only  one 
particular  application  of  the  idea.  The  Moabites  are  merely  to 
be  regarded  as  a  part  of  the  great  body  of  enemies  of  the  king- 
dom of  God.  To  imagine,  therefore,  that  the  disappearance  of 
the  ]\Ioabites  in  their  historical  individuality  would  suffice  for  the 
fulfilment  of  the  prophecy, — that  it  would  be  a  matter  of  indif- 
ference, whether  their  essential  characteristics  were  perpetuated 
in  other  powerful  foes, — is  to  overlook  the  difference  between 
prophecr^,  which  never  has  to  do  with  the  drapery  alone,  and  in 
which  the  mutato  nomine  is  always  valid,  and  mere  soothsaying. 
Nothing  less  than  the  entire  and  permanent  conquest  of  all  the 
enemies  of  the  kingdom  of  God  could  be  regarded  as  consum- 
mating the  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy.  Where  there  are  enemies, 
there  are  Moabites,  and  the  words  spoken  by  Balaam  are  still  in 


438  ISRAEL  IN  THE  ARBOTH  MOAB. 

process  of  fulfilment.  This  remark  will  serve  to  answer  another 
objection,  which  has  been  brought  against  the  Messianic  applica- 
tion ;  namely,  that  at  the  time  when  the  Messiah  appeared,  the 
Moabites  had  entirely  disappeared  from  the  stage  of  history. 
This  is  certainly  true  of  the  Moabites  w  ith  reference  to  the  body, 
but  not  with  reference  to  the  soul,  which  alone  is  the  pomt  in 
consideration  here, — their  quality  as  enemies  of  the  Church  of 
God.  If  the  prophecy  was  fulfilled  upon  the  Moabites,  when 
they  existed  as  a  nation,  not  as  Moabites,  but  as  enemies  of  the 
people  of  God,  the  limit  of  their  existence  cannot  be  the  limit  of 
the  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy.  The  Messianic  allusion  could 
only  be  denied,  if  it  could  be  proved  that,  at  the  time  when  the 
Messiah  appeared,  the  Moabites  in  the  wider  sense,  namely,  as 
enemies  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  had  been  already  destroyed ; 
and  this  no  one  will  maintain." 

When  Tlioluck  (i.  417)  argues,  in  opposition  to  the  Messianic 
character  of  the  prophecy,  that  "  we  could  not  expect  the  vision 
of  such  a  seer  as  Balaam  to  extend  beyond  the  horizon  of  earthly 
events;"  it  is  sufficient  to  reply,  that,  so  far  as  the  position  as- 
sumed in  this  argument  is  tenable  {i.e.,  without  losing  sight  of  the 
statement  in  chap.  xxiv.  2,  "the  Spirit  of  God  came  upon  him"), 
it  does  not  invaHdate  the  Messianic  interpretation.     Balaam's  in- 
sight into  the  mode  and  effects  of  the  Messiah's  operations,  as  we 
should  not  only  expect  from  his  character  as  a  seer,  but  as  the 
prophecy  itself  actually  proves,  was  certainly  one-sided,  very  one- 
sided.    He  saw  nothing  but  the  outward  effects  of  the  Messiah's 
work  ;  and  these  were  restricted,  in  the  most  partial  manner,  to 
the  heathen  nations,  who  persevered  in  their  hostihty  to  the  king- 
dom of  God,  and  were  therefore  doomed  to  destruction.     He 
neither  described  nor  discerned  the  spiritual  and  material  bless- 
ings, which  the  Messiah  would  bestow  not  upon  Israel  only,  but 
also  upon  such  of  the  heathen  as  should  willingly  submit  to  His 
sway  ;   for  he  had  neither  the  inward  qualification,  nor  the  out- 
ward occasion  and  impulse.     That  his  prophecy,  however,  merely 
leaves  this  out,  and  does  not  shut  it  out,  is  evident  from  chap, 
xxiv.  9,  "  Blessed  be  he  who  blesseth  thee,  and  cursed  be  he  who 
curseth  thee."     Another  argument  upon  which  Herigstenhenj 
formerly  relied,  and  which  merely  forms  the  opposite  pole  to  the 
one  just  considered,  must  also  fall  along  with  it;  namely,  that  ac- 
cording to  this  interpretation,  the  Messiah,  who  had  hitherto  been 


Balaam's  prophecies.  439 

described  as  a  blessing  for  all  people,  the  bringer  of  rest  and  of 
peace,  to  whom  the  nations  would  cheerfully  submit  themselves, 
would  all  at  once  be  introduced  as  causing  the  overthrow  and 
destruction  of  the  heathen,  without  the  slightest  intimation  of 
His  benefits  and  blessings,  which  are  mentioned  in  every  other 
case  in  which  He  is  represented  as  a  conqueror  and  judge  {cf. 
Ps.  ii.  ex.). 

So  far  as  the  positive  arguments  that  may  be  adduced  in 
favour  of  the  Messianic  allusion  are  concerned,  we  must  give  up 
the  one  which,  until  the  time  of  Verschuir,  was  universally  based 
upon  T\^  ''?.^  in  ver.  17.  This  was  generally  rendered,  "  He  will 
destroy  all  the  sons  of  Seth ;"  and,  as  allusion  was  supposed  to  be 
made  to  Seth,  the  son  of  Adam,  the  passage  was  understood  as 
celebrating  the  victory  of  the  Messiah  over  the  whole  human 
race, — an  interpretation  which  entirely  precluded  any  reference 
to  David.  But,  apart  from  the  fact  that  the  passage  speaks  of  the 
utter  destruction  and  annihilation  of  the  Bne  Sheth,  which  would 
be  diametrically  opposed  to  the  Messianic  idea ;  according  to 
the  standing  view  and  mode  of  expression  throughout  the  entire 
Scriptm-es,  we  should  expect  Adam  or  Noah.  Seth  is  never  in- 
troduced as  the  progenitor  of  the  whole  human  race ;  and  he, 
who  took  the  place  of  the  pious  Abel,  and  was  the  ancestor  of 
Noah  who  was  to  be  saved,  would  have  been  the  last  to  serve  as 
the  representative  and  progenitor  of  the  human  race  that  was  to 
be  destroyed.  The  only  admissible  interpretation  was  first  of  all 
given  by  Verschuir,  and  is  now  generally  adopted,  namely,  that  OK' 
is  an  abbreviated  form  of  HKK^,  which  is  found  again  in  Lam. 
iii.  47  in  parallelism  with  13K^  (=  breaking  in  pieces),  and  which 
is  derived  from  nx5^,  and  synonymous  with  jiXC^  (=  tumult). 
"  Designantur  tumultuosi,"  says  Verschuir,  "  irrequieti,  quorum 
consuetude  est,  continuis  incursionibus,  certaminibus  et  vexa- 
tionibus  aliis  creare  molestiam.  Qui  titulus  optimc  convenit  in 
Moabitas  Israelitis  semper  molestos."^ 

This   explanation   is    confirmed  by  the    fact,  that  in  Jer. 

■I  Lengerke  gives  a  somewhat  different  explanation.  "  The  'r>v  •'ja  (sons  of 
tumult),"  he  says,  "  are  the  bracfc/ing  Moabitos,  who  prided  themselves  upon 
their  bravery  (Jer.  xlviii.  4),  and  were  therefore  regarded  as  haughty  and 
boasters  (Is.  xvi.  16,  xxv.  1  ;  Zeph.  ii.  8  ;  Jer.  xlviii.  2,  xxix.  30  ;  Ezek. 
xvi.  49)." — Ewald  reads,  without  the  slightest  reason,  f^'a  for  nsoi  i.e.,  sons 
of  loftiness,  or  pride. 


440  ISRAEL  IN  THE  ARBOTH  MOAB. 

xlviii.  45,  where  the-  prophet  imitates  this  passage,  he  places  ''J3 
jiNK'  in  parallelism  with  Moab  ;  and  also  by  the  allusion  to  the 
passage  before  us  in  Amos  ii.  2. — On  the  other  hand,  the  argu- 
ment based  upon  the  expression,  "  in  the  latter  days,"  retams  its 
full  force  ;  for  this  expression  always  denotes  the  period  of  the 
idtimate  completion  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  in  other  words,  the 
Messianic  age.  The  "  star  out  of  Jacob"  evidently  denotes  the 
Israelitish  monarchy  in  its  highest  personal  culmination,  which 
was  in  the  person  of  the  Messiah.  If  Balaam's  prophecy  centred 
in  David,  as  fulfilling  its  announcements,  it  centred  in  the  Mes- 
siah also.  But  the  later  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy  must  not 
divert  our  thoughts  from  David ;  for  not  only  did  the  overthrow 
of  the  heathen  enemies  of  the  kingdom  of  God  commence  with 
him,  but  in  a  certain  sense  it  was  completed  by  him,  inasmuch  as 
Da\'id  really  subjugated  all  the  nations  whose  names  are  specially 
mentioned  here. 

The  result  to  which  we  are  thus  brought, — namely,  that 
alaam's  prophecy  was  fulfilled  on  the  one  hand  in  David 
though  only  provisionally,  and  therefore  not  exhaustively)  ;  and 
hat  on  the  other  hand  the  Messiah  must  not  be  left  out  (in  whom 
it  was  perfectly,  finally,  and  exhaustively  fulfilled), — appears  so 
i|  evident  to  Ilengstenherg  (Balaam,  p.  476),  that  he  interprets  the 
ll  star  out  of  Jacob,  and  the  sceptre  out  of  Israel,  as  relating  equally 
to  the  ideal  King  of  Israel  (i.e.,  to  the  Israelitish  monarchy  per- 
sonijied).  In  this  I  cannot  agree  with  him.  It  is  true  that  he 
has  a  number  of  arguments  ready ;  but  when  looked  at  closely, 
we  see  at  once  that  they  all  prove  nothing.  (1.)  He  says,  "  The 
reference  to  one  particular  Israelitish  king  is  contrary  to  the 
analogy  of  the  other  prophecies  of  the  Pentateuch.  The  Messiah 
alone  is  ever  foretold  as  a  single  person  (Gen.  xlix.  10).  The 
rise  of  kings  is  predicted,  it  is  true,  but  only  in  the  plural  (Gen. 
xvii.  6,  16,  XXXV.  11)  ;  and,  according  to  this  analogy,  the  star 
from  Jacob  must  be  regarded  as  marking  a  plurality  of  Idngs, 
in  other  words,  the  kingdom  in  general."  To  this  I  reply,  that  if 
a  single  individual,  apart  from  the  Messiah,  can  ever  be  the  sub- 
ject of  prophecy  (and  this  Ilengstenherg  will  not  dispute),  we 
cannot  possibly  see  why  this  should  be  denied  of  the  Pentateuch 
prophecies  alone.  If  the  Messiah  is  foretold  in  the  Pentateuch  as 
a  single  person,  analogy  requires  that  we  should  interpret  the  star 
out  of  Jacob  in  the  same  way,  especially  if,  as  Hengstenberg  main- 


Balaam's  prophecies.  441 

tains,  Balaam  was  undoubtedly  acquainted  with  such  a  prediction 
(Gen.  xlix.  10),  and  based  his  own  upon  it.  And  lastly,  what 
presumption  it  is  to  say,  that  because  kings  are  spoken  of  in  the 
plural  in  Gen.  xvii.  6,  16,  and  xxxv.  11,  therefore  the  prophecies 
of  the  Pentateuch  can  none  of  them  speak  of  a  single  king  ! — 
(2.)  "  A  reference  to  one  particular  king  would  not  be  in  harmony 
with  the  rest  of  the  j^^'ojyhecies  of  Balaam,  Avhich  never  relate  to 
one  particular  individual."  This  reason  may  add  to  the  number, 
but  it  does  not  add  to  the  iceight,  of  the  arguments  adduced. — 
(3.)  "  The  Avord  02\y  does  not  necessarily  j^oint  to  any  particular 
individual;  and  in  Gen.  xlix.  10  it  is  not  of  an  inchvidual  that  it 
is  actually  employed."  But  the  Star  does  point  all  the  more  de- 
cisively to  a  concrete  and  indiAddual  personality.  And  the  state 
of  the  case  is  really  this  :  \22^  may  be  understood  as  relating 
to  one  particular  king,  3313  must. — (4.)  "  The  words  of  ver.  19, 
^PJ^'P  ^l.'lj  ^-^-j  out  of  Jacob  will  one  rule,  or  dominion  will  go 
forth  from  J  acob, — serve  as  a  commentary  to  the  "  sceptre 
from  Israel."  But  should  not  the  same  words  be  employed  if 
the  meaning  were,  "out  of  Jacob  will  a  ruler  proceed?" — 
(5.)  "  Look,  again,  at  ver  7,  "  Let  his  king  be  higher  than 
Agag, — where  the  king  of  Israel  is  an  ideal  person,  the  per- 
sonification of  royalty."  But  the  king  mentioned  here  is  not 
an  ideal  person,  but  a  real  one,  viz.,  the  reigning  sovereign  at 
any  particular  time.  In  ver.  17,  on  the  other  hand,  where  dis- 
tinct and  individual  actions  are  attributed  to  the  Star  out  of 
Jacob,  we  must  of  necessity  thmk  of  them  as  performed  by  one 
particular  individual.  Wlien  Balaam  exclaimed,  "  I  see  a  star 
proceed  out  of  Jacob,  and  a  sceptre  out  of  Israel,  there  can  be 
no  doubt  that  the  image  of  a  concrete  ajipearance  presented 
itself  to  his  prophetic  eye,  and  that  we  have  no  right  to  dissipate 
it  into  an  abstraction,  a  pure  and  imsubstantial  idea. 

But  what  follows  from  this  ?  The  star  is  said  to  point 
to  David,  and  also  to  Christ ;  not  to  David  or  Christ  exclu- 
sively ;  and  yet  it  does  not  relate  to  the  monarchy,  as  the 
thing  common  to  both  !  Plow  do  these  harmonise  ? — What 
remains,  then,  as  a  third  or  fourth  supposition  ?  ^A"o  have  no 
difficulty  as  to  the  reply.  In  the  interpretation  of  every  pro- 
phecy thei'e  are  two  points  of  view,  to  be  kept  distinct, — that  of 
the  period  from  which  the  prophecy  dates,  and  in  which,  there- 
fore, the  fidfilment  was  expected  as  still  in  the  future,  and  that 


442  ISRAEL  IN  THE  AEBOTH  MOAB. 

of  the  period  of  its  actual  fvilfilment.  With  regard  to  this  par- 
ticular case,  then,  we  have  to  distinguish,  on  the  one  hand,  in 
what  sense  Balaam  himself  and  Balak  understood  the  words, 
and  what  Moses  and  the  Israelites  of  his  age  understood  them 
to  mean ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  what  prediction  they  would 
be  supposed  to  contain  by  the  believing  Israelite  after  the  time 
of  David,  and  the  believing  Christian  after  Christ.  Did  Ba- 
laam, when  he  "saw  the  star  from  Jacob,  which  was  also  a 
sceptre,  and  therefore  necessarily  denoted  royal  splendour,  see 
one,  two,  or  a  still  larger  number,  a  whole  series  of  kings  ?  We 
reply,  he  saw  only  one  king.  Whether  he  would  be  called 
David  or  Jesus,  neither  Balaam  nor  Moses  knew.  From  the 
fulfilment,  however,  we  know,  that  what  Balaam  predicted  of 
this  one  king  was  certainly  fulfilled  in  David,  but  only  in  a 
provisional,  imperfect,  and  not  exhaustive  manner.  It  was  not 
till  the  coming  of  Christ  that  the  fulfilment  was  complete  and 
final.  The  conclusion  to  which  loe  are  brought,  therefore,  is, 
that  the  prophecy  refers  first  of  all  to  David,  and  that  it  really 
was  fulfilled  in  David,  who  as  king  was  a  type  of  Christ,  the 
everlasting  King.  But  it  also  refers  to  Christ ;  and  the  fulness 
of  the  completion  in  Christ  exceeded  that  in  Da-^-id,  to  the  same 
extent  to  which  the  sovereignty  of  Christ,  the  antitype,  exceeded 
that  of  David,  the  type.  Now,  the  stand-point  upon  which 
Balaam  stood  was  one  from  which  the  type  and  the  antitype 
could  not  yet  be  distinguished.  The  type  covered  the  antitype, 
and  David  passed  for  the  Christ.  Nor  was  there  any  error  in 
this ;  for  David  loas  the  Christ,  according  to  the  standard  of  his 
age.  And  when  David  had  appeared,  and  had  accompHshed  all 
that  was  given  him  to  do,  the  believing  Israelite  could  perceive 
that  David  was  the  star  of  which  Balaam  had  prophesied.  But 
when,  upon  closer  examination,  he  found  that,  notwithstanding 
the  relative  completeness  of  the  victories  of  David,  the  heathen 
foes  of  the  kingdom  of  God  were  not  absolutely  defeated  and 
destroyed,  and  therefore  that  Balaam's  prophecy  was  only  pro- 
visionally and  not  finally  fulfilled  in  David, — the  examination 
might  have  led  him  to  false  conclusions  as  to  the  prophecy  itself, 
if  this  had  not  been  prevented  by  a  continued  course  of  pro- 
phecy. But  just  at  the  time,  when  the  want  of  harmony  be- 
tween Balaam's  prophecy  and  the  fulfilment  forced  itself  upon 
the  mind,  the  course  of  prophecy  entered  upon  a  fresh  stage  of 


bala^vm's  prophecies.  443 

its  historical  development,  and  the  announcement  was  made, 
that  a  second  David  would  arise  from  David's  seed,  in  whom 
the  typical  attitude  of  David  to  the  heathen  would  find  its  most 
complete  and  an ti typical  realisation. 

We  agree  with  Hengstenberg,  therefore,  so  far  as  the  inter- 
jaretation  which  Balaam's  prophecy  has  received  from  the  fulfil- 
ment is  concerned ;  but  we  do  not  agree  with  him  in  regarding 
this  as  the  interpretation  given  to  it  in  the  time  of  Balaam  and 
Moses. 

In  conclusion,  we  must  return  to  the  star,  which  shone  above 
the  manger  at  Bethlehem,  and  sliowed  the  wise  men  of  the  East 
the  way  to  the  new-born  King  of  the  Jews.  From  time  imme- 
morial Balaam's  star  out  of  Jacob  has  been  placed  in  direct  and 
immediate  connection  with  the  star  of  the  wise  men,  of  which  it 
has  been  regarded  as  a  direct  prediction.  We  cannot  admit, 
however,  that  there  was  any  such  connection  as  this.  The  star 
above  the  manger  merely  announced  the  coming  of  Christ ;  it 
served  as  a  guide  to  the  place  of  His  birth.  But  the  star  which 
was  seen  in  the  future  by  Balaam's  prophetic  eye  was  Christ 
Himself.  Balaam's  star,  therefore,  was  not  a  prediction  of  the 
star  of  the  wise  men,  but  they  were  both  witnesses  of  the  coming 
of  Christ, — the  former  as  a  prophecy  of  the  future,  the  latter  as 
a  symbol  for  the  time  then  present. 

(2.)  On  the  propitecies  of  Balaam  against  all  hos- 
tile HEATHEN  NATIONS,  the  last  branch  of  which  reaches  into 
a  point  in  the  future  more  distant,  so  far  as  this  particular 
feature  is  concerned,  than  any  which  came  within  the  range  of 
vision  of  any  subsequent  Israelitish  prophet  until  the  time  of 
Daniel,  Bcmmgarten  has  ajDtly  observed  (i.  2,  377)  :  "  Since 
Balaam,  as  a  heathen,  whose  home  was  on  the  Euphrates,  the 
great  river  of  Assyria,  saw  all  these  events  in  spirit  from  the 
stand-point  of  the  movements  among  heathen  nations,  Ave  can 
easily  understand  how  it  was,  that  in  this  respect  his  view  ex- 
tended far  beyond  the  range  of  either  earlier  or  later  prophecy 
among  the  Israelites  ;  and  that  Daniel,  who,  though  an  Israelite 
by  his  place  of  residence,  his  training,  and  his  official  standing, 
was  led  to  look  at  things  from  the  same  point  of  view  as  Balaam, 
was  the  first  to  resume  the  thread  and  carry  it  fiu'ther  still." 
This  does  not  aifect  what  Delitzsch  has  observed  in  connection 
Avitli  this  subject,  in  opposition  to  the  idea  that  prophecy  is  ah- 


444  ISRAEL  IN  THE  ARBOTH  MOAB. 

solutely  tied  down  by  personal  and  historical  circumstances,  oc- 
casions, and  motives.  Let  it  be  fully  admitted,  that  the  Spirit 
of  God  in  the  prophets  both  could  and  frequently  did  look 
further  than  the  historical  occasions,  necessities,  and  tendencies, 
or  the  personal  disposition,  training,  and  bent  of  mind  of  the 
organ  of  prophecy  would  have  led  one  to  expect ;— but  let  it 
also  be  admitted,  that  prophecy  was  no  Deus  ex  machina,  taking 
no  account  whatever  of  historical  circumstances  and  require- 
ments, and  entirely  ignoring  the  disposition  and  mental  charac- 
teristics of  the  prophets  themselves.  As  surely  as  the  prophecy 
which  issued  from  the  mouth  of  an  Isaiah  bore  a  totally  different 
character,  and  took  a  totally  different  course,  from  that  of  Eze- 
kiel,  whilst  this  again  took  a  different  direction  from  that  of 
Daniel ;  so  certain  is  it  that  this  obvious  difference  is  to  be  at- 
tributed to  the  peculiar  circumstances  and  personal  character- 
istics of  Isaiah,  Ezekiel,  and  Daniel.  Prophecy,  again,  is  always 
and  withou.t  exception  connected  vnth  the  historical  circmn- 
stances  of  the  age.  The  form  and  direction  which  it  takes  have 
some  regard  to  the  necessities  of  the  age. — But,  it  not  merely 
unfolds  itself  accordina;  to  the  extent  to  which  the  germs  of  the 
future  exist  in  the  present,  and  have  been  brought  into  existence 
by  the  ordinary  course  of  history;  it  also  impregnates  it  with 
neio  germs,  which  it  is  afterwards  the  task  of  history  to  unfold. 
For  prophecy,  history  is  certainly  not  the  generative  principle, 
but  simply  the  receptive  womb ;  at  the  same  time,  it  is  not  eveiy 
age  that  is  adapted  to  its  pru'poses,  but  only  one  sufficiently  ma- 
tured, just  as  the  mature  womb  alone  can  conceive  and  foster  a 
fruitful  germ. 

If  we  look  now  at  the  details  of  Balaam's  prophecy  with  re- 
gard to  the  future  history  of  the  heathen,  there  is  no  difficulty 
at  all  in  his  announcement  respecting  Moah  and  Edom.  In 
ver.  20  Amalek  is  called  the  beginning  of  the  heathen,  ^''^'xn 
Dpan.  The  explanation  adopted  by  Ewald,  Lengerhe,  and  others, 
viz.,  that  the  Amalekites  are  called  the  beginning  as  being  the 
oldest  of  the  nations,  as  having  akeady  become  a  powerful  and 
independent  people,  when  the  rest  of  the  nations  mentioned  here 
were  but  just  in  process  of  formation,  is  opposed  to  historical 
tradition  (§  4,  2),  and,  to  say  the  least,  is  not  supported  by  the 
usage  of  the  language ;  for  in  Amos  vi.  1  Israel  is  also  called  JT'tJ'Xn 
n''Un,  by  which  the  prophet  certainly  did  not  intend  to  say  that 


Balaam's  prophecies.  445 

Isrp.el  was  the  oldest  of  the  nations. — In  his  Dissertation  on  the 
Pentateuch,  Hengstenberg  interpreted  the  expression  as  mean- 
iniT,  that  Amalek  was  the  first  of  all  the  heathen  nations  v/hich 
rose  up  in  hostility  to  Israel  (§  4,  3).  But  he  has  given  up  this 
explanation  since  then,  because,  although  CiJ  does  not  merely 
mean  nations,  but  nations  in  contradistinction  to  Israel,  and 
therefore  Gentile  rtations,  yet  it  does  not  imply  hostility  to  Israel, 
which  the  former  explanation  presupposed.  The  view  which  he 
now  supports  is  this  :  Amalek  is  called  the  beginning  of  the  na- 
tions, as  being  the  foremost  in  glory  and  power ;  just  as  in 
Amos  vi.  1  Israel  is  called  the  beginning  of  the  natimis  in  just  the 
same  sense,  and  in  Amos  vi.  6  ^''JDt^  ^''t;•^{1  means  the  first,  i.e., 
the  best,  the  most  excellent  of  salves.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
whatever  that  T\''^^'\  may  be  used  in  this  sense.  At  the  same  time, 
Hengstenberg' s  first  explanation  appears  to  me  the  most  in  har- 
mony with  the  context  and  the  general  tenor  of  the  prophecy. 
D^lin  JT'K'S")  stands  in  unmistakeable  antithesis  to  W'<yr\  IT'ins  (the 
end  of  the  days)  in  ver.  14,  on  which  the  wdiole  prophecy  de- 
pends. If,  then,  "  the  end,'''  so  far  as  the  range  of  this  prophecy 
is  concerned,  was  the  period  when  all  heathen  hostility  to  Israel 
should  cease,  "  the  beginning"  wordd  be  the  period  when  this 
heathen  hostiUty  first  commenced.  And  the  commencement 
was  actually  made  by  Amalek  ;  for  the  enmity  of  Egypt  does 
not  enter  into  consideration  here,  seeing  that  when  Israel  was 
in  Eg}q3t  it  was  not  a  nation  by  the  side  of  other  nations.  The 
Exodus  first  gave  it  this  character.  It  is  true  enough  that  the 
word  D''1J  does  not  necessarily  denote  a  hostile  attitude  to  Israel ; 
but  it  acquires  the  meaning  here,  from  the  fact  that  the  nations 
mentioned  were  all  hostile  to  Israel.  Full  justice  is  not  done  by 
Hengstenberg' s  last  explanation,  even  to  the  antithesis  between 
n''ini<  and  iT'Si'K"!  in  ver.  20,  "  the  beginning  of  the  heathen  is 
Amalek,  his  end  hastens  to  destruction ;"  that  is  to  say,  Amalek, 
which  was  the  first  to  engage  in  hostilities  with  Israel,  shall  be 
the  first  to  suffer  the  overthrow  which  awaits  all  the  enemies  of 
Israel  (1  Sam.  xv.). — Even  in  Amos  vi.  1  the  expression  n''L"J<"i 
D'''ijn,  as  applied  to  Israel,  may  denote  not  the  most  eminent  of 
the  nations,  but  literally  and  historically  the  first  of  the  nations. 
I  am  also  of  opinion,  that  in  this  passage  Amos  makes  some  al- 
lusion to  Num.  xxiv.  20,  but  with  Hengstenberg's  interpretation 
I  cannot  perceive  for  what  purpose  the  allusion  is  made.     But 


446  ISRAEL  IN  THE  ARBOTH  MOAB. 

if  we  take  the  expression  in  both  instances  as  denoting  historical 
priority,  the  similarity,  yet  contrast,  in  the  use  of  the  words  gives 
a  peculiar  significance  to  the  allusion.  Amalek  and  Israel  are 
both  "  first-fruits  of  the  nations  ;"  but  whereas  Amalek  was  the 
first  nation  to  oppose  the  kingdom  of  God,  Israel  was  the  first 
to  enter  it.  In  the  same  sense  Israel  is  called  "  the  first-born 
son  of  Jehovah"  in  Ex.  iv.  22,  and  the  "  first-fruits  of  His  in- 
crease" in  Jer.  ii.  3. — What  pre-eminent  importance  must  have 
belonged  to  the  position  of  Amalek  at  the  time  of  Balaam's  pro- 
phecy is  apparent  from  ver.  7,  where  the  power  and  glory  of  the 
future  monarchy  in  Israel  are  described  in  these  words  :  "  Higher 
than  Agag  be  thy  king."  {A  gag  was  not  the  name  of  one  parti- 
cular king  of  Amalek,  as  in  1  Sam.  xv.  8,  but  the  official  name 
of  all  the  kings  ;  according  to  the  Arabic,  JJK  meant  the  Jiery 
one,  valde  ardens,  rutilans,  splendens.)  Hence,  as  this  prophecy 
proves  (and  history  strengthens  the  proof),  Amalek  was  the 
strongest  and  most  warlike  of  all  the  nations  mth  whom  Israel 
came  into  conflict  in  the  time  of  Moses,  more  powerful  even 
than  Edom ;  for  otherwise  the  latter  would  have  been  selected 
as  the  standard  of  comparison. 

In  connection  with  vers.  21,  22,  the  question  arises,  What 
nation  are  we  to  understand  by  the  Kenites  mentioned  here  ? 
We  meet  with  the  name  first  of  all  in  Gen.  xv.  19,  in  the  list  of 
nations,  who  are  to  be  regarded  as  the  (pre-Canaanitish)  abori- 
gines of  the  land  of  Canaan  (yid.  vol.  i.  §  45,  1).  Hengstenberg, 
however,  supposes  them  to  have  been  a  Canaanitish  people, 
who  were  still  ia  existence  in  the  time  of  Moses,  and  whom 
Balaam  singled  out  as  the  representatives  of  the  Canaanites 
generally.  But  there  are  two  objections  to  this.  In  the  first 
place,  they  are  omitted  from  the  list  of  nations  in  Gen.  x., 
which  is  equivalent  to  a  positive  proof,  that  in  the  time  of 
Moses  they  were  not  in  existence  as  an  independent  nation  of 
any  importance  (vol.  i.  §  29,  5)  ;  and  in  the  second  place,  they 
are  not  mentioned  in  any  of  the  numerous  lists  of  the  Canaan- 
itish nations  whom  Israel  overthrew. — Again,  we  find  the  name 
of  the  Kenites  in  the  Terahite  nation  of  the  Midianites.  At 
all  events,  at  a  later  period  that  branch  of  the  ^lidianites  to 
which  Moses  was  related  by  marriage,  and  which  had  separated 
itself  from  the  main  body  of  the  tribe,  and  maintained  an  al- 
liance with  the  Israelites,  appears  to  have  been  distinguished  by 


BALAAIU'S  PROPHECIES.  447 

this  particular  name^  (Judg.  i.  16,  iv.  11 ;  1  Sam.  xv.  6,  xxvii. 
10,  XXX.  29  :  vid.  vol.  ii.  §  19,  6,  7,  and  §  52,  3).  Since,  then, 
for  the  reasons  assigned,  we  cannot  possibly  think  of  the  Kenites 
mentioned  in  Gen.  xv.  19  ;  and  since  the  name  of  the  Kenites 
unquestionably  occurs  among  the  !Midianites,  and  a  curse  di- 
rected against  this  nation,  which  was  now  allied  with  the  Moab- 
ites  for  the  purpose  of  compassing  the  destruction  of  Israel, 
would  be  perfectly  in  place  here,  we  have  no  hesitation  in  re- 
garding the  cvu'se  directed  against  the  Kenites  as  intended  for 
the  Midianites.  The  reason  why  Balaam  preferred  the  more  un- 
common name,  is  evident  from  ver.  21.  The  appearance  of  their 
homes  in  the  rocks  rendered  the  similarity  in  sound  betAveen  Ji^ 
and  ''y'\>_  peculiarly  welcome.  How  the  name  of  Kenites^  came 
to  be  applied  to  the  Midianites, — whether  it  arose  spontane- 
ously and  independently  among  themselves,  or  whether  it  is  to 
be  traced  to  an  admixture  of  the  JViidianites  with  the  Kenites 
mentioned  in  Gen.  xv.  19,  who  may  perhaps  have  been  subju- 
gated by  them  (as  was  the  case  with  the  Awdtes,  whose  name 
occurs  among  the  Phihstines,  Josh.  xiii.  3), — must  be  left  unde- 
cided.— The  arguments  adduced  in  support  of  his  opinion  (which 
we  have  shown  above  to  be  inadmissible),  and  against  our  own, 
have  no  weight  whatever ;  and,  when  examined  more  closely, 
tell  somewhat  against  the  former.  It  woxild  be  a  strange  thing, 
he  says,  if  Balaam  had  never  mentioned  the  Ccmaanites  among 
the  enemies  of  Israel ;  and  all  the  more  strange  ('?  !),  from  the 
fact  that  the  conflict  with  the  Canaanites  was  by  no  means 
simply  a  future  one,  but  already  the  Canaanitish  king  of  Arad, 

^  EvoakVs  conjecture,  that  the  Kenites  in  Gen.  xv.  19,  and  also  in  Num. 
xxiv.  21,  22,  were  a  smaller  branch  of  the  Amalekites  (the  aborigines,  in  his 
opinion) — a  conjecture  which  he  bases  upon  1  Sam.  xv.  6 — is  perfectly- 
unfounded  and  imaginary.  All  that  this  passage  proves,  is  that  the  branch 
of  the  Midianites  wluch  was  friendly  to  the  Israelites,  who  bore  the  name 
of  Kenites  in  the  later  books,  dwelt  in  Saul's  time  near  to  (possibly  hi)  the 
territory  of  the  Amalekites.  From  what  is  stated  in  1  Sam.  xv.  6, — vlz.^ 
that  Saul  said  to  the  Kenites,  "  Go,  depart,  get  you  down  from  among  the 
Amalekites,  lest  I  destroy  you  among  them  ;  for  ye  showed  kindness  to  all 
the  childi-en  of  Israel  wlieu  they  came  up  out  of  Egypt," — the  more  natural 
conclusion  would  certainly  be,  that  there  cannot  have  been  any  blood- 
relationship  between  these  Kenites  and  the  Amalekites. — Compare  cliajj. 
XXX.  29,  where  David  is  said  to  have  shared  the  spoil,  wliich  he  took  from 
the  Amalekites,  with  the  allied  cities  of  the  Kenites. 

^  It  denotes  a  lancer,  an  armed  man,  a  warrior. 


448  ISRAEL  IN  THE  ARBOTH  MOAB, 

in  the  country  to  the  west  of  the  Jordan,  had  been  defeated, 
and  the  Canaanitish  kings,  Sihon  and  Og,  in  the  country  to  the 
east  of  the  Jordan,  had  been  both  defeated  and  placed  under 
the  ban.  To  this  I  reply,  that  it  would  have  been  incomparably 
more  strange  if  Balaam  had  not  mentioned  the  Midianites  among 
the  enemies  of  Israel;  and  the  more  so,  because  at  this  very  time 
the  Midianites  were  in  league  with  the  Moabites,  to  effect  the 
overthrow  of  Israel.  And  if  the  king  of  Arad,  with  his  people, 
and  the  Canaanites  on  the  east  of  the  Jordan,  were  already 
conquered  and  placed  under  the  ban,  and  therefore  removed 
from  the  list  of  the  enemies  of  Israel,  of  what  use  would  it  have 
been  for  Balaam  to  curse  them  ?  No  doubt,  there  were  still 
Canaanites  enough  remaining  in  the  country  to  the  west  of  the 
Jordan  ;  and,  with  the  evident  intention  of  the  Israehtes  to  con- 
quer their  land,  they  would  probably  not  be  very  fnendly  to- 
wards them.  But  Balaam  could  not  include  them  in  his  pro- 
phecy ;  for  the  simple  reason  that,  as  he  himself  distinctly 
stated,  he  did  not  intend  to  predict  what  would  take  place  in 
the  time  then  coming,  but  what  would  take  place  in  the  far 
distant  future  (ver.  17),  the  "  end  of  the  days"  (ver.  14). 

We  take  for  granted,  then,  that  the  prophecy  before  us  is 
directed  against  the  Midianites,  who  were  opposed  to  Israel. 
But  by  whom  was  Kain  to  be  wasted  ?  Hengstenher<j  replies, 
"  By  IsraeV  But  Balaam  himself  says,  "  How  long,  and 
Asshur  will  carry  thee  away."  For  it  is  as  clear  as  daylight 
that  the  suffix  can  only  relate  to  Kain,  of  whom  he  is  speaking, 
and  cannot  possibly  refer  to  Israel,  to  whom  there  is  not  the 
slightest  allusion  in  the  entire  strophe. —  Ilengstenherg  brings 
forward  three  arguments  in  support  of  his  opinion,  which  we 
will  now  proceed  to  examine.  The  first  is,  that  "  Kain  is 
mentioned  just  before  in  the  third  person."  This  is  quite  cor- 
rect ;  but  is  it  so  unwonted  a  thing  for  the  second  person  to  be 
changed  into  the  third,  and  vice  versa,  in  a  poetic  discom-se  1 
The  poet  first  addresses  Kain  in  the  second  person,  and  then 
speaks  of  him  in  the  third  person,  and  then  speaks  to  him  in  the 
second  again.  What  life  does  this  interchange  throw  into  the 
discourse !  And  what  meaning  there  is  in  the  change  !  The 
seer  begins  with  the  direct  addi'ess,  "  Lasting  is  thy  dwelling, 
O  Kain  ! "  he  then  turns  to  the  hearer,  "  And  yet  Kain  will 
not  escape  destruction  ;"  and  he  concludes  by  addressing  the 


Balaam's  prophecies.  449 

exclamation  to  Kain,  "  How  long,  and  Assliur  will  cany  thee 
away." — By  the  side  of  this  highly  poetical  liveliness,  what 
avails  an  objection  which  destroys  all  the  spirit  of  poetry  by 
the  introduction  of  the  most  sober  reflection  ;  such  as  this,  for 
example  :  "  That  the  words  are  addressed  to  Israel  Q  !),  is  indi- 
cated by  the  prophet  himself  by  the  very  fact  (?!),  that  in  the 
first  half  of  the  verse  he  drops  the  address  to  the  Kenites,  which 
he  had  carried  through  ver.  21,  and  which  he  would  otherwise 
have  continued  (?  !)."  And  now  listen  a  little  further :  "Israel 
is  also  addressed  by  Balaam  elsewhere,  namely,  at  the  beginning 
and  end  of  the  second  (it  should  be  third)  prophecy." — Yes, 
truly,  he  there  exclaims  (ver.  5),  "  How  goodly  are  thy  tents, 
O  Jacob  !  and  thy  dwellings,  O  Israel  ! "  And  so,  because 
the  poet  addresses  Israel  here  in  the  second  person,  and  expressly 
mentions  its  name;  in  another  prophecy,  where  there  is  also  an 
address  in  the  second  person,  Israel  must  be  intended,  though 
its  name  is  not  mentioned,  and  the  name  of  Kain  has  been 
mentioned  immediately  before ! — (2.)  "The  carrying  away,  there- 
fore, can  hardly  relate  to  the  Kenites,  because  the  stress  lies 
upon  the  destruction.  A  nation  that  has  already  been  destroyed, 
cannot  be  afterwards  carried  away."  Certainly  not !  But  no- 
thing has  been  said  about  Kain  having  been  already  destroyed ; 
and  Hengstenherg  himself  renders  the  clause,  "Kain  becomes 
for  a  desolation."  This  it  became  simply  through  the  fact  of 
its  being  carried  away.  Strictly  speaking,  however,  it  does  not 
mean  "for  a  desolation,"  but  "for  a  burning"  ("'^^r').  The 
home  of  the  Kenites  is  burned,  but  they  themselves  are  carried 
away.  Does  not  this  harmonise  perfectly  ? — (3.)  "  If  we  refer 
the  clause,  '  Asshur  shall  carry  thee  away,'  to  the  Kenites,  we 
are  at  a  loss  what  to  do  with  the  sequel.  There  will  then  be 
nothinfT  to  indicate  the  relation  in  which  it  stands  to  the  leading 
thought  of  the  prophecy.  The  overthrow  of  Asshur  comes  into 
consideration  here,  only  so  far  as  he  is  the  enemy  of  Israel. 
But  if  the  words  in  question  do  not  apply  to  Israel,  he  is  never 
pointed  out  in  this  light  at  all."  Was  it  necessary,  then,  that 
he  should  be  expressly  so  pointed  out"?  If  the  leading  idea  of  the 
pixjjohecy  is  precisely  this,  that  the  heathen  nations  must  perish 
on  account  of  their  hostility  to  Israel,  it  follows,  as  a  matter  of 
course,  that  it  must  be  on  this  account  that  Asshiu'  is  doomed  to 
perish.  But  what  renders  Ilengstenberg's  explanation  inadmis- 
\'OL.  III.  2  F 


450  ISRAEL  IN  THE  AEBOTH  MOAB. 

sible,  is  the  character  of  the  prophecy  itself.  Balaam  was  to 
pronounce  on  Israel  blessings,  and  not  ciu'ses  ;  whereas  the 
captivity  of  Israel  by  Asshnr  would  be  a  cui'se,  and  not  a 
blessing.  The  seer  has  already  solemnly  declared  that  there  is 
no  fault  or  calamity  in  Israel ;  and  yet  to  the  very  same  Israel 
he  announces  a  calamity  no  less  grievous,  than  the  captivity  of 
the  entire  nation  ! — I  am  fully  convinced  that  Hengstenberg 
would  have  opposed  with  all  his  might  an  interpretation,  so 
obviously  opposed  to  the  character  of  the  whole  prophecy,  and 
so  destructive  of  the  impression  it  was  intended  to  produce,  if 
he  had  not  been  shut  up  to  it  by  the  irpoirov  -\|reOSo9  in  his  ex- 
position, viz.,  the  identification  of  the  Kenites  with  the  Canaan- 
ites  :  for  of  course  the  Canaanites,  who  had  been  entirely  de- 
stroyed by  Joshua,  could  not  be  carried  away  by  Asshur. — It 
is  true,  there  is  no  historical  account  of  the  Midianites  being 
carried  away  captive  by  Asshur.  But  they  are  only  mentioned 
once,  subsequently  to  their  overthrow  by  Gideon,  viz.,  in  Is. 
Ix.  6.  There  is  no  improbability,  therefore,  in  the  supposition, 
that  they  were  carried  into  captivity  by  the  Assyrians. 

The  last  heathen  nation,  whose  overthrow  Balaam  predicted, 
was  Asshur.  In  the  parallel  clause,  the  name  of  Eher  is 
placed  by  its  side.  That  the  Israehtes  cannot  be  intended 
(Balaam  never  speaks  of  them  under  any  other  name  than 
Jacob  or  Israel),  is  evident  from  a  single  glance  at  the  character 
and  drift  of  the  prophecy.  Eber  denotes  those  who  live  beyond 
the  Euphrates  {ind.  vol.  i.  §  46,  4),  and  therefore  is  essentially 
synonymous  with  Asshur,  though  not  so  definite.  It  was  the 
great  imperial  power  of  Asia,  which  was  as  yet  too  far  off  for 
the  Assyi'ian  and  Babylonian  empu'es  to  be  distinguished.  The 
exclamation  of  woe  with  which  Balaam  commenced  this  last 
section  of  his  prophecy,  is  supposed  by  Hengstenberg  to  have 
arisen  from  the  fact,  that  he  took  this  judgment  more  to  heart 
than  any  of  the  others,  on  account  of  its  affecting  the  children 
of  his  own  people. 

The  destruction  of  Asshur  was  to  be  effected  by  a  power, 
coming  in  ships  from  the  west  to  the  lands  of  the  Euphrates. 
It  comes /ro??i  the  side  of  Chittim  (p''^'^  "'!'?).  It  is  now  generally 
admitted  that  Chittim  originally  meant  Cyprus  (vid.  Gesenius, 
Thesaurus  s.  v.)  ;  and  Hengstenberg  has  shown  that  it  was  origi- 
nally restricted  to  Cyprus,  and  did  not  embrace  all  the  islands 


Balaam's  prophecies.  451 

and  countries  of  the  west.  Cyprus  is  introduced  here  as  tlie 
principal  mart  of  commerce  in  the  Mediterranean,  the  medium 
of  communication  between  the  east  and  the  west ;  and  only  in 
this  capacity  was  it  the  representative  of  the  countries  of  the 
west  in  general.  It  is  not  stated  that  destruction  is  to  be 
l)i-ought  upon  Asshur  by  ships  of  Cliittim  ;  but  only  by  ships 
which  come  from  the  side  of  Chittim,  that  is  to  say,  from  the 
west.  The  fact,  that  the  event  which  the  seer  here  beholds,  an 
event  which  shakes  the  world,  and  fills  him  with  the  greater  terror 
and  dismay,  from  the  fact  that  it  touches  the  children  of  his  own 
nation,  is  mighty  and  irresistible  in  its  character,  is  expressed 
without  ambiguity  in  the  words,  "  Woe,  who  will  live,  when  God 
doeth  this  !" 

To  an  expositor  who  retains  the  least  impartiality,  and  is  not 
altogether  enslaved  by  dogmatic  prejudices,  it  cannot  for  a 
moment  be  doubtful,  that  the  destruction  of  the  imperial  power 
of  Asia  by  Greeks  and  Romans  is  predicted  here  (like  the  Assy- 
rian and  Babylonian  empires,  they  are  still  classed  together  as 
one);  and  therefore  (Jioi^ribile  dictu!)  that  we  have  here  a  pro- 
phecy in  the  strictest  sense  of  the  word,  the  prediction  of  an 
event  which  no  human  wisdom  or  acuteness  could  have  foreseen 
or  calculated  iipon,  either  in  the  time  of  Moses,  or  David,  or 
Malachi.  But  in  this  case  all  the  foregone  conclusions  of  our 
rationalistic  critics,  who  consider  themselves  so  free  from  every- 
thing of  the  kind,  and  all  the  dogmatic  prejudices  of  those  who 
boast  that  they  have  no  prejudices  at  all,  would  be  overthrown 
in  a  moment.  "  No,"  they  reply,  "  prophecy  and  miracles  are 
impossible.  That  is  a  priori  certain,  and  therefore  it  cannot 
be  admitted  that  there  is  any  prophecy  here."  But  what  can 
be  done  to  bring  the  dogma  of  the  impossibility  of  prophecies, 
in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word,  from  so  fatal  a  situation  ? 
Just  look,  and  perhaps  you  may  find  in  some  small  corner  of 
history  an  account  of  some  Greek  ships  arriving  in  Asia,  upon 
which  the  prophecy  might  be  fastened,  as  a  vaticinium  post 
eventum,  whether  it  be  suitable  or  not.  True  enough !  The 
hope  is  realised.  AVhen  the  Chronicon  of  Eusebius  became 
known,  the  thing  desired  was  actually  found,  and  the  happy 
discoverer  was  Flitzig  (Begriff  der  Critik,  p.  54  sqq.).  Von 
Boldeii  now  began  to  huzzah  at  the  admirable  explanation;  and 
11.  Lengerhe  covdd  not  imagine  anything  that  could  stand  against 


4r)2  ISRAEL  IX  THE  ARBOTH  MOAB. 

it.  Hitzig  himself  also  thought  that  "  no  other  allusion  could 
possibly  be  imagined." 

The  account  referred  to  has  respect  to  "  an  invasion  of  Asia 
by  the  Greeks  in  the  time  of  Sennacherib,  about  which  Alexander 
Polyhistor,  probably  fi*om  Berosus,  writes  as  follows  {Euseh. 
Chron.  ed.  Ven.,  p.  21)  : — Quum  autem  ille  fama  accepisset, 
Grsecos  in  Ciliciam  belli  movendi  causa  pervenisse,  ad  eos  con- 
tendit ;  aciem  contra  aciem  instruxit,  ac  plurimis  quidem  de  suo 
exercitu  csesis,  hostes  tamen  debellat,  atque  in  victorise  monu- 
mentum  imaginem  suam  in  eo  loco  erectam  reliquit,  Chaldaicis- 
que  literis  fortitudinem  ac  \artutem  suam  ad  futuri  temporis 
memoriam  incidi  jussit. — Compare  the  shorter  account  given  by 
Abydenus  of  the  same  event,  "  ad  litus  maris  Cilicise  Graecorum 
classem  profligatam  depressit." 

It  really  requires  a  very  strong  power  of  imagination  to  find 
it  quite  "  conceivable,"  that  the  prophecy  before  us  was  written 
some  years  after  this  event,  and  is  to  be  traced  to  the  impression 
which  it  left  upon  the  minds  of  the  Israelites.  The  landing  of 
a  few  Greek  ships  upon  the  shores  of  Cilicia  (although  the 
attack  was  repulsed,  if  not  entirely  without  loss,  yet  immediately 
and  with  comj^lete  success,  and  therefore  was  followed  by  no 
results  whatever),  produced  such  an  impression  upon  the  minds 
of  the  Israelites,  that  three  or  fom*  years  afterwards  an  Israel- 
itish  poet  proceeded  to  describe  it  in  such  terms  as  these !  An 
attack  upon  the  shores  of  Cilicia  he  describes  as  an  oppression 
of  Asshur  and  Eber!  The  defeat  of  the  Greeks,  who  were 
compelled  to  retm'u  immediately  and  altogether  without  success, 
is  a  striking  judgment  of  God  upon  Asshiir  and  Eber !  And  a 
victor}^  of  Sennacherib,  which  this  monarch  himself  caused  to  be 
recorded  upon  a  monument  as  one  of  his  glorious  achievements, 
is  repi'esented  as  the  overthrow  of  Asshur  and  Eber !  Can  we 
believe  it  possible,  that  so  insignificant  an  event  as  this,  of  which 
not  the  slightest  mention  is  made,  either  in  the  historical  or  pro- 
phetical books  of  the  Bible,  or  in  the  whole  of  the  literature  of 
Greece,  and  which  had  passed  away,  without  leaving  any  traces 
behind,  long  before  the  time  of  the  poet,  should  be  introduced 
in  such  terms  as  these,  "  Alas  !  who  shall  live  when  God  doeth 
this'?" 

To  complete  what  we  have  already  written,  we  subjoin  the 
following  extracts  from  Hengstenherg' s  reply  to  Hitzig's  theory 


Balaam's  prophecies.  453 

(Balaam,  p.  502)  : — (i.)  Had  this  event  been  of  such  importance 
as  Hitzig  assumes,  and  had  it  made  such  an  impression  upon  the 
Israehtes  as  to  call  forth  this  prophecy,  we  should  expect  to  find 
some  reference  made  to  it  in  other  parts  of  the  Okl  Testament. 
But  nothing  of  the  kind  is  to  be  found ;  the  supposition  that 
there  is  such  a  reference,  has  been  given  up  (and  very  properly) 
even  by  llitzig  himself,  in  liis  Die  Psalmen  historisch  krit.  unters. 
1836,  p.  42  sqq. — (ii.)  Even  admitting  that  the  account  of  Alex- 
ander Polyhistor  is  perfectly  trustworthy,  and  not  too  highly 
coloured  in  the  Oriental  style,  in  which  the  enemies  are  usu- 
ally made  more  terrible,  that  the  victory  over  them  may  appear 
the  more  splendid ;  yet  it  by  no  means  suggests  the  idea  of  a 
hostile  invasion  of  such  a  character,  that  even  the  most  timid 
could  have  expected  it  to  be  followed  by  the  ruin  of  Asia.  The 
Greeks  never  advanced  farther  than  the  coast;  and  a  single 
battle  sufficed  for  their  complete  expulsion. — (iii.)  The  idea  of  an 
expedition  from  Greece  against  Asia,  on  anything  like  a  large 
scale,  in  the  time  of  Sennacherib,  is  completely  at  variance  with 
all  the  historical  circumstances  of  the  age.  All  that  they  will 
allow  us  to  think  of,  is  a  dash  at  the  coast  (Streifzug),  a  preda- 
tory incursion,  or  an  attempt  to  found  a  colony.  This  remark 
was  made  by  Niehuhr  himself,  who  was  the  first  to  call  atten- 
tion to  the  notice,  and  who  received  it  with  some  prepossession 
in  its  favour.  He  says:  "The  state  of  Greece  at  this  time  for- 
bids oiu*  thinking  of  a  combined  expedition,  at  all  resembling 
the  Trojan  war"  (p.  205).  Plass  (Vor-,  und  Urgeschichte  der 
Hellenen,  ii.  5,  6)  says  of  the  condition  of  Greece  during  the 
whole  period  1100-500  B.C.:  "In  these  six  centuries,  the 
Greeks  were  not  attacked  by  a  single  foreign  enemy;  nor 
did  they  all,  or  even  a  considerable  number  of  the  separate 
parts,  combine  together  to  engage  in  any  splendid  expedition 
abroad.  We  do  not  even  need  the  express  testimony  of  the 
well-informed  Thucydides  (i.  15)  to  convince  us  of  this.  The 
complete  silence  of  every  writer  as  to  any  such  entei'prise  is  amply 
sufficient.  .  .  .  The  Hellenic  tribes  enjoyed  a  peculiarly  good 
fortinie  dmnng  all  this  period  ;  for,  just  at  the  time  when  they 
were  occupied  with  their  internal  culture,  they  continued  en- 
tirely free  from  outward  attacks.  Nor  could  they  take  in  hand 
an  expedition  against  any  foreign  nation ;  for  they  were  so 
thoroughly  occupied  with  themselves  and  their  own  organisation, 


454  ISRAEL  TX  THE  ARBOTH  MOAB. 

and  so  broken  up  into  tribes  and  again  into  smaller  states,  that 
a  combination  of  the  whole,  or  even  of  any  considerable  number, 
for  a  common  purpose,  could  never  take  place  without  external 
pressure." 

Although  Hitzig  has  declared  that  "  no  other  allusion  is  con- 
ceivable," Ewald  lias  nevertheless  set  up  a  still  more  wretched 
solution,  not  only  as  "  conceivable,"  but,  like  all  his  discoveries, 
as  absolutely  certain,  and  not  leaving  the  smallest  room  for 
doubt.  He  says  :  "  The  words  of  the  poet,  who  has  taken  the 
name  of  Balaam  to  hide  his  own,  from  their  position,  certainly 
allude  to  an  event  which  must  have  been  the  most  recent  oc- 
currence in  history,  and  the  mention  of  which  would  bring  to 
mind  the  actually  existing  circumstances.  A  piratical  fleet  from 
the  Kittgeans,  i.e.,  from  the  Phoenician  Cyprians,  must  (?  !),  a 
short  time  before  this,  have  visited  the  Hebrew,  that  is  to  say 
the  Canaanitish  or  Phoenician  shores,  and  also  the  Assyrian, 
which  were  still  farther  to  the  north,  in  other  words,  the  coast 
of  Syi'ia.  Of  this  event,  the  consequences  of  which  cannot  have 
been  very  lasting,  no  other  distinct  record  has  been  preserved. 
But,  as  we  learn  from  the  Tyrian  Annals  of  Menander  (in  Jose- 
phus,  Antiquities,  9,  14,  2)  that  Elulaeus,  the  king  of  T}Te, 
conquered  the  Kittgeans,  who  had  revolted,  and  then  (evidently 
because  the  revolt  was  of  sufficient  importance)  Salmanassar, 
who  was  at  war  with  Tyre,  endeavoured  to  turn  it  to  account ; 
we  may  justly  assume  that  the  revolt  of  the  Kittaeans  lasted  for 
a  long  time,  before  Elulaeus  put  it  do\Aai." — Nearly  everything 
that  can  be  said  against  Hitzig' s  hypothesis,  applies  with  even 
greater  force  to  this  miserable  attempt  at  an  explanation.  Even 
Lengerhe,  who  is  generally  ready  enough  to  follow  Ewald,  is 
obliged  to  reject  it.  "  On  the  one  hand,  it  is  quite  inconceiv- 
able," he  says,  "  that  Eber  should  stand  for  Phoenicia  or  Canaan; 
for  Canaan  was  a  Hamite  by  descent.  On  the  other  hand,  how- 
ever, it  was  only  the  modern  Jews  who  applied  the  name  of 
Asshur  to  Syria ;  and  it  was  first  of  all  applied  to  the  succeed- 
ing monarchies  "  (i.  597). 

If  Balaam's  prophecies  are  set  down  as  free  poetical  produc- 
tions, vaticinia  post  eventum,  their  composition  must  necessarily 
be  placed  in  the  time  of  David,  or  the  age  immediately  follow- 
ing; for  the  achievements  of  David  are  too  e\'idently  the  heart, 
the  centre,  and  the  occasion  of  the  prophecies.     But  there  are 


CONFLICT  WITH  THE  MIDIANITES.  455 

tioo  tilings  at  variance  with  such  a  supposition.  In  the  frst 
place,  the  words  respecting  Asshur,  which  critics  who  reject  all 
])i-ophecy  never  can  assign  to  this  period,  and  on  the  strength  of 
which  Leiiijerke  regards  it  as  ^^  a  priori  certain  that  vers.  23,  24 
are  later  interpolations."  But  ver.  22  also  presupposes  the  im- 
])ortance  of  Asshur  as  an  imperial  power, — an  importance  which 
it  did  not  possess  till  the  time  of  Isaiah  and  Micah, — and  there- 
fore it  is  to  this  period  that  the  majority  of  critics  assign  the 
composition  of  the  prophecies. — In  the  second  p)lace,  the  words 
of  the  third  prophecy  in  ver.  7,  "  Let  his  king  be  higher  than 
Agag,"  irresistibly  compel  us  to  assign  the  composition  of  the 
prophecy  at  least  to  a  period  anterior  to  Saul;  for,  after  the 
total  defeat  of  the  Amalekites  under  Saul  (1  Sam.  xv.),  which 
broke  their  power  and  destroyed  their  importance  for  ever,  it 
would  \vA\Q  been  an  unparalleled  absurdity  for  a  poet  to  sup- 
pose that  he  could  find  no  more  glowing  terms  in  which  to 
describe  the  glory  and  might  of  the  Israelitish  monarchy,  than 
by  saying  that  the  king  of  Israel  was  more  glorious  than  even 
the  kins  of  Amalek. — There  are  allusions  and  distinct  references 
to  Balaam's  prophecies  even  in  the  ancient  prophets ;  compare, 
for  example,  chap.  xxiv.  21  with  Obadiah  ver.  3  ;  chap.  xxiv. 
18,  19  with  Obadiah  ver.  17  ;  and  chap.  xxi.  28  with  Jer. 
xlviii.  45.  The  prophecies  of  Balaam  are  also  mentioned 
in  Micah  vi.  5,  though  without  any  verbal  reference  to  their 
contents. 

CONFLICT  WITH  THE  MIDIANITES. 

§  58.  (Num.  xxv.-xxxi.) — When  Balaam  parted  from  Balak 
to  return  to  his  home,  he  stopped  by  the  Avay  among  the  Miclian- 
ites,  who  dwelt  upon  the  table-land  of  the  Moabitish  territory  (1) 
(§  52,  3).  No  sooner  had  the  avaricious  seer  come  down  from 
the  height  of  the  inspiration,  which  raised  him  above  himself, 
than  he  was  unable  to  bear  the  thought,  that  he  had  been  com- 
pelled to  turn  his  back  so  completely  upon  the  "  wages  of  un- 
righteousness." His  heart  was  filled  with  hatred  and  malice 
towards  the  Israelites,  for  whose  sake  he  had  been  obliged  to 
give  up  the  rich  reward.     This  was  the  actual  moment  of  deci- 


456  ISRAEL  IN  THE  ARBOTH  MOAB. 

sion,  the  hour  of  the  hardening  of  his  heart.  The  Midianites 
followed  his  advice  (Num.  xxxi.  16),  and,  pretending  friendship 
and  good-will  to  the  Israelites,  endeavoured  to  tempt  them  to 
participate  in  the  mibridled  licentiouspess  of  the  worship  of  their 
god  Baal-Peor.  The  plan  was  successful.  The  Israelites  ac- 
cepted the  invitation  to  the  festival ;  and,  forgetting  theu'  God 
Jehovah  and  their  own  calling,  rushed  into  idolatrous  adultery 
with  the  daughters  of  Midian  and  Moab  (2).  Moses,  incensed 
at  this  abominable  apostasy,  commanded  the  judges  of  Israel  to 
proceed  with  unsparing  rigour  and  put  the  guilty  to  death. 
The  vengeance  of  Jehovah  now  broke  forth  in  a  plague,  by 
which  many  thousands  were  destroyed.  But  in  spite  of  all  this, 
an  Israelite  named  Zimri,  a  chief  of  the  tribe  of  Simeon,  had 
the  imparalleled  audacity  to  take  Kosbi,  a  daughter  of  one  of 
the  IMidianitish  chiefs,  whom  he  had  chosen  as  his  mistress,  and 
bring  her  into  his  tent,  before  the  eyes  of  Moses  and  the  whole 
congregation,  for  the  purpose  of  performing  the  idolatrous  and 
abominable  act  in  the  very  midst  of  the  camp  of  Israel,  in  which 
the  hohness  of  Jehovah  dwelt.  Phinehas,  the  son  of  Eleazar 
and  grandson  of  Aaron,  stirred  with  holy  indignation  at  so  un- 
paralleled a  crime,  seized  a  spear,  rushed  after  them  into  the 
tent,  and  pierced  them  through  whilst  indulging  their  idolatrous 
lusts  (3).  For  this  act  of  priestly  zeal,  Phinehas  and  his  seed 
were  promised  the  priesthood  in  perpetuity,  as  a  covenant  of 
peace  with  Jehovah.  And  the  zeal  for  the  honour  of  Jehovah, 
which  had  arisen  spontaneously  in  the  midst  of  the  congregation, 
brought  its  reward  to  the  whole  congregation,  just  as  the  plague 
of  Jehovah  had  come  upon  the  whole  congregation  as  a  ban,  on 
account  of  the  sinners  in  the  midst.  From  this  moment  the 
plague  was  stayed;  but  twenty-four  thousand  had  already  fallen. 
Upon  this  the  Israelites  received  a  command  to  repay  the  hypo- 
critical and  crafty  friendship  of  the  Midianites  with  open  and 
avenging  enmity,  "  that  the  zeal  of  Phinehas,  by  which  the 
guilt  had  been  expiated,  might  be  appropriated  by  the  whole 
congregation."     But  before  this  command  was  executed,  a  fresh 


CONFLICT  WITH  THE  MIDIANITES.  457 

numbering  was  ordered  and  completed.  The  people  were  now 
about  to  be  led  against  the  IMidianites,  to  engage  in  the  holy 
battle  for  Jehovah,  and  therefore  (since  the  first  numbering  at 
Sinai  [§  20]  was  no  longer  valid,  in  consequence  of  the  rejection 
of  that  generation  and  the  death  of  all  who  composed  it)  it  was 
necessary  that  they  should  first  of  all  be  recognised  as  the  army 
of  Jehovah ;  and  this  was  accomplished  by  means  of  the  new 
census,  which  was  taken  by  Moses  and  Eleazar  (4).  But  as 
this  census  was  to  serve,  not  merely  to  raise  an  army  against 
!Midian,  but  also  to  prepare  for  the  immediately  approaching 
conquest  of  the  promised  land  on  the  other  side  of  the  Jordan, 
there  was  very  appropriately  connected  with  it  the  command  to 
set  apart  Joshua  as  the  successor  of  Moses,  since  Moses  himself 
was  not  to  tread  the  land  of  promise,  on  account  of  his  sin  at 
the  waters  of  strife  (§  44).  And  lastly,  in  order  that  the  fresh 
recognition  of  Israel,  as  the  congi'egation  of  the  Lord,  might 
also  be  sealed  on  the  part  of  the  Lord  Himself ;  the  giving  of 
the  law,  which  had  been  suspended  for  thirty-eight  years,  was  re- 
sumed ;  and  sundry  commands  were  issued,  respecting  offerings 
and  vows.  Twelve  thousand  picked  warriors  were  then  collected 
toijether,  to  wase  the  avenmno;  war  of  extermination  asjainst  the 
Midianites.  So  little  resistance  was  offered  by  tlie  latter,  that 
not  a  single  man  of  the  Israelites  perished.  The  five  Midianitish 
chiefs  (kings)  were  put  under  the  ban,  along  with  all  the  males. 
Among  these  was  Balaam,  who  now  received  the  proper  "wages 
of  unrighteousness."  The  Israelitish  soldiers  had  preserved  all 
the  Midianitish  women  alive ;  but,  as  it  was  really  with  them 
that  the  temptation  originated,  Moses  issued  a  command  that 
they  should  also  be  slain,  and  that  none  should  be  preserved 
except  the  virgins  who  had  never  known  a  man  (5). 

(1.)  In  chap.  xxiv.  25  it  is  stated  that  "Balaam  went  away, 
and  turned  to  his  place  (i^pp?  ^^''!!)?  ^^^^  Balak  also  went  his 
way."  But,  although  it  would  appear  from  these  words  that 
Balaam  returned  home,  we  find  him  afterwards  among  the  Midi- 
anites, to  whom  he  gave  advice  which  proved  destructive  to 


458  ISRAEL  IN"  THE  AEBOTH  MOAB. 

Israel,  and  among  whom  he  found  his  death.  Early  commenta- 
tors explained  inpD?,  according  to  the  analogy  of  Acts  i.  25  ("  to 
his  own  place"),  as  meaning  hell.  Others  were  of  o})inion  that 
the  place  referred  to  was  not  Balaam's  home  beyond  the  Eu- 
phrates, hut  the  place  where  he  had  been  staying  immediately 
before,  (^Steudel  still  adopts  this  interpretation.)  Others,  again, 
either  gave  the  verb  an  inchoative  meaning,  "  he  hega7i  to  return, 
or  supposed  that  Balaam  actually  returned  to  his  native  town, 
and  then  came  back  to  the  Midianites  again.  Hengstenherg  (p. 
508)  has  very  correctly  stated,  that  all  these  assumptions  are  set 
aside,  by  the  simple  remark  that  y{^  literally  means  to  turn 
away,  and  then  to  turn  back.  The  attainment  of  the  object 
forms  no  part  of  the  word."  IDpni?  z^''),  therefore,  is  strictly 
speaking  equivalent  to  "  he  set  out  upon  the  journey  home." 
At  the  same  time,  it  is  e^adent  from  what  follows,  that  he  never 
actually  reached  his  home. 

But  Hengstenherg  proceeds  to  observe,  at  p.  512  :  "  Balaam's 
ambition  and  avarice  sought  among  the  Israelites,  upon  whose 
gratitude  he  considered  that  he  had  just  claims,  the  satisfaction 
which  the  interposition  of  God  put  beyond  his  reach  among 
the  Moabites.  Pie  betook  himself  first  of  all  to  the  Israelitish 
camj),  which  was  not  far  from  the  spot  where  he  had  taken  leave 
of  Balak.  But  he  did  not  meet  with  such  a  reception  as  he  an- 
ticipated. Moses,  who  saw  through  his  heart,  which  was  not 
right  before  the  Lord,  perceived  that  the  thanks  were  not  due 
to  him,  who  had  done  all  he  could  to  gratify  the  wishes  of  the 
Moabitish  king,  but  to  the  Lord.  He  therefore  treated  him 
coldly ;  and  it  was  but  natural  that  his  ruling  passion,  which 
was  continually  recalling  to  his  memory  the  words  of  Balak,  '  I 
will  promote  thee  unto  very  gi-eat  honour,  and  I  will  do  what- 
soever thou  sayest  unto  me,'  impelled  him  to  seek  out  a  new- 
way  of  gratifying  it." — We  inquire  with  amazement,  Wliere 
has  the  author  learned  all  this  I  There  is  nothing  about  it  in 
the  Biblical  record,  and  not  the  slightest  hint  from  which  we 
could  infer  that  it  was  at  all  a  probable  thing.  Still  Hengsten- 
herg  is  quite  certain  that  he  is  right.  He  says  :  "  It  is  scarcely 
conceivable,  that  Balaam  should  have  allowed  so  excellent  an 
opportunity  for  gratifying  his  passion  to  pass  by  unimproved  ; — 
and  we  have  almost  as  strong  a  proof  as  we  should  have  in  an 
express  assertion,  in  the  circumstance,  that  the  contents  of  Num. 


CONFLICT  WITH  THE  MIDIANITES.  459 

xxii.-xxiv.  could  onhj  be  obtained  from  communications  made 
by  himself  to  the  elders  of  Israel."  We  must  observe,  in  the 
first  place,  however,  that  this  hypothesis  is  perfectly  irrecon- 
cileable  with  the  statement  in  ver.  25  (lOpD^  a:^'''"l,  he  turned  to 
his  place),  even  according  to  Hengstenberg's  own  (correct)  in- 
terpretation of  the  words.  For  if  IV/:}  means  to  turn  hack ;  when 
Balaam  parted  from  Balak,  he  cannot  have  gone  from  the 
heights  of  Peor  into  the  Arboth  Moab,  for  this  would  have  been 
goimj  forwa7xIs,  instead  of  turning  bocl:  And  beside  this,  we 
very  much  doubt  whether  the  "  psychological  probability"  is  so 
unquestionable,  as  Hengstenherg  thinks  that  he  has  shown  it  to  be. 
In  my  opinion,  it  would  be  a  far  more  correct  conclusion,  from 
a  psychological  point  of  view,  that  it  is  by  no  means  a  probable 
thing  that  Balaam  turned  to  the  Israelites,  after  the  frustration 
of  his  hopes  and  desires.  The  only  cii'cumstances  under  which 
we  can  imagine  his  doing  this,  w^ould  have  been,  if  what  had 
already  transpired  had  altered  his  mind  and  changed  his  heart, 
and  if  faith  had  led  him  to  seek  the  camp  of  the  Israelites.  But 
there  is  no  necessity  to  prove  that  this  was  not  the  case.  And 
if  his  avarice  and  ambition  w^ere  not  destroyed,  but  increased, 
by  the  frustration  of  his  hopes ;  his  feelings  towards  Israel,  who 
was  the  cause  of  his  failm'e,  would  be  turned  into  hatred,  and 
his  relation  to  Jehovah  for  ever  disturbed.  In  such  a  state  of 
mind  as  this,  he  would  take  good  care  not  to  venture  into  the 
camp  of  Israel,  where  the  holiness  of  Jehovah  dwelt.  Of  this 
holiness  he  had  already  experienced  too  much  that  was  adverse, 
to  have  the  least  hope  of  finding  gold  and  honom'  there. 

But  what  more  especially  surprises  us,  is  to  find  Hengstenherg 
maintaining,  that  it  is  only  on  this  supposition  that  Israel's 
acquaintance  with  the  contents  of  Num.  xxii.-xxiv.  is  at  all  con- 
ceivable. This  is  a  concession  to  the  destructive  critics,  which 
we  should  have  expected  Hengstenherg  to  be  one  of  the  last  to 
make.  For  if  his  psychological  argument  breaks  down  (and  he 
can  hardly  hide  its  weakness  even  from  himself),  he  must  give 
himself  entirely  into  their  hands. — We  are  by  no  means  inclined 
to  take  refuge  in  the  ultima  ratio  of  perplexity,  namely,  that  the 
historian  learned  all  that  is  recorded  in  chap,  xxii.-xxiv.  by  direct 
inspiration  of  God.  But  are  there  not  many  other  ways  in 
which  the  Israelites  might  have  obtained  the  information  ?  Ba- 
laam himself  fell  into  their  hands  at  a  later  period.     If,  then, 


460  ISRAEL  IN  THE  AEBOTH  MOAB. 

what  appears  to  us  to  be  a  very  unimportant  and  unessential 
question  is  to  be  answered  by  possibilities;  is  it  not  much  safer  and 
more  advisable  to  point  to  the  probabiliti/,  that  when  Balaam  was 
a  prisoner  and  threatened  with  death,  he  told  the  Israelites 
what  had  occurred,  and  what  was  so  flattering  to  them,  in  the 
hope  of  thereby  securing  then'  favoiu',  and  saving  his  own  life? — 
Not  to  mention  a  hundred  other  possibilities  of  their  obtaining 
the  information  through  the  medium  of  Moabitish  or  Midianitish 
men  or  women  !  An  occurrence  which  rushed  like  wildfire  over 
the  whole  of  Midian  and  Moab,  could  not  be  permanently  con- 
cealed from  the  Israelites. 

(2.)  The  unprejudiced  or  inconsiderate  manner  in  which  the 
Israelites  listened  to  the  cunning  invitation  of  the  Midianites, 
renders  it  very  probable,  that  as  yet  nothing  was  known  in  the 
congregation  of  what  had  transpired  between  Balak  and  Balaam 
(and  this  would  be  a  fresh  argument  against  Hengstenberg's 
hy]5otliesis,  which  we  have  just  refuted).  For  if  the  Israelites 
had  known  anything  of  the  hostile  dispositions  and  intentions 
of  the  Moabites  and  Midianites,  who  were  allied  together  for 
this  very  purpose,  and  whose  hostility  was  manifested  in  the 
invitation  sent  to  Balaam,  they  would  hardly  have  fallen  so 
heedlessly  into  the  snare.  Not  to  mention  anything  else,  they 
would  certainly  have  suspected  that  some  stratagem  or  hostile 
attack  was  hidden  behind  the  friendly  invitation  which  they  re- 
ceived ;  and  they  would  therefore  have  been  upon  their  guard 
against  accepting  it.  And  even  if  there  were  individuals  who 
were  imprudent  enough  to  yield,  or  sufficiently  tempted  to  do  so 
by  the  prospect  of  the  indulgence  of  their  fleshly  lusts;  Moses, 
and  Eleazar,  and  such  of  the  princes  and  judges  of  Israel  as 
continued  firm  in  their  adherence  to  Jehovah,  would  certainly 
do  everything  in  then*  power,  and  in  this  case  would  hardly  fail, 
to  restrain  them  from  the  road  to  destruction.  For  this  same 
reason,  it  is  probable  that  the  invitation  given  by  the  Midianites 
was  not  at  first  a  direct  invitation  to  join  in  a  feast  of  Baal- 
Peor,  but  merely  to  certain  festivals  of  which  no  precise  descrip- 
tion was  given.  When  once  the  Israelites  were  there,  as  the 
Midianites  may  possibly  have  thought,  the  power  of  sensuality 
would  do  the  rest. 

(3.)  On  the  example  of  Phinehas,  the  later  Jews  founded 
their  so-called  right  (jus  zelotarum),  according  to  which  even 


COXFLICT  WITH  THE  MIDIAXITES.  461 

persons  "who  were  not  qualified  to  do  so  by  any  official  posi- 
tion, had  the  right,  where  the  honour  of  Jehovah  was  con- 
cerned, to  obey  the  impulses  of  holy  zeal,  and  proceed  of  their 
own  accord  to  the  infliction  of  vengeance,  in  cases  in  which  the 
theocratic  institutions  and  interests  were  endangered  by  an  act 
of  presumptuous  denial  and  contempt.  Next  to  the  act  of  Phine- 
lias,  the  jus  zelotarum  derived  its  chief  support  from  the  similar 
examples  of  Samuel  (1  Sam.  xv.  33)  and  Mattathias  (1  Mace, 
ii.  24).  A  similar  occiuTence  in  the  New  Testament  was  the 
stoning  of  Stephen  (see  Badde,  de  jure  zelotarum  in  Oelrich's 
CoUectio,  vol.  i..  Diss.  5,  and  Salden  otia  tlieol.,  p,  609  sqq.). — 
With  reference  to  the  moral  character  of  this  act  of  Phinehas, 
and  the  unqualified  approbation  expressed  in  the  sacred  records, 
we  point  first  of  all  to  the  words  of  Christ  in  Luke  ix.  55,  which 
determine  the  rule  for  every  case  in  which  there  is  a  desire  to 
give  effect  to  zeal,  which  wovild  have  been  justifiable  and  praise- 
worthy under  the  Old  Testament,  without  the  "  mutatis  mutandis'^ 
required  by  the  different  stand-point  of  the  Gospel.  Holy  zeal  is 
to  be  cherished  at  all  times,  even  under  the  New  Testament,  and 
however  the  circumstances  may  change  ;  but  the  form  in  which 
it  is  expressed  is  not  to  be  the  same  under  the  Gospel  as  under 
the  law.  Even  in  zeal,  the  new  commandment  of  love  is  to  rule 
and  regulate  the  whole.  But,  above  all,  is  care  to  be  taken 
(and  this  applied  to  the  Old  Testament  as  well  as  the  New) 
that,  where  love  necessarily  assumes  the  form  of  vengeance,  it 
does  not  of  its  own  accord  interfere  with  the  authority  appointed 
by  God,  to  which  He  has  entrusted  the  sword  for  the  purpose  of 
inflicting  vengeance  on  evil-doers.  And  in  this  light  many 
might  regard  the  act  of  Phinehas  as  questionable.  But,  apart 
from  the  fact  that,  as  a  priest  and  the  appointed  successor  of 
the  high  priest,  Phinehas  really  did  hold  an  official  position, 
and  that  the  command  of  Moses  (ver.  5)  to  slay  the  guilty  had 
been  already  issvied,  there  are  extraordinary  circumstances,  of  a 
dissolute  and  abnormal  character,  when  the  audacity  of  crime, 
the  danger  to  which  the  highest  blessings  of  life  are  exposed, 
and  the  necessity  for  immediate  action,  entrust  every  one  who 
takes  the  cause  to  heart  with  the  temporary  right  of  authority, 
and  the  consecration  of  an  actual  call  to  check  and  avert  the 
evil,  even  by  the  employment  of  force. 

(4.)  The  residt  of  the  census   is  expressly  stated  to  have 


462 


ISKAEL  IN  THE  ARBOTH  MOAB. 


shown,  that  among  all  who  were  numbered,  not  a  single  one  was 
left  of  those  who  had  previously  been  numbered  at  Sinai.  The 
whole  number  was  now  601,730.  It  was  very  little  less,  there- 
fore, than  the  number  obtained  from  the  former  census,  viz., 
603,550.  The  difference,  however,  in  the  case  of  particular 
tribes  is  very  striking.     The  numbers  were  as  follows  : — 

Eeuben, 
Simeon, 
Gad, 

Naphtali,    . 
Ephraim,    . 
Judah, 
Issachar, 
Zebulun,     . 
Manasseh,  . 
Benjamin,  . 
Dan, 
Asher 
Levi, 

The  most  remarkable  difference  is  in  the  case  of  Simeon.  This 
has  been  accounted  for  from  t  ^     _ 

who  fell  in  this  plague  have  been  supposed  to  have  been  for  the 
most  part  taken  from  Simeon.  The  reason  for  this  conjecture 
is  the  probability  that  the  example  of  Zimri,  a  prince  of  this 
tribe,  was  both  the  proof  and  the  occasion  of  a  more  general 
participation  of  this  tribe  in  the  idolatrous  crime. 

The  claim  put  in  by  the  daughters  of  Zelophehad  (Num. 
xvii.  1-11 ;  compare  chap,  xxxvi.)  will  be  more  particularly  dis- 
cussed in  connection  with  the  laws  of  inheritance. 

(5.)  That  this  accoimt  of  the  attack  and  extermination  of 
the  IViidianites  has  reference  to  the  Midianitish  tribes  upon  the 
table-land  of  Moab,  the  chiefs  of  which  are  spoken  of  in  Josh, 
xiii.  21  as  having  been  formerly  the  vassals  of  Sihon  {yid. 
§  52,  3),  is  placed  beyond  all  doubt  by  the  express  statement  to 
that  effect  in  Num.  xxxi.  8.  The  main  body  of  the  Midianites 
does  not  appear  to  have  taken  part  at  all,  and  therefore  there  is 
nothing  surprising  in  their  subsequent  hostile  and  powei-ful  at- 
tacks upon  the  Israelites  (Judg.  vi.-viii.)     Moreover,  the  fact 


At  Sinai. 

Now. 

.    46,500 

43,730 

.     59,300 

22,000 

.     45,600 

40,500 

.     53,400 

45,400 

.    40,500 

32,500 

.     74,600 

76,500 

.     54,400 

64,600 

.     54,490 

60,500 

.     32,200 

52,700 

.     35,400 

45,600 

.     62,700 

64,400 

.     41,500 

53,400 

.     22,000 

23,000 

is  in  the  case  of  Simeon.     1 

he  last  plao'iie  ; 

and  the  24, 

CONFLICT  WITH  THE  MIDIANITES.  463 

that  only  twelve  thousand  Israelites   (a  thousand  from  eveiy 
tribe)  were  engaged  in  the  battle,   is  a  proof  that  the  foe  was 
neither  numerous  nor  strong. — To  those  who  regard  it  as  some- 
thing improbable,  if  not  impossible,  that  not  a  single  Israelite 
was  missing,  as  was  proved  by  the  numbering  of  the  victors  on 
then*  return,  we  would  simply  beg  to  say,  that  there  is  nothing 
impossible  in  such  a  victory,  when  the  attack  was  so  unexpected. 
It  is  also  apparent,  from  the  data  mentioned  in  §  52,  3,  that 
these  particular  Midianites  were  anything  but  a  courageous  and 
warlike  race.     (For  similar  examples  from  profane  history,  see 
Rosenmi'dler  on  this  passage,  and  Hdvernich,  Einleitung,  i.  2, 
p.  513.) — The  command  of  Moses  to  slay  all  the  women  who 
liad  already  known  a  man,  was  issued  in  consequence  of  the 
idolatrous   intercourse   of  the   Israelites   with   the   ISIidianitish 
women.     The  booty  brought  home  by  the  conquerors  was  ex- 
traordinarily  rich,  especially   in    cattle;  from   Avhich   we  may 
infer  that  the  rearing  of  cattle  was  the  occupation  of  the  tribe. 
For  the  Israelites,  whose  cattle  must  have  diminished  yqtj  con- 
siderably during  the  journey  through  the  wilderness,  such  booty 
as  this  must   have   been    doubly   valuable.     The    quantity   of 
golden  ornaments  and  jewels  is  quite  in  harmony  with  the  un- 
warlike  and  luxurious  character  which  evidently  distinguished 
the   Midianites. — There   was    something   very   peculiar  in  the 
manner   in  which   Moses    and   Eleazar   distributed  the  booty. 
The  whole  of  it,  consisting  of  675,000  sheep,  72,000  oxen,  61,000 
asses,  and  32,000  persons,  was  divided  into  two    equal  parts, 
one  of  which  was  allotted  to  the  victors,  the  other  to  those  who 
had  taken  no  part  in  the  battle.     As  the  12,000  men  who  were 
selected  to  fight  did  not  go  to  war  on  their  own  responsibility, 
but  as  representatives  of  the  whole  congregation,  it  was  but 
right  that  the  whole  congregation  should  share  in  the  booty ; 
but  as  the  twelve  thousand  had  had  all  the  trouble  and  fatigue, 
it  was  just  as  proper  that  they  should  receive  an  incomparably 
larger  share.     And  since  the  war  was  also  a  war  of  Jehovah, 
whose  presence  and  aid  had  given  the  victory  to  the  Israelites, 
and  therefore  the  booty,  strictly  speaking,  belonged  to  Jehovah, 
a  certain  quota  was  to  be  allotted  to  the  priests  and  Levites  as 
His  servants  and  representatives.  The  priests  were  to  receive  two 
})arts  in  a  thousand  from  the  share  of  the  Avarriors  ;  the  Levites, 
two  in  a  hundred  from  that  of  the  congregation.     "  The  proper- 


464  ISIIAEL  IN  THE  ARBOTH  ?.IOAB. 

tion  wliicli  the  sliare  of  the  priests  bore  to  that  of  the  Levites, 
therefore,  was  one  to  ten  ;  and  thus  was  very  nearly  the  same  as 
the-  proportion  maintained  in  the  distribution  of  the  customarj^ 
tithes  (yid.  Num.  xxvi.)."  (^Baumgarten.) — The  fact  which  was 
brought  out  by  the  numbering  of  the  warriors  after  their  retirrn, 
namely,  that  not  a  single  man  was  missing,  led  the  superior  offi- 
cers to  present  a  fmlher  (free-will)  offering,  as  an  expression  of 
their  gratitude  to  Jehovah.  They  therefore  brought  the  jewels 
which  they  had  taken,  "  to  make,"  as  they  said,  "  an  atonement 
for  their  souls."  On  this  BamngartenhsiS  aptly  remarked  :  "  The 
evident  and  miraculous  protection  of  Jehovah  brought  them  to 
a  consciousness  of  their  unworthiness,  and  led  them  to  confess 
before  Jehovah  that  they  were  more  deserving  of  death  than  of 
such  protection  as  this." — To  mark  the  whole  affair  as  a  holy 
war,  a  war  of  Jehovah,  Phinehas,  the  son  of  the  high  jiriest,  ac- 
companied the  army,  and  took  the  holy  vessels  with  him  (ver.  6). 
The  participation  of  Phinehas  in  the  present  war  was  all  the 
more  significant,  from  the  fact,  that  it  was  he  who  stopped  the 
plague,  through  his  holy  zeal  to  take  vengeance  upon  the  Israel- 
itish  sinners.  "  The  Israelites  were  to  follow  this  resplendent 
example,  by  which  the  wrath  of  Jehovah  had  been  appeased.  .  .  . 
The  fact  that  a  priest  accompanied  them  to  the  field,  showed  at 
once  the  relation  of  the  war  to  Jehovah.  And  in  this  case  it 
was  the  very  priest  whose  simple  presence  immediately  called  to 
mind  the  close  connection  between  Israel  and  Midian"  {Bauni- 
garten).  It  is  also  worthy  of  note,  that  the  law  relating  to  such 
as  should  be  defiled  by  touching  a  corpse  (Num.  xix.)  was  here 
applied  in  its  full  extent  to  those  who  returned  from  the  battle, 
in  consequence  of  their  being  all  defiled  by  the  IMidianites  that 
had  been  slain  (vers.  19-24). 

DIVISION  OF  THE  LAND  ON  THE  EAST  OF  THE  JORDAN.  RE- 
GULATIONS WITH  REGARD  TO  CONQUEST  OF  THE  COUN- 
TRY TO  THE  WEST  OF  THE  JORDAN. 

§  59.  (Num.  xxxii.-xxxvi.) — The  tribes  of  Reuben  and  Gadj 
which  were  peculiarly  wealthy  in  cattle,  presented  a  petition  to 
Moses  and  Eleazar,  that  the  land  on  the  east  of  the  Joi'dan,  which 
had  already  been  conquered,  and  was  paiticularly  adapted  for 


DIVISION  OF  THE  LAND,  ETC.  4G5 

grazing,  might  be  allotted  to  them  (1).  Moses  was  indignant  at 
what  appeared  to  be  so  selfish  a  request,  and  one  wliich,  if 
granted,  would  not  only  disturb  the  pleasui'e  with  which  the 
rest  of  the  tribes  would  proceed  to  fight  for  the  country  to  the 
west  of  the  river,  but  would  bring  down  the  wrath  of  Jehovah 
once  more  upon  the  congregation.  He  therefore  reproached 
them  in  the  most  serious  manner,  for  the  want  of  national 
feeling,  and  the  indifference  towards  their  brethi'en,  which 
such  a  request  apparently  indicated.  But  when  the  two  tribes 
solemnly  declared  that  they  were  ready  to  send  their  fighting 
men  across  the  Jordan,  and  that  they  should  remain  there  till 
the  countr}^  to  the  west  of  the  river  had  been  conquered  by  the 
combined  efforts  of  the  Israelites,  he  no  longer  hesitated  to  accede 
to  then*  request,  with  this  modification  only,  that  part  of  the 
land  should  be  given  for  an  inhei'itance  to  the  half-tribe  of 
Manasseh,  which  had  been  peculiarly  zealous  and  active  in 
effecting  its  conquest  (2).  The  precise  Umits  of  their  posses- 
sions were  left  to  be  determined  when  the  general  distribution 
should  take  place.  But  they  immediately  settled  down  in  their 
relative  positions,  namely,  Reuben  in  the  south,  Manasseh  in  the 
north,  and  Gad  in  the  centre  of  the  land.  Their  first  care  was 
to  rebuild  and  fortify  a  number  of  the  cities  that  had  been  de- 
stroyed, for  the  safer  protection  of  their  families  and  flocks, 
which  they  were  about  to  leave  belaind  (3). 

As  Moses  had  received  repeated  intimations  that  his  end 
was  approaching,  he  issued  the  requisite  orders,  under  the 
special  direction  of  Jehovah,  for  the  approaching  conquest 
and  di\dsion  of  the  country  to  the  west  of  the  Jordan.  All 
the  inhabitants  were  to  be  driven  out ;  and  their  idols  and  high 
places  were  to  be  destroyed.  Joshua  and  Eleazar,  with  the  co- 
operation of  the  heads  of  the  twelve  tribes,  were  to  distribute 
the  land  by  lot ;  and  forty-eight  cities,  including  six  cities  of 
refuge,  were  to  be  allotted  to  the  tribe  of  Levi,  throughout  the 
whole  land  on  both  sides  of  the  Jordan  (4). 

(1.)  The  REQUEST  OF  THE  ReUBENITES  AND  GaDITES  is 
*      VOL.  III.  2  G 


466  ISRAEL  IN  THE  ARBOTH  MOAB. 

generally  supposed  to  have  been  made  with  the  intention  of 
leaving  merely  their  famihes  and  flocks  on  the  east  of  the 
Jordan ;  in  which  case,  the  stern  rebuke  which  their  request 
elicited  from  Moses  was  founded  upon  a  mistake.  But  it  is 
certainly  very  improbable,  that  so  prudent,^  circumspect,  and 
experienced  a  leader  as  Moses  was,  would  have  jumped  to  so 
rash  and  hasty  a  conclusion.  Moreover,  his  interpretation  of 
their  request  was  actually  and  expressly  supported  by  their  own 
words  :  "  Give  us  this  land,"  they  said,  "  and  bring  us  not  over 
Jordan."  At  any  rate,  it  must  be  admitted  that  no  one,  on  first 
hearing  these  words,  would  put  any  other  construction  upon 
them  than  Moses  did.  Undoubtedly,  the  issue  showed  that 
their  hearts  were  better  than  their  words  would  have  led  one  to 
suppose  ;  for,  as  soon  as  the  reproof  administered  by  Moses  had 
made  them  conscious  of  the  unseemly  and  inadmissible  cha- 
racter of  their  request,  they  at  once  declared  themselves  ready 
and  willing,  with  all  their  hearts,  to  carry  out  to  the  fiillest 
extent  the  just  demands  of  the  other  tribes. 

(2.)  The  HALF-TRIBE  OF  Manasseh  had  not  presented  a 
petition  for  the  land  which  Moses  assigned  it.  On  the  contrary, 
he  gave  it  to  them  of  his  own  accord,  and  to  satisfy  the  claims 
of  justice.  To  render  this  procedure  on  the  part  of  Moses  intel- 
ligible, it  was  necessary  that  the  fact  upon  which  it  was  based, 
and  which  had  been  passed  over  in  the  previous  history  (Num. 
xxi.  33  sqq.),  should  be  recorded  here;  and  this  is  done  in  Num. 
xxxii.  39-42.  The  supposed  discrepancies  between  this  account 
and  other  passages  (Deut.  iii.  4,  13-15;  Judg.  x.  3-5;  1  Chr. 
ii.  21  sqq.),  which  critics  have  brought  forward  as  discrediting 
the  testimony  of  the  Pentateuch,  have  been  examined  by  Kanne 
(JJntersucliung  \\.  109  sqq.),  MoseninilUer  {Alterth.  ii.  1,  p.  282 
sqq.),  and  Hdvernich  {Einleitung  i.  2,  p.  514  sqq.),  who  have  sug- 
gested various  ways  of  solving  the  difficulty.  But  they  have  been 
most  thoroughly  and  conclusively  discussed  by  Hengstenherg 
(Pentateuch,  vol.  ii.,  p.  221  sqq.).  The  expositions  of  Welte, 
Keil,  and  v.  Lengerke,  are  founded  upon  that  of  Hengstenberg. 
In  Num.  xxxii.  39  sqq.  it  is  stated  that  "  the  children  of 
Machir,  the  son  of  Manasseh,  went  to  Gilead,  and  took  it,  and 
dispossessed  the  Amorites  who  were  in  it  (the  subjects  of  Sihon 
therefore)  ;  and  Moses  gave  Gilead  unto  Macliir,  the  son  of 
Manasseh,  and  he  dwelt  therein.     And  Jair,  the  son  of  Ma- 


DIVISION  OF  THE  LAND,  ETC.  467 

nasseli,  went  and  took  their  (i.e.,  the  Amorites')  dwelKng-places 
(niin^)j  and  called  them  Chavvoth-Jair.  And  Nobah  Avent  and 
took  Kenath  and  its  danghters,  and  called  them  Nohah,  after  his 
own  name." — Still  further  light  is  thrown  upon  this  passage  by 
Deut.  iii.  12-15  :  ''  Half  Mount  Gilead  gave  I  unto  the  Reuben- 
ites  and  the  Gadites.  And  the  rest  of  Gilead,  and  all  Bashan, 
bein<;  the  kingdom  of  Off,  fjave  I  unto  the  half-tribe  of  Ma- 
nasseh ;  all  the  region  of  Argob,  with  all  Bashan,  which  was 
called  the  land  of  the  Rephaim.  Jair,  the  son  of  Manasseh, 
took  all  the  country  of  Argob  unto  the  coasts  of  the  Geshurites 
and  Maachathites,  and  called  them,  that  is  Bashan,  after  his 
own  name,  Chav\'oth-Jair.  And  I  gave  Gilead  unto  Macliir." 
From  this  it  clearly  follows  :  (1.)  That  Reuben  and  Gad  re- 
ceived southern  Gilead; — (2.)  that  the  half-tribe  of  Manasseh 
received  northern  Gilead,  Mith  all  Bashan  (or  Argob),  and  for 
this  reason,  that  it  was  solely  or  chiefly  to  this  tribe  that  the 
conquest  of  the  land  was  due ; — (3.)  that  the  share  of  half- 
Manasseh  was  in  the  hands  of  two  leading  proprietors,  Machir 
and  Jair.  Machir  received  the  most  northerly  part  of  Gilead  ; 
Jair,  all  Bashan  or  Ai-gob. — So  far  everything  is  clear.  But 
this  difficulty  remains,  that  in  Deut.  iii.  14  Jair  alone  is  men- 
tioned as  the  conqueror  and  possessor  of  Bashan,  whereas 
according  to  Num.  xxxii.  41,  42,  Nobah  shared  it  with  him. 
In  addition  to  this,  the  number  of  Chavvoth-Jair  is  said  to  have 
been  sixty  in  Deut.  iii.  4 ;  but  in  1  Chr.  ii.  22,  23,  it  is  stated, 
that  "Jair  had  three  and  twenty  cities  in  the  land  of  Gilead  (ac- 
cordinof  to  the  later  usaire,  the  name  Gilead  embraced  the  land 
of  Bashan  also).  And  Geshur  and  Aram  took  the  Chavvoth- 
Jair  from  them  (the  descendants  of  Jair),  and  (in  addition  to 
these)  Kenath  and  her  daughters,  sixty  cities  (in  all)."  Heng- 
stenberg  very  properly  observes,  that  the  passage  means  either 
this  or  nothing.  Tlie  whole  number,  therefore,  was  sixty,  of 
which  twenty-three  were  Chavvoth-Jair  in  the  stricter  sense  of 
the  term.  The  other  thirty-seven,  namely,  Kenath  and  her 
daughters,  belonged  to  the  same  categoiy,  it  is  true,  though  in 
certain  respects  they  differed  from  the  rest.     The  twenty-three 

^  Kcmne,  speaking  of  tlie  word  Chuvvoth  (from  mn  to  live),  which  ap- 
pears at  first  sight  rather  a  singular  name  to  apply  to  a  settlement,  points 
out  the  fact,  that  precisely  the  same  idiom  is  found  in  many  cases  among  the 
Germans,  in  the  names  of  towns  and  villages. 


468  ISKAEL  IN  THE  AEBOTH  MOAB. 

cities  of  Jair,  mentioned  in  1  Chr.  ii.  22,  were  those  which  had 
been  taken  by  Jair  himself.  The  sixty  referred  to  in  Deut.  iii. 
4  and  1  Chr.  ii.  23,  on  the  contrary,  were  all  that  were  under  the 
supremacy  of  Jair,  including  the  thirty-seven  that  were  held  by 
Nobah  as  his  vassal.  Instead,  therefore,  of  1  Chr.  ii.  22,  23, 
being  irreconcileable  with  Deut.  iii.  4,  it  serves  rather  to  explain 
the  difference  between  Deut.  iii.  14  and  Num.  xxxii.  41,  42, 
and  to  produce  the  most  complete  harmony  between  all  the 
four  passages  in  question. 

There  are  other  respects,  also,  in  which  this  passage  in  the 
Chronicles  is  of  very  great  importance.  It  solves  what  would 
otherwise  be  an  insoluble  enigma  in  Josh.  xix.  34,  and  at  the 
same  time  enables  us  to  determine  in  what  part  of  Bashan  the 
three  and  twenty  cities  were  situated,  which  were  called  Chav- 
votli-Jair  in  the  stricter  sense  of  the  term.  In  the  description 
of  the  boundary  of  the  tribe  of  Naphtali,  given  in  this  passage, 
it  is  stated  that  it  reached  "  to  Judah  on  the  Jordan "  (n'i!in''2 
VP'^JS)  towards  the  east.  From  time  immemorial,  commentators 
have  wondered  whereabouts  on  the  Jordan  there  can  have  been 
a  Judah,  which  was  at  the  same  time  exactly  opposite  to 
Naphtali  in  the  extreme  north  of  Palestine,  seeing  that  Judah 
dwelt  in  the  extreme  south.  It  was  reserved  for  the  acuteness 
of  K.  V.  Raumer  (in  TJiolucFs  Anzeiger  1836,  and  also  in  his 
own  Palastina,  Ed.  3,  p.  405  sqq.)  to  untie  this  knot  in  the  most 
satisfactory  manner,  by  means  of  1  Chr.  ii.  21,  22,  after  other 
commentators  had  all  attempted  it  in  vain.  We  learn  from  this 
passage  that  Hezron,  the  Judahite,  went  in  to  a  daughter  of 
Machir,  the  son  of  Manasseh,  and  the  illegitimate  offspring 
resulting  from  this  comiection  was  Seguh,  the  father  of  Jair. 
Jair,  therefore,  by  his  father's  side,  was  a  Judahite — by  his 
mother's,  a  Manassite.  The  maternal  descent  determined  his 
place  in  the  family  registers,  contrary  to  th^  usual  custom 
(Num.  xxxvi.  7),  on  account  of  his  father,  who  was  a  bastard, 
remaining  in  his  mother's  house.  But  his  paternal  descent  was 
still  recognised  in  the  name  given  to  his  family  inheritance, 
which  was  designated  "Judah  on  the  Jordan."^     From  this  we 

^  We  cannot  enter  further  into  this  question  till  we  come  to  the  history 
of  Joshua.  We  shall  then  discuss  Ewald's  objection  to  Raumer^s  hypothesis 
(Geschichte  der  IsraeHten  ii.  294,  and  Jahi'biicher  der  biblischen  Wissen- 
Bchaft  iii.  183,  184). 


DIVISION  OF  THE  LAND,  ETC.  469 

see  tliat  Jair's  territory,  i.e.,  the  twenty-tliree  Chavvoth-Jair,  em- 
braced the  most  northerly  portion  of  Bashan  (from  the  sources 
of  the  Jordan  along  the  left  bank,  to  the  Lake  of  Gennesaret). 
Southern  Bashan  would  then  remain  for  the  territory  of  Nobah. 
This  is  confirmed  by  the  situation  of  Nobah  (==  Kenath),  the 
town  that  was  called  by  his  name,  which  Bmxhliardt  discovered 
in  the  modern  Jolan  (Gaulonitis),  in  nearly  the  same  latitude  as 
the  northern  extremity  of  the  lake. 

There  are  some  who  have  brought  forward  Judg.  x.  3—5, 
where  Jair  the  Gileadite  is  said  to  have  judged  Israel  twenty- 
two  years,  and  to  have  had  thirty  sons,  and  the  same  number  of 
Chav\'oth-Jair,  as  giving  ground  for  the  charge,  that  the  writer 
of  the  Pentateuch  has  transfeiTed  events  and  circumstances 
from  the  times  of  the  Judges  to  those  of  Moses.  This  is  done 
by  Vater  and  others.  Studer,  on  the  other  hand  (ad  h.  1.),  ex- 
culpates the  author  of  the  Pentateuch,  but  brings  a  similar 
charge  against  the  writer  of  the  Book  of  Judges.  Lengerke  and 
Bertheau  admit  that  it  is  possible  that  there  may  have  been  a 
Jair  in  the  time  of  Moses,  as  well  as  in  that  of  the  Judges. 
The  former  is  proved  by  the  passage  already  referred  to,  viz., 
1  Chr.  ii.  21  sqq.,  from  which  it  is  evident  that  Zelophehad, 
who  died  in  the  wilderness  (Num.  xxvii.  3),  was  a  contemporary 
of  Jair  (cf.  Josh.  xiii.  30,  31).  The  latter  may  be  explained 
from  the  custom,  which  may  be  shown  to  have  prevailed  among 
the  Israelites,  of  frequently  repeating  the  names  of  celebrated 
ancestors.  Nevertheless,  Winer  still  persists  in  maintaining 
that  either  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch  or  the  A\Titer  of  the 
Book  of  Judges  must  be  guilty  of  an  anachronism  (lleallex  i. 
534),  seeing  that  the  former  speaks  of  the  name  Chavvoth-Jair 
as  already  in  existence  in  the  time  of  Moses,  whereas  the  other 
refers  to  it  as  originating  in  the  time  of  the  Judges ;  for  this  is 
unquestionably  implied  in  Judg.  x.  4,  where  it  is  stated  that  the 
thirty  sons  of  Jair  "  had  thirty  cities,  which  are  called  Chavvoth- 
Jair  unto  this  day."  It  may  be  conceded,  hoAvever,  that  in  this 
passage  the  name  is  connected  with  the  second  Jair,  withovit 
our  being  also  obliged  to  concede,  that  if  this  be  the  case,  it 
cannot  have  been  in  existence  before.  The  veiy  fact  that  in 
Judg.  X.  3  sqq.  we  read,  not  of  sixty,  but  of  thirty  Chavvoth-Jair^ 
renders  it  probable  that  the  entire  district  may  have  been  lost  by 
the  family  in  the  confusions  of  the  time  of  the  Judges,  whilst  at 


470  ISRAEL  IN  THE  ARBOTH  MOAB. 

least  a  half  of  it  may  have  been  recovered  by  the  second  Jair. 
And  if  so,  it  is  very  conceivable  that  the  ancient  name,  which 
had  been  previously  lost,  may  have  been  restored  either  by  him- 
self or  to  commemorate  his  fame. — This  supposition  is  expressly 
confirmed  by  1  Chr.  ii.  23,  where  the  Geshurites  and  Aramites 
are  said  to  have  taken  the  whole  district,  with  its  sixty  cities, 
from  the  descendants  of  Jair. 

(3.)  It  might  excite  astonishment,  that  flocks,  women,  and 
children  should  have  been  left  with  so  little  anxiety  in  the 
country  to  the  east  of  the  Jordan,  seeing  that  it  was  suiTounded 
on  all  sides  by  such  tribes  as  the  Geshurites,  the  Aramites,  the 
Ammonites,  the  Moabites,  the  Midianites,  the  Edomites,  and  the 
Amaleldtes,  who  were  all  of  them,  to  say  the  least,  unfavourably 
disposed,  if  not  positively  hostile.  But  the  words  of  Moses, 
"  Whoso  is  equipped  (f^?'^)  among  you,  let  him  go  with  the  rest 
across  the  Jordan,"  are  certainly  not  to  be  understood  as  mean- 
ing that  the  whole  body  of  fighting  men  was  to  go,  but  only  those 
who  were  in  the  prime  of  life.  The  very  young  and  those  of 
advanced  age,  who  were  very  well  able  to  undertake  the  defence 
of  fortified  cities,  no  doubt  remained  behind. 

REPETITION  AND  ENFORCEMENT  OF  THE  LAW. 

§  60.  (Deut.  i.-xxx.) — Moses  had  now  finished  his  work, 
and  the  hour  was  close  at  hand  in  which  he  was  to  be  gathered 
to  the  fathers  of  his  people.  Israel  was  standing  upon  the  banks 
of  the  Jordan,  and  was  ready  to  cross  over  into  the  land  of  its 
fathers'  pilgrimage,  which  was  promised  it  as  an  everlasting 
possession.  But  Moses  knew  that  his  own  feet  would  never 
tread  its  soil,  and  but  a  little  while  before  (Num.  xxvii.  12) 
Jehovah  had  reminded  him  of  the  fact.  But  as  he  was  per- 
mitted, from  the  summit  of  the  mountains  of  Abarim,  to  sur- 
vey with  his  bodily  eye  the  land  into  which  his  nation  was  about 
to  enter ;  so  did  he  also,  by  prophetic  inspiration,  behold  with 
the  eye  of  his  mind  the  future  which  awaited  the  nation  there, 
and  survey  the  temptations,  dangers,  and  transgressions  which 
would  mark  tlieir  future  career.  He  knew  that  the  true  pro- 
sperity of  Israel  was  inseparably  connected  with  a  faithful  and 
unAvavering  adherence  to  the  law  of  God,  of  which  he  had  been 


REPETITION  AND  ENFORCEMENT  OF  THE  LAW.    471 

the  mediator  and  herald ;  and  he  also  knew  that  in  the  unre- 
newed nature  of  Israel  there  still  remained  a  great  distaste  for 
this  law,  and  a  strong  inclination  for  heathenism,  from  which  it 
had  been  severed  by  the  grace  of  its  high  vocation.  This 
troubled  his  soul,  and  impelled  him  to  place  once  more  before 
the  new  generation,  which  had  now  grown  to  maturity,  the 
gracious  dealings  of  Jehovah  with  their  fathers,  the  fruit  of 
which  they  were  now  to  reap,  and  to  repeat  and  impress  His 
law  upon  their  minds.  With  all  the  emotions  with  which  a 
dying  father  gathers  his  children  round  him  for  the  very  last 
time,  that  he  may  give  them  his  fatherly  counsel  and  warning, 
did  Moses,  in  the  prospect  of  his  speedy  end,  gather  around  him 
the  people,  whom  he  had  hitherto  led  and  trained  with  a  father's 
faithfulness,  and  watched  and  fostered  with  all  the  tenderness 
of  a  mother,  and  who  were  henceforth  to  go  foi'ward,  without 
his  faithful  gniidance  and  discipline,  to  a  great  and  glorious,  but 
at  the  same  time  a  dangerous  future.  He  commenced  his  last  ad- 
dresses to  the  people  with  a  historical  survey  of  the  forty  years' 
wanderings  in  the  desert,  during  which  the  mercy  and  faithful- 
ness of  Jehovah  had  been  all  the  more  gloriously  displayed,  in 
proportion  to  the  perverseness  of  the  people  upon  whom  they 
were  bestowed  (chap,  i.-iv.  43).  He  then  recapitulated  the 
entire  law,  bringing  out  the  most  salient  points,  passing  over 
such  of  the  details  as  related  to  the  priests  and  Levites  rather 
than  to  the  nation  as  a  whole  (1),  interspersing  earnest  appeals, 
and  expanding  or  modifying  as  the  clearness  of  his  prophetic 
insiffht  into  the  necessities  of  the  future  showed  to  be  desirable. 
He  then  added  a  command,  that  when  they  arrived  at  the  promised 
land  they  should  write  this  law  upon  large  stones  covered  with 
plaster  on  Mount  Ebal,  and  at  the  same  time  solemnly  proclaim 
the  blessing  and  the  curse  which  it  contained  (2).  He  held  up 
before  the  people  streams  of  blessings  on  wife  and  children,  house 
and  home,  garden  and  field,  if  they  would  faithfully  walk  in  the 
law  of  the  Lord.  He  threatened  fearful  terrors  from  the  curse 
which  would  follow  apostasy  and  transgression ;  but  he  also  pro- 


472  ISRAEL  IN  THE  AEBOTH  MOAB. 

mised  mercy  and  a  gracious  reception,  if  they  repented  of  their 
ungodly  ways  (chaps,  xxvii.-sxx.). — Moses  knew  what  he  had 
been  to  his  people  through  the  mercy  of  God ;  how  much  the 
people  owed,  not  to  him  indeed,  hut  to  his  calling  and  office ; 
what  they  would  have  become,  had  it  not  been  for  the  media^ 
torial  office  with  which  he  had  been  invested ;  and  how  quickly 
they  would  have  become  the  prey  of  heathen  magic  and  theurgy. 
But  when  he  was  gone,  the  office  itself  would  disappear  from 
the  stage  of  history,  or  at  all  events  would  no  longer  possess  the 
same  force  and  comprehensive  character ;  for  to  no  other  pro- 
phet did  Jehovah  draw  so  near  as  He  had  done  to  him,  no  other 
was  entrusted,  as  he  was,  with  the  whole  house  of  Jehovah 
(Num.  xii.  6-8).  Hence  it  is  stated  in  Deut.  xxxiv.  10,  that 
"  there  arose  not  a  prophet  since  in  Israel  hke  unto  Moses."  The 
thought  of  this  might  have  troubled  his  mind  in  his  dying  hom*; 
but  Jehovah  had  comforted  him  with  the  promise,  "  I  will  raise 
them  up  a  Prophet  from  among  their  brethren  like  unto  thee  "(3). 
This  announcement  he  repeated  to  the  people ;  and  upon  it  he 
founded  his  warning  against  the  abominations  of  heathen  magic 
and  soothsaying. 

This  repetition  and  renewed  enforcement  of  the  law  in  the 
Arboth  Moab,  accompanied  by  fresh  promises  and  threats,  and 
the  summons  to  choose  between  a  blessing  and  a  curse,  was  a 
renewal  of  the  giving  of  the  law,  and  consequently  also  of  the 
conclusion  of  the  covenant  at  Sinai.  It  is  therefore  called  the 
covenant  loith  the  children  of  Israel  in  the  land  of  Moah  (Deut. 
xxix.  1  (4).  "See,"  said  Moses  at  the  close  of  his  emphatic 
address, — "  see,  I  have  set  before  thee  this  day  life  and  good,  and 
death  and  evil ;  in  that  I  command  thee  this  day  to  love  Jehovah 
thy  God,  to  walk  in  His  ways,  and  to  keep  His  commandments, 
and  His  statutes,  and  His  judgments,  that  thou  mayest  Kve  and 
multiply ;  and  Jehovah  thy  God  shall  bless  thee  in  the  land, 
whither  thou  goest  to  possess  it.  But  if  thine  heart  be  drawn 
away,  so  that  thou  wilt  not  hear,  .  .  I  denounce  unto  you 
this  dayj  that  ye  shall  surely  perish,  and  that  ye  shall  not  pro- 


REPETITIOX  AND  ENFORCEMENT  OF  THE  LAW.  473 

long  your  days  upon  the  land,  whither  thou  passest  over  Jor- 
dan, to  go  to  possess  it.  I  call  heaven  and  earth  to  record  this 
day  against  you,  that  I  have  set  before  you  life  and  death,  bless- 
ing and  cursing  :  therefore  choose  life,  etc." 

(1.)  We  must  reserve  any  further  remarks  upon  the  pecu- 
liar and  distinctive  character  of  this  repetition  of  the  law. — The 
name  Deuteronomy  is  derived  from  the  Septuagint,  which  ren- 
ders riN^n  niinn  npc'O  in  Deut.  xvii.  18,  and  Josh.  viii.  32,  to 
BevTcpovofMiov  TovTo  (and  also  from  the  Vulgate).  Delitzsch 
(on  Gen.  i.  25)  and  others  accordingly  render  the  expression 
"  The  rejjeated  of  this  laAV,"  and  interpret  it  as  meaning  "  this 
repeated  law."  But  this  interpretation  is  apparently  by  no 
means  indisputably  certain.  In  the  Chaldee  and  Syriac  ver- 
sions, whose  authority  in  such  cases  is  at  least  as  great,  if  not 
greater,  than  that  of  the  Septuagint  and  Vulgate,  n^Kp  is  ren- 
dered JJ^'ns,  i.e.,  copy  (vid.  Esther  iv.  8  and  iii.  14).  As  the 
two  meanings  may  be  deduced  with  equal  facility  from  the 
primary  signification  of  the  word,  the  decision  of  the  question 
in  dispute  depends  upon  which  of  the  two  had  become  fixed  in 
the  usage  of  the  lano-uaire  at  the  time  when  the  Pentateuch  was 
wiitten ;  and  we  have  not  the  necessary  data,  to  determine  this 
A\'ith  certainty.  But  the  Chaldee  rendering  is  favoured,  not 
only  by  the  fact  that  the  translator  may  be  presumed  to  have 
possessed  a  more  acciu'ate  acquaintance  with  the  peculiarities  of 
the  Hebrew  language,  but  also,  and  as  it  seems  to  me  even  more, 
by  the  circumstance  that  the  expression  Mishneh  hattorah  only 
occurs  twice,  and  that  only  where  there  is  an  undoubted  refer- 
ence to  a  copy  of  this  law ;  whereas  in  other  passages,  in  which 
the  same  law  in  the  original  is  spoken  of,  the  word  Mishneh  is 
wanting  (e.g.,  Deut.  iv.  44  and  xxxi.  9). 

(2.)  We  shall  enter  more  fully  into  the  manner  in  which  the 
command  to  lorite  this  law  upon  stones  could  be,  and  was  to  be 
carried  out,  in  connection  with  Josh.  viii.  30  sqq.  But  there  is 
another  question  which  we  must  not  postpone,  namely.  What  are 
we  to  understand  by  "  this  law  f  The  law  of  Deuteronomy 
alone  ?  or  the  whole  law  of  the  Pentateuch  ?  or  the  whole  of  the 
Pentateuch  itself,  including  the  historical  portions?  l^ater, 
Hengstenhenj,  Keil  (Joshua,  p.  222  translation ;   and  Einleituny, 


474  ISRAEL  IN  THE  ARBOTH  MOAB. 

p.  129),  and  Delitzsch  (Genesis  i.  26)  answer  unanimously,  and 
certainly  correctly :  "  Deuteronomy  only,  or  rather  the  legal 
sum  and  substance  of  it."  We  cannot  follow  Delitzsch,  who 
adduces  the  Mishneh  hattorah  in  Josh.  viii.  32  as  a  certain  proof 
of  this ;  but  it  may  be  demonstrated  with  certainty  from  the 
context  of  Deuteronomy.  It  is  evident  from  the  words,  "  this 
law,"  in  Deut.  xxvii.  3  ;  for  the  expression,  "  this  law,"  from 
Deut.  iv.  44  onwards,  throughout  all  the  addresses  of  Moses  in 
Deuteronomy,  can  only  be  understood  as  relating  to  that  par- 
ticular law  of  which  he  was  speaking  at  the  time,  namely,  to  the 
law  in  Deuteronomy;  and  in  the  case  before  us,  this  is  still 
further  attested  by  Deut.  xxvii.  1  :  "  Keep  all  these  command- 
ments which  I  command  you  this  dayP  This  is  so  very  ob- 
vious, that  there  is  no  necessity  to  dwell  upon  other  arguments 
which  may  be  derived  from  the  subject-matter  itself.  Compare 
§62,5. 

(3.)  The  promise  of  the  Prophet  like  unto  Moses  is  given 
in  Deut.  xviii.  13-19  in  the  foUovdng  terms  :  "Thou  shalt  hold 
entirely  to  Jehovah  thy  God.  For  these  nations,  whom  thou 
drivest  out,  hearken  unto  conjurers  and  soothsayers  :  but  as  for 
thee,  Jehovah  thy  God  hath  not  suffered  thee  so  to  do.  Jehovah 
thy  God  ivill  raise  up  unto  thee  a  Pt'ophet  from  the  midst  of  thee, 
of  thy  brethren,  like  unto  me;  unto  him  ye  shall  hearken.  Ac- 
cording to  all  that  thou  desiredst  of  Jehovah  thy  God  in  Horeb 
in  the  day  of  the  assembly,  saying.  Let  me  not  hear  again  the 
voice  of  Jehovah  my  God,  neither  let  me  see  this  great  fire  any 
more,  that  I  die  not.  And  Jehovah  said  unto  me,  They  have 
well  spoken.  /  loill  raise  them  up  a  Prophet  from  among  their 
brethren,  like  unto  thee,  and  will  put  My  words  in  his  mouth,  and 
he  shall  speak  unto  them  all  that  I  shall  command  him.  And  it 
shall  come  to  pass,  that  whosoever  will  not  hearken  unto  My  words 
which  he  shall  speak  in  My  name,  I  will  require  it  of  himJ^ — The 
first  question  which  arises  here,  is  whether  the  word  S''3J  is  to  be 
regarded  as  individual  or  collective,  as  personal  or  ideal ;  whether 
it  relates  to  one  particular  prophet,  that  is,  to  the  Messiah  alone, 
or  to  the  Israelitish  order  of  prophets  in  general,  either  inclusive 
or  exclusive  of  its  completion  in  the  Messiah. — Hofmann  (Weissa- 
gung  und  Erfiillung  i.  253,  254,  and  Schriftbeweis  ii.  1,  pp.  83, 
84)  defends  the  collective  view,  and  is  not  "  able  to  see  the  per- 
son of  Christ  the  one  Mediator  glimmering  through."     He  can 


REPETITION  AND  ENFOECEMENT  OF  THE  LAAV,  475 

only  see  "  that  Moses  did  not  know  whether  many  or  few  medi- 
ators of  the  word  of  Divine  reveLition  would  be  required,  or 
wliether  only  one  single  one  w^ould  be  sent,  before  Jehovah 
Himself  would  come  to  His  people,  to  take  up  His  abode  with 
them  in  the  glory  of  His  everlasting  Idngdom."  Ildvernick  and 
Uengstenberg,  on  the  other  hand,  oppose  the  collective  view ;  but 
they  still  maintain  that  allusion  is  made  to  a  plurality  of  pro- 
phets. Hdveniick  (Einleitung  ii.  2,  p.  9  seq.)  is  of  opinion,  that 
"  the  writer  had  in  mind  the  various  occasions  on  which  the 
people  would  stand  in  need  of  a  prophet ;  and  announces,  accord- 
ingly, that  on  every  such  occasion  a  prophet  would  be  raised  up. 
A  prophet  will  I  raise  up,  namely,  whenever  circumstances  re- 
quire it."  Uengstenberg  (Christology,  vol.  i.,  p.  107  translation) 
finds  here  again  that  something  or  nothing,  which  he  calls  an 
ideal  person  :  "  The  prophet  here  is  an  ideal  person,  compre- 
hending all  the  true  prophets,  who  appeared  between  Moses  and 
Christ,  inclusive  of  the  latter.  But  JSIoses  did  not  here  speak 
of  the  prophets  as  a  collective  body,  to  which,  at  the  close,  Christ 
also  belonged,  as  it  were  incidentally,  and  as  one  among  the 
many ;  but  rather,  the  plurality  of  prophets  was  comprehended 
by  Moses  in  an  ideal  unity,  for  this  simple  reason,  that  on  the 
authority  of  Gen.  xlix.  10,  and  by  the  illumination  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  lie  knew  that  the  prophetical  order  would  at  some  future 
time  centre  in  a  real  person — in  Christ."  In  this  explanation 
Hcivernick  also  (alttestamentliche  Theologie,  p.  131)  has  even- 
tually found  rest.  Wlierever  we  have  looked  among  the  theo- 
logians of  the  present  day,  we  have  nowhere  found  the  opinion 
reproduced,  which  prevailed  both  in  the  Synagogue  and  the 
Church  down  to  modern  times,  namely,  that  we  have  here  a  pure 
and  express  prophecy  of  Christ.  M.  Baumgarten  (i.  2.,  p.  483) 
alone  veers  round  towards  it,  but  without  breaking  away  from 
the  collective  idea.  He  says  :  "  Closes  speaks  of  the  prophet 
in  such  a  way,  that  he  may  very  well  have  had  a  plurality  of 
prophets  in  his  mind,  namely,  as  many  as  Israel  might  need  for 
its  guidance.  But  when  we  consider  that  Moses  foresaw  a  state 
of  utter  disobedience  and  universal  confusion  in  Israel,  he  must 
have  had  his  mind  fixed  especially  upon  one  prophet,  who  would 
be  like  himself  in  the  strictest  sense  of  the  word,  tliat  is  to  say, 
wlio  like  himself  would  establish  by  the  power  of  the  Word  an  en- 
tirely neiv  order  of  things  in  Israel.     But  as  the  history  of  Israel, 


476  ISKAEL  IN  THE  AEBOTH  MOAB. 

when  looked  at  in  the  spirit,  appears  throughout  its  entire  course 
to  be  progressing  towards  its  final  goal,  and  as  Moses  himself 
foresaw  and  foretold  the  future  conversion  of  Israel  from  its 
approaching  general  apostasy  (chap.  iv.  24),  he  must  also  have 
set  this  prophet  above  himself." 

I  must  declare  myself  unconditionally  in  favour  of  the  ex- 
clusive reference  to  one  distinct  individual,  viz.,  to  the  Messiah; 
and  congTatulate  myself  on  being  able  to  adopt  for  the  most  part 
Hengstenberg's  arguments  against  the  collective  view  and  the 
exclusion  of  the  ISIessiah,  especially  as  I  am  obliged  to  dissent 
from  the  view  which  he  has  advocated  and  the  reasons  which  he 
assigns. 

"  That  Moses,"  says  Hengstenherg  in  his  Christology  (vol.  i. 
p.  101  transL),  "  did  not  intend  by  the  word  x''33,  '  prophet,'  to 
designate  a  collective  body  merely,  but  that  he  had  at  least  some 
special  individual  in  view,  appears,  partly  from  the  word  itself 
being  constantly  in  the  singular,  and  partly  from  the  constant 
use  of  the  singular  suffixes  in  reference  to  it ;  while  in  the  case 
of  collective  nouns  it  is  usual  for  the  singular  to  be  used  inter- 
changeably with  the  pliu'al.  The  force  of  this  argument  is 
abundantly  evident  from  the  fact,  that  not  a  few  of  even  non- 
Messianic  interpreters  have  been  thereby  compelled  to  make 
some  single  individual  the  subject  of  this  prophecy.  But  we 
must  hesitate  to  adopt  the  opinion  that  ^''33  stands  here  simply  in 
the  singular  instead  of  the  plural,  because  neither  does  this  word 
occur  anywhere  else  as  a  collective  noun,  nor  is  the  prophetic 
order  ever  spoken  of  in  the  manner  alleged."  The  word  XUJ  is, 
in  fact,  neither  in  form  nor  in  signification,  in  the  least  adapted 
to  be  used  collectively.  Yfhy  should  not  Moses  have  used  the 
ordinary  plural  of  the  word,  if  he  really  wanted  to  speak  of  a 
plurality  of  prophets  ?  I,  at  least,  can  find  no  answer  to  the 
question. — Hofmann  should  have  been  the  last  to  bring  forward 
so  fallacious  an  argniment  as  the  following  in  support  of  his 
view :  "  There  is  not  the  slightest  difference  between  the  use  of 
the  singular  ^^"'ns,  and  that  of  the  singular  "^1?^  in  Deut.  xvii. 
14-20."  Hengstenherg  has  alread}^  met  him  with  this  reply : 
"  The  king  mentioned  there  is  no  collective  noun.  An  indivi- 
dual, who  in  future  times  should  first  attain  to  royal  dignity, 
forms  there  the  subject  throughout.  This  appears  especially 
in  ver.  20,  where  he  and  his  sons  are  spoken  of.     The  first  king 


REPETITION  AXD  ENFORCEMENT  OF  THE  LAAV.  477 

is  held  up  as  an  example  ;  and  what  is  declared  of  him  was  ap- 
plicable to  the  whole  line  of  Idngs.  But  it  is  in  favour  of 
our  view,  that  in  the  verses  immediately  preceding,  the  priests 
are  at  first  spoken  of  only  in  the  plm*al,  although  the  priestly 
order  had  much  more  of  the  character  of  a  collective  body  than 
the  prophetic  order  had"   (Christology,  i.  101  transL). 

Ao;ain,  "'Jb3  and  1103  are  at  variance  Avith  the  collective  view. 

CD  ?         ■  T  T 

It  is  undoubtedly  true,  that  the  resemblance  to  Moses  does  not 
primarily  relate  to  "  the  substance  of  the  words  spoken  by  God 
through  Moses  or  the  future  mediator,  nor  even  to  the  essential 
identity  in  the  substance  of  the  words,"  as  Hiivernick  maintains 
(alttest.  TheoL,  p.  90) ;  at  least  not  in  any  such  sense  as  this, 
that  the  promised  prophet  would  proclaim  nothing  but  what 
Moses  had  proclaimed  already.  For  this  would  not  only  pre- 
clude a  direct  allusion  to  Christ,  but  any  allusion  to  the  pro- 
phetic order  of  the  Old  Testament,  since  all  the  prophets,  or  at 
any  rate  those  whose  writings  have  come  down  to  us,  went  far 
beyond  Moses  in  this  respect.  But  the  expression,  "  A  prophet 
like  unto  thee,  like  unto  me"  cannot  possibly  have  been  employed 
without  some  further  meaning,  than  that  the  promised  prophet 
would  possess  whatever  belonged  to  the  prophetic  character  in 
general,  and  all  that  would  necessarily  be  found  in  every  pro- 
phet ;  such,  for  example,  as  "  the  human  mediation  of  Divine 
revelation,  in  contrast  with  the  manifestation  of  the  power  of 
God  Himself"  (Ilofmann).  If  Jehovah  or  Moses  represents  it 
as  something  pecuhar,  that  a  prophet,  or  several  prophets,  would 
be  raised  up  like  unto  Moses ;  it  is  evidently  implied  that  there 
might  be  prophets  wdio  were  not  like  Moses,  and  yet  were  j^ro- 
phets  notwithstanding ;  and  consequently  there  must  have  been 
something  peculiar  in  the  prophetic  character  of  Moses,  some- 
thing that  it  would  be  in  vain  to  look  for  in  all  the  prophets. 
And  the  Pentateuch  itself  gives  us  distinct  and  authentic  infor- 
mation as  to  the  natm'e  of  this  distinctive  peculiaiity  (^cid.  Num. 
xii.  G-8).  In  the  first  place,  it  consisted  in  the  mode  in  which 
the  Divine  communications  were  made.  Jehovah  spake  with 
Moses  moutli  to  mouth,  and  INIoses  saw  the  Temunah  of  Jehovah  ; 
wdiereas  the  other  prophets  only  saw  Jehovah  in  Chidoth,  and 
received  the  revelations  of  Jehovah  in  a  vision  or  a  dream  (ind. 
§  34,  4).  But  secondly/,  it  consisted  chiefly  in  the  fact,  that 
JSIoses  was  entrusted  with  the  whole  house  of  Jehovah.     While 


478  ISRAEL  IN  THE  ARBOTH  MOAB. 

Moses  lived,  lie  was  one  and  all  in  the  house  of  Jehovah,  the 
mediator  between  Jehovah  and  the  people  in  all  respects.  He 
was  commander-in-chief,  deliverer,  lawgiver,  priest,  teacher, 
chastiser,  and  judge.  There  was  no  function  in  connection 
with  the  representation  of  God,  or  the  mediation  of  the  words 
and  acts  of  God,  which  he  had  not  discharged,  or  was  not  war- 
ranted in  discharging  in  the  highest  (human)  form.  And  he 
was  a  prophet  in  all  this,  and  for  all  this  ;  that  is  to  say,  his 
prophetic  gift  controlled,  pervaded,  inspired,  and  regulated  all 
these  functions.  He  was  a  prophet  when  leading  Israel,  a  pro- 
phet when  reconciling  Israel,  a  prophet  when  teaching  Israel. 
A  David  wanted  a  Nathan  at  his  side,  to  help  him  to  fulfil  his 
royal  duties  in  a  proper  way.  But  Moses,  the  leader  of  Israel, 
had  his  Nathan  within  himself :  he  was  both ;  in  a  Word,  was 
everything  in  himself.  If,  then,  the  Pentateuch  itself  repre- 
sents this  clearly  and  without  ambiguity,  as  the  distinctive  pe- 
culiarity of  the  prophetic  character  of  Moses,  and  does  this  with 
such  emphasis  as  in  Num.  xii. ; — we  can  come  to  no  other  con- 
clusion than  that,  when  the  Pentateuch  promises  prophets  like 
unto  Moses,  whatever  it  sets  before  us  as  constituting  the  dis- 
tinctive peculiarity  of  Moses,  we  are  warranted  in  looldng  for  in 
the  prophets  referred  to.  But  we  would  simply  ask,  whether, 
in  the  whole  line  of  prophets  from  Moses  to  Malachi,  there  is  a 
single  one  to  be  found  who  comes  half-way  towards  answering 
this  description,  not  to  say  whether  they  all  of  them  do  so.  And 
we  are  brought  to  the  following  dilemma :  either  the  prediction 
in  Deut.  xviii.  promised  something,  which  was  not  fulfilled  in 
the  case  of  the  persons  referred  to ;  or  the  prediction  did  not  re- 
late to  the  whole  series  of  prophets  between  Moses  and  Malachi, 
but  to  one  prophet,  who  is  not  to  be  found  among  these,  but 
must  be  looked  for  outside  their  ranks,  and  after  them. 

We  have  also  another  express  and  authentic  proof  of  what  is 
meant  in  the  Pentateuch  by  a  prophet  like  imto  Moses.  The 
account  of  the  life  and  labours  of  this  great  man  of  God  is 
brought  to  a  close  in  Deut.  xxxiv.  10  by  the  words,  "  And  there 
arose  not  a  prophet  since  in  Israel  like  unto  Moses,"  etc.  The 
last  editor  of  the  Pentateuch  (for  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  he 
is  the  author  of  the  last  chapter)  understood  the  expressions, 
"  like  unto  me"  and  "  like  unto  thee,"  very  differently  from  Ilof- 
mann,  as  even  the  most  prejudiced  must  admit.     Otherwise  he 


REPETITION  AND  ENFORCEMENT  OF  THE  LAW.  479 

would  have  placed  himself  in  the  most  direct  and  irreconcileable 
opposition  to  Deut.  x^dii.  It  makes  no  essential  difference, 
whether  this  editor  is  supposed  to  have  lived  in  the  time  of  Ezra, 
or  in  that  of  Josiah,  or  Joshua.  In  any  case,  he  had  been  ac- 
quainted with  prophets  after  Moses.  And  when  he  says  that 
"  there  arose  not  a  prophet  like  unto  Moses,^''  he  means,  not  that 
no  prophet  at  all  had  risen  up,  but  that,  although  prophets  had 
risen  up,  not  one  of  them  was  like  unto  Moses. 

But  even  apart  from  everything  else,  the  Pentateuch  itself 
bears  express  and  unmistakeable  testimony  against  the  collective, 
and  in  favour  of  the  personal-individual  view, — in  favour  of  a 
reference  to  the  Messiah,  and  against  any  reference  to  the  entire 
prophetic  order  of  the  Old  Testament.  Before  proceeding  fur- 
ther with  our  proofs,  let  us  look  at  tlie  historical  soil  from  which 
our  prophecy  sprang,  or  rather  into  which  it  was  planted  by  the 
hand  of  the  spirit  of  prophecy,  as  into  a  susceptible  soil  pre- 
pared by  the  hand  of  the  spirit  of  prophecy,  like  fruitful  seed 
in  fruitful  ground. 

We  must  attach  our  present  remarks  to  what  has  already 
been  said  in  vol.  ii.  §  4,  3  on  the  course  of  Messianic  prophecy, 
and  its  historical  foundation  in  the  patriarchal  age.  If  we  omit 
Balaam's  prophecy  of  the  Star  out  of  Jacob  (vol.  ii.  §  4,  1), 
which  belongs  to  the  same  epoch  as  our  own,  this  announcement 
of  a  prophet  like  unto  Moses  is  the  first  express  Messianic  pro- 
phecy since  the  blessing  of  Jacob  on  his  sons,  and  especially  on 
Judah  (Gen.  xlix.  8-12).  Hengstenberg,  who  has  not  given  a 
correct  interpretation  of  either  prophecy,  tm*ns  everything  upside 
down,  and  obstinately  persists  in  maintaining  that  this  must  be 
and  is  the  order : — first,  perfect  clearness,  sharp  definition,  con- 
crete personality;  then,  with  further  progress,  mistiness,  inde- 
finiteness,  and  obscurity ; — first  of  all,  the  prophecy  appears  like 
a  full-grown  man,  and  then  dui'ing  the  long  period  of  history 
which  intervenes,  it  grows  up  to  the  stature  of — a  child  (!). — 
Jacob  beholds  the  Messiah  as  one  single,  concrete  person,  with 
such  clearness  and  certainty  as  was  only  attained  by  the  latest 
prophets  ;  to  Closes,  on  the  other  hand,  who  was  not  only  ac- 
quainted with  Jacob's  prophecy,  but  whose  Messianic  conscious- 
ness was  based  upon  it,  it  was  like  a  dissolving  view,  which 
changed  as  soon  as  the  eye  was  fixed  upon  it,  at  one  time  into  a 
host  of  prophets,  at  another  again  into  a  single  individual. — 


480  ISRAEL  m  THE  ARBOTH  MOAB. 

Jacob  knew  that  the  one  personal  Messiah  would  spring  from 
the  tribe  of  Judah ;  the  progress  made  by  Moses  was  back  to 
the  indistinctness  and  generality  which  Jacob  had  already  suc- 
ceeded in  overcoming  :  for,  as  before  the  time  of  Jacob  the  pro- 
phecy ran  thus,  "  from  thy  seed,"  so  does  Moses  now  say  again, 
"  from  thy  brethren,  out  of  the  midst  of  thee." — This  view  is 
certainly  not  naturalism ;  it  is  rather  unnatviral.  I  can  perceive 
in  the  prophecy  something  more  than  nature,  but  something 
above  nature  and  not  opposed  to  it ;  and  if  this  is  naturalism,  I 
have  no  objection  to  be  called  a  naturalist  (Christology,  vol.  i. 
§70). 

Jacob's  prophecy  in  Gen.  xlix.  looks  to  the  "  end  of  the  days," 
and  sees  the  hopes  and  expectations  of  the  patriarchal  age,  of 
which  there  was  already  a  distinct  consciousness,  perfectly  ful- 
filled, its  necessities  satisfied,  its  defects  supplied,  the  object  of 
its  endeavoTU's  reached,  its  labour  at  an  end.  There  were  only 
two  things,  with  which  the  patriarchal  age  was  acquainted,  as 
preliminary  conditions  to  the  manifestation  of  salvation,  and  to 
which  all  the  earlier  promises  of  God  had  pointed,  namely,  the 
development  of  the  family  into  a  great  nation,  and  the  peaceable 
and  undisturbed  possession  of  the  promised  land.  It  was  igno- 
rant, therefore,  that  there  were  any  other  impediments  in  the 
way  than  the  defects  of  the  time  being ;  namely,  the  fact  that 
the  chosen  seed  was  confined  within  the  limits  of  a  single  family, 
and  that  this  family  was  leading  a  restless  nomad  life  in  a  foreign 
land.  But  at  the  period  to  which  om'  prophecy  belongs,  these 
conditions  were  fulfilled,  and  these  impediments  removed ;  or,  at 
all  events,  the  accomplishment  of  both  was  so  near  at  hand,  that 
it  belonged  to  the  immediate  present,  instead  of  the  distant  future. 
In  the  meantime,  however,  other  wants  and  defects  had  come  to 
light  with  the  onward  course  of  history ;  and  these  had  given 
rise  to  fresh  hopes  and  expectations.  The  unity  of  the  family 
had  expanded  into  a  plurality  of  populous  tribes ;  but  it  had  also 
become  appai-ent  that  this  plurality,  which  had  proceeded  from 
unity,  would  converge  into  a  central  unity  again ;  that  the  broad 
base  would  run  up  into  one  apex,  and  the  members  of  the  body 
be  organically  united  under  a  single  head.  What  would  have 
become  of  the  nation,  in  spite  of  its  strength  and  numbers,  if  it 
had  not  possessed  in  Moses  a  common  head,  a  common  leader, 
and  instructor  ?     And  how  far  was  even  Moses  from  attaining, 


REPETITIOX  AND  ENFORCEMENT  OF  THE  LAW.  481 

exhibiting,  and  performing  all  that  was  included  in  the  idea  of 
the  head  of  Israel  ? — So,  on  the  other  hand,  the  promised  land 
was  already,  to  some  extent,  actually  in  possession,  and  the  cap- 
ture of  the  rest  was  guaranteed  as  immediately  at  hand.  But 
we  have  already  shown,  that  the  possession  already  secured,  or 
to  he  secured  immediately,  was  not  the  quiet,  midisturhed,  and 
undisputed  possession,  which  Jacob  had  foreseen  and  predicted. 
For  now  the  promised  land  was  entirely  surrounded  by  hostile 
tribes,  who  thought  of  nothing  else  than  the  destruction  of  Israel. 
How  far,  therefore,  was  this  provisional  fulfilment  from  the  final 
and  absolute  accomplishment !  To  what  a  distance  in  the  future 
was  the  period  removed,  when  all  nations  should  willingly  bend 
beneath  the  sceptre  of  Judah,  and  participate  in  its  blessings, 
and  when  all  nations  should  be  blessed  in  the  seed  of  Abraham, 
Isaac,  and  Jacob !  It  had  by  this  time  become  fully  apparent, 
that  the  victory  of  Israel  over  the  nations  could  not  be  achieved 
without  a  previous  conflict ;  that  active  hostility  would  precede 
and  accompany  willing  obedience  on  the  part  of  the  nations ;  and 
that  the  streams  of  blessing  which  were  to  flow  from  Israel  to  the 
nations  would  have  a  dark  side,  in  fearful  manifestations  of  rage, 
revenge,  and  destruction. 

Into  this  soil  the  spirit  of  prophecy  dropped  some  new  seeds, 
which  promised  the  ultimate  fulfilment  of  present  wants  and 
desires,  and  gave  to  present  hopes  a  divine  approval,  a  definite 
direction,  a  firm  hold,  a  clear  prospect,  and  a  substantial  reahty. 
This  was  effected  by  Balaam's  prophecy  of  the  Star  out  of  Jacob, 
and  Moses'  prophecy  of  the  Prophet  like  unto  himself.  In  both 
the  limits  were  broken  through,  which  had  hitherto  confined  the 
Messianic  expectations  to  the  sphere  of  generality ;  in  both,  the 
prospect  of  salvation,  which  had  hitherto  been  associated  simply 
with  the  entire  seed  of  Abraham,  was  condensed  into  the  distinct 
consciousness  of  one  single,  personal  author  of  salvation,  of  the 
seed  of  Jacob,  and  out  of  the  midst  of  Israel.  Balaam  an- 
nounced him  as  a  king,  avenging  hostility  and  overcoming 
opposition ;  Moses  as  a  prophet,  who  would  continue  and  com- 
plete the  work  which  he  himself  had  begun.  Whether  the 
Israel  of  that  day  was  aware,  or  even  surmised,  that  the  Star  out 
of  Jacob  and  the  Prophet  like  unto  jSIoses  werc>  one  and  the  same 
person,  simply  described  according  to  two  different  departments 
of  His  work,  we  must  leave  for  the  present  undecided.     I  cer- 

*       VOL.  III.  2  II 


482  ISRAEL  IN  THE  ARBOTH  MOAB. 

tainly  cannot  admit  that  this  is  impossible ;  for  even  in  Moses,  the 
commander-in-chief  (the  type  of  the  King)  and  the  prophet 
(the  type  of  the  Prophet)  were  associated  in  one  individual. 

Again,  the  correctness  of  the  interpretation,  which  refers 
this  prophecy  to  a  personal  Messiah,  is  unanimously  attested  by 
the  very  earliest  tradition.  The  testimony  of  this  tradition  in 
the  present  instance  is  of  all  the  greater  importance,  and  is  even 
decisive  in  its  character,  from  the  fact  that  it  issued  in  a  confir- 
mation of  the  view  in  question  by  Christ  and  His  apostles.  As  the 
first  and  oldest  link  in  the  chain,  we  have  ah'eady  mentioned 
Deut.  xxxiv.  10.  The  later  prophets  even  "  disclaimed  the 
honour  of  being  the  Prophet  like  unto  Moses.  The  predictions 
in  Is.  xlii.  xlix.  and  1.  Ixi.,  in  which  the  Messiah  is  distinctly  in- 
troduced as  the  Prophet,  are  based  upon  the  passage  before  us. 
To  Him  is  assigned  the  mission  to  restore  Jacob,  and  to  be  the 
salvation  of  the  Lord  to  the  end  of  the  world"  {Hengstenberg). 
The  testimonies  in  favour  of  our  view  crowd  together  in  the 
period  subsequent  to  the  Capti\'ity.  We  cannot,  indeed,  adduce 
1  Mace.  xiv.  41,  as  is  frequently  done,  where  Simon  is  appointed 
"  governor  and  high  priest  for  ever,  until  there  should  arise  a 
credible  prophet."  Hengstenberg  is  certainly  right  when  he 
says,  "  That  by  the  '  credible  prophet,'  i.e.,  one  sufficiently  at- 
tested by  miracles  or  the  fulfilment  of  prophecies,  we  are  not  to 
understand  the  Prophet  promised  by  Moses,  is  shown,  partly  by 
the  absence  of  the  article,  and  partly  by  the  circumstance,  that 
a  credible  prophet  is  spoken  of.  The  sense  is  rather  this  :  Simon 
and  his  family  should  continue  to  hold  the  highest  dignity  until 
God  Himself  should  make  another  arrangement  by  a  future 
prophet,  as  there  was  none  at  that  time,  and  thus  put  an  end  to 
a  state  of  things  which,  on  the  one  hand,  was  contradictory  to 
the  law,  and  on  the  other,  to  the  promise ; — a  state  of  things 
into  which  they  had  been  led  by  the  force  of  circumstances,  and 
which  could,  at  all  events,  be  only  a  jDrovisional  one.  It  is  not 
on  the  passage  under  review  that  the  expectation  of  a  prophet 
there  rests,  but  rather  on  Mai.  iii.  1,  23,  where  a  prophet  is  pro- 
mised as  the  precm-sor  of  the  Messiah"  (Christology,  vol.  i.,  p. 
97  translation). 

Nevertheless,  we  can  confidently  maintain,  that  the  opinion, 
that  the  passage  before  us  related  to  the  ]\Iessiah,  was  de- 
cidedly the  prevaihng  one,  and  probably  the  only  one,  in  the 


REPETITION  AND  ENFORCEMENT  OF  THE  LAW.  483 

period  subsequent  to  the  Captivity  (for  in  John  i.  21  and  vii.  40, 
alhision  is  made  to  Mai.  iv.  5),  for  the  simple  reason,  that  the 
words  with  which  the  book  of  Deuteronomy  closes,  "  There 
arose  not  a  prophet  since  in  Israel  like  unto  Moses"  (chap, 
xxxiv.  10),  certainly  expressed  the  conviction  of  all  the  writers 
after  the  Captivity.  And  even  down  to  our  own  dav,  in  which 
it  is  considered  advisable  on  polemical  grounds  to  depart  from 
the  traditional  explanation,  it  has  held  almost  exclusive  sway  in 
the  Synagogue.  That  the  Samaritans  had  adopted  it,  may  un- 
questionably be  proved  from  the  New  Testament.  "  The  woman 
of  Samaria  says  to  Jesus,  '  I  know  that  Messias  cometh,  which 
is  called  Christ ;  when  He  is  come,  He  will  tell  us  all  things.' 
As  the  Samaritans  accepted  the  Pentateuch  alone,  the  notion 
here  expressed,  that  the  Messiah  would  be  a  divinely  enlightened 
teacher,  cannot  have  been  derived  from  any  other  source  than 
the  passage  before  us.  The  words  of  the  woman  bear  a  striking 
resemblance  to  ver.  18,  '  He  shall  speak  unto  them  all  that  I 
shall  command  Him'"  (^Ilengstenherg).  Again,  when  Philip  says 
to  Nathanael,  "  We  have  found  Him,  of  whom  Moses  in  the 
law  did  write,"  he  can  only  have  thought  of  this  prophecy  ;  for 
throughout  the  entire  Pentateuch  there  is  only  one  other  Mes- 
sianic prophecy  of  a  personal  character,  namely,  that  of  the 
Star  and  Sceptre  out  of  Jacob,  the  predicates  of  which  were  but 
little  adapted  to  lead  Philip  to  the  opinion  which  he  here  ex- 
pressed. This  is  also  true  of  the  Shiloh  passage  in  Gen.  xlix. 
10,  if  we  suppose  that  Philip  gave  to  this  a  personal  application. 
Moreover,  the  words  of  Philip  comjDcl  us  to  think  of  a  prophecy 
of  which  Moses  himself  was  the  author. — There  is  also  an  allu- 
sion to  this  passage  in  John  vi.  14,  where  the  people  say,  after 
the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand,  "  This  is  of  a  truth  that  Pro- 
phet that  should  come  into  the  world."  And  Christ  undoubtedly 
had  it  in  His  mind  when  He  said,  "  Do  not  think  that  I  will 
accuse  you  to  the  Father ;  there  is  one  that  accuseth  you,  even 
Closes,  in  whom  ye  trust.  For  had  ye  believed  IVIoses,  ye  would 
have  believed  Me,  for  he  wrote  of  Me"  (John  v.  45,  46).  "  It 
is  evident  that  the  Lord  must  here  have  had  in  view  a  distinct 
passage  of  the  Pentateuch, — a  clear  and  definite  declaration  of 
Moses.  But  if  a  single  declaration  (a  direct  Messianic  pro- 
})hccy)  forms  the  qiiestion  at  issue,  this  is  the  only  passage  that 
can  possibly  be  meant ;  for  it  is  the  only  prophecy  of  Christ 


484  ISRAEL  IX  THE  ARBOTH  MOAB, 

which  Moses,  on  whose  person  such  stress  is  laid,  uttered  in  his 
own  name, — the  only  one  in  which  Divine  judgments  are  threat- 
ened to  the  despisers  of  the  Messiah"  {Hengstenherg,  pp.  99, 100). 
When  Liiche  states,  that  Jesus  referred  this  passage  to  Himself, 
according  to  the  exposition  which  was  cun'ent  at  the  time,  he 
is  certainly  correct ;  but  we  also  see  from  this,  that  he  recog- 
nised and  sanctioned  the  exposition  as  perfectly  correct. — Nor 
is  the  allusion  to  Deut.  xviii.  18,  19  less  unmistakeable  in  the 
words  of  Christ  in  John  xii.  48-50. — Again,  it  is  impossible  to 
overlook  the  connection  between  the  words,  "  This  is  My  be- 
loved Son,  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased :  hear  ye  Him"  and  the 
expression  in  ver.  15,  "  Unto  Him  ye  shall  hearken^''  or  to  deny 
that  it  was  the  intention  of  the  voice  from  heaven  to  point  out 
Jesvis  as  the  Prophet  of  whom  Moses  had  spoken  here. — Both 
Peter  and  Stephen  regarded  the  prophecy  respecting  the  "  Pro- 
phet like  unto  Moses"  as  fulfilled  in  Christ  (Acts  iii.  22,  23  and 
vii.  37).  Hofmann  argues  that  "  Peter  did  not  say  that  Jesus 
was  a  prophet,  to  whom  Israel  ought  to  have  hearkened,  but  left 
the  Jews  to  infer  from  the  fact,  that,  on  the  one  hand,  Moses 
had  enjoined  it  as  a  duty  to  yield  the  obedience  of  faith  to  the 
words  of  the  prophets,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  words  of 
all  the  prophets  had  pointed  to  what  had  been  fulfilled  in  Christ, 
what  their  conduct  ought  to  have  been,  and  ought  still  to  be,  to- 
wards Christ  and  the  preaching  of  the  apostles."  But  this  is  a 
subterfuge,  rather  than  an  argument.  The  collective  interpre- 
tation of  the  word  -prophet,  as  descriptive  of  "  all  the  prophets,"  is 
inadmissible  in  itself,  and  is  rendered  absolutely  impossible  by 
the  expression,  "  Hear  that  prophet,"  in  ver.  23,  which  places 
it  beyond  the  possibility  of  a  doubt,  that  Peter  supposed  the 
"Prophet  like  unto  Moses,"  of  whom  Moses  had  prophesied, 
to  be  one  distinct  person,  and  in  fact,  as  the  context  shows,  to  be 
that  one  Person  of  whom  God  had  spoken  by  the  mouth  of  all 
His  holy  prophets  since  the  world  began. 

At  the  same  time,  the  unanimity  and  confidence  with  which 
modern  theologians  adliere  to  the  collective  interpretation  of  the 
word  "  prophet,"  and  the  fact  that  even  a  theologian  like  Heng- 
stenherg, who  had  seen  so  clearly  and  proved  so  conclusively 
that  the  collective  view  is  inadmissible,  should  at  last  have  felt 
obliged  to  bring  in  the  whole  line  of  Old  Testament  prophets 
(and  that  in  a  manner  still  more  objectionable  than  the  collec- 


BEPETITION  AND  ENFORCEMENT  OF  THE  LAW.  485 

tive  view  itself) — we  say  all  this  would  lead  us  to  expect  that 
there  must  be  some  elements  in  the  passage,  which  make  it 
natural  to  understand  it  as  referring  to  a  plurality  of  prophets. 
Uengstenherg  crowds  together  a  mass  of  arguments  for  the  pur- 
pose of  proving  that  the  prophets  must  also  be  referred  to. — 
We  will  commence  with  the  weakest.  "There  is  not  wanting," 
he  says,  "  a  slight  hint  in  the  New  Testament  that  the  reference 
to  Christ  is  not  an  exclusive  one.  It  is  found  in  Luke  xi. 
50,  51."  The  passage  runs  thus  :  "  That  the  blood  of  all  the 
■prophets,  which  was  shed  from  the  foundation  of  the  world,  may 
be  required  of  this  generation  ;  from  the  blood  of  Abel  unto  the 
blood  of  Zacharias,  .  .  .  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  it  shall  be 
required  of  this  generation."  It  must  be  apparent  to  every  one, 
that  notwithstanding  the  resemblance  between  eK^rjTeiv  ("  it 
shall  be  required")  and  the  word  \y\l  ("I  will  require  it  of  him") 
in  Deut.  xviii.  19,  the  passage  rests  upon  Gen.  iv.  9  sqq.,  rather 
than  upon  the  words  of  Deuteronomy  (see  especially  Gen.  iv. 
10,  and  compare  also  Heb.  xi.  5).  Unwillingness  to  hear,  which 
is  the  chief  point  in  Deut.  xviii.,  is  not  noticed  here;  and  the 
blood  crying  for  revenge,  which  is  the  chief  point  in  the  words 
of  Christ,  is  not  alluded  to  in  Deut.  xviii.,  though  it  is  so  dis- 
tinctly mentioned  in  Gen.  iv.,  that  there  is  hardly  any  necessity 
to  bring  forward  the  striking  expressions  employed  by  Christ, 
"  from  the  foundation  of  the  world,"  and  "  from  the  blood  of 
Abel." — Again,  Hengstenberg  argues,  that  "  if  the  passage  were 
referred  to  Christ  exclusively,  the  prophetic  institution  would 
then  be  without  any  legitimate  authority ;  and  from  the  whole 
character  of  the  Mosaic  legislation,  as  laying  the  foundation  for 
the  future  progress  and  development  of  the  theocracy,  we  could 
not  icell  conceive  that  so  important  an  institution  should  be  defi- 
cient in  this  point.  Moreover,  the  whole  historical  existence  of 
the  prophetic  order  necessarily  presupposes  such  a  foundation." 
— We  reply,  No;  on  the  contrary,  the  law  presupposes  prophecy. 
It  is  prophecy  which  must  give  its  credentials  to  the  law,  not 
the  law  to  prophecy.  Prophecy  was  in  existence  before  the  law, 
from  the  days  of  Abraham  (Gen.  xx.  7),  or  rather,  according  to 
the  words  of  Christ  which  have  just  been  (][uoted,  from  the  time 
of  Abel,  and  from  the  foundation  of  the  world.  Marriage  is 
also  left  without  any  formal  appointment  or  legal  authority.  It 
did  not  need  it,  for  it  was  instituted  and  invested  with  legal 


486  ISRAEL  IN  THE  AREOTH  MOAB. 

authority  long  before  the  law.  The  same  may  be  said  of  cir- 
cumcision, and  the  same  applies  to  prophecy.  But  the  law  did 
require  to  be  accredited  by  prophecy.  It  was  the  fact  that  Moses 
possessed  authority  as  a  prophet  of  God,  which  gave  authority  to 
the  laws  he  issued. — The  following  arguments  are  undoubtedly 
of  still  greater  importance :  "  The  wider  context^''  he  says, 
"  shows  that  the  prophets  of  the  Old  Testament  are  not  to  be 
excluded.  In  Deuteronomy  provision  was  made  for  the  period 
immediately  succeeding  the  approaching  death  of  Moses.  In  chap, 
xvii.,  xviii.,  the  magistrates  and  powers,  the  superiors  to  whose 
authority  in  secular  and  spiritual  affairs  the  people  shall  submit, 
are  introduced.  First,  the  civil  magistrates  are  brought  before 
them  (chap.  xvii.  8—20),  and  then  the  ecclesiastical  superiors, 
the  priests  and  prophets  (chap,  xviii.).  In  such  a  connection, 
it  is  not  probable  that  tlie  prophet  is  one  particular  individual. 
— Again,  an  exclusive  reference  to  Christ  is  precluded  by  the 
more  immediate  context  (viz.,  within  the  section  relating  to  the 
prophet).  JSIoses  prohibits  Israel  from  employing  the  means 
by  which  the  heathen  seek  to  pass  beyond  the  boundaries  of 
human  knowledge  (such  as  soothsaying,  augury,  conjuring,  ne- 
cromancy, etc.).  '  Thou  shalt  not  do  so,'  is  his  language ;  for 
that  which  these  are  seeking  after  to  no  purpose,  and  in  this  sin- 
ful manner  (?  !  !  Where  do  we  find  all  this  ?  Compare  vol.  ii. 
§  23,  1,  2,  and  §  54,  5),  thy  God  shall  actually  (?  this  must  mean 
in  a  truly  Divine  manner)  grant  to  thee.  And  this  was  done 
through  the  prophets.  Moreover,  as  Moses  himself  attests,  he 
had  received  the  prophecy  on  Sinai,  on  that  very  occasion  on 
which  the  people  were  seized  with  terror  at  the  dreadful  majesty 
of  God,  and  prayed  that  God  would  no  longer  speak  to  them 
directly,  but  through  a  mediator.  Accordingly,  we  should  ex- 
pect to  find  an  allusion  to  the  continuation  of  the  revelations  of 
God  through  the  medium  of  the  Old  Testament  prophets." 
Another  argument  still  remains,  namely,  that  "the  exclusive 
reference  to  the  Messiah  is  inconsistent  with  vers.  20-22.  The 
marks  of  a  false  prophet  are  given  there.  But  if  there  is  no 
allusion  at  all  to  the  true  prophets  of  Israel  in  what  precedes,  it 
Avould  be  almost  impossible  to  trace  any  suitable  connection  in 
the  thoughts." 

This  is  Flengstenherg  s  case.     He  willingly  admits,  that  not- 
withstanding all  these  points  in  the  context,  if  Moses  knew  any- 


REPETITION  AND  ENFORCEMENT  Or  THE  LAW.  487 

thing  at  all  about  a  Messiah,  not  only  avouM  some  allusion  to 
His  coming  be  most  fitting,  but  we  should  necessarily  expect  to 
find  it.  We  accept  the  acknowledgment ;  and  for  our  parts 
we  willingly  admit,  that  if  the  expression,  "  A  prophet  like  unto 
Moses,"  could  properly  be  interpreted  as  relating  to  a  plurality 
of  prophets,  and  if  the  substance  of  the  passage  were  really  ap- 
plicable to  the  prophets  before  Christ  (neither  of  which  is  the 
case,  as  we  have  already  shown),  such  a  view  would  be  very 
appropriate  and  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  context ; — we  go 
even  further,  and  admit  that,  if  we  look  at  the  context  from  the 
stand-point  of  the  fulfilment,  instead  of  that  of  the  prophecy 
itself,  it  certainly  appears  to  be  faulty,  seeing  that  there  is  a 
long  interval  between  Moses  and  "  the  prophet  like  luito 
Moses,"  which  is  left  entirely  vacant ;  whereas  from  the  three 
points  alluded  to  by  Hengstenherg,  we  should  be  led  to  expect 
some  reference  to  the  fact,  that  the  mediatorial  work  would  be 
carried  on  by  a  constant  series  of  prophets. 

Is  this,  however,  to  force  us  to  have  recourse,  as  Hengstenherg 
has  done,  to  the  mere  phantasm  of  an  ideal  person?  Certainly  not. 
For  to  oiu'  mind  there  is  something  utterly  inconceivable  in  the 
thought  of  a  single  person,  who  resolves  himself  into  a  plurality 
of  persons ;  in  a  concrete  notion,  which  is  an  abstract  at  the 
same  time ;  in  a  person,  which  is  nothing  more  than  an  idea  ; 
and  an  idea,  which  is  a  person  as  well ! 

We  have  alread}^  hinted  at  the  solution  of  the  enigma.  The 
difficulty  vanishes  at  once,  if  we  take  as  our  stand-point  the  pro- 
phecy and  not  the  fulfilment.  When  the  necessity  for  Moses 
to  act  as  a  mediator  between  Jehovah  and  the  people  became  so 
obvious  at  Sinai,  and  Jehovah  not  only  approved  and  accepted 
his  mediation,  but  promised  that  the  same  thing  should  be  re- 
newed in  the  future,  Moses  might  easily  be  led  to  suppose  that 
this  promise  would  be  fulfilled  immediately  after  his  departure. 
And  when  he  wanted  to  turn  away  his  people  from  heathen 
soothsayers  and  augurs,  and  also  from  false  prophets,  to  the 
genuine  I'evelations  of  God,  the  image  of  this  Great  Prophet, 
who  had  been  already  announced  to  him,  and  wlio,  as  Jehovah 
liad  told  him,  would  be  like  unto  him,  stood  so  distinctly  in  the 
foreground,  as  the  eye  of  his  mind  was  directed  to  the  future, 
that  he  pointed  the  people  to  Him  alone.  And  if  he  really 
thought  that  the  appearance  of  this  Prophet  was  much  nearer  at 


488  ISRAEL  IN  THE  ARBOTH  MOAB. 

hand  than  was  actually  the  case,  the  apostles  did  just  the  same, 
when  they  saw  the  day  of  the  Lord  in  spirit,  and  spoke  of  it  as 
close  at  hand. 

But  there  is  undoubtedly  a  certain  amount  of  truth  in  Heng- 
stenbergs  representation ;  arising  from  the  fact,  that  all  the  pro- 
phets subsequent  to  Moses  were  precursors  and  heralds  of  the  Great 
Prophet,  in  the  same  manner  as  Moses  was;  that  they  declared 
themselves  to  be  so,  and  were  regarded  as  such  by  the  believing 
portion  of  the  nation ;  and  that  the  same  Spirit  (the  Spirit  of 
Christ,  1  Pet.  i.  11)  spoke  in  them,  which  afterwards  dwelt  in 
Christ.  So  long,  therefore,  as  He  Himself  had  not  appeared, 
the  faith  of  the  people  necessarily  rested  upon  His  forerunners ; 
and  the  warning  of  Moses,  directing  the  people  to  turn  from 
heathen  soothsaying  and  false  prophecy  to  the  future  Messiah, 
the  sole  medium  of  Divine  revelation,  was  not  uttered  in  vain. 
For,  however  inferior  the  prophets  of  the  Old  Testament  may 
have  been  to  the  Messiah,  they  presented  the  same  contrast  to 
heathen  soothsaying  and  the  false  prophets  of  Israel,  as  He  did 
Himself. 

There  is  only  one  more  point  to  which  we  have  to  direct 
attention  in  conclusion.  There  is  this  peculiarity  in  the  descrip- 
tion, "  a  prophet  like  unto  Moses," — and  it  is  one  deserving  of 
close  attention, — that  whilst  on  the  one  hand  the  woi'ds  themselves 
seem  to  indicate  the  most  complete  resemblance  between  Moses 
and  the  promised  prophet,  on  the  other  hand  there  is  a  contrast 
involved,  and  in  fact  a  marked  opposition,  like  the  parallel  be- 
tween the  first  and  second  Adam.  If  we  look  at  the  parallel  in 
the  case  before  us  merely  on  the  outward  or  formal  side  (and  it 
is  this  undoubtedly  which  is  the  primary  and  chief  point  in  con- 
sideration here,  as  the  context  and  a  comparison  with  Num.  xii. 
6-8  clearly  shows),  the  resemblance  is  complete.  Like  Moses, 
He  was  entrusted  with  the  whole  house  of  Jehovah  ;  like  Moses, 
He  communed  with  the  Lord  face  to  face.  But  if  we  look  at 
the  more  inward  and  esserdial  features,  the  resemblance  quickly 
gives  place  to  a  contrast.  A  prophet  who  converses  with  God 
in  a  manner  as  joerfectly  unique  as  Moses  had  previously  done, 
and  who  is  entrusted  with  the  whole  house  of  Jehovah  as  Moses 
alone  had  been  before,  must  receive  this  extraordinary  gift  and 
peculiar  position  for  piu"poses  as  extraordinaiy  and  peculiar  as 
those  for  which  Moses  received  them.     Like  Moses,  He  must 


REPETITION  AND  ENFORCEMENT  OF  THE  LA  AY.  489 

be  a  redeemer  of  the  nation,  a  founder  and  author  of  a  new 
covenant  with  Jehovah ;  and  because  a  new  covenant  must  be 
better  than  tlie  last,  the  "  Prophet  Hke  unto  Moses  "  must  on 
that  very  account  be  greater  than  Moses.  It  belongs,  however,  to 
the  idea  and  essence  of  prophecy,  which  is  the  Divine  knowledge 
of  the  future  brought  do^^^l  into  the  heart  of  history,  that  the 
human  understanding  of  it  must  become  clearer,  deeper,  and 
more  comprehensive  in  proportion  as  it  approaches  fulfilment. 
So  lona;  as  the  covenant  which  Jehovah  had  established  through 
the  mediation  of  JSIoscs  was  still  ncAV,  so  long  as  the  faith  of  the 
people  found  satisfaction  in  this  covenant,  and  the  consciousness 
of  the  necessity  of  one  still  better  and  higher  was  not  yet  felt, 
the  prophecy  before  us  would  continue  to  be  understood  only 
on  its  formal  side.  But  as  soon  as  the  historical  development, 
aided  by  later  prophecy,  had  demonstrated  the  insufficiency  of 
this  covenant  to  seciu'e  the  manifestation  of  complete  salvation, 
the  view  entertained  of  this  prophecy  passed  from  the  form  to 
the  substance,  from  the  shell  to  the  kernel ;  and  the  interpreta- 
tion given  to  our  prophecy  in  the  Jewish  theology  of  the  period 
subsequent  to  the  Captivity  is  a  proof  that  this  really  was  the 
case.  What  the  later  prophets  proclaimed  respecting  a  new 
covenant,  which  Jehovah  would  conclude  with  His  people,  and 
respecting  the  Mediator  of  this  covenant  (the  "Angel  of  the 
covenant,"  ^lal.  iii.  1),  rested  upon  this  prophecy,  and  was  but 
a  further  expansion  of  its  interpretation. 

(4.)  The  COVENANT  IN  THE  LAND  OF  MoAB  was  based  upon, 
and  presupposed  the  covenant  at  Sinai.  The  renewal  of  the  cove- 
nant in  the  Arboth  Moab  arose  from  the  fact,  that  the  xchole  of 
the  generation,  which  had  taken  part  in  the  covenant  at  Sinai, 
had  cut  itself  off  from  that  covenant  at  Kadesh,  and  had  conse- 
quently been  rejected  and  had  died  in  the  wilderness.  But  if  the 
family  of  the  desert  was  rejected,  the  covenant  of  the  desert  was 
not  rejected  in  consequence.  On  the  contrary,  the  covenant 
had  been  in  existence  even  during  the  thirty-eight  years  of  re- 
jection. The  Israelites  in  the  Arboth  Moab  were  a  new  genera- 
tion, a  renewed  Israel,  and  hence  the  renewal  of  the  covenant. 
But  as  they  were  also  the  chikh'en  and  heirs  of  those  who  had 
entered  at  Sinai  into  the  duties  and  privileges  of  the  covenant 
with  Jehovah,  and  as  this  covenant  was  for  children  and  child- 
ren's children,  even   for  all  the  future  generations  of  Israel, 


490  ISRAEL  IN  THE  ARBOTH  MOAB. 

nothing-  more  was  needed  than  a  verbal  renewal  of  it,  without 
either  a  covenant  sacrifice  or  a  covenant  meal.  The  ceremony 
which  Moses  now  performed  with  Israel  in  the  Arbotli  Moab, 
was  a  renewal  of  the  covenant,  just  in  the  same  sense  in  which 
that  at  Mizpah  in  the  time  of  Samuel  (1  Sam.  vii.),  and  every 
other  renewal  after  a  period  of  general  apostasy,  may  be  called 
a  renewal  of  the  covenant. — There  is  a  certain  progress  ap- 
parent, however,  if  we  compare  this  covenant  with  that  at  Sinai, 
partly  in  the  greater  adaptation  of  the  law  in  Deuteronomy  to 
the  necessities  consequent  upon  the  possession  of  the  Holy  Land, 
and  partly  in  the  prophecies  relating  to  their  futm-e  history 
there.  In  this  respect,  especially,  the  blessing  and  cm'se  which 
Moses  set  before  the  people  for  their  choice,  was  the  new  ele- 
ment of  progress. 


DEATH  OF  MOSES. 

§  61.  (Deut.  xxxi.-xxxiv.) — After  Moses  had  written  out 
the  Deuteronomical  law,  with  its  blessings  and  curses,  he  gave 
it  to  the  priests  with  a  charge  to  place  it  by  the  side  of  the 
ark  of  the  covenant  in  the  Holy  of  Holies,  that  it  might  remain 
there,  as  the  original  record  of  the  renewed  covenant,  a  testi- 
mony against  Israel.  He  also  commanded  them  to  read  it  to 
the  assembled  peo^^le  every  seven  years,  at  the  Feast  of  Taber- 
nacles.— At  an  earlier  period  (Num.  xxvii.  22,  23)  Moses  had 
laid  his  hands  upon  Joshua,  and  ordained  him  to  be  his  suc- 
cessor in  the  command  of  Israel,  and  had  presented  him  to  the 
whole  congregation  in  this  capacity.  And  now,  having  finished 
his  charge  to  the  people,  he  turned  once  more  to  Joshua,  and 
said  to  him  in  the  name  of  Jehovah,  "  Be  strong  and  of  a  irood 
com^age;  for  thou  shalt  bring  the  children  of  Israel,  into  the  land, 
which  I  sware  unto  them,  and  I  will  be  with  thee."  This  warn- 
ing and  promise  were  given  to  his  successor  by  the  departing 
leader  in  the  tabernacle,  whither  he  had  summoned  him  for  this 
very  purpose,  and  in  the  sight  of  Jehovah,  whose  presence  was 
attested  by  the  fact  that  the  pillar  of  cloud  came  and  stood  at 
the  door  of  the  tabernacle.     Jehovah  now  announced  most  dis- 


DEATH  OF  MOSES.  491 

tinctlj'  to  Moses,  what  he  liad  akeadj  dimly  suspected  and  feared, 
— namely,  the  future  apostasy  of  the  Israelites.  He  also  com- 
manded him  to  write  a  song  with  this  as  the  subject,  and  to  im- 
press it  upon  the  memory  of  the  people,  in  order  that  when  the 
cm'se  denounced  should  come  upon  them,  this  song  might  testify 
against  them  as  a  witness  (chap.  xxxi.  21).  On  the  same  day, 
therefore,  Moses  went,  according  to  the  command,  and  wrote, 
from  the  fulness  of  the  Spirit  which  dwelt  Avithin  him,  a  song, 
as  majestic  in  form,  as  it  was  terribly  earnest  and  electrifying  in 
its  substance  (chap,  xxxii.)  (1).  Being  warned  once  more  of  his 
approaching  end,  he  pronounced  his  blessing  upon  the  tribes  of 
Israel  (2),  as  Jacob  had  formerly  done  upon  his  death-bed,  and 
then  betook  himself  to  Mount  Neho,  where  he  was  joermitted  to 
enjoy  an  extensive  view  of  the  promised  land  (3).  There  Moses, 
the  servant  of  Jehovah,  died,  being  120  years  old ;  and  Jehovah 
Himself  buried  him,  so  that  no  man  has  ever  been  able  to  dis- 
cover his  tomb  (4). 

(1.)  Commentaries  have  been  written  upon  the  SoNG  of 
Moses  by  Camp.  Vitringa  (Opus  posth.,  ed.  H.  Venema,  Harling 
1734),  J.  A.  Dathe  (Leipzig  1768  ;  also  Opuscula  ad  crisin 
et  interpret.  Vet.  Test,  spectantibus,  Lps.  1796),  and  C.  W. 
Justi  {National-gesdnge  der  Hebrder,  ii.  100  sqq.).  See  also 
Lowth's  Hebrew  Poetry.  The  assurance  of  De  Wette,  that  "  the 
spurious  character  of  this  song  has  long  been  acknowledged" 
(Krit.  d.  isr.  Geschichte,  p.  393),  is  met  by  BosenmiiUer,  in  the 
most  decided  manner.  "  I  should  like  this  most  learned  man," 
he  says,  "  to  point  out  any  one  of  the  erudite  scholars  before  his 
time,  who  denied  t^iat  Moses  was  the  author  of  this  song,  or  any 
one  who  has  brought  forward  sound  arguments  to  prove  that  it 
is  not  his."  On  the  poetic  worth  of  the  song  Rosenmiillcr  says  : 
"  Cui  adhortationum  vi  et  gravitate,  sententiarum  pra^stantia 
imaginumque  sublimitate  hand  facile  simile  inveneris." 

(2.)  On  the  Blessing  of  Moses,  see  J.  F.  Gaab  (Explic. 
nova  c.  33  Deuteron.  in  the  Theological  Commentaiy  published 
by  Velthuisen,  Kuinoel  and  Ruperti,  iv.  374  sqq.) ;  Herders 
Briefe  fiber  das  Studium  der  Theologie ;  Justis  N^ational-gesiinge, 
iii.  1  sqq. ;  A.  T7i.  Hoffmann,  Observationes  in  difficiliora  Vet. 


492  ISRAEL  IN  THE  AEBOTH  MOAB. 

Test,  loca,  Part  I.,  Jena  1823  ;  Bleeh  in  Eosenmiiller's  bibl.  Re- 
pert.,  i.  25  sqq. ;  and  L.  Diestel,  der  Segen  Jakohs,  Brunswick 
1853,  p.  114  sqq. 

The  first  thing  which  strikes  ns,  on  examining  this  blessing, 
is  the  omission  of  the  tribe  of  Simeon.  M.  Bcmmgarten  observes, 
that  "  we  are  not  to  imagine,  from  the  fact  that  Simeon  is  passed 
over,  that  he  is  to  be  regarded  as  left  without  a  blessing.  In 
any  case  he  was  included  in  the  general  blessing  in  vers.  1 
and  29,  just  as  even  the  sons  of  Jacob,  to  whom  threatening 
words  w^ere  addressed  by  their  father,  were  still  called  blessed. 
But  the  fact  that  Simeon  is  not  mentioned  by  name,  and  that 
the  harsh  words  addressed  by  the  patriarch  to  him,  as  well  as  to 
Reuben  and  Levi,  are  not  softened  down  in  his  case,  has  been 
correctly  explained  by  Ephraini  as  denoting  that  the  sentence  of 
dispersion  pronounced  on  Simeon,  according  to  which  he  was 
not  to  have  an  independent  possession,  but  to  live  within  the 
boundaries  of  the  rest,  had  not  been  repealed  or  mitigated,  as  in 
the  case  of  Levi,  in  consequence  of  any  act  of  obedience  and 
faith,  but  on  the  contrary  had  been  greatly  strengthened  by  the 
wickedness  of  his  prince  Zimri  (Nmn.  xxv.  14).  A  striking 
proof  of  this,  we  believe,  is  to  be  found  in  the  remarkably  dimi- 
nutive number  of  Simeon  (Num.  xxvi.  14)."  This  is  probably 
the  best  solution  of  the  difficulty,  provided  we  are  unable  to  adopt 
DiesteUs  conclusion,  that  the  blessing  has  not  come  down  to  us  in 
its  fullest  integrity. — Again,  we  cannot  fail  to  be  struck  with  the 
fact,  that  the  blessing  of  Moses  does  not  contain  the  slightest  trace 
of  any  special  jSIessianic  allusion  ;  whereas  they  are  so  very  pro- 
minent in  that  of  Jacob,  and  since  his  time  the  Messianic  expec- 
tations had  been  so  greatly  enlarged  by  the  prophecy  of  the  Star 
out  of  Jacob,  and  the  Prophet  like  unto  Moses.  But  this  may 
perhaps  sufficiently  account  for  the  omission  here.  Since  the 
time  of  Jacob  the  Messianic  expectation  had  advanced  so  far, 
that  it  now  assumed  the  form  of  a  belief  in  one  single  personal 
Messiah ;  but  from  which  of  the  families  or  tribes  the  personal 
Messiah  would  spring  was  not  yet  known.  The  prophecy  of 
Balaam,  like  that  of  Moses,  had  simply  intimated  that  He  would 
spring  out  of  the  midst  of  Israel,  and  from  the  posterity  of 
Jacob.  It  is  true  that  even  in  Gen.  xlix.  the  tribe  of  Judah  is 
distinguished  above  all  the  rest,  as  the  one  to  which  belonged  the 
supremacy  among  the  tribes.     But  there  was  something  too  in- 


DEATH  OF  MOSES.  493 

definite  in  the  description,  foi-  the  behef  to  take  root  in  Israui, 
that  from  this  particular  tribe  a  personal  Messiah  would  sprinc;. 
This  did  not  take  place  till  the  time  of  David.  It  might  even 
be  said,  that  the  distinction  conferred  by  Jacob's  blessing  upon 
the  tribe  of  Judah  had  fallen  since  then  into  the  shade  ;  for 
neither  Moses,  nor  Aaron,  nor  Joshua  belonged  to  this  tribe. — 
The  cattlienticity  of  Moses'  blessing  has  been  most  conclusivelv 
demonstrated  by  Diestel.  In  fact,  there  is  nothing  in  the  parti- 
cular blessings,  which  could  give  the  least  wai-rant  for  reo-ardinir 
it  as  a  vaticiniam  post  eventimi.  The  introductory  and  conclud- 
ing clauses,  however,  the  critic  just  named  feels  obliged  to  set 
down  as  the  additions  of  a  later  hand.  But  so  far  as  the  conclud- 
ing words  are  concerned,  I  do  not  see  on  what  ground  the  author- 
ship of  Moses  can  possibly  be  disputed.  It  is  somewhat  diiferent 
with  the  introduction,  seeing  that  there  is  at  least  one  clause  here, 
viz.,  ver.  4  ("  Moses  commanded  us  a  law"),  which  seems  to 
favour  Diestel' s  view.  It  must  be  admitted  that  these  words 
sound  somewhat  strange  from  the  lips  of  Moses.  Baumgarten 
has  offered  a  plausible  solution  of  the  difficulty.  "  With  these 
words,"  he  says,  "Moses  threw  himself  into  the  very  heart  of  the 
people  ;  and  Moses,  the  mediator  of  the  law  and  man  of  God, 
was  to  him  an  objective  person,  just  as  David  appropriates  the 
common  sentiment  of  the  nation,  and  speaks  of  the  king  of 
Israel  in  Ps.  xx.  and  xxi."  But  the  two  expressions  are  not^er- 
fectly  analogous.  If  the  passage  before  us  had  read,  "  Moses 
gave  you  the  law,"  there  would  be  nothing  strange  about  it.  But 
when  we  bear  in  mind  that  INIoses  did  not  write  down  this  bless- 
ing, as  he  had  the  song  and  the  Deuteronomical  law ;  that,  on  the 
contrary,  he  uttered  them  verbally  to  the  people  a  short  time, 
perhaps  immediately,  before  his  departure  to  Mount  Nebo  ;  and 
that  they  were  probably  first  appended  to  the  book  by  the  last 
editor  of  the  Pentateuch;  there  cannot  be  anything  very  dan- 
gerous in  the  assumption,  that  the  introductory,  and  possibly  also 
the  concluding  words,  which  were  the  production  of  some  other 
divinely  inspired  psalmist,  were  also  added  by  him. 

(3.)  That  Moses  view  of  the  j^romised  land  from  the  heights 
of  Nebo  was  a  view  with  the  bodily  and  not  with  the  imcard  eye, 
that  he  saw  it  in  a  state  of  perfect  consciousness,  and  not  in  an 
ecstatic  \ision,  is  evident  from  the  circumstances,  as  well  as  from 
the  expression.     There  is  not  a  word  about  ecstasy  here.     The 


494  ISRAEL  I]^  THE  ARBOTH  MOAB. 

antithesis  contained  in  the  announcement,  that  he  should  not 
tread  with  his  feet  the  land  of  promise,  but  should  see  it  with 
his  eyes,  compels  us  to  think  of  the  bodily  eye.  We  have  only 
to  read  the  words  of  Jehovah  in  chap,  xxxiv.  4,  "  I  have  caused 
thee  to  see  it  with  thine  eyes,  but  thou  shalt  not  go  over  thither," 
and  the  statement,  which  follows  almost  directly  afterwards,  that 
though  Moses  w^as  120  years  old  when  he  died,  yet  his  eye  was 
not  dim.  At  the  same  time,  the  distinct  and  emphatic  account 
of  what  he  saw  (vers.  1-3),  and  the  expression,  "  Jehovah  showed 
him  the  land,"  force  us  to  the  conclusion,  that  his  natural  power 
of  vision  was  in  some  way  or  other  miraculously  increased. — 
The  very  unnecessary  question, — where  did  the  author  of  Deut. 
xxxiv.  learn  all  this  ? — may  be  very  simply  answered.  He  was 
acquainted  with  the  commands  and  promises  of  Jehovah  in 
Num.  xxvii.  12,  13,  and  Deut.  xxxii.  49  sqq.,  and  the  Spirit  of 
God,  mider  whose  teaching  the  whole  was  written,  assured  him 
that  the  announcements  contained  in  these  words  were  actually 
fulfilled. 

(4.)  "  Moses  died  there,"  says  the  scriptural  record,  "  accord- 
in  o-  to  the  mouth  (i.e.,  according  to  the  word)  of  God." — The 
Kabbins  render  this  "  at  the  mouth  of  God,"  and  call  the  death 
of  Moses  "  a  death  by  a  kiss"  {cf.  Eisenmenger,  Entdeckt.  Juden- 
thum,  i.  857  sqq.). — Immediately  afterwards  it  is  stated  that 
"  He  buried  him  in  the  valley  in  the  land  of  Moah."  Even  if  it 
were  grammatically  admissible  to  render  the  verb  impersonally 
("  they  \rnaii\  buried  him ;"  Sept.  eda-^jrav  avTov),  or  to  take  the 
subject  from  the  verb  itself,  "  he  buried  him,"  viz.,  whoever  did 
bury  him  (this  is  Rosenmuller  s  rendering:  et  sepelivit  eum,  scil. 
sepeliens),  the  context  would  not  allow  it,  but  would  still  force 
us  to  the  conclusion  that  Jehovah  is  the  subject.  The  clause, 
"  and  no  man  knoweth  of  his  sepulchre  unto  this  day,"  unques- 
tionably implies  a  peculiar  mode  of  burial.  The  valley,  in  which 
Moses  was  buried,  must  have  been  a  depression  at  the  top  of  the 
mountains  of  Pisgah ;  at  least  we  cannot  possibly  think  of  the 
Arboth  Moab. 

From  the  time  of  the  Fathers,  the  answer  given  to  the  ques- 
tion, Why  should  Jehovah  Himself  have  buried  Moses  ?  has 
almost  invariably  been  this,  To  prevent  a  superstitious  or  idola- 
trous veneration  of  his  sepulchre,  or  of  his  remains.  But  notwith- 
standing all  the  pious  feelings  of  the  nation,  and  their  veneration  of 


DEATH  or  MOSES.  495 

the  greatest  of  all  the  prophets  of  the  Old  Testament,  sueh  a  result 
as  this  was  certainly  not  to  be  apprehended  at  the  time  in  question. 
The  notions  which  prevailed,  with  reference  to  the  defiling  in- 
fluence of  graves  and  of  the  bocUes  of  the  dead, — notions  which 
the  law  had  certainly  only  adopted,  sanctioned,  and  regulated, 
and  had  not  been  the  first  to  introduce, — were  sufficiently  power- 
ful   to    guard   against  any  snch  danger    as   this.     Abraham's 
sepulchre  was  known  to  everybody ;  but  it  never  entered  the  mind 
of  any  Israelite  under  the  Old  Testament  to  pay  idolatrous,  or 
even  superstitious,  veneration  to  the  sepulchre  ;   however  nearly 
the  reverence  of  later  Jews  for  the  person  of  Abraham  might 
border  upon  superstition  and  idolatry.     The  remains  of  Jacob 
and  Joseph  were  carried  to  Palestine  and  buried  there ;  but  we 
cannot  find  the  slightest  ground  for  supposing  that  they  were 
the  objects  of  superstitious  adoration. — ^If  Moses,  therefore,  was 
buried  by  Jehovah  Himself,  the  reason  must  certainly  have  been, 
that  such  a  burial  was  intended  for  him,  as  no  other  man  could 
possibly  have  given.     That  there  was  something  very  pccvdiar 
in  the  biu'ial  of  Moses,  is  sufficiently  evident  from  the  passage 
before  us ;  and  this  is  confirmed  in  a  very  remarkable  manner 
by  the  New  Testament  history  of  the  transfiguration  of  Jesus 
(Matt,  xvii.),  where  Moses   and  Elias  appeared  with  the  Re- 
deemer, when  He  was  shining  with  the  glory  of  His  transfigura- 
tion.    We  may  see  here  very  clearly  that  the  Old  Testament 
account  may  justly  be  understood  as  implying  that  the  design  of 
the  burial  of  Moses  by  the  hand  of  Jehovah  was  to  place  him  in 
the  same  category  wdth  Enoch  and  Elijah,  to  deliver  him  from 
going  down  into  the  grave  like  the  rest  of  Adam's  children,  and 
to  prepare  for  him  a  condition,  both  of  body  and  sovd,  resembling 
that  of  these  two  men  of  God.     It  is  true  that  Moses  was  not 
saved  from  death  itself  in  the  same  manner  as  Enoch  and  Elijah  ; 
he  really  died,  and  his  body  was  really  buried — this  is  expressly 
stated  in  the  Biblical  history ; — but  we  may  assume,  with  the 
greatest  probability,  that,  like  them,  he  was  saved  from  corrwp- 
tlon.     Men  bury  the  corpse  that  it  may  pass  into  corruption.    If 
Jehovah,  therefore,  wovdd  not  suifcr  the  body  of  Moses  to  be  buried 
by  men,  it  is  but  natural  to  seek  for  the  reason  in  the  fact  that  He 
did  not  intend  to  leave  him  to  corruption,  but  at  the  very  time  of 
his  burial  communicated  some  virtue  by  His  own  hand,  which 
saved  the  body  from  corruption,  and  prepared  for  the  patriarch 


400  ISRAEL  IX  THE  AIIBOTH  MOAB. 

a  transition  into  the  same  state  of  existence  into  wliic^li  Enoch 
and  Ehjah  Avere  admitted,  without  either  death  or  burial.     On 
account  of  the  one  sin  at  the  water  of  strife  at  Kadesh,  Moses 
was  sentenced  by  the  ruthless  severity  of  the  justice  of  God  to 
pass  under  the  same  ban  of  death  as  the  whole  generation  of 
those  wdio  despised  the  covenant  and  promise.     Notwithstanding 
the  inferiority  of  his  sin  to  theirs,  like  them  he  must  die  without 
treading  the  promised  land ;  for  judgment  begins  at  the  house 
of  God,  and  the  measure  of  its  severity  is  determined  by  the 
measure  of  the  call  and  grace  of  God.     So  much  is  demanded 
by  justice ;  but  when  once  the  justice  of  God  is  satisfied,  like  the 
apj)earance  of  the  sun  after  a  fearful  storm,  the  sun  of  Divine 
grace  bursts  forth  with  all  the  greater  glory  and  beneficence 
upon  those  whom  the  wrath  of  justice  has  chastised  but  not  de- 
stroyed.    This  grace  of  Jehovah  bursting  through  the  wrath  was 
manifested  here  in  the  fact,  that  although,  like  the  others,  Moses 
was  not  to  tread  the  promised  land,  yet,  unlike  them,  he  saw  it 
before  he  died  with  his  bodily  eye,  which  was   miraculously 
strengthened  for  the  purpose ;  and  that,  although,  like  all  the 
rest,  he  died,  he  was  not  buried  like  the  rest.     In  the   sight  of 
the  people  the  leader  and  lawgiver  of  the  nation  was  visited 
with   a  punishment,  which  must  have  convinced  them  far  more 
strongly  of  the  unsparing  character  of  the  judicial  severity  of 
God  than  the  most  powerful  admonition  could  possibly  have 
done ;  but,  at  the  same  time,  "  though  punished,  he  received 
due  honour  in  their  sight,"  that  they  might  see  the  sun  of  mercy 
bursting  through  the  storm  of  the  judgments  of  God.     As  an 
example  of  justice,  Jehovah  caused  him  to  die,  before  the  people 
entered  the  land  of  rest   and  promise ;  but  as  an  example  of 
grace.  He  prepared  for  him  an  entrance  into  another,  as  yet  un- 
known, land  of  promise  and  of  rest. 

The  state  of  existence  in  the  life  beyond,  into  which  Moses 
was  introduced  through  his  burial  by  the  hand  of  Jehovah,  was 
probably  essentially  the  same  as  that  into  which  Enoch  was  taken 
when  he  was  translated,  and  Elijah  when  he  was  carried  up  to 
heaven,  though  the  way  Avas  not  the  same.  What  the  way  may 
have  been,  we  can  neither  describe  nor  imagine.  We  are  alto- 
gether in  ignorance  as  to  what  the  state  itself  was.  The  most 
that  we  can  do,  is  to  form  some  conjecture  of  what  it  was  not. 
For  example,  it  was  not  one  of  absolute  glorification  and  perfee- 


DEATH  OF  MOSES.  497 

tion,  of  wliich  Clirist  alone  could  be  the  first-fruits  (1  Cor.  xv. 
20,  23)  ;  nor  was  it  the  dim  Sheol-life  into  which  all  the  other 
children  of  Adam  passed.  It  was  something  between  the  two, 
a  state  as  inconceivable  as  it  had  been  hitherto  unseen. 

The  apostolical  datum  in  the  Epistle  of  Jude  (ver.  9)  ap- 
pears to  favour  the  correctness  of  our  view.  Mention  is  made 
there  of  a  coiiflict  and  disjnite  between  the  archangel  Michael  and 
the  devil  respecting  the  body  of  Moses,  in  which  there  is  certainly 
an  allusion  to  the  passage  before  us.  The  words  run  thus  : 
"  Yet  Michael  the  archangel,  when  contending  Avith  the  devil 
he  disputed  about  the  body  of  Moses,  durst  not  bring  against 
him  a  railing  accusation,  but  said.  The  Lord  rebuke  thee." — Of 
course,  we  have  simply  to  do  with  the  fact  as  narrated  by  Jude, 
not  with  the  explanation,  or  the  use  which  he  makes  of  it  in  his 
own  line  of  argument.  The  question  that  first  suggests  itself  is, 
Whence  did  Jude  obtain  this  account,  to  which  no  reference  is 
made  in  any  of  the  other  canonical  writings  of  either  the  Old  or 
New  Testament,  and  which  he  introduces  into  his  epistle,  not 
only  as  something  with  which  his  readers  had  been  long  ac- 
quainted, but  as  unquestionably  possessing  all  the  force  of  a 
thoroughly  accredited  fact  ? 

Clemens  Alexandrinus  (Adumbrationes  in  Ep.  Jud.  0pp.,  ed. 
Potter,  ii.  1008),  Origen  (de  princ.  iii.  2,  1),  and  Didymus 
(Enarr.  in  ep.  Jud.)  mention  an  apocryphal  work  entitled  the 
Ascension  of  Moses  (avd^aat<;  or  avoKT^-^L'^  Mcovaecos:),  in  which 
this  contest  between  Michael  and  Satan  is  also  alluded  to. 
Clemens  (?),  when  discussing  the  passage  in  question  from  the 
Epistle  of  Jude,  says,  "  Hie  confirmat  assumtionem  Moysis." — 
Origen,  when  treating  of  the  temptation  of  Eve  by  the  serpent, 
says,  "  De  quo  in  Ascensione  Moysis,  cujus  libelli  meminit  in 
epistola  sua  apostolus  Judas,  Michael  Ai'changelus  cum  Diabolo 
disputans  de  corpore  Moysis  ait,  a  Diabolo  inspiratam  serpen- 
tem  causam  exstitisse  prsovaricationis  Adam  et  Eva?." — Didy- 
mus says  that  the  Manicheans  rejected  both  the  Ascension  of 
Moses  and  the  Epistle  of  Jude,  because  of  this  account  of  the 
contest  between  Michael  and  Satan.  Now,  if  we  infer  from 
these  expressions  that  Jude  obtained  the  account  from  this 
apocryphal  book,  or  that  he  adopted  it  simply  on  its  authority, 
the  inference  would  evidently  be  a  very  rash  one.  No  one  is  in 
a  position  to  maintain,  on  the  ground  of  these  patristic  testi- 
*      VOL.  III.  2  I 


498  ISRAEL  IN  THE  AKBOTH  MOAB. 

monies,  that  the  Ascension  of  Moses  was  in  existence  at  the  time 
when  Jude  wrote  his  epistle ;  or,  if  it  was  in  existence,  that 
Jude  was  acquainted  with  it  and  actually  made  nse  of  it ; 
or,  if  he  was  acquainted  with  it,  that  he  would  admit  such  a 
statement  on  its  authority  alone.  The  two  authors  may  have 
drawn  from  the  same  soiu'ce,  viz.,  tradition,  and  quite  independ- 
ently of  each  other.  This  is  rendered  very  probable  by  the  fact 
that,  according  to  all  appearance,  the  Ascension  of  Moses  was 
one  of  the  productions  of  Jewish- Alexandrian  Pseudepigraphy, 
with  which  we  are  hardly  warranted  in  assuming  that  Jude  was 
acquainted.  That  the  legend  of  the  conflict  between  Michael 
and  Satan  concerning  the  body  of  Moses  was  to  be  found,  and 
was  accepted  as  trustworthy,  within  the  limits  of  the  Rabbinical 
legendary  lore,  is  evident  from  the  frequent  reference  made  to 
it  by  the  Eabbins  {yid.  Lightfoot,  0pp.  i.  353,  and  Wetstein,  ad 
ep.  Jud.  9),  and  it  certainly  is  a  more  natural  supposition  that 
this  was  the  source  from  which  Jude  obtained  it. 

A  fm-ther  question  which  suggests  itself  is,  Whether  this 
account,  which  at  all  events  was  a  traditional  one,  received 
apostolical  confirmation  from  being  thus  accepted  by  Jude,  and 
is  therefore  to  be  regarded  as  a  historical  fact  ?  For  no  proof 
can  be  needed,  that  the  author  of  this  epistle  regarded  it,  and 
employed  it,  as  a  genuine  account.  The  answer  to  this  question 
will  depend,  first  of  all,  upon  the  opinion  entertained  as  to  the 
canonical  authority  of  the  epistle,  which  was  disputed  even  in 
the  early  Chm'ch  ;  and  secondly,  admitting  its  canonical  charac- 
ter, upon  the  views  held  on  the  subject  of  inspiration.  The  dis- 
cussion of  these  questions  covers  so  wide  an  area,  that  we  can 
hardly  be  expected  to  enter  into  them  here.  We  may,  there- 
fore, content  ourselves  with  stating,  Jirst,  that  in  our  opinion  the 
epistle  is  canonical,  and  therefore  written  under  the  guidance  of 
the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  secondly,  that  the  adoption  and  use  of 
this  tradition  in  a  canonical  epistle,  to  our  minds,  gives  it  all  the 
sanction  of  apostolical  authority,  and  all  the  more  because 
the  subject-matter  relates  to  the  development  of  the  plan  of  sal- 
vation. However  little  we  may  feel  obliged  to  ascribe  absolute 
authority  under  all  circumstances  to  apostolical  statements  as  to 
chronology,  geography,  or  historical  events  of  a  purely  external 
character,  when  evidently  based  upon  Rabbinical  tradition  or 
research,  we  must  firmly  maintain,  that  when  they  relate  to  the 


DEATH  OF  MOSES.  499 

development  of  the  plan  of  salvation,  or  are  purely  doctrinal  in 
their  character,  they  do  possess  apostolical  authority,  in  other 
words,  are  accredited  by  the  Spirit  of  God. 

How,  when,  and  through  whom  this  intelligence  from  the 
supersensual  world  was  first  communicated,  are  questions  which 
cannot  be  answered.  That  the  event  occvuTcd  in  immediate 
connection  with  the  death  of  Moses,  is  apparently  unquestionable. 
At  the  same  time,  there  is  eveiy  probability  that  all  that  is  known 
of  it  is  based  upon  the  account  in  the  book  of  Deuteronomy ; 
as  we  may  see,  on  closer  inspection,  that  it  is  an  expansion  and 
extension  of  the  information  given  there.  The  clue  to  the  re- 
conciliation of  the  two  accounts  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact,  that 
all  that  Jehovah  did  in  connection  with  the  covenant  with  Israel 
was  done  through  the  Maleach-Jehovah,  who  was  His  personal 
representative  (yid.  vol.  ii.  §  36,  3  ;  also  §  10,  2  and  14,  3  of 
this  volume), — thovigh  sometimes  the  agent  is  spoken  of  as  the 
Angel  of  Jehovah,  at  other  times  simply  as  Jehovah, — and  also  in 
the  fact,  that  in  the  later  Jewish  theology,  subsequent  to  the  time 
of  Daniel,  the  Maleach-Jehovah  was  called  the  Angel-prince,  or 
the  Archangel  Michael  (vol.  i.  §  50,  2).  On  the  ground  of  these 
facts,  which  can  be,  and  indeed  already  have  been,  demonstrated, 
we  may  regard  the  expression  in  Dent,  xxxiv.  6,  "  and  He  buried 
him,"  as  equivalent  to  "  the  Maleach-Jehovah  (i.e.,  Michael) 
buried  him."  This  Michael,  then,  is  the  same  eminent  person, 
belonmns  to  the  celestial  world,  of  whom  we  read  in  Daniel  and 
the  Book  of  Revelation,  who  standeth  as  the  great  Prince  of 
Israel  for  the  children  of  the  people  (Dan.  x.  13,  21,  xii.  1), 
and  consequently,  as  the  Prince  of  the  new  Israel,  fights  also  for 
the  children  of  the  people  of  the  new  covenant  (Rev.  xii.  7). 
This  is  not  denied,  even  by  Hencjstenhercj  (in  his  Dissertation  on 
the  Pentateuch  and  Commentary  on  the  Revelation) ;  on  the 
contrary,  he  maintains  it.  But  both  the  Maleach-Jehovah,  and 
Michael,  who  is  identical  with  Him,  he  regards,  not  as  the  repre- 
sentative of  the  person  of  Jehovah,  but  as  the  person  of  Jeho- 
vah itself,  the  uncreated  Logos.  In  every  single  passage,  how- 
ever, in  which  Michael  is  mentioned,  it  is  obvious,  at  the  very 
first  glance,  that  this  view  is  impossible ;  and  therefore  even 
commentators  like  Stier,  who  believe  in  the  essential  identity  of 
the  Maleach-Jehovah  and  the  Logos  (Pseudo-Jesaias,  p.  758), 
are  obliged  to  deny  the  identity  of  the  angel-prince  Michael  and 


500  ISRAEL  IN  THE  ARBOTH  MOAB. 

the  Logos  (Brief  Juda,  p.  5o).  Stier,  for  example,  says,  "  Mi- 
chael imdovxbtedly  bui'ied.  on  the  part  of  God."  This  is  certainly 
correct ;  but  the  most  plausible  support  for  the  notion  that  the 
Maleach-Jehovah  is  essentially  one  with  Jehovah  is  thereby 
given  np. 

Now,  if  it  is  a  natural  and  well-founded  conjecture,  that  the 
fact  related  in  Deut.  xxxiv.  6,  that  Moses  was  not  buried  by  men, 
but  by  Jehovah  Himself  or  His  personal  representative,  was 
intended  to  open  a  different  door  into  the  futui*e  state  from  that 
througli  which  other  men  passed,  to  prepare  for  him  a  different 
way  to  eternal  life  from  that  of  the  corruption  of  the  body  and 
the  gloomy  shade-life  of  Sheol ;  and  if  this  conjecture  is  rendered 
almost  a  certainty  by  the  histor)^  of  the  transfiguration  of  Christ, 
in  Matt,  xvii.,  the  contest  between  Michael  and  Satan  for  the 
body  of  Moses  admits  of  being  looked  at  from  a  point  of  view, 
in  which  the  statement  will  assume  the  appearance,  "  not  of 
apocryphal  absurdity,  but  of  apostolical  wisdom"  (Bamngarteri). 
If  Satan  is  the  originator  of  death  in  the  human  family,  and 
therefore  also  the  ruler  of  death,  "  he  that  hath  the  power  of 
death,"  as  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  says,  it  must  certainly 
have  been  a  matter  in  which  he  was  interested,  when  God  deter- 
mined to  rescue  the  body  of  Moses  from  the  universal  fate  and 
judgment  which  await  the  sinful  children  of  men,  especially 
seeing  that  the  death  of  Moses  was  not  merely  the  penalty  of 
sinfulness  or  sin  in  general,  but  of  one  particular  sin,  and  that  a 
sin  within  the  department  of  sacred  history.  He  died,  not  like 
other  men  in  the  capacity  of  a  sinfid  child  of  Adam,  but  in  that 
of  the  lawgiver  and  mediator  of  the  covenant,  because  this  cove- 
nant had  been  broken  and  violated  by  him.  In  the  eminent  posi- 
tion occupied  by  Moses  in  connection  with  the  sacred  histoiy,  it  was 
a  matter  of  peculiar  importance  to  Satan,  that  Moses  should  pay 
the  penalty  of  his  sin  in  its  fullest  extent ;  for  this  sin,  and  the 
death  wath  which  it  was  punished,  were,  to  a  certain  extent,  a 
testimony  of  the  insufficiency  and  imperfect  execution  of  his 
mediatorial  office,  and  therefore  threw  a  dark  shadow  upon  the 
covenant  which  he  had  founded.  But  for  this  very  reason,  after 
God  had  executed  wrath  in  an  extraordinary  manner.  He  brought 
His  mercy  also  into  operation  in  an  extraordinary  way.  Satan, 
"  the  accuser  of  our  brethren,  which  accuseth  them  before  our 
God  day  and  night"  (Rev.  xii.  10),  v;ho  knows  that  God  Avill  and 


DEATH  OF  MOSES.  501 

must  be  just  even  to  liim,  insists  upon  Lis  riglit, — but  Michael, 
the  exalted  spirit-prince,  the  true  prince  and  re[)resentative  of 
Israel  in  the  heavenly  spirit-world,  who  standeth  for  the  children 
of  Israel  (Dan.  xii.  1)  in  every  conflict  that  arises,  carries  out 
the  Avork  assigned  him  in  spite  of  Satan's  opposition,  and  silences 
him,  not  by  railing  and  abuse  (Jude  9),  but  by  calm,  holy, 
earnest  resistance  and  threats.  . 

As  thus  understood,  the  conflict  between  the  two  great  spirit- 
princes  for  the  body  of  Moses,  which  at  first  sight  appeared  so 
strange,  acquires  the  greatest  importance  in  connection  with  the 
development  of  the  plan  of  salvation ;  and  the  fact  itself,  that  in 
spite  of  Satan's  protest  Jehovah  rescued  the  body  of  Moses  from 
the  common  fate  of  the  sinful  children  of  men,  becomes  a  type 
and  prelude  of  infinitely  greater  and  more  glorious  things  to 
come.  The  fact,  that  the  founder  of  the  ancient  covenant  had 
to  die  on  account  of  his  sins,  was  a  proof  that  he  was  not  the 
true  mediator ;  that  the  covenant  established  through  him  was 
not  yet  perfect ;  and  that  although  it  had  been  founded  D?ii^  ^''"'f, 
it  still  needed  to  be  made  perfect  by  a  second  IMediator,  who  ever 
liveth.  The  death  of  Moses  was  not  like  the  death  of  the  first 
Adam,  which  issued  in  corruption ;  nor  Avas  it  like  that  of  the 
second  Adam,  which  was  followed  by  a  resurrection.  It  was 
rather  something  intermediate  between  the  two  forms  of  death, 
just  as  Moses  himself  occupied  an  intermediate  position  between 
the  first  and  the  second  Adam — between  the  head  of  sinful,  dying 
humanity,  and  the  Head  of  humanity  redeemed  from  sin  and 
death.  As  the  death  of  Moses,  though  an  actual  one,  was  inter- 
rupted in  its  natural  course,  and  as  his  condition  was  therefore 
an  imperfect  and  oscillating  one,  requiring  and  expecting  to 
be  perfected,  he  himself  became  a  prophecy  of  this  very  perfec- 
tion. And  if  Moses,  who  was  entrusted  with  the  whole  house  of 
God,  was  not  able  to  carry  forward  the  organisation  of  the  house 
of  God  to  its  absolute  perfection,  and  therefore  received  the 
promise  of  a  second  Prophet  and  Mediator,  we  are  warranted  in 
discerning,  in  the  peculiar  and  unparalleled  mode  of  his  death 
and  burial,  a  memorable  type  of  the  death  and  burial  of  this 
Prophet  like  unto  Moses,  who  was  afterwards  to  come. 

liampf  (Brief  Juda)  has  made  a  collection  of  the  opinions  of 
the  various  Church  Fathers  and  later  commentators  in  reference  to 
the  occasion,  the  design,  and  the  importance  of  the  conflict  between 


502  ISRAEL  IN  THE  ARBOTH  MOAB. 

the  two  spirit-princes.     His  own  explanation  is  essentially  the 
same  as  the  one  given  by  Stier  and  ourselves. 


COMPOSITION  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 

§  62.  The  real  heart  of  the  Pentateuch  is  unquestionably  the 
giving  of  the  law.  The  historical  accounts,  which  form  an  intro- 
duction^ or  are  interspersed  throughout  the  work,  are  subservient 
to  this  ;  and  the  one  thing  which  led  to  their  being  committed  to 
writing,  was  the  necessity  for  supplying  the  account  of  the  giving 
of  the  law  with  a  historical  basis,  drawing  around  it  historical 
boundaries,  and  bringing  distinctly  out  its  historical  antecedents, 
foundations,  and  accompaniments,  that  it  might  not  appear  like 
a  Deus  ex  'inacliina,  but  might  present  itself  to  the  reader  endued 
with  life,  and  clothed  with  flesh  and  bones.  In  an  inquiry,  there- 
fore, into  the  origin  and  composition  of  the  Pentateuch,  we  must 
start  with  the  giving  of'  the  law.  But  first  of  all  the  fact  itself 
must  be  established.  Did  the  event,  known  as  the  giving  of  the 
law,  really  take  place  ?  and  if  so,  did  it  occur  at  the  time,  in  the 
manner,  at  the  place,  and  through  the  person,  mentioned  in  the 
Pentateuch  ?  Even  the  most  incredulous  critics  are  obliged  to 
answer  these  questions  in  the  affirmative  (1).  But  the  fact 
being  admitted,  that  immediately  after  the  Exodus  from  Egypt, 
the  law  was  given  through  the  mediation  of  Moses,  in  the  desert 
and  at  Sinai,  the  question  must  still  be  asked,  whether  the  law 
was  committed  to  writing  at  once,  or  at  a  later  period,  and 
whether  the  Pentateuch  contains  an  authentic  copy. 

From  the  nature  and  design  of  any  legislation,  it  would  be 
so  imperatively  necessary  that  the  law  should  be  immediately 
committed  to  writing,  that  any  postponement  of  it  would  only  be 
comprehensible,  or  even  conceivable,  on  the  supposition  that  the 
means  and  necessary  conditions  were  wanting;  such,  for  example, 
as  the  requisite  acquaintance  with  the  art  of  writing,  the  pos- 
session of  writing  materials,  or  sufficient  time  and  leisure.  But  no 
one  will  venture  to  maintain,  that  any  one  of  these  conditions  was 


COMPOSITION  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH.  503 

wanting  when  the  Israelites  were  in  the  desert.  On  the  con- 
trary, they  were  all  there  in  such  a  copiovis  measure,  that  it  is 
utterly  inconceivable,  that  when  the  need  was  so  pressing,  no 
advantage  should  have  been  taken  of  them  (2).  We  are  there- 
fore warranted  in  assuming,  that  the  laws,  which  Moses  gave  in 
the  desert,  were  committed  to  writing  in  the  desert,  either  by 
himself  or  under  his  superintendence  and  by  his  authority. 

Now  we  find  in  the  Pentateuch  a  series  of  laws,  which  are 
expressly  attributed  to  Moses.  Are  they  substantially  the  laws 
which  were  given  by  Moses  ?  And  are  they  literally  the  same 
laws  which  Moses  wrote,  or  which  were  written  under  his  super- 
vision ?  To  this  we  may  reply,  that  it  is  extremely  improbable 
that  laws  given  by  Moses,  and  committed  to  writing  under  his 
superintendence, — laws,  too,  which  were  intended  to  form  the 
basis  of  religious  worship,  and  of  both  domestic  and  public  life 
in  Israel,  should  be  entirely  lost;  and  just  as  improbable,  that  the 
author  of  the  Pentateuch  (supposing  that  it  was  not  written  by 
Moses)  should  have  overlooked  the  existing,  authentic  documents. 
But  however  great  the  probability  may  be,  still  it  is  only  a  pro- 
bability, and  not  a  certainty. — There  are  other  ways,  however, 
by  which  we  may  probably  arrive  at  a  more  certain  result.  For 
example,  if  a  law  was  given  either  before  or  under  Moses,  and  a 
law  of  such  scope  and  fulness,  with  such  preparations  and  claims, 
as  the  Pentateuch  describes,  and  if  this  law  was  committed  to 
writing,  the  Israelitish  literature  of  later  times  could  not  fail  to 
furnish  evidence  of  its  existence,  either  in  the  shajoe  of  direct  re- 
ferences and  quotations,  or  of  unmistakeable  allusions ;  and  there 
would  be  such  agreement  in  all  these,  that  where  they  related  to 
the  substance  only,  they  would  at  least  confirm  the  faithfulness 
of  the  description  of  the  law  contained  in  the  Pentateuch,  and 
where  verbal  quotations  were  made,  they  would  demonstrate  the 
existence  of  the  law  in  the  form  contained  in  the  Pentateuch. 
Now  the  whole  of  the  sacred  literature  of  Israel,  to  the  very 
earliest  times,  fully  answers  this  expectation.  And  as  these  re- 
ferences and  allusions  have  respect,  not  merely  to  the  legal  part, 


504  ISEAEL  IN  THE  ARBOTH  MOAB. 

but  also  to  the  historical  portions  of  the  Pentateuch,  the  latter  are 
attested  as  well  as  the  former.  And  the  frequency  and  variety 
of  these  allusions  render  it  even  probable,  not  only  that  various 
parts  of  the  Pentateuch  were  in  existence,  but  that  all  the  parts 
were  in  existence  and  arranged  as  they  are  at  present,  at  the 
period  of  the  very  earliest  of  all  the  productions  of  the  sacred 
literature  of  the  Israehtes  subsequent  to  the  time  of  Moses  (3). 

The  whole  of  the  Israelitish  Tradition,  so  far  as  we  can  trace 
its  course  upwards  from  Christ  and  His  apostles,  describes  the 
Pentateuch  (and  unquestionably  our  present  version  of  it)  as  the 
"Book  of  the  Law  of  Moses"  (ntj'b  min  nsp ;  ntf'D  rm  "i^s  n-iinn-^3). 
At  the  same  time  this  tradition  does  not  afford  so  much  cer- 
tainty with  reference  to  the  person  of  the  author,  as  is  required 
in  the  case  of  a  resiilt  that  lays  claim  to  universal  acceptance. 
For,  on  the  one  hand,  such  express  and  particular  statements  as 
to  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  are  only  to  be  found  in  the 
historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament ;  and  the  critics  who  deny 
the  authenticity  of  the  Pentateuch  will  not  admit  that  their  testi- 
mony is  conclusive,  as  they  place  the  date  of  their  composition  at 
so  much  later  a  period  than  that  of  the  Pentateuch  itself.  And,  on 
the  other  hand,  even  to  the  inquirer  who  receives  the  testimony 
as  sacred  and  indisputable  (especially  as  confirmed  by  the  words 
of  Christ  Himself),  this  tradition  is  not  so  definite  as  we  should 
naturally  desire.  For  the  expression,  the  Book  of  the  Law  of 
Moses,  does  not  really  affirm  anything  more,  than  that  the  law 
which  it  contains  is  the  law  given  by  Moses,  and  not  that  the 
book,  in  which  this  law  is  written,  was  composed  by  Moses  him- 
self, in  the  form  in  which  it  has  come  down  to  us  (4). 

In  such  a  state  of  things  as  this,  we  must  go  to  the  Pentateuch 
itself  for  a  decisive  answer  to  om'  question.  The  first  thing 
which  comes  under  our  notice  there  is  the  testimony  of  the  Penta- 
teuch as  to  its  own  composition.  To  this  we  should  attach  uncondi- 
tional truth  and  credibility,  even  if  the  book  in  question  were  not 
canonical,  and  therefore  theopneustic.  Now  there  are  actually 
various  portions  of  the  work  in  which  we  find  the  express  state- 


COMPOSITION  OP  THE  PENTATEUCH.  505 

ment,  that  they  were  composed  and  committed  to  wiiting  hy 
Moses  himself.  Among  other  smaller  sections,  we  find  the  so- 
called  Book  of  the  Covenant  (§  10,  4,  5 ;  11,  1)  and  the  whole 
of  Deuteronomy  to  chap.  xxxi.  24.  In  other  legal  and  historical 
portions  no  such  express  statement  is  to  be  found;  but  from  this 
it  cannot  of  course  be  inferred,  that  Moses  did  not  compose  them 
or  commit  them  to  Avriting  (5). 

To  determine  the  question  of  authorship,  then,  with  refer- 
ence to  those  portions  in  which  no  direct  statement  is  made,  we 
must  look  to  the  subject-matter^  and  also  to  the  connection  be- 
tween these  particular  portions  and  those  which  are  expressly 
declared  to  be  Mosaic.  And  here  we  cannot  conceal  the  fact, 
that  our  examination  of  the  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch  has 
brought  us  more  and  more  to  the  conclusion,  that  several 
authors  have  taken  part  in  the  composition  of  the  Pentateuch. 
Our  inquiry,  hitherto,  has  not  been  thoroughly  critical  in  its 
character,  but  has  been  conducted  primarily  and  chiefly  in  con- 
nection with  the  development  of  the  plan  of  salvation,  and 
therefore  cannot  be  regarded  as  thoroughly  exhaustive.  As  far 
as  it  has  gone,  it  has  brought  us  to  the  following  conclusion, 
though  our  mind  is  still  wavering  and  undecided.  1.  It  is  pro- 
bable that  Moses  composed,  and  committed  to  writing  with  his 
owni  hand,  simply  those  portions  of  the  Pentateuch  which  are 
expressly  attributed  to  him.  2.  The  gi'oups  of  laws  in  the 
central  books,  of  whose  authorship  no  express  statement  is  made, 
must  have  been  written  down  by  the  direction  of  Moses,  and 
under  his  supervision,  before  the  adcU'esses  in  Deuteronomy  were 
delivered,  and  immediately  after  they  emanated  from  the  mouth 
of  Moses.  3.  The  last  revision  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  its  reduc- 
tion into  the  form  in  which  it  has  come  down  to  us,  took  place 
in  the  latter  portion  of  the  life  of  Joshua,  or  very  shortly  after 
his  death.  In  the  historical  portions  of  the  Pentateuch,  we 
must  admit  the  existence  of  two  distinct  sources,  which  may  be 
described  as  the  "groundwork"  {(J rundschriff)  and  the  "  sup- 
plementary work"  (^TycMt^wji^s-s^ArZ/V,).     Whether  the  ground- 


506  ISRAEL  IN  THE  AEBOTH  MOAB. 

work  consisted  originally  of  historical  matter  only,  or  contained 
from  the  very  outset  the  groups  of  laws  in  the  central  books, — 
whether  it  was  written  by  the  author  who  compiled  the  central 
gi'oups  of  laws  or  not, — these,  and  other  questions  of  a  similar 
character,  we  are  utterly  unable  to  determine.  The  task  of  the 
last  editor  would  depend  to  some  extent  upon  the  form  in  which 
the  groundwork  came  down  to  him ;  for  on  this  would  depend 
the  question,  whether  it  was  he  who  first  inserted  the  groups  of 
laws  in  the  central  books,  or  whether  he  found  them  already 
combined  with  the  historical  matter  in  the  groundwork  itself. 
In  general,  undoubtedly,  his  intention  was  to  bring  together  all 
the  sacred  traditions  belonging  to  the  early  history  of  his  nation, 
whether  they  had  come  down  in  writing  or  by  word  of  mouth, 
and  also  the  account  of  the  mighty  works  of  Jehovah  in  con- 
nection with  the  establishment  and  completion  of  His  covenant 
with  Israel,  through  the  mediatorial  office  of  Moses ;  so  far  as 
they  could  be  collected  from  authentic  documents,  the  accounts 
of  contemporaries,  and  personal  reminiscences,  and  to  form  them 
into  a  perfect  Sepher  Hattorah,  i.e.,  a  complete  work,  embracing 
all  the  sources  of  knowledge,  faith,  life,  and  hope  peculiar  to  the 
theocracy.  The  groundwork,  which  was  already  in  existence, 
and  was  chiefly  written  from  a  priestly  point  of  view,  he  ex- 
panded and  generalised,  with  this  design,  from  his  o\vn  higher 
and  more  comprehensive  point  of  view,  in  other  words,  from  a 
prophetic  stand-point  (^6). 

At  all  events,  we  venture  to  express  it  as  oiu'  confident  per- 
suasion, that  the  question  as  to  the  origin  and  composition  of  the 
Pentateuch  is  far  from  having  been  settled,  either  by  Hdvernick, 
Hengstenberg,  and  Keil,  on  the  one  hand,  or  by  Tuch,  Stdhelin, 
and  Delitzsch,  on  the  other,  and  still  less  by  Ewald  or  Hupfeld. 
But  whether  the  further  attempts  of  scientific  criticism  to  solve 
the  problem  shall  continue  to  follow  the  direction  already  taken 
by  these  meritorious  scholars,  or  whether  they  shall  strike  out 
an  entirely  new  and  independent  course ;  and  whether  the  results 
obtamed  shall  be  favourable  or  unfavourable  to  the  unity  and 


COMPOSITION  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH.  507 

autlienticity  of  the  Pentateuch  :  the  following  points  are,  to  our 
minti,  so  firmly  established,  that  no  criticism  can  ever  overthrow 
them.  1.  That  the  Pentateuch  in  its  present  form  is  canonical 
and  theopneustic,  composed,  arranged,  and  incorporated  in  the 
codex  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures  of  the  Ancient  Covenant  with 
the  co-operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  2.  That  it  is  authentic  : 
so  far  as  its  Divine  origin  is  concerned,  authentic,  because  it  is 
canonical ;  and  so  far  as  its  human  origin  is  concerned,  authentic 
and  Mosaic,  because  even  though  everything  contained  in  it  may 
not  have  been  written  by  the  pen  of  Moses  himself,  yet  the  com- 
position of  all  the  rest  and  the  arrangement  of  the  whole  was 
completed  within  the  circle  of  his  assistants,  puj)ils,  and  contem- 
poraries, and  to  a  great  extent  was  certainly  performed  under 
his  supervision  and  by  his  direction.  3.  Even  if  the  separate 
portions  of  the  Pentateuch  are  not  all  the  production  of  one 
and  the  same  pen,  they  form  one  complete  work,  and  the  whole 
is  uniform,  well-planned,  well-arranged,  and  harmonious.  4. 
The  Pentateuch  in  its  present  form  constituted  the  foundation  of 
the  Israeiitish  history,  whether  civil,  religious,  moral,  ceremonial, 
or  even  literary  {yid.  vol.  i.  §  20,  2). 

(1.)  Even  if  there  were  no  Pentateuch  in  existence,  the  fact 
of  the  giving  of  the  law  at  Sinai  through  the  mediation  of  Moses, 
would  be  more  firmly  established  than  any  other  fact  of  ancient 
history.  An  event  which  has  struck  such  deep  roots  in  the 
consciousness  of  a  nation  as  the  giving  of  the  law  at  Sinai,  rests 
upon  as  sure  a  foundation  as  the  existence  of  the  nation  itself. 
To  establish  this  conclusion,  we  do  not  even  need  the  line  of 
testimony  which  we  actually  possess,  and  which  reaches  back  to  the 
very  earliest  antiquity  of  the  nation  of  Israel.  We  will  adduce 
it,  however,  and  in  Delitzsch's  words  :  "  Of  the  fact,  that  Mount 
Sinai  was  the  place  where  Israel  received  the  law  in  the  most 
majestic  announcements  from  Jehovah,  and  was  constituted  the 
Cluu'ch  of  Jehovah  in  the  form  of  a  holy  nation,  a  more  ancient 
and  more  conclusive  testimony  is  hardly  concei^•ablc,  than  that 
of  the  Song  of  Deborah  ('  The  mountains  melted  fi'om  before 
Jehovah,  even  that  Sinai   from  before  Jehovah    the  God  of 


508  ISRAEL  IX  THE  AEBOTH  MOAB. 

Israel '), — a  testimony  which  does  not  stand  in  need  of  the  con- 
firmation it  receives  from  Ps.  Ixviii.  9,  or  from  the  fact  that  it 
was  to  Horeb  that  Elijah  repaired  in  his  deep  despair  at  the 
apostasy  of  his  nation  (1  Kings  xix.  8).  After  the  Mosaic  age, 
Sinai  was  but  rarely  mentioned ;  it  was  thrown  into  the  back- 
ground by  Mount  Sion,  on  which  was  the  sanctuary  of  Jehovah 
with  the  tables  and  book  of  the  law,  and  which  was  therefore 
the  living  and  native  continuation  of  Sinai.  t^lP?  ''TP  (Sinai  in 
the  holy  place),  says  Ps.  Ixviii.  18 ;  the  sanctuary  of  Sion  had 
Sinai  within  itself.  It  had  been  brought  from  the  desert,  as  it 
were,  within  the  sight  of  all.  And  as  Sion  presupposed  Sinai, 
so  did  the  entire  history  of  Israel  after  the  time  of  Moses  pre- 
suppose the  giving  of  the  law  at  Sinai." 

(2.)  If  a  law  was  issued  for  Israel  at  Sinai  and  in  the  sur- 
rounding desert,  we  may  assume  it  as  a  probability  bordering 
upon  indisputable  certainty,  that  it  was  also  committed  to  writ- 
ing there.  There  are  only  two  cases  in  which  we  could  conceive 
it  possible  that  such  laws,  instead  of  being  written  down,  should 
merely  be  impressed  upon  the  memoiy  of  the  people  or  their 
leaders,  viz. :  either  where  a  body  of  laws  is  gradually  and  quite 
spontaneously  developed  from  the  popular  life  itself,  and  fixes 
itself  just  as  spontaneously  and  imperceptibly  in  the  customs  of 
the  people,  and  where  it  cannot  possibly  be  traced,  therefore, 
to  a  particular  lawgiver,  or  to  any  local  or  historical  circum- 
stances ; — or,  secondly,  where  there  have  indeed  been  historical 
facts,  on  which  a  formal  and  complete  code  of  laws  has  been 
based,  but  the  means  of  committing  them  to  writing  (an  ac- 
quaintance with  the  art  of  writing,  for  example)  have  been 
entirely  wanting.  But  assuredly  neither  of  these  applies  to 
the  Mosaic  law.  Wlio  is  there  in  the  present  day  who  would 
venture  to  dispute  the  fact,  that  the  art  of  writing  cannot  have 
been  unknown  to  the  Israelites,  in  the  face  of  the  innumerable 
proofs,  which  the  Egyptian  monuments  present,  of  peculiar 
skill  in  caligraphy,  and  with  the  fact  before  us,  that  the  Israel- 
ites spent  whole  centuries  in  the  midst  of  the  Egyptians,  and 
learned  from  them  the  arts  of  civilization  ?  Is  it  conceivable 
that  a  people,  who  but  a  short  time  before  had  been  in  Egypt, 
where  they  had  been  accustomed  to  see  a  book  kept  of  every- 
thing, however  trifling  it  might  be,  and  who  must  have  adopted 
this   custom  of  keeping  books,   as  the  existence  of  a  peculiar 


COMPOSITION  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH.  509 

order  of  Shoterim  at  tlio  time  when  they  departed  from  Egypt 
clearly  proves,  should  have  allowed  so  solemn  an  event  to  occur 
as  the  givino;  of  the  law  at  Sinai — a  law  which  henceforward 
was  destined  to  be  the  basis  and  rule  of  the  whole  national 
life,  in  all  its  relations,  religious,  moral,  and  judicial, — ^without 
ensuring  its  permanency  by  committing  it  to  writing  ?  To  us 
it  seems  utterly  inconceivable.  We  adhere  to  our  opinion,  there- 
fore, that  if  Moses  gave  a  law  at  Sinai,  he  either  committed,  it 
to  writing  himself,  or  caused  it  to  be  committed  to  writino;  at  the 
time. 

(3).  The  proofs  of  the  existence  of  the  law,  as  contained  in 
the  Pentateuch,  and  of  the  history,  as  narrated  there,  in  the 
period  immediately  following  the  Mosaic  age,  are  to  be  found 
partly  in  historical  facts,  and  partly  in  literary  productions. 
The  latter  embrace  all  allusions,  direct  references,  etc.,  which 
are  found  in  such  works,  as  can  be  proved  to  be  the  oldest  of 
the  post-Mosaic  literary  remains,  to  expressions,  words,  forms, 
turns  of  thought,  and  nan'atives  peculiar  to  the  Pentateuch  ;  so 
far  as  they  furnish  a  proof,  that  the  Pentateuch  must  have  been 
known  to  their  authors.  These  we  find  scattered,  more  or  less 
numerously,  and  with  less  or  greater  distinctness,  throughout  all 
the  Old  Testament  Scriptures.  From  the  writings  of  Hosca  and 
Amos,  the  age  and  authenticity  of  which  even  the  negative  critics 
cannot  deny,  Ilengstenherg  has  most  conclusively  demonstrated 
that  the  Pentateuch  was  known  to  these  prophets,  and  was  re- 
garded by  them  as  the  foundation  of  the  I'eligious  and  historical 
consciousness  of  Israel.  The  same  result  may  also  be  obtained 
from  the  rest  of  the  earliest  prophetic  books,  as  w^ell  as  from  the 
writings  of  the  age  of  David  and  Solomon  {viz.,  the  Psalms,  the 
Book  of  Proverbs,  the  Song  of  Solomon,  and  the  Book  of  Job  ; 
see  DelUzsch,  p.  11  sqq.,  and  Keil,  Lehrbuch  der  Einleitung 
139  sqq.). 

The  historical  proofs  of  the  existence  of  the  Pentateuch  in 
the  period  immediately  succeeding  the  Mosaic  age,  embrace  all 
the  data  to  be  met  with  in  the  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, in  which  the  validity  of  the  law  as  given  in  the  Penta- 
teuch is  either  declared  or  presupposed,  or  which  are  based  upon 
the  historical  accounts  contained  in  the  Pentateuch.  These  are 
also  to  be  found  in  considerable  numbers  (vid.  Keil,  p.  132 
sqq.).     It  is  true  there  were  also  times  in  the  history  of  Israel, 


510  ISRAEL  IN  THE  ARBOTH  MOAB. 

when  the  people  were  deeply  immersed  in  apostasy  and  idolatry, 
when  the  sense  of  God  was  almost  extinct,  and  the  law  of  the 
Pentateuch  was  to  a  great  extent  disregarded.  But  there  are 
proofs  enough  that  even  at  such  times  as  these,  the  law  of  the 
Pentateuch  constituted  the  foundation  of  the  religious,  civil, 
and  political  life  of  the  nation,  and  served  to  uphold  what  still 
remained.  For  example,  at  such  times  as  these  there  was 
always  a  certain  reaction  against  the  migodly  tendencies  of  the 
age ;  and  this  reaction  was  inspired  and  sustained  by  the  sense 
of  God,  as  kept  alive  by  the  law.  Even  the  Book  of  Judges, 
which  describes  a  period  of  great  confusion,  marked  by  rebellion 
and  corruption,  furnishes  sufficient  proof  that  the  circumstances 
of  this  particular  period  presuppose  the  existence  of  the  law  of 
the  Pentateuch,  and  cannot  be  understood  without  it. — But 
apart  altogether  from  evidence  of  this  particular  kind,  the  exist- 
ence of  the  nation  of  Israel,  whether  looked  at  on  its  brighter 
or  its  darker  side — in  its  very  existence  and  prosperity,  in  its 
fall  and  restoration,  in  its  peculiar  and  unparalleled  forms  of 
development,  in  its  religious  views,  its  poHtical  institutions,  its 
ceremonial  arrangements,  its  literaiy  productions,  etc.  (all  of 
them  things  in  which  it  stood  quite  alone  in  the  ancient  world) 
— the  Israelitish  nation,  we  say,  in  all  these  respects,  is  utterly 
incomprehensible,  except  as  the  Thorah  constituted  the  ground- 
work of  its  entire  history.  In  a  word,  the  history  of  Israel 
would  become  as  visionary  without  the  Thorah  as  a  tree  without 
roots,  and  a  river  without  a  source  (yid.  Delitzsch,  p.  7  sqq.). 

Whenever  the  Thorah  is  expressly  mentioned  in  the  Old 
Testament,  it  is  always  called  by  the  name  of  the  great  mediator 
and  lawgiver.  From  the  very  earliest  times,  Moses  has  been 
regarded  by  the  Synagogue  as  its  author.  And  Christ  and  His 
apostles  adopted  the  same  mode  of  speech  (yid.Keil,  pp.  142, 143). 
For  the  Christian,  the  authority  of  his  Lord  and  Master,  and 
that  of  the  apostles,  are  undoubtedly  conclusive  ;  but  it  is  also  not 
without  truth,  that  "  Christ  and  the  apostles  did  not  come  into 
the  world  to  give  the  Jews  lessons  in  criticism."  Christ  could 
describe  the  Book  of  the  Law  as  the  Thorah  of  Moses  without 
any  (reprehensible)  accommodation  to  prevailing  errors,  even  if 
it  were  not  written  by  the  hand  of  ]\Ioses  himself, — provided  only 
that  the  law  and  the  doctrine,  which  make  it  a  Thorah,  Avere 
actually   given  by   Moses.     Whether  he  wrote  it  himself,  or 


COMPOSITION  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH.  511 

whether  another  committed  to  writing  what  he  taught  and  com- 
manded, makes  no  alteration  in  the  actual  question.  In  the  one 
case,  quite  as  much  as  in  the  other,  the  Thorah  is  Mosaic,  and 
in  both  cases  it  might  be  represented  as  ^losaic  by  the  lij^s  of 
Truth.  And  supposing  that  the  Thorah  was  not  ivritten,  or  was 
only  partially  written  by  Moses  himself,  it  was  no  j)art  of  the 
work  of  Christ  to  set  the  Jews  right  on  this  point,  even  if  they 
erroneously  believed  that  he  wTote  it  all  with  his  own  hand  ;  for 
such  an  error  as  this  had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  their  faith 
or  their  salvation.  But  the  words  of  Christ  are  conclusive  on 
this  point  (and  doubt  he)-e  would  be  unbelief),  that  the  law  and 
doctrine  of  the  Pentateuch  are  the  ivord  and  command  of  God 
given  through  the  mediator  of  the  ancient  covenant.  This  re- 
mark is  also  applicable  to  any  passages  in  the  Book  of  Joshua, 
and  other  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  in  which  the  book  of  the 
law  is  spoken  of  as  the  "  Thorah  of  Moses,"  or  the  "  Thorah 
which  Moses  gave  us." 

(5.)  If  we  look  carefully,  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining 
what  the  Pentateuch  itself  says  with  reference  to  its  author,  and 
also  as  to  the  time,  the  place,  and  the  manner  of  its  origin  (and 
we  should  feel  bound  to  place  unlimited  faith  in  whatever  it  might 
say), — w^e  find  that  there  are  several  smaller  or  larger  portions, 
which  bear  upon  the  face  of  them  clear  and  unmistakeable  testi- 
mony to  the  fact  of  their  Mosaic  origin.  This  is  the  case,  for 
example,  with  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  (Ex.  xx.-xxiii,  vid. 
Ex.  xxiv.  4,  7),  with  the  legal  section  in  Ex.  xxxiv.  (yid.  ver. 
27),  and  lastly,  with  the  whole  of  Deuteronomy  to  chap.  xxxi. 
24.  In  the  historical  portions  of  the  central  books,  this  is  also 
true  of  an  account  of  the  extermination  of  the  Amalekites  in 
Ex.  xvii.  14,  and  of  the  list  of  stations  in  Num.  xxxiii.  (vid.  ver. 
2).  These  sections,  then,  and  neither  more  nor  less,  are  fully 
authenticated  as  both  composed  and  committed  to  writing  by 
Moses  himself, — and  the  conclusion,  that  because  certain  por- 
tions of  the  Pentateuch  are  expressly  declared  to  have  been 
committed  to  writing  by  Moses  himself,  therefore  he  must  have 
written  the  whole,  is  just  as  arbitrary  and  unwarrantable  as  the 
opposite  conclusion,  that  he  cannot  possibly  have  written  any 
more  than  is  expressly  assigned  to  him  by  name. 

Ildvernick,  Ilengstenherg,  and  Keil,  however,  maintain  that 
"  not  only  is  the  authorship  of  particular  laws  and  narratives 


512  ISRAEL  IN  THE  AEBOTH  MOAB. 

attributed  to  Moses  in  the  Pentateuch,  but  in  Deuteronomy  the 
vvliole  Thorah  is  so  emphatically  attributed  to  him,  that  any  at- 
tempts to  set  this  testimony  aside  must  inevitably  fail."  In  sup- 
port of  this  assertion,  they  appeal  to  Deut.  xvii.  18,  19,  xxviii. 
58,  61,  xxix.  19,  20,  26,  xxx.  10,  and  xxxi.  9,  24.  In  all 
these  passages,  undoubtedly,  "  this  book  of  the  Thorah"  (nninn 
nN?n)  is  said  to  have  been  written  by  Moses  himself.  Now, 
since  the  expression  minn  "ISD  is  always  employed  to  denote  the 
entire  Pentateuch  {cf.  Josh.  i.  "S,  viii.  31,  34,  xxiv.  26  ;  2  Kings 
xiv.  6,  xxii.  8,  11 ;  2  Chr.  xvii.  9,  xTodv.  14,  15 ;  Neh.  viii.  1, 
3,  18),  it  is  argued  that  there  can  be  no  doubt,  that  in  these 
passages  also  the  whole  of  the  Pentateuch  is  intended.  There 
is  only  one  small  point  overlooked  in  this  argument  (but  it  hap- 
pens to  be  a  small  point  upon  which  the  whole  question  depends), 
viz.,  the  little  word  "  this,''  which  is  always  found  in  the  pas- 
sages in  Deuteronomy,  and  which  compels  us  to  Kmit  the  state- 
ment contained  in  these  passages  to  the  Thorah  immediately 
referred  to,  namely,  the  Thorah  of  Deuteronomy.  It  will  no 
doubt  be  argued  in  reply,  that  if  the  Pentateuch,  throughout  its 
entire  extent,  was  written  una  serie  by  jMoses  himself,  the  word 
"  this''  could,  and  in  fact  must,  apply  to  the  whole  of  the  Penta- 
teuch in  its  existing  form.  But  such  a  reply  as  this  not  only 
would  be  a.  petitio  principii,  and  as  such  without  the  slightest 
force,  but  is  proved  to  be  inadmissible  by  the  most  conclusive 
data.  The  Thorah  of  Deuteronomy  is  introduced  in  Deut.  iv. 
44  by  the  words,  "  This  is  the  law  which  Moses  set  before  the 
childi-en  of  Israel ;  these  are  the  testimonies,  and  the  statutes, 
and  the  judgments,  which  Moses  spake  unto  the  children  of 
Israel,  ...  in  the  land  of  Sihon,  king  of  the  Amorites,"  etc.  And 
when,  in  the  further  course  of  the  same  addresses,  we  find  this 
Thorah,  or  this  book  of  the  Thorah  mentioned,  according  to 
all  the  laws  of  interpretation  we  can  only  understand  the  Thorah 
just  spoken  of,  i.e.,  the  Thorah  of  Deuteronomy.  Moreover,  the 
sense  in  which  the  word  this  is  employed,  is  placed  beyond  all 
doiibt  by  chap,  xxvdi.  1,  where  "  this  law,"  which  occurs  in  ver. 
3,  is  expressly  shown  to  be  equivalent  to  "  all  these  command- 
ments which  I  command  you  this  day."  The  context  and 
subject-matter  of  these  passages  also  render  it  sometimes  certain, 
and  at  other  times  highly  probable,  that  the  law  of  Deuteronomy 
alone  can  be  mtended.     (1.)  In  Deut.  x^di.   18,  19,  it  is  com- 


COMPOSITION  OF  THE  TENTATEUCH.        '  513 

manded  that  the  future  king  of  Israel  is  to  Avrite  out  a  copy  of 
"  THIS  Thorah,"  and  to  live  and  reign  according  to  it. — (2.)  In 
chap.  xxxi.  2G,  it  is  stated  that  when  Moses  "had  made  an  end 
of  WTiting  the  words  of  this  law  in  a  book,  until  they  were 
finished,"  he  gave  this  book  to  the  Levites,  which  bare  the  ark 
of  the  covenant  of  the  Lord,  and  told  them  to  place  it  by  the 
side  of  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  that  it  might  be  there  for  a  Avit- 
ness  against  Israel. — (3.)  According  to  chap,  xxvii.,  when  the 
children  of  Israel  entered  the  promised  land,  Joshua  was  to 
Avrite  all  the  words  of  this  law  upon  stones  covered  with  plaster 
in  Mount  Ebal. — (4.)  In  chap.  xxxi.  10  sqq.,  instructions  are 
given  that  this  law  is  to  be  read  to  the  assembled  congregation 
at  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  of  the  year  of  release  (i.e.,  CA^ery 
seven  years).     Now,  if  we  confine  ovirselves  to  the  third  quota- 
tion, the   necessity  for  restricting  the  expression   "this  law" 
(ver.  3)  to  the  Thorah  of  Deuteronomy  is  so  obvious,  that  even 
Hengstenherg  and  Keill  are  obliged  to  acknowledge  it.    Not  only 
is  it  inconceivable  that  the  whole  of  the  Pentateuch  should  be 
written  upon  stones,  but  the  authentic  explanation  in  ver.  2  of 
what  we  are  to  understand  by  "  this  Thorah"  is  thoroughly  con- 
clusive.    Hengstenherg  and  Keill,  however,  will  not  admit  that 
we  have  any  right  to  conclude  from  this  passage,  that  "  this 
law"  means  precisely  the  same  thing  in  all  the  other  passages 
referred  to  ;  inasmuch  as  the  limitation  is  here  established  bv  the 
context  vers.  3  and  8  pointing  back  to  ver.  1,  and  the  meaning 
being  thereby  clearly  defined.     But  this  is  merely  a  loophole. 
At  any  rate,  in  this  passage  it  is  admitted  that  the  expression 
retains  the  force  attributed  to  it.    And  if  so,  it  cannot  be  denied, 
that   the  introductory  words  to    the  whole   law   in    chap.    iv. 
44,  45,  must  have  the  same  meaning  in  relation  to  the  entire 
Deuteronomical  Thorah  as  the  introductory  words  are  here  sup- 
posed to  have  to  the  section  in  chap,  xxvii.     Now,  if  we  look  at 
the  fulfilment  of  this  command,  as  we  find  it  described  in  Josh, 
viii.  32,  "  Joshua  wrote  there  upon  the  stones  a  copy  of  the 
law  of  Moses,  lohich  he  xorote  in  the  presence  of  the  children  of 
Israel^''  we  have  here,  assuming  tliat  Joshua  wrote  simply  the 
law  of  Deuteronomy,  an  express  testimony  to  the  fact,  that  this 
alone  was  originally  committed  to  writing  by  Moses  himself,  and 
not  the  Thorali  of  the  central  books. 

AVliat  is  thus  conclusively  demonstrated  by  the  connection 

VOL.  III.  2  K 


514  ISRAEL  IN  THE  AEBOTH  MOAB. 

and  drift  of  this  passage,  and  is  therefore  conclusive  as  to  the 
meaning  to  be  given  to  the  other  passages,  is  also  shown  to  be 
at  least  very  probable  by  the  connection  and  drift  of  the  latter. 
The  difference  between  the  Tliorah  of  the  central  books  and  the 
Tliorah  of  Deuteronomy,  so  far  as  the  substance  is  concerned,  is 
chiefly  the  following.     In  the  first  place,  the  latter  expressly 
refers  to  the  circumstances  in  which  the  Israelites  would  be 
placed  in  the  promised  land  (see,  for  example,  chap.  \i.  1,  etc.) ; 
whereas  the  former  is  much  more  general  in  its  character,  and 
no  special  reference  is  made  to  circumstances  which  would  not 
arise  till  they  reached  the  borders  of  the  land.     And  secondly, 
the  Tliorah  of  the  central  books  is  chiefly  of  a  priestly  character, 
— is,  in  fact,  properly  the  law  for  the  priestly  and  Levitical  order. 
By  far  the  greater  number  of  its  laws  are  laAvs  for  the  priests, — 
laws  which  it  was  not  necessaiy  that  any  should  be  thoroughly 
acquainted  with,  except  the  priests  (and  Levites).     And  even 
the  remaining    laws,  which    are    distinguished   from  those  of 
Deuteronomy  by  greater  precision  and  a  more  direct  allusion  to 
special  occurrences,  are  thereby  more  especially  connected  with 
the  tribe  of  Levi,  inasmuch  as  this  tribe  was  set  apart  to  be  the 
custodian  and  interpreter  of  the  law,  and  to  decide  in  cases  of 
dispute.     The  Thorah  of  Deuteronomy  is  much  less  restricted  in 
its  pm-pose.     Its  precepts  all  relate  to  the  nation  as  a  tchole ;  and 
therefore  it  passes  over  all  such  precepts  and  ordinances,  as  it 
was  unnecessary  for  any  but  the  priests  and  Levites  to  be  par- 
ticularly acquainted  with.      For   this  reason  it  was  only  the 
Thorah  of  Deuteronomy  which  was  written   uj)on    stones  on 
Mount  Ebal ;  and  from  the  same  point  of  view,  it  is  more  than 
probable  that  "  this  law,"  of  which  the  king  had  to  make  a  copy, 
"  the  book  of  this  law,"  which  was  to  be  placed  by  the  side  of 
the  ark  of  the  covenant,  and  "  this  law,"  which  was  to  be  read 
at  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  were  all  simply  the  Thorah  of  Deu- 
teronomy,    ^^'liat  could  all  the  minutke  of  Leviticus  have  to  do 
with   the  proper  discharge  of   the  duties  of  the  royal  office  ? 
Even  the  Thorah,  which  was  to  be  placed  by  the  side  of  the  ark 
of  the  covenant,  had  no  special   reference  to  the  priests  and 
Levites,  but  related  solely  to  the  nation  in   general ;  for  it  is 
distinctly  stated  that  it  was  to  be  placed  there  "  for  a  witness 
against  thee  (the  nation),  for  I  know  thy  rebelHon  and  thy  stiff 
neck"  (Deut.  xxxi.  26,  27). 


COMPOSITION  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH.  515 

That  the  command  to  read  the  hiw  of  the  Feast  of  Taber- 
nacles had  reference  solely  to  the  Thorali  in  Deuteronomy,  is 
confirmed  by  the  exegetical  tradition  of  the  Synagogue  in  the 
Mishnah  and  Eashi  {pid.  Delitzsch,  pp.  25,  26).  Keil  meets  this 
argument  with  the  simple  observation,  that  "  this  tradition  can- 
not be  quoted  as  decisive,  for  the  simple  reason  that  it  is  quite  at 
variance  with  the  conduct  of  Ezra.  On  the  Feast  of  Taber- 
nacles, which  was  celebrated  under  Nehemiah,  the  only  one  of 
which  we  have  any  account  in  the  Old  Testament  (Neh.  viii.), 
not  only  was  Deuteronomy  publicly  read,  but — if  not  the  whole 
Thorah  from  Gen.  i.  to  Deut.  xxxiv. — at  all  events  the  greater 
portion  of  it.  For,  although  the  words,  '  and  he  read  therein, 
namely,  in  '  the  hook  of  the  Thorah  of  Moses^  (vers.  1,  3),  leave 
it  doubtful  how  much  was  read,  it  is  evident  from  the  statement 
that  on  the  second  day  the  elders  of  the  people  found  it  written 
in  the  law,  '  that  the  children  of  Israel  should  dwell  in  booths  in 
the  feast  of  the  seventh  month^  whereupon  they  made  booths  ^  as 
it  is  written^  that  it  must  have  been  the  book  of  Leviticus 
which  was  read,  since  it  is  there  (Lev.  xxiii.  34  sqq.)  and  not  in 
Deuteronomy  that  we  find  directions  for  the  construction  of 
booths."  But  this  reply  is  founded  entirely  upon  a  misappre- 
hension. Li  Neh.  viii.  nothing  at  all  is  said  about  a  fulfilment 
of  the  commandment  contained  in  Deut.  xxxi.  9,  to  read  "  this 
Thorah"  at  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  in  the  sabbatical  year. 
No  doubt  the  Thorah  was  read, — and  not  Deuteronomy  only, 
but  Leviticus  also,  as  the  passage  in  question  proves, — but  this 
was  done  spontaneously,  not  in  fulfilment  of  the  command  in 
Deuteronomy  ;  in  an  ordinary  year,  not  in  a  sabbatical  year ;  on 
the  second  day  of  the  seventh  month,  not  on  the  second  day  of 
the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  (vers.  1,  13).  It  was  fourteen  days, 
therefore,  before  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  wdien  the  directions 
in  Leviticus  concerning  the  erection  of  booths  were  read,  and 
there  was  still  plenty  of  time  to  make  preparation  for  carrjdng 
out  the  instructions  to  the  very  letter  before  the  feast  com- 
menced. For,  according  to  vers.  16,  17,  this  was  actually  done. 
— The  correctness  of  the  view  adopted  in  the  Synagogue,  there- 
fore, is  not  in  the  least  affected  by  Neh.  viii. 

In  addition  to  the  fact,  that  it  is  not  stated  that  the  whole  of 
the  Pentateuch  was  written  by  ISIoses  himself,  but  only  a  (con- 
siderable) portion  of  it ;  throughout  those  portions  which  are  not 


516  ISEAEL  IN  THE  AEBOTH  MOAB. 

SO  attested  we  constantly  meet  mtli  data  which  are  apparently 
altogether  irreconcileable  with  such  a  \aew.  Notwithstanding  all 
that  Hdvernick,  Hengstenherg,  Welte,  and  Keil  have  said  to  the 
contrary  (and  what  they  have  said  is  to  a  great  extent  very 
important  and  convincing),  it  appears  to  ns  to  be  indisputable, 
that  even  apart  from  Deut.  xxxiv.,  there  are  portions  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch wdiich  are  post-Mosaic,  or  at  all  events  Non-Mosaic, 
though  by  far  the  largest  part  of  what  critics  adduce  does  not 
come  under  this  head  at  all.  I  will  simply  content  myself  with 
mentioning  the  "  Daii"  in  Gen.  xiv.  14  and  Deut.  xxxiv.  1,  and 
the  so-called  self-praise  of  Moses  in  Num.  xii.  3. 

(6.)  Of  all  the  views  which  have  hitherto  been  published 
with  reference  to  the  composition,  the  arrangement,  and  the  final 
revision  of  the  Pentateuch,  not  one  so  fully  meets  our  approba- 
tion as  that  of  Delitzsch,  to  which  we  have  already  referred 
(vol.  i.  §  20,  2).  With  Delitzsch,  we  regard  it  as  indisputable 
tliat  the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  the  book  of  Deuteronomy  (to  chap, 
xxxi.  24),  and  also  the  smaller  sections  referred  to  above  (note  5), 
in  which  the  authorship  is  expressly  named,  were  composed  and 
committed  to  writing  by  Moses  himself.  Wliether  any  other  sec- 
tions of  the  Pentateuch,  in  which  there  is  no  such  distinct  state- 
ment as  to  the  authorship,  were  written  by  him,  or  even  whether 
he  wrote  the  entire  Pentateuch,  in  the  form  in  which  it  has 
come  dowai  to  us,  are  questions  to  which  the  direct  testimony  of 
the  Pentateuch  will  not  enable  us  to  give  a  negative  reply  ;  and 
just  as  little,  or  rather  still  less,  will  it  put  us  in  a  position  to 
maintain  the  affirmative  wath  certainty.  For  an  answer  to  these 
questions  we  must  look  to  the  contents.  Of  all  the  sections 
whose  authorship  is  not  attested,  the  groups  of  laws  in  the  central 
books  have  evidently  the  strongest  claim  to  be  regarded  as  of 
Mosaic  origin.  For  if  these  laws  emanated  from  Moses,  a  fact 
Avhich  we  cannot  dispute,  he  must  have  had  the  gi'eatest  interest 
in  having  them  committed  to  writing.  But  he  might  have  left 
it  to  some  one  or  other  of  his  assistants  to  make  a  formal  arrange- 
ment, and  actually  -write  them  out.  And  it  seems  to  us  the  more 
probable  that  this  was  the  case,  from  the  fact  that  there  is  so 
unmistakeable  a  difference,  in  the  expressions  and  the  style,  be- 
tween the  laws  in  question  and  the  Thorali  of  Deuteronomy, 
though  we  are  by  no  means  disposed  to  attach  undue  importance 
to  this  argimient.     We  ha-\e  already  observed,  that  in  all  proba- 


COMPOSITION  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH.  517 

bility  Josli.  vlii.  32  contains  a  proof  that  the  Thorah  of  the  cen- 
tral books  was  not  committed  to  writing  by  Moses.  For  if,  as 
is  fully  admitted,  the  words,  "  and  Joshua  Avrote  there  upon  the 
stones  a  copy  of  the  law  of  Moses,  ichich  he  icrote  in  the  jwesence 
of  the  children  of  Israel"  do  not  relate  to  the  Thorali  of  the  cen- 
tral books,  but  to  the  Thorah  of  Deuteronomy  ALONE  (a  conclu- 
sion required  by  Deut.  xxvii.  1,  3,  and  also  by  the  existing 
circumstances),  the  predicate  applied  to  the  latter,  namely, 
that  Moses  wrote  them  in  the  presence  of  the  children  of 
Israel,  must  have  been  inapplicable  to  the  former.  And  as 
the  Thorah  of  the  central  books  was  chiefly  designed  for  the 
priestly  and  Levitical  order,  as  the  custodians  and  interpreters 
of  the  law,  there  is  great  plausibility  in  the  conjecture  expressed 
by  Delitzsch  (p.  37),  that  it  was  written  by  some  one  of  priestly 
rank  belonging  to  the  school  of  Moses,  or  to  his  immediate  circle 
— it  might  be  by  Aaron  himself,  or,  what  is  more  likely,  if  we 
look  at  other  analogous  cases,  by  one  of  his  sons. 

But  we  cannot  follow  Dehtzsch  in  the  supposition  that  this 
central  group  of  laws  was  not  arranged  into  a  code  till  after  the 
promised  land  was  in  the  complete  possession  of  the  Israelites, 
and  therefore  that  the  priority  of  age  belongs  to  the  book  of 
Deuteronomy.  As  we  have  already  observed,  we  cannot  imagine 
that  this  code  of  laws,  which  was  to  serve  as  the  gromidwork  and 
rule  of  the  constitution  and  government  of  the  entire  theocracy, 
instead  of  being  fixed  in  "WTiting,  slioidd  have  been  simply  im- 
pressed upon  the  memory,  and  that  it  should  have  been  left  to 
posterity  to  determine  whether  it  should  ever  be  committed  to 
'Writing  or  not.  This  seems  to  us  the  more  inconceivable,  from 
the  fact  that  the  formula  is  repeated  on  innumerable  occasions 
in  connection  with  these  laws,  that  they  are  given  a?)]}  rrhb, — 
The  grounds  on  which  Delitzsch  was  led  to  express  this  opinion 
are  explained  by  him  as  follows  :  "  The  kernel  of  the  Pentateuch, 
or  its  earliest  basis,  was  the  roll  of  the  covenant,  which  was 
written  out  by  Moses  himself,  and  was  afterwards  worked  into 
the  history  of  the  events  connected  with  the  giving  of  the  laAV 
(Ex.  xix.-xxiv.).  The  other  laws,  which  were  issued  in  tlie  desert 
down  to  the  period  when  the  Israelites  were  encamped  in  the 
plains  of  Moab,  were  announced  by  !Moses  by  word  of  mouth, 
but  they  were  committed  to  writing  by  the  priests,  whose  voca- 
tion it  was  (Deut.  xvii.  11  cf.  xxiv.  8,  xxxiii.  10 ;  Lev.  x.  11,  cf. 


518  ISRAEL  IN  THE  ARBOTII  MOAB. 

XV.  31).  As  there  is  nothing  in  Deuteronomy  which  presup- 
poses that  the  whole  of  the  earher  law  existed  in  -writing,  but, 
on  the  contrary,  the  recapitulation  is  made  with  the  greatest 
freedom,  it  need  not  be  supposed  that  the  actual  arrangement 
into  a  code  was  made  dui'ing  the  journey  tlirough  the  desert. 
But  this  was  done  very  shortly  after  the  conquest  of  the  land. 
As  soon  as  the  Israelites  stood  upon  the  Holy  Land,  they  began 
to  write  out  the  history  of  Israel,  which  had  now  reached  a  de- 
cisive point.  But  they  covdd  not  write  a  history  of  the  Mosaic 
age  without  writing  out  a  description  of  the  Mosaic  legislation 
in  its  fullest  extent." 

We  admit  that  the  inducement  and  demand  for  a  writ- 
ten account  of  the  ancient  traditions  must  have  been  much 
stronger  after  the  Israelites  had  settled  in  the  Holy  Land,  than 
during  their  wanderings  in  the  desert.  Wlierever  they  might 
set  their  foot  in  the  land  of  Canaan,  they  were  still  tread- 
ing upon  holy  ground.  They  -were  in  a  land  consecrated  and 
sanctified  by  the  pilgrimage  of  their  fathers,  and  covered  with 
spots  which  excited  lively  reminiscences  of  the  history  of  their 
fathers.  If  these  had  never  been  committed  to  writing  before^ 
the  occasion,  the  impulse,  and  the  need  would  undoubtedly  ber 
so  strong,  that  one  or  other  of  the  pupils  of  Moses  would  be 
impelled  to  undertake  the  task. — But  I  cannot  persuade  myself 
that  this  cannot  have  taken  place  during  the  wanderings  in  the 
desert,  and  that  no  occasion  or  impulse  could  possibly  have 
existed  then.  Is  it  a  fact,  that  in  the  present  arrangement  of  the 
Pentateuch  the  sole  pm-pose  of  the  history  was  to  serve  as  the 
foundation  and  framework  of  the  law?  Was  there  not  quite 
enough  in  the  mighty  works  of  God,  in  connection  with  the 
Exodus  from  Egypt,  and  the  conclusion  of  the  covenant  at 
Sinai,  to  prompt  the  wish  to  impress  them,  and  the  historical 
events  which  lead  to  them,  upon  the  memory  of  future  genera- 
tions %  (  Vid.  e.  g.,  Ex.  xii.  26,  27,  and  xiii.  8).  And  did  not  the 
stay  at  Sinai,  which  lasted  an  entire  year,  furnish  ample  oppor- 
tunity and  leisure  for  commencing  such  a  work  1 — Bvit  w^hether 
this  was  the  case  or  not,  at  all  events  we  must  firmly  maintain, 
that  the  earlier  laws  were  committed  to  writing  in  the  desert, 
and  that  immediately  after  they  were  issued.  If  the  historical 
work,  which  forms  the  framework  of  the  laws,  was  not  com- 
menced till  the  Israelites  entered  the  Holy  Land,  the  author 


COMPOSITION  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH.  519 

found  the  documents  relating  to  the  law  already  in  existence, 
and  only  needed  to  insert  them  in  the  history.  But  if  it  was 
commenced  in  the  desert,  most  probably  during  the  stay  at  Sinai, 
the  author  of  the  previous  history  and  primeval  history  was 
probably  the  same  as  the  writer  of  the  groups  of  laws ;  and  we 
should  then,  in  all  probability,  be  correct  in  assuming,  that  when 
the  Israelites  departed  from  Sinai  his  work  had  been  brought 
do\\m  to  that  time,  and  that  afterwards  the  events  were  added  as 
they  occurred.  The  latter  I  regard  as  the  more  probable  ex- 
planation. 

Again,  so  far  as  regards  the  other  reason  for  supposing  that 
Deuteronomy  was  committed  to  writing  before  the  other  law, 
which  was  really  the  more  ancient  of  the  two — viz.,  the  fact  that 
"  there  is  nothing  in  Deuteronomy  which  presupposes  that  the 
whole  of  the  earlier  law  existed  in  writing,  but,  on  the  contrary, 
the  recapitulation  is  made  with  the  greatest  freedom," — Delitzsch 
can  hardly  intend  to  assert  that  it  cannot  have  existed  in  writing, 
because  no  reference  is  made  to  it.  If  the  earlier  law  was  com- 
mitted to  the  care  of  the  priests  and  Levites,  and  the  later  was 
intended  expressly  for  the  people,  such  direct  allusions  would 
have  been  out  of  place  (apart  from  the  fact  that  they  would  not 
be  in  accordance  with  the  general  character  of  the  early  Hebrew 
composition).  And  so  far  as  the  freedom,  with  wdiich  the 
earlier  laws  are  recapitulated,  is  concerned,  it  appears  to  me 
that  it  could  not  possibly  make  any  difference  to  the  free  spirit 
of  a  man  like  Moses,  a  man  so  conscious  of  his  office  and 
standing  whether  they  had  been  written  down  or  not.  On 
the  other  hand,  I  should  be  more  disposed  to  believe  that  if  the 
book  of  Deuteronomy  was  already  in  existence,  with  its  modifica- 
tions of  so  many  of  the  earlier  laws,  the  writer  of  the  later  would 
feel  some  difficulty  in  reproducing  them  in  their  earlier  form. 

I  cannot  divest  myself  of  the  impression,  however,  that 
there  run  through  the  Pentateuch,  and  most  obviously  through 
the  historical  portions,  two  distinct  cm'rents  (so  to  speak),  which 
differ  in  the  expressions  employed  and  the  style  in  which  they 
are  written,  not  less  than  in  their  general  tendency,  and  which 
Delitzsch  has  aptly  described  as  a  priestly  and  a  prophetic 
cmTent.^     They  are  just  the  same  as  those  which  have  hitherto 

"^  It  is  hardly  an  admissible  solution  to  acknowledge  this  double  current, 
and  yet  to  trace  them  both  to  one  author,  who,  like  Moses,  combined  in 


520  ISRAEL  IN  THE  ARBOTH  MOAB. 

been  designated  by  critics  the  groundwork  and  the  supplemen- 
tary work.  The  similarity  in  the  language,  views,  and  tenden- 
cies, observable  in  the  former,  to  those  of  the  central  groups  of 
laws,  give  rise  to  the  conjecture  that  they  were  both  the  produc- 
tions of  the  same  pen.  Wlien  we  find,  now,  the  component  parts 
of  the  priestly  section,  so  far  as  they  can  be  distinctly  ascer- 
tained, forming  pretty  nearly  a  well-defined  and  tolerably  per- 
fect whole,  with  comparatively  few  gaps,  whereas  the  component 
parts  of  the  prophetic  section,  when  combined  together,  appear 
throughout  imperfect,  unconnected,  and  full  of  gaps ;  we  are 
warranted  in  assuming,  that  the  prophetic  author  had  the  work 
of  the  priestly  author  lying  before  him,  and  from  his  own  stand- 
point enlarged  it  by  the  addition  of  many  things,  which  were  of 
great  importance,  so  far  as  his  views  and  objects  were  con- 
cerned, but  had  been  passed  over  by  the  latter,  because  they 
appeared  of  less  importance  when  regarded  from  his  point  of 
view.  In  the  case  of  the  second  prophetic  writer,  the  circum- 
stance which  Delitzsch  supposes  to  have  influenced  the  first,  or 
priestly  author,  may  possibly  have  furnished  to  some  extent  both 
inducement  and  material ;  viz.,  the  possession  of  the  land,  in 
wliich  the  fathers  of  his  people  had  performed  their  pilgTimage. 
It  is  not  at  all  an  improbable  thing,  that  the  simple  fact  that  the 
Israelites  w^ere  now  looking  with  their  own  eyes,  and  even  tread- 
ing upon  the  very  spots,  in  which  the  memorable  events  of  the 
lives  of  their  forefathers  had  taken  place,  may  have  called  into 
fresh  prominence,  and  endowed  with  new  life,  many  of  the 
events  which  had  been  almost  forgotten,  and  for  that  reason, 
perhaps,  had  been  passed  over  by  the  earlier  historian. 

The  critical  process  pursued  by  Tuch  and  Stdhelin,  for  the 
purpose  of  so  separating  and  aiTanging  the  various  sections  be- 
longing to  the  groundwork,  as  to  form  a  well-grounded  and  per- 
fect whole,  in  which  no  gaps  at  all  shall  appear,  is  decidedly  a 
failure.  This  is  most  apparent  from  the  fact,  that  the  compo- 
nent parts  of  the  groundwork  do  not  include  a  history  of  the 
fall,  whereas  this  was  not  only  to  be  expected,  but  is  positively 

himself  the  calling,  gifts,  and  interests  of  both  prophet  and  priest.  In  this 
case,  it  would  be  impossible  to  prove  that  there  ivas  a  double  current.  The 
twofold  interests  and  twofold  tendencies  of  the  priestly  and  prophetic  minds 
would  constantly  manifest  themselves  contemporaneously  and  uniformly,  in 
living  union  and  mutual  interpenetration. 


COMPOSITION  OF  THE  PEJ^TATEUCH.  521 

demanded.  And  there  are  many  such  cases,  as  I  have  sho\vn  in 
my  "  Emheit  der  Genesis"  (Berlin  1846).  In  the  fact  that  the 
author,  by  whom  tlie  work  Avas  completed,  did  not  hesitate  to 
remove  certain  parts  of  the  groundwork,  and  substitute  some- 
thing entirely  new,  we  see  a  proof  that  he  brought  to  his  task  of 
enlarging  and  revising  the  original  w^ork  a  freedom  of  spirit, 
such  as  nothing  but  the  cHstinct  consciousness  of  his  prophetic 
gift  and  calling  could  either  have  warranted  or  inspired. — We 
must  also  pronounce  it  a  delusion  on  the  part  of  Tach  and  Stii- 
helin,  that  they  imagine  it  possible  to  distinguish  with  such 
nicety  the  component  elements  of  the  two  different  currents. 
It  is  only  in  a  very  general  way,  that  it  is  possible  to  demon- 
strate the  existence  of  two  separate  currents ;  and  only  in  cases 
where  the  distinctive  peculiarities  are  especially  prominent,  that 
single  sections  can  be  marked  off  with  any  degree  of  certainty. 
The  temptation  to  which  critics  are  exposed,  to  foster  the  delu- 
sion of  infallibility  and  omnipotence  in  connection  with  their 
operations,  is  so  great,  and  modern  critics  have  yielded  to  it  to 
such  an  extent,  that  it  is  very  necessary  to  preach  moderation. 
It  is  true  that  critics  have  not  all  carried  their  self-deception  and 
self-exaltation  to  the  same  extent  as  Eivald,  who  finds  a  dozen 
A\Titers  in  the  Pentateuch,  and  is  able  to  assign  to  ever}'-  one  his 
own  portion  with  indisputable  certainty,  even  to  a  single  word. 
But  vestigia  terrent! 

As  it  is  so  very  obvious  that  there  was  an  original  gi'ound- 
work,  and  that  this  groundwork  was  completed  by  a  prophetic 
author ;  there  can  hardly  be  any  question,  that  it  was  by  the 
latter  that  the  Pentateuch  was  reduced  to  its  present  form.  The 
time  when  this  was  done,  may  be  determined  with  tolerable  cer- 
tainty. On  the  one  hand,  the  fact  that  the  existence  of  the 
Pentateuch  and  its  laws  is  presupposed  by  the  history  and  litera- 
ture of  Israel,  of  which  in  fact  they  formed  the  basis,  compels 
us  to  fix  upon  a  period  as  near  to  the  time  of  Moses  as  other 
circumstances  Avill  allow\  On  the  other  hand,  thei'e  are  certain 
features  in  the  Pentateuch  itself  which  bring  us  below  the  life- 
time of  Moses,  to  the  period  of  the  complete  occupation  of  the 
j)romised  land.  The  negative  critics  have  set  no  bounds  to 
their  misuse  of  the  supposed  or  actual  marks  of  a  later  date, 
which  are  to  be  found  in  the  Pentateuch ;  partly  by  including 
in  the  list  a  number  of  data  which  do  not  belong  to  it,  and 


522  ISRAEL  IN  THE  AEBOTH  MOAB. 

partly  by  making  tlie  date  as  late  as  they  possibly  can.  Heng- 
stenherg  (Pentateuch,  vol.  ii.,  p.  146  sqq.),  who  is  followed  by 
Welte  and  Keil,  has  demonstrated  in  the  most  unanswerable 
manner  the  utter  absurdity  of  the  great  majority  of  the  marks 
they  adduce.  At  the  same  time,  an  unbiassed  inquirer  will  be 
obliged  to  admit  that  he  has  not  been  equally  successful  in  every 
case.  Of  all  of  the  marks  which  remain,  however,  there  is  not 
one  which  indicates  a  later  age  than  the  period  immediately  suc- 
ceeding the  conquest  of  Canaan.  The  latter  portion  of  Joshua's 
life  and  the  first  years  of  the  period  of  the  Judges  are  the  limits 
within  which,  in  all  probability,  the  completion  of  the  Pentateuch 
falls. — It  may  be  sufficient  to  refer  here  to  the  occurrence  of  the 
name  Dan  in  Gen.  xiv.  14  and  Dent,  xxxiv.  1,  where  it  is  used 
to  denote  the  ancient  Leshem  or  Laish.  The  use  of  this  name 
presupposes  that  the  events  narrated  in  Josh.  xix.  47  and  Judg. 
xxviii.  29  had  already  taken  place.  In  vol.  i.  §  54,  2,  I  adopted 
Hengstenherg'' s  explanation,  viz.,  that  the  Dan  of  the  Pentateuch 
was  the  same  as  the  Dan-Jaan  in  2  Sam.  xxiv.  6,  and  denoted  a 
very  different  place  from  the  ancient  Laish.  But  a  closer  ex- 
amination has  convinced  me  that  the  very  same  Dan  is  alluded 
to  in  the  Pentateuch  and  2  Sam.  xxiv.  6,  as  in  Josh.  xix.  47  and 
Judg.  xxviii.  29. 

It  is  not  my  intention  to  enter  into  an  exhaustive  examina- 
tion of  the  Pentateuch  question  in  all  its  bearings.  Such  an 
examination  as  this  would  require  much  more  space  than  I  can 
allot  to  it  in  the  present  volume.  I  shall  content  myself,  there- 
fore, with  referring  the  reader  to  the  many  apt  and  admirable 
remarks  which  he  will  find  in  the  work  of  Delitzsch,  already 
mentioned,  though  even  this  is  bv  no  means  exhaustive  and 
thoroughly  satisfactory.  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  the  excellent 
author  will  soon  resmne  his  inquiries,  and  carry  them  out  with 
all  the  learning  and  acumen  for  which  he  is  justly  celebrated. 


INDEX  OF  PEINCIPAL  MATTEES. 


Aaron,  Moses' prophet,  ii.  222,  etc. ;  makes 
tlie  golden  calf,  iii.  151,  etc. ;  in  union 
with  Miriam,  rebels  against  Moses,  271, 
275,  etc. ;  his  rod,  297,  etc. ;  his  death, 
337. 

Abarim,  the  Mountains  of,  iii.  369,  etc. 

Abimelech,  and  Abraham,  i.  249-253 ;  and 
Isaac,  290. 

Abomination  of  the  Egyptians,  sacrificing 
the,  ii.  280. 

Aboth,  and  Beth-Aboth,  ii.  166,  etc. 

Abraham,  his  calling,  i.  203,  etc.,  210;  in 
Egypt,  his  conduct  there,  210-212 ; 
separation  from  Lot,  213,  21-4  ;  promise 
of  the  land  made  to,  214,  etc. ;  pursues 
and  defeats  the  four  kings,  216  ;  meets 
Melchisedec,  221-223 ;  appearance  of 
Jehovah  to,  after  the  battle,  224,  227, 
etc. ;  his  vision  of  the  "  smoking  fur- 
nace," etc.  225 ;  obtains  righteousness, 
226,  etc. ;  relations  with  Hagar,  229, 
etc. ;  receives  the  covenant  of  circum- 
cision, 231,  etc. ;  change  of  his  name, 
233,  etc. ;  visited  by  Jehovah  in  Mamre, 
239,  etc. ;  his  intercession  for  Sodom 
and  Gomorrah,  243,  etc.;  relations  with 
Abimelech,  249  ;  conduct  in  Gerar,  250, 
etc. ;  casts  out  Hagar  and  Ishmael,  253, 
255,  etc. ;  offers  up  Isaac,  258-272 ; 
buries  Sarah,  272,  etc. ;  obtains  a  wife 
for  Isaac,  274,  etc. ;  takes  Keturah  to 
wife,  276 ;  dies,  270. 

Adultery,  the  punishment  of,  i.  358. 

Ai,  i.  209,  etc. 

Aijalon,  the  valley  of,  i.  143. 

Amalek,  "  the  beginning  of  the  Ileatheu," 
iii.  4-14,  etc. 

Amalekites,  the,  iii.  48,  etc. ;  conflict  of 
Israel  with,  50,  etc. 

Ammonites,  the,  iii.  374. 

Amorites,  the,  i.  152 ;  iii.  375 ;  song  of 
victory  after  the  conqxiest  of,  282,  283. 

Anah  and  ]5cori,  i.  303. 

Angel  of  the  Lord,  different  views  respect- 
ing the,  i.  181-183 ;  arguments  for  the 
Deity  of  the,  183-189  :  retractation  of 
these  arguments,  and  arguments  to 
prove  him  a  created  being,  189-201 ; 
sent  with  Israel,  iii.  174,  etc. ;  176. 

Angels  eat  food,  i.  241. 

Animals,  the  gathering  of  the  diffui'cnt 
sorts  of,  into  the  Ark,  i.  102,  103. 


Antiquities,  works  on  biblical,  i.  27-29. 

Apocrypha,  the  Old  Testament,  i.  35; 
works  on,  36, 

Ar,  of  Moab,  iii.  360. 

Arabah,  the,  i.  136. 

Arabia,  the  desert  of,  ii.  123  ;  Petraea,  124. 

Arad,  the  battle  between  the  people  of, 
and  Israel,  iii.  332  ;  situation  of,  334. 

Ararat,  the  moviutains  of  i.  109. 

Ark,  the,  i.  101 ;  the  gathering  of  the  dif- 
ferent animals  into,  102,  103. 

Army  of  Pharaoh,  the,  ii.  354,  etc. 

Arnon,  the  river,  ii.  129  ;  iii.  378. 

Arphaxad,  i,  166,  etc. 

Ass,  Balaam's,  speaks — the  subject  dis- 
cussed at  length,  iii.  406,  etc. ;  the  argu- 
ments in  defence  of  the  subjective  view 
of  the  transaction  examined,  407-415 ; 
Heugstenberg's  objections  to  the  literal 
view  answered,  415-421 ;  proofs  that  it 
was  an  outward,  objective,  occiuTence, 
421-423. 

Ass-worship  attributed  to  Israel  by 
Daumer,  iii.  423. 

Assyrian  antiquities,  works  on,  i.  43. 

Atad,  the  threshing  floor  of,  ii.  91,  92. 

Auguries,  iii.  429. 

Ayun  Musa,  iii.  15. 

Azazimeh,  the  mountain  land  of,  iii.  224, 
etc. 

Baal-Peor,  Israel  inti-apped  into  the  wor- 
ship of,  iii.  456-458. 

Baal-Zebub,  iii.  373. 

Babel,  the  sin  involved  in  building  tho 
tower  of,  i.  109,  110. 

Balaam,  Balak's  mission  to,  iii.  387,  etc. ; 
tliederi  vatic  in  and  meaning  of  the  name, 
388,  389  ;  how  he  came  to  know  Jeho- 
vah, 389 ;  his  calling  and  pi'ophetic 
gifts,  390-398 ;  character  of  his  pro- 
phecies, 394,  etc. ;  point  of  view  from 
which  15alak's  application  to  him  can  bo 
explained,  398,  399 ;  the  irresistible 
power  attributed  to  his  incantations  by 
Balak,  399-405 ;  goes  with  Balak's  mes- 
sengers, 405,  etc. ;  his  ass,  speaking  with 
human  voice,  reproves  him,  406,  etc. ; 
Jehovah's  conduct  towards,  properly 
exhibited,  424,  425 ;  his  prophecies, 
425-155  ;  his  iniquity  and  punishment, 
455,  457-460. 


524 


INDEX  OP  PRINCIPAIi  MATTEES. 


Bamoth-Baal,  iii.  367. 

Ban,  the  thirty-seveu  years',  iii.  287,  etc. ; 
308,  etc. 

BaiTenness,  liow  regarded  by  religious  an- 
tiquity, i.  315. 

Bashan,  i.  146. 

Battle,  the,  of  the  four  kings  with  the  five, 
i.  215 ;  Ewald's  enthusiastic  language 
respecting  the  account  of,  216,  etc. 

Beer,  iii.  381. 

Beersheba,  i.  291 ;  the  country  between, 
and  Hebroi:,  12,  etc. 

Belbeis  and  Eaemses,  ii.  370,  etc. 

Bene  Elohini,  various  opinions  respecting 
the,  i.  96-101. 

Benjamin,  his  birth,  i.  343 ;  sent  into 
Egyf)t  with  his  brethren,  375  ;  distin- 
guished by  Joseph,  above  his  brethren, 
377 ;  Joseph's  cup  placed  in  his  sack, 
376,  378. 

Berosus,  his  Bx.^v'Kmixoi.,  i.  42. 

Beth-Aboth,  ii.  1(36,  etc. 

Bethel,  i.  209,  309. 

Betylia,  i.  310. 

Biblical  Literary  History,  or  Biblical  In- 
troduction, i.  24  etc. 

Birthright,  Jacob  cunningly  obtains  the, 
from  Esau — what  it  involved,  i.  284. 

Blasphemer,  the,  stoned,  iii,  195,  198. 

Blessina:,  Noah's,  i.  106,  etc. ;  God's  on 
Abraham,  205-208 ;  Isaac's  291-297  ; 
difference  between  that  given  by  Isaac 
to  Jacob  and  God's  given  to  Abraham, 
298  ;  Jacob's  on  Esau,  299,  etc. ;  Jacob's 
on  Pharaoh,  ii.  17  ;  Jacob's  on  Joseph's 
sous,  21-26  ;  Jacob's  prophetic,  on  his 
own  sons,  27-52 ;  the  last  not  a  vati- 
cinium  post  evetitum,  52-62. 

Blood,  Moses  receives  power  to  turn  water 
into,  ii.  221 ;  the  water  of  the  Nile 
turned  into,  269-274. 

Bondage,  the  nature  of  the  Israelites',  in 
Egypt,  ii.  152,  etc. 

"  Book  of  the  wars  of  the  Lord,"  the,  iii. 
379-381. 

Borrowing  from  the  Egyptians  vessels  of 
gold,  etc.,  by  the  Israelites — nature  of 
the  transaction,  ii.  319-334. 

Boundaries  of  the  Promised  Land,  i.  129, 
etc. ;  prophetic  determination  of  the, 
229,  etc. 

Brazen  Serpent,  the,  iii.  344^358. 

Brick -making,  the  Israelites  employed  in, 
in  Egypt,  iii.  152-154  ;  243-245. 

Burning,  the  place  of,  iii.  203-206. 

Bush,  the  bui-niug,  ii.  203-206. 

Cain,  and  Abel,  i.  88 ;  buUds  a  city,  90 ; 
attempt  to  trace  a  connection  between 
the  names  of  his  descendants  and  those 
of  heathen  Mythologies,  90-92. 

Cainites  and  Sethites,  i.  92. 

Caleb,  iii.  284,  etc. 

Calf,  the  golden,  made  by  Aaron,  iii.  151, 
etc., — 157,  etc  ;  destroyed,  161,  etc. ; 
punishment   of    the   worship   of,    163, 

Call  of  Abraham,  the,  i.  203. 


Calling  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord,  ii. 
111. 

Camp  of  Israel,  the  plan  and  order  of,  iii. 
200,  etc. ;  206,  etc. 

Canaan,  why  cursed  by  Noah  instead  of 
Ham,  i.  107,  108. 

Canaan,  the  land  of,  i.  131. 

Canaanites,  the,  i.  153. 

Caphtor,  what  country  so  named,  i.  158- 
160. 

Carmel,  Mount,  i.  142. 

Catalogue  of  the  house  of  Israel,  which 
went  down  into  Egypt,  ii.  4,  etc. 

Census,  the,  of  the  people  of  Israel  taken 
at  Mount  Sinai,  ii.  149,  etc. ;  on  leaving 
Sinai,  199-206. 

Chaldean  histoi-y,  i.  42. 

Chamsin,  the,  ii.  287,  etc. 

Chartummim  of  Egypt,  the,  i.  365,  etc. ; 
ii.  257-265. 

Chazeroth,  iii.  245,  271,  etc. 

Chederlaomer's  invasion  of  the  valley  of 
the  Jordan,  i.  215  ;  defeat  by  Abraham, 
216. 

Cherubim,  the  nature  and  character  of,  i. 
79-86. 

Chittim,  the  ships  of,  iii.  450,  etc. 

Chronology,  biblical,  i.  27  ;  works  on,  31- 
35. 

Chronological  differences  between  the 
Samaritan  version  and  the  LXXL,  94, 
95,-165,  166. 

Chrystalization,  hypothesis  of  Ewald  re- 
specting the  Pentateuch,  i.  61. 

Circumcision,  given  to  Abraham  by  God 
as  a  sign  of  his  covenant,  i.  231-233 ; 
practised  by  other  nations,  234;  con- 
nection of,  among  those  nations  with 
Phallic  worship,  235  ;  import  of,  236- 
238  ;  of  Moses'  child  at  the  Inn,  237, 
etc. ;     performed    by  means    of    stone 

7.  knives,  239  ;  of  the  people  before  enter- 
ing Canaan,  iii.  223. 

Cisterns,  i.  312,  351. 

Cities  of  the  plain  destroyed,  their  number, 
i.  245. 

Cloud,  the  pillar  of,  ii.  344,  etc. 

Confusion  of  tongues  at  Babel,  i.  108  ;  the 
process  of,  110-112 ;  the  time  of,  112, 
113. 

Consecration  of  the  Levitical  priests,  iii. 
192. 

Covenant,  the  old,  object  and  boundary 
lines  of  the  liistory  of,  i.  2,  3 ;  double 
series  of  developments  connected  with, 
4,  etc. ;  events  recorded  in  the  history 
of,  12  ;  distinct  characteristics  of  the 
history  of,  13  ;  sources  of  the  history  of, 
and  auxiliary  sciences,  24,  etc. ;  litera- 
ture of  the  history  of,  44-50  ;  meaning, 
purpose,  and  goal  of,  125  ;  the  book  of, 
iii.  141,  etc. 
Covenant,  of  sacrifice  with  Abraham,  i. 
224,  227,  etc. ;  the  sinaitic,  iii.  140,  etc. ; 
renewal  of,  169,  etc. ;  in  the  land  of 
Moab,  489,  etc. 
Covenant-agency  of  God,  i.  5;  its  ulti- 
mate aim  and  highest  point,  6. 


INDEX  OF  PKINCIPAL  MATTERS. 


525 


Creation  of  man,  i.  CO,  70. 
Cup,  Joseph's  silver,  i.  377,  etc. 
Curse,  the,  on  the  serpent,  i.  79  ;  on  Ca- 
naan, 107,  108. 

Dan,  i.  216. 

Dan,  the  tribe  how  spoken  of  in  Jacob's 
blessing,  ii.  56. 

Darkness,  the  plague  of,  ii.  284,  287,  288. 

Daughters  of  men,  the,  i.  95,  etc. 

Days,  spoken  of  in  the  history  of  the  crea- 
tion,  i.  71 ;  the  last,  ii.  31-33. 

Dead  Sea,  the,  i.  132,  137-110 ;  does  it 
occupy  the  site  of  the  destroyed  cities  of 
the  plain  ?  245,  etc. 

Death,  views  of  the  patriarchs  respect- 
ing, ii.  108-110. 

Death  of  the  first-born  of  Egypt,  ii.  289  ; 
not  caused  by  a  pestilence,  312,  etc. 

Deborah,  Kebekah's  nurse,  the  death  of, 
i.  345. 

Decalogue,  the  names  of,  iii  121,  etc. ; 
the  copy  of  in  Deuteronomy,  123 ; 
division  of,  123-137. 

Decalogues,  the  seven,  of  the  Mosaic 
legislation,  asserted  by  Bertheau,  iii. 
137,  etc. 

Deism,  English,  i.  46. 

Demons  and  Demonology,  ii.  250,  etc. 

Desert,  the  Lybian  and  Arabian,  ii  123, 
etc. ;  the  possibility  of  the  Israelites 
finding  supplies  in  the,  iii.  6,  etc. 

Destroyer,  the,  of  the  Egyptian  firstborn, 
iii.  31,5,  etc. 

Developments  of  mankind,  the,  as  con- 
nected with  the  history  of  the  Old 
Covenant,  i.  1,  4,  etc.,  126. 

Dinah,  i.  338,  etc. 

Dispersion,  the,  i.  108 ;  direction  it  took, 
115. 

Divination  by  cups,  i.  377,  etc. 

Door-posts  sprinkled  with  blood,  re- 
garded as  altars,  ii.  302,  305. 

Dreams  of  Joseph,  i.  348 ;   of  Pharaoh's 
chief  butler  and  chief  baker,  302,  303  ; 
of  Pharaoh,  364,  etc. 
Dudaim,  i.  315,  etc. 

East- wind,  the,  i.  352.,  etc. 

Eden,  the  geographical  site  of,  i.  71-76. 

Edicts,  the  murderous,  of  the  King  of 
Egypt,  ii.  154,  155. 

Edomites,  the,  i.  285 ;  Israel's  negotia- 
tions with,  iii.  330,  etc. ;  Israel's  march 
round  the  country  of,  337,  etc. ;  history 
of,  338-342. 

Egypt,  the  river  of,  i.  229 ;  the  women 
of,  361,  302;  description  of,  ii.  223, 
etc.  ;  adaptation  of,  to  elevate  the  lower 
habits  of  nomade  life,  160;  cultivation 
of  the  soil  of,  160,  161. 

Egyptian  history,  works  on,  i.  39-^11. 

Egyptians,  their  funeral  processions,  ii. 
91;  their  hatred  of  shepherds,  13,  102, 
424,  425,  425 ;  their  civilization  im- 
pregnated  with   nature  worship,   173, 

El-Ghor,  i.  135, 136. 


Eldad  and  Modad,  iii.  268. 

Elders  of  Israel,  ii.  164 ;  the  seventy,  iii. 
205. 

Eliezer  of  Damascus,  i.  275. 

Elim,  iii.  13,  etc.,  17,  etc. 

Elohim  and  Jehovah,  names  of  Deity, 
expressive  of  two  distinct  modes  of 
divine  manifestation,  i.  18-24 ;  was 
there  any  distinct  apprehension  in 
patriarchal  times  of  these  two  mani- 
festations of  God  ?  ii.  97-102. 

El-Shaddai,  ii.  99. 

Emigration  of  the  house  of  Israel  into 
Egypt,  the  historical  import  of,  ii.  17- 
21. 

Emmim,  the,  i.  154. 

End  of  days,  the,  iii.  335. 

Enoch,  i.  92,  93. 

Ephraim,  the  return  of  part  of  the  tribe 
of,  to  Palestine  before  the  exodus,  ii. 
178-181. 

Ephrath,  i.  346. 

Er,  Onan,  and  Shelah,  i.  353,  357. 

Esau,  his  birth,  i.  282;  character,  282, 
283 ;  sells  his  birthright,  284 ;  blessed 
by  Isaac,  299 ;  seeks  to  slay  Jacob, 
301 ;  his  wives,  302 ;  removed  from 
connection  with  the  history  of  the 
Covenant,  304. 

Eschol,  iii.  282. 

Etham,  ii.  374  ;  iii.  14. 

Evenings,  between  the,  meaning  of  the 
phrase,  ii.  301,  302. 

Exclusion  of  the  unbelievers  from  Canaan, 
iii.,  287,  etc.,  290,  etc. 

Exegetical  works  on  the  biblical  text  of 
the  prepai-ative  history  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, i.  65,  etc. 

Exodus,  the,  from  Egypt,  ii.  311-339  ;  the 
national  birth  of  Israel,  120. 

Fall  of  man,  the,  i.  77,  etc.,  87. 

Family,    the,    in    connection    with    the 

history  of  the  Old  Covenant,   i.  175, 

etc. 
Fertility,  the  former,  of  Palestine,  i.  150. 
Finger    of    God,    the,    meaning    of    the 

phrase,  ii.  277,  278. 
Fire,  its  symbolic   import,    ii.    204 ;  the 

pillar  of,  344;    from  heaven,    iii.  193, 

etc. ;  of  Jehovah,  259. 
First-born,  Israel  Jehovah's,  ii.  226,  iii. 

3,  4 ;    importance   of   the,   ii.  290 ;    of 

Egypt,  slain,  291,  etc.,  321,  etc.,  two 

classes    of,  in    Israel,  334;   sanctified, 

335. 
Flies,  the  plague  of,  ii.  278-280. 
Flesh,  the  lusting  of  the  people  for,  iii. 

2.59,  265. 
Flood,   the,  i.  95 ;  niunber  of  people  in 

existence  at  the  time  of,  95,  96 ;    the 

account  of,  a  carefully  kept  diary,  101  j 

legends    respecting,  among  other   na- 
*     tions,  102 ;    the  generation  which  pe- 

rislied  at,  not  wholly  shut  out  from  the 

blessing  of  the  Covenant,  104,  105. 
Forty  years,  the,  in  the  wilderness,  iii. 

310,  etc. 


526 


INDEX  OF  PRINCIPAL  MATTERS. 


Frogs,  the  plague  of,  ii.  275,  276. 
Funeral  pi-ocessions  of  the  Egyptians,  ii. 
91,  92. 

Gad,  the  tribe  of,  ii.  57. 

Gap,    "the  immense,"   between   Genesis 

and  Exodus,  how  to  be  viewed,  ii.  145- 

149. 
Galilee,  the  sea  of,  i.  135;  the  highlands 

of,  141,  142. 
Genesis,  the  iirst  part  of  legendary,  but 

historical,  i.  55,  etc. ;  did  the  author  of, 

make  use  of  written  records  ?  56. 
Gemara,  the,  i.  38. 
Genealogy  of  Shem,  i.  165,  etc. 
Gennesareth,  the  Lake  of,  i.  135. 
Geography,  biblical,  i.  27  ;  works  on,  29- 

31 ;  of  the  book  of  Exodus,  ii.  360-380  ; 

of   the   country  round   Sinai,  iii.  61- 

101. 
Gilead,  i.  145,  146. 
Glory,  of  the  Lord,  the,  i.  229,  iii.  190, 

etc. ;  Moses   desires  to  see,   177,    179- 

182. 
Glory  of  Moses'  face,  iii.  187. 
Gnats,  the  plague  of,  ii.  276-278. 
God,  the  names  of,  in  the  Old  Testament, 

i.  18-24 ;  of  Abraham,  ii.  206,  etc. 
Gods  of  the  heathen,  the  reality  of  the,  ii. 

246-259 ;    of    Egypt,  judgments    upon 

the,  294,  etc. 
Goshen,  the  land  of,  ii.  14-17. 
Greek  and  Eoman  history,  points  of  con- 
tact between,  and  Jewish,  works  on,  i. 

43. 

Hagar  and  Ishmael,  i.  229-231 ;  cast  out, 
255-257. 

Hamor  and  Dinah,  i.  338,  etc. 

Hand  of  Moses  becomes  leprous,  import 
of  the  sign,  Li.  219,  etc. 

Hands,  the  imposition  of,  iii.  197. 

Haran,  the  position  of,  i.  169. 

Hardening  the  heart  of  Pharaoh,  ii.  229- 
237. 

Heathenism,  birth  of,  117;  the  prodigal 
son,  118  ;  not  destitute  ,of  every  element 
of  tmth,  118,  etc. ;  in  relation  to  worldly 
civilization,  120 ;  in  contrast  with 
Judaism,  127  ;  its  influence  on  Old 
Testament  revelation,  128 ;  birthplace 
of,  128. 

Hebrew,  origin  of  the  name,  i.  167-169. 

Hermon,  great,  i.  146. 

HeroopoHs,  is  it  Eaemses  ?  ii.  369,  etc. 

Heshbon,  iii.  364,  382,  383  ;  the  brook  of, 
i.  146. 

History,  and  prophecy,  i.  9-12  ;  primeval, 

Hittites,  the,  i.  152. 

Hivites,  the,  i.  154. 

Hobab,  ii.  194,  etc.,  iii.  257. 

Holiness,  its  nature,  iii.  109,  etc. 

Holy  Land,  boundaries  of  the,  i.  129,  etc. ; 

adaptation  of,  for  its  peculiar  purpose, 

147. 
Hor,  Mount,  ii.  337,  342. 
Horcb,  ii.  202,  iii.  71,  etc. 


Horites,  the,  i.  154. 

Hormah,  iii.  335,  etc. 

House  of  Israel,  catalogue  of  the,  who 
went  down  into  Egypt,  ii.  4,  etc. ;  emi- 
gration of  into  Egypt,  17,  etc. 

Human  sacrifices,  did  they  exist  among 
the  Israelites  ?  i.  260  ;  common  among 
the  heathen,  267. 

Hur,  who  ?  iii.  51. 

Hycsos,  the,  and  Israel,  ii.  281,  282  ;  ex- 
tracts from  Manetho  respecting,  282- 
286 ;  statements  of  other  ancient 
authors  respecting,  386-389 ;  various 
attempts  to  reconcile  the  statements  of 
the  Pentateuch  and  those  of  profane 
authors  on  the  subject  considered,  389- 
429. 

Idumea,  the  Mountains  of,  ii.  128. 

Incantations,  magical,  did  they  possess 
power  ?  iii.  400,  etc. 

Incarnation  of  God  in  Christ  the  central 
point  of  the  history  of  the  development 
of  mankind,  i.  4 ;  and  the  ultimate  aim 
of  divine  covenant-activity,  7. 

Intercession  of  Abraham  for  Sodom  and 
Gomorrah,  i.  243,  etc. 

Introduction  to  the  study  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, works  on  the,  i.  25-27. 

Isaac,  birth  of,  i.  253 ;  name,  254 ;  wean- 
ing of,  255 ;  offering  up  of,  258-272 ; 
sons  of,  279  ;  visit  to  Gerar,  286,  etc. ; 
fundamental  type  of  the  character  of, 
287,  etc. ;  resemblance  between  the 
events  of  his  life  and  those  of  Abra- 
ham's, 288-290;  his  blessing,  290; 
blesses  Jacob  291,  etc. ;  and  Esau,  299, 
etc. ;  his  death,  305. 

Ishmael,  bom,  i.  229 ;  circumcised,  238, 
etc.,  cast  out,  255,  etc. ;  his  character, 
257,  258. 

Israel,  Jacob,  obtains  the  name  of,  i.  333, 
etc. 

Israel  becomes  a  people  and  a  nation,  ii. 
119,  etc. ;  multiplies  in  Egypt,  and  is 
oppressed,  133,  etc. ;  length  of  their  stay 
in  Egypt,  135-145  ;  condition  in  Egypt, 
156,  etc. ;  classification  of,  165 ;  train- 
ing in  Egypt,  173 ;  worship,  174,  etc. ; 
agitation  among  at  the  time  Moses 
received  his  mission,  223,  etc. ;  Je- 
hovah's first-born,  226,  etc. ;  a  kingdom 
of  priests,  etc.,  iii.  106,  109. 

Issachar,  Jacob's  blessing  on,  ii.  56. 

Jacob,  his  birth  and  disposition,  i.  282; 
Eebekah's  pi-eference  of  him  to  Esau, 
283 ;  obtains  the  birthright,  284 ;  goes 
to  Mesopotamia,  307 ;  his  dream,  307- 
309 ;  sojourn  with  Laban,  311 ;  wives 
and  children,  311-317;  agreement  be- 
tween, and  Laban  —  his  artifice,  319; 
return  to  Canaan,  320,  etc.;  sees  God's 
hosts  and  wrestles  with  the  angel,  324, 
etc. ;  meets  Esau,  335,  etc. ;  in  Sche- 
chem,  338,  etc. :  goes  to  Bethel,  342 ; 
sends  his  sons  into  Egj'pt  for  corn,  371 ; 


INDEX  OF  PEIXCIPAL  MATTERS. 


527 


sends  a  seconil  time,  375 ;  goes  down 
into  Egypt,  ii.  1,  etc.;  why  lie  j^rc- 
sumed  to  bless  Pharaoli,  17 ;  adopts  and 
blesses  Joseph's  sons,  21,  24;  prophetic 
blessing  of  his  sons,  27,  etc. ;  death  and 
burial,  88,  89. 

Jair,  iii.  467,  etc. 

Japhet,  and  Shem,  Noah's  blessing  on,  i. 
106-108. 

Jebusites,  the,  i.  152. 

Jehovah,  not  regarded  by  the  Jews  as  a 
merely  national  deitj',  iii.  106,  etc. 

Jehovah  and  Elohim,  i.  18-24. 

Jethro,  ii.  194 ;  his  visit  to  Moses  in  the 
wilderness,  iii.  52,  etc. 

Jezreel,  the  plain  of,  i.  142. 

Jordan,  the,  i.  132-135 ;  the  plain  of,  135, 
136 ;  highlands  west  of,  140,  etc. ;  east 
of,  145,  etc. 

Joseph,  the  beloved  son  of  Jacob,  i.  347  ; 
his  two  dreams,  348 ;  character,  349 ; 
hated  by  his  lirethren  and  sold  into 
Egypt,  350 ;  his  humiliation,  359,  etc. ; 
his  elevation,  364,  etc. ;  administrative 
reforms  in  Egypt,  369,  etc. ;  treatment 
of  his  brethren,  371-380  ;  reveals  him- 
self to  them,  379  ;  introduces  some  of 
them  to  the  king  of  Egy]3t,  ii.  13;  death, 
89 ;  a  type  of  Christ,  93-96. 

Josephus,  his  Jewish  Antiquities,  various 
editions  of,  i.  36,  37. 

Joshua,  his  name  and  character,  iii.  283, 
etc. 

Judah,  incidents  in  his  family  and  incest 
with  Tamar,  i.  353 ;  his  guarantee  for 
Benjamin's  safety,  376,  etc. ;  Jacob's 
blessing  on,  ii.  35,  etc. 

Judaism,  contrasted  with  heathenism,  i. 
127. 

Judea,  the  highlands  of,  i.  143. 

Justin's  statements  as  to  the  origin  of  the 
Jews,  ii.  388,  etc. 

Kademoth,  iii.  379. 

Kadesh,  the  wilderness  of,  iii.  229,  etc. ; 

rebellion   of  the   people   at,  285,  etc. ; 

second  halt  at,  325,  etc. 
Kadesha,  i.  357. 
Kenites,   Kenizites,    and   Kadmonitcs,  i, 

1.54,  155 ;  iii.  446,  etc. 
Kesitah,  i.  337. 
Kibroth-Taavah,  iii.  243. 
King,  the  new,  of  Egypt,  who  knew  not 

Joseph,  ii.  152. 
Kingdom  of  priests,  Israel  a,  iii.  108. 
KochUu,  the,  ii.  161. 
Korah,  the  rebellion  of,  iii.  293,  etc. 

Laban,  his  conduct  towards  Jacob,  i.  313, 

etc. 
Ladder,  Jacob's,  i.  308. 
Language,  the  one  original,  i.  Ill,  112. 
Last  days,  the,  ii.  31 -.33. 
Law,  preparations  for  the  giving  of  the, 

iii.  1(12,  etc. ;  given  by  angels,  117,  etc. ; 

repetition  and  enforcement  of,  470,  etc. ; 

to  bo  ^vi'itten  on  stones,  473,  etc.  ;  the 

giving  of  at  Sinai  by  Moses,  a  firmly 


established  fact,  independently  of  the 
Pentateuch,  507  ;  written,  608  ;  proofs 
of  its  existence  in  the  times  immedi- 
ately subsequent  to  the  Mosaic  age,  509, 
etc. 

Law,  the,  of  sacrifice,  iii.  191,  etc. 

Legends  of  Gentile  nations,  works  on  the 
resemblance  between  the,  and  the  Bib- 
lical history  of  man,  i.  68  ;  respecting 
the  flood,  103. 

Levi  and  Simeon,  their  treachery  towards 
the  Schechemites,  i.  339 ;  named  in  Ja- 
cob's prophetic  blessing,  ii.  34,  55,  58, 
etc. 

Levites,  the,  inflict  punishment  on  the 
calf-worshippers,  iii.  167,  etc. 

Levitical  priesthood,  the,  iii.  191,  etc. 

Locusts,  the  plague  of,  ii.  283,  286. 

Lot,  goes  with  Abraham  from  Haran,  i. 
208 ;  sepai-ation  from  Abraham,  213, 
214;  carried  away  captive,  215;  pre- 
servation of  when  Sodom  was  destroyed, 
244;  his  moral  and  religious  position, 
244 ;  his  wife,  246,  247 ;  his  daughters, 
247-249. 

Lusting  of  the  people  for  flesh,  iii.  259, 
262-265. 

Machpelah,  i.  273. 

Magic,  ii.  254-259. 

Magicians,  the,  of  Egypt  ii.  258-265. 

Male  children,  the  excess  of  in  Jacob's 
family  for  the  first  generations,  ii.  11, 
etc. 

Mamre,  i.  214,  215. 

Man,  his  creation  and  destiny,  i.  69,  70, 
77,  etc. 

Manasseh,  the  half  tribe  of,  theii'  inherit- 
ance, iii.  466,  etc. 

Mandragora,  or  Mandrakes,  i.  315,  etc. 

Manna,  iii.  25,  etc. ;  various  opinions  re- 
specting it  examined,  27-42 ;  a  homer 
full  of  laid  up  before  the  testimony,  43, 
44. 

Marah,  iii.  9,  etc. ;  16,  etc. ;  the  miracle  at, 
10-13. 

Marriage,  i.  78,  89,  90. 

Marriage  with  a  widow,  i.  356. 

Mazeboth,  i.  309,  etc. 

Mediator,  Moses  the,  of  Israel,  iii.  153 ; 
faithful  in  his  vocation  as  a,  158- 
161. 

Melchisedek,  i.  318  ;  the  import  and  per- 
son of,  220  ;  compared  with  Abraham, 
221-223. 

Moon,  the  brook,  i.  146. 

Messiah,  a  personal,  not  expected  by  the 
patriarchs,  ii.  36,  etc. 

Methusalah,  i.  93. 

Michael,  the  angel,  i.  192. 

Midianites,  the,  i.  351,  etc. ;  ii.  192,  etc.; 
iii.  374;  entrap  Israel,  455,  etc.;  con- 
flict with,  462,  etc. 

]\Iidwivcs,  the  Hebrew,  ii.  155. 

Miracle,  and  prophecy,  ii.  102 ;  not  one 
performed  by  man  in  the  patriarchal 
age,  1 03  ;  Moses  the  first  to  perform  a, 
104,  221. 


528 


INDEX  OF  PRINCIPAL  MATTERS. 


Miriam,  ii.  356,  357;  rebels  against  Moses, 
iii.  271,  275,  etc. ;  her  death,  325. 

Mishna,  the,  38. 

Mishpachoth,  ii.  163, 165,  etc._ 

"  Mixed  multitude,"  the,  which  accom- 
pauied  Israel  from  Egypt,  ii.  338,  etc. 

Moab,  the  field  of,  iii.  363,  etc. 

Moabites,  the,  iii.  372-374. 

Moreh,  i.  209. 

Moriah,  i.  270-273. 

Moses,  his  birth,  education,  and  flight 
from  Egypt,  ii.  181-184 ;  import  of  his 
name,  185-188  ;  trained  in  all  the  wis- 
dom of  the  Egyptians,  188  ;  legendary 
tales  associated  with,  190  ;  conduct  to- 
wards the  offending  Egyptian,  190 ; 
training  of,  by  affliction,  191,  etc. ;  in 
the  house  of  the  Midianitish  priest,  196; 
the  call  of,  198,  etc. ;  conversation  be- 
tween, and  God,  210,  211 ;  the  rod  or 
staff  of,  218,  etc. ;  signs  given  to,  219, 
etc. ;  the  first  worker  of  miracles,  221 ; 
his  reluctance  to  receive  the  Divine 
commission,  220,  etc. ;  first  appearance 
of,  in  Egjipt,  224 ;  occurrence  to,  at  the 
Inn,  237,  etc. ;  first  appearance  of,  be- 
fore Pharaoh,  242,  etc. ;  second,  259  ; 
song  of,  355,  etc. ;  the  holding  up  of  his 
hands  while  Israel  fought  with  Amalok, 
iii.  51,  etc.  ;  intercession  of,  for  his 
guilty  people,  158,  etc.,  169,  etc. ;  his 
burning  zeal,  161,  etc. ;  at  Kadesh,  285, 
etc. ;  asks  to  see  the  glory  of  Jehovah, 
176-182  ;  the  dazzling  splendour  of  his 
face,  187 ;  his  meekness,  tried  at  Cha- 
zeroth,  272,  etc. ;  his  Cushite  wife,  275  ; 
his  unique  prophetic  character,  277,  etc.; 
Korah's  rebellion  against,  293,  etc. ;  his 
sin,  325,  327,  etc. ;  the  prophet  like  unto, 
474,  etc. ;  his  death,  490,  494-502  ;  song 
of,  491 ;  his  view  of  the  promised  land, 
493. 

Mount  of  beatitudes,  i.  141. 

Mountains  of  Palestine,  i.  140-147. 

jSTadab  and  Abihu,  their  sin  and  punish- 
ment, iii.  192-195. 

Name,  the  unutterable,  ii.  213 ;  my,  in 
him,  iii.  174. 

Names,  of  God,  in  the  Old  Testament,  i. 
18-24. 

Names,  occuring  in  the  table  of  nations  in 
Genesis,  how  to  be  taken,  i.  113. 

Naturalism,  wliat  ?  ii.  67,  etc. 

Nature  worship,  did  Judaism  gradually 
evolve  from  'i  i.  259,  etc. ;  in  the  ancient 
world,  ii.  174,  etc. 

Nebo,  mount,  iii.. 365,  etc.,  369,  etc. 

Nefilim,  i.  99, 

Nile,  the,  i.  368-378 ;  the  water  of,  turned 
into  blood,  ii.  269-274. 

Noah,  and  his  sons,  i.  104  ;  the  seven  pre- 
cepts of,  105  ;  his  blessing  and  curse, 
106-108. 

Numbering  of  the  children  of  Israel  at 
Sinai,  iii.  199,  etc. 

Offerings,  of  the  princes  of  Israel,  iii.  207. 


Og,  king  of  Bashan,  his  iron  bedstead,  iii. 

375-378. 
Oil,  the  pouring  out  of,  i.  309. 

Palestine,  the  western  highlands  of,  i.  140, 
etc. ;  the  eastern  highlands  of,  145 ; 
adaptation  of,  for  its  peculiar  purpose, 
147,  etc. ;  former  fertility  of,  150 ;  its 
first  inhabitants,  150-164. 

Paradise,  the  geographical  situation  of,  i. 
71-76. 

Paran,  the  wilderness  of,  i.  257 ;  iii,  217, 
etc.,  222. 

Paschal  meal,  the,  ii.  305-308. 

Passover,  the_,  ii.  288-290;  295-311;  the 
first  memorial  festival  of,  iii.  210-214. 

Patriarchal  age,  the  character  and  import- 
ance of  the,  i.  177,  etc. 

Patriarchs,  the,  strong  inclination  of  the 
minds  of,  towards  Egypt,  ii.  2,  etc. ; 
general  culture  of,  113-115. 

Peleg,  i.  112. 

Pentateuch,  the,  is  the  whole,  from  the 
2")en  of  Moses — Delitzsch's  investiga- 
tions and  conclusions,  i.  56-65 ;  auxili- 
aries for  understanding,  65-68 ;  the 
comiDosition  of,  iii.  502,  etc. ;  portions 
of,  unmistakeably  of  Mosaic  origin, 
511 :  attempts  to  prove  that  the  whole 
is  from  Moses,  examined,  511-515  ;  data 
irreconcilable  with  this  view,  516,  etc. ; 
views  of  Delitzsch,  516,  etc. ;  tvvo  dis- 
tinct currents  running  through,  519, 
520  ;  failure  of  the  process  pursued  by 
Tuch  and  Stahelin,  620,  etc. 

Peor,  mount,  iii.  368,  etc. 

Periods,  in  the  old  covenant  history,  i. 
171,  172. 

Perizzites,  the,  i.  153. 

Pei'sian  history,  i.  42. 

Pharaoh,  meaning  of  the  name,  i.  212 ; 
hardening  the  heart  of,  ii.  229,  etc. ; 
was  his  promise  to  let  Israel  go  condi- 
tional or  unconditional,  316  ;  his  army, 
354,  etc. ;  situation  of  his  palace,  371, 
etc. 

Pharez,  the  biiih  of,  i.  359. 

Phenician  history,  i.  41. 

Phihstines,  the,  their  migrations,  i.  158 ; 
name,  160  ;  descent,  161,  163,  etc. 

Phineas,  iii.  456,  etc.,  460,  461. 

Phylacteries,  origin  of,  ii.  337,  etc. 

Pillar  of  cloud  and  of  fire,  the,  ii.  344- 
354. 

Pillar  of  salt.  Lot's  wife  tamed  into  a,  i. 
247. 

Pison,  the  river,  i.  74. 

Plagues,  the,  inflicted  on  Pharaoh  for 
Abraham's  sake,  i.  212,  213. 

Plagues  of  Egypt,  the,  nature  of,  ii.  265- 
268 ;  time  of  occurrence,  and  duration 
of,  268,  269  ;  the  first,  269-274  ;  second, 
274-276;  third,  276-278;  fourth,  278- 
280;  fifth  and  sixth,  280-283;  seventh, 
eighth,  and  nmth,  283-288  ;  tenth,  289, 
etc.,  312. 

Portion,  the,  which  Jacob  gave  to  Joseph, 
ii.  24,  etc. 


INDEX  OF  PRINCIPAL  MATTERS. 


529 


Potipliar,  i.  360,  361. 

Priesthood,  the  Levitical,  iii.  191,  otc. 

Priestly  character  of  Israel,  iii.  108,  110, 
117. 

Pi'iestly  institute,  the,  of  pre-Mosaic 
times,  i.  112,  113. 

Primeval  history,  i.  56,  etc. 

Primogeuituro,  the  right  of,  i.  284. 

Promise,  the,  of  God  to  Abraham,  i.  20.5- 
208. 

Promises  of  Jehovah,  the,  iii.  139,  etc. 

Prophecy,  its  connection  with  the  deve- 
lopment of  salvation,  i.  7-9  ;  itself  his- 
tory, 9  ;  word-prophecy  and  act-pro- 
jjhecy,  10-12  ;  real,  looks  from  the  pre- 
sent to  the  future,  ii.  52,  etc. ;  its 
nature,  69,  etc. ;  and  miracle,  102 ;  not 
common  in  the  patriarchal  age,  103,  etc. 

Prophesying  of  the  elders  of  Israel,  iii. 
269. 

Prophet,  the,  like  unto  Moses,  iii.  471- 
478. 

Proto-evangelium,  the,  i.  79. 

Psylli,  the,  of  Egypt,  ii.  261,  etc. 

Quails,  iii.  26,  27,  269. 

Eaemses,  the  land  of,  ii.  16,  268-273. 
Raguel,  ii.  194,  etc. ;  his  liouse  a  school  of 

affliction  for  Moses,  196,  etc. 
"  Raimoit,  thy,  waxed  not  old,"  iii.  311, 

etc. 
Rainbow,  the,  i.  105. 
Ras  Es  Sufsafeh,  iii.  71,  etc. 
Rebekah,  i.  279-283. 

Rebellion  of  Israel  at  Kadesh,  iii.  285,  etc. 
Red  Sea,  the,  i.  285 ;  passage  of,  by  the 

Israelites,   ii.    339-342,   352,  357,   etc., 

375,  etc.,  377  ;  limits  of,  365,  etc. ;  the 

point  at  which  Israel  crossed,  375,  etc. 
Register  of  nations  of  Genesis  xi.,  i.  113, 

etc.  ;  historical  credibility  of,  114. 
Rehoboth,  i.  290. 
Rephaim,  the,  i.  153,  etc. 
Rephidim,  iii.  44,  etc. ;  geogi'aphical  sm*- 

vey  of  the  road  to,  01,  etc.,  76,  etc. 
Reuben,  how  spoken  of,  in  Jacob's  bless- 
ing, ii.  31 ;  and  Gad,  their  petition  to 

Moses,  iii.  464. 
Revelation,  its  nature  and  aspects,  i.  16- 

18 ;    cessation   of,    from   the  death  of 

Jacob  till  the  Exodus,  ii.  172,  etc. 
Righteous    nation,    Israel  a, — how?   iii. 

430,  etc. 
Righteousness,   imputed   to   Abraham,  i. 

228. 
River  of  Egypt,  i.  131. 
Rochscer<5,  the  tomb    of,   at   Thebes,   ii. 

153. 
Rod  of  Moses,  the,  ii.  218 ;  turned  into  a 

sei-pent  before  I'haraoh,  259. 
Rods  of  the  twelve  princes  of  Israel,  iii. 

297,  etc. 

Sabbath,  the,  in  the  patriarchal  times,  ii. 

112,  iii.  42,  43. 
Sabbath-breaker  stoned,  iii.  292. 
Sacrifice,  the  institution  of,  i.  89,  90  ;  co- 

VOL.  III. 


venant  made  with  Abraham  by,  227,  etc. ; 
passing  between  the  parts  of  the  victim 
offered  in,  228 ;  discontinued  in  Egypt, 
ii.  176 ;  the  first  national,  208  ;  the  re- 
quest to  Pharaoh  for  permission  to  go 
three  days  into  the  wilderness  to  offer, 
208-210;  the  law  of,  iii.  191,  etc. 
Sacrifices,  human,  did  they  exist  among 
the  Israelites  ?  i.  260  ;  common  among 
the  heathen,  267,  etc. 
Salem,  the    same  as  Jerusalem,  i.  218- 

220. 
Samaritan,  and  LXX.  Versions,  chronolo- 
gical disagreements  of,  i.  94,  95. 
Sanctification  of  the  people  at  Sinai,  iii. 

116. 
Sanctuary,  the,  iii.  146-151,  188,  190. 
Sarah,  the  change  of  her  name,  i.  233 ; 
taken  by  Pharaoh,  211 ;  by  Abimelech, 
250  ;  Abraham's  sister,  251 ;  death,  272, 
273. 
Scribes,  ii.  165. 

Scripture,   holy,  its    distinctive    charac- 
teristics, i.  13  ;  exhibits  marks  of  divine 
and  human  causation,  14 ;  may  become 
the  object  of  inquiry,  15,  16. 
Seed,  the  promised,  i.  178. 
Sefeleli,  the  plain  of,  i.  145. 
Seir,  Mount,  i.  300. 
Serbal,   the  claims   of,   to  be  considered 

Sinai,  examined,  iii.  86,  etc. 
Serpent,  the,  which  tempted  Eve,  i.  79  ; 
Moses'  rod  changed  into  a,  ii.  259,  262, 
etc. ;  the  brazen,  iii.  344-358. 
Serpent -channing  in  Egypt,  ii.  260. 
Serpent-staffs,  ii.  264. 
Serpent-worship,  iii.  349,  etc. 
Sei-pents,  the  Israelites  bitten  by,  iii.  342- 

344. 
Seven,  import  of  the  number,  i.  252. 
Seventy  elders,  the,  iii.  265,  etc. 
Shalem,  i.  337. 
Sharon,  the  plains  of,  i.  144. 
Shechemites,   the  treacherous  criielty  of 

Simeon  and  Levi  towards,  i.  339,  etc. 
Sliem,  the  genealogy  of,  i.  165,  etc. ;  and 

Japhet,  106-108.  " 
Sheol,  patriarchal  views  of,  i.  107-110. 
Shiloh,  the  prophecy  relating  to,  discuss- 
ed, ii.  36-62 ;  reply  to  Hengstenberg's 
objections,  62-88. 
vShcpherds,  an  abomination  to  the  Egyp- 
tians, ii.  13,  etc. 
Shoes,  taking  off  the,  ii.  206. 
Shur,  iii.  14,  etc. 

Signals,  the,  which  regulated  the  break- 
ing up  of  the  camp  of  Israel  in  tho  wil- 
derness, iii.  214,  etc. 
Signs,   the  three    miraculous,    given  to 

Moses,  ii.  217,  etc. 
Sin,  of  Moses,  which  excluded  him  from 

Canaan,  iii.  325,  327,  etc. 
Sin,  the  desert  of,  iii.  21,  etc.,  24,  etc. 
Sinai,  geography  of,  ii.  125-128,  iii.  61- 
78  ;  and  Iloreb,  79  ;  traditions  respect- 
ing, 80,  etc. ;  bounds  set  to.  111,  etc. ; 
tciTific  phenomena  on,  118  ;  manifesta- 
tion of  God  at,  119,  etc. 

9     T 


530 


INDEX  OF  PRINCIPAL  MATTERS. 


Sinaitic,  inscriptions,  iii,  64,  etc. ;  legisla- 
tion, 117,  195  ;  covenant,  140. 

Son  of  God,  the  idea  involved  in  the 
terms,  ii.  226-229. 

Sons  of  God,  the,  of  Genesis  vi.,  various 
views  respecting,  i.  96-101. 

Song  of  Moses,  the,  ii.  355,  etc. 

Spies,  the,  iii.  279,  etc. 

SpoiHng,  the  Egyptians,  ii.  319-334. 

"  Statutes  not  good,"  given  to  Israel,  iii. 
314,  etc. 

Stone,  monuments  of,  i.  309,  etc. 

Stone  knives,  employed  for  sacred  pm"- 
poses,  ii.  239. 

Storehouses  for  com,  Egyptian,  i.  368. 

Succoth,  i.  336. 

Suez,  the  plain  of,  ii.  374,  etc. 

Sychem,  i.  208,  etc.,  337. 

Tabernacle,  the  erection  of  the,  iii.  183. 
Tables  of  stone,  the  second,  provided  for 

the  law,  ii.  182-187. 
Tabor,  Mount,  i.  141. 
Tacitus  quoted  respecting  the  origin  of 

the  Jews,  ii.  387,  388. 
Talmud,  the,  and  various  editions  of,  i. 

37,  38. 
Tamar,  i.  353,  etc. 

Temunah,  the,  of  Jehovah,  iii.  180,  278. 
Ten,  the  number,  its  significance,  ii.  230  ; 

iii.  122,  287. 
"  Ten  words,"  the,  iii.  121. 
Terah,  various  branches  of  the  race  of,  i. 

170,  171 ;  table  of  the  family  of,  201. 
Teraphim,  i.  321,  etc. 
Theocracy,  the,  iii.  104,  etc.,  110,  etc 
Theophanj',  as  a  mode  of  Divine  mani- 
festation, i.  180,  240. 
Thigh,  putting  the  hand  under  the,  1.  275, 

276. 
Thorah,    the,  of  Deuteronomy,  and  the 

central  books  of    the    Pentateuch,  iii. 

510-516. 
Three,   the  number,  its  significance,  iii. 

221,  iii.  122. 
Thunder  and  lightning,  the  plague  of,  ii. 

283,  284-286. 
Tiberias,  the  sea  of,  i.  135. 
Token,  the,  which  God  gave  to  Moses  at 

Horeb,  ii.  217. 
Tongues,  the  confusion  of,  at  Babel,  i. 

108,  110-112. 
Tower  of  Babel,  the  sin  of  the  builders  of 

the,  i.  109. 
Tributary  service,  the,  of  Israel  in  Egypt, 

ii.  152-154. 


Trinity,  the  doctrine  of  the,  not  embraced 
in  the  consciousness  of  the  patriarchs, 
ii.  106,  etc. 

Unity,  of  the  human  race,  works  on  the, 
i.  76,  77 ;  of  languages.  111. 

Universalism  and  particularism  of  salva- 
tion, i.  126. 

Unleavened  loaves,  the  symbolic  import 
of,  ii.  310. 

Ur,  of  the  Chaldees,  i.  167. 

Visions,  common  in  the  patriarchal  age, 
ii.  104. 

"  Visitation,  the  day  of  My,"  iii.  173, 
etc. 

Vow,  Jacob's,  to  give  tithes,  i.  311. 

Wady,  Nasb,  iii.  63  ;  Mokkateb,  63,  etc.  ; 
Feiran,  66,  etc. ;  Aleyat,  67,  etc. ;  Es- 
Sheikh,  68  ;  Er  Eahah,  72  ;  El  Lejah, 
72,  73 ;  Es  Sebaye,  73. 

Water,  Moses  empowered  to  turn  the,  of 
Egypt  into  blood,  ii.  220 ;  of  the  Nile, 
turned  into  blood,  269,  etc. ;  from  the 
rock  of  Horeb,  iii.  47,  etc. 

Water-wheel,  the,  ii.  161. 

Week  of  seven  days,  the  earliest  measure 
of  time,  ii.  112. 

WeU,  Jacob's,  i.  337,  338. 

Widow,  maniage  with  a,  i.  356. 

Wife,  the  Cushite,  of  Moses,  iii.  275. 

Women,  of  Egypt,  i.  361 ;  among  the  pa- 
triarchs, ii.  115. 

Worship,  of  the  pre-Mosaic  period,  ii. 
110-113  ;  of  Israel  in  Egypt,  173 ;  how 
the  Israelitish  forms  of,  may  have  been 
ennobled  by  elements  of  Egyptian  ori- 
gin, 174,  etc. 

Wrath  and  love,  one  dn  Jehovah,  iii.  159, 
etc. 

Wrestling  with  an  Angel,  Jacob's,  i.  328- 
335, 

Zaphnath     Paneah,     Joseph's    Egyptian 

name,  i.  366. 
Zebulon,  the  plain  of,  i.  141. 
Zebiilon,  Jacob's  blessing  on  the  tribe  of, 

ii.  55. 
Zered,  the  brook,  iii.  359,  360. 
Zin,  the  desert  of,  iii.  229,  etc. 
Zipporah,  her  character,  ii.  197,  198,  239  ; 

her  conduct  when  she  circumcised  her 

son,  240 ;  when  sent  back  by  Moses, 

241. 
Zoan,  ii.  14,  15. 


PASSAGES  OF  SCKIPTUKE 

INCIDENTALLY  EXPLAINED  OE  ILLUSTEATED,  NOT  INCLUDED 

IN  THE  EEGISTEE  OF  TEXTS  AT  THE  BEGINNING 

OP  EACH  VOLUME. 


xi.  32, 
XXX  vi.  14, 


xii.  40, 
xviii.  2, 
XX.  23, 
XXV.  29,  38,  . 


iii.  12, 
iii.  15, 
iii.  27,  28, 
xiii.  17  (10), 
xxiv.  20, 


Genesis. 


Exodus. 


Numbers. 


Deuteronomy 


i.  19, 
viii.  3, 
xi.  10, 
xvi.  3, 
xxii.  29, 
XXV.  18, 
xxxiii.  2, 


V.  4-9, 
V.  6, 
xxiv.  2-14, 


i.  17, 
i.  36, 


i.  2.3,  24, 
i.  28, 
ii.  27, 
xix.  24, 


vi.  1, 
xviii.  4, 


Joshua. 


Judges. 


1  Samuel. 


1  Kings. 


2  Kings. 


Page 

Vol.  i.  204 

iii.  339 


135 
241 
194 
333 


205 

169 

144 

51 

49 


iii.  221 
iii.  42 
ii.  160 
ii.  307 
ii.  385 
iii.  50 
iii.  119 


iii.  323,  etc. 

iii.  304 

i.  122,  125 


iii.  330 
iii.  239 


i.  255 
ii.  324 
ii.  177 
iii.  398 


ii.  412 


iii.  346 


1  Chronicles. 


vii.  21, 
xxiii.  11, 


Page 
ii.  178 
ii.  171 


2  Chronicles. 

XXXV.  12,       .  .  .      ii.  299,  etc. 

Psalms. 

xxix.  10,       .            .  i.    84 

Ixxviii.  12,  43,          .  .  ii.  372 

cv.  8-15,                    .  .  i.  213 

cix.  17,          .            .  .  ii.  236 


xliii.  7, 
Ii.  1,  2, 


i.  10, 

XX.  10-26, 

xxi.  32, 


xii.  3, 
xiii.  14, 


v.  25-27, 
ii.  50,  51, 


i.  34, 
iii.  14, 
v.  45,  46, 
xii.  28,  29, 
xiii.  34, 


iii.  23,  24, 
vii.  2.5, 
vii.  53, 
viii.  1.3, 
ix.  12, 
xii.  9, 
xvii.  29, 


Is^uah. 
Ezekiel. 

Hose  A. 

Amos. 
Luke. 
John. 

Acts. 


i.    87 
i.  117 


i.    81 
iii.  313-319 

ii.    87 


i.  328 
iii.  352 


iii.  319-323 
iii.  485 


i.  308 

iii.  ,346-356 

iii.  483 

iii.  414 

ii.  216 


iii.  480 
ii.  190 
iii.  120 
iii.  394 
iii.  408 
iii.  409 
i.  118 


532 


INDEX  OF  PASSAGES. 


1  CORINTHIANfi. 

V.7, 
viii.  5, 
X.4, 

X.  20,  21, 
XV.  28, 

2  Corinthians. 

iii.  11, 
V.  21, 

Gaiatians. 

1.17, 
iii.  17, 
iii.  19, 

• 

Page 
ii.  297 
ii.  249 
iii.  326 
ii.  251 
i.  119 


iii.  187 
iii.  357,  etc. 


iii.  82 
ii.  136 
iii.  120 


Efhesians. 


vi.  12, 


ii.  25 


2  Thessalonians. 


ii.  9, 


Page 
ii.  258 


ii.  8, 

2  Timothy. 

ii.  259 

ii.  2, 
xi.  5, 
xi.  24-26, 
xiii.  2, 

Hebkews. 

iii.  120 
i.    92 

ii.  189 
i.  192 

ii.  15,  16, 

2  Peter. 

iii.  422 

Ver.  9, 

JUDE. 

iii.  497-502 

ii.  6, 

Revelation. 

iii.  388