Skip to main content

Full text of "Theology of the Old Testament"

See other formats 


iiSiiii^^^w 


.tSLVkS\NWt<»t*XW® 


H'ilS  iSl^tHl.'f  LH  L'i  W  LS  LS  LS'  fS  WLN  IS  U"?* 


4 


4L,^3/6s3 


Stom  f^e  £,t6rarg  of 

QSequeaf^e^  fig  ^im  fo 
f^e  Eifirari?  of 

(ptinceton  C^eofogtcdf  ^emtMrg 


T.  and  T.  Clark's  Publications. 


In  Twenty-four  Handsome  8vo  Volumes^  Subscription  Price  ^£6,  6s.  od., 

ante=Niceue  (Kf)rtstian  Hiftrarg^ 

A  COLLECTION  OF  ALL  THE  WOKKS  OF  THE  FATHERS  OF  THE 
CHRISTIAN  CHURCH  PRIOR  TO  THE  COUNCIL  OF  NIC^A. 

EDITED  BY  THE 

REV.  ALEXANDER  ROBERTS,  D.D.,  AND  JAMES  DONALDSON,  LL.D. 


MESSRS.  CLARK  are  now  happy  to  announce  the  completion  of  this  Series. 
It  has  been  received  with  marked  approval  by  all  sections  of  the 
Christian  Church  in  this  country  and  in  the  United  States,  as  supplying  what 
has  long  been  felt  to  be  a  want,  and  also  on  account  of  the  impartiality,  learn- 
ing, and  care  with  which  Editors  and  Translators  have  executed  a  very  difficult 
task. 

The  Publishers  do  not  bind  themselves  to  continue  to  supply  the  Series  at  the 
Subscription  price. 

The  Works  are  arranged  as  follow : — 

FIRST    YEAR. 

APOSTOLIC  FATHERS,  comprising 
Clement's  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians ; 
Polycarp  to  the  Ephesians;  Martyr- 
dom of  Polycarp ;  Epistle  of  IBarnabas ; 
Epistles  of  Ignatius  (longer  and  shorter, 
and  also  the  Syriac  version);  Martyr- 
dom of  Ignatius ;  Epistle  to  Diognetus ; 
Pastor  of  Hermas;  Papias ;  Spurious 
Epistles  of  Ignatius.     In  One  Volume. 

JUSTIN  MARTYR;  ATHENAGORAS. 
In  One  Volume. 

TATIAN;  THEOPHILUS;  THE  CLE- 
mentine  Recognitions.  In  One  Volume. 

CLEMENT  OF  ALEXANDRIA,  Volume 
First,  comprising  ExhorUtion  to  Hea- 
then ;  The  Instructor;  and  a  portion 
of  the  Miscellanies. 

SECOND    YEAR. 

HIPPOLYTUS,  Volume  First;  Refutation 

of  all  Heresies,  and  Fragments  from 

his  Commentaries. 
IREN^US,  Volume  First. 
TERTULLIAN  AGAINST  MARCION. 
CYPRIAN,  Volume  First;  the  Epistles, 

and  some  of  the  Treatises. 

THIRD    YEAR. 

IREN^US  (completion);  HIPPOLYTUS 

(completion);     Fragments    of    Third 

Century.     In  One  Volume. 
ORIGEN :    De   Principiis ;    Letters ;    and 

portion  of  Treatise  against  Celsus. 


CLEMENT  OF  ALEXANDRIA,  Volume 
Second ;  Completion  of  Miscellanies. 

TERTULLIAN,  Volume  First;  To  the 
Martyrs;  Apology;  To  the  Nations, 
etc. 

FOURTH    YEAR. 

CYPRIAN,  Volume  Second  (completion)  ; 

Novatian;  Minucius  Felix;  Fragments. 
METHODIUS;   ALEXANDER  OF  LY- 

copolis;  Peter  of  Alexandria;  Anato- 

lius;    Clement    on    Virginity;     and 

Fragments. 
TERTULLIAN,  Volume  Second. 
APOCRYPHAL  GOSPELS,  ACTS,  AND 

Revelations ;  comprising  all  the  very 

curious  Apocryphal  Writings  of    the 

first  three  Centuries. 

FIFTH    YEAR. 

TERTULLIAN,  Volume  Third  (comple- 
tion). 

CLEMENTINE  HOMILIES;  APOSTO- 
lical  Constitutions.    In  One  Volume. 

ARNOBIUS. 

DIONYSIUS;  GREGORY  THAUMA- 
turgus  ;  Syrian  Fragments.  In  One 
Volume. 

SIXTH    YEAR. 

LACTANTIUS;  Two  Volumes. 

ORIGEN,  Volume  Second  (completion). 
12s.  to  Non-Subscribers. 

EARLY  LITURGIES  AND  REMAIN- 
ing  Fragments.  98.  to  Non-Subscri- 
bers. 


Single  Years  cannot  be  had  separately,  unless  to  complete  sets ;  but  any  Volume 
may  be  had  separately,  price  10s.  6d., — with  the  exception  of  Okigen,  Vol.  II.,  126. ; 
and  the  Early  Liturgies,  9s. 


T.  and  T.  Clark's  Publications. 


MEYER'S 

Commentary  on  the  New  Testament. 

'  Meyer  has  been  long  and  well  known  to  scholars  as  one  of  the  very  ablest  of  the  German 
expositors  of  the  New  Testament.  We  are  not  sure  whether  we  ought  not  to  say  that  he  Is 
unrivalled  as  an  interpreter  of  the  grammatical  and  hlstorica!!  meaning  of  the  sacred 
writers.  The  Publishers  have  now  rendered  another  seasonable  and  important  service  to 
English  students  in  producing  this  translation.'— 6'«an?ta/i. 


Tlie  Subscription  Is  21s.  for  Four  Volumes,  Demy  8vo,  payable  In  advance. 

Each  Volume  will  be  sold  separately  at  {on  an  average)  10s.  Gd.  to  No7i-Subscrlbers. 


CRITICAL  AND    EXEGETICAL 

COMMENTARY  ON  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

By     Dr.      H.     A.     W.     MEYER, 

Oberconsistorialrath,  Hannover. 

In  order  to  secure  perfect  accuracy,  the  Publishers  have  placed  the  whole 
work  under  the  editorial  care  of  Rev.  Dr.  Dickson,  Professor  of  Divinity  in  the 
University  of  Glasgow ;  Rev.  Dr.  Crombie,  Professor  of  Biblical  Criticism,  St. 
Mary's  College,  St.  Andrews;  and  Rev.  Dr.  Stewart,  Professor  of  Biblical 
Criticism,  University  of  Glasgow. 

The  following  are  now  ready : — 

1st  Year — Romans,  Two  Volumes. 
Galatians,  One  Volume. 
St.  John's  Gospel,  Vol.  I. 

2d  Year— St.  John's  Gospel,  Vol.  II. 

Philippians  and  Colossians,  One  Volume. 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,  Vol.  I. 
Corinthians,  Vol.  I. 

8d  Year— Acts  of  the  Apostles,  Vol.  11. 

St.  Matthew's  Gospel,  Two  Vols. 
Corinthians,  Vol.  II. 

4th  Year— Mark  and  Luke,  Two  Vols.,  1st  issue. 

The  series,  as  written  hy  Meyer  himself,  tvill  be  completed  by  the  publication  of 
Ephesians  with  Philemon  in  one  volume.  But  to  this  the  Publishers  propose  to  add 
Thessalonians,  by  Dr.  LUnemann,  in  one  volume,  which  will  complete  four  years' 
Subscription,  or  16  volumes. 

In  addition  to  this,  the  Piiblishers  pi-opose  to  complete  the  Neio  Testament  (with  perhaps 
the  exception  of  Revelation).  Subscribers  need  not,  however,  take  those  volumes  unless  they 
desire  it. 

'I  need  hardly  add  that  the  last  edition  of  the  accurate,  perspicuous,  and  learned  com- 
mentary of  Dr.  Meyer  has  been  most  carefully  consulted  throughout;  and  I  must  again, 
ad  in  the  preface  to  the  Galatians,  avow  my  great  obligations  to  the  acumen  and  scholar- 
ship of  the  learned  editor.' — Bishop  Ellicott  in  Pre/ace  to  his  '  Commentary  on  Ephesians. ' 

'  The  ablest  grammatical  exegete  of  the  age.' — Philip  Schaff,  D.D. 

'  lu  accuracy  of  scholarship  and  freedom  from  prejudice,  he  is  equalled  by  few.'— 
Literary  Chui'ckmnn. 

'  We  have  only  to  repeat  that  it  remains,  of  its  own  kind,  the  very  best  Commentary 
of  the  New  Testament  which  we  possess.'- CAwrcA  Bells. 

'No  exogetical  work  is  on  the  whole  more  valuable,  or  stands  in  higher  public  esteem. 
As  a  critic  he  is  candid  and  cautious;  exact  to  minuteness  in  philology;  a  master  of  the 
grammatical  and  historical  method  of  interpretation.' — Princeton  Rtview. 


T.  and  T.  Clark's  PtLblications. 


CHEAP    RE-ISSUE     OP 

STIER'S  WORDS  OF  THE  LORD  JESUS. 

To  meet  a  very  general  desire  that  this  now  well-known  Work  should  be 
brought  more  within  the  reach  of  all  classes,  both  Clergy  and  Laity,  Messrs. 
Clark  are  now  issuing,  for  a  limited  period,  the  Eicjlit  Volumes,  handsomely 
bound  in  Four^  at  the  Subscription  Price  of 

TWO    GUINEAS. 

As  the  allowance  to  the  Trade  must  necessarily  be  small,  orders  sent  either 
direct  or  through  Booksellers  must  in  every  case  be  accompanied  with  a  Post 
OlEce  Order  for  the  above  amount. 

'  The  whole  work  is  a  treasury  of  thoug:htful  exposition.  Its  measure  of  practical  and 
spiritual  application,  with  exegetical  criticism,  commends  it  to  the  use  of  those  whose  duty 
it  is  to  preach  as  well  as  to  understand  the  Gospel  of  Christ.' — Guardian. 


New  and  Cheap  Edition,  in  Four  Vols.,  demy  8vo,  Subscription  Price  28s., 

THE  LIFE  OF  THE  LORD  JESUS   CHRIST: 

A  Complete  Critical  Examination  of  the  Origin,  Contents,  and  Connection  of 
the  Gospels.  Translated  from  the  German  of  J.  P.  Lange,  D.D.,  Professor 
of  Divinity  in  the  University  of  Bonn.  Edited,  with  additional  Notes,  by 
Marcus  Dods,  D.D. 

'  We  have  arrived  at  a  most  favourable  conclusion  regarding  the  importance  and  ability 
of  this  work — the  former  depending  upon  the  present  condition  of  theological  criticism, 
the  latter  on  the  wide  range  of  the  work  itself;  the  singularly  dispassionate  judgment 
of  the  Author,  as  well  as  his  pious,  reverential,  and  erudite  treatment  of  a  subject  inex- 
pressibly holy.  .  .  .  We  have  great  pleasure  in  recommending  this  work  to  our  readers. 
We  are  convinced  of  its  value  and  enormous  range.' — Irish  Ecclesiastical  Gazette. 


BENGEL'S    GNOMON-CHEAP    EDITION. 

GNOMON    OF   THE    NEW   TESTAMENT. 

By  John  Albert  Bengel.  Now  first  translated  into  English.  With 
Original  Notes,  Explanatory  and  Illustrative.  Edited  by  the  Rev. 
Andrew  R.  Fausset,  M.A.  The  Original  Translation  was  in  Five  Large 
Volumes,  demy  8vo,  averaging  more  than  550  pages  each,  and  the  very 
great  demand  for  this  Edition  has  induced  the  Publishers  to  issue  the 
Five  Volumes  bound  in  Three.,  at  the  Subscription  Price  of 

TWENTY-FOUR    SHILLINGS. 

They  trust  by  this  still  further  to  increase  its  usefulness. 

'It  is  a  work  which  manifests  the  most  intimate  and  profound  knowledge  of  Scripture, 
and  which,  if  we  examine  it  with  care,  will  often  be  found  to  condense  more  matter  into 
a  line  than  can  be  extracted  from  many  pages  of  other  writers.' — Archdeacon  Hare. 

'  In  respect  both  of  its  contents  and  its  tone,  Bengel's  Gnomon  stands  alone.  Even 
among  laymen  there  has  arisen  a  healthy  and  vigorous  desire  for  scriptural  knowledge, 
and  Bengel  has  done  more  than  any  other  man  to  aid  siich  inquirers.  There  is  perhaps 
no  book  every  word  of  which  has  been  so  well  weighed,  or  in  which  a  single  technical 
term  contains  so  often  far-reaching  and  suggestive  views.  .  .  .  The  theoretical  and 
practical  are  as  intimately  connected  as  light  and  heat  in  the  sun's  ray.' — Life  of  Perthes. 


T.  and  T.  Clark's  Ptiblications. 


Just  published,  in  demy  4<o,  Third  Edition,  price  25s., 

BIBLICO-THEOLOGICAL  LEXICON  OF  NEW 
TESTAMENT  GREEK. 

By    HERMANN     CREMER,    D.D., 

PROFESSOR  OF  THEOLOGY   IN  THE   UNIVERSITY  OF  GREIFSWALD. 

TRANSLATED    FROM    THE    GERMAN    OF    THE    SECOND    EDITION 

(WITH  ADDITIONAL  MATTER  AND  CORRECTIONS  BY  THE  AUTHOR) 
By    WILLIAM     URWICK,    M.A. 

'  Dr.  Cremer's  work  is  highly  and  deservedly  esteemed  in  Germany.  It  gives  with 
care  and  thoroughness  a  complete  history,  as  far  as  it  goes,  of  each  word  and  phrase 
that  it  deals  with.  .  .  .  Dr.  Cremer's  explanations  are  most  lucidly  set  out.' — Guardian. 

'It  is  hardly  possible  to  exaggerate  the  value  of  this  work  to  the  student  of  the  Greek 
Testament.  .  .  .  The  translation  is  accurate  and  idiomatic,  and  the  additions  to  the 
later  edition  are  considerable  and  important.' — Church  Bells. 

'  A  valuable  addition  to  the  stores  of  any  theological  library.  ...  It  is  what  it  claims 
to  be,  a  Lexicon,  both  biblical  and  theological,  and  treats  not  only  of  words,  but  of  the 
doctrines  inculcated  by  those  words.' — John  Bull. 

'  We  very  heartily  commend  this  goodly  volume  to  students  of  biblical  literature.' — 
Evangelical  Magazine. 

'We  cannot  find  an  important  word  in  our  Greek  New  Testament  which  is  not 
discussed  with  a  fulness  and  discrimination  which  leaves  nothing  to  be  desired.' — 
Nonconformist. 

'  Cremer's  Lexicon  is,  and  is  long  likely  to  be,  indispensable  to  students  whether  of 
theology  or  of  the  Bible,  and  must  always  bear  witness  to  his  scholarship,  erudition,  and 
diligence.' — Expositor. 

'  A  work  of  immense  erudition.' — Freeman. 

•This  noble  edition  in  quarto  of  Cremer's  Biblico-Theological  Lexicon  quite  super- 
sedes the  translation  of  the  first  edition  of  the  work.  Many  of  the  most  important 
articles  have  been  re-written  and  re-arranged.  .  .  .  We  heartily  congratulate  Mr.  Urwick 
on  the  admirable  manner  in  which  he  has  executed  his  task,  revealing  on  his  part 
adequate  scholarship,  thorough  sympathy,  and  a  fine  choice  of  English  equivalents  and 
definitions.' — British  Quarterly  Review. 

'  As  an  aid  in  our  search,  we  warmly  commend  the  honest  and  laborious  New 
Testament  Lexicon  of  Dr.  Cremer.' — London  Quarterly  Review. 

'The  judiciousness  and  importance  of  Dr.  Cremer's  design  must  be  obvious  to  all 
students  of  the  Ne  w  Testament ;  and  the  execution  of  that  design,  in  our  judgment,  fully 
establishes  and  justifies  the  translator's  encomiums.' — Watchman. 

'A  majestic  volume,  admirably  printed  and  faultlessly  edited,  and  will  win  gratitude 
as  well  as  renown  for  its  learned  and  Christian  Author,  and  prove  a  precious  boon  to 
students  and  preachers  who  covet  exact  and  exhaustive  acquaintance  with  the  literal 
and  theological  teaching  of  the  New  Testament.' — Dickinson's  Theological  Quarterly. 


CLARK'S 


FOEEIGN 


THEOLOGICAL    LIBRARY 


FOURTH   SERIES 
VOL.   XLIV. 


©fljTfi-'£i  ^Ijcclogn  of  tljc  ©llJ  ^c^tamtnt. 


VOL.  I. 


EDINBUEGH: 

T.    &   T.    CLARK,    38    GEORGE    STREET. 

1  8  8  0. 


PRINTED  BY  MORRISON  AND  GIBB, 
FOR 

T.    &    T.    CLARK,     EDINBURGH. 

LONDON,         ....      HAMILTON,  ADAMS,  AND  CO 

DUBLIN ROBERTSON  AND  CO. 

NSW  YORK SCRIBNER  AND  WELFOVD 


THEOLOGY 


THE    OLD    TESTAMENT. 


BY 

Dr.    gust.    Fr.    OEHLER, 

L,VTE  PUOFESSOR   ORDINAKIUS   OF   THEOLOGY   IN  TUBINGEN. 


VOLUME    I. 


TRANSLATED   BY 

ELLEN    D.    SMITH. 


EDINBUEGH: 

T.    &    T.    CLAEK,    38    GEOEGE    STEEET. 

1  880 


EDITOR'S    PREFACE. 


WENTY-EIGIIT  years  ago,  my  father  expressed  in  his 
Prolegomena  zur  Theologie  des  Alten  Testaments  his 
intention  to  publish  a  handbook  of  Old  Testament 
theology.  Although  thenceforth  the  appearance  of  this  work  was 
eagerly  looked  for  on  many  sides,  he  was  not  permitted  to  carry 
out  his  plan,  and  it  would  seem  that  in  the  closing  years  of  his 
life  he  had  almost  given  it  up.  The  numerous  labours  of  his 
vocation,  and  in  particular  his  laborious  double  duty  after  he  was 
called  to  Tubingen  in  the  year  1852,  did  not  leave  him  the  necessary 
leisure ;  and  at  the  same  time  his  conscientiousness  did  not  permit  him 
to  let  the  work  out  of  his  hands  without  the  last  thorough  revision  to 
which  he  had  intended  to  subject  it.  He  published  only  detached 
though  considerable  portions  of  his  Old  Testament  Theology,  mainly  in 
Herzog's  Eealencyklopadie. — Thus  the  present  work  is  certainly  marked 
by  the  defects  of  an  opus  posthumum,  and  with  respect  to  these  must 
claim  the  indulgence  of  critics  ;  but  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  safe  to 
assume  that  a  course  of  lectures  which  was  so  often  delivered  and 
revised  from  the  summer  of  1839  to  the  winter  of  1870-71,  gained 
during  that  long  time  a  thoroughness  and  depth  which  make  it 
worthy  of  publication. — The  points  of  view  which  guided  the  author 
in  the  discussion  of  Old  Testament  theology  now  offered  to  the  reader, 
as  well  as  the  value  of  this  science  in  general,  are  set  forth  in  the 
address  prefixed  to  the  work.  In  reference  to  the  life  and  labours  of 
my  father,  I  point  the  reader  to  the  Worte  der  Evinnerung  an  G. 
Fr.  Oehler,  Tubingen  1872,  and  the  numerous  obituary  notices  (e.g. 
in  Luthardt's  Kirchenzeitung  of  March  8 ;  in  the  Neue  evangelische 
Kirchenzeitung  of  June  8,  1872,  etc.)  ;  and  in  particular,  to  the  most 
complete  of  these, by  Diakonus  J.  Knapp,  in  theWiirttemberg  Kirchen- 


VI  EDITOR'S  PREFACE. 

imd  Sc/iulblatt,  from  September  1872  onwards  (not  yet  completed). 
It  only  remains  for  me  to  speak  shortly  of  my  own  work  as  editor. 

My  father's  manuscript,  which  was  never  fully  written  out,  was 
on  this  account  rather  difficult  to  read ;  still,  by  the  help  of  a  number 
of  students'  note-books,  it  was  possible  to  put  into  shape  the  text  of 
the  paragraphs,  and  to  make  this  part  very  exact.  The  contents  of  a 
large  part  of  the  notes  on  the  paragraphs  were  only  indicated  in  the 
manuscript  by  a  few  words,  and  the  author  when  delivering  them  was 
accustomed  to  allow  himself  considerable  freedom.  As,  moreover,  the 
delivery  of  this  matter  was  quicker,  the  note-books  on  which  I  was 
thrown  did  not  always  give  me  these  notes  in  the  best  form.  As  far 
as  was  possible,  they  were  adopted  in  their  latest  form,  but  not  seldom 
older  note-books  had  to  be  consulted.  Another  part  of  the  notes 
attached  to  the  introduction  to  the  work  is  taken  from  the  above- 
named  Prolegomena,  and  in  the  rest  of  the  book  many  notes  are 
derived  from  the  numerous  w^ell-known  articles  of  the  author  in  Her- 
zog's  RealencyUopadie ;  some  from  Schmid's  pddagogische  Encyklo- 
pddie,  mainly  from  the  article,  "  Padagogik  des  Alten  Testaments." 
The  heads  of  these  articles  were  in  many  instances  embodied  in  the 
manuscript,  and  then  the  explanatory  details  which  were  given  in  the 
lectures  were  put  in  brackets.  Often,  too,  if  there  was  an  article  on 
the  subject,  the  author  expressed  himself  more  briefly,  and  referred  to 
the  details  to  be  found  there.  Thus  I  was  compelled  to  make  exten- 
sive use  of  the  articles  for  the  notes,  and  was  enabled  to  remove  in 
this  way  the  inequality  of  treatment  which  the  form  of  the  work 
would  otherwise  have  displayed,  owing  to  the  circumstance  that  the 
author  in  many  parts  of  the  lectures  was  compelled  by  lack  of  time  to 
abstain  from  fully  discussing  the  contents  of  the  paragraphs.  Where 
literal  quotations  have  been  made  from  the  Prolegomena  or  articles, 
this  is  expressly  stated ;  it  was  only  in  rare  cases  that  it  seemed 
desirable  to  me  to  insert  single  sentences  from  those  articles,  even  in 
the  paragraphs  themselves,  and  this  I  have  generally  done  within 
brackets. 

This  volume  contains  about  two-thirds  of  the  whole  work.  I  have 
also  already  begun  to  work  on  the  second  volume  (Prophecy  and 
Chochma).  A  complete  register  of  names,  matters  treated,  and  quota- 
tions, will  be  given  when  the  work  is  completed. 


EDITOR'S  PREFACE.  vii 

My  father  wished  above  all  things  that  the  result  of  his  lectures 
miglit  be  to  produce  in  his  hearers  an  impression  of  the  holy  greatness 
of  the  Old  Testament,  which,  as  he  assured  them,  had  at  one  time 
affected  himself  in  an  overpowering  way ;  and  an  impression  of  the 
grand  connection  of  both  Testaments,  which  appeared  to  him  to  be 
their  strongest  apology  against  objections  drawn  from  many  undeniable 
stumblingblocks,  due  to  the  servile  form  of  revelation.  He  was  there- 
fore wont  to  address  the  request  to  his  hearers,  that  whatever  side,  pro 
or  contra,  some  might  have  already  taken,  all  would  approach  the  Old 
Testament  with  that  desire  for  truth  which  is  concerned  only  to  under- 
stand the  subject,  and  so  gladly  accepts  every  extension  of  knowledge. 
May  this  work,  under  the  blessing  of  God,  be  thus  received,  and  pro- 
duce such  results  among  many  who,  after  the  author's  death,  still 
trust  themselves  to  his  well-tried  guidance  in  their  study  of  the  Old 
Testament. 

Hermann  Oehler, 
Librarian  to  the  Evangelical  Seminary. 

Tubingen,  Juhj  1873. 


The  first  volume  of  the  German  original  (Tubingen,  1873),  to 
which  the  Editor  s  Preface  properly  applies,  contains  the  Introduction 
and  the  whole  discussion  of  Mosaism.  The  volume  now  offered  to  the 
public  does  not  go  quite  so  far,  about  one-fourth  of  the  theology  of 
Mosaism  being  reserved  for  the  second  part  of  the  translation.  I  have 
only  to  add  that  a  few  notes,  consisting  almost  exclusively  of  references 
to  literature  subsequent  in  date  to  the  late  Professor  Oehler's  last 
revision  of  his  lectures,  have  been  added  by  my  brother,  Prof.  W.  R. 
Smith  of  Aberdeen,  who  kindly  read  my  MS.  before  it  went  to  press. 
These  notes  are  generally  distinguished  by  being  enclosed  in  a  brace 
{thus]- , 

E.  D.  Smith. 


CONTENTS. 


Opening  Words  at  the  last  Delivery  of  the  Lectures,  October  21, 

1870, .1 

INTRODUCTION. 

I.  Notion  of  Old  Testament  Theology,       .....  7 

II.  Fuller  Statement  of  the  Scientific  Standpoint  of   Old   Testament 

Theology,      ........  20 

III.  The  History  of  the  Cultivation  of  Old  Testament  Theology  in  the 

Christian  Church,      .......  33 

lY.  Method  of  Biblical  Theology.     Division  of  Old  Testament  Theology,  .  C5 


PART  I.— MOSAISM. 

First  Section:  The  History  of  Revelation  from  the  Creation  to  the 
Settlement  of  the  Covenant  People  in  the  Holy  Land. 

I.  The  Olden  Times, .72 

II.  The  Second  Age  of  the  World, ......  81 

III.  The  Time  of  the  Three  Patriarchs,         .....  87 

IV.  Fourth  Age,  the  Time  of  Moses  and  Joshua,    ....  98 

1.  The  Deliverance  of  Israel  from  Egyptian  Bondage,  .  .  98 

2.  The  Conclusion  of  the  Covenant  of  the  Law,  and  the  ^larch 

through  the  Wilderness,  .  .  .  .  •         106 

3.  The  Settlement  of  Israel  in  the  Holy  Land,         .  .  .119 


Second  Section  :  The  Doctrines  and  Ordinances  of  Mosaism 

First  Division :  The  Doctrine  of  God,  and  His  Relation  to  the  World, 
First  Chapter  :  The  Mosaic  Idea  of  God, .... 

I.  The  most  General  Designations  of  the  Divine  Being,  El,  Eloali 

Elohim,  El-eljon,  ..... 

II.  El-shaddai,  ...... 


126 
126 

128 
132 


CONTENTS. 


PAGB 

III.  The  Name  Jehovah,  ......         134 

IV.  God  as  the  Holy  One,         ......         154 

Second  Chapter  :  The  Relation  of  God  to  the  World,      .            .            .  1C8 
First  Doctrine :  On  the  Creation  and  Maintenance  of  the  "World — 

I.  On  the  Creation,  .......  1C9 

II.  On  the  Maintenance  of  the  World,           ....  173 

Second  Doctrine :  The  Divine  Aim  of  the  World.    Divine  Providence,  175 

Third  Doctrine  :  Of  the  Revelation,      .....  180 

I.  On  the  Revelation-side  of  the  Divine  Essence,    .             .             .  181 
II.  The  Forms  of  Revelation,            .            .            .            .            .187 

Second  Division :  Tlie  Doctrine  of  Man,        .....  210 

First  Chapter  :  The  Nature  of  Man  in  its  Main  Unchangeable  Features — 

I.  The  Idea  of  Man,    .......  210 

II.  Sexual  Relations  of  Man,  ......  213 

III.  The  Elements  of  Human  Nature,    .....  21G 

Second  Chapter  :  The  Doctrine  of  Man  in  reference  to  the  Contradictory 
Elements  which  entered  by  Sin  into  its  Development — 
I.  The  Primitive  State  of  Man,  .....        227 

II.  Of  Sin— 

1.  The  Origin  of  Sin,       .  .  .  .  .  .229 

2.  The  State  of  Sin,        ......        285 

III.  On  Death  and  the  State  after  Death,         .  .  .  .242 


Third  Division :  The  Covenant  of  God  with  Israel  and  the  Theocracy — 

First  Chapter  :  The  Nature  of  the  Covenant,       ....  254 

First  Doctrine  :  The  Divine  Election,  .....  256 

Second  Doctrine  :  Man's  Obligation,     .....  262 

Third  Doctrine  :  Divine  Retribution,    .....  284 

Second  Chapter :  The  Theocracy,  .....  289 

First  Doctrine  :  The  Theocratic  Organism,  and  the  Ordinances  of  Law 
and  Justice  connected  therewith — 

I.  The  Theocratic  Organization  of  the  People,       .  .  .  291 

1.  TlieLevites,  ......  295 

2.  The  Priesthood,     ......  303 

3.  The  High  Priest,    .  .  .  .  .  312 

TI.  The  Theocratic  Authority — 

1.  The  Legislative  Authority,  ....  318 

2.  The  Judicial  Power,  .....  321 

3.  The  Executive  Power,       .....  328 


CONTENTS. 


ITI.  The  Organization  of  the  Family,  and  the  Legal  Provisions  con 
nected  therewith, 

1.  The  Law  of  Marriage, 

2.  The  Relation  of  Parents  to  Children, 

3.  The  Law  of  Inheritance,  and  Provisions  for  the  Pernia 

nence  of  Families  and  their  Inheritance, 

4.  The  Right  of  the  Servants  in  the  House, 

Second  Doctrine :  The  Mosaic  Cultus,  . 
I.  The  Place  of  Worship,  . 
II.  The  Actions  of  the  Mosaic  Cultus, 

1.  The  Material  of  the  Offerings, 

2.  The  Ritual  of  Sacrifice, 

3.  On  the  Various  Kinds  of  Offerings,  with  reference  to  their 

Purpose, ....... 


331 
333 
342 

345 
353 

367 
374 

888 
397 
409 


OPENING    WORDS 

AT  THE  LAST  DELIVERY  OF  THE  LECTURES, 
OCTOBER  21,  1870. 


ENTLEMEN,  in  resumfntr  our  academic  activity  after  long 
interruption,  we  all  doubtless  feel  emotions  of  mingled 
joy  and  sorrow.  We  thank  God  for  the  deeds  of  deliver- 
ance by  which  He  hath  glorified  Himself  in  our  nation, 
and  for  the  gracious  protection  which  makes  it  possible  for  us  to 
pursue  here  the  works  of  peace  while  the  conflict  still  surges  without ; 
we  trust  that  He  will  bring  forth  judgment  to  victory,  and  from  the 
pangs  of  these  days  bring  forth  for  our  nation  a  felicity  worthy  of 
the  sacrifices  offered.  But,  on  the  other  side,  we  may  not  doubt 
that  the  duration  of  the  serious  crisis  of  history  in  which  we  stand  is 
still  incalculable ;  that  perhaps  it  bears  in  its  lap  many  new  sufferings, 
and  will  yet  add  many  to  the  lamented  sacrifices  which  already  have 
fallen  on  the  altar  of  our  Fatherland.  In  such  critical  moments,  in 
which  man  would  gladly  have  leave  to  ask  a  question  at  fate,  and  in 
lieu  of  tiiis  is  ready  to  cradle  himself  in  sanguine  dreams,  the  Christian 
is  referred  to  the  word  of  God,  as  the  light  by  which  we  ever  learn 
to  read  God's  ways,  as  the  source  from  which  in  all  circumstances 
we  are  to  draw  doctrine  and  counsel,  admonition  and  comfort.  In 
this  blessing,  by  the  divine  word,  the  Old  Testament  has  its  proper 
share,  as  a  prophetic  word  unveiling  the  divine  purposes  and  the  goal 
of  all  God's  ways,  and  displaying  in  every  crisis  of  the  fortunes  of 
nations  the  coming  of  the  God  who  judgeth  and  delivereth  the  world, 
perfecting  His  own  kingdom  ; — as  an  historic  word  holding  up  to 
us  a  mirror  in  which  we  see  the  severity  and  goodness  of  God  in  the 
guiding  of  men  :  His  severity  against  those  who,  revolting  from  Him, 
harden  themselves  in  pride  and  lies;  His  goodness  to  those  who,  in 
repentance  and  humility,  give  Him  honour  and  walk  in  His  paths; — 
VOL.  I.  A 


2  OPENING  WOHDS. 

finally,  as  a  word  of  prayer  which  teaches  us  In  every  case  to  seek 
God's  face,  and  to  seek  help  from  Him.  In  the  course  of  recent 
years  it  has  often  been  said,  especially  in  ecclesiastical  assemblies, 
that  a  special  need  of  the  age  is  a  better  recognition  of  the  importance 
of  the  Old  Testament  for  religious  knowledge  and  life — that  the 
treasures  of  this  book,  so  little  known,  especially  to  so-called  persons 
of  culture,  be  more  fully  laid  open  to  the  body  of  the  Church.  To 
this  end  the  first  requisite  is,  tliat  theologians  shnll  form  a  more 
thorough  acquaintance  with  the  Old  Testament,  especially  that  they 
become  more  familiar  with  it  as  a  whole.  It  is  true  of  every  intel- 
lectual product,  that  it  cannot  be  rightly  esteemed  by  those  who 
concern  themselves  only  with  its  outer  features,  or  with  individual 
frao-ments  of  it ;  and  of  the  Bible  this  is  peculiarly  true.  AVhat  is 
here  unfolded  is  one  great  economy  of  salvation — unum  continuum 
systema,  as  Bengel  puts  it — an  organism  of  divine  deeds  and  testi- 
monies, which,  beginning  in  Genesis  with  the  creation,  advances 
progressively  to  its  completion  in  the  j^erson  and  work  of  Christ,  and 
shall  find  its  close  in  the  new  heaven  and  earth  predicted  in  the 
Apocalypse ;  and  only  in  connection  with  this  whole  can  details  be 
rightly  estimated.  He  who  cannot  apprehend  the  Old  Testament  in 
its  historical  context  may  produce  in  detail  much  that  is  valr.able  and 
worth  knowing,  but  he  lacks  the  right  key  to  its  meaning,  and  there- 
fore true  joy  in  the  study  of  it ;  then  he  easily  stops  short  at  the 
puzzles  which  lie  everywhere  on  the  surface  of  the  Old  Testament, 
and  from  them  he  condemns  the  whole.  Now,  to  introduce  to  orgain'c 
historical  knowledge  of  the  Old  Testament,  is  the  very  business  of  the 
disci})line  to  which  these  lectures  are  to  be  devoted.  We  must  not 
think  it  below  its  dignity  to  serve  the  practical  need  just  indicated ; 
nay,  in  general,  he  is  no  true  theologian  who  leaves  an  open  breach 
between  science  and  life.  But  we  vindicate  for  Old  Testament 
theology  no  small  importance  also  for  science,  especially  for  systematic 
theology.  It  possesses  this  importance  as  a  part  of  biblical  theology, 
since,  in  virtue  of  the  Protestant  principle  of  the  authority  of 
Scripture,  every  question  for  which  the  Protestant  theologian  seeks  an 
answer  leads  back  directly  or  indirectly  to  Scripture,  and  the  historical 
investigation  of  the  divine  revelation  it  contains. 

In  its  development  as  an  independent  science,  biblical  theology  is 


OPENING  WORDS.  3 

one  of  the  most  recent  branches  of  theology.  We  shall  see  by  and 
by  that  tlie  name  and  conception  of  biblical  theology  as  a  special 
historical  science  arose  only  in  the  course  of  last  centuiy,  and  the 
division  of  Old  and  New  Testament  theology  was  made  still  later. 
Older  theologians  did  not  separate  dogmatic  and  biblical  theology, 
and  were  still  further  from  the  idea  of  dividing  Old  and  New  Tes- 
tament theology,  ignoiing  the  gradual  progress  of  revelation,  the 
constant  connection  of  the  revealing  word  with  the  advance  of  the 
revealing  history,  and  treating  the  Old  and  New  Testament  as  a  sort 
of  promptuarium  which  could  be  used  alike  in  all  its  parts — proof- 
texts  for  every  Christian  doctrine  being  brought  together  from  the 
various  parts  of  the  Bible.  We  are  now  far  beyond  such  onesidedness, 
although  some  recent  Old  Testament  theologians  (Hengstenberg) 
still  show  a  tendency  to  confuse  the  two  Testaments  after  the  fashion 
of  the  older  orthodoxy.  On  the  other  hand,  we  are  confronted  in 
recent  times  by  a  view  of  the  Old  Testament  which  entirely  cuts 
loose  the  Old  Testament  religion  from  specific  connection  with  the 
New  Testament,  placing  it  on  one  line  with  the  other  pre-Christian 
religions,  which  also  in  their  own  way  were  a  preparation  for 
Christianity, — a  view  of  the  Old  Testament  which  scarcely  allows  its 
theology  to  claim  a  higher  significance  for  the  theologic  knowledge 
of  the  Christian,  than  could,  for  example,  be  ascribed  to  Homeric 
theology.  This  antipathy  to  the  Old  Testament  in  the  spirit  of 
Marcion  and  Schleiermacher  is  still  prevalent  among  theologians, 
though  far  less  so  than  it  was  twenty  or  thirty  years  ago.  From  this 
point  of  view  the  name  Old  Testament  religion  is  as  far  as  pos- 
sible avoided,  and  Judaism  and  Judish  religion  are  spoken  of  by 
preference,  although  every  one  may  learn  from  history  that  the  Old 
Testament  and  Judaism  are  distinct — that  Judaism  begins  when  the 
Old  Testament  is  about  to  end,  viz.  with  Ezra  and  the  wisdom  of  the 
scribes- founded  by  him.  This  view  consistently  leads  to  the  ignoring 
of  the  specific  character  as  revelation  of  the  New  Testament  also — of 
Christianity.  On  this  point  we  must  not  allow  ourselves  to  be  de- 
ceived. The  relation  of  the  New  Testament  to  the  Old  is  such,  that 
both  stand  or  fall  tocjether.  The  New  Testament  has  no  other  view 
than  that  Old  Testament  law  and  prophecy  form  its  positive  pre- 
supposition.   According  to  the  New  Testament,  God  built  up  Christi- 


4  OPEKINfi  WORDS. 

anity  out  of  other  elements  than  tliose  with  which  modern  destructive 
criticism  is  accustomed  to  calculate.  We  cannot  have  the  redeeming 
God  of  the  new  covenant,  without  the  Creator  and  covenant  God 
preached  in  the  old ;  we  cannot  place  the  Redeemer  out  of  connec- 
tion with  Old  Testament  predictions  which  lie  appeared  to  fulfil. 
No  New  Testament  idea,  indeed,  is  already  fully  set  forth  in  the  Old 
Testament,  but  the  genesis  of  all  the  ideas  of  New  Testament  sal- 
vation lie  in  the  Old  Testament;  and  Schleiermacher  himself  was 
compelled  to  give  a  striking  testimony  to  the  organic  connection  of 
the  two  Testaments,  which  in  principle  he  denies,  when  he  reintro- 
duced into  dogmatic  the  treatment  of  the  work  of  Christ  on  the  type 
of  the  threefold  office.  Against  the  assertion  that,  to  gain  the  true 
sense  of  Scripture,  we  must  put  aside  everything  that  is  Israelitish,  or, 
as  people  say,  everything  that  is  Jewish,  or,  in  Bunsen's  words,  must 
translate  from  Semitic  into  Japhetic,  we  must  teach,  with  Hofmann 
(in  his  Schriftheweis),  that  the  history  contained  in  Scripture  being 
the  history  of  Israel,  is  what  makes  it  Holy  Scripture  ;  for  Israel  is 
the  people  whose  vocation  lies  in  the  history  of  salvation.  'H  a-coTrjpla 
eic  Twv  'lovhaioiv  eaTiv,  says  our  Lord  to  the  woman  of  Samaria.  Not 
to  conceal  God  from  the  world,  but  to  reveal  Him  to  the  world  as 
the  Holy  One  whom  heathenism  knows  not,  is  the  work  for  which 
Israel  was  chosen.  In  Israel  were  implanted  such  living  forces,  that 
only  in  this  people  could  be  born  the  God-man,  the  Redeemer  of  the 
world.  The  whole  national  figure  of  Israel ;  the  election  and  the 
rejection ;  the  curse  that  lies  upon  the  nation,  which  Hitzig  has  com- 
pared to  the  oyster,  which  produces  the  pearl  by  its  own  destruction, 
— all  these  are  revelations  of  God  to  the  world. 

Therefore  Old  Testament  theology  still  retains  its  importance  for 
Christian  dogma,  though  not  in  the  same  way  in  which  the  older 
Protestant  theology  utilized  the  Old  Testament  in  dogmatic.  The 
old  atomistic  system  of  Scripture  proof  must  be  superseded  by  one 
that  shows  that  the  truths  of  salvation  formulated  in  dogmas,  arise 
as  the  result  of  the  whole  historical  process  through  which  Revelation 
has  passed^  The  possibility  of  such  a  Scripture  proof  is  demonstrated 
just  by  biblical  theology,  which  presents  the  Bible  revelation  in  its 
totality  and  in  its  gradual  historical  course,  and  so  displays  the  genesis 
of  the  scriptural  notions  from  which  dogmatic  propositions  are  to  be 


OPENING  WORDS.  5 

coined,  and  the  context  in  which  they  uppear  in  the  divine  economy 
of  salvation.  When  dogmatic  makes  use  of  the  structure  of  biblical 
theology,  this  not  only  serves  continually  to  renew  and  deepen  the 
former  in  regard  to  existing  dogmas ;  but  also  those  biblical  doctrines 
which,  in  the  dogmatic  labours  of  former  centuries,  fell  too  much 
into  the  shade,  will  receive  more  justice.  For  Scripture  is,  as 
Oetinger  has  called  it,  the  store-book  of  the  world,  the  store-book  of 
all  times :  it  offers  to  the  Church  in  every  age  just  such  instruction 
as  it  specially  requires.  Thus,  to  give  a  single  example,  recent  times 
have  directed  to  biblical  eschatology  an  interest  in  which  the  older 
Protestant  theology  had  no  share. 

In  these  remarks  I  think  I  have  brought  forward  the  principal 
points  of  view  by  which  the  importance  of  Old  Testament  theology  is 
to  be  estimated,  and  which  are  my  guides  in  dealing  with  the  Old  Tes- 
tament. Of  the  greatness  and  difficulty  of  the  task,  no  one  can  have  a 
livelier  conviction  than  I  myself.  There  are  good  reasons  why  there 
are  innumerable  monographs  on  isolated  portions  of  biblical  theology, 
but  only  few  discussions  of  the  whole  subject,  and  also  few  separate 
books  on  Old  Testament  theology,  and  that  some  of  these  are  posthu- 
mous. If  these  lectures  awake  in  one  or  other  of  you  an  inclination 
to  labour  at  the  solution  of  this  problem  independently,  not  through 
the  glasses  of  a  theological  system  or  a  critical  school,  but  to  devote 
to  the  Old  Testament  a  thorough  study,  with  a  receptive  sense  of  its 
holy  grandeur,  this  will  be  the  best  lesult  which  I  could  wish  for 
these  lectures.  So,  then,  let  us  begin  the  journey  that  lies  before  us 
witfi  trust  in  God,  that  we  may  pass  through  it  without  disturbance 
to  its  goal,  and,  arrived  thither,  may  thank  Him  for  His  help  in  the 
way. 


INTRODUCTION. 


§  1. 

Summari/. 

The  Introduction  has — 

1,^  To  determine  the  notion  of  the  theology  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  its  relation  to  cognate  biblical  disciplines. 

2.  To   lay   down   the   conception  of   Old   Testament   religion 

presupposed  in  our  statement,  and  the  scientific  standpoint 
of  Old  Testament  theology  which  flows  from  it. 
Thereupon  follows — 

3.  A  general  glance  at  the  history  of  the  discipline,  and 

4.  The  discussion  of  the  method  of   Old  Testament  theology, 

and  its  divisions. 


I.— NOTION  OF  OLD  TESTAMENT  THEOLOGY. 
§  2. 

DEFINITION  OF  OLD  TESTAMENT  THEOLOGY.  ITS  EXTENSION  OVER 
THE  DELINEATION  OF  THE  WHOLE  DISPENSATION  OF  OLD 
TESTAMENT  REVELATION. 

The  theology  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  first  main  division  of 
biblical  theology,  is  the  historico-genetic  delineation  of  the  religion 
contained  in  the  canonical  writings  of  the  Old  Testament. 

As  a  historical  science,  biblical  theology  is  distinguished  from  the 
systematic  statement  of  biblical  doctrine  by  this,  that  while  the 
latter  seeks  out  the  unity  of  divine  saving  truth,  which  flows  from 
the  whole  course  of  revelation,  and  the  sum  of  its  manifestation,  the 
former,  on  the  other  hand,  has  the  task  of  delineating  the  biblical 

7 


8  INTRODUCTION.  [§  2. 

religion  according  to  its  progressive  development,  and  the  multi- 
plicity of  the  forms  in  which  it  appears.  The  theology  of  the 
Old  Testament  has  therefore  to  follow  the  gradual  progress  by 
which  Old  Testament  revelation  advances  to  the  completion  of 
salvation  in  Christ ;  and  it  has  to  bring  into  view  from  all  sides  the 
forms  in  which,  under  the  old  covenant,  the  communion  between 
God  and  man  found  its  expression. 

Now,  since  Old  Testament  revelation  (cf.  §  6)  did  not  present 
itself  simply  as  a  divine  doctrinal  witness  in  words,  but  was  realized 
in  a  connected  line  of  divine  deeds  and  institutions,  and  on  the  basis 
of  these  produced  a  peculiarly  shaped  religious  life ;  and  further,  as 
all  knowledge  due  to  revelation  is  not  given  independently  of  the 
facts  of  the  history  of  salvation  and  the  divinely  instituted  rules  of 
life,  but  developes  itself  in  continual  connection  with  them ;  so  the 
theology  of  the  Old  Testament  cannot  limit  itself  to  the  directly 
didactic  matter  in  the  Old  Testament.  It  has  to  take  up  the  essential 
factors  of  the  history  of  the  divine  kingdom  in  the  old  covenant :  its 
task  is,  in  short,  the  delineation  of  the  whole  dispensation  of  Old 
Testament  revelation  (1). 

Even  on  this  view  of  the  subject  the  name  Old  Testament  theology 
is  still  too  wide  (2),  but  at  least  is  more  suitable  than  other  names 
which  have  been  chosen  for  the  delineation  of  the  Old  Testament 
revelation,  particularly  than  the  term  Old  Testament  Dogmatic  (3). 

(1)  The  conception  of  the  Old  Testament  here  drawn  out  attaches 
to  the  conception  of  biblical  theology  represented  mainly  by  Ch.  Fr. 
Schmid  (in  a  treatise  On  the  Interests  and  Position  of  the  Biblical 
Tlieology  of  the  New  Testament  in  our  Time,  Tiib.  Zeitschr.  f.  Theol. 
1838,  H.  4,  S.  125  ff. ;  and  in  his  well-known  Handbook  of  New 
Testament  Theology).  This  conception  has,  however,  met  with  much 
opposition.  The  common  conception  is,  that  this  discipline  should 
limit  itself  to  the  delineation  of  tlie  specially  didactic  contents  of  both 
Testaments.  But  here  arises  in  the  Old  Testament  the  great  diffi- 
culty, that  this  contains  proportionally  very  little  directly  didactic 
matter.  A  separate  representation  of  Old  Testament  religious  teaching 
is,  to  be  sure,  possible ;  but  if  it  is  not  to  prove  quite  incomplete,  it 
will  not  be  able  to  dispense  with  a  reference  at  all  points  to  the 
history  of  the  covenant  people  and  the  institutions  of  the  theocracy. 
This  has  also  been  urged,  for  instance,  by  Steudel  {yorlesungen  iiber 


§  2.]  DEFINITION  OF  OLD  TESTABIENT  THEOLOGY.  9 

die  Tlieol.  des  A.  7\,  1840),  althouizh  he  limits  our  discipline  to 
the  delineation  of  the  contents  of  Old  Testament  doctrine.  He 
says  with  truth  (p.  18  f.)  :  "  We  should  form  for  ourselves  an  in- 
complete representation  of  the  substance  of  Old  Testament  religion, 
and  of  biblical  religion  in  general,  if  we  looked  upon  it  only  as 
doctrine.  It  is  the  most  definite  facts  which  are  held  before  us  as 
the  source  of  the  growth  of  religious  conceptions  and  religious  life. 
It  was  not  on  the  basis  of  consciousness  that  objective  views  in 
reliiiion  established  themselves.  Consciousness  did  not  create  the 
thing  held  forth  as  fact;  but,  on  the  contrary,  the  consciousness  was 
produced  by  the  facts,  and  often  the  facts  lie  before  us,  from  which 
only  a  later  time  deduced  the  religious  element  which  they  represented 
and  offered  as  their  lesson."  Now,  though  this  is  recognised  by 
biblical  theologians,  it  is  generally  thought  to  be  quite  enough  to  give 
merely  introductory  surveys  of  the  history  of  revelation,  as  has  been 
done  by  Steudel,  and  also  by  Schultz,  in  the  most  recent  Old  Testa- 
ment theology.  But  on  this  plan  it  is  not  possible  to  bring  properly 
to  liiiht  the  internal  connection  of  the  doctrine  of  Kevelation  with 
the  revealing  histoiy — the  continual  progress  of  the  former  in  con- 
nection with  the  latter.  We  include,  therefore,  in  Old  Testament 
theology  the  chief  features  of  the  history  of  the  divine  kingdom  in 
the  old  covenant. 

(2)  Properly  speaking,  all  biblical  sciences,  i.e.  biblical  introduc- 
tion, hermeneutics,  etc.,  should  fall  under  the  name  biblical  theology, 
as  has  been  done  by  Rosenkranz  in  his  EncyclopoBdia  of  Theological 
Science^  and  by  others. 

(3)  The  designation  dogmatic  (which,  for  example,  de  Wette  and 
Rosenkranz  substitute),  or  even  history  of  Old  Testament  dogma,  is 
not  suitable  even  for  the  statement  of  the  doctrinal  contents  of  the 
Old  Testament,  even  if  we  extend  the  notion  of  dogmatic  (s.  Rothe, 
znr  Dogmatik,  p.  11)  to  the  practical  sphere,  in  the  sense  Zo'^fiara, 
Eph.  ii.  15,  Col.  ii.  14.  Dogmas,  the  positive  doctrines  of  faith  and 
life  which  demand  acknowledgment  and  obedience,  are  found  in  the 
Old  Testament,  for  the  most  part  only  in  the  Pentateuch  (as,  for 
example,  that  doubly  sacred  word  :  "  liear,  O  Israel,  Jehovah  our 
God,  Jehovah  is  one  " — Deut.  vi.  4).  The  further  development  of 
religious  knoAvledge,  which  is  found  in  the  prophetic  books,  the 
Psalms,  and  the  monuments  of  the  Chochma,  are  inaccurately  charac- 
terized by  this  expression.  Even  the  prophetic  announcement  of  the 
Messiah  and  His  kingdom,  of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  the 
like,  first  became  dogmatic  propositions — essential  parts  of  religious 
confession — on  the  standpoint  of  the  New  Testament  fulfilment.    Still 


10  INTRODUCTION.  [§  3. 

less  does  that  wrestling  of  the  Israelitish  spirit  with  the  problems  of 
life,  brought  out  in  many  psalms  and  in  the  book  of  Job,  lead  to  a 
dogmatical  conclusion.  Tiie  theology  of  the  Old  Testament  has  to 
handle  as  such  what  is  only  in  germ,  and  of  the  nature  of  presenti- 
ment; it  has  to  show  how  the  Old  Testament,  in  the  narrowness  and 
unfinished  state  which  attaches  in  many  parts  to  its  doctrinal  contents, 
points  from  itself  to  something  higher.  The  Old  Testament  is 
naturally  considered  in  another  way  by  the  later  Judaism.  Judaism 
finds  in  the  Old  Testament  the  completion  of  dogma,  as  Mohammed- 
anism does  in  the  Koran.  Compare  the  enumeration  of  the  thirteen 
fundamental  articles  of  Judaism  in  the  treatise  of  Moses  Mainionides 
On  Tract.  Sanhedrin^  c.  10  (s.  Pococke,  porta  Mosis,  p.  164  ff.). 
They  are  as  follows  :  1.  That  God  is  the  Creator ;  2.  The  unity  of 
God ;  3.  His  incorporeal  nature ;  4.  His  eternity  ;  5.  That  this  God 
is  to  be  honoured  ;  6.  That  there  is  a  prophecy  ;  7.  That  Moses  was 
a  prophet,  and  stood  above  all  prophets;  8.  That  the  law  was  revealed 
from  heaven  ;  9.  That  this  law  shall  not  be  abrogated — lex  perpetua ; 
10.  That  God,  as  omniscient,  knows  all  the  dealings  of  men;  11. 
That  God  is  a  recompenser;  12.  That  the  Messiah  will  come;  13. 
The  resurrection  of  the  dead.  However,  it  is  characteristic  of  the 
Jewish  theology,  that  it  always  takes  pains  to  prove  from  the  Penta- 
teuch even  the  doctrines  primarily  drawn  from  prophecy,  such  as  that 
of  the  Messiah  and  the  resurrection,  in  order  to  lend  to  them  a 
dogmatical  character. 

§3. 

RELATION  OF  OLD  TESTAMENT  THEOLOGY  TO  OTHER  OLD 
TESTAMENT  DISCIPLINES. 

Among  the  other  sciences  that  bear  on  the  Old  Testament,  what  is 
called  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament,  or  the  history  of  the  Old 
Testament  writings,  falls  quite  outside  of  the  sphere  of  Old  Testa- 
ment theology  ;  both  stand,  moreover,  in  a  relation  of  mutual  de- 
jiendence  on  each  other,  in  virtue  of  which  the  criticism  of  the  Old 
Testament  writings  has  also  to  have  respect  to  the  results  of  Old 
Testament  theology  (1).  On  the  other  hand.  Old  Testament  theo- 
logy has  a  part  of  its  contents  in  common  with  biblical  arch?eology, 
which  has  to  represent  the  whole  natural  and  social  condition  of  the 
old  Israelitish  people ;  for,  in  fact,  all  the  important  relations  of  life 
in  Israel  are  religiously  laid  down,  and  belong  essentially  to  the  mani- 


§3.]         RELATION  OF  0.  T.  THEOLOGY  TO  OTHER  0.  T.  DISCIPLINES.  11 

festation  of  Old  Testament  religion,  because  the  stamp  of  tlie  com- 
nmnion  of  the  people  with  the  holy  covenant  God  was  to  be  imprinted 
upon  them.  Still,  even  such  common  constituents  in  the  above- 
mentioned  disciplines  will  demand  in  each  case  a  treatment  differing 
not  merely  in  fulness,  but  in  some  measure  also  in  point  of  form. 
With  regard  to  the  ordinances  of  worship,  the  theology  of  the  Old 
Testament  has  to  represent  these  in  as  far  as  the  communion  of  God 
and  the  people  is  carried  out  in  them,  and  they  consequently  present 
a  system  of  religious  symbols.  On  the  contrary,  the  discussion  of 
all  purely  technical  questions  is  to  be  left  over  to  archaeology  (2). 

Finally,  as  to  the  relation  of  Old  Testament  theology  to  the 
Israelitish  history,  the  former  has  certainly  to  represent  the  chief 
features  in  the  facts  of  revelation  which  form  the  historical  ground 
of  Old  Testament  religion,  and  in  the  divine  leading  of  Israel,  but 
always  does  so  only  as  this  history  lived  in  the  spirit  of  the  organs 
of  revelation,  and  was  the  object  of  religious  faith.  It  is  bound  to 
reproduce  faithfully,  and  without  admixture  of  modern  ways  of 
looking  at  history,  the  very  view  which  the  Holy  Scriptures  give  of 
the  design  of  salvation  which  is  carried  out  in  Israel.  The  history  of 
Israel  has,  on  the  other  hand,  not  only  to  represent  the  historical 
development  of  the  people  of  Israel  on  all  sides,  even  in  purely 
worldly  respects, — and  in  connection  with  this,  particularly  to  enter 
upon  chronological  and  such  like  questions, — but  to  sift  and  vindicate, 
by  historico-critical  research,  the  real  historical  facts  which  the  theo- 
logy of  the  Old  Testament  reproduces  as  the  contents  of  faith  (3). 

(1)  The  prevalent  manner  of  treatment  places  biblical  theology 
in  an  entirely  onesided  dependent  relationship  to  the  criticism  of  the 
biblical  writings.  This  process  is  represented,  for  instance,  by  Kothe 
{2ur  Dogmatik,  p.  304  ff.)  as  follows :  "  In  order  to  expiscate  the  actual 
facts  of  revelation  from  the  Bible,  the  theologian  ought  beforehand,  by 
critical  methods,  to  make  the  Bible  'available'  for  his  purpose.  For 
only  when  he  has  completed  his  investigation  of  the  circumstances  of 
the  origin  of  the  biblical  books,  and  has  tested  on  this  basis  their 
value  as  historical  sources,  can  he  win  from  them,  by  correct  interpre- 
tation, the  true  reflection  of  revelation."  There  would  be  nothing  to 
object  against  this  proposition  of  Rothe,  were  it  not  that  the  position 
towards  the  contents  of  the  records  of  revelation,  which  the  critic 
takes  up  beforehand,  in  many  respects  determines  for  him  the  way  in 


12  INTRODUCTION  [§  3. 

which  he  conceives  of  the  origin  of  the  biblical  books.  A  critic 
shapes  for  himself  a  notion  of  revelation  which  is  far  from  harmonious 
with  the  biblical  one,  and  devises  a  scheme  of  elements,  operative 
factors  in  the  sacred  history,  which  the  history  itself  does  not  acknow- 
ledge ;  and  from  these  presuppositions  he  must  naturally  judge  of  the 
time  when  these  books  originated,  and  of  other  things,  quite  differently 
from  what  they  themselves  lay  down.  For  the  rest,  Rotlie  does  not 
himself  claim  for  the  critic  an  absolute  want  of  preconceived  notions, 
when  lie  says,  p.  309:  "The  one  important  point  here  is,  that  to  us 
revelation  is  iu  itself,  apart  from  the  Bible,  actually  a  reality.  He 
before  whose  eyes — just  by  means  of  the  Bible  as  its  record — revela- 
tion stands,  in  all  its  living  majesty,  as  a  powerful  historical  fact, — he 
can  exercise  with  good  heart  the  most  stringent  and  impartial  criticism 
on  the  Holy  Scriptures — he  takes  up  towards  it  a  free  position  of 
faith,  without  any  anxiety  whatever." 

On  the  point "  that  revelation  in  itself,  without  respect  to  the  Bible, 
is  something  real,"  there  can  be  no  strife.  The  Bible  is  not  revela- 
tion itself ;  it  is  the  record  of  revelation.  Just  as  little  do  we  oppose 
the  opinion,  that  he  to  whom  the  reality  of  the  revelation  is  made 
certain  by  means  of  the  Bible  as  its  record,  takes  up  towards  the 
Scriptures  "  a  free  position  of  faith."  But  now,  if  it  is  only  through 
the  Bible  that  the  theologian  receives  that  impression  of  the  majesty 
of  revelation  as  a  powerful  historical  fact,  it  should  rather  be  ex- 
pected of  him  that,  before  he  criticises  the  Bible,  he  should  first 
surrender  himself  to  its  contents  without  preconceived  opinion, — let 
the  revelation  in  its  majesty  work  directly  upon  him,  in  order,  as 
Rothe  (p.  329)  strikingly  expresses  it,  "  to  make  it  a  constant  factor 
in  the  experiences  of  his  personal  life."  He  who  has  won  in  this  way 
the  conviction  that  Holy  Scripture  is  the  truly  witnessing  record  of 
the  divine  council  of  salvation,  and  of  the  historical  facts  which  serve 
to  its  realization,  and  that  in  it  is  contained  the  word  of  God  which 
is  the  means  to  the  appropriation  of  salvation  by  each, — him  the 
joyful  self-consciousness  of  his  faith  in  revelation  will  certainly 
forbid  to  surrender  himself  to  traditions  of  man  about  Holy  Scrip- 
ture, whether  these  originate  with  the  Jewish  scribes,  or  with  the 
old  Church,  or  with  our  older  Protestant  theology, — whatever  the 
respect  which  he  may  feel  due  to  them ;  but  he  will  certainly  as 
little  surrender  himself  to  a  criticism  in  which  we  can  everywhere 
mark  that  it  has  not  for  its  basis  that  self-consciousness  praised 
by  Rothe.  He  knows  then  that  a  criticism,  with  whose  results 
that  meaning  of  the  Bible  is  incompatible,  cannot  have  found  the 
truth,  because  it  fails  to  explain  that  which  the  Bible  in  the  Church 


§3.]         RELATION  OF  0.  T.  THEOLOGY  TO  OTHER  0.  T.  DISCIPLINES.  13 

has  proved  itself  to  be,  and  so  leaves  unsolved  the  very  problem  of 
liistorical  criticism — the  explanation  of  the  actual  state  of  the  facts. 
He  simply  makes  the  counter-calculation,  What  sort  of  a  Bible  would 
come  out  of  the  factors  with  which  that  criticism  reckons?  Would  it 
be  a  Bible  which  presents  to  us  this  grand  course  of  development  of 
revelation,  this  grand  system  of  facts  and  witnesses  in  word?  which, 
moreover,  finds  its  proof  in  men's  hearts,  as  the  Bible  has  done  for 
two  thousand  years?  Especially  in  regard  to  the  Old  Testament 
the  believer  in  revelation  recognises  it  as  his  task,  before  all  things, 
to  follow  the  gradual  path  of  development  presented  therein,  and  at 
the  same  time  to  value  the  continuous  connection  in  which  the  Old 
Testament  Scriptures  stand  to  the  ever-advancing  revelation.  In 
this  respect  it  is  inexplicable,  when,  for  example,  Schultz  in  his  new 
Theology  of  the  Old  Testament,  which  contains  so  much  excellent 
matter,  on  the  one  hand  sets  Moses  so  high  as  an  organ  of  revelation, 
but  will  permit  this  man,  who  lived  in  a  time  in  which,  as  shown  by 
the  Egyptian  antiquities,  writing  was  quite  a  familiar  art,  to  write 
absolutely  only  a  few  very  scanty  scraps.  We  must  not  forget  that 
the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  stand  in  such  essential  connection  with 
the  history  of  the  revelation,  that  the  ful filler  of  Old  Testament 
revelation  could  at  the  same  time  represent  himself  as  fulfiller  of  Old 
Testament  Scripture. 

As  regards  the  mutual  relations  between  Introduction  and  Old 
Testament  theology,  it  will  often  be  shown  in  the  course  of  the 
delineation  of  Old  Testament  theology  how  the  Old  Testament,  in 
reference  to  its  didactic  contents,  does  by  no  means  represent  a  uniform 
whole,  how  it  contains  a  regular  progression  even  of  religious  know- 
ledge. Moreover,  it  is  not  merely  the  general  view  which  we  have  of 
the  gradual  scale  of  Old  Testament  revelation  which  influences  the 
determination  of  the  position  wdiich  is  due  to  any  one  book  in  the  whole 
of  the  Old  Testament,  but  the  criticism  of  the  Old  Testament  has 
also  to  fix  its  eyes  on  the  path  of  development  of  the  separate  doctrines 
of  the  Old  Testament.  Now,  for  example,  how  can  a  genetic  de- 
lineation of  the  Old  Testament  doctrine  of  the  nature  and  attributes 
of  God,  of  angelology,  and  of  the  doctrine  of  the  condition  of  man 
after  death,  etc.,  be  reached  from  the  presupposition  that  the  Penta- 
teuch is  a  comparatively  recent  pi'oduction?  We  shall  see  how 
manifestly  in  many  cases  the  Pentateuch  contains  that  which  forms 
the  basis  for  the  development  of  the  didactic  matter  in  Prophecy 
and  Chochma.  This  is  a  feature  which  the  criticism  of  the  Old 
Testament  books,  as  a  rule,  either  completely  overlooks  or  handles  in 
the  most  superficial  manner.     It  gives,  to  be  sure,  no  proof  that  the 


14  INTRODUCTION.  [§  3. 

Pentateuch  in  its  present  form  is  a  production  of  Moses;  but  it  does 
show  the  relative  age  of  the  Pentateuch,  even  in  its  construction,  as 
compared  with  the  proplietic  books.  -[The  importance  of  the  liistory 
of  religious  ideas  for  Old  Testament  criticism  is  specially  urged  by 
Kuenen,  Theol.  TijJschrift,  vol.  iv.  p.  391  f.} 

(2)  The  notion  of  archseology  is,  as  is  well  known,  variously  de- 
fined in  every  province  where  a  science  of  this  name  appears ;  so  we 
also  find  biblical  archteoiogy  taken  up  sometimes  in  a  wider,  some- 
times in  a  narrower  sense.  If,  with  Hupfeld  {On  the  NoLion  and 
Method  of  so-called  Biblical  Introduction,  p.  8),  its  compass  is  so  widely 
extended  that  it  must  embrace  the  whole  knowledge  of  Bible  lands 
and  people, — that  is,  the  geography,  history,  customs,  and  regulations 
of  domestic,  civil,  and  cliurch  life  of  the  nations  which  act  or  appear  in 
the  Bible, — the  largest  part  of  its  material  falls,  of  course,  quite  outside 
of  Old  Testament  theology.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  its  task  is  limited 
to  the  delineation  of  the  peculiar  conditions,  natural  ami  social,  of 
the  people  of  Israel,  in  as  far  as  that  nation  is  the  stage  of  the  biblical 
religion  (so  de  Wette,  Lehrhiich  der  Iiebr.  jild.  Arch.  §  1  and  2),  or 
more  shortly  expressed  (with  Keil,  Handb.  der  hibl.  Arch.  §  1),  to 
represent  the  shape  taken  by  the  life  of  Israel  as  the  people  elected 
as  the  bearers  of  revelation, — if  this  is  so,  it  must  have  a  considerable 
portion  of  its  contents  in  common  with  Old  Testament  theology,  as  all 
the  more  notable  relations  and  situations  of  Israel's  life  are  religiously 
laid  down.  Still  the  two  disciplines  will  not  completely  harmonize  in 
any  of  their  constituents.  Much  which  is  essential  in  bringing  to 
view  the  natural  and  social  condition  of  the  people  does  not  belong  to 
the  manifestation  of  religion  as  such,  and  therefore  forms  no  consti- 
tutive feature  of  religious  life,  but  belongs  only  to  its  presuppositions. 
Thus,  for  example,  the  religious  position  of  the  Israelites  in  the  world, 
the  whole  character  of  their  religious  institutions  which  presuppose  an 
agrarian  life,  particularly  the  regulations  of  festivals  and  of  offerings, 
stand  in  close  connection  with  the  natural  constitution  of  Canaan. 
But  the  natural  relations  of  the  land,  as  a  thing  merely  presupposetl 
for  the  religious  life  of  the  people,  are  not  to  be  described  in  biblical 
theology,  but  in  archasulogy,  and  the  former  has  only  to  refer  to  them 
briefly.  Thus,  too,  in  matters  of  worship  we  have  not  to  do  with  the 
activity  of  ancient  Israel  in  art  and  trade,  on  which  the  forms  of 
worship  are  naturally  based  in  many  ways,  but  to  leave  that  to 
archgeology,  which  has  to  represent  these  developments  independently 
of  their  religious  bearings. 

(3)  In  reference  to  the  relation  of  Old  Testament  theology  to  the 
history  of  Israel,  I  agree  with  Schmid  (comp.  §  ii.  1),  and  differ  most 


§  3.]        nELATION  OF  0.  T.  THEOLOGY  TO  OTHER  0.  T    DISCIPLINES.  15 

from  the  general  conception.     Old  Testament  history  contains  a  series 
of  facts  which  form  a  basis  for  Old  Testament  religion.     If  we  think 
away  Israel's  exodus   from  Egypt,  and   the  giving  of   the  law  from 
Sinai,  Old  Testament  religion  hovers  in  the  air.     Such  facts  ought 
just  as  little  to  be  separated  from  Old   Testament  religion,  as  the 
historical    facts    of    Christ's    person    should    be    from    Christianity. 
Hence  Old  Testament  theology  has  to  absorb   the  chief  features  of 
the  history  of  the  divine  kingdom,  inasmuch  as  it  ought  to  present 
Old  Testament  religion  not  only  as  doctrine,  but  in  the  completeness 
of   its    manifestation.     But  because   it  ought   to   report   what   men 
believed  in  the  Old  Testament,  in  which  faith  they  lived  and  died,  it 
has  to  represent  the  history  as  Israel  believed  it.      As  it  cannot  be 
our  task  in  an  Old  Testament  theology  to  harmonize  the  Old  Testa- 
ment history  of  creation  and  other  tilings  of  this  kind  with  the  pro- 
positions of  the   newer  physical  sciences,  we  have,  in  the  statement 
of  the  histoiy  of  revelation,  only  to  reproduce  the  view  which  Holy 
Scripture    itself    has,   and   accordingly  have    absolutely    nothing   to 
do  with  such  things  as  ethnological  and  geographical  research.      We 
thus   conceive  the   relation  of  the  theology  of    the    Old   Testament 
to   the  Israelitish  history,  in  a  similar  way  to  that  in  which   C.  F. 
Nagelsbach,  in  his  praiseworthy  and  well-known  work,  has  defined  the 
relationship  of  the  Homeric  theology  to  mythology,  when  he  states,  as 
the  object  of  the  former  (Preface  to  first  edition  of  the  Uomerische  Theol. 
p.  vi.  ed.  2,  p.  xiv.),  "  the  knowledge  which  Homer's  people  had  of  the 
Deity,  and  the  effects  produced  by  this  knowledge  in  life  and  faith," 
and  defines,  on  the  other  hand,  as  the  work  of  the  mythologist,  "  the 
criticism  and  deciphering  of  the  historical  development  of  mythological 
representations."     That  Old  Testament  theology  has,  as  its  critical 
sister  science,  a  history,  while  Homeric  theology  has  oidy  a  mytliologij, 
depends  on  the  different  character  of  the  two  religions.     Here,  indeed, 
there  must  be  stiife  between  those  who — and  I  avow  myself  to  belong 
to  this  party — acknowledge  as  such  that  which  the  Old  Testament 
religion    lays  down   as   facts,   and   are  consequently  convinced  that 
the   thing  believed  was  also  a  thing  which  happened  ;  and  between 
those   who    see   in  the  contents  of   Old   Testament  faiih   mainly  a 
production  of  religious  imaginative  conception,  whose  historical  basis 
can    be    revealed    only   through    a    critical    process    which    rests  on 
rationalistic  presuppositions.     The  latter  party,  who  despise  the  key 
offered  by  the  Old  Testament  itself  for  the  comprehension   of  its 
history,  have  been  so  fortunate  in  their  attempts  at  explanation,  as 
to  have  turned  the  providential  leading  of  Israel  into  a  dark  riddle. 
(Ilosenkranz,  in  his  biography  of  Hegel,  p.  49,  communicates  to  us 


16  INTRODUCTION.  [§  4. 

that  the  Jewish  history  repelled  him  (Hegel)  just  as  violently  as  it 
captivated  him,  and  troubled  him  like  a  dark  riddle  all  his  life.)  But 
even  he  who  in  this  connection  occupies  the  historico-critical  stand- 
point, should  acknowledge  the  problem  of  endeavouring  to  get  at  the 
point  of  view  of  the  Bible  itself  in  its  purity,  without  admixture  of 
modern  views.  But  in  the  common  treatment  of  the  theology  of  the 
Old  Testament  we  find  a  peculiar  fluctuation,  where  it  is  acknow- 
ledo-ed  that  the  Old  Testament  religion  rests  on  facts ;  but  then,  what 
these  facts  are,  is  stated  as  indefinitely  as  possible.  On  the  other 
hand,  no  criticism  has  as  yet  weakened  the  judgment  which  Herder 
(in  his  12th  letter  on  the  study  of  theology — das  Stadium  der  Tkeulorjie 
heir.)  passes  on  the  history  of  the  Old  Testament :  "  A  thing  of  that 
kind  cannot  be  invented ;  such  history,  with  all  that  depends  on  it,  and 
all  that  is  connected  with  it, — in  short,  such  a  people  cannot  be  a 
fiction.  Its  yet  uncompleted  providential  guidance  is  the  greatest 
poem  of  the  ages,  and  reaches  on  probably  (we  say  certainly,  on  the 
ground  of  Rom.  xi.  25  ff.)  to  the  development  of  the  great  nodus  of 
all  the  nations  of  the  world,  which  is  as  yet  untouched." 


§4. 

THE  LIMITATION  OF  OLD  TESTAMENT  THEOLOGY  TO  THE  CANONICAL 
BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

The  theology  of  the  Old  Testament  has,  for  the  notion  laid  down 
in  §  2,  to  limit  itself  to  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  canon  as 
established  by  the  scribes  in  Palestine,  and  acknowledged  by  the 
Protestant  Church,  thus  excluding  the  Apocrypha.  For  the  canonical 
writings  alone  are  a  monument  of  the  history  of  revelation,  and  a 
genuine  production  of  the  spirit  which  ruled  as  life-principle  in  the 
Old  Testament  economy.  After  the  declarations  of  Christ  in  Luke 
xxiv.  44,  Matt.  xi.  13,  etc.,  and  from  the  whole  apostolic  doctrine, 
there  can  be  no  doubt  about  the  limits  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  of  the 
old  covenant  (1).  Looking  from  the  biblical  standpoint,  a  specific 
difference  must  be  made  between  the  law,  which  steps  forward  with 
divine  authority,  and  the  ordinances  which  spin  it  out  further  and 
fence  it  round, — between  the  prophecy  which  knows  itself  to  be  the 
organ  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  and  the  scribes  in  their  collective  capacity, 
who  lean  only  on  human  reputation,  since,  even  for  the  highly  cele- 
brated Ezra,  who  stands  at  the  head  of  the  latter,  the  value  of  an 


§  4.]        LIMITATION  OF  0.  T.  THEOLOGY  TO  THE  CANONICAL  BOOKS.  17 

organ  of  revelation  was  claimed  (2).  The  difference  between  the 
Hagiographa  and  their  cognate  Apocrypha  might  more  readily  appear 
incapable  of  precise  determination  (as  also  the  composition  of  some  of 
the  Hagiographa  falls  later  than  the  epoch  which  is  marked  by  the 
silence  of  prophecy).  Yet  even  in  the  better  apocryphal  books  it  is 
impossible  to  ignore  a  lack  of  the  depth  of  meaning  that  is  found 
in  the  Old  Testament,  and  in  many  cases  an  admixture  of  foreign 
elements  (3).  At  all  events,  as  soon  as  the  theology  of  the  Old 
Testament  goes  beyond  the  canonical  books,  there  is  a  want  of  a  firm 
principle  on  which  to  fix  its  limits  (4). 

(1)  In  most  statements  of  Old  Testament  theology  the  so-called 
Apocrypha  are  included  (Schultz,  i.  p.  18  f.,  excludes  them).     In 
this  way  the  significance  of  the  Old  Testament  canon  is  mistaken. 
We  take  the  following  lemmata  from  the  Introduction  to  the  Old 
Testament  (compare  my  article,  "Kanon   des  A.  T.,"  in  Herzog's 
Theol.  Healencyklop.  vii.  p.  244  ff.).     The  Hebrew  writings  in  the 
Old  Testament  form  one  corpus,  which  falls  into  three  parts:   1.  "T^i^, 
the  Pentateuch ;  2.  2"'^5''33,  including  (a)  ti''y\^^'-\_^  prophetce  anterioo^eSj 
the  historical  books  from  Joshua  to  Kings, — {h)  CJiinx,  proplietoi 
posteriores^  the  three  greater  and  the  twelve  lesser  prophets  ;  3.  C^inSj 
Hagiographa.     From  this  comes  the  joint  title  of  the  Hebrew  Bible, 
D'-mna")  n^X''a3  min.     With  the  books  contained  in  the  Hebrew  Bible 
are  united,  in  the  Alexandrian  translation,  a  number  of  writings  of 
later  origin,  and  thus  a  more  extensive  collection  of  Old  Testament 
writings  has  been   formed.     In  the  question,  what  value  is  due  to 
the  writings  added  in  the  Greek  Bible,  in  comparison  with  those  in 
the  Hebrew  collection,  the  dispute  has  been  chiefly  as  to  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  Old  Testament  canon  in  the  Christian  Church.     The 
Catholic  Church    sanctioned  as  canonical  in  the    Tridentinum  the 
books  which  are  added  in  the  Septuagint,  called  in  the  old  Church 
Anagignoskomena  or  ecclesiastical  lessons  (wherefore  a  theology  of  the 
Old  Testament  drawn  up  from  the  standpoint  of  the  Romish  Church 
must  of  necessity  take  up  along  with  it  the  theology  of  these  books). 
But  the  Protestant  Churcli,  following  the  example  of  Hieronymus, 
gives  the  Anagignoskomena  of  the  Romish  Church  the   not  quite 
suitable  name  Apocrypha,  and  rejects  them.     That  the  canon  of  the 
Evangelical    Church  is  that    of    the   Judaism    of    Palestine   is   not 
disputed.     As  certainly  must  it  be  maintained,  that  the  canon  of  the 
Judaism  of  Palestine,  as  established  in  the  last  century  before  Christ, 
and  then  re-sanctioned  after  passing  fluctuation  at  the  Synedrium  in 

VOL.  I.  B 


18  "  ICTRODUCTION.  [§  4. 

Jamnia  towards  the  end  of  the  first  century  of  our  era,  or  a  few  years 
later,  did  not,  as  has  been  maintained,  rest  upon  an  interest  of  simply 
literary  nature,  viz.  to  unite  all  the  remains  of  Hebrew  writings  which 
were  still  to  be  had ;  for  then  it  would  be  inconceivable  why  the  book 
of  the  Son  of  Sirach,  which  existed  long  in  the  original  Hebrew  text, 
was  not  incorporated  in  it.     The  point  in  question  in  the  collection  of 
Old  Testament  writings  was  rather,  as  Josephus  distinctly  says  in  the 
well-known  passage  on  the  canon  (c.  Ap.  i.  8),  about  the  BtKaico'i  6ela 
'TreTnarevixeva  ^i^Xla.     In  the  same  passage  Josephus  limits  the  Old 
Testament  canon  to  the  time  of  Artaxerxes,  because  from  that  time 
forward  an  exact  succession  of  prophets  is  wanting.     It  may  be  said 
that  this  is  a  capricious  limitation  of  the  Palestinian  scribes,  and  it 
has  lately  become  the  fashion  (Ewald,  Dillmann,  Noeldeke)  to  efface 
this  difference  between  canonical  and  non-canonical  Scriptures.     But 
if  we  look  into  the  New  Testament,  no  doubt  can  remain  where  the 
word  of  the  old  and  new  covenant  is  connected  ;  since,  in  fact  (com- 
pare Matt.  xi.  13  f.),  the  New  Testament  history  of  revelation  loops 
immediately  on  to  the  conclusion    of   Old  Testament  prophecy  in 
Malachi. — A  sharp  controversy  on  the  Apocrypha  was  carried  on 
during  the  sixth  decade  of  this  century  among  the  German  theologians, 
for  which,  in  especial,  the  prize  essay  prescribed  by  the  Baden  Council 
for  Home  Mission  gave  the  signal.      From  the  copious  literature 
of  this  controversy  are  to  be  mentioned : — Against  the  Apocrypha, 
besides    the  smaller  writings  of  Joh.   Schiller,  Kluge,  and  others, 
which  are  more  in  a  popular  style,  the  writings  of  Ph.  Fr.  Keerl, 
which  enter  thoroughly  on  all  disputed  points  (The  Apocrypha  of  tlie 
Old  Testament^  crowned  prize  essay,  1852 ;   The   Word  of  God  and 
the  Apocrypha  of  the  Old  Testament,  1853 ;  Epistles  to  the  Friends  of 
the  pure   Word  of  God,  1854 ;  and  lastly,  the  most  important.   The 
Apocrypha  Question  newly  Illuminated.^  1855)  ;  next  to  these.  Wild's 
paper.  There  is  an  Accursed  Thing  in  thee,  Israel,  etc.,  1854. — On  the 
opposite  side  :  Stiei*,  The  Apocrypha,  the  Defence  of  its  ancient  Annexa- 
tion to   the  Bible,   1853 ;    the    discussion   of    Hengstenberg   in    the 
Evangelische  Kirchenzeitung,  1853,  Nr.  54  ff.,  and  1854,  Nr.  29ff. ; 
further,  Bleek's  essay  on  "  The  Position  of  the  Apocrypha  of  the  Old 
Testament  in  the  Christian  Canon"  {Studien  und  Kritiken,  1853,  ii.). 
On  both  sides  weighty  arguments  were  brought  forward  side  by  side 
with  many  exaggerations,  in  which  polemic  zeal  finds  utterance.     The 
conclusion  is,  that  that  word  of  the  Old  Testament,  which  is  so  often 
brought  forward  in  the  New  Testament  as  a  fulfilled  word,  is  found 
merely  in  the  writings  of  the  Hebrew  canon  ;  that  even  if  we  admit 
it  as  possible  that  there  are  allusions  to  passages  out  of  the  book  of 


§  4]       LIMITATION  OF  0.  T.  THEOLOGY  TO  THE  CANONICAL  BOOKS.  19 

the  Son  of  Siracli  and  the  book  of  Wisdom  contained  in  some  of  the 
apostolic  letters,  particularly  in  the  Epistle  of  James,  "  yet  there  is 
never  more  than  a  simple  allusion,  and  never  an  exact  quotation,"  as 
even  Stier,  who  is  particularly  zealous  in  searching  out  such  corre- 
spondences (Z.  c.  p.  12),  has  candidly  avowed. 

(2)  With  Graf  {The  Historical  Books  of  the  Old  Testament, 
1866),  the  criticism  of  the  Pentateuch  has  taken  this  turn,  that  many, 
declaring  the  legislation  of  Deuteronomy  to  be  older  than  the  law  in 
the  middle  books,  think  the  Pentateuch  to  have  reached  its  final 
shape  only  in  the  time  of  Ezra  by  the  labours  of  a  supplementing 
editor ;  but  it  is  historically  certain  that,  in  the  time  after  the  exile, 
the  Pentateuch  was  regarded  as  an  inviolable  whole,  because  of 
which  the  fencing  in  (3^p)  of  the  Pentateuch  then  begins  in  those 
ordinances  to  which  our  Lord  assumes  an  attitude  quite  different 
from  His  relation  to  the  v6/xo<;. 

(3)  This  concerns  mainly  that  celebrated  book  of  the  Son  of 
Sirach,  which,  to  bring  forward  only  one  point,  takes  over  the 
Pentateuchal  doctrine  of  retribution  in  the  extremest  shape,  amount- 
ing to  repugnant  Eudsemonism,  without  any  introduction  of  the 
features  through  which  the  Old  Testament  itself  breaks  through  the 
externalism  of  the  doctrine  of  retribution.  (See  my  remarks  on  the 
theological  character  of  the  book  in  the  article,  "  Pjedagogik  des 
A.  T.,"  in  Schmid's  pcedagog.  Encyhlop.  v.  p.  694  f.).  The  same 
thing  is  true  of  the  book  of  Wisdom,  the  most  beautiful  and  ex- 
cellent of  the  books  of  the  Apocrypha,  in  virtue  of  the  way  in  which 
ideas  of  the  Greek  philosophy  are  here  bound  up  with  Old  Testament 
doctrine,  without  any  organic  union  of  these  elements  being  reached. 
A  tendency  to  syncretism  is  altogether  characteristic  of  the  later 
Jewish  theology  ;  whereas,  in  the  development  of  the  Old  Testament 
religion  carried  out  in  the  canonical  writings,  the  Old  Testament 
principles  have  enough  of  energy  to  subdue  and  assimilate  the 
strange  elements  which  are  taken  up, — a  judgment  which  can  be 
verified  especially  in  the  traditions  of  Genesis  and  the  institutions  of 
the  Mosaic  cultus,  but  which  can  also  be  clearly  justified  in  reference 
to  doctrines  of  the  later  books,  such  as  the  doctrine  of  Satan  and  the 
Angels,  if,  as  is  the  custom,  we  assume  in  these  cases  the  presence  of 
extraneous  influence. 

(4)  No  settled  doctrinal  types  are  found  in  the  Old  Testament 
Apocrypha ;  and  a  thorough  statement  of  the  system  of  the  book  of 
Wisdom  leads  over  into  the  discussion  of  Jewish  Alexandrinism. 
But  if  the  historical  influence  which  the  forms  of  post-canonical 
Judaism  exercised  on  the  development  of  Christian  teaching   were 


20  INTRODUCTION.  [§  5. 

taken  as  our  rule,  we  should  have  to  take  up,  along  with  the  history 
of  the  Jewish  Alexandrian  philosophy  of  religion,  the  not  less 
interesting  and  weighty  history  of  the  Jewish  Apocalyptic,  with  its 
products,  the  book  of  Enoch,  the  fourth  book  of  Ezra,  and  the 
Psalter  of  Solomon  ;  and  besides  this,  the  Jewish  religious  sects,  and 
the  pieces  of  older  rabbinic  theology  handed  down  in  the  older 
Targums  and  Midraschiin,  as  well  as  in  the  Mishna,  etc.,  would  fall  to 
be  represented,  as  is  done  in  the  text-books  of  De  Wette  and  von 
Colin.  Instead  of  burdening  the  Old  Testament  with  such  ballast,  it 
will  be  more  proper  to  refer  the  delineation  of  post-canonical  Judaism 
to  a  special  theological  discipline,  which  Schneckenburger  (in  the 
lectures  published  by  Loehlein,  1862)  sketches  under  the  name  of 
the  History  of  the  Times  of  the  New  Testament.  (Since  Schnecken- 
burger, the  same  subject  has  been  treated  by  several  writers  —  by 
Holtzmann,  Hausrath,  and  finally  by  Schiirer,  Lehrbuch  der  Neutesta- 
mentlichen  Zeitgeschichte,  Leipzig  1874.} 


II.— FULLER  STATEMENT  OF  THE  SCIENTIFIC  STANDPOINT 
OF  OLD  TESTAMENT  THEOLOGY. 

§5. 

THE  VIEW  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  RELIGION  PROPER  TO 
CHPJSTIAN  THEOLOGY. 

The  Christian  theological  standpoint  for  the  theology  of  the  Old 
Testament  is  already  expressed  in  its  name,  by  virtue  of  which  it  does 
not  treat  its  subject  as  Jewish  religion,  but  as  the  divine  revelation 
of  the  old  covenant,  which  on  the  one  side  stands  to  all  heathen 
religion  in  an  opposition  of  principle,  and  on  the  other  side  forms  the 
preliminary  stage  to  the  revelation  of  the  new  covenant,  which  is 
with  it  comprehended  in  one  divine  economy  of  salvation  (1).  Since 
the  notion  of  Old  Testament  revelation  itself  finds  its  exact  discus- 
sion within  Old  Testament  theology  (comp.  §  55  ff.),  only  the  more 
general  propositions  are  here  to  be  advanced. 

(1)  That  view  of  the  Old  Testament  which  now  chiefly  presents 
itself  with  the  claim  that  it  desires  to  understand  the  Old  Testament 
historically,  and  yet  at  the  same  time  to  be  just  to  its  religious  value, 


§  5.]     VIEW  OF  THE  0.  T.  RELIGION  PROPER  TO  CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY.     21 

amounts  essentially  to  this  :  that  Israel,  by  virtue  of  a  certain  religious 
genius  rooted  in  the  peculiarities  of  the  nature  of  the  Semitic  stem, 
was  happier  in  the  pursuit  of  true  religion  than  other  nations  of 
antiquity,  and  soared  higher  than  the  rest  towards  the  purest  divine 
thoughts  and  endeavours.  As  the  Greeks  were  the  people  of  art  and 
philosophy,  and  the  Romans  were  the  people  of  law,  to  the  old  world, 
even  so  did  the  religious  people  kut  e^o')(rjv  arise  by  natural  growth 
from  the  Semitic  stem.  Whilst  it  pleased  the  earlier  rationalists  to 
draw  down  the  contents  of  the  Old  Testament  as  much  as  possible 
to  things  of  little  value,  and  then  to  condemn  the  whole  as  Jewish 
popular  delusion,  this  newer  view,  whose  principal  representative  is 
Ewald,  yields  full  recognition  to  the  depth  of  thought  and  moral 
loftiness  of  the  Old  Testament ;  indeed,  it  finds  there  already,  more 
or  less  distinctly  expressed,  the  eternal  truths  which  Christianity 
thereafter  placed  in  full  light. 

Yet,  althouMi  individual  contributions  made  to  the  matter  of 
Old  Testament  theology  from  this  standpoint  have  very  great  value, 
the  Old  Testament  can  never  be  historically  understood  in  this  way. 
Does  even  one  single  leaf  of  the  Old  Testament  agree  with  this 
view,  by  which  Israel  is  represented  as  a  people  of  such  genius  in  the 
production  of  religious  thoughts,  and  the  Old  Testament  religion  as  a 
natural  growth  of  the  spirit  of  Israel  ?  The  Bible  only  recognises 
the  decided  opposition  in  which  the  Old  Testament  religion  stood 
from  the  very  beginning  to  all  that  Israel  had  sought  and  found  in 
the  path  of  nature.  Altogether  does  this  view  fail  to  recognise  the 
weight  of  that  divine  pedagogic  expressed  in  the  words,  Isa.  xliii. 
24 :  "  Thou  hast  made  me  labour  with  thy  sins,  thou  hast  wearied 
me  with  thine  iniquities."  In  Jer.  ii.  10  f.  we  find  Israel's  position 
towards  revelation  pointed  out  very  characteristically.  When  it  says 
there,  "  Pass  over  the  isles  of  Chittim,  and  see  ;  and  send  unto 
Kedar,  and  consider  diligently,  and  see  if  there  be  such  a  thing: 
Hath  a  nation  changed  their  gods,  which  are  yet  no  gods  ?  but  my 
people  have  changed  their  glory  for  that  which  doth  not  profit,"  this 
fact  becomes  intelligible,  if  we  remember  that  the  gods  of  the  heathens 
were  a  production  of  the  natural  national  mind,  but  not  so  the  God  of 
Israel.  And  therefore  the  heathen  nations  do  not  exchange  their  gods, 
— as  long,  that  is,  as  such  a  heathen  principle  of  religion  has  power  to 
develope  organically  ;  but  Israel  required  to  exercise  on  itself  a  certain 
compulsion  to  raise  itself  to  the  sphere  of  spiritual  Jehovah-worship, 
and  grasps,  therefore,  at  the  gods  of  the  heathen, — syncretism,  in 
fact,  being  characteristic  of  Israel,  in  as  far  as  it  is  not  subject  to  the 
revelation. 


22  INTRODUCTION.  [§  & 

The  whole  Old  Testament  remains  a  sealed  book,  if  we  shut  our 
eyes  to  the  knowledge  that  the  subduing  of  the  natural  character  of 
the  people  is  the  aim  of  the  whole  divine  pedagogic  ;  and  because  of 
this,  the  wliole  providential  guidance  of  the  nation  moves  in  a  dualism. 
•{This  section  does  not  characterize  the  views  of  Ewald  and  his 
scholars  quite  accurately.  Ewald's  theory  of  revelation  is  most  fully 
found  in  the  first  vol.  of  his  recent  Lehre  der  Bihel  von  Gott,  Leipzig 
1871.     See  also  Dillmann,  Ursprwig  der  A.Tlichen  Religion,  Giessen 


§6. 

THE  BIBLICAL  NOTION  OF  REVELATION. — I.   GENERAL  AND 
SPECIAL  REVELATION. 

The  biblical  notion  of  revelation  is  rooted  in  the  notion  of  Creation. 
Revelation  is  just  the  development  of  the  relation  in  which  God 
placed  Himself  to  the  world  in  bringing  it  into  existence.  Whilst 
the  world  is  called  into  existence  by  God's  word,  and  is  animated  by 
His  Spirit,  the  principles  of  revelation  are  already  fixed.  The  pro- 
duction of  different  classes  of  beings  advances  teleologically,  and 
reaches  its  goal  only  when  God  has  created  man  in  His  own  image. 
In  this  progression  the  foundation  of  revelation  is  laid.  For  revela- 
tion is,  in  general,  just  God's  own  testimony  and  communication  of 
Himself  to  the  world  for  the  realization  of  the  end  implanted  in  the 
universe  at  its  creation,  and  directed  to  the  establishment  of  perfected 
communion  of  life  of  man  with  God.  After  the  tearing  asunder  of 
the  bond  of  the  original  communion  of  man  with  God  through  sin, 
God  testifies,  partly  in  nature  and  historical  guidance  of  mankind, 
and  partly  in  each  one's  conscience,  of  His  power,  goodness,  and 
justice,  and  thus  draws  man  to  seek  God ;  comp.  how  even  the  Old 
Testament  points  to  this  witness  of  God,  which  is  perceptible  even  to 
the  heathen,  Isa.  xl.  21-26 ;  Jer.  x. ;  Ps.  xix.  2  ff.,  xciv.  8-10  (1). 
The  outer  and  inner  forms  of  this  general  revelation  stand  in  a  con- 
tinual relation  of  reciprocity,  as  man's  inward  experience  of  the  divine 
testimony  awakens  through  the  objective  outward  witness  of  God  ; 
but  this  outward  witness  is  first  understood  by  the  inward  (s.  Acts 
xvii.  28,  in  its  relation  to  ver.  27).  Yet  the  personal  communion  in 
life  of  man  with  God,  as  demanded  by  the  ideal  constitution  of  man, 


§  C]  THE  BIBLICAL  NOTION  OF  REVELATION.  23 

is  not  won  again  through  this  general  revelation.  The  living  God 
remains  to  the  natural  man,  in  all  his  searchings,  a  hidden  God 
(comp.  Isa.  xlv.  15  ;  Jer.  xxiii.  18 ;  John  i.  18).  The  knowledge  of 
His  atBto<;  hvvaixi^  koI  deiorrj-i  does  not  yet  lead  to  the  knowledo;e  of 
the  true  living  God,  nor  the  knowledge  that  we  are  bound  to  Him  in 
conscience  to  personal  communion  in  life  with  Him.  Indeed,  conscience 
itself  testifies  to  man  of  his  separation  from  God,  and  that  he  has 
disowned  the  reality  of  God  testified  to  him  in  nature  and  history ; 
and  because  of  this,  the  Old  Testament  calls  the  heathen  such  as  forn-et 
God,  Ps.  ix.  18  (2).  Only  by  God's  stooping  to  man  in  personal 
testimony  to  Himself,  and  objective  presentation  of  Himself,  is  actual 
communion  in  life  established  between  Him  and  man.  This  is  the 
special  revelation  (3),  which  first  appears  in  the  form  of  the  founding 
of  a  covenant  between  God  and  a  chosen  race,  and  the  founding  of  a 
kingdom  of  God  among  the  latter,  which  reaches  its  climax  in  the 
manifestation  of  God  in  the  flesh,  advances  from  this  point  to  the 
gathering  of  a  people  of  God  in  all  nations,  and  is  completed  in  the 
formation  of  a  new  heaven  and  a  new  earth  (Isa.  Ixv.  17,  Ixvi.  22  ; 
Rev.  xxi.  1  ff.),  where  God  shall  be  all  in  all  (1  Cor.  xv.  28).  The 
relation  between  general  and  special  revelation  is  such,  that  the 
former  is  the  continual  basis  of  the  latter,  the  latter  the  aim  and 
completion  of  the  former,  as,  according  to  the  Old  Testament  view, 
the  covenant  in  the  theocracy  has  its  presupposition  in  the  worldwide 
covenant  with  Noah.  As  in  nature  each  realm  has  its  own  laws,  and 
yet  again  the  separate  realms  stand  in  inseparable  connection,  since 
they  reciprocally  condition  each  other, — the  lower  steps  always  form- 
ing a  basis  for  the  higher,  and  the  higher  a  corroboration  and  com- 
pletion of  the  lower, — even  so  the  general  and  special  revelation,  the 
order  of  nature  and  salvation  in  the  system  of  the  world,  are  knit 
together  in  organic  unity,  as,  according  to  the  doctrine  of  the  New 
Testament,  the  Logos  is  the  Mediator  of  both  (4). 

(1)  What  we  call  the  physico-theological,  the  moral  evidence  of 
God's  existence,  etc.,  is  already  several  times  indicated  in  the  Old 
Testament  in  a  popular  form  ;  it  comes  up  in  the  polemic  of  prophecy 
against  heathenism.  Comp.  Isa.  xl.  21-26:  "Do  ye  not  know?  do 
ye  not  hear?  hath  it  not  been  told  you  from  the  beginning?  have  ye 
no  understanding  of  the  founding  of  the  earth  ?  He  that  sits  en- 
throned over  the  circle  of  the  earth  .  .  .  that  stretcheth  out  the  heavens 


24  INTnODUCTION.  [§  6. 

as  a  curtain  .  .  .  that  bringcth  the  princes  to  nothing,  and  maketh  the 
judges  of  the  earth  hke  a  waste,"  etc.  Ver.  26  points  to  the  starry  sky. 
Jer.  X.  brings  to  mind  the  God  who  rules  and  lives  in  the  universe. 
Ps.  xix.  2  ff.  shows  specially  how  God  has  revealed  His  splendour  and 
order-establishing  sway  in  the  sun  and  its  course.  Ps.  xciv.  9  makes 
this  conclusion  :  "  He  who  plants  the  ear,  shall  He  not  hear  ?  He  who 
formed  the  eye,  shall  not  He  see  ? "  This  verse  is  subject  to  no 
difference  of  exposition.  The  thought  is  this  :  the  Creator  of  hearing 
and  sight  must  Himself  have  an  analogous  knowledge — must  be  a 
living  God,  who  sees  all  things,  and  hears  prayer.  Ver.  10,  "  He  who 
chastises  the  nations,  shall  not  He  punish  ?  He  who  teaches  man  know- 
ledge ?  "  is  often  explained  thus  :  He  who  punishes  the  nations  in 
general,  shall  not  He  also  punish  in  the  concrete  occasion  which  is 
before  us  ?  To  me,  the  exposition  of  Hupfeld  and  Hitzig  appears  to 
be  more  correct,  according  to  which  the  Qia  1p^  refers  to  divine  cor- 
rection in  man's  conscience.  Then  we  get  a  good  parallelism  to  the 
second  member.  The  verse  is  then  a  reference  to  the  revelation  of 
God  in  man's  conscience  and  reason :  He  who  has  given  conscience 
and  reason,  He  who  proclaims  Himself  in  them  to  be  a  God  of  retribu- 
tion, should  He  not  also  proclaim  Himself  so  in  reality,  in  His  pro- 
vidences towards  the  nations  ? 

(2)  The  expression  n\nbx  ^nac',  Ps.  ix.  18,  is  not,  with  Umbreit,  to 
be  connected  directly  with  the  forgetting  of  a  purer  ancient  religion, 
but  with  the  forgetting  and  denying  of  God's  testimony,  as  it  comes 
continually  to  the  D^i3  themselves. 

(3)  In  treating  of  the  notion  of  special  revelation,  we  are  met 
chiefly  in  one  point  by  a  difference  between  the  biblical  notion  of 
revelation,  and  that  notion  as  it  is  wont  to  be  developed  in  the 
so-called  Vcrmittelungstheologie  (comp.  Schultz's  Old  Testament 
TheoL).  This  school  limits  the  notion  of  revelation  as  much  as 
possible  to  the  inner  sphere  of  man's  life  ;  revelation  comes  essentially 
to  be  viewed  as  a  divine  "self-communication  in  man  inspired  by 
God."  Revelation  operates  by  working  in  the  heart  of  man  "  an 
immediate  certainty  of  divine  life "  (s.  Schultz,  i.  p.  &^,  and  my 
review  in  Zoeckhr  und  Andrecs  Allg.  literar.  Anzeiger,  Februarh. 
1870,  p.  104  f.).  The  objective  fact  is  not  entirely  disowned ;  it  is 
not  denied  that  events  did  occur  in  the  history  of  the  Israelites  to 
which  that  inward  self-communication  of  God  to  the  prophets  (of 
whom  Moses  may  be  regarded  as  the  first)  attached  itself.  But  the 
objective  personal  self-presentation  of  God  which  the  Bible  un- 
doubtedly asserts  is  not  admitted,  for  fear  of  too  dangerous  an 
approach  to  the  sphere  of  the  miraculous,  or  else  it  is  spoken  of  in  a 


§7.]    HISTORICAL  CIIAnACTER  AND  GRADUAL  PROGRESS  OF  REVELATION.    25 

very  indefinite  way.  But  if  revelation  is  at  bottom  only  God's 
communication  of  Plimself  to  inspired  men,  if  it  acts  only  to  awaken 
in  the  mind  of  certain  chosen  men  an  immediate  certainty  of  divine 
life,  no  specific  difference  between  a  prophet  and  a  heathen  sage  can 
be  made  out ;  for  even  in  the  heathen  an  immediate  certainty  of 
divine  life  was  generated.  In  order  that  such  a  relation  of  personal 
communion  between  God  and  man  be  accomplished  as  the  idea  of 
humanity  involves,  we  must  have  that  objective  presentation  of  Him- 
self by  God  which  is  pointed  out  in  the  word,  "  Here  am  I,"  Isa.  lii. 
6,  Ixv.  1. 

Luther,  for  example,  has  with  reason,  in  his  commentary  on  Ps. 
xviii.  {Exegetica  opera  latina,  Erl.  Ausg.  xvi.  p.  71),  pointed  out  how, 
from  the  beginning,  the  divine  government  aimed  at  binding  the 
revelation  of  God  to  a  given  object :  "  Voluit  enim  dominus  et  ab 
initio  semper  id  curavit,  ut  esset  aliquod  monumentum  et  signum 
memoriale  externum,  quo  alligaret  fidem  credentium  in  se,  ne  ad- 
ducerentur  variis  et  peregrinis  fervoribus  in  spontaneas  religiones  seu 
potius  idololatrius."  Divine  revelation  must  enter  the  world  as  a 
proclamation,  in  which  the  personality  of  God  as  such  meets  man, 
not  as  an  inexpressible  numen  or  Divinity,  but  as  God  Himself. 
When  that  is  made  clear  to  us,  we  discern  the  pedagogic  character 
of  the  divine  forms  of  revelation.  To  mankind  in  its  childhood, 
God's  existence  must  be  brought  to  knowledge  in  theophany  from 
without,  and  then  from  that  point  revelation  advances  towards  the 
manifestation  of  the  reality  of  this  God  in  spirit  (comp.  §  bb). 

(4)  Though  an  older  supernatural  view  places  revelation  in  the 
narrower  sense  exactly  in  opposition  to  the  order  of  nature,  and 
causes  special  revelation  to  enter  into  the  world  as  a  Deus  ex 
tnachina,  this  is  in  no  way  the  biblical  view. 

§7. 

II.   HISTORICAL  CHARACTER  AND  GRADUAL  PROGRESS  OF  REVELA- 
TION— ITS  RELATION  TO  THE  WHOLE  OF  MAN'S  LIFE. 

Its  Supernatural  Chaixicter. 

According  to  this,  the  special  revelation  of  God,  as  it  enters  the 
sphere  of  human  life,  becomes  subject  to  the  ordinances  and  laws  of 
historical  development  which  are  grounded  on  the  general  divine 
system  of  the  world.  It  does  not  all  at  once  enter  the  world  prepared 
and  completed ;  but  from  a  limited  and  relatively  incomplete  begin- 
ning, giving  itself   particularly  to  one   separate  people  and  race,  it 


26  INTRODUCTION.  [§  7. 

advances  to  its  completion  in  Christ  in  a  gradual  scale  corresponding 
with  the  natural  path  of  the  development  of  mankind,  and  leading 
that  development  into  the  path  of  the  divine  order  of  salvation,  and 
so  completed,  is  able  to  communicate  again  to  man,  by  an  historical 
process,  the  fulness  of  God  which  Christ  bears  in  Himself.  And 
because  revelation  aims  at  the  restoration  of  full  communion  between 
God  and  man,  it  is  directed  to  the  whole  of  man's  life.  It  does  not 
complete  its  work  by  operating  either  exclusively  or  mainly  upon 
man's  faculties  of  knowledge;  but  in  constant  advance  it  produces 
and  shapes  the  communion  of  God  and  man,  as  well  by  divine 
witness  in  word  as  by  objective  facts, — manifestations  of  God  in  the 
objective  worhl,  institution  of  a  commonwealth  and  its  regulations, — 
and  by  revelations  of  God  in  the  inner  sphere  of  life,  by  the  sending 
forth  of  the  Spirit,  and  by  awakenings  into  life;  and  all  this  so 
that  a  continual  relation  has  place  between  the  revealing  history  of 
salvation  and  the  revealed  word,  inasmuch  as  each  divine  fact  is 
preceded  by  the  word  which  discloses  the  counsel  of  God  (Amos  iii.  7) 
now  to  be  completed;  and  again,  the  word  of  God  arises  from  the 
completed  fact,  and  testifies  thereto  (1).  In  these  operations  revelation 
makes  itself  discernible  in  its  difference  from  the  natural  self-revela- 
tion of  the  spirit  of  man,  not  only  through  the  continuity  and  the 
organic  connection  of  the  facts  which  constitute  the  histoiy  of 
salvation,  but  also  through  its  special  character  (miracle),  which 
points  backward  in  a  definite  manner  to  a  divine  causality,  while  it 
is  recognised  by  the  organs  of  revelation  themselves  through  a  special 
working  of  the  Spirit,  which  comes  to  their  consciousness  as  a  divine 
infusion,  and  in  conclusion  recommends  itself  to  all  who  in  faith  enter 
into  the  revelation  by  their  living  experience  of  salvation  (2). 

(1)  The  biblical  notion  of  revelation,  as  liere  developed,  is  distin- 
guished from  that  of  the  older  Protestant  theology  in  two  respects. 
On  the  old  view,  revelation  was  essentially,  and  almost  exclusively, 
regarded  as  the  doctrine  of  revelation.  In  other  words,  what  was 
urged  was  for  the  most  part  only  God's  working  on  man's 
knowledge,  —  a  defect  which  appeared  still  more  onesidedly  in 
the  older  supernaturalism,  which  regarded  revelation  as  concerned 
with  the  communication  of  a  higher  knowledge,  which  human  reason 
either  would  not  have  found  at  all,  or,  as  rationalistic  supernaturalism 
teaches,  at  least  not  so  soon  nor  so  perfectly.     But  if  this  was  all,  it 


§  7.]    HISTORICAL  CHAnACTER  AND  GRADUAL  PROGRESS  OF  REVELATION.    27 

would  in  fact  have  been  better  if  it  Iiad  pleased  God  to  send  directly 
from  heaven  a  ready-made  system  of  doctrine.  This  is,  as  is  well 
known,  the  Mohammedan  notion  of  revelation.  And  what  need  was 
there  of  this  vast  historical  apparatus  ?  Just  in  order  to  bring  to  the 
world  a  divine  doctrine,  which  should  then  be  accredited  through  the 
facts  of  revelation.  The  second  point  in  which  the  older  notion  of 
revelation  was  unjust  to  the  biblical  one,  is  the  denying  of  the  steps 
of  development  which  revelation  passes  through  in  the  Scripture 
itself.  The  Bible,  as  the  record  of  the  doctrine  of  revelation,  was 
supposed  to  attest  uniformly,  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  the 
truths  which  the  Church  has  stamped  as  dogmas ; — the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity,  for  example,  was  found  even  in  the  Old  Testament. 

If  we  look  into  the  Scriptures,  we  see  that,  without  doubt,  revela- 
tion involves  an  influence  on  man's  knowledge,  but  not  this  exclusively, 
and  never  so  as  to  make  this  stand  in  the  foreground.  A  people  of  God 
is  to  be  created  from  this  sinful  humanity ;  a  community  bearing  m 
itself  divine  life  is  to  be  planted,  and  mankind  thus  to  be  transformed 
into  a  kingdom  of  God,  a  tabernacle  of  God  among  men  (Rev.  xxi.). 
Revelation,  then,  cannot  possibly  look  only  to  the  cognitive  side  of 
man.  Biblical  theology  must  be  a  theology  of  divine  facts ;  not, 
indeed,  in  the  limited  view  which  has  also  found  supporters  (comp. 
Ad.  Koehler's  paper  in  Ullmann's  Stud.  u.  Krit.  1852,  Nr.  4,  p. 
875  ff.),  as  if  the  work  of  revelation  simply  rose  in  divine  deeds, 
and  then  all  knowledge  originated  merely  through  reflection  on  the 
facts  of  revelation  ; — on  a  similarly  limited  view  of  Hofmann,  in  his 
Weissagung  und  ErfuUung,  comp.  §  14.  The  matter  stands  thus,  that 
between  the  line  of  facts  of  revelation,  or  between  the  history  of 
revelation  on  one  side  and  the  divine  word-witness  on  the  other,  a 
continual  relation  of  interchange  takes  place :  for  example,  the  flood 
is  announced  as  a  divine  judgment  of  God — the  signal  word  precedes 
it ;  and  again,  after  the  fact  has  taken  place,  a  further  word  of  God 
grows  from  it.  This  goes  down  to  the  resurrection  of  our  Lord. — 
Amos  iii.  7  :  "  The  Lord  Jehovah  does  nothing  without  revealing  His 
secret  to  His  servants  the  prophets."  This  passage  points  to  the  close 
connection  of  the  divine  words  and  deeds  of  revelation. 

(2)  The  notion  of  miracle  and  inspiration  will  be  discussed  further 
on. — The  living  experience  of  salvation  is  indeed  first  found  complete 
on  the  ground  of  New  Testament  revelation.  It  is  here  the  testimony 
of  the  new  creation,  by  virtue  of  which  he  who  bears  it  within  him 
knows  that  what  he  owes  to  the  word  of  God  differs  specifically 
from  that  which  he  could  have  found  in  the  path  of  nature.  But 
there  lies  also  in  the  Old  Testament  a  mighty  witness  in  the  word, 


28  INTRODUCTION.  [§  8. 

"Who  is  a  God  like  unto  Thee?"  (Ex.  xv.  11),  as  well  as  in  the 
acknowledgment  that  Israel  had  a  law  such  as  no  other  people  ou 
earth  had  (Deut.  iv.  6-8;  Ps.  cxlvii.  19  f.,  etc.). 

§  8. 

III.    THE  OLD  AND  NEW  TESTAMENTS  IN  THEIR  RELATION  TO 
HEATHENISM  AND  TO  EACH  OTHER. 

Eevelation  falls  into  two  chief  divisions,  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments, which  stand  to  each  other  in  the  relation  of  preparation  and 
fulfilment,  and  confront  the  religions  outside  of  the  Testaments  as  a 
connected  dispensation  of  salvation ;  comp.  specially  Eph.  ii.  12  (1). 
The  law  and  the  prophets  are  fulfilled  in  Christianity ;  while,  on  the 
contrary,  the  heathen  religions  are  not  fulfilled  in  Christianity,  but 
dissolved.  It  is  true  that  heathenism  prepared  for  Christianity,  not 
simply  negatively  in  the  exhaustion  of  the  forms  of  religious  life 
which  it  had  produced,  and  the  awakening  of  a  need  for  salvation, 
but  also,  by  bringing  the  intellectual  and  moral  strength  of  man  to  a 
richer  development,  added  to  the  gospel — which  wants  to  make  all 
the  powers  of  man's  nature  serviceable  to  it — many  conformable 
elements,  thus  opening  to  the  truth  many  paths  among  men.  But 
heathenism  not  only  lacks  the  series  of  divine  facts  through  which 
the  completion  of  salvation  in  Christ  was  positively  prepared,  and 
lacks  all  knowledge  about  the  divine  counsel  of  salvation  (comp.  Isa. 
xli.  22,  xliii.  9  ff.,  xliv.  7  ff.,  etc.)  (2) ;  but  it  has  not  so  much  as  pre- 
pared the  human  basis  from  which  the  redemption  of  man  could  take 
its  historical  egress.  For,  on  the  one  hand,  all  heathen  culture,  even 
if  capable  of  being  shaped  by  revelation,  is  yet  no  necessary  condition 
for  the  redemptive  operation  of  the  gospel ;  and,  on  the  other  hand, 
heathenism,  which  has  no  knowledge  of  the  holiness  of  God,  and  so 
no  full  notion  of  sin,  but  only  a  keen  sense  of  injustice,  lacks  those 
conditions  under  which  alone  a  sphere  of  life  could  be  generated 
which  presented  fit  soil  for  the  founding  of  the  work  of  redemption 
(cf.  Eothe's  Theol.  Ethik,  1st  ed.  ii.  p.  264  ff.,  2d  ed.  ii.  p.  120  ff.)  (3). 

But  the  unity  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  must  not  be 
vmderstood  as  sameness.  The  Old  Testament  itself,  while  it  regards 
the  decree  of  salvation  revealed  in  it,  and  the  kingdom,  of  God 
founded  thereupon,  as  eternal,  as  extending  to  all  times  and  to  all 


§  8.]  THE  0.  AND  N.  T.  IN  THEIR  RELATION  TO  HEATHENISM.  29 

races  of  man  (from  Gen.  xii.  3  onwards,  comp.  also  the  parallel  passao-es; 
further,  Isa.  xlv.  23  f.,  liv.  10,  etc.),  acknowledges  that  the  manifesta- 
tion of  God's  kingdom  at  that  time  was  imperfect  and  perishable ; 
for  it  points  onwards  to  a  new  revelation,  in  which  that  which  is 
demanded  by  the  letter  of  the  law  and  signified  by  its  ordinances 
shall  become  a  reality  through  divine  communication  of  life  (comp. 
already  Deut.  xxx.  6)  ;  indeed,  exactly  in  the  days  in  which  the 
old  form  of  the  theocracy  was  brought  to  ruin,  it  predicted  the  new 
eternal  covenant  which  God  should  conclude  with  Ilis  people  (Jer. 
xxxi.  31  ff.)  (4). — But  still  more  distinctly  does  the  New  Testament 
emphasize  the  difference  from  the  Old  which  subsists  within  the 
unity  of  the  two  covenants.  The  eternal  counsel  of  salvation, 
although  announced  by  the  prophets,  is  nevertheless  not  completely 
revealed  till  after  its  actual  realization  (Rom.  xvi.  25  f. ;  1  Pet.  i.  10  ff. : 
Eph.  i.  9  f.,  iii.  5)  ;  the  pedagogy  of  the  law  has  reached  its  goal 
in  the  grace  and  truth  of  Christ  (John  i.  17 ;  Rom.  x.  4  ;  Gal.  iii. 
24  f.)  ;  in  the  benefits  of  salvation  of  the  new  covenant,  the  shadow  of 
the  old  dispensation  is  become  reality  (Col.  ii.  17 ;  Heb.  x.  1  ff.)  : 
therefore  the  greatest  man  in  the  old  covenant  is  less  than  the  least 
in  the  kingdom  of  Christ  (Matt.  xi.  11) ;  indeed,  for  him  who  takes 
away  from  the  Old  Testament  productions  and  institutions  their 
fulfilment  in  Christ,  for  him  these  sink  down  into  poor,  needy 
rudiments  (Gal.  iv.  9). 

(1)  According  to  Eph.  ii.  12,  the  heathen,  as  airrfWoTpLcofiivoL  t))^ 
TToXtreia?  rov  ^laparjkj  are  also  feVot  rwv  htadrjKoov  Trj<i  eTrayyeXia'i. 
Israel  has  hope,  the  heathen  are  iXirlSa  /jurj  e-xpvre^ ;  Israel  has  the 
living  God,  the  heathen  are  adeoi,  iv  tw  koc^co. 

(2)  What  has  heathenism  transmitted  to  the  coming  generations 
after  its  bloom  was  dead,  as  the  fruit  of  its  seers  or  oracles,  as  a  per- 
manent knowledge  for  comfort  and  animation  of  hope  in  times  of 
sadness?  The  answer  to  this  can  only  be,  that  the  JSIantic  art  which 
searched  heaven  and  earth  to  find  signs  of  God's  will,  which  even 
knocked  questioningly  at  the  gate  of  death's  kingdom,  which  listened 
to  the  divine  voice  in  the  depth  of  the  human  breast,  yet  gained  no 
knowledge  of  the  counsel  of  the  living  God ;  so  that  the  old  heathen- 
ism at  the  close  of  its  development  stands  helpless, — in  spite  of  all  its 
searching,  possessing  no  key  to  the  comprehension  of  God's  ways,  and 
no  knowledge  of  the  goal  of  history.     Or  did  the  knowledge  of  the 


30  Il^TRODUCTION.  [§  8. 

divine  counsel  take  flight  to  poesy,  philosophy,  and  political  wisdom, 
when  the  spirit  of  man  emancipated  itself  from  the  decaying  power 
of  the  ]\fantic  art  ?  The  notion  of  a  providence,  of  a  moral  order  of 
the  world,  doubtless  appears  on  all  hands  as  witness  of  the  religious 
disposition  of  man's  nature  and  the  indestructible  power  of  the  con- 
science. But  with  this  thought  wrestles  the  belief  in  dark  fate  ;  and 
this,  as  is  forcibly  brought  out  by  Wuttke  (Geschichte  des  Heiden- 
thums,  i.  p.  98),  is  "  the  evil  conscience  of  heathenism  continually 
admonishing  and  tormenting, — the  consciousness  of  the  guilt  of  the 
gods  becoming  evident  that  they  are  not  what  they  ought  to  be ; 
that  they  are  of  this  world,  whilst  they  ought  to  be  a  spiritual  power 
over  it,  and  therefore  bear  in  themselves  the  germ  of  death." — 
Whether  destiny  or  virtue  determines  the  world,  or  how  the  operas- 
tions  of  both  are  divided,  is  a  riddle  which  always  turns  up  again 
unsolved,  although  boldly  answered  now  in  this  way,  now  in  that. 
Observe,  for  example,  to  cite  but  a  few  proofs,  how  a  Demosthenes 
in  his  early  time  testifies  to  the  sway  of  divine  justice  in  the  history 
of  nations ;  how  he  prophetically  announces  the  fall  of  the  power 
which  was  grounded  on  falsehood  and  perjury;  how  he  concedes, 
indeed,  that  destiny  determines  the  issue  of  all  things,  but  holds  its 
gifts  of  fortune  possible  only  where  there  exists  a  moral  claim  on  the 
favour  of  the  gods  {Olynth.  ii.  10.22);  and  how,  in  the  evening  of 
his  life,  he  knows  no  better  explanation  of  the  misfortune  of  his  people 
than  that  the  destiny  of  all  men,  as  it  rules  at  present,  is  hard  and 
dreadful,  and  that  therefore  Athens  must  also  receive  its  share  of  the 
common  human  misfortune,  in  spite  of  its  own  good  fortune  {de  cor. 
p.  311).  Or  see  how  a  Plutarch,  who,  in  his  remarkable  book  on  the 
late  execution  of  divine  punishment,  shows  a  deeper  understanding  of 
the  divine  method  of  judgment,  but  acknowledges  in  his  consolatory 
epistle  to  Apollonius,  chap.  vi.  ff.,  no  higher  law  for  human  things  than 
the  law  of  change, — see  how  he  answers  the  above-mentioned  question  in 
his  treatise  on  the  fate  of  Rome ;  how  he  seeks  to  comprehend  the  course 
of  the  history  of  the  world  by  the  combination  of  the  two  principles, 
destiny  and  virtue.  He  teaches  (chap,  ii.),  that  as  in  the  universe  the 
earth  has  established  itself  gradually  out  of  the  conflict  and  tumult  of 
elementary  matter,  and  has  lent  to  the  other  things  a  firm  position, 
so  also  the  history  of  man  transacts  itself.  The  largest  dominions 
and  kingdoms  in  the  world  were  pulled  about  and  knocked  against 
each  other  by  chance,  and  thus  began  a  total  confusion  and  destruc- 
tion of  all  things.  Then  Time,  which  with  the  Godhead  founded 
Kome,  mixed  fortune  and  virtue,  that,  taking  from  both  what  was 
their  own,  it  might  set  up  for  all  men  a  holy  hearth,  an  abiding  stay 


§  8.1  THE  0.  AND  N.  T.  IN  THEIR  RELATION  TO  HEATHENISM.  31 

and  eternal  foundation,  an  anchor  for  things  driven  about  midst  storm 
and  waves.  Thus  in  the  Roman  empire  the  weiglitiest  matters  have 
found  stability  and  security  ;  everything  is  in  order,  and  has  entered 
on  an  immoveable  orbit  of  government.  [Programm  ueler  das  Verhult- 
niss  der  alttest.  Prophetie  zur  heidnischen  Mantih^  1861.] 

(3)  In  asserting  on  bibhcal  grounds  the  essential  connection  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments,  we  stand  in  opposition  specially  to  that 
A'iew  of  the  Old  Testament  which  has  been  laid  down  by  Schleier- 
macher  in  his  Glaubenslehre.  Schleiermacher's  position  (§  12)  runs 
thus :  "  Christianity  stands,  indeed,  in  a  special  historical  connection 
with  Judaism ;  but  in  the  matter  of  its  historical  existence  and  aim, 
its  relation  is  the  same  to  Judaism  and  heathenism."  This  view  of 
the  Old  Testament  has  become  so  prevalent,  especially  of  late  years, 
that  it  is  the  more  necessary  to  look  at  it  closely.  When  Schleier- 
macher,  in  the  first  place,  bases  his  proposition  on  the  assertion  that 
JTudaism  required  to  be  re-fashioned  by  means  of  non-Jewish  elements 
before  Christianity  could  proceed  from  it,  this  is  an  assertion  in  the 
highest  degree  contrary  to  history.  To  what,  then,  does  Christ  attach 
His  gospel  of  the  kingdom  ?  Is  it  to  Judaism,  as  re-shaped  by  Greek 
philosophy  into  Hellenism  ?  or  is  it  not  rather  to  the  law  and  promise 
•of  the  old  covenant?  Even  where  the  New  Testament  does  stand 
in  connection  with  ideas  of  Alexandrian  Judaism,  as  in  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews,  there  is  still  an  essential  difference  between  that 
Alexandrian  self-redemption  and  the  Christian  facts  of  redemption. 
This  is  so  clear  and  certain,  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  lose  more  words 
upon  the  subject.  Rather  we  must  say,  conversely,  that  heathenism, 
before  receiving  Christianity,  had  to  be  prepared  monotheistically  ; 
which  in  the  Roman  world  was  mainly  effected  by  that  mission  of 
the  Jewish  Diaspora,  which  had  so  great  an  influence  on  the  history 
of  the  world.  Schleiermacher  is  right  when  he  argues,  in  the  second 
place,  that  it  is  possible  to  pass  directly  from  heathenism  to  Christi- 
anity without  passing  through  Judaism ;  but  it  must  be  remembered, 
that  in  heathenism  the  pedagogic  influence  of  the  law  is  partly 
supplied  by  conscience  (Ep.  to  the  Romans),  and  that  also  even  the 
gospel  includes  the  preaching  of  the  law,  when  it  commences  with 
the  word  "  Repent,"  To  Schleiermacher's  third  objection,  that 
though  Christ  sprang  out  of  Judaism,  yet  many  more  heathens  than 
Jews  have  gone  over  to  Christianity,  we  have  to  say  that  Israel 
hardened  its  heart  because  it  had  originally  a  possession  with  which 
it  was  then  content,  whilst  in  heathenism  a  need  of  salvation  and  a 
seeking  after  God  existed. 

Naegelsbach  has  well  pointed  out  (Vorrede 2ur  Ilomev.  Tlieol.  1st  cd. 


32  INTRODUCTION.  [§  8. 

p.  xii.,  2d  ed.  p.  xix.)  how  the  "  saarch  after  God  was  the  living 
pulse  in  the  whole  religious  development  of  antiquity."  "  But,"  he  con- 
tinues, *'  that  this  search  advanced  much  further  in  the  vague  feeling 
of  a  want  and  longing  for  its  supply,  than  in  the  capacity  to  satisfy  it 
by  its  own  power,  appears  as  clearly  as  possible."  The  attempts  "  to 
get  possession  of  the  real  and  substantial  Divinity  "  failed  altogether. 
Schleiermacher's  fourth  argument  is  as  follows :  What  is  most  valu- 
able for  the  Christian  use  of  the  Old  Testament  is  also  to  be  found 
in  just  as  close  and  harmonious  sympathy  in  the  utterances  of  the 
more  noble  and  purer  heathens — for  example,  in  the  Greek  philosophy 
(a  view  often  expressed ;  com  p.  v.  Lasaulx,  Socrates  Life^  Teaching  j 
and  Death,  1858) ;  whilst,  on  the  other  hand,  that  is  least  valuable 
which  is  most  distinctly  Jewish.  Now  it  is  undoubtedly  correct  that 
much  is  abolished  in  the  New  Testament  which  belongs  specifically 
to  the  Old  Testament.  But  if  we  ask  what  is  specific  and  essential 
to  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  in  opposition  to  heathenism,  the 
answer  is  not  INIonotheism ;  for  there  is  a  monotheistic  heathenism 
as  well,  and  heathenism  wrestles  to  lay  hold  on  the  Deity  as  a  unity ; 
but  for  the  Old  and  New  Testament  in  opposition  to  heathenism,  the 
common  bond  is,  above  all,  the  knowledge  of  God's  holiness.  But  with 
this  it  follows,  as  shown  in  the  text,  that,  because  the  heathens  had 
not  the  knowledge  of  the  divine  holiness,  they  also  had  not  a  complete 
sense  of  sin  (comp.  the  striking  remarks  of  Carl  Ludw.  Roth  in  hi& 
critique  of  Naegelsbach's  ''  homer.  Theol.,"  Erlanger  Zeitschrift  fUr 
Protestantismus  und  Kirche,  i.  1841,  p.  387  ff.).  But  as  regards- 
those  expressions  harmonizing  with  Christianity  which  can  be  traced 
in  heathenism,  it  must  be  noticed  that  all  those  dispersed  rays  of  light 
do  not  make  a  sun, — that,  with  all  these,  the  conditions  were  not  given 
for  the  founding  a  community  of  salvation. 

It  remains  undeniable  that  the  community  which  was  gathered  out 
of  Israel  forms  the  true  root  of  the  Christian  Church  (conip.  Rom.. 
xi.).  With  good  reason  has  Steudel  (in  his  Theologie  des  A.  T.  p.  541} 
opposed  Schleiermacher  with  the  question  where  it  could  be  said  to 
the  heathen  in  the  same  way  as  to  the  Jews :  "  He  is  there  to  whom 
all  the  men  of  God  have  pointed,  and  for  whom  they  have  waited." 
This  is  not  simply  an  outward  historical  connection. 

(4)  It  lies  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  that  the  law  in  the  time  in 
which  it  was  given  did  not  present  itself  as  a  law  again  to  be  abro- 
gated, for  thereby  the  law  would  have  weakened  itself.  Certainly 
the  Mosaic  regulations  are  given  very  positively,  as  everlasting  regu- 
lations, from  which  Israel  ought  not  to  deviate ;  but  that  the  position 
of  the  people  towards  the  law  shall  in  the  future  be  different  from 


§  'J.J   THEOLOGICAL  CONCEPTION  OF  THE  0.  T.  IN  THE  OLD  CHURCH.    33 

what  it  is  in  the  present  time,  is  stated  in  the  Pentateuch  very  pre- 
cisely, viz.  Deut.  XXX.  6,  where  it  is  pointed  out,  that  in  the  last  times 
God  will  circumcise  the  heart  of  the  people,  and  so  will  not  confront 
the  people  imperiously,  but  awaken  in  them  susceptibility  for  the 
fulfilment  of  the  law.  Thus  the  germ  of  the  prophecy  of  a  new 
covenant  of  an  essentially  different  character,  as  it  was  uttered  by 
Jeremiah  just  in  those  days  when  the  battlements  of  the  old  city  of 
David  sank  in  the  dust,  lies  already  in  the  Pentateuch. 

(5)  Since  such  a  difference  exists  betwixt  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments,— a  difference  which  is  chiefly  concentrated  in  the  contrast  of 
the  law  and  the  gospel, — it  is  to  be  expected  from  the  outset  that  this 
practical  difference  must  correspond  with  a  theoretical  one,  and  that 
we  shall  not  find  in  the  Old  Testament  the  metaphysical  dogmas  of 
Christianity.     This  is  the  point  in  which  the  earlier  theology  erred. 


III.— THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  CULTIVATION  OF  OLD  TESTAMENT 
THEOLOGY  IN  THE  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH  (1). 

§9. 

THEOLOGICAL  CONCEPTION  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE 
OLD  CHURCH  AND  IN  THE  MIDDLE  AGES. 

Old  Testament  theology,  as  an  independent  historical  science,  is^ 
like  biblical  theology  in  general,  a  production  of  modern  times. 
During  the  whole  development  of  churclily  dogmatic,  up  to  the 
Reformation,  and  also  under  the  old  Protestant  theology,  there  was 
no  distinct  difference  made  between  the  substantial  contents  of 
revelation  as  they  are  laid  down  in  the  Scriptures,  and  the  dogma  by 
which  these  are  worked  up;  and  still  less  was  the  difference  of  the 
steps  of  the  revelation  and  the  types  of  doctrine  which  are  presented 
in  Scripture  acknowledged.  Whilst,  on  the  one  side,  the  old  Church 
happily  overcame  the  heresy  of  Marcion,  which  completely  separated 
Christianity  from  Old  Testament  revelation,  it  did  not  avoid  the 
opposite  error  of  confounding  the  two  Testaments.  The  proposi- 
tion, Novum  Testamentum  in  Vetere  latet,  Vetus  Testamentum  in 
Novo  patet,  which  is  in  itself  correct,  was  so  turned,  that  it  was 
thought  possible  to  show,  in  the  Old  Testament,  almost  the  whole 
contents  of  the  doctrine  of  Christian  faith, — veiled,  to  be  sure,  but 

VOL.  I.  C 


34  INTRODUCTION,  [§  9. 

already  fully  formed  under  the  veil  (2).  Especially  was  this  the  case 
in  the  Alexandrian  theology,  which  also  changed  the  contrast  of  the 
law  and  the  gospel  into  a  mere  difference  of  degree,  and  attributed 
to  the  prophets  in  general  the  same  illumination  as  to  the  apostles  (3). 
But  even  those  doctors  of  the  Church  who,  like  Augustine,  dis- 
tinguished more  exactly  the  relation  of  the  law  and  the  gospel,  and 
the  difference  of  grade  between  the  revelation  in  the  Old  and  in  the 
New  Testament,  with  respect  to  the  benefits  of  salvation  appertaining 
to  each,  overlooked,  notwithstanding  the  same  difference  in  the 
theoretical  sphere,  and,  so  far  as  the  more  enlightened  men  of  the 
Old  Testament  are  concerned,  again  almost  completely  did  avv-ay 
with,  the  difference  which  was  allowed  in  the  former  connection  (i). 
Still  Augustine's  treatment  of  Old  Testament  history  in  his  work 
de  Civitate  Dei,  lib.  xv.-xvii.,  is  not  without  interest  in  its  bearing 
on  biblical  theology  (5).  On  the  other  hand,  the  chronicle  of 
Sulpicius  Severus  (6),  which,  in  the  first  book  and  the  beginning  of 
the  second,  discourses  compendiously  on  the  whole  Old  Testament 
history,  is  of  no  importance  to  biblical  theology,  though  it  is  not 
wanting  in  interest  in  individual  points  (7). 

Still  less  was  the  cultivation  of  biblical  theology  as  an  historical 
science  possible  under  the  government  of  the  theology  of  the  middle 
ages,  or  at  all  consistent  with  the  tendencies  of  that  period.  Even 
the  mystical  tendency,  which  goes  back  more  on  the  Bible,  was 
wanting  in  healthy  hermeneutical  principles,  so  that  it,  no  less  than 
scholasticism,  fathered  all  its  speculations  on  the  Scriptures.  Even 
those  who,  like  the  theologians  of  St.  Victor,  had  a  presentiment  of  a 
more  legitimate  treatment  of  Scripture,  were  unable  to  carry  their 
ideas  out  (8). 

(1)  The  review  of  the  history  of  our  science  will  show  how  far 
the  conception  of  the  Old  Testament  which  we  have  expressed  in 
the  preceding  pages,  has  been  carried  out  up  to  the  present  by  those 
who  have  written  on  Old  Testament  theology.  Comp.  with  this  my 
Prolegomena  to  the  Theology  of  the  Old  Testament,  1845  (also  my 
article  "  Weissagung"  in  Herzog's  Realencyklop.  xvii.),  and  Diestel's 
History  of  the  Old  Testament  in  the  Christian  Church,  Jena  1869. 
The  very  excellent  work  of  Diestel  not  only  gives  a  history  of  the 
way  in  which  the  Old  Testament  has  been  viewed  and  expounded 
in  Christian   theology,  but  seeks  to  portray  at  the  same   time   the 


§  9.]   THEOLOGICAL  CONCEPTION  OF  THE  0.  T.  IN  THE  OLD  CHUP.CH.    35 

influence  which  the  Old  Testament  has  exercised  in  the  course  of 
centuries  on  the  Hfe  of  the  Church,  on  constitution,  cultus,  and 
doctrine,  on  the  art  and  justicial  regulations  of  Christian  nations. 
This  attempt  has  succeeded  so  well,  that  we  find  a  tolerably  complete 
material  placed  together  in  the  most  instructive  manner.  (See  my 
review  of  the  work  in  Aiidrece  und  Bmclanann,  AUg.  lilterar. 
Anzeiger,  April  1869,  p.  245  ff.) 

(2)  The  first  impulse  to  a  treatment  of  the  Old  Testament  not 
simply  practical,  but  theological,  lies  already  in  the  New  Testament ; 
comp.  especially  the  Epistles  to  the  Eomans,  Galatians,  and  Hebrews. 
The  strife  between  the  young  Christian  body  and  the  wisdom  of  the 
scribes  soon  led  to  biblico-theological  questions,  and  this  was  con- 
tinued between  the  orthodox  Church  teachers  and  the  heretics  The 
questions  which,  as  we  see  from  Justin  Martyr's  Dialogue  with 
Tryijlio)i,  and  TertuUian's  treatise  adversus  Judwos,  \>ere  chiefly 
discussed  between  rabbis  and  Christian  theologians,  were  concen- 
trated on  Christology.  On  that  topic  we  find  already  such  questions 
of  debate  as  the  following :  Does  the  Old  Testament  teach  the  divine 
dignity  of  the  Messiah,  and  does  it  announce  a  iraOrjTO'i  Xpiaro^  1 
In  the  Gnostic  controversy,  the  whole  position  of  Christianity  towards 
the  Old  Testament  became  matter  of  discussion  ;  in  particular,  in 
opposition  to  the  Manicheans,  a  question  arose,  which  remains  yet 
unsettled,  viz.  how  it  stands  with  the  Old  Testament  in  relation  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  immortality  of  the  soul  and  eternal  life  (comp.  on 
this  subject  my  Commentationes  ad  theologiam  hihlicam  ^:)eri:i?ieHfes, 
1846,  p.  2  ff.).  But  these  questions  were  not  treated  in  the  way  that 
is  followed  by  biblical  theology  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word,  in 
which  the  historical  interest  is  dominant,  but  purely  in  the  interests 
of  dogma,  so  that  the  Church  Fathers  sought  to  point  out  the  Christian 
dogma  already  in  the  Old  Testament ;  and  above  all,  the  deficiency 
of  their  knowledge  of  the  language  hindered  the  doctors  of  the 
Church  from  studying  the  Old  Testament  thoroughly. 

(3)  On  the  position  of  the  Alexandrine  school  to  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, and  their  confounding  of  the  two  Testaments,  we  refer 
especially  to  the  account  of  Origen  by  Redepenning,  OrigeneSj  i. 
p.  273  ff.  The  allegorical  interpretation,  which  he  brought  to  its 
perfection,  rendered  Origen  incapable  of  perceiving  in  the  Old 
Testament  a  development  of  doctrine,  and  of  representing  the  his- 
torical progress  of  revelation  impartially. 

(4)  In  proof  of  this,  comp.  Augustin.  c.  Adim.  cap.  iii.  4  :  "  Certis 
quibusdam  umbris  et  figuris  .  .  .  populus  ille  tenebatur,  qui  Testa- 
mentum  Vetus  accepit  :   tamen  in  eo  tanta   pra^dicatio  et  prceuun- 


36  INTRODUCTION.  [§  9 

ciatio  Novl  Testamenti  est,  ut  nulla  (in  Retract,  i.  22.  2  :  pcene  nulla) 
in  evangelica  atque  apostolica  discipUna  reperiantur,  quamvis  ardua  et 
divina  prcecepta  et  promissa,  qiice  illis  etiam  lihris  veterihus  desinty 

(5)  We  may  regard  these  three  books  in  Augustin's  great  work 
as  in  a  certain  sense  the  first  treatment  of  the  theology  of  the  Old 
Testament.  Augustin  (cf.  I.e.  xxii.  30  fin. ;  c.  Faust,  xii.  8)  bases 
his  statement  on  the  thought  that  the  history  of  the  divine  kingdom 
is  transacted  in  seven  periods,  of  which  the  week  of  creation  forms 
the  type.  The  first  five  periods  fall  in  the  Old  Testament  times 
bounded  by  Noah,  Abraham,  David,  the  Babylonian  captivity,  and 
the  manifestation  of  Christ ;  the  sixth  is  the  present  age  of  the 
Church  ;  and  the  Sabbath  of  the  world  follows  as  the  seventh.  We 
shall  see  how,  in  the  reformed  theology  at  a  later  period,  this  thought 
was  appropriated  in  what  is  called  the  system  of  periods  (§  11). 

(6)  In  connection  with  the  chronicle  of  Sulpicius  Severus,  which 
Diestel  has  singularly  overlooked,  the  essay  of  Bernays  deserves  to 
be  read :  "  The  Chronicle  of  Sidpicius  Severus ;  a  contribution  to  the 
history  of  classical  and  biblical  studies."  1861.  The  chronicle  was 
written  a  little  after  400.  It  is  interesting  to  see  how  neatly  Sulpicius 
Severus  translates  the  Mosaic  law  into  the  Latin  of  a  Roman  jurist 

(7)  The  treatment  of  the  Old  Testament  in  the  old  Church 
reaches  its  close  with  Gregory  the  Great ;  but  his  gigantic  work, 
Moralia  in  Jobum,  and  his  other  works  on  the  Old  Testament,  are 
particularly  important  only  in  so  far  as  they  make  us  more  closely 
acquainted  with  the  way  of  exegesis  in  the  old  Church. 

(8)  S.  Liebner,  "  Hugo  von  St.  Vildor  und  die  theologischen 
Eichtungen  seiner  Zeit"  1832,  p.  128  ff. — True,  much  detached 
matter  valuable  for  the  Old  Testament  was  brought  to  light  in  the 
middle  ages,  and  especially  on  the  Song  of  Solomon,  in  which  the 
mysticism  of  the  middle  ages  lives,  and  into  which  it  is  woven,  as 
Bernard  of  Clairvaux's  lectures  on  Canticles  show ;  but  this  is 
not  anything  belonging  to  biblical  theology.  Nay,  the  simpler  ex- 
planations of  the  Bible  appeared  so  despicable  to  the  ruling  scholas- 
ticism, that  the  name  bibhcal  theologian  came  to  mean  the  same  as 
a  narrow-minded  person  (s.  Liebner,  I.e.  p.  166).  The  rabbis  of  the 
middle  ages  accomplished  more,  especially  Moses  Maimonides,  who 
must  often  be  consulted  on  Old  Testament  theology,  especially  as 
the  collector  of  the  institutions  and  expositions  of  the  Mosaic  law. 


§  10.]  THEOLOGICAL  CONCEPTION  OF  0.  T.  AT  THE  REFORMATION.         37 

§10. 

TnEOLOGICAL  CONCEPTION  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  AGE 
OF  THE  REFORMATION, 

The  Reformation  principle  of  the  authority  of  Scripture  directed 
theological  activity  to  the  Old  Testament  as  well  as  to  the  New.  A 
more  lively  interest  in  it  had  been  already  awakened  by  Johann 
Reuchlin ;  though  in  the  case  of  Reuchlin  himself  this  interest  was 
directed  less  to  the  simple  theological  comprehension  of  the  Old 
Testament,  than  to  the  old  mysterious  learning  which  was  supposed  to 
be  laid  down  in  it.  Nevertheless  FTieronymus  redivivus,  as  Ileuchlin 
was  called  because  of  his  trilinguis  eriuUtio,  rendered  great  service  to 
the  "rise  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,"  not  simply  by  opening  a  path 
for  the  study  of  Hebrew  in  Germany,  but  particularly  by  the  firm- 
ness with  which  he  lays  it  down  as  the  duty  of  the  expositor  of 
Scripture  to  go  back  on  the  original  text  expounded  according  to  its 
literal  sense,  and  to  refuse  to  be  dependent  on  the  Vulgate,  and  the 
traditional  expositions  of  the  Church  which  are  connected  with  it. 
Thus  Reuchlin  became  the  father  of  Protestant  Hermeneutic,  little 
as  he  himself  acknowledged  the  full  range  of  his  principles  (1).  The 
knowledge  of  the  contrast  of  law  and  gospel  drawn  from  Paul's 
epistles  was  the  first  thing  that  gave  a  key  to  the  theological  compre- 
hension of  the  Old  Testament  to  the  Reformers,  who  sought  in  the 
Scriptures,  not,  like  Reuchlin,  theurgic  wisdom,  but  the  simple  way  of 
salvation.  Scholasticism  had  substituted  for  the  antithesis  of  law  and 
gospel  the  difference  of  the  vetus  and  nova  lex  ;  the  former  of  which 
demands  only  a  justice  fixed  by  outward  motives,  and  therefore 
incomplete,  while  the  latter  binds  to  the  complete  virtue  which  is 
supported  by  love.  The  Reformers,  on  the  other  hand,  brought  into 
a  truer  light  the  moral  worth  of  the  Old  Testament  law,  and  the 
corresponding  pedagogic  design  of  the  Old  Testament  oeconomy  ;  and 
they  also  correctly  recognised,  that  even  in  the  old  covenant  a  revela- 
tion of  God's  gracious  will  in  the  promise  of  salvation  goes  side  by  side 
with  the  revelation  of  the  demands  of  the  divine  will  in  the  law  (2). 
For  all  that  is  connected  with  this  practical  sphere  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, Luther  especially  shows  a  deep  understanding,  springing  from  a 
lively  personal  experience  (3).     But  just  because  it  is  from  the  expe- 


38  INTRODUCTION.  [§  10. 

riences  of  a  Christian,  which  even  when  analogous  are  not  necessarily 
identical,  that  light  is  sought  for  the  comprehension  of  the  conditions 
of  Old  Testament  life,  the  practico-theological  exposition  does  not  do 
full   justice  to  the  historical   apprehension   of  the   Old  Testament. 
That  moral  and  religious  knowledge  was  gradually  deepened  under 
the  pedagogic  guidance  of  the  law,  which  advanced  from  the  outside 
to  the  inside ;   that  the  promise  of  salvation   arises   from  germ-like 
beginnings,  and  advances  step  by  step  in  connection  with  the  pro- 
vidential guidance   of    the    history  of  the  people,  —  is   all   the   less 
acknowledged,    because   in  the   sphere    of    dogma    proper    the    two 
Testaments  are  so  closely  drawn  together.      In  the  view  which  the 
Reformers  (and  especially  Melanchthon)  were  so  fond  of  developing, 
that  the  Church  began    in    Paradise    and  continues  throughout   all 
time,  the  whole  emphasis  is  laid  on   the  unity  of  the   doctrine  of 
revelation,  existing  under  all  change  of  outward  forms  (4).     Grace 
is  indeed  multiformis,  adjusting  its  revelation  according  to  the  need  of 
different  times,  and  the  childhood  of  the  human  race  has  special  need 
of  simple  speech  and  story  (5)  ;  but  the  faith  of  the  Old  Testament 
saints  in  the  coming  Saviour  is  nevertheless  essentially  one  with  our 
faith  in  the  Saviour  who  has  come  (6).     It  is  true  that  exegesis  has 
become  subject  to  the  laws  of  the  original  language ;    the  fourfold 
sense  of  the  scholastics  is  set  aside,  and  the  simple  sensus  literalis  is 
pressed ;    but    the   second    principle  of   exegesis,  the  analogia  jidei, 
though  now  in  itself  correctly  understood  as  the  analogia  scripture, — 
the  rule  that  Scripture  must  be  expounded  by  Scripture, — is  taken  in 
the  sense  of  full  dogmatic  conformity  between  the  two  Testaments  (7). 
The  reformed  theology,  which  does  not  urge  the  opposition  of  the  law 
and  the  gospel  in  the  same  way  as  the  Lutherans,  agrees  with  them 
entirely  as  to  the  dogmatic  use  of  the  Old  Testament.     Even  Calvin, 
who  has  really  laid  a  foundation  for  the  historical  exposition  of  the 
Old  Testament,  places  the  difference  of  the  two  Testaments  mainly 
in  the  outward  form,  which  changes  according  to  the  different  powers 
of  man's  capacity  (8). 

(1)  Most  writers  content  themselves  with  praising  the  service 
which  Reuchlin  rendered  in  founding  the  study  of  the  Hebrew 
language  in  Germany.  But  he  is  also  worthy  of  notice  in  a  theo- 
logical respect ;  not,  indeed,  because  of  his  cabalistic  studies  {de  verho 


§  10.]         THEOLOGICAL  CONCEPTION  OF  0.  T.  AT  THE  REFORMATION.  39 

mirifico,  1494  ;  de  doctrina  cahalistica,  1517),  which  were  esteemed  by 
himself  as  the  crown  of  knowledge.     The  Reformers  indulgently  took 
no  notice  of  his  cabalisticism,  though  each  one  could  easily  draw  for 
himself,  from  the  sharp  judgment  to  which  Luther  subjects  the  Jewish 
"  Alfanzerei"  in  his  book  on  the  Schem  hamphorasch,  his  opinion  on 
what  Reuchlin  taught  about  "  the  miraculous  word."     But  Reuchlin's 
immortal  service  consists  in  this,  that  he  was  the  first  to  claim  with  the 
greatest  emphasis  the  independence  of  exegesis  from  the  traditions  of 
the  Church,  contained  especially  in  the  Vulgate  and  the  commentaries 
of  Hieronymus.    Fi'om  him  sprang  the  well-known  sentence  :  "  Quam- 
quam  Hieronymum   sanctum,  veneror  ut   angelum  et   Lyram  colo  ut 
7nagistrum,  tamen  adoro  veritatem  ut  Deum^''  (Preface  to  the  third  book 
of  the  rudimenta  Hehraica)  ;  and  he  utters  this  principle,  "  Is  est  plane 
verus  et  germanus  scripturse  sensus,  quem  nativa  verbi  cujusque  pro- 
jirietas  expedita  solet  aperire,"  in  his  book  de  accentibus  et  orthographia 
linguce  hebraicce,  fol.  iii.  b.     This  important  service  of  Reuchlin  was 
also  acknowledged  by  Luther,  when  he  wrote  to  him,  1518  {lllustrium 
virorum  epistolte  hebraicce,  grwcw  et  latinm  ad  Joannem  Reuchlin,  etc., 
1514  and  1518,  3  b.)  :  "  Fuisti  tu  sane  organum  consilii  divini,  sicut 
tibi  ipsi  incognitum,  ita  omnibus  purje  theologiag  studiosis  exspectatis- 
simum."     Reuchlin  has  also  given  his  opinion  on  the  duty  of  studying 
the  Holy  Scriptures  independently  in  their  original  text,  in  his  letters 
to  Abbot  Leonhard  in  Ottenbeuern  (s.  Schelhorn's  amcenitates  hist.  eccl. 
et  literar.  ii.  p.  593  ff.).     Amongst  other  tilings,  he  writes:  "  Tantus 
mihi  est  erga  linguarum  idiomata  et  proprietates  ardor,  ut  non  valde 
laborare  consueverim  librum  habere  aliquem  in  alia  lingua,  quam  in 
ea,  in  qua  est  conditus  omnium  primo,  semper  ipse  timens  de  translatis, 
quoB  me  seepe  quondam  errare  fecerunt.      Quare  N.  T.  gra^ce  lego, 
Vetus  hebraice,  in  cujus  expositione  malo  confidere  meo  quam  alterius 
ingenio."       It  is  only  too  true  that  Reuchlin  himself  did  not  know 
the  force  of  his  own  views ;  he  was  highly  dissatisfied  even  with  the 
Reformation.       For   the   rest,  comp.  my   biography  of  Reuchlin  in 
Schmid's  EncyMop.  des  gesammten  Erziehimgs-  mid  Unterrichtsicesens, 
ii.  p.  113  ff.,  and  my  review  of  Geiger's  paper  on  Melanchthon's 
w^atio  continens  historiam  Capnionis,  1868,  in  the  Zeitschr.  fiir  hither. 

Theol.  1869,  iii.  p.  505  ff. ;  and  also  of  Geiger's  book,  Johann  ReuchUn, 
his  Life  and   Works,  1871,  in  the  same  Zeitschr.  1872,  i.  p.  145  ff. 

{See  rather  Geiger's  book,  which  is  indispensable  to  the  student  of 
Reuchlin. J- 

(2)  On  this  subject  compare  the  first  ed.  of  Melanchthon's  Loci, 
im  Corpus  Reform.,  ed.  Bretschneider  und  Bindseil,  xxi.  p.  139  ff. 

(3)  What  the  Old  Testament  testifies  of  the  solemnity  of   the 


40  INTRODUCTION.  [§  10. 

divine  law  and  divine  judgment,  of  the  curse  of  sin  and  the  wretched- 
ness of  a  life  without  God,  and  also  of  the  desire  for  forgiveness  of 
sins  and  the  purifying  of  the  heart,  and  of  faith  in  divine  promises,  in 
doctrine  and  history,  is  set  forth  by  Luther  with  much  impressiveness, 
especially  in  his  Exposition  of  the  Psalms,  in  which,  as  in  the  Pattern- 
hook  of  all  Saints,  the  history  of  his  own  inward  life  met  him. 

(4)  From  Luther,  compare  especially,  with  regard  to  this,  the 
exposition  to  Ps.  xix.  (xx.)  in  the  exegetica  opp.,  Lat.  ed.,  Erl.,  xvi.  p. 
190  f. :  "  Sicut  alia  persona,  alia  causa  aliud  tempus,  alius  locus  in  nova 
lege  sunt,  ita  et  aliud  sacrificium,  eadem  tamen  fides  et  idem  spiritus 
per  omnia  sa3cula,  loca,  opera,  personas  manent.  Externa  variant, 
interna  manent.  —  Oportet  euim  ecclesiam  ab  initio  mundi  adstare 
Christo  circumdatam  varietate,  et  dispensatricem  esse  multiformis 
gratias  Dei  secundum  diversitatem  membrorum,  temporum,  locorum 
et  causarum,  quad  mutabilia  sint  et  varia,  ipsa  tamen  una  semper 
eademque  perseveret  ecclesia."  Grace  has  many  forms,  but  the 
Church  is  one;  and  Luther  would  add.  So  is  also  Church  doctrine. 
Luther  finds  the  dogma  of  the  6edv6pw7ro^  even  in  Gen.  iv.  1.  It 
is  remarkable  that,  side  by  side  with  his  free  position  towards  some 
Old  Testament  writings,  there  is  a  very  decided  strictness  in  regara 
to  the  dogma  which  is  supposed  to  lie  in  the  Old  Testament.  From 
Melanchthon,  comp.  Loci,  Corpus  ref.  xxi.  p.  800 :  "  Una  est  per- 
petua  ecclesia  Dei  inde  usque  a  creatione  hominis  et  edita  promissione 
]wst  lapsum  Adas ;  sed  doctrinse  propagatio  alia  in  aliis  politiis  fuit. 
Ac  prodest  considerare  seriem  historise,"  etc. ; — p.  801 :  "  Nam  ut 
sciremus,  doctrinam  ecclesire  solam,  priniam  et  veram  esse,  Deus 
singulari  beneficio  scribi  perpetuam  historiam  ab  initio  voluit  .  .  . 
et  huic  libro  .  .  .  addidit  testimonia  editis  ingentibus  miraculis,  ut 
sciremus,  unde  et  quomodo  ab  initio  propagata  sit  ecclesi£e  doctriiia." 

(5)  See  Luther's  preface  to  the  Old  Testament  of  1523,  s.  W. 
Erl.  ed.  Ixiii.  p.  8 :  "  Here  (in  the  Old  Testament)  shalt  thou  find 
the  swaddling-clothes  and  the  manger  in  which  Christ  lies. — Poor  and 
of  little  value  are  the  swaddling-clothes,  but  dear  is  Christ,  the  treasure 
that  lies  in  them." 

(6)  Comp.  Luther  on  Gal.  iv.  2  :  '^  (Christus)  patribus  in  V.  T. 
in  spiritu  veniebat,  antequam  in  carne  appareret.  Habebant  illi  in 
spiritu  Christum,  in  quern  revelandum,  ut  nos  in  jam  revelatum, 
credebant,  ac  aquas  per  eum  salvati  sunt  ut  nos,  juxta  illud  :  '  Jesus 
Christus  heri  et  hodie  idem  est  etin  sascula'  (Heb.  xiii.  8)." 

(7)  On  the  hermeneutic  principles  of  the  Reformation  theology, 
we  give  the  following  additional  details  : — The  principle  that  the  true 
meaning  of  each  scriptural  passage  is  the  literal  meaning,  was  taken 


§  10.]    THEOLOGICAL  CONCEPTION  OF  0.  T.  AT  THE  REFORMATION.    41 

from  Reuclilin  ;  Luther  had  spoken  sliarply  against  the  maklno;  of 
allegories,  and  would  tolerate  allegories  at  best  only  as  ornament 
and  setting,  as  he  expressed  it.  To  this  was  added  the  properly 
theological  principle  of  exposition  by  the  analocjra  Jldei.  This  Pro- 
testant principle  of  the  analogia  Jidei  is  different  from  that  of  the  old 
Church.  In  the  latter,  the  sum  of  the  tradition  of  doctrine  in  the 
apostolic  churches  formed  the  regida  Jidei ;  hut  the  analogia  Jidei  ol 
the  Reformers  was  to  be  drawn  from  Holy  Scripture,  and  so  becomes 
analogia  scripturce — Scripture  ought  to  be  explained  by  Scripture. 
This  principle  is  in  itself  perfectly  correct;  and  to  have  stated  it,  is 
one  of  the  greatest  merits  of  Protestant  theology.  But  it  was  not 
properly  turned  to  account ;  the  unity  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments was  not  conceived  as  brought  about  by  a  gradually  advancing 
process  of  development,  but  as  conformity  of  dogma.  In  order  to 
justify  this,  and  to  be  able  to  show  the  dogma  as  actually  present, 
it  was  necessary  to  use  a  figurative  exegesis.  This,  as  every  one 
knows,  is  the  kind  of  exegesis  which  takes  the  place  of  allegorizino- 
interpretations,  especially  in  the  treatment  of  prophecy.  Compare 
Luther's  preface  to  the  Old  Testament,  Erl.  ed.  Ixiii.  p.  22  :  "Moses 
is  the  fountain  of  all  wisdom  and  understanding,  out  of  which  welled 
all  that  was  known,  and  told  by  all  the  prophets.  The  New  Testa- 
ment also  flows  from  it,  and  is  grounded  therein. — If  thou  wilt  inter- 
jjret  well  and  surely,  take  Christ  for  thee  ;  for  He  is  the  man  to  whom 
alone  all  refers.  So,  then,  in  the  high  priest  Aaron  see  no  one,  but 
Christ  alone,"  etc. 

(8)  Calvin  was  so  much  an  historical  expositor  in  his  exposition  of 
the  prophets,  that  he  was  reproached  later  by  the  Lutheran  polemic 
as  the  Judaizing  Calvin.  But  in  the  dogmatic  treatment  of  the  Old 
Testament  he  took  up  just  as  rigorous,  or  indeed  a  more  rigorous, 
standpoint  than  Luther  and  Melanchthon  ;  compare  as  the  principal 
passage,  the  Institutiones  of  1559,  ii.  chap.  11,  "  de  differentia  unius 
testamenti  ab  altero,"  §  1  f . :  There  are  indeed  differences  between 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  but  they  rather  refer  ad  modum 
administrationis  than  ad  substantiam ;  the  temporal  promises  of  the 
Old  Testament  are  a  type  of  the  heavenly  inheritance.  "  Sub  hac 
psedagogia  illos  continuit  Dominus,  ut  spirituales  promissiones  non 
itanudas  et  apertas  illis  daret,  sed  terrenis  quodammodo  adumbratas." 
Then  it  is  said,  §13:  "In  eo  elucet  Dei  constantia,  quod  eandem 
omnibus  scecuUs  doctrinam  tradidit ;  quern  ab  initio  prcecepit  nominis 
sui  cultum,  in  eo  requirendo  perseverat.  Quod  externam  formam  et 
modimi  mutavit  in  eo  non  se  ostendit  mutationi  obnoxium  :  sed 
/lominum  captui,  qui  varius  ac  rmdabilis  est,  eatenus  se  attempcravit. 


42  INTRODUCTION.  [§  11, 

§11. 

THEOLOGICAL  CONCEPTION  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE 
OLDER  PROTESTANT  THEOLOGY. 

The  treatment  of  tlie  Old  Testament  in  tlie  older  Protestant 
theology  was  determined  by  the  principles  stated  in  last  paragraph. 
Because  the  dogmatic  of  the  Evangelical  Church  sought  to  support 
itself  wholly  on  Bible  doctrine,  the  distinction  between  biblical 
theology  and  church  dogma  was  not  carried  out  after  the  thread  of 
oecumenico-catholic  development  of  doctrine  was  again  taken  up. 
The  contents  of  the  Scriptures  were  set  forth  with  strict  regard  to 
the  systematic  doctrines  of  the  Church,  not  with  regard  to  the 
historical  multiplicity  of  the  Scriptures  themselves,  and  the  Old 
Testament  was  applied  in  all  its  parts,  just  like  the  New  Testament, 
for  dogmatic  demonstration.  In  opposition  to  the  Romish  theolo- 
gians,— e.g.  Bellarmin,  who  now  distinguished  the  doctrine  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments  as  docirina  inclioata  and  perfecta,  and  main- 
tained that  the  mysteries  of  faith,  and  especially  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  were  only  obscurely  and  imperfectly  contained  in  the  Old 
Testament, — it  was  taught  on  the  side  of  the  Protestants,  that,  in 
respect  of  fundamental  doctrines,  the  Old  Testament  was  in  no  way 
incomplete,  and  that  these  were  only  repeated  more  distinctly  in  the 
New  Testament  (comp.  for  Lutheran  dogma,  Gerhard's  Loci,  ed. 
Cotta,  vi.  p.  138  (1);  on  the  reformed  side,  Schweizer,  reformirte 
Glauhenslehre,  i.  p.  212  f.).  The  expressions  grew  sharper  in  the 
polemic  against  the  Socinians ;  and  the  same  point  was  also  disputed 
in  the  syncretistic  controversies.  Among  those  points  which  raised 
Lutheran  orthodoxy  against  Georg  Calixtus,  was  the  fact  that 
Calixtus  had  denied  the  existence  of  the  dogma  of  the  Trinity  in  the 
Old  Testament. — The  first  notable  reaction  against  the  scholastic 
treatment  of  the  Old  Testament  proceeded  from  the  reformed  theo- 
logy, which  took  a  wider  interest  than  Lutheranism  in  the  Scrip- 
tures as  a  whole.  What  is  called  the  system  of  periods,  and  still 
more,  the  Cocceian  federal  theology,  here  fall  to  be  considered  (2). 
The  former  was  mainly  grounded  on  the  Apocalypse,  which  sug- 
gested the  division  of  the  history  of  the  Christian  Church  into  periods 
based  on  the  number  seven,  which  several  times  recurs  in  the  book. 
In   the    Coccejinian    school  this   plan    of   division  was   extended  to 


§  IL]        CONCEPTION  OF  0.  T.  IN  THE  OLDER  PROTESTANT  THEOLOGY  43 

the  Old  Testament.     Cocceius  (born  1603  in  Bremen,  placed  as  Pro- 
fessor in  Leyden  1650,  died  1669)  proceeded  in  his  views  on  biblical 
theology  from  the  idea  of  a  double  covenant  between  God  and  man  : 
the  first,  the  covenant  of  nature  and  works,  was  made  with  Adam  in 
his  state  of  innocence  ;  the  second,  the  covenant  of  grace  and  faitli 
which  came  in  after  the  fall,  has  throe  dispensations — before  the  law, 
under  the  law,  and  under  the  gospel.     Cocceius  has  the  undeniable 
merit  of  having  energetically  maintained  the  rights  of  the  theoloo-ian 
in  his  study  of  the  Scriptures,  in  opposition  to  the  scholastic  don-ma 
and  the  exegetic  tradition    ruled  by  it,  as  well  as  in   opposition  to 
a  onesided  philological   exegesis.      His  hermeneutic    principles    also 
deserve  favourable  recognition.     The  literal  meaning  must  be  reached 
as  purely  as  possible,  but  at  the  same  time  with  careful  attention  to 
the  immediate  context ;  but  since  the  Scripture  is  an  organism,  the 
whole  Scripture  must  always  be  kept  before  the  eye  in  the  theolotncal 
explanation  at  each  passage.     The  method  of  allegory  was  rejected 
by  him  on  principle :  he  acknowledged  the  typical  character  of  the 
Old  Testament,  in  distinction  from  the  reality  of  the  atonement  of 
the  new  covenant ;   and,   indeed,  it  was  one  of  the  most  contested 
doctrines  of    Cocceius,  that    (comp.  Rom.  iii.  25,  Heb.  ix.  15)  the 
Old  Testament  granted  only  a  Trdpeai'i  afxapTiwv,  transmissio  'pecca- 
torum,  but  not  a  real  acfieac;.     But  by  the  way  in  which  Cocceius 
connected  all  the  different  dispensations,  and  confounded  the  thought 
meant  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  with  its  application  to  analogous  times  and 
occurrences  in  the  Church,  arose  that  caprice  of  exegesis  which  made 
Coccejinianism  proverbial  (3).     How,  on  the  ground  of  this  view,  the 
history  of  the  divine  kingdom  is  enclosed  in  an  artificial  scheme,  can 
be  seen  in  a  singular  way  in  Giu'tler's  Systema  theologice  2^'>'oplieticcv^ 
2d  ed.  1724.     (Gurtler  makes  three  great  periods, — the  first  from 
Adam  to  Moses,  the  second  extending  to  the  death  of  Christ,  and  the 
third  to  the  end  of  the  world  ;  each  of  these  is  divided  into  seven 
periods,  and  the  numerically  corresponding    periods  in  each  of   the 
three  rows  of  seven  are  supposed  to  have  also  corresponding  charac- 
teristics.)    Among  the  pupils  of  Cocceius,  the  following  did  special 
service  to  biblical  theolofry  : — Momma,  de   varia  coiidilione  et  statu 
ecclesice    Dei    sub    triplici   ceconomia ;    the   excellent    Witsius,    "de 
oeconomia  focdcruni "  {exercitationes  sacra',    miscellanea    sacra)    (4)  ; 


44  INTKODUCTIOIT.  [§  11. 

Vitringa,  tlio  famous  commentator  on  Isaiah  ("cle  synarroga  vetere," 
Observationes  sacrcc ;  and  in  particular,  his  Hi/poti/posis  historioi 
et  chronologlce  sacrcc).  Among  the  opponents  of  Cocceius  we  name 
especially  Melchior  Leydecker  (tie  republica  Ilehrceorum,  1704). 
Among  the  Lutheran  theologians,  Joh.  Heinrich  Majus  (Professor 
in  Giessen)  was  specially  influenced  by  the  reformed  biblical 
theology  {CEconomia  temporum  V.  T.,  1712 ;  Sjjnopsis  tlieologue 
judaica,  1698)  ;  his  Theologia  proplietica  ex  selectioribns  V.  T.  oraculis^ 
1710,  claims  particular  notice,  in  which  the  T/ieologia  Daxndis  ex 
psalmis  appears  as  a  distinct  part,  and  along  with  it  a  theologia 
Jesajana,  theologia  Jeremiana,  and  a  theologia  prophetica  ex  vatibus 
xii.  minoribus.  The  arrangement  in  these  works,  which  are  not 
without  interest,  is  fixed  by  tht^  local  method  (5). 

(1)  Gerhard  brings  forward  the  following  propositions:  Quod  ad  rem 
ipsam  sive  niysteria  fidei  attinet,  doctrina  veteris  testamenti  nequaquam 
est  imperfecta,  siquidem  eosdem  fundamentales  fidei  articulos  tradit, 
quos  Christus  et  apostoli  in  novo  testamento  repetunt.  Quod  ad 
docendi  modum  attinet,  fatemur,  quasdam  fidei  mysteria  clarius  et 
dilucidius  in  novo  testamento  expressa  esse,  sed  hoc  perfectioni  reali 
nihil  quidquam  derogat,  cum  ad  perspicuitatem  potius  pertineat  quam 
ad  res  ipsas  cognoscendas. 

(2)  To  see  how  the  orthodox  view  of  the  Old  Testament  is  con- 
firmed in  the  struggle  against  the  Socinians,  compare  Diestel,  ''  iiber 
die  socinianische  Anschauung  vom  A.  T.,"  Jahrb.  fur  deutsche  Theol. 
1802,  Nr.  4,  p.  709  ff.;  how,  on  the  other  side,  a  path  was  opened  by 
the  reformed  theology  for  a  theology  of  the  Old  Testament,  may  be 
read  in  Dlestel's  "  Studien  zur  Foederaltheologie,"  in  the  same  journal, 
I860,  Nr.  2,  p.  219  ff. 

(3)  The  main  work  by  Cocceius  on  this  topic  is  the  beautiful 
little  book,  Summa  doctrincv  de  foodere  et  testamento  Dei,  ed.  2,  1654, 
68 ;  note  specially  the  preface  to  this  book,  in  order  to  value  its 
standpoint  aright,  as  well  as  chapters  eleventh  and  twelfth.  There  is 
nothing  to  be  said  against  several  of  his  hermeneutic  principles;  his 
hermeneutic  theory  is  better  than  his  practice.  He  has  with  great 
clearness  charged  exegesis  with  the  task  of  freeing  itself  from  the 
atomistic  character  which  belongs  to  separate  texts,  and  learning,  on 
the  other  hand,  to  comprehend  the  Scriptures  as  an  organism.  But 
what  was  won  on  the  one  side  was  lost  on  the  other  by  the  artificial 
parallels  drawn  between  the  various  stages  of  revelation,  and  by  the 
typical  exposition  which  Cocceius  used.     From  this  arose  that  plurality 


§  12.]   CONCEPTION  AND  TKEATilENT  OF  0.  T.  FROM  END  OF  17TH  CENTURY.    45 

of  senses  in  interpretation  which  brought  on  him  the  reproach  that  he 
could  make  each  passage  mean  everything  ;  and  from  this  came  such 
Coccejinian  oddities  as  the  notion  that  Isa.  xxxiii.  7,  "  Behokl,  their 
vahant  ones  shall  cry  without;  the  ambassadors  of  peace  shall  weep 
bitterly,"  is  a  prophecy  of  the  death  of  Gustavus  Adolphus. — Among 
his  pupils,  Witsius  and  Vitringa  in  particular  returned  to  more  prudent 
paths. 

(4)  Do  Witsius'  work,  de  occonomia  foederum  Dei  cum  liominibus, 
libri  quatuor  (ed.  4,  1712),  contains  what  may  be  called  a  theology  of 
the  Old  Testament  in  the  first  and  fourth  volumes,  and  still  deserves 
to  be  known  and  valued  ;  in  the  treatment  of  the  types,  indeed  (iv.  6), 
much  irregular  caprice  prevails,  although  he  seeks  to  find  general  rules 
of  procedure.  (The  conscientiousness  of  the  writer  appears  in  such 
passages  as  <xc.  feed.  p.  639,  where  he  says :  in  omnibus  caute  agen- 
dum est,  fxera  <p6j3ov  Kol  rpofiop,  ne  mysteria  fingamus  ex  proprio  corde 
nostro,  horsumve  obtorto  collo  trahamus,  quce  aliovorsum  spectant. 
Injuria  Deo  et  ipsius  verbo  fit,  quando  nostris  inventis  deberi  volumus, 
lit  sapienter  aliquid  dixisse  vel  fecisse  videatur.)     [Pro!.] 

(5)  The  writings  of  Majus  are  interesting  in  the  first  place,  because 
he  proceeds  to  consider  separate  books  of  Scripture  in  their  theological 
value.  This,  indeed,  is  carried  out  in  an  artificial  way,  for  lie  simply 
takes  the  loci  of  the  dogmatic  system  as  his  framework  (Hengstenberg 
has  done  the  same  with  the  Psalms)  ;  but  it  is  worth  seeing  what  a  ful- 
ness of  theological  matter  is  contained  in  many  of  the  separate  biblical 
books.  Secondly,  it  is  interesting  to  see  how  ]\[ajus,  in  his  T/icoIor/ia 
prophetica^  places  a  dictum  classicum  at  the  head  of  each  locui^^  which 
he  treats  as  pertaining  to  the  Old  Testament  theology,  attaching  to 
the  interpretation  of  this  leading  passage  his  doctrinal  matter ;  for 
example,  the  locus  of  the  unity  and  trinity  of  God  is  headed  by  Deut. 
vi.  4,  "  Hear,  O  Israel,  Jehovah  our  God  is  one  Lord !"  the  locus 
of  the  creation  by  Gen.  i.  1,  "In  the  beginning  God  created,"  etc. ; 
the  locus  of  sin  by  Ps.  xiv.  3,  "  They  are  all  gone  aside,"  etc. ;  the 
locus  of  Christ  by  Prov.  viii.  22,  the  passage  on  pre-existent  Wisdom  ; 
the  locus  de  ecclesia  by  Ps.  xlvi.  5  f. 

§12. 

CONCEPTION  AND  TREATMENT  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM  THE 
END  OF  THE  SEVENTEENTH  TO  THE  END  OF  THE  EIGHTEENTH 
CENTURY. 

In  the  Lutheran  Church,  collegia  bihlica,  or  topical  lectures,  be- 
came common  from  the  end  of  the  seventeenth  century  onwards  {e.g. 


46  IXTKODUCTION.  [§  12, 

Schmid,  Collegium  hihlicum  ;  Baier,  Analysis  et  viadlcaiio  illustrium 
script,  s.  dictorum).  These  lectures,  which  contained  exegetico- 
dogmatical  discussions  of  the  biblical  proof-texts  most  valuable  for 
the  doctrine  of  the  Church,  gave  some  impulse  to  the  treatment  of 
biblical  theology  apart  from  dogmatic,  but  one  which  is  not  to  be 
highly  estimated.  The  treatises  on  the  Church  history  of  the  Old 
Testament,  as  they  were  called,  which  came  out  about  the  same  time, 
are  of  more  value  for  the  theology  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  most 
important  of  these  is  the  Hlstoria  ecclesiastica  veteris  testamenti  of 
Buddeus,  3d  ed.  vol.  ii.  1726-29  (1).  The  biblicism  of  Spener 
and  his  school  had,  indeed,  influence  in  breaking  the  doctrinal 
rigorousness  of  the  orthodox  dogma ;  but  since  the  tendency  of 
pietism  was  directed  predominantly  to  edifying  expositions  of  Scrip- 
ture, and  the  value  of  the  separate  portions  of  the  Bible  was  measured 
by  the  degree  of  their  adaptation  to  personal  edification,  pietism 
could  not  reach  biblical  theology  as  an  historical  science.  This  one 
circumstance  which  was  valuable  for  prophetic  theology  was,  that 
Spener  did  justice  to  the  scriptural  view  of  the  completion  in  this 
world  of  the  kingdom  of  God  (2).  It  was  Johann  Albrecht  Bengel 
who,  upon  the  ground  of  his  view  of  the  divine  kingdom  as  an  ceconomia 
divina  circa  mnndiim  universwn,  circa  genus  humanum,  insisted  on  an 
organic  and  historical  conception  of  biblical  revelation  with  strict 
regard  to  the  difference  of  its  stages.  The  Wiirtemberg  school,  which 
took  its  origin  from  him,  regarded  as  its  task  not  only  practical 
edification  from  separate  Bible  texts,  but  especially  the  awakening  of 
a  knowledge  of  salvation  resting;  on  insio;ht  into  the  whole  course  of 
the  divine  kingdom  (3).  In  this  connection,  Roos,  Burk,  Hiller  (4), 
Oetinger,  and  others  brought  deep  thoughts  to  light  in  a  plain  and 
simple  form.  The  Leipzig  theologian  Christian  August  Crusius  is 
akin  to  the  school  of  Bengel :  we  name  as  his  chief  work  the  Hypo- 
mnemata  ad  theologiam  2^ropheticam,  in  three  volumes  (5).  Still  the 
seed  scattered  by  Bengel  and  his  school  found  little  receptive  ground 
amidst  the  revolution  which  passed  in  the  course  of  the  eighteentlr 
century  over  German  Protestant  theology.  The  English  deism  had 
become  powerful  in  Germany  also,  and  a  onesided  subjectivism 
stepped  into  the  place  of  the  scholasticism  of  Church  dogma,  which, 
believing  only  in  itself,  admitted   that  alone  to  be  truth  which  the 


§  12.]  CONCEPTION  AND  TREATMENT  OF  0.  T.  FROM  END  OF  ITTH  CENTURY.  47 

subject,  alienated  from  the  Christian  experience  of  salvation,  still  felt 
able  to  produce  from  itself.  What  is  given  in  the  Bible  as  revelation 
was  now  to  be  explained  as  the  arbitrary  deed  of  human  individuals 
who  made  bold  to  institute  religions.  The  works  of  the  apolofrists 
(Lardner,  Warburton,  Shuckford,  Lilienthal  The  Good  Cause  of  Divine 
Revelation,  16  parts)  did  indeed  bring  forward  some  materials  available 
for  the  biblical  branches  of  theology ;  but  they  could  effect  but  little 
in  opposition  to  their  opponents,  since  they  agreed  .vith  them  in  the 
subsumption  of  the  biblical,  and  in  particular  of  the  Old  Testament, 
institutions  under  the  category  of  the  commonest  utility  (6).  This 
system  of  referring  the  plan  of  the  Old  Testament  revelation  to  the 
standpoint  of  the  most  trivial  shrewdness  which  Joh.  Spencer  (7)  in  his 
learned  work,  de  legihus  Hehrceorum  ritualihus  earumque  rationibiis,  1686 
(published  again  by  Pfaff,  1732),  and  Clericus  had  prepared,  became 
quite  predominant  in  Germany  tlii'ough  the  works  of  the  learned 
orientalist  of  Goettingen,  Joh.  David  Michaelis,  who,  in  his  Mosaic 
Law,  did  the  utmost  for  the  theory  of  utility  (8).  Semler's  tendency 
has  a  more  ethical  character.  It  is  rooted  in  pietism,  save  that  Semler 
regards  that  which  is  serviceable  for  moral  improvement,  not  that 
which  edifies  the  Christian,  as  the  one  thing  of  importance,  and  as 
that  by  which,  therefore,  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  the  divine  and  the 
human,  the  material  and  the  immaterial,  must  be  separated.  He 
maintains  none  the  less  that  the  Bible  and  Church  doctrine  contradict 
each  other, — a  proposition  which  from  his  time  onwards  is  shared 
equally  by  rationalists  and  supernaturalists.  Thus  was  biblical  theo- 
logy completely  freed  from  Church  dogma. 

(1)  Comp.  Hengstenberg's  Gescldclite  des  jReiches  Gottes  unter 
dem  A.  Bunde,  Periode  I.  p.  92.     (In  Clark's  For.  Theol.  Library.) 

(2)  Comp.  on  this  point,  and  part  of  what  follows,  Delitzsch,  die 
hihliscli-prophetische  Tlieologie  ihre  Forthildung  durch  Chr.  A.  Crusitis 
und  ihre  neiiste  Entioickelung,  1845. 

(3)  Bengel  himself  wrote  nothing  on  the  Old  Testament,  except 
that  his  Or  do  iemjjorKm  includes  the  Old  Testament.  We  must 
observe,  however,  that  disjointed  suggestive  hints  in  connection  with 
the  Old  Testament  are  to  be  found  scattered  everywhere  in  his 
numerous  writings,  also  in  the  Gnomon  to  the  New  Testament,  etc. 
The  propositions  in  opposition  to  the  dogmatism  of  the  period  in  the 
Ordo  temporiim,  chap.  8,  "  dc  f  uturis  in  scriptura  provisis  ac  rcvelatis," 


48  INTKODUCTION.  [§  12. 

ought  especially  to  be  noticed.  In  the  second  of  the  hermeneutic  rules 
tliere  set  up,  Bengel  states  the  proposition,  which  at  that  time  was 
quite  new  (2cl  ed.  p.  257) :  "  Gradatim  Deus  in  patefaciendis  regni 
sui  mysteriis  progreditur,  sive  res  ipsoi  spectentur,  sive  tempora. 
Opertwn  tenetur  initio,  quod  deinde  apertum  cernitur.  Quod  qiiavis 
cetate  datiiVy  id  sancti  debent  amplecti,  non  plus  sumere,  non  minus 
accipere." 

(4)  Magnus  Friederich  Roos  is  Bengel's  most  notable  pupil. 
Among  his  works  we  have  here  to  mention :  Fimdamenta  psychologic^ 
ex  sacra  scriptura  collecta^  a  work  rich  in  fine  remarks;  Einleitung  in 
die  hiblische  GescJiichte,  1770  ff.  (reprinted  in  Tubingen,  1835  ff.,  in 
three  volumes),  in  a  plain  popular  form,  and  likewise  offering  a  wealth 
of  subtle  thought ;  Exposition  of  the  Prophecies  of  Daniel,  and  others. 
The  main  works  of  Burk  and  Hiller  are  cited  by  Delitzsch,  I.e.  p.  10. 
Compare  also  the  introduction  to  Auberlen's  book,  Die  Tlieosophie 
Friedr.  Christ.  Oetingers. 

(5)  On  Crusius  compare  Delitzsch  {I.e.  p.  1  ff.),  v;ho  gives  his 
views  in  detail,  but  values  him  too  highly. 

(6)  In  this  connection,  the  argument  adopted  by  Warburton  in 
his  work,  The  Divine  Legation  of  Moses,  is  best  known.  If  Morgan 
had  asserted,  against  the  divinity  of  the  Mosaic  religion,  the  want  of 
faith  in  immortality  and  retribution  after  death,  Warburton  argued, 
on  the  contrary,  that  just  because,  under  a  common  providence,  civil 
government  cannot  be  kept  up  without  the  belief  in  future  rewards 
and  punishments,  the  Jewish  state  must  have  been  ruled  by  a  special 
providence,  because  the  Mosaic  religion  was  wanting  in  this  faith. — 
Sam.  Shuckford  offers  a  quite  similar  example.  The  Deists  had 
declared  the  Mosaic  service  of  offerings  to  be  unreasonable  ;  now 
Shuckford  argued  that,  because  the  worship  of  God  by  offerings  could 
not  have  been  arrived  at  by  mere  reason  (for  "I  cannot  see  what  sort 
of  rational  argument  could  have  brought  them  to  fancy  that  it  was 
required  of  them  to  expiate  their  sins,  and  show  their  thankfulness  for 
divine  benefits,  by  an  offering"),  the  Lord  God  must  Himself  have  set 
up  this  service  ( The  Sacred  and  Profane  Histori/  of  the  World  Con- 
nected, translated  by  Theodor  Arnold,  with  a  preface  by  Wolle,  1731^ 
i.  p.  27,  comp.  p.  57 ;  the  original  appeared  in  1727)  [Prol.]. — The 
chief  work  on  the  history  of  English  Deism  is  by  Lechler,  1847. 

(7)  Spencer's  view  on  the  Mosaic  ritual  law  is  expressed  completely 
and  concisely  in  his  dissertation  de  Urim,  sec.  xii.  (ed.  Pfaff,  p.  974), 
in  the  followino;  sentences :  ''  Verisimile  est  rituum  Mosaicorum 
partem  multo  maximam  ex  hoc  triplici  fonte  manasse :  (1)  e  moribus 
quibusdam    religiosis,   quibus  patriarcharum   exempla  et  antiquitatis 


§  13.]       RISE  OF  A  BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY  DISTINCT  FROM  DOGMATIC.  49 

supremse  canities  reverentiam  conciliarant. — (2)  Quidam  ritus  et 
leges  Mosaicse  e  malis  sseculi  moribus,  ut  bonas  leges  solent,  nasce- 
bantur.  Cum  enim  Israelitarum  mores  post  curvitatem  diuturnam  in 
^gypto  contractam  ad  rectum  duci,  nisi  in  contrarium  flectendo, 
lion  potuerint;  leges  ritusque  multos  cum  moribus  olim  receptis  e 
diametro  pugnantes  instituit  Deus. — (3)  Alii  originem  petiere  e  con- 
suetudine  aliqua,  quse  apud  .zli^gyptios  et  alios  e  vicino  populos  inve- 
teravit;  quam  Deus  integram  pa3ne  reservavit  Israelitis,  ut  eorum 
animos  sibi  conciliaret,  qui  gentium  moribus  assueverant,  et  iis  in- 
genia  sua  penitus  immiscuissent." — What  is  characteristic  of  Spencer's 
conception  of  Mosaism  lies  principally  in  what  is  said  in  number  3. 
The  subtilty  which  the  century  loves  to  ascribe  to  founders  of  religions 
is  transferred  to  God  Himself.  (To  this  Witsius  has  replied  well^ 
in  his  jEgi/ptiaca,  Amst.  1683,  lib.  iii.  cap.  xiv.,  which  are  directed 
against  Marsham's  Canon  Chronicits,  and  Spencer's  diss,  de  Urim  e{ 
Thummim.)  "  God  appears  as  a  Jesuit,  who  makes  use  of  a  bad 
means  for  reaching  a  good  aim "  (Biihr,  Symholih  des  mosaischen 
Kultus,  i.  p.  41).     [ProL] 

(8)  Hengstenberg  has  given  a  thorough  critique  of  the  three  last 
named  in  his  Contributions  to  the  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament, 
ii.  p.  iv.  ff. 

(9)  On  Semler,  compare  Diestel's  essay  in  the  Jahrhiichfilr  Deutsche 
Theol.  1867,  vol.  iii.  p.  471  ff.,  "  Zur  Wiirdigung  Semler's."  Sem- 
ler's  merits  lie  more  in  the  department  of  the  history  of  dogma,  not 
so  much  in  the  Old  Testament. 


§13. 

niSE  OF  A  BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY  DISTINCT  FKOM  DOGMATIC.  TREAT- 
MENT OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  BY  KATIONALISM,  AND  BY  THE 
NEWER  HISTORY  AND  PHILOSOPHY  OF  RELIGION  (1). 

John  Philip  Gabler  is  regarded  as  the  man  who,  in  his  academic 
oration,  de  justo  discrimine  theologice  hiUicce  et  dogmatical,  1787, 
first  clearly  expressed  the  idea  of  biblical  theology  as  an  historical 
science.  The  name,  indeed,  is  older,  but  was  used  to  denote  some- 
times a  collection  of  proof-texts  for  dogmatic,  sometimes  a  popular 
system  of  doctrine  and  ethic,  sometimes  a  systematic  statement  of 
bibhcal  doctrine  held  apart  from  the  dogmatic  of  the  Church,  or 
designed  to  serve  in  criticising  the  latter.     The  most  important  book 

VOL.  I.  ^ 


50  INTRODUCTION.  [§  13. 

of  the  last-named  class   is  Zachariae's   Biblical   Theology,  4   parts, 
1112-15  (2). — Gabler,  on  the  other  hand,  defined  the  work  of  biblical 
theology  as  the  statement  of  "the  religious  ideas  of  Scripture  as  an 
historical  fact,  so  as  to  distinguish  the  different  times  and  subjects, 
and  so  also  the  different  stages  in  the  development  of  these  ideas." — 
This  necessarily  demanded  the  separation  of  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ment theology.      A  separate  discussion  of  each  was  soon  given  by 
Lorenz  Bauer,  Professor  of  the  Doctrine  of  Reason  and  of  Oriental 
Languages  at  Altorf  {Theology  of  the  Old  Testament,  1796;  Appen- 
dices to  the  work,  1801)  (3).      But  with  an   interest  in   historical 
treatment   of    the    subject  was    not    united    an    equal  effort  to  go 
really  deep  into  the  contents  of  the  Old  Testament.     The  "  vulgar 
rationalism"  of  the  period  of  which  Lorenz  Bauer  is  a  representative, 
had  neither  received  from  the  suggestions  of  Lessing  (4)  and  Kant  (5) 
an  impulse  to  understand  the  pedagogic  value  of  the  Old  Testament, 
nor  learned  from  Herder  to  turn  an  open  eye  upon  its  human  beauties. 
The  main  endeavour  was  to  put   aside  everything  which  was  called 
temporary  form,    orientalism,    and   so    forth,   and   thus   reduce    the 
essential  contents  of  the  Bible  to  the  thinnest  possible  series  of  a  few 
very  ordinary  commonplaces.     The  superficiality  of   this  standpoint  is 
in  great  measure  shared  by  the  unfinished  work  of  Gramberg,  Critical 
History  of  the  Religious  Ideas  of  the   Old  Testament,  1829-30  (6). 
Baumgarten    Crusius'    Outlines   of  Biblical    Theology,  1828    (which 
again  gives  up  the  separation  of  Old  and  New  Testament  theology), 
and  Daniel  v.  Coelln's  Biblical  Theology  (1836,  2  vols.),  are  the  first 
works  that  mark  the  transition  to  a  thorough  treatment  of  our  subject. 
The  hints  towards  an  organic  historical  apprehension  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, which  had  been  offered  by  Herder  (7),  mainly  under  stimulus 
from  Hamann,   were  taken   up  by  De  Wette  with    discriminating 
sympathy.      But  in    his  clirist.  Dogmatik,  which    stands  under  the 
influence  of  the  philosophy  of  Fries  (3d  ed.  1831),  this  view  is  not 
carried  through  (8).    Of  recent  theologians,  it  is  Umbreit  who  has  most 
fully  accepted   the  standpoint  of  Herder,  developing  it  in  a  positive 
([\VQ.ct\on{Practical  Commentary  on  the  Old  Testament  Prophets,  1841  ff.; 
Sin,  a  contribution  to  Old   Testament   Theoloyy,   1853 ;    The  Epistle 
to  the  Romans  expounded  on  the  basis  of  the   Old  Testament,  1856). 
Ewald.  in  his  History  of  the  Peop>le  of  Israel  (four  vols,  of  the  seven 


§  13.]       RISE  OF  A  BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY  DISTINCT  FROM  DOGMATIC.  51 

belong  to  the  Old  Testament,  3d  ed.  1864  ff.,  and  with  these  goes  the 
volume  on  the  Antiquities  of  Israel,  3d  ed.  1866),  has  interwoven  with 
his  narrative  a  full  account  of  the  growth  of  the  Old  Testament 
religion,  but  his  vague  notion  of  revelation  does  not  raise  him  essen- 
tially above  the  rationalistic  method  which  he  despises ;  yet  this 
diffusely  written  work  contains,  along  with  much  that  is  arbitrary, 
many  individual  details  that  are  just  and  suggestive.^ 

The  new  phase  into  wliich  the  study  of  the  history  of  religion  has 
entered  in  our  century,  mainly  through  the  influence  of  Creuzer,  has 
exerted  a  considerable  influence  on  the  treatment  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. Many,  especially,  have  been  the  attempts  to  throw  light  on 
the  traditions  of  Genesis  and  the  institutions  of  Moses,  from  the 
comparative  history  of  religion  ;  cf.  Buttmann's  Mijtliologus^  and  several 
essays  of  Baur  in  the  Ttibinger  Zeitschrift  filr  Theologie  (9).  Kaiser, 
in  his  Biblical  Tlieology  (1813,  2  vols.),  proposed  to  treat  the  whole 
biblical  religion  "  in  accordance  with  a  free  theological  position,  giving 
it  its  place  in  critico-comparative  general  history  and  in  universal 
religion."  But  the  comparative  method  is  applied  so  wholly  out  of 
measure  and  rule,  especially  in  the  first  volume,  that  the  author  him- 
self subsequently  gave  sentence  against  his  own  book  (10).  The 
chief  defect  in  this  comparison  of  religions  was  a  too  great  dependence 
on  outward  similarities,  without  sufficiently  deep  perception  of  the 
specific  peculiarities  of  the  religions  compared.  The  characteristic 
idea  of  each  religion  was  taken  mainly  from  Schleiermacher  and 
Hegel,  both  of  whom  had  failed  to  do  justice  to  the  specific  connec- 
tion of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  ;  while  SchelHng's  philosophy 
of  revelation,  on  tlie  other  hand,  does  recognise  the  specific  relation  of 
the  old  covenant  to  Christianity,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  philo- 
sopher regards  the  basis  and  innnediate  presuppositions  of  the  Old 
Testament  as  identical  with  those  of  heathenism,  and  represents  the 
religion  of  the  old  covenant  not  as  exempt  from  the  mythological 
process,  but  as  working  through  it  (11).  The  Old  Testament  was 
constructed  from  the  standpoint  of  Hegel,  by  Rust  {Philosophy  and 
Christianity,  2d  ed.  1833),  Vatke  {Religion  of  the  Old  Testament^  1835. 

^  -[Ewald's  views  on  biblical  theology  are  now  in  course  of  publication  on  a  large 
scale,  in  his  Lelire  der  Blbel  von  Gott,  odcr  Theologie  des  Alien  und  Neuen  BundeSy 
1st  vol.,  Leipzig  1871.|- 


52  INTRODUCTION.  [§  13. 

Only  tlie  first  part  appeared.  In  point  of  form  the  work  is  very 
finished),  and  Bruno  Bauer  (Religion  of  the  Old  Testament^  2  vols. 
1838)  ;  but  from  the  same  philosophical  standpoint  the  two  last  named 
came  to  quite  opposite  results  (12). 

(1)  Specially  valuable  for  the  history  of  biblical  theology,  since 
the  end  of  last  century,  is  the  above-cited  essay  of  Schmid,  ''  on  the 
interests  and  position  of  biblical  theology  of  the  New  Testament  in 
our  time,"  Tub.  Zeitschr.  f.  Theol  1838,  H.  4,  p.  125  ff. 

(2)  Zachariae  discusses  the  doctrines  of  the  Old  Testament  at 
length,  but  generally  only  in  a  subsidiary  way.  Only  seldom  {e.g.  in 
§  81)  are  they  taken  up  in  a  purely  historical  manner.     [ProL] 

(3)  Lorenz  Bauer  wrote  on  all  the  Old  Testament  disciplines  (not 
only  on  biblical  theology,  but  on — Hermeneutica  sacra  V.  T.^  Introduction 
to  the  Old  Testament  Antiquities,  and  History  of  the  Hebrew  Nation\ 
and  wrote  commentaries  on  some  of  the  Old  Testament  books.  The 
applause  with  which  these  writings  of  a  theologian  who  made  the  Old 
Testament  "readable"  were  greeted,  appears  from  the  reviews  in  the 
theological  journal  of  Ammon  and  Haenlein  (afterwards  of  Gabler). 
He  may  be  viewed,  therefore,  as  a  leading  representative  of  the 
rationalistic  treatment  of  the  Old  Testament  at  that  period.  The 
historical  process  by  which  he  gets  at  the  successive  development  of 
religion  is  to  distinguish  the  doctrine  (1)  of  Genesis,  (2)  of  the  other 
books  of  tlie  Pentateuch,  (3)  of  the  book  of  Joshua,  (4)  of  Judges^ 
and  so  on — 14  divisions  in  all.  (This  is  in  his  appendices,  for  he  was 
afraid  that  in  the  book  itself  his  method  had  been  still  too  dogmatic.) 
This  is  enough  to  show  how  external  is  the  apprehension  of  the  historic 
development.  The  critical  treatment  consists  in  judging  the  contents 
of  the  Old  Testament  from  the  principles  of  the  most  commonplace 
intelligence,  and  sometimes  in  condemning  them  as  superstitious  or 
immoral ;  or  at  times  "  the  less  strong  philosophy  of  the  Hebrews " 
is  treated  with  more  indulgence,  or  we  are  told  that  this  was  "  the 
extent  of  the  religious  enlightenment  of  the  Hebrews."     [Prol.] 

(4)  The  writing  of  Lessing's  which  falls  to  be  mentioned  here  is 
The  Education  of  the  Human  Race.  Some  have  said  that  Lessing 
was  not  in  earnest  with  this  book ;  but  the  right  judgment  on  the 
author  is  that  of  Lotze  in  his  History  of  ^Esthetic  in  Germany^  p.  24  : 
"  He  touched  no  subject  without  casting  much  light  on  it ;  but  the 
great  intellectual  agitator  to  whom  the  culture  of  his  nation  owes  a 
debt  that  cannot  be  estimated,  did  not  in  any  field  of  inquiry  advance 
to  the  systematic  connection  of  the  fruitful  threads  of  thought  which 
he  spun.     We  are  put  in  mind  of  his  own  saying,  that  the  endless 


§  13.]       RISE  OF  A  BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY  DISTINCT  FROM  DOGMATIC.  53 

search  for  truth,  even  though  it  were  without  result,  Is  better  than 
the  unlaborious  possession  of  truth  :  we  comprehend  how  this  earnest 
joy  in  investigation,  and  deep  reverence  for  truth,  made  him  indisposed 
to  come  to  a  final  conckision,  which  is  generally  harder  to  retract  than 
an  error  of  detail." 

(5)  Kant's  work,  Religion  ivitldn  the  Limits  of  Pure  Beason,  which 
is  regarded  as  the  starting-point  of  recent  philosophy  of  religion,  takes 
notice,  though  but  briefly,  of  the  Old  Testament.  Kant  asserted  the 
relative  necessity  of  a  positive  religion.  The  absolute  demand  of  the 
moral  law,  that  the  radical  evil  must  be  overcome  by  what  is  good,  can 
be  accomplished  in  mankind  as  a  whole  only  by  the  founding  of  an 
ethical  society  in  which  the  moral  law  becomes  the  general  principle. 
But  such  an  ethical  society  can  be  founded  only  by  a  religion  which, 
in  order  to  the  visible  manifestation  of  the  ethical  commonwealth,  must 
take  statutory  shape,  as  men  always  desire  a  sensible  confirmation  of 
rational  truths.  But  a  statutory  law  must  be  prescribed  under  divine 
authority  :  it  is  the  vehicle  of  the  religion  of  reason  by  which  man 
must  train  himself  to  free  morality. — One  would  suppose  that  these 
propositions  opened  the  way  in  an  unexpected  manner  for  the  philo- 
sophic apprehension  of  Mosaism  ;  but  Kant  made  no  such  application 
of  them.  He  had  a  strong  antipathy  to  the  Old  Testament,  saying 
that  the  law  of  Moses  contains  not  moral,  but  mere  political  precepts — 
does  not  prescribe  moral  disposition  as  a  motive  ;  and  that  the  Old 
Testament  has  no  doctrine  of  immortality,  and  is  particularistic. 
[Prol.] 

(6)  Gramberg's  1st  vol.  contains  hierarchy  and  cultus ;  vol.  2, 
theocracy  and  prophecy. — Vols.  3  and  4  were  to  contain  dogmatic  and 
ethic,  but  the  author  died  before  they  were  complete.     [Prol.] 

(7)  Special  reference  is  due  to  Herder's  Letters  respecting  the  Stxidy 
of  Theology;  cf.  e.g.  the  18th  letter  in  vol.  ix.  of  his  religious  and 
theological  works.  The  leading  proposition  which  Herder  there  states 
is  :  "  The  whole  Old  Testament  rests  on  an  ever  fuller  development  of 
certain  primitive  promises,  images,  results,  and  their  whole  combined 
sense — their  ever  wider  and  more  spiritual  purpose  :  the  New  Testa- 
ment was  therefore  a  fulfilling  of  the  Old,  as  the  kernel  appears 
when  all  the  shells  and  husks  that  hid  it  are  stripped  off.  They  were 
stripped  off  gradually,  and  with  ever  increasing  delicacy,  till  Christ 
appeared  ;  and  they  shall  yet  be  universally  recognised  as  one  purpose 
of  God,  when  He  shall  come  with  His  kingdom." 

(8)  Of  De  Wette's  writings  we  have  here  specially  to  mention 
two  ingenious  essays, — his  "  Contribution  to  the  Description  of  the 
Character  of  Hebraism,"  in  Creuzer  and  Daub's  Studien;  and  a  paper 


54  INTRODUCTION.  [§  13. 

on  "  The  Synibolico-typical  Method  of  the  Doctruie  of  tlie  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,"  in  the  theological  Zeitschrift,  edited  by  him  in  fellow- 
ship witli  Schleiermacher  and  Llicke.  Here  we  find  such  statements 
as  the  following  :  "  As  every  phenomenon  in  time  is  interwoven  witli 
the  time  that  precedes  and  follows,  so  Christianity  proceeded  from 
Judaism. — The  whole  Old  Testament  is  one  great  prophecy,  one  great 
type  of  that  which  was  to  come,  and  is  come,"  etc.  In  De  Wette's 
Biblical  .Dogmatic  this  view  recurs  only  in  general  statements  (parti- 
cularly §  211).  In  the  anthropological  introduction  to  this  book,  the 
idea  of  religion  is  determined  accoi'ding  to  the  philosopliy  of  Fries. 
This  idea  is  then  applied  to  the  religious  material  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments ;  and  everything  in  them  which  does  not  square  with 
the  utterances  and  laws  of  the  ideal  rational  faith,  and  of  religious 
sentiment,  is  excluded  or  regarded  as  irrelevant  disguise,  while  only 
what  remains  is  taken  as  the  true  essence  of  the  religion  (§  50,  51). 
In  this  process,  Old  and  New  Testament  are  to  be  accurately  dis- 
tinguished, but  also  again  compared  together  (§  58). — It  appears  from 
liis  essay  on  "  the  exposition  of  the  Psalms  for  edification"  (Basel, 
1836),  that  De  Wette  regards  the  development  of  the  notions  expressed 
in  the  essays  cited  above  as  the  proper  work  not  of  scientific  theology, 
but  of  the  practical  treatment  of  the  Old  Testament  for  ends  of 
edification.     [Prol.] 

(9)  To  this  head  belong  especially  Baur's  essays  "  on  the  original 
meaning  of  Passover  and  Circumcision,"  and  "  the  Hebrew  Sabbath 
and  the  national  festivals  of  the  Mosaic  cultus," — both  in  Tueb. 
Zeitschr.  f.  Theol.  1832.  In  the  former  essay  Baur  thus  defines 
the  standpoint  of  his  investigation :  "  Mosaism  must  be  viewed  as  a 
great  religious  reform  ;  the  renewal  and  restoration  of  a  purer  religion 
periodically  darkened  and  threatened  by  still  greater  darkness  and 
decay.  It  contains  so  many  elements  accepted  by  tradition  from 
primeval  antiquity  ;  and  the  further  these  elements  lie  beyond  the 
strictly  limited  sphere  of  Mosaism,  the  more  clearly  do  they  point 
back  to  a  freer  and  wider  region  of  religion,  in  which  later  polytheism 
has  also  its  proper  share — to  a  common  primeval  religion,  from  which 
special  forms  of  I'eligion  proceeded  and  gradually  fell  apart."     [Prol.] 

(10)  On  Kaiser's  biblical  theology,  see  the  essay  of  Schmid  cited 
above,  p.  140. 

(11)  On  Schleiermacher,  cf.  §  8,  note  3  ;  on  Schelling,  cf.  Adolf 
Planck,  Schelling' s  Posthumous  Works^  and  their  Importance  for 
Theology  and  Philosophy,  1858. 

(12)  Hegel  distinguishes  three  stages  of  religion  :  the  religion  of 
nature,  the  religion  of  spiritual  individuality  or  subjectivity,  and  the 


§  13.]       RISE  OF  A  BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY  DISTINCT  FROM  DOGMATIC,  55 

absolute  religion.  The  Jewish  reh'gion  belongs  to  the  second  stan-e, 
in  which  the  religious  consciousness  is  no  longer  determined  by  nature, 
but,  on  tlie  contrary,  the  subject  has  grasped  itself  in  its  beino-.for- 
itself  [Fiirsichscyii]^  and  is  that  which  absolutely  determines  the 
natural.  Divinity,  therefore,  is  at  this  stage  known  as  freely  deter- 
mining itself  by  itself,  and  acting  for  ends.  This  stage  of  religion  is 
evolved  in  three  forms.  In  the  first,  the  Jewish  religion,  the  spiritual 
being-for-itself  comes  forth  as  the  spiritual  God,  one  and  self-consistent, 
to  whom  all  that  is  natural  and  finite  stands  in  a  relation  of  absolute  lack 
of  independence.  This  God  manifests  Himself  in  nature,  but  so  that  He 
is  higher  than  His  manifestation  in  the  natural  world,  and  distinguishes 
Himself  therefrom.  Thus  nature  loses  all  divine  quality — relio'ion  of 
loftiness.  God  is  Wisdom,  inasmuch  as  He  is  Himself  the  end  to  which 
all  things  are  directed  ;  and  is  the  Holy  One,  because  as  the  one  God 
He  unites  in  one  end  all  the  determining  properties  of  the  end.  But 
since  the  end  is  not  the  determination  of  the  infinite  essence  of  God 
Himself  (God  does  not  create  Himself  in  Himself),  but  rather  the 
realizing  of  the  end  falls  outside  of  Him,  the  one  divine  end  is  limited 
and  particularized.  ''  The  two  things  correspond,  infinite  might  and 
limitation  of  actual  aim  :  on  the  one  side  loftiness,  and  on  the  other 
the  opposite,  infinite  limitation  and  prejudice."  This  contradiction 
between  universality  of  aim  and  limitation  of  realization  is  what  brings 
the  relicrion  of  Israel  to  its  fall. 

In  the  second  relimon  of  this  stafjo,  the  relimon  of  Greece,  the 
separation  of  the  natural  and  the  spiritual  which  is  made  in  Jewish 
religion  is  again  done  away  with  in  corporeity^  in  which  the  natural 
is  the  token  of  the  spiritual  (religion  of  beauty).  This  gives  a  certain 
reconciliation  of  the  particular  with  the  universal,  the  particular  being 
raised  into  the  life  of  the  universal  as  an  inner  determination  thereof, 
while  the  universal  enters  in  a  living  personal  manner  into  the  sphere 
of  the  particular.  The  human  form  is  recognised  as  an  adequate  form 
for  the  appearance  of  the  Godhead,  which  thus  presents  itself  as  a 
plurality  of  divine-human  individualities.  Thus  a  unity  of  the  divine 
and  the  human  is  reached,  though  (as  Vatke  modifies  the  statement, 
p.  113)  only  a  superficial  unity.  But  the  oneness  of  these  many 
particulars  into  which  the  Godhead  is  divided  is  external  to  the 
former,  the  undefined  subjective  might  that  stands  above  the  gods — 
necessity — Hellenic  fate.  As  in  Jewish  religion  universality  appears 
without  true  differentiation  into  particulars,  so  in  the  Greek  religion 
we  find  the  particular  without  its  true  universality. 

This  external  relation  of  the  general  and  the  particular  is  sublated 
in   the  third  relifrion  of   this  stao-e — the  relifrion  of   Rome.       The 


56  INTRODUCTION.  [§  13 

particular  ends  which  fell  apart  in  the  Greek  religion,  and  were 
swayed  by  blind  necessity,  are  here  elevated  and  made  part  of  the 
supreme  necessity,  being  comprehended  in  the  one  necessary  end  to 
the  realization  of  which  the  gods  act  as  means.  The  universality  of 
this  end  raises  it  above  the  particularistic  limitation  of  Judaism ;  but 
while  the  latter  is  directed  to  the  one,  the  eternal,  the  supernatural, 
the  aim  of  the  religion  of  Eome  is  one  that  resides  externally  among 
men,  possessing  only  empirical  universality  :  it  is  the  might  of  the 
Koman  state,  which  by  force  of  weapons,  under  the  protection  of  its 
gods,  subdues  the  limited  minds  of  the  nations,  annihilates  their  poli- 
tical life  and  their  gods,  and  so,  by  dashing  the  old  world  to  pieces, 
paves  the  way  for  the  absolute  religion. 

These  are  the  outlines  of  Hegel's  view.  It  does  not  deny,  nay, 
expressly  asserts,  the  organic  relation  of  Judaism  to  Christianity. 
The  pre-Christian  forms  of  religion  are  only  the  individual  integral 
parts  of  the  notion  of  religion,  which  appears  in  its  totality  in  the 
absolute  religion,  in  Christianity.  Judaism,  like  the  other  religions 
before  Christ,  is  an  essential  presupposition  of  Christianity,  and  the 
Old  Testament  really  contains  a  preparation  for  Christianity.  But  the 
connection  of  Judaism  with  Christianity  is  not  on  this  theory  specific, 
or  at  least  not  closer  than  that  of  Greek  or  Roman  religion.  Bruno 
Bauer,  indeed  (^Zeitschr.  fur  Spehulat.  Theol.  i.  Nr.  2,  p.  256),  sought 
to  deduce  from  Hegelian  principles  a  closer  positive  connection  of 
Judaism  with  Christianity ;  pointing  to  Hegel's  statement  {Rel.-Pldl. 
ii.  p.  222)  that  the  alienation,  the  infinite  pain,  presupposed  by  the 
atonement  offered  in  Christianity,  can  be  felt  only  where  "  the  good, 
or  God,  is  known  as  one  God,  as  a  God  purely  spiritual,"  etc.,  which 
is  the  case  only  in  the  religion  of  the  Old  Testament.  But  the 
inference  as  to  the  relation  of  Judaism  and  heathenism  which  flows 
from  this,  is  not  drawn  in  Hegel's  philosophy  of  religion.  And  to 
show  how  the  Old  Testament  religion  necessarily  "  led  man  to  look 
deep  into  himself,  and  so  displayed  the  negative  element  of  alienation 
(wickedness),"  would  have  required  a  much  more  accurate  grasp  of 
God's  holiness  and  of  sin  than  belongs  to  HefTel's  statements. 

We  can  here  remark  only  in  a  general  way  on  the  relation  in 
which  Hegel  places  the  religion  of  the  Old  Testament  to  the  religions 
of  heathenism. — First,  as  regards  the  relation  of  Judaism  to  Greek 
religion,  which  is  said  to  be,  that  the  separation  of  the  natural  and  the 
spiritual,  of  the  divine  and  the  human,  made  in  the  former  is  sublated 
in  the  latter.  It  has  justly  been  urged  against  this  view,  that  the 
complete  separation  made  in  the  religion  of  Israel  is  not  a  thing  which 
the  Greek  religion  has  passed  through  and  risen  beyond,  but  a  thing 


§  13.]        rJSE  OF  A  BIDLICAL  THEOLOGY  DISTINCT  FROM  DOGMATIC.  57 

which  it  has  not  yet  attained  to.  The  only  stage  of  reh'gion  above  which 
the  Greek  rehgion  rises,  is  that  in  which  subjectivity  still  lies  captive 
in  absolute  dependence  on  the  forces  that  rule  in  the  natural  universe  ; 
all  that  the  Greek  spirit  got  over  was  the  unfree  relation  of  man  to 
the  life  of  nature.  But  the  way  in  which  the  Greek  spirit  lays  hold 
of  itself  in  free  subjectivity  over  against  nature  is  not  by  coming  to  a 
point  where  the  spirit  is  torn  loose  from  nature  and  alienated  there- 
from, but  again  reconciled  by  Hellenic  religion.  On  the  contrary,  the 
subject  remains  harmoniously  united  to  the  life  of  nature,  in  which  it 
only  meets  again  its  own  fi'ee  spiritual  life.  For  the  Greek  view  of 
nature,  to  borrow  the  words  of  Braniss  (in  the  excellent  sketch  of  the 
philosophy  of  religion  in  his  Survey  of  the  Progress  of  Philosoiyhy,  1842, 
p.  83  ft.),  is  briefly  this :  "  All  things  are  subjects  ;  and  of  all  the 
endless  variety  of  natural  beings  which  the  universe  contains,  the  innei" 
side  is  man  ;"  and  the  first  principle  of  the  religious  consciousness  of 
the  Greek  is,  that  "  everything  natural  is  divine,  only  because  and  in 
so  far  as  it  is  human." — Doubtless  the  Greek  religion  has  a  vague 
sense  of  alienation  between  the  subjective  spirit  and  the  glad  world  of 
the  Olympians,  e.g.  in  the  myth  of  Prometheus,  and  in  the  prophecy  of 
the  son  of  Metis  (cf.  Stuhr,  The  Religious  Systems  of  the  Hellenes,  etc., 
p.  79  f.).  But  this  does  not  go  the  length  of  a  real  breach,  much  less 
of  a  reconciliation ;  for  Prometheus  submits  to  Zeus,  and  Metis,  who 
menaces  danger,  is  swallowed  by  Zeus.  But  when  the  son  of  Metis, 
who  overthrew  the  gods  of  popular  faith,  was  born  in  Greek  philosophy, 
then  indeed  appeared  an  alienation  between  nature  and  spirit,  for 
which  neither  Greek  religion  nor  anything  in  heathenism  could  provide 
an  atonement.  For  neither  the  new  gods  brought  in  from  foreign 
worships  to  supply  the  proved  insufficiency  of  the  old  deities,  nor  the 
philosophers'  attempt  to  gather  up  the  multiplicity  of  the  world  in  the 
unity  of  the  oWw?  6v,  which  Plutarch,  for  example,  preaches  as  the 
true  God  with  almost  prophetic  voice  (see  especially,  de  Ei  apud 
Delphos,  cap.  20,  and  Dr.  C.  L.  Kotli's  review  of  Niigelsbach's  Homeric 
Theology,  in  Harless'  Zeitschrift  far  Protestantismus,  new  series,  i.  p. 
o82  ff.),  satisfied  the  spirit  which  now  sought  a  godhead  standing  above 
nature — a  supernatural  god.  If,  then,  the  Greek  religion  in  its  dissolu- 
tion sought  what  the  Old  Testament  always  possessed,  how  can  it  be 
Iield  to  rise  superior  to  the  Old  Testament  faith  ? — Thus,  too,  it  is  not 
just  to  assert,  with  Vatke  (p.  113),  that  the  figures  of  the  gods  in  the 
Greek  religion  approach  on  one  side  nearer  to  the  idea  of  the  God-man 
than  the  abstract  infinitude  of  the  Hebrew  view  and  the  symbolic  or 
momentary  interlinking  of  the  infinite  with  the  actual ;  for  between 
the  union  of  the  holy  supernatural  God  with  man's  nature,  which  is 


58  INTRODUCTION.  [§  13, 

sought  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  the  human  gods  of  Greece,  which 
are  only  immanent  principles  of  the  natural  world,  there  subsists  no 
relation  which  makes  it  reasonable  to  speak  of  an  approximation  of 
the  two  views  at  all. 

Further,  as  regards  the  I'elation  of  Judaism  to  the  religion  of 
Rome,  Vatke  thinks  it  quite  impossible  to  draw  a  parallel  between 
the  two.  But  this  is  hardly  what  his  master  would  have  said.  Hegel 
obviously  means  to  ascribe  to  the  religion  of  liome  a  superiority  over 
Judaism,  insomuch  as  in  the  latter  the  divine  aim  is  realized  outside 
of  God,  and  is  limited  to  one  family  and  nation  ;  while  the  aim 
attained  in  the  Roman  system  is  universal,  viz.  the  world-empire. 
But  it  is  more  correct  to  say,  that  the  divine  aim  expressed  in  Israel's 
religion  is  particularistic  only  in  its  temporary  manifestation.  In 
itself  it  is  universal,  and  expects  universal  realization,  as  the  Old 
Testament  certainly  knows.  That  all  nations  shall  be  blessed  in 
Abraham's  seed  is  the  beginning  of  the  promise  :  the  kingship  of 
Jehovah  over  all  the  earth  is  proclaimed  by  prophecy  as  the  end  of 
the  divine  empire.  In  the  history  of  the  people  of  Israel,  the  Old 
Testament  sees  movement  towards  the  realization  of  this  universal 
aim.  "But,"  objects  B.  Bauer  (^Religion  of  the  Old  Testament,  u 
Introd.  p.  Ixxxviii.),  "this  universality  of  aim  was  a  mere  postulate,. 
to  the  real  execution  of  which  Hebraism  did  nothing,  and  could  do 
nothing,  because  the  law  as  such  stopped  short  with  an  '  ought.'  The 
Hebx'ew  nation  as  a  community  took  not  one  step  to  diffuse  the 
service  of  Jehovah,  and  bring  about  a  universal  manifestation  of  the 
divine  aim  in  time  to  come.  The  actual  carrying  out  of  the  divine 
end,  as  a  practical  matter  of  fact,  first  appears  in  the  world  history  in 
the  religion  of  Rome,  and  forms  a  factor  in  the  history  of  the  religious 
consciousness,  which  stands  higher  than  the  aimi  which  appears  in  the 
religions  of  the  Old  Testament  and  of  Greece"  (p.  Ixxv.).  "To 
have  actually  broken  the  national  spirit  of  the  ancient  peoples,  re- 
mains the  boast  of  the  Romans  in  the  history  of  the  world ;  and  with- 
out this  deed  the  predictions  of  the  prophets  could  never  have  been 
fulfilled." — True !  but  after  the  national  spirit  of  antiquity  was 
broken,  as  B.  Bauer  says  (and  as  the  Old  Testament  itself  predicts. 
Hag.  ii.  21,  22,  etc.),  and  after  the  Roman  system  had  cleared  the 
way,  the  prophetic  predictions  were  verily  fulfilled,  and  the  execution 
of  the  holy  purpose  of  God  spoken  in  the  Old  Testament  became 
practical  matter  of  fact.  When  the  Romans  had  realized  their  universal 
aim,  it  was  made  a  means  towards  the  aim  revealed  in  Israel.  The 
Capitol  and  Mount  Zion  confront  one  another  with  equal  claims  to  send 
forth  their  commands  over  all  the  world.     But  it  was  the  God  of 


§  13.]        KISE  OF  A  BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY  DISTIXCT  FROM  DOGMATIC.  50 

Israel,  not  Jupiter  Capitolinus,  tliat  sware  by  Himself  :  "  To  me  every 
knee  shall  bow,  every  tongue  shall  swear,  and  say,  In  the  Lord  have 
I  righteousness  and  strength."  Not  the  pax  JRomana  was  the  goal  of 
the  old  world,  but  the  kingdom  of  the  Prince  of  peace,  who  comes 
forth  from  Israel,  to  whom,  in  the  execution  of  the  aim  already 
revealed  in  the  Old  Testament,  all  the  majesty  of  Roman  was  a  mere 
servant.     On  which  side,  then,  did  the  superiority  lie? 

There  is  no  historical  truth  even  in  the  assertion  (Bauer,  p. 
Ixxvi.)  that  the  Old  Testament  religion  stands  in  a  relation  of  reci- 
procity with  those  of  Greece  and  Rome,  so  that  the  one  always  gives 
the  negation  of  the  onesidedness  and  limitation  of  the  others ;  while 
Christianity  arises  out  of  their  inner  dialectic.  It  was  not  by  factors 
of  the  Greek  and  Roman  religion  that  the  limits  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment religion  were  broken,  and  her  prophecies  carried  to  fulfilment ; 
and  it  is  vain  to  accuse  the  Christian  Church  of  a  lie,  in  that  it  has 
from  the  first  regarded  the  Hellenes  as  the  iXirlSa  fxr]  e^^oz^re?  kuI  aOeoc 
iv  rep  Koa[iw  in  contrast  with  the  TroXcrela  rod  'Iapari\  of  which  it 
considers  itself  the  continuation  and  completion.  To  this  knowledge 
of  the  early  Church  it  is  objected  (Vatke,  p.  115  f. ;  cf.  Schleier- 
macher,  der  christliche  Glaube,  §  12),  that  "  even  the  consideration 
of  the  manner  in  which  Christianity  found  entrance  among  Jews 
and  Gentiles  is  enough  to  teach  us  that,  on  the  whole,  it  stood  in  a 
similar  relation  to  both  standpoints.  For  the  heathen,  most  of  whom, 
and  especially  those  who  were  then  bearers  of  the  world-historical 
spirit,  belonged  to  the  Greek  and  Roman  principles,  accepted  Chris- 
tianity as  willingly,  or  even  more  so,  than  the  Jews.  Nay  more, 
they  were  purer  organs  of  Ciiristianity."  But  to  this  the  answer 
of  Nitzsch  is  adequate  :  "  The  very  reason  why  the  Jews  hardened 
themselves  in  so  great  a  measure  against  Christianity,  was  their 
consciousness  of  the  absolute  negation  of  heathenism  in  their  religion, 
— a  possession  that  they  sought  to  retain  as  their  exclusive  pride  ;  and 
the  very  reason  why  the  heathens  were  so  ready  to  accept  Christ,  is 
that  they  sighed  after  revelation,  but  had  it  not ;  though  heathenism 
may  have  worked  its  way  up  to  the  hypothesis  of  a  revelation."  If 
the  question  is  one  of  the  purity  with  which  Christianity  was  appre- 
hended, the  Jewish  apostles  of  the  Lord  are  likely,  in  spite  of  all 
modern  Gnosticism,  to  retain  the  honour  of  having  been  the  purest 
organs  of  the  Christian  spirit. 

It  will  be  seen  from  what  precedes  why  Hegel's  view  of  Judaism 
cannot  suffice  Christian  theology,  so  long  as  the  latter  remains 
positively  Christian  at  all.  (Further  details  need  not  be  gone  into ; 
but  it  would,  for  example,  be  easy  to  show,  that  what  Ilegel  says  of 


CO  INTRODUCTION.  [§  14. 

God's  holiness,  the  fear  of  the  Lord,  etc.,  is  very  applicable  to  Islam, 
but  not  to  the  Old  Testament.  The  name  "religion  of  loftiness" 
would  better  suit  Islam.  Cf.  also  the  doctrine  of  God's  holiness, 
infra.)     [Prol.] 

§14. 

THEOLOGICAL    VIEW    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT    IN    THE  EARLIER 
SUPERNATURALISM,  AND  IN  THE  MOST  RECENT  LITERATURE. 

For  a  long  time,  supernaturalism  had  done  comparatively  little  for 
Old  Testament  theology.  Only  in  a  few  books  is  a  living  historical 
view  of  revelation  found,  as  in  the  case  of  Hess,  who  is  mainly 
concerned  with  the  proof  that  revelation  proceeds  on  a  plan  (1). 
More  important  is  Menken,  who  in  part  carries  forward  the  line  of 
thought  originated  by  Bengel  {Attempt  at  a  Guide  to  Self-instruction 
in  ilie  Holy  Scripture,  3d  ed.  1833 — a  kind  of  biblical  dogmatic)  (2). 
In  general,  the  theological  use  of  the  Old  Testament  by  the  so-called 
rational  supernaturalists  was  confined  partly  to  the  proof  of  the 
general  doctrines  of  Christian  religion  from  passages  of  the  Old 
Testament,  partly  to  the  use  of  the  Old  Testament  prophecies  for 
apologetic.  In  the  latter  respect,  the  chief  point  taken  up  was  the 
Justification  of  the  citations  in  the  New  Testament,  which,  however, 
was  often  done  without  fixed  principles  as  to  the  relation  of  prophecy 
and  fulfilment  (3).  From  this  side  Steudel  alone  gave  a  complete 
discussion  of  Old  Testament  theology  (4).  Steudel  acknowledges 
that  it  is  requisite  to  apprehend  the  Old  Testament  word  in  its  inner 
connection  with  the  history  of  salvation,  but  his  book  itself  proposes 
no  more  than  a  systematic  statement  of  the  religious  notions  of  the 
Old  Testament ;  and  the  progress  of  religious  knowledge  in  the  Old 
Testament  is  treated  not  as  an  organic  development,  but  more  from 
the  outside,  as  the  gradual  filling  up  of  a  framework  given  from  the 
first  (5). 

The  first  to  exert  a  thoroufrhrioing  influence  on  the  theological 
treatment  of  the  Old  Testament  was  Hengstenberg,  mainly  by  his 
Christology  of  the  Old  Testament  (3  vols.,  1st  ed.  1829-35,  2d  ed. 
re-written,  1854-57  ;  translated  in  Foreign  Theological  Library,  4 
vols.).  With  all  its  onesidedness,  or  partly  just  because  of  its 
strong   onesidedness,   this    book   made   an  epoch.      The  standpoint 


§  11.]  THEOLOGICAL  VIEW  OF  THE  0.  T.  IN  SUPEENATURALISM.  Gl 

which  Hengstenberg  first  took  up  in  treating  the  Old  Testament, 
and  from  which  he  never  quite  freed  himself,  is  essentially  that 
of  the  old  Protestant  theology ;  for  while  not  renewing  all  the 
tenets  of  the  latter,  he  yet  very  distinctly  aimed  at  finding  all  the 
fundamental  New  Testament  doctrines  in  the  Old  Testament,  not  in 
a  process  of  living  growth,  but  ready  made  (6).  "With  this  naturally 
went  a  disposition  to  spiritualizing  exegesis  of  the  prophecies,  which 
deprived  the  concrete  historical  side  of  part  of  its  due  (7).  Hengsten- 
berg retains  the  merit,  however,  of  having  been  the  first  to  revive  in 
Germany  a  strong  religious  and  theological  interest  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. After  his  death  appeared  the  History  of  the  Kingdom  of  God 
in  the  Old  Testament^  edited  from  his  lectures,  1869-71  (translated 
in  Foreign  Theological  Library).  The  standpoint  of  Hengsten- 
berg's  criticism  is  also  that  of  F.  R.  Hasse  in  his  Histonj  of  the 
Old  Covenant  (published  posthumously,  Leipzig  1863),  a  book  full 
of  matter,  but  which  does  not  go  into  details  as  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment doctrine.  In  this  respect  Hiivernick's  lectures  on  Old  Testa- 
ment theology  serve  as  a  supplement  to  the  book.  These  lectures 
(posthumously  published  by  Hahn,  1848,  and  again,  with  notes  and 
valuable  additions  by  H.  Schulz,  in  1863),  state  only  the  doctrines 
of  the  Old  Testament,  and  these  not  completely,  but  contain  much 
that  is  very  good. 

It  still  remained  an  unaccomplished  task  to  delineate  the  whole 
course  of  the  Old  Testament  history  of  salvation  in  its  organic  con- 
tinuity, and  with  due  regard  to  the  progressive  reciprocity  of  the  word 
of  revelation  with  the  events  of  history.  This  task  was  undertaken 
by  J.  Chr.  K.  Hofmann,  Prophecy  and  Fulfilment  in  the  Old  and 
Neio  Testaments,  2  parts,  1841-44.  In  opposition  to  Hengstenberg's 
obliteration  of  the  differences  of  grade  in  the  Old  Testament,  Hof- 
mann wishes  to  cast  light  on  the  progressive  connection  of  prophecy 
with  history ;  but  in  doing  so,  onesidetlly  gives  the  revealing  word  a 
secondary  relation  to  the  revealing  events,  which  often  leads  to  evacu- 
ation of  the  former.  The  relation  of  the  word  and  events  of  revela- 
tion was  afterwards  put  more  correctly  in  Hofmann's  Schriftbeweis, 
which  throughout  gives  many  most  valuable  contributions  to  the 
theology  of  the  Old  Testament  (8).  The  most  recent  handbook  of 
Old   Testament  theology,  and  one  of   the  most  valuable    scientific 


62  INTRODUCTION.  [§  14. 

works  on  this  subject,  is  the  Old  Testament  Theology  of  Hermann 
Schulz,  2  vols.  1869  (9). 

(1)  The  chief  writing  of  Hess  here  to  be  noticed  is,  "  On  the  King- 
dom of  God;  an  Attempt  to  sketch  the  Plan  of  the  Divine  Institu- 
tions and  Revelations,"  2  vols.  1781.  A  later  condensation  of  the 
book  is,  Kernel  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  1819  ;  well 
characterized  by  Hengstenberg  in  his  History  of  the  Kingdom  of 
God,  p.  99  f. 

(2)  Menken  published  the  results  of  his  biblical  inquiries  not  in  a 
form  strictly  scientific,  but  in  a  somewhat  elevated  popular  shape. 
He  may  be  said  to  have  taken  it  as  his  life-task  to  investigate  and 
elucidate  the  course  of  revelation ;  for  in  the  demonstration  of  the  way 
in  which  the  history  of  God's  kingdom  forms  a  close  harmonious 
whole,  he  correctly  saw  the  best  apology  for  the  Bible.  By  his  ex- 
positions, at  once  clear  and  deep,  he  alike  opposed  mystical  fantasies 
and  rationalistic  or  supernaturalistic  superficiality.  No  doubt  he  was 
himself  onesided,  and  in  particular  was  led  away  by  his  opposition  to  tlie 
Church's  doctrine  of  the  atonement  to  a  most  violent  exegesis  of  several 
passages  (compare  especially  in  \\\^  Attempt,  etc.,  cap.  vi.,  Appendix  B, 
on  the  doctrine  of  the  Atonement,  and  C  on  Isa.  liii.  5) ;  but  it  is  not 
to  be  forgotten  that  Menken's  view  of  God's  holiness,  and  his  con- 
nected theory  of  the  atonement,  contained  an  element  of  truth  ignored 
in  the  theories  he  opposed.  So,  too,  we  may  find  reason  to  object  in 
important  points  to  the  essays  (bearing  specially  on  Old  Testament 
theology)  upon  the  brazen  serpent  (Bremen,  1829),  and  on  faith  and 
the  doctrine  of  eternal  life  in  the  Old  Testament  (Appendix  to 
cap.  V.  of  the  Attempt)  ;  but  we  cannot  deny  to  these  investigations, 
as  a  whole,  the  praise  of  being  thorough  and  well  thought  out.     [Prol.] 

(3)  The  text  of  the  Old  Testament  was  expounded  now  literally, 
now  figuratively,  just  as  the  citation  seemed  to  demand  ;  a  tortuous 
process,  of  which  Schleiermacher  was  justified  in  saying,  "  The  effort 
to  prove  Christ  from  the  prophecies  I  can  never  regard  as  a  profit- 
able work  "  (2d  letter  to  Luecke,  in  vol.  ii.  of  his  collected  theological 
works,  p.  620). 

(4)  Lectures  on  Old  Testament  Theology,  delivered  by  Steudel, 
edited  after  his  death  by  me,  Berlin  1840  (cf.  my  notice  of  the  book 
in  Tholuck's  litt.  Anzeiger,  1843).  The  work  is  elucidated  by  several 
monographs  by  Steudel,  among  which  the  most  valuable  are  the 
essays  against  the  views  of  Hegel  and  Kust  as  to  Judaism  :  ^'  Glances 
at  the  Old  Testament  Revelation,"  in  the  Taeb.  Zeitschrift  fur  Tlieol. 
1835,  Nr.  1  and  2. 


5  14.]  THEOLOGICAL  VIEW  OF  THE  0.  T.  IN  SUPERXATURALISM,  (33 

(5)  A  passage,  specially  characteristic  of  Steudel's  standpoint,  is 
found,  I.e.  p.  ^Q :  "  In  the  very  beginning,  consciousness  of  God,  and 
of  man's  relation  to  Him,  presents  itself  in  the  most  general  way.  We 
■cannot  expect  here  to  find  man  otherwise  than  with  a  limited  vision, 
as  the  child  has  a  limited  vision ;  but  the  framework,  as  it  were,  is 
already  there,  and  ever  as  the  vision  grows  more  extended,  religious 
knowledge  becomes  richer."  To  the  same  purpose  is  the  admonition, 
p.  67,  that  from  "the  sum  of  divinely  revealed  truth"  must  be 
stripped  off  what  is  imperfect  in  the  form,  which  is  a  consequence 
only  of  the  imperfection  of  the  nursling,  not  of  the  nurturer. — Al- 
though the  principle  of  a  divine  pedagogic  here  set  forth  is  perfectly 
legitimate,  every  one  can  see  that  the  very  feature  by  which  the  law 
was  iracSaycoyo'i  eh  Xpcarov  has  not  justice  done  to  it.  But  even 
apart  from  this,  the  whole  idea  that  in  the  New  Testament  the  cogni- 
tions of  truth  contained  in  the  Old  are  only,  as  it  vvei'e,  stripped  of 
•certain  imperfect  forms,  and  on  the  other  side  increased  by  further 
knowledge,  is  utterly  untenable.  Such  an  idea  ascribes  to  the  Old 
Testament  both  too  much  and  too  little.  7oo  much,  for  we  are  bold 
to  assert  that  there  is  not  one  biblical  doctrine  which  is  fully  un- 
folded in  the  Old  Testament,  and  is  therefore  transferred  to  the  New 
Testament  without  further  development,  as  a  complete  thing  by  itself : 
and  too  little^  since  the  New  Testament  gives  no  wholly  new  doctrine ; 
but,  on  the  contrary,  the  truth  of  the  gospel  has  a  corresponding 
preparation  in  the  Old  Testament  for  all  its  compass  and  all  its  parts. 
[Prol.]  On  Steudel,  compare  also  my  article  "  Steudel,"  in  Herzog's 
MealencyclopoBdie,  xv.  p.  75  sqq. 

(6)  This  was  demanded  of  Hengstenberg  by  his  strong  faith  in 
revelation,  which  repudiated  every  concession  made  to  rationalism, 
and  by  the  common-sense  character  of  the  man,  which  in  all  things 
pressed  for  firm  final  results.  This  peculiarity  comes  out  most 
strongly  in  the  first  volume  of  the  first  edition  of  the  Christology ; 
especially  in  the  sections  on  "  The  Godhead  of  the  Messiah  in  the 
Old  Testament,"  and  "  The  Suffering  Messiah  in  the  Old  Testament." 
In  the  former  essay,  the  whole  doctrine  of  the  God-manhood  of  the 
Messiah  and  the  inner  distinctions  of  the  divine  essence  (the  differ- 
■eiice  between  the  revealed  and  hidden  God)  is  transferred  to  tlie  Old 
Testament.  The  difference  between  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  in 
this  point  {I.e.  p.  250)  is  supposed  to  be  only  that  the  latter  doctrine 
is  less  prominent  in  the  Old  Testament,  because  before  the  Logos 
became  flesh,  the  Revealer,  and  He  whom  He  revealed,  were,  as  it  were, 
lost  in  one  another. — But  the  true  view  is,  that  till  the  Logos  became 
flesh,  the  real  incarnation  of  God,  and  therefore  also  the  inner  dis- 


04  INTRODUCTION.  [§  11. 

tinction  in  the  divine  essence,  could  not  be  manifest  at  all ;  for  the 
acts  of  God  and  His  testimony  are  not  outside  of,  but  in  each  other, 
conditioning  each  other  reciprocally.  The  Old  Testament  reaches,  on 
the  one  hand,  to  the  transient  descent  of  God  into  visibility  in  the 
Antrel  of  the  Lord ;  on  the  other  side,  it  wrestles  to  grasp  the  Messiah 
in  divine  fulness  of  life  and  divine  dignity.  But  the  Angel  of  the 
Lord  always  returns  into  the  divine  essence ;  and  though  the  Spirit 
of  Jehovah  rests  on  the  Messiah,  Jehovah  Himself  remains  transcen- 
dent to  Him.  The  real  union  of  God  and  man  is  therefore  sought  in 
the  Old  Testament ;  but  the  Old  Testament  contains  only  the  move- 
ment towards  this  union,  and  therefore  does  not  contain  an  anticipa- 
tion of  the  knowledge  of  it.  (See  my  review  of  Haevernick's  critical 
investigations  on  Daniel,  in  Tholuck's  lit.  Anzeiger  for  1842.)  In 
other  words,  in  respect  to  this  doctrine,  Hengstenberg  understands  the 
unity  of  the  two  Testaments  to  mean,  that  the  New  Testament  doc- 
trine is  already  found  in  the  Old  Testament  as  a  complete,  finished 
prophecy,  though  perhaps  "  less  prominent ;"  while  the  true  meaning 
is  rather  that  the  New  Testament  is  gvoioing  in  the  Old,  and  there- 
fore is  in  the  Old  only  in  the  sense  in  which  the  higher  developments 
of  every  organism  are  contained  in  germ  and  type  in  its  lower  stages. 
[ProL] — In  later  years,  Hengstenberg  partly  drew  back  from  this 
standpoint ;  compare  also  what  is  said  by  him  in  the  introduction  to 
his  History  of  the  Kingdom,  of  Godj  etc.,  p.  22,  in  answer  to  the 
objections  taken  to  him  in  the  text. 

(7  and  8)  Compare  my  article  "  Weissagung"  in  Herzog's  Real- 
encyclopcvdie,  xvli.  p.  650  ff.  Of  recent  books,  the  following  may  be 
still  mentioned:  Samuel  Lutz,  Biblical  Dogmatic,  posthumously  edited 
by  Eudolf  Rtietschi,  with  a  preface  by  Prof.  Dr.  Schneckenburger. 
Pforzheim  1847,  especially  in  the  second  part ;  Historico-dogmatical 
Discussion  of  the  Biblical  Statement  of  the  Divine  Dispensation  of  Grace 
in  Israel;  Ed.  Naegelsbach,  The  God-man,  the  Fundamental  Idea  of 
Revelation  in  its  Unity  and  Historic  Develojyment,  vol.  i. ;  The  Man  of 
JNature,  1853,  unfortunately  carried  no  further  than  Noah.  Impor- 
tant contributions  to  our  subject  are  found  in  Kurtz,  History  of  the 
Old  Covenant,  2  vols.,  2d  ed.  1853-58 ;  Auberlen,  Divine  Revelation, 
an  Apologetical  Essay,  2  vols.  1864 ;  Delitzsch,  System  of  Biblical 
Psychology,  2d  ed.  1862.^  Hupfeld's  Commentary  on  the  Psalms- 
contains  notes  valuable  for  the  understanding  of  the  Old  Testament. 
Numerous  monographs  will  be  referred  to  in  the  course  of  the  book. 

(9)  See  my  review  of  Schultz's  book  in  Zockler  and  Andrese's 
Allg.  lit.  Anzeiger,  February  1870,  p.  104 ff. 

»  These  works  are  translated  in  Clark's  Foreign  Theological  Library. 


§  15.]  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  THE  HISTORICO-GENETIC  METHOD.  G5 

IV.-METHOD  OF  BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY.    DIVISION  OF  OLD 
TESTAMENT  THEOLOGY. 

§15. 

CHARACTERISTICS  OF  THE  HISTOEICO-GENETIC  METHOD. 

According  to  the  definition  of  §  2,  the  method  of  biblical  theology 
is  historico-genetic.     As  a  historical  science,  it  rests  on  the  results  of 
grammatico-historical  exegesis,  the  business  of  which  is  to  reproduce 
the  contents  of    the    biblical   books  according  to  the  rules  of  the 
language,  with  due  regard  to   the   historical   circumstances   under 
which  the  books  originated,  and  the  individual  circumstauces  of  the 
sacred  authors.     In  the  last  respect  the  grammatico-historical  exegesis 
passes  over  into  psychological  exposition,  which  goes  back  to  the  inner 
state  of  the  writer's  life, — a  species  of  exposition  which,  of  course, 
is  peculiarly  indispensable  in  dealing  with  passages  which,  like  the 
Psalms,  the  book  of  Job,  and  so  forth,  give  immediate  expression  to 
inner  experiences  and  frames  of  mind.      But  in  this  psychological 
exposition  we  already  reach  a  point  where  success  is  necessarily  pro- 
portional to  the  measure  in  which  the  Spirit  which  rules  in  the  sacred 
writers   witnesses  of    Himself  to   the   interpreter,   enabling   him    to 
understand    by  personal   experience   the   inner   experiences   of   the 
writers. — But  as  long  as  exegesis  stops  short  at  the  exposition  of 
individual  passages,  it  gives  only  an  imperfect  preparation  for  biblical 
theology.    Not  the  least  important  cause  of  the  former  defective  con- 
dition of  the  latter  was  the  usage  of  expositors  to  limit  themselves 
mainly  to  glosses  on  isolated  passages,  which  in  their  isolation  might 
easily  be  turned  in  favour  of  any  preconceived  opinion.     Exegesis, 
therefore,  has  to  go  on  to  grasp  the  sense  of  individual  passages,  first 
in  its  inner  connection  with  the  fundamental  idea  of  the  book  in 
general,  and  with  the  system  of  thought  characteristic  of  the  author, 
and  then  in  its  wider  connection  with  the  circle  of  ideas  proper  to  the 
special  region  of  the  dispensation  of  revelation  to  which  the  book 
belongs, — a  process  which  Schleiermacher  in  his  Hermeneittik  still 
reckons  as  part  of  psychological  exegesis.     In  this  way,  now,  we  reach 
the  various   forms  in   which  revelation  expresses  its  contents.     But 
now  biblical  theology,  which  has  to  set  forth  revelation  in  its  whole 
course  and  in  the  totality  of  its  phenomena,  has  to  comprehend  these 
forms  as  members  of  an  organic  process  of  development.     And  since 
VOL.  I.  E 


66  INTRODUCTION.  [§  13. 

every  such  process  can  be  comprehended  only  from  its  climax,  biblical 
theology  will  have  to  understand  the  Old  Testament  in  the  light  of 
the  completed  revelation  of  God  in  Christ  for  which  it  formed  the 
preparation, — will  have  to  show  how  God's  saving  purpose,  fulfilled  in 
Christ,  moved  through  the  preliminary  stages  of  this  history  of  revela- 
tion. While  the  external  historical  method  deals  with  the  contents  of 
the  Old  Testament  according  to  the  presumed  chronological  order  of 
the  books,  and  then  at  most  shows  how  ever  new  religious  knowledge 
was  added  to  what  was  already  in  existence — how  the  earlier  know- 
led<7e  was  completed,  deepened,  corrected ;  while  the  dogmatist  forces 
the  doctrinal  contents  of  the  Old  Testament  into  a  framework  brought 
to  it  from  the  outside ;  and  while  the  method  of  philosophical  construc- 
tion similarly  deals  with  the  Old  Testament,  by  cutting  it  up  critically 
until  it  suffers  itself  to  be  fitted  into  a  presupposed  scheme  of  logical 
categories, — the  genetic  method  seeks  to  reproduce  the  living  process 
of  the  growth  of  the  thing  itself.  This  method  refuses,  however,  to 
find  ripe  fruit  where  only  the  bud  exists ;  it  wishes  to  show  how  the 
fruit  grows  from  the  bud ;  it  sketches  the  earlier  stages  in  a  way  that 
makes  it  clear  how  the  higher  stages  could,  and  necessarily  did,  spring 
from  the  former  (1). 

(1)  De  Wette  (in  the  essay  On  the  Exposition  of  the  Psalms  for 
Edijication,  already  cited)  disputes  the  scientific  objectivity  of  what 
we  demand  of  theological  exegesis.  He  says  (p.  22)  that  everything 
that  links  the  old  covenant  to  the  new,  and  forms  the  element  of  life 
in  which  the  Old  Testament  grows  up  into  the  New,  to  the  full 
realization  in  Christ  of  a  life  at  once  divine  and  human,  is  purely 
general,  indefinite,  floating,  and  cannot  form  part  of  theological 
science,  but  only  of  interpretation  for  edification.  That  it  is  of  a 
general  kind,  is  true ;  that  it  is  also  indefinite,  floating  in  the  air,  is 
false.  For  example,  no  one  will  assert  that,  in  the  systems  of  Greek 
philosophy,  the  idea  in  which  they  are  inwardly  linked  together,  and 
which  forms  the  element  of  life  in  which  the  development  of  the  one 
moves  on  to  the  other,  "is  in  its  nature  something  indefinite  and 
floating,"  and  thus  incapable  of  scientific  expression.  On  the  contrary, 
the  scientific  treatment  of  the  history  of  philosophy  is  bound  to  find 
a  sharply  defined  expression  for  the  type  which  lies  at  the  basis  of 
the  development  of  philosophical  systems.  Now  certainly  the  indi- 
vidual philosopher,  in  proportion  to  his  distance  from  the  culminating 
point  of  the  development,  will  be  less  conscious  of  the  relation  of  his 


§  IC]  DIVISIONS  OF  0.  T.  THEOLOGY  STATED  AND  JUSTIFIED.  67 

own  system  to  the  development  of  the  philosophical  idea.  Yet  it  is 
no  violent  process,  but  only  what  is  due  to  the  system,  when  the 
historian  gives  to  it  its  right  place  in  the  context  of  philosophical 
development,  and  explains  it  from  this  connection.  —  Something 
analogous  is  demanded  of  biblical  theology — not  to  add  anything 
new  to  what  the  sacred  writers  knew,  but  to  grasp  what  lay  in  their 
consciousness,  in  its  connection  with  the  whole  organism  of  revelation 
and  its  relation  to  the  completion  of  revelation,  and  so  historically  to 
comprehend  it.  This  was  an  understanding  of  Old  Testament  revela- 
tion which  its  organs  themselves  could  not  possess,  at  least  not  in  full 
measure  (compare  the  well-known  passages  about  the  prophets,  1  Pet. 
i.  10-12  ;  2  Pet.  i.  20),  because  in  every  process  of  development  the 
lower  stage  does  not  fully  understand  itself.  But  Christian  theology 
stands  on  the  summit,  from  which  it  surveys  the  whole  course  of  the 
preparation  for  Christianity ;  and  it  would  be  strange  if  Old  Testa- 
ment theology  gave  up  this  advantage.  Theological  exegesis,  in  the 
right  sense  of  the  word,  is  not  affected  by  the  fact  that  Stier  (whom 
De  Wette  mainly  attacks)  and  other  writers  have  brought  theological 
interpretation  into  bad  repute,  by  their  habit  of  finding  a  second,  third, 
and  fourth  subordinate  and  secondary  sense  in  the  Old  Testament  besides 
the  historico-grammatical  sense.  All  that  ought  to  be  indicated  is 
the  relation  to  the  completion  of  the  divine  kingdom  which  lies  in  the 
thought  yielded  by  the  grammatico-historical  exegesis  of  a  passage — 
the  germiuant  character  which  gives  us  words  full  of  futurity ;  the 
Spirit  of  revelation  often  speaking  by  His  organs  words  that,  in  the 
fulness  of  their  significance,  were  not  quite  comprehended  by  the 
latter. 

§16. 

DIVISIONS  OF  OLD  TESTAMENT  THEOLOGY  STATED  AND  JUSTIFIED. 

Since  the  historico-genetic  method  claims  to  reproduce  the  course 
of  development  of  the  thing  itself,  the  divisions  of  Old  Testament 
theology  must  correspond  to  the  stages  in  which  the  development 
of  Old  Testament  religion  took  place.  De  Wette  and  v.  Coelln 
adopt,  as  their  main  divisions,  Hebraism  and  Judaism,  separated  by 
the  exile ;  but  if  Old  Testament  theology  is  limited  to  the  Hebrew 
canon,  this  division  is  unsuitable,  since  most  of  what  belongs  to  the 
head  of  Judaism  is  to  be  excluded  from  Old  Testament  theology 
altogether,  while  the  portions  of  the  canon  that  are  later  than  the 
exile  only  show  the  beginnings  of  the  characteristic  features  of  later 
Judaism  (1).      The  proper  division  is  given  by  the  following  con- 


68  INTRODUCTION.  [§  1$. 

siderations :  The  basis  of  the  Old  Testament  religion  is  the  covenant 
with  the  chosen  folk,  into  which  God  entered  for  the  accomplishment  of 
His  saving  purpose.  This  covenant,  for  which  the  way  is  prepared  in 
the  first  two  ages  of  the  world,  is  carried  out  in  two  stages:  1.  The 
patriarchal  covenant  of  promise  ;  and,  2.  The  Mosaic  covenant  of  the 
law,  on  the  basis  whereof  the  theocracy  is  founded.  This  whole 
sphere  may  be  summed  up  in  the  name  Mosaism ;  for  the  pre-Mosaic 
revelation  is  not  only  considered  in  the  Pentateuch  as  forming  the 
introduction  to  the  establishment  of  the  theocracy  under  Moses,  but 
itself  forms  a  component  part  of  the  religious  belief  of  Mosaism  (2). 
Whatever  elements  of  post-Mosaic  development  of  legal  institutions 
are  contained  in  the  Pentateuch  still  rest  on  the  principle  of  Mosaism  ; 
and  so,  too,  the  other  theological  elements  contained  in  the  Pentateuch 
form  the  presuppositions  that  lie  at  the  foundation  of  prophetic 
theology. — On  the  basis  of  the  legal  covenant,  the  development  of 
Old  Testament  religion  is  carried  on  in  two  ways :  First,  on  the  side 
of  God,  who  continues  to  execute  and  proclaim  His  purposes,  the 
former  by  guiding  the  people  towards  the  purpose  of  the  divine 
kingdom ;  the  latter,  in  the  testimony  of  prophecy  which  accompanies 
the  history  of  the  people,  interprets  it  at  each  step  in  the  light  of 
the  divine  counsel  of  salvation,  and  points  to  the  completion  of  God's 
kingdom.  The  second  part  of  Old  Testament  theology,  which  we 
briefly  call  Prophecy^  deals  with  those  elements  in  the  history  of  the 
people  of  Israel  from  their  entrance  into  the  promised  land  which  are 
important  for  the  development  of  God's  kingdom,  considering  these 
as  they  appear  in  the  light  of  prophecy,  and  also  discusses  the 
theology  of  prophecy  itself. — Side  by  side  with  this  objective  develop- 
ment of  Old  Testament  religion  goes  a  subjective  development  in  the 
Old  Testament  Wisdom^  which  equally  with  prophecy  is  rooted  in 
the  law,  but  developes  itself  apart  from  prophecy,  and  does  not,  lika 
the  latter,  claim  to  be  an  objective  word  of  God,  but  expresses  itself 
in  aphorisms  (D''pL"0)  as  the  result  of  meditation  by  sages  whose 
intellectual  instincts  are  roused  by  revelation.  Nor  does  it  busy 
itself  with  the  spheres  marked  out  by  theocratic  institutions  and  the 
prophetic  word,  but  directs  itself  mainly  to  contemplation  of  cosmical 
ordinances  and  the  general  aspects  of  the  ethical  life.  Thus  our 
third  division  is  the  Old  Testament  Chochma  {Hokma}  (3). 


§  16.]  DIVISIONS  OF  0.  T.  THEOLOGY  STATED  AND  JUSTIFIED.  69 

(1)  In  Hebraism,  De  Wette  {Bib.  Dogmatilc,  §  75)  distinguishes, 
1.  Pre-Mosaic  Hebraism,  or  the  religion  of  the  Hebrew  tribes,  mixed 
perhaps  with  polytheism ;  2.  Mosaic  Hebraism — theocratic  and  sym- 
bolic monotheism ;  3.  Degenerate  polytheistico-Mosaic  Hebraism ;  4. 
The  ideal  unsymbolic  Hebraism  of  the  prophets  and  poets.  But  since 
we  know  little  of  the  first  and  the  third,  there  remain  only  the  second 
and  fourth,  which  differ  only  in  form  (?),  and  must  therefore  be 
treated  not  apart,  but  in  their  mutual  relations. — To  this  Ave  object 
that  the  third  phase,  though  in  reality  it  can  be  pretty  well  known 
from  the  Old  Testament,  of  course,  cannot  be  taken  as  a  stage  in  the 
development  of  Old  Testament  religion, — as,  in  fact,  polytheistic 
worships  are  not  an  original  product  of  the  nation  of  Israel,  but 
borrowed  from  neighbouring  heathen  races.  This  phase  of  religion 
claims  our  attention  only  in  so  far  as  the  religion  of  revelation  grew 
in  battle  against  it. 

(2)  Against  our  definition  of  Mosaism  it  has  been  urged,  e.g.  by 
Sack,  in  a  review  of  my  Prolegomena  (Monatsschr.  fiir  die  evang. 
Kirclie  der  Rheinprovinz,  etc.,  iv.  1845,  p.  47  ff.),  that  it  is  quite  neces- 
sary to  treat  the  sphere  of  patriarchal  revelation  as  a  separate  stage, 
introductory  to  Mosaism. — It  is  true  that  this  sphere  presents  a  relative 
difference  from  the  later  Mosaic  revelation,  as  the  Pentateuch  itself 
indicates,  by  the  difference  in  the  names  of  God ;  and  it  is  possible 
to  treat  the  two  apart,  for  Hengstenberg's  latest  work,  cited  above, 
proves  that  this  preliminary  stage  may  be  extended  to  form  a  theo- 
logical whole  with  rich  contents.  But  such  a  course  makes  many 
repetitions  inevitable  in  the  part  on  Mosaism.  I  think  it  best  myself 
to  incorporate  the  whole  preparatory  stage  in  Mosaism. — K.  I.  Nitzsch, 
on  the  other  hand,  would  make  the  whole  Old  Testament  theology 
begin  with  Abraham,  asserting  at  the  same  time,  that  there  is  no 
necessity  to  make  a  separate  doctrinal  chapter  on  the  patriarchal  age. 
But  the  primeval  history  of  the  first  eleven  chapters  of  Genesis  gains  its 
right  place,  according  to  Nitzsch,  by  being  placed  in  the  didactic  section 
of  Mosaism  (article  Bihlische  Theologie,  in  Herzog's  R.  E.  ii.  p.  224). — 
In  general  this  is  sound ;  Mosaism  gives  no  theory  of  creation,  sin,  etc., 
but  presents  these  dogmas  in  historical  form.  But  though  thus  the 
contents  of  these  chapters  receive  full  elucidation  only  in  the  didactic 
section  of  Mosaism,  we  must  follow  Genesis  in  beginning  with  the 
creation,  if  we  wish  to  place  the  connection  of  the  narrative  in  the 
light  in  which  the  Old  Testament  itself  unites  the  history  of  revela- 
tion, beginning  with  Abraham,  to  the  primeval  time. 

(3)  Among  recent  theologians,  Vatke,  in  his  Religion  of  the  Old 
Testament,  p.  716,  recognises  the  possibility  of  dividing  Old  Testa- 


70  INTRODUCTION.  [§  16. 

ment  religion  into  three  leading  forms :  the  prophetic,  the  Levitic  or 
legal  and  symbolic,  and  the  later  form  of  reflection.  He  puts  the 
three  in  this  order,  because,  according  to  his  theory,  the  relation  of 
law  and  prophecy  must  be  inverted, — the  former  proceeding  from  the 
latter,  and  giving  objective  shape  to  what  the  prophets  reached  in 
immediate  self-consciousness.  Vatke,  however,  thinks  it  unsuitable 
to  treat  the  three  forms  apart,  the  differences  between  them  affecting 
only  individual  factors  of  the  manifestation  of  Old  Testament  re- 
ligion, and  no  one  form  excluding  the  others  and  presenting  the  whole 
contents ;  against  which  it  is  to  be  observed,  that  the  contents  of  the 
Old  Testament  idea  were  opened  up  in  different  directions  by  the 
various  ways  in  which  its  leading  elements  appeared  in  prophecy  and 
in  the  Chochma,  and  that  thus  what  is  common  to  both  frequently 
appears  under  quite  distinct  points  of  view.  The  difference  of 
Mosaism  from  both  the  other  forms  is  so  wide,  that  no  Justification  is 
needed  for  separating  it.     [Prol.] 

The  very  division  of  the  Old  Testament  canon  into  Law,  Prophets, 
and  Hagiographa,  though  not  quite  congruent  with  the  division  we 
adopt,  points  at  least  towards  it.  Mosaism  is  contained  in  the  Thora ; 
only  it  is  absolutely  necessary  to  treat  the  book  of  Joshua  as  part  of 
the  first  division  of  Old  Testament  theology,  though  it  stands  in  the 
second  division  of  the  canon.  The  whole  literary  character  of  the 
book  and  its  theological  principles  are  essentially  connected  with  the 
Pentateuch  ;  though  it  is,  perhaps,  questionable  whether  in  its  present 
shape  it  ought  really  to  be  the  sixth  book.  The  two  divisions  of  the 
D''X"'33j  the  prophetic  books  of  history  (former  prophets)  and  the 
prophetic  books  of  prophecy  (latter  prophets),  correspond  in  the  main 
with  our  two  divisions  of  the  second  part  of  our  subject,  save  that  we 
take  up  in  this  part  the  historical  books  of  the  Hagiographa  and  the 
book  of  Daniel.  In  the  Ciliina  the  Psalms  and  the  monuments  of  the 
Chochma  contain  what  we  call  the  subjective  development  of  Old 
Testament  religion  ;  though  a  good  part  of  the  Psalms  is  cognate  in 
subject  to  the  section  on  prophecy,  and  is  taken  up  there. — We  may 
recognise  this  difference  of  parts  in  the  Old  Testament  itself,  if  we 
look  at  the  expressions  by  which  it  denotes  its  theological  contents. 
It  very  definitely  distinguishes  divine  commands  and  prerogatives, 
divine  ways  and  guidances  in  the  history  of  the  people,  divine  visions 
and  words  of  revelation  to  the  prophets,  and  lastly,  aphoristic  utter- 
ances which  are  the  fruit  of  the  reflection  of  sages,  and  never  intro- 
duce themselves  in  the  form  in  which  the  prophets  used  to  introduce 
their  words. 


PART    L~MOSAISM, 


FIRST    SECTION. 

THE  HISTORY  OF  REVELATION  FROM  THE  CREA- 
TION TO  THE  SETTLEMENT  OF  THE  COVENANT 
PEOPLE  IN  THE  HOLY  LAND  (1). 

§17. 

DIVISION  OF  THIS  HISTORY. 

Tiie  Pentateuch  plainly  distinguishes  four  periods  in  the  history 
of  revelation : — 

1.  The  primeval  age,  with  ten  patriarchs,  closing  with  the  great 
flood. 

2.  Beginning  with  the  world-covenant  in  Noah's  time ;  the  time 
of  the  division  of  the  peoples,  by  which  the  separation  of  the  race  of 
revelation  is  prepared  ;  again  with  ten  generations. 

3.  The  time  of  the  three  great  patriarchs,  beginning  with  Abra- 
ham's election,  and  the  covenant  of  promise  made  with  him ;  and 
ending  with  the  sojourn  of  the  chosen  people  in  Egypt. 

4.  The  fourth  period  opens  with  the  redemption  of  Israel  from 
Egyptian  captivity ;  it  includes  the  closing  of  the  covenant  of  Sinai, 
and  the  establishment  of  the  theocracy,  with  its  regulations  (2). 

(1)  On  the  literature  of  the  history  of  the  old  covenant,  see  my 
article,  "  Volk  Gottes,"  in  Herzog's  Realencyhlop.  xvii.  p.  303  ff.,  and 
especially  Kurtz,  History  of  the  Old  Covenant,  i.  §  17  f- 

(2)  These  four  periods,  or,  as  Ewald  calls  them,  the  four  ages  of 
the  world,  are  so  distinctly  marked  off  in  the  Pentateuch,  that  there 
can  be  no  doubt  on  the  matter. — This  quaternary  number  of  historical 
periods  in  the  Pentateuch  has  been  connected  by  some — as,  for  instance, 

Tl 


72  THE  HISTORY  OF  REVELATION.  [§  18. 

by  Ewald  {History  of  the  People  of  Israel,  i.  3d  ed.  p.  368) — with  the 
four  ages  of  the  world  of  the  Indians,  Persians,  and  Greeks.  But 
this  comparison  cannot  be  carried  out  without  the  greatest  caprice, 
(Ilesiod's  doctrine  of  the  races  of  mankind — of  which,  however,  he 
counts  not  four,  but  five  ;  four  races  named  after  metals,  with  the 
race  of  heroes  added  to  them,  as  third  in  order — does  not  at  all  rest 
on  the  same  basis  with  the  Indian  doctrine  of  the  four  ages  of  the 
world  ;  compare  Rud.  Eoth's  thorough  discussion  on  the  myth  of 
the  five  races  in  Hesiod,  and  on  the  four  Indian  ages  of  the  world, 
Tuehinger  Universitaetsprogr.  1860.)  Max  Mueller  also  has  recently, 
and  with  good  reason,  declared  against  this  combination  in  his  Essays 
(i.  p.  137  f.) ;  although  we  may  still  admit  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
four  ages  is  very  old,  especially  among  the  Parsees.  The  main  feature 
required  to  make  a  valid  comparison  is  wanting  in  the  Pentateuch, — 
namely,  the  idea  "  of  a  degradation  of  the  times,  and  of  man  advancing 
exactly  by  four  steps,"  which  lies  at  the  basis  of  those  views  of  heathen 
nations.  At  most,  we  might  find  in  the  shortening  of  the  human 
lifetime  a  point  of  resemblance  to  those  heathen  notions ;  but  in  other 
points  the  Pentateuch  is  far  from  seeing  an  advancing  decay  in  these 
four  ages.  On  the  contrary,  the  age  of  the  patriarchs  is  to  the  Penta- 
teuch the  glorious  yoretide  of  the  people  of  Israel ;  and  just  in  the  same 
way,  the  time  of  Moses  lays  the  foundation  for  the  whole  development 
of  Old  Testament  religion. 


I.— THE  OLDEN  TIMES. 

§18. 

THE  ACCOUNT  OF  THE  CREATION. 

The  Old  Testament  begins  with  the  account  of  the  creation  of  the 
world  (1),  which  is  the  result  of  the  Word  and  Spirit  of  God.  Since 
God  by  His  word  calls  all  things  into  being,  He  is  placed  above  the 
beginning  of  all  time  as  the  eternal  and  absolutely  independent  One ; 
since  He  animates  the  universe  by  His  Spirit,  all  dualistic  separation  of 
God  and  the  world  is  excluded.  On  the  earth,  which  is  the  centre  of 
the  creation,  so  that  the  other  spheres  are  only  dealt  with  in  connection 
with  it  (Gen.  i.  14  ff.),  the  production  of  beings  advances  continually 
towards  higher  organisms  (2)  :  each  step  of  the  creation  is  relatively 
complete  in  itself,  and  serves  in  its  own  way  the  divine  aim  of  the 
creation,  as  is  expressed  in  the  oft-recurring  word,  "And,  behold,  it  was 


§  IS  ]  ACCOUNT  OF  THE  CREATION.  73 

good."  Still,  the  divine  creative  power  is  not  satisfied  till  it  reaches 
its  ultimate  end  in  the  creation  of  man.  Not  till  God  has  placed  His 
image  over  against  Him,  does  He  rest  content  from  creation.  The 
creation  Sabbath  stands  as  a  boundary  between  the  creation  and  the 
history  of  the  dealings  between  God  and  man,  and  through  it  we  are 
at  the  same  time  pointed  to  the  connection  ordained  to  exist  between 
the  order  of  the  world  and  the  order  of  the  theocratic  covenant  (com- 
pare also  ver.  14).  The  paragraph  Gen.  ii.  4  ff.  forms  the  introduction 
to  the  histoi'y  of  man ;  which  paragraph  is  by  no  means  a  second 
record  of  creation,  but  shows,  in  supplement  to  the  first  chapter,  how 
the  earth  was  prepared  for  an  habitation  for  man, — a  sphere  for  his 
activity,  and  a  place  for  the  revelation  of  God  to  man  (3). 

(1)  The  naturalist  Cuvier  says,  about  the  first  words  of  Genesis : 
A  sublimer  passage  than  this  from  the  first  word  to  the  last  never  can 
nor  will  come  from  a  human  pen,  "  In  the  beginning  God  created  the 
heaven  and  the  earth," — On  the  meaning  of  the  introductory  chapter  of 
Genesis,  without  which  the  whole  history  of  revelation  would  hang  in 
the  air  without  a  beginning,  compare  the  thoughtful  remarks  of  J.  G. 
Staib,  in  a  paper  in  the  Studien  tend  Kritiken,  1852,  Nr.  4,  p.  822  f., 
"  Die  Scliopfungsthat  und  das  Ebenbild,  or  Genesis  chapters  one  and 
two."  He  says  :  "  Whence  do  these  chapters  come  ?  I  do  not  know. 
There  they  stand,  and  ever  continue  to  stand,  however  much  it  has 
been  sought  to  explain  them  away ;  and  there,  doubtless,  they  will 
remain  until  the  end  of  the  world,  until  the  conclusion  of  God's  king- 
dom on  earth  joins  hands  with  the  beginning,  and  the  light  of  the 
beginning  can  again  be  recognised  in  the  light  of  the  end,  and  the 
light  of  the  end  in  the  light  of  the  beginning,  that  God  may  be  all  in 
all." 

(2)  We  cannot  fail  to  see  a  parallel  between  the  first  three  and 
the  last  three  days'  work.  The  work  of  the  first,  second,  fourth,  and 
fifth  day  is  single ;  the  work  of  the  third  and  sixth  is  twofold. — On  the 
formula,  "And  evening  was  and  morning  was,"  Gen.  i.  5,  etc., 
compare  the  article,  "  Tag  bei  den  Hebraern,"  in  Herzog's  E.E.  xv. 
p.  410  f.  Kurtz  [Bibel  und  Astroiioinie,  3d  ed.  p.  85)  first  asserted, 
and  Delitzsch  (in  the  second  ed.  of  his  Comm.  on  Gen.  i.  5)  further 
demonstrated,  that  the  formula  does  not  rest  on  the  Hebrew  definition 
of  the  civil  day  from  one  evening  to  another  (2iyiy  myw,  Lev.  xxiii. 
32),  but  on  a  measurement  of  the  day  from  morning  to  morning,  as 
among  the  Babylonians. 


74  THE  HISTORY  OF  REVELATION.  [§  18. 

(3)  On  tlie  disputed  question,  how  the  two  sections,  Gen.  i.  1-2,  4, 

and  that  immediately  following,  are  related,  note  the  following:  It  is 

customary  to  speak  of  two  accounts  of  the  creation,  which  are  said  to 

stand  irreconcilably  side  by  side  at  the  opening  of  Genesis.     I  certainly 

consider  (with  Tuch)  that  the  present  shape  of  Genesis  arose  by  the 

re-editing  of  an  Elohistic  narrative  and  the  interpolation  of  Jehovistic 

passages.     But,   at  the  same  time,  it  must  appear  most  improbable 

that  the  author  would  be  so  silly  as  to  place  at  the  head  of  his  work 

two  contradictory  accounts  of  the  creation.      The  second  account, 

in  fact — if  a  second  it  were — would  omit  some  of  the  most  essential 

points.     It  presupposes  that  heaven  and  earth  are  created,  but  as  yet 

no  vetretation  developed  ;    and  then  it  narrates  the  creation  of  man,. 

relates  how  Paradise  was  planted,  and  tells  of  the  animal  world.     There 

is  wanting  in  this  an  infinite  number  of  things  for  a  complete  account 

of  creation.     As  to  the  point  of  division  of  the  two  passages,  I  am 

convinced  that  the  words,  ii.  4a,  nnhn  n^K,  etc.,  belong  to  what  goes 

before,  not  to  what  follows.     The  first  section  gives  a  complete  account 

of  the  creation  finished  off  within  itself.    Then  follows  a  supplementary 

section,  whose  aim,  as  shown  in  the  text,  is  not  to  give  another  account 

of  creation.     A  difficulty  arises  here,  simply  because  it   is  thought 

necessary  to  seek  in  the  second  account  a  strictly  chronological  division. 

Then,  of  course,  the  second  section  cannot  but  stand  in  contradiction 

to  the  first.      On  this  view,  we  must  conceive  the  succession  of  time 

thus :  first,  the  earth  is  bare,  and  nothing  grows  upon  it ;   after  that  a 

mist  rises ;  then  man  is  created,  by  the  breathing  of  the  Divine  Spirit 

into  the  earthly  form.     Then  God  leaves  the  man  for  a  time,  and 

plants  a  garden,  and  causes  trees  to  grow  up  in  it ;  then  He  fetches  the 

man,  and  puts  him  in  it.     But  he  must  have  other  creatures  about  him  ; 

so  God  makes  all  sorts  of  beasts  and  birds,  and  brings  them  to  the  man  ; 

and  only  when  among  all  these  the  man  finds  no  companion,  the  last 

step  is  taken  by  the  creation  of  woman.     Much  meditation  could  not, 

indeed,  be  presupposed  on  the  part  of  any  one  who  could  imagine  this 

to  be  the  succession  of  the  acts  of  creation.     But  the  real  state  of  the 

case  is,  that  in  the  second  section  the  arrangement  is  not  in  the  order 

of  time,  but  by  similarity  of  matter,  so  that  whatever  is  brought  in  in 

elucidation  of  the   advance  of  the  story  is  just  inserted  where  it  is 

required.     If  we  are  to  urge  the  letter,  it  must  be  asked  here,  when  it 

said  that  man  was  placed  in  Paradise  to  keep  it,  Against  whom  should 

Paradise  be  watched  ?     It  must  have  been  animals  or  other  such  like 

creatures  against  which  the  trees  had  to  be  protected.     Indeed,  the 

second  section  stands  in  this  temporal  relation  to  the  first,  that  it  starts 

from  the  time  which  begins  at  the  end  of  the  second  day's  work,  and 


§  10.]  ORIGIN  OF  EVIL.  75 

commences  here  (with  the  words  Di''3,  etc.,  ver.  Ah)  by  treating  tlie 
question,  how  the  earth,  upon  which  at  the  close  of  the  second  day's 
work  no  vegetation  had  begun,  was  formed  into  a  dwelling-place  for 
man.  But  it  does  not  proceed  in  the  same  path  as  the  first  piece ;  but 
because  the  preparation  of  the  earth  for  man  is  its  main  point,  it  begins 
with  this.  It  might  certainly  be  said  that  ver.  8  should  have  pro- 
ceeded ;  but  God  had  already  also  caused  plants  to  spring,  and  now  in 
this  vegetable  kingdom  He  caused  all  sorts  of  trees  to  sprout  out  of 
the  ground,  and  thus  planted  Paradise.  But  who  dare  demand  from 
the  author  such  a  detailed  statement  ?  It  is  the  childlike  style  of 
story  Avhich  we  often  meet  with.  Who  gives  any  one  a  right  thus  to 
urge  the  Waio  consec.  cum.  imp/.,  and  from  it  to  deduce  a  chronological 
contradiction  ?  The  redactor  of  the  Pentateuch,  who  in  so  many  cases 
shows  his  skill  in  fitting  the  different  sources  into  each  other,  would 
not  have  placed  at  the  beginning  of  the  Pentateuch  such  round  contra- 
dictions as  would  follow  herefrom. — Comp.  also  Holemann,  JVeiv  Bible 
Studies,  1866,  i.,  ^'  The  Unity  of  the  Accounts  of  the  Creation  in  Gen. 
i.-ii.,"  with  the  critical  views  of  which  I  indeed  do  not  agree,  but 
which  nevertheless  gives  much  matter  that  is  good. — On  the  relation 
of  the  biblical  account  of  creation  to  natural  science,  comp.  F.  W. 
Schultz,  The  History  of  Creation  according  to  Natural  Science  and  the 
Bible,  1865. — The  fuller  discussion  of  the  Old  Testament  idea  of 
creation  will  be  found  in  the  didactical  section,  §  50  f. 

§19. 

THE  ORIGIN  OF  EVIL. 

The  world  as  a  divine  creation  is  good  (Gen.  i.  31)  ;  every  develop- 
ment of  life  in  it  is  a  divine  blessing  (i.  22,  28)  ;  there  is  no  room 
here  for  a  principle  which,  in  its  original  nature,  is  wicked  and 
inimical  to  God.  It  is  scarcely  possible  to  find  in  Gen.  i,  2  (1) 
an  indication  of  evil  lying  beyond  the  history  of  man  ;  but  it  is 
otherwise  with  the  description  of  the  serpent  in  chap.  iii.  Man  is 
called  to  free  independence ;  therefore  a  command  was  given  to  him 
for  self-decision  (ii.  16),  that  he  might  pass  from  the  condition 
of  innocence  to  that  of  free  obedience.  Man  falls  under  the 
temptation  which  came  to  him  from  without,  through  sin  the  bond 
of  childlike  communion  with  God  is  broken  ;  and  now  man  is  in  a 
sense  independent,  like  God  (iii.  22)  ;  but  fear,  resting  in  the  feeling  of 
guilt,  dominates  from  this  time  forward  his  position  towards  God  (iii. 


76  THE  HISTORY  OF  REVELATION.  [§  19. 

8  ff.)  (2).  The  life  in  Paradise  with  its  peace  is  forfeited,  and  man 
sinks  henceforth  under  the  service  of  perishable  things  and  of  death 
(iii.  17  ff.).  Nevertheless  conscience,  which  testifies  of  guilt,  shows 
also  man's  capability  of  being  redeemed  ;  and  side  by  side  with  the 
curse  a  divine  word  points  onwards  (iii.  15)  to  a  victorious  end  to  the 
battle,  which  Adam's  descendants  shall  keep  up  against  the  power  of 
evil  (3).  The  idea  placed  foremost  in  the  Old  Testament,  that  as 
all  the  evils  which  burden  mankind  are  just  the  result  of  sin,  so  also 
the  removal  of  these  evils  can  only  come  by  the  defeat  of  the  wicked 
one,  is  decisive  for  the  ethic  character  of  Old  Testament  religion. 

(1)  In  Gen.  i.  2  an  indication  has  often  been  found  of  a  fall  of  the 
spirit-world,  through  which  terrestrial  creation  was  ruined  ;  and  this 
is  added  between  the  account  in  vers.  1  and  2.  The  earth,  it  is  said, 
as  it  was  originally  created  by  God,  could  not  be  inhl  ^nn ;  in  this  it  is 
seen  that  another  creation  preceded  that  of  the  present  world,  which 
was  destroyed  by  the  fall  of  the  world  of  spirits, — a  favourite  idea  of 
the  theosophists.  This  view  cannot  be  altogether  confuted,  but  a 
definite  indication  does  not  lie  in  'inhl  ^inri.  Tlie  expression  is  exactly 
suitable,  though  only  a  chaotic  mass  not  yet  developed  is  meant. 

(2)  Genesis  gives  no  theory  of  creation,  no  thesis  on  the  manner 
of  sin,  no  theory  of  its  origin  ;  but  it  sets  forth,  in  the  form  of  a  story, 
a  sin  from  which  each  can  easily  for  himself  develope  tiie  theory,  and 
the  thoughts  involved  in  the  narrative — thoughts  which  are  decisive  for 
the  whole  path  of  revelation.  A  notion  of  religion  is  not  given  ;  but 
the  way  in  which  it  came  about  that  man  feels  a  horror  and  a  fear  of 
God,  and  that  his  position  towards  God  is  ruled  in  the  last  instance 
by  a  feeling  of  guilt,  is  laid  down  in  a  statement  of  facts.  With  good 
reason  has  K.  J.  Nitzsch,  in  his  Academical  Lectures  on  the  Doctrine 
of  Christian  Faithj  1858,  p.  73,  called  Genesis  the  dogmatic  of  the 
law. 

(3)  Gen.  iii.  15  :  "And  I  will  put  enmity  between  thee  and  the 
woman,  between  thy  seed  and  her  seed ;  it  shall  crush  thy  head,  and 
thou  shalt  bruise  his  heel "  (in  the  second  occurrence  of  f\V\y  an  easy 
zeugma  takes  place).  The  older  theology  found  in  this  place,  as  is 
well  known,  the  irpcorov  evayjiXiov.  The  Roman  Catholic  exegesis, 
according  to  the  reading  of  the  Vulgate  received  in  the  Church,  refers 
the  words  "ipsa  conteret  caput"  to  Mary.  (See  especially  Bellar- 
min,  de  verbo  Dei,  ii.  12.  This  explanation  was,  in  general,  defended 
by  the  Jesuits  with  the  greatest  zeal ;  comp.  the  disputatio  de  prote- 
vangelio  in  Ghss,  j^hilol  sacr.  ed.  1743,  p.  1395  ff.,  which  is  directed 


§  20.]  THE  FIRST  OFFERING.      TRADITION  OF  THE  FLOOD.  77 

against  the  Jesuit  Gordon  of  Huntly.)  As  the  older  theology 
valued  the  passage,  and  glorified  it,  so,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  lowered 
by  many  of  the  newer  theologians  to  the  level  of  trivial  truth.  It  is 
said  to  tell  nothing,  but  that  men  and  serpents  shall  continually  make 
war  on  each  othei'.  Such  a  view  overlooks  the  fact  that  the  words 
occur  in  the  sentence  of  punishment  against  the  serpent,  the  diffei'ence 
between  the  crushing  of  the  head  and  the  wounding  of  the  heel,  and 
also  the  train  of  thoughts  in  the  three  divine  sentences.  The  seed 
of  the  serpent,  which  by  cunning  overcame  the  woman,  shall  be  van- 
qiiished  in  open  combat  by  the  seed  of  the  woman.  The  woman, 
who  by  temptation  subjected  to  herself  the  will  of  the  man,  shall  be 
in  subjection  to  man ;  but  man,  who  in  an  unnatural  way  gave 
obedience  to  the  woman,  shall  in  future  exercise  his  lordship  at  home 
only  by  being  compelled  to  win  from  the  ground  by  toilsome  labour 
what  serves  to  keep  the  house.  The  close  of  ver.  15  is  related  to  ver. 
16  in  the  way  that  the  close  of  ver.  16  is  to  ver.  17.  As  ver.  16  closes 
with  a  declaration  in  favour  of  man,  which  is  then  turned  to  a 
punishment,  so  in  ver.  15  a  promise  must  be  found  for  the  woman, 
but  which,  according  to  ver.  16,  is  accomplished  in  such  a  way  that  the 
woman  receives  in  it  at  the  same  time  her  punishment. — The  older 
theology  certainly  erred  when  it  sought  to  find  here  the  Messiah,  the 
great  destroyer  of  the  serpent,  directly  promised  ;  but  it  did  not  err  in 
the  general  conception  of  the  thought  in  the  passage.  In  the  simple 
childlike  form,  that  feud  shall  be  between  man  and  serpent,  the  idea 
is  expressed  that  a  combat  arises  between  mankind  and  the  principle 
of  evil;  and  that  man  shall  carry  away  from  this  combat  wounds 
and  injuries,  while  yet  the  victory  cannot  be  doubtful.  Thus,  in  a 
few  words,  the  whole  course  of  the  development  of  salvation  is  here 
ali-eady  set  down  in  germ ;  this  is  the  seed-corn  from  which  the  whole 
history  of  salvation  grew. 

§20. 

THE  FIRST  OFFERING.      CAINITES  AND  SETHITES.      TRADITION  OF 

THE  FLOOD. 

The  position  now  taken  up  by  the  human  race  towards  God  is 
stamped  in  the  first  offering  (Gen.  iv.)  (1).  Although  this  is  not  to 
be  regarded  as  a  proper  sin-offering,  but  rather  as  a  thank-offering, 
by  which  the  offerers  acknowledge  in  fact  that  they  look  on  the  gains 
of  their  occupation  as  a  gift  and  blessing  from  God,  the  feeling  that 


78  THE  HISTORY  OF  EEVELATION.  [§  20 

man  lias  to  begin  by  making  himself  sure  (2)  of  divine  favour  is 
already  expressed  in  these  offerings, — a  feeling  of  separation  from  God, 
by  which  the  first  offering  proves  to  be  also  an  offering  of  supplica- 
tion, indeed  even  an  offering  of  reconciliation,  or,  in  a  wider  sense 
of  the  word,  an  offering  of  propitiation  (3).  That  Abel's  offering 
pleased  God,  and  Cain's  offering  displeased  Him,  cannot  be  grounded 
in  the  fact  that  the  former  was  a  bloody  and  the  latter  a  bloodless 
one  ;  for  the  difference  of  the  two  offerings  is  distinctly  dependent 
on  the  difference  in  their  callings.  The  ground  can  only  lie  in  the 
different  sentiments  of  the  two  offerers,  which  in  ver.  3  f.  is  shown 
in  the  fact  that  Cain  offers  his  gift  of  the  fruit  of  the  ground  without 
choice ;  while  Abel,  on  the  other  hand,  brings  the  best  of  the  flock. 
Thus,  in  this  narrative,  the  Old  Testament  places  in  its  forefront  its 
witness  that  offerings  are  rejected  in  as  far  as  it  is  thought  thereby 
to  content  God  outwardly,  and  that  only  a  pious  sentiment  makes  the 
offering  well-pleasing  to  God  (comp.  Heb.  xi.  4). — In  the  difference 
between  the  two  sons  of  the  first  human  pair,  the  contrast  is  at 
once  stamped  in  which  the  race  of  mankind  was  to  run  on,  and 
already  also  begins  the  separation  of  a  family  for  revelation.  Whilst 
among  Cain's  descendants,  the  life  of  sin  rises  to  insolent  defiance 
(iv.  23  f.)  (4),  in  Seth,  who  takes  the  place  of  the  murdered  Abel, 
is  propagated  the  race  of  early  fathers  who  seek  the  living  God 
(iv.  26)  (5),  in  which  Enoch  by  his  translation  testifies  of  a  path  of  life 
leading  over  the  common  lot  of  death  (v.  24),  and  Lamech  at  the  birth 
of  Noah,  before  the  close  of  the  first  period  of  the  world,  announces 
the  hope  of  a  Saviour  of  man  from  the  evil  weighing  upon  him  (v. 
29)  (6). 

After  sinful  corruption  had  reached  its  height  by  the  mixing  of 
the  sons  of  God  with  the  daughters  of  men,  and  the  term  granted 
for  repentance  had  elapsed  without  result,  the  judgment  of  extermina- 
tion breaks  in  in  the  Flood,  from  which  Noah  as  the  righteous  one 
(vi.  9)  was  saved,  along  with  his  family.  The  tradition  of  the  flood 
is  the  property  of  several  religions  of  antiquity ;  but  it  is  one  of  the 
best  proofs  how  each  religion  expresses  a  distinct  idea  in  the  same 
tradition.  For  example,  whilst  the  flood  in  the  Indian  myth  is  only  a 
process  of  destruction,  by  which  all  finite  being  and  life  sinks  back 
again  into  its  primitive  source  in  the  divine  substance,  and  the  in- 


§  20.]  THE  FIRST  OFFERING.       TRADITION  OF  THE  FLOOD.  79 

exhaustible  spirit  of  life  is  represented  by  the  man  who  was  saved 
from  the  flood,  that  spirit  which  overcomes  the  transient,  and  calls  up 
a  new  cycle  of  life  out  of  the  ruin  of  what  existed,  the  flood  in 
Genesis,  on  the  other  hand,  falls  assuredly  under  the  ethical  point  of 
view  ;  it  is  the  first  judgment  on  the  world  executed  by  the  holy  God, 
who,  according  to  Gen.  vi.  3,  will  no  longer  permit  His  Spirit  to  be 
profaned  by  man's  sin.  But,  for  Noah  and  his  family,  the  event  has 
the  meaning  that  the  chosen  ones  shall  be  saved  because  of  their 
faith  on  the  word  of  threatening  and  promise ;  see  Heb.  xi.  7.  By 
this  also  the  typical  application  in  1  Pet.  iii.  20  f.  is  to  be  ex- 
plained (8). 

(1)  Gen.  iv.  makes  the  sons  of  the  first  pair  offer  to  Jehovah,  as 
a  gift,  a  portion  of  the  produce  of  the  business  of  their  life :  Cain, 
from  the  fruits  of  the  ground  cultivated  by  him ;  Abel,  from  the 
firstlings  of  his  flock,  and  from  among  the  fattest  of  these  (not  of  wool 
and  milk,  as  O.  v.  Gerlach  is  inclined  to  interpret,  according  to 
Grotius'  example).  Abel's  gift  is  received  with  favour,  but  Cain's 
gift  with  displeasure.  To  understand  the  word  iii/tj',  with  Hofmann 
{Schriftbeweis,  ii.  1 ;  1st  ed.  p.  140 ;  2d  ed.  p.  220),  of  Jehovah's  glance 
of  fire,  by  which  He  took  to  Himself  the  gift  in  consuming  it,  does  not 
agree  well  with  the  words,  "  Jehovah  looked  upon  Abel  and  his  gift," 
for  we  surely  cannot  suppose  that  Abel  himself  was  struck  by  the 
divine  gleam  of  fire.     [Article,  Opferkultiis  des  A.T.'] 

(2)  Cain  himself  feels  this  need,  and  hence  his  sullen  rage  on 
seeing  his  offering  despised. 

(3)  See  my  article  in  Herzog's  Realencyhlop.  x.  p.  615  f.,  for  a 
fuller  discussion  on  the  meaning  of  the  first  offering,  and  wrong  views 
of  it. 

(4)  The  sense  of  the  song  of  the  sword,  Gen.  iv.  23  f.,  is  :  I  will 
kill  each  one  who  lays  hands  on  me ;  each  injury  to  my  person  will 
I  avenge  tenfold.  ''In  this  is  uttered,"  as  Delitzsch  says  {^Commen- 
tary on  Genesis,  iv.  ed.  p.  177),  "  that  Titanian  arrogance  of  which 
it  is  said,  Hab.  i.  11,  that  its  strength  is  its  God;  and  Job  xii.  6, 
that  he  carries  his  God,  namely  his  sword,  in  his  fist." 

(5)  Gen.  iv.  26  is  to  be  explained  :  "  Then  men  began  to  call  on 
the  name  of  Jehovah."  Herein  is  implied  that  God's  name  nirr*  goes 
back  to  primeval  antiquity. 

(6)  The  valueless  exposition  of  Gen.  v.  29,  that  Noah's  father 
calls  him  a  comforter,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  he  is  to  cultivate  the 
vine,  ought  to  be  now  a  thing  past  and  done  with ;  but  it  is  not  so. 


80  THE  HISTORY  OF  REVELxVTION.  [§  20. 

The  passage  is  of  importance,  because  it  looks  back  to  chap.  iii.  It 
runs  thus  :  "  He  shall  comfort  us  for  our  work  and  the  labour  of  our 
hands  from  the  earth,  which  Jehovah  has  cursed."  The  passage 
openly  expresses  a  hope  of  redemption  from  the  curse  weighing  on 
mankind  as  the  consequence  of  sin.  Now,  if  we  may  conclude  back- 
wards, it  follows  that  also  in  chap.  iii.  there  must  certainly  lie  a 
promise,  although  a  very  indefinite  one. 

(7)  In  connection  with  the  passage  Gen.  vi.  1-4,  comp.  the 
didactic  section  (§  61,  65,  77),  and  the  good  essay  of  Dettinger : 
"Remarks  on  Gen.  iv.  1-6,  8,  its  connection,  and  some  of  the  more 
difficult  passages  in  it,"  Tuhinger  Zeitsclirlft  fur  Theol.  1835,  Nr.  1,. 
p.  3ff. 

(8)  The  Egyptian  references  in  Genesis  do  not  begin  with  the 
tradition  of  the  flood ;  they  do  not  commence  till  a  later  period.  The 
point  of  view  under  which  the  flood  is  placed  in  Genesis  would  not 
be  applicable  in  Egypt,  because  the  flooding  of  the  land  could  there 
have  only  been  looked  on  as  a  blessing. — With  I'egard  to  the  con- 
troversies on  the  relation  of  the  Indian  legend  to  the  Old  Testament, 
I  afTree  with  those  who  admit  unconditionally  that  there  are  points 
of  contact  between  the  Indian  myth  and  the  tradition  on  which  the 
Old  Testament  goes  back,  but  who  hold  that  the  tradition,  spreading 
from  Central  Asia,  reached  India,  and  was  added  at  a  later  date  to 
the  Indian  doctrine  of  the  ages  of  the  world. — The  Old  Testament 
meaning  of  the  flood  as  laid  down  in  the  text  is  quite  clear.  If 
Ewald,  in  his  treatment  of  the  matter,  History  of  the  People  of 
Israel,  i.  3d  ed.  p.  387,  proposes  to  take  as  the  peculiar  meaning  of 
the  flood,  that  it  had  to  come  "  in  order  to  wash  clean  the  sin-stained 
earth,  to  flood  away  the  first  race  of  man,  which  was  utterly  de- 
generated in  Titanic  intoxication,  and  to  produce  on  the  renewed  and 
cleansed  earth  a  new  race  grown  finer  and  wiser  by  the  warning," 
this  cannot  perhaps  be  excluded,  but  is  certainly  not  that  to  wliich 
Genesis  points.  At  the  first  glance,  we  might  appeal  in  favour  of 
Ewald  to  1  Pet.  iii.  20  f.,  where  the  flood  is  treated  as  a  type  of 
Christian  baptism  :  "  In  the  days  of  Noah,  while  the  ark  was  a  prepar- 
ing, wherein  few,  that  is,  eight  souls,  were  saved  by  water ;  which  now 
also  saves  us  in  the  antitype  as  baptism,  not  as  the  putting  off  of  the 
filth  of  the  flesh,  but  as  the  inquiry  of  a  good  conscience  towards 
God."  However,  this  interpretation  is  hardly  right,  and  the  passage 
of  Peter  rather  "  contemplates  the  water  of  the  flood  only  as  bearing 
the  ark,  and  so  providing  deliverance  for  Noah  and  his  family  "  (so- 
Fronmueller  explains  in  Lange's  BibeliceiJc). 


§  21.]     WOKLD-COVENANT.      NOAH'S  SAYING       DIVISION  OF  MANKIND.        81 

II.— THE  SECOND  AGE  OF  THE  WORLD. 

§21. 

THE  WORLD-COVENANT.      NOAH'S  SAYING.      DIVISION  OF  MANKIND. 

The  second  age  of  the  world  begins  with  the  new  shape  taken  by 
revelation,  in  presenting  itself  as  God's  covenant  with  man,  and,  in 
the  first  instance,  as  a  world-covenant,  in  which  God  gives  to  creation 
a  pledge  of  its  preservation ;  for  the  order  of  salvation  is  to  rise  on 
the  ground  of  the  order  of  nature.      God's  faithfulness  in  this  is 
security  for  His  faithfulness  in  that.   Isa.  liv.  9  ;  Jer.  xxxiii.  20  f.,  25  f. 
The  sacrifice,  Gen.  viii.  20,  precedes  the  institution  of  the  covenant, 
and  has  its  motive  mainly  in  thanks  for  the  deliverance  experienced, 
while  in  it,  at  the  same  time,  man  approaches  God,  seeking  grace  in 
the  future  (1).    The  prerogative  of  man  even  in  the  state  of  sin,  and  his 
likeness  to  the  divine  image,  is  again  expressed,  ix.  4  ff.,on  which  passage 
(in  connection  with  others)  rests  the  Jewish  doctrine  of  the  Noachic 
commandments,  in  which  is  sought  a  first  basis  for  the  law  before  the 
time  of  Abraham  (2).      In  the  passage  ix.  25-27  is  indicated  the 
type  for  the  development  of  the  restored  race  of  man.     Shem's  race, 
to  whom  Jehovah  is  God,  is  chosen  as  bearer  of  the  divine  revelation  ; 
also  on  Japheth  the  blessing  is  brought  down  through  Shem  ;  on  Ham, 
and  mainly  on  Canaan,  the  curse  of  slavery  is  to  press  (3).     On  the 
other  side,  the  establishment  of  that  worldly  kingdom  which  is  at 
enmity  with  God  proceeds  from  the  Hamites  (x.  8  ff.),  whose  first  seat 
appears  to  have  been  Babel.     Here  begins  the  contrast  of  the  kingdom 
of  God  and  the  kingdom  of  the  world,  which  runs  right  through  the 
Bible.     The  unity  of  the  race  of  man  divides  into  people  and  tongues  ; 
but  whilst  for  heathen  consciousness  the  diversity  of  peoples  and 
castes  is  original,  and  universal  brotherhood  is  to  them  monstrous,  and 
in  a  sense  a  horror,  while  autochthony  is  the  highest  pride  of  a  nation, 
Mosaism  in  its  list  of  the  nations  (Gen.  x.)  preserves  the  consciousness 
of  the  blood-relationship  of  all  nations  (comp.  Acts  xvii.  2G),  whicli 
are  again  to  be  united  in  time  to  come  by  one  blessing  of  God  (comp. 
xii.  3,  xviii.  18,  etc.)  (4). 

(1)  More  on  Noah's  offering  in  §  121,  Note  1. 

(2)  The  Noachic  commandments  have  won  an  historical  import- 
VOL.  I.  P 


82  THE  HISTORY  OF  REVELATION.  [§  21. 

ance,  because  it  was  these  commandments  the  fulfilment  of  which  was 
demanded  of  the  so-called  proselytes  of  the  gate,  whilst  the  proselytes 
of  righteousness  had  to  follow  the  whole  ritual  law.  These  seven 
commandments  in  their  later  form  are  a  comparatively  recent  inven- 
tion. According  to  the  Babylonian  Gemara,  they  were  as  follows  : 
1.  The  prohibition  of  idol-worship,  mr  ni'\2T':>l} ;  2.  Drn  n^in'^V,  re- 
lating to  the  blessing  of  the  divine  name,  and  the  prohibition  of  dese- 
crating or  cursing  the  divine  name  ;  3.  The  prohibition  of  bloodshed, 
cm  ni3''St^"^j;  (Gen.  ix.  6)  ;  4.  The  prohibition  of  incest,  and  fornica- 
tion in  general,  nny  '•l^rSy  ;  5.  Forbidding  theft  and  robbery,  bu^'hv ; 
6.  D'^JHiT^j;,  the  command  concerning  the  ordinances  of  judgment, 
fixing  the  divine  authority  of  the  magistracy,  and  forbidding  opposition 
to  it ;  7.  Tin  JD  "IDN"^!?,  "  concerning  the  piece  of  the  living,"  that  is, 
forbidding  the  use  of  blood  (Gen.  ix.  4).  It  is  known  that  the  demand 
for  the  fulfilment  of  these  commands  by  the  heathen  who  joined  them- 
selves to  Israel  was  in  no  way  based  on  the  Old  Testament  itself. 

(3)  The  verses  put  into  Noah's  mouth,  Gen.  ix.  25-27,  are  of  the 
greatest  importance  for  the  conception  of  the  general  history  of 
mankind  proper  to  the  Old  Testament.  It  runs  thus :  "  Cursed  be 
Canaan  ;  let  him  be  a  servant  of  servants  to  his  brothers."  "  Praised 
be  Jehovah  the  God  of  Shem  ;  and  let  Canaan  be  his  servant."  "  May 
Elohim  give  enlargement  to  Japheth,  and  let  him  (Japheth)  dwell 
in  the  tents  of  Shem,  and  let  Canaan  be  their  servant."  The  old 
explanation,  often  repeated  even  in  recent  times,  which  takes  ^''^^^^.  as 
subject  to  i^'^],  is  out  of  the  question.  According  to  our  translation, 
the  passage  expresses  that  God  is  to  Shem  the  God  of  revelation, 
whilst  He  is  for  Japheth's  descendants  only  ^"'0^?:^,  the  oiiimen,  delov, 
the  transcendent  Divinity,  but  at  the  same  time  (ver.  211)  points  to  a 
participation  by  Japheth  in  the  blessing  assigned  to  Shem  :  Japheth 
shall  dwell  in  the  tents  of  Shem.  Quite  untenable  is  also  the  ever-recur- 
ring explanation,  which  in  ver.  27  makes  U^  an  appellative.  Finally, 
it  is  often  explained  that  the  vanquishing  of  the  Shemites  by  Japheth 
is  here  foretold  :  God  enlarges  Japheth's  dominion,  so  that  he  obtains 
dominion  also  over  the  realm  marked  out  for  Shem.  On  this  view, 
too,  the  passage  would  be  remarkable,  for  this  has  indeed  come  about. 
But  this  exposition  of  the  words  does  not  agree  well  with  the  con- 
text. I  think  it  still  necessary  to  interpret  the  words  as  speaking 
only  of  the  Japhethites  being  at  home  in  Shem's  tents  ;  that  they 
w^ere  to  gain  domestic  rights  there  also,  which  history  has  now  fulfilled 
spiritually  in  the  noblest  way. 

(4)  In  relation  to  the  table  of  nations,  note  that  it  is  not  framed 
according  to  languages :  it  is  more  natural  to  find  traces  of  a  geogra- 


§22.]  FOUNDATION' OF  A  PEOPLE  OF  GOD.  83 

pliical  arrangement  of  the  three  groups  of  nations  in  such  a  way  that 
Shem  spreads  himself  pretty  much  in  the  middle,  Japheth  northwards, 
and  Ham  more  to  the  south.  But  the  point  of  view  is  decidedly 
rather  genealogical.  It  is  clear  that  Ave  are  not  exactly  to  find 
individuals  in  the  names  given.  It  often  happens,  even  in  the  later 
genealogies,  that  races  and  peoples  are  personified  and  represented  as 
individuals.  What  comes  into  notice  for  Old  Testament  theology  in 
the  register  of  nations  is  what  is  brought  forward  in  the  text.  With 
this  passage  the  story  of  Genesis  takes  leave  as  it  were  of  mankind  in 
general ;  revelation  being  henceforth  particularized  in  one  separate 
chosen  stem.  The  register  of  nations  is  intended  to  keep  in  memory 
the  original  brotherhood  of  all  the  nations  on  the  earth.  This  is  a 
thought  beyond  the  reach  of  all  antiquity,  with  the  exception  of  Israel. 
In  the  Greek  civilisation,  it  was  long  ere,  in  the  time  of  Alexander 
the  Great,  and  chiefly  through  Stoicism,  the  idea  of  a  common  world- 
citizenship  of  man  came  to  be  first  recognised  ;  for  the  antithesis  of 
Greeks  and  barbarians  was  invincible.  When  the  Apostle  Paul 
preached  on  the  Areopagus,  Acts  xvii.  26,  "He  hath  made  of  one 
blood  all  nations  of  men  for  to  dwell  on  all  the  face  of  the  earth,"  he 
attacked  the  very  heart  of  heathenism  and  Athenian  pride. 

§22. 

THE  FOUNDATION  OF  A  PEOPLE  OF  GOD. 

In  order  to  give  an  historical  basis  to  the  work  of  salvation,  a 
people  is  to  be  chosen  as  bearer  of  revelation,  to  which  coming  people 
(comp.  Deut.  xxxii.  8)  God  already  has  regard  in  the  dividing  of  the 
nations  (1).  The  separation  of  a  race  of  revelation  is  prepared  in 
Shem's  descendants,  the  line  going  through  Arphaxad,  that  is — how- 
ever we  interpret  the  name  in  detail — through  the  Chaldean  stem,  and 
further  through  Heber,  a  name  which  certainly  had  originally  a  wider 
meaning  (comp.  Gen.  x.  21,  xiv.  13),  on  to  Terah  (2).  Of  mani- 
festations of  revelation  nothing  is  as  yet  said ;  but  a  simple  monotheism 
is  preserved,  which  is  easily  seen  to  be  the  oldest  foundation  even  of 
the  religion  of  the  heathen  Semites.  It  is  probably  in  connection 
with  the  mighty  moving  of  the  nations  in  that  time  that  the  Terahites 
leave  the  ancestral  dwelling-place  of  the  Chaldeans  in  Northern  Assy- 
ria, and  wander  first  to  Haran  in  North  Mesopotamia  (xi.  31).  Here, 
where  (see  Josh.  xxiv.  2,  comp.  with  Gen.  xxxi.  19,  xxx.  35)  (2) 
idolatry,   designated  as  the   worship    of   Teraphim,  begins   to   find 


84  THE  HISTORY  OF  REVELATION.  [§  22. 

entrance  in  this  family,  the  foundation  of  the  Old  Testament  dispensa- 
tion of  revelation  is  laid  by  the  calling  of  Abram  (Gen.  xii.  1),  wlio 
closes  the  second  decade  of  patriarchs.  Whilst  the  nations  of  the 
earth  walk  in  their  own  ways,  in  which  they  unfold  their  natural 
peculiarities,  an  everlasting  people  is  to  be  founded  in  Abram's  de- 
scendants (comp.  Isa.  xliv.  7),  which,  in  its  peculiar  national  figure, 
is  not  a  product  of  natural  development,  but  of  the  creative  power 
and  grace  of  God  (Deut.  xxxii.  6),  and  which  forms,  agreeably  to  this, 
a  contrast  to  the  mass  of  nations  of  the  world  {^]%  €6vv)f  though  in 
such  a  way  that  already  the  obliteration  of  this  contrast  is  kept  in 
view  (comp.  §  82).  Only  in  this  idea  of  the  people  of  God  is  tlie  key 
given  to  Old  Testament  history,  which  would  otherwise  remain  an 
insoluble  riddle.  A  natural  predisposition  for  the  religion  of  the  Old 
Testament  can  be  recognised  in  the  Semites ;  but  revelation  does  not 
come  forward  claiming  only  to  have  further  developed  an  already 
existing  natural  disposition,  or  to  have  first  filled  a  natural  form  with 
the  contents  of  divine  life  (3).  What  belongs  to  the  character  of 
God's  people  is  already  prefigured  in  the  history  of  their  forefathers. 

(1)  Dent,  xxxii.  8  :  "  When  the  Most  High  divided  to  the  nations 
their  inheritance,  when  He  separated  the  children  of  men,  so  He  set 
the  boundaries  of  the  nations  according  to  the  number  of  the  children 
of  Israel."  This  goes  back  on  the  division  of  the  nations  in  Gen.  xi. 
The  rabbinical  exegesis  refers  the  passage  to  the  fact  that,  as  Israel 
went  down  into  Egypt  in  number  seventy  souls,  so  also,  according  to 
the  register  of  nations,  seventy  D^iS  are  to  be  counted  on  the  earth. 
This  view  of  the  passage  is  certainly  not  what  the  Pentateuch  intends, 
but  we  must  take  it  thus  :  When  God  assigned  to  the  peoples  of  the 
earth  the  territory  where  they  were  to  develope  themselves.  He  had 
already  in  view  the  place  which  His  chosen  people  should  afterwards 
win  in  order  to  fulfil  its  historical  calling. 

(2)  With  respect  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  "it?'3Q"iS,  it  is  doubtful 
whether  it  means,  as  some  take  it,  the  boundary  or  territory  of  the 
Chaldeans,  or  the  high  land  of  the  Chaldeans,  or,  as  Ewald  puts  it,  the 
Chaldean  stronghold.  At  any  rate,  the  name  D'''nb'3  is  in  it ;  and 
we  have,  according  to  this,  to  regard  the  Chaldean  race  as  Abram's 
ancestors. — The  descent  from  the  Chaldeans  is  through  "iDV.  The 
LXX.  viewed  this  name  as  an  appellative  (Gen.  xiv.  13,  where  they 
translate  Trepdrr]^),  and  thus,  I  think,  it  is  to  be  understood  ;  it  is  the 
personification  of  the  Chaldean  races  who  cross  the  Euphrates,  and 


§  22.]  FOUNDATION  OF  A  PEOPLE  OF  GOD.  85 

tlierefore  are  called  in  Canaan  the  people  from  the  other  side. 
•[Whether  the  original  seat  of  the  Chaldees  is  really  in  the  far  north, 
and  whether  Ur  is  not  rather  identical  with  Mugheir,  see  in  Schrader.> 
(3)  Our  time  gives  itself  to  the  study  of  the  natural  peculiarities 
of  nations  (psychology  of  nations),  and  especially  of  the  peoples  of 
antiquity.  Here  the  question  arises,  how  the  peculiarities  of  the 
people  of  Israel  can  be  understood  as  a  product  of  the  national  spirit 
of  the  Semites.  To  this  subject  belong  a  number  of  observations  in 
Lassen's  Indian  Antiquities  ;  in  the  works  of  Renan,  partly  in  his 
"  Histoire  generale  et  systeme  compare  des  langues  Semitiques,"  partly 
in  the  "  Nouvelles  considerations  sur  le  caract^re  generale  des  peuples 
Semitiques,"  etc.,  in  the  Jonrn.  Asiat.  1859,  iii. ;  Gustav  Baur,  in  his 
History  of  Old  Testament  Prophecy,  i.  1861  ;  Diestel,  on  "The  Idea 
of  the  People  of  Israel,"  in  the  Monatsschrift  f-ilr  die  evang.  Kirche  der 
Rheinprovinz,  1851,  11th  Nr. ;  also,  in  particular,  Grau,  Semiten  und 
Indogermanen,  1864,  and  others.  Now  indeed  it  is  no  question  that  the 
peculiarities  of  the  people  of  Israel  proceeded  from  the  common  natural 
soil  of  the  Semitic  race.  We  find,  to  take  a  single  example,  the  following 
explanation  of  the  way  in  which  the  Semitic  and  Indogermanic  character 
differs  given  by  Gustav  Baur:  The  contrast  of  the  Indogermanic  and 
Semitic  peculiarity  of  mind  is  to  be  traced  back  to  the  difference  of  a 
predominant  objective  and  a  predominant  subjective  tendency.  The 
cliaracteristic  trait  of  the  Semitic  character  is  the  energetical  con- 
centration of  the  subjectivity  in  the  inmost  ground  of  the  Ego,  and 
just  in  this  lies  (ut  supra^  p.  134)  a  natural  predisposition  for  the 
Old  Testament  religion. — This  is  hitherto  the  best  statement  of  the 
case,  and  certainly  does  indicate  a  peculiarity  of  the  Semitic  race. 
The  history  of  religion  offers,  in  truth,  interesting  parallels  to  Old 
Testament  religion,  in  the  sphere  of  heathen  religion,  which  confirm 
what  Gustav  Baur  says.  I  would  wish  specially  to  point  out,  that 
likewise  in  the  Semitic  heathenism  the  view  of  the  Divinity  as  a 
legislative  power  predominates;  for  the  Sterngods  of  the  heathen 
Semites  are  not  represented  merely  as  life-giving  powers,  but  also  as 
powers  that  rule  life.  Further,  the  idea  of  the  Divinity  as  a  jealous 
power,  to  which  on  man's  side  corresponds  the  human  defiance  which 
rebels  against  God,  is  peculiar  to  Semitic  heathenism.  This  haughty 
Semitic  defiance  of  God  is  prominently  seen  in  the  character  of  Israel's 
neighbours  in  Edom  and  Moab  (comp.  the  pictures  in  Obad.  3 ;  Isa. 
xvi.  6)  ;  even  in  the  way  that  Job  is  depicted  we  may  find  a  genuine 
Semitic  trait  of  character,  and  to  this  corresponds  the  tough,  defiant 
natural  force  which  lived  in  Israel :  comp.  Isa.  xlviii.  4,  "  Thy  neck 
is  a  sinew  of  iron,  and  thy  brow  is  brass."    The  Old  Testament  points 


86  THE  HISTORY  OF  REVELATION,  [§  22. 

out  in  a  multitude  of  passages  the  natural  character  of  the  people  of 
Israel  as  an  obstinate  self-will  striving  against  the  divine  will.  But 
it  is  quite  a  different  question  whether  the  Old  Testament  religion  is 
to  be  regarded  purely  as  a  natural  growth  of  this  Semitic  character, 
and  whether  monotheism  is  a  trait  of  the  whole  Semitic  race.  On 
the  latter  question  we  have  a  thorough  investigation  by  Diestel,  "  The 
Monotheism  of  the  oldest  Heathenism,  specially  of  the  Semites,"  in  the 
Jahrhuechern  fiir  Deutsche  Theol.  1860,  Nr.  4,  p.  669  ff.  The  result 
of  this  inquiry  is  negative,  and  this  is  no  wonder;  for  on  what  data 
must  we  principally  fall  back  ? — on  such  as  are  very  modern  in  com- 
parison with  the  antiquity  of  the  human  race,  or  even  with  the  time 
of  the  patriarchs.  The  Old  Testament  itself  remains  the  best  source ; 
and  here,  undeniably,  an  original  monotheism  comes  before  us,  al- 
though one  of  quite  simple  character.  With  this  we  also  have  to  con- 
nect such  features  as  the  remarkable  story  of  Melchizedek,  presently 
to  be  spoken  of.  In  special  connection  with  Abraham's  ancestors, 
we  learn  quite  definitely  from  the  Old  Testament  that  false  worship 
had  already  become  familiar  to  them ;  but  this  does  not  exclude  the 
continued  existence  of  monotheistic  religion.  Strikingly  does  Heng- 
stenberg  (in  the  History  of  God's  Kingdom,  vol.  i.  p.  120,  Eng.  Trans.), 
in  relation  to  the  teraphim,  refer  to  Gen.  xxxi.  53,  compared  with 
vers.  19  and  30.  In  the  first  passage  Laban  swears  by  the  "  God  of 
Abraham  and  the  God  of  Nahor,  the  God  of  their  fathers."  Here 
is  evidently  presupposed  a  common  God  for  Abraham's  race,  which 
had  emigrated  to  Canaan,  and  for  the  branch  of  Terah's  family  which 
remained  in  Mesopotamia.  But  Laban  designates  the  teraphim  as 
Ids  gods.  By  these  inferior  gods  we  must  understand  a  sort  of 
Penates.  Thus  a  monotheistic  worship  may  well  be  regarded  as 
preceding  the  peculiar  Old  Testament  religion,  previous  to  Abraham. 
But  now,  is  the  Old  Testament  religion  a  further  and  natural  develop- 
ment of  the  germ  that  already  lay  in  the  religion  of  the  forefathers  ? 
This  can  be  affirmed  only  under  considerable  limitations.  The  view 
that  the  Old  Testament  dispensation  of  revelation  is  a  natural  pro- 
duction of  the  religious  genius  of  the  people  of  Israel  must  be 
absolutely  rejected.  Against  this  the  whole  Old  Testament  lays  down 
the  most  decided  testimony,  presenting  to  us  in  a  multitude  of  traits 
in  Israel's  history  that  dualism  between  the  divine  principle  of  life 
and  the  natural  constitution  of  the  race  of  revelation,  and  developing 
the  difficulties  arising  herefrom  in  the  education  of  the  people  by 
God  for  His  salvation. 


§  23,]  ADRAIIAJI.  87 

III.— THE  TIME  OF  THE  THREE  PATRIARCHS. 
§23. 

ABRAHAM  (1). 

Obedient  to  the  divine  call,  Abram  leaves  Mesopotamia,  accom- 
panied by  Lot,  the  ancestor  of  the  Moabites  and  Ammonites,  to  go  to 
Canaan,  which  is  already  (Gen.  xii.  6)  possessed  by  the  tribes  bearing 
this  name.  In  solemn  revelation  God  closes  with  him  the  covenant 
of  promise  (chap,  xv.),  in  an  act  not  exactly  to  be  characterized  as  a 
sacrifice,  but  only  meant  to  symbolize  the  gracious  condescension  of 
the  covenant-instituting  God  (comp.  §  80).  On  this  follows,  on  the 
side  of  Abram,  the  taking  upon  himself  of  the  obligations  of  the 
covenant  through  circumcision  (chap.  xvii.).  Three  articles  are  con- 
tained in  the  promises  given  to  Abram  (xii.  2  f.,  7,  xiii.  15  f.,  18, 
xvii.  5-8,  xviii.  18,  xxii.  16-18)  (2):  1.  The  land  in  which  he 
himself  continues  all  his  life  a  stranger  (xii.  6),  and  where  he  had 
actually  to  buy  a  place  for  his  grave  (xxiii.  4,  comp.  Acts  vii.  5),  is 
to  be  given  for  an  eternal  possession  to  his  descendants  (3).  2.  He 
who  remains  childless  till  his  old  age  shall  have  an  innumerable 
posterity,  which  is  guaranteed  by  the  changing  of  his  name  into 
Dnn2J^ ;  and  not  Ishmael,  the  son  of  Hagar,  who  was  born  after  the 
counsel  of  man  (chap,  xvi.),  but  Isaac,  born  contrary  to  the  ways  of 
nature,  according  to  God's  counsel  (Rom.  ix.  8),  is  to  be  the  bearer 
and  inheritor  of  the  promise  (4).  3.  Abraham's  race  shall  be  made  a 
blessing  for  all  races  and  all  nations  of  the  earth  (5).  Still  the 
electing  grace  of  the  covenant  God,  who  calls  Himself  El-Shaddai 
(xvii.  1)  as  a  witness  of  His  power,  which  leads  nature  into  the  way 
of  His  kingdom,  is  met  on  Abraham's  side  (xv.  6)  by  that  faith  which 
does  not  look  on  the  ways  of  nature,  but  holds  fast  to  God's  word  of 
promise  (comp.  Rom.  iv.  18  ;  Heb.  xi.  8-19),  and  endures  victoriously 
the  severest  test  in  his  willingness  to  offer  the  son  of  the  promise 
(Gen.  xxii.).  In  this  faith,  which  is  reckoned  to  him  for  righteousness, 
is  Abraham  the  friend  of  God  (Isa.  xii.  8;  Jas.  ii.  23),  the  prophet 
(Gen.  XX.  7)  to  whom  is  granted  insight  into  the  divine  counsel 
(xviii.  17  :  "  Shall  I  hide  from  Abraham  what  I  am  about  to  do?") 
when  Sodom  reels  onwards  to  judgment,  and  who  has  the  right  of 
fres  access  to  God  in  prayer  (xviii.   23  ff.,  xx.  17).     Nay,  he  becomes 


88  THE  HISTORY  OF  REVELATION.  [§  23. 

the  father  of  all  the  faithful  (Rom.  iv. ;  Gal.  iii.),  and  his  name 
stands  at  the  head  of  the  three  monotheistic  religions  of  the  world, 
even  when  looked  at  in  a  purely  historical  way.  But  this  know- 
ledge of  the  divine  way  is  to  be  accompanied  by  a  life-walk  in  the 
divine  way  (Gen.  xvii.  1).  Besides,  according  to  Gen.  xviii.  19, 
Jehovah  "acknowledged,"  that  is,  chose,  Abraham,  "that  he  might 
command  his  sons  after  him  to  keep  Jehovah's  ways,  doing  justice 
and  right,  that  Jehovah  might  bring  upon  Abraham  all  that  He  has 
said  of  him "  (6).  According  to  this,  the  character  of  God's  people 
is  ethically  determined  from  the  first,  and  already  the  word  (xviii.  19) 
shows  that  not  all  natural  descendants  belong  to  the  true  sons  of 
Abraham  and  the  heirs  of  the  promise  (7). — On  the  relation  of  the 
religion  of  the  patriarchs  to  the  surrounding  heathenism,  the  narra- 
tives Gen.  xiv.  18-22  and  chap.  xxii.  throw  the  most  valuable  light. 
In  the  former  passage,  the  story  of  Melchizedek,  priest  of  Salem,  the 
type  of  a  priesthood  not  inherited  by  bodily  descent,  but  resting  in  the 
dignity  of  the  person  (Ps.  ex.  4 ;  Heb.  vii.),  we  find  an  acknowledg- 
ment of  the  identity  of  the  God  of  Abraham  and  the  Canaanite 
El-eljon  (8).  The  second  narrative  has  apparently  an  historical 
reference  to  the  Canaanite  offerings  of  children.  We  must  note  here, 
that  while  it  was  Elohim  who,  according  to  ver.  1,  tempted  Abraham 
to  offer  his  son,  it  is  Jehovah  who  (ver.  11  ff.)  hinders  the  sacrifice, 
approves  the  devotion  that  is  willing  to  offer  up  the  most  beloved  one, 
and  commands  the  substitution  of  the  sacrificial  animal  (9). 

(1)  That  the  whole  history  of  the  patriarchs  has  a  typical  character, 
is  generally  acknowledged  from  the  Apostle  Paul  onwards  to  our  own 
time,  and  the  question  is  only  as  to  the  theological  and  religious  meaning 
of  these  Old  Testament  patterns.  Philo,  from  his  philosophical  stand- 
point, interprets  the  symbolism  and  typic  of  the  patriarchal  times  as 
follows : — Abraham  is  the  symbol  of  the  human  spirit  who  wandered 
out  from  Haran,  the  place  of  sensual  desires,  to  Canaan,  the  home  of 
the  spirit.  For  the  rest,  Abraham  is  to  him  the  type  of  acquired  virtue, 
Isaac  of  innate  virtue,  and  Jacob  of  virtue  won  by  practice,  etc.  Side 
by  side  with  this  we  place  Ewald's  very  superficial  explanation  in  his 
History  of  the  People  of  Israel^  i.  3d  ed.  p.  417  ff.  According  to  him, 
a  circle  of  twelve  examples  is  here  brought  before  us  in  seven  funda- 
mental relationships.  1.  In  the  three  patriarchs,  the  pattern  of  the 
father  of  a  family  is  represented;  2.  In  Sarah,  the  pattern  of  the 


§  23.]  ADRAHAM.  89 

mother,  and  in  Hagar  that  of  the  concubine ;  3.  In  Isaac,  the  pattern 
of  the  child ;  4.  In  Isaac  and  Rebecca,  the  pattern  of  right  betrothal 
and  marriage  (but  Eebecca  deceives  her  husband!);  5.  In  Leah  and 
Kachel,  the  patterns  of  a  wife  beside  one  less  loved ;  6.  In  Deborah, 
the  pattern  of  the  name  of  a  nurse  of  heroes ;  7.  In  Eliezer,  the 
]mttern  of  the  house-servant  or  house-steward. — If  we  follow  out  the 
traits  which  the  noble  dehneation  of  patriarchal  life  presents  to  us, 
according  to  the  guidance  of  the  New  Testament,  the  result  seems  to 
be  what  we  have  given  in  the  text. 

(2)  In  regard  to  the  three  articles  of  the  promise  given  to  Abraham, 
note,  that  if  we  divide  Genesis  into  an  original  Elohistic  writing  and 
a  Jehovistic  supplement,  the  verses  which  contain  the  third  article  of 
the  promise  belong  to  the  Jehovistic  sections.  This  has  also  an  inner 
reason,  in  so  far  as  God  in  this  covenant  promise  has  especially  to 
approve  Himself  as  mn'',  as  faithful  to  His  covenant. 

(3)  It  is  certainly  not  without  meaning  that  the  Old  Testament 
throughout  hinges  the  completion  of  the  divine  kingdom  on  the  land 
which  was  granted  to  Abraham  not  by  a  right  of  nature,  but  by  grace. 
Even  prophecy  knows  no  final  fulfilment  of  the  divine  promise,  in 
which  this  old  promise  of  eternal  possession  of  the  Holy  Land  does  not 
come  true.  Here,  I  am  convinced,  is  a  fundamental  error  of  Heng- 
stenberg's  exegesis,  when  he  absolutely  will  not  admit  in  his  spiritual- 
izing interpretations  that  this  is  fixed  as  an  essential  enduring  trait  of 
the  divine  promise.  However  we  may  judge  of  this  matter  from  the 
standpoint  of  the  New  Testament, — I  do  not  enter  on  this  dispute, — 
from  the  standpoint  of  the  Old  Testament  it  must  be  maintained 
that,  from  the  beginning  of  the  founding  of  the  covenant  people  to  the 
close,  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise  and  the  completion  of  the  divine 
kingdom  attaches  to  the  holy  land  of  Canaan. 

(4)  It  IS  to  be  noticed  how  the  Old  Testament,  from  the  first  origin 
of  the  race  of  revelation,  is  careful  to  distinguish  between  a  race  of 
revelation  Kara  adpKa  and  kuto,  Trvevfia,  to  which  the  promise  is 
given.  We  have  already  seen  in  the  case  of  Abraham  that  the  idea 
in  Rom.  ix.  8,  Ov  ra  reKva  t?}?  aapKO<;,  ravra  reKva  rov  Geov,  aXXa 
TO,  TeKva  T?}?  iirayyeXia';  Xoyi^erat  eh  airepixa,  is  expressed  in  the 
clearest  manner.  That  is  seen  when  not  Ishmael,  the  son  begotten 
by  human  design,  but  Isaac,  becomes  the  bearer  of  the  promise,  and 
again  in  the  choice  of  Jacob  and  passing  by  of  Esau ;  but  it  is  seen 
also  very  distinctly  in  the  conditions  which  are  laid  down  for  the 
attainment  of  the  promises. 

(5)  The  expression,  "They  shall  bless  themselves  in  Abraham's 
seed,"  can  only  mean,  They  shall  wish  for  themselves  the  blessing  of 


90  THE  HISTORY  OF  REVELATION  [§  23. 

revelation  wliich  Abraham  has,  and  reach  it  through  the  mediation  of 
Abraham's  race.  The  passages  are  taken  by  modern  exegesis  to  mean 
that  they  wish  to  be  as  happy  as  Abraham  ;  but  this  is  refuted  by 
Jer.  iv.  2,  2113  i^  ^3"i3rinij  where  in  refers  to  Jehovah.  What  meaning 
would  there  be  here,  on  the  interpretation  that  they  shall  "vvish  for 
themselves  a  happiness  such  as  Jehovah  has? 

(6)  Gen.  xviii.  19  has  often  been  wrongly  explained.  We  must 
not  translate,  "  For  I  hiow  of  him,  that  he  will  command,"  etc.  The 
jy^p  can  never  have  the  meaning  of  the  Greek  otv,  which  would  neces- 
sarily be  ■'3 ;  but  the  VT^  stands  in  the  pregnant  sense  which  is  to  be 
discussed  more  fully  in  the  didactic  section  (§  81),  according  to  which 
it  is  a  mark  of  the  divine  Trporyvcocrc;. 

(7)  From  the  heathen  side,  Berosus,  in  the  A  ntiquities  of  Josephiis, 
i.  7,  §  2,  gives  us  information  of  Abraham.  He  says,  in  the  tenth 
ryeved  after  the  flood,  a  righteous  and  great  man  lived  among  the 
Chaldeans  who  was  learned  in  astrology.  By  this  man  he  means 
Abraham.  Josephus  gives  also  a  notice  of  Abraham  by  the  Damas- 
cene writer  Nicolaus;  and  in  Justinus,  Trogi  Pompeii  Jiist.  pML 
epitoma,  xxxvi.  2,  there  is  an  account  probably  drawn  from  a  like 
Damascene  source.  In  the  last  passage,  Abraham  and  Israel  are 
called  kings  of  Damascus.  Nicolaus  reports  that  Abraham,  king  of 
Damascus,  came  thither  from  the  land  of  the  Chaldeans  with  an  army. 
— Even  in  the  freer  criticism,  the  acknowledgment  that  we  dare  not 
treat  the  history  of  the  patriarchs  in  Genesis  so  thoughtlessly  as  has 
been  done  is  making  way.  We,  however,  have  to  do  with  the  person- 
ality of  Abraham  only  in  as  far  as  it  is  a  type,  in  as  far  as  essential 
characteristics  of  Old  Testament  religion  meet  us  in  the  history  of 
Abraham. 

(8)  Gen.  xiv.  18-22. — Salem  is  without  doubt  Jerusalem,  which  is 
shortly  called  Salem  in  Ps.  Ixxvi.  3 ;  it  is  not  a  Salim  farther  north,  as 
some  modern  critics  think.  It  is  no  proof  that  the  original  name  was 
not  Salem,  that  Jerusalem  in  the  time  of  the  judges  appears  under 
the  name  of  Jebus,  for  it  got  the  name  Jebus  from  the  Jebusites 
who  w^ere  settled  there ;  and  here  we  may  note  that  the  king  of  Jeru- 
salem who  is  met  with  in  Josh.  x.  1-3  is  also  called  Adonizedek.  It  is 
a  point  of  special  importance,  that  an  acknowledgment  of  the  God 
whose  priest  Melchizedek  is,  evidently  lies  in  the  way  in  which  Abra- 
ham does  homage  to  Melchizedek.  Melchizedek  is  called  priest  of 
l^yi'  ''^.,  who  appears  later  among  the  Phoenicians  as  Saturn.  Abraham 
receives  a  blessing  from  this  priest,  and  gives  him  the  tenth  of  the 
booty.  Certainly  he  distinguishes  in  a  way  (ver.  22)  his  God  nin^  from 
the  \ybv  ?K,  but  yet  their  identity  is  acknowledged.   We  have  here  there- 


§  23.]  ADRAHAJI,  91 

fore  traces  of  an  older,  purer  monotheism  on  Canaanite  ground,  wliicli 
is  at  first  sight  remarkable,  because  otherwise  the  relation  of  the  Old 
Testament  God  to  the  Canaanite  worships  is  one  of  broadest  contrast. 
But  here  Movers'  researches,  Phcejiicier,  ii.  1,  p.  105,  come  in  in 
the  most  interesting  manner.  It  is  there  shown  that  the  worship  of 
El  or  Kronos  goes  back  to  another  origin  than  that  of  tlie  Phoenician 
Baal,  to  which  the  Phoenician  polytheism  is  attached,  and  that  the 
former  worship  belongs  specially  to  the  Giblites  in  Byblus  and  Berytus, 
who  are  always  definitely  distinguished  from  the  Phoenicians.  So  we 
may  maintain  with  the  greatest  probability,  that  we  find  here,  in 
the  midst  of  the  Canaanite  worships,  a  remnant  of  older  and  purer 
worship,  which  was  perhaps  preserved  by  a  Semitic  race  dwelling 
among  the  Canaanites.  For  I  at  least  am  confident  that  the  Old 
Testament,  with  its  derivation  of  the  Canaanites  from  Ham,  is  better 
informed  than  most  newer  critics. 

(9)  Gen.  xxii. — Scarcely  any  part  of  the  Old  Testament  has  been 
so  much  used  as  a  proof-text  by  those  dreamers  who  think  that 
human  sacrifice  was  originally  a  characteristic  of  the  Old  Testament 
religion,  whilst,  nevertheless,  the  tendency  of  the  story  leads  directly 
to  the  excluding  of  human  sacrifice  from  Jehovah-worship.  This  has 
been  well  observed  by  Ewald.  But  this  does  not  remove  the  difficulty, 
that  the  God  who  will  not  have  human  sacrifice,  nevertheless,  at  first, 
tempts  Abraham  to  offer  his  son.  It  was  Schelling  who,  in  his 
Philosophy  of  Revelation,  ii.  p.  122  ff.,  first  definitely  pointed  to  the 
significant  change  of  the  names  of  God  in  this  history.  The  chapter 
is  a  forcible  proof  how  little  is  settled  by  an  artificial  dissection  of 
Genesis  according  to  the  names  of  God.  The  chapter  is  joined 
together  like  cast-iron,  and  we  cannot  cut  anything  out  of  it.  It  was 
customary  in  earlier  times,  before  the  importance  of  the  change  of 
the  names  of  God  was  taken  notice  of,  to  have  recourse  to  the  cheap 
aid  of  interpolation.  But  how  is  this  change  to  be  understood? 
Schelling  (I.e.)  argues,  that  the  God  who,  after  the  flood,  uttered  the 
words,  "  I  will  avenge  the  life  of  man  at  the  hand  of  each  man," 
cannot  be  the  same  who  demanded  from  Abraham  the  life  of  his  own 
son.  The  principle  that  tempted  Abraham  to  that  action  was  essen- 
tially the  same  as  induced  the  nations  of  Canaan  to  sacrifice  their 
children.  In  the  Old  Testament  the  true  God  is  reached  through 
the  false,  and,  as  it  were,  bound  to  Him. — But  against  this  view 
it  is  quite  conclusive  that,  in  ver.  1,  not  the  indefinite  Q''''?i^^.  with- 
out the  article,  but  D^nbxn,  is  chosen  for  the  tempting  God. — 
Hengstenberg  and  others  have  adopted  a  different  explanation. 
Lange,   in  his    Life  of   Christ,  vol.   i.   p.   139    (Eng.    trans.),    puts 


^2  THE  HISTORY  OF  REVELATION.  [§  24. 

the  matter  thus :  "  Jehovah  commanded  Abraham  to  offer  up  Isaac ; 
he  was  ready  to  make  this  sacrifice,  but  understood  the  command  in 
the  same  sense  as  if  Moloch  had  said  to  him,  '  Thou  shalt  sacrifice 
Isaac,'  whereas  the  mode  of  offering  was  intentionally  not  more 
precisely  fixed.  The  misunderstanding,  although  proceeding  from 
Abraham  and  falling  to  his  account,  was  nevertheless  willed  by  God." 
— Kurtz,  in  particular,  in  his  History  of  the  Old  Covenant,  i.  p. 
263  (E.  T.),  seems  to  have  given  the  right  explanation.  He  says  : 
Abraham  must  have  been  conscious  that  the  way  that  led  to  the 
perfecting  of  his  faith  was  the  way  of  renunciation  and  self-denial. 
The  sight  of  the  Canaanite  sacrifices  of  children  must  have  led 
Abraham  to  self-examination,  whether  he  would  be  strong  enough  in 
renunciation  and  self-denial  to  do  what  those  heathen  did,  if  his  God 
desired  it  from  him.  But  if  this  question  was  once  made  the  subject 
of  discussion  in  Abraham's  heart,  it  had  also  to  be  brought  to  a 
definite  and  real  decision.  That  was  the  substratum  for  the  divine 
demand  in  Abraham's  soul.  Objectively,  the  following  are  the 
deductions  from  this  point  of  view :  The  culminating  point  of  worship 
in  the  religions  of  nature  was  human  sacrifice.  The  covenant  religion 
had  to  separate  itself  in  this  respect  from  heathenism ;  the  truth  in  it 
had  to  be  acknowledged,  and  the  falsehood  denied.  In  the  command 
to  offer  up  Isaac,  the  truth  of  the  conviction  that  human  life  must  be 
sacrificed  as  an  unholy  thing,  is  acknowledged  ;  and  by  the  arresting 
intervention  of  God,  the  hideous  distortion  of  this  truth  which  had 
arisen  in  heathenism  is  condemned  and  rejected. — If  we  look  at 
Deut.  xiii.  4,  where  it  is  said  that  God  will  tempt  the  people  by  false 
prophets,  it  is  not  necessary  for  us,  in  expounding  xxli.  1,  to  suppose 
any  misunderstanding  on  Abraham's  part ;  but  it  seems  to  me  that 
the  matter  is  best  explained  by  looking  at  it,  with  Kurtz,  in  the 
light  of  a  pedagogic  command. — Comp.  also  On  the  Value  of  History 
for  the  Development  of  the  Old  Testament  Idea  of  Sacrifice^  §  121. 
note  1. 

§24. 

ISAAC  AND  JACOB. 

Very  little  is  recorded  of  the  life  of  Isaac;  he  walked  in  the 
footprints  of  his  father,  and  the  divine  promises  given  to  the  latter 
were  renewed  to  him  (Gen.  xxvi.  2-5).  Of  his  twin-sons  was  chosen, 
as  bearer  of  the  promise,  not  Esau,  who  had  the  advantage  of  birth- 
right, but  Xva  7]  Kar  eKKcyy-jv  7rp60eaL<i  rov  ©eov  fxevrj  (Horn.  ix.  11), 


§  24.]  ISAAC  AND  JACOB.  93 

Jacob,  the  second-born  son.     The  first  thonght  which  lies  at  the  root 
of  the  divine  guidance  of  Jacob's  life  is,  that  in  spite  of  all  human 
hindrances,  the  divine  counsel  reaches  its  goal,  and  that  even  human 
sins  must  serve  to  its  realization,  although  they  are  punished  not  the 
less.     By  the  sin  of  Jacob  and  his  mother,  Isaac's  purpose,  which 
was  in  opposition  to  the  promise  to  Jacob  (Gen.  xxv.  23),  is  thwarted  ; 
yet  Jacob's  sin  is  visited  on  him  (1)  in  the  straits  he  experienced  in 
his  wanderings  (xxvii.  42  f.),  which  were  occasioned  by  his  artifice 
against  Esau,  and  particularly  in  the  sorrows  afterwards  prepared  for 
him  by  his  sons,  when  he  that  had  deceived,  himself  in  like  manner 
suffered  deception.      The   covenant   promise   given    to    him    at   the 
beginning  of  his  journey  to  Mesopotamia  in  the  theophany  at  Bethel, 
in  order  to  strengthen  him  for  the  years  of  exile  (xxviii.  10  ff.),  is 
confirmed  at  the  same  place  on  his  return  (xxxv.  9  ff.),  after  he  has 
gained  for  himself  and  his  race  in  the  night-long  wrestling  at  Jabbok, 
which  forms  the  turning-point  of  his  life,  the  new  and  holy  name  of 
Israel,  characteristic  of  his  divine  calling  (xxxii.  24  ff.).     The  main 
meaning  of  this  story  is,  that  Jacob,  whose  courage  fails  before  his 
brother,  and  the  reward  of  whose  wiles  threatens  to  be  lost  at  one 
blow,  is  shown  how  man,  despairing  in  his  guilt,  must  wrestle  out  his 
cause  with  God,  but  that  when  he  has  gained  the  blessing  from  God, 
he  has  no  more  to  be  afraid  of  from  any  man.     At  the  same  time, 
Jacob's  combat,  when  he  first  wrestles  with  bodily  strength,  is  perhaps 
a  picture  of  the  perverseness  of  his  former  life,  in  which  he  believed 
himself  to  be  able  to  force  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise  by  the  con- 
tinual use  of  carnal  means,  and  had  made  it  difficult  enough  for  the 
divine  leadings  to  become  master  of  him.     His  becoming  lame  is 
then  meant  to  show  that  God  does  not  permit  Himself  to  be  forced 
by  natural  strength.      But  then  Jacob  becomes  victorious  by  the 
weapon  of  prayer  (comp.  Hos.  xii.  4  f.).     As  the  natural  character  of 
Jacob,  the  intriguing  holder  of  the  heel, — the  tough,  shrewd  man,— 
prefigures  the  natural  character  of  the  nation  that  descended  from 
him,  so  the  spiritual  character  of  God's  people  is  prefigured  (2)  in 
^^1^\  the  wrestler  with  God. 

(1)  It  is  a  great  error,  particularly  of  popular  handbooks,  that  it 
is  thought  necessary  to  canonize  the  wily  intrigues  of  Jacob  and  his 
mother  related  in  Genesis.     The  attempt  to  justify  such  conduct  goes 


94  THE  HISTOKY  OF  REVELATION.  [§  2o. 

against  the  conscience  of  a  child.  But  such  a  treatment  of  the 
histoiy  of  Jacob  rests  on  a  gross  misunderstanding  of  that  which 
Genesis  itself  teaches  us  as  to  the  divine  leading  of  Jacob.  The  text 
shows  wherein  lies  the  doctrinal  value  of  this  history. 

(2)  Gen.  xxxii.  24  ff. — The  insipid  mockery  which  the  despisers 
of  the  Bible  are  so  inclined  to  pour  out  on  this  story  does  not  touch  us 
here.  The  story  was  properly  valued  from  a  free  point  of  view  by 
Herder,  and  afterwards  in  particular  by  Umbreit  ("Der  Busskarapf 
Jacob's,"  Studien  und  Kiitiken,  1848,  Nr.  1,  p.  113  ff.),  Paulus  Cassel 
has  a  beautiful  essay,  entitled  "Das  Ringervolk,"  in  his  Lectures  on 
the  World's  History^  1st  Division,  1860;  he  strikingly  represents  here, 
in  the  two  types  of  Heracles  and  Jacob,  the  contrast  between  Hellen- 
ism and  Israel.  It  is  common,  especially  in  the  practical  use  of  the 
passage,  to  limit  oneself  to  seeing  in  Jacob's  struggle  a  symbol  of 
wrestling  in  prayer,  which  does  not  become  wearied  until  it  wins  the 
blessing.  So  also  Auberlen  in  the  article  "  Jacob,"  in  Herzog's 
Realencyhlop.  vi.  p.  376  f.  I  cannot  share  this  view,  and  agree 
with  Kurtz's  conception  {History  of  the  Old  Covencmt,  i.  331,  E.  T.), 
according  to  which  a  double  wrestling  must  be  distinguished  in  the 
manner  given  in  the  text. — Hengstenberg  turns  the  story  into  a 
visionary  event. 

§  25. 

THE  TWELVE  PATRIARCHS. 

In  the  twelve  sons  of  Jacob  is  given  the  basis  of  the  covenant 
people  destined  to  possess  the  land  of  Canaan  (1).  Nevertheless,  a 
long  period  of  expectation  in  exile  and  slavery  is  first  prescribed 
(comp.  Gen.  xv.  13  ff.)  to  Jacob's  descendants.  The  completion  of 
the  divine  decree  is  introduced  by  the  providential  history  of  Joseph, 
who  is  raised  to  the  helm  of  the  Egyptian  state  to  be  the  deliverer  of 
his  people,  after  long  proof  of  his  faith,  in  which  his  earlier  vain  mind 
was  to  be  humbled  (comp.,  for  the  religious  value  of  the  history,  especi- 
ally xlv.  5-8,  1.  20).  A  second  time  Israel  must  turn  his  back  on  the 
promised  land,  still  with  renewal  of  the  promises  received  (xlvi.  2  ff.)  (2). 
Jacob  dies  in  Egypt,  after  having  predicted  the  future  of  the  tribes 
descending  from  his  sons,  in  his  prophetic  blessing  (chap,  xlix.),  which 
looks  far  beyond  the  time  in  which  his  descendants  continue  strangers. 
The  twelve  tribes  are  here  portrayed,  partly  according  to  their  place 
in  theocratic  history,  and  partly  according  to  their  geographical  rela- 


I  2o.]  THE  TWELVE  PATRIARCHS.  95 

tionship,  while,  at  the  same  time,  Jacob's  words  rest  on  ethical  and 
psychological  considerations.  But,  according  to  the  Old  Testament 
view,  the  blessing  and  curse  of  parents  are  not  magic  spells  possessing 
in  themselves  the  power,  ascribed  to  them  in  heathenism,  to  set  in 
motion  forces  of  blessing  or  vengeance ;  they  have  reality  just  in  as 
far  as  they  serve  the  divine  decrees,  which  may  be  fulfilled,  according 
to  circumstances,  in  a  quite  different  sense  from  that  intended  by  him 
who  blesses  or  curses  (this  is  shown  at  once  in  Isaac's  blessing, 
chap,  xxvii.).  Among  the  twelve  Joseph  is  especially  prominent, 
who  (comp.  xlviii.  5)  is  to  grow  to  a  mighty  double  tribe  in  his  two 
sons  Manasseh  and  Ephraim,  of  whom  the  latter  is  preferred,  althouo^h 
lie  is  the  youngest  (xlviii.  14  ff.).  Nevertheless  it  is  not  to  him  that 
the  sovereignty  is  promised ;  nor  to  Reuben,  the  first-born  son,  who 
is  declared  to  have  forfeited  his  birthright  by  the  deed  of  shame  which 
ho  had  formerly  committed ;  nor  to  Levi,  who  was  afterwards  highly 
glorified  (comp.  in  particular  Dent,  xxxiii.  8  ff.), — rather,  because  of  his 
crime  committed  along  with  Simeon,  that  dispersion  through  Israel 
which  was  subsequently  connected  with  his  high  calling  is  uttered 
as  a  curse  (Gen.  xlix.  7)  (o).  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  Judah  who  is 
specially  chosen  as  bearer  of  the  promise,  and  who  is  characterized 
as  he  upon  whom  that  dominion  over  nations  shall  rest,  to  which 
xxvii.  29  already  pointed.  Compare  1  Chron.  v.  2,  according  to  which 
passage  the  birthright,  the  "^"^i^Sj  is  Joseph's  portion  in  the  shape  of 
double  inheritance  (comp.  §  106) ;  but  out  of  Judah  is  to  come  the 
T'J3,  the  prince  of  Israel  (4).  By  fixing  their  graves  (xlvii.  29  ff., 
comp.  1.  4  ff.),  Jacob,  and  afterwards  Joseph  (1.  25  f.;  comp.  Heb. 
xi.  22),  seek  to  testify  their  faith  in  the  divine  promise. — In  the  three 
covenants  of  promise  made  with  the  three  patriarchs  rests,  for  the 
consciousness  of  the  people  of  Israel,  the  guarantee  of  the  whole 
gracious  and  holy  leading  of  the  people  (comp.  Ex.  ii.  24;  Deut. 
iv.  37,  vii.  8,  viii.  8,  18,  etc.).  Therefore,  in  the  Old  Testament 
stage  of  revelation,  God  is  called  the  God  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and 
Jacob  (Ex.  iii.  6,  15 ;  comp.  1  Kings  xviii.  36,  Ps.  xlvii.  10). 

(1)  That  there  are  twelve  tribes  is  explained  by  the  Old  Testament 
from  the  number  of  the  sons  of  Jacob,  since  to  him  were  born,  Gen. 
xxix.  ff.,  six  sons — Reuben,  Simeon,  Levi,  Judah,  Issachar,  Zebulun 
— by  his  wife  Leah ;    two  by  her  maid  Zilpah  —  Gad  and  Asher  j 


96  THE  HISTORY  OF  REVELATION.  [§  25. 

other  two  —  Joseph  and  Benjamin  —  by  his  younger  wife  Rachel ; 
and  lastly,  two  —  Dan  and  Naphtali  —  by  Bilhah,  the  handmaid  of 
the  last  named.  There  are  other  cases  in  Genesis  of  nations  divided 
into  twelve  tribes  in  the  circle  of  peoples  to  which  Israel  belongs : 
for  xxii.  20-24,  twelve  sons  are  ascribed  to  Nahor  also,  eight  by  his 
wife  and  four  by  his  concubine ;  and  in  xvii.  20,  xxv.  13-16,  the 
Ishmaelites  are  divided  into  twelve  branches.  Also  in  the  tribes 
descending  from  Esau  (xxxvi.  9  ff.)  we  have  the  number  twelve,  if 
we  retrard  Amalek  simply  as  an  extra  tribe. — As  the  division  into 
twelve  (see  Uhlemann,  Thoth.  p.  107)  is  connected  in  the  case  of  the 
Eo^yptians  and  other  ancient  people  with  the  twelve  signs  of  the 
zodiac  and  the  twelve  months  of  the  year,  the  tribal  division  of 
Israel  and  the  cognate  races  has  often  been  explained  in  the  same 
way ;  and  even  Diodor.  Sic,  Fragment,  lib.  xl.,  connects  the  twelve 
tribes  of  Israel  with  the  twelve  months.  In  the  Old  Testament  itself 
there  is  no  trace  of  any  other  derivation  than  the  genealogical  one ; 
and  if  we  examine  more  exactly  the  ethnographical  accounts  in 
Genesis,  we  shall  rather  arrive  at  the  supposition  that  it  was  for  the 
sake  of  analogy  with  the  number  of  the  tribes  of  Israel  that  the 
descendants  of  Nahor,  Ishmael,  and  Esau  were  also  grouped  so  as  to 
trive  the  number  twelve  (see  Knobel  on  Gen.  xxii.  20 ;  comp.  also 
§  92  with  note  2).     [Article,  "  Stamme  Israels."] 

(2)  In  connection  with  the  references  to  Egypt,  Eber's  work^ 
Efjypt  and  the  Books  of  Moses,  of  which  as  yet  only  the  first  volume 
is  published,  1868  (on  Genesis),  is  worthy  of  all  praise.  It  contains 
very  important  information  on  archasological  and  historical  matters. 
Comp.  also  Hengstenberg,  The  Booh  of  Moses  and  Egypt,  1841. 

(3)  Gen.  xlix.  7  :  "  Cursed  be  their  wrath,  because  '<"•  was  so  fierce ; 
and  their  fury,  because  it  was  grievous :  I  will  divide  them  in  Jacob, 
and  disperse  them  in  Israel."  Compare  Kurtz,  History  of  the  Old 
Covenant,  i.  2d  ed.,  p^  265  f.,  in  elucidation  of  the  treacherous  and 
bloody  act  of  vengeance  executed  by  Levi,  for  the  dishonour  of  his 
sister  Dinah,  on  the  Shechemites,  who  were  first  made  defenceless. 

(4)  Gen.  xlix.  is  a  crux  interpretum.  In  respect  to  the  passage 
as  a  whole,  I  share  neither  the  view  of  some  who  see  here  a  testament 
written  down  with  the  exactness  of  a  notary,  nor  the  widespread 
view  which  believes  it  necessary  to  see  in  the  piece  the  production  of 
a  later  poet. — For  this  poet,  in  whatever  age  we  place  him,  comes 
into  conflict  with  some  parts  of  his  poem.  Particularly  what  is  said 
about  Levi,  whose  race  was  highly  exalted  from  the  time  of  Moses, 
neither  ao-rees  with  the  time  of  the  judges,  nor  with  the  time  of 
David  or  Solomon.     But  in  ver.  10  there  is  thought  to  be  a  clear 


§  25.]  THE  TWELVE  PATRIARCHS.  97 

indication  that  the  chapter  was  written  in  the  time  of  the  judges. 
Shiloh  is  there  taken  to  mean  the  town  in  Ephraim,  and  the  passage 
is  rendered :  "  until  he  comes  to  Shiloh,"  where  the  sanctuary,  the 
centre  of  the  theocracy,  was.  But  if  the  poem  is  of  this  age,  the 
principate  which  is  assigned  to  Judah  is  irreconcilable  with  historical 
data  in  the  time  of  the  judges.  It  is  necessary  to  extend  and  urge  in 
an  unjustifiable  manner  the  circumstance  that  Judah  went  at  the 
head  of  the  people  in  the  war  of  conquest,  in  order  to  justify  what 
is  said  of  him.  If  we  are  to  speak  of  a  principate  of  any  tribe  in  the 
time  of  the  judges,  we  should  rather  name  the  tribe  of  Ephraim,  in 
whose  midst  at  one  time  actually  a  kingdom  was  set  up  in  Shechem. 
— Any  one  who  really  goes  deeper  into  the  intellectual  habits  not 
only  of  Israel,  but  of  eastern,  and  indeed  of  all  antiquity,  will  not 
be  content  with  the  view  that  a  later  poet  sits  down  and  writes  a 
poem  which  he  puts  in  the  mouth  of  the  father  of  the  nation ;  on  the 
contrary,  we  certainly  find  in  the  old  Avorld  a  real  tradition  of  such 
words  of  blessing  and  cursing,  uttered  by  the  fathers  about  their 
descendants,  and  such  utterances  influence  the  fortunes  of  the  latter 
in  a  very  intelligible  way.  I  cannot,  therefore,  take  any  other  view  of 
Jacob's  sayings,  than  that  the  father  of  the  tribes  divides  the  inherit- 
ance and  characterizes  each  of  the  sons,  and  that  this  testament  of 
the  father  continues  to  live  in  the  mouth  of  the  tribes.  The  antique 
character  of  the  sayings  is  shown  by  the  peculiar  animal  symbols  : 
Dan,  the  serpent ;  Naphtali,  the  gazelle,  etc. ;  sayings  which  cannot 
have  been  called  forth  by  the  later  poetical  art,  but  only  by  the  simple 
pastoral  life  of  the  patriarchs. — With  regard  to  the  theological  value 
of  these  sayings,  it  is  shown  also  by  this  blessing,  that  in  the  divine 
kingdom  things  do  not  run  in  the  way  of  nature,  but  according  to 
divine  choice.  Neither  he  who  should  take  the  lead  by  right  of 
birth,  nor  yet  the  father's  darling,  is  called  to  be  the  peculiar  vehicle 
of  the  kingdom  of  God.  Since  ethical  and  psychological  motives 
appear  in  many  points  of  what  is  said  about  the  several  tribes, — when, 
as  Herder  has  said  so  beautifully,  Jacob's  "  mind  is  strengthened 
from  heaven  to  note  the  slumbering  destiny  in  the  soul  of  his  sons, 
and  to  open  this  hidden  book  in  their  separate  traits  of  character  and 
action," — we  may  ask  if  there  is  not  also  something  of  the  same  kind 
in  the  case  of  Judah,  the  fourth  son  according  to  age,  but  now  placed 
first.  In  the  text  it  is  not  expressly  brought  forward.  In  the 
designation  of  Judah  as  a  lion  we  may  perhaps  find  a  reference  to 
the  noble  nature  of  his  personality.  But  the  passage  Gen.  xliv.  32  f. 
may  specially  be  cited,  where  Judah  presents  himself  as  surety,  to  go 
to  prison  or  to  bondage  for  his  brother  Benjamin  that  he  may  be  free. 
VOL.  I.  o 


98  THE  HISTORY  OF  REVELATION.  [§  26. 

It  is  hardly  to  be  regarded  as  an  intentional  coincidence,  though  there 
is  a  divine  fitness  in  it,  that  Judah  was  destined  to  be  the  ancestor  of 
Him  who  presented  Himself  as  surety  for  all. — The  much  discussed 
passage  about  Shiloh  will  be  treated  of  on  a  subsequent  page. 


IV.— FOURTH  AGE,  THE  TIME  OF  MOSES  AND  JOSHUA. 
I.   THE  DELIVERANCE  OF  ISRAEL  FROM  EGYPTIAN  BONDAGE. 

§26. 

Condition  of  the  People  of  Israel  in  Egypt. 

At  the  close  of  the  time  of  the  patriarchs,  the  biblical  account 
passes  silently  over  a  long  period,  in  which  Israel  grows  up  into  a 
people.  For  that  quiet  process  of  increase  by  which  the  families 
grew  to  a  people  offered  nothing  of  importance  which  could  establish 
itself  in  the  historical  memory  of  the  people  (1).  The  Old  Testa- 
ment itself  gives  the  following  indications  of  the  condition  of  the 
people  in  Egypt.  In  part  they  seem  to  have  kept  to  the  pastoral  life 
of  their  fathers  in  Goshen ;  they  may  have  wandered  from  there  into 
the  stretch  of  land  on  the  eastern  boundary,  as  in  fact  the  obscure 
passage  1  Chron.  vii.  21  is  probably  to  be  connected  with  an  occurrence 
taking  place  during  the  stay  of  Israel  in  Egypt  (2).  From  Num. 
xxxii.  we  conclude  that  especially  the  two  tribes  of  Reuben  and  Gad 
gave  themselves  to  cattle-breeding.  But  speaking  generally,  the 
people  who  were  settled  in  fixed  residences,  and  partly  even  in  towns, 
must  have  already  begun  an  agricultural  life  (comp.  Ex.  i.  14,  Num. 
xi.  5,  Deut.  xi.  10).  As  the  Egyptians  and  Israelites  lived  together 
(Ex.  iii.  22,  xii.  33  ff.),  the  people  could  not  have  remained  untouched 
by  the  Egyptian  culture,  which  was  at  that  time  already  very  far 
advanced  (3).  The  political  organization  of  the  people  had  developed 
itself  in  a  genealogical  way,  which  corresponds  to  the  natural  character 
of  the  Semites,  who  are  characterized  by  strong  family  and  tribal 
attachment.  The  people  (according  to  iii.  16)  is  represented  by  the 
elders  (D^^ipT),  who  were  probably  taken  from  the  chief  families.  Be- 
sides this,  the  people  were  under  I^^ipt;^',  who  in  like  manner  were 
taken  from  their  midst,  but  were  themselves  subordinate  to  Egyptian 
overseers  Cv.  6  ff.)  (comp.  §  98).     With  regard  to  the  religious  con- 


§  2G.]       CONDITIOX  OF  THE  PEOPLE  OF  ISRAEL  IN  EGYPT.         99 

clition  of  the  nation,  we  find  tliat  among  the  mass  of  the  people  the 
remembrance  of  the  God  of  their  fathers,  and  of  the  promises  given 
to  them,  had  to  be  reawakened.  The  purer  worship  of  God  which  we 
find  among  tlie  patriarchs  had  been  displaced  by  idol-worship,  as  may 
be  concluded  partly  from  express  testimony  (Josh.  xxiv.  14 ;  Ezek. 
XX.  7  ff.,  xxiii.  8,  19),  and  partly  from  the  idol- worship  to  which  the 
people  gave  themselves  during  their  wanderings  in  the  wilderness. 
The  worship  of  the  calf  at  Sinai,  Ex.  xxxii.,  is  to  be  explained  as 
an  imitation  of  the  Egyptian  worship  of  Apis  or  Mnevis  ;  the  service 
of  he-goats  (0''"!''^^)  mentioned  in  Lev.  xvii.  7  points  to  the  service  of 
Mendes  (the  Egyptian  Pan  ;  Herodotus,  ii.  46).  But  also  the  service 
of  the  fire-god  Moloch  or  Milcom,  which  was  spread  in  the  lands 
bounding  Egypt  on  the  east,  must,  as  is  shown  by  the  rigid  prohi- 
bition. Lev.  xviii.  21,  xx.  2,  have  even  at  that  time  penetrated  among 
the  people.  As  this  idol,  who  is  essentially  the  jealous  power  of 
nature,  forms  the  heathen  caricature  of  the  Holy  One  of  Israel,  of 
the  J<3i?  ^^,  the  mixing  of  his  worship  with  the  service  of  Jehovah, 
mentioned  in  Amos  v.  26,  is  more  easy  to  understand  (4).  All  this 
shows  that  during  the  stay  in  Egypt  the  foundation  was  laid  of  the 
religious  syncretism  which  came  up  in  different  forms  in  the  following 
centuries,  and  which  was  in  general  characteristic  of  Israel,  which 
never  was  independently  productive  in  polytheistic  forms  of  worship. 

(1)  It  may  seem  strange  that  we  have  so  considerable  a  blank  in 
the  history  between  Genesis  and  Exodus,  and  that  the  long  period  of 
time  from  Jacob's  going  down  into  Egypt  and  hi?  death,  and  until 
Moses'  birth,  is  passed  silently  over.  But  simple  tribal  life,  such  as  we 
must  suppose  Israel's  to  have  been  in  those  centuries,  forms  no  history. 
What  sort  of  a  history  had  the  Arabians  in  the  thousand  years  previous 
to  ISIohammed  ?  But  beside  this,  Israel  has  throughout  no  history  except 
in  as  far  as  it  is  the  organ  of  revelation.  How  full  of  blanks  is  the 
historical  account  of  the  centuries  in  the  time  of  the  judges,  on  account 
of  the  broken  state  of  the  theocratic  life  !  and  how  little  do  we  know 
of  the  exile,  which  yet  belongs  entirely  to  the  historical  time !  or  of 
the  centuries  from  Ezra  to  the  Maccabees,  and  beyond  them !  It  is 
the  peculiarity  of  Israel  to  possess  history  and  historical  literature  in 
the  full  sense  of  the  words  only  in  proportion  as  it  realizes  its  voca- 
tion in  the  history  of  the  world. 

(2)  In  1  Chron.  vii.  21,  according  to  the  most  likely  explanation 


100  THE  HISTORY  OF  REVELATION.  [§  2G. 

of  the  ambiguous  passage,  an  incursion  of  the  Ephraimites  on  Gath  is 
recounted,  starting,  it  is  supposed,  from  the  southern  highlands  of 
Canaan.  The  older  view,  that  an  occurrence  in  the  time  of  the  stay  in 
Egypt  is  spoken  of,  and  not,  as  Bertheau  and  others  think  (under- 
standing Ephraim,  ver.  22,  as  the  whole  body  of  the  tribe),  an  occur- 
rence belonging  to  the  post-Mosaic  time,  has  at  least  the  wording  of 
the  passage  in  its  favour.  Comp.  also  Kurtz,  The  History  of  the 
Old  Covenant,  ii.  p.  178  (translation). 

(3)  It  is  a  mistake  to  seek  to  regard  the  Israelites  on  their  exodus 
from  Egypt  as  a  barbarous  crowd  of  shepherds,  in  whom  we  may  not 
presuppose  even  the  smallest  beginnings  of  culture.  They  appear  in 
the  Pentateuch  as  an  unmanageable,  but  not  as  an  uncultivated  people. 
Whilst,  for  example,  just  to  give  one  proof  of  this,  the  Pentateuch  does 
not  produce  any  trace  of  the  practice  of  the  art  of  writing  in  the  time 
of  the  patriarchs,  this  is  presupposed  as  existing  among  the  people 
when  they  went  out  of  Egypt,  as  the  name  of  their  functionaries 
which  were  taken  from  the  people  shows, — they  were  C^nDb',  that  is, 
writers.  In  Egypt,  indeed,  as  is  shown  by  the  monuments,  writing 
w^as  at  that  time  a  thing  long  established. 

(4)  It  is  not  long  since  it  was  the  fashion  to  think  that  the  original 
cultus  of  Israel  was  the  worship  of  Saturn,  or,  as  Saturn  was  identified 
with  Milcom,  the  service  of  Moloch  (comp.  Vatke,  Ghillany,  Daumer, 
and  others). — It  certainly  cannot  be  denied  that  this  idolatrous  worship 
belongs  to  that  ancient  period ;  it  belongs  to  the  oldest  time  and  to  the 
youngest,  and  after  disappearing  for  centuries,  becomes  prominent  again 
after  the  time  of  Ahaz  ;  and,  as  is  stated  in  the  text,  there  is  a  certain 
connection  between  Moloch  and  N3i?  ?X,  as  the  Holy  One  of  Israel  is 
called,  only  with  the  difference  that  this  is  an  ethical  power,  that  a 
consuming  natural  power,  which  must  be  reconciled  by  human  sacrifice. 
But  to  represent  what  the  Old  Testament  condemns  as  the  true  founda- 
tion of  the  worship  of  Jehovah,  is  a  piece  of  caprice  such  as  has  often 
defaced  the  treatment  of  the  Old  Testament. — The  much  discussed 
passage,  Amos  v.  26,  must  not  be  understood  as  foretelling  something 
future,  as  Ewald  explains  it :  "  So  then  ye  shall  lift  up  the  pale  of 
your  king,  and  the  scaffold  of  your  images,"  referring  to  the  carrying 
of  the  idols  into  captivity.  Against  this  is  the  fact  that  this  kind  of 
worship  is  not  mentioned  as  existing  in  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes. 
The  proper  explanation  is :  '•'  Ye  bore  the  tabernacle  of  your  king 
and  the  pillar  of  your  images,"  etc.,  that  is,  during  the  wandering  in 
the  wilderness.  -jThis  interpretation  is  certainly  wrong.  See,  besides 
older  authorities,  Graf  in  Merx's  Archiv,  vol.  i.,  and  Schrader  in  the 
JStudien  und  Kritiken,  1874,  p.  324  ff.} 


§  27.]       THE  COUESE  OF  THE  DELIVERANCE  FROM  EGYPT.       101 

§  27. 

The  Course  of  the  Deliverance  from  Egypt. 

The  deliverance  from  Egypt  is  thus  related  in  Exodus.  To  pre- 
vent the  extraordinary  increase  of  the  people  which  excited  their 
apprehensions,  the  Egyptians  burdened  the  people  with  unbearable 
tasks,  and  at  last  the  royal  decree  went  forth  that  all  the  new-born 
boys  should  be  killed.  In  this  deepest  humiliation,  in  which  the  people 
(comp.  Ezek.  xvi.  5)  were  comparable  to  a  helpless  infant  cast  away 
in  its  blood,  the  fulfilment  of  the  promises  given  to  the  fathers  was  to 
come  about ;  and,  in  accordance  with  this,  El-shaddai  was  to  show  Him- 
self as  Jehovah.  The  divine  instrument  for  this  was  Moses.  After 
he  had  been  providentially  saved  from  death  as  a  child  (Ex.  ii.  1  ff.), 
and  had  been  brought  up  at  the  royal  court  (Trdarj  ao^ia  AlyuTrrlcoVf 
Acts  vii.  22),  he  appears  in  manhood  (in  the  fortieth  year  of  his  life, 
according  to  tradition  ;  see  Acts  vii.  23)  in  the  midst  of  his  oppressed 
people,  kills  an  Egyptian  who  is  maltreating  an  Israelite,  and  flees, 
when  this  deed  becomes  known,  into  the  Arabian  wilderness  (1). 
What  he  failed  to  accomplish  when  trying  in  his  own  might,  he  was 
to  bring  to  a  completion  forty  years  after  as  an  instrument  in  God's 
hand  (2).  When  Moses  had  accredited  himself  to  the  people  as  a 
divine  messenger,  he  first  demanded  of  Pharaoh  liberty  for  Israel  to 
go  into  the  wilderness,  and  there  to  celebrate  a  sacrificial  festival  to 
Jehovah.  As  Pharaoh  repels  the  request  with  scorn,  and  increases  to 
the  uttermost  the  oppression  of  the  people,  there  follows  the  divine 
declaration  that  Israel  shall  now  be  brought  out  of  Egypt  by  great 
judgments,  and  that  thus  the  reality  of  Jehovah  as  the  Lord  of  the 
world  shall  be  manifested  indeed  to  Israel  as  well  as  to  the  Egyptians 
(comp.  Ex.  vi.  6f.,  viii.  18,  ix.  16).  The  ten  plagues  which  are  sent 
on  the  Egyptians  (Ex.  vii.-xii.,  comp.  with  Ps.  Ixxviii.  43  ff.,  cvi. 
26  ff.)  are  mostly  connected  with  natural  events  and  conditions  which 
frequently  recur  in  Egypt.  Tlie  order  of  their  succession  stands  in 
close  connection  with  the  natural  progress  of  the  Egyptian  year  from 
the  time  of  the  first  swelling  of  the  Nile,  which  generally  happens  in 
June,  to  the  spring  of  the  following  year  (3).  But  partly  the  severity 
which  the  plagues  reached,  and  partly  their  connection  with  the  word 
of  Moses  (comp.  especially  viii.  5  f.),  make  them  signs  of  Jehovah's 


102  THE  HISTORY  OF  REVELATION.  [§  27, 

power.  In  them  the  battle  of  the  true  God  is  victoriously  waged 
against  tlie  gods  of  the  land  (xii.  12 ;  Num.  xxxiii.  4),  and  thus  they 
serve  as  a  pledge  of  the  triumph  of  the  divine  kingdom  over  heathenism 
(comp.  Ex.  XV.  11,  xviii.  11).  Even  in  heathen  accounts  of  the 
departure  of  Israel  from  Egypt  by  Manetho  (Josephus,  c.  Ap.  i.  26) 
and  Diodorus  {Blhlioth,  lib.  xl.  fragm.),  it  comes  unmistakeably  out 
that  here  strong  religious  differences  met  in  combat  (4).  The  plagues 
rise  from  step  to  step  until,  after  the  tenth  plague,  viz.  the  killing  of 
the  first-born  of  the  Egyptians,  which  takes  places  in  the  same  night 
with  the  institution  of  the  passover  in  Israel,  the  Egyptians,  full  of 
fear,  drive  the  people  from  the  land  (5). — Because  the  people  are  not 
yet  matured  for  war  with  the  nations  of  Canaan,  Moses  does  not  lead 
them  to  Canaan  by  the  neai'est  road,  but  chooses  the  roundabout  way 
through  the  wilderness  of  the  peninsula  of  Sinai,  But  scarcely  have 
the  people  turned  in  this  direction,  and  encamped  exactly  by  the  Red 
Sea,  probably  in  the  plain  of  the  modern  Suez,  when  Pharaoh  draws 
near.  Closed  in  by  the  enemy's  forces,  and  by  mountains  and  the 
waves  of  the  sea,  the  people  receive  the  direction  to  go  forward  in 
faith.  A  storm  drives  back  the  water,  Israel  passes  happily  through 
the  sea  in  the  tumult  of  the  elements,  led  by  God  like  a  flock  of  sheep 
(Ps.  Ixxvii.  17-21;  Isa,  Ixiii.  11  ff,)  ;  but  the  Egyptian  army  which 
follows  is  buried  by  the  waves,  "  And  the  people  feared  Jehovah,  and 
believed  in  Jehovah  and  His  servant  Moses"  (Ex.  xiv.  31)  (6).  In 
this  form  the  act  of  divine  deliverance  was  handed  down  in  Israel 
(comp.  Ps.  Ixxviii.  12  ff.,  cvi.  8  ff.,  cxiv.),  a  type  of  future  redemption, 
ever  again  revived  in  their  memory  by  the  yearly  anniversary  (Isa.  xi. 
15  f.). — The  duration  of  Israel's  stay  in  Egypt  is  fixed  as  430  years, 
according  to  Ex.  xii.  40,  comp.  Gen.  xv.  13,  against  which  the  LXX. 
in  the  first  passage  reckon  as  part  of  the  number  430  the  stay  of  the 
patriarchs  in  Canaan,  and  thus  reduce  the  time  of  the  stay  in  Egypt 
by  one-half  (7). 

(1)  Comp.  the  explanation  of  this  narrative,  Acts  vii.  24  f.: 
"  ^Evo/jLL^e  Se  avvievai  tou?  aBek(l30v<i  avTOv,  on  6  Qeo<i  Sia  ')(eipo'^ 
avTOv  BiSdicrtv  avrolq  crcoTrjpiav  ol  Se  ov  a-vvrJKav.^^ 

(2)  If  we  compare  the  view  of  this  narrative  taken  by  Ewald, 
History  of  Israel.)  ii.  3d  ed.  p.  77,  101  ff.,  he  places  Israel  under  an 
entirely  different  historical  point  from  the  book  of  Exodus.      Essen- 


§  27.]       THE  COURSE  OF  THE  DELIVERANCE  FROM  EGYPT.        103 

tially  he  understands  the  matter  thus:  In  the  time  before  the  leadino- 
out  of  the  people,  a  powerful  movement  went  through  them,  "  the  most 
extraordinary  exertions  and  most  noble  activities  of  the  spirit  wrestlinc; 
for  freedom."  Then  Moses  lifted  himself  up  among  them,  who  was 
one  of  the  greatest  heroes  who  have  ever  been, — a  spirit,  indeed,  of 
unmatched  greatness,  who  must  have  worked  with  wonderful  powers 
and  effects.  Now  ensues  a  religious  combat  between  Israel  and  the 
Egyptians,  the  result  of  which  is  just  the  departure  from  Egypt. 
Then  "  the  confidence  of  spirit  once  excited  in  the  people  must  have 
remained  unweakened  in  the  now  coming  crisis  at  the  Red  Sea,"  as 
happens  when  "  at  the  right  time  a  favourable  wind  brings  to  the 
light  the  deposited  germs."  Thus  the  march  through  the  Red  Sea 
now  gains  fundamental  significance  for  the  theocracy. —  This  is  all 
very  well ;  but  in  the  Old  Testament  the  honour  is  not  given  to  the 
people,  but  the  whole  history  tends  to  show  what  divine  discipline  can 
make  out  of  a  sunken  people.  The  Old  Testament  shows  us  nothing 
of  a  mighty  spiritual  movement  among  the  people  in  Egypt  (comp. 
also  the  conception  in  Acts  vii.  25  ff.).  Ezekiel  compares  it  to  a  help- 
less infant  cast  away  without  mercy,  lying  in  its  blood ;  and,  in  reo-ard 
to  Moses,  the  story  certainly  indicates  a  preparation  for  his  future 
calling ;  but  if  tradition  (Acts  vii.  22)  supposes  him  to  be  educated 
in  all  the  wisdom  of  the  Egyptians,  even  Ewald  himself  remarks  that 
"  certainly  the  influence  of  Egyptian  education  was  in  the  end  more 
negative  than  positive"  (History  of  Israel^  i.  3d  ed.  p.  83).  The  point 
brought  forward  in  the  text  is  here  of  especial  significance :  how 
Moses'  first  appearance  when  he  slew  the  Egyptian,  which  is  taken 
by  Stephen  (Acts  vii.  25)  as  a  signal  for  the  people, — how  this  arbi- 
trary deed  led  first  to  a  long  exile  for  Moses,  and  how  only  at  a  later 
period,  when  he  no  longer  counted  himself  a  capable  person,  he  was 
to  reach  success  (comp.  also  Auberlen,  The  Divine  Revelation,  i. 
p.  101  ff.). 

(3)  Eichhorn  first  sought  to  show,  in  his  De  u^gypti  anno  Mirahili, 
how  the  whole  course  of  the  plagues  is  connected  with  the  course  of 
the  Egyptian  year.  The  ample  treatment  of  this  topic  by  Heng- 
stenberg,  The  Books  of  Moses  and  Egypt,  p.  93  ff.,  is  particularly 
interesting, 

(4)  According  to  a  remark  in  §  3,  the  Old  Testament  theology 
has,  in  distinction  from  the  history  of  Israel,  to  reproduce  the  facts  just 
as  they  continued  to  live  in  the  spirit  of  the  organs  of  revelation,  and 
formed  the  basis  of  religion,  whilst  researches  like  those  on  the  Hyksos 
are  relegated  to  the  history  of  the  Israelites.  The  question  of  the 
Hyksos  has  been  in  dispute  till  the  most  recent  time.     Manetho,  as  is 


lO-i  THE  HISTORY  OF  REVELATION.  [§  27. 

well  known,  speaks,  as  quoted  by  Josephus  (c.  Aj).  i.  14),  of  a  shepherd 
people  that  held  rule  in  Egypt  for  five  hundred  years. — Hengstenberg 
hands  over  the  whole  tradition  of  the  Hyksos  to  the  sphere  of  fable, 
and  it  cannot  be  denied  that  hitherto  no  definite  indications  of  this 
period  of  five  hundred  years  have  been  found  in  the  investigation  of 
the  monuments.  This  remarkable  want  has  indeed  been  explained 
by  the  supposition  that  the  later  Egyptians  have  done  their  utmost  to 
efface  the  remembrance  of  that  hated  shepherd  people ;  and  recently, 
too,  it  is  thought  that  really  definite  indications  of  the  Hyksos  have 
been  found  on  the  monuments.  Compare  Eber's  Egyjot  and  the  Books 
of  Moses,  i. ;  and  for  the  opposite  view,  Hengstenberg,  The  Books  of 
Moses  and  Egypt.  Ewald  and  most  modern  critics  treat  the  matter  as 
history ;  Hengstenberg  appears  to  have  here  gone  too  far  in  scepticism. 
Now  Josephus,  on  his  part,  identifies  the  Israelites  with  the  Hyksos ; 
but  besides  this,  he  has  given  (c.  Ap.  i.  26  f.)  another  heathen  account 
of  the  Israelites,  which  he  condemns  as  a  lying  heathenish  jeer,  and 
in  one  sense  with  good  reason.  The  essence  of  this  account  is  as 
follows : — After  518  years  were  passed  since  the  expulsion  of  the 
Hyksos  under  King  Tethmosis,  a  King  Amenophis  became  desirous  of 
seeing  the  gods.  Then  the  revelation  is  communicated  to  him,  by  a 
sage  of  the  same  name,  that  the  land  must  first  be  cleansed  from  all 
lepers  and  other  unclean  men.  So  the  king  removed  these  people  to 
the  number  of  80,000,  and  among  them  several  leprous  priests,  into 
the  quarry-pit  on  the  east  of  the  Nile.  But  now  a  great  fear  seizes 
the  prophet,  that  if  these  priests  be  kept  at  servile  work,  the  wrath  of 
the  divinity  may  be  brought  on  Egypt.  The  king  then  brings  the 
unclean  rabble  into  the  town  Avaris,  once  inhabited  by  the  Hyksos, 
There  they  set  over  them  priest  Osarsiph  from  Heliopolis.  This 
priest  gives  them  a  law  which  stands  at  variance  with  the  Egyptian 
religion.  They  league  themselves  with  the  expelled  Hyksos  in  Jeru- 
salem. War  is  threatened  between  the  lepers  and  the  Egyptians. 
Amenophis  king  of  the  Egyptians  approaches  with  300,000  men ;  he 
does  not,  however,  dare  to  give  battle,  but  withdraws  again  to  Egypt, 
from  anxiety  lest  the  battle  might  be  a  strife  against  the  gods.  After 
this,  the  Hyksos  from  Jerusalem  and  the  lepers  rule  in  Egypt  for 
thirteen  years  in  the  most  cruel  manner.  But  after  thirteen  years 
Amenophis  returns  from  Ethiopia  with  his  son  Ramses,  conquers  the 
shepherds  and  lepers,  and  drives  them  back  to  Syria. — It  is  not  pro- 
bable that  all  this  should  only  be  an  intentional  perversion  of  the 
account  in  the  Old  Testament.  With  good  reason  we  may  see  here 
an  old  heathenish  tradition,  which  just  shows  that,  according  to  the 
conception  of  the  Egyptians  themselves,  the  battle  was  a  religious  one, 


§  27.]       THE  COUKSE  OF  THE  DELIVERANCE  FROM  EGYPT.        105 

and,  indeed,  a  combat  in  which  Egypt  itself  got  the  worst. — The 
treatment  of  this  point  in  Ewald's  History  of  Israel,  ii.  1st  ed.  p. 
57  ff.,  3d  ed.  p.  110  ff.,  is  one  of  the  best  parts  of  his  book. 

(5)  Of  the  various  passages  in  the  chapters  that  treat  of  the  exodus, 
Ex.  xii.  35  f.,  compared  with  xi.  2  f .,  may  be  discussed  more  at  large  on 
account  of  its  celebrity.  Already,  iii.  22,  it  is  said,  "  Each  woman  shall 
ask  from  her  neighbour  vessels  of  silver  and  gold,  and  clothes ;"  and 
ver.  21,  "  I  will  give  this  people  favour  in  the  eyes  of  the  Egyptians,  that 
when  they  go  they  may  not  go  empty."  Now  it  is  said,  xii.  35  f.,  "  The 
children  of  Israel  did  according  to  the  word  of  Moses,  and  asked 
of  the  Egyptians  silver  and  golden  vessels,  and  clothes ;  and  Jehovah 
gave  the  people  favour  in  the  eyes  of  the  Egyptians."  On  Luther's 
4and  E.  V.'s|  interpretation  of  the  following  words :  "^^^T).  ■^^-''^^'lll 
D^n^'DTi^?,  "  so  that  they  lent  to  them,  and  they  spoiled  the  Egyptians,"  the 
difficulty  arises,  how  an  actual  theft  can  be  here  commanded — a  point 
which  has  been  often  made  use  of  in  a  pitiful  way.  It  is  not  neces- 
sary to  show  that  theft  is  in  decided  opposition  to  the  moral  spirit  of 
Mosaism.  The  solution  which  Ewald  comes  to  in  his  History  of  Israel, 
ii.  3d  ed.  p.  95,  is,  that  the  spoiling  is,  in  the  sense  of  the  story,  no 
theft,  because  the  following  breach  of  faith  on  Pharaoh's  part  made 
it  impossible  to  give  back  the  borrowed  property,  and  that  this  turn  of 
affairs  contained  at  the  same  time  a  sort  of  divine  retribution  in  favour 
of  Israel,  in  as  far  as  it  appears,  when  looked  at  from  the  ultimate 
issue,  simply  as  the  equalizing  act  of  a  higher  providence  standing 
over  human  inequalities,  that  they  who  were  long  oppressed  by  the 
Egyptians  are  in  this  manner  compensated  for  the  long  oppression. 
This  solution  may  be  right  so  far,  but  it  is  not  at  all  necessary.  Winer, 
in  his  Lexicon,  has  with  good  reason  left  out  the  meaning  "  lend " 
which  is  given  to  the  word  -'"'J^t^'n.  The  Avord  appears  in  the  Hiphil 
only  once  more  in  the  Old  Testament,  1  Sam.  i.  28,  and  there  it  is 
quite  incorrect  to  translate  that  Hannah  lends  her  son  Samuel  to  the 
Lord.  She  wishes  to  give  him  to  God  in  giving  him  to  the  sanctuary^ 
The  word  rather  signifies  decUt  alicui  quod petierat,  according  to  Winer. 
In  the  b^},  xii.  36,  compared  with  iii.  22,  no  robbery  is  implied,  but 
just  a  simple  taking  away ;  in  what  sense,  the  connection  must  decide. 
Accordingly  the  sense  of  the  passage  is,  that  the  Egyptians  are  glad 
to  get  rid  of  the  Israelites  at  this  price ;  so  that  Ewald's  view,  that  we 
have  here  an  act  of  remuneration,  that  the  children  of  Israel  might 
thus  receive  a  compensation,  is  still  applicable.  But  when  Ewald 
(I.e.  p.  96)  and  others  see  in  the  matter  also  the  quite  different 
meaning  that  Israel  took  from  the  Egyptians  the  true  religion,  the 
right  utensils  of  sacrifice,  and  along  with  them  the  true  holy  things 


lOG  THE  HISTORY  OF  REVELATION.  [§  27. 

and  sacrifices,  nothing  of  this  lies  in  the  story,  and  tliis  constraction  is 
very  far-fetched. 

(6)  In  regard  to  the  place  where  Israel  j^cissed  through  the  Red 
Sea,  there  has  always  been  a  dispute.  The  view  of  the  well-known 
naturalist  Schleiden,  ingeniously  defended  in  a  separate  publication 
{The  Isthmits  of  Suez,  1858),  that  Israel's  path  did  not  at  all  lie  across 
the  Red  Sea,  but  led  much  farther  north  along  the  Mediterranean  Sea 
to  the  Arabian  wilderness,  is  quite  untenable,  and  cannot  properly  be 
ref^arded  as  anything  but  an  oddity.  We  can  only  think  of  three 
localities.  1.  Most  modern  critics  suppose  the  passage  to  have  been  at 
the  modern  Suez,  where  now  the  breadth  of  the  sea  is  3450  feet,  and 
there  are  two  fords  whose  shallows  could  even  now  be  laid  dry  for  a 
time  by  an  east  or  north-east  wind  (Ex.  xiv.  21);  but  we  must  here 
note  that  in  that  ancient  time  the  Red  Sea  undoubtedly  stretched  a 
good  way  farther  north,  so  that  we  must  suppose  that  at  that  time  it  was 
considerably  broader  beside  Suez.  Comp.  also  Kurtz,  History  of  the 
Old  Covenant,  ii.  p.  325  (F.T.L.).  2.  The  crossing  might  also  possibly 
have  taken  place  farther  north,  at  the  old  basin  of  the  sea,  beside  the 
present  Ajrud ;  see  Stickel's  essay,  "  The  Israelites'  March  out  of  Egypt 
to  the  Red  Sea,"  Studien  und  Kritihn,  1850,  Nr.  2,  p.  328  ff.  3.  Karl  v. 
Raumer,  The  March  of  the  Israelites  from  Egyjjt  to  Canaan,  1837,  has 
transferred  the  place  where  the  entrance  into  the  Red  Sea  took  place 
pretty  much  to  the  south,  at  the  southern  slope  of  the  mountains  of 
Attaka,  where  the  Red  Sea  is  the  breadth  of  six  hours'  journey. 
I  have  never  been  convinced  by  this  view,  and  it  is  utterly  improbable. 

(7)  Certainly  in  the  genealogy,  Ex.  vi.  16-20,  Moses  and  Aaron 
form  the  fourth  generation  from  Levi ;  but  it  follows  from  other 
genealogies  that  links  are  left  out  in  this  genealogy.  That  in  Num. 
xxvi.  29  ff.  has  six  generations;  that  in  1  Chron.  ii.  3  ff.,  seven ;  that 
in  1  Chron.  vii.  22  ff.,  as  many  as  ten  for  the  same  period.  The 
enormous  increase  of  the  population  of  Israel  can  only  be  explained 
by  accepting  a  longer  period. 

II.  THE  CONCLUSION  OF  THE  COVENANT  OF  THE  LAW,  AND  THE 
MARCH  THROUGH  THE  WILDERNESS. 

§28. 

Pedagogic  Aim  of  the  March  through  the  Wilderness.     The  Covenant  of 
the  Law  established. 

In  God's  great  deed  by  the  Red  Sea  a  pledge  was  already  given  to 
the  people  for  the  happy  completion  of  the  newly  commenced  march^ 


§  28.]      PEDAGOGIC  AIM  OF  THE  MARCH  THROUGH  THE  WILDERNESS.      107 

for  the  victorious  subjugation  of  all  their  enemies,  and  for  their  intro- 
duction to  the  promised  land,  as  foretold  in  Moses'  song  of  praise, 
Ex.  XV.  13  ff.  But  first  the  people,  scarcely  escaped  from  the  rod  of 
correction,  from  the  flesh-pots  and  the  idols  of  Egypt,  must  be  edu- 
cated, sifted,  and  purified  for  its  calling ;  and  this  pedagogic  aim  is 
served  by  the  march  in  the  wilderness,  where  the  people  are  thrown 
entirely  on  their  God,  where  they  become  aware  of  their  need  of  help 
through  want  and  privation,  and  are  to  be  exercised  in  obedience  and 
trust ;  but  to  prove  at  the  same  time,  in  the  experience  of  the  divine 
leading  and  help,  what  they  have  in  their  God  (Deut.  viii.  2-5,  14-18  ; 
comp.  also  the  typical  application,  Hos.  ii.  16)  (1).  In  the  third 
month,  Ex.  xix.  1  (according  to  the  probable  signification  of  the  date 
in  this  passage,  which  is  indeed  indistinct),  on  the  first  of  the  month, 
the  people  reached  Sinai,  where  Jehovah,  as  the  Holy  One,  in  which 
attribute  He  has  already  manifested  Himself  in  the  redemption  of  the 
people  (xv.  11,  comp.  Ps.  Ixxvii.  14-16),  desires  to  found  the  theo- 
cracy and  enter  on  His  kingship  (comp.  Ex.  xv.  18).  After  the  people 
have  been  told  that  they  have  been  chosen  before  all  nations  as  the 
divine  property,  and  have  been  prepared  by  consecration  for  the 
solemn  act,  there  follows  the  promulgation  of  the  fundamental  law 
by  which  Jehovah  binds  Israel's  race  to  a  holy  constitution,  and  thus 
"  He  became  King  in  Jeshurun"  (Deut.  xxxiii.  5).  By  the  covenant 
offering,  Ex.  xxiv.,  the  entrance  of  the  people  into  communion 
with  the  holy  God  is  sealed.  Both  the  electing  love  of  God,  who 
here  betrothes  Himself  to  His  people  (Ezek.  xvi.  8,  "  then  becamest 
thou  mine  "),  and  the  menacing  severity  of  the  Holy  One  of  Israel 
and  His  law  (comp.  Heb.  xii.  18  ff.),  appear  in  the  whole  ceremonies 
of  the  conclusion  of  the  covenant  of  law.  With  regard  to  grace 
and  judgment,  Israel  is  from  this  time  forward  the  privileged  people 
of  God  (2). 

(1)  On  the  significance  of  the  march  through  the  wilderness, 
compare  Auberlen's  book,  The  Divine  Revelation,  i.  p.  136  Tr. :  "  That 
they  might  be  cast  on  Him  alone,  and  not  become  immediately  re- 
entangled  in  the  world's  affairs,  Israel  is  not  led  directly  from  Egypt 
to  Canaan,  but  by  a  great  round  through  the  wilderness,  where  the 
temporal  life  of  nature  and  history  stands  still,  and  the  people  are 
alone  with  their  God.     Since  the  wilderness  is  without  nourishment, 


103  THE  HISTORY  OF  REVELATION.  [§  29. 

and  without  so  much  as  a  path,  the  simplest  sign  of  human  culture, 
He  undertakes  to  feed  them  with  manna ;  He  undertakes  their  guid- 
ance in  the  pillar  of  cloud  and  fire,  that  herein  too  the  people  may  be 
directly  pointed  to  Him,  and  accustomed  to  the  thought  of  Him." — It 
is  this  pedagogic  meaning  of  the  wilderness-wandering  of  Israel  which 
makes  it  so  weighty,  not  simply  historically,  but  also  in  religious  praxis ; 
and  in  this  we  do  not  read  something  into  the  Old  Testament  history 
which  only  occurs  to  ourselves  as  we  meditate  on  it ;  but  this  is  the 
point  of  view  under  which  the  Old  Testament  itself — the  Pentateuch, 
and  especially  Deuteronomy,  from  which  a  few  chief  passages  have 
been  brought  forward  in  the  text,  as  well  as  prophecy — presents  the 
history  of  the  Israelites. — In  Hos.  ii.  16,  the  future  restoration  of 
Israel  is  represented  as  a  new  leading  through  the  wilderness.  In  the 
preceding  passage  it  is  foretold  that  God  will  remove  Israel  into  a 
position  of  separation,  where  it  can  no  more  have  intercourse  with  the 
idols  to  which  it  has  given  itself.  This  is  the  first  stage.  And  now, 
ver.  16  :  ^''Behold,  I  will  entice  her,  and  lead  her  into  the  wilderness, 
and  will  speak  to  her  heart ; "  the  people  shall  be  placed  in  a  position 
where  they  are  thrown  entirely  on  God,  as  Israel  was  once  in  the 
Arabian  wilderness,  to  learn  by  experience  what  it  has  in  its  God. 

(2)  On  the  establishment  of  the  covenant  at  Sinai,  compare  the 
words  of  Karl  Ritter,  the  geographer,  in  his  beautiful  essay,  "  The 
Peninsula  of  Sinai,  and  the  Path  of  the  Children  of  Israel  to  Sinai," 
in  Piper's  Evangelical  Calendar^  1852,  p.  35  :  "A  strange  astonish- 
ment seizes  us  when  contemplating  this  great  mysterious  miracle  of 
miracles,  that  the  first  germ  of  a  purer  and  higher  religious  develop- 
ment of  the  human  race,  sunk  in  this  horrible  mountainous  wilderness, 
was  to  be  fructified  by  such  patriarchal  simplicity,  and  further  un- 
folded and  handed  down  from  generation  to  generation,  by  a  people 
so  sunk  in  slavery,  which  had  become  so  lustful,  and  continued  to 
be  so  often  a  covenant-breaking  people,  as  the  people  of  Israel  then 
was,  and  that  by  them  it  was  to  be  guarded  as  the  most  holy  jewel 
for  the  whole  future  of  the  nations.  Yet  the  divine  similes  of  the 
sower,  of  the  mustard  seed,  and  of  the  leaven,  find  here  their  earliest 
application." 

29. 

TJie  First  Breach  of  the  Covenant.      Order  of  the  Camp.     Departure 
from  Sinai.      Sentence  on  the  People. 

In  consequence  of  the  closing  of  the  covenant,  Jehovah  is  to  make 
His  dwelling  among  His  people,  because  of  which  the  laws  touching  the 


§  29.]      FIRST  BREACH  OF  COVENANT.      SENTENCE  ON  THE  PEOPLE.        109 

arrangement  of  the  tabernacle  are  next  given  in  Ex.  xxv.  ff.  (1).  But 
before  this  is  carried  out  the  people  have  already  broken  the  covenant, 
by  falling  into  idolatry  in  tlie  absence  of  Moses.  Moses  executes 
judgment  on  the  idolaters  ;  and  on  this  occasion  the  tribe  of  Levi — 
whose  zeal  now  takes  fire,  not,  as  their  father's  (Gen.  xxxiv.),  for 
the  wounded  family  honour,  but  for  God's  honour — obtains  its 
consecration  (Ex.  xxxii.  26-29 ;  comp.  also  Num.  xxv.  11,  Deut. 
xxxiii.  9  f.)  (2).  And  then  Moses  goes  before  Jehovah,  offering 
himself  for  the  people  as  the  victim  of  the  curse,  and  conjures  by 
repeated  entreaties  the  divine  mercy  till  he  has  obtained  pardon. 
Thus  the  first  breach  of  the  covenant  leads  to  a  further  disclosure  of 
the  divine  essence ;  and  to  God's  former  names  are  added  the  new 
ones :  merciful,  gracious,  long-suffering  God  (Ex.  xxxiv.  6).  But 
in  Moses'  offer  to  resign  his  personal  salvation,  if  only  his  people 
may  be  delivered,  the  idea  of  a  reconciling  mediation  coming  in  for 
a  sinful  people  appears  for  the  first  time  (comp.  Rom.  ix.  3)  (3). — 
During  the  stay  at  Sinai,  which  was  for  about  a  year,  the  holy  taber- 
nacle is  set  up  and  dedicated,  the  ordinances  of  worship  are  regulated, 
and 'a  number  of  other  laws  are  given,  in  which  all  points  are  fixed 
with  particular  exactness,  by  which  in  the  regulation  of  the  people's 
life  their  difference  from  the  Egyptians  and  from  the  Canaanite  tribes 
is  to  be  marked  (comp.,  in  particular,  passages  like  Lev.  xviii.  2  f.,  24, 
XX.  23  f.).  Hereupon  the  number  of  the  people  is  taken,  the  tribe  of 
Levi  is  introduced  into  the  position  ordained  for  it,  and,  lastly,  the 
order  of  encampment  is  fixed,  by  which  (Num.  ii.  and  iii.,  ccmp. 
X.  13  ff.)  the  relationship  of  Jehovah  to  the  people  as  His  army  (as 
they  are  called,  Ex.  vii.  4),  and  at  the  same  time  their  relationship 
to  each  other,  is  distinctly  stamped.  In  the  middle  is  the  holy  taber- 
nacle ;  next  to  it,  on  the  east,  the  priests  encamp ;  and  on  the  three 
other  sides  the  three  families  of  the  Levites  (4)  ;  then  come  the 
twelve  tribes,  arranged  on  the  political  division  which  separates 
Joseph  into  two  tribes,  in  four  triads  (5),  facing  the  four  quarters  of 
the  heavens,  each  of  which  had  a  leading  tribe  with  a  banner  at  its 
head.  Judah,  Reuben,  Ephraim,  and  Dan  are  the  leading  tribes ; 
and  Judah,  the  first  of  them,  encamping  on  the  east,  leads  the  whole 
procession. — In  the  second  year,  on  the  twentieth  of  the  month,  the 
removal  from  Sinai  takes  place.     The  people  are  to  pass  in  a  direct 


110  THE  HISTORY  OF  EEVELATION,  [§  29. 

Avay  through  the  wilderness  of  Paran  to  the  promised  hind.  They 
succeed — under  repeated  outbreaks  of  their  stiffneckedness,  and  chas- 
tisements suffered  on  this  account — in  reaching  Kadesh-Barnea,  the 
southern  boundary  of  Canaan.  In  the  catalogue  of  the  resting-places 
(Num.  xxxili.),  the  station  Kithnia  (ver.  18)  is  probably  to  be  looked 
for  beside  Kadesh.  From  this  point  Moses  causes  the  land  to  be 
searched  by  twelve  spies.  The  accounts  which  these  bring  back  raise 
a  general  insurrection.  Now  is  the  measure  of  the  divine  patience 
exhausted.  A  wandering  of  forty  years  long  in  the  wilderness  is 
decreed  against  the  people,  during  Avhich  time  all  those  who  have 
passed  their  twentieth  year — that  is,  the  whole  body  of  men  who  were 
capable  of  war — are  to  be  swept  away,  except  Oshea,  or  Joshua  as 
Moses  calls  him  (Num.  xiii.  16),  and  Caleb,  who  had  no  share  in  that 
offence  (Num.  xiv.,  comp.  xxxii.  13,  Josh.  v.  6).  Therefore  the 
history  of  the  march  through  the  wilderness  is  treated  as  a  type  of 
warning  for  all  times  (Ps.  Ixxviii.,  xcv.  8  ff. ;  in  the  New  Testament, 
1  Cor.  X.  1-12,  Heb.  iii.  7  ff.). 

(1)  The  plan  of  the  legislative  sections  of  the  Pentateuch  falls  to  be 
treated  of  in  the  Old  Testament  introduction.  I  only  remark  here, 
that  the  succession  of  the  laws  is  not  fixed  by  the  systematic  consider- 
ations of  a  formal  code,  but  merely  by  each  law  being  put  in  the 
place  in  which  its  publication  proves  to  be  necessary.  If  this  is  taken 
into  consideration,  some  inconsistencies  which  will  have  been  found 
in  these  sections  vanish. 

(2)  It  has  already  been  shown  in  §  25,  that  in  Jacob's  prophetical 
utterances  Levi  receives  a  curse  rather  than  a  blessing,  on  account 
of  his  passionate  zeal  manifested  in  the  treacherous  deed  of  blood 
(Gen.  xxxiv.).  Now  the  turning  of  the  curse  into  a  blessing  is  seen 
in  Ex.  xxxii.  26-29,  when  Moses  returns  from  the  mountain,  and  sees 
the  sin  of  the  people  with  the  golden  calf.  On  his  cry,  "  Hither  to 
me,  all  ye  who  belong  to  the  Lord ! "  the  tribe  of  Levi  gathers  at  once 
round  him,  sword  in  hand,  and  executes,  without  mercy,  punishment 
on  the  idolaters.  (Kurtz,  History  of  the  Old  Covenant^  ii.  p.  313  :  "  If 
the  forefather  broke  truth,  fidelity,  and  right  by  vengeance  on  the 
Shechemites,  his  descendants,  by  avenging  Jehovah  on  their  blood- 
relations,  saved  truth,  right,  and  covenant.")  Deut.  xxxiii.  9  f.  refers 
to  this  history :  "  He  who  says  of  his  father  and  his  mother,  I  see  him 
not,  and  knoweth  not  his  brothers,  nor  acknowledgeth  his  sons,  .  .  . 
they  shall  teach  thee  thy  laws,  O  Jacob,"  etc.     Num.  xxv.  6-13,  the 


§  so.]  WAKDERING  IN  THE  WILDERNESS.  Ill 

story  of  the  zeal  of  Phinelias,  is  another  explanatory  parallel  in  the 
Pentateuch,  in  which  this  characteristic  trait,  which  qualifies  Levi  for 
the  priesthood,  is  pointed  out. 

(3)  One  of  the  most  beautiful  sections  of  the  Pentateuch,  in 
•which  Moses  appears  at  his  best,  is  the  story  of  Moses  offering  himself 
as  avddefia,  if  God  will  only  forgive  the  people, — a  word  which  has 
been  spoken  by  only  one  other  than  Moses,  namely  Paul,  Rom.  ix.  3 : 
TjV'^ofiTjv  yap  avTo<;  eyoi  uvdOefia  elpat  diro  rod  Xpcarov  virep  tcov 
dSeXcpMV  fjiov,  etc.  Comp.,  in  particular,  Bengel's  Gnomon  on  this 
passage :  Verba  humana  non  sunt  plane  apta,  quibus  includantur 
motus  animarum  sanctarum :  neque  semper  iidem  sunt  motus  illi, 
neque  in  earum  potestate  est,  tale  semper  votum  ex  sese  elicere,  Non 
capit  hoc  anima  non  valde  provecta.  De  mensura  amoris  in  ]\Iose  et 
Paulo  non  facile  est  existimare.  Eum  enim  modulus  ratiocination um 
nostrarum  non  capit :  sicut  heroum  bellicorum  animos  non  capit  par- 
"vulus.  Apud  ipsos  illos  duumviros  intervalla  ilia,  quse  bono  sensu 
€cstatica  dici  possunt,  subitum  quiddam  et  extraordinarium  fuere.  Ne 
in  ipsorum  quidem  potestate  erat,  tales  actus  ex  sese  quovis  tempore 
elicere,  etc.  In  Genesis  we  have  already  a  mediatorial  intervention, 
when  Abraham  wishes  to  intervene  for  Sodom  and  Gomorrah ;  but 
more  remarkable  is  the  intervention  of  Moses,  who  wishes  to  be 
blotted  out  of  the  book  of  life.  K.  Lechler  rightly  points  out,  in  his 
treatise,  "Bemerkungen  zum  Begriffe  der  Religion,"  in  Ullmann's 
Studien  und  Kriiiken,  1851,  Nr.  4,  p.  782,  that  such  highly  elevated 
points  of  the  religious  life  could  not  be  understood  from  Schleier- 
macher's  notion  of  religion. 

(4)  The  family  of  Gershon,  westward ;  Kohath,  southward ;  and 
Merari,  northward  (comp.  also  §  93). 

(5)  The  triads  are  formed  with  consideration  of  the  descent  on 
the  mother's  side  (comp.  §  25,  note  1)  :  1.  Judah,  Issachar,  Zebulun ; 
2.  Eeuben,  Simeon,  Gad ;  3.  Ephraim,  Manasseh,  Benjamin  ;  4.  Dan, 
Asher,  Naphtali.     [Article,  "  Stlimme  Israels."] 

§30. 

The  Wandering  during  Thirty-seven  Years  in  the  Wilderness^  and  the 
Events  up  to  the  Occupation  of  the  Land  on  the  East  Side  of 
Jordan. 

The  history  of  the  Pentateuch  passes  over  the  following  seven-and- 
thirty  years  almost  in  perfect  silence.  According  to  Deut.  i.  46,  a 
longer  stay  of  the  people  in  Kadesh  must  be  presupposed  (1).     From 


112  THE  HISTORY  OF  EEVELATION.  [§  30 

this  point  the  return  march  of  the  people  into  the  wiklerness  took 
place  by  the  stages  registered  in  Num.  xxxiii.  19  ff.,  in  which  wander- 
ing for  thirty-seven  years  the  march  round  Mount  Seir,  mentioned  in 
Deut.  ii.  1,  is  included.     In  the  first  month  of  the  fortieth  year,  the 
people  are   again  in   Kadesh-Barnea.     This  second  encampment  is 
meant  in  Num.  xx.  1.    The  new-grown  race  shows  the  same  stubborn- 
ness as  the  earlier  one ;  they  contend  with  Moses  and  Aaron ;  and  as 
this  time  even  the  faith  of  these  two  swerves,  to  them  also  entrance 
into  the  land  of  rest  is  denied  (Num.  xx.  10,  12,  comp.  Ps.  cvi.  32  f.). 
In  Deut.  i.  37  (comp.  iii.  26),  Moses  and  Aaron  do  not  seek  to  be 
acquitted  from  their  own  guilt  (see  xxxii.  51)  ;  but  the  conscience  of 
the  people  has  to  be  touched,  because  their  sin  gave  occasion  to  the 
guilt  of  the  tAvo  (2).      Since  the  Edomites  denied  their  brother-people 
the  passage  through  their  lands,  Israel   had  to  turn  back  a  second 
time  from  the  border  of  Canaan,  and  go  round  the  mountains  of 
Edom,  in  order  to  penetrate  from  the  eastern  side  (Num.  xx.  14  ff.). 
A  new  outbreak  of  the  people's  stubbornness  draws  upon  them  another 
chastisement,  but  at  the  same  time  supplies  the  occasion  for  a  revela- 
tion of  the  saving  power  of  faith  (xxi.  4  ff.).     The  brazen  seraph  (a 
sort  of  serpent)  which  was  set  up,  is  a  symbol  of  the  doing  away  of 
evil  through  the  power  and  grace  of  God.     To  this  the  typical  use  in 
John  iii.  14  attaches  itself  (3).     Then  follow,  in  the  land  on  the  east 
of  Jordan,  successful  combats,  as  a  testimony  to  Jehovah's  faithful- 
ness and  a  pledge  of  future  victory.     The  Amorites  and  Og  king  of 
Bashan  are  conquered,  and  Israel  sets  up  its  camp  in  the  plains  of 
Moab,  opposite  to  Jericho,  and  separated  from  the  Holy  Land  only 
by  the  Jordan.     King  Balak  of  Moab  wishes  to  conjure  the  danger 
by  means  of  Balaam,  the  seer  from  Mesopotamia,  and  to  arrest  the 
path  of  the  victorious  people  by  means  of  his  curse ;  but  the  seer, 
overpowered  by  the  Spirit  of  Jehovah,  is  compelled  to  bless  Israel, 
and  make  known  to  the  people  its  future  splendour,  and  the  brilliant 
and  victorious  dominion  which  is  to  arise  out  of  it  (xxiv.  17-19),  while 
he  declares  the  fall  of  the  heathen  world,  and  also  the  subjugation  of 
the  world-power  of  Asia,  destined  to  make  a  prey  of  the  people  dwelling 
round  them,  by  a  power  coming  from  the  west  (vers.  20-24)  (4). — 
More  successful  were  the  Moabites  and  Midianites,  when,  at  Balaam's 
advice  (xxxi.  10),  they  enticed  the  people  to  the  service  of  Baal-Peor^ 


§  so.]  ^yANDERlNG  IN  THE  V.'ILDERNESS.  113 

and  the  lewdness  connected  therewith.  After  vengeance  has  been 
taken  on  the  Midianites  for  this  (chap,  xxxi.),  the  land  which  was 
conquered  on  the  east  of  Jordan,  and  which  was  especially  adapted 
for  the  continuation  of  a  pastoral  life,  is  divided  to  the  tribes  of 
Reuben,  Gad,  and  half  of  Manasseh  (chap,  xxxii.).  This  stretch  of 
land  does  not  belong  to  the  promised  land  proper,  the  property  of 
Jehovah  (Josh.  xxii.  19).  It  is  limited  to  the  territory  on  the  west 
of  Jordan,  according  to  the  boundaries  given  (Num.  xxxi  v.  1  ff.). 
But  a  sphere  of  dominion  of  much  wider  extension  was  promised  to 
the  people  (Gen.  xv.  18)  between  the  rivers  Nile  and  Euphrates,  or, 
according  to  the  more  precise  statement  (Ex.  xxiii.  31),  between  the 
E.ed  Sea  and  the  Mediterranean,  the  Arabian  wilderness,  and  the 
Euphrates  (comp.  also  Deut.  i.  7,  xi.  24,  Josh.  i.  4). — The  new 
numbering  of  the  people,  which  was  accomplished  (Num.  xxvi.)  in 
the  plains  of  Moab,  shows  the  new-grown  race  in  strength  of  number 
almost  the  same  as  the  former  (601,730  men  fit  for  war,  against 
603,550)  ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  the  differences  of  number  among 
the  individual  tribes  are  considerable,  especially  in  Simeon  (comp. 
xxvi.  14  with  i.  23),  which  has  diminished  to  almost  a  third  part  of 
its  former  size,  and,  according  to  this,  seems  to  have  shared  especially 
in  the  last  visitation  of  punishment,  as  indeed,  according  to  xxv.  14, 
the  guilty  prince  Zimri  was  a  Simeonite. 

(1)  In  Deut.  i.  46  it  is  said :  "  Ye  remained  in  Kadesh  many 
days."  According  to  the  view  of  Fries,  in  his  essay  "  On  the  Position 
of  Kadesh,  and  the  Portion  of  Israel's  History  in  the  Wilderness  which 
is  connected  therewith"  (^Shidien  und  Kritihen,  1854,  Nr.  1,  p.  50 ff.), 
and  of  Schultz,  in  his  Commentary  to  Deuteronomy,  this  would  refer 
to  the  full  forty  years.  If  so,  we  must  assume  that  part  of  the  people 
remained  through  the  whole  forty  years  in  Kadesh,  probably  out  of 
defiance,  whilst  Moses  with  another  part  made  the  farther  march, 
whereupon  in  the  end  the  whole  people  united  again  in  Kadesh. 
For  this  view  the  change  of  person  may  be  pleaded,  when  in  i.  46 
the  second  person  is  used,  whereas  it  is  said  in  ii,  1,  "  and  loe  turned 
us,"  etc.  Keil's  view  (comp.  his  Commentary),  which  I  have  accepted 
in  the  text,  seems  to  me  to  be  the  more  probable  one.  In  these 
thirty-seven  years,  out  of  which  only  a  few  subordinate  events  are 
told  us  in  the  Pentateuch,  seems  to  fall  the  defection  of  the  people 
indicated  by  Amos  v.  26  {?} ,  when  the  people  mixed  the  service  of 
VOL.  I.  H 


114  THE  HISTORY  OF  REVELATION.  [§  30. 

Milcom  with   Jehovah-worship,  and   followed   their   idolatrous   lust 
(comp.  §  26,  note  4). 

(2)  In  Num.  xx.  10,  Moses  says  to  the  people :  "  Hear,  ye  rebels ; 
shall  we  indeed  bring  water  to  you  out  of  the  rock  ?  "  Upon  this, 
Jehovah  says  to  Moses  and  Aaron,  ver.  12  :  "  Because  ye  have  not 
believed  on  me,  to  sanctify  me  before  the  people  of  Israel,  ye  shall 
not  bring  this  congregation  into  the  land  which  I  give  them." — Dent, 
i.  37 :  "  Also  against  me  was  Jehovah  wroth  for  your  sakes,  and  said, 
Also  thou  shalt  not  enter."  Ps.  cvi.  32  f. :  "  They  made  (God)  angry 
at  the  water  of  strife,  and  it  went  ill  with  Moses  because  of  them  ;  for 
they  made  his  spirit  bitter,  so  that  he  spoke  inconsiderate  words  with 
his  lips  "  (tvnab'l  5!<^?!5).  It  is  an  old  question  of  dispute,  "  qua  in  re 
peccaverit  Moses"  Comp.  Buddeus,  Historia  ecclesiastica  V.  T.  i.  p. 
527  f.,  for  the  older  views.  More  modern  writers  have  often  main- 
tained that  there  is  at  least  one  contradiction  between  the  passages  in 
the  book  of  Numbers  and  those  in  Deuteronomy,  but  tlie  solution  is 
easily  found  in  the  way  indicated  in  the  text.  That  in  the  unbelief 
of  the  whole  race  no  excuse  is  found  for  the  weak  faith  of  the  chosen 
instruments  of  God ;  that  unbroken  obedience  was  demanded  from 
the  organs  of  revelation,  and  that  these  are  most  sharply  punished 
just  as  a  pattern  of  warning, — is  the  idea  of  the  narrative. 

(3)  Numerous  mistakes  have  been  made  by  taking  the  brazen 
serpent,  Num.  xxi.  8  f.,  as  a  symbol  of  the  healing  power,  which  the 
serpent  certainly  often  is  in  heathenism  ;  while  besides  this,  in  the 
Phoenician  and  Egyptian  religions,  the  wounded  serpent  appears  as  a 
symbol  of  eternity  and  immortality.  But  this  does  not  suit  here. 
Though  Wisd.  xvi.  5  ff.  names  that  brazen  ^1"^^  crvfi/SoXov  acjiTripla<i^ 
this  is  not  as  if  the  serpent  itself,  as  in  heathenism,  were  the  symbol 
of  the  healing  power ;  but  (comp.  Schmid,  Biblische  TheoL  des  N.  T. 
i.  p.  215  Tr. ;  Ewald,  History  of  Israel,  ii.  3d  ed.  p.  249),  as  indicated 
in  the  text,  the  matter  stands  thus ; — The  serpent  is  a  symbol  of  the 
evil  which  has  now  come  upon  Israel  on  account  of  its  sins,  and  the 
serpent  set  up  as  a  standard  is  a  symbol  of  the  overcoming  and  doing 
away  of  evil  for  every  believer  by  means  of  Jehovah's  might  and 
grace.  "  Now  he  who  looks  on  this  sign  ordained  by  God  is  master 
of  the  poison  that  has  penetrated  into  him  "  (Baumgarten,  Theological 
Commentary  to  the  Pentateuch,  i.  2).  To  this  attaches  the  typical 
interpretation  in  Christ's  saying,  John  iii.  14  f. :  Kadcix;  Mcoycr?}?  v-sjrcoae 
Tov  o(f)i,v  iv  rfj  epijfjia},  oi/toj?  vyjrcoOrjvac  Set  rov  vlov  rov  avdpcoTrov  Iva 
7ra9  o  nrLarevcov  el<i  avrov  fit]  aitokrfrai,  aXA,'  e^i?  ^a)7)y  alwviov.  Therein 
lies  the  thought,  that  he  who  looks  in  faith  to  Him  whom  God,  as 
Paul  expresses  it,  2  Cor.  v.  21,  has  made  to  be  sin  for  us,  thus  becomes 


§  31.]  MOSES'  POSITION  AMONG  THE  ORGANS  OF  REVELATION.  115 

free  from  the  poison  and  guilt  of  sin  which  has  entered  into  him. — A 
connection  with  the  Egyptian  serpent-worship  is  the  less  to  be  thought 
of  in  the  story,  that,  according  to  Herodotus,  ii.  74,  tlie  sacred  serpents 
of  the  Egyptians  were  harmless.  But  Phoenician  and  Egyptian 
serpent-worship  may  very  well  have  become  at  a  later  time  the  occasion 
of  the  idolatrous  misuse  of  the  image  of  the  serpent  which  is  spoken 
of  in  2  Kings  xviii.  4. 

(4)  Num.  xxiv.  17-19  is  the  well-known  prophetic  word  about 
the  star  and  sceptre  arising  out  of  Israel.  It  portrays  the  splendid 
dominion  of  victory  proceeding  from  Israel,  which  shall  overcome 
Moab  and  Edom.  We  may  admit  our  assent  to  the  position,  that  in 
the  first  instance  only  a  sovereignty  arising  out  of  Jacob  is  here  spoken 
of  (as  also  Hengstenberg  thinks).  But  this  cannot,  nevertheless,  be 
thought  of  without  a  personal  representative  of  the  sovereignty.  The 
passage  is  certainly  a  Messianic  one.  I  understand  vers.  20-24  thus  : 
The  ancient  people  of  Amalek  shall  not  be  protected  by  their  age,  nor 
the  people  of  the  Kenites  by  the  security  of  their  dwelling.  The  seer, 
after  he  has  foretold  the  fall  of  Israel's  chief  enemies,  means  to  say 
that  each  and  every  heathen  people,  even  those  who  appear  to  be  most 
firmly  founded,  must  perish.  They  fall,  in  the  first  instance,  a 
sacrifice  to  the  Asiatic  world-power,  which  has  its  seat  on  the  farther 
side  of  the  Euphrates  ;  but  his  power  is  also  overcome  by  a  power 
coming  from  the  side  of  the  Hittites,  that  is,  from  the  west,  from  the  ' 
Mediterranean  Sea.  When  this  also  is  doomed  to  destruction,  the 
whole  heathen  world  becomes  a  great  Calvary  before  the  eyes  of  the 
seer,  over  wdiich  God's  people  lifts  itself  victorious.  It  is  a  perfectly 
miserable  explanation,  which  loves  to  call  itself  historical  (Hitzig), . 
according  to  which  the  arrival  of  the  fleet  from  the  side  of  the  HittitesffLL£:(>  a, 
is  made  to  refer  to  an  unimportant  inroad  of  sea-robbers  on  the  Asiatic 
coast  in  the  eighth  century.  The  passage  is  rather  parallel  to  that  in 
the  close  of  Gen.  ix.  Here  also  the  path  of  the  history  is  pointed 
out  in  grand  outlines  :  first,  Asia,  represented  by  Asshur,  arises  as  a 
world-empire ;  Asia  falls  before  a  European  power,  and  Israel  rises 
out  of  both. 

§31. 

Deuteronomy.     Mose^  End.     His  Position  among  the  Organs  of 

Revelation. 

The  people's  wandering  is  completed,  and  Moses  is  to  place  the 
staff  of  leadership  in  Joshua's  hands.  The  last  testament  of  the 
departing  leader  to  his  people  is  given  in  Deuteronomy  (1).     In  its 


116  THE  HISTORY  OF  REVELATION.  [§  31. 

legislative  sections  it  forms  the  proper  law-book  of  the  people,  the 
decisions  of   which  presuppose  at  the  same  time  the  settlement  of 
the  people  in  the  Holy  Land.    An  essential  peculiarity  of  the  book  is, 
that  it  also  presents  the  subjective  side  of  the  law,  which  had  been 
brought  forward  in  the  earlier  books  in  strict  objectivity ;  wherefore 
the  tone  of  speech  is  here  more  that  of  paternal  warning,  which,  by 
pointing  to  Jehovah's  electing  and  long-suffering  patient  love,  endea- 
vours to  awaken  love  to   Him   in   return.      In  the  section  which 
carries  out  further  the  thoughts  in  Lev.  xxvi.   (Deut.  xxviii.-xxx. 
comp.  with  chap,  iv.),  and  in  the  farewell  song  of  Moses,  chap,  xxxii., 
lie  the  fundamental  conceptions  of  prophecy  :  God's  grace  and  faith- 
fulness in  choosing  and  leading  Israel ;  the  people's  thanklessness  and 
rebelliousness ;    the   divine   judgment  breaking  in,  and  God's  pity 
turning  again  to  the  people  after  the  judgment,  and  bringing  the 
counsel  of    salvation  to   its   goal   in   their  restoration.      In   Moses' 
blessing,  chap,  xxxiii.,  Judah,  Levi,  and  Joseph  are  especially  pro- 
minent ;   Simeon  is  wanting,  which  may  be  explained  from  what  is 
noted  at  the  close  of  §  30  (2).       In  Josh.  xix.  the  tribe  appears 
again,  but   receives  a  very  small  inheritance.      When    Moses   has 
finished  blessing  his  people,  he  mounts  to  the  top  of  Pisgah  in  order 
to  cast  yet  one  look  on  the  longed-for  land,  and  appears  no  more  on 
earth.     His  end  is  related  in  a  mysterious  way,  but  is  indicated,  Deut. 
xxxiv.  5,  7,  comp.  xxxii.  50,  by  the  same  expressions  as  the  common 
end  of  man's  life  (3).     Standing  in  one  line  with  other  organs  of 
revelation  by  the  name  prophet,  Deut,  xviii.  18,  Hos.  xii.  14,  aii^i 
the  name  of  honour,  "Jehovah's  servant,"  Deut.  xxxiv.  5,  he  was 
nevertheless  placed  over  them,  in  that  to  him  was  granted  (Ex.  xxxiii. 
11  ;  Num.  xii.  6-8  ;   Deut.  xxxiv.  10)  a  higher  form  of  revelation 
than  to  the  others,  which  is  called  a  gazing  upon  God  (comp.  §  loQ,  3). 
His  position,  in  virtue  of  which  he  was  the  divinely  ordained  organ 
for  the  whole  powers  of  the  theocracy,  is  a  unique  one,  which  did  not 
descend  to  Joshua,  who  had  only  to  execute  inherited  commands,  and 
represent  an  already  given  law  (4). 

(1)  Deuteronomy  is  one  of  the  most  disputed  books  in  the  Old 
Testament,  but  it  is  one  of  the  most  beautiful.  To  be  sure,  it  does 
not  place  at  its  commencement  a  testimony  that  the  book  as  it  lies  before 
us  was  written  entirely  by  Moses  ;   for  ">N3,  i.  5,  does  not  mean  "  he 


§  31.]  MOSES'  POSITION  AMONG  THE  ORGANS  OF  REVELATION.  117 

engraved,  wrote,"  but  "he  explained,  expounded  this  law."  This 
word,  therefore,  might  have  been  used,  even  although  the  reporter  of 
the  speeclies  of  Moses  was  another  than  Moses  himself.  But  "  this 
law  "  itself  (nwn  nninn)^  under  which  is  to  be  understood  in  particular 
the  main  legislative  portion  of  the  book,  which  is  supplied  with  a 
special  title,  iv.  44-49,  and  with  a  subscription,  xxviii.  69,  is  charac- 
terized most  definitely  as  written  by  Moses  by  xxxi.  9  ("  and  Moses 
wrote  this  law  "),  and  ver.  24  ("  when  Moses  had  finished  writing 
the  words  of  this  law  in  a  book,  to  the  end  ") ;  and  it  is  also,  without 
doubt,  the  legislation  herein  contained  which  was  to  be  written,  xxvii. 
3-8,  on  the  stones  to  be  erected  on  Ebal.  It  is  pure  caprice  to  refer 
xxxi.  9,  24  to  the  Pentateuch,  and  yet  to  maintain  that  xxvii.  3-8,  in 
spite  of  the  most  definite  explanation  in  ver.  8,  "  all  the  words  of 
this  law,"  only  speaks  of  a  quintessence  of  the  law,  because  Hengsten- 
berg  and  Keil  have  not  ventured  to  assert  the  whole  Pentateuch  to 
have  been  written  on  those  stones. — Now  those  legislative  parts  of 
Deuteronomy  admittedly  show  a  remarkable  agreement  with  the  book 
of  the  covenant  in  Exodus,  which  claims  to  be  written  by  Moses. — 
The  view  of  many  modern  critics,  that  the  finding  of  the  book  of  the 
law  at  the  repairing  of  the  temple  under  Josiah,  in  the  year  624  B.C. 
(2  Kings  xxii.),  was  in  truth  the  publication  of  Deuteronomy,  which 
was  only  written  a  short  time  before,  is  contrary  to  the  fact  that  even 
the  oldest  prophets  presuppose  Deuteronomy,  its  legislative  provisions, 
and  also  its  speeches  ;  though,  indeed,  many  modern  critics  turn  the 
matter  round,  and  say,  for  example,  that  Isa.  i.  does  not  rest  on 
Deuteronomy,  but  Deuteronomy  has  copied  Isa.  i.,  etc. — A  closer 
examination  of  the  critical  question  of  Deuteronomy  must  be  left  to 
Old  Testament  introduction. 

(2)  In  Moses'  blessing,  his  silence  on  Simeon  is  eloquent.  Some 
■codd.  of  the  LXX.  Deut.  xxxiii.  6  have  Simeon  in  the  second  half- 
verse  beside  Reuben  :  koI  Hu/jiecov  ecrTco  ttoXu?  kv  dpiO/xu) ;  but  this  is 
undoubtedly  a  later  insertion. 

(3)  In  speaking  of  the  close  of  Moses'  life,  the  phrases,  "  to  die," 
and  "  to  be  gathered  to  his  people,"  are  used  xxxiv.  5,  7,  xxxii.  50, 
which  last  denote  in  the  Old  Testament  common  death  and  removal 
into  Sheol,  into  the  kingdom  of  the  dead  (comp.  §  78).  There  are  two 
men  in  the  Old  Testament  of  whom  these  expressions  are  not  used, 
viz.  Enoch  and  Elijah.  The  Jewish  legends  sought  to  give  Moses, 
that  highly  elevated  organ  of  revelation,  a  place  beside  these  two 
persons.  Josephus,  Ant.  iv.  8,  §  48,  represents  him  as  suddenly 
snatched  away  in  the  way  Elijah  was,  and  adds  that  Moses  has  indeed 
written  in  the  sacred  books  that  he  died  for  fear  that  it  might  be  said 


118  THE  HISTORY  OF  REVELATION,  [§  31. 

afterwards,  on  account  of  his  superabundant  virtue,  that  he  was  gone 
to  the  Divinity  ;  and  Philo,  Vita  Mosis,  iii.  §  39,  says  he  was  buried, 
jj,T]Bevo<i  Trapovro^,  hrfkovort  yepaiv  ov  Ovrjral^j  aW'  aOavdroi^  Svvdfie- 
(TLv.  The  rabbis  sought  to  read  something  strange  into  Deut.  xxxiv. 
5,  and  explained  the  ''B"?V  :  "  Moses  the  servant  of  the  Lord  died  there 
in  the  land  of  Moab,  at  the  mouth  of  Jehovah^  From  this  arose  the 
rabbinical  doctrine  of  the  death  by  a  kiss  ;  the  mors  osciili,  which 
implies  deliverance  from  death.  It  means  rather  :  "  according  to  the 
mouth  of  the  Lord,"  according  to  the  divine  word  or  command.  The 
expression  refers  to  the  earlier  divine  word,  that  Moses  shall  not  be 
allowed  to  see  the  promised  land,  but  must  die  before  that  time.  The 
position  of  the  New  Testament  to  the  death  of  Moses  is  peculiar. 
Whilst  Heb.  xi.  40  says  of  the  old  covenant  fathers,  that  they  "  are  not 
perfected  without  us,"  making  their  TeXetwo-i?  dependent  on  the  comple- 
tion of  the  New  Testament  work  of  redemption  ;  the  New  Testament 
history  of  the  transfiguration,  where  Moses  appears  with  Elijah,  Matt, 
xvii.  3,  Luke  ix.  30  f.  (in  which  latter  passage  the  o^devre^  iv  Bo^j, 
is  particularly  significant),  presupposes  Moses  as  perfected  for  the 
heavenly  life.  If  justice  is  done  to  all  the  passages,  we  must  say,  with 
Stier  (  Words  of  the  Lord  Jesus  (Trans.),  in  Matt,  xvii.) :  "  A  wonderful 
exception  is  made  with  the  bodies  of  these  two  from  the  common  lot 
of  death;  although  the  lawgiver  actually  died  on  account  of  sin, 
and  the  prophet  was  raised  to  meet  more  nearly  the  victory  over 
death." — The  passage  Jude  9  attaches  to  a  legend  which,  according 
to  Origens,  irepl  up'^cov,  iii.  2,  is  taken  out  of  the  apocryphal 
Ascensio  Mosis f  and  which  has  also  found  entrance  into  the  Targum 
of  Jonathan  to  Deut.  xxxiv.  6.  According  to  it,  Satan,  referring 
to  the  murder  of  the  Egyptian,  Ex.  ii.  12,  is  said  to  have  opposed  the 
archangel  Michael,  to  whom  Moses'  burial  was  given  in  charge  by 
God. — The  Jewish  fables  on  the  life  and  death  of  Moses  are  collected 
in  the  rabbinical  treatise  "  de  Vita  Mosis,"  translated  into  Latin  by 
Gilbert  Gaulmyn,  and  published  again  by  Gfrorer,  in  the  work, 
Prophetce  veteres  pseudepigraphi,  1840,  p.  303  ff. 

(4)  The  unique  importance  of  Moses  is  especially  recognised  when 
we  compare  the  position  of  Joshua  with  that  of  Moses.  Joshua  is 
simply  a  leader,  he  has  no  other  theocratic  power ;  in  particular,  he 
never  performs  priestly  functions,  and  is  subordinate  in  rank  to  the 
high  priest.  In  the  latter  connection,  Cassel  (on  Judg.  i.  1,  in 
Lange's  Bibehverk)  has  well  remarked,  that  whilst  Moses  is  always 
named  before  Aaron,  when  Joshua  is  named  along  with  the  priest 
Eieazar,  the  name  of  the  priest  always  stands  first  (comp.  Num.  xxxiv. 
17,  Josh.  xiv.  1,  xvii.  4,  xix.  51,  xxi.  1). 


§  32.]     OCCUPATION  OF  CANAAN.      EXTERJIINATION  OF  CANAANITES.       119 

III.    THE  SETTLEMENT  OF  ISRAEL  IN  THE  HOLY  LAND. 

§32. 

Occupation  of  Canaan.     Extermination  of  the  Canaanites. 

After  Joshua  had  been  confirmed  in  his  office  of  leader  by- 
Jehovah  (Josh.  i.  1-9),  the  passage  of  the  Jordan  ensued  in  a  mira- 
culous way,  as  a  witness  and  pledge  to  the  people  that  the  same 
divine  power  which  was  with  Moses  would  reveal  Himself  also  under 
the  new  leader  (iv.  14,  22-24),  and  therefore  this  event  is  expressly 
placed  side  by  side  with  the  march  through  the  Red  Sea  (iv.  23  ;  Ps. 
cxiv.  3  ff.).  The  people  encamped  in  the  plain  of  Jericho  (Josh.  iv. 
13),  and  here  first  the  circumcision  of  those  born  during  the  march 
through  the  wilderness  was  completed,  and  the  people  entered  on 
participation  in  the  good  things  of  the  Holy  Land  with  the  first 
passover  festival  (v.  2-12).  The  key  to  the  land  was  won  by  the 
conquest  of  Jericho  (chap,  vi.)  ;  on  this  followed  the  taking  of  Ai,  the 
second  fortified  place  of  central  Canaan  (Josh,  viii.),  after  the  curse 
was  expiated  which  came  on  the  people  by  Achan's  disobedience 
(chap.  vii. ;  comp.  Hos.  ii.  17)  (1).  Now  the  promulgation  of  the  law 
from  Gerizim  and  Ebal,  ordained  in  Deut.  xxvii.,  could  take  place 
(viii.  30-35)  ;  and  in  accordance  with  the  decree  given  in  Deut.  xxvii. 
4-8,  the  law  was  written  on  stones  plastered  with  lime  (2).  By  a 
new  victorious  campaign  against  the  southern  (chap,  x.),  and  another 
against  the  northern  tribes  of  Canaan,  the  conquest  of  the  land  in  a 
general  sense  was  completed.  The  D^n  (ban,  devotion  as  a  curse), 
enjoined  in  Deut.  vii.  2,  xx.  16-18,  comp.  Ex.  xxiii.  32  f.,  xxxiv.  12  ff., 
was  executed  on  a  number  of  Canaanitish  towns.  Vain  attempts 
have  been  made  to  interpret  in  a  milder  form  this  command  to 
exterminate  the  Canaanites,  mainly  by  supposing  that  peace  w^as  first 
to  be  offered  to  the  Canaanite  towns,  and  if  they  refused  this  offer 
they  were  to  be  exterminated  ;  but  in  Deut.  xx.  10  ff.,  to  Avhich 
passage  this  view  appeals,  this  course  of  action  (comp.  ver.  15)  is  only 
prescribed  in  reference  to  foreign  enemies  not  Canaanites.  Or  we 
are  referred  to  Josh.  xi.  20,  according  to  which  the  Canaanites  them- 
selves, by  hardening  their  hearts,  became  responsible  for  the  execution 
of  the  judgment ; — a   perfectly  correct  proposition,    but  one  which 


120  THE  HISTORY  OF  REVELATION.  [§  32. 

does  not  prevent  us  from  understanding  the  decree  of  extermination 
in  a  perfectly  general  sense.  It  is  no  less  erroneous  to  seek  to  justify 
the  extermination  of  the  Canaanites  by  an  older  claim  to  Canaan, 
inherited  by  Israel  from  the  time  of  the  patriarchs.  Passages  like 
Gen.  xii.  6,  xiii.  7,  oppose  this  in  the  most  definite  manner.  The  Old 
Testament  knows  no  other  ground  for  the  assignment  of  the  land  to 
Israel  than  the  free  grace  of  Jehovah,  to  whom  it  belonged  ;  and  no 
other  ground  for  the  blotting  out  of  the  Canaanite  tribes  than  the 
divine  justice,  which,  after  these  tribes  have  filled  up  the  measure  of 
their  sins  in  unnatural  abominations  (comp.  Lev.  xviii.  27  f.,  Deut. 
xii.  31),  breaks  in  at  last  in  vengeance,  after  long  waiting  (comp.  Gen. 
XV.  16).  But  Israel  is  threatened  with  exactly  the  same  judgment 
(comp.  also  Deut.  viii.  19  f.,  xiii.  12  ff..  Josh,  xxiii.  15  f.)  in  case  of 
its  becoming  participant  in  the  sins  of  the  tribes  on  whom  it  executes 
the  divine  judgment  with  the  sword. 

(1)  Hos.  ii.  17. — After  it  has  been  said  in  ver.  16  that  God,  in 
the  future  restoration  of  His  people,  will  lead  them  into  the  wilderness 
and  speak  to  their  hearts  (comp.  §  28,  note  1),  the  prophet  goes  on  to 
say,  "  and  I  will  give  her  her  vineyards  from  thence," — that  is,  im- 
mediately on  her  leaving  the  wilderness,  ensues  the  introduction  to 
the  promised  land,  with  its  vine-clad  hills, — "  and  the  valley  of  Achor 
for  the  door  of  hope."  This  points  back  to  Josh.  vii.  Jericho  had 
fallen,  and  all  seemed  prosperous  for  Israel.  There  a  part  of  the 
army  was  defeated  by  the  inhabitants  of  Ai.  It  was  revealed  to 
Joshua  that  a  curse  was  on  the  army ;  for  Achan  had  kept  to 
himself  something  from  the  booty  of  Jericho,  contrary  to  the  strict 
command  of  God.  Then  Joshua  said  to  Achan :  "  As  thou  hast 
troubled  us,  so  let  Jehovah  trouble  thee  to-day ;"  and  from  this 
comes  the  name  of  the  valley  of  lisy.  Achan  was  stoned,  and  there- 
by the  curse  taken  from  the  people ;  Ai  was  conquered,  and  thus  the 
key  to  the  land  was  won.  So  the  valley  of  sorrow  became  the  gate 
of  hope.  It  is  easy  to  recognise  the  prophet's  meaning :  when  God 
redeems  His  people,  everything  must  work  for  its  good. 

(2)  Josh.  viii.  30-35  ;  Deut.  xxvii.  4-8. — Here,  if  anywhere,  it  is 
a  true  saying,  that  against  many  assumptions  of  recent  criticism  the 
very  stones  speak  out.  Investigation  in  the  classical  sphere  presents 
no  example  of  such  impertinence  as  that  which  relegates  the  whole 
history  of  the  transaction  at  Gerizim  and  Ebal  without  more  ado  to 
the  realm  of  myths.     The  investigation  of  the  Egyptian  monuments 


§  32.]     OCCUPATION  OF  CANAAN.      EXTERMINATION  OF  CANAANITES.       121 

has  shown  that  it  was  an  ancient  Egyptian  custom  first  to  plaster  the 
stone  walls  of  buildings,  and  also  monumental  stones  that  were  to 
be  painted  with  figures  and  hieroglyphics,  with  a  plaster  of  lime  and 
gypsum,  into  which  the  figures  were  worked  ;  thus  it  was  possible  in 
Egypt  to  engrave  on  the  walls  the  most  extensive  pieces  of  writing. 
And  in  this  manner  Deut.  xxvii.  4-8  must  be  understood,  and  in  this 
manner  it  was  accomplished  by  Joshua.  It  is  not  to  be  explained,  as 
formerly  was  often  done,  by  saying  that  the  law  was  engraved  in  the 
stones,  and  then  the  lime  was  to  serve  either  to  make  the  writing  stand 
out  more  clearly,  or  to  prevent  it  from  being  destroyed  by  the  atmo- 
sphere. In  the  last  case  it  is  not  conceivable  that  any  large  or 
comprehensive  law  could  have  been  transferred  to  these  stones.  For 
the  rest,  that  we  are  not  here  to  think  of  the  whole  Pentateuch  in 
quali  et  quanta^  compare  §  31,  note  1. 

(3)  The  extermination  of  the  Canaanites  has,  as  is  well  known, 
been  a  very  special  topic  of  discussion,  and  much  doubtful  apolo- 
getic has  been  produced  on  the  subject.  Hengstenberg,  in  his 
Contributions  to  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament^  p.  471  ff.,  has 
treated  the  matter  best.  On  the  first  glance,  the  attempt  seems  most 
plausible  which  seeks  to  render  the  extermination  of  the  Canaanites 
somewhat  less  inhuman,  by  pointing  to  an  old  claim  of  Israel  on 
Palestine.  But  this  is  out  of  the  question,  if  we  look  at  the  passages 
of  the  Old  Testament  in  which  the  relation  of  the  people  to  the 
ground  allotted  to  them  is  brought  into  closer  view.  Certainly  Deut. 
xxxii.  8  contains  the  thought,  that  when  spheres  were  allotted  to  the 
people  of  the  earth  by  Divine  Providence,  regard  was  had  to  the 
place  where  in  later  ages  the  people  of  revelation  was  to  have  its 
historical  development  (comp.  §  22,  note  1).  But  how  did  they  get 
this  place  ?  In  Genesis  the  distinct  impression  is  conveyed  that  the 
fathers  of  the  race  were  strangers  in  Canaan.  Because  of  this,  in 
Oen.  xii.  6  and  xiii.  7  it  is  expressly  brought  forward  that  at  that 
time  even,  there  were  Canaanites  and  Perizzites  in  the  land.  Stephen, 
Acts  vii.  5,  urges  the  same  thing  with  the  greatest  emphasis  :  "  He 
gave  him  no  inheritance  in  it,  not  even  a  foot-breadth,  and  promised 
that  He  would  give  it  him,"  etc.  The  point  of  view  which  is  laid 
down  in  our  text  is  alone  in  accordance  with  the  Old  Testament. 
Now  it  is  certainly  true  that  this  Old  Testament  God  is  a  dreadful 
God,  as  we  are  always  told.  But  we  must  make  it  clear  to  ourselves, 
that  the  God  who  rules  in  the  history  of  the  universe  is  really  this 
dreadful  God.  The  fact  stands  sure,  that  already  many  nations  have 
been  swept  away,  and  have  experienced  a  like  fate.  Who  has  ordained 
this?     The  difference  between  the  view  of  the  Old  Testament  and  of 


122  THE  HISTORY  OF  KEVKLATIGN.  [§  33. 

other  histories  lies  just  in  this,  that  where  the  latter  peril aps  see 
nothing  but  tragical  crises  of  history,  the  former  vindicates  the  ethical 
principle  with  all  energy,  according  to  which  nothing  happens  without 
ground,  and  this  ground  just  lies  in  the  divine  justice.  It  is  quite 
unnecessary  to  add  to  this  any  artificial  apologetical  considerations. 
It  is,  moreover,  to  be  noticed  here,  that  beyond  doubt  a  part  of  those 
Canaanites  emigrated,  mainly  towards  Phoenicia,  but  also  to  North 
Africa.  Procopius  {de  hello  Vandalico,  ii.  10)  found  an  inscription 
beside  Tingitana  in  North  Africa :  "  We  are  they  who  fled  before 
the  robber  Jesu"  (Joshua).  The  Berbers,  who  by  descent  are  dis- 
tinguished from  tlie  Arabians,  are  still  regarded  by  the  Arabians  as 
descended  from  these  fugitives. 

§  33. 

Division  of  the  Land.     Character  of  the  Promised  Land.      Israel  at 
the  Close  of  this  Period. 

Since  the  power  of  the  Canaanites  in  general  was  broken,  they  now, 
in  the  seventh  year  after  their  entrance,  as  is  to  be  concluded  from 
Josh.  xiv.  10,  began  to  divide  the  land,  which,  indeed,  was  not  yet 
in  all  parts  completely  vanquished  (s.  xiii.  2  ff.)  (1).  Eleazar  the 
priest,  and  Joshua,  with  the  chiefs  of  the  tribes,  managed  the  business 
of  division  (2).  First,  the  most  powerful  tribes  were  provided  for: 
Judah  receiving  the  southern  portion  of  the  land  ;  Joseph,  that  is, 
Ephraim  and  the  other  half  of  Manasseh,  being  settled  in  the  middle. 
But  a  mistake  had  been  made  in  the  first  calculation,  so  that  after- 
wards, in  the  allotting  of  dominions  to  the  seven  remaining  tribes, 
Benjamin,  Dan,  and  Simeon  had  to  be  put  into  the  land  already 
apportioned.  The  sanctuary  was  removed  from  Gilgal  to  Shiloli 
(xviii.  1),  which  is  situated  pretty  nearly  in  the  middle  of  the  land  on 
this  side  Jordan,  in  the  dominion  of  the  tribe  of  Ephraim,  to  whicii 
Joshua  himself  belonged,  and  it  remained  there  till  towards  the  end 
of  the  time  of  the  judges.  The  division  of  the  land  was  carried  out, 
so  that  not  merely  the  limits  of  the  tribal  territories  were  fixed,  but 
inside  these  also  the  districts  of  the  families  (3).  Thus  the  life  of 
tribe  and  family  remained  the  basis  of  civil  society.  This  certainly 
promoted  a  disposition  to  maintain  the  interests  of  the  tribes  at  the 
cost  of  the  national  cause,  in  times  when  there  was  no  powerful 
central  authority,  and  every  one  did  what  seemed  right  to  him  ;  but 


§  no.]       DIVISION  OF  THE  LAKD.      CHARACTER  OF  PROMISED  LAND.        123 

it  also  ensured  the    propagation  of   the  faith  and  customs  of  the 
fathers  inside  the  family  circle  (4),  when  declensions  began  to  grow 
frequent. — So  the  "  good  land  "  (Ex.  iii.  8  ;  Deut.  iii.  25,  viii.  7-9), 
"  the  ornament  of  all  lands  "  (Ezek.  xx.  6,  comp.  with  Jer.  iii.  19, 
Dan.  viii.  9,  xi.  16),  was  won,  where,  on  the  basis  of  a  life  of  hus- 
bandry requiring  regular  industry,  the  people  should  be  matured  for 
the  fulfilment  of  their  destiny  in  quiet  and  retirement  (Num.  xxiii. 
9 ;  Deut.  xxiii.  28 ;  comp.  with  Mic.  vii.  14).     The  separation  from 
other  peoples  commanded  in  the  law  (see  specially  Lev.  xx.  24,  26) 
was  made  easier  by  the  secluded  position  of  the  land,  which  was 
enclosed  on  the  south  and  west  by  great  wildernesses,  on  the  north  by 
the  high  mountains  of  Lebanon,  and  which  even  on  the  west  was 
unfavourably  situated  for  maritime  intercourse,  since  the  coast  has 
few  landing-places  or  inlets.     On  the  other  hand,  by  the  situation 
of  the  land  in  the  midst  of  the  cultivated  nations  which  form  the 
scene  of  ancient  history  (comp.  Ezek.  v.  5,  xxxviii.  12),  as  well  as 
by  the  great  highways  of  the  old  world  which  led  past  its  borders, 
the  future  theocratic  calling  of  the  people  was  made  possible   (5). 
"  The  union  of  the  greatest  contrasts  in  this  position  in  the  world, 
the  most  isolated   retirement  combined    with   everything   that   can 
favour  wide  connections  on  all  sides  with  the  main  civilised  regions 
of  the  old  world  by  intercourse  of  commerce  and  language,  by  sea  as 
well  as  by  land,  with  the  Arabians,   Indians,  Egyptians,   Syrians, 
Armenians,  with  the  Greek  and  Roman  world  of  culture,  in  their 
common  centre  of  space  and  history,  is  a  characteristic  peculiarity  of 
this  promised  land  which  was  destined  from  the  beginning  to  be  the 
home  of  the  chosen  people"  (Ritter,  Erdkunde,  xv.  1,  p.  11)  (6). — 
Two  parts  of  the  promise  given  to  the  patriarchs  are  fulfilled  by  the 
entrance  of  Israel  into  their  rest  in  the  promised  land,  and  by  the 
increase  of  the  people  like  the  stars  of  heaven  (Deut.  x.  22).     But 
the  empire  over  nations  (Gen.  xxvii.  29,  xlix.  10)  is  not  yet  obtained, 
the  blessing  of  Abraham  is  not  yet  come  on  the  heathen  ;  nay,  a  new 
cycle  of  history  must  arise,  in  which  centuries  of  contest  for  mere 
existence  are  ordained  for  the  people. — Since  the  possession  of  the 
land  was  always  in  danger   from  the   numerous   remnants   of   the 
Canaanites,  part  of  whom  were  dispersed,  and  part  not  yet  touched 
by  the  march  of  conquest,  as  well  as  from  the  Philistine  Pentapolis 


124  THE  HISTORY  OF  REVELATION.  [§  33. 

(Josh.  xiii.  2  f.),  which  had  arisen  in  the  low  country  on  the  coast  of 
the  Mediterranean  Sea,  and  from  the  neighbourhood  of  hostile  peoples 
on  the  east,  a  faithful  union  of  the  tribes  in  firm  connection  with  the 
theocratic  centre  would  have  been  proper.  And  at  first,  on  the  occa- 
sion related  in  Josh,  xxii.,  the  consciousness  of  the  theocratic  unity  of 
the  people  showed  itself  still  in  full  strength,  and  Joshua  exerted 
himself  at  two  gatherings  of  the  people  which  he  held  towards  the 
close  of  his  life  (chap,  xxiii.  and  xxiv.)  to  reanimate  this  feeling,  and 
to  repress  the  idolatry  that  was  coming  up  again  among  the  people 
(xxiv.  23,  comp.  with  ver.  15).  Also  the  people  were  willing  to  renew 
the  covenant  with  Jehovah,  and  remained,  on  the  whole,  true  to  it  as 
long  as  the  race  lived  that  had  seen  God's  great  deeds  (xxiv.  31 ; 
Judg.  ii.  7). 

(1)  One  of  the  contradictions  which  are  said  to  have  been  found 
in  the  book  of  Joshua  is  this  :  On  the  one  side  the  book  ascribes  the 
vanquishing  the  Canaanites  and  the  conquest  of  the  land  to  Joshua 
(xi.  16-23,  xii.  7  ff.,  comp.  xxi.  41  ff.,  xxii.  4)  ;  and  yet,  on  the  other 
side  (chap,  xiii.),  an  account  of  unconquered  lands  is  given,  and  the 
necessity  is  expressed  of  making  still  more  extensive  conquests.  The 
matter  stands  thus.  When  it  is  said,  xi.  23,  "  So  Joshua  took  the  whole 
land,"  this  means :  the  conquest  of  the  land  in  general  was  finished. 
This  does  not  exclude  the  fact  that  in  detail,  as  is  explained  in  chap, 
xiii.,  there  was  still  very  much  to  be  done.  That  the  conquest  was 
looked  upon  as  on  the  whole  complete,  is  shown  in  the  second  part  of 
the  book  (chap,  xiii.-xxii.),  by  the  fact  that  he  causes  the  parts  which 
were  not  conquered  to  be  divided. — The  second  part  of  the  book  is  of 
enormous  value  for  biblical  geography.  If  we  compare  these  sections 
with  the  parallels,  1  Chron.  iv.  28-32,  vi.  39-66,  we  see  how  difficult 
it  would  have  been  in  a  later  time  to  write  down  and  represent  every- 
thing for  the  first  time,  as^  those  must  suppose  who  make  the  book 
much  more  modern. 

(2)  To  aid  in  this  assignment  of  territory,  a  sort  of  map  had  been 
sketched.  I  think  Ritter  is  right  in  thus  understanding  Josh,  xviii. 
4-9  ;  see  his  History  of  Geography  and  Discovery^  edited  by  Daniel, 
p.  7  f.,  where  we  are  reminded  that  the  knowledge  necessary  for  this 
might  have  been  brought  fi'om  Egypt,  where  land  measurement  was 
a  very  ancient  thing,  as  the  division  of  fields  required  to  be  newly 
adjusted  each  year  after  the  overflow  of  the  Nile. 

(3)  Hence  the  regularly  returning  oniriBCW  in  the  charter  of 


§  33]        DIVISION  OF  THE  LAND.     CHARACTER  OF  PROMISED  LAND.        125 

division,  Josh,  xviii.  f. — The  name  CSpN  (Mic.  v.  1)  was  conferred 
metaphorically  on  the  more  notable  towns  which  were  the  chief  places 
of  the  tribes.  From  this  we  can  understand  how  the  towns  themselves 
were  then  further  personified  and  inserted  in  the  tribal  registers,  in 
which  local  dependence  is  represented  as  genealogical  descent  (see 
specially  1  Chron.  ii.  42  ff.,  and  Bertheau  on  the  passage,  iv.  4  ff.,  etc. 
etc.).     [Art :  "  Stiimme  Israels,"] 

(4)  Thus  various  callings  readily  became  hereditary,  and  there 
were  families  which,  according  to  1  Chron.  iv.  14,*#i4.  23,  formed    ^'p 
themselves  directly  into  trade  guilds.     Similarly,  in  1  Chron.  ii.  55, 
families  of  Sopherim  (scribes)  are  mentioned.     Also  in  the  names, 

ii.  53,  names  of  occupations  are  probably  contained,  as  already  con- 
jectured by  Jerome. 

(5)  One  of  these  old  highways  led  from  Central  Asia  in  the  north, 
past  Damascus  to  the  Mediterranean  Sea ;  the  other  in  the  south,  by 
Idumea  to  Egypt  (comp.  the  "  Remarks  on  Gen.  xiv."  by  Tuch  in 
the  Zeitschr.  der  deutschen  morgenldnd.  Gesellschaft^  i.  1847,  p.  161  ff.^). 
— A  first  consequence  of  the  position  of  Israel  in  the  midst  of  the 
nations  was,  that  it  courted  the  powers  of  the  world,  and  was  chastised 
by  all,  so  that  all  became  instruments  of  judgment  on  Israel.  But  on 
the  other  side,  it  is  this  central  position  which  makes  this  land  fit  for 
the  starting-point  of  the  religion  of  the  world. 

(6)  Comp.  further  how  Ritter  expresses  himself  in  the  same  book, 
p.  7  :  "  It  seems  impossible  to  us  to  imagine  the  development  of  the 
people  of  Israel  as  taking  place  in  any  other  part  of  our  planet  than 
just  on  the  soil  of  Palestine  ; "  comp.  also  p.  10  f. 

*  •[Reprinted  in  the  second  edition  of  Tuch's  Genesis. } 


SECOND    SECTION. 
THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISM. 

§34. 

Survei/. 

This  section  falls  into  the  following  members : — 

1.  The  doctrine  of  God  and  His  relation  to  the  world,  which 
doctrine  is  to  be  treated  so  that  it  may  appear  how  God's  theocratic 
and  revealed  relationship  is  rooted  in  the  Mosaic  idea  of  God. 

2.  The  doctrine  of  man  and  his  relation  to  God,  which  is  again 
to  be  pnt  so  that  it  may  appear  how  the  presupposition  of  the 
covenant  relationship  in  which  God  is  to  stand  to  him  is  given  in  the 
idea  of  man. 

3.  The  covenant  of  law  and  the  theocracy,  in  which  is  completed 
the  Mosaic  stage  of  communion  between  God  and  man. 


FIRST    DIVISION. 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD  j^ND  HIS  RELATION  TO  THE 

WORLD. 

FIRST    CHAPTER. 

THE  MOSAIC  IDEA  OF  GOD. 
§35. 

Survei/. 

The  fundamental  points   in   the  Mosaic   idea   of    God    are   the 
following : — 

1.  The  most  general  characters  of  the  Divine  Being  are  expressed 

12C 


§  35.]  SURVEY.  127 

in  the  characters  7^?,  k}^^^.,  ^V^^.,  Hr^^  ''^;  which  are  also  made  use  of 
outside  the  sphere  of  testamentary  religion. 

2.  The  divine  name  '''^^  '?X  is  the  first  that  leads  into  the  sphere  of 
revelation. 

3.  But  the  divine  name  which  is  properly  suited  to  Old  Testament 
revelation  is  nin'',  Jehovah. 

4.  The  idea  of  Jehovah  is  more  exactly  defined  since  the  founding 
of  the  theocracy  as  that  of  the  holy  God,  in  which  essential  definition 
the  attributes  of  divine  justice  and  of  the  jealous  God  are  rooted,  as 
well  as  the  attributes  of  the  gracious  (l^sn)  and  merciful  God  (Q^nn). 

In  these  stages  the  idea  of  God  is  so  unfolded,  that  the  higher 
stages  do  not  sublate  the  lower,  but  subsumes  them  in  itself  (1). 

(1)  It  is  wrong  to  bring  the  arrangement  of  the  later  dogmatic 

into  biblical  theology,  and  to  treat    God's  attributes  according  to  a 

preconceived  scheme.       Biblical    theology    pursues    the    religion    of 

revelation  in  its  living  rise,  and  finds  a  gradually  advancing  series  of 

statements  on  the  divine  essence  available  for  the  definition  of  the 

idea  of  God.      Genesis  only  knows  the  general  characteristics  of  the 

divine  nature  under  No.  1,  the  '^'^j^  PN  under  No.  2,  and  the  name 

Jehovah  by  anticipation.     The  divine  essence  conceived  as  Jehovah 

unfolds  itself  from   Ex.   iii.  onwards,   and  at  the  founding   of   the 

theocracy  the  divine  holiness  first  appears.     We  seek  in  vain  through 

the   whole   of    Genesis'  for   a   passage    characterizing    God    as    the 

Holy  One.     After  the  first  breach  of  the  covenant,  which  called  forth 

the  divine  "^^J^i?,  the  energy  of  the  divine  sanctity,  the  designation  of 

God  as  the  gracious,  merciful,  long-suffering  God,  appears  also  for  the 

first  time.     Prophetic  theology  adds  the  definition  of  Jehovah  as  the 

Lord  of  hosts ;  this  notion  is  wanting  in  the  whole  of  the  Pentateuch 

and  the  book  of  Joshua  (also  in  Judges).     The  designation  of  God  as 

the  Wise  One  is  also  wanting  in  the  Pentateuch,  although  certainly 

the  wisdom  of  the  artists  working  at  the  sanctuary  is  traced  back  to 

divine  communication.     It  was  reserved  for  more  developed  reflection 

(especially  in  the  books  of  Chochma)  to  fix  wisdom  as  an  attribute  of 

God,  and  to  acknowledge  in  it  the  principle  of  the  ordering  of  the 

world. 


128  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISM.  [§  36. 

I.   THE  MOST  GENERAL  DESIGNATIONS  OF  THE  DIVINE  CEING, 
ELj  ELOAH,  ELOHIM,  EL-ELJON  (1). 

§36. 

The  most  common  designation  of  the  Divine  Beintr  in  the  Old! 
Testament  is  2''0^i<,  the  plural  of  nv^,  which  is  met  with  in  the  Old 
Testament  almost  exclusively  in  poetical  language,  with  the  exception 
of  the  more  modern  books  that  are  under  Aramaic  influence.  But 
?i^  is  to  be  counted  the  oldest  Semitic  name  of  God,  which  already 
appears  in  a  number  of  the  oldest  names  (Gen.  iv.  18,  '''^^ino,  ?xa«inD  ; 
and  also  in  Ismaelitish  and  Edomitish  names,  xxv.  13,  •'i??1^,  a  son  of 
Ishmael ;  xxxvi.  43,  ^S'''nJD).  This  name  also  passed  to  the  Phoenicians 
as  a  name  of  Saturn,  their  highest  god.  b^^  as  a  name  of  the  true 
God,  is  no  longer  frequent  in  the  Old  Testament  in  prose,  hardly 
appearing,  except  with  the  article  ?xn,  or  determined  by  a  following 
genitive,  or  an  attribute  annexed  in  some  other  way.  That  -'Nl  stands 
lower  than  2'''?^?<  is  seen  by  the  climactic  formula  Josh.  xxii.  22  (2), 
(Ps.  1.  1).  The  meaning  of  the  root  h^a  (to  be  strong,  powerful) 
shows  that  the  original  sense  of  ?>?  is  "  the  powerful,  strong." — Two 
different  views  exist  as  to  the  etymological  explanation  of  rP^^.^ 
According  to  the  one,  p^  and  Hv?:?  are  to  be  regarded  as  related  primi- 
tive substantives,  whose  original  sense,  as  shown  by  the  verb  b^a,  is 
that  of  power  (3).  According  to  this,  the  verb  ri?N  (Arab,  'aliha)  would 
be  to  be  looked  at  as  a  denominative.  According  to  the  other  view,  ?^^ 
and  i!ivX  are  etymologically  distinct,  and  the  latter  is  to  be  traced  back 
to  the  root  'aliha^  which  means  stupuit,  pavore  perculsus  fiiit  (as  also 
restless,  disconnected  movement  lies  in  the  related  root  tvaliJia),  in 
distinction  from  'alalia,  to  honour,  the  denominative  character  of 
which  is  not  to  be  doubted  (4).  iiivN,  as  an  abstract  verbal  noun, 
would  originally  denote  horror,  and  then  further  the  object  of  horror, 
and  thus  corresponds  with  the  divine  name  "Jn?)  (Gen.  xxxi.  42,  53), 
and  the  Greek  aefiaf.  The  latter  view  is  probably  the  more  correct, 
since  at  least  the  noun  ni?^  has  not  the  character  of  a  primitive.  If 
power  and  strength  are  indicated  by  the  noun  ?Sl,  this  is,  on  the  other 
hand,  turned  subjectively  in  the  name  TOX,  which  expresses  the  im- 
pression of  poAver.  Eloah  is,  according  to  this,  the  power  which 
awakens  horror.      That  the  natural  man  finds  himself,  when  con- 


§  S6.]       THE  MOST  GENERAL  DESIGNATIONS  OF  THE  DIVINE  BEING.         12^ 

fronted  by  the  Divinity,  chiefly  moved  by  a  feeling  of  fear,  is  expressed 
in  this  designation  of  God  (5). 

The  plural  Ci'''?t'X  is  peculiar  to  the  Old  Testament ;  it  appears  as 
a  name  of  God  only  in  old  Hebrew,  and  in  none  of  the  other  Semitic 
languages ;  even  in  the  biblical  Chaldee,  T>y^^.  only  means  gods. 
The  meaning  of  this  plural  is  not  numerical,  neither  in  the  sense  in 
which  some  older  theologians  understand  it,  who  seek  the  secret  of 
the  Trinity  in  the  name  (6),  nor  in  the  sense  that  the  expression  had 
originally  a  polytheistical  meaning,  and  only  later  acquired  a  singular 
sense  (7) ;  for  the  Old  Testament  monotheism  was  not  developed  on 
a  polytheistic  basis  (comp.  §  43,  1). — A  third  view,  that  originally 
in  the  plural  the  one  God  was  taken  together  with  the  higher  spirits 
forming  His  surrounding,  has  against  it  the  general  argument,  that 
in  the  older  times  the  notion  of  the  angels  is  not  prominent.  On 
Gen.  i.  26  ("Let  us  make  man")  the  view  cannot  be  based,  since 
the  whole  of  this  record  of  creation  shows  no  trace  of  a  co-operation 
of  the  angels,  and  ver.  27  continues  in  the  singular  (8).  It  would  be 
more  natural  to  interpret  Gen.  xxxv.  7  ("  The  Elohim  revealed  them- 
selves to  him ")  as  indicating  by  the  plural  that  Jehovah  is  taken 
along  with  the  angels  according  to  the  manifestation  in  the  vision 
(chap,  xxviii.)  (9). — Elohim  is  much  rather  to  be  explained  from  the 
quantitative  plural  (10),  which  is  used  to  denote  unlimited  greatness 
in  Q^P^,  heaven,  and  D^O,  water.  The  plural  paints  the  endless 
fulness  of  the  might  and  power  which  lies  in  the  Divine  Being,  and 
thus  passes  over  into  the  intensive  plural,  as  Delitzsch  has  named  it. 
The  old  view  of  a  plural  of  majesty  was  right  in  so  far,  only  it  was 
wrong  to  derive  this  use  from  the  consuetudo  lionoris  (11). — As  in 
'^"'O''??.?  so  also  the  plural  contained  in  ''^"i^  is  to  be  explained ;  indeed, 
this  plural  of  majesty  has  also  passed  to  other  titles  of  God :  £3"'^'i"'i?, 
Hos.  xii.  1,  Prov.  ix.  10,  to  which  the  expression  Dyilp  D^■^^^•,  Josh, 
xxiv.  19,  forms  the  transition  ;  comp.  further  the  Q''t>'y  in  Isa.  liv.  5, 
Job  xxxv.  10,  and  the  C''J;5")3  in  Eccles.  xii.  1 ;  also  the  passage 
Gen.  i.  26  is  to  be  explained  thus. 

Now,  since  the  fulness  of  might  lying  in  the  divine  nature  is 
quite  generally  in  Q'''?'^,  a  certain  indefiniteness  clings  to  the  word, 
as  to  the  Latin  numen  (12).  The  expression  in  its  indefinite  width 
does  not  exclude  the  more  concrete  determinations  of  the  idea  of 

VOL.  I.  I 


130  THE  DOCTEINES  AND  OEDINANCES  OF  MOSAISJI.  [§  30. 

God ;  it  remains  all  througli  the  Old  Testament  the  general  name  of 
God ;  in  fact,  it  is  used  with  special  emphasis  in  the  Elohistic  psalms. 
But  on  account  of  the  uncertainty  of  its  meaning,  Q"''?''^.  can  also 
be  used  to  designate  heathen  gods ;  indeed,  it  is  once  used  (1  Sam. 
xxviii.  13,  in  the  moutli  of  the  enchantress)  to  designate  a  super- 
natural manifestation  exciting  horror. 

As  a  name  of  the  true  God,  D"''??^  is  always  joined  wnth  the 
singular.  The  exceptions  are  rare,  and  explicable  from  the  context 
of  the  passages.  In  Gen.  xx.  13  a  heathen  is  addressed;  in  Ex. 
xxxii.  4,  8,  1  Sam.  iv.  8,  1  Kings  xii.  28,  the  God  of  Israel  is  spoken 
of  from  the  lower  standpoint  of  heathen  conceptions  ;  and  in  2  Sam. 
vii.  23  the  general  notion  of  d)(ty  lies  in  the  plural  ^''<p^^  (^3)* 

The  divine  name  f^yV  ?^  (LXX.  6  ©eo?  o  vylnaro<;),  or  simply 
tvV.  (LXX.  v'>ln(TTo<i),  is  also  used  outside  the  sphere  of  revelation. 
The  name  appears  as  a  designation  of  God,  the  Lord  of  heaven  and 
earth,  in  the  mouth  of  Melchizedek,  the  Canaanite  priest-king  (Gen. 
xiv.  18)  ;  it  is  the  name  of  the  highest  god,  Saturn,  in  the  Phosnician 
religion,  and  even  serves  in  the  Poenulus  of  Plautus  as  a  title  of  the 
gods  and  goddesses  (14).  It  is  characteristic  that  it  appears  also  in 
the  mouth  of  the  king  of  Babylon  (Isa.  xiv.  14),  probably  to  designate 
Bel.  The  Old  Testament  makes  use  of  the  name  from  the  Israelite 
standpoint  only  in  poetical  style  (Num.  xxiv.  16,  etc. ;  Deut.  xxxii.  8  ; 
Ps.  Ivii.  3,  etc.),  sometimes  in  conjunction  with  mn\  It  is  remarkable 
that  the  book  of  Daniel  uses  pv^  in  the  plural  of  majesty  (Dan.  vii, 
18,  22,  25)  in  a  Chaldee  section,  whereas  it  has  not  the  plural  of 
majesty  Tiy^K 

(1)  Compare  my  article  '^  Elohim  "  in  ITerzog's  Bealenci/Idop.  xix. 
p.  476  ff. 

(2)  In  Josh.  xxii.  22  occurs  the  oath,  Ti'  t^^n  nin^^  i  a^n^N  i  ^N. 
It  is  radically  false  to  explain,  "  Jehovah  the  God  of  gods  knows ; " 
the  Masoretic  text  rightly  has  Pesik.     It  is  a  climax  which  is  meant. 

(3)  See  Gesenius,  Thesaurus,  i.  p.  49 ;  Ewald,  Jahrb.  der  hibl. 
Wissenschaft,  x.  p.  11. — Ewald  sees  an  abbreviation  of  r}'^^^.  in  ^^j  and 
maintains  that  the  former,  as  shown  by  the  similar  form  of  both  words, 
is  the  antithesis  of  t^J^%,  in  which  God  is  designated  as  the  absolutely 
powerful  in  contrast  to  man,  the  absolutely  weak.  Comp.  also  Ewald's 
History  of  the  People  of  Israel,  i.  3d  ed.  p.  378  [art.  "Elohim"]. 


§  36.]       THE  MOST  GENERAL  DESIGNATIONS  OF  THE  DIVINE  BEING.        131 

(4)  See  the  argument  at  large  by  Fleischer  in  Delitzsch's  Comment. 
on  Genesis,  4th  ed.  p.  57  f. 

(5)  If  the  Epicureans  say  timor  fecit  Deos,  this  name  of  God  turns 
the  matter  thus :  The  reflection  cast  by  the  idea  of  God  into  the  human 
consciousness  is  just  that  of  fear,  of  horror ;  and  this  is  characteristic 
of  the  primitive  form  of  rehgion  among  sinful  men. 

(6)  See  the  historical  notices  on  the  Trinitarian  interpretation  in 
the  above-cited  art.,  p.  477.  At  present  this  view  requires  no  further 
refutation ;  still  we  may  say,  with  Hengstenberg  ( Contrib.  to  Old 
Testament  Introduction,  ii.  p.  255),  that  even  this  erroneous  view  has 
some  truth  at  its  foundation,  shice  the  plural  form,  indicating  the 
inexhaustible  fulness  of  the  Divinity,  serves  to  combat  the  most 
dangerous  enemy  of  tiie  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  viz.  abstract  Mono- 
theism [above-cited  art.]. 

(7)  The  word  Q''^^^  is  adduced  as  an  analogous  example  (comp. 
for  example  Naegelsbach,  Hebrew  Grammar,  3d  ed.  p.  140  f.),  which 
appears  in  the  Old  Testament,  as  is  well  known,  in  speaking  of  an  indi- 
vidual household  god  \ibid^. 

(8)  From  this  would  flow  the  quite  insignificant  thought  that  God 
at  first  called  out  the  angels  to  take  part  in  the  creation  of  man,  but 
completed  the  work  alone,  according  to  ver.  27  (comp.  §  43,  and  Keil 
on  the  passage)  [z7>/c/.]. 

(9)  Not  only  the  angel  of  the  Lord  k.  i^.,  but  also  the  subordinate 
angels,  are  bearers  of  divine  powers,  and  authorities  and  represen- 
tatives of  God  [ibid."]. 

(10)  To  have  directed  theologians  to  this  correct  conception  of  the 
plural  Elohim  is  mainly  the  merit  of  Dietrich  (Abhandlung.  ziir  hebr. 
Gramm.  1846,  p.  44  ff.,  comp.  with  p.  16  ff.)  \ibid.'\. 

(11)  Akin  to  the  quantitative  use  of  the  plural  is  that  of  the  plural 
of  abstraction,  in  which  a  plurality  is  grasped  in  higher  unity  ;  comp. 
examples  in  Ewald's  Larger  Grammar  of  the  Hebrew  Language,  8th  ed. 
§  179.  But  it  is  hardly  right  directly  to  understand  the  plural  Elo- 
him as  an  abstract,  as  Hofmann  does  {Schriftbeioeis,  i.  2d  ed.  p.  77). 
The  abstract  form  of  expression  for  names  of  dignity  (for  example 
^(Jp)^  which  often  appears  in  Aramaic  (see  Ewald,  I.e.  §  177  f.),  seems 
to  be  rather  the  product  of  a  later  phase  of  the  language,  which  must 
not  be  confounded  with  the  archaic  use  of  the  plural  discussed  above 
{ibid.). 

(12)  Yet  we  cannot  say,  with  Hengstenberg  {Contributions,  ii. 
p.  261),  that  the  plural  Elohim  is  also  humiliating.  Steudel  says  more 
correctly  {Theol.  of  the  Old  Testament,  p.  143),  that  there  is  in  the 
name  something  that  can  be  developed  \ibid^^. 


132  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISM.  [§  37. 

(13)  The  meaning  of  the  passage  2  Sam.  vii.  23  is:  "Where  is 
there  a  people  on  the  earth  to  save  whom  a  god  (even  one  of  the  heathen 
gods)  has  gone  ?"  hence  ^^^i}  '^^'^.  (ibid.). — On  Ex.  xxii.  8  comp.  §  96. — 
After  what  has  been  remarked  above,  it  could  not  be  extraordinary  if 
the  name  2'''?^^  occurred  for  the  angels,  who  as  Oela^;  ^uo-ew?  kolvwvol 
are  often  called  sons  of  God.  Still  this  use  of  the  word  is  nowhere 
authenticated ;  admittedly  not  in  Ps.  viii.  6,  xcvii.  7,  cxxxviii.  1,  where 
the  LXX.  have  translated  it  by  ayyeXot ;  also  not  in  Ps.  Ixxxii.,  where, 
in  spite  of  Hupf eld's  opposite  assertion,  ^''npX  does  not  designate  angels, 
but  the  bearers  of  the  judicial  power  in  the  theocracy  [ibid.']. 

(14)  The  name  P''^y  occurs  also  in  Phoenician  and  Punic  proper 
names :  Abdalonimus,  that  is,  the  servant  of  the  Highest. 


II.   EL-SHADDAI. 

§37. 

The  notion  of  God  enters  the  sphere  of  the  revelation  in  the 
name  ''^'^'  ^^,  which  is  peculiar  to  the  patriarchal  religion ;  see  Ex. 
vi.  3.  The  word  ''"^t^  should  not  be  understood  as  a  nomen  compositum 
(from  ti'  =  IJJ'X  and  '''[!,  qui  snjiciens  est,  as  characteristic  of  the  divine 
aseity)  (1) ;  but  it  is  to  be  traced  back  to  the  root  l\y,  the  fundamental 
meaning  of  which  is  "  to  be  strong,  to  show  oneself  superior,"  from 
whence  is  formed,  in  the  Arabic  shadda,  the  meaning  ligavit,  Conj.  VIII. 
veJiemens  fuit,  and  in  the  Hebrew  IIU,  the  meaning  "  to  force,  to  lay 
waste,"  whence  the  play  of  words  in  Joel  i.  15,  Isa.  xiii.  6  (''"^ti'O  nb's 
i<i3^).  Again,  the  name  is  either  to  be  traced  from  a  stem  mc*,  with 
Ewald  {Ausf.  Lehrb.  8th  ed.  §  155,  c),  according  to  which  it  would 
be  an  intensive  form  on  the  measure  ?tfii?,  or,  what  is  more  probable, 
from  the  stem  1,1^  with  the  formative  syllable  ''— ,  which  occurs  also 
in  other  proper  names  (as  "'20^  ""ST).  It  is  quite  wi'ong  to  understand 
"•-r  as  a  suffix-form  of  the  first  person  plural,  as  in  ''p^J ;  for  whilst  this 
occurs  in  the  older  language  only  in  addressing  God,  God  Himself 
says,  Gen.  xvii.  1,  xxxv.  11,  "I  am  El-shaddai"  (2).  The  name 
characterizes  God  as  revealing  Himself  violently  in  His  might ;  the 
LXX.  do  not  understand  the  expression  in  the  Pentateuch,  but  it  is 
correctly  rendered  by  iravroKpdrwp  in  most  passages  of  Job.  It  is 
no  longer  the  powerful  Divinity  ruling  in  the  world  in  general  that  is 
El-shaddai,  but  the  God  who  testifies  of  Himself  in  special  deeds  of 


§  37.]  EL-SHADDAI.  133 

power,  by  which  He  subdues  nature  to  the  ways  of  His  kingdom, 
making  the  childless  Abraham  the  father  of  many  nations  (Gen.  xvii, 
1,  xxviii.  3,  comp.  xxxv.  11),  and  who  causes  that  race  with  which  He 
has  entered  into  covenant  to  experience  His  powerful  presence  in  pro- 
tection and  blessing,  Gen.  xliii.  14,  xlviii.  3,  xlix.  25  (3).  But  as  soon 
as  the  name  Jehovah  unfolds  its  meaning,  the  name  El-shaddai  falls 
back  on  the  one  side  into  the  list  of  the  more  general  names  of 
God;  thus  in  Balaam's  parable  it  appears.  Num.  xxiv.  4,  16,  in  the 
same  line  with  ?X  and  Ji vjJ ;  in  the  book  of  Job,  in  the  same  line  with 
7N  and  '"Iii^i^.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  still  used  at  times  alter- 
nately with  the  name  Jehovah  where  God's  omnipotence  is  to  be  made 
prominent  in  contrast  to  human  weakness,  as  in  the  beautiful  passage 
Kuth  i.  20  f.,  or  in  speaking  of  the  revelation  of  God's  subjugating 
judgments,  Joel  i.  15,  Isa.  xiii.  6,  Ps.  Ixviii.  15,  Ezek.  x.  5;  also  in 
speaking  of  the  Omnipotent  Protector  of  His  people,  Ps.  xci.  1,  etc. 

The  word  C'}??',  which  in  Deut.  xxxii.  17,  Ps.  cvi.  37,  serves  to 
designate  the  gods  of  the  heathen,  is  scarcely  connected  with  '''n^',  as 
some  suppose.  It  is  probably  not  to  be  traced  to  li:^,  as  some  earlier 
theologians  wish,  as  if  it  denoted  destructive  beings,  but  is  rather  to 
be  understood  as  a  participle  of  1^^  (Arabic  sdda),  dominatus  fuitj 
according  to  which  it  means  "  Lords  "  or  "  Rulers." 

(1)  Thus  for  example  Maimonides,  3fore-NebocJi{m,  ed.  Buxtorff, 
p.  144  ff.,  and  Calvin. 

(2)  Deyling  has  protested  against  deriving  ^"^Ji^  from  TlK',  Ohserva- 
tiones  sacrcc,  i.  p.  46  f. :  "  ^^t^♦  noxiam  potentiam,  onmiaque  desolantem 
in  scriptura  denotat,  et  de  vastatione,  per  solos  hostes  facta,  non  per 
pestem,  aut  grandinem,  aut  aquarum  eluviones  usurpatum  reperitur. 
— Ergo  uomen  '•nK'  a  ^^K'  deductum,  ne  Deiim  quidem  deceret,  sed 
Diabolum  potius,  qui  nomen  "^^  inde  etiam  revera  sortitus  est." — But 
here  Deyling  proceeds  from  the  meaning  "  to  lay  waste,"  which  we 
may  regard  as  the  only  derivative. 

(3)  On  Gen.  xvii.  1  Delitzsch  says  forcibly :  "  wrbn  is  the  God 
who  creates  nature  so  that  it  is,  and  supports  it  that  it  may  stand ; 
''1JJ'  ?K,  the  God  who  compels  nature  to  do  what  is  contrary  to  itself, 
and  subdues  it  to  bow  and  minister  to  grace." 


v^. 


134  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISJI.  [§  38. 

III.   THE  NAME  JEHOVAH  (1). 

§38. 

1.  Pronunciation  and  Go^ammatical  Explanation  of  the  Name. 

The  real  name  of  God  in  the  Old  Testament  is  the  tetragram- 
maton  nin"",  which  is  hence  characterized  by  the  Jews  as  DB'n  ic.  e|. 
(comp.  Lev.  xxiv.  11,  Deut.  xxviii.  58),  X|i'^  *<^*f  the  great  name, 
invon  D^  nomem  uniciim^  the  unique  name,  but  in  particular  as 
Bnbon  D^j  which  latter  expression,  however,  is  itself  interpreted  in 
different  ways  (2). 

The  word  nin"'  in  the  Masoretic  text  of  the  Old  Testament  has, 
in  virtue  of  a  K'ri  'perpetuum,  the  points  of  ''^IX  (3).  Wliere  ''JIX 
already  occurs  in  the  connection  of  the  sentence  (as  Isa.  xxii.  12,  14, 
etc.),  the  pronunciation  of  Ci?''^.  is  substituted  (4). — The  command 
forbidding  the  utterance  of  the  name  is  drawn  by  the  Jews  from 
Lev.  xxiv.  16,  in  virtue  of  an  untenable  exposition  of  the  passage 
already  given  by  the  LXX.  (ovo/jbd^cov  to  6vo/xa  Kvplov)  (5). — How 
old  the  di'ead  of  uttering  the  name  is,  cannot  be  accurately  fixed.  The 
use  of  C)^'^?^5  in  a  number  of  psalms  is  not  to  be  derived  from  this. 
The  dread  in  question  sprang  from  the  efforts  of  the  later  Judaism  to 
thrust  back  Divinity  to  an  unapproachable  distance,  and  everywhere 
to  put  something  between  the  Divinity  and  man  (6).  The  name  ceases 
to  be  prominent  in  some  of  the  latest  Old  Testament  writings,  and  is 
regularly  replaced  by  Kvpto<i  by  the  LXX.  (so  also  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment) (7).  Josephus,  Ant.  xii.  5.  5,  tells  us  of  the  Samaritans,  that  the 
sanctuary  which  they  founded  inGerizim  was  avcovvp^ov  lepov.  Josephus 
himself  declares,  Ant.  ii.  12.  4,  that  he  was  not  permitted  to  speak  about 
the  name.  With  this,  Philo's  assertion,  de  mut.  nom.  §  2  (ed.  Mang.  i. 
580),  and  vit.  Mos.  iii.  25  (ii.  166),  is  to  be  compared;  yet  it  is  re- 
marked in  the  last  book,  §  11  (152),  that  consecrated  persons  in  the 
sanctuary  were  allowed  to  hear  and  to  pronounce  the  name.  Accordino- 
to  the  tradition  in  Maimonides,  More-Neh.  i.  61,  Jad  chazaJca  xiv.  10, 
which  agrees  with  Thamid  vii.  2  (8),  the  name  was  still  uttered  in  the 
first  times  of  the  second  temple  in  the  sanctuary  at  the  pronunciation 
of  the  blessing,  and  by  the  high  priest  on  the  day  of  atonement ;  but 
since  the  death  of  Simon  the  Just,  that  is,  since  the  first  half  of  the 
third  century  B.C.,  it  was  exchanged  here  also  for  Adonai  (9),  as  had 


§  38.1  GRAMJIATICAL  EXPLANATION  OF  THE  NAME  JEHOVAII.  135 

been  long  the  practice  outside  the  temple.     The  Jews  maintain  that 
the  knowledge  of  the  true  pronunciation  of  the  name  has  been  quite 
lost  since  the  destruction  of  the  temple.     On  the  other  hand,  since  the 
sixteenth  century,  it  became  more  and  more  the  custom  among  Christian 
theologians  to  pronounce  the  name  Jehovah  by  reading  together  the 
K'ri  points  with  tlie  consonants  mn'' ;  but  this  pronunciation  is  not  yet 
used  by  Reuchlin  (10).     Some  later  theologians,  as  Joh.  Friedr.  v. 
Meyer,  Stier,  and  in  particular  Hoelemann  (in  a  treatise  "  On  the 
Meaning  and  Pronunciation  of  nin^,"  in  his  Bible  Studies,  1st  division, 
1859,  ii.),  think  they  are  compelled  to  see  in  Jehovah  the  real  pronun- 
ciation.    According  to  this,  the  word  would  be  formed,  by  a  quite  un- 
paralleled construction,  from  l^  ''0^  ^i^  =  '^)P,  and  ni  =  mn  (comp.  Stier, 
Lehrgehaeude  der  hebr.  Sprache,  p.   327),    and  would    be   meant  to 
comprehend  the  three  tenses.     The  unprecedented  formation  of  the 
word  corresponds,  we  are  to  believe,  with  the  uniqueness  of  the  divine 
nature.      For  this  view  we  are  referred  principally  to  the  o  (oi>  koL  6  rjv 
Kol   6   ip-^o/xevo^  in  Rev.  i.  4,  iv.  8 ;  but  it  is  erroneous  to  seek  an 
explanation  of  the  word  in  this  paraphrase  of  the  meaning  of  the  name 
(in  fact,  the  succession  of  the  tenses  in  the  passages  in  the  Apocalypse 
would  not   agree  with   the  above  explanation).      Also   ip-)(OfievQ<i  is 
decidedly  not  the  same  as  iao/jievo'i  (11);  it  only  means  the  coniinty 
one ;  and  therefore,  as  soon  as  the  advent  of  the  Lord  has  become 
jn-esent,  Rev.  xi.  17  (according  to  the  true  reading)  and  xvi.  5,  6  cjf 
Kal  6  rjv  only  is  written  (12).      The   abbreviation  ^iT  appearino-  at 
the  end  of  many  personal  names  {e.g.  ^i^JP^?,  '''"'^Pl!)  cannot  be  satis- 
factorily explained  on  the  reading  Jehovah  (Hoelemann's  explanation 
is  artificial),  while  the  abbreviation  \^\  or  i''  at  the  beginning  of  names 
can  be  justified  also  by  the  pronunciation  to  be  mentioned  below. 

Ex.  iii.  13-15  is  the  decisive  passage  for  the  pronunciation  and 
grammatical  explanation  of  the  name.  When  Moses  asks  for  the 
name  of  the  God  who  sends  him  forth.  He,  God,  says  :  iTHs*  -it^"x  .tHwS*, 
"Thus  shalt  thou  say  to  the  children  of  Israel,  Elijeh  has  sent  me  unto 
you."  Now  when  it  goes  on  to  say,  ver.  15,  "  Thus  shalt  thou  say, 
nin'',  the  God  of  your  fathers,  has  sent  me  unto  you,"  it  is  clear  that 
the  word  nin''  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  noun  formed  from  the  third  person 
of  the  imperfect  of  nin  (the  older  form  of  .TH),  and  we  must  read  either 
n)'?-  ('in,-)j  or  Avhat  is  also  not  impossible,  since  such  forms  do  occur, 


136  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISM.  [§  38. 

•"•J"?!!  ('"•JlI!).  The  first  form  is  more  probable  (13).  From  the  pro- 
nunciation Jahve  we  obtain  the  abbreviation  ^n^  (which  is  just  to  be 
explained  through  apocope  for  Y}!):  and  by  contraction  from  this,  in^ 
or  V  when  it  is  placed  at  the  beginning  of  the  word,  ^l  followed 
from  a  still  further  abbreviation  of  ^n^ ;  it  appears  first  in  Moses'  song, 
Ex.  XV.  2,  and  afterwards  particularly  in  the  H^  wH.  In  tradition,  the 
pronunciation  Jahve  has  this  testimony,  that,  according  to  Theodoret 
(qucest.  15  in  Ex.),  the  Samaritans  pronounced  the  name  'la^e 
(Theodoret  ascribes  to  the  Jews  the  pronunciation  ''Aid,  which  might 
give  evidence  of  the  pronunciation  Jahve);  compare  with  this  Epi- 
phanius,  adv.  licer.  i.  3.  20  (40)  {Kara  'Ap-xpvrLKOiv),  which  likewise 
reads  'la^e.  Origen,  c.  Cels.,  gives  the  name  as  'lacoia.  Side  by 
side  with  this  there  are,  to  be  sure,  other  accounts.  According  to 
Diodorus,  i.  94,  the  Jews  spoke  the  name  ^laco,  also  Origen  in  the 
Commentary  to  John  i.  1 ;  and  Theodoret  {qucest.  in  1  Chron.)  men- 
tions this  pronunciation.  On  the  other  hand,  Sanchuniathon,  in 
'Ensehins,  prcep.  ev.  i.  9,  pronounces  the  name  'Tevoy;  and  Clemens  of 
Alexandria,  Strom,  v.  6,'  laov  (14).  Jerome  on  Ps.  viii.  2  says : 
Legi  potest  Jaho ;  but  a  form  nin^  would  be  quite  contrary  to  the 
analogy  of  the  Hebrew  language  (15). 

(1)  Comp.  my  article  "  Jehovah  "  in  Herzog's  Realencijldop.  vi. 
p.  455  ff. 

(2)  The  explanation  of  the  expression  Schem-liam'phorasch  is 
uncertain  (Luther  wrote  a  book  on  this  designation).  Comp.  the 
remarks  of  Munk  (on  i.  61),  in  his  edition  of  the  More-Nehochim  of 
Maimonides  Qe  guide  des  egares  par  Mose  hen  Maimun^  Paris  1856). 
Munk  himself,  referring  to  the  use  of  C"iD  by  Onkelos  and  Ibn  Esra 
on  Lev.  xxiv.  11,  16,  decides  in  favour  of  the  explanation  :  le  nom  de 
Dieu  distinctement  prononce.  The  expression  is  generally  explained : 
nomen  explicitum,  that  is,  either  the  name  which  is  replaced  by  other 
names  of  God  (s.  Buxtorff,  lex.  chald.  p.  2433),  or  the  name  by  which 
the  nature  of  God  is  distinctly  characterized.  Others  explain  :  nomen 
separatum^  namely,  either  sc.  a  coguitione  hominum,  or  what  is  best 
=  the  incommunicable  name  of  God,  which  (comp.  Maimonides,  I.e.) 
instructs  us  about  God's  essence,  whilst  the  other  names  express 
attributes  which  God  has  in  common  with  others  [above  art.]. 

(3)  The  substitution  of  the  simple  Sch'wa  instead  of  Chateph- 
Pathach  is,  I  think,  only  to  be  regarded  as  an  abbreviation  in  writing. 


§  33,]  GRAMMATICAL  EXPLANATION  OF  THE  NAME  JEHOVAH.  137 

(4)  But  the  pronunciation  of  D"'!?''^  is  not  substituted  if  the  mn'' 
and  ""inx  standing  beside  each  other  belong  to  different  clauses,  as  in 
Ps.  xvi.  2  [ibid.']. 

(5)  The  connection  of  Lev.  xxiv.  16  is  :  one  had  blasphemed  (/p.p) 
the  holy  name  of  God,  whereupon  Moses  receives  the  direction  : 
"  Bring  the  blasphemer  outside  the  camp,  and  the  whole  community 
shall  stone  him.  But  thou  shalt  say  to  the  sons  of  Israel,  Each  who 
curses  his  God  shall  bear  his  sin,"  The  following  words  in  ver.  16, 
nov  niD  nirr'  U^  apbl,  are  explained  by  the  Jewish  exegesis :  "  He  who 
names  the  name  nin^  shall  be  killed." — Even  if,  as  Heno;stenber£f  still 
thinks  (^Contrib.  to  the  Introd.  to  the  Old,  Testament,  ii.  p.  223),  3pJ  (root- 
meaning,  to  bore,  to  prick)  might  be  taken  in  the  meaning  to  pronounce, 
— but  in  the  passages,  Gen.  xxx.  28,  Num.  i.  17,  Isa.  Ixii.  2,  advanced 
to  prove  this,  it  has  rather  the  meaning,  to  characterize,  to  define, — 
the  connection  with  vers.  11  and  15  would  still  lead  us  to  understand 
a  blaspheming  utterance.  But  probably  the  word  is  to  be  taken  as 
exactly  =  33 i^,  comp.  Num.  xxiii.  8  [ibid.]. — On  the  rabbinical  appli- 
cation of  Ex.  iii.  15  to  the  prohibition,  see  the  above  article,  p.  455. 

(6)  It  is  the  same  awe  which  caused  His  loord,  and  such  like,  to 
be  substituted  where  Jehovah  in  the  Old  Testament  touches  on  the 
external  world. 

(7)  But  Sir.  xxiii.  9,  ovofxaata  rov  aylov  fxr)  <Jvve6L(T6rj<;,  only 
intends  to  say  that  the  name  of  God  ought  not  to  be  unnecessarily 
taken  upon  the  lips  [ibid.']. — Another  resource  of  the  Jews  was  to 
place  D^^i  instead  of  the  name. 

(8)  The  Mischna  contains  various  accounts  of  the  matter. 
JBerachoth  ix.  5  says  with  reference  to  Ruth  ii.  4,  Judg.  ii.  16,  that 
the  use  of  the  divine  name  was  allowed  in  greeting.  This  definition 
is  said  to  be  directed  against  the  Samaritan  Dositheic,  who  abstained 
altogether  from  using  the  name  (see  the  notes  on  this  subject  by 
Geiger,  Lessons  from  the  Mischna,  p.  3),  whilst  the  other  Samaritans 
pronounced  the  name  at  least  in  swearing.  On  the  otiier  hand, 
according  to  Sanhedrin  x.  1,  Abba  Schaul  teaches  that  those  who  do 
pronounce  the  name  of  God  by  its  letters  belong  to  those  who  have 
no  part  in  the  future  world.  According  to  Thamid  vii.  2,  the  priests 
U^npDl  uttered  God's  name  as  it  is  written,  and  on  the  other  hand 
n^^'l'on  they  used  the  secondary  name.  We  are  without  doubt  to 
understand  by  the  former  the  temple,  and  by  the  latter  town  and 
]and  ;  but  according  to  another  exposition  (s.  Surenhusius  on  the 
passage),  Jerusalem  is  to  be  reckoned  as  Mikdash.  Geiger  (I.e.  p. 
45  f.)  shows  how  the  two  last-named  passages  were  modified  by  the 
Geuiara  [ibid.]. 


138  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  M0SAIS3I.  [§  38. 

(9)  For  a  closer  discussion  on  tliis,  see  Jac.  Alting,  "  exercitatio 
grammatica  de  punctis  ac  pronunciatione  tetragrammati  mn"',  in 
Keland's  clecas  exercitationnm  philologicaruin  de  vera  pronunciatione 
nominis  Jehova^  1707,  p.  423  ff. 

(10)  The  older  treatises  on  these  disputed  qnestions  have  been 
(fathered  by  Keland,  lib.  cit. — According  to  Bottcher's  account,  in  his 
Ausf.  Lchrhuch  dcr  fiebr.  Sjyrache,  i.  p.  49,  the  first  trace  of  the  pro- 
nunciatiou  Jehovah  was  in  the  anti-J  ewish  book  Purjio  jldei ;  but  he 
who  gave  it  currency  was  Peter  Galatinus,  a  friend  of  Reuchlin  {de 
arcanis  catliol.  veritatis,  ii.  10),  since  1518.    It  is  often  used  by  Luther. 

(11)  Buxtorff,  dissertatio  de  nomine  niri'',  in  Reland,  I.e.  p.  386. 

(12)  See  Hengstenberg,  I.e.  p.  263  ff. — On  the  comparison  of  the 
Latin  Jupiter,  Jovis,  cited  in  favour  of  the  reading  Jehovah  (see 
Fuller  in  Eeland,  p.  448 ;  Gataker,  ibid.  p.  494), — a  comparison  that 
overlooks  the  more  complete  forms,  Diespiter,  Diovis, — and  further  on 
the  hypothesis  according  to  which  a  supposed  Egyptian  name  of  God, 
formed  from  the  seven  vowels  lerjcoova,  is  said  to  be  preserved  in 
the  utterance  Jehovah,  see  likewise  Hengstenberg,  I.e.  p.  204  ff. ; 
Tholnck,  Miscell.  Writings,  i.  p.  394  ff.  libid.]. 

(13)  The  name  mn^  as  third  person,  corresponds  to  n^HK  in  Ex. 
iii.  11.  The  a  sound  under  the  preformative  was  in  general,  I  think, 
the  older  form,  as  we  still  see  in  the  Arabic. — The  nominal  formation 
deduced  horn  the  imperfect  is  very  common  in  the  Hebrew  in  appel- 
latives (s.  Delitzsch,  Jesurun,  p.  208  f.),  but  particularly  in  proper 
names  (comp.  2pV]^  ^^7^^  etc.).  The  names  thus  formed,  correspond- 
ing to  the  fundamental  meaning  of  the  imperfect,  characterize  a  person 
by  a  peculiarity  which  is  continually  manifested  in  him,  and  so  is 
specially  characteristic  \ibid.'].  The  formation  is  perfectly  analogous 
to  the  Latin  ending  tor,  which  is  connected  with  turns. — Delitzsch,  in 
his  Commentary/  on  the  Psalms  (1859  and  1860),  reads  Jahawah,  but 
he  has  now  given  up  this  view. 

(14)  Nevertheless  'laove  should  probably  be  read;  s.  Hengstenberg, 
Ic.  p.  226  f. 

(15)  Probably  these  forms  of  pronunciation  are  in  imitation  of 
the  mystical  name  of  Dionysos,  which  appears  among  the  Greeks  in 
the  form  "IaKxo<i,  but  seems  in  the  Semitic  form  to  have  sounded  in* 
(from  riTi,  to  live).  On  this  and  the  confounding  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment God  with  Dionysos,  which  was  peculiar  to  later  religious 
syncretism,  see  jNIovers,  The  Phoenicians,  i.  p.  539  ff.,  in  particular 
pp.  545  and  548  p^zV/.].— The  traditions  of  the  Church  Fathers  have 
been  most  completely  gathered  by  Hoelemann,  lib.  cit.  p.  69  ff.  (he 
has  overlooked  the  passage  from  Clement). 


§  r.O.']  SIGNIFICATION  OF  THE  NAME  JEHOVAH.  139 

§39. 

2.   T/te  Signijication  of  the  Name. 

The  name  signifies,  He  loho  is,  according  to  Ex.  iii.  14  ;  more  par- 
ticularly, He  loho  is  lohat  He  is.  But  as  it  is  not  the  notion  of  a  lasting 
being  which  lies  in  the  verb  mn  or  riTi,  but  that  of  a  moving  existence, 
of  becoming  and  occurring  (comp.  Delitzsch,  Genesis^  3d  ed.  p.  31 
■[4th  ed.  p.  26]- ),  so  also  the  form  of  the  name  derived  from  the 
imperfect  leads  us  to  understand  in  it  the  existence  of  God,  not  as  an 
existence  at  rest,  but  as  one  always  becoming,  always  making  itself 
known  in  a  process  of  becoming.  Hence  it  is  wrong  to  find  in  the 
name  the  abstract  notion  of  oWco?  ov.  God  is  rather  Jahve  in  as  far 
as  He  has  entered  into  historical  relationship  to  mankind,  and  in 
particular  to  the  chosen  people  Israel,  and  shows  Himself  continually 
in  this  historical  relationship  as  He  who  is,  and  who  is  what  He  is. 
While  heathenism  rests  almost  exclusively  on  the  past  revelations  of 
its  divinities,  this  name  testifies,  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  relation- 
ship of  God  to  the  world  is  in  a  state  of  continual  living  activity ;  it 
testifies,  especially  in  reference  to  the  people  who  address  their  God 
by  this  name,  that  they  have  in  their  God  a  future.  But  more 
particularly  the  notion  of  Jehovah  (1)  divides  into  two  factors: 

1.  Inasmuch  as  God  is  just  what  He  is,  and  so  determines  Him- 
self in  the  historical  manifestation  of  His  existence,  instead  of  being 
determined  by  anything  outside  of  Him  (compare  Hofmann,  der 
Schriftbeweis,  i.  p.  81  f.),  the  name  carries  us  into  the  sphere  of  God's 
freedom  (2).  There  lies  in  it  quite  generally  the  absolute  indepen- 
dence of  God  in  His  dominion.  Through  this  factor  of  its  meaning 
the  name  Jehovah  is  connected  with  El-shaddai. 

2.  When,  in  virtue  of  His  absolute  independence,  God  in  all  His 
dominion  asserts  Himself  as  that  which  He  is,  the  name  further  con- 
tains the  notion  of  the  absolute  ijersistence  of  God,  in  virtue  whereof 
He  in  all  things,  in  words  as  in  deeds,  is  essentially  in  agreement  with 
Himself,  and  remains  self-consistent  (3).  Where  this  second  factor  is 
put  in  special  relation  to  the  divine  decree  of  election,  and  the  promises 
that  flow  therefrom,  as  is  the  case  in  Ex.  iii.  13  ff.,  vi.  2  ff.,  the 
name  implies  the  invariable  faithfulness  of  God,  whicli  side  of  the 
notion  of  Jehovah  (against  Hofmann,  Z.c.)  is  specially  emphasized  in 


140  THE  DOCTEINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISM.  [§  39. 

the  Old  Testament,  to  awake  confidence  on  God  ;  cf.  passages  like 
Deut.  vii.  9,  Hos.  xii.  G,  in  connection  with  ver.  7,  Isa.  xxvi.  4  (4). 
Tliat,  as  Jehovah,  God  is  the  immzdahle,  is  brought  out  in  Mai.  iii.  6  (5). 
In  passages  hke  Isa.  xli.  4,  xliv.  6,  etc.,  the  name  is  applied  both  to 
God's  absolute  independence  and  to  His  absolute  persistence  (6). 

(1)  From  this  point  onwards  I  use  the  word  Jehovah,  not  because 
I  consider  this  pronunciation  correct,  but  because,  as  matter  of  fact, 
this  name  has  now  become  naturalized  in  our  vocabulary,  and  cannot 
be  supplanted,  any  more  than  it  would  be  possible  for  the  more 
correct  Jarden  to  displace  the  usual  form  Jordan. 

(2)  Only  that  the  name  cannot  be  interpreted  in  the  sense  of 
absolute  arbitrariness;  as,  for  example,  Drechsler  {'The  Unity  and 
Genuineness  of  Genesis,  p.  11  f.)  has  expounded  the  passage  Ex.  iii.  14, 
"  I  am  He,  and  what  it  pleases  me  to  be,"  and,  "  I  always  reveal  my- 
self in  all  deeds  and  commands  as  what  I  please,"  according  to  which 
the  name  is  supposed  to  express  the  "  free  grace  "  or  the  "  groundless 
mercy  "  of  God  (Drechsler,  p.  10). 

(3)  Also  in  Ex.  xxxiii.  19,  which  passage  has  correctly  been 
advanced  to  explain  iii.  14,  the  words,  "  I  am  gracious  to  whom  I  am 
gracious,"  express,  \st,  that  God  shows  him  grace  to  whom  He  will 
be  gracious,  and  to  no  other,  or  the  absolute  freedom  of  God's  grace ; 
and,  2^,  that  He  really  shows  him  grace  to  whom  He  is  gracious, 
that  is,  He  is  self-consistent  in  showing  mercy,  in  reference  to  His 
grace  agreeing  with  Himself.     [Above-cited  article.] 

(4)  Hos.  xn*.  6  f . :  "  And  Jehovah,  the  God  of  hosts,  Jehovah  is 
His  memorial  name.  And  thou — shalt  turn  again  to  thy  God; 
keep  godliness  and  right,  and  wait  continually  on  thy  God."  Because 
Israel  calls  his  God  nin"",  therefore  should  he  turn  to  Him  trustfully. 
Isa.  xxvi.  4:  "Trust  on  Jehovah  for  ever,  for  in  Jah  Jehovah  is  an 
everlasting  rock." 

(5)  Mai.  iii.  6  :  "  I  am  Jehovah,  I  have  not  changed,  and  ye  sons 
of  Jacob  perish  not ;  "  that  is,  in  God's  unchangeableness,  expressed 
by  His  name  Jehovah,  the  eternal  duration  of  His  covenant  people 
is  pledged. — See  on  this  passage,  Hengstenberg,  Christologie,  1st  ed. 
p.  419  ;  2d  ed.  iii.  1,  p.  627  (translated  in  For.  Theol.  Lib.). 

(6)  If  we  proceed  from  the  name  alone  without  regard  to  Ex.  iii., 
it  appears  at  first  sight  that  only  absolute  being  lies  in  it.  Luther  in 
particular  has  carried  this  further  in  the  article  on  Schem-ham'phorasch 
(Erl.  ed.  of  the  German  works,  xxxii.  p.  306).  He  explains  the  sense 
of  the  name  thus :  "  He  has  His  being  from  none,  has  neither  begin- 


§  40.1  AGE  AND  ORIGIN  OF  THE  NAME  JEHOVAH.  141 

ning  nor  end,  but  is  from  eternity  in  and  of  Himself,  so  that  His 
being  cannot  be  called  been  or  to  become,  for  He  has  never  begun, 
and  cannot  begin  to  be  ;  He  has  also  never  had  an  end,  nor  can  cease 
to  be  ;  but  with  Him  it  is  always  a  pure  is  or  existence,  that  is, 
Jehovah.  When  the  creature  was  created,  His  existence  was  already 
there,  and  He  is  there  with  His  being  for  all  that  shall  still  arise. 
In  this  way  Christ  speaks  of  His  divinity  in  John  viii.  58  :  Before 
Abraham  was,  I  am.  He  does  not  say,  Then  I  was,  as  if  after  that 
He  had  been  no  more,  but  I  am,  that  is,  my  being  is  eternal,  it  has 
not  been,  will  not  be,  but  simply  is."  But  here  the  name  is  taken  up 
too  abstractly  ;  its  essential  signification  is  much  rather  in  reference  to 
the  history  of  revelation.  This  will  be  clearly  shown  in  the  com- 
parison with  Elohim. 

[The  explanation  of  Ex.  iii.  14  given  above,  and  the  deduced 
signification  of  Jehovah,  are  far  from  incontrovertible  ;  but  it  must 
here  suffice  to  refer  to  the  two  most  recent  discussions  of  the  passage, 
in  Ewald's  Biblical  Theology,  ii.  p.  338,  and  Lagarde's  Corollarium  to 
his  Psalterium  Hieronymi. } 


§40. 

3.  Age  and  Origin  of  the  Name  Jehovah. 

From  what  has  been  said  on  the  signification  of  the  name,  it  is 
clear  that  it  is  so  interwoven  with  the  Old  Testament  revelation,  that 
its  origin  can  only  be  sought  for  in  this  sphere  (1).  Every  attempt  to 
derive  the  name  from  heathenism  rests  on  capricious  hypotheses  or  on 
strange  misunderstandings ;  as,  for  example,  the  hypothesis  which 
derives  the  name  from  a  pretended  Egyptian  name  of  God,  formed 
by  the  seven  Greek  vowels  I  erjcoova,  although  these  letters  are  only 
intended  to  indicate  the  musical  scale.  Ex.  v.  2  (2)  speaks  decidedly 
against  a  derivation  from  Egypt.  That  Necho,  2  Kings  xxiii.  34, 
changes  the  name  of  the  conquered  Eliakim  to  Jehoiakim,  is  no 
evidence  for  the  Egyptian  character  of  the  name  Jehovah  ;  it  is 
meant  to  indicate  that  the  Egyptian  king  acts  thus  just  with  the 
help  of  the  national  god  (also  Nebuchadnezzar,  2  Kings  xxiv.  17, 
in  clianging  Mattaniah's  name  to  Zedekiah,  gives  him  again  a  name 
compounded  from  Jehovah.  Rabshakeh's  speech,  Isa.  xxxvi.  10,  is 
particularly  instructive). — But  the  more  exact  definition  of  the  Old 
Testament  origin  depends  on  the  explanation  of  the  passage  Ex.  vi.  3. 


142  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISJL  [§  40. 

According  to  one  exposition,  tlie  meaning  of  it  is,  that  the  name 
Jehovah  :vas  still  quite  unknown  to  the  patriarchs,  and  that  we  have 
here  the  first  revelation  of  the  name  ;  compare  Josephus,  Ant.  ii.  12. 
4  (3).  In  this  case,  since  the  frequent  use  of  the  name  in  Genesis 
certainly  cannot  simply  be  referred  to  prolepsis,  there  would  be  a 
double  tradition  of  the  origin  of  the  name  in  the  Pentateuch.  Accord- 
ing to  the  first.  Gen.  iv.  26,  xii.  8,  etc.,  it  w^ould  reach  back  to 
primeval  antiquity ;  and  according  to  the  second,  it  was  first  intro- 
duced by  Moses  (4).  Against  this,  the  other  exposition  makes  Ex. 
vi.  3  say  that  the  name  Jehovah  had  not  yet  been  understood  by  the 
patriarchs,  and  that  they  had  not  the  full  experience  of  that  which  lies 
in  the  name  (5).  Then  the  meaning  of  the  passage  corresponds  exactly 
to  that  in  Ex.  iii.  15,  and  is  analogous  to  the  passage  Ex.  xxxiii.  19  ; 
comp.  with  xxxiv.  6,  in  which  also  the  announcement  of  a  name  of 
God  has  only  the  force  of  an  unveiling  to  human  knowledge  of  a 
quality  of  the  divine  nature,  without  our  being  able  to  say  that  that 
name  did  not  exist  previously.  For  ''^V'])^  N?  nirT"  "pC'ij  compare  also 
Ex.  viii.  18,  Ps.  Ixxvi.  2,  etc.  For  the  sake  of  the  connection  with 
ver.  7,  the  first  explanation  must  at  least  include  the  second  (6). 
Against  the  first  explanation,  however,  we  have,  1st,  The  sporadic 
occurrence  of  the  name  Jehovah  even  in  those  parts  of  Genesis 
which  belong  to  the  Elohistic  record,  where  the  expedient  of  assum- 
ing an  interpolation  is  altogether  worthless.  2d,  The  occurrence  of 
the  name  in  the  name  of  Moses'  mother  'l^ai''  (that  is,  ciijus  gloria  est 
Jehovah),  Ex.  vi.  20, — a  circumstance  which  has  led  even  Ewald  to 
the  view  that  the  name  Jehovah  was  common  at  least  among  the 
maternal  ancestors  of  Moses.  There  are  also  some  other  names  from 
that  ancient  time  which  occur  in  the  genealogies  in  Chronicles, 
1  Chron.  ii.  25,  vii.  8,  iv.  18 :  Ahijah,  Abiah,  Bithiah  (7).  del  and 
lastly,  It  is  most  improbable  that  Moses,  when  he  had  to  bring  to  the 
people  a  revelation  of  the  God  of  their  fathers,  should  have  done  so 
under  a  name  of  God  quite  unknown  to  the  people.  Hence  the 
assertion  of  the  pre-Mosaic  origin  of  the  name  is  right. 

(1)  Compare  the  remarks  in  Havernick's  Special  Introduction  to 
the  Pentateuch,  2d  ed.  by  Keil,  1856,  p.  75. — It  is  a  fancy  of  Ewald, 
when  he  thinks  it;  right  to  start  from  the  expression  in  Gen.  xix.  24, 
and  concludes  that  the  name  according  to  this  passage  originally  had 


§  40.]         AGE  AND  OUIGIN  OF  THE  NAME  JEHOVAH.  143 

the  meaning  of  heaven,  the  God  of  heaven.     This  exposition  is  as 
preposterous  as  possible. 

(2)  Ex.  V.  2,  Pharaoh  says  :  "  Who  is  Jeliovah,  whose  voice  I 
am  to  obey  to  let  Israel  go?  I  know  not  Jehovah."  In  reference 
to  all  those  hypotheses,  on  which  I  cannot  enter,  which  seek  to  derive 
the  name  from  Egypt,  PlicBnicia,  or  India,  I  may  refer  still  to  the 
dissertation  by  Tiioluck  in  the  Literar.  xhizeiger^  1832,  Nos.  27-30, 
and  reprinted  in  his  Miscell.  Writings^  i.  1839,  p.  376  ff.  Tholuck 
discovered  the  deception  performed  by  Voltaire  in  his  derivation  of 
the  name  Jehovah  from  the  Egyptian  mysteries, — a  deception  gross 
enough,  but  so  successful  that  this  hypothesis  was  confidently  adopted 
by  Schiller  himself  in  the  Mission  of  Moses.  More  recently  Roeth 
(The  Egyptian  and  Zoroastrian  Theology,  Anm.  175,  p.  146)  has 
again  maintained  the  Egyptian  origin  of  the  name,  placing  it  in  con- 
nection with  tlie  name  of  the  Egyptian  moon-god  Joh  [in  the  cited 
art.].  {Cf.  also  the  views  of  Brngsch  referred  to  in  Delitzsch's 
Genesis,  4tii  ed.  p.  59.^ 

(3)  Josephus  says.  I.e. :  6  Geo*?  avrO)  o-i-jixalvei  ti-jv  eavrov  Trpoa-rj- 
fyopiav,  ov  irporepov  et9  uv9pco7rov<i  irapeXOova-av  irepl  i)^  ov  fza  OefiLTOv 
elirelv. 

(4)  Ebrard  ("  The  Age  of  the  Name  Jehovah,"  in  the  histor.- 
theol.  Zeitschrift  of  Niedner,  1849,  iv.)  seeks  to  get  over  the  difficulty 
by  assuming  a  proleptic  use  of  the  name  Jehovah  in  Genesis.  He 
makes  it  clear  in  this  way  :  "  We  speak,  for  example,  of  Antistes 
Bullinger,  because  Bullinger's  office  was  identical  with  the  present 
office  of  a  Zurich  Antistes,  and  do  not  consider  that  the  title  'Antistes' 
was  first  used  in  Zurich  in  the  seventeenth  century."  But  this 
assumption  can  only  be  carried  out  by  the  most  capricious  treatment 
of  many  passages.  When  it  is  said,  Gen.  iv.  26,  "  Then  men  began 
to  call  on  the  name  of  Jehovah,"  prolepsis  is  out  of  the  question. 

(5)  See  specially  Kurtz,  Hist,  of  the  Old  Covenant,  i.  2d  ed.  p. 
345  f.,  comp.  with  ii.  p.  67  (translated  in  For.  Theol.  Lib.). 

(6)  Schultz,  in  his  Old  Testament  llieology  (i.  p.  293),  wonders  that 
I  also  am  here  found  on  the  side  of  the  expositors  who  twist  the  mean- 
ing, which  shows  that  he  has  not  valued  my  reasons  properly.  The 
passage  Ex.  vi.  2  ff.  runs  thus :  "  Elohim  spoke  to  Moses,  and  said  : 
I  am  n'Ti"' ;  I  appeared  to  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  as  El-shaddai, 
but  by  my  nin''  name  Dni?  TiyniJ  ^h  .  .  .  I  have  heard  the  si^hs  of 
the  sons  of  Israel  .  .  .  Therefore  say  to  the  sons  of  Israel :  I  am 
nin'',  and  will  lead  you  out  from  under  the  burdens  of  Egypt  .  .  . 
.So  I  am  God  to  you,  and  ye  acknowledge  that  I,  nin"',  am  your  God." 
It  is  quite  clear  that  the  Qn>n'''i  in  ver.  7  refers  back  to  the  QH?  ""riynij 


144  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISJI.  [§  41, 

in  ver.  3  ;  but  this  Q^VT^.j  of  course,  does  not  mean:  then  shall  my 
title  Jehovah  become  known  to  you,  but :  then  acknowledge  ye  what 
is  in  my  nature. 

(7)  Schultz,  I.e.  p.  294,  thinks  that  words  only  occurring  in 
Chronicles  are  absolutely  useless  as  testimony.  He  is  inclined  to- 
suppose  a  later  change  in  the  name  of  Moses'  mother. 


§41. 

Comparison  of  the  Name  Jeliovah  with  Elohim  and  El. 

If  we  compare  God's  names  C"?^^  and  ^^  with  ^)'^\,  in  reference 
to  their  meaning,  the  following  difference  is  found  to  result  from  the 
already  given  definitions  (1).  In  general,  all  universally  cosmical 
action  of  God,  going  out  towards  the  heathen  as  well  as  towards  Israel 
in  the  creation  and  maintenance  of  the  world,  is  traced  to  El  and 
Elohim  ;  to  Jehovah,  on  the  other  hand,  is  traced  every  divine  activity 
which  is  connected  with  the  theocratic  revelation  and  guidance,  and 
which  bears  on  the  heathen  only  in  as  far  as  their  history  stands  in 
relation  to  the  aim  of  the  divine  kingdom.  It  follows  from  this,  that 
the  historical  display  of  the  divine  essence  lies  essentially  in  the  notion 
of  Jehovah  ;  whereas,  on  the  contrary,  Elohim,  as  such,  is  subject  ta 
no  historical  process.  By  this,  Oetinger's  explanation,  "  Deus  est 
omnium  rerum  Elohim,  omnium  actionmn  Jehovah,"  is  to  be  more 
exactly  defined  (2).  Elohim,  as  such,  remains  transcendent  to  the 
world  of  phenomena ;  Jehovah,  on  the  contrary,  enters  into  the  pheno- 
mena of  space  and  time  in  order  to  manifest  Himself  to  mankind  ;  a 
difference  which  comes  forward  at  once  in  the  relation  of  Gen.  i.  1  ff. 
to  ii.  4  ff.  It  is  indeed  natural  and  necessary  that  this  difference  is 
not  strictly  kept  up  everywhere  in  the  Old  Testament  in  the  use  of 
the  names  of  God.  Since  Elohim  is  only  known  in  Israel  as  Jehovah,, 
what  is  Elohistic  is  often  traced  back  to  Jehovah ;  less  often  Elohim 
stands  where  we  might  expect  Jehovah,  particularly  in  the  Elohistic 
psalms,  the  peculiarity  of  which  in  the  pregnant  ceremonious  use  of 
Elohim  is  probably  to  be  explained  by  the  theory  that  they  were 
designed  to  counteract  liturgically  any  tendency  to  a  particularizing 
conception  of  the  idea  of  God  (3).  But  still  it  is  shown  partly  by 
certain  general  ways  of  expression  which  run  througli  the  whole  Old 


§  41.]      COMPARISON  OF  THE  NAME  JEHOVAH  WITH  ELOHIM  AND  EL.      145 

Testament,  and  partly  by  separate  passages,  that  the  Old  Testament 
writers  had  a  very  definite  consciousness  of  the  marked  difference. 
In  reference  to  the  first  head,  we  must  remember  that  all  expressions 
which  refer  to  revelation  occur  almost  only  in  connection  with  niiT" ; 
thus,  with  quite  rare  exceptions,  i'^'^^'  i?^,  aw,  niyp,  ^??^?  nb,  and  such 
like,  further,  because  God  is  acknowledged  and  addressed  in  Israel 
only  as  Jehovah,  also  DK^,  with  the  exception  only  of  two  passages  in 
Elohistic  psalms,  Ps.  Ixix.  31,  Ixxv.  2  ;  even  the  preponderatingly 
Elohistic  section,  2  Sam.  vi.,  places  in  ver.  2  nin^  Q^.  Where  no 
definite  reason  exists  for  writing  ^'''?'^^.  "^^f^,  the  Mal'ach  is  always 
the  angel  of  Jehovah.  Theophany  in  general  is  a  thing  of  Jehovah, 
who,  and  not  Elohim,  holds  intercourse  with  man  in  the  manner  of 
men.  The  change  of  expressions  in  Gen.  vii.  16  is  specially  note- 
worthy (4).  Hence  it  comes  that  anthropomorphisms  are  almost 
always  applied  to  Jehovah,  not  to  Elohim.  Thus  ^'\^''  1^  even  in  the 
Elohistic  Psalm  Ixxv.  ver.  9  (5)  ;  thus  always  nin^  "'3,  never  Cn'^^'  ''?) ;  .  /7) 
often  even  nin''  ''3"'J?,  ^ip,  only  a  few  times  ^""^^i^.  ''■'%  ^ip,  etc^^f  leading^  0^ 
individual  passages^  Those  particularly  to  be  mentioned  are  Gen.  ix.  "^T 
26  f.,  according  to  which  God  is  for  Japheth  mainly  only  Elohim ; 
on  the  contrary,  for  Shem  He  is  Jehovah.  Num.  xvi.  22,  compared 
with  xxvii.  16;  in  the  first  passage  (the  story  of  Korah's  company), 
although  Jehovah  is  predominant  through  the  whole  section,  ?^  is 
called  upon  as  God  of  the  spirits  of  all  flesh,  as  He  from  whom  all 
natural  life  proceeds,  and  who  as  preserver  of  the  world  is  entreated,, 
not  to  sweep  away  a  multitude  of  men  because  of  one  man  who 
sinned  (6).  In  the  second  passage,  on  the  contrary  (where  the  ap- 
pointment of  a  successor  to  Moses  is  treated  of),  Jehovah  is  addressed 
as  God  of  the  spirits  of  all  flesh,  who  divides  the  gifts  of  His  Spirit  for 
the  service  of  His  kingdom,  and  is  therefore  entreated  to  appoint  and 
equip  a  new  leader  of  His  people.  With  this  compare  Ps.  xix.,  where, 
in  reference  to  the  manifestation  of  God  in  nature,  ver.  2,  El  stands ; 
and  in  reference  to  the  revelation  in  the  law,  Jehovah  stands  from 
ver.  8  onwards  throughout,  etc. 

(1)  Here,  of  course,  those  passages  are  meant  where  the  expres- 
sions S"'nb5>;  and  ?^  stand  by  themselves,  without  an  article  or  closer 
definition,  by  means  of  an  adjective  or  a  dependent  genitive  (as, 
Jacob's  God). 

VOL.  I.  K 


146  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISM.  [§  42. 

(2)  In  a  certain  sense  we  may  say,  with  Delitzsch,  Jehovali  is  a 
God  who  "  becomes "  ^Ir^veTat^  .  But  the  expression  is  liable  to  be 
misunderstood ;  Hengstenberg  rightly  reminds  us,  on  the  other  hand, 
that  "  God  comes  indeed,  but  He  does  not  become." 

(3)  It  is  known  that  the  first  Psalm  book  -[Ps.  i.— xli.]-  is  Jehovistic, 
the  second  Elohistic  {Ps.  xlii.-lxxii.j- .  The  assumption  of  Hitzig  and 
others,  that  the  later  fear  of  using  the  name  Jehovah  is  already  seen 
in  the  Elohistic  psalms,  is  utterly  untenable,  not  simply  because  among 
these  Elohistic  hymns  there  are  without  doubt  pieces  of  great  age,  but 
also  because  they  do  not  absolutely  exclude  the  name  Jehovah.  |The 
peculiar  phenomena  in  the  second  book  are  beyond  doubt  due  to  a 
redactor.]- 

(4)  Gen.  vii.  16 :  "  And  those  that  went  in,  went  in  male  and 
female  of  all  flesh  (into  the  ark  to  Noah),  as  Elohira  had  commanded ; 
and  Jehovah  shut  the  door  behind  him." 

(5)  D^nl'S  T  is  only  in  a  few  places,  where  definite  reasons  exist. 

(6)  Num.  xvi.  22  :  "And  they  fell  on  their  faces,  and  said:  7N 
~\bii~b:27  ninnn  iron,  wilt  Thou  be  wroth  with  the  whole  congregation 
because  one  man  has  sinned  ?  " 

§42. 

Attributes  or  Names  of  God  ivJdch  are  derived  immediately  from  the 
notion  of  Jehovah. 

From  the  notion  of  Jehovah  flow  the  following  further  properties 
of  the  Divine  Beins; : — 

1.  Jehovah  is  an  eternal  God,  OpiV  ?5<,  as  Abraham  addresses 
Him  in  Gen.  xxi.  33 ;  comp.  Deut.  xxxii.  40,  where  Jehovah  is  intro- 
duced as  Himself  saying,  "  I  live  to  eternity."  God's  eternity  is 
involved  in  His  absolute  independence,  in  virtue  whereof  God  is  not 
conditioned  by  anything  which  originates  or  decays  in  time,  but  is 
the  first  and  the  last  (Isa.  xliv.  6,  xlviii.  12).  The  longest  human 
measurement  of  time  vanishes  when  put  against  His  eternal  duration, 
Ps.  xc.  4.  Still  it  is  not  this  abstract  conception  of  eternity  as  an 
everlasting  duration  of  time  which  the  Old  Testament  chiefly  brings 
forward ;  but  whilst  God  as  mn''  is  the  eternal,  God's  eternity  is  defined 
as  the  unchangeableness  of  His  being,  persisting  throughout  every 
change  of  time,  and  thus  it  becomes  the  basis  of  human  confidence. 
Therefore  Moses,  in  the  midst  of  the  dying  away  of  his  people, 
addresses  God  as  the  Eternal  One,  Ps.  xc.  If.  (1)  ;  therefore,  Deut. 


§  42.]  ATTRIBUTES  OE  NAMES  OF  GOD.  147 

xxxii.  40,  the  idea  that  God  is  eternal  forms  the  transition  to  the 
announcement  that  He  will  again  save  His  rejected  people ;  therefore 
Israel,  when  sighing  in  misery,  is  comforted,  Isa.  xl.  28 :  "  Knowest 
thou  not,  and  hast  thou  not  heard,  that  Jehovah  is  an  eternal  God?" 
Compare  also  Ps.  cii.  28. 

2.  It  is  involved  in  the  notion  of  Jehovah  that  He  is  a  living  God : 
Gen.  xvi.  14  (according  to  the  probable  explanation  of  the  passage), 
Deut.  V.  23  (26),  D^»n  DNn^K ;  Josh.  iii.  10,  ^n  ^n\  He  swears  by  His  life. 
Num.  xiv.  21,  28,  compare  Deut.  xxxii.  40.  In  the  following  books 
the  expression  is  much  more  common  ;  and  here  the  form  of  oath, 
which  does  not  occur  in  the  Pentateuch,  rrin''  ""n,  as  true  as  Jehovah 
lives,  appears  often,  never  ^''C^N*  V-  The  latter  circumstance  is  suffi- 
cient to  indicate  that  God  is  not  called  the  living  God  in  the  sense  of 
His  bearing  within  Him  the  powers  of  physical  life,  although  in  every 
respect  the  words  in  Ps.  xxxvi.  10,  "  with  Thee  is  the  fountain  of  life," 
are  applicable  to  Him  ;  but  He  is  called  the  Living  One,  as  the  God 
of  revelation,  in  as  far  as  He  entrenches  Himself  in  historical  attesta- 
tions in  the  sphere  of  mankind,  and  causes  Himself  to  be  here  known 
to  men  by  the  operations  of  His  power.  His  first  appearance  as  the 
God  who,  ruling  in  free  activity,  causes  nature  to  serve  His  aims,  and 
is  therefore  called  the  living  God,  is  to  the  forsaken  Hagar,  Gen.  xvi. 
13  f.  (according  to  the  most  probable  explanation)  :  "  She  called  the 
name  of  Jehovah  who  spoke  to  her,  Thou  art  a  God  of  seeing,"  that 
is,  who  sees  (whose  care  does  not  even  overlook  a  rejected  helpless  one 
in  the  desert) ;  for  she  said,  "  Have  I  then  here  looked  after  God, 
who  sees  me  ?  Therefore  the  name  of  the  well  (where  Hagar  had 
this  manifestation)  is  the  well  of  the  Living  One,  who  seeth  me"  (2). 
Jehovah's  speech  from  out  of  the  fire  on  Sinai  is  called  the  voice  of 
the  living  God,  Deut.  v.  23 ;  He  is  acknowledged  as  the  living  God 
in  the  midst  of  the  congregation  by  His  deeds  of  revelation.  Josh, 
iii.  10,  and  by  His  words  of  revelation,  Jer.  xxiii.  36.  As  a  living 
God,  He  also  enters  with  man  into  a  relation  of  fellowship  which  is 
experienced  by  him  inwardly,  especially  as  a  God  who  hears  prayer, 
and  hence  the  longing  of  the  godly  for  the  living  God  (Ps.  xhi.  3, 
Ixxxiv.  3).  As  the  Living  One,  Jehovah  is  placed  in  contrast  to  the 
gods  of  the  heathen,  which  can  reveal  nothing,  perform  nothing,  grant 
no  requests,  and  send  no  help,  Deut.  xxxii.  37-39;  which  are  nothings, 


148  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  SIOSAISM.  [§  12. 

D^^^^N,  Lev.  XIX.  4,  xxvi.  1,  etc. ;  and  dead,  D^no,  Ps.  cvi.  28  (3).  Plence 
the  idea  of  the  Hving  God  is  specially  carried  out  in  the  polemic  of 
the  prophets  and  the  psalms  against  the  heathen ;  for  example,  Jer.  x. 
10  ff.,  comp.  1  Sam.  xvii.  36,  Isa.  xxxvii.  4,  17,  etc.  Terror  for  those 
of  guilty  conscience,  and  comfort  for  those  seeking  help,  both  lie  in 
the  idea  of  the  divine  vitality,  and  hence  in  Israel  there  is  no  higher- 
oath  than  the  utterance,  Jehovah  lives  (nin^  ''n). 

3.  Jehovah  is  the  Lord,  jnxn ;  my  Lord,  'J'"1n;.  That  the  notion 
of  "'3'"l«  is  immediately  connected  with  the  notion  of  Jehovah  is  already 
clear  from  the  fact  that  the  two  names  are  frequently  associated,  and 
that  ''p^.  could  in  later  times  be  substituted  in  reading  for  mn\  The 
word  ""^IX  is  the  plural  of  P^^5J  which  is  derived  from  |n,  to  direct,  to 
rule.  The  plural  is  to  be  explained  as  in  2"'D'^  (§  36)  ;  but  the  ending 
''—  is  not  (as  many  have  assumed)  a  plural  ending,  for  the  existence  of 
such  a  termination  is  more  than  doubtful,  but  it  is  the  sufRx  of  the 
first  person,  which  is  pointed  with  Kametz  to  distinguish  God's  name 
from  the  common  use  of  ''pi^.  ( =nQy  lords,  comp.  e.g.  Gen.  xix.  2)  (4). 
In  the  Pentateuch  and  the  book  of  Joshua,  in  which  ''J'lN  only  occurs 
in  addressing  God,  the  suffix  still  has  its  meaning ;  compare  such 
passages  as  Gen.  xv.  2,  8,  xviii.  3,  27,  30  ff.,  in  Jehovistic  context, 
and  in  Elohistic  context.  Gen.  xx.  4  (in  the  mouth  of  Abimelech) ; 
and  further,  passages  like  Ex.  xxxiv.  9,  Num.  xiv.  17,  Dent.  iii.  24, 
ix.  26;  especially  ''^■^^^  is  connected  with  the  particle  of  request 
■•3,  Ex.  iv.  10,  13,  Josh.  vii.  8,  in  addresses  of  supplication.  In  the 
Pentateuch  and  the  book  of  Joshua,  where  Jehovah  is  not  directly 
addressed  as  the  Lord,  we  find  not  ''pi^.,  but  li'^^fj,  Ex.  xxxiv.  23,  or 
n^yiNH  ^y-TS,  Deut.  X,  17,  or  n?''?"''?  J^"'^!'  Josh.  iii.  13.  Later,  however, 
the  meaning  of  the  suffix  got  blunted,  so  that  the  expression  is  frequently 
found  even  when  God  is  spoken  of  in  the  third  person.  But  when 
God  Himself  speaks,  He  never  makes  use  of  the  word ;  the  passages 
Job  xxviii.  28,  Isa.  viii.  7,  form  only  an  apparent  exception  (5). 
According  to  the  original  meaning  of  the  expression  ("  my  Lord "), 
there  lies  in  it,  as  shown  by  the  above-cited  passages,  not  simply  the 
acknowledgment  of  the  divine  sovereignty  in  general,  but  in  parti- 
cular the  consciousness  of  specially  belonging  to  God,  as  is  the  case 
with  the  organs  of  revelation  among  the  covenant  people,  the  con- 
sciousness of  standing  vmder  His  immediate  guidance  and  protection.. 


§  42.]  ATTRIBUTES  OR  NAMES  OF  GOD.  149 

Thus  far  it  was  quite  wrong  to  stamp  the  Old  Testament  religion  as 
a  religion  of  fear  on  account  of  the  frequent  use  of  "  Lord,"  since 
'•y'lX  is  more  the  expression  of  trust  in  its  original  meaning.  On  the 
contrary,  the  notion  of  the  powerful  Kuler  over  all  lies  in  the  later  use 
of  the  expression,  after  the  sense  of  the  suffix  had  ceased  to  be  felt, 
Isa.  viii.  7,  xl.  10,  etc.  (6). 

(1)  Ps.  xc.  4  :  "  A  thousand  years  are  before  Thine  eyes  like  yester- 
day as  it  passed,  like  a  watch  In  the  night." — Ver.  If.:  "  Lord,  Thou 
art  our  refuge  from  generation  to  generation  ;  before  the  mountains 
were  formed,  and  Thou  hadst  brought  forth  the  earth  and  the  world, 
and  from  eternity  to  eternity  Thou  art  God." 

(2)  Thus  Delitzsch  (among  others)  explains  the  difficult  passage 
Gen.  xvi.  13  f.  Side  by  side  with  this  explanation  there  is  another, 
according  to  which  our  passage  would  not  belong  to  this  topic.  Keil 
reads  ""J^"!  as  the  pausal-form  of  ''NT  instead  of  ''^""i,  and  translates. 
"  Have  I  here  also  seen  after  this  seeing  ?  Therefore  the  well  was 
called  the  Well  of  the  Living-seeing"  (as  compound  noun)  ;  that  is, 
the  well  where  a  man  remains  in  life  when  he  sees  God.  Hagar  was 
astonished  that  she  still  saw  after  having  seen  the  '^^'?1?  of  God  ;  that 
is,  that  she  still  remained  in  life,  since  it  was  impossible  to  remain 
alive  after  having  had  a  manifestation  of  God.  Against  the  first 
explanation,  Keil  says  that  it  would  require  ''?'<'"> ;  but  in  Job  vli.  8 
''NT  similarly  stands. 

(3)  The  word  -'vN  means  "  nothing,"  from  ^ijN  ;  but  it  is  manifest 
that  by  this  word,  a  sort  of  diminutive  of  ?X,  little  God,  was  also 
intended. 

(4)  It  is  peculiar  that,  when  ''^"l^.  is  the  name  of  God,  it  stands 
with  prefixes  ''P^^,  ""V^}.)  although  otherwise   it   is   punctuated,  e.g. 

(5)  Job  xxvlii.  28  should  be  read,  according  to  most  manuscripts 
and  the  oldest  editions,  nin'' ;  in  Isa.  vlH.  7  a  change  of  subject  must 
be  presumed,  with  a  transition  to  the  prophet  as  speaker.  Amos  vi. 
8  does  not  belong;  to  this  head  at  all. 

(6)  The  word  "'J1t<  occurs  134  times  in  the  text. — ''J"^^?.  has  been 
compared  with  the  Phoenician  Adonis,  against  which  it  is  enough  to 
Temark  that  the  two  have  nothing  in  common  except  the  name. 


150  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISM.  [§  AS. 

§43. 
The  Unity  of  God. 

Jehovah  is  one.  The  multiplicity  of  divine  powers  broken  up  in 
polytheism  is  already  summed  up  into  unity  in  Elohim,  but  it  is  as 
Jehovah  that  God  is  first  fully  recognised  as  one  ;  and  thus  mono- 
theism forms  one  of  the  cardinal  doctrines  of  Mosaism,  and  therefore 
Ex.  XX.  3,  "  Thou  shalt  have  no  other  God  beside  me  "  C'??''-'!',  above 
me,  or  in  addition  to  me),  is  placed  foremost  in  the  decalogue. 
Nevertheless,  thoroughgoing  monotheism  has  often  been  denied  to 
the  Pentateuch  ;  and  it  has  been  maintained,  either,  1st,  that  the  unity 
of  God  unwound  itself  gradually  from  a  polytheistic  religion,  or,  2d, 
that  even  the  Mosaic  Jehovah  does  not  exclude  the  existence  of  other 
gods.     These  two  views  are  to  be  more  closely  considered  (1). 

1.  Passages  like  Gen.  i.  26,  xi.  7  (where  Jehovah  says,  "  We  will  go 
down  and  confound  their  language"),  also  iii.  22,  are  cited  in  support 
of  the  first  view.  But  even  if  we  (conip.  §  36)  refuse  to  admit  in  the 
two  first-named  passages  the  conception  of  the  plural  as  the  plural  of 
majesty, — though  this  view  is  quite  admissible, — the  plural  would 
still  on  no  account  be  referable  to  other  gods,  but  at  most  to  higher 
spiritual  beings,  as  the  angels ;  so  that  for  xi.  7,  in  reference  to  the 
expression  Isa.  vi.  8  would  be  to  be  compared,  and  in  reference  to  the 
matter  Zech.  xiv.  5  (2),  But  in  regard  to  the  third  passage,  in  which 
Jehovah  says,  "  Man  is  become  I2^p  "'C^'t',  like  one  of  us  "  (and  where 
the  plural  is,  I  think,  decidedly  not  to  be  understood  as  a  plural  of 
majesty,  as  Keil  still  understands  it),  the  words  convey  the  meaning, 
Man  has  become  like  a  being  of  my  species ;  and  thus  the  expression 
does  not  suppose  other  gods,  but  only  the  existence  of  a  plurality  of 
spiritual  beings.  But  in  general,  the  following  is  to  be  noted  in 
opposition  to  the  view  just  indicated  :  If  the  Mosaic  monotheism  was 
the  result  of  such  a  process,  this  process  must  certainly  be  transferred 
to  a  time  prior  to  the  consciousness  of  the  Old  Testament.  The 
whole  delineation  Gen.  i.-x.  includes  most  definitely  the  universality 
of  the  idea  of  God ;  and  also  after  revelation  has  confined  itself  to 
one  tribe,  the  divine  training  aims  continually  at  awaking  the  con- 
sciousness of  this  universality  ;  comp.  Gen.  xxviii.  15  f.,  a  passage 
which  is  instructive  in  this  respect  (3).  But  if  the  Old  Testament 
monotheism  has  deen  developed  from  polytheism,  the  other  gods  from 


§  43.]  THE  UNITY  OF  GOD.  151 

whose  midst  Jehovah  had  raised  Himself  as  the  highest  God  must 
still  exist  somehow  in  consciousness ;  perhaps  lowered  to  angels,  but 
still  as  beings  endued  with  a  certain  independence  of  action.  But,  as 
we  shall  see,  Old  Testament  angelology  follows  the  opposite  path  ;  at 
its  close  those  angels  first  appear  who  are  endowed  with  definite 
personal  attributes.  Certainly  in  heathen  religions  the  tendency  to 
monotheism  does  not  merely  assert  itself  by  the  elevation  of  a  supreme 
God  over  the  other  gods,  but  also  in  the  attempt  to  find  a  unity  in  an 
abstract  power  standing  over  the  world  of  gods, — as,  for  example,  in 
the  Indian  Brahma  conceived  as  a  neuter,  and  in  the  oWco?  6v  of  the 
later  Greek  theology,  e.g.  by  Plutarch.  But  an  idea  of  Jehovah  is 
nowhere  developed  from  the  polytheistic  process,  and  nowhere  are  the 
many  gods  condensed  into  an  absolute  subject  (4). 

2.  If,  by  the  assertion  that  the  Jehovah  of  the  Old  Testament  does 
not  exclude  the  existence  of  other  gods,  it  is  only  meant  that  many  of 
the  Israelites  regarded  Jehovah  only  as  a  God  beside  other  gods  of 
the  people,  this  cannot  be  disputed.  In  Jephthah's  words,  Judg.  xi. 
24  (5),  which  are  specially  cited  as  evidence  to  the  point,  it  may  fairly 
be  asked  whether  the  argument  does  not  proceed  on  Moabite  ideas, 
without  these  being  declared  correct ;  on  the  contrary,  it  is  historically 
certain  that  even  a  Solomon  at  a  later  time  could  come  to  have  doubts 
about  this  point.  But  it  is  just  as  certain  that  this  view  is  always 
combated  by  the  organs  of  the  revelation  as  a  perversion  of  the  idea 
of  God. — In  reference  to  the  separate  passages  to  which  the  assertion 
appeals,  Ex.  xviii.  11,  "Jehovah  is  greater  than  all  gods,"  does  not 
come  into  consideration,  being  the  word  of  a  heathen  (of  Jethro). 
But  when  it  is  said,  xx.  3,  "  Thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  beside 
me;"  xii.  12,  "I  will  execute  judgments  on  all  the  gods  of  Egypt, 
I  am  Jehovah;"  xv.  11,  "Who  among  the  gods  is  like  Thee, 
Jehovah  V  such  passages  are  to  be  explained  with  reference  to  others 
in  the  same  book  ;  such  as  ix.  29,  "  the  earth  is  Jehovah's  ;"  further, 
XX.  11,  xxxi.  17,  "in  six  days  Jehovah  made  the  heaven  and  the 
earth,"  etc., — passages  which  most  decidedly  exclude  the  opinion  that 
other  gods  rule  side  by  side  with  Jehovah  inside  the  boundaries  of 
their  own  people  and  land.  How  little  the  expression  Q''"}ns;  Q^'^5x  is 
to  be  taken  in  the  sense  in  which  the  heathen  speak  of  Dii  novi,  advence, 
peregrini,  is  shown  by  the  frequent  occurrence  of  this  expression  in  the 


152  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISM.  [§  43. 

prophets,  whose  strict  monotheism  is  certainly  beyond  all  doubt ;  e.g. 
comp.  Isa.  xix.  1  with  Ex.  xii.  12.  The  passages  referred  to  in  Deute- 
ronomy show  just  as  little  as  those  cited  from  Exodus.  If  it  is  said, 
chap,  xxxii.  12,  "  Jehovah  led  Israel  alone,  no  strange  god  was  with 
Him,"  the  strange  gods  are  called,  ver.  21,  ^^'^  and  D''^3n — breaths, 
nothings  (which  correspond  fully  with  ^T?%  Lev.  xix.  4,  and  ^nn, 
1  Sam.  xi.  21).  For  elucidation,  compare  Ps.  xcvi.,  where  it  is  said, 
ver.  4,  "  Jehovah  is  fearful  above  all  the  gods,"  but  in  ver.  5  is  imme- 
diately added,  "  for  all  the  gods  of  the  people  are  nothings."  Hence 
we  gather  the  meaning  of  Deut.  xxxii.  39  :  '•  See  ye  now  that  I  am 
He,  and  there  is  no  god  with  me ;  I  kill  and  give  life."  Further,  if 
we  reo-ard  also  x.  14,  "  Behold  the  heaven  and  the  heaven  of  heavens, 
the  earth  and  all  that  is  upon  it,  are  Jehovah  thy  God's," — there  can 
be  no  doubt  that  the  proper  dicta  prohaniia  must  be  understood  as 
for  the  unity  of  God  in  the  strictest  sense.  These  are  :  chap.  iv.  35, 
*'  Jehovah  is  the  God  (D''n'^Kn),  and  none  but  He  ;"  again  in  ver. 
39,  "  Jehovah  is  God  in  the  heavens  above,  and  in  the  earth  beneath  ; 
there  is  none  but  He ;"  and  lastly  the  sacrosanct  w^ord,  vi.  4 :  J?OB' 
in^J!  nin^  ^^''[P^.  "^^i^l  ^??'^?'^  This  cannot  mean  (as  many  have  explained 
it),  "  Jehovah  is  our  God,  Jehovah  alone,"  that  is,  Israel  has  only 
Jehovah  for  his  God  ;  for  in  that  case  we  must  have  had  n?^  instead 
of  ins.  There  are  only  two  admissible  explanations  :  either,  "  Hear, 
O  Israel,  Jehovah  our  God,  Jehovah  is  one  "  ("Jn*^  as  predicate  to  the 
second  Jehovah) ;  or  inx  T\)n\  is  predicate  to  ^^''[j^^.  ^}i^],  "  Jehovah 
our  God  is  one  (a  unique)  Jehovah."  On  the  latter  explanation  the 
meaning  is  not  (as  Schultz  has  conceived  in  his  commentary  to 
Deuteronomy)  :  Our  God  has  not  sometimes  this  and  sometimes  that 
manner  of  manifestation,  but  only  one  single  one  as  Jehovah  (which 
introduces  an  entirely  foreign  thought  into  the  passage)  ;  this  second 
construction  is  rather  to  be  explained,  with  Keil :  Jehovah  our  God 
is  the  one  absolute  independent  abiding  one,  and  so  He  to  whom 
alone  divine  reality  belongs.  Still  the  first  explanation  seems  to  me 
to  be  the  more  correct.  The  demand,  ver.  5,  to  dedicate  to  Him  the 
whole  heart  and  undivided  love,  and,  ver.  14,  not  to  go  after  heathen 
gods  (6),  is  based  on  Jehovah  being  absolutely  one.  From  the  later 
books,  comp.  in  elucidation  such  passages  as  Isa.  xliii.  10,  xhv.  6, 
xlv.  5,  xiv.  18,  etc. 


^  43.]  THE  UNITY  OF  GOD.  153 

But  another  question  is,  whether  the  heathen  gods  did  not  exist 
according  to  the  Old  Testament,  if  not  as  gods,  at  least  as  Hving 
■beings,  perhaps  as  demons.  But  for  this  also  proofs  are  wanting  ;  for 
the  expression  D''']^,  Deut.  xxxii.  17,  discussed  in  §  37,  and  specially 
cited  in  this  connection,  though  it  is  translated  by  the  LXX.  by 
Sai/xovia,  gives  us  in  its  meaning  "  lords  "  nothing  but  the  heathen 
conception  (7).  It  is  rather  characteristic  of  the  polemic  of  the  Old 
Testament  against  heathen  worship,  that  the  images  are  identified 
with  the  gods  themselves,  and  thereby  the  nullity  of  the  latter  is 
shown  ;  compare  passages  like  Isa.  xliv.  9  ff.,  Jer.  x.  3  ff.  In  Isa. 
xlvi.  1  f.,  compared  with  xli.  29,  the  distinction  between  the  gods  and 
their  images  is  simply  apparent  for  the  sake  of  vividness.  Note  also 
the  practical  demonstration  of  the  nullity  of  Baal,  1  Kings  xviii.  21  ff. 
(at  the  scene  on  Carmel). 

(1)  Schultz,  in  his  Old  Testament  Theology,  i.  p.  260  ff.,  treats  the 
question  on  the  whole  very  well,  and  in  a  peculiar  way. 

(2)  In  Isa.  vi.  8,  the  seraphim  are  comprehended  in  the  "^y? ; 
Zech.  xiv.  5  speaks  of  the  descent  of  Jehovah  with  all  the  holy 
ones. 

(3)  In  Gen.  xxviii.  15  f.,  the  promise  is  given  to  Jacob  that  God 
will  lead  him  wherever  he  goes ;  Jacob  says  on  awaking :  I  did  not 
know  that  God  is  also  in  this  place.  Thus  the  particularizing  view 
is  here  corrected. 

(4)  Vatke's  remarks  on  this  in  his  Religion  of  the  Old  Testament^ 
pp.  705-707,  are  very  sound  ;  compare  also,  on  the  tendency  to 
monotheism  in  the  Greek  religion,  Roth's  criticism  of  Nligelsbach's 
"  Homeric  Theology,"  Erl  Zeitschr.  1841. 

(5)  Judg.  xi.  24.  Jephthah,  in  negotiating  with  Moab,  says  :  "  Is 
it  not  so,  what  thy  god  Chemosh  gives  thee  to  inherit,  that  thou 
inheritest?" 

(6)  Judaism  is  certainly  right  in  continually  proclaiming  the 
passage  Deut.  vi.  4  (called  the  Vsp^,  from  its  first  word)  as  the  most 
holy  word,  which  includes  the  cardinal  doctrine  of  monotheism. 

(7)  The  designation  of  the  heathen  gods  as  ^Y?^.  (§  42)  speaks 
also  against  this  notion.  It  is  indeed  probable  that  in  1  Cor.  viii.  4  ff., 
X.  19  f.,  Paul,  when  he  uses  the  word  Bat./j,6via  in  speaking  of  the 
Greek  gods,  takes  it  from  the  LXX.  Deut.  xxxii.  17;  but  Paul 
there  maintains,  in  my  opinion,  not  that  the  individual  heathen  gods 
were  demons,  but  only  that  a  demonic  element  prevailed  in  the 
service  of  the  heathen  gods. 


154  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISM.  [§  44, 

IV.   GOD  AS  THE  HOLY  ONE. 
§44. 
Formal  Definition  of  the  Notion. 

God  is  t^'i'li?,  the  Holy  One  (1).  Etymologically,  the  root-meaning 
of  K^ili^  cannot  be  exactly  defined.  According  to  the  most  likely  view, 
the  stem  C'np  is  related  to  mn  (as  3Vp  with  nvn,  Pivp  with  Pvn,  ivp 
with  ivn,  etc.),  and  is  to  be  traced  back  to  the  root  B>T  (from  which 
NK'T  also  comes),  as  the  root-meaning  of  which,  "  enituit,  splendid 
breaking  forth,"  is  to  be  accepted  (2).  Tlius  the  notion  of  the  break- 
ing forth  of  brilliant  light  would  lie  in  the  word ;  compare  specially 
Isa.  X.  17,  where  the  epithet  ''Light  of  Israel"  corresponds  to  the 
Holy  One  of  Israel.  According  to  this,  we  might  define  the  divine 
holiness,  with  Quenstedt  (comp.  also  Thomasius,  Dogmatih,  i.  2d  ed. 
p.  141),  as  the  summa  hi  Deo  puritas.  Certainly  this  lies  in  the 
notion ;  but  in  order  to  get  the  full  meaning  of  the  word,  we  must 
follow  the  historical  development  of  the  notion. 

The  designation  of  God  as  the  Holy  One  appears  first  in  the  Old 
Testament  at  the  redemption  of  Israel  and  the  founding  of  the  theo- 
cracy. The  first  declaration  of  the  divine  holiness  is  found  in 
Moses'  song  of  praise,  Ex.  xv.  11,  where  it  is  said,  in  reference  to 
God's  great  deeds  in  leading  Israel  out  of  Egypt :  "  Who  is  like  Thee 
among  the  gods,  glorious  in  holiness,  to  be  praised  with  awe,  doing 
wonders?"  To  this  it  corresponds  that  also  Israel,  when  received 
into  the  covenant  of  God,  receives  the  predicate  of  the  holy  people, 
xix.  6.  The  stamp  of  holiness  is  so  imprinted  on  the  events  at  the 
founding  of  the  theocracy,  that,  as  Achelis  strikingly  reminds  us 
(in  the  Studien  und  Kritihen,  1847,  p.  192),  in  Ex.  xix.  10,  14  the 
expression  "  sanctify  "  is  used  for  the  same  action  which  is  called  in 
Gen.  XXXV.  2  "  cleanse  yourselves."  All  covenant  regulations  rest 
on  the  principle :  I  am  holy,  and  ye  must  also  be  holy  (Lev.  xi.  44  f., 
and  passages  like  xix.  2,  xx.  8,  xxi.  8). 

When  holiness  is  predicated  of  the  covenant  people  and  covenant 
ordinances,  two  things  are  implied :  Isi,  being  taken  out  of  worldli- 
ness ;  2d,  being  appropriated  by  God, — a  relationship  of  special 
appropriation  to  Him.  If  this  character  of  holiness  clings  to  anything, 
this  never  rests  on  a  natural  quality.     Nothing  created  is  in  itself 


§  41.]  FORMAL  DEFINITION  OF  GOD  AS  THE  HOLY  ONE.  155 

holy.  The  notion  of  natural  purity  and  impurity  does  not  coincide 
with  that  of  holiness  and  unholiness.  The  holiness  of  the  creature 
always  goes  back  to  an  act  of  the  divine  will,  to  divine  election  and 
institution  (3).  In  other  words :  It  is  always  a  state  in  which  the 
creature  is  bound  to  God  by  the  appointment  of  God  Himself,  which  is 
expressed  by  t^'^li^,  tT'nip,  £i''''iipn,  C'lp;  whereas  the  opposite  expressions  hh, 
''^Cj  ''D'!?j  etc.  (comp.  Lev.  x.  10,  xxii.  9,  Ezek.  xxii,  26,  xxxvi.  21,  xxxix. 
7,  etc.),  designate  the  profane  as  set  loose,  freed,  and  abandoned  (4). 

Where  tJ'ili^  is  a  designation  of  a  divine  attribute,  there  evidently 
lies  in  it  primarily  a  negative  element,  by  which  it  designates  a  state 
of  apartness,  God  raising  Himself  up  above  others.  So  Jehovah,  as 
the  Holy  One,  stands  first  in  opposition  to  the  other,  imaginary  gods, 
Ex.  XV.  11 :  "  Who  is  like  Thee  among  the  gods?  who  is  like  Thee, 
glorious  in  holiness!"  And  then  also  in  opposition  to  all  that  is  of 
the  creature,  or,  more  generally  expressed,  to  all  that  is  not  He  Him- 
self, Isa.  xl.  25  :  "  To  whom  will  ye  compare  me  that  I  may  be  like  ? 
saith  the  Holy  One."  In  other  words:  As  the  Holy  One,  God  is  He 
who  is  raised  absolutely  above  the  world  ;  compare  Ps.  xcix.  2-5,  where 
God's  elevation  over  all  people  is  connected  with  His  holiness;  Isa. 
V.  16,  in  which  the  truth  that  the  holy  God  sanctifies  Himself  in 
justice  corresponds  to  His  being  elevated  by  judgment  (comp.  ii.  17). 
Accordingly  this  divine  elevation  is  God's  absolute  uniqueness,  1  Sam. 
ii.  2  :  "  There  is  none  holy  like  Jehovah,  for  there  is  none  but  Thee." 
The  positive  expression  for  God's  absolute  elevation  and  uniqueness 
would  be,  that  in  His  transcendence  above  the  world,  and  in  His 
apartness  from  the  creature,  God  is  He  who  ever  preserves  His  own 
proper  character,  maintaining  Himself  in  that  being  which  is  with- 
drawn from  creation  (5). 

This  element  of  the  divine  holiness  was  held  fast,  though  certainly 
in  a  very  superficial  manner,  by  those  who  defined  holiness  as  the 
incomparableness  and  exclusive  adorableness  of  God.  Thus  Zacliariii 
in  his  Biblical  Theology,  and  more  minutely  Storr  in  his  Doctrina 
Christiana,  §  30(6). — Menken  and  his  school  especially  stood  up  against 
this  conception  of  the  divine  holiness  (7).  They  set  up,  in  opposition  to 
the  ruling  conception,  the  opinion  that  the  divine  holiness  does  not  so 
much  designate  God's  unparalleled  splendour,  as  God's  condescending 
grace,  His  self-abasing  love,  and  thus  did  not  express  the  divine  retire- 


156  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISJI.  [§  44. 

ment  from  the  creature,  but  rather  God's  communication  of  Himself 
to  the  creature ;  according  to  this,  the  expression  t^np  liad  a  meaning 
similar  to  TDJi.  For  this  Menken  referred  to  the  following  main  pas- 
sages : — Ps.  ciii.,  which  proclaims  itself  in  ver.  1  as  the  praise  of  the 
divine  holiness,  and  praises  God  as  the  gracious  One,  He  who  forgives 
sin  and  frees  from  all  evil  (compare  also  Ps.  cv.  3) ;  Hos.  xi.  8  f .,  where 
the  divine  holiness  is  placed  in  connection  with  divine  mercy :  "  My 
mercies  are  kindled  together.  I  will  not  execute  the  fierceness  of  my 
fury,  I  will  not  destroy  Ephraim  again :  for  I  am  God,  and  not  man, 
holy  in  thy  midst;  "  compare  further, Ps.  xxii.  4, xxxiii.  21,  and  other 
texts. — It  was  not  difficult  to  show  that  this  conception  of  Menken 

/  does  not  do  justice  to  the  biblical  notion.  It  cannot  be  denied  that, 
when  God  reveals  Himself  in  His  holiness,  the  main  feeling  awakened 
in  man  is  the  feeling  of  timidity  before  the  severity  and  fearfulness 
of  the  Divine  Being ;  thus  from  Ex.  iii.  5  onwards,  and  (not  to  look 
in  the  first  instance  at  the  Pentateuch)  compare  further  e.g.  1  Sam. 
vi.  20,  in  which,  after  a  dreadful  visitation,  it  is  said :  "  Who  can 
stand  before  Jehovah,  this  holy  God  ?  "  Isa.  vi,,  where  the  prophet, 
on  hearing  the  Trisagion  of  the  seraphim,  cries  out,  ver.  5,  "  Woe  is 
me  !  I  am  undone,  for  I  am  a  man  of  unclean  lips  ;  "  v.  IG,  where,  in 
reference  to  the  approaching  judgment,  it  is  said,  "  The  holy  God 
is  sanctified  in  justice."  The  Alexandrian  translators  had  a  correct 
feeling  for  this  element.  They  translated  the  word  D'Hp  by  dyio^,  an 
expression  derived  from   a^o/xai,  which  just  points  to  that  revering 

'  dread  which  the  holy  thing  demands  for  itself  (8).  But  still,  on  the 
other  side,  it  is  clear  from  the  above-cited  passages  that  the  conception 
of  Menken  must  contain  an  element  of  truth  (9).  This  element  is  found 
in  the  fact  that  the  divine  holiness  contains  not  only  the  divine  self- 

>  preservation,  but  also  the  divine  self-disclosure,  since  God  as  the  Holy 
One  does  not  remain  in  Himself,  but  gives  effect  to  His  holiness  on 
the  outward  world,  by  taking  in  hand  a  separation  within  the  world, 
for  His  own  aims,  electing  a  people  out  of  the  mass  of  the  nations  of 
the  world,  accepting  them  as  His  property,  and  imprinting  on  the 
ordinances  which  He  gives  to  this  people,  and  on  the  historical  provi- 
dence by  which  they  are  guided,  the  stamp  of  this  separation  from 
worldliness,  and  of  this  specific  relation  to  Himself.  See,  as  principal' 
passage,  Lev.  xx.  26  :  "I  am  holy,  and  so  I  have  separated  you  from 


§  41.1  FORMAL  DEFINITION  OF  GOD  AS  THE  HOLY  ONE.  157 

among  the  nations  to  be  mine."  Therefore  the  Holy  One  of 
Israel  (10)  is  Israel's  Maker  (Isa.  xlv.  11)  (compare  §  82),  Israel's 
Eedeemer  (xlix.  7)  (11)  ;  therefore  God,  as  the  holy  God,  is  the  doer 
of  miracles,  t^ba  n^y^  properly  He  that  doeth  "  things  apart,"  Ex. 
XV.  11.  On  the  connection  of  the  notion  of  miracle  with  the  divine 
holiness,  compare  also  Ps.  Ixxvii.  14  f.,  xcviii.  1  (and  §  64)  (12). 
The  way  in  which,  according  to  what  has  been  just  developed,  two  "M/t 
things  lie  in  the  divine  holiness, — that  He  stands  in  opposition  to  the 
world,  and  again,  that  He  removes  this  opposition  by  choosing  in  the 
world  some  whom  he  places  in  communion  with  Himself,  or,  to  make 
use  of  Schmieder's  expression,  the  way  in  which  God's  holiness  is  the 
interpenetration  of  God's  self-preservation  and  self-disclosure, — is  ' 
very  beautifully  expressed  in  Isa.  Ivii.  15  :  "  Thus  saith  the  high  and 
lofty  One,  who  dwells  eternally,  the  Holy  One  is  His  name  ;  I  dwell  in 
the  heights  and  in  the  holy  place,  and  with  those  who  are  broken  and 
humble  in  spirit." — The  passages  urged  by  Menken  are  also  explicable 
from  what  has  been  noted.  All  demonstrations  of  the  divine  covenant 
of  grace  are  the  issues  of  the  divine  holiness.  Outside  of  the  theo- 
cratic relations  it  is  closed  to  the  world ;  but  as  soon  as  the  world 
comes  into  connection  with  the  divine  kingdom,  it  receives  manifesta- 
tions of  the  divine  holiness  (13). 

(1)  In  virtue  of  its  pregnancy,  the  notion  of  the  divine  holiness — 
J.  A.  Bengel  calls  it  vere  inexhaustce  signijicationis — is  one  of  the 
most  difficult  biblical  notions,  on  which  views  quite  contrary  to  one 
another  have  been  brought  forward.  Of  the  literature,  compare 
Achelis,  "  Attempt  to  decide  the  Meaning  of  the  Word  C>np  from  the 
History  of  the  Divine  Revelation,"  in  Ullmann's  Studien  iind  Kritikenj 
1847,  p.  187  ff. ;  Rupprecht,  "  On  the  notion  of  God's  Holiness,"  in 
the  same,  1849,  p.  684  ff. ;  Bahr,  Spnholik  des  mosaischen  KuUics, 
i.  p.  37,  ii.  p.  27  ff. ;  Hofmann,  der  Schriftbeiveis,  2d  ed.  i.  p.  81  ff.; 
Lutz,  bibl.  Dogmatikj  p.  89  ff.,  etc. ;  also  my  article,  "  Heiligkeit 
Gottes,"  in  Herzog's  Realencyhlop.  xix.  p.  618  ff.  Diestel  gives  the 
most  comprehensive  examination  of  the  matter,  "die  Heiligkeit  Gottes," 
Jalirhiicher  fur  deutsche  Theol.  1859,  p.  3  ff. 

(2)  Compare  on  the  etymology,  Delitzsch,  Jesitrun,  p.  155. 

(3)  On  the  holiness  of  the  covenant  people,  com  p.  §  82,  2. — In 
the  same  way,  the  character  of  holiness  attaches  to  localities  which, 
since  the  God  who  revealed  Himself  in  Israel  manifests  His  presence 
in  themj  have  become  appropriated  in  an  especial  manner  by  Him. 


158  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISM.  [§  44. 

First,  in  Ex.  iii.  5,  the  place  of  the  theophany  is  called  holy  ground , 
whilst  in  Gen.  xxvili.  17,  on  a  similar  occasion,  it  was  said,  "  How 
dreadful  ('^1'^^)  is  this  place  ! "  Then  the  tabernacle  is  sanctified  by 
being  filled  with  the  splendour  of  God,  and  because  He  holds  inter- 
course with  His  people  from  this  place  (Ex.  xxix.  43  f.) ;  the  camp 
is  holy,  according  to  Deut.  xxiii.  15,  because  Jehovah  walks  in  the 
midst  of  it.  And  further,  holiness  is  predicated  of  the  times  set  apart 
for  divine  worship  (as  early  as  Gen.  ii.  3,  in  speaking  of  the  seventh 
day  of  the  week,  because  there  already  the  writer  looks  forward  to  the 
theocratic  regulation  to  which  the  institution  of  the  Sabbath  really 
belongs  [see  later]) ;  lastly,  of  the  actions  in  which  the  people  give 
effect  to  their  devotion  to  God,  and  of  the  things  which  they  dedicate 
to  Him,  and  which  thus  pass  into  Plis  ownership. — Diestel,  I.e.,  has  said 
very  rightly,  p.  7 :  "  Inside  Mosaism  the  whole  sphere  of  the  holy 
f  owes  its  origin  to  the  will  of  Jehovah,  who  is  reckoned  throughout  as 
an  absolutely  free  and  powerful  personality.  Therefore,  in  the  most 
rigorous  sense  of  the  word,  nothing  is  holy  in  and  for  itself  till  the 
will  of  Jehovah  declares  it  to  be  His  property"  [in  the  article  cited 
above]. — See  the  details  under  the  head  of  ordinances  of  worship. 

(4)  On  the  latter,  see  Hofmann,  der  Schriftbeweis,  i.  2d  ed.  p.  82. 
But  we  cannot  agree  with  Hofmann,  that  in  ^TiJ^  the  relation  to  God 
is  not  immediately  thought  of,  and  that  it  means,  generally  speaking, 
"  what  stands  outside  the  common  course,  the  common  regulation  of 
things."  That  the  religious  value  of  t^lp  is  inseparable  from  the 
word,  is  shown  also  by  the  expressions  ti'^i'  and  '"i^Hi?,  which  are  only 
employed  in  the  sphere  of  heathenism,  and  which  in  like  manner 
characterize  persons  dedicated  to  the  Deity. — It  is  quite  wrong  to 
explain  the  term  non^D  ^p  by  saying  that  war  "  breaks  through  the 
common  daily  course  of  life."  Nay,  in  all  those  passages  where  the 
expression  occurs,  the  point  in  question  is  a  war  for  the  divine 
cause,  whether  this  is  the  real  design  (Joel  iv.  9)  or  only  the  assertion 
(Mic.  iii.  5)  of  the  combatants,  or  whether  the  notion  is,  that  the 
combat  is  ordained  to  execute  the  divine  counsel  [ibid.']. 

(5)  Upon  this  element  of  divine  self-preservation,  compare  espe- 
cially Schmieder,  BetracJitungen  iiber  das  hohepriesterliche  Gebet,  1848, 
a  book  which  is  not  known  so  well  as  it  deserves  to  be.  He  rightly 
says,  p.  125 :  "  God's  holiness  is  God's  self-preservation,  by  virtue  of 
which  He  remains  like  Himself  in  all  relations  which  either  are  in 
Him  or  on  which  He  enters  in  any  way,  and  neither  gives  up  any 
part  of  His  divinity  nor  accepts  anything  ungodly." 

(6)  Zacharia,  I.e.  p.  242  :  I  am  holy,  means :  "  None  may  be 
honoured  as  God,  as  Jehovah  is  honoured  in  Israel."      Storr,  I.e. : 


§  45.]  MATERIAL  DEFINITION  OF  GOD  AS  THE  HOLY  ONE  159 

"  Divina  natura  vocatur  sancta,  h.  e.  sejuncta  ab  omnibus  aliis  et 
incomparabilis." 

(7)  Menken's  Versuch  einer  Anleitung  zum  eigenen  Unterricht  in 
den  Wahrheiten  dei'  heiligen  Schrift  (a  sort  of  popular  dogmatic),  3d  ed. 
1833,  p.  58  ff.  (complete  edition  of  his  writings,  vi.  p.  46  ff.),  is  especially 
to  be  named ;   compare  also  Achelis,  in  the  above-cited  essay,  p.  198  f. 

(8)  See  on  this  point  the  subtile  remarks  by  Zezschwitz,  Profan- 
grdcitdt  unci  bihl.  Sprachgeist,  1859,  p.  15. 

(9)  "  Holiness,"  says  Schmieder  (Ix.  125)  correctly,  "  would  not 
be  holiness,  but  exclusiveness,  if  it  did  not  presuppose  God's  entrance 
into  multifarious  relations,  and  thereby  revelation  and  communica- 
tion of  Himself." 

(10)  Upon  the  title,  "  The  Holy  One  of  Israel,"  see  Caspari,  in 
the  Zeitschr.  fur  hither.  Tkeol.  1844,  iii.  p.  92  ff. 

(11)  The  restoration  of  Israel  is  also  an  issue  of  the  divine  holi- 
ness, since  God,  in  virtue  of  this  attribute,  effaces  the  antithesis  in 
which  the  rejection  of  Israel  stands  to  His  purpose  of  election  (Ezek. 
xxxvi.  16  ff.,  xxxvii.  26-28)  \ibid.'\. 

(12)  Diestel  errs  most  decidedly  when  he  {I.e.  p.  11)  says : 
^'Jehovah  is  holy,  inasmuch  as  He  belongs  to  the  people  of  Israel, 
inasmuch  as  He  is  Israel's  property." 

(13)  Compare  also  the  doctrine  of  the  kingdom  of  God  in  the 
theology  of  prophecy. 

§45. 

Material  Definition  of  the  Notion. 

But  the  notion  of  the  divine  holiness  has  been  only  formally  de- 
fined by  what  we  have  said  hitherto.  If,  in  order  to  come  at  the 
concrete  side  of  the  matter,  we  proceed  from  the  question.  What  is 
the  purport  of  God's  sanctifying  a  people  to  Himself? — generally 
speaking,  the  answer  is,  that  the  point  in  question  is  the  restoration 
of  a  perfection  of  life  both  inwardly  and  outwardly  (1).  Now,  if  we 
argue  from  this  to  the  purport  of  the  divine  holiness,  it  falls  to  be 
defined  concretely  as  an  absolute  perfection  of  life,  but  with  the 
understanding  that  this  definition  must  essentially  be  understood  in 
an  ethical  sense.  Many,  indeed,  have  gone  further,  among  whom  are 
J.  A.  Bengel  (2)  and  Rupprecht ;  the  view  of  the  latter  (I.e.  p.  691) 
comes  to  this,  that  the  holiness  of  God  designates  the  whole  divine 
perfection,  majesty,  and   blessedness,  *'the  whole  complex  of   that 


IGO  THE  DOCTEINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISM.  [§  45, 

which  we,  in  our  human  imperfection  and  shortsightedness,  are  wont 
to  look  at  and  represent  singly  in  the  individual  attributes  of  God."^ 
— It  is  indeed  true  that  the  notions  of  divine  holiness  and  glory  are- 
related.  We  may  say,  with  Oetinger,  holiness  is  hidden  glory,  and 
glory  disclosed  holiness.  The  tabernacle  and  the  temple,  for  example, 
are  sanctified,  because  Jehovah  filled  them  with  His  glory,  and  made 
His  dwelling-place  in  them  (Ex.  xl.  34;  1  Kings  viii.  11).  In  the 
same  way,  in  Isa.  vi.  3,  the  praise  of  God  as  the  Holy  One  corre- 
sponds to  the  proclamation.  The  earth  is  full  of  His  glory.  But  the 
divine  glory  reaches  beyond  the  spheres  in  which  the  divine  holiness 
operates.  When  it  is  said  in  Gr«*i.  viii.  2,  "  How  glorious  is  Thy  name 
in  all  the  earth ! "  it  could  not  be  said  in  the  same  sense,  "  How  holy 
is  Thy  name,"  etc.  God's  glory  extends  over  nature,  and  is  given 
back  to  Him  by  all  His  creatures  (Ps.  civ.  31) ;  on  the  other  hand, 
the  course  of  nature  serves  the  divine  holiness  only  in  as  far  as  God 
encroaches  on  it  for  the  purposes  of  His  kingdom,  and  makes  use  of 
the  powers  of  nature  for  them.  Thus,  also,  the  divine  spirit  is  not 
the  Holy  Spirit  inasmuch  as  it  is  the  cosmical  principle  of  life,  but  only 
inasmuch  as  it  rules  in  the  theocracy  (Isa.  Ixiii.  10  f. ;  Ps.  li.  13). 

From  this  it  is  sufficiently  clear  that  the  unlimited  extension  of  the 
notion  of  the  divine  holiness  above  cited  cannot  be  correct.  But  let 
us  consider,  further,  what  sort  of  fear  it  is  that  seizes  man  when  God. 
is  revealed  as  the  Holy  One.  It  is  evidently  not  simply  the  feeling  of 
creature  weakness  which  asserts  itself  here,  but  predominantly  and 
specifically  the  feeling  of  human  sinfulness  and  impurity  (Isa.  vi.  5  and 
others).  Hence  it  follows  that  the  divine  holiness,  even  if,  as  absolute 
perfection  of  life,  it  involves  the  negation  of  all  bonds  of  creature  fini- 
tude  (from  which  passages  like  Isa.  xl.  25  are  explained),  is  neverthe- 
less mainly  seclusion  from  the  impurity  and  sinfulness  of  the  creature,, 
or,  expressed  positively,  the  clearness  and  purity  of  the  divine  nature, 
•which  excludes  all  communion  with  what  is  wicked.  In  this  sense  the- 
symbolical  designation  of  the  divine  holiness  is,  that  God  is  light 
(comp.  Isa.  X.  17)  (3). — Now  it  answers  to  this,  that  the  divine  holi- 
ness, in  as  far  as  it  operates  as  an  attribute  of  revelation,  is  not  an 
abstract  power,  which  merely  pronounces  over  the  finite,  as  such,  the 
judgment  of  nothingness,  but  is  the  divine  self-representation  and 
self-testimony  for  the  purpose  of  giving  to  the  world  a  participation 


§  4G.1       CHARACTERISTICS  CONNECTED  WITH  THE  DIVINE  HOLINESS,        161 

in  the  perfection  of  the  divine  life  (4). — By  means  of  this  ethical  con- 
ception of  divine  holiness,  the  Old  Testament  is  distinguished  fronfj 
Islam,  in  which  the  designation  of  God  as  the  Holy  King  shows 
merely  the  divine  elevation  and  majesty,  and  therefore  in  Islam  the 
divine  justice  is  also  conceived  as  the  pure  manifestation  of  the  power 
of  the  omniscient  Omnipotent  (o). 

(1)  See  Diestel,  I.e.  p.  12  ff. 

(2)  On  this  subject  Bengel  expresses  himself  in  a  letter  to  Kasp. 
Neumann  (see  Bengel's  Literary  Correspondence,  published  by  Burk, 
1836,  p.  52  ff.):  "De  Deo  ubi  scriptura  nomen  illud  U'\\>  enunciat, 
statuo  lion  denotare  solam  puritatem  voluntatis,  sed  quicquid  de  Deo 
cognoscitur,  et  quicquid  insuper  de  Illo,  si  se  uberius  revelare  velit, 
cognosci  possit,"  etc.,  on  which  he  seeks  to  prove  that  all  the  divine 
attributes,  also  the  divine  aseity,  eternity,  omnipotence,  etc.,  are  con- 
tained in  holiness.  (The  letter  written  in  1712  is,  however,  to  be 
recognised  as  a  rather  immature  and  youthful  work  in  the  whole  style 
of  treatment.)     [_Ihid~\ 

(3)  Compare  Thomasius,  I.e.  p.  137;  Godet,  la  Sainiete  de  Dieiiy 
Neuch.  1864,  p.  8. 

(4)  In  antithesis  to  the  heathen  gods,  who  more  or  less  foster 
Avickedness  and  are  its  patrons,  it  is  said  of  Israel's  God,  Ps.  v.  5  ff., 
"  Thou  art  not  a  God  whom  crime  delighteth,  neither  shall  a  wicked 
person  dwell  with  Thee;  the  insolent  shall  not  appear  before  Thine  eyes; 
Thou  hatest  all  that  do  evil ;  Thou  blottest  out  those  who  speak  lies ; 
Jehovah  abhors  the  man  of  lying  and  blood."  In  reference  to  this 
ethical  meaning  of  the  divine  holiness,  compare  also  Hos.  xii.  1,  where 
God  is  called  "the  Faithful  and  Holy  One;"  Hab.  i.  12,  in  con- 
nection with  ver.  13;  Job  vi.  10. 

(5)  See  on  this,  Dettinger,  "  Beitrage  zu  einer  Theologie  des 
Korans,"  in  the  Tahinger  Zeitschr.  fiir  Theol.  1834,  i.  p.  25. 

§4G. 

Characteristics  connected  loith  the  Divine  Holiness.     1.  Impossibility 
of  2yicturing  God,  Omnipresence,  Spirituality. 

A  number  of  other  characteristics  of  the  Divine  Beine;  are  connected 
with  the  idea  of  the  divine  holiness,  and  have  still  to  be  developed. 

Inasmuch  as  the  divine  holiness  is  the  withdrawal  of  the  Divine 
Being  from  all  finiteness  of  the  creature,  it  contains  the  impossibility  of 
forming  an  image  of  the  Divine  Being.  For  the  connection  of  the  two 
VOL.  I.  L 


162  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISM.  [§  4C. 

notions  compare  the  passage  Isa.  xl.  25,  already  quoted  (§  44).     On  this 
is  grounded  the  prohibition  to  represent  God  by  an  image.     Certainly 
no  more  would  follow  directly  from  the  passages  Ex.  xx.  4,  Deut.  v.  8, 
than  that  God  is  not  to  be  represented  by  the  image  of  one  of  the 
existing  creatures.     But  Deut.  iv.  15  ff.  shows  that  the  want  of  figure 
and  form  of  the  Divine  Being  is  to  be  taken  generally.     And,  indeed, 
not  only  is  the  contemplation  of  the  Divine  Being  by  an  image  made 
by  the  hand  of  man  excluded,  but  also  the  honouring  of  the  divine 
in  the  constellations,  ver.  19  compared  with  xxix.  25  (1).     Now  if,  on 
the  other  hand,  a  nin"|  n^lJsn  is  spoken  of  in  Num.  xii.  8,  we  are  to 
understand  here,  as  in  the  theophanies  spoken  of  in   Genesis,  that 
there  is  a  distinction  between  the  sinking  of  God's  being  into  visibility, 
and  that  being  in  itself  (2).     Just  as  little  can  any  argument  contra- 
dictory to  the  clear  utterances  of  the  Old  Testament  as  to  the  idea  of 
God  be  drawn  from  anthropomorphisms — if  that  is  the  word  used  in 
the  more  limited  sense,  in  distinction  from  anthropopathies,  to  denote 
those  expressions  in  which  parts  of  the  human  body,  or  more  generally 
human  sense  faculties,  are   transferred  to  God,  so  that  eyes,  ears, 
nose,  etc.,  and  from  that  seeing,  hearing,  smelling,  and  the  like,  are 
used  in  speaking  of  Him.     No  religion  can  dispense  with  such  anthro- 
pomorphic expression  when  it  enters  into  the  sphere  of  representative 
thought,  and  everything  depends  just  on  this,  that  the  incongruity  of 
such  expressions  is  corrected   by  the  whole  conception  of    the  idea 
of  God  (3).     It  is  also  to  be  noted,  that  in  the  later  books  of  the 
Old  Testament,  in  which  are  found  the  strongest  utterances  on  the 
freedom  of  the  Divine  Being  from  creature  forms  (as  Ps.  1.  12  f.,  etc.), 
the  anthropomorphisms  are  not  the  less  frequent. — Still  the  question 
remains  to  be  answered,  whether  and  in  how  far,  according  to  the  Old 
Testament,  the  Divine  Being  is  freed  from  the  limitations  of  space. 
It  is  self-evident  that  the  Pentateuch  regards  God,  to  whom,  Deut. 
X.  14,  the  heaven  and  the  heavens  of  heaven,  the  earth  and  all  that  is 
upon  it,  belong,  as  the  Omnipresent  One,  even  when  such  express 
delineations  of  omnipresence  as  in  Ps.  cxxxix.  are  not  found  in  the 
Pentateuch.     But  still  it  is  urged  in  different  passages,  that  wherever 
man  is,  God  gives  him  to  experience  His  protecting  nearness,  or  more 
generally  expressed.  His  communion.     Compare  passages  like  Gen. 
xvi.  13,  xxviii.  15  ff.,  xlvi.  4,  etc.     For  the  rest,  the  Pentateuch  has 


§  47.]       THE  DIVINE  JUSTICE,  FAITHFULNESS,  AND  TRUTHFULNESS.         1(33 

mainly  to  do  with  the  special  presence  which  God  gives  by  living 
among  His  people,  when  He  localizes  His  face,  His  name,  His  glory — the 
so-called  Shekhina  (comp.  §  63). — The  positive  expression  that  God  is 
spirit  is  not  so  expressly  found  in  the  Old  Testament,  which  is  rather 
accustomed  to  say  that  God  has  the  spirit,  and  causes  it  to  go  out  from 
Him ;  by  which,  however,  the  spirit  is  indicated  as  the  element  of  God's 
life;  compare  Isa.  xl.  13,  Ps.  cxxxix.  7,  and  further  the  contrast,  Isa. 
xxxi.  3  (4).  That  God  is  the  absolute  personality,  is  pregnantly  ex- 
pressed in  the  word  ^^^^  ''3X,  ''  I  am  He,"  Deut.  xxxii.  39,  Isa.  xliii.  10. 

(1)  Deut.  iv.  15  £f. :  "Take  ye  therefore  good  heed  unto  your- 
selves; for  ye  saw  no  manner  of  figure  (ni^?2ri"73)  when  Jehovah 
spake  to  you  in  Horeb  out  of  the  midst  of  the  fire,"  etc.  Ver.  19  : 
"  Thou  shalt  not  lift  up  thine  eyes  unto  heaven ;  and  when  thou  seest 
the  sun  and  the  moon  and  the  stars,  all  the  host  of  heaven,  thou  shalt 
not  suffer  thyself  to  be  seduced  to  worship  them,  and  to  serve  them, 
which  Jehovah  thy  God  hath  divided  unto  all  nations  under  heaven." 
That  the  sense  of  the  latter  words  is  not  that  Jehovah  has  divided 
the  stars  as  lights  and  measurements  of  time  to  all  the  nations  under 
heaven,  cannot,  according  to  xxix.  25,  be  doubted.  It  is  impossible 
to  find  another  meaning  in  the  words  than  that,  whilst  Israel  has  the 
revelation  of  the  true  God,  the  worship  of  the  constellations  is  left 
over  to  the  nations  of  the  earth. 

(2)  On  this,  see  the  doctrine  of  revelation. 

(3)  Luther  says  once  in  his  commentary  on  Genesis,  in  reference 
to  this :  "  Qui  extra  ista  involucra  Deum  attingere  volunt,  isti  sine 
scalis  nituntur  ad  coelum  ascendere. — Necesse  enim  est,  ut  Deus  cum 
se  nobis  revelat,  id  faciat  per  velamen  et  involucrum  quoddam,  et 
dicat :  ecce  sub  hoc  involucro  me  certe  apprehendes." 

(4)  Isa.  xxxi.  3 :  "  The  Egyptians  are  men,  and  not  God ;  and 
their  horses  are  flesli,  and  not  spirit."     Here  n^~i  corresponds  to  bn. 

§47. 

2.   The  Divine  Justice,  Faithfuhiess,  and  TrtitJifidness. 

The  attributes  of  divine  justice  and  divine  faithfulness  and  truth 
are  connected  with  the  divine  holiness  in  its  ethical  value.  These 
attributes  are  conjoined  in  the  main  passage,  Deut.  xxxii.  4.  The 
passage  characterizes  Jehovah  as  the  rock,  that  is,  as  the  immoveable 
basis  of  confidence ;  and  gives  the  reason  for  this  by  pointing  to  the 


164  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISM.  [§  47. 

perfection  and  unblameableness  of  the  Divine  Being  and  government, 
in  virtue  of  which  God  is  desiiinated  the  Truthful  and  Ilis;hteous 
One  (1).     Here  we  have  first  to  enter  on  the  notion  of  divine  justice 

(ne"]>')(2). 

God  is  P'''\!V.  The  root-meaning  of  pHi*  is  (after  the  Arabic)  "  to 
be  straight;"  and  so,  according  to  its  original  meaning,  the  expression 
corresponds  most  nearly  with  IB**,  with  which  it  is  conjoined  in  the 
above  passage.  The  word  P"'^^  expresses  what  is  straight  and  right, 
in  the  way  that  God  in  His  government  always  does  what  is  suit- 
able :  namely,  first,  what  answers  fully  to  His  aim  ;  and  secondly, 
what  answers  to  the  constitution  of  the  object  of  the  divine  action. 
Specially,  but  not  exclusively,  the  sphere  in  which  the  ni?"!^*  finds 
utterance  is  the  judicial  activity  of  God.  But  divine  justice,  not- 
withstanding its  close  connection  with  divine  holiness,  has  the  pecu- 
liarity that  its  sphere  of  action  extends  outside  of  the  theocracy  and 
theocratic  relations  ;  nay,  in  one  passage  in  the  Old  Testament,  even 
the  animals  are  subsumed  under  the  government  of  the  divine  i^pl)i, 
Ps.  xxxvi.  7  (3)  ;  a  declaration  to  which  JoJ^p  iv.  11  offers  an  elucida- 
tion. Still  the  proper  sphere  of  God's  just  government  is  mankind, 
and  this  without  limit,  even  where  humanity  is  out  of  all  relation  to 
the  divine  kingdom.  According  to  Gen.  xviii.  25,  Jehovah  is  judge 
of  all  the  earth,  and  as  such  He  will  exercise  right,  and  not  permit 
the  lot  of  the  godless  to  fall  on  the  righteous  (4).  In  this  connection, 
in  which  God  gives  to  every  one  his  due,  p'^V  appears  also  in  Ex.  ix. 
27,  where  Pharaoh  says,  in  giving  honour  to  God's  justice  :  "  Jehovah 
is  the  Just  One  (P'''^^*']),  I  and  my  people  are  the  offenders  (DW"]n)." 
This  passage  and  that  of  Deut.  xxxii.  4,  from  which  we  started,  are 
the  only  ones  in  the  Pentateuch  in  which  the  justice  of  God  is 
expressed.  Holiness  is  indeed  the  principle  of  the  theocratic  regu- 
lation. To  be  sure,  what  is  said  in  Isa.  v.  16,  in  reference  to  the 
judgment,  "The  holy  God  is  sanctified  by  justice,"  must  apply 
generally  to  the  government  of  God  in  His  kingdom  (as  presented 
already  in  the  Pentateuch)  ;  all  God's  deeds  which  constitute  the 
divine  guidance  of  the  kingdom,  and  bring  about  the  right,  the 
f'tpet^'p  which  the  Pentateuch  sets  forth,  are  thus  manifestations  of 
His  ni5'iv.  But  it  was  the  work  of  prophecy  to  fix  the  n\)l)i  as  the 
attribute  which   acts  in  the  ways  of   the  divine  kingdom  for   the 


§  4S.]  THE  JEALOUS  GOD.  165 

realization  of  the  holy  aim,  as  on  the  other  side  the  general  ethical 
relations  of  the  divine  justice  are  discussed  in  the  Psalms  and  in  the 
Hebrew  Chochma.  As  in  the  idea  of  Jehovah  who  is  the  absolutely 
persistent  One  (comp.  §  39),  so  also  in  the  idea  of  the  holy  One  in 
virtue  of  its  ethical  contents,  the  attribute  of  truth  and  faith  is  given; 
compare  Isa.  xlix.  7,  \^^J  ^f^^  nin^ ;  Hos.  xii.  1,  I»X3  D^pinp  ==  the 
faithful  All-holy  One.  From  this  God  is  called  ^J^»^i5  biA  in  the 
above-cited  passage  in  Deut.  xxxii.  4,  and  in  Ps.  xxxi.  6  J^?p^5  7S  ; 
and  the  denomination  of  God  as  "i^V,  rock,  safe  retreat,  in  the  pas- 
sage in  Deuteronomy  just  refers  to  this.  The  antiquity  of  this  last 
name  is  especially  indicated  by  its  frequent  occurrence  in  personal 
names  in  the  Pentateuch :  "l^^*7^5  (my  God  is  a  I'ock),  Num.  i.  5  ; 
i'sn^iV  (my  rock  is  God),  iii.  35 ;  '•"iic'nVi'  (my  rock  is  the  Almighty), 
i.  6 ;  "iivnnQ  (the  rock  redeems),  i.  10  (comp.  §  88,  note  8).  In  the  Old 
Testament  this  attribute  is  specially  fixed  in  reference  to  the  divine 
word  of  promise,  and  the  agreement  of  the  divine  action  therewith. 
One  of  the  chief  passages  in  the  Pentateuch  is  Num.  xxiii.  19  :  com- 
pare 1  Sam.  XV.  29,  Ps.  xxxvi.  6  (5). 

(1)  Deut.  xxxii.  4:  "The  Rock,  His  doing  is  blameless,  for  all 
His  ways  are  right :  a  faithful  God,  and  without  fault,  just  and 
upright  is  He." 

(2)  Compare  Diestel,  "  die  Idee  der  Gerechtigkeit,  vorziiglich  im 
A.  T.,  biblisch-theologisch  dargestellt,"  Jahrb.  fur  deiitsche  Theol. 
1860,  p.  173  ff. 

(3)  Ps.  xxxvi.  7 :  "  Thy  justice  is  like  the  mountains  of  God  ; 
Thou,  Jehovah,  helpest  man  and  beast." 

(4)  In  this  lies  an  element  which  is  quite  essential  to  the  np1)i, 
namely,  that  it  is  always  action  by  rule  and  measure. 

(5)  Num.  xxili.  19  :  "  God  is  not  a  man,  that  He  should  lie  ;  nor 
a  son  of  man,  that  He  should  repent  of  anything :  shall  He  speak,  and 
not  do?  shall  He  talk,  and  not  accomplish?" — Ps.  xxxvi.  6:  "Thy 
righteousness  reacheth  to  the  clouds,"  that  is,  it  has  neither  measure- 
ment nor  end,  like  human  faithfulness. 

§48. 
3.  The  Jealous  God. 
Lastly,  there  lies  m  the  idea  of  divine  holiness  the  characteristic 
jealous  God,  Wj^  ^  (or  si3p  i^x),  Ex.  xxxiv.  14  (1) ;    Deut.  vi.  15. 


1G6  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISM.  [§  48. 

The  divine  zeal  is  just  the  energy  of  divine  hohness  ;  this  notion 
stands  in  the  same  relation  to  that  of  holiness  as  the  notion  of  '•n  7J< 
to  the  idea  of  Jehovah  ;  hence  it  is  said  in  Josh.  xxiv.  19  :  "  The  All- 
holy  God,  that  is,  the  NiSi?  7^«."  The  divine  ns^ip  has  a  double  form  : 
1.  It  turns  itself  avengingly  against  every  violation  of  the  divine 
will.  In  virtue  of  His  i^^?!?,  the  holy  God  extirpates  all  that  rises  in 
opposition  to  Him,  God's  jealousy  turiis  especially  against  idolatry, 
by  which  the  divine  uniqueness  is  attacked,  see  e.g.  Deut.  xxxii. 
21  (2),  but  generally  against  all  sin  by  which  God's  holy  name  is  dese- 
crated ;  the  El-kanna  is  |iy  ^pb,  Ex.  xx.  5,  compared  with  Josh.  xxiv. 
19.  Thus  the  divine  nwip  manifests  itself  as  divine  wrath,  ^X,  ^I'^V.y  ^Vi?> 
and  such  like  expressions  (3).  For  wrath  (as  Ullmann  has  strikingly 
defined  it)  is  the  powerful  excitement  of  the  voluntative  (loollenden) 
spirit  which  arises  in  opposition  to  restraint,  and  thus  the  wrath  of 
God  is  the  highest  strained  energy  of  the  holy  will  of  God,  the  zeal 
of  His  wounded  love.  Compare,  on  the  connection  of  the  two  notions, 
jealousy  and  wrath,  Deut.  vi.  15,  xxxii.  21  f.,  Ps.  Ixxviii.  58  f.  The 
consuming  power  of  wrath  is  symbolized  by  fire ;  hence  in  Deut.  iv. 
24  it  is  said,  "  A  consuming  fire  is  the  K3i?  7^"  a  fire  which  burns 
down  to  the  world  of  Hades;  comp.  xxxii.  21  f.  The  inner  essential 
connection  of  wrathful  jealousy  with  the  divine  holiness  is  made 
especially  clear  by  the  passage  Isa.  x.  17  :  "  The  Light  of  Israel 
becomes  a  fire,  and  his  Holy  One  a  flame,  which  burn  and  consume 
his  thorns  and  briers."  Just  because  the  wrath  is  a  manifestation  of 
divine  holiness,  the  occasion  of  its  outburst  (as  Ritschl  and  Diestel 
have  rightly  urged)  does  not  lie  in  a  capricious  divine  humour  or 
natural  malignity,  as  the  gods  of  the  heathen  fall  into  a  passion,  but 
wholly  in  the  person  smitten  by  it.  Because  man  disowns  and  casts 
away  the  witness  of  the  holy  God  which  was  given  to  him,  justice 
must  be  done  upon  him  in  his  resistance  to  God's  will,  which  alone  is 
in  the  right,  by  his  being  reduced  to  his  nothingness.  Breach  of  the 
covenant,  and  the  malignant  interruption  of  the  aim  of  the  covenant, 
are  the  offences  that  chiefly  kindle  the  divine  wrath ;  comp.  Ex.  xxxii. 
10,  Num.  XXV.  3,  Deut.  xxxi.  17  in  connection  with  ver.  16.  The 
contrast  to  the  divine  wrath  is  what  the  Old  Testament  expresses  by 
means  of  Dm,  Dn^nrij  which  literally  mean  breathing  in,  fetching  one's 
breath.     But  the  manifestation  of  wrath  also  receives  its  measure 


§  48.]  THE  JEALOUS  GOD.  167 

from  divine  holiness,  which  measure  is  ordained  by  the  divine  aim 
of  salvation,  and  hence  it  is  not  the  sway  of  blind  passion  ;  comp. 
passages  like  Hos.  xi.  9,  Jer.  x.  24,  and  the  parable  Isa.  xxviii. 
2d£{4). 

2.  Jehovah  is  not  jealous  for  Himself  alone,  but  also  for  His  holy 
people,  in  so  far  as  they  are  in  a  position  of  grace,  or  are  taken  intp 
favour  again  by  Him.  From  this  side  the  nsJi'p  is  the  zeal  of  love,  as 
an  energetic  vindication  of  the  unmatched  relationship  in  which  God 
has  placed  His  people  to  Himself.  The  thing  is  found  in  Dent,  xxxii. 
36  ff. ;  but  the  expression  p  5<3ip,  ''  to  be  jealous  for,"  is  not  found  till 
the  prophets,  Joel  ii.  18,  Zech.  i.  14,  viii.  2.  On  this  side  also  the 
nN3p  is  a  kindling,  but  a  kindling  in  pity ;  comp.  Hos.  xi.  8,  '''2inj  =11033. 
According  to  this,  God's  sparing  mercy,  ^»n,  Joel  ii.  18,  is  developed 
from  '"'^5pip.  The  connection  of  these  notions  stands  out  with  spgcial 
distinctness  in  Ex.  xxxii.  ff.  When  the  divine  wrath  goes  out  against 
the  people,  xxxii.  10,  after  the  first  breach  of  the  covenant  at  Sinai, 
Moses  appeases  it,  ver.  11  f.,  by  awakening  the  other  side  of  the 
divine  zeal,  inasmuch  as  it  is  a  point  of  honour  with  God  as  against 
Egypt  to  complete  the  work  of  redemption  begun  upon  the  people ; 
and  so  the  manifestation  of  wrath  turns  round  and  makes  room  for  the 
divine  mercy,  xxxiv.  6. — The  anthropopathies  of  the  Old  Testament 
fall  for  the  most  part  under  what  is  here  discussed  ;  that  is,  those 
utterances  about  God  in  which  human  emotions  and  the  change  of 
these  emotions  are  attributed  to  Him.  These,  in  the  sense  of  the  Old 
Testament,  are  not,  like  the  anthropomorphisms,  to  be  regarded  purely 
as  figurative  expressions.  They  actually  express  real  relations  of 
God  to  the  world,  and  are  only  designated  after  the  analogy  of  human 
conditions.  If  a  change  of  such  conditions  is  spoken  of,  this  means 
only  a  change  of  the  relation  in  which  the  divine  holiness,  which  is 
in  itself  changeless,  enters  to  changeable  man.  Thus  it  may  be  said, 
Ps.  xviii.  26  f. :  "  Towards  the  pious  Thou  showest  Thyself  pious  ;  to 
the  upright  man  Thou  showest  Thyself  upright ;  towards  the  pure 
Thou  showest  Thyself  pure  ;  and  to  the  perverse  Thou  showest  Thy- 
self perverse."  The  same  God  whose  guidance  approves  itself  to  the 
pious  as  pure  and  good,  must  appear  like  a  malicious  power  to  the 
perverse  whose  path  He  crosses.  Especially  1  Sam.  xv.  shows  that 
the  Old  Testament  does  not  suppose  a  change  in  the  divine  nature 


168  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISM.  [§  49. 

itself.  Samuel  says,  ver.  29  :  "  The  Rock  of  Israel  does  not  deceive, 
and  does  not  repent  of  anything ;  for  He  is  not  a  man,  that  He  should 
repent  of  anything ;"  and  immediately  after  it  is  said,  ver.  35 : 
"  Jehovah  repented  that  He  had  made  Saul  king."  The  anthropo- 
pathies  serve  to  keep  wakeful  and  strong  the  consciousness  of  the 
living  holy  God,  the  idea  of  whom  man  so  willingly  volatilizes  into 
abstractions. 

(1)  Ex.  xxxiv.  14:  "  Jehovah,  the  jealous  One,  is  His  name;  He  is 
a  jealous  God." 

(2)  Deut.  xxxii.  21 :  "  They  provoked  mv  zeal,  ''3^5^?i?,  by  their 
idols." 

(3)  The  wrath  of  God  has  of  late  years  been  discussed  in  several 
monographs.  Comp.  Ritschl,  de  ira  Dei,  1859 ;  Weber,  vom  Zorne 
Gottes,  1862  ;  Bartholomai,  "  vom  Zorne  Gottes,"  in  the  Jahrbuch  fur 
deutsche  T/ieol.  1861,  p.  256  ff. 

(4)  Hos.  xi.  9  :  "  I  will  not  execute  my  wrath's  fury,  nor  destroy 
Ephraim  again ;  for  I  am  God  and  not  man,  holy  in  the  midst  of 
thee." — Compare  further  the  prophetic  part  of  the  book. 


SECOND  CHAPTER. 

THE  RELATION  OF  GOD  TO  THE  WORLD. 

§  49. 

General  Sarvei/. 

The  knowledge  that  the  existence  of  the  world  is  absolutely  due 
to  the  divine  causality  is  completed  in  three  doctrines : — 

1.  When  reflection  is  directed  on  the  existence  of  the  world,  both 
as  to  its  beginning  and  as  to  its  subsistence,  we  reach  the  doctrine  of 
the  creation  and  maintenance  of  the  world. 

2.  When  we  consider  how  the  world  is  so,  and  not  otherwise,  we 
get  the  doctrine  of  the  aim  of  the  world  and  of  divine  providence,  with 
which  is  connected  the  question  of  the  relation  of  the  divine  causality 
to  the  wickedness  and  evil  in  the  world. 

3.  God  enters  on  a  peculiar  relation  to  the  world  for  the  realization 
of  His  aim ;  the  means  by  which  God  brings  about  this  His  special 
relation  to  the  world  is  delineated  in  the  doctrine  of  revelation. 


§  50.]  CREATION  BY  THE  WOKD.  169 

rmST   DOCTRINE. —  ON   THE   CREATION  AND   MAINTENANCE   OF   THE 

WORLD. 

I.   ON  THE  CREATION. 

§  50. 
1.  Creation  by  the  Word, 

The  Mosaic  doctrine  of  creation  rests  on  the  two  points,  that  the 
production  of  the  world  follows  by  the  Word  and  by  the  Spirit  of  God.. 

The  form  of  the  creation  of  the  world  is  the  speaking  of  God's 
word;  God  says  that  the  things  shall  be,  and  they  are,  Gen.  i.  3, 
6,  9,  etc.  Plerein  it  lies  that  the  world  originated  through  a  conscious, 
free  divine  deed,  for  the  word  is  just  an  utterance  of  conscious  and 
free  will.  Therefore,  in  Ps.  xxxiii.  9,  Hj^  corresponds  to  "lON ;  com- 
pare ver.  6,  cxlviii.  5,  Isa.  xlviii.  13,  Ps.  cxxxv.  6  (1).  This  excludes, 
first,  every  theory  of  the  origin  of  the  world  by  which  the  divine 
being  itself  is  drawn  down  into  the  genesis  of  the  world ;  and  secondly, 
also  the  theory  according  to  which  the  divine  productive  activity  was 
conditioned  at  least  by  something  existing  originally  outside  of  God, 
and  thereby  limited.  In  the  former  respect  the  Old  Testament 
doctrine  stands  in  decided  opposition  to  the  theories  of  emanation  in 
the  oriental  cosmogonies,  in  which  the  creation  of  the  world  is  made 
subject  to  a  necessity  of  nature.  That  conception  of  the  account  of 
the  creation,  Gen.^i.,  which  seeks  to  find  in  it  a  doctrine  of  emanation, 
is  quite  untenable ;  namely,  that  originally  there  was  nothing  but 
emptiness  and  voidness,  that  is,  the  original  substance  swallowed  up  in 
darkness,  and  that  God,  who  bore  in  Himself  the  seed  of  the  creature, 
appears  first  in  ver.  3,  and  causes  it  to  proceed  from  Him  (2).  This  view 
mistakes  the  connection  of  ver.  2  with  ver.  1,  and  the  Old  Testament 
meaning  of  Ji^in.  That  there  is  also  no  notion  of  the  nature  of  emana- 
tion in  Ps.  xc.  2,  in  case  -'^inni  as  second  person  refers  to  God  (which 
is  certainly  the  most  probable  explanation),  is  shown  by  the  use  of 
the  word  in  Deut.  xxxii.  18,  Prov.  xxv.  23.  The  view  of  the  divine 
creation  as  generation  is  purely  poetical ;  comp.  also  Job  xxxviii.  28  f. 
The  divine  creation  is  not  a  dreamy  weaving  of  the  original  substance 
in  which  it  produces  the  world  from  itself  of  necessity,  but  a  waking, 
free  production  (3).  It  is  a  fairer  subject  of  discussion  whether,  in 
Genesis,  chap.  i.  does  not  assume  an  eternal  elementary  matter  (afj,op(})09 


170  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISM.  [§  HO. 

vXt),  Wiscl.  xi.  18)  independent  of  God,  and  so  teach  not  so  much  a 
creator  of  the  world  as  a  shaper  of  the  ■world — a  Demiurge.  But 
even,  according  to  the  conception  of  vers.  1—3  now  beginning  to  find 
curx'ency,  "In  the  beginning"  (n"'^X7.  ^s  status  constr.),  "when  God 
created  heaven  and  earth  ;"  then  ver.  2  as  parenthesis,  "  But  the  earth 
was  a  waste  ;"  ver.  3,  "  God  said,  Let  there  be  light," — the  passage  does 
not  teach  that  the  creative  formation  of  the  cosmos  followed  on  the 
presupposition  of  a  chaos,  but  does  not  say  anything  at  all  about  this 
chaos,  whether  it  proceeded  from  God  or  whether  it  was  eternal.  For 
the  rest,  the  construction  adopted  by  this  explanation  is  decidedly 
contradictory  to  the  thoroughly  simple  formation  of  the  sentences  in 
the  first  chapter.  But  if  ver.  1  is  understood,  according  to  another 
view,  as  a  title,  a  summary  abridgment  of  the  contents  of  the  chapter, 
still  (as  Delitzsch  remarks)  the  ^^'y\,  inn  does  not  appear  as  a  state  with- 
out besinnino;  Ivino:  behind  the  work  of  creation,  but  the  N"i3  JT'C^Nia 

OOi/O  ^  XT'"; 

stands  at  the  head  of  all.  The  third  exposition  seems,  however,  to 
be  the  simplest,  that  ver.  1  is  not  meant  to  be  a  title  of  the  whole, 
but  just  the  declaration  how  a  first  creation  of  heaven  and  earth  as 
prima  materia  preceded  the  process  portrayed  from  the  second  verse 
onwards ;  compare  how  Job,  xxxviii.  4-7,  supposes  a  prius  preceding 
the  creation  of  the  earth.  By  the  absolute  n-L^'t^"!  the  divine  creation 
is  fixed  as  an  absolute  beginning,  not  as  a  working  on  something 
which  already  existed,  and  heaven  and  earth  is  wholly  subjected  to 
the  lapse  of  time,  which  God  transcends;  compare  Ps.  xc.  2,  cii.  26. 
The  expression  N"i3,  in  agreement  with  the  meaning  of  its  root,  which 
is  (-13,  -ID,  compare  rr\l,  piD,  yiD,  "ns,  ms,  K'lD,  etc.)  "  to  cleave,  divide, 
separate,"  might  certainly  favour  the  view  that  only  a  shaping  of  the 
world  is  spoken  of ;  but  the  constant  use  of  N"i3  in  the  Old  Testament 
is  against  this  (4),  the  word  being  always  used  to  express  the  produc- 
tion of  something  new  which  has  not  a  previous  existence,  as  in  Ps. 
civ.  30  5<'^5  stands  parallel  to  ti'^n^  to  make  new.  Thus  the  fact  is 
explained  that  Nn3  never  appears  in  speaking  of  human  working,  and 
is  never  joined  with  the  accusative  of  the  matter  out  of  which  anything 
is  created,  as  is  the  case  with  "iV^  (compare  Gen.  i.  27  "with  ii.  7),  with 
nby,  and  other  words  of  this  class.  It  is  clear  from  this  discussion 
that  Mosaism  places  itself  over  all  natural  religions  by  the  saying,  "In 
the  beffinninii  God   created  the  heaven   and  the  earth."     ITence  in 


§  £0.J  CREATION  BY  THE  WOUD,  171 

Ps.  cxxi.  2  Jehovah  is  called  psj  n]Diy  nbj?;  Isa.  xlv.  18  says,  N^b  nin^ 
ribV)  Yl^^  "i-f'  ^'^^^.^  ^^^  i^^^fO;  He  is  as  such  in  Gen.  xiv.  22,  a^Of  npi? 
n?3)  in  which  is  implied  both  preparer  and  possessor  of  heaven  and 
earth  (for  the  former  meaning  of  T]2pj  compare  Deut.  xxxii.  6,  Ps. 
cxxxix.  6).  The  idea  of  creation  out  of  nothing,  that  is,  that  God 
did  not  produce  the  world  out  of  anything  outside  of  Himself,  is 
in  accordance  with  the  doctrine  of  Mosaism,  and  does  not,  as  Ewald 
curiously  supposes,  become  Old  Testament  doctrine  about  the  time  of 
Amos  (5).  How  later  reflection  laid  hold  of  the  simple  utterances  of 
the  record  of  creation,  and  carried  out  further  the  thoughts  contained 
in  them,  is  especially  shown  in  Ps.  civ.  (which  is  really  a  commentary 
on  Gen.  i.). 

(1)  Ps.  xxxiil.  9,  "»bj;;i  mv  ^^^^  \^'l  ^'?^  «^^;  ver.  6:  "The  heavens 
were  made  by  the  word  of  Jehovah." — Ps.  cxlviii.  5:  "He  com- 
manded, and  they  were  created." — According  to  Isa.  xlviii.  13,  heaven 
and  earth  stand  there  at  His  call. — Ps.  cxxxv.  6:  "All  that  pleased 
Jehovah  (^sn  "ic^'X  73)  He  has  made  in  heaven  and  on  earth,  in  the 
seas  and  all  deeps." 

(2)  Johannsen  especially  takes  this  view  in  his  book,  The  Cosmo- 
gonies of  the  Indians  and  Hehreios  discussed  by  comparing  the  Cosmogoiuj 
of  Manu  and  Moses,  1833. 

(3)  In  so  far,  Ewald  has  handled  the  matter  very  well  in  his 
treatise,  "  Erklarung  der  biblischen  Urgeschichte,"  in  his  first  Jahrb. 
der  hibl.  Wissensch.  1848.  He  says,  p.  80  :  "The  free  creating  God  of 
the  Old  Testament — how  different  from  the  heathen  god,  who  has  much 
ado  to  create,  and  so  at  length  free  himself  completely  from  matter, 
who  has  to  exercise  himself  in  creating,  who  also  creates  evil,  and  has 
no  idea  that  the  creature,  as  a  thing  divine  and  true,  must  in  the  last 
issue  be  purely  good !  The  Bible  God  does  not  first  approach,  as  it 
were  by  chance,  the  matter  already  there,  or  lazily  make  one  sub- 
stance merely  proceed  from  another ;  He  is  a  purely  original  active 
Creator,  who  comprehends  everything  strictly,  and  firmly  advances 
forwards." 

(4)  As  is  acknowledged  also  by  Gesenius  in  the  Thesaurus,  i. 
p.  235  f. 

(5)  Ewald  thinks.  I.e.  p.  85,  that  when  God  is  represented  as 
former  of  the  mountains  (Amos  iv.  13  compared  with  Ps.  xc.  2), 
the  old  chaos  is  hereby  abolished,  and  the  activity  of  the  Creator 
extended  as  far  as  possible. 


172  THE  DOCTRINES  AKD  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISM.  [§51. 

§51. 
2.  The  Divine  Spirit  in  the  Creation. 

When  the  world  is  posited  outside  of  God,  it  still  originates  and 
subsists  only  by  the  life  imparted  to  it  from  His  Spirit ;  thus  it  is  not 
separated  from  Him,  although  distinct  from  Him. 

Because  the  world  is  called  into  being  by  a  free  divine  act,  and  so 
is  other  than  God,  its  life  is  not  a  life  of  God  in  it,  but  yet  is  a  life 
imparted  to  it  out  of  the  divine  fulness  of  life.  This  lies  in  the 
doctrine  of  the  divine  n^l  (1).  The  life  of  the  creature,  according 
to  the  record  of  creation,  does  not  proceed  fi'om  the  chaotic  mass ; 
but  life  comes  from  the  God  who,  in  Ps.  xxxvi.  10,  is  quite  gene- 
rally called  the  spring  of  life  (Q''*n  lipp)  to  the  matter  created  by 
Him.  According  to  Gen.  i.  2,  the  Spirit  of  God  acts  on  the  privia 
materia,  on  the  chaotic  earth ;  it  moves  (nsn"iO)  over  the  earth.  The 
meaning  "  to  brood,"  which  is  here  given  to  ^in"!  by  many  expositors, 
cannot  be  proved  from  Deut.  xxxii.  11,  as  there  the  word  stands 
rather  in  the  meaning  of  a  hovering  flight ;  but  it  appears  in  the 
Syriac,  and  certainly  a  reference  to  the  mother's  life-giving  activity 
may  be  found  in  fim,  which  is  connected  with  Dm.  But  that 
the  Spirit  of  God,  as  the  principle  of  animation,  is  not  merely  a 
physical  power,  is  not  separated  from  the  word  as  a  declaration  of  the 
will,  but  is  only  effective  in  the  creative  word,  and  that  thus  the 
(X\  l||tter  is  itself  endued  with  the  power  of  life,  is  indicated  by  the  ex- 
pression in  Ps.  xxxiii.  6,  where  the  Spirit  is  characterized  as  the  Spirit 
of  the  divine  mouth  ;  it  lies  also  in  Isa.  xl.  13  (2),  that  the  Divine 
Spirit  acting  in  the  creation  is  a  consciously  working,  an  intelligent 
power,  as,  according  to  Ps.  cxxxix.  7,  the  divine  omnipresence  in  the 
world  acts  by  means  of  the  all-penetrating  Spirit  of  God.  It  is  this 
Divine  Spirit  (comp.  §  70)  which,  as  Q'":']  riDC'J,  as  the  breath  of  life, 
is  breathed  into  man  by  a  particular  act  (Gen.  ii.  7  ;  comp.  Job 
xxvii.  3),  and  from  which  all  creature-life  continually  proceeds  (Ps. 
civ.  29  f. ;  comp.  Job  xii.  10)  (3).  The  doctrine  of  the  creative 
word  prevents  this  derivation  of  creature  life  from  the  divine  source 
from  being  understood  as  a  doctrine  of  emanation ;  as  also  do  the 
expressions,  ianpa  Dnx'nn  '\):\  Zech.  xii.  1 ;  ':m  ^^'nr\,  Job  xxxiii.  4. 


§  52.]  THE  MAINTENANCE  OF  THE  WORLD.  173 

The  creature  life  proceeds  from  God,  but  it  does  not  flow  from  God, 
but  is  imparted  freely  by  God  to  the  creature ;  comp.  Isa.  xlii.  5 
("  He  who  giveth  the  n^i ").  It  is  not  a  life  which  God  lives  in 
the  creature,  but  a  relatively  independent  life  of  the  creature  from 
God,  which  is  taught  by  these  passages. 

(1)  On  this  subject  we  have  a  thorough  monograph  by  Kleinert, 
"  zur  alttest.  Lehre  vom  Geiste  Gottes,"  Jahrh.  filr  deutsche  Theol. 
1867,  p.  3  ff. 

(2)  Isa.  xl.  13 :  "  Who  hath  weighed  (fathomed)  Jehovah's  Spirit 
(in  which  resteth  His  counsel.  His  thoughts)  ?  and  who  was  His 
adviser,  who  instructed  Him  ?  " 

(3)  Thus  originate  the  "^^^^i^  nimn  (Num.  xvi.  22),  in  which  just 
the  one  Spirit  of  God  is  immanent  in  the  creatures.  Because  the 
Old  Testament  does  not  pause  at  the  multiplicity  of  the  ninn,  but 
refers  them  back  to  the  One  Spirit,  the  doctrine  of  the  Spirit  of  God 
is,  as  Kleinert  {I.e.  p.  8  ff.)  says,  the  most  powerful  vehicle  of  the 
Old  Testament  monotheistic  contemplation  of  the  world. 


II.   ON  THE  MAINTENANCE  OF  THE  WOELD. 

§52. 

The  maintenance  of  the  world  is,  on  the  one  hand,  distinguished  in 
the  Old  Testament  from  the  creation  ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
divine  activity  taking  place  in  it  is  placed  under  the  same  determining 
principles  as  constitute  the  notion  of  creation. 

1.  The  maintenance  is  distinguished  from  the  creation  of  the 
world  even  in  the  account  of  the  creation,  inasmuch  as,  according  to 
Gen.  ii.  2,  the  production  of  the  classes  of  creatures  has  a  conclusion 
which  is  formed  by  the  Sabbath  of  creation  (1).  A  relative  inde- 
pendence is  conferred  on  the  living  beings  called  into  existence  by 
the  creation  by  the  faculty  of  reproduction.  Gen.  i.  11,  xxii.  28;  the 
continuance  of  the  system  of  the  world  is  pledged  by  the  covenant 
with  Noah,  Gen.  viii.  21.  On  this  world-covenant  rest  the  ^)t^f  J^ipn 
K"!^3,  Jer.  xxxiii.  25,  compared  with  vers.  20  and  21,  36,  to  which 
*'  ordinances  of  heaven  and  earth  "  the  course  of  the  world  is  bound, 
Ps.  cxlviii.  6  (2).  In  connection  with  the  laws  by  which  the  duration 
of  each  sphere  of  existence  is  ordained,  compare  also  such  passages  as 
Jer.  V.  22,  Ps.  civ.  9,  Job  xxxviii.  10,  xiv.  5. 


174  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISM.  [§  52, 

2.  The  duration  of  this  system  of  the  world  is  established  at  each 
moment  by  the  divine  omnipotence  ;  the  relative  independence  of  the 
creature  remains  an  independence  lent  to  it.  The  maintenance  of  the 
world  rests  continually  on  the  same  principles  as  the  creation,  on 
God's  word  of  command,  which  He  utters  continually,  or,  as  it  is  also 
expressed,  sends  forth  (compare,  besides  the  passages  already  cited 
above,  which  also  bear  on  this  point,  Ps.  cxlviii.  5,  xxxiii.  9,  and  in 
particular  Ps.  cxlvii.  15-18)  (3)  ;  and  it  rests  just  as  continually  on 
the  Divine  Spirit,  which  He  causes  ever  to  go  forth.  The  main 
passage  for  this  divine  communication  of  the  Spirit  which  continues 
in  the  maintenance  of  the  world  is  again  Ps.  civ.  29  f.  :  "  Thou 
takest  away  their  (the  creatures')  spirit,  and  they  die,  and  turn  again 
to  their  dust ;  Thou  sendest  forth  Thy  Spirit,  and  they  are  created ; 
and  Thou  renewest  the  form  of  the  earth."  This  passage  shows  how 
the  very  maintenance  of  the  creature  can  be  again  looked  at  from  the 
point  of  view  of  a  creatio  continua  ;  and  this  thought,  that  a  creative 
working  of  God  goes  on  in  the  maintenance  of  the  creatures,  is  in 
general  imprinted  in  various  forms  on  the  Old  Testament  phraseology ; 
compare,  for  example,  Ex.  iv.  11,  Isa.  xlii.  5.  The  psalm  of  creation 
also  (Ps.  civ.),  by  using  participles  in  ver.  2,  seeks  to  characterize  the 
creative  activity  of  God  as  an  activity  which  continues  to  work  in  the 
maintenance  of  the  world  (4). — On  this  side,  and  as  far  as  the  creature 
is  conditioned  and  supported  in  each  moment  of  its  existence  by  the 
divine  activity,  it  is  in  itself  empty  and  perishable, — a  character  which 
is  specially  marked  by  designating  flesh  l^|i,  applied  to  animate  creation 
in  contrast  to  the  divine  spirit  of  life ;  comp.  Gen.  vi.  3,  13,  Isa.  xl. 
6 ;  and  for  the  contrast  of  I'f  |  and  n^^  in  general,  the  passage  Isa.  xxxi. 
3.  Even  the  heaven  and  earth,  although  their  duration  is  pledged 
to  them,  are  not  eternal  in  the  sense  in  which  God  is  eternal,  but  are 
subject  to  change :  "  They  shall  decay,  and  Thou  endurest ;  they  all 
wax  old  like  a  garment ;  as  a  vesture  Thou  changest  them,  and  they 
are  changed.  But  Thou  art  the  same,  and  Thy  years  have  no  end." 
Ps.  cii.  27  f.  (5). 

(1)  Gen.  ii.  3  :  "  And  God  completed  on  the  seventh  day  His 
work  which  He  had  made."  This  seemed  strange  to  the  Alexandrians, 
because  man,  the  last  creature,  was  called  into  being  on  the  sixth  day, 
and  so  they  altered  it  boldly  to  iv  rfj  v/m^epr  rfj  eKrr).     But  in  doing 


§  53.]  AIM  OF  THE  WORLD,  AND  ITS  REALIZATION.  175 

this  tliey  showed  that  they  did  not  understand  what  is  said  of  the 
meaning  of  the  seventh  day.  It  is  the  seventh  day  qui  finem  imponit, 
which  puts  as  it  were  the  conclusion  to  the  creation. 

(2)  Ps.  cxlviii.  6  :  "  He  set  them  firmly  to  eternity  and  eternity  ; 
He  gave  laws,  and  they  (the  heavenly  bodies)  do  not  overstep  them." 

(3)  In  Ps.  cxlvii.  15-18,  snow,  hoar  frost,  ice,  etc.,  are  referred 
to  the  divine  word  of  command  sent  forth  on  the  earth. 

(4)  Ex.  iv.  11 :  "  Who  made  man's  mouth  1  or  who  maketh  dumb, 
or  deaf,  or  seeing,  or  blind  ?  "  The  change  to  the  imperfect  Dlb^ 
expresses  that  the  divine  activity  is  a  continuous  one. — Isa.  xlii.  5  : 
"  He  who  createth  the  heaven  (participle  X^i3)  and  spreadeth  it  out, 
who  extendeth  the  earth  and  its  offspring,  who  givetli  breath  to  the 
people  upon  it." — Ps.  civ.  2  :  "  He  covereth  Himself  with  light  as  a 
garment,  and  spreadeth  out  the  heaven  as  a  covering." 

(5)  The  Old  Testament  Chochma  gives  a  further  development  of 
these  theologumena.  There,  in  distinction  from  the  Pentateuch,  the 
divine  wisdom  is  looked  at  as  the  principle  of  the  formation  of  the 
world.  The  later  books  of  the  Old  Testament  are  here  taken  into 
account  only  in  as  far  as  the  doctrine  of  Mosaism  is  not  surpassed,  but 
only  illustrated. 

SECOND  DOCTRINE. — THE  DIVINE  AIM  OF  THE  WOELD.      DIVINE 

PROVIDENCE. 

§53. 

Tlie  Aim  of  the  Worlds  and  its  Realization  through  Providence. 

Tlie  account  of  the  creation  shows  that  a  divine  aim  is  to  realize 
itself  in  the  world,  and  that  the  divine  creation  is  therefore  a  teleo- 
logical  act,  partly  and  in  general  in  the  systematic  progress  of  the 
work  of  creation,  and  partly  in  particular  because  the  divine  sanction, 
"  and  God  saw  that  it  was  good,"  follows  each  step  of  creation,  and 
because  the  divine  blessing  is  laid  on  every  animated  being.  Each 
class  of  beings  in  the  world  in  particular,  and  then,  Gen.  i.  31,  the 
world  as  a  whole,  is  the  object  of  divine  approval,  because  corre- 
spondent to  the  divine  aim.  In  all  creation  God  completes  acts  of 
self-satisfaction,  but  still  the  creating  God  does  not  reach  the  goal 
of  His  creation  until  He  has  set  over  against  Him  His  image  in  man. 
From  this  last  point  it  is  to  be  gathered  that  the  self-delineation  of 
■God,  the  unveiling  of  His  essence,  is  the  final  aim  of  the  creation  of 


176  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISM.  [§  53. 

the  world;  or,  as  it  is  more  commonly  expressed,  that  tlie  whole  world 
serves  the  revelation  of  the  divine  glory  Ci^?),  and  is  thereby  the 
object  of  divine  joy,  Ps.  civ.  31.  The  Old  Testament  contemplation 
of  nature  rests  on  this  fundamental  conception  ;  but  the  Pentateuch, 
of  course,  is  not  the  place  for  a  fuller  statement  of  this.  From  this 
point  of  view,  the  creature,  which  in  itself  is  nothing,  wins  in  its 
relation  to  God  a  high  value  as  the  object  of  His  imparted  goodness, 
and  as  the  place  for  the  revelation  of  His  glory  (comp.  Ps.  civ.  28, 
cxiv.  9,  15  f.).  But  in  mankind  the  aim  of  the  woi'ld,  the  glorifying 
of  God,  was  disturbed  by  sin ;  and  therefore  in  the  song  of  praise 
on  the  glory  of  the  creation,  Ps.  civ.,  the  wish  comes  in  in  ver.  35 : 
"May  sinners  have  an  end  on  the  earth,  and  the  godless  be  no  more." 
By  sin  the  sway  of  the  divine  spirit  of  life  is  repressed,  Gen.  vi.  3; 
and  through  man's  sin  the  curse  falls  on  the  other  creatures  of  the 
earth  that  are  set  in  dependence  on  him,  v.  29,  and  the  world  becomes 
the  object  of  divine  judgment.  But  in  spite  of  this,  the  continuance 
of  the  terrestrial  order  is  assured  in  the  world-covenant,  viii.  21,  ix.  11, 
which  shows  that,  in  spite  of  the  dominion  of  sin  in  the  world  of  man, 
the  divine  aim  in  the  world  shall  come  to  its  realization,  as,  Num.  xiv.. 
21,  Jehovah  swears  in  the  midst  of  His  people's  revolt :  "  As  truly  as 
I  live,  the  whole  earth  shall  be  filled  with  the  glory  of  Jehovah."' 
The  choosing  of  the  race  through  which  God's  blessing  shall  come  on 
all  races  of  the  earth.  Gen.  xii.  3,  xviii.  18,  serves  this  divine  aim. 
The  whole  pentateuchal  history  of  revelation,  as  brought  out  in  our 
first  section,  is  nothing  but  the  activity  of  that  divine  providence 
which,  in  order  to  the  realization  of  the  divine  aim,  is  at  once  directed 
to  the  whole,  Deut.  xxxii.  8  (comp.  §  22  with  note  1),  and  at  the  same 
time  proves  itself  efficacious  in  the  direction  of  the  life  of  separate 
men,  and  in  the  guiding  of  all  circumstances,  especially  in  regard  to 
all  human  helplessness  (comp.  in  particular  passages  from  Genesis,, 
such  as  xxi.  17,  xxviii.  15,  xxxii.  11,  xlv.  5-7,  1.  20)  (1).  There  was 
no  special  occasion  in  the  Pentateuch  to  speak  of  the  operation  of  the 
divine  providence  outside  the  sphere  of  the  history  of  revelation.  But 
it  is  known  that  the  Old  Testament  teaches  a  providence  which 
embraces  everything,  since  it  subsumes  everything  under  the  divine 
teleology  :  "  Thou  hearest  prayer,  all  flesh  cometh  to  Thee,"  Ps.  Ixv.  3  ; 
and  therefore  in  the  same  psalm,  ver.  6,  God  is  called  "  the  confidence 


§  54.]    RELATION  OF  DIVINE  CAUSALITY  TO  MORAL  AND  PHYSICAL  EVIL.     177 

of  all  the  ends  of  the  earth,  and  of  seas,  and  of  those  that  are  far  off." 
The  divine  providence  extends  also  to  the  animals.  They  all  vi'ait  on 
God,  that  He  may  give  them  their  food  at  the  right  time,  Ps.civ.  27  ; 
the  lions  that  roar  after  their  prey  seek  their  food  from  God,  ver.  21 ; 
the  ravens  call  on  God,  Job  xxxviii.  41,  Ps.  cxlvii.  9,  etc. — No 
sphere  of  chance  exists  in  the  Old  Testament ;  compare  Ex.  xxi.  IB  (2). 
It  is  characteristic,  that  a  distinction  between  chance  (iT?.^^)  and  divine 
decree  occurs  in  the  Old  Testament  only  in  the  mouth  of  the  heathen 
Philistines,  1  Sam.  vi.  9.  Even  in  drawing  lots  there  rules  no  chance, 
Prov.  xvi.  33  (3) ;  as  in  Num.  xxvi.  55  f.,  Josh.  vii.  14  ff.,  xiv.  2, 
1  Sam.  xiv.  41,  lots  occur  as  used  in  inquiring  into  the  divine  will 
(comp.  §  97). 

(1)  Compare  further  especially  the  angelology. 

(2)  It  is  said  in  Ex.  xxi.  12,  "  He  who  strikes  a  man  that  he  die, 
shall  die."  Now  ver.  13  says :  "  But  if  he  did  not  do  it  of  design, 
but  God  permitted  it  to  happen  by  his  hand  (i\'^  n3X  D^nSxn)."  Thus 
even  what  men  call  accidental  death  is  by  God's  direction.  Baum- 
garten-Crusius  says,  curiously  enough,  that  in  this  place  God  means 
no  more  than  circumstances. 

(3)  Prov.  xvi.  33 :  "  The  lot  is  cast  into  the  lap,  but  the  whole 
disposal  thereof  comes  from  Jehovah." 

§54. 
Relation  of  the  Divine  Causality  to  Moral  and  Physical  Evil. 

Moral  and  physical  evil  were  not  originally  in  the  world.  The 
latter  was  penally  ordained  (Gen.  iii.  17  ff.)  after  the  former  entered 
the  world  by  the  free  act  of  man,  and  from  this  time  forward  both 
form  an  element  of  the  divine  order  of  the  world. 

1.  The  point  of  view  under  which  physical  evil  in  man's  life  is 
placed  is  thoroughly  ethical,  and  mainly  that  evil  is  the  punishment 
of  sin,  is  divine  judgment  (1).  But  even  in  the  Pentateuch  there  is 
the  knowledge  that  the  evil  in  man's  life  is  also  a  means  of  proving 
him,  especially  of  proving  his  obedience  and  his  trust  in  God,  and 
thus  a  means  of  purifying  man ;  and  that  even  merited  suffering  must 
in  this  way  tend  to  the  salvation  of  man.  These  thoughts  are  ex- 
pressed in  the  providential  history  of  the  lives  of  Jacob  and  Joseph, 
but  it  is  especially  the  providential  leading  of  the  people  in  the 

VOL.  I.  M 


178  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISM.  [§  54. 

wilderness,  which  in  the  Pentateuch  is  contemplated  from  this  point 
of  view ;  compare,  as  chief  passage,  Deut.  viii.  2  f .  (2).  According 
to  this,  the  privations  endured  in  the  wilderness  were  meant  to  be  a 
school  of  humility  and  faith,  that  the  people  might  learn  to  trust  to 
the  power  of  the  all-mighty  God.  To  the  same  purpose  we  read  in 
ver.  16  of  the  same  chapter,  that  this  leading  in  the  wilderness  served 
"  to  humble  thee  and  to  try  thee,  and  to  do  thee  good  in  the  end ; " 
compare  also  Judg.  ii.  22,  and  other  passages. 

2.  But  also,  even  in  moral  evil,  in  man's  sin  the  divine  causality 
operates,  and  this  in  various  ways. — Man's  sin  cannot  thwart  the 
divine  purpose  of  salvation ;  it  must  rather  serve  to  the  realization 
thereof  (Gen.  1.  20,  comp.  xlv.  8)  (3).  The  wickedness  of  some  must 
serve  to  prove  and  purify  others,  that  it  may  be  known  whether  they 
are  strong  to  stand  against  it.  The  main  passage  is  Deut.  xiii.  4, 
where  it  is  said  that  God  even  permits  false  prophets  to  be  in  the 
■community,  and  even  lets  their  signs  be  accomplished,  although  they 
seek  to  lead  the  people  away  to  other  gods :  "  For  Jehovah,  your 
God,  tries  you,  to  know  whether  ye  love  Jehovah,  your  God,  with 
your  whole  heart  and  your  whole  soul."  Nay,  in  order  to  punish  and 
humble  a  man,  God  even  permits  another  to  wrong  him  ;  this  David 
acknowledges,  when  he  says,  on  being  cursed  by  Shimei  (2  Sam. 
xvi.  11),  "Jehovah  has  said  unto  him.  Curse  David."  But  a  divine 
causality  works  also  in  the  sinner  himself,  and  for  various  ends ; 
God  permits  one  who  habitually  walks  in  God's  ways  to  fall  into  sin, 
in  order  to  try  him,  to  reveal  to  him  a  hidden  curse  in  his  heart,  and 
so  to  bring  to  its  issue  a  merited  judgment,  and  thus  bring  God's 
justice  to  light.  To  this  belong  cases  like  that  in  2  Sam.  xxiv. 
(the  numbering  of  the  people)  ;  compare  passages  such  as  Ps.  li.  6, 
2  Chron.  xxxii.  31.  On  another,  who  intentionally  cherishes  sin 
within  him,  and  wilfully  strives  against  God,  the  divine  causality  acts 
by  giving  him  up  to  sin,  so  that  sinning  becomes  necessary  to  this 
man,  and  he  must  glorify  God  by  the  judgment  which  he  has  in- 
curred. This  is  the  hardening  of  the  heart  of  a  man,  so  often  spoken 
of  in  the  Pentateuch:  Ex.  iv.  21,  vii.  3;  Deut.  ii.  30,  etc.  Pharaoh 
and  the  Canaanite  tribes  are  especially  the  types  of  this  hardening. 
In  reference  to  such  examples,  it  is  said  in  Prov.  xvi.  4,  that  Jehovah 
has  made  all  things  for  His  own  ends;  also  the  evil-doer  for  the  day 


§  54.]   RELATION  OF  DIVINE  CAUSALITY  TO  MORAL  AND  PHYSICAL  EVIL.     179 

of  calamity.  Ex.  ix.  16  serves  especially  to  explain  this  passage.  God 
could  at  once  have  annihilated  Pharaoh  and  his  people  (ver.  15)  ; 
but  "  I  have  set  thee  there,"  that  Pharaoh  may  experience  Jehovah's 
might,  and  that  His  name  may  be  glorified  on  the  whole  earth.  With 
this  compare  Ps.  ii.  4,  Isa.  xviii.  4.  But  the  presupposition  of  all 
hardening  of  the  heart  is,  that  God,  as  the  long-suffering  One,  'H"?.'^ 
D''SXj  awaits  the  ripening  of  wickedness ;  see  already  Gen.  xv.  16.  The 
expressions  used  to  express  hardening  of  the  heart  cannot  be  referred  to 
a  simply  negative  relation  to  wickedness  ;  but  still  man's  sin  is  not  re- 
moved because  a  positive  divine  activity  rules  in  his  hardening.  Man 
can  indeed  do  nothing  that  would  not  on  one  side  be  God's  work  (see 
Lam.  iii.  37  f.),  and  yet  he  must  acknowledge  sin  as  his  guilt  (ver. 
39).  Isa.  xlv.  7 — a  passage  possibly  directed  against  the  dualism  of 
the  Persian  religion — shows  especially  how  the  monism  of  the  Old 
Testament  permitted  nothing  to  be  withdrawn  from  the  divine 
causality  (4). 

(1)  Compare  the  particulars  on  this  afterwards,  in  the  doctrine  of 
death  and  in  the  doctrine  of  retribution. 

(2)  Deut.  viii.  2  f. :  "Jehovah  thy  God  hath  led  thee  these  forty 
years  in  the  wilderness,  to  humble  thee  and  to  try  thee  (^^E^r'),  to 
know  what  is  in  thy  heart,  whether  thou  wilt  regard  His  commands 
or  not.  He  humbled  thee,  and  caused  thee  to  hunger,  and  fed  thee 
with  manna,  to  cause  thee  to  know  that  man  doth  not  live  by  bread 
alone ;  but  by  every  word  that  proceedeth  out  of  the  mouth  of  the 
Lord  doth  man  live." — In  this  lie  the  germs  of  the  thoughts  which 
form  the  theme  of  the  book  of  Job. 

(3)  Gen.  1.  20 :  "  Ye  meant  evil  against  me ;  but  God  meant  it 
for  good,  to  do  as  it  is  this  day,  and  to  save  alive  this  people."  So 
Joseph  (xlv.  8)  could  say  to  his  brothers,  "  It  was  not  ye  who  sent  me 
hither,  but  God." 

(4)  Lam.  iii.  37  f . :  "  Who  speaketh,  and  it  cometh  to  pass,  without 
God  having  commanded  it?  Out  of  the  mouth  of  the  Most  High 
should  not  evil  come  as  well  as  good?  Ver.  39.  Why  doth  man 
murmur  at  his  life?  let  every  one  murmur  over  his  sins." — Isa. 
xlv.  7  :  "  He  who  forms  light  and  creates  darkness,  makes  peace  and 
produces  evil ;  I  Jehovah  do  all  this." — Here  we  have  only  to  do 
with  the  simple  points  of  the  position ;  compare,  further,  the  doctrine 
of  sin  (§  76),  and  the  further  development  of  these  doctrines  in  the 
later  parts  of  Old  Testament  theology. 


180  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  OPvDINANCES  OF  M0SAIS5L  [§  55. 

THIRD  DOCTRINE. — OF  THE  REVELATION. 

§55. 

Introductory  Remarh  and  General  View. 

Inasmuch  as  the  whole  universe,  nature,  and  history  serve  divine 
ordinances  of  fixed  aim,  and  the  manifestation  of  the  divine  glory 
is  one  that  comprehends  all  things  (comp.  §  53),  man,  as  has  already 
been  shown  in  the  Introduction  (§  6),  can  know  God  even  from 
nature.  But  here  we  have  to  do  with  revelation  in  a  more  limited 
sense,  and  to  answer  the  question,  How,  according  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, God  sets  Himself  forth  to  man  by  personal  witness  to  Himself? 
The  answer  to  this  falls  into  the  following  parts  : — 

1.  Although  God,  in  the  transcendental  fulness  of  His  being,  is 
incomprehensible  to  man,  He  is  nevertheless  pleased  to  enter  into 
the  limits  of  the  sphere  of  the  creature,  in  order  to  present  Himself 
personally,  and  give  testimony  of  Himself  to  man.  This  side  of  the 
revelation  of  the  Divine  Being  is  characterized  as  the  divine  name, 
divine  presence,  divine  glory  (^123). 

2.  The  forms  and  vehicles  in  which  this  divine  self-presentation 
and  self-witness  reaches  man  from  loithout  are  the  voice,  the  Mal'ach, 
the  Shekhinah  in  the  sanctuary,  and  miracle.  The  divine  self-witness 
enters  the  heart  of  man  by  means  of  the  spirit.  The  latter  form  of 
revelation  appears  first  after  the  founding  of  the  theocracy  (not  in 
Genesis)  ;  it  unfolds  itself  in  proportion  as  the  outward  theophany 
disappears,  but  its  main  sphere  is  only  found  in  prophecy,  and  there- 
fore this  subject  falls  to  be  treated  but  briefly  here  in  the  first  part, 
and  in  detail  in  the  doctrine  of  prophecy  (1). 

(1)  It  is  quite  the  same  with  the  course  of  revelation  in  the  New 
Testament,  as  has  been  very  correctly  pointed  out.  Christophanies  go 
on  for  some  time  after  the  ascension  of  our  Lord  ;  then  they  disappear 
and  make  room  for  the  revelation  of  the  Lord  in  the  inwardness  of 
the  spirit. 


§  56.]  THE  DIVINE  NAME.  181 


I.   ON  THE  EEVELATION-SIDE  OF  THE  DIVINE  ESSENCE. 

§  56. 

The  Divine  Name  (1). 

The  most  general  desio;nation  of  the  revelation-side  of  the  divine 
essence  is  the  divine  name,  which,  as  one  of  the  fundamental  notions 
of  the  Old  Testament,  demands  a  more  exact  treatment.  It  is  true 
in  genera],  and  so  also  in  regard  to  God,  that  every  name  presupposes 
a  manifestation  of  what  is  to  be  named  ;  and  on  the  other  hand,  what 
closes  itself  against  knowledge  is,  as  such,  a  thing  that  cannot  be 
named,  an  aKaTovoixaa-rov.  Man  can  imagine  names  for  false  gods, 
but  the  true  God  can  only  be  named  by  man  in  so  far  as  He  reveals 
Himself  to  man,  and  discloses  to  him  His  nature.  The  name  of  God 
is  first  nomen  editum,  and  then  nomen  inditum  (2).  Now,  to  man  God 
does  not  name  Himself  after  the  compass  of  His  perfections,  as  the 
earlier  dogmatic  was  wont  inexactly  to  define  the  biblical  notion  of  the 
divine  name,  but  according  to  the  relation  in  which  He  has  placed 
Himself  to  man,  according  to  the  attributes  by  which  He  wishes  to  be 
acknowledged,  known,  and  addressed  by  man  in  the  communion  into 
which  He  has  entered  with  him.  In  short,  God  names  Himself,  not 
according  to  what  He  is  for  Himself,  but  to  what  He  is  for  man  ;  and 
therefore  every  self-presentation  of  God  in  the  world  has  stamped 
itself  in  a  corresponding  name  of  God,  as  we  have  already  seen  (3). 
But  the  biblical  notion  of  the  divine  name  is  not  exhausted  by  this. 
It  is  not  merely  the  title  which  God  bears  in  virtue  of  the  relation  in 
which  he  places  Himself  to  man  ;  but  the  expression  "  name  of  God  " 
designates  at  the  same  time  the  whole  divine  self-presentation  by  which 
God  in  personal  presence  testifies  of  Himself — the  whole  side  of  the 
divine  nature  which  is  turned  towards  man.  Be  it  understood,  the 
divine  name  is  not  everywhere  present  where  there  is  a  working  of 
divine  power ;  but  everywhere  where  the  God  of  revelation,  as  such, 
gives  Himself  to  be  recognised  in  His  acts  so  as  to  be  confessed  and 
invoked.  So  the  name  of  God  is  certainly  (as  Otto,  DeJmlogische  Unter- 
suchungen,  p.  81,  rightly  says)  not  the  ideal  existence  of  God  in  the 
consciousness  of   the  created  spirit,  but  an  objective  existence,  inde- 


182  THE  DOCTEINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISM.  [§  56. 

pendent  of  every  subjectivity.  But  this  power  of  God  within  the 
world,  and  objective  to  man,  is  a  name  of  God  only  in  so  far  as  it  offers 
itself  to  be  named  by  man  and  comes  to  him  in  the  form  of  revelation, 
that  is,  in  as  far  as  man  can  know  of  it.  Whether  he  will  know  of  it  is 
another  matter ;  for  man  may  deny  and  profane  the  name  of  God,  the 
divine  self-presentation  which  has  reached  him.  Now  the  Israelite 
who  knows  his  covenant  God  as  the  creator  and  supporter  of  the  uni- 
verse, does  indeed  recognise  God's  name,  God's  self-presentation  in 
the  whole  course  of  nature ;  and  therefore  it  is  said  in  Ps.  viii.  2, 
"  How  glorious  is  Thy  name  in  all  the  earth ! "  (Tin  corresponds  to 
Dti'  in  the  second  hemistich).  Still  the  divine  name — and  this  is  its 
exclusive  use  in  the  Pentateuch — conducts  us  specially  into  the 
sphere  of  the  divine  kingdom ;  it  here  designates  every  manifestation 
of  the  Divine  Being  which  attaches  to  places,  institutions,  and  facts,  in 
virtue  of  which  God  gives  His  people  a  direct  experience  of  Himself. 
The  following  are  the  principal  passages : — Of  the  Mal'ach,  in  which 
is  the  divine  presence  (countenance),  it  is  said  in  other  words  that  the 
divine  name  is  within  him  (Ex.  xxiii.  21 ;  comp.  §  59,  8)  ;  the  dwell- 
ing of  the  divine  glory  in  the  sanctuary  (§  62),  by  which  God  gives 
experience  of  His  presence  there,  is  called  a  dwelling  of  His  name 
in  this  place,  Deut.  xii.  5,  xi.  14,  23  f.,  1  Kings  viii.  29,  compare 
Jer.  iii.  17  (hence  the  service  there  is  a  i^'\^''  0^3  nntr^  Deut.  xviii.  5,  7). 
If,  as  has  been  done  by  many,  and  even  by  AViner,  who  is  usually  so 
exact  (in  his  Hebrew  Lexicon\  we  simply  explain  the  Old  Testament 
expression,  that  God  puts  His  name  in  a  place,  or  causes  it  to  dwell 
there,  locum  eligere,  ubi  sacris  solennibus  colatitr,  the  consequences 
which  are  connected  with  the  dwelling  of  the  divine  name  are  mis- 
taken for  the  thing  itself.  According  to  the  Old  Testament  view, 
there  is  in  such  cases  something  more  than  an  ideal  symbolical 
presence  of  God  in  the  sanctuary,  for  fearful  expressions  of  God's 
presence  proceed  from  the  sanctuary,  e.g.  Lev.  x.  2,  etc. — So,  then, 
everywhere  where  God  is  known  and  experienced  in  personal  presence, 
there  His  name  is.  He  sends  forth  His  word,  but  where  His  name  is, 
there  He  presents  Himself ;  and  therefore  the  phrase,  "  Thy  name  is 
called  over  us,"  in  Jer.  xiv.  9,  is  only  a  further  explanation  of  the 
word,  "  Thou  art  in  our  midst "  (4). — The  reality  which  this  gives 
to  the  name  of  God  may  be  made  more  distinct  by  a  few  further 


§  56.]  THE  DIVINE  NAME.  183 

examples.  "When  Isaiah  (chap.  xxx.  27)  sees  the  Lord  approach  in 
judgment,  he  says :  "  See,  Jehovah's  name  cometh  from  afar,  His 
wrath  burning,"  etc.  (5).  The  Psalmist  prays  (Ps.  liv.  3)  :  "Help 
me  by  Thy  name ; "  and  this  corresponds  to  "  by  Thy  strength " 
(^nninn) ;  compare  Jer.  x.  6 :  "  Thy  name  is  great  in  power " 
(nnujn)  (as  in  1  Kings  viii.  42  the  strong  hand  and  the  outstretched 
arm  correspond  to  the  great  name).  Hence  it  is  said  in  Prov.  xviii. 
10 :  "  The  name  of  Jehovah  is  a  strong  tower ;  the  righteous  runneth 
into  it,  and  is  safe  "  (6). 

(1)  Compare  my  article,  "  Name,  biblische  Bedeutung  desselben," 
in  Herzog's  Realencyhlop.  x.  p.  193  ff. 

(2)  Therefore  Q""!???*,  which  in  its  original  meaning  designates 
divinity  in  general,  looked  at  apart  from  God's  historical  witness  to 
Himself,,  is  not  regarded  really  in  the  Old  Testament  as  properly  a 
name  of  God  (comp.  §  41).     [Above  cited  art.] 

(3)  The  God  who  causes  the  forsaken  Hagar  to  experience  that 
His  all-seeing  eye  overlooks  no  helpless  one,  wins  immediately  the 
name,  the  God  of  vision.  Gen.  xvi.  13  (comp.  §  42  with  note  2).  The 
characteristic  of  the  patriarchal  stage  of  revelation  is  stamped  in  the 
name  of  God,  El-shaddai,  Gen.  xvii.  1  (comp.  §  37),  which  name 
corresponds  to  the  change  of  the  name  Abram  to  Abraham,  xvii.  5  ; 
Shaddai  there  designating  God  as  Him  who  subjects  nature  to  the 
purpose  of  His  revelation  by  His  powerful  sway,  mainly  in  reference 
to  the  fact  that  a  rich  offspring  was  to  be  given  to  the  childless  Abra- 
ham. In  the  same  way,  God's  relation  to  the  patriarchs  is  fixed  in 
the  name,  "  the  God  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,"  Ex.  iii.  6  (comp. 
§  25).  The  stage  of  the  revelation  which  began  with  the  redemption 
of  Israel  from  Egypt  is  distinctly  stamped  in  the  disclosure  of  the 
meaning  of  the  name  Jehovah,  Ex.  iii.  15  ff.,  vi.  2  ff.  (comp.  §  40). 
The  name  t^'inj?  appears  with  the  founding  of  the  theocracy  (comp. 
§  44).  When  God  reveals  Himself  in  His  grace,  mercy,  and  long- 
suffering  after  the  first  breach  of  the  covenant,  this  is  again  connected 
with  a  manifestation  of  the  corresponding  name,  Ex.  xxxiv.  6  (comp. 
§  29).  In  the  New  Testament  stage,  when  the  only-begotten  Son 
has  revealed  God's  name  to  man  (John  xvii.  6),  God  wishes  to  be 
named  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  or,  to  express  universally 
the  now  completed  relation  of  salvation,  by  the  name  of  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  (Matt,  xxviii.  19). 

(4)  For  this  reason,  in  Deut.  xxviii.  10  the  fact  that  God  raises 
Israel  to  be  a  people  holy  to  Him,  and  standing  in  His  revealing 


184  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISM  [§  56, 

fellowship,  is  expressed  by  saying  that  God's  name  is  named  on  the 
people.  God's  name  is  great  and  glorious  in  the  redemption  of  His 
people  and  the  institution  of  the  covenant,  Ps.  cxi.  9  (note  also  the  cor- 
relation of  notions  in  Isa.  xliii.  7).  Israel  walks  in  the  name  of  his 
God  in  an  objective  sense,  inasmuch  as  he  experiences  the  effective 
power  of  the  God  who  manifests  Himself  in  his  midst  (hence,  Zech. 
X.  12,  mnn  D^rinnJI  precedes  13^'^^l;  )Df2)  ;  and  in  a  subjective  sense,  in 
so  far  as  he  acknowledges  his  God  in  accordance  with  this  in  word 
and  walk,  and  fears  His  name  in  fulfilling  his  law,  Deut.  xxviii.  58. 
Mic.  iv.  5,  a  passage  frequently  misunderstood,  is  to  be  interpreted 
conformably.  The  prophecy  that  in  future  time  all  nations  shall  go 
in  pilgrimage  to  Zion,  there  to  receive  the  law,  has  its  basis  in  this, 
that  Israel  walks  in  the  name  of  Jehovah,  that  is,  stands  in  communion 
with  the  true  God,  who  manifests  Himself  among  His  people ;  whilst 
the  other  nations  (although  they  also  stand  under  the  power  of  the  true 
God,  yet  as  long  as  they  do  not  acknowledge  it  as  the  power  of  this 
God)  walk  in  the  name  of  their  gods,  and  as  belonging  to  them. — 
The  aim  of  the  divine  kingdom  is,  that  the  name  of  the  true  God 
shall  be  named  also  over  the  remnant  of  the  heathen  people  who  are 
rescued  from  judgment,  Amos  ix.  12  (comp.  Mai.  i.  11)  ;  that  is,  that 
they  shall  be  brought  into  the  communion  of  His  revelation,  whilst  He 
assumes  towards  them  the  relation  of  a  king,  Zech.  xlv.  9,  the  conse- 
quence of  which  shall  be  that  they  on  their  side  shall  acknowledge 
and  call  on  the  name  of  Jehovah  (Zeph.  lii.  9)  [ibid.^. 

(5)  With  this  compare  Isa.  xxvi.  8  :  "  We  await  Thee  in  the  path 
of  Thy  judgments  ;  the  desire  of  our  soul  is  after  Thy  name  and  Thy 
remembrance." 

(6)  Compare  Ps.  xx.  2,  xliv.  6  :  "  Through  Thy  name  we  tread 
down  our  adversaries,"  cxxiv.  8,  etc.  When  God  causes  His  people  to 
experience  His  powerful  presence  by  miracles,  it  is  said,  "  Thy  name 
is  near,"  Ps.  Ixxv.  2 ;  where  Hengstenberg  seeks  incorrectly  to  give 
the  expression  a  subjective  turning.  God  gives  honour  to  His  name, 
Ps.  cxv.  1,  and  sanctifies  it,  etc.,  when  He  proves  Himself  to  be  the  true 
God  by  demonstrations  of  His  power  and  glory;  and,  on  the  other  hand, 
anything  from  which  it  might  appear  as  if  the  might  and  glory  of  the 
God  of  Israel  were  nought, — for  example,  the  permanent  rejection  of 
His  people, — would  be  a  desecration  of  His  name  in  an  objective  sense, 
Ezek.  XX.  14,  22.  The  divine  name  is  subjectively  hallowed  by  man 
when  he  gives  due  acknowledgment  of  the  self-witness  and  self-pre- 
sentation of  God  in  the  world.  On  the  other  hand,  the  divine  name  is 
desecrated  by  men  when  they  treat  the  divine  self-witness,  and  that  with 
Avhicli  it  is  connected, — in  short,  what  is  most  real, — as  a  thing  of  nought 


§•57.]  THE  DIVINE  COUNTENANCE  AND  THE  DIVINE  GLORY.  185 

and  powerless,  wliich  man  may  neglect  without  punishment,  in  words 
(Ex.  XX.  7)  or  in  deeds  (comp.  the  a?i^  ^'P^,  Prov.  xxx.  9). — God 
guides  the  pious  for  His  name's  sake,  Ps.  xxiii.  3,  xxxi.  4 ;  He  lends 
assistance  for  His  name's  sake,  Ps.  cix.  21,  cxliii.  11  ;  He  remits  guilt 
for  His  name's  sake,  Ps.  xxv.  11,  compare  ciii.  1  ff. ;  inasmuch  as  He 
cannot  be  at  variance  with  what  He  has  represented  and  manifested 
Himself  to  be.  The  various  other  connections  in  which  "in  the 
name  of  God "  occurs,  are  explained  by  what  has  been  already  dis- 
cussed. In  an  objective  sense,  the  expression  designates,  in  God's 
strength  and  authority,  and  as  His  representative  (comp.  Mic.  v.  3, 
where  "  in  the  majesty  of  the  name  of  Jehovah"  corresponds  to  T'yn 
nin'',  as  Acts  iv.  7  iv  iroia  Svvd/x€L  stands  beside  iv  ttolq)  ovofiart,  Deut. 
xviii.  18  ff.).  To  this,  then,  corresponds  the  subjective  meaning,  the 
naming  and  acknowledging  of  God  as  that  power  in  which  one  speaks 
and  deals,  for  whose  cause  one  suffers,  etc.   [ibid.'J. 

§57. 

2.  Tlui  Divine  Countenance  and  the  Divine  Glory. 

That  by  which  God  is  present  among  Plis  people  is  further 
designated  the  divine  countenance  (2''?B).  Ex.  xxxiii.  14  ff.  is  the 
main  passage.  Jehovah  had  declared,  in  ver.  2  f.  of  this  chapter, 
that  He  Himself  would  no  more  go  in  the  midst  of  the  stiffnecked 
people,  but  would  cause  them  to  be  guided  by  an  angel  (namely,  a 
subordinate  angel).  Afterwards  He  permits  Himself  to  be  entreated 
by  Moses,  and  says,  IS^.I  ''^3,  my  countenance  shall  go.  This  certainly 
means,  He  Himself  will  go  (comp.  xxxiv.  9).  But,  again,  the  divine 
countenance  is  not  identical  with  the  divine  essence;  for  whilst 
(according  to  the  passages  cited  in  §  46)  the  latter  must  be  con- 
ceived as  shapeless  and  exempt  from  every  limitation  of  space,  it 
follows  from  xxxiii.  20  that  the  divine  l2''3£)  is  in  itself  visible,  only 
that  a  human  eye  is  not  able  to  bear  the  sight  (compare  Gen.  xxxii. 
31).  The  contradiction,  that  the  divine  countenance  is  not  visible  to 
man,  while  yet  we  read  in  the  same  chapter  (Ex.  xxxiii.  11)  of  Moses 
speaking  with  God  face  to  face  (D''32i~3x  C^a),  and  in  Num.  xii.  8 
mouth  to  month  (nS)"?^^  nQ)^  and  also  in  the  latter  passage  that  Moses 
saw  Jehovah's  form  (nini  n^pri), — this  contradiction  is  to  be  solved  by 
understanding  the  "  countenance "  in  the  latter  passage  in  a  merely 
relative  sense,  as  is  made  clear  from  the  connection  (compare  also 


186  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  OKDINANCES  OF  MOSAISM.  [§  57. 

Num.  xiv.  14,  "eye  to  eye").  Moses  gets  a  view  of  the  reflex  of 
the  divine  form  (Ex.  xxxiii.  23).  From  all  this  it  is  clear  that  in  the 
divine  countenance,  God's  letting  Himself  down  into  the  sphere  of 
the  creature,  by  means  of  which  He  places  Himself  before  men,  so 
that  they  may  have  immediate  experimental  knowledge  of  Him,  is 
distinguished  from  God's  transcendental  nature  in  His  infinitude.  To 
this  subject  belongs,  further,  Deut.  iv.  37,  where  we  read  that 
Jehovah  brought  Israel  out  of  Egypt  by  His  countenance  0V??)» 
Hence  also  the  Mal'ach  by  whom  Jehovah  redeems  His  people — the 
same  in  whom,  as  we  have  already  observed,  the  divine  name  was — 
is  called,  Isa.  Ixiii.  9,  the  angel  of  the  divine  countenance ;  compare 
how,  in  Gen.  xxxii.  31  f.,  the  divine  countenance  stands  for  the 
manifestation  of  God,  Hos.  xii.  4,  which  Hosea,  ver.  5,  refers  to  the 
Mal'ach.  Only  from  this,  too,  is  the  full  meaning  of  the  high  priest's 
blessing  rightly  understood.  Num.  vi.  25  f . :  "Jehovah  cause  His 
face  to  shine  upon  thee,  and  be  gracious  to  thee ;  Jehovah  lift  up  His 
countenance  on  thee,  and  give  thee  peace,"  which  is  characterized  in 
ver.  27  as  the  laying  of  God's  name  on  Israel.  Here,  too,  we  have 
not  merely  something  symbolical,  but  a  definite  experience  of  God's 
gracious  presence  and  aid  proceeding  from  the  real  dwelling  of  God 
in  Israel ;  as,  conversely,  the  manifestation  of  Jehovah's  countenance 
brings  destruction  on  His  enemies  (Ps.  xxi.  10),  or  the  hiding  of  the 
divine  countenance  shows  a  withdrawal  of  God's  gracious  presence. 
On  the  other  hand,  Ps.  cxxxix.  7,  "Where  shall  I  flee  from  Thy 
facet"  corresponding  to  "Where  shall  I  go  from  Thy  Spirit?"  goes 
further  than  the  theocratic  relation.  Here  the  expression  "the 
divine  countenance  "  clearly  teaches  that  God's  omnipresence,  which 
by  means  of  the  Spirit  interpenetrates  the  universe,  is  everywhere  a 
personal  presence  of  God. 

Finally,  for  name  and  countenance  the  indefinite  expression  glory 
(nin^  li^S)  is  used ;  so  Ex.  xxxiii.  17  ff.,  where  it  interchanges  with 
D"'3Q.  In  the  same  way,  it  is  niH"'  ni33  through  which  Jehovah  appears 
to  His  people  on  Mount  Sinai,  under  covert  of  the  cloud  (Ex.  xxiv.  16), 
and  which  is  present  in  the  holy  tabernacle  (xl,  34).  In  this  respect 
1  Kings  viii.  is  especially  distinct :  earth  and  the  heaven  of  heavens 
cannot  contain  God  (ver.  27) ;  but  His  ^i33  (ver.  11),  for  which  His 
name  is  put  in  ver.  29,  is  present  in  the  sanctuary. 


§  58. j  THE  DIVINE  VOICE.  187 

II.   THE  FORMS  OF  REVELATION. 

§58. 

The  Divine  Voice. 

As  divine  speech  is  in  general  the  form  of  divine  working  in  the 
world,  so  the  word  is  the  most  general  form  of  divine  revelation. 
Compare,  for  example,  how  in  Ps.  cxlvii.  18  f.  the  word  of  God 
acting  in  nature  and  the  divine  word  of  revelation  are  placed  over 
against  one  another.  Hence  the  formula,  "the  word  of  Jehovah 
came  to,"  or  similar  forms,  frequently  recur  from  Gen.  xv.  1  on- 
wanis.  Now,  in  so  far  as  this  word  of  God  comes  by  inner  means 
to  the  organs  of  revelation,  it  coincides  with  the  revelation  which  is 
effected  by  the  Spirit  (compare  §  65).  But  the  Old  Testament 
specifies  among  its  mediums  of  revelation  also  the  outwardly  audible 
voice  (^ip)  ;  indeed,  in  Deut.  iv.  12,  special  weight  is  laid  upon  this 
form  of  revelation  :  ''  Jehovah  spoke  to  you  out  of  the  fire ;  ye  heard 
(D'''i3T  ?ip)  a  sound  of  words,  but  ye  saw  no  form,  ?ip  ''^^^^"  in  which 
also  hS\>  is  placed  in  opposition  to  nj^nri.  Thus  also,  1  Sam.  iii.  4, 
1  Kings  xix.  11  ff.,  the  voice  is  the  material  substratum  of  the 
theophany. 

To  this  is  annexed  in  the  later  Jewish  theology  the  doctrine  of 
the  Bath-kol,  or  revelation  by  means  of  heavenly  voices,  such  as  Elijah 
received, — a  form  of  revelation  which  was  supposed  to  continue  in  the 
time  of  the  second  temple,  after  prophecy  had  grown  dumb.  The 
expression  "  daughter  of  the  voice  "  means  that  the  divine  voice  itself 
is  not  heard,  but  only  its  working,  since  either  h\p  was  understood  as 
a  divine  attribute,  and  b\[>  na  as  its  manifestation  (as  was  done  by  the 
Cabbalists)  ;  or,  according  to  the  common  acceptation,  h\p  designated 
the  heavenly  voice  itself,  and  ?ip  nil  its  echo.  This  form  of  revela- 
tion appears  in  the  New  Testament  in  Matt.  iii.  17,  xvii.  5,  and  the 
parallels  to  these  passages ;  also  John  xii.  28 ;  and  it  occurs  very  often 
in  the  Apocalypse, 


188  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISM.  TJ  59, 


§59. 

The  Doctrine  of  the  Avgel  of  the  Lord,  of  the  Covenant,  of  the 
Countenance  (1).      The  Exegetical  State  of  the  Case. 

In  a  more  concrete  form  God  manifests  Himself  in  the  '^^^r''?, 
generally  called  i^'^^'^  ^^P?  (comp.  §  41),  or  2''n:'5;{n  TjxpOj  or  simply 
n^^'?n ;  in  the  Elohistic  section  (Gen.  xxi.  17)  Q^n^vS;  -^i^b^p  (and  in 
1  Sam.  xxix.  9,  in  the  mouth  of  the  Philistine  Achish).  This 
Mal'ach  is  in  part  identified  with  Jehovah,  and  again  in  part  dis- 
tinguished from  Him.  It  is  ahove  all  things  necessary,  in  this 
weighty  and  difficult  doctrine,  to  represent  the  exegetical  state  of  the 
facts  according  to  the  main  passages  (2). 

1.  Gen.  xvi.  7  ff.,  the  "^ip^  appears  to  Hagar,  and  says  (ver.  10)  : 
"I  will  multiply  tliy  seed."  Now  in  ver.  11  Jehovah  is  spoken  of  in 
the  third  person  ;  but  we  read  in  ver.  13  that  Jehovah  spoke  to 
Hagar,  and  Hagar  named  Him  that  appeared  to  her  "  the  God  of 
seeing."  With  this  compare  how  (xxi.  27)  Cn^^i*  and  CiNipN  "qiipo 
change  one  with  the  other. 

2.  Among  the  three  men  who  appeared  to  Abraham  (chap, 
xviii.),  one  is  distinctly  distinguished  as  Jehovah  (vers.  20,  26,  etc.) 
from  tlie  two  others,  who  are  called  D''^5<PP,  and  are  said  (xix.  13)  to 
be  sent  by  Jehovah.  But  the  transactions  between  these  two  and 
Lot  (xix.  18  ff.)  are  carried  on,  and  the  account  runs,  exactly  as  if 
Jehovah  Hiuiself  stood  there.  Now  it  may  be  disputed  here,  whether 
Jehovah  is  also  represented  by  these  two  angels,  or  whether  Jehovah 
is  to  be  supposed  to  have  rejoined  them  after  Lot  has  been  led  out  of 
the  town  (ver.  18),  even  though  it  is  not  expressly  mentioned.  The 
latter  conception  appears  to  me  (in  opposition  to  Delitzsch,  Keil, 
and  others)  to  be  the  right  one  (Stier  agrees). 

3.  Gen.  xxii.  12,  the  nin^  TiNipo  calls  to  Abraham  from  heaven,  as 
if  he  were  God  Himself,  "  Now  I  know,"  etc.,  and  Abraham  himself 
receives  (ver.  14)  the  manifestation  as  a  manifestation  of  Jehovah ; 
on  the  contrary,  ver.  15  ff.  may  again  be  understood  as  if  the  Mal'ach 
were  distinguished  from  Jehovah :  "  Jehovah  saith,  I  swear  by 
myself." 

4.  Gen.   xxiv.    7,  compared   with    ver.  40,  Abram   says   to   his 


§  59.]       THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  ANGEL  OF  THE  LORD,  ETC.       189 

servant,  "Jehovah,  the  God  of  heaven,,  .send  His  angel  before 
thee."  Thus  the  angel  of  Jehovah — for  it  is  clear  that  a  particular 
one  is  meant — is  distinguished  from  Jehovah,  as  in  the  tlieophany  at 
Bethel  (Gen.  xxviii.  12  f.)  the  Q''3^5po  are  distinguished  from  Jehovah. 
But  (xxxi.  11-13)  the  Mal'ach  that  appeared  to  Jacob  says,  "I  am 
the  God  of  Bethel;"  whilst,  on  the  other  side  (xxxv.  7),  the  plural 
D\"ipxn  ^?J3  may  be  so  understood  that  the  angels  that  appeared  are 
subsumed  under  the  theophany. 

5.  The  apparition  at  night  with  which  Jacob  wrestles  (chap,  xxxii.) 
is  designated  (vers.  29-31)  as  an  appearance  of  God  (DTi'px),  or  more 
exactly,  as  the  appearing  of  the  divine  countenance  {^^^^)  ;  just  so 
Hosea  (chap.  xii.  4)  treats  this  as  a  manifestation  of  God,  but 
immediately  (ver.  5)  substitutes  '^^?^  for  D'''!'^":'. 

6.  Gen.  xlviii.  15  f.  is  specially  remarkable.  Jacob  blesses  his 
sons  with  the  words :  "  The  God  before  whom  my  fathers  Abraham 
and  Isaac  walked,  the  God  who  has  been  my  shepherd  till  this  day, 
the  Mal'ach  who  delivered  me  from  every  evil,  let  Him  bless  these 
lads." 

7.  Ex.  iii.  2  the  nin*  ^NpD  appears  to  Moses  in  the  flame,  in  ver.  4 
Jehovah  and  Elohim  is  substituted  for  Him,  and  now  in  ver.  6  He 
speaks :  "  I  am  the  God  of  thy  father ; "  and  the  whole  of  the  follow- 
ing relation  intentionally  conveys  the  impression  of  converse  between 
Jehovah  and  Moses. 

8.  In  Ex.  xiii.  21  it  is  said:  "Jehovah  went  before  Israel ; "  on 
the  contrary,  in  xiv.  19  we  read  that  it  was  the  Mal'ach ;  compare 
how  it  is  said  in  Num.  xx.  16,  Jehovah  sent  an  angel  to  lead  Israel 
out  of  Egypt.  But  in  Ex,  xiv.  24  ff.  the  leader  is  again  called 
Jehovah,  and  in  xxiii.  20  ff.  God  promises  to  bring  the  people  into 
the  promised  land  by  His  Mal'ach;  the  people  were  to  obey  the 
Mal'ach,  for  in  Him  is  Jehovah's  name.  In  a  multitude  of  other 
passages  it  is  again  definitely  said,  that  Jehovah  Himself  is  in  the 
midst  of  His  people. 

9.  But  the  section  Ex.  xxxii.  f.  is  of  especial  importance.  After 
the  first  breach  of  the  covenant,  Jehovah  will  Himself  no  longer  go 
in  the  midst  of  the  people  (xxxiii.  3),  He  will  send  a  Mal'ach  before 
them  (ver.  2),  and  He  calls  him  (xxxiii.  34)  also  "3x550  {my  angel} . 
Thereafter  He  vields  to  the  entreaties  of  Moses  to  allow  His  counte- 


190  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISM.  [§  59, 

nauce  {^''^^)  to  go  with  them  (xxxiii.  14  f.).  This  countenance  must 
again  have  appeared  in  the  form  of  an  angel ;  for  it  is  said  in  Isa.  Ixiii. 
9,  in  reference  to  the  leading  through  the  wilderness,  Dy''C^n  VJS  TixpD. 
Also  Deuteronomy,  which  never  has  the  Mal'ach  (which  makes  a 
remarkable  difference  between  this  book  and  the  preceding  ones),  but 
always  brings  forward  Jehovah  iiiistead  as  acting,  says  (iv.  37)  that 
God  led  Israel  out  of  Egypt  by  His  countenance.  From  this  it  is 
clear  that  there  are  two  kinds  of  angel  of  Jehovah :  one  within 
whom  is  the  name  Jehovah,  who  is  the  bearer  of  His  countenance ; 
and  another  with  whom  this  is  not  the  case. 

10.  Josh.  V.  14  f.,  the  Prince  of  the  army  of  Jehovah  appears  to 
Joshua.  This  is  told  as  if  he  were  different  from  Jehovah.  But  in 
ver.  15  He  identifies  Himself  manifestly  with  the  Mal'ach  that 
appeared  to  Moses  in  Ex.  iii.,  and  in  Josh.  vi.  2  He  again  appears  as 
Jehovah  Himself,  who  gives  Jericho  into  Joshua's  hand. 

The  following  passages  from  the  later  books  of  the  Old  Testament 
come  especially  into  consideration,  as  analogous  to  the  passages  in  the 
Pentateuch : — 

11.  Judg.  ii.  1-5,  where  it  is  probable  that  a  prophet  is  not  to  be 
understood  by  ^^?'?  (as  Bertheau,  for  example,  expounds).  The 
Mal'ach  says :  "  I  brought  you  up  out  of  Egypt,"  etc. ;  v.  23 : 
"  Curse  Meroz,  saith  the  angel  of  Jehovah  ; "  vi.  11  ff.,  the  Mal'ach 
that  appeared  to  Gideon,  who  (ver.  14)  quite  passes  over  into 
Jehovah,  and  even  accepts  an  offering,  though  Gideon  (ver.  22)  in 
addressing  Jehovah  seems  in  a  remarkable  manner  to  distinguish 
the  Mal'ach  from  Him,  and  afterwards  when  the  Marach  has  dis- 
appeared, still  (ver.  23)  receives  Jehovah's  word. 

12.  Similarly  in  Zechariah  the  angel  of  the  Lord  is  distinguished 
on  the  one  hand  from  Jehovah :  he  appears  (i.  12)  interceding  for 
Israel  before  Jehovah.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  he  takes  the  place 
of  Jehovah  Himself  in  chap,  iii.,  where,  however,  the  angel  speaks 
again  of  Jehovah  in  the  third  person. 

(1)  The  doctrine  of  the  angel  of  the  Lord  is  one  of  the  most 
weighty  and  most  difficult  doctrines  of  the  Old  Testament,  on  which, 
even  as  early  as  the  theology  of  the  Fathers,  there  were  various  views, 
and  about  which,  up  to  this  day,  no  agreement  has  been  come  to. 
The  literature  is  enormously  rich.      Ode's  book,   Commentarius  de 


§  60.]       THE  DOCTCINE  OF  THE  ANGEL  OF  THE  LOKD,  ETC.       191 

Angelis,  1739,  still  deserves  to  be  mentioned  for  the  sake  of  its 
copiousness.  The  following  are  the  most  notable  treatises  of  the  last 
fifty  years : — A  programme  of  Steudel,  Veterisne  testamenti  libris 
insit  notio  manifesti  ah  occulto  distmgmndi  numiyds,  Tiib.  1830  (one  of 
his  best  writings) ;  Hengstenberg,  Christologie  des  A.  T.  i.  2d  ed. 
p.  124  ff.  Kurtz  formerly  defended  Hengstenberg's  view,  "  Der  Engel 
des  Herrn,"  in  Tholuck's  Ute7\  Anzeiger,  1846,  Nos.  11-14,  but  treats 
the  matter  differently  in  his  GescJiichte  des  A.  Bnndes,  i.  p.  144  ff. 
Compare  further,  Trip,  Die  Theophanien  in  den  GescJdchtshuchern  des 
A.  T.,  Leiden  1858  ;  in  the  same  year  a  programme  by  Kahnis,  De 
angelo  Domini  diatribe;  Barth,  der  Engel  des  Bundes,  Sendsclireihen 
an  Sclielling,  1845 ;  compare  Schelling's  answer  in  Schelling's  Lehen 
in  Brief  en,  iii.  p.  1 89  ff. — Schultz  does  not  discuss  the  doctrine  of  the 
angel  of  the  Lord  so  thoroughly  as  might  be  expected  from  the 
importance  which  he  acknowledges  it  to  possess. 

(2)  The  grouping  of  the  passages  by  numbers  is  to  facilitate 
reference  in  the  following  section. 


§C0. 

Continuation :  The  Different  Views. 

The  question  is  now,  Which  view  of  the  Mal'ach  gives  the  most 
satisfactory  explanation  of  these  apparently  contradictory  passages? 
The  following  main  views  are  to  be  distinguished  : — 

1.  The  first  view  was  followed  in  the  early  ages  of  the  Church  by 
Augustin,  Hieronyraus,  and  Gregory  the  Great ;  in  later  times 
especially  by  Steudel  and  Trip,  and  with  special  modifications  by 
Hofmann  (in  Weissagung  und  Erfullung,  i.),  from  whom  it  has  been 
adopted  by  Kurtz  and  Delitzsch,  who  gave  up  their  former  view  under 
Hofmann's  influence,  though  the  latter  indeed  holds  the  view  with  a 
peculiar  indecision.  On  this  view,  an  angel  in  the  more  narrow 
^sense  is  to  be  understood  by  the  Mal'ach,  that  is,  a  finite  spirit  under 
subjection  to  God,  which  accomplished  the  divine  command  in  the 
cases  mentioned.  That  even  a  particular  angel  may  be  designated 
the  angel  of  Jehovah, — that  the  term  Mal'ach,  in  and  for  itself,  does 
not  necessarily  imply  that  the  person  so  characterized  stands  in  a 
higher  sphere  above  the  angels, — must  certainly  be  conceded  to  this 
view.     On  this  view,  then,  the  explanation  of  the  fact,  that  in  a  series 


192  THE  DOCTKINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISM.  [§  60. 

of  passages  what  tlie  angel  speaks  and  docs,  appears  as  speech  and 
act  of  Jehovah,  is,  that  words  and  acts  of  a  messenger  are  properly 
the  words  and  acts  of  him  whom  he  represents.  We  are  reminded  that 
also  in  the  prophetic  style  the  word  of  the  prophet  is  often  identi- 
fied with  the  word  of  Jehovah ;  and  that  in  the  New  Testament  too, 
where  the  077^X0?  Kvpiov  is  certainly  a  created  spirit,  his  act  (e.g.  Acts 
xii.  17)  is  represented  as  an  act  of  the  Lord  Himself;  indeed,  in 
Rev.  xxii.  6,  12,  the  angel  is  introduced  speaking  for  the  Lord  Him- 
self, and  that  in  the  first  person.  In  reference  to  the  prophetic  style 
it  must  indeed  be  noted,  that  the  prophets  nevertheless  almost  always 
introduce  the  divine  word  with  "  Thus  saith  Jehovah,"  "  Jehovah's 
saying  is,"  and  such  like,  which  is  a  rare  exception  with  the  Mal'ach, 
e.g.  Gen.  xxii.  16  ;  and  with  regard  to  Rev.  xxii.  6,  12,  the  angel 
there  refuses  the  irpoaKvvrjai';  offered  in  ver.  9,  whilst  the  Old  Testa- 
ment Mal'ach  accepts  it  (Josh.  v.  14),  and  allows  a  sacrifice  to  be 
made  to  him  (Judg.  vi.  19  ff.,  xiii.  18  ff.). 

But,  again,  this  first  view  occurs  in  two  forms.  According  to  the 
first  of  these,  the  Mal'ach  is  just  an  angel  specially  deputed  by  God 
from  among  the  number  of  Mal'achim  for  each  separate  occasion, 
aud  there  is  nothing  to  tell  us  whether  he  is  always  the  same  angel  or 
not  (Steudel)  ;  according  to  the  second  form,  on  the  other  hand  (mainly 
Hofmann),  it  is  always  one  and  the  same  angel  by  whose  means  God 
sets  forth  His  relation  to  the  race  of  revelation  from  the  beginning  to 
the  end  of  the  Old  Testament — "the  special  angel  (as  Hofmann 
expresses  himself  in  the  Schriftbeweis,  2d  ed.  i.  p.  177)  who  rules  in 
the  commonwealth  and  history  of  this  people,"  the  archangel  Michael 
of  the  book  of  Daniel  (compare  also  Weissagung  und  Erfilllung,  i» 
p.  131).  Apart  from  the  question  whether  the  ni.T'  Ti^PO  really  passes 
over  into  the  Michael  of  Daniel,  which  is  not  to  be  spoken  of  till  in 
the  prophetic  theology,  and  there  must  be  answered  in  the  negative,, 
the  latter  form  of  the  view  seems  to  be  decidedly  preferable  to  the 
former,  from  the  high  titles  which  are  conferred  on  the  angel.  But 
in  reference  to  the  whole  first  view,  it  is  indisputably  to  be  held  as 
correct,  if  we  proceed  on  the  supposition  that  the  mediation  of  angels 
is  quite  the  same  through  the  whole  history  of  revelation  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments.  Then  the  older  passages  must  be  explained 
by  the  later,  especially  by  the  New  Testament  passages  ;  and  in  tliese 


§  GO]       THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  ANGEL  OF  THE  LORD,  ETC.       19S 

latter  the  angel  is  manifestly  liypostatically  distinguished  from  God, 
and  is  a  created  finite  being  subordinate  to  God.  This  conception  is 
also  admissible  in  several  of  the  older  passages.  The  one  that  favours 
it  most  is  No.  2,  if  Gen.  xix.  18  ff.  is  understood  to  mean  that  even 
the  angels,  which  are  certainly  subordinate,  are  treated  exactly  as  if 
Jehovah  appeared  in  them  (see  particularly  ver.  24).  Among  the 
passages  in  the  Pentateuch,  Num.  xxii.  31,  in  which  the  angel  is 
definitely  distinguished  from  Jehovah,  is  to  be  adduced  here ;  but  in 
a  number  of  other  passages  no  natural  sense  arises  out  of  this  pre- 
supposition, and  the  passages  Nos.  6  and  9  especially  contradict  it. 
It  is,  however,  to  be  noted  in  general,  that  the  presupposition  that 
the  Mal'ach  of  the  Pentateuch  must  be  explained  by  the  dyyeXo';- 
Kvplov  of  the  New  Testament  is  not  authorized,  because  it  does  not 
acknowledge  the  gradual  progress  of  revelation,  which  advances  from 
the  theophany  to  revelation  through  divine  organs  and  through  the 
Spirit.  To  this  is  to  be  added,  that  exactly  the  same  expressions  are 
used  in  speaking  of  the  representation  of  God  by  the  Mal'ach  as  in 
speaking  of  the  divine  indwelling  in  the  sanctuary ;  in  both  is  the 
divine  name  and  the  divine  countenance  (comp.  the  passages  under 
Nos.  8  and  9).  Now  if  the  Shekinah,  the  indwelling  in  the  sanctuary, 
is  to  be  understood,  according  to  the  Old  Testament,  not  simply  as  an 
ideal  and  symbolical,  but  a  real  presence  of  God,  a  sinking  of  the 
divine  into  the  sphere  of  the  creature,  the  presence  of  God  in  the 
Mal'ach  must  also  be  taken  in  no  other  way  (1). 

2.  Thus  we  are  led  to  the  second  main  view  :  that  the  Mal'ach  of 
Jehovah  is  a  self-presentation  of  Jehovah  entering  into  the  sphere  of 
the  creature,  which  is  one  in  essence  with  Jehovah ;  and  is  yet  again 
different  from  Him  (2).  This  view  has  been  put  forward  in  three 
different  modifications  : 

(a)  According  to  the  first  of  these,  the  Mal'ach  is  the  Logos — the 
second  person  of  the  Godhead  in  the  sense  of  the  Christian  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity.  This  is  the  view  of  most  of  the  Greek  Fathers  :  of 
Justin,  in  his  Dialogue  loith  Tryplion,  chap.  56,  61,  127  f. ;  also  of 
Irena^us,  with  TertuUian  and  Cyprian.  Eusebius  of  C^esarea  gives 
us  a  complete  discussion  of  the  Old  Testament  theophany,  from  this 
point  of  view,  in  his  Eclogce  Propheticcv  (published  by  Th.  Gaisford, 
1842).  At  a  later  period  this  was  the  view  of  the  Lutheran  writers 
VOL.  I.  N 


194  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISM.  [§  60. 

on  dogmatic  ;  in  more  modern  times  it  has  been  defended  by  Heng- 
stenberg  (who  speaks  of  the  Mal'ach  as  an  uncreated  angel),  and  by 
others. 

(6)  According  to  the  second  modification  (so  Barth),  the  angel  of 
Jehovah  is  a  created  being ;  with  which,  however,  the  uncreated  Logos 
was  personally  connected. 

(c)  According  to  the  third  (so  Vatke,  De  Wette,  and  others),  the 
Mal'ach  is  not  anything  hypostatical,  but  only  an  unsubstantial  mani- 
festation of  God  ;  a  momentary  descent  of  God  into  visibiHty ;  a 
mission  of  God  (here  '^^7^  is  taken  in  its  original  abstract  meaning), 
which  again  returns  into  the  Divine  Being. 

Against  the  first  conception,  it  is  to  be  observed  that  it  brings  into 
the  Old  Testament  a  finished  dogma  on  the  subject  of  an  immanent 
distinction  in  the  divine  nature  for  which  the  passages  which  lie  before 
us  contain  no  sufficient  authorization,  since  these  do  not  tell  us  any- 
thing of  an  inward  and  essential  relation  in  God's  being,  but  only 
distinguish  the  divine  which  has  entered  into  the  sphere  of  created 
phenomena  from  the  Divine  Being  in  His  celestial  infinitude,  as 
appears  in  a  very  remarkable  manner  in  Gen.  xix.  24,  "Jehovah 
caused  it  to  rain  by  Jehovah  from  heaven"  (3).  Even  Hengstenberg 
admits  that,  in  the  Old  Testament,  the  Eevealer  and  He  whom  He 
reveals,  lose  themselves  in  each  other,  as  it  were ;  so  that  from  this 
view  ideas  might  easily  arise  very  similar  to  those  of  Sabellianism. 
Moreover,  as  we  are  rightly  reminded  by  the  adherents  of  the  second 
conception  (Barth),  it  is  certainly  a  wrong  expression  to  speak  of  an 
uncreated  angel.  The  phenomena  of  nature,  which  serve  as  a  form 
of  manifestation  to  the  Mal'ach;  the  flame  (Ex.  iii.),  the  cloudy 
covering  (Ex.  xl.  36-38),  the  human  form  (in  well-known  passages), 
are  certainly  created.  It  is  not  the  Mal'ach  that  is  uncreated,  but 
the  God  who  veils  Himself  in  His  appearance.  In  opposition  to  the 
second  modification,  it  is  to  be  remarked  that  there  is  no  proof  that 
the  manifestation  of  the  Divinity  in  the  form  of  the  Mal'ach  was  such 
that  the  Son  of  God  became  abidingly  an  angel ;  so  that  again  in 
becoming  man  He  had  as  it  were  to  strip  off  the  angelic  form  which  He 
had  received,  and  change  it  for  a  human  nature  (to  which  Barth's 
view  amounts).  Finally,  the  third  modification  does  justice  to  a 
number  of  passages ;    but  from  others  it  clearly  appears  that  not 


§  CO]      THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  ANGEL  OF  THE  LORD,  ETC.       195 

merely  a  personification,  but  a  real  hypostasis,  is  present  in  the  mani- 
festation of  the  Mal'acli. 

It  must  be  acknowledged,  then,  that  no  one  of  the  various  views 
quite  does  justice  to  all  the  passages ;  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Mal'ach 
in  the  Old  Testament  vacillates  in  a  peculiar  manner  between  a 
modalistic  and  a  hypostatic  conception  of  the  angel,  so  that  it  seems 
impossible  to  bring  the  matter  to  a  definite  intelligible  expression. 
But  the  matter  has  a  different  aspect  from  the  standpoint  of  the  New 
Testament.  From  this  (see  especially  1  Cor.  x.  4)  it  is  the  Logos, 
the  Son  of  God,  through  which  revelations  to  Israel  are  mediated,  and 
who  therefore  works  in  the  Mal'ach.  But  in  the  New  Testament,  the 
Son  of  God  is  nowhere  so  identified  with  the  Mal'ach  as  if  His  incar- 
nation had  been  preceded  by  His  permanently  becoming  an  angel ; 
but  the  Logos,  according  to  the  New  Testament  view,  works  in  all 
the  other  forms  of  old  covenant  revelation  in  just  the  same  way  as  in 
the  form  of  the  Mal'ach  (4). 

(1)  Delitzsch  also  has  not  failed  to  acknowledge  this  element, 
when,  in  his  Commentary  on  Genesis  (1st  ed.  p.  256,  2d  ed.  p,  337),  he 
insists,  indeed,  that  the  Mal'ach  is  to  be  understood  as  a  finite  spirit, 
but  at  the  same  time  says  that  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  in  this 
personally  living  finite  spirit  God  presents  Himself  in  person  ;  that 
the  angel  has  Jehovah,  not  outside  of  him,  but  within  him  ;  that  the 
relation  to  the  Mal'ach  is  less  than  becoming  an  angel,  and  yet  more 
than  mission  of  an  angel, — a  conception  which  takes  up  an  unclear 
position  between  the  first  and  second  main  view  now  under  discussion. 

(2)  Movers,  Die  Phunicier,  i.  pp.  389  ff.,  428  ff.,  has  pointed  to  a 
remarkable  analogy  in  which  the  Phoenician  religion  here  stands  to 
that  of  the  Old  Testament,  namely,  in  the  way  in  which  the  relation 
of  Heracles  to  the  ancient  Bel  is  understood  in  the  former  faith, — 
difference  in  unity,  and  unity  in  difference,  being  firmly  held. 

(3)  On  Ewald's  perverse  explanation  of  Gen.  xix.  24,  see  §  40, 
note  1. 

(4)  In  the  later  Jewish  theology,  the  doctrine  of  the  Metatron 
(probably  of  fierd6povQ<i^  sharer  of  the  throne), — the  Prince  of  the 
countenance,  who  is  the  revealer  of  God,  the  mediator  between  God 
and  the  creature, — is  developed  out  of  the  Old  Testament  doctrine  of 
the  angel  of  the  Lord,  the  angel  of  the  covenant,  of  the  countenance. 
In  order  to  draw  him  as  near  as  possible  to  God,  he  was  understood 
by  some  to  be  not  a  creature,  but  an  emanation  from  the  Divine 


190  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISM.  [§  Gl. 

Being ;  and  then,  in  order  to  do  justice  to  other  passages  in  the  Old 
Testament,  they  again  distinguished  from  him  a  second  lower,  created 
Metatron.  But  even  the  later  Jewish  theology  did  not  penetrate 
to  an  acknowledgment  of  an  immanent  and  real  distinction  in  the 
Divine  Being. 


§61. 

Other  Points  of  the  Mosaic  Angelology. 

Even  in  the  Pentateuch,  though  there  comparatively  seldom,  other 
angels  of  God  appear  side  by  side  with  the  MaVach  k.  i^.  Nothing 
is  said  about  their  creation ;  the  fact  that  they  are  not  mentioned  in 
the  account  of  the  creation  is  probably  to  be  explained  from  the 
circumstance  that  this  record  aims  merely  at  a  precise  delineation  of 
the  creation  of  the  earth,  and  its  completion  in  man.  On  the  con- 
trary, the  book  of  Job,  chap,  xxxviii.  7,  presupposes  the  existence  of 
the  angels  when  the  earth  was  created.  In  those- passages  in  the 
Pentateuch  in  which  other  angels  besides  the  Mal'ach  are  mentioned, 
they  appear  without  independent  activity,  as  a  sort  of  multiplication 
of  the  operating  power  of  God :  thus  especially  Gen.  xxviii.  12, 
besides  which  compare  xxxii.  2  f.,  in  which  passage  they  are  called 
God's  army ;  Deut.  xxxiii.  2,  where  they  appear  as  the  attendants  of 
God,  manifested  in  His  glory  at  the  giving  of  the  law.  Gen.  vi.  1  fP. 
would  hold  a  position  unparalleled  in  its  kind,  not  only  in  the  Penta- 
teuch, but  in  the  whole  Old  Testament,  if  higher  spirits  are  to  be 
understood  by  the  Ci''n"!'?^n  ""Ja  (1).  Certainly  the  angels,  the  Q''3^«r'P, 
besides  this  name,  which  is  characteristic  of  their  calling,  bear  in  the 
Old  Testament  the  name  sons  of  God  (D''n^xn  ■'^2)^  Job  i.  6,  ii.  1,  or 
^???  "'•It'j  Ps.  xxix.  1,  Ixxxix.  7,  in  order  to  express  the  closer  fellow- 
ship in  which  they  stand  to  God  (2).  Accordingly,  Gen.  vi.  1  ff.  is 
referred  to  the  fall  of  the  angels  by  many  recent  theologians  (Hof- 
mann,  Kurtz,  Delitzsch),  as  had  been  already  done  by  several  of  the 
Church  Fathers, — a  view  which  originally  (as  Keil  has  pointed  out) 
sprang  from  the  book  of  Enoch.  According  to  another  view,  on  the 
contrary  (some  of  the  Fathers  of  the  Church,  the  Reformers,  in  more 
modern  times  Dettinger,  Hengstenberg,  Keil,  and  others),  the  expres- 
sion "  sons  of  God  "  refers  to  men,  to  the  pious  race  descended  from 


§  61.]  OTHER  POINTS  OF  THE  MOSAIC  ANGELOLOGY.  197 

Seth,  as  the  name  "  sons  of  God  "  is  used  in  Deut.  xiv.  1,  xxxii.  5,  Hcs. 
ii.  1,  Ps.  Ixxiii.  15.  On  this  view,  the  passage  refers  to  the  marriage 
of  Seth's  descendants  with  Cainitic  women,  by  which  means  the  cor- 
ruption of  Cain's  race  entered  into  the  Sethites.  Not  only  the 
connection  which  the  whole  story  bears  to  what  precedes,  but  also 
ver.  3,  in  which  an  erring  of  man,  not  of  the  higher  spirits,  is  spoken 
of,  is  in  favour  of  the  latter  view ;  and  so  is  the  expression  "  they 
took  wives,"  which  is  admittedly  used  in  the  Old  Testament  only  in 
speaking  of  formal  marriage,  not  of  unchaste  connection.  The 
assertion  that  ^'J^^j  ^^  contrast  with  the  Ci''npxn  '^}2^  must  refer  to  the 
whole  race  of  mankind,  and  cannot  be  taken  in  a  relative  sense,  is 
refuted  by  comparing  it  with  similar  passages,  such  as  Jer.  xxxii.  20 
(Disni  ^i<"J^!3),  Isa.  xliii.  4,  Ps.  Ixxiii.  5.  The  assertion,  repeated  by 
Schrader,  that  there  is  no  ground  to  assume  that  two  moral  tendencies 
radically  different  ran  through  mankind  in  primeval  times,  can  only 
be  wondered  at  in  view  of  Gen.  iv.  Note  especially  that  Seth's  race, 
iv.  26,  is  characterized  as  that  race  by  which  God  is  addressed  as 
Jehovah,  and  therefore  as  the  race  of  revelation  (3). 

In  comparison  with  the  later  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  the 
angelology  of  the  Pentateuch  is  but  little  developed.  This  testifies 
against  the  opinion  of  those  who  hold  the  angels  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment to  be  degraded  gods  of  an  ancient  polytheism.  De  Wette,  in 
his  Biblical  Dogmatic  (3d  ed.  p.  81),  has  already  remarked,  in  opposi- 
tion to  this  view,  that  if  this  had  been  the  case,  the  course  of  the 
angelology  in  the  Old  Testament  must  have  been  exactly  the  opposite 
from  what  it  is.  The  angels  would  necessarily  have  appeared  with 
definite  names  and  functions  in  the  older  books,  not  first  in  the 
latest  ones.  But  De  Wette  himself  holds  a  view  equally  false, — 
namely,  that  angels  were  originally  personifications  of  natural  forces, 
or  of  the  extraordinary  operations  and  visitations  of  God.  Even 
Ps.  civ.  4  is  no  proof  of  the  former  point  (4)  ;  on  the  contrary,  such  a 
personification  of  natural  forces  presupposes  a  belief  in  angels. — In  the 
Pentateuch,  the  Mal'achim  are  obviously  connected  with  the  Mal'ach, 
forming  as  it  were  many  fainter  copies  of  him,  and  in  this  connection 
the  vision  in  Gen.  xxviii.  is  especially  instructive.  But  the  idea  of  the 
Mal'ach  is  not  the  product  of  a  tendency  to  personification ;  but  its 
meaning  is,  as  we  have  already  seen,  that  in  him  a  beginning  is  made 


198  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  5J0SAISM.  [§  CI. 

towards  the  doing  away  of  the  separation  between  God   and  the 
world  (5). 

(1)  Gen.  vi.  1  ff. :  "  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  men  began  to 
multiply  on  the  face  of  the  earth,  and  daughters  were  born  unto 
them,  that  the  sons  of  God  saw  the  daughters  of  men  that  they  were 
fair ;  and  they  took  them  wives  of  all  that  pleased  them.  Then 
Jehovah  said :  My  spirit  shall  not  always  rule  in  men,  in  their  errors 
they  are  flesh ;  and  let  their  days  be  a  hundred  and  twenty  years. 
There  were  giants  on  the  earth  in  those  days  ;  and  also  afterwards, 
when  the  sons  of  God  went  in  to  the  daughters  of  men,  and  they 
bare  unto  them,  there  were  strong  ones  who  were  of  old  renowned 
men." — "We  need  lose  no  words  on  the  ancient  view  (Onkelos,  etc.) 
that  Q"'^l^^5^  V.?  here  denotes  sons  of  princes,  magnates,  and  that  the 
whole  matter  refers  to  mesalliances,  that  noble  blood  was  mixed  with 
plebeian  blood,  and  this  drew  down  the  divine  wrath  on  man.  The 
question  is :  Are  the  sons  of  God  Sethites,  or  are  they  higher  spirits  ? 
and  is  a  fall  of  the  angels  here  spoken  of  ?  On  the  latter  conception, 
we  find  an  element  in  Genesis  of  which  there  is  certainly  no  trace  in 
the  Old  Testament,  and  which  rather  puts  us  in  mind  of  the  heathen 
myths.  But  this  must  not  hinder  us  from  candidly  acknowledging 
anything  that  the  text  demands.  The  passage  has  led  to  a  very  bitter 
feud  between  Kurtz  and  Hengstenberg.  Kurtz  wrote  two  separate 
polemical  treatises  upon  it  (1857-58).  At  present  the  hypothesis  of 
the  angels  is  the  most  widely  spread.  But  I  believe  that  especially 
Dettinger  ("  Bemerkungen  iiber  den  Abschnitt  1  Mos.  iv.  1-vi.  8, 
den  Zusammenhang  und  einzelne  schwierigere  Partien  desselben," 
Tub.  Zeitschr.  fill-  Theol.  1835,  vol.  i.),  and  Keil  ("Die  Ehen  der 
Kinder  Gottes  mit  den  Tochtern  der  Menschen,"  Zeitsch\  fur  luth. 
Theol.  und  Kirche^  1855,  p.  220  f.),  who  also  still  defends  the  older 
view,  and  has  likewise  been  passionately  combated  by  Kurtz,  are 
quite  in  the  right  here. — Compare  also,  for  the  angel  hypothesis, 
Schrader,  Studien  zuv  Kritik  undErkldrung  der  hihlisclien  Urgeschichte 
Gen.  i.-xi.,  1863. 

(2)  Some  understand  DvS  to  be  a  'pluralis  majestatis  for  Cn^?^, 
which  would  be  admissible  if  only  Dv>?  occurred  in  this  sense  in  any 
one  passage.  But  elsewhere  DyS  is  everywhere  a  pure  plural. 
Therefore  I  hold  that  view  to  be  correct  which  regards  Dv^  V.? 
grammatically  as  a  double  plural  of  ???"l?,  as  D7^n  ""7123,  1  Chron. 
vii.  5,  for  ^:n  niaa. 

(3)  The  inconvenient  D3^?  is  removed  by  Schrader  by  a  change  of 
text. 


§  62.]  THE  SHEKINA.  199 

(4)  Ps.  civ.  4  is  explained  in  different  ways,  according  as  one  or 
the  other  word  is  held  to  be  the  nearer  object.  I  hold  the  common 
explanation  to  be  the  right  one :  "  He  makes  the  winds  His  mes- 
sengers, and  flames  of  fire  His  servants."  The  other  view  is  :  "  He 
makes  His  messengers  winds,"  etc. 

(5)  Compare  also  Schultz's  Old  Testament  Theol.  —  For  the 
further  development  of  Old  Testament  angelology,  see  the  Prophetic 
Theology. — On  Azazel,  see  the  Doctrine  of  the  Day  of  Expiation,  in 
the  third  division. 


§62. 
The  SheJcina. 

The  enduring  localization  of  the  divine  revealing  presence  is  the 
Shekina,  that  is,  the  indwelling  of  God  distinguished  from  passing 
theophanies  by  virtue  of  its  continuance.  The  expression  belongs 
properly  to  the  later  Jewish  theology,  but  is  drawn  from  those 
passages  in  the  Old  Testament  where  a  dwelling  (pB')  of  Jehovah  or 
of  the  name  of  Jehovah  among  the  people  is  spoken  of — Deut.  xii.  5, 
11,  xiv.  23,  1  Kings  viii.  12,  because  of  which  the  holy  tabernacle 
is  called  the  dwelling  (nin""  ISK'O),  for  which  it  is  said  more  fully, 
1  Kings  viii.  13,  ^nnJi^S'  |i3»  -^  hat  n^a. 

The  first  abode  of  the  divine  Shekina,  according  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, is  Eden,  as  follows  from  the  whole  delineation  in  Gen.  ii.  f.,  but  in 
particular  from  the  mention  of  the  cherubim,  iii.  24,  which  are  bearers 
of  the  divine  presence  (1).  There  it  remained  after  the  fall ;  there  is 
the  divine  countenance,  according  to  which  iv.  14  is  to  be  interpreted. 
The  book  of  Genesis  seems  to  suggest  the  notion  that  the  dwelling-place 
of  the  glory  and  the  countenance  of  God  continued  there  upon  the 
earth  until  the  judgment  of  the  flood  came  on  the  world.  Then  after 
the  flood  God  revealed  Himself  for  the  first  time  from  heaven  (2). 
At  a  later  time,  God's  dwelling  among  His  people  was  in  the  sanc- 
tuary, of  which,  Ex.  xl.  34-38,  the  glory  of  Jehovah  (nin>  nia3)  took 
possession  in  the  phenomenon  of  the  cloud,  in  the  same  way  in  which. 
Lev.  xvi.  2,  it  appears  in  the  same  phenomena  over  the  ark  of  the 
covenant  (3).  Here  now  is  God's  countenance,  according  to  which 
the  well-known  expressions  are  to  be  explained  :  Ex.  xxiii.  17,  n5<t"i3 
niiT'  "'JS"?*^j  to  appear  before  the  face  of  Jehovah ;   Deut.  xxxi.  11, 


200  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISM.  [§  62. 

mn''  \JaTiK  riiX")?  ;  compare  further  Ps.  xlii.  3,  Ixiii.  3,  in  which  the  con- 
sciousness of  the  especial  presence  of  God  in  the  sanctuary  is  actually 
characterized  as  a  gazing  on  God.  From  passages  such  as  Lev. 
ix.  24,  X.  2,  the  Shekiiia  shows  its  reality  in  the  sanctuary  by  means 
of  actions  of  power  which  go  out  from  it.  Because  of  it,  the  Israelite 
was  in  all  places  to  turn  himself  towards  the  sanctuary  when  pray- 
ing, 1  Kings  viii.  30,  35,  38  (in  Solomon's  prayer) — the  so-called 
Kebla,  compare  Dan.  vi.  11.  Hence  the  explanation  of  passages  like 
Ps.  iii.  5 :  "  I  cried  to  Jehovah  with  my  voice,  and  He  answered  me 
from  His  holy  hill."  The  Shekina  of  God  on  earth  corresponds  to 
His  dwelling  in  heaven,  1  Kings  viii.  dO,  39,  49,  which,  like  that 
in  the  sanctuary,  is  definitely  distinguished  from  the  presence  of  God, 
which  embraces  the  whole  universe ;  see  ver.  27  of  the  same  chap- 
ter ;  compare  Deut.  iv.  39,  Isa.  Ixvi.  1.  In  this  sense  the  heavenly 
dwelling-place  is  explained  as  the  sphere  from  which  answers  to 
prayer  proceed,  1  Kings  viii.  30,  32,  34,  39,  43.  In  view  of  such 
utterances,  it  is  not  in  the  sense  of  the  Old  Testament,  to  explain 
passages  in  which  heaven  is  designated  as  the  temple  of  God,  Ps. 
xi.  4,  xviii.  7,  xxix.  9,  or  in  which  God's  throne  in  heaven  is  spoken 
of,  Ps.  ii.  4,  ciii.  19,  etc.,  as  a  purely  popular,  unconsciously  symbolical 
manner  of  expression  (4). 

According  to  the  foregoing,  God's  dwelling  falls  outside  the 
human  subject ;  the  notion  of  the  divine  indwelling  is  not  applied  to 
the  mission  of  the  Divine  Spirit  into  the  heart  of  man  (5).  Even 
the  passage  Isa.  Ivii.  15  does  not  speak  of  God  dwelling  in  the  heart 
of  the  humble  ones.  The  New  Testament  (John  i.  14)  is  the  first  to 
place  the  divine  Shekina  in  a  human  person,  in  the  Logos  become 
flesh  {eaKrjvwcrev  iv  rjfuv),  and  then  it  speaks  of  God  making  His  abode 
(fjiov7]v  TTOLelv)  with  the  believers  (John  xiv.  23).  Still  the  proper 
Shekina  of  God  in  heaven  appears  again  in  the  Apocalypse  (Rev. 
vii.  15),  and  the  aim  of  the  divine  kingdom  is  said  to  be  the  aK/jvcoaa 
of  God  on  the  glorified  earth  (xxi.  3) ;  compare  also  Jer.  iii.  16  f.  (6). 


(1)  On  the  cherubim,  compare  the  delineation  of  the  ordinances 
of  worship,  §  119. 

(2)  But  it  cannot  be  conceded  that  Ps.  xxix.  10  treats  of  this,  as 
Hofmann  thinks  in  the  Schn/tbeweis  (2d  ed.  i.  p.  208).     There  is  no 


§  C3.]  THE  DOCTKINE  OF  MIRACLE.  201 

doubt  that  ?^3^  is  there  the  flood ;  but  the  words  do  not  mean  :  At  the 
flood  Jehovah  took  up  His  residence  in  heaven,  while  before  that 
He  was  upon  the  earth  ;  but  only  :  "  Jehovah  sat  enthroned  for  the 
flood." 

(3)  On  the  ]IV  in  Lev.  xvi.  2,  see  §  118  with  note  1. 

(4)  This  conception  is  common,  and  is  that  of  De  Wette,  Bihlische 
Dogmatik,  3d  ed.  p.  73. — Compare,  too,  the  doctrine  of  God's  omni- 
presence, §  4G. 

(5)  Compare  the  doctrine  of  the  nil,  §  65.  Here  is  a  remarkable 
difference  between  the  theology  of  the  Koran  and  the  Old  Testament : 
the  Koran,  borrowing  from  the  New  Testament,  speaks  of  the  divine 
Shekina  being  sent  down  into  the  hearts  of  believers,  Sur.  xlviii.  4 
and  26  ("Who  sends  down  His  Shekina  into  the  hearts  of  believers, 
that  they  grow  continually  in  the  faith  ").  But  the  Koran  so  wholly 
lacks  the  New  Testament  knowledge  of  the  indwelling  of  God  in 
believers'  hearts  through  the  Spirit,  that  this  idea  is  reduced  to  an 
empty  phrase.  Compare  Dettinger,  "  Beitrage  zu  eincr  Theol.  des 
Korans,"  Tiih.  Zeitschr.  1834,  pp.  16-21. 

(6)  Rev.  vii.  15 :  "  They  serve  Him  day  and  night  in  His 
temple,  koI  o  Ka6i]fMevo<;  iirl  tov  Opovov  crKrjvcoaet,  ctt'  avrov'?.'' — 
According  to  Jer.  iii.  16  f.,  the  Shekina  of  Jehovah  is  to  be  no  longer 
connected  with  the  ark  of  the  covenant  in  the  time  of  salvation. 
That  indwelling  of  God,  whose  vehicle  was  the  ark  of  the  covenant, 
and  whose  abode  was  the  holy  of  holies,  shall  be  extended  over  the 
whole  of  Jerusalem,  so  that  the  ark  of  the  covenant  shall  not  be 
missed.  The  barrier  which  separated  the  sinful  people  from  their 
God  is  taken  away.  Jerusalem  is  now  co-ordinate  with  the  name  of 
Jehovah  ;  he  who  comes  to  Jerusalem,  comes  to  the  name  of  Jehovah. 
— Touching  the  import  of  the  Okl  Testament  doctrine  of  the  Shekina, 
compare  also  the  passage  from  Luther's  Exeget.  ojpera  lat.  xvi.  p.  71, 
already  quoted,  §  6,  note  3. 


§63. 

Tlic  Doctrine  of  Miracle.     Its  Historical  Appearance  and  Various 
Characteristics. 

Even  the  forms  of  revelation  discussed  in  the  preceding  para- 
graphs may  be  subsumed  under  the  notion  of  the  miracle,  in  so  far  as 
they  are  manifestations  which  interrupt  the  ordinary  course  of  nature, 
and  cannot  be  explained  thereby.     But  in  the  stricter  sense,  the  Old 


202  THE  DOCTKINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISM,  [§  G5, 

Testament  understands  by  miracles  niN?33,  not  manifestations  of  the 
Divine  Being  in  the  sense  of  immediate  personal  communication,  but 
manifestations  of  the  divine  efficacy  in  the  objective  world,  both  in 
nature  and  in  history.  It  is  characteristic  of  the  course  of  Old 
Testament  revelation,  that  no  real  miracle — that  is,  no  miracle 
accomplished  by  man's  hand — is  related  in  the  time  of  the  patriarchs. 
Not  until  the  deliverance  from  Egypt  did  God  reveal  Himself  as 
N7a  ncyy  (Ex.  XV.  11),  or,  in  other  vrords,  not  till  then  begin  the 
divine  riix^B3  (iii.  20).  Moses  is  the  first  organ  of  revelation 
endowed  with  the  gift  of  performing  miracles.  From  that  time 
onwards,  miracles  are  grouped  only  round  a  few  organs  of  revelation ; 
and,  indeed,  they  occur  chiefly  when  the  point  in  question  is  to  lay 
down  testimony  for  the  reality  of  the  God  revealed  in  Israel,  in 
contrast  to  heathenism,  that  is,  where  the  living  God  measures  Him- 
self in  combat  with  false  gods ;  so  from  Ex.  viii.  18,  xxxiv.  10,  onwards 
in  many  passages  (in  Egypt,  in  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes,  in 
Babel,  etc.). — The  closer  definition  of  the  notion  of  miracles  follows 
mainly  from  the  names  for  a  miracle : — 

1.  The  most  general  expression,  i^?3,  riiX?D3,  from  x^2  =  n^JQ,  to 
select,  characterizes  miracle  in  its  negative  aspect,  as  an  occurrence 
withdrawn  from  the  common  course  of  things,  and  thus  an  extra- 
ordinary occurrence.  This,  too,  seems  to  be  the  notion  expressed  by 
the  original  meaning  of  the  word  n??iO;  but  the  explanation  of  this 
difficult  word  is  uncertain.  According  to  the  derivation  given  by 
Delitzsch  (on  Ps.  Ixxi.  7),  it   would   come  from   the  Arabic   root 

t::^i^,  which  signifies  "  to  twist,  to  turn ; "  it  would  then  mean  some- 
thing tortuous,  strangely  turned,  and  in  this  sense  something  to  excite 
astonishment.  Others  refer  to  the  stem  hq"',  to  gleam,  or,  like 
Fiirst,  to  the  stem  J?3'»,  which  has  the  same  meaning  (so  that  the  word 
would  stand  for  riycio),  from  which  it  would  signify  glittering,  gleam- 
ing. In  the  New  Testament  this  negative  characteristic  of  a  miracle 
is  denoted  by  the  expression  re/ja?. 

2.  On  the  contrary,  the  positive  side  of  a  miracle  is  expressed  in 
the  denomination  rii"iU3,  corresponding  to  the  New  Testament  Sum/xei?, 
that  is,  indications  of  divine  power,  side  by  side  with  which  (comp.  e.g. 
Deut.  iii.  24)  there  appears  the  more  general  emphatic  expression 
D''b*j;Dj  or  more  frequently  ni?\7y,  great  deeds,  corresponding  to  epya  in 


§  Gl]  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  MIRACLE.  203 

John.  According  to  this,  a  miracle  would  mainly  be  a  divine  act  of 
power,  exempt  from  the  common  course  of  nature  and  history.  In  so 
far  as  it  is  something  new  which  cannot  be  understood  from  the  past, 
it  is  placed  under  the  view-point  of  creation,  Ex.  xxxiv.  10  :  "I  will 
do  J^'i^^S?}  such  as  have  never  been  created  (l**!??)  on  the  wliole 
earth."  Indeed,  a  miracle  is  itself  called  '1X^3,  a  thing  created, 
Num.  xvi.  30,  compared  with  Jer.  xxxi.  22. 

3.  But  the  notion  of  a  miracle  is  acknowledged  in  full,  for  the 
first  time,  by  its  teleological  designation  as  niN,  a-ijfjLeiov,  according  to 
which  its  import  is  to  be  an  indication  of  something  higher  and  divine, 
and  so  to  serve  a  definite  divine  aim.  The  word  HQio,  in  its  original 
meaning,  would  come  in  here  on  the  explanation  adopted  by  some 
scholars,  who  refer  it  to  a  root  ns^,  from  the  biliteral  DD,  signifying  to 
open.  It  would  tlius  indicate  that  by  which  anything  is  opened  and 
unlocked.  And  this  idea  is  certainly  brought  out  by  HSiD  in  its 
narrower  meaning,  in  which  it  denotes  portentum^  a  sign  pointing  to 
the  future,  or  sometimes  a  type ;  compare  Isa.  viii.  18,  xx.  3.  Perhaps 
the  word  is  so  to  be  understood  in  Deut.  xiii.  2,  where  it  is  dis- 
tinguished from  niN  (nsi»  ijt  nis). 

§  64. 

Continuation.     More  accurate  Discussion  of  the  Notion  of 
Miracles. 

What  has  been  already  stated  gives  no  more  than  a  relative  notion 
of  miracle.  Every  more  notable  manifestation  of  the  course  of 
nature  and  history  presents  a  side  on  which  it  is  extraordinary 
and  excites  astonishment,  brings  the  divine  power  to  view,  and 
is  acknowledged  as  serving  a  divine  aim.  And,  in  fact,  the  Old 
Testament  sometimes  makes  use  of  the  expression  ni>?^23  in  a  wider 
sense  ;  when,  for  example,  marine  phenomena  are  called  God's  wonders 
in  the  deep,  ?s.  cvii.  24 ;  when  in  Ps.  cxxxix.  14  it  is  said  with  refer- 
ence to  man:  "I  praise  Thee,  because  I  am  an  astonishing  wonder; 
Thy  works  are  marvellous,  and  my  soul  knoweth  it  right  well."  What 
Hegel  says  in  the  Philosophy  of  Religion  (ii.  1st  ed.  p.  49)  is  not 
correct, — namely,  that  the  things  in  the  Old  Testament  religion  are 
prosaic  things,  presented  in  various  intellectual  connections  of  cause, 


204  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSATSJI.  §  G4. 

result,  quality  and  quantity,  according  to  all  these  categories  of  the 
understanding.  This,  says  Hegel,  is  what  we  call  natural  intelligible 
connection  ;  here  also,  for  the  first  time,  the  definite  notion  "  miracle  " 
can  occur  in  contrast  to  the  natural  connection  of  things  (1).  On 
the  contrary,  what  has  been  already  said  shows  that  the  way  of 
looking  at  nature  characteristic  of  the  Old  Testament  does  not  at  all 
consist  in  the  contemplation  of  such  a  natural  causal  nexus.  God's 
power  rules  in  everything, — God,  who  causes  the  breath  of  life  to  go 
forth  and  draws  it  in  again  (Ps.  civ.  29  f.)  ;  who  unrolls  the  heaven, 
and  renews  the  earth,  etc.  (2).  Thus,  acccording  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment view,  God  does  not  by  miracle,  in  the  narrower  sense  of  the 
word,  do  anything  that  surpasses  in  quality  His  general  great  sway 
in  nature  and  history.  The  exacter  definition  of  the  notion  of 
miracles  in  the  more  limited  sense  follows  only  from  the  exacter 
definition  of  the  aim  of  miracles,  namely,  that  miracles  serve  to  reveal 
God  in  His  kingdom.  Miracles,  in  the  stricter  sense,  are  extra- 
ordinary manifestations  and  occurrences,  in  which  God  makes  known 
His  power  for  the  purposes  of  His  kingdom  in  a  unique  manner. 
From  this  it  is  explicable  why  miracles  appear  as  manifestations  of 
the  divine  holiness ;  the  t^'^'P?  '^'^^?.,  who  is  glorious  in  holiness,  is  the 
doer  of  miracles,  Ex.  xv.  11,  compare  Ps.  Ixxvii.  14  f.  (3).  Miracles 
serve  this  aim  by  means  of  the  impression  which  they  make  (Ex.  viii. 
15  :  "  This  is  the  finger  of  God  "),  but  only  in  connection  with  the 
word-witness  which  accompanies  them  or  stands  in  connection  with 
them.  Even  in  such  a  case  as  1  Sam.  vii.  10,  in  which  the  corre- 
sponding word  of  God  does  not  follow  expressly,  the  sign  is  still 
made  distinct  by  Samuel's  preceding  prayer.  But  particularly  those 
miracles  which  serve  as  the  credentials  of  an  organ  of  revelation  are 
themselves  accredited  by  the  word  of  God  given  in  advance.  Even 
a  false  prophet  may  through  circumstances  perform  signs  and  wonders, 
but  he  is  to  be  measured  and  judged  by  his  false  doctrine,  Deut, 
xiii.  2  ff. — In  this  union  with  the  word  of  God,  and  this  priority  of 
the  latter,  there  lies  a  preservative  from  the  vain  quest  after  wonders 
and  signs,  and  a  noteworthy  difference  between  the  Old  Testament 
ninit?  and  the  repara,  a/]fxara,  ostenta,  portenta  of  heathenism,  which, 
as  a  rule,  do  not  become  intelligible  by  means  of  a  testimony  in  words 
added  to  them,  but  require  explanation,  and   thus   devolve  on  the 


§  G5.1  ON  THE  SPIRIT  OF  GOD.  205 

advice  of  man  (4).  Israel  is  directed  to  the  word  of  revelation  (Deut. 
xviii.  9  &.),  in  contrast  to  all  heathen  Mantik,  which  has  searched 
through  heaven  and  earth  to  find  signs  of  the  divine  counsel,  but 
finding  no  help  falls  into  dissolution.  The  exorcism  of  the  dead,  and 
other  forms  of  the  Mantik,  are  a  horror,  Lev.  xix.  26,  31,  xx.  27 ;  and 
astrology  is  a  folly,  Isa.  xlvii.  13,  Jer.  x.  2  f.,  etc. 

(1)  Hegel,  Z.C.,  continues:  "In  earlier  religions  there  are  no 
miracles ;  in  the  Indian  religion  everything  is  already  quite  crazy. 
The  notion  of  miracles  appears  first  in  opposition  to  the  ordinances  of 
nature,  the  laws  of  nature,  the  conformity  of  nature  to  law,  .  .  .  and 
this  is  represented  as  a  manifestation  of  God  to  a  single  person." 

(2)  Compare  the  doctrine  of  maintenance,  §  52. 

(3)  Ps.  Ixxvii.  14  f. :  "  God,  TJiy  way  is  in  holiness  .  .  .  Thou  art 
the  God  that  doeth  wonders." — Compare  the  delineation  of  the  notion 
of  holiness,  §  44. 

(4)  Compare  Naegelsbach's  HomeriscJie  Theologief  1st  ed.  p.  145  ff., 
2d  ed.  p.  168  ff.,  on  the  Homeric  notion  of  miracles. 

On  the  Sj)irit  of  God. 

God  reveals  Himself  in  the  heart  of  man  by  His  Spirit,  nn,  which, 
as  the  spirit  of  revelation,  corresponds  to  the  cosmical  nn,  in  the 
same  way  as  the  word  of  revelation  corresponds  to  the  word  of 
creation.  As  the  cosmical  principle  of  life,  as  D^n??:?  nn^  as  the 
mighty  divine  force  of  all  things,  the  Spirit  is  already  the  principle  of 
the  life  of  man's  soul,  and  every  natural  intellectual  gift  in  man  is 
traced  back  to  it :  Joseph's  wisdom,  Gen.  xli.  38 ;  Bezaleel's  skill  in 
art,  Ex.  xxxi.  3,  xxxv.  31  (1).  It  lies  in  Gen.  vi.  3  that  this  Spirit  of 
God  has  also  an  ethical  bearing,  for,  according  to  this  passage,  the 
government  of  God's  Spirit  is  hampered  by  the  errors  of  mankind. 
But  clouding  and  derangement  of  the  mental  life,  such  as  was  sent  on 
Saul,  is  also  the  working  of  the  ^''O^  nn,  1  Sam.  xvi.  14-16,  23, 
xviii.  10.  And  here  this  evil  ty^rp^^  frn  is  definitely  distinguished 
from  nin''  n^n,  for  the  latter  forsook  Saul;  but  it  was  (xvi.  14) 
mn''  mD  nni,  from  Jehovah.     But  the  Spirit  as  nin--  nn,  or,  to  express 


206  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISM.  [§  35. 

it  more  definitely,  nirf  c'np  trn^  only  acts  within  the  sphere  of  revela- 
tion. It  rules  within  the  theocracy  (Isa.  Ixiii.  11 ;  Hag.  ii.  5;  Neh. 
ix.  20),  but  not  as  if  all  citizens  of  the  Old  Testament  theocracy  as 
such  participated  in  this  Spirit,  which  Moses  expresses  as  a  wish 
(Num.  xi.  29)  (2),  but  which  is  reserved  for  the  future  community  of 
salvation  (John  iii.  1).  In  the  Old  Testament,  the  Spirit's  sway  in 
the  divine  kingdom  is  rather  that  it  arms  the  organs  of  the  theocracy 
with  the  gifts  required  for  their  calling,  and  those  gifts  of  office  in 
the  Old  Testament  are  correlative  to  the  gifts  of  grace  in  the  New 
Testament,  1  Cor.  xii.  ff.  In  the  Pentateuch  its  working  appears 
exclusively  in  this  connection.  The  Spirit  bestows  on  Moses  and  the 
seventy  elders  skill  to  guide  the  people  (Num.  xi.  17  ff.),  also  to  Joshua 
(Num.  xxvii.  18 ;  Deut.  xxxiv.  9),  and  works  at  a  later  period  in  the 
judges,  awakening  and  arming  them  (Judg.  vi.  34,  xi.  29,  xiii.  25), 
and  comes  on  the  kings  who  were  called  by  God  at  their  anointing 
(1  Sam.  X.  6,  xvi.  13) ;  as  the  Spirit  of  revelation,  He  produces  in 
particular  the  gift  of  prophecy,  Num.  xi.  25  fP. ;  and  even  as  nn 
D^^1'^5  imparts  the  ability  to  prophesy  to  the  heathen  Balaam  (Num. 
xxiv.  2),  by  which  means  he  is  made  an  organ  of  the  revealing  God 
against  his  will  (xxii.  38).  On  the  contrary,  the  Spirit  does  not 
appear  in  the  Pentateuch  as  the  principle  of  sanctification  in  the 
pious ;  this  is  first  spoken  of  in  the  Psalms,  Ps.  li.  13,  comp.  vers.  12 
and  14,  cxhii.  10  (3). 

Now  this  Spirit  is  represented  as  a  power  proceeding  from  Jehovah, 
— a  something  communicated  by  Him  which  clings  to  the  person  to 
whom  it  is  communicated,  so  that  it  may  be  apportioned  from  him  to 
others  (Num.  xi.  17,  25;  comp.  also  2  Kings  ii.  9),  but  it  can  also  be 
taken  away  from  him  (as  from  Saul,  1  Sam.  xvi.  14).  It  does  not 
follow  from  1  Kings  xxii.  21  that  the  Spirit  is  regarded  as  personal, 
even  if  more  than  a  personification  is  meant  there  (4) ;  but  the 
passage  Isa.  Ixiii.  10,  "But  they  strove  against  His  Holy  Spirit,  and 
grieved  Him"  (an  expression  which  reminds  us  of  the  word  in 
reference  to  the  Mal'ach,  Ex.  xxiii.  21,  "Do  not  provoke  Him"), 
does  imply  that  in  the  Spirit  Jehovah  personally  acts  (5). 

The  relation  of  the  Spirit  of  revelation  to  the  human  subject  is 
characterized  in  a  way  that  makes  it  clear  why  a  full  indwelling  of 
the  Spirit  in  man,  a  penetration  of  the  human  spirit  by  the  Holy 


§  6G.]        THE  PSYCHICAL  STATES  OF  THE  ORGANS  OF  REVELATION.  207 

Spirit,  is  not  reached  in  the  Old  Testament,  but  only  a  working  on 
the  human  mind.  The  Spirit  is  put  on  man,  \r\:  with  ^V,  Num.  xi.  25, 
29 ;  D^b'  with  ^V,  ver.  17 ;  He  rests  on  him,  nij^  ver.  26 ;  He  clothes 
Himself  with  a  man,  ^^b,  Judg.  vi.  34  (compare  1  Chron.  xii.  18, 
2  Chron.  xxiv.  20)  (6)  ;  He  breaks  in  upon  him,  n^v  with  ?V,  Judg.  xiv. 
6,  19,  and  in  other  passages.  His  operations  are  characterized  as  an 
impulse  or  stroke,  DV3,  xiii.  25,  and  therefore  He  often  operates 
violently  and  overpoweringly  on  the  human  constitution  (7). 

(1)  See  the  particulars  in  the  Anthropology,  §  70. 

(2)  Num.  xi.  29 :  "  Would  that  all  the  people  were  the  prophets 
of  the  Lord,  and  that  the  Lord  would  put  His  Spirit  upon  them  !  " 

(3)  Ps.  li.  13,  "  Take  not  Thy  Holy  Spirit  from  me ; "  cxliii.  10, 
*'  Let  Thy  good  Spirit  lead  me." 

(4)  The  passage  1  Kings  xxii.  21,  on  the  Spirit  of  God,  which 
acted  as  a  lying  spirit  in  the  prophets,  is  discussed  under  the  doctrine 
of  Satan  in  the  prophetic  part  of  this  book. 

(5)  Though  we  must  not  read  the  dogma  of  the  New  Testament 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  into  the  Old  Testament,  it  is  yet  undeniable 
that  we  find  the  way  to  oeconomic  Trinity  of  the  New  Testament 
already  prepared  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Mal'ach  and  of  the  Spirit. 

(6)  The  expositors  dispute  the  explanation  of  the  expression  ^27. 
Bertheau,  Keil,  Fuerst  thus  explain  Judg.  vi.  34:  The  Spirit  laid 
itself  round  Gideon  like  a  coat  of  mail.  But  on  this  view,  ought  not 
Hiphil  to  be  used?  and  is  it  not  more  correct  to  render  induit  eum  .  .  . 
Gideoni  se  includens  ?  The  man  is  looked  on  as  the  covering  of  the 
Spirit,  which  rules,  speaks,  and  testifies  in  him. 

(7)  The  further  delineation  of  the  operations  of  the  Spirit  on  the 
prophets,  when  we  come  to  the  theology  of  the  prophets,  must  connect 
itself  with  these  simple  notions,  as  they  are  deduced  mainly  from  the 
principal  passage,  Num.  xi. 

Tlie  Psychical  States  of  the  Organs  of  Revelation. 

As  the  psychical  states  in  which  the  reception  of  revelation  by 
man  takes  place,  the  principal  passage  (Num.  xii.  6-8)  names,  1.  The 
Dream ;  2.  The  Vision ;  3.  The  immediate  contemplation  of  the 
Divinity  as  imparted  to  Moses,  which  stands  higher  than  the  other 
t\\io  (1). 


208  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  M0SAIS3I.  [§  6S. 

1.  Dreams  occur  in  the  Old  Testament,  as  in  antiquity  generally, 
as  the  vehicle  of  divine  revelation,  but  only  in  a  subordinate  way  (2). 
It  may  be  concluded  from  1  Sam.  xxviii.  6 — in  which  a  scale  of  the 
forms  of  revelation  is  given — that  it  stands  lowest  among  the  forms  of 
revelation  ;  this  becomes  still  more  clear  from  Deut.  xiii.  2-5,  accord- 
ing to  which  no  one  can  accredit  himself  as  an  organ  of  revelation  by 
means  of  dreams  alone,  but  especially  from  Jer.  xxiii.  28  f.,  where  th& 
"  straw  "  refers  to  dreams,  and  the  consciously  received  word  of  God 
is  designated  "  corn "  (3).  So,  too,  Eccles.  v.  2,  6  says,  "  Dreams 
come  through  much  care."  "Where  there  are  many  dreams  and 
vanity,  there  are  also  many  words ;  but  thou  shalt  fear  thy  God." 
While  the  prophets  never  appeal  to  dreams  in  their  extant  prophecies,^ 
dreams  serve  mainly  as  a  vehicle  of  revelation  to  those  who,  though 
they  are  not  properly  speaking  organs  of  revelation,  obtain  a  divine 
communication  in  extraordinary  circumstances.  In  the  Pentateuch, 
dreams  and  the  power  of  interpreting  dreams  given  by  God  occur 
only  in  Gen.  xx.  3,  6,  xxviii.  12,  xxxvii.  6  f.,  chap.  xli.  (Joseph)  ;. 
besides  these,  compare  in  the  Old  Testament,  Judg.  vii.  13  ff., 
1  Kings  iii.  5,  and  the  dreams  in  the  book  of  Daniel,  because  at  the 
Babylonian  as  at  the  Egyptian  court  the  revelation  of  the  true  God 
had  to  prove  its  superiority  over  the  heathen  Mantik.  How  God 
awakens  the  sleeping  conscience  of  man  by  dreams  is  shown  by  Eliha 
in  the  book  of  Job  xxxiii.  15  ff. 

2.  Visions,  which  are  called  nx"iD  in  the  above-cited  passage 
in  Numbers,  elsewhere  in  general  nmD,  Gen.  xv.  1,  li'^'tn,  presuppose  a 
previous  elevation  of  the  life  of  the  soul  into  an  extraordinary  state, 
as  is  made  prominent  in  the  first  narrative  in  which  a  vision  appears, 
in  Gen.  xv.  (with  Abraham)  (especially  in  the  HOTiri,  ver.  12,  sleep's 
deepest  stupor,  in  which  the  inner  vision  arises).  Still  the  difference 
between  a  dream  and  a  vision  may  be  regarded  as  not  sharply 
marked.  Visions  do  not  become  a  common  form  of  revelation  until 
the  appearance  of  prophecy,  and  therefore  this  point  is  to  be  treated 
more  fully  in  the  prophetic  theology. — God  speaks  by  the  two  forms, 
dreams  and  visions,  as  is  said  in  Num.  xii.  8,  only  n'"T'n3j  in  riddles,  in 
a  way  which  demands  an  explanation  of  the  pictures  viewed. 

3.  The  immediate  view  of  the  Divinity  (i^S"%  ns)  with  which 
Moses  was  favoured  stands  higher  than  these  forms ;  that  figureless,. 


§  GG.]        THE  PSYCHICAL  STATES  OF  THE  ORGANS  OF  REVELATION.         200 

perfect,  clear  communication  of  knowledge,  which  is  to  be  distinguished 
also  from  the  vision  of  God  in  emblematical  tokens,  spoken  in  Ex. 
xxiv,  10  of  Aaron  and  the  elders  of  Israel.  For  the  rest,  the  prin- 
ciple that  a  clear  consciousness  when  receiving  revelation  is  placed 
higher  than  ecstasy  is  of  great  import  for  the  standpoint  of  Old 
Testament  religion  ;  comp.  the  psychological  discussion  of  prophecy, 
as  well  as  use  of  the  passage  Num.  xii.  6-8  in  1  Cor.  xiii.  12  (4). — 
The  idea  that  in  the  case  of  some  persons  a  view  into  the  future  opens 
at  the  moment  of  death  is  expressed  in  the  Old  Testament  in  Gen. 
xlix.  and  Deut.  xxxiii.  (in  the  blessings  of  Jacob  and  Moses).  This 
idea  is  also  found  in  heathen  antiquity  (5). 

(1)  Num.  xii.  6-8  :  "  Hear  ye  my  words  :  If  there  is  among  you  a 
prophet  of  Jehovah,  I  will  manifest  myself  to  him  in  vision  (nt{"iJ33), 
and  I  will  speak  with  him  in  dreams.  Not  so  my  servant  Moses.  He 
is  faithful  in  my  whole  house.  I  speak  with  him  mouth  to  mouth 
and  through  the  medium  of  vision  (nxno^),  and  not  in  riddles,  and  he 
sees  the  form  of  Jehovah ;  and  how  is  it  that  ye  are  not  afraid  to 
speak  against  my  servant  Moses  ?  " 

(2)  This  was  also  the  Homeric  view ;  see  Nagelsbach,  homer.  TheoL 
1st  ed.  p.  159  ff.,  2d  ed.  p.  182  ff. 

(3)  1  Sam.  xxviii.  6  :  "Jehovah  answered  Saul  neither  by  dreams, 
nor  by  the  Urim,  nor  by  prophets." — Jer.  xxiii.  28  f. :  "  Let  the 
prophet  who  has  dreams  tell  dreams,  but  he  who  has  my  word  must 
speak  my  word  in  truth  ;  what  has  the  straw  to  do  with  the  corn  ?  is 
Jehovah's  saying." 

(4)  In  1  Cor.  xiii.  12,  that  vision  of  the  Divinity  which  took  place 
with  Moses  is  designated  by  Paul  as  the  form  of  knowledge  with 
which  we  are  not  yet  favoured,  but  shall  be  in  the  future. 

(5)  Comp.  Nagelsbach,  homer.  TJieol.  1st  ed.  p.  163,  2d  ed.  p. 
185  f. 


VOL.  T. 


210  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISJI.  [§  C8, 

SECOND    DIVISION. 
THE    DOCTRINE    OF    MAN. 

§67. 

General  View. 

First  of  all,  the  nature  of  man  is  to  be  described  without  reference 
to  the  contradictory  elements  which  through  sin  entered  into  its  develop- 
ment ;  and  then  these  contradictory  elements  are  to  be  set  forth  as  they 
appear  in  the  difference  between  the  original  perfection  of  the  life  of 
man  on  the  one  side,  and  the  state  of  sin  and  death  in  which  man  now 
is  on  the  other  side.  The  anthropology  of  Mosaism  is  here  to  be 
carried  up  to  the  point  in  which  it  passes  over  into  the  delineation  of 
the  theocratic  relation  of  man  to  God  (1). 

(1)  For  the  rich  literature  on  Biblical  anthropology,  compare  the 
most  detailed  work  on  this  topic :  Dehtzsch,  System  der  hihl.  Psyclio- 
logie,  1855,  2d  ed.  1861.  {Translated  in  Clark's  For.  Theol.  Lib.} 
Besides  this,  the  little  book,  Fundamenta  Psycliologice  ex  sacra  scrip- 
tura  coUectaj  1769,  by  Roos,  which  is  rich  in  fine  remarks,  and  not 
yet  obsolete  ;  and  the  Uniriss  der  MM.  Seelenlehre,  by  Beck,  1843,  3d 
ed.  1871,  deserve  special  mention.  Umbreit's  book,  Die  Lehre  von  der 
Siinde,  ein  Beitrag  zur  Theol.  des  A.  71,  1853,  goes  over  a  good  part 
of  anthropology.  Separate  monographs  will  be  mentioned  in  their 
proper  places. 


FIRST   CnAPTER. 

THE  NATURE  OF  MAN  IN  ITS  MAIN  UNCHANGEABLE  FEATURES. 
I.   THE  IDEA  OF  MAN. 

§68. 

The  idea  of  man  is  expressed  in  the  statement  that  he  is  created 
in  the  image  of  God  (Gen.  i.  26  f.).  This  divine  image  is  propagated 
(v.  1,  compared  with  ver.  3).  The  dignity  of  the  divine  image  is  a 
second  time  ascribed  to  man  (ix.  6),  from  which  it  is  clear  that  the 


§  GS,]  THE  IDEA  OF  MAN.  211 

divine  image  lies  inalienably  in  man's  being. — The  divine  image  is  not 
twofold  in  the  sense  that  in  the  words,  i.  26,  ^^n^ona  ^ir;h^  DHX  n|>j?3 
(LXX.  TTOLijcrcofjiev  auOpoiTTOV  KaT  elicova  '^/xerepav  kol  Ka&'  oixoloscnv), 
a  distinction  is  to  be  made  between  Q?^  {etKcov)  and  n^O"^  {o[xoiw(ni)  • 
as,  for  example,  Justin  Martyr  and  Iren^us  referred  the  first  to  the 
bodily  form  and  the  second  to  the  spirit ;  or  the  Alexandrian  Fathers 
proposed  to  understand  /car'  elKova  of  the  rational  basis  of  man's 
nature,  and  the  Ka6^  6/x,oLu>aLV  of  its  free  development  to  TeXelcoaL'?. 
The  il^il^l?  in  the  passage  quoted  refers  rather  to  the  same  thing  as 
the^3?ppV3;  it  only  serves  to  fix  and  strengthen  the  meaning  of  the 
latter  ;  it  is  specially  intended  to  express  that  the  divine  image  which 
man  bears  is  really  one  corresponding  to  the  original  pattern  (1).  In 
the  omission  of  ''^n^olip  in  the  passage  ix.  6,  w-e, might  be  led  to  find 
an  indication  that  the  divine  image  in  sinful  man  was  no  longer 
adequate  to  its  original  type.  Still,  ix.  6  simply  refers  to  i.  27,  in 
which  the  ri'S'n  is  not  repeated. 

But  now  what  is  to  be  understood  by  the  divine  image  ?  Not, 
certainly,  that  the  human  body  was  to  be  supposed  to  be  a  copy  of  the 
divine  form,  for  Elohim,  the  creative  God,  is  without  form  (comp.  § 
46).  "We  might  rather  say  (2),  that  the  human  figure  was  to  be  so 
formed  that  it  might  serve  to  I'epresent  God  Himself  when  He 
revealed  Himself ;  compare  also  Ezek.  i.  26  (3),  and  in  espocial  Ps. 
xciv.  8-10  might  be  here  adduced ;  while,  on  the  contrary,  the  forms 
of  animals  never  appear  in  the  Old  Testament  as  a  vehicle  of  God's 
self-manifestation,  but  were  applied  to  Jehovah  only  in  idolatrous 
worship  (4).  The  nobility  which  appears  in  the  bodily  figure  of  man 
is  certainly  not  to  be  excluded  from  the  divine  image,  but  it  is  un- 
doubtedly an  error  to  limit  the  latter  to  what  is  bodily.  It  Is  equally 
erroneous  to  limit  the  divine  likeness  to  the  dominion  over  the  animal 
world,  as  the  Soclnlans  did.  This,  no  doubt,  is  also  contained  In  the 
notion,  but  only  as  a  consequence,  and  so  as  a  secondary  element ; 
compare  Gen.  i.  26,  and  the  passage  ix.  6,  which  looks  back  on  the 
latter.  The  divine  likeness  is  rather  to  be  referred  to  the  whole 
dignity  of  man  (inni  1i33,  comp.  Ps.  viii.  6),  in  virtue  of  which  human 
nature  is  sharply  distinguished  from  that  of  the  beasts,  man  is  set 
over  nature  as  a  free  person,  and  designed  for  communion  with  God, 
and  to  take  God's  place  on  earth.     The  first  or  negative  element,  the 


212  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISJI.  [§  G8 

strict  separation  of  man  from  beast,  is  expressed,  firstly,  in  the  fact 
that  although  animals  are  animate  like  man,  and  possess  a  ^^^.,  yet  the 
creation  of  man  and  his  animation,  according  to  Gen.  i.  26,  ii.  7,  is  a 
unique  and  peculiar  divine  act  (5)  ;  and  further,  in  the  circumstance 
that  man  finds  no  corresponding  companionship  among  all  the  animals 
(ii.  20)  ;  lastly,  in  the  permission  to  man  to  kill  every  animal,  but  not 
another  man  (ix.  2  ff.),  and  this  because  of  the  divine  likeness  (comp. 
§  108).  The  prohibitions  in  Ex.  xxii.  18,  Lev.  xviii.  23,  xx.  15,  rest 
on  this  acknowledgment  of  the  dignity  of  human  nature,  by  which  all 
connection  of  man  with  beast — an  abomination  for  which  the  heathen 
have  no  moral  abhorrence — was  to  be  punished  by  the  death  of  the 
criminal.  Thus  the  standpoint  of  the  religion  of  nature  is  absolutely 
denied  in  the  Old  Testament,  alike  in  the  idea  of  God  as  the  Holy 
One,  and  in  the  idea  of  man  as  God's  image. — The  second  positive 
element  is  indicated  partly  in  the  main  passage  Gen.  i.  26,  and  partly 
in  the  whole  history,  chap.  ii.  and  iii. :  A  being  is  to  stand  at  the 
head  of  the  creatures,  invested  with  dominion  over  them  (comp.  Ps. 
viii.  7-9),  with  whom  God  holds  intercourse  as  with  His  equal,  and 
who  is  appointed,  like  God,  to  be  a  free  pei'sonality  (though  we  see  from 
Gen.  iii.  22,  comp.  ver.  5,  that  man  arrives  at  this  by  a  wrong  way). 
To  the  ethical  idea  of  God  corresponds  the  ethical  idea  of  man.  The 
spiritual  dominion  of  man  over  the  beasts  is  indicated  in  the  giving  of 
names,  Gen.  ii.  19  f.  In  regard  to  this  dignity  of  man,  Ps.  viii.  6 
says  that  man  was  made  little  lower  than  Elohim,  than  a  numen,  a 
divine  being  (6).  The  book  of  Sirach  xvii.  3-6  (enumerating 
dominion  over  the  animals,  free  will,  speech,  sense,  etc.)  gives  an 
explanation  of  the  divine  image  which  is  on  the  whole  correct,  only 
that  the  essential  feature,  that  man  was  appointed  to  communion  with 
God  in  virtue  of  his  likeness  to  Him,  is  not  brought  forward  (7), 

(1)  My  view  is  that  this  is  the  correct  conception  of  Gen.  i.  26.. 
TJmbreit,  for  example,  has  understood  the  passage  quite  differently  in 
the  book  cited  above,  p.  4 :  "  The  3  seems  rather  to  lessen  than 
strengthen  the  meaning  of  2  ;  man  is  to  appear  in  the  image  of  God — 
not,  however,  in  complete  similarity  to  God's  image,  but  only  after 
His  likeness." — But  the  emphatic  repetition  of  ^^\^^^  Q^V^  i'^^V?  in  ver.. 
27  does  not  agree  with  this;  on  this  view,  the  HVona  would  rather 
require  to  be  repeated  in  explanation. 


§  69.]  SEXUAL  RELATIONS  OF  MAN.  213 

(2)  Compare  Hofmann,  Weissagung  und  Erfiillung,  i.  p.  73. 

(3)  In  Ezek.  i.  26  it  is  said,  in  reference  to  the  theophany :  "  On 
the  figure  of  the  throne  there  was  D^^^  nx"i?p3  niD^,  a  form  with  the 
appearance  of  a  man." 

(4)  On  the  point  that  divine  attributes  are  symbolized  in  the 
cherubim,  see  hereafter  the  deUneation  of  the  ordinances  of  worship, 
§119. 

(5)  For  particulars  see  §  70. 

(6)  The  LXX.  translate  the  Q"'']''!?'^  in  Ps.  viii.  6  by  Trap'  dyyeXov;, 
and  it  is  certain  that  this  translation  is  not  exact.  But  it  is  generally 
overlooked  that  the  text  does  not  say  "as  thou,"  or  at  least  "as 
Jehovah,"  as  Schultz  (alttest.  Tlieol.  i.  p.  358)  has  well  remarked. 
The  idea,  Thou  hast  made  him  little  lower  than  Jehovah,  would  not 
have  been  possible  in  the  Old  Testament.  ^^>?^^.  here  stands  in  the 
indefinite  and  general  meaning  numen,  divine  being,  and  thus  far 
the  translation  of  the  LXX.  is  not  exactly  incorrect. 

(7)  Upon  the  import  of  the  Old  Testament  idea  of  man,  see  in 
especial  Lutz,  Bibl.  Dogmatik,  p.  17.  He  characterizes  it  as  a  fact 
of  absolute  weight  and  greatness  that  the  difference  between  spirit 
and  nature  is  here  so  fully  brought  out,  and  that  the  value  of  spiritual 
existence  is  not  placed  merely  in  the  power  of  thought,  but  in  moral 
purity. 


II.   SEXUAL  RELATIONS  OF  MAN. 
§69. 

1.  The  sexual  relation  of  man  and  woman  is  originally  ordained 
in  Gen.  i.  27  (l^n^<  S<";i^  nnpi^i  nar).  The  frequent  assertion  that, 
according  to  Genesis,  man  was  originally  created  androgynous  (1), 
cannot  be  reconciled  with  the  passage  quoted,  and  has  only  arisen 
from  a  false  view  of  the  relation  of  chap.  i.  to  chap.  ii.  (2).  Besides, 
even  chap.  ii.  teaches  nothing  about  a  man  who  was  at  once  man  and 
woman,  and  drawn  from  whom  man  and  woman  as  such  derived  their 
being.  But  man  was  created  first,  and  the  woman  by  being  taken 
from  him ;  as  also  the  passage  is  understood  in  1  Tim.  ii.  13,  1  Cor. 
si.  8  f.  (3).  It  agrees  with  this  that  the  perfection  of  mankind  is 
also  realized  in  a  man,  in  the  SevTepo<;  *ABdfi,  and  that  the  avaardareayf; 
viol  are  not  spouses,  neither  marry  nor  are  given  in  marriage,  but 
^hall   be  ladyyeXocj  Matt.  xxii.  30,  Luke  xx.  36.     But  that  man's 


214  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISM.  [§  G9. 

existence  in  two  sexes  as  compared  with  his  original  singleness  is 
already  (as  has  been  maintained  even  in  modern  times)  the  beginning 
of  the  fall,  is  contrary  to  the  natural  sense  of  Gen.  ii.  18  ff. 

2.  According  to  this  passage,  marriage,  that  primitive  form  of 
human  society  from  which  all  other  forms  of  society  arise,  and  for 
which  man  gives  up  the  others  (comp.  ii.  24),  did  not  spring  from 
the  blind  sway  of  natural  impulse,  but  from  divine  institution.  Its 
original  form  is  monogamy  (comp.  Matt.  xix.  6);  and  the  fact  that 
the  bond  of  matrimony  is  represented  as  stronger  than  that  moral 
relation  between  parents  and  children,  which  is  placed  so  high  in  the 
Old  Testament,  indicates  that  it  forms  not  simply  a  bodily  union  (1^3 
*irii?),  but  also  a  spiritual  oneness.  Monogamy  appears  still  among 
the  first  patriarchs  (Abraham,  Nahor,  Isaac),  besides  which,  to  be 
sure,  the  taking  of  concubines  is  allowable  (Gen.  xxii.  24,  xxv.  6), 
and  even  in  certain  circumstances  happens  at  the  wish  of  the  legiti- 
mate spouse  herself  (xvi.  3,  xxx.  3,  9).  It  is  characteristic  that 
polygamy  (Gen.  iv.  19)  is  traced  to  the  Cainites.  The  law — we  here 
at  once  observe  (comp.  §  102) — does  indeed  tolerate  polygamy,  but 
does  not  sanction  it,  and,  moreover,  provides  against  the  hardships 
that  readily  attach  to  it ;  comp.  Ex.  xxi.  10,  Deut.  xxi.  15  ff.  Bigamy, 
in  the  form  in  which  Genesis  represents  it  as  forced  on  Jacob,  namely, 
the  simultaneous  marriage  with  two  sisters,  was  afterwards  expressly 
forbidden  in  the  law.  Lev.  xviii.  18  (comp.  §  103,  with  note  3).  In 
general,  monogamy  remained  predominant  among  the  people  of  Israel, 
as,  in  fact,  the  description  of  a  wife  in  Prov.  xii.  4,  xix.  14,  xxxi.  10  ff., 
and  in  particular  the  prophetic  representation  of  the  covenant  between 
Jehovah  and  His  people  as  marriage,  clearly  presuppose  that  mono- 
gamy is  the  rule  (4). — The  possession  of  children,  by  which  the  house 
is  built  up  (Gen.  xvi.  2,  xxx.  3,  etc.),  is  looked  on  as  a  divine  blessing 
from  Gen.  i.  28  onwards.  "From  Jehovah"  Eve  obtains  her  first 
son,  iv.  1  (5) ;  it  is  God  who  in  Seth  gave  her  another  seed  instead  of 
the  murdered  Abel,  iv.  25 ;  it  is  always  God  who  makes  a  mother 
fruitful  or  unfruitful,  xxix.  31,  xxx.  2,  and  who  will  be  entreated  for 
the  fruit  of  the  body,  xxv.  21,  xxix.  32  f.,  xxx.  17,  22.  Unfruitfulness 
is  a  heavy  divine  dispensation  (xvi.  2,  compare  1  Sam.  i.  6  f.),  indeed 
a  dishonour  to  a  woman.  Gen.  xxx.  23 ;  childlessness  is  looked  upon 
as  the  greatest  misfortune  to  a  house.     Compare  also  such  passages 


§  C9.]  SEXUAL  RELATIONS  OF  MAN.  215 

as  Ps.  cxxvii.  3  ff.,  cxxviii.  3  ff.  (where  a  fruitful  wife  and  a  group  of 
joyous  thriving  children  are  designated  as  the  crown  of  earthly  joy), 
etc.  To  hinder  fruitfulness  is  treated,  Gen.  xxxviii.  9  f.,  as  an 
abomination  worthy  of  death.  There  is  in  ancient  Israel  no  trace  of  the 
custom  of  killing  and  casting  out  children  to  ward  off  the  increase  of 
family  cares,  which  is  so  widely  spread  in  heathenism  (6).  Thus  the 
natural  forms  of  human  society  are  sanctified  from  the  beginning  by 
the  religious  point  of  view  under  which  they  are  placed  (7). 

3.  All  mankind  is  a  connected  race  of  brothers  (e^  evo^  ai/jbaro'?, 
Acts  xvii.  26).  The  differences  between  nations  and  ranks  of  life 
do  not  rest  on  various  physical  origin,  but  upon  the  law  of  God, 
who  made  the  nations  to  differ  and  who  set  them  their  boundaries 
(Deut.  xxxii.  8),  and  who  reveals  His  retributive  ordinances  even  in 
their  natural  character  (Canaan,  Moab,  Ammon,  etc.). 

(1)  The  fiction  in  Plato's  Symposion,  chap.  14-16,  has  been  very 
unsuitably  adduced  in  comparison. 

(2)  The  false  view  referred  to  is  that  Gen.  ii.  wishes  to  portray 
something  different  from  and  later  than  chap.  i.  If  so,  we  should  be 
compelled  to  find  in  chap.  i.  the  creation  of  man  and  wife  in  insepar- 
able union.  But  it  was  remarked  above  (§  18,  with  note  3)  that  the 
second  account  is  rather  to  be  looked  on  as  a  supplement  to  the  first. 

(3)  1  Cor.  xi.  8  f.  :  Ov  ^ydp  icmv  avrjp  e/c  iyuvaiKo<;,  aWa  lyvvr] 
i^  ai/Spo?*  Kol  lyap  vvk  iKTLadrj  dvjjp  Bia  ttjv  yvvat/ca,  dWd  yvprj  Sia 
Tov  avSpa. 

(4)  There  is  a  moral  moment  contained  in  the  fact  that  conjugal 
cohabitation  is  characterized  as  a  knowing  (the  expression  is  certainly 
used  a  few  times  euphemistically  of  vicious  human  intermixture,  but 
never  of  animal  copulation) — namely,  that  it  is  "  an  act  of  personal 
freedom  of  will,  and  not  the  work  of  blind  natural  impulse,  and  con- 
tains moral  self-decision  as  its  presupposition  "  (Keil  on  Gen.  iv.  1) 
[Article,  "  Padagogik  des  A.  T."]  ;  comp.  §  81. 

(5)  That  is,  the  communion  with  God  in  which  man  has  remained 
even  after  the  fall  is  testified  co  her  by  his  birth.  Gen.  iv.  1  refers 
back  to  iii.  15  f.,  but  still  the  passage  by  no  means  speaks  of  the 
birth  of  the  God-man  (as  Luther  translates,  "  I  have  the  man,  the 
Lord"). 

(6)  Compare  Philo,  de  Spec.  leg.,  ed.  Mang.,  ii.  318.  This  is  also 
represented  by  heathen  writers  as  something  peculiar;  see  Tacitus, 
Histories,  v.  5. — The  exposing  of  Moses,  wJiich  was  an  attempt  to 


216  THE  DOCTRINES  AKD  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISM.  [§  70. 

save  the  cliild,  cannot,  of  course,  be  cited  here;  Job  iii.  11  ff.  and 
Ezek.  xvi.  5  (where  Jerusalem  is  compared  to  a  child  cast  out  in  its 
blood)  prove  nothing  for  an  Israelitish  custom.  Since  the  exposing 
of  daughters  is  mentioned  as  an  ancient  Arabian  custom,  we  may, 
with  Hitzig,  find  a  reference  in  the  latter  passage  to  what  might 
sometimes  happen  at  the  birth  of  a  Bedouin  child,  particularly  a  girl 
[above  art.]. 

(7)  In  answer  to  those  who,  for  example,  compare  the  importance 
of  the  family  in  the  Old  Testament  with  the  importance  which  the 
Indian  religion  lays  on  the  possession  of  descendants,  because  the 
condition  of  the  dead  ancestors  depends  on  the  offerings  of  their 
descendants,  it  is  enough  to  point  to  Hegel's  review  of  W.  v.  Hum- 
boldt's essay,  "  Ueber  die  unter  dem  Namen  Bhagavad-Gita  bekannte 
Episode  des  Mahabharata"  (Hegel's  Werke,  xvi.  p.  368  ff.). 


III.   THE  ELEMENTS  OF  HUMAN  NATUKE  (1). 

§70. 

Body,  Soul,  Sjnrit. 

The  nature  of  man,  like  that  of  all  animated  beings,  arose  out  of 
two  elements — namely,  from  earthly  material  ("^^V,  "^9*7^)?  ^^^  from 
the  Divine  Spirit  (0^1),  Gen.  ii.  7,  comp.  Ps.  civ.  29  f.,  cxlvi.  4.  As  in 
general  C'p3,  soul,  originates  in  the  "i'^2,  the  flesh,  by  the  union  of  spirit 
with  matter,  so  in  particular  the  human  soul  arises  in  the  human 
body  by  the  breathing  of  the  divine  breath  (C^n  nOu'J)  into  the 
material  frame  of  the  human  body.  But  although  the  life-spring  of 
the  n^i,  from  which  the  soul  arises,  is  common  to  man  and  beast,  both 
do  not  originate  from  it  in  the  same  way.  The  souls  of  animals  arise, 
like  plants  from  the  earth,  as  a  consequence  of  the  divine  word  of 
power.  Gen.  i.  24  (n*n  e'S3  pxn  X^fin).  Thus  the  spirit  of  the  creation, 
who  entered  in  the  beginning,  i.  2,  into  matter,  rules  in  them ;  their 
connection  with  the  divine  spring  of  life  is  through  the  medium  of  the 
common  terrestrial  creation.  But  the  human  soul  does  not  spring 
from  the  earth,  but  is  created  by  a  special  act  of  divine  inbreathing ; 
see  il.  7  in  connection  with  i.  26.  The  human  body  was  formed  from 
the  earth  before  the  soul ;  in  it,  therefore,  those  powers  operate  which 
are  inherent  to  matter  apart  from  the  soul  (a  proposition  which  is  of 
great  importance,  as  Delitzsch  rightly  remarks).     But  the  human 


§  70.]  ELEMENTS  OF  HUMAN  NATURE — BODY,  SOUL,  SPIRIT.  217 

body  is  still  not  an  animated  body ;  the  powers  existing  in  the  material 
frame  are  not  yet  comprehended  into  a  unity  of  life ;  the  breath  of 
life  is  communicated  to  this  frame  directly  from  God,  and  so  the 
living  man  originates.  According  to  the  view  of  some,  this  specific 
difference  between  the  life  of  the  human  soul  and  that  of  animals  is 
expressed  by  the  use  of  the  term  noco  in  ii.  7  (2).  This,  however, 
cannot  be  established,  for  in  vii.  22  ("  All  in  whose  nostrils  was  the 
breath  of  hfe  died")  the  exclusive  reference  of  the  expression  •lott'j  to 
man  (as  merely  another  expression  for  ^1^^  ''3,  ver.  21),  coming 
between  the  general  terms  comprehending  man  and  beast,  which  stand 
both  before  and  after  it,  is  not  natural.  In  Deut.  xx,  16,  Josh.  x. 
40.  xi.  11-14,  nmh'b^  denotes  only  men ;  but  in  these  passages  the 
special  reference  of  the  expression  is  made  clear  by  the  connection, — in 
the  passage  in  Deuteronomy  by  ver.  18,  and  in  the  book  of  Joshua 
because  from  viii.  2  onwards  the  cattle  are  expressly  excepted  from 
the  Q7.n.  Otherwise  one  might  as  well  prove  from  Josh.  xi.  11, 
where  c'san-ps  is  used  exclusively  of  man,  that  the  human  soul  alone 
is  called  ti'Si.  But  it  is  correct  that  in  the  other  places  in  the  Old 
Testament  in  which  n?rj''3  occurs  it  is  never  expressly  used  of  the 
mere  animal  principle  of  life ;  comp.  Isa.  xlii.  5,  Prov.  xx.  27,  Job 
xxxii.  8,  and  Ps.  cl.  6  (n^'^'an  hb).  Thus  the  substance  of  the  human 
soul  is  the  divine  spirit  of  life  uniting  itself  with  matter;  the  spirit  is 
not  merely  the  cause  by  reason  of  which  the  B'DJ  contained  before- 
hand in  the  body  becomes  living,  as  Gen.  ii.  7  has  by  some  been 
understood  (3).  For  in  the  "isy  as  such,  in  the  structure  of  dust,  there 
is,  according  to  the  Old  Testament,  as  yet  no  ti'SJj  not  even  latently. 
This  is  first  in  the  "i^3,  in  the  flesh ;  but  the  earthly  materials  do  not 
become  flesh  until  the  ni"*  has  joined  with  it,  vi.  17,  vii.  15,  Job  xii.  10, 
xxxiv.  14  f.  It  is  no  proof  against  this  (as  has  further  been  objected) 
that  in  some  passages  (Lev.  xxi.  11 ;  Num.  vi.  6),  the  dead  body  from 
which,  according  to  Gen.  xxxv.  18,  the  soul  has  departed,  is  called 
np  trD3  before  it  crumbles  to  dust.  I  believe  this  expression  is  to  be 
understood  as  a  euphemistical  metonymical  phrase,  as  we  speak  of  a 
dead  person  without  meaning  to  say  that  the  personality  lies  in  the 
body ;  or  perhaps  in  this  designation  of  a  dead  person  the  impression 
is  expressed  which  the  corpse  makes  immediately  after  death,  as  if 
the  element  of  the  soul  had  not  yet  entirely  separated  itself  (thus 


218  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISM.  [§  TO. 

Delitzscli)  (4).     But  as  the  soul  sprang  from  the  spirit,  the  n^"i,  and 
contains  the  substance  of  the  spirit  as  the  basis  of  its  existence,  the 
soul  exists  and  lives  also  only  by  the  power  of  the  nn ;  in  order  to 
live,  the  soul  which  is  called  into  existence  must  remain  in  connection 
with  the  source  of  its  life.     "God's  spirit  made  me"  ("•^nti'y  7St  mn), 
says  Job,  xxxlii.  4,  "and  the  breath  of  the  Almighty  animates  me" 
0?.'0^  '''^^  ^^'^^\  ^vith  the  imperfect).      The  first  sentence   expresses 
the  way  in  which  the  human  soul  is  called  into  being;  the  second, 
the  continuing  condition  of   its  subsistence.      By  the  withdrawing 
of  the  nm  the  soul  becomes  wearied  and  weak,  till  at  last  in  death 
it  becomes  a  shadow,  and  enters  the  kingdom  of  the  dead  (comp. 
§  78) ;  while  by  the  nn  streaming  in  it  gains  energy  of  life.     Now 
from  this  the  Old  Testament  usa2;e  in  connection  with  the  terms 
E'S3  and  ni"i  becomes  intelligible.     In  the  soul,  which  sprang  from  the 
spirit,  and  exists  continually  through  it,  lies  the  individuality, — in  the 
case  of  man  his  personality,  his  self,  his  ego ;  because  man  is  not  niij 
but  lias  it — he  is  soul.     Hence  only  ''^'33^  ^t^S3j  can  stand  for  egomet 
ipse,  tu  ipse,  etc.,  not  '•n^l,  ^n^"i,  etc.  (not  so  in  the  Arabic)  ;  hence 
"  soul"  often  stands  for  the  whole  person,  Gen.  xii.  5,  xvii.  14,  Ezek. 
xviii.  4,  etc.     When  man  is  exhausted  by  illness,  his  H'li  is  corrupted 
v.'ithin  him,  Job  xvii.  1  C^^^n  ''O''"')?  so  that  the  soul  still  continues  to 
vegetate  wearily.     When  a  person  in  a  swoon  comes  to  himself  again, 
it  is  said  his  spirit  returns  to  him,  1  Sam.  xxx.  12  (in^">  ^^^V)  com- 
pared with  Judg.  XV.  19.     But  when  one  dies,  it  is  said  the  soul 
departs,  Gen.  xxxv.  18 ;  his  soul  is  taken  from  him,  1  Kings  xix.  4, 
Jonah  iv.  3.     When  a  dead  person  becomes  alive  again,  it  is  said  the 
soul  returns  again,  1  Kings  xvii.  22  (t^'^3  2^|^!!).     It  is  said  of  Jacob, 
whose  sunken  vital  energy  revived  when  he  found  his  son  again,  that 
his  spirit  was  quickened,  Gen.  xlv.  27  (ni"i  ^nni).    On  the  contrary,  of 
one  who  is  preserved  in  life  it  is  said,  ^*^l  "^OICj  J^r.  xxxviii.  17-20. 
When  God  rescues  one  from  the  Jaws  of  death,  it  is  said,  Ps.  xxx.  4, 
"  Thou  hast  brought  up  my  soul  out  of  Sheol;"  comp.  Ps.  xvi.  10  (5). — 
Man  perceives  and  thinks  by  virtue  of  the  spirit  which  animates  him 
(Job  xxxii.  8  ;  Prov.  xx.  27) ;  wherefore  it  is  said  in  1  Kings  x.  5, 
when  the  Queen  of  Sheba's  comprehension  was  brought  to  a  stand, 
that  "there  was  no  spirit  in  her  more"  (mi  *iiy  nn  n\VN?) ;  but  the 
perceiving  and  thinking  subject  itself  is  the  C'SS  (comp.  §  71).     The 


§  70.]  ELEMENTS  OF  HUMAN  NATURE— BODY,  SOUL,  SPIRIT.  219 

impulse  to  act  proceeds  from  the  nil,  Ex.  xxxv.  21 ;  hence  one  who 
rules  himself  is  a  inn2  tjjybj  Prov.  xvi.  32.  But  the  acting  subject  is 
not  the  nn,  but  the  ti'33 ;  the  soul  is  the  subject  which  sins,  Ezek. 
xviii.  4,  etc.  Love  and  attachment  are  of  course  a  thing  of  the  soul, 
Gen.  xxxiv.  3  (iC'33  plinni)  and  ver.  8  (iK^'33  Hi^^-n) ;  and  so  in  Cant. 
V.  6,  the  word  of  the  beloved  •■l^{V'  ""^'SJ  cannot  be  explained,  "  I  was 
out  of  my  senses"  (as  De  Wette  thinks),  but  the  bride  feels  as  if 
her  very  personality  had  gone  forth  from  her  to  follow  and  seek  her 
beloved.  In  many  cases,  indeed,  tJ'33  and  nn  stand  indifferently, 
according  as  the  matter  is  looked  upon — that  is,  to  use  Hofmann's  words 
{Schriftheioeis,  i.  1  A.  p.  258,  2  A.  p.  296),  according  as  "the  person- 
ality is  named  after  its  special  individual  life,  or  after  the  living 
power  which  forms  the  condition  of  its  special  character."  Thus  it 
may  be  said  on  the  one  hand,  "  Why  is  thy  spirit  so  stubborn  ?"  (■"T'"'^ 
n^D  ^n^i),  1  Kings  xxi.  5 ;  on  the  other  hand,  "  Why  art  thou  so 
bowed  down,  my  soul?"  ^tJ'M  ^nninc^n-nn),  Ps.  xlii.  12.  Of  impa- 
tience it  may  be  said,  "The  soul  is  short"  (ti'33  iVi?^!!),  Num.  xxi.  4, 
and  "shortness  of  the  spirit"  (jy^^  ip),  Ex.  vi.  9;  compare  Job 
xxi.  4.  Trouble  of  heart  is  "  bitterness  of  the  spirit "  (ni"i  ^1^),  Gen. 
xxvi.  35  ;  and  of  the  soul  {^^^l  lon),  Job  xxvii.  2,  it  is  said  imi  DJ?3ni, 
Gen.  xli.  8,  and  '^^5^  n^n33  •'^"qJj  Ps.  vi.  4.  Compare  with  this  in  par- 
ticular the  climax  in  Isa.  xxvi.  9  (6).  From  all  it  is  clear  that  the 
Old  Testament  does  not  teach  a  trichotomy  of  the  human  being  in 
the  sense  of  body,  soul,  and  spirit  being  originally  three  co-ordinate 
elements  of  man ;  rather  the  whole  man  is  included  in  the  ib'3  and 
B'Sa  (body  and  soul),  which  spring  from  the  union  of  the  nn  with  the 
matter,  Ps.  Ixxxiv.  3,  Isa.  x.  18 ;  comp.  Ps.  xvi.  9.  The  nil  forms 
partly  the  substance  of  the  soul  individualized  in  it,  and  partly,  after 
the  soul  is  established,  the  power  and  endowments  which  flow  into  it 
and  can  be  withdrawn  from  it  (7). 


(1)  Besides  the  books  already  quoted  in  §  67,  cf.  Hofmann,  Weis- 
sagumj  und  JErfCdlung,  i.  pp.  17-25  ;  my  Commejitationes  ad  theologlam 
hihlicam  pertinentes,  1846,  p.  11  ff. ;  H.  A.  Hahn,  V.  T.  sententia  de 
natura  liominis  e.vposiia,  1846  ;  several  sections  of  Bottcher's  compre- 
hensive but  unfinished  work,  De  inferis  rehusquc post  mortem  futuris,  i., 
1846 ;  in  Herzog's  Realencyklop.  iv.  p.  728  ff.,  the  article  "  Geist  des 


220  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISM.  [§  70 

Menschen,"  by  Auberlen  ;    and  vol.  vi.  p.  15  ff.,  the  article  "  Herz 
itn  bibl.  Sinn,"  by  myself. 

(2)  This  is  the  view  of  several  rabbins,  and  of  Beck  and  Hahn 
among  more  modern  writers.  There  were  even  rabbins  who  connected 
the  word  noK'j  with  D^o^. 

(3)  Thus  Bottcher  and  others ;  the  former  in  a  review  of  my 
Commentationesj  in  the  Jenaer  Literaturzeitung,  1846,  No.  254  f.,  p. 
1013  ff. 

(4)  Delitzsch,  Si/stem  der  biblischen  Psychologie,  2d  ed.  p.  447  : 
*'  The  whole  inward  part  of  man  lies  in  the  corpse,  as  it  were,  turned 
outwards  before  us.  We  there  look  into  the  depth  of  the  soul's  com- 
bat and  the  soul's  peace,  in  which  the  separation  of  the  soul  and  body 
took  place  ;  and  the  soul  still  hovers,  glorifying  or  distorting  it,  over 
the  form  which  it  has  just  quitted.  Therefore  does  a  corpse  make  an 
impression  so  gloomy,  ghostly,  and  spectral,  and  therefore  is  it  called 
B'S3.  The  corpse  of  one  just  dead  still  bears  the  fresh  traces  of  his 
soul,  which  is  imprinted  upon  it,  as  it  were,  in  parting ;  it  is  the 
remaining  case  of  the  soul  ;  it  is,  so  to  speak,  the  soul  vanished 
itself." 

(5)  Ps.  xvi.  10  :  "  Thou  wilt  not  leave  my  soul  to  Sheol ; "  com- 
pare also  §  78. 

(6)  Isa.  xxvi.  9  :  "In  my  soul  I  long  after  Thee  (^n^^N  '"^DJ) ; 
yea,  I  seek  Thee  (^^n^^?.)  in  my  inward  parts  with  my  spirit 
("•nn'^ix)."  The  second  sentence  does  not  say  the  same  as  the  first, 
but,  as  shown  by  ^N,  it  ascends  higher — "  Yea,  with  my  spirit,"  with 
the  whole  strength  of  my  inward  life. 

(7)  In  all  ages  the  conclusion  has  been  deduced  from  a  few  pas- 
sages that  the  Old  Testament  teaches  a  pre-existence  of  the  soul. 
The  main  passages  adduced  are  Ps.  cxxxix.  15  and  Job  i.  21,  and 
from  them  many  have  sought  to  conclude  that  human  souls  existed 
in  Sheol,  in  the  kingdom  of  the  dead,  before  they  came  into  a  human 
body.  But  though  the  former  passage  might  contain  an  idea  of  this 
kind,  still,  since  there  is  no  other  trace  of  such  a  doctrine,  an  abbre- 
viated comparison  is  without  doubt  to  be  assumed  here,  as  in  many 
other  cases.  "When  I  was  formed  in  the  depths  of  the  earth," 
stands  for  "  in  such  concealment,  in  a  place  as  dark  as  the  depths  of 
the  earth"  (description  of  the  mother's  womb).  Still  less  can  such  a 
doctrine  be  based  on  the  passage  in  Job :  "  Naked  came  I  forth  from 
my  mother's  womb,  and  naked  do  I  return  thither."  It  is  said  that 
the  mother  earth  must  be  meant  by  ''J35<  1^33  in  the  first  member,  since 
we  are  told  that  man  returns  thither.  But,  as  has  been  very  well 
explained,   especially  by   Hupfeld    (^Qucestionum   in    locos   Jobeidos 


§  71.]       NOTION  OF  THE  HEART,  AND  ITS  RELATION  TO  THE  SOUL.  221 

vexatos  specimen,  1853,  p.  1),  a  sort  of  zeugma  must  be  assumed  here  : 
the  correspondence  is  between  the  mother's  womb,  proper  and 
figurative,  namely,  the  mother  earth  ;  for  the  condition  before  birth, 
and  the  condition  in  the  grave  and  in  the  kingdom  of  the  dead,  are 
correspondent. — On  the  other  hand,  in  Wisd.  viii.  20  there  is  un- 
deniably a  reminiscence  of  Platonic  doctrine. 


§71. 

The  Notion  of  tJie  Heart,  and  its  Relation  to  the  Soul. 

The  soul  of  man  has  a  double  sphere  of  life, — firstly,  it  sustains  the 
life  belonging  to  the  senses,  is  anima,  l^^^n  C'DSj  the  soul  of  the  flesh 
in  a  narrower  sense.  As  such  it  acts  in  the  blood,  and  supplies  life  to 
the  body  in  the  blood,  and  hence  the  proposition.  Lev.  xvii.  11,  Ci'23 
Nin  D^3  -i^iiri,  "  The  soul  of  the  flesh  is  in  the  blood"  (1)  ;  indeed,  it  is 
said  directly,  "  The  blood  is  the  soul,"  Gen.  ix.  4,  Lev.  xvii.  14,  Deut. 
xii.  23.  Still  this  does  not  mean  that  the  soul  of  the  flesh  does  not 
act  also  in  respiration  and  nourishment.  The  chief  meaning  of  K'Q^  is 
precisely  "that  which  breathes,"  "the  breath,"  Job  xli.  13;  and 
hence,  as  some  passages  speak  of  a  streaming  forth  of  the  soul  in 
the  blood  (Isa.  liii.  12,  and  elsewhere),  so  in  others  the  breathing  forth 
of  the  soul  is  spoken  of,  Jer.  xv.  9,  Job  xxxi.  39,  etc.  However,  t;'33 
is  not  simply  anima,  not  simply  the  principle  of  life  belonging  to  the 
senses,  but  it  is  at  the  same  time  animus, — the  subject  of  all  the 
activities  of  knowing,  feeling,  and  wishing ;  also,  in  particular,  the 
subject  of  those  activities  and  conditions  of  man  that  refer  to  his 
communion  with  God — Deut.  iv.  29,  vi.  5,  Isa.  Ixi.  10,  Ps.  xix.  8,  xlii. 
2  f.,  and  numberless  other  passages  (2). 

In  both  its  relations  as  anima  and  animus,  the  soul  centres  in  the 
heart,  2^.  or  3n^,  which  often  interchanges  with  nnp  ;  which,  however, 
designates  in  a  wider  sense  the  whole  cavity  of  the  breast,  with  the 
intestines  (3).  The  heart,  as  the  central  organ  of  the  circulation  of  the 
blood  (4),  forms  the  focus  of  the  life  of  the  body;  whence,  for  example, 
the  strengthening  of  the  body  by  nourishment  is  called  supporting  the 
heart,  2^  lyo,  Gen.  xviii.  5,  Judges  xix.  5,  Ps.  civ.  15  ;  and,  on  the 
other  hand,  exhaustion  of  physical  vital  energy  is  designated  as  a 
parching  or  meltmg  away  of  the  heart,  Ps.  cii.  5,  xxll.  15.    The  heart, 


222  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISM.  [§  71. 

too,  is  the  centre  of  all  spiritual  functions.  Everything  spiritual, 
whether  belonging  to  the  intellectual,  moral,  or  pathological  sphere, 
is  appropriated  and  assimilated  by  man  in  the  heart  as  a  common 
meeting-place,  and  is  again  set  in  circulation  from  the  heart.  All  the 
soul's  motions  of  life  proceed  from  the  heart,  and  react  upon  it,  so 
that  the  word,  Prov.  iv.  23,  "  Above  all  that  thou  hast  to  protect, 
keep  thy  heart ;  for  from  it  are  all  the  issues  of  life,"  has  a  quite 
general  reference.  In  particular,  the  heart  (the  1^^  ^T!^}  Prov.  xx. 
27)  is  the  place  in  which  the  process  of  self-consciousness  is  carried 
out, — in  which  the  soul  is  at  home  with  itself,  and  is  conscious  of  all 
its  doing  and  suffering  as  its  own  (5).  The  heart,  therefore,  is  also 
the  organ  of  the  conscience.  Job  xxvii.  6.  But  in  general,  when  a 
man  takes  anything  home  to  him,  or  appropriates  anything,  designs 
anything,  is  busy  with  any  plan  or  resolution,  this  happens  in  the 
heart  (6).  Hence  expressions  such  as  22?  DJ?  VT^,  Deut.  viii.  5  ;  2''U}n 
uS-^X,  Isa.  xliv.  19,  etc. ;  ^^b'b^  n^Nj—this  even  of  God,— Gen.  viii.  21; 
••ab  n^n,  ^3^  ny,  ^23^)3,  2b-b}}  D^b',  33^  nrab'D,  Ps.  Ixxiii.  7 ;  2^-'2'\v^^ 
Prov.  xvi.  1  (7).  But  the  heart  is  the  organ  not  simply  of  those 
acts  of  consciousness  which  are  purely  inward,  but  also  of  the 
functions  of  knowledge  in  general,  which  is  essentially  an  appropriation, 
so  that  3?  has  frequently  exactly  the  meaning  intellect,  insight ;  for 
example,  33^  ""EJ'JS,  viri  cordati,  Job  xxxiv.  10;  3TpNl=73Dj  Jer.  v.  21, 
comp.  Prov.  xvii.  16,  also  of  God ;  ^S?  ^2  "i''32j  Job  xxxvi.  5  ;  2^  2rh^ 
1  Kings  V.  9  (8). 

Now,  because  the  heart  is  the  focus  of  the  person's  life,  the  work- 
place for  the  personal  appropriation  and  assimilation  of  everything 
spiritual,  the  moral  and  religious  condition  of  man  lies  in  the  heart. 
Only  what  enters  the  heart  forms  a  possession  of  moral  worth,  and 
only  what  comes  from  the  heart  is  a  moral  production.  The  indivi- 
dual tendency  of  man's  life  as  a  whole,  as  well  as  all  his  separate 
personal  acts,  receive  their  character  and  moral  value  from  the  con- 
stitution and  contents  of  the  heart,  in  virtue  of  the  necessary  con- 
nection which  subsists  between  the  centre  and  the  periphery  (9). 
Because  of  this,  man  is  characterized  by  his  heart  in  all  his  habitual 
and  moral  attributes.  We  read  in  1  Kings  v.  12,  Prov.  x.  8,  etc.,  a 
wise  heart ;  in  Ps.  li.  12,  of  a  pure  heart ;  in  Gen.  xx.  5  f.,  etc.,  of  an 
honest  and  righteous  heart :  and  so,  on  the  other  hand,  in  Ps.  ci.  4,  of 


§  71.]   NOTION  OF  THE  HEART,  AND  ITS  RELATION  TO  THE  SOUL.     223 

a  perverse  heart ;  in  Jer.  iii.  17,  etc.,  of  a  wicked  and  stubborn  heart; 
and  in  Ezek.  xxviii.  2,  etc.,  of  a  haughty  heart  (10).  Even  Genesis 
sets  forth  its  doctrine  of  the  3^  "1^."!?  the  figment  of  the  heart,  Gen.  viii. 
21,  in  opposition  to  the  superficial  doctrine  which  makes  man  in  a 
moral  sense  an  indifferent  being,  in  whose  choice  it  lies  in  each 
moment  to  be  either  good  or  bad ;  and  so  this  book  understands  sin 
as  a  principle  which  has  penetrated  to  the  centre,  and  from  thence 
corrupts  the  whole  circuit  of  life  (11).  Therefore  the  human  heart  is 
characterized  in  Jer.  xvii.  9  as  "  guileful  {^PV,  properly  rugged,  the 
opposite  of  "^fl)  above  all  things,  and  mortally  diseased  C^?^)"  so  that 
God  alone  (but  He  completely,  Prov.  xv.  11)  is  able  to  fathom  the 
depths  of  its  perverseness ;  and  hence  the  prayer  in  Ps.  cxxxix.  23  f. 
So  every  revelation  addresses  itself  to  the  heart,  even  the  revelation 
of  law,  Deut.  vi.  6 ;  for  it  demands  love  to  God  from  the  whole  heart, 
and,  starting  from  this  centre,  also  from  the  whole  soul ;  compare  xi. 
18.  The  condition  of  insusceptibility  for  what  is  divine  is  called  the 
uncircumcised  heart  (''?y),  Lev.  xxvi.  41,  Deut.  x.  16,  comp.  Ezek.  xliv. 
9 ;  and  callousness  in  sin  is  a  hardening,  an  obduracy  of  the  heart — 
Ezek.  iv.  21,  and  many  other  passages  (12).  And  because  of  this  the 
power  of  revelation  is  directed  to  renew  man  from  the  heart ;  and  its 
aim,  Deut.  xxx.  6,  is  to  circumcise  the  heart — to  establish  God's  will 
within  the  heart,  Jer.  xxxi.  33. — Also  on  man's  side  the  process  of 
salvation  begins  in  the  heart.  Faith,  in  which  man's  personal  life  in 
its  deepest  basis  takes  a  new  direction,  belongs  entirely  to  the  sphere 
of  the  heart,  and  is  described  as  a  making  sure  (from  the  root-meaning 
of  r'?.^?L'),  a  making  strong  (P'P.^'!),  Ps.  xxvii.  14,  xxxi.  25),  a  stablish- 
ing  of  the  heart  (compare  especially  Ps.  cxii.  7  f.)  on  that  foundation 
which  is  God,  the  33?  niV  Himself,  Ps.  Ixxiii.  26 ;  compare  the  same 
view  in  the  New  Testament — for  example,  Rom.  x.  9  f..  Acts  viii. 
37  (13). — On  the  contrary,  frames  of  mind  and  emotions  are  just  as 
often  predicated  of  the  soul  as  of  the  heart,  according  as  they  are 
understood  as  something  which  occupies  the  whole  personality  of  man, 
or  as  a  state  ruling  the  inmost  heart  of  man.  In  the  Old  Testament, 
grief  and  care,  fear  and  terror,  joy  and  confidence,  tranquillity  and 
contentment,  are  referred  sometimes  to  the  heart  and  sometimes  to 
the  soul ;  compare  the  union  of  the  two  expressions,  Deut.  xxviii.  65, 
and  also  Prov.  xii.  25,  Eccles.  si.  10,  Jer.  xv.  16,  1  Sam.  ii.  1,  Ps. 


224  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISM. 

xxviii.  7,  on  the  one  hand,  and  Ex.  xxiii.  9  (where  Luther  translates 
K'S3  by  heart),  Ps.  vi.  4,  xlii.  6  f.,  Isa.  Ixi.  10,  Ps.  Ixii.  2,  cxxxi.  2,  cxvi. 
7,  on  the  other.  In  these  points  usage  has  established  peculiar  dis- 
tinctions, so  that,  for  example,  as  a  rule,  "^y^  and  its  derivatives  are 
connected  with  t^'S?.,  and  noB'  and  its  derivatives  with  3?,  etc.  (14). 
However,  ^s:,  and  not  37,  generally  stands  if  the  functions  spoken  of 
are  those  in  which  the  subject  is  in  motion  towards  an  object.  Jer. 
iv.  19  is  instructive  in  this  connection  (15).  But  it  is  specially  to  be 
remarked  that  (16),  in  the  notion  of  E'33,  the  character  of  desire  is  ob- 
viously that  which  predominates  and  reaches  furthest;  and  here  the 
connection  of  desire  with  the  breath  and  with  breathing  must  not  be 
overlooked  (17).  Certainly  the  impulses  by  which  man  allows  him- 
self to  be  determined  (comp.  Ex.  xxxv.  5,  xxii.  29),  the  tendency  of 
the  will  which  rules  him,  the  views  which  he  cherishes,  the  pleasure 
which  he  enjoys  internally,  are  matters  of  the  heart  (comp.  Ezek.  xi.  21, 
XX.  16,  xxxiii.  31 ;  Deut.  xi.  16;  Job  xxxi.  7,  ix.  27;  Ps.  Ixvi.  18;  Prov. 
vi.  25) ;  but  as  soon  as  the  tendency  of  the  will  extends  to  the  utterance 
of  the  desire,  ^^}i  generally  comes  in,  and  the  stem  niN,  together 
with  its  derivatives,  is  almost  exclusively  connected  with  t^*2J  (18). 
Indeed,  it  is  well  known  that  ^^^,  is  sometimes  placed  for  desire  or 
inclination  itself;  compare  in  particular,  Eccles.  vi.  7,  9,  Prov.  xiii. 
2  (19). 

(1)  Compare  the  theory  of  sacrifice,  §  127. 

(2)  The  Old  Testament  and  the  Homeric  anthropology  offer 
parallels  of  the  highest  interest,  but  here  there  is  a  remarkable 
difference  between  the  two :  the  Homeric  '^v'^  is  impersonal, — simply 
the  sensual  principle  of  life ;  the  spiritual  elements  have  their  seat  in 
the  ^peVe?.  Compare  Nagelsbach,  Homerische  Theol,  1st  ed.  p.  331  ff., 
2d  ed.  p.  380  ff.,  and  my  Commentafiones,  p.  11  f. 

(3)  Compare  Ps.  xxxix.  4  (^?np3  'zh)^  cix.  22,  1  Sam.  xxv.  37 ; 
see  Delitzsch,  System  der  bihl.  Psycholocjie,  1st  ed.  pp.  203,  220;  2d  ed. 
pp.  248,  265.  According  to  Hupfeld,  on  Ps.  xvii.  10,  ^isn,  /.c,  and 
Ixxiii.  7,  is  also  a  mere  name  for  the  heart,  which  is  scarcely  probable 
[art.  "  Herz."]. — The  question  on  the  relation  of  the  heart  to  the 
soul  belongs  to  the  more  difficult  questions  of  Biblical  psychology; 
however,  a  sure  result  can  be  attained. 

(4)  The  bucket  at  the  spring  of  blood.  Eccles.  xii.  6.  See  on  this 
passage  Delitzsch,  Z.c,  1st  ed.  p.  185,  2d  ed.  p.  229  [above  art.]. 


§  TL]        NOTION  OI''  THE  HEART,  AND  ITS  RELATION  TO  THE  SOUL.  225 

(5)  "In  corde  actlones  animse  humange  ad  ipsam  redeunt,"  says 
Koos,  FunJam.  psycliol.  ex.  s.  scr.,  p.  99,  shortly  and  strikingly. 

(6)  Roos,  I.e.:  "Dura  ipsa  [anima]  sibi  aliquid  ostendit  ac 
proponit,  ad  cor  suum  loqui  dicitur.     Dura  suarum  actionura   sibi 

,conscia  est,  et  illarura  innocentiam  vel  turpitudinera  ipsa  sentit,  id  ad 
cor  refertur.  Aniraa  humana  ut  '^v'^y  suavia  appetit,  ut  spiritus 
scrutatur,  etc.  Sed  quatenus  cor  hahet^  ipsa  novit,  se  hoc  agere,  et  ideas 
rejlexas  hahet.^'' 

(7)  See  the  particulars  in  the  dictionaries. 

(8)  By  this  Ps.  cxix.  32  is  to  be  explained  (differently  by  Heng- 
stenberg),  and  similarly  the  passage  2  Kings  v.  26,  which  has  been 
understood  in  so  many  different  ways.  The  LXX.  often  put  vov<i 
for  3?,  Ex.  vii.  23,  Isa.  x.  7,  etc.  Compare,  too,  on  the  close  connec- 
tion of  the  two  notions,  Beck,  Christl.  Lehrwissenschaft,  i.  p.  233. 
There  are  indeed  exceptions.  The  soul,  too,  is  put  as  the  subject  of 
insight,  Prov.  xix.  2,  Ps.  cxxxix.  14;  the  thoughts  that  move  raan 
are  called  a  speaking  and  meditating  of  the  soul,  Lam.  iii.  20,  24, 
1  Sam.  XX.  4;  men  form  imaginations  in  the  soul,  Esth.  iv.  13,  and 
cherish  plans  there,  Ps.  xiii.  3,  etc.  Still  there  are  comparatively 
very  few  such  passages  (see  Delitzsch,  Z.c,  1st  ed.  p.  156,  2d  ed. 
p.  198)';  and  it  seems  sometimes,  as  in  the  last-cited  passage,  that  the 
mention  of  the  soul  is  occasioned  mainly  by  the  parallelism,  which 
demands  a  second  expression.     [Above  art.] 

(9)  The  divine  judgment  being  passed  on  man  not  according  to 
what  he  appears  to  be,  but  according  to  what  he  is,  is  described  as  a 
looking  on  the  heart,  1  Sam.  xvi.  7,  Jer.  xx.  12 ;  a  knowing  and 
trying  the  heart,  1  Kings  viii.  39 ;  Prov.  xvii.  3 ;  Ps.  vii.  10,  xvii.  3 ; 
Jer.  xi.  20. — Even  of  God  it  is  said.  Lam.  iii.  33,  "  He  does  not 
afflict  men  iS-'P,"  in  order  to  express  the  difference  between  that  which 
is  rooted  in  His  being  and  the  appearance  as  it  is  taken  up  by  man. 
[Above  art.] 

(10)  In  all  such  connections  ^^\  is  not  readily  used.  The  LXX. 
are  not  so  rigorous  in  this  usage ;  comp.  Bottcher,  de  inferis,  §  41  (but 
there  ai'e  various  readings  in  some  passages  there  quoted).  The  usage 
in  the  book  of  Wisdom  is  peculiar ;  it  speaks  of  holy  souls  (vii.  27), 
and  on  the  contrary  of  KaKOTe-xya  '^v)(r),  into  which  wisdom  does  not 
enter,  and  of  ev6vTr]<;  ■^v-^rj<i  (ix.  3,  etc.).  This  usage  is  connected  with 
the  book's  peculiar  theory  of  the  differences  of  natural  character  in 
souls,  indicated  in  viii.  19.     [Above  art.] 

(11  and  12)  See  the  doctrine  of  sin,  §  75  and  §  76. 
(13)  According  to  Delitzsch,  I.e.,  1st  ed.  p.  109,  2d  ed.  p.  145, 
Ps,  Ixxlii.  26  proves  that  faith  is  an  exertion  of  the  pure  Ego,  which 

VOL    I.  P 


226  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  JIOSAISM.  [§  71. 

is  distinguished  from  spirit,  soul,  and  body  :  "  His  Ego  remains 
faithful  to  God,  even  when  the  body  and  also  the  heart — that  is,  the 
life  of  soul  and  spirit — perish."  To  me  it  seems  rather  that  in  the  first 
hemistich,  3i>,  going  with  "li^t^,  denotes  the  bodily  heart ;  even  if  this 
fails,  God  remains  the  rock  of  the  heart  (that  is,  in  its  psychical 
meaning).  [Above  art.] — Rom.  x.  10  :  KapBla  Tna-reveTai',  Acts  viii. 
37  :  TTio-reuet?  e|  oXi?9  t?}?  KapBLa<i. 

(14)  The  passage  Prov.  xiv.  10  is  interesting  in  this  connection: 
*'  The  heart  knovveth  the  sadness  of  its  soul ;  in  its  joy  also  must  no 
stranger  mingle." 

(15)  According  to  Jer.  iv.  19,  the  soul  hears  the  tumult  of  war, 
and  on  this  the  heart  is  moved  by  sorrow  and  horror. — V^'^  ^%  1  Kings 
iii.  9,  has  a  quite  different  meaning.      [Above  art.] 

(16)  Thus,  rightly,  Delitzsch,  I.e.,  1st  ed.  p.  162,  2d  ed.  p.  204. 

(17)  As  vehement,  passionate  desire  is  expressed  by  panting ;  see, 
for  example,  Am.  ii.  7.      [Above  art.] 

(18)  3^  niNn  is  found  only  in  Ps.  xxi.  3.  Compare,  further, 
passages  like  Ps.  Ixxxiv.  3,  cxix.  20,  81,  Isa.  xxvi.  8  f.     [Above  art.] 

(19)  By  this,  C'sa  n^rrin,  Isa.  v.  14,  Hab.  ii.  5,  and  t:'D3  ann,  Prov. 
xxviii.  25,  are  to  be  explained;  the  latter  is  different  from  3?  3n"|, 
Ps.  ci.  5,  which  Ewald  incorrectly  translates  "  of  greedy  heart,"  since, 
like  Prov.  xxi.  4,  it  designates  puffed  up,  conceited  security. — In  con- 
clusion, the  question  would  still  fall  to  be  taken  into  consideration,  in 
what  relation  the  heart,  as  the  focus  and  centre  of  the  spiritual  life 
of  the  soul,  stands  to  the  heart  as  the  centre  of  physical  life.     But 
this  question  can  be  sufficiently  discussed  only  in  connection  with  a 
comprehensive  examination  of  the  relation  of  the  body  and  soul  in 
general.     Here  it  can  only  be  remarked,  shortly,  that  according  to 
Holy  Writ  there  is  not  merely  a  parallelism  between  the  body  and 
soul,  in  virtue  of  which  what  is  bodily  stands  simply  as  the  symbol  of 
spiritual  occurrences,  but  that  as  the  soul  which  supports  the  person- 
ality is  the  same  as  that  which  rules  in  the  blood  and  in  the  breath, 
so  also  in  its  higher  functions  the  bodily  organs  have  a  real  share. 
Now,  indeed,  with  the  well-known   experience  that   affections  and 
passions  affect  the  intestines,  that  the  beating  of  the  heart  in  particular 
is  modified  by  all  passionate  excitement,  no  one  will  find  simple  tropes 
where  the  Psalmist  says  (Ps.  xxxix.  4),  "  My  heart  was  hot  within 
me  ;  "  or  Jer.  xx.  9,  "  It  was  in  my  heart  like  a  burning  fire ;"  comp. 
iv.  19,  xxiii.  9.     There  are  two  remarkable  points  in  biblical  anthro- 
pology :  firstly,  the  specific  relationship  in  which  the  Holy  Scriptures 
place  separate  parts  of  the  intestines  to  specific  emotions  (see  what 
Delitzsch,  I.e.— 1st  ed.  p.  222  ff.,  2d  ed.  p.  266  ff.— says  on  the  biblical 


§  72.]  THE  PRIMITIVE  STATE  OF  BIAN.  227 

meaning  of  Q"'^!]!,  the  liver,  the  kidneys) ;  and  secondly,  the  way  in 
which  the  heart,  and  not  the  head  and  the  brain,  is  referred  to  in 
connection  with  the  activity  of  knowledge  and  will  (the  book  of 
Daniel  is  the  first  to  speak  of  "  the  visions  of  the  head").  It  is  well 
known  that  the  view  of  the  whole  ancient  world  agrees  entirely  with 
the  Bible  in  this.  As  regards  the  Homeric  doctrine  (e.g.  the  meaning 
of  KTjp,  KpaSLT}),  compare  Niigelsbach's  Homer.  Theol.  1st  ed.  p.  332  ff., 
2d  ed.  p.  384  ff. ;  remember  also  the  Roman  usage  of  words  like 
cordatiis,  recordari^  vecors,  excors,  and  others  ;  compare  in  particular 
Cicero,  Tusc.  i.  9,  18,  and  also  Plato,  Pliced.  c.  45,  and  the  commen- 
tators on  this  passage,  etc.  The  spiritual  significance  of  the  heart 
cannot — as  Delitzsch,  I.e.,  1st  ed.  p.  215,  2d  ed.  p.  260,  rightly  main- 
tains— be  simply  referred  to  the  fact  that  the  heart  is  the  centre  of  the 
circulation  of  the  blood.  The  way  in  which  Delitzsch,  1st  ed.  p.  216  f., 
2d  ed.  p.  260  ff.,  has  adduced  the  phenomena  of  somnambulism  in 
illustration  of  the  matter  is  deserving  of  all  notice ;  but  physiology 
has  hitherto  given  almost  no  answer  to  the  questions  that  here  suggest 
themselves  [above  art.]. 


SECOND  CHAPTER. 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  MAN  IN  REFERENCE  TO  THE  CONTRADICTORY 
ELEMENTS  WHICH  ENTERED  BY  SIN  INTO  ITS  DEVELOPMENT. 

I.    THE  PRIMITIVE  STATE  OF  MAN. 

§72. 

The  constitution  of  man's  primitive  state  can  be  made  out  in  part 
from  the  second  chapter  of  Genesis,  and  in  part  by  arguing  back- 
wards from  the  change  which  came  in  by  sin.  Thus  the  following 
points  are  reached : — innocence  and  childlike  intercourse  w4th  God, 
harmonious  relationship  to  nature,  and,  in  a  manner,  immortality. 

1.  Man  was  created  good.  Gen.  i.  31 — that  is,  answering  the 
divine  aim.  But  as  the  good  in  him  is  not  yet  developed  to  free  self- 
determination,  he  does  not  as  yet  know  the  good  as  good  (compare 
iii.  5).  This  is  the  condition  of  childlike  naivete  and  innocence 
(compare  Deut.  i.  39).  It  is  characterized  in  Gen.  ii.  25  by  the 
circumstance  that  shame  was  not  yet  awakened.     Hence,  in  the  first 


228  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISM.  [§  72. 

place,  that  conception  of  the  original  state  which  viewed  it  as  a 
created  condition  of  sapieniia  and  sanctitas  contradicts  the  delineation 
in  Genesis ;  instead  of  which,  it  would  be  much  more  in  the  sense  of 
the  Old  Testament  to  say,  as  Eccles.  vii.  29  expresses  it :  "  God  made 
man  "^f)  (right)."  But  in  the  second  place,  that  view  which  takes  the 
original  state  to  be  only  a  condition  of  being  without  sin — either  a 
state  of  pure  indifference,  or  a  state  in  which  the  evil  was  already 
latent,  so  that  in  the  Fall  the  disposition  which  already  existed  in 
man  only  came  forth — is  equally  irreconcilable  with  Genesis.  The 
delineation  of  the  origin  of  sin  (Gen.  iii.)  is  thoroughly  opposed  to  all 
doctrines  according  to  which  the  evil  in  man  is  to  be  looked  on  as 
a  necessary  factor  in  man's  development  (see  §  73). 

2.  In  the  primitive  condition,  man  lives  in  undisturbed  and  harm- 
less union  with  nature  as  with  God.  The  former  is  made  especially 
clear  by  the  contrast  in  Gen.  iii.  8  if.,  in  which  it  is  contained  that 
the  fear,  which  in  man's  present  condition  predominates  in  his  relation 
to  the  Divinity,  is  not  the  normal  relation.  The  peaceful  relationship 
of  man  towards  nature  is  seen,  partly  in  the  description  of  the  life 
in  Paradise  in  general,  and  partly  by  the  present  relation  of  man  to 
nature  being  contrasted  with  the  condition  before  sin,  since  man  must 
now  make  nature  serviceable  to  him  by  tolling  and  struggling  (iii. 
17  ff.,  V.  29),  and  exercises  his  dominion  over  the  animals  in  especial 
by  deeds  of  violence  and  destruction  of  life,  ix.  2  f.  (a  passage  which 
stands  in  contrast  to  i.  29)  (1).  Hence  prophecy  (see  later)  has  also 
adopted  the  abolition  of  this  hostile  relation  as  a  feature  in  the 
description  of  the  time  of  salvation  (in  the  well-known  passages,  Isa. 
xi.  6-8,  Ixv.  25). 

3.  Lastly,  in  Gen.  ii.,  immortality  is  ascribed  to  man,  but  con- 
ditionally in  the  sense  of  posse  non  mori.  This  is  denied  by  many. 
Certainly  the  idea,  that  if  man  did  not  sin  he  should  never  die,  does 
not  necessarily  lie  in  the  words,  Gen.  ii.  17,  "In  the  day  that  thou 
eatest  thereof  thou  shalt  die ; "  the  words,  taken  by  themselves,  could 
also  mean  only  a  quick  and  early  death.  But  it  is  quite  clear  from 
iii.  22  that,  according  to  the  sense  of  the  record,  the  possibility  of 
reaching  immortality  is  annexed  to  the  life  in  Paradise,  or  that 
immortality  was  reserved  for  man  in  so  far  as  he  should  live  in 
unbroken  communion  with  God.     And  iii.  19  (2)  does  not  mean,  as 


§  73.]  THE  FORMAL  PEINCIPLE  OF  SIN.  229 

many  expositors  have  maintained,  that  by  nature  man  must  assuredly 
die  ;  but  the  words  only  give  the  reason  why  the  end  of  man's  life, 
when  once  decreed,  is  brought  about  iu  the  manner  assigned  as  a 
corruption  of  the  body  (3). 

(1)  In  Gen.  i.  29  man  is  still  directed  to  vegetable  nourishment. 
The  power  to  kill  animals  is  not  given  him  till  chap.  ix. 

(2)  Gen.  iii.  22  :  "  That  he  may  not  take  of  the  tree  of  life,  and 
live  to  eternity."  Ver.  19  :  "  Till  thou  returnest  again  to  the  earth, 
for  out  of  it  wast  thou  taken ;  dust  thou  art,  and  unto  dust  shalt  thou 
return." — Particulars  on  the  last-quoted  passage  in  §  77. 

(3)  It  may  be  asked  why  the  Old  Testament  looks  back  so  little 
on  the  primitive  state  ?  This  question  has  been  very  well  answered 
by  Gustav  Baur,  in  his  treatise,  "Die  alttest.  und  die  griechische 
Vorstellung  vom  Siindenfalle,"  in  the  TJteol.  Studien  unci  Kritilcen^ 
1848.  He  says  there,  p.  360 :  "  The  lost  Paradise  lying  in  the 
past  is  not  further  regarded  by  the  religion  of  Israel,  which  forgets 
what  is  behind,  and  reaches  forward  to  what  is  before,  pursuing  the 
aim  of  a  future  and  blessed  communion  with  God,  which  is  placed 
before  it ;  instead  of  idly  mourning  over  the  lost  golden  time,  it 
rather  strives  to  win  Paradise  again,  filled,  refined,  and  strengthened 
by  God's  Spirit." 


II.   OF  SIN. 
1.   THE  ORIGIN  OP  SIN. 

§73. 
The  Formal  Principle  of  Sin. 

The  way  in  which  both  the  formal  and  the  material  principle  of 
sin  are  to  be  comprehended  according  to  the  Old  Testament  is 
embodied  in  the  history  of  the  Fall  (Gen.  iii.).  In  this  (quite 
symbolic)  delineation  there  lie  the  following  doctrines : — 

1,  Man  can  pass  from  the  condition  of  innocence  into  the  state 
of  free  morality  only  by  an  act  of  self-determination.  For  this  it 
is  mainly  necessary  for  him  to  distinguish  his  will,  in  which  till  then 
the  good  was  immediately  posited,  from  the  good  itself,  and  so  to 


230  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISM.  [§  73. 

gain  the  notion  of  sometliing  not  good  (V])  2it3  ny"!,  ij.  17).  There- 
fore the  good  is  placed  before  him  objectively,  in  the  form  of  a 
\  command,  ii.  16  f.  But  the  meaning  of  the  story  is  not  (as  some 
modern  theologians  have  understood  it)  that  it  was  intended  that  man 
should  transgress  the  law,  because,  as  Bruno  Bauer,  for  example  (Die 
Religion  des  A.  T.  i.  p.  23),  has  expressed  it,  the  knowledge  of  the 
good  is  only  possible  if  the  subject  distinguishes  itself  from  the  good — 
that  is,  knows  itself  as  sinful.  The  meaning  of  the  record  is  rather, 
that  if  the  will  is  objectively  confronted  by  what  is  good,  and  thus 
distinguishes  itself  accordingly  from  the  good,  still  this  does  not 
involve  a  decision  of  the  will  against  the  good.  This  is  taught  by 
the  record  when  it  does  not  represent  the  will  of  man  as  immediately 
reacting  against  the  express  command,  but  refers  the  first  impulse  to 
a  decision  against  the  command  to  the  operation  of  an  influence 
from  without,  and  represents  the  woman  (iii.  1-3)  as  at  first  still  ^ 
acknowledging  the  obligatory  force  of  the  divine  command.  This 
also  excludes,  on  the  side  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  supposition  that 
man  has  a  conscience  only  in  so  far  as  he  knows  himself  to  be  sinful  _ 
(as  has  been  maintained  from  a  Hegelian  standpoint).  For  (1)  when 
the  woman,  iii.  2  f.,  remembers  the  divine  command,  and  knows  that 
she  is  bound  by  it,  and  thus  acknowledges  its  obligatory  force,  she  ^^ 
has  not  yet  sinned,  and  yet  she  shows  that  she  has  a  conscience. 
Hence  it  follows  that,  according  to  the  Old  Testament,  sin  is  not  a 
necessary  factor  in  the  development  of  man,  but  a  product  of  optional 
decision  ;  as  is  also  the  case  afterwards,  though  no  longer,  as  we  shall 
see,  in  an  absolute  sense,  Deut.  xxx.  15 :  "  See,  I  have  to-day  laid 
before  thee  life  and  what  is  good,  death  and  what  is  evil."  In 
opposition  to  this,  such  passages  are  cited  from  the  later  books  as 
Job  iv.  17  ff.,  xiv.  4,  Ps.  ciii.  10,  14,  which,  when  looked  at  by  them- 
selves, might  favour  the  supposition  that  sin  is  just  a  necessary  conse- 
quence of  the  finiteness  of  human  nature ;  but  these  passages  are  tO' 
be  understood  from  the  standpoint  of  the  present  constitution  of 
man. 

2.  As  has  been  said,  the  first  incitement  to  transgress  the  com- 
mand came  from  without.  The  story  apparently  presupposes  an 
ungodly  principle  which  had  already  entered  the  world,  but  does  not 
crive  any  further  account  of  it.     No  further  attention  is  paid  to  the- 


g  74.]        IJATERIAL  PEIKCIPLE  AND  OLD  TESTAMENT  NAMES  OF  SIN.       231 

serpent,  and  therefore  it  cannot  be  laid  down  as  a  doctrine  of  Mosaism 
that  it  was  either  Satan  or  a  tool  of  Satan's,  because,  as  we  shall  see 
hereafter,  the  doctrine  of  Satan  does  not  appear  in  the  Old  Testament 
till  much  later,  although  it  is  probable  that  in  the  Azazel,  Lev.  xvi. 
8  ff.,  a  wicked  demon  is  to  be  seen  (2).  On  the  other  hand,  Wisd. 
ii.  23  f.  teaches  that  the  seduction  of  the  first  man  is  the  work  of 
Satan  ;  and  this  is  also  presupposed  in  the  New  Testament  (3).  But 
the  chief  thing  in  connection  with  this  point  in  Gen.  iii.  is,  that  the 
seduction  does  not  at  all  act  bj  compulsion  on  man,  but  is  successful 
only  when  man  freely  renounces  resistance  to  temptation.  Here 
there  is  an  essential  difference  between  the  Old  Testament  delineation 
and  the  Zend  doctrine,  according  to  which  the  evil  is  simply  physically 
inserted  in  man  (4). 

(1)  Compare  Nitzsch,  System  der  chrisflichen  Lehre,  §  98,  note. 

(2)  Compare  the  account  of  the  day  of  reconciliation,  §  140  \Vr. 

(3)  It  is  doubtful  whether  John  viii.  44,  the  avOpwiroKjovo'^,  refers 
to  this;  for,  comparing  1  John  iii.  12,  15,  we  are  inclined  to  interpret 
tlie  passage  about  the  murderer  as  referring  to  Cain's  fratricide.  But 
Rev.  xii.  9,  where  the  devil  is  called  6  BpaKcov,  6  o^i'^  6  ap'^alo'^,  refers 
to  the  Fall  in  Gen.  iii.  Compare,  too,  the  allusion  in  Rom.  xvi.  20 
to  Gen.  iii.  15. 

(4)  In  modern  times  there  has  been  no  lack  of  attempts  to  under- 
stand the  matter  physically,  by  making  the  tree  of  knowledge  a 
poisonous  tree.  These  are  all  additions  to  the  Old  Testament 
delineation. 

§74. 

The  Material  Principle  of  Sin.      The  Old  Testament  Names  of  Si7i. 

3.  The  following  is  the  process  of  the  origin  of  sin  :  First,  a  doubt 
is  awakened  whether  what  God  has  commanded  is  really  good,  and 
along  with  this  the  command  itself  is  exaggerated,  Gen.  iii.  1  (1). 
Distrust  of  God  was  first  to  be  called  up,  as  if  He  were  an  envious 
being,  who  sought  to  keep  man  back  in  a  lower  stage  ;  and  then  ver. 
4  proceeds  to  a  decided  denial  of  God's  word.  Only  then,  after  self- 
seeking  rising  over  God's  will  and  God's  word,  has  been  awakened, 
does  sensuous  charm,  ver.  6,  exert  its  power.  In  other  words,  the 
real  principle  of  sin  is,  according  to  the  Old  Testament,  unbelief  in 


232  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  M03AISJI.  [§  74, 

the  divine  word, — the  selfish  raising  of  self-will  above  the  divine  will, 
and  presumptuous  neglect  of  the  limits  drawn  by  divine  command. 
The  share  of  the  sensuous  nature  in  the  production  of  sin  appears  as 
merely  secondary.  Thus  Gen.  iii.  disproves  the  doctrine  so  often  put 
forward,  especially  in  the  rabbinical  theology,  that  according  to  the 
Old  Testament  the  real  principle  of  evil  lies  in  matter,  in  the  body  (2). 
It  continues  to  be  a  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  Old  Testament  that 
evil  was  originally  the  denial  of  the  divine  will ;  that  sin  is  sin  be- 
cause man  lifts  himself  in  self-seeking  above  God  and  His  will.  The 
Old  Testament  knows  of  no  evil  which  is  purely  an  injustice  of  men 
against  each  other,  or  a  simple  retardation  of  the  development  of 
human  nature,  simple  weakness  (3). — But  that  the  Old  Testament 
sees  the  ground  of  all  evil  in  the  selfish  transgression  of  bounds  pre- 
scribed to  man  by  God,  is  not  to  be  explained  by  thinking  of  God  as 
an  envious  being,  but  because  He  is  the  Holy  One,  and  holiness  as 
such  (from  what  was  already  proved)  cannot  bear  anything  con- 
tradictory to  it.  The  God  who  rules  over  the  world  in  immoveable 
omnipotence,  giving  measure  and  aim  to  all  things,  has  no  ground  for 
envy  like  the  Greek  gods  (4).  It  is  preposterous  to  take  the  words  of 
Gen.  iii.  22,  "  The  man  is  become  like  one  of  us,"  as  an  expression  of 
divine  envy,  as  has  been  done  by  some  expositors  {e.g.  P.  v.  Bohlen) ; 
it  rather  contains  a  melancholy  irony — the  man  has  by  the  Fall 
really  reached  what  he  was  to  reach,  but  in  a  wrong  way,  and  to  his 
misfortune.  In  one  sense  the  serpent,  in  the  words  "  eritis  sicut  Deus," 
told  the  truth,  for  man  has  reached  independence  over  against  God. 
But  still  he  was  deceived  and  deluded,  for  it  is  only  independence  in 
evil.  Instead  of  being  raised  to  free  communion  with  God,  he  is  free 
to  go  upon  ungodly  paths.  It  is  shown  by  the  curse  to  which  man  is 
now  subjected  that  the  account  does  not  in  the  least  mean  to  speak  of 
afeliv  culpay  of  an  elevation  of  man  by  sin  (5). — It  cannot  be  said  with 
perfect  certainty  whether  there  are  allusions  to  the  story  of  the  Fall  in 
the  following  books  of  the  Old  Testament.  Most  probably  there  is 
such  an  allusion  in  Hos.  vi.  7,  where  the  explanation,  "  they  trans- 
gressed the  covenant  like  Adam,"  certainly  deserves  to  be  preferred  to 
the  other  views, — "  after  the  manner  of  men,"  or  even  "  like  men  of 
the  mob,"  or  "like  a  covenant  with  a  man"  (6).  In  Job  xxxi.  33, 
too,  the  explanation,  "  If  I  had  dissembled  my  transgressions  like 


§  74.]        MATERIAL  PRINCIPLE  AND  OLD  TESTAMENT  NAMES  OF  SIN.         233 

Adam  "  (referring  to  Adam's  excuses  for  himself),  is  more  probable 
than  the  other  view,  "  after  the  manner  of  man,"  On  the  contrary, 
Isa.  xliii.  27,  "  thy  first  father  sinned,"  without  doubt  does  not  refer 
to  Adam's  fall ;  rather  to  Abraham,  but  probably  to  Jacob,  the  proper 
ancestor  of  the  people. 

The  Old  Testament  designations  for  sin  are  to  be  understood  in 
conformity  with  the  account  we  have  given  of  the  principle  of  sin. 
(a)  The  most  common  expression  is  X^n,  rii^tsn^  first  in  Gen.  iv.  7, 
or  shorter,  Nipn ;  it  compreliends'sins  of  weakness  as  well  as  sins  of 
wickedness.  The  physical  meaning  of  NtDH  is  to  miss  the  mark,  Judg. 
XX.  16.  nxtsn  de'iTotes  missing — deviation,  that  is,  from'the  div'ine  waTy 
and  the  goal  laid  down  for  man  by  the  divine  will ;  and  t^^C  joined 
with  p  means  to  go  astray  from  God,  to  deviate^  to  sin  agam'st 
Hunl  (6)  'I'lie  second  expression,  Jiy,  means  properly  crookedness,  per- 
version, ji9rat'iias ;  primarily  it  does  not  designate  an  action,  but  the 
character  of  an  action  ;  hence  in  Ps.  xxxii.  5,  '•riNlfln  py.  In  tlie  mouth 
of  men  of  the  world,  Hos.  xii.  9,  the  word  means  injustice  in 
general  (7).  But  since,  according  to  Old  Testament  doctrine,  there  is 
no  injustice  which  is  not  sin,  I'ty  is  the  perversion  of  the  divine  law, 
avofiia  ;  then  especially  the  guilt  of  sin,  firstly  in  Gen.  xv.  16,  and 
thus  in  many  connections  :  I'lV  ^^}^  to  take  away  guilt ;  i'ly  HK'n,  to 
impute  guilt ;  pV  "IS3,  to  forgive  guilt,  (c)  In  its  intensification,  sin 
becomes  V^'^,  an  expression  which  probably  means  properly  breach 
with  God,  and  hence  apostasy,  rebellion  against  God ;  for  the  stem 
V^B  seems  to  be  connected  with  pD£),  rupit.  While  nxt^n  includes  sins 
of  negligence  and  weakness,  design  and  set  purpose  are  always  implied 
in  W^.  Job  xxxiv.  37  may  be  regarded  as  the  chief  passage  (8). 
Still  it  often  stands  side  by  side  with  IIV  and  rixtsn,  Ex.  xxxiv.  7, 
Num.  xiv.  18.  (d)  If  the  evil  has  become  an  habitual  feature  of  the 
disposition  and  of  the  actions,  it  is  J?C'n.  The  Vfl  is  the  opposite  of 
P^"n^.  Still  this  expression,  like  P'^V,  can  be  used  in  reference  to  a 
single  case.  The  main  notion  in  V^^l  appears  to  be  stormy  excitement 
(connected  by  its  root  with  »";,  etc.,  although  the  term  is  often 
explained  otherwise);  comp.  passages  like  Job  iii.  17,  Isa.  Ivii.  20, 
etc.  (e)  Evil,  as  in  itself  void  and  worthless,  is  called  |.1N*  (also  NIB', 
£tc.). 


234  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISM.  [§  74. 

(1)  The  passage  Gen.  iii.  1  must  necessarily  be  thus  explained: 
"Hath  God  said  ye  shall  not  eat  of  all  the  trees  of  the  garden?"  that 
is,  of  no  tree  whatever.  N?  is  separated  from  ?b,  and  belongs  to  the 
verb.     Comp.  ov  Tra?  in  the  New  Testament. 

(2)  Compare,  e.g.,  Maimonides,  More  Neloch.  iii.  8. — That  Gen. 
vi.  3,  which  has  also  been  appealed  to,  proves  nothing  for  this  is 
shown  in  §  77. 

(3)  In  reference  to  the  relation  of  the  doctrine  of  sin  in  the  Old 
Testament  on  the  one  side,  and  among  the  Indo-Germanic  peoples  on 
the  other  side,  Grau  has  rightly  found  a  cardinal  point  here.  He 
says  (Semites  and  Indo-Germanians,  p.  94)  :  "  Sin  is  not  merely  a  trans- 
gression of  the  bounds  given  in  the  nature  and  constitution  of  man  ; 
this  is  the  purely  earthly,  philosophical  notion  reached  by  the  Indo- 
German,  whose  thought  does  not  go  beyond  the  world.  But  sin  is 
essentially  a  transgression  of  the  law  of  God,  an  injury  to  the  abso- 
lutely Holy  Ego.  From  the  former  standpoint,  when  the  limits  which 
were  passed  are  set  up  again,  and  the  harm  which  was  the  con- 
sequence of  the  transgression  is  blotted  out,  the  sin  itself  appears  to 
be  done  away  with.  If,  on  ths  other  hand,  sin  is  a  deed  against  God, 
it  is  not  something  simply  finite,  something  which  can  be  done  away 
with  again  by  the  doer,  but  it  is  infinite  guilt,  because  the  injured 
person  has  an  infinite  value." 

(4)  The  Greek  gods  have  reason  to  be  envious,  because  they  do  not 
stand  in  the  relation  of  absolute  superiority  to  men.  The  Hellenic 
doctrine  of  the  origin  of  sin  is  expressed  in  the  myth  of  Prometheus. 
There,  indeed,  the  envy  of  the  gods  is  an  important  element.  In 
Mekone,  men  and  gods  gathered  together  in  order  to  limit  their  rights 
on  both  sides.  On  this  occasion  Prometheus  was  able  to  entrap  Zeus. 
It  is  a  struggle  between  the  gods  and  men,  which  is  something  entirely 
different  from  the  struggle  known  in  the  Old  Testament.  Compare 
the  above-cited  treatise  of  Gustav  Baur,  p.  347. 

(5)  On  the  connection  of  death  and  sin,  see  §  77. 

(6)  Ps.  Ixxxii.  7  does  not  speak  in  favour  of  the  second  explana- 
tion of  ^"^^3  in  Hos.  vi.  7,  because  there  the  contrast  is  different. 
The  third  explanation  would  be  admissible  only  if  nisn  referred  to  men 
of  higher  station — to  priests  and  prophets ;  but  it  refers  to  Judali  and 
Israel.  Lastly,  if  according  to  the  fourth  explanation  ^'^^'^  stood  for 
D'lK  ri''"}33j  the  order  of  the  words  would  be  different. 

(7)  Hos.  xii.  9:  t<t:n-iK'iN!  pj;  ^b'^^^^V.  ^^}  "They  find  none  iniquity 
in  me  that  were  sin." 

(8)  Job  xxxiv.  37  :  r^''s  inxtsn-^  T?^  '?,  "  That  he  adds  to  his 
sin  rebellion." 


§  75.1  SIN  AS  AN  INCLINATION.      TRANSMISSION  OF  SIN.  235 

2.    THE  STATE  OF  SIN. 
§75. 

Sin  as  an  Inclination.      Transmission  of  Sin. 

In  consequence  of  the  Fall,  sin  appears  as  a  state  in  mankind — that 
is,  as  an  inclination  which  rules  man,  and  as  a  common  sinful  life 
which  is  transmitted  partly  in  humanity  in  general,  and  partly  in  an 
especial  degree  in  separate  races,  and  so  subjects  these  to  the  curse 
of  guilt  and  judgment. 

1.  After  once  appearing  by  the  free  act  of  man,  sin  does  not 
remain  in  this  isolation.  The  second  sin,  that  of  self-excuse  and 
palliation  of  the  offence,  follows  immediately  on  the  first,  the  sin  of 
disobedience.  Gen.  iii.  10.  This  is  the  n'p"i  (deceit),  Ps.  xxxii.  2, 
which,  when  sin  has  once  entered,  prevents  the  realization  of  earnest 
opposition  thereto.  As  sin  thus  joins  to  sin,  it  becomes  a  habitus^ 
and  in  this  way  a  definite  feature  of  the  heart,  or,  as  it  is  termed,  a 
y?  "i^'.l,  figment  or  imagination  of  the  heart,  an  inclination,  which  gives 
a  perverted  tendency  to  man's  will.  Tlius  it  is  said  before  the  flood, 
Gen.  vi.  5  :  "  Every  imagination  of  the  thouglits  of  his  heart  is  only 
evil  continually"  (:Di»n-b  V]  PI  i^  nh'^m  ^^.r^3) ;  and  after  it  again, 
viii.  21 :  "  The  imagination  of  man's  heart  is  evil  from  his  youth  "  ("i>'t 
inyao  V"]  a'jxn  2b).  That  this  "iv;_  is  not  to  be  understood  simply  as  a 
physical  disposition,  as  is  taught  by  the  rabbinical  theology  (1),  is 
shown  by  the  more  exact  expression  in  vi.  5 :  i^?  J^^^no  "1^^  (comp.  1 
Chron.  xxviii.  9).  Because  this  sinful  inclination — this  is  the  meaning 
of  the  variously  explained  passage  Gen.  viii.  21 — cleaves  to  man  from 
his  youth,  the  human  race  would  lie  under  a  continual  sentence  of 
destruction  if  God  gave  severe  justice  its  course.  The  ground  for 
sparing  him  is,  according  to  the  context  of  that  passage,  that  man  still 
seeks  communion  with  God,  as  is  shown  by  sacrifice. — The  natural 
striving  of  man  against  God's  law — the  stiff-neckedness  and  hardness 
of  heart  so  often  spoken  of  in  the  Pentateuch — is  based  on  this  sinful 
inclination.  Therefore,  when  Israel  promises  to  keep  the  divine  law, 
the  divine  voice  complains,  Deut.  v.  26  (29) :  "  They  have  spoken 
right,  but  oh  that  they  had  a  heart  to  fear  me  and  keep  all  my  com- 
mands," 


236  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISM.  [§  75. 

2.  That  this  sinful  inclination  is  hereditary  is  indirectly  contained 
in  the  passages  cited,  although  it  is  not  expressly  said.  It  comes  into 
notice  along  with  this,  that  ISIosaism,  although  it  derives  the  propaga- 
tion of  man's  race  from  God's  blessing,  still  regards  all  events  and 
conditions  which  refer  to  birth  and  generation  as  requiring  a  purifying 
expiation ;  compare  the  law,  Lev.  xii.  and  xv.,  in  which  the  thought 
lies  that  all  these  conditions  are  connected  with  the  disturbance  of  sin. 
Hence  Ps.  li.  7  just  expresses  the  idea  of  the  law:  "  Behold,  I  was  born 
in  iniquity,  and  in  sin  did  my  mother  conceive  me."  Even  if  this 
passage  spoke  only  of  a  fiy  and  i<t?n  of  the  parents,  according  to  the 
explanation  which  is  now  more  common,  it  would  still  follow,  from  the 
fact  that  the  very  origin  of  man  is  connected  with  sin,  that  even  the 
newly  born  child  is  not  free  from  sin ;  as  Job  xiv.  4  expresses  it, 
"  How  can  a  clean  thing  come  from  an  unclean  ?  not  one," — a  thought 
which  is  certainly  connected  with  the  passage  in  the  Psalms.  But 
there  is  nothing  to  prevent  fiy  and  i^^n  in  the  passages  in  the  Psalms 
being  referred,  as  is  done  by  Plitzig,  to  the  child  itself  as  soon  as  con- 
ceived and  born  ;  according  to  which,  the  passage  says  directly  tha'c 
evil  is  ingrown  in  man  from  the  first  moment  of  his  origin  (2). — This 
transmission  of  sin  takes  place  with  special  intensity  in  certain  races, 
especially  those  that  have  fallen  under  the  divine  curse.  This  is 
implied  in  the  history  of  the  Cainites,  Gen.  iv. ;  of  Ham,  and  especially 
Canaan,  from  ix.  25  onwards ;  of  Moab  and  Ammon,  from  xix.  36 
onwards,  etc. ;  but  it  is  especially  contained  in  the  repeated  declaration 
that  God  visits  the  sins  of  the  fathers  on  the  third  and  fourth  genera- 
tion. For  this  point  the  main  passages  are — Ex.  xx.  5,  xxxiv.  7  ;  Num. 
xiv.  18 ;  Deut.  v.  9.  This  passage  does  not  mean  to  say  (as  it  has 
often  been  misrepresented)  that  God  punishes  the  sins  of  the  fathers 
on  guiltless  descendants,  as  conversely  He  brings  the  blessing  of  pious 
fathers  on  the  latest  generations,  even  though  they  walk  in  the  path  of 
sin.  This  is  not  contained  in  Ex.  xx.  5  f.  (3).  Even  if  (with  the 
Vulgate, — "  in  . . .  generationem  eorum,  qui  oderuut  me," — KnobeJ,  and 
others)  we  refer  the  ^^^'^^  simply  to  nbs,  and  understand  it  as  a  repeti- 
tion of  the  genitive, — "  visiting  the  iniquity  of  the  fathers — of  the 
fathers  who  hate  me," — it  is  not  said  that  the  sons  are  innocent,  but 
nothing  is  said  about  their  character  at  all.  But  f  does  not  resume 
the  genitive  again  after  i%  for  then  it  would  stand  after  ribs.     From 


§  75.]  SIN  AS  AN  INCLINATION.      TRANSMISSION  OF  SIN.  237 

its  position  and  parallelism  with  ''?D>Yj  ver.  6,  ''Wb'p  must  rather  be 
referred  to  fathers  and  sons  together.  The  presupposition  certainly  is, 
that  as  a  rule  a  moral  condition  of  life  is  introduced  by  the  father  of 
the  race,  which  continues  to  act  as  a  power  in  the  family  (4).  Now, 
if  the  descendants  continue  in  the  sin  of  their  ancestors,  and  fulfil  its 
measure  (comp.  Gen.  xv.  16),  then,  even  if  the  divine  forbearance 
should  wait  till  the  third  and  fourth  generation,  they  meet  the  judg- 
ment incurred  by  the  common  sins  of  the  race  ;  their  sins  and  those 
of  their  fathers  are  punished  at  the  same  time  upon  them.  For 
this  idea  compare  the  particularly  instructive  passage  Lev.  xxvi.  39 : 
*'  They  pine  away  in  the  lands  of  your  foes  for  their  iniquity  ;  and  also 
for  the  iniquity  of  their  fathers,  which  is  amongst  them,  do  they  pine 
away."  The  possibility  of  breaking  the  curse  lying  on  a  race,  as  in 
the  case  of  Levi  (comp.  §  29,  with  note  2),  or  at  least  of  some  freeing 
themselves  from  it,  is  not  here  denied  (compare  the  case  of  the 
Korahites).  According  to  this,  Ex.  xx.  5  f.  is  not  contradictory  to 
Deut.  xxiv.  16  (5);  a  passage  which,  moreover,  mainly  refers  to  the 
administration  of  penal  justice  by  man  (comp.  2  Kings  xiv.  6).  But 
if  the  prophets  Jeremiah,  xxxi.  29  f.,  and  Ezekiel,  chap,  xviii.  and 
xxxiii.  17  f.,  use  the  doctrine  of  Deuteronomy  in  reference  also  to  the 
divine  justice,  they  do  not  in  so  doing  enter  into  polemic  against  the 
proposition  in  Ex.  xx.  5 — which,  indeed,  is  placed  by  Jeremiah  him- 
self, chap,  xxxii.  18,  beside  the  other,  ver.  19  (comp.  Lam.  v.  7  with 
iii.  39  if.,  where  again  both  propositions  are  found)  ;  but  the  prophets 
combated  the  perverse  application  which  the  self-righteous  people  of 
their  time  made  of  that  ancient  word  to  palliate  their  guilt  (6).  The 
passages  on  both  sides  proceed  from  different  historical  points.  If  we 
proceed  from  the  consideration  of  individuals,  each  one  suffers  for  his 
own  sin ;  but  if  we  consider  the  species,  the  sin  of  each  individual  is 
the  stepping  forward  and  continuance  of  the  sin  of  common  life, 
which  went  out  from  the  sin  of  the  father  of  the  race. 

(1)  Compare  Vitringa,  Observationes  Sacrce,  iii.  8,  p.  618. 

(2)  The  Talmud,  indeed,  speaks  of  children  born  in  holiness,  but 
not  the  Old  Testament.  The  divine  equipment  of  some  men  in  the 
womb  (Jer.  i.  5,  etc.)  does  not  exclude  the  general  sinfulness  of  man. 
[Article,  "  Piidagogik  des  A.  T."] 

(S)  Ex.  XX.  5 :  "  Thou  shalt  not  worship  them  (the  idols),  for  I, 


238  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISM.  [§  70. 

Jehovali,  tliy  God,  arn   a  jealous  God,  visiting  the  iniquity  of  the 
fathers  on  the  children  to  the  third  and  fourth  generation,  "'Nib'?." 

(4)  Compare  Hiivernick,  Thcol.  des  A.  T.,  2d  ed.,  edited  by 
Schultz,  p.  113  :  "  It  is  to  be  regai-ded  as  an  exception  when  a  godless 
father  has  a  virtuous  son.  That  ethical  states  follow  a  rule  is  pre- 
supposed in  the  law ;  this  is  viewed  by  it,  so  to  speak,  as  the  normal 
course  of  things  with  regard  to  wickedness." 

(5)  Deut.  xxiv.  16  :  "  The  sons  shall  not  be  slain  for  their  fathers' 
sake  ;  each  one  shall  die  for  his  own  sin." 

(6)  The  Jews,  in  Jer.  xxxi.  29,  interpreted :  "The  fathers  have 
eaten  sour  grapes,  and  the  children's  teeth  are  set  on  edge." 

§76. 

Antagonism  of  tlie  Good  and  the  Ecil  in  Man.     Degrees  oj  Sin, 
Possibility  of  a  Relative  Righteousness. 

Along  with  all  this,  the  povv-er  of  sin  is  represented  as  a  power 
which  may  and  is  to  be  fought  against  by  the  freedom  of  man.  And 
thus  on  the  deportment  of  man  depend  the  various  degrees  of  sin, 
which  at  its  height  becomes  callousness ;  whilst,  on  the  other  hand,  by 
submission  to  the  word  and  will  of  the  revealing  God,  a  godly  life  in 
the  midst  of  the  world's  life  of  sin  is  laid  down  as  possible,  and  thus 
a  distinction  is  constituted  between  the  righteous  and  unrighteous. 

According  to  the  Old  Testament,  the  condition  of  man  in  conse- 
quence of  the  Fall  is  not  that  of  an  absolute  subjection  to  sin  which 
destroys  the  power  of  resistance,  but  it  is  an  antagonism  which  has 
entered  in  between  man's  disposition  to  good  and  the  power  of  sin. 
The  feeling  of  a  contradiction  now  dwelling  in  man  shows  itself.  Gen. 
iii.  7,  in  the  appearance  of  shame,  but  iv.  6  f.  is  in  this  connection  the 
main  passage.  It  is  to  be  explained  thus :  Jehovah  said  to  Cain, 
"  Why  art  thou  wroth,  and  why  has  thy  countenance  fallen  ?  Is  it 
not  so,  if  thou  doest  well,  thy  countenance  is  lifted  up,  but  if  thou 
doest  not  well,  sin  is  before  the  door,  as  a  lier  in  wait  (1) ;  his  desire" 
(sin's)  "  is  towards  thee;  but  thou  shouldst  rule  over  him."  Here  is 
expressed  the  duty  and  possibility  of  resisting  the  sinful  inclination. 
The  whole  law  rests  on  this  presupposition  (compare  especially  the 
section  Deut.  xxx.  11-20),  though,  at  the  same  time  (as  we  shall  see 
later),  it  is  distinctly  stated  that  the  overcoming  of  the  power  of  sin  in 


§  70.]      ANTAGONISM  OF  THE  GOOD  AND  THE  EVIL  IN  MAN.       239 

man  is  not  attained.  But  according  as  men  seek  or  do  not  seek  to  rule 
over  sin,  there  arises  a  difference  of  relation  to  God  and  a  difference 
in  the  degree  of  sinfulness.  This  difference  of  degree  is  not  in  any 
way  to  be  traced  to  the  difference  of  the  inner  and  outer,  as  if  the 
decisive  point  were  the  outward  relation  of  man  to  the  law ;  for,  in 
Ex.  XX.  17,  a  wicked  desire  is  forbidden  no  less  than  wicked  deeds, 
and  the  law  does  not  seek  mere  outward  conformity  to  the  divine  will. 
Though  the  ordinances  of  justice  and  ritual  must,  in  the  nature  of 
things,  look  primarily  at  the  outward  condition  of  offences,  still,  in 
reference  to  individual  sinful  actions,  they  distinguish  between  sins 
committed  through  error  and  negligence  (i^^^!"^?,  Lev.  iv.  2,  22,  etc.; 
compare  Num.  xxxv.  22  ff .)  and  those  committed  with  wicked  intention 
.(non  T3,  Num.  XV.  30,  etc.).  But  what  the  spirit  of  the  Old  Testament 
is  in  reference  to  the  moral  estimate  of  the  whole  man,  is  shown  in  the 
history  in  many  examples.  Moses — although  even  on  him,  the  faithful 
servant  of  God,  sin  was  heavily  punished — did  not  sin  as  did  Pharaoh, 
in  whom  God's  judgments  produce  an  appearance  of  repentance  only 
till  the  moment  when  he  gets  relief  from  punishment.  David,  to  the 
depth  of  whose  fall  corresponds  a  repentance  just  as  deep,  sinned 
■differently  from  Saul,  who  is  sorry  for  his  sin  because  it  brings 
him  misfortune.  In  short,  the  measure  for  the  divine  estimate  of 
man  lies  in  the  uprightness  and  purity  of  the  attitude  of  the  heart 
towards  God  (327  Dri).  The  Old  Testament  calls  the  highest  degree 
of  sin  obduracy,  or  hardening  of  the  heart  (2?  p'^n^  Ex.  iv.  21 ;  Y^i^, 
2  Chron.  xxxvi.  13;  *i^?3n,  133,  1  Sam.  vi.  6;  r\'^\^r^^  Ps.  xcv.  8,  Prov. 
xxviii.  14,  for  which  we  find  also,  to  close  up  the  heart,  Isa.  xliv.  18, 
to  make  fat,  P^^'"?,  vi.  10 ;  comp.  Ps.  cxix.  70,  to  make  the  heart  like  a 
diamond,  Zcch.  vii.  12).  This  is  the  condition  in  which  a  man,  by 
continually  cherishing  sin,  has  lost  the  ability  to  withstand  it ;  and  it  is 
added,  that  God  can  glorify  Himself  on  such  a  one  only  by  punishment. 
For  it  is  God's  ordinance,  that  as  the  power  to  do  good  grows  by  its 
practice,  so  also  sin  is  punished  by  continued  sinning ;  compare  Ps. 
Ixxxi.  12  f .  (2).  The  hardening  is  at  once  a  divine  act  and  the  proper 
act  of  the  subject,  so  that  the  two  expressions  interchange ;  compare  on 
the  one  side  Ex.  vii.  3  (njJ^S  ^Jj-nx  n^=pN  "'JN),  iv.  21,  x.  20  (p\r\]  pin^i), 
and  on  the  other  side,  viii.  15-28  (32)  (iaVni:  iTyia  133^1),  ix.  34,  xiii. 
15  (comp.  1  Sam.  vi.  6,  Prov.  xxviii.  14:  nj;n3  Pisns!?  n^'i'pD,  etc.). 


240  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISM.  [§  7C. 

In  the  first  connection,  hardening  is  tlie  effect  of  the  divine  wrath. 
In   this   way   the   difficult   and   often   misinterpreted    passage,   Isa. 
Ixiv.  4  (5),  is  to  be  explained.     It  is  not,  "  Thou  wast  wroth  because 
we  sinned,"  but,  "  Thou  wast  wroth  and  then  we  sinned ;  in  those, 
i.e.  in  the  ways  of  God,  (we  sinned)  from  time  immemorial,  and  shall 
we  be  saved?"     The  passage  refers  to  Ixiii.  17,  "Why  dost  Thou 
permit  us  to  err  from  Thy  ways,  and  hardenest  our  hearts  not  to  fear 
Thee?"  (3).     But  we  must  here  note  as  essential  that  the  Old  Testa- 
ment (like  the  New)  always  speaks  of  hardening  only  in  connection 
with  a  divine  testimony  in  revelation, — in  reference  to  a  divine  revela- 
tion offered  to  the  sinner,  but  rejected  by  him.     This  is  applicable  to 
Pharaoh,  who  sees  the  miracles  of  Moses,  which  forced  even  the 
Egyptian  Magi  to  feel,  Ex.  viii.  15,  "  that  is  God's  finger;"  "but,"  it 
is  continued,  '•'  Pharaoh's  heart  was  hardened  (nynsi-n?  pT.n-ll)."    The 
same  thing  is  applicable  to  Israel  in  view  of  the  divine  leading  in  the 
wilderness;  and  according  to  this  also,  that  which  is  said  of  the 
Canaanite  tribes  (Josh.  xi.  20)  is  to  be  explained :   "  For  it  was  of 
Jehovah  to  harden  their  heart  to  strive  with  Israel,  that  He  might 
destroy  them  and  they  might  find  no  grace."     The  Canaanite  tribes 
merited  penal  judgment  on  account  of  their  idolatrous  abominations ; 
and  now  that  this  judgment  was  executed  upon  them  in  the  form  of 
extermination,  it  was  effected  by  themselves  in  virtue  of  a  divine  ordi- 
nance, through  their  hardening  themselves  to  do  battle  with  Israel,  for 
whom  God  manifestly  fought.     In  such  passages  the  point  is  not  (as- 
understood  by  Calvin  and  the  Calvinists)  a  dark  and  hidden  decree 
of  reprobation,  but  a  divine  decree  of  judgment,  well-grounded  and 
perfectly  manifest  (4). — The  path  taken  by  obduracy  is  described  in 
Isa.  vi.  10,  incapability  to  hear  the  divine  word  and  see  God's  ways 
(]}^n  V^''V)  "JMH  nrsi .  .  .  nb  \^^\});  and  this  connects  itself  with  dulness 
of  heart,  and  again  reacts  on  the  heart,  so  that  the  insusceptibility  of 
the  heart  becomes  incurable. 

Now,  on  the  other  side,  in  the  midst  of  the  common  life  of  sin,  sl 
rio-hteousness  (•"'i^'^V)  is  won  by  ready  resignation  to  the  divine  will, 
and  by  the  loyalty  with  which  a  man  accepts  the  witness  of  God, 
given  to  him  in  accordance  with  the  then  stage  of  revelation  ;  and  thus 
the  difference  between  the  relatively  righteous  and  unrighteous  goes 
through  all  the  different  periods  of  revelation.     Enoch  walked  with 


§  7C.]  ANTAGONISBI  OF  THE  GOOD  AND  THE  EVIL  IN  MAN.  241 

God,  Gen.  V.  22 ;  Noali  is  looked  upon  as  righteous  in  the  general 
corruption,  vii.  1 ;  Abraham  believed  the  promise,  and  it  was  counted 
to  him  for  righteousness,  xv.  6  (5).  But  the  Old  Testament  knows 
nothing  of  absolutely  righteous  persons  (in  the  canonical  books): 
"  There  is  no  one  who  hath  not  sinned,"  1  Kings  viii.  46  ;  "  Before 
Thee  no  living  man  is  righteous,"  Ps.  cxliii.  2  ;  compare  Isa.  xliii.  27, 
Prov.  XX.  9,  Eccles.  vii.  20  (6).  The  Mosaic  law  proves  this  by 
excepting  none  from  the  need  of  atonement  (7). 


(1)  nxtsn,  in  Gen.  iv.  7,  is  not  masculine,  but  K?'t  stands  as  a 
substantive. 

(2)  Ps.  Ixxxi.  12  f.:  "My  people  did  not  hearken  to  my  voice, 
and  Israel  Avould  not  conform  to  my  will.  So  I  gave  them  up 
O^f??^^})  to  their  hardness  of  heart,  that  they  might  walk  in  their 
own  counsels." 

(3)  Isa.  Ixiv.  4 ;  Jny^Si  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse  still  depends 
on  H'h,  Ixiii.  19. — Ewald  gives  the  meaning  of  i^^^^]  ^P"^?^  nri5<t  most 
correctly,  referring  back  to  Ixiii.  17 :  "  The  longer  God's  wrath,  i.e. 
misfortune,  lasts,  the  more  rankly  does  sin  grow  and  spread."  Delitzsch 
explains  :  "  and  we  stood  as  sinners." — onn  does  not  mean,  as  Ewald 
says,  "upon  them  (the  Israelites)  continually,"  but  D.n^  refers,  as 
Maurer  and  Stier  have  correctly  seen,  to  the  ways  of  God  before 
named. — V^')^)  is  best  understood  as  a  question. 

(4)  Gustav  Baur,  in  the  essay  cited  at  §  72,  note  3,  p.  349,  remarks, 
in  reference  to  this  Old  Testament  doctrine  of  hardening  of  the 
heart,  "  that  if  in  the  Old  Testament  the  divine  sway  appears  in  the 
hardening  of  the  heart  in  a  w^ay  which  seems  to  limit  free  human 
power,  this  was  because  the  notion  which  the  Israelites  had  of  God 
and  the  creation,  from  which  human  freedom  necessarily  follows,  was 
not  yet  worked  out  in  its  whole  consequences  with  perfect  clearness, 
nor  brought  into  unison  with  the  experiences  of  the  human  life." 
This  is  decidedly  wrong.  The  remark  would  refer  equally  to  the 
New  Testament,  which  contains  the  very  same  doctrine.  Human 
freedom  has  limits  in  reference  to  sin ;  the  New  Testament,  too, 
knows  of  a  bondage  to  sin,  and  we  cannot  here  speak  of  a  narrowness 
of  the  Old  Testament  standpoint. 

(5)  Compare  hereafter  the  doctrine  of  the  righteousness  of  the  law 
and  of  faith. 

(6)  Isa.  xliii.  27  :"  "  Thy  first  father  has  sinned,  and  thy  intercessors 
were  faithless  to  me." — Prov.  xx.  9 :  "  Who  can  say,  I  have  kept  my 

VOL.  I.  Q 


242  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISM.  [§  77. 

heart  clean,  I  am  clean  from  my  sin?" — Eccles.  vii.  20  :  "  There  is  none 
righteous  on  earth,  who  doeth  good  and  sinneth  not." 

(7)  Only  Manasseh's  apocryphal  prayer  says  in  the  notorious  pas- 
sage, ver.  8  :  "  Because  Thou  art  a  God  of  the  righteous,  Thou  hast  not 
appointed  repentance  to  the  righteous  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob, 
who  did  not  sin  against  Thee."  The  passage  is  in  direct  opposition  to 
Isa.  xliii.  27,  and  it  was  on  its  account  that  this  prayer  was  not 
canonized  even  by  the  Komish  Church. 

III.    ON  DEATH  AND  THE  STATE  AFTER  DEATH  (1). 
§    77. 

Tlie  Connection  between  Sin  and  Death. 

Death  is  the  consequence  of  sin.     The  proof  for  this  lies  already 

in  the  fact  that,  as   has   been  shown  in  §  72,  i^osse  non  mori  was 

attached  to  the  life  in  Paradise.     But  the  connection  between  sin  and 

death  is  positively  expressed  in  Gen.  ii.  17  :  "In  the  day  thou  eatest 

thereof   thou   shalt  die."      The  difficulty  arising   from  these  words 

because  death  did  not  really  follow  immediately  on  the  Fall  is  not 

(as  some  wish)  to  be  set  aside  by  saying  that  Di"*  denotes  a  larger 

space  of  time ;  the  eating  and  dying  are,  on  the  contrary,  placed  in 

immediate  connection  by  the  Di''?,  etc.  (for  this  expression  compare 

the  quite  similar  passage  1  Kings  ii.  37).     Neither  is  it  to  be  set 

aside  by  supposing   (like    Bottcher,  Knobel,   and  others)    that  the 

threat  in  Gen.  ii.  17  was  not  meant  by  the  narrator  to  be  serious  (2)  ; 

for,  without  regard  to  the  fact  that  the  Old  Testament  never  makes 

Ood  play  with  His  words,  death  does  indeed  appear,  iii.  19  (3),  as 

the  end  of  the  punishment.     For  the  words  ^3V^'"iy,  etc.,  must  not 

be  understood  (4)  of  the  term  up  to  which  the  punishment  which 

hung  over  man  should  continue, — for  in  this  case  the  following  reason 

would  be  most  superfluous, — but  the   words  tell  in  what  way  the 

punishment  runs  its  course,  and  in  what  it  is  to  be  executed.     The 

issue  of  the  punishment  is  at  once  placed  foremost  in  the  threat,  ii.  17, 

as  is  generally  the  case  in  prophetical  proclamations.     Indeed,  man 

entered  on  the  path  of  death  immediately  on  the  execution  of  sin  (5). 

— The  punishment  of  death  is  attached  to  disobedience,  not  to  the 

effect  of  the  fruit  of  the  tree,  as  many  expositors  conclude  from  the 

contrast  in  iii.  22.     The  tree  does  not  bear  the  name  of  the  tree  of 


§  77.]  THE  CONNECTION  BETWEEN  SIN  AND  DEATH.  243 

death  in  contrast  to  the  tree  of  life,  but  it  is  called  the  tree  of  the 
knowledge  of  good  and  evil.  The  use  of  the  fruit  has  death  as  its 
consequence  merely  because  moral  self-decision  was  attained  by  it. 
The  inner  connection  of  sin  and  death  is  clear  from  vi.  3,  though 
this  passage  primarily  treats  only  of  the  shortening  of  the  length  of 
life  through  sin.  This  difficult  passage  is  thus  to  be  explained : 
(Jehovah  speaks)  "  My  spirit  shall  not  always  strive  with  man ;  in 
his  erring  he  is  flesh ;  his  days  shall  be  a  hundred  and  twenty 
years"  (6).  It  is  not  necessary  to  assume  that  "i^3  stands  here  in 
the  ethical  sense  of  the  New  Testament  adp^  (7).  The  word  is 
rather  to  be  taken  in  its  common  Old  Testament  meaning ;  compare 
Isa.  xl.  6,  Ps.  IxxviiJ  39,  etc. :  "  in  his  erring  he  is  flesh," — mortal, 
perishable.  According  to  this  passage,  the  divine  spirit  of  life  which 
supports  man  is  impaired  by  sin,  and  thus  man's  vital  strength  is  ruined; 
while,  as  Isaiah  (Ixiii.  10)  expresses  himself,  the  Spirit  of  God  is  grieved 
by  sin;  it  is  also  repressed  as  the  physical  principle  of  life,  and  thus  man 
is  subject  to  mortality.  The  passages  Num.  xvi|.  29,  xxvii.  3,  which  are 
also  brought  to  bear  on  the  proposition  that  death  is  the  reward  of  sin, 
admit  of  a  different  interpretation.  Still  in  the  first  passage, — "  If  these 
(Korah  and  his  company)  die  like  all  men,  13^"'^^  1\?^^)  Dl^n-73  JTnpay 
— the  last  words  are  certainly  not  to  be  explained,  with  Keil,  "  and  the 
(protective)  care  extended  to  all  men  is  exerted  for  them  ;"  and  scarcely 
€ither  with  Bottcher,  "  and  a  punishment  of  all  the  world  " — that  is,  a 
usual  punishment  of  death  is  decreed  against  them,  such  as  commonly 
falls  on  criminals. — The  sense  probably  is,  if  they  die  in  the  common 
way ;  and  thus  the  common  lot  of  death  is  called  a  penal  visitation, 
which  comes  on  all  men  (8).  In  reference  to  the  second  passage 
(where  Zelophehad's  daughters  are  introduced  speaking),  the  sense 
may  be :  "  Our  father  was  not  among  the  company  of  Korah,  so  as 
to  die  because  of  his  sin  ; "  if  so,  i^pn  refers  to  the  sin  of  that  con- 
spiracy, and  the  passage  is  not  relevant  here.  But  even  if  we  render 
^^  he  was  not  in  that  company,  but  he  died  in  his  sin,"  it  is  very  question- 
able whether  ixm  should  here  be  referred  to  the  common  sinfulness 
of  man,  and  not  to  the  general  sin  of  the  nation,  which  brought  about 
the  death  of  that  whole  generation  in  the  wilderness.  Lastly,  we 
have  to  notice  the  passage  from  the  Mosaic  Psalm,  xc.  7-10 :  "  For  we 
are  consumed  in  Thine  anger,  and  by  Thy  wrath  are  we  troubled. 


244  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISM.  [§  77, 

Thou  settest  our  iniquities  before  Thee,  our  secret  faults  in  the  light 
of  Thy  countenance ;  for  all  our  days  pass  away  in  Thine  anger," 
etc.  This  passage  does  not  primarily  speak  of  death  in  general,  but 
only  of  early  death, — the  brevity  and  transientness  of  life  as  the 
punishment  of  sin.  But  still  this  passage  does  show  how  the  Old 
Testament  connected  death  with  sin ;  and  this  serves,  at  the  same 
time,  to  explain  why  the  law,  Num.  xix.  (compare  also  v.  2  f.)  (9), 
demands  a  purifying  propitiation  for  everything  which  comes  into 
contact  with  a  corpse,  although,  at  the  same  time,  burial  is  considered 
so  high  a  duty  of  affection.  Certainly  in  many  passages  mortality 
and  frailty  are  predicated  of  human  nature  generally  without  being 
placed  in  connection  with  sin, — as  when  man  (Gen.  xviii.  27)  is  called 
dust  and  ashes ;  v/hen,  in  Ps.  Ixxxix.  48  f.,  it  is  said :  "  Remember, 
Lord,  how  short  my  life  is ;  to  what  nothingness  Thou  hast  created 
all  sons  of  men;"  compare  further  ciii.  14  ff.,  and  other  passages. 
But  this  does  not  mean  that  death  originally  belonged  to  man's  nature, 
but  such  words  are  uttered  simply  from  the  experience  of  the  present 
frailty  of  man ;  which  experience,  indeed,  is  so  predominant  in  the 
Old  Testament  view  of  man,  that  the  meaning  to  be  sick  or  diseased 
attaches  to  the  verbal  stem  C'JS,  which  properly  means  to  be  man. 

(1)  Compare  my  Coimnentationes  and  my  article  "Unsterblichkeit. 
Lehre  des  A.  T.  von  derselben,"  in  Herzog's  RealencT/Hoj?.  xxi.  p. 
409  ff. — There  is  no  topic  of  Old  Testament  theology  on  which  the 
literature  is  so  rich  as  on  the  one  in  question.  Various  views  existed 
on  the  subject,  even  in  the  older  Judaism — see  Himpel,  die  Unster- 
hliclikeitslehre  des  A.  T.,  1857  (Ehinger  Progr.),  p.  2  f . ;  over  it  the 
Church  Fathers  disputed  with  the  heretics — see  my  Commentationes, 
p.  1  ff.  The  discussion  was  renewed  by  the  Socinians  and  Deists — see 
the  same,  p.  4  f .,  and  Himpel,  I.e.  p.  6  ff.,  where  reference  is  alsa 
made  to  the  various  views  of  more  modern  theologians.  The  litera- 
ture of  the  subject  up  to  ths  year  1844  is  noted  in  Bottcher's  learned 
work,  de  Inferis,  etc.  [above  art.]. — Besides  the  writings  of  Bottcher 
and  Himpel,  we  here  mention  Mau,  vo7n  Tode,  dem  Solde  der  Siinden, 
rind  der  Auferstehung  Christi,  1841 ;  H.  A.  Hahn,  de  spe  immortalitatis 
snb  V.  T.  gradatim  excidta,  1846;  Fr.  Beck,  "zur  Wiirdigung  der 
alttest.  Vorstellungen  von  der  Unsterblichkeit,"  in  Baur's  and  Zeller's 
theol.  Jahrhiichern,  1851,  p.  469  ff. ;  H.  Schultz,  V.  T.  de  hominis 
iimnortalitate  sent.,  1860,  with  which  are  to  be  compared  the  relevant 


§  78.]        DOCTRINE  OF  MOSAISM  ON  THE  CONDITION  AFTER  DEATH.         245 

sections  in  the  same  author  s  work,  Die  Voraussetzungen  der  christl.  Lehre 
von  der  UnsterhlichJceit,  1861. — The  more  modern  writings  on  biblical 
anthropology  and  eschatology  enter,  also,  more  or  less  on  the  Old 
Testament  doctrine  of  the  state  after  death;  especially  Delitzsch,  hibl. 
Psychologie,  2d  ed.,  where,  p.  xiii.,  a  list  of  works  on  this  topic  is  given. 

(2)  Knobel  remarks  on  Gen.  ii.  17 :  "  Jehovah  proclaims  a  worse 
consequence  than  He  means  to  follow — as  a  father  sometimes  in 
giving  commands  threatens  the  children  with  more  detrimental  conse- 
quences than  he  apprehends." 

(3)  Gen.  iii.  19  :  "In  the  sweat  of  thy  face  shalt  thou  eat  bread, 
till  thou  returnest  to  the  earth,  for  out  of  it  art  thou  taken  ;  for  dust 
thou  art,  and  unto  dust  shalt  thou  return." 

(4)  So  Mau,  I.e.  p.  60. 

(5)  The  passage  Gen.  ii.  17  was  already  well  expounded  by 
Augustine,  de  pecc.  mer.  i.  21:  "Quamvis  annos  multos  postea 
vixerint,  illo  tamen  die  mori  coeperunt,  quo  mortis  legem,  qua  in 
senium  veterascerent  acceperunt."  On  this  passage  compare  also  my 
Coimnentationes,  p.  21,  and  Herm.  Schultz,  Die  Voraussetzungen,  etc., 
p.  121  ff. — It  is  indicated  by  the  incident  of  clothes  made  from 
animals'  skins,  mentioned  in  Gen.  iii.  21,  that  man  at  once  was  given 
to  see,  in  the  case  of  the  beasts,  what  like  death  is. 

(6)  Gen.  vi.  3. — In  i<^n  U'0'2.  a  change  of  numbers,  as  is  often  the 
case,  takes  place.  The  D3K'3  cannot  possibly  be  taken  to  mean, 
"  because  also"  =  03  lti'X2.  Apart  from  the  fact  that  in  the  idiom  of 
the  Pentateuch  ^  for  "lt:?'^<.  is  not  found,  a  combination  of  particles  of 
this  sort  would  be  entirely  without  example,  besides  which  the  "  also  " 
would  be  quite  unnecessary.  The  w^ord  is  rather  to  be  understood  as 
the  infinitive  of  i.V^,  to  wander,  to  go  astray, — an  infinitive  in  A,  such 
as  is  found  from  some  intransitive  roots  "yy. 

(7)  Thus  Keil :  In  his  erring  he  has  shown  himself  to  be  flesh — 
that  is,  as  unable  to  let  himself  be  governed  by  God's  Spirit. 

(8)  Jul.  Mueller,  too,  thus  explains  the  passage  {Die  christl.  Lehre 
von  der  Siinde,  ii.  5th  ed.  p.  404). 

(9)  Compare  the  discussion  of  the  acts  of  expiation  in  the  cere- 
monial law. 

§78. 

The  Doctrine  of  Mosaism  on  the  Condition  after  Death. 

Death  takes  place  when  the  divine  spirit  of  life  which  sustains 
man  is  withdrawn  by  God,  Ps.  civ.  29,  by  which  means  man  expires 


246  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISM.  [§  78. 

(this  is  meant  by  V]i,  see  Gen.  vii.  21  with  22),  upon  which  the  body 
returns  to  the  dust  from  whence  it  is  taken ;  see  also  passages  lilce 
Job  xxxiv.  14  f.,  Eccles.  xii.  7  compared  with  viii.  8.     It  might  appear 
from  these  passages  that  the  human  being  as  a  whole  is  annihilated 
in  death,  which  has  been  given  out  as  Old  Testament  doctr'ne  by 
not  a  few  (even  by  H.  A.  Hahn)  (1).     Indeed,  from  the  stancpoint 
of  natural  contemplation,  as  shown  in  Eccles.  iii.  18-21,  there  exists  no 
certainty  whether  man  is  different  from  the  animals  in  death.      But 
it  is  clear  from  the  whole  connection  of  Old  Testament  doctrine  (2), 
that  as  the  origin  so  also  the  last  lot  of  man's  soul  is  different  from 
that  of  the  soul  of  an  animal  (with  which  it  seems  to  be  identified  in 
Ps.  civ.  29),  and  that,  when  the  sustaining  spirit  of  life  is  withdrawn, 
the  band  by  which  the  ^^^,  is  bound  to  the  body  is  indeed  loosed,  but 
the  ti'33  itself,  and  man,  so  far  as  his  personality  lies  in  the  t^??3,  continues 
to  exist ;    although,  indeed,   since  all  vital  energies  depend  on  the 
infusion  of  the  H'll,  he  exists  only  as  a  weak  shadow,  which  wanders 
into  the  kingdom  of  the  dead  (bi^vK').     Certainly  the  name  of  souls  is 
never  used  in  the  Old  Testament  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  kingdom 
of  the  dead;  nor  do  we  find  the  expression  spirits,  for  Job  iv.  15  is  not 
a  case  in  point  (3).     But  that  it  is  the  ti'DJ  which  wanders  into  the 
kingdom  of  the  dead  is  clear  from  passages  like  Ps.  xvi.  10,  xxx.  4, 
Ixxxvi.  13,  Ixxxix.  49,  xciv.  17,  Prov.  xxiii.  14,  and  Ps.  xlix.  20,  if 
there  (which  is,  indeed,  disputed  by  some)  i<i3Ji  is  third  person,  and 
i{^'^^  is  to  be  supplied  as  subject  from  the  preceding  verse  (4).      So  it 
is  also  the  ^S?.  which  in  reanimation  returns  again  to  the  body  of  the 
dead  person,  1  Kings  xvii.  21  f.  (5).      The  narratives  of  resurrection 
from  the  dead  (1  Kings  xvii.  21  f. ;  2  Kings  iv.  34  f.)^may  be  adduced 
as  proving  that  a  closer  connection  between  the  body  just  quitted  and 
the  soul  still  subsists  immediately  after  death  (apart  from  what  has 
been  remarked  on  the  application  of  ti'S.J  to  denote  a  corpse,  §  70)  (6). 
Perhaps,  too,  this  idea  may  be  found  in  the  difficult  passage  Job  xiv. 
22,  which  certainly,  according  to  the  context,  refers  to  the  state  of  the 
dead,  not  of  the  dying,  and  then  speaks  of  the  dull  pain  experienced 
after  separation  by  the  soul  and  the  body.     Delitzsch,  for  example,, 
has  understood  this  to  mean,  "  that  the  process  of  the  corruption  of 
the  body  casts  painful  reflections  into  the  departed  soul ; "  but  the 
passage  can  be  also  understood  (and  perhaps  more  correctly)  to  speak 


§  78.]        DOCTEINE  OF  MOSAISBI  ON  THE  CONDITION  AFTER  DEATH.  247 

of  the  pain  whicli  the  body  and  soul  separately  feel,  as  in  Isa.  Ixvi. 
24  sensation  in  corpses  is  presupposed.  On  the  contrary,  there  is  no 
trace  in  the  Old  Testament  of  the  Egyptian  notion  that  a  continual 
connection  subsists  between  the  soul  and  body,  in  virtue  of  which  the 
maintenance  of  the  body  secures  the  continuance  of  the  soul,  although 
Tacitus,  Hist.  v.  5,  ascribes  this  Egyptian  conception  to  the  Jews; 
and  there  is  just  as  little  trace  of  the  heathen  idea  that  the  soul 
of  the  depai'ted  one  cannot  find  rest  before  the  burial  of  its  dead 
body.     Isa.  xiv.  15  £f.  speaks  expressly  against  the  latter  view  (7). 

The  place  into  which  man  migrates,  the  "'n"?^?  1J?io  IT'S,  Job  xxx. 
23,  is  called  Siieol  (•'iX^,  seldom  written  defectively).  The  word, 
which  is  to  be  regarded  as  feminine  (8),  may,  with  Winer  (9),  Heng- 
stenberg,  and  others,  be  derived  from  ^^'f,  poscere^  so  that  the  king- 
dom of  the  dead  would  be  characterized  as  that  which  is  insatiable  in 
its  demands.  Passages  like  Prov.  i.  12,  xxvii.  20,  xxx.  16,  Isa.  v.  14, 
Hab.  ii.  5,  in  which  the  insatiable  appetite  of  Sheol  is  spoken  of,  are 
favourable  to  this  derivation ;  only  it  is  improbable  that  the  word, 
which  without  doubt  is  very  old,  should  really  have  only  the  character 
of  a  poetical  epithet.  The  word  is  traced  by  most  modern  writers  to 
the  stem  ^V'f.,  to  be  hollow  (as  in  German,  Hohle,  a  cavern,  is  connected 
with  Holle,  hell),  a  softening  of  the  V  into  n  being  assumed  ;  or  they 
go  back  to  the  root  ht^',  h^  =  "^aw,  hio,  which  lies  at  the  basis  of  the 
stem  7j?tJ>,  and  hence  yaaixa^  ravine,  abyss,  is  regarded  as  the  original 
meaning  of  the  word  (10). — The  separate  traits  of  the  descriptions  of 
the  kingdom  of  the  dead  cannot  be  all  taken  very  literally,  owing  to 
the  poetical  character  of  most  of  the  passages ;  still  the  following 
essential  features  of  the  conception  of  Sheol  come  distinctly  forward : 
— The  kingdom  of  the  dead  (in  contrast  to  the  upper  spheres  of  light 
and  life,  Prov.  xv.  24,  Ezek.  xxvi.  20,  etc.)  is  supposed  to  be  in  the 
depths  ;  compare  Num.  xvi.  30,  and  expressions  like  TT'rinn  pixK',  Deut. 
xxxii.  22,  Ps.  Ixxxvi.  13,  the  depths  of  the  earth  ;  Ps.  Ixiii.  10,  comp. 
Ixxxviii.  7,  the  land  beneath  ;  Ezek.  xxvi.  20,  xxxi.  14,  xxxii.  18,  deeper 
even  than  the  waters  and  their  inhabitants.  It  agrees  with  this,  that 
it  is  a  region  of  thickest  darkness,  where,  as  Job  x.  22  says,  the  light 
is  as  midnight.  The  dead  are  there  gathered  in  tribes ;  and  hence  the 
oft-recurring  term  in  the  Pentateuch,  "  to  go  (Ni2)  or  be  gathered 
(PlpS3)  to  his  fathers  (vrii3S-^«),  or  to  his  people  (Vsr!?N)"  (Gen.  xxv. 


248  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISM.  [§  78. 

8  f.,  XXXV.  29,  xlix.  33,  Num.  xx.  24  ff.,  etc. ;  compare,  too,  the 
picture  of  Sheol  in  Ezek.  xxxii.  17-32).  These  terms  cannot  possibly 
be  referred  to  the  grave  (11).  The  kingdom  of  the  dead  and  the 
grave  are,  on  the  contrary,  definitely  distinguished.  For  example, 
when  Jacob  says,  in  Gen.  xxxvii.  35,  "In  sorrow  I  shall  go  down 
n?N^  to  my  son,"  he  cannot  think  to  be  united  with  Joseph  in  the 
grave,  since  he  believes  that  he  was  torn  by  beasts.  It  is  true  that 
traits  taken  from  the  grave  are  transferred  to  the  kingdom  of  the  dead, 
e.g.  Isa.  xiv.  11,  where  it  is  said  to  the  conqueror  who  has  sunk  into  the 
realm  of  the  dead,  "  Corruption  is  spread  under  thee,  and  the  worms 
cover  thee  ; "  indeed,  in  Ezek.  xxxii.  22  ff.,  the  expression  graves  is  used 
of  the  place  of  the  dead.  But  in  both  passages  there  can  be  no  doubt 
of  the  distinction  between  the  grave  and  Sheol,  for  in  Isa.  xiv.  18  ff. 
it  is  said,  that  whilst  the  king  of  Babylon  descends  to  Sheol,  his  corpse 
was  to  be  cast  away  unburied ;  and  the  two  poetical  pictures  depict  a 
common  place  of  rest  for  the  various  nations  of  the  earth  and  their 
rulers.  The  expression  "ii2,  that  is,  pit,  is  used  in  several  passages  for 
the  kingdom  of  the  dead  (12). 

As  follows  from  the  foregoing,  the  condition  in  the  realm  of  death 
is  supposed  to  be  the  privation  of  all  that  belongs  to  life  in  the  full 
sense  ;  and  so  the  realm  of  death  is  also  called  simply  ^"^?^<,  that  is,  fall, 
destruction  (Job  xxvi.  6  ;  Prov.  xv.  11,  xxvii.  20)  ;  also  t}^,  cessation 
(Isa.  xxxviii.  11).  Powerless,  heavily  brooding,  and  like  sleeping 
ones,  the  dead  rest  in  stillness  ('^9^'^),  Ps.  xciv.  17,  cxv.  17.  Sheol  is 
the  land  of  forgetfulness,  Ps.  Ixxxviii.  13  {p'^^^  n>?,  a  term  to  be  taken 
actively).  "  The  living  know  that  they  shall  die,  but  the  dead  know 
not  anything,  and  have  no  more  a  reward,  for  the  memory  of  them  is 
forgotten.  Their  love,  their  hatred,  their  envy  are  long  since 
perished,  neither  have  they  any  more  a  portion  for  ever  in  anything 
that  is  done  under  the  sun. — There  is  no  work,  nor  device,  nor 
knowledge,  nor  wisdom  in  Sheol,  whither  thou  goest,"  Eccles.  ix.  5, 
vi.  10.  Here,  therefore,  no  praise  of  God  and  no  contemplation  of 
divine  things  is  possible,  Ps.  vi.  6,  cxv.  17,  Ixxxviii.  12,  etc.  (13). 
With  all,  however,  self-consciousness  is  not  destroyed,  but  is  capable 
of  being  aroused  from  its  slumber;  the  identity  of  the  personality 
continues  (compare  such  passages  as  Isa.  xiv.  10,  Ezek.  xxxii.  21,  1 
Sam.  xxviii.  15  ff.).    It  is  probable  that  the  designation  of  the  dwellers 


§  78.]        DOCTEINE  OF  MOSAISM  ON  THE  CONDITION  AFTER  DEATH.         2i9 

in  the  kingdom  of  the  dead  as  I^''^5^"!  refers  to  this, — a  designation 
which  occurs  only  in  the  writings  which  are  later  than  the  Pentateuch 
(Isa.  xiv.  9,  xxvi.  14 ;  Job  xxvi.  5  ;  Ps.  Ixxxviii.  11 ;  Prov.  ii.  18,  xxi. 
16).     The  term  is  probably  connected  with  nsn^  languid  (as  ^'^i^^^  with 
n53),  and  means  accordingly  the  languid,  enervated  (compare  ^''V.^j 
Isa.  xiv.   10 ;    -'^^J"!''^^,  Ps.  Ixxxviii.  5).     In  the  Pentateuch,  on  the 
contrary,  Q'''?3'?  has   a  quite  different  meaning,  denoting  in  several 
passages  a  giant  people  of  antiquity.      Still,  in  this  meaning  the  word 
can  be  traced  to  the  same  stem,  if  we  suppose  the  primitive  sense  of 
nST  to  be  to  stretch,  which  gives  for  the  dead  the  meaning  "  stretched 
out"  (in  languor  em  projecti),  and  for  the  giants  the  meaning  extended, 
in  the  sense  of  proceri  (14). — It  is  not  possible  to  ascend  or  return 
from  the  realm  of  the  dead,  Job  vii.  9,  xiv.  12.     It  is  not  considered 
how  this  is  to  be  united  with  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  1  Kings 
xvii.  21  f.,  2  Kings  iv.  34  f. ;  the  question  may  be  solved  in  the  way 
given  above.    The  Old  Testament  relates  only  one  example  of  the  ap- 
pearing of  a  dead  person — that  is,  Samuel's,  1  Sam.  xxviii.  (15).    The 
popular  superstition  about  conjuring  the  dead,  aix  ^^'f-,  nuxn~?X  ^y\^ 
is  strictly  prohibited,  Lev.  xix.  31,  xx.  6;  Deut.  xviii.  11.     The  term 
3iN  properly  denotes  not  the  conjuror  himself,  but  the  spirit  which 
is  conjured  by  him,  and  is  supposed  to  speak  in  him.     This  is  shown 
by  the  expressions  in  Lev.  xx.  27  (where  the  necromant  is  designated 
as  nii<  nni  n;n^  ^3  r\'^^  i«  K'^n),  l  Sam  xxviii.  7  (where  the  witch  of 
Endor  is  called  lix  nbya),  and  in  ver.  8  of  the  same  chapter  (where 
necromancy  is  called  divination  through  the  Ob,  2ixa  ^PfJ)  ;  compare, 
too,  Isa.  xxix.  4.      The  term  2iK  is  hardly  to  be  explained  =  revenant, 
returning  (from  a  stem  31N  ;  in  Arabic,  aba),  but  is  probably  the  same 
word  with  the  name  3is,  which  signifies  a  leather  bottle  (properly, 
something  blown  up).     The  translation  of  the  LXX.,  who   always 
render  the  word  by  iyyaarpi/jLvOo';,  ventriloquist,  also  points  to  this 
view.    Then,  by  means  of  a  metonymy,  the  plural  ni2N%  leather  bottles, 
is  used  to  indicate  the  necromancers  themselves  (1  Sara,  xxviii.  3). 
The  absurdity  of  necromancy  is  pointed  out  in  Isa.  viii.  19  (16)  ;  the 
people  are  rather  directed  to  the  law  and  to  the  word  of  revelation, 
ver.  20  compared  with  Deut.  xviii.  15  (17). 

(1)    Compare,  too,    Ps.   cxlvi.   4. — To   this   are   to    be    added 
utterances  such  as  Ps.  xxxix.  14  :  "  Look  away  from  me,  that  I  may 


250  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISII.  [§  78. 

recover  before  I  go  hence  and  am  no  more  ; "  Job  vii.  21 :  "Now  will 
I  lay  myself  in  the  dust ;  Thou  seekest  me,  and  I  am  no  more  ;"  Job 
xiv.  10 :  "A  man  dies,  and  where  is  he  ?"     [Above  cited  art.] 

(2)  In  the  conception  of  a  realm  of  death  which  goes  through  the 
whole  Old  Testament,  and  which,  as  will  be  shown,  is  definitely  dis- 
tinguished from  the  grave,  as  well  as  in  what  is  narrated  of  resurrec- 
tions from  the  dead  (1  Kings  xvii.  21 ;  2  Kings  iv.  34),  and  what  is 
prophesied  about  the  future  rising  of  the  dead,  some  continued 
existence  of  man  after  death  is  undoubtedly  presupposed.  The  same 
book  of  Ecelesiastes  which,  xii.  7,  teaches  that  the  spirit  returns  to 
God  who  gave  it,  speaks,  ix.  10,  also  of  Sheol,  "  to  which  thou  goest." 
That  Job  vii.  8,  xiv.  10,  speak  only  of  man's  disappearance  from  the 
earthly  scene,  and  do  not  mean  that  he  has  entirely  ceased  to  be,  is 
shown  in  both  chapters  by  the  reference  to  sojourn  in  the  kingdom  of 
the  dead.  For  explanation  of  the  term  in  Ps.  xxxix.  14,  compare  Ps. 
xxxvii.  36.  We  may  well  say  that  man's  existence  after  death  is 
treated  in  the  Old  Testament  so  much  as  a  thing  of  course,  that  the 
reality  of  it  is  never  the  subject  of  doubt.  It  is  not  even  true  of 
the  book  of  Job  that  "  a  wavering  between  the  traditional  representa- 
tions of  a  kingdom  of  the  dead,  and  the  consideration  of  the  dead 
simply  as  beings  which  no  more  exist,"  is  found  here  (see  F.  Beck,  I.e. 
p.  475).  The  doubts  with  which  the  Israelitish  spirit  wrestles  refer 
only  to  the  hoiu  of  existence  after  death  ;  but  just  as  this  struggle 
becomes  so  hard  because  the  mind  cannot  free  itself  of  the  notion  of 
Sheol,  so  we  are  not  entitled  to  see  in  the  latter  only  something  out- 
wardly taken  over  from  jiopular  belief.     [Above  art.] 

(3)  On  Job  iv.  15,  see  note  15. — The  book  of  Wisdom,  iii.  1,  is 
the  first  to  speak  of  souls  of  the  dead ;  then  the  New  Testament, 
Rev.  vi.  9  ;  also  "TTvei/fxara,  1  Pet.  iii.  19,  Heb.  xii.  23. 

(4)  Ps.  xvi.  10,  "  Thou  wilt  not  leave  my  soul  in  Sheol." — In 
xciv.  17,  he  who  has  been  saved  from  death  by  divine  succour  says, 
"  My  soul  had  almost  made  its  dwelling  in  silence." — According  to 
another  view,  ^i^^,  in  Ps.  xlix.  20,  is  taken  as  the  second  person,  and 
then  the  enallage  with  Vniax  is  to  be  explained,  with  Bottcher  and 
Delitzsch,  by  supposing  that  the  customary  formula,  vni^N'Pi^  Ni3,  was 
before  the  mind  of  the  poet. 

(5)  On  the  other  hand,  indeed,  the  death  of  the  soul  is  spoken  of 
in  Num.  xxiii.  10,  Job  xxxvi.  14,  which  is  to  be  explained  by  the 
well-known  usage  by  which  'K'DJ,  etc.,  takes  the  place  of  the  personal 
pronoun  (comp.  §  70).     [Above  art.] 

(6)  Thus  Himpel,  I.e.  p.  32  ;  comp.  also  Delitzsch,  hibl.  Psyclio- 
logie,  1st  ed.  p.  385,  2d  ed.  p.  445. 


§  7S.]        DOCTRINE  OF  MOSAISM  ON  THE  CONDITION  AFTER  DEATH.         251 

(7)  Tacitus  writes,  I.e.,  of  the  Jews :  "  Corpora  condere,  quam 
cremare,  e  more  ^gyptio ;  eadenique  cura  et  de  infernis  persuasio." 
— For  the  rest,  compare  my  Commentationes,  p.  28,  and  Himpel,  I.e. 
p.  31. 

(8)  According  to  the  analogy  of  other  substantives  which  indicate 
spaces  ;  see  Ewald,  Ausfiihrl.  Lehrbuch,  8th  ed.  §  174,  b.  ?iXK'  is  not 
generis  communis,  as  the  lexicons  state ;  the  few  passages  in  which  it 
seems  to  appear  as  masculine  have  been  cleared  by  Bottcher,  de 
Inferis,  §  139  f. 

(9)  Winer  says  in  his  Lexicon :  ''  Orcus  hand  inepte  dici  videtur 
a  poscere,  quippe  qui  oranes  sine  discrimine  homines  insatiabili  quadam 
cupiditate  poscat." 

(10)  See  Hupfeld  in  the  Zeitschrift  filr  die  Kunde  des  Morgen- 
landes,  ii.  (1839)  p.  462,  and  in  his  Commentary  to  the  Psalms,  on 
Ps.  vi.  6,  note. 

(11)  Not  only  because  the  burial  of  the  corpse  is  often  especially 
mentioned  along  with  it  (comp.  Gen.  xxv.  9,  xxxv.  29,  1.  13,  etc.), 
but  chiefly  because  the  said  formula,  and  also  the  cognate  one,  "  to  go 
to  one's  fathers"  (Deut.  xxxi.  16;  1  Kings  ii.  10,  xvi.  28,  etc.),  are 
used  in  speaking  of  those  who  were  not  united  with  their  fathers 
in  the  grave,  as  Abraham,  Aaron,  Moses,  David,  and  others.  See  a 
complete  presentment  of  the  passages  belonging  to  this  subject  by 
Bottcher,  §  112  ff.     [Above  art.] 

(12)  Thus  nia  appears  in  Isa.  xiv.  14,  Ezek.  xxxii.  23,  Ps.  Ixxxviii. 
7 ;  also  the  phrase  112  T]J  (Ps.  xxviii.  1,  xxx.  4 ;  Prov.  i.  12  ;  Isa. 
xxxviii.  18  ;  Ezek.  xxvi.  20),  which  in  itself  might  refer  to  the  grave, 
is  probably  as  a  rule  to  be  referred  to  Sheol  (see  Bottcher,  I.e.  §  165). 
[Above  art.] 

(13)  Though  God's  omnipotence  reaches  down  to  the  world 
beneath,  which  is  present  to  Him  at  all  times  unconcealed  (Job  xxvi.  6  ; 
Prov.  XV.  11 ;  Ps.  cxxxix.  8),  still  every  experience  of  communion  with 
God  is  wanting  to  those  resting  there  (Ps.  Ixxxviii.  6).     [Above  art.] 

(14)  See  Ewald,  GescJiichte  Israels,  i.  3d  ed.  p.  327,  etc. — On  the 
contrary,  there  is  no  probability  in  Bottcher's  view  (I.e.  §  193  ff.),  that 
the  word  primarily  designates  the  race  of  giants  as  "  hurled  down," 
and  that  then,  these  fallen  giants  being  regarded  as  pars  potior  of  the 
inhabitants  of  Sheol,  the  name  was  extended  to  these  in  general. 

(15)  We  may  look  upon  it  as  decided  that  the  narrative  in  1  Sam. 
xxviii.  is  intended  to  be  so  understood  (as  the  LXX.  have  done  on 
1  Chron.  X.  13  and  Sir.  xlvi.  20  (23)),  and  that  it  does  not  record  a 
mere  deception,  as  the  older  theologians  interpreted  it.  (Besides  the 
relevant    literature  cited   in   Keil's    Commentary,   the   essay,   "  Die 


252  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  ORDINANCES  OF  MOSAISM.  [§  79- 

Geschichte  von  der  Zauberin  zu  Endor,"  in  the  Zeitschr.fUr  Protestcm- 
tismus  und  Kirche,  1851,  xxii.  p.  138  ff.,  deserves  to  be  noticed.)  On 
the  contrary,  it  is  not  the  manifestation  of  a  dead  person  that  is  spoken 
of  in  Job  iv.  12-15,  but  a  divine  revelation  ;  in  ver.  15,  nil  does  not 
indicate  a  spirit,  but  the  breathing  by  which  the  manifestation  pro- 
claimed itself.     [Above  art.] 

(16)  Isa.  viii.  19:  "  Shall  not  a  people  seek  unto  its  God? — the 
dead  for  the  living'?"  Ewald's  explanation  of  the  latter  clause  is 
false — "instead  of  the  living"  (of  the  living  God).  It  does  not 
follow  from  Isa.  viii.  19,  as  Diestel  has  said  (in  Herzog's  RealencyMop. 
xvii.  p.  482),  that  even  the  enlightened  prophets  believed  in  the  possi- 
bility of  inquiring  at  the  dead,  but  rather  the  contrary.     [Above  art.] 

(17)  In  this  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  agree.  When  our 
Lord  says,  in  Luke  xvi.  29,  '•  They  have  Moses  and  the  prophets,  let 
them  hear  them,"  He  speaks  quite  in  the  spirit  of  the  Old  Testament. 

§79. 

(^Continuation^ 

In  no  part  of  the  Old  Testament  is  a  difference  in  the  lot  of  those 
in  the  realm  of  death  distinctly  spoken  of.  Job  iii.  17-19  describes 
how  all  are  rather  alike.  Only  in  Isa.  xiv.  15,  Ezek.  xxxii.  23,  where 
the  fallen  conquerors  are  relegated  to  the  uttermost  depths  (">U"''ri2i");;)j 
can  we  find  an  indication  of  different  grades  in  the  realm  of  the  dead — 
perhaps  in  the  sense  in  which  Josephus  {Bell.  Jud.  iii.  8.  5)  places 
a  ahri<;  a-KOTLOiTepa  in  the  view  of  suicides.  Otherwise,  only  a  division 
into  peoples  and  races,  and  not  a  division  of  the  just  and  unjust,  is 
spoken  of.  "  To-morrow,"  says  Samuel  to  Saul,  1  Sam.  xxviii.  19, 
"  shalt  thou  and  thy  sons  be  with  me."  The  inhabitants  of  the  king- 
dom of  the  dead  "  have  no  more  reward,"  Eccles.  ix.  5  f.  In  itself, 
the  condition  in  Sheol,  which  is  in  the  main  the  most  indefinite 
existence  possible,  is  neither  blessedness  (although  longed  for  as 
a  rest  by  him  who  is  weary  of  life,  Job  iii.  13-19)  nor  positive 
unblessedness ;  for  those  who  are  swept  away  in  the  midst  of  the 
enjoyment  of  their  vital  energies  the  punishment  lies  just  in  being 
thus  carried  away,  Num.  xvi.  30  ff.,  Ps.  Iv.  16.  The  Mosaic  order  of 
retribution  has  its  sphere  entirely  on  this  side  of  the  grave  (1).  Of 
the  traces  of  belief  in  a  heavenly  life  beyond  the  grave  which  have 
been   supposed  to  be   found  in  the  Pentateuch,  the  translation  of 


§  79.]   DOCTRINE  OF  MOSAISM  ON  THE  CONDITION  AFTER  DEATH.    253 

Enoch,  Gen.  v.  24,  can  alone  come  into  consideration.  But  that 
is  not  a  testimony  to  a  higher  existence  of  the  soul  after  death ;  for 
the  meaning  of  the  passage  is  that  Enoch  never  died — that  is,  his  body 
and  soul  were  never  separated  (2).  In  it,  as  in  the  history  of  Elijah's 
translation  (2  Kings  ii.),  there  lies  rather  the  declaration,  in  fact,  that 
even  before  the  coming  of  death's  vanquisher  some  specially  favoured 
men  were  excepted  from  the  curse  of  death  and  of  the  kingdom  of 
death  which  hangs  over  man.  These  narratives,  then,  contain  an 
indirect  corroboration  of  the  position  that,  according  to  the  Old 
Testament,  death  is  not  absolutely  connected  with  human  nature. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  passage  on  the  death  of  Moses,  Deut.  xxxiv.  5 
(comp.  §  31  with  Note  3),  has  no  relation  to  this  subject ;  and 
just  as  little  is  Num.  xxiii.  10 — "  Let  my  soul  die  the  death  of  the 
righteous" — a  testimony  to  a  belief  on  eternal  life  (for  which  the 
passage  was  formerly  often  taken).  The  meaning  of  these  words  is 
rather  that  Balaam  wished  he  might  be  allowed  to  die  after  a  life  so 
richly  blessed,  as  was  the  case  with  the  righteous  in  Israel. 

But  it  is  clearly  expressed  in  the  Pentateuch  that  the  relation  of 
the  righteous  to  God  is  not  cancelled  after  death.  The  blood  of  the 
slain  Abel  calls  to  God,  Gen.  iv.  10.  The  relation  entered  on  between 
God  and  the  patriarchs  continues  ;  for,  long  after  the  patriarchs  had 
fallen  asleep.  He  calls  Himself  the  God  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  ; 
Ex.  iii.  6  compared  with  Gen.  xxvi.  24,  xxviii.  13.  "  But  God  is  not 
a  God  of  the  dead,  but  of  the  living  "  (Matt.  xxii.  32).  To  him  who 
has  an  eternal  value  for  God  an  eternal  existence  is  made  sure  (3). 

(1)  Compare  the  delineation  of  the  Mosaic  doctrine  of  retribution, 
§  89  f. 

(2)  In  speaking  of  Enoch,  the  word  "dying"  is  not  used.  Gen. 
v.  24,  but  it  is  said  that  God  took  him  away  (nip?)  because  he  walked 
with  Him. 

(3)  On  the  other  presuppositions  of  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrec- 
tion and  of  eternal  life  contained  in  Mosaism,  see  hereafter.  The 
doctrine  of  the  resurrection  forms  a  doctrine  of  prophetic  theology ; 
and  the  foreboding  wrestling  of  Israel's  sages  with  the  riddles  about 
death  and  the  realm  of  the  dead  is  discussed  in  the  third  part  of  the 
Old  Testament  Theology, 


THIRD    DIVISION. 

THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE 

THEOCRACY. 

FIKST  CHAPTER. 

THE  NATURE  OF  THE  COVENANT. 

§80. 

Preliminary  Ranarhs  and  General  Survey. 

The  form  in  which  the  covenant  of  God  with  Israel  is  closed,  Ex. 
xix.-xxiv.,  is  a  treaty  resting  on  the  promises  and  engagements  of  the 
two  parties  in  the  bargain  (see  xix.  5,  8,  xxiv.  3,  7 ;  comp.  afterwards 
Josh.  xxiv.  15  ff.).  But  the  relation  of  the  parties  is  not  purely 
mutual  (1).  In  the  first  place,  the  theocratic  covenant  of  law  rests 
on  the  covenant  of  promise ;  in  both,  even  in  the  covenant  of  the  law, 
the  initiative  (the  setting  up  of  the  covenant,  CiP^i,  Gen.  ix.  9,  xvii. 
7,  etc.)  comes  from  God  as  an  act  of  grace  :  ''  I  am  Jehovah,  thy  God, 
who  brought  thee  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,*'  Ex.  xx.  2  ;  "  I  have 
brought  you  to  me,"  xix.  4,  etc.  So  it  is  Jehovah  who  fixes  the 
conditions  of  the  covenant  ("lam  holy,  be  ye  also  holy,"  Lev.  xi. 
44  f .),  and  on  whom  depend  the  maintenance  of  the  regulations  of  the 
treaty  and  the  final  realization  of  the  aim  of  the  covenant.  Thus 
the  covenant  is  especially  SiaOi^Koj,  a  divine  institution  (2),  and  only 
on  this  foundation  is  it  o-vvOj'jici],  a  treaty.  How  n''")3  JTO  is  used, 
even  where  God  alone  pledges  Himself,  is  shown  especially  by  Ex 
xxxiv.  10.  In  the  usage  of  the  Pentateuch,  the  expression  ri''*i3  n"i3 
with  DJ?  or  ri^  is  used  throughout  to  signify  the  closing  of  God's 
covenant  with  Israel.  On  the  contrary,  in  the  later  books  a  peculiar 
usage  appears,  and  a  distinction  is  made  between  JV}^  ITIS,  in  connec- 
tion with  p,  and  in  connection  with  DV  or  riK  (3).  The  first  expresses 
that  when  a  covenant  is  closed  the  covenant  is  laid  by  the  .one  party 

234 


§  80.]       PRELIMINARY  REMARKS  AND  GENERAL  SURVEY.        255 

on  the  other ;  compare  Isa.  Iv.  3,  Ixi.  8 ;  Jer.  xxxii.  40 ;  Ezek.  xxxiv. 
25  (4).  In  the  patriarchal  covenant  of  promise,  the  first  element,  that 
of  htadrjKT},  institution,  naturally  appears  more  prominently.  The 
closing  of  the  covenant  in  Gen.  xv.  is  a  pure  act  of  divine  promise. 
In  the  vision,  when  deep  sleep  and  great  darkness  had  fallen  on  him, 
Abraham  saw  (ver.  12)  a  flame  of  fire  pass  between  the  parts  of  the 
divided  animals.  Tlie  meaning  of  the  occurrence  is  not,  as  has  been 
supposed  from  Jer.  xxxiv.  18  f.,  that  it  shall  be  done  to  him  who 
breaks  the  covenant  as  has  been  done  to  these  divided  animals  (comp. 
Judg.  xix.  29 ;  1  Sam.  xi.  7),  as  similar  customs  occur  in  Greek  and 
Roman  antiquity  at  the  making  of  covenants  (Livy,  i.  24 ;  Plutarch, 
QucBst.  Rom.  cap.  iii. ;  Homer,  lliad^  iii.  298  ff.)  (5).  This  meaning 
•of  such  covenant  observances  (especially  as  seen  in  Jer.  xxxiv.)  is  to 
be  looked  upon  as  only  secondary.  The  original  meaning  is,  that  the 
two  halves  denote  the  two  contracting  parties,  and  the  flame  passing 
through  denotes  their  union  by  Jehovah,  who  alone  is  He  who  con- 
stitutes the  covenant.  On  the  contrary,  the  act  in  Ex.  xxiv.,  in 
which  the  theocratic  covenant  is  made,  refers  to  both  parties  (6). 

According  to  its  nature,  the  covenant  falls  into  the  following 
factors : — 

1.  The  divine  act,  from  which  the  covenant  proceeds,  the  divine 
•choice,  and  the  promises  annexed  to  it. 

2.  Man's  duty.  He  who  lays  down  the  obligation  is  again  God, 
that  to  which  man  is  bound  is  the  revelation  of  the  divine  will  in 
the  law,  especially  the  Decalogue,  which  is  the  obligatory  document 
in  the  stricter  sense ;  but  the  symbol  of  obligation  is  in  particular  the 
sign  of  circumcision,  imposed  on  those  who  are  subject  to  the  covenant 
obligations. 

3.  By  the  way  in  which  the  people  perform  their  duty  the  divine 
retribution  is  determined,  which,  however,  is  so  carried  out  that  at  the 
•end  the  divine  purpose  of  election  must  come  to  be  realized. 

(1)  As,  for  example,  the  matter  has  been  quite  wrongly  taken  up 
"by  Spencer,  de  leg.  Hehr.  Hit.,  ed.  Tubing.,  p.  234,  and  especially 
p.  236,  etc.     [Article,  "  Volk  Gottes."] 

(2)  On  the  other  hand,  any  relationship  instituted  by  God  between 
Himself  and  man  (like  the  promise  of  grace  given  to  David,  Ps.  Ixxxix. 
4),  and  indeed  any  regulation  and  limit  laid  by  Him  on  the  creature 


256   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.   [§  8t. 

(comp.  passages  like  Jer.  xxxiii.  20,  Hos.  ii.  20,  Zech.  xi.  10,  etc.), 
in  particular  every  theocratic  regulation  (as  the  institution  of  the 
Sabbath,  Ex.  xxxi.  16),  may  be  characterized  as  rins.  [Article, 
"  Testament,  Altes  und  Neues,"] 

(3)  See,  e.g.^  Jer.  xxxi.  31,  33.     Compare  Gesenius  in  the  The- 
saurus, ii.  p.  718. 

(4)  The  Pentateuch  uses  nnn  n"i3  with  *?  only  in  speaking  of 
covenants  v^^hich  Israel  may  make  with  Canaan  and  its  idols. 

(5)  Iliad, 'm.  298  ff.: 

"  All-glorious  Jove,  and  ye,  the  powers  of  heaven, 
Whoso  shall  violate  this  contract  tirst. 
So  be  the  brains  of  them  and  of  their  sons 
Poured  out,  as  we  this  wine  pour  on  the  earth." 

(^Coirj^ers  translation.') 

(6)  See  the  doctrine  of  sacrifice,  §  121. 


FIRST  DOCTHTNir. 

§81. 

THE  DIVINE  ELECTION. 

IsraeVs  Election  as  the  Free  Act  of  Go(Ts  Love,     ins  and  y'l\ 

Israel's  adoption  to  be  the  covenant  people  is  a  free  act  of  God, 
that  is,  an  act  of  the  divine  love,  and  necessary  only  in  as  far  as  God 
had  bound  Himself  by  His  oath, — that  is,  as  a  proof  of  His  truth 
and  His  faithfulness, — but  is  in  no  way  dependent  on  man's  desert. 

These  propositions  are  expressed  in  the  whole  historical  guidance 
of  the  race  of  revelation  from  Abraham's  calling  onwards  (1),  but 
they  are  expressly  impressed  on  the  people  at  each  opportunity.  The 
God|  to  whom  the  earth  belongs  wishes  to  have  Israel  for  Plis  own 
peculiar  people  and  property,  Ex.  xix.  5.  It  is  on  the  ground  of  the 
divine  election  of  grace  and  the  divine  providence  that  the  divine 
commands  to  the  people  arise,  and  therefore  also  the  Decalogue,  Ex.. 
XX.  2,  places  at  its  forefront  the  fact  of  election  (2).  It  is  Deuteronomy 
in  particular  in  which  this  point  forms  one  of  the  fundamental 
thoughts.  The  following  are  the  main  passages  : — vii.  7  f.,  "  Jehovah 
has  not  set  His  love  upon  you  and  chosen  you  (inn)  because  ye  are 
more  than  all  nations,  for  ye  are  the  least  of  all  nations ;  but  because 
Jehovah  has  loved  you,  and  that  He  might  keep  tlie  oath  which  He  has 
sworn  to  your  fathers."     The  divine  love  appears  here  as  the  first 


§  81.]  ISRAEL'S  ELECTION  AS  THE  FKEE  ACT  OF  GOD'S  LOVE.  257 

point  in  the  founding  of  the  covenant  relation  with  Israel.  Compare 
further  viii.  17:  the  people  are  not  to  say,  "My  might  and  the 
strength  of  my  hand  has  procured  me  such  power.  Think  on  Jehovah 
thy  God,  that  He  has  given  thee  strength  to  do  valiantly,  that  He 
may  keep  His  covenant;"  also  ix.  4-6:  Israel  shall  not  say  in  his 
heart  that  God  has  driven  out  the  nations  of  Canaan  for  his  righteous- 
ness' sake ;  but  that  happened  partly  because  of  the  godlessness  of  the 
Canaanites,  and  partly  to  fulfil  the  promises  given  to  the  fathers ;  "for 
thou  art  a  stiffnecked  people."  The  divine  promise  is  sealed  by  God's 
oath,  which  is  given  whenever  the  matter  in  question  is  an  unchange- 
able decree,  the  performance  of  which  was  not  to  depend  on  even- 
tualities (Heb.  vi.  17)  (3).  Side  by  side  with  the  term  "in3,  in  which 
the  freedom  of  the  divine  purpose  of  grace  stands  out  most  strongly, 
the  word  Vy^,  to  know,  serves  to  characterize  the  divine  decree  of 
election ;  thus,  first,  Gen.  xviii.  19,  also  Amos  iii.  2,  Hos.  xiii.  5  (4), 
All  cognition  is  an  appropriation,  by  which  the  strangeness  between 
the  perceiving  subject  and  the  object  is  removed.  Thus  VT  has  in 
various  senses  a  more  pregnant  meaning  than  that  of  mere  theoretical 
knowledge ;  it  includes  the  heart's  sympathy  in  taking  in  an  object, 
and  so  means  to  take  knowledge  of  anything  with  love,  care,  and  the 
like — to  care  for  one ;  compare  Prov.  xxvii.  23,  where  it  stands  parallel 
with  nS  TV^p  (to  direct  the  heart,  the  attention,  to  anything),  and  thus 
forms  the  opposite  of  CX^,  to  reject  (see  e.g.  Job  ix.  21)  (5).  It  stands 
thus  for  the  divine  care  for  the  righteous,  Ps.  i.  6,  xxxvii.  18,  etc. ; 
thus,  Ex.  xxxiii.  12,  the  words  "I  know  thee  by  name"  express  the 
inward  relation  of  personal  appropriation  in  which  Moses  stands  to 
Jehovah  (corresponding  to  the  words,  "  Thou  hast  found  grace  in 
mine  eyes  ").  But  as  V})  is  said  of  God  not  simply  in  reference  to  the 
relationship  in  which  He  already  stands  to  man,  but  also  in  reference 
to  His  placing  man  in  a  relationship  to  Him,  in  virtue  of  which  He 
acknowledges  him  as  His  property,  V})  is  just  another  name  for  the 
divine  election  (synonymous  with  "in^)  (6). 

(1)  Compare  the  historical  section,  §  22  ff. 

(2)  Ex.  XX.  2  :  "I,  Jehovah,  am  thy  God,  which  have  brought  thee 
out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  out  of  the  house  of  bondage." 

(3)  In  Heb.  vi.  17  the  divine  oath  proclaims  to  d/xerdOeTov  tj}? 
/3oj/X,r]<;  avrov.     Compare  Achelis'  excellent  paper,  "  Ueber  den  Schwur 

VOL.  I.  K 


258   THE  COVENANT  0¥   GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.   [§  82. 

Gottes  bei  sich  selbst,"  in  the  theol.  Stiidien  unci  Kritiken^  1867,  3  Num. 
The  reader  may  see  from  this  paper  how  well  worth  while  it  is  to 
follow  lip  such  special  points  in  Holy  Scripture.  There  are  promises 
and  threats  which  are  uttered  conditionally,  for  which  the  main  pass- 
age is  Jer.  xviii.  7-10.  The  promise  which  is  uttered  conditionally 
to  Abraham  in  Gen.  xii.  is  made  unconditional  by  the  oath  of  God 
in  chap,  xxii.,  when  Abraham  is  proved. 

(4)  On  Gen.  xviii.  19,  comp.  §  23  with  note  6. — Am.  iii.  2,  "You 
only  have  I  known  of  all  the  families  of  the  earth." — This  pregnant 
notion  of  the  divine  knowledge  appears  in  just  as  many  forms  in  the 
New  Testament  r^v^voacxKeiv. 

(5)  The  sexual  meaning  of  yT"  (compare  §  69,  note  4)  is  also  to 
be  derived  from  this. 

(6)  Older  theologians  expressed  this  briefly  thus — yi^  does  not 
mean  merely  nosse  cum  affectu^  but  also  cum  effectu. 

§82, 
Points  in  loJiich  the  Election  of  the  People  is  expressed. 

The  divine  election  of  the  people  is  expressed  in  the  following 
points  : — Jehovah  is  the  Father  of  His  people ;  Israel  His  first-born 
son ;  His  property  out  of  all  the  nations  of  the  earth ;  the  holy,  priestly 
people.     All  these  notions  are  correlated. 

1.  In  the  Old  Testament,  the  meaning  of  the  divine  fatherhood  is 
not  physical,  as  if  God  were  called  the  Father  of  men  because  He 
gives  them  natural  life  and  preserves  them  in  it,  but  it  is  ethical.  It 
denotes  the  relation  of  love  and  moral  communion  in  which  Jehovah 
has  placed  Israel  to  Himself.  This  relation  is  quite  unique ;  Jehovah 
is  only  the  Father  of  the  chosen  people,  not  the  Father  of  the  other 
nations.  When  Jehovah,  in  Ex.  iv.  22  f.,  bids  Moses  say  to  Pharaoh  : 
"  Israel  is  my  son,  even  my  first-born ;  and  I  say  unto  thee,  Let  my 
son  go  that  he  may  serve  me,"  we  may  in  the  expression  "  first-born 
son  "  find  an  indication  that  at  some  time  other  nations  also  are  to 
enter  into  this  sonship ;  but  the  term  is  primarily  to  be  explained  by 
the  contrast  with  Pharaoh's  first-born — Israel  is  the  same  to  Jehovah 
as  Pharaoh's  first-born  son  is  to  him.  So  also  is  Deut.  xxxii.  6,  the 
second  main  passage  in  the  Pentateuch,  to  be  explained :  "  Do  ye  thus 
requite  Jehovah,  O  foolish  people  and  unwise  ?  is  not  He  thy  Father 
that  hath  created  thee  %  hath  He  not  made  thee  and  established  thee  ?" 


§  82.]      POINTS  IN  WHICH  ELECTION  OF  THE  PEOPLE  IS  EXPRESSED.       259 

■^Ji^,  '^'f^,  P.3  do  not  indicate  the  creation  of  the  people  in  the  sense  that 
all  men  are  made  by  God,  but  the  expressions  include  all  those  divine 
acts  by  which  Israel  is  established  and  prepared  in  his  quality  as  the 
people  of  God's  possession  and  covenant,  and  so  simply  denote  his 
election.  Again,  in  Isa.  xliii.  1,  15,  xlv.  11,  Jehovah  is  in  this  sense 
called  Israel's  creator  and  shaper  ;  and  when  it  is  said,  in  Ixiv.  7,  "  But 
now,  O  Jehovah,  Thou  art  our  Father ;  we  are  the  clay,  and  Thou 
the  potter ;  and  we  all  are  the  work  of  Thy  hand,"  the  meaning  is,  that 
Israel  owes  to  the  gracious  power  of  his  God  all  that  he  is  and  has ; 
comp.  Ps.  c.  3. — The  fatherhood  of  Jehovah  was  exerted  in  redemp- 
tion from  Egypt,  Hos.  xi.  1 ;  then  in  the  divine  guidance  through  the 
wilderness,  which  was  fatherly  discipline,  Deut.  viii.  5,  compare  Hos. 
xi.  3 ;  and  so  also  all  future  redemption  and  providential  guidance  of 
Israel  is  a  manifestation  of  the  divine  fatherhood  (see  Isa.  Ixiii.  16)  (1) ; 
and,  as  Jer.  xxxi.  9  proclaims,  when  the  ten  rejected  tribes  return 
with  weeping,  and  Jehovah  leads  them.  He  says,  "  For  lama  father 
to  Israel  "  (compare  ver.  20,  "Is  Ephraim  my  dear  son?").  Also  in 
Mai.  ii.  10,  compared  with  i.  6,  the  idea  of  the  divine  fatherhood  is 
not  to  be  otherwise  understood.  The  prophet  denounces  the  marriages 
entered  into  with  heathen  women  after  rejection  of  their  Israelitish 
spouses.  When  it  is  here  said,  "Have  we  not  all  one  fatlier?  has  not 
one  God  created  us  ?  why  do  we  deal  treacherously  every  man  against 
his  brother,  by  profaning  the  covenant  of  our  fathers'?"  the  heathen 
cannot  possibly  be  taken  along  with  Israel,  and  the  I^X^a  is  to  be 
understood  quite  in  the  sense  of  the  above-cited  passages,  and  taken 
of  the  creation  and  preparation  of  Israel  to  be  the  covenant  people. — 
As  Israel  as  a  whole  is  called  God's  son,  so  the  name  is  also  trans- 
ferred to  the  members  of  the  people,  Deut.  xiv.  1 :  "  Ye  are  sons  of 
Jehovah,  your  God."  Still  this  name  is  not  to  be  understood  as  if 
every  citizen  of  the  theocracy  could  apply  to  himself  individually 
the  God-sonship.  It  is  only  the  body  of  the  covenant  people  that  have 
the  name  "  sons  of  God,"  and  the  Israelite  has  a  share  in  the  God- 
sonship  only  in  virtue  of  his  being  incorporated  into  this  body.  The 
individual  personal  sonship  of  God  did  not  appear  till  later  in  the 
theocratic  kingdom  (2). 

2.  The  same  relation  between  Israel  and  God  which  rests  on  the 
divine  election  is  expressed  in  the  titles — people  of  God's  possession, 


260   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.   [§  8?, 

a  holy  people.  Thus,  on  the  words  of  Deut.  xiv.  just  quoted, — '•  Ye 
are  sons  of  Jehovah  your  God," — ver.  2  follows  :  "  Thou  art  an  holy 
people  to  Jehovah  thy  God,  and  Jehovah  hath  chosen  thee  to  be  a 
peculiar  people  (i^p^P  Dy  =  people  of  property)  unto  Himself,  above  all 
the  nations  that  are  on  the  earth ;"  comp.  vii.  6,  and  for  the  n^ip^  Ex. 
xix.  5,  Ps.  cxxxv.  4  (3).  In  Deut.  iv.  20,  n^m  Dy  stands  for  it,  which 
specially  teaches  that  God  won  this  people  to  Himself  by  an  especial 
act  (comp.  §  83).  In  the  notion  holy  people  (as  is  mentioned  in  §  44) 
there  is  contained  negatively  separation  from  all  other  people,  and 
positively  admission  or  introduction  into  communion  with  God  ;  as  is 
said  in  Ex.  xix.  4,  "I  have  brought  you  to  myself"  (comp.  Lev.  xx. 
24,  26).  In  virtue  of  this  attitude  to  God  Israel  is  a  priestly  people — 
xix.  6,  "  Ye  shall  be  unto  me  D'jqb  nn^Jprp."  The  expression  n3^e» 
may  denote  kinghood  (this  is  the  more  common  meaning)  and  king- 
dom. If  we  take  the  first  meaning,  and  translate  "  Ye  shall  be  a 
priestly  kinghood  to  me  "  (the  translation  of  the  LXX.  takes  it  thus — 
^aaiXeLov  lepdrev/jLo),  both  the  priestly  and  the  kingly  dignity  of  the 
people  are  expressed,  and  both  predicated  of  God's  people  on  the 
ground  of  this  passage  (1  Pet.  ii.  9 ;  Rev.  i.  6,  v.  10).  Thus  Keil, 
against  which  we  need  only  remark  that  the  Old  Testament  assigns  a 
position  of  dominion  in  the  world  to  the  people  of  God  as  such,  but 
still  never  uses  the  term  "  royal  people."  On  the  second  and  more 
general  explanation,  Israel  is  a  priestly  kingdom — that  is,  a  community 
of  priests  under  King  Jehovah.  Vocation  to  immediate  service  of  the 
true  God  is  the  main  notion  in  the  priestly  character  of  the  covenant 
people  (4).  Israel's  mediatorial  position  towards  the  other  nations  is 
also,  perhaps,  indicated  ;  but  this  point  is  not  followed  out  further  in 
the  Pentateuch,  which  only  emphasizes  the  separation  of  Israel  from  all 
the  other  nations  of  the  earth.  This  separation  is,  in  the  first  instance, 
effected  in  an  external  manner.  Israel  is  '•'  the  people  that  dwells 
alone"  (f^^]  ''^t'-)?  ^^^  ^^  ^°*  reckoned  among  the  nations  of  the 
world  (Num.  xxiii.  9  ;  Deut.  xxxiii.  28).  Further,  all  unclean  persons, 
eunuchs,  those  begotten  in  incest  (the  latter  is  probably  the  meaning 
of  the  difficult  word  "i.!^^),  Deut.  xxiii.  2  f.,  are  excluded  from  the 
congregation  ;  and  those  who  have  defiled  themselves  for  a  time  must 
also  withdraw  themselves  during  this  period  from  intercourse  with  the 
people.     God  sanctifies  the  people  to  Himself  positively  by  dwelling 


§  82.]      POINTS  IN  WHICH  ELECTION  OF  THE  PEOPLE  IS  EXPRESSED.        2G1 

among  tliem,  by  His  revelation  in  word  and  deed,  by  every  institution 
on  which  is  imprinted  the  unique  relation  between  Israel  and  God, 
and  finally,  by  placing  His  Spii'it  in  the  congregation.  Still,  in  all 
this  it  is  only  an  objective  relationship  which  is  established :  every 
Israelite  has  a  share  in  this  sanctity  in  virtue  of  natural  birth,  and 
in  virtue  of  the  outward  connection  of  his  life  with  the  holy  congre- 
gation,— not  in  virtue  of  the  new  birth  of  the  Spirit  and  the  com- 
munion of  a  spiritual  life  with  God  ;  for  Jehovah's  Spirit  (which  is 
placed  in  the  congregation,  comp.  Isa.  Ixiii.  11)  rests  only  on  the 
leading  organs  of  the  theocracy,  not  on  all  its  members.  Num.  xi.  16  ff. 
(comp.  §  65).  Nevertheless,  a  distinction,  within  the  theocratic  union 
between  Israel  according  to  the  flesh  and  the  covenant  people  who  are 
really  seeking  after  the  true  God  (Ps.  xxiv.  6),  the  race  of  God's 
children  (Ixxiii.  15),  occurs  in  the  Old  Testament,  as  will  be  shown 
more  particularly  afterwards.  Therefore  the  names  "  holy  people," 
"  priestly  kingdom,"  "  God's  peculiar  people,"  are  names  which  are 
full  of  the  future,  prophetic  types  of  that  which  shall  come,  since  the 
ransomed  Israel  of  the  future  time  shall  be  called  "  sons  of  the  living 
God"  in  the  full  significance  of  the  word  CO'-'N!  '•33),  Hos.  ii.  1  (5). 

3.  The  other  nations,  as  D^ia  (which  is  a  purely  quantitative  idea), 
form  a  great  profane  mass.  The  uniqueness  of  the  covenant  people 
in  contrast  to  the  heathen  corresponds  to  Jehovah's  uniqueness  as  the 
true  God  in  contrast  to  the  heathen  gods  as  nothings  (§  43  f.).  Thus 
the  contrast  between  Israel  and  the  D^i3  has  a  signification  quite 
different  from  that  betwixt  Greeks  and  barbarians  (with  which  it  has 
sometimes  been  compared)  (6),  and  makes  Israel  the  object  of  the 
fiercest  hatred  to  other  nations.  Still,  even  on  the  standpoint  of 
Mosaism,  the  theocratic  particularism  is  not  absolutely  exclusive  ;  for, 
without  regard  to  the  fact  that  the  people,  even  at  the  time  when  they 
came  up  out  of  Egypt,  incorporated  non-Israelitish  elements  (Ex.  xii. 
38,  comp.  with  Lev.  xxiv.  10,  Num.  xi.  4),  every  heathen,  dwelling 
as  a  stranger  in  the  land,  could  by  circumcision  become  incorporated 
among  the  covenant  people,  and  thus  receive  a  share  of  all  the  gracious 
benefits  bestowed  on  Israel,  Ex.  xii.  48 ;  that  is,  with  exception  of  the 
Canaanitish  tribes,  which  fell  under  the  curse.  To  these  the  Moabites 
and  Ammonites  (Deut.  xxiii.  4  £f.)  were  added  as  excluded  persons. 
But  with  regard  to  the  Edomites  and  Egyptians,  it  was  ordained 


262   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.   [§  S3. 

that  their  naturah'zation,  in  virtue  of  which  they  should  come  to  be 
regarded  as  equal  to  the  Israelites  born  in  the  land,  was  not  to  take 
place  till  the  third  generation,  ver.  8  f. ;  that  is,  that  the  great-grand- 
children of  Edomites  and  Egyptians  who  had  lived  in  Israel  as 
strangers  were  the  first  who  might  be  incorporated  with  God's  people 
throuo'h  circumcision.  In  particular,  heathen  slaves  were  to  be 
incorporated  into  the  family  by  circumcision,  Ex.  xii.  44.  From 
Gen.  xvii.  12,  compared  with  ver.  23,  where  Abraham  was  compelled 
to  circumcise  all  his  servants  (7),  those  born  in  the  house  and  those 
bouc^ht  from  strangers,  it  follows  that  this  passage  is  not  to  be  under- 
stood as  allowing  slaves  to  be  circumcised,  but  as  actually  commanding 
this. 

(1)  Hos.  xi.  1  :  "  When  Israel  was  a  child,  then  I  loved  him  and 
called  my  son  out  of  Egypt." — Deut.  viii.  5  :  "  As  a  man  chasteneth 
his  son,  so  Jehovah  thy  God  chasteneth  thee." — Isa.  Ixiii.  16  : 
"  Doubtless  Thou  art  our  Father,  Abraham  is  ignorant  of  us,  and 
Israel  acknowledges  us  not:  Thou,  Jehovah,  art  our  Father;  our 
Kedeemer  is  Thy  name  from  everlasting." 

(2)  See  the  Prophetic  Theology. 

(3)  In  the  n^Jp  lies  the  idea  of  precious  property,  which  one 
has  selected  for  himself,  which  one  has  set  aside ;  LXX. :  'Kao'i 
7r€ptovcno<i. 

(4)  Compare  the  idea  of  priesthood,  ivfra. 

(5)  In  this  signification,  the  New  Testament  adopts  the  names  as 
denominations  of  Christian  communities. 

(6)  It  was  also  acknowledged  by  the  heathen  that  the  people  of 
Israel  ix6vov<;  airdvTWV  eOvwv  uKOLvcov^TOVi  ehai,  t?}?  Trpo?  aWo  Wva 
iTTLfjLi^La<;.     Diodor.  Sic.  Eklog.  xxxiv. 

(7)  Compare,  wfo^a,  §  111,  on  the  position  of  slaves  not  Israelites. 

SECOND  DOCTRINE. 
MAN'S    OBLIGATION. 

§83. 

The  Notion  of  the  Servant  of  Jehovah. 

The  covenant  of  promise  with  Abraliam  was  concluded  upon  con- 
dition that  he  and  his  descendants  are  bound  to  a  godly  life  and  tO' 


§  83.]         THE  NOTION  OF  THE  SERVANT  OF  JEHOVAH.         263 

obedience  to  God's  will,  Gen.  xvii.  1  f.,  xviii.  19  (1).  The  same  con- 
dition is  prescribed  to  the  people,  Ex.  xix.  5,  and  accepted  by  the 
people,  ver.  8  ;  comp.  xxiv.  3  (2).  Laid  under  this  obligation  to  their 
God,  the  Israelites  are  the  servants  of  Jehovah,  whom  He  has  purchased 
by  redeeming  them  from  Egyptian  bondage,  and  who,  therefore,  are 
exempt  from  all  earthly  lordship  by  being  bound  to  the  service  of 
God,  Lev.  XXV.  42,  55,  xxvi.  13  (3).  Thus  now  "  servants  of  God" 
is  a  designation  of  Israel,  especially  in  the  liturgical  psalms  (Ps.  cxiii. 
1,  etc.).  But  the  idea  of  the  servant  of  God  is  complete  only  when  he 
who  is  bound  to  God  also  binds  himself  to  God's  will,  following  God 
perfectly, — the  praise  which  is  repeatedly  given  to  Caleb  and  Joshua 
as  servants  of  God,  Num.  xiv.  24  (nns  Nj^D'^l),  xxxii.  12  C^qx  ^i6j2 
i^'\'^^),  Josh.  xiv.  8  f.  Thus  to  the  servant  of  God  belongs  the  sub- 
jective quality  of  righteousness  (ni?^:*).  This  notion  expresses  in 
general  the  conformity  of  man  to  God's  will, — the  normality  of  his 
relation  to  God.  Inasmuch  as  God's  will  is  elective  and  promissory, 
7\pl)i  consists  in  full  surrender  to  elective  grace  and  the  divine  word 
of  promise,  thus  it  is  the  righteousness  of  faith  ;  and  in  this  sense  it 
is  said  of  Abraham,  Gen.  xv.  6,  ''  He  believed  in  Jehovah,  and  it  was 
imputed  to  him  as  righteousness"  (4).  So  far  as  the  will  of  God  is  a 
commanding  will,  ^pTH  lies  in  the  fulfillinijof  God's  commands,  Deut. 
vi.  25,  7])n'>  "-js^  nx-tn  njysn-^a-nx  nS^yh  nbc-r'-a  w^  n;nri  npi-^^.  Also, 
so  far  as  the  name  "servant  of  God"  specially  designates  the  chosen 
instruments  of  the  divine  kingdom,  an  essential  element  in  the  notion 
is  the  subjective  factor  of  faithfulness  in  the  house  of  God  ;  and  in 
this  signification,  "  servant  of  the  Lord  "  is  the  highest  name  of  honour 
in  the  old  covenant, — applied  to  Abraham,  Gen.  xxvi.  24 ;  Moses, 
Num.  xii.  7,  Josh.  i.  2-7.  nin^  nay  is  different  from  nn^'b,  which 
denotes  a  servant  without  regard  to  his  subjective  quality ;  on  which 
account  the  word  n^tJ'  is  most  frequently  used  of  priestly  and  Levitic 
service  (5). 

(1)  Gen.  xvii.  1 :  "  Walk  before  me  and  be  perfect  (C'?'?),  so  will 
I  set  my  covenant  between  me  and  thee." — xviii.  19 ;  comp.  §  23, 
with  note  6. 

(2)  Ex.  xix.  5 :  "If  ye  hearken  to  my  voice  and  keep  my 
covenant,"  etc. — xxiv.  3 :  "  All  the  words  which  Jehovah  hath  spoken 
will  we  do." 


264      THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.       [§  84- 

(3)  Not  under  a  human  yoke — upright,  ni^'po^i? — are  the  Israelites 
led  by  God,  according  to  Lev.  xxvi.  13 ;  comp.  §  109. 

(4)  More  on  the  righteousness  of  faith  in  the  Old  Testament  in 
the  part  on  prophecy. 

(5)  The  passage  1  Kings  x.  5,  about  Solomon's  court,  is,  I  think, 
misunderstood  by  Roediger  in  Gcsenius  Thesaurus^  when  he  there 
takes  D''ri"!K'0  to  be  higher  officials.  D''ri"i^b  in  this  passage  rather 
signifies  the  attendants,  and  Q''"12y  the  higher  officials. 


§84. 

TJie  TjCuo. 

The  compass  of  the  people's  obligations,  the  revelation  of  God's 
commanding  will,  is  the  law  ("TIW),  whose  principle  is  expressed  in 
the  words,  "  Be  ye  holy,  for  I  am  holy,"  Lev.  xi.  44  f .,  xix.  2  ;  or  more 
completely,  xx.  7,  "  Sanctify  yourselves  and  be  holy,  for  I  am 
Jehovah  your  God." — The  impress  of  consecration  to  the  holy  God  is 
to  be  stamped  on  tlie  life  of  the  Israelites  in  ordinances  extending  to 
all  important  relations  and  conditions ;  in  every  important  affair  of 
life  the  Israelite  has  to  accomplish  something  demanded  by  God. 
Therefore  in  all  things  he  must  realize  to  himself  the  voice  of  the 
commanding  God.  Hence,  according  to  the  ordinances  in  Num.  xv. 
38  f.,  Deut.  xxii.  12,  he  wears  tassels  on  the  skirts  of  his  garments,  to 
remind  him  every  moment  to  think  on  all  Jehovah's  commands,  and 
not  be  guided  by  the  imaginations  of  his  heart  and  the  lust  of  his  eyes. 
Here  there  is  no  primary  distinction  between  inner  and  outer  life;  the 
holy  calling  of  the  people  must  be  realized  in  both.  The  traditional 
division  of  the  law  of  Moses  into  moral,  ceremonial,  and  juristic  laws 
may  serve  to  facilitate  a  genei'al  view  of  theocratic  ordinances;  but  it 
is  incorrect  if  it  seeks  to  express  a  distinction  within  the  law,  and  to 
claim  various  dignity  for  the  various  parts.  For  in  the  law,  the  most 
inward  commandment,  "  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself," 
stands  beside  "  Thou  shalt  not  sow  thy  field  with  two  kinds  of  seed," 
Lev.  xix.  18,  19.  That  Israel  must  be  holy,  like  God,  is  the  ground 
alike  of  the  command  not  to  be  defiled  by  eating  the  flesh  of  certain 
animals,  xi.  44  ff.,  and  of  the  command  to  honour  father  and  mother, 
xix.  2  f .     In  fact,  the  ceremonial  law  gives  special  expression  to  the 


§  vS4.]  THE  LAW.  265 

antagonism  of  the  true  religion  to  heathen  nature-vvorsliip,  hy  showing 
tliat  while  in  the  latter  the  Deity  is  drawn  down  into  nature,  in  the 
former  what  is  natural  must  be  consecrated  and  hallowed  to  God.  The 
whole  law,  in  all  its  parts,  has  the  same  form  of  absolute,  unconditional 
command.  Before  the  closing  of  the  covenant,  the  people  had  still  the 
choice  whether  they  would  bind  themselves  by  the  law  that  was  to  be 
given  ;  but  after  they  pledge  themselves,  all  choice  is  taken  away. 
Because  of  this  strictly  objective  character  of  the  law,  human  judgment 
cannot  be  allowed  to  make  distinctions  between  the  individual  precepts. 
Whether  such  distinctions  are  to  be  made  can  be  decided  only  by  the 
Lawgiver,  who  certainly  appoints  a  punishment  more  severe  than  for 
other  transgressions  to  follow  on  certain  moral  abominations,  and  on 
the  transgression  of  such  precepts  as  stand  in  immediate  relation  to 
the  covenant  idea  {e.g.  circumcision,  the  Sabbath,  etc.).  But,  so  far 
as  man  is  concerned,  the  most  inconsiderable  precept  falls  to  be  viewed 
under  the  aspect  of  the  obedience  demanded  for  the  whole  law  : 
"  Cursed  is  he  that  fulfils  not  the  words  of  this  law  to  do  them,"  Dent, 
xxvii.  26. 

In  these  points  lies  what  has  been  called  the  unfreedom  and 
externality  of  the  Mosaic  law,  a  thing  which  has  often  been  wrongly 
understood.  For  it  is  not  correct  to  say  that  the  law  of  Moses  demands 
only  external  conformity  to  the  law, — only  the  opus  opei^atam,  not  a 
frame  of  mind  ;  that,  in  short,  it  demands  legality^  not  morality.  On  the 
contrary,  the  law  insists  on  the  disposition  of  the  heart  when  it  says, 
Ex.  XX.  17,  "  Thou  shalt  not  covet "  (1)  ;  when  it  binds  men  to  love 
God  with  the  whole  heart  and  soul,  to  be  placable  towards  fellow-men, 
and  the  like,  Deut.  vi.  5,  Lev.  xix.  17  f. ;  when  it  demands  the  cir- 
cumcision of  the  heart — that  is,  the  purification  and  devotion  of  it  to 
God,  Deut.  X.  16  (cf.  also  Josh.  xxii.  5,  xxiii.  II).  But  beyond 
doubt,  as  has  been  remarked,  it  demands  the  external  along  with  the 
internal  in  direct  co-ordination.  But  precisely  in  this  lies  an  important 
pedagogic  element.  When  all  relations  of  life,  even  those  merely 
€xternal,  are  placed  under  a  direct  precept  of  God — when  man  in  all 
he  does  or  may  not  do  has  to  give  obedience  to  God,  he  is  thus  led  to 
recognise  that  the  standard  for  what  he  ought  to  be  is  not  to  be  sought 
in  rules  of  life  arbitrarily  formed  and  shaped  by  conventionality,  but 
in  an  absolutely  perfect  will,  which  conditions  and  determines  all  thinnrs. 


266      THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.       [§  84. 

The  revealed  law,  it  is  true,  here  undertakes  the  functions  of  conscience; 
and  it  is  characteristic  of  the  law  of  Moses,  that  for  the  present  there 
is  no  reference  made  to  the  v6[jbo<i  ypa7rTo<;  iv  Kaphiai<i.  But  this 
bondage  of  the  servant  of  God  to  an  absolute  will  standing  above 
nature,  this  obligation  to  give  up  self-will  and  natural  desires,  and  all 
that  may  seem  good  or  pleasant  to  the  individual  judgment  (2),  is,  as 
Rosenkranz  (3)  rightly  says,  an  apparent  regress  in  comparison  with 
the  free  play  of  fancy  in  heathenism,  but  a  real  and  decided  step  in 
advance  towards  the  liberation  of  man.  By  bringing  man  to  a  con- 
sciousness of  the  essential  nature  of  a  higher  divine  righteousness,  the 
law  awoke  the  conscience  from  its  slumber,  taught  the  knowledge  of 
evil  as  sin,  and  so  awoke  the  need  of  reconciliation  with  God. 

For  a  right  estimate  of  the  law  of  Moses,  the  following  points  have 
further  to  be  noticed  : — 1.  The  whole  ritual  ordinances  to  which  the 
Israelite  is  subject,  from  his  circumcision  onwards,  have  a  symbolic 
character,  mirroring  the  inner  process  of  sanctification,  and  so  forming 
the  instrument  of  a  tuition  advancing  from  the  outer  to  the  inner  (4). 
The  prophets  and  the  Psalms,  when  they  speak  of  the  true  sacrifice, 
the  true  lustration  which  man  needs,  are  simply  expressing  the 
thoughts  that  underlie  the  symbolical  ritual.  2.  The  pi'ecepts  of  the 
law  are  carried  out  in  detail  mainly  only  on  the  negative  side ;  what 
the  Israelite  may  not  do  is  told  with  great  particularity.  The  scholastic 
subtlety  of  the  rabbins,  indeed,  has  made  out  the  considerable  number 
of  248  positive  commands,  against  365  prohibitions  (5).  But  it  is  easy 
to  see  that  with  regard  to  positive  duties  the  law  often  states  only 
general  rules ;  that,  in  fact,  many  positive  points  that  lie  in  its  inten- 
tion are  not  expressly  enjoined,  but  that  only  the  facts,  patterns,  and 
institutions  are  set  forth  which  serve  to  guide  a  free  development  of 
positive  virtues  (6).  It  was  later  Jewish  tradition  which  first  extended 
its  leading-strings  over  the  space  which  the  law  had  left  open  to  the 
free  development  of  piety.  3.  Finally, — and  this  is  the  main  point, — 
we  have  to  look  at  the  motives  for  fulfilling  the  law  which  the  latter 
sets  forth.  All  legal  righteousness  presupposes  faith  in  the  divine 
election,  gracious  guidance,  and  promise.  The  legislation  opens  with 
the  words,  Ex.  xix.  4,  "  Ye  have  seen  how  I  bare  you  on  eagles'  wings, 
and  brought  you  to  myself ; "  and  so  the  Decalogue  puts  at  the  head 
of  its  demands  (xx.  2)   what   God   has  done  for  Israel.      But  it  is 


§  85.]  THE  DECALOGUE.       ITS  DIVISION.  267 

Deuteronomy  in  particular,  as  we  have  already  pointed  out  (§  31,  81), 
which,  by  showing  how  God  has  loved  His  people,  seeks  to  excite 
responsive  love  as  the  deepest  motive  for  obedience,  and  especially  to 
make  the  law  acceptable  to  the  people  by  awaking  a  sense  of  its 
excellency  and  fitness,  Deut.  iv.  6-8,  xxx.  11-14  (7) ;  though,  at  the 
same  time,  Deuteronomy  leaves  no  doubt  that  the  people  neither  can 
nor  shall  attain  such  willingness  to  obey  (cf.  v.  26,  xxxi.  16  ff.,  xxxii.). 

(1)  More  about  Ex.  xx.  17  in  §  86. 

(2)  The  Israelite,  as  Herder  laments,  "  can  never  raise  himself  to 
an  ideal  that  demands  freer  activity  and  truer  delight  in  life." 

(3)  Die  Pcedagogih  als  System,  1848,  p.  190. 

(4)  See  also  below,  §  95  on  the  priesthood,  §  112  and  note  2  on 
the  Mosaic  cultus,  §  135  on  the  Nazirate,  etc. 

(5)  The  rabbins  associate  these  numbers  with  the  365  days  of  the 
year  and  the  248  members  of  the  human  body,  according  to  the 
physiology  of  the  time ;  cf.  Maimonides'  scheme  of  the  precepts,  in 
Jost's  History  of  Judaism,  1857,  1  Abth.  p.  451  ff. 

(6)  See,  e.g.,  below  on  prayer,  the  Sabbath,  etc.  In  this  point 
especially  the  wise  pedagogic  system  of  the  Mosaic  law  is  seen. 

(7)  Ex.  XX.  2,  see  §  81  and  note  2.— Deut.  iv.  6-8  :  "  The  law 
shall  be  your  wisdom  and  understanding  in  the  sight  of  the  nations, 
which,  hearing  all  these  statutes,  shall  say,  Surely  this  great  nation  is 
a  wise  and  understanding  people ;  what  great  nation  is  there  that  has 
statutes  and  judgments  so  righteous  as  all  this  law,  which  I  set  before 
you  this  day?  "  (cf.  Ps.  cxlvii.  19  f.). — This  boast  has  been  justified  by 
the  spiritual  dominion  which  the  institutions  of  Israel  have  exercised 
over  the  nations. — Deut.  xxx.  11-14:  "This  commandment  which  I 
command  thee  this  day  is  not  incomprehensible  to  thee,  neither  is  it 
far  off.  It  is  not  in  heaven,  so  that  thou  must  say.  Who  shall  gro  up 
for  us  to  heaven  and  bring  it  unto  us,  that  we  may  hear  it  and  do  it  ? 
Neither  is  it  beyond  the  sea  .  .  .  but  the  word  is  very  nigh  unto 
thee,  in  thy  mouth,  and  in  thy  heart  to  do  it." 

§85. 

The  Decalogue.     Its  Division. 

The  obligatory  docum.ent  of  the  covenant  in  tiie  narrower  sense 
is  the  book  of  the  covenant  (comp.  Ex.  xxiv.  7),  which  embraces 
Ex.  XX.  1-17,  and  chap,  xxi.-xxiii. ;  and  in  this,  again,  especially  the 


268      THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AXD  THE  TIinOCRACY.       [§  ilb. 

Dfcalogne  (1),  wliich  stands  at  the  beginning,  xx.  2-17, — tlie  ten  words 
(as  it  is  often  called;  see  Ex.  xxxiv.  28,  Deut.  iv.  13,  x.  4)  (2), -which 
are  specifically  distinguished  as  spoken  by  Jehovah  Himself,  while  the 
rest  of  the  legislation  is  proclaimed  by  Moses  (3).  The  Decalogue, 
therefore,  is  called  k.  i^.  the  covenant  which  God  enjoined  on  Israel. 
It  was  written  on  two  tables  of  stone,  which,  according  to  Ex.  xxxii, 
15,  were  inscribed  on  both  sides.  Since  in  these  ten  words  God's 
witness  to  His  people  was  concentrated,  they  were  to  be  preserved  in 
the  centre  of  the  sanctuary,  in  the  ark  (4). 

The  number  ten  characterizes  the  commandments  as  a  self-con- 
tained whole,  and  similar  series  of  ten  are  found  more  than  once  in 
the  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch  (5). — The  Decalogue  is  again 
given  in  Deut.  v.  6  ff.  The  two  editions  are  distinguished — not  to 
speak  of  less  important  deviations  (6) — firstly,  by  different  reasons 
being  annexed  to  the  Sabbath-law  (in  Exodus  the  Sabbath  of  creation 
is  adduced,  while  in  Deuteronomy,  agreeably  to  the  predominantly 
subjective  justification  of  the  law  in  this  book,  Egyptian  slavery  and 
the  deliverance  therefrom  are  alluded  to) ;  secondly,  by  the  addition 
in  Deuteronomy,  in  the  command  against  coveting,  putting  the  wife 
instead  of  the  house  first  and  apart,  and  emphasizing  this  separation 
by  a  change  of  verb  (7). 

On  the  division  of  the  Decalogue  there  have  long  been  various 
views.  The  main  schemes  of  division  are  three,  distinguished  by  the 
way  in  which  they  take  the  first  and  last  commandment.  The  first 
scheme  became  prevalent  in  the  Eoman  Catholic  Church  by  the 
influence  of  Augustine,  and  has  been  retained  by  the  Lutherans,  and 
in  recent  times  has  been  defended  by  Otto,  Kurtz,  and  others.  It 
includes  in  the  first  commandment  Ex.  xx.  2-6,  Deut.  v.  6-10  (8). 
The  ninth  commandment  is  generally  taken  according  to  the  text  of 
Exodus,  "  Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbour's  house ; "  the  tenth, 
"Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbour's  wife,"  etc.  Augustine  himself, on 
the  contrary,  in  the  main  passage  in  which  he  treats  the  subject  (Qucesf. 
in  Exod.  71),  holds  to  the  text  of  Deuteronomy  for  the  ninth  and  tenth 
commandments.  He  is  followed  among  the  moderns  by  Sonntag  and 
Kurtz,  who  emend  the  text  of  Exodus  by  the  aid  of  Deuteronomy  (9). 
Thus  the  ninth  commandment  would  refer  to  the  coveting  of  the 
conjugal   rights  ;    the  tenth,   to  the  coveting  of  the  substance  of  a 


§  8o.]  THE  DECALOGUE.      ITS  DIVISION.  2G9 

neighbour. — The  second  and  third  schemes  of  division  agree  in 
making  the  whole  prohibition  of  concupiscence  a  single  commandment 
(the  tenth),  but  they  differ  as  to  the  first  and  second  commandment. 
According  to  the  view  now  common  among  the  Jews, — which,  how- 
ever, seems  to  rest  on  no  very  ancient  tradition  (10), — the  first  of  the 
ten  words  comprises  only  Ex.  xx.  2  :  "  I  am  the  Lord  thy  God,  which 
have  brought  thee  out,"  etc.  This,  they  say,  implies  the  obligation  to 
believe  on  God  as  the  most  perfect  being.  The  second  command- 
ment (vers.  3-6)  then  includes  the  obligation  to  believe  on  God's 
unity  and  the  prohibition  of  false  worship  (11).  The  third  scheme, 
accepted  by  the  Greek  and  Reformed  Churches,  and  by  the  Socinians, 
makes  ver.  o  the  first  commandment:  "Thou  shalt  have  no  other 
gods  beside  me;"  and  ver.  4  the  second:  "Thou  shalt  not  make  unto 
thee  any  graven  image,"  etc.  (12). 

The  third  of  these  divisions  has  in  its  favour  the  oldest  historical 
testimonies,  being  found  not  only  in  Josephus  (Ant.  iii.  5.  5),  but  also 
in  Philo  {Quis  rerum  div.  hceres  sit,  §  35,  ed.  Mang.  i.  p.  490,  and  Be 
Decal  §  12,  Mang.  ii.  p.  188).  Of  the  Fathers,  Origen  takes  the  same 
view  (13).  He  seems  to  have  been  also  acquainted  with  the  view 
which  includes  vers.  2-6  in  the  first  commandment,  but  not  with  the 
division  of  the  prohibition  of  concupiscence  into  two  (14) ;  and,  in 
fact,  Augustine's  view,  that  vers.  2-6  are  a  single  commandment,  must 
also  rest  on  ancient  Jewish  tradition.  The  Hebrew  accentuation  of 
the  Decalogue  is  twofold, — the  one  accentuation  giving  the  usual 
INIasoretic  division  into  verses,  the  other  regulating  the  intonation 
in  the  synagogue.  The  latter  takes  vers.  2-6  together,  showing  that 
these  five  verses  were  viewed  as  closely  connected.  It  is  even  more 
important  that  the  Eomish  and  Lutheran  division  is  that  on  which  the 
division  of  the  Decalogue  into  parshijoth  is  based  (15) ;  the  sethuma, 
that  divides  the  prohibition  of  concupiscence,  is  indeed  lacking  in  the 
oldest  manuscripts  (16),  but  it  is  certain  that  vers.  2-6  formed  only 
one  parasha.  The  small  parshijoth  are  so  old  that  this  cannot  be  due 
to  Christian  influence. — Since,  then,  the  union  of  vers.  3  and  4  as  a 
single  precept  must  be  very  old,  our  decision  between  the  various 
divisions  must  proceed  on  internal  grounds. — Now,  first,  it  is  decidedly 
against  the  Jewish  view  that  ver.  2  is  the  first  of  the  ten  words,  that 
the  second  verse  has  not  in  the  least  the  form  of  a  precept  (17).     The 


270   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.   [§  85. 

view  which  has  sometimes  been  taken  (see  note  11),  that  this  verse 
forms  the  first  of  the  ten  words  as  the  covenant  promise,  is  also  im- 
probable ;  and  if  vers.  2  and  3  are  separated,  we  lose  the  close  connec- 
tion which  obviously  subsists  between  them.  The  words  in  ver.  2 
have  a  double  import.  They  apply,  in  the  first  place,  to  the  wdiole 
Decalogue  (comp.  the  opening  formula.  Lev.  xviii.  2,  xix.  2) ;  thus 
they  contain  the  general  presupposition  of  the  law,  the  ground  of 
obligation  for  Israel,  which  lies  in  the  nature  of  his  God  and  the  fact 
of  his  redemption.  But,  in  the  second  place,  they  are  the  special 
ground  of  the  command  not  to  worship  other  gods  besides  Jehovah  (18). 
— Further,  as  to  vers.  3-G,  the  circumstance  that  these  verses  are  at 
least  closely  connected  seems  favourable  to  the  view  that  they  form 
a  single  commandment,  according  to  the  Augustinian  view,  viz.  the 
prohibition  of  idolatry ;  for  the  threat  and  promise  of  ver.  5  f.  clearly 
refer  to  ver.  3  as  well  as  to  ver.  4.  But  if  vers.  3-6  are  taken  as  one 
commandment,  the  number  ten  can  be  reached  only  by  dividing  the 
prohibition  of  concupiscence  in  ver.  17  into  two  commandments;  and 
since  this  division  cannot  be  sufficiently  justified,  it  remains  more 
probable  that  vers.  3-6  are  to  be  divided  (19).  They  contain,  in  fact, 
two  essentially  distinct  points.  The  command  in  ver.  3  to  worship 
Jehovah  alone  does  not  preclude  His  being  worshipped  by  an  image. 
This  is  forbidden  in  ver.  4,  which  does  not  simply  (20)  add  to  ver.  3 
the  statement  that  the  other  gods,  whose  worship  is  forbidden  in  ver. 
3,  include  idols,  but  especially  forbids  an  image  to  be  made  (21) 
(comp.  Deut.  iv.  15). — Only  on  the  Deuteronomic  edition  can  a 
division  of  the  prohibition  of  concupiscence  be  justified  (for  in  it  we 
might  distinguish  cupiditas  impurce  voluptatis  from  cupidiias  inordinati 
lucri).  But  the  text  of  Exodus  is  certainly  to  be  taken  as  primary, 
and  it  offers  no  essential  difference  in  the  concupiscence  forbidden  in 
the  two  sentences  (22).  Accordingly,  Mark  x.  19,  Eom.  xiii.  9  treat 
this  as  a  single  command ;  and  even  Luther  in  his  catechism  found  it 
advisable  to  unite  the  ninth  and  tenth  commandments  in  his  explana- 
tion of  them  (23). 

(1)  In  the  Greek  Fathers  generally,  97  BeKoXoyo^  sc.  /S//SXo?,  or 
vofxaOea-la  (see  Suiceri  Thesaurus  Eccksiasticus,  s.v.).  In  Latin  idiom, 
on  the  contrary,  decalogiis  sc.  liber. 


§  85.]  THE  DECALOGUE.      ITS  DIVISION.  271 

(2)  LXX. :  01.  BeKa  Xoyoo,  to,  Se/ca  pi^fxara. 

(3)  On  this  see  already  Philo,  De  Decal.  §  5,  ed.  Mang.  ii.  p.  183. 

(4)  Of  the  very  copious  literature  on  the  Decalogue  the  following 
notice  may  suffice : — Recent  discussion  on  the  Decalogue,  and  espe- 
cially its  division,  was  opened  by  several  essays  in  Ullmann's  and 
Umbreit's  Studien  by  Sonntag,  1836,  No.  1,  1837,  No.  2  ;  by  Ztilh'g, 
ibid.  No.  1.  Then  appeared  a  lengthy  and  still  valuable  essay  by 
Geffcken,  Ueber  die  versckiedene  Elntheilung  des  Dehalogus  und  den 
Einfiuss  derselben  aiif  den  Kultus,  Hamb.  1838.  Compare  also  my 
article  "  Dekalog "  in  Herzog's  BJS.  iii.  p.  319  ff.  But  since  that 
time  a  more  extensive  literature  has  arisen,  from  which  I  mention : 
Kurtz's  full  discussion  of  the  matter  in  his  Geschichfe  des  A.  JJnndes. 
ii.  2d  ed.  p.  288  ff.,  and  his  essay  "Ueber  den  Dekalog,"  in  Kliefoth's 
and  Meyer's  kirchl.  Zeitschrifty  1858 ;  the  paper  by  E.  W.  Otto, 
Dekalogische  Untersuchungeii,  1857 ;  an  essay  by  Fr.  W.  Schultz  in 
Breslau,  "Das  Recht  der  lutherischen  Dekalog-Eintheilung,"  in  Eudel- 
bach's  and  Guerike's  Zeitschr.  1858,  No.  1 ;  an  anonymous  essay, 
"  Die  Eintheilung  des  Dekalogs,"  in  the  Erlanger  Zeitschr.  filr  Protest. 
und  Kirche,  1858.  Finally,  special  notice  is  due  to  the  treatment  of 
the  point  by  Zezschwitz,  Katechetik,  ii.  1,  p.  233  ff. 

(5)  The  number  ten  had  probably  also  the  practical  aim  of 
making  the  commandments  easy  to  remember  by  counting  them  on 
the  fingers. — Bertheau's  view  of  seven  groups,  each  of  7  x  10 
commandments  (in  his  very  interesthig  and  instructive  book,  The 
Seven  Groups  of  Mosaic  Laivs,  1840),  must  be  considerably  limited ; 
comp.  Ewald,  Gesch.  Israels,  ii.  1st  ed.  p.  154  ff.,  3d  ed.  p.  232  ff. 

(6)  See  the  exactest  statement  of  these,  and  of  the  deviations  of 
the  Samaritan  text,  in  V.  T.  ed.  Kennicott,  i.  p.  149. 

(7)  The  LXX.  put  the  wife  first  in  Exodus  also,  but  the  other 
old  authorities,  including  the  Samaritan  Pent.,  favour  the  Masoretic 
text. — Ex.  XX.  17 :  "  Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbour's  house. 
Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbour's  wife." — Deut.  v.  18 :  "  Thou 
shalt  not  desire  (l^nn)  thy  neighbour's  wife,  and  thou  shalt  not  covet 
(n-ji^nri)  thy  neighbour's  house,  field,"  etc. 

(8)  Thus,  on  this  division,  the  complete  first  commandment  runs 
in  full  thus  :  "I  Jehovah  am  thy  God,  which  have  brought  thee  out 
of  the  land  of  Egypt,  out  of  the  house  of  bondage.  Thou  shalt  have 
no  other  gods  before  me.  Thou  shalt  not  make  unto  thee  any  graven 
image,  or  any  likeness  of  any  thing  that  is  in  heaven  above,  or  that 
is  in  the  earth  beneath,  or  that  is  in  the  water  under  the  earth  : 
Thou  shalt  not  bow  down  thyself  to  them,  nor  serve  them :  for  I  the 
Lord  thy  God  am  a  jealous  God,  visiting  the  iniquity  of  the  fathers 


272   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.   [§  85. 

upon  the  children  unto  the  third  and  lourtli  generation  of  them 
that  hate  me ;  and  showing  mercy  unto  thousands  of  them  that  love 
me,  and  keep  my  commandments." 

(9)  He  is  not  consistent  in  other  passages.  See  Geffcken,  I.e. 
p.  174. 

(10)  Josephus  and  Pliilo  do  not  know  it.  It  probably  arose  from 
antagonism  to  the  Christians. 

(11)  This  division  recurs  with  a  peculiar  modification  in  the  above- 
mentioned  essay  in  the  Erlanger  Zeitschrift.  This  essay  makes  ver.  2 
the  first  of  the  ten  words,  but  not  as  a  precept,  but  as  the  covenant 
promise  and  display  of  God's  being  in  its  fulness  of  blessing  and 
clearness. 

(12)  No  notice  is  due  to  the  view  of  Plesychius  of  Jerusalem,  on 
which  see  Geffcken,  I.e.  p.  10. 

(13)  Origen,  Honiil.  in  Exocl.  viii.,  ed.  Lommatzsch,  p.  91.  Hence 
this  division  is  also  called  Origenistic. 

(14)  Against  the  union  of  the  tv/o  first  commandments,  as  he 
counts  them,  he  objects,  "  Quodsi  ita  putetur,  non  complebitur  decern 
numerus  mandatorum.  Et  ubi  jam  erit  decalogi  Veritas  ?  " — The 
uncertainty  then  prevalent  as  to  the  division  of  the  first  and  second 
commandments  is  testified  by  the  remarkable  treatment  of  the 
Decalogue  by  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Strom,  vi.  16, — a  passage  cer- 
tainly not  to  be  adduced  in  favour  of  the  Romish  or  Lutheran 
division,  but  not  sufficiently  freed  from  obscurity  by  the  remarks  of 
Geffcken,  p.  159  ff. — The  first  trace  of  the  view  of  the  first  two 
commandments  accepted  in  the  Jewish  division  is  found  in  the  Baby- 
lonian Gemara  Tract,  Makkoth,  24  a ;  perhaps  Origen,  too,  I.e.  p.  90, 
refers  to  the  same.     [Above-cited  article.] 

(15)  Vers.  2-6  form  a  small  parasha,  then  ver.  7  follows  as  an 
open  parasha;  then,  again,  vers.  8-11  are  taken  together  as  one,  then 
ver.  12,  and  so  forth. 

(16)  In  general,  the  position  of  the  paraxha  at  that  point  remained 
matter  of  discussion  among  the  Jews  ;  cf.  Kennicott,  Diss.  Generalis 
in  V.  T.,  ed.  Bruns,  p.  59.     [Above  art.] 

(17)  It  is  already  remarked  by  Origen,  Z.c,  "Hie  sermo  nondum 
sermo  mandati  est,  sed  quis  sit,  qui  mandat,  ostendit." 

(18)  Because  the  redemption  of  Israel  from  Egypt  reveals 
Jehovah's  faithfulness  and  His  might  over  heathen  gods,  Israel  is 
to  have  no  other  gods  beside  Him.     [Above  art.] 

(19)  The  special  ground  of  the  command  in  ver.  3  lies,  as  we 
have  seen,  in  ver.  2,  which  must  not  be  viewed  merely  as  introductory 
to  the  whole  Decaloo;ue. 


§  8G.]  THE  DECALOGUE.       ITS  SYSTEM.  273 

(20)  As  Lutherans  have  often  said;  cf.  e.r/.  Gerhard,  Loci,  ed, 
Cotta,  V.  p.  244 :  "  Primum  prseceptum  deos  alienos  in  genere  pro- 
hibet,  pri^ceptum  de  sculptilibus  certam  speciem  deorum  alienorum 
exprimit." 

(21)  "When,  for  example,  King  Jeroboam  i.  set  up  his  separatist 
worship,  he  did  not  break  the  first  commandment,  ver.  3,  for  the 
bovine  image  which  he  erected  at  Bethel  was  meant  to  represent 
Jehovah ;  but  he  broke  the  second  commandment,  ver.  4,  by  worship- 
ping Jehovah  by  an  image. 

(22)  The  meaning  of  the  text  in  Exodus  is,  that  the  house  pre- 
cedes, as  the  general  word  including  all  possessions,  and  then  the 
individual  good  things  in  the  house  follow.  Deuteronomy,  on  the  con- 
trary, has  an  eye  to  the  peculiar  and  honourable  position  of  the  wife. 

(23)  The  assertion  of  Lutheran  theologians,  that  the  ninth  com- 
mandment forbids  conciipiscentia  achialis,  the  tenth  concupisc.  originalis- 
(cf.  Gerhard,  I.e.  p.  247),  is  a  mere  invention  of  polemical  zeal. — The 
differences  affecting  the  other  commandments  are  only  as  regards 
order.  The  order  of  the  Masoretic  text  is  supported  by  the  LXX. 
of  Deut.  V. ;  Josephus,  I.e. ;  Matt.  xix.  18.  But  the  LXX.  of  Ex.  xx. 
diverges,  placing  adultery  first,  then  theft,  then  murder  (ov  ixovxevaeL^,. 
ov  K\e'^€i'i,  ov  <l)ovevcrei<; ; — the  variation  is  probably  due  to  a  natural 
association  of  ideas,  which  suggests  that  the  other  commandment 
regarding  family  life  should  follow  the  fifth  commandment  about  the 
relation  of  parents  and  children,  and  that  the  prohibition  of  theft 
should  go  along  with  that  of  murder).  Different,  again,  is  the 
order  in  Philo  (in  both  passages  cited),  and  in  New  Testament  in 
Rom.  xiii.  9,  cf.  Jas.  ii.  11,  Luke  xviii.  20,  Mark  x.  19  (where  the 
reading  varies),  and  finally  in  Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  vi.  16, — all  these 
placing  adultery  first,  and  then  murder  and  theft.  (On  the  order  in 
Matt.  xix.  19  and  parallels,  where  honour  to  parents  stands  after  the 
others,  see  Stier,  ad  loc.,  and  Lechler,  "  Das  A.  T.  in  den  Eeden 
Jesu,"  Stud,  und  Krit.  1854,  p.  801.)  These  differences  prove  no- 
thing more  than  that  there  was  considerable  freedom  used  in  Jewish 
and  Christian  antiquity  in  reckoning  up  the  commandments.  [Above 
art.] 

§86. 

Continuation. — Tlie  System  of  the  Decalogue. 

The  Old  Testament  does  not  expressly  tell  us  on  what  system  the 
Decalogue  was  divided, — especially  how  the  commandments  were  dis- 
VOL.  I.  s 


274   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.   [§  8G. 

posed  on  the  two  tables.  If  the  third  of  the  divisions  given  above  is 
correct  (that  of  Philo,  Origen,  the  Reformed,  and  the  Greeks),  it  is 
most  likely  that  five  precepts  are  to  be  assigned  to  each  table,  as  is 
already  assumed  by  Philo  (I.e.)  and  Josephus  (Ant.  iii.  Q.  jin.)  (1). 
The  first  five  precepts  are  distinguished  from  those  that  follow  by 
the  reasons  annexed  to  each,  and  by  the  appearance  of  the  words 
"  Jehovah  thy  God  "  once  in  each  commandment,  including  the  first 
if  vers.  2  and  3  are  taken  together.  The  chief  objection  to  this  division 
is,  that  it  gives  so  much  more  writing  on  the  first  table  than  on  the 
second — eleven  verses  on  the  one,  only  two  on  the  other ;  but  this  point 
is  not  decisive.  The  material  difference  between  the  two  tables  is,  as 
it  has  been  briefly  put,  that  the  first  contains  ^jvcecepta  pieiatis,  the 
second  praicepta  probitatis.  That  the  command  to  honour  parents  is 
put  among  the  precepts  of  piety  is  justified  by  the  way  in  which  else- 
where the  law  connects  earthly  relations  of  piety  with  piety  towards 
God;  e.^.,  Lev.  xix.  32,  Ex.  xxii.  27  (2). — Another  view,  which  is 
that  of  Calvin  (Inst.  ii.  8.  12),  followed  by  the  Reformed  Church, 
puts  four  precepts  on  the  first  table,  and  six,  commencing  with  the 
command  to  honour  parents,  upon  the  second  (3).  The  followers  of 
the  Augustinian  division  generally  agree  in  beginning  the  second 
table  with  the  last-mentioned  precept,  assigning  three  commandments 
to  the  first  table  and  seven  to  the  second  (4).  On  this  view  the 
number  three  has  been  associated  with  the  Trinity,  while  it  is  urged 
that  seven  is  also  a  holy  number  (5). 

The  systematic  plan  of  the  Decalogue,  on  the  Philonic  division 
which  we  assume,  is  in  detail  the  following : — In  the  first  table,  the 
first  commandment  expresses  the  principle  of  monotheism,  and  forbids 
a  plurality  of  gods.  The  forbidding  the  use  of  any  image  in  the  wor- 
ship of  the  Deity  abolishes  the  deification  of  nature  in  any  sense  (6). 
The  third  commandment  ("  Thou  shalt  not  take  up,  apply,  the  name 
of  Jehovah  thy  God  to  vanity")  demands  reverence  to  God  in  life 
and  walk  as  a  whole,  by  forbidding  the  most  obvious  and  frequent 
breach  of  this  duty,  the  profanation  of  God's  name  by  false  swearing 
(cf.  Lev.  xix.  12)  or  other  misuse.  The  fourth  commandment  lays  the 
basis  of  the  ordinances  of  worship,  by  appointing  the  Sabbath.  The 
fifth,  the  command  to  honour  parents,  lays  the  foundation  of  all  social 
ordinances  of  life.     The  second  table,  which  defines  duties  to  neigh- 


§  SC]  THE  DECALOGUE.      ITS  SYSTEM.  275 

bours,  is  obviously  based  on  the  common  Old  Testament  trilogy  of  hand, 
mouth,  heart  (of.  e.g.  Ps.  xxiv.  4)  (7).  It  first  attacks  sins  in  deed, — 
injuries  to  the  life,  wedded  state,  or  property  of  a  neighbour ;  and  then 
sins  in  word, — injury  of  a  neighbour's  good  name  by  any  false  testi- 
mony or  lie.  Finally,  when  the  last  commandment  forbids  even  to 
covet  what  belongs  to  another,  it  is  made  clear  that  the  obedience 
demanded  is  that  of  the  heart,  and  it  is  indicated  that  the  fulfilling  of 
the  law  is  not  complete  except  in  the  sanctification  of  the  inner  man. 
No  doubt  this  exposition  of  the  tenth  commandment  is  disputed. 
Even  Luther  gives  its  sense  as  being,  "  that  no  man  shall  think  or 
propose  to  take  to  himself  what  is  another  man's,  even  with  a  fair 
pretext,  if  his  neighbour  is  injured  thereby"  {Larger  Cat.  ed. 
Rechenb.  p.  476).  In  accordance  with  this,  Geffcken  and  others, 
also  Schultz  (8),  have  understood  the  precept  of  deceitful  under- 
takings. The  Decalogue,  on  this  view,  literally  interpreted,  looks  only 
at  the  outer  fulfilling  of  the  law ;  to  refer  the  outer  demand  to  its 
inner  principle  is  left  to  the  plerosis  of  the  law  (cf.  Matt.  v.  21  ff.). 
It  may  be  admitted  that  the  commandment  does  not  mean  to  draw 
a  sharp  line  between  inner  lust  and  the  appearing  of  that  lust  in 
attempts  to  gratify  it  (in  Mark  x.  19  the  commandment  is  represented 
by  fir}  airoareprjarji).  But  if  Schultz  appeals  to  Ex.  xxxiv.  24,  Mic. 
ii.  2,  to  show  that  ^^n  refers  to  attempts  to  touch  another's  property,  it 
is  undeniable,  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  commandment  is  alluded  to 
in  Prov.  vi.  25,  ^33^3  nbm'i'N ;  and  the  mNJin  ^b^  which  Deuteronomy 
puts  in  the  second  clause,  can,  in  accordance  with  the  constant  use  of 
the  word  (9),  refer  to  nothing  but  the  desire  that  leads  to  action 
(LXX.  gives  throughout  ovk  i7ri0vfi-qa-6L<i,  which  in  Rom.  vii.  7  is 
likewise  applied  to  concupiscence).  A  comment  on  the  commandment 
is  to  be  found  in  Job  xxxi.  1-4  (10). 

The  self-contained  and  rounded  character  of  the  Decalogue, 
as  we  have  it,  is  a  decisive  proof  that  it  retains  its  original  form. 
Recent  attempts  to  mutilate  and  simplify  it  rest  on  the  most  arbitrary 
hypotheses  (11). 

(1)  Cf.  also  Irengeus,  ii.  42  (xxiv.  4). 

(2)  If  in  Lev.  xix.  32,  "  TJiou  shalt  rise  up  before  the  hoary  head, 
and  honour  the  face  of  the  old  man,  and  fear  thy  God;"  Ex.  xxii. 
27,  "  Thou  shalt  not  curse  God,  nor  revile  the  ruler  of  thy  people," — 


276      THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.      [§  SC- 

revei'ence  to  princes  and  to  the  aged  is  deduced  from  the  honour  due 
to  God  (this  is  the  sense  of  the  connection,  cf.  Prov.  xxiv.  21),  the 
same  thing  must  be  still  more  true  of  honour  to  parents,  since  all 
authority  of  superiors  is  originally  derived  from  that  of  the  father. 
Similarly,  in  Lev.  xix.  3,  the  command  to  honour  parents  stands  with 
religious  precepts  in  the  narrower  sense, — the  Sabbath  law  and  prohibi- 
tion of  false  worship.  The  reason  for  this  is  rightly  given  by  Luther 
(in  his  Exposition  of  the  DecaL,  1518)  :  "  Ideo  istud  prseceptum  post 
prsecepta  primse  tabulae  ponitur,  quia  est  de  illis,  qui  sunt  vicarii  Dei. 
Quare  sicut  Deus  colendus  est  honore,  ita  et  vicarius  ejus."  [Art. 
"  Padagogik  des  A.  T."]  At  the  same  time,  this  precept  makes  a 
fitting  transition  to  the  second  table  (so,  on  the  whole,  the  thing  is 
viewed  by  Philo,  I.e.). 

(3)  Because  to  join  the  precept  about  parents  to  the  first  table  is 
to  confound  religionis  et  caritatis  distinctionem,  and  at  the  same  time 
with  reference  to  Matt.  xix.  19.  The  passage  Eph.  vi.  2  has  often 
been  regarded  as  an  evidence  that  the  second  table  began  with  the 
command  to  honour  parents ;  and  so,  e.g.,  the  Ambrosiaster  on  the 
passage  (Appendix  to  Amhrosii  Opera,  Paris  ed.  p.  248  f.),  assuming 
the  Philonic  division,  gives  four  commandments  to  the  first  table,  and 
six  to  the  second.  The  common  answer  to  this  view  is,  that  this  com- 
mandment, even  if  it  stood  on  the  first  table,  may  be  called  the  first 
in  the  Decalogue  to  which  a  promise  is  annexed, — the  promise  in  ver.  6 
being  not  only  united  to  a  threat,  but  possessing  a  more  general 
character,  and  not  standing  in  any  specific  relation  to  the  preceding 
precept.  But  the  true  exegesis  of  Eph.  vi.  2  is  :  which  is  a  prime,  i.e. 
a  main  precept  in  promise,  i.e.  because  united  with  a  promise  (see 
Winer,  ad  L).  On  this  view,  the  passage  has  nothing  to  do  with  the 
place  of  the  commandment  in  the  Decalogue.     [Above  art.] 

(4)  See  Augustine,  I.e.;  Catechism.  Rom.  iii.  chap.  5;  Luther,  kurze 
Form  der  zehn  Gehote,  in  the  Erlang.  ed.  of  the  German  works,  xxii. 
p.  5 ;  and  Gr.  Katechism.  ed.  Rechenb.  p.  429. 

(5)  But  that  the  whole  division  here  presupposed  is,  as  we  have 
seen,  false,  this  view  might  claim  the  argument  that  it  makes  the 
writing  on  each  table  pretty  equal  in  amount. 

(G)  It  is  not  to  be  viewed  as  a  prohibition  of  all  plastic  art,  as  it 
was  taken  by  Philo, — "  Quis  rerum  div.  hser.  sit,"  ed.  Mang.  p.  496, — 
and  by  some  excessive  purists  in  the  Reformed  Churches  (compare 
Geffcken,  I.e.  p.  32  ff.;  Zeller,  Das  theolog.  System  Zioinglibs,  p. 
107  ff.). 

(7)  So  Thomas  Aquinas,  Savonarola  (see  Rudelbach,  Savonarola 
and  His  Time,  p.  406),  Hengstenberg,  Beitrcige,  iii.  p.  600. 


§  87.]  CIRCUMCISION.      ITS  HISTORICAL  ORIGIN.  277 

(8)  See  Geffcken,  pp.  141  ff.  and  255  ff.;  Schultz,  Alttest.  T/ieoL  i. 
p.  432 ;  and  the  above-cited  article  in  the  Erlanger  Zeitschrift.  The 
impulse,  asserting  itself  in  all  possible  agitations,  to  do  hurt  to  our 
neighbour's  property. 

(9)  The  verb  njx  is  always,  and  the  noun  njK  almost  always,  united 
with  C'Da. 

(10)  Ziillig  thinks  that  in  each  table  of  the  Decalogue  evesy 
precept  refers  to  a  less  offence  than  that  preceding.  That  this  is  not 
correct  has  been  shown  by  Geffcken,  I.e.  p.  244  ff.  This  view  would 
■open  the  door  to  most  dangerous  casuistry. 

(11)  I  do  not  think  these  attempts  worthy  of  further  notice. 
A  book  of  the  kind  is  E.  Meier's  Original  Form  of  the  Decalogue^ 
Mannheim,  1846.  On  the  theological  controversies  concerning  the 
Decalogue  which  refer  partly  to  its  division,  partly  to  the  compass 
and  dignity  of  its  precepts,  see  the  article  already  cited,  p.  323  ff. ; 
and  in  general,  compare  Baumgarten's  Unters.  ilieol.  Streitiglceifen)  ed. 
by  Semler,  iii.  p.  226  ff. 

§87. 
Circumcision. — Its  Historical  Origin. 

All  theocratic  ordinances  (of.  §  80,  note  2)  are  in  general  signs  and 
pledges  of  the  covenant  relation,  and  in  this  respect  the  observance  of 
the  Sabbath  is  especially  emphasized,  Ex.  xxxi.  13,  16  f.  But  the 
main  sign  of  the  covenant  (ri"'"]n  niNj  Gen.  xvii.  11 ;  Q^Y??^'^  ri^"}|, 
ver.  13)  is  circumcision,  which  is  the  abiding  symbol  of  covenant 
obligations,  of  consequent  covenant  rights.  It  was  prescribed  not 
only  for  born  Israelites,  but  also  (as  already  remarked,  §  82,  3)  for  all 
who  were  received  into  the  house  as  slaves.  Gen.  xvii.  12-27  comp. 
with  Ex.  xii.  44-48.  On  new-born  boys  it  was  performed  on  the 
eighth  day  (Gen.  xvii.  12 ;  Lev.  xii.  3),  that  is,  at  the  end  of  the 
period  in  which,  according  to  xii.  2,  the  mother  of  the  child,  and 
therefore  probably  also  the  child  she  was  suckling,  was  considered  as 
unclean  ;  so  also,  according  to  Ex.  xxii.  29,  Lev.  xxii.  27,  beasts  could 
not  be  offered  till  eight  days  old  (cf.  §  123,  2)  (1). 

The  historical  origin  and  the  religious  import  of  circumcision  must 
be  carefully  distinguished.  It  is  quite  possible  that  the  operation  was 
customary  in  other  tribes  before  it  was  introduced  in  the  race  of 
Abraham ;  and,  in  fact,  the  statement  in  Gen.  xvii.  presupposes  a 


278   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCKACY.   [§  87. 

previous  acquaintance  with  it.     But  this  does  not  justify  the  infer- 
ence that  the  significance  of  circumcision  in  the  Old  Testament  mu«t 
be  explained  from  heathenism  (2).     Moreover,  the  historical  origin  of 
the  rite  among  heathen  nations  lies  in  obscurity.     It  is  not  probable 
that  the  usage  spread  from  a  single  centre  ;  Diodorus  (according  to  an 
observation  in  Biblioth.  iii.  32)  found  it  even  among  the  Troglodytes, 
and  in  recent  times  it  has  been  found  in  the  South  Sea  Islands  and 
among  heathen  negroes.     It  may  be  taken  as  certain  that  it  was  a 
custom  of  immemorial  antiquity  among  some  nations  of  Western  Asia 
and  Africa,  but  not,  as  far  as  appears,  among  Japhetic  races.     It 
may  be  held  as  probable  that  it  first  appeared  among  the  Egyptians, 
and,  in  connection  herewith,  among  the  Colchians  and  Ethiopians ; 
but,  strictly  speaking,  the  assumption  of  an  Egyptian  origin  of  circum- 
cision rests  only  on  Herodot.  ii.  104  (comp.  chap.  36)  ;  and  it  is  to  be 
observed  that  Herodotus'  assertion  that  the  Phoenicians  and  Pales- 
tinian Syrians  adopted  circumcision  from  the  Egyptians,  is,  so  far  as 
the  former  are  concerned,  either  based  on  a  complete  misapprehen- 
sion, or  else  can  only  be  understood  of  a  custom  accepted  from  the 
Egyptians  at  a  comparatively  late  date  (3).     The  notice  in  Diodorus, 
Bill.  i.  28  (with  which  is  to  be  compared  Joseph.  Ant.  vii.  10.  3,  and 
cont.  Ap.  i.  22),  is  beyond  doubt  taken  from  Herodotus.     The  Old 
Testament  offers  no  certain  information  about  the  circumcision  of 
the  Egyptians  ;  for  in  Josh.  v.  9  (4)  the  expression  "  the  reproach  of 
Egypt "  does  not  mean  the  foreskin,  but  the  sense  of  the  passage  is 
the  reproach  falling  on  Israel  from  the  Egyptians  (for  the  expression, 
cf.  Zepb.  ii.  8,  etc.),  viz.  that  their  God  brought  them  out  of  Egypt 
to  let  them  perish  in  the  wilderness  (cf.  for  elucidation,  Ex.  xxxii.  12  ; 
Num.  xiv.  13  ff.;  Deut.  ix.  28).     This  reproach  is  now  wiped  off,  the 
covenant  relation  being  restored  in  act.     As  for  Jer.  ix.  24  f.,  this 
obscure  passage  would  be  easily  cleared  up  if  (with  Hengstenberg  and 
others)  we  might  interpret,  "  I  visit  all  the  circumcised  with  the  uncir- 
cumcised."     But  this  rendering  is  philologically  untenable.    The  most 
natural  rendering  is,  "  all  who  are  circumcised  in  uncircumcision,"  i.e. 
all  who,  though  physically  circumcised,  are  really,  that  is,  in  the  heart, 
uncircumcised  (5),— "Egypt,  Judah,  Edom,  Amnion,  Moab,  and  all 
who  cut  their  hair  on  the  two  temples  who  dwell  in  the  wilderness." 
On  this   rendering,  the   passage   proves    that   the  Egyptians    were 


§  87.]  CIRCUMCISION.      ITS  HISTORICAL  ORIGIN.  279 

circumcised,  but  proves  the  same  for  the  Edomites  and  the  other 
nations  named.  And  it  may  be  assumed  that  the  Edomites,  who  are 
sprung  from  Abraham,  did  originally  possess  circumcision ;  but  at  a 
later  date  they  must  have  given  up  the  practice,  for  Josephus  (A7it. 
xiii.  9.  1)  tells  us  that  Hyrcanus  compelled  the  Idumeans  to  accept 
circumcision,  as  afterwards  Aristobulus,  his  son,  forced  the  same  rite 
upon  the  Itureans,  who  were  probably  of  Arabic  blood.  On  the 
other  hand,  we  know  absolutely  nothing  of  circumcision  being  prac- 
tised in  Ammon  and  Moab.  Their  ancestor.  Lot,  left  Abraham  before 
circumcision  was  instituted  (Gen.  xiii.)  (6).  And  finally,  if  we  com- 
pare the  close  of  the  passage  in  Jeremiah,  ver.  25,  where  the  Gentiles, 
who  are  Dy^y,  are  contrasted  with  the  Israelites,  who  are  aP'^iy^  the 
whole  reference  of  the  passage  to  the  circumcision  of  these  heathen 
nations  becomes  doubtful  (7j.  It  seems  that  in  ver.  24  7^J2  must  be 
taken  in  a  wider  sense,  so  as  to  include  also  other  customs,  like  that 
hinted  at  in  the  HNS  ""Vl^'i?.  The  latter  expression  we  know  refers  to  a 
custom  of  some  Arab  tribes  to  shear  the  hair  of  the  temples  in  honour 
(says  Herod,  iii.  8)  of  their  god  Orotal,  a  custom  which  was  forbidden 
the  Israelites  as  idolatrous  (Lev.  xix.  27).  On  the  other  hand,  it  can- 
not be  proved  from  Ezek.  xxxi.  18,  xxxii.  19,  that  the  Egyptians  were 
uncircumcised,  since  in  these  passages  (cf.  xxviii.  10)  the  word  t'l)^ 
seems  to  have  a  wider  meaning.  Philo,  in  his  treatise  Be  Circum- 
cisione  (ed.  Mangey,  ii.  p.  210),  certainly  speaks  of  circumcision  as  an 
Egyptian  practice,  but  hints  that  it  was  mainly  an  affair  of  the  priests, 
to  whom  exclusively  it  is  ascribed  by  Origen.  Probably  it  was 
prescribed  to  the  priests  and  permitted  to  others  (8).  In  this  case  it 
remains  possible,  though  the  point  does  not  admit  of  sufficient  proof, 
that  circumcision  in  Israel  was  connected  with  Egyptian  usage  (9). 
Wholly  to  be  rejected  is  another  view,  which  derives  the  practice  from 
Canaanitish  Saturn-worship.  The  narrative  in  Gen.  xxxiv.  shows 
that  it  was  not  originally  a  Canaanitish  usage,  and  the  myth  in  Pseudo- 
sanchuniathon  (ed.  Orelli,  p.  36),  that  Chronos,  to  avert  his  father's 
wrath,  circumcised  himself  and  his  companions,  does  not  even  prove 
that  the  Phoenicians  viewed  circumcision  as  a  consecration  to  Saturn. 
The  hypothesis,  which  in  recent  times  has  repeatedly  been  put  forth 
with  confidence,  that  circumcision  in  Israel  is  simply  a  milder  form  of 
the  mutilations  performed  in  the  religions  of  Western  Asia  in  honour 


280   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.   [§  88. 

of  the  Deity,  cannot  adduce  a  shadow  of  argument  in  its  favour. 
Mutilation  absolutely  excludes  from  the  congregation  of  God,  Deut. 
xxiii.  2.  But  even  from  a  purely  physical  point  of  view,  circumcision 
was  viewed  as  increasing  instead  of  destroying  the  powers  of  repro- 
duction (10). 

(1)  This  is  the  simplest  explanation  of  the  command.  Kurtz's 
explanation  is  too  artificial, — that  the  day  after  the  lapse  of  the  first 
week  was  chosen  to  show  that  circumcision  is  a  fresh  starting-point  in 
life  (Gesch.  d.A.B.  i.  p.  187). — The  Arabs,  imitating  the  circum- 
cision of  Ishmael,  practise  circumcision  in  the  thirteenth  year. 

(2)  So  e.g.  Baur,  '■'■  Ueber  die  urspriingliche  Bedeutung  des  Pas- 
sahfestes  und  des  Beschneidungsritus,"  Tab.  Zeitschr.  1832. 

(3)  See  Movers,  Pliunicier^  i.  pp.  60  and  362. 

(4)  Josh.  v.  9  speaks  of  the  circumcision  under  Joshua,  and  says  : 
*'  And  Jehovah  said  to  Joshua,  To-day  have  I  rolled  away  from  you 
the  reproach  of  Egypt." 

(5)  So  Ewald,  "  Every  uncircumcised-circumcised  one  "  (Graf  in 
his  Commentary  falsely  cites  Ewald  for  a  different  exegesis). 

(6)  Also,  according  to  Judith  xiv.  10,  the  Ammonite  Achior  is 
circumcised  only  after  his  conversion  to  Judaism. 

(7)  Quite  wrong,  however,  is  the  view  of  Hitzig,  Graf,  and  others, 
— all  who  are  uncircumcisedly  circumcised,  i.e.  not  circumcised. 

(8)  Further  archaaological  discussion  is  not  necessary.  Ambrosius, 
de  Ahrahamo,  ii.  11,  says  that  the  Egyptian  circumcision  was  in  the 
fourteenth  year  of  life. 

(9)  The  recent  hypothesis,  that  circumcision  came  to  the  race  of 
Abraham  through  the  Hyksos,  is  without  foundation. 

(10)  Cf.  Philo,  I.e.  p.  211.  Thus  all  the  inferences  drawn  from 
a  supposed  reference  of  circumcision  to  Saturn  are  nugatory.  We 
must  confine  ourselves  to  the  Old  Testament. 


§88. 

Continuation :  Religious  Imjjort  of  Circumcision  in  the  Old  Testament. 
The  Giving  of  a  Name. 

To  understand  the  Old  Testament  import  of  circumcision,  we 
must  start  from  the  fact  that,  according  to  Gen.  xvii.,  it  was  instituted 
before  Isaac,  the  son  of  promise,  was  begotten.     It  obviously  pre- 


§  88.]  RELIGIOUS  IMPORT  OF  CIRCUMCISION.  281 

supposes  that  the  natural  life  is  hampered  by  impurity,  which  must  be 
removed  in  those  who  are  called  to  covenant  fellowship  with  God. 
Circumcision  may  be  named,  with  Ewald,  "  the  offering  of  the  body  ;" 
and  this  is  carried  out  in  a  way  that  shall  declare  that  the  propagation 
of  the  race  of  revelation  is  consecrated  to  God.  The  Old  Testament 
no^Yhere  gives  expression  to  the  notion,  which  many  entertain,  that  the 
propitiation  of  God's  justice  is  a  distinct  element  in  the  rite,  expressed 
by  the  shedding  of  the  blood.  This  idea  is  not  contained  in  Gen.  xvii. 
14,  where  the  cutting  off  of  the  uncircumcised  is  simply  the  punish- 
ment of  disobedience.  Nor  does  the  idea  lie  in  the  passage  adduced 
by  Ewald  (1),  Ex.  iv.  24  ff.  As  Moses  is  returning  to  Egypt,  Jehovah 
falls  on  him — such  is  the  expression — to  slay  him  (which  probably 
indicates  a  mortal  sickness).  Then  Zipporah  cuts  off  her  son's  fore- 
skin, and  with  it  (2)  touches  his,  i.e.  (on  the  most  probable  interpreta- 
tion) Moses'  feet,  and  says,  "  A  bloody  bridegroom  (D''OT"|nn)  art  thou 
to  me."  "  So  He  let  him  go.  She  said  bloody  bridegroom  in  reference 
to  the  circumcision."  The  most  obvious  explanation  of  the  passage 
is,  that  Moses  had  omitted  the  circumcision  of  his  son — his  eldest  son, 
it  seems — probably  because  Zipporah,  the  mother,  objected  to  the 
dangerous  operation.  For  this  he  is  punished  ;  for,  as  Knobel  well 
observes,  "  he  who  is  to  force  Pharaoh  to  do  his  duty  to  God's  first- 
born must  fulfil  his  own  duty  to  the  first-born  son  who  stands  in  his 
])ower,  but  belongs  to  God."  To  save  her  husband,  Zipporah  per- 
forms the  circumcision,  but  tells  him  that  she  is  united  to  him  in  a 
marriage  the  children  of  which  must  be  bought  with  blood.  The 
rabbinical  exegesis  is,  that  the  mother  calls  the  son  inn  upon  his  cir- 
cumcision, as  the  Arabs  use  the  verb  ^^d-  of   circumcision.     The  act 

of  circumcision  would,  on  this  view,  fall  to  be  regarded  as  a  betrothal 
of  the  new-born  offshoot  of  the  people  to  the  covenant  God  (3).  But 
this  whole  interpretation  is  opposed  to  the  fact  that  it  is  Moses,  and  not 
the  child,  that  falls  into  danger  of  death  because  the  circumcision  is 
omitted  (4).  Moreover,  and  this  consideration  is  decisive,  the  Old 
Testament  applies  the  symbol  of  bridal  and  marriage  only  to  the 
fellowship  of  God  with  His  people — not  to  His  fellowship  with  indi- 
vidual members  of  the  nation.  Circumcision  is  essentially  distin- 
guished from   Christian   baptism  by  not  constituting  an  immediate 


282   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISP.AEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.   [§  88. 

personal  relationship  between  God  and  the  recipient  of  the  ordinance. 
It  does  not  operate  as  an  individual  means  of  grace.  Circumcision  is 
no  vehicle  of  sanctifying  forces,  as  it  makes  no  inner  demand  of  the 
recipient ;  of  whom  no  miore  is  presupposed  than  that  he  is  physically 
of  Israelitish  descent,  or,  if  a  born  heathen,  has  been  externally 
incorporated  in  the  national  union  of  Israel.  The  rite  effects  admis- 
sion to  the  fellowship  of  the  covenant  people  as  an  opus  operatiim, 
securing  to  the  individual  as  a  member  of  the  nation  his  share  in  the 
promises  and  saving  benefits  granted  to  the  nation  as  a  whole  (5). 
On  the  other  hand,  circumcision  certainly  makes  ethical  demands  on 
him  who  has  received  it.  It  binds  to  obedience  to  God,  and  to  blame- 
less walk  before  Him  (cf.  Gen.  xvii.  1).  Thus  it  is  the  symbol  of 
renewal  and  purification  of  heart.  This  signification  of  the  rite  is  in 
the  Old  Testament  specially  brought  out  in  the  use  of  the  term  uncir- 
cumcision  of  heart,  to  denote  a  want  of  receptivity  for  the  things  of 
God,  Lev.  xxvi.  41,  Jer.  ix.  25  (Ezek.  xliv.  7) ;  while,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  purification  of  the  heart,  by  which  it  becomes  receptive  for 
the  things  of  God,  and  capable  of  executing  God's  will,  is  called  cir- 
cumcision of  heart,  Deut.  x.  16,  xxx.  6  (Jer.  iv.  4),  etc.  (6). 

With  circumcision  was  combined  the  naming  of  the  child,  which 
is  not  expressly  mentioned  till  Luke  i.  59,  ii.  21,  but  is  already  plain 
from  the  connection  of  Gen.  xvii.  5  with  what  follows  and  xxi.  3  f. 
By  this  it  is  indicated  that  his  name  expresses  a  man's  place  in  the 
divine  covenant  (7).  How  frequently  the  giving  of  a  name  was  in 
Israel  an  act  of  religious  confession,  is  seen  in  the  meanings  of 
numerous  biblical  proper  names  (8). 

(1)  Cf.  Ewald,  Alterthumer,  1st  ed.  p.  98,  3d  ed.  p.  123.  Also 
Baur,  I.e. 

(2)  Vsn;!  Hiphil,  as  Isa.  vi.  7.  The  V?)  is  the  foreskin.  It  is  not 
"  cast  it  at  his  feet." 

(3)  It  readily  suggests  itself  to  apply  to  the  child  under  the  knife 
of  circumcision  the  account  of  the  closing  of  the  covenant  in  Ezek. 
xvi.  6  ff. :  "I  said  to  thee  when  thou  wast  lying  in  thy  blood.  Live. 
And  I  sware  to  thee,  and  entered  into  covenant  with  thee,  that  thou 
shouldest  be  mine." — The  further  interpretation,  that  the  flowing  of 
the  blood  contains  a  propitiation  for  the  inborn  guilt  and  impurity  of 
human  nature,  might  be  accepted  ;  but  Baur's  notion  that  the  passage 


§  SS.]  RELIGIOUS  IMPORT  OF  CIRCUMCISION.  283 

implies  that  tlie  rite  of  circumcision  is  a  propitiation  offered  to  a 
threatening  power  of  nature,  to  a  gloomy  fate,  gives  the  ordinance  a 
sense  directly  opposed  to  the  Old  Testament  faith  in  God. 

(4)  As  rightly  observed  by  Deyling,  de  sponso  sanguimnn,  in  his 
Observationes  Sacrce,  ii.  p.  152  ff. 

(5)  On  this  point,  comp.  Zezschwitz,  I.e.  i.  p.  222  f. 

(6)  Other  ends  contemplated  by  circumcision,  and  expressed  even 
by  ancient  writers,  must  be  viewed  as  at  best  secondary  :  such  is  the 
dietetic  use  of  the  rite,  which,  says  Herod,  ii.  37,  is  observed  KaOapio- 
T7/T09  elv£K€v ;  or  the  surgical  value,  mentioned  by  Philo,  I.e.  p.  211, 
as  the  best  means  against  carbuncle  ;  or  the  value  for  the  growth  of 
the  nation,  also  mentioned  by  Philo,  of  an  observance  that  increases 
fecundity.  But  Philo  also  views  it  as  a  symbol  of  the  purification 
of  the  soul. 

(7)  Hence  in  later  times  Jewish  proselytes  were  wont  to  take  new 
names.  Particulars  in  my  article  "  Name,"  in  Herzog's  Encyh.  x.  p. 
193  ff. 

(8)  The  names  of  every  nation  are  an  important  monument  of 
national  spirit  and  manners,  and  thus  the  Hebrew  names  bear  impor- 
tant testimony  to  the  peculiar  vocation  of  this  nation.  No  nation  of 
antiquity  has  such  a  proportion  of  names  of  religious  import.  The 
collection  in  Mat.  Hiller's  Onomasticum  Sacrum,  1706,  which  requires 
to  be  sifted,  contains  more  than  a  hundred  such  names  of  men  (comp. 
also  Hieronymus,  De  Nominibus  Hebraicis,  0pp.  ed.  vail,  iii.)  ;  and  how 
much  more  commonly  used  these  names  were,  is  seen  from  a  glance 
at  the  long  list  of  names,  e.g.,  in  Chronicles.  (There  are  far  fewer 
religious  names  of  women  in  comparison  with  secular  names,  especially 
names  taken  from  favourite  animals,  plants,  etc.  Many  names  of 
men,  too,  are  taken  from  the  animal  kingdom  (see  Simonis,  Onomast. 
V.  T.  p.  393  ff.),  which  is  explicable  from  the  early  nomadic  life  of  the 
nation.)  The  older  of  these  names  are  generally  compounded  with  7Nj 
less  often  with  "''^K'  and  n^V  (cf.  §  47,  and  Evvald's  Lehrbuch,  8th  ed. 
§  676  ff.) ;  while  later,  especially  from  David's  time,  they  chiefly 
appear  compounded  with  7\'\r\''.  They  express  truths  about  God's 
attributes, — His  almighty,  righteous,  and  gracious  rule,  and  the  like ; 
or  they  express  thanks,  hopes,  and  petitions  to  God.  Some  names 
contain  regular  formulae  of  prayer ;  as,  for  example,  El-io-enai  (1 
Chron.  iii.  24,  iv.  36,  vii.  8)  =  To  Jehovah  are  mine  eyes  (directed)  ; 
Hodaviah  (iii.  24,  v.  24)  =  Thank  Jehovah.  Specially  noticeable  is 
the  female  name  Hazlel-poni  (iv.  3)  =  Give  shade.  Thou  who  turnest 
to  me  Thy  countenance  (Ewald,  I.e.  p.  680).  The  meaning  of  these 
names  generally  remained  clear,  though  sometimes  niH'  especially  was 


28-4   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.   [§  83. 

much  shortened.  (On  the  last  point,  see  the  statements  of  Caspari, 
Ueher  Micha  den  Morasthiien,  p.  8  ff.)  Often,  no  doubt,  the  giving  of 
such  religious  names  was  a  mere  matter  of  custom  ;  even  Ahab  gave 
his  two  sons  by  Jezebel  names  compounded  with  nin"'  (Ahaziah  and 
Joram).  But  it  is  equally  certain  that  in  many  cases  the  choice  of  the 
name  (which  seems  to  have  been  often  made  by  the  mother,  Gen.  xxix. 
32  ff.,  chap.  XXX. ;  1  Sam.  i.  20,  iv.  21)  was  an  act  of  religious  con- 
fession on  the  part  of  the  parents  [above  art.]. — A  religious  consecra- 
tion for  girls  is  neither  prescribed  at  the  institution  of  ch'cumcision, 
nor  at  a  later  date.  This  agrees  with  the  dependent  position  of 
woman,  who  has  a  part  in  national  and  covenant  life  only  as  the 
partner  of  man — as  wife  and  mother  (see  Kurtz,  Hist,  of  the  0.  C.  i. 
p.  188).  Girls  are  said  to  have  been  named  when  weaned.  [Art. 
"  Piidagogik  des  A.  T."] 

DO  J 


THIRD  DOCTEINE. 

DIVINE    RETRIBUTION. 
§89. 

Blessing  and  Curse. 

As  the  people  bound  themselves  when  the  covenant  was  concluded 
to  observe  the  law,  so  Jehovah  on  His  part  binds  Himself  to  fulfil  to 
the  nation,  so  long  as  it  observes  its  obligations,  all  the  promises  He 
makes,  and  to  grant  it  the  fulness  of  His  blessing  ;  but  in  the  opposite 
case,  to  execute  on  the  people  the  punishment  of  a  breach  of  covenant. 
For  if  man  turns  against  God,  God  turns  against  him.  Comp.,  as 
main  passage.  Lev.  xxvi.  23  f. ;  also  Deut.  xxxii.  21 ;  Ps.  xviii, 
26  f.  (1).  The  jus  talionis,  the  principle  that  a  man  is  dealt  with  as 
he  himself  deals,  is,  in  fact,  the  principle  of  penal  justice  in  Mosaism, 
Ex.  xxi.  23  f.  (cf.  §  99).  As  the  whole  theocracy  is  purely  earthly, 
blessing  and  curse  are  confined  to  the  life  on  earth.  Where  the  will 
of  the  holy  God  is  to  be  fulfilled  in  every  nation,  there  also  His 
righteous  sway  must  be  seen  in  the  corresponding  lot  of  man.  The 
natural  life,  as  well  as  the  history  of  the  nation,  must  reveal  the  order 
of  divine  retribution.  At  the  same  time  it  is  to  be  noted,  that  when 
Mosaism  teaches  that  piety  brings  good  fortune,  and  godlessness  mis- 
fortune,  this  does  not  justify  one  in  arguing   dii'ectly  from  every 


§  80.]  BLESSING  AND  CURSE.  285 

misfortune  to  a  corresponding  sin,  and  from  every  piece  of  good 
fortune  to  corresponding  righteousness.  For  God  sometimes  shows 
patience  towards  the  wicked,  Gen.  xv.  16,  and  spares  them  for  the 
sake  of  the  righteous,  xviii.  26  ff. ;  wliile,  conversely,  the  righteous 
are  proved  and  purified  by  affliction  (as  in  the  history  of  Joseph). 
But  in  the  end,  man's  earthly  lot  must  correspond  to  his  desert. 

The  compass  of  divine  blessings  is  Life^  D^^Hj  Dcut.  xxx.  15  f.; 
comp.  also  iv.  1,  viii.  1  (2) ;  most  frequently  in  the  Proverbs,  xii.  28, 
viii.  35,  and  elsewhere.  Life  embraces  all  the  good  things  that  per- 
tain to  earthly  prosperity  :  long  life  in  the  promised  land,  Ex.  xx.  12, 
Deut.  iv.  40,  xi.  9  ff.,  xxx.  20  (3)  ;  the  blessing  of  children,  fertility 
of  the  soil,  victory  over  enemies.  Lev.  xxvi.  3  ff.,  Deut.  xxviii.  1  ff. ; 
compare,  in  elucidation,  passages  from  the  Proverbs  like  iii.  2,  iv.  10, 
etc.  But  it  is  not  these  earthly  benefits  in  themselves  that  make  up 
life.  It  is  wrong  to  accuse  the  Old  Testament  of  gross  Eudemonism. 
The  idea  that  a  godless  man  possessing  such  external  good  things  is 
really  to  be  felicitated  cannot  be  entertained  from  the  moral  stand- 
point of  Mosaism  ;  but  the  earthly  good  things  form  a  state  of  felicity 
only  when  the  possession  of  them  is  united  with  the  experience  of  the 
gracious  presence  of  the  covenant  God,  so  that  they  are  pledges  of 
His  favour.  Thus,  in  the  leading  passage  Lev.  xxvi.,  the  whole 
promise  of  earthly  happiness  closes  in  ver.  11  with  the  words:  "And 
I  will  set  my  tabernacle  among  you ;  and  my  soul  shall  not  abhor 
you.  And  I  will  walk  among  you,  and  will  be  your  God,  and  ye 
shall  be  my  people."  Hence  it  is  quite  in  the  spirit  of  Mosaism 
when  David,  Ps.  iv.  8,  says  that  he  would  not  exchange  his  heart's 
delight  in  God  for  the  abundance  of  the  godless  ;  when,  xvi.  2,  5,  he 
praises  Jehovah  as  the  highest  good ;  or  when,  Ps.  Ixiii.  4,  he  says, 
"  Thy  favour  is  better  than  life ; "  only  that  the  Old  Testament  stand- 
point, as  such,  does  not  permit  the  godly  to  look  away  from  earthly 
reward,  but  rather  demands  that  outward  prosperity  shall  ultimately 
confirm  the  fellowship  with  God  in  which  the  godly  knows  himself  to 
stand  (4). — The  pattern  of  individual  felicity  in  the  Old  Testament 
is  the  life  of  the  patriarchs  in  friendship  with  God,  and  in  the  rich 
experience  of  His  blessing  ;  their  end  "in  peace,  in  a  good  old  age," 
as  the  expression  runs.  Gen.  xv.  15,  xxv.  8,  etc.,  full  of  confident  hope 
in  the  fulfilment  of  the  divine  promise  resting  on  their  descendants, 


286   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY,   [§  S9. 

xlviii.  21,  1.  24,  etc.  (cf.  1  Kings  ii.  4).  The  picture  of  a  liappy  state 
of  the  nation — enjoying  felicity  in  the  experience  of  God's  grace,  apart 
from  the  nations  of  the  earth,  provided  with  the  bounteous  plenty  of 
its  land,  victorious  over  all  its  foes — is  drawn  in  Deut.  xxxiii.  27-29. 

On  the  other  hand,  faithlessness  to  the  covenant  on  the  part  of  the 
people  issues  in  the  withdrawal  of  all  these  blessings, — shortening  of 
life,  childlessness,  ill  growth  and  famine, — so  that  Israel  may  know 
that  it  possesses  all  natural  blessings  only  as  the  gift  of  God  (comp., 
as  a  main  passage,  Hos.  ii.  8  ff.)  ;  also  political  misfortune,  defeat  by 
foes  (5).  And  the  punishment  culminates  when  the  servant  of 
Jehovah  who  refuses  to  serve  his  God  is  delivered  into  bondage  to 
other  nations — when  Israel  is  banished  from  the  house  of  God  (as  it  is 
put  in  Hos.  ix.  15),  and  therefore  from  the  land  wath  which  the 
theocracy  is  connected,  and  scattered  among  all  nations  as  a  timid, 
despised,  maltreated  people  ;  comp.,  as  main  passages  for  these  details. 
Lev.  xxvi.  14-39  (6),  Deut.  xxviii.  15  ff.  If  the  national  disasters 
of  heathen  nations  are  a  witness  of  the  powerlessness  of  their  gods, 
Israel's  disasters,  on  the  contrary,  shall  be  a  proof  of  the  reality  of 
Israel's  God  and  of  His  retributive  justice ;  cf.,  as  main  passage, 
Deut.  xxxii.  39  :  "  See  now  that  I,  I,  am  He,  and  there  is  no  god 
beside  me :  I  kill,  and  I  make  alive  ;  I  wound,  and  I  heal :  neither  is 
there  any  that  can  deliver  out  of  my  hand."  Therefore,  also,  the 
Old  Testament  history  is  not  marked  by  that  mendacious  patriotism 
which  conceals  national  misfortune  (7). 

(1)  Lev.  xxvi.  23  f. :  "  If  ye  walk  contrary  to  me  (^1^  '^V  DriD^n), 
I  also  will  walk  contrary  to  you  O^ps  DS^J?  'ii^'nb*  'JJia^ni)."— Ps.  xviii. 
26f. ;  see  §48. 

(2)  Deut.  XXX.  15  :  "  See  I  set  before  thee  this  day  life  and  good," 
etc. ;  viii.  1  :  "  Ye  shall  keep  the  commandments,  that  ye  may  live." 

(3)  Ex.  XX.  12  :  "  That  thy  days  may  be  long,"  etc. ;  Deut.  xxx. 

20  :  "  This  is  thy  life  and  the  length  of  thy  days,  that  thou  mayest 
dwell  in  the  land  which  Jehovah  sware  unto  thy  fathers." 

(4)  To  this  point  attaches  the  doctrine  of  retribution  in  the 
Chochma. 

(5)  Four  leading  judicial  plagues  are  distinguished  in  Ezek.  xiv. 

21  and  other  passages, — sword,  famine,  wild  beasts,  and  pestilence. 

(6)  The  punishments  form  a  climax ;  if  the  first  does  not  succeed, 
"  then  I  will  punish  you  seven  times  more  for  your  sins,  and  break 


§  90.]       DIVINE  ELECTION  AND  MOSAIC  DOCTRINE  OF  RETRIBUTION.        287 

your  haughtiness  of  heart,"  Lev.  xxvi.  18  f.;  and  if  this  too  fails,  still 
severer  chastisements  ensue,  ver.  23  £f. 

(7)  Cf.  the  remarks  of  M.  v.  Niebuhr,  History  of  Assur  and  Babel, 
p.  5,  where  the  veracity  of  the  Old  Testament  history  is  justly  con- 
trasted with  the  patriotic  lies  of  heathen  chroniclers. 

§90. 

Solution  of  the  Apparent  Contradiction  betiveen  Divine  Election  and  the 
Mosaic  Doctrine  of  Retribution.     Attacks  on  the  latter. 

But  if  Israel  by  breaking  the  covenant  is  exposed  to  God's  juch^- 
ment  and  rejected,  this  seems  to  nullify  God's  decree  of  election  and 
the  realization  of  the  aim  of  His  kingdom,  which,  though  secured  by 
God's  covenant  oath,  is  again  dependent  on  man's  action.  But  to 
this  difficulty  Mosaism  provides  an  answer.  God's  compassionate  love 
is  higher  than  His  penal  justice,  as  is  already  hinted  in  the  relation 
of  Ex.  XX.  6  to  ver.  5,  and  especially  is  expressed  in  xxxiv.  6  f.  (cf. 
Deut.  vii.  9).  God's  faithfulness  cannot  be  broken  by  man's  faithless- 
ness. His  judgments  have  a  fixed  end,  and  therefore  are  always  in 
measure,  as  is  taught  in  the  beautiful  parable  Isa.  xxviii.  23-29. 
God's  judgments  are  so  executed  that  through  them  Israel  must 
reach  restoration,  and  the  perfecting  of  God's  kingdom  must  be 
brought  about.  Israel  is  not  annihilated  in  the  judg-ment ;  even  in 
banishment,  in  dispersion  among  the  nations,  it  must  not  coalesce 
with  them,  but  is  preserved  as  a  separate  nation  unto  the  fulfilment 
of  its  vocation.  The  passages  in  which  the  Pentateuch  solves  the 
apparently  insoluble  contradiction  in  the  divine  decrees,  by  expressing 
the  prospect  of  a  future  restoration  of  Israel,  are  the  following : — 
Lev.  xxvi.  44,  "  When  they  be  in  the  land  of  their  enemies,  I  will  not 
cast  them  away,  neither  will  I  abhor  them,  to  destroy  them  utterly, 
and  to  break  my  covenant  with  them."  If  they  now  turn  to  Jehovah, 
He,  remembering  His  covenant,  will  again  take  them  as  His  people 
and  bring  them  back.  See  Deut.  xxxii.  36  ff.,  but  especially  the  chief 
passage,  Deut.  xxx.  1  ff. :  •'  And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  when  all  these 
things  are  come  upon  thee,  the  blessing  and  the  curse,  which  I  have 
set  before  thee,  and  thou  shalt  call  them  to  mind  among  all  the 
nations  whither  the  Lord  thy  God  hath  driven  thee,  and  shalt  return 


288   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.   [§  90. 

unto  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  shalt  obey  His  voice :  then  the  Lord 
thy  God  will  turn  thy  captivity,  and  have  compassion  upon  thee,  and 
will  gather  thee  again  from  all  the  nations  whither  the  Lord  thy  God 
hath  scattered  thee.  If  any  of  thine  be  driven  out  unto  the  outmost 
parts  of  heaven,  from  thence  will  the  Lord  thy  God  gather  thee,  and 
from  thence  wull  He  fetch  thee  :  and  the  Lord  thy  God  will  bring  thee 
into  the  land  which  thy  fathers  possessed,  and  thou  shalt  possess  it ; 
and  He  will  do  thee  good,  and  multiply  thee  above  thy  fathers."^ 
The  final  restoration  of  the  people  is,  according  to  this,  an  act  of  God ; 
but  is  effected  by  ethical  means,  through  the  conversion  of  the  people, 
for  the  order  of  God's  kingdom  excludes  all  magical  means.  This 
conversion  is  complete  when,  by  the  operation  of  divine  grace,  that 
renovation  of  heart  is  accomplished  in  virtue  of  which  the  law  shall 
no  longer  be  an  external  obligation  on  the  people,  but,  by  God's  might, 
shall  be  a  living  will  and  purpose  on  their  part.  For,  as  the  last- 
cited  passage  continues  (ver.  6),  "  Then  the  Lord  thy  God  will  cir- 
cumcise thine  heart,  and  the  heart  of  thy  seed,  to  love  the  Lord  thy 
God  with  all  thine  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  that  thou  mayest  live." 
Thus,  in  spite  of  man's  sin  and  faithlessness,  the  realization  of  the 
divine  decree  of  election,  the  perfecting  of  the  people  of  God,  are 
firmly  based  in  God's  faithfulness  and  mercy  (Rom.  xi.  25-36)  (1). 

The  attacks  made  on  Mosaism  by  the  Deists  and  by  later  theolo- 
gians, on  account  of  the  doctrine  of  retribution,  rest  mainly  on  the 
assertion  that  Mosaism  has  no  higher  motives  to  urge  for  obedience  to 
the  law  than  carnal  desire  of  reward  and  fear  of  punishment ;  that  this 
national  delusion,  as  De  Wette  calls  the  Mosaic  doctrine  of  retribu- 
tion, made  the  nation  of  Israel  vastly  unhappy,  and  engendered  a 
gloomy  view  of  life,  which  destroys  the  fair  harmony  of  man  with  the 
world,  in  which  the  Greek  appears  so  nobly  (2);  while,  finally,  fault 
is  found  with  the  absence  of  a  doctrine  of  future  retribution. — The 
general  answer  to  these  objections  is  contained  in  our  previous  state- 
ments. A  morality  which  rests  on  the  basis  of  faith  in  the  elective 
grace  and  providential  faithfulness  of  the  covenant  God,  and  whose 
doctrine  of  the  good  culminates  in  the  prominence  assigned  to  fellow- 
ship with  this  God,  cannot  surely  be  accused  of  gross,  sensuous  Eude- 
monism.  Certainly  it  is  a  limitation  to  Mosaism,  in  comparison  with 
the  higher  stage  of  New  Testament  revelation,  that  fellowship  with 


§  91.]  THE  IDEA  OF  THE  DIVINE  KINGSHIP.  289 

God  cannot  be  conceived  without  corresponding  blessing  in  earthly  ""ocd, 
and  tliat  life  is  not  yet  understood  as  life  everlasting ;  but,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  earnest  way  in  which  Mosaism  carries  out  the  postulate 
of  a  moral  government  of  the  world,  the  manner  in  which  it  forbids 
all  fatalistic  consolation  in  adversity  and  arouses  the  conscience  of  the 
sufferer,  and  in  general,  the  way  in  which  it  instils  into  the  whole 
life  reverence  for  a  holy,  divine  power  that  attests  its  presence  in  every 
human  fortune,  raise  this  religion  high  above  all  forms  of  heathenism. 
Thus  the  moral  life  of  Israel  gains  a  freshness  and  enerfy  which 
stand  in  the  strongest  contrast  to  the  Egyptian  character,  which  is 
ever  busy  with  thoughts  about  death  and  the  future  state  (3). 

(1)  The  application  of  this  law  of  divine  grace  to  a  sintTle  race — 
viz.  that  of  David — is  given  in  2  Sam.  vii.  14  ff. 

(2)  See  especially  an  essay  by  De  Wette,  which  in  other  respects 
contains  much  that  is  good,  "  Bcitrag  zur  Charakteristik  des  Ilebrais- 
mus,"  in  Daub's  and  Creuzer's  Studien,  iii.  p.  241  ff. 

(3)  Yet  the  foundation  of  a  hope  of  immortality  that  is  full  ot 
meaning — such  a  hope  as  can  only  arise  in  connection  with  the  fact 
of  the  vanquishing  of  death — is  laid  in  the  institution  of  a  fellowship 
of  man  with  God,  the  ever-living.  The  imperishableness  of  this 
fellowship  is  felt  to  be  sure,  in  the  first  instance,  because  God's 
eternity  secures  the  everlasting  duration  of  His  people  (cf.  Ps.  cii. 
28  f.);  but  the  growing  intensity  with  which,  in  the  further  develop- 
ment of  the  Old  Testament  religion,  fellowship  with  God  becomes  the 
experience  of  individual  saints,  serves  to  arouse  a  presentiment  of  the 
eternal  destiny  of  the  individual  also  (see  my  Commentationes,  p.  71  ff.). 
[Art.  "  Volk  Gottes."]  We  shall  find  that  this  point  leads  on  to  the 
prophetic  eschatology. 


SECOND  CHAPTER. 

THE   THEOCRACY 


§1)1. 

The  Idea  of  the  Dicine  Kingship. 

The  system  of  government  founded  by  Moses  is  the  government  of 
God, — OeoK.paTta,  as  Josephus,  wiio  seems  to  liave  invented  this  word, 
calls  it  (1).     Jehovah  is  King  of  Isiael.     The  Old  Testament  idea  of 
vol..  T.  T 


290   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.   [§  91. 

tlie  divine  kingship  does  not.  express  God's  general  relation  of  power 
towards  the  world  (that  He  is  its  creator  and  supporter),  but  His 
special  relation  of  dominion  towards  His  elect  people  (2).  The  patri- 
archs called  Him  Lord  and  Shepherd,  and  it  is  not  until  He  had 
formed  a  people  for  Himself  by  bringing  Israel  up  out  of  Egypt  that 
He  is  called,  Ex.  xv.  18,  "  He  who  is  King  for  ever  and  ever."  But 
tlie  real  beginning  of  His  kingly  rule  was  on  that  day  on  which  He 
bound  the  tribes  of  Israel  into  a  community  by  the  promulgation  of 
the  law  and  the  closing  of  the  legal  covenant :  "  Then  He  became 
King  in  Jeshurun,"  Deut.  xxxiii.  5  (3).  The  notion  of  the  divine 
kingship  is  therefore  connected  with  the  notion,  "  Holy  One  and 
Creator  of  Israel ;"  comp.  Isa.  xliii.  15,  Ps.  Ixxxix.  19.  On  the  divine 
kingship  in  Israel,  compare  also  the  passages,  Num.  xxiii.  21 ;  Isa.  xli. 
21,  xliv.  6  ;  Ps.  x.  16.  In  Ps.  xlviii.  3,  Jehovah  is  called  the  '•'  Great 
King;"  in  xxiv.  7  ff.,  the  "King  of  Glory."  Although  He  has  been 
the  King  of  His  people  in  all  ages,  Ps.  Ixxiv.  12,  He  will  not  become 
the  King  of  the  nations  until  a  future  time,  when  He  comes  in  the 
last  revelation  of  His  kingdom  (4).  In  Him,  as  King,  all  political 
powers  are  united  (their  earthly  bearers  are  only  Jehovah's  organs); 
church  and  state,  if  we  may  speak  thus,  are  here  joined  in  immediate 
union.  As  King,  He  is  the  Lawgiver  and  Judge  of  His  people,  Isa. 
xxxiii.  22.  Legal  and  civil  regulations  are  but  an  efflux  of  the  divine 
will.  Some  things,  indeed,  that  rest  on  usage  are  adhered  to  or 
tolerated  on  account  of  the  CKXifipoKaphia  of  the  people  (comp.  Matt. 
xix.  8);  still  even  these  things  are  limited  and  regulated  by  provisions 
of  the  law.  Lastly,  as  King,  God  is  also  the  leader  of  His  people's 
army  (5)  (comp.  Num.  xxiii.  21) ;  Israel  forms  the  hosts  of  Jehovah, 
Ex.  xii.  41  (nin"'  riixny)  (He  goes  before  them  as  leader  in  the  combat, 
Num.  X.  35);  Israel's  battles  are  niiT  Dion^p,  Num.  xxi.  14.  An 
example  of  this  is  the  first  battle  with  Amalek,  in  which  Israel 
conquers  by  Moses'  hands  held  up  in  prayer  (Ex.  xvii.  8-16)  (6). 

(1)  Josephus  says  in  his  book,  c.  Ap.  ii.  IG  :  "  01  /nev  /j.ovap')(^iaK, 
01  Be  Tol'i  oXl'ywv  SwaaTelafi,  dWoi  Be  rot?  7rX7]6eacv  iireTpeyp^av  rrjv 
e^ovalav  ro)v  TroXirevfiaTcov.  'O  S  rj/ierepo'i  vofiodeT^]^  et9  fiev  tovtcov 
ovBoTLOvv  aTrelhev,  019  B^av  ri<;  eXiroi  jBiaadfievo^  tov  Xoyov^  OeoKpariai 
cnreBet^e  to  irdXlrevfia,  6eu)  rijv  ap'^rjv  Koi  to  KpujQ<i  di>a6ei<;^  koX  ireiaa'i 
et9  eKelvop  diravra^  a<^opav^''  etc. 


§  92.]  THE  DIVISION  INTO  TRIBES.  291 

(2)  The  nation  therefore  calls  on  God  as  King  in  this  specific 
sense,  Ps.  xliv.  5,  Ixviii.  25,  etc. 

(3)  The  subject  in  Deut.  xxxiii.  5  is  Jehovah;  it  is  quite  wrong 
to  take  Moses  for  the  subject. 

(4)  This  will  be  further  shown  in  the  prophetic  theology. 

(5)  ^TpaTijjo^  avroKpcLTcop,  as  Josephus  expresses  himself  (Ant. 
iv.  8.  41). 

(6)  The  delineation  of  the  theocratic  regulations  is  most  fitly 
divided  into  two  sections :  in  the  first,  we  have  to  delineate  the  whole 
theocratic  organism,  and,  along  with  this,  to  treat  of  the  connected 
ordinances  of  law  and  justice ;  in  the  second,  we  have  to  delineate  the 
ordinances  of  worship. 


FIRST. 

THE  THEOCRATIC  ORGANISM,  AND  THE  ORDINANCES  OF  LAW  AND 
JUSTICE  CONNECTED  THEREWITH. 

I.  THE  THEOCRATIC  ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  PEOFLE. 

§92. 

The  Division  into  Tribes.     Israel's  Representation  before  Jehovah. 

The  people  form  by  nature  twelve  tribes,  or,  as  Joseph  receives 
double  tribal  rights  in  Ephi'aim  and  Manasseh  (Gen.  xlviii.  5),  thirteen 
tribes,  HitSD  or  CLJn^  (LXX.  (j>vXaL), — the  former  of  these  designations 
apparently  designating  the  tribes  more  in  their  genealogical  division  and 
natural  relations,  the  latter  (according  to  the  meaning  of  tsnti',  sceptre) 
more  their  political  corporation  (1).  But  as  Levi  received  no  special 
tribal  territory,  the  number  twelve  still  remains  for  all  political  rela- 
tions ;  while,  on  the  contrary,  wherever  Levi  is  numbered,  the  two 
tribes  of  Joseph  appear  as  only  one.  Thus,  in  the  prophecy  in  Ezek. 
xlviii.,  in  speaking  of  the  division  of  the  land,  vers.  1-7,  23-28, 
Manasseh  and  Ephraim  are  reckoned  as  two  tribes ;  and  on  the  con- 
trary, in  vers.  30-35,  where  it  is  said  that  the  twelve  gates  in  the  New 
Jerusalem  shall  be  called  by  the  names  of  the  twelve  tribes,  Joseph  is 
reckoned  as  but  one  tribe  (2). — These  twelve  tribes  together  form 
the  priestly  kingdom  (D'Jnb  riDi?p?p,  Ex.  xix.  6).  But  though  Korah 
and  his  company  are  so  far  in  the  right.  Num.  xvi.  3,  that  "  all  the 


292      THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.       [§  92. 

congregation  are  holy  together,  and  the  Lord  is  among  them,"  the 
manifestation  is  not  adequate  to  the  idea.  On  account  of  their 
uncleanness  and  sinfuhiess  (comp.  Ex.  xix.  21,  etc.),  the  congregation 
are  able  to  draw  near  to  God  only  by  means  of  a  propitiation  (comp. 
§  127).  Every  one  who  at  twenty  years  of  nge  entered  the  army  of 
Jehovah  had  to  pay  at  the  mustering  the  sum  of  half  a  shekel  of  the 
sanctuary  as  "123^  "covering,"  propitiation,  Ex.  xxx.  11-16, — the  rich 
giving  no  more  and  the  poor  no  less,  because  they  are  equal  in  God's 
sight  (comp.  §  136,  4).  A  whole  series  of  other  institutions  are 
directed  to  such  propitiation;  but  this  thought  is  pre-eminently 
expressed  by  the  institution  of  a  representative  body  put  between 
Jehovah  and  the  people.  A  priesthood  springing  out  of  natural  cir- 
cumstances existed  even  before  the  time  of  ISIoses,  comp.  Ex.  xix.  22. 
In  the  time  of  the  patriarchs,  the  father  appears  as  the  priestly  inter- 
cessor for  his  family  (comp.  also  Job  i.  5),  or  the  prince  as  priest  to 
his  tribe,  as  kingship  and  priesthood  were  united  in  Melchisedek  ;  and 
Jethro  also  is  to  be  reckoned  as  the  spiritual  and  civil  captain  of  Midian 
(inpT  XZi"!^  Onk.  Ex.  ii.  16,  iii.  1),  as  imam  and  sheikh.  Thus,  too, 
the  priests  mentioned  in  Ex.  xix.  22  must  have  possessed  the  priestly 
dignity  in  virtue  of  a  higher  natural  position,  whether,  as  Jewish 
tradition  declares,  and  as  false  exegesis  finds  even  in  Gen.  xlix.  3  (3), 
the  priesthood  was  originally  connected  with  the  right  of  the  first-born, 
and  therefore  the  charge  of  the  cultus  was  entrusted  to  the  first-born 
before  the  introduction  of  the  Aai'onic  priesthood  (Mischna,  Sehachim 
xiv.  4)  (4),  or  whether  those  elders  who  in  Ex.  xxiv.  11  are  called  v''V^ 
?K"ib^  \^?  (excellents)  were  called  to  this  honour.  At  a  still  later  time 
(Num.  xvi.  2)  it  is  the  princes  of  the  congregation  (nny  ''^'''^^)  who 
are  its  representatives  (D''K''"!P),  and  in  especial  the  princes  of  the  tribe 
of  the  fiist-born,  Reuben,  who  demand  a  priesthood  on  the  broadest 
basis. — But  all  claims  which  arose  from  the  right  of  nature  are  set 
aside  by  the  theocratic  law.  As  Israel  as  a  whole  is  a  holy  people 
only  in  virtue  of  the  divine  election — as  all  the  regulations  of  the 
covenant,  especially  those  of  worship  (comp.  §  112),  rest  on  the  divine 
institution,  the  bestowing  of  the  priesthood  can  also  be  only  an  act  of 
divine  grace.  Those  only  whom  God  Himself  has  called,  whom  He 
has  brought  there  and  sanctified  to  Himself  (Num.  xvi.  7  compared 
witii  Heb.  V.  4),  are  permitted  to  draw  near  to  God  in  intercession 


§  92.]  THE  DIYISIUN  INTO  TIJIBES.  293 

for  the  people.  Certainly  "  out  of  the  midst  of  the  children  of  Israel," 
for  the  people's  representative  must  stand  in  the  natural  connection 
with  them  ;  but  Aaron  and  his  sons  are  chosen  for  the  priesthood  from 
their  midst  by  the  divine  good  pleasure  (Ex.  xxviii.  1,  comp.  1  Sam. 
ii.  28);  they  receive  their  priesthood  as  a  gift,  Num.  xviii.  7  (i^JJ^i??). 
And  this  divine  act  of  election  took  place  (see  Ex.  xxviii.  41,  xxix.  9) 
earlier  than  the  occurrence  Ex.  xxxii.  16  ff.,  when  the  tribe  of 
Levi  won  for  itself  the  blessing,  through  its  zeal  for  tlie  honour  of 
Jehovah  (5).  From  that  time  forward,  however,  Levi  as  a  tribe 
appears  likewise  in  a  mediatorial  position  between  Jehovah  and  the 
people  (6);  the  race  of  Aaron  rises  from  its  midst  with  a  specific 
priestly  prerogative,  and  in  such  a  way  that  the  priesthood  itself 
culminates  in  the  office  of  high  priest.  There  are  therefore  three 
steps  by  which  the  representation  of  the  people  ascends  upwards 
before  Jehovah. 

(1)  The  two  terms  are  often  used  promiscuously;  but,  e.g.,  in 
geogra))hical  descriptions  the  term  niLJO  is  the  commonest.  On  the 
distinction  in  the  text,  see  Keil,  Commentary  on  Joshua,  1847,  Intro- 
duction, p.  xix.  ff.;  also  Gusset  in  his  Lexico^i, Under  ^^'^K — The  tribal 
constitution  whicli  (comp.  §  27)  was  formed  during  the  time  of  the 
people's  stay  in  Egypt  was  not  dissolved  by  ]\Ioses,  but  was  incor- 
porated in  the  theocratic  regulations.  The  number  of  twelve  tribes 
was  regarded  as  expressing  the  normal  state  of  the  covenant  people, 
and  therefore  (Judg.  xxi.  17)  it  is  regarded  as  a  misfortune,  to  be 
avoided  at  any  price,  that  a  tribe  should  disappear  out  of  Israel  [Art. 
"  Stamme  Israels  "]. — This  number  twelve  is  so  entirely  identified  with 
the  normal  subsistence  of  the  theocracy,  that  it  continues  to  be  the 
signature  of  God's  people  even  in  prophecy  (comy.  den  J'ruphetismus). 
In  the  New  Testament,  too,  the  twelve  tribes  continue  to  be  the  type 
of  the  covenant  people  (Acts  xxvi.  7;  Rev.  vii.  4ff.),  to  which  the 
number  of  the  apostles  corresponds. 

(2)  So  also  in  Jacob's  blessing,  Gen.  xlix.,  and  in  that  of  Moses, 
Dent,  xxxii i. 

(3)  Comp.  the  Targum  of  Onkelos  and  Jerus.  Onkelos  inter- 
prets, "  Three  things  belonged  to  Reuben — birthright,  priesthood,  and 
kingship."     Luther  also  translates,  "The  chief  in  the  sacrifice." 

(4)  The  young  men  who  were  set  apart  by  Moses  to  assist  at  the 
sacrifice  (Ex.  xxiv.  5)  are  taken  by  Onkelos  as  the  first-born  sons,  and 
the  priests  mentioned  in  xix.  22,  24  are  so  understood  by  Rashi  and 


294   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.   [§  92. 

Aben  Esra.  In  opposition  to  tiiis  explanation  of  the  latter  passage, 
comp.  Vitringa,  Observationes  Sacrcv,  i.  p.  284  [article,  "Levi, Leviten, 
Levitenstadte  "]. 

(5)  It  is  not  therefore  right  to  say  that  the  election  of  the  tribe 
of  Levi  to  the  priesthood  was  a  reward  for  that  deed  (comp.  Philo,  Vit. 
Mos.  iii.  19). 

(6)  However  we  understand  the  difficult  passage  Ex.  xxxii.  29, 
it  is  clearly  indicated  in  Deut.  xxxiii.  9,  which  obviously  refers  to 
Ex.  xxxii.,  that  the  tribe,  by  its  zeal  for  Jehovah's  honour,  showed 
itself  worthy  of  this  share  in  the  priestly  honour  which  Aaron's  race 
enjoyed  (comp.  §  29,  note  2).     Also  Deut.  x.  8  does  not  contradict 
this,  since  this  passage  must  be  taken  in  connection  with  vers.  1-5 
and  10  f.,  which  hkewise  refer  to  Ex.  xxxii.  ff.     Vers.  6  and  7  are 
recognised  by  their  whole  form  as  an  inseition  which  interrupts  the 
close  connection  that  subsists  between  vers.  5  and  8.     We  may  con- 
jecture, in  view  of  ix.  20,  that  the  author  of  this  gloss  made  the  inser- 
tion in  order  to  indicate  the  acceptance  of  Moses'  prayer  on  behalf  of 
Aaron,   v/ho  died   much  later.     On  this  passage  compare  especially 
Ranke,  Unters.  ilher  den  Pentateuch,  ii.  p.  283.     Riehm,  on  the  con- 
trary (die  Gesetzgebung  Mosis  im  Lande  Moab,  p.  37  f.)  again,  forces 
on  Deuteronomy  a  gross  discrepancy  from  the  book  of  Numbers,  as 
if  the  former  book  made  the  Levites  be  chosen  only  after  Aaron's 
death,  in  the  fortieth  year  of  the  wandering  I — As  regards  the  sense 
of  Ex.  xxxii.  29,  it  is  to  be  observed  that  the  view  which  sees  in  this 
passage  a  repetition  of  the  words  in  which  Moses  summons  the  Levites 
to  execute  judgment  against  their  brethren,  as  a  sacrifice  well  pleasing 
to  God,  is  not  only  liable  to  other  objections,  but  does  not  conform 
to  the  strict  usage  of  Vav  consec.  cum  imperf.     Instead  of  "ip^'!!,  we 
should  on  this  view  look  rather,  as  in  iv.  26,  for  il?^  TX,     From  the 
common  use  of  the  expression  "  to  fill  the  hand"  (xxviii.  41,  xxix.  9 ; 
2  Chron.  xiii.  9),  we  should  be  led  to  think  of  an  offering  of  consecration, 
which  the  Levites  had  to  offer  up  after  the  deed  was  executed,  in 
reference  to  the  calling  which  was  now  set  before  them.     What  can 
be  brought  against  this  explanation  has  been  best  collected  by  J.  G. 
Carpzov,  Apparatus  hist.  crit.  antiquitatum  sacri  cod.,  p.  103  f.     On 
the  contrary,  even  Targ.  Jon.  finds  in  the  passage  a  command  to  bring 
an  offering  of  expiation  for  the  shed  blood ;  and  Kurtz,  Geschichte  des 
A.  Bundes,  i.  2d  ed.  p.  313,  has  declared  for  the  same  meaning  [in  the 
above-cited  article]. 


§  93.]  REPRESENTATION  OF  ISRAEL  BY  THE  LEViTES.  295 

1.    THE  LEVITES  (1). 
§93. 

TJie  Modality  and  Meaning  of  the  Representation  of  Israel  hy  the 

Levites. 

The   circumstances  of   the    dedication  of   the  tribe  of  Levi  are 
represented  in  the  following  manner  in  the  Pentateuch.     We  are  told 
in  Ex.  xiii.,  that  from  the  night  in  which  Israel  was  redeemed  all  the 
first-born  males  among  man  and  beast  were  dedicated  to  Jehovah. 
Now  Jehovah  takes  the  Levites,  instead  of  all  the  first-born  sons  then 
living  from  a  month  old  and  upward,  as  a  standing  gift  of  the  people 
(comp.  Num.  viii,  16);  and  instead  of  the  people's  cattle,  he  takes  the 
cattle  of  the  Levites,  Num.  iii.  11  f.,  45  (2).     Opinions  differ  about 
the  precise  meaning  of  this  transaction.     The  first  question  is,  what 
first-born  sons  it  was  whose  place  was  taken  by  the  Levites ;  and  the 
second,  what  meaning  is  to  be    put  upon  this  substitution. — With 
regard  to  the  first  point,  it  is  to  be  premised  in  explanation,  that  two 
different  kinds  of  first-born  sons  are  distinguished  in  Jewish  law  (3). 
The  first-born  in  the  sense  of  family  rights  {Tbn:h  "(133,  primogenitus 
hoireditatis),  spoken  of  in   Deut.  xxi.  17,  is   the    oldest  son  of  the 
father    by   any    one   of    his    wives,   whether    she    has  had   children 
before  or  not ;  but  the  first-born  of  the  redemption  {\T\'2h  "1133,  primo- 
genitus sacerdotis)  is  the  son  who  "  first  opens  the  matrix,"  that  is,  a 
woman's  first  child,  if  that  child  be  a  male.     In  the  opinion  of  most 
rabbis,  the  husband  of  several  wives  had  to  redeem  the  first-born  of 
each  of  them  ;  while,  on  the  contrary,  his  first-born  son,  if  he  were  not 
at  the  same  time  the  first-born  of  his  mother,  did  not  require  to  be 
redeemed.    On  this  view,  the  Levites  were  taken  by  Jehovah  instead 
of  the  first-born  sons  of  every  mother  (4).     This  view  certainly  seems 
to  agree  best  with  Num.  iii.   12  f.,   xviii.   15, — no  other  definition  of 
first-born  than  by  the  mother  was  possible  among  animals, — but  it  not 
only  goes  against  Ex.  xxii.  28  (where  it  is  not  said,  "the  first-born 
of  thy  wives,"  but  "  the  first-born  of  thy  sons  shalt  thou  give  to  me"), 
but  also   against  the  reference  to  the  first-born  of  Egypt  brought 
forward  in  Num.  viii.  17;  in  which  case,  fiom  Ex   xii.  29,  Ps.  Ixxviii. 


296      THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCKACY.      [§  93. 

51,  cv.  36,  we  can  only  think  of  the  first-born  of  the  fathers.  Hence 
tlie  view  of  Lund  and  Keil  (5)  has  more  probability,  according  to 
which  those  first-born  sons  are  meant  who  are  the  first  of  both  father 
and  mother.  On  this  view,  too,  we  can  most  easily  understand  the 
relatively  small  number  of  first-born  sons  in  Num.  iii.  4o,  if  at  the 
same  time  we  remember  that  all  the  first-born  sons  who  were  them- 
selves fathers  were,  without  doubt,  no  longer  regarded  as  first-born 
sons  to  be  redeemed. 

Secondly,  with  regard  to  the  sense  in  which  the  Levites  took  the 
/)lace  of  the  first-born  sons  :  on  the  one  view,  the  Levites  were  accepted 
by  Jehovah  to  take  charge  of  the  priestly  services,  which  were  previ- 
ously incumbent  on  the  first-born  as  the  representatives  of  the  families; 
on  the  other  view,  on  the  contrary,  the  substitution  of  the  Levites  is 
to  be  looked  upon  under  the  aspect  of  sacrifice.  In  order  to  get  at 
the  right  understanding,  we  must  proceed  from  the  latter  conception. 
Nowhere  in  the  Levitical  law  is  anything  said  of  an  entrance  on 
priestly  rights  which  the  first-born  children  before  received  ;  the  idea 
lying  at  the  root  of  the  dedication  of  the  Levitical  tribe  is  rather  this  : — 
As  the  Egyptians  were  judged  in  their  first-born  children  because  of 
their  guilt,  so  that  the  children  took  the  place  of  the  whole  nation, 
and  bore  as  a  sacrifice  the  curse  of  extermination  which  lay  on  all ;  so, 
on  the  contrary,  Israel — the  people  chosen  by  Jehovah  and  redeemed 
from  the  bondage  of  man — in  testimony  that  it  owes  its  existence  and 
possessions  to  divine  grace  alone,  that  it  is  indebted  to  its  God  for 
all  that  it  has  and  is,  shall  bring  to  God,  as  payment,  the  firstling 
blessings  of  his  house  in  the  place  of  the  whole.  But  the  offering  of 
men  is  not  executed  by  sacrificing  them,  but  by  giving  them  up  for 
permanent  service  in  the  sanctuary  (conip.  the  story  of  Hannah,  1 
Sam.  i.  22,  28).  But  instead  of  all  the  first-born  sons  of  the  people 
perfoi'ming  this  service  in  the  sanctuary,  one  tribe  is  taken  for  ever 
from  life's  common  worldly  calling  by  divine  election,  and  placed  in 
a  closer  and  particular  relation  towards  God,  to  take  charge  of  the 
service  in  the  sanctuary,  and  thus  to  mediate  to  the  people  the 
communion  of  the  sanctuary.  Thus,  in  the  first  place,  the  Levites 
were  the  living  sacrifice  by  which  the  people  rendered  payment  to 
Jehovah  for  owing  their  existence  to  Him ;  but  secondly,  the  Levites, 
who  in  consequence  of  this  performed  in  the  sanctuary  the  service 


§  93.]  REPRESENTATION  OF  ISRAEL  BY  THE  LEVITES.  297 

wliich  the  people  ought  to  have  rendered  through  their  first-born,  but 
could  not  on  account  of  their  uncleanness  (Num.  xviii.  22  f.),  serve 
also,  in  their  substitution,  as  an  atonement  ("??2'p)  for  the  people  who 
come  near  to  the  sanctuary,  Num.  viii.  19.     In  the  first  respect,  the 
Levites  are  given  to  the  priests  (to  whom,  in  general,  the  use  of  the 
sacrifice  of   the  firstlings  is  given),  as   a  gift   assigned  to  them  by 
Jehovah  (xviii.  6,  comp.  with  iii.  9,  viii.  19) ;  they  shall  (as  is  said  in 
xviii.  2,  comp.  with  ver.  4,  with   allusion  to  their   name)   join  them- 
selves to  the  priest  (^'fj,  and  serve  him.     In  the  second  respect,  the 
Levites  themselves  obtain  a  certain  share  in  the  mediatorial  position 
which  belongs  to  the  priesthood,  and  thus  the  Levitical  tribe  forms 
the   basis  of  the  gradually   ascending  representation  of   the   people 
before  God.     Emphatically  as  it  is  inculcated  on  the  Levites  (comp. 
xvi.  10)  that  the  dedication  of  their  tribe  does  not  involve  the  priest- 
hood proper,  yet  their  relative   share  in  the  priestly  mediatorship,  in 
contrast  to  the  other  tribes,  is  imprinted  very  clearly  in  the  regulations 
of  encampment, — in  the  Levites  having  to  encamp  with  the  priests, 
close  round  the  sanctuary,  "  that  wrath  come  not  on  the  congregation 
of  the  children  of  Israel,"  i.  53  (comp.  §  20). — What  has  been  said 
explains  further  the  difference  which  exists  in  reference  to  the  Levites 
between  the  legislation  in  the  middle  books  of  the  Pentateucli  and 
Deuteronomy — that,  namely,  the  former  gives  special  emphasis  to  the 
difference  between  the  priests  and  Levites,  while  Deuteronomy,  on 
the  contrary,  takes  priests  and  Levites  together,  as  a  holy  estate  in 
contrast  to  the  people  (G).     The  two  views  do  not  contradict,  but 
supplement  each  other  mutually.     That  Deuteronomy,  as  has  often 
been  said,  does  not  at  all  acknowledge  the  difference  between  the 
Levites  who  were  priests  and  those  who  were  not  is  decidedly  wrong ; 
for  in  Deuteronomy,  where  simply  "^y,  oi'  '^!!'!?  stands,  it  is  just  the 
common    Levites  who    are  meant;    see  especially  xviii.  6-8,  comp. 
with  vers.  3-5  (7).     It  is  correct,  however,  that  both  are  treated  as 
essentially  a  single  whole,   as  is  manifest  even  from  the  fact,  that 
while  the  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch  are  wont  to  denote   the 
priests  as  "sons  of  Aaron,"  in  Deuteronomy,  on  the  contrary,  the 
Levitical    character   of    the    priesthood  is  made    prominent   by  the 
priests  being  called  "  sons  of  Levi "   (xxi.  5,  xxxi.  9),  or  "  Levitical 
priests  "  {^^)^\}  ^^^[})^k}),  xvii.  9,  18  (the  same  in  Josh.  iii.  3,  etc.),  and 


298      THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.      [§  91. 

that  also  the  vocation  of  the  Levites  is  designated  by  terms  which  are 
elsewhere  applied  precisely  to  the  priestly  calling,  viz.  "  to  minister 
in  Jehovah's  name  "  (niiT  Dt^'3  rinc^),  "  to  stand  before  Jehovah " 
(nin^  ''JD?  IDy)  ;  e.g.  Deut.  xviii.  7,  comp.  with  ver.  5  and  xxi.  5,  xvii. 
12  (8).  In  Moses'  blessing  (xxxiii.  8  ff.),  the  idea  of  the  priesthood 
is  similarly  transferred  to  the  tribe ;  and  accordingly  the  ordinance  of 
the  priesthood  is,  as  Mai.  ii.  5  designates  it,  a  covenant  with  Levi. 

(1)  Compare  my  article,  "  Levi,  Leviten,  Levitenstiidte,"  in 
Herzog's  R.]]J.  viii.  p.  347  ff. 

(2)  Since  (Num.  iii.  43)  the  number  of  first-born  sons  in  the 
nation  amounts  to  22,273,  and  the  number  of  the  Levites,  on  the 
contrary,  only  to  22,000,  the  overplus  is  compensated  by  a  fine  of  five 
shekels  a-piece,  to  be  paid  to  Aaron  and  his  sons  (vers.  46-51). — 
There  must  be  a  mistake  in  the  reckoning  in  vers.  22,  28,  34,  which 
would  give  a  sum  of  22,300 ;  see  Kurtz,  I.e.  335  f.  Others  suppose 
that  these  300  supernumerary  Levites  were  themselves  first-born 
children  [in  above-cited  art.]. 

(3)  Comp.  Mischna,  Beclioroth,  chap,  viii.,  and  Maimonides  on 
the  passage  ;  Selden,  de  success,  in  bona  def.  p.  27  ;  Saalschiitz,  7nos. 
Recltf,  ppT349  and  815. 

(4)  Kurtz,  pp.  143  and  337. 

(5)  See  Lund,  alte  jild.  Heiligthiimer,  p.  622  ;  Keil,  in  Hiivernick's 
Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament,  2d  ed.  i.  2,  p.  425. 

(6)  The  Levitical  regulations  are  a  chief  point  in  the  disputes  on 
the  composition  of  the  Pentateuch. 

(7)  Compare  the  explanation  of  this  passage  by  Riehm,  I.e.  p.  35  f. 

(8)  On  the  contrary.  Num.  xvi.  9  says  the  Levites  are  appointed 

§94. 

Official  Functions,  Dedication^  and  Social  Position  of  the  Levifes. 

The  official  functions  of  the  Levites  are  placed  along  with  the 
service  of  the  priests  under  the  common  point  of  view  of  "keeping 
the  charge  of  the  sanctuary"  (tJ'Ipn  ri-ior>p)  (comp.  Num.  iii.  28,  32 
with  xviii.  5),  but  at  the  same  time  are  distinguished  definitely  from 
the  latter.  The  charge  of  "  all  concerns  of  the  altar  (1)  and  within 
the  veil "  (Num.  xviii.  7),  with  which,  also,  the  performance  of 
liturgical  acts  connected  with  the  other  sacred  utensils  is  united,  falls 


§  di.l  OFFICIAL  FUNCTIONS  OF  THE  LEVI'IKS.  299 

exclusively  to  tlie  priests  (2).  On  the  contrary,  the  service  of  the 
Levites  is  called  the  service  of  Jehovah's  dwelling-place,  or  of  the 
tabernacle  of  meeting  (comp.  various  expressions,  i.  53,  xvi.  9,  xviii.  4); 
it  is  designated  as  martial  service  (^?V)j  ^^-  ^>  ^^j  '^■"-  ^'^  (^"  *^^® 
camp  of  Jehovah,  1  Chron.  ix.  19),  and  even  at  a  later  period  it  was 
organized  entirely  in  a  military  manner.  During  the  wandering  in 
the  wilderness,  the  Levites  had  to  take  charge  of  the  taking  down, 
carrying,  and  setting  up  of  the  holy  tabernacle  (Num.  i.  50  ff.)  ;  also 
to  carry  the  sacred  utensils,  and  in  particular  the  ark  of  the  covenant 
(comp.  Deut.  x.  8,  xxxi.  25)  (3).  The  division  of  these  duties  among 
the  three  Levitical  families  is  given  in  Num.  iii.  25-37,  chap.  iv.  (4). 
According  to  chap.  iv.  3,  23,  30,  the  Levites  were  called  to  this 
service  from  their  thirtieth  to  their  fiftieth  year;  on  the  contrary, 
viii.  24  ff.  represents  their  time  of  service  as  beginning  as  early  as 
with  their  twenty- fifth  year  (5). — But  the  functions  laid  down  in  the 
book  of  Numbers  refer  only  to  the  time  of  the  people's  wandering. 
Nothing  is  determined  in  the  Pentateuch,  or  even  in  Deuteronomy, 
about  the  services  which  fall  to  the  share  of  the  Levites  in  future, 
during  the  settlement  of  the  people  in  the  Holy  Land  (6).  How  very 
different  would  this  be  if  the  Levitical  legislation  of  the  Pentateuch 
were  as  modern  a  production  as  the  modern  critics  maintain  !  (7). 

The  act  of  the  dedication  of  the  Levites  is  described  in  Num.  viii. 
5-22.  The  first  set  of  these  ceremonies  aims  at  purification,  "inp  (an 
expression  which,  moreover,  in  vers.  6  and  21,  stands  as  a  designation 
of  the  whole  act  of  dedication,  while,  on  the  contrary,  Ex.  xxviii. 
41,  xxix.  1,  ^[>  is  used  in  speaking  of  the  dedication  of  the  priests). 
The  purification  falls  (ver.  7)  into  three  parts,— sprinkling  with  the 
water  of  purification  (HNian  '•D)  (8)  ;  shaving  ("  they  shall  cause  the 
razor  to  pass  over  their  whole  body")  (9);  washing  of  their  clothes. 
There  is  no  mention  of  investiture,  as  at  the  dedication  of  the  priests, 
for  the  Pentateuch  does  not  recognise  any  special  costume  of  office 
for  the  Levites  (such  as  appears  later).  Thus  purified,  the  Levites 
become  fitted  to  be  given  over  to  Jehovah.  This  is  divided  into  the 
following  ceremonies  : — The  laying  on  of  hands  (ver.  10).  When 
the  sacrifices  which  were  to  be  offered  afterwards  had  been  prepared 
(ver.  8),  the  whole  congregation  was  to  gather  before  the  holy  taber- 
nacle.     "  Then  bring  the  Levites  before  Jehovah,  and  the  children 


300      THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.      [§  94. 

of  Israel  (namely,  the  representatives  of  the  congregation)  shall  lay 
their  hands  on  the  Levites."  By  this  action  the  intention  of  the 
people  to  give  over  the  Levites  as  an  offering  in  their  name  is  ex- 
pressed (§  126).  The  actual  giving  over  is  performed  by  waving  or 
swinging  (nsijri,  comp.  §  133),  the  ceremony  which  takes  place  at  all 
the  offerings  wiiich  God  resigns  as  a  gift  to  the  priest  (10).  In  the 
case  of  the  Levites,  it  is  generally  understood  as  a  simple  leading 
backward  and  forward.  Tlien  the  sin-offering  and  burnt  sacrifice 
are  presented  (11)  in  the  name  of  the  Levites  (who  must  therefore 
lay  their  liands,  ver.  12,  on  the  sacrificial  animals),  to  atone  for  them 
(D*pn~7y  133?)  ;  for  even  those  whom  God  has  accepted  as  a  gift  must 
be  atoned  for  before  they  can  begin  to  serve  in  the  sanctuary  (12). 

In  order  that  the  tribe  of  Levi  might  be  withdrawn  from  the 
common  calling  of  life, — which  in  the  theocratic  state  was  agricultural, 
— and  might  give  itself  completely  to  its  sacred  vocation,  no  inherit- 
ance as  a  tribe  was  assigned  to  it  (Num.  xviii.  23).  What  Jeiiovah 
said  to  Aaron  (Num.  xviii.  20)  is  in  Deut.  x.  9  applied  to  the  whole 
tribe  of  Levi — namely,  that  Jehovah  Himself  will  be  their  inheritance. 
The  tribe  is  scattered  among  all  the  other  tribes,  in  whose  dominions 
(Num.  XXXV.  6)  it  received  forty-eight  towns  (13),  with  their  suburbs 
(ver.  7,  ^''^'J^P),  that  is,  pasturages  (14).  In  this  law,  moreover,  the 
priests  are  taken  along  with  the  Levites.  The  thirteen  towns  belong- 
ing to  the  priests  are  not  separated  till  Josh.  xxi.  4  (15).  Without 
doubt,  this  dispersion  served  the  purpose  of  placing  the  Levites  in  a 
position  where  they  could  watch  over  the  keeping  of  the  law.  The 
tithes  were  assigned  to  them  for  their  support  (more  hereafter, 
§  136,  3).  This  was  not  a  splendid  endowment.  Even  when  the  tithe 
was  conscientiously  handed  over,  it  was  no  certain  income  (and, 
besides,  did  not  increase  with  the  increase  of  the  tribe).  Moreover. 
if  the  jieople  showed  themselves  averse  to  this  tax  (as  was  to  be  ex- 
pected in  times  of  falling  away  from  the  theocratic  law),  the  tribe  of 
Levi  was  subjected  to  unavoidable  poverty.  And  thus  Deuteronomy 
represents  the  Levites  as  placed  in  a  position  requiring  the  support  of 
alms,  and  looks  on  them  as  standing  in  the  same  line  with  strangers, 
widows,  and  orphans  (xii.  19,  xiv.  27,  29,  and  elsewhere)  (16). 

(1)  Viz. — comp.  1  Chron.  vi..  34 — as  well  of  the  altar  of  burnt 
sacrifice  as  the  altar  of  incense. 


§  94.]  OFFICIAL  FUNCTIONS  OF  THE  LEVITES.  301 

(2)  The  attempt  of  the  Levite  Korah  to  offer  incense  is  punished 
as  a  criminal  attempt,  Num.  xvi. 

(3)  The  ark,  however,  must  first  be  covered  by  tlie  priests,  Num. 
iv.  4  ff  ;  a  sight  of  it  is  unconditionally  forbidden  to  the  Levites, 
ver.  17  ff. 

(4)  The  family  of  Gershon  had  to  take  charge  of  the  coverings 
and  curtains;  that  of  Kuhath,  which  held  the  first  rank  because 
Aaron  sprung  from  this  family,  took  charge  of  the  sacred  vessels ; 
and  Merari  of  the  boards,  bolts,  and  pillars.  The  Kohathites  stood 
under  the  superintendence  of  Eliezer  the  priest,  the  Gershonites  and 
Merarites  under  Ithamar.  (The  notice  1  Ciiron.  ix.  19  f.  will  be 
spoken  of  in  David's  history.)     [In  the  cited  article.] 

(5)  This  apparent  contradiction  is  easiest  solved  by  the  assumption 
that  the  former  passages  refer  to  service  in  transporting  the  taber- 
nacle, and  the  latter  to  Levitical  service  in  general  (comp.  Iliiver- 
iiick's  Introduction,  2d  ed.,  edited  by  Keil,  i.  2,  p.  432);  on  another 
explanation  (comp.  Ranke,  Untersjichungen  iiher  den  Pentateuch^  ii. 
p.  159),  the  time  from  the  twenty-fifth  to  the  thirtieth  year  is  to  be 
regarded  mainly  as  a  preparation  for  entering  on  the  full  service. — 
From  fifty  years  old  and  upward  the  Levites  are  not  to  be  compelled 
to  do  the  work  of  serving,  but  only  to  help  their  brethren  (probably 
as  overseers,  or  by  instructing  the  younger  men).  According  to  the 
tradition  of  the  Talmud  {Cholin,  f.  24,  a),  the  latter  command  had 
reference  only  to  the  service  in  the  wilderness ;  afterwards,  in  Shilo, 
an  advanced  age  did  not  exclude  them  from  service  unless  from  want 
of  voice.     [In  above-cited  article.] 

(6)  In  Deuteronomy  the  vocation  of  the  Levites,  as  has  been 
alreatly  indicated,  is  subsumed  under  the  priestly  calling  in  general 
(x.  8,  xviii.  7),  but  this  without  in  any  way  assigning  to  the  Levites 
those  functions  which  especially  belong  to  the  priests.  For  a  mixture 
of  the  offices  of  the  two  classes  does  not  at  all  follow  from  the  priests, 
xxxi.  9,  and  also  the  Levites,  ver.  25,  being  designated  bearers  of  the 
ark  of  the  covenant.  Subsequent  practice  (Josh,  iii.,  vi.  6 ;  1  Kino's 
viii.  3  ff.)  shows  that  the  ark  was  carried  by  the  priests  on  all  solemn 
occasions;  while,  on  the  contrary,  this  labour  was  incumbent  on  the 
Levites  during  the  wandering  in  the  wilderness  (so,  too,  in  2  Sam. 
XV.  24).      [In  the  above-cited  article.] 

(7)  Riehm  is  very  far  from  having  made  out  his  point,  that  the 
Deuteronomist,  in  what  he  says  of  the  Levites,  assumes  a  state  of 
things  that  arose  not  before  Hezekiah's  time.  On  the  contrary,  as  will 
appear  more  clearly  afterwards,  Stiihelin  ("  Versuch  einer  Geschichte 
der  Verhaltnisse  des  Stammes  Levi,"  in  the  Zeltschr.  der  deutschea 


302       THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.      [§  di. 

morgenl.  Gesellsch.  1855,  p.  708  ff.)  is  probably  in  the  right  when  he 
finds  tiiat  what  is  contained  in  Deuteronomy  in  reference  to  the 
Levites  applies  quite  well  to  the  time  after  Joshua.  [In  the  article 
cited.] 

(8)  It  cannot  be  found  out  whether  common,  natural,  spring 
water  is  meant,  such  as  was  used  at  the  washinji  connected  with  the 
dedication  of  the  priests,  or  a  specially  prepared  water  of  purifica- 
tion, analogous  with  that  ordained  in  Num.  xix. ;  the  expression  chosen 
makes  the  latter  more  probable.     [In  article  cited  above.] 

(9)  Bahr  {Symbolik  des  mos.  Kultiis,  ii.  p.  178)  says  that  this  is 
to  be  understood  with  the  exception  of  the  head,  since  the  shaving  of 
the  head  and  the  removal  of  the  beard  would,  from  Lev.  xxi.  5,  rather 
have  been  regarded  as  desecration.  But  the  analogous  purification 
of  the  leper,  Lev.  xiv.  9,  seems  to  be  in  favour  of  complete  shaving 
(compare  what  Herodotus,  ii.  37,  tells  of  the  customs  of  the  Egyptian 
priests) ;  but  there  the  shaving  was  not  for  once,  but  was  repeated 
every  three  days.     [In  the  cited  article.] 

(10)  See  Hofmann,  Schriftbeweis,  ii.  a,  1st  ed.  p.  187,  2d  ed.  p.  283. 

(11)  It  is  clear  from  ver.  12  comp.  with  ver.  21  that  this  double 
sacrifice  did  not  precede  the  dedication,  as  Hofmann  (I.e.  1st  ed.  p. 
159,  2d  ed.  p.  253)  states.     [In  the  cited  article.] 

(12)  Special  provisions  for  the  personal  conduct  and  regulation 
of  the  life  of  Levites  (such  as  Lev.  xxi.  gives  for  the  priests)  are  not 
contained  in  the  Levitical  laws  in  the  Pentateuch.  [In  the  cited 
article.] 

(13)  Of  which  six  are  also  appointed  to  be  cities  of  refuge  ;  comp. 
infra^  the  avenging  of  blood,  §  108. 

(14)  The  area  of  these  suburbs  was  pretty  limited.  In  Num. 
XXXV.  4  f.  it  is  said  that  they  were  to  extend  1000  cubits  from  the 
wall  of  the  town  round  about,  and  the  dimensions  from  corner  to 
corner  were  to  amount  to  2000  cubits.  Very  various  plans  have 
been  sketched  from  these  statements ;  compare  Keil's  Commentary  oti 
Joshua  (1847),  p.  272  f.;  Saalschiitz,  mos.  Redd,  p.  100  ff. ;  and  his 
Archdol.  d.  Heir.  ii.  p.  86  ff.     [In  cited  art.] 

(15)  The  thirteen  towns  of  the  priests  are.  Josh.  xxi.  4  f.,  in  the 
south  of  the  land  on  the  west  side  of  Jordan,  in  the  territory  of  the 
tribes  of  Judah,  Simeon,  and  Benjamin.  Of  the  thirty-five  properly 
Ijevitical  towns,  ten  are  assigned  in  Ephraim,  Dan,  and  the  half-tribe 
of  Manasseh  on  this  side  of  Jordan,  to  the  remaining  Kohathites ; 
thirteen  in  the  half-tribe  of  Manasseh  on  the  east  side,  in  Issachar, 
Assher,  and  Naphtali,  to  the  Gershonites ;  and  lastly,  twelve  in 
Zebulon,  Gad,  and  Reuben  to  the  ^Icrarites.     The  list  in  1  Chron.  vi. 


§  95.]  THE  PRIESTHOOD.  303 

46  ff.  deviates  in  many  ways  from  the  statement  in  the  book  of 
Joshua. — Tlie  allotment  of  these  towns  is  doubtless  not  to  be  under- 
stood as  if  the  Levites  were  their  only  possessors,  but  that  they 
received  only  the  needful  number  of  houses,  along  with  the  suburbs 
round  the  town  to  pasture  their  cattle,  whilst  the  other  houses,  and 
the  fields  and  granges  belonging  to  each  town,  were  occupied  by  the 
members  of  the  tribe  in  whose  land  the  town  lay  (comp.  Josh.  xxi.  12, 
and  Keil  on  the  passage).  Reference  has  also  been  made  in  this 
connection  with  good  reason  to  the  law  about  the  sale  of  Levites' 
houses.  Lev.  xxv.  32  f.,  since  this  has  a  meaning  only  on  the  presup- 
position that  other  Israelites  dwelt  with  the  Levites.  So  we  really 
find  afterwards,  1  Sam.  vi.  13,  in  Bethshemesh,  which  was  a  priests' 
town,  Josh.  xxi.  16,  inhabitants  who  are  distinguished  from  the  D?V 
who  were  in  it.  It  is  probable  that  the  latter  expression  was  also  used 
in  speaking  of  members  of  the  priestly  family  when  they  were  not 
really  installed  in  the  priest's  office  (see  Stahelin,  I.e.  p.  713  f.).  [In 
the  art.  cited  above.] 

(16)  Riehm  (I.e.  p.  33  f.)  says  that  Deuteronomy  distinctly  con- 
tradicts the  provisions  in  the  book  of  Numbers  about  the  dwelling- 
places  of  the  Levites  by  presupposing  a  houseless  tribe  of  Levites,  and 
by  representing  the  Levites  as  strangers  living  scattered  in  the  various 
towns  of  the  various  tribes.  This  assertion  is  at  first  sight  guilty 
of  gross  exaggeration,  as,  with  the  exception  of  xviii.  6,  the  Levites 
themselves  are  not  designated  as  strangers  in  any  of  the  passages  cited 
by  Riehm  (xii.  12,  18  ;  xiv.  27,  29 ;  xvi.  11,  14).  [In  cited  art.]  In 
order  to  appreciate  the  statements  in  Deuteronomy  rightly,  compare 
also  what  is  said  on  the  situation  of  the  Levites  as  it  was  from  the 
beginning  of  the  time  of  the  judges  and  onwards,  in  the  historical 
section  of  the  "  Theology  of  Prophecy." 


2.    THE  TRIESTHOOD  (1). 

§95. 

It  appears  from  what  has  been  already  said  (§  92),  that  the  pnestly 
vocation  is  in  the  first  place  essentially  to  represent  the  people  as  a 
holy  congregation  before  Jehovah  with  full  divine  authority  (comp. 
Deut.  xviii.  5),  and  to  open  up  for  them  the  way  to  their  God  (2). 
Standing  as  a  holy  order  between  Jehovah  and  the  congregation  in  its 
approach  to  Him,  the  priests  cover  the  latter  by  the  holiness  of  their 
office  (3),  which  official  holiness  (Num.  xviii.  1)  covers  also  the  guilt 


304       THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.      [§  95. 

which  adheres  to  the  person  of  the  priest  himself ;  and  in  the  functions 
of  his  office  the  priest  is  the  medium  of  the  intercourse  which  takes 
place  in  worship  between  Jehovah  and  the  congregation,  and  which, 
on  account  of  the  sinfulness  of  the  congregation,  becomes  a  service  of 
expiation.  The  name  i"b  (and  n^ns)  probably  refers  to  this  priestly 
palling.  The  stem  |n3  appears  to  be  connected  with  |13  (as  SlS  with 
?13,  ii]9  ^^'it^'i  "'■''^)7  &nd  to  mean  either  intransitively,  "  to  px'esent  one- 
self," or  transitively,  parare,  opfare  ;  in  the  former  case,  I"3  would  be 
one  who  stands  to  represent  another  (4),  and  in  the  latter  case  the  priest 
would  be  named  from  the  preparing  and  presenting  the  sacrifice  (')). — 
Besides  this  mediatorial  calling,  the  priest  has  the  office  of  teacher  and 
interpreter  of  the  law.  Lev.  x.  11,  in  which  respect  he  has  to  accom- 
plish a  divine  mission  to  the  people ;  hence  the  priest  is,  in  Mai.  ii.  7, 
called  a  niiT"  TjspDj  "for  the  priest's  lips  should  keep  knowledge,  and 
men  should  seek  the  law  at  his  mouth."  As  it  is  said  in  Ezek.  xliv.  23, 
the  priests  shall  "teach  my  people  the  difference  between  the  holy 
and  profane,  between  the  unclean  and  the  clean  "  (comp.  Lev.  x.  10, 
and  the  functions  described  in  chap.  xiii.  f..  Hag.  ii.  11  ff,);  it  is 
further  said  by  Ezekiel,  ver.  24  :  "And  in  controversy  they  shall  stand 
in  judgment;  they  shall  judge  according  to  my  judgments"  (6).  The 
two  sides  of  the  priestly  calling — to  teach  Israel  Jehovah's  judgments 
and  law,  and  to  offer  incense  and  sacrifice  on  His  altar — are  embraced 
together,  Deut.  xxxiii.  10. 

The  bearers  of  this  priestly  dignity  are,  as  has  already  been 
remarked,  only  the  Aaronites ;  and  this  choice  of  Aaron's  house  is 
re-confirmed  (Num.  xvi.)  in  consequence  of  Korah's  rebellion,  and 
certified  (Num.  xvii.)  by  the  sign  of  the  budding  almond-rod,  which 
indicated  that  the  priesthood  does  not  rest  on  any  natural  preference 
whatever, — for  Aaron's  rod  had  originally  nothing  more  than  the 
others, — but  only  depends  on  the  divine  grace,  which  fills  this  office 
with  living  energy.  But  thenceforth  the  divine  calling  to  the  priest- 
hood is  connected  with  the  natural  propagation  of  Aaron's  family; 
and  as  Aaron's  two  sons,  Nadab  and  Abihu,  died  because  they  offered 
strange  fire  (Lev.  x.  1  f.),  and  left  no  sons,  it  passed  to  the  race  of 
the  other  two  sons  of  Aaron,  Eliezer  and  Ithamar  (7). 

The  holiness  of  the  priesthood  was  to  be  stamped  in  the  whole 
appearance  of  the  priests,  which  ought  to  excite  an  impression  of  the 


§  9a.]  THE  PRIESTHOOD,  305 

highest  purity  and  exclusive  devotion  to  God.  To  this  refer,  in  the 
first  place,  the  provisions  as  to  the  bodily  condition  and  regulation  of 
life  of  the  priests.  The  law  (Lev.  xxi.  16-24)  treats  of  the  bodily 
condition  of  the  priests.  By  it,  all  considerable  physical  blemishes 
make  a  man  unfit  for  the  priest's  office  (8).  But  though  excluded 
from  service,  a  person  afflicted  with  such  blemishes  might  (ver.  22) 
enjoy  tlie  sacred  gifts  given  for  the  sustenance  of  the  priests  (as  well 
of  the  first  as  of  the  second  order)  (9).  The  provisions  for  the  regu- 
lation of  life  are  given  in  Lev.  xxi.  1  ff.  In  it  we  are  told  that  the 
priest  shall  not  defile  himself  with  any  dead  body,  by  taking  charge  of 
the  funeral  and  sharing  in  the  customs  of  mourning,  except  in  the 
case  of  his  nearest  relations,  viz.  his  father,  mother,  son,  daughter, 
brother,  and  his  sister  if  she  was  still  a  virgin.  The  same  six  cases 
are  named  in  Ezek.  xliv.  25  (10).  But  even  in  these  cases  he  must 
avoid  every  disfigurement  of  his  body  (11).  With  regard  tomarriaore, 
the  law  (Lev.  xxi.  7  ff.)  commands  that  they  shall  not  marry  a  whore, 
or  one  who  has  been  deflowered  or  divorced,  but  only  a  virgin  or  a 
widow ;  which  in  Ezek.  xliv.  22  is  limited  to  "  virgins  of  the  seed  of 
Israel,  or  a  widow  of  a  priest"  (12).  Discipline  and  order  ought  to 
rule  in  the  priest's  family.  If  a  priest's  daughter  give  herself  up  to 
lewdness,  she  shall  (Lev.  xxi.  9)  be  burned  (without  doubt  after  being 
stoned).  The  dietetic  directions  which  the  law  lays  down  for  the 
priests,  are  simply  that  they  must  avoid  the  use  of  wine  and  other 
intoxicating  liquors  at  the  time  of  their  service  in  the  sanctuary, 
Lev.  X.  9  f.,  that  they  may  preserve  full  clearness  of  mind  for  their 
functions ;  and  further,  that  the  general  prohibition  to  defile  oneself 
by  partaking  of  what  has  died  of  itself,  or  been  torn  by  beasts,  is 
specially  inculcated  on  them,  xxii.  8.  If  a  priest  had  levitically 
defiled  himself  involuntarily,  or  in  an  unavoidable  way,  he  might  not 
eat  of  the  holy  food  until  he  was  legally  cleansed  again.  Every 
offence  against  this  rule  was  threatened  with  death,  xxii.  2  ff.  There 
is  no  prescription  in  the  law  as  to  the  age  at  which  men  s\m\\  enter  on 
the  priestly  office.  It  is  to  be  supposed  that  what  was  established 
about  the  Levites'  age  held  good  of  the  priests  also  (13). 

The  dedication  of  the  priests,  for  which,  as  has  already  been  men- 
tioned, the  expression  ^_p  (Ex.  xxix.  1,  xl.  13)  is  used,  is  ordained 
Ex.  xxix.  1-37,  xl.  12-15,  and  accomplished  in  Lev.  viii.  on  Aaron 

VOL.  I.  U 


306      THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.      [§  95 

and  his  sons.  The  priests'  dedication  consists  of  two  series  of  actions : 
— 1.  Washing,  robing,  and  anointing  ;  which  three  acts  form  the  real 
dedication  of  the  person  to  the  priestly  office.  2.  A  threefold  offering, 
by  which  the  persons  thus  dedicated  were  wholly  put  into  the  functions 
and  rights  of  the  priesthood.  The  dedication  began  by  leading  those 
who  were  to  be  dedicated  to  the  door  of  the  tabernacle,  and  washing 
them — doubtless  their  whole  body,  and  not  merely  hands  and  feet. 
The  putting  off  of  the  uncleanness  of  the  body  is  a  symbol  of  spiritual 
cleansing,  without  which  no  one  dare  approach  God,  and  least  of  all 
he  who  conducts  the  functions  of  atonement.  This  negative  prepara- 
tion was  followed  by  the  robing,  which,  with  the  common  priests, 
consists  in  putting  on  four  articles  of  dress, — breeches,  coat,  bonnet, 
and  girdle;  comp.  Ex.  xxviii.  40-42  (14).  The  clothes  were  made  of 
fine  shining  white  linen,  as  the  symbol  of  purity;  only  the  girdle  was 
embroidered  with  bright  colours  (woollen  garments  were  forbidden). 
The  service  was  to  be  accomplished  unshod.  Then  followed  the 
priestly  unction  with  the  anointing  oil, — prepared  by  mixing  four 
sweet-smelling  substances  with  olive  oil, —  a  symbol  of  the  communi- 
cation of  the  Divine  Spirit  which  operates  in  the  priestly  office  (15). 
According  to  tradition,  we  are  only  to  think  of  it  as  applied  to  the 
forehead,  in  distinction  from  the  unction  of  the  high  priest  (16). 
This  anointing  was  (Ex.  xl.  15)  to  serve  Aaron's  sons  "for  an  ever- 
lasting priesthood  throughout  their  generations.;"  and  this  has  often 
been  understood  as  if  this  anointing  had  not  to  be  repeated  afterwards 
in  the  case  of  common  priests. — The  offering  which  followed,  and 
which  naturally  was  not  performed  by  those  who  were  being  dedicated, 
but  by  Moses,  comprised  a  threefold  sacrifice.  First,  priests  and 
altar  are  purified.  Lev.  viii.  15,  by  the  sin-offering  of  a  young  bullock; 
then  the  offering  of  the  purified  priests  to  God  is  completed  by  the 
whole-burnt-offering  of  a  ram  (17).  Thirdly,  this  is  followed  by  a 
modified  thank-offering  (18).  This  is  tlie  specific  sacrifice  for  the 
consecration  of  the  priests,  and  bears  the  name  D'^^p?,  "  filling,"  Lev. 
viii.  22,  28  (vii.  37), — an  expression  which  is  to  be  explained  by  the 
phrase  "  filling  the  hand"  with  an  office  (  =  inauguration),  and  which 
refers  to  the  conveyance  of  authority  to  the  priest  (19).  Not  only  is 
the  altar  sprinkled  with  the  blood  of  the  sacrificed  ram,  as  at  other 
thank-offerings,  but  also  the  right  ear,  the  right  thumb,  and  the  great 


§  95.]  THE  PRIESTHOOD.  307 

toe  of  the  right  foot  of  Aaron  and  his  sons  are  touched  with  it :  the 
ear,  because  the  priest  must  at  all  times  hearken  to  the  holy  voice 
of  God  ;  the  hand,  because  he  must  execute  God's  command?,  and 
especially  the  priestly  functions ;  the  foot,  because  he  must  walk 
rightly  and  holily.  Further,  it  is  peculiar  to  this  offering  that  Moses 
takes  the  fat  pieces,  the  right  shoulder,  and  some  of  the  three  different 
kinds  of  cakes  belonging  to  the  thank-offering,  and  lays  all  these 
together  in  the  hands  of  Aaron  and  his  sons,  and  waves  them  before 
Jehovah,  whereafter  all  is  burned.  This  act  signifies,  firstly,  the 
conveyal  of  the  function  which  belongs  to  the  priest  to  offer  the  fat 
pieces  on  God's  altar;  secondly,  the  infeoffment  of  the  priests  with  the 
gift,  which  they  receive  in  future  for  their  service,  but  which  they 
must  now  give  over  to  Jehovah,  because  they  are  not  yet  fully  dedi- 
cated, and  therefore  cannot  yet  themselves  act  as  priests  (20).  Tiie 
conclusion  of  the  festival  is  the  sacrificial  meal  (21).  The  duration  of 
the  dedication  is  fixed  at  seven  days  (Ex.  xxix.  35  ff. ;  Lev.  viii.  o'd  ff.). 
(Duiin<x  this  whole  time,  those  who  are  to  be  dedicated  were  to  pass 
the  time,  day  and  night,  at  the  entrance  of  the  tabernacle.)  On  each 
of  the  six  following  days  a  repetition  of  the  sin-offering  was  to  take 
place  (Ex.  xxix.  30)  ;  it  is  not  said  whether  the  other  two  offerings 
and  the  anointing  were  to  be  repeated  or  not  (22). —  The  sense  and 
meaning  of  all  these  BiKaicofxara  aapK6<i,  these  outward  priestly  regula- 
tions, and  the  aim  of  their  pedagogic  system,  is  distinctly  expressed  by 
the  Old  Testament  in  Deut.  xxxiii.  9  f . :  "  Who  said  unto  his  father 
and  to  his  mother,  I  have  not  seen  him  ;  neither  did  he  acknowledge 
his  brethren,  nor  knew  his  own  children  ;  for  they  have  observed 
Thy  word,  and  kept  Thy  covenant.  They  shall  teach  Jacob  Thy 
judgments,  and  Israel  Thy  law  ;  they  sluill  put  incense  before  Thee, 
and  whole  burnt  sacrifice  upon  Thine  altar."  The  priesthood,  indeed, 
as  such,  is  linked  to  birthright,  and  the  priestly  service  demands 
only  outward  purity  and  perfection  ;  but  that  the  real  subjective 
qualification  for  the  priesthood  lies  in  undivided  devotion  to  God, 
which,  when  His  honour  is  in  question,  is  willing  to  sacrifice  even 
the  highest  worldly  interest,  is  distinctly  expressed  both  here  and  in 
the  calling  of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  Ex.  xxxii.  26  ff.  (comp.  §  29  with 
note  2).  Unbroken  obedience  is  demanded  of  the  priest,  Lev.  x.  3  : 
"  I  will  be  sanctified  in  them  that  come  nigh  me  (^?ip,  designation 


308   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.   [§  95. 

of  the  priests),  and  before  all  the  people  I  will  be  lionoured  "  (comp. 
Mai.  ii.  5  ff.)  (23). 

The  maintenance  of  the  priests  was  cared  for  in  the  following 
manner : — They  received  as  dwelling-places  thirteen  of  the  towns  which 
were  given  to  the  Levites,  Josh.  xxi.  4,  10  ff.  (compare  the  enumeration 
in  1  Chron.  vi.  39  ff.,  which,  however,  is  not  free  from  corruptions  of 
text)  ;  further — compare  Num.  xviii.  8  ff.,  chief  passage — the  Levites 
had  to  give  them  the  tithes  of  their  tithes  (24),  and  they  received  the 
gifts  of  the  first-fruits,  and  certain  parts  of  the  offerings,  etc.  (25). 
Thus  the  maintenance  of  the  priests  was  cared  for  sufficiently,  but 
by  no  means  abundantly  ;  in  comparison  with  the  endowments  of  the 
priestly  caste  in  many  other  ancient  nations,  the  provision  for  the 
Levitical  priests  is  very  moderate. — The  deeper  meaning  of  the  word, 
that  Jehovah  alone  is  the  portion  and  inheritance  of  the  priests,  Num. 
xviii.  20  (26),  and  what,  therefore,  ought  to  be  the  deepest  ground 
of  priestly  thought  and  life,  is  expressed,  Ps.  xvi.  5,  in  these  words  : 
"  The  Lord  is  the  portion  of  mine  inheritance  and  of  my  cup ;  Thou 
maintainest  my  lot.  The  lines  are  fallen  unto  me  in  pleasant 
^laces,"  etc. 

(1)  Com])are  Kiiper,  Das  Priesterthnm  des  A.  Bnudes,  1866,  ami 
my  article,  "  Priesterthum  im  A.  T.,"  in  Herzog's  H.E.  xii. 

(2)  Mediatorship  between  God  and  the  people  is  generally  said  to 
constitute  the  essence  of  the  priesthood  ;  and  this  is,  generally  speaking, 
correct,  but  it  is  not  an  adequate  expression  of  the  specific  business 
of  the  priesthood  in  distinction  from  the  two  other  theocratic  offices. 
Mediatorial  vocation  belongs  also  to  the  king  and  the  prophet :  to  the 
king,  because  he  acts  in  the  name  of  Jehovah,  and  exercises  judicial 
and  executive  authority  in  God's  state  as  the  bearer  of  His  power  ;  to 
the  prophet,  because  he  speaks  in  Jehovah's  name,  and  opens  up  the 
divine  counsel  to  the  people.    [In  cited  article.] 

(3)  A  meaning  of  the  priesthood  which  is  suggested  also  in  the 
place  which  was  pointed  out  for  Aaron  and  his  sons  in  the  camp, 
immediately  in  front  of  the  sanctuary  (Num.  iii.  38).     [In  cited  art.] 

(4)  As,  according  to  Firuzabadi  (see  Gesenius,  Thesaurus,  ii.  p. 
661),  kdhin  means  one — "  qui  surgit  in  alieno  negotio  et  operam  dat  in 
causa  ejus."     [In  cited  article.] 

(5)  Kahana,  in  Arabic,  is  chiefly  used  of  soothsaying,  but  it  is  clear 
that  this  meaning  is  a  derived  one.     On  the  D^?[?.3,  who  are  found 


§  95.]  THE  PRIESTHOOD.  309 

iimong  the  king's  officers,  see  my  article,  "  Konige,  Konigtlium  in 
Israel,"  in  Herzog's  R.E.  viii.  p.  15. — In  the  Old  Testament,  }n3  is 
also  used  of  priests  of  heatiien  cultus  (Gen.  xli.  45,  1  Sam.  v.  5,  and 
elsewhere)  ;  but  the  term  ^l^?  serves  specially  to  designate  the  idol 
priests  in  several  passages  ;  and  this  term  is  used  in  Syriac.  of  priests 
in  general  (see  on  this  word,  Iken,  Dissert,  pliilol.  i.  p.  177  ff.).  [In 
the  above-cited  article.] 

(6)  Comp.  Deut.  xvii.  9  ff.  See  the  judicial  functions  of  the 
priesthood,  infra. —  On  its  second  side,  also,  the  priestly  vocation  is 
divided  front  that  of  the  prophets  by  the  priest  being  bound  solely  to 
the  interpretation  and  practice  of  the  law,  and  not  receiving  in  the 
spirit  any  further  information  on  the  divine  counsel;  to  which  the 
Urini  and  the  Thummim  of  the  high  priest  alone  form  an  exception, 
if,  as  some  have  supposed,  he  by  them  was  made  acquainted  by  inspir- 
ation with  the  divine  decision.  Note  how  Jer.  xviii.  18  ascribes  law 
to  the  priests,  counsel  to  the  wise,  ivord  to  the  prophets  ;  or  Ezek.  vii. 
26,  law  to  the  priests,  counsel  to  the  elders,  vision  to  the  prophets.  [In 
cited  art.] 

(7)  Whilst  the  prophet,  the  servant  of  Jehovah  ("'^V),  carries  on  his 
office  in  virtue  of  a  free  divine  calling,  which  is  not  confined  to  any 
tribe,  and  in  virtue  of  personal  equi))ment  by  the  Divine  Spirit,  the 
priest,  the  minister  (n^B'p)  of  Jehovah,  must  prove  his  personal  right 
to  office  by  his  genealogy,  although  divine  living  powder  works  in  his 
office.  Want  of  proof  of  descent  from  Aaron  excluded  from  the 
priesthood ;  an  example  of  which  is  recounted  in  Ezra  ii.  62,  Neh. 
vii.  64  (comp.  Josephus,  c.  Ap.  i.  7).     [In  the  cited  article.] 

(8)  Mischna  Bechoroth  (vii.  1)  says  that  these  blemishes  were  the 
same  as  those  which  made  the  firstling  of  cattle  unfit  for  sacrifice; 
and  in  truth  the  enumeration  of  animal  blemishes  in  Lev.  xxii.  22  f. 
agrees  almost  entirely  with  xxi.  18  ff.  The  latter  passage  excludes  the 
blind,  the  lame,  the  Dlin  (according  to  most  old  authorities,  the  flat- 
nosed  ;  according  to  Knobel  and  others,  every  one  who  has  suffered  a 
mutilation,  especially  in  the  face),  the  S?^"!^  (he  whose  limbs  go  in  any 
way  beyond  rule  ;  according  to  Vulg.,  in  a  narrower  sense,  vel  grandly 
vel  torto  naso)  ;  further,  he  who  suffers  from  a  broken  arm  or  leg,  the 
crook-backed,  dwarfed,  or  one  with  a  blemish  in  the  eye,  or  scurvy,  or 
scabbed,  etc.  To  this  list  of  blemishes,  Mischna  Bechoroth,  chap,  vii., 
adds  a  considerable  list  of  others.  Thus,  naturally,  an  examination  of 
the  body  had  to  precede  calling  to  the  priest's  office.  Compare  on 
this  the  already  cited  article,  p.  176.  A  blemish,  too,  which  appeared 
afterwards  incapacitated  one  for  service ;  Josephus  gives  an  example 
of  this,  Ant.  xiv.  13.  10.     [In  cited  art.] 


:ilO   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.   [§  05. 

(9)  In  Josepluis,  Bell.  Jud.  v.  5.  7,  priests  by  birtli,  who  hia 
iTi']pw<nv  durst  not  discbarge  any  service,  were  still  found  inside  the 
railing  which  divided  the  court  of  the  priests  from  that  of  the  people ; 
they  received  the  portions  which  were  their  due  in  virtue  of  their 
descent,  and  were  also  employed  in  subordinate  services,  but  wore 
only  the  common  dress. — It  is  scarcely  needful  to  remark,  that  not  all 
Aaronites,  even  when  possessed  of  tlie  qualifications  required  by  the 
law,  were  really  priests  in  office ;  thus  Benaiah,  military  commandant 
under  David  and  Solomon  (2  Sam.  viii.  18,  xx.  23  ;  1  Kings  ii.  25), 
was,  1  Chron.  xxvii.  5,  a  priest's  son.     [In  the  cited  article.] 

(10)  Comp.,  too,  Philo,  de  Monarch.  §  12.  But  on  the  common, 
.'hough  certainly  not  quite  certain,  rendering  of  Lev.  xxi.  4,  he  must 
iiot  defile  himself  among  his  people  as  u  husband  (-'V?) — that  is,  not  at 
the  death  of  his  spouse,  his  mother-in-law,  or  daughter-in-law.  Never- 
theless, Ezek.  xxiv.  16  ff.  has  been  rightly  adduced  against  this  view, 
where  it  is  counted  something  uncommon  that  Ezekiel  does  not  mourn 
at  the  death  of  his  wife,     [[n  the  above-cited  article.] 

(11)  He  shall  not  make  his  head  bald  (which  in  Dent.  xiv.  1  is 
indeed  forbidden  to  the  Israelites  in  general),  nor  cut  off  the  corners 
of  his  beard,  nor  cut  himself  in  his  body  (both  of  which  are  also 
generally  forbidden,  Lev.  xix.  27  f.).  On  the  contrary,  the  other 
customs  of  mourning, — uncovering  the  head  and  rending  the  garments, 
— which  were  forbidden  to  the  high  priest,  Lev.  xxi.  10,  must  have 
been  allowed  to  the  common  priests ;  though  in  x.  6  even  these  two 
customs  of  mourning  were  denied  the  sons  of  Aaron.  [In  above- 
cited  article.] 

(12)  The  latter  limitation  has  only  a  prophetic  character 
(s.  Wagenseil,  Sota^  p.  557  f.),  while  the  former  is  without  doubt  in 
the  sense  of  the  law,  and  is  followed,  Ezra  x.  18  f.,  Neh.  xiii.  28  ff. 
[In  the  art.  cited.]— See  the  traditions  on  this  topic  in  the  same  art., 
p.  177. 

(13)  Manhood,  or  more  precisely  the  twentieth  year,  is  reputed 
in  Jewish  tradition  to  be  the  term  before  which  none  might  act  as 
priest  (see  the  passage  by  Ugolino,  sacerdot.  hehr.  im  T/ies.  xiii.  p. 
927).     [In  the  above-cited  article.] 

(14)  In  1  Sam.  xxii.  18,  even  the  common  priests  wore  an  ephod, 
but  of  less  valuable  stuff  (13). 

(15)  Certainly  Ex.  xxix.  7,  Lev.  viii.  12,  speak  only  of  Aaron's 
unction  ;  but  Ex.  xxviii.  41,  xxx.  30,  xl.  15,  Lev.  vii.  35  f.,  x.  7,  point 
definitely  to  the  anointing  of  Aaron's  sons.     [In  the  art.  cited  above.] 

(16)  According  to  Kurtz  (Der  alftest.  OpferhuUns,  p.  285),  only 
us  a  sprinkling  of  the  person  and  clothes  with  the  anointing  oil. 


§  95.]  THE  PRIESTHOOD.  311 

(17  and  18)  Comp.  infra,  the  delineation  of  the  sacrificial  cultus, 
§  131  ff. 

(19)  The  plirase  '2  T"^X  N^P'  (Ex.  xxviii,  41,  xxix.  9,  29,  33  ; 
Lev.  viii.  33,  xvi.  32  ;  Nam.  ill.  3  ;  comp.  Judg.  xvii.  5)  does  not  indi- 
cate the  bestowal  of  a  gift  on  the  priest  by  Jehovab,  but  a  conferring  or 
delivering  over  of  tlie  rights  of  office,  authorization  (comp.Isa.  xxii.  21). 
On  the  contrary,  if  one  fills  his  hand  to  Jehovah  (1  Chron.  xxix.  5, 
2  Chron.  xxix.  31;  comp.  Ex.  xxxii.  29),  this  means,  providing  oneself 
with  something  to  offer  to  Jehovah.     [In  the  article  cited  above.] 

(20)  The  breast,  which  was  given  to  Jehovah  at  the  common 
thank-offerings  by  waving  it,  but  then  relinquished  by  Him  to  the 
priest,  falls  on  the  present  occasion  to  the  share  of  Moses,  who  was 
acting  in  the  character  of  priest. — Lastly,  Moses  sprinkled  the  priests 
and  their  garments  with  a  mixture  of  anointing  oil  and  blood  of  the 
sacrifice  (Lev.  viii.  30;  on  the  contrary,  Ex.  xxix.  21  represents  this 
act  as  taking  place  immediately  after  the  sprinkling  of  the  altar). 
[In  the  cited  article.] 

(21)  No  one  but  the  priests  might  partake  of  this  meal  (Ex.  xxix. 
33).  The  remains  of  the  meal  were  burned,  to  prevent  profanation. 
[In  the  cited  article.] 

(22)  Doubtless  a  repetition  of  the  other  two  sacrifices  was  to  take 
place,  for  the  daily  filling  of  the  hands  prescribed  in  Ex.  xxix.  35, 
Lev.  viii.  33,  took  place  just  through  the  offering  of  consecration, 
which  had  itself,  again,  the  burnt-offering  as  its  necessary  presupposi- 
tion. Whether,  as  the  rabbis  assume,  the  anointing  took  place  daily 
cannot  be  decided,  since  at  most  the  only  argument  in  favour  of  this 
view  is  the  analogy  of  the  unction  of  the  altar  of  burnt-offering  re- 
peated through  seven  days,  Ex.  xxix.  36  f.,  and  the  priests  commence 
their  duties  on  the  day  after  the  seventh  day  of  the  dedication,  by 
presenting  a  calf  for  a  sin-offering  and  a  ram  as  a  burnt-offering  for 
themselves,  after  which  there  follow  sin-offerings  and  thank-offerings 
for  the  people  (Lev.  ix.  1  ff.).  Probably,  too,  the  perpetual  meat- 
offering treated  of  in  Lev.  vi.  13  ff.  was  first  offered  on  the  same 
eighth  day.  The  circumstance  that  this  meat-offering  was  to  be  pre- 
sented by  Aaron  and  his  sons,  thus  showing  that  they  must  have  been 
fully  dedicated,  is  against  the  reference  of  the  words  inx  HK'Sn  Di''li  to 
the  time  of  the  dedication  itself  (which  would  make  what  is  here 
spoken  of  only  a  Mincha,  to  be  offered  on  one  of  these  seven  days). 
This  meat-offering  is  expressly  designated  as  one  to  be  presented  by 
Aaron  and  his  sons.  Tradition  says  that  the  high  priest  had  to 
present  this  offering  every  day  from  the  time  of  his  entering  into 
office,  whilst  the  common  priests  had  only  to  offer  it  once,  on  entering 


312       THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.      [§  95. 

office ;  and  indeed,  according  to  tradition,  this  meat-offering  would  be 
the  only  part  of  the  ceremonies  that  we  have  jast  described  which  was 
retained  subsequently  at  the  introduction  of  the  common  priests  into 
their  office,  whereas  the  whole  series  of  dedication  acts  was  at  a  later 
time  only  carried  out  at  the  inauguration  of  the  high  priest.  [In  the 
cited  nrticle.] 

(2  j)  The  official  functions  of  the  priests,  in  distinction  from  those  of 
the  li  'vites,  Num.  xviii.  3.  are  shortly  designated  by  ''coming  near  to 
the  vessels  of  the  sanctuary  and  the  altar."  The  functions  in  the  holy 
phicj  were — lighting  the  incense  on  the  golden  altar  every  morning 
and  evening,  cleaning  and  taking  charge  of  the  lamps  and  lighting 
then  in  the  evening,  placing  the  shewbread  on  Sabbath ;  in  the  court 
— keeping  up  the  continual  fire  on  the  altar  of  burnt-offering, 
removing  the  ashes  from  the  altar,  presenting  the  morning  and  evening 
sacrifice  (Lev.  vi.  1  ff.),  pronouncing  the  blessing  on  the  people  after 
— completion  of  the  daily  offering  (Num.  vi.  23-27),  waving  the 
pieces  of  the  sacrifices,  sprinkling  of  blood,  and  laying  upon  the  altar 
and  kindling  all  the  parts  which  were  offered.  It  was  also.  Num.  x. 
8-10,  xxxi.  iy,  the  priests'  duty  to  blow  the  silver  trumpets  at  festivals 
and  sacrificial  ceremonials  as  well  as  in  campaigns  (comp.  2  Chron. 
xiii.  12).  [In  the  cited  art.]  Compare  hereafter  the  discussion  of  the 
new-moon  Sabbath,  §  150,  on  the  meaning  of  the  trumpet-blast,  in 
virtue  of  which  the  blowing  of  the  trumpets  forms  a  part  of  the 
priestly  intercession. 

(24)  Thus,  on  the  one  hand,  the  higher  position  of  the  priests  over 
the  Levites  is  expressed;  and  on  the  otiier  hand,  an  essential  portion  of 
the  priests'  sustenance  is  made  dependent  on  the  conscientiousness  of 
the  Levites.     [In  the  cited  article.] 

(25)  See  the  particulars  in  the  above-cited  article,  p.  180  ff.,  and 
compare,  infra,  the  discussion  of  the  sacrificial  ritual  and  the  theocratic 
gifts. 

(26)  In  Num.  xviii.  20,  "Thou  shalt  have  no  inheritance  in  their 
land,  neither  shalt  thou  have  any  part  among  them  :  I  am  thy  part 
and  thine  inheritance  among  the  children  of  Israel,"  was  said  to 
Aaron ;  comp.  Deut.  x.  9,  xviii.  1  f.  (Ezek.  xliv.  28). 

3.    THE  HIGH  PRIEST  (1). 

§96. 

The  name  of  the  high  priest  is  Piliin  |nbn,  Num.  xxxv.  28,  or 
^l''t^')|l^  inbn,  Lev.  iv.  3,  5,  16;  the  most  complete  expression  is  in  xxi. 
10,  "  The  priest  who  is  higher  than  his  brethren,  upon  whose  head  the 


§  9G.]  THE  HIGH  PRIEST.  313 

anointing  oil  was  poured;"  he  is  also  called  the  priest  k.  ef.,  e.g.  Deut. 
xvii.  12  (2).  In  the  high-priesthood  was  concentrated  the  mediator- 
ship  by  which  the  people  were  represented  before  God,  and  the 
official  priestly  sanctity  by  which  they  are  reconciled.  If  God  in  the 
blood  of  an  offering  accepts  the  life  of  a  clean  animal  by  which  the 
people's  sin  and  uncleanness  is  covered  (according  to  the  original  mean- 
ing of  "123),  in  the  high-priesthood,  on  the  contrary,  a  man  is  elected 
and  sanctified  by  God  that  he  may  in  virtue  of  his  holiness  appear 
before  Him  for  the  people,  and,  as  is  said  in  the  important  passage  Ex. 
xxviii.  38,  bear  the  iniquity  of  the  holy  things  wiiich  the  children  of 
Israel  hallow  in  all  their  holy  gifts,  that  they  may  be  accepted  before 
Jehovah.  Thus  every  reconciling  and  sanctifying  effect  of  the 
sacrifices  is  dependent  on  the  existence  of  a  personally  reconciling 
mediatorship  before  God  (3);  and  here  the  old  covenant  proclaims  its 
inadequacy  to  institute  a  real  reconciliation,  in  the  fact  that  even  the 
high  priest  himself,  through  whose  intercession  the  defect  which 
attaches  to  the  offering  is  made  good,  himself  in  return  has  need  of 
reconciliation  and  purification  by  the  blood  of  sacrifices,  as  one  sub- 
ject to  sin  and  weakness  (comp.  Heb.  v.  3).  As  the  representative  of 
the  whole  nation,  the  high  priest  bears  on  his  shoulder  and  on  his 
heart  the  names  of  the  tribes  of  the  people,  Ex.  xxviii.  12,  29. 
(Particulars  on  this  passage  below.)  The  same  expiatory  sacrifice  is 
demanded  for  his  person  as  for  all  the  people,  because  he  unites  in  his 
person  the  significance  of  the  whole  people  (4)  (comp.  the  ritual  of 
sacrifice).  When  he  in  whose  person  the  people  stand  before  Jehovah 
commits  an  error,  this,  as  is  said  in  Lev.  iv.  3,  operates  Dyn  ^P^'^^P  {to 
the  inculpation  of  the  people]- ;  that  is,  a  disturbance  of  the  theocratic 
order,  which  requires  to  be  atoned  for,  is  imputed  to  the  whole 
people.  When,  on  the  contrary,  God  acknowledges  a  high  priest  as 
well-pleasing  in  His  sight,  this  is  a  real  declaration  that  He  graciously 
accepts  the  whole  people  (5). 

This  meaning  of  the  high  priest,  in  virtue  of  which  he  is  the  t^ili? 
mn^  K.  e|.  (comp.  Ps.  cvi.  16),  must  be  stamped  in  his  whole  appear- 
ance, whicli  ought  to  awaken  an  impression  of  highest  purity  and 
exclusive  devotion  to  God  in  a  still  higher  degree  than  that  of  the 
common  priests.  To  this  end  are  directed,  in  the  first  place,  the  pre- 
cepts that  relate  to  the  personal  condition  and  order  of  life  of  the 


ol-i       THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  TIIEOCRACy.      [§  96. 

priest.  With  regard  to  descent  and  bodily  constitution,  the  law  does 
not  lay  down  anything  in  which  the  high  priest  is  different  from  the 
other  priests  (comp.  §  95).  On  the  other  hand,  the  provisions  in  Lev. 
xxi.  10-15,  referring  to  the  order  of  his  life,  relate  exclusively  to  the 
high  priest.  According  to  these,  he  who  indeed  reflects  the  whole 
fulness  of  a  holy  life  must  be  freed  from  all  polluting  fellowship  with 
death,  and  not  even  come  in  contact  (ver.  11)  with  the  corpses  of  his 
parents ;  his  priestly  rule  in  the  sanctuary  may  not  be  interrupted  by 
any  consideration  whatever  of  the  natural  bonds,  otherwise  regarded 
as  most  holy.  Even  every  sign  of  mourning  is  denied  him  (6).  With 
regard  to  the  marriage  of  the  high  priest,  the  prohibition  to  marry  a 
widow  is  added  to  the  marriage  hindrances  relatino;  to  the  common 
priests.     He  must  marry  a  pure  virgin  (ver.  13  f.)  (7). 

Further,  the  high  priest's  dedication  to  his  office  differed  from  that 
of  the  common  priests  (comp.  §  95)  with  reference  to  the  robing  and 
anointing.  On  the  former,  see  Ex.  xxix.  5-9,  Num.  xx.  26-28  (8). 
Without  the  ornaments  of  his  order,  the  high  priest  is  simply  a  private 
individual,  who,  as  such,  cannot  intercede  for  the  people ;  therefore  he 
is  threatened  with  death  if  he  appear  before  Jehovah  without  them. 
The  description  of  the  high  priest's  official  garments  is  given  in  Ex. 
xxviii.  and  xxxix.,  with  which  Sir»  xlv.  8-13;  Josephus,  Ant.  iii.  7. 
4  ff..  Bell.  Jud.  V.  5.  7,  are  to  be  compared  (9).  Over  the  ordinary 
priest's  dress  the  high  priest  wore,  first,  the  t'V'O  (LXX.  iroSyprj^:'),  a 
woven  upper  dress  of  blue  cotton,  which  is  to  be  supposed,  from  the 
description  we  have  of  it,  to  be  not  in  the  style  of  a  mantle,  but  a 
close  dress,  with  a  laced  opening  for  the  neck  and  (according  to  Josephus 
and  the  Rabbis)  armholes  (not  sleeves),  so  that  the  white  sleeves  of  the 
under  dress  were  seen.  It  was  trimmed  on  the  under  hem  with  a 
fringe,  on  which  were  alternately  pomegranates  of  cotton  and  golden 
bells ;  rabbinical  tradition  says  there  were  seventy-two  of  the  latter. 
These  served  to  signal  to  the  people  gathered  in  the  court  the  entrance 
and  performances  of  the  high  priest,  Ex.  xxviii.  35  ;  they  could  thus 
follow  him  with  their  thoughts  and  prayers  (10).  Over  the  Meil 
was  the  ephod,  *li2^,  and  to  this  the  breastplate,  ly'Ti^  with  the  Urim 
and  the  Thummim,  was  fastened  by  chains  and  ribands.  The 
covering  of  the  head  is  a  mitre,  nwvp  (11).  On  the  front  of  it  was  a 
jilate  of  gold,  TV  (12),  called  in  Ex.  xxix.  6  1T3,  that  is,  a  diadem,  with 


§  9J.]  THE  HIGH  PRIEST.  315 

the  inscription  n\r\'h  "j'ip.  For  his  duties  on  the  yearly  day  of  expia- 
tion another  dress  of  office,  made  of  white  linen,  was  prescribed  (comp. 
infi^a,  §  140,  on  the  day  of  expiation). — This  dress  of  office  lias  received 
very  various  symbolic  interpretations.  These  go  back  even  to  Philo, 
de  Monarch,  ii.  5  f.,  who  referred  it  to  cosniical  relations,  in  conformity 
with  his  conception  of  tlie  Mosaic  cultns.  Among  more  modern  writers, 
Biihr  (Spnbolik,  ii.  p.  97  if.)  has  entered  into  the  particulars  of  the 
matter.  Proceeding  from  the  position  that  the  high  priest,  as  mediator  of 
the  theocratic  people,  unites  in  him  its  three  theocratic  dignities  (comp. 
Pirle  Ahotli  iv.  13), — that  of  the  priesthood,  the  law,  and  kingship, — 
lie  finds  that  those  of  the  high  priest's  garments  which  he  had  in  common 
with  the  other  priests  express  the  priestly  character ;  the  Meil,  that  of 
the  covenant  law ;  the  ephod  and  choshen,  that  of  a  king.  But  the 
whole  presuppositions  on  which  this  interpretation  rests  are  incorrect. 
The  Old  Testament  does  not  know  anything  of  a  royal  dignity 
belonging  to  the  high  priest;  for  the  present  time  it  awaits  the  union 
of  the  two  dignities  in  the  Messiah  (Ps.  ex.  4  ;  Zech.  vi.  13).  Even  for 
the  high  priest,  only  the  two  sides  of  the  pi'iestly  calling  appear  (comp. 
Deut.  xxxiii.  10)  which  were  treated  of  in  §  95  ;  and  so  also,  in  Sir.  xlv, 
IG  f.,  a  twofold  office  is  ascribed  to  the  high  jiriest, — the  e^LXda-KecrOai 
'iTepi  Tov  \aov  by  sacrifice,  and  the  i^ovala  iv  SiadiJKaL'i  KpL/xaTcov 
Si^d^ai,  rov  ^laKw^  ra  fiaprvpia,  k.t.\.  (to  have  power  over  the 
ordinances  of  justice,  that  He  may  teach  Jacob  the  precepts,  and 
enlighten  Israel  in  His  law).  Thus  the  high  priest's  dress  can  have 
a  symbolic  meaning  only  in  the  two  directions  which  have  been 
mentioned,  and  this  is  unmistnkeably  proved  in  its  main  part, 
the  ephod  and  the  breastplate  (13).  The  power  to  give  divine 
decisions  to  the  people  is  expressed  in  the  Urim  and  the  Thummim 
(on  these  see  §  97).  The  reference  to  the  reconciling  mediatorship, 
as  has  already  been  indicated,  is  especially  marked  by  the  fact  that 
the  high  priest,  when  clothed  with  the  ephod,  bears  the  names  of  the 
twelve  tribes  on  his  heart  and  shoulders.  As  the  heart  (comp.  §  71) 
is  the  focus  of  personal  life,  bearing  them  on  the  heart  denotes 
personal  interpenetiation  of  his  life  and  theirs,  in  virtue  of  which  the 
high  priest  has  the  most  lively  sympathy  with  those  for  whom  he 
intercedes  (14).  That  the  ephod  is  essentially  a  shoulder-piece 
(LXX.  i'Trcofxi';)  does  not  make  it  a  symbol  of  kingly  power;  what, 


31 G       THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISEAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY,      [s  OG. 

generally  speaking,  lies  in  this,  is  only  that  the  dignity  of  oj^ce  rests  on 
him.  When  it  is  said  in  Ex.  xxviii.  12  that  the  names  of  the  twelve 
tribes  were  engraved  on  the  onyx-stones  by  means  of  which  the 
shoulder-pieces  were  fastened  together,  that  certainly  does  not  denote 
(as  V.  Gerlach  also  explains  the  passage)  that  the  high  priest  is  the 
people's  regent,  but  it  is  meant  to  signify  that  he,  as  mediator,  carries, 
as  it  were,  the  people  to  God — that,  so  to  speak,  the  people  (comp.  the 
term  in  Num.  xi.  11)  lie  as  a  burden  on  him. 

The  robing  of  the  high  priest  is  followed  by  liis  unction.  The 
peculiarity  of  the  unction  of  the  high  priest,  is  designated  by  the 
expression  K^'Ni'py  py^  (Ex.  xxix.  7;  Lev.  viii.  12,  xxi.  10),  which 
implies  that  the  anointing  oil  is  poured  on  him  in  rich  abundance 
(comp.  Ps.  cxxxiii.  2)  (15).  From  his  unction,  the  high  priest  was 
called  (as  remarked  above)  k.  i^.,  "the  anointed  priest"  (16). 

Lastly,  with  reference  to  the  high  priest's  functions,  it  is  first  to 
be  noted  that  all  the  functions  of  the  common  priests  fell  also  on  him. 
The  law  does  not  distinguish  any  services  which  fell  on  the  latter 
only.  Josephus  (Bell.  Jnd.  v.  5.  7)  says  that  the  high  priest's, 
functions  were  limited  to  the  Sabbath,  the  new  moons,  and  festivals ; 
but  in  Mlslina  Tumid,  vii.  3,  it  is  presupposed  that  he  might,  as  he 
pleased,  take  part  in  the  sacrificial  services.  Secondly,  the  service  on 
the  day  of  atonement,  and  the  Urim  and  the  Thummim,  were  speci- 
ally allotted  to  the  high  priest  (comp.  §  140  f.).  On  his  share  in  the 
administration  of  justice,  see  below. — It  is  further  to  be  noted,  that 
the  whole  sacrificial  service  forms  a  self-contained  unity,  and  that  the 
same  is  true  of  the  priesthood.  When  the  subordinate  priests  officiate 
at  the  service  of  the  sacrifice,  they  do  not  act  as  single  persons,  but 
by  the  authority  which  is  bestowed  on  the  whole  priesthood,  and 
concentrated  in  the  high  priest ;  and  thus  they  really  act  in  the  place 
of  the  high  priest.  Hence  it  corresponds  entirely  with  the  Mosaic 
view  of  the  priesthood,  that  Sir.  xlv.  14,  16  (17,  20)  designates  the 
service  of  the  altar  absolutely  as  the  service  of  Aaron  (17). 

(1)  Comp.  my  article  "  Hoherpriester,"  in  Herzog's  B.E.  vi.  p. 
198  ff. 

(2)  In  the  passages  which  treat  of  the  high-priesthood  in  the 
middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch,  Aaron,  the  first  bearer  of  the  ofiice, 
is  generally  named  instead  of  the  office  itself. — C'Nin  jnis  appears  only 


§  OG.]  THE  HIGH  PKIEST.  3i7 

ill  the  later  style,  in  2  Kings  xxv.  18,  Ezra  vii.  5,  2  Cliron.  xix.  11, 
conip.  xxiv.  6. — The  LXX.  generally  write  6  lepeix;  6  /jbeya'?, — Lev. 
iv.  3,  ap-x^iepev^,  and  generally  so  in  the  New  Testament,  in  Philo, 
and  Josephus. — On  the  meaning  of  the  plural  of  dp^i€pev<i,  see  the 
above-citf'd  article,  p.  198. 

(3)  Comp.  Calvin's  good  exposition  of  Ex.  xxviii.  38  :  "  Obla- 
tionum  sanctarum  iniqnitas  tollenda  et  purganda  fuit  per  sacerdoteni. 
Frigidum  est  illud  coinmentum,  si  quid  erroris  admissum  esset  in 
ceremoniis,  remissum  fuisse  sacerdotis  precibus.  Longius  enim  re- 
spicere  nos  oportet :  ideo  oblationum  iniquitatem  deleri  a  sacerdote, 
quia  nulla  oblatio,  quatenus  est  houiinis,  omni  vitio  caret.  Dictu  hoc 
asperum  est  et  fere  TrapdSo^ov,  sanctitates  ipsas  esse  immundas,  ut 
venia  indigeant;  sed  tenendum  est,  nihil  esse  tarn  purum,  quod  non 
aliquid  labis  a  nobis  contrahat. — Nihil  Dei  cultu  prasstantius :  et 
tamen  nihil  offerre  potuit  populus  etiam  a  lege  prsBscriptutn,  nisi  inter- 
cedente  venia,  qnam  nonnisi  per  sacerdotem  obtinuit." 

(4)  ^Si:^'''"^D  nj:iJ  hlp^,  "  sequiparatur  universo  Israeli,"  says  Aben 
Esra  on  Lev.  iv.  13.  Compare,  in  particulai',  Bahr,  Symbol,  des  mos. 
Kultus,  ii.  p.  13  f. 

(5)  Zech.  iii.  must  be  explained  from  this  point  of  view;  comp. 
the  Prophetic  Theology. 

(6)  The  words  (Lev.  xxl.  12),  "He  shall  not  go  out  of  the 
sanctuary,"  must  be  supplemented  according  to  the  coviiext,  funeris 
causa;  x.  7  serves  for  explanation. — The  expression  in  xxi.  10,  "he 
shall  not  uncover  his  head,"  refers,  probably,  to  the  removing  of  the 
head-dress  in  order  to  sprinkle  the  head  with  dust  and  ashes;  see 
Havernick  on  Ezek.  xxiv.  17  [in  the  above-cited  article].  But 
Knobel  umderstands  yiD  to  mean,  leaving  the  hair  loose  or  flying. 
Compare  on  this,  and  the  command  not  to  rend  his  clotiies,  the  above- 
cited  article,  p.  19i)  f. 

(7)  And  she  must  be — a  point  which  is  mentioned  only  in  the 
case  of  the  high  priest — VJSyo,  which,  doubtless,  only  means  that  a 
foreign  woman  is  forbidden ;  comp.  Neh.  xiii.  28 ;  Josephus,  c.  Ap. 
\.  7.  For  particulars,  see  in  the  above-cited  article,  p.  200,  and  in  it 
also  traditions  on  the  descent,  the  age  required  on  entering  uffice,  and 
the  ethical  qualifications  of  the  high  priest. 

(8)  The  transference  of  the  office  of  high  priest  from  Aaron  to 
Eliezer  took  place  (Num.  xx.  26-28)  by  the  transference  of  the  oina- 
rnents  of  office. 

(9)  The  most  valuable  monographs  on  this  topic  are :  Braun, 
Cie  vestitu  sacerdotum  liehra^ormn^  1680;  Carpzov,  de  ponti/icum  hebrce- 
OTum  vestitu  sacro,  in  Ugolino's   Thes.  xii. ;    Abraham    ben    David, 


318      THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  TIIEOCKACY.      [§  97. 

dissert,   de  vcstitu  sacerdotum  hebrccoram,  in  Ugolino,  xiii.      [Above 
article.] 

(10)  Compare,  ton,  Sir.  xlv.  9.  The  passage  Ex.  xxviii.  35  was 
formerly  misunderstood,  chiefly  because  it  was  thought  needful  closely 
to  connect  the  words  n^J2^  Nvl  with  what  precedes  them;  see  the  genuinely 
labbinical  explanation  in  Abraham  ben  David,  I.e.  p.  xx.  f. — Biihr 
{Si/mbolik,  ii.  p.  125)  tliinks  it  permissible  to  see  in  the  bells  a  symbol 
of  the  proclamation  of  God's  word.     [In  the  cited  article.] 

(11)  Different  from  the  priestly  turban,  which  is  called  'ijfsirp. 
Particulars  in  the  above-cited  article,  p.  201. 

(12)  LXX.  iriraXov ;  the  form  of  a  flower  is  not  to  be  thought 
of  from  the  expression  ;  see  in  the  Le.vica. 

(13)  The  term  liSNn  b'VD^  used  in  Ex.  xxviii.  31,  shows  that  the 
^Meil  has  no  independent  importance.      [Above-cited  article.] 

(14)  Comp.  Cant.  viii.  6;  2  Cor.  vii.  3;  Phil.  i.  7.— The  plerosis 
of  the  above  provision  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  familiar. 

(15)  Jewish  tradition  says,  that  after  the  oil  was  poured  on  the 
hif'h  priest's  head,  the  sian  of  a  cross  was  made  with  oil  on  his  fore- 
liead,  in  the  form  of  a  Greek  X  ;  if  this  tradition  is  reliable,  Ezek. 
ix.  4  might  be  connected  witli  it,  for  the  form  of  Tav,  in  the  old 
character,  is  the  same  as  that  cross.     [Above-cited  article.] 

(16)  According  to  the  tradition  of  the  Jews,  the  anointing  of  the 
liigh  priest  continued  till  the  time  of  Josiah ;  then  the  holy  anoint- 
ing oil  was  hidden,  and  so  lost  (comp.  Krumbholz,  sacerd.  hebr.,  in 
Ugolino,  T/iefi.  xii.  p.  Ixxxvii.).  The  succeeding  hin;h  priests  were 
consecrated  only  by  investiture.      [Above-cited  article.] 

(17)  More  particulars  on  the  later  position  of  the  high  priest  in 
the  Synedrium,  on  the  expressions  ny^b  |nb  (2  Kings  xxv.  18  ;  Jer. 
Hi.  24)  and  ^?.^^>^  'JQ3  (2  Kings  xxiii.  4),  on  the  later  D'^nbn  \iD,  on 
the  continuance  and  succession  of  ofiice  in  the  high-priesthood,  see  in 
the  above-cited  article,  p.  203  ff. 


II.    THE  THEOCRATIC  AUTHORITY. 
1.     THE     LEGISLATIVE      AUTHOKITY. 

§  1'7. 

In  virtue  of  the  principles  of  the  theocracy,  all  the  powers  of  the 
state  are  united  (§  91)  in  Jehovah;  even  when  the  congregation  acts, 
it  is  in  Ilis  name.     He  is  firstly  the  Lawgiver,  Ppp'O  (Tsa.  xxxiii.  22). 


§  07.]  THE  LEGISLATIVE  AUTHORITY.  319 

lie  exercised  His  legislative  power  through  Moses.  The  fundamental 
law  given  through  Him  is  inviolably  valid  for  all  time.  As  God's 
covenant  with  His  people  is  eternal,  so  also  are  the  covenant  ordi- 
nances ;  they  are,  as  the  expression  frequently  runs,  everlasting  laws 
and  statutes  for  Israel  and  the  future  generations  (see  Ex.  xii.  14,  17, 
xxvii.  21,  xxviii.  43,  and  many  passages).  The  Pentateuch  knows 
nothing  of  a  future  change  in  the  law,  nor  of  an  abrogation  of  it  even 
in  part;  only  the  attitude  of  the  people  towards  the  law  was  to  be 
different  in  the  last  times  >(see  §  90).  But,  on  the  other  hand,  in  the 
development  of  the  theocracy,  the  need  of  receiving  an  immediate 
proclamation  of  Jehovah's  kingly  will  must  always  reappear.  This 
need  was  in  part  served  by  the  Urim  and  the  Thummim,  througli  which 
the  high  priest,  in  whose  breastplate  they  were  set,  had  to  receive  the 
decision  of  Jehovah  (Num.  xxvii.  21) ;  and  this  is  why  the  breastplate 
bears  the  name  t^BC'sn  \V^r,  (Ex.  xxviii.  30).  It  is  probably  analogous 
with  the  figure  made  of  precious  stones,  which  Diodorus  {Biblioth.  i. 
48,  75)  and  ^lian  {Vao\  hist.  xlv.  34)  say  the  Egyptian  high  priest 
wore  round  his  neck,  and  which  bore  the  name  of  truth  {aki^Oeia),  as 
indeed  the  Urim  and  the  Thummim  are  translated  by  the  LXX.  by 
hrjkdioif}  KoX  aX'y'jOeia.  The  term  D''")1S  points  to  the  divine  illumina- 
tion, the  D''cn  to  the  unimpeachable  correctness  of  the  divine  decision  ; 
comp.  1  Sam.  xiv.  41.  It  cannot  be  determined  from  the  Old  Testa- 
ment how  tlie  decision  took  place.  It  is  not  quite  clear  from  the 
expression  (Ex.  xxviii.  30  ;  Lev.  viii.  8),  "  put  the  Urim  and  Thummim 
in  the  breastplate  of  judgment,"  that  the  Urim  and  the  Thummim 
were  something  different  from  the  precious  stones  which  were  set  in 
the  breastplate;  for  the  expression  may  stand  in  a  sense  similar  to 
the  phrase,  to  lay  a  curse  or  blessing  on  anything.  But  if  the  Urim 
and  Thummim  are  really  spoken  of  in  the  passage  1  Sam.  xiv.  41  f., 
as  appears  if  we  adopt  the  fuller  text  of  the  LXX.  (with  Thenius 
and  other  moderns),  they  must  be  regarded  as  a  holy  lot,  different 
from  the  gems  of  the  breastplate,  and  probably  fastened  to  it,  but 
capable  of  being  taken  off  and  cast  (1).  But,  on  the  other  hand,  it 
is  to  be  noted  that  the  term  ij^DH,  to  throw,  is  nowhere  else  used  for 
the  Urim  and  Thummim.  Since  every  part  of  the  high  priest's  dress 
is  described  so  accurately,  we  should  expect  to  have  a  more  particular 
description  of  the  Urim  and  Thummim  if  they  were  anything  distinct. 


320       THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCKACY.      [§  97. 

According  to  Josepluis,  the  divine  answer  came  by  the  glancing  of 
the  jewels ;  even  the  rabbinical  tradition,  though  it  is  so  divided  on 
points  of  detail,  is  almost  unanimous  in  declaring  that  the  revelation 
was  made  by  the  illumination  of  particular  letters  of  the  writing  on 
the  jewels.  But  sevtM-al  more  modern  theologians,  and  especially 
Biihr  {I.e.  ii.  p.  135  ff.),  lay  down  the  view,  that  when  the  high  priest 
laid  the  matter  in  question  before  God  in  prayer,  tlie  decision  followed 
by  inspiration  ;  and  "  that  the  pledge  that  an  answer  should  be  given 
him  which  should  be  in  accordance  with  God's  will,  and  serve  for  the 
good  of  the  people,  was  worn  on  his  heart  in  the  Urim  and  Tlinm- 
mim."  Similarly  Hengstenberg  {Gesch.  des  Reiches  Gotfes,  2  Per. 
p.  148  f.).  Thus  the  Urim  and  Thummim,  whether  similar  to  the 
precious  stones  of  the  breastplate  or  different  from  them,  would  have 
had  more  the  character  of  simple  symbols  and  pledges  (2). — Tradition 
says  that  it  was  not  permitted  to  consult  the  oracle  on  private  con- 
cerns and  on  matters  of  small  moment,  but  only  in  such  cases  as 
concerned  the  welfare  of  the  whole  peojile  (comp.  Judg.  xx.  27  f.). 
1  Sam.  xxiii.  9  ff.,  xxx.  7  f.,  agree  with  this,  for  David  stands  before 
the  high  priest  here  as  the  one  who  is  called  to  the  kingship.  After 
David  there  is  no  occasion  on  which  this  oracle  is  consulted,  and  the 
Urim  and  Thummim  seem  to  have  fallen  more  and  more  into  disuse — 
displaced,  probably,  by  prophecy.  Josephus,  indeed,  says  {Aiit.  iii. 
8.  9)  that  the  oracle  ceased  only  two  hundred  years  before  his  time ; 
but  this  contradicts  the  passage  Ezra  ii.  G3,  where  we  read  that  the 
oracle  was  wanting  since  the  exile  ;  and  with  this  Jewish  tradition 
agrees. 

The  sacred  lot  seems  to  have  been  different  from  the  Urim  and 
Thummim.  It  was  employed  (Num.  xxvi.  55  f. ;  Josh,  xiv.)  at  the 
division  of  the  tribal  territories,  to  discover  the  guilty  one  wdio  had 
brought  a  curse  on  the  people  (Josh.  vii.  14  ff.),  and  in  1  Sum.  xiv.  41  (if 
there  the  Urim  and  Thummim  are  not  meant)  and  1  Sam.  x.  20  f.,  at 
the  king's  election.  The  lot  was  also  used  to  decide  priestly  |?J  con- 
troversies; compare  Prov.  xviii.  18. — These  methods  of  inquiring  into 
the  divine  will  retire  into  the  background  the  more  prophecy  is  un- 
folded. We  read  in  Deut,  xviii.  19  ff.,  how  Moses,  before  parting 
from  the  people,  led  them  to  look  for  the  sending  forth  of  new  organs 
of   revelation.     The  people  who  stand  in  covenant  with  the   living 


§  98.]     THE  PRINCIPLE,  ETC.,  OF  THE  ADMINISTRATION  OF  JUSTICE.         321 

God  shall  not  bo  left  to  a  helplessness  which  might  be  the  occasion  of 
seeking  disclosures  from  the  heathen  Mantic,  so  stringently  prohibited 
in  all  its  forms  (3).  And  as  the  people  could  not  bear  the  terror  of 
an  immediate  revelation  from  God,  Jehovah  will  hold  communion 
with  them  through  men,  raising  up  again  and  again  from  the  midst 
of  the  people  such  men  as  Moses,  in  whose  mouth  He  puts  His  words. 
These  are  the  prophets,  the  2''^^''33  (4). 

(1)  1  Sam.  xiv..  41,  the  inquiring  into  the  divine- will  by  Saul: 
"God  of  Israel,  give  Q^'?^," — give  a  pure,  true  utterance.  Ver.  42  : 
"  Draw  lots  between  me  and  Jonathan." — I  believe,  with  Keil,  that 
another  sacred  lot  is  here  spoken  of.  -[That  the  Hebrew  text  of  ver. 
41  is  corrupt  is  hardly  to  be  denied ;  cf.  Wellhausen  on  the  passage.} 

(2)  Special  points  of  sujiport  are  wanting  for  BiiJu's  view.  We 
must  here  close  with  a  non  liquet. 

(3)  Comp.  Num.  xxiii.  23 :  "  Surely  there  is  no  enchantment  in 
Jacob,  neitiier  is  there  any  divination  in  Israel ;  in  due  time  it  is  told       'h^ 

^  Jacob  and  Israel  what  God  doeth."      See  Hengstenberg  on  the 
passage. 

(4)  The  Prophetic  Theology  connects  with  this  point.. 


2.    THE  JUDICIAL  POWER  (1).. 

§98. 

T1ie,  Principle  and  Organization  of  the  Administration  of  Justice. 

The  administration  of  justice  is,  in  virtue  of  the  principles  of 
theocracy,  only  an  efflux  of  the  divine  judgment..  "  The  judgment  is 
God's,"  Deut..  i..l7;  to  seek  justice  is  to  inquire  at  God,  Ex.  xviii. 
15  ;  he  comes  before  Jehovah  who  appears  in  judgment,  Deut.  xix.  17  ; 
and  thus  also  the  expressions,  D^■^■b^^^-^^^  &-^n^  Ex.  xxi.  6,  and  "^V  Ni3 
^'''?''^.V'5  xxii.  8,  are  to  be  explained,  whether  it  be  that  these  expres- 
sions point  to  the  God  who  rules  in  the  administration  of  justice 
(comp.  also  xviii.  19),  or  that  the  judge  himself  is  called  Elohim,  as 
the  one  who  takes  the  place  of  God  (comp.  Ps.  Ixxxii,  1,  6,  but  not 
Ex.  xxii.  27,  where  D^l'^N  designates  God  ;  comp.  §  86).  The  theo- 
cratic ordinances  of  judgment  limit  also  the  power  of  the  head  of 
a  family,  by  taking  from  him  (Deut.  xxi.  18  ff. ;  Ex.  xxi.  20)  the 
VOL.  I.  X 


322       THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.      [§  98. 

power  over  the  life  and  death  of  those  belonging  to  him,  which  he 
still  exercised  (comp.  Gen.  xxxviii,  24)  in  the  time  of  the  patriarchs. 
Penal  retribution  by  self-help  is  besides  excluded,  because  the  office 
of  avencrer  is  God's  alone,  Lew  xix.  18.  The  old  custom  of  blood 
revenge  is  indeed  retained,  but  it  is  subjected  to  theocratic  regula- 
tions (2). 

With  regard  to  the  organization  of  the  courts  of  justice,  we  must 
distintTuish  in  the  Pentateuch  the  provisions  given  mainly  for  the 
march  through  the  wilderness,  and  the  regulations  in  Deuteronomy, 
which  had  reference  to  later  circumstances. — Moses,  who  at  the  begin- 
ning united  in  his  person  all  theocratic  offices,  is  also  the  first  judge, 
Ex.  xviii.  13  ff.  As  he  was  unable  alone  to  meet  the  cares  of  justice, 
he  set  judges  over  the  people, — over  thousands,  over  hundreds,  over 
fifties,  and  over  tens,  at  Jethro's  advice,  ver.  25  f. ;  Deut.  i.  12  ff.  At 
tlie  nomination  of  the  judges,  which  was  supported  by  the  choice  of 
the  people  (Deut.  i.  13,  "Take  you"),  the  moral  and  intellectual 
qualities  of  those  nominated  were  chiefly  taken  into  account,  Ex.  xviii. 
21,  Deut.  i.  13,  15;  still  it  is  probable  that  Moses  (comp.  Deut.  i.  5, 
"  I  took  the  chiefs  of  your  tribes "')  was  guided  by  the  constitution  of 
the  tribes  then  existing  among  the  people,  and  at  the  same  time  by 
regard  to  the  military  division  of  the  people,  which  was  necessary 
durino-  the  march  through  the  wilderness  (comp.  Num.  xxxi.  14,  where 
there  is  mention  of  military  captains  over  thousands  and  over  hun- 
dreds).— We  are  not  to  think  of  appellate  courts  in  connection  with 
the  relation  of  these  judges  to  one  another.  The  subordinate  judges 
are  to  decide  minor  matters,  whilst  tlie  more  difficult  cases  are  brought 
before  Moses,  to  whom  they  are  referred  not  by  the  disputing  parties, 
but  by  the  subordinate  judges  who  find  the  matter  too  difficult  for 
them,  Deut.  i.  17  f.  (Ex.  xviii.  22,  26);  upon  which  Moses  brings  them 
to  Jehovah  ;  comp.  Ex.  xviii.  19,  and  the  examples  in  Lev.  xxiv.  11  ff.. 
Num.  XV.  33  ff.,  xxvii.  2  ff.  (3). 

Deuteronomy  lays  down  new  regulations  for  the  future  time  of 
the  people's  settlement  in  the  land  (the  explanation  of  which  has 
some  difficulties).  The  administration  of  justice  is  placed  in  the  hand 
of  the  congregation  ;  for  the  people  that  is  sanctified  to  God  has,  as 
such,  the  calling  "  to  put  away  the  evil  from  its  midst,"  which  is  the 
ever-recurring  formula;    see  passages  like  Deut.  xiii.  6,  xvii.  7,  xxi. 


5  08.]     Tilt;  PRINCIPLE,  ETC.,  OF  THE  ADMINISTRATION  OF  JUSTICE.         323 

21,  etc.,  compared  with  efrlier  ones,  Lev.  xxiv.  14,  Num.  xv.  35. — A 
very  vivid  description  of  the  way  in  which  courts  were  held  in  Israel 
is  given  in  later  times  by  the  story  of  the  judgment  of  Naboth,  1 
Kings  xxi. — Hence  the  administration  is  to  be  exercised  publicly,  on 
the  open  places  before  the  gates,  Deut.  xxi.  19,  xxii.  15,  xxv.  7.  The 
community  exercises  its  judicial  power  by  special  judges,  who  are  to 
be  placed  in  all  the  gates,  Deut.  xvi.  18  (who  decide  "if  there  be  a 
quarrel  between  men,"  xxv.  1).  These  are  different — see  Deut.  xxi. 
2,  comp.  Josh.  viii.  33  (xxiii.  2) — from  the  D''3pT,  but  probably  are,  as  a 
rule,  taken  from  them  (4).  The  college  of  the  Q''3|5T  itself  acts  only  in 
cases  of  law,  where  the  question  is  no  longer  one  of  judicial  inquiry,  but 
of  judicial  interposition  in  a  matter  already  plain  ;  Deut.  xix.  12,  xxi. 
19,  xxii.  15,  xxv.  8  (5).  A  higher  tribunal  is  ordained  for  more  difficult 
cases,  Deut.  xvii.  8  ff .  It  is  to  judge  "between  blood  and  blood  {i.e. 
wliere  it  is  doubtful  under  which  category  (comp.  Ex.  xxi.  12  ff.)  a  man- 
slaughter is  to  be  placed)  ;  between  strife  and  strife  (H,  without  doubt 
as  designation  of  the  causes  civiles) ;  between  injury  and  injury  "  (Vi^ 
liere,  and  in  xxi.  5,  no  doubt  denotes  bodily  injuries)  (6).  Here  also 
the  court  is  not  a  court  of  appeal,  but  has  to  decide  cases  in  which 
the  local  courts  do  not  venture  to  decide.  The  seat  of  this  higher 
court  was  to  be  at  the  sanctuary ;  it  was  to  be  composed  of  priests, 
who  (Lev.  x.  11)  were  to  give  a  decision  out  of  the  law  (as  already  in 
Num.  XV.  33,  xxvii.  2,  we  find  that  the  high  priest  took  a  part  in  the 
administration  of  justice),  and  a  civil  judge  (7),  who  had  other  judi^-es 
at  his  side,  Deut.  xix.  17  (8). — The  D''"it5b'  appear  as  officers  subordinate 
to  the  judges  (and  are  mentioned  as  early  as  the  residence  in  Ecrypt 
as  the  overseers  of  the  people,  comp.  §  26),  Deut.  i.  15,  xvi.  18  (comp. 
Josh.  viii.  33  ;  1  Chron.  xxiii.  4,  etc.).  These,  as  their  name  denotes, 
were  "writers"  (9),  from  which  arose  very  multifarious  employments. 
In  the  highest  college  of  70  elders,  there  were  Shoterim,  Num.  xi.  16. 
They  had  to  act  in  selecting  men  for  war  service,  Deut.  xx.  5,  8,  9 ; 
and  many  other  duties  of  police  and  administration  may  have  been 
added  to  this  (10). 

(1)  For  literature,  compare  Schnell's  valuable  little  monograph. 
Das  israeliiische  Recht  in  seinen  Grundzilgen  dargestellt,  Basel  1853. 
The  chief  work  on  this  topic  is  the  book  by  Saalschiitz,  Das  mosa- 
isc/ie  Recht,  two  parts,  1846-48,  2d  ed.  1853.      See,  too,  my  article, 


324   THE  COVENAKT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AKD  THE  THEOCRACY.   [§  99, 

"  Geiicht  nnd   Gerichtsverwaltung  bei  den  Hebiaern,"  in  Ilerzog's 
R.E.  V.  p.  57  ff. 

(2)  See  ivfra,  in  the  treatment  of  family  relationships,  §  108. 

(3)  Lastly  are  to  be  cited  the  Dvr?,  mentioned  in  Ex.  xxi.  22, 
umpires.  In  that  passage  their  office  is  to  estimate  a  bodily  injury 
(in  Job  xxxi.  11,  comp.  ver.  28,  the  expression  stands  in  a  more 
general  meaning). — Comp.  Selden,  de  Synedriis  vet.  Hehr.  i.  16; 
Schnell,  I.e.  p.  6ff.     [In  the  cited  article.] 

(4)  On  Josephus'  notice  of  this  local  court,  in  Ant.  iv.  8.  14,  see 
in  the  above-cited  article,  p.  58. 

(5)  See  Schultz  on  Deut.  xvi.  18,  etc. 

(6)  For  other  explanations  of  this  very  variously  interpreted  pas- 
sage, see  Gerhard's  Commentary  on  Dent.  p.  ]025  f. — When  any  man 
seeks  by  false  witness  to  bring  the  guilt  of  a  crime  on  another,  this  is 
specially  designated  (Deut.  xix.  16  f.)  as  a  case  belonging  to  the 
higher  court.     [In  the  above-cited  article.] 

(7)  For  it  is  clear  enough  that  the  t^sb',  Deut.  xvii.  9,  12,  is  not 
the  same  person  as  the  high  priest. 

(8)  Comp.  on  this  topic,  Gerhard  on  Deut.  xvii. ;  also  Riehm, 
Die  Gesetzgehung  Mosis  im  Lands  JlJoah,  p.  62  f. — On  the  artificial 
exegesis  of  the  passage  by  Saalschiitz,  I.e.  p.  72,  see  the  article  cited 
above,  p.  59,  note. 

(9)  See  Plengstenberg,  Beitrdge,  etc.  il.  p.  449  ff. 

(10)  Comp.  Keil,  Commentary  on  Joshua  (1847),  pp.  12, 115  ff., 
and  Saalschiitz,  7.C.  p..  58  ££. 


§  99.. 
The  Course  of  Justice  and  Punishment. 

The  course  of  justice  is  very  simple  (1).  The  complaint  is 
brought  before  the  judges  by  word  of  mouth,  either  by  the  parties, 
Deut.  xxi.  20,  xxii.  1 6,  or  by  others  bringing  both  parties  in  the  dis- 
pute into  court,  xxv.  1.  The  parties  have  both  to  appear  in  person 
before  the  judge.  The  judge  sends  for  an  accused  person  who  does 
not  appear,  xxv.  8.  A  judge's  business  is,  as  it  is  said,  to  hear  and 
sift  accurately.  The  law  (as  Schnell  rightly  observes)  accumulates 
expressions  (comp.  e.g.  xiii.  15)  "to  represent  the  whole  thorough 
work  of  the  judge,  in  its  emphasis,  its  penetration,  its  patience." — In 
some  circumstances  a  simple  sign  of  truth  (Ex.  xxii.  12  (13))  serves 
as  evidence  ;  Deut.  xxii.  15  is  an  example  of  such  a  proof.     Another 


§  90.]  THE  COURSE  OF  JUSTICE  AND  rUNISHJIENT.  325 

species  of  case  is  ^vllen  parents  complain  against  a  disobedient  son 
(xxi.  18  ff.).  Here  the  complaint  is  witness  for  itself  (2). — But  the 
evidence  of  witnesses  offers  the  most  common  means  of  proof.  This 
point  is  handled  with  special  emphasis.  It  is  commanded  that  two  or 
three  (3)  witnesses  are  to  be  brought,  xix.  15,  particularly  in  judging 
criminal  matters,  Num.  xxxv.  30  ;  Deut.  xvii.  6.  If  the  punishment 
of  death  be  decreed,  the  hand  of  the  witnesses  must  be  the  first  lifted 
against  the  person  who  is  to  be  punished,  Deut.  xiii.  10,  xvii.  7  (4). 
All  the  witnesses  (Lev.  xxiv.  14)  lay  their  hands  on  the  head  of 
him  who  is  to  be  stoned.  He  who  was  convicted  of  false  witness  was 
condemned  to  the  same  punishment  as  the  accused  person  had  met, 
Deut.  xix.  19  (5). — Further,  the  oath  is  also  a  means  of  evidence. 
It  occurs  as  an  oath  of  purgation  ;  e.g.  for  theft,  Ex.  xxii.  G-10,  comp. 
with  1  Kings  viii.  31  f.  Lev.  v.  1  is  often  quoted  for  the  use  of  the 
oath  in  witness ;  but  what  is  there  spoken  of  is  not  the  administration 
of  an  oath  to  the  witnesses  with  respect  to  what  they  utter,  but  a 
solemn  adjuration  of  those  present,  by  which  those  who  have  know- 
ledge of  the  matter  are  called  on  to  come  forward  as  witnesses  ;  comp. 
Prov.  xxix.  24  (6).  Lastly,  we  have  to  add  the  adjuration  of  a  wife 
who  was  accused  of  adultery,  which  called  forth  an  immediate  judg- 
ment from  God,  Num.  v.  11  ff.  (7).  Mosaic  justice  does  not  recognise 
torture  as  a  means  of  evidence. — The  form  of  the  sentence  of  judg- 
ment is  not  laid  down  (8).  As  a  rule,  execution  immediately  followed 
on  condemnation,  Num.  xv.  36;  Deut.  xxii.  18,  xxv.  2. 

The  Mosaic  principle  of  punishment  is  the  jus  talioiiis,  as  it  is 
repeatedly  expressed  in  the  sentence,  "  Life  for  life,  eye  for  eye,  tooth 
for  tooth,"  etc.,  Ex.  xxi.  23-25  ;  Lev.  xxiv.  18  ff. ;  Deut.  xix.  21  :  it 
shall  be  done  to  him  who  has  offended  as  he  has  done  ;  in  other  words, 
the  punishment  is  a  retribution  corresponding  in  quantity  and  quality 
to  the  wicked  deed.  But  that  the  talio  is  not  meant  to  be  abstractly 
and  superficially  carried  out  is  not  only  shown  by  various  provisions 
of  punishment,  but  is  made  clear  from  the  fact  that  not  simply  the 
objective  manifestation  of  the  deed,  but  the  subjective  side,  viz.  the 
guilt  lying  at  the  root  of  the  deed,  is  often  taken  into  account  in 
determining  the  punishment  (9).  The  punishment  of  death  appears 
very  widely  applied.  It  is  ordained  not  only  for  the  crime  of 
murder  (10),  maltreatment  of  parents,  man-stealing  (Ex.  xxi.  12  ff.), 


o2G       THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.      [§  99. 

adultery,  incest  and  other  unnatural  crimes,  idolatry,  and  the  practice 
of  heathen  divination  and  witchcraft  (Lev.  xx. ;  Deut.  xiii.  6  £f.),  but 
for  overstepping  certain  ritual  principles  of  the  theocracy, — the  law  of 
circumcision,  Gen.  xvii.  14;  the  law  of  the  passover,  Ex.  xii.  15,  19  ; 
the  Sabbath  law,  xxxi.  14  £, ;  the  pollution  of  sacrifices,  Lev.  vii. 
20  ff. ;  sacrificing  at  other  places  than  the  sanctuary,  xvii.  8  f . ;  certain 
laws  of  purification,  xxii.  3,  Num.  xix.  13,  20.  Yet  the  peculiar 
expression,  S^V  anpo  H'nn  K^'san  nmaji,  or  ^'W?j  is  chosen  for  the 
punishment  of  transgressions  of  the  latter  class  in  distinction  from  the 
former, — an  expression  which,  indeed,  cannot  refer  to  simple  banish- 
ment (as  some  have  interpreted  it),  but  still,  in  some  cases,  seems  to 
point  to  a  punishment  to  be  executed  not  by  human  judgment,  but  by 
the  divine  power ;  comp.  what  is  said  in  Lev.  xvii.  10  with  reference 
to  the  person  who  eats  blood  :  "I  will  blot  out  that  person  "  (''Jji'npni). 
When  the  punishment  was  really  to  be  executed  by  human  judgment, 
the  term  riD^""  niD  is  used — as  of  the  violation  of  the  Sabbath  law,  Ex. 
xxxi.  14,  and  in  the  passages  of  the  former  kind,  Ex.  xxi.  12  ff., 
Lev.  XX.,  etc.  In  general,  in  all  cases  where  the  people  did  not 
execute  judgment  on  the  transgressor,  Jehovah  Himself  reserves  the 
exercise  of  justice  to  Himself;  see,  as  main  passage,  Lev.  xx.  4-6. — 
In  Mosaic  law,  corporal  chastisement  (stripes)  appears  as  another 
punishment,  Deut.  xxv.  2  f.,  also  fines,  e.g.  Ex.  xxi.  22,  Lev.  xxiv.  18, 
etc.  The  jus  talionis  was  to  be  put  in  application  for  bodily  injury, 
Ex.  xxi.  23-25  ;  Lev.  xxiv.  19  f. ;  Deut.  xix.  21.  But  it  seems  that 
this  was  only  adhered  to  in  principle ;  and  in  this  case  we  may  suppose 
that  a  proportionate  money  fine  generally  took  the  place  of  bodily 
punishment.  Further,  there  occurs  the  judicial  selling  of  a  guilty 
person  (11).  The  Pentateuch,  on  the  contrary,  knows  of  imprison- 
ment as  a  punishment  only  among  the  Egyptians  (Gen.  xxxix.  ff.), 
and  the  Mosaic  law  does  not  recognise  it  (though  certainly  at  a  later 
time  this  punishment  occurs  in  Israel  also) ;  in  Lev.  xxiv.  12, 
imprisonment  is  only  used  to  secure  the  man  for  the  time. — With 
what  emphasis  the  law  demands  stringent  and  impartial  administra- 
/ion  of  justice,  especially  with  reference  to  the  poor,  see  Ex.  xxiii. 
6-8,  Lev.  xix.  15,  Deut.  i.  16  f.,  and  other  passages  (12). 

(1)  I  follow   closely  Schnell's  excellent  discussion,  I.e.  p.  10  ff. 


§  99.]  THE  COURSE  OF  JUSTICE  AND  PUinSHMENT.  327 

The  delineation  of  these  topics  is  a  matter  for  lawyers,  and  It  is  to  be 
regretted  that  the  Mosaic  law  has  not  received  more  attention  from 
them. 

(2)  In  Deut.  xxi.  18  ff.,  it  is  ordained  that,  if  the  chastisement 
inflicted  on  a  reckless,  stubborn  son  is  without  result,  he  shall  be 
brought  by  the  parents  before  the  court  of  the  town,  and  be  put  to 
death  by  sentence  of  the  judge. — Schnell  continues,  I.e.  p.  11  :  "If 
the  heart  of  the  father  and  mother  consents  to  deliver  their  child  to 
the  judge  before  the  congregation  of  the  people,  this  is  more  than  all 
that  the  judges  need  to  know." — See  Saalschiitz,  I.e.  p.  588  f. ; 
Duschak,  Joseplms  and  the  Traditions,  1864,  p.  QQ  f.  (^Tr.  Sank.  chap. 
8),  on  the  provisions  made,  according  to  rabbinical  tradition,  to  pre- 
vent the  abuse  of  this  law.  Afterwards,  the  law  was  so  limited  that 
it  could  seldom  or  never  come  into  operation. 

(3)  This  point  is  excellently  discussed  in  the  paper,  "  Gottliches 
Recht  und  menschliche  Satzung,"  Basel  1839  :  "  There  are  wit- 
nesses of  God,  and  faithful  witnesses  ;  and  there  are  witnesses  who 
cannot  show  the  truth,  and  witnesses  who  must  be  put  to  shame. 
Therefore  the  judges  are  permitted  and  ordered  to  consider,  besides 
those  things  which  come  before  their  eyes,  other  points  which  may 
decide  whether  they  shall  require  the  evidence  of  two  or  of  three 
witnesses." 

(4)  Schnell,  I.e.  p.  12,  remarks:  "A  provision  which  gave  ground 
to  expect  that,  without  the  utmost  certainty  or  wickedness,  none  would 
be  a  witness." 

(5)  In  cases  of  voluntary  jurisdiction,  as  in  mercantile  contracts, 
the  witnesses  take  the  place  of  written  documents ;  comp.  the  narra- 
tive in  Gen.  xxiii.  12-16,  and  particularly  Ruth  iv.  9-11.  See  the 
later  regulations  as  to  evidence  in  courts  of  justice,  in  Tr.  Sanhedrin, 
iii.  3-6,  V.  1-4.     [Above-cited  article.] 

(6)  The  history  in  Judg.  xvii.  2  also  serves  in  elucidation.  [Above 
article.] — More  particulars  on  the  oath  in  §  113. 

(7)  On  this,  compare  the  later  discussion  on  adultery  (§  104),  and 
the  offering  of  jealousy  under  acts  of  purification  (§  143). 

(8)  We  may  find  in  Job  xiii.  26,  Isa.  x.  1,  a  trace  of  a  written 
record  of  judicial  sentences ;  the  latter  passage  may,  however,  also 
refer  to  general  unjust  decrees.     [Above-cited  article.} 

(9)  Compare  afterwards,  under  the  law  of  families,  what  is  said 
of  the  avenger  of  blood  (§  108),  and  on  the  terms  nJJtra  and  T3 
n»"i,  what  is  said  in  §  137. 

(10)  On  this,  too,  see  the  discussion  of  the  avenging  of  blood. 

(11)  See  §  110. 


328      THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.     [§  100. 

(12)  See  the  scattered  notices  in  the  other  Old  Testament  books 
on  matters  of  judgment  in  the  above-cited  article,  and  various  things 
in  the  historical  section  of  prophecy. 


;3.   THE  EXECUTIVE  POWER. 
§  100. 

The  Mosaic  theocracy  presents  the  peculiar  phenomenon  of  being 
originally  unacquainted  with  a  definite  office  for  executing  the  power 
of  the  state.  The  princes  of  the  tribes  (D''S''K'J),  spoken  of  in  Num. 
i.  16,  44,  vii.  2,  Ex.  xxxiv.  31,  and  elsewhere,  form  no  theocratic 
body  (1).  They  are  taken  from  the  C^i^t,  who  arose,  doubtless,  from 
the  heads  of  clans  and  families  (2).  The  latter  had,  indeed,  a 
judicial  position,  but  they  appear  mainly  as  representatives  of  the 
people  {^'}V.'}  ''^''")i?j  Num.  i.  16,  comp,  with  xvi.  2),  not  of  Jehovah. 
That  they  were  appointed  for  certain  services  always  rests  on  particular 
nomination.  Thus  the  committee  of  the  Seventy  was  formed,  who 
(Num.  xi.  16  ff.)  Avere  to  stand  by  Moses'  side  in  leading  the  people, 
but  who  nppear  to  have  existed  only  for  the  time  of  the  march  through 
the  wilderness,  though  the  Talmud  derives  the  origin  of  the  Synedrium 
from  them.  In  the  same  way,  twelve  chiefs  were  ordained  to  spy  out 
the  Holy  Land  (Num.  xiii,  2  ff.),  and  twelve  princes  were  called  to 
the  committee  formed  for  dividing  the  land,  xxxiv.  18  ff.  But  all 
this  constitutes  no  permanent  executive.  Jehovah  Himself  comes 
in  actively,  as  circumstances  demand,  in  immediate  revelation  of 
power,  in  order  to  execute  His  kingly  will  and  to  maintain  the 
covenant  law;  but  for  the  rest,  only  the  assurance  is  expressed  (Num. 
xxvii.  16  f.)  that  Jehovah  will  not  leave  His  congregation  as  a  flock 
without  a  shepherd,  but  will  always,  again  and  again,  appoint  a  leadei? 
over  them  and  equip  him  by  His  Spirit,  as  He  raised  up  Joshua  in 
Moses'  stead,  and  afterwards  the  judges. — This  want  of  a  regular 
executive  in  the  Mosaic  constitution  has  been  thought  very  remark- 
able (3).  It  has  been  thought  inconceivable  that  Moses  did  so  little 
for  the  execution  of  his  detailed  legislation — that  he  did  not  see  that 
without  a  supreme  authority  no  state  could  possibly  exist.  It  is  said 
that  this  contains  a  main  proof  that  the  whole  Mosaic  state,  as  it  is 
laid  before  us  in  the  Pentateuch,  is  only  an  unliistorical  abstraction. 


§  TOO.]  THE  EXECUTIVE  POWER.  329 

But  the  theocratic  constitution  does  not  rest  on  the  calculations  of  a 
clever  founder  of  a  religion,  but  on  the  stability  of  the  counsel  of 
revelation,  which  is  certain  of  its  realization  (in  spite  of  the  presumed 
inadequacy  of  the  earthly  institution) ;  that  want  just  shows  the 
strength  and  self-confidence  of  the  theocratic  principle.  Moreover, 
the  whole  history  of  the  people  in  the  time  of  the  judges  is  to  be 
understood  only  on  the  presupposition  that  there  was  no  established 
executive  power  in  the  State. 

Yet  Deuteronomy,  in  giving  the  law  of  a  king  in  chap.  xvii.  14-20, 
leaves  open  the  possibility  of  setting  up  an  earthly  kingship.  The 
real  future  existence  of  this  office  is,  then,  presupposed  in  xxviii.  36 
(comp.,  moreover,  the  previous  prophecy  in  Gen.  xvii.  6,  16,  xxxv.  11 ; 
Num.  xxiv.  17).  This  future  kingship  is,  however,  subjected  strictly 
to  the  theocratic  principle.  The  people  shall  only  set  over  them  as 
king  one  whom  Jehovah  shall  choose  out  of  their  midst.  The  kingly 
dignity  shall  indeed  be  confined  to  Israelites  by  descent,  but  not  to 
any  particular  privileged  family  (like  the  priesthood)  ;  while,  at  the 
same  time,  it  is  not  conferred  by  the  free  choice  of  the  people  (as 
the  Edomites,  for  example.  Gen.  xxxvi.  31-39,  must  have  had  such 
an  elective  kingship).  The  chosen  king  shall  "  not  keep  many  horses  " 
— that  is,  he  is  not  to  support  his  dominion  by  a  standing  army  (comp. 
Isa.  xxxi.  1) ;  he  shall  likewise  avoid  luxury  and  the  keeping  of  many 
wives.  He  is,  further,  not  to  regard  himself  as  the  people's  lawgiver, 
but  shall  take  the  divine  law  as  his  strict  rule,  "  that  his  heart  may 
not  be  lifted  up  above  his  brethren,  and  that  he  may  not  deviate  from 
the  command,  either  to  the  right  hand  or  the  left "  (4).  The  stability 
of  his  kingship  and  its  descent  to  his  children  are  to  depend  on  his 
obedience  to  the  law. — It  cannot  be  denied  that  the  law  of  the  king  in 
Deuteronomy,  inasmuch  as  it  claims  to  be  regarded  as  Mosaic,  is  a 
little  remarkable;  and  what  is  remarkable  in  it  is  not  that  Moses 
contemplated  in  general  the  institution  of  an  earthly  kingship,  for 
sufficient  occasion  for  this  is  contained  in  the  political  constitution  of 
"all  the  nations  around"  (Deut.  xvii.  14);  but  the  main  difficulty  is 
that,  not  to  speak  of  the  example  of  Gideon  (Judg.  viii.  23),  there  is 
no  express  reference  to  a  pre-existing  Mosaic  law  of  the  king  when 
Samuel  set  up  the  kingdom  (though  the  proceeding  then  was  quite 
in  the  spirit  of  the  law),  but  the  prerogative  of  the  king  was  first 


330   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.  [§  100. 

established  by  Samuel,  and  then  (1  Sam.  x.  25)  set  down  in  the  book 
which  is  before  Jehovah,  that  is,  the  book  of  the  law. 

Hence,  in  connection  with  the  supposition  that  the  law  in  Deutero- 
nomy is  of  more  modern  origin,  many  modern  theologians  regard 
the  law  of  the  king  as  a  later  production,  formed  on  the  model  of  the 
provisions  sketched  by  Samuel,  with  reference  to  the  unhappy  ex- 
periences of  the  time  of  Solomon  (5) ;  but  this  makes  it  difficult  to 
explain  why  a  later  writer  could  give  as  the  reason  of  the  law  for- 
bidding to  keep  horses  (Deut.  xvii.  16),  that  the  people  must  not  be 
brought  back  again  to  Egypt  (6). 

(1)  The  princes  of  the  tribes  were  also  called  the  heads  of  the 
tribes  (DT'^l,  Num.  xxx.  2  ;  Deut.  v.  20). 

(2)  The  elders  were  not  appointed  by  free  choice,  as  Winer,  in  the 
hihl.  Rcalworterhuch,  3d  ed.  i.  p.  50,  and  Kurtz,  Geschichte  des  A. 
Biindes,  ii.  p.  33,  have  supposed,  holding  the  view  that  the  elders 
form  in  a  certain  sense  the  personal  nobility,  or  nobility  of  merit,  in 
contrast  to  the  nobility  of  birlh,  the  princes  of  the  tribes.  See  the 
proof  for  the  view  in  the  text  in  my  article  "  Stiimme  Israels,"  in 
Herzog's  R.E.  xiv.  p.  771. 

(3)  Comp.  Vatke,  Religion  des  A.  71  p.  207  f. 

(4)  There  cannot  be  a  stronger  contrast  to  Oriental  despotism. 

(5)  Comp.  B,iehm,  die  Gesetzgebwig  Mosis  itn  Lande  Moah,  p.  81  if., 
and  against  him  Keil,  in  Havernick's  Introduction^  i.  2,  2d  ed.  p. 
473  f. 

(6)  Riehm,  I.e.  p.  100,  says  the  passage  points  to  a  time  when 
the  Egyptians  were  in  want  of  soldiers,  so  that  the  king  of  Israel 
could  only  get  horses  from  Egypt  on  the  condition  of  sending  Israelite 
foot-soldiers  there,  and  putting  them  at  the  disposal  of  the  king  of 
Egypt.  This  is  supposed  to  apply  to  the  time  of  Psammetichus.  This 
hypothesis  has  no  support  in  the  Old  Testament  [article,  "  Konige, 
Konigthum  in  Israel"]. — The  words  only  suit  a  time  in  which  the 
stay  in  Egypt  was  still  fresh  in  the  people's  memory,  and  so,  in  the  hard 
strufrdes  that  they  had  to  encounter,  could  reawaken  a  desire  towards 
the  habitation  they  had  quitted.  (Comp.  Hengstenberg,  Beitr.  zur 
Einl.  iii.  p.  247  f.) 


§  101.]  THE  SUBDIVISIONS  OF  THE  TRIBES.  331 


III.    THE  OKGANIZATION  OF  THE  FAMILY,  AND  THE  LEGAL 
PROVISIONS  CONNECTED  THEREWITH. 

§101. 

The  Suhdivisions  of  the  Tribes.     The  Principles  and  Division  of 
Mosaic  Family  Law. 

By  nature  the  tribes  fall  into  clans  (nins'^b,  LXX.  Sfjfiot,  or 
D''S?X)  (1)  ;  these  into  families  or  houses  (^''^3,  oIicol\  generally  called 
fathers  houses  (^nx  JT'a)  ;  then  follow  the  various  householders 
(D''"}2a),  with  those  that  belong  to  them.  See  the  most  distinct 
passage,  Josh.  vii.  14,  17  f.,  and  also  especially  Num.  i.  2,  18,  also 
Ex.  vi.  14.  The  term  ninx  n^3,  "  fathers'  houses "  (not  "  father's 
house,"  as  Clericus  and  others  liave  understood  it),  is  to  be  regarded  as 
\  plural  of  the  less  common  singular,  3X  n^3  (2).  Beside  this  meaning 
of  3X  n''3,  which  is  unquestionable,  from  the  already-cited  passages  and 
others,  such  as  1  Ciiron.  vii.  7,  40,  there  is  another  sense  of  the  word, 
which  is,  however,  disputed.  On  the  one  view,  father  s  house  is  a 
relative  idea  of  general  application,  like  our  "  family  "  or  "  house  ; " 
designating  a  community  which  has  a  common  father,  it  may,  it  is 
said,  designate  whole  tribes  (Num.  xvii.  17  ;  Josh.  xxii.  14),  and  also 
may  stand  for  a  i^HBti^p  (3) ;  comp.  Num.  iii.  24,  30,  35,  and  other  pas- 
sages. On  the  other  view,  3^  n^B^  in  passages  of  this  sort — and  this 
is  probably  the  original  meaning — designates  particularly  that  family 
which  held  the  principality  in  each  tribe  and  race  as  the  family  of 
the  first-born  (so  that  the  representatives  of  tribes  might  be  called  also 
heads  of  the  houses  of  the  father)  (4). 

The  principles  of  the  Mosaic  law  of  families  are  the  following : — 
Each  family  forms  a  self-contained  whole,  which,  as  far  as  possible, 
is  to  be  preserved  in  its  integrity.  Each  Israelite  is  a  citizen  of  the 
theocracy  only  by  being  incorporated  in  a  certain  clan  of  the  cove- 
nant people ;  hence  the  value  of  genealogical  trees.  The  representa- 
tion of  the  family  descends  in  the  male  line,  and  therefore  marriages 
between  the  various  tribes  and  families  are  of  course  allowed.  On 
the  contrary,  if  the  male  line  has  died  out,  the  female  line  receives 
independent  recognition  for  the  preservation  of  the  family,  in  order 
that  no  family  in  Israel  m-iy  perish  (a  thing  which  is  regarded  as  a 


332   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.  [§  101. 

special  divine  judgment).     The  separation  of  fainiJy  possessions  is 
based  on  the  separation  of  the  families  themselves. 

The  following  points  are  the  most  important  for  biblical  theology : 
— 1.  The  law  of  marriage;  2.  The  relation  of  parents  and  children; 
3.  The  law  of  inheritance,  and  the  provisions  touching  the  continu- 
ance of  a  family  and  its  possessions  (the  avenging  of  blood  goes  along 
with  this) ;  4.  The  right  of  servants  (5). 

(1)  With  reference  to  the  expression  D''S^S,  thousands,  see  in 
particular  1  Sam.  x.  19,  comp.  with  ver.  21.  It  is  probable  that  this 
designation  arose  from  Moses  having  followed,  as  much  as  possible, 
the  natural  organization  of  the  tribes  when,  according  to  Ex.  xviii. 
25,  he  divided  the  people  by  thousands,  hundreds,  etc.  (§  98),  for 
the  purpose  of  the  administration  of  justice.  [Article,  "  Stliuime 
Israels."] 

(2)  The  term  is  thus  a  sort  of  compound;  comp.  Ewald,  Aiifif. 
Lehvh.  8th  ed.  §  270c.  Thus,  in  2  Kings  xvii.  29,  32,  nion  n*^3 
means  houses  of  high  places. — When  ''ti'J^'i  precedes,  the  shorter  form 
rii3X  is  sometimes  used  instead  of  nux  n''^  (Num.  xxxvi.  1 ;  1  Chron. 
vii.  11 ;  comp.  with  ver.  9,  viii.  10,  13,  etc.)  [in  the  article  cited  above] 

(3)  As  also  '^nQK'O  is  frequently  used  in  a  wider,  and  ^y^  (Num. 
iv.  18  ;  Judg.  xx.  12)  in  a  narrower  sense  [in  the  article  cited  above]. 

(4)  The  controversy  is  difficult  to  decide,  and  we  cannr)t  here 
enter  into  it  particularly.  For  the  former  view,  comp.  Knobel  on 
Ex.  vi.  14 ;  this  is  the  most  common  view.  In  reference  to  the  latter 
view,  which  is,  I  believe,  the  right  one,  see,  in  particular,  Keil's 
thorough  discussion  in  his  hibl.  ArcliCtol.  ii.  pp.  197,  201  ff. — A  certain 
number  of  heads  was  probably  requisite  to  obtain  the  rank  of  a  clan 
or  father's  house;  for  in  1  Chron.  xxiii.  11  it  is  said,  in  reference  to 
two  descendants  of  a  Levitical  race,  that  they  were  united  into  one 
paternal  house  on  account  of  the  small  number  of  their  children; 
comp.,  too,  Mic.  v.  1.  The  number  of  one  thousand  men  able  to  go 
to  war  (see  note  1)  may  have  been  the  minimuui  size  of  a  clan.  But 
the  clans  must  have  been  much  larger  at  the  numbering  of  the  people 
recounted  in  Num.  xxvi.,  when  the  people  (without  counting  the  tribe 
of  Levi,  which  was  not  mustered)  were  divided  into  fifty-seven  clans. 
— The  subdivisions  of  the  people  were  mainly  formed  on  the  principle, 
that  as  the  tribes  sprang  from  Jacob's  sons,  so  the  clans  sprang  from 
his  grandchildren,  and  the  father's  houses  from  his  great-grandchildren. 
However,  it  lay  in  the  nature  of  the  thing  that  this  original  relation- 
sliip  was  modified  in  many  ways  in  the  course  of  time.     Some  clans 


§  102.]  THE  LAW  OF  SIARRIAGE,  333 

clisappeared,  wliile  from  others  new  ones  were  formed,  in  ways  for 
which  no  fixed  principle  can  be  found,  and  wliieh  were  doubtless 
modified  by  very  various  circumstances. — Examples  to  illustrate  the 
above  propositions  in  the  above-cited  article,  p.  770. 

(5)  If  we  were  discussing  a  system  of  modern  law,  we  should 
indeed  select  a  very  different  division  ;  but  the  Theolofju  of  the  Old 
Testament  must  explain  the  law  as  much  as  possible  in  the  real  con- 
nection in  which  it  appears  in  the  legislation  itself. 

1.    THE  LAW  OF  MARRIAGE. 

§102. 

(a)   TJie  Conclusion  of  Marriage :  the  Dependent  Position  of  the  Wlje, 
and  the  Forms  of  Marriage  Contract. 

In  the  Mosaic  law,  woman  appears  not,  indeed,  in  the  position 
of  degradation  which  she  has  among  most  other  Oriental  nations,  but 
still  dependent,  inasmuch  as  her  will  is  subject  before  marriage  to  the 
will  of  her  father,  and  after  marriage  to  the  will  of  her  husband  ;  only 
when  this  tie  is  loosed  does  the  wife  hold  a  position  of  relative  inde- 
pendence. This  principle  comes  out  with  special  clearness  in  the  law 
about  vows.  Num.  xxx.  4-10  (comp.  §  134,  with  note  10). 

The  concluding  of  a  marriage  is  generally  supposed  to  have  rested 
on  a  contract  made  between  the  parents  of  the  bride  and  bridegroom, 
in  virtue  of  which  a  price  had  to  be  paid  to  the  father  of  the  bride  for 
his  daughter,  "inb  (generally  translated  "dowry")  (and  so  the  principle 
just  stated  comes  out  even  in  the  making  of  the  marriage).  Accord- 
ing to  others,  on  the  contrary  (1),  no  such  selling  took  place,  and 
"tnb  means  the  present  sent  to  the  bride  by  the  bridegroom,  to  which 
were  added  other  presents  called  nij'nja  or  1^^^^  for  the  kinsfolk  of  the 
bride.  Certainly  this  is  the  manner  of  procedure  in  Gen.  xxiv.  53, 
with  which  we  may  compare  xxxiv.  12;  and  in  xxiv.  58  the  consent 
of  the  eldest  brother  and  the  bride  herself  is  demanded,  besides  that  of 
the  parents  (2).  Further,  if  the  example  of  Jacob's  wooing  and  his 
treatment  by  Laban  are  adduced  in  favour  of  the  dominant  view,  the 
opposite  opinion  appeals  to  Gen.  xxxi.  15,  whei'e  Laban's  daughters 
complain  that  their  father  has  treated  them  like  strangers,  and  wasted 
their  money  (I35p3).  But  not  only  does  1  Sam.  xviii.  25  speak  for 
the  view  that  the  Mohar  was  given  to  the  father,  but  also  the  passages 


334      THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.     [§  103 

Ex.  xxii.  16,  Deut.  xxii.  29  (in  which,  in  the  case  of  a  maiden  being 
forced,  the  Mohar  was  given  to  the  father),  as  well  as  the  circumstance 
that,  Ex.  xxi.  7,  the  father  had  the  right  to  sell  his  daughter  formally 
to  another,  who  wished  her  either  for  his  own  wife  or  for  his  son's 
wife  (3).  It  is  most  probable  that  various  forms  of  marriage  contract 
subsisted  side  by  side  (4),  and  that  the  nobler  form  is  to  be  looked  upon 
as  having  come  down  from  patriarchal  times.  As  a  rule,  the  wife  did 
not  bring  property  into  the  marriage,  for  by  the  law  property  rests 
with  the  husband.  Heiresses  are  exceptions,  as  we  shall  see  later 
(§  106).  Still  at  least  one  example  of  a  dowry  is  mentioned  in  Josh. 
XV.  18  f.  The  law  does  not  command  a  religious  consecration  of  the 
matrimonial  tie;  but  it  is  clear  from  Mai.  ii.  14  that  marriage  was  to 
be  regarded  as  a  divinely  sanctioned  tie.  Purity  of  entrance  into 
the  married  state  is  guarded  by  such  laws  as  Deut.  xxxii.  13  ff.  and 
ver.  28  f.  Owing  to  the  wife's  dependent  state,  marriage  with  women 
not  Israelites  could  not  in  general  be  specially  objected  to ;  compare 
the  law  on  marriage  with  virgins  taken  in  war,  Deut.  xxi.  10-13 
(even  Moses  himself  had  a  Cushite  as  wife,  Num.  xii.  1);  only 
marriage  with  Canaanite  women  was  absolutely  forbidden,  Ex.  xxxiv. 
16,  Deut.  vii.  3.  The  wife's  dependent  place  favoured  the  spread  of 
polygamy,  although,  as  has  been  already  remarked  (§  69),  this  was  in 
contradiction  to  the  Mosaic  idea  of  marriage.  It  is  nowhere  expressly 
approved,  but  only  limited  by  the  provisions  Lev.  xviii.  18  (comp.  §  69, 
2).  In  the  same  way,  it  is  forbidden  by  the  law,  Ex.  xxi.  10  f.,  to  allow 
the  rio-hts  of  the  first  married  wife  to  suffer  by  a  later  marriage. 

(1)  So,  for  example,  following  Saalschiitz,  Keil,  Archdologie,  ii. 
p.  67  ff. 

(2)  Gen.  xxiv.  58  :  "  Wilt  thou  go  with  the  man?— I  will  go." 

(3)  Particulars  on  Ex.  xxi.  7,  what  is  to  be  said  on  the  rights  of 
servants  (§  110). 

(4)  Even  Roman  law  knows  various  forms  of  marriage  engage- 
ment. 

§103. 

Continuation. — Bars  to  Marriage  (1). 

In  the  Mosaic  law  of  marriage,  the   provisions  about  obstacles 
to   marriage — which  stand  in  express  contrast  to  the  depravity  of 


§  103.]  BARS  TO  MARRIAGE.  ooO 

Canaanite  cand  Egyptian  heathenism  (Lev.  xviii.  3,  24,  xx.  23;,  and 
in  which  the  moral  earnestness  of  the  Mosaic  law  is  brought  out — 
occupy  an  important  place.     These  provisions  are  contained  in  Lev. 
xviii.  6-18,  XX.  11-21  ;    to  which  are   added  Deut.  xxvii.  20,  22  f. 
All  marriages  with  near  relations  are  forbidden,  and  that  not  only 
with   blood    relations,    but    also    with    connections   by    affinity.      In 
reference  to  blood  relationship,  the  principle  laid  down  is  (Lev.  xviii. 
6),  n-)pn  i6  iibn  nXvi^'b-^S  B'''K  ^^ii.      We  see  here  that  the  word 
"iNt^  (flesh)  stands  directly  for  a  blood  relation,  e.g.  ver.  12,  etc. ;  and 
nnsti'  is  a  designation  of  blood  relationship,  ver.  17.      Marriage  is  for- 
bidden beween  parents  and  children,  grandparents  and  grandchildren; 
also  between  brothers  and  sisters — as  well  between  half  as  full  brotlier 
and  sister  ;  likewise  marriage  with  the  sister  of  the  father  and  mother, 
but  not  marriage  between  uncle  and  niece,  is  forbidden  (Lev.  xviii. 
6-13).     Nevertheless,  marriage  with  an  aunt  is  not  treated  as  a  crime 
worthy  of  death,  like  the  rest ;  it  is  only  said,  Lev.  xx.  19,  "  they  shall 
bear  their  iniquity."     But  the  punishment  of  death  was  appointed  for 
the  other  forbidden  marriages,  xx.  17 ;  comp.  Deut.  xxvii.  22.     The 
history  of  Tamar,  in  2  Sam.  xiii.  13,  raises  a  difficulty,  because  there 
marriage  with  a  half-sister  seems  to  be  looked  on  as  permitted.     Pro- 
bably the  words  are  only  to  be  understood  as  an  attempt  at  escape  on 
the  part  of  Tamar  (2). — Among  connections  by  affinity  (Lev.  xviii. 
8,  14  ff.)  marriage  is  forbidden — 1.  with  a  step-mother,  step-daughter, 
step-grandchild,  mother-in-law,  and  daughter-in-law.     These  are 
punished  by  death.  Lev.  xx.  11-14  ;    comp.  Deut.  xxvii.  20,  23.     2. 
Marriage   with   an   uncle's   widow  on   the  father's   side,  and  with  a 
brother's  widow — the  latter  with  the  exception  of  the  Levirate  mar- 
riage (on  this  later,  §  106) — that  is,  if  the  brother  has  left  children  by 
his  wife.     Over  those  last-named  marriages  impends  the  punishment 
of  childlessness,  which  is  not  to  be  understood,  with  J.  D.  Michaeli?, 
Mos.  BecJd,  V.  p.  190,  as  referring  to  civil  childlessness — that  is,  that 
the  children  of  such  a  marriage  were  not  reckoned  to  their  real  father, 
but  to  his  dead  brother  or  his  father's  brothei",  but  is  rather  to  be 
regarded  as  the  actual  withdrawal  of  the  blessing  of  children  threat- 
ened by  God,  so  that  no  judicial  act  has  place. — Marriage  with  the 
widow  of  a  mother's  brother,  and  a  wife's  sister  after  the  wife's  death, 
was  allowed  ;    for  the  prohibition  mentioned  in  §  102,  Lev.  xviii.  18 


336   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCKACY.  [§  103. 

(that  a  man  may  not  marry  two  sisters),  refers  expressly  only  to  the 
time  when  the  wife  still  lives;  marrying  both  at  the  same  time, as  tlie 
patriarch  Jacob  did,  was  forbidden  (3). 

Wherein  lies  the  ground  of  tliese  provisions  of  the  law  ?  They 
may  appear  in  part  remarkable,  since  the  Pentateuch  gives  instances  of 
such  marriages  from  very  early  history,  and  even  relates  that  Abraham 
married  a  half-sister,  for  this  is  the  most  j)robable  view  of  his  relation 
to  Sarah  (4).  Michaelis  {I.e.  p.  178  ff.)  takes  the  view  that  such  pro- 
hibitions had  only  the  purpose  of  preventing  the  seduction  of  persons 
living  together  in  one  house  ;  but  this  is  certainly  wrong,  for  in  this 
case  such  marriages  would  not  be  sliameful  in  themselves,  as  they  are 
called  njsr  (Lev.  xvlii.  17,  xx.  14,  etc.),  an  expression  which  properly 
means  a  design,  malice,  but  is  used  in  the  Old  Testament  of  gross  crime  ; 
and  further,  IDH,  outrage,  xx.  17  (in  the  Aramaic  use  of  the  word),  ^?r), 
ver.  12.  Even  reference  to  the  liorror  naturalis  is  not  sufficient ;  for, 
as  several  heathen  nations  allowed  marriages  with  the  nearest  blood  re- 
lations  (as  Lev.  xviii.  3,  24,  this  is  mentioned  as  customary  among  the 
Egyptians  and  Canaanites),  it  is  manifest  that  it  is  in  the  first  instance 
a  moral  horror  that  must  prevent  such  marriages,  and  that  the  feeling 
that  is  called  horror  naturalis  proceeds  only  from  this.  The  moral 
ground  for  the  prohibition  can  be  no  other  than  that  a  moral  fellowship 
is  already  constituted  through  the  natural  forms  of  near  relationship, 
which  would  be  disturbed  by  the  matrimonial  bond.  Parental  and 
brotherly  love  on  the  one  side,  and  the  love  of  married  persons  on  the 
other,  are  so  specifically  different,  that  by  mixing  the  two  neither  can 
find  full  and  holy  development.  The  one  moral  relationship  is  sacri- 
ficed, without  the  other  being  really  called  into  existence  (5).  As  far 
as  a  definitely  marked  moral  relation  is  constituted  by  relationship,  so 
far  does  the  prohibition  reach  not  to  mingle  it  with  marriage  connec- 
tion. Even  the  marriage  of  a  nephew  with  the  sister  of  the  father  or 
mother  breaks  up  a  natural  relationship  of  piety,  since  the  man  ought 
to  be  the  head  of  the  woman  ;  but  not  so  the  marriage  of  an  uncle  and 
niece.  The  circumstance  that  marriage  is  forbidden  with  a  father's 
brother's  widow,  and  not  with  a  mother's  brother's  widow,  is,  I  believe, 
to  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  the  father's  brother  stands  in  a  posi- 
tion of  higher  authority  towards  the  nephew  than  does  the  mother's 
brother,  in  virtue  of  the  value  which  the  husband's  side  has  in  the 


§  103]  BAHS  TO  MARRIAGE.  337 

family. — With  the  reason  just  stated  is  connected  the  further  reason 
already  given  by  Augustine  (fi),  that  by  divine  ordinance  the  moral 
fellowship  of  mankind  was  to  be  realized  in  a  multiplicity  of  forms. 
In  ancient  times  this  purpose  was  served  by  the  marriage  of  brother 
and  sister ;  indeed,  that  was  the  only  means  of  realizing  it.  But  Abra- 
ham's marriage  with  his  half-sister,  if  Sarah  really  was  such,  seems, 
from  the  Mosaic  standpoint,  to  have  been  justified  mainly  because 
through  it  alone  the  pollution  of  the  race  of  revelation  by  heathen 
elements  was  prevented  ;  comp.  Gen.  xxiv.  3  (7). 

(1)  The  provisions  on  this  point  are  given  in  the  Old  Testament 
in  full  detail.  Biblical  theology  must,  of  course,  here  confine  itself 
rigidly  to  what  is  expressly  stated.  When  Thiersch  (^Das  Verbot  der 
Eke  in  zu  naher  Venoandtschaft,  1869)  proceeds  on  the  supposition 
that  the  law  gives  concrete  provisions,  from  which  other  provisions 
are  to  be  deduced,  this  is  quite  I'ight  in  itself  (and,  indeed,  is  true  of 
the  whole  Mosaic  law).  But  if  we  will  make  deductions  from  the 
provisions  in  the  Mosaic  law  of  bars  to  marriage,  the  question  is 
whether  we  hit  the  right  principle ;  and  here,  I  believe,  Thiersch  has 
failed. 

(2)  So  Keil,  following  Clericus  :  Tamar  only  says  it,  "  ut  e  manibus 
ejus  quacunque  ratione  posset,  elaberetur." — Thus  the  words  cannot 
be  used  for  archgeological  purposes.  The  explanation  of  Thenius, 
that  the  law  onlv  forbids  fornication  between  half-sisters,  not  recular 
marriages,  is  incorrect. 

(3)  This  is  the  famous  point  of  controversy  so  often  discussed  in  the 
English  Parliament.  But  there  can  be  no  doubt  upon  the  matter  what- 
ever. All  the  arguments  brought  to  prove  that  marriage  with  the  sister 
of  a  dead  wife  is,  according  to  Mosaisni,  a  sin,  and  the  analogies  on  which 
this  conclusion  is  based  (e.g.  by  O.  v.  Gerlach),  are  quite  worthless, — 
Difficult  is  I^V?  in  Lev.  xviii.  18.     Many,  as  Gesenius,  give  the  word 

a  sense  not  elsewhere  found  in  Hebrew  (but  in  Arabic,  ^)  :  "  ita  ut 
zelotypce  fiant,  una  alterius  semula  sit,"  "to  jealousy  ;"  but  it  is  pro- 
bably to  be  taken  in  a  wider  sense,  "  to  hostility"  (Keil  makes  it,  "  to 
tie  them  together,"  supposing  this  to  mean  an  unnatural  breach  of 
the  sisterly  relation  !). 

(4)  It  is  true  that  the  rabbis  and  Calvin,  as  well  as  some  moderns, 
viz.  Hengstenberg,  do  not  admit  this.  It  is  well  known  that  the  view 
that  Abraham  was  married  to  a  half-sister  is  based  on  what  he  said  to 
Abimelecli,  Gen.  xx.    12:    "And  yet,  indeed,  she  is  my  sister,  the 

VOL.   I.  Y 


338      THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.     [§  103. 

(lautTJiter  of  my  father,  though  not  the  daughter  of  my  motlier."  On 
the  other  hand,  it  is  urged  that  there  is  nothing  about  this  in  the 
earlier  passages  (xi.  29)  ;  and  it  is  maintained  by  the  rabbis  and  others 
that  Sarah  was  the  same  as  Iscah,  xi.  29,  and  was  thus  a  sister  of 
Milcah,  daughter  of  Haran,  and  Abraham's  niece,  and  that  Abraham 
called  her  sister  quite  in  the  same  way  as  he  calls  his  nephew  Lot  his 
brother.  There  is  no  doubt  as  to  this  idiom,  but  it  is  certainly  quite 
arbitrary  to  identify  Iscah  with  Sarah.  If  it  be  asked,  why,  then, 
Iscah  is  named  at  all,  the  answer  is,  that  this  is  done  simply  for  the 
sake  of  completeness ;  in  any  case,  there  is  nothing  said  about  the 
identity  of  the  two. 

(5)  Comp.  Nitzsch,  System  clcr  christl.  Lehre,  §  174 :  "  Matri- 
monial love  must  not  destroy  or  perplex  that  to  which  it  is  itself 
traceable,  and  which  it  wishes  to  reproduce  and  propagate." 

(6)  Augustine,  de  civ.  Dei,  xv.  16  :  "Habita  est  ratio  rectisslma 
caritatis,  ut  homines,  quibusesset  utilis  atque  honesta  concordia,  diver- 
sarum  necessitudinum  vinculis  necterentur  ;  nee  unus  in  uno  multas 
haberet,  sed  singulse  spargerentur  in  singulos  ;  ac  si  ad  socialeni  vitam 
diligentius  colligandam  plurimge  plurimos  obtinerent." 

(7)  The  further  discussion  of  this  topic  does  not  belong  to  biblical 
theology,  but  partly  to  ethic  and  partly  to  church  law.  On  the  whole 
subject,  compare  especially  the  excellent  essay  in  the  Evangel.  Kirchcn- 
zeitung^  1840,  the  June  and  July  number,  p.  369  ff. :  "  Ueber  die  ver- 
botenen  Ehen  in  der  Verwandtschaft." — Among  the  marriage  laws  of 
the  ancient  nations,  that  of  Rome  corresponds  best  with  that  of  the 
Old  Testament,  and  is  even  in  some  respects  more  rigorous.  See 
Kossbach,  Untersucliungen  richer  die  romische  Ehe,  p.  420  ff.  The 
principle  on  which  marriages  are  forbidden  is  very  clearly  expressed 
in  Roman  law ;  it  lies  in  the  patria  potestas.  The  son  remained 
under  the  father's  power  until  the  father's  death ;  grandsons  and 
granddaughters  honoured  their  grandfather  as  their  father.  Thus 
the  children  of  brethren  took  the  position  of  brothers  and  sisters,  and 
hence,  apparently,  the  marriage  of  cousins  (consobrini)  was  not 
allowed  in  older  times.  Roman  law  also  absolutely  prohibited  mar- 
riage with  the  offspring  of  a  brother  or  sister  ;  even  marriage  between 
uncle  and  niece  was  forbidden.  However,  in  the  year  49  A.D.,  this 
marriage,  which  was  counted  incest  until  then,  was  allowed  by  a 
senatus-consultum  because  Claudius  wished  to  marry  Agrippina,  the 
daughter  of  his  brother  Germanicus. 


§  104.]  THE  DISSOLUTION  OF  MARKIAGE.  ij39 


§104. 
(b)   The  Dissolution  of  Marriage. 

The  laws  toucliing  the  dissolution  of  marriage  also  show  how 
greatly  the  personal  right  of  the  wife  is  suppressed  in  the  Mosaic 
law.  The  dissolution  of  marriage  can  take  jilace  in  two  ways : — 1. 
By  the  real  disruption  of  the  matrimonial  bond  by  the  sin  of  adul- 
tery; 2.  By  a  separation  drawn  up  in  a  definite  form. 

1.  In  the  Mosaic  law,  adultery  is  so  understood  that  it  is  only 
committed  through  the  unchastity  of  a  wife.  Thus,  on  the  })art  of 
the  husband,  adultery  is  committed  only  when  he  dishonours  the  free 
wife  of  another  ;  in  this  case  both  are  to  be  punished  with  death 
(Lev.  XX.  10;  Deut.  xxii.  22).  If,  on  the  contrary,  the  adulteress  was 
only  another's  slave,  the  punishment  was  milder.  Lev.  xix.  20-22 
(probably  corporal  punishment).  Otherwise,  the  crime  of  adultery 
could  not  occur  on  the  part  of  a  husband,  for  the  wife  had  no  ex- 
ckisive  right  to  him  whatever.  Tiierefore  by  simi>le  unchastity  he 
offends  indeed  against  the  law  which  condemns  as  an  abomination  all 
fornication,  and  especially  such  prostitution  as  was  committed  among 
tlie  neighbouring  heathen  nations  in  honour  of  their  divinity  (Lev. 
xix.  29  ;  Deut.  xxiii.  18),  but  not  against  his  wife.  On  the  contrary,  the 
breach  by  the  wife  of  the  obligations  of  marriage  was  unconditionally 
adultery.  If  a  woman  was  suspected  of  adultery  without  being  taken 
in  the  act,  and  if  no  testimony  could  be  brought  to  prove  the  offence, 
it  was  to  be  decided  whether  she  was  guilty  or  not  guilty  by  a  formal 
oath  at  the  sanctuary,  and  the  drinking  of  the  water  of  the  curse, 
since  under  the  circumstances  a  judicial  action  could  not  be  brought ; 
comp.  Num.  v.  11-31  (1).  The  effect  to  be  produced  by  the  water 
of  the  curse  on  the  guilty  wife — the  swelling  of  the  belly  and 
decaying  of  the  thigh  (which  Josephus  makes  the  dislocation  of  the 
right  thigh) — corresponds  to  the  jus  talionis  (2).  Ver.  27  does  not 
say  that  the  sentence  of  God  shall  be  manifested  on  the  spot  (as  was 
the  assumption  in  the  German  ordeals).  But  we  must  suppose  an 
effect  which  could  only  be  traced  to  drinking  of  the  water  of  the 
curse,  and  which  followed  speedily  thereupon,  as  otherwise  there 
would  have  been  no  sure  mark  by  which  to  clear  guiltless  wives. 


340      THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.      [§  101 

The  law  rests  on  the  assurance  tliat  the  living  God,  who  dwells  in  the 
midst  of  His  people,  will  really  acknowledge  the  solemn  invocation  of 
His  name  at  His  own  command  (3). 

2.  Divorce  (n^nns).  The  right  of  divorce  belongs  to  the  husband 
only  ;  thus  divorce  is  also  called  dismissal  of  a  wife  (nE'S  rh^)  (4). 
The  right  of  the  husband  to  dismiss  his  wife  is  nevertheless  not  for- 
mally sanctioned  by  the  law,  but  is  presupposed  as  existing  and 
limited,  not  only  by  the  law  in  Dent.  xxii.  19,  29,  but  also  (on  this 
see  below)  even  in  the  law  of  separation  in  Deut.  xxiv.,  by  the  addi- 
tion "13"^  nny.  The  proper  aim  of  the  law  (Dent.  xxiv.  1  ff.)  lies  in 
the  closing  sentence,  ver.  4.  Ver.  1  does  not  contain  a  command, 
and  even  its  last  clause  belongs  to  the  conditional  clause  (5).  The 
Pharisees  indeed  say  (Matt.  xix.  7)  :  Tl  ovv  Mo)vcrr]<i  ivereiXaro 
hovvai  /3t/3\Lov  aTrocnaaiov  koI  dTroXvaat  avTJ]V ;  but  the  Lord 
answers,  ver.  8  :  '  Ort  ikTwi/cr?}?  Trpo?  rrjv  aKkripoKaphiav  vjxwv  iire- 
rpe^^ev  v/mlp  aTToXvaai  ra?  <yvvalKa^  vjxoov.  However,  it  is  implied  in 
the  presuppositions  enumerated  in  Deut.  xxiv.  1  that  this  process 
was  to  be  necessary  in  cases  of  divorce.  Since  the  formal  making 
out  of  a  bill  of  divorcement  (nn^"]2  "iDD,  ver.  1)  was  requisite  for  the 
carrying  out  of  a  divorce,  this  might  at  least  often  prevent  a  too 
hasty  repudiation.  The  passage  assigns  as  the  ground  which  renders 
divorce  admissible  "IHT  m~iy — that  is,  "  shamefulness  of  a  thing." 
There  existed  among  the  Rabbis  two  different  views  about  the  meaning 
of  this  expression.  The  school  of  Hillel  understood  the  expression  to 
mean  any  matter  of  offence  (6).  The  school  of  Shammai,  on  the 
contrary,  did  not,  indeed,  as  has  frequently  been  erroneously  said,  in- 
terpret the  expression  simply  of  adultery.  Real  adultery  is  not  to  be 
thought  of,  because  in  that  case  not  separation  but  punishment 
followed  ;  but  they  referred  it  to  really  disgraceful  conduct,  such  as 
unchaste  behaviour  and  the  like.  It  is  not  to  be  admitted  that  Hillel 
(as  many  archaeologists  say)  has  hit  tlie  meaning  of  the  law  more 
correctly.  The  expression  must  certainly  refer  to  something  loath- 
some, comp.  Deut.  xxiii.  15  (7).  If  the  divorced  woman  married 
another  man,  she  might  not,  on  his  death,  or  on  being  separated  from 
him,  re-marry  the  first  one,  Deut.  xxiv.  3  f.  compared  with  Jer.  iii.  1. 
In  David's  conduct,  recounted  in  2  Sam.  iii.  14  ff.  (that  David  took 
again  Michal,  whom  Saul  had  given  to  anothei),  there  is  no  offence 


§  lOi.]  THE  DISSOLUTION  OF  MARRIAGE.  341 

against  the  letter  of  the  law  ;  for  David  had  not  separated  himself 
from  Michal,  but  she  was  unfairly  torn  away  from  him,  1  Sam.  xxv. 
44.  Nevertheless  Saalschiitz  {I.e.  p.  802)  rightly  remarks  that  David's 
conduct  can  hardly  be  regarded  as  consonant  with  the  spirit  of  the 
law.  The  law  does  not  say  whether  the  divorce  might  be  taken  back 
if  the  divorced  wife  did  not  marry  again.  Probably  that  was  lawful. 
It  is  clear  that  this  whole  matter  of  divorce  does  not  correspond 
with  the  idea  of  marriage  proper  to  the  Old  Testament,  and  already 
expounded  by  us  (§  G9,  2)  ;  and  this  is  expressly  set  forth  by  Christ 
in  Matt.  xix.  8.  Also,  in  Mai.  ii.  10-16,  divorce  is  treated  as  a  breach 
of  faith  :  "  I  hate  putting  away,  saith  Jehovah  the  God  of  Israel " 
(ver.  16). 

(1)  Comp.  the  subsequent  discussion  of  the  offering  of  jealousy 
in  the  part  on  Cultus  (§  143,  1),  and  my  article,  "Eiferopfer,"  in 
Plerzog's  R.E.  xix.  p.  472  ff. 

(2)  She  shall  receive  her  piniisliment  in  the  organs  with  wliich 
she  has  committed  sin.  That  nnv,  as  Ewald  (^Alterth.  des  Vulkes 
Israel,  1st  ed.  p.  187,  3d  ed.  p.  274)  supposes,  does  not  simply 
mean  the  swelling,  but  also  its  consequence,  bursting,  cannot  be 
proved.  Moreover,  we  cannot  make  out  from  the  text  how  the  swell- 
ing of  the  body  is  to  be  understood  pathologically.  Josephus  calls 
it  a  dropsy,  with  fatal  effects  ;  J.  D.  Michael  is  would  understand  by  it 
more  particularly  the  hydrops  ovarii.  Certainly,  as  is  clear  from  the 
contrast  in  ver.  28,  a  disease  is  meant  which  involves  unfruitfulness ; 
but  it  is  quite  inadmissible  to  refer  the  words  in  wliich  this  punish- 
ment is  threatened  simply  to  unfruitfulness  [in  above-cited  article]. 

(3)  The  punishment  of  the  adulteress  lay  in  the  effect  of  the 
water  of  the  curse  ;  the  purpose  of  the  divine  decision  is  not  that  the 
convicted  person  may  be  then  handed  over  to  human  judgment,  for 
the  execution  of  the  punishment  appointed  for  adultery  in  Lev.  xx. 
10,  Deut.  xxii.  22. — This  law  is  one  of  the  number  of  regulations 
tiirough  which  the  purity  of  family  life  was  to  be  protected.  Yet  it 
has  its  special  aim,  not  merely  in  frightening  frivolous  women  from 
leading  a  dissolute  life,  but,  as  Theodoret  correctly  observes  on  this 
passage,  is  meant  at  the  same  time  to  set  bounds  to  the  wrath  of  the 
jealous  husband,  who  (comp.  Prov.  vi.  34)  is  capable  of  any  violence, 
by  withdrawing  from  him  the  right  of  taking  the  vindication  of  his 
interests  into  his  own  hand  in  a  matter  in  which  a  blind  passion  is  so 
easily  kindled,  and  by  compelling  him  to  make  his  suspicion  submit 
to  the  judgment  of  the  omniscient  God.     In  so  far,  also,  the  law  aims 


342   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCHACY.  [§  105. 

at  protecting  the  wife  against  a  groundless  jealousy  on  the  part  of 
the  husband  ;  only  it  is  not  said  that  the  woman  herself  niav  claim 
to  drink  the  water  of  the  curse  in  order  to  her  justification  [in  the 
article  already  cited]. 

(4)  According  to  the  rabbinical  view  (see  Saalscliiitz,  mos.  Becht, 
p.  806),  it  did  not  need  to  be  explained  tliat  the  wife  to  whom  her 
husband  denied  what  is  commanded  in  Ex.  xxi.  10  might  demand 
separation. 

(5)  Deut.  xxiv.  1  ff . :  "When  a  man  hath  taken  a  wife,  and 
married  her,  and  it  come  to  pass  that  she  find  no  favour  in  his  eyes, 
because  he  hath  found  some  uncleanness  in  her," — then  the  verse 
does  not  go  on,  as  Luther  and  E.V.  give  it,  "  then  let  him  write  her  a 
bill  of  divorcement,"  but,  continuing  the  conditional  clause,  "and  he 
write  her  a  bill  of  divorcement,  and  give  it  into  her  hand,  and  send  her 
out  of  his  house,  and  she  go,"  etc.;  the  apodosis  begins  only  in  ver.  4. 

(6)  For  example,  if  the  wife  have  let  the  dinner  burn ;  if  even, 
says  Rabbi  Akiba,  another  please  the  husband  better.  Josephus 
holds  the  same  lax  view,  Aiit.  iv.  8.  23:  Kad^  a<;BT]7roTovv  alTia<;. 

(7)  The  LXX.  have  indeed  softened  the  expression  by  the  trans- 
lation a(T'^r]fxov  Trpdy/jbaj  but  have  probably  caught  the  general  meaning 
correctly. 

2.  THE  RELATION  OF  PARENTS  TO  CHILDREN  (1). 
§105. 

The  importance  of  this  relation  is  already  clear,  by  its  being  placed, 
like  the  relation  of  marriage,  in  analogy  to  the  relation  of  Jehovah 
towards  His  people  (comp.  §  82,  1).  In  explaining  the  decalogue,  we 
have  already  spoken  of  the  way  in  which  the  command  to  honour 
parents  is  ranked  among  the  duties  of  piety  in  the  first  table  (§  86, 
with  note  2)  (2).  The  same  promise  is  given  to  the  honouring 
of  parents  as  to  obedience  to  the  divine  will  in  general  ;  comp. 
Ex.  XX.  12  with  Deut.  iv.  40,  vi.  2,  etc.  Breach  of  the  rever- 
ence due  to  parents  is  punished  in  just  the  same  way  as  offences 
against  the  reverence  due  to  God,  Ex.  xxi.  15,  17  (3),  Lev.  xx. 
9. — Still  the  parents  have  only  such  rights  over  their  children  as 
are  consistent  with  the  acknowledgment  of  God's  higlier  right  of 
property.  This  is  already  conveyed  in  the  command  to  offer  up  Isaac, 
Gen.  xxil.  (comp.  §  23,  with  note  9),  but  })articularly  in  the  ordinances 
with  reference  to  the  redemption  of  the  first-born  sons,  who  here 


§  105.]  THE  RELATION  OF  PARENTS  TO  CHILDREN.  o4o 

vicariously  take  the  place  of  the  whole  blessing  of  children  hoped  for. 
Although  the  tribe  of  Levi  (comp.  §  93)  was  accepted  in  the  stead  of 
all  the  first-born  of  the  people,  the  first-born  sons  must  nevertheless  be 
brought  to  the  sanctuary  when  a  month  old,  and  there  be  redeemed  by 
the  payment  of  five  shekels;  see  Num.  xviii.  16  in  connection  with 
Ex.  xiii.  15.  This  presentation  at  the  sanctuary  might  be  conjoined 
with  the  offering  of  purification,  to  be  presented  by  the  woman  on  the 
fortieth  day  after  her  delivery,  as  appears  from  Luke  ii.  22  ff.  Even 
the  human  right  of  parents  over  their  children  is  limited  (4) ;  in  par- 
ticular, the  father  has  no  right  over  the  life  and  death  of  his  children 
(such  as  Roman  law  concedes)  (5),  but  the  parents  must  bring  a  dis- 
obedient, reckless  son  before  the  magistrates,  Deut.  xxi.  18  (comp. 
§  99,  with  note  2). — The  law  also  requires  that  children  be  brought 
up  holily,  and  in  the  fear  and  love  of  God.  There  are  no  special 
precepts  in  the  law  with  a  view  to  this,  but  it  is  repeated  again  and 
again  with  great  emphasis,  that  the  divine  deeds  of  the  redemption 
and  guidance  of  Israel,  and  the  divine  commands,  are  to  be  impressed 
on  the  children  ;  see  Deut.  iv.  9  f.,  vi.  6  f.  (6)  ;  also  ver.  20  ff.,  xi.  19, 
xxxii.  46,  comp.  with  Gen.  xviii.  19  (Ps.  Ixxviii.  3-6,  xliv.  2),  etc. 
The  passover,  in  particular,  was  to  serve  to  hand  down  from  race  to 
race  the  knowledge  of  Israel's  redemption  from  Egyptian  bondage;  for 
in  Ex.  xii.  26  f.,  xiii.  8,  the  people  are  expressly  directed  to  join  with 
the  festival  the  historical  instruction  of  the  children  in  the  object  of 
the  feast.  The  same  direction  is  given,  xiii.  14  f.,  for  the  presentation 
of  the  first-born.  We  may  say  that  by  those  Deuteronomic  regulations 
the  basis  was  laid  for  the  mnemonic,  which  became  the  principle  of 
later  Jewish  instruction.  But  the  Pentateuch  knows  nothing  of  a 
scholastic  inculcation  of  the  divine  laws ;  it  knows  no  formal  religious 
instruction  at  all.  With  the  exception  of  the  command,  Deut.  xxxi. 
11-13,  that  the  law  be  read  before  the  assembled  people,  including 
the  children  (^^^  =  little  children),  at  the  feast  of  tabernacles,  there  is 
no  arrangement  calculated  directly  for  instruction  in  the  law  (7).  Tlie 
passage  in  Deuteronomy  just  cited  presupposes  that  the  children  take 
part  in  the  festival  pilgrimages,  as  also  the  presence  of  the  sons  and 
daughters  at  the  celebration  of  the  festivals  in  the  sanctuary  is  spoken 
of  in  the  law  of  feasts  in  Deut.  xvi.  11,  14;  and  in  particular,  by  the 
transference  of  the  celebration  of  the  passover  to  the  place  of  the 


31  i   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.   [§  105. 

sanctuary,  the  pilgrlinago  of  the  whole  family  thither  Avas  favoured. 
Nevertheless,  the  law  in  Ex.  xxiii.  17,  Dent.  xvi.  16,  which  enjoins 
the  pilgrimage  of  all  the  male  members  of  the  family,  contains  no 
definitions  about  their  age  (8).  The  rabbinical  tradition  that  boys 
were  bound  to  fulfil  the  law  at  twelve  years  old  (9)  may  be  very  old, 
but  the  earliest  indication  of  this  rule  which  we  have  is  in  the  history  of 
Jesus  when  He  was  twelve,  and  in  Josephus'  statement  {Ant.  v.  10.  4) 
that  Samuel  was  called  to  be  a  prophet  in  the  twelfth  year  of  his 
life  (10). 

(1)  Comp.  my  article,  "Padagogik  des  A.  T.,"  in  Schmidi' s pddagog. 
EncyMop.  v.  p.  653  ff. 

(2)  The  theocratic  principle,  that  every  authority  among  the 
covenant  people  is  to  be  regarded  as  an  efflux  of  divine  authority,  and 
as  sanctified  by  this,  finds  its  application  here  [in  the  above-cited 
article]. 

(3)  Ex.  xxi.  15,  17  :  "  He  who  smiteth  father  or  mother,  and  he 
who  curses  father  and  mother,  shall  surely  be  put  to  death." 

(4)  In  this  there  is  a  remarkable  difference  from  tiie  rules  of 
justice  of  other  ancient  nations. — Compare  also  the  discussion  of  the 
hiw  of  inheritance  (in  the  following  §),  and  of  slavery  (§  110). 

(5)  See  what  is  remarked  on  the  abrogation  of  the  judicial  power 
of  the  father  of  a  family  in  §  98,  and  comp.  Prov.  xix.  18. 

(6)  Deut.  iv.  9  :  "  Only  take  heed  to  thyself,  and  keep  thy  soul 
diligently,  lest  thou  forget  the  things  which  thine  eyes  have  seen  :  but 
teach  them  thy  sons,  and  thy  sons'  sons." — vi.  6f. :  "  And  these  words, 
which  I  command  thee  this  day,  shall  be  in  thine  heart:  and  thou 
shalt  teach  them  diligently  unto  thy  children,  and  shalt  talk  of  them 
when  thou  sittest  in  thine  house,  and  when  thou  walkest  by  the  way, 
and  when  thou  liest  down,  and  when  thou  risest  up." 

(7)  Tiiough  it  is  natural  to  conjecture  that  the  scattering  of  the 
Levites  amongst  the  other  tribes  was  to  serve  to  promote  the  knowledge 
of  the  law,  the  Pentateuch  gives  us  no  commands  about  this.  The 
rabbinical  tradition,  that  the  tribe  of  Simeon  busied  itself  particularly 
with  the  instruction  of  children,  whilst  the  higher  office  of  teaching 
was  entrusted  to  the  Levites,  is  of  no  more  value  than  other  such  like 
traditions  [in  the  article  cited]. 

(8)  Keil,  on  Ex.  xxiii.  17,  conjectures  that  the  command  was  binding 
on  the  male  members  of  the  people  from  the  twentieth  year  and  onward, 
because  in  that  year  they  were  taken  into  the  census  (?). 


§  lOC]  THE  LAW  OF  INHERITANCE.  315 

(9)  See  the  relevant  passages  in  Lightfoot,  lioroi  Jiehr.  et  tJtalmud., 
on  Luke  ii.  42. 

(10)  Singing  was  another  vehicle  for  the  propagation  of  religious 
knowledge,  which  we  can  show  to  have  been  cultivated  in  Israel  from 
the  earliest  period  of  the  nation's  history.  See  the  particulars  in  the 
above-cited  article,  p.  671. — It  was  certainly  a  very  ancient  custom  to 
teach  the  youth  songs,  in  order  to  establish  the  memory  of  great  events 
and  of  the  heroes  of  past  days  (2  Sam.  i.  18,  comp.  Ps.  Ix.  1).  Also, 
with  reference  to  the  song  in  Deut.  xxxii.,  it  is  commanded,  xxxi.  19  ff., 
that  it  should  be  taught,  in  order  to  serve  in  later  times  as  a  witness 
against  the  people. — Lastly,  the  many  local  monuments  scattered 
through  the  land  served  the  coming  race  as  instructive  witnesses.  Thus 
we  read  in  Josh.  iv.  6f.,  21  f.,  with  reference  to  the  stones  set  up  on 
the  banks  of  the  Jordan  :  "  When  your  children  ask  their  fathers  in 
time  to  come,  saying,  What  mean  ye  by  these  stones  ?  then  ye  shall 
answer  them,"  etc.  Thus,  in  particular,  the  memories  of  patriarchal 
times  were  linked  with  memorable  trees,  wells,  altars,  stone-heaps,  etc., 
Gen.  xxi.  32  f.,  xxvi.  19  ff.,  xxxlii.  20,  xxxi.  46  ff.,  xxxv.  7,  20,  I.  11 
[in  the  article  above  cited]. 

3.  THE  LAW  OF  INHERITANCE,   AND  PROVISIONS  FOR  THE  PERMA- 
NENCE OF  FAMILIES  AND  THEIR  INHERITANCE. 

§  106. 

The  Law  of  Inheritance.     Laics  about  Heiresses  and  the  Levirate 

Marriage. 

After  the  father's  death  the  first-born  son  is  the  head  of  the 
family,  and  therefore  in  family  registers  he  is  often  distinguished  by 
this  honourable  predicate  ;  cf.  Num.  iii.  12,  etc.  By  the  law  in  Deut. 
xxi.  17,  the  provision  that  the  first-born  son  is  to  receive  a  double 
inheritance  is  confirmed,  and  therefore,  doubtless,  the  care  of  the 
mother  and  unmarried  sisters,  etc.,  was  incumbent  on  him.  This 
regulation  probably  rested  on  old  custom ;  for  Jacob  followed  it 
(comp.  §  25)  when  he  gave  the  inheritance  of  a  double  tribe  to 
Joseph,  who,  in  the  place  of  Reuben,  was  invested  with  the  right  of 
the  first-born,  comp.  1  Chron.  v.  2.  But  it  is  remarkable  that  here 
again  (comp.  §  69,  2)  the  law,  Deut.  xxi.  15-17,  forbids  others  to 
imitate  what  the  patriarch  did  when  he  gave  preference  to  the  son  of 
the  beloved  spouse.     For  the  rest,  the  rule  of  inheritance  was  ap- 


346   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.   [§  lOG. 

parently  that  the  other  sons  inherited  equally  (1).     If  an  Israelite  left 
behind  him  no  son,  but  only  dann;hters,  the  daughters  came  into  the 
inheritance  ;  if  he   had   also  no  daughter,  the  brother  inherited  ;  in 
want  of  a  brother,  the  brother  of  the  father ;  and  if  he  had  none,  the 
nearest  blood  relation.  Num.  xxvii.  8-11.     But  to  prevent  land  from 
passing  into  the    possession  of    another  tribe,   daughters    who    wer-i 
lieiresses  might,  according  to  the  law,  Num.  xxxvi.,  only  marry  men 
of  the  tribe  of  their  father,  or  even,  if  vers.  6  and  8  were  to  be  under- 
stood in  a  narrow  sense,  only  men  of  their  father's  house  ;   probably 
in  as  close  a  relationship    as  was  admissible,   as  the  heiresses   (the 
daughters  of  Zelophehad)  mentioned  in  Num.  xxxvi.  took,  ver.  11, 
the  sons  of  their  father's  brother  for  husbands. — Side  by  side  with 
this  ordinance  stands  the  Levirate  law,  which,  as  we  see  from  Gen. 
xxxviii.,  rested  on  ancient  custom,  but  was  legally  sanctioned  by  Deut. 
XXV.  5-10.      The  main  provisions  run  thus  (ver.  5  f.) :  "  If  brethren 
<lw(ll  together,  and  one  of  tliem  die,  and  have  no  child,  the  wife  of 
the  dead  shall  not  marry  without  (that  is,  out  of  the  family)  unto  a 
stranrrer:  her  husband's  brother  shall  go  in  unto  her,  and  take  her  to 
him  to  wife,  and   perform  the  duty  of  an  husband's  brother  unto  her 
(D3'').      And  it  shall  be,  that  the  first-born  which   she  beareth  shall 
succeed  in  the  name  of  his  brother  which  is  dead,  that  his  name  be 
not  put  out  of  Israel."      The  exposition  of  the  law  is  doubtful.     On 
one  view,  the  presupposition  of  "dwelling  together"  is  taken  to  mean 
that  the  brother  who  accepts  the  Levirate  duty  has  as  yet  no  house 
of  his  own,  and  is  thus  still  unmarried  (for  this  is  urged  the  phrase, 
"  if  brethren  dwell  together  ").     On  another  view,  on  the  contrary,  it 
is  only  presupposed  that  the  brother  lived  in  the  same  place,  and  was 
therefore  in  the  position  to  take  up  the  Levirate  duty.      The  words, 
"  if    he   have  no  son,"    are    understood    by    the   Jewish    and    many 
Christian    expositors   (among   the    moderns,  also    Keil   and   Fr.   W. 
Schultz)  of  childlessness  in  general,  so  that  if  there  was  a  daughter  to 
be   heiress,   no   Levirate   marriage    would   be  entered  on  ;    and   for 
this  the  expressions  Matt.  xxii.  25  (/jlt)  e')(wv  airepixa)  and  Luke  xx. 
28  {aTeKvo<;)  seem  to  speak.      On    another  view,  the  law  of  Levirate 
marriage  takes  precedence  of  the  law  of  heiresses,  so  that  a  daughter 
did  not  inherit  if  there  was  still  a  marriageable  widow.     Vers.  7-10 
of  the  law  decree  a  public  censure  on  the  man  who  would  not  submit 


§  107.]  THE  PRESERVATION  OF  THE  FAMILY  TOSSCSSION.  347 

to  the  Levirate  law  (but  tliere  existed  no  compulsion).  Nothing 
appears  to  be  decreed  against  the  woman  who  would  not  submit  to 
the  duty  of  the  Levirate  law,  if  she  did  not  wish  to  many  again  at 
all.  Childlessness  was  such  a  disgrace  for  a  woman,  that  we  may 
suppose  that  she  would  not  withdraw  without  sufficient  ground  (2). 
If  the  dead  man  left  no  brother  who  could  enter  on  the  duty  of 
marriage,  the  obligation  passed  to  the  nearest  relation,  who  received 
by  the  marriage  also  the  right  of  inheritance.  It  is  true  that  the 
law  makes  no  provision  about  this,  but  it  is  clear  from  the  book  of 
Ruth  that  such  was  the  legal  custom  (3).  That  the  Levirate  law 
was  still  in  force  in  the  time  of  Jesus  is  shown  by  Matt.  xxii.  24  ff. 
(and  the  parallel  passages  of  Mark  and  Luke). 

(1)  Thus,  e  g.^  of  five  sons,  the  first-born  received  a  third  of  the 
whole  inheritance,  and  each  of  the  others  a  sixth. 

(2)  On  the  contrary,  according  to  the  rabbinical  tradition,  if 
she  drew  back  from  the  duty  of  the  Levirate  law  because  she  wished 
to  marry  another,  a  punishment  of  forty  stripes  was  imposed  on  her. — 
Gen.  xxxviii.  24  can  hardly  be  cited  here.  Tamar  was  to  be 
punished  for  unchastity,  not  on  account  of  a  violation  of  the  Levirate 
law. 

(3)  The  story  in  the  book  of  Ruth  lies  under  considerable  diffi- 
culties of  an  archjEological  kind,  but  these  cannot  be  entered  on  here. 


§107. 

Provisions  about  the  Preservation  of  the  Famihj  Possession. 

As  the  law  was  concerned  for  the  continued  existence  of  families, 
so,  too,  provision  was  made  for  the  preservation  of  the  property  on 
which  the  subsistence  of  the  family  depended.  As  far  as  possible,  the 
inheritance  was  to  be  preserved  entire.  Here  the  theocratic  principle 
came  in  in  its  full  rigour,  and  its  application  to  questions  of  proprie- 
torship is  expressed  in  the  sentence,  Lev.  xxv.  23,  "The  land  is 
mine  ;  for  ye  are  strangers  and  foreigners  with  me  " — that  is,  God,  the 
King  of  the  people,  is  the  real  proprietor  of  the  land,  and  He  gives  it 
to  the  people  only  as  beneficiaries.  Now,  inasmuch  as  each  family 
forms  an  integral  part  of  the  theocracy,  an  inheritance  is  given  to  it 
by  Jehovah  for  its  subsistence,  which  forms,  as  it  were,  an  hereditary 


318   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.   [§  107. 

feudal  holding,  and  is  therefore  in  itself  inalienable.  Hence  Naboth's 
refusal,  1  Kings  xxi.  3 ;  and  hence  the  strong  language  of  the 
prophets  against  the  efforts  of  the  rich  to  enlarge  their  possessions  by 
adding  to  their  own  lands  the  inheritance  of  others,  Isa.  v.  8  ff.,  and 
in  other  passages. — When  an  Israelite  is  compelled  by  poverty  to 
alienate  his  inheritance,  this  is  only  for  a  time  ;  the  purchaser  of  the 
inheritance  must,  by  Lev.  xxv.  23-27,  return  it  as  soon  as  the  former 
possessor,  or  his  nearest  relation,  redeems  it  again  (?W);  hence  the 
general  legal  principle,  ver.  23  f.,  "  The  land  shall  not  be  sold  rnn''npj 
to  extinction," — that  is,  in  such  a  way  that  the  possession  is  for  ever 
forfeited  by  the  original  owner, — "  but  in  all  the  land  of  your  posses- 
sion ye  shall  grant  a  redemption  (i^^^?)  for  the  land."  In  virtue  of 
this  his  duty  to  redeem  the  land,  the  nearest  relation  bears  the  name 
of  3'i|?n  Shii'i.  At  the  redeeming  of  the  land,  the  value  which  the 
purchaser  has  had  from  the  use  of  it  year  by  year  is  to  be  taken  from 
the  purchase  money — that  is,  the  land  itself  is  never  to  be  actually 
sold,  but  only  what  it  bore,  and  that  for  a  certain  time.  In  the  year 
of  jubilee,  however,  every  possession  is  to  return  to  the  family  to 
which  it  originally  belonged,  w'ithout  redemption  (1).  With  a  con- 
sistent administration  of  this  law,  a  class  wholly  without  property 
would  have  been  impossible  in  Israel  (2),  agreeably  to  the  fact  that 
it  is  proposed  as  the  problem  of  the  theocratic  life,  Deut.  xv.  4,  that 
there  be  no  poor  person  in  Israel ;  though,  indeed,  it  is  candidly 
acknowledged  in  ver.  11  that  actual  circumstances  will  continue  to  be 
inconsistent  with  the  realization  of  this  ideal.  Since,  as  has  already 
been  mentioned  (§  33),  at  the  settlement  in  the  Holy  Land,  the 
several  clans  dwelt  together  in  a  definite  place,  the  family  became  the 
basis  of  all  social  life  ;  but  because  the  clans  had  always  to  recognise 
that  they  were  integral  portions  of  the  covenant  people,  the  conscious- 
ness of  national  aims  was  kept  up  in  a  lively  manner  (3)  ;  and  this 
pervasion  of  family  life  by  the  higher  theocratico-national  principle 
is  represented  particularly  in  the  celebration  of  the  Passover  (4). 

(1)  See  the  particulars  in  the  account  of  the  year  of  jubilee,  in 
§15L 

(2)  This  is  why  the  Socialist  Proudhon  admires  so  greatly  the 
Mosaic  law  of  property.  Compare  his  essay  on  the  celebration  of  the 
Sabbath,  in  the  German  translation,  p.  25. 


§  108]  THE  AVENGING  OF  BLOOD.  349 

(3)  Banmgarten  {Die  Geschichte  Jesu,  p.  88  f.)  lias  rightly 
remarked,  that  in  the  theocracy  two  forms  of  one-sidedness  are  over- 
come,— the  one-sidedness  of  a  tribal  constitution,  in  which  the  tribes 
never  attain  national  unity  ;  and  the  one-sidedness  of  a  constitution  in 
which  domestic  life,  and  with  it  an  essential  part  of  human  destiny, 
falls  a  sacrifice  to  the  purposes  of  the  state,  as  was  the  case  in  the 
ordinances  of  Lycurgus.  "  In  Israel,  the  divine  guidance  proves 
itself  thereby,  that  both  forms,  the  house  and  the  kingdom,  are  so 
planned  from  the  beginning  that  they  mutually  penetrate  and  comprise 
each  other." 

(4)  Compare  also  the  account  of  the  Passover  in  §  153  f. 

§108. 

The  Avenging  of  Blood  (1). 

The  avenging  of  blood  is  connected  with  the  laws  last  discussed, 
inasmuch  as  it  falls,  on  the  one  side,  under  the  point  of  view  of  the 
preservation  of  the  entireness  of  families. — The  avenging  of  blood, 
generally  speaking,  takes  place  where  the  members  of  a  family  or  the 
next  relative  of  a  murdered  man  have  the  right  and  the  duty  to  exercise 
retribution  on  the  manslayer.  In  the  Old  Testament,  the  avenging 
of  blood  is  taken  for  granted  as  a  very  ancient  custom  (2).  After 
Gen.  ix.  6  has  expressed  generally  the  precept  that  he  who  sheddeth 
man's  blood  by  man  shall  his  blood  be  shed,  the  first  indication  of  the 
avenging  of  blood  is  found  in  xxvii.  45  (3).  Where  as  yet  there  is  no 
political  life,  or  where,  at  least,  such  life  is  still  in  the  first  elements  of 
development,  the  expiation  of  injury  to  personal  right  devolves,  from  the 
nature  of  the  case,  on  the  zeal  of  the  family  (4).  Mosaic  law  retained 
this  feature,  but  subordinated  the  execution  of  the  avenging  of  blood  to 
the  theocratic  principle.  If,  according  to  the  most  ancient  Hellenic 
view,  the  mui'derer,  as  such,  commits  no  crime  against  the  divinity 
or  against  civil  society  (5),  but  injures  merely  the  family  sphere, 
]\Iosaism,  on  the  contrary,  in  virtue  of  its  idea  of  man  as  the  divine 
image  (comp.  §  68),  discerns  in  a  murder,  before  all  things,  a  transgres- 
sion against  the  Creator  and  Lord  of  human  life.  Gen.  ix.  5  f.,  which 
must  be  atoned  for,  Num.  xxxv.  33,  by  the  extermination  of  the 
guilty  person  from  the  theocracy,  which  is  desecrated  by  the  guilt  of 
blood  (6).     God  Himself  is  the  proper  avenger  of  blood  (Gen.  Z.c), 


350      THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACV.     [§  108 

the  DVOT  li}^y  (Ps.  ix  13,  comp.  2  Cliron.  xxiv.  22),  to  whom  the  shed 
blood  cries  for  ventreance,  Gen.  iv.  10.  Thus  the  avenfring  of  blood 
becomes  a  divine  command ;  it  is  not  merely  a  matter  of  honour,  but 
a  duty  of  religion.  But  because  the  family,  the  protection  of  the 
integrity  of  which  is  the  business  of  theocratic  justice,  is  injured  at 
the  same  time  by  the  death-blow,  the  execution  of  the  avenging  of 
blood  is  transferred  to  that  relative  on  whom  in  general  the  restora- 
tion of  injuries  done  to  the  integrity  of  the  family  is  incumbent 
(comp.  §  106  f.),  and  who  thus  has  to  redeem  the  blood  taken  from 
the  family  by  the  death-blow.  Hence  the  name  of  the  avenger  of 
blood,  a^n  i5^^;2,  Num.  xxxv.  19,  Deut.  xix.  6,  12  ;  also  b^l  absolutely. 
Num.  xxxv.  12,  Job  xix.  25  (7).  To  take  care  that  the  avenging  of 
blood  was  really  executed  was  the  business  of  the  whole  clan,  as  is 
clear  from  2  Sam.  xiv.  7  (8). — But  further,  with  reference  to  the 
avenging  of  blood,  the  following  provisions  are  given  in  Ex.  xxi. 
12-14,  Num.  xxxv.  9-34,  Deut.  xix.  1-13:— 

1.  In  Num.  xxxv.  two  kinds  of  murder  are  distinguished  in  reference 
to  which  the  avenging  of  blood  is  commanded  :  (a)  vers.  16-18,  if  one 
slays  another  with  an  instrument  of  iron,  or  a  stone,  or  with  wood,  where- 
with a  man  when  he  takes  it  in  his  hand  (others  because  it  fills  the  hand) 
can  kill  another — that  is,  if  any  one  strikes  another  in  such  a  way  that 
death  may  be  seen  to  be  the  probable  consequence ;  (b)  ver.  20.  f.,  if 
one  has  slain  another  out  of  hatred,  or  by  intention,  or  out  of  enmity,  in 
which  case  the  means  by  which  death  was  brought  about  is  indifferent  (9). 
On  the  other  hand,  in  order  to  shelter  from  vengeance  him  who  had  slain 
a  man  undesignedly,  nj7V  ^'■'?  (ver.  22 ;  Ex.  xxi.  13), without  intending  to 
hurt  his  neighbour  (comp.  Num.  xxxv.  23),  and  inadvertently,  riyT''pa2 
(Deut.  xix.  4,  etc.),  the  law  commanded  the  selection  of  six  free  cities, 
three  of  which  were  apportioned  on  the  east,  and  three  on  the  west  side 
of  Jordan  (Deut.  iv.  41  ff. ;  Josh.  xx.  1-9).  The  manslayer  who  fled 
into  one  of  these  had  to  be  protected  from  the  avenger  of  blood  who 
pursued  him  by  the  elders  of  the  free  town  (Josh.  xx.  4),  after  a  pro- 
visional cognition  of  the  matter,  until  the  community  (i^^J^) — that  is,  the 
community  of  the  place  where  the  murder  was  committed,  Num. 
xxxv.  24  f. — had  examined  the  matter  through  their  elders,  Deut.  xix. 
12  f.  (10).  If  the  accused  person  was  proved  guilty  of  intentional 
murder,  he  had  to  be  given  over  to  the  avenger  of  blood ;  even  the 


§  108.]  THE  AVENGING  OF  BLOOD.  351 

altar  was  not  allowed  to  offer  him  a  refuge  (Ex.  xxi.  14).  In  the 
opposite  case,  however,  he  liad  to  remain  in  the  city  of  refuge  until 
the  death  of  the  high  priest  in  whose  time  the  murder  had  occurred, 
Num.  XXXV.  28,  Josh.  xx.  6.  If  he  quitted  it  earlier,  the  avenger  of 
blood  was  permitted  to  kill  him,  Num.  xxxv.  27,  as  was  allowed  before 
in  his  flight  to  the  city  of  refuge,  Deut.  xix.  6. — The  meaning  of  the 
banishment  to  the  city  of  refuge  was  certainly  not  merely  that  of  an 
ordinary  punishment  of  banishment  (11);  but  the  manslayer  was  to 
be  withdrawn  from  general  communion  with  the  people  until  the 
expiation  of  his  crime  was  completed.  Expiation  was  absolutely 
necessary,  on  the  analogy  of  the  sin-offering,  Lev.  iv.  1  ff.,  even  for 
blood  shed  undesignedly  (12).  This  expiation  seems  to  lie  in  the  death 
of  the  high  priest,  which  does  the  same  for  his  period  of  office  as 
his  function  on  the  great  day  of  atonement  does  for  a  single  year  (13). 

2.  For  intentional  murder,  there  was  no  other  expiation  than  the 
blood  of  the  manslayer,  Num.  xxxv.  31,  33  (14).  The  jus  talionis  is 
here  maintained  in  the  most  stringent  sense ;  every  substitute  for  the 
punishment  of  death  is  refused  (15).  Even  residence  in  the  city  of 
refuge  in  consequence  of  accidental  murder  cannot  be  bought  off,  ver. 
32. — Herein  is  shown  an  essential  difference  from  the  usual  custom 
of  other  ancient  nations,  which  permitted  the  manslayer  to  satisfy  the 
injured  family  in  the  way  of  agreement  by  payment  of  compensation 
(ttocvt]  among  the  Greeks),  of  Wergeld  (among  the  Germans)  (16). — 
Nevertheless,  the  Mosaic  law  does  not  ordain  anything  against  the 
relations  who  neglected  the  avenging  of  blood. 

3.  The  avenging  of  blood  falls  upon  the  doer  alone.  Nowhere 
does  the  legislation  of  the  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch  allow  the 
avenger  of  blood  to  lay  hands  also  on  the  family  of  the  murderer  (Ex. 
XX.  5  is  not  a  case  in  point).  That  an  opposite  custom  may  often  have 
prevailed  is  probable  ;  and  on  the  contrary,  Deut.  xxiv.  16  (comp.  2 
Kings  xiv.  6)  may  be  judged  to  be  a  supplement,  not  (as  some  think)  a 
mitigation,  of  the  earlier  legal  provisions. — We  cannot  certainly  deter- 
mine how  long  blood-vengeance  existed  among  the  people.  It  is  clear, 
from  2  Sam.  xiv.  6-11,  that  it  was  still  in  existence  and  in  full  force 
in  David's  time  (17). 

(1)  Compare  my  article  '^  Blutrache,"  in  Herzog's  R.E.  ii.  p. 
260  ff. 


352       THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.     [§  108. 

(2)  Not  yet  Gen.  iv,  14 :  "I  shall  be  a  fugitive  and  a  vagabond, 
and  every  one  that  findeth  me  shall  kill  me."  These  words  of  Cain 
are  only  to  be  understood  as  an  expression  of  anguish  of  conscience. 

(.3)  Tiie  words  of  Rebekah  (Gen.  xxvii.  45),  "  Why  should  I  be 
deprived  also  of  you  both  in  one  day?"  mean,  that  Jacob's  being 
slain  by  the  hand  of  Esau,  Esau  would  be  slain  by  the  avenger  of 
blood. 

(4)  Thus  among  the  Arabians,  the  ancient  Greeks,  Romans, 
Germans,  etc. — Compare,  in  general,  Tobien  on  the  avenging  of  blood 
according  to  the  ancient  Russian  law,  in  comparison  with  the  avenging 
of  blood  among  tlie  Israelites,  Arabians,  Greeks,  Romans,  nnd 
Germans — Dorpat,  1840.  On  the  avenging  of  blood  among  tlie 
Arabs,  see  J.  D.  Michaelis,  mos.  Rechi,  ii.  §  134.  (With  the  Arabian 
notion  that  unavenged  blood  remains  without  sinking  into  the  ground, 
etc.,  see  Schultens  on  exc.  Ham.  pp.  416,  466  ;  compare  in  the  Old 
Testament,  Isa.  xxvi.  21,  Ezek.  xxiv.  7  f.,  Job  xvi.  18.)  On  the 
avenging  of  blood  among  the  Greeks  of  Homer's  time,  see  Kiigelsbach, 
homer.  TheoL  ed.  i.  p.  249  ff.,  ed.  ii.  p.  292  ff.  On  traces  of  the  same 
in  ancient  Italy,  see  Rein,  Kriminalrecht  der  ROmer,  p.  36  ff. ;  and  on 
the  difference  between  the  Roman  and  German  view,  see  Osenbriigge, 
in  the  Kieler  Pliilolog.  Studien,  1841,  p.  234  ff.  [in  the  above-cited 
article]. 

(5)  Homer  knows  nothing  of  an  atonement  for  murder  due  to  the 
gods;  see  Niigelsbach,  I.e.;  comp.  Lobeck,  Aglaophamiift,  i.  p.  301; 
and  also  at  the  same  time,  in  limitation,  the  remarks  of  Schomann, 
^schylos  Eumeniden,  p.  Q)Q  f.  [in  the  article  cited  above]. 

(6)  Human  life  is  so  sacred,  that  even  the  animal  by  which  a  man 
is  killed  is  to  be  stoned,  Ex.  xxi.  28  ff. ;  comp.  Gen.  ix.  5  [in  above- 
cited  article]. 

(7)  Compare  Bottcher,  de  inferis,  §  322. 

(8)  The  law  makes  no  particular  provision  as  to  the  succession  in 
which  the  duty  of  avenging  blood  devolved  ;  doubtless  it  followed  the 
right  of  inheritance,  as  did  the  duty  of  the  Goel  in  general  (compare 
§  106).  With  this  the  later  tradition  agrees,  and  at  the  same  time 
adds,  that  when  there  was  no  heir,  or  the  heir  would  not  act,  the 
judicial  authorities  stepped  in  ;  see  Maimonides,  Jiilchoth  rotseach,  i.  2 
[in  article  above  cited]. 

(9)  On  this  point  see  Saalschiitz,  mos.  jRecht,  p.  527  ff. 

(10)  These  sentences  state  as  concisely  as  possible  how  the  three 
different  passages  are  probably  to  be  combined, — Comp.  Hengstenberg, 
Beitr.  zur  Einl.  ins  A.  7.  iii.  p.  442  f. ;  Ranke  gives  another  combina- 
tion, [Inters,  ilher  den  Pentateuch,  ii.  p.  314  f. 


§  109.]  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  RIGHTS  OF  BONDSMLN.  353 

(11)  So  ]\Iichaelis,  I.e.  vi.  §  279 ;  compare  the  exile  decreed 
according  to  Athenian  law  in  a  similar  case. — See  Hermann,  Griech, 
Staatsalterth.  §  104. 

(12)  On  the  later  Hellenic  view,  see  Schomann,  I.e.  p.  69,  and 
others.  See  Osenbrligge,  /.c,  on  the  Roman  expiatory  sacrifice  of  a 
ram  for  unintentional  murder. 

(13)  This  is  the  one  view  of  the  matter  taken,  for  example,  by 
Keil.  Different  is  the  view  of  Bahr  {Si/)nboUk  des  mos.  KuUus,  ii. 
p.  52),  who,  following  the  example  of  Maimonides  (more  neboch.  iii. 
40,  ed.  Buxt.  p.  458),  thinks  that  the  death  of  the  chief  of  the 
theocracy  and  representative  of  the  whole  people  was  regarded  as  so 
important,  that  every  other  death  would  be  forgotten  because  of  it, 
and  thus  be  no  more  revenged. 

(14)  Num.  XXXV.  33:  "Blood  defileth  the  land;  and  the  land 
cannot  be  cleansed  of  the  blood  that  is  shed  therein,  but  by  the  blood 
of  him  that  shed  it." 

(15)  A  murder  could  not  be  redeemed  with  all  the  treasures  in  the 
world,  even  if  the  murdered  man  had  forgiven  the  murderer  before 
his  death.     Maimonides,  hilch.  rots.  i.  4,  more  neboch.  iii,  41. 

(16)  Compare  Lobeck,  I.e.  p.  301.  The  Koran  itself  (Sur.  ii. 
173  ff.)  admits  a  stipulated  mitigation  of  the  avenging  of  blood. 

(17)  On  the  contrary  (2  Sam.  iii.  27),  Abner's  murder  by  Joah 
is  not  to  be  viewed,  as  has  often  been  done,  as  a  case  of  the  avenginn- 
of  blood  in  the  legal  sense ;  for  Joab's  brother,  Asahel,  was  killed  by 
Abner  in  battle,  and  from  necessity.  Hence  the  judgment  on  Joab's 
deed,  ver.  28  f.,  1  Kings  ii.  5. 

4.    THE  RIGHT  OF  THE  SERVANTS  IN  THE  HOUSE  (1). 
§   109. 

Bondage  in  the  time  of  the  Patriarchs.      The  Principles  of  the  Eights 

of  Bondsmen. 

The  Old  Testament,  in  instilling  into  man  the  dignity  of  God's 
image  as  the  inalienable  and  fundamental  character  of  his  nature, — in 
asserting,  further,  the  descent  of  all  mankind  from  one  blood,  and  so 
representing  them  as  a  race  of  brethren, — declares  a  condition  without 
personal  rights,  such  as  is  seen  in  slavery  among  the  heathen,  to  be 
on  principle  inadmissible.  It  is  designated  a  curse  when  a  tribe  falls 
directly  under  the  lot  of  slavery.  Gen.  ix.  25,  27.  Nevertheless,  the 
VOL.    I.  Z 


354      THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.      [§  109. 

01(1  Testament  presupposes  that  servitude  in  virtue  of  which  domestics 
(J^"^?)^.)  form  a  portion  of  property,  like  the  herds  (Gen.  xxiv.  35, 
xxvi.  14).  Abraham  possesses  a  number  of  slaves.  The  slaves  born 
in  the  house  (ri)3  ''yb'',  a  term  which  refers  at  the  same  time  to  trans- 
mission of  servitude),  Gen.  xiv.  14  (2),  are  distinguished  from  those 
bought  by  money  (^103  ri3|p?D)j  xvii.  23  ff.  (o).  Nevertheless,  how 
elevated  the  position  of  the  slave  is  already,  in  the  time  of  the 
patriarchs,  is  shown  specially  in  the  beautiful  picture  of  Abraham's 
trusted  servant,  drawn  in  chap.  xxiv.  Tiiis  servant  is  probably  the 
same  person  as  the  Eliezer  whom  Abraham  (xv.  2  f.)  had  appointed 
as  his  heir  in  want  of  a  son  (4).  But  it  was  of  the  greatest  import- 
ance that,  according  to  chap,  xvii.,  at  the  introduction  of  circumcision, 
all  the  slaves — not  «imply  those  who  stood  nearer  to  the  family  as 
being  born  in  the  house,  but  also  those  who  had  been  bought  in 
foreign  parts — received  likewise  this  sign  of  covenant  consecration,  and 
thereby  a  share  in  the  dignity  of  the  .chosen  race,  and  the  divine 
promise  given  to  it  (5). 

The  rights  of  the  class  of  servants  is  more  nearly  defined  by  the 
law;  and  in  this  connection  distinction  is  made  between  those  servants 
who  were  Israelites  by  birth,  and  the  slaves  won  by  purchase  or  as 
booty  from  other  nations.  These  regulations  rest  on  a  twofold 
principle:  1.  Because  Israel  is  the  people  of  Jehovah's  property, 
whom  He  redeemed  from  Egyptian  bondage,  all  that  belong  to  this 
people  are  Jehovah's  servants,  and  are  by  this  bondage  freed  from  all 
human  service.  After  their  God  had  broken  the  yoke  which  burdened 
them,  and  led  tliem  out  ■*'  upright,"  they  were  never  more  to  bend 
under  the  yoke  of  slavery,  nor  be  sold  as  slaves  (Lev.  xxv.  42,  55, 
xxvi.  13  ;  comp.  §  83).  By  this  principle,  bondage,  in  a  strict  sense, 
was  for  Israel  completely  done  away  with.  But  since  the  law  leaves 
cases  open  in  which  one  Israelite  could  fall  into  the  service  of  another 
in  a  legal  way,  instructions  are  laid  down  by  which  a  return  to  the 
independent  position  which  alone  corresponds  to  the  dignity  of  a 
theocratic  burgher  is  secured  to  those  who  have  fallen  into  servitude. 
On  the  contrary,  with  reference  to  the  whole  profane  mass  of  the 
Gojim,  slavery  is  acknowledged  to  be  allowable.  Lev.  xxv.  44  ff.  (6). 
But  apart  from  the  fact  that  a  certain  share  in  the  blessings  of  the 
covenant  people  is  also  secured  to  the  heathen  slaves,  they  have  the 


§  1U9]  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  RIGHTS  OF  BONDSMEN.  355 

advantnge,  2.  of  the  principle  which  is  inculcated  in  a  multitude  of 
passages  as  the  standard  for  the  treatment  of  servants — namely,  that 
tiie  Israelites,  since  they  themselves  were  at  one  time  slaves  and 
strangers  in  Egypt,  and  know  how  such  persons  feel,  are  to  treat 
servants  and  strangers  in  a  humane  way,  and  show  by  this  means 
their  thanks  to  God,  who  redeemed  them  from  Egyptian  oppression 
(Ex.  xxii.  20,  xxiii.  9  ;  Deut.  v.  14  f.,  x.  19,  xv.  15,  xvi.  11  f.,  xxiv. 
18,  22)  (7). 

(1)  Die  Verhdlfnisse  der  SHaven  hei  den  alten  Hehraern  nach  hihl. 
inid  thaliufidischen  Quellen  dargeslellt^  Kopenhagen  1859,  a  work  by 
Mielziner,  is  a  good  monogi'aph  on  this  subject.  A  survey  of  the 
relevant  literature  is  also  given  in  it,  p.  4  f . ;  comp.  also  my  article, 
''  Sklaverei  bei  den  Hebraern,"  in  Herzog's  R.E.  xiv.  p.  464  if. —  On 
this  topic  it  is  of  special  interest  to  compare  the  rights,  or  absence  of 
rights,  of  slaves  in  other  nations. 

(2)  In  Gen.  xiv.  14,  Abraham,  marching  to  battle,  places  himself 
at  the  head  of  318  men,  born  in  his  house,  and  accustomed  to  the 
use  of  weapons. 

(3)  Patriarchal  history  further  mentions  female  slaves  (niriDN, 
ninst^*),  as  maids  to  the  housewife,  also  to  the  daughters,  and  as  con- 
cubines of  their  master,  Gen.  xvi.  1  (Hagar),  xxii.  24,  xxiv.  59,  61, 
xxix.  24  ff.  (Zilpah  and  Bilhah),  xxxv.  8,  etc. — On  the  difference 
between  no^  and  nns^',  it  can  only  be  said  with  certainty  that  the 
latter  term  is  the  lower ;  compare,  in  especial,  1  Sam.  xxv.  41,  also 
Ex.  xi.  5  (see  Gusset's  dictionary,  under  the  word  nnsK').  From  this 
it  is  intelligible  that  the  name  n?DK  seems  to  have  been  commonly  used 
by  preference  for  a  married  maid-servant  (see  Saalschiitz,  Archdol.  ii. 
p.  244) ;  but  this  difference  cannot  be  rigorously  carried  out.  fin 
the  above-cited  article.] 

(4)  The  patriarchal  form  of  life  brings  the  slaves  nearer  to  the 
family,  and  thus  secures  that  the  servile  class  be  penetrated  by  the 
moral  spirit  of  the  family,  in  virtue  of  which  the  relation  bet^veen 
masters  and  servants  is  shaped  into  a  relationship  of  real  respect  and 
affection.  [In  the  above-cited  article.] — Compare  what  Niigelsbach 
has  remarked,  homer.  Theol.  ed.  i.  p.  232  ff.,  ed.  ii.  p.  271  ff.,  on  the 
character  of  slavery  with  Homer. 

(5)  The  full  consequences  of  the  anthropological  presuppositions 
of  the  Old  Testament  were  certainly  not  realized,  even  at  a  later 
time.  But  while  in  heathenism,  and  especially  in  cultivated  heathen- 
ism, slavery  sinks  more  and  more  to  the  deepest  degradation  of  human 


356       THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCnACY.      [§  110. 

nature,  Mosaism  guards  its  humane  character  by  at  least  limiting 
slavery,  in  as  far  as  it  permits  it,  by  legal  regulations.  [In  the  above- 
cited  article.] 

(G)  Lev.  XXV.  44  ff. :  "As  for  thy  bondmen,  and  thy  bondmaid?, 
which  thou  shalt  have  ;  of  the  heathen  that  are  round  about  you  shall 
ye  buy  bondmen  and  bondmaids;  moreover,  of  the  children  of  the 
strangers  that  do  sojourn  among  you,  of  them  shall  ye  buy,  and  of 
their  families  that  are  with  you,  which  they  begat  in  your  land :  and 
they  shall  be  your  possession.  And  ye  shall  give  them  as  an  inherit- 
ance to  your  children  after  you  as  a  possession  ;  they  shall  be  your 
bondmen  for  ever." 

(7)  The  various  regulations  with  reference  to  the  rights  of  servants 
form  one  of  the  most  difficult  parts  of  the  legislation.  It  is  on  them 
in  particular  that  the  assertion  is  founded,  that  the  legislation  in 
Deuteronomy  stands  in  absolute  contradiction  to  that  in  Leviticus. 


§110. 

(a)  Regulations  bearing  on  Ilebreio  Servants, 

An  Israelite  might  in  a  legal  way  become  a  slave  (1),  either  by 
selling  himself  on  account  of  poverty.  Lev.  xxv.  39,  47,  or  by  being 
sold  by  judicial  decree  on  account  of  inability  to  make  compensation 
for  a  theft  committed,  Ex.  xxii.  2  (2).  In  the  latter  case,  however, 
we  must  conclude  from  the  context  of  the  law  that  it  was  not  lawful 
to  sell  him  to  strangers  (3).  On  the  usual  view  taken  by  almost  all 
biblical  archaiologists  (including  Saalschiitz  and  Keil),  the  creditor 
had  a  right  to  sell  debtors  or  their  children  when  they  were  unable  to 
pay  their  debts.  This  view  would  in  any  case  have  to  be  restricted, 
in  so  far  as  an  arbitrary  interposition  of  the  creditor  against  the 
person  and  children  of  the  debtor  can  have  no  hold  in  the  law,  and 
would,  indeed,  be  in  decided  contradiction  to  the  laws  of  pledges 
in  Deuteronomy  (3*).  The  law  (Deut.  xxiv.  10)  forbids  the  creditor 
to  enter  the  house  of  the  debtor  in  order  to  choose  a  pledge  arbitrarily. 
It  forbids  him  (Ex.  xxii.  25  f . ;  Deut.  xxiv.  12)  to  keep  the  pledged 
garment  of  a  poor  man  over  night ;  "  for  it  is  his  only  covering,  his 
garment  for  his  skin  ;  for  what  can  he  lie  on  ?  and  if  he  call  on  me, 
I  will  hear  him,  for  I  am  gracious."  It  forbids  the  pledging  of  a 
debtor's  mill,  because  that  would  be  pledging  the   "soul"  (that  is, 


g  110.1  EKGULATIOXS  BEARING  ON  HEBREW  SERVANTS.  857 

something  indispensably  requisite  for  the  maintenance  of  life),  Dent, 
xxiv.  6.  And  could  this  humane  law  have  given  up  the  person  of  the 
impoverished  debtor  or  his  children  to  the  caprice  of  the  creditor? — 
There  is  less  difficulty  in  admitting  that  the  lawfulness  of  the  judicial 
adjudication  of  an  insolvent  debtor  is  not  excluded  by  Lev.  xxv.  39, 
47  (4).  However,  the  passage  probably  only  speaks  of  an  Israelite 
who  sells  himself  because  he  is  no  longer  in  a  position  to  remain  inde- 
pendent. From  the  other  Old  Testament  books,  too,  we  can  deduce 
no  sufficient  proof  of  this  common  opinion.  Prov.  xxii.  7  does  not 
relate  to  this,  since  the  proverb  expresses  quite  generally  the  depen- 
dence of  the  debtor  on  the  creditor.  2  Kings  iv.  1,  Amos  ii.  6,  viii. 
C,  certainly  prove  the  practice  of  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes  ;  but 
the  case  mentioned  in  the  first  passage,  that  a  widow's  two  sons  were 
to  be  taken  away  from  her  by  a  creditor,  certainly  cannot  be  con- 
sidered as  agreeable  to  the  meaning  of  the  JMosaic  law,  while  the 
passage  in  Amos  calls  it  a  gi'oss  offence  to  deliver  up  poor  persons  to 
slavery  on  account  of  small  debts.  Besides  these  passages,  Job  xxiv. 
9,  Nell.  v.  5,  Isa.  1.  1,  and  Matt,  xviii.  25  are  wont  to  be  quoted  as 
proof-texts.  The  passage  in  Job  rebukes  the  heartlessness  which 
takes  away  as  pledge  a  baby  from  the  breast  of  its  mother.  With 
Neh.  V.  5  is  to  be  taken  ver.  8,  where  Nehemiah  condemns,  in  the 
strongest  language,  the  mode  of  proceeding  by  which  the  poor  were 
compelled  to  give  up  their  children  to  be  slaves  to  cover  their  debts. 
And  the  two  last-named  passages,  also,  are  proofs  only  of  the  common 
practice,  not  of  its  lawfulness  (5). 

There  are  two  different  ordinances  in  the  Pentateuch  about  the 
way  in  which  an  Israelite  who  had  fallen  into  slaveiy  was  to  be 
treated, — one  in  the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  Ex.  xxi.  1-11,  and  in 
Dent.  XV.  12-18  ;  and  another  in  Lev.  xxv.  39-55. 

1.  The  first  two  laws  make  the  following  provisions  : — (a)  If  an 
Israelite  has  bought  one  of  his  fellow  countr\  -folk,  whether  of  male 
or  (see  the  passage  in  Deuteronomy,  and  Jer.  xxxiv.  9  ff.)  female  sex, 
the  time  of  service  shall  last  only  six  years  (G).  This  definition  of 
time,  which  reminds  us  of  Jacob's  seven  years'  service  (Gen.  xxix.  18), 
rested  probably  on  ancient  custom  ;  in  the  law,  however,  it  is  formed 
mainly  in  imitation  of  the  period  of  the  Sabbath,  and  this  is  indicated 
in  the  connection  of  the  passage  in  Deuteronomy.     As  a  day  of  rest 


358   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.  [§  110. 

follows  six  days  of  labour,  and  a  festival  year  follows  six  years  of 
cultivation  of  land,  so,  in  like  manner,  the  seventh  year  shall  bring  to 
the  servant  freedom  from  bondage.     Only  the  year  of  emancipation 
did  not  fall  exactly  at  the  snnie  time  as  the  Sabbath  year  ;  although, 
according  to  Jer.  xxxiv.  8  ff.,  the  Sabbatic  year  once  gave  occasion 
for  the  emancipation  of  Hebrew  servants  in  the  time  of  Zedekiah. — 
{[>)  If  the  servant  entered  alone  into  service,  he  becomes  free  alone  ; 
but  if  he  entered  married,  his  wife  became  free  with  him.     If,  on  the 
contrary,  his  master  gave  him  a  wife,  and  she  bear  him  children,  the 
wife  and  children  remain  the  master's,  and  he  goes  out  free  alone  (7). 
The  law  in  Deuteronomy  commands  the  master  to  encourage  the  freed 
man  with  gifts  of  produce  (from   the   flock,  the  barn-floor,  and  the 
winepress)  (8). — (c)  If  the  servant  will  not  go  free,  because  he  loves 
his  master  or  his  wife  and  children,  the  master  shall  bring  him  before 
th.e  court ;   probably  for  the  purpose,  in  particular,  of  putting  the  com- 
plete spontaneousness  of  the  servant's  determination  out  of  all   doubt. 
On  this  the  master  is  to  bring  the   servant  to  the  door  or  the  door- 
post, and  pierce  (V^"])  his  ear  (probably  the  right  one)  with  an  awl,  by 
which  ceremony  the  servant  is  now  bound  to  permanent  service  (9). 
The  connection  in  the  passage  in  Deuteronomy  shows  that  the  door  of 
the  house  in  which  the  servant  is  to  serve  is  meant,  although  that 
])assage  does  not  mention  appearing  before  the  court  at  all  (10).     As 
the  meaning  of  the  ceremony  in  general  is  obligation  to  permanent 
obedience,  the  symbolic  act   is  applied  to  the  oi-gan  of  hearing,  and 
that  by  a  sign  which  remains  for  ever  (11).     The  affixing  the  ear  to 
the  door-post,  caused  by  piercing,  denotes  that  the  servant  is  bound 
permanently  to  the  house  (12).     Although  a  moral  motive  is  given  as 
the  basis  of  this  proceeding,  there  is  undeniably  something  degrading 
in  it  (13). — The  meaning  of  the  D^'V?,  in  Ex.  xxi.  6,   Deut.  xv.  17,  is 
disputed.      The  expression  evidently  refers  properly  to  lifelong  servi- 
tude (because  the  symbolic  action  ordained  imprinted  on  the  servant 
an  indelible  sign).     The  limitation  of  the  time  of  service  by  the  year 
of  jubilee  (14)  results  only  from  the  comparison  of  the  law  in  Levi- 
ticus (15). — (d)  In  the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  Ex.  xxi.  7-11,  a  law 
follows  which  is  to  meet  the  case  of  an  Isi-aelite  who  sells  his  daughter 
to  another  on  the  presupposition  that  she  is  to  become  the  wife  or 
concubine    of    the    purchaser   or    his  son.      Here    something    quite 


5  no.]  REGULATIONS  BEARING  ON  HEBREW  SERVANTS.  359 

flifferent  from  Dent.  xv.  12  ff.  is  spoken  of;  the  latter  law  treats  of 
the  way  in  which  a  Hebrew  woman  is  to  be  kept  who  does  not  enter 
the  service  of  a  man  for  tlie  purpose  of  marriage  (16). 

Side  by  side  with  the  two  ordinances  of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant 
and  of  Deuteronomy  ah'eady  explained,  there  is  one  that  runs  quite 
differently,  in  connection  with  the  law  of  the  jubilee  year,  Lev.  xxv.,  the 
contents  of  wliich  are  as  follows: — (a)  Vers.  39—43.  Here  the  case  is 
l)ut  of  one  Israelite  selling  himself  to  another,  because,  after  parting  with 
his  possession  of  land,  he  cannot  even  gain  a  livelihood  like  a  stranger 
(who  earns  a  sustenance  by  working  for  hire)..  In  this  case  the  master 
is  not  to  cause  him  to  perform  the  work  of  a  slave,  but  is  rather  to 
impose  on  him  such  work  as  one  demands  from  a  day-labourer,  and  to 
treat  him  generally  as  such  (17).  This  relation  is  only  to  last  until  the 
year  of  jubilee,  in  which  the  servant  and  his  children  (18)  are  freed, 
and  return  to  their  own  people  and  the  inheritance  of  their  fathers. 
(Therefore  a  portion  from  the  master  is  in  this  case  not  necessary.) 
— (L)  Vers.  47—55.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  impoverished  Israelite 
sells  himself  to  a  stranger  dwelling  in  the  land,  he  may  likewise  be 
treated  only  as  a  day-labourer,  and  in  this  case  he  may  be  redeemed  at 
any  time  (19).  The  purchase-money  is  to  be  reckoned  by  the  number 
of  years  which  pass  from  the  time  of  purchase  to  the  year  of  jubilee 
(and  the  calculation  is  based  on  the  amount  of  wages  which  a  day- 
labourer  can  claim).  In  the  case  of  redemption,  the  value  of  the 
service  already  given  (calculated  on  the  same  principle)  is  deducted 
from  the  purchase-money.  In  the  year  of  jubilee,  however,  the 
servant  and  his  family  go  out  quite  free.  This  law  in  Leviticus 
stands  quite  disconnected  side  by  side  with  the  already-discussed 
regulations  of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  and  of  Deuteronomy.  Very 
various  views  are  brought  forward  on  the  relation  in  which  these 
stand  to  each  other.  According  to  Ewald  and  many  others,  we  have 
here  legal  provisions  of  different  date.  After  the  emancipation  of 
slaves  in  the  seventh  year,  as  proscribed  in  the  Book  of  the  Covenant, 
fell  out  of  use,  a  later  legislation  contented  itself  with  prescribing 
their  emancipation  in  the  year  of  jubilee ;  which  would  indeed  have 
been  a  very  sorry  surrogate,  since  numberless  servants  did  not  survive 
to  the  year  of  jubilee.  At  a  later  time,  the  writer  of  Deuteronomy 
again  enjoined  the  old  law.     A  general  argument  against  this  view  is, 


300   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.  [§  110. 

that  tlie  law  of  the  jubilee  cannot  be  understood  as  originating  in  later 
circumstances  (as  we  shall  see  in  detail  in  §  152).  But  in  particular, 
this  question  arises  :  Why,  according  to  that  later  legislation,  is  the 
attainment  of  freedom  denied  to  a  Hebiew  servant  who  serves  another 
Israelite  during  the  whole  period  of  fifty  years  from  jubilee  to  jubilee? 
Was,  then,  in  this  respect,  the  servant  of  an  Israelite  at  a  disadvantage 
in  comparison  with  the  servant  of  an  alien  ?  On  the  other  hand,  the 
incompleteness  of  the  command  in  ver.  39  ff.  is  sufificiently  intelligible  if 
the  provisions  of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  were  still  in  force  along  with 
it.  The  apparent  contradiction  between  the  two  laws  is  to  be  solved, 
with  J.  D.  Michaelis  (^mos.  Becht,  §  127),  Hengstenberg  {^Beitrdge,  iii.  p. 
440  f.),  and  others,  by  supposing  that  during  the  first  forty-four  years  of 
a  period  of  jubilee,  the  emancipation  of  servants  was  entirely  regulated 
by  the  mandate  in  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  (and  so  took  place  after 
six  years)  ;  whilst,  on  the  contrary,  the  year  of  jubilee  brought  freedom 
to  those  who  fell  into  servitude  in  the  last  years  of  the  period  of  the 
jubilee,  even  if  they  had  not  served  for  six  years.  Hence  the  law  in 
Leviticus  proceeds  on  the  presupposition  th.at  the  servant  will  live  till 
the  time  of  liberation — till  the  year  of  jubilee. — Other  attempts  at 
reconciliation  assume  tliat,  in  the  two  sets  of  laws,  different  persons  are 
treated  of  (20). 

(1)  Man-stealing  was  to  be  punished  by  death,  whetlier  the  per- 
sons carried  off  were  found  with  the  thief  (Ex.  xxi.  16)  or  had  been 
sold  by  him  (Deut.  xxiv.  7).     [In  the  above-cited  article.] 

(2)  In  this  case  the  thief  was  without  doubt  generally  assigned  to 
his  victim  (rot?  KaraSLKaa-a/jb6voL<;  ^ovXo^  eVra),  Josephus,  Aiit.  iv.  8. 
27).     [In  the  article  cited  above.] 

(3)  When  Herod  ordained  that  thieves  were  to  be  sold  abroad, 
this  was  with  right  regarded  as  a  heavy  offence  against  the  law  of 
the  Fathers  (Josephus,  Ant.  xvi.  1.  1). — Besides  the  two  cases  in  the 
text,  only  the  power  of  the  father  to  sell  his  daughter — the  particulars 
below — is  mentioned,  Ex.  xxi.  7 ;  the  father  has  not  this  power  over 
his  sons.     [In  the  above-cited  article.] 

(3*)  Comp.  Mielziner,  I.e.  p.  18. 

(4)  Saalschiitz,  nios.  Recht,  p.  707,  refers  the  passage  to  this. 

(5)  The  legality  of  the  practice  is  also  denied  by  rabbinical  tradi- 
tion. Compare  on  this  topic  Alting,  acad.  dissert,  in  0pp.  v.  p.  223. 
[In  the  article  cited.] 


§  110.]  EEGULATIONS  BEARING  ON  HEBREW  SERVANTS.  oGl 

(G)  On  tlie  ap])lication  of  tliis  law  to  tliose  sulci  on  account  of 
theft,  see  in  the  article  above  citedj  p.  46fi. 

(7)  By  the  wife  who  does  not  become  free  is  meant,  of  course,  a 
slave  who  is  not  an  Israelite  (see  the  Mechilta  on  this  passage);  if  she 
was  a  Hebrewess,  she  also  had,  according  to  Deut.  v.  12,  first  to  serve 
out  her  six  years ;  but  if  she  was  not  a  Hebrewess,  she  had  no  claim 
whatever  to  be  freed.     [In  the  article  cited.] 

(8)  This  was  a  provision  designed  to  lighten  to  the  servant  the 
beginning  of  an  independent  establishment.     [In  the  article  cited.] 

(9)  Deut.  XV.  17  says  that  a  maid  was  to  be  treated  in  just  the 
same  way.  According  to  Jewish  tradition,  the  ear  of  a  maid  was  not 
pierced ;  still  it  is  not  natural  to  refer  the  closing  words  of  ver.  17  only 
back  to  the  contents  of  ver.  14. 

(10)  On  the  contrary,  Aben-Esra  and  Abrabanel  understand  the 
gate  of  the  town  beneath  which  the  C(jurt  was  held  (see  Alting,  I.e. 
p.  225  f.,  where  other  rabbinic  writings  are  adduced  in  illustration); 
Ewald  {Alterth.  des  Volkes  Israels^  ed.  1,  p.  195;  ed.  3,  p.  283  f.) 
refers  Ex.  xxi.  6  to  the  supreme  court  in  the  sanctuary,  and  thinks 
that  the  ear  of  the  servant  was  held  to  the  door  or  door-post  of  the 
sanctuary  by  the  priest,  and  then  pierced  by  the  master.  [In  the 
article  cited.] 

(11)  But  it  is  hardly  right  to  interpret  the  piercing  as  an  opening 
of  the  ear,  and  consequently  as  a  symbol  of  the  awaking  of  attention ; 
the  expression  quoted  in  Ps.  xl.  7  (6),  "  mine  ears  hast  Thou  opened," 
is  of  another  kind.     [In  the  article  cited.] 

(12)  It  is  not  very  apposite  when  Ewald,  in  illustration,  compares 
the  piercing  of  the  nose  of  animals  that  were  to  be  tamed.  [In  the 
article  cited.] 

(13)  Thus,  too,. the  rabbis  have  understood  it,  and  have  carried 
the  exegesis  of  the  ceremony  further  in  the  same  sense.  In  the 
piercing  they  see  a  punishment  of  the  ear;  for,  says  Jochanan  ben 
Zakkai,  it  heard  from  Mount  Sinai,  "  Thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods 
beside  me,"  and  has  cast  off  the  yoke  of  the  heavenly  kingdom,  and 
taken  the  yoke  of  flesh  and  blood.  The  ear  which  heard  at  Sinai, 
"  The  children  of  Israel  are  my  servants,"  went  away  and  took  another 
lord  (see  the  Gemara  on  Kiduschin  i.  2  ;  Ugolin.  Thes.  xxx.  415). 
[In  the  article  already  cited.] 

(14)  Thus  Josephus,  Ant.  iv.  8.  28,  and  the  talmudico-rabbinic 
traditions.     See  the  article  already  cited,  p.  467  f. 

(15)  Deuteronomy  gives  the  reason  of  the  whole  command,  partly 
in  a  general  way  by  reference  to  the  redemption  of  the  people  from 
Egyptian  bondage,  and  partly  in  particular  by  showing  that  in  the  six 


oG2   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.  [§  110. 

years  the  servant  lias  worked  "  the  double  of  a  day-labourer."  The 
latter  expression  is  obscure  :  it  can  hardly  be  understood  to  mean  a 
double  measure  of  work  (twice  as  hard  or  twice  as  long),  especially  if 
Lev.  XXV.  39  is  compared ;  it  is  most  naturally  referred  (see  Fr.  W. 
Schultz  on  this  passage)  to  the  fact  that  a  day-labourer,  to  whom 
wages  as  well  as  food  must  be  given,  would  have  cost  the  master  twice 
as  much.     [In  above  art.] 

(16)  See  Hengstenberg,  Confrihutions  to  Introdnction  to  the  Old 
Testament^  ii.  p.  439  ;  Bertheau,  The  Seven  Groups  of  the  3fosaic  Laws^ 
p.  22  ff. — With  reference  to  a  woman  sold  for  the  purpose  of  marriage, 
the  Book  of  the  Covenant  decrees  that  her  liberation  is  not  to  be  on 
the  same  principle  as  that  of  a  man-servant.  If  the  conditions  of 
marriage  are  observed  towards  her,  she  naturally  remains  with  her 
master  for  ever;  if  not,  three  cases  are  distinguished: — 1.  If  she 
displease  her  master,  who  had  designed  her  for  himself  (Keri  i?),  he 
is  to  permit  her  to  be  freed  (either  by  her  father,  or  by  another 
Israelite  who  wishes  to  marry  her),  but  he  is  not  empowered  to  sell  her 
to  a  strange  people  on  account  of  his  faithlessness  to  her;  2.  If,  on 
the  contrary,  he  intends  her  for  his  son,  she  must  be  treated  hence- 
forth as  a  daughter;  3.  If  he  takes  another  besides  her,  he  must  not 
diminish  the  food,  raiment,  and  duty  of  marriage  of  the  former.  If 
he  does  not  give  her  these  three  things,  she  is  to  be  let  go  free  with- 
out money  [above  art.]. — For  particulars  on  the  meaning  of  this 
passage,  see  in  the  above-cited  article,  p.  468. 

(17)  See  the  more  detailed  rules  according  to  tradition  in  the 
above-cited  article,  p.  469'. 

(18)  See  the  talmudic  view  of  this  in  the  article  cited  above, 
p.  469,  note.  Comp.  also  Selden,  de  jure  nat.  et  gent.  vi.  7  ;  and 
Mielziner,  I.e.  p.  34. 

(19)  Whether  the  redemption-money  be  paid  for  him  by  one  of 
his  relatives,  or  whether  he  pay  it  himself  when  he  acquires  the 
means.     [Above  art.] 

(20)  On  the  rabbinic  view  (see  the  Mechilta  on  Ex.  xxi.  2), 
which  makes  the  regulations  of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  refer  to  tlioj^e 
sold  by  the  court  of  justice  on  account  of  theft,  and  the  regulations 
of  the  law  of  the  jubilee  to  those  who  have  entered  into  servitude  out 
of  poverty,  compare  the  article  cited  above,  p.  470. — ISIore  can  be  said 
in  favour  of  the  view  which  would  understand  by  the  Hebrew  servants 
in  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  a  particular  class,  occupying  a  middle 
position  between  the  Israelites  meant  in  the  law  of  the  jubilee,  who 
were  not  to  be  treated  as  servants,  but  only  as  day-labourers,  and  the 
heathen  slaves.     Thus  Saalschlitz  {)iios.  Ixecht,  p.  703  ff.)      According 


§  111.]  THE  POSITION  OF  SERVANTS  NOT  ISRAELITES.  3G3 

to  him,  those  were  meant  bv  Hebrew  servants  who  had  become 
Hebrews  by  naturalization,  or  who  were  born  as  servants  in  the  family 
of  an  Israelite.  These  were  to  be  let  free  after  six  years,  if  they  were 
sold  out  of  the  house  to  which  they  originally  belonged  to  another 
master.  Afterwards  Saalschiitz  {Archdologie  der  Hebrw'v,  ii.  p.  240) 
altered  his  view  so  far  as  to  say,  that  by  Hebrew  servants  men  of 
cognate  race  are  to  be  understood,  who  had  come  over  from  the  real 
fatherland  of  the  Hebrews;  he  supposes  that  mutual  peaceful  rela- 
tions were  formed  with  these  by  the  concession  of  a  seven  years'  term 
of  service.  But  not  only  the  constant  use  of  "'")3y,  which  never  occurs 
in  its  older  and  more  extensive  meaning  after  Gen.  x.  21  (comp.  xiv. 
13),  but  also  the  ^^HN  (added  in  Deut.  xv.  12,  which  is  evidently  to 
be  taken  as  Lev.  xxv.  39,  and  is  explained  in  Jer.  xxxiv.  9  by  ''T'^') 
speaks  decidedly  against  both  these  hypotheses.     [In  above  art.] 

§111. 
(h)  The  Position  of  Servants  not  Israelites, 
Slaves  in  the  strict  sense  were,  as  we  have  seen  from  the  above- 
mentioned  passage.  Lev.  xxv.  44-46  (§  109,  note  6),  to  be  acquired 
in  part  from  the  surroundinn;  nations,  and  in  part  from  aliens  within 
the  land.  The  term  "surrounding  nations"  excludes  tlie  Canaanite 
t'bes  who  dwelt  in  the  land  (see  Raschi  on  this  passage);  they  were 
to  be  completely  exterminated  (Deut..  xx.  16-19).  Since,  however, 
this  was  not  executed,  but  rather  considerable  remnants  of  the 
Canaanites  remained  in  the  land,  these,  in  as  far  as  Israel  obtained 
the  mastery  over  them,  were  (Judg.  i.  28,  30)  subjected  to  compulsory 
service  ;  as  at  a  previous  time  that  "  mob "  (Luther's  translation) 
which,  according  to  Ex.  xii.  38  (3"]!?,  a  mixed  multitude).  Num.  xi.  4 
(*lpSpXj  a  heterogeneous  crowd),  joined  themselves  to  the  Israelites 
when  they  were  marching  out  of  Egypt,  were  employed  in  the  meaner 
offices  in  the  camp  (Deut.  xxix.  10)  (1). — For  the  future,  also,  it  is 
ordained  in  the  law  of  war  (Deut.  xx.  11  ff.),  that  the  inhabitants  of 
towns  not  belonging  to  the  Canaanites  who  subjected  themselves  of 
free  will  to  Israel  should  fall  into  serfdom  ;  while,  on  the  contrary, 
in  towns  which  were  taken  by  force,  the  men  were  to  be  killed,  and 
only  the  women  and  children  were  to  be  led  into  slavery  (comj).  Num. 
xxxi.  16  f.,  26  f.).  Thus  was  formed  in  the  Hebrew  state  a  sort  of 
Helot-class,  mentioned  especially  under  David  (2  Chron.  ii.  16,  comp. 


3G4      THE  COVENANI  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.     [§  111. 

with  2  Sam,  xx.  24)  and  Solomon  (1  Kings  ix,  20  ;  2  Cliron.  viii.  7). 
This  class,  which  was  bound  to  compulsory  labour  and  employed  on 
the  public  works,  is  estimated  in  2  Chron.  ii.  16  at  153,600  persons  (2). 
Private  slaves  may  have  also  in  part  been  taken  from  this  class  of 
men.  As  the  Old  Testament  never  mentions  the  importation  of  slaves 
and  slave-markets  in  the  land,  it  is  to  be  supposed  that  Israel,  even 
in  the  times  when  it  kept  up  a  lively  intercourse  with  other  nations, 
drove  no  considerable  slave-trade,  and  thus  acquired  comparatively 
few  slaves  by  buying  them  in  foi-eign  lands.  It  hardly  appears 
that  Israelites  came  in  contact  with  the  Phoenician  slave-trade  other- 
wise than  as  sufferers  (Jo.  iv.  6,  Ob.  20).  How  little  the  law 
favoured  the  multiplication  of  heathen  slaves  is  shown  by  the  remark- 
able regulation  in  Deut.  xxiii.  16  f.,  in  which  it  is  said  that  a  slave 
who  has  run  away  from  his  heathen  master  and  fled  to  Israelitish 
land  must  not  be  delivered  uj)  nor  treated  with  violence,  but  was 
rather  to  receive  liberty  to  settle  down  where  he  pleased  in  an 
Israelitish  town  (3). — After  what  has  been  said,  it  cannot  appear 
remarkable  that  the  number  of  slaves  was  comparatively  much  smaller 
than  among  other  civilised  nations  of  antiquity  (4). 

The  provisions  contained  in  the  law  on  the  religious  and  legal 
position  of  slaves  are  as  follows : — With  regard  to  the  receiving  of 
slaves  into  the  religious  community  of  the  covenant  people  by  circum- 
cision, the  law  of  patriarchal  times  remained  in  force  ;  see  Ex.  xii.  44 
(comp.  §  82,  3).  Kabbinic  tradition  says  that  it  was  not  lawful  to 
compel  a  heathen  slave  to  be  circumcised,  but  he  was  to  be  re-sold  at 
the  end  of  a  year  if  he  persevered  in  refusing  the  rite  (5).  Through 
circumcision,  slaves  received  a  right  (by  the  passage  cited)  to  partake 
of  the  Passover ;  they  are  thus,  in  distinction  from  aliens  and  day- 
labourers  (ver.  45),  to  be  treated  as  members  of  the  family  (6).  That 
the  slaves  took  part  in  the  sacrificial  feasts  follows  from  this  as  a  matter 
of  course  (Deut.  xii.  12,  18,  xvi.  11,  14).  It  was  not  lawful  (Deut.  v. 
14)  to  interfere  with  the  Sabbath  rest  of  the  slaves  (7). — With  refer- 
ence to  the  treatment  of  female  slaves,  the  rule  laid  down  in  Deut. 
xxi.  10  ff.  about  those  women  who  were  taken  in  war  is  particularly 
characteristic  of  the  humane  spirit  of  the  law  (8). — The  master  has 
no  right  over  the  life  of  the  slave.  To  this  Ex.  xxi.  20  f.  refers  (9). 
Here   it   is    commanded  that,  "  If  a   master  strike  his  man-servant 


§  111]  THE  POSITION  OF  SERVANTS  NOT  ISRAELITES.  3G5 

or  liis  maid-servant  with  a  staff,  so  tliat  he  or  she  die  under  his  hand, 
it  shall  be  avenged."  Jewish  tradition  says  that  in  tliis  case  the 
master  had  to  suffer  death  by  the  sword  (10).  This  explanation  is 
very  improbable,  since  the  connection  shows  that  it  is  not  intentional 
murder  that  is  spoken  of,  but  a  misuse  of  the  rigiit  of  chastisement 
(comp.  the  expressions  in  Num.  xxxv.  16-18).  On  tlie  rabbinic 
view,  too,  the  technical  term  riCV  DID  would  probably  have  been  used ; 
while  the  choice  of  the  indefinite  expression  (^?^\)  seems  to  show  that 
the  punishment  might  be  differently  measured  according  to  circum- 
stances (11).  Nevertheless,  if  the  slave  outlived  the  punishment  one 
or  two  days,  there  was  to  be  no  punishment,  according  to  ver.  21  of 
the  law,  for  "  it  is  his  money  " — that  is,  the  master  is  already  sufficiently 
punished  by  the  loss  occasioned  by  the  death  of  the  servant.  Beside?, 
an  intention  to  kill  could  not  in  this  case  be  supposed.  Plowever, 
this  provision  is  also  made  sharper  by  tradition  (12).  Lastly,  ver.  26  f. 
commands  that  if  any  one  strike  out  the  eye  or  tooth  of  a  slave,  he 
must  immediately  give  him  freedom  (13). 

The  humane  treatment  of  slaves  commanded  by  the  law  is  also 
elsewhere  inculcated  in  the  Old  Testament.  How  distinctly  it  enjoins 
the  recognition  of  human  dignity  in  a  slave  is  especially  shown  by  the 
passage  Job  xxxi.  13-15:  "If  I  did  despise  the  cause  of  my  man- 
servant or  of  my  maid-servant,  when  they  contended  with  me;  what 
then  shall  I  do  when  God  riseth  up?  and  when  He  visiteth,  what  shall 
I  answer  Him?  Did  not  He  that  made  me  in  the  womb  make  him? 
and  did  not  one  fashion  us  in  the  womb?"  (14). — The  admoni- 
tions not  to  treat  a  slave  too  delicately  (Prov.  xxix.  19,  21)  are 
to  be  regarded  as  parallel  with  those  touching  the  upbringino-  of 
children  (15). 

(1)  On  the  class  of  slaves  for  the  sanctuary,  which  originated  In 
a  similar  way,  compare  our  account  of  David's  time. 

(2)  On  the  relation  of  2  Chron.  ii.  16  to  1  Kings  v.  27  ff.,  see  the 
various  views  in  Keil,  Komment.  ilher  die  Bucher  der  Konige,  1810, 
p.  68  f.;  Ewald,  Gesch.  Israels,  iii.  ed.  1,  p.  34;  ed.  3,  p.  312  f. ; 
Bertheau,  Komment.  zur  Chronik,  p.  294  f.      ■|2d  ed.  p.  240.|- 

(3)  The  fact  that  the  heathen  slaves  in  Israel  came  in  great 
measure  from  the  class  which  was  liable  to  compulsory  labour,  and 
which,  as  has  been  already  observed,  was  originally  descended  from 


3G.(3   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACV.  [§  111. 

the  remnant  of  the  Canaanite  trihcs,  supplies,  in  connection  with  a 
I'eference  to  Gen.  ix.  25,  the  explanation  of  the  rabbinic  phrase,  "I3y 
"^I^^S,  as  the  £!;enernl  designation  of  non-Israelitish  slaves  (comp.  e.g. 
the  Mislina  Kiduschin  i.  3).     [Above-cited  art.] 

(4)  While,  for  example,  in  Athens  (comp.  Schomiinii,  griech. 
Altertht"nne)\  i.  p.  349),  during  the  prosperous  times  of  the  state,  the 
])roportion  of  slaves  to  citizens  was  as  high  as  four  to  one,  the  propor- 
tion among  the  Israelites  was  rather  the  inverse  of  this.  According  to 
Ezra  ii.  64  f.,  Neh.  vii.  67,  there  were  in  the  train  of  the  42,360  Jews 
who  returned  from  Babylon  only  7337  of  both  sexes  ;  but  here  we  must 
indeed  remember  that  it  was  especially  the  poorer  classes  of  the  exiles 
that  seem  to  have  taken  part  in  the  return.     [In  the  art.  above  cited.] 

(5)  Except  when,  on  entering  the  service,  he  expressly  reserved 
for  himself  the  right  of  exemption  from  circumcision.  A  circumcised 
slave  was  not  allowed  to  be  sold  again  to  a  heathen  (see  Mielziner,  I.e. 
p.  58).     [Ibid.] 

(6)  As  Lev.  xxii.  11,  the  slaves  of  a  priest  might  partake  of  the 
holy  food,  just  like  his  family.     [In  above  article.] 

(7)  That  a  master  who  had  no  male  issue  might  marry  a  slave  to 
liis  daughter,  and  adopt  him  in  the  place  of  a  soUjis  shown  by  what  is 
related  in  1  Chron.  ii.  34  ff.     l_lbid.'] 

(8)  An  Israelite  was  not  allowed  at  once  and  unconditionally  to 
gratify  a  passion  for  such  a  prisoner ;  not  till  a  month  has  passed, 
when  the  slave  has  got  over  her  home-sickness,  and  has  in  a  measure 
accustomed  herself  to  the  new  relationships,  could  he  enter  into 
matrimonial  connection  with  her ;  when  once  humbled,  he  could  not, 
if  she  pleased  him  no  more,  sell  her,  but  must  let  her  go  free  (see  the 
rabbinic  provisions  on  this  in  Selden,  de  jure  nat.  et  gent.  v.  13). 
[Ibid.'] 

{\))  Ex.  xxi.  20  f.  (see  Raschi  on  this  passage),  as  shown  by  the 
conclusion,  treats  of  slaves  who  were  not  Hebrews ;  with  regard  to 
Israelitish  slaves,  the  law  of  blood-revenge  (Num.  xxxv.  16  ff.)  would 
doubtless  have  been  observed.     [Ibid.] 

(10)  See  Hettinger,  juris  hebr.  leges,  p.  60. 

(11)  Comj).  Saalschiitz,  mos.  Recld,  p.  540. — There  is  no  doubt 
that  intentional  murder,  even  of  a  man's  own  slave,  fell  under  the  law 
of  Ex.  xxi.  12,  Lev.  xxiv.  17  (note  the  antithesis  to  ver.  18),  and 
xxiv.  21  f.  Even  by  Egyptian  law  (Diodor.  i.  77),  the  murder  of  a 
slave  was  treated  in  the  same  way  as  the  murder  of  a  free  man.    \Ihid^ 

(12)  Tradition  says  that  the  punishment  of  death  was  to  be  decreed 
against  the  master,  if,  in  chastising  his  slave,  he  made  use  of  an 
iiistrument  with  which  a  mortal   injury  must  obviously  be  inflicted, 


§  112.]  ESSENTIAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  MOSAIC  CUliUS.  oG7 

even  when  tlie  death  of  the  slave  did  net  occur  for  a  length  of  time, 
llhid.'] 

(13)  In  tin's  way  the  master  suffers  a  loss  of  property,  and  the 
maltreated  person  is  compensated  by  being  set  at  liberty. — The  law 
does  not  explain  the  provisions  of  criminal  justice  between  a  slave  and 
a  third  p'^rty.  See  the  tradition  on  this  point  in  the  above-cited 
article,  p.  472. — Except  the  ordinances  explained  in  the  text,  there  is 
no  provision  in  the  law  about  the  emancipation  of  non-Israelitish 
servants  ;  as  a  matter  of  course,  it  could  be  effected  by  purchase  or 
voluntary  release.  See  the  rabbinic  provisions  on  this  in  Mielziner, 
I.e.  p.  65  ff.     llbiilJ\ 

(14)  Comp.  Aristotle,  Eth.  Nik.  viii.  13  (11):  ^L\ia  ovk  eari 
7rpo9  BovXov  y  SovXo^ — o  lyap  Sou\o<i  efi-^v^ov  opyavov  to  8'  opyavov 
ayp-v^o^  Bov\o<i.  'Hi  ixev  ovv  80OX09,  ovk  earc  cjiiXia  TTyoo?  avrov,  y  S' 
avdp(07ro<;. — Seneca,  ^^^'s^.  v.  G  (ep.  47):  "  Ne  tamquam  noniinibus 
quidem,  sed  tamquam  jumentis  abutimur." — In  contrast:  "Vis  tu 
cogitare  istum,  quem  servum  tuum  vocas,  ex  iisdem  seminibus  ortum, 
eodem  frui  coelo,  asque  spirare,  asque  vivere,  seque  mori." 

(15)  Comp.,  too,  Sir.  xxx.  33  ff.  (xxxiii.  25  ff.). — Within  the  circle 
of  Judaism,  only  the  Essenes  and  Therapeutse  went  so  far  as  wholly 
to  abolish  slavery.  They  repudiate  slavery  as  a  thing  unnatural, 
because  inconsistent  with  the  common  brotherhood  of  mankind  (see 
Philo,  quod  omn.  iwob.  Mang.  ii.  p.  475;  de  vit.  contempl.  ii.  p.  482). 
llhid.] 


SECOND  DOCTRINE. 

THE   MOSAIC    CULT  US. 

§112. 

General  Tniroductory  Remarls.      Essential  CJiaracter  of  tJiis  Cultus. 

Although,  in  virtue  of  the  theocratic  ordinance,  all  human  relations 
and  conditions  have  a  religious  quality,  and  so  the  whole  life  of  the 
Israelite  must  be  shaped  as  a  service  paid  to  God,  yet  there  exists  a 
special  series  of  institutions,  forming  the  "in''  n"iuy  or  service  of  Jehovah 
in  a  narrower  sense,  in  which  special  expression  is  given  to  the  funda- 
mental idea  of  the  theocracy, — that  Israel  must  present  itself  before 
the  God  who  has  chosen  the  people  and  brought  them  into  fellowship 
with  Himself  as  the  community  which  He  has  hallowed  (Ex.  xix.  4); 


3G8      THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.     [§  112. 

that  Israel  must  consecrate  to  God  itself  and  all  that  it  has.  The 
grace  sh.own  and  blessings  given  in  connection  with  the  acts  of  tlie 
cultus  (Lev.  ix.  22  ;  Num.  vi.  27)  correspond  on  God's  side  to  this 
devotion  of  the  people,  which  rests  on  the  divine  election  and  institu- 
tion of  the  covenant,  and  is  completed  in  the  ordinances  defined  by 
God.  Note  how  these  three  elements — 1.  the  divine  election  and 
institution  in  contrast  to  human  eOekodpriaKeia;  2.  the  devotion  in 
the  acts  of  the  cultus  ;  3.  the  grace  connected  therewitli — are  united 
in  the  words,  Ex.  xx.  24 :  "  In  all  places  where  I  cause  my  name  to 
be  remembered"  (viz.  by  offerings,  as  is  seen  from  the  preceding  con- 
text), "  I  will  come  unto  thee  and  bless  thee."  Thus  in  the  cultus  a 
continual  and  lively  intercourse  takes  place  between  the  congregation, 
drawing  near  to  God  with  prayer  and  sacrifice,  and  the  God  who 
makes  His  presence  known  to  it  by  hearing  prayer  and  administering 
the  good  things  of  His  grace, — a  relation  of  mutual  communication 
and  association  of  life,  which  is  designated  as  the  coming  together 
{tryst}  of  God  and  the  people,  Ex.  xxix.  42  f.  {'^.^h  TV&^  Wyi:i 
bW)  (1). 

When  the  covenant  communion  subsisting  between  God  and  the 
people  finds  expression  in  the  cultus,  it  falls  under  the  notion  of 
symbol  ;  compare  how  nix  is  used  for  the  Sabbath,  Ex.  xxxi.  13,  17 
(D2''i"'n^  ""rn  Kin  nix).  The  institutions  of  public  worship  must  not  be 
looked  at  in  their  bare  outward  form,  but  must  be  referred  to  the  idea 
of  the  covenant,  and  interpreted  from  it.  Since  the  aim  of  the 
covenant  is  just  contained  in  the  words,  "  I  am  holy,  and  ye  also 
shall  be  holy,"  that  which  is  the  task  of  the  whole  theocracy  holds 
good  also  and  especially  for  the  cultus,  viz.  that  it  is  to  be  "  the 
representation  and  exercise  of  the  processes  of  sanctification  "  (2). — 
True,  the  Mosaic  cultus  is  not  a  system  of  conscious  symbol  in  the 
sense  that  the  acts  of  worship  were  to  be  merely  signs  of  internal 
things,  which  would  thus  go  on  in  relative  independence  of  the  acts  of 
cultus.  For  although  a  comprehension  of  the  symbols  of  the  Mosaic 
cultus  could  not  be  absolutely  wanting  to  any  pious  Israelite,  since, 
from  the  knowledge  of  God  which  was  planted  in  Israel  by  revelation, 
a  certain  understanding  of  the  meaning  of  the  forms  of  the  cultus 
must  necessarily  arise — all  the  more  so  because  the  ceremonial  law 
itself  everywhere  shows  the  inner  side  of  the  demands  of  the  law 


§  112.]  ESSENTIAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  MOSAIC  CULTUS.  3G9 

shinino-  through  the  veil  of  outward  ordinances  ; — though  this  was  so, 
yet  the  outward  acts  of  worship,  as  such,  still  remain  on  the  standpoint 
of  law  the  necessary  vehicle  for  the  actual  realization  of  communion 
between  God  and  man.  For  example,  sacrifice  does  not  symbolize  a 
devotion  to  God  taking  place  independently  of  the  act  of  sacrifice  ;  it 
is  not  merely  a  symbol,  or,  as  has  also  been  said,  a  supplement  to 
prayer,  possessing  a  relative  necessity,  but  it  is  just  the  devotion  of 
oneself  to  God  which  is  carried  out  in  the  act  of  sacrifice.  The  sacri- 
fice is  itself  an  embodied  prayer  ;  to  it  is  attached  the  attainment  of 
divine  pardon  and  divine  blessing  (of  this  there  can  be  no  doubt  when 
the  passages  concerned  are  looked  at  without  prejudice).  It  is  the 
concern  of  the  further  progress  of  revelation  to  free  the  spiritual  con- 
tents of  the  act  of  worship  from  its  husk  (3).  For  the  stage  of 
infancy,  the  ritual  ordinance  has  the  pedagogic  value  of  a  process 
workino-  from  the  outside  to  the  inside,  and  so  awakening  a  God- 
fearinfT  disposition,  a  consciousness  of  inward  communion  with  God ; 
comp.  e.g.  Deut.  xiv.  22  f.  (4). 

(1)  The  view  which  sees  in  cultus  only  an  activity  of  man  *'  for 
the  awakening  and  enlivening  of  the  pious  consciousness"  is  precluded 
from  reaching  a  full  understanding  of  worship  in  general,  and  in  par- 
ticular of  that  of  the  Old  Testament.  See  against  this  the  remarks 
of  Gaupp,  prah.  Tlieol.  i.  p.  83  ff.  The  point  involved  in  worship 
is  always  "  to  find  a  medium  for  some  personal  relation  and  communion 
with  God,"  not  by  any  means  simply  to  express  some  religious  state 
in  an  artificial  way  for  the  self-satisfaction  of  the  subject.  Prayer 
requires  a  living,  personal  God,  who  answers  prayer,  and  the  offering 
of  sacrifice  demands  its  acceptance  by  God.  Where  man  does  not 
know  that  he  has  to  deal  with  a  living,  personal  God,  every  ordinance 
of  worship  has  an  end,  or  becomes  a  dead,  lying  form. — That  the 
sacrificial  side  of  cultus  is  predominant  in  the  old  covenant,  and  the 
sacramental  in  the  new,  is  due  to  the  relation  of  law  to  gospel ;  in 
the  latter,  what  God  does  for  man  stands  first;  in  the  former,  man's 
acts.     See  Sartorius,  ilber  den  alt-  und  neutest.  Kultus,  p.  40  f. 

(2)  Compare  Bahr's  Symholik  des  mos.  Kidtus,  i.  p.  8  ff.,  a  work 
which  opened  up  the  way  for  the  symbolic  understanding  of  the 
Mosaic  cultus. — The  Mosaic  cultus  is  taken  up  merely  from  the  out- 
side when,  as  has  not  seldom  happened,  to  it  is  ascribed  the  idea  that 
God  is  really  to  be  fed  by  the  offering,  or  when  such  profound  inter- 
pretations are  given  as  that  of  Clericus,  that  the  incense  at  the  sacrifice 

VOL.  I.  2  A 


370   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.  [§  113. 

was  designed  to  drive  away  impertinent  flies  from  the  flesh  of  tlie 
sacrifice,  etc. — The  cultus  must  be  understood  from  the  idea  of  the 
covenant.  K.  J.  Nitzsch  has  expressed  himself  particularly  w^ell  on 
this  topic  in  his  academic  lectures,  iiher  die  christl.  Glauhenslehre, 
1858,  which  contain  a  series  of  excellent  remarks  on  the  Old  Testa- 
ment in  opposition  to  current  misunderstandings.  He  rightly  says  : 
"  The  whole  Old  Testament  ought  to  be  and  must  be  a  representation 
and  exercise  of  the  processes  of  sanctification. — The  whole  nature  of 
the  symbols  and  ceremonies  of  Moses  is  different  from  those  of  the 
heathen,  although  much  in  the  outer  forms  in  heathenism  and  the 
Old  Testament  seems  to  be  quite  similar.  The  heathen  ceremonies 
effect  material  union  with  the  divinity  ex  opere  operato,  and  so  work 
magically.  There  is  not  a  single  usage  in  the  institutions  of  Moses  in 
which  a  sensible  act  effects  communion  with  God  in  a  magical  way, 
but  all  have  a  purely  symbolical  nature.  This  holds  good  of  purifica- 
tions, of  offerings,  of  sacred  buildings  and  their  construction ;  it  holds 
ji-ood  of  every  utensil  of  the  temple  and  every  action." 

(3)  In  the  Prophets  and  the  Psalms,  as  we  shall  see  afterwards, 
sacrifice  is  allowed  a  value  only  in  as  far  as  it  goes  along  with  inward 
transactions  of  the  pious  heart,  and  thus  it  appears  as  relatively  in- 
different. Mosaism  says:  Piety  approves  itself  in  sacrifice;  prophecy 
says :  Sacrifice  is  approved  only  by  piety.  The  two  propositions  are 
mutually  dependent,  but  the  question  is,  Which  stands  foremost?  This 
corresponds  to  the  gradual  pi-ocess  of  the  Old  Testament  revelation. 
But  we  must  not  think  that,  if  it  had  not  been  the  meaning  of  the 
Mosaic  institutions  to  mirror  the  inner  events  of  salvation,  prophecy 
could  have  developed  this  thought  from  them. 

(4)  Deut.  xiv.  22  f . :  Bring  the  tithes,  "that  thou  mayest  learn  to 
fear  Jehovah  thy  God  at  all  times"  (comp.  §  84). 


§113. 

The  Place  of  the  Word  in  Public  Worship. 

Connected  with  the  matter  of  our  last  remarks  is  the  peculiarity 
of  the  Mosaic  cultus,  that  in  it  the  word,  speech,  as  an  independent 
part  of  worship,  has  little  prominence,  and  scarcely  appears  except 
as  attached  to  some  action  and  supported  thereby.  The  proclamation 
of  the  divine  word  does  not  appear  as  an  essential  part  of  the  Old 
Testament  cultus ;  and  though  the  teaching  of  Jehovah's  law  and 
statutes  (Deut.  xxxiii.  10)  is  specified  among  the  priests'  duties  (comp. 


§  113.]  THE  PLACE  OF  THE  WORD  IN  PUBLIC  WORSHIP,  371 

§  95),  the  reading  of  the  law  appears  in  connection  with  worship  only 
in  the  regulation  Dent.  xxxi.  11  (every  seventh  year,  at  the  Feast  of 
Tabernacles).  But  to  the  place  of  worship  was  attached,  without 
express  teaching,  the  knowledge  of  the  God  who  shows  Himself  here  as 
a  present  God,  Ex.  xxix.  43-46,  after  which  passages  like  Ps.  xxvii.  4, 
etc.,  are  to  be  understood  ;  while  with  the  acts  of  cultus  was  connected 
the  lively  transmission  of  the  knowledge  of  tlie  great  deeds  on  which 
Israel  rested  its  faith ;  see  passages  like  Ex.  xii.  26  f,,  xiii.  14,  etc. 
(comp.  §  105).  The  liturgic  use  of  the  Word  is  found,  moreover,  in 
the  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  this  not  merely  (as  we  often 
find  it  said)  in  the  high  priest's  blessing,  Num.  vi.  24-26.  At  the 
festival  of  the  day  of  atonement  a  liturgic  formula  is  obviously  pre- 
supposed, Lev.  xvi.  21 ;  and  it  is  especially  important,  that  at  the 
presentation  of  a  sin-offering  (Lev.  v.  5 ;  Num.  v.  7)  a  definite  con- 
fession of  his  sin  is  enjoined  on  the  offerer.  Vows  must,  as  a  matter 
of  course,  be  uttered.  Deuteronomy  prescribes  stated  prayers,  chap, 
xxvi.,  only  for  presenting  the  first-fruits  and  the  tithes.  Nevertheless, 
side  by  side  with  the  stable  forms  of  the  cultus  there  ruled  among  the 
people  a  powerful  spirit  of  prayer ;  and  so  all  the  examples  set  forth  in 
the  Pentateuch  are  also  represented  as  praying  men  of  strong  faith  (1). 
From  this  spirit  of  prayer  arose  sacred  song,  which,  in  connection  with 
the  festival  dance,  was  introduced  into  the  service  of  worship  as  early 
as  Ex.  XV.  20.  f.,  comp.  with  Judg.  xxi.  21,  but  which  up  to  the  time 
of  David  appears  only  in  perfectly  free  and  unregulated  use  (2). 

Appendix:  The  Oath. 

The  oath  is  also  regarded  as  a  religious  act.  See,  as  the  main  pas- 
sage, Deut.  vi.  13 :  "  Thou  shalt  fear  Jehovah  thy  God ;  Him  shalt 
thou  serve,  and  shalt  swear  by  His  name ; "  comp.  x.  20.  Swearing 
is  here  an  act  of  religious  confession ;  comp.  passages  like  Jer.  iv.  2, 
Isa.  Ixv.  16. — The  oath  appears  not  merely  as  an  asseveration, — as  the 
assertion  of  the  truth  before  the  presence  of  God  as  the  Living  One 
(in  the  formula  nin^  '<n^  "  Jehovah  lives,"  see  §  42),  and  thus  as  the 
omnipotent,  omniscient,  and  holy  Avenger  of  untruth — thus,  e.g., 
Judg.  xi.  10  ("  May  Jehovah  be  judge  between  us  "), — but  it  is  a  dis- 
tinct appeal  to  His  penal  justice  against  him  who  knowingly  speaks 


Oil       THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.     [§  113, 

falsehood.  This  conception  of  the  oatli  is  sufficiently  evident  even 
from  the  common  form  of  swearing  with  DS  and  vb  DK,  which,  fully 
expressed,  demands  a  sentence  of  the  sort  which  we  find  in  2  Sam.  iii. 
35 :  P1'P>  r\b)  U^riW  ^^"nb'j;;  nb  (if  this  and  that  is  or  is  not  so) ;  comp. 
1  Sam.  xiv.  14.  But  this  character  of  the  oath  is  particularly  clear  in 
the  main  passage  Josh.  xxii.  22  :  "  nin"*  D^•^Sx  ^wS  nini  D\n'SK  h^  knows, 
and  Israel  shall  know,  if  it  be  in  rebellion,  or  in  transgression 
against  Jehovah,  save  us  not  this  day  ; "  and  ver.  23  :  "  Let  Jehovah 
Himself  require  it."  The  oath,  viewed  as  such  an  appeal  to  God's 
penal  justice,  bears  the  name  nps^  or  more  fully  n^X  riVT^,  Num.  v.  21, 
with  which  passage  compare  also  Deut  xxix.  13,  18,  Prov.  xxix.  24, 
etc.  Therefore  Solomon,  in  his  prayer  at  the  dedication  of  the  temple, 
1  Kings  viii.  31  f.,  prays  that  the  effect  of  an  nbx  presented  at  the 
altar  may  be,  that  God  in  heaven  may  hear,  act,  and  judge,  to  condemn 
the  godless,  to  bring  his  way  on  his  head,  and  to  justify  the  righteous, 
and  to  give  him  according  to  his  righteousness. — The  oath  appears  in 
private  life  from  the  most  ancient  times  as  a  promissory  oath.  Gen. 
xxiv.  2  f.,  1.  5,  25 ;  in  particular,  as  an  oath  of  covenant,  xxi.  23  ff., 
xxxi.  53  f.  The  law  speaks  of  promissory  oaths,  particularly  in  the 
form  of  vows  (3).  However,  the  law  further  acknowledges  the 
assertory  oath  as  an  oath  of  purgation  before  the  court  of  justice, 
Ex.  xxii.  10,  and  as  au  adjuration  by  the  judge  to  those  who  were 
present  and  in  a  position  to  bear  witness.  Lev.  v.  1  (comp.  §  99).  To 
this  head  belongs  also  the  adjuration  of  those  accused  of  adultery. 
Num.  V.  19  ff.  (comp.  §  104,  1). — The  form  in  which  an  oath  was 
taken  was  always  that  the  oath  was  sworn  by  Jehovah  (Hin''  Ti).  Pro- 
testations by  the  soul  (T^S3  "'H)  and  the  like  are  matters  of  private 
caprice,  and  not  of  theocratic  rules.  Custom  combined  various  signs 
with  the  taking  of  an  oath ;  thus,  in  Gen.  xxi.  28  ff.,  seven  lambs 
were  set  up  as  pledges  of  the  oath, — much  as,  according  to  Herodotus, 
iii.  8,  the  Arabians  closed  a  bargain  by  smearing  seven  stones  with 
the  blood  of  the  contracting  parties.  The  word  V?^?,  to  swear,  properly 
to  he-seven  one  another,  points  to  the  great  age  of  such  customs. 
The  variously  interpreted  patriarchal  ceremony  in  swearing,  viz. 
laying  the  hand  under  the  thigh  of  him  who  is  sworn  to,  Gen.  xxiv 
2,  xlvii.  29,  is  probably  to  be  explained  from  the  fact  that  the  thigh 
was  regarded  as  the  source  of  physical  life.     It  was  doubtless  still 


§  113.]  THE  OATH.  373 

more  common  to  raise  the  hand  in  invocation  towards  heaven  (4), 
Gen.  xiv.  22  f.,  comp.  with  Deut.  xxxii.  40,  Ex.  vi.  8.  The  official 
and  judicial  form  of  oath  among  the  Hebrews  was,  that  he  who  took 
the  other's  oatli  conjured  tlie  man  who  was  to  swear,  who  then 
answered  the  adjuration  with  ipx  (comp.  Num.  v.  22 ;  Deut.  xxvii. 
16  ff.),  or,  "thou  sayest  it,"  Matt.  xxvi.  63  f.  (in  the  mouth  of  Jesus). 
Perjury,  as  a  profanation  of  Jehovah's  name  (Lev.  xix.  12),  as  a 
vain  use  of  it  (Ex.  xx.  7),  is  a  heavy  sin.  How  sacred  swearing  was 
counted  is  shown  by  Josh.  ix.  19,  where  even  an  obh'gation  by  oath 
undertaken  unlawfully  is  held  to,  in  order  that  God's  wrath  (^>*i?)  may 
not  come  on  the  community.  Even  when  any  one  frivolously  let  an 
asseveration  pass  out  of  his  mouth,  this  was  to  be  atoned  for  by  a  sin- 
offering,  Lev.  V.  4  ff.  When,  in  Lev.  v.  21  ff.  [E.V.  vi.  2  ff.],  a  man 
who  has  denied  upon  oath  the  possession  of  a  deposit,  or  otherwise  has 
used  an  oath  to  conceal  a  breach  of  trust,  is  sentenced  only  to  restore 
the  amount  of  his  breach  of  trust,  with  the  addition  of  one-fifth  more, 
and  then  to  bring  a  trespass-offering,  the  apparent  lightness  of  this 
punishment  is  probably  to  be  explained  by  assuming  that  the  law  refers 
only  to  the  case  of  spontaneous  confession  of  perjury. — From  the  later 
books  of  the  Old  Testament,  compare,  with  reference  to  the  sacredness 
of  the  oath,  Ps.  xv.  4 ;  1  Kings  viii.  31  f. ;  Ezek.  xvii.  16  ff.  (with 
reference  to  Zedekiah)  (5). 

(1)  Formal  directions  for  prayer  are  altogether  omitted  in  the 
Pentateuch  ;  examples  of  prayer  are,  however,  given,  and  answers  to 
prayer  are  recounted  :  Jacob's  wrestling  ;  Moses'  uplifted  hands  at  the 
battle  with  Amalek ;  his  mediatorial  intercession  for  the  people  before 
God — such  types  are  presented  from  which  every  one  can  draw  the 
knowledge  of  God's  will :  "  Call  on  me  in  trouble,"  etc. 

(2)  Judg.  xxi.  21  tells  us  that  virgins  went  in  such  dances  to  the 
yearly  festival  in  Shiloh. — See  the  way  in  which  song  and  music  were 
introduced  as  an  integral  portion  of  the  cultus  in  the  account  of  the 
time  of  David. 

(3)  A  fuller  treatment  of  vows  will  be  given  under  the  head  of 
sacrifice,  §  134  f. 

(4)  Hence  in  Arabic,  ^r^-w,  the  right  hand,  is  used  in  the  sense  of 

an  oath. 

(5)  Ps.  XV.  4,  "He  sweareth  to  his  hurt,  and  changeth  not,"  must  be 


374   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCKACY.  [§  114. 

explained  by  referring  the  passage  to  Lev.  v.  4. — On  Ezek.  xvii.  16  ff., 
compare  the  history  of  Zedekiah  infra. — It  is  noteworthy  how  the 
rabbins  combine  rigour  and  laxity  in  the  doctrine  of  oaths.  Thus  Moses 
(Maimonides,  hilchoth  shehuoth  xi.  16,  ed.  Ditlimar,  p.  204)  (comp.  the 
passage  out  of  the  Schulchan  aruch  in  Bodenschatz,  kirclil.  Verfasswuj 
der  heutigen  Juden,  p.  364)  teaches,  on  the  one  hand,  that  the  Jew  who 
swears  ought  to  consider  that  the  whole  world  quaked  in  the  hour 
when  God  said  to  Moses,  "  Thou  shalt  not  take  the  name  of  thy  God 
in  vain."  Perjury  does  not  concern  the  transgressor  alone,  but  his 
whole  race — indeed  all  Israel,  etc.  But  what  wretched  casuistry  does 
Maimonides  develope,  on  the  other  hand,  in  the  same  book  !  what 
lax  usage  do  the  provisions  of  the  rabbis  on  compulsory  oaths  permit ! 
Comp.  my  article,  "  Kol  Nidre,"  in  Herzog's  R.E.  viii.  p.  24  f. 


I.    THE  PLACE  OF  WORSHIP  (1). 

§114. 

The  Requisites  for  a  Place  of  Worship. 

The  simplest  place  of  worship  is  the  altar,  which  is  first  mentioned. 
Gen.  viii.  20  ;  a  height  rising  towards  heaven,  signifying  the  ascent 
of  the  devotion  embodied  in  sacrifice  (2).  The  common  name  for  the 
altar,  D5I9,  designates  it  as  the  place  of  the  sacrifice.  The  first  con- 
dition for  a  place  of  worship  is,  that  it  has  been  chosen  and  sanctified 
by  God,  and  has  actually  been  witnessed  to  as  the  abode  of  His 
revelation.  As  already  in  the  time  of  the  patriarchs  altars  were  set 
up  chiefly  in  places  consecrated  by  theophanies,  Gen.  xii.  7,  xxvi. 
24  f.  (compared  with  xxviii.  18,  xxxv.  1,  14),  so,  according  to  Mosaic 
law,  only  that  place  is  permitted  to  be  a  place  of  worship  where 
God  has  established  the  memory  of  His  name,  Ex.  xx.  24 ;  which 
He  has  chosen  to  cause  His  name  to  dwell  there,  Deut.  xii.  5,  11 
(xiv.  23)  (comp.  §  56)  ;  which  He  fills  with  His  glory  (Ex.  xl.  34), 
and  thereby  sanctifies  (xxix.  43  f.) — as  it  is  afterwards  said  of  the 
temple  (1  Kings  ix.  3  ;  2  Chron.  vii.  16),  that  His  eyes  and  His  heart 
were  there. 

The  sanctuary  is  only  to  be  one,  that  the  people  may  be  kept 
together  in  theocratic  unity.  Later  experience  shows  how  a  multi- 
plicity of  places  for  the  ordinances  of  worship  aided  the  growth  of 
idol-worship.     The  exclusive  unity  of  the  national  sanctuary  is  implied 


§  115.]      THE  AKRANGEMENT  OF  THE  MOSAIC  SANCTUARY.        375 

(not  only  in  Deuteronomy,  but)  already  In  what  is  said  in  the  book 
of  Exodus  about  the  tabernacle  as  Jehovah's  dwelling-place.  The 
passage  Ex.  xx.  24  f.,  "  In  every  place  where  I  place  a  memorial  of 
my  name,"  etc.,  is  not  contradictory,  for  this  passage  does  not  give 
leave  to  worship  Jehovah  at  the  same  time  in  many  places ;  but  the 
meaning  is,  that  an  altar  of  earth  is  to  be  reared  up  to  God  always  in 
that  place  in  which  God  has  placed  a  memorial  of  His  name.  A 
number  of  places  is  only  spoken  of  in  so  far  as  the  seat  of  worship 
necessarily  varied  with  the  people's  place  of  residence,  so  long  as  they 
were  on  their  wanderings.  The  unity  of  the  sanctuary  is  further 
presupposed  in  the  prohibition,  given  for  the  wandering  in  the  wilder- 
ness (Lev.  xvii.  1  ff.),  against  killing  an  animal  belonging  to  the  class 
of  sacrificial  animals  anywhere  except  in  the  sanctuary.  But  for  the 
circumstances  of  residence  in  the  Holy  Land,  Deut.  xii.  gives  the 
most  distinct  command  ;  permitting,  indeed,  the  killing  of  animals  for 
food  in  every  place,  but  limiting  every  sacrifice  to  that  place  which 
Jehovah  shall  choose  for  the  habitation  of  His  name.  Nevertheless, 
Deut.  xii.  8  indicates  that,  even  during  the  wandering  in  the  wilder- 
ness, the  prohibition  of  other  places  of  worship  was  not  fully  carried 
into  effect. 

(1)  Since  the  personnel  of  the  Mosaic  cultus  has  already  been 
treated  of,  we  have  in  particular  only  to  treat  of  three  other  points : — 
1.  Of  the  seat  of  the  cultus  -,  2.  of  the  acts  of  worship  ;  and  3.  of  the 
times  of  worship. — Comp.  Biihr,  Symholik  des  mos.  Kultus. 

(2)  The  Greek  ^a)[xo<i  also  primarily  signifies  a  height  =  noa^  but 
in  the  Old  Testament  this  is  the  name  for  illegal  high  places  for 
sacrifice. 

§  115. 

The  Arrangement  of  the  Mosaic  Sanctuary  (1). 

The  Mosaic  sanctuary  is  a  tent,  generally  called  iPiO  hr\k — that  is, 
not,  as  many  modern  critics  falsely  interpret  it,  tent  of  the  gatherinn- 
of  the  people,  but  tent  of  the  meeting  of  God  with  the  people,  as  we 
see  without  ambiguity  from  the  definite  explanations,  Ex.  xxix.  42  f. 
{^^  ^')^  ^S"!?  ^^W  i^?^  ^m  T^: .  •  .''i^i^  ^gi<,  etc.).  Num.  xvii.  19,  comp. 
with  Ex.  xxv.  22,  xxx.  6  (2).    The  other  name  for  the  sanctuary,  i^nx 


[§  115. 

n^iyn,  or  n^lV'T  IS^'p — tliat  is,  tabernacle  or  abode  of  the  testimony — 
denotes  the  sanctuary  as  the  place  of  revelation.     The  LXX.  render 
both   expressions  by  aKrjvr]   rov  /xapruplov  or   t?}9    fxapTvpia<; ;    the 
Vulgate  generally  gives   tahernaculum  foederis,  and   from  the  latter 
arises    Luther's    Stiftshutte.       The    frame    of    the    whole    structure 
was    formed    by    a    construction    of    gilded    boards    or    (probably 
more   correctly)    beams   (D"'K''Tp).       The  wood   of  the  Arabic  acacia 
(n;3*^j  probably  different  from  ours)  was  selected  for  this  purpose  as 
well  as  for  the  sacred  utensils,  doubtless  because,  besides  being  very 
light,   it  is  distinguished  by  unusual   durability.     Over  the  wooden 
frame  there  hung,  Ex.  xxvi.  1-14,  a  fourfold  covering  of  curtains, 
the   first  of  which   was  made  of  byssus   (pi-obably  fine  linen),  em- 
broidered with   pictures  of    cherubs.     The   frame    with   this   lowest 
covering  is  called  i^K^Dj  in  the  narrower  sense.     Tlie  entrance  to  the 
tent  was  turned  towards  the  east,  and  hung  with  a  costly  covering  (^Dn) 
made  of  byssus.     The  whole  tent — the  length  of  which  was  thirty 
cubits,  and  its  breadth  ten — was  divided  into  two  rooms  :  in  front,  the 
Holy  Place,  t^'jpLi,  twenty  cubits  long  ;  and  behind  this  the  Most  Holy 
Place,  ^''K^'ni?  tJ'n'p,  in  length  ten  cubits,  and  separated  from  the  former 
by  a   curtain  woven    with   pictures  of   cherubim,   called   the  HDia 
(division).     The  tabernacle  was  surrounded  on  all  sides  by  a  court, 
in  length  one  hundred  cubits  and  in  breadth  fifty,  which  was  formed 
by  pillars  and  curtains,  and  had,  instead  of  a  door,  a  curtain  twenty 
cubits  broad. — The  utensils  of  the  sanctuary  were  as  follows : — In 
the  court,  in  the  open   air,  stood  the  altar  for  burnt-offerings  (Ex. 
xxvii.   1  ff.),   ^7^^  f^???,   which   is  always   meant  when    the    altar  is 
spoken  of  absolutely :  it  was  a  frame  of  acacia  boards,  overlaid  with 
copper.      As  the  command  xx.  24  f.,  which  said  that  the  altar  was 
to  be  made  out  of  earth  or  unhewn  stones,  was  not  abrogated  (comp. 
Deut.  xxvii.  5  f. ;    Josh.  viii.  31),  we  must    doubtless   suppose  the 
altar  to  have  been  a  mere  frame  without  a  top,  which  served  simply 
to  enclose  the  real  altar,  consisting  of  earth  or  unhewn  stones.     At 
the  four  corners  of  the  altar  were  heights,  called  horns,  on  which  a 
part  of  the  blood  was  smeared  at  the  sin-offerings,  and  which  were 
seized  by  those  who  sought  a  refuge  at  the  altar;  comp.  e.g.  1  Kings 
i.  50,  etc.     The  height  of  the  altar  was  three  cubits ;  it  was  sur- 
rounded half-way  up  by  a  grating  (^3"^?),  chiefly,  perhaps,  in  order 


§  115.]  THE  ARRANGEMENT  OF  THE  MOSAIC  SANCTUARY,  377 

to  let  the  priest  go  round  the  altar  on  it.  Between  the  altar  and  the 
sanctuary  was  a  copper  washing-basin,  "li'S,  in  which  the  priests 
washed  hands  and  feet  before  going  to  the  duties  of  their  office,  Ex. 
XXX.  17  ff.  In  the  sanctuary  itself,  towards  the  north,  stood  the 
table  with  the  twelve  loaves  of  shewbread,  D''?3  Dn?  (Ex.  xxv.  23-30), 
which  were  prepared  from  fine  flour  without  leaven,  and  put  there 
new  every  Sabbath.  Opposite  the  table  stood  a  golden  candlestick 
with  seven  lamps,  with  bowls  in  the  form  of  almonds  and  knops 
(Dnhss),  probably  in  the  form  of  a  pomegranate,  vers.  31-40.  In 
the  middle,  before  the  curtain  leading  to  the  most  holy  place,  was  the 
altar  of  incense,  ""^pp  nnTJp,  overlaid  with  gold  plate.  In  the  most 
holy  place  stood  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  n''"i3n  jhx,  also  called  ark  of 
the  testimony,  nnyn  pix,  also  simply  niiy,  the  most  sacred  vessel  of 
the  sanctuary, — a  chest  overlaid  within  and  without  with  fine  gold, 
containing  the  tables  of  the  law,  and  covered  with  a  golden  plate 
called  nnb3,  the  most  important  part  of  the  ark  of  the  covenant  (see 
in  particular.  Lev.  xvi.  13  ff.),  from  which,  1  Chron.  xxviii.  11,  the 
Holiest  of  all  bore  the  name  ri^Mn  n^3.  The  term  does  not,  as  many 
modern  critics  understand,  signify  a  lid  in  general ;  but  being  a 
derivative  fi*om  Piel,  "is?,  it  is  to  be  understood  to  mean  an  instru- 
ment of  atonement,  as  the  LXX.  already  correctly  translate  iKaarrj- 
piov.  Above  the  kapporeth  stood  two  golden  figures  of  cherubim, 
with  outspread  wings  and  faces  turned  towards  each  other ;  between 
them  the  shekinah  of  Jehovah  was  supposed  to  be  (Ex.  xxv.  22  ; 
Num.  vii.  89).  Hence  Jehovah  is  called  D"'3n3n  atJ'"'  (1  Sam.  iv.  4; 
2  Sam.  vi.  2  ;  Ps.  xcix.  1).  The  poles  for  bearing  the  ark  (Q"'!?) 
were  always  to  remain  in  the  rings  which  were  on  its  sides,  because 
it  was  not  to  be  touched  by  the  hand  of  man  ;  neither  was  it  to  be 
seen,  and  therefore  before  it  was  carried  faither  it  had  to  be  covered 
with  the  curtain  and  rolled  up.  Num.  iv.  5  f.  Besides  this,  a  vessel 
with  manna  (Ex.  xvi.  33),  Aaron's  rod  that  budded  (Num.  xvii.  25), 
and  lastly,  by  the  side  of  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  the  book  of  the 
law  (Deut.  xxxi.  26),  were  kept  in  the  most  holy  place. 


(1)  Old  Testament  theology  may  here  limit  itself  to  what  is 
valuable  for  the  symbolic  signification  of  the  sanctuary,  and  omit 
more   special  researches  of  archteology. —  Comp.   Balir,  I.e.;  Kurtz, 


378   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.  [§  115. 

"Beitriige  zur  Symbolik  des  alttest.  Kultus,  erster  Beitrac:  zur 
Symbolik  der  Kultusstatte"  {Zeilschr.  fur  luth.  Theol.  1851,  p.  1  ff.). 
The  best  essay  on  this  point  is  that  of  Riggenbach,  Die  mosaische 
Sti/tsJnitte,  1862  (ed.  2,  1867). 

(2)  The  essential  character  of  the  Old  Testament  cultus  is  ex- 
pressed in  this  designation  (comp.  §  112). 

§116. 

Cleaning  of  the  Sanctuary.      Its  Three  Rooms. 

The  symbolic  interpretation  of  the  sanctuary  cannot,  as  has 
frequently  been  done,  proceed  from  a  comparison  with  a  common 
nomadic  tent;  because,  of  the  three  rooms  of  the  latter,  the  central  is 
the  chief,  while,  on  the  contrary,  in  the  three  rooms  of  the  tabernacle, 
we  easily  observe,  along  with  a  graduated  relation  of  size,  a  graduated 
relation  also  in  respect  of  importance.  Into  the  first  division,  the 
court,  only  the  covenant  people  can  go ;  into  the  second,  only  th( 
priesthood ;  into  the  tliird,  the  high  priest  alone,  and  that  only  once 
a  year.  The  first  division  is  under  the  open  sky ;  the  second  is 
veiled,  but  still  lighted  ;  the  third  is  quite  veiled  and  dark. — The 
notion  that  the  sanctuary  is  a  picture  of  the  universe  is  old,  occurring 
even  in  Josephus  {Ant.  iii.  6.  4)  and  Philo.  The  same  view  has 
been  again  brought  forward  by  Bahr  {Symbolik  des  mosaischen 
Kiillus,  i.)  in  a  peculiar  form  and  an  ingenious  way  :  the  most  holy  place 
and  the  holy  place  form  a  representation  of  heaven ;  the  court,  a 
representation  of  earth  (1).  But  this  conception  is  already  contra- 
dicted by  the  circumstance  that  everything  that  is  said  about  the 
sanctuary  makes  it  to  refer  simply  to  the  theocratic  relationship  into 
which  Jehovah  entered  to  His  elect  people,  without  the  cosmical 
meaning  being  indicated  anywhere ;  for  such  a  conception  certainly 
does  not  necessarily  lie  in  the  square  form,  which  is  that  on  which 
the  building  is  planned.  In  what  sense  a  relation  between  the 
sanctuary  and  heaven  is  to  be  conceded  will  appear  below.  The 
sanctuary  is,  as  it  is  called,  the  tent  of  the  meeting  of  God  and  the 
people ;  but  this  in  the  sense  that  here  the  people  come  to  Jehovah 
in  His  dwelling-place,  which  He  has  set  up  in  the  midst  of  His  people. 
Thus,  in  the  sanctuary,  the  idea  of  God's  dwelling  among  Israel  is 
embodied.      It  is  a   tent,  because  Jehovah,  who  accompanies   His 


§  116.]  MEANING  OF  THE  SANCTUx\RY.      ITS  THREE  ROOMS.  379 

wandering  people  (comp.  2  Sam.  vii.  0  f.),  wislies,  in  respect  to  His 
dwelling-place,  to  place  Himself  in  similar  circumstances  with  them. 
But  at  the  same  time,  the  people  are  to  be  made  conscious,  that 
although  the  Holy  God  condescends  to  dwell  among  His  people,  this 
communion  cannot  be  accomplished  directly,  on  account  of  the  people's 
sinfulness,  but  only  through  the  mediation  of  the  people's  intercessor, 
who  holds  the  office  of  reconciliation.  The  people  are  therefore 
limited  to  the  court  surrounding  the  sanctuary,  and  the  sanctuary 
itself  is  only  allowed  to  be  entered  by  the  priests.  But  even  these 
priests  are  not  in  a  position  to  establish  a  full  communion  with  God 
(comp.  Heb.  ix.  8).  For  this  reason  Jehovah's  dwelling-place  is 
divided  into  two  apartments :  the  veiled,  holiest  of  all,  in  whicii 
Jehovah,  the  revealed,  and  yet  hidden,  and  in  a  manner  unapproach- 
able God  (comp.  1  Kings  viii.  12),  is  enthroned  in  the  darkness;  and 
the  holy  place, — the  place  of  the  priests  and  their  service,  whicli  just 
on  this  account  is  the  symbol  of  the  mediation  of  the  covenant. 
There  is  a  relationship  between  the  sanctuary  and  heaven  thus  far — 
the  shekinah  in  the  one  corresponds  to  the  shekinah  in  the  other  (see 
§  62)  ;  indeed,  it  is  not  impossible  that  the  distinction  between  the 
heaven  (1^!'?^)  and  the  heaven  of  heavens  (Q^^f'n  ''^^),  which  occurs 
a  few  times  in  the  Old  Testament,  corresponds  to  the  difference 
between  the  holy  place  (5^'IP)  and  the  most  holy  place  (^''^'"1)?  K'^P). 
Ex.  XXV.  9,  40,  has  also  been  referred  to  for  this,  comp.  Heb.  viii.  5 ; 
still  the  remark,  that  the  model  of  the  tabernacle  and  its  vessels  was 
shown  to  Moses  on  the  mount,  does  not  in  itself  imply  that  the 
sanctuary  is  to  be  a  copy  of  a  celestial  original,  but  only  that  it 
serves  to  give  expression  to  the  ideas  of  revelation.  There  is,  more- 
over, a  contrast  between  the  two  divine  dwelling-places ;  for  in 
heaven  God  dwells  in  His  majesty  as  Ruler  of  the  world,  in  the  earthly 
tabernacle  He  dwells  in  His  condescending  grace. 

(1)  Afterwards  Bahr  modified  this  view  in  his  work  on  Solomon's 
temple,  1848.  He  no  more  regards  the  sanctuary  as  a  picture  of  the 
creation,  but  as  a  picture  of  the  theocracy.  The  dwelling-place  is  the 
representation  of  the  centre  or  the  soul  of  the  theocracy. 


380   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.  [§  117. 

§117. 
Continuation :  Sacred  Vessels  in  the  Court  and  in  the  Sanctuary/. 

The  meaning  of  the  various  sacred  vessels  corresponds  to  the 
meaning  of  the  three  rooms  in  the  sanctuary.  The  only  piece  of 
sacred  furniture  with  reference  to  which  an  immediate  activity  of  the 
people  takes  place,  viz.  the  altar  for  burnt-offering,  stands  in  the 
court.  The  fact  that  nothing  but  earth  or  unhewn  stone  was  to  be 
used  to  fill  up  the  frame  is  not  (as  Bahr  says)  meant  to  remind  us  that 
man  is  a  creature  of  the  earth,  and  a  sinner  subject  to  death, — for 
how  could  the  unhewn  stones  agree  with  this? — but  the  material  is  to 
be  one  which  is  as  yet  not  desecrated  by  the  hand  of  man. — The 
horns  on  the  four  corners  of  the  altar  are  very  variously  interpreted. 
On  one  view  (held,  among  others,  by  Riggenbacli  and  Keil,  Archdologie, 
i.  pp.  104,  229),  they  are  said  to  be  symbols  of  the  divine  power  of 
salvation  and  help,  because,  as  is  well  known,  the  horns  of  a  bull  are 
the  symbol  of  strength  ;  and  with  this  view  it  agrees  well  that  to  them 
especially  the  privilege  of  asylum  is  attached.  According  to  another 
view,  which  agrees  better  with  the  use  of  the  horns  in  the  service  of 
sacrifice,  the  general  meaning  of  the  altar,  that  worship  ascends  to 
God,  culminates  in  the  horns,  so  that  thus  the  blood  of  atonement 
sprinkled  on  them  is,  as  it  were,  brought  a  step  nearer  God  (1). 
On  account  of  the  importance  of  the  horns,  the  altar  is  destroyed  by 
knocking  them  off,  Amos  iii.  14. — The  washing-basin,  li'3,  marks  the 
step  from  the  general  service  of  sacrifice  to  the  specific  priestly  service. 
When  the  priests,  Ex.  xxx.  21,  are  commanded  to  purify  hands  and 
feet,  with  the  warning  that  they  must  otherwise  die,  this  is  meant  to 
signify  that  he  who  has  to  carry  on  the  service  of  reconciliation  for 
the  congregation  must  sanctify  his  own  walk  and  acts. 

In  the  holy  place  stands  the  altar  of  incense,  in  front  of  the  inner 
curtain,  and  so  opposite  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  the  place  of  the 
shekinah  of  God  veiled  by  the  curtain.  The  incense-offering,  presented 
here  every  morning  and  evening  by  the  hand  of  the  priest,  was  (see 
Ps.  cxli.  2  ;  Rev.  v.  8,  viii.  3  f.)  a  symbol  of  the  prayers  of  the  people, 
because  of  which  in  the  temple  at  a  later  time  (comp.  Luke  i.  10), 
during  the  time  of  the  priestly  offering  of  incense,  a  praying  congre- 
gation was  gathered  in  the  court.     In  Num.  xvii,  11  (xvi.  46),  the 


§  117]  SACRED  VESSELS  IN  THE  COURT  AND  SANCTUARY.  381 

burning  of  incense  is  an  emblem  of  the  intercession  of  the  high 
priest. — It  is  more  difficult  to  see  the  meaning  of  the  table  with  the 
shewbread.  The  CJQ  Dnp  is  so  called,  Ex.  xxv.  30,  evidently  because 
it  was  laid  continually  before  Jehovah  ;  and  hence  the  table,  Num. 
iv.  7,  bore  the  name  D'^JS'!'  ID?^.  This  is  unfavourable  to  Biilir's 
explanation  {I.e.  i.  p.  425  ff.),  which  makes  the  "bread  of  the  counte- 
nance" to  signify  bread  by  the  use  of  which  man  obtains  a  view  of 
God  ;  so  that  in  the  shewbread  the  truth  that  he  who  gazes  on  God's 
countenance  is  spiritually  satisfied  thereby,  and  becomes  partaker  of 
the  enjoyment  of  the  highest  joy  and  rapture,  would  be  set  forth. 
But  in  fact  Biihr  has  not  succeeded  at  all  in  proving  that  the  shewbread 
in  its  primary  significance  is  not  something  sacrificial, — a  symbol  of 
something  presented  by  the  congregation, — but  something  sacramental, 
— a  symbol  of  something  which  God  gives  to  the  congregation.  In  this 
case,  the  circumstance  that  the  shewbread  was  to  be  eaten  by  the 
priests  in  a  holy  place  (Lev.  xxiv.  9)  must  be  the  chief  thing.  But 
we  see  clearly  that  when  the  loaves  of  bread  were  eaten,  their  real 
function  in  worship  was  already  fulfilled,  and  that  they  were  consumed 
in  a  holy  place  only  that  they  might  be  withdrawn  from  profane  use. 
In  Lev.  xxiv.  8,  the  shewbread  is  called  something  given  on  the  part 
of  (risp)  the  children  of  Israel  as  an  "eternal  covenant" — that  is,  a 
pledge  of  the  eternal  covenant  to  be  given  by  Israel  (2).  In  the  same 
way,  this  whole  oblation  falls  within  the  class  of  meat-offerings,  in 
virtue  of  the  incense  which  was  sprinkled  on  the  bread  as  nnars  (ver. 
7).  That  the  shewbread  is  akin  to  the  meat-offering  becomes  still 
more  clear,  because,  according  to  Ex.  xxv.  29  f.,  Num.  iv.  7,  to  the 
utensils  of  the  shewbread  belonged  also  those  vessels  which  were  used 
for  drink-offerings.  The  meaning  of  the  shewbread  rather  is,  that  the 
people  in  its  twelve  tribes  testified  by  the  continual  presentation  of 
nourishing  bread  in  the  sanctuary  that  it  owed  to  the  blessing  of  its 
God  the  maintenance  of  life ;  thereby  Israel  dedicates  to  God  the 
exercise  of  the  calling  by  which  it  wins  its  daily  bread  in  the  use  of 
God's  gifts  (3). — Since  Philo's  time,  the  candlestick  with  the  seven 
golden  lamps  has  often  been  referred  to  the  seven  planets  of  the 
ancients.  But  though  the  sanctity  of  the  number  seven  may  have  had 
this  reference  in  some  other  nations  (4),  there  is  no  trace  of  this  in  the 
Mosaic  cultus.     The  number  seven  is  here  always  the  sign  of  perfec- 


382   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.  [§  117. 

tiou  and  completion  in  all  relations  which  are  rooted  in  the  divine 
economy  of  salvation.  But  while,  in  general,  all  holy  things  symbolize 
the  communion  between  Jehovah  and  the  people,  the  candlestick  with 
its  sevenfold  light  points  to  the  perfect  Light  which  shines  in  this 
covenant  community  ;  and  in  particular,  the  light  does  not  refer  merely 
to  the  communication  of  higher  knowledge,  but,  as  in  the  high  priest's 
blessing,  Num.  vi.  25  ("Jehovah  make  His  face  shine  upon  thee"), 
to  saving  divine  grace  in  general.  This  meaning  of  the  symbol  is 
specially  confirmed  by  the  visions  Zech.  iv.  and  Rev.  i.  ff.  There  the 
candlestick  is  the  symbol  of  a  congregation  enlightened  by  God ;  and 
when,  in  the  vision  of  Zechariah,  the  candlestick  is  filled  with  oil 
without  the  act  of  man,  the  idea  expressed  is,  as  is  said  in  ver.  6,  that 
all  the  success  and  all  the  splendour  of  the  congregation  is  not  effected 
by  might  or  by  power,  but  by  the  Spirit  of  God. — Almond  blossom 
and  pomegranates,  the  ornaments  of  the  candlestick,  are,  in  the 
heathenism  of  Western  Asia,  symbols  of  natural  life  (5).  If,  now,  in 
Num.  xvii.  16-24,  the  blossoming  almond-rod  is  the  symbol  of  the 
inexhaustible  power  of  divine  life  in  the  priesthood  of  Aaron  (comp. 
§  95),  those  ornamentations  on  the  golden  candlestick  are  also  to  be 
regarded  as  the  symbol  of  the  divine  fulness  of  life,  which  the  congre- 
gation shares  in  communion  with  God.  Light  and  life  are,  to  speak 
generally,  essentially  connected  notions  in  Holy  Writ;  comp.  in  par- 
ticular Ps.  xxxvi.  10 :  "  With  Thee  is  the  fountain  of  life,  and  in 
Thy  light  we  shall  see  light."  In  the  symbols  of  the  holy  place  the 
truth  is  expressed,  that  the  people  presents  itself  before  its  God  in  the 
light  and  life  which  it  receives  in  virtue  of  covenant  communion  with 
God. 

(1)  Thus  Hofmann,  who  regards  the  horns  as  "  the  peaks  of  the 
sacred  height"  {Schriftbeweis,  ii.  1,  ed.  1,  p.  163 ;  ed.  2,  p.  257),  etc. 
I  hold  the  latter  explanation  to  be  the  more  probable. 

(2)  Comp.  how  the  same  term  is  used  of  circumcision,  §  87. 

(3)  This  interpretation  is  carried  further  by  Hengsteuberg  and 
others,  who  make  the  shewbread  a  symbol  of  spiritual  nourishment, 
which  the  people  has  produced  and  now  presents  to  its  God  as  a  service 
in  accordance  with  the  covenant — in  other  words,  a  symbol  of  good 
works;  an  interpretation  which  is  reached  by  bringing  in  John  vi.  27 
("  labour  not  for  the  meat  which  perisheth,"  etc.),  comp.  with  iv.  32  ff., 
but  has  no  support  in  the  Old  Testament. 


§  lis.]  THE  ARK  OF  THE  COVENANT,  ETC.  S83 

(4)  Compare  hereafter  the  doctrine  of  the  Sabbath,  §  148,  with 
notes  3  and  4. 

(5)  Especially  the  almond  blossom,  because  it  wakes  into  bloom 
while  all  nature  is  still  asleep. 


§118. 

Continuation:   The  Ark  of  the  Covenant,  loith  the  Kapporeth  and  the 
Tables  of  the  Laic. 

In  the  most  holy  place,  the  ark  of  the  covenant  is  symbol  and 
vehicle  of  the  presence  of  the  revelation  of  Jehovah  among  His 
people.  Hence  it  is  called  the  throne  of  God,  Jer.  iii.  16  f. ;  God's 
footstool,  1  Chron.  xxviii.  2,  Ps.  xcix.  5,  exxxii.  7.  But  its  meaning 
is  more  nearly  defined  by  the  three  parts — the  kap[)oreth  on  the  ark, 
the  tables  of  the  law  in  it,  and  the  cherubim  over  it. 

1.  The  kapporeth  is  the  most  important  part  of  the  ark  of  the 
covenant.     To  it  specially  is  attached  the  manifestation  of  the  divine 
presence  ;  "  there,"  it  is  said  in  Ex.  xxv.  22,  ''  will  I  meet  with  thee, 
and  will  commune  with  thee  from  above  the  mercy-seat,"  etc.     In  the 
circumstance  that  it  is  the  implement  of  atonement  (comp.  §  115), 
and  that  it  is  at  the  kapporeth  that  the  highest  act  of  atonement  is 
executed,  it  is  expressed  that  the  God  who  dwells  in  the  midst  of  His 
people  can  only  commune  with  them  in  virtue  of  an  atonement  offered 
to  Plim,  but  that  He  is  also  a  God  who  can  be  reconciled.     This 
throne  of  God  is  veiled  in  deep  darkness,  1  Kings  viii.  12  ("  Jehovah 
hath  said  that  He  will  dwell  in  darkness");  the  manifestation  of  God 
over  the  kapporeth  takes  place  in  a  cloud,  which  veils  His  glory,  Lev. 
xvi.  2, — in  the  same  cloud  which  guided  Israel's  march  through  the 
wilderness,  Ex.  xiii.  21,  and  which,  Ex.  xl.  34-38,  lowered  itself  on 
the  tabernacle  when  it  was  set  up.     Notwithstanding  this,  on  the  day 
of  atonement,  the  priest  who  approaches  with  the  blood  of  atonement 
must  envelope  himself  in  a  cloud  of  incense  (Lev.  xvi.  13)  when  he 
raises  the  curtain  (1).      This  expresses  the  fact  that  full  communion 
between    God    and    man    is   not   to    be   realized,    even  through   the 
medium  of  the  atonement  to  be  attained  by  the  Old  Testament  sacri- 
ficial institutions — that,  as  is  said  in  Ileb.  ix.  8,  as  yet  the  way  to  the 


384      THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.     [§  118. 

(lieavenly)  sanctuary  was  not  made  manifest  {/xyTrco  ire(f)avep(oaOai  rrjv 
rwv  cuymv  oSou). 

2.  The  kapporeth  rests  on  the  ark,  in  which  are  the  tables  of  tlie 
law,  the  testimony,  n^"iy.  This  means  that  God  sits  enthroned  in  Israel 
on  the  ground  of  the  covenant  of  law  which  He  has  made  with  Israel. 
The  testimony  is  preserved  in  the  ark  as  a  treasure,  a  jewel  (2).  But 
with  this  goes  a  second  consideration  (3) ;  while  the  law  is  certainly,  in 
the  first  place,  a  testimony  to  the  will  of  God  towards  the  people,  it  is 
also  (comp.what  is  said  in  Deut.  xxxi.  26  f.  of  the  roll  of  the  law  deposit- 
ed beside  the  ark  of  the  covenant)  a  testimony  against  the  sinful  people, 
— a  continual  record  of  accusation,  so  to  speak,  against  their  sins  iu  the 
sight  of  the  holy  God.  And  now,  wdien  the  kapporeth  is  over  the 
tables,  it  is  declared  that  God's  grace,  which  provides  an  atonement  or 
covering  for  the  iniquity  of  the  people,  stands  above  His  penal  justice. 

(1)  The  passage  Lev.  xvi.  2,  so  variously  interpreted,  runs  thus  : 
"  And  the  Lord  said  unto  Moses,  Speak  unto  Aaron  thy  brother,  that 
he  come  not  at  all  times  into  the  holy  place  within  the  veil  before  the 
mercy-seat,  which  is  upon  the  ark  ;  that  he  die  not :  for  I  appear  in 
the  cloud  "  (and  so  veiled)  ''  upon  the  mercy-seat."  For  a  long  time  it 
was  the  current  exegesis  (Vitringa,  Ohserv.  sacr.  i.  p.  168  ff. ;  Biihr; 
Ewald)  to  identify  the  ]^V2  in  ver.  2  with  the  cloud  of  incense  in  ver. 
13  (comp.  §  140),  so  that  ver.  2b  should  be  explained  :  ''  that  he  may 
not  die  ;  for  only  in  the  cloud  " — produced  by  the  incense — "  do  I 
appear  over  the  kapporeth."  The  unnaturalness  of  this  paraphrase 
is  manifest.  I  hold  that  view  to  be  the  right  one  which  regards  the 
two  clouds  (Ijy)  as  different.  But  this  leaves  it  a  disputed  point  what 
the  first  J5V  is  to  be  sui)posed  to  be.  The  Kabbis  postulate  a  cloud 
which  continually  hung  over  the  cherubim  ;  Luther,  on  the  contrary, 
on  Ps.  xviii.  (xvii.)  11,  notes :  "  Super  propitiatorium  et  cherubim  nihil 
erat  positum,  quod  videretur,  sed  sola  fide  credebatur  illic  sedere 
Deus"  {Exeget.  opera  lat.  xvi.  p.  73).  Hofmann's  explanation  is  the 
most  probable  {Schriftbeweis,  ii.  1,  ed.  1,  p.  361  f. ;  ed  2,  p.  507  f.), 
and  identifies  the  cloud  (correctly  pointed  with  the  article)  with  that 
mentioned  in  Ex.  xl.  It  was  to  appear  over  the  kapporeth  whenever 
the  high  priest  came  before  it. 

(2)  This  is  the  primary  meaning,  as  to  which  I  hold  that  Biihr 
and  Kurtz  are  right. 

(3)  Hengstenberg  has  wrongly  given  this  out  as  the  only  meaning 
of  the  svmbol. 


§  119.]  THE  CHERUBIM.  385 

§119. 

Continuation  :   The  Cheruhim  (1). 

3.  The  cherubim  are  the  most  important  symbols  of  the  Mosaic 
cultus.  Figures  of  them  appear  also  on  the  tapestry  of  the  taber- 
nacle, and,  at  a  later  time,  on  the  walls  of  Solomon's  temple,  and  in 
tiie  vision  of  the  new  temple,  Ezek.  xli.  They  are  mentioned  first  in 
Gen.  iii.  24, — a  trait  which,  as  Hengstenberg  and  others  have  rightly 
remarked,  indicates  that  they  belonged  to  a  symbolism  earlier  than 
that  of  Mosaism  (2).  In  Ps.  xviii.  11  they  appear  as  bearers  of  tlie 
cloudy  chariot  on  which  Jehovah  rides  ;  they  are,  besides,  mentioned 
in  the  vision  of  Ezekiel,  x.  1  £f.  comp.  with  i.  4  ff.,  in  which  latter 
]iassage  they  are  called  ni'rij  i.e.  living  creatures,  as  in  Rev.  iv.  6  ff. 
the  ^wa  (3).  They  nowhere  appear  developed  into  independent 
jiersonality,  like  the  D^^SpO  ;  they  are  not  sent  out  like  these,  but  are 
constantly  confined  to  the  seat  of  the  divine  habitation  and  the  mani- 
festation of  the  Divine  Being  ;  this  also  holds  good  of  Gen.  iii.  (comp. 
§  (52).  In  Ezckiel,  where  their  form  is  the  most  complicated  (comp. 
Rev.  iv.),  they  appear  with  a  fourfold  face, — that  of  a  man,  a  lion,  a 
bull,  and  an  eagle, — with  four  wings,  two  of  which  are  used  in  flying 
while  the  other  two  cover  the  body,  and  with  arms  and  feet;  their 
whole  body  is  covered  with  eyes.  This  description  of  Ezekiel's  is  not 
to  be  transferred  to  the  cherubim  of  the  sanctuary  ;  in  fact,  there 
would  not  (as  Riehm  rightly  remarks)  have  been  room  on  the  ark  of 
the  covenant  for  a  form  so  complicated.  Neither  can  the  cherubim 
of  the  temple  have  been  so  complicated.  For  since,  according  to 
1  Kings  vii.  29,  36,  there  were  pictures  of  lions  and  bulls  beside  the 
cherubim  on  the  brazen  bases  in  the  temple  of  Solomon,  these  cannot 
have  been  already  contained  in  the  pictures  of  the  cherubim  ;  never- 
theless, the  addition  of  the  former  shows  that  they  stand  in  some 
relation  to  the  cherubim.  But  we  must  further  note  (as  Hengsten- 
berg has  rightly  indicated),  that  in  1  Kings  vi.  29  palms  and  open 
flowers,  and  palms  again  in  Ezek.  xli.  18  ff.,  appear  in  connection 
with  the  cliLM'ubim.  But  if,  even  in  Ezek.  i.  5,  the  human  form  is  to 
be  regarded  as  predominant,  this  is  still  more  the  case  with  the 
cherubim  in  the  Pentateuch,  to  whom  hands  (Gen.  iii.  24)  and  faces 
VOL.  I.  2  B 


38G      THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.     [§  119. 

(Ex.  XXV.  20)  are  ascribed.  The  cited  Pentateuclial  passages  lead, 
indeed  (as  E,ielim  and  Keil  rightly  assert),  to  nothing  further  than  to 
winged  human  forms  (4).  But  it  is  not  at  all  probable  that  Ezekiel 
was  the  first  to  add  all  the  ■other  features;  some  form  or  other  akin  to 
the  later  composition,  although  simpler,  is  probably  to  be  assumed  for 
the  ancient  symbols  (5).  According  to  Hengstenberg  (die  Biichey 
Mose  s  wui  uEgypteti)  and  otliers,  the  cherubim  of  the  Pentateuch  are 
to  be  regarded  as  imitations  of  the  Egyptian  sphinxes,  which  are  com- 
posed of  the  form  of  a  human  being  (not  merely  a  virgin,  but  oftener 
still  a  man)  combined  with  that  of  a  lion,  to  which  Ezekiel,  in  whose 
portraiture  a  relation  to  the  Assyrian  composite  figures  of  animals 
cannot  be  mistaken,  has  added  also  the  bull  and  the  eagle.  The 
cherubim  are  in  any  case  to  be  so  interpreted,  that  the  latest  form 
in  Ezekiel  be  taken  only  as  a  development  of  what  originally  was 
involved  in  the  symbol. 

Our  inquiry  into  the  meaning  of  the  cherubim  must  start  from 
the  fact  that,  as  has  been  already  remarked,  they  designate  a  place 
as  the  abode  of  the  habitation  of  God  (Paradise,  the  tabernacle, 
and  later  the  temple),  and  are  thus  the  bearers  of  tlie  manifestation 
of  God  when  He  manifests  Himself  to  the  world  in  Plis  glory ; 
on  which  account  they  are  called  God's  chariot  (1  Chron.  xxviii. 
18,  comp.  Ps.  xviii.  11).  Since,  now,  in  Gen.  iii.  24  they  bar  the 
entrance  to  Paradise,  and  since  in  Ex.  xxv.  20  they  protect  and 
shade  the  ark,  the  first  element  in  their  function  is  to  express  to  man's 
consciousness  the  inaccessibility  of  the  Divine  Being.  They  reflect 
the  glory  of  the  unapproachable  God  in  a  form  which  is  accessible  for 
human  eyes,  but  at  the  samo  time  is  so  constructed  (as  Riehm  rightly 
urges)  that  they  could  give  no  support  to  the  worship  of  images.  But 
in  admitting  this,  we  have  not  yet  done  full  justice  to  the  symbol, 
especially  in  its  most  developed  form.  By  uniting  in  itself  the  noblest 
earthly  living  creatures, — man,  the  eagle,  the  lion,  the  bull, — and 
connecting  with  them  also  flowers  and  palms  as  representatives  of 
the  vigour  of  life  that  displays  itself  in  the  vegetable  kingdom,  the 
symbol  is  evidently  meant  more  particularly  to  set  forth  the  divine 
glory  as  it  is  manifested  in  the  world,  and  thereby  to  teach  men  to 
know  the  vital  powers  which  work  in  the  world  as  the  efflux  of  the 
divine  glory.      It  is  the  cherubim,  as  Schultz  (Alttest,  Tlieologie^  i.  p. 


§  no.]  THE  CHERUBIM.  3S7 

o'lo)  well  expresses  it,  "  which  at  one  and  the  same  time  proclaim  and 
veil  His  presence."  The  lion  and  the  bull  are,  as  is  well  known, 
symbols  of  power  and  strength ;  man  and  the  eagle  are  symbols  of 
wisdom  and  omniscience  ;  the  latter  attribute  is  also  expressed  in  the 
later  form  of  the  symbol  by  the  multitude  of  eyes.  The  continual 
mobility  of  the  ^wa.  Rev.  iv.  8,  signifies  the  never-resting  vivacity  of 
tlie  divine  operations  ;  this  is  probably  symbolized  also  by  the  wheels 
which  are  given  to  the  cherubim  in  Ezek.  i.,  in  which,  as  is  there  said, 
"  the  Spirit  of  the  Living  One  "  is.  The  number  four,  connected  with 
the  cherubim  in  the  later  form  of  the  symbol,  is  the  signature  of  all- 
sidedness  (towards  the  four  quarters  of  heaven).  Thus  Jehovah,  when 
lie  is  honoured  as  lie  who  is  enthroned  above  the  cherubim,  is 
acknowledged  as  the  God  who  rules  the  world  on  all  sides  in  power, 
wisdom,  and  omniscience.  In  the  room  of  natural  powers  working 
unconsciously,  is  placed  the  all-embracing,  conscious  activity  of  the 
Living  God,  the  God  of  the  spirits  of  all  flesh,  and  hereby  the  whole 
view  of  nature  in  the  Old  Testament  is  defined ;  comp.,  for  example, 
the  view  of  the  thunderstorm  in  Ps.  xviii.  11.  By  this  exposition  of 
the  cherubim  we  are  to  judge  of  the  meaning  of  the  invocation  in  Ps. 
Ixxx.  2  :  "  Thou  Shepherd  of  Israel,  who  art  enthroned  upon  the 
cherubim,  shine  forth  !  "  (6). 

The  philological  explanation  of  the  term  is  altogether  uncertain. 
The  rabbinical  interpretation,  which  Hengstenberg  has  renewed,  and 
which  looks  on  the  word  as  made  up  from  the  3  of  comparison  and 
2n,  and  gives  it  the  meaning  "equal  to  many,"  "like  a  multitude,"  i.e. 
the  union  of  plurality,  assumes  a  far  too  monstrous  etymological  forma- 
tion. The  view  of  Umbreit  and  others,  who  hold  that  2X^3  is  formed 
by  a  transposition  from  2in"i,  and  denotes  the  divine  chariot,  is  more 
plausible ;  and  in  fact  the  cherubim  are  called  nn3"iD  in  1  Chron.  xxviii. 
18  ,  comp.  again  Ps.  xviii.  11.  If  we  derive  the  word  from  m3,  various 
explanations  are  possible,  on  account  of  the  ambiguity  of  the  stem.  In 
Syriac,  the  stem  means  to  carve ;  hence  some  explain  nni!  by  7X077x01', 
carved  work  =  imagery,  from  which  Keil  gets  the  word  to  mean  "  fig- 
ments of  the  imagination,"  and  Hiivernick  {Alttest.  Theologie,  ed.  1, 
p.  80  ;  ed.  2,  p.  95),  creatures  of  the  ideal  world.  In  Arabic,  the  stem 
kavaha  means  to  lace,  and  then  to  straiten,  to  distress ;  so  others  give 
the  word  the  meaning — alarming,  horrible  creatures.     Others,  again, 


388      THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCKACY.     [§  120. 

have  got  at  the  signification  nobilis  piinceps,  by  the  combination  of  313 
and  D"i3.  Others  still  give  to  the  stem  3"i3  the  meaning  dpTrd^ecv,  to 
snatch,  so  that  the  cherubim  would  be  designated  by  their  sweeping 
power,  which  makes  them,  so  to  speak,  a  sort  of  harpies.  Frequently 
the  word  3i"'3  has  been  compared  with  the  Greek  ypvyjr^  the  griffin, 
that  fabulous  animal  of  the  East  which  watched  over  hidden  treasures  ; 
and  for  this  view  special  reference  is  made  to  Ezek.  xxviii.  14  ff., 
where  the  king  of  Tyre,  who  walked  in  Eden  on  the  mount  of  God 
between  stones  of  fire,  and  covered  and  protected  them  with  his  out- 
spread wings,  is  compared  to  a  cherub.  The  sense  of  the  passage, 
however,  is  clear  from  what  we  have  already  learned.  The  king  of 
Tyre,  who  deifies  himself,  is  called  a  cherub  because  he  looks  on  him- 
self as  the  guardian  of  the  divine  dwelling-place,  in  whom  is  reflected 
the  majesty  of  God. 

(1)  Literature:  Riehm,  de  natiira  et  rafione  s^/mbolica  Clierrilorum 
(Programm),  1864 ;  Hengstenberg,  die  Backer  Mode's  und  yE(jiipten, 
p.  157  ff. ;  as  also  his  essay  in  answer  to  Kiehm,  in  the  Evang.  Kirchen- 
zeitung,  1866  (May  and  June),  reprinted  in  his  Commentary  to  Ezehiel 
at  the  end  of  the  first  part,  p.  252  ff.,  in  which  is  defended  the  earlier 
conception  of  Biihr,  Hengstenberg,  and  others.  jRielim's  view  is  re- 
stated, with  modifications  and  additions,  in  the  Stud.  u.  Krit.  for  1871. j- 

(2)  Hengstenberg  says :  "  Thus  we  see  that  originally  they  did 
not  belong  to  the  sphere  of  revelation,  but  to  the  sphere  of  natural 
religion  "  {^Komment.  zu  Ezech.  i.  p.  254). 

(3)  Hengstenberg  finds  that  this  symbol  occurs  no  less  than  eighty- 
five  times  in  the  Old  Testament  {I.e.  p.  252). 

(4)  Riehm:  just  on  this  account  it  was  not  found  necessary  to 
describe  them  more  in  detail. 

(5)  Comp.  Schultz,  Alttest.  Theol.  i.  p.  340  ff. 

(6)  {"  Who  inhabitest  the  cherubim."  Riehm,  Stud,  und  Krit. 
1871,  p.  41i).} 

II.   THE  ACTIONS  OF  THE  MOSAIC  CULTUS  (1). 
§120. 

Introductory  Remarks:  1.    On  the  Notion  of  Offerings  in  General. 

The  actions  of  worship  fall  under  the  general  notion  of  offerings. 
The  essential  nnture  of  an  offering  in  general  is  the  devotion  of  man 


§  120.]  ON  THE  NOTION  OF  OFFERINGS  IN  GENERAL.  389 

to  God  expressed  in  an  outward  act.     Alan  feels  impelled  to  express 
ill  actions  which  he  directs  exclusively  to  God  partly  his  dependence 
on  God  in  general  (in  virtue  of  which  he  knows  that  he  is  dependent 
on  God  in  his  being  and  liis  possessions,  in  his  active  and  passive  life), 
and  partly  the  special  relations  in  which  he  is  placed  towards  God. 
True,  the  inward  impulse  which  impels  man  to  praise,  thank,  and  sup- 
])licate  God  finds  expression  in  words  of  devotion;  but  this  impulse 
is  not  fully  satisfied  till  this  word  is,  as  it  were,  embodied  in  a  corre- 
sponding action,  in  which  man  deprives  and  denies  himself  of  some- 
thinfT,  and  thus  by  deeds  testifies  the  earnestness  of  his  devotion  to  God. 
Under  the  notion  of  offering,  in  the  widest  sense  of  the  word,  are  also 
to  be  subsumed  observances  of  sacred  abstinence ;  to  which  belong,  in 
the  Mosaic  cultus,  fasting,  the  Nazarite  vow,  and  the  Levitical  acts  of 
})urification, — forms  of  observances  which  in  heathen  religions  some- 
times rise  to  the  most  hideous  self-torture  and  self-mutilation.     In  the 
narrower  sense,  however,  the  notion  of  offering  (corresponding  to  its 
derivation  from  offerre)  refers  to  positive  acts,  which  consist  in  the 
presentation   of  a   gift.     In  this  sense  it  is  designated    in   the   Old 
Testament  by  the  terms  nmp  (in  the  more  general  signification  in 
which  the  word  stands  in  Gen.  iv.  3  ff.,  but  never  in  the  sacrificial 
laws),  C'np  nijrio  (Ex.  xxviii.  38),  but  generally  by  ^y^,  that  is,  pre- 
sentation (Mark  vii.  11:  Kopj3av  6  iari  hwpov).     The  offering  may 
be  made  in  such  a  way  that  the  object  presented  remains  intact,  but 
henceforth   is   placed  exclusively  at  the   disj)osition   of  the   divinity 
(to  this  head  belong  the  gifts  of  dedication, — for  which  in  Num.  vii. 
3  ff.,  xxxi.  50,  the  word  l^^P  is  likewise  used, — those  persons  who  were 
dedicated  to  the  service  of  the  sanctuary,  etc.),  or  in  such  a  way  that 
what  is  offered  is  at  once  used  up  in  honour  of  the  divinity  in  some 
manner.     In  the  latter  case,  the  act  of  devotion  is  generally  completed 
in  the  consumption  of  the  gift,  or  at  least  a  part  of  it,  by  the  fire  on 
the  altar  (HfiTO).     This  is  what  is  meant  by  offering  in  the  most  limited 
sense,  of  which   in   the  Old  Testament  the  designation  is  nt^Xj  i.e. 
"  firing,"  a  term  used  in  speaking  of  all  offerings  which  were  brought 
to   the   altar,  whether  they  were  wholly  or  partially   burnt   (comp. 
Lev.  i.  9,  17,  ii.  3,  iii.  3,  9,  iv.  35,  v.  12,  etc.)  (2). — An  essential  factor 
in  the  offering  is  substitution,  which  can  take  place  in  a  twofold  way, 
— first,  when  the  person  who  brings  the  offering  is  represented  by  the 


390      THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.     [§  ICO. 

pft  substituted  in  his  room ;  and  secondly,  when  sometln'ng  is  sub- 
stituted for  the  object  to  be  offered.  The  latter  case  generally  occurs 
in  the  shape  of  the  representation  of  a  whole  class  of  things  by  a  part 
of  the  class  which  is  selected  to  be  offered  (as  in  the  case  of  the  first- 
born and  of  the  firstlings  of  the  harvest),  but  sometimes  as  strict 
substitution,  so  that  what  fell  to  be  offered,  but  from  some  cause  or  other 
was  not  fit  to  be  offered,  was  replaced  by  an  object  of  a  connected 
kind  (comp.  Ex.  xiii.  13,  xxxiv.  20),  or  some  other  surrogate  (3). 
The  idea  of  substitution  is  brought  out  most  fully  when  another  life 
is  offered  in  the  place  of  the  hfe  of  the  person  who  offers ;  but  the 
idea  of  substitution  reaches  much  further  than  this,  inasmuch  as  there 
is  self-renunciation  in  every  real  sacrifice, — the  offerer  putting,  so  to 
speak,  a  part  of  himself  into  his  gift,  whether  impelled  by  love  and 
thankfulness,  or  by  fear  of  the  vengeance  of  God,  to  which  he  knows 
himself  or  something  he  possesses  to  be  exposed.  With  this  it  agrees 
that  no  real  offering  can  be  made  of  another  man's  possession  (compare 
2  Sam.  xxiv.  24),  but  only  of  what  is  already  one's  projierty,  or  could 
at  least  (as  in  the  case  of  booty)  be  held  as  such;  and  that  it  is  just 
in  the  willingness  to  acknowledge  God's  higher  right  of  property  to 
one's  own  possession,  and  to  give  up  to  Him  even  what  is  dearest,  that 
the  genuine  spirit  of  sacrifice  is  proved,  as  is  expressed  in  the  story 
in  Gen.  xxii. 

(1)  Literature  :  Outram,  de  sacrificiis  libri  duo,  1678 ;  Saubert, 
de  sacrijiciis  veterum,  1699;  Sykes,  Versucli  iiher  die  Natur,  Absicht 
und  den  Ursprung  der  Opfer,  wath  notes  and  additions  by  Semler, 
1778.  In  more  modern  times  compare  Scholl,  on  the  sacrificial  ideas 
of  the  ancients,  especially  the  Jews,  in  the  Stiidien  der  evang.  Geist- 
lichkeit  Witrttembergs,  i,,  iv.,  and  v. ;  Bahr,  Symbolik  des  ynos. 
Kidtits,  ii. ;  Thalhofer,  die  tinblxitigen  Opfer  des  mos.  Knlfus,  1848  ; 
Hengstenberg,  "das  Opfer,"  in  the  Ecang.  Kirclienzeitiuig,  1852, 
Nos.  12-16;  Neumann,  "die  Opfer  des  A.  Bundes,"  in  the  deutsclien 
Zeitschr.  fur  cliristl.  Wissenschaft  xind  christl.  Leben,  1852,  Nos. 
30-33;  1853,  Nos.  40-44;  Hofmann,  Schriflbeiveis,  ii.  1,  ed.  1,  p. 
139  ff.,  ed.  2,  p.  214  ff. ;  Keil,  "die  Opfer  des  A.  Bimdes,"  in  the 
lather.  Zeitschr.  1856  f.;  Delitzsch,  Kommentar  znm  HebrderbrieJ^ 
p.  736  ff. ;  my  article,  "  Opferkultus  des  A.  T.,"  in  Herzog's  R.E.  x. 
]).  614 ff.;  Kurtz,  der  alitest.  Opferkultus,  1862;  Kliefotli,  "liber  den 
ulttest.    Kultus,"    in    the    4th    volanie    of    his    liturg.    Abhandlnng.  ; 


§  121.]  THE  BASIS  OF  THE  MOSAIC  SACRIFICIAL  CULTUS.  391 

Wann;emann,  das  Opfer  imch  Lehre  der  h.   Schrift,   2  vols.,    18GG. 
Other  books  will  be  referred  to  in  tiie  following  pages. 

(2)  n'to'X  cannot  be  used  of  what  is  not  to  be  burnt.  That  the 
incense  which  was  laid  cold  upon  the  shewbread  is  so  called  (Lev. 
xxiv.  7)  is  explained  by  the  fact  that  it  was  really  burnt  up  when  the 
shewbread  was  removed  (see  Josephus,  AnL  iii.  10.  7).  [Above 
article.] 

(3)  Among  the  Egyptians  vre  find  substitution  of  artificial  figures 
of  animals.  Herodotus,  ii.  47,  says  that  the  poor  baked  pigs  of  dough 
to  offer.  See  other  examples  in  Hermann,  die  gottesdienstlichen  Alter- 
thiimer  der  Griechen^  ed.  1,  p.  113,  ed.  3,,  p»  146  >  compare  also 
Hartung,  Religion  der  ROmer,  i.  p,  160f» 


§  121. 

Continuation  :  2.  Pre-Mosaic  Sacrifice  and  the  Mosaic  Covenant  Sacrifice 
as  the  Basis  of  the  Mosaic  Sacrificial  Cnltus. 

Sacrifice  was  not  newly  introduced  by  the  Mosaic  law.  Genesis 
not  only  speaks  of  sacrifice  as  observed  by  the  patriarchs,  but,  in 
Gen.  iv.,  carries  back  the  presenting  of  offerings  to  the  earliest  age 
of  mankind  (comp.  §  20).  As  has  been  shown  above  (§  20  f.),  the 
pre-Mosaic  offerings  had  the  signification  of  thank-offerings  and  offer- 
ings of  supplication,  though  a  propitiaitory  element  is  connected  with 
the  burnt-offering  (first  mentioned  Gen.  viii.  2*0)  lying  in  the  nrTiJ  nn 
(properly,  odour  of  satisfaction),  through  which  the  sacrifice  has  an 
appeasing  effect,  see  ver.  21  (1).  Offerings  for  atonement,  in  the 
strict  sense,  are  not  mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament  before  the  intro- 
duction of  the  Mosaic  sacrificial  law  (2).  The  book  of  Job,  too, 
which  introduces  the  customs  of  the  age  of  the  patriarchs,  represents, 
in  chap.  i.  5,  xlii.  8,  the  presenting  of  burnt-offerings  for  sin  com- 
mitted, and  avoids  the  term  1S3,  wliich  denotes  expiation  in  the  ter- 
minology of  Mosaic  sacrifice  (giving,  instead,  the  more  general  term 
C'li^).  Besides  the  burnt -offering,  we  find  in  patriarchal  times 
"sacrifice"  (^31)  with  the  sacrificial  feast  (comp.  Iken,  dissert,  ii.  1, 
p.  6  ff.)  first  mentioned  in  Gen.  xxxi.  54,  where  it  serves  to  ratify  the 
covenant  concluded  between  Jacob  and  Laban,  and  so  ends  in  a  meal 
of  peace  (farther,  xlvi.  1,  comp.  Ex.  x.  25,  xviii.  12).  Also,  in  xx.  24, 
xxiv.  5,  only  burnt-offeiings  and  sltelarnim  are  mentioned.     For  an 


312       THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.     [§  121. 

expiatory  offering,  in  the  strict  sense,  presupposes  the  revelation  of 
divine  holiness  in  the  law,  and  the  entrance  of  the  people  into  cove- 
nant relation  witii  the  holy  God.      The  transition  to  this  point,  and 
at  the  same  time  the  foundation  of  the  whole  system  of  Mosaic  offer- 
ings, is  formed   by  the  covenant-offering  in  Ex.  xxiv.,  especially  in 
virtue  of  the  meaning  which  here  for  the  first  time  (apart  from  the 
institution  of  the  Passover)  attaches  to  the  blood   of  the  sacrifice. 
Moses  set  up  an  altar,  which  represented  the  presence  of  Jehovah, 
and  (probably  round  it)  twelve  pillars  as  memorials  of  the  twelve 
tribes.     This  preparation  of  a  place  of  sacrifice  already  |)oints  to  the 
communion  between  Jehovah  and  His  people  now  to  be  established, 
in  virtue  of  which  He  wishes  to  have  His  dwelling  in  the  midst  of  the 
latter.     After  this,  Moses  causes  burnt-offerings  and  shelamim  to  be 
presented  by  young  men.     These  young  men  do  not,  as  Kurtz  (3) 
has  understood   the  matter,  represent  "  the  sacrificing  nation  in  its 
youth  as  a  people,  which,  like  a  young  man,  is  prepared  to  begin  its 
course,"  for  (comp.  Hofmann,  Schriftbeweis,  ii.  1,  ed.  1,  p.  151)   it  is 
not  the  people  who  here  bring  an  offering  for  themselves  ,  the  cove- 
nant communion  with  God,  in  virtue  of   which  the  people  approaches 
Him  in  the  offering,  is  only  now  to  be  established ;  besides,  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  congregation  are,  vers.  1  and  9,  the  seventy  elders. 
It  is  Moses  rather, — the  instituted  mediator  of  the  covenant, — who, 
acting  in  the  quality  of  priest,  here  brings  the  covenant-offering,  and 
the  young  men   are  merely  his  servants  (4).     Moses  now  takes  the 
half  of  the  blood  of  the  offering,  and  sprinkles  it  on  the  altar ;  then 
he  reads  the  book  of  the  covenant  to  the  people ;  and  after  the  people 
have  again  promised  fidelity  to  the  law,  he  sprinkles  them  with  the 
other  half  of  the  blood,  saying:   "  Behold,  the  blood  of  the  covenant 
which  Jehovah  concludes  with  you  over  these  words."     The  halving 
of  the  blood  certainly  refers  to  the  two  parties  of  the  covenant,  which 
now   are  brought  together  in   a  unity  of  life — not,  however,  in  the 
sense   in   which    two    contracting    parties    mix    their   blood    in   the 
heathenish  usages  cited  by  Knobel  on  this  passage  ;    for  the  blood 
of  the  offered  sacrifice  belongs  entirely  to  Jehovah,  and  the  sprinkling 
of  the  people  with  a  part  of  it  rather  signifies  an  appropriation  of  the 
people  on  God's  part.     According  to  the  significance  which  from  this 
time  forth  was  to  attach  to  the  blood,  and  which  falls  to  be  discussed 


§  121.3  THE  BASIS  OF  THl':  MOSAIC  SACRIFICIAL  CULTUS.  393 

more  particularly  afterwards  (§  127), — a  significance  which  the  people 
were  already  prepared  to  understand  by  the  manipulation  of  the 
blood  at  the  first  Passover  (Ex.  xii.  22), — the  act  of  sacrifice  before 
us  is  to  be  understood  as  follows  : — The  mediator  of  the  covenant  first 
offers  to  God  in  the  blood  a  pure  life,  which  comes  in  between  God 
and  the  people,  covering  and  atoning  for  the  latter.  In  this  connec- 
tion the  sprinkling  of  the  altar  does  not  merely  signify  God's  ac- 
ceptance of  the  blood,  but  at  the  same  time  serves  to  consecrate  the 
place  in  which  Jehovah  enters  into  intercourse  with  His  people.  But 
when  a  portion  of  the  blood  accepted  by  God  is  further  applied  to  the 
people  by  an  act  of  sprinkling,  this  is  meant  to  signify  that  the  same 
life  which  is  offered  up  in  atonement  for  the  people  is  also  intended 
to  consecrate  the  people  themselves  to  covenant  fellowship  with  God. 
The  act  of  consecration  thus  becomes  an  act  of  I'enewal  of  life, — a 
translation  of  Israel  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  in  which  it  is  filled 
with  divine  vital  energy,  and  is  sanctified  to  be  a  kingdom  of  priests, 
an  holy  people  (5).  The  procedure  at  the  dedication  of  the  priests 
(Ex.  xxix.  21;  Lev.  viii.  30)  is  quite  analogous  (comp.  §95).  So 
the  blood  of  the  covenant,  like  the  bloody  token  in  Ex.  xii.  22, 
separates  the  chosen  people  from  the  world,  and  hence  its  significance 
as  a  pledge,  Zech.  ix.  11  (which  passage  just  refers  to  Ex.  xxiv.). 
The  sacrificial  feast  forms  the  close  of  the  whole  festival,  at  which 
the  elders  of  Israel,  who,  ver.  2,  before  the  sacrifice,  durst  not  approach 
Jehovah,  but  are  now  atoned  for,  get  a  view  of  God,  and  eat  and 
drink  before  Him  as  a  pledge  and  testimony  of  the  way  in  which,  in 
the  communion  of  the  covenant,  Jehovah's  nearness  is  to  be  experi- 
enced and  the  richness  of  His  benefits  enjoyed. — In  this  first  Mosaic 
act  of  offering  (the  Passover  is  an  offering  only  in  the  wider  sense, 
§  154)  is  already  expressed  the  character  of  the  ordinances  of  worship 
which  arise  on  the  basis  of  the  covenant  now  concluded.  The  cove- 
nant is  to  subsist  on  offerings,  under  the  condition  of  offerings  to  be 
presented  (n3T  "bv,  Ps.  1.  5),  for  the  people  are  not  to  approach  their 
God  with  empty  hands  (Ex.  xxiii.  15;  Deut.  xvi.  16  f.).  In  order, 
however,  to  make  such  an  approach  possible  to  the  sinful  people,  and 
to  secure  the  duration  of  the  covenant,  which  is  continually  en- 
dangered by  the  guilt  of  the  congregation,  God  institutes  an  ordi- 
nance of  atonement,  which   is   principally  carried   out   in   acts   of 


394:   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.  [§  121. 

worship  specifically  expiatory,  but  which  also  runs  through  the  whole 
of  the  rest  of  the  cultus ;  in  all  parts  of  which,  but  especially  by  the 
use  which  is  from  this  time  forward  made  of  the  blood  of  the  sacrifice 
at  the  burnt-  and  thank-offerings,  the  idea  is  expressed  that  man  dare 
not  approach  God  without  previous  atonement, — that  this  must  be 
accomplished  before  he  may  I'eckon  that  his  gift  will  be  favourably 
received  by  God.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  not  correct  to  call  atone- 
ment the  leading  idea  of  Mosaic  sacrifice,  in  the  sense  that  every 
offerinff  is  to  be  classed  under  this  idea.  It  is  rather  the  case  that 
the  gift  or  offering,  in  the  strict  sense, — that  which  really  comes 
upon  the  altar, — follows  on  the  completion  of  the  atoning  act.  (The 
rie-ht  understanding  of  sacrifice  depends  essentially  on  the  distinction 
between  these  two  elements.) 

In  speaking  now  of  the  ritual  of  Mosaic  offerings,  we  begin  with 
offerings  in  the  narrower  sense,  which  are  brought  upon  the  altar, 
and  so  immediately  given  over  to  Jehovah.  As  we  treat  of  these,  we 
shall  bring  in  also,  in  their  proper  places,  the  remaining  kinds  of 
korban  which  were  offered  to  Jehovah  only  indirectly — that  is,  by 
pqymtnt  to  the  priests  or  Levites  respectively  (the  first-born  and 
tithes,  also  the  shewbread,  comp.  §  117,  may  be  reckoned  with 
theie)  (6), 

(1)  The  second  offering  mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament  (Gen. 
viii.  20)  is  that  which  was  offered  by  Noah  after  the  Flood,  taken 
from  all  clean  cattle  and  all  clean  birds — that  is^  from  those  animals 
which  were  appointed  for  the  food  of  man.  It  was  offered  as  a  burnt- 
sacrifice  on  an  altar,  from  which  the  odour  ascended  to  the  God 
enthroned  in  heaven,  and  pleased  Him  (ver.  21).  The  motive  of 
this  offering  is  mainly  thanksgiving  for  an  experience  of  deliverance  ; 
of  expiation  for  offences  committed  there  is  no  mention,  as,  in  fact, 
the  judgment  under  which  Noah  was  looked  upon  as  righteous  before 
God  lias  run  its  course.  And  yet,  as  is  shown  by  ver.  21,  there  is 
even  here  somethincj  more  than  a  thank-offering.     Man  draws  near  to 

CD  C5 

God  in  the  offering,  seeking  at  the  same  time  grace  for  the  future, 
after  having  seen  the  severity  of  God's  penal  justice  (comp.  the 
explanation  of  the  passage  by  Josephus,  Ant.  i.  3.  7).  And  God 
graciously  accepts  this  ;  He  is  willing,  in  answer  to  such  a  request 
for  grace,  to  spare  man,  who  would  always  draw  down  new  judgments 
of  extermination  on  himself  by  his  sinfulness.     Thus  far  it  is  correct 


§  121]  THE  CASIS  OF  THE  MOSAIC  SACRIFICIAL  CULTUS.  395 

to  sav,  that  here  we  have  a  first  elementnry  and  symbolic  expression 
of  the  necessity  of  an  atonement  before  God  (O.  v.  Gerlach  on  this 
passage). — From  the  passan;es  Gen.  iv.  and  viii.  20,  there  can  be  no 
doubt  vvbat  answer  the  Ohl  Testament  gives  to  the  Lmg-disputed 
question,  wliich  is  mainly  connected  with  the  first  of  these  passages, 
— namely,  whether  the  origin  of  sacrifice  is  to  be  traced  back  to  a 
positive  divine  command,  or  to  human  invention  and  caprice  (comp. 
on  this  controversy  in  particular,  Deyling,  ''  de  sacrificiis  Habelis 
atque  Caini,"  in  the  Observ.  sacne^  ed.  3,  ii.  p.  53  ff. ;  Carpzov,  opp. 
ant.  p.  699  ff. ;  Ontram,  de  sacrificiis,  i.  1,  wliere  the  various  views 
are  compared  in  detail).  In  this  way  of  putting  the  question  the 
alternative  is  not  correctly  formulated.  For  if  the  first  view  is  un- 
tenable, since  there  is  no  trace  of  a  divine  command  to  present  offer- 
ings in  the  context  of  either  passage,  but,  on  the  contrary,  the  whole 
character  of  the  two  narratives  jioints  to  a  deed  which  has  no  value 
apart  from  its  spontaneousness  (comp.  Niigelsbach,  der  Gottmenscli,  i. 
p.  335  ff.,  where  also  the  arguments  of  Deyling  are  examined),  yet,  on 
the  other  side,  both  passages  acknowledge  this  free  act  as  one 
thoroughly  agreeable  to  the  dixine  will  ;  and  there  is  in  them  no  trace 
of  a  mere  divine  condescension,  from  which,  as  is  well  known, 
Spencer  {de  leg.  liehr.  rit.  iii.  diss,  ii.)  sought  to  explain  the  Old 
Testament  sacrifices.  Man  is  not  first  impelled  to  make  offerings 
by  the  rudeness  of  his  nature,  to  which  God  must  make  some  indul- 
gence lest  something  worse  come  instead  (comp.  Spencer,  in  Pfaff's 
ed.  p.  754)  ;  he  does  not  offer  by  force  of  his  natural  badness,  as 
we  should  be  obliged  to  say  on  the  deistic  conception  of  sacrifice, 
which  does  indeed,  in  a  manner,  give  a  correct  explanation  of  what 
sacrifice  degenerated  into  ;^  but  man  offers  in  virtue  of  his  inalienable 
divine  image,  which  makes  it  impossible  for  him  to  abstain  from 
seeking  that  communion  with  God,  for  which  he  was  created,  by 
such  active  self-devotion  as  takes  place  in  offerings.  Offerings  are 
thus,  as  Neumann  (in  the  above-cited  essay,  deutsclie  Zeitschr.  fiir 
clirisll.  WissenscJi.  1852,  p.  328)  well  says,  "  free  expressions  of  the 
divinely  fixed  nature  of  man,"  so  that  they  are  no  more  arbitrary 
inventions  than  prayer  is,  but  spring  in  the  same  way  as  prayer  from 

'  According  to  Blount,  wicked  men  offer  because  tliey  who  do  not  like  to  do 
favours  to  one  another  for  nothing  judge  the  Divinity  in  the  same  way ;  according 
to  Tindal,  they  sacrifice  because  they  imagine  that  the  cruel  God  delights  in  the 
slaughter  of  innocent  creatures, — a  delusion  which  was  then  made  use  of  by  the 
selfish  corporation  of  priests  in  order  to  introduce  the  ritual  ordinances  established 
by  themselves.  See  Lechler,  (Resell icJite  dc"!  ciir/lischen  Deismns,  pp.  119,  338.  Oq 
thuckford'a  argument  on  the  other  side,  sec  §  12,  note  0. 


396   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY   [§  121. 

an  inward  necessity,  to  which  man  freely  yields.  The  passages  in 
Genesis  which  treat  of  the  sacrificial  places  of  the  patriarchs  (xii.  8, 
xiii.  4,  xxvi.  25,  xxxiii.  20)  also  point  to  the  close  connection  between 
the  service  of  sacrifice  and  prayer,  or  invocation  of  God  [above  art.]. — 
On  the  act  described  in  Gen.  xv.,  comp.  §  80  ;  on  the  history  in  Gen. 
xxii.,  comp.  §  23,  with  note  9.  The  latter  narrative  is  important  for 
the  development  of  the  Old  Testament  idea  of  offering.  In  it  is 
expressed,  in  the  first  place,  the  divine  sanction  of  sacrifice  in 
general  as  the  proof  of  man's  believing  devotion  to  God;  and  in  the 
second  place,  the  declaration  that  such  devotion  is  to  be  proved  by 
readiness  to  part  with  even  the  dearest  possession  out  of  obedience  to 
God;  while,  thirdly,  human  sacrifice  is  banished  out  of  the  region  of 
the  religion  of  revelation ;  and  fourthly,  the  acceptance  of  an  animal 
victim  as  the  substitute  of  man  is  ordained.  In  the  whole  story  there 
is  no  mention  of  an  atonement  in  behoof  of  which  Isaac  was  to  die  ; 
and  therefore  the  offering  of  the  ram  cannot  have  the  meaning  of  a 
propitiatory  sacrifice  of  a  vicarious  kind.     [Above  art.] 

(2)  Compare  what  Niigelsbach,  homer.  Tkeol.  ed.  1,  p.  304,  ed.  2, 
p.  352,  remarks  on  sacrifice  in  the  Homeric  times.  Man's  willingness 
to  honour  the  god  with  such  enjoyment  (the  vapour  of  the  fat)  is 
what  makes  the  offering  pleasant  to  the  latter ;  and  there  is  no  differ- 
ence in  this  respect  between  an  offering  of  atonement  and  any  other 
offering.  That  atonement  in  general  depends  only  on  the  paying  of 
honour  to  the  deity,  on  the  acknowledgment  of  its  might  and  the 
expression  in  act  of  man's  feeling  of  dependence,  is  plain  from  the 
fact  that  other  prestations  are  also  sufficient  to  conciliate  the  deity." 
[Above  art.] 

(3)  See  Kurtz,  Geschichte  des  A.  Bundes,  ii.  ed.  2,  p.  304  ;  also  his 
Alttest.  Opferkultus,  p.  278. 

(4)  The  indefinite  mention  of  the  young  men,  and  the  fact  that 
nothing  is  said  of  their  being  twelve  in  number,  or  the  like,  is  in 
favour  of  this  view. 

(5)  Comp.  Keil,  hill.  Archciol.  i.  p.  260. 

(6)  In  delineating  the  regulations  about  offerings,  we  treat,  1. 
of  the  material  of  the  offering  and  the  classification  of  offerings 
which  is  reached  from  this  point  of  view ;  2.  of  the  actions  of  which 
offerings  are  made  up,  or  the  ritual  of  offering ;  3.  of  the  genera 
and  species  into  which  the  offerings  fall  according  to  their  destination. 


§  122.]  DLOODY  AND  BLOODLESS  OFFERIKGS.  397 

1.   TtlE  MATERIAL  OF  THE  OFFERINGS. 

§  122. 
Bloody  and  Bloodless  Offerings. 

According  to  their  material,  offerings  are  partly  bloody  and  partly 
bloodless.  Bloody  offerings  are  exclusively  animal  offerings.  That 
human  sacrifice  (which  the  mad  criticism  of  Ghillany,  Die  Menschen- 
opfer  der  alien  Hebrder,  1842,  and  other  writers  sought  to  re})resent  as 
even  an  essential  part  of  the  Mosaic  worship)  was  excluded  from  the 
legitimate  worship  of  God  follo\vs,  as  we  have  already  seen,  from 
Gen.  xxii.  11,  and  then  from  what  is  commanded  in  Ex.  xiii.  13, 
xxxiv.  20,  as  to  the  redemption  of  the  first-born  of  mankind  (cf.  §  105). 
To  offer  children  as  they  were  offered  to  Moloch  (Lev.  xviii.  21, 
XX.  2  ff.),  and  as  was  generally  the  custom  among  the  Semitic 
nations  (1),  is  called  an  abomination,  Deut.  xii.  31.  Man  has  by  the 
law  no  other  power  over  human  life  than  that  of  the  execution  of 
judgment  (comp.  §§  99  and  108).  Even  the  D"]n^  the  exterminating 
curse  or  ban  (§  134),  is  intended  to  serve  to  glorify  God's  primitive 
justice.  It  may  be  classed  in  a  sense  under  the  head  of  offerings 
in  the  wider  sense,  as  in  Lev.  xxvii.  28  it  stands  among  sacred  dedi- 
cations (comp.  also  Isa.  xxxiv.  5  f.,  Jer.  xlvi.  10,  where  even  the  word 
n^T  is  used  for  it).  But  the  cherem,  by  which  a  thing  or  person  is 
swept  away  from  before  Jehovah  (comp.  e.g.  1  Sam.  xv.  33),  stands 
in  direct  antithesis  to  offerings  in  the  narrower  sense,  to  the  gift 
offered  on  the  altar.  Thus,  too,  that  act  of  revenge  by  the  Gibeonites 
allowed  by  David,  2  Sam.  xxi.  9,  in  which  a  bloody  revenge,  exceeding 
that  demanded  by  the  law,  was  executed,  is  not  to  be  regarded  as 
properly  a  human  sacrifice.  It  is,  however,  clear  from  Ex.  xx.  25f., 
that  the  sacrifices  of  children  which  occurred  in  Israel  were  con- 
nected with  a  wrong  application  of  the  law  of  primogeniture  (Ex. 
xiii.  2,  11  f.,  xxii.  28)  (2). 

There  is  no  name  in  the  sacrificial  law  of  the  Pentateuch 
which  designates  generally  the  bloody  offering;  Lev.  i.  2  uses  the 
circumlocution  nonzin-jp  }2"ip.  The  word  n^T^  to  which  in  later 
usage  the  more  general  meaning  (that  it  designates  animal  sacri- 
fice generally)   cannot   be   denied,  is    used  in   the    Pentateuch   only 


S98   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.  [§  122. 

of  Shelaiiiim  (o).  For  a  dry  vegetable  offering,  tlie  technical  term 
is  nmo  (E.  v.,  meat-offering)  ;  and  the  drink-offering  which  was 
added  to  the  Minclia,  and  which  consisted  of  wine,  is  called  "ilD?.- 
— Offerings  of  animals  are  most  important,  chiefly  on  account  of 
the  siifiiificance  attachincp  to  the  blood.  Meat-offerings  certainly 
appear  as  independent  gifts,  Lev.  v.  11  (as  a  substitute  for  an  animal 
offering)  ;  vi.  12  ff.  (as  a  priestly  offering  of  dedication)  ;  Num.  v. 
15  ff.  (as  the  jealousy-offering)  (4).  It  is  probable,  too,  that  the 
meat-offerings  described  in  Lev.  ii.  could  be  presented  by  them- 
selves as  free-will  gifts  (5).  But  for  the  most  part,  the  meat- 
offerings, and  the  drink-offerinij-s  which  went  along  with  them,  were 
connected  with  animal-offerings.  Here,  indeed,  they  form  no  mere 
supplementary  gift;  they  are  rather  co-ordinate  with  that  part  of  the 
animal  which  is  laid  as  a  gift  on  the  altar.  But  since  they  also  have 
as  their  presupposition  the  atonement  completed  by  the  manipula- 
tion of  blood  at  the  offering  of  an  animal,  so  they  are  iu  fact 
dependent  on  the  animal-offering.  This  dependence  is  seen  also  in 
this,  that  the  quantity  of  the  meat  and  drink-offerings  had  to  be 
measured  by  the  various  kinds  of  animals  to  which  they  were 
annexed. 

(1)  See  Lasaulx,  die  Siihnopfer  der  Grieclien  und  Bomer,  p.  11. 

(2)  (Compare  Umbreit  on  this  passage.)  A  misunderstanding, 
such  as  might  easily  rise  in  the  zeal  for  sacrifice  depicted  in  Mic. 
vi.  7,  even  apart  from  the  probability  that,  in  the  idolatrous  minds  of 
the  people,  the  notion  of  the  Holy  One  of  Israel,  whose  zeal  is  a 
consuming  fire,  may  often  have  been  confounded  with  that  of  the 
fire-god  Moloch  [above  art.].  When  it  is  said,  in  Ezek.  xx.  25  f., 
that  Jehovah  gave  them  statutes  that  were  not  good,  on  account  of 
their  falling  away,  to  destroy  them,  the  offering  of  children  is  not 
declared  to  be  agreeable  to  the  law  ;  but  the  passage  is  to  be  under- 
stood like  others  in  which  men  are  said  to  be  given  over  to  what  is 
sinful  as  a  punishment  (comp.  §  76). 

(3)  See  a  more  minute  exi)lanation  of  this  in  the  discussion  of 
Shelamim,  §  132,  with  notes  7-9. 

(4)  We  may  also  look  on  the  first  ripe  sheaf  presented  on  the  first 
day  of  the  Passover,  and  on  the  Pentecostal  and  shewbread,  as 
sjiecial  kinds  of  the  Mincha  ;  comp.  Maimonides's  Pref.  to  Menachot/i, 
in  Mischna  ed.  Surenhus.  v.  p.  63.     [Above  art.] 


§  123.]  THE  MATERIAL  OF  ANIMAL  OFFERINGS.  399 

(5)  Thus  the  Jewisli  tradition  ;    comp.  MaimoniJes,   I.e.   p.   G4  ; 
also  Winer,  Reallex.  ed.  3,  ii.  p.  494;  and  Thalhofer,  I.e.  p.  51  ff. 


§  123. 

TJie  Material  of  Animal  Offerings. 

In  reference  to  tlie  materials  of  animal  offerings,  it  is  laid  down  as 
law  : 

1.  That  they  must  be  taken  from  among  the  clean  animals,  cf.  Lev. 
xxvii.  9,  11.  Ill  Lev.  xi.  and  Deut.  xiv.  the  Mosaic  law  distinguishes 
clean  and  unclean  animals  in  the  following  way  (1)  : — Of  the  larger 
land  animals  (nnnzi),  all  those  are  clean  which  have  cloven  hoofs  (that 
is,  divided  quite  through)  and  which  chew  the  cud;  those  which  have 
not  these  two  characteristics,  or  have  only  one  of  them,  as  the  camel, 
the  hare,  the  pig,  etc.,  are  unclean..  Of  water  animals,  those  are  clean 
that  have  fins  and  scales.  With  respect  to  birds  (^liv),  no  general  dis- 
tinctive characteristic  is  given ;  there  are  only  twenty  (in  Leviticus) 
or  twenty-one  sorts  (in  Deuteronomy),  including  the  bat  (^^^V), 
enumerated  by  name  as  unclean,  and  these  are  for  the  most  part  birds 
of  prey  and  waders,  also  the  stork  ('"iTon).  In  the  whole  realm 
of  small  animals  (H?'),  the  use  of  grasshoppers  is  alone  allowed 
among  those  that  have  wings  (^"^V^  P^) ;  while  of  those  that  crawl 
and  creep  on  the  earth  (n^5'^"''y  X'p'}  P.^^l)  none  are  allowed,  but 
eiglit  kinds  are  expressly  forbidden  (weasel,  mouse,  lizard,  etc.). — On 
what  ground  does  this  distinction  rest  ?  The  view  that  the  flesh  of 
certain  creatures  is  injurious  to  the  soul  of  man,  that  is,  to  his  under- 
standing (2),  is  only  supported  by  a  false  explanation  of  Lev.  xi. 
44  (3),  and  cannot  possibly  be  applied  to  the  case  before  us,  even  were 
it  not  certain  that  doctrines  of  this  kind  are  quite  alien  to  Mosaism. 
With  reference  to  some  animals  (as  swine),  it  may  certainly  be  taken 
as  possible  that  the  law  is  fixed  by  dietetic  considerations;  but  this 
principle  is  nowhere  stated.  Nor  can  the  distinction  between  clean  and 
unclean  animals  be  traced  to  a  dualistic  view  of  creation,  such  as  pre- 
vails in  the  Zend  religion.  That  the  one  class  of  animals  belongs  to 
Jehovah,  and  not  the  other,  is  certainly  not  the  Mosaic  view.  Un- 
cleanness  of  certain  animals  is  spoken  of  only  in  so  far  as  they  are 


400      THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  123, 

thereby  excluded  from  being  used  as  food  ;  but  even  unclean  animals 
might  be  dedicated  to  Jehovah,  only  they  had  to  be  redeemed,  Lev. 
xxvii.  11  ff.  The  ground  of  the  matter  lies  generally  in  the  principle 
of  the  whole  law  (§  84),  that  the  people  of  Israel  should  impress  on 
every  sphere  of  life  tlie  stamp  by  which  it  acknowledges  itself  to  be  a 
people  separated  by  Jehovah  and  dedicated  to  Him.  So  even  in  their 
food  there  must  be  a  separation  in  which  this  reference  to  Jehovah  is 
expressed,  comp.  Lev.  xx.  24-26:  "I  am  Jehovah  your  God,  who 
have  separated  you  from  otiier  nations ;  ye  shall  therefore  put  a 
difference  between  clean  beasts  and  unclean,"  etc.  But  in  the  defini- 
tion of  those  animals  which  are  separated  as  unclean,  it  appears  that, 
on  the  one  hand,  the  principle  was  laid  down  that  all  flesh-eating 
animals  were  necessarily  to  be  accounted  unclean,  because  to  partake  of 
blood  is  an  abomination.  So,  too,  the  birds  enumerated  are  partly  birds 
of  prey,  and  partly  such  as  feed  on  worms  and  the  like.  To  these 
are  added  all  animals  that  had  anything  repulsive  and  hideous  (4). 
But  now,  in  order  to  arrive  at  a  fixed  rule  of  separation  among  the 
larger  land  animals,  it  was  natural  to  select  certain  common  pro- 
perties in  those  animals  the  flesh  of  which  had  always  been  looked  on 
as  the  most  excellent  nourishment,  and  by  these  to  define  the  clean 
animals.  In  consequence  of  the  principle  thus  derived,  the  camel,  the 
hare,  and  also  (Ex.  xiii.  13,  xxxiv.  20)  the  ass  ("  quia  neqne  ruminat, 
neque  fissam  habet  ungulam"),  etc.,  were  excluded  ;  any  other  ground 
than  that  given  in  Lev.  xi.  4-6  could  hardly  have  existed  here. 

2.  Of  clean  animals,  those  were  fit  for  offering  which  formed  the 
proper  stock  of  domesticated  animals, — cattle,  sheep,  and  goats ;  both 
sexes  might  be  offered,  but  for  offerings  of  a  higiier  character  males 
alone  were  employed.  Of  fowl,  turtle-doves  and  young  pigeons  were 
offered  (5).  The  former  are  to  be  met  with  so  often  in  Palestine  as 
birds  of  passage  that  it  was  not  necessary  to  rear  them  specially ;  they 
formed  in  particular  the  animal  food  of  the  poor,  and  this  explains 
their  use  in  offerings.  Pigeons  and  turtle-doves  might,  with  the 
exception  of  a  few  offerings  of  purification,  be  presented  only  by  the 
poor,  as  a  substitute  for  the  larger  animals  of  sacrifice  (Lev.  v.  7,  xii. 
8)  (6). — No  part  of  the  produce  of  the  chase  or  of  fishing  was  fit  to  be 
offered  (7).  The  animals  of  sacrifice  were  to  be  without  blemish  (D'^^ri), 
free  from  bodily  imperfections  (i3"nin^  K?  DV3"?3);  see  especially  Lev, 


§  rj3.]  THE  MATERIAL  OF  ANIMAL  OFFERINGS.  401 

xxii.  21—24,  comp.  also  Mai.  i.  13  (8);  an  exception  was  allowed  only 
with  the  ninnj  (on  this  hereafter,  §  132,  with  note  3).  With  respect 
to  the  age  of  the  animals  offered,  the  law  commanded  that  they  should 
at  least  be  eight  days  old  (Lev.  xxii.  27,  comp.  with  Ex.  xxii.  29), 
because  in  the  first  eight  days  every  new-born  creature  was  accounted 
unclean  (comp.  §  87)  ;  this  is  not  prescribed  for  doves.  On  the  other 
side,  the  animals  presented  were  also  to  be  in  the  vigour  of  youth  (9). 
The  age  is  more  precisely  defined  only  in  a  few  cases :  for  cattle,  in 
Lev.  ix,  3,  where  a  one-year-old  ?3y  is  demanded ;  more  frequently  in 
the  case  of  small  cattle,  viz.  ix.  3,  xii.  6 ;  comp.  Num.  xxviii.  3,  9,  11, 
where  a  ram  of  the  first  year  (t^*^3  or  ^^3),  Lev.  xiv.  10,  where  a 
female  of  the  first  year  (nb'23),  Num.  xv.  27,  where  a  one-year-old 
goat  (nnyi^'Tizi  Ty)  is  prescribed.  The  older  animals  among  the  cattle 
are  designated  13  and  nis  (on  the  contrary,  ~\\^  is  used  without  respect 
to  difference  of  age),  the  ram  by  P';x,  the  he-goat  by  l^i^y  or  "I'V^ 
(more  fully,  D"'-?y  '^''W)-  The  two  last-named  expressions  are  sharply 
distinguished  (comp.  Num.  vii.  16  and  17,  vers.  22  and  23,  etc.) ;  it  is 
probable  that  1W  signifies  the  older  and  l^^y  the  younger  he-goat  (10). 
That,  as  the  Rabbis  declare,  animals  for  sacrifice  were,  as  a  rule,  not 
chosen  more  than  three  years  old,  does  not  rest  on  an  express  command 
of  the  law,  and  is  concluded,  perhaps,  only  from  Gen.  xv.  9  (11); 
but  the  provision  is  quite  reasonable,  because  at  this  age  the  beasts 
of  sacrifice  have  attained  their  full  growth,  and  are  in  their  full 
strength. 

(1)  Comp.  on  the  following,  Sommer,  Bibl.  Ahhandl.  i.  pp.  183-360. 

(2)  This  view  is  brought  forward  in  the  book  ascribed  to  Josephus, 
but  probably  not  really  his,  which  is  called  the  fourth  book  of  the 
Maccabees,  de  Maccabceis,  v.  25,  and  is  found  also  among  some  Rabbis. 

(3)  Lev.  xi.  44 :  "  Ye  shall  not  defile  your  souls ;"  trS3  here,  as 
so  frequently,  means  the  whole  person  (comp.  §  70). 

(4)  According  to  ^lian,  de  nat.  animal,  x.  16,  swine  were  counted 
unclean  by  the  Egyptians  chiefly  because  they  do  not  spare  their  own 
young,  and  even  seize  on  liuman  corpses  ;  on  another  view,  see  Movers, 
Phonicier,  i.  p.  218  ff.,  they  were  unclean  because  consecrated  to  an 
infernal  power. 

(5)  The  latter  are  mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament  as  house- 
pigeons,  Isa.  Ix.  8,  and  field-pigeons,  Ezek.  vii.  16,  Jer.  xlviii.  28. 

(6)  Other  birds  were  not  offered  ;  the  ceremony  at  the  cleansing 
VOL.  I.  2   c 


402      THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.      [§  123 

of  lepers,  at  wliich,  Lev.  xlv.  4  ff.,  ^^'''isy  were  used  (by  wliici),  however, 
the  Vulgate  and  Rabbis  are  hardly  right  in  understanding  sparrows), 
was  no  act  of  offering ;  at  the  subsequent  offering  of  purification,  ver. 
30,  only  turtle-doves  and  young  pigeons  were  permitted.  Why  the 
law  excluded  wading  birds,  and  geese  in  particular,  which  were 
favourite  offerings  in  the  Egyptian  cultus  (see  Movers,  das  Opferwesen 
(lev  Karthager^  p.  55),  cannot  be  easily  guessed.  Still  more  remarkable 
is  the  exclusion  of  gallinaceous  fowls  ;  but  the  rearing  of  tliese  fowls 
is  nowhere  mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament  (with  the  exception  of 
Job  xxxviii.  36,  where  at  least  Delitzsch  has  renewed  the  rabbinic 
explanation,  according  to  which  '')3ti'  designates  the  cock).  The  Mishna 
Baha  kamOj  vii.  7,  maintains,  though  in  decided  contradiction  to  the 
New  Testament,  that  it  was  not  lawful  to  keep  fowls  at  all  in 
Jerusalem,  and  that  priests  at  least  were  not  allowed  to  keep  them  in 
the  land  of  Israel ;  the  reason  of  this  is  said  to  be  that  (see  Surenhus 
on  this  passage)  these  creatures  are  often  polluted  by  reptiles  when 
scraping  on  a  dunghill  (comp.  Lev.  xi.  31).     [Above  article.] 

(7)  In  the  heathen  religions  of  anterior  Asia,  on  the  contrary, 
offerings  of  wild  animals,  and  especially  of  deer,  were  common ;  see 
Movers,  I.e.  p.  53. 

(8)  With  reference  to  the  individual  bodily  imperfections,  the 
number  of  which  amounted,  according  to  Jewish  tradition,  to  seventy- 
three,  see  Bahr,  I.e.  ii.  p.  297  ff. 

(9)  This,  in  the  case  of  cattle,  is  especially  expressed  by  the 
addition  of  "ii^3"|3 ;  see  Knobel  on  Lev.  i.  5. 

(10)  Kimchi  holds  the  opposite  view.  We  cannot  here  go  into 
detailed  discussion  on  the  point;  comp.  Bochart's  learned  work  on 
biblical  zoology,  Bierozoicon,  new  edition  by  Rosenmiiller,  ii.  53 ;  and 
Knobel,  in  his  Commentary  to  Lev.  iv.  23. 

(11)  The  relation  which  Hofmann  and  Delitzsch  find  in  Gen. 
XV.  9  between  the  choice  of  animals  three  years  old  and  the  duration 
of  the  stay  in  Egypt,  prophesied  in  ver.  16,  may  seem  to  be  favoured 
by  the  fact  that,  in  Judg.  vi.  25,  the  oxen  seven  years  old  seem  to  be 
chosen  with  reference  to  the  seven  years  of  Midianitish  bondage  ;  but 
it  does  not  agree  with  ver.  13,  according  to  which  the  whole  four 
generations  are  to  be  reckoned  in  the  time  of  service.    [Above  art.] 


§  124.]  THE  INGREDIENTS  OF  THE  VEGETABLE  OFFEPJNGS.  403 

§  124. 

Tlie  Ingredients  of  the  Vegetable  O^erings.     Salt  in  the  Offerings. 

The  ingredients  of  the  vegetable-offering,  and  particularly  of  the 
Mincha,  or  meat-offering,  were,  according  to  the  law  in  Lev.  ii.,-  - 
1.  Ears  roasted  by  fire,  rough  meal  or  groats  from  the  fruitful  field, 
fruit,  hrp-2  (1),  ver.  14;  2.  Flour,  nVo  (2),  ver.  1,— to  both  of  these 
olive  oil   and   incense  were  added  (o),  vers.  1,  15  f. ;  3.  Unleavened 
loaves  or  cakes,  prepared  from  ri)^b  of  three  sorts  (4),  ver.  4  ff.     Thus 
the  meat-offering   was   made  of  that  which  served   as  the  common 
nourishment  of  man,  and  at  the  same  time  was  produced  by  human 
toil.    Orchard  fruits,  such  as  almonds  and  pomegranates,  which  require 
either  no  human  care  or  only  very  little,  are  excluded ;    and  with 
this  reason  is  perhaps  combined  the  consideration  that  offerings  were 
to  be  no  dainties,  in  contrast  to  the  raisin-cakes  -[not,  as  E.  V.,  flagons 
of  wine]-  in  the  service  of  idols;  comp.  Hos.  iii.  1.     With  reference 
to  every  Mincha,  it  is  rigidly  enjoined  (Lev.  ii.  11)  that  the  offering 
may  not   be  prepared  with  leaven,  but  must  (compare  ver.  4  f.)  be 
offered  as  njf».     This  requisite  of  vegetable  offerings  seems  to  corre- 
spond to  the  faultlessness  of  animal  sacrifices.     Indeed,  two  kinds  of 
fermentation  {X^^)  are  forbidden, — firstly,  with  leaven  ;  and  secondly, 
with  honey.     The  former  certainly  was  used  in  the  loaves  of  the  first- 
fruits  (Ii.  12,  xxiii.  17),  which  represented  the  common  nourishment 
of  the  people,  and  likewise  in  the  cakes  of  bread  accompanying  thank- 
offerings  (vii.  13) ;    but  none  of  these  were  offered  on  the  altar — 
the  former  fell  to  the  share  of  the  priests ;  the  latter  were  used  at  the 
sacrificial  feast  (5).     As  to  honey,  it  is  disputed  whether  we  are  by 
it  to  understand  (according  to  the  Rabbis,  whom  Bahr  follows)  grape 
and  date  honey  and  fruit  syrups  in  general,  or  (according  to  Philo,  de 
vict.  offer.  §  6, — where  the  prohibition  is  deduced  from  the  uncleanness 
of  bees, — and  most  modern  theologians)  the  honey  of  bees.     Probably 
the  last-named  is  primarily  meant,  but  there  is  no  doubt  that  both 
were  excluded  (6).     The  reason  why  leaven,  although  it  was  not  un- 
clean, had  a  profaning  effect  (it  was  forbidden  also  among  the  Greeks 
and  Romans  in  sacrificial  cakes,  and  among  the  latter  to  the  Flamen 
Bialis),  is  probably  that  the  process  of  fermentation  brought  about 


404   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.   [§  124. 

by  means  of  leaven  was  looked  on  as  akin  to  corruption  (7).  The 
effect  of  honey  is  similar  to  that  of  leaven,  since  it  easily  changes 
into  acid  (8).  Others  (9)  trace  the  prohibition  of  leaven  to  the  fact 
that  it  imparts  to  the  bread  a  certain  pleasantness  of  taste,  while  all 
seasoning  which  is  delightful  to  man  is  to  bo  avoided  in  offerings  ; 
from  similar  reasons,  viz.  as  a  symbol  of  the  delights  of  the  world, 
honey  would  be  forbidden.  Others,  again,  thought  they  saw  a 
symbol  of  arrogance  and  the  like  in  leaven,  because  it  raised  the 
bread. 

Salt  was,  according  to  Lev.  ii.  13,  essential  to  every  meat-offering 
(according  to  tiie  LXX.  on  Lev.  xxiv.  7  for  the  shewbread  also). 
It  does  not  follow  v*'ith  certainty  from  the  passage  cited  that  salt  was 
prescribed  also  as  an  accompaniment  to  animal  offerings^  for  the 
closing  words,  "  On  every  J^"ii^  thou  shalt  offer  salt,"  may  from  the 
context  be  limited  to  the  Mincha.  At  any  rate,  however,  later  usage 
made  use  of  salt  in  animal  sacrifices  (comp.  Mark  ix.  40,  iraaa  Ouala 
akl  a\Lcr6i](reraL)  at  the  burnt-offering  (Ezek.  xliii.  24  ;  Josephus,  Ant. 
iii.  y.  1)  (10)  ;  doubtless  also  at  thank-offerings,  which  were  combined 
with  meat-offerings.  On  the  contrary,  the  use  of  salt  at  offerings  of 
atonement  has  not  been  hitherto  distinctly  proved  (11). — The  point 
of  view  under  which  the  use  of  salt  with  offerings  is  to  be  regarded 
is  not  mainly  that  it  makes  the  offering  palatable.  Salt,  in  virtue  of 
its  power  of  seasoning  and  preventing  putrefaction,  is  the  symbol  of 
cleansing  and  purification  as  well  as  of  durability.  The  latter  meaning 
is  intended  when  it  is  said  in  Lev.  ii.  13,  ''  The  salt  of  the  covenant  of 
thy  God,"  referring  to  the  indestructible  endurance  of  the  covenant; 
and  therefore  a  covenant  regulation  of  God,  which  is  for  ever  valid,. 
is  called  a  covenant  of  salt  (Num.  xviii.  19  ;  2  Chron.  xiii.  5).  On  the 
other  hand,  Christ's  words,  Mark  ix.  49,  "  Every  one  is  salted  with  fire, 
and  every  offering  is  salted  with  salt,"  refer  to  the  former  meaning, 
for  here  the  salt  of  the  offering  is  paralleled  with  the  purifying  fire 
of  self-denial  and  trials  necessary  to  every  man  (12). 

(1)  According  to  rabbinic  tradition,  ''^'ll  is  here  meant  to  signify 
fresh,  juicy  ears. 

(2)  n^D  is  probably  the  finest  wheaten  flour.    Barley  meal  appears 
only  in  the  offering  of  jealousy,  Num.  v.  15. 

(3)  License   was   not   sprinkled   on  the  flour  or  groats,  but  was 


§  124]  THE  INGREDIENTS  OF  THE  VEGETABLE  OFFEriNGS.  405 

added   entire,  to  be  burnt  aloncr  with   the  handful   taken  from  the 
offering  (comp.  Bartenora  on  Mis/ma  Menaclioth  i.  2).    [Above  art.] 

(4)  Viz.  (a)  Bread  baked  in  the  oven  (i^^ri), — either  Hipri,  perforated 
cakes  kneaded  with  oil,  or  ^''p^i?"!,  thin  flat  cakes  smeared  with  oil ; 
{h)  Bread  prepared  on  a  plate  or  shallow  pan  (nnno)^ — a  kind  of  cake 
kneaded  with  oil,  which  was  turned  out  hard  and  crisp  (see  Kashi  on 
this  passage),  and  was  then  broken  in  pieces,  over  which  oil  was 
poured  ;  (c)  Wlieaten  flour  prepared  with  oil  in  the  skillet,  riK'H'iO  (a 
deep  vessel,  say  the  Rabbis),  namely  (see  Rashi  on  this  passage)  per 
ehullitionem — that  is,  cakes  sodden  in  oil.     [Above  art.] 

(5)  So  in  2  Chron.  xxxi.  5  gifts  of  the  first-fruits  of  honey  are 
mentioned. 

(6)  A  delineation  of  the  Jewish  cultus  of  offering  was  given  bv 
Theophrastus  in  his  work  irepl  evae^ela^.  This  work,  as  a  whole, 
is  lost,  but  considerable  fragments  of  it  are  preserved  in  the  work  of 
Por[-)hyY'ms,  de  abstiiienf.ia ;  these  were  ])ublished  by  Bernays,  18G6. 
Tliere,  among  other  things,  it  is  maintained  (comp.  Bernays,  p.  112) 
that  the  Jews  poured  honey  over  the  pieces  which  were  to  be  burnt 
on  the  altar.  We  do  not  know  how  Theophrastus  fell  into  this  and 
other  mistakes. 

(7)  Comp.  Plutarch,  giicvsf.  rom.  109. — Leaven  is  therefore  the 
symbol  of  what  is  impure,  of  what  corrupts  morally  (Luke  xii.  1 ; 
1  Cor.  V.  6-8). 

(8)  Pliny  notes  this,  Inst.  nat.  xi.  15  (45).  In  rabbinic  usage, 
^''?1'7  lias  on  this  account  the  meaning  fermentescere,  and  then  cor- 
ruwpi. 

(9)  Thus  Baur,  in  the  Tilhinger  Zeitschr.  1832.  Num.  1,  p.  68  f. ; 
and  Neumann,  in  the  deutschen  Zeitschr.  filr  ciiristl.  Wissenschaft, 
1853,  p.  334. 

(10)  Mishna  Sebachim  mentions  salt  only  at  the  burnt-offerings  of 
birds,  vii.  5,  but  remarks,  §  6,  that  the  offering  still  held  good  even  if 
the  rubbing  with  salt  was  omitted. 

(11)  To  the  supplies  in  kind,  which  in  later  times  fell  to  the 
share  of  the  temple,  belonged  especially  salt  (Ezra  vi.  9,  vii.  22), 
which,  as  is  clear  from  Josephus,  Ant.  xii,  3.  3,  was  used  in  large 
quantities,  and,  among  other  purposes,  to  salt  the  skins  of  the  beasts 
sacrificed.  See  Mishna  Mlddoth  v.  2,  in  which  passage  a  special 
chamber  for  salt  is  mentioned,  which  was  in  the  front  court  of  the 
temple  [above  art.].  See  Cnrpzov,  app.  ant.  p.  718,  and  the  above- 
cited  article,  p.  624,  on  the  nvr'no  rhl^,  to  be  used  according  to  the 
Talmud  for  the  offerings. 

(12)  Nothing  but  wine  was  used  for  the  drink-offering  that  went 


406   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.  [§  125. 

with  tlie  meat-offering.  (The  libation  of  water  (1  Sam.  vii.  6)  is 
probably  to  be  interpreted  as  a  ceremony  of  pnrification;  see  O.  v. 
Gerlach  on  this  passage,  and  another  view  in  the  commentary  of 
Thenius.  On  the  libation  of  water  at  the  feast  of  tabernacles,  see  § 
156.)  With  reference  to  the  wine,  the  law  fixes  nothing  more  than 
the  quantity  to  be  used.  Mishua  Menachoth  viii.  6,  7,  on  the  con- 
trary, contains  exact  rules  about  the  kinds  to  be  chosen,  about  what 
is  to  be  observed  with  regard  to  the  cultivation  of  the  vineyard  con- 
cerned, and  about  the  age  and  preservation  of  the  w  ine.     [Above  art.] 


§125. 

The  Principle  on  lohich  the  Material  of  Offerings  was  fixed. 

What  is  now  the  principle  which  lies  at  the  root  of  these  rules 
as  to  the  material  of  offerings  ?  The  following  are  the  principal 
views  (1)  ; — 

1.  A  first  view  holds  that  these  rules  were  fixed  with  an  eye  to 
the  people's  property.  Thus  Bahr  (^Symbolikj  ii.  p.  317) :  "  The 
entire  circle  of  all  that  was  offered  in  Israel  was  to  be  the  entire 
circle  of  that  which  is  Israel's  own — -Israel's  means  of  existence." 
In  fact  (as  was  already  indicated  in  §  120),  if  self-denial  is  an  essen- 
tial feature  in  offerings,  a  real  offering  can  be  presented  only  of  pi"o- 
perty  ;  to  offer  another's  property,  as  Bahr  rightly  notes,  is  a  contra- 
dictio  in  adjecto  (as  in  the  case  of  St.  Crispin).  It  is  no  argument 
against  this  that,  for  example,  the  people,  in  their  needy  circumstances 
after  the  exile,  brought  offerings  from  the  largess  which  the  Persian 
king  bestowed  on  them  (Ezra  vi.  9,  comp.  vii.  17,  22,  etc.).  From 
the  ordinances  of  Nehemiah  (Neh.  x.  33  ff.)  it  is  nevertheless  clear 
that  the  people  were  well  aware  that  it  was  their  duty  themselves  to 
provide  what  the  ritual  demanded.  However,  the  notion  of  the 
people's  property  is  far  too  extensive  to  explain  the  material  of  offer- 
ings ;  and  even  Bahr  limits  the  point  of  view  of  property  by  calling 
attention  to  the  reference  of  the  two  main  constituents  of  the  offer- 
ings to  the  two  material  bases  of  the  Hebrew  state, — cattle-breeding 
and  agriculture, — a  reference  the  meaning  of  which  will  appear 
below. 

2.  According  to  a  second  view,  the  defining  principle  is  that  of 
nourishment.     Offerings  are  frequently  called  the  bread  of  God  ;  and 


§  125.]  PRINCIPLE  ON  WHICH  MATERIAL  OF  OFFERINGS  FIXED.  407 

this  name  is  applied  to  offerings  in  general  (Lev.  xxi.  6,  8,  17  ; 
Num.  xxviii.  2,  24;  comp.  Ezek.  xliv.  7  ;  Mai.  i.  7),  to  the  burnt- 
offering  and  thank-offering  together  (Lev.  xxii.  25),  to  the  thank- 
offering  alone  (Lev.  iii.  11,  16),  but  the  expression  is  never  used  of 
sin-offerings  in  particular.  According  to  the  Mosaic  idea  of  God,  it 
is  not  possible  to  understand  this  phrase  of  food  offered  for  God's 
nourishment  (comp.  §  112,  with  note  2),  but  only  of  a  giving  to  God 
of  the  people's  nourishment  (2).  Even  this  point  of  view,  however, 
taken  generally,  goes  too  far,  because  not  all  the  clean  animals  which 
are  allowed  for  food,  and  not  nearly  all  that  is  eaten  of  the  vegetable 
kingdom,  can  be  made  use  of  as  material  for  offering.  The  material 
of  offerings  is,  as  already  remarked,  taken  only  from  those  clean 
animals  which  have  been  got  by  rearing  and  cultivation,  and  which 
form  the  ordinary  stock  of  cattle,  and  from  such  produce  of  manual 
labour  in  field  and  vineyard  as  serves  as  the  common  nourishment  of 
man.  From  this  it  is  clear  that  the  offerings  are  chosen  with  regard 
to  the  ordinary  nourishment  eai'ned  by  the  people  in  their  calling  (3). 
The  people  bring  an  offering  to  God  of  the  food  which  they  have 
produced  in  the  vocation  ordained  for  them  by  God ;  and  thus  they 
sanctify  their  calling  (4),  and  bring  a  testimony  of  the  blessing  which 
God  has  given  on  the  labour  of  their  hands,  Deut.  xvi.  17. 

3.  On  this  conception,  now,  in  the  third  place,  that  point  of  view 
gets  its  due  which  Kurtz  has  asserted  with  good  reason,  and  which 
only  must  not,  as  Kurtz  formerly  did  (das  mosaische  Opfer,  1842,  p. 
60),  be  taken  as  the  actual  principle  of  choice,  viz.  the  psi/chico- 
hiotic  rapport  in  which  the  offerer  stands  to  the  gift  presented.  The 
feature  of  self-denial  essential  to  a  real  offering  is  particularly  pro- 
minent in  those  gifts  which  are  taken  from  what  is  produced  by 
man's  regular  daily  toil,  and  at  the  same  time  from  the  best  and 
most  precious  part  of  such  produce;  and  it  is  quite  specially  an  act 
of  self-denial  to  give  the  first-fruits  of  the  herd  and  of  the  field,  to 
which  the  heart  is  wont  to  cling  particularly.  But  what  Philo  points 
out  {de  vict.  §  1)  has  also  a  place  in  these  considerations,  viz.  that 
those  animals  are  dedicated  as  sacrifices  which  are  the  most  tame,  the 
best  accustomed  to  man's  hand,  or,  if  you  will,  the  most  innocent — 
which  surrender  themselves  most  patiently  to  slaughter.  Consider 
the  patient  lamb  in  Is-a.  liii.  7. 


408      THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.     [§  125. 

After  the  foregoing  remarks,  the  provisions  about  the  material  of 
offerings,  in  reference  to  what  they  include  and  exclude,  require  no 
further  elucidation.  There  is  just  one  more  question,  viz.  What 
meaning  attaches  to  the  oil  and  the  incense  along  with  the  meat- 
offerings ?  As  to  the  latter,  there  is  no  doubt  that,  as  the  offering  of 
incense  is  not  merely  to  serve  to  produce  a  sweet  odour,  but  is  the 
symbol  of  prayer  ascending  to  God,  and  well-pleasing  in  His  sight 
(comp.  Ps.  cxli.  2)  (5),  so  also  the  incense  along  witli  the  Mincha  is 
to  serve  to  imprint  more  definitely  on  the  offering  the  character  of  a 
vehicle  of  prayer.  It  is  disputed,  on  the  contrary,  whether  the  oil, 
like  the  incense  and  the  salt,  is  simply  a  supplement  to  the  Mincha 
(thus  Kurtz  in  particular), — namely,  an  unction  indicating  (because 
oil  in  the  Old  Testament  appears  as  the  symbol  of  the  communication 
of  the  Spirit)  that  only  such  labour  is  well-pleasing  to  God  as  is  con- 
secrated by  the  Divine  Spirit,  that  only  those  gifts  should  be  brought 
to  Him  which  are  produced  by  such  toil, — or  whether  (so  Bahr)  the 
oil  in  the  offering  is  co-ordinate  with  the  grain  and  the  wine,  and  thus 
is  not  a  mere  accompaniment,  but  an  independent  constituent  of  the 
gift — as  indeed  oil  is  frequently  specified  in  the  Old  Testament,  along 
with  corn  and  wine,  among  the  chief  productions  of  Palestine  (6).  The 
co-ordination  of  the  oil  and  the  incense  in  Lev.  ii.  1,  15,  as  well  as 
the  circumstance  that  the  oil,  with  the  incense,  was  omitted  in  the 
meat-offering  for  sin  and  jealousy  (Lev.  v.  11  and  Num.  v.  15), 
seem  to  speak  for  Kurtz's  view.  On  the  other  hand,  tlie  law  in 
Num.  XV.,  where  the  provisions  as  to  the  quantity  of  oil  to  be  used 
are  quite  co-ordinate  with  the  quantities  of  wine  in  the  drink-offering, 
speaks  for  the  second  view.  The  omission  of  the  oil,  which  makes 
food  savoury,  in  the  offerings  of  sin  and  jealousy  is  also  explicable  on 
the  second  view :  these  offerings  were  to  be  of  a  gloomy  character, 
and  therefore  in  them  the  libation  of  wine  was  also  omitted ;  and  in 
the  offering  of  jealousy  a  less  valuable  kind  of  flour  was  used  (7). 

(1)  The  rabbinic  views,  as  collected  by  Surenhusius  in  his  pre- 
face to  Mishna  Sehachhn,  deserve  no  consideration  (comp.  also  the 
article  cited  above,  p.  625). 

(2)  Hence,  as  Neumann,  I.e.  p.  332,  rightly  reminds  us,  we  may 
not  reject  this  principle  from  fear  of  anthropopathic  misuse  of  it. 


§  126.]  THE  RITUAL  OF  ANIMAL  SACRIFICE.  409 

(3)  Because  Israel  is  not  to  be  ix  people  of  hunters,  no  offering  of 
game  is  commanded. 

(4)  Compare  Keil,  Ilaudh.  der  Ubl.  Arclidologie,  i.  p.  198  ff. 

(5)  Ps.  cxli.  2  :  "  Let  my  prayer  come  before  Thee  as  incense ; 
and  the  lifting  uj)  of  my  hands  as  the  evening  Mincha." 

(6)  See  Kurtz,  das  mos.  Offer,  p.  101,  and  alttest.  Op/erkuUus,  p. 
246  f.;  Biihr,  I.e.  pp.  302,  316. 

(7)  On  the  contrary,  the  parallel  drawn  by  Bahr  between  the  oil 
of  the  meat-offering  and  the  fat  of  animal  sacrifices  has  been  rejected 
by  Kurtz  with  good  reason  {das  mos.  Opfer,  p.  94).      [Above  art.] 


2.   THE    RITUAL   OF   SACRIFICE. 

§  12G. 

The  Ritual  of  Animal  Sacrifice  :  Presentation  at  the  Altar;  Laying  on 
of  Hands  ;  Slaughter. 

The  parts  that  make  up  the  action  of  offering,  and  first  of  animal 
sacrifice,  are  in  general — 1.  The  presentation  of  the  animal  to  be 
sacrificed  before  the  altar ;  2.  The  laying  on  of  hands  ;  3.  Killing ; 
4.  Sprinkling  of  the  blood  ;  5.  Burning  on  the  altar  (1). 

1.  The  consecration  of  the  offerer,  accomplislied  by  avoiding  all 
Levitical  defilement,  and  by  washing,  preceded  the  sacrificial  festival 
(see  1  Sam.  xvi.  5,  comp.  Philo,  de  vict.  off.  §  1).  On  this  the  offerer 
had  in  person  to  bring  the  animal  selected  to  the  entrance  of  the 
tabernacle,  Lev.  i.  3,  iv.  4,  where  stood  the  altar  of  burnt  sacrifice 
(Ex.  xl.  6).  The  term  for  this  is,  in  Lev.  iv.  4  and  other  passages,  t*''3[7, 
distinguished  from  y'^^f},  which  designates  the  proper  presentation  of 
offerings  on  the  altar,  i.  3 ;  comp.  especially  xvii.  4  f.,  9  (2). 

2.  Then  the  offerer  (if  there  was  moi'e  than  one,  comp.  e.g.  Ex. 
xxix.  10,  one  after  the  other)  laid,  or  more  correctly  pressed  firmly, 
Ids  hand  on  the  head  of  the  sacrificial  animal  (Lev.  i.  4,  iii.  2,  iv.  4, 
etc.)  (3).  The  term  S'^\  "^"OD  here  used  properly  means  to  prop  or 
lean  the  hand;  according  to  the  Rabbis,  the  hands  were  to  be  laid 
on  with  the  whole  bodily  strength  (n"3  ^'33,  Maimonidcs).  Doubtless 
the  utterance  of  some  declaration  as  to  the  destination  of  the  offering 
presented  (petition,  confession,  thanks,  etc.)  was  connected  with  the 
laying  on  of  hands,  or  Seinikha  (4).     The  signification  of  the  laying 


410      THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  126. 

on  of  hands  is  not  merely  (as  has  often  been  suicl,  see  Knobel  on 
Lev.  i.  4)  to  express  in  general  that  thereby  the  beast  to  be  sacrificed 
is  removed  from  tlie  power  and  possession  of  him  who  makes  the 
offering,  and  devoted  to  God ;  but  (comp.  Hofmann  in  the  Schrift- 
beiveis,  ii.  1,  ed.  1,  p.  155  ;  ed.  2,  p.  246)  the  laying  on  of  hands,  occur- 
ring also  at  the  dedication  of  the  Levites,  Num.  viii.  10  (comp.  §  94), 
is,  as  is  expressed  by  letting  the  hand  down  on  the  head,  the  dedication 
of  that  which  the  acting  person  awards  to  the  other  in  virtue  of  the 
fulness  of  power  that  he  possesses  over  it.  The  offerer,  by  the  laying 
on  of  his  hands,  ap[»oints  the  animal  to  be  for  him  a  medium  and 
vehicle  for  atonement,  thanks,  or  supplication,  according  to  the  designa- 
tion of  the  offering  with  which  at  the  time  he  now  wishes  to  appear 
before  God.  The  laying  on  of  hands  must  not  be  limited  to  the 
imputation  of  sin  (as  is  frequently  done)  (5). 

3.  The  slaughtering  of  the  beast  of  sacrifice  {^^f,  the  term  "  to 
kill,"  is  never  used)  follows  immediately  on  the  laying  on  of  hands, 
and,  as  the  law  presupposes  throughout,  is  executed  at  private  offer- 
ings by  the  offerer  himself.  True,  it  lay  in  the  nature  of  the  case 
that  at  this  act  the  assistance  of  another  had  to  be  called  in  ;  but  the 
slaughtering  of  private  offerings  was  in  no  case  a  specific  business  of 
the  priests,  as  has  often  been  assumed  (already  by  Phiio,  de  vict.  §  5). 
(The  reason  of  the  exception  in  offerings  of  doves  will  be  mentioned 
below.)  But  at  those  sacrifices  which  formed  the  standing  service  at 
the  offerings  for  the  cleansing  of  lepers  (Lev.  xiv.  13,  25),  as  well  as 
at  the  sacrifices  offered  for  the  whole  nation  (comp.  2  Chron.  xxix. 
22,  24),  the  slaughtering  was  the  business  of  the  priests,  who  were 
probably  assisted  by  the  Levites  (comp.  ver.  34)  (6). 

For  burnt  sacrifices,  sin-offerings,  and  trespass-offerings,  the  place 
of  slaughtering  was  on  the  north  side  of  the  altar  (Lev.  i.  11,  iv.  24, 
29,  33,  vi.  18,  xiv.  13)  (7).  A  thank-offering  might,  it  appears,  be 
slaughtered  at  other  places  in  the  court  (8).  Ewald  {Altertluwier,  ed. 
1,  p.  46  ;  ed.  2,  p.  59)  would  see  in  the  choice  of  the  north  side 
a  remnant  of  the  ancient  belief  that  the  Divinity  dwelt  either  in  the 
east  or  the  north,  and  came  from  thence ;  but  that  the  slaughtering 
of  the  sacrifice  has  also  the  meaning  of  a  presentation  before  God  has 
yet  to  be  proved.  We  might  rather  say,  with  Tholuck  {Das  Alte  Testa- 
ment im  Neueuj  ed.  3,  p.  91),  that  the  north  side  is  chosen  for  slaughter- 


§  126.]  THE  RITUAL  OF  ANLMAL  SACRIFICE.  411 

ing  the  offering  because  it  is  dark,  and  therefore  cheerless.  The  law 
makes  no  provisions  for  the  manner  of  slaughtering ;  tradition,  how- 
ever, is  all  the  more  explicit  on  this  account,  and  aims  mainly  at  the 
speediest  and  most  complete  way  of  obtaining  the  blood  (9).  On  this 
principle,  too  (as  Biihr,  I.e.  p.  343,  has  rightly  discerned),  we  are  to 
explain  the  manner  of  procedure  prescribed  for  the  offering  of 
pigeons,  Lev.  i.  15 — namely,  that  the  priest  himself  must  wring  off 
the  head  of  the  bird,  in  order  to  be  able  to  press  out  the  blood  on  the 
spot  (10). — In  the  Mosaic  ritual,  the  slaughtering  of  the  offering  has 
apparently  no  independent  significance ;  it  only  serves  as  a  means  of 
obtaininfj  the  blood.  It  is  at  least  not  indicated  in  the  law  of  offerinir 
that  what  the  offerer  deserved  as  a  sinner  is  executed  on  the  animal 
when  it  is  slaughtered,  and  that  thus  the  death  of  the  sacrifice  satisfies 
the  divine  punitive  justice.  Though  much  that  is  beautiful  can  be 
said  about  the  connection  of  the  idea  of  a  pcena  vicaria  with  the 
offering  (as  the  later  Jewish  theology  lays  great  emphasis  on  this  idea), 
nothing  can  be  adduced  for  it  from  the  sacrificial  laws.  Certainlv 
the  act  of  slaughter,  if  it  was  to  represent  the  punishment  of  death 
deserved  by  the  offerer — if  the  shedding  of  the  blood  under  the 
sacrificial  knife  was  an  act  of  real  expiation,  must  have  been  more 
prominently  set  forth,  and  the  act  of  slaughter  must  unquestionably 
have  been  assigned  not  to  the  offerer  of  the  sacrifice,  but  to  the  priest, 
as  the  representative  of  the  punishing  God.  Or  shall  God  appear  as 
a  judge,  who  commands  the  transgressor  to  execute  himself  with  the 
sword?  (11).  Besides,  if  the  slaughter  were  really  an  act  of  atone- 
ment, it  would  probably  take  place  on  the  altar  itself,  and  not  by  its 
side.  The  act  of  atonement  at  the  offering,  with  which  the  specific 
priestly  functions  begin,  commences  not  with  the  shedding  of  blood, 
but  with  the  use  of  the  shed  blood. 

(1)  Those  ceremonies  which  are  peculiar  to  some  kinds  of  offer- 
ings are  most  suitably  spoken  of  in  the  discussion  of  these. 

(2)  At  this  presentation,  doubtless,  the  priest  examined   whether 
the  condition  of  the  animal  corresponded  to  the  sacrificial  regulations. 

(3)  According  to  Mishna  Menaclwth  ix.  8,  both  hands,  for  which 
the  Rabbis  refer  to  Lev.  xvi.  21. 

(4)  The  formulae  handed  down  by  the  Rabbis  (comp.  Outram,  de 
sacrijiciis,  p.  15G  ff.)  are  nevertheless,  without  doubt,  of  a  later  origin. 


412       THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.     [§  12G. 

Jewish  tradition  says  (see  Outram,  p.  152)  that  the  laying  on  of 
liands  took  place  at  all  private  offerings,  with  exception  of  the  first- 
fruits,  the  tithes,  and  the  paschal  lamb,  but  it  is  declared  to  be  un- 
necessary at  the  sacrifice  of  birds.  When  the  law  in  Lev.  vii.  omits 
to  mention  the  la}dng  on  of  liands  at  trespass-offerings,  this  is  probably 
only  because  the  description  is  curtailed,  ver.  7  referring  back  to  the 
sin-offering.  Of  the  sacrifices  offered  for  the  congregation,  the 
laying  on  of  hands  is  mentioned  only  at  the  sin-offering,  iv.  15, 
according  to  which  it  was  to  be  accomplished  by  the  elders;  and  in 
xvi.  21,  with  which  comp.  2  Chron.  xxix.  23.  Tradition  (comp. 
Menaclioth  ix.  7)  says  that  the  practice  was  actually  limited  to  these 
cases.  The  provisions  of  the  law,  according  to  which  the  person  who 
offered,  and  not  the  priest,  except  when  the  offerer  was  the  priest,  had 
to  undertake  the  act  of  laying  on  of  hands,  is,  with  right,  emphati- 
cally urged  by  Jewish  tradition.  No  one  could  cause  his  servant,  or 
his  wife,  or  any  one  else,  to  take  his  place  here ;  only,  when  a  dead 
person  had  vowed  to  give  an  offering,  the  heir  was  allowed  to  be  his 
substitute  (Outram,  I.e.  p.  153).  Women,  children,  blind,  deaf,  and 
insane  persons  are  designated  in  Menachoth  ix.  8  as  incapacitated  from 
performing  this  function  [above  art.]. — These  traditional  provisions 
show  that  it  is  a  point  in  this  laying  on  of  the  hand  that  the  act  be 
performed  with  full  consciousness  of  its  meaning. 

(5)  When  Ewald  (^Altertlmmer  des  Volkes  Israel,  ed.  1,  p.  45  ;  ed 
3,  p.  58)  represents  the  laying  on  of  hands,  this  dedicatory  sign  "of 
highest  power  and  exertion,"  at  the  offering  as  characterizing  the 
sacred  moment  when  the  offerer,  "  on  the  point  of  beginning  the 
sacred  act,  himself  laid  down  all  the  feelings  which  must  now  rush 
on  him  In  full  fervour  on  the  head  of  the  creature,  the  blood  of  which 
was  presently  to  flow  for  him,  and  as  it  were  to  appear  before  God 
for  him,"  he  has  certainly  rightly  caught  the  meaning  of  the  ancient 
ceremony.     [Above  art.] 

(6)  On  this  point  see  especially  Lund,  judischc  Heiligthumer,  p. 
579  f. 

(7)  See  the  Jewish  views  on  the  compass  of  this  region  in  Ugolino, 
(dtare  exterius,  in  Thesavr.  x.  518. 

(8)  See  the  statements  of  the  MIshna  in  the  above-cited  article, 
p.  628. 

(9)  See  Outram,  I.e.  p.  162. — The  difference  still  subsisting  be- 
tween Jewish  butchery  and  the  mode  of  procedure  generally  practised 
in  slau(:;hterins:  animals  refers  to  this. 

(10)  On  the  word  P?9)  see  Knobel  on  Lev.  i.  15  ;  according  to 
Mislina  Sebachlm  I  v.  §  4,  the  head  was  not  to  be  separated  from  the 


§  127.]  THE  USE  MADE  OF  THE  SHED  BLOOD.  413 

body  of  tlie  pigeon  in  the  sin-offering,  wliicli  is,  on  the  contrary,  pre- 
scribed (§5)  for  burnt-offerings  of  doves.     [Above  art.] 

(11)  Cunip.  Keil's  judicious  remarks,  lulh.  Zeitschr.  1857,  p.  57. 


§  127. 

Contliniatiou  :   The  Use  made  of  the  Shed  Blood. 

4.  The  streaming  blood  of  tlie  shiughtered  animal  was  caught  at 
once  by  a  priest  (1)  in  a  basin,  and — see  Sheringham  on  Mishna  Joma 
iv.  3 — was  stirred  incessantly  to  prevent  it  from  clotting  (2).  The 
manipulation  of  tlie  blood  which  followed  differed  according  to  the 
various  kinds  of  offerings,  that  is,  according  to  the  degree  in  which 
the  element  of  atonement  was  connected  with  the  sacrifice.  The 
lowest  grade,  in  the  case  of  burnt-offerings,  tres[)ass-offerings,  and 
thank-offerings  (Lev.  i.  5,  vii.  2,  iii.  13,  etc.),  consisted  in  .'sprinkling, 
or  rather  swinging,  the  blood  round  the  altar  (^''?9  '^5!'?']"''^)  (whilst, 
at  least  according  to  Philo,  de  vict.  §  5,  the  priest  walked  round  it). 
The  term  P"]T,  used  for  this  operation,  is  different  from  ^y} ;  only  the 
latter  was  done  with  the  finger ;  the  '^i^"'"lt,  on  the  contrary,  was  done 
direct!}'  out  of  the  basin  (3).  The  law  seems  to  demand  that  at  the 
ni5^"iT  the  whole  supply  of  blood  be  used  (4). — On  the  contrary,  at 
sin-offerings  a  higher  grade  of  manipulation  of  the  blood  took  place, 
consisting  in  bringing  the  blood  to  special  sanctified  places,  according 
to  the  dignity  of  the  sin-offering.  In  the  first  grade  of  sin-offering, 
part  of  the  blood  had  to  be  put  on  the  horns  of  the  altar  of  burnt- 
offering  (lOJ,  Lev.  iv.  30,  34)  ;  in  the  second,  the  blood  was  brought 
into  the  holy  place,  and  part  of  it  was  sprinkled  or  squirted  (njn,  iv. 
6,  17)  seven  times  towards  the  inner  curtain,  and  put  on  the  horns  of 
the  altar  of  incense.  In  both  cases  the  remaining  quantity  of  blood 
was  to  be  poured  out  (J\^f)  at  the  foot  of  the  altar  of  burnt-offerings. 
Cut  in  the  highest  grade  of  sin-offering,  the  blood  was  brought  into 
the  holiest  of  all,  and  the  Kapporeth  was  sprinkled  with  it  (5). — The 
interpretation  of  this  use  of  the  blood  must  proceed  from  the  passage 
Lev.  xvii.  11,  where  the  prohibition  to  use  blood  is  based  on  the 
following  declaration  : — "  For  the  soul  of  the  flesh  is  in  the  blood,  and 
I  have  given  it  to  you  on  the  altar  to  atone  for  (properly  to  cover) 


414       THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.     [§  127. 

your  souls  (DD''rib'a3"7y  iS?^)  ;  for  the  blood  expiates  by  the  soul 
(L'*Q33) —  that  is,  by  means  of,  in  virtue  of  this,  that  the  soul  is 
in  it"  (6).  The  main  sense  is  not  changed  if  we  take  the  other 
])0ssible  view  of  the  construction,  and  assuming  a  use  oi  Beth  essentice^ 
interpret,  "  in  the  quality  of  the  soul ;"  but  in  this  case  SJ'D^S  (without 
the  article)  must  be  read.  On  the  contrary,  the  explanation  "  the 
blood  atones  for  the  soul,"  or  "  is  an  atonement  for  the  soul "  (LXX. ; 
avrl  '^v'xrj'i  e^Ckdaerat;  so  E.  V.  and  Luther),  is  to  be  rejected  ;  for, 
not  to  speak  of  the  tautology  thus  introduced  into  the  passage,  the  thing 
to  be  atoned  for,  or  more  literally  to  be  covered,  is  always  connected 
with  123  by  the  prepositions  ?V  or  IJ??,  or  rarely  in  the  accusative  (7). 
This  connection  of  the  soul  and  the  blood  is  in  ver.  14  expressed 
thus :  "  The  soul  of  all  flesh  is  S^^^  iOT,"  that  is,  "  its  blood  in  its 
soul," — its  blood  in  as  far  as  it  has  the  property  of  the  K'D3^  its  ani- 
mated blood.  (iK'r'^n  is  to  be  taken  as  in  Gen.  ix.  4.)  Knobel  is 
probably  right  when  he  says :  ''  The  addition  of  itJ'333  serves  to  define 
D"=i  more  distinctly,  in  order  that  we  may  not  hold  the  matter  of  the 
blood  in  itself  to  be  the  life,  e.g.  not  also  clotted  and  dried  blood,  from 
which  the  t^'33  has  disappeared."  For  the  manipulation  of  the  blood 
must  not  be  understood  as  the  employment  of  what  once  loas  the  life 
of  the  animal  to  sprinkle  the  holy  places, — a  view  by  which  an  alto- 
gether foreign  idea  would  be  imported  into  the  passage.  As  in  the 
Old  Testament  living  water  and  living  flesh  (in  contrast  to  boiled, 
1  Sam.  ii.  15)  are  spoken  of,  so,  and  even  more  correctly,  can  fresh, 
reeking  blood,  still  in  the  act  of  flowing,  be  regarded  as  blood  which 
still  has  life  in  itself,  is  still  linked  with  the  soul.  The  passage  means 
to  say,  that  in  the  still  fresh  blood  of  the  sacrifice  which  is  put  on  the 
altar  the  soul  of  the  animal  is  presented  for  the  soul  of  man,  to  atone 
for,  more  exactly  to  cover,  the  latter.  The  terms  "iS3,  with  the  sub- 
stantives icb,  D'''}S3,  used  to  express  the  notion  of  atonement,  denote 
expiation  as  a  covering ;  the  guilt  is  to  be  covered — withdrawn,  so  to 
speak — from  the  gaze  of  Him  who  is  reconciled  by  the  atonement,  so 
that  the  guilty  one  can  now  approach  Him  without  danger.  In 
explanation  of  this,  comp.  especially  passages  such  as  Ex.  xxx.  12 
(Num.  viii.  19),  but  in  particular  Num.  xvii.  11  (8),  etc.  On  the 
same  view  rests  the  converse  expression — to  cover  the  face  of  the 
adversary  who  is   to  be  conciliated  by  a  gift,   Gen.   xxxii.  21  ("1Q3 


§  127.]  THE  USE  MADE  OF  THE  SHED  BLOOD.  413 

D  ""JS)  ;  conip.,  in  xx.  16,  tlie  corresponding  expression  ^]TV.  ^^°?  (see 
other  cognate  terms  adduced  by  Knobel  on  this  passage).  Thus,  too, 
a  bribe  given  to  a  judge  by  an  accused  person  is  called  "I2i3,  a  covering, 
because  (1  Sam.  xii.  3)  the  eyes  of  the  judge  were  thereby  veiled. 
To  the  sinful  people  God  appears  as  the  covering  One,  Deut.  xxi.  8  ; 
Jer.  xviii.  23;  Mic.  vii.  19  (9).  In  tlie  language  of  sacrifice,  the 
priest,  as  the  mediator  between  God  and  the  people,  is  in  general  desig- 
nated as  he  who  covers  or  expiates,  Lev.  v.  26  (nin"'  ''JSp  jribri  V7y  "iMI 
V  n^pj"]),  X.  17,  XV.  15  and  30.  That  by  which  a  trespass  is  covered 
can  only  be  something  by  which  he  against  whom  man  has  offended 
is  satisfied.  Thus  1S3  passes  over  into  the  meaning  of  Xvrpov,  the 
payment  which  buys  a  debtor  free ;  thus  Ex.  xxi.  30  (where  iti'?:  [^"iSi 
corresponds  to  it)  ;  Num.  xxxv.  31 ;  comp.  also  Prov.  vi.  35,  xiii. 
8  (10).  The  Xvrpov  paid  must  naturally  stand  in  a  suitable  propor- 
tion to  the  guilt  to  be  redeemed  ;  still  the  notion  of  equivalency  does 
not  necessarily  lie  in  "iS3.  The  gift  by  which  a  man  covers  himself 
must  only  be  of  such  a  sort  as  to  be  fit  to  appease  the  person  to  whom 
compensation  is  due.  "isb  forms  a  contrast  to  punishment,  but  in 
some  cases  not  an  absolute  contrast.  Lighter  punishment  may  be  a 
covering  against  heavier,  as  in  the  case  of  the  money-fine,  Ex.  xxi. 
30 ;  to  this  Isa.  xxvii.  9  also  belongs,  where  the  lighter  punishment, 
which  has  a  purifying  effect,  serves  to  cover  or  atone,  in  contrast  to 
the  heavy  punishment  of  extermination  ;  comp.  also  the  123  in  Job 
xxxiii.  24.  Further,  the  punishment  which  falls  on  one  man  may 
benefit  another  as  his  133,  and  that  in  various  ways.  The  punishment 
of  death  executed  on  a  manslayer  furnishes  a  covering  for  the  land 
which  has  been  desecrated  by  the  crime  of  blood.  Num.  xxxv.  33  ;  and 
the  example  of  punishment  executed  on  a  guilty  person  covers  the 
people  who  are  involved  in  connection  with  tiiis  crime  and  suffer 
thereby,  xxv.  13  (comp.  Josh.  vii.  for  a  case  in  point).  In  a  manner, 
Prov.  xxi.  18  also  belono;s  to  this :  "  The  wicked  shall  be  a  covering 
(133)  for  the  righteous,  and  the  transgressor  comes  in  the  place  of  the 
upright ; "  by  the  divine  judgment  falling  on  the  wicked  man,  that  is 
(comp.  xi.  8),  by  God's  judgment  being  spent  on  the  wicked  man,  the 
righteous  man  is  freed  and  saved.  But  even  the  thougiit  that  per- 
haps a  righteous  man  may  purchase  forgiveness  for  the  people  by 
taking  their  punishment  is  not  unknown  to  the  Pentateuch  ;    see  Ex. 


4 It)   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.  [§  127. 

xxxii.  32,  and  what  has  ah'tady  (§  20,  with  note  3)  been  said  about 
this  passage  ;  only  tliat  Jeliovali  (ver.  33)  does  not  accept  this  atone- 
ment for  which  Moses  offers  lilmself. 

Now  in  what  sense  shall  the  soul  of  the  animal  presented  in  the 
blood  in  the  sacrifice  serve  as  a  covering  for  the  soul  of  man  ?  Gene- 
rally speaking,  by  man  placing  the  soul  of  the  pure,  innocent  sacrificial 
animal  between  himself  and  God,  because  he  is  unable  to  approacli 
God  immediately  on  account  of  his  sinfulness  and  impurity  ;  as  Jacoh, 
wishing  to  reconcile  his  heavily-injured  brother  Esau,  sends  the  1£3 
before  him.  More  particularly,  however,  the  question  arises,  Is  the 
way  in  which  the  beast  sacrificed  comes  in  for  the  guilty  person  to  be 
regarded  as  vicarious  punishment  ? — in  other  words,  Can  the  soul  of 
the  animal  become  a  substitute  for  the  soul  of  sinful  man,  because  it  has 
first  by  death  paid  the  penalty  which  the  latter  should  have  borne, 
so  that  here  the  jus  talionis^  "  soul  for  soul,"  E.k.  xxi.  33,  comes  into 
play? — In  the  ritual  law  of  the  Old  Testament  there  is,  apart  from 
sacrifice,  a  ceremony  in  which  certainly  the  idea  of  the  pcena  vicuria 
is  expressed — namely,  Deut.  xxi.  1-1),  the  ceremony  which  was  ordained 
in  the  case  of  a  manslayer  remaining  unknown.  Evidently  the 
punishment  of  death  incurred  by  the  manslayer  is  executed  symboli- 
cally on  the  heifer,  the  neck  of  which  is  broken  in  a  brook  (11). 
With  reference  to  sacrifice,  the  notion  of  vicarious  punishment  cer- 
tainly does  not  admit  of  being  confuted  by  the  common  objection, 
that  the  soul  of  the  sacrificial  animal,  laden  with  the  curse  of  the 
sinner,  might  not  be  laid  upon  the  altar,  upon  which  nothing  may  be 
laid  but  what  is  clean  and  well-pleasing  to  God.  For  to  this  objection 
we  may  reply,  with  Kurtz,  that  after  the  guilt  of  sin  is  wiped  off  by 
death,  the  wages  of  sin,  a  restitutio  in  integrum  ensues,  in  virtue 
whereof  the  blood,  which  has  ])assed  through  death,  is  to  be  viewed  as 
pure  and  free  from  guilt  (12).  But  if,  in  conformity  with  this  view,  the 
offering  of  the  blood  on  the  altar  is  only  to  signify  the  divine  accept- 
ance of  the  atonement  completed  in  the  death  of  the  sacrifice,  it  still 
remains  unexplained  why,  in  the  ritual  of  sacrifice,  it  is  not  the  act  of 
slaughter  by  which  the  guilt  is  carried  away,  but  the  act  of  presenting 
the  blood  on  the  altar  that  is  designated  the  act  of  atonement  (comp. 
the  remarks  in  §  126).  The  law,  in  giving  no  special  meaning  at  all 
to  the  slaughtering,  certainly  leaves  room  for  reflections,  like  those  of 


§  127.]  THE  USE  MADE  OF  THE  SHED  BLOOD.  417 

Biihr  (I.e.  p.  211)  and  others,  that  every  gift  to  God  presupposes  the 
offering  up  of  the  natural  life;  or  for  the  common  view,  which  recom- 
mends itself  by  its  easy  intelligibility,  that  a  punishment  is  symbolically 
executed  in  the  slaughtering  (13).  But  the  law  nowhere  indicates  that 
in  sacrifice,  as  in  the  Clierem^  an  act  of  punitive  punishment  is  executed, 
it  in  no  way  asks  us  to  look  on  the  altar  as  a  place  of  execution.  He 
who  has  malevolently  committed  trespass  against  the  covenant  God 
and  His  laws  falls  without  mercy  under  the  divine  punitive  justice; 
but  on  this  account  there  is  no  more  sacrifice  for  him.  The  Mosaic 
cultus  is  a  divine  ordinance  of  grace  for  the  congregation,  which, 
though  it  does  indeed  sin  in  its  weakness,  yet  seeks  the  divine  coun- 
tenance. For  this  congregation  the  approach  to  God  is  to  be  made 
possible  by  God  giving  it  in  the  cultus  means  of  covering  sin  which 
are  well-pleasing  to  Him,  the  Holy  One,  p^'i?  (as  the  expression  so 
often  runs).  Thus  the  sanctuary  itself,  for  which  the  isb,  paid  by 
the  people  at  their  numbering,  is  used,  is,  Ex.  xxx.  16,  a  li"i3T  before 
Jehovah,  serving  as  a  covering  for  the  souls  of  the  people  ("»'i?  "iS3? 
D3''rib'33).  Where,  then,  is  there  room  in  tiiis  case  for  a  pos)iavicaria? 
So,  as  already  shown  (§  92),  the  priesthood  with  its  ordinances  steps 
in  between  the  people  and  Jehovah  as  a  covering ;  though  both  the 
places  of  worship  and  the  personnel  of  worship,  it  is  true,  require  in 
turn  to  be  themselves  continually  cleansed  and  atoned  for,  as  it  is  the 
peculiarity  of  the  institutions  of  the  Mosaic  cultus  generally  that  the 
great  number  of  ordinances,  each  requiring  to  be  supplemented  by  the 
others,  points  to  the  inadequacy  of  the  whole,  and  makes  the  need  of 
a  complete  and  true  atonement  to  be  felt  (comp.  §  9G).  But  it  can 
only  be  the  soul  which  really  covers  and  atones  for  the  soul.  Man 
can  embody  his  thanks  and  requests  in  a  gift;  but  this  gift,  as  the  gift 
of  an  impure  and  sinful  person,  is  itself  impure — it  can  please  God 
only  as  the  gift  of  one  who  has  given  himself  up  to  Him.  God  has 
therefore  ordained  something  in  the  ritual  which  represents  this  self- 
surrender  ;  he  has  put  the  soul  of  the  clean  and  guiltless  animal 
which  is  presented  to  Him  in  the  blood  of  the  offering  in  the  place  of 
the  impure  and  sinful  soul  of  the  offerer,  and  this  pure  soul,  coming 
between  the  offerer  and  the  Holy  God,  lets  Him  see  at  His  altar  a  pure 
life,  through  which  the  impure  life  of  the  offerer  is  covered  (14)  ;  and 
in  the  same  way  this  pure  clement  serves  to  cover  the  pollutions 
VOL.  I.  2d 


418      THK  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAKL  AND  TIIK  THEOCRACY.     [§  127. 

clinging  to  the  sanctuary,  and  to  do  away  with  tliem.  That  is  the 
Old  Testament  type  for  the  word,  Ileb.  ix.  14  (09  Sta  irvevfMaro';  alcovcov 
TrpoatjvejKev  eavrov  a/ia>/xov  ra>  @ew). — The  blood  of  sacrifice  has  thus 
a  quite  specific  meaning.  It  is  not,  with  Schultz,  to  be  looked  upon 
merely  as  the  most  noble  gift  dedicated  to  God,  but  it  is  that  which 
alone  makes  God's  acceptance  of  all  gifts  possible,  since  in  it  the  self- 
sacrifice  of  the  offerer  is  vicariously  accomplished.  Because  man's 
incapability  to  enter  immediately  into  communion  with  God  appears 
afresh  at  every  offering,  therefore  every  complete  offering  must  be 
preceded  by  the  covering  of  the  atonement  of  blood,  and  therefore  this 
is  conditio  sine  qua  non  of  the  presentation  of  a  gift  even  in  the  thank- 
offering.  Where,  on  the  contrary,  the  whole  act  of  sacrifice  aims 
at  atonement,  the  manipulation  of  blood  takes  place  in  a  higher 
degree  (15). 

(1)  Executed  by  another,  the  operation  did  not  hold  good,  Mishna 
Sehachim  ii.  1. 

(2)  Tradition  ordained  that  the  basin  should  be  pointed  below,  so 
that  the  piiest  could  not  set  it  down  anywhere. — There  is  no  other 
mention  made  of  mixing  the  blood  of  the  sacrifice  with  water,  as 
Heb.  ix.  19  assumes  to  have  been  done  in  the  covenant  sacrifice;  see 
Delitzsch  on  this  passage.     [Above  art.] 

(3)  See  more  particulars  as  to  Jewish  tradition  in  the  above-cited 
article,  p.  629. 

(4)  Later  tradition  commanded  that  what  of  the  blood  remained 
over  should  be  poured  out  at  the  foot  of  the  altar,  into  one  of  the  two 
pipes  which  were  at  its  south-west  corner,  through  which  it  then  ran 
off  into  the  Kedron.     [Above  art.] 

(5)  Comp.  the  laws  Lev.  iv.  and  xvi.  Particulars  on  this  point 
in  the  doctrine  of  the  sin-offering,  §  139  ff. 

(6)  Thus  1Q3  stands  with  the  Beth  instrumenti,  Lev.  vii.  7 ;  Ex. 
xxix.  33  ;  Num.  v.  8  ;  2  Sam.  xxi.  3. 

(7)  In  tJhpn,  Lev.  vi.  23,  xvi.  27,  3  is  to  be  taken  locally. 

(8)  According  to  Ex.  xxx.  12,  the  Israelite,  when  the  people  were 
numbered,  had  to  cover  himself  by  means  of  a  sum  of  money,  in 
order  that  no  plague  might  come  upon  him  when  he  presented  him- 
self before  the  Holy  God. — In  Num.  xvii.  11  it  is  the  incensing, 
which  symbolizes  the  priestly  intercession,  that  comes  between  the 
divine  wrath  (^>*i?)  and  the  people,  and  by  covering  the  latter  arrests 
the  progress  of  the  plague.     [Above  art.] 


§  128.1  BURNING  THE  OFFERING.  419 

(9)  In  Alic.  vli.  19,  forgiveness  of  sins  on  the  part  of  God  is 
called  a  casting  of  sin  into  the  depths  of  the  sea. — Elsewhere  it  is 
also  expressed  by  ^33. 

(10)  In  Prov.  xiii.  8,  it  is  said  that  to  the  rich  man  his  wealth  is 
iC'Wp  "isbj  a  covering  for  his  soul,  because  with  its  help  he  is  able  to 
redeem  himself  from  danger. 

(11)  Comp.  Delitzsch,  Komment.  zum  Hehrdcrhrief^  p.  742  f. ; 
and  see  §  143,  2. 

(12)  Wiiat  Keil,  hihl.  ArcJiclol,  i.  p.  213,  adduces  against  this 
argument  can  hardly  be  regarded  as  decisive.     [Above  art.] 

(13)  This  is  already  indicated  in  Isa.  liii.,  and  is  set  forth  de- 
finitely in  the  later  Jewish  ritual;  comp.  Outrum,  p.  159.  See,  too, 
Delitzsch,  I.e.  p.  738  f.     [Above  art.] 

(14)  We  cannot  reasonably  say  that  in  this  case  the  divine 
punitive  justice  terminates  in  nothing;  on  the  contrary,  that  justice 
is  honoured  when  he  who  makes  the  offering  declares  that  he  is  in 
want  of  a  covering  before  the  Holy  God,  and  thereby  acknowledges 
himself  as  one  who,  though  sinning  in  weakness,  is  exposed  to  the 
divine  judgment.      [Article,  "  Vers6h7iungstag.''^'\ 

(15)  What  is  here  discussed  in  a  general  way  will  find  its  special 
application  when  we  speak  of  the  sin-offering,  and,  in  particular,  of 
the  day  of  atonement  (§  139  ff.). 


§  128. 

Coniinnation :  Burning  the  Offering. 

5.  When  the  manipulation  of  the  blood  was  completed,  the 
burning  of  the  offering  followed  (1).  In  the  burnt-offering,  all  the 
flesh  and  the  fat  pieces  were  consumed  after  those  parts  had  been 
washed  which  required  cleansing  (Lev.  i.  7-9)  ;  in  the  other  offer- 
ings, only  the  fat  pieces  (2). — As  to  the  meaning  of  the  burning, 
there  is  neither  in  the  ritual  of  sacrifice  nor  otherwise  in  the 
Old  Testament,  any  support  whatever  for  the  view,  still  defended, 
especially  by  Hengstenberg,  according  to  which  this  ceremony  shows 
that  sin  is  not  expiated  by  death,  but  that  there  is  still  a  punishment 
impending  after  death — namely,  that  of  hell-fire,  the  symbol  whereof 
is  the  fire  of  the  altar.  The  true  point  of  the  burning  on  the  altar 
is  already  clear  from  the  fact  that  not  the  term  K^^-,  which  designates 
destructive  burning,  is  used  for  it  (comp.  on  the  contrary,  Lev.  iv.  12, 


420      THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.     [§  128 

xvi.  27),  but  always  ■>^t?i?n  (Lev.  i.  9,  13,  17;  also  of  the  sin-off ering-, 
iv.  10,  19,  etc.),  which  literally  means  "to  cause  to  smoke  or  steam  " 
— that  is,  to  cause  to  ascend  in  smoke  and  vapour.     The  burning  of 
the  offerinfT  does  certainly  complete  the  surrender  of  it  on  the  part  of 
the  offerer,  and  for  him  the  gift  is  destroyed,  but  only  in  such  a 
way  that  at  the  same  time  the  acceptance  of  the  gift  on  the  part  of 
God  ensues — an  odour,  which  is  well-pleasing  to  God,  being  produced 
as  the  smoke  and  vapour  of  the  burnt-offering,  "  the  real  essence  "  of 
the   offering  (as  Kurtz,  das  mosaische  Opfer,  p.  91,  well  expresses 
himself),  rises  upwards,  so  that  He  is  thus  made  to  enjoy  the  offering, 
which  is  what  is  meant  by  the  regularly-recurring  formula,  nn  niJ'K 
~\r\'h  n'rT'J  (Lev.  i.  9,  13,  17).      How  could  the  vapour  of  the  offering 
be  so  called  if  the  fire  of  tiie  altar  wei*e  a  fire  of  punishment,  and  the 
burning  offering  the  symbol  of  those  burning  in  hell  ?      (Tiiis  view 
is  truly  hideous.)      A   symbolic  interpretation  of   the   expression   is 
required  by  the  Mosaic  idea  of  God,  in  accordance  with  which  a 
sensuous  enjoyment  on  the  part  of   God  cannot  be  spoken  of  (3). 
But   the  fire   which   consumes    the   offering   is    originally   one    that 
comes  from  God,  because  by  it  God  appropriates  the  offering  (Lev. 
ix.  24;  comp.  from  later  times,  Judg.  vi.  21;    1   Kings  xiii.  38; 
1  Chron.  xxi.  26;  2  Chron.  vii.  1).     It  is  never  to  go  out  on  the 
altar,  but  must  be  continually  nourished  by  the  burnt-offering  and 
the  fat  of  the  peace-offering.  Lev.  vi.  5  f.  (12  f.)  ;  and  this  regulation 
does  not  simply  mean  that  the  fire  of  the  offering  must  always  be 
ready,  but  is  meant  to  preserve  the  identity  of  the  fire  on  the  altar 
with  the  original  heavenly  fire,  and  represent  at  the  same  time  the 
unbroken  course  of  the  adoration  of  Jehovah  carried  on  in  sacrifice. 
All  fire  for  the  offerings  of  incense  had  to  be  taken  from  this  sacred 
fire  on  the  altar  of  burnt-offerings, — a  thing  which  is  not,  indeed, 
expressly  commanded  in  the  law,  but  was  set  forth  practically  by  the 
heavy  punishment  inflicted  on  the  sons  of  Aaron,  who  approached  the 
Lord  in  the  offering  of  incense  with  strange  fire  (Lev.  x.).     This 
lieaven-born  fire  is  the  symbol  of  the  divine  holiness  which  reveals 
itself  in  Israel.    That  God  accepts  every  offered  gift  only  by  means  of 
the  element  which  proceeds  directly  from  Him,  is  intended  to  teach 
that  every  sacrifice  which  man  makes  to  God  is  made  perfect  only  by 
being  taken  up  into  the  purifying,  sanctifying  element  of  divine  life 


§  129.]  RITUAL  OF  THE  MEAT-OFFERING.  421 

(comp.  Mark  ix.  49).  The  latter,  indeed,  becomes  (Lev.  x.  2)  a  con- 
suming fire  for  those  who  approach  the  Holy  One  in  a  profane  spirit. 
Thus  it  is  clear  how  the  hearth  of  God  (Isa.  xxxi.  9  ;  Ariel,  Ezek. 
xliii.  15  f.)  is  not  merely  symbolic  of  the  way  in  which  God  sanctifies 
His  people,  but  also  of  His  punitive  justice,  which  annihilates  all  that 
resists  Him.  In  this  sense  Isa.  xxxiii.  14  says:  "The  sinners  in 
Zion  are  afraid ;  fearfulness  hath  surprised  the  hypocrites.  Who 
amoncT  us  shall  dwell  with  the  devourino;  fire  ?  who  amonii  us  shall 
dwell  with  everlasting  burnings  ?  "  (Comp.,  too,  Isa.  x.  17,  and  §  48 
on  this  passage;  Mai.  iii.  19.) 

(1)  But  first  the  offerer  had  to  take  off  the  skin  of  the  animal, 
and  to  divide  it  "  into  its  pieces  "  (Lev.  i.  6,  viii.  20)  ;  that  is,  not  to 
hack  it  into  rude  lumps,  but  to  dissect  it  properly.  The  inspection  of 
the  intestines,  which  constituted  an  essential  part  of  the  sacrificial 
transaction  among  many  ancient  nations,  especially  the  Phoenicians 
(comp.  Movers,  das  Opferwesen  der  Karthnrjer^  p.  65),  is  entirely 
banished  from  the  Mosaic  cultus.     [Article,  '■^  Opferkultus  des  A.  J*."] 

(2)  The  way  in  which  the  rest  of  the  flesh  of  these  was  used,  see 
infrcij  under  the  various  kinds  of  offerings,  §  132  ff. 

(3)  Even  on  the  Homeric  view,  it  is  not  the  pleasure  of  enjoying 
the  vapour  of  the  offering  in  itself,  but  the  readiness  of  man  to  honour 
God  with  this  enjoyment,  which  makes  the  offering  acceptable ; 
comp.  Niigelsbach,  homer.  Theol.  ed.  1,  p.  304 ;  ed.  2,  p.  352. 


§129. 

Ritual  of  the  Meat-Offering. 

The  ritual  of  the  meat-offering  was  very  simple.  At  those  meat- 
offerings which  accompanied  the  burnt-offerings  presented  for  the 
congregation,  it  is  probable — there  is  no  certain  command — that  the 
whole  quantity  of  flour,  oil,  and  incense  was  burnt  on  the  altar  (1). 
At  free-will  meat-offerings  (comp.  Lev.  ii.  and  vi.  7  ff.),  the  offerer 
brought  the  material  to  the  priest,  who  took  a  handful  of  the  flour 
and  oil  (iv^P  N^»,  ii.  2,  comp.  vi.  8),  together  with  the  whole  of  the 
incense,  and  burned  it  on  the  altar  (2).  The  name  for  the  portion  of 
the  meat-offering  which  was  placed  on  the  altar,  as  well  as  for  the 
incense  laid  on  the  shewbread  (Lev.  xxiv.  7),  is  'l^st^*,  which  is  inter- 


422   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.  [§  129. 

preted  most  plausibly  by  the  LXX.  /xvTjfxoa-vuov  (Vulgate,  memoriale), 
and  thus  expresses  that  the  odour  of  the  meat-offering,  when  burnt, 
was  to  bring  the  offerer  into  God's  gracious  remembrance  ;  as,  on  the 
contrary,  the  offering  of  jealousy,  Num.  v.  15,  is  called  0121^  pi3t  nmo 
fiy,  which  brings  sin  to  remembrance  (3).  The  meat-offerings  accom- 
panying peace-offerings  will  be  treated  of  along  with  these. — The 
law  makes  no  provisions  about  the  manner  of  procedure  in  the 
drink-offering.  According  to  Sir.  1.  15  (17),  the  wine  was  poured 
out  at  the  foot  of  the  altar ;  according  to  Josephus,  Ant.  iii.  9.  4, 
round  the  altar  (and  this,  say  the  Rabbis,  after  it  had  first  been 
salted).  The  libation,  as  is  probable  a  priori,  is  said  to  have  been  the 
last  act  of  the  offering  (4). 

(1)  See  Keil,  Aixhdologie,  i.  p.  255  f. ;  Winer,  ReallexiJcon,  ed.  3, 
ii.  p.  494.  The  latter  assumes  that  the  meat-offerings  mentioned  in 
Lev.  xiv.  20  f..  Num.  vi.  15  ff.,  viii.  8  ff.,  were  also  completely  con- 
sumed on  the  altar.  In  the  law,  on  the  contrary,  this  is  expressly 
prescribed  only  for  the  priestly  Mincha,  Lev.  vi.  16  (comp.  §  95), 
which  was  a  matter  of  course,  since  the  person  who  made  the  offering 
was  not  to  partake  of  his  own  Mincha. 

(2)  The  term  X^P  does  not  at  all  denote,  as  the  Rabbis  understood 
it,  a  very  small  portion  (viz.  such  a  handful  that  the  extremities  of 
the  fingers  lay  on  the  palm  of  the  hand;  see  Hottinger,  j/us  hehr.  p. 
182),  but  means  a  good  handful  (comp.  Ci''V9P?,  Gen.  xli.  47). — How 
great  a  part  was  taken  from  what  was  baked  or  roasted  is  not  said. 
[Above  art.] 

(3)  Bahr's  explanation  of  the  nnsTN  {I.e.  i.  p.  411,  ii.  p.  328)  by 
"  praise  "  is  supported  by  the  phrase  f^'^'^''  Dti'  '^''W}-,  but  does  not  agree 
well  with  Lev.  v.  12,  Num.  v.  26  ;  Knobel's  rendering — remem- 
brance =  gift,  tribute — cannot  adduce  proof  for  the  use  of  "13T  which 
it  assumes  ;  Ewald's  interpretation — odour — is  quite  destitute  of  lin- 
guistic proof. — The  remainder  of  the  Mincha  fell  to  the  priests,  and 
was  to  be  consumed  in  the  front  court  as  a  thing  most  holy — of  course 
after  the  flour  mingled  with  oil  had  been  baked  without  leaven  (Lev. 
ii.  3,  10,  vi.  9  f.,  vii.  6  f.).      [Above  art.] 

(4)  Sue  Lund,  I.e.  p.  596,  where  there  are  more  particulars. 


§  130.]  VARIOUS  KINDS  OF  OFFERINGS.  423 


3.    ON  THE  VARIOUS  KINDS  OF  OFFERINGS  WITH  REFERENCE  TO 
THEIR  PURPOSE. 

§  130. 

Various  Kinds  of  Offerings  as  thus  distinguished. 

Tlie  law  of  offerinp;  distincruislies,  with  reference  to  their  destina- 
tion and  purpose,  four  kinds  of  offerings, — burnt,  peace,  sin,  and  tres- 
pass offerings.  The  laws  in  Lev^  i.-iii.  refer  to  tiie  two  first  kinds, 
which  are  traced  to  one  divine  direction^  i.  1  (''  and  Jehovah  called 
to  Moses,  and  said  to  him,"  etc.) ;  between  the  two  the  directions  for 
meat-offerings  are  inserted,  because  these  stood  in  connection  with 
the  animal-offerings  in  question  (comp.  Num.  xv.  3  ff.).  Thej  stand, 
iiovvever,  in  closer  connection  with  the  burnt-offering,  and  therefore 
follow  immediately  on  it.  In  chap.,  iv.  f.  (again  in  close  connectit)n, 
but  traced  to  various  divine  disclosures,  iv.  1,  v.  14,  20)  follow  those 
species  of  offerings  newly  introduced  by  the  Mosaic  ritual,  the  sin- 
offering  (up  to  V.  13)  and  the  trespass-offering. — By  this  grouping 
we  are  led  to  refer  the  four  kinds  of  offerings  to  two  higher  classes, — 
those  wiiich  assume  that  the  covenant  relation  is  on  the  whole  undis- 
turbed, and  those  that  are  meant  to  do  away  with  a  disturbance 
which  has  entered  into  this  relation,  and  again  to  restore  the  right 
relation  (of  the  people  or  of  separate  individuals)  to  God.  The 
latter  are  offerings  of  atonement,  under  which  name  we  may  compre- 
hend both  sin-  and  trespass-offerings.  If  several  offerings  were  to 
be  presented  at  the  same  time,  the  offerings  of  atonement  generally 
preceded  the  burnt-offerings,  and  on  the  latter  the  peace-offerings 
followed.  In  respect  of  rank  (1),  the  offering  of  atonement,  as 
^VIP,,  ^IP,  a  thing  most  holy  (vi.  18,  22,  vii.  1,  6,  etc.),  stands  higher 
than  the  peace-offering,  which,  like  presented  first-fruits,  is  expressly 
called  simply  V'lp,  a  holy  thing.  But  since  the  meat-offerings  also 
are  called  most  holy  (ii.  3,  10,  vi.  10,  x.  12),  the  designation  ^"ip 
^'''^'"Ji?.  is  probably  omitted  only  by  accident  in  speaking  of  the  burnt- 
offering,  which  certainly  was  an  offering  of  high  rank.  The  distinc- 
tion is  clearly  connected  with  the  use  of  the  offering.  Offerings  at 
which  the  man  who  brings  the  offering  obtains  a  part  to  partake  of 
himself  are  merely  holy,  and  so  offerings  of  the  second  grade;  while, 


424   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.  [§  131. 

on  tlie  contrary,  those  entirely  witlulrawn  from  man's  use,  or  such 
that  the  priests  alone  were  allowed  to  enjoy  them,  were  most  holy 
(therefore  this  designation  is  used  also  of  the  shewbread).  It  is  ex- 
plained by  what  has  been  said,  that  in  the  enumeration  of  the  kinds 
of  offerings  in  Lev.  vii.  37  (2),  the  thank-offering  stands  last.  The 
D''S^?n  there  mentioned,  the  offering  at  the  dedication  of  the  priests, 
which  has  already  been  treated  of  under  the  consecration  of  the 
priests  (§  95),  was  a  modified  thank-offering. 

(1)  The  ritual  (§  127)  already  points  to  a  difference  of  rank 
among  the  offerings,  by  the  differences  in  the  manipulation  of  the 
blood. 

(2)  Lev.  vii.  37  :  D^»^t^'n  nar^i  D^Ni-Jsh  ni^'i6)  nxtanh  nms^  nHi;^. 


(a)    THE    BURNT-OFFERING. 

§13L 

The  common  name  of  the  burnt-offering,  npy,  is  not,  with  Ewald, 
to  be  derived  from  a  stem,  hj?,  which  he  supposes  to  signify  to  glow, 

to  burn  (Arabic,  Jlc)  (in  which  case  the  name  would  come  from  long 
burning)  (1),  but  from  TV]},  as  is  shown  by  the  continual  conjunction 
of  the  word  with  npyri;  while,  on  the  contrary,  y]pi},  t^"'?'?,  n3T,  are  used 
of  the  other  kinds  of  offerings.  It  means  that  which  ascends, — 
namely,  on  the  altar, — in  distinction  from  the  offerings  of  which  only 
a  portion  come  on  the  altar  (2).  The  interpretation  of  Bahr,  Keil, 
and  Delitzsch — "  that  which  rises  upwards  to  God  in  the  fire  " — is  less 
probable.  The  other  name  of  this  offering,  /'yS,  that  is,  the  com- 
plete whole  burnt-offering,  occurs  only  in  poetical  passages  (Deut. 
xxxiii.  10;  Ps.  li.  21)  (3).  The  animal  sacrificed  must  (Lev.  i.),  in 
accordance  with  the  high  rank  of  the  offering,  be  a  faultless  male, 
taken  from  among  the  most  perfect  of  the  beasts  of  sacrifice  (from 
the  cattle,  sheep,  or  goats)  (4).  After  the  skin  had  been  taken  off 
(which  was  the  perquisite  of  the  priest,  vii.  8),  and  the  offal  removed, 
the  animal  was  wholly  burnt  (p''^>],  i.  9)  on  the  altar,  and  the  blood 
was  sprinkled  round  it.  On  the  meat  and  drink-offerings  connected 
with  the  burnt-offerings,  see  the  law  in  Num.  xv.  {)  ff. 


§  131. J  THE  BURNT-OFFERING,  425 

In  this  offering  the  people  or  the  individual  expressed  in  a  general 
way  adoration  of  Jehovah  and  devotion  to  Him.  It  is,  as  it  has  been 
suitably  named,  the  sacrijlcium  latreuticum  (5).  In  virtue  of  the 
presentation  of  blood  connected  with  it,  and  as  a  fire-offering 
of  pleasant  odour  (nn''3  n''!),  it  is  also  propitiatory  (appeasing)  in 
general ;  it  serves,  Lev.  i.  3,  to  make  him  who  offers  acceptable  before 
Jehovah  (niH"'  "•psp  i^i^'jp) — indeed,  in  virtue  of  tiiis  acceptableness,  it 
serves  as  a  covering  or  atopement  for  the  offerer  P???,  ver.  4  ;  comp. 
xiv.  20,  xvi.  24).  The  law  knows  notliiiig  of  a  special  destination  of 
the  burnt-offering  to  atone  for  a  special  sort  of  sins  (G). — As  the 
sacrificiinn  latreuticum,  it  was  the  morning  and  evening  sacrifice 
presented  daily  in  the  name  of  the  people  (the  embodiment  of 
morning  and  evening  prayer),  for  which  a  yearling  lamb  was  always 
used.  This  is  called  the  continual  burnt-offering  ("Tpn  npV).  The 
law  touching  it  is  given  as  early  as  the  organization  of  the  sanctuary 
itself  (Ex.  xxix.  38-42),  and  then  repeated  (Num.  xxviii.  3-8). 
Every  day  was  dedicated  to  God  by  the  T'^l^  npy,  and,  as  the  Eabbis 
emphatically  set  forth,  was  thus  atoned  for ;  with  its  cessation  the 
cultus  itself  is  suspended  (and  so  this  is  regarded  as  a  great  calamity, 
see  Dan.  viii.  11).  No  time  is  set  for  the  morning  sacrifice  (accord- 
ing to  Mishna  Tumid  iii.  2,  as  soon  as  it  became  light) ;  the  evening 
sacrifice  is  to  be  presented  Dlliy'T  P?  (between  the  two  evenings), 
Ex.  xxix.  39,  41.  This  expression,  which  occurs  frequently  in  the 
Pentateuch  (also  in  the  Paschal  law),  has  long  been  variously  inter- 
preted by  the  Jews.  According  to  the  Karaites  (who  rest  on  Deut.  xvi. 
6)  and  the  Samaritans  (likewise  Aben  Esra),  it  means  the  time  between 
sunset  and  total  darkness ;  according  to  the  Pharisees,  between  the  hour 
when  the  sun  declines  (three  o'clock  in  the  afternoon)  and  sunset  (7)  ; 
while  Kimchi  and  Rashi  (and,  in  modern  times,  Hitzig)  say  that 
sunset  was  the  boundary-line  between  the  two  evenings  (8).  The 
evening  sacrifice  was  intended,  Lev.  vi.  2,  to  burn  through  the  whole 
night  tiH  the  morning.  Probably  at  the  same  time  as  the  TIpn  npy  was 
presented,  the  offering  of  incense,  also  presented  twice  daily,  was 
kindled  on  the  inner  altar  (already  spoken  of  in  §  117).  The  time 
for  presenting  the  offering  was  also  the  hour  of  prayer  (Dan.  ix.  21  ; 
Acts  iii.  1),  as,  generally  speaking,  it  is  likely  that  an  act  of  prayer 
was  combined  with  the  burnt-offering  (comp.  2  Chron.  xxix.  27-30). 


42Q      THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.      [§  ISl. 

With  tlie  morniniT  and  evenin£j  sacrifice  were  also  combined  a  meat- 
and  drink-offering  (9) ;  between  these  two,  tradition  makes  the  higli 
j)riest's  meat-offering  to  have  been  presented,  for  which  reference  is 
made  to  the  law  in  Lev.  vi.  12-16  (19-23)  (10);  comp.  Sir.  xlv. 
14  (17). — The  Sabbath,  the  new  moon,  and  the  feasts  were  marked 
by  an  augmented  burnt-offering,  Num.  xxviii.  9  ff.  (H).  See  in 
2  Chron.  xxix.  27-30  a  description  of  the  form  of  the  festal  burnt- 
offerings  in  the  temple  at  a  later  time  (12). — Even  strangers  who 
wished  to  honour  Jehovah  might  (Lev.  xvii.  8,  xxii.  18,  25)  offer 
burnt-offerings  and  sacrifices  (13). 

(1)  See  Ewald,  AUerthdmer,  ed.  1,  p.  50;  ed.  3,  p.  64. — By 
the  LXX.,  Tua  is  generally  translated  oXoKavTwjxa,  sometimes  also 
oXoKapiTOiixa, 

(2)  Comp.  Ps.  li.  21.  Knobel,  on  Lev.  i.  3,  seeks  to  explain  the 
name  TV}}  by  supposing  that  it  originated  at  a  time  when  this  was  the 
only  offering,  and  was  retained  by  the  same  ancient  offering  after 
others  arose.  However,  the  name  designates  literally  what  is  charac- 
teristic of  the  burnt-offering,  in  distinction  from  those  offerings  which 
could  not  absolutely  be  called  "  ascending." 

(3)  The  term  ^v?  refeis  to  the  complete  burning ;  compare  the 
use  of  the  word  for  the  priestly  Mincha,  wliich  was  also  to  be  com- 
pletely burnt  (Lev.  vi.  15  f.,  and  also  Deut.  xiii.  17).  The  word  has 
a  more  comprehensive  meaning  in  the  Phonician  ritual ;  there  it  is  a 
designation  of  sacrifice  in  general,  as  is  to  be  concluded  from  the 
Punic  sacrificial  tablet  found  in  Marseilles.  See  Movers,  l.c.  p.  59  ff. ; 
Ewald,  bihL  Jahrlu  i.  p.  211. 

(4)  So,  also,  for  the  sin-offerings  of  higher  rank,  male  animals 
are  commanded  to  be  used. — Onlj^  for  turtle-doves  and  young  pigeons 
offered  by  the  poor  was  the  sex  not  prescribed.    [Above  art.] 

(5)  Its  significance  is  more  particularly  defined  by  what  has  been 
said  about  the  meaning  of  sacrificial  gifts  in  the  Mosaic  cultus  in 
discussing  the  materials  of  offerings.    [Above  art.] 

(6)  The  burnt-offering  has  a  general  atoning  efficacy  as  regards 
him  who  presents  the  offering;  comp.  e. (7.  1  Sam.  xxvi.  19. — Outram, 
l.c.  p.  103,  gives  the  fancies  of  the  Kabbins  about  the  kinds  of  sin  for 
which  they  suppose  the  burnt-offering  to  atone,  in  distinction  from 
the  sin-offering  and  trespass-offering ;  in  particular  (comp.  Rashi  on 
Lev.  i.  4),  the  burnt-offering  was  thought  to  expiate  the  transgression 
of   such  commandments  as  are  found  negatively  and  positively  ex- 


§  131.]  THE  BURNT-OFFERING.  427 

pressed  in  tlie  Tliora,  as  D-^ut.  xxii.  6  f.  (the  command  against  taking 
birds'  nests).     [Above  art.] 

(7)  This  was  the  practice  in  tlie  temple;  according  to  Mi^hna 
Pesachhn  v.  1,  the  evening  offering  was  slaughtered  half  an  hour 
after  the  eighth  hour  of  the  day  (that  is,  about  half-past  two  o'clock), 
and  offered  half  an  hour  after  the  ninth  hour  (half-past  three). 
[Above  art.] 

(8)  As  the  evening  comprehends  tlie  whole  time  immediately 
before  and  after  sunset,  it  may  be  reckoned  partly  to  the  past  day  as  its 
close  (comp.  Lev.  xxiii.  32),  and  partly  to  the  next  day  as  its  beginning ; 
by  the  latter  usage,  for  example,  Dnnnrpp^  in  1  Sam.  xxx.  17,  finds  its 
explanation  (see  Thenius  on  this  passage).  The  expression  D^?"!^  is 
]irobably  to  be  primarily  traced  to  this  division  of  the  evening,  just  as 
Q^lp^,  properly  "  the  pair  of  lights,"  denotes  mid-day  as  the  time 
before  and  after  the  highest  position  of  the  sun  (see  Ewald,  Auf<f. 
Lehrb.  der  hehr.  Sprache,  ed.  8,  p.  475  f.).  Comp.  also  Gesenius, 
Thesaur.  ii.  p.  3064  f.  [article,  "Tag  bei  den  Hebraern  "]. 

(9)  To  each  of  the  two  lambs  a  tenth  deal  of  an  ephah  of  flour  as 
•a  meat-offering,  and  a  fourth  part  of  a  hin  of  wine  as  a  drink-offering. 
— Other  observances  of  later  tradition  in  the  morning  and  evening 
sacrifice  are  collected  in  the  tract  Tamidj  which  is  given  in  Ugolino, 
Thes.  xix.  p.  1467,  with  copious  notes  [article,  "  Opferkultus  des 
A.  T."]. 

(10)  See  Lund,  I.e.  pp.  921  and  928.— The  high  priest  had  to 
offer  it  for  the  first  time  on  the  day  of  his  anointing  (^I3n  nmp)  (comp. 
§  95,  note  22),  and  then  to  offer  the  same  for  himself  every  day  (nmp 
rr>''?!?.,  that  is,  meat-offering  in  the  pan),  half  in  the  morning  and  half 
in  the  evening ;  and  this  he  did  (Josephus,  Ant.  iii.  10.  7)  out  of  his 
own  means,  presenting  it  either  himself  or  by  a  snbstimte.  Ao-ainst 
the  view,  still  defended  by  Keil  (Archaol.  i.  p.  174  f.)  and  others, 
which  entirely  denies  the  existence  of  this  daily  Mincha  of  the  high 
])riest,  see  the  exact  discussion  of  this  point  by  Thalhofer,  I.e.  p. 
139  ff. ;  comp.  Delitzsch,  Komment.  zimi  Hebrderbrief]  p.  315  ff. 
[Above  art.] 

(11)  The  later  designation  of  these  festal  burnt-offerings  is  ri^'y 
n'S"i.  On  special  festive  occasions,  burnt-offerings  were  sometimes 
brought  of  free-will  in  great  numbers,  as  many  as  a  thousand  at  a 
time;  comp.  1  Kings  iii.  4,  1  Chron.  xxix.  21,  etc.      [Above  art.] 

(12)  As  soon  as  the  act  of  offering  began,  the  choir  of  Levites 
struck  up  a  psalm,  in  which  they  were  joined  by  the  trumj)ets  of  the 
priests.  During  the  whole  service  the  assembled  congregation  stood 
praying ;  at  the  close,  they  threw  themselves  upon  their  knees,  and 


428      TUE  COVENAKT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.      [§  131. 

then  most  likely  received  tlie  priestly  blessiii:!!.  It  followed  from  the 
fact  that  the  meaning  of  the  burnt-offering  is  of  a  general  kind,  that 
it  was  sometimes  united  with  special  offerings.  In  acts  of  atonement 
it  generally  followed  the  sin-offering,  and  at  public  thanksgivings  and 
other  festivities  formed  a  basis  for  the  thank-offering,  etc. ;  see  the 
collection  by  Knobel  on  Lev.  i.  3.      [Above  art.] 

(13)  Comp.  Mii<hna  ShekaUm  vii.  6. —  Especially  since  the  time 
of  Alexander  the  Great,  the  heathen  rulers  of  the  Jews  caused  burnt- 
offerings  to  be  offered  for  them  ;  and  Augustus  actually  instituted  a 
daily  burnt-offering  of  two  lambs  and  a  bullock  for  himself  (Philo, 
leg.  ad  Caj.  §  40).  This  offering  was  a  sign  of  acknowledgment  of 
his  imperial  majesty  (comp.  Josephus,  c.  Ap,  ii.  6) ;  and  therefore 
when,  at  the  beginning  of  the  Jewish  war,  the  acceptance  of  any 
offering  from  a  Gentile  was  declined  at  the  instigation  of  Eliezer,  the 
rejection  of  the  emperor's  offering  came  to  be  regarded  as  an  open 
breach  with  the  Roman  Government  (Josephus,  Bell.  Jud.  ii.  17.  2). 
Comp.  on  this  point  especially  Lund,  I.e.  p.  634  f.      [Above  art.] 


END  OF  VOL.  I. 


T.  and  T.  Clark's  Publications. 


Just  published,  in  One  Volume,  8vo,  price  12s., 

FINAL    CAUSES. 

By  PAUL  JANET,  Member  of  the  Institute,  Paris. 
CranSlatfU   from   tl)f  dTrencJ)   bv  OTtlltam   ^ffifffe,   33. J3. 

CONTENTS.— Preliminaky  Chapter— The  Problem.  Book  I.— The  Law  of 
Finality.     Book  II. — The  First  Cause  of  Finality.    Appendix. 

'  This  very  learned,  accurate,  and,  within  its  prescribed  limits,  exhaustive  work.  .  .  . 
The  book  as  a  whole  abounds  in  matter  of  the  highest  interest,  and  is  a  model  of  learn- 
ing and  judicious  treatment.' — Guardian. 

'Illustrated  and  defended  with  an  ability  and  learning  which  must  command  the 
reader's  admiration.' — Dublin  Review. 

'  A  great  contribution  to  the  literature  of  this  subject.  M.  Janet  has  mastered  the 
conditions  of  the  problem,  is  at  home  in  the  literature  of  science  and  philosophy,  and  has 
that  faculty  of  felicitous  expression  which  makes  French  books  of  the  liighest  class  such 
delightful  reading ;  ...  in  clearness,  vigour,  and  depth  it  has  been  seldom  equalled,  and 
more  seldom  excelled,  in  philosophical  Uter-dture.'— Spectator. 

'A  wealth  of  scientific  knowledge  and  a  logical  acumen  which  will  win  the  admiration 
of  every  reader.' — Church  Quarterly  Revieiu. 

'  Both  on  the  physical  and  on  the  metaphysical  side  the  work  is  well  worth  studying. 
It  is  the  best  recent  work  on  a  controversy  which,  if  it  has  not  yet  found  its  way 
to  our  pulpits,  is  keenly  discussed  in  all  educated  circles.' — Clergyman's  Alagazine. 

'  The  book  is  a  valuable  addition  to  the  permanent  literature  on  this  great  subject,  and 
we  welcome  its  appearance  in  an  English  dress,  as  supplying  a  want  in  the  philosophical 
thought  of  the  day  regarding  natural  theology.' — British  Quarterly  Review. 

'M.  Janet  has  done  his  work  with  a  sustained  power,  a  logical  acuteness,  and  an 
extensive  knowledge  of  many  provinces  of  science  which  is  worthy  of  all  praise  and 
thanks.' — Literary  Churchman. 

'  One  of  those  exhaustive  pieces  of  reasoning,  which  go  thoroughly  to  prove  the  validity 
of  the  view  of  Final  Causes  which  the  Author  has  adopted.' — Bell's  Weekly  Messenger. 

'  One  of  the  most  important  contributions  of  late  years  made  to  European  literature.' — 
English  Independent. 

'  The  style  of  this  distinguished  essaj'ist  throughout  is  singularly  philosophical.  He 
is  always  calm  and  cool,  eminently  analytic  and  painstaking,  yet  often  throwing  out 
new  and  striking  views  of  the  subject  without  the  slightest  parade.' — Tablet. 

'  This  is  perhaps  the  most  exhaustive  book  that  has  been  written  on  a  subject  with 
■which  all  deep  thinkers  have  been  more  or  less  exercised.' — English  Churchman. 


T.  and  T.  Claries  Pttblications. 


In  Two  Volumes,  demy  8ro,  price  21,s., 

COMMENTARY   ON   ST.   PAUL'S   EPISTLE 
TO   THE   ROMANS. 

By     FRIEDRICH     ADOLPH     PHILIPPI. 
Translated  from  the  Third  Improved  and  Enlarged  Edition. 

'  A  serviceable  addition  to  the  Foreign  Theological  Library.' — Academy. 

'A  commentary  not  only  ample  for  its  critical  stores,  but  also  valuable  for  its  sober 
exegesis.' — John  Bull, 

'  Pbilippi  brings  to  the  interpretation  of  the  Greek  text  a  penetrating  analytical  power, 
which  lays  bare  every  sepanite  element  in  the  Apostle's  thought,  and  traces  it  to  its  very 
root.     His  synthesis  is  equally  admirable.' — Baptist. 

'  Will  be  found  of  exceptional  value,  as  offering  the  results  of  most  searching  and 
independent  criticism  of  the  sacred  text.' — Dickinson's  Theological  Quarterly. 

'  May  be  safely  commended  to  devout  and  intelligent  students.' — Freeman. 

'  If  the  writer  is  inferior  to  Meyer  in  critical  acumen,  he  is  at  least  equal  to  him  in 
theological  learning  and  religious  insight;  and  his  Commentary  has  independent  worth — 
it  is  no  mere  repetition  of  other  men's  labours.' — Church  Bells. 

*  Sound,  scholarly,  and,  if  we  may  use  such  a  word,  sensible — not  loaded  with  details — 
the  work  is  really  helpful.' — Churchman. 

In  Two  Volumes,  (lemij  8ro,  price  21.<., 

HISTORY    OF    THE    REFORMATION 

IN 

GERMANY  AND   SWITZERLAND   CHIEFLY. 

By    Dr.    K.    R.    HAGENBACH. 

Translated  from  the  Fourth  Revised  Edition  of  the  German. 

'We  highly  appreciate  for  the  most  part  the  skill  and  the  proportion,  the  vivid 
portraiture  and  fine  discrimination,  and  the  careful  philosophic  development  of  ideas  by 
which  this  most  readable  and  instructive  work  is  characterized.' — Evangelical  Magazine. 

'  Dr.  Hagenbach  has  produced  the  best  history  of  the  Keformation  hitherto  written.' — 
British  Quarterly  Rt^vinu. 

'Dr.  Hagenbach  undoubtedly  has  in  an  eminent  degree  many  of  the  higher  qualifica- 
tions of  a  historian.  He  is  accurate,  candid,  and  impartial ;  and  his  insight  into  the 
higher  springs  of  the  Reformation  is  only  equalled  by  his  thorough  knowledge  of  the 
outward  progress  of  that  movement.' — Scotsman. 

'A  thoroughly  readable  and  interesting,  as  well  as  trustworthy  account  of  the  German 
and  Swiss  Reformations.' — Church  Bells. 

'  The  work  before  us  will  have  a  distinct  sphere  of  usefulness  open  to  it,  and  be 
welcome  to  English  readers.' — Church  Quarterly  Jieview. 

'  This  work,  in  the  quality  of  historical  accuracy  and  impartiality,  is  much  to  be  pre- 
ferred to  that  of  D'Aubignd.' — Christian  Union. 

'  By  the  study  of  this  book  a  more  just  and  real  acquaintance  with  the  actors  in  the 
Reformation  period  may  be  made  than  by  the  use  of  any  other  book  we  know.' — Weekly 
Revieiu. 

'English  readers  will  find  that  it  adds  something  to  their  appreciation  of  these  often- 
treated  events.' — Literary  Churchman. 


T.  and  T.  Clark's  Publications. 


HANDBOOKS    FOR    BIBLE   GLASSES. 


Just  imhlished,  in  crown  Svo,  price  Is.  Gd., 

THE    EPISTLE    OF    PAUL    TO    THE 
CHURCHES    OF    GALATIA. 

aeaitf)  Introtiuction  anB  ^oUs 
By  the  Rev.  JAMES  MACGKEGOR,  D.D., 

Professor  of  Systematic  Theology  in  the  New  College,  Edinburgh. 

'  Thpre  can  bo  no  question  as  to  the  value  of  such  handbooks.  They  will  be  welcome 
to  many  persons  quite  apart  from  any  cIhss  work,  and  should  find  a  place  in  many 
thousands  of  Clirisriau  libraries.' — Christian  World. 

'  Professor  Macgregor  has  compressed  into  his  small  manual  as  much  solid  learning 
and  suggestive  thought  as  is  rarely  found  in  books  three  or  four  times  its  size.' — Baptist 
Magazine. 

'  A  remarkably  able  introduction  to  the  epistle.' — IVonconfonnist. 

'  This  part  of  the  work  is  very  well  d(me ;  and  if  the  rest  of  the  books  should  show  hu 
equal  condensation  of  thouglit,  the  result  will  be  beyond  praise.' — Sword  and  Trotoel. 

Just  published,  in  croivn  8vo,  price  2s,, 

THE    POST-EXILIAN    PROPHETS- 

HAGGAI,  ZECHARIAH,  MALACHI. 

SJHitf)  EntrnSuction  anU  i^otrs 
By    MARCUS    DODS,     D.D. 

'No  intelligent  person  who  takes  up  'this  small  book  can  fail  to  be  struck  by  the 
evidt-nce  it  gives  of  extensive  and  accurate  scholarship,  and  of  philosophic  thoughtful- 
ness.' — British  Messenger. 

'  In  this  little  book  we  have  commentaries  which,  so  far  as  we  have  looked  through 
them,  are  all  tliat  can  be  desired.' — Homilist. 

'  Thoughtful,  sujrgestive,  and  Hnely  analytical.' — En  nvjelicnl  Magazine. 

Just  published,  in  crown  Svo, , price  Is.  6d., 

THE     LIFE     OF    CHRIST. 

By  Eev.  JAMES  STALKER,  M.A. 

'As  a  succinct,  suggestive,  beautifully  written  exhibition  of  the  life  of  our  Lord,  we 
are  acquainted  with  nothing  that  can  compare  with  it.' — Christian  World. 

'  We  qupstion  whether  any  one  popular  work  so  impressively  represents  Jesus  to  the 
mind.' —  The  Christian. 

'  The  best  life  of  onr  Lord  in  a  small  compass  we  have  met  with.  It  is  fresh,  graphic, 
vigorous,  and  eloquent.' — Glasgow  News. 

Just  published,  in  crown  Svo,  price  Is.  Gd., 

THE     CHRISTIAN     SACRAMENTS. 

By  Pkoff.ssoe  JAMES  S.  CANDLISH,  D.D. 

'The  style  is  admirable,  simple,  and  graceful.  The  work  is  certainly  the  best  of  its 
kind  that  has  appeared  on  the  subject' — Daili/  Review. 

Just  published,  in  crown  Svo,  j^i'ice  Is.  6d., 

THE    BOOKS    OF    CHRONICLES. 

By  r,EV.  Beofessoe  MURPHY,  Belf.ist. 


T.  and  T.  Clark's  Publications, 


In  Four  Volumes,  imperial  8vo,  handsomehj  hound,  pice  \8s.  each, 

A  POPULAR 
COMMENTARY  ON  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

WITH    ILLUSTRATIONS   AND    MAPS. 

Edited   by   PHILIP   SCHAFF,   D.D.,   LL.D. 


THE   CONTRIBUTORS   ARE— 


Joseph  Angus,  D.D. 

Principal  David  BRO^VN,  D.D. 

Marcus  Dods,  D.D. 

J.  Oswald  Dykes,  D.D. 

Paton  J.  GloaCt,  D.D. 

The  Very  Rev.  Dean  HowsoN,  D.  D. 

J.  Rawson  Lumby,  D.D. 


William  Milligan,  D.D. 
W.  F.  MouLTON,  D.D. 
Edward  H.  Plumptre,  D.D. 
William  B.  Pope,  D.D. 
Matthew  B.  Riddle,  D.D. 
S.  W.  F.  Salmond,  D.D. 
Rev.  Canon  Spence. 


Illustrations  - 


Maps  and  Plans — Professor  Arnold  Guyot. 
■  W.  M.  Thomson,  D.D.,  Author  of  '  The  Land  and  the  Book. 


Volume  I.— THE  SYNOPTICAL  GOSPELS.    No2v  Ready. 

Volume  II.— ST.  JOHN'S  GOSPEL.    By  W.  Milligan,  D.D.,  j 
and  W.  F.  Moulton,  D.'D.  [ 

THE  ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES.    By  the  Very  ( 
Rev.  Dean  Howson  and  Rev.  Canon  Spence.    ) 


In  OctiiJ/er. 


From  the  Right  Rev.  the  Bishop  of  Gloucester  and  Bristol 

'A  useful,  valuable,  and  instructive  Commentary.  It  contains  a  large  amount  of  in- 
formation, is  judiciously  illustrated,  and,  so  far  as  I  can  judge,  is  likely  to  be  of  great  use. 
I  bave  not  tested  it  in  difficult  doctrinal  passages,  but  I  see  in  it  nothing  to  lead  me  to 
doubt  that  it  would  stand  the  test.  Its  design  seems  to  be  that  of  a  popular  Commeutary, 
and  this  design,  it  seems  to  me,  it  has  fully  carried  out.' 

From  the  Right  Rev.  the  Bishop  of  Winchester. 

'I  have  looked  into  this  volume,  and  read  several  of  the  notes  on  crucial  passages. 
They  seem  to  me  very  well  done,  with  great  fairness,  and  with  evident  knowledge  of  the 
controversies  concerning  them.  The  illustrations  are  very  good.  I  cannot  doubt  that 
the  book  will  prove  very  valuable.' 

From  the  Very  Rev.  Edward  Bickersteth,  D.D.,  Dean  of  Lichfield  and 
Prolocutor  of  Canterhury. 

'  I  have  been  looking  into  this  volume,  and  I  am  much  struck  with  the  fulness  and 
accuracy  of  the  annotations,  wherever  I  have  examined  them,  as  well  as  with  the 
general  excellence  of  the  work.' 

From  Rev.  W.  G.  T.  Shedd,  D.D.  (Presbyterian),  Professor  in  Union  Theological 
Seminary,  New  York. 

'Having  examined  the  volume  with  some  care,  it  impresses  me  as  admirably  adapted 
to  the  class  for  whom  it  is  prepared,  and  calculated  to  promote  a  popular  understanding 
of  the  Word  of  God.  It  selects  the  important  words  and  clauses,  and  explains  them 
concisely  yet  thoroughly.  It  grapples  with  the  diilicult  questions,  and  answers  them 
generally  in  a  satisfactory  manner.  The  illustrations  are  well  chosen,  and  the  style  in 
which  the  book  is  made  is  very  attractive.' 

From  Rev.  Professor  Lindsay  Alexander,  D.D. 

'I  feel  satisfied  that,  if  the  whole  were  completed  after  the  same  manner,  it  would  be 
the  Commentary  par  excellence  in  the  English  language.  Indeed,  as  a  Commentary  for 
popular  use,  I  know  nothing  equal  to  it  in  any  language.' 


Date 

Due 

N    '  ■■    1  ■ 

n  21  "^ 

Wr  v5  wc   oo 

1 

}^CK.    ■'': 

1 

.4lp 

AP  Q    '^"^ 

MY12''^r^ 

A/n  o  ^'''ii' 

f) 

1i; 


1    ' 


iii 


;'  > 


ij] 


^\'vl^ 


I 


liniiimMiMi 


:iis;  !i!;)iMS 


,mm'i!HiX'f*iH\m';^\Vi»  i!i^v  wK^