======================================================================== HISTORY OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD UNDER THE OLD TESTAMENT by E.W. Hengstenberg ======================================================================== Hengstenberg's theological history tracing the development of God's kingdom throughout the Old Testament, beginning with the patriarchal period from Abraham through Moses and continuing through Israel's subsequent history under judges, kings, and prophets. Chapters: 54 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ TABLE OF CONTENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. 01. Introduction 2. 02. First Period: From Abraham to Moses 3. 03. § 1. The Condition of the Human Race at the Time of Abraham’s Call 4. 04. § 2. History of Abraham 5. 05. § 3. Isaac 6. 06. § 4. Jacob 7. 07. § 5. Joseph 8. 08. § 6. Remarks on Government, Manners, and Culture 9. 09. § 7. Of the Religious Knowledge of the Patriarchs 10. 10. § 8. Of the External Worship of God Among the Patriarchs 11. 11. Second Period: The Period of the Law, from Moses to the Birth of Christ 12. 12. First Section: Moses 13. 13. § 1. Introduction 14. 14. § 2. The Call of Moses 15. 15. § 3. The Deliverance Out of Egypt: Exo_7:8, to the End of Chap. 15 16. 16. § 4. The March Through the Wilderness Until the Giving of the Law on Sinai 17. 17. § 5. The Covenant on Sinai 18. 18. § 7. From the Breaking Up on Sinai to the Death of Moses: Numbers 10 to the End of ... 19. 19. Second Section. History of Joshua 20. 20. § 1. From the Death of Moses to the Conquest of Jericho 21. 21. § 2. From The Taking of Jericho to the Division of the Land 22. 22. § 3. Division of the Land 23. 23. § 4. Return of the Trans-Jordanic Tribes.—Joshua’s Last Exhortations.—Accounts Give... 24. 24. Essay on the Life and Writings of Hengstenberg 25. 25. Second Period: The Period of the Law; From Moses to the Birth of Christ 26. 26. Third Section. The Period of the Judges; From Joshua’s Death to the Election of Saul 27. 27. §1. Chronological Survey 28. 28. § 2. Introductory Remarks 29. 29. § 3. Principal Events 30. 30. § 4. The Civil Constitution at the Time of the Judges 31. 31. § 5. The Condition of Religion 32. 32. Fourth Section. From the Establishment of Royalty to the Division of the Kingdom 33. 33. § 1. Events from the Election of Saul Till His Rejection 34. 34. § 2. From the Rejection of Saul to His Death; or, Saul and David 35. 35. § 3. David and Ish-Bosheth 36. 36. § 4. David King Over Israel 37. 37. § 5. The Life of Solomon 38. 38. Fifth Section. From the Division of the Kingdom to the Babylonish Captivity 39. 39. § 1. Rehoboam and Jeroboam 40. 40. § 2. Abijam and Asa in the Kingdom of Judah. Nadab, Baasha, Elah, Zimri, Omri, and ... 41. 41. § 3. Jehoshaphat 42. 42. § 4. Ahaziah in the Kingdom of Israel 43. 43. § 5. Joram in the Kingdom of Israel and in the Kingdom of Judah 44. 44. § 6. Jehu, Jehoahaz, Jehoash, Jeroboam II, and Zechariah, the Five Kings of the Dyn... 45. 45. § 7. History of the Kingdom of Israel to the Time of Its Complete Dissolution 46. 46. § 8. Judea Under Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah 47. 47. § 9. From Manasseh to the Captivity 48. 48. Sixth Section. Jewish History From The Captivity To The Destruction Of Jerusalem. 49. 49. § 1. The Babylonish Captivity. 50. 50. § 2. The New Colony on the Jordan to the Completion of the Building of the Temple; ... 51. 51. § 3. Ezra and Nehemiah 52. 52. § 4. From the Death of Nehemiah to the Time of the Maccabees 53. 53. § 5. The Time of the Maccabees 54. 54. § 6. The Jews under the Supremacy of the Romans ======================================================================== CHAPTER 1: 01. INTRODUCTION ======================================================================== Introduction BEFORE entering on the history of the kingdom of God under the Old Testament, it will be necessary to make a few introductory inquiries relative to its nature, extent, name, division, import, and method of treatment. The history is divided into two great parts, the history of the kingdom of nature, and the history of the kingdom of grace. The ground of separation is formed by the different relation in which God stands to the world since the fall, already indicated in the Old Testament by the different names Elohim and Jehovah. The relation which God bears to the whole world is that of creator, preserver, and ruler. This is the kingdom of nature. It is divided, according to the condition of the creatures of God, into two parts, the kingdom of bondage and the kingdom of freedom. The former is a question of natural history in its stricter sense; the latter of civil, profane, world-history. One of its chief tasks is to point out how the providence and sovereignty of God reveal themselves in the destinies of nations and of those individuals who have exercised special influence on the whole; how all the changes of origin and decay are under His direction, and especially how His retributive justice checks the abuse of freedom, punishes it, and humiliates everything which arrogantly presumes to place itself in opposition to Him (one need only recollect Shakspere’s historical pieces, In which this forms the centre in prefiguration of all higher historical composition); finally, to show how all His arrangements have the ultimate and higher aim to prepare, establish, and confirm the kingdom of grace in humanity. While, therefore, profane history has to do with the universal providence of God; the history of the kingdom of grace has to do with His special providence. The idea of grace, in so far as it is restoration, stands in necessary relation to the idea of sin. (As mercy presupposes misery, so grace presupposes sin.) As soon as sin had once found entrance into the world, as soon as the image of God had been lost or obscured, a return to God became impossible unless God Himself would enter into humanity, unless He Himself would reunite the bond which had been torn asunder by the guilt of man; and would found a kingdom of holiness and righteousness in opposition to the kingdom of sin which had its origin in the fall. The history of the kingdom of grace is therefore the history of the peculiar arrangements of God for restoring the happiness which had been forfeited by the fall; and in necessary connection with it, the history of the way in which men as free personal beings upon whom salvation cannot be forced, but to whom it is offered for acceptance or rejection, demeaned themselves towards it, whether they accepted or rejected it. The centre of God’s decrees for the salvation of man was from the beginning in Christ. But in order that His appearance might effect that which it was calculated to produce in accordance with the condition of men upon whom happiness was not to be forced, it was preceded by a long period of preparation; of direct preparation with regard to one nation chosen for this purpose; of indirect preparation when all other nations were concerned, although civil, not sacred history has to do with the latter. Thus God’s measures of salvation, and therefore their history, is divided into two great parts: the time of preparation; and the time of fulfilment, called by Paul in Galatians 4:4 the πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου. These two parts have very aptly been termed the economies or dispensations. Because every relation of grace into which God enters with all humanity, or with a single nation, or with an individual, is in the language of Scripture designated a covenant,—a term which implies that God never gives without requiring; that with every new grace the question simultaneously arises, I do this for thee, what dost thou for me? that all unions into which God enters are not of a pathological, but of an ethical nature: therefore the first economy has been called that of the Old Testament, the second that of the New Testament. Their essential distinction consists in the fact, that the former is based upon the promised and future Christ, the latter upon the manifested Christ; the former is the gradual progressive preparation of salvation in Christ, the latter is the appearance of this salvation from its beginning to its final and glorious fulfilment. In this main distinction the others have their origin. With reference to the extent of the first part, the older theologians universally begin the history of the Old Testament with the creation of the world, and carry it on to the birth of Christ. Against the starting-point which they take there is the less to be objected, since in this respect they follow the sacred records themselves. If we designate the first economy as the economy of preparation, it must not be forgotten that already in the first history of the human race there is much which may fitly be regarded as preparatory. Thus, for example, the divine sentence of punishment after the fall, and, still more, the punishment itself, was designed to awaken in man the consciousness of sin, and consequently to prepare him for the revelation of grace. In like manner the deluge was intended to set limits, at least for a time, to the depravity which was increasing with rapid strides, in order that at the beginning of the special revelations of God all susceptibility for their reception might not have disappeared. Thus the confusion of tongues, which had its origin in the diversity of minds, served, by scattering the various nations, to impede the communication of evil, and to guard against the development of a common spirit, or universalism in sin. But the main thing, the proof of the development of sin, to which chief attention is directed in the sacred records from Adam to Abraham—the reference to it forms the soul of Genesis, Genesis 1-11—furnishes that series of the more definite arrangements of God which began with Abraham, with the best basis for the foundation of the kingdom of grace, for preparation of Christ’s manifestation. When we remember how sin which entered into the world by the fall even in early times attained to such fearful power as to cause fratricide, how before long it gave rise to a nation which sought its honour in barbarity and violence, how by degrees it drew down into its whirlpool the ἐκλογή who had remained from the beginning, how it attained such supremacy that with the exception of a few individuals it became necessary to destroy the whole race of man, how among the descendants of the few who had been rescued forgetfulness of God soon broke forth anew on an enlarged scale; the measures which God had arranged for salvation, beginning with Abraham, appear in their true significance; their absolute necessity becomes manifest; and hence that which proves the necessity for the economy of preparation may itself be regarded as an element of its history. Through Adam’s fall human nature was completely corrupted; this is the key to an understanding of God’s plan of salvation. Thus the beginning with Adam is not unsuitable if we regard the first economy as the economy of preparation. And even if we regard it as the economy of promise, there is a good argument in favour of this starting-point also. For the promise begins immediately after the fall, though the promised One does not stand out with clearness; which was the case even in the promises to Abraham and Isaac. In the judicial sentence on the tempter, which has reference to the invisible cause more than to the visible instrument, there is certainly a promise to the betrayed human race of future victory over their betrayer, and over the sin he introduced. And this promise is more nearly defined soon after the deluge, in Genesis 9:26-27, where it is stated that the promised salvation is to originate with the descendants of Shem, and from them to pass over to the posterity of his brethren. Whatever little reason there is, after what we have said, for rejecting this earlier starting-point, we have come to the conclusion on many accounts to adopt another, the call of Abraham. Our outward and subjective argument is based upon the wish to secure for ourselves the possibility of a thorough treatment, by the greatest possible restrictions of our space within the narrow limits which recent times accord to academic lectures, especially on this subject (Rambach read five semesters on the church history of the Old Testament), and at the same time not to encroach too much on another lecture, that on Genesis, in which it will be necessary to treat the history from the creation to Abraham’s call with particular fulness. An additional argument is drawn from the subject itself, viz. that the proper founding of the Old Testament, the proper establishment of the kingdom of God upon earth, the economy of preparation begins with the call of Abraham; so that when the earlier history is concerned, it is sufficient to draw attention to the manner in which it serves as a preparation for this founding and establishment. Against the concluding-point of the older theologians there is one objection to be made, namely, if we follow Scripture we find that the perfect end of the economy of the Old Testament consists not in the birth, but in the mediatorial death of Christ, and in the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, which takes place as a consequence of the altered relation of God towards the world, effected by Christ’s death. Forgiveness of sins and the outpouring of the Holy Ghost are already cited by the prophets, especially by Jeremiah in the classic passage Jeremiah 31:31, etc., as essential marks of the appearance of the Messianic kingdom, and of the abrogation of the Old Testament. The Lord Himself and His disciples kept the law until His mediatorial death; and Paul makes the abrogation of the Old Testament date from the same event,—the Lord Himself declares the New Testament to be first instituted by His blood, and to rest in it. But although the efficacy of Christ certainly belongs to the time of the economy of the Old Testament, yet, in accordance with the nature of the question, it belongs specially to the economy of the New Testament, since it professes to be the necessary foundation of the facts which ushered in the revelation of this economy.In it we find the New Testament silently germinating in the time of the Old Testament. Ὁ λόγοςσὰρξἐγένετο, with this fact those others were also given which led on directly to the cessation of the Old Testament. The Lord Himself, in Matthew 11:13, πάντες γὰρ οἱ προφῆται καὶ ὁ νόμος ἕως Ἰωάννου ἐπροφήτευσαν, points to the appearance of the Baptist, so closely connected with His own, as the great turning-point, when the time of promise and preparation begins to give way to the time of fulfilment. Therefore we exclude the history of Christ. On the other hand, it will not be irrelevant if, by way of appendix, we give the history of those events which, with revelation generally, lie properly without the limits of the history of the Old Testament, together with the history of the Jews from the rejection of Christ, by which they cease to be a covenant-people, to the destruction of Jerusalem. For these events throw light upon the kingdom of God under Israel, being a consequence of it, and a divine judgment which befell the former covenant-people, or more correctly their caput mortuum,—for the ἐκλογή formed the stem of the church of the New Testament,—because they had violated the conditions of the covenant which had been made. Because they are a consequence of the sovereignty of God they cannot be entirely abandoned to profane history, which is properly occupied only with the universal rule of God. Therefore we exclude the point where the New Testament passes on into the Old Testament, and on the other hand include the point where the Old Testament passes on into the New Testament. In earlier theological phraseology the history of the Old Testament was universally termed the Historia Ecclesiastica V. T. This appellation rests upon the conviction, entirely conformable to Scripture, that the kingdom of God upon earth was not perhaps begun with Christ, but only completed; that from the time of Abraham there existed a true church of God, into which the heathen only were received; that from the commencement of the institutions of salvation till the end of the world there is but one people of God, the sons of Abraham and Israel, from whose communion unbelief and unfaithfulness exclude even those who belong thereto by birth; in accordance with the expression so often repeated in the law, “This soul is rooted up out of his land.” But on the other hand faith admits every one to equal privileges with those who are born into this community. This is a position so firmly established in the writings of the Old Testament, especially the prophetic, and in the utterances of Christ and His apostles, that it can only be contested by complete or partial disbelief in revelation. The Saviour speaks from this point of view when, in Matthew 19:28, He says to the apostles, “Verily, I say unto you, that ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of His glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” That the twelve tribes of Israel are not here named in the ordinary Jewish sense, but are intended to denote the whole church, is as certain as that the calling of the apostles has reference not to Jews alone, but to “all nations,” Matthew 28:19. Even in the choice of the apostles the Lord is led by this mode of consideration, as certainly as that the number twelve has reference to the twelve tribes of Israel. In Romans 11:17-24, Paul recognises only one olive tree, one people of God, from whom unbelievers are excluded, and to whose fellowship faith admits all. James follows the same course of thought when he addresses his epistle to the “twelve tribes which are scattered abroad,” etc.; and Peter, when he writes to the “strangers scattered throughout Pontus,” etc. It is certain that neither of them had any wish to exclude the heathen Christians, who, according to the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Epistles, were at that time associated with the Jewish Christians in the Christian church; and just as little did they wish to include unchristian Jews. They address themselves to the true original sons, and to the adopted sons. John pursues the same course of thought in the Apocalypse, Revelation 21:12, when he says that on the twelve gates of the city, which represents the church in the kingdom of glory, of the city in whose light even the heathen walk (Revelation 21:24), are written names which are the twelve tribes of the children of Israel. Therefore the title of Hist. Eccl. V. T. has some significance in itself, and can only be objected to on one ground. According to the usual phraseology, which has a sound basis, the church is placed in opposition to the state. By this view, only the history of the kingdom of God under the New Testament can come under the name of Church History. For, properly speaking, an antithesis of church and state did not exist under the Old Testament, but both were inseparably joined together according to an arrangement of God, which had respect to the necessities of the Old Testament. The main argument lies in this, that the kingdom of God under the Old Testament possessed, in the spirit of Christ, no mighty principle involving the possibility of an unconditioned independent existence, but was obliged to look to the state for support. State and church formed only different sides of one and the same collective life. But we are not to understand that they formed really different sides, after the example of those who confound theocracy with hierarchy; for it is manifest that the various elements of divine sovereignty under the Old Testament are distinct: the priests have nothing to do with the civil government, but restricted themselves solely to the sphere of religion which they share with the prophets; while the civil rulers and the prophets occupy in their own sphere a position as independent and absolute as that of the priests. The distinction between the Old and New Testament is only apparently obviated by the consideration that even under the New Testament the church has various ramifications with the state. For where we find not a mere covenant but an actual union existing between church and state, as for example in the State Church of England; it is a result not of God’s institution, but of the sin of men, and therefore does not belong to the essence of the church of the New Testament, but can only be regarded as a perversion of it. In most cases, however, this intimate connection is only apparent, as for example in the Evangelical Church of Germany after its first establishment. But the fact that union with the state does not belong to the proper essence of the church of the New Testament is most clearly evidenced by the example of those Christian churches which have no connection with the state, as all Christian churches in America, Dissenters in England, the Free Church in Scotland, and among ourselves the Moravians and Separatist-Lutherans. Under the Old Testament such a community would have sunk helplessly. We infer this from the absolute dependence of religious life under the Old Testament on the personal piety of kings. Even under the New Testament a glorious blessing is attached to this piety; but it has not its former absolute influence. Nevertheless the Old Testament name of Church History is much more expressive of the thing than that which has become prevalent in the age of rationalism, viz. History of the Jews or Hebrew History, which leaves the main element untouched, the very thing which makes this history a theological discipline, the special revelation of God to this people. The appellation History of Theocracy is also objectionable, because this term, so popular among supranaturalist apologists, and indeed first originated in the apologetic region—it was introduced by Josephus—has acquired a profane, secondary signification. The Jewish historian generally uses theocracy of an ideal sovereignty; our historians speak of theocracy among the Egyptians, etc. It may also he objected to this appellation that it places the Old and New Testaments in an erroneous antithesis not known to Scripture at all: under the New Testament God is Lord and King, and only one particular form of His sovereignty is proper to the Old Testament. More suitable is the title, History of the Kingdom of God under Israel; but still better, perhaps the best, is the title. History of the Old Covenant, or of the Kingdom of God under the Old Covenant, because it not only, like the first, indicates its peculiar character, but at the same time specifies its connection with the history of the kingdom of God under the New Testament; and again because the term Israel is ambiguous, it cannot with propriety be applied only to the people of the old covenant. As to the division of the Old Testament history, it falls naturally into two parts: the history of the period from Abraham’s call to Moses; and the history of the period from Moses to Christ. Yet in recent times these two parts have not unfrequently been placed in a false relation to one another, as Sack has well shown in his Apologetik; the first having been characterized as a mere preparation for the law, the second, as a preparation by the law for Christ; while in the New Testament, on the other hand, the close connection between the covenant with the patriarchs and the New Testament is made peculiarly prominent; and the law is designated only as an intermediate arrangement: comp. e.g.Galatians 3:21-24. The covenant with the patriarchs unquestionably served at the same time as a preparation for the law; but this is not the chief aspect in which it should be regarded. The chief element in the covenant concluded with the patriarchs is, properly speaking, the promise that from their posterity salvation should go forth to all nations. Under the law itself this promise was even more clearly and definitely evolved through the medium of the prophets. Christ is the essence of prophecy. The law stands only in a subordinate relation to the promise, serving only as a means to facilitate its realization, and to call forth that necessity for redemption which is its basis. Therefore the greatest importance must be attached to the first part, and to that portion of the second which is connected with it; although the second part, owing to its greater copiousness, and to the outward magnificence of the events connected with it, as well as to its longer duration, occupies much more space. Of these parts the second contains several subdivisions, corresponding to transition-points of special importance; both parts may be divided into the external and internal history. The former takes cognizance of the changes which took place in the outward condition of the bearers of revelation, specifies their fortunate or unfortunate relations with respect to other nations, and describes the life and character of those men who exercised special influence on the development of the nation; the latter represents the civil, moral, and religious condition of the people, examines the substance of the revelations committed to them at every period, defines the measure of religious perception, and the mode of worshipping God at each period; and together with the history of true religion gives an account of the origin of false religions, especially of idolatrous worship among the covenant-people. The representation of the theology of the Old Testament, thus given in connection with history, is more appropriate than the separate treatment of it which has so often been attempted. For under the old dispensation doctrine had not yet elevated itself to independence, but was intimately bound up with history. Occasionally it became prominent, and was contained in a series of divine deeds, directions, and institutions, or appeared in connection with them. The separate treatment of the doctrine of faith and morals contained in the Old Testament overlooks this its characteristic distinction from the New Testament. A work so purely dogmatic as the Epistle to the Romans could not have been written under the Old Testament. We shall now treat of the aim and import of the history of the Old Testament; first, in so far as it is an independent theological discipline; secondly, in its character as a science auxiliary to other portions of theology. The chief advantage of the Old Testament history is that it confirms us in the faith, and provides us with the means of confirming others in it. This happens in many ways, but especially in so far as it proves the inner coherence of all the divine preparations for salvation, the progress from the smaller to the greater, from systematic preparation to completion and fulfilment. It is by the perception of this very connection that many are first brought to the conviction that revelation cannot possibly be a human invention: and from the knowledge of it the believer continually gathers new confidence and strength. The believer has special need of strength at this time, when a host of apparent objections attempts to shake the faith not merely in this fact, but in revelation generally. He cannot meet the temptations which arise otherwise than by profound study of the history of the Old Testament. For it alone can prove that those events which, taken separately, often appear inconsistent, ridiculous, and unworthy of God, are found, when placed in connection with the whole, to contain a glorious revelation of the divine omnipotence, wisdom, and love. What Pliny says of nature, “Naturae rerum vis atque majestas in omnibus momentis fide caret, si quis modo partes ejus ac non totum complectatur animo,” is applicable to the kingdom of grace in a still stronger degree. The history of the Old Testament also serves to confirm faith, so far as it demonstrates an essential unity of doctrine through so many centuries, and amid such a multitude of authors writing under the most varied circumstances and outward influences; showing that at all times the same ideas of God and of the world were prevalent among the bearers of revelation, and that no contradiction ever took place. It also points out how, even in the first beginnings of revelation, all those doctrines were present, at least in germ, which afterwards, when the people of revelation had become ripe for them, appeared in full development. This perception is the more calculated to impress us with a lively sense of the divinity of revelation; the more distinctly do we recognise the changeableness and inconsistency of all human systems and self-made religions. In the region of nature all things are in a state of transition, and everything has its own time. Unity must therefore make the deeper impression the less it is identity: the more it is organic the more clearly we can throughout recognise a healthy and normal growth, without disturbances and defect in development, the more clearly we can perceive its freedom from error, and prove a building up of the highest step even upon the lowest, and at the same time a gradual progress. Further, the more plainly it can be demonstrated that the progress is everywhere in harmony with the necessity and requirements of the people of revelation. To this may be added the fact, that in the history of the Old Testament God’s special providence over His whole church, and over individual believers, appeared in a form more visible, and as it were palpable, than even in the New Testament, when God, after having so perfectly and unconditionally revealed Himself in Christ, could hide Himself the more (“he wieldeth his power in secret” is especially applicable to the New Testament time); and when the greater internal efficacy of the Spirit makes such an external manifestation no longer necessary; a fact which is also for our benefit in the Old Testament times. Why should it not powerfully strengthen faith in attacks causing distress to the whole church and to individuals, if we see how God for many centuries allowed His people to be oppressed in order to purify them, without ever suffering them to be crushed; how He rescued them through mighty wonders of His omnipotence, where no human help was possible; how He fulfilled all His promises most gloriously just when hope of their fulfilment had utterly disappeared? If even under the Old Testament, as we find from numerous passages in the Psalms and prophetic books, comp. e.g. the 3d chapter of Habakkuk and Psalms 77, faith drew from previous deliverances the firm conviction that God could, must, and would prove Himself an equally powerful helper in time of present need, why should not our faith draw the same conclusion from the same premises, for we have before us the whole series of divine deliverances and proofs of grace, as well as the ultimate fulfilment of all promises through the coming of Christ? We require this confirmation of faith in the present time the more as the condition of the church is more oppressed and dangerous, and as the visible presents us with fewer bright prospects. There is certainly no reason why we should rob ourselves of a single God-given help to our faith. The history of the Old Testament also serves for a living apprehension of the being and attributes of God, and therefore supplies that which properly makes the theologian a theologian. Nothing else can compensate for this view of the personality of God: speculation cannot, for at best it only furnishes us with abstract ideas of God, lifeless conceptions, for whose reality it can offer no security; neither cart the history of Christ in its isolation, for it does not afford us on every side a perfect view of the personality of God, and is so closely connected with the earlier revelations of God that without knowledge of them its inherent efficacy cannot be accurately estimated. We see this daily in the wretched examples of those who separate what God has united. It is this intuitive knowledge of the personality of God which alone can kindle our love to God, can inspire us with holy awe of Him, and can call forth in us the striving after a divine life; while the mere abstract theory of God is cold, leaves us cold, or even makes us so. Whoever neglects the history of the Old Testament deprives himself of one instrument toward the fulfilment of the first and greater commandment, viz. “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God,” and makes himself incapable of leading others to its observance. But just as the history of the Old Testament gives us a living knowledge of God, and inspires us with love to Him, it also leads us to the knowledge of ourselves, and makes us long to be freed from ourselves. The history of the people of Israel, of the nature of their relations to divine revelations, and of their frequent apostasy even after they had experienced proofs of the divine grace, is a mirror of our own inner life. It repeats itself in every age and in every individual. In it the tua res agitur is visible throughout. This mode of handling the old covenant meets us frequently even in the Old Testament. Thus, for example, in Psalms 78, Asaph, in his own person, is held up to the people of God, as a mirror in which they might see their own faces, their history, which was written for this very purpose. In the New Testament the same thing occurs in the discourse of Stephen. So in 1 Corinthians 10:6, where it is said of the people of the Old Testament, in relation to the church of the New, τύποι ἡμῶν ἐγενήθησαν. This history is to us a rich source of humility, a loud exhortation that we should work out our own salvation with fear and trembling, since our heart, like that of Israel, is a perverse and coward thing. But it shows us at the same time in the life of individuals what we may and should become, the more impressively in proportion as the helps to a divine life which were available at that time were few in comparison with those offered to us to whom Christ is openly set forth, and which we possess in the Spirit of Christ, the potentiality of the Spirit of God: it furnishes us with noble examples of the highest faith and of the most fervent love to God. In this last respect its significance is set forth by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Hebrews 11. The following is also an important consideration. The New Testament has especially to do with the relation of the Lord to individual souls and to His church. On the other hand, the Old Testament has a prevailing national character. In the history of one single nation it brings to our consciousness the dealings of God in the guidance of the nations generally, shows us upon what their salvation and destruction rested, relieves us with respect to the future from the torment of our own thoughts, and gives us the basis of a solid knowledge. We wish to know what will become of our people, how they are to be helped, and what is our duty in relation to them; on which points we gain instruction from the Old Testament. The energetic efficiency of divine justice which is there set forth guards us against participation in those sanguine illusions of the time which promise salvation without repentance, while we are kept from enervating despair by the glorious revelation of that divine grace which after judgment and by judgment makes life proceed from death. So much for the import of the Old Testament as an independent discipline. That it is able to perform what we have attributed to it in this respect, may be proved from innumerable examples in every age. Luther’s “Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott” is not in vain attached to the 46th Psalm. It is the sum of that which he had learnt from the history of the Old Testament. Let any one now inquire into the position with respect to the Old Testament of those who stand fast, as well as of those who waver and totter, and he will find that the distinction between them has its root in this, that the former have the rock of the Old Testament under their feet. Let us now say a few words on the value of this discipline as a science auxiliary to other theological disciplines. The biblical science of Introduction is certainly on our side auxiliary to biblical history. It does for it what a knowledge of sources does for profane history, secures to it the use of those sources from which it has to create, and consequently its ground and basis. For its own credibility rests upon the authority of these sources. Yet from another point of view biblical history may be regarded as an auxiliary science to Introduction. It only can supply materials for the internal proof of the genuineness and credibility of the separate biblical books, for it alone avails to carry us back to the time of their origin; it alone can give us an insight into the historical ground and basis upon which the authors stood and worked. History stands in a similar relation to the exegesis of the Old Testament also. Exegesis provides it with the greater part of its materials; while, on the other hand, it renders the most important services to exegesis. It secures the expositor from arbitrary twisting and interpretation of those narratives which transcend the usual course of nature, making him aware that in this respect the divine mode of revelation remained the same for a thousand years; while at the same time it deprives him of all desire for such attempts by disclosing to him the inner necessity for these facts, which can only be perceived from their connection with the whole. It also shows that that which is wonderful in respect of form is most natural in respect of substance; and that in this historical, connection it must first be postulated that its non-existence would be matter of surprise. On the other hand, ‘it saves the expositor from a crude apprehension of the form of many facts transcending the limits of the moral, by proving to him that in the region of Scripture a wider margin is given to the inner sense, so that he must not at once regard every event of which the contrary is not expressly stated as a gross external thine, belonging to the department of the five senses. It also provides him with a clue to historical interpretation. Especially important is it in this respect for understanding the prophetic writings, which must be explained by the time of their origin, and upon which light is thrown by the fulfilment of prophecy. The same may be said with reference to the interpretation of the Psalms; since it leads us to seek out their authors, and explains the historical references. The more historically and individually we understand the Psalms, the more do they acquire an edifying signification. In this way alone can we rightly apprehend their meaning. Where the historical books of the Old Testament are concerned, especially those which it is not usual to explain in academic lectures, Old Testament history takes the place of a real commentary. Its importance for exegesis is self-evident. The New Testament is, generally speaking, only the key-stone and completion; it rests entirely upon earlier revelation; and where this is not thoroughly apprehended, the understanding of its records must remain extremely deficient, not only in one but in every respect, for even that which in the New Testament appears most independent, is in some way, directly or indirectly, theologically connected with the Old Testament. We may say that the key-stone to the understanding of the New Testament is a perception of its connection with the Old. The Gospel of John, e.g., is from beginning to end interwoven with deeply concealed references to the Old Testament. And when these significant references are not apprehended, as for example in the commentaries of Lücke, De Wette, and Meyer, exposition generally can occupy only a subordinate position. At every step in such commentaries we have the feeling that we are following a guide not competent for his task. The history of the Old Testament would therefore be indispensable to the exegesis of the New, even if the latter were not indebted to it for its most important aid to historical interpretation, viz. a knowledge of the religious and moral condition of the people at the time of the appearance of Christ, of their relation to other nations, of the various schools and sects among them, and of the character of the expectations which were current respecting the Messiah. Among the other theological disciplines apologetics owe most to the history of the Old Testament. If we limit this science, as many have done in modern times, to a systematic representation of the arguments for the divine mission of Christ, the history of the Old Testament is important so far as it provides it with material for the demonstration of one of its most important proofs of the harmony of that fulfilment of salvation which took place in Christ with the preparation for it under the Old Testament. If we attribute to it the scientific defence of revelation generally, the history of the Old Testament becomes even more indispensable; it is then entirely dependent on history in one of its leading parts, and is distinguished from it only by a different form and mode of treatment. We must speak, finally, of the consistent mode of treating biblical history. In general, whatever the mode of treatment may be, it arises from what has already been remarked concerning the import and object of biblical history. The representation must be such that those advantages which the history is able to afford may really be attained as far as possible. It must therefore have its principal aim constantly in view, that which, as an independent discipline, it professes to accomplish, and must not so far lose itself in learned details as to interfere with this aim, lest it should become a mere aggregate of detached notices, and thus lose all title to the name of an independent theological discipline. In this respect many have gone far astray—among the ancients Buddeus, among moderns Kurtz. They enter too minutely into details, and have no clear consciousness of the limits between the history and exegesis of the Old Testament. The history of the Old Testament must not, however, overlook these details; it must treat of the special Mosaic laws, of the separate events of the life of David; and must not forego theological inquiries, lest it should incapacitate itself for doing that which, as an auxiliary science, it ought to accomplish. A special demand arises, for him who elaborates the Old Testament, out of the relation which modern time has assumed towards the Old Testament. With regard to this question more than any other—in consequence of a century’s work of learned neology—a mass of prejudices, distorted views, and false arguments concerning and against the Old Testament generally, and the most important portions of its history in particular, have become prevalent, not only among the enemies of revelation, but also among the better intentioned who are really interested in arriving at truth and removing the contradiction which exists between their judgment concerning the Old Testament and that of Christ and the apostles. If it be the general task of theology to provide future servants of the church with means by which they may be able to justify, prove, and defend the faith before itself and others, the history of the Old Testament cannot consistently shrink from the duty of expressly contradicting these prejudices, in so far as they have apparent weight or value. On the other hand, care must be taken not to attach undue importance to this apologetic and polemic tendency, lest the total impression from without should be weakened; for the matter as it stands in itself, without reference to the way in which this one or that one has treated it, can only be apprehended by one mode of treatment. It will not be out of place here to draw attention to a fundamental idea throughout the history of the Old Testament which must be kept in view, which satisfactorily solves its greatest difficulties, and fills us with admiration of the divine love and wisdom, while he who is incapable of its perception sees only error and foolishness. This is the idea of the divine condescension, the συγκατάβασις, which has been profoundly and accurately apprehended by many of the church-fathers—Chrysostom for example. Its recognition becomes necessary so soon as the relation of the finite creation to the infinite Creator, the relation of sinful man to the holy God, is rightly apprehended; a truth which can only be grasped by each one as far as he walks in the light of revelation, and partakes of the Spirit of God. Man, as a finite being, can only apprehend the infinite God when He conceals the full splendour of His Godhead, and reveals His nature by means of finite forms. With the entrance of sin into the world the necessity for this condescension greatly increased; the deeper man sinks, the more he becomes entangled in matter and estranged from God; the more gross and, as it were, palpable must be the form in which God can approach him and resume the interrupted intercourse, until by degrees man becomes capable of entering into a more spiritual union with God. To reject this condescension of God, of which the fundamental condition is sinlessness, as in the deepest condescension of God in Christ, is therefore virtually to maintain that God ought to have abandoned man to misery. Such an assumption shows equal ignorance of God, of His love and mercy, and of man; and can only be entertained by one who has made himself his own God and his own man; a doubtful undertaking, since both continue what they are. It is a real denial of the ὁλόγοςσὰρξἐγένετο. For if this deepest condescension of God have any reality, it can only be the last link of a chain of condescensions. If we hold fast the idea of the divine condescension, we shall also on the other hand happily avoid the undeniable mistakes common to the more ancient elaborators of sacred history. They did not consider that although it is impossible for God to contradict Himself in His revelations, yet these, in order to be suitable, must differ according to the various requirements and receptivity of those to whom they were imparted; the earlier revelations must contain much only in germ and concealed, which is fully developed and assumes a definite form in the later. In most cases expositors set aside the distinction between the New and Old Testaments, attributing, e.g., to the patriarchs exactly the same knowledge of salvation as to the apostles. In striving after a gain which was only apparent, they lost much; the πολυποίκιλος σοφία τοῦ θεοῦ, Ephesians 3:10, and the πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως in Hebrews 1:1, drew off their attention; and the unhistorical attempt to change unity into identity called forth a reaction which still continues, whose tendency was completely to destroy the unity. It is with great injustice that I have been frequently accused of participation in this older position with regard to the Old Testament, e.g. by Oehler, Prolegomenazur Theol. des A. T., Stuttg. 1845. I am thoroughly convinced, with those who make this accusation, “that the New Testament is contained in the Old, and for this reason exists in it, as in every higher organism the higher development is already present as germ or prototype in the earlier.” The real difference between us consists only in this, that with them the process of development is disturbed by manifold defects and abnormities, while with me, on the contrary, it is healthy throughout; that in the law and the prophets they feel themselves bound to accept not only ideas which are correct, but also many which are incorrect and limited, while I attribute to knowledge generally, imperfection it is true, but nevertheless freedom from error. On which side the truth lies has already been predetermined by the authority of our Lord, who certainly does not speak from the opposite point of view when He explains the Mosaic law as inviolable to an iota and tittle; declaring that the Scripture of the Old Testament cannot be broken. The unanimous judgment of the Christian church has also come to a previous decision on this subject. The Old Testament would never have been able to assume its position as a codex of the divine revelations intended for the whole community if the problem had been first to separate the chaff from the wheat by means of theological operations. The γέγραπται, with which the Lord meets Satan in the temptation, loses its meaning in this event. Another aspect winch is very important for the history of the Old Testament is the following. The historical books narrate things, as a rule, quite objectively. They communicate facts purely and sharply; they represent characters in their main features in an inimitably striking way, and abstain from passing any judgment—a mode of representation which we find almost universal in the historical books of the New Testament also. Their deepest argument seems to be this, that the human forms only a subordinate element of sacred history. Their glance is immoveably fixed upon the great acts of the Lord. They write as theologians, not as moralists and critics. And further, the sacred writers are the more readily satisfied with a simple representation of matters of fact, since a judgment may generally be inferred from the historical consequences; and such real judgment speaks far more powerfully to the heart than one put in words. Thus, it would appear quite superfluous in Genesis to pass a condemnatory judgment on Jacob’s cunning towards Esau and Isaac; for the striking retribution by which he was overtaken indicates with sufficient clearness in what light the matter is to be considered. Finally, holy Scripture is throughout written for exercised spiritual minds, or is so arranged that they will be exercised. The emphatic demands frequently uttered by the Lord on separate occasions,—Who hath ears to hear, let him hear; Let him that readeth understand; He who is able to understand, let him understand,—are everywhere present, though unseen. Understanding and correct judgment are not forced upon us; it is not intended that we should avow misunderstandings at any cost; but our spiritual judgment is awakened to the danger of misunderstandings. The older theologians were always inclined to palliate and excuse, if not entirely to justify the mistakes and infirmities of the heroes of the faith, unless the Scripture narrative was accompanied by express disapproval. This was not, however, the invariable and universal mode of dealing—Calvin, Heidegger, and Rambach in part, formed praiseworthy exceptions. On the other hand, the opponents of the Old Testament,—e.g. the author of the Continued Fragments of the WoJfenhüttel Fragmentist, edited by Schmidt, Berlin 1787; Bohlen, in his Commentary on Genesis,—partly taking advantage of the distorted mode of treatment common to older theologians, thought that in exposing these mistakes and infirmities they dealt the Old Testament a fatal blow. The following is doubtless the correct mode of treatment. Proceeding from the fundamental axiom which lies at the basis of all sacred history, that honour is due to God alone, to us shame and confusion; we should judge the actions of the Old Testament believers, if we must pass judgment on them, and those of the Old Testament unbelievers, by the standard which holy Scripture itself supplies, that standard with which no praise or blame which it expressly utters is ever at variance. The endeavour to make the believers of the Old Testament into perfect saints is the more uncertain, since it must inevitably lead to misapprehension of the characteristic distinction between the Old and New Testaments which even Christ lays down in this respect when He says, the less in the kingdom of heaven, viz. the comparatively little, he who there occupies only a subordinate position (not the least, for that would give an incorrect idea), is greater than the greatest under the Old Testament. 2. Sources of the Old Testament History. The sources of Old Testament history are partly native, partly foreign. The former are by far the most important; the latter are of comparatively little use. A great portion of the history dates far beyond the time in which history and historiography began among the other nations of antiquity. Even for later times foreign sources can afford little material. The Israelitish people had in consequence of their religion kept themselves so much apart, that it would have been impossible for any stranger to gain an adequate knowledge of their religion, constitution, and history. Surrounding nations despised the small, politically unimportant people, who, when oppressed on every side, and even after their political existence had been destroyed, still believed themselves to have the preference over other nations; and their contempt was the greater, since this preference was most emphatically asserted by those who least participated in it, comp. Romans 2:17, etc.; of whom it is there said that they are Jews, and yet not Jews, but a synagogue of Satan, Revelation 2:9, Revelation 3:9. Their pride was ridiculed, and they were esteemed beneath notice. The heathen could not apprehend their history in the right light, because, as we see daily in modern heathendom, they were deficient in that spiritual eye which was necessary for the perception of what was soul-exciting in them, and all else had little charm or beauty: they abandoned themselves to the most odious and absurd fictions. Moreover it was after history had become degraded that the Jews first became an object of lively interest to the heathen; but of this we find no trace, even in a Herodotus—attention was first directed towards them after the time of Alexander, and was due to the ever-widening extension of the Jewish διασπορά; and those who more nearly occupied themselves with them were rather beneath the age, were almost all writers of the lowest class. To this must be added the fact, that all the works of those who ex professo wrote concerning the Jews have been lost, with the exception of comparatively small fragments. So much the more copious are the home sources. Among them the historical books of the Old Testament take the first place: for pre-Mosaic and Mosaic times the Pentateuch has most importance; for the post-Mosaic time until Samuel, the books of Joshua, Judges, and Ruth; for the history of the kings, the books of Samuel, of Kings, and of Chronicles; for the history of the captivity and the time which immediately succeeded it, the historical part of Daniel, the books of Esther, Ezra, and Nehemiah. To these sources the whole Jewish synagogue and the Christian church attributed not merely human credibility, but also divine inspiration, the latter on the ground especially of Paul’s explicit statement in 2 Timothy 3:14, etc.; a declaration which certainly does not justify many later exaggerations of the inspiration theory. Thus a greater certainty is in some measure attached to this history than to that which takes place immediately before our eyes. It is unquestionable that as certainly as there is a sacred record, so surely must such a character be postulated à priori of its main sources. It would be impossible to commit the account of God’s revelations and dealings to purely human activity without placing them in jeopardy, and robbing them of a great part of their edifying significance to the church. But a very different opinion began to assert itself in the second half of the last century. The idea rapidly gained ground that the history of the Hebrews, like that of other ancient nations, has a mythical character, viz. that it is composed of mingled truth and fiction. Heyne, who gave to the study of Greek mythology in Germany a new impulse and direction, had already hinted at this. By degrees theologians began to transfer their mythical views to the Old Testament. This happened first with reference to the oldest biblical history. Sailer, the former Erlangen historian, in other respects worthy of high honour, and Müntinghe confined the region of myths to Genesis alone. But unfortunately it was not possible to stop there. It soon became obvious that the matter which in Genesis suggested a mythical explanation was also contained in later portions of the history, not only of the Old but also of the New Testament; hence either the whole idea must be given up, or else extended to all the records of revelation. If we allow everything else in Scripture to be historical, the contents of Genesis, in accordance with its essential character, apart from all other confirmation, must be regarded as historical by virtue of the complete harmony existing between the manner of God’s revelation contained in it and that which is communicated in all the other books. It is inconceivable that a series of actually historical manifestations of God should be preceded by a number of fictions so exactly similar. This circumstance is destructive of all half-dealing in this department, and is likewise the main cause of the panic which has been excited among theologians by Strauss’s Lives of Jesus, first and second. Their own conscience told them that whoever says A must say B. They had lulled it to sleep for a time, but now it awoke suddenly. Therefore it was impossible to stop with Genesis. A purely mythical interpretation of Genesis was also of little avail for ever-increasing deism and rationalism. A system which rests upon the exclusion of all immediate action of God upon the world knows nothing of a living God; and cannot apprehend the love which brought Him down from heaven and unites heaven to earth. It does not see the angels who are continually ascending and descending on Jacob’s ladder, John 1:51, nor the hand out of the clouds which even now separates the waters of the sea from the world that a free passage may be granted to the people of God; nor will it be satisfied until the mythical view is brought to bear upon all the Old Testament records, because all are opposed to this view. This advance was actually made before long; among others, by E. Lor. Bauer in his Handbook of the History of the Hebrew Nation, Nürnberg 1800-1804; and in his Hebrew Mythology of the Old and New Testaments, 2 vols., Leipzig 1802; and by Meyer in his attempt at A Hermeneutic of the Old Testament, part ii. p. 543, etc. The object was to show that those various classes of myths which Heyne adopted in Greek mythology were also common to Scripture; viz. the historical myths, based upon events which actually occurred, but have been dressed up and disfigured by tradition; philosophical myths, historical embodiments of a philosophical idea; and poetic myths, historical embodiments of a poetic idea. Meyer, Bauer, and others contented themselves with treating everything which transcends the ordinary course of nature as mythical; what remained they allowed to be historical, and even defended its truth. This mode of procedure could not stand. It must soon become obvious that the principle according to which mythical and historical were distinguished, was a purely dogmatic, pseudo-theological one, and that by allowing the sources of sacred history to be trustworthy in everything which did not transcend the ordinary course of nature, involuntary testimony was borne to that which was rejected as mythical. It was therefore reserved for others to take the next step in advance, especially for De Wette. In his work which appeared in 1807, Kritik der Israelitischen Geschichte, and in his Lehrbuch der Hebr. u. Jüdischen Archäologie, § 29, he declares the whole ancient history of the Hebrews to be mythical throughout, making the historical soil to begin with Samuel; but at the same time maintains that the Hebrews never succeeded in rising to pure history. According to him, the Pentateuch has the same historical value as Homer; it is the epos of Hebrew theocracy, a term which is afterwards repeated by Hupfeld, who generally follows in the footsteps of De Wette. With the history after Samuel, De Wette deals in much the same manner in which Bauer and others have dealt with the earlier, or rather with the whole history. Rarely profound in his researches, he treats as mythical not only everything which is supernatural in this part, but also much which he cannot at once reconcile to his judgment, whatever gives him the impression of improbability, or whatever in the later history contradicts his presupposition of the purely mythical character of the earliest history, for example, the statement of Chronicles with reference to the validity of the Mosaic law. He handles the New Testament in the same manner in which his predecessors had done. He did not look upon the whole New Testament as mythical, but only as containing myths. Strauss in his Life of Jesus holds the same position where the New Testament is concerned with respect to De Wette, which De Wette occupies with regard to his predecessors in reference to the Old Testament, especially those historical books which embrace the oldest time. This view of the most ancient Israelitish historical sources, which originated with De Wette, is now almost universally given up. Ewald, Hitzig, Tuch, Bleek, Bertheau, etc., stand essentially on the standpoint of Bauer, Meyer, and Eichhorn. They emphatically protest against the view which entirely gives up the more ancient Israelitish history. But it cannot be denied that the preference for consistency is due to De Wette, and to those who distinctly attach themselves to him, as v. Bohlen. Where, as in Ewald, important portions of the history are said to be mythical, and a universal traditionary element is assumed; there can be no justification of the confidence which seeks to raise up a new building from the ruins. In detail this criticism certainly has the advantage, as in the New Testament the preference must be given to Renau over Strauss, who rests on him in principle. They are not obliged to represent as mythical that which powerfully asserts itself as historical. This mythical mode of treating the Old Testament has not been without vehement opponents. The most important protest against it is contained in monographs on separate contested books, especially the Pentateuch, Chronicles, and Daniel, which have given rise to a most lively dispute. The most distinguished among those who have occupied themselves with the subject generally is J, H. Pareau, De mythiea sacri codicis interpretatione, 2d edit., Utr. 1824. The author has handled his subject with extensive learning, in lucid order, and in beautiful, though somewhat vague language. Although he is not profound, and is frequently inconsistent and unfaithful to his own principles, yet his work, which has been almost entirely ignored by rationalistic criticism, is entitled to attentive consideration. A complete refutation of the more recent view concerning the historical books of the Old Testament belongs to the Introduction to the Old Testament, the germ of which is formed by inquiries into the genuineness, integrity, credibility, and inspiration of the biblical books. Yet it will not be irrelevant if we briefly give a few general arguments against the rationalistic view of the historical books of the Old Testament, and in favour of their credibility. 1. It is unquestionable that those who acknowledge the authority of Christ and the apostles, who therefore do not occupy an exclusively naturalistic standpoint, cannot without the greatest inconsistency entertain this opinion. The whole Jewish canon, as it existed in the time of Christ, is by Him and Paul expressly sanctioned as divine, comp. John 5:39, John 10:35, 2 Timothy 3:15-16; and all unanimously confess that the collected historical books of the Old Testament belonged to it. Many of the Old Testament events are quoted as decided, indubitable, historical truth, and precisely those which have been most disputed; such as the leading facts in the life of Abraham; the miraculous feeding with manna; the miraculous springing forth of water from the rock; cure by looking at the brazen serpent, John 3:14; the phenomena which accompanied the giving of the law; and the history of Elijah and Elisha, Luke 4:25, etc. Even by limiting the freedom from error of our Lord and His apostles to the religious element, we do not bring the modern view of the historical books of the Old Testament into harmony with their authority. For who will maintain that it is the same in a religious point of view whether we regard a pretended revelation as real, or not? Would it be possible for all those events which the historical books of the Old Testament narrate, and which are ratified by the testimony of Christ and the apostles, to stand in direct or indirect relation to religion, and yet for the view of God’s personality not to assume quite another aspect if these events be rejected as mythical? Even the defenders of the modern view maintain that it is by no means the same in a religious point of view, and that it is highly prejudicial to religious life and perception to regard the accounts of the historical books concerning the revelations of God under the Old Testament as true. In the alleged interest of religion they dispute the historical character of the historical books, and maintain that it would be derogatory to God to have revealed Himself in the manner therein specified. There are no acts of God which are not at the same time doctrines; all that God does reveals in some degree what He is; and it is therefore just so much religious error to attribute truth to fictitious history, in so far as it has reference to religious history as to give the sanction of its authority to false dogma. But the question here is not merely of isolated references or passing confirmations. Our Lord and His apostles are completely at home on the soil of that history which is said to be mythical. They delight in it, deriving vigour and nourishment from it. We have only to look at the history of the temptation to see how our Lord lived in the history which is declared to be mythical, and drew strength from it in time of trial. So also with regard to the crucifixion. Even in His last words Jesus had the Old Testament before His eyes. This is the more significant, since the Saviour in all that He does prefigures that which we ought to do; for behind His every action admonition lies concealed. 2. In favour of the credibility of the historical books, and in opposition to the mythical view, we may adduce the harmony which exists between this history and that of other nations. For primitive history, indeed, this harmony avails nothing. The most which has been done in this respect proves, on nearer consideration, not to be an independent confirmation of the biblical account, but to have first emanated from it, and to have originated in the time of the Alexandrian syncretism. Scarcely anything remains which we can safely rely on. Even external confirmations of the history of the flood, notwithstanding their number, and the frequency with which we encounter them (comp. for example the compilation in Rosenmüller, viz. The Old and New East, vol. i.; and in Andreas Wagner, The History of the Primitive World), will not bear a severe critical test, but may collectively be recognised as an echo of the Old Testament narrative. Not one of the heathen traditions respecting the flood seems to have an independent basis. For later times, however, the witness drawn from the harmony of the heathen accounts is conclusive and sufficient. That which is related in the Pentateuch concerning Egypt not only agrees with the accounts of Herodotus, Diodorus, and other ancient writers, but also receives remarkable confirmation from the recent discoveries made with reference to Egypt. There is no inquirer in the department of Egyptian antiquity of any note who has not by his investigations been filled with reverence for the Pentateuch; none who has even remotely assumed the same position with respect to it as the rationalistic theologians, which is certainly a remarkable witness to the prejudice of the latter. Comp. with Hupfeld on Genesis, Champollion’s Letters from Egypt; Rosellini On the Monuments of Egypt, Pisa 1830, 7 vols.; Wilkinson On the Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians after the Monuments, London 1837, 6 vols.; the collection of smaller books on Egyptian antiquity by Brugsch, which appeared in the year 1864; and my work, The Books of Moses and Egypt, Berlin 1811. That which we find concerning Egypt in the later historical books has also received remarkable confirmation from the discovery of the Egyptian monuments. The names of the Egyptian kings mentioned in Scripture have been found on them, such as Shishak and Pharaoh Necho. Shishak, who, according to 1 Kings 14:25-26, made war upon Rehoboam, frequently appears on the Egyptian monuments under the name of Sesonchis. In the first court of the great palace at Karnak is the figure of a king, with the inscription, “The favourite of Anion Sesonchis;” and among the representatives of the nations conquered by him there is one with a beard and a manifestly Jewish physiognomy, bearing the name Ἰούδα Hamalek or Melk, kingdom of Judah: comp. Rosellini, i. ii. p. 79; Champollion’s Letters, p. 66. A mine no less rich than that of the Egyptian tombs is now discovered in the ruins of the old Assyrian capital, Nineveh, whose exploration has been prosecuted with great zeal, especially by English scholars. The thing is still in progress, but already there have been several striking confirmations of the biblical narrative. Compare the compilation in The Commentary of O. Strauss on Nalium, Berlin 1853; also, by the same, Essay on Nineveh, Berlin 1855. The fragments of Berosus and Abydenos concerning ancient Babylonish history, especially Nebuchadnezzar, as well as the Tyrian journals, have been legitimately employed by Josephus to confirm the biblical relations. The book of Esther, one of the most disputed with regard to its credibility, has, in consequence of its harmony with the accounts of the most approved ancient writers, been characterized by Heeren as a perfectly reliable authority concerning the internal arrangements of the Persian court; and almost every single statement which it contains may be verified from the scattered accounts of ancient writers on Persia, as Baumgarten has last of all shown with great industry. Where the accounts of foreign writers are at variance with those of the Israelites, it can be proved without difficulty that the preference is on the side of the latter. All modern distinguished historians, as Niebuhr, Schlosser, Heeren, and Leo, agree in this, viz. that the Old Testament history is more authentic even in that which it relates concerning other nations than the most reliable native sources. Compare their statements in the 1st vol. of my contributions to an Introduction to the Pentateuch. If it be proved, therefore, that the historical books have in general a true historical, and not a mythical character, we have no right to reject as mythical that which has reference to an extraordinary interference of God in nature, unless, like the heathen prodigia, it stands out aimless and isolated. That it is not so, we hope all the later historical representation will suffice to prove. In the meantime we merely draw attention to the fact that miracle in Scripture goes hand in hand with prophecy, which God can completely control, and in which a power superior to nature is openly manifested. 3. A counter-proof against the mythical view is drawn from the great antiquity of the historical books, or rather of their sources. Our opponents have been so well aware of this, that they have tried all possible means to throw suspicion on the antiquity of the separate books or of their sources, or even to make it appear that a bad use has been made of their sources. Among all other nations the origin of myths belongs, at least in a great measure, to pre-historic times. Among the Hebrews, on the contrary, we find the remarkable phenomenon that they have advanced in undiminished power side by side with contemporaneous history, which would be the less explicable the more moderate, the more free from exaggerations, and the simpler, in short the more objective, the history everywhere appeared. If the Pentateuch be genuine, mythical explanations, at least where the last four books of it are concerned, are out of the question. Moses was able faithfully to impart what had taken place before his eyes; and that he designed to relate the truth, his whole character as it appears in his works is a guarantee; and even if he had not wished to do so, he must have done it, since he wrote first of all for those who had witnessed all the great events which he communicated, and to them he could not say that they had seen what they had not seen, or heard what they had not heard. Where the occurrences of Genesis are concerned, Moses is certainly not a contemporaneous narrator; but if the truth of that which is told in the last four books stands firm, God would not permit him whom He had made His ambassador to become the author of unavoidable error. To this may be added the fact, that we cannot deny to Moses himself the human capacity to receive accounts from the primitive world faithfully transmitted. Even if we suppose that he made use of no older written documents, which is by no means proved, yet there were many circumstances favourable to the pure reception of oral tradition, e.g. the long duration of the life of man, to which Moses himself appeals in reference to the facts of antiquity, Deuteronomy 32:7, etc., so that even tradition concerning events of the greatest antiquity had only to pass through a few generations; and again, the strength of memory peculiar to times when the art of writing was still unknown; but above all, the great significance which the facts narrated in Genesis had for the bearers of tradition. Then we must also notice the absence of those causes which led to the disfigurement of tradition among other nations. Among these polytheism stands first, for the traditions of Genesis were always continued in the races of the worshippers of the true God. We find no traces moreover of that wild fantasy which among the Greeks became the mother of many myths, by the mingling of its products with historical tradition—the Jewish spirit proved itself from the beginning sharp, clear, and disinclined to obscurity; nor was there a philosophical striving to investigate the causes of things, which even in later times is not to be found among the Hebrews, whose wisdom, always of a thoroughly practical nature, was an immediate product of the fear of God, and was designed to awaken it. To this we may add the simplicity of Semitic life and national character, apparent even among the Arabs, whose oldest historical traditions, as we have them in The Hamasah, The Monumentis vetustioris Arabioe by Schultens, The Monumentis antiquiss. HistorioeArabum by Eichhorn, and in Abulfeda’s Historia Anteislamica edited by Fleischer, are certainly incomplete and defective, in part traditionary, but throughout not mythical, and always with a basis of historical truth. But the great thing is the moral earnestness which everywhere manifests itself as the peculiarity of the ἐκλογή among Israel, from which the sacred literature proceeds, and which meets us continually. Mythical tendencies are incompatible with this moral earnestness. The credibility of the accounts in Genesis is also confirmed by the similarity, to which we formerly drew attention, existing between the substance of it and that of later contemporaneous books, or books taken from contemporaneous sources, from the last four books of the Pentateuch to the Gospels, and still further by the inner and inseparable connection between the relations in Genesis and the events of the last four books. This is especially observable in the history under Moses, which takes for granted the truth of the whole history of the patriarchs, and cannot be explained without it. With respect to this connection, Ranke, in particular, has made many striking remarks. The mode of representation is also an argument in favour of the credibility of the narrative. It breathes the spirit of the highest antiquity, differing characteristically from that which was employed by Moses in the description of his time. If, for example, we read the history of the transactions of Abraham with the children of Heth respecting a burial-place in Genesis 23, we shall find it impossible to divest ourselves of the impression of great antiquity. The same may be said with reference to the account of the march of the kings from Asia to Palestine, in Genesis 14. But the strongest proof of the genuineness of the history is its inner character of truth, its grand simplicity, its worthiness of God, its naturalness, and the striking manner in which it depicts character—everything as it could not be imitated even by the highest art. Nor must we forget to draw attention to the firmness and security with which Genesis ascends to the first beginnings of peoples; for example, in the accounts concerning the Horites, Edomites, Ammonites, and Moabites. That we have not to do with fantasies and floating traditions is obvious from the complete consistency of the most remotely scattered notices. Besides the last four books of the Pentateuch, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah are contemporaneous; and most probably, agreeably to arguments drawn from the history of the canon, Esther also. Its statements are certainly taken from a contemporaneous and official source quoted in itself. The remaining books have either been put together from contemporaneous records, or drawn from contemporaneous sources. The former is the case with the book of Joshua. We gather from many passages that its author was an eye-witness of that which he narrates, most unmistakeably from Joshua 5:1. The later author of the book in its present form has done little more than put together the separate contemporaneous documents which had till then been disconnected, and were probably composed by Joshua after the example of Moses; adding a few historical, geographical, and other remarks. Respecting the book of Judges we cannot so certainly prove the prevailing use of contemporaneous records; and that these were not at the disposal of the author seems probable from the circumstance that the narration is in many parts incomplete, giving only the names of many of the judges; an argument which, however, on nearer consideration, has no weight, since the fact is explained by the aim and plan of the author, who desired to write not a perfect history, but rather a historical abstract. The theme is, the people of God may at all times learn from the history of the time of the judges that sin is destruction. For such a deduction, short and slightly mentioned facts afford little interest. That the author knew far more than he told, that he might have availed himself of the whole fulness of facts which occurred in the time of the judges, appears from the appendices, in which, by way of example, he expressly imparts some facts concerning that period which in the book itself is treated only summarily and from a single point of view; and there can be no doubt that these appendices belong to the beginning of the time of the judges. Such special knowledge with reference to a time already some centuries past could only have been possessed by the author on the supposition that he made use of contemporaneous records. He narrates so naturally, and at the same time so graphically, carries us back so vividly to the period whose history he describes, is so free from anachronisms, and has so little which transcends the ordinary course of nature, that even our opponents, from Eichhorn to Studer and Bertheau, cannot help conceding a high degree of credibility to his narrative. The author of the books of Samuel does not indeed expressly quote his sources, but we may infer that they were contemporaneous from the fact that Chronicles cite as their source for this period a historical work begun by Samuel, and continued by the prophets Gad and Nathan. That the author of the books of Samuel made the same contemporaneous source the basis of his work, follows from the almost verbal agreement between the sections which both writers have in common. In the books of Kings, the annals of the kings of Judah and the annals of the kings of Israel are generally quoted at the end of each reign, as the sources employed. We gain nearer information concerning the nature of this source from the books of Chronicles. It is always quoted there, but together with it special sources, descriptions of the lives of the separate kings, written by contemporaneous prophets. That these must stand in some relation to the annals of Judah and Israel, the common source, follows from the fact that the books of Chronicles are in the closest verbal agreement with the books of Kings, where they quote these special sources. In reference to two of the adduced special sources we have also the express statement of the Chronicles that they were incorporated in the annals of the kingdom, 2 Chronicles 20:34, 2 Chronicles 32:32. Thus the credibility of the historical books is supported throughout by the fact of their antiquity. Accordingly the writers of the books of Kings and Chronicles must generally have made use of contemporaneous sources. Their credibility is therefore open to suspicion only on the assumption that they have used their sources unfaithfully; but the contrary may be proved not only from the character which they manifest, and which secures them against all suspicion of intentional falsification, but also from the bearing of the parallel relations in the books of Samuel and of Kings on the one hand, and in the books of Chronicles on the other, as well as of the historical passages of Isaiah and Jeremiah to the parallels in the books of Kings. The almost verbal agreement which here exists shows that they do not, in accordance with the general custom of Oriental historians, work over their sources, but take from them almost verbal extracts of that which is suitable for their purpose. 4. The credibility of the historical books of the Old Testament follows from their close agreement with the historical accounts and references in the Psalms and Prophets. In numerous passages we find the more ancient history of the people with all its marvels described exactly as related in the older historical books, and thus raised above all doubt. (Comp. for example the long Psalms 78, which was sung as early as David’s time, and which gives the nation, as a warning, a survey of its whole history, beginning with the time of Moses.) Where matters of fact are concerned, it exactly agrees with the Pentateuch, even to the smallest details. If we compare also the historical Psalms 105 and Psalms 106, composed in the time of the captivity, with Psalms 78, and with the historical books, we cannot fail to be convinced of the narrow bounds within which poetry is here confined: its scope is throughout limited to the sphere of the formal. (Comp. with the narrative in the book of Judges the references to the facts there detailed made in Joshua 9:4, Joshua 10:26; Habakkuk 3:7.) The traditions of profane history, on the other hand, have a highly uncertain character; in them we find no evidence of that firm state of national consciousness characteristic of later times; their poetic character has passed into oblivion, and not two among late writers of any note substantially agree concerning them. A national consciousness so steady throughout is quite unexampled with respect to fictitious events, myths. The historical references of the Psalmist and the Prophets to the peculiar relations of their time always exactly coincide with that which the historical books narrate—the respective accounts mutually explain and confirm one another, as Moses has proved with regard to Chronicles, and as I have endeavoured to show in my Commentary on the Psalms. To adduce only one very striking example: Every feature of the graphically told narrative in 2 Chronicles 20 of the campaign of Jehoshaphat against the allied Ammonites, Moabites, and Arabs, receives confirmation from the three Psalms which have reference to these events—Psalms 46, Psalms 47, Psalms 83. 5. The truth of the historical narrative as a whole is ratified by the remarkable agreement and connection of the occurrences which are related in it, as must in some measure he perceived even by the unenlightened mind. The historian Woltmann says: “The history of the Old Testament has a truly iron connection, by virtue of the unchangeable manner of revelation, which constantly continues alike, and the historical personality of God;—by the absence of that love of the marvellous which leads to the fabrication of miracles, exemplified by the fact that wonders are related only where some object worthy of God can be pointed out, where manifestly a grand crisis takes place, where the question relates to the existence or non-existence of the kingdom of God—as in Egypt, in the time of Elijah, and during the captivity;—and by the circumstance that in many periods where no such phenomena are recorded, the narrative adheres to the ordinary course of nature; as, for example, in the period from the death of Joseph to the appearance of Moses; throughout nearly the whole time of the Judges; in the time of David and Solomon; and in the period succeeding the Babylonish captivity, the history of which is recorded in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah;—and finally, by the fact that, even in the relation of wonderful events, as, for instance, the Egyptian plagues, the passage through the Red Sea, the feeding with manna and quails, etc., there is no concealment of those natural causes whose efficacy was merely intensified by God, or directed in a peculiar manner, so that the supernatural, as it is most clearly set forth in the plagues of Egypt, rests almost throughout upon naturalistic ground, while a mythical representation either ignores this connection, or wilfully destroys it.” To this we may add, that an interest can nowhere be discovered in behalf of which fiction has been carried on for more than a thousand years. Glorification of God, and that of the holy God who is an enemy to every lie and scorns fictitious praise, is the highest and only aim of all the historical books of the Old Testament. Among all other nations history has never been emancipated from the service of a false patriotism. They betray a universal tendency to glorify their founders and greatest men, even at the cost of truth; but in the Old Testament it is otherwise. The ancestors of the Israelitish people do not appear, like those of other nations, as deified heroes, but as simple men, with limited power. Their faults and errors,—as, for example, Abraham’s weakness in Egypt, Isaac’s similar weakness, Jacob’s deceit, which was punished by a long series of painful, divine chastisements, the atrocity of Jacob’s sons at Shechem, Reuben s incest, the crime of Joseph’s brethren, etc.,—are related with the same ingenuousness as their excellences and their great deeds, upon which no emphasis is laid. Even with regard to Moses we find no trace of mythical glorification. Everywhere he appears only as a weak human instrument of God: we find the carnal zeal set forth without reserve, which led him to slay the Egyptian; his original striving against the divine call; his sinful indulgence with relation to his wife, from love to whom he omitted to circumcise his son, a breach of duty which was heavily punished by God; and the weakness of faith on account of which he was excluded from the land of promise. In the same unprejudiced way the faults and errors of later men, the most famous of the nation—of a Samson, David, and Solomon—are related. But the historical books betray even less tendency to the direct glorification of the people than to their indirect glorification by magnifying their important men. From the exodus out of Egypt to the leading away into the Babylonish captivity they are always represented as stiff-necked, unbelieving, ungrateful, even after visible proofs of the divine grace; and are always addicted to the grossest idolatry. Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28:29, Deuteronomy 32 are a sufficient preservative against the assumption of such tendency: even single verses might suffice; for example, Deuteronomy 9:24, “Ye have been rebellious against the Lord from the day that I knew you;” Deuteronomy 31:27, “For I know thy rebellion and thy stiff neck: behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against the Lord; and how much more after my death?” The author of the book of Judges, in the introduction, in Judges 2:11, etc., lays down his theme, which he afterwards carries into detail, thus: “And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord, and served Baalim; and they forsook the Lord God of their fathers, which brought them out of the land of Egypt, and followed other gods, and provoked the Lord to anger. And the anger of the Lord was hot against Israel, and He delivered them into the hands of spoilers,” etc. The author of Psalms 106 points out in Psalms 106:6 the lesson to be drawn from the whole history of the past: “We have sinned with our fathers, we have committed iniquity, we have done wickedness;” and then proceeds to particularize the various sins of the nation. Israel became a proverb among the nations on the ground of their historical books: the strict and impartial criticism which is there brought to bear upon Israel has made the history of this people a mirror, in which every one who has any knowledge of himself and of human nature may perceive his own image and that of the human race in sharp and correct outline. Neither do we find a tendency to exalt and magnify any particular station. Many former opponents of revelation have asserted this to be the case with regard to the priestly office; and to this party Leo joined himself in the outset of his career, in his Lectures on Jewish History, Berlin 1828, which he afterwards himself recanted in his History of the World, vol. i.; while von Bohlen and others again took up what he had let fall, meliora edoctus. They maintain that Jewish history was designedly misrepresented by the priests, in the interest of the hierarchy. As in the middle ages men sought by all manner of deceit to sanction the abuses of the Papacy; appealing to an older warrant, for example the Pseudoisidorian Decretals; so the Jewish priests sought to justify all their claims and abuses by interpolating in the Pentateuch laws respecting them which they had forged. In the remaining books also the hierarchy tries to assert itself by every kind of fabrication. But it is scarcely conceivable how even the most prejudiced should be so completely blinded, should go so directly counter to the most palpable facts. How very differently must the Pentateuch have been constituted if it were to correspond to this hypothesis! The ancestor of the Levites had an equal share with the other brethren in the crime against Joseph, the only one of Jacob’s sons who has been magnified; in Genesis 49, in the blessing of the dying Jacob, the outrage which Levi perpetrated on the Shechemites is rebuked in the hardest terms, without a word of mitigation or fatherly affection; and as a punishment, it is declared that his descendants will be scattered throughout all Israel. We find a counterpart to this in the openness with which Exodus and Numbers condemn the sins of the first high priest, Aaron—his sinful compliance with the worship of the calf, the jealousy which prompted him to exalt himself in opposition to Moses, Numbers 12, and his weakness of faith in the last year of the wanderings, which was the cause of his exclusion from the promised land. So in Leviticus 10 the sin of the two sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the divine judgment which befell them in consequence, are recorded as an emphatic warning to the priesthood of all ages. In the revolt of the people, Numbers 16, Korah the Levite was the chief ringleader. It is true that in the Mosaic legislation there are rights and revenues granted to the priests; but the former are circumscribed in many ways. With the civil power, over which the priests had immense influence among other eastern nations—among the Egyptians, from whose midst the Israelites had been taken, it was almost entirely under their control—the Hebrew priests had nothing whatever to do. The confounding of theocracy and hierarchy, of which those opponents of the Old Testament are guilty, shows how the Old Testament must have been conditioned if their hypothesis were correct: in every respect the Mosaic state was entirely independent of the priesthood. Only in the administration of justice the priests had a certain share; and this was merely in the capacity of intelligent men, as expounders of the Mosaic law-book, which, according to Deuteronomy 17 and Deuteronomy 31, was entrusted to the civil no less than to the spiritual rulers, so that the latter stood under constant control; while among the Egyptians, on the other hand, the civil power was under the guardianship of the priests, and must accept as a divine command whatever the priests represented as such. In a religious point of view also the Levites and priests were placed side by side with the prophets, whose rights were secured by a special law. The revenues of the Levites were certainly not unimportant; but at the same time it must be remembered that they were without landed property, that the remaining tribes were therefore bound to compensate them for their legitimate share in the land of Canaan, and that they owed their revenues to the goodwill of the people, depending on their pious disposition, which Moses had distinctly foretold would in a great measure, and through long periods, have no existence whatever. And this was really the case; for, except perhaps in the time of David and Solomon, the tribe of Levi was generally much worse provided for than any of the remaining tribes: especially after the separation of the kingdom, when the revenue of the ten tribes was completely and for ever lost to it. But above all we must recollect that the whole character of the Old Testament religion necessarily demanded a suitable maintenance for its servants; and again, that the whole impulse had gone out from those who, in doing homage to the common principle of utilitarianism, failed to appreciate the importance of an office which was designed for the preservation of the higher interests. It is a remarkable testimony to the absence of all evil priestly influence, that this office, so long as it fulfilled its destination, was honoured and wealthy, in accordance with the principle which even the New Testament lays down in this respect, 1 Corinthians 9:11, “If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things? “But as soon as it degenerated it became poor and despised, subject to the curse pronounced upon its ancestor, which was effected in this way;—the law made the position of the Levites quite dependent on the goodwill of the people, which rested upon their piety, and this again was dependent on the piety of the Levites. No dotation in landed property, as among the Egyptians, no guarantee of an income by the state. We may confidently ask the rationalism which raised this objection, whether under similar conditions it would be inclined to undertake service in the church. American voluntaryism is in some measure prefigured in the position of the Levites. With regard to the remaining books the assertion proves itself even more absurd, for this reason, that either their authors, or the authors of their sources, were not priests, but prophets. This was the case with the books of Chronicles, which with that of Ezra are the only ones composed by priests. And, moreover, they give no prominence to the priestly office; nothing great or glorious was accomplished by it; its efficacy was throughout quiet and unobtrusive; it was limited to the service of the sanctuary and the religious instruction of the people. Nothing is there represented as an encroachment on their rights except that which was really so, as the incense-offering of Uzziah. In whole periods, as, for example, in the time of the judges, there is no mention of the priests; nor is any word of censure passed on Samuel, who, though not a priest, exercised priestly functions. Priestly jealousy would not have been so freely related, nor should we have been told how, at the bringing in of the ark of the covenant, David, at the conclusion of the whole ceremony, blessed the people; which appears to have been contrary to the letter of the law, if indeed it were not at direct variance with the spirit of it, as the narrative of Melchizedek and others seems to show. Some have sought to escape from this difficulty by associating the prophethood with the priesthood. But in order to be convinced of the worthlessness of this theory, it is only necessary to look through the prophecies of Jeremiah. Even in the time of Malachi, when the priesthood gave far less offence, at least externally, than formerly, the priestly office forms the principal object of the denunciation of the prophets. Isaiah, in Isaiah 43:27, strikes a blow at the vanity of Israel respecting their own merit, in the words, “Thy first father (the high priest) hath sinned, and thy teachers have transgressed against me.” And since the assumption of a tendency to glorify the royal power would be just as reprehensible as the assumption of a tendency to magnify the priesthood, the prophetic office alone remains. But even in this assumption we become involved in insuperable difficulties. The prophets formed no close corporation, not at least in the kingdom of Judah, which is the only question now at issue. It was somewhat different in the kingdom of Israel, where there was certainly some kind of membership and organization; for in it prophets alone performed the service of the true God, after the abolition of the Levitical priesthood. In the kingdom of Judah, where they had only to wall up the gaps, the prophets appeared singly, as they were inspired by the Spirit of God. It is therefore not conceivable that through centuries they should have followed a common plan, and carried on an artful system of deception. And again, in the history before Samuel, the prophets stand far in the background, and prophethood meets us only in isolated, spasmodic phenomena. If the history of the Israelites had been dominated by a prophetic interest, this interest must also have taken possession of earlier times, and must have exercised a powerful influence on the description of the founding of the state. In the time of the kings also there are long periods in which we find no trace whatever of a decided importance of the priesthood. In the kingdom of Judah it properly began to acquire such an importance in the time of Uzziah, when the corruption of the people increased more and more, and the great judgments of the Lord took their course. Consider also the whole character of the prophets as it appears in the history. Nowhere do they seek their own interest; they wish to be nothing more than instruments of God; they follow no selfish aims; even the greatest prejudice can only regard them as enthusiasts (as such they were esteemed by the godless in Israel, comp. 2 Kings 9:11), but not as deceivers. The essence of prophetism is briefly and well characterized in Micah, Micah 3:8 : “But truly I am full of power by the Spirit of the Lord, and of judgment, and of might, to declare unto Jacob his transgressions, and to Israel his sin.” Thus we find no trace of a carnal interest of any kind; and the reason why we can never unconditionally trust the native sources of the history of all other nations of antiquity is because their interest is everywhere observable. In this department the saying holds good, “If the design be marked, mistake is impossible.” 6. Those facts, which are undeniably true, are inexplicable if the narrative of the historical books as a whole be not true, especially in those points which have been most disputed. How, for instance, can it be explained, apart from this assumption, that the Hebrew is the only one among the nations of antiquity which was in some respects far more developed; in which we find, not perhaps abstract monotheism, but at least a reference of the whole life to the one, true, and only living God, a profound moral influence produced by such doctrine, a living faith, with its indispensable basis, a profound conviction of sin—in short, the only people in whose hearts God found a place? How can we explain the phenomenon that among the Hebrews we find religious characters such as Abraham, Moses, David, the invention of which would presuppose a depth of inner experience and of spiritual life such as have been found in no heathen? Or how can we explain the fact that the eyes of this people alone were directed forwards, while the eyes of all other nations were turned backwards in disconsolate longing for what was irrecoverably lost; and that this very people, and none other, should from their first origin (Genesis 12:3) have cherished the firm conviction through all centuries, that from their midst salvation would spread over all the earth; and that this conviction should have been justified by the result? To these, and a multitude of similar questions, history, as we have it in the historical books, affords a most satisfactory answer; while, on the other hand, those modern writers who reject this history have no resource but to explain them away. At the time when the Hegelian school was predominant, every exertion was made to furnish the desired explanation of facts from purely human causes: by the most powerful critical operations the lowest was put uppermost in order to produce the appearance of a steady, natural development. This is the course recently pursued by Planck, The Genesis of Judaism, Ulm 1843. But even with the help of such procedure, which is altogether arbitrary, being now directed by the re-awakened non-historical sense, no step in advance has been gained towards the main question. Even if we place at the close of the history of the Israelites that which meets us at the beginning, we still find nothing similar in any nation of the earth; not one has in the course of natural development attained to such religious advancement. The main question has reference not to the time when such a thing occurred, but to the fact that it did occur; and to answer this question we are and remain incapable. The weight of the arguments adduced is very much strengthened if we look at the weakness of those which our opponents have advanced in favour of the mythical character of the historical books. The main argument, drawn from the impossibility of miracles, is purely dogmatic, and therefore need not be considered here. Where there is living faith in God the worthlessness of this argument is at once perceived. The assumption of the aimlessness of miracles must be surrendered when we see how long the nation was spiritually sustained by the great deeds of the Lord in Egypt; how through centuries, in every time of their need, when they were as the rose among thorns, the small flock in the midst of wolves, it was by virtue of those great deeds that they reached a living faith in their God. Amyraldus on Psalms 106 says, ‘Haud fere minus est frequens in V. T. liberationis ex Ægypto et transitus maris rubri mentio, quam in novo redemtionis cujus Christus nobis auctor est.’ In like manner it may be shown, that to assume the representation of our historical books to be not of a purely historic nature, because what they narrate as history cannot be constructed, or explained by the natural sequence of cause and effect, is purely dogmatic, being based on the Pantheistic or Atheistic exclusion of all supernatural causality, and has therefore no significance whatever to any one who does not occupy this standpoint. It belongs to the very essence of a revelation not to allow of construction. Add to this, what we have already indicated, that the originators of this assumption prove themselves incompetent to furnish the natural explanation of assured historical facts which is demanded. Another argument is taken from the analogy subsisting among all other nations, where the beginnings of history are universally mythical. Why should the Hebrews alone form an exception, particularly as so many narratives of the historical books present such striking relationship to the myths of the heathen—for example, the cosmogonies, the theophanies, etc.? But the analogy of other nations can prove little in itself. Even among them there is a great difference with respect to the mythical character of primitive history. Among the Arabs, for example, as already noticed, we find scarcely any evidence of such a mythical character; although their tradition must have been orally transmitted for many centuries; for the introduction of the art of writing does not date far beyond the time of Mohammed. The tradition of the Mexicans is also, comparatively speaking, very simple; and even the earlier history of the Romans has a far less mythical character comparatively than that of the Greeks, even if we allow the results at which Niebuhr arrives in his works to be established—results pointing rather to a traditional than to a mythical character of this history. If even among heathen nations we find so great a difference in this respect, how much less should we expect a mythical character to belong to the history of a people among whom we find none of the causes which in other nations called forth their differences in a smaller or greater degree, of which the deification of nature and of men was perhaps the most influential; among whom the knowledge and exclusive worship of the one true God were preserved in their purity by special divine arrangements; in whom we find everywhere, instead of the misty heathen confusion, the sharpest and clearest separation, definite distinctions, limitations, the absolute antithesis of God and man, the angels separated by exact boundary-lines from God on the one side, and on the other from men. The conclusion leading to like effects is rational only where like causes canbe pointed out. Where these are wanting, we must not à priori expect similarity, but dissimilarity of results. If we concede that the Hebrew nation, in respect of its religious consciousness, forms an exception to all other nations of antiquity; it becomes highly irrational, from the analogy of myths—the production of heathen, religious consciousness—to conclude without further consideration that the Israelites must have had myths; just as irrational as if we were to conclude, from the sinfulness of all men, that Christ also was infected with sin. The analogy of other nations would only apply to the mythical character belonging to the narrative of the very earliest times. For among others, especially the Greeks, the mythical character of history ceases as soon as historiography begins. Among the Hebrews, on the contrary, the alleged mythical character was much stronger in later times, long after history had begun to be written down, than it had been at an earlier period. The history of Elijah and Elisha, for example, and even the events narrated in the Gospels, contain far more which transcends the ordinary course of nature than the record of the first chapter of Genesis. Hence the analogy tells far more against than for the mythical character of the historical books. For if on its account we must regard the later history as purely historical, then we may justly draw an inference respecting the earlier history; for, as we remarked before, they must stand or fall together, on account of their great similarity of character, and the close connection which existed between them, and cannot possibly be separated. But in reference to the argument taken from the relation of Old Testament history to the myths of other nations we may observe, that this relation exists only in a limited measure, and in conjunction with infinitely greater diversity. Moreover, the myths of these nations are generally a consequence of sin, and tend to promote it; their marvels have no object, unless it be to deceive; and we find a multitude of gods interfering in the affairs of men, more powerful and wiser, but not better than they; and withal at variance among themselves: in Old Testament history everything is in direct or indirect relation to religion and morality, to the establishment, confirmation, and spread of the worship of the true God; every miracle has an obvious connection with exalted divine institutions of salvation, nor do we find any employment of unholy means for a holy end; we have the simple antithesis between an almighty, holy, merciful God and weak, sinful man, angels only mediating between both, mere instruments and servants of God. In ancient heathendom we see the self-interested attempt of every nation to glorify itself, to place its origin in the most remote antiquity, and by mingling the divine and human to derive it from the gods: in the Old Testament there is none of this self-seeking; the whole duration of the earth in its present form is fixed within comparatively narrow limits, in harmony with the results of sound natural philosophy; we are told how a multitude of nations were already in existence when the ancestor of the Hebrews was still unborn; nor is there any concealment of the fact that he was a weak man, a mere shepherd-prince, who could not call a foot-breadth of land his own. Among the heathen there is an unmistakeable, historical envelope of physical speculations and poetic views; it is obvious at every step that we are in the region of personification, where the fact is but a light and transparent veil, the thought which it conceals misty and floating: in the Old Testament, on the contrary, there is no trace of philosophizing concerning the reasons of things and the forces of nature; the historical representation is indeed adapted to the spirit of the age, it is living and vivid, but at the same time extremely simple, and strictly separated from the poetic element, everything being clear and defined. When a relationship actually does exist, we must first of all inquire whether it has an independent character or not. This is least of all the case with respect to those very cosmogonies to which reference is most frequently made, for these, in so far as they strikingly agree with the cosmogonies of the Israelites, are an emanation from them, and belong to a very late period, that of syncretion—this is especially the case with the cosmogony of the pretended Sanchoniathon, of Berosus, etc. The same may be said also of the heathen traditions of the flood. But when the relationship shows itself to be independent, it proves far more in favour of the historic truth of the historical books of the Old Testament. Thus the universality of feigned theophanies among the nations of antiquity points to the fact that there is an indelible longing inherent in man for the nearer union of heaven and earth; and since this longing is innate, it must somewhere find a satisfaction which is not merely imaginary but real. We may, therefore, look upon feigned theophanies as a prophecy of real theophanies, and by virtue of their aim, a prophecy of the incarnation of God in Christ. We might even venture to say that there can be no real theophanies when there are no fictitious ones; for if such were the case, that necessity for a general revelation, and especially for a revelation in this form, would be wanting, which forms the basis of its reality. Thus the pretended prophecies among the heathen point to an actual satisfying of the demand which gave rise to them in connection with religion. In this case the Old Testament explains itself even with regard to the relation between what existed among Israel and the apparently similar among the heathen; an explanation which is available for everything of the same nature. In Deuteronomy 18 all fortune-telling and necromancy are most strictly forbidden. But this mere negative command would have made no impression. Therefore a promise is superadded: the Lord gives to Israel that which they may not seek elsewhere, and cannot find. He will raise up prophets to them; them shall they hear. Thus with regard to the history of the fall, the myths of other nations of antiquity show this much at least, that it is inscribed on the human heart in indelible characters; that the condition of man and of the earth, as we find it, cannot have been the original one, so that on this ground it is certain an occurrence of the kind related in Genesis must have taken place; and we may also observe that those elements in heathen tradition which incidentally agree are also transferred from the Old Testament; a fact attested by the age to which the writings belong that contain harmonious features. If, therefore, the monstrous exaggerations of other nations respecting the great age of the first men confirm the corresponding statements of Genesis, we may assume either that an obscure knowledge of this historical fact had been transmitted to the nations by tradition; or else that the legend was only the individual expression of a universal consciousness, viz. that the human race, alienated from God, is continually subject to increasing deterioration; which latter assumption is the more probable, since fragments of tradition from the primitive world, having their origin among the heathen, can never be certainly discriminated; the fact seems rather to have been that a fantastic impulse had completely obliterated the historical remembrance of the most ancient times at the period when men attained to a clear consciousness, and historiography was developed among them. But the deepest reason of the agreement between heathen myth and Israelitish history may be found in the fact that mythus and sacred history have to some extent a similar foundation, viz. idea, which mythus clothes in historic garb, while in sacred history it is actually historical. This is the truth underlying the mythical view; and he who is not able to recognise it, or grant it the importance which it deserves, who has not accurately and profoundly grasped the distinction between myth and fable on the one side, and between sacred and profane history on the other, will be incompetent to the task of refuting it. The distinction does not indeed lie in the mere fact of being historical, but chiefly in the idea itself, which was only dimly apprehended in heathenism, and presents itself there in the degenerate form of the carnal and natural. Another argument for the mythical character of the historical books is taken from the rudeness of early times, which does not justify us in expecting a priori an historical perception, from the sensuousness of their manner of thought and expression, and from their ignorance of natural causes, which is said to have derived immediately from God much which could have been explained on natural grounds. As to the former, viz. the assumption of a development of man from the condition of animals, from animal barbarism, everything is against it,—not only the testimony of the Old and New Testaments, but also the wisdom and goodness of the Creator, who must have provided better for His noblest creature; and again, a series of experiences which show that individual men who through special circumstances sank into animal barbarism, never attained to a rational state, or to the use of language, except by the advice and instruction of others; that savage nations have never of themselves risen to a state of civilisation, but in every case only by intercourse with cultivated nations; and, finally, the impossibility among the most ancient nations, as, for example, the Egyptians, of proving the steps of such a development; as also the concurrent tradition of the most diverse nations, according to which the oldest races of men enjoyed special gifts and a union with God particularly close, a tradition whose significance is not lost, but rather enhanced if we attribute to it a theological value only, not a historical one. That the higher condition was antecedent to the lower, and that barbarism was only deterioration, is partly conceded, even by those who by no means stand on the ground of faith in a revelation. A. W. von Schlegel, in his preface to the German translation of Prichard’s Sketch of Egyptian Mythology, Bonn 1837, p. 16, speaks thus: “The more I look into the ancient history of the world, the more I am convinced that civilised nations have deteriorated from a purer worship of the Supreme God; that the magical power of nature over the imagination of the race of men then in existence, afterwards gave rise to polytheism, and, finally, quite obscured spiritual conceptions in the popular faith.” Schelling in his Lectures on the Method of Academic Study, which appeared in 1803, says, “There is no condition of barbarism which is not the product of a degraded civilisation. It is reserved for the future labours of the history of the earth to show how even those nations, living in a state of barbarism, have only been separated from the rest of the world by means of revolutions, and are in some measure severed nationalities which, being deprived of intercourse and of the means of culture they had already acquired, have fallen back into their present condition.” Sensuousness of conception and representation cannot be regarded as necessarily conditioning the mythical character of a narration; it acts prejudicially only when a falling away from the truth has already preceded it. When this is not the case the form alone is affected, leaving the essence untouched. Otherwise children could not speak the truth. Moreover, the sharp intelligence which characterizes the Jewish nation may be seen in germ even in the first beginnings of Israel. Finally, the assertion that much in the Old Testament is referred immediately to God, to the exclusion of secondary causes, is without foundation. Every attempt which has hitherto been made to explain by purely natural causes, what the Scriptures represent as really miraculous, as, for example, the plagues in Egypt, has been unsuccessful, even though it should be capable of easy proof that in many cases, indeed almost universally, God only permitted causes already existing in the ordinary course of nature to come into operation at an unusual time, in unusual succession, and to work in a strengthened and intensified degree; which is just what forms the characteristic distinction between true and false miracles, and stamps the wonders of revelation with the seal of credibility. It is certain that we find a religious mode of thought prevailing even with respect to natural things, when we are told, for example, that God thunders, He feeds the birds, He clothes the lilies. But, at the same time, there is no denial of the fact that God works by natural causes. The examples which are generally represented as containing a false reference of the natural to God, prove on nearer examination to be far from pertinent. When, for example, Bezaleel had by human means acquired considerable skill in the school of the Egyptians, is this circumstance incompatible with the fact that God elevated and sanctified his talent and skill for the good of the church? Experience, reaching even to modern times, teaches that an art which truly serves the church of God cannot be acquired without His help. A spiritual taste can only be learnt in the sanctuary of God. And if under the New Testament every χάρισμα has its natural ground, on which it proves itself efficacious, can we maintain, in direct opposition to Scripture, that the χαρίσματα themselves are natural? It is usual to appeal to the hardening of Pharaoh. But here Scripture is in harmony throughout with the results of a sound empiricism, which teaches that sin indeed everywhere belongs to man, but the form in which it finds expression (and in the case of Pharaoh the question turns on this alone) belongs to God, who invariably controls the circumstances under which the germs of sin in man develop themselves. And we have already observed how carefully, even in the relation of marvels, those natural causes are adduced which God employed in their performance. The more the sacred writers lived in view of the divine necessity of the ordinary course of nature, the less they felt themselves tempted to destroy or even to conceal the necessary sequence of things, the close connection of the marvellous and the natural,—the less they felt themselves disposed to invent miracles, which to them were not an object of wonder. A love of the marvellous belongs only to godlessness; so that the assumption that God performs miracles presupposes godlessness. Hence even those who are deceived respecting the condition of human nature must regard miracles as aimless. Finally, our opponents urge that for the honour of holy Scripture, and out of regard for religion, it is incumbent on us to preserve the mythical interpretation. But we need not enter more closely into this argument. It is probably only a jest; an attempt to throw dust in the eyes of the simple. Even De Wette, who has carried the mythical view to its utmost extent, gives expression to a very different sentiment. In his Kritik on the History of the Israelites, p. 408, he says: “Happy were our ancestors who, in ignorance of the art of criticism, themselves truly and honestly believed all they taught. History lost at least in this respect, that she faithfully related myths which she was obliged always to continue to relate as truth, even while, from love to the doubter, adding the warning that they were myths; but religion gained. I have not been the first to commence criticism; but since the dangerous game has been once begun, it must be carried through, for only that which is perfect of its kind is good. The genius of humanity watches over the race, and will not suffer it to be robbed of the noblest which exists for men.” These latter words have verified themselves in a remarkable manner. At the time when they were spoken sacred history as such had been already borne to the grave. Now it has risen again with the church. But it is time we should pass on to the other native sources of the history of the Old Testament. Among these the remaining books of the Old Testament take the second position. From these we obtain not merely isolated historic notices, such as we find especially in the Psalms and the writings of the prophets; they often afford us the most vivid picture of the times in which they were written. We learn more of the condition of religion and morality in many periods from the predictions of the prophets, than from the notices of the historical books, which in some cases are but brief, and in which great care must be taken to keep the prophetic standpoint continually in mind. Nor must it be forgotten that the prophets lived in view of the infinitely high destination of the covenant people, applied to the actual the strict measure of the ideal, and unsparingly condemned that which was not conformable to it; turning their attention as preachers of repentance to offences rather than to existing good. We have an excellent supplement to their representations, which are in some measure one-sided, in the Psalms, which clearly lay before us the heart of the ἐκλογή in Israel. If we had not the Psalms, we should be tempted to put a much lower value on the results of true religion than they really deserve, particularly as most of the historical books were written by prophets, and from a prophetic standpoint. The Psalms afford us the deepest insight into the inner life of the most noble among the nation, more especially as the only one who specially speaks in them repeatedly declares himself to be an organ of the whole community to which he belongs, of the just, the God-fearing,—many of whom awaken in us a vivid idea of religious collective life under the Old Testament. Thus, for example, the so-called Psalms of Degrees, or more correctly Pilgrim-Songs, intended to be sung by festive processions on the pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Psalms 120-134). And we must attach the greater significance to the Psalms, because they accompany us through the whole history of Israel, from the time of David through whom this great gift was first imparted in full measure to the people of God, after they had already had a foretaste of it by Moses (Psalms 90), till after the return from exile. Throughout this long period there is no great event of which the Psalms do not treat; no great trouble or joy which does not there find expression. In this connection we encounter two principal groups, the Psalms of the Davidic time, and those which belong to the period of the captivity,—the latter partly in anticipation of misery preparing a treasure of comfort and hope, as Psalms 91-100, partly in the midst of it, mourning and despairing, and rising to resignation and confidence, as for example Psalms 104-106; partly giving thanks after the deliverance, and praying for a continuation of the work begun, as in Psalms 107-150, with the exception of the interpolated Psalms of David. Between these two groups are the Psalms which celebrate the great deliverance of the Lord under Jehoshaphat, Psalms 46, Psalms 47, Psalms 83, and those which have reference to the oppression and deliverance under Hezekiah, Psalms 48, Psalms 75, Psalms 76. As to the authorship of the Psalms, they belong partly to David, partly to the Schools of Singers which arose under his influence, to the Asaphites and the Sons of Korah; and partly to unknown authors, which is especially the case with regard to those which were composed after the return from captivity. The Psalms and the writings of the prophets are especially instructive in reference to the contrast between the true and false Israel, between the just and the wicked, believers and unbelievers; the latter being again divided into those who utterly despise the kingdom of God, and those whose unbelief is based on self-righteousness, a division afterwards verified in the sects of the Pharisees and Sadducees. This constantly recurring antithesis—in order fully to appreciate it we must compare Psalms 22 and Isaiah 65—points to a later separation, under the New Testament, of those heterogeneous elements which had formerly been united in the external theocracy; and as a preparation for the church of the New Testament, of which it contains a prediction, must be kept constantly in view. A new, holy, and pure church of the Lord is frequently foretold by the prophets, comp. for example Isaiah 4:3-4. The non-historical writings have also special importance with regard to the further development of the doctrinal system, which in the history of the Old Testament, so far as it aims at being a history of divine revelations, must necessarily be considered with care. Legislation ended with the Pentateuch, i.e. religious legislation; for the purely civil maintains its ordinary course. The civil rulers of after-time were not at all limited to it; but the Pentateuch has to do with it for all ages, only in so far as it rests immediately upon a religious and ethical foundation. It is not so with doctrine; respecting this, God by His instruments gave to later times, viz. those previous to the Babylonish captivity, disclosures for which earlier times were not yet ripe. These disclosures were most important when they had reference to the doctrine of the Messiah, a doctrine which even in the Psalms had made considerable advance, owing to the union of the promise made to David of eternal kingship in his family, 2 Samuel 7, with the already existing Messianic hopes; and which was afterwards developed on every side by the prophets; but even with respect to other doctrines, viz. of the resurrection, of the angels, and of Satan, there is an important advance on what exists in the Pentateuch only in germ, but is nevertheless constantly present; everything later is only further development and advance. The third native source is formed by the apocryphal books of the Old Testament. Of these the books of the Maccabees alone are historical; for wherever else we find historical form it is merely envelope. This is the case with Tobit and Judith, whose historical character Wolf, a Silesian superintendent, has recently undertaken to defend—an attempt truly absurd; so also with the book of Baruch, in which an Israelite in the διασπορά puts his own sentiment? in the mouth of Jeremiah and his amanuensis Baruch, especially in horror of the heathen idolatry. Of the books of Maccabees the first is the more important. It comprises the religious oppressions under Antiochus Epiphanes, with the history of the wars under Mattathias and his sons, Judas, Jonathan, and Simon; and is, therefore, the most significant period of the whole history, from the close of the old dispensation under Ezra and Nehemiah unto Christ. An accurate knowledge of it is of importance, because on this depends the understanding of many of the Old Testament prophecies relative to this period, especially those of Zechariah and Daniel. And here we must observe that in the exposition of the prophets, in pursuance of a falsely literal method which culminated in the supranaturalistic expositors of the second half of the last century, especially in Venema and J. D. Michaelis, more honour has been assigned to it than is due. For many have sought to discover in it the fulfilment of prophecies which found at most but one fulfilment—a mode of dealing which is the result of incapacity to apprehend the idea which inspires the prophets, and to appreciate the distinction between prophecy and divination. A more perfect knowledge serves to reveal the worthlessness of this mode of exposition, showing how little the reality in this time corresponded to that which the prophets by inspiration hoped for; and how necessary it is, therefore, to advance further, to fix the glance upon Him in whom all the promises of the prophets are yea and amen. And it is evident that this period lies without the region of canonical history from the fact that it is unduly estimated by those who make it a principal object of prophecy, as well as from the circumstance that it is completely destitute of prophecy itself. A time which proves itself so deficient in the higher vital powers in operation under Israel, cannot be regarded as that to which the prophecy of earlier times had main reference. It is equally certain that prophecy concerns Israel only in so far as they are a covenant and consequently a spiritual people. By these remarks we also obviate another attempt to give honour where it is not due, viz. the effort of Hitzig and others to assign to the Maccabean period by far the greater portion of the Psalms. Prophecy and psalmody go hand in hand throughout the whole history of Israel. When the former was entirely extinct, the latter could not flourish. And, moreover, if it had flourished, the period could not lie without the region of canonical history. The thing itself was far from making any such pretensions. It had little spirit; but it was conscious of this, and therefore leaned humbly upon the more spiritual past. It is certain that the first book of Maccabees is not without important mistakes, particularly in the statements respecting foreign geography and history. Thus, for example, the account of the Romans in 1 Maccabees 8 is incorrect almost throughout. In 1Ma 1:1, the author proceeds on the false assumption that the Persians were driven from the possession of Greece by Alexander the Great. In 1 M 1:6-8 he states, contrary to all authentic history, that Alexander during his lifetime divided his kingdom among his assembled generals. But the most flagrant error occurs in 1Ma 6:1, where he changes the large territory of Elymais into a town in Persia. These and other errors have been pointed out by Wernsdorff in his acute and learned work, De fide historica Librorum Maccabaicorum, 1747; which, however, is not entirely free from polemic embarrassment: it may be compared with the commentary of J. D. Michaelis On the First Book of Maccabees. The two supplement one another. For Michaelis goes too far in an opposite direction. He often tries to vindicate the author when he cannot possibly be justified. In Grimm’s Commentary on the First Book of Maccabees we recognise an attempt to maintain the proper mean between the two extremes. But when the author confines himself within the limits of Palestine and of the nearest past, he proves himself on the whole to be reliable, accurate, and careful; notwithstanding his poetical-prose style, which in many passages, though not always, is somewhat pompous, departing from the simplicity of canonical history, contrasting disagreeably with the attractive simplicity and objectivity of the canonical history of the Old and New Testaments. Here his statements are very generally confirmed by coins, and by those foreign writers who have occupied themselves with the same period. Because the book contains a faithful account of a most remarkable providence of God, it may with a certain degree of truth be said to be a sacred book, if not by virtue of its composition, yet on account of its contents. We cannot accurately fix the time of its origin. From 1Ma 16:23-24, we learn that it cannot have been composed until long after the beginning of the reign of John Hyrcanus; and it is probable that it belongs to a period prior to his death, which would otherwise have been mentioned. The assumption of a later authorship is untenable for this reason, that we should then be unable to explain the universally admitted credibility, and especially the chronological accuracy of the book; for nowhere do we find any trace of the employment of older written sources, not even in passages such as 1Ma 9:22, where we might expect to find a reference to them, especially if we compare 1Ma 16:23-24; and, moreover, the author speaks of the Romans, upon whom he bases great hopes, in a manner which presupposes that they had not yet revealed their true character with reference to the Jews. For the rest, the book was originally written in Greek; and we do not hold with most scholars that the Hebrew or Aramaic book of Maccabees, mentioned by Origen and Jerome, is the original, but only a translation. So also the Aramaic Matthew has often erroneously been regarded as the original, on the false assumption that only Aramaic could be written for born Jews. The numerous hebraisms can prove nothing to the contrary, since they are to be found in all Greek works written by Jews; on the same ground we might prove a Hebrew or Aramaic original for all the books of the New Testament. The alleged errors in translation rest on false assumptions. That our Greek book is the original follows from the fact, that the author employs not the Hebrew text but the Alexandrian version of the books of the Old Testament, especially of Daniel; as the use of the LXX. also forms a strong argument in favour of the originality of the Greek Matthew; that Josephus draws always from the Greek as the authentic; and finally, that the book, as even Grimm must concede, is distinguished from the LXX. by a much easier and more flowing Greek, whence its language does not bear the character of a translation. The second book of the Maccabees is inferior to the first. It is divided into two parts. The first part is formed by two documents contained in the first two chapters, professedly sent by the Jews in Palestine to the Jews in Egypt after the victories of Judas Maccabeus, in order to summon them to take part in celebrating the consecration of the Temple. There can be no doubt that these letters are a literary fiction; for the whole second book of Maccabees is not so much a proper historical work as a mixture of truth and fiction—an historical romance, something like Wildenhahn’s Spener. They contain strange fancies; and the author is so bold as to refer to the writings of Moses, of Jeremiah, and of Nehemiah, in which there is not a word of all these things. Hence the references cannot be seriously meant. The second part contains a historical sketch of the time of the Maccabees; it embraces, however, only a comparatively short period. Beginning almost at the same starting-point as the author of the first book, the writer continues the narrative only through a period of fourteen or fifteen years, till the measures taken by Demetrius Soter against Judas Maccabeus in the year 161; while the first book embraces a period of forty years. (The second book runs parallel only with the first seven chapters of the first book.) This second part professes to be an extract from a large work in five books, on the Acts of the Maccabees, written by Jason of Cyrene, with a prologue and epilogue. Of this work we do not find the least trace anywhere else; and since the first part resembles the second in construction, there is reason to believe that the author of the pretended letters was also the author of the pretended abstract; a view which has been recently contested by Grimm on insufficient ground. Thus we are to some extent justified in doubting whether this work had any existence whatever. It is possible that it may belong to the region of fiction to which the author has given so much scope. He wrote at a time when dull fictions were in fashion; as may be seen, for example, in Philo of Byblos and the self-named Manetho. However that may be, there can at least be no doubt, especially after the argument of Wernsdorff in the above-mentioned work, that the second part is not much superior to the first, in so far as its historical character is concerned. Of the author’s mistakes when he touches upon foreign geography and history little need be said, since he has them in common with the author of the first book, although he surpasses him in this respect. But even in the history of the nation itself there is much that bears an unhistorical character. The narrative of the first book is in conformity with the character of the whole period from the Babylonian exile to Christ, of whom we have an anticipation in the fact that this period did not become an object of sacred history entirely on natural ground. The author betrays a constant tendency to the marvellous, a weakness of character which this period itself recognised as belonging to it, for it looked to the future alone for the restoration of the prophetic gift, 1Ma 14:41 Macc. 14:41; renouncing at the same time the possession of supernatural influences. In all other portions of sacred history wonders and prophecies are intimately connected; and this very admixture of the miraculous, which is wanting in the first book, appears to have been a main object of the author in undertaking his work. A judgment which pronounces narratives of this nature to be lies, is scarcely legitimate. The book must not be judged merely from the same point of view as the first of Maccabees; but may be classed with the books of Tobit and Judith. The author intends at the outset to give truth and fiction. We may compare his work to the Cyropaedia of Xenophon in profane literature. The chronology is throughout incorrect; all events are placed a year too early. The Greek diction of the book is generally pure; but the style is declamatory, with rhetorical ornament, containing moral remarks and digressions; thus contrasting with the objectivity which is maintained by the sacred historical books, whose object throughout is to influence by means of the facts themselves, and whose only care it is to set them forth in clear features and sharp outlines. From these remarks it follows that the book can only have a subordinate value as a historical source, although it contains many valuable historical notices. But on the whole, the historical basis remains always inviolable; and the separation of truth and fiction can generally be accomplished without difficulty. The fiction is for the most part but loosely laid on. The date of composition cannot be fixed. If we may conclude anything from the complete ignorance which Josephus and Philo betray respecting it, it must have been composed at a late time. The oldest allusion to the book is to be found in Clement of Alexandria. The arguments brought forward by Grimm in his Commentary on the Second, Third, and Fourth Books of Maccabees, Leipzig 1857, to prove that the book must necessarily have been composed before the destruction of Jerusalem, are not conclusive. Even the references to it in the New Testament, accepted as such by Stier, are liable to well-founded suspicion. The third book of Maccabees stands much lower, and no longer belongs to the collection of apocryphal works recognised by the church. The title is scarcely appropriate, since it describes a persecution which Ptolemy Philopator (he reigned from 221 to 204 B.C.) is said to have inflicted on the Jews in Egypt; it is however correctly named so far, that the narrative of the author is a romance based upon the relations of the Maccabean time. The book is either pure fiction, or else the circumstance on which it is founded is so enlarged, distorted, and interwoven with the marvellous, that it can no longer be recognised. This requires no proof, as is universally conceded, and is obvious to every one who reads. The work is an Egyptian product, which was not known till very late; and has not been translated in the Vulgate, nor even by Luther. We may regard the Egyptian-Greek insurrection against the Jews as the historical occasion, which occurred in the time of the Roman imperial dominion. The author, writing for the encouragement of his fellow-countrymen, transfers the relations of this time to that of the Ptolemies, in which, according to the testimony of history, no such insurrection took place. He invents a persecution after the pattern of that which occurred in the time of the Maccabees; and sets forth a miraculous, divine deliverance, in order to encourage the Jews in Alexandria under their oppression. There is still a fourth book of Maccabees, sometimes mentioned by the church fathers. This is in all probability the book of Maccabees which is to be found among the works of Josephus, but which does not belong to him, as may be seen from the gross historical errors which appear in it. It is found also in many mss. and editions of the Alexandrian version. That the book has no properly historical, but only a philosophical tendency, is evident from the title, περὶ σωγροσύνης, or αὐτοκρατόρος λογισμοῦ. The author wishes to treat of the relation which ought to subsist between the rational will and the sensuous impulses. In order to show the possibility of a reckless limitation of the latter, he relates the histories of the Maccabees from the Maccabean time. According to Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., iii. 10, the book was composed in the latter half of the first century. In 1Ma 13:14 there is an allusion to Matthew 10:28, whence, however, we are not at liberty to conclude that the book was written by a Christian, against which there are many data. In the remaining apocryphal books also, especially in those of Tobit, Judith, Baruch, etc., are to be found many historical statements; but on account of the whole historical character of the books, and the time and region from which they went forth—they are mostly Alexandrian productions—these statements must be used with great caution, and can only serve to confirm what has been drawn from other sources. The books of Tobit and Judith are historically clothed fictions; the former throughout a contemplative, lovely poem; the latter presenting offences against morality, but at the same time containing a noble germ—a fund of ardent faith and a lively fear of God. They are important as monuments of the spirit of the time in which they were written—in this respect also the books of Jesus Sirach and Wisdom are of equal importance, which together with Tobit, Baruch, and the first of Maccabees, are the noblest products of apocryphal literature. The fourth native source is formed by Jewish writers whose works are to be found neither among the canonical nor among the apocryphal books of the Old Testament. Among these Flavius Josephus takes the first rank. Born in the year 37 A.D., in the reign of the Emperor Caligula, and carefully instructed in the Jewish code of law, he joined himself to the sect of the Pharisees. When his people revolted against the Romans, he contended boldly at their head, acting as field-general in Galilee; but was taken prisoner by Vespasian. To him he foretold the imperial dominion, in an interpretation of Daniel’s prophecy, Daniel 9, according to which Jerusalem was to be destroyed by a heathen prince; and when this prediction was fulfilled he was set free by the Emperor and richly rewarded. He now received from his patron the surname of Flavius, and accompanied Titus, in the 33d year of his age, to the siege of Jerusalem, where he assumed the office of a negotiator, and besought its inhabitants to surrender—but in vain; the penetration which saw through existing relations could avail nothing against fanaticism—the less, because his character was not calculated to inspire confidence. After the conquest of Jerusalem he went to Rome with Titus, who was particularly gracious to him, and whose favour he sought to use as much as possible for the good of his unfortunate countrymen. In the year 93 he was still alive. That of his death is unknown. The following are his works, in chronological order:— 1. Seven books of the Jewish war and of the destruction of Jerusalem. This work was originally written in Syro-Chaidaic, and was afterwards translated into Greek and presented to Vespasian and Titus. Considerable credibility is due to it. Josephus tells in his autobiography that Titus with his own hand wrote upon it the command that it should be publicly made known, χαράξας τῇ ἑαυτοῦ χειρὶ τὰ βιβλία δημοσιεῦοσαι προσέταξεν, words which some have erroneously understood to mean that Titus, famed for his readiness in writing, copied out the whole book himself. Josephus tells also in his autobiography how King Agrippa assured him that he had written this history the most carefully and accurately of all. We must take care, however, not to place too much value on their assurances. They only testify to the historical truth as a whole. In many details, especially where chronology is concerned, we perceive that want of the true historic mind, which appears in his remaining works, and for which no autopsy can compensate. The fact that many have undertaken to justify all these details (especially v. Raumer in his Geography of Palestine) betrays the lack of a complete view of the individuality of Josephus. The analogies which he brings forward with much learning in favour of everything strange and improbable could only hold good if his individuality had been quite different from what it really was; if he could be cleared from the reproach of credulousness, of superstition, and that love of exaggeration and of obscurity which leads him to follow not only the great aim of the historian, viz. truth, but at the same time other subordinate ends. That the description of the temple which Josephus gives in this work, as well as that in his Antiquities, are in many details confused and in others undoubtedly exaggerated; that national vanity and the peculiarity of his position led him to embellish and beautify for the glory of his nation—all this has been thoroughly established by Robinson in his Travels, part ii. p. 53, etc. But, on the other hand, we cannot fail to see that we have to do with a contemporary and perfectly informed historian who on the whole wished to tell the truth, and was obliged to tell it. 2. Ἰουδαικὴ ἀρχαιολογία, Jewish history in twenty books, from the beginning of the world to the year 66 A.D., when the Jews again rebelled against the Romans; so that the work may be regarded as a continuation of the Jewish war. It was written at Rome. Josephus states at the end of his last book that he completed it in the thirteenth year of Domitian, in the 56th year of his age. It is therefore almost contemporaneous with the last book of the New Testament, the Apocalypse, which was written about three years later. In the choice of a title, and in his division, Josephus seems to have imitated Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who had written a Roman archaeology in twenty books. The value of this history is various, according to the times of which it treats. The period embraced in the historical books of the Old Testament is comparatively small, and may be reckoned a help rather than a source; having for the most part no greater authority than a modern elaboration of the Old Testament history, so that it becomes a matter of great surprise that many, even in recent times, should thoughtlessly quote Josephus as an authority for the history of the period. Besides the books of the Old Testament, which he read mostly not in the original, but the Alexandrian translation, which is in some parts very defective, and which we, with our aids, can understand much more thoroughly, he employed no native sources except oral tradition, of whose miserable state we have ample proof in the accounts he has taken from it; for example, the history of the march of Moses against the Ethiopians, of the Ethiopian princess who offered him her hand, of the magic arts of Solomon, etc. If we take pleasure in such stories, it is just as easy to invent them for ourselves as to borrow them from Josephus. He is also deficient in the power of transporting himself to ancient times, partly owing to his participation in the unhistorical Alexandrian tendency, a circumstance which leads him also to adopt the allegorical mode of interpretation; but what is more prejudicial to his work is the fact that he continually aims at writing history in a way which should give no offence to the heathen for whom his work was specially intended, but might rather remove their prejudices against the Jews, or their contempt of them. Sly tact, cunning, and craftiness—such is the character of Josephus as he appears in his own description of his personal relations; and we recognise the same characteristics in his history. The fact that his aim is not purely historical, that history serves him rather as a means to a special end, is the key to explain a multitude of phenomena which his work presents. The injury which must accrue to history from such an apologetic attempt has been seen whenever that course has been adopted; but it appears most strikingly in the second half of the last century, when theologians like Michaelis, Less, and Jerusalem diluted and distorted biblical history, attempting by the most far-fetched hypotheses to make it agreeable to the spirit of a time which was alien to it. In Josephus, the detrimental influence of this mode of treatment may be seen in double measure. First, he seeks to place his favourite people higher than they are placed in the sacred record, and to invest them with the attributes which the heathen prized most highly. Like Philo, he assigns to the Patriarchs and Moses a wisdom like that which he found among the Greeks and Grecizing Romans of his own day. Again, in recording the miraculous events which demanded particularly strong faith, fearing to compromise himself or to lose a favourable hearing for that which was to be accepted, he either speaks in vague language or by silence weakens the impression of the miraculous. Thus, for example, he remarks on the narrative of the passage through the Red Sea that he relates the story as he finds it in the holy Scripture, leaving it to each one to decide whether the circumstance was effected by direct divine influence or by natural causes. We can scarcely suppose that remarks of this nature are suggested by Josephus’ own doubt and uncertainty, as is the case with the above-named theologians of the last century; but must regard them rather as the product of a pedagogic prudence, so to speak; which frequently appears elsewhere in reference to the Messianic hopes for example, where far too little distinction has been made between what Josephus says and what he believes. But that which gives him some value even where ancient history is concerned, is the use of foreign historical authors who are lost, from whom he has brought forward many explanations and confirmations of the biblical narrative. Yet we must use great caution with respect to this evidence; for the writers belong to a bad period, that which succeeded Alexander, where historic falsification played a very important part, especially in Alexandria, in which authorship was made a profession; prefiguring our present literary activity, and authors wrote in the service of the various national vanities which there intermingled, seeking in literature the satisfaction denied them in politics. On nearer consideration, the really important extracts of Josephus are reducible to a very small number. What he quotes from Menander’s Greek Elaboration of the Tyrian Journals is by far the most important. Next in value are the communications from Berosus, which, however, are of importance only so far as they have reference to the time of Nebuchadnezzar and his successors. For the history of the last period comprised in the books of the Old Testament no dependence can be placed on Josephus. Here he has little which is original, little that surpasses the canonical Ezra and the books of Nehemiah and Esther; and even this little is of inferior quality. It is in a great measure taken from the apocryphal book of Ezra, whose statements, in themselves uncertain, are still further distorted by the conjectures and false combinations of Josephus. He used no other sources for this period. Comp. the translation of Kleinert, Treatise on Ezra and Nehemiah, Dorpat Contributions, part i. p. 162 et seq. But Josephus has far greater weight when he treats of the time from the conclusion of the Old Testament to the end of his work. For whole periods, from the conclusion of the Old Testament to the Maccabees, he is almost our only source, though indeed very meagre. At this time the causes which led him to represent the earlier periods had mostly disappeared; and his credibility respecting it may be gathered partly from the internal character of his narrative and partly from the accounts of profane writers. Where we might feel tempted to question his statements, as in the account of Alexander’s sojourn at Jerusalem, a closer examination sometimes serves to confirm them. It cannot be denied, however, that great caution should be used in accepting what he says, even where it has reference to this period; and that not a few incorrect statements are to be found; for he never quite belies his character. His testimony is unreliable particularly when he treats of the time he assigns to the apostate priest Manasseh, and to the beginning of the temple at Gerizim. He is not even accurately acquainted with the succession of the Persian kings. From the great poverty of his sources, it is evident he does not draw from important ones. Historic certainty increases as he comes nearer to his own time, but is not unqualified even here; for the absence of other, earlier occasions of error, are replaced by a new one, his personal vanity. 3. De vita sua, autobiography of Josepheus, valuable first of all for the knowledge which it reveals of his individuality, so indispensable to the formation of a just estimate of his larger works; and also for the knowledge of the history of his time, and of the contemporary religious and civil condition of the Jews. In determining the date of the composition of his Antiquities, we fix that of this book also. It forms, as Josephus himself tells us at the end of the twentieth book, an appendix to it; and is therefore not improperly quoted by Eusebius under the name of the Antiquities. It is not so much a complete biography as a record for the vindication of his conduct in the Jewish war, which was attacked on so many sides. 4. On the antiquities of the Jewish nation. Josephus was prompted to undertake this work by the quackish polyhistor Apion, who had attacked the antiquity of the Jewish nation, and had brought forward many unfounded calumnies against them in the interest of the Greco-Egyptian enmity to the Jews, which was prevalent in the time of the Roman imperial dominion, especially in Alexandria. But Josephus was not satisfied to refute him alone; he also noticed the calumnies of Apollonius Molo and other writers. This book is important for Old Testament history, because it contains a number of fragments from lost works of Phoenician, Egyptian, and Babylonish historians; with reference to which, however, we must repeat the remark already made respecting the Antiquities, The defence of Josephus is often as inaccurate as the attack against which it is directed. Without criticism he heaps together everything which can serve his purpose. The historically-veiled polemics he combats had adopted Jewish accounts of ancient history, altering them to suit themselves; and had then represented them as resting on independent heathen tradition. Josephus never fully uncovers this literary deception; he unmasks the impostors only so far as it serves his national interest; and allows their testimony to pass when he can turn it to his own advantage. Nor has he any hesitation in overlooking the deception of the Jewish writers who represented themselves as heathens, that in this character they might more effectually weaken heathen calumnies and glorify the antiquity and grandeur of their nation by testimony apparently coming from an enemy. He never seems to entertain the idea of unmasking them. It follows from these remarks that the books against Apion can only be used as a historical source, with the greatest caution. Among the Jews Josephus found little acceptance, partly on account of the language in which his works (with the exception of the books of the Jewish war) were written, partly also because he was looked upon as an apostate. So much the more highly was he valued by the Christians, for whom the books on the Jewish war must have had special interest, as forming an excellent apology for Christianity against Judaism; and for all that relates to the relations existing in the time of Christ, which to the present day forms an invaluable mine in proving the genuine historical character of the Gospels. Even the earliest church writers, as Clement of Alexandria and Origen, show an intimate acquaintance with him. Eusebius, in his Church History, quotes whole sections from his books on the Jewish war. The Latin translation was several times printed in the fifteenth century. A German one, by Hedio, was also in existence, Strasb. 1531, when at Basle 1544, the first edition of the Greek original appeared. The most common edition is that by Ittig. By far the best, however, is that of Haverkamp, Amsterdam 1726, 2 vols, fob; indispensable for every one who wishes to become thoroughly familiar with Josephus. It is provided with a tolerably rich critical apparatus, but is unfortunately very inadequate in respect of exegesis. To the native sources we may reckon also the pseudo-epigraphs of the Old Testament, collected by Fabricius in the Cod. Pseudepigr. V. T., Hamb. 1713, 1723, 2 vols.—viz. such writings as are falsely attributed to the most important men of the Old Testament—Enoch, for example; while the apocryphal books are certainly genuine, but not canonical; and are distinguished from native works, like those of Josephus, by a certain authority which they have obtained in the synagogue, and in the church as a sort of uncanonical supplement to the canon. The pseudo-epigraphs have the dignity of sources more with regard to- later Jewish modes of thought and dogmas than in reference to isolated facts; for where the latter are concerned, they must in the nature of things be highly uncertain, and do in fact abound with absurd fables. Even Philo (born in the year 20 B.C.) is only so far to be regarded as a source as his writings set forth the character of Alexandrian Judaism; the peculiar form which Judaism assumed in Egypt, owing to contact with the Greek mind. For historical facts he is a bad guarantee; owing to his morbid dominant subjectivity, which always transfers itself to the object; and on account of his unhistorical, idealising manner of thought. Even where he speaks of the present, and from his own observation, as in his account of the Therapeutse, there is such a mixture of truth and fiction, of the ideal and the actual, that we must regret, in the absence of more sober witnesses, to be obliged to accept him as our authority. The historic accounts of the Talmud belong to a time when the perception of truth among the Jews had so utterly disappeared, that the narrators themselves were no longer conscious of the distinction between truth and fiction. This is also the case with respect to other old Jewish writings, such as the book Sohar, and the ancient allegorical commentaries on the Bible known under the name of Rabboth. In all history there is scarcely an example of a nation in whom the perception of truth generally, but especially of historic truth, was so completely enfeebled as among the Jews after the destruction of Jerusalem. In this respect they are related to other nations in an inverse ratio to their ancestors; a phenomenon which will appear strange only to those who are incapable of apprehending its deeper causes, comp. John 5:43; to which we may add national vanity in union with the deepest degradation—a union which everywhere proves itself a potentiality destructive of history, but most strikingly in Egypt—isolation; a base mind thinking only of gain; and the one-sidedness of studies directed to mere subtleties. The analogy of the modern Greeks to the Greeks of antiquity suffices at least to show how little we are authorized to infer the unhistorical tendency of Israel from that of later Judaism. The only national monuments which serve to illustrate the history are coins of the time of the Maccabees, whose genuineness was triumphantly established in the contest between Bayer and Tychsen, amply detailed in Hartmann’s biography of the latter. Let us now pass to the foreign sources of Old Testament history. These are divided into two classes—accounts which directly refer to the Jews, and those which indirectly bear upon Hebrew history in setting forth the history of the nations with whom the Jews came into contact. We shall speak first of the former. In the later East we find strange traditions and sayings concerning Old Testament history, which, though not without manifold interest, have but little historical value,—the less because they may generally be recognised as embellishments and distortions of the accounts preserved in later times by Jews and Christians. This is especially the case when they have reference to the Koran; and what has not been sufficiently recognised—to the traditions of the Arabs concerning their own early history and their descent from Kahtan (Joktan) and Ishmael, which have perhaps no independent basis, being certainly developed under Jewish influence, which was very powerful in Arabia in the centuries preceding Mohammed. Greek and Roman authors were not well informed respecting the affairs of the Jews, and drew from bad sources; from contempt they did not trouble themselves to inquire into the truth, and from hatred they would not see it. But especially regarding the more ancient, the pre-Babylonish history of the Jews; Greek and Roman history contributes very little which is valid, as may be inferred from the remarkable circumstance that previous to the time of Alexander no Greek author mentions the name of the Jews. Herodotus represents them only as Syrians in Palestine; and has evidently very obscure ideas respecting them; although what he tells of the conquest of Cadytis by Necho is of no little importance for the conflict between Egypt and Judah in the time of Josiah, of which the books of Kings and Chronicles tell nothing. Many writers, most of whom, however, seem to belong to the lowest class, composed separate works on the Jews; but none are now in existence. Fragments are to be found in Josephus, c. Ap., and in Eusebius, in the Chronicon and in Praepar. Ev. These two works are important for the history of the Old Testament. In the Chronicon the sole aim of Eusebius is to bring forward confirmation of Old Testament history from heathen authors whose works have for the most part been lost—whether they gave accounts concerning the Jews, or only explained and confirmed what the Scriptures told of foreign nations. For a long period we had to content ourselves with fragments of Jerome’s Latin translation of this chronicle, which were collected and learnedly discussed by Scaliger under the title of Thesaurustemporum, first at Leyden 1606, afterwards in a second enlarged edition at Amsterdam, 1658. But the whole has been preserved in the Armenian language; and first appeared in the year 1818, in Armenian and Latin, at Venice, in 2 vols., with many annotations. This is an addition to the treasury of sources for Old Testament history. To it we owe many illustrations and confirmations of that history, taken from otherwise unknown fragments; especially with regard to the objects of the embassy which, according to the book of Kings, was sent from Babylon to Hezekiah; and concerning the narrative in the six first chapters of Daniel. The whole ninth book of the PraeparatioEvangelica serves the same purpose. For the rest, that which has been said of Josephus also holds good in the case of Eusebius. We must be particularly cautious in using his authorities; for they are generally bad late writers who quote as the original a copy of the copy of the Old Testament narrative, in which but few genuine features remain. Everything which these authors—Nicolaus Damasc, Alex. Polyhistor, Artapanus, Eupolemus, etc.—can tell of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and even of Moses, bears the same relation to the Old Testament as the statements of the Koran; and is of no more importance; so that we cannot help wondering how men like Hess can make so much of these statements; or how v. Bohlen, Tuch, Lengerke, Bertheau, and others can treat them as almost equal in value to the Mosaic account. Other Greek and Latin authors still extant give passing accounts of the Jews. Thus Diodorm Siculus, lib. i. chap. v.; Strabo, in the tenth book of his Geography; Justin, in the second chapter of the thirty-sixth book of his extract from Tragus Pompejus; Tacitus historiarum, lib. v. chaps. ii.-xiii. Horace, Juvenal, C. Pliny the younger, and Martial also make passing mention of the Jews. The passages from these authors which have reference to the Jews have been diligently collected and explained by many scholars, especially by Schudt, in his Compendium historiae Judaicae potissimum ex gentilium scriptis collecium, Fkf. a. M. 1700. The latest collection, that of Meyer, Judaica, Jena 1832, is incomplete, containing simply the Greek text. So much for those who occupy themselves directly with the Jews. The nations with whom the Hebrews came most into contact, and whose history is therefore of special importance as bearing upon theirs, are the Egyptians, Phoenicians, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Persians, Greeks, and Romans. With the exception of the Phoenicians, these very nations, and they alone, appear in the Apocalypse as the successive possessors of the sovereignty of the world, under whose yoke the people of God sighed—six heads of the seven-headed beast, under the symbol of which the sovereignty of the world is represented; the seventh head was still future at the time of the Apocalypse. We give here only the principal sources for the history of the five first nations, assuming that the sources of the history of the Greeks and Romans are already known. The sources of Egyptian history are very meagre. The Egyptians were extremely deficient in the historic faculty, about as much as the Indians. Truth and fiction, mythology and history, were separated by a fluctuating barrier. In olden times, in records which did not relate to the intercourse of common life, they generally made use of hieroglyph or picture-writing, which was liable to much misapprehension in the lapse of time, and gave rise to strange misunderstandings. This source was the more necessarily fluctuating, because such defective writing contained only pompous descriptions of actual or alleged exploits, never forming a properly historical work, which Egypt does not seem to have possessed at all before the supremacy of the Greeks. Yet to this source, to uncertain oral tradition, and to old monuments, the Egyptians were limited in the time of Herodotus; and to them, not to mention the Old Testament, we owe directly or indirectly all we know of Egyptian history. We must remember, also, that national vanity induced the priests to conceal their ignorance by fabrication; to be silent respecting many facts that were disagreeable; and to distort others. They had one particular quality, which has been very aptly designated virtuosity by O. Müller in his work Orchomenos and the Minyans, by virtue of which they appropriated foreign histories and traditions respecting their country; and after metamorphosing them to their own advantage, gave them out as originally Egyptian; a virtuosity by which they often imposed on the Greeks, but which they also applied to the Jews. Among native Egyptian authors the most important is Manetho, which is not saying much unfortunately,—he was professedly a priest at the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, about 260 years B.C. He wrote by order of the king, as is alleged, a copious history of his people in the Greek tongue, from the oldest traditionary time to that of Darius Codomannus, who was conquered by Alexander. But my treatise, Manetho and the Hyksos, as an appendix to the work entitled The Books of Moses and Egypt, brings forward many important reasons why Manetho could not have written as a born and exalted Egyptian under Ptolemy Philadelphus; and assigns to him or to the person who appropriated his perhaps honoured name, a much later time, probably that of the Roman emperors. Fragments of what the alleged Manetho wrote concerning the sojourn of the Hebrews in Egypt and their exodus, have been preserved by Josephus, in his first book against Apion. These fragments, which have been so much built upon, are more important for a knowledge of the Alexandrian spirit than of the events they record. We might just as well follow the Uranios of Simonides as take Manetho for our guide in this matter. The lists of the Egyptian kings have been excerpted by Julius Africanus; from whom Eusebius transferred them to his Chronicle. These lists of names have more importance than anything else that has been preserved. Although even here the ground is very uncertain, especially in the whole series of the first fifteen dynasties, for the most part the result of patriotic fabrication; yet many names receive confirmation from the most recent discoveries. But we are not authorized to infer the correctness of his narrative from that of these lists of names, for he had very different sources at his command for the names; they occur numberless times on the monuments, and from them a certain number of kings’ names might very readily be copied with accuracy. In the time of the Roman emperors an Egyptian named Chiiremon, notorious even among the ancients for his ignorance and unreliableness, wrote a work on Egyptian history, which has also been lost; but Josephus in his first book, c. Ap., has preserved the part which relates to the Hebrews. As a reason for the odious accounts which these and other Egyptian writers, such as Lysimachus and Apion, give of the Jews, Josephus adduces the ancient national hatred perpetuated from the time of the settlement of the Hebrews in Egypt. But there was unquestionably a far more powerful cause in the envy of the Egyptians, whose hatred was afterwards transferred to the Greeks dwelling in their country,—envy on account of the favours which the Jews enjoyed in Egypt after the time of Alexander, combined with a knowledge of the accounts of their forefathers contained in the Pentateuch, which, especially in the Alexandrian version, were extremely offensive to the national vanity of the Egyptians. So far as we know at least, there is no reason for assuming that the Egyptians had independent traditions relative to their original relations with the Hebrews. They sought to supply this deficiency by inventions, which may be recognised as such because they are throughout based upon the biblical narrative, and give such a turn to the history, and that generally in a very awkward way, that it no longer offends but subserves the national vanity. Since so little of the native writings of the Egyptians has been preserved, we must welcome even what has been said by foreign writers concerning ancient Egypt. Of these, the oldest and most important is Herodotus, who collected accounts of ancient history, from the mouth of the priests, about seventy years after the subjugation of the Egyptians by the Persians. Although the source was very muddy even then, it flowed considerably purer than at the time of Manetho. Thus Herodotus knows nothing of the whole Hyksos-fable of Manetho; nor is this to be wondered at, for the cause was not yet in existence which afterwards gave rise to it, viz. the relation to the Jews. Among the editions of Herodotus that by Bähr is the most important and indispensable for the elaborators of Old Testament history, on account of its rich apparatus. Next in value comes the manual of Stein. Four hundred years later, Diodorus Siculus gave a compilation of accounts respecting ancient history, partly from oral inquiries made in Egypt, partly from Greek authors. Diodorus has taken a fancy to set up the Egyptians as a model; and we seem often to be reading a historical romance rather than a history. In Plutarch, also, we find an exaggerated reverence for the Egyptians, and an effort to make them the representatives of his ideal. It is only with the utmost caution that we can avail ourselves of the historical material of these and similar writers. Each one finds his favourite idea realized in the Egyptians. This unhistorical tendency meets us in its grossest form among the Neo-platonists. In recent times, especially since the French expedition to Egypt, Egyptian antiquity has been made the subject of many learned investigations. The results of these are principally contained in the works of Rosellini and Wilkinson. Recent discoveries, however, have imparted less knowledge of the history of ancient Egypt than of its domestic, civil, and religious condition; for the numerous pictures and sculptures in the subterranean recesses afford such superabundant materials for the latter, that a recent English author has justly remarked that we are better acquainted with the court of the Pharaohs than with that of the Plantagenets. Notwithstanding the work of Bunsen, so rich in hypotheses, which Leo has followed far too incautiously in the third edition of his History of the World; and in spite of the work of Lepsius, the history still remains in confusion, from which it will never be possible to extricate it let us discover and decipher what we will, because the Egyptians never had a history. For Phoenician history, so far as it is incorporated in that of the Old Testament, we possess no native sources, since the fragments which have come down to us from the alleged Greek translation of the very old Phoenician historian Sanchuniathon, edited by Orelli in a separate collection, contains only a cosmogony and theogony, and can therefore be of use only for that portion of the Mosaic narrative which lies beyond our province. Moreover, the alleged translation is certainly an original, the whole a composition of Philo who lived under Nero until Hadrian; and a Sanchuniathon for whose existence we have no testimony except that of Philo probably never lived at all; comp. my Contributions, ii. p. 110 et seq. Josephus accords special praise to Dius, from whom he gives a fragment relative to the relation between Solomon and Hiram, in his book against Apion. Besides this, he communicates isolated fragments from Menander of Ephesus, who wrote in Tyre, and drew from Tyrian annals a history of Tyre. These fragments show that the alleged works bore quite another character than the composition of Philo, which had no historical aim whatever, but only a dogmatic one, viz. to bring forward an ancient authority for his atheism. But even these authors are not to be trusted without qualification. What Dius relates of riddle-contest between Hiram and Solomon, which he professed to draw from an old Phoenician source, is, to judge from the fact on which it is based, manifestly of Jewish origin; supplemented by ready additions which owe their origin to Tyrian national vanity. Owing to the scantiness of native historical sources, Greek authors are almost the only co-narrators for the biblical authors with reference to their statements concerning Phoenician history, and are certainly very ill-informed. For Assyrian history also, we have till now no native sources. What knowledge we may gain from the discoveries made in the last ten years (it is believed that annals of the Assyrian kingdom have been found written on the bricks) must in the main be waited for. Till now a safe contribution has been gained only for archaeology, not for history. Even Marcus Niebuhr, in his History of Assyria and Babylon, has not ventured to build with certainty upon the alleged decipherments of Assyrian texts. Till now the principal sources have been the fragments of Ktesias, best edited by Bähr, with a copious historical commentary; and the compiler Diodorus Siculus. The history of the Babylonians and Chaldaeans was for a long time distinct,—the Chaldaeans were represented as having been first transplanted into Babylon Proper by the Assyrians, but have been proved to be identical by recent inquiries, especially by Hupfeld, and Delitzsch on Habakkuk,—the Chaldeans being the original inhabitants of Babylon, or a separate, prominent branch of them. Thus we possess two native sources for the history of these nations, both important for Old Testament history, although they have come down to us only as fragments of comparatively small compass. Berosus, a priest of Bel at Babylon, wrote professedly under the dominion of the Seleucidse about the year 262 B.C., a Chaldsean or Babylonish history in three books, of which fragments are preserved by Josephus, and by Eusebius in the Praep. Ev. and in the Chronic, and have been put together in a separate work by Richter. The work of Berosus was highly esteemed in ancient times, and is frequently quoted by Greek and Roman authors. To judge by the fragments, which have come down to us, it seems on the whole to have deserved its good name, though even here the influence of the fatal period in which it originated is unmistakeable. When Berosus does not wander into prehistoric times, and when his national vanity found no opportunity of exercising its injurious influence on him or his guarantees, his statements are trustworthy and of importance for the explanation and confirmation of the Biblical narrative, especially in the history of Nebuchadnezzar. The Chaldaean historical consciousness probably did not go beyond the period in which that people first attained to historical importance. What lay beyond was full of mythologumena and borrowed matter, on which the stamp of the Babylonish spirit was impressed. With respect to primitive times especially, the whole East is dependent on the Old Testament; an important position, which will be certified by every sound historical investigation. Nothing but the most determined prejudice can avoid seeing this in Berosus. What he tells of the Flood, of the Ark in which Noah was saved, its resting upon the summit of the Armenian mountains, cannot have been drawn from old native records, notwithstanding his express assertion to that effect—(1.) because it coincides too exactly with the statements of Holy Scripture; and (2.) because at the time when the Jews were still shut out from intercourse with the world, no trace is to be found among; the heathen of such accounts. The second author who has drawn directly from Chaldaean tradition is Abydenus. (Comp. Niebuhr’s observations respecting him in the treatise, On the Historical Gain to be derived from the Armenian Chronicle of Eusebius, printed in vol. i. of his historico-philological writings.) The time in which he lived cannot be accurately determined. It is certain that he wrote later than Berosus. We infer this partly from the circumstance that he knew and made use of that work; and partly from the fact that he found tradition in a much more disfigured condition. Eusebius has preserved fragments of his work, περὶ τῆς τῶν Χαλδαίων Βασιλείας, in the Praep. Ev. and the Chronicon. Abydenus is far inferior to Berosus; he narrates in such a confused and uncertain way, that it is difficult to gain any clear sense of what he means. Nevertheless his fragments are of some importance; not, indeed, as is generally thought, for the first eleven chapters of Genesis, where we willingly allow the confirmation which he is said to afford, especially for the building of the Tower of Babel; but for the time of the captivity and that which immediately followed it. He gives some welcome notices of the history of Nebuchadnezzar and his successors. Among Greek authors we find only very scattered, scanty, and uncertain notices of ancient Babylonish and Ohaldsean history. A remarkable proof of the great ignorance of the Greeks in this portion of history is, that none of their historians, not even Herodotus, has a syllable relative to the great world-conqueror, Nebuchadnezzar. For the history and antiquities of the Persians we possess no native written sources. Their national annals, so often mentioned in Scripture, have been lost. The decipherment of old Persian inscriptions is a recent thing; and however interesting the results already attained may be as they are put together in Benfey’s work, Persian Cuneiform-inscriptions, with a Translation and Glossary, Leipzig 1847, and briefly in the last edition of Leo’s World- History; yet they have contributed nothing of any moment for our immediate purpose, the explanation of Old Testament history. The most important thing which has yet been deciphered is the inscription of Bisutan, in which Darius Hystaspis describes his achievements—the Darius of the books of Ezra, Haggai, and Zechariah. We must, therefore, adhere to the older Greek historians, who drew from Persian sources, which, however, were unfortunately very much obscured by national vanity; hence their accounts are frequently contradictory in the most important matters. Those who have most weight are Ktesias, preserved only in fragments; Herodotus, and Xenophon. Of the latter the Cyropaedia is important, especially for the period in which the history of the Persians comes into contact with that of the Israelites. Notwithstanding its ideal tendency, this work has in many respects more historical credibility than Herodotus and Ktesias; and strikingly coincides with biblical-historical statements, especially those in the book of Daniel. The knowledge of the religion of the ancient Persians is of importance for the religious history of the Old Testament. No heathen religion presents so many separate coincidences with the Old Testament. It is enough, by way of illustration, to draw attention to the doctrines of the creation, of the fall, of evil spirits, of a revealer of the hidden God, and of a Redeemer. And here arises the interesting problem, how these coincidences, which really contain an infinitely greater difference, are to be explained; a problem which cannot be solved without a thorough knowledge of the history of the Persian religion. The first who gained great merit concerning Persian religious history was Hyde, in the work entitled De Religione vett. Persarum. With great diligence and acuteness he made use of those sources which were available in his day, so that his work is still indispensable. New disclosures were made when Anquetil du Perron found the Zendavesta among the descendants of the ancient Persians in India, who had there remained faithful to the religion of their forefathers while in Persia itself the ancient religion had been supplanted by Mohammedism; he made it known in a French translation now recognised as very inaccurate, with learned researches, Paris 1771. Its genuineness was at first attacked by many scholars; afterwards, for a long time, doubts seem to have been almost entirely silenced; while the most exaggerated assumptions respecting the antiquity of these books, and the period in which their alleged author, Zoroaster, appeared, were universally accepted. To Stuhr, particularly in his Religious Systems of the East, p. 346 et seq., belongs the merit of reviving the old doubts, and of having proved that Zoroaster himself probably did not live till the time of Darius Hystaspis. The matter is very uncertain, however; and Niebuhr has justly remarked that, owing to the prevailing mythical character of the accounts of Zoroaster, it will never be possible to succeed in ascertaining with certainty the period in which he lived. Stuhr showed also that the religious books in their present form belong to a very late time; and that, in judging of them, we must distinguish between the original matter and later additions. With this correct settlement of the age of the Zend books, the treatment of the earlier indicated problems is brought back upon the right track, from which an uncritical admiration of the books had withdrawn it. So long as the Zendavesta was placed fifteen hundred years before Christ, there were but two solutions of the problem possible—either the coincidence was to be explained from common participation in the original revelation; or else the Israelites must be made dependent on the Medo-Persians. Now, on the contrary, a far more natural mode of explanation has been suggested. Spiegel, Avesta, part i. p. 13, says: “Obviously very little in the writings of the Zendavesta which have come down to us proceeds from Zoroaster himself, perhaps nothing at all; the greater part is the work of different, and mostly later authors.” He observes also, p. 11: “In this historical time the Persians certainly borrowed much from their more cultivated Semitic neighbours. If a statement accords with a foreign one, we may, in most cases, assume that it is borrowed.” Krüger, according to whom Zoroaster was a younger contemporary of Jeremiah, in his History of the Assyrians and Iranians, Frankfort 1856, assumes Jewish influence in the history of our first parents and their fall. Thus, after the relation had for a long time been reversed with great confidence, we have gone back essentially to the very point where we were two hundred years ago. The learned and sober Prideaux makes Zoroaster to have appeared under Darius Hystaspis, maintains that he borrowed much from the Old Testament, and draws a parallel between him and Mohammed. Heeren, in his Ideas, has made most successful researches into the Zend religion in its relation to the Persian State; and Rhode, in his work entitled The Religious System of the ancient Bactrians, Persians, and Medes, Frankfort 1826, has explained the religious system, as such, with acuteness, it is true, but from utterly untenable, uncritical presuppositions, and with a great tendency to arbitrary hypothesis. The totally divergent representations of Stuhr, and of Röth, in his History of Western Philosophy, 2d ed., 1863, show how far the inquiry is still removed from a satisfactory conclusion. Owing to the nature of the subject, a really satisfactory result is scarcely attainable; for the Persian religion, by its fluctuating character, is not open to exact determination; and in consequence of the Persian tendency to mix religions, favoured by this character, it has appropriated a multitude of foreign elements from Judaism, from the Indian religion, from Christianity, and from Mohammedism, which it is very difficult to discriminate, and can often be done only by conjecture. The Orientalist, Roth of Tubingen, has given an interesting survey of the religious system of the Persians, Tübingen Theological Year-Bookof 1849, in two parts. To the Persian religious books, in their present form, he assigns no greater antiquity than the end of the Sassanide kingdom, in harmony with the tradition of the Persians themselves, according to which their old and original religious books are said to have been lost (comp. Leo, p. 193). Röth places Zoroaster considerably earlier than Stuhr. Röth agrees with the latter in other respects, but assumes that in the Persian religious books Zoroaster had already become a mythical personage. The sole foreign monument for the illustration of Israelitish history was for a long time the triumphal arch of Titus, still standing at Rome, upon which are represented the golden table, the golden candlestick, together with two censers and the trumpets, perhaps also the holy codex, all of which, according to Josephus, were publicly carried in triumph. This monument has been copied and learnedly discussed by Hadrian Reland in his work, De spoliis templi Hierosolymitani in arcu Titiano Romae conspicuis, Utrecht 1706. A new edition, with valuable observations by Schulze, appeared in 1765. It was reserved, however, for the present century to discover important monumental confirmations of Old Testament history in Egypt. The scene in a grave at Bui Hassan, strangers arriving in Egypt, is doubtful, though some have regarded it as a representation of the entrance of the Children of Israel (comp. The Books of Moses and Egypt, p. 37); but, on the other hand, a monument which has been discovered in Thebes, representing the Hebrews making bricks, is undoubtedly genuine and of great importance. Rosellini first gave a copy and description of this (comp. The Books of Moses and Egypt, p. 79 et seq.). The earlier mentioned representation of the personified kingdom of Judah on an Egyptian sculpture of the time of Rehoboam, is also genuine. 3. Aids to the History of the Old Testament. The literature of Old Testament history properly begins after the Reformation, for the only coherent representation of the time of the church fathers, viz. the Historia Sacra of Sulpicius Severus, best edited by Halm, Vienna 1867, can scarcely be taken into consideration; since it possesses no other excellence than pious thought and elegant language. It begins with the creation of the world, and continues the history to the end of the fourth century. Those Greek and Latin authors of the middle ages who have expatiated on Iraelitish history are still less deserving of mention; for they were deficient in almost every requisite for the success of their undertaking. Yet there are many excellent things, many correct points of view, many single observations relative to the history of the Old Testament, which the historian must not overlook in the works of the church fathers; especially in those of Augustine, particularly in his work De civitate Dei; of Chrysostom and of Theodoret. The same may be said of the writings of the Reformers, none of whom has contributed a proper treatise on Old Testament history. They first brought to light again that distinction of the Old and New Testament which had been obscured in the middle ages, and had been very imperfectly apprehended even by the church fathers. Thus a basis was secured for Old Testament history, without which it must necessarily have missed its aim. In matters of detail, also, their works afford rich resources, especially those of Luther, particularly his Commentary on Genesis; and of Calvin, especially his Commentary on the Pentateuch, the Book of Joshua, the Psalms, and Daniel, as also his Institutes. The numerous works on the history of the Old Testament, written after the Reformation, of which we can here name only the most important, are divided into three classes—those written before the spread of rationalism, works of rationalistic authors, and works of authors who still believed in revelation after the beginning of rationalism. The first class may be subdivided into two different kinds of works—those in which the theological, and those in which the historical, element preponderates. The most important of the former class are the following: From the Catholic Church, the Historia EcclesiasticaV. et N. T., by Natalis Alexander, Paris 1699, 8 vols, fol., and several times later edited. From the Reformed Church, Frederick Spanheim, Historia Ecclesiastica a condito Adamo ad aevum Christianum, in the first volume of his works, Leyden 1701; and the HypotyposisHistoriae et Chronologiae Sacrae, by Campeg. Vitringa, still valuable as a compendium, published in Frankfort 1708, and frequently since; also a careful monograph, the Historia Sacra Patriarcharum, by J. Heinrich Heidegger, 2 vols. 4to, 2d ed., Amsterdam 1688. From the Lutheran Church, the Historia Ecclesiastica V. T. of the excellent theologian Buddeus, published in Halle 1715, 4to, 3d ed., and in the same place, in 2 vols., 1726, 1729. This may be regarded as the most important book of the period, which does not however imply that the author made deeper investigations than all others—in the Compendium of Vitringa there is more independent research than in his copious work—but only that no other work is better calculated to represent this period; a characteristic which it owes in part to the circumstance that the author disclaims all attempts at independence and originality. Buddeus is in general neither an actual inquirer nor a compiler, but an eclectic. Here we find the older material for a history of the Old Testament put together with great completeness. With diligence, circumspection, and sound judgment, the author has employed the sources and helps available in his day; elaborating, and everywhere expressly citing, his authorities. The order is luminous, the language good and fluent, and the whole, notwithstanding the total avoidance of everything ascetic, is penetrated by the spirit of piety. The Collegium Historiae Eccles. V. T., by Joh. Jac. Rambach, edited after his death by Neubauer, Frankfort 1737, has no scientific value, but in this respect rests principally upon Buddeus; on the commentaries of Clericus, which contribute much that is useful for Old Testament history, although the author in Theologicis is very superficial; and on some other works. It is however distinguished by a treasure of excellent practical remarks; and is therefore always valuable, especially for the prospective clergyman. On the other hand, the works of Joachim Lange on the same subject, Mosaic Light and Truth, etc., which were much read in their day, are now of little use; owing to their prolixity, and deficiency in independent research. Lange possessed the power of writing seven sheets in a day, without exertion. Let us now point out the general character of this period, and in so doing we must naturally notice only the comparatively better writers belonging to it. As in every department of theology, so here also, this period is distinguished by firmness of faith, by its absolute acceptance of divine revelation, and its unconditional submission to the divine word; by a conscientiousness in research, which has its root in this cardinal virtue; and by a diligence and a thoroughness proportioned to the prevailing view of the importance of the subject. But on the other hand, there are also unmistakeable defects; so that even the best works of the period no longer suffice for ours, even apart from the fact that the representation of the truth now demands distinct reference to error in that form in which it appears at variance with the truth; and the progress of recent times, especially in the history of antiquity, for which so many new sources have been discovered, and to which so many noble powers have been devoted, must also afford considerable gain for Old Testament history. Ancient writers of church histories of the Old Testament speak too much from a doctrinal point of view; so that we cannot expect from them a perfectly satisfactory representation of the divine institutions of salvation adapted to the condition of men. The πολυποίκιλος σοφία τοῦ θεοῦ is concealed from them, Ephesians 3:10; they do not understand the πολυτρόπως; in Hebrews 1:1; the astonishing development from the germ to the fruit is hidden from their sight. They are wanting in that principle which ought to govern the presentation of the whole religious history of the Old Testament, insight into the divine condescension. In the unity of the two testaments they forget the diversity. Thus, for example, they seek to prove that the patriarchs already possessed a perfect knowledge of Christian truths in their full extent, or at least with only a slight difference in clearness; and attribute to the believers of the Old Testament a clear knowledge of the mystery of the Trinity, of the atoning sufferings of Christ, and of everlasting life, forcibly setting aside those passages which represent the future life as more or less concealed. Their prevailing intellectual tendency deprives them of the power of transference to ancient times; they are deficient, like all their contemporaries, in historical intuition. This deficiency appears most strikingly in the representation of false religions, to which nearly all church histories of the Old Testament have devoted a special section. What they have contributed in this department, is now almost entirely useless. The heathen consciousness remained almost closed to the authors of these works,—a want which is not indeed peculiar to them, but is characteristic of the whole period. The origin of a symbolism and mythology really deserving of the name is due to our century. To Creuzer belongs the merit of having led the way in this department. To the second subdivision of the first class belong, first, those who have treated Old Testament history with special reference to chronology. The most important among them are the more worthy of mention, since we are almost entirely dependent on their works: knowledge of this kind has made very little advance. And here we must in many respects assign the first place to the Annales V. et N. T. of the pious and learned Irish archbishop Usher, first published in London 1650, 1654, 2 vols, fol., afterwards in many impressions,—a work of long and arduous diligence, which opened a pathway in this department, and even now deserves attentive notice. A worthy parallel to it has been contributed by the Jesuit Petavius, De Doctrina Temporum, Antwerp 1703, 3 vols.—a more comprehensive work, in which, however, the biblical chronology is treated with peculiar diligence, with great acuteness, and much care, and on the whole in a clear, unprejudiced spirit. We must also draw attention to the Chronologie de l’Histoire Sainte, from the exodus from Egypt till the Babylonish captivity, by Alphonse de Vignoles, Berlin 1738, 2 vols. 4to, which deserves to be mentioned with distinction. The most recent solid work in this department is Hartmann’s Systema Chronologiae Biblicae, Rostock 1777, 4to, which deserves to take precedence of all others as a handbook of chronology, with Vitringa’s summary. Others made it their principal object to unite the biblical accounts with those of profane writers. The principal work of this kind is that of Prideaux, first published in English, London 1716, 1718, 2 vols., and again in this century in a new edition in England and America; in Germany, under the title H. Prideaux A. und N. T. in Zusammenhang mit der Juden-und benachbarten Völker-Historie gebracht, first published in Dresden 1721, two parts, 4to. The work begins with the time of Ahaz. For the period from the exile to Christ, it is still one of the most useful helps. The use of sources is extensive; and as an inquirer the author proves himself indefatigable. A want which is observable in almost every work of the kind, as well as in those of a prevaiHng theological character, is that of an able historical criticism. We find accounts of profane writers compared with the statements of holy Scripture, without regard to the condition of these authors, the degree of their credibility, or the sources from which they drew. Yet there were exceptions in this respect. Perizonius and Vitringa give evidence of decided critical talent; the latter especially is free alike from credulousness and from an unhealthy scepticism. We have testimony to his truly critical tendency, not only in his Hypotyposis, but also in his Commentary on Isaiah, and his Observationes Sacrae, which present much that is excellent for biblical history. Let us now pass to the second class of helps to the history of the Old Testament, viz. the works of rationalistic authors. The direct advantage which these afford can only be small. That which we have designated the principal aim of the historian of the Old Testament, viz. the promotion of faith and love, cannot be realized by works of this kind. The history of the people of God becomes a history of human deceit and error in the hands of those who obliterated every trace of God from it. To discover this and to set it forth was for a long time a principal object. The first copious work is that by E. Lor. Bauer, Manual of the History of the Hebrew Nation from its Origin to the Destruction of the State, Nurnberg 1800, 1804, 2 vols. 8vo, incomplete, continued only to the time of the Babylonish exile. The chief strength of the author consists in the natural explanation of miracles; he does not even make use of the most common sources and aids. De Wette, in the sketch of Jewish history in his Compendium of Hebrew-Jewish Achaeology, is too brief to do anything but set forth the view of the author and of those who agree with him respecting Hebrew history. The estimate to be put upon Leo’s Lectures on Jewish History may be inferred from the circumstance that he makes it the principal aim of his undertaking to show from the example of the Hebrews what a people should not be. The author himself afterwards retracted his opinions, in the first volume of his History of the World. Ewald’s work, History of the People of Israel, 3 vols., also belongs essentially to the rationalistic standpoint, notwithstanding all its high modes of speech. For here too the history of the people of Israel is treated throughout as a purely natural process of development. The book is out and out anthropocentric. This mode of treatment reaches its climax in the History of Christ, which appeared in the year 1854, nominally as the fourth volume of the History of Israel. Here Ewald himself states that it is one of his main objects to prove there was nothing in Christ which any one may not now attain. Where he differs from De Wette and his followers is in this, that while the latter confine themselves to destruction, Ewald always attempts to build up something new in the place of what has been destroyed. Many of his performances in this respect are however mere castles in the air; he is deficient not only in the mind for sacred history, but also in the historic sense generally. This is evident from the one circumstance that he regards Manetho as a historical source co-ordinate with the biblical writings. Here even more than in his later writings the author is in bondage to his subjectivity, so that he can no longer see simple things as they really are, but is constrained to make history. To this he adds tiresome length and prolixity. The gain which the book brings is limited to the impulse it affords, no small merit certainly; and to single correct apprehensions, luminous rays, which are not wanting in any of the works of Ewald, although they appear but rarely in his earliest writings. On account of these luminous points we cannot overlook his work. Thus rationalism has not contributed any important direct advance in Old Testament history. Indirectly, however, rationalism has exercised a salutary influence on the history of the Old Testament. This may be clearly seen in the works of the Old Testament historians who continued to believe in revelation after the rise of rationalism. They happily avoid those errors which had been censured in authors of the first period. Doctrinal embarrassment has in a great measure ceased. The power of transferring themselves into antiquity is greatly increased. Careful consideration is bestowed on the gradual development of the divine institutions of salvation. On the other hand, we cannot fail to recognise the injurious influence of rationalism on many works of this period. From fear of giving offence—partly, too, from weakness of faith—some have attempted either by forced explanations entirely to do away with single miracles of the Old Testament, or at least to make very little of them. Thus an inconsistency appears, of which their opponents at once take advantage; comp., for example, the observations which Strauss makes on Steudel in the 1st Heft of the Streitschriften. Fearing lest they should go too far, or perhaps depending on the inquiry conducted by unbelief, they sometimes extinguish the light of the Old Testament when it is actually luminous; they strive unceasingly to forget all they have learnt from the New Testament, and to go back completely to the standpoint of those who lived under the Old Testament; they suffer themselves to be guided too much by apologetic attempts; and try to establish the plan of the divine institutions of salvation too surely and specially, in order by this means, by allowing nothing which is incomprehensible and inexplicable to stand, by pointing out an aim and meaning in everything, by proving the reference of each to the whole—to compel, as it were, their opponents to the acknowledgment of the divine elements in Old Testament history, a proceeding which could only attain its object if human nature were constituted otherwise than it really is. The most important works of this class are the following:—History of the Israelites before the time of Jesus, Zurich 1776-1788, 12 vols. 8vo, by Joh. Jac. Hess, with which we may connect the Doctrine of the Kingdom of God, 2 vols., by the same author; and Kern’s Doctrine of the Kingdom of God, in which latter work, that appeared in the year 1814, we have the author’s performances in mice and in their greatest ripeness. These have throughout a groundwork of learned research; although the author rather conceals than displays it. In respect of learning, however, they bear only a secondary character; and in the years which have passed since the appearance of the principal work, the study of history has received so great an impulse from the discovery of new sources, from the development of historical criticism, and from enlargement of the intellectual horizon, that in this respect they no longer suffice. We are somewhat shocked also by the wide and extended view they take, and to which we are not accustomed. Our time demands much in a small compass. The author gives himself too much trouble in elucidating the plan of God for the salvation of mankind. He often sacrifices depth to clearness. He grasps the idea of the divine condescension somewhat roughly at times—too much after the manner of Spencer. (J. Spencer wrote a work entitled De Legibus Hebraeorum Ritualibus, first published in 1686, in which he sought to derive the Old Testament ceremonial law from an accommodation of God to the heathenizing tendencies of the people: ineptioe tolerabiles.) Hess does not make it sufficiently clear that it is God who condescends; and suggests that perhaps the Israelites merely drew Him down to them in their thoughts, as in the account which the author gives of Israelitish worship;—indeed, his whole view of the theocracy has a mixture of bad anthropomorphism; and if it had been conformable to Scripture, it would have thrown doubt on the divine origin of this institution. The tendency of the author, moreover, is too purely historical; he is less able to comprehend the doctrinal contents of the Old Testament. Yet all this does not prevent his work from belonging to the most important which have been written on the history of the Old Testament; and the author’s standpoint appears the more worthy of honour, the more we take into consideration the time in which and for which he wrote. The book has exercised a very considerable influence. Many have been preserved by it in a time of apostasy; or have been led back into the right way. In Count Stolberg’s well-known History of the Religion of Jesus Christ, the first four volumes treat of the history of the creation of the world till the birth of Christ. We find scarcely a trace of the influence of rationalism in this work. It is lively and suggestive, only written in somewhat too pretentious language, with spirit and with deep piety. Sometimes, however, the author introduces the dogmas of his church; and, from a learned point of view, the work has very important defects, or, more correctly speaking, is almost without excellence. Ignorant of the Hebrew language, the author, in his exposition of the Old Testament, has almost throughout been obliged to follow absolutely the somewhat antiquated and rather shallow works of the French Benedictine, Calmet; a cognate spirit to Grotius and Le Clerc. The mistakes of the works of the first period, especially the mingling of the later with the earlier, here return; the author has made pretty extensive use of foreign sources and aids for Hebrew history, especially for the history of false religions, which he has copiously treated, but has used them in a manner which is truly Roman Catholic, without criticism or sifting, and with too ready an acceptance of that which serves his aim. This is exemplified in the supplements to his first volume, On the Sources of Eastern Tradition, and Traces of Earlier Tradition respecting the Mysteries of the Religion of Jesus Christ. Here we altogether lose sight of the former Protestant; while his ever-recurring subjectivity is manifestly a beautiful dowry he has taken with him from the Evangelical Church. For the clergyman who knows how to test it, the book remains still useful in many respects. Zahn’s work. On the Kingdom of God, is also worthy of notice. It was published in Dresden in 1830, and afterwards in a second and third edition, but remained almost unchanged. The first volume embraces the Old Testament; the second, the history of Christ; the third proposes to give the history of the Christian Church. In a scientific point of view it is only second-rate; in separate learned researches the author mostly follows either an earlier or a later guide. But the style is lively, vigorous, and full of spirit; the author has made suitable choice of a considerable number of excellent passages on Old Testament history from Christian authors of every century; everywhere we find firmness of faith without doctrinal embarrassment. Yet the book is very unequally worked out, and becomes more and more meagre as the author proceeds. Kurtz’s Compendium of Biblical History found acceptance among many; and though properly designed only for the highest class of schools, it presents a diligent and comprehensive use of existing helps. Of the larger work by the same author only two volumes have yet appeared, containing the time of the Pentateuch. The author has amassed materials with great diligence; and in many respects his work promises to be for our time what Buddeus’s was for his. There is a want, however, of thorough research and sharp criticism; especially of a simple historical sense. The author too frequently gives himself up without investigation to the influence of the work of v. Hofmann, Prophecy and Fulfilment, which, with a spiritual tendency, is excellently adapted to give suggestions, but against the results of which we must be on our guard; for in many cases they are not the product of a genuine historical view, but rather of history-making. He also adheres too closely to Baumgarten’s Commentary on the Pentateuch, a work which contains much that is immature and fantastic; and fails to control Delitzsch’s Commentary on Genesis with sufficient sharpness. It is a lamentable phenomenon that the simple and the natural are so little apprehended. In this respect many an ecclesiastically-minded author might have learned even from a Gesenius. The principiis obsta holds good here; for whoever once enters on this course can hardly leave it again. It is of special importance, therefore, to begin betimes to walk in the footsteps of men who, like the Reformers, Job. Gerhard, Bengel, and Vitringa, are fundamentally opposed to such far-fetched spiritual subtleties, and whose aim it was, not to say something new but true. The History of the Old Testament, Leipzig 1863, by Hasse, who died in the year 1862, Professor of Theology in Bonn, is an excellent little book. It is written in a truly historic sense, in clear and simple language, and is well adapted to furnish a preliminary survey. The performances of recent times are also of some importance for the religious history of the Old Testament, especially Steudel’s Lectures on the Theology of the Old Testament, edited by Oelder, Berlin 1840, which, as a whole, belongs too exclusively to a transition period, and to the supranaturalistic standpoint, to be able to afford much satisfaction, but has in detail much that is able; and the Symbolik des Mosaischen Cultus, by Bähr, Heidelberg 1837, 1839, to which, however often we may differ from the author, we cannot deny the great merit of having given a powerful impulse to the weighty subject, and of having introduced it once more into the circle of theological treatises. Hävernick Lectures on the Theology of the Old Testament, published after the author’s death, have little depth; but are well calculated to afford the first survey. V. Hofmann’s Schriftbeweis is only for the more advanced and mature; the thorough and able examination of Kliefoth serves to correct him in his numerous aberrations. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 2: 02. FIRST PERIOD: FROM ABRAHAM TO MOSES ======================================================================== First Period: From Abraham to Moses ======================================================================== CHAPTER 3: 03. § 1. THE CONDITION OF THE HUMAN RACE AT THE TIME OF ABRAHAM’S CALL ======================================================================== § 1. The Condition of the Human Race at the Time of Abraham’s Call 1. In a Political Aspect. AFTER the flood the population increased with rapid strides. The long duration of life, a powerful constitution, and the ease with which all the necessities of life could be procured, all tended to promote an increase much more rapid than what was common to later times. The population of the earth, according to Genesis 11, first proceeded from Shinar or Babylonia, the most southern part of the region between the Euphrates and the Tigris, beyond Mesopotamia, a plain with rich soil, the most fruitful land of interior Asia. Thither the descendants of Noah repaired after the flood, and there they dwelt, still connected by community of tongue and unity of mind, until with the latter the former also gradually disappeared, and everything was dispersed on every side. With respect to the manner of life of the first race of men, a hypothesis has frequently been suggested that men without exception passed through the various stages of uncivilised life until they arrived at agriculture. But this hypothesis, which rests on no historical basis, is contradicted by history. According to the account given in Genesis, agriculture is as old and original as the pastoral life; and if it existed before the flood, it is impossible to see how the descendants of these shepherds should have been obliged to rise to it again step by step. Of Noah it is expressly stated that he devoted himself to agriculture, and especially to the cultivation of the vine. And, moreover, in the countries of Asia and Africa, where agriculture was exceptionally flourishing, especially in Egypt and Babylonia, we are altogether unable to trace its origin. “So far as history and tradition reach,” says Schlosser in his General Historic Survey of the History of the Ancient World, part i. p. 39, “we find those kinds of grass which have been improved by culture already cultivated as kinds of grain; and their wild state, as well as their proper home, can only be matter of conjecture,” which is also the case with the original species and home of the domestic animals. The zoologist, A. Wagner, in his History of the Primitive World, has shown that we are acquainted with no wild stock of all our domestic animals, especially of the cow, the sheep, the goat, the horse, the camel, and the dog; but at most only with individuals who have become wild. He proves also that the time of their introduction into the domestic state cannot be determined; and that a new stock has not been added to the old in the course of time. “The help of those domestic animals,” he remarks, “without which a higher state of cultivation cannot exist, seems therefore not to have been devised and attained by man, but rather to have been originally given to him.” The botanist, Zuccarini, remarks, “In answer to the question, ‘What man reaped the first harvest?’ we have no tradition to which any probability attaches, no monument; but still, so far as we know, no blade growing wild.” According to this, therefore, there was from the beginning not a succession but a co-existence of the various modes of life. In the case of each individual race and people, the choice was partly determined by its character, which was to a great extent moulded by the individuality of its ancestors (we have remarkable examples of this in Ishmael and Esau); but still more strongly and permanently by the nature of the residence allotted to each. A land, such as Egypt for example, where the whole natural condition was an incentive to agriculture, which so richly rewarded a little labour, must by degrees have led its inhabitants to this pursuit, even if in accordance with their disposition they had originally more inclination for some other mode of life. The great wastes of Mesopotamia would have compelled a race, which had by any circumstance been led to immigrate thither, to embrace a nomadic life, even if it had formerly been given to agriculture. Districts like those at Astaboras in Ethiopia make agriculture and cattle-rearing so impracticable, that for thousands of years their inhabitants have remained hunters, without having made the least step towards a higher civilisation, although surrounded by cultivated nations. And just as the mode of life adopted by races and peoples was dependent on the character of the soil and the climate; so these, in conjunction with the manner of life and ethical development, gave rise to great diversities among the nations of the earth, so great that many have been led by observation, in contradiction to the Old and New Testament Scriptures, to deny the descent from one human pair, and to maintain an essential difference of races. This hypothesis is contradicted by the fact, not to mention other reasons, that among those nations whose descent from one and the same stock cannot be denied, there are almost as great differences as among those to which different stems have been assigned. This. is the case especially among the African peoples. Nowhere is the influence of climate and manner of life more perceptible than among them. “The inhabitants of the northern coast,” says Heeren, “in complexion and form differ very little from Europeans. The difference appears to become more and more marked the nearer we approach the equator; the colour becomes darker; the hair more like wool; the profile shows striking differences; finally the man becomes completely a negro. Again, on the other side of the equator, this form appears to be lost amid just as many varieties; the Kaffirs and Hottentots have much in common with the negroes, but without being completely negroes.” We must consider further, that the influence of climatic and other conditions is still retained among those who settle in other latitudes in modern times, where the peculiarities are much more strongly defined than in the softer and more pliant primitive times, and which therefore possess a much stronger power of resistance. Bishop Heber speaks thus of the Persians, Tartars, and Turks who had penetrated into Hindoostan, part i. p. 217 of the translation of his Life, “It is remarkable how all these people after a few generations, even without intermixing with the Hindoos, acquire the deep olive tint almost like a negro, which therefore seems peculiar to the climate. The Portuguese intermarry only among themselves; or, if they can, with Europeans; but these very Portuguese have become as black after the lapse of three centuries’ residence in Africa as the Kaffirs. If the heat has power to originate a difference, it is possible that other peculiarities of the climate may give rise to other differences; and allowing these to have operated from three to four thousand years, it becomes very difficult to determine the limits of their efficacy.” Finally, we must take into consideration the analogy of the changes in the animal world in various localities. “All national varieties,” says Blumenbach, “in the form and complexion of the human body are in no wise more striking or more incomprehensible than those into which so many other species of organized bodies, especially among domestic animals, degenerate under our eyes.” P. Wagner, a successor of Blumenbach, gives expression to the same sentiment in his work Menschenchōpfung und Seelensubstanz, p. 17, which appeared in Gottingen in 1854: “The possibility of descent from one pair cannot be scientifically contested in accordance with physiological principles. In separate colonized countries we see among men and beasts peculiarities arise and become permanent, which reminds us, though remotely, of the formation of races.” Compare the ample refutation of the hypothesis of a number of primitive men in the first volume of Humboldt’s Kosmos; in K. Wagner’s Anthropologie, 2d vol., Kempten 1834, p. 102 et seq.; in Tholuck’s Essay, Was ist das Resultat der Wissenschaft in Bezug auf die Urwelt, verm. Schriften, Th. 2, p. 239 et seq.; and in the second part of A. Wagner’s Urgeschichte der Erde; also in a work by Schultz, Die Schöpfungsgeschichte, Gotha 1865. All these, together with others, draw attention to the fact that there are black Jews in Asia; that the negroes of the United States in the course of a hundred and fifty years have travelled over a good quarter of the distance which separates them from the white men; that America has changed the Anglo-Saxon type, and from the English race has derived a new white race, which may be called the Yankee race; that the Arabs in Nubia have become perfectly black; and that when we hear a Dyak who has been rescued from barbarism, or a poor Hottentot maiden speak gratefully of that which Jesus has done for them, we are unable to divest ourselves of the feeling that here is flesh of our flesh. Lange, in his Dogm. ii. p. 332 et seq., shows that diversities are not however to be attributed to climatic influences alone. We must not overlook the fact that the germs of the various types of the human race must have been in existence from the beginning; and that climatic influences and a different mode of education have only developed these germs. Ungewitter, in his Introduction to the Geography of Australia, which appeared in the year 1853, makes some striking observations on the influence of a different moral developm.ent. And the greater or less culture of the people was closely connected with their mode of life. Culture was already considerably advanced before the flood. Judging from what revelation tells us of the condition of the first man, it could not be otherwise. Among those nations who, by the character of their lands, were led to agriculture and commerce, the original culture was not only retained, but continued to advance; so it was, for example, in Egypt and Phoenicia. Among the hunting and shepherd peoples, on the contrary, original culture must soon have been lost had it not been that, as Abraham’s stock, they had a special capacity for civilisation, and dwelt in the midst of agricultural nations; otherwise they must have fallen back into complete barbarism. The perception of this has led many to adopt the hypothesis already refuted, viz. that the original condition of humanity has in general been one closely resembling that of the animals. There are numerous arguments subversive of this view. We shall only quote here what Link says in his Urwelt und das Alterthum. 2d ed. part i. p. 346: “It is a remarkable phenomenon that neither in antiquity nor in modern times has any nation been found which, according to credible witnesses, does not possess the knowledge of fire, and of the means of producing it, although many nations are now known whose ability to discover fire we may reasonably question. It is highly probable therefore that all nations sprang from one stem, and that savage nations have fallen, if not from a high, at least from a higher cultivation. In some cases we are able to prove certainly that wildness is only degeneracy. Among American savages the language has been found to resemble that of the Japanese in many points; and therefore it has been supposed that they are descended from shipwrecked Japanese. Among this race culture must have been very readily lost; for they are altogether unproductive, only imitative. Whoever stepped out of the intercourse of nations lost his prototypes, and at the same time his position. Aristotle calls man a ζῶον πολιτικὸν. The formation of states is not the work of man.” “An incessant impulse,” says Leo, “is at work in man, a magnetic cord draws him to the formation of such communities; he is created for them, and therefore these communities themselves are a part of the human creation; they have not been invented by man, but were born with him. The beginning of civil government was various among the various nations. It has at least a double origin. That which in a good sense was conformable to nature, was the development of civil government out of the family. The head of the family by the increase of the family becomes head of the race; his government, which passes on from him to his eldest son, and reaches beyond the family circle to his household, and to those who have repaired to him for protection, forms an analogy to the paternal sway.” We have an example of this kind of government in the history of the patriarchs; and also in the glimpses of the history of the Edomites given in Genesis 36. But an actual state is formed only in those kingdoms where there is not only a natural factor, but also a moral one; where a moral idea forms the centre of a natural union of peoples. This alone can permanently preserve a nation from decay. This alone can supply true religion in its most perfect sense. It was by the apprehension of this that Israel first attained to the full dignity of a nation; which it could never have gained by mere carnal descent from Abraham. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were not only its carnal, but also its spiritual ancestors, whose work was continued by Moses. Under him they first adopted those high truths which became the centre of national life. The heathen nations are, in Deuteronomy 32, said to be not a people, because they did not possess this animating principle. Even among Israel, those only were regarded as true members of the nation who participated in this spirit; of the rest it is said in the law, that soul shall be rooted out from the nation; and John says in the Apocalypse of the great mass of the nations who assumed the name of Jews, “They say they are Jews, and are not.” So Paul in Romans 2:28-29. Whoever in this spirit attached himself to the community of nations was looked upon as a true member of it, though he might not possess the sign of actual descent. We find another form of government exemplified in the history of Nimrod. It has its origin in power; and rests upon the so-called right of the stronger, which, when combined with the passion for possession and dominion, raises the possessor to the rule over those who have not enough strength and energy to oppose his usurpation; and therefore destroys the natural form of government, or only suffers it to exist in a subordinate relation, which is usual in the ancient East. After these observations it is incumbent on us to treat of the separate nations which were already in existence at the time when Abraham appeared, and came into contact with him or his posterity. How necessary this sketch is for understanding all subsequent history is self-evident; and we have also the example of Moses, who, before passing on to the history of Abraham, gives a genealogic-historical survey of the national ancestry, with special reference to their connection with the history of the chosen people. We begin here with the country which we have already termed the second cradle of the human race, as that from which the dispersion of men after the flood over the whole earth went forth, viz. the territory of Babylonia, so important for the later history of the East generally, and for that of the Israelites in particular. Here was the site of the city Babylon, which did not attain that greatness which its ruins now attest till many centuries later,—in the time of the Chaldaic supremacy, and especially under Nebuchadnezzar. It was overthrown by the combined strength of the tribes who united for this undertaking, forming a kind of confederate state. Not long afterwards other towns, also worthy of mention, were founded. It was here that in all probability, soon after the dispersion of the races, one of those who had remained, a member of the Hamitic tribe of the Cushites, founded a despotic government. He undertook a conquering foray from a distant land; and after-time, in accordance with the Oriental custom, gave him from the beginning the name of Nimrod, rebel, viz. against the order of God,—נִמְרֹד signifies properly, “we will rebel:” he himself made use of these insolent words; they were his motto, and therefore well adapted for his proper name. Besides Babylon, Nimrod took other towns in the district of Shinar. But not content with this extension of his kingdom, he undertook a campaign from Babylon into the neighbouring district of Assyria, situated on the other side of the Tigris, the country east of the Tigris (between Susiana and Elymais, Media and Armenia). The Genesis 10:11 th verse is not to be translated as Michaelis and others have it, “Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh,” etc.; but, “From this land he went out towards Asshur, and builded Nineveh, Rehoboth, Ur, Calah, and the greatest among all, Resen, between Nineveh and Calah,” as may be seen from this fact, among others, viz. that in the former verse the cities of Babylonia are said to be the beginning of the kingdom of Nimrod; and also because Assyria is by Micah called the land of Nimrod; and moreover the mention of a march of the Shemite Asshur would be out of place here, where Moses is occupied with the descendants of Ham. In all probability the steppe-land of Assyria was at that time already in the possession of the Semitic, nomad tribe of Asshur. After having conquered it, Nimrod founded several cities with the view of establishing his supremacy; for a supremacy over nomads cannot be otherwise than fluctuating and evanescent. Layard and others have put forward the opinion that the towns named formed separate parts of a great city, parts of Nineveh in a wide sense. Moreover, among the Arabs and Persians, Nimrod is the subject of ancient and widely-spread traditions; he bears among them the name of the scoffer and the godless (comp. the collections of Herbelot, Bibl. Oriental, s. v. Dahak, and in Michaelis, Supplem. p. 1321). Yet these traditions are not a branch of ancient tradition independent of the Hebrew, but only embellishment of what had passed over from the Jews to the other nations of the East. Far more importance is due to the confirmation which this account of a Hamitic colony receives from the many traces which have been discovered of a connection between Hamitic Egypt and Babylonia in religion and culture; comp. Leo, p. 165. The kingdom of Nimrod was not of long duration; already in Abraham’s time it had quite lost its importance. This appears from the narrative of the battles of the kings of Interior Asia against the kings in the plain of Siddim. It is true that here also we have mention of Amraphel, king of Shinar. But in Genesis 14:4-5 Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, appears as the originator of the whole expedition, to whom Amraphel and the other kings stood in a subordinate relation. Elam was the Elymais of the Greeks and Romans, and was bordered by Persia on the east, on the west by Babylonia, on the north by Media, and on the south by the Persian Gulf. This kingdom seems to have been the most powerful in Interior Asia at the time of Abraham. Yet the wide difference between it and the later larger Asiatic kingdom, a result of the smallness of the population at that time spread over the earth, appears most plainly from the fact that the king, although with his allies he undertook a campaign into distant Palestine, was yet unable to withstand the comparatively weak power of Abraham and his confederates. But in the interval between Abraham and Moses an important Assyrian monarchy must have been formed. This appears from Genesis 2:14, according to which the Tigris flowed on the east of Assyria. For this presupposes that at the time of Moses an Assyrian monarchy existed, of which that part which lay on the west of the Tigris was so important that the eastern portion was as nothing compared with it. For to Assyria proper the Tigris is not east but west. In harmony with this are the native traditions of the Assyrians, which have become known to us through the medium of classical authors, the traditions of Semiramis and Ninus; at the basis of which there must, at least, be this much historical truth, that already in primitive times a powerful Assyrian kingdom was in existence. This is borne out by the testimony of Egyptian monuments; upon which we find the Assyrians, then called Schari, engaged in war with the Egyptians, even in very early times; comp. d. Bb. Moses in Æg. p. 209; Bileam, p. 2G0 et seq. Birch has recently tried to prove that the Schari are identical with the Syrians. But it is evident that this name is only of late origin, and was corrupted from Assyria after the time of the Assyrian supremacy over Aram. In the interval between Moses and the period of the Israelitish kings, the kingdom of Assyria appears again to have fallen into decay. But in the days of Uzziah it began once more to rise up victorious; and became a scourge in the hand of the Lord against His faithless people, as Balaam had already prophesied. Mesopotamia, the northern portion of the land between the Euphrates and the Tigris, bounded on the south by Babylonia and on the north by Armenia, was already in the time of Abraham, as it is still, overrun with nomadic tribes, for whom by its natural character it is specially adapted;—it is in the interior a steppe-land. Here the ancestors of Abraham settled down; hence Abraham began his wanderings; and here his kindred continued to sojourn. That the original inhabitants of Mesopotamia were the Chaldaeans is evident from the name Ur Chasdim, the present Urfa in the north of Hatra; comp. Ritter, Erdkunde, x. 3, pp. 159, 243; as also from Job 1:17, where from Mesopotamia they make an incursion into the neighbouring Uz. The Chaldseans were at home not only in Mesopotamia, but in Babylonia. They were of Semitic origin and tongue. Yet, like the Assyrians, they must have been considerably influenced by the neighbouring Indo-Persian races, as appears from the names of their kings and gods. It is a remarkable fact that the Chaldaeans are not named in the table of nations; but because Ur Chasdim had already appeared in the history of Abraham, we must expect to find them here disguised under some other name. The most probable hypothesis is that they were descended from Arphaxad, who is mentioned in Genesis 10:22, together with Elam and Asshur, among the descendants of Shem. This is the opinion of Josephus. How to interpret the prefixed אוּר is uncertain. We now pass on to that part of western South Asia which is situated on this side of the Euphrates; and since we possess no information relative to the political condition of Syria at the time of Abraham, we must pass at the same time to Palestine. This country was at that time inhabited by two different races. The principal one, of which we must speak at greater length on account of its exceptional importance in the whole history of the Old Testament, was that of the Canaanites, or according to their Greek name, the Phoenicians. And here we must first examine into the correctness of the view which has become pretty widely extended since the argument of Michaelis, and has recently been defended by Bertheau in his History of the Israelites, Gottingen 1842, and by Ewald and Kurtz, viz. that the Canaanites originally dwelt on the Persian Gulf, and only settled in Palestine at a later time. The advocates of this view appeal to two arguments: (1.) To the testimony of several ancient authors, who expressly say that the Phoenicians came from the Persian Gulf or from the Red Sea. But on nearer consideration these witnesses lose much of their value. Only Herodotus and Strabo are independent. Herodotus, who lived for a long time in Tyre, in the principal passage, chap. i. 1, designates not the Phoenicians, but the Persians, as the originators of this account. But how could this, a new nation, that is to say, one which did not awake to historical consciousness until a comparatively late period, know anything more definite respecting the origin of the Phoenicians than they themselves? and they regarded themselves as Autochthons. But these witnesses refer principally to a time to which the heathen consciousness did not extend, so that we cannot sufficiently wonder at the uncritical procedure which treats them with as much respect as if they referred to some fact in historical times. Their testimony loses still more of its value when we examine the probable sources of their accounts; and we are able to do this with the greater certainty since the authors themselves give us some information respecting these sources. In some passages Strabo expressly says that the doubtful assumption of some, that the Phoenicians originally came from the Red Sea (to which the Persian Gulf also belongs), is founded on the names of the islands Tylus and Aradus, which have been combined with the names of the cities, Tyre and Aradus. A second source quoted, both by Strabo and others, was the name Phoenicians. “It has been assumed,” says Strabo, “that they are called Phoenicians, because the sea is termed Red.” These two sources fully suffice to explain the origin of this opinion, especially as all later accounts are dependent on those of Herodotus and Strabo. (2.) Michaelis tries to prove, even from Scripture, from Genesis 12:16, Genesis 13:7, that the Canaanites were a people who only immigrated at a later time. For there it is said that the Canaanites were already in the land at the time of Abraham. But this proof is based on an evidently false interpretation of these passages: the already is introduced. We are told, merely by way of illustrating the relations of Abraham, that the land was not empty on his arrival, but was in the possession of the Canaanites, so that he was obliged to dwell there as a stranger, and could not call a foot-breadth of it his own. The opinion that the Phoenicians originally dwelt on the Red Sea has therefore no argument of any weight in its favour. On the contrary, it is at variance with the account given in Genesis, according to which the Canaanites appear as the original inhabitants of their land; no other races are mentioned as having been found there and expelled by them, as was the case with the Philistines, Idumaeans, and Moabites. Bertheau and Ewald have indeed adopted this view; but the races which they state to have been dispossessed were themselves of Canaanitish origin. It is evident from Deuteronomy 3:8, Deuteronomy 4:47, Deuteronomy 31:4, that the Rephites belonged to the Canaanites; and it is impossible to separate the race of giants who dwelt in Canaan from the Canaanites, for it was only the territory of the Canaanites which was given by God to the Israelites, and they were careful to avoid every encroachment on other boundaries. Moreover, the giants in Canaan are in Amos 2:9 (comp. with Numbers 13:32-33) expressly called Canaanites. That the Horites, whom Ewald also classes among the original nations, were Canaanites, will appear afterwards. (Compare the copious refutation of the hypothesis of Ewald and Bertheau in the treatise by Kurtz, Die Ureinwohner Paldstinas, Guerike’s Zeitschrift, 1845, 3 Heft.) In the whole table of nations, which is so exceedingly ample and accurate where the Canaanites are concerned, we find no mention whatever of original inhabitants dispossessed by the Canaanites. And further, it is related in Genesis 10:18-19, how the Canaanites spread themselves over the land as their tribes increased by degrees from a few members to considerable nationalities. This leads us to infer that they found the land empty and at their service. In Genesis 10:15 the personified Sidon is called the first-born of Canaan; therefore it has been said that Sidon was the oldest settlement of the Canaanites; and since it is one of the most northern states, this points to an emigration from Babylonia through Mesopotamia and Syria, which is rendered more probable by the analogy of Abraham’s wandering, that also took a north-easterly direction. If the immigration had been from Arabia, the southern settlements must have been the earliest. The extent of the land of Canaan is given in Genesis 10:19. It reached from Sidon to Gerar, as far as Gaza, thence to Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboim, as far as Lasha. Sidon is here termed the northern boundary, because there was at this time no Phoenician town of any importance above it, except Hamath in Syria; although the Phoenicians still occupied the narrow space between the sea and Lebanon, as far as the Syrian boundary. The south-western and southern boundary appears to have been formed by the Philistine towns Gerar and Gaza; the south-eastern limit of the land being the cities in the fruitful plain, which were afterwards covered by the Dead Sea. The eastern boundary, Lasha, is uncertain; according to Jerome, it is the later Callirrhoe on the eastern side of the Dead Sea, noted for its warm baths. The most important tribes of the Canaanites were the Amorites and the Hittites: hence the nation is often called by their name, particularly by that of the former. Ewald is mistaken in his recent attempt to maintain that the Canaanites also were originally only a single, separate, powerful branch of the nation, and that their name was afterwards transferred to the whole nation, whose real name has been lost. The only passage, Numbers 13:29, which is brought forward in favour of this assumption does not prove it. “The Amalekites dwell in the land of the south; and the Hittites, and the Jebusites, and the Amorites, dwell in the mountains; and the Canaanites dwell by the sea.” As for the dwellers beside the sea, writers have contented themselves with giving the general name of the people, either because they were ignorant of the more accurate one, or because it had no special interest at the time. At first the Israelites had intercourse only with those who dwelt in the southern range of mountains. There is just as little foundation for Ewald’s assumption that all Canaanitish nationalities were included in the four great divisions of the Amorites, Hittites, Canaanites, and Hivites. There is not a single proof that the remaining nationalities stood in a subordinate relation to these. The Canaanites were at that time an agricultural and commercial people. Commerce is first mentioned in Scripture in Genesis 49:13, in the blessing of Jacob, where it is spoken of as a privilege conferred on Zebulun, or properly on Israel; for in Zebulum is only exemplified that which belongs to the whole—he is to dwell on the shores of the sea, in the neighbourhood of Sidon, that he may have opportunity for profitable trade. But at that time commerce could only have been in its first beginning; for those great Asiatic kingdoms with which the Phoenicians were afterwards connected in so many ways were not yet in existence; most of the lands bordering on the sea were still occupied by nomads who could offer no great commercial advantage. Navigation was still in its infancy, although the situation of the Phoenician towns was so favourable to commerce by sea; and notwithstanding the excellence of the materials which their country offered for shipbuilding. At that time, and for long afterwards, Sidon was the principal city of the country. Tyre, although it had probably been founded already, is not once mentioned in the Pentateuch. It first appears in Joshua 19:29. Even in Abraham’s time we find the land far from being occupied by the number of Canaanites which it could bear. The Canaanites willingly yielded to Abraham the use of large districts. He was at liberty to traverse the whole land; and everywhere found sustenance for his flocks. We can form a pretty correct idea of the gradual growth of the population. Jacob and Esau have no longer room in the land for their flocks, which together were certainly not more numerous than those of Abraham. Esau therefore repairs to Mount Seir, afterwards Idumea. On the return of the Hebrews from Egypt the land was already almost overfilled with inhabitants. The constitution of the Canaanites was at the time of Abraham essentially the same as in later times. Compare the description of the latter by Heeren, i. 2, p. 14 et seq. The land was divided into a number of cities with their townships, of which each had an independent king. Thus, for example, we find in Genesis kings of the separate cities in the region of what was afterwards the Dead Sea; a king of Salem, afterwards Jerusalem, the dwelling-place of the Jebusites; a king of Sichem, etc. Then, as in later times, the kings sought to obviate the injurious effect of this dismemberment by mutual covenants to submit to the guidance of the most powerful. Thus the kings of the vale of Siddim united against their common enemies from Interior Asia. Then the seat of government was at Sodom; as among the Canaanites dwelling on the sea the seat of government was originally at Sidon, afterwards at Tyre. In primitive, as in late times, the power of the kings was limited. We infer this principally from the negotiations of the prince of Sichem with his subjects, in Genesis 34. Despotism was kept down by civilisation, which had early been promoted by agriculture and commerce; and we find them already considerably advanced in Genesis. It appears also, that in some cities an aristocratic or democratic constitution existed. Among the Hittites at Hebron, according to Genesis 23, the highest power seems to have rested with an assembly of the people. In later time we find a similar constitution in the city of Gibeon, comp. Joshua 9. Their elders and kings decided everything. And in the list of Canaanitish kings conquered by Joshua, Joshua 12, there is no mention of a king of Gibeon. The influence of the priesthood, which was afterwards so powerful, seems not yet to have been in existence, if we may judge from the history of Melchizedek and from the complete silence respecting the priesthood elsewhere. Among the Canaanites it existed from the beginning in a corrupt root of sin. They were a reprobate people. This appears from Genesis 9:25, where, on account of the sin of Ham, Canaan his son is cursed, for no other reason than because of the foreknowledge that Ham’s sin would be perpetuated, especially in Canaan and his race. Already, in Abraham’s time, the day was at hand when the iniquity of the Amorites should be full. Genesis 15:16; when it should have reached the highest point which infallibly draws down avenging justice. This deep corruption of the Canaanites, to which testimony is borne by classical writers, forms one of the presuppositions in favour of the decrees of God with respect to the guidance of His people. Ezekiel, in Ezekiel 28, foretells that the spirit of commerce would overgrow all nobler feelings, and thus become a snare to them. And it is observable that the Canaanites, although of Hamitic origin, must in early times have been in close contact with Semitic races. We are led to this conclusion by the fact that their language belongs to the Semitic stock; but the inference that the Canaanites must therefore necessarily have been a branch of the Semitic stock has been arrived at too hastily. And yet the circumstance cannot be explained, as some old authors have attempted, by the fact that the Canaanites adopted their language from the patriarchs. We are so little acquainted with the associations of races in the primitive world, where the small number of members made it so easy for language to pass from one to the other, that mere community of language has not power to destroy the weight of express reiterated testimony, contained in a document whose credibility has proved itself even to those who are accustomed to regard it only as human testimony. We have, moreover, on our side the analogy of the very important Semitic element in the language of the Egyptians, which also can only have been derived from close intercourse with Semitic races in primitive times. But analogies lead us still further. Leo, p. 109, points out that in the lapse of time almost all the Hamites have lost their language; and it is certain that they have all been supplanted by Semitic dialects, as Arabic is now the prevailing language in Egypt. He attributes this to the circumstance that among the Hamitic nations there was a special inclination towards the external side of life,—thus, in the Old Testament, Canaanite and merchant are convertible terms,—and for this reason a want of attraction towards the inner, deeper sides of spiritual life. Among such nations language is something extraneous, which is readily relinquished. “If we knew the Semitic dialect of Canaan better,” Leo goes on to say, “we should be sure to find in its character evidences of the presence of Hamitic modes of thought, and should find it to be a kind of low Hebrew.” From the Canaanites we pass on to their neighbours the Philistines, the inhabitants of the southern coast of Palestine, reaching from Egypt to Ekron, almost opposite Jerusalem. From the statement of Genesis, that the territory of the Canaanites extended as far as Gaza, we are not at liberty to infer that the stretch of coast from Gaza to Ekron was not taken from the Canaanites by the Philistines until a later time. The Canaanitish territory really extended as far south as Gaza, but did not quite reach to the sea. The author says this almost expressly; for before Gaza he mentions Gerar as the eastern limit of the Canaanitish territory. And this very Gerar is spoken of in Genesis as the most important place, and the seat of a Philistine king, in whose dominions the patriarchs sometimes took up their abode, using for pasturage the land which was not set apart for agriculture, to which the Philistines as well as the Canaanites were addicted. Afterwards, however, the city seems to have lost its importance. In late history, already in Joshua 13:3, we find other cities named as the Philistine centres, viz. Gaza, Ashdod, Ekron, Askalon, and Gath, the seats of the five kings of the Philistines; while Genesis mentions but one king of the whole race. This change must be attributed to the increase of trade, by which means Gerar, so far distant from the sea, must have been pushed into the background. The Philistines were not, like the Canaanites, a nation who had already dwelt in the land from the time of their ancestors. This is indicated by their name, which, not without probability, has been derived from פלש, to wander, which still exists in Ethiopic. But it has been wrongly asserted that this interpretation was already followed by the Alexandrians, who in many passages, like the apocryphal writers, render the name of the Philistines by Ἀλλόφυλοι. Ἀλλόφυλοι, properly a designation of the heathen generally, is equivalent to “non-Israelite,” just as the Catholics speak of non-Catholics; and is in these passages only applied to the Philistines in particular. But all doubt is excluded by the fact, that in many passages of the Old Testament the Philistines are expressly termed a people who had immigrated. With respect to the place where they originally dwelt, there seems to be some variation between the Scripture accounts. In Genesis 10:14 they are called a colony of the Casluhim, who were descended from the Egyptians; while in other passages they are termed a colony of the Caphtorim, who were also of Egyptian descent, and arc mentioned in the genealogical table in close connection with the Casluhim. But this apparent contradiction may be removed by assuming that the Philistines were a common colony of the two races which were closely related, and, like several of the Canaanitish races, were probably not very distinctly separated, so that they had grown almost to one people. But the chief point now is, to determine the dwelling-place of the Casluhim and Caphtorim. There can scarcely be a doubt that the Casluhim are the Colchians, the inhabitants of the south-eastern coast of the Black Sea. In favour of this view we have not only the almost complete identity of name, but also the fact that according to classical writers the Colchians were a colony of the Egyptians. Herodotus says, ii. 104, “It is evident that the Colchians arc Egyptians;” and in proof of this he draws attention to their black colour and their woolly hair, also to the fact that they practised circumcision, which certainly did not pass over to the Philistines; and that they manufactured linen cloth in the same way, and have a similar mode of life and language. Diodorus and Strabo speak in the same tone; and Ammianus Marcellinus calls the Colchians, Ægyptiorum antiquam sobolem (comp. these and other passages in Bochart, lib. iv. c. 31). If we come to this decision respecting the abode of the Casluhim, there can be little difficulty in choosing among the various opinions concerning the Caphtorim. The respective views of those who regard Caphtor as Crete, and those who regard it as Cyprus, appear untenable, even apart from the fact that they have no adequate foundation; because they separate the Caphtorim and Casluhim. Cyprus appears in the Old Testament under another name, Kittim. The only argument which has any apparent value, and which has lately been brought forward by Bertheau and Ewald in favour of Crete, is that the Philistines were called כְּרֵתִים in 1 Samuel 30:14, Ezekiel 25:16, and Zephaniah 2:5; but this is set aside by the remark that כְּרֵתִים from כָּרַת exscindere, exules, extorres, was a second name of the Philistines, and had almost the same meaning as that which was current (comp, Strauss on Zeph. i. c). In any case this argument is not strong enough to outweigh the counter arguments. On the other hand, the view which has been defended by Bochart with so much talent proves itself the only tenable one. According to it, Caphtor is Cappadocia, which borders immediately on Colchis. In opposition to this we cannot object, with some, that כפתור is in Jeremiah 47:4 called אי; for this word signifies not merely island, but also coastland. But Cappadocia bordered on the Black Sea. A part of it was called the Pontian Cappadocia. Hitzig, in his Urgeschichte der Philistäer, Leipzig 1845, p. 15, objects that Cappadocia was not properly a coastland; but overlooks the fact that it is here specially considered as such. It was as a coastland that Cappadocia sent out the colony. The other objection made by Michaelis, chap. i. p. 301, viz. that Cappadocia was too far distant from Egypt, can prove nothing; for according to the unanimous testimony of the ancients, Colchis, which was still farther distant, was an Egyptian colony. Again, it is said to be improbable that the Caphtorim should have founded a colony in so distant a land as Palestine. But this difficulty is obviated by the following remark. Some of the Casluhim and Caphtorim, after having been induced to emigrate to the borders of the Black Sea, perhaps by the ancient far-spread fame of that territory, which according to Strabo was the occasion of many expeditions, even in the mythical age of the Greeks, came to the resolution to retrace their steps, probably because their hopes were not altogether realized, or because they were seized with a desire to return to their native land. Accordingly they set out, and really penetrated to the boundaries of their own land; but there finding a pleasant abode, they gave up their original intention and remained. In favour of the view that Caphtor was the Pontian Cappadocia, we have also the unanimous and independent testimony of the ancients, particularly of the Alexandrian translation, of the Chaldee paraphrases, and of the Syriac version. At what time the immigration of the Philistines to their land took place cannot be accurately determined. Yet in no case do we seem to be able to go far beyond the time of Abraham. For according to Deuteronomy 2:23, another nation, the Avites, possessed the land before them, whom they expelled. These Avites, who, according to Joshua 13:3, appear to have existed as a remnant, and afterwards in a state of bondage to the Philistines, were probably of Canaanitish origin. To this assumption we are led by the analogy of the original inhabitants in the trans-Jordanic country and in Idumea, as well as by the want of any trace of other than Canaanitish original inhabitants in the whole region; also by the circumstance that the Israelites, who were everywhere directed only to the territory of the Canaanites, laid claim also to the Philistine region, comp. Joshua 13:2-3; although not with the same determination with which they appropriated the remaining Canaanitish territory. Ewald’s assumption, that the immigration of the Philistines first took place in the time of the Judges, is singular. Hitzig, p. 146, observes against it, that the book of Genesis would not have recognised already in Abraham’s time a Philistine kingdom in Gerar, if there had not been a tradition that long before Israel became a nation the Philistines were settled on this coast. Unsuspicious in itself, this tradition has been brought to us uncontradicted by its natural opponents, for it could not possibly be agreeable to the Israelites, because it established an older nobility and an older title of the Philistines. That the Philistines were already dwelling in the land when Israel immigrated, is asserted or presupposed in many passages of the Old Testament, while the contrary is never stated. We could only be induced to give up the unanimous testimony of later and earlier sources by arguments of greater weight, and these do not exist. The only argument on which Ewald bases his hypothesis, viz. the strong muster of the Philistines in the second half of the period of the Judges, cannot even serve to legitimize the hypothesis of Hitzig, that at that time the Philistines had received a new influx from Caphtor. It is satisfactorily explained by the inner breaking up and dispersion of Israel. The language of the Philistines, like that of the Egyptians, had a strong Semitic element: this is shown in words, such as Abimelech, Dagon, Beelzebub, Phicol—the Mouth of All, as the name of the highest servant of the king, who laid before him the wishes of his subjects. On the other hand, there are words for which it would be difficult to find a Semitic etymology,—for example, the names of the cities Ashdod and Askalon, the סֶרֶן as the name of the Philistine princes. To what stem this non-Semitic element belongs has not yet been satisfactorily determined; Hitzig’s hypotheses run wild here. The preponderance of the Semitic element, which he vainly disputes, is the more easily explained, since the original inhabitants of the land and its environs spoke the Semitic language. Moreover we learn from the accounts in Gen. 20:26, that the Philistines had already at the time of the patriarchs attained to no inconsiderable degree of culture and civilisation. On the southern border of the Philistines and Canaanites, towards Arabia, began the territory of the Amalekites. These also, according to the prevalent view, had already occupied their dwellings at the time when Abraham began his wandering towards Palestine. But this view is incorrect; and strictly speaking the Amalekites do not belong here. They were descendants of Esau; and therefore in reality only a single division of the Idumeans, who had nevertheless attained to a certain national independence, as appears from the fact that in the time of Moses they made war with the Israelites on their own account. That the Amalekites were an offshoot of the Edomites is evident from Genesis 36:12-16, where Amalek appears as the grandson of Esau. That he is the ancestor of the Amalekites is evident not only from the similarity of name, but also from the similarity of the dwelling-place; and especially from the improbability that a nation which already in the Mosaic time came into such important relations with the Israelites should be ἀγενεαλογήτος. The arguments which have been brought forward in opposition to this view disappear on nearer consideration. (1.) In Numbers 24:20 the Amalekites are termed “the oldest of the nations.” But Amalek is here only called the beginning of the nations, the chiefest among them, the mightiest of the nations who were at that time hostile to Israel. This interpretation is favoured first by the passage, Amos 6:1, where Israel is designated with respect to age nothing less than the chief of the nations, רֵא‍‍שִׁיתהַגּוֹיִם; a passage the more important the more clearly it refers back to the place in the book of Numbers, so that it must be regarded as the oldest commentary upon it. Again, the fact that the passage in Numbers 24:7, where a preference of Israel to the heathen is supposed to be indicated, says that their king will at some future time be more exalted than Agag, the nom. dign. of the Amalekite kings, can only be explained on the assumption that among all the neighbouring heathen nations Amalek was the mightiest, so that superiority over Amalek meant superiority over all the heathen. And that very quality of Amalek which is there predicted is distinctly set forth by the רֵא‍‍שִׁיתהַגּוֹיִם as soon as we explain the passage to mean “the chiefest of the nations.”—(2.) “The Amalekites already appear in Genesis 14:7.” Yet it is not said there the Amalekites were smitten; but, the plains of the Amalekites, that is, the plains where the Amalekites afterwards dwelt. And because elsewhere the people themselves are always named, the passage rather proves that the Amalekites were not yet in existence.—(3.) The different position of the Israelites with respect to the Idumeans and the Amalekites. But this may be explained by the different position which these nations had assumed towards the Israelites. The hatred of Edom towards Israel ripened more rapidly among them than among his other descendants; and hence the Israelitish reaction against them took place sooner. The belief that the Amalekites are of like origin with the Canaanites owes its prevalence in a great measure to the authority of Michaelis. The advocates of this theory proceed on the assumption that the Canaanites came originally from Arabia, and maintain that that portion of the race which repaired to Palestine bore the name of Canaanites, while those who remained in Arabia were called Amalekites. (Comp. also Gesenius in the Encyclop. of Ersch and Gruber, part iii. p. 301.) But this view has already been shown to be highly improbable in the refutations of the hypothesis of the original Arabic dwellings of the Canaanites. It has not a single passage of the Old Testament in its favour; nowhere is a relation of the Amalekites to the Canaanites even hinted; and the relationship of the Amalekites to the Edomites, which has already been proved, is decisive against it. It rests solely on the testimony of comparatively late Arabic writers, whose little weight may be inferred from the circumstance that they represent the Philistines also as of the same race as the Canaanites. The Amalekites everywhere appear as a wild, warlike, plundering, nomadic tribe; and from the fact that their principal city was called the city of the Amalekites, 1 Samuel 15:5, and had therefore no nomen proprium, it would appear that there were no other cities in their territory. They inhabited a barren, unfruitful region, a part of stony Arabia, which was not adapted to agriculture, and consequently was not favourable to the advancement of civilisation. In the country which afterwards belonged to the Edomites, also on the southern boundary of the land of Canaan, but more to the east, towards the region which was afterwards covered by the Dead Sea, dwelt the Horites; comp. Genesis 14:6; Genesis 36:20-30, Deuteronomy 2:12; a nation of Canaanitic origin, a colony of the Hivites, as we infer from Genesis 36:2 compared with Genesis 36:20. They were still there at the time of Esau, and till they were partly destroyed by his race and partly driven away from their abodes. The Amalekites had their seat nearer the Mediterranean Sea. Bertheau’s argument against the Canaanitish origin of the Horites, taken from Genesis 10:19, where the plain of Jordan is mentioned as the extreme southeastern point to which the Canaanites extended, is incorrect. That specification of the boundary has especial reference to the land pointed out to the Israelites. But the territory of the Horites, a colony which had removed from the chief land of the race, but had been destroyed long before this time, was not included in this. It had fallen to the Edomites, whose boundaries Israel was strictly forbidden to violate. From the copiousness with which the genealogy of the Horites is given in Genesis 36:5, Bohlen and Ewald have concluded that at the time of the composition of the Pentateuch the Horites still continued to dwell in the land of Seir, together with the Edomites, and in accordance with this view declare the genealogy in Deuteronomy 2:12 to be false. But the genealogy in Genesis 36, is only added on account of two women of Horitic descent, Aholibamah and Timnah, who were among the ancestors of the Idumeans that were related to Israel. The account in Deuteronomy 2:12 is rather confirmed by Genesis 36. For already Eliphaz, the son of Esau, had a woman from one of the most distinguished families of the Horites as a concubine; which presupposes that already at that time the power of the Horites was entirely broken; the Edomites appear as the sole possessors of the land, Genesis 36:43. Again, the account of Deuteronomy is confirmed by the fact that in later times we do not find the smallest trace of the Horites. For it is self-evident that Ewald is wrong in believing he has found such a trace in Job 30:1-10. It has been concluded from the etymology of the race that the Horites must have been Troglodytes; comp. J. D. Michaelis’ Praelectio de Troglodytis Seiritis, etc., in his Syntagma Commentatt. p. 195. This view is the more probable since Mount Seir contains numerous caverns adapted to this kind of life. Our knowledge of the inhabitants of the region on the other side of Jordan is drawn principally from Genesis 14:5, which describes the march of the allied kings from Interior Asia through these territories, from north to south. Uppermost in Ashteroth Karnaim, in the district of Bashan, dwelt the Rephites, a people of great size and strength, who owe their name to this circumstance. The word, which properly signifies “the feeble,” was originally a designation of the departed, and was afterwards applied to the giants, because these, as the terror of all living, were supposed to be of gigantic stature. Lowermost, in that part which was afterwards the territory of the Moabites, and east from the southern half of the district which was afterwards covered by the Dead Sea, dwelt the Emims, so named on account of their formidableness. In Deuteronomy 2:10 they are termed a people great and many. Between these two tribes, therefore, in the district extending to the river Jabbok, afterwards Ammonitis, dwelt the Susim, called by the Amorites, according to Deuteronomy 2:19-21, the Zamzummims. That the Rephites, to whom in a wide sense the Emim and Susim also belonged, comp. Deuteronomy 2:11-20, were of Canaanitish origin, appears from the fact that the Israelites regarded the district of Og king of Bashan as belonging to them. At the time of the invasion of the Israelites they had almost disappeared. They were driven away from their possessions by the Ammonites and Moabites. Og king of Bashan, not individually, but together with his people, is in Deuteronomy 3:11 termed the last remnant of the Rephites. How very mistaken Bertheau is in concluding (p. 139) from this statement that he is called a king of the Amorites, and that he did not rule over the Rephites, appears from what has already been remarked. The Rephites were Canaanites, specially Amorites. But a considerable portion of the earlier Rephite possessions had shortly before the time of Moses been taken away again from the Ammonites and Moabites by the Cis-Jordanic Amorites, probably on the plea that the Rephites whom these tribes had expelled were their fellow-countrymen. And, as we have already remarked, Canaanitish races of giants are to be found on this side the Jordan also. We now pass from Asia to Africa. Here the only country which attracts our attention is Egypt, where the beginnings of civilisation date from a very early period. It has been a favourite hypothesis of recent historiography, especially adorned by Heeren, that this culture had not its root in the country itself, but had come to it from Ethiopia, particularly from Meroe. But this hypothesis is already relinquished. The originality of Egyptian culture is more and more recognised. Wilkinson, part i. p. 37, speaks of the notion that the colonization and civilisation of Egypt came down the Nile from Ethiopia as being quite set aside by recent investigations. The monuments of art in Ethiopia are not only inferior to those in Egypt, but also bear far less the impress of originality. Herodotus, ii. 30, also bears testimony to the priority of the Egyptians; and derives the civilisation of the Ethiopians from Egyptian refugees. At the same time, it remains true that the proper heart of Egypt was the south. Ezekiel names Pathros, or the most southern part of Egypt, as the birthland of Egypt, Ezekiel 29:14; and Herodotus, in Book ii. chap. 15, speaks of very early migrations from Thebais to Lower Egypt, which latter, however, was the seat of empire in the time of the Pentateuch. Another unfortunate hypothesis is that which makes Egypt to have been divided into several kingdoms in ancient times: a theory which has only been invented in order to dispose of the long succession of kings of Manetho, which might now easily be got rid of in some other way. The sacred narrative, monuments, classical writers, Manetho himself, all recognise but one Egyptian kingdom. Compare the copious refutation of this forced hypothesis, which was first brought forward by Eusebius, in Rosellini, i. p. 98 et seq. The name Mizraim itself is an argument in favour of the original unity. It has reference to the division of the land into Upper and Lower Egypt. Yet the dual does not denote the two separately, but only in combination. At the time of the patriarchs, the colonization and cultivation of Egypt were already complete; the priesthood, at least towards the end of this period, was already organized. How great their political power was even at that time appears from the fact that Joseph, when he was raised to the highest office in the state, was obliged to marry a daughter of the high priest at On or Heliopolis; and that the possessions of the priests remained, while the other inhabitants, when the famine arose, were obliged to give up their territories to the king, and to receive them from him as a loan; comp. Genesis 47:22. It is evident from existing monuments, that among all the countries of the world Egypt attained the highest degree of culture at a very early period. “Practical life,” says Leo, “has on all sides built upon Egyptian inheritance.” In this respect Israel could and must learn from Egypt. But with respect to the higher conditions of existence, Egypt, like all the Hamitic nations, stood very low. We have already observed that recent Egyptian discoveries have been much less useful for the chronology and history of ancient Egypt than for its archgeology. We can, therefore, only regard it as an error when Bunsen (whom Lepsius afterwards followed) charges the biblical chronology with error; on the basis of his Egyptian chronology which rests upon a tissue of hypotheses. Löbell, in the 1st volume of the Weltgeschichte, Leipzig 1846, has expressed himself in opposition to this view. Whoever makes himself acquainted with the condition of the biblical chronology by independent investigation, will not be in the least imposed on by the confidence with which Bunsen asserts his hypotheses against it; making a measure of that which is to be measured. With the same confidence we find him declaring a bad mutilation of the Johannine Epistles to be the original. Döllinger, in his Streitschrift against Bunsen’s Hippolytus, has unsparingly disclosed the groundlessness of this assumption. 2. In a religious aspect. Noah and his sons could not yet have lost the knowledge of the true God, although the crime of Ham shows how soon its moral influence began to decline. But the corruption of human nature was so great that the remembrance of the judgment of the flood could not long repress the outbreak of the fruit of this corruption, viz. idolatry. If once an inner connection with God, community of life with Him, be destroyed through sin, nothing outward, no traditionary knowledge, can preserve the knowledge of God in its purity. Only the spiritual man can know and worship God in spirit and in truth; the sensual and sinful man draws God down into his own confined sphere, partly from want of power to rise to Him, partly on account of his propensity to sin. He cannot bear the contrast which exists between his belief and his life. He must, therefore, suppress the outward knowledge of the true God, and stifle the inward voice which bears testimony to Him. He must create to himself higher beings who are subject to the same sins and weaknesses with himself, that he may excuse his own badness and silence his conscience by their example. We see this in rationalism, which attributes its own moral laxity to God. Thus when the descendants of Noah had spread themselves farther over the earth, the revelations of God to the fathers were soon forgotten or disfigured. The rapidity with which such decay takes place may be seen by a glance at the present religious condition. Half a century has sufficed for rationalism to make almost completely a tabula rasa. Men were not able to give up God entirely. Although alienated from God, they yet felt the necessity of belief in a being exalted above their own weakness. For their whole existence seemed to them to be conditioned by a higher, and dependent on it. This was a real necessity, proving the possibility of a return of the human race to God. But fallen men could not find real satisfaction for area! want. Because they were unable to rise above nature to their Creator, they sought God in nature; because they stood in awe of the holy God, the punisher of the wicked and the rewarder of the good, they preferred making to themselves a physical god. They gave divine honour to that in nature which struck them by its beauty and use, or by its powerful and mysterious efficacy. We may distinguish certain stages in idolatry, without, however, being able to maintain that all nations have passed through them in regular succession. The fundamental principle of idolatry is the confounding of nature and God, the intermingling of world-consciousness and God-consciousness, which must necessarily arise when sin becomes so powerful as to destroy the knowledge of the holiness of God and of His absolute personality over the world, with its high, strict, and inexorable moral demands, its claim to absolute sovereignty of will. Pantheism is not perhaps the production of the scientific reflection of later times; although it may have given it its form. With respect to its essence it is as old as sin. Compare, the Introduction to Symbolism and Mythology of F. Creuzer, who was the first of all mythologists to recognise the footsteps of idolatry on the pantheism of phantasy, but has made a great mistake in regarding this pantheism as a product of the healthy condition of man. “To regard nothing, absolutely nothing, in the whole visible corporeal world as quite dead, but to invest even the stone with a kind of life, is the peculiarity of this method of thought.” “That which later pantheistic abstraction comprises in the sentence, ‘Nothing can be thought of which is not an image of the deity,’ is fundamentally the old belief among such nations.” At the first step all nature is regarded as an image and mirror of the one God, the whole life of nature as His life, each of its powers as His power. The πρῶτον ψεῦδος is here, that God is sought only in nature; and the saying, “Exalt thyself above nature,” is forgotten. For this reason God is not really found in nature. But idolatry cannot long remain at this step. As soon as the divine was once sought in nature, nothing lay nearer in the time of the supremacy of phantasy than the transition from pure pantheism to polytheism. Just as phantasy animates everything in nature, so it personifies everything. “What abstract knowledge calls working power,” says Creuzer, “is the person of the original, naive mode of thought.” But with this the element of sex is at once assumed, and all those manifestations which are dependent on it—love and hatred, union and separation; of which the one places generation and birth as the immediate consequence, the other death and destruction. In this tendency of pantheism to polytheism, which has its deepest root in the extinction of a personal God in the soul, the divine forms are bad subordinates. The great heavenly bodies next arrest the attention of man. Sabaism, the worship of the sun, moon, and stars, is proved to be the most ancient form of idolatry in the East. The beauty and majesty of the heavens, which are there always starry, the regular movement of the heavenly bodies, and their perceptible influence upon earthly things, made it easy for men who were already estranged from the true God to regard them as the seat of very mighty deities, and to make them a special object of worship. In the book of Job, job 31:26-28, the origin of Sabaism is thus picturesquely described: “If I beheld the sun when it shined, or the moon walking in brightness; and my heart hath been secretly enticed, or my mouth hath kissed my hand: this also were an iniquity to be punished by the judge, for I should have denied the God that is above;” comp. Deuteronomy 4:19. Diodorus Siculus says of the Egyptians, i. 1, p. 10: “The ancient Egyptians looked with astonishment and wonder at the arrangement of the world and at nature, and arrived at the thought that there existed but two eternal and original deities, the sun and the moon—the former they called Osiris, the latter Isis.” How insinuating this kind of worship must have been, appears from the fact that even the Neo-Platonists, who gave up many other national ideas as untenable, firmly maintained that the stars were or possessed imperishable and immortal souls, and were therefore entitled to worship. Even Aristotle was not free from this superstition. Astrology was soon added to the worship of the stars. From the relative position of the stars, and from their movements, men professed to read the future fates of whole nations and of individual men. But the heavenly bodies were not the only objects of idolatrous worship. Adoration was paid to every terrible and every beneficent power of nature, wherever specially manifested. Yet there were nations who happily remained at this second step of idolatry. This was the case especially with the Persians, who in the worship of the stars and the elements totally abstained from that of images; comp. Herodotus, i. 131. These nations were therefore most susceptible to the influence of revelation; in them the divine was not quite so degraded as in those who stood on the third step. In very early times the all-prevailing sensuousness and phantasy, corrupted by sin, led to the grossest materialism. “A universal impulse of human nature,” says Creuzer, “at a very early period demanded definite outward signs and symbols for indefinite feelings and dim presentiments. When we see even those nations who were star-worshippers fall into idolatry, we cannot wonder that this should be the case where sensuous pantheism prevailed; and when a universal reign of physical nature seized a powerful people with blind force, it was then urgently demanded that the form and power of this god should be made visible.” At first the symbol passed more or less for what it was, a sign, a mere representation. Worship was not given to the symbol, but to the thing symbolized. Soon, however, symbol and symbolized were confounded. It is very significant that among the Greeks the statuaries were called god-makers, θεοποιοί. Phantasy, which animates all things, first led to the idea that by a special effort of power the represented deity was present in the symbol; whether it were the work of men’s hands or of nature, as the sacred animals in Egypt. But soon the nation fell into a delusion, which was fostered by the avarice and ambition of the priests, viz. that the deity was completely identical with the representative image. These two stages of idolatry are already distinguished from one another in a classical passage in the book of Wisdom, Wisdom 13. In Ws 13:2 those are reproved who deem “either fire, or wind, or the swift air, or the circle of the stars, or the violent water, or the lights of heaven, to be the gods which govern the world.” But in Ws 13:10 the error of those “who called them gods, which are the works of men’s hands, gold and silver, to show art in, and resemblances of beasts, or a stone good for nothing, the work of an ancient hand,” is characterized as the excess of foolishness. Finally, the last step was taken when the development of mythology was added to the abuse of the symbol. The sources of mythology have been well unfolded by Creuzer. If once the partition-wall between God and nature and man be removed, not only is the divine humanized, but the human is also deified. The acts of those who rendered service to a nation were immensely exaggerated by tradition; they themselves were glorified by feasts, sculptures, processions, mimic representations, songs, and invocations. Soon the apotheosis is complete: either the number of gods is increased by a new one; or the tradition of a human benefactor of the nation is intermingled with that of an already existing god, and both are identified. Ancient biblical modes of expression are misconstrued, or understood in their rough and literal sense. That which was originally only symbolically-clothed doctrine is now treated as history; and inventive phantasy is occupied in adorning it more and more; still bringing more connection into it. Homer has many examples of this. In his traditions of the gods there is not unfrequently an ideal background, which, however, is no longer recognised by himself; comp. Nägelsbach, Homerische Theologie, Einleitung. A mass of fable is called forth by the historical interpretation of symbolical statuary. Remarkable phenomena and products of nature give occasion” to the continuation of the history of the gods from whose agency they are derived. Among nations like the Greeks the distinction between truth and fiction is quite lost, and mythology is transferred from the region of truth to that of beauty; the tradition of the gods is altered and developed according to their laws. By the contact of various peoples the gods and the myths pass from one to another, each by additions and alterations adapting the traditions to its own national character. If we examine, by the help of the narrative in Genesis, how far idolatry had already advanced at the time of Abraham’s call, we arrive at the result, that at that time there was scarcely a single nation among whom religious truth had been preserved in perfect purity; but that in most of them the last traces of it had not yet disappeared. The religious state at the time of Abraham’s call appears to have been just what we should have expected—a transition-state, idolatry on the increase, true religion on the wane. Let us prove this with respect to the most important races and nations. That even Abraham’s race was not free from idolatry appears from Joshua 24:2, “Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nahor; and they served other gods;” and Joshua 24:14, “Put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood.” The nature of this idolatry we learn from Genesis 31:19; Genesis 31:30; Genesis 31:35, according to which Laban worshipped a kind of house-gods or Penates called Teraphim. Yet the worship of the true God had not quite disappeared from the family of Abraham. It appears that the Teraphim were worshipped only as inferior gods, through whom it was believed that the favour of the highest god might be secured, and by whose means he would impart counsel and knowledge respecting the future. Fallen man, conscious of his estrangement from God, seeks to fill up the gap with intermediate beings. Yet in the family of Abraham the traditions of the creation, the fall, the flood, etc., were preserved pure, and unsullied by any mixture of idolatry, being afterwards recorded by Moses in Genesis. Abraham already knew the highest God when he first revealed Himself to him! Laban acknowledges the most high God, the common object of Jacob’s worship and his own. Genesis 31:53, while he calls the Teraphim his gods, the particular which he has together with the universal. This supreme God he calls “the God of Abraham, and the God of Nahor, the God of their father.” Jacob holds religious communion with him, which would not be conceivable if Laban were an actual idolater. The corruption of morals into which the Canaanites had fallen even in the time of Abraham, comp. Genesis 15:16, leads us to suppose, judging from the close connection of sin and idolatry, that the latter had already made considerable advance among them. And yet it appears from the history of the priest-king, Melchizedek of Salem, that the true God had His servants even among the Canaanites. We certainly infer from the manner in which he characterizes the true God, as “the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth,” Genesis 14:19, that the worship of inferior subordinate deities and the deification of nature was already common in his day and among his people. For the more definite designation by which he represents himself as Abraham’s co-religionist has undoubted relation to prevailing religious error and delusion, which is also implied in the zeal with which he seeks to find in Abraham an associate in faith. Rarum carum. The Canaanitish Hittites in Hebron, according to Genesis 23:6, still retain so much religious susceptibility that they recognise in Abraham a prince of God, which would be impossible if they had quite lost the knowledge of a supreme God, and of a life devoted to Him. Among the Philistines also at the time of Abraham are to be found traces of the remains of a pure knowledge of God. Abraham confesses, Genesis 20:11, his error in supposing that they were totally without the fear of God, acknowledges the territory of the אלהימיראת as common to him and the king of the Philistines, and considers only the יראתיהוה as peculiar to himself. The king is still open to divine punishment and warning in a dream, and is ready to do what God commands him; he pays high honour to Abraham as a servant of God. Comp. with ref. to Isaac, Genesis 26. We cannot, however, conclude from this, that at that time there was no idolatry among the Philistines. Circumstances were such that what remained of the pure knowledge of God must inevitably appear on such an occasion. The conception of the Godhead was never quite lost to polytheistic heathendom. Even in later Egypt the knowledge of a certain unity of God, who is certainly not the true God, forms the background of a rude polytheism. The sun, with its life-imparting power, is the primitive cause, from which the various divinities proceed, and which continually shines out behind them; comp. Leo, p. 120. The uncertain character of the matter appears from the fact that Abraham was able to form such a misconception. Jablonsky, in the Pantheon Ægypt. Proll. c. 2, tries to show the transition from true religion to idolatry among the Egyptians. When Abraham, soon after his immigration into Canaan, went to Egypt; the king, according to Genesis 12, showed so much fear of God that he gave Sarah back to Abraham unharmed, as soon as he learned that she was his wife. But Jablonsky infers too much from this history when he asserts that at the time of Abraham idolatry had no existence in Egypt. It is scarcely credible that in so comparatively short a period as that from Abraham to Joseph, idolatry could have become so fully developed as we find it in the time of the latter. Already at that time the city On had been founded in honour of the sun, whose name, translated by the Alexandrians ἡλίου πόλις, means “sun” in Egyptian. In this city there was a high priest of the sun, whose daughter Joseph married, and whose name, Potiphera, Jablonsky, in essential agreement with later research, comp. Rosellini, i. p. 117, derives from the Egyptian, and interprets by “summus sacerdos solis”—more accurately “qui solis est;” making the name of his daughter Asnath to mean “Servant of the Goddess Nitha,” who was worshipped at Sais in Lower Egypt. (The name is similarly explained by Geseuius in his Thesaurus.) From this we may form a probable conjecture concerning the nature of the priests mentioned in Genesis 47:22, who had great power and great possessions. We are even justified in inferring from Genesis 43:32, that at that time the most abominable degeneracy of Egyptian idolatry, the worship of animals, was already current. It is there said, “the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination unto the Egyptians.” This aversion of the Egyptians to associate with the Hebrews can only be explained on the ground that they were afraid of polluting themselves by contact with those who slaughtered animals to which the Egyptians paid divine honour. What Herodotus tells, ii. 41, of the Egyptians of later times exactly agrees with this: “The cow is worshipped by the Egyptians, and therefore no Egyptian, either male or female, may kiss a Greek as a stranger, or make use of his knife, or his spit, or his pot,” etc. This is still the case among the Brahmins in India. At all events, the strict separation between the Egyptians and all foreigners which existed at the time of Joseph, as we learn from Genesis 46:34, and which can only rest upon pseudo-religious grounds, shows that at that time the development of the Egyptian national religion had already made considerable advance. With respect to the Mosaic time this development is attested by Exodus 8:26, where Moses answers the summons of Pharaoh to sacrifice to Jehovah in the land, with the words, “We shall sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians to the Lord our God: lo, shall we sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians before their eyes, and will they not stone us?” Words which show that the inquiry relative to the purity of the animals offered in sacrifice was in full force,—an inquiry which rested upon a pseudo-religious foundation, and which according to Herodotus was carried on among the Egyptians with the most anxious care. The making of the golden calf in the wilderness suffices to show how deeply the worship of animals had at that time taken root among the Egyptians. So too, Leviticus 17:7, where the Israelites were forbidden in the wilderness to sacrifice to devils after the manner of the Egyptians, i.e. to idols, who were worshipped under the form of rams and other animals. The way in which this worship of animals originated has already been stated. They were originally like statues, symbols of the divine, and as such they may in some measure have been regarded by the priests in later times; but the people paid divine honour to the animals themselves. The very first appearance of animal-worship bears witness to a deep religious degeneracy. A nation which finds the divine specially manifested in the animal-world must have completely lost the consciousness of that divine holiness which is not at all symbolized in the animal-world. At the time of Abraham’s call, therefore, the last remnant of the true knowledge of God had not yet disappeared. But the mixture of idolatry and true religion which existed even at that time forms only the transition to complete forgetfulness of God, and departure from Him; and this would certainly have followed if God had not just at this time begun the execution of the plan He had designed from eternity. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 4: 04. § 2. HISTORY OF ABRAHAM ======================================================================== § 2. History of Abraham We must enter less fully into the history of this period, in order not to encroach on the lectures on Genesis and the later portions of history, for which nothing is done in exegetical lectures. Our method must be conformed to this object. We shall not narrate, but only give remarks on what is related in the source, the knowledge of which we take for granted. We do this the rather, because that which is related in Genesis cannot be properly described except in the form in which it there occurs, and loses by any other form. Why change wine into water? 1. Abraham’s call.—Abraham’s father, Terah, was a rich shepherd-prince who, though he traversed the land with his flocks, had a fixed dwelling in Ur Chasdim. This Ur is probably that which is mentioned by Amm. Marcell. lib. 25, 8, a place in the north of Mesopotamia between the Tigris and Nisibis. Others, recently Bertheau (p. 206) and Ewald, have maintained that Ur is not a place, but a district. Thus the LXX., χώρα τῶν Χαλδαίων. But the goal of Terah’s journey, Haran, is demonstrably a single place; and therefore we must regard his starting-point also as such. The cause of Terah’s resolve to go to Canaan is not given in Scripture. Fables like that related by Joseph. Antt. i. 7, in which Abraham out of zeal for the honour of Jehovah takes counsel with the Chaldosans and Mesopotamians, deserve no notice. The reason was probably the same which still impels races of nomadic Arabs to distant wanderings; the hope to find in Palestine rich pasture for his numerous flocks. On this supposition it becomes evident why when he was come to Haran, to Carra, famous for the defeat of Crassus, in Mesopotamia, not far from Edessa and the Euphrates, west of Ur, he took up his abode there. In that pasture-ground he found what he had sought, and had no reason to continue his march farther. But the consideration of God’s object in the matter is more important than that of Terah’s motive. His secret guidance is not excluded by the existence of human motives. The kingdom of God was not to be founded among a nation already in existence. God wished to prepare a people for it; to possess a sacred primitive ground of nationality. God dealt gently with Abraham, who was chosen as the progenitor of this race. He took from him only in the same proportion in which he had given to him. His demands increased gradually. Man can give up the earthly for the sake of God only in so far as God has made Himself dear to him and valued. God wished to be alone with Abraham. Only thus could He perfect his education. Abraham must go forth with his future kindred from sinful communion with his race; he may no longer dwell among a people of unclean lips. He must also cease to have communion with his immediate family. Even in it the apostasy from God was already so great that Abraham’s remaining in it put great hindrances in the way of his divine education. He must be conducted to a people who were utterly strange to him, with whom he might hold no close intercourse, in whom God showed him the future hereditary enemy of his descendants. God could not at once demand this sacrifice from him, for it is certain that He does not tempt above what is able to be borne. The departure from his people and his country was facilitated by the circumstance that under God’s direction his father and his other nearest relations accompanied him. Thus the first pain is overcome. His exodus from country is followed by his departure from the paternal roof; and to soften the pain of this, God gives him Lot for a companion, that he might not feel so utterly lonely. Later, when God speaks to him in secret, He frees him from this tie also, but arranges it so that his relative shall act an unfriendly part towards him, and thus facilitates this parting also. In the promises which God makes to Abraham, partly in Mesopotamia and partly on his entrance into Canaan, there are three points to be noticed: (1.) He will make of him a great nation; (2.) He will give the land of Canaan to his posterity; (3.) in him, that is, as is afterwards explained, in his posterity, shall all nations of the earth be blessed. In Genesis 12:3, where this promise first appears, and also in Genesis 18:18, Genesis 28:14, we find the Niphal, which can have no other meaning than this. Be blessed; elsewhere we have the Hithpahel, which in a circuitous way leads to the same sense. For if the heathens bless themselves by the race of the patriarchs, i.e. wish to be thus blessed, comp. Genesis 48:20, they must regard the lot of the patriarchs, which consists in their relation to the Lord, as a highly prosperous one, and with this is inseparably bound up the striving to participate in their blessing, comp. Isaiah 44:5. But we must separate two classes of passages; for it is a like perversion to impose upon the Niphal the meaning of the Hithpahel, and to impose upon the Hithpahel the signification of the Niphal. That the passages in which it occurs must be supplemented though not explained by antecedent and parallel passages in which the Niphal appears, is evident from the constant, solemn repetition of the announcement which is everywhere spoken of as the highest summit of the promises given to the patriarchs, and from the reference of the blessing upon all nations of the earth to the curse which passed on the world after the fall; also from the connection with the prophecy that Japhet should dwell in the tents of Shem (Genesis 9:27) on the one side, and with the ruler who should go forth from Judah, to whom the allegiance of the nations should be (Genesis 49:10), on the other side. The intermediate members which unite these predictions are disturbed if we impose upon the Niphal, in the promises to the patriarchs, the signification of the Hithpahel. In these promises, we have at the outset a sketch of all the subsequent leadings of God until their final accomplishment. The great nation which is to proceed from Abraham is not composed of all the carnal descendants of Abraham, including the Arabs and Idumeans; as the union of this point with the two others shows, and also the whole subsequent history. The question here is not of the universal, but only of the special providence of God, by which Abraham became the progenitor of the chosen race. The land of Canaan was not to belong to him in the same sense in which it had belonged to its former inhabitants, who possessed it under the guidance of the general providence of God. It was to be an absolute gift of the free grace of God, and must clearly appear in this light. The last design of the first two promises discloses the third, which must have become dearer and dearer to Abraham as his inner life advanced. The great value of the blessing to Abraham and his seed, consisted in the fact that it was at some future time to become a blessing for all nations of the earth. This condition of the promises to Abraham, the fact that the special reference they contain to him and his posterity appears as the foundation of an institution embracing the whole human race, stands in most beautiful harmony with that which is related in Genesis of the time previous to his call. In the first human pair, God created all men in His image. From the creation to Abraham the whole human race is an object of His guidance and government. In Genesis 9:7, the blessing is pronounced on all the posterity of Noah, To such a beginning there can be no other continuation. How would a God who for centuries had embraced the whole, suddenly limit Himself to a single race and people, unless their limitation be destined to serve as a means of future expansion?! “Those who bless thee,” it is said, “I will bless, and those who curse thee, I will curse.” Here at the first establishment of the kingdom of God a law is pronounced which is realized in the whole course of history. According to the position which each one assumes towards the kingdom of God and its bearers, so is his fate determined. For this is the criterion of his hatred and his love towards God Himself. The first grand verification of the announcement must have been experienced by Egypt in the Mosaic time. The promises to Abraham were at the same time so many demands. This is seen in the commands which are bound up with them. “Get thee out of thy country,” etc., is special only in form,—in idea it includes everything which God requires of man, the going out from one’s self, the offering up even of the dearest to God, if prejudicial to the divine life. Only let us ask, “Why should Abraham be called to go forth?” and this idea at once presents itself. That the universal foundation of the special was already known under the Old Testament is shown by the passage in Psalms 45:11, which is based upon Genesis 12:1. Renunciation, self-denial, this requisition meets us at the very threshold of the kingdom of God. Here we have the foundation of that great saying of our Lord, “Whoever will be my disciple, let him take up his cross and deny himself.” How deeply conscious Abraham was of this interchange of promise and obligation is seen in the fact that immediately on his entrance into Canaan he erected an altar, called upon the Lord who had appeared to him, and consecrated himself to Him, in the midst of the idolatrous people. Why was Abraham led just to Canaan? In studying his history and that of the other patriarchs, we find that the sojourn in this land was both a strengthening and a discipline of faith;—a strengthening, for the promised possession in its loveliness lay continually before their eyes—the more indefinite the idea of a hoped-for good, the more difficult is it to hold fast the hope. The favour they received at the present time in this land served as a pledge of the future glorification of God in that very place. It was a discipline of their faith, for they must have been vividly conscious of the contrast between hope and possession. How strange! they who could not call a single foot-breadth of the land their own property—for they had only the use of the pasturage so long as the inhabitants did not require it—should at some future time possess the whole country. They, with their small numbers, should drive out all the nationalities, whose numbers and might were daily before their eyes. But it is necessary that the reference to their posterity should be made still more prominent. The author of Genesis himself draws our attention to this by carefully noting every event by which any place in the country becomes renowned. It is a great blessing for a nation to have a sacred past. Israel was surrounded on all sides by dumb, yet speaking witnesses of the faith of their fathers, especially of the love of God towards them. Abraham’s guidance to Canaan was thus in every respect dependent on God’s determination to give it to his posterity for a possession. But now arises the new question. Why should his descendants have received Canaan in particular? The reasons for this determination, as far as they are given in Scripture itself, are the beauty and fruitfulness of the land, whose bestowal was well adapted to serve as a manifestation of the grace of God, the more since its advantages were brought home to the consciousness by the contrast of the surrounding wilderness which was populated by races kindred to Israel,—in the Pentateuch it is continually termed “a land flowing with milk and honey,” and in Deuteronomy 11:10-12 is represented as in many respects superior even to Egypt,—and again the circumstance that the inhabitants of this land had filled up the measure of sin particularly fast and early, comp. Genesis 15:15-16, so that in the taking and giving of it, justice and mercy could go hand in hand. This union was at the same time of deep significance for the mind of Israel. In the fate of the earlier inhabitants they had before them a constant prediction of their own fate if they should prove guilty of like sin. Already in the Pentateuch Israel is referred to this prophecy. These are the reasons which appear in Scripture. What many have said concerning “the central position of Palestine” is not supported by Scripture. In Ezekiel 5:5, “This is Jerusalem: I have set it in the midst of the nations and countries that are round about her,” Jerusalem is designated only as the moral-religious centre of the world, in order that its guilt and degeneracy might appear in a stronger light, as Ezekiel 5:6 clearly shows, and also Ezekiel 5:7 and Ezekiel 5:11. Nicolaus Damascenus relates in a fragment of the 4th book of his History, which has been preserved by Josephus, i. 8, that Abraham remained for a long time at Damascus on his way to Canaan, and there conducted the government. Justin, lib. 36, says the same; and Josephus relates that the house is still shown in Damascus where Abraham lived. But we can scarcely understand how Hess, and even Zahn, as also Bertheau, who bases upon this his hypothesis of a wandering of the “Terahitish people,” and subsequently Ewald, who calls Nicolaus Damascenus “a witness of great weight,” could attribute any value to this account. Heidegger, ii. p. 60, has proved that it belongs to the numerous legends respecting Abraham which are current in the East. It has been inferred from the remark in Genesis 15:2, that Abraham’s house-steward belonged to Damascus, and hence the conclusion has been come to that Abraham must have sojourned in that place. But it can be proved on chronological grounds that Abraham continued his journey to Canaan without any pause by the way. And here we may remark, that the same judgment holds good with reference also to all other accounts of heathen authors; such, for example, as we find collected in Buddeus and Hess. Their origin is written on their foreheads. They belong to a period when, owing to the wide dispersion of the Jews, fragments of the narratives contained in their holy writings found their way into all heathendom. They are composed of a true element drawn from this source and increased by some very cheap but false additions. So, for example, when Artapanus in Eusebius speaks of the sojourn of Abraham with the king of Egypt, and maintains that Abraham instructed this king in the art of astrology; an assumption which has its origin merely in the statement of Genesis that Abraham came out of Ur of the Chaldees; for the Chaldaeans were highly renowned among the ancients for astrology; or where Alexander Polyhistor relates that Abraham’s name was famous throughout all Syria, and that he proved to the most learned Egyptian priests the nullity of their doctrines. We must guard against using accounts of this nature in confirmation of biblical history. Let us rather leave this dealing to the opponents of revelation. Such statements could only have a value if it could be proved that they had their origin in a source independent of Genesis. But, à priori, how is this conceivable? Whence could the knowledge of Abraham come to those who knew nothing but fables concerning their own ancestors, or to those who were totally unable to estimate the importance of that which was really significant in Abraham’s appearance, and to whom he was a man of no interest. Add to this that the oldest historians, those who lived before the time of the dispersion of the Jews and circulated the narratives of Scripture, especially from Alexandria, know nothing of Abraham. It is noticeable also with respect to chronology, that Abraham was 75 years old when he set out on his journey to Canaan, 366 years after the flood and 2023 after the creation of the world, and that Terah survived his departure for 60 years, although his death is related in Genesis prior to the exodus of Abraham, in order that the narrative may henceforth occupy itself exclusively with Abraham. Shem was still alive at the time of Terah. 2. Abraham in Egypt.—In this narrative our attention is directed almost exclusively to the inquiry into Abraham’s morality; a secondary matter whose proper treatment is dependent upon that view of the true kernel and centre of the narrative which prompts the author to communicate it. The birth of the son who was destined by God to be the ancestor of the chosen race, was the beginning of the realization of all the promises that had been made to Abraham. The rest hung upon this birth, and many years elapsed before it took place. The human conditions must first disappear, and at the same time it must be demonstrated by many providences, that God had a part in the matter. This event forms the beginning of these leadings of providence. Abraham himself by his carnal wisdom does what he can to nullify the promise. But God takes care that the chastity of the ancestress of the chosen race shall be preserved inviolate. And just as this circumstance is a manifestation of the providence of God, it formed also an actual prediction of the importance of His decree, and served to strengthen Abraham’s faith. It is the author’s aim to draw attention to this. The judgment of Abraham’s conduct he leaves as usual to his readers, if they find any interest in it. The author writes not as a moralist but as a theologian. The judgment of readers, who were unable to follow the grand abstraction of the author, has been very various. Luther goes farthest, stating in his Commentary on Genesis that Abraham formed this resolution by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost and in strong faith. Chrysostom too, and Augustine seek to exonerate Abraham from all guilt; Origen, Jerome, and the theologians of the Reformed Church form a severe judgment, and express strong disapprobation of the subterfuge. It is certain that Abraham, had no intention of committing a sin. It was not a sudden idea. Already in Haran he had pre-arranged it with Sarai. Doubtless he thought he could say with a good conscience that Sarai was his sister, because she really was his sister in a certain sense. She was his near relation, the daughter of his brother Haran. For Sarai is identical with Iscah mentioned in Genesis 11:29. She was first called Sarai, my dominion, on her marriage with Abraham. Augustine says, “Tacuit aliquid veri, non dixit aliquid falsi.” He was so strongly persuaded of the innocence of this precautionary measure, that according to Genesis 20:13, he had determined to adopt it everywhere, and did actually repeat it afterwards; as Isaac did also. But nevertheless Abraham cannot be pronounced guiltless. He is not to be blamed for having acted in accordance with his conviction, but because this conviction was a false one, and had its origin in his own inclination, not in the thing itself. His statement was nothing less than a hidden lie. For in saying that Sarai was his sister his intention was that those towhom he said it should understand him to mean that she was not his wife; and they did actually understand it in this sense. Rambach therefore justly remarks, “The whole thing was the result of a weak faith which suffered itself to be beguiled by carnal wisdom into the use of improper means, viz. an equivocation for the preservation of his life and the chastity of his wife.” It was once said, “Non facienda sunt mala ut eveniant bona.” He would have done better if he had commended the whole matter to God in earnest prayer, and had then repaired thither in reliance on the divine promise to make of him a great nation and to bless him. But because he directed the eyes of his reason too exclusively to danger, he lost sight of the promise of God, and his faith began to waver. But as Christ reached His hand to Peter when he began to sink at the sight of a great wave, so God extended His hand to Abraham lest he should utterly perish in this danger. Many here enunciate views by which they are often misled afterwards. Thus Zahn remarks, “It is difficult, nay impossible, from our position to form a correct judgment concerning the life of the ancients. The 19th century before Christ is brought into close comparison with the 19th century after Christ. This will not do.” If the question were how to excuse Abraham, it would be impossible for us to judge harshly. He stood at the very threshold of the divine leadings, and came from the midst of a degenerate people with whom, though outwardly separate, there was close connection. We cannot expect to find him a saint. Many of his severe judges certainly pronounce judgment on themselves. In the joy of finding an imperfection in the father of the faithful they forget that their whole life is a continuous lie, since they have had far more opportunity of recognising the unconditional obligatory power of the law of truth; and a far stronger inward condition of grace has been offered to them for its fulfilment. But here a justification may rather be attempted, which we must decidedly oppose. It is only possible by making the building power of the divine law dependent on the stage of development, which again demands that the law be regarded as a kind of arbitrary thing, and thus the will of God is separated from His essence, which is highly injurious. If the will of God be only a reflex of His essence, it must be valid for all times; and moral requirements are the same for the rudest period as for the most advanced. Thus there is but one conscience for all times; and it is man’s fault if he do not perceive all its demands. That the narrator himself regarded the matter in this light may, amid all the objective tendency, be clearly proved from the circumstance that he lays the entire stress of the thing upon the agency of God. The very issue of the matter confirms this. Abraham is not rescued by his own carnal wisdom. This rather plunges him into the greatest embarrassment and anxiety, from which God’s intervention alone delivers him. Pharaoh’s conduct when he apprehends the true state of the matter is an additional argument in favour of this view. “Why,” he says, “hast thou done this unto me? “If Pharaoh has the consciousness that wrong has happened him through Abraham, he must the more readily assume that Abraham, by his own free-will, stifled the consciousness of wrong-doing; especially if we compare the still more definite reproaches of the king of the Philistines, Genesis 20:9et seq. But Abraham must be exonerated from another reproach, viz. that of having exposed his wife to the lust of the Egyptians. He only hoped to gain time by his precautionary measure. Before the tedious Egyptian marriage ceremonies were at an end, he hoped to find some way of escape. His faith was not yet strong enough to induce him to surrender himself with absolute trust to God, who had compelled him by circumstances to go down to Egypt. For the moment, therefore, he sought to help himself by his own wisdom; the future he left to God. Here his faith could co-exist with the visible; for the visible did not yet lie before his eyes and fix his attention upon itself. The difficulty of Sarah’s age is also without weight. We have only to remember that the usual duration of life at that time amounted to 130-180 years; and we may add that among the Egyptians the women had a most disagreeable complexion. That it appeared so even to the Egyptians themselves, is evident from the circumstance that upon their monuments the women are painted much fairer than they were in reality, while the men bear their natural colour (comp. Taylor, p. 4), and that everywhere the Egyptian women were exceptionally ugly, as the representations in Wilkinson and Taylor show. But the main point is, that the effort of Oriental princes to fill the harem has its origin less in sensuality than in vanity. The high position of Sarah was the great thing in the eyes of Pharaoh; a certain beauty and stateliness was only the condition. Moreover the mighty help of the Lord, which was exerted in Egypt on behalf of Abraham against Pharaoh, was a type and prelude of that to be vouchsafed to his posterity. 3. Ahraham’s Separation from Lot.—The essence of this narrative is the divine providence by which circumstances occurred to remove from him an element not belonging to the chosen race. Under this providence Lot voluntarily gave up all his claims to the land of promise. He repaired to the plains of Jordan, which were doomed to destruction. That the whole importance of the event in the eyes of the narrator himself turns on this point, appears from Genesis 13:14, where the renewal of the promise of the land of Canaan to Abraham is introduced with the words, “And the Lord said unto Abraham, after that Lot was separated from him.” From this it appears that the renewal is not only in its proper place here, but serves at the same time as a means of development and closer definition. When the land is promised to Abraham’s posterity as an eternal possession, the idea naturally is, that no power from without shall ever deprive him of it. That by Israel’s guilt the possession should be lost at a future time, is frequently foretold in the Pentateuch itself. An assurance to the contrary would have been a licence to sin; but the land was only withdrawn from the true posterity of Abraham that they might be made partakers of a higher inheritance. When the patriarch, in obedience to the divine command, traversed the whole land in its length and breadth, his action was symbolical, indicating that his posterity should become possessors of the territory in which he wandered as a stranger. He takes possession for his descendants, of the whole land in which he himself has not a foot-breadth of property; thus giving evidence of the faith which it was God’s object to nourish and strengthen by this command. Lot, the type of a sojourner and lodger in the kingdom of God in contrast to its citizens, was probably not influenced in his choice of a residence by the consideration of the beauty of the region. He sought the neighbourhood of towns, whose restless life and pursuits constantly offered new excitement to one for whom the simple shepherd-life was too monotonous. He belonged to those who could not exist without hearing ἀεί τι καινότερον. If this were not so, how are we to explain the fact that he afterwards settled down in the midst of the immoral city itself? It is true that he did not take part in their abominations—his earlier intercourse with Abraham had so much influence on him; yet he was too weak completely to withstand the corruption by which he was surrounded. And now he was called upon to suffer with those who had not been too bad for him to rejoice with. Formerly he stood as a free shepherd-prince, in no close connection with the inhabitants of the land; but now he was involved in their affairs, and was soon afterwards led forth as a captive with the other inhabitants of Sodom. 4. Abraham’s warlike expedition.—Melchizedeh.—We have already treated of the campaign of the kings of Central Asia against the kings in the plains of Jordan. In Abraham’s conduct two principal features of his character are exemplified—courage and magnanimity, sanctified by childlike confidence in the goodness of God. But the eye of the narrator is not directed to this. The centre of the narrative is God’s grace respecting His chosen people, by which, in prefiguration of that which was to be imparted to Abraham’s race, He placed him in a position to carry on war with the kings, and gave him the victory over them, bringing kings to meet him after his return—one in respectful recognition, the other in bitter subjection. A casual remark shows us how rich and powerful Abraham had already become through the divine blessing. With him alone there travelled 318 servants born in his house, sons of his slaves, who had grown up under his eye, and of whose fidelity he could be certain. But these formed only the smaller part of his people. They were certainly far outnumbered by the newly-purchased servants, old men, children, and women; and even of those who could carry arms, some were not able to accompany him. A few must remain for the protection of the flocks. Thus it is easily explained how Abraham could mix everywhere with the Canaanitish kings as their equal. He was this by right; and had also power to enforce the recognition of the right. There was scarcely one among theCanaanitish princes who could singly measure his strength with him. The shortness and the obscurity of the narrative has occasioned the most various and strange opinions relative to Melchizedek. Origen held him to be an angel; others believed that he was Christ, who had appeared to Abraham in his later human form, and had presented the supper to him. So also Ambrose and many old theologians. The Chaldee paraphrasts with many Jewish and Christian scholars believed that Melchizedek was Shem, the son of Noah, who was still living then. Others took him for Enoch, who had been sent by God from heaven to earth again, in order to administer the kingly and priestly offices. All these are but baseless hypotheses. Theodoret’s view is the correct one; he says, “He was probably of those races who inhabited Palestine; for among them he was both king and priest.” The fact that there should have been a servant of the true God in the midst of the heathen, which at first appears strange, has already been explained. Zahn says, “A lovely picture of peace stands before us after the tumult of war; a king of righteousness pronouncing blessing, a king of the city of peace, a priest of God. The mention of Melchizedek shows how much the holy Scripture conceals. How many other priests of God may not his lifted hands have raised up to God the Most High, from the midst of that human race which was ever turning more and more from God.” But the expression “how many” says too much. The reason why the author speaks so fully and emphatically lies just in the solitariness of the phenomenon; it is on this account that the memory of the event was preserved in tradition. Melchizedek places himself in distinct contrast to his surroundings; and, according to the remark in the Epistle to the Hebrews, the author shows how little these are calculated to explain his existence by the fact that he is almost completely silent concerning them (ἀμήτωρ ἀγενεαλόγητος, Hebrews 7:3); and even if we were perfectly acquainted with these relations we should know nothing more of the main question. He stands severed from natural development, as a wonder, in the midst of an apostate world. At a later time, indeed, such an isolated phenomenon would no longer have been possible. A form like Melchizedek’s does not meet us again in all subsequent history. For Jethro, the priest of Midian, is only a very imperfect counterpart. Melchizedek may be called the setting sun of primitive revelation. Deep shadows continue to gather over the heathen world, while the light concentrates itself more and more within the divine institutions of salvation. Melchizedek dwelt at Salem, the Jerusalem of after times, which in antiquity-loving poetry still bears this name in Psalms 76:2 : “In Salem also is His tabernacle, and His dwelling-place in Zion.” No other Salem appears in the New Testament; for in Genesis 33:18שלם is an adjective: “And Jacob came in a prosperous condition to the city of Shechem.” Still further, Jerusalem, from ירוש and שלם, the peaceful possession, is essentially the same name. [The dual form is an invention of the Masoretes.] The identity of Salem and Jerusalem is also presupposed in Psalms 110, which was composed by David. For when it is there announced that the Messiah will be king and priest in Zion after the order of Melchizedek, it is undoubtedly assumed that primitive time prefigures in the same place a similar union of the kingly and priestly dignity. Another fact which speaks in favour of the identity of Salem and Jerusalem is that in Joshua’s time, Adonizedek, equivalent to Melchizedek, is called king of Jerusalem, Joshua 10:1. In all probability this was the standing name of the Jebusite kings. Finally, the King’s Valley at Salem, Genesis 14:17, lay, according to 2 Samuel 18:18, in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem; according to Josephus, two stadia distant from it. Thenius says on this place, that the King’s Valley was a part of the valley through which the Kedron pours itself into the Dead Sea. W. L. Krafft, the topographer of Jerusalem, remarks: “If Abraham with the spoil chose the most convenient and shortest way back to Hebron over the high land on this side of the Jordan, he must have passed not far from Jerusalem. While the king of Sodom ascended the present Wady en Nar, in which the valley of Kedron extends to the Dead Sea, Melchizedek descended from his rocky fortress, Salem, to salute Abraham.” Melchizedek united in himself the kingly and priestly dignity; a combination which was not rare, indeed almost universal. Aristotle, Politic, iii. chap. 14, says, “In antiquity the subjects invested their ruler with the highest power, giving to one and the same the judicial, kingly, and priestly dignity.” Servius also remarks on Virgil, “Sane majorum haec erat consuetudo, ut rex etiam esset sacerdos vel pontifex.” In Homer the prince not only arranges the sacra in the interest of the community, but not seldom dispenses it himself without the assistance of the priest; comp. Nagelsbach, Homerische Theologie, p. 180. Nor is it accidental that this union of the two powers appears in the highest antiquity. In later times the further development of the two spheres made it necessary to separate them. This was a concession to human weakness so far that, owing to it, two interests could scarcely be united in one person without danger to the one or other. Therefore, the separation occurred also among the people of revelation under the Mosaic dispensation. But in Christ, who was not subject to human weakness, the original union, which is also the most natural, was restored. Melchizedek is therefore justly represented in Scripture as a type of Christ. The idea symbolized in Melchizedek, viz. that of a prince, who at the same time represents his people before God, is realized in Him in its whole extent and in its profoundest depth. Melchizedek brought out bread and wine to Abraham. Abraham was not in need of the food for his people. He had just conquered his enemies, and had taken rich spoils from them, even food (food is expressly mentioned in Genesis 14:11). But in ancient times presents were a token of esteem and love, as they are still in the East. Melchizedek paid honour to Abraham as a worshipper of one and the same God; he must already have heard of his piety, and rejoiced in finding an opportunity of proving his esteem for him. The bringing forth of bread and wine was therefore a symbolical act, in reality a proof of community of faith, and at the same time a worthy preparation for the impartation of the blessing which had its basis in this community. We have no authority to put more meaning into the offering of the bread and wine, as v. Hofmann does. According to the narrative, it is related to the Last Supper only in one respect, only so far as the latter was a love-feast. In saying “The narrative certainly does not imply that he brought bread and wine only to refresh Abram, or else it would not be added immediately, in the same verse, ‘and he was a priest of the most high God,’” v. Hofmann overlooks the fact that these words are a preparation for what comes after, “and he blessed him.” Melchizedek king of Salem (with kingly hospitality) brought forth bread and wine, and at the same time he blessed him in his capacity of priest. Melchizedek blessed Abram as “a priest of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth.” Thus Melchizedek himself specifies the God whom he served; for this designation has not previously occurred, and is nowhere else to be found. It cannot therefore belong to the writer. He chose the appellation to indicate that his God was not ruler over a single family or district, or over some star as the neighbours believed their idols to be, but was the omnipotent God of the whole world. Such absolute extension was the necessary condition of his community of faith with the monotheistic Abraham. With the exception of this kingly priest not a trace is to be found in all pre-Mosaic history of a priesthood consecrated to the true God, if we except the uncertain history of Jethro, who probably first got from Moses the most of what we find in him; just as Balaam drew his knowledge of God from an Israelitish source. Although we cannot more nearly define the nature of the priesthood of Melchizedek, we may conclude that it was a public one from the circumstance that Abraham was not called a priest, although he built altars and offered up sacrifices for himself. It is probable that not only the inhabitants of Salem but also the dwellers in the regions round about, so far as they had not yet sunk into idolatry, brought their offerings to him that he might present them to the most high God, and make intercession for the people in prayer. All that was still in existence of the elements of true piety among the Canaanites gathered about him. Abraham paid the highest honour to Melchizedek. To show that he recognised his dignity he gave him the tenth part of the spoil, and that too of the whole spoil, even of what had originally belonged to the inhabitants of the plain of Jordan. For in accordance with the rights of war at that time this belonged to whoever had taken it from the robbers; and only Abraham’s generosity made him renounce all personal claim to it. He had no power to dispose of the part which belonged to God and that which belonged to his associates. In his address to the king of Sodom he uses the same designation of God which Melchizedek had employed immediately before, thus to acknowledge in the face of the idolaters that their mutual faith rested upon the same foundation. But at the same time he intimates by the name of Jehovah which he puts to this designation, tenderly and softly, at the head of it, that he has more part in the common basis than Melchizedek; that his religious consciousness, though not purer than that of the royal priest, is yet richer and fuller. God appeared as Jehovah only to Abraham, by means of a divine revelation made specially to him. It is this in particular which secures the continuance among Abraham’s descendants of what was common to him with Melchizedek. The most high God, etc., could only be permanently recognised where He revealed Himself as Jehovah. This narrative shows clearly the groundlessness of the reproach of particularism so often made against the Old Testament. Whenever the heathen world offered anything worthy of recognition, it was lovingly and ungrudgingly recognised. The reason why this recognition afterwards fell more into the background is to be found in the fact that there was always less and less to be recognised; that the heathen-world became darker and darker. Thus the narrative alone suffices to refute those who, like Ewald (p. 370 et seq.), would willingly turn the monotheism of the patriarchs into a monolatry, and represent them as worshippers of a single domestic God whom they kept solely for themselves, and’ exalted above all those worshipped by others. They maintain this only in order to escape the disagreeable necessity of having to accept a supernatural source of the patriarchs’ faith. That which these critics deny to Abraham was possessed even by Melchizedek; Abraham had in common with him the very thing upon whose foundation the higher and peculiar prerogative was raised up. There is not even the semblance of a proof that the God of the patriarchs was a mere house god, along with whom they allowed scope for other deities. It appears from history, and indeed is self-evident, that their neighbours could not at once raise themselves to this height; which proves all the more clearly how little the faith of the patriarchs can itself be explained by purely natural causes. 5. God’s covenant with Abraham.—The essence of this narrative is God’s condescending love to His chosen, by virtue of which He not only vouchsafed to them the blessing of the covenant, but also strengthened their weakness by a sign. We may remark, a priori, that the whole substance of Genesis 15, although it is to be regarded as having actually occurred, is yet, according to the express statement in Genesis 15:1, not an objective but a subjective thing. Abraham is already, in Genesis 20:7, called prophet, נביא, as also all the patriarchs, in Psalms 105:15. The essence of prophecy is divine inspiration. נביא means properly the inspired. But according to Numbers 12:6 the two forms in which God revealed Himself to the prophets were visions and dreams. In this narrative we have the two combined. After the rest had passed before him in a vision, Abraham falls finally into a prophetic sleep. v. Hofmann has indeed denied the inwardness of the occurrence (p. 98), with the exception of the dream-revelation in Genesis 15:12-16. But his assumption that the expression in a vision in Genesis 15:1 means nothing more than that this revelation is prophetic is without foundation: מתזה and the designations corresponding to it always refer in the first instance to the form not the contents of divine revelations. The nature of that which is related also speaks in favour of its inwardness. According to Genesis 15:5, compared with Genesis 15:12, Abraham saw by day the stars in heaven; which was only possible in a vision. On the assumption of outwardness, the contents of Genesis 15:12 are inexplicable. It is evident from the beginning of the narrative that the renewal and ratification of the promise contained in it were occasioned by a temptation to which Abraham’s faith threatened to succumb. This temptation did not perhaps consist in fear of Chedorlaomer’s revenge, but in doubts which were called forth in him by his childlessness, as we see clearly from the narrative. He looked at natural causes, and feared that nothing might come of all the salvation that had been promised him. He felt himself lonely and forsaken. His faith wavers because it finds so little support in the visible; but it proves itself to be faith by endeavouring to derive strength from the word of God, and does actually find support. Abraham lays before God what appears in his eyes to nullify all the promises made to him: the fact that he has ho son and heir, and in the ordinary course of nature has no longer any hope of getting one. God promises him a son, and by him a numerous posterity: at once he grasps the word with joy. Doubt disappears, since he knows that the counsel of God stands for ever. The proper essence of faith is to trust in God’s word and power, and by this means to rise above all visible things. “Abraham believed the Lord; and He counted it to him for righteousness.” But Abraham is conscious of his human weakness. He begs God for a sign by which he may know that His promise to him will be fulfilled. The highest step of faith is indeed to believe simply in the word of the Lord without any sign. But Abraham felt, as Gideon did later, Judges 6:37, and Hezekiah, 2 Kings 20:8, that he had not arrived at this stage; that he needed an embodiment of the promise to overcome the sensuous and visible which resisted it. God condescended to give him such a sign, and showed how firm His promise was by binding Himself to its fulfilment in the same way by which in those days a mutual promise between men was solemnly sealed; although properly speaking this was not appropriate, which may be said also of the oath to which God frequently condescends in Scripture, though it is really adapted for man only. Sacrificial animals were slain and divided, and the promising party passed between them for a sign that his promise was sacred, made under the divine sanction, and also as a proof of his readiness, in case the covenant should be broken, to take upon himself divine punishment, and to be cut in pieces like the slaughtered animals. This solemn sanction of the promise—and that is the point in question—was not intended merely for Abraham, but also for his posterity. How could they doubt, without sacrilege, that God, the foundation of the sacredness of every human promise, should Himself keep the vow so solemnly made? At the same time the offence which later divine providence might present to weak faith was avoided. Abraham’s descendants must leave the land of promise, must live for a long time in hard servitude in Egypt; all human hope of the fulfilment of the promise of Canaan’s possession must disappear. But while God here predicts this guidance. He shows that the very thing which appears to disturb the promise forms the beginning of its realization. Birds of prey descend on the sacrificial animals, upon which the number 3 is impressed—they must all be three years old—as the signature of the divine, that which is consecrated to God; but Abraham, the representative of the Abrahamic covenant, scares them away. The meaning of this symbol is, that human power will try to nullify God’s covenant, but will prove unsuccessful and then be instructed by the word. For four hundred years the descendants of Abraham will serve in a strange land; God will then judge their oppressors, and they shall go forth with great possessions. At the same time an indication is given of the cause of the long interval intervening between the promise and its fulfilment. The iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full, though already far advanced. This must first be fulfilled and the necessity arise for the manifestation of God’s punitive justice, that by this means the expression of His love to His people may have free course. The fact that in this vision God appears to Abraham in the form of fire points to the energetic character of His essence. Wherever fire appears in relation to God, it characterizes Him as personal energy. This divine energy first becomes visible in His punitive justice, which from the connection must be regarded as having been first directed against the enemies of the chosen race, so that the appearance is symbolical, and means “those who curse thee, I will curse.” But at the same time an appeal is made to the elect themselves, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” Yet God reveals Himself as sacred fire in love as well as in righteousness; in love which manifests itself to the individual believer and to the whole church. 6. Abraham and Hagar.—God’s covenant-truth soon found an opportunity for manifestation. Abraham himself did what he could to nullify the promise. This is the principal point of view from which the narrative is to be looked at. It has often been maintained that Abraham did not commit sin in this matter. God did not tell him that he should beget the promised son by Sarai. But if his eyes had been quite pure, he would have known that it could not be otherwise. Sarai was his lawful wife. The narrative itself points to this, for Sarai is expressly and repeatedly called the wife of Abraham, and in this designation we find the writer’s judgment on Abraham’s action. Polygamy was at variance with the divine institution of marriage; and though it might last for a period owing to the divine forbearance, yet it was never allowed as lawful. How then could Abraham think that the birth of the son of promise should be brought about by a violation of the divine order? But he did not make this reflection, because it appeared quite too improbable to him and still more so to Sarai, that the promise should find its longed-for fulfilment in the ordinary way. He thought it necessary therefore to help God, instead of waiting quietly till He should bring the matter to its conclusion; but the violation of divine order soon avenged itself, as the author relates with visible purpose. The unnatural relation in which the slave was placed to her mistress, by the consent of the latter, prepared sore trouble for her. The care manifested by the angel of the Lord for a runaway slave only appears in its right light if we regard it as an emanation of God’s love to Abram. The main object of the narrative is to make this apparent, and so to attract his posterity into love towards such a God. Any other object is doubtful. Many say, we must look upon Hagar as the ancestress of one of the most numerous peoples of the whole earth. If Ishmael had been born and educated in idolatrous Egypt, then the nation springing from him would have been poisoned in its very origin. Growing up in the house of Abram, he must at least have imbibed some good qualities. And so it actually was. The pre-Mohammedan religion of the Arabs is the purest of all heathen religions. Even the Mohammedism founded on it contains a multitude of fragments and germs of truth which give it the preference over all heathen religions. On the other hand, it may be objected that the assumption of a continuance of the original tradition among the posterity of Ishmael is untenable, that Mohammedism is only superior to heathenism in one respect, in every other it is decidedly worse. But it is enough to note that Scripture does not give the slightest indication of such a point of view. It is necessary to be on our guard against the confidence with which so many in the present day impose their own ideas on Scripture. What Scripture wishes to tell us it does tell clearly and definitely. 7. The promise of Isaac.—Abraham thought that by the birth of Ishmael the divine promise would be fulfilled. This is evident from Genesis 17:18. It was indeed a mere supposition, and we must not regard it as an absolute certainty. His posterity, he thought, would participate in the promised divine blessings; and in mercy to his weakness God left him for a considerable period in this delusion. It was not till thirteen years later, a year before Isaac’s birth, that he was undeceived; when God promised him another son, whom Sarai should bear, and who should be the inheritor of the covenant and of the promises. Abraham, already ninety-nine years of age, found it difficult to reconcile himself to this new idea. For thirteen years he had fancied himself in the region of the visible; and all at once he was transported back to the region of faith. God showed him the earnestness of His purpose by altering his name and Sarah’s in reference to the renewal of the promise. The name in ancient times was not so distinct from the thing as it is with us. It was therefore much more moveable: a new position and a new name were closely connected. These new names were a constant reminder of the promises; a God-given guarantee for their fulfilment. Abram, the high father, the honoured head of a race, receives the name Abraham, composed of אב and רהם, according to the Arabic, “a great multitude” = the Hebrew התון. Sarai properly, principes mei, the plural instead of the abstract “my kingdom,” receives the name Sarah, princess; as Jerome has very correctly said, “princeps mea, unius tantum domus materfamilias, postea dicta est absolute princeps.” Both names emanate from the narrow limits of an obscure tribe, and pass over into the wide region of the world’s history. They characterize Abraham and Sarah as persons of universal significance. From Abraham through Isaac there sprang first of all a single nation only; and the “multitude of nations” in reference to which Abram receives the new name of Abraham, father of a great multitude, cannot apply to this people alone; the less so since the question relates to a multitude of Goyim, which was more especially a designation of those born heathen. But this one nation was by adoption to be infinitely extended; it was at a future time to receive a multitude of nations into its bosom. To this the parallel fundamental promise in Genesis 12:3 has distinct reference, “In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” They are ingrafted into the stock of the chosen race. It was only in this way that kings of people could proceed is predicted in Genesis 17:16. In a natural way only the kings of one nation could proceed from her. It was because all this was connected with the birth of Isaac that the preparation for it was so solemn. And now since the birth of the heir of the promise, in whom as it were the covenant nation should be born, was so near, on account of the close connection of sacrament and church, circumcision, the mark of the covenant, was instituted, and is still retained in the Christian church in baptism, which only differs from it in form. To Abraham it was the pledge and seal of the covenant; and was designed constantly to give new light to his faith and hope, but at the same time also to his zeal in the service of God. Further details hereafter; we note only this, that the extension of circumcision to the servants was fraught with great significance. It pointed to the fact that participation in salvation was not confined to corporeal birth; and was a prelude to the later reception of the heathen into the kingdom of God. If reception into the chosen race were a result of circumcision; under altered circumstances, it must also be a result of baptism. 8. The appearance of the Lord at Mamre.—There can be no doubt that the three men who turned in to Abraham were in the writer’s view the Angel of the Lord in company with two inferior angels. Neither can it be disputed that from the beginning Abraham regarded them as something more than mere men. His very first speech is addressed to the Lord. But from the first he was uncertain in what manner the Lord was here present, whether personally, or only in the person of His messengers and servants. A dim presentiment of something superhuman and divine was awakened in his soul by the majesty which beamed especially from the countenance of one of his guests. To Him, therefore, he addressed his requests and speeches. The presentiment which had been awakened by the spirit of God became clear consciousness when the stranger manifested a knowledge of his relations, which could not have been gained by human means, and foretold things which no man could foreknow; which was changed to certainty when the Angel of the Lord revealed what He was, and predicted the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha which immediately took place. It follows from this representation that Abraham’s conduct towards the strangers on their arrival, was something more thanordinary hospitality. It was rather a proof of that fear of God which has a mind exercised to discern the divine and can recognise it even through the thickest veil; it was the lively expression of joy which every pure and pious spirit feels when it sees God, comes into close relation to Him and the divine. Abraham did not at first clearly recognise what degree of directness belonged to this view of God; and therefore his offering to his high guests is not at variance with this opinion; the fact that they eat does not contradict the declaration respecting their nature. Only the necessity to eat is opposed to this; the power to eat is given at the same time with the human form, and the fact that the possibility here became a reality had its cause in the divine condescension to Abraham’s childlike standpoint. What love presented, love accepted. The eating of Christ after His resurrection is analogous, and the glorification connected with it, Luke 24 and John 21. The meaning of this appearance of the Lord to Abraham is only rightly apprehended when its immediate connection with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha is kept in view. The mere repetition of the promise which has just been renewed, cannot be the sole aim. The judgment on Sodom and Gomorrha was deeply significant for the future. It taught God’s punitive justice more clearly and impressively than could be done by words, which cannot lay claim to significance unless they are able to make good their reality as interpretations of the acts of God; then, indeed, they are of the greatest importance, since human weakness finds it difficult rightly to interpret the text of the works without such a commentary. In that awful picture of the destruction, Israel saw in its own country the type of its own fate, if by like apostasy it should call forth the retributive justice of God. And the event is continually represented by the prophets in this light, not as a history long past, but as one continually recurring under similar circumstances; comp., for example, Deuteronomy 29:23, Amos 4:11, Isaiah 1:9, and many other passages, even to the Apocalypse, where in Revelation 11:8, the degenerate church, given up to the judgment of the Lord, is termed spiritual Sodom. But the event could only reach this its lofty aim by the revelation of its significance to Abraham, and through him to his posterity. Only in this way did it leave the region of the accidental, of the purely natural. Only thus did it receive its reference to the divine essence, and become a real prophecy. The intercession of Abraham called forth by the communication, and the answers which God gave to it, are detailed so amply, first of all to bring to light the justice of God, a knowledge of which formed the necessary condition of the moral influence of the past. God states expressly that neither arbitrary caprice nor yet severity, but only the entire moral depravity of the city shall provoke His arm to punish. But at the same time Abraham’s fruitless intercession for Israel contains the lesson, that the faith of another can never take away the curse of one’s own unbelief; and that even the closest relation between God and the patriarchs cannot protect from destruction the posterity who are unlike them; comp. Jeremiah 15:1, where that which is here exemplified in deeds is thus expressed in words, “Then said the Lord unto me. Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my mind could not be toward this people; cast them out of my sight, and let them go forth.” The Ὁ πατήρ ἡμῶν Ἀβραάμ έστι which the degenerate sons afterwards urged in excuse for their false security (comp. John 8:39), here receives its right explanation. We find in the history of divine revelations that great mercy is often accompanied by deep affliction. It is enough to draw attention to the parallelism of the ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο and the destruction of Jerusalem. Here also it is the result of wise, divine intention. Both necessarily belong together. By means of the one, the other is first placed in a right light, and its practical efficacy strengthened. The manifestation of the grace of God preserves from despair, and creates a heart for God; the manifestation of avenging justice guards against frivolity and prevents mercy being attributed to caprice. The appearance of the Angel of the Lord to Abraham, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha, form a continuous, connected narrative. The curse is immediately connected with the blessing; and both are laid before the eyes of the future people of God for a great, decisive choice. If any one thinks that the Old Testament knows only a wrathful God, let him read Genesis 18 in connection with Genesis 19. On the way to the divine judgments, divine mercy reveals itself yet once again in a glorious manner. “Depart from me all evil-doers,” which the revelation of justice addresses to us, is preceded by “Come to me all,” which has its basis in the visit to Abraham. The condescension which led the Angel of the Lord to turn in to Abram’s tent differs only in form from that by which the incarnate λόγος dwelt among us, ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν (John 1:14), condescended to eat with publicans and sinners, and by which with the Father and the Holy Ghost even now He daily makes His abode in the low and impure habitations of our hearts. Comp. Revelation 3:20, “Behold, I stand at the door, and knock; if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.” Again in the Gospel of John 14:23, “If a man love me, he will keep my word: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.” It is impossible, therefore, to understand the one mode of condescension without at the same time understanding the other. For the formal difference has its justification in the condition of Abram, and in that which heathen antiquity invented of its gods. The imaginary form of revelation must have been one adapted to this time, if such a revelation were destined to take place in it. But so long as the heart is closed against the highest proof of God’s condescension, this form of it must necessarily be regarded as unworthy of Him, and be treated with contempt. According to Genesis 18:33 the Lord went His way after He had left communing with Abraham. The hypothesis that He afterwards met with the two angels is without foundation. The angels speak to Lot in the person of the sender. 9. The Destruction of Sodom.—We shall first say a few words respecting the scene of the occurrence. Josephus, De bell. jud. 4:8, 2, says, “Above Jericho lies a very barren mountain of great length. It extends northward as far as the boundaries of Scythopolis, towards the south as far as the country of Sodom to the limits of the lake Asphaltitis. There is an opposite mountain that is situated on the other side of Jordan, which begins at Julias in the north, and extends southward as far as Gomorrha, a town in the neighbourhood of Arabia Petra. The region that lies between these ridges of mountains is called the Great Plain, and reaches from the village Ginnabris as far as the lake Asphaltitis. Its length is 230 stadia, and its breadth 120 stadia, and it is intersected by the Jordan.” An extension of this plain, called the Ghor, in olden times formed the plain now occupied by the Dead Sea. Formerly this plain was abundantly watered. It was watered not only by the Jordan, but also by many smaller rivers which now empty themselves into the Dead Sea—the brook Kedron, the spring Callirrhoe, the Arnon, and the Zered. Moses therefore compares the region with Paradise, which was watered by four streams, Genesis 13:10, and with Lower Egypt, which was exceedingly fruitful, and was watered by the branches of the Nile. Moreover the district was at that time full of bitumen, as we infer from Genesis 14:10, where it is related that the people of the kings of Sodom and Gomorrha, who were conquered by Chedorlaomer, had fallen into the pits of bitumen. Bitumen, therefore, was already buried there; or rather there were natural pits, sources of bitumen, before the sea was there. In harmony with this statement is the fact that even yet masses of asphalt often appear suddenly floating on the sea—Robinson, part iii. p. 164; Ritter, Palestine, i. pp. 752, 757—as this account would naturally lead us to expect, since the masses from the asphalt mines which are covered by the sea, must necessarily come up from time to time. The natural condition of the district has received a remarkable elucidation, as it appears, by a recent discovery. The English editor of Burckhardt’s Travels made the conjecture that before the destruction of Sodom the Jordan had its efflux in the Arabian Gulf. This conjecture was confidently laid hold of by others. The former bed of the Jordan, whose waters now lose themselves in the Dead Sea, they asserted was still in existence; and Burckhardt followed it from that place to the Arabian Gulf (comp. v. Raumer, March of the Israelites from Egypt to Canaan, Leipzig 1837, p. 7). But later researches, especially those of Schubert and Robinson, have completely overthrown this result. What speaks most strongly against it is that according to these researches the Jordan and the Dead Sea lie considerably below the water-mark of the Mediterranean—Schubert’s Travels, part iii. p. 87; Robinson, part ii. p. 455. The Jordan must therefore have flowed uphill if it had emptied itself into the Arabian Gulf; comp. finally, Ritter’s Palestine, i. p. 749. To this is added, that later observation has established the fact that the waters of the Wady Arabah in the rainy season all flow towards the north—Robinson, part iii. p. 34. Even Ritter, who defended this hypothesis in the first edition of his Geography, remarks in the second, Palestine, i. p. 770, “At present it would certainly be impossible that the water of the Jordan could run uphill above the watershed height which rises between the south end of the Dead Sea and the north end of the Gulf of Ailah.” We cannot follow him in his conjecture that the ground between the two may have become gradually elevated in the course of centuries. The most probable hypothesis now seems to be that which Robinson seeks to establish in his treatise, The Dead Sea and the Destruction of Sodom, viz. that already before that great catastrophe there was in the valley of Jordan a sea into which the waters of the river poured themselves, and which was spread over the whole valley by means of that catastrophe. The wealth of the cities in the plain of Jordan had produced the greatest luxury; and this had given rise to so fearful a moral degeneracy that the inhabitants were ripe for the judgment of extermination more than four hundred years before the other Canaanites. The mutual connection of the two judgments must not be overlooked. Just as the judgment on Sodom and Gomorrha was a most explicit warning to the neighbouring Canaanites, so it allowed that which was impending over themselves to appear in its right light, by drawing away the attention from the human instruments to the divine Author, who here accomplishes indirectly what He had there done directly. It was by design that an opportunity was given to the Sodomites beforehand to reveal the depth of their corruption, which Ezekiel, Ezekiel 16:49, so graphically describes in the words, “Her iniquity was pride, fulness of bread; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before the Lord.” In this way the thought of an accidental result was the more effectually excluded. It was not necessary to look for the cause of the event; it lay before their eyes. It was this also which clearly manifested the absolute justice of the divine judgment, of which man, owing to his innate Pelagianism, is so difficult to persuade. The prophetic signification of the occurrence was dependent on a perception of its absolute righteousness. God did not require the revelation of the sinful corruption of the inhabitants of Sodom; but for man it was necessary, if the judgment were to serve as a warning example; and therefore with condescending love God caused it to become manifest. It witnesses to the highest degree of corruption that a whole city should have united to participate in a crime which only a few could outwardly perpetrate. Thus and thus alone did the fact become an express warning to the people of God, who, according to Jeremiah 25:29, were the more in danger of God’s punitive justice if they surrendered themselves to sin, just because they were the people of God: “For, lo, I begin to bring evil on the city which is called by my name.” We find an exact parallel to the occasion given to Sodom to reveal their sin, in the temptation of Abraham, by which he had an opportunity to reveal his heart full of love toward God and man. And the manifestation of grace follows in a way which places the divine justice in a clear light, showing that the love of God is not blind, but rests upon an ethical foundation. In judging Lot, many have been led astray by the passage in 2 Peter 2:7. This passage takes cognizance rather of his ideal than of his historical character. It refers less to Lot as an individual than as a type, as a representative of those who are preserved by God amid judgments on a sinful world; a mode of explanation which must also be applied to what is said of Esau in the Epistle to the Hebrews. To be both type and representative, he must bear in himself essential characteristics of his counterpart. This is shown by the fact of his being saved. If there had been no good germ in him, if he had stood quite on the same level with the Sodomites, his personal relation to Abraham alone would not have availed to save him. His conduct distinguished him from the Sodomites; his noble hospitality, the sacrifice to protect his guests, his obedience to the angels, while his sons-in-law mocked the announcement of the divine judgment. What the Sodomites say of Lot, Genesis 19:9, “He must needs be a judge,” leads to the inference that formerly he had frequently testified against the prevailing corruption. But near the light there is also great shadow. We have already seen how the choice of his abode showed that he did not possess a proper horror of sin, and was therefore himself strongly infected by it. And the fact that we find him sitting in the gate tells against him; it was the place where the whole city life was concentrated, and where much that was new was to be heard and seen, but at the same time much that was bad. He also appears to disadvantage in having betrothed his two daughters to inhabitants of the town of Sodom. We cannot agree with Chrysostom, Homil. 43 in Gen., and with Ambrose, i. 1, De Ahr., in praising him for having offered to give up his daughters instead of the strangers; yet we may give him the benefit of Augustine’s excuse, that the sight of the great danger had put him so beside himself that he did not know what he was doing. Doubtless he hoped that the Sodomites would not accept his offer, on account of the relation in which he stood to the most distinguished among them. But his tarrying in the city doomed to destruction shows how his heart clung to it and to his earthly possessions; his foolish fear, notwithstanding the guidance of God, proves that his faith was very small; and that later event showed him in the worst light of all. The disposition of his household also tells against him; his wife, perhaps a Sodomite by birth, so absorbed in earthly things that even danger to life could not withdraw her heart from them for a moment; his daughters so coarse that they do not scruple to employ incest as means to an end; his sons-in-law resembling the rest of the Sodomites. With reference now to the process of destruction, many have sought to explain it in a naturalistic way by assuming that brimstone and fire are in the Hebrew tongue a designation of lightning (vide Clericus and J. D. Michaelis—the latter in his Dissertatio de origine maris mortui, in his Commentt.; the former in his treatise, De Sodomae suhversione). But this assumption has no certain foundation, and is contradicted by the words, “The Lord caused it to rain,” which never occurs of lightning. And in Job 18:15, where brimstone is mentioned without fire, there cannot be a reference to lightning. The hypothesis of a proper sulphurous rain is the less unlikely since something similar has occurred on a small scale up to very recent times; and sulphurous fogs are only to be expected from the nature of the district, which has already been specified. In the neighbourhood of the Dead Sea are even now a multitude of sulphurous springs; fetid, sulphurous gases are evolved from the morasses on the shore, abundantly penetrating the whole atmosphere of the sea in a very unpleasant way; and on the coastland sulphur is to be found everywhere in fragments varying from the size of a walnut to that of an egg—Ritter, Pal. i. p. 760. The nature of the country serves to explain the origin of the Dead Sea. The fallen sulphur afforded a first material for the fire. It soon kindled the sulphurous masses and veins in the earth, and the whole crust of the latter was consumed. We learn the power of such fire from the account of Pliny, 1. ii. c. 106; the Hephaestian mountains in Lycia burn if they are only touched with a torch, and so violently, that even the stones and sand of the brook become red hot. The waters of the rivers which had formerly watered the district now collected in the exhausted crater. Thus the Dead Sea arose. The conjecture of Michaelis that there had formerly been a subterranean sea seemed to be rendered unnecessary by that supposed discovery in reference to the Jordan; but now again it assumes its right place, which, however, can only be that of an hypothesis. With it we may compare the already mentioned hypothesis of Robinson, that there was formerly a smaller sea which was extended by the consuming of the earth’s surface. In Genesis 19:24 only the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha is mentioned. But it appears from chap. 18:that the ruin was to extend over the whole valley of the Jordan. In Genesis 14:2, Deuteronomy 29:23, Hosea 11:8, Admah and Zeboim are expressly mentioned. The conjecture of Kurtz that the destroyed cities are not themselves covered by the sea, but that their sites are to be found in the neighbourhood, rests only on a misapprehension of Deuteronomy 29:23 and Zephaniah 2:9, where the point of resemblance to Sodom and Gomorrha is only the destruction in general, not the special manner of it. A French traveller, De Saulcy, thought he had discovered the ruins of Sodom and Gomorrha, and blazoned this discovery with great emphasis in the description of his travels. But not long after a cool Dutchman, the engineer, v. d. Velde, visited the same place, and at once perceived that the supposed ruins were natural rocks, and that vanity had blinded the eyes of the Frenchman. The memory of the event has also been preserved in heathen authors, but it is uncertain whether they are independent of the account in Genesis; the contrary is far more probable; almost certain if we take into consideration the time of the authors; comp. especially Strabo, i, 16, p. 256; Tacitus, Hist. i. 5, 6, 7; Plin. i. 5, 16. The most remarkable confirmation of the biblical account is afforded by the nature of the sea itself, even at the present day. Comp. the excellent description in the first edition of Ritter’s Geography; the second gives no description embracing details. It has so terrible a symbolical character that even if we knew nothing historically of that catastrophe, we must have guessed at some such event. “The desert,” Ritter says, “which surrounds it formerly gave it the name of the Dead Sea, since, in the opinion of all ages, a curse rests both upon the sea and the desert so far as it extends, which has been strangely fulfilled. No living being, not even a plant, grows in it. Above it are sulphurous mists and pillars of smoke. Diodorus Siculus and afterwards the Arabs called it the Mephitic. Marcus Sanuto, who visited the Dead Sea about 1300, remarks, ‘est autem hoc mare semper fumans et tenebrosum sicut caminus inferni.’ The natives speak only with fear of the wildness of its shores, of the fruit in its district full of dust and bitter ashes, of the Bedouin hordes on the sea, who are said to be more greedy of spoil and of blood than anywhere else.” “As the Jordan is no river, so the sea is not a sea resembling others on the earth. It is reckoned among them only on account of the outward appearance of a body of water, and of its mathematical dimensions—its nature is entirely different. It is wanting in all the charms which make the Alpine seas and so many others points of attraction; and in all properties by which activity, mobility, and the dissolving power of its element give a manifold character to the atmosphere—qualities which put the world of plants, animals, and men into increased activity, which make new transformations possible, and favour the life of nature and the intercourse of men. This sea-water is undrinkable either by man or beast; it nourishes neither plants nor animals; according to Hasselquist, the country round it is deficient in all vegetation, reeds do not even grow in the sea. The air of the district has not the softness and coolness of sea-air; and round about to a large extent there is no habitation of peaceful men, in the garden which once resembled the land of Egypt.” With this description we may compare the prosaic one of Robinson, which serves to confirm it in every essential particular, part ii. p. 448 et seq. He also says, ‘‘ In accordance with the testimony of antiquity and of most travellers, no living thing is to be found in the waters of the Dead Sea—not even a trace of animal or vegetable life. Our own experience, as far as we had opportunity of observation, serves to confirm the truth of this testimony. We saw no sign of life in the water.” Robinson, however, denies that foul mists rise from the Dead Sea. But an experience of five days is not sufficient foundation for this denial. The sea certainly presents different phenomena at different times. Comp. Ritter, Pal. i. p. 764. Parthei says, “Above the Dead Sea there is a permanent layer of vapour like an immovable wall, essentially different from the morning and evening vapours which are wont to form on the sea or inland lakes.” But even Robinson finds complete barrenness and deathlike stillness of nature round about the shores. The impression of the symbol is strengthened by its counterpart, the Sea of Gennesareth. Comp. the charming description in Ritter. In these two seas Israel had an earthly image of paradise and hell constantly before their eyes. It was not accidental that the Lord, who came not to destroy but to save the souls of men, chose the latter for the scene of his activity; neither can it be accidental that in the Old Testament there is express mention of the Dead Sea alone; the Sea of Gennesareth is only mentioned in passing; while the Dead Sea is not named at all in the New Testament. The symbolical character of the Dead Sea strikes us very forcibly in the passage of Ezekiel 47:1-12 : a spring there arises from the new sanctuary, and soon becomes a great stream, which flowing to the Dead Sea, meets its waters and fills them with living things. The Dead Sea appears there as a symbol of the world lying under the curse, from which it is to be freed by the blessings of the kingdom of God in its future glorious development. The narrative of the changing of Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt has less difficulty in itself than has been introduced into it. A lingering was connected with the looking behind. Disobedient to the divine command from blind love to earthly possessions, she remained standing in the place doomed to destruction. The ground gave way beneath her; and she perished in the bursting fire, or was stifled by the vapour. She took the semblance of salt, for the whole district where it was not covered by the sea, was covered by a layer and great blocks of salt. Even now the water has a very powerful encrusting power. “My boots,” says Chateaubriand, “were scarcely dry before they were covered over with salt; our clothes, hats, hands, and faces were in less than two hours saturated with this mineral water.” In the neighbourhood of Kerek Burckhardt saw from a mountain the southern point of the Dead Sea, which appeared like a sea full of islands and sandbanks covered over with a white layer of salt. According to Seetzen, the stones in the neighbourhood of the Dead Sea showed incrustations like the brine-drops on salt; comp. Ritter, Pal. i. 649, 688; Robinson, part ii. p. 435, 440. In Luke 17:32 the Lord holds up Lot’s wife as a warning example for those who, after having been called, become entangled in the judgments impending on the world, by their love of earthly possessions. The transaction between Lot and his two daughters is excused by many of the church fathers—Irenaeus, lib. 4:51; Origen, H. 5 in Gen.; Chrysostom, H. 44; Ambrose, de Abr. 1, 6. To a certain extent even by Luther, whose observation, “Thou mightest, if God were to withdraw His hand, fall into like grievous sin,” certainly deserves consideration. Here we see clearly how a false principle once accepted may mislead. Even granting that Lot was perfectly unconscious in the matter, which is not conceivable; his drunkenness, after what he had just experienced, is inexcusable. The daughters could not think that all men had perished; though this has frequently been asserted, owing to a misapprehension of Genesis 19:31, where, however, they only say that in their loneliness they had no prospect of a suitable union; they had shortly before left the city of Zoar, which was not involved in the destruction. The reproach of an evil fabrication made by rationalism against the author of Genesis in reference to this narrative shows how little the biblical department has been investigated, and may be recognised as a calumny if we remember that the offences of the ancestors of the Israelites are recounted with the same openness. We have only to remember the way in which Joseph was treated by his brethren; to recall the like carnal transgression in the family of Judah, Genesis 38; and the odium against the Sichemites, so severely reprimanded by Jacob on his deathbed. And moreover, we have to take into consideration that the supposed hatred which is said to have begotten this narrative, is to be found nowhere else in the Pentateuch. On the contrary, the Israelites are earnestly exhorted to keep sacred the ties of blood by which they were connected with the Moabites, Ammonites, and Edomites; to treat them as their brethren; to wrest not a foot-breadth of land from them; comp. Deuteronomy 2:3et seq., Deuteronomy 2:9et seq. Even the wickedness which the Moabites practised on the Israelites in bribing Balaam to curse them, and in leading them to idolatry and prostitution by his advice, is left unpunished on account of the bond of relationship: the avenging war is directed only against the participators in their guilt, the Midianites. It is just this interest of relationship which gives rise to the communication of the story. 10. Isaac’s birth and Ishmael’s expulsion.—Five and twenty years after the giving of the first promise, when Abraham was a hundred years old and Sarah ninety, Isaac was born. His name, laughter, he who is laughed at, the laughable, on account of the contrast between the reality and the idea, is very significant for him as the son of promise; whose birth, looked at from natural causes, could not possibly have been expected. In him the name belongs to the people of God at all times, for they are represented by him. Among them life everywhere proceeds from death; everywhere there is occasion for holy laughter; everywhere things turn out quite otherwise than could have been expected. A few years later, human sin was to become the means in the hand of God of separating the son of Abraham in a lower sense, and his posterity, from the chosen race which alone could call him father in the full sense, and of excluding them from participation in the promised inheritance. This was a type of the separation between the false and the true children of Abraham, which rested upon the same principle, and which, in accordance with repeated predictions of the Pentateuch, was destined afterwards to take place in Israel itself; a direct refutation of all claims having their basis in the flesh, even within the Christian church; comp. Galatians 4:22et seq. The conduct of Sarah is unjustifiable. Her hardness probably arose partly from jealousy, and partly from apprehension lest her son should at a future time be called upon to share the inheritance with Ishmael. For the sons of a slave were not in themselves excluded from the inheritance. Jacob’s inheritance was shared by the sons of slaves as well as by others. Yet the author passes no judgment on the motives of Sarah. His object is rather to draw attention to God’s part and design in the matter. This, God’s care for the chosen race, in keeping it pure from every false mixture, is the point of the narrative. Abraham here appears in the best light. What he refused to concede to Sarah from weak love, he did with joy when God commanded it, showing him that Sarah was only an instrument in His hand, that her subjective, sinful desire was in objective harmony with His will, that what she desired must happen if the divine plans were to be realized, making obedience easier to him by explaining that Isaac alone was in a full sense his son, and those who descended from him in a full sense his posterity. It was not cruelty in Abraham to allow Ishmael and his mother to depart so destitute of guidance and protection; but rather a firm conviction that the God whose faithfulness he had learnt to know in so many ways, would fulfil His promise here also, and protect the forsaken. Moreover, the hard form of the expulsion has a symbolical signification. It is intended to show distinctly the inadequacy of those claims to the kingdom of God, which have their foundation in the flesh, to set forth the necessity of subduing the natural inclinations, and to bring into clear light the distinction between the son of nature and the son of grace. After this object had been attained, the natural relation again acquired its rights; which, however, were but limited. Ishmael, along with the sons of Keturah by Abraham, receives a gift, comp. Genesis 25:6; and we find him beside Isaac at the burial of Abraham, Genesis 25:9. 11. The temptation of Abraham.—The time at which this occurred cannot be determined. Those who have sought to fix the date accurately, have only followed their own fancies, or at most very uncertain combinations; those, for example, who assume that Isaac was thirty-three years of age at that time, in order to make the type more conformable to its antitype. The task which God imposed upon Abraham is designated as a temptation at the very beginning, a circumstance which has raised doubt in many minds. James says, “God tempts no man,” and the Lord Himself declares the same, for He teaches us to ask that God may not lead us into temptation. But all the Lord’s Prayer contains only inverted promises in the form of requests. The petitions are all in accordance with the will of God; and if He were in the habit of leading into temptation, we durst not pray thus. It would be equivalent to desiring Him not to do what is in conformity with His being and conducive to our good. But this difficulty is easily obviated. It disappears in the simple distinction between the two different meanings of. temptation. In the first place, it denotes inner allurement to sin; in which sense it is used in the words of our Lord, “Pray that ye enter not into temptation.” Then in the words of Paul, “But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts,” 1 Timothy 6:9. Here the falling into temptation appears a thing unconditionally evil, a state sinful in itself; in the wake of temptation are many lusts. Calvin says, “Pravi omnes motus, qui nos ad peccandum sollicitant, sub tentationis nomine comprehenduntur; “and in the same sense James also says, “No man can say that he is tempted of God.” But temptation may likewise occur in a good sense, in which case it proceeds from God. He does not spare His own a battle with sin, but rather leads them into it by design; not wishing, however, to kill them, but only to further their advancement. He strictly proportions the trials to their progress; and far from inwardly urging them to sin, offers them power to withstand it victoriously. In this sense God’s whole guidance of His people is a continuous temptation—He constantly places them in circumstances in which their inner state must manifest itself—which is the very highest proof of His love towards them. Without temptation man becomes stagnant; only in being tempted do we learn rightly to know ourselves. Trial eradicates all unconscious hypocrisy, does away with all pretence; by it we learn to know our natural weakness, and the strength we have already attained in God; by it, therefore, we acquire humility and courage, and are preserved from the two dangerous enemies of progress, pride and despondency. It is by trial we attain to a true knowledge of God; we are not really conscious of what we have in Him until we come to want it. And again, it is by trial that all our powers are set in motion; and the single victories which it enables us to gain gradually establish a firm position. Of temptation in this sense Jesus Sirach says, in Sir 2:1, “My son, if thou come to serve the Lord, prepare thy soul for temptation, for gold is tried in the fire, and acceptable men in the furnace of adversity; “and James, “Count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations; knowing this, that the trial of your faith worketh patience,” James 1:2; and in James 1:12 he calls the man who endures temptation in this sense blessed, for he says, “when he is tried he shall receive the crown of life which the Lord hath promised to them that love Him.” There can be no doubt that the temptation of Abraham was of the latter kind. He was not tempted beyond what he was able to bear; this is clear from the fact that he withstood it. He does not encounter this most difficult of all his trials until he has first been exercised and purified by a whole succession of previous temptations, beginning with the command to go forth from his father’s house. What made Abraham’s temptation so difficult was not only the natural love of the father for the son, but that in him were bound up all the glorious promises of God, which appeared to perish with his death. God’s present command seemed to make void His former word, so often repeated, so solemnly ratified. How many specious pretexts were there for doubting unbelief and disobedience! It was because he cast aside all these pretexts, and raised himself above all visible things, “accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead,” Hebrews 11:17-19; this made his victory so glorious. As a means of obviating some of the existing difficulties which arise from prevalent conceptions of the divine command, “Thou shalt offer him there for a burnt-offering,” the following remarks may be made:—(1.) It is certain that God commanded Abraham to offer up his son only as a trial, while he hindered the fulfilment. Hence it appears inappropriate to class this with the human sacrifices of the heathen. That there must be an immensely wide difference between them is evident from the fact that in the same book where Abraham’s act is told as a glorification of his faith, the offering up of children is forbidden as a fearful abomination; comp. Leviticus 18:21, Leviticus 20:2, and other passages. Such a combination appears unsuitable even if we regard this transaction as purely subjective. Bertheau remarks (p. 225) from his standpoint, “We see in the narrative how Abraham already recognised the sinfulness of offering up children; and in this respect also he stands as the forerunner of Moses and the Israelitish prophets.” Ewald, “The highest trial of faith ends with the attainment of an exalted truth, viz. this, that Jehovah does not desire human sacrifices. It is certain that the contrary was at one time conceivable, and therefore to be attempted; but even in that primitive time it was refuted by the experience of the greatest hero of the faith.” And it is not to be forgotten that Abraham must have been unerringly certain of the command of God, otherwise his obedience would have been an abomination before God. (2.) We must also consider the relation of the command to the whole spiritual condition of Abraham. The command cannot be regarded as one which might still be repeated under certain circumstances. It presupposes a state of childlike simplicity. God does not prove the man who, from God’s own revelation in His word, has attained a clear and firm insight into His will and law, by commanding something at variance with that law. It is impossible, however, to shut our eyes to the fact that these remarks do not entirely remove the difficulties. It is hard to understand how God, the unchangeable, can first issue a command and afterwards prohibit its fulfilment; it can scarcely be justified, even if Abraham’s undeveloped condition be taken into consideration, that God should, as a trial, command something which, according to His law, is excessively godless. But these difficulties disappear if the command of God be understood in a spiritual sense; if we understand it of the spiritual sacrifice of Isaac; a conception which is the more justifiable because the use of the expressions employed of sacrifice in a spiritual sense, which rests upon the fact that sacrifice in the Old Testament has throughout a symbolical signification, was a foreshadowing of spiritual relations, and runs through all Scripture; comp., for example, Hosea 14:3; Ps. 3:19, Psalms 141:2. Lange in his Life of Jesus (i. p. 120) appropriately remarks, “Jehovah commanded Abraham to offer up Isaac. Abraham was ready to make this sacrifice, but at the decisive moment understood it as if Moloch had said to him, thou shalt slay Isaac.” It was by design, however, that the manner of sacrifice was not more clearly defined. The misunderstanding, though originating in Abraham and to be set down to his account, was still in accordance with God’swill. Whether Abraham could really make the spiritual sacrifice of Isaac demanded by God, would appear from the position which he took towards the outwardly-understood command, where all self-deception was impossible. When this result was attained, when the spiritual sacrifice was accomplished in the bodily, then God removed the misunderstanding, and explained that His command had already been fully satisfied. Genesis 22:12; thus indicating to His people at all times the sense in which alone He desires human sacrifices. We cannot object to this, that “go to the land of Moriah” pointed to a bodily offering. For even a purely spiritual act, a purely internal battle, may belong to a definite time and place; and the fixing of this particular place for the spiritual battle, had special reasons which we shall discuss later on. The objection that Abraham’s false interpretation of the command must in that case have been expressly rectified, is also without weight. The rectification is given in preventing the slaying. If it be asked what then would have happened if Abraham had understood the command rightly from the beginning? we answer that this is supposing a case which would have been impossible. It was just because God foresaw the misunderstanding that He gave the command, that the correct understanding might be established for all ages. But the main thing is to keep distinctly in view the practical kernel of the transaction; its reference first of all to the covenant-nation, and then to the church of all ages. Only by this means we attain the proper standpoint for judging the external phenomena. God demands from His people the most complete self-renunciation, the sacrifice even of the dearest; and withal the most unconditional obedience. The father of the faithful fulfilled this demand, so justifying God’s choice, and at the same time showing by what means His true children—even now each has his Isaac to offer—must prove themselves such. The covenant nation is a nation of sacrifice. According to Leviticus 6 fire must burn upon the altar and never be extinguished. And the burnt-offering must continually burn upon the altar, the burnt-offering of the evening till the morning, and the burnt-offering of the morning till the evening. By this means the people were reminded that their being consisted in absolute surrender to the Lord; their destination in being ready to serve Him. We have here the historical foundation of this Mosaic, legal prescription. In Isaac, Abraham himself was demanded, for his heart was bound up in Isaac; and in the heart of Abraham the ancestor, was demanded the heart of all his true descendants. This is the practical meaning of the narrative, which is told with an affecting simplicity, vividness, and truth; so that the history, if it is to remain such, can only be narrated in the biblical words. Nothing is more touching, yet without any apparent design to touch; the representation is throughout entirely objective. Take, for example, the dialogue between Abraham and his son when they were ascending the mount together. By the way Isaac spake unto Abraham, his father, and said, “My father; “and he said, “Here am I, my son; “and Isaac said, “Behold the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for an offering? “and Abraham said, “My son, God will provide Himself a lamb for a burnt-offering.” These last words are very significant; they show that there was a presentiment in Abraham’s mind that God could and would bring about another solution of the matter than that which appeared imminent. Without this presentiment he would simply have answered, “Thou art the offering, my son.” The typical reference of the event is already indicated by the apostle in Romans 8:32, in the words, “He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all;” which are a verbal allusion to Genesis 22:16. Abraham’s love to God, which moved him to the complete surrender of what was dearest to him on earth, in and with which he gives God all the rest, is the earthly type of the love of God to us, who gives us in reality what He demanded from Abraham only in intention, not in accomplishment. The command contains an actual prophecy; for the God of Scripture desires nothing which He does not give; every demand is at the same time a promise; He says continually, “I did this for thee, what doest thou for me? “If He demand our dearest from us, it is only because He gives us His dearest. Abraham is desired to undertake the three days’ journey from the land of the Philistines where he then resided, to the land of Moriah, the region about Mount Moriah; and to offer up his son on this mountain. This direction stands in the closest connection with the inner meaning of the transaction. Mount Moriah was destined at a future time to become the most holy place of the land, the place where God’s honour dwelt, where He made Himself known to His people when they appeared before Him and did homage to Him by sacrifice. The primary object of the command was to give this place a primitive-historic consecration. The memories connected with the spot proclaimed aloud to every one who went to Moriah, “Offer up thy Isaac. It is not enough to give me what is external to thee, give me thy dearest.” And the same place was to see the fulfilment of the promise contained in the command of God. The identity of place serves as a finger-post to the inner connection—pointing to the fact that both stand related as prophecy and fulfilment. Revelation loves to point to an inner agreement by means of outward conformities. Abraham’s history here reaches its culminating point. Higher cannot follow. The object of earthly existence is that we present ourselves to the Lord as a burnt-offering; and Abraham had reached this highest step. 12. Sarah’s death.—The most important thing in this event is the expression of Abraham’s faith to which it gave rise. It is not without an object that Moses relates the purchase of the hereditary burying-place, so carefully and copiously. It was faith in the promise which guided Abraham in the whole transaction; and this cannot be better shown than in the words of Calvin, “He was not anxious to have a foot-breadth of land for the building of a tent, he cared only for a sepulchre; he wished to have a burying-place of his own in the land which was promised him for an inheritance, in order to testify to his posterity that the promise was not made void either by his death or by that of his people, but that it rather came into full force then.” If Abraham had not been certain of the future possession of the land, it would have been a matter of indifference to him whether he and his were buried there or in the land of the Philistines; and certainly he would have shown no such anxiety for the burying-place. This anxiety presupposes that he had the certainty of not remaining always among strangers. Abraham’s solicitude for the sepulchre proceeds from the same reason as Jacob’s express command to his sons, that they should take his corpse to Canaan; and Joseph’s desire that the children of Israel should carry his bones with them in their exodus. The purchase was important for Israel also, as bearing witness to the living faith of Abraham; and further because by this means notoriety was given to a place in the promised land, an occurrence which is never overlooked in the histories of Genesis, that the Israelites might always be accompanied by outward memorials of those in whose footsteps they ought to walk. Moreover, the cave of Machpelah is still in existence, built over by a mosque with mighty walls, whose entrance is strictly prohibited to every one not a Mohammedan. Yet in late years the Archduke Constantine of Russia succeeded in gaining entrance to it. The style of architecture points to a Jewish origin. Josephus relates that Abraham and his descendants erected monuments above the graves; and that the graves of marble, elegantly wrought, are still to be seen at Hebron. 13. Isaac’s marriage.—What first attracts our attention here is the two-fold anxiety of Abraham, that Isaac should not marry a Canaanite, and that he should not be led back to Mesopotamia, the abode of his family, by marriage with a countrywoman. Both rest upon the same foundation, Abraham’s faith in the promise. He charges his faithful steward to guard against these two contingencies. It is generally inferred from Genesis 15:2 that it was Eliezer to whom he entrusted the carrying out of his design; but this is uncertain. The former of these anxieties is usually attributed to the corruption prevalent at that time among the Canaanites. But this was certainly not the principal motive of Abraham. Since the iniquity of the Amorites was not yet full, it is probable that a family might have been found among them, comparatively pure from the prevailing corruption, just as pure as the family of Nahor where idolatry was practised; and in which there was already a Laban to whom the gold ornaments and bracelets were the most important things in the matter. Abraham’s aversion to a Canaanitish marriage for his son is much more readily explained on the ground of his faith in the promise. Seeing the invisible as though it were already visible, he endeavours to prevent every intermixture of the chosen and rejected races, from which at a future time unnatural relations would inevitably result. In the same way we may explain his prohibition to take Isaac back to Mesopotamia. He will not leave the post which God has assigned to him and to his race. He knows from God’s previous revelation that a long period still lies between promise and possession, during which his posterity will be strangers in a foreign land; but he knows also that the determination of the beginning of this period, and of the strange land lies not in his but in God’s hand; that he and his race have only to wait quietly in the land of promise till the God who led them thither again give the command to remove. Again, we recognise Abraham’s faith in his words to his servant, “The God which spake unto me, and sware unto me, saying, ‘Unto thy seed will I give this land;’ He shall send His angel before thee.” He is firmly convinced that he and his race are chosen; and to this consciousness we may attribute his unshaken faith in God’s special providence in a matter so closely connected with this election. To give glorious proof of this faith, and thus to awaken in Israel the consciousness of being chosen, and the consequent zeal to walk worthy of their calling, is the object of the great diffuseness pervading this narrative. God’s providence toward His people is here so strikingly demonstrated, that even for us the history contains a rich treasure of edification. It is certainly not apprehended in its true light if it be merely placed in the universal rubric, providence and the destiny of man. 14. Abraham’s death.—”The narrative of the pilgrimage of this great and devout man, the friend of God,” says Stolberg, “goes out like a candle, and the latter years of his earthly life are lost in sacred obscurity.” This need not appear strange to us, if we keep in mind the object of the historical representation in Genesis. We must expect à priori that after the culminating point in Abraham’s life had been reached, after the temptation on Moriah, his life would become more like a calm-flowing brook which empties itself silently into the stream of eternity. There is a kind of conclusion in the words of God to Abraham after he had withstood this greatest temptation. The ratification and renewal of the promise which is now based upon a because, after God Himself had made Abraham worthy of it, stands in sharp contrast to the first giving of the promise at the going out from Haran, where it was only connected with a therewith. After the phenomenon in Genesis 18 the words, “They that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength,” received actual confirmation in Abraham; and after Sarah’s death, as a solace to his old age, he took another wife of inferior rank, Keturah, who did not enjoy like privileges with Sarah, and whose children were not to be considered to the disadvantage of the heir of the promise, who had a rightful claim to everything which God had given to Abraham as the ancestor of the chosen race. By Keturah Abraham became the ancestor of many Arabic races, yet many of those named derived only a single element from them. For the usual idea that all these races are derived entirely from Abraham is quite false; as may be best proved by the Assyrians, Genesis 25:3, whose origin is in the main differently given in Genesis 10. The relation to Keturah is mentioned only in connection with this descent from Abraham, else the author would have been totally silent respecting it; for it does not belong to the father of the faithful as such, with whom alone he has to do. But the interest in this descent has its root only in this, that according to the flesh they were allied to the covenant-people. Theologically it is a matter of perfect indifference. Kurtz is quite wrong when he says, “The descendants of Abraham by Keturah serve to realize the promise that Abraham should be a father of many nations.” Those born after the flesh cannot be an object of the promise. It is expressly said, “In Isaac shall thy seed be called.” Among these nations the Midianites are best known. The greater number of them lies between Mount Horeb and the Arabian Gulf, and it was here that Abraham lived; others dwelt east of Moab, in Arabia Deserta, and according to Numbers 22 these were the people who combined with the Moabites in hiring Balaam against Israel. Abraham is a very important personage, even if he be looked at from a completely external point of view. He is not only the ancestor of the Israelites, that is of their germ—for the descendants of Abraham’s concubines are only to be regarded as supplementary—but also of a great portion of the Arabs and Idumaeans; of the latter, with the same immaterial limitation which we have already made with regard to the Israelites: Esau, the ancestor of the Idumaeans, took no inconsiderable number of servants from the household of his father. These limitations are the only true element in Bertheau’s hypothesis, which is otherwise baseless, seeking to make Abraham in some measure from a person into a personificationof one of the Terahite nationalities who immigrated to the south-west of Asia, dominated by the modern effort to divide the property of prominent persons among the masses, the same historical communion which distributed the property of Christ among the church, as also the spiritual productions of a David, a Solomon, and an Isaiah. Moreover, all the three monotheistic religions derive their origin from Abraham. Even Mohammed showed great reverence for Abraham, maintaining that his own religion was nothing further than a restoration of that which the Arabs received from Abraham. But his life receives quite another meaning if we regard him as the father of the faithful, according to Romans 4:11. And if this be the most important point of view, faith must form the essence of it. So much so, that those who are not able to understand this kernel and centre of his life must be mistaken in his historic personality;—for them the whole manifestation must dissolve into a mere vapour. Thus v. Bohlen represents the story of Abraham as a Semitic version of the Indian myth of Brahma; and Bertheau thinks that no accurate idea, no definite image of his exalted personality can be drawn from the traditions respecting him, which have only recently been put into writing. To him, on the other hand, who understands the faith, because he walks in the footsteps of Abraham, this story carries the proof of its truth in itself. It is remarkable how Abraham’s faith rises from step to step—how the divine trials are always exactly proportioned to these steps of faith. God tries him by taking away, and also by giving. Under the former he is obedient, resigned, yet not cast down; the latter does not make him proud and overbearing. God takes from him his fatherland and his relatives. Abraham leaves his present possession rejoicing in the prospect of the promised inheritance; he leaves the future possession of the country of which he cannot call a foot-breadth his own, to the posterity of whom humanly-speaking he had no prospect. God takes away Ishmael, and Abraham obeys, comforting himself that the son of promise still remained to him. But even this comfort is taken away from him when he is more advanced, in order that he may henceforth have as if he had not. After having withstood this temptation he is in a position to bear the loss of his dearly loved wife with quiet resignation: to one loosed from the earth the prospect of the end of his own pilgrimage was pleasant. God tries him by giving. Rich possessions accrue to him. Kings are conquered by him; kings solicit his friendship. And what is more than all, the King of kings condescends to him as He had never previously condescended to any mortal. He converses with him in his tent as friend with friend, a foreshadowing and adumbration of the ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο; a fact to which the Lord refers when He says, “Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and was glad,” John 8:56; and by reason of which James, James 2:23, terms him φίλος Θεοῦ, a name which is still the prevailing designation in the Mohammedan world. Altogether we are told of nine revelations which were made to him. What a temptation to carnal and spiritual pride! But Abraham retains his humility throughout. “I know that I am dust and ashes “forms the key-note of his life. From his example we learn how the fear of God is to be combined with love. It is this mission to which Isaiah refers when he calls him the God-loving, Isaiah 41:8. Like a grateful child he takes all gifts from the fatherly hand of God, using them as so many ladders by which to mount to the giver. From Abraham’s relation to God, from his faith, arose his relation to man. Toward his wife Sarah he was faithful and loving; he had patience with her weaknesses, a type of the fulfilment of the demand made by Peter, 1 Peter 3:7; what was too heavy for her to bear, he bore alone. The fearful struggle of soul caused by the command to offer up his son, he concealed from her to whom God had not yet given strength to bear it. By his servants he was loved as a father. His faithfulness in friendship he proved towards Lot, whom he rescued with danger to himself. We learn how he lovingly and humbly recognised strange gifts and dignity by his bearing towards Melchizedek. In dispute he was just and yielding; in danger courageous and valiant; although accepting with gratitude even the carnal blessings of God, his heart did not hanker after riches; he generously refused the offer of the king of Sodom, and renounced his claim; he was simple and friendly in intercourse with all; with the Canaanites he lived on a peaceable and courteous footing, but at the same time with due regard to that retiredness which had its origin in the relation in which God had placed him towards them, and carefully avoiding every union with them (comp. especially Genesis 23). His whole manifestation compelled reverence even from those of his contemporaries who were estranged from the Deity—so strongly was the image of God imprinted on it. King Abimelech was told respecting him, “He is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live;” and this prince confessed to Abraham himself, “God is with thee in all that thou doest.” The Hittites at Hebron called him a prince consecrated to God; and the priest-king of Salem declared him to be “The blessed of the Most High.” Faith, the sun which warmed and illumined the life of Abraham, was not thoroughly developed into a firm and universal perception. But so much the richer and clearer was his direct knowledge. The more imperfect his apprehension, the more lively was his intention. In Psalms 105:15, he receives, together with Isaac and Jacob, the name anointed, the possessors of the Spirit of God and His gifts, the name of prophet, of the men who understood divine inspirations in the depth of their souls. The series of these men was begun by Abraham, who bears this name even in Genesis, Genesis 20:7. In Genesis 15 we have a remarkable proof how his spirit apprehended divine things by immediate contact with them; both the forms peculiar to prophecy, viz. visions and dreams, are here mentioned. The mode of his knowledge stands nearer to prophecy than ours. He pressed on from one degree of clearness to another, according as the gradual leadings and trials of God purified the mirror of his soul more and more. The same divine utterance of the blessing on all nations, in his posterity, had quite a different meaning for him when he first heard it at Haran, and when he heard it again on Moriah. He understood it in proportion as he himself had become partaker of the divine blessing. With Abraham concludes a great section in the history of divine revelations. Schubert in his Views of the Night-side of the Physical Sciences, p. 156, says very beautifully, “When a great work is imposed on future generations, the Lord is accustomed to give a rapid survey of the plan and limits of the whole, in individual great men.” In the revelations to Abraham are contained in germ all that follow—his descendants, God’s chosen people, the land of Canaan their future possession after long and severe oppression, and finally the end of the whole, the blessing on all nations, the multitude of nations calling him father, the King of nations proceeding from him. And what is of still more importance than these single apprehensions, in the leadings of Abraham the Lord has come forth from the concealment in which He had remained since the fall; He is no longer an abstract but a living God, no longer Elohim but Jehovah. In the beginning we have the fulfilment in germ. Everything which God did to Abraham is a prophecy of what should happen to every believer in Him; what He did for the chosen race is a prophecy of that which should befall the multitude of nations to be received into their community. Here nothing is dead. Every act of God is like every word of His, spirit and life. This actual prophecy is still daily fulfilled. If we had not the express promise of the Lord, He must still enter our hearts because He entered Abraham’s tent. The history of Abraham not only reveals God’s personality to us, but presents us also with the first type of a believer, in vivid colours. And from types we learn more than from commands and ideals; they show us that the divine life in this troubled world is not an empty idea which it is impossible to realize. The contemplation of reality in the past impels us to realization in the present. It is very significant that the new principle did not enter into life through a single individual in the midst of a nation which was already formed, but became personal in the individual who was destined to be the ancestor of the chosen race. By this means it received an absolutely sacred primitive foundation, and at the same time became one of the most powerful incentives to walk in the way of the Lord, one of the most effectual means of reformation when the way has been departed from. The men of God might at all times say to the degenerate race, “Look at Abraham your father.” ======================================================================== CHAPTER 5: 05. § 3. ISAAC ======================================================================== § 3. Isaac Some of the events occur in the lifetime of Abraham. For Isaac was forty years old when he took Rebekah to wife, sixty at the birth of his two sons, seventy-five at Abraham’s death; Abraham therefore survived the birth of his grandchildren about fifteen years. The events in Isaac’s life are in many respects like those of Abraham’s. This is owing rather to the character of Isaac than to a similarity of relations. Abraham, as the father of the faithful, opened the great series; in his guidances and spiritual peculiarity all that follows is typified and foreshadowed, and hence his inner life is throughout peculiar and independent; but in Isaac, who only carried on the succession, the inner life is throughout intermediate, as with Joshua in relation to Moses, with Elisha in relation to Elijah, and in some measure with the apostles in relation to Christ. The most suitable motto for his history is contained in Genesis 26:18, “And Isaac digged again the wells of water which they had digged in the days of Abraham his father; for the Philistines had stopped them after the death of Abraham: and he called their names after the names by which his father had called them.” We learn that his life is only to be considered as a continuation of the life of Abraham, by the fact that the promise respecting him. Genesis 26:24, contains the additional clause, “for my servant Abraham’s sake.” His eye was so firmly fastened on his prototype, the powerful personality of Abraham made so deep an impression on the soft nature of his son, that he follows him even when imitation is reprehensible, viz. in representing his wife as his sister, although he was not able to do this with the same semblance of truth, or at least with less semblance of truth, for the relation was a more distant one. Yet notwithstanding all the dissimilarity in gifts, which was necessary that free scope might be given for the development of Jacob, the second primitive type of Israel; yet in the one main point Isaac resembles Abraham, in his living faith in the living God. Even in forty years he had not attained to such ripeness of character that Abraham deemed it necessary to consult him with respect to marriage; but none the less was there spiritual life in him. He had gone into the field to pray when his bride arrived. Afterwards he had not strength to conduct the education of his sons with a firm hand; but when his eyes were dim from old age, he had still power to bless, firmly believing in the promise. It is significant that a multiplicity of types should stand at the head of the nation. In Isaac a pledge is given to those quiet passive natures who with a true mind keep the traditionary possessions of the church, that they also, with all their apparent insignificance, have part and inheritance in the people of God; that even a life which is not highly gifted, not endowed with extraordinary powers, may yet be good and blessed; that faith and truth alone are indispensable. Isaac’s usual place of residence was on the southern borders of Palestine. This habitation corresponds to his character. The thronging and driving of the ever-increasing Canaanites was not congenial to a mind disinclined to strife and competition. He sought quietness and solitude. But even there he was obliged to suffer much injustice. What Abraham’s awe-inspiring personality and energy had kept at a distance from him, Isaac surmounts by patient submission, and yet by God’s blessing always overcomes in the end. 1. The birth of Jacob and Esau.—The twenty years’ childlessness of Rebekah was destined to serve the same purpose as that of Sarah, not so much to exercise the faith of the parents as to arrest the attention of the whole after-world, to demonstrate that God was active in the matter, and that something important was in preparation. The divine revelation which Rebekah received when she had been disturbed by certain phenomena had a similar tendency. She had a presentiment of the symbolic significance of these phenomena; for she knew the promise, and, made observant by the long delay, she believed that here everything must be significant, even that which was otherwise not unusual. Therefore she goes to inquire of the Lord; in what manner is uncertain, probably by prayer, for that is the most immediate. If the asking of God by a prophet had been intended, as in 1 Samuel 9:9, a nearer hint could not have been absent, since it is not at all obvious whom she should have asked. And no trace exists elsewhere of a prophetic gift outside the patriarchal circle. She was not deceived in her presentiment. The phenomenon signified strife between her sons, the ancestors of two nations; in which strife the younger was to overcome. The most important point in the narrative is that we here see how God’s promises are not connected with carnal birth, nor inherited like human possessions after the usual manner. The same thing is shown in the history of Ishmael with respect to Isaac, but more obviously in the present instance, since one mother was to bear both sons. But we must not therefore assume that the preference given to Jacob was merely arbitrary. God’s freedom of choice is only opposed to human claims and pretensions. The history shows that it was controlled by reference to individualities. Jacob is here related to Esau as Israel to the heathen. What Lange says of Israel as a nation, On the Historical Character of the Gospels, p. 9, is equally appropriate to their ancestor: “From their mother’s womb, from their deepest fundamental life, they had already a predisposition to revelation, a genial inclination for true religion.” Esau’s appearance at his birth symbolized his individuality. On this account it is narrated by the author, and for this reason it determines his name. Esau is the representative of a certain natural good-nature and honesty, combined with roughness, passionateness, and unsusceptibility for the higher. He is without resentment or longings, a man who finds full satisfaction in the visible. Such natures, even when grace has softened their hearts, are not fit to be placed at the head of a development. One destined for such a position must possess not only faith, but gifts; but every χάρισμα presupposes a natural substratum, which is seldom found in characters like Esau’s. Jacob’s nature is much more complex than that of Esau. In his heart are recesses and chambers difficult for himself and others to see into; while a man like Esau may be pretty well known in about an hour. He is soft and yielding, sensitive, susceptible of all contact with the higher world, full of capacity to see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending; but at the same time, like all characters where phantasy predominates,—Esau is the personified healthy intellect of man,—subject to great self-deception, open to strong temptation to impurity, inclined to cunning and craftiness, deficient in frankness. God put this man to school in order to free him from the great shadow which always accompanies great light, to that school in which alone some things are thoroughly learnt, the school of suffering; and when God’s education is finished, then we see the individuality of Jacob, which remains the same throughout, purified and cleansed from the dross of sin. 2. Transactions relative to the birthright, or Jacob’s cunning and Esau’s roughness.—The disposition of the two brothers is seen in their respective choice of a calling. Jacob chose the peaceful, quiet shepherd-life, conducive to meditation and contemplation. For Esau’s rude mind his father’s mode of life was not manly enough—he chose hunting. Even the ancients remarked the injurious influence which this pursuit exercises on the mind, as a daily employment. Jerome says, “We find in Scripture instances of holy fishermen, but not one of a holy hunter.” Isaac is unable to comprehend his son Jacob. He prefers Esau because he understands him better; because he is more adapted for daily intercourse. And Esau is more drawn to the father than the mother; is careful to minister to his smallest likings. His corporeal strength is pleasant to Isaac, who sees in him a welcome supplement to that in which he himself is deficient, a prop for his old age; in Jacob’s spiritual power and spiritual wealth, on the contrary, there is something strange and uncongenial to Isaac. Here he stumbles on an element in which he is not at home. The subtle-minded Rebekah, on the other hand, is drawn towards her counterpart, Jacob; and she holds that she is the more justified in preferring him, since God Himself has already designated him the heir of the promise. In Jacob’s cunning her tendency to intrigue finds a welcome confederate. She developed this propensity in the face of that obstinacy which in Isaac, as is so frequently the case, was united with weakness. In the transaction concerning the birthright, the disposition of both brothers was clearly evinced. If the question had been of those rights of the first-born which were common to a later time, of the precedence in the family after the father’s death, and of a double inheritance,—comp. Michaelis, Mos. Recht. § 79, 84,—then Esau would only have incurred the reproach of great recklessness; Jacob, the worse reproach of ambition and avarice. But in this case the possession was a much higher one. If, as Isaac afterwards assumed, the divine election followed the human claim, if the carnal birthright were to be regarded as an actual expression of God concerning the spiritual prerogative, then the first-born was the heir of the promises, and was justified in assuming that at a future time the God of Abraham and Isaac would be his God also in a special sense; then he might hope his posterity would possess the land of Canaan, and that the blessing would proceed from them on all nations. Esau neglects all this, has no perception of the higher meaning; for the sake of a momentary gratification he gives up the highest possession, as the source so strikingly says: “And he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: thus Esau despised his birthright.” So he becomes the representative and type of those who for the sake of present worldly pleasure renounce eternity, and give up the real good for the sake of that which is apparent. For this reason he is called in Scripture (Hebrews 12:16) βέβηλος, a profane, godless man; but we must not fail to observe that this takes cognizance rather of his typical than of his historical character. At the same time, he must have possessed the root of such a godless disposition, otherwise he could not serve as a type and representative. Jacob’s conduct appears in another light, if we look at the birthright from this point of view; and we may infer that he himself thus regarded it, from the fact that he never made an attempt to appropriate the lower privileges of the birthright, never made any claim to precedence before Esau, or to a larger share in the inheritance. So long as Jacob was in Haran, Esau was richer and more powerful than he, as appears from Genesis 32. On his return, Jacob went to meet Esau with a humility which was almost excessive, in order to avoid all suspicion that he had such an object in view. We must also assume that he perceived how little his brother was adapted to be the bearer of a divine revelation, and, what is still more important, that he knew from the Lord’s utterance which his mother had kept in her heart that the birthright was destined for him. But just because he knew this, he ought to have felt less temptation to act as he did. His act was the result of want of faith. For if he knew that God had destined the birthright for him, how could he conceive the thought of helping God, as if God Himself were not sufficiently powerful to execute His own design? A warning example for all those who would further the kingdom of God and their own position in it by every kind of jugglery! The juristic maxim, Volenti non sit injuria, which is applied by those who wish to excuse Jacob in the matter, has only a limited application even in the juristic department—Esau might have made the complaint of the ultra dimidium loesi—in the moral department it has no claim at all. The words of the apostle, “Thou shalt not overreach thy brother,” are far more applicable. Jacob himself, erroneously connecting the divine gift with the carnal prerogative, regarded it as a matter which might be bargained for. But even human sin must be subservient to God’s plan.. Esau now began to give up his supposed claim to the promise. He did this fully afterwards, when the father’s blessing, which stood in the closest relation to the promise, was given to Jacob. The narrator is solely occupied with God’s design in the matter. The actual judgment on Jacob’s conduct is contained in his subsequent fate. How remarkably this exemplified the divine jus talionis will be seen hereafter. But mark how, in the midst of all his error, the better element in Jacob shines out, so that he never ceases to be a subject for the chastising and purifying grace of God: he appears as a man of whom something may be made. He has faith in God’s word, and a disposition for God’s grace. Roos says with truth, “His faults are better than the virtues of Esau and of all worldlings.” 3. Isaac’s blessing.—The circumstance that we find Isaac already so weak that he must lie in bed, more than forty years before his death, is to be explained by his whole character. The less energy of spirit a man possesses, the more easily does he succumb to sickness, the more readily does he become a prey to disease, against which the will may do so much. His blindness also may in some measure be considered rather as an effect of this spiritual and physical weakness than the result of a definite malady. The mind exercises the greatest influence on the nervous activity. Of Moses, who was so full of mental power, it is said in Deuteronomy 34:7 : “And Moses was an hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated.” Thus the representation of Isaac’s character is consistent even to the minutest details,—a phenomenon which we do not find in any mythical history. His love for venison and wine is another indication of his character. Abraham places milk before his guests. The consciousness of spiritual weakness leads a man to attribute too much importance to the body, and to seek strength by means of it. “Make me savoury meat” is truly a speech of cherished weakness, which alone can give rise to such desires; and if surprised in them, one cannot fail to be ashamed. In the transaction relative to the blessing, we must first of all draw attention to the fact that Isaac was not without considerable guilt. He perfectly understood the great significance of the blessing. He was penetrated by the consciousness of the special divine providence which presided over the fate of his race. He had a presentiment that in this important moment he should be a mere instrument. Such consciousness should have impelled him, with complete subjection of his own intention and inclination, to listen only to God’s voice within him; the more since the earlier utterance of God was in unison with this intention and inclination. And, moreover, Esau’s profane mind, and the religious indifferentism he showed by his marriage with Canaanitish women, served as a confirmation of this divine utterance. Isaac’s conduct after the discovery of the deception contains an actual confession of guilt. He does not think of reproaching Jacob and Rebekah. In what has happened he recognises a judgment of God. Faith makes its way through the carnal prejudices which had held him in subjection. He looks away from the human means by which he had been led to act in opposition to his intention and desire, and rises to the invisible hand which has led the event to this issue. The sole object of the narrator is to draw attention to the overruling providence of God. Apart from this, what would all human means have availed? It would have been so easy to discover the deception. That it was God’s design to give the blessing to Jacob, is shown by the circumstance that the deception was not discovered, and that the blessing was given to Jacob against the will of the blesser. The fact that God employs these human means for the accomplishment of His plan does not justify them; otherwise every sin would seem to be justified. If Jacob and Rebekah had been persuaded in their hearts that God had destined the blessing for him, they must have believed also that God would find means and ways to confer it upon him. It was unbelief which made them think it necessary to frustrate the carnal views of Isaac by human means—the same unbelief which in all ages has given rise to the maxim, “The end justifies the means.” The want of living faith leads man to put himself in God’s place. That Jacob and Rebekah estimate the end so highly, shows that there was a germ of good in them. That they chose bad means for its attainment, shows how much they were in need of purification. Moreover, we must consider that Jacob did not wish to appropriate the possession of another, but only to make sure of that which belonged to him, and which seemed in danger of falling into wrong hands. For this good end he made use of bad means. We must remember also that Jacob and Rebekah were not in the habit of putting their confidence in human means, so uncertain in themselves; but that they only wished in this way to prepare a substratum for the divine agency. It was this confidence in God which gave Jacob the boldness to answer Isaac’s doubtful question, “Art thou my very son Esau?’ with the words “I am.” Otherwise he would have felt as Luther, who says of himself, “I would have run away for fear, and have let the keys drop.” The purification which Jacob and Rebekah needed, they received in full measure by means of heavy trials. The author, whose eye is fixed solely on God’s part in the matter, esteemed it the less necessary to pass judgment on the conduct of Jacob and Rebekah, since the actual judgment of God appears in that which follows. Rebekah was punished by the lengthened absence of her beloved son, which was the immediate result of this event. Henceforward he was as dead to her. She never saw him again, for on Jacob’s return she was already dead; as we learn from the circumstance that we find Deborah, Rebekah’s nurse, who would certainly not have left her before her death, in Jacob’s company on his return. How must her heart have been tortured with anguish in forming the resolution to take this difficult step! Jacob, who had grown up in affluence, must leave his home alone, in secret flight, and earn his bread in a strange land by the work of his hands. In his case the divine blessing is always associated with punishment. As he had deceived his brother Esau, his relative Laban deceives him by a striking retribution. As he had deceived his father, his sons deceive him in representing his beloved Joseph to be dead. That he did not err through ignorance of the divine law, is shown by the fear he expressed, that if the deception were discovered he might draw down his father’s curse instead of receiving his blessing; and still more by his anxiety, when after long years he again comes into the vicinity of Esau. The consciousness of having sinned against his brother first gives the true sting to his anguish. It is this which makes it so difficult for him to have perfect confidence in the divine help. Isaac was 137 years old when he blessed his sons, just as old as his brother Ishmael when he died; whence Lightfoot concludes that it was this circumstance which led him to think of death. He died at Mamre, at the age of 180; comp. Genesis 35:27-29. We may now leave him and pass on to Jacob, who from this time forms the sole centre of the history. But we must not omit to point out how exactly God’s manner of dealing with him corresponds to the personal relation of Isaac to Abraham. Here we find nothing of the richness and fulness of divine revelations as they were imparted to Abraham. Just as Isaac’s life was only a continuation of the life of Abraham, so also was the providence of God which was closely connected with it. Only twice was a divine manifestation granted to Isaac,—the first time at Gerar, where, in imitation of his father, he was about to go down to Egypt during the famine which had arisen in Canaan, probably with the intention of permanently settling there, and thus to realize before the time the announcement made to Abraham; again at Beersheba. God assures him that his posterity should possess Canaan, and that in him all the nations of the earth should be blessed. No new development, only transfer and renewal. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 6: 06. § 4. JACOB ======================================================================== § 4. Jacob 1. Jacob at Bethel.—The less progress Jacob had made in the divine life, the more he needed love as well as severity; and a proof of love was given him soon after his departure. A position beset with temptation was prepared for him. Taken away from the land of promise, from the only circle in which the living God was still honoured, he was to tarry among a race whence the living knowledge of the true God had begun gradually to disappear; and with this race he was to enter into the very closest relations. The vision given to him at Bethel, the Lord in His heavenly dwelling, a ladder upon which angels were ascending and descending,—ascending in order to carry up to God his wants and entreaties, descending in order to bring him help from God,—represents that which was made known to him immediately after in words, viz. God’s watchfulness over His chosen race, and over him first of all, who as the ancestor and head of it is here strengthened anew. In this symbol we have a prophecy of all the manifestations of a special providence until the time of its highest fulfilment in Christ and His church. Christ Himself expressly points to such deep meaning; comp. John 1:51. Jacob’s surprise at the appearance of God in this place must be explained by the fact that He regarded not the universal, but the special agency of God, the manifestations of God as Jehovah, as confined to the place where His visible community was at that time. This indeed was generally the case; for Ishmael and Esau, in leaving the paternal roof, also left the territory of Jehovah. How comforting it must have been, how it must have filled him with gratitude and love, to find that God would hold communion even with an isolated member, if he did not make himself unworthy of this communion by his own guilt! Jacob was in a very susceptible frame of mind. He felt himself alone, forsaken by all the world, and his eye turned so much the more eagerly to the Friend in heaven. He feared that God also had forsaken him; so that the increasing love with which He now revealed Himself must have made an indelible impression on him. Now was laid the proper basis for the building up of an independent spiritual life in him. In that night he was weaned; formerly he was still spiritually at his mother’s breast. At this time he first received a deep, heartfelt conviction, that if our sins be many, God’s grace is superabundant. It was doubtless the consciousness of sin in a great measure which led him to doubt God’s guidance and blessing. The place which for Jacob had become the gate of heaven, was henceforward sacred in his sight. At a later period he wishes to testify his gratitude to God by building an altar. Now he only prefigures what he will then do. The stone upon which he has slept is made to represent the place of a sanctuary, to foreshadow the future. He anoints it with oil he had taken with him, after the Oriental travelling custom. Anointing is a rite of sanctification and consecration. The prayer-houses of heathen antiquity belong to a later time, and evidently owe their origin to this narrative. The name stands in clear connection with Bethel. The vow of Jacob has often been stigmatized as mere compensation service. But let it be noticed that he only makes a condition of what God Himself has promised to do for him. If God did not keep this promise, he would not be God, and would therefore not be worthy of service. Mark also his modesty, which is contented with mere food and clothing. Let us not be more severe than God Himself, who demands only on the ground of His giving, who reveals Himself as our God in order that we may recognise Him as such, and honour Him by word and deed. It must be remembered that the manner of this revelation varies according to the difference of the times and the heart of the individual; that it must first of all be given externally to him who is still wrapped up in the external, in order that he may be led step by step to that which is higher. Again, the reproach of desire of reward arises mainly from a false rendering. It must not be rendered, “If Elohim will be with me, etc., then shall Jehovah be my God;” but only, “If Elohim, etc., and Jehovah be my God, then shall this stone become a house of Elohim; and of everything that Thou shalt give me, I will surely give the tenth unto Thee.” Therefore Jacob does not make the service of the Lord generally, but only a certain outward form of it, dependent on God’s manifesting Himself to him as God. 2. Jacob in Mesopotamia.—The centre of this whole narrative is the proof of God’s faithfulness in fulfilling the promise given to Jacob on the commencement of his journey. He experienced this immediately on his arrival in Mesopotamia. It was God’s guidance which led him unexpectedly to meet Rachel; and the same providence accompanied him during the long time of his sojourn in a strange land. True, he was exercised by many a cross; for in him the saying, “Whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth,” was strikingly exemplified. Laban’s dishonesty involved him in bitter domestic relations; and his avarice sought to deprive him of the reward of his hard labour. But, by God’s blessing, that which had been taken was virtually given back to him. We perceive the aim of the divine leadings best by their results. Jacob says: “I am not worthy of the least of all the mercies and of all the truth which Thou hast showed unto Thy servant; for with my staff I passed over this Jordan, and now I am become two bands.” In this humble acknowledgment of divine grace Ave see what had been wrought in him by its means,—how he had risen to the Giver through the gifts, and had entered into the closest communion with Him. Laban’s character requires no delineation. Its principal features are avarice combined with cunning and accompanied by stupidity, which is often the case. Even religion he employs as a means to his ends. But his hypocrisy is too notorious to enable him to bring this to any virtuousness, which is only practicable if the heart be really on one side inclined to divine things. By this means alone does the other side gain material to elaborate its aims. In Laban’s daughters the evil influence which such surroundings must have exercised upon them is very visible. They exhibit unamiable jealousy of one another, whose mean and hateful manifestations Moses has copiously detailed, in order that polygamy, in which Jacob was involved by the power of circumstances, may be recognised by its fruits as opposed to the original institution of marriage. We find religious error so firmly rooted in them, that Jacob’s influence during his whole residence in Mesopotamia does not suffice to free them from it. Rachel regarded the teraphim of her father so great a treasure, that she esteemed every means good by which she might obtain possession of them, and maintain it. Genesis 35:2, Genesis 35:4 shows that Jacob’s family also took other idols, ear-rings, and such like, which had reference to idol-worship. It was not until the family was in Canaan, removed from evil communications, when it was no longer esteemed necessary to pay honour to the local deities of Mesopotamia as well as to Jehovah, that Jacob succeeded in purifying it from the outward stain at least of idolatry. Whence it appears that he received the command to return to Canaan just at the right time. Otherwise the tendency to idolatry would have become so firmly rooted in his growing-up children, that it would have been almost impossible to eradicate it. The more difficult the relations in which Jacob was involved, the more beautifully does his faithfulness towards God shine out, and the better is the foundation for what God did to keep him in the truth With reference to these relations, he incurs no other reproach than that of too great pliancy and softness. He was most to blame in yielding to the two jealous sisters respecting their maids. In Jacob’s conduct towards Laban we find traces of his old nature. Laban congratulated himself on the conclusion of the agreement that Jacob should receive all the streaked cattle which should be born without the application of artificial means. Jacob knew this, and hence resolved to fulfil the contract in the same spirit in which Laban had concluded it. His conduct cannot be justified, and therefore must not be regarded as the result of God’s counsel, as many have assumed, misunderstanding the passage Genesis 31:11, which is not a command to Jacob, but only foretells what will happen, and what would have happened even without the human means applied, and for which he alone is responsible. But many excuses may be made for him. It was only his own property he recovered by a trick; which he thought the more necessary, since he could not seek justice by appealing to any power. In self-interest, Laban had sold him Rachel for the service of seven years, and had then deceived him respecting her, unjustly obliging him to serve seven years more. We learn from the example of Rebekah that the later Oriental custom of buying daughters from their parents was not yet universal, but was first introduced by that avarice which sought to turn everything into an article of commerce; for in Genesis 31:15 Laban’s daughters complain of his conduct as manifestly unjust: ‘‘ Are we not counted of him strangers? for he hath sold us, and hath quite devoured also our money.” They protest against his having sold them; at least they say he should have given them the purchase-money for a dowry. After the lapse of the fourteen years’ servitude, Laban, who was obliged to confess that he owed all his riches to Jacob, concluded an agreement with him, in which, as he thought in his cunning, Jacob would fare badly. But no sooner did he find himself mistaken in this opinion, than he broke and altered the compact, and that repeatedly, Genesis 30:7-8. Jacob says to Laban, Genesis 31:42, “Except the God of my father, the God of Abraham, and the Fear of Isaac, had been with me, surely thou hadst sent me away now empty;” and Laban was unable to deny the intention, or to justify the means by which he had sought its attainment. For the rest, all that may be said either for or against Jacob is properly foreign to the unity of our narrative. The author has fixed his sole attention on the part which God had in the matter, and on the faithfulness of His promise, which proves itself here also; for if God had not blessed the means employed by the cunning Jacob always anxious to help the Almighty, they could have had but a small result, as all experiences which have been made in this department sufficiently prove. This was certainly not concealed from Jacob. He acted in faith; his object was not to help himself, but only to prepare a very small basis for the active efficiency of God. 3. Jacob’s wrestling.—The appearance of the angel—which, as we are told in Genesis 32:2, gave name to the later town of Mahanaim on the other side of Jordan, north of Jabbok, on the borders of the tribes of Gad and Manasseh—forms a counterpart to the appearance of the angel at Bethel; and the analogy suggests the idea of an inner fact. Here, as there, the angels are servants of God for the protection of His own; here, as there, the sight of them forms an antidote to that fear with which the sight of the visible must have inspired Jacob. There God made known to him in this intuitive way that He would preserve his going out; here, that He would preserve his going in, the result of God’s own command. The same assurance was soon afterwards given him in a still more impressive way, at the time when his anxiety was greatly enhanced by the news that Esau his brother was approaching with 400 men; whence it is evident that Esau had already received his part of the paternal inheritance. Much light is thrown on the account of Jacob’s wrestling by the passage in Hosea 12:4 : ‘‘He had power over the angel, and prevailed; he wept, and made supplication unto him.” From this it is clear that the weapons of Jacob’s warfare were not carnal but spiritual; that it was in the main a spiritual encounter with God or His angel.In a mere outward struggle we do not overcome by prayer and tears. Apprehended in a gross outward way, the fact offers many difficulties, which Kurtz and Delitzsch have recently striven in vain to set aside. A spiritual struggle cannot, indeed, be placed in contrast with a bodily one. All deep emotions of the soul are shared by the body, and involve it in the agitation. We learn from the experience of one who was sunk in the depths of adversity, how heart and flesh rejoice in the living God; how, in one rescued from great need, the bones say, “Lord, who is like unto Thee? “Again he says: “O Lord, heal me; for my bones are vexed. Mine eye is consumed with grief; yea, my soul and my body.” When the true Israel wrestled in Gethsemane, His body was so deeply involved in the struggle, that His sweat, like drops of blood, fell down to the earth. Hence it is evident, from the great violence of the wrestling, that Jacob’s body was drawn into participation with the spirit; and this is decisively proved by the circumstance that the struggle had a corporeal consequence, and left behind it a bodily infirmity. But the essence of the occurrence is infinitely more important than its form. What was the cause of Jacob’s struggle? Evidently his great fear of Esau; comp. Genesis 32:7, “Then Jacob was greatly afraid and distressed.” He knew his brother’s fierce disposition; and when he heard he was approaching with 400 men, he thought he might anticipate the worst. Everything was at stake—everything which he had already gained, and his whole future—the possession of Canaan and the blessing on the heathen. This anxiety drove him to God, by whom it had been sent for this purpose. But God did not immediately condescend to him. He steeled Himself against him, acting as if Jacob had no claim on Him, as if by his sins he had wholly separated himself from Him, and could therefore no longer look for His assistance, but must rather consider how he should prepare himself alone for the danger which threatened. But Jacob will not be put off: his faith proves itself to be faith by the fact that he grows more urgent as God becomes harder towards him, and continually opposes him with, “Though our sins be many, God’s grace is superabundant.” Thus he obtains that victory of which he and his people are to be continually reminded by the new name bestowed upon him. Jacob had been his name until then, because even in his mother’s womb he had held his brother by the heel, as a prefiguration of his noble striving after the possession of the spiritual birthright, of his aspirations after the kingdom of God, which was grasped by wrong means only in the beginning, Hosea 12:4. Henceforth his name is Israel, because he has conquered God in hard battle. The meaning of the new name, Israel, conqueror of God, is given in the words, “For thou hast power with God and with men “—with the latter indirectly. They were overcome in God. He who has God for a friend cannot be injured by any creature. Thus the highest claim which the ancestors of the covenant people had realized, and were destined to realize, was shown to be wrestling with God, perseverance in prayer, and entreaty until He should bless. This appears as the only but sure means of withstanding all dangers, even the greatest, while faith is the victory by which the church overcomes the world; and if from these struggles she bear a constant memorial of her victory, she is continually reminded of her weakness at the same time. Jacob is filled with fear of Esau: he is like a falling leaf; no human power avails in a struggle, which is the hardest, when our sins prevail over us. Israel, the wrestler with God, conquers the anguish, and is freed from danger. This event in Jacob’s life is parallel with that which occurred on Mount Moriah in the life of Abraham. He prevailed over God not only for once. The name is given to him as a perpetual thing; thus showing that we have here the commencement of a continuous relation to God, that Jacob has mounted a new step, that this victory is the beginning of a series of succeeding victories already contained in germ in the first and having it for a foundation. But that he may not estimate himself too highly, he bears away a sensuous sign from the combat, to remind him of his weakness, and to convince him that his opponent had been at the same time his helper, that he had conquered God only by God. Such signs are borne by every believer from every struggle he has with God. Not one comes out of such an encounter without a wound. God allows believers fully to realize their own weakness, that they may rightly apprehend how divine power alone is mighty in the weak. If, like the sacrifice of Esau, this event be looked at in its true light, as a prophecy, which ought to be and is realized in every individual believer and in the church at all times, it will be seen to contain a rich treasure both of comfort and exhortation, “For this reason,” says Luther, “let us learn that these things are written for our instruction, that if the like should happen to us, we may know to hold God in such a way that we become Israel.” That the event had a typical reference to Christ, the true Israel, is pointed out in Hebrews 5:7 : “Who in the days of His flesh offered up prayers and supplications, with strong crying and tears, unto Him that was able to save Him from death, and was heard in that He feared.” God acted towards Him as a stranger as long as He represented the sins of the whole human race; but when, like Jacob, Hosea 12:4, He pressed upon Him with strong crying and tears, He gave Him the victory, and thus laid a foundation for our victory. Esau’s loving conduct was to Jacob the next fruit of his struggle, the next proof of his name. His taking the 400 servants shows that he had set out, if not with decidedly evil intentions, yet with the purpose of allowing his resolution to be formed by circumstances. From his passionate temperament, humanly speaking, there was everything to fear. But God put love into the heart that had been filled with hatred. The whole meaning of Jacob’s wrestling is changed if we assume that Esau had previously had peaceable intentions, and that he had the 400 men with him for some other object, without any reference to Jacob. If the danger had been merely imaginary, how could God say that Jacob had striven with God and with men, and had prevailed? How could the victory over Esau’s desire for revenge be represented as the price of the struggle with God? We need not say that the fickle and sanguinary character of Esau made it improbable that he should retain hatred so long in his heart. He was fickle and sanguinary only where higher possessions were concerned. Lasting desire of revenge was a characteristic feature even among his descendants; comp. Amos 1:11. They show a strength of hatred against Israel such as no other nation has ever shown. It continues as long as their existence. But in this case Esau’s hatred is obliged to yield to a power stronger than his own, which stifles the flame of revenge, and fans to a flame the few sparks of brotherly love existing along with it. It is plainly set forth that this decisive struggle forms a turning-point in Jacob’s life. We see nothing more of his cunning and self-reliance. His trust is now firmly placed in God. But his old nature is perpetuated in his sons. 4. The crime of Jacob’s sons at Sichem.—The consequences of this event, rather than the event itself, form the kernel and scope of the narrative. The author’s eye is directed to the object which it subserved in God’s hand, not to the human guilt incurred. The trouble into which Jacob was thus brought drove him nearer to God, and caused him to do what from weakness he had already too long neglected, viz. to extirpate from his family all remnants of idolatry that had been brought from Mesopotamia, and to consecrate himself and his household anew to the service of the Lord. The threatening danger gave God occasion to manifest Himself as a Saviour. In Genesis 35:5 it is said: ‘‘And they journeyed: and the terror of God was upon the cities that were round about them, and they did not pursue after the sons of Jacob.” The narrator, who is describing God’s dealings with Israel, is so absorbed in this his aim, that he leaves it to others to condemn the morality of the sons of Jacob. But we see plainly how little we are warranted by his silence in such a case to assume approval. The shameful deed is censured in the hardest terms by Jacob on his death-bed, Genesis 49:5-6; and divine punishment is predicted on Simeon and Levi, who, as sons of Leah and full brothers of Dinah, had been particularly active in the matter. The carnal pride of election, which already appears among Jacob’s sons, is noteworthy. This election is made to serve as a cloak for their revenge; comp. Genesis 34:7, Genesis 34:14, Genesis 34:31. It has been justly remarked, that we have here the type of those errors into which, in the course of history, many have been led by faith in the privileges of Israel rudely apprehended by carnal-minded men. The revelation of God vouchsafed to Jacob after this event, the ratification he receives of the name Israel, after he has again proved himself a wrestler with God—having passed through a struggle in which faith had conquered that despair of the divine grace in which the vice of his sons threatened to plunge him, the sight of the sins of the chosen race being the mightiest opponent which faith has to overcome—form a kind of key-stone. He still lives for a considerable period. But now his son Joseph steps into the foreground: he it is in whose life the special providence of God particularly reveals itself, working through his destiny for the realization of its plans respecting the whole nation. We must therefore begin a new section here, after the example of Moses, Genesis 37:2. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 7: 07. § 5. JOSEPH ======================================================================== § 5. Joseph Providence appears so prominently in the history of Joseph, that it would be superfluous to draw attention to it in detail. It is more important to consider the final object which these providential leadings subserve. Why was it necessary for Jacob’s race to be transplanted from Canaan to Egypt? For this is the centre round which everything in the whole section revolves. If the descendants of the patriarchs were at a future time to be adapted to divine aims, to those institutions which God through Moses wished to establish among them, they must (1) not split themselves up into small tribes, but form one nation, separate from others, and united in themselves. But this was impossible in Canaan. The land was already occupied by a whole host of Canaanitish nationalities. The number of the Canaanites was constantly on the increase. If the number of the Israelites were to increase in the same proportion, the necessary consequence would be, that they would either come to strife with the inhabitants of the land, in which they must necessarily succumb, and in which they would not have right on their side; or else by intermarriage they would become mixed up with them, and so entirely cease to be a nation, as the Sichemites proposed to Jacob; or, finally, they would become separated into single masses in the neighbouring lands. (2) They must be placed in a position in which they would not come into close contact with the idolatrous nations. Until now, God had bound the patriarchs to Himself by direct revelation, who with quick susceptibility had accepted this revelation. But henceforward the direct revelations of God ceased for a long period: time was given to the scattered, noble seed to rise; the Israelites received their knowledge indirectly from God; they learnt to know Him as He who had revealed Himself to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But this knowledge and worship of God was not yet so firmly rooted, that it could not have been lost if their natural proneness as men to sin, and hence to idolatry, had been furthered by strong outward influences. And this would certainly have happened in Canaan, whose inhabitants, as we learn most clearly from the conduct of the Sichemites, had always been most conciliatory towards the strangers, always endeavouring to draw them into nearer connection. Moreover, they were destitute of all religious intolerance, which is explained by the fact that among them false religion had still a fluctuating character, no fixed forms and ruling priesthood; and that material interests preponderated, as was the case in later times. Out of love to them, the Sichemites were even willing and ready to submit to circumcision. (3) They must come into contact with a state whose culture, constitution, arts, and laws would present a pattern for imitation. A shepherd-life was best adapted to the patriarchs; as rich possessors, they enjoyed its advantages without being subject to its disadvantages. The simplicity connected with it must have made them more susceptible of divine revelations, which were still very simple, not requiring to be written down, and therefore demanding no literary education. Not so with a whole nation. Shepherd-life, as the mode of life common to a whole nation, is always connected with rudeness and barbarism: hence even now, the missionaries among nomadic nations use their utmost endeavour to induce those over whom they have acquired influence to make fixed habitations, and to cultivate agriculture. God wished to work upon Israel by settled religious institutions, to penetrate into the very centre of the national life by a complicated, and therefore written, code of laws. A settled religious constitution and developed legislation of this nature can only exist among a nation having settled habitations and a well-regulated civil constitution, and possessing some little knowledge of arts and sciences. Hence Moses afterwards founded the Israelitish state upon agriculture, which partly presupposes such a civil condition, and partly induces it. (4) Already, in the predictions made to Abraham, the object of his people’s sojourn in Egypt is said to be, that they might there be heavily oppressed, and be delivered by God’s mighty deeds; comp. Genesis 15:13. This formed the necessary foundation of that closer relation which God wished to assume towards them. Without the cross, no longing; only in a barren land does the soul thirst after God. Without the need of redemption, there is no gratitude for redemption. The way in which God deals with those nations and individuals whom He will draw to Himself out of the world is always this: He prepares trouble and anguish for them in the world; He arms the world against them. Therefore it must be a mighty nation among which Israel should grow to a numerous people—a nation which there was no human possibility of resisting. A mighty nation also, in order that God’s glorious power in deliverance might be the more visible. This deliverance was to be for all futurity a mirror of the love of God to His people, of His omnipotence, of His righteousness in victory over the world; it was to be a prophecy of all subsequent judgments on the world till the final day of judgment: and how could this be, unless worldly power were represented as concentrated in the type of the world with all its power? (5) The kingdom in which Israel sojourned must also so far be fitted for a type of the world, that it must represent the moral condition of the world, its rebellion against the true God, its obstinate defiance, its foolish trust in that which is not God, in its own power and in idols. Without this, God’s justice, and therefore His omnipotence and love, could not be fully developed. A nation still on the first step of retrogression, in which there were still remnants of the true knowledge of God, would have surrendered on the first attack. All these conditions were at that time to be found in combination, only in the land of Egypt. In Egypt there was (1) enough of land not only for the descendants of Abraham then in existence, but also to accommodate the great nation which was to spring from them in accordance with the divine promise. Even now, besides the ordinary inhabitants of this prosperous land, who occupy themselves with agriculture, there is another race in Egypt, the Bedouin Arabs. These make use of the pasture land in the neighbourhood of the wilderness, but at the same time often combine agriculture with pastoral life. Since, in Egypt, the state was at that time based upon agriculture, the large tracts available only for pasturage remained unused; and it was to be expected that the inhabitants would readily give them up to the Israelites. (2) In Egypt, the danger of mixing with idolaters, and the temptation to idolatry, were comparatively less. Although the national exclusiveness of the Egyptians was not fully developed till afterwards, it existed even at that time in its main characteristics, as appears from passages which we have already cited in another connection. Herdsmen are an abomination to the Egyptians; and it is necessary for Joseph to be freed from the ignominy of his origin by marriage with the daughter of a high priest. Among all nations of antiquity, none showed such hatred of strangers as the Egyptians, who used the word man solely to designate their own fellow-countrymen. On the very earliest sculptures we find contemptuous representations of foreigners, especially of the Nomads; and in many cases they are represented as suffering the most grievous oppression. Comp., for example, the sculptures on the temple at Medinat Abu, representing the return of Rameses III. from the wars of the east, in Wilkinson, i, p. 106. The inclination which the Israelites manifested towards the idolatry of the Egyptians, notwithstanding the repulsive treatment they experienced in Egypt, and the religious detestation which the Egyptians showed towards them, lead us to infer what would have become of them if they had grown to be a nation among a more humane people, such as perhaps the Canaanites were. Yet in the wilderness, when the Moabites and Midianites invited them to join in eating sacrifices offered to idols, and in fornication, they immediately succumbed to the temptation. (3) Among all states then in existence, Egypt was that in which culture had made the greatest progress, in which the arts were most advanced, and wise laws were to be found. Everything that Genesis tells of Egypt shows a rich, prosperous, and well-ordered state. The whole was founded on agriculture; we find a developed priesthood, an orderly court, high offices of state, a state-prison, numerous and costly works of art, etc. But the Israelites were not slow to avail themselves of the advantages which such a situation afforded. At first, indeed, they continued their pastoral life; but as their numbers increased, they found themselves obliged to turn to agriculture and the arts. That the Israelites on their departure are not to be regarded as a mere shepherd-nation, is shown by passages such as Exodus 3:22, according to which they dwelt in settled habitations in the midst of the agricultural Egyptians; also by the fact that there were artificers among them competent to prepare everything requisite for the holy tabernacle; by the manufacture of the golden calf; the spread of the art of writing; the circumstance that their collective public deeds could be based on a book, and many other things. The nation came out from Egypt entirely metamorphosed, (4) Egypt was at that time the most’ powerful kingdom of the world, the only one perhaps which had already a standing army,—a necessity for which was likely soon to arise, owing to its geographical situation. The fruitful land was surrounded by dreary wastes, whose savage inhabitants, intent on improving their condition, had their greedy glance constantly directed towards this paradise. (5) A Pharaoh could scarcely have been found at that time in any other part of the world; and yet a Pharaoh whom God could set forth to manifest His justice and omnipotence was necessary for the object in view. It was indispensable to such a perfect revelation of the nature of the world, the necessary condition of the full revelation of the nature of God, for such foolish defiance, such hardened obduracy; that the possession of the goods and the power of this world should ripen, evolve, and consummate that disinclination to God which already existed. But Pharaoh cannot be looked at as an individual; in him was concentrated the mind of the whole nation. The proverb, quails rex talis populus, is also true if it be inverted. We have already seen how at that time, in Egypt, apostasy from the true God had reached its lowest stage, the worship of animals. The senseless pride of the Egyptian kings appears from the simple circumstance that they generally called themselves “lords over the whole world;” Champ. Br. 231. The address which King Rameses Meinamun, according to a monument in Thebes, makes to his warriors, is characteristic of this pride: “The strangers have been dashed to the ground by my strength; the terror of my name is gone forth; I seemed as a lion to them; I have annihilated their criminal souls; Ammon Ra, my Father, has subdued the whole world under my feet, and I am king on the throne for ever.” The apotheosis of kings, which probably first originated among the Egyptians, was a result of this pride. These remarks will suffice for the main point. The author’s aim throughout is to give prominence to God’s agency. He shows how God can cause even the smallest things, the making of a coat of many colours, thoughtlessness in telling a dream which, as the event proved, had been sent by God, to be subservient to the most important ends. He shows how the sins of the chosen race may lead not only to the punishment of the sinning individuals,—even Joseph required purification; the rust of self-sufficiency and arrogance had to be removed,—but also by God’s undeserved grace be the means of salvation to the race itself, by bringing it nearer to its destination; comp. Genesis 45:5, where Joseph says to his brethren, “Now therefore be not grieved that ye sold me hither; for God did send me before you to preserve life;” Genesis 50:20. He shows how God, after having prepared a new dwelling for His chosen people, compelled them by hunger to leave their old habitation, which they would scarcely have consented to do simply at His command: how Joseph, the type of his race, acquired in the house of Potiphar the capacity for his later calling; and how by his residence in prison—foreshadowing the Egyptian slavery of the nation—he attained to this typehood, and so became the shepherd of Jacob. This is the author’s aim; comp. Psalms 105:16et seq., where the point of view from which the whole narrative ought to be looked at is clearly set forth. It does not form part of his plan to judge of the morality of Joseph’s actions. There are always moral and immoral people enough to undertake this. If, therefore, the judgment should prove unfavourable, the Holy Scriptures would remain quite unaffected by it. Since, however, it has become usual to express some opinion on the matter, we are not at liberty to remain altogether silent. Special blame has been attached to those measures which Joseph, who occupied in Egypt the primitive position in the East of state ruler or grand vizier, made use of to increase the power and revenues of the king. Few have ventured to attack the historical truth of the narrative. For it has been satisfactorily proved from other sources, that the relation whose origin is here given, continued to exist in Egypt long afterwards. In the sculptures, kings, priests, and warriors alone are represented as land proprietors; comp. Wilkinson, part i. p. 263. Diodorus says, i. p. 168, that the husbandmen built on the lands of the kings, priests, and warriors. It appears also from Herodotus that they occupied their lands only in fief from the king. He represents Sesostris (a mythical personage) as distributing the land among the peasants, who were obliged to pay a certain tax for it; comp. Wilkinson, i. 73, ii. p. 2. With reference to one point alone there seems to be a contradiction between Genesis and other sources. According to Genesis, there were only two classes of landowners—kings and priests. Diodorus, on the other hand, names warriors as well as these. But the more accurate accounts of Herodotus, b. ii. chap. 141 and 168, state that the fields of the warriors, though rent-free, were not their independent property, but were lent by the king, and were a substitute for pay. It will suffice to remind these accusers of the judgment of the Egyptians themselves, from whom Joseph received the name, “Saviour of the Land ;” so, for example, the name Zaphnathpaaneah in Genesis 41:45 properly means salvation, or, according to others, the saviour of the world, by which proud name the Egyptians used to designate their country (comp. Rosellini, i. p. 185; Gesen. Thes.); and to point to the genuine sympathy they manifested on the death of his father. But we may also discover some grounds of justification. The power of the Egyptian king before this time had probably been very limited. He received no regular taxes from his subjects, but only presents, or extraordinary imposts, which were no doubt obtained with great difficulty. Under the relations existing in Egypt, this was highly prejudicial to the state; the government had no power; and the most suitable regulations must fail for want of means. By the new arrangement the inhabitants lost nothing of their freedom or honour; only they were obliged to pay a standing rental, viz. the fifth part of the produce of their fields. This tax was very trifling in a land so universally fruitful as Egypt; and by means of it the kings were not only placed in a position to protect the land against hostile incursions which threatened it on every side, by the establishment of a considerable standing army; but were also enabled to meet the enormous expenditure caused by diverting the Nile into canals, and damming it up. They were also placed in a position to undertake one of the greatest of human works, the forming of the artificial sea of Moeris, whose destination it was to receive the superfluous water of the Nile in years of extraordinary rising; and when the overflow of the Nile ceased, to water the land by sewers and canals, by which means the occurrence of a similar famine was for ever prevented. Thus the prosperity of the Egyptians was not diminished, but increased, by this arrangement. Michaud’s treatise on the subject is well worth reading, On Landed Property in Egypt, in his and Poujoulat’s Correspondence from the East, part viii. p. 60 et seq. of the Brussels edition. He has proved that, among all the fluctuating relations of government in Egypt, there has never been the same unlimited possession of landed property there as in other countries; and that the cause of this phenomenon is to be found in the peculiar relations of Egypt, where the fruitfulness of the detached piece of ground depends entirely on the universal measures taken to promote the fruitfulness of the whole land,—measures which can only originate in the supreme authority, since the fructifying power of the Nile, to which Egypt owes everything, can only be imperfectly developed unless these measures are adopted. We see this very clearly from the circumstance that, before the present change of relations, there could be seven successive years of famine,—a case which does not again occur in all subsequent history. Again, Joseph is reproached for severity towards his brethren. But this severity did not arise, as some have erroneously maintained, from a revengeful disposition. The narrative shows how much self-control it cost him. His design was partly to awaken in them a feeling of repentance on account of their shameful conduct towards him, and partly to prove them, whether they cherished a better disposition towards his father and his brother Benjamin than they had manifested towards him. Unless the result of this trial had been favourable, it would have been impossible for Joseph again to have assumed a nearer relation towards his family. When the object was gained; when they had come to look upon the evil which had befallen them as a punishment for the crime they had formerly committed; when they had spoken that great word which the hard human heart is so slow to reach, “God has discovered the sin of thy servants ;” when he recognised their better disposition from the circumstance that, in order to spare their father pain, they would have delivered Benjamin, with the loss of their own freedom,—then he showed himself to be a most loving brother, and sought to take away their fear of his revenge by attributing all that had happened to the divine causality: comp. Genesis 50:19-21. We cannot fail to recognise the divine agency even in the crime of Joseph’s brethren. God could easily have prevented it; but they were purposely involved in circumstances calculated to call forth all the coarseness and bitterness of their minds. This was the condition of their fundamental cure. Finally, Joseph is reprehended for not having sooner given his father some account of himself. But how can faults of this kind be found with a narrative whose whole tendency is such as to preclude the possibility of preventing them. We are able, however, to set aside this latter reproach. For here there was a religious element which served to obviate it. The author’s object is to prove how the divine law of retribution is exemplified in the sons of Jacob—how the prophecy of his own fate is fulfilled in them, that prophecy which every crime done to others contains in itself—how the pain they had prepared for their father is repeated in them. But here Joseph is only to be regarded as an instrument in God’s hand. The light in which his person appears is not considered by the author. The question is only of the personality of Joseph; and therefore we must be satisfied with what satisfied the author, assuming that it was God’s providence which prevented him giving an earlier account of himself; because it was designed that Jacob should drink out the whole cup of sorrow, and that his sons should be punished, purified, and tried; as it afterwards happened. But we must also draw attention to the fact that, although Joseph appears throughout as a blameless, just, and God-fearing man, a noble character, and a peculiar object of the divine guidance and protection, he forms an essential contrast to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in one point. He was not favoured with divine manifestations like these, who were destined to stand at the head of the whole development, and who possessed a special susceptibility for life in divine revelations; but, like his brethren, he consumed part of the capital already gained. It is true that he had significant dreams, and the gift of interpreting dreams; but proper revelations were never granted to him. And there is another difference which is closely connected with this. In the relations of the present life Joseph is far more dexterous and clever than his fathers; he is a man of the world, a statesman. In this representation of Joseph, Genesis is throughout consistent,—a strong proof of the historical character of the narrative. Neither does Joseph appear in any other light in the later books. For it is clear that Psalms 77:16, Psalms 80:2, Psalms 81:16, do not, as Ewald maintains, contain a different conception. The proper keystone of the whole patriarchal time is formed by the prophetic blessing of the dying Jacob, Genesis 49. His twelve sons, the ancestors of Israel, are gathered round him. In them his spiritual eye sees their tribes; instead of the Egypt of the present, he sees the Canaan of the future, rising even to the time when the promises of the blessing to all nations should be fulfilled, when the peaceful One whom the nations should obey would come and raise Judah, the tribe formerly distinguished above the others and from which He was to proceed, to the summit of glory, Shiloh, Genesis 49:10—contracted from שילון, as Solomon from שלמון: comp. the prophecy of Messiah in Micah 5:5, “And this shall be the peace,” and the appellation “Prince of peace” in Isaiah 9:6. These last words of Jacob could not fail to make a very deep impression. They were the staff by which the nation was sustained in times of heavy oppression and persecution. The people also retained the remembrance of the prophecy made to Abraham of the 400 years; and the consequence was, that its realization was not expected before that time, so that the delay did not cause them to relinquish their hope. How confidently Jacob and Joseph looked for the land of promise, is shown by their respective injunctions respecting their bodies. We shall here give a chronological survey of the history of the patriarchs: — From the time that Abraham left Haran till Jacob went down into Egypt, 215 years elapsed. The year of Abraham’s call coincides with the year of the world 2083, B.C. 1922. The year of Jacob’s going down into Egypt coincides with the year of the world 2298, B.C. 1707.” Abraham was 75 years old when he was called; from that time till Isaac’s birth, 25 years elapsed. Genesis 21:5. Between the birth of Isaac and the birth of Esau and Jacob there was an interval of 60 years; for Isaac was 40 years old when he took Rebekah; and her childlessness continued for a period of 20 years. Genesis 25:26. From that time till the death of Abraham 15 years elapsed, for Abraham died at the age of 175 years. Genesis 25:7. Between Abraham’s death and Isaac’s death there was an interval of 105 years; for Isaac was 100 years younger than Abraham, and died at the age of 180 years. Genesis 35:28. From that time till Jacob’s going down into Egypt there were 10 years. Jacob was 130 years of age. Genesis 47:19. Isaac was contemporary with Abraham for 75 years. Jacob with Abraham, 15 years. Jacob with Isaac, 120 years. We get the sum-total of 215 years, if we reckon up the 25 years which intervened between Abraham’s call and Isaac’s birth, the 60 years from Abraham’s birth to the birth of his two sons, and the 130 years of Jacob when he went to Egypt. It is important also to fix the date of a few points in the life of Jacob, with reference to which no direct chronological statements exist. First, his departure into Mesopotamia. This took place when he was 77 years of age; so that we cannot speak of “the flying youth,” an expression which we frequently hear in sermons. Neither can he be called an old man; for, owing to the long duration of life at that time, Jacob was only in the prime of manhood. Joseph was only 30 years old when he was brought before Pharaoh. On Jacob’s immigration to Egypt the seven years of plenty were already passed, and two years of the famine. Joseph was therefore at that time 39 years old, Jacob 130. Jacob must therefore have been 91 at the birth of Joseph. Joseph was born in the 14th year of Jacob’s sojourn in Haran; comp. Genesis 30:24-25. Thus we get 77 years. A second point is the event which befell Dinah, in Genesis 34. This belongs to about the 107th year of Jacob. It cannot be placed later; for it occurred previous to the selling of Joseph, when, according to Genesis 37:2, he was seventeen years of age. Jacob must therefore have been 108. Neither can it be placed earlier; for Dinah, who was born in the 91st year of Jacob, about the same time as Joseph, was then a grown-up maiden. Jacob remained six years in Mesopotamia after the birth of Dinah; and before the event of which we speak he sojourned for a considerable time in two places in Canaan, Succoth and Sichem. Genesis 33. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 8: 08. § 6. REMARKS ON GOVERNMENT, MANNERS, AND CULTURE ======================================================================== § 6. Remarks on Government, Manners, and Culture The power of an Arabian Emir differs only from that of a king in one respect, viz. that he possesses no fixed territory. For the rest, his sway is free and unlimited. It was the same among the patriarchs. A single glance at the history of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, suffices to show that they did not live as subjects in Palestine. Abraham had 318 servants born in the house, whom he exercised in arms; or, more correctly, he took only 318 with him to battle, leaving others for the protection of his herds. He had also a probably far greater number of other newly-gained servants. As an independent prince, he carries on war with five minor kings. He, as well as his son, concludes treaties with kings in Palestine as their equal. Jacob’s sons destroy a whole city, without any attempt being made on the part of the Canaanites to bring them to judgment and punishment. The heads of the tribes exercised judicial power to its full extent. Thus Judah pronounces judgment of death on his daughter-in-law Tamar; and reverses it himself when he is convinced of her innocence. Genesis 38. The government of the Bedouin Arabs forms a good illustration of that in the time of the patriarchs. It is excellently described in Arvieux’ remarkable account of his travels, part iii.: and again in Burchhardt’s English work on the Bedouins, 2 vols.; by Michaud, and Poujoulat-Lamartine. Respecting the rights of the patriarchs we have but little information. It is certain ‘they exercised many rights which were afterwards sanctioned by Moses. The Levirate-law prevailed among them: according to this, if a man died without children, his unmarried brother was to marry the widow, and the first son of this marriage belonged, not to the natural father, but to the deceased brother, and received his inheritance. This law was carried out with such strictness, that there were no means of eluding it, as appears from the story told in Genesis 38 of Judah and his daughter-in-law Tamar. The root of this right or custom, which the patriarchs doubtless brought with them from earlier relations, lies in the want of a clear insight into the future life. An eager longing for perpetuity is implanted in man; and so long as this desire does not receive the true satisfaction which the mere doctrine of immortality is totally unable to afford, he seeks to satisfy it by all kinds of substitutes. One of these substitutes was the Levirate. It was regarded as a duty of love towards the deceased brother to use every possible means to preserve his name and memory. We see how deeply rooted the custom was already in the pre-Mosaic time, from the circumstance that Moses was obliged to make an exception in its favour among those laws on marriage within near relationship to which the custom ran counter,—an exception, indeed, which has reference only to one case belonging to the extreme limit. Only in such a case was an exception possible. In most, prevailing customs had to be reformed by violent measures. He took care, however, by the arrangement recorded in Deuteronomy 25, that the custom should no longer exist as an inviolable law, establishing a form under which a dispensation from it could be obtained. Polygamy certainly appears in Genesis; but only among the godless race, except in cases where there was some special motive: the patriarchs followed it only when they believed themselves necessitated to do so by circumstances, and the result showed that they were wrong. We are scarcely justified in saying that polygamy was not sin at that time, because there was no special command against it. If this were so, it would not be sin now. Such a command does not exist in all Scripture. But it is given in marriage itself: hence polygamy is always sin, more or less to be charged only according to the various degrees of development. That the essence of marriage was understood in its deep meaning even at that time, is seen by the examples of Isaac and Rebekah; and even apart from these, it must necessarily follow from the religious standpoint of the patriarchs. Heavenly, stands in the closest connection with earthly, marriage; and upon this connection is based the prevailing scriptural representation of the former under the image of the latter. Only sons participated in the inheritance; daughters were entirely excluded from it. Laban’s daughters knew that they had no part in their father’s house. It seems to have been left to the father’s option whether he would give the inheritance altogether to the sons of the true wife, or allow the sons of the maids to have a share in it. There was yet no settled custom in this respect. Abraham constituted Isaac his sole heir, and gave but presents to the sons of his maids. Jacob’s inheritance, on the other hand, was shared by the sons of his maids as well as by the rest. But we must remember that in this case the sons of the maids had been adopted by the wives of the first rank. The mode of life followed by the patriarchs was very simple. The wives lived in a separate tent, but quite near that of the men. The tent of the chief ruler stood, as it does now among the Arabs, in the centre of the great circle formed by the tents of his subjects. The nature of their tents is not accurately described, but we may assume that the description given of the tents of the Arabs by a recent writer will apply to it: “The commonest and all but universal tents of the Arabs are either round, supported by a long pole in the middle, or extended lengthways, like the tents of galleys. They are covered with thick woven cloth made of black goats’ hair. The tents of the Emirs are of the same material, and are distinguished from those of the others only by size and height. They are strong and thick, stretched out in such a way that the most continuous and heavy rain cannot penetrate them. The princes have many tents for their wives, children, and domestic servants, as well as for kitchens, storerooms,and stables. The form of the camp is always round; between the tent of the prince and the tents of his subjects a distance is left of thirty feet. They encamp on hills, and prefer those places where there are no trees which might intercept their view of comers and goers at a distance. (In this respect the peaceful patriarchs differed from these waylayers. Abraham dwelt under the oak of Mamre at Hebron, according to Genesis 18, and planted a grove of tamarisks at Beersheba, according to Genesis 21:33.) They choose places where there are springs, and in whose neighbourhood are valleys and meadows for the maintenance of their cattle. The want of this often obliged them to change their camp, sometimes every fourteen days or every month.” See Arvieux, p. 214, etc. Although this mode of life is very troublesome, shepherd-nations manifest a strong attachment towards it. The Arab Bedouins despise all dwellers in towns, and are no longer willing to acknowledge as brethren those of their number who settle there. But the natural restlessness of man has a great deal to do with this prejudice. “It leads him to roam through field and forest.” He who has an inward inclination to rest, seeks as far as possible to bring rest and stability into his outward life also. Even now an excessive love of wandering is the sign of a heart without peace. “Qui multum peregrinantur,” says Thomas à Kempis, “raro sanctificantur.” Among the patriarchs it is quite evident that nomadic life was only the result of circumstances, the natural consequence of their residence in a land in which property was in the hands of the former inhabitants. When it was at all possible, the nomadic mode of life was forsaken. Abraham does not wander in the district surrounding Egypt, but repairs at once to the court of the king. Afterwards he settles down in Hebron; comp. Genesis 23. Isaac sojourns in the principal town of the Philistines, and occupies there a house opposite to the king’s palace, Genesis 26:8. There he sows a field, Genesis 26:12. Jacob builds a house for himself after his return from Mesopotamia, Genesis 33:17. Thus we already perceive a tendency to change the mode of life. A partial change did afterwards take place in Egypt; and in Canaan the former mode of life was entirely abandoned. The cattle-wealth of the patriarchs consisted in sheep, goats, cows, asses, and camels; they had no horses. The breeding of horses was very ancient in Egypt, but was not practised in Canaan till late. In the time of Joshua and the Judges the horse was not used at all; it did not become general until the period of the Kings. Everything else which the patriarchs wanted, they either got in exchange for their cattle, or bought for the silver obtained by the sale of cattle. Silver money was in use even at that time. Abraham bought a sepulchre for four hundred shekels; and Abimelech made Sarah a present of one thousand shekels. At that time, however, silver was not coined, but weighed out. Thus, in Genesis 23:16, Abraham weighs the purchase money when he buys a field. Even in Egypt, according to all accounts, there was no coined metal in use among the old Pharaohs; although it was common among the Greeks, Romans, and other nations of antiquity. According to old monuments, the Egyptians, in trading, made use of metal in the form of a ring. This was weighed in the act of contract itself; and therefore its value was decided according to weight; Rosellini, ii. 3, p. 187 et seq. Kesitah, mentioned in Genesis 33:19, was probably a similar substitute for a coin. It occurs afterwards in the book of Job, where it is borrowed from Genesis. Besides these, only silver was used for money: its name points to this purpose—כֶּסֶף, derived from כָּסַף; like mammon, which means confidence. Gold, though frequently mentioned, was used only for ornament. They had ample opportunities for the sale of their produce and the supply of their wants: since the Phoenicians, the oldest commercial people, lived in the neighbourhood; and the caravans, which took wares from Arabia to Egypt, went through Palestine, according to Genesis 37:25-28 : comp. the confirmations afforded by the monuments in Egypt respecting the opening of trade between Arabia and Egypt, in Wilkinson, part i. p. 45 et seq. They exchanged or bought slaves, wheat, wine, gold, silver, woven goods, and pieces of cloth. We find many things among them which show that it was not in vain that they lived in the neighbourhood of cultivated nations. They did not hesitate to avail themselves of all the advantages and pleasures of culture; for we find no traces of nomadic barbarism among them—in mind and manners they seem rather to have occupied the standpoint of civilisation. The women wear costly veils and rings of gold. Esau has fragrant garments, such as are still worn by the inhabitants of Southern Asia. Joseph has a coat of many colours, while Judah wears on his breast a seal attached to a cord, etc. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 9: 09. § 7. OF THE RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE OF THE PATRIARCHS ======================================================================== § 7. Of the Religious Knowledge of the Patriarchs On this subject there is, of course, little to be said. The life of the patriarchs in God was one of great directness: their faith was childlike. It is vain, therefore, to try to examine it in its separate doctrinal loci; just as useless as it would be to strive to point out in the germ the stem, branches, twigs, leaves, and blossoms; although they are actually present there. Only a few single points demand consideration. It is a very remarkable thing, that even in Genesis we find the distinction between a revealed and a hidden God which penetrates all the remaining writings of the Old Testament; and this is the case not only when the narrator speaks, but also when he introduces the patriarchs as speaking: so that the doctrine must be regarded as a constituent part of the patriarchal religion. We refer to the distinction between Jehovah and His Angel, מלאךיהוה; or מלאךהאלהים, where the reference of the hidden God to the world, which is the medium of communication with Him, is of a more universal nature, or the author wishes to describe it only in general terms. This Angel of Jehovah is very often placed on a level with the supreme God, called Elohim and Jehovah, and designated as the originator of divine works. In illustration of this, we shall only mention the narrative in Genesis 16, the first place where the Angel of the Lord appears. In Genesis 16:7 it is said that the Angel of the Lord found Hagar; in Genesis 16:10 this Angel attributes to himself a divine work, viz. the countless multiplying of Hagar’s descendants; in Genesis 16:11 he says, Jehovah has heard the affliction of Hagar, and therefore predicates of Jehovah what he had formerly predicated of himself; in Genesis 16:13, Hagar expresses her surprise that she has seen God and still remains alive. Again, in Genesis 31:11, the Angel of God appears to Jacob in a dream. In Genesis 31:13 he calls himself the God of Bethel, to whom Jacob made a vow, referring to the circumstance related in Genesis 28:11-22, where in a nightly vision Jacob sees a ladder, at the top of which stands Jehovah. The Angel of God is thus identified with Jehovah. We find the Angel of the Lord so represented throughout, in Genesis as well as in the other books of the Old Testament. Many ways have been taken to explain this apparent identification of the Angel of the Lord with the Lord Himself, and at the same time to preserve the distinction between them. (1.) It is very generally maintained that the Angel of the Lord is one of the lower angels, to whom divine names, deeds, and predicates are attributed only because he speaks and acts by God’s commission, and in His name. The principal defenders of this opinion are: Origen, Jerome, and Augustine among the church-fathers; among Jewish expositors, Abenezra; numerous Roman Catholic, Socinian, and Arminian scholars, especially Grotius, Clericus, and Calmet; among recent commentators, Gesenius, v. Hofmann (Weiss, and Schriftbeweis), who differs from the rest only in assuming that it has always been one and the same spirit who is the medium of communication between God and the chosen race; Baumgarten, Delitzsch, Steudel in. his Old Testament theology, and others. But there are weighty arguments which prove that the Angel of God was not an ordinary angel, but one exalted above all created angels. Thus, for example, the angels who accompany the Angel who represents Jehovah, Genesis 18, are throughout subordinate to him. And in Genesis 28:11-22 the Angel of God is also clearly distinguished from the lower angels. Jehovah, or as he is called in Genesis 31:11, the Angel of God, stands at the top of the ladder; angels ascend and descend on it. In Exodus 23:21 this Angel is characterized as having the name of God in him, i.e. as partaking of the divine essence and glory. In Joshua 5 he first calls himself the prince of angels, and attributes to himself divine honour. In Isaiah 43:9 he is called the Angel of the presence of the Lord, equivalent to the Angel who represents God in person. To follow v. Hofmann in giving such prominence to a created angel, is quite at variance with the position which the Old Testament throughout assigns to angels, and would have led to polytheism. In this case we should have to give up the Old Testament foundation so necessary for the prologue of John’s Gospel, and should lose the key to the explanation of the fact that Christ and Satan are at variance in the New Testament, just as the Angel of the Lord and Satan are opposed in the Old Testament: in the New Testament the Angel disappears almost without a trace. He is mentioned only in Revelation 12 under the name of Michael. This is inconceivable if he were distinct from Christ, the guardian of the church; for the Old Testament has much to say of the Angel of the Lord. But the principal argument is the following: “The Angel of the Lord constantly and without exception speaks and acts as if he were himself the creator and ruler of all things, and the covenant God of Israel; he never legitimizes his appearance and activity by appealing to a divine commission; we find him continually deciding the destinies of nations and individuals by his own might, appropriating divine power, honour, and dignity, and accepting sacrifice and worship, without a protest, as something due to him.” The assumption of a temporary interchange of the person of Jehovah is refuted by this exceptionless regularity. (2.) Others—as, for example, Rosenmüller, Sack, De Wette—try to make the Angel of Jehovah identical with Him, as the mere form in which He appears; “a passing transformation of God into the visible,” as Oehler expresses it, Proleg. p. 67. This hypothesis, however, is contradicted by those passages where the Angel of the Lord is expressly distinguished from the Lord Himself. Thus, for example, in Exodus 23:21, where Jehovah promises the Israelites that He will send before them the Angel in whom is His name; and in Joshua 5:13, etc., where the Angel calls himself the captain of the host of Jehovah, and is thus relatively subordinate to Him. The view is also at variance with Genesis 48:16, where Jacob says, “The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads,” where the Angel is spoken of as a permanent personality, and without any reference to a single appearance. Jacob traces all his preservation, and all the blessings he has received during his whole life, to this Angel; and claims his help for his grandchildren and their descendants. (3.) The only view remaining is this, that the doctrine of the Angel of the Lord contains the main features of a distinction between the concealed and the revealed God or the revealer of God. We find this in perfect development in the New Testament, which makes known to us not only the concealed, but also the revealed God, who is united with Him by unity of essence, viz. the Son or λόγος, who was the medium of communication between God and the world even before He became incarnate in Christ, and to whom in particular belonged the whole administration of the affairs of the kingdom of God, the entire guidance of Israel and their ancestors. This view is the only possible one besides the other two which we have already shown to be untenable; and moreover, it has in its favour, that in all passages where the Angel of the Lord is spoken of, the unanimous tradition of the Jews makes him the one mediator between God and the world, the originator of all revelation, to whom they give the name Metatron. It may be regarded as that which generally prevails in the Christian church. All the church-fathers, with the exception of those already named, were in favour of it; and it has been defended by almost all theologians of the two evangelical churches. Here arises the question, How does the doctrine of the Messenger of God related to Elohim and Jehovah, already belong to the patriarchal consciousness? At the first glance it seems as if God were related to His Messenger as Elohim to Jehovah. But on nearer consideration the difference becomes apparent. The distinction between Jehovah and Elohim has reference not to being, but to knowing: Elohim is the concealed Jehovah, Jehovah the revealed Elohim; whence it is evident that the use of Elohim preponderates only in Genesis, at the time of the gradual transition to a developed consciousness of God; and, on the other hand, falls completely into the background in the later books of the Pentateuch. The difference between Jehovah and Elohim has its basis solely and entirely in the distinction between the developed and the undeveloped God-consciousness. It contains no intimation of the doctrine of a diversity of persons in one divine substance. Elohim and Jehovah both refer to the whole divine essence. On the contrary, the doctrine of the מלאךיהוה or האלהים has reference to inner relations of the Godhead. It is the first step towards the distinction of a plurality of persons in the one divine nature; against which we cannot urge similarity of name to the created servants of God. For this common name has reference not to essence, but only to office. While the difference between Elohira and Jehovah gradually disappears, Elohim becoming more and more Jehovah, the difference between God and his Angel is by degrees more and more sharply defined, till at last it is definitely shown to be that of Father and Son. In this way it loses its fluctuating character, that of a mere difference of relations, which it always more or less maintained under the Old Testament, because the main thing there was to uphold the doctrine of the unity of God in opposition to polytheism, and because it was impossible to apprehend more deeply the relation existing between Father and Son till the incarnation of Christ. The existence of the revelation-trinity forms the necessary foundation for rightly understanding the trinity of essence. There is only one more fact to which we shall draw attention, viz. that in the book of Daniel, and in Revelation 12, the Angel of the Lord appears under the name of Michael. This name—who is like God, whose glory is represented in me—is an exact designation of the essence; a limitation of his sphere against that of all other angels. It rests upon Exodus 15:11, “Who is like unto Thee, Lord, among the gods?” and on Psalms 89:7-8. It denotes the εἶναιἴσαθεῷ which is predicated of Christ in John 5:18, Php 2:6. We shall now proceed to point out the causes which led to erroneous views respecting the Angel of the Lord. Among Catholic theologians, it was interest for the worship of Angels; among Socinians and Arminians, it was a disinclination to the ecclesiastical doctrine of the Trinity; among many recent writers, it is due to an exaggerated aversion to the old identification of Old and New Testament doctrine. How far the patriarchs associated this doctrine of the revealer of God with their Messianic views, cannot be accurately determined. The immediate was so predominant among them, that they must undoubtedly have guessed far more than they clearly understood. But before we can come to any decision respecting this combination, we must first give a sketch of the peerings into the future granted to the patriarchs. The first human pair, after their fall, received an indefinite promise of future restoration, of conquest over sin, and deliverance from the evil connected with it. How the burden of sin and evil impelled the better among the first men to cling to this promise, inscribing it on their hearts in ineffaceable characters, and how their longing was constantly directed to its fulfilment, is shown by the saying of Noah’s parents on his birth, Genesis 5:29. They hoped that the son who was given to them should be the instrument by which God would realize His promise of the blessing which was to follow the curse, if not in its full comprehension, yet in its beginning. And they were not deceived in this hope. In the grace which God showed to Noah and his race the promise certainly did not fail, but received a beginning of its fulfilment, which was at the same time a pledge and prediction of a far more glorious accomplishment. An indication of this was contained in the prophetic announcement of Noah, Genesis 9:26-27. God promises to enter into a close union with the race of Shem; and the descendants of the other son, Japhet, are also at some future time to participate in the fulness of this blessing. This was the extent of the glimpse into the future at the time when Abraham appeared. An entirely new basis was now given to the hope, even apart from the verbal renewal and more exact determination of the promise. In the leadings of the patriarchs, the living God manifested Himself in a way never anticipated before. The heavens which had been closed since the fall re-opened, and the angels of God again ascended and descended. What God promises for the future, gains significance only in proportion as He makes Himself known in the present. Promises heaped upon promises float in the air, and do not come nigh the heart. What God promised to the patriarchs, received its significance by that which God granted them. These promises are closely connected with those which preceded them. The revelation of a closer union of God with the race of Shem is more nearly defined by the promise that among this race the posterity of Abraham should come into closer communion with God through Isaac, and the posterity of Isaac again through Jacob. God promises to give them the land of Canaan for a possession, to come forth more and more from His concealment, and to assume a more definite form. The promise that Japhet should dwell in the tents of Shem is also renewed. What God pledges Himself to do for a single people, has final reference to the whole human race. Through the posterity of the patriarchs all nations of the earth are to be blessed; through them the curse is to be removed which has rested upon the whole earth since the fall of the first man. In this particular the renewal is also a continuation. In Genesis 9, participation in the blessing is promised only to Shem and Japhet; in this connection, no prospect of a joyful future is opened out to Ham. In the promise to the patriarchs, on the contrary, the blessing is always extended to all nations of the earth. With reference to the manner of the blessing, a new disclosure was given in the blessing of the dying Jacob. From Judah’s stem a great dispenser of blessings is to go forth; and on Him, as the King of the whole earth, the nations will depend. As Genesis 3 is the first Gospel in a wide sense; so Genesis 49 is the first Gospel in a narrower sense: Shiloh is the first name of the Redeemer. Let us now return to the question, In what relation do the expectations of the patriarchs respecting the future stand to their knowledge of the λόγος? All the graces bestowed on them by God they recognised as coming through the Angel of the Lord. It was he who entered Abraham’s tent; who allowed himself to be overcome by Jacob, by means of the power he himself had given him; whom Jacob, when near death, extolled as his deliverer from all need; and to whose guardianship, as the redeemer from all evil, he commended the sons of Joseph, Genesis 48:14-16. Since, therefore, the Angel of the Lord is expressly named in a series of announcements to the patriarchs; since Jacob, in another place, derives all the assurances which he has experienced from this Angel; since Hosea, in Hosea 12:5, represents Jacob as wrestling with the Angel, while in Genesis we are told of his encounter with Elohim; and since in Genesis 31:11 the Angel of God arrogates to himself that which in Genesis 28 is attributed to Jehovah,—we are fully justified in assuming that all revelations of God to the patriarchs were given through the medium of the Angel of the Lord; that wherever manifestations of Jehovah are spoken of, they must always be regarded as having taken place “in His Angel; “that Jehovah does not form the antithesis to the Angel of Jehovah, but is only the general designation of the divine essence, which is brought near by the Angel. If the Lord generally converses with His own through the medium of His Angel, He must do so always. For the reason why He does so generally can only lie in the fact that His nature requires this mediation; and if the Angel of the Lord had done such infinitely glorious things for believers in the present, why should they not also expect him to be the mediator of all future graces? To determine whether this mediation would concentrate itself in a personal appearance of the Angel of Jehovah, whether he would be bodily represented in the Prince of Peace from Judah’s stem, lay beyond the sphere of their lower knowledge. But in the meantime it formed a basis for that higher illumination which was vouchsafed to them in moments when they were filled with the Spirit of God. If the Angel of the Lord appeared to Abraham for an inferior aim, what might they not expect when the highest of all aims would be realized, and the whole earth freed from its curse? We do not find the clear and sharply defined knowledge of the mediation of the Messianic salvation through the Angel of the Lord until very late, in the post-exile prophets Zechariah and Malachi. Those passages, properly classic, are Zechariah 11 and Zechariah 13:7, and Malachi 3:1. What has been said respecting the doctrine of the Messiah, holds good also of the doctrine of immortality and retribution, among the patriarchs. In their direct consciousness, the belief in immortality was given as certainly as they themselves had passed from death to life. Only he who has experienced this change has the certainty of a blessed immortality; and where this is the case, it exists without exception. All God’s dealings with the patriarchs were calculated to strengthen direct trust. In Matthew 22:23et seq., the Saviour shows, in opposition to the Sadducees, how all the Lord’s dealings with them were a prophecy of their resurrection. If man be only dust and ashes, how should God deign thus to accept him for His own? What lies at the basis of Abraham’s readiness to offer up his son, is the confidence that God was able even to raise him up from the dead (Hebrews 11:19), founded on a real, not a lifeless, knowledge of His unbounded omnipotence, which, when connected with a true perception of the divine love, must necessarily beget the hope of resurrection. In general, the patriarchs held aloof from all subtle inquiries on a subject respecting which God had not given them more definite disclosures. Their aim was to surrender themselves, body and soul, unconditionally to God, and quietly to await His will respecting them. Some have sought to find a definite expression of hope in the words of the dying Jacob, Genesis 49:18 : “I have waited for Thy salvation, O Lord.” But the context shows that this has reference rather to that salvation which God had promised to Jacob for his race, the salvation to which the whole blessing has reference. But it is significant that the account of Enoch’s translation, in consequence of his walk with God, must have come to Moses through the medium of the patriarchs. This circumstance showed them that there was an everlasting blessed life for the pious; and that the more closely they felt themselves united to God, the more able they would be to appropriate the actual promise thus given to them. These remarks have reference to the doctrine of eternal life; belief in mere immortality was common even to the lower knowledge of the patriarchs; as is shown by a whole host of passages, which we take for granted are well known. The idea of annihilation and the cessation of all individual life, is quite foreign to the Old Testament. The foreground, the sojourn in Sheol—derived from שאל, to ask, the ever-desiring, drawing all life to itself—is very clearly recognised even in the time of the patriarchs. But a veil rested on that which lies beyond Sheol. It was not yet clearly understood that Sheol was only an intermediate state. But the more the patriarchs had decidedly the disadvantage of us with regard to a clear knowledge of the future life—for in this respect they lacked all revelation of God—the more ought we to be edified by their living faith, which was ready for every sacrifice; the more deeply must they put us to shame, since we possess the solution of so many of the problems of this earthly life, of so many difficulties which interfere with a clear insight into the future life; to whom so glorious a prize is clearly presented; to whom “I am thine exceeding great reward “means far more than it could have meant to Abraham; to whom, therefore, it must be infinitely easier to rise above the sorrows of the present. It was not until long after the time of the patriarchs that the doctrine of eternal life was laid down as one of the fundamental dogmas of revelation, for reasons which we shall afterwards develop. Faith is expressly designated in Genesis 15:6 as the subjective ground of the righteousness of the patriarchs before God, the soul of their religion: “And Abraham believed God, and God counted it to him for righteousness.” This faith, as an absolute trust in God’s word and power, notwithstanding all protests raised against it by the visible, is in essence perfectly identical with the faith of the New Testament, which accepts the word of reconciliation and the merit of Christ. The difference consists not in the position of the mind, but only in the object, in the meaning which God here and there gives to the word faith, in the expression of His power, which must be apprehended by faith. The motto of the patriarchs, like that of the New Testament believers, was: “Although the fainting heart deny, yet on Thy word I must rely.” Whoever, like Abraham, in firm confidence in the word and power of God, notwithstanding his dead body and Sarah’s, expects the promised son, is ready to offer up this son as a sacrifice, against the assurance of the flesh that no life can follow death, and considers the promised land his own although it is occupied by numerous and mighty nations; who ever, like Jacob, rises above his sins, and in strong faith exclaims, “Though our sins be many,” etc., is in such a position that the word of reconciliation has only to be offered, in order to be accepted by him. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 10: 10. § 8. OF THE EXTERNAL WORSHIP OF GOD AMONG THE PATRIARCHS ======================================================================== § 8. Of the External Worship of God Among the Patriarchs The fragmentary character of the worship of the patriarchal age corresponds to the fragmentary character of its religious knowledge. To the outward signs of the worship of God belonged (1) Circumcision, of whose antiquity, origin, aim, and signification we shall speak at greater length after having first quoted the words of the divine institution from Genesis 17:10et seq.: “This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you, and thy seed after thee; Every man-child among you shall be circumcised. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man-child in your generations; he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. And my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant; but the uncircumcised man-child shall be cut off from his people: he hath broken my covenant.” And here we must first answer a question which in olden times was the cause of violent disputes; the question “whether circumcision was given to Abraham by God as an entirely new custom; or whether it already existed among other nations, and passed over from them to the Israelites? “The arguments for and against may be found collected in Spencer, de legibus Hehraeorum ritualibus, i. 1, c. 4, sec. 2, p. 58 sqq. ed. Lips. 1705. What Michaelis says on the subject, Mos. Recht. Th. iv. § 185, is borrowed from him. See also Meiner’s Comm. Götting, vol. xiv.; Bähr on Herodotus, ii. 37 and 104; Clericus, ad h. l. There are only two nations from whom circumcision could have come to the Jews—the Egyptians and the Ethiopians—or, more correctly, but one; for in a religious point of view these two are almost equivalent to one nation, and the Israelites were in communication only with the Egyptians. Let us first collect the passages which attribute a higher antiquity to circumcision among the Egyptians than among the Hebrews. The oldest statement to this effect is to be found in Herodotus. He says, i. ii. c. 104: “It is of still greater significance (viz. for the proof of the Egyptian origin of the Colchians), that only the Colchians, Egyptians, and Ethiopians practised circumcision from the most remote times. For the Phoenicians and Syrians in Palestine (this was the name given by Herodotus and other Greeks to the Israelites, who were in reality Ibrim, Aramaeans who had wandered into Palestine) themselves confess that they learnt this custom from the Egyptians. But the Syrians dwelling on the rivers Thermodon and Parthenius, and their neighbours the Macrones, say that they had only recently adopted the custom from the Colchians. These are the only nations who practise circumcision; and all appear to have done it in imitation of the Egyptians. Respecting the Egyptians and Ethiopians themselves, however, I cannot say which of the two nations learnt circumcision from the other; for the custom is very ancient. But I am strongly convinced that other nations learnt it from the Egyptians, from the circumstance that those Phoenicians who have intercourse with the Greeks no longer imitate the Egyptians in this matter, but have given up circumcision.” Diodorus Siculus says, i. 1, c. 28: “Even the Colchians in Pontus, and the Jews between Arabia and Syria, regard some colonies as Egyptian, because their inhabitants circumcise their boys soon after birth,—an old custom which they seem to have brought with them from Egypt.” In chap. 55 he says of the Colchians: “As a proof of their Egyptian origin, it has been adduced that they have circumcision like the Egyptians,—a custom which has been retained in the colonies, and which also still exists among the Jews.” The third Greek author is Strabo, who says of the Egyptians, i. 17, p. 1140, that they practise circumcision like the Jews, who, however, are originally Egyptians. These writers are therefore of the opinion that the Israelites got circumcision from the Egyptians. But it would betray an entire want of historical criticism to prefer the accounts of foreign writers, of whom the oldest is a thousand years younger than Moses, who did not even know the language of the people of whom they speak, to the account of Moses, who does not derive circumcision from the Egyptians, but represents it as a divine appointment. We see how little their accounts are to be relied on, from the mistakes they make elsewhere. Herodotus, who never visited Judea, but only heard of the Jews through the Phoenicians (comp. Bähr on Herod, ii. 104), is mistaken in maintaining that the Jews themselves acknowledged they had received circumcision from the Egyptians. His assumption that the Phoenicians got circumcision from the Egyptians is also false; for the Phoenicians or Canaanites were not circumcised at all, as Herodotus afterwards himself confesses. Diodorus and Strabo show their ignorance by asserting that the Jews are descended from the Egyptians. But the value or worthlessness of the whole theory is best ascertained by investigating its source. It undoubtedly owes its origin to Egyptian national vanity. This is shown by the great mass of analogous inventions which appear in those accounts of Greek authors which are taken from Egyptian tradition. To represent themselves as the original people, older than all others, from whom all other nations borrowed manners, inventions, and civilisation, was the most zealous endeavour of the Egyptians; more especially from the time when Egypt, subjugated by the Persians, had lost its whole political importance. Vanity now sought to find in the past that satisfaction which the present could no longer afford. It is almost incredible to what distortions of history it gave rise in the time that lay next to Greek history. Many examples of this have been given by Müller, Orchomenos, p. 1170; also in The Books of Moses and Egypt, f. 217 sqq., and by Creuzer in his treatise, Ægyptii in Israelit. malevoli ac maledici, in the Comm. Herod. § 21; by Welker in Jahn’s Year-Book, ix. 3, p. 276 sqq., who recognises nothing more in the Egyptian story of Helena in Herodotus, than a transformation of matter originally Greek in the interest of national vanity. Greek credulity, and the childish wonder of the Egyptians, were calculated to provoke the Egyptian spirit of lying to such fabrications. Moreover, the three accounts may probably be reduced to one. It appears that Herodotus alone draws independently from Egyptian accounts; and that Diodorus and Strabo only copied him, as they frequently did. It cannot therefore be maintained with any appearance of probability, as Bertheau and Lengerke have done, that the Israelites adopted circumcision from the Egyptians. This is the more evident, when we see how little reliance can be placed on the other proofs which have been cited in favour of the great antiquity of circumcision among the Egyptians. Special reference is made to Joshua 5:9, where, after the completion of the circumcision which had been neglected in the wilderness, it is said that God had freed the Israelites from the reproach of Egypt. The reproach of Egypt, it is maintained, was the neglect of circumcision, with which the Egyptians had reproached the Israelites. But according to the correct explanation, the reproach of Egypt is the scorn which the Israelites suffered from the Egyptians, as well as the heathen generally, because they had been rejected by their God. The real explanation of this rejection was the neglect of circumcision,—a thing which had been commanded by God. When Israel had again been circumcised by God’s command, the reproach of Egypt was taken away. For circumcision was a real assurance from God that Israel was again the covenant people. The following passages serve to illustrate this: Exodus 32:12, “Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth?” Numbers 14:13 sqq.; Deuteronomy 9:28. Jeremiah 9:25-26, has also been appealed to. But this passage rather furnishes a proof that, even in the comparatively late time of Jeremiah, circumcision was not universal among the Egyptians. It is there said, according to De Wette’s translation: “Behold, there come days, says Jehovah, when I shall punish all the circumcised with the uncircumcised, Egypt and Judah, and Edom and the sons of Ammon, etc. For all the heathen are uncircumcised; but the whole house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart.” This passage is intended to deprive the godless covenant people of that false security which was based on outward circumcision. Therefore they are to be placed in the midst of the uncircumcised. The uncircumcised in heart are to be punished no less than the uncircumcised in flesh, the heathen. By way of example, the Egyptians are also mentioned among the latter; and it is added, that all the heathen are outwardly uncircumcised; only the Israelites are outwardly circumcised. Comp. especially Venema, and more recently Graf, on this passage. The Egyptians are also placed among the uncircumcised in several passages in Ezekiel; for example, Ezekiel 31:18, Ezekiel 32:19. To this is added that, according to other accounts, even to most recent times, circumcision among the Egyptians was peculiar to the priests. The whole nation was never circumcised. Compare the proofs in Jablonsky, Prol. p. 14; Wesseling on Herodotus, ii. 37. It is also stated that, in the appointment of circumcision, it is spoken of as a familiar thing. But we must not forget that Moses preserved only what was important for his time. The mode and way of circumcision were known at that time. Why then should he detail all the commands given respecting it on its first appointment? But we have an important proof of the great antiquity of circumcision among the Israelites, in the circumstance that, according to Joshua 5:2, it was done with stone knives. At the time of the first introduction of circumcision, knives of a kind which had long gone out of use in Joshua’s time must still have been employed. That which was sacred from its antiquity was retained only for a religious purpose; just as at a later period stone knives were used among the Egyptians for embalming. Yet in maintaining that circumcision originated among the race of Abraham, we do not necessarily imply that, wherever else it is found, it must have been borrowed from them. This was certainly the case with reference to the present Ethiopians, among whom circumcision prevails. Comp. Ludolph, Hist. Æthiop. iii. 1. Among this people it was a consequence of the great influence which, according to reliable accounts, Judaism exercised on them in the centuries antecedent to the introduction of Christianity. Among them Judaism stands parallel to the rest of the Jewish Sabbath solemnities. It is equally certain that all Mohammedan nations derived circumcision from the Israelites. With respect to the Egyptians and the ancient Ethiopians the matter is more doubtful: borrowing is even improbable in this case. The same may be said of the non-Mohammedan nations in Western and Southern Africa, who despise all that are not circumcised; comp. Oldend. part i. p. 297 sqq. They may readily be regarded as having been subject to Mohammedan influence, which indeed seems probable. Neither can we allow that which has been asserted by many, viz. that circumcision among the Israelites is quite distinct from that among other nations,—because among the former it had a religious significance, among the latter only a physical aim,—and that there is therefore as little connection between them as between the habit of washing oneself and baptism. It is very questionable whether circumcision on physical grounds existed among any nation. The contrary is unquestionable with respect to the Egyptians at least. Under certain circumstances they did indeed appeal to the medicinal uses of circumcision; on which comp. Niebuhr’s Description of Arabia, pp. 76-80. But this was only the ostensible reason, given to those who were incapable of understanding the higher. Philo even seeks to defend circumcision from physical arguments with regard to such persons. In the work de Circumcisione (t. ii. p. 211, ed. Mangey) he appeals to a double use of circumcision; that it prevents a most painful and troublesome disease which is very frequent, especially in hot countries, and also that it promotes greater cleanliness of the body. That circumcision among the Egyptians had a religious aim, that it had a symbolical meaning, appears from the simple fact that only the priests were obliged to be circumcised; among whom it was so sacred a duty, that without it nobody could be initiated into the mysteries: comp. Jablonsky, p. 14. A further argument is, that the whole Egyptian ceremonial has religious significance: all interpretations which represent it as having a physical and dietetic object are proved to have been introduced at a later time, the invention of an age in which the religious element had lost its importance, and men had become incapable of understanding the power it had exercised in antiquity. But it is quite unnecessary to invent distinctions; the one which really exists is great enough. Circumcision among the Israelites is related to circumcision among other nations, not as ordinary washing perhaps, but as the religious washings of the Indians and all other nations are related to baptism. Even if all the nations of antiquity had been circumcised, and if in the case of one of them the pre-Abrahamic introduction of circumcision could be proved, that would not affect the matter. “Verbum,” says Augustine, “cum accedit elementum, fit sacramentum.” The word is the great thing, the living spirit; the external is only an addition. It is matter of perfect indifference whether the dead material, the corpse of the sacrament, is to be found anywhere else. The animating thought in Israelitish circumcision is specifically Israelitish. This leads naturally to the inquiry respecting the aim and meaning of circumcision. Circumcision was the sign and seal of the covenant. A covenant presupposes reciprocity. Hence the sign in which the covenant is embodied must contain a double element: it must be at once an embodied promise and an embodied engagement; the respective extent of each can only be ascertained by a discussion on the meaning of the symbolical rite. Philo, de Circumcisione, calls circumcision σύμβολον ἡδονῶν ἐκγομῆς, αἳ καταγοητεύουσι διανονίαν. In another place he says, τὸ περιτέμνεσθαι ἡδονῶν καὶ παθῶν πάντων ἐκτομὴν καὶ δόξης ἀναίρεσιν ἀσέβους ἐμφαίνει. But we have other more important interpretations of the meaning of circumcision,—interpretations which are quite ignored by those who in recent times have set up a theory which at a glance is manifestly absurd, viz. that circumcision is a modification of that voluptuous service in which priests unmanned themselves (von Bohlen, Tuch, Baur, Lengerke). With equal right, it might be maintained that baptism is a modification of the Indian custom of drowning in the Nile. For there is nothing in favour of the view but a similarity altogether external. The difference in essence is utterly ignored. If this be considered, it will be found that there never was any transition from self-emasculation to circumcision. The circumcision of the heart is by the lawgiver himself said to be symbolized by outward circumstances, Leviticus 26:41, and especially Deuteronomy 10:16, Deuteronomy 30:6. To these are added the prophets; Jeremiah 4:4, and Jeremiah 9:25-26, where he says, “All the heathen are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart.” Ezekiel goes a step further. In Ezekiel 44:9-10, he characterizes the godless priests and Levites as uncircumcised, not merely in heart, but also in flesh; because, according to the expression of the apostle, their περιτομή is become ἀκροβυστία, the sign having reality only in the presence of the res dignata. It is therefore placed beyond all doubt that outward circumcision symbolized purity of heart. But, at the same time, attention is drawn to the true nature of that which is opposed to purity of heart, which ought to be removed by spiritual circumcision, and to the main thing to be considered in the reaction against sin; the reaction which proceeds from God, and the reaction which proceeds from man. Human corruption has its seat, not so much in the abuse of free will by individuals, in the power of example, etc.; but it is propagated by generation, brought into the world by birth. Circumcision presupposes the doctrine of original sin. It is a virtual acknowledgment, “I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me,” Psalms 51:5; and a confession to the truth expressed in Job 14:4, “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one.” To every man circumcision was a testimony to this effect: Ἐν ἁμαρτίαις σὺ ἐγεννήθης ὅλος, John 9:34. From this remark alone does it appear why this very sign should have been chosen for a designation of the thing. Circumcision generally points to sin universally; the manner of circumcision points to the nature of sin, and designates it as having taken possession of man. But it is evident from the passages already quoted, that original sin has its proper seat not in the body, but in the heart: it is clear that what happens to the body only prefigures what ought to happen to the heart; which cuts away the root from the physical theory of v. Hofmann (p. 100). The manner of circumcision points not to the seat but to the origin of sin. It now becomes easy to define more exactly the twofold element embodied in circumcision, viz. that of the promise and that of the engagement. It is the more easy, because the lawgiver himself clearly gives prominence to both; the former in Deuteronomy 30:6, “And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live;” the latter in the exhortation based on the promise, Deuteronomy 10:16. 1. So far as circumcision was an embodied promise, it formed the comforting assurance that God would freely bestow that which it symbolized on the whole nation, and on those individuals who had participated in the rite by His command. Whoever bore the mark of circumcision might have perfect confidence that God would not leave him without the help of His grace, but would give him power to circumcise his heart, and to eradicate the sin he had inherited. In so far as the means by which sin could be met in an internal effectual way did not exist in full power under the Old Testament, circumcision pointed beyond the old dispensation to the new, under which the most efficacious principle for the extermination of sin was to be given in the πνεῦμαΧριστοῦ. Circumcision was an indirect Messianic prophecy. In the main, therefore, it guaranteed the fundamental benefit of the kingdom of God—renovation of the heart, regeneration. But circumcision was at the same time a pledge of participation in all the outward blessings of God. Both are closely connected. “Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you,” is perfectly applicable here. In the kingdom of God there were no outward blessings. The blessing was in every case only the reflection of faithfulness towards God. But it was also its necessary attendant. Hence that which was a pledge of the help of divine grace in the alteration of the heart, must also necessarily be a pledge of the communication of external divine favours. Whoever therefore received circumcision, was adopted by this means into the sphere of divine privileges in every respect. 2. So far as circumcision was an embodied engagement, it contained the voluntary declaration that a man would circumcise his heart; that, rooting out all sinful desires, he would love God with his whole heart, and obey Him alone. From this second meaning of circumcision, it follows, as St. Paul says, that circumcision is of use if a man keep the law; if not, that circumcision becomes uncircumcision. And as those who do not fulfil the conditions of the covenant have no part in its verbal promises, so also are they excluded from participation in the embodied promise which, in another aspect, is an embodied engagement. The necessary consequence of this, St. Paul says, Galatians 5:3, is that every one who is circumcised is a debtor to do the whole law. The circumcision given to Israel was a solemn declaration that a man would circumcise his heart, and that, denying his own inclinations, he would serve God alone. Whoever made this declaration in the form prescribed under the Old Testament dispensation, thus declared himself a member of that covenant, and ready to seek after righteousness in the Old Testament form: the transgression of the least of the Old Testament commandments then became a violation of his engagement. Circumcision is related to the mere promise of purity of heart, as the Mosaic law to the divine law generally. Both meanings of circumcision lieclose to one another, and are not unconnected; or rather, the second follows from the first. Just as every gift of God at the same time imposes an obligation, so the necessary sequence of “I will purify thee,” is, “I will purify myself.” Whoever has declared the contrary to “I will purify myself,” is either outwardly deprived of circumcision, as in the march through the wilderness, or at least it ceases to be circumcision for him. All the foregoing representation explains the reason why, on the appointment of circumcision, the neglect of it was designated as so great a crime, that whoever was guilty of it was expelled eo ipso from the community of God, as one who had made His covenant of none effect. Circumcision was the embodied covenant. Whoever despised the former, made a virtual declaration that he would have no part in the promises of the latter; would not fulfil its conditions—viz. that he had no desire that God should purify his heart, and would not himself strive after purity. We have still to speak of the relation of circumcision to the passover. But it will be better to do so after we have explained the nature of the passover. A second outward sign of the worship of God consisted in sacrifice. The presentation of sacrifices was not yet confined to any one place. According to the accounts of the ancients, Egypt was the land where temples were first erected to the gods (Herod, ii. 4; Lucian, de Dea Syra, ii. p. 657 opp.), and that very probably as early as the time of the patriarchs. For we find even in Joseph’s time a developed priestly condition in Egypt. The patriarchs built an altar to Jehovah in every place where they resided for any length of time, in groves or on mountains; of stones, or of green turf, under the open heavens. Under certain circumstances, they even split the wood themselves for the burning of the sacrifice, slaughtered it with a sacrificial knife, and then burnt it whole. In sacrifice they used the same animals which Moses afterwards commanded, viz. sheep, rams, and cows, but not goats, which in the Mosaic time were appointed as sin-offerings—a thing which does not yet appear in the patriarchal time. This similarity of sacrificial animals is due to the fact that the Mosaic commands in this respect rest not so much on caprice as upon a certain natural fitness, or a perception of their symbolical character, which must have been prevalent before the legal determination. The sacrifice of the pig or the dog is inconceivable, except among nations in whom the sense of natural symbolism is wholly corrupted. To offer up other than domestic animals did not belong to the idea of sacrifice. Sacrifice has throughout a vicarious signification. In sacrifice a man offers up himself; and therefore, according to the expression of De Maistre, the most human sacrifices must be chosen, viz. those animals which stand in the closest relation to man. Prayer was constantly combined with sacrifice, and is often mentioned by itself in the history of the patriarchs; for example, in Genesis 24:63, Genesis 20:7, Genesis 32:9. Wherever the erection of an altar is mentioned, reference is also made to invocation of God. Quite naturally, for sacrifice is only an embodied expression of prayer. Prayer is its embodiment. We learn the closeness of the connection between sacrifice and prayer from passages like Hosea 14:2 : “Receive us graciously; so will we render the calves of our lips.” Thanksgiving here appears as the soul of thank-offering. The embodiment of prayer in sacrifice was in harmony with the symbolic spirit of antiquity, with the necessity of beholding outwardly that which moves the heart inwardly,—a want which dwells so deeply in man in times of the predominance of sensuous views and imagination. But we must not dwell upon this. Along with the impulse towards outward representation, another tendency is operative in sacrifice, viz. to attest the truth and reality of internal feeling, and so to avoid the possibility of self-deception. It is essential to sacrifice, that man offer up a part of his possessions. In every great section of their lives, after every great divine preservation and blessing, the patriarchs instituted a peculiarly solemn public act of worship: for example, Abraham, after his arrival in Canaan, and the first manifestations of God given to him there, and again after his return from Egypt, etc. The קָרָאבְֹשֵׁםיְהוָֹח, which is generally used in Genesis in speaking of such a solemn act of worship—for example, in Genesis 12:8—means to call on the name of the Lord, not to preach of the name of the Lord, as Luther has translated it. The name of the Lord is mentioned, because all invocation of God has reference, not to the mere summum numen, but to the God who has revealed Himself in His works. The name of God is everywhere in Scripture the product and combination of His deeds. But Luther’s translation is not incorrect in essence. Abraham’s public solemn invocation of God, and his thanksgiving for those actions which had made him famous, were at the same time a preaching of the name of the Lord. It is not purely accidental that in the patriarchal time there existed no special priestly condition—just as little accidental as the appointment of such a condition in the Mosaic time. It stands in the closest connection with the simplicity and formlessness of the patriarchal religion. In ancient times there “were warm disputes as to who possessed the right of offering sacrifices under the patriarchal constitution. Hebrew scholars unanimously conceded this right to the first-born, as Onkelos had previously done in Genesis 49:3; Luther founded a proof for the priesthood of the first-born on an incorrect translation of the same passage; and many theologians followed their footsteps. Spencer has combated this opinion with the greatest thoroughness: de legibus Hebr. ritualibus, i. c. 6, sec. 2, p. 208 sqq. Yet it may be maintained with a certain modification, namely, just as in every family the father exercised supreme authority, so he also possessed the right to sacrifice, as appears from the examples of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And if the father of the family died, the first-born became head, and received also the right to sacrifice. But just as the power of the first-born over the younger brethren, lasted only so long as they remained in the same family, so the right to sacrifice passed over to them as soon as they themselves founded a family. The first-born had therefore the right to sacrifice, not as such, but as the head of a family. It may therefore be said that the right to sacrifice was associated with the right to command. Whoever had a right to command those beneath him, had also the right and the obligation to supplicate the power which was superior to him. He was the natural representative before God of those over whom he had charge, and so far he was the priest appointed by God Himself. But this right, pertaining to the head of the house, to present sacrifices and prayers for his family and for himself, was distinct from the public priesthood which Melchizedek exercised, and concerning which we have said all that is necessary in the history of Melchizedek. The origin of sacrifice has been much disputed. One party maintained that it was originally a divine institution, while others advocated a natural origin. Of the former view there is not the least trace to be found in Genesis. It probably originated in incapacity to transport oneself to old times. Otherwise it must have been seen that sacrifice and prayer stood on the same level. Sacrifice, on the subjective side, which is the only aspect apparent in Genesis (the objection first appears in the Mosaic economy), is an embodiment of prayer; and in the tendency of the old world to symbolism, having its basis on the prevalence of intuition, this embodiment must necessarily take form of itself, as it did among different nations independently. Here the divine element is prayer. This is a living testimony of the union of God with the human race, perpetuated even after the fall. But we must not regard prayer as an outward demonstration. It is a natural and necessary efflux of religious consciousness. Religious consciousness, however, only exists where God reveals Himself to the heart. From this relation of sacrifice to religious consciousness, it appears that the offering of sacrifice is not in itself the sign of a lower religious standpoint. It only becomes such when religious consciousness and prayer, the soul of sacrifice, have become impure and degenerate. Here also the original seat of sin is not in the body. Sacrifices outwardly alike are separated as widely as possible by the different intention with which they are offered. Yet the danger of the opus operatum lies close at hand, as in all embodiments of religious feelings. Abraham is already directed to this by the command to offer up his son. By such means he is distinctly told that God does not desire cows and sheep, but in cows and sheep demands the heart. Every sacrifice of an animal must also be a human sacrifice. The patriarchs had a lesson concerning the nature of sacrifice in the history of Abel and Cain, which has passed on to us by their means. According to Genesis 4:2-3, notwithstanding the outward similarity of the sacrifices of Cain and Abel, their acceptance with God is different; and this difference is traced back to the difference of personalities. Hence it becomes evident to all who have any desire to see the truth, that sacrifice has significance only as a reflection of inner states. Whoever therefore presents an offering as a mere opus operatum, takes the rejected Cain for his father; for Cain’s sacrifice typifies the sacrifices of the heathen generally; while the offering of Abel forms the type of the offering of the faithful of the Old Testament. Heathen sacrifices are a subterfuge, a substitute for the heart which the offerer has neither powder nor wish to bring. On the other hand, in the biblical sphere, the sacrifice of animals bears a patent character: in the form of an animal, man himself is offered up. Three kinds of sacrifice are prescribed by the law: sin-offering; burnt or whole offering, which expresses the consecration of the whole person to God in all the particulars of existence; and schelamim, atonement-offering, which in thanksgiving and prayer had salvation for their object. Of these three the patriarchal age knows only two, viz. burnt-offering and atonement-offering. We have already pointed out the reason of this. It lies in the childlike character of the patriarchal time. Consciousness of sin was not yet developed. Sin-offerings were still included in burnt-offerings. Even in the Mosaic time the latter retained a reference to the consciousness of guilt; for if, in presenting them, the whole man consecrated himself to God, sin could not be left quite out of consideration. In them a man besought forgiveness for his sins as the principal hindrance to consecration, and his request was granted; all burnt-offerings served at the same time as an atonement for souls. But the consciousness of sin had now become so powerful, that it required a peculiar representation besides. 3. The celebration of the Sabbath is generally reckoned as part of the outward worship of God. Michaelis, after the example of other theologians, has strenuously endeavoured to prove that it was observed in the patriarchal age: Mos. Recht. iv. § 195; also Liebetrut, The Day of the Lord; and Oschwald in his prize-essay on the celebration of the Sabbath. But there is not a single tenable argument to be adduced in favour of the pre-Mosaic existence of the Sabbath. That it was instituted immediately after the creation cannot be maintained, for nothing is then said of a command. It is true that God hallows the seventh day and blesses it; but the realization of this would presuppose circumstances which were present only in the Mosaic economy. The Sabbath could not have been destined to come into operation except in connection with a whole divine institution. It is false to assert that the division into weeks, which we find in the very earliest times, can be explained only by the existence of the Sabbath. The week is a subdivision of the month into quarters of the moon; comp. Ideler, Chronologie, Th. i. 60. It is equally vain to appeal to the hallowing of the seventh day among the most diverse peoples of the earth. On nearer examination of the proofs brought forward for the celebration of the Sabbath, it is evident that the seventh day was kept by no other nation besides the Israelites. The command, “Remember the Sabbath-day, to keep it holy,” would only prove that the Sabbath was at that time already known among Israel, if it were not followed by an accurate statement respecting what was to be understood by the Sabbath. On the other hand, we must remember that in the whole pre-Mosaic history no trace at all is to be found of the celebration of the Sabbath; that, according to Exodus 16:22-30, God hallows the Sabbath as a completely new institution, by the cessation of the manna on that day, before the command to keep it holy had been given to the Israelites; and that the Sabbath is everywhere represented as a special privilege bestowed by God upon Israel, as a sign of the covenant and a pledge of their election: comp. Exodus 31:13-17; Ezekiel 20:12; Nehemiah 9:14. 4. The offering of tithes belonged to the external worship of God. That these, if not prevailing before the Mosaic time, did at least exist, is evident not merely from the circumstance that Jacob made a vow to give them to God, Genesis 28:22; but also because Moses, in his regulations respecting the second tithes, speaks of them as already customary before his time. No properly comprehensive law respecting these tithes is to be found in the Pentateuch. In Deuteronomy 12 they are mentioned only with reference to the place where they are to be consumed; and in Deuteronomy 14:22 only a secondary precept is given respecting them. Clearly, therefore, they were not established by Moses, but only recognised. A man did not give them to another, but consumed them himself at sacrificial meals, to which he invited widows, orphans, strangers, the poor, and his own servants, and thus gave them a joyous day. It was thought that God could be best honoured by bestowing benefits on His creatures; the sacrificial meals were at the same time love-feasts: comp. Michaelis, Mos. Recht. xv. § 192. What had originally been a voluntary act of love to individuals, had by degrees become an established custom. In this matter the example of the ancestor doubtless exercised great influence. We find a pre-indication of the later Levitical tithes in those given by Abraham to Melchizedek. 5. The anointing and consecration of stones are regarded by many as having been an outward religious custom. But the circumstance that Jacob consecrated a stone does not justify the assumption that this was a usual form of worship. Rather does the narrative itself show that it here treats of something exceptional. The stone is consecrated by Jacob not as such, but as representative of an altar to be erected there at a future time, so that the latter was consecrated in the former. 6. Purifications belong to the number of religious usages (purifications before the offering of sacrifice; connected with the putting on of clean garments, which in Genesis 35:2 is said to have been done by Jacob and his whole family before going to Bethel). At the basis of this rite of purification lies the feeling that he who wishes to approach God must do so with the deepest reverence. “Be ye holy, for I am holy,” enters most powerfully into the consciousness in approaching the Holy One; comp. Isaiah 6. If this reverence is exemplified even in outward things, how much more ought it to be evident in the direction of the heart! The delusion that it is enough to be externally reverent is far removed from the religious standpoint of the patriarchs; but this standpoint necessarily demands that the internal be expressed through the medium of the external. 7. Imposition of hands, first mentioned in Genesis 48:13-14, was another external religious custom, symbolizing the granting of divine grace. The hand serves as it were for a ladder. The practice presupposes that the laying on of hands stands in close relation to God, and may therefore be the medium of His grace. Traces of such a mediation also occur apart from its embodiment in this custom. Abimelech is told in a dream: “Abraham is a prophet; let him pray for thee, and thou shalt live,” Genesis 20. Again, in Abraham’s intercession for Sodom and Gomorrha, and the sparing of Lot for his sake; and in the blessing which Melchizedek pronounces on Abraham, by virtue of his office as priest of the most high God. This custom was afterwards very general among the Israelites. The laying on of hands was practised not only in investing with an office (comp. Numbers 27:18, Deuteronomy 34:9, and other passages), but children were also brought to those who had the character of peculiar holiness and sanctity before God, that they might be blessed by the laying on of hands; comp. Matthew 19:13. The hand was laid on also in imparting the Holy Ghost, and in healing. “The meaning of the rite,” Kurtz strikingly remarks, “is quite obvious in all these cases. Its object is, the communication of something which the one has, and the other lacks or is to receive. The object of the communication is determined by the individual case, blessing, health, the Holy Spirit. The hand of the one is really or symbolically the medium of the communication, the head of the other is the receptive part.” We find burial ceremonies observed in the history of the patriarchs only in the case of Jacob and Joseph, and that after the Egyptian fashion. Their corpses were embalmed by Egyptians; an Egyptian custom which is copiously described by Herodotus, l. ii. c. 85 sqq., and by Diodorus Siculus, i. 1, p. 81 sqq. On Jacob’s death a public mourning was held in Egypt, and the most distinguished Egyptians accompanied his body in solemn procession to Canaan. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 11: 11. SECOND PERIOD: THE PERIOD OF THE LAW, FROM MOSES TO THE BIRTH OF CHRIST ======================================================================== Second Period: The Period of the Law, from Moses to the Birth of Christ ======================================================================== CHAPTER 12: 12. FIRST SECTION: MOSES ======================================================================== First Section: Moses The only source is the Pentateuch, for we have already shown that all else which has been represented as such is undeserving of the name. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 13: 13. § 1. INTRODUCTION ======================================================================== § 1. Introduction MOSES interrupts his narrative where the divine revelations ceased for a time. Of the condition of the nation, which was now for a time left to its own development, he relates only so much as is necessary for the understanding of what follows, and takes up the narrative again where the divine revelations begin anew. We shall here give a brief summary of the accounts which we possess of the condition of the Israelites in Egypt before the time of Moses. 1.In reference to their External and Civil Relations. Respecting the dwelling-place of the Israelites, comp. The Books of Moses and Egypt, p. 40 et seq. After the death of Israel and Joseph the descendants of Abraham rapidly grew to be a numerous nation. Their increase, comparatively so great, is in Exodus 1:12 represented as the result of special divine blessing, which does not, however, preclude the possibility of this gracious power of God having worked through the natural means present in Egypt. In the most fruitful of all countries, it was quite easy for each one to procure the necessary means of substance for himself and his family. According to Diod. Sic. i. 80, the maintenance of a child cost only twenty drachmae = thirteen shillings. Early marriages were therefore customary. Add to this the unusually rapid increase of population in Egypt. Aristotle, in his Hist. Anim. 7:4, 5, relates that the women in Egypt not only brought forth twins at one birth, but not seldom three and four, sometimes even five. Indeed, he tells of one woman who in four births brought twenty children into the world. Pliny, in his Hist. Nat. 7:3, gives still more exaggerated accounts. But this exaggeration must have a basis of truth, as our knowledge of modern Egypt attests: comp. Jomard, in the Description, ix. 130 et seq. In the objections which have been raised against the acceptance of so rapid an increase of the Israelites, it has been too much overlooked that the increase of nations is widely different, and depends altogether upon circumstances. Thus, for example, in South Africa ten children may be reckoned to every marriage among the colonists: Lichtenstein, Travels in S. Africa, i. p. 180. The increase of population is also very rapid in North America. Then, again, many proceed on the unfounded assumption that the residence of the Israelites in Egypt lasted only 215 years instead of 430; and finally, it has been left out of consideration that to the seventy souls of Jacob’s family we must add the number of servants, by no means inconsiderable, who by circumcision were received into the chosen race, in order à priori to preclude the thought that participation in salvation was necessarily associated with carnal birth. With respect to the constitution of the Israelites during their residence in Egypt, they were divided into tribes and families. Every tribe had its prince—a regulation which dates beyond the Mosaic time; for we nowhere read that it was made by Moses, and indeed it is at variance with his whole administration: comp. Numbers 2:29. The heads of the greater families or tribes, the משפחות or בתּיאבות (the former is the proper termin. tech.; on the other hand, the latter appears also of the individual family, and of the whole race: comp. Exodus 12:3; Numbers 3:15, Numbers 3:20), were called heads of the houses of the fathers, or simply heads. They appear also under the name of elders, or זקנים, which is not a designation of age, but of dignity: comp. Exodus 4:20, according to which Moses and Aaron begin their work by collecting the elders of the people, Kurtz (Gesch. des A. T. ii. § 8) is quite wrong in maintaining that the elders of the tribes and the heads of the families were distinct. In Deuteronomy 29:10, to which he appeals, “your captains of your tribes, your elders, and your officers,” the magistracy and the people are first of all contrasted; then the two classes of magistrates, the natural rulers or elders, and the scribes, a sort of mixture of the patriarchal constitution,—jurists, who in Egypt, where the condition of the people had assumed a more complex character, had come to be associated with the natural rulers. We find the same constitution among the Edomites, the Ishmaelites, and the present Bedouins, among the ancient Germans, and the Scotch: comp. Michaelis, Mos. R. i, § 46. These rulers were also the natural judges of the people. Yet in the times of the Egyptian oppression only a shadow remained of their judicial power. We have already pointed out the error of the common assumption that the Israelites continued a nomadic life in Egypt (comp. the copious refutation in the Beitr. ii. S. 431 et seq.). The foundation of the settled life was laid in the very first settlement. It was in the best and most fruitful part of the land that the Israelites received their residence, at least in part: Genesis 47:11, Genesis 47:27. The land of Goshen, the eastern portion of Lower Egypt, forms the transition from the garden-land of the Nile to the pasturage of the desert. It is inconceivable that they should not have taken advantage of the excellent opportunity for agriculture which presented itself; and to participation in Egyptian agriculture was added participation in Egyptian civilisation. It is expressly stated in Deuteronomy 11:10, that a great number of the Israelites devoted themselves to agriculture in Egypt, dwelling on the fruitful banks of the Nile and its tributaries. We learn from Numbers 11:5, Numbers 20:5, how completely they shared the advantages which the Nile afforded to Egypt. To this may be added passages such as Exodus 3:20-22; Exodus 11:1-3, according to which the Israelites dwelt in houses, and in some cases had rich Egyptians in hire: again, the circumstance that Moses founds the state on agriculture, without giving any intimation that the nation had first to pass over to this new mode of life; the skill of the Israelites, as it appears especially in the accounts of the tabernacle; the wide spread of the art of writing among the Israelites in the time of Moses, which we gather from the scattered statements of the Pentateuch, while in the patriarchal time there was no thought of such a thing, etc. On the other hand, the assumption of a continued nomadic life appears on nearer proof to be mere baseless prejudice. If this assumption were correct, the divine intention in the transplanting of the Israelites to Egypt would be very much obscured, so that the establishment of the right view has at the same time a theological interest. For a long period Israel remained unmolested by the Egyptians. This is implied in the statement that the oppression originated with a king who knew not Joseph, and therefore ensued at a time when the remembrance of him and his beneficent acts had already passed away. Then, again, in the statement of the motives of the Egyptians, which had their root in the circumstance that Israel had already become a great and powerful nation. Without doubt, the oppression began in the century previous to the appearing of Moses. Attempts have been made to explain that which is related of the oppression of the Israelites by the king who knew not Joseph, from a statement of Manetho, who states in Josephus, c. Apion, i. 14-16, that under the reign of King Timaeus, a strange people, named Hyksos, invaded Egypt from the eastern region, practised great cruelties and destruction there, subjected a great portion of the country, and made Salatis, one of their own people, king. After they had retained possession of the land for 511 years, they were finally conquered by the inhabitants. Despairing of their complete extinction, the conqueror concluded an agreement with them, and gave free exit. Hence 240,000 of them left Egypt, with their families and their possessions, repairing through the wilderness to Syria, and in the country which is now called Judea founded a town large enough to contain so great a number of men. This they called Jerusalem. Many scholars have therefore concluded that this is the dynasty which knew not the merits of Joseph, and oppressed the Israelites. They imagined that this happened in order to prevent the union of the Israelites with the inhabitants of the land, who only awaited an opportunity to throw off the yoke which was a burden to them. Thus recently Saalschlütz, Forschungen auf dem Gebiete der hebr. ägypt, Archäologie, Königsberg 1851; iii. die Maneth. Hyksos, § 41 ff. Others—lastly Kurtz, Gesch des A. B. ii. S. 197—assert that these shepherd-kings were already in possession of the laud when Joseph and his family immigrated. Afterwards the old Pharaoh-race again came to the throne, and, not without reason, suspicious of all shepherd-nations, caused the Israelites to feel their suspicion and severity. But against this are the facts, that already in Joseph’s time the Egyptians ate with no foreigner, Genesis 43:32; that shepherds were an abomination to the ruling race; that Joseph was obliged to free himself fro, the ignominy of his origin by marriage with the daughter of a high priest; and that the king bore the unmistakeably Egyptian title of Pharaoh. All this shows that the immigration of the Israelites took place under a national Egyptian dynasty. Other hypotheses still more intricate we pass by. There is no necessity for them. On impartial consideration, it soon appears that the Hyksos of Manetho are the Israelites themselves, and that his statements respecting them do not by any means rest upon independent Egyptian tradition, but are a mere perversion and distortion of the accounts in the Pentateuch, undertaken in the service of Egyptian national vanity,—accounts which came into circulation in Egypt during the residence of the Jews there after the time of Alexander. Hence the history of the Israelites can gain nothing from these statements of Manetho. Among the ancients, after the example of Josephus, Perizonius and Baumgarten have already shown this; but Thorlacius has given the most complete argument, de Hycsosorum Abari, Copenhagen 1794: comp. also Jablonsky, Opuscc. i. p. 356 ff.; and the treatise, Manetho und die Hyksos als Beilage der Schrift. die B.B. Moses u. Ægypten; also the researches of v. Hofmann (Stud. und Krit. 1839, ii. p. 393 ff.), Delitzsch (Commentar über die Genes. iii. Ausl. S. 518 ff.), and Uhlemann in the work Israeliten und die Hyksos in Ægypten vom Jahr. 1856. Although Bertheau, Ewald, Lengerke, Kurtz, and others, with remarkable lack of critical insight, employ Manetho as if they had the best contemporary sources before them, it may be seen how bad an authority he is for events which occurred in the Mosaic time, from the gross errors of which he is shown to be guilty, in the work Egypt and the Books of Moses,—errors of such a kind that it is impossible not to regard his statement that he has written as a distinguished priest under Ptolemy Philadelphus as false, and to assume that his work belongs to the time of all those other Egyptian narrations which are hostile to the Israelites, and have been preserved in fragments in Josephus, viz. the beginning of the Roman Empire. Again, notwithstanding all misrepresentations undertaken in the Egyptian interest (the object was to retort upon the Israelites that shame which accrued to the Egyptians from the accounts of the Israelitish historical books, to throw back the reproach of barbarity and inhumanity upon those with whom it had originated), yet the dependence of the relation on the Mosaic narrative clearly appears. The Hyksos, like the Israelites, come to Egypt from the region πρὸς ἁνατολήν; they are shepherds, comp. Genesis 46:34; ῥᾳδίως, ἀμαχητί; they occupy Egypt,—a perversion of what is told in Genesis concerning the measures of Joseph. The name of their first king, Salatis, a sufficient argument of itself against Rosellini, who makes the Hyksos Scythians, has evidently arisen from Genesis 42:6, where Joseph is called השׁלּיט. (In Eusebius this name is corrupted into Saites, after an Egyptian reminiscence.) To this first king the measuring of corn is attributed as one of his principal occupations, σιτομετρεῖν, which has no other meaning than to provide food, and not that which Kurtz has attributed to it in his Gesch. des A. B. ii. S. 187. The position of Avarison completely agrees with that of Gosen. The name is evidently imitated from that of the Hebrews. The Hyksos repair to Palestine, and Jerusalem becomes their chief city. Finally, Manetho himself has asserted that by the Hyksos are to be understood the Israelites. The contrary is generally concluded from another statement of Manetho, in Josephus, c. Apion, i. 26, where the Israelites appear as born Egyptians who have been driven out on account of leprosy. But there is nothing to prevent both accounts having reference to the Jews. Manetho’s view clearly is, that the Jews are a mixture of two elements, a barbaric (with respect to whose origin he is uncertain, probably Arabian) and an Egyptian, as we are told in the Pentateuch itself that on the exodus of the Israelites they were joined by a great number of Egyptians. The Hyksos, after their first expulsion, betake themselves to Palestine. (This clearly proves that to Manetho they are identical with the Israelites, and at the same time nullifies the argument on the other side.) Here they build Jerusalem, and hither they return after the second expulsion with the unclean. They are pursued by Amenophis as far as the borders of Syria; Josephus, i. c. i. 27. In Chaeremon also we find the same double origin of the Jews. That Manetho denied the identity of the Jews and the Hyksos, seems never to have occurred to Josephus. Everywhere he presupposes the contrary, making no attempt to prove it. Further, we only remark, that more recent and really solid Egyptian researches have not discovered the smallest trace of a supremacy of the Hyksos in Egypt, as is said to have taken place in accordance with the customary opinion. Among others Uhlemann has shown this; and even Renan in an essay on Egyptian antiquity in the Revue des Deux Mondes of the year 1865 is obliged to confess it, and seeks to help himself by the far-fetched assumption that the native kings removed every trace of the hated Hyksos. As in Scripture the supremacy of the native Egyptian kings appears to have been uninterrupted, Abraham, Joseph, and Moses having to do with a Pharaoh, which is everywhere the name of native Egyptian kings; so also on the monuments. Herodotus, and in general all authors of ancient times, know nothing of the Hyksos. The words of the record, “There arose a new king in Egypt who knew not Joseph,” can in no wise be regarded as the beginning of the Hyksos-fable. The antithesis of the old and the new king may very appropriately lie in this, that the first king knew Joseph, the second refused to know anything of him,—a distinction of universally prevailing significance for Israel, from whose standpoint the account is written, and one which formed the beginning of a new era. But, at all events, the words do not indicate more than a change of the native dynasty, which demonstrably took place not unfrequently in Egypt. Josephus, indeed, refers to such a one, Antiq. ii. 9. 1: τῆς βασιλείας εἰς ἄλλον οἷκον μετεληλυθυΐας. We may be fully satisfied with the motives given by the king of Egypt himself, Exodus 1:9et seq., as an explanation of the oppression of the Israelites in Egypt. The Israelites had grown to be a numerous nation. They had carefully asserted their national independence; and on both sides there were insurmountable barriers against every attempt to unite them with the Egyptians. This status in statu inspired the Egyptian kings with increasing apprehension, which more than outweighed the remembrance of all that Joseph had done for the land. It is true that the Egyptian kingdom was so mighty that it had nothing to fear from the Israelites alone. But circumstances might arise, where, in alliance with other nations, Israel might become a terror to them, comp. Exodus 1:10; and the thought of this lay the nearer, since Egypt was surrounded on all sides by natural enemies, by nomadic tribes whose eye was ever directed towards the fruitful valley of the Nile. At best, it was to be feared that the Israelites, availing themselves of the opportunity, would depart, and that not empty, but laden with the spoil of Egypt. This seemed the more probable, since it was known that the Israelites themselves looked upon Egypt only as a land of pilgrimage, and that the whole nation was animated by a lively hope of returning at some future time to Canaan, which they regarded as their proper fatherland. Had the voice of justice been listened to, if it seemed dangerous to suffer the Israelites to remain any longer in the country in their former independence, free exodus would have been given to them with all their possessions. The Egyptians had no claim upon them; they had been called into the country on condition of retaining their independence; and if this could and would no longer be conceded to them, they should have been allowed to depart. But because the foundation of right feeling, religion, had at that time almost disappeared from Egypt, and because human images, partial national gods, had been substituted for the holy and righteous God, and men deemed they were doing service to these deities by practising injustice on a people not belonging to them (in no land of the world are the gods so decisively a product of national egotism as in Egypt), therefore no voice was listened to but that of self-interest; and so it appeared most unwise voluntarily to relinquish such great possession and so many hands. The Egyptians were notorious throughout antiquity for their severity towards foreigners. Already Homer says that they regarded all strangers as enemies, and either killed them or forced them to compulsory service: σφίσιν ἐργάζεσθαι ἀνάγκῃ, Od. 14, v. 272, 17, 410. According to Herodotus (2, 108) and Diodorus, the Egyptians considered it a matter of pride to employ no natives, but only prisoners and slaves, in the building of their monuments. It was resolved to convert Israel into a nation of slaves, and with this object means were chosen which must have been eminently successful if there had been no God in heaven (but the neglect of this, as the result shows, was a very great mistake in the reckoning). The Israelites were driven to compulsory service, of whose magnitude and difficulty we may form some idea from those monuments which still exist as an object of wonder; but particularly from a monument discovered in Thebes, representing the Hebrews preparing bricks, of which Rosellini was the first to give a copy and description, ii. 2, S. 254 et seq.: compare the copious remarks on this interesting picture in B.B. Moses, etc., S. 79 ff.; Wilkinson, 2, 98 ff. Against its reference to the Jews Wilkinson has raised a double objection. (1.) It is incomprehensible how a representation of the labours of the Israelites should come to be on a tombstone in Thebes. But it might just as readily have happened that parties of them were sent to Thebes to compulsory service, as that the Israelites should have been scattered abroad throughout all Egypt to gather straw, Exodus 5:12. Even now in Egypt, the poor Fellahs are driven like flocks out of the land when any great work is required. (2.) The workers want the beard which forms so characteristic a mark of the prisoners from Syria, and especially of those of Sesonk. But this argument is refuted by what Wilkinson himself says in another place: “Although strangers who were brought as slaves to Egypt had beards on their arrival in the land, yet we find that, as soon as they were employed in the service of this civilised nation, they were obliged to adopt the cleanly habits of their masters, their beards and heads were shaved, and they received a narrow hat.” That which tells most in favour of this reference to the Jews, is that the physiognomies have an expression so characteristically Jewish, that every one must recognise them as Jews at the first glance. The clear colour of their skin already suggests the idea of captive Asiatics. It was hoped that a great number of the Israelites would sink under the heavy work, and that the remaining masses would acquire a low, slavish spirit. And when it became evident that this measure had not attained its object,—that the concealed divine blessing accompanying the visible cross called forth a continued growth of the nation,—measures still more cruel were resorted to, which trampled under foot all divine and human rights, and failed to lead to a successful result just because of their exaggerated cruelty. The matter was thus brought to a climax. The existence of the nation was at stake, and at the same time God’s faithfulness and truth. To faith this misery was a prophecy of salvation. It was not in vain that believers so often cried out in the Psalms: “Save me, O God, for I am in misery,” or “I cry unto Thee.” Election being presupposed, every misfortune contains a promise of deliverance. This is the main- distinction between the sufferings of the world and the sufferings of God’s people. The cross of the latter is an actual appeal: “Lift up your heads, for ye see that your salvation draweth nigh.” The greater the cross, the greater and nearer is the deliverance. But Israel was enabled to come to this conclusion not merely from the fact of their having been chosen. God had already given them special comfort in this respect, having applied the idea individually. It had already been told to Abraham that his posterity should be strangers in a foreign land. The appointed time had expired, or was near its expiration; the severe oppression which had been foretold had come to pass; and therefore the salvation so closely connected with it must also be at hand,—deliverance from the land of the oppressors by means of great judgments; the march to Canaan with great possessions. It must come to pass, or God would not be God, Jehovah, the one, the unchangeable. 2. Respecting the Religious and Moral Condition of the Israelites in Egypt before Moses. On this subject a violent dispute has been carried on among ancient theologians. Spencer, de legibus Hebraeorum ritualibus, i. 1, cap. 1, sec. 1, p. 20 sqq., maintains that the Israelites in Egypt had almost lost the knowledge of the true God, and had given themselves up to the idolatry of the Egyptians. On this he based the opinion, to carry out which is the aim of his whole work, that the ceremonial law has not an absolute but only a relative value; that God permitted those heathen customs to which the Israelites had accustomed themselves to remain just as they were, so far as they were not directly associated with the worship of idols, so far as they were ineptiae tolerabiles, to vise his own expression, thus to leave the nation its plaything, lest, by having all taken from it, it might be induced to retain everything, even idolatry. From this opinion there is only one step to the acceptance of a purely human origin of the Mosaic law; and many theologians to whom it was justly offensive, regarding it as an ineptia intolerabilis, sought to undermine the foundation of it, and to show that the Israelites remained faithful to the true religion. Salomo Deyling, in his Oratio de Israelitarum Ægyptiacorum ingenio, at the end of vol. i. of the Observatt. Sacrae, goes farthest in this view. It is clear that both parties have gone too far, occupied by preconceived opinions. On one side it is certain that the knowledge of the true God and His honour was not yet lost among the Israelites. Otherwise how could Moses, who came as the ambassador of this God,—comp. Exodus 3:15, “Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you;” Exodus 6:3,—have found a hearing? They were still familiar with the promises of the land of Canaan. Moses found them still in possession of the traditions of the life of the patriarchs, and their relation to the Lord. We have a memorial of continued union with the Lord in the names of that time, which contain the expression of a true knowledge of God. It is remarkable, however, that among these names there are very few which are compounded with Jehovah, such as Jochebed, while there are many with אל; for example, the three names ̕Uzziel, Mishael, ‘Elzaphan, in Exodus 6:22. Already Simonis remarks: Compositio cumיהוהmaxime obtinuit temporibus regum. From fear of God, the Hebrew midwives transgressed the royal mandate at their own peril. “The fault is in thine own people,” were the words of the oppressed Israelites to Pharaoh in Exodus 5:16; “by the injustice which thou doest unto us they incur heavy sin; and where sin is, punishment soon follows.” By this expression they show that they had not yet lost the consciousness of a holy and just God. The continuance of circumcision in Egypt is proved by the words of Exodus 4:24-26, and by Joshua 5:5, according to which all the Israelites were circumcised on their departure from Egypt. On the other side, it cannot be denied that those who persist in representing Israel as quite pure, are at direct variance with the most explicit testimony of Scripture. We see how much the Israelites had succumbed to Egyptian influence by their great effeminacy, which is denied by Ewald, notwithstanding the decided testimony of history. In Joshua 24:14, the Israelites are exhorted to put away the gods which their fathers served in Mesopotamia and Egypt. Ezekiel, Ezekiel 23, reproaches the Israelites with having served idols, especially in verses Ezekiel 23:8, Ezekiel 23:19, Ezekiel 23:21. Amos says in Amos 5:25-26 : “Have ye offered unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel? But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your God, which ye made to yourselves.” The sense of this passage (comp. the discussions in vol. ii. of the Beiträge, S. 109 ff.) is this: The mass of the people neglected to worship God by sacrifices during the greater part of the march through the wilderness, the thirty-eight years of exile, and in the place of Jehovah, the God of armies, put a borrowed god of heaven, whom they honoured, together with the remaining host of heaven, with a borrowed worship. These idolatrous tendencies of the Israelites in the march through the wilderness, of which Ezekiel also makes mention, Ezekiel 20:26, presuppose that the nation had in some measure succumbed to the temptations to idolatry during the residence in Egypt. It is also a proof of the corruption of the nation, that most of those who were led out of Egypt had to die in the wilderness before the occupation of Canaan. The whole history of the march through the wilderness is incomprehensible on the assumption that Israel remained perfectly faithful to the Lord. It can only be explained by the circumstance that the new, which Moses brought to Israel, consisted in a rude antithesis to the old. That the Israelites had practised idolatry, especially that of Egypt, is shown by the worship of demons, Leviticus 17:7. The goats there mentioned, to which the Israelites offer sacrifice, are the Egyptian Mendes, which is honoured in the goat as its visible form and incarnation, comp. Herod. ii. 46, and a personification of the masculine principle in nature, of the active and fructifying power. It was associated with the eight highest gods of the Egyptians, chap. 145; and even took precedence among them, Diod. i. 12 f. There were also other deities of the same stamp, explaining the plural, as the Bealim in 1 Kings 18:18. The worship of the golden calf in the wilderness also belongs to this period. It was an imitation of the Egyptian Apis, or bull-worship. It is immaterial that in the one case it is a calf, and in the other a bull. The name of calf is everywhere contemptible. They would willingly have made an ox, but they could not bring themselves to it, because it would dishonour their entire origin. The worshippers undoubtedly called the image a bull. According to Philo, a golden bull was made; and in Psalms 106:20 it is said, “They changed their glory into the similitude of an ox that eateth grass.” The ceremonies also which the Israelites employed in this worship were Egyptian. This, therefore, was a yielding to Egyptian idolatry, even if the Hebrews, which is unquestionable, only wished to honour Jehovah in the image. Almost every participation of the Israelites in Egyptian life was of a similar kind, not a direct denial of the God of their fathers, but only an adaptation of heathen ideas to Him, resting upon a misapprehension of the wall of separation which holiness formed between Him and the heathen idols. Again, on the assumption of the absolute purity of the Israelites, it is impossible to comprehend the lively exhortations, the strict rules, and the heavy threatenings of the law against all idolatrous life, comp. Deuteronomy 4:15et seq.; they presuppose the tendency of the nation to such deviations. On the other hand, the argument for the participation of the nation in Egyptian nature-worship, which is drawn from the symbolism of the law, is untenable. For the assumption on which it rests, that the home of symbolism is only in natural religion, has no foundation. Symbolism has nothing to do with the substance, but solely with the form, of religious consciousness. It is an embodiment, indifferent in itself. Neither is there any weight in the argument, that in many forms and symbols a more exact description is wanting. The people are supposed to be already conversant with them. Here it is forgotten that the Pentateuch in its present form was not written down until long after the introduction of these forms and customs. Between the Sinaitic legislation and the redaction of the Pentateuch lies a period of thirty-eight years. The correct view of the moral and religious condition of the Hebrews in Egypt has more than a mere historical importance: it is highly significant in a religious point of view. By partially giving prominence to the one side or the other, we lose sight of the most important thing in the matter, viz. its typical meaning. Those who try to represent the Israelites as pure as possible, have, notwithstanding their good intentions, done them a very bad service. The whole history of the departure from Egypt to the entrance into Canaan, is one vast, ever-recurring prophecy,—a type which, to be one, must bear in itself the essence of its antitype. The bringing out of Egypt signifies the continual leading out of God’s people from the service of the world and of sin; the sojourn in the wilderness typifies their trial, sifting, and purification; the leading into Canaan, their complete induction into the possession of divine blessings and gifts, after having been thoroughly purified from the reproach of Egypt. This symbolism pervades all Scripture, as we shall show more fully in considering the march through the wilderness. If the Israelites had become altogether like the Egyptians, they could not have continued to be the people of God. There can be no period in the history of the people of God in which they exactly resemble the world. To maintain this would be to deny the faithfulness and truth of God, and to assert that He is sometimes not God. It is not without foundation that we say in the creed of the Christian Church: “I believe in the holy, catholic church.” Balaam, in Numbers 23:10, characterizes Israel by the name ישׁרים, the upright. This predicate is always applicable to the church of God, even in times of the deepest deterioration. In her bosom she always conceals an ἐκλογή, in which her principle has attained to perfect life. And to the corrupted mass there is always a superior background: the fire which still glows in the ashes has only to be fanned in times of divine visitation. Since God’s carnal blessing accompanied the cross in so marked a manner, how is it possible to conceive that He should spiritually have abandoned His people? If the Israelites had kept themselves quite pure, then the exodus would have to be regarded merely as an external benefit, and the guidance through the wilderness would become utterly incomprehensible. The second step, that of temptation, necessarily presupposes a first, that of primary deliverance from spiritual servitude, and the first love arising out of it, whose ardent character was to be changed into one of confiding affection. Add to this, that already the external bondage of the Israelites itself afforded a proof of their internal bondage. The suffering of the people of God always appears in Scripture as a reflex of their sin: if they have given themselves up to the world, and have come to resemble it, they are punished by means of the world. How should there be an exception to the rule in this case only? If we look at the moral and religious condition of the Israelites from this point of view, we see more clearly that it was necessary for God, in accordance with His covenant faith, to step forth from His concealment just at that time. It was not perhaps external misery alone, but rather internal misery, which gave rise to this necessity. When the carcase is in the church of God, there the eagles first collect; but then, in accordance with the same divine necessity, the dry dead bones are again animated by the Spirit of God. At that time the critical moment had arrived when the question turned upon the existence or non-existence of a people of God upon earth. But one century later, and there had no longer been any Israel in existence deserving of the name. What Israel had inherited from the time of the patriarchs, could not in the lapse of time hold out against the mighty pressure of the spirit of the world. A new stage of revelation must be surmounted, or that which had previously been gained would be lost. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 14: 14. § 2. THE CALL OF MOSES ======================================================================== § 2. The Call of Moses Here we take this word in a wide sense. In the call of Moses, we reckon all those preparatory dispensations of God by which he was adapted for it, from his birth to the giving of the call on Sinai. And further, we include all those means by which he was strengthened in the faith, from this first commission to the commencement of the plagues, and by which he was prepared for the vocation upon which he really entered with the occurrence of this event. Until now all had been mere preparation. Now for the first time Moses is ready for the work of God. The narrative itself here breaks off into the first great section. It remarks, Exodus 7:6, that from this time Moses did as the Lord commanded him. In his former trials, human weakness was largely associated with divine power, but from this time only the latter can be perceived. In the place of probation now comes vocation. Our remarks in this paragraph include also the section Ex. 2:1-7:7. The work which was to be accomplished in the Mosaic time could only be completed by a distinguished personality. It is true that the people had been prepared for it by the divine guidance. The heavy suffering which they had experienced through the instrumentality of the Egyptians, the representatives of the world, had destroyed their inclination for Egyptian life, just as among us external bondage by the French destroyed the power of spiritual bondage. The traditions of antiquity had again become living; a desire for the glorious possessions which God had entrusted to this people alone among all nations of the earth was again aroused, and appears especially in the tribe of Levi, which distinguished itself in the beginning of the Mosaic time, Exodus 32, by zeal for the religion of Jehovah, and by reason of this zeal was appointed by the Lord to its guardianship. Comp. Deuteronomy 33:8 sqq. But the nation did not get beyond a mere susceptibility; it had sunk too deeply to be able to attain to complete restoration, except through an instrument endowed by God with great gifts,—a man of God, in whom the higher principle should be personally represented. All great progress in the kingdom of God is called forth only by great personalities. No man has ever gone out from the mass as such, although in every reformation a preparation took place in the mass. The deliverance granted to Moses in his childhood typified the deliverance of the whole nation from the great waters of affliction. We learn from Psalms 18:17 how individuals justly regarded it as a pledge of their own deliverance from distress. But a special divine providence appears most clearly in the circumstance that Moses, by deliverance, was placed in so closea relation to the daughter of the Egyptian king, called Thermuthis by Josephus in his Antiq. ii. 9. 5. In the statement that she treated him as her son, Exodus 2:10, is implied what Stephen expressly says, Acts 7:22, without giving any other proof for it than that contained in the former passage, that he had been brought up in all the wisdom of the Egyptians. This wisdom was essentially practical. It formed the foundation of the charismata which were afterwards imparted to Moses, and which always presuppose a human foundation. Here there was a repetition of what God had done for Joseph, who had first to be educated in the house of Potiphar for his future vocation, so important for Israel. Here was concentrated God’s design in leading the whole nation into Egypt, the most civilised country then in existence. Here was realized the idea which lies at the basis of the announcement to Abraham, that his descendants should go out from Egypt with great spoil. The possession which Israel here gained was far greater than the vessels of gold and silver. Here also the divine act is a prophecy whose fulfilment extends through all time. The world collects and works in art and science for itself and its idols, collects and works in opposition to God. But faith will not be misled by this. It is only unbelief or shortsightedness which suffers itself to be led into contempt of art and science, and anxiety regarding their progress. Even here the wisdom and omnipotence of God so order things, that what has been undertaken without and against Him, turns to His advantage and to that of His people. Look, for instance, at the period of the Reformation. The re-awakened sciences had been developed mainly in the service of the world. This natural development would have led to godlessness, but suddenly Luther and the other reformers stepped forth and bore away the spoil of Egypt. It is sufficient merely to indicate how this actual prophecy is realized in our time. But the working of special divine providence was not only manifested in the sending of Moses into this school. It was still more strongly displayed in the fact that he drew from it the good only, and not the bad. The wisdom was certainly essentially practical, but yet its foundation was pseudo-religious. How powerful, therefore, must have been the working of God’s Spirit in Moses, which enabled him, while descrying the snake in the grass, to hold to the simple traditions of his fathers, unblinded by the spirit of the time, which pressed upon him on all sides, although he was obliged to search after this tradition while the false wisdom pressed upon him! How mighty must have been that efficacy which enabled him to change its letter into spirit, its acts into prophecies, whose fulfilment he sought and found with burning zeal in his own heart! It was necessary for the calling of Moses that he should be placed in the midst of the corrupt Egyptian life. It served to call forth in him a violent contest, and to give rise to a mighty crisis, without which no reformer can become ripe for his vocation. He who is destined to contend effectively with the spirit of the world, must have experienced it in its full power of temptation. Thus the negative influence of the Egyptian school was as salutary and necessary to Moses as the positive. Again, Moses was brought up at court. That he was not blinded by its splendour, nor sank into its effeminacy, that he chose rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season, Hebrews 11:25, is a marvel as great to him who knows the disposition of human nature, and does not measure greatness by the ell, as the subsequent external miracles which one and the same carnal mind, only in a different form, either stumbles at, or regards as the only miracles. Therefore in this respect also God’s design is perfectly realized, which was to direct the glance of the people to Moses from the beginning, and so, by the manifestation of human power, to create in them a susceptibility for the subsequent ready acceptance of the proof of his divine greatness. In Eusebius, Artapanus in the Praep. Ev., and Josephus, Antiq. 2. 10, relate, the latter with the minutest detail, that Moses, as an Egyptian general, undertook a campaign against the Ethiopians. Attempts have been made to use this narrative to explain the knowledge of distant lands which Moses shows in the Pentateuch, and to account for his skill in war. Joh. Reinhard Forster takes great trouble to defend it; see his letter to Joh. Dav. Michaelis on the Spicilegium Geogr. Hebr. Ext., Goetting. 1769. But we might just as well invent such a story as accept it on authority so imperfect. The whole fable has been spun out from Numbers 12:1. Mention is there made of a Cushite wife of Moses. Zipporah is meant. In a wide sense, the Midianites belonged to the Cushltes. Or it might be that Zipporah was of a Cushite family who had immigrated into the Midianites, just as now negroes are to be found among the Arabs of the wilderness, who have been received by them into their community, according to the Countess de Gasparin’s Travels in the East, which appeared in 1849. But it has been supposed that reference was there made to another wife of Moses; and in order to obtain her, he has been represented as having undertaken a campaign into Egypt, as having conquered Meroe and won an Ethiopian princess. Moses’ conduct towards the Egyptians gives us a deep insight into the constitution of his mind at that time. The matter has a beautiful side, which alone is made prominent in Hebrews 11:24, because it is viewed in an enumeration of examples of faith. Moses leaves the court in order to visit his suffering brethren. Love towards them, which rests upon faith, so overcomes him, that before it every consideration of his own danger disappears. Moses also here developes that natural energy which is in every reformer the substratum of those gifts necessary to his vocation. But the thing has also an evil side, which does not demand notice in the narrative, since the actual judgment on it is contained in what immediately follows; for here also history shows itself to be judgment. His princely education did not pass over him without leaving some trace. It is true that he would no longer be called a son of Pharaoh’s daughter, but yet he aspired to deliver his people by his own hand. The act towards the Egyptian, which is excused, though not by any means justified, by the oppressed condition of the Israelites, was intended only as a beginning. Immediately on the following day, Moses in his reformatory haste goes out to continue the work which had been begun. He throws himself as an arbiter between two Israelites, expecting that his powerful words would be followed by absolute submission. But the matter assumed quite a different aspect. He made the experience which all self-made reformers make. He was disregarded even by those whom he wished to help, for the sake of God as he thought. In Acts 7:25 Stephen says, “He supposed his brethren would have understood how that God by his hand would deliver them: but they understood not.” Instead of delivering his people from their misery, he himself was obliged to wander into misery, without possessions and without courage, fearing to be punished as a common murderer; for his conscience told him that he had been zealous, not for God, but for himself. That which seemed always to exclude him from participation in the deliverance of his people, was really intended to serve as a preparation: there could not have been a worse preparation if the matter were to be accomplished by human power. God prepared a place of refuge for him, and here he was obliged to remain forty years, until he began to grow old. (It is not stated in the Pentateuch itself that the sojourn lasted so long, but only in the discourse of Stephen, Acts 7:23-30, according to tradition; but it is confirmed by the analogy of the eighty years of Moses at the time of the deliverance, Exodus 7:7, and by his death at 120 years of age, Deuteronomy 34:7.) The main object was to free him from those stains which a residence at court had left, even in him, especially from pride and arrogance. His new residence was well adapted to this end. It was a true school of humility, which we afterwards recognise as a fundamental trait in the character of Moses; comp. Numbers 12:3. In the eyes of his father-in-law Hobab, the son of Raguel, who was still living at the time of Moses’ coming, and stood at the head of the household, the priest of the Midianites dwelling to the east of Mount Sinai, the splendid title of Jethro, his Excellency, seems to have been the best external advantage which he derived from his office. Religion does not seem to have been highly estimated by this nation. It had perhaps come to them with the race of priests from abroad, and had taken no deep root among them. Moses was obliged to protect the daughters of the priest from the injustice of the Midianite shepherds. He himself had afterwards to do service as a shepherd, which, as the son of a king’s daughter, must have cost his pride a severe struggle. When he returned to Egypt, he had only an ass for the transport of his whole family. He set his wife and child upon it, and himself walked by the side with his shepherd-staff—the same which was destined to receive so great importance as the staff of God; comp. Exodus 4:2. It is certain that at this time he must have been in great difficulties. His marriage was also in many respects a school of affliction. The two single verses, Exodus 4:24-25, give a deep insight into the mind of his wife. She was so passionate and quarrelsome, that, owing to her opposition, Moses was obliged to omit to circumcise his second son, doubtless with great sorrow, for the circumcision of the first had given rise to so much strife; and she is unable to repress her vehemence when she sees her husband in evident danger of his life, and is thus obliged to do herself what she had been unwilling for him to do. At the same time, we see plainly how little Moses had in her a companion in the faith. Circumcision, the sacrament of the covenant, she regarded only with the eyes of carnal reason. She thought it foolish to give pain to her child for the sake of such a trifle. Moses spoke directly from his own experience, when he declared himself so strongly against marriage with a heathen woman. All this was well adapted to make him weak in himself, and therefore strong in God, for the power of God is mighty in the weak. It was of great advantage to him that he was separated for a considerable time from his people. He was thus protected against that human unrest which must constantly have received new nourishment from association with them, and from the sight of their sorrow. His shepherd-life was well calculated to call forth calm reflection. Here he could transport himself vividly to the time of his ancestors, when the grace of God was so manifestly with the chosen race. Thus, while his external man gradually wasted away, his spirit was renewed from day to day. We have memorials of his disposition in the names of his two sons, Gershom and Eliezer,—“a stranger here,” and “God helpeth.” The former gives utterance to the complaint, the latter to the comfort. It cannot be regarded as accidental that the call of Moses took place on Mount Sinai, from which circumstance some have assumed, without any foundation (Ewald, Gesch. des Volk. Isr. ii. S. 86), that it had been already consecrated before Moses, as the seat of the oracle and the habitation of the gods. For there is not the least trace to lead to such a conclusion. All the sanctity of the mountain is due to the acts of the Mosaic time. By the circumstance that he was here solemnly called to the service of God, the place receives its first consecration as the mountain of God; when the Israelites afterwards arrived there, they found it already marked with the footprints of God: it was already holy ground. The call of Moses to God’s service prefigured the call of the Israelites to God’s service, which was to take place in the same spot. If history prove the former to be real and mighty, the latter must, à priori, be regarded as such. It is of great importance that the manifestation which presented itself to Moses, after the supernatural revelation of God had ceased for four centuries, should not be regarded as a mere portentum, but that its symbolical significance should be rightly apprehended. Then it appears that the substance stands infinitely higher than the form, that the marvellous element contained in it continues through all time, and that only he whose eyes are closed can seek a natural explanation of the miracles of the past (to which department it does not belong, if the occurrence be transferred to the region of the inner sense; for by this means it loses nothing of its reality), so that he is not able to apprehend the miracles which exist in the present. A thorn-bush burning and yet not consumed, this is the symbol. The thorn-bush is the symbol of the church of God, externally small and insignificant. In Zechariah 1 it appears again under the symbol of a myrtle-bush—not a proud cedar on the high mountains, but a modest myrtle; and again in Isa. viii, under the image of the still waters of Shiloah, in contrast to the roaring of the Euphrates; and in Psalms 46 under the image of a quiet river in contrast with the raging sea. Looking at the thorn-bush from this point of view, Moses himself, in Deuteronomy 33:16, speaks of God as He who dwelt in the thorn-bush, שכנישנה,—not so much He who once appeared in the physical thorn-bush, but He who continually dwells in the spiritual thorn-bush which is prefigured—in the midst of His people. Fire in the symbolism of Scripture denotes God in His essence, especially in the energetic character of His punitive justice; comp. instar omnium, “Our God is a consuming fire,” in the law itself, and in Hebrews 12:29. The thorn-bush burns, but is not consumed. The world is consumed by the judgment of God. For His people, the cross is a proof not only of God’s justice, but also of His love: He chastises them unsparingly, but does not give them over to death. Here we have the key to all the guidances of Israel, the key to the history of the church of the new covenant, and the key to our own guidances. For that which is applicable to the whole, is always applicable to the individual, in whom the idea of the whole is realized. We must burn, we must enter into the kingdom of God through much tribulation; but we are not consumed: the cross is always accompanied by the blessing. What a rich theme is afforded in the words of Moses, “I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt,”—rich in proportion as personal experience has opened the eyes to the perception of the historical fact! Again, according to the opinion of Stephen, it was in a vision that Moses saw the bush which burned with fire, and yet was not consumed. For the ὅραμα, by which word he designates that which he has seen in Acts 7:31, is always applied in the New Testament to visions of the inner sense, and occurs very frequently in the Acts of the Apostles. But the symbolical utterance of God here stands in exact relation to the verbal. The latter contains the meaning of the former. God only applies the idea which animates the symbol to the present case, in explaining to Moses, who was filled with holy awe, that He would now lead His people out of the land of the Egyptians, and into the land of promise. The command follows this promise. Moses was to lead the people out of Egypt, not, as formerly, by his own hand, but by the commission of God. The manner in which Moses receives this commission; his lingering irresolution; his want of confidence in himself, which still suggested new scruples, desiring a special assurance from God for each doubt, although the answer to all was already contained in the universal promise, and led him to repeat even those objections which had been obviated whenever a new difficulty arose, and at last, when all escape was cut off from him, made him still hesitate to move in the matter, and led him after he had received the call to urge those difficulties made known to him by God, and designated as belonging to the matter, as a plea why he should not be sent; till at last he rises to confidence in that strength of God which is mighty in the weak, and now suddenly appears as an entirely new man: all this is important in more than one aspect. Let it be noticed especially how powerfully the character of truth is imprinted on the whole representation of the internal struggle of Moses. Where in mythical history do we find even an approach to anything similar? The heroes of mythology are of one piece—power at the beginning, and power at the end. Here the author could not have made a greater mistake, if it had been his intention to glorify Moses. That which must deprive him of the character of a great man in the eyes of the world (forty years before he had the intention of becoming so, but now he had abandoned it), appears to have made him so much the better adapted to the purposes of God. Whence, then, arises his great hesitation? It had its foundation first in his great humility, which led him to see himself just as he was. How many think that they are undertaking a work in faith in God’s help, while secret confidence in their own power lies at the foundation! Where this confidence is completely destroyed, it is very difficult to trust in God. It is easier for God to bestow confidence in His power, than to take away a man’s confidence in his own power. But when He has accomplished this, those persons who have before completely despaired, turn out very different from those who have apparently trusted in God from the beginning, while in reality their confidence has been half in themselves. The latter always retain one part where they are vulnerable, if it be only the heel. They stumble and fall in the middle of the course, while Moses has everything arranged before beginning the race. His weakness therefore served only to make him the more humble. If it had overtaken him while in office, which would certainly have been the case if he had not been weak before entering upon it, then the reproach would have fallen on the cause of God. A second reason for Moses’ hesitation was his sobriety. It is impossible to imagine a more direct contrast to a fanatic. The latter is raised high into the clouds by his phantasy; mountains of difficulty disappear from before his eyes. And when he descends to earth, where he is called upon to act, the actual takes the place of the imagined reality: every stone upon which he stumbles is converted into a mountain, and every actual mountain becomes as high as heaven in his eyes. His enthusiasm disappears, and sad despondency takes its place. But Moses, on the contrary, is not disconcerted by the appearance of God. All difficulties appear in their natural size. Pharaoh the mightiest monarch, Egypt the mightiest kingdom, of the then existing world; and on the other hand an aged, infirm man, of humble appearance, with his staff in his hand, scarcely able to stammer forth his commission with his stuttering tongue. And again the difficulty which his humble appearance must present to the people themselves whom he was sent to deliver,—a people whose mind was already blunted by slavery, and who were so little able to rise to faith beyond the visible. But the very thing which was the cause of his original hesitation was the cause of his subsequent firmness. He is deterred by nothing, however unexpected. He is prepared for everything. He has fully counted the cost of building, and is therefore able to carry out the work without making himself and God a mockery to the world. In him we see clearly the distinction between enthusiasm and spirit. The former is essentially a product of nature, by which it seeks to supply the deficiency of the latter, and is the more dangerous, since it conceals this deficiency, and paralyzes the effort to supplement it. God’s dealing with Moses is just as sharply defined, and bears equally in itself the imprint of truth. It repeats itself in all believers. All pride is an abomination to God, but He has infinite patience with lowliness and weakness: comp. Isaiah 66:2. A fictitious God would have crushed such hesitation as Moses displayed with a word of thunder. He would have been satisfied to say, “Thou shalt,”—the words with which Pharaoh, the image of the categorical imperative which reason has exalted to God, met the complaints of the Israelites who had to make bricks, and yet received no straw. The true God, with unwearying patience, points out, “Thou canst.” And it is only after He has done this, and Moses still refuses, that He threatens with His anger. Afterwards, on every relapse into his old weakness, God takes him by the hand and helps him to rise. “What God intends to do to Israel, He comprises, on His first call to Moses, in the name Jehovah, which forms a prophecy, and from this time becomes His peculiar designation among Israel. Afterwards, in Exodus 6, before He begins his manifestation as Jehovah, He solemnly declares Himself once more as such. The name had been known to Israel long before; but now for the first time, and from this time through all centuries, the essence of which it was the expression was to be fully revealed to Israel, and at the same time the name was to lose that sporadic character which it had hitherto borne, and was to pass into common use. It is remarkable, that before the Mosaic time we find so few proper names compounded with the name Jehovah. The name is properly pronounced Jahveh, and means “He is,” or “the Existing” (not, as Delitzsch asserts in die bibl. proph. Theologie, Leipzig 1845, S. 120, “The Becoming,” “the God of development;” for Scripture knows nothing of a God of development—it abandons this to pantheistic philosophy: the God of Scripture does not become, but He comes. Exodus 3:14 is decidedly at variance with this view, however; for here אהיהאֹשׁראהיה is placed in essential parallel with אהיה, which can only be the case if we explain it, “I am,” and “I am that I am”). The name denotes God as the pure, absolute existence, the personal existence; for it is not in the infinitive. But the name is: I am, I am the only one who is real; all others can participate in being only by community with me; besides me there is only non-existence, impotence, death. The “I am” seals the “I am that I am,” constantly the same, unaffected by all change. For absolute existence excludes all change, which can only belong to existence in so far as, like all earthly existence, it has an element of non-existence. Immutability of essence necessarily implies immutability of will. So also purity of existence implies omnipotence. And if this were established, what then had Israel to expect from God? The name at once assured them of the power of their God to help them, and of His will to help them; assured them of the fact that, as omnipotent, He was able to help; and as unchangeable and true, He must help. But when God established His name Jehovah as a pledge, He gave effect to all that had been verbally predicted to the patriarchs—the deliverance out of Egypt, the possession of the land of Canaan, and the blessing on all nations. And not only this, but the whole history of the patriarchs, and all God’s dealings with them, became converted into a prophecy. For God, in accordance with His repeated declaration, had acted towards them not as to individuals, but as to the ancestors of the chosen race. If what He then did was not a work of caprice, which inheres only in non-existence; if it were the efflux of His essence, and if this essence were raised above all change and hindrance, then every act of God must be revived—God must have mercy on the nation, or He must cease to be God. And everything which He then did to prove His name of Jehovah, was again a prophecy, and a pledge of His future gifts. From these remarks it is clear how suitable Jehovah was to be the theocratic, ecclesiastical name of God, which it appears to have been from this time. It stands in close relation to the name of Israel. In establishing Himself as Jehovah, God shows what He will do to the nation, and what He must do in accordance with the necessity of His essence. By giving the name of Israel to the nation in their ancestor. He shows what they must do in order that He may reveal Himself to them as Jehovah. The struggle with God, the faith which does not leave Him till He blesses, is the destination, but at the same time the privilege, of the people of God. For the invitation to this struggle rests upon the fact that God is Jehovah. This name is the protection against all despair, the sure rock on which the waves of the world-sea break: it beams like a sun into the earthly darkness, and brings light into the benighted soul. The privilege of Israel over all the heathen consists not in their having only one God, but in their having such a God. There is nothing in heaven or earth that can in any wise harm a nation that has such a God; there is nothing in heaven and earth that can turn away from the service of such a God. “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength,” has its firm foundation in the name and essence of Jehovah. A God who is unconditionally exalted above everything, the only real existence in heaven and earth, must also be unconditionally loved above everything. Here all dividing of the heart is imprudence and sin. In the name of Jehovah lies the proper world-history of the people of Israel. By this they are separated from all other nations; in this they have the pledge of a glorious future, the prophecy of the future dominion of the world. For such a God can never be permanently confined within the narrow limits of a single nation. Under Him, they can only gain life and power for the purpose of beginning the triumphal march against the world from this firm starting-point. In the Revelation of John, Revelation 1, the name of Jehovah is paraphrased by the words, “which is, and which was, and which is to come.” God is, as the pure, and absolute, and unchanging being: He exists in the present, in the fulness of that power which supplies the church; He was—in the past He has testified His existence by deeds of almighty love; He is to come—He will appear to judge the world, and for the salvation of His church, and places will then be changed. The occurrence by the way, related in Exodus 4:24 (a confirmation of the vision of the thorn-bush, which burns and yet is not consumed, in the personal experience of the leader of the people), is important in many respects. The incident must be looked at thus. On the way Moses was suddenly afflicted by severe sickness, threatening immediate death. His conscience accused him of a sin, and God or His Angel gave him an internal conviction that the malady was a punishment for this offence. From fear of his wife, he had neglected to circumcise his second son. This disturbance of the relation between him and God must necessarily be done away before he could enter on his calling. He must be under no ban. In the anguish of her heart, Zipporah now does that which she had formerly refused to allow, and the punishment is removed. But Zipporah performs this compulsory act in anger: she says to Moses passionately, “Surely a bloody husband art thou to me”—going back to the time of the beginning of her relation to him, when she might still have taken a husband from among her own people, who would not have demanded such sacrifices from her. What first impresses us here is the openness with which we are told that the honoured lawgiver himself violated the fundamental law given by God to Abraham and his posterity. This is scarcely consistent with the assumption of a later author, aiming at the glorification of Moses, but applies excellently to Moses himself, who has God’s honour always in view, and not his own. It was impossible for him to pass over in silence an act which served to glorify God—the less, since it contains so rich a treasure of exhortation for his people. (God appears no less God in the manifestation of His righteousness, than in the manifestations of His love, which was also active in this event.) If God entered into judgment in this way with His servant, who erred only through weakness, what might not proud offenders expect? How Moses turned to his advantage the doctrine which lay nearest to him in this event, is shown by his sending back his wife and children to Midian, which undoubtedly happened in consequence of it, and prefigured what every true servant of the Lord must do spiritually; comp. Deuteronomy 33:9, where Moses himself declares it to be indispensable for the service of God that a man should say unto his father and his mother, “I have not seen him, and should not know his own children.” That this sending back did really take place, is proved by Exodus 18:2, where it is related that, when the Israelites sojourned in the wilderness after the exodus from Egypt, Jethro led back to Moses his wife and children. Without doubt, the neglected circumcision was not the only thing with which Moses had to reproach himself. He had also yielded in many other points where he ought not to have yielded, and all at once this became clear to him. He feared, not without reason, that wife and child would be detrimental to him in the great work which he now went to meet, and therefore he sent them back. Before Moses began the great battle, he was still further strengthened in the faith. The lower promises of God passed into fulfilment, and were a pledge to him of the realization of the highest. Aaron, his brother and promised helper, was led to him by God on Mount Sinai. It almost appears that Aaron’s journey was connected with a revolt which arose among the people, and that all eyes turned to Moses. The people believe. Even Pharaoh’s opposition seems to have tended to strengthen their faith. It had been foretold by God. To him who does not know human nature, it must appear as an internal contradiction of the narrative, that Moses should now have been destitute of courage, when that which had been foretold was fulfilled, and the nation had fallen into still greater distress. But on any knowledge of the human heart, it is evident that this contradiction is inseparable from the thing. The flesh has so great a shrinking from the cross, that at the moment the bitter feeling absorbs everything else: the impression of the visible must first be overcome by struggle. At the conclusion of this consideration we have only one more point to discuss. God says, Exodus 4:21, that He will harden Pharaoh’s heart. In the subsequent narrative it is ten times repeated that God has hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and it is said just as often that Pharaoh hardened his heart. Here the similarity of number points to the fact that the hardening; of Pharaoh is related to the hardening of God, which is designedly mentioned first and last, as the effect to the cause. The whole spirit of the Pentateuch renders it impossible to suppose that this representation makes God the original cause of sin. The whole legislation rests on the presupposition of individual responsibility. The threatenings appended to the breaking of the covenant, and the promises attached to the faithful observance of it, Leviticus 26, Deuteronomy 28 sqq., most decisively presuppose this. Pharaoh himself is looked upon as an offender who deserves punishment. The semblance of injury to the idea of responsibility also disappears at once if we only consider that the hardening had reference throughout not to the sin in itself, but to the form of its expression—to his obstinate refusal to let Israel go. Pharaoh had power to relent, and the fact that he did not relent proves his guilt and the justice of his punishment. But because he could not, the form in which the sin expressed itself was no longer in his own power, but in the power of God, which is the case with all sinners. God so arranges it as to consist with His own plans. He who turneth the hearts of kings like water-brooks, makes Pharaoh persist in not allowing Israel to go (which he might have done without, however, being in the least better), that an opportunity might thus be given to Him to develope His essence in a series of acts of omnipotence, justice, and love. It was most important to draw attention to this cause of Pharaoh’s hardening. If it were not recognised, his long resistance to God would have been perplexing; but if it were recognised, then Pharaoh’s resistance serves no less to the glory of God than to his own destruction. Calvin strikingly remarks on the kindred passage in Psalms 105:25, “He turned their heart to hate His people, to deal subtilely with His servants:” “We see how the prophet designedly makes it his object to subject the whole government of the church to God. It might suffice for us to learn that God frustrates whatever the devil and godless men may design against us; but we receive double confirmation in the faith when we perceive that not only are their hands bound, but also their hearts and minds, that they can determine nothing but what God pleases.” ======================================================================== CHAPTER 15: 15. § 3. THE DELIVERANCE OUT OF EGYPT: EXO_7:8, TO THE END OF CHAP. 15 ======================================================================== § 3. The Deliverance Out of Egypt:Exodus 7:8, to the End of Chap. 15 Now begins the struggle of God with the world and the visible representative of its invisible head,—the latter adapted for this representation by their moral abandonment, no less than their power, which ends in their complete overthrow. Now begins a series of events which are at the same time so many prophecies. The gradual progressive victory of God and His people over Pharaoh, the mightiest ruler of the then existing world, and his kingdom, is a pledge of the victory of God and his church over the whole region of darkness, and that subservient world-power which is at enmity with God, and appears in Revelation under the image of the beast with seven heads, of which Egypt is the first. The number of the Egyptian plagues is generally estimated at eleven. But they are rather completed, certainly with design, in the number ten, the signature of that which is complete in itself, of that which is concluded in Scripture. For that miracle which is generally regarded as the first, the changing of Moses’ staff into a serpent, is not to be reckoned among them. It is distinguished from the others by the fact that it is not, like them, punishment at the same time, but is only a proof of the omnipotence of God, and not a proof of His justice. It is distinguished also by the circumstance that it follows the demand of Pharaoh, while the others are forced upon him. It may be regarded as a sort of prelude, as if somebody were to fire into the air before aiming at the enemy, in order to see if by this means he will be brought to his senses. And at the same time we must regard it as a symbol, as an actual prophecy of all that was to follow. The staff of Moses which was changed into a serpent, is an image of the covenant people, weak in themselves, but able by God’s power to destroy the mightiest kingdom of the world; an image of Moses, who, considered in himself, was scarcely dangerous to a child, but as God’s servant formidable to the mightiest monarch in the world. Let us now turn our attention to the object of these facts. It is given by God Himself in His address to Pharaoh, Exodus 9:15-16 : “For now I will stretch out my hand, that I may smite thee and thy people with pestilence; and thou shalt be cut off from the earth. And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to show in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth.” God will be known upon the earth in His true character. Hence He who could have settled the whole matter with one stroke, developes His essence perfectly in a series of facts; hence He hardens the heart of Pharaoh. This revelation of the divine essence had reference first to the Egyptians. In this respect it is on a level with other judgments on the heathen world—the flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the expulsion of the Canaanites. The time to restrain the corruption of the world in an internal and efficacious way had not yet come; but that it might come at a future time, retributive justice must permeate the destinies of nations, humble their pride, and break their power. This was the preliminary part in God’s hand. This was the condition of future closer communion; com p. Isaiah 26:9-10. With proud disdain Pharaoh had challenged God with the words, “Who is Jehovah, that I should obey his voice? “This question demands a real answer; and the more boldly the question is repeated, the more obstinately Pharaoh rebels against the God who has already revealed Himself, the more his guilt is increased by this circumstance, the more perceptibly must the answer resound till the final, complete destruction of the defiant rebel. The divine jus talionis which realizes itself throughout the whole history must also be exemplified in him—must be most unmistakeably exemplified in him, that it may also be recognised elsewhere, where it is more concealed. Because God could not glorify Himself in Pharaoh, He must be glorified by him. Pharaoh must repay what he had robbed—by his possessions, by his child, by his life. And in treating of the meaning of the plagues for Egypt, it seems right that we should enter somewhat more closely into this passage, Exodus 12:12, “And against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment.” According to the assertion of v. Hofmann, which is adopted by Baumgarten, Delitzsch, and others, this passage implies that in the plagues God manifested His omnipotence and justice not only to the Egyptians, but also to the spiritual powers to whom Egypt belonged. Spiritual rulers, he maintains, are at work in the corporeal world. They are spirits but not original, and are powerful, but only where the Creator allows them to have sway. But even if these powers, which are only the product of phantasy, really did exist, the passage could not have reference to them. For the question here is not of subordinate spirits, but of gods. Those passages in the New Testament which v. Hofmann cites in favour of their existence have no weight. In 1 Corinthians 8:5, ὥσπερ εἰσὶ θεοὶ πολλοὶ καὶ κύριοι πολλοί, and the preceding λεγόμενοιθεοὶ, have reference only to an existence in the heathen consciousness; and in 1 Corinthians 10:16-21, a demoniacal background of heathendom is only asserted in general; the real existence of separate heathen deities is not taught. Since, therefore, all Scripture teaches the non-existence of the heathen deities, and since the scriptural idea of God excludes their reality (comp. Beiträge, Bd. ii. S. 248), we can only refer the judgment contained in this passage respecting the gods of Egypt to the circumstance that by those events their nothingness was made manifest, and they were proved to be mere λεγόμενοιθεοὶ. It is clear that the presupposition that idols have no existence beyond what is merely material, lies at the basis of the two passages, Leviticus 19:4, “Turn ye not unto idols, nor make to yourselves molten gods;” and Leviticus 26:1, “Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it.” The assumption of their nothingness has its foundation in this. The passage, Isaiah 41:24, “Behold, ye are of nothing, and your work of nought,” which serves to explain the Elihim, is preceded by “do good or do evil,” as a proof that the non-existence of the gods is absolute. The whole sharp polemic against idolatry contained in the second part of Isaiah, especially in the classic passage Isaiah 44:9-24, rests upon the presupposition that idols do not exist apart from images. This is explicitly stated in Psalms 46:5, and copiously proved in Psalms 115, in expansion of the Mosaic passage, Deuteronomy 4:28, “And there ye shall serve gods, the work of men’s hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell”—are less than the man who fashions them, which is perfectly clear, and which in itself forms a sufficient refutation of v. Hofmann. Ewald (Gesch. Isr. S. 109) appeals to Exodus 15:11 in support of his theory, where it is said that Jehovah is not like to any among the gods. But it is proved by Psalms 86:8, that in this and similar passages the gods are only imaginary. We only add that Kurtz, Gesch. des A. B. S. 86 sqq., mistakes the meaning of the whole thing. The question is not whether heathendom has a demoniacal background. This is recognised by all Christendom. Scripture bears clear testimony to it in those passages which we have already cited, and experience confirms it. The question is, whether individual heathen deities, such as Apollo and Minerva, have or have not a real existence. Scripture determines the latter; and with this determination science goes hand in hand; for we can clearly prove a human origin in a succession of heathen deities. This, therefore, is the reference which the wonders and signs had to Egypt. But the reference of the Egyptian plagues to Israel was of infinitely greater importance. By these events Elohim was to become Jehovah to them. Here He manifested Himself as such in a series of days more powerfully than He had formerly done in centuries. His omnipotence and grace were now openly displayed. We have a repetition of the history of the creation in miniature. There everything was created for the human race; here everything created, departing from its ordinary course, was designed for the salvation of the chosen race, and for the destruction of its enemies. Thus the God who had hitherto been concealed became manifest and living to Israel, an object of grateful love. They could say, with Job: “I have heard of Thee by the hearing of the ear, but now mine eye seeth Thee.” What these events were intended to convey to Israel we learn from Exodus 10:1-2, where it is said: “I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might show these my signs before him: and that thou mayest tell in the ears of thy son, and of thy son’s son, what things I have wrought in Egypt, and my signs which I have done among them.” But we recognise it most fully in seeing what these events became to them. When everything visible seems to deny that the Lord is God, then the faith of the Psalmist clings to no actual proof of this great and difficult truth with such firmness as to this; comp. Psalms 115. When the prophets wish to remove the doubts which the flesh opposed to their announcement of the future wonderful exaltation of the now lowly kingdom of God, they constantly go back to this time when the invisible power of God made itself visibly manifest—to this type of the last and greatest redemption. When all around is gloom, and the Lord seems to have quite forsaken His people, the believing spirit penetrates into these facts, and sees them revive. But we must not overlook the close connection between such events and the legislation which follows. This is evident from the fact that the latter began with the words, “I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.” God surrenders Himself to Israel before requiring that Israel should surrender itself to Him. Here also He remains faithful to His constant method of never demanding before He has given. Love to God is the foundation of obedience to Him; and it is impossible to love a mere idea, however exalted. The language of revelation is throughout, “Let us love Him, for He first loved us.” But these events are also a preparation for the giving of the law, in so far as they guarantee Moses, the mediator between God and the nation, as such. In the narrative itself, Exodus 14:31, this is stated to have been the result: “And the people feared the Lord, and believed the Lord, and His servant Moses.” Announced by Moses, the divine signs are ushered in; at his command they disappear; his staff is the staff of God, his hand the hand of God. As a sign that God allows all the wonders to take place through his mediation, he must always begin by stretching out his hand and staff over Egypt. Moses could not afterwards have demanded so severe things in the commission of God, if he had not now given so great things in the same commission. By these deeds the better self of the nation was raised in Moses to the centre of its existence, and the success of its reaction against the corruption which had begun to permeate the nation was secured. But the events are of the greatest importance for the Christian church no less than for Israel. It is true that we have before us the last and most glorious revelation of God. Compared with redemption in Christ, the typical deliverance out of Egypt falls into the background, as was already foretold under the old covenant: comp. Jeremiah 23:7-8, Jeremiah 16:14-15. But we cannot know too much of God. Every one of His actions makes Him more personal, brings Him nearer to us. If, like the Psalmist and the prophets, we look upon these events not as dead facts, if we do not adhere to the shell, we shall find them to contain an unexpected treasure. Our flesh so readily obscures God’s grace and righteousness, that we must be sincerely thankful for that mirror from which its image shines out upon us. Moreover, the Pharaoh in our hearts is so well concealed, that we greatly need such an outward illumination for his unveiling. If we now look at the form and matter of the miracles, we see some analogy to each in the natural condition of Egypt, the agency of which had only to be strengthened, and which had to be secured against every natural derivation by circumstances such as the commencement and ceasing of them at the command of Moses, in part at a time determined by Pharaoh himself, and by the sparing of the Israelites. The same thing takes place afterwards in the miracles in the wilderness. Miracle explainers, such as Eichhorn, have sought to find in this a confirmation of their interpretations. But De Wette has already disproved this: in his Krit. der Israel. Gesch. S. 193 (Beiträge z. Einl. in d. A. T. ii.), he shows that every attempt to explain miracles as they are described in the narrative in a natural way, is vain. Apart from all else, how could they have had such an effect on Pharaoh and on Israel? But these miracle explainers are like Pharaoh himself, who may be looked upon as their father. Unable to recognise the finger of God, they anxiously look for anything which can serve as a palliation of their want of faith. If they and the mythicists who make this union with nature an argument that the Egyptian plagues belong to the region of poetry, would consider the thing impartially, they would see that the very character of the miracles attests their truth and divinity. In this respect, God’s mode of dealing remains always the same. As a rule, He attached His extraordinary operations to His ordinary ones. We have only to look at the analogy in the spiritual department, where there is no χάρισμα which has not a natural talent as its basis. In a mythical representation, all that the author knew of the wonderful or terrible would be heaped up, without any reference to the natural condition of Egypt; and if he were acquainted with that natural state, he would even avoid everything which might favour an explanation by it, and so apparently lessen the miracle. The universal ground for this condition of the supernatural in Scripture is, that it places even the natural in the closest relation to God. The attempt to isolate the miraculous can only consist with godlessness. But here there was a special reason. The object to which all facts tended was, according to Exodus 8:18, to prove that Jehovah the Lord was in the midst of the land. And this proof could not be substantially conducted if a series of strange horrors were introduced. From them it would only follow that Jehovah had received an occasional and external power over Egypt. On the other hand, if yearly recurring results were placed in relation to Jehovah, it would be shown very properly that He was God in the midst of the land. At the same time, judgment would be passed on the imaginary gods which had been put in His place, and they would be completely excluded from the regions which had been regarded as peculiar to them. It would lead us too far to prove in detail how a natural substratum is present throughout all the plagues, while in none is a natural explanation admissible. For this we refer to the treatise, “The Signs and Wonders in Egypt,” in The Books of Moses and Egypt, p. 93 sqq. The miracles are taken from the most various departments. That which was a blessing to Egypt is converted into a curse; the hurtful which was already in existence is increased to a fearful degree. The smallest animals become a terrible army of God. In this way, it was shown that every blessing which ungrateful Egypt attributed to its idols originated with Jehovah, and that it was He alone who checked the efficacy of that which was injurious. With respect to Pharaoh, Calvin remarks: “Nobis in unius reprobi persona superbiae et rebellionis humanae imago subjicitur.” This is the kernel of the whole representation. Everything is so represented that each one can find it out; and what is still more, all the arrangements of God are such that this obduracy must be apparent. The hardness of heart is important for us in a double aspect: first, in so far as it originated with Pharaoh, who was not brought to repent even by the heaviest strokes, and so to ward off that fate which led him with irresistible power step by step to his destruction; and again—and on this the narrator’s eye is specially fixed—in so far as the greatness of God manifests itself in the incomprehensible blindness with which Pharaoh goes to meet his ruin, compelling him to do what he would rather not have done. The greatness of human corruption is seen in the fact that he will not desist from sin; the greatness of God, in the fact that he is not able to desist from that form of sin in which it is madness to persevere. Every sinner stands under such a fate, from whose charmed circle he can only escape by the salt. mortale of repentance. It is the curse of sin, that it lowers man to a mere involuntary instrument of the divine plans. At the first interview Moses dare not yet reveal the whole counsel of God. Now, and even afterwards, he demands not the complete release of the people, but only permission to hold a festival in the wilderness. There was no deception in this. When God gave the command, He ordered that the request should be put in such a form that Pharaoh would not listen to it. If he had complied with it, which was not possible, Israel would not have gone beyond the demand. But the object was only that, by the smallness of the demand, Pharaoh’s obstinacy might be more apparent. He refuses the simple request, and only oppresses the Israelites the more, while he mocks their God. After some little time Moses and Aaron repeated their demand, this time with far greater assurance, representing the misery which the king would bring upon his own people by non-compliance. He becomes obstinate; and instead of proving the goodness of the cause by internal grounds, he asks a sign. Ungodliness always seeks some plausible pretence which may pass for the spirit of proof. What need was there here for a sign? His conscience told him that he had no right to retain Israel; and the inner voice of God convinced him that the outward command to let them go emanated from God. Nevertheless God granted him what he desired, that the nature of his obstinacy might become visible, and that the depth of human corruption on the one side, and on the other side the energy of God’s righteousness and the infinitude of His power, might be made manifest. Nevertheless, in conformity with God’s constant method in nature and history, the matter was so arranged that unbelief always retained some hook to which it could adhere; for God always gives light enough even for weak faith, at the same time leaving so much darkness that unbelief may continue its night-life. The miracle of the conversion of the staff into the serpent was imitated by the Egyptians; and thus Pharaoh was punished for the confidence which he had placed in these idolaters, to the neglect of the true God. But, at the same time, the circumstance that the serpent of Moses devoured the serpents of the priests must have convinced any one of candour and judgment, that the secret arts owed their efficacy only to God’s permission. Pharaoh had not this candour and judgment. His sinful corruption had robbed him of goodwill, and God had deprived him of insight and wisdom. He anxiously seized the feeble support. Now begin those signs which are at the same time punishment. In the first two it happened as in the case of the previous sign. Again a handle was given to Pharaoh’s unbelief. The servants of the idols imitated, though only in a small way, what the servants of God had done on a large scale. If Pharaoh had had any willingness and insight, this could not have deceived him. The inner criteria always remained; and even when looked at externally, he might have been easily convinced that what the sorcerers had accomplished did not happen by their independent power, but only by the permission of the same God by whose power the works of Moses and Aaron were effected: he might have seen that the enchanters were not able to remove evil, but only to increase it. And in the second miracle this did make some impression on Pharaoh. He “was obliged to appeal to the servant of God for a remedy, which was granted at the exact time appointed by Pharaoh himself, to whom Moses had left the determination. But when Pharaoh saw that he was extricated, he hardened his heart. Where the divine has no inner point of contact with the spirit, its outward appearance can only operate so long as it exists in the immediate present: once let it disappear from the present, and immediately unbelief, and that foolishness which is bound up with it by God’s order and decree, assert themselves, and in the place of real wonders put the monstra of a sceptical interpretation. If my priests have been able to do so much, Pharaoh thought, then in certain circumstances they will be able to do this much also. It is accidental that these circumstances are not now present, and they will soon come. The third plague succeeds. The divine permission completely ceases, and with it also the power of the Egyptian wise men. Pharaoh is forsaken by his own helpers. Less hardened than he, they say, “It is the finger of God,” that is, “they have gained the victory by the power of God, and by this means God has decided in favour of their cause.” Elohim here expresses the universal idea of the Godhead, which has never quite disappeared even from heathendom. But Pharaoh remains unsoftened. In the fourth miracle, and those which follow, there enters an element not present in the earlier ones, which, as it appears, was calculated to put to shame even the most obstinate unbelief. While all the rest of Egypt is groaning under the plagues, the land of Goshen, the principal residence of the Israelites, is spared. But Pharaoh is stubborn, and still relies upon what his priests accomplished in the earlier miracles. In some cases the pressure of misery extorted from him the confession, “I have sinned against Jehovah your God, and against you,” and a demand for help; but scarcely is this granted, when the old hardness returns. Even his courtiers, compliant at other times, at last forsake him. “Let the people go,” they say, “that they may serve the Lord their God; knowest thou not yet that Egypt is destroyed?” But so terrible is the power of sin which keeps back from repentance, so formidable the power of the divine hardening which leads him who will not turn, with open eyes towards the abyss, that Pharaoh will rather let his land and people be destroyed than yield. All this was not unexpected by Moses. Before each plague God fortells him that he will harden Pharaoh, and therefore that Pharaoh will harden himself. Nevertheless Moses must always go first to Pharaoh, to repeat his demand and desire the release. The hardening of Pharaoh must be made manifest to the whole world, and therefore a looking-glass is held up in which it may see its own countenance, and at the same time God’s righteousness and omnipotence. Finally comes the decisive blow, the death of the first-born. The hardness disappears for the moment. With a strong hand Pharaoh drives out the Israelites; but they are scarcely out of his sight when he repents of his determination, the hardness which could only have been completely removed by true repentance returns, and the great drama concludes with the only conclusion worthy of it—the death of the rebel. There are three opinions respecting the results produced by the Egyptian priests. 1. Some believe that they wrought their works by natural means, especially by sleight of hand. This view is to be found already in the book of Wis 17:7, where the works of the priests are called μαγικῆς τέχνης ἐμπαίγματα; then in Philo, where they are termed ἀνθρώπων σοφίσματα καὶ τέχνας πεπλασμένας πρὸς ἀπάτην; and in Josephus, who calls them τέχνην ἀνθρωπίνην καὶ πλάνην, Antiq. ii. 13. 3. It is specially defended by von Heumann, de Pharaonisthaumaturgis, in his Opusc. 2. Others regard these enchantments as a work of deception, due to the instrumentality of evil spirits, who so bewitched the minds of the spectators, that the things produced on them all the impression of reality. So also several of the Church Fathers; for example, Justin and Gregory of Nyssa. The former says: “But that which happened by means of the magicians was due to the efficacy of demons, who enchanted the eyes of the spectators, so that they mistook what was not a serpent for a serpent, what was not blood for blood, and what were not frogs for frogs.” 3. Others assert that the miracles were true miracles, only differing from those of Moses and Aaron by the circumstance that the latter were accomplished by the omnipotence of God, and the former by divine permission through the instrumentality of evil spirits. So, for example, Theodoret, who remarks: “God permitted the enchanters to effect something, that the distinction between those wonders which were truly divine, and those which were the result of enchantment, might be made more apparent. They change their staves into serpents, but the serpent of Moses devours theirs; they change water into blood, but are not able to change it back again, etc.” For the chastisement of Egypt, he says, God gave power to the magicians, but not in order to remove the punishment. Since the king was not content with the plagues sent by God, but commanded the magicians to increase the punishment, God punished him through their instrumentality. “Thou hast not enough in the punishment by my servants, therefore I will punish thee by thine own servants also.” That their power was only lent, is sufficiently shown by their incapacity regarding the smallest animals, the σκνῖφες. The sores on their own bodies were also a proof of lack of power. We are not at liberty to doubt that there are such miracles, say the defenders of this view, for Scripture expressly asserts it. Thus Moses speaks of the signs and wonders of false prophets, Deuteronomy 13:1. The Lord Himself says, “There shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders,” Matthew 24:24. The τέρασι ψεύδους, 2 Thessalonians 2:9, are miracles done in the service and for the furtherance of deceit. Here we take occasion to remark that the lying wonders there spoken of are rather false miracles. The lying corresponds to the deceivableness in the verse which immediately follows. Of these three views, only the first and third can come under consideration, for the second is destitute of all foundation and analogy in Scripture. But which of the two views is the correct one, the narrative does not put us in a position to determine. For the object of the narrative, it is of no consequence to clear up this point. The significance of the facts remained the same, whether they were accomplished in the one way or the other. They were always means in God’s hand, which He employed to realize His decree of hardening. The shadow must always serve to throw up the light of the truly divine wonders. It is said that the priests did the things בלהטיהם, Exodus 7:11, Exodus 7:22, Exodus 8:3, Exodus 8:14; להטים or לטים are not exclusively enchantments, but generally secret arts. It is stated that the priests did the same as Moses, but nothing is said as to how they did it. When, for instance, we read, “Now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments; for they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents; but Aaron’s rod swallowed up their rods,”—this does not imply that the Egyptian wise men really changed ordinary rods into serpents, “dry wood into living flesh,” but only that they imitated the miracles of Moses in so illusive a way, that no difference could be proved in the outward manifestation. The record only keeps to that which passed before the eyes of the spectators. It does not trouble itself as to the nature of the arts which the wise men employed to procure rods which they could make alive. It has no object in entering into this argument. Apart from it, the victory of Moses is secure and manifest. The first view, however, must be ennobled before it can be approved of. The Egyptian wise men are by no means to be regarded as ordinary jugglers: it must of necessity be recognised that they stood in an elevated state, wherein they had at their service powers which, though certainly natural, were very unusual. This appears especially from the analogy of the serpent-charming which still exists in Egypt (comp. The Books of Moses and Egypt, p. 98 sqq.). That very analogy, which evidently stands in close connection with the events in question, shows us that the theory which sees real miracles in them is untenable, the more so because one of the actions recorded has a striking relationship to what is still done by the serpent-charmers. It is said in the Descr. t. xxiv. p. 82 sqq.: “They can change the hajje, a kind of serpent, into a stick, and compel it to appear as” if dead.” If we do not regard this as a miracle, although no explanation has yet been successful and the circumstance is still veiled in mystery, then we cannot look upon these things as miracles. Moreover, tradition has handed down to us the names of the Egyptian enchanters, which Moses does not mention. Paul, in 2 Timothy 3:8, calls them Jannes and Jambres; and we find the same names in the Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem; also in the Talmud, and in heathen writers, in Pliny, Apuleius, and the Pythagorean Numenius in Eusebius, Praep. Evang. ix. chap. 8. But the correctness of the tradition is not attested by the apostolic passage. The apostle plainly mentions the Egyptian magicians in a connection in which he attaches no importance to their names. He only calls them by the name current in his time. With reference to the alleged borrowing of the vessels of the Egyptians by the Israelites, there is nothing easier than to show that no such borrowing can here be meant—which nothing could justify—but that the passages in question can only be understood of spontaneous presents made by the Egyptians. The assumption of borrowing has its basis in two interpretations of words equally unfounded. 1. The verb השאיל is quite arbitrarily interpreted “to lend; שאל means in Hiphil, “to make another ask.” This, then, has reference to voluntary and unasked gifts, in contrast to such as are bestowed only from fear, or in order to get rid of importunity. He who gives voluntarily invites another, as it were, to ask, instead of being himself moved to give by the request. So in 1 Samuel 1:28, the only other passage where the Hiphil is found. 2. The verb נִצֵּל has been interpreted to steal, a meaning which it never has, but rather that of robbery, of a forcible taking away, which does not at all agree with the assumption of crafty borrowing. But in what respect could the spontaneous gift be looked upon as a robbery? How does this agree with the fact that, in the two passages, Exodus 11:2 and Exodus 12:36, it is expressly made prominent by the words, “And the Lord gave the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians,” that, the vessels were a voluntary gift to the Hebrews, prompted by the” goodwill of the Egyptians, through the influence of God, so that fear alone cannot be regarded as the efficient cause? The only possible mode of reconciliation is this: The robber, the spoiler, is God. He who conquers in battle, carries away the booty. The author makes it prominent that the Israelites left Egypt, laden, as it were, with the spoil of their mighty enemies, as a sign of the victory which the omnipotence of God had vouchsafed to their impotence. Thus understood, the fact is not only justifiable, but appears as a necessary part of the whole: it acquires the importance which is attributed, to it in the Pentateuch, which had been foretold to Abraham, and to Moses when he was first called. One of the greatest proofs of God’s omnipotence, and of His grace towards His people, is seen in the fact that He moves the hearts of the Egyptians not merely to fear, but to love, those whom they had formerly despised, and had now so much reason to hate. The material value of the gifts was insignificant, compared with the value which they had for Israel as a sign or proof of what God can and will do for His people. The vessels of the Egyptians had become holy vessels in the strictest sense, from which we may infer that in the presentation of free-will offerings for the holy tabernacle in the wilderness, these must have formed a large proportion. Comp. Numbers 4:7, Exodus 25. Before the exodus from Egypt three very important institutions were inaugurated by Moses, at the divine command:—(1.) He gave a law respecting the beginning of the year. In the Mosaic time, and even long afterwards, until the time of the captivity the Hebrews had no names for their months, which were only counted; the Israelites first took the names of their months from the Persians: comp. Stern and Benfey on the names of the months of some ancient nations. No single name of a month appears in the Pentateuch. Formerly the Israelites had begun the year with the later month Tisri, which corresponds to our October; from this time the current month, afterwards called Nisan, was to be their first month, as a memorial of the exodus from Egypt. Josephus says, however, in his Antiq. Jud. i. 1, chap. 3, § 3, that the change had reference only to the beginning of the ecclesiastical year, whereas the civil year began at the same time afterwards as before. It appears from Leviticus 25:9 that this happened in accordance with the design of the lawgiver, that the new beginning of the year had reference only to the character of Israel as the people of God, while the former retained its meaning for the natural side; for it is here stated that the Sabbath and jubilee year, which exercised so great an influence on the civil relations, began with the former beginning of the year, while the month of the exodus already in the law forms the beginning of the ecclesiastical year: comp. Leviticus 23:5; Numbers 9:1-2, Numbers 9:11. The new commencement of the year points to the fact that, with the deliverance of the people out of Egypt, they had arrived at a great turning-point; that with this event the nation had acquired a spiritual in addition to its natural character. (2.) The feast of the passover was instituted. This is generally regarded as a mere memorial, and it did bear that character; but such was far from forming its principal significance, just as little as the Lord’s Supper in the New Testament, which corresponds to it. In true religion there cannot be a mere memorial feast. It recognises nothing as absolutely past. Its God Jehovah, the existing, the unchangeable, makes everything old new. But with special reference to the feast of the passover, the continuance of the slaughter of a lamb as an offering proves that it cannot be regarded as a mere memorial feast. The Easter lamb is expressly termed “a sacrifice,” Ex. 2:27, Exodus 23:18, Exodus 34:25. It was slaughtered in holy places, Deuteronomy 16:5 sqq.; and after the sanctuary had been erected, its blood was sprinkled and its fat burnt on the altar, 2 Chronicles 30:16-17, 2 Chronicles 35:11. The Jews have always regarded it as a sacrifice. Philo and Josephus call it θῦμα and θυσία. In a certain sense, it belonged to the class of זבחים, to those sacrifices of which the givers received a part. But this designation has reference solely to the form, to the communion here associated with the sin-offering. That it was essentially a sacrifice of atonement, appears from Exodus 12:11-12, and Exodus 22:23. Israel was to be spared in the divine punishment which broke forth over Egypt—the death of the first-born. But lest they should ascribe this exemption to their own merit, that it might not lead them to arrogance but gratitude, the deliverance was made dependent on the presentation of an offering of atonement. Whoever then, or at any time, should slaughter the paschal lamb, made a symbolical confession that he also deserved to be an object of divine wrath, but that he hoped to be released from its effect by the divine grace which accepts a substitute. Where there is a continued sacrifice, offered in faith, there must also be a continued atonement: there must be a repetition of that first benefit, which is only distinguished by the fact that it forms the starting-point of the great series—that with it this first relation of God came into life. The passover must not be placed in too direct connection with the sparing of the first-born. In harmony with its name redemption, and then atonement- or reconciliation-offering, it has to do first of all only with atonement, and the forgiveness of sins which is based on it. But where sin has disappeared, there can no longer be any punishment for sin. Again, there is no doubt that the passover stands in a certain relation to the exodus from Egypt. But here also the connection must not be made too direct. That the Lord led His people with a strong hand out of Egypt, from the house of bondage, was only a consequence and an issue of the fundamental benefit He had conferred on them by the institution of the passover-offering for atonement and forgiveness of sins. Israel was to be brought out from the bondage of the world and its fellowship. It was to be raised to the dignity of an independent people of God, separate from the heathen. But before this would or could happen, the only true wall of partition was erected between them and the world. The blood of atonement was granted to them, and in it the forgiveness of their sins. It was not without an object that the passover was held in the harvest month. The harvest was not to be touched before the feast of the passover. According to Exodus 23:19-24, comp. Leviticus 23:9 sqq., the first sheaf was to be brought to the Lord on the second day of the feast, as an acknowledgment of indebtedness to Him for the whole blessing. “Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you.” This seeking the kingdom of God consists mainly in looking for forgiveness of sins in the blood of atonement. The request for daily bread is only justified in the mouth of those who have a reconciled God. After determining the nature of the passover feast, it will not be difficult to point out its relation to circumcision. The feast of the passover presupposed circumcision. It is expressly laid down that no uncircumcised person is to eat of it. When circumcision was omitted in the wilderness at the divine command, the feast of the passover was also discontinued, and only recommenced after circumcision had been again accomplished under Joshua. By the sacrament of circumcision the people of Israel became the people of God, and every individual a member of this people; by the sacrament of the passover they received the actual divine assurance that God would not reject them on account of their sins of infirmity, that of His mercy He would forgive them, and would not withdraw His blessing from them. From this it follows that the passover, sometimes termed the feast, has quite another meaning than all the other Israelitish feasts; and also that it must precede all others. By the institution of the passover, Israel was first put fully into a condition adapted to the reception of God’s commands. That the passover lamb was not merely slaughtered but eaten, symbolized the appropriation of redeeming grace. The bitter herbs, which were eaten as vegetables, typified the sorrows by which the elect are visited for their salvation; the unleavened bread, the εἰλικρίνεια and ἀλήθεια which they must practise. For leaven is the symbol of corruption, in antiquity. That the children of Israel were obliged to eat the passover with their travelling-staves in their hands, with girded loins and shod feet, points to the zeal with which the redeemed must walk in the ways of God, and to the fact that idle rest does not become them. 3. Then followed the consecration of the first-born. This was intended to keep in remembrance throughout the whole year, what the passover, in so far as it was a memorial feast, testified once a year. The representation of the sparing of the first-born in Egypt, at the same time a pledge of future grace, was intended to penetrate the whole life. Every first-born by his simple existence proclaimed aloud the divine mercy; his consecration was an embodiment of the exhortation “Be thankful.” The manner of consecration varied, however; clean animals were offered up, clean ones compensated for the unclean, the first-born among men were redeemed. The assumption that the clean animals fell to the lot of the priests rests on a mere misunderstanding of the passage, Numbers 18:18, where it is only said that the same portions of the sacrifices of the first-born should fall to the priests which are due to them of all the heave- offerings. As of all the heave-offerings so of this also God first received His portion, then the priests, and the rest was consumed in holy feasts. In the narrative of the exodus of the Israelites our attention is first arrested by the passage, Exodus 13:21, “And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light, to go by day and night.” That the pillar of cloud and of fire should be mentioned just here, after the account of the arrival of the children of Israel in Etham, has no basis in chronology, but only one in fact. We stand immediately before the passage through the sea, in which the symbol of the divine presence, which was probably discontinued immediately on the Israelites’ departure, was to unfold its whole meaning. The best that has been said concerning this symbol is given by Vitringa in the treatise de Mysterio facis igneae “Israelitis in Arabia praelucentis,” in his Observv. Sacr. i. 5, 14-17. There is much, it is true, that is arbitrary and unfounded. The symbol of the divine presence first mentioned here, led the Israelites afterwards in their whole march through the wilderness. After the erection of the holy tabernacle it descended upon it. In Exodus 40:38 it is said, “The cloud was upon the tabernacle by day, and fire was on it by night, in the sight of all the house of Israel, throughout all their journeys.” With reference to the outward appearance of this symbol, it seems that we have not to think of a gross material fire: Exodus 24:17, “And the sight of the glory of the Lord was like devouring fire.” Vitringa: “Ignis speciem habuit, veris ignis non fuit.” The pillar of cloud and of fire was not the Angel of the Lord Himself, who, on the contrary, is expressly distinguished from it, Exodus 14:19. When the Egyptians approach Israel, the Angel of the Lord first betakes himself from the head of Israel to the rear, between them and the Egyptians. Then the pillar of cloud also leaves its place, from which it appears that this was only the abode of the Angel of the Lord, the outward sign of His presence, and that He Himself was not shut up within it. Vitringa: “Vides columnae nubis jungi angelum tanquam illius hospitem eam inhabitantem.” The form is characterized by the name of a pillar. It rose, like a pillar of smoke from earth to heaven, and spread its glory by night far over the camp of the Israelites. Although a pillar of cloud and fire is generally spoken of, yet it cannot be doubted that both were one and the same phenomenon, which only presented a different aspect by day and by night. By night the fire shone out more clearly from the dark covering. Tills appears from Exodus 14:20, where one and the same cloud produces a double effect, covering the Egyptians with darkness, and at the same time illumining the camp of the Israelites. Hence it is clear that the cloudy covering was also present in the mighty symbol of the divine presence. But that the fire was not absent by day, that it was only concealed by the cloudy veil, appears from two other passages, Exodus 16:10, and Numbers 16:19, Numbers 16:35, where, on an extraordinary occasion, in order to make the presence of God felt by the Israelites, the fire, which was generally concealed by day and obscured by the sunshine, broke forth into full splendour. The pillar of cloud and of fire occupied the front of the Israelitish camp in their marches (for during the encampment it rested upon the tabernacle of the covenant); Israel, the army of God, preceded by God their general: comp. Exodus 13:21, Exodus 23:23; Deuteronomy 1:33. It showed the Israelites the direction they should take: if it moved, the people broke up their camp; if it rested, they encamped. By night it gave them light; by day, when it was more extended, it gave them protection against the heat; as it is said in Psalms 105:39, “He spread a cloud for a covering, and fire to give light in the night.” Comp. Numbers 10:34, “And the cloud of the Lord was upon them by day, when they went out of the camp;” Isaiah 4:5-6, Isaiah 25:5, where the shadow of the cloud, which at one time protected Israel, is made a symbol of God’s protection in the heat of trouble and temptation. From it all the divine commands proceeded, Numbers 12:5; Exodus 29:42-43. Destruction went forth from it upon the enemies of the people of God, as we learn from the example of the Egyptians. It frequently bears the name כבודיהוה, the glory of Jehovah, that by which God revealed His glory. It was in a lower sense what Christ was in the fullest sense: τὸ ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης τοῦ Θεοῦ. If what is related of the pillar of cloud and of fire be truth, it must prove itself as such by the fact that only the form of the thing is peculiar to the Old Testament, while its essence is common to all times. The whole must have a symbolical, prophetic character. The whole thing is treated as a prophecy. In the Messianic time God will again provide His people with a cloud by day and the splendour of flaming fire by night. Here we have a striking image of the most special providence of God in Christ, on behalf of His Church; we see how He leads His people in their wanderings through the wilderness of the world, guides and defends them, and avenges them on their enemies; how He shows them the way to the heavenly Canaan; how He protects them against the heat of misfortune and temptation; how He illumines them in the darkness of sin, error, and of misery; but also how He reveals Himself to them as consuming fire, by punishing them for their sins, and rooting out sinners from their midst. We have still to examine why this form was chosen as the symbol of the divine presence. The prevalent opinion regards the cloud only as a veil. According to 1 Tim. the concealed God dwells in φῶς ἀπρόσιτον. Even the revealed God must veil His majesty, because no mortal eye can bear the sight. But the clouds with which, or attended by which, the Lord comes, imply in all other places in Scripture the administration of judgment. Comp. Isaiah 19:1; Psalms 18:10, Psalms 97:2; Nahum 1:3; Revelation 1:7. And the correspondence of the fire by night with the cloud by day, comp. Numbers 9:15-16, proves that the cloud in the pillar of cloud and of fire bears a like threatening character. Destruction descends from the cloud upon the Egyptians, Exodus 14:24. In the pillar of cloud the Lord came down to judge Miriam and Aaron, Numbers 12:5. Isaiah 4:5-6, distinguishes a twofold element in the fire—the shining and the burning—and both appear separately in the history. At the same time fire breaks forth from the cloud for the destruction of Egypt, and light shines out upon Israel. In Scripture, light is the symbol of divine grace, fire the energy of God’s punitive justice, by which He glorifies Himself within and without the Church in those who would not glorify Him. That the fire in the cloud is not to be regarded as bringing blessing but destruction, is shown not only from the example of the Egyptians, but also from Exodus 24:17, “And the sight of the glory of the Lord was like devouring fire.” Moses, Deuteronomy 4:24, characterizes God Himself as a consuming fire, with reference to this symbol, comp. Isaiah 33:14-15, Hebrews 12:29 (and what we previously said of the symbol of the burning bush). The fire, therefore, attested to Israel the same thing which was conveyed in the verbal utterance of God concerning His angel, Exodus 23:21, “Beware of Him, and obey His voice, provoke Him not; for He will not pardon your transgressions.” From this it appears that in many cases the fire breaks forth with startling splendour as the reflection of the punitive divine justice, to terrify the refractory in the camp: comp. Exodus 16:10; Numbers 14:10, Numbers 16:19, Numbers 17:7et seq. The Angel of the Lord is a reviving sun to the just; to the ungodly consuming fire. The symbol proclaimed this truth; and the history of the march through the wilderness confirmed it. But the fire, like the cloud, bears a twofold character. The threat also includes a promise. If Israel be Israel, it is directed against their enemies, while to them it is the fortress of salvation: comp. Numbers 9:15et seq. The God of energetic judgment is their God. If Israel were the people of God, then the pillar of cloud and of fire became a warning to all their enemies. ‘‘Touch not mine anointed, and do my people no harm.” Rationalism has mooted the hypothesis, that the pillar of cloud and fire was nothing more than the fire which is frequently carried before the marches of caravans in iron vessels on poles, that it may give light by night, while the smoke forms a signal by day. The origination of this fancy plainly shows how every one who has not himself experienced God’s special providence, is under the necessity of obliterating all traces of it from history. It is impossible for him who has the substance to stumble at the form, adapted as it was to the wants which the people of God then had. Exodus 14:24 serves as a refutation of this view, so far as it claims to be in harmony with the narrative itself; for according to this passage, lightning came down from the pillar of cloud upon the Egyptians: comp. also the passages just cited, where the obstinate are terrified by the sudden breaking out of fire. He who stands in the faith will draw comfort and edification from this circumstance, instead of abandoning himself to such miserable interpretations; and is thus enabled the more easily to recognise the Angel of God who goes before him also. From the stand-point of faith we must necessarily agree with Vitringa, who says: “Ecquis vero, qui divinae majestatis reverentia et termitatis humanae sensu affectus est, ut decet, non stupeat, Deum immortalem et gloriosum homines mortales tam singulari prosecutum esse elementia et gratia, ut suam iis praesentiam notabili adeo et illustri symbolo demonstrare voluerit?” This sign of the divine presence, this guarantee that God was in their midst, was the more necessary for the people of God since their leader Moses was a mere man, whose divine commission made it the more desirable that there should be a confirmation of the divine presence by means of an independent sign. It is quite different with respect to the church of the new covenant, whose head is the God-man. The accounts of the caravan-fire (best given in the Description, t. 8, p. 128) are of interest only in so far as this custom appears to be the foundation upon which the form of the symbol of the divine presence was based. The pillar of cloud and fire may be characterized as an irony of that caravan-fire. The hypothesis of Ewald, which makes the pillar of cloud and fire to have been the holy altar-fire, is perhaps still more unfortunate. His partiality for this hypothesis leads him to assume, in direct opposition to the narrative, that the pillar of cloud and fire first appeared at the erection of the holy tabernacle, and forcibly to explain away all those passages in which the pillar of cloud and fire afterwards appears outside the sanctuary; all this only in the interest of ordinary miracle-explanation, which, with him, generally plays an important part, though it does not venture to come forth openly. Above all it must not be forgotten that our source describes the pillar of cloud as it was seen with the eye of faith. It was no doubt so arranged here, as it is everywhere, that obstinate unbelief should have a handle—some apparent justification of the natural explanation of the phenomenon. We must not form too material a conception of the pillar of cloud; we must not regard it as having remained absolutely the same at all times, nor as distinctly separated from all natural phenomena. So palpable an appearance of the divine continuing for so long a period would be without analogy; and nothing in the narrative obliges us to accept it if we remember that the author’s object was not to give an accurate and detailed description of the phenomenon in all its phases and changes, for scientific purposes, but that, as a writer of sacred history, he was only concerned with its significance for the piety to which it belonged. The reason why Moses, at God’s command, did not take the Israelites by the nearest way to Canaan, through the land of the Philistines, but led them by the path through the Arabian desert, is given in Deuteronomy 13:17 : “Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt.” But, in order to understand the full significance of this reason, it is necessary to bring back the particular to its universal foundation. It was the lack of living, heartfelt, stedfast faith which made them incapable of fighting with the Philistines. Owing to this weakness they could not yet perform what was required of them in Deuteronomy 20:1 : “When thou goest out to battle against thine enemies, and seest horses and chariots, and a people more than thou, be not afraid of them: for the Lord thy God is with thee, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.” And the same lack of faith made it necessary that in many other respects also they should be first sent into the wilderness, the preparatory school. As the people of God, they were destined to possess the land of Canaan. Therefore, before the possession of it could be granted to them, they must become the people of God in spirit. In this respect they had only yet made a weak beginning. It was, therefore, impossible that they should at once be led to Canaan, the more so because divine decorum required that the ministers of divine punitive justice to the Canaanites should not themselves deserve the same punishment. The bestowal of the land on a people not much less sinful than the Canaanites, would have been an actual contradiction of the declaration that it was taken from them on account of their sins. For the covenant-people there were no purely external gifts. The exhortation was, “Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you.” The kernel and foundation of all this was the land of Canaan. How then could it be given to Israel before they had earnestly sought after the kingdom of God? It would have been severity in God to have given it to them immediately after their departure out of Egypt. For the land would soon have cast out the new inhabitants, just as it did the former, comp. Leviticus 18:28. It has been objected that the new generation showed itself still sinful in the fortieth year. But a perfectly holy people does not belong to this troubled world. The history of the time of Joshua, however, sufficiently shows that the new generation was animated by a very different spirit from that which had grown up under Egyptian influence. The passage through the Red Sea is to be regarded in a twofold aspect as the necessary conclusion of the Egyptian plagues. First, with respect to Israel. If they had departed triumphantly out of Egypt without any hindrance, with a high hand, as the text has it—i.e., frank and free—then the plagues would soon have been forgotten because of the slight point of contact which the wonderful divine manifestations still had with their minds. How much their confidence had increased, appears from the fact that they came forth from Egypt in order, in the form of an army; or, according to the source, they went out חֲמֻשִׁים—i.e., in the opinion of Ewald, in fives, separated into middle, right and left wing, front and back lines, in accordance with the simplest division of every army which is prepared for battle. But according to others, the expression means equipped in warlike trim. The human heart is refractory and desponding. When things turn out evil, despair at once sets in; when all is prosperous, false confidence and pride arise. Though previously without arms, they wished to play the soldier, and thought themselves able to overcome the world; they formed themselves into ranks as well as they could; and doubtless made a ridiculous spectacle to those among the Egyptian spectators who were skilled in war. It was time that their own weakness should be brought powerfully home to them; which happened when God put it into Pharaoh’s heart to pursue them. In order that the earlier distress and help might attain their object, the distress and help must rise once more at the exodus to the highest point; death without God, and life through God, must once again be placed in the liveliest contrast. Again, with respect to Pharaoh. The divine judgment had advanced only to the death of his first-born son. The water did not yet reach his neck. If we take into consideration the greatness of his obduracy, we see that there was still one prophecy unfulfilled—that of his death. Without this, the revelation of the divine righteousness, the type of the judgment on the world and its princes, at once strikes us as incomplete,—a mere fragment which, as such, does not carry with it the internal certainty of divine authorship. The deep significance of the passage through the sea as an actual prophecy is already recognised by the prophets, when they represent the deliverance by the Messiah and the final victory of God’s people over the world as a repetition of this event, for example, Isaiah 11:15-16. It has also been recognised by our pious singers when they make it a pledge of God’s continual guidance through sorrow to joy, through the cross to glory; comp. the song, “Um frisch hinein, es wird so tief nicht sein, das rothe Meer wird dir schon Platz vergönnen,” etc., after the example of the Psalmist in numerous passages, Psalms 114:3, etc., where the sea is specially regarded as the symbol of the power of the world, and its retreating before the children of Israel as the pledge of the victory of God’s people over the world. We have still to consider the relation of the passage through the Red Sea to that through the Jordan. Both are closely connected. First as a justification of Israel against the Canaanites. This aspect is already brought forward in the song of praise in Exodus 15:15 : “Sorrow shall take hold on the inhabitants of Palestine. Then the dukes of Edom shall be amazed; the mighty men of Moab, trembling shall take hold upon them; all the inhabitants of Canaan shall melt away.” As the servants of divine righteousness, the Israelites were to exterminate the Canaanites. Such a commission is not at all conceivable unless he to whom it is given receives an unquestionably divine authorization. Otherwise the greatest scope is given to human wickedness. Each one might invent such a commission, by which means that which was really divine punishment might not be recognised as such. But because the Israelites were led out from their former habitation in a marvellous way, and in a marvellous way conducted into their new habitation, it was impossible that any one should throw doubt on their divine commission. The passage through the Red Sea was to the Canaanites an actual proclamation of divine judgment. It showed them that it was not the sword of Israel, but of God, that was suspended over their heads. And because they saw it in this light their courage failed them. The passage through the Jordan could no longer come unexpected. It was already implied in the passage through the Red Sea, as its necessary complement, and must follow, if we suppose that the Jordan by its natural power placed an insuperable obstacle in the way of entrance into the promised land. For to what purpose had the Lord led the people out of Egypt? Certainly with no other object than to lead them into the land of promise. Finally, both events are closely connected in a typical aspect also. He whom God leads forth from the bondage of the world with a strong hand, has in this a pledge that God will also lead him with a strong hand into the heavenly Canaan. With respect to the mode and manner of the deliverance from Egypt, when the Israelites had once come as far as the region north of the Arabian Gulf, and therefore to the borders of Egypt, they would in all human probability have left Egypt at once, and have taken the eastern side of the Arabian Gulf. But instead of this Moses led them, at the divine command, back again, up the western side of the Arabian Gulf. If they were attacked here, they were cut off from all escape, supposing that before the attack the region north of the Red Sea was occupied, in which case there might already be an Egyptian castle here for the protection of the country against the hordes of the wilderness. Pharaoh, who had ascertained their position by means of spies, rushed into the snare that God had laid for him. If the former divine manifestations had found any response in him, his first thought would have been that this was a snare, like God’s former dealing in permitting the success of his magicians. But human judgment is swayed by inclination—a mighty proof that a just God, who takes the wise in their craftiness, has dominion over the world—and with Pharaoh inclination was always predominant. Thus he saw what he wished to see. The position of the Israelites, humanly speaking so unwisely chosen, appeared to furnish him with a certain proof that they could not be under the special guidance of divine providence, that there was no God of Israel who was at the same time God over the whole world, and that the clear proof of His existence, which he had hitherto experienced, had been only delusion and accident. The more he reproached himself with foolishness, in having yielded to them, the more he hastened to wipe out the disgrace. This was his only object; he lost sight of everything else. Here we see plainly how God befools the sinner. The operation of God forms the only key to the explanation of Pharaoh’s incomprehensible delusion; an operation which, however, was not confined to him alone, but appears daily. Without it there would be no criminal. But the conduct of the Israelites when they saw the danger before their eyes, their utter despair, as if they had never been in contact with God, is equally incomprehensible for him who is ignorant of human nature and the heart of man in its stubbornness and despondency. For him who looks deeper, all this impresses the description with the seal of truth. The place of crossing was in all probability the extreme northern limit of the gulf (Niebuhr’s Description of Arabia, p. 410), where, according to Niebuhr’s measurement, it is 757 double steps broad, and was therefore a fitting scene for the manifestation of divine miraculous power. V. Schubert, in his Travels in the East, part ii. p. 269, estimates the breadth of the Isthmus of Suez at about half an hour. There are also facts which show that the Isthmus of Suez formerly extended farther towards the north, and was broader: comp. Niebuhr, in the passages already cited, Robinson’s Palestine, i. 19, and Fr. Strauss, Journey to the East, p. 120. V. Raumer, in the March of the Israelites from Egypt to Canaan, Leipzig 1837, p. 9 sqq., represents the Israelites as having gone much farther south across the gulf, by the plain Bede, where the sea is perhaps six hours’ journey across; but this view is sufficiently disproved by the circumstance that he proceeds on an erroneous determination of the place from which the Israelites set out, and of the way they took, making this determination the only basis of his assumption: comp. the copious refutation in The Books of Moses and Egypt, p. 54 sqq. If it be established that the place from which the Israelites set out, Raamses, is identical with Heroöpolis, and that Heroöpolis lay north-east of the Arabian Gulf, in the vicinity of the Bitter Lakes, thirteen French hours from the Arabian Gulf, which the Israelites reached on the second day after their departure, then it is proved at the same time that the passage must have taken place not far from the extreme north. V. Raumer, who places Raamses in the neighbourhood of Heliopolis, asserts that from here to the Red Sea was a journey of twenty-six hours, which it was not possible for the Israelites to accomplish in two days. In his later work, Aids to Biblical Geography, Leipzig 1843, p. 1 sqq., and also in the third and fourth edition of The Geography of Palestine, v. Raumer himself destroys the foundation of his hypothesis, which, however, he still retains, by agreeing with the position assigned to Raamses in The Books of Moses and Egypt, afterward independently maintained by Robinson. The argument, that the way is too long for two days’ journey, he meets with the assumption that Exodus 13:20 and Numbers 33:6 refer only to the places of encampment where the Israelites remained for a longer period. But this distinction between days of journeying and places of encampment is highly improbable, so far as the march of the Israelites through Egyptian territory is concerned; for Pharaoh drove them out of the land in haste, Exodus 12:33, and their own interest demanded that they should depart with the greatest possible speed. The assertion, “It is quite incomprehensible why the Israelites should have despaired, or why a miracle should have happened, if they could have gone round that little tongue of water without any inconvenience,” does not take into consideration what is said in The Books of Moses and Egypt, p. 58, founded on Exodus 14:2, in favour of the assumption that the Egyptian garrison had blocked up the way by the north of the gulf. Here it was quite immaterial whether the Israelites went more or less south. But the view that the Israelites travelled by Bede through the sea entails great difficulties, for the passage of such immense masses could scarcely have been effected in so short a time through a sea three miles in width. Stichel, Stud. u. Krit. 1850, ii. S. 377 ff., whom Kurtz, Geschichte des A. B. ii. S. 166 ff., has incautiously followed, contests the identity of Raamses and Heroöpolis. But the objection that, in accordance with the narrative, Raamses must have lain close to the Egyptian residence, confounds the temporary dwelling-place of Pharaoh, who had repaired to the scene of events, with his usual residence. The assertion of Stichel, that Raamses is identical with Belbeis must be regarded as purely visionary; while the identity with Heroopolis has important authorities in its favour, especially the testimony of the LXX., which Stichel vainly tries to set aside. But there are decided positive reasons against the identity with Belbeis. In its interest Stichel, like v. Raumer, is obliged to assume a succession of days’ journeyings. And he himself is obliged to confess that this hypothesis is incompatible with the fact attested in Psalms 78:12, Psalms 78:43, comp. with Num. Numbers 13:22 (Numbers 13:23), that Zoan or Zanis was at that time the residence of Pharaoh. The following was the course of the catastrophe:—An east wind drove the water some distance on to the Egyptian shore, where it was absorbed by the thirsty sand, and at the same time kept back the water of the southern part of the sea, preventing it from occupying the space thus vacated, which was surrounded by water on both sides, north and south. Here again a handle was given to the unbelief of the Egyptians. In the natural means employed by God, they overlooked the work of His miraculous power. The darkness also in which they were enveloped by the cloud they regarded as merely accidental. It has been frequently maintained that the passage of the Israelites took place at the time of the ebb, while the flow engulfed the Egyptians who pursued them. This hypothesis is refuted by the fact that קדים never means or can mean the east wind; and, moreover, it is inconsistent with the oft-repeated statement that the water stood up to right and left of the Israelites, as also with the analogy of the passage through the Jordan. Besides, the Egyptians, knowing the nature of their own country, would certainly not have followed so blindly if a tide were to be expected. We must therefore give up this hypothesis, which has been recently revived by Robinson and justly opposed by v. Raumer. Moreover, the efficacy here attributed to the wind still finds its analogies: “When a continuous north wind,” says Schubert, “drives the water towards the south, especially at the time of ebb, it can be traversed northwards from Suez, and may be waded through on foot; but if the wind suddenly turns round to the south-cast,the water may rise in a short time to the height of six feet. Napoleon experienced this when he wanted to ride through the sea at that place, and was in danger of his life owing to the sudden rise of the water. When he had been safely brought back to land, he said, ‘It would have made an interesting text for every preacher in Europe if I had been drowned here.’” But God’s time had not yet come—he was still needed; afterwards he was swallowed up in Moscow. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 16: 16. § 4. THE MARCH THROUGH THE WILDERNESS UNTIL THE GIVING OF THE LAW ON SINAI ======================================================================== § 4. The March Through the Wilderness Until the Giving of the Law on Sinai The result of the former leadings of God is thus given in Exodus 14:31 : “And Israel saw that great work which the Lord did upon the Egyptians: and the people feared the Lord, and believed the Lord and His servant Moses.” The song in Exodus 15 is an expression of fear and of faith, with the love arising, therefrom. The same love is also attributed to the people in Jeremiah 2:2, “I remember thee, the kindness of thy youth, the love of thine espousals, when thou wentest after me in the wilderness, in a land that was not sown,” which must be regarded as having reference to the first time of the sojourn in the wilderness before the giving of the law on Sinai, on account of the mention of the youth and espousals which are replaced by marriage on Sinai. The whole behaviour of the people at the giving of the law also bears testimony to this love, the extreme readiness with which they promise to do everything the Lord may command. Then again, the great zeal in presenting the best they had for the construction of the sacred tabernacle. It seems at the first glance that the people might now have been put in possession of the inheritance promised to them by the Lord; and so they themselves believed, as we see from their murmuring on every opportunity. But because God knew the disposition of human nature. He chose a different course. The state of almost entire estrangement from God was succeeded by one of temptation and trial, the necessity of which rests on the circumstance that the influence of Egypt was not limited to the surface, but had penetrated to the lowest depths. It is expressly stated in Deuteronomy 8:2-5, the principal passage bearing on the subject, that temptation and trial formed the centre of the entire guidance through the wilderness: “And thou shalt remember all the way which the Lord thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep His commandments, or no.” The same thing appears also from the comparison of Christ’s sojourn in the wilderness; for its essential agreement with the guidance of Israel is indicated by the external similarity of time and place—the wilderness, and the forty years corresponding to the forty days. It is shown also by the history itself, which only comes out in its true light when we start from the idea of trial. And finally it is made manifest by the predictions of the prophets, who announce the repetition of the three stations—Egypt, the wilderness, and Canaan: Hosea 2:16; Ex. 20:34-38; Jeremiah 31:1-2. The first is complete bondage to the world, first as guilt and then as punishment; the second is trial and purification; the third is the induction into full possession of divine grace. But what is the nature of temptation? It presupposes that there is already something in man, that the fire of love to God is already kindled in him, and is the means which God’s love employs to strengthen and purify this love. First love is only too often, indeed always more or less, but a straw-fire. Sin is not quite mortified; it is only momentarily overpowered. The true rooting out of sin, the changing of the love of feeling and of phantasy into a heartfelt, profound, moral love, demands that sin should be brought to the light, that the inner nature of man should be perfectly revealed, that all self-deception, all unconscious hypocrisy should be made bare. True self-knowledge is the basis of true God-knowledge. From it springs self-hatred, the condition of love to God. We learn to know our own weakness, and are by this means brought closer to God. So also in temptation we learn to know God in the continuous help which He vouchsafes to us, in the long-suffering and patience that He has with our weakness, in the expression of His punitive justice towards our obduracy; and this knowledge of God forms the basis of heartfelt love to Him. God proves in a double way—by taking and by giving. By taking. As long as we are in the lap of fortune, we readily imagine that we love God above everything, and stand in the most intimate fellowship with Him. While adhering to the gifts, the heart believes that it is adhering to God. God takes away the gifts, and the self-deception becomes manifest. If it now appear that we do not love God without His gifts, at the same time it becomes clear that we did not formerly love Him in His gifts. Again, in happiness we readily imagine that we possess a heroic faith. We say triumphantly, “Who shall separate us from the love of God?” But as soon as misfortune comes, we look upon ourselves as hopelessly lost. We place no confidence in God; we doubt and murmur. It is impossible to determine the character of our faith until we are tried by the cross. But just as Satan seeks to make pleasure as well as pain instrumental to our ruin, so God tries by that which He gives no less than by that which He takes. We are only too ready to forget the Giver in His gifts, we become accustomed to them, they appear to us as something quite natural; gratitude disappears, we ask “Why this alone? why not that also? “The heart which is moved to despair by the taking becomes insolent on the giving. God allows us to have His gifts in order to bring to light this disposition of the heart. The second station is, for many, the last. Many fall in the wilderness. But while a mass of individuals are left lying there, the church of God always advances to the third station—to the possession of Canaan. The state of purification is for them always a state of sifting. Ezekiel says, Ezekiel 20:38, “And I will purge out from among you the rebels, and them that transgress against me: I will bring them forth out of the country where they sojourn, and they shall not enter into the land of Israel: and ye shall know that I am the Lord.” In Ezekiel this appears as a promise. That which is a misfortune to individuals is a benefit to the church. The rooting out of obdurate sinners by trial is for the church what the rooting out of sin is for the individual. Let us now investigate somewhat more closely the locality of the temptation. Much light has been thrown on this subject by recent travellers, especially Burckkardt, Travels in Syria and the Holy Land, London 1822, in German by W. Gesenius, Weimar 1823; Rüffell, Reisen in Nubien, Kordofan, und dem Peträschen Arabien, Frankfurt 1838-40; Laborde, Voyage de l’Arable Pétrée, Paris 1830-34; Robinson, who does not, however, afford so much information here as on Canaan. The best summary is contained in the map of v. Raumer: Der Zug der Israeliten aus Aegypten nach Canaan, Leipzig 1837; comp. his Beiträge zur biblischen Geographie, Leipzig 1843, and the latest edition of the Geographe von Palästina, 1860. Then Ritter’s Erdkunde, 14ter Theil, die Sinai-Halbinsel, Berlin 1848. Close to the fruitful country on the eastern side of the Lower Nile, at a short distance from Cairo, the barren desert of Arabia begins, and extends from thence to the bank of the Euphrates. The Edomite mountains, extending from the Aelanitic Gulf to the Dead Sea, divide this desert into the Eastern Arabia Deserta and the Western Arabia Petraea. The latter is bounded on the north by the Mediterranean Sea and Palestine, on the south it runs out into a point between the Gulf of Suez and of Aila; and on the end of this point is Mount Sinai, in the language of Scripture, Horeb. This mountain has springs, luxuriant vegetation, and noble fruits, but north of it the country at once assumes a dreary aspect. First comes a barren and waterless plain of sand, then the mountain-chain et-Tih, and beyond it the dreadful desert et-Tih, occupying the greater part of the peninsula. Here bare chalk hills alternate with plains of dazzling white, drifting sand, extending farther than the eye can reach; there are a few springs, mostly bitter—not a tree, not a shrub, not a human dwelling. On the wide stretch from Sinai to Gaza there is not a single village. Towards the east this waste table-land et-Tih sinks down into a valley fifty hours’ journey in length and two hours’ journey wide, which extends from the southern point of the Dead Sea to the Aelanitic Gulf; the northern half is now el-Ghor, the southern, el-Araba. In Scripture the name Araba is employed of the entire district. On the whole it is waste, yet not without a few oases. In this valley the Israelites had their principal camp during the thirty-eight years of exile. The Edomite range, which forms the eastern boundary, rises abruptly from the bottom of the valley, but on the other side it is only slightly elevated above the higher desert of Arabia Deserta. The country, where for forty years the Israelites were kept in the school of temptation, was in two respects better adapted to their object than any other; and in this choice we see clearly the divine wisdom. (1.) The land was a true picture of the state of the Israelites, and was therefore calculated to bring it to their consciousness. That this formed part of the divine plan is shown by the analogous sojourn of John in the wilderness. Although already in Canaan in the body—this is the virtual testimony of John—yet the nation is essentially still in the wilderness. They do not yet possess God in the fulness of His blessings and gifts. They are still in the barren wilderness, in the state of trial, sifting, and purification. But now the entrance into Canaan is at hand. Happy is he who does not remain lying in the wilderness. (2.) The Arabian desert was by its natural character peculiarly adapted to serve as the place of trial for a whole nation. Where natural means are in existence, God, who is also the originator of the natural world, makes them subservient to His purpose, and does not by miracles interfere with a nature, independent, and existing beside Him. In the trial by taking there was no necessity for any extraordinary exercise of power. The barren and waste desert gave opportunity enough. It also presented a natural substratum for the trial by giving, though less than might have been found elsewhere. This very circumstance, however, was specially adapted to God’s plan. By this means He manifested Himself the more clearly as the giver. He who tries no man beyond what he is able to bear, would not expect a nation still weak to recognise Him as the giver of those gifts which came to them in the ordinary course of nature. He gave them bread from heaven to teach them that the common bread also came from heaven. This mode of thought characterizes the lawgiver himself. In Deuteronomy 8:3 we read, “He suffered them to hunger, and fed them with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that He might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live.” Ewald says, “The desert is like the sea, exactly adapted, as it were, to remind man in the strongest way of his natural helplessness and frailty, teaching him at the same time to place a truer and higher value on those strange alleviations and deliverances which he often encounters so unexpectedly, even in the wilderness.” The beginning of the temptation occurred at the bitter waters of Mara. “The water,” says Burckhardt, “is so bitter that men cannot drink it, and even camels, unless very thirsty, cannot endure it.” This was the more felt by the Israelites, because they were accustomed to the excellent water of the Nile, highly lauded by all travellers. God might previously have deprived the water of its bitterness, but in this case Israel would neither have murmured nor have expressed gratitude; and the design was that they should do both, as long as they still retained their morbid temper of mind. The bitterness of their heart was to be revealed by the bitterness of the water. So also in its sweetness they were to become sensible of the sweet love of God towards them. The antithesis to the wood by which the water is here made sweet, is to be found in the Apocalypse, Revelation 8:10-11, in the wormwood which is thrown by God into the water of the world and makes it bitter. For His own, God makes the bitter water sweet; for the world, He makes the sweet water bitter. How far the means by which the water was made sweet were natural, and to be looked upon as a gift of God only as they pointed out that which had hitherto been unknown, we cannot determine. The present inhabitants, from whom Burckhardt and Robinson made inquiries, are not acquainted with any means of sweetening the waters, which still continue bitter; and the accurate researches of Lepsius led to just as little result. After God had helped the people by Moses, and had put their murmuring to shame, He gave them “a statute and an ordinance,” Exodus 15:25,—that is to say, He brought home to their hearts the truths which had been brought to light by these events, the condemnation attached to unbelief, and the unfailing certainty of divine help if they only walked in the way of God. Exodus 15:26 shows that the words are to be understood in this sense. The history will only gain its proper educating effect when it is rightly interpreted and applied by the ministers of the word. As the first temptation had reference to drink, the second was connected with food. This was natural. The carnal people who had taken such pleasure in the flesh-pots of Egypt must be attacked on their sensitive side. They could not yet be tempted by spiritual drought and spiritual hunger. God first allows their unbelief to appear in a very gross form, and then shames them by miraculous help, which is again a temptation. The Israelites had longed not only for Egyptian bread, but also for Egyptian meat. God showed that He was able to give them both, by granting them manna and quails on one and the same day; the latter merely as a token of His power. For the present, manna only was to be the permanent food of the people, lest by the too great abundance of the gifts they should be led to despise them. The quails disappeared after having served as their food for only one day, to be given to them afterwards, however, for a longer period. It is well known that there is a natural manna in the Arabian desert. But this does not exclude the fact that in this manna the Israelites recognised the glory of the Lord, to use a scriptural expression, and were able to call it מן—present, gift of God; a name which afterwards passed over to the natural manna. For them it was bread from heaven. In Exodus 16:4 it is called “bread of the mighty ones,” and in Psalms 78:25, bread of the angels, i.e. bread from the region of the angels, or, as the Chaldee paraphrases it, “food which came down from the dwelling of the angels.” To make use of this natural manna to do away with the miracle, is nothing less than to throw suspicion on the miraculous feeding of the 5000, because of the fewness of the loaves and fishes which formed the natural substratum of it. According to Burckhardt, the quantity of manna now collected on the peninsula, even in the most rainy years, amounts only to 500 to 600 pounds. We must, therefore, ask with the apostles, ταῦτατίεἰςτοσούτους; In years which are not rainy scarcely any is to be found. But, on the other hand, we must take care not to follow the course recently pursued by v. Raumer and Kurtz, respecting the manna, who, in their fear of the worship of miracles, go beyond the statements of Scripture. We must enter somewhat more fully into these misunderstandings (with reference to the discussions in our work on Balaam). (1.) It has been often assumed, owing to a misunderstanding of Joshua 5:11-12, that manna was given to the Israelites, not only on the Sinaitic peninsula, but also in the trans-Jordanic country, and even during the first period of their residence in Canaan proper. But it is clear that the passage refers to a definite cessation, from the circumstance that the period of manna now definitively ceases, and is replaced by the period of bread. That it must be so understood follows from Joshua 1:11, and still more decisively from Exodus 16:35, where the inhabited land appears as the natural limit of the manna, which is spoken of as something already past. In Deuteronomy 8:2-3, Deuteronomy 8:16, the manna and the wilderness appear inseparably connected. It is thus certain that the manna did not follow the Israelites into Canaan. It even appears probable, from Deuteronomy 2:6, that manna was not given to them beyond its usual district, the Sinaitic peninsula. (2.) In accordance with the prevailing opinion, manna formed the sole food of the Israelites during the forty years’ sojourn in the wilderness, coming to them without any interruption, and always in the same abundance. But we are led to a contrary result, first, by the statements of the Pentateuch itself, from which it appears that the desert was the abode of many peoples, who found their sustenance in it, and further, by a consideration of the natural resources offered by the wilderness, which are expressly mentioned in Exodus 15:27. And we know from Deuteronomy 2:6-7, that they possessed pecuniary means which enabled them to procure by trade all that was necessary, as soon as they came into the neighbourhood of inhabited districts. The accounts of recent travellers, moreover, confirm the statements of the Israelites themselves, that the Arabian desert is rich in resources; and there are many indications that these resources were at one time considerably more abundant. Such indications are collected in my essay, Moses and Colenso, in the year 64 of the Evan. Kirchenzeitung, which enters minutely into the means of subsistence afforded to the Israelites in the wilderness. Notwithstanding all this, however, there must unquestionably have been times and places in which the maintenance of so large a multitude necessarily demanded extraordinary divine assistance, and at such times and in such places the Israelites received the gift of manna. We only remark further, that Ehrenberg’s assumption, that natural manna is the honey-like secretion of a small insect, is now almost universally rejected. Wellsted, Lepsius, and Ritter, who have given us the most complete account of the manna, have declared against it. The opinion that the natural manna exudes from a twig of the manna-tamarisk is also subject to considerable suspicion. From the analogy of the biblical manna, which “the Lord rained from heaven,” according to Exodus 16:4, and which “fell upon the camp in the night with the dew,” according to Numbers 11:9, it seems more probable that the manna-tamarisk merely exercises an attractive influence upon the manna which comes out of the air, and that this latter is not absolutely connected with it. But we cannot follow those who do away with this connection between the natural and the biblical manna. We are led to uphold it from the circumstance that manna is not found in any part of the earth, except where it was given to the Israelites, and that the natural manna is found in the very place where the Israelites first received it, and finally from the identity of name. This connection is already recognised by Josephus. He relates that in his time, by the grace of God, there was a continuance of the same food which rained down in the time of Moses. The differences—among which the most important is that the present manna contains no proper element of nutrition, but, according to Mitscherlich’s chemical analysis, consists of mere sweet gum—prove nothing against the connection, since the same natural phenomenon may appear in various modifications. The giving of the manna—which served as a continual reminder to the nation that the milk and honey so abundant in the promised land were also the gift of God, a remembrance which was kept alive by the enjoined laying up of a pot with manna before the ark of the covenant in the Holy of holies—was also highly important in another aspect. It formed a preparation for the introduction of the Sabbath, which had hitherto not been generally observed among the Israelites. The gathering of a double portion on Friday, mentioned in Exodus 16:22-30, and the gathering of none on the Sabbath, were not a result of caprice on the part of the people, as the defenders of the pre-Mosaic observance of the Sabbath have falsely assumed. The people gathered on each occasion as much manna as had fallen; and by the decree of God this sufficed for their wants. On Friday there was unexpectedly so much, that double the usual portion could be gathered. Amazed, the elders of the people hasten to Moses and ask him what is to be done with this superabundance. He tells them that it must serve for the following day also, on which, as the day holy to the Lord, no manna would fall. Taken in this sense, the event stands in remarkable parallel with another: the command to eat unleavened bread was not given to the people at the first passover, but, contrary to expectation, God so disposed events that they were obliged to eat unleavened bread against their will. This divine institution served as a sanction to the Mosaic arrangement for the later celebration of the feast. In a similar way God hallowed the Sabbath before allowing the command to hallow it to reach the nation through Moses. He took from them the possibility of work on the Sabbath, to show them that in future they must abstain from it voluntarily. At the same time He made them understand that it was not designed to injure their bodily health. By the circumstance that a double portion was given on Friday, and that those who were disobedient to the word of God and went out on the Sabbath to collect manna, found nothing, it was made evident that God’s blessing on the six days of acquisition may suffice for the seventh; and that he is left destitute who selfishly and greedily tries to snatch from God the seventh day also, and to use it for his own ends. The Lord, it is said, gives you the Sabbath. Here the Sabbath already appears not as a burden but as a pleasure, Isaiah 58:13, as a precious privilege which God gives to His people. To be able to rest without anxiety,—to rest to the Lord and in the Lord,—what a consolation in our toil and travail on the earth which the Lord has cursed! But just because the day of rest is a love-gift of the merciful God, contempt of it is the more heavily avenged. We cannot assume that with this event the Sabbath received its full meaning among Israel. It certainly implies the observance of the Sabbath, but in this connection only with reference to the gathering and preparation of the manna. The injunction of a comprehensive observance of the Sabbath first went forth on Mount Sinai. The Sabbath could only unfold its benignant power in connection with a series of divine ordinances. It is significant only as a link in a chain. But, since the Sabbath is here actually hallowed, it is the proper place to speak of its design and significance, to which so much importance is attributed in the Old Testament economy. The whole idea of the Sabbath is expressed in the Mosaic “God hallowed the Sabbath,” and “Remember the Sabbath, to keep it holy.” From this it is plain that the observance of the Sabbath did not consist in idle rest, which is proved also by the fact that not only was a special sacrifice presented on the Sabbath, comp. Numbers 28:9-10, but also a holy assembly was held, Leviticus 23:3; a fact which has been quite overlooked by Bähr, who makes the observance to consist in mere rest. Let us enter somewhat more fully into this passage. Jewish scholars, beginning with Josephus and Philo, have justly regarded this verse as the first origin of synagogues. In the wilderness, the national sanctuary was the natural place for holy assemblies on the Sabbath. After the occupation of the land, assemblies for divine worship were formed in different places on the authority of this passage alone. From 2 Kings 4:23 we learn that on the Sabbaths those who were piously disposed among the twelve tribes gathered round the prophets. In the central divine worship the sacrifices to be presented on the Sabbath formed the nucleus for these sacred assemblies. The natural accompaniment of sacrifice is prayer, by which it is interpreted and inspired. Even in patriarchal times invocation of the Lord went hand in hand with sacrifice; and we are led to the conclusion that sacred song was also associated with it, from the fact that among the Psalms we find one (Psalms 92) which, according to its superscription and contents, was specially designed for the Sabbath-day. And the reading of the law must unquestionably have formed part of the service, if we judge from the significance attributed to it in the law itself; which could not fail to be soon followed by exposition and application. Only the presentation of sacrifice, however, was limited to the national sanctuary; no such limits were set to other acts of worship. So much for Leviticus 23:3. We now return to the exposition of those Mosaic passages which treat of the hallowing of the Sabbath. In accordance with the prevailing idea attached to hallowing, to hallow the seventh day can only mean “to consecrate it to God in every respect.” That day alone can be truly consecrated to the holy God on which we consecrate ourselves to Him, withdraw ourselves completely from the world, with its occupations and pleasures, in order to give ourselves to Him with our whole soul, and to partake of His life. The people, only too ready to be satisfied with mere outward observance of the Sabbath, were continually reminded of this, the true meaning of consecration, by the prophets, whom Moses himself had raised to be the legal expositors of the law. Isaiah, in his discourse on entering upon office, Isaiah 1:13, declares that the mere outward observance of the Sabbath is an abomination to God. He gives a positive definition of the true hallowing of the Sabbath in Isaiah 58:13 : “If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honourable; and shalt honour Him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words.” Doing thine own pleasure and thine own ways is here placed in opposition to the “keeping holy;” and their “own pleasure” he employs in its full extent and meaning, making it inclusive of the speaking of words, i.e. of such words as are nothing more than words, and tend neither to the honour of God nor to the edification of themselves and their neighbours—idle words. He insists so strongly on the inward disposition of mind, that he makes it a requisition that the Sabbath shall not be regarded as a heavy burden by which a man is taken away from his own work against his will, but as a gain, as a merciful privilege which God, whose commands are so many promises, gives to His own people as a refuge from the distractions and cares of the world. Moreover, Ezekiel says repeatedly in Ezekiel 20, of the Israelites in the wilderness, that they grossly polluted the Sabbath of the Lord. There is no mention in the Pentateuch of the neglect of the outward rest of the Sabbath; on the contrary, Numbers 15:32 sqq. shows that it was strictly observed. The prophet can, therefore, only have reference to the desecration of the Sabbath by sin. These remarks suffice to explain the main design of the institution of the Sabbath. It was the condition of the existence of the church of God. Human weakness, only too apt to forget its duties towards God, requires definite, regularly-recurring times devoted to the fulfilment of these duties only, setting aside all external hindrances. In order that the people might be enabled to observe every day as a day of the Lord, on one definite, regularly-recurring day they were deprived of everything that was calculated to disturb devotion. Ewald justly characterizes the Sabbath as “the corrective of the people of God.” Their business is to be holy, to live purely to the “Holy One:” “Be ye holy,” is already in the Pentateuch set forth as an indispensable requirement, “for I am holy.” But amid a life of toil and trouble the church cannot comply with this demand, unless with the help of regularly-recurring times of introspection, of assembly, and of edification. Among all the nations of antiquity Israel stands alone as a religious nation; in them alone religion manifests itself as an absolutely determining power. This, its high destination, its world-historical significance, it could only realize by the institution of the Sabbath. In the divine law, in the command relating to the Sabbath, after the general meaning of consecration had been set forth, among all the particulars included in it, rest alone is made primarily prominent and copiously developed. The religious day of the Old Testament also bears the name of rest. שַׁבָּת, an intensive form, means wholly resting, a day of rest. This leads us to the fact that rest is of the highest importance for the observance of the Lord’s day, and especially for life in God, and for the existence of the church. Incessant work makes man dull and lifeless, and destroys his susceptibility for salvation. According to Exodus 31:13-17, the Sabbath is intended as a sign between God and His people; on the side of God, who instituted the Sabbath, a symbol of His election; on the side of the chosen, a confession to God—an oasis in the wilderness of the world’s indifference to its Creator, of the non-attestation of God to the world; a nation serving God in spirit and in truth, whose beautiful worship was entrusted to them by God Himself. From the definition of the nature of the observance of the Sabbath under the Old Testament it follows that, by virtue of its essence, it must be eternal, and is an exemplification of what our Lord says in Matthew 5:18. We, too, must consecrate ourselves to God; and in order to do this daily and hourly, in the midst of our work, we also must have regularly-recurring days of freedom from all occupation and distraction, for the weakness which made this a necessity under the Old Testament is common to human nature at all times. We, too, must make public confession to God. But just as the whole Mosaic law is a particular application of an eternal idea to a definite people, so it is also with the command relating to the Sabbath. Therefore, side by side with the eternal moment, it must contain a temporal moment. This consists mainly in the following points:—(1.) The truths laid down as subjects of meditation for the Old Testament nation and for us, on the Lord’s day, are various. Devotion has always reference to God as He has revealed Himself. Under the Old Testament it conceived of God as the Creator of the world and the Deliverer of Israel out of Egypt. The latter is set forth in Deuteronomy 5:12-15 as a subject of meditation in the observance of the Sabbath, Afterwards the subject became more extended, even under the Old Testament itself, by each new benefit of God, every new revelation of His nature. But the nucleus remained always the same. Nothing which occurred had power to supersede these two notions of God. Under the New Testament an essential change took place. God in Christ, this was now the great object of devotion. (2.) And with this the change of day is closely connected. The day on which the creation was ended, was now naturally superseded by the day on which redemption was fulfilled. The religious day of the Old Testament can only be the κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ, Revelation 1:10. (3.) The punishments attached to the neglect of the command respecting the Sabbath bear a specific Old Testament character: he who desecrates the Sabbath shall die the death. The punishments contained in the Mosaic law are essentially distinct from its commands. Their severity is in a great measure based on the presupposition of the weakness and spiritual lifelessness of the Old Covenant. But since Christ appeared in the flesh, and chiefly since He accomplished eternal redemption, since He poured out His Spirit upon flesh, the church is released from the necessity of dealing so roughly with the sinner—a necessity imposed upon it by sin. (4.) Nor can the details of the legal determination respecting the observance itself be transmitted unconditionally to the Christian church. This is evident from the command to kindle no fire, which had its foundation in the climatic relations peculiar to that nation to whom it was first of all given. Briefly, to sum up the matter, the law concerning the Sabbath was expressly given to Israel alone, and hence in the letter it is binding upon them only; but, because it was given by God, it must contain a germ which forms the foundation of a law binding upon us also. Of the spirit of the command respecting the Sabbath, not a jot or a tittle can perish. What belongs to the kernel and what to the shell must be determined from the general relations which the Old and the New Testament bear to one another. That which cannot be reduced to anything peculiar to the Old Testament must retain its authority for us also. A new temptation followed in the lack of water. The people had by their own fault neglected to drink of the spiritual rock which followed them, 1 Corinthians 10:4; therefore they were unable to rise to the belief that God would assuage their bodily thirst. When for a moment they lost sight of the outward signs of God’s presence, they ask, “Is Jehovah in our midst, or not?” An actual answer to the question was given in the water from the rock. The name of the place served for a perpetual memorial of the weakness with which they succumbed to the temptation, as a perpetual accusation against human nature, which is prone to quarrelling and contention, and as a warning to be on their guard against it. The fact is of importance, in so far as it gave rise to the first actual revolt of the people who had so shortly before beheld the glorious acts of God. And this circumstance explains the emphatically warning reference to the event contained in Psalms 81:8. Formerly Israel had been tempted by hunger and thirst; now they are tempted by fear. They are attacked by the Amalekites. Here they are taught how Israel conquers only as Israel, how they can conquer men only in conquering God, and this by a living picture—Moses praying in sight of the whole nation, as its representative. If in weariness he allows his hands to sink, then Amalek gains the upper hand, however Israel may contend; if he raises them to heaven, Israel prevails. Raising the hands is the symbol of prayer among Israel, Psalms 28:2, as well as among the heathen, though Kurtz has most unaccountably denied it. The raising of the hands symbolizes the raising of the heart on the part of an inferior to a superior. Already, in the book of Judith, emphasis is laid on the fact that Moses smote the Amalekites not with the sword, but with holy prayer. 1 Timothy 2:8, βούλομαι οὖν προσεύχεσθαι τοὺς ἄνδρας ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ ἐπαίροντας ὁσίους χεῖρας, refers back to this passage. The meaning is the same which the Saviour brings out in Luke 18:1, by a parable: τὸ δεῖν πάντοτε προσεύχεσθαι αὐτοὺς καὶ μὴ ἐγκακεῖν. Here we have the counterpart to Jacob’s struggle, equally rich in meaning. Amalek is to be regarded as the representative of the enemies of the kingdom of God. For this he was exactly adapted. He attacked Israel not as one Arab-Bedouin tribe now attacks another which shows signs of disturbing it in the occupation of its pasture. His attack was directed against Israel as the people of God. In this character they were confirmed by everything which had happened in Egypt and in the wilderness. All this Amalek knew, comp. Exodus 15:14-15; but it only served to increase his hatred towards Israel, his desire to try his strength with them. As Moses says, he wanted to lay his hand on the throne of God, Exodus 17:16, where כֵּס is the poetical form for כִּסֵּא. This fighting against God, which had its origin in profound impiety, involved the Amalekites already at that time in defeat, and later in complete destruction, as was here solemnly prophesied, and fulfilled especially by Saul. We learn from Deuteronomy 25:18 with what cruel anger and malice the Amalekites treated Israel. They would have been forgiven if they had ceased from their hatred towards the people of God, which was the more punishable because they were connected by ties of blood; but in this very circumstance we must look for the cause of the intensity of the hatred—they were envious of the undeserved preference given to Israel. But because the omniscient God foresees that no such change will take place, their destruction is unconditionally predicted. The same thing is afterwards repeated by Balaam in Numbers 24:20, “Amalek was the first of the nations (i.e. the mightiest among the heathen nations which at that time stood in connection with Israel), but his latter end shall be that he perish for ever,”—words in which Balaam only changes into a verbal prophecy the actual prophecy, which lay in the conduct of the Amalekites themselves. At the close of the section let us glance once more at the way which the Israelites took from the exodus till their arrival at Sinai. They set out from the territory of Goshen, the eastern part of Lower Egypt, principally from the town Raamses, where they were assembled waiting for permission to set out: comp. Exodus 12:37. V. Raumer, Beitr. S. 4, here makes Raamses to stand for the country Raamses, in defence of a preconceived opinion; but the Pentateuch knows only the town Raamses. This town, which probably got its name from its founder, the king Raamses, is only mentioned per prolepsin in Genesis 47:11, where the land of Goshen is called the land of Raamses, i.e. the land whose principal town is Raamses: comp. Rosellini i. Monumenti, etc. i. 1, p. 300. For the Egyptian kings who bear the name Raamses probably belong only to the time after Joseph. The town was therefore built in the time between Joseph and Moses. The command to depart was not given to the children of Israel suddenly; it had already long been understood that they were soon to set out, and already for fourteen days everything had been prepared for it in Raamses, the central-point, the residence of Moses and Aaron, and throughout all the land of Goshen, through which the instructions of Moses had spread with the rapidity consequent on the unsettled condition of the people. The march began at Raamses, and in their progress they were joined on all sides by accessories. On the second day of the march the Israelites reached the northern point of the Arabian Gulf, Etham, which probably occupied the site of the present Bir Suez. From Etham they journeyed up the western side of the Arabian Gulf as far as Suez, where they crossed it. From this point they reached Mara in three days, passing through the wilderness Sur, the south-west part of the desert et-Tih, and along the eastern coast of the Gulf of Suez. Burckhardt (followed by Robinson, part i. p. 107) has rightly identified Mara with the well Howara, which he discovered on the usual route to Mount Sinai, about eighteen hours from Suez. The remoteness and the character of the water favour his view. Ritter says, p. 819, “In the space of this three days’ march there is no spring-water, and this Ain Howara, which lies on the only possible route, is the only absolutely bitter spring on the whole coast, which accounts for the complaining and murmuring of the people, who were accustomed to the salutary and pleasant-tasted water of the Nile.” From Mara the Israelites penetrated to Elim, Exodus 15:27, where they found wells of water and palm trees. Burckhardt has identified this Elim with the valley of Ghurundel, which is almost a mile in width, and abounds with trees and living springs, and is about three hours’ journey from the well Howara, So also Robinson, who remarks (p. 111) that this place is still much resorted to for water by the Arabs. Ritter says of the Wadi Ghurundel (p. 829): “In times of rain the wadi pours great masses of water to the sea. Therefore it still afforded good pasturage in October. It was thickly covered with palms and tamarisk trees, and wild parties in the solitary valley gave a romantic character to the Elim of the ancients.” We remark, in passing, that Moses probably gives prominence to the fact that the wells of water in Elim were twelve, and the palms which grew so luxuriantly out of them were seventy, because he looked upon it as a symbol, a representation of the blessing which should proceed from Israel, as the source of blessing, upon all nations of the earth. Twelve is the signature of Israel, and seventy is the number of the nations in the table of nations, Genesis 10. The twelve apostles and the seventy disciples rest upon the same numerical symbolism. According to Numbers 33:6, the Israelites next came to a station which lay on the sea-coast. Even now the caravan-route touches on the sea just at the mouth of the Wadi Taibe, about five hours from Ghurundel. Formerly the Israelites had repaired to the neighbourhood of the Red Sea; now they turned eastwards in order to reach Sinai. The caravan-route to Sinai, accessible from ancient times, leads through the valley Mocattab. This is probably the station of the wilderness of Sin, Exodus 16:1 (notwithstanding Robinson’s objections). The valley is wide, and contains wells and manna-tamarisks. Here the Israelites first received manna. From Sin they passed on to Rephidim, a plain at the foot of Mount Horeb, from whence they repaired to the wilderness of Sinai, and encamped opposite this mountain, which has been characterized by Robinson as a sanctuary in the midst of a great circle of granite district, having only one entrance, which is easy of access. It was a secret, sacred spot, cut off from the world by solitary, bare mountains, and therefore well adapted as a place for the nation that dwelt alone, with whom the Lord desired to hold converse in their solitude. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 17: 17. § 5. THE COVENANT ON SINAI ======================================================================== § 5. The Covenant on Sinai If we follow v. Hofmann, we relinquish all idea of a covenant of God with Israel. In his opinion (Prophecy and Fulfilment, p. 138) ברית does not mean covenant, but determination, establishment. On closer examination, however, we shall readily convince ourselves that this meaning is not at all applicable in by far the greater number of passages; while, on the other hand, those few passages which v. Hofmann cites in favour of his theory may easily be reduced to mean covenant. The term covenant is applied to circumcision as a covenant-sacrament, to the law as representative of the covenant condition, to the Messiah as the mediator of the covenant, and to the divine promise because it always implies an obligation, even when this is not actually expressed. The covenant now in question must not be regarded as something altogether new. God had already concluded a covenant with Abraham, and that this had reference to all his descendants appears from the circumstance that by divine command all bore the sign and seal of the covenant. The blessing of the covenant already encircled the Israelites during their whole residence in the wilderness, and promoted their great increase; and under the cross they still maintained the covenant blessing. In every threat to Pharaoh God calls Israel His people. The covenant on Sinai was therefore a solemn renewal of that which already existed. It is related “to the earlier, as confirmation is related to baptism. The nation which had been born into the covenant now with free consciousness makes a vow to observe it, and receives a renewal of the divine promise. What is a covenant of God with man? At the first glance it seems as if such a thing were impossible, and the idea appears to have its basis in a rude conception of the relation of God to man. We belong to God from the beginning, body and soul. We are created by Him, and therefore to Him. How, then, can it be necessary that He should first purchase us to be His property, that He should make good His claims to our obedience by special benefits? From this it follows that God could conclude a covenant with Israel only by the deepest condescension; and hence we are led to infer the depth of that human corruption which made such condescension necessary. God, in whom we live, move, and are, ought to be near to us; but He is by nature as far from us as if He did not exist at all. His revelation in nature is to us a sealed book. We have lost the key to its hieroglyphics. We forget that we stand in a natural covenant-relation towards Him, that we receive rich gifts from Him, and that He has high claims to make on us. But in His mercy He does not let us go. He gives up the claims which He has as a Creator; He becomes our Father for the second time, and brings back His alienated property by redemption. The less we are divine the more He becomes human. Because the time has not yet come to reveal Himself thus to the whole human race. He does it first to a single nation, but to it on behalf of the whole human race. By free choice He becomes their God. Among this nation He founds the theocracy,—a name which was first employed by Josephus, while Scripture designates the same thing by the word covenant, a word which is highly characteristic of the thing, since it embraces the two elements which here come into consideration: that of the gift and the promise, and that of the obligation, indicating the special gifts by which God distinguished Israel from the other nations, and the particular obligations which grew out of this relation to God. As the thing here comes into full effect, this is the place to treat of it. When we hear of the covenant of God with Israel, or of theocracy, it generally suggests to us a relation of God to Israel which had no natural basis, and which at the beginning of the New Testament entirely ceased at one blow (a mode of consideration which has been only too much encouraged by most of those who have written on this subject). Consistently carried out, it results in theocracy being transferred from the region of reality into that of imagination. For if it were really a divine institution, it must also, in accordance with its essence, be eternal, in which case the form can belong only to this single nation, to whose wants it is adapted. The sacred writers are far removed from this mode of consideration. It is true, they recognise with deep gratitude that God stands in a relation to their nation such as He bears to no other; but this relation is to them only a potentialization of the universal—the idea of Jehovah rests upon that of Elohim: God could not be King of Israel in a special sense unless he were King of the whole world. His special providence in rewarding and punishing had universal providence for its substratum. They are also far from regarding that which was given to Israel before other nations as withdrawn from these for ever. The extension of theocracy over the whole earth, while it had formerly existed only among Israel, the universal change of the general into the particular, is to them the most characteristic mark of the Messianic time. In the similarity of essence they take no heed of the difference of form. We shall now show in detail how, in all the properties of the theocracy, the particular rests upon the basis of the universal, the temporal on the basis of the eternal, and how the word of the Lord is here verified, that of the law of God not a jot or a tittle can perish. 1. In the theocracy God was the lawgiver. It is generally asserted that among the heathen, and also among Christian nations, the laws were given, not by God, but by distinguished men who stood at the head of the nation. But whence, then, did these get their laws? Were they mere arbitrary whims? By no means. God is everywhere the source of all right. He implanted in man the idea of right and wrong. Even the worst legislation contains a divine element; and those who know nothing of God speak in God’s name. The peculiarity of the theocracy was only this, that in it the law of God was exempt from the many disfigurements which are inevitable so long as it is written only on the uniform tablets of the human heart; and a correction for all times is thus given to the natural law. Again, the application of the idea of right to special relations was not left, as among the heathen, to unenlightened reason, or, as among Christian nations, to enlightened reason, but was given by God Himself in its minutest details. Thus the holiness of that law which in all its determinations rested upon the immediate authority of the highest Lawgiver, was increased, while legislation was raised far above the age. How far it reached beyond that age, and how little it can be regarded as a product of the time, appears most clearly from the lively conflict which it had to maintain with the spirit of the nation during the march through the wilderness, and from the long series of revolts to which it gave rise, and which at last resulted in the rejection of the whole race. By this means a pattern and a test were given to that more advanced time, which was so far matured as to be able to make its own application of the idea of right to special relations. But we must not, therefore, overlook the circumstance that even under the Old Testament wide scope was given to the legislative activity of man, and the right which was customary was reformed only in so far as it required reformation, while in whole departments free play was given to its successive natural development. It is very incorrect to imagine that the Pentateuch was the exclusive source of right to Israel. With regard to the right of inheritance, for example, we find only three solitary injunctions, and with respect to buying and selling there is not a word. In all cases provision is made only for that which could not be left to natural development,—that which had special reference to the minority of the nation, and its immaturity in a religious and moral aspect. This observation also serves to lessen the chasm between theocracy and all other forms of government. 2. For the covenant-people God was not only the source of right, but also its basis. Every transgression was regarded as an offence against Him, and so punished. He who did not honour his father and mother was punishable, because in dishonouring them he violated that image of God which they bore in a definite sense. Whoever injured his neighbour incurred guilt, partly because in him he despised that divine image which is implanted in all, and is worthy of honour even in its remnant; and partly from his disregard to that which is peculiar to the members of the covenant, whom God esteemed worthy of such high honour, and to whom He imparted the seal of His covenant. This is clearly shown in the Decalogue, the fundamental law. Fear of God and love towards Him are there made the foundation of the whole fulfilling of the law, and in the very introduction the obligation to keep all the commandments is based upon the relation to the Lord. Exodus 20:6 expressly terms love to God the fulfilling of the law. That the commandments of the second table do not lie loosely beside those of the first already appears from the ratio legi adjecta, the רֵעֲךּ. The children of Israel are friends only through their common relation to the Lord. Only by accepting this principle can we clearly understand the position of the command to honour our parents. Easy and appropriate arrangement: Thou shalt honour and love God in Himself, Exodus 20:3-11; in those who represent His rule upon earth, Exodus 20:12; in all who bear His image, Exodus 20:13-17. The peculiarity here is only the establishment of the commandments upon that which God has done for Israel, on the common relation to Him as the God of Israel. While, among the heathen, laws are founded upon that which is common to all men, among Christians, especially upon that which God has done for us in Christ, the laesis proximi here appears in its most glaring light, because it affects a brother redeemed by Christ. Here also the theocratic is only a particular modification of the universal. Without God there is no sin, no duty, no right. Hence we can no longer speak of punishment in the proper sense, but only of means to render harmless those who are injurious to the interests of society. Where God disappears revolution infallibly sets in, all rights are trodden under foot, and there arises a belium omnium contra omnes. 3. All power among the covenant-people was regarded as an efflux of the divine supremacy. Judges administered justice in the name of God. Hence, “to stand before the Lord,” instead of “to appear before the tribunal of judgment,” Deuteronomy 1:17, Deuteronomy 19:17. In His name executive power acted, and thus it became of no consequence by whom it was administered. The law which has reference to the demand made by the people for a king, Deuteronomy 17, sufficiently shows that even the monarchical form of government was not inconsistent with the covenant. And the essential element was only this, that the government should not make itself independent of God. It is a monstrous error when Ewald, Gesch. d. V. Israel, ii. S. 207 f., makes the theocracy an absolute antithesis to all human government; the antithesis is only that of dependent and independent human government. If this be misunderstood in the face of the plainest and most numerous facts, we attribute to Moses a groundless fanaticism. This, therefore, is the peculiarity, that the power conferred by God manifests itself as such more clearly and sharply than elsewhere, that the law of God comes more visibly into play, that He interferes more promptly and palpably when the rulers depart from Him, or when the nation rejects Him by disobedience to authority. Moreover, all supremacy is of God, Romans 13:1. Every king bears His image, and this alone gives him the right to rule and makes it the duty of subjects to obey. To give to Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and to God that which is God’s, to fear God and honour the king, appear inseparably connected under the New Testament. According to Ephesians 3:15, every fatherhood, every relation of ruler and ruled upon the earth, is a reflection of the fatherhood of God. Only by confounding hierarchy with theocracy would it be possible to place a far higher value on that which was specifically Israelitish in the theocracy than it really had. It is perfectly clear that among Israel God ruled without a priesthood. According to law the priests have no political, but only a religious position. Everywhere their office is made to consist in the conduct of divine worship and the instruction of the people. After the appearance of Moses the political and judicial power still remained in the hands of the rulers of the people, but in difficult cases judges were at liberty to seek counsel from the priests as teachers of the law. The covenant allowed free scope to the development of the state. It recognised the existing government as ordained by God, while, at the same time, the lawgiver declared that a future alteration was in itself perfectly consistent with it. This is now so plainly manifest that even rationalism can no longer refuse to recognise it. Bertheau, in his History of the Israelites, p. 252, says, “The state power is not in the hands of the priests; they are only called upon to represent the collective body of the Israelites before God, and to watch over the purity and holiness of the community; but as priests they can neither give laws nor guide the state.” God makes known, through Moses, that as King of His people He will strictly punish all disobedience against His laws and will richly reward the faithful observance of them. The Magna Charta of the theocracy in this respect is Deuteronomy 28. The truth of these threats and promises is shown by the history, which is really entirely contained in them, and by the fate of the earlier covenant-people, even to the present day. Here also the particular rests only on the universal. Even the heathen have much to say of Nemesis. Schiller says, “The history of the world is the judgment of the world.” And our Saviour says, “Where the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.” The peculiarity of the theocracy was only this, that in it the judgments of God were sharper than those inflicted on the heathen, because the offence, which is always proportioned to the gift of God, was greater, comp. Leviticus 10:3; Amos 3:1-2; 1 Peter 4:17 Pet. 4:17; that they appeared more promptly and regularly, while God frequently suffered the heathen nations to remain in their sins, outwardly happy; that they were more palpable, because the history of Israel was designed to manifest to all nations and all times the divine retribution, that in this rude writing they might learn to read the finer also; finally, that by the divine ordinance punishment and blessing were always made known to the nation as such, comp. Amos 3:7, “Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but He revealeth His secret unto His servants the prophets.” 5. God as the King of Israel took care that His people should never want means of recognising His will, and for this He gave ordinary means. Upon the priesthood which He had established He enjoined the study of the law, of the authentic revelation of the will of God, comp. Leviticus 10:10-11; Deuteronomy 31:9 ff., Deuteronomy 33:10; and facility was given to them for this purpose. The tribe of Levi was called to the priesthood because the new principle had taken deeper root in it than in any of the rest, comp. Exodus 32:26-35; Numbers 25:6-9; Deuteronomy 33:9; but the complicated character of the Mosaic-religious legislation demanded a hereditary priesthood,—it required a priesthood formed by hereditary tradition and early education. But the book of the law was not designed merely for the priesthood. It was given by Moses to the elders of the people no less than to the priests, Deuteronomy 31:9. Every seven years it was to be read to the whole assembled nation, Deuteronomy 5:12; the king was to make a copy of it for himself, and to read in this every day of his life, Deuteronomy 17:19. When ordinary means did not suffice, God vouchsafed extraordinary. The high priest, clothed with the holy insignia of office, the Urim and Thummim, asked it in the name of the nation, in living faith, certain that God would give him the right answer in his heart. In times of apostasy, when the ordinary ministers did not adequately fulfil their calling, when the knowledge of divine truth had become obscured, and the fear of God seemed to be quite dead, God raised up prophets, instruments of His Spirit, who, endowed with infallible knowledge of His will, again gave prominence to it, and quickened the decaying piety; and this is the main thing. Nor was it a later addition; but the original founding of the theocracy was associated with a belief that it would be maintained by extraordinary powers and gifts, just as it had been established by them: comp. Deuteronomy 18:15, “The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet, like unto me;” and the prophetic law, Deuteronomy 13:2-6, and Deuteronomy 18:15-22. This law formed the foundation for the activity of the prophets, which is only intelligible on the assumption of its existence. Without possessing such a right, how could they have acted in conformity with the mode and manner of their appearance? By this law no prophet could be called to account so long as he prophesied in the name of the true God, and so long as he predicted nothing that did not pass into fulfilment. Here, also, it must not be overlooked that even in the heathen world there was a faint analogy to this prerogative of the covenant-people, in the feeble rays of light which God permitted to shine through their darkness, comp. Romans 1:18 ff.; and by virtue of its essence the same thing still continues among the nation of the new covenant. The church of the New Testament has a pure source of knowledge of the divine will in the Holy Scriptures. It has a ministry appointed by God to spread the knowledge of the truth. In it also every obscuring of divine truth is a prophecy of the approaching illumination, every degeneracy of ordinary means for the apprehension of the divine will is a prophecy of the preparation of extraordinary messengers. The appearance of an Athanasius, of a Luther, a Spener, and a Francke, rests upon the same divine necessity as the appearance of an Isaiah and a Jeremiah. The difference lies only in the form. The Old Testament messengers had a stronger external authority in the gift of prophecy, and, when the danger of complete apostasy was especially great, in the power to perform miracles. Under the New Testament, when the Spirit worked more powerfully in the heart of the church, which had acquired a firm position, the ordinary operations of the Spirit sufficed. A similar relation exists between those who are called to watch over the external welfare of the kingdom of God. Thus the appearance of a Samson and a Gustavus Adolphus depends on the same divine causality. But how great is the difference in form! 6. Another essential characteristic of the theocracy was this, that God dwelt among His people, that the sanctuary erected to Him was not without praesens numen, but was rather a tabernacle of God among men. In this way, in the type and prefiguration of His incarnation, God came into close contact with the nation. The temple, the priesthood, and the yearly feasts depend on the presence of God in the nation. It was prescribed by law that each one should appear before God at the place of the sanctuary three times a year; in subsequent practice, however, only the annual appearance at the feast of the passover, as the principal festival, was regarded as an absolute religious duty. Israel had in reality what the heathen only imagined they had, and this is the only form suitable for the necessities of that time, as we see from the analogy of the heathen. The form has now changed, but the essence, far from having ceased, is present among us in still stronger manifestations; and this advance forms one of the main distinctions between the Old and New Testaments. Apart from it, the change of form would not have been possible. Since Christ appeared in the flesh, since He made His dwelling in the heart, and abides constantly with us; where only two or three are gathered together, there He is in the midst of them; these πτωχὰ στοιχεῖα (Galatians 4:9) have ceased. The chasm between heaven and earth is completely filled up; there is no longer any need of the lower representation of God, because God is there in most real presence. We have still a few words to say respecting the duration of the theocracy. This is differently estimated by different writers. Some, such as Spencer, make it end with the establishment of royalty; others, such as Hess, regard it as having extended to the Babylonian exile; while others again, such as Warburton, asserted that it lasted until Christ. We must, first of all, premise that the theocracy can only be said to have ceased in a certain sense. This is sufficiently shown by what has already been said. By virtue of its essence the theocracy must be eternal. Otherwise it could never have existed. Ewald excellently remarks, “Here, for the first time, is a kingdom which recognises an end and aim external to itself, which neither had a human origin, nor can advance by human means, and by virtue of its rejection of all that is not divine, bears in itself the germ of infinite duration.” Such a kingdom can only pass away as the grain of corn passes into the blade. Its destruction cannot belong to the future, but only its fulfilment. Already the prophets regard the matter in this light. They proclaim the extension of the kingdom of God, which had hitherto been limited to a single nation, over the whole earth, and its complete subjugation of the kingdom of the world, comp. Isaiah 2; Daniel 2:7. The Saviour does not distinctly assert that the theocracy, the βασιλείατοῦΘεοῦ, will cease, but He says. The kingdom of God shall be taken from yon, and given to another people bearing its fruits. Nor is it taken from all Israel, but the unbelieving portion of the nation is thrust out from it, while the heathen unite themselves with the believing portion. The twelve tribes of Israel, to whom the heathen merely attached themselves, still form the church of God in παλιγγενεσία: comp. Matthew 19:28; Revelation 7:4. Only with reference to its form can the theocracy be said to have ceased. Unquestionably, therefore, this cessation took place at Christ’s death. How it can be regarded as having ceased on the establishment of royalty, we can scarcely conceive. No essential change in the form of the theocracy occurred at that time. We learn how little the kingly dignity was in itself opposed to the divine supremacy, not only from Deuteronomy 17, but also from the announcements in Genesis, in which reference is made to royalty among Israel, as to one of the greatest blessings of the future. Moreover, David found his highest honour in being the servant of God, and under his rule the theocracy attained its deepest reality. In Judges 17:6 royalty is represented as progress towards something better: “In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” Many later kings, indeed, abused their power, and sought to make themselves independent of God. But this only gave rise to the stronger assertion of the theocracy, partly through the prophets and partly by divine judgments. The theory which makes the cessation of the theocracy coincident with the return from captivity, is equally untenable. The prophethood certainly became extinct. This is the only apparent argument which can be adduced. But it did not cease for ever—it revived again in John, as in Samuel; after having exercised but little influence during the whole time from Moses to him, though in a certain sense it continued even in the interval; the longing after new communications from God became the more intense by the fact of their absence. But the earlier prophets, especially Daniel and Zechariah, had provided even for this period; the prophethood did not cease until it had given counsel, comfort, and exhortation for every need. Virtually, therefore, it still continued; but the commands of God, specially destined for this time, were drawn from the Holy Scriptures, instead of the mouth of the prophets. At the death of Christ, on the other hand, there ensued a great change, not only in the fact that the greater part of Israel had completely broken the covenant—though this alone is generally brought forward; but there ensued a change, which could only result in the passing away of the earlier form, though not otherwise than as a seed of corn passes into the blade. It may be said, that with the death of Christ the temple at Jerusalem, as such, was destroyed. For now the relation of God to the -world was altered; now arose the possibility of an inner union, of a richer participation in the Spirit, so that from this time forth God could be worshipped in spirit; faith raised itself powerfully to Him without any further need of such a prop. It would have been a gross anachronism to wish still to adhere to the temple at Jerusalem, after Christ had been exalted to the right hand of the Father, and the realization of His promise to be with His own to the end of the world had begun. When the sun rises, other lights are put out. With the death of Christ the whole theocratic institution of sacrifices was done away, for in His death the idea of sacrifice was realized. With Him the whole letter of the ceremonial law was abrogated. This section is twofold: it contains the conclusion of the covenant and the giving of the law. Both are closely connected. The covenant presupposes reciprocity, as we have already said. Therefore, before it could be solemnly concluded, the covenant-nation must be told what they have to do. This explains the order of events; first, the question to the people whether, in grateful recognition of all the favours which the Lord had vouchsafed to them, they would obey Him in all things, and the subsequent promise that He would henceforward manifest Himself as Jehovah. Then, after the affirmation of the people, the sketch of the divine commandments, to which obedience was required, so that all which followed was only amplification in idea. The whole law is already fully given here. That the Decalogue is the quintessence of the whole legislation is indicated by the number ten, and by the circumstance that “the words of the covenant,” Exodus 34:28, is applied only to the Decalogue in the ark of the covenant, while the book of the law is treated as mere supplement. It is shown also in the solemn ratification and reception of the law by the nation, and in the solemn conclusion of the covenant. And this is the place to make a few remarks relative to the nature and design of the revelation of the law to Israel. The relation of the law to the economy of the Old Testament has very frequently been quite misapprehended by a misconception of the Pauline representation. It has been forgotten that Paul had not to do with the meaning of law generally, but only with the special relation of the law to the carnal-minded, those who were sold under sin. The law has been completely severed from the grace which accompanies it, so that the favour becomes a mockery. The living God commanded nothing without at the same time giving that which was commanded. Each of His commands is a simultaneous promise. And that this promise was fulfilled in many under the Old Testament is shown by the numerous examples of piety which it contains. They prized the law as sweeter than honey and the honeycomb, Psalms 19:11; they were grateful to the Lord for leading them in His ways; they prayed that He would not take His Holy Spirit from them, Psalms 51:11; that He would create in them a clean heart, in conformity with the actual promise which He had given them in circumcision. The prerogative of Israel over the heathen did not consist merely in the fact that the law was given to them on stone tables; in this they had a pledge that God would write it on the table of their heart, as we read in Proverbs 7:3, “Bind them upon thy fingers, write them upon the table of thy heart.” The difference between the Old and New Testament in this respect is only relative. The latter possesses, on the one hand, more powerful means to break the heart of the natural man, to remove his hardness and at the same time his despair; and, on the other hand, it imparts to those who are thus prepared a more effectual assistance of the Holy Spirit for the subjective realization of the law, which could only be given after the atoning death of Christ. From this standpoint we can more accurately define the relation of the Old to the New Testament pentecost than is generally done, when they are apprehended as in pure antithesis, and the law is represented as the letter of the first Old Testament pentecost and the spirit of the second New Testament pentecost. By this view the Old Testament pentecost is changed into a mere outward memorial feast. But if it be apprehended that in the first passover the law was written immediately upon the heart, as David says in Psalms 40:8, “I delight to do Thy will, O my God, yea Thy law is within my heart,” then every subsequent Old Testament feast of pentecost, solemnized at God’s command, is a pledge of the continuous realization of the promise given in and with the law. The first Old Testament pentecost is at the same time the last of the Old Testament, the end only in so far as it is the fulfilment. God would not have kept His covenant if He had not brought about the fulfilment. The essence of the Christian and the Old Testament pentecost is the same; the former is only an advance on the latter. They are related to one another, as circumcision to baptism, as the Old to the New Testament passover. The Old Testament passover is the pledge of the continuing forgiveness of sin; pentecost, of continuing sanctification. The feast of pentecost had moreover a natural side, besides that which has already been mentioned. As in the feast of the passover the first-fruits were presented, so pentecost was the feast of the end of the corn-harvest. In this way Israel was made conscious of the ethical condition of the benefits of nature, and was reminded of the saying, “Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added unto you.” The harvest blessing has its root in reconciliation and sanctification. The one main object of the communication of the law is thus already indicated. In Exodus 19:6 God declares that Israel shall be a kingdom of priests and an holy nation. The peculiarity of the priesthood consisted in the closeness of their relation to God. A holy nation must represent God’s holiness on earth. And that the nation might fulfil this its high destiny, God gave a copy of His own holiness in the law. By this means He showed them the aim which is partially or entirely concealed from the eyes of the natural man, gave them a safe rule for their actions, which even the well-disposed have need of; and to those who were filled with gratitude and love by His manifestations of mercy. He imparted inner power to reach the goal. In His mercy He pardoned their sins of weakness, in accordance with the promise which He gave on the founding of the passover feast and the institution of sin-offerings. Thus there sprang up among the covenant-people a germ of those in whom His idea was realized, without whom a covenant-people cannot have any existence, and who cannot be wanting at any period. If their existence cannot be proved, the βασιλείατοῦΘεοῦ becomes a mere fable. They are the צדיקים; who meet us in almost every psalm, and so often in the prophets, especially in the second part of Isaiah, in strong contrast to the dead members of the community of God; who meet us again on the threshold of the New Testament in Zacharias, Elisabeth, John the Baptist, and Hanna. But this activity of the law must be preceded by another; before sanctification can come into operation, there must be recognition of sin, the fundamental condition of reconciliation, which forms the only possible basis of sanctification. We are led to this definition of the law by its name עֵדווּת, testimony, in so far as it bears testimony against sin and the sinner: comp. Beitr. vol. 3, p. 640 ff. The law first accuses and compels to the reception of the offered reconciliation. Afterwards, by the forgiveness of sin, the accusation and condemnation of the law are silenced so far as the penitent is concerned. Not until man finds himself in a state of grace, and the innermost disposition of his heart is in unison with the law—for sin is loved until it is forgiven—can the law begin its work of sanctification. But even for the mass of the people, in whom the destination of the law was not perfectly realized, it was not given in vain. It created discipline, morality, and the fear of God. The fearful manifestations which accompanied the giving of the law were well adapted to give birth to the latter, even in coarse minds; and when it disappeared, God knew how to reawaken it by the ever-continuing realization of these actual threats, as we see from the example of the time of the Judges, especially of the Babylonian exile, which was followed, if not by universal love towards God, yet by universal fear, so that the worship of idols was abolished at one stroke. But what the law accomplished in this respect formed a basis for the realization of its main object. Discipline, morals, and the fear of God in the multitude are the foundation for the erection of the structure of the living faith of the elect. And this faith of the elect was the necessary condition of the coming of Christ. The ἀπολύτρωσις cannot be conceived of apart from the προσδεχόμενοι τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν. How could the Saviour have appeared among Israel if the Israel which Josephus puts before us in horrible manifestation had been the whole of Israel? But at the same time care was taken that the faithful should be satisfied only in so far as to awaken a longing after the highest satisfaction; to them the law always remained relatively external, so that it became for them the παιδαγωγὸς εἰς Χριστόν. The highest step under the Old Testament only stood on a level with the lowest under the New Testament; comp. Luke 17:28, where it would not do to substitute the superlative for the comparative, so that no one was too rich and too contented to be willing to receive from Christ. The object of the giving of the law will have been made plain from these remarks. It was intended to effect: 1. discipline; 2. conviction of sin; 3. sanctification. A time was chosen for the giving of the law in which the nation was raised above itself by the great deeds of the Lord, and was willing to submit to the discipline and the constraint of a new position to which its inner temperament did not yet correspond. The inspiration soon cooled again; but however much the nation struggled against the law which had once been accepted, yet this proved itself to be leaven which by degrees leavened the whole mass. We have still to define the mutual relation of the ceremonial law and the moral law, in opposition to very wide-spread error. The former, it is generally assumed, was completely abolished by Christ, while the latter remains binding for all time. But this view is totally incorrect. The Mosaic law forms one inseparable whole; in a certain sense it was quite abrogated by Christ, and no longer concerns the church of the New Testament, but in a certain sense it was fully ratified by Christ, the ceremonial, no less than the moral law. The continuance of the whole law becomes clear simply on the ground that it was given entirely by God. If this be established, it cannot consist altogether of arbitrary enactments, but must contain a kernel of eternal truth. And so it appears on closer consideration. Every ceremonial law, even that which is apparently most external, is only an embodied moral law, an incorporated idea which can be divested of that body which it only assumed with reference to the stage of development of a certain nation, but has never surrendered anything of its peculiar essence. Look for instance at circumcision, the idea of which still remains in force, although in baptism it has assumed a new form. The duration of the whole law also appears from the definite statements of the Holy Scriptures. Instar omnium applies here, Matthew 5:17-19. There the Lord asserts, in the strongest expressions, the eternal duration of the whole law, to its very smallest detail, and its binding power for the members of the new covenant. But in another aspect the whole law is to be considered as abrogated. Pure moral law, such as had no special reference to Israel, and may be transferred to the Christian church without that modification to which the ceremonial law must be subjected, is not to be found in the Old Testament. We shall illustrate this by the example of the Decalogue, which is generally considered as the most free from all national reference. At all events, this is not its prominent characteristic. It is designed to be the quintessence of the whole legislation, which is related to it only as further extension and amplification. We see that the Decalogue points to later supplements by the fact that it contains no punitive enactments. From this it necessarily follows that the kernel is of more value than the shell, the eternal element of more value than the temporal. It gives only that which is most simple and most original. In the first table there are five commands respecting the relation to the ὑπερέχοντες, the authorities, to God and those who represent His dominion upon earth (for the command to honour parents belongs to the first table). The second table also contains five commandments, relative to neighbours, equals. But even here the temporal element is not entirely wanting. The reason of the obligation, contained in the introduction, concerns Israel alone. For the Christian church, the redemption from Egypt is superseded by redemption through Christ. The Old Testament itself declares that at a future time the former will give place absolutely to the later (Jeremiah 23:7). The command respecting the Sabbath also bears a specifically Old Testament character, in so far as it strictly enjoins the celebration of the seventh day, and partially insists upon rest, taking the creation of the world for its principal basis. By neighbours we must first of all understand only the members of the covenant-nation, the co-Israelites, etc. We must, therefore, infer that the letter of the whole Mosaic law is done away, while its spirit remains eternal. Its authority rests not so much upon the circumstance that it is in unison with the law of our reason, but upon the fact that God gave this law through Moses. We do not become free from this authority until we are able to prove that a legal determination does not belong to the essence, but only to the special Old Testament form. We only remark further, that on this subject there is good material to be found in the work of Bialloblotzky, de legis Mosaicae abrogatione, Gott. 1824, although his conclusion is not quite correct. Adopting many of the one-sided incautious expressions of Luther, the author has too much overlooked the fact that the Old Testament law, as a copy of the divine holiness, is imperishable with regard to its essence, and must remain valid even for the church of the New Testament. We have still a few remarks to make with special reference to the aim and signification of the ceremonial law. In accordance with what has been said, the principal value must be attached to its meaning. There is no ceremonial law which is not symbolical, and, as symbolical, typical. The older theologians have erred only in separating the typical from the symbolical, and instead of seeking it in the idea, have sought it in little externalities. To have understood and avoided this error is the great merit of Bähr’s Symbolism of the Mosaic Worship, 2 vols., Heidelberg, 1837-39, a book which has much that is valuable in other respects, but must be used with great caution on account of its many arbitrary assertions. We shall illustrate the symbolical and typical character of the law by a few examples. After the completion of the tabernacle of the covenant, all sacred things and persons were anointed. Oil is in Scripture the symbol of the Spirit of God; the anointing of the sanctuary, a graphic representation of the communication of this Spirit to the church of God, which is by this means consecrated and set apart from all others, lying without the department of the operations of divine grace, comp. Isaiah 63:11. So much for the symbol. The communication of the Spirit to the theocracy was still incomplete. Moses himself recognises this when he expresses the wish that all the people might prophesy, i.e. might enter into immediate spiritual union with God: Numbers 11:19. This wish, which contains a recognition of the spirit of godlessness which was still prevalent at that time, is based on the notion of a people of God, and is therefore also prophecy. Thus that which is an image of the already-existing is at the same time a type of the future. Because God has given the beginning. He must also bring about the end. The former is no chance act of caprice, but rests upon the relation of God to the theocracy; and this same relation demands also fulfilment. From Dan. 12:24 we learn that this typical meaning was already recognised under the Old Testament itself. Again, the third among the great annual feasts, the feast of tabernacles, was a symbolical representation of the gracious guidance of the Lord in the time of trial and temptation, and thus a necessary supplement to the feast of the passover, as the feast of the bestowment of forgiveness of sins, and to pentecost, as the feast of the internal and external giving of the law or the feast of consecration. The passover corresponds to sin-offering, pentecost to burnt-offering, the feast of tabernacles to peace-offering;. But the symbol was at the same time type, not only of God’s future similar dealings with this nation, but also of His treatment of those who were resolved to become His people. The feast of tabernacles points prophetically to that of the church militant of the New Testament, to the march throughout the wilderness of this earth, comp. Revelation 12:6-14, to salvation granted, and to the final happy issue of this march. Zechariah 14:16 expressly mentions the feast of tabernacles as a type. And again in the Revelation 7:9. Besides the historical side, according to which the feast of tabernacles was one of gratitude for the gracious preservation of the Lord during the pilgrimage of Israel through the wilderness, comp. Leviticus 23:43, and a pledge of the continuance of this preservation, this feast had also a natural side, like the passover and pentecost. It was the feast of the completed gathering in of all fruits. This natural side stood in close connection with the historical. Bähr says: “There was certainly no time better adapted than this to remind them of the hardships endured in their wanderings in the desert, of the time of the trial of their faith, of the great benefit conferred on them in the possession of the promised and wished-for land, and in the final entrance into rest after the struggle.” With respect to the natural side also the typical meaning of the feast of tabernacles is clearly apparent. It prefigured the heavenly harvest, the time when the elect, who kept the passover and pentecost in the spirit, rest from their work, and their works do follow them, since they have well invested what they here gained by the sweat of their brow, and what God’s blessing had bestowed on them. Again, the yearly great day of atonement was deeply significant for Israel, Leviticus 16. The ceremonial of this day was as follows: The high priest first presents a sin-offering as an atonement for himself and his house. Then he takes two goats as a sin-offering for the house of Israel. One of these is actually offered up, the other only in and with it. Aaron lays both his hands upon its head and confesses upon it the (forgiven and obliterated) trespasses of the children of Israel, lays them upon its head and sends it to Azazel—i.e. to Satan—in the wilderness. The meaning of this symbolical action is, that when God’s people have sought and obtained forgiveness of their sins, they need no longer have any fear of Satan, but may come boldly before him, triumph over him, and mock at him, in contrast with the delusion of the Egyptians, who thought that they had to do immediately with the evil principle, the Typhon. Here also the symbol is a type. By the symbol the triumph of the church of God over Satan is shown to be necessary in accordance with its essence; and since this triumph was but imperfect under the Old Testament, the yearly feast of atonement was at the same time a pledge of a more complete triumph to be granted in the future, having its foundation in atonement through the true High Priest; comp. Hebrews 7:26, Hebrews 9:7, and Zechariah 3:8—a passage which shows that the incompleteness of the Levitical atonement was already recognised under the Old Testament. And, apart from its ascetic meaning, the outward rest of the Sabbath formed a symbol of the inner, actual rest: Thou shalt cease from thy work, that God may have His work in thee, as Isaiah interprets the symbolical action. But every command is at the same time a promise. In the sphere of revelation there is no “Thou shalt” which is not followed by “Thou wilt.” The external rest of the Sabbath was therefore a type of that rest which God would at a future time grant to His people from all their own works, comp. Hebrews 4:9. Again, fasting was a symbolical representation of repentance. Man, in chastising his soul (this is the expression which the law applies to fasting), by this means made an actual confession that misery belonged to him. God, in commanding this symbolical expression of repentance, required repentance from the covenant-people, treated it as presupposed in the symbol, and in it gave an actual promise that, at a future time, He would pour out the spirit of repentance and of grace in rich abundance upon the nation, comp. Zechariah 12:10. Finally, the sin-offerings were symbolical. In them the offerer made a virtual confession that he recognised himself as a miserable and condemned sinner, deserving the fate of the sacrificed animal, and that he placed his trust only in the acceptance of substitution by the divine mercy. And because God instituted sin-offerings, they also were symbolical. They contained the virtual assurance that at a future time God would institute a more perfect redemption, a true substitution, which was only prefigured and typified in the offering of animals, but could not be fully bestowed. Isaiah, Isaiah 53, already regards sin-offering as such an actual assurance. And so throughout. But now the question arises, whether, in the ceremonial law, there is not at best useless circumlocution—the question why God chose this material representation of spiritual truths, why He did not represent them naked and bare, in mere words? 1. Here we must, first of all, apprehend the symbolical tendency of the East generally, and of antiquity in particular. The image and symbol were a means of bringing home to the people that truth which they were not yet able to comprehend without a veil. The language of symbol was at that time the natural language. And we find the same plan pursued in the New Testament. The design is not merely to fill the mind with true thoughts, but also to sanctify the phantasy, and to fill it with holy images. For this the profound allegory of the ceremonial law forms an excellent means. Whoever has penetrated into this cannot fail to regard the lower as a type of the higher. We are released from the external representation; it is too coarse, too material for the New Testament times. The symbolism may still, however, serve as an image for us. 2. The ceremonial law, in placing the least and the greatest in outward connection with God, in bringing God into everything, formed a life-long remembrance of the inner relation to Him. Take, for example, the laws respecting food, which cannot be regarded as arbitrary enactments, but rather rest upon the symbolical character of Nature, and are images of that which is morally clean and unclean. Every act of eating and drinking was calculated to recall God to the memory of those who were by nature so apt to forget Him. In this respect the ceremonial law had deep meaning, especially as an antidote to the Egyptian nature. False religion had taken possession of the Egyptian mind principally through the circumstance that it had penetrated by its ceremonies into every corner of the national life. Adherence to it could only be thoroughly removed by a homoeopathic mode of dealing. Otherwise the true religion would have remained hovering above the actual relations, instead of permeating them. 3. The ceremonial law was designed to effect the separation of Israel from other nations, comp. Ephesians 2:14. Idolatry was then the spirit of the age; nor was this spirit of the age something accidental, but in the state of things then existing was, even in its form, a necessary product of that same human nature which was possessed by Israel also. The sole means of inwardly resisting it, the Holy Spirit, was not present among Israel in the masses; and apart from the Holy Spirit no adequate effect could be anticipated. Thus the Israelites were kept outwardly under the law to Christ, until the time when, furnished with power from on high, they could begin the offensive warfare against heathendom. 4. The ceremonial law facilitated the recognition of sin, and thus called forth the necessity for redemption. The people must be weary and heavy laden, that at a future time the Lord might be able to say to them, “Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” The law was, and was intended to be, a hard yoke, Acts 15:10, Galatians 5:1, under which the nation should sigh, and thus be stirred up to long for the Redeemer. 5. Much in the ceremonial law served, by carnal impress, to awaken in the carnal people reverence for that which was holy. This aim is definitely expressed in Exodus 28:2. The ceremonial law made it very difficult to have intercourse with the heathen. Some of the forbidden animals, for example, were those which other nations were commonly in the habit of eating; comp. Michaelis, Mos. Recht. Th. 4, § 203. Add to this that mockery of the heathen, which had its origin in the observance of the canonical law, and which we still find expressed in Greek and Roman authors. And here we must allude to the subject of a long and violent dispute among older theologians. English scholars—Marsham in the Canon chronicus aegypt., ebraic, graec.; Spencer, de leg. rit.; Warburton, in The Divine Legation of Moses, to whom Clericus, and, to some extent, J. D. Michaelis, attached themselves—sought to prove that among the oldest heathen nations, especially among the Egyptians, there were similar ceremonies, and on this hypothesis found the assumption that God had connected with the true religion customs which had been prevalent among idolatrous nations, in order, by this condescension, to help the weakness of the Israelites, who had become accustomed to these ceremonies while in Egypt. Their opponents, on the other hand, maintained, first, that it would be unworthy of God to pay any regard to those customs prevalent among idolatrous nations; or, in their language, for the devil to have supplied God the Lord with matter for the ceremonial law, since otherwise the devil would be simia Dei, but God not simia diaboli; second, that the similarity is by no means so great; and finally, that where such similarity can be proved, the Egyptians may readily have borrowed from the Israelites; for we have no account of their religious constitution, except in very late writings. The principal work on the subject is Witsius’ Aegyptiaca, Amstel. 1683; Lange, Mos. Licht und Recht; and Pfaff, in the preface to his edition of Spencer. It cannot be denied that these theologians were right in taking up the matter very seriously: for if the view of the English scholars were allowed, it would prove the rude transfer of a whole multitude of the elements of the heathen religion; and in this case would it not be much more natural to leave out God entirely, and to assume that the borrowing originated with the Israelites themselves? And the English critics were not able so completely to escape this conclusion, if they refrained from giving it outward expression. In Marsham, at least, we have many reasons for supposing that his view of the Old Testament was pretty much that of the rationalists, who afterwards understood well how to employ the results of the English theologians for their own purposes. In Spencer, also, the fundamental direction is plainly rationalistic. Yet we must not overlook the fact, that the opposition to this view, although in the main well-founded, was yet in one respect partial. The truth that lay at the basis of their assertions was overlooked, and by this very means many were led to adopt their errors. Although the English scholars dragged forward a multitude of similarities, although they showed no critical power in the use of sources, although they brought forward very much which, owing to its universal character, can prove nothing at all; yet notwithstanding the opposition against them, which has been recently revived by Bähr, there still remains something which must lead us to accept an inner link of connection between the heathen and the Israelitish religions,—for example, the Egyptian analogy of the Urim and Thummim, the cherubim, and the rite at the feast of atonement. This rite presupposes the Typhonia Sacra of the Egyptians, which cannot be doubted if we compare those passages of the ancients which have reference to it, collected by Schmidt, de Sacerd. et Sacrif. Aeg. S. 312 ff.; and the discussions in the work entitled The Books of Moses and Egypt, p. 164 ff. But notwithstanding the similarity in form (the offering of the Typhon was also led into the wilderness), there is a most decided contrast as regards the meaning. Among the Egyptians Typhon is conciliated,—among the Israelites only God: the goat sent to Azazel in the wilderness is first consecrated to God as a sin-offering. The inability to rise to a perception of the internal differences between those things which are outwardly similar—theological impotence—is the great defect in these English scholars. But their opponents also participated in this defect to some extent. If they had vividly realized that the soul is more than the body, they would not have been so anxious to set aside all outward agreement. It must be said, however, that the most unprejudiced examination can find comparatively few points of contact with Egyptian worship. The three already mentioned are the most important. Besides these, we must refer to the institution of holy women, Exodus 38:8—women who renounced the world in order to consecrate themselves entirely to the service of God in prayer and fasting, in the tabernacle of the covenant; an institution à priori probably due to an Egyptian source, since it was not instituted by Moses, but arose of itself, and is placed beyond all doubt by the precise accounts concerning the holy women among the Egyptians. Women from the higher families, princesses, even queens, in Egypt consecrated themselves to some deity. The most important were the Pallades of Amon: comp. Bähr on Herod, ii. 54, pp. 557, 612; Wilkinson, i. p. 258 ff.; Rosell. i. 1, p. 216 ff. But we see at once how essentially different the outwardly similar institution was among the Israelites, if we only apprehend the difference between the God of Israel and the Egyptian deities. The form of the Nazirate seems also to have an Egyptian origin, as also the laws relative to the material and colour of the priests’ garments, and the legislation respecting clean and unclean animals, and a few other things. The result is the following: It is impossible without embarrassment to deny a close connection between the Egyptian and the Israelitish worship, since in many places we find an agreement which is too characteristic to pass for accidental. A borrowing on the side of the Egyptian can hardly be thought of. But just as little can we suppose that the Israelites properly borrowed from the Egyptians. The state of the matter is this. Every sensuous worship, every external religion, rests upon the distinction between holy and unholy. Now the holy is partly natural—resting upon an inner relation of the symbol to the thing symbolized; as, for example, anointing, common among nations the most diverse, and quite independent of each other, was a symbol of consecration, washing was a symbol of purification, the slaughter of sacrificial animals was a symbolical expression of the necessity for atonement. Again, the holy is factitious, either entirely or to some extent, so that the meaning, though attached to a natural symbol, goes beyond it. But the artificial symbol does not for the most part originate by some one stepping forward, and saying, “This thing which has hitherto always been regarded as common, shall from this time be holy, and shall mean this and that.” In a certain sense it is a natural product. It leaves the circle of common things gradually, by various circumstances, historical associations which attach themselves to it, etc. And when for a long time it has been the habit to regard such an artificial symbol as a representation of the super-sensuous, then the distinction between it and the natural disappears. It makes the same impression as the natural, and therefore presents a point of contact which the original, common thing did not possess. Hence, only the foundation of that which had already been consecrated in this way was transferred to the Israelitish religion as a symbol of the holy, but this transference, if we may call it so, has reference only to the form; with regard to the spirit, which is the main point, the contrast is most decided. At the conclusion of this section we only remark further, that the locality of the giving of the law has not received its true elucidation until our time. It has frequently been maintained (recently by Winer, in his article Sinai, in the first edition of the Real-Wörterbuch) that there was no open space between Mount Horeb and the plain where Israel assembled at the command of God for the giving of the law. The contrary is now firmly established. Robinson tried to prove that the plain er-Rahah, lying north of Mount Sinai, was suitable as an encampment for the children of Israel. But the difficulty still remained, that from that point the summit of the present Sinai must have been completely concealed from the view of the people, contrary to the Mosaic narrative; a difficulty which Robinson seeks to obviate by the forced hypothesis that tradition is at fault in its determination of the position of Mount Sinai. But further examination has ascertained that the large plain lying north of Sinai was not the only one adapted to the encampment of a nation, but that there is one equally large on the south side of Sinai, and that from this great southern plain, called Sebaijah, the summit of the lofty Sinai of tradition, which rose like a pyramid immediately towards the north, was fully visible to the people. Compare the collection of researches by Laborde, Tischendorf, Strauss, and others, in Ritter. “This plain,” says Tischendorf, “is of great extent, and seems as if made to be the scene of such a solemn act.” It also forms an excellent commentary on the expression employed by Moses in Exodus 19:22 : “Whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death.” For in the plain of Sebaijah the mountain may be actually touched, since it rises up so precipitously that it can be seen in all its grandeur from the foot to the summit. It also agrees with the words, “And they stood at the nether part of the mount,” Exodus 19:17. Seldom is it possible to stand so immediately at the foot of a mountain with the glance fixed on the summit many thousand feet high, as in the plain of Sebaijah, at the foot of Sinai. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 18: 18. § 7. FROM THE BREAKING UP ON SINAI TO THE DEATH OF MOSES: NUMBERS 10 TO THE END OF ... ======================================================================== § 7. From the Breaking Up on Sinai to the Death of Moses: Numbers 10 to the End of the Pentateuch First, a general survey. About the beginning of May the children of Israel left the neighbourhood of Mount Sinai, and went to Kadesh under the guidance of Hobab the Midianite, who was acquainted with the region. Kadesh lay on the southern border of Canaan, at the foot of the high southern mountain chain of Palestine, and on the west border of Edoin, at the north end of the valley already described, extending down from the Dead Sea to the Aelanitic Gulf, in the wilderness of Sin, the most northern part of the desert of Paran, whose limits, according to the researches of Tuch, correspond nearly with those of the present wilderness et-Tih. Rowlands thinks that he discovers Kadesh in the year 1842: comp. Ritter, p. 1088. The name, he maintains, still continues. “I was amazed,” says Rowlands, “at the stream from the rock which Moses struck, and at the lovely little water-falls with which it plunges down into the lower bed of the brook.” But the correctness of this discovery is still open to great doubt, which Fries, Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1854, i., has by no means completely invalidated. Rowlands’ Kadesh seems to lie too far west. Not long after the arrival of the Israelites, at the time of the first ripe grapes, or perhaps in the beginning of August, spies were sent into every part of the cultivated land; and after their return, the people sinned so grievously that they were condemned to a long wandering through the wilderness, though already so near to the promised land. Of this wandering our source gives no complete account, but contents itself with recording the names of a few stations where the Israelites sojourned for a time; a circumstance which has been very superficially made use of as an argument by those who deny the forty years’ duration of the march through the wilderness, although it has been attested not only by Moses, but also by Amos, Amos 2:10, Amos 5:25. During this whole period the Israelites had their principal camp constantly in the neighbourhood of Mount Seir, in the Arabah, and never returned to the district of Sinai: comp. Balaam, p. 287 ff. Yet they probably made use of all the resources of the country by their straggling parties; and not only of that, but also of the surrounding countries far and wide. In the Arabah, in the neighbourhood of Edom, it was easier for them to provide for many of their wants by trade than in any other part of the wilderness. In the first month of the fortieth year they returned to Kadesh. Their plan was to penetrate into Canaan through the country of the Edomites. Mount Seir in Edom, which, under the later names Djebal, Sherah, and Hiomeh, forms a ridge of mountains extending from the southern side of the Dead Sea to the ridge of Akabah, rises precipitately from the vallies el-Ghor and el-Arabah, and is only intersected by a pair of narrow wadis from west to east, of which the Wadi Ghuweir alone presents an entrance not quite inaccessible to a hostile power: comp. the preface of the English editor of Burckhardt’s Travels, part i. p. 22 of the German translation. Probably Moses asked the Edomites for a passage through this valley on condition of leaving the fields and vineyards untouched, and of buying the necessaries of life. But the Edomites refused to allow Israel to pass through their territories, and Israel was forbidden to use power against them, because they were connected by race: comp. Deuteronomy 2. Again deceived in their hopes, nothing remained for the Israelites but to follow the vale of the Arabah in a southerly direction towards the point of the Red Sea. On Mount Hor, which rises precipitately from the valley, “by the coast of the land of Edom,” as we read in Numbers 20, Aaron died, and was buried in a place visible far and wide, which even now passes in tradition for the place of his burial, and is unanimously regarded as such by Josephus, Eusebius, and Jerome. Israel then withdrew from Mount Hor to the Red Sea by the way of the fields from Elath and Eziongeber, Numbers 21:4, till they turned and came to the wilderness of Moab and to the brook Zered, Deuteronomy 2:9, Deuteronomy 2:13. The Israelites did not go quite so far as Elath and Eziongeber on the Aelanitic Gulf, but followed the route which is still taken by the caravans, “These pass to the south of Mount Hor in the Wadi Arabah. A few hours northwards from Akabah and from ancient Eziongeber a valley, Getum, opens out from the east to the Wadi Arabah; first accurately described by Laborde. Through this valley the caravans proceed upwards to Ameima, and on to Maan, and so come to the high desert of Arabia Deserta, which lies 1000 feet higher than the wilderness et-Tih.”—Raumer. When the Israelites had passed through the valley Getum, Moses received the command: “Ye have compassed this mountain long enough; turn you northward. Ye are to pass through this coast of your brethren the children of Esau, which dwell in Seir; and they shall be afraid of you.” Deuteronomy 2:3 ff. At first it seems incomprehensible how the same Edomites, formerly so insolent, should now be afraid; it is hard to understand why Israel took such a circuit, instead of entering the country of the Edomites at once, if they wished to spoil their territory. But the geography explains all this. On the strongly-fortified western boundary the Israelites were dependent on the favours of Edom. But now, when they had gone round, they had come to the weak side of the countiy. Here they had no opposition to expect on the part of the Edomites; the less so, since the way did not lead through the middle of the cultivated land, but only through the wilderness, which formed the boundary. Passing over the brook Zered, Israel then came to the land of the Moabites. Like the present caravans they journeyed to a place called Rain, which formed the eastern boundary of the land, not touching the land of the Moabites itself. Then they crossed the brook Arnon, which separated the territory of the Amorites from that of the Moabites, close to its source in the wilderness, and came finally into the country belonging to that people whose territory was allotted to them. They began their work with the victory over Sihon of the Amorites, who dwelt in Heshbon. So much for the geographical survey. We now pass to a nearer consideration of the separate events of this period. It falls naturally into two halves. One great section is formed by the determination to reject the generation then alive—all those who had been more than twenty years old on the exodus from Egypt, with the exception of Joshua and Caleb; and the carrying out of this determination, which lasted for thirty-eight years, must be regarded as supplementary. The second half begins with the forty years of the march through the wilderness, when, after the time of punishment had expired, the theocracy, which had remained partially inactive during a whole series of years, again came into full vigour. In the former half the following events are to be noted. 1. The revolt of Israel at the first station, Taberah—i.e. the first station where anything remarkable occurred after the breaking up from Sinai. According to Numbers 10:33, Numbers 11:1 ff., Taberah was three days’ journey from Sinai. The revolt was occasioned by the hardships of the journey; and in the judgment it called forth, with its speedy accomplishment, we see already a beginning of that severity which gradually increased from this time. 2. The revolt of the Israelites at the second important station, called “the graves of lust,” on account of the divine judgment which befell them. The revolt was stirred up by the number of strange people who had joined themselves to Israel on the exodus, doubtless in the hope of escaping from their oppressed condition in Egypt, and of accompanying them without trouble into the possession of a land flowing with milk and honey. We first read of them in Exodus 12:38 : “And a mixed multitude went up also with them.” Then they meet us again in Deuteronomy 29:11, where these Egyptian strangers are represented as being very poor, and performing the most menial services. From the Egyptian system of caste we must expect to find such people already in Egypt. We certainly find them on the monuments, especially in that picture, already mentioned, which represents the Israelites making bricks. There we find Egyptians who exactly correspond with the hated and despised foreigners: comp. The Books of Moses and Egypt. These men have a typical meaning: they are the representatives of those who separate themselves from the world without internal grounds—of those who run along with others in the kingdom of God, and see themselves deceived in their hope. The manna seemed too uniform a food for them. They hankered after Egypt, and soon infected Israel also with their discontent. Doubt, first of Moses’ divine mission, then of God’s omnipotence, who, they thought, was unable to make a better provision for His people, formed the kernel of the revolt. The twofold doubt is first virtually refuted, then punished. The first doubt was removed in the following manner: Moses was to choose from the elders of the people seventy men, and to bring them to the tabernacle of the covenant. To these the Lord imparted the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, which had before been possessed only by Moses in great measure; “and it came to pass, that, when the Spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, and did not cease,” Numbers 11:25. There is no reason for supposing that these people predicted future things. This did not at all belong to the nature of the thing. The idea of prophecy is a wide one. It denotes a raising above the standpoint of the lower consciousness, effected by the immediate influence of divine power. The men made known to the nation in prophetic language that it was Moses whom the Lord had destined to be His servant and mediator, and reproached them in an impressive manner for their sin. The divine Spirit which impelled them, manifested itself in all their words and actions; and the phenomenon must have made the greater impression, since in all probability the majority of them had formerly themselves taken part in the insurrection. This idea finds special confirmation in a circumstance mentioned in Numbers 11:26, according to which two of those who were called had refused to appear, but were obliged to serve as witnesses to the truth, even against their will. For the rest, it is easy to refute such as maintain that these seventy elders formed a college which continued till the death of Moses, as J. D. Michaelis does in his Mos. Recht. and Bertheau (p. 253), who confounds them with the judges established by Moses, Exodus 18 and Deuteronomy 1; or, again, those who see here the origin of the post-exile council of seventy elders or the Sanhedrim. For, apart from the fact that iii all subsequent history until the time of the Babylonish captivity there is no trace of such a council, it is expressly stated in the narrative, Numbers 11:25, that the elders no longer possessed the gift of prophecy, imparted to them for a momentary object: “And it came to pass that when the Spirit rested upon them, they prophesied,” but did not continue: וְלֹ֥איָסָֽפוּ,—correctly rendered καὶ οὐκ ἔτι προσέθεντο by the LXX.; falsely by the Vulgate and Luther: “they ceased not.” This also we must expect beforehand. Permanent possession of the extraordinary divine gifts of grace presupposes full possession of the ordinary; and we have already seen that the majority of the seventy elders possessed these in an inferior degree. Even a Balaam may serve as God’s instrument in isolated cases; but a Balaam can never be a prophet by office. The second doubt was refuted by the sending of quails—not to be confounded with those mentioned in Exodus 16 (which were sent only for one day, not so much to satisfy the want of the Israelites as to show that God could satisfy it)—which continued for a month. The circumstance that Moses is at a loss to know where God will procure food for such a multitude of men, instead of remembering that earlier food, has its analogy in the conduct of the disciples, who, when the Lord wished to feed the multitude, answered, “Whence should we have so much bread in the wilderness, as to fill so great a multitude? “Matthew 15:33; forgetting the feeding of the 5000, which had already taken place. Comp. also Matthew 16:9-10, where the Saviour reproaches His disciples because they had again forgotten both these miracles. But he who has attained to some knowledge of his own heart requires no such analogy. That which appears improbable on a superficial consideration, is quite natural to him. We have already pointed out that the sending of the quails, as well as the manna, had a natural basis. In their wanderings by the sea, towards Egypt and Arabia, they meet with incredibly large flocks. Josephus says that Arabia has a greater abundance of quails than of any other kind of bird (Antt. 3, chap. i.). Diod. Sic. i. 60 narrates that whole flocks of quails fly over the Red Sea, so that the people living there can get as many as they wish from the birds which have fallen down on the shore: comp. Oedmann’s Vermischte Sammlungen, part iii. sec. 6. In the same district Schubert saw whole clouds of birds of passage pass over in the distance, of such extent and density as no traveller has seen elsewhere. They came from their southern winter abode, and hastened to their home on the sea-coast. Comp. Ritter, p. 268. Even now the Bedouins capture those quails which are weary with flight, not with nets, but with their hands. After the virtual refutation of the doubt, the punishment follows; and the fact that it should have taken place just at this time, shows that mercy is associated with severity. For only now were the people in a position where punishment could exercise a salutary influence: their proud spirit was broken, they felt that they had sinned. The instrument of punishment was a ravaging disease, caused by satiety. In granting the wish, the punishment was prepared; comp. Numbers 11:20; Numbers 11:33 with Psalms 78:29-31. 3. The dispute between Moses and his relatives, Aaron and Miriam, besides being a symptom of the prevailing disposition, is important as a station on the way of trial in which Moses is led, as well as Israel; but still more important as the occasion of a divine declaration of the dignity of Moses, who, as founder of the Old Testament economy, stands in a closer and more intimate relation to God than any other servant under the Old Testament; to whom, therefore, every other must be subordinate. This declaration, Numbers 12:6-8, already determines the whole relation of the prophethood to Moses. No prophet dare place himself on a level with Moses. The whole subsequent prophethood must rest upon the Pentateuch. The divine illumination of ordinary prophets is partial, intermittent, and characterized by want of clearness; on the other hand, that of Moses is continuous, and associated with the most perfect clearness. His relation to the Lord is much more intimate. The dispute was occasioned by Moses’ marriage with a foreigner, Zipporah. The pride of Miriam, who wished to place herself on a level with Moses, on account of the prophetic gift (already in Exodus 15:20 ff. she is called נְבִיאָה, prophetess, by no means synonymous with poetess), which misled Aaron also, took this occasion to depreciate Moses. Hazeroth is said to be the place where the event occurred. It has been recently supposed to have been discovered in the fountain Hadhra, in whose neighbourhood are date trees and the remains of walls which enclosed former plantations—Chazeroth loca septo circumdata. In favour of this view we have not only the agreement of name, but also the suitableness of situation. Hadhra lies just in the direction taken by the Israelites; and by Robinson’s account (i. p. 249), is about eighteen hours distant from Sinai. The spring is the only one in the district which gives good water through the whole year, and was therefore a very important locality for such a land. 4. Now follows the sending of the spies. This itself was due, if not to want of faith, yet to its weakness. What need had they for information concerning the fruitfulness of the land, if they would only trust in the Lord, who had pledged His word for it? The strength or weakness of the inhabitants might have been a matter of indifference to them. The Lord, who had conquered the Egyptians for them, had said that He would drive out the inhabitants. Yet even here the Lord had forbearance toward their weakness. He granted their desire, because the sending of the spies was calculated to strengthen the weak faith of the well-disposed. On the one hand, the word of God would receive visible confirmation—the spies must bear witness that the land is exactly as God described it—and it would thus be easier for them to trust the mere word with reference to the other great promise, the conquest of the enemy. The forbearance ceased when, after the return of the spies, unbelief broke out into open revolt with greater strength and universality than had ever before happened. By the divine decree the period of trial now ceased for all those who had been fully capable of forming an independent judgment at the time of the exodus from Egypt; although it still continued for the younger generation. Those who are irrevocably given over to judgment, who have fallen from grace, are no longer tried. It is remarkable that the temptation which has rejection for its consequence is the tenth. The circumstance that the period of trial should have concluded with it, can scarcely be regarded as accidental, since it is expressly made prominent in the narrative itself. Numbers 14:22. The ten temptations are the following: Exodus 5:20-21; Exodus 14:11-12; Exodus 15:22-27; Exodus 16:2-3; Ex 16:20; 17:1-7; Exodus 22; Numbers 11:1-4, Numbers 11:5-34; Numbers 14. They stand in manifest relation to the ten plagues—ten great proofs of God’s power and mercy, and ten great proofs of the nation’s hard-heartedness and ingratitude: the end of the ten plagues, deliverance; the end of the temptations, rejection. With the last and greatest temptation, the nation return to that state from which God had delivered them by the last and greatest plague. The similarity of number here serves only to point to the internal relation, as is often the case in Scripture. The two fundamental ideas are these: God’s requirements are always in proportion to the measure of His gifts; when He has given He also proves how the gift has been employed. Every gift becomes injurious to him who is not led by it to the giver. This is the nucleus of the ten events considered as temptations. The second fundamental idea is this: Great as God’s mercy is, so great is man’s hard-heartedness. “Watch, therefore, and pray, lest ye enter into temptation.” This is the essence of the ten events considered as temptations of God on the part of the Israelites. We have no information relative to the condition of the children of Israel during the years of their exile except what is contained in Amos 5:25-26 : “Have ye offered unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel”? But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun, your images, the star of your God, which ye made to yourselves.” The forty years are a round number, instead of the more accurate thirty-eight; so also in Numbers 14:33-34, Joshua 5:6. Amos tells us that the great mass of the people neglected to honour the Lord by sacrifices during the larger part of the march through the wilderness; and in the place of Jehovah, the God of armies, substituted a borrowed god of heaven, whom they worshipped, together with the remaining host of heaven, with a borrowed worship. What the Lord had denied to His faithless people, they sought from their idols, without, however, being able to forsake the Lord entirely. In harmony with this is Ezekiel 20:25-26, where, with reference to Israel in the wilderness, we read: “Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live; and I polluted them in their own gifts.” The fact that the melancholy errors of Israel are here traced back to God, and that He appears as the original cause of their blinded syncretism, is explained by Romans 1:24, Acts 7:42, 2 Thessalonians 2:11 Thess. 2:11. 5. It is certain that there were many other revolts during this long period, up to the fortieth year. But these have no more to do with the plan of the history, which occupied itself only with the people of God, than the iniquities of the Israelites and Jews who were led away in the Assyrian and Babylonian exiles, and which are not copiously narrated. That the shortness and meagreness in describing this period can be attributed only to design, appears from the great accuracy with which, before and afterwards, the year and month and day of the events are given. A vague tradition would have wavered from this side to that, and have been indefinite: comp. Exodus 16:1, Exodus 19:1, Exodus 40:2, Exodus 40:17; Numbers 20:1, Numbers 33:8. We cannot maintain, with Kurtz, that the rejection had reference merely to exclusion from the land of Canaan, from the simple fact that the administration of the two sacraments of the Old Testament, of circumcision and the passover, was suspended. But, on the other hand, the rejection must not be regarded as absolute. There still remained many tokens of grace, notwithstanding the banishment, which was intended not only to terrify but also to allure. But, on the whole, there was a suspension of the relations of grace, which necessarily occasions an interruption of the historical narrative. We hear only of one revolt—the Korahitic, Numbers 16:17—because the double divine confirmation of the priesthood to which it gave rise was of the greatest importance for subsequent time. From the special object of the revolt, it is apparent also that divine retribution once more appeared in a visible form. In other cases, retribution took place in an ordinary way, as a natural consequence of the rejection of the people, because Israel had now entered more into the relation of the heathen nations. Amid the difficulties of the march through the wilderness, where even now, Rüppell observes, there are few aged people, and amid the gnawing pangs of conscience, death slowly and imperceptibly snatched away all its victims. The pretended accusation which Korah and his company bring against Moses is noteworthy: “All the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them; wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the Lord? “It is a symptom of deep degradation when authorities are no longer recognised. The cry for equality is the harbinger of judgment. It is plain that there was a reference to the opening speech of the Sinaitic lawgiver: “Ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation,” Exodus 19:6. From the dignity conferred, upon the whole nation, they think themselves at liberty to conclude that there can be no degrees of dignity, when the very contrary was the true inference; for, by the same free grace by which God raised up Israel out of the midst of the heathen, He could again raise up a single man, or a single class, from among the rest. They cannot apprehend the reasons for this proceeding, this election among the elect, because they do not know themselves, nor the state of the people, and are therefore unable to estimate the significance of an institution which presupposes the weakness of the nation. They lay claim to the possession of the full rights prepared, as they imagine, for the people of God, without considering the great contrast between idea and reality in the fulfilment of their duties. Instead of making it their first business to fulfil these, they immediately stretch out their hand for the rights. The revolt consisted of a double element: first Korah and his Levitical company; then the Reubenites, Dathan and Abiram. The true originator was Korah. Hence the Reubenites are called the people of Korah, Numbers 16:32. The punishment was twofold, appropriate to the two distinct elements. The Reubenites are swallowed up by the earth; while Korah and his Levites are punished by fire, because they had sinned by fire. They stood with their vessels of incense before the tent of assembly, in the performance of the priestly dignity which they had claimed. Then went out fire from the Lord, and consumed them—an awful example for all those who would use the exalted privileges of the people of God in the interest of their own selfishness and darkness! The miracle of the green, budding rod had a symbolical meaning. It pointed to the fact, that the priesthood among Israel would flourish and bud; a promise which, according to Zechariah, received its final fulfilment in Christ. So much for the first half of our period. In the second, which begins with the fortieth year of the march, the following events are to be noticed:— 1. The water from the rock.—The older generation had almost died out. Now begin the temptations of the new generation; and what is remarkable, their beginning is exactly similar to that of the former. The people murmured when they wanted water, and longed for Egypt again. The Lord now shows them that He is again in their midst. But Moses and Aaron are excluded from the land of Canaan by reason of the weakness of their faith, which finds expression in the circumstance, that Moses, who had never till then forgotten himself before the people, now addresses them in irritable despondency: “Hear now, ye rebels; must we fetch you water out of this rock?” and then strikes twice in haste and disquietude, not sure of his cause. This weakness of faith, which shows plainly that the covenant of which Moses was the mediator was only preliminary, and virtually points to a perfect, sinless Mediator, who could not come forth from among men conceived and born in sin, is much more intelligible, if we regard the temptation as a new beginning. Moses and Aaron had already suffered so much from the earlier generation, in the hope that the new generation would prove itself better; and now, all at once, they saw that the beginning was like the end. Their faith wavered. Pain and sorrow kept them from rising to joyful trust. It was not God’s power, but His mercy, that they doubted, for they regarded the sinfulness of the nation as too great to allow any expression of mercy. This tendency to despond is a temptation which we find in the life of all true servants of God. Luther had to contend very strongly against it, especially in the later years of his life, when he was so often surrounded by all that was dreary. Moreover, it is noteworthy that the punishment of Moses and Aaron was really aimed at the people through them. Apart from this design, God would certainly have pardoned the leaders their transgression, which was comparatively small. This appears from the simple reason, that the relations of grace were continued to Moses and Aaron. Their punishment was designed to call the nation to repentance. The weak faith of their leader was only an echo of their unbelief. They were to hate the sin which had shut out their leaders from the land of promise. We only remark further, that the place, which had till then been called Barnea, first received the name of Kadesh from this event; as is shown in the third volume of the Beiträge. Ewald’s opinion, that the place had been a sanctuary and an oracle in an oasis in the desert long before Moses, is erroneous, as the name Kadesh already shows. It was called Kadesh, because Jehovah had sanctified and glorified Himself there. 2. The plague of serpents.—This was occasioned by the renewed murmuring of the people, called forth by a new temptation from the Lord, who disposed the hearts of the Idumaeans to refuse them a passage when they were again on the borders of the promised land, at Kadesh, so that they were once more obliged to undertake a difficult march. According to Numbers 21:4 this incident occurred on the western side of the Edomite mountains, probably not far from the northern point of the Aelanitic Gulf. From Burckhardt’s Sketches, part ii. p. 814, we learn that the plague had a natural substratum in the district through which they then journeyed. In the region about the Aelanitic Gulf he saw many traces of serpents in the sand, and was told by the Arabs that serpents were very common in that district, and that the fishermen were very much afraid of them, and in the evening, before going to sleep, extinguished their fire, because it was known that fire attracted them. Herodotus, ii. 75, already mentions that winged serpents come to Egypt from the Arabian desert in great numbers, and are there destroyed by the ibis: comp. Bähr, p. 652. In Schubert’s Account of the Journey in the Arabah to Hor, part ii. p. 406, he says: “At noon a large serpent was brought to us, very variegated, marked with fiery red spots and spiral stripes; and from the structure of its teeth, we saw that it was of a poisonous kind.” According to the Bedouins, who are very much afraid of this serpent, it is very common in the district; comp. Ritter, p. 330, who mentions it as a remarkable thing, that serpents are still common in the very place where the Israelites were visited by the plague of serpents, while in other parts of the peninsula they are but rarely met with. The subsequent healing shows, however, that the plague was nevertheless to be regarded as a punishment. It would have been just as easy for God to have kept the Israelites free from sin as to have healed them after they had repented. The genuine repentance which followed the infliction of the punishment showed that there was a better basis in the new generation than in the old. The healing was attached to an outward sign—the looking at the brazen serpent—in order to bring its divine origin more vividly to the consciousness. According to the usual acceptation, the serpent is to be regarded as a symbol of the healing power of God. Under the image of a serpent, it is said, the Egyptians honoured the Divine Being, whom they called Ich-nuphi, the good Spirit, and whom they regarded as the originator of all good and happy events; comp. Jablonsky, panth. i. chap. 4. Among the Greeks the serpent was an attribute of Esculapius. But this hypothesis is overthrown by the one circumstance that in Numbers 21:8 it is said: “Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole.” The meaning of שרף cannot be misunderstood. The serpent means burning, because its poison resembles consuming fire. For similar reasons, certain serpents were called πρηστῆρες; and καύσωνες in Greek. The Vulgate renders שרף by serpens flatu adurens. According to this, the poison in the serpent must be the special point under consideration; a property which must be excluded, if it be regarded as a symbol of the healing power of God. There is only one way in which we can do justice to the fiery serpent here, in its connection with Numbers 21:6—“And the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people”—viz., by assuming that the brazen serpent, no less than the living one, denotes the power of evil: the distinction consisting only in this, that the brazen serpent is the evil power overcome by God’s power. It is noteworthy that Moses does not take a living serpent, but a dead image of it, as a sign of its subjugation by the healing power of the law. If the meaning of the serpent be here rightly determined, then its typical character, which our Lord teaches in John 3:14-15, also appears in its true light. Christ is the antitype of the serpent, in so far as He took upon Himself the most injurious of all injurious powers, sin, and atoned for it by substitution. What here happened with regard to the lower hostile power, was a guarantee that similar effectual assistance would be granted in the future against this worst enemy; what here happened for the preservation of corporeal life, was an actual prophecy of that future event which was to effect the preservation of eternal life. And those who are inclined summarily to reject the healing of the Israelites, by looking at the brazen serpent as mythical, may learn modesty from the fact, that the Egyptian serpent-charmers are able to protect themselves and others from the bite even of the most poisonous serpents in a way that has never yet been satisfactorily explained. The scholars of the French expedition, notwithstanding their tendency to deride everything as superstition and charlatanry, are yet obliged to concede this. Jollois in the Descript., t. 18, p. o33 ff., says; “We confess that, though far removed from all credulity, we have ourselves been witnesses of an event so remarkable, that we are not able to regard the art of the serpent-tamers as altogether chimerical.” If we are here obliged to acknowledge a mystery even in the province of nature, how much less can we make the intelligible a criterion of the true! 3. The victory over the kings Sihon and Og.—The English edition of Burckhardt still maintains that the Israelites passed through the middle of the land of Moab, after the Edomites had allowed them a free passage. But this is manifestly at variance with the narrative, comp. Numbers 21:11 ff. The Israelites first journeyed eastwards through the wilderness, round the southern part of the land of Moab, with whose inhabitants they were forbidden to commence warfare. Then they crossed over the Upper Sared, which is probably the Wadi Kerek. And here the punishment came to an end, comp. Deuteronomy 2:14-16. Without touching the inhabited land of the Moabites, they now kept closer to the eastern boundary, crossed the Arnon near its sources in the wilderness; so that after the passage they were not yet in the territory of the Amorites, but to the east of it. This is in harmony with Deuteronomy, which does not refer to a passing through the actual territory of the Moabites, and according to which the Israelites, after having passed over the Arnon, sent ambassadors from the wilderness of Kedemoth to Sihon, Deuteronomy 2:24 ff. If they had gone through the middle of the Moabite country, they would have crossed the Arnon at the place where they entered the land of the Amorites. Compare also the explicit statement in Judges 11:18 : “Then they went along through the wilderness, and compassed the land of Edom and the land of Moab, and came by the east side of the land of Moab, and pitched on the other side of Arnon, but came not within the border of Moab.” The Canaanitish population of the Amorites had their proper seat in the cis-Jordanic country, in what was afterwards the mountainous district of Judah, comp. Numbers 13:30. But not long before the occupation of Canaan by the Israelites, the Amorites had undertaken a war against the Moabites, and had taken the greater part of their territory from them, so that they retained only the land from the Arnon to the southern portion of the Dead Sea, or the border of the Idumaeans. The Amorites had made Heshbon their capital. We learn from Numbers 21:29 that the Sihon conquered by the Israelites had previously taken this town from the Moabites. The land then in possession of the Amorites was promised to the Israelites; for, according to the promise, all that country belonged to them which was in the possession of Canaanitish nationalities. But we have already proved that these districts were not only a temporary, but also an original, possession of Canaan. We have shown that the Amorites only reconquered under the visible guidance of divine providence what had formerly belonged to them. Only in this way could the land come into the possession of the Israelites, for they were not allowed to take away anything from the Moabites. At first, however, they only asked a free passage from Sihon; and it was not until this had been refused, and an attack had been made upon them by Sihon himself, who marched against them in the wilderness, that they conquered him and took possession of his territory. It has been a frequent matter of perplexity that the Israelites at the divine command should have sent an embassy to Sihon while his territory belonged to them irrevocably. But contradiction falls away if we only consider that Sihon’s rejection of the proposal was foreseen by God. The object of the embassy was not to move him to grant that which was requested, but only to show him how those whom God intends to punish must run blindly to their own destruction. The deliverance is put into his own hand, but he must cast it away from him, comp. Deuteronomy 2:30. The customary opinion is, that the Israelites journeyed northwards into the country of the king of Bashan, who was also a Canaanite, and in whose territory the Canaanitish supremacy had continued without interruption. After he also had been conquered, they returned to that district which was best calculated to afford them an entrance into the cis-Jordanic country, viz. the west, that part of the land of the Amorites which lay along the river Jordan, opposite Jericho, still called ערבותמואב from its earlier inhabitants, i.e. the Moabitic part of the Arabah, or the valley which extends from the sea of Gennesareth to the Aelanitic Gulf: comp. Balaam, p. 227. But the correct view is this: After the power of Sihon had been broken in battle, the main camp of the Israelites, leaving the wilderness, moved towards the west, across Mattana, Nahaliel, and Bamoth, to the valley before the Nebo, which, according to the argument in the work on Balaam, lies about an hour west of Heshbon; a view which has also been recognised as the correct one by Ritter, Erdkunde, 15 (1851), p. 1177. By separate detachments sent out from these stations the whole land of Sihon was conquered. Then, making this place their headquarters, the Israelites undertook a march against Og: comp. Balaam, p. 25 ff., for proof that all Israel did not take part in the march against upper Gilead and Bashan. After the return of the expedition, the Israelites left their headquarters and encamped in the plains of Moab, immediately facing the land of promise, and only separated from it by the Jordan. Here a series of remarkable events took place: Balaam’s blessing, Israel’s sin by participation in the worship of Baal, the conquest of Midian, the conclusion of a new covenant, the death of Moses. 4. Balaam.—The centre of this whole narrative. Numbers 22-24, which Gesenius on Is., p. 504, called “a truly epic representation, worthy the greatest poet of all times,” is the blessing which a strange prophet, summoned with hostile intent, with a disposition to curse, is constrained by Jehovah’s power to pronounce upon His people. The object was, to show Israel for all times the height of their calling, and, in a living picture of God, to place them in a relation towards His church which should continue through all time. Balak, the king of the Moabites, had, it is true, nothing to fear from the Israelites. They had assured him that his people were safe from them. But he had no faith in the assurance. He believed that, when the Israelites had done with the other nations, his turn would come. He therefore allied himself on mutual terms with the neighbouring Midianites dwelling in that part of Arabia which lay nearest to Moab. The Israelites themselves ascribed their victory, not to their own power, but to the help of their God. He therefore thought that he could effect nothing against them until he had deprived them of the protection of this God. For this purpose he washed to make use of means which were held to be effectual among almost all heathen nations. They had a distortion of the true religion doctrine of the power of intercession, in the opinion that men who stand in close relation to a deity exercise a sort of constraint upon him, and by uttered imprecations can plunge individual men and whole nations into inevitable misfortune. Plutarch, for example, in his Life of Crassus, relates how a tribune of the people who did not wish Crassus to conquer the Parthians ran to the gate, there set down a burning censer, strewed incense upon it, and gave utterance to awful and terrible curses, calling upon fearful deities. Plutarch adds, that the Romans attribute such power to these mysterious and ancient formulas of cursing, that the person against whom they are directed is overtaken by inevitable misfortune. Macrobius, iii. 9, has preserved a formula of this kind for us. Balak believed that no one was better adapted for the carrying out of his wish than Balaam, a far-famed soothsayer, prophet, and sorcerer who dwelt at Pethor Mesopotamia; particularly since he performed his acts in the name of the same God whose protection was to be withdrawn from Israel. The name is composed of בֶּלַע, devouring, and עָם, people. Balaam bore it as a dreaded sorcerer and enchanter. John follows this interpretation in the Apocalypse, translating the name of Balaam by Νικόλαος. The judgments on Balaam’s personality are directly at variance with one another. Many, after the example of Ambrose, Cyril, and Augustine, regard him as a hardened villain, an enchanter who, by the help of evil spirits, was able to prophesy and perform wonders. Others, following Tertullian and Jerome, maintain that he was a true prophet and a thoroughly upright man, who afterwards fell grievously. So, for example, Buddeus, who calls him horrendumἀποστασίαςexemplum. But, as is often the case, both views are incorrect, for both rest on the false presupposition of the tertiumnon datur, while this tertium is in reality much more frequent than the primum and secondum. Before setting forth the correct view we must answer the question, whence had Balaam that knowledge of Jehovah which he undeniably possessed, and without which Balak would not have sent for him? The general opinion is, that a certain knowledge of Jehovah had been retained in that region from primitive times. Buddeus remarks: “Vixerat in eo tractu Laban, Jacobus filios omnes excepto Benjamine ibi genuerat.” But much cannot be accounted for in this way, and a single circumstance may suffice to demonstrate it. The allusions in Balaam’s prophecies to earlier utterances of God, which had been given to Israel, are unmistakeable. Thus the form in which Israel’s great increase is foretold in the first speech, points to the promises in Genesis 13:16, Genesis 28:14. The picture of the reposing lion which none dare awaken, in the third speech, reminds us of Jacob’s blessing on Judah, Genesis 49:9; and the same speech concludes with the words, “Blessed is he that blesseth thee, and cursed is he that curseth thee,” Genesis 27:29. Moreover, the knowledge displayed by Balaam of the nature and will of Jehovah the God of Israel, is too exact and definite to have been derived from isolated, faint tones which had reached him from that primitive revelation which itself knew little of the God of Israel. If we assume that Balaam drew only from it, we must maintain, what has no analogy in its favour, that in his prophecies he was a mere passive tool, that he gave utterance to conceptions for which there was no rapport in his nature. This is certainly the way in which the thing must be looked at. In the song, after the passage through the Red Sea, it is already stated that the fame of God’s mighty deeds towards Israel would spread fear and wonder far and wide, Exodus 15:14; comp. also Exodus 9:16. That this was the case is shown by Joshua 5:1 : “And it came to pass, when all the kings of the Amorites, which were on the side of Jordan westward, and all the kings of the Canaanites, which were by the sea, heard that the Lord had dried up the waters of Jordan from before the children of Israel, until we were passed over, that their heart melted, neither was there spirit in them any more, because of the children of Israel; “and other passages. The great multitude now remained in simple wonder and simple fear, without going any deeper into the matter; but a few—those who had previously possessed a lively, religious interest—sought to investigate the thing more closely. They made use of every opportunity to learn more of Jehovah, of His relation to Israel, of Ηis promises and of His acts. We have an example of this in Jethro, of whom we read in Exodus 18:1 ff.: “Jethro, the priest of Midian, Moses’ father-in-law, heard of all that God had done for Moses, and for Israel His people, that the Lord had brought Israel out of Egypt. And Jethro rejoiced for all the goodness which the Lord had done to Israel, whom He had delivered out of the hand of the Egyptians, and out of the hand of Pharaoh. Now I know that the Lord is greater than all gods.” He had not yet attained to the knowledge that Jehovah was the only God; but he never questions His supremacy over all other gods. We have a second example in Rahab, who, in Joshua 2:9 ff., herself relates how she had come to the knowledge that the God of Israel was God in heaven above and in the earth beneath, by the noble acts of Jehovah, the passage through the Red Sea, etc. And this is the category in which we must place Balaam. Hitherto he had followed the trade of an astrologer and enchanter, in the interest of those passions by which he was swayed, viz. avarice and ambition. He now heard of the God of Israel, and by connection with so mighty a God he hoped to be able to do great deeds. He was thus His professed adherent. Just as many in the time of Christ cast out devils in His name, so Balaam now came forward in the name of Jehovah, calling Him his God: comp. Numbers 22:8. But he did not therefore at once become a true prophet, any more than his New Testament antitype Simon Magus. The same divided purpose was common to both; and what Peter and John say to Simon is perfectly applicable to Balaam, Acts 8:21 : “οὐκ ἔστιν σοι μερὶς οὐδὲ κλῆρος ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τούτῳ, ἡ γὰρ καρδία σου οὐκ ἔστιν εὐθεῖα ἔναντι τοῦ Θεοῦ”. He certainly was not a complete hypocrite. Nor was Simon. For if his heart had been wholly untouched, how could the apostle have baptized him? Without assuming a basis of true fear of God, it is impossible to explain Balaam’s conduct on receiving the offer of the Moabites, his subsequent behaviour, and the fact that he afterwards blessed instead of cursing. But he had not turned to the truth with his whole heart, otherwise he would at once have rejected the proposal of the Moabites with horror; nor could he have hoped that God would alter His will after He had once revealed it to him. It is therefore not quite correct to characterize his subsequent conduct as horrendumἀποστασίαςexemplum. Apostasy presupposes perfect union before. But in his case this had not existed; the pure and the impure elements had been present in him in troubled confusion. After God, in fulfilment of His design, had entered into the former element without whose existence the whole appearance of the prophet is incomprehensible, he was swayed by the latter alone, and this by his own fault, because he loved the wages of unrighteousness, 2 Peter 2:15. The same confusion which prevailed in his heart is also apparent in his judgment. In spite of all his religious insight he follows auguries, Numbers 23:3 and Numbers 29:1; thus showing how faint and indistinct the voice of God was within him. If his union with the Lord had been perfectly true and intimate, he would not have sought Him in nature, but only in the word. In Joshua 13:22 he is called קוֹסֵם, “the soothsayer.” Only by virtue of preconceived theory has it been maintained that נחשׁים, which always means auguries, such as were strictly repudiated among Israel, and קוסם may also be used in a good sense. We shall now occupy ourselves with the occurrence by the way. Balaam is so far led astray by covetousness and avarice that he does not at once reject the proposal of the king, as he ought to have done; but still retains so much fear of God that he does reject it after the Lord has expressly forbidden him to comply with it. He met a second embassy of the king with the distinct declaration that he would speak only what the Lord commanded him; yet his passion leads him to ask the Lord a second time whether he may not comply with the desire of the king. And this time he receives permission to undertake the journey, but under a condition which made it utterly aimless and impracticable, as any one not blinded by passion would at once have seen. But Balaam grasps the permission in both hands, without examination, and sets out with the princes of Moab. The nearer he came to the end of his journey, the more he was influenced by the possessions and honours which there awaited him, in event of his compliance with the desire of the king. If he were left to himself, it was to be expected that he would curse Israel. In itself this curse would have had no weight; for an unworthy servant can exercise no constraint upon the God of Israel. But for the consciousness of Israel and of their enemies it had great significance. If, on the other hand, he were to pronounce a blessing instead of the desired curse, the effect produced would be the more marked, since he would here be acting contrary to his own advantage. An influence of God interrupting the influence of nature was here sufficiently indicated. The way in which Balaam at first acted towards this divine manifestation shows how low he had fallen; and how necessary this influence was if the curse were to be hindered. The appearance of the Lord, which inspires even the ass with terror, is invisible to his sin-darkened eye. The resistance of the ass, caused by the threatening aspect of the Angel of the Lord, causes him to look inward; the power of sin is broken, and, thus prepared, God is able to open his eyes to see the angel standing before him in the way with a drawn sword. The earnest warning and threat addressed to him by the angel finds access to his mind; he confesses that he has sinned, and offers to turn back. But since it was God’s design not only that he should refrain from cursing, but also that he should bless, he is directed to continue his journey; but he is not to say anything except what God tells him. It is a question of very minor importance whether the speaking of the ass is to be regarded as an internal or an external event; whether God suffered the animal to speak to Balaam subjectively or objectively. The principal argument for the acceptance of an external occurence, viz. that it is arbitrary to assume the interiority of an event when it is not expressly stated, has been set aside by what has already been said. When Kurtz, in his desire to maintain the externality of the occurrence, states that there is nothing in the vision of which this is not expressly predicated in the narrative, we have only to call to mind the Mosaic account of the burning bush, which, according to Acts, was a vision. The following are some of the arguments which speak for the subjective nature of the occurrence: 1. In Numbers 12:6 visions and dreams are characterized as the ordinary methods of God’s revelation to the prophets. 2. In the introduction to his third and fourth prophecies, Balaam calls himself a seer by profession; and in Numbers 22:8 and Numbers 22:19 he invites the Moabitish ambassadors to remain with him over night, the time of prophetic visions, that he might receive divine revelations. The appearance of the angel, which preceded the speaking of the ass, had an internal character; but here we must strictly separate between interiority and identity with fancy, a confusion into which Kurtz has recently fallen. The objectivity of the appearance cannot be doubted. The only question is in what way that which was objectively present was apprehended and recognised. The interiority of the occurrence is proved by one argument alone, viz. that God is obliged to open Balaam’s eyes before he can see the angel. Such an operation is unnecessary in that which falls within the sphere of the five senses. For these two reasons we gain a distinct advantage in favour of the interiority of the event. 3. Not only is there no mention of surprise on the part of Balaam, but its existence is quite excluded by Numbers 22:29. The speaking of the ass, in itself, makes no impression on him, but he is led to reflection by what it says. 4. In the company of Balaam were the two servants and the Moabitish ambassadors; but they guessed nothing whatever of all that passed. Jehovah opened the mouth of the ass; He caused the ass to speak to Balaam in the vision; He gave it words corresponding to its whole appearance and expression. He made the ass to speak for Balaam, while for all the rest of the world the beast of burden remained dumb. There can be no doubt that the prophecies of Balaam must be attributed to divine revelation; and it is scarcely conceivable how Steudel can deny it, as he does in his treatise “die Geschichte Bileam’s und seine Weissagungen,” in the Tübingen Periodical, 1831. Only in this way can we explain the acceptance of the whole narrative by the author. It is not his object simply to give a short history. Moreover, the later prophets employed these utterances of God as such. Samuel brings the utterance in Numbers 23:19 to bear upon Saul, 1 Samuel 15:29. David’s last words in 2 Samuel 23:1 rest upon Balaam’s words. Habakkuk in Habakkuk 1:3, Habakkuk 1:13 brings before God the words which He has spoken through Balaam. The prophecy of Jeremiah, Jeremiah 48:45, against Moab, is a repetition of that of Balaam, Numbers 24:17. The narrative itself expressly says, “The Spirit of God came upon Balaam,” Numbers 24:2; “The Lord pat a word in Balaam’s mouth,” Numbers 23:5; and one argument alone is sufficient to refute Steudel’s strange view, that the narrative originated with Balaam himself, and was taken unaltered by Moses into the Pentateuch, viz. the use of the divine names. When Balaam himself is introduced speaking, he employs the name Jehovah, with a few exceptions which may all be reduced to one ground. Where He is spoken of, on the other hand, we generally find אלהים, to indicate that Balaam stands in relation only to the Godhead, not to the living and holy God of Israel. So, for example, throughout the narrative of his dealings with the ambassadors of the Moabitish king, in Numbers 22:8-20. This Elohim points to the fact that it was presumption in Balaam to boast of a nearer relation. The author places Jehovah in relation to Balaam only in that one prophecy, upon whose Jehovistic origin the whole meaning; of the event rested. Regarding Balaam as the author, this use of the name of God is quite unintelligible. And God is elsewhere expressly declared to be the author of the prophecies of Balaam. So, for example, in Deuteronomy 23:5 : “Nevertheless the Lord thy God would not hearken unto Balaam; but the Lord thy God turned the curse into a blessing unto thee.” But even in the absence of these external arguments, the prophecies themselves would bear evidence, not only because they reveal circumstances lying beyond the range of human knowledge, but still more by the living and deep conception of the idea, which places them on a level with the most lofty productions of prophethood, to which they are not inferior even in form. The theme lying at the basis of all the four discourses is the blessing of the people of God, and especially the prediction of their supremacy over the world. The last of these discourses is again divided into four sections, distinguished by the וַיִּשָּׂאמְשָׁלוֹ, and he took up his parable, which occurs altogether seven times, in harmony with the number of the altars erected by Balaam; cutting away beforehand all attempts to assume late interpolations, such as have been made by Bertholdt and Bleek. The double four and the seven are destroyed by these attempts. Only with the last discourse can we occupy ourselves at greater length. In the first three the idea appeared in a much purer form; in the last it had a special application. We have here a sketch of the whole fate of the people of God. They conquer all their enemies: Moab (the Moabites are named first because their attempt to subjugate Israel first called forth Balaam’s prediction of the supremacy of the Israelites over their enemies), Edom, Amalek, and the Kenites—a Canaanitish people who are here named as the representatives of all the Canaanites because they lived nearer than any other to the place of the prophecy. Rapt by the spirit into the distant future, Balaam sees how a star rises from Jacob, a sceptre from Israel—both symbols of the kingdom which should emerge from Israel; and how this supremacy proceeding from Israel proves itself destructive to all that opposes it. This victory is followed by temporary humiliation. Asshur, including the Chaldean and Persian powers, which were developed out of the Assyrian, leads Israel into captivity. But the oppressors of the people of God are humbled by means of ships which come from the region of Kittim, from near Cyprus, an indefinite name for that power which arose out of Europe to destroy the former Asiatic dominion, and was applied first to the Greeks and afterwards to the Romans. God arms the far West against the sinful East. He oppresses Asshur, the oppressor of Israel; oppresses also the land beyond the Euphrates, whose rulers (this is presupposed) resemble Asshur in their enmity against Israel. Destruction overtakes these enemies of the future as well as those of the present. The history of Balaam now concludes with the words: “And Balaam rose up, and went and returned to his place; and Balak also went his way.” A detailed account of the further course of his fate did not belong to the plan of the author, for whom Balaam has significance only in one aspect. He began by telling how Balak sent for Balaam to destroy Israel: he concludes with the way in which Balaam separates from Balak, without the latter having attained his wish. Yet we are able to fill out the story from isolated hints. Balaam prepared to return home after having uttered the prophecy. But his covetousness and vanity moved him to still further digression—to an attempt to gain that satisfaction which had been denied him on the part of the Moabites, by God’s intervention, among the Israelites. We conclude that he went to the Israelites from the fact that there is no other way in which we can explain how Moses had such accurate knowledge of all that had befallen him. Moses probably treated him just as Peter and John treated Simon Magus. Angry, and deceived in his hope, he repaired to the enemies of Israel, the Midianites; for he did not venture to go back to the king of the Moabites, who had left him so wrathfully. The counsel which he gave the Midianites to destroy the Israelites, by seducing them to idolatry through sensuality, attests the depth of his earlier religious insight. Without this he would certainly not have been able to discover the only spot in which the covenant-nation was vulnerable. The counsel had apparently the highest success. A great number of the Israelites were led away. But God raised up Phinehas to be zealous for His honour; and just as the crime was checked in the midst of its course, so also was the punishment which had already begun. From the midst of the people there arose a powerful reaction against the depravity—a prelude of that which has taken place among the people of God in every century; and after punishment has snatched away the guilty, the favour of the Lord returns to His church. The advice now recoiled upon the head of the seducers; and in the war of extermination undertaken against the Midianites, Balaam also met his death, for he still remained among them: Numbers 31:8; Numbers 31:16; Joshua 13:22. If the former event made Israel fully conscious that, if God be with us, no man can be against us, this one loudly exhorted them to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling: from without the election cannot in any way be nullified, but it may be so by the apostasy of the nation. Foolish is he who despairs of the mercy of God: foolish is he who attributes it to caprice. The act of Phinehas, in Numbers 25:7 ff., has frequently been falsely apprehended, and in this false conception has exercised an injurious influence. The zealots in the time of the war against the Romans appealed to his example. The judgment on the faithless was pronounced by Moses, the legal authority, Numbers 25:5. The lawful rulers of the people, to whom the executive power belonged, had the best intention to perform their duty, but they lacked the requisite energy,—they wept before the door of the tabernacle of assembling, Numbers 25:6. Then Phinehas stepped forward, who possessed what they lacked, and acted in their stead, as their servant and instrument. His act is rightly characterized in Psalms 106:30 as one of judgment; and those who would resist crime by crime have no pattern in him. The fact that the Israelites should have suffered almost no loss in the battle against Midian has given rise to suspicion. But it has been shown, in my treatise on Moses and Colenso, that the warlike men of the Midianites, in so far as they had not already fallen in the campaign against Sihon, sought safety in flight, so that it was not really a battle, but rather an execution. The second giving of the law, and the renewal of the covenant on Sinai, form a worthy conclusion to the events in the plains of Moab; appended to which are earnest exhortations, warnings, threats, and promises, which at last culminate in the song of Moses and his blessing. The theme of the song of Moses in Deuteronomy 32 is given in Deuteronomy 32:4-5 : the love and truth of God, the faithlessness and apostasy of the nation. Moses foresees that the nation will fall into heavy sorrow and affliction in consequence of their apostasy. His aim is to take care that they are not led astray by their conception of God, but are led by it to repentance. He first describes the glorious deeds of God, then the shameful ingratitude of the people, then the affliction, which appeared now as a deserved punishment; and, finally, to protect the people against despair, the dangerous enemy of repentance, he points to God’s saving mercy, which infallibly returns to His people after punishment. This song forms the key to the whole history of Israel, the text on which all the prophets comment, and to which they frequently refer even verbally; for example, Isaiah opens his first discourse with a reference to the piece. The blessing of Moses, in Deuteronomy 33, begins and concludes in Deuteronomy 33:2-6 and Deuteronomy 33:26-29 with an allusion to the basis and source of the blessing, the covenant relation in which Israel stands to the Lord since that exalted moment on Sinai. Then follow blessings on the separate tribes, which refer to particulars far less than is generally supposed. In general they are only individual applications of the blessing to be given to the whole nation, especially by the distribution of the land of Canaan, which here appears clothed with the enchantment of a hoped-for possession. The series begins with those tribes which were in any way distinguished: Reuben as the first-born; Judah, because in the blessing of Jacob he is destined to be the bearer of the sceptre; Levi, as the servant of the sanctuary; finally Joseph, on account of the distinction of his ancestor in Egypt. Moses dies after he has surveyed the land of promise from Mount Nebo. No man knew his grave. According to Deuteronomy 34:6, he was not to be honoured in a useless way, in his bones; but in a real way, in the keeping of the law which had been given through him. When we read, “And He buried him in the valley in the land of Moab,” from what goes before we can only supply Jehovah as the subject. God’s care for the corpse of Moses forms a counterpart to the condemnatory judgment by which he was shut out from the land of promise; and was at the same time a comforting pledge of His grace for the whole nation. But only the burial of Moses is spoken of; there is not a word to indicate that he was raised up before the resurrection; nor does this follow from Matthew 17:3, for even Samuel appears without having been raised up. The idea of a raising up is rather opposed to the words, “The Lord buried him.” In Jude 1:9 of the Epistle of Jude mention is made of a dispute between Michael the archangel and Satan for the body of Moses, in which Michael says, “The Lord rebuke thee.” There we have little more than a commentary on the words of the Pentateuch. What Jehovah does for His people, He does, according to the Pentateuch, always by His angel or Michael; and when Jehovah wishes to do anything for His people, or for His saints, in the view of the Pentateuch, as given in Leviticus 16, Satan is always busy to prevent it. The means employed by Satan for this object, were the sins of the people and of their leader, as we learn from this chapter and from Zechariah 3, to which there is a reference in the words, “The Lord rebuke thee.” But the Lord does not desist on account of Satan’s protest. He shows this by the fact that He is merciful and gracious, and of great mercy toward His own people. There are still a few words to be said with reference to the chronology of this period. Respecting the duration of the residence of the Israelites in Egypt, we have two principal sources. In the former, Genesis 15:13, in accordance with its prophetic character, the length of time is only determined in general, and is fixed at 400 years. We have a more exact determination in the properly historic passage, Exodus 12:40 : “Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was 430 years; and it came to pass at the end of the 430 years that all the hosts of the Lord went out from the land of Egypt.” This passage says so plainly that 430 years elapsed from the coming in of the Israelites to their exodus, that it is scarcely conceivable how some chronologists have imagined that they could limit the time to 215 years without contradicting it. They have recourse to an interpolation, “first Canaan, and then;” but they gain nothing even by this forced treatment, since they are still opposed by “the children of Israel,” which cannot refer to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Genesis 15 is also against them, where the whole residence in the strange land is expressly fixed at 400 years; for the passage does not refer to the whole period from Abraham to the return to Palestine, as Baumgarten thinks. Nor is anything proved by Galatians 3:17, which is appealed to as the foundation for these operations, and according to which 430 years intervened between the promise and the law; for we are not justified in accepting the first giving of the promise as the starting-point, but might much more reasonably believe that Paul regards the entrance into Egypt as the terminus a quo, the conclusion of the period of the promise. There is just as little definite meaning in the circumstance that in the genealogy of Moses and Aaron, in Exodus 6, only four generations are given from Levi to Moses. It must be assumed that some subordinate members in the genealogy are left out, according to a usage which is almost universal. The passage, Numbers 26:59, has been employed against such an abbreviation, where the words, “Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, whom her mother bare to Levi in Egypt,” are understood of an immediate daughter of Levi. But this is arguing from our use of language to that of the Old Testament, which is essentially distinct. According to the latter, the words only imply that Jochebed was of Levitical descent. Amram, the head of one of the families of the Kohathites, which in the time of Moses already consisted of thousands of members. Numbers 3:27-28, took Jochebed to wife, not in his own person but in one of his descendants, whose nearest name we do not know. She was not an actual daughter of Levi, but only belonged to his posterity; was a Levite whose origin went back to Levi only through a series of intervening members. When it is asserted that the ages assigned to Levi, Kohath, and Amram make it impossible to extend the sojourn in Egypt to 430 years, the fact is overlooked that it is not stated in what year each one begat his first-born; as is always done in the books of Moses when the genealogies are intended to carry on the chronological thread. The statement of age has therefore a purely individual meaning, and a chronological calculation cannot be based upon it. The age of the principal persons is given in a purely personal interest. We may remark in passing, that it is evident how little Egyptologists are to be depended on in Old Testament chronology, from the circumstance that Bunsen declares the 430 years to be far too short; while Lepsius, on the other hand, tries to reduce them to 90. This is evidently a sphere which admits only of hypothesis. We must adhere, therefore, to 430 years for the residence in Egypt; and, if we add the 40 years of the march through the wilderness, we get 470 years. The ordinary chronology makes the entry into Egypt to have happened in the year of the world 2298; but this gives 60 years too many, falsely assuming that Abraham’s departure from Haran only took place after Sarah’s death, and overlooking the fact that this is narrated per prolepsin. The death of Moses is therefore placed in 2768. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 19: 19. SECOND SECTION. HISTORY OF JOSHUA ======================================================================== Second Section. History of Joshua ======================================================================== CHAPTER 20: 20. § 1. FROM THE DEATH OF MOSES TO THE CONQUEST OF JERICHO ======================================================================== § 1. From the Death of Moses to the Conquest of Jericho Moses was not permitted to lead his people into the promised land. Very shortly before his death he had consecrated Joshua, one of the heads of the people (Numbers 13:2-3), his truest disciple and help (Exodus 24:13, Exodus 33:11; Numbers 11:28), to this office. When Joshua is called “the servant of Moses,” this is not equivalent to his attendant, but rather his right hand, the man of action, as Moses was the man of counsel. Moses changed the original name Hosea into Joshua, the salvation of God, because he was to be the mediator of God’s salvation to Israel. As a general and a reconnoitrer he had already given proofs of his resoluteness in the service of the Lord, of his wisdom and his courage; comp. Exodus 17 and Numbers 14. His task was very clearly defined: he was to be the minister of divine justice to the Canaanites, and at the same time an instrument of mercy to Israel; for the possession of the land was the presupposition and fundamental condition of the complete realization of the preparation given to him by God through Moses. For the realization of this task there was no spirit equal to that of Moses in its independence, depth, and originality. But it also required what Joshua possessed, a spirit of unconditional surrender to the Lord and an energy sanctified by living faith. The time to enter Canaan had now come. The first thing which the Israelites had to do was to cross the Jordan. If this were accomplished, it would be a matter of great importance for them to take the fortified town Jericho, because it was the principal fortress at the entrance of what was afterwards the wilderness of Judah, and opened up the way into all the rest of the country. According to Josephus, the city lay 60 stadia from the Jordan and 150 from Jerusalem. The surrounding country was an oasis in the midst of the wilderness, bounded on the east by the waste and unfruitful Valley of Salt, which lay north of the Dead Sea; and on the west by the stony, rocky wilderness. Surrounded by the first chalk mountain of the Judaic chain as by a continuous wall, and watered by rich springs, it formed a fruit-garden, in the time of Josephus, 70 stadia long and 20 wide, in which the choicest productions of the earth were cultivated. The task of Israel was a very difficult one. The Canaanites stood at that time in their most flourishing condition. They were skilled in the art of warfare, had horses and chariots, and a multitude of fortified places. (The world now presents an analogy in the sphere of science.) Moreover, knowledge of the locality was in their favour; and Israel had nothing to place in opposition to all this, but their God and their faith. Only by these could they overcome the world. Joshua’s greatness consists in the superiority of his faith over that of the nation—he set them an example. After Joshua had been strengthened in faith by an immediate divine revelation (that mention is here made of an immediate revelation appears from the analogy of Joshua 6:2, where it is related how the Angel of the Lord appeared to Joshua), after he had exhorted the people, had told them of the coming passage over the Jordan, and had received from them the unanimous assurance of faithfulness, he made all necessary preparations for the passage, and for the attack on Jericho. He had already sent two spies from his camp to Jericho; for he combined human wisdom with the firmest trust in God. It is evident that the spies had been sent before Joshua told the people of the passage across the Jordan, which was to take place in three days; though many have maintained the contrary, from the fact that the business of the spies, who, according to Joshua 22, only kept themselves concealed for three days in the mount of Jericho, could not have been accomplished in so short a time. After the spies had executed their commission, and had sufficiently ascertained the position and state of the city (that they did this appears from the account which they give to Joshua), they took refuge in the house of the harlot Rahab. Since very early times this has been a stumbling-block; hence every expedient has been tried to turn the harlot into an innkeeper. The Chaldee renders זונה by a word corrupted from the Greek πανδοκεύτρια. And even Buddeus is not averse to this explanation. But it cannot be verbally justified; and there are no real arguments for the rejection of that which is verbally established. Above all we must maintain that Joshua, in choosing the spies, did not look only to subtlety, as Michaelis maintains, but at the same time to an earnest and pious mind. Like Moses, he never sacrificed the higher view to the lower; he never lost sight of the fact that the warfare which he waged was holy. But it is impossible to see why, for the attainment of their good object, the spies should have repaired to a house to which others resorted for sinful purposes. Whether hotels were at that time general, is very doubtful. It appears that in this sinful city houses of entertainment were all at the same time houses of bad repute: infamous houses had usurped the place of houses of entertainment; and even supposing that there were hotels in Jericho, they were not adapted for the aim of the spies. In the house of Rahab they might at least hope to remain unnoticed, for it was situated in a retired part of the town, immediately beside the town-wall, or rather on it, so that the wall of the town formed the back wall of the house. The argument which has been drawn from the fact that Rahab was afterwards received among the covenant-people, and gave proofs of a living faith, has already been excellently refuted by Calvin: “The circumstance that the woman who formerly sacrificed herself for the sake of shameful gain, was soon afterwards accepted among the chosen people, places the mercy of God in a clearer light, since it penetrated into an unchaste house, to save not only Rahab, but also her father and her brothers,” Just as ill applied is the trouble which many have given themselves to justify the lie by which Rahab deceived the ambassadors of the king. Buddeus maintains that since Rahab, by her faith in the God of Israel, was incorporated into His nation, and was thus freed from her obligations to the king and the citizens of Jericho, who were in opposition to God’s counsel respecting her, the king of Jericho had no right to demand the truth from her. But at the basis of this view lies a false theory of the duty of truthfulness. We should speak the truth, not because any one has a right to demand it from us, but because we are called to imitate God, who is a God of truth. There is, therefore, no doubt that Rahab made use of bad means for the furtherance of a good end. We cannot listen to arguments such as that of Grotius: “Ante evangelium mendacium viris bonis salutare culpae non esse ductum.” The other question is more difficult, whether Rahab did right in assisting the Israelites, to the injury of her native town. But here the question can only be how, not whether, the act is to be justified; for the faith of Rahab, and the act to which it gave rise, are commended in two passages in the Holy Scriptures, Hebrews 11:31 and James 2:25. The remark by which Buddeus tries to justify Rahab against the former objection, applies better here. The belief that the God of Israel was the true God, that the possession of the town belonged to His people and would accrue to them, released her from obligations from which no human argument can ever release, since she was already spiritually accepted by this faith. Her act cannot be condemned unless the bestowment of the land of Canaan on the Israelites be regarded as an error. If this be established, she did nothing further than assent to the divine decree. In this, indeed, there might have been a mixture of sinful self-seeking, without which it might not have happened. As to the faith of Rahab, extolled by the apostles, Calvin has already well shown how it revealed itself. Fear of the Israelites, produced by the account of their wonderful passage through the Red Sea (comp. Exodus 15:14 ff.), and by their victories over the kings beyond the Jordan, in which the Israelites had shown that the servile and cowardly spirit which they had brought with them out of Egypt had now quite left them (comp. Numbers 22:2; Joshua 2:10-11), was common to Rahab with her people. But she differed from them in this respect, that while they made impotent resistance, she on the other hand grasped the only expedient, calm and joyful submission to the decree of God. Her people might conclude from what had occurred, the truth of which they could not deny, that the Israelites were favoured by a God of exceptional power; but she rises above these polytheistic notions: for her the God of Israel is the only and almighty Ruler of heaven and earth. Her companions put their trust in the strong and lofty walls of Jericho: Rahab in faith rises above the visible; she sees the walls already thrown down, the Israelites masters of the town. With reference to this narrative, we must remark in passing, that Luther is quite correct in his opinion that the spies were concealed under flax-stalks. The opinion of many, that the text refers to cotton, which ripens about the time at which the spies came to Jericho, and whose capsules were laid on the roof to dry, is now acknowledged to be erroneous; comp. Keil on Joshua 2:6. They were flax-stalks (in those districts flax attains a height of more than three feet, and the thickness of a reed—hence tree-flax), which were piled up on the flat roof, to be dried by the hot sun-rays. The mountain in which the spies concealed themselves is probably that situated to the west, near Jerusalem, where none would look for them, because it lay deeper in the land. From here they could return in safety to Joshua, after the space of three days, when all search for them had been relinquished and they were believed to be far beyond the Jordan. Joshua now advanced with the Israelites to the Jordan. This happened, as we learn from Joshua 3:2, three days after the summons to the people to prepare for crossing the river. On the evening of the same day on which they arrived at the Jordan—and not, as Buddeus and others maintain, on the evening of the following day—the Israelites were instructed by the elders how they should act on the march. They were enjoined not to approach within a certain distance of the ark of the covenant. The object of this prohibition is expressly given in Joshua 3:4. The words, “for ye have not passed this way heretofore,” show Israel how very much they were in need of this guiding-star in a way which was quite unknown to them and full of danger. In this respect the ark of the covenant performed the same service for Israel as the pillar of cloud in the march through the wilderness, which had ceased to go before them since the time of Moses. “But if the nation had followed the ark on foot, then those who were next to it would have so concealed it that those farther away from it would neither have seen it, nor have been able to recognise the way whither it led.” Joshua further commands the people to sanctify themselves, because on the following day God will do great things among them. This consecration consisted first of all in outward ceremonies, in the washing of clothes, etc., comp. Exodus 19:14. But it is clear that the proximate was not the ultimate, from the whole conception of God which is set up in the New Testament, according to which outward consecration can only be a symbol of that which is internal, and can only come into consideration as a means of exhorting to it. The passage took place, we are expressly told, at a time when the Jordan, otherwise comparatively easy to cross, was very much swollen, so that it filled its high bed, and even overflowed it, which is always the case in harvest time. The cause of this rising in the middle of April (for this is harvest time in Palestine) is probably not the melting of the snow on the high mountains of Lebanon and anti-Lebanon, but an emptying of the Sea of Tiberias, which reaches its highest level at the end of the rainy season: comp. Rob. ii. p. 506. Jesus Sirach also bears witness to this swelling when he says, chap. sir 24:36, “Knowledge has come from the law of Moses, as the Euphrates and the Jordan at the time of harvest;” comp. 1 Chron. 13:15, where it is mentioned as an act of heroism that some had crossed the Jordan at this time. The accounts of later travellers are in harmony with this. Volney says that the Jordan towards the Dead Sea is in no part more than from 70 to 80 feet wide, and 10 to 12 feet deep; but in winter it swells to the breadth of a quarter of an hour (?). In March it is at the fullest. When Buckingham passed over the Jordan in January of the year 1816, the horses waded through without fatigue. Already, in February, he found a river near the Jordan, the Hieromax or Mandhûr, far broader and deeper than the Jordan in the neighbourhood of Jericho; which was 120 feet wide when it reached the Jordan, and so deep that the horses could scarcely wade through. On this point compare Robinson, ii. p. 502 ff., who strongly opposes the false notion that the Jordan with its waters covers the whole Ghor. But he is wrong in denying that the מלאעלכלגדותיו in Joshua 3:15 means, it overflowed its banks: compare the parallel passage, Isaiah 8:7, and Keil on this passage. The overflow did not extend over the whole breadth of the Ghor, but probably that part of the shore where there was vegetation, comp. Keil. How little the passage over the Jordan can be explained from natural causes, already appears from the fact that afterwards, even at the time when the Jordan was not swollen, it was no uncommon occurrence for whole bands of enemies to be drowned in its tides, when they had to pass over it on their retreat from Jerusalem, and missed its few fords. The great aversion of rationalistic interpreters appears from the remark of Maurer, that the river had probably before that time flatter shores and less depth. Indeed, we learn from Joshua 2:7, that even in the time of the swelling the fords of the Jordan could be crossed by some at a venture, but for a whole army, a whole nation, these fords were of no avail. And the story of the miraculous passage could never have been formed and retained among Israel if a natural passage had been possible. The natural relations lay constantly before the eyes of the people, among whom faith in this miracle had the deepest root. The way in which the passage through the Jordan took place is thus given in Joshua 3:16. As soon as the priests that bare the ark of the covenant touched the water of the Jordan, the waters which came down from above stood up, not in the place where the priests stood, but far higher, at a town called Adam, not otherwise known, situated on the same side as Zarethan, which was better known at that time: הַרְחֵקמְאֹדבְּאָדָםהָעִידאֲשֶׁרמִצַדצצָֽרְתָן, where the Masoretes try to read מאדם instead of the באדם which they misunderstood. The water of the lower part of the river now flowed upwards into the Dead Sea. Thus there arose a long, dry stretch, through which the Israelites could pass in very wide columns, and therefore in a comparatively short space of time. The priests did not remain standing on the near shore, as Buddeus maintains; but as soon as the water left the place where they first touched it, they stepped into the middle of the stream with the ark of the covenant, comp. Joshua 3:17. There they served the whole nation for a northern bulwark, as it were, and did not leave this place until the whole passage was accomplished. We have still a few general remarks to make on the whole occurrence. It will not do to place it in the sphere of the impossible, for even the ordinarycourse of nature presents analogies. It is known that in earthquakes, and even apart from these—as, for example, the Zacken in Silesia, or Zinksee—rivers and seas have frequently remained standing for a time, have gone back, emptied themselves, and dried up in a short space of time. This does not indeed explain our event. The drying up would not have taken place just when the bearers of the ark of the covenant set their feet into the river, and have continued just till the whole passage was accomplished, etc. Yet the analogy shows this much, that we need have no hesitation in assuming that, by an extraordinary working of divine omnipotence, a thing happened in this case which appears elsewhere as produced by an ordinary working of the same power, provided that causes can be proved worthy such an extraordinary working of God. And this is here the case in the highest degree. Everything was intended to bring to the consciousness of the Israelites the fact that they owed the occupation of the land, not to their own might, but only to divine power. In the justification of the miraculous passage through the Red Sea, the miraculous passage across the Jordan is also justified. The former, which had taken place forty years before, had already passed very much away from the eyes of the present generation. In the face of such great and manifold dangers, they were the more in need of being strengthened in faith, in proportion to the fewness of the manifestations of divine grace during the long period which had elapsed in the dying out of the sinful generation. The object was to show the nation that God’s power was not limited to His instruments, that its operations had not ceased with the death of Moses. It was necessary to awaken them to confidence in their new leader, Joshua, in order to secure his efficacy. It was likewise necessary that the assertion of the Israelites, that God had given them the land of Canaan, should be confirmed in a solemn way. At the same time it was made impossible for insolent arrogance to excuse itself by their example. Only thus did the conquest of Canaan appear in its true light, as a divine judgment. When the passage through the Jordan had been accomplished, Joshua sought to perpetuate the remembrance of the event by a twofold memorial. Twelve men, whom he had already chosen for this object before the passage (comp. Joshua 3:12), had to bring twelve stones from the place in the middle of the Jordan where the ark of the covenant rested, and of these a monument was erected, Joshua 4:1-8. Twelve other stones were set up in the middle of the Jordan, in the spot where the priests had stood; perhaps piled one upon another in such a way that they were visible at low water-mark. Thus a new monument was added to those which had come down from the time of the patriarchs, and which the Israelites in their relation to God remembered now, immediately on reentering the land after so long an absence—a herald which, if dumb, yet none the less loudly testified that heaven and earth were subject to the God of Israel; that Israel owed their land to this God alone, and could only retain possession of it by faithful adherence to Him; and to this, the new monument urgently exhorted. It is impossible to compute the influence which must have been exercised by the fact, that gradually almost every town in the promised land brought back to the memory of the Israelites the history of former times, by the remembrance of events which happened there, by its name, or by monuments. On all sides they were surrounded by testimonies of God’s omnipotence and mercy, and of the faith of their forefathers. And just because the sacred historians recognised the importance of such a testimony, are they so careful to record the fact of any place in the promised land being hallowed in this way. After the passage the army set up their camp in the place which was afterwards called Gilgal. Then Joshua undertook the circumcision, which had been neglected for so long a period. The cause of this omission is attributed to the fact, that Moses attached no great importance to circumcision, not to mention views which are wholly untenable, such as that of Bertheau; but the general opinion is this (comp. Clericus, Buddeus), that circumcision could not well have been performed, because they had no permanent abode, but were always obliged to break up when the pillar of cloud and fire gave the sign, and because the children, who were sick from circumcision, could not so easily be removed. But it is evident that this reason does not suffice to explain the omission, as Calvin shows very satisfactorily. However much the neglect might have been excused by circumstances, no inconvenience, no danger, could absolve from obedience to so holy a command, which had been given to Abraham with the words, “The uncircumcised soul shall be cut off from his people,” and the neglect of which, had threatened the lawgiver himself with death. Circumcision was the act by which membership in the covenant-nation was sealed, the basis of acceptance among the people of God, of participation in all their blessings. The assertion of Clericus, that circumcision was given up because it could not always be accomplished on the eighth day after birth, to which by the law it was unalterably attached, comp. Genesis 17:12, is refuted by the circumstance that Joshua now has all the Israelites circumcised, without distinction of age. From this it follows that the performance of circumcision on the eighth day was not so indispensable as circumcision itself, which is equally shown by the example of Moses’ son. Again, this view rests on the utterly incorrect idea, that during the last thirty-eight years of the wandering the Israelites were continually on the march. We have already remarked, that during nearly the whole of this period they had their headquarters in the Arabah. Calvin has apprehended the right view. When it is said that all the people born in the wilderness are uncircumcised, the short period from the exodus out of Egypt to the sinning of the Israelites is left out of account. The consequence of this sin was the rejection of the whole generation then living—they were doomed to destruction. As a sign of this rejection, Moses would not suffer circumcision to continue; the fathers were strongly reminded of their sin when they saw that their children lacked the sign which distinguished them from the heathen. The objection which has been brought against this recently by Kurtz, viz. that God still gave the Israelites other tokens of His mercy that had not yet quite departed from them, such as the presence of the pillar of cloud and fire, the manna, etc., Calvin meets by comparison with a father who wrathfully lifts his hand against his son, as if he would drive him away altogether, while with the other hand he holds him back, frightening him by blows and threats, but yet not wishing him to leave his home. And now, on the entrance into the land of promise, immediately after God had again made Himself particularly known to Israel, the act was undertaken which restored to the people their dignity as a people of God. It was a proof of living faith that Joshua and the people performed this act just at this time. This follows even from what has been said on the subject by a writer, who looks at the thing merely from the standpoint of natural, carnal wisdom. Bauer says, Handb. d. Hebr. Nation, vol. ii. p. 10: “It might have been expected that he would at once have fallen upon the terrified inhabitants; but instead of this, he occupies his army with religious ceremonies—with circumcision. During this whole time the nation was incapable of taking up arms and driving away the enemy. To what danger did Joshua expose himself and his people from holy zeal!” This must be partially conceded. The greatness of the danger appears from the narrative, Genesis 34. Circumcision could have been done much more conveniently and safely before the passage over the Jordan. But, on the other side, it must not be overlooked that there was much which had lightened this struggle of faith to Joshua and the Israelites. They had just experienced God’s miraculous power. How could they doubt that this power would protect them in a matter which they had undertaken at His command? It was not possible that God would take away beforehand the panic fear which had fallen upon the Canaanites, in consequence of the passage through the Jordan. This is expressly stated in Joshua 5:1, in order to remove the incomprehensibility of Joshua’s determination to perform circumcision. And Michaelis has observed that a part of the nation was already circumcised: all those who had been born before the ban was laid upon Israel, which only snatched away those who had been grown up at the time of the exodus from Egypt. This will teach us what estimate is to be placed on the views of Paulus and Maurer, who attack even the historical truth of the event by the remark: “The resolve to make the whole army sick at one time, and incapable of fighting, would have been impossible.” The historical truth is confirmed not only by this narrative, and by the name of the place, whose legitimate derivation even Maurer is obliged to confess, but also by the great honour which Gilgal afterwards enjoyed as a place consecrated by the memory of former times, comp. Hosea 4:15, Hosea 9:15, Hosea 12:12; Amos 4:1, Amos 4:4-5, if we follow the prevalent view, according to which the Gilgal in the passages referred to is identical with ours. Keil, in his Commentary on Joshua, Joshua 5:9 and Joshua 9:6, and on the Books of the Kings, Leipzig 1845, p. 323 ff., has combated this view. He has endeavoured to prove that our Gilgal occurs only in Micah 6:5, where the prophet alludes to this event as well-established and universally known, that it never rose to a district, and that all other passages of the Old Testament refer to another Gilgal, in the neighbourhood of Mounts Ebal and Gerizim. But against Keil there is this argument, that there is no foundation for the sanctification of his Gilgal. In the conclusion of the account of the circumcision, Joshua 5:9, we read, “This day have I rolled away the reproach of Egypt from off you. Wherefore the name of the place is called Gilgal unto this day.” These words have been very variously interpreted. The explanation most worthy of note is Spener’s, de legib. ritual. i. c. 4, sec. 4, allowed by Clericus and Michaelis. According to them, the circumcised Egyptians despised the uncircumcised Hebrews. To take away the reproach, that it might no longer be cast at them. This view is untenable, because, even granting that circumcision had already been introduced among the Egyptians, the whole nation was not circumcised, but only the priests. How then could those who were themselves uncircumcised reproach others with neglect of circumcision? The true explanation has already been given on another occasion. The reproach of the Egyptians is unquestionably what put Israel to shame in the eyes of the Egyptians, giving cause for mockery; but this mockery did not extend to neglect of circumcision in abstracto, but to the special circumstances under which this neglect took place, regarded as a real declaration by God that He had rejected His people. The giving back of circumcision is looked upon as the restoration of the covenant, and thus a setting aside of the mockery which was based upon its abolition. In this sense mockery concerning the neglect of circumcision might proceed even from those who were not themselves circumcised. Soon after the circumcision the Israelites celebrated the passover also at Gilgal. This, too, had not been observed since the passover of the second year after the exodus out of Egypt, on Mount Sinai, Numbers 9:1-2. Here also the reasons assigned by Clericus, Buddeus, and others, for the neglect are very insufficient. They suppose that the Israelites had not enough of sheep. But the close connection in which the celebration of the passover-feast stands with circumcision in the book of Joshua points to another cause. “We learn this more accurately from Exodus 12:48, where it is said, “No uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.” How, and why the keeping of the passover presupposes circumcision, we have already shown. Participation in the sacrament of the passover gave those who were members of the covenant-nation a pledge of the forgiveness of their sins of weakness. How then could the passover be celebrated when there was no longer any covenant, no covenant-nation, no covenant-sign? According to this, it is apparent that the passover was not kept during the thirty-eight years, and there can be no doubt whatever as to the explanation of the circumstance. On the sixteenth day of the first month, the day following the principal day of the passover, the Israelites began to eat of the new corn of the land. Hitherto they had eaten of the older stock. This day was, to wit, that on which the Israelites were obliged by the law to present to God the first ears of corn. Leviticus 23:9 ff. They were in this way reminded to regard all natural benefits of God as products of the land of promise, as covenant-gifts from God, whose continuance was dependent on that of the covenant, which was sealed to them through the passover. They were reminded of the duty to be grateful, to repay the blessing of the covenant by faithful adherence to it. This is the ground of the union between the natural and the historical sides of the passover. Joshua then marched upon Jericho with his army. While he was there alone, probably occupied in deliberation how the town could best be attacked; almost despairing on account of the difficulty of taking a well-fortified town, defended by a numerous nation, with a people utterly ignorant of the tactics of besieging; praying to the Lord that he would be mighty in the weakness of His people, in an ἔκστασις he had a vision. An unknown man appears to him with a drawn sword, whom at first he takes for a warrior, as we learn from his question whether he is friend or enemy, but soon becomes aware of his more than human dignity. That he could not have regarded him as a common angel, but rather as the Angel of God κατ’ ἐξοχὴν—His messenger and revealer—is most clearly shown by the circumstance that he calls himself the prince of the army of Jehovah—i.e. the prince and ruler of the angels, of the heavenly host of God, whose name Jehovah Zebaoth he bears—in contradistinction to the earthly one which Joshua commanded. The denotation has reference to Joshua’s fears and embarrassments. The courage of the earthly general is raised by the sight and the word of the heavenly General, who, with all his host, will contend for him and with him. Moreover, he commands Joshua to put off his shoes, because the place where he stands is holy; and in Joshua 6:2 he is called Jehovah. There is no doubt that the speech of Jehovah to Joshua, given in chap. 6:2 ff., was communicated to him by this angel-prince. For otherwise the apparition would have no object, the angel-prince would say nothing more than served as a preparation for a subsequent revelation, while he made Joshua acquainted with his person, and filled him with holy awe, thus securing the impression of the communications he was about to make. Even Clericus, who maintains that Joshua 6 has reference to another divine revelation, is obliged to confess: Mirum est angelum ad Josuam venisse sine ullis mandatis ullisae promissio. This false notion is due to the circumstance, that it has not been observed that Joshua 6:1 only forms a parenthesis, which explains the contrast between the visible and the divine command—a firmly-closed town was to be taken by a mere ceremony. The fact that the Angel of the Lord appears with a drawn sword, and that he calls himself the commander of the army of God, points primarily to that which he intends to do with reference to Jericho, and then generally to that character of the activity of God, which was the prevailing one in the time of Joshua, to the problem which had to be resolved in those days, giving strength in the opposition which was then directed specially against the people of God. The Angel of God with the drawn sword is the fitting emblem of the time of Joshua. This vision, in connection with that recounted in the very beginning of the book, which was granted to Joshua while he was still beyond the Jordan, and which serves to supplement this, forms the counterpart to the call of Moses on Sinai, comp. Joshua 5:15—“Loose thy shoe from off thy foot,” etc.—which agrees almost verbally with Exodus 3:5, and serves to connect the two events. The shoes are simply to be put off because they are dusty and soiled; and the artificial explanations of Baumgarten, Bähr, and Keil are already rejected, because the same custom of putting off the shoes before entering the sanctuary is found even among the heathen and Mohammedans, from whom the thought of “the impure earth lying under a curse,” which was trodden with the shoes, is far removed. The following are the commands which the Angel of the Lord gives to Joshua, after the promises contained in his appearance and name: For six days the army is to compass the city in silence, and the seven priests who precede the ark of the covenant are to play on the trumpets. On the seventh day the same thing is to be repeated seven times. After this has been done for the seventh time, the people are to raise a loud war-cry. Then the walls are to fall in. The number seven points to the fact, that the whole thing rests upon the covenant of the Lord with Israel. Blowing with trumpets is a symbolic act, consecrated by the law. In Numbers 10:9 we read: “And if ye go to war in your land against the enemy that oppresseth you, then ye shall blow an alarm with the trumpets; and ye shall be remembered before the Lord your God, and ye shall be saved from your enemies.” According to this, the blowing with the trumpets was a signal by which the Lord’s people showed Him their need, and besought His help—a symbolic Κύριε ἐλήισον. And because the Lord Himself appointed this signal, just as certainly as they heard the sound of the trumpets so certainly might they believe that the Lord would come to their assistance. Calvin has already shown well what a great trial of faith this command was for the Israelites. To the carnal mind the thing must have appeared most absurd. It speaks in its latest representatives of “a tedious and ineffectual seven days’ marching round.” Carnal zeal must have led to impatience, since apparently nothing was done; carnal wisdom must have feared that the Canaanites, perceiving the foolishness of their enemy, and encouraged by it, would venture upon dangerous sallies. Because the Israelites followed the command absolutely, turning their gaze completely from the visible, and resisting all these temptations, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews says truly, that the walls of Jericho fell down by faith. What Ewald observes with reference to this narrative, which in his opinion is traditionary, applies much better to the event itself, viz.: “The inner truth, that even the strongest walls must fall before Jehovah’s will and the fearless obedience of His people, has clothed itself in a palpable, external garment.” The event was designed to impress this truth upon the minds of Israel for all time, the truth contained in the words, “By my God I leaped over a wall,” and “Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.” Jericho has a symbolic signification. That which happened to the fortress commanding the entrance into the territory of the Canaanites, prefigured first of all what would universally happen to Canaanitish supremacy. In the walls of Jericho, at the last blowing of the trumpets, faith saw the overthrow of the Canaanitish power, which to natural reason was apparently insuperable. But if Jericho primarily represents the Canaanitish supremacy, it is also excellently adapted to be a type of the dominion of the world generally. We have even before us a speaking symbol of the victory of the church over all the powers of the world. The narrative has been falsely interpreted, as showing that all action on the part of Israel was absolutely excluded in the falling of the walls. We can infer only this, that the result of the action proceeded from God alone. For this reason the action itself is put quite into the background; but it is not denied by a single word. In the πεσεῖταιαὐτόματατὰτείχη of the LXX. the αὐτόματα is a pure interpolation. If it had been the author’s intention to say this, he would have said it more distinctly, as in Joshua 6:20. It is natural to the pious, thankful mind to pay little attention to the mere human element. Here, indeed, it was insignificant throughout, for in this case all human hope of success was wanting, all natural conditions were absent. By divine command, the whole town was devoted to destruction, and in destruction, to God; what could not be destroyed (metal) fell to the treasure of the sanctuary, which is already mentioned in the time of Moses (Numbers 31:54), according to which a portion of the spoil taken from the Midianites was brought into the sanctuary, no part of the booty being given to the Israelites. Joshua pronounced a curse on any one who should build up the town again. This proceeding at the conquest of Jericho, so different from that characterizing the conquest of later towns—which Ewald in vain tries to reduce to a political reason, in the spirit of J. D. Michaelis, and that a very shallow one—is explained in this way. We have already remarked, that the judgment on the Canaanites differed only from the Deluge and the judgment on Sodom and Gomorrha in this respect, that the latter took place immediately, and was totally destructive; while the former was indirect, and for the advantage of those who were the instruments of its accomplishment. This latter method caused the punitive judgment to be readily misunderstood; to guard against which misunderstanding, it was necessary that the destruction in the first conquered city should be complete. It was designed to serve as a lasting memorial of divine punitive justice. The former invariably represents the compulsory dedication to God of those who have obstinately refused to consecrate themselves voluntarily to Him: it is the manifestation of divine justice in the destruction of those who, during their existence, would not serve as a mirror for it. The curse pronounced on the Canaanites was in general directed only against those persons alone who properly formed the object of it. But in order to show that the earlier possessors were exterminated, not through human caprice, but through God’s revenge, that their land and possessions did not come to the Israelites as a robbery, but only as a God-given loan, which He now again bestowed upon another vassal, to see if perhaps this one would faithfully perform the services to which he was bound, the curse on the first conquered place extended to the city itself, and to all possessions. Again, it was necessary to awaken the Israelites to a consciousness of the fact, that the whole possession which was given to them was only a gift of the free grace of God. And how could this be done more effectually than by God externally reserving to Himself His right of property in the first town? Finally, this also was for the Israelites a trial of faith and obedience. It must have been difficult for them, after such long hardship, to destroy the houses which offered them a convenient dwelling, and the possessions which promised abundant maintenance. When Joshua lays a curse on him who would build up the town again, it is to be observed that to build a town is here equivalent to restoring it as such; fortifying it with walls and gates: for it is these which make a place a town in the Hebrew idea. Already, in the time of the Judges and of David, therewas another Jericho on the same site, which might be called a town in a wide sense: comp. Judges 3:13; 2 Samuel 10:5 Sam. 10:5. Not until Ahab’s time was the curse of Joshua literally fulfilled on Hiel, who, disregarding it, ventured to restore the town, 1 Kings 16:34. The arguments by which the fact that Joshua pronounced a curse on Jericho has been attacked in recent times, are self-condemnatory. It is said that the curse put into the mouth of Joshua bears a poetic character, as if this were not necessarily involved in the nature of the thing; and again, “It would have been unworthy a “wise man to prevent his own people rebuilding a town in a place so well situated, near the fords of the Jordan,”—an opinion expressed by Paulus, and based on a total misapprehension of the power of religion on the mind, and of the spirit which animated Joshua, and which may be considered as a recognition of the higher life prevailing in Israel, as a testimonium ab hoste. Moreover there are events externally analogous even in heathen antiquity. Curses were also pronounced on Ilion, Fidenae, Carthage: comp. Maurer, The Book of Joshua, 1831, p. 60. Rahab, with her household, was received into the covenant-nation. The statement in Joshua 6:23, that she and her people were obliged to remain without the camp, refers only to the time before her change. She married Salma, an ancestral prince in Judah. Boaz was descended from them; and from Boaz and Ruth the kings of Judah; so that Rahab appears in the genealogy of Christ, the son of David after the flesh: comp. Ruth 4:20 ff.; 1 Chronicles 2:11 Chron. 2:11 ff.; Matthew 1:5, where Rahab is first mentioned. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 21: 21. § 2. FROM THE TAKING OF JERICHO TO THE DIVISION OF THE LAND ======================================================================== § 2. From The Taking of Jericho to the Division of the Land These happy events were soon followed by a very sad one, equally adapted, however, to confirm Israel in the faith, since it brought to their consciousness the dangerous consequences of even the smallest violation of fidelity to God. One Achan, called Achar in Chronicles—that the nomen may at the same time be an omen, comp. Joshua 7:26, where the valley of the deed of Achan receives the name Achor, trouble—had stolen a portion of the spoil which had been consecrated to God by His own express command; and his guilt was increased by the circumstance that it was not stolen from want but through base covetousness; for we learn from a later account that he was a man of property, since his oxen, asses, and sheep were burnt with him, and all his possessions. We read, “The anger of the Lord was kindled against the children of Israel.” The fact that a crime committed by a single individual should have been imputed to the whole nation has proved a great stumbling-block. Calvin, on the other hand, appeals to the inscrutability of the divine decrees. “It is best,” he says, “that we should withhold our judgment until the books be opened, when the divine decrees, now obscured by our darkness, shall come forth clearly to light.” But in this instance there is not the slightest indication of any such absolute ἐπέχειν. The outward act of Achan was certainly an individual one, but the disposition from which it sprang was widely diffused through the nation: as human nature is constituted, it could not have been otherwise; and, in most cases, only fear of that God whose omnipotence and justice had been so palpably set forth, hindered it from manifesting itself in action. If the whole nation had been animated by a truly pious spirit, the individual would not have arrived at this extreme depravity. The crime of the individual is in all cases only the concentration of the sin of the mass. God cannot, therefore, be accused of injustice, if He visits an apparently isolated crime on the whole nation; but, at the same time, it is clear that pious long-suffering forbearance would in this and similar cases have been severity, not mildness. To visit the crime of the individual on the whole nation would tend powerfully to awaken their pious zeal. In this way the evil was stifled in its origin, and prevented from spreading. Each one watched himself the more closely, knowing how much depended on his own fidelity, while, at the same time, he watched others also. There is nothing easier, however, than by a counter-question to embarrass those who take exception to this, if they only acknowledge the operation of a special providence. How can we reconcile with the justice of God the fact that the innocent must suffer with the guilty in public calamities, in plagues, war, and floods, in which even the heathen recognised divine judgments? In both cases the solution of the knot lies in the circumstance that the innocence is always relative. An opportunity was given for the expression of divine disapprobation in an undertaking against the city of Ai, concerning whose site investigations have recently been made by Thenius in the bibl. Studien von Käuffer, ii. p. 129. It is probably the present village Turmus Aja, in the neighbourhood of Sindjil, which occupies the site of the former Bethel. Externally considered, the loss of thirty-six men, which the Israelites suffered on this occasion, was very small and trifling. Nevertheless there was reason in the sorrow manifested by Joshua and the nation. For the Israelites, accustomed to recognise the finger of God in all that befell them, such an event had quite a different meaning from what it could have had for a heathen nation. God had promised His people constant victory; and from the fact that, in this case, the promise was not fulfilled, they justly concluded that God had withdrawn His favour from them. Hence they abandoned themselves to the most anxious solicitude respecting the future. Joshua at once adopted the right course. He turned to the Lord in earnest prayer. He fell on his face with the elders, and remained prostrate until the evening, praying and fasting. He did not indeed keep within suitable limits in his prayer, as Calvin has already remarked. True to human nature, he is inclined to seek the cause of the misfortune in God and His guidance. Instead of first looking into his own breast, he ventures to expostulate with the Lord, why has He led the people across the Jordan; and to express the wish that they had remained on the other side. But God overlooks this weakness, from which none of His saints is free; for He sees that the prayer proceeds from a true motive. Joshua shows himself more concerned for the honour of God, compromised by His people’s disaster, than for the disaster itself. “Get thee up,” God says to him, “wherefore liest thou thus upon thy face? “Not by sorrowing and supplication can the matter be set right, since the cause lies not in me, but in you. By stealing from the accursed, the curse has fallen upon the nation itself. The nation can only free itself from participation in the punishment by a powerful reaction against participation in the guilt: they must show their horror of the crime by punishing the evil-doer. Measures are then given to Joshua for the discovery and punishment of the evil-doer, and are carried out by him on the following morning. The people are to purify themselves before they appear in God’s judicial presence, a custom which could not fail to impress rude minds. First of all the tribes come before Joshua, then the families, then the households, and finally the individuals. The lot first falls upon the tribe, then the family, etc. It is uncertain whether the determination took place by lot or by the Urim and Thummim. The expression in 1 Samuel 14:42 is somewhat in favour of the former, so also the way in which it was managed; which, however, can also be explained if we suppose that the determination was made by the Urim and Thummim. The gradual progression was designed to cause great suspense among the nation, to make each one look into himself, asking himself the question, “Is it I?” In favour of the Urim and Thummim we have the fact that this was the customary means, appointed by God, of inquiring into that which was concealed—a means to which Joshua had been expressly referred; comp. Numbers 27:21, “And Joshua shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall ask counsel for him after the judgment of Urim before the Lord.” If we decide in favour of the determination by lot, it is scarcely necessary to say that no universal justification of this mode of selection can be drawn from the circumstance. Joshua must, in this case, have had the definite promise that God would in this way reveal what was hidden. Without such a promise it would have been foolish and impious to leave the determination to lot. Achan remains hidden, doubting God’s omniscience, like every criminal, until judgment singles him out. But then Joshua’s truly paternal address brings him to confession,—a mighty proof for Israel how God’s infallible eye looks into the most hidden things. Thereupon followed the punishment. Achan was first stoned, with his whole family, then burnt—for burning itself was never a capital punishment among the Israelites; finally, a great heap of stones was erected on the place of execution. Formerly theologians were very much perplexed by the fact that Achan’s sons and daughters were destroyed with him. Most critics—for example, Clericus, Buddeus, and others—agree in maintaining that it can only be reconciled with divine justice on the presupposition that Achan’s children were conscious of and accessory to his crime. They appeal specially to Deuteronomy 24:16, “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.” But this passage is clearly inapplicable to our event. It has reference to those axioms which the rulers were to follow when left to their own method of punishment. Here, on the other hand, the matter is not left to Joshua’s decision, but is regulated by God’s immediate determination. To this case we might far more appropriately apply the declaration of God, that He would visit the sins of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation. In applying this decree we are doubtless led to a presumption of the participation of Achan’s family in his guilt, in a certain sense; for this threat of the law, like all similar passages of Scripture, is only directed against such children as tread in the footsteps of their fathers: comp. Leviticus 26:39 ff., a passage which must be regarded as the best commentary. But the participation is not to be attached to the guilt, as something isolated, but to the sinfulness, of which this special offence was an individual expression. The fact that Achan’s family were involved in his punishment presupposes that the apples had not fallen far from the branch; that they were closely connected with him in his sin. Without any inconsistency they might still have been perfectly innocent in the present case. Man, who can judge only the act, not the secrets of the heart, dare not have inflicted the punishment on them. After the guilt had thus been turned aside from the nation, the march against Ai was at once undertaken. Here Joshua had recourse to a stratagem. In the night he sent out a detachment of the army, who were to go by a secret way, and lie in ambush west of the town, between it and Bethel. Much difficulty has here arisen from the fact that this ambush is given in Joshua 8:3 at 30,000, in verse 12 as 5000 men. The subterfuge to which most expositors resort is certainly unsatisfactory, viz. that Joshua sent out a double ambuscade. For there could have been no object in this; since the 30,000 and the 5000 were sent to the very same place. Moreover, it is quite inconceivable how an ambuscade of 30,000 men together could have escaped the notice of the enemy, though this might readily be explained in the case of a smaller number, from the mountainous nature of the district. The true reconciliation is the following: At Joshua’s command the whole nation prepared for the march against Ai. Joshua, however, does not wish all to go, but selects 30,000 men. Of these, 5000 are now sent as an ambuscade: with the residue he marches direct and openly against the city. The apparent discrepancy has arisen from the circumstance that the meaning is not clearly set forth in Joshua 8:3. The author relates the command for the nightly departure, etc., as if it referred to the whole 30,000 men,—a want of precision of which he afterwards becomes sensible, and which he tries to remove by the supplementary account of the strength of the ambuscade. Joshua now marches against Ai in the morning with the remaining 25,000 men. The inhabitants of Ai, without any suspicion of the stratagem, advance to meet the Israelites; and when these retire in pretended flight, all who had remained in the city flock out. According to Joshua 8:17, the inhabitants of Bethel also take part in the pursuit of the Israelites, which may probably be explained in this way: Many of those inhabitants of Bethel who were able to bear arms had resorted to the larger and stronger Ai, which was allied to them, or to which they were subject, in order by this means to meet the common enemy in a more effectual way than was possible while their active forces were divided. When the enemy found themselves at a suitable distance from the town, Joshua stretched out his lance towards Ai at the command of the Lord. Very unnecessary difficulties have here been made. Because it is said in Joshua 8:19, “And the ambush arose quickly out of their place,” it has been assumed that they broke forth at the stretching out of the lance as at a preconcerted signal. This has given rise to great embarrassment. The ambush was too far away to be able to see the outstretched spear. If it had been so near, the people of Ai must have been blind to have seen nothing of it. Here a multitude of expedients have been devised. Some substitute a shield for the spear, contrary to all use of language; others suppose that a banner was attached to the spear, or, as Maurer and Keil, a shield plated over with gold; others again maintain that posts were placed between the ambuscade and the army, by which means the ambuscade was made aware that the preconcerted signal had been given: all arbitrary assumptions, and yet not satisfactory. There is not a word in the text which would lead us to infer that the stretching out of the spear was a preconcerted signal for the ambush. It is more natural to conclude from the account in Joshua 8:26, that Joshua did not withdraw the outstretched lance until all the inhabitants of Ai were proscribed, that this symbolic action had quite another object. The outstretched lance was a sign of war and victory to the army of Joshua itself. It was quite natural that the ambush should break forth at the same time, if Joshua had before arranged with them that they should advance upon the town as soon as the enemy had withdrawn to a certain distance from it, which they could easily ascertain from the mountain heights behind which they lay hidden. After the city had been taken, the ambuscade set fire to it. This, however, was done only in order to give the army a sign of the taking, and to deprive the enemy of courage. Otherwise the Israelites would have robbed themselves of the booty which belonged to them; for this case was not similar to the taking of Jericho. Joshua did not set fire to the whole town till the Israelites had possession of the spoil. In the account of the defeat of the enemy no express mention is made of the inhabitants of Bethel. We cannot, however, with Clericus, infer from this that they succeeded in saving themselves by flight. Doubtless they were included among the inhabitants of Ai, owing to their comparatively small number. But Bethel itself was not conquered until later by the Josephites, comp. Judges 1:22-26. For at that time the only object was to take the most important points; conquest in detail was left to a later time. According to Joshua 8:28, Ai was made an eternal heap of ruins; but instead of the earlier town, which was destroyed utterly and for ever, a new place afterwards arose of the same name, mentioned in Isaiah 10:28. Joshua made use of this first opportunity for carrying out a decree which Moses had given to his people on his departure, Deuteronomy 27. They were to write down upon stones, plastered over with plaster, the whole sum of the law which Moses had declared to them, the quintessence of the Tora, which forms the germ of Deuteronomy 4:44 to Deuteronomy 26:19. At the same time they were solemnly to pronounce a blessing on those who would keep this law, and a curse on those who should break it. Moses himself had fixed the place where this solemn act was to be performed. It was the region of Sichem, forty miles from Jerusalem, even now one of the most charming, most fruitful, and well cultivated districts of all Palestine and Syria; and, what was here specially considered, had been consecrated by the earlier history of the patriarchs. Here, according to Genesis 33:18, Jacob had first set up his tent for a length of time, when he returned from Mesopotamia. Here, full of gratitude for the divine protection and blessing, he had erected an altar and called it “The Mighty God of Israel.” Here, before going to Bethel to make an altar to the God who had heard him in the time of his affliction, he commanded his people to put away the strange gods which they had brought with them out of Mesopotamia, and to purify themselves. Here they had given him all the strange gods that were in their hands, and he had buried them under the oak which stood near Sichem, Genesis 35:1 ff. By the possession of Ai the way was opened to this holy city, situated north of Ai in what was afterwards the district of Samaria. The distance occupies about five hours, if Turmus Aja be identical with Ai. The narrative of the solemn event is short, because it presupposes the appointment in Deuteronomy. By a comparison of both passages the event was as follows: Sichem lies between two mountains, Ebal on the north, and Gerizim on the south. On the former Joshua caused an altar of rough stones to be erected, which had not been hewn with any iron tool; the first which had there been consecrated to the true God since the patriarchs had journeyed through Palestine. The reason why unhewn stones were taken for the altar is thus given by Calvin and others. According to the law of God, Deuteronomy 12, there was to be only one national sanctuary in all Canaan, because multiplicity of places for the worship of God would interfere with religious unity and the development of a religious public spirit; and while hindering the expression of that united spirit, would give free scope to the ἐθελοθρησκεία, which passes so readily from places to objects. This measure, therefore, tended to the advancement of God’s worship. The place of the sanctuary was not yet determined, however; but it was already necessary that the places where the worship of God was provisionally performed should be characterized as subservient only to temporary necessity. Hence the altars were built only of sods, or of coarse, unhewn stone. But we learn that this reason is not the true one from that passage of the law which Joshua has in his mind, Exodus 20:25 ff. There the people are commanded to make altars of turf before the erection of the tabernacle of the covenant, and afterwards on special occasions; when, for example, the ark of the covenant was taken to battle with them. “And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone; for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it.” These latter words contain the reason of the command. The object was to lead Israel to recognise that in relation to God they could not give, but only receive—not design, but only execute—to make them acknowledge that all they could do made the thing no better, but only worse. Understood in this way, the command comes into connection with the prohibition against making idols, which immediately precedes it. Both have their origin in the same source; or at least, the false element which gives rise to the worship of idols may very readily appear in the attempt to worship God in a self-devised system. Joshua then wrote a copy of the law which Moses had given to the children of Israel, on the stones prepared for this purpose. Joshua 8:32 does not define more accurately what is here to be understood by the law of the Lord, but assumes that it is already known from Deuteronomy. It is self-evident that there cannot be a reference to the whole of the Pentateuch. Deuteronomy 27:8 gives the explanation, so that it is scarcely conceivable how some suppose that it has reference to the Decalogue; and others only to the curses which are pronounced in this chapter on the transgressors of the law. In Deuteronomy 27:1 Moses says to the people, “Keep all the commandments which I command you this day;” and again, in Deuteronomy 27:8, “And thou shalt write upon the stones all the words of this law very plainly.” According to this, it comprised the whole series of doctrines, exhortations, threats, and promises, which had been uttered by Moses on the day when the command respecting the monument was given. But the whole second legislation recorded in Deuteronomy 4:44 to Deuteronomy 26:19 belonged to this day. This was properly the תורה for Canaan. The thorough distinction between the first and the second legislation is this: that the latter, given in sight of Canaan, is throughout adapted to the residence of the people in the country; while a reference to the relations during the march through the wilderness forms the foreground of the legislation in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. The design of the erection of these stones is thus given by Calvin: Quando muti essent sacerdotes, clare lapides ipsi locuti sunt. This is based on the presupposition that the stones were destined to exercise an influence on the after-world. But the mode and manner of the writing speak to the contrary. The plaster laid on the stones must soon decay when exposed to the air. The object probably referred primarily to the act itself or to its accessories, and to posterity only in so far as the thing was recorded in writing. The external establishment of the law symbolized the internal; the writing on stone exhorted the Israelites to their duty to write the law upon the tables of their heart. The whole brought the inner connection of covenant and law to the consciousness of the nation; pointing especially to the fact that the possession of the country into which they were now entering depended absolutely on the fulfilment of the law. Then followed the proclamation of the curse and the blessing. At the command of Moses Joshua placed six tribes on Mount Ebal, six on Gerizim, which lay opposite, and in the middle between the two the ark of the covenant with the priests and Levites. These read aloud, first the blessings, then the corresponding curses; the tribes upon Mount Gerizim responding “Amen” to the former, and the tribes on Mount Ebal to the latter. For example, the Levites first said, “Blessed be the man that maketh no graven or molten image, an abomination unto the Lord, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and putteth it in a secret place,” and all the people answered “Amen.” Then, “Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image,” etc., and all the people answered “Amen.” Thus they were obliged to declare themselves guilty of that divine punishment whose fearfulness they had just had an opportunity of learning by the example of, the Canaanites, if they transgressed the conditions of the covenant. The reason why the people standing on Mount Gerizim responded “Amen” to the blessings, and the people standing on Mount Ebal to the curses, has frequently been sought in the natural condition of the two mountains,—one being covered with vegetation, the other desolate and bare. But this distinction is problematical, and exists now only in a very slight degree; comp. Robinson, iii. p. 316. The reason adopted by Keil is much more probable, viz., that Gerizim owed its selection as the place of blessing to the circumstance that it lay to the right of the Levites, comp. Matthew 25:33. When the ceremony was concluded Joshua read out the whole contents of the document which was written upon the stones. Joshua then returned to the camp at Gilgal with the army. The Israelites were still to remain together, in order to break the power of the Canaanites. Not until this happened did it become the task of the separate tribes to put themselves in full possession of their inheritance. Until then the camp at Gilgal remained the proper headquarters of the Israelites. According to Keil, the Gilgal here mentioned is not identical with the encampment of the Israelites mentioned in Joshua 4:19, but was situated in the neighbourhood of Bethel and Ai. But when the camp at Gilgal is mentioned without any nearer determination, we naturally think of the Gilgal already familiar from the earlier narrative. The name Gilgal stands in such close connection with the event previously recorded, that the arguments for the existence of a second Gilgal must be stronger than they are in fact. The Israelites’ fortune in war at last began to arouse the Canaanitish princes and peoples from their sloth, and to incite them to take common measures. The inhabitants of Gibeon only drew a different lesson from what had occurred. This was a mighty town, north-west of Jerusalem,—according to Josephus, forty stadia distant from it; under David and Solomon the seat of the tabernacle of the covenant; now the village el-Djib, which is a mere abbreviation of Gibeon. According to Robinson, part ii. p. 353, it was two and a half hours’ journey from Jerusalem. The Gibeonites regarded the weapons of the Israelites as invincible, and all resistance as foolishness: hence they sought to secure the preservation of their life by cunning. Some—for example, Clericus and Buddeus—have supposed that this cunning of the Gibeonites was quite unnecessary, and had its origin in their false ideas. Nothing further was necessary than that they should voluntarily submit to the Israelites. Their lives would then have been spared without hesitation. But this view is distinctly erroneous. It is already refuted by the narrative itself; for how then could Joshua have been blamed, as in Joshua 9:14, for having been deceived by the cunning of the Gibeonites into precipitately granting them their lives? Or how could the people and the elders have murmured against Joshua on this account, as they are said to have done, in Joshua 9:18? But all doubt is banished by the plain passages, Exodus 23:32-33; Exodus 34:12-16, Deuteronomy 7:1-5, in which the Israelites are expressly forbidden to receive the Canaanites by treaty as subjects or even as serfs. Add to this the passages in which it is declared that Israel should accomplish the judgments of divine righteousness on the Canaanites, and should destroy them. If this were the case, it made no difference whatever whether they surrendered or offered resistance. So also the passages in which “That they teach you not to do after all their abominations,” is given as a motive for Israel not to spare the Canaanites: comp., for example, Deuteronomy 20:18. This consequence must apply equally to those who voluntarily surrendered. The arguments against this view may easily be set aside. Appeal is made to the fact that it is expressly appointed, in Deuteronomy 20:10, that when a town is about to be besieged, peace shall first be offered to it. If this peace be accepted, the inhabitants are to be spared, and subjected only to tribute. But the passage proves the very contrary. In Deuteronomy 20:15 it is expressly stated that the decree has reference only to foreign enemies; and its false application to the Canaanites is expressly contested in Deuteronomy 20:16-18, and their complete extermination commanded; which, if the Israelites fulfilled their mission, they could escape only by flight and emigration. Appeal is also made to Joshua 11:19-20, where we read, “For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favour, but that he might destroy them, as the Lord commanded Moses.” But Michaelis has justly remarked, Mos. Recht. i. § 62, that the author only means to say that the Israelites would perhaps have been more merciful than the law if the Canaanites had begged for peace, and would have granted them what Moses had forbidden them to grant. There is no doubt, therefore, that the Gibeonites acted wisely when they sought, by cunning and deceit, to gain from the Israelites an assurance that their lives would be preserved. We only observe, that it seems to follow from the narrative that Gibeon had been a free town, exercising a kind of supremacy over three other towns situated in that district, viz. Kephira, Beeroth, and Kirjath-jearim; a relation which we find elsewhere subsequently in the book of Joshua, for we read of towns with their daughters. In the whole narrative there is no mention of a king, but only of elders of the town; and these seem to have been invested with supreme authority. Moreover, Gibeon is not to be found in the list of the thirty-one royal towns of the Canaanites, Joshua 12:9-24. Perhaps this constitution may have been the concurrent cause why they did not unite with the other towns against Israel. The question has here been raised, whether the Israelites were under an obligation to keep the oath given to the Gibeonites. This may very plausibly be contested. The treaty with the Gibeonites was concluded on the basis of their declaration, and on a presumption of its correctness. Calvin remarks: “Cum larvis pascitur Josua, nec quidquam obligationis contrahit, nisi secundum eorum verba.” But the sanctity of an oath is so great, that where any uncertainty remains it is always better not to dispense with it. The treaty had been made by Joshua and the elders unconditionally, and without the stipulation that it should only hold good hypothetically. In Joshua 9:19 they say, “We have sworn unto them by the Lord God of Israel; now, therefore, we may not touch them.” Joshua did everything, however, which lay in his power to guard against the injurious consequences of this rash step. He did not allow the Gibeonites to retain their independent existence, lest in this way the town should prove a mighty and seductive seat of idolatry. The town was given to the Israelites. The Gibeonites were made slaves, and were specially appointed to the lower service of the sanctuary. In after time we find them always in the place of the sanctuary, or in the cities of the priests and the Levites; consequently in places where they could not so readily exercise an injurious influence, and where they themselves had an opportunity of learning the fear of God. The נתינים consisted principally of these—the devoted, or servants of the sanctuary. In the distribution of the land their city was assigned to the tribe of Benjamin, but was afterwards made a town of priests and Levites. Nor does the whole event rest solely on the testimony of the book of Joshua, but is also corroborated by the 2d book of Samuel, 2 Samuel 21, where the Gibeonites complain that Saul broke the oath sworn to them by Israel. Under the pretext of religious zeal, Saul, in the interest of his covetousness, had instituted a slaughter of the Gibeonites. The voluntary surrender of the town of Gibeon was indirectly the cause of the speedy subjection of the whole subsequent territory of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. It accelerated the union of the kings of this district, of whom the king of Jerusalem is named as the mightiest king of the ancient capital of the Jebusites, already mentioned in Genesis under the name of Salem. It is remarkable that this king bears the name Adonizedek, almost the very same as Melchizedek. It appears also to have been the custom among the Jebusites, what we still find among most nations of the ancient East, that the names of the kings were more hereditary titles than proper names. The fact that the allied kings are, in Joshua 9:1, called “the kings beyond the Jordan,” is explicable by the circumstance that the Israelites had not yet gained a firm footing in the country on this side of the Jordan; and hence they still retained that designation which properly only applied to them so long as they had not yet crossed the Jordan. The attack of the allies was first directed, not against Israel, but against Gibeon, which had been faithless in their eyes. Joshua, made aware of it, immediately hastened to the assistance of the besieged. He made a journey of from eight to nine hours in the night with his army, and arrived before Gibeon early in the morning. The first battle that Israel fought in Palestine resulted in their favour. The enemy were totally defeated. The fugitives fled towards the south, with the intention of gaining their fortified towns. Beth-horon is named as the first town to which the Israelites pursued them. According to Joshua 16:3; Joshua 16:5, 1 Chronicles 8:24 Chron. 8:24, there were two Beth-horons, an upper and a lower. Our narrative is in unison with this. It speaks of a way up to Beth-horon, and of a way down from Beth-horon. Upper Beth-horon lay on the top of the slope; Lower Beth-horon at the foot of it. Both places are still in existence,under the name of Beit-ur. They are small villages, but have considerable foundation-walls. The pass between the two places, which was called the ascent as well as the descent from Beth-horon, has also been discovered by Robinson: see part iii. p. 273 ff. From thence the enemy fled to Azekah and Makkedah, more southern than Beth-horon—the former about parallel with Jerusalem, and west of it; the latter somewhat lower down. The narrative now goes on to say, Joshua 10:11 : “And it came to pass, as they fled from before Israel, and were in the going down to Beth-horon, that the Lord cast down great stones from heaven upon them unto Azekah, and they died.” Isaiah alludes to the event here narrated in Isaiah 28:21. After the example of others, especially of Masius and Grotius, the French Benedictine, Calmet, in his treatise “On the Stone-rain which fell upon the Canaanites,” in his Biblical Researches, translated by Mosheim, part iii. p. 53 ff., has, with much learning, tried to defend the opinion that an actual stone-rain is here referred to. On the other hand, by far the greater number understand by the stones a hail of unusual size, which, being violently driven by the storm, killed a number of the Canaanites. Jesus Sirach, Sir 46:6, is of this opinion; so likewise the LXX., Josephus, and Luther, who, after the precedent of the λίθος χαλάξης of the LXX., translates “large hail” instead of “large stones.” There can be no doubt that this latter view is the correct one. The author himself explains what kind of stones he means when he says, immediately after, “they were more which died with hailstones, אבניהברד, than they whom the children of Israel slew with the sword.” This alone is sufficient proof. Calmet here seeks to avail himself of the assumption that hail-stones stands for a hail of stones. But there is not the slightest confirmation to be adduced in favour of this strange interpretation. On the contrary, it can be shown from other passages, Ezekiel 11:13, Ezekiel 11:11, “that the Hebrews were accustomed to call hail, hailstones or simply stones.” An actual miracle did not, therefore, occur here. The fact that the hail happened just at this time with such destructive power, and that it fell upon the fleeing enemy, not touching the Israelites who pursued them at some little distance, verges upon the miraculous. In this way the Israelites were made to feel that they gained the victory not by their own power, but by that of God, who alone made their weapons victorious; while their enemies were taught that their misfortune was due not to human error, but to the judgment of God. After what we have just related, the narrative goes on to say, in Joshua 10:12-15, “Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou. Moon, in the valley of Ajalon; and the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the Lord hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the Lord fought for Israel. And Joshua returned, and all Israel with him, unto the camp to Gilgal.” We shall first notice the various opinions respecting this passage. They may be reduced to four. 1. In ancient times by far the greater number of its defenders held the opinion that the whole passage must be understood in a strictly literal sense, that the sun stood still at Joshua’s command, and that there was therefore a double day. The oldest author in whom we find this view is Jesus Sirach. He says, Sir 46:5, “By his means the sun went backwards, and one day became two”—μία ἡμέρα ἐγενήθη πρὸς δύο. Following this view of the passage, Buddeus afterwards makes it the basis of an argument against the Copernican system. The best collection of the arguments for this view, next to that of Buddeus, may be found in Calmet, I. chap. iii. p. 1 sqq., and in Lilienthal, The Good Cause of Divine Revelation, part v. p. 154 ff., and part ix. p. 296 ff. 2. Others take essentially the same view, but are inclined to the opinion that the earth and not the sun stood still, or at least maintain that the contrary cannot be concluded from the passage in question. So, for example Mosheim, in his Remarks on Calmet’s Essays, to which we have already alluded, p. 45, observes, that in ordinary language all natural things are not spoken of as they are in fact, but as they appear to the eyes and to the senses. And, in a certain sense, this mode of speech is correct, in so far as things are spoken of as they appear to the whole world. Even scholars have neither the wish nor the power to depart from this mode of speech in common life, since they say, for example, “The moon shines,” although it has no light of its own, but only a borrowed light; and they say, “The sky or the air is blue,” although it only appears so to our eyes, and “The sun rises and sets,” etc. Scripture must, therefore, necessarily accommodate itself to ordinary modes of speech, if it would be understood by the majority of those for whom it was written, and not, forgetting its object, enter into physical deductions, thereby turning its readers aside from its design. But we cannot therefore assume that Scripture sanctions error; just as it would occur to no one to accuse a natural philosopher of error, because he conformed to the ordinary use of language. Thus the Jewish nation, with all others, believed that the sun moved round the earth. And supposing that this view is based upon an error, which is by no means proved, yet Joshua would have been unintelligible, and have made himself ridiculous, if he had commanded the earth to stand still. 3. Others are of opinion that unusual appearances took the place of the sun and moon in the eyes of the Israelites, after these had ceased to shine; and that this phenomenon is so clothed in half-poetical description, as to make it appear that the sun and moon themselves remained standing in the heavens beyond the usual time. It may readily be conceived that this class includes a variety of different opinions, since free scope is given to arbitrary imagination, leaving us at liberty to investigate the whole region of luminous phenomena, and to select from them at will. Thus Michaelis holds that the storm was followed by universal lightning, which lightning enabled the Israelites to pursue the enemy, and prevented the Canaanites concealing themselves anywhere, or gaining a footing. Spinoza thinks that the rays of the setting sun were refracted in the hail. Clericus supposes refractions, such as those by means of which the sun may be seen above the horizon, beyond the polar circle, although still in reality below it. And there are still more hypotheses of this nature. 4. Others take the whole description throughout as poetical and figurative. Vatablé, professor in Paris at the time of the Reformation, seems to confess to this view when he thus paraphrases the prayer of Joshua; “Lord, suffer not the light of the sun and the moon to fail us, until we have completely conquered our enemies.” If now we proceed to examine these different views, it soon becomes evident that the third, in all its modifications, is untenable. Granting that the author of the book speaks in this passage, we must understand everything precisely and literally. For, in harmony with the homely character of his hero, he employs throughout a simple, historical representation, free from all rhetorical adornments and exaggerations. It is therefore absurd to suppose that in this sole instance he acted out of his character, and disfigured the simple course of the event by his representation. But it is equally absurd to maintain, with Spinoza, that Joshua and his whole army, and likewise the author, were deceived through ignorance of natural science, and took the appearance of a parhelion, or something similar, for the continued light of the sun. Such a deception is certainly without a parallel; even a child would readily distinguish between the two. If, on the other hand, we assume that the author only quotes the words of another, and that of a poet, all reason for this view disappears. There is therefore no cause for assuming a special phenomenon of nature. Only a want of acquaintance with the bold imagery of Oriental poetry can suppose that there is any necessity for such an historical basis. In this case the fourth explanation is unhesitatingly to be preferred. Compare the eighteenth Psalm, where David’s victory over the enemy is represented under the image of a fearful storm; compare also the Israelites’ song of victory after their passage through the Red Sea, Exodus 15; Deborah’s song of praise in the book of Judges, Judges 5, where, according to Judges 5:20, even the stars in their courses fought against Sisera. Compare also the many highly poetic passages in the prophets, for example in Habakkuk, especially Habakkuk 3; and it must be conceded that this passage is surpassed in boldness by many even in Scripture. Some, indeed, have disputed the fact, maintaining this or that among the passages indicated to be somewhat less figurative than the one in question—that the stars, for example, having become obscured, were probably in reality a concomitant cause of the victory over Sisera; but such a proceeding is as unpoetic as possible. Nowhere in the canonical books of Scripture has the image such an external limit. Recall, for example, how, in Isaiah, the fig-trees are represented as clapping their hands for joy on account of Israel’s pardon; the ruins of Jerusalem break forth into shouting; in Joel, the mountains flow with milk, etc. There would only be reason for protesting against the figurative conception if an incongruity could be proved between the image and the object, if the image and the thing were not one in essence. This is the only demand which can be made in this respect on the sacred writer, and we shall prove hereafter that it is perfectly satisfied by a figurative conception of the passage. From these remarks relative to the third view, it follows that, in order to determine whether the first or second (in this discussion to be regarded as one), or the fourth interpretation is to be regarded as the correct one, everything depends upon whether the passage contains the words of the author or not. For, in the former case, all must acknowledge that the author of our book really was persuaded of the fact that the greatest of all miracles took place; and those who also acknowledge the divine authority of the Old Testament must believe that the thing did actually take place. In the latter case only a love of the marvellous, counteracting the natural aversion to miracles, could insist upon a strict literal apprehension. That a portion of the passage does not proceed from the author, but is taken from an old poem, is beyond doubt. In Joshua 10:13 the author even quotes the Book of the Just, ספרהישׁר; and that this was a poetical book follows partly from the fact that, in 2 Samuel 1:18, it is mentioned as containing David’s lament over Saul and Jonathan. In all probability it was a collection of songs, composed at different times, in praise of pious heroes, or pious men who were very distinguished. The true theocrats are elsewhere termed ישׁרים, comp. Numbers 23:10; and Jeshurun occurs in the song of Moses as a designation of Israel. But the further question is, whether that which follows after the quotation is also taken from this collection of songs, or whether they are the words of the author of the book himself. In the latter case the miracle would still remain undisputed. But since historical truth may be contained even in a poem, it would follow, from the fact that the author relates it in homely prose as history, that the author of the poem in this case also kept simply to the historical truth. There is certainly one argument which speaks for the fact that only Joshua 10:12 and the beginning of Joshua 10:13 are taken from the book named. In general, the words which state that there is a quotation in a passage, are not placed in the midst of the words quoted, but either before or after them. But since rules of this nature are not so binding as not to leave something to the freedom of the author; since most analogies which are appealed to, the citations in the books of Kings and Chronicles, are of quite another sort, and cannot be compared with our case; since no verbal quotation of passages from other writings is to be found in them, comp. the details by Keil; since an analogy for the position of the words may be adduced from the prophetic writings, where “Thus saith the Lord” appears innumerable times in this way; it follows that the argument ceteris paribus can only prove something when it is not outweighed by other stronger arguments to the contrary. But, if we examine closely, it appears at least most probable that the whole passage is interpolated from the song. First, we point to the fact that if the author had wished to relate a real miracle, he could not have done it in this place. This miracle must have occurred at Gibeon. But the author only inserts the words, “Then spake Joshua,” etc., when he has already told how Israel came to Azekah and Makkedah in pursuit of the fleeing enemy. This circumstance admits only of one explanation. The author first describes the events as historian; then he gives a simultaneous poetical sketch of the same events, just as Moses did in Numbers 21:14-17, Nu 21:18-27 ff. Again, the defenders of the miracle overlook the fact that Joshua not only desires the sun to stand still at Gibeon, but also the moon in the valley of Ajalon; and this can scarcely be understood otherwise than poetically (comp. later). But the verse which forms the conclusion of the whole passage, “And Joshua returned, and all Israel with him, unto the camp to Gilgal,” comes especially into consideration here. If we attribute this passage to the writer, we do not know how to deal with it. It is impossible to believe that Joshua at that time really returned to Gilgal with the whole army. The author continues in Joshua 10:16 just where he has left off in Joshua 10:11. He narrates circumstantially how Joshua followed up the victory, and how the army undertook a campaign into the southern region, still farther distant from Gilgal, and conquered the cities of the hostile kings. Not till Joshua 10:43 are we told how Joshua returned to Gilgal after he had subdued the whole territory of the hostile kings. Three subterfuges have here been employed, all equally inadmissible. Some, such as Calvin and Masius, represent the verse as spurious, though we are unable to perceive how it could occur to a glossator to insert it here, in so unsuitable a place. If the verse be already omitted in the LXX., at least in the oldest codd., the Vatican and Alexandrian, taking into consideration the usual character of the translation, the circumstance proves nothing further than that the translator felt the difficulty no less than later expositors. Others, for example Buddeus, try to explain the passage in a less violent way by a different interpretation. They translate, “Joshua already intended to return to Gilgal.” Joshua is represented as having had the intention of returning, but as having altered his determination when he heard that the five kings were concealed in the cave at Makkedah. Verbally, nothing can be objected to this interpretation. The שׁוב with אל betokens in itself not the desired goal, but only the turning towards it. But it is scarcely conceivable that Joshua had already the design of returning, and had begun to carry it out. Could it have entered his mind to rob himself of all the fruits of his victory by a precipitate retreat to Gilgal, and not to avail himself of the excellent opportunity which was here given him to occupy the whole of the enemy’s country, which he would afterwards have been compelled to do with infinitely greater exertion and danger? Moreover if the words, “And he returned,” were intended to denote merely intention and beginning in contrast to performance, this must necessarily have been expressly noted in what follows, which is not the case. Add to this, that in Joshua 10:43 the same words are literally repeated; and if they are there to be understood of an actual return, another interpretation of this passage can scarcely pass for anything but an inadmissible shift. Others again appeal to the insufficiency of Oriental historiography. The author, they think, at first intended to conclude his whole narrative with Joshua 10:15. Then it occurred to him that he had still to record some not unimportant circumstances. These, without consideration, he joined to that which went before, where we should insert, “But previously that which follows happened.” This view is also inadmissible. How is it conceivable that it could have been the author’s first intention to pass by in silence the whole contents of Joshua 10:16-43? For his object, this is just the most important thing. The battle is of importance to him only as a means of obtaining possession, which is properly the subject of his book; and there is not a word before Joshua 10:16 of the other great consequences of the victory, of the subjection of the whole southern half of Palestine. Moreover the poetical character is not only unmistakeable in Joshua 10:12 and the first half of Joshua 10:13, but also in the second half of Joshua 10:13 and in Joshua 10:14. Even Masius acknowledges this, although he adheres to the current idea. He says: “There can be no doubt that the words, ‘So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day,’ are rhythmic, and are taken from the Book of the Just. The whole mode of expression and construction shows it most clearly.” On the other hand, appeal is made to the fact that Joshua 10:15 has nothing poetical about it. But this is not at all necessary, since analogies, such as that of Exodus 15:19, show that it was not unusual to give songs glorifying the mighty deeds of the Lord, a prosaic conclusion closely connected with them. The fact that this verse is repeated almost word for word in Joshua 10:43 proves nothing. The author of the book intentionally makes use of the words of the poetic passage he had previously quoted. We only remark further, what would certainly not in itself be a sufficient proof, that the miracle of a standing still of the sun, alleged to have been performed by Joshua, is nowhere else mentioned in Scripture; that the prophets, whose writings are completely interwoven with references to the histories of previous times, in which they saw more than dead facts, in which they saw just so many prophecies of the future, have not a syllable respecting it, nor have the psalmists, who frequently make God’s mercy in past times the theme of very long disquisitions: and in all the New Testament, with its numerous allusions to the mighty deeds of God under the Old, we find nothing of this miracle. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in his representation of the effects of faith under the old covenant, also makes no reference to it, although he mentions the act of Rahab, the destruction of the walls of Jericho, etc. Attempts, indeed, have been made to find a reference to this event in one passage of the Old Testament, Habakkuk 3:11; but it is only possible to do so by an offence against the laws of language. The passage is translated, “Sun and moon stand still in their habitation;” but theשֶׁ֥מֶשׁיָרֵ֖חַעָ֣מַדזְבֻ֑לָה can only mean, “they stand towards their habitation,” they repair to their habitation, and there remain still. The setting of the sun and moon is poetically represented as their withdrawal into their habitation. The symbols of divine grace no longer shine with a friendly light; the fearful darkness which has arisen is now illuminated by another light, the lightning, by which God destroys His enemies. The passage is parallel to those numerous other ones in the prophets, in which the sun and moon are represented as dark before and during the manifestation of divine judgments. Isaiah 13:10 : “For the stars of heaven, and the constellations thereof, shall not give their light; the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine;” comp. Joel 2:10, Joel 3:15 (3, 4); Amos 8:9. From this it is clear, that the passage in Habakkuk contains exactly the contrary of that which is said to be recorded in Joshua. Here the sun and moon remain beyond their time; there they set before their time. But the defenders of the historical conception assert that, if the author had wished the quoted poem to be understood figuratively, he must expressly have said so, otherwise the reader must necessarily come to the conclusion that the quotation contains pure historical truth. But the question is whether the connection does not involve an actual declaration, which is equivalent to a verbal one. The author details the actual course of events in Joshua 10:8-11, up to a point of time which goes beyond that in which the event of Joshua 10:12-14 occurs. The enemy is already conquered, and far advanced in flight. And when the author now interrupts his narrative, returning to the time of the battle in order to give another account of it from a poetical book, the natural, self-evident conclusion is, that this account gives no new historical particular, but is only intended as a repetition, in a poetical form, of what had been previously given in a historical form; and the author shows this plainly enough by the fact, that on beginning the history again in Joshua 10:16, he connects it immediately with Joshua 10:11, where the history left off. Compare the וַיָנֻסווּ in Joshua 10:16 with the בְּנֻסָםוַיְהִי in Joshua 10:11. It must not be overlooked, however, that the poetical representation differs from the historical only in form. It is essentially the same whether God lengthened one day into two, or whether He did in one day the work of two; the expression of mercy towards Israel is equally great. But just because the carnal mind is so slow to recognise this, the more palpable form is substituted for that which is less apparent to the sight; as in Psalms 18. David represents his enemies as destroyed by a storm, in order to show that he recognises the concealed mercy of God no less than the palpable. We shall now give a brief sketch of our view of the whole passage. After having narrated the two mighty manifestations of divine mercy towards Israel, the victory which He gave to their arms at Gibeon, and the hail by which He punished the flying enemy, the author abruptly breaks the thread of the narrative, in order to insert a passage from a contemporary song, in which the great deeds of this day are extolled. The singer tells how Joshua said unto the Lord, “Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.” It is easy to explain how Joshua may be said to have spoken to the Lord, since the address to the sun and moon immediately follows. For his desire is only apparently addressed to them; it was properly directed to the Lord of hosts. The first question which now rises is, at what time and in what place Joshua expressed this wish, or rather at what time the singer made him express it. The אז, “at that time,” cannot help us in determining this. For it is plain that it does not refer to what immediately precedes it—viz., to the flight of the enemy as far as Azekah, so that Joshua could have given utterance to the prayer when he first arrived at this place—but to the whole events of the day, the entire conquest of the enemy. This follows from the words, “In the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel,” which form a closer explanation of the word then. We must therefore look round us for other signs. In Joshua 10:13 we read that the sun remained standing in the midst of the heavens. It was therefore towards mid-day when Joshua expressed the wish. The determination of place, which follows from Joshua 10:12, fully agrees with the determination of time. The words, “Sun,stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon,” are only intelligible on the supposition that they were spoken at Gibeon. There, in the thick of the fight, Joshua wishes the sun to stand still, that he may have time to conquer the enemy completely; at the time of moonlight he hopes to be at Ajalon, in pursuit of the fleeing enemy, and there the moon is not to withdraw her light until he no longer requires it. According to Joshua 19:42, Ajalon lay in what was afterwards the territory of the tribe of Dan, south-west of Gibeon, and therefore in the region towards which the fleeing kings must first turn, and where they afterwards actually went, near to Azekah: Robinson, part iii. p. 278. The singer, therefore, makes Joshua express the wish in the midst of the battle at Gibeon, that the sun and the moon might remain standing—i.e. that the day might not draw to a close until the defeat of the enemy should be complete. This wish was fully accomplished; and the singer narrates this in Joshua 10:15, in such a way as to continue the image which he has begun. Joshua conquered the enemy so completely, that the day appeared to have been lengthened, and to have become a double day. Then, in Joshua 10:14, the singer goes on to a general eulogium on the splendour of this day. When he says that no day before or after was so glorious as this, the words must be pressed in an inadmissible way in order to draw from them a proof for the miraculous lengthening of the day: comp. Exodus 10:14; 2 Kings 18:5 Kings 18:5, 2 Kings 23:25. Every great salvation presents certain aspects in which it surpasses all others; comp. Deuteronomy 33:24, where Asher is characterized as blessed among the sons of Jacob, which might with equal truth be said of the rest. According to Judges 5:24, Jael appears as the most favoured among women, which she was, however, only from certain points of view. But the importance of this day must not be estimated too low: it was in reality one of the greatest days of Israelitish history; it may be regarded as the day of the conquest of Canaan. The singer now concludes with the return of Joshua to Gilgal. The details concerning the pursuit of the kings, the occupation of their towns, etc., belonged to the history whose thread he now takes up again with the author of the book of Joshua. When Joshua arrived in the vicinity of Makkedah, he received information that the five hostile kings had concealed themselves in a cave near this town, which has never been rediscovered. He himself now set up his camp at Makkedah, after having closed the mouth of the cave; the lighter troops he allowed to continue in pursuit of the enemy. These returned after they had pursued the enemy to their fortified towns. The five kings were then drawn forth from their hiding-place, and Joshua allowed his generals to tread upon their necks. This symbolical act was intended to show Israel in a palpable form the fulfilment of the promise, Deuteronomy 33:29, and to fill them with courage for their future undertakings. In the person of the five kings, all Canaan as it were, with its apparently invincible heights and fortresses, lay under their feet. After Makkedah also had been taken, the army again moved on, and conquered several more towns, almost all in the territory of the tribe of Judah. The whole extent of the conquests made in this march is thus described by the author in Joshua 10:41 : “And Joshua smote them from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen even unto Gibeon.” Gaza is here named as the western limit of the conquered territory; Gibeon as the most northern, and as the south-eastern Kadesh-barnea, in the wilderness of Pharan, more particularly in the wilderness of Zin, which are related to one another as the universal to the particular: comp. Keil on Joshua 10:41. The land of Goshen was situated in the southern part of the tribe of Judah. The enemy afterwards succeeded in re-establishing themselves in some of the conquered places. Hebron (with its Canaanitish race of giants, the Anakim, which is not really nom. propr., but denotes men of giant stature), which is here named among them, according to Joshua 15, must have been afterwards retaken by Caleb; Debir, according to Joshua 15:16-17, by Caleb’s son-in-law, Othniel. This lay in the nature of the thing. There could be no complete and continuous conquest except in connection with colonization. When the complete and final expulsion of the original inhabitants from Hebron, Debir, and other places is elsewhere attributed to Joshua, Joshua 11:21, he is only to be regarded as the general under whose auspices individuals carried out their conquests. The victory over the kings of southern Canaan was followed by that over the northern Canaanites; like the former, the result of a great campaign. The inhabitants of the region round about the Sea of Gennesareth, and about the sources of the Jordan at the foot of Antilebanon, had not yet been stirred out of their indolent rest; they had not combined with the inhabitants of the southern districts against the Israelites, in which circumstance Calvin rightly perceives clear traces of divine providence. Not until after these nations had been conquered, when their danger had therefore become doubly great, was their attention drawn to the Israelites; and they combined in one joint undertaking. At the head of this stood Jabin, the king of Hazor, a town, according to Joshua 19:39, situated in the later territory of the tribe of Naphtali; according to Josephus, Ant. 5:1, above the Samochonitic Sea. From the fact that in the time of the Judges there was also a Canaanitish king of the name of Hazor, it seems to follow that Jabin, the Wise, was not nom. propr., but a hereditary title of the kings of Hazor. From Joshua 11:10 we infer that all the other kings of that northern district stood in a certain relation of dependence to the king of Hazor—a state of things which must very easily have arisen in the constitution of the Canaanites, and which also existed afterwards among the Phoenicians. The danger of Israel was the greater, since the enemy had a large number of warlike chariots. The enemy assembled near the sea Merom—High Sea—so called as the uppermost of the seas which the waters of the Jordan flow through; in Josephus, Samochonitis—a shallow sea in which, after a short course of three hours, the various sources of the Jordan collect, swelling up at the time when the snow melts; at other times generally a swamp of rushes, now for the greater part of the year quite dry, and used as a hunting-ground. In the plains of this sea Joshua encountered the enemy, whose attack he had not expected, though he had gone out to meet them; and here he gained a glorious victory over them. Their fleeing remnant he pursued to the region of Sidon, as far as Misrephot Mayim—properly, “Burning of the waters”—a place, having water with which one can burn one’s self; in all probability hot springs, not far from Sidon, as seems to follow from Joshua 13:6. Joshua commanded the horses which were taken to be houghed, by which the horses not merely become useless, as is generally supposed, but soon bleed to death; the chariots he burnt. The reason of this measure was not that the Israelites did not then understand how to handle horses and chariots; it had a higher aim. It symbolized what the Psalmist expresses: “Some trust in chariots, and some in horses; but we will remember the name of the Lord our God:” Psalms 20:7. This was brought to his mind by the symbolic act. We must not, however, conclude that the Israelites acted, or were intended to act, just in the same way in all similar cases. The idea was satisfied by the one symbolic representation. This formed a permanent exhortation to Israel: “If riches increase, set not your heart upon them.” The act considered as continual would bear a fanatical character, and could not be exonerated from the reproach of being a tempting of God. David had chariots and riders, and yet put his trust only in the Lord. Joshua then conquered Hazor and the other towns of the hostile kings, but only Hazor was burnt, as the head of the impotent resistance against the Lord and His people, in which, as in Jericho, the idea of the curse receives its outward representation. The author then gives a recapitulation of all the country which the Israelites conquered in this and the former campaign, Joshua 11:16-17 : “So Joshua took all that land, the hills, and all the south country, and all the land of Goshen, and the valley, and the plain, and the mountain of Israel, and the valley of the same; even from the Mount Halak, that goeth up to Seir, even unto Baal-gad, in the valley of Lebanon, under Mount Hermon.” The “smooth or bald mountain,” הרחלק in, bordering on Idumea, is here named as the most southern part of the whole conquered district, and is not mentioned elsewhere, but is certainly situated south of the Dead Sea. The northern boundary, Baal-gad, is spoken of as lying in the valley of Lebanon, beneath Mount Hermon, and therefore in the valley which separates Lebanon and the majestic Hermon, the proper western boundary of Palestine, the main source of the Jordan. Besides these, several separate portions of the conquered land are given; especially those which had been taken in the previous campaign, because those taken on this occasion had already been mentioned. The mountain range, the southern region, the land of Goshen, and the depression, the Arabah, together form parts of the after-tribe of Judah. The mountain range is the mountainous part which forms the centre of the country,—the low country, the district bordering on the Mediterranean Sea. The Arabah is the hollow into which the Jordan flows,—hence the most eastern part, in contradistinction from the low country, as the most western. The other places named—the mount of Israel and its depression (every place before mentioned was already conquered in the first campaign)—formed principally the after-territory of the tribe of Joseph. The mountain of this tribe had been previously designated the mountain of Israel, in contrast to the mountain of Judah, because already, long before the separation of the two kingdoms, there was a contrast between Judah and the rest of Israel, or the ten tribes, which were represented by Joseph as the most important. The time when these conquests were made is not more closely determined in the book of Joshua. It is merely stated in Joshua 11:18 : “Joshua made war a long time with all those kings.” But the nearer determination may be indirectly drawn from Joshua 14, if we assume, what is highly probable, that the first division of land at Gilgal followed immediately upon the termination of this war. Immediately before it, Caleb says, in a speech to Joshua, that he is now eighty-five years of age. And since Caleb, according to Joshua 14, was sent by Moses as a spy in his fortieth year, in the beginning of the second year after the exodus out of Egypt, therefore, from thirty-eight to thirty-nine years of the life of Caleb passed away during the march through the wilderness, leaving from six to seven years for the conquest of Canaan. In the conclusion of Joshua 11 we read: “So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the Lord said unto Moses; and the land rested from war.” These words must necessarily be understood with a certain limitation. Their sense can only be this, that already, at that time, when the power of the Canaanites had been broken by the two great campaigns, the divine promise given to Moses was fulfilled in its most important sense. Some of those nations whose country had been given to the Israelites as an inheritance, had not yet been attacked by them at all. This was the case with all the Phoenicians dwelling on the sea-coast, and with all Lebanon, from Baal-gad northward, as far as Chamat in Syria, the uttermost settlement of the Canaanitish race: comp. the narrative in Joshua 13:1-6. Even within the conquered territory, some nationalities were either never completely subjugated, or soon recovered themselves. This is evident from several statements of this book itself, and of the book of Judges: it lies in the nature of the thing. It is impossible that a nation so numerous and powerful as the Canaanites could be completely exterminated, or driven away in two campaigns. The principal event had already been accomplished; the power of the Canaanites in the south and north was completely broken. But there was still great scope left for the further activity of Israel, for further divine assistance. The fulfilment of the divine promise, which had previously been imperfect, served as a means for realizing the divine plan. In the country of the Israelites themselves, and in its nearest vicinity, God had prepared an instrument of punishment by which to avenge the apostasy of His people, as had been already foretold by Moses. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 22: 22. § 3. DIVISION OF THE LAND ======================================================================== § 3. Division of the Land Concerning this, Moses had already given instructions. Numbers 26:52-56, comp. with Numbers 33:54, which must here be more particularly explained, because at the first glance they seem to contain a contradiction. In the first passage we read: “And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Unto them the land shall be divided for an inheritance, according to the number of names. To many thou shalt give the more inheritance, and to few thou shalt give the less inheritance; to every one shall his inheritance be given according to those that were numbered of him. Notwithstanding the land shall be divided by lot,” etc. The twofold determination contained in these words, that the land should be divided according to the greater or smaller number, and that it should be parcelled out by lot, appear to contradict one another. But the explanation is this: The region which each tribe was to occupy is only generally determined by lot, whether in the southern or northern part of the land, whether on the sea or on the Jordan, etc. By this determination a multitude of otherwise unavoidable quarrels were prevented. All opposition to the result obtained by lot must appear as a murmuring against the providence of God, because, in appointing this method, He gave the most definite promise of His guidance. And when the territory was fixed in this way, it lay with those who had been commissioned to carry out the division to determine the extent and limits according to the greater or smaller number of souls in each tribe, and at the same time with reference to the fruitfulness of the country. The tribes among which the land was to be divided were twelve in number; although Levi, in accordance with the special destiny to which it had been appointed by God, received no territory, but was commanded to dwell in separate towns which should be allotted to it, scattered throughout all Israel. For Jacob had received Joseph’s two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, in the stead of children, and had placed them in exactly the same relation with his other sons, Genesis 48:5. He had taken away from Reuben his right to a double portion of the inheritance, which was connected with the birthright, Deuteronomy 21:17, on account of his incest, and had transferred it to Joseph on account of the great benefits which he had shown to his family in Egypt. As already recorded, Moses directed that the land should be divided among these twelve tribes in the same way and at the same time. But circumstances occurred which hindered the complete carrying out of this regulation. First, the demand of the tribes of Reuben and Gad that the region already conquered beyond the Jordan should be allotted to them on account of their wealth in flocks, which made this district specially appropriate for them. Moses yielded to their demand, but under the condition that they should none the less cross the Jordan, and help to take Canaan proper. He also granted the demands made by a portion of the tribe of Manasseh to the most northern part of the trans-Jordanic territory, by permitting them alone to complete the conquest of it. From the analogy of the half-tribe of Manasseh we can reason respecting the two other tribes. If Manasseh’s territory, the former kingdom of Og of Bashan, were assigned to him because he had conquered it, the same would hold good with reference to Reuben and Gad. They certainly do not expressly mention the claim which they had gained to the country by their deeds of arms; but this is only modesty. They say, “The country which the Lord smote before the congregation of Israel,” withdrawing behind Jehovah and Israel, in whose service and stead they had acted; but the claim stands in the background. The mere number of their flocks, which they doubtless gained in conquering the land of Sihon, would not have been a sufficient motive; the demand would have been presumptuous, and would not have been regarded by Moses if it had not had such a foundation. The country beyond the Jordan was therefore assigned to these two and a half tribes without lot; the first among the three general divisions which occurred. Let us learn somewhat more accurately the district and seat which the tribes received. The western boundary of it is the Jordan, the eastern the Arabian desert, the southern the brook Arnon, the northern Mount Hermon. This whole district bears in Scripture in a wide sense the name of Gilead. According to other passages, when Gilead is taken in a stricter sense it is divided into the two districts Gilead and Bashan. The tribe of Reuben receives the most southern part of this whole district, separated on the south from the Moabites by the brook Arnon. Its northern boundary began somewhere above the Dead Sea. This region had been completely in possession of the Amorites, was then taken from them by the Moabites, and was finally retaken by them. On its borders, parallel to the north end of the Dead Sea, lay its old royal city Hesbon, now Hesbân. Reuben was followed by Gad, separated by Jabbok on the east from the country of the Amorites, whom the Israelites might not drive out from their possessions because they were blood-relations. The half-tribe Manasseh received the most northern part of the country beyond the Jordan, the most northern part of Gilead in a strict sense, and all Bashan. Of this portion of territory North Gilead fell to the race of Machir, by whom it had been taken. Bashan was assigned to Jair, a valiant hero. According to this division, made by the authority of Moses, there were therefore only nine and a half tribes to provide for. The main camp was still at Gilgal. There, at the time already named, after the close of the campaign narrated, Joshua determined to undertake the division of the land. The reason which called forth this determination just at the present time was probably the conviction, that permanent possession of the country in all its various parts could only be obtained in connection with colonization. Yet this determination was very imperfectly fulfilled at that time. Only the tribes of Judah, Ephraim, and half-Manasseh received their territory. The cause of the incomplete accomplishment is not expressly given in the narrative. Yet it may be gathered with some probability from several hints, although considerable obscurity remains, and the matter requires far more thorough and profound discussion than it has recently received from Keil. In the division Joshua acted on the fundamental axiom, that all the land not yet conquered should be considered as conquered, and must also be parcelled out by lot, Joshua 13:6. In this spirit he regulated the size of the first-drawn lot of the tribe of Judah and of the tribe of Ephraim. So great an extent was given to these tribes, that the greater part of the country which was already conquered fell to them alone. But the remaining tribes were not satisfied with this. Their confidence in the divine promise was not so great that, like Joshua, the hero of faith, they could be as sure of the land that had still to be conquered as of that already conquered. They would prefer still to continue their unsettled life for a period rather than acknowledge the division. They wished to see first how it would go with the further occupation of the land, in order, in case it should prove unfavourable, to lay claim to a portion of the territory of the tribes of Judah and Joseph. That this was the case appears from the fact that, in the later third division at Shiloh, the promised land was not parcelled out, but only the conquered land, and that the tribes of Judah and Ephraim were obliged to give up part of their territory. The tribe of Benjamin was inserted between the two; the tribe of Dan received its possessions westwards, between the two; then Judah was obliged to cede a portion of Simeon. Let us now speak particularly of the distribution at Gilgal. Before the drawing of lots had commenced, according to Joshua 14:6 ff., Caleb, called the Kenezite—i.e. the descendant of a certain Kenaz, of whom nothing further is known—came before Joshua, accompanied by the representatives of the tribe of Judah, which, in order to give more weight to the private petition of one of its citizens, treated it as a general one, and demanded the region round about Hebron, as promised to him, in reward for his faithfulness to the Lord amid the unfaithfulness of the other spies who were sent out with him. The event may be found narrated in Numbers 13 and Deuteronomy 1. In the latter passage, in Deuteronomy 1:36, mention is made of a promise given by Moses to Caleb, yet without an exact definition of the portion of land to be given to Caleb, which is also wanting in Numbers 14:24. It is only stated, that the Lord would give him and his sons the land which he had trodden. That this has reference to Hebron and its environs, where, according to Numbers 14:24, the spies remained for a long time, we first learn with full certainty from the narrative in the book of Joshua. Caleb’s intention in now demanding the fulfilment of this obligation was probably to separate his fate from that of his tribe, which was to be settled by lot. Joshua does nothing further than to give him Hebron; and, according to Joshua 15:1, the tribe of Judah received its territory by lot. It was a decree of divine providence that the lot should have fallen so that Caleb received his inheritance in his tribe. Moreover, it follows from Joshua 20:7, comp. with Joshua 21:4, that the town of Hebron was afterwards ceded by Caleb to the Levites, as part of their possession, in consequence of its choice as a free city for unintentional murder,—for such cities were always obliged to be Levitical. Caleb could accede to this the more readily, since he retained what was most important for him, viz. the surrounding district. In all probability the drawing of lots was so ordered that in one of the vessels were placed the names of the twelve tribes, in the other the designations of the twelve portions of land. As soon as the lot of one tribe was drawn, before proceeding further, the limits of this tribe were determined in proportion to the number of its members. Some—for example, Masius and Bachiëne—have thought that Joshua’s previous intention at Gilgal was only to allow the two tribes, Judah and Joseph, to draw lots between themselves, and to defer the distribution of the land among the other tribes until the remaining territory should be conquered. But this view is at variance with the narrative in the book of Joshua. According to Joshua 14:1 ff. Joshua and the high priest had no other idea than to allow all the tribes to draw lots. The drawing of lots can therefore only have been interrupted by the circumstances already mentioned. If this were not so, we cannot see why at least a few of the tribes besides Judah and Ephraim should not also have drawn lots, since in any case there would have been space enough for them in the land already conquered, even if Judah and Joseph had retained the whole of their territory; as is sufficiently shown by the subsequent division at Shiloh, between which and that at Gilgal no important conquests were made. The first lot fell to the tribe of Judah. As the most numerous tribe, he received the largest territory, the district south of Gilgal in its whole extent between the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean. The next lot fell to the children of Joseph. Several, as for example Calvin, think that Ephraim and Manasseh had each a separate lot. The fact that the lots are in close succession, and that both districts immediately adjoined one another, they attribute to a special working of divine providence. But this already gives more probability to the other view, which supposes that there was only a common lot for Ephraim and Manasseh, and that they afterwards divided the land which they had received in this way by lot between themselves. This view is confirmed by the narrative, Joshua 16:1 ff., where mention is made only of a common lot of the children of Ephraim. In this way it came about that the brethren received their inheritance together. Of this common inheritance the tribe of Ephraim received the southern portion. The brook Cana formed the boundary between the two. Ephraim occupied the whole breadth of the land. For both sea and Jordan come into the settlement of the boundary. Between it and Judah lay the tribes of Dan and Benjamin, according to the later determination at Shiloh, which lies at the basis of the statement of the boundaries. The third division among the seven tribes which still remained occurred at Shiloh, a place whose ruins even now bear the name Seilûn: comp. Robinson, iii. p. 303 ff. Thither the tabernacle of the covenant was transferred from Gilgal. Joshua chose Shiloh, probably because it lay in the tribe of Ephraim, to which he himself belonged, in order to have the tabernacle ofthe covenant in the neighbourhood. Add to this that Shiloh was almost in the middle of Canaan, and was therefore easily accessible to all the tribes. There the sanctuary remained for some centuries, during the whole time of the Judges, until, towards the end of this period, it was transferred to Nob, owing to a cause which will be narrated hereafter. Joshua had by this time perceived that the indolence and want of faith of the Israelites would render the accomplishment of the earlier plan, viz. the whole distribution of the promised land, impossible. Since the distribution at Shiloh nothing of any consequence had been done towards the conquest of the land that still remained. He must therefore content himself with the distribution of the country already conquered, at least in the mass, in order not to leave undone the commission given him by the Lord to distribute the land. The division was now carried out with the greatest precision and foresight. By Joshua’s command Judah and Joseph were to retain their inheritance in those districts which had formerly been allotted to them. One-and-twenty men from the tribes which still remained, three out of every tribe, were to traverse the country, take a geographical survey of it, and divide it into seven parts. In this the Israelites were doubtless assisted by the Egyptian school. Ancient authors, especially Herodotus, ii. 109, Strabo, xvii. 787, Diod. Sic. i. 69, agree in maintaining that Egypt was the fatherland of geographical survey and measurement. The condition of the country must necessarily have led to this invention at a very early period; for, by the overflow of the Nile, boundaries were annually made unrecognisable. We can scarcely suppose but that the persons who were sent out by Joshua made plans or charts of the land, although this is not expressly stated: comp. Clericus on Joshua 17:2. But there was probably no geometrical measurement of the land in detail: comp. Keil on the other side. After the land had been surveyed in this way, the districts were assigned to the seven tribes by lot. The first lot fell upon the tribe of Benjamin. Its northern limit was the southern boundary of the tribe of Ephraim, already mentioned; its southern limit the northern boundary of Judah; on the east it bordered on the Jordan; and on the west, about the centre of the country, on the tribe of Dan, by which it was shut out from the Mediterranean Sea. After Benjamin’s lot came that of Simeon. Of him we read in Joshua 19:1 : “And their inheritance was within the inheritance of the children of Judah.” This is generally understood to mean that Simeon had a district with definite boundaries, but enclosed round about by the tribe of Judah. But such is not probable, for the reason that, in this case, the boundaries of Simeon are not given, as in all the other tribes, but only an enumeration of the towns in his possession. And these towns are too far distant from one another to give any probability to the hypothesis of a common territory. Moreover, on this supposition, it would be impossible to explain the statement of the dying Jacob in Genesis 49:7, that the descendants of Simeon should be no less scattered than those of Levi, on account of the crime perpetrated by the two ancestors together. According to this, therefore, it is far more probable that Simeon only received mere unconnected towns in Judah, with their environs, which also explains why he is omitted in the blessing of Moses. The blessing of Judah concerned him also. The third place was taken by Zebulun. It seems that this tribe must have touched the sea; for, otherwise, neither would the blessing of Jacob have been fulfilled—where special prominence is given to the fact that Zebulun would enjoy the privilege of living on the sea-coast—nor the blessing of Moses, where the sea is also assigned to him as a limit. But the bordering on the sea seems to be entirely excluded by the passage Joshua 17:10, comp. with Joshua 19:26, where we read that the tribe of Manasseh bordered northwards on Asher, and that Asher stretched as far as the promontory Carmel, on the Mediterranean Sea. The explanation is this: In the blessing of Jacob and Moses no special mention is made of the tribe of Zebulun as such; but only in connection with the name Zebulun, dwelling, prominence is given to the advantages which Israel generally enjoyed by their dwelling on the sea, since most of the blessings are not individual, but are only applications of the universal blessing. It is only false interpretation which would draw from Joshua 19:11 that Zebulun bordered on the sea. לימה does not there mean usque ad mare, but westwards. The tribe of Issachar received the fourth lot. Its northern boundary was the tribe of Zebulun; its eastern boundary, the lowest part of the Sea of Tiberias, and the Jordan; its southern boundary, the tribe of Ephraim; its western boundary, the tribe of Manasseh, by which it was cut off from the Mediterranean Sea. To it belonged the eastern part of the extremely fruitful plain of Israel, now Esdraelon. The fifth lot fell upon the children of the tribe of Asher. It was a narrow, but very long stretch of land, extending from Carmel northwards to Lebanon and Hermon; yet the most northern districts probably never came completely into possession of the tribe. Its western limit was partly the Mediterranean Sea, partly Phoenicia; its eastern limit was reckoned from north to south. The colony of the Danites in the spring-land of the Jordan, the tribes of Naphtali, Zebulun, and Issachar. Its southern boundary the tribe of Manasseh. The sixth lot fell to the children of Naphtali. It bordered, we read in Joshua 19:34, on the south on Zebulun, on the west on Asher, and on the east on Judah at the Jordan. These latter words have given great difficulty to expositors. The correct explanation has been established by Raumer, in his Palestine, 4th edit. p. 233, and in his contributions to Biblical Geography. Judah on the Jordan is the district of Bashan, the inheritance of Jair, who was descended on his father’s side from Judah, on his mother’s side from Manasseh, comp. the genealogy in 1 Chronicles 2:21-23, to which latter tribe he is generally reckoned, because he was a bastard son. The seat of the last tribe, Dan (already sufficiently denoted), was between Judah, Ephraim, the Mediterranean Sea, and Benjamin. He had a territory difficult to conquer, and still more difficult to maintain. Afterwards the Danites, oppressed by the Amorites, who had re-established themselves in their former territory and robbed them of the best part of their land, undertook a march into the most northern part of Palestine, the cradle-land of the Jordan, above the tribe of Naphtali, and there founded a colony whose capital, Leshem or Laish, which they had conquered, received through them the name of Dan. After the division had been completed, progress was made towards the execution of the Mosaic decree respecting the establishment of free cities. Moses found the habit of blood-revenge common among his people, or the custom that the relatives of a murdered man must kill the murderer, under penalty of indelible shame; a custom so firmly rooted among the race allied to the Hebrews—the Arabians—that it could not be eradicated by the means which Mohammed instituted against it in the Koran. The injurious consequences of this custom need scarcely be pointed out. The punishment often fell upon those who were quite innocent, because the avenger of blood allowed himself to be deceived by a false report. It involved the rash manslaughterer no less than the intentional murderer. One murder gave rise to an endless succession of others, especially since a private affair was frequently taken up by the tribe, as the history of the Arabs shows. The nimbus in which the blood-revenge was clothed must on the whole have had a strong tendency to promote coarseness and cruelty; as we have melancholy proof in the writings of the Arabs before Mohammed. But this very nimbus made it extremely difficult to root out the custom, as we may perceive from the analogy of duels. The manner in which Moses sought to eradicate the injurious custom justified itself by the result. He ordained that the Israelites, after the occupation of the land, should establish free cities of refuge from the avengers of blood, Numbers 35; Deuteronomy 19. The roads to these cities, which were situated in all parts of the land, were to be kept carefully in repair. In order to give the places a special sanctity, they were all to be Levitical towns. If the perpetrator fortunately arrived in one of these cities, investigation was first of all made whether he was a murderer or a manslaughterer. If the former, he was given up by justice to the avenger of blood—in which respect the law gave way to established custom. By the enactment that the murderer was to be dragged away, even from the altar, and was to die, Exodus 21:14, the asylums of the Israelites were essentially distinguished from those of the Greeks and Romans, and also of the middle ages, which afforded protection to criminals of every kind. If the perpetrator were found innocent, the free city was a sure place of refuge for him. He dared not, however, venture beyond the limits of it. If the avenger of blood were to meet him outside the city, he might kill him; in which circumstance there was also a concession to the prevailing custom. Not until after the death of the then high priest, which, as a country-wide calamity, had a softening and conciliating effect upon the minds of all, durst the murderer return to his native town with perfect safety. In vain do Baumgarten and Keil attribute atoning significance to the death of the high priest. This banishment served a double end. It spared the pain of the relatives of the murdered man, which, aroused by the constant sight of the murderer, might easily have driven them to the perpetration of revenge; and at the same time testimony was borne to the value of man’s blood in the sight of God, who thus punished even an unintentional shedding of it. Compare the copious exposition in Michaelis, Mos. Recht. ii. § 131 ff. The time had now come when the Levites were also to receive the maintenance destined for them. It was enjoined by law. Numbers 35, that every tribe, in proportion to its size, should cede certain cities, with their immediate environs—as much as would suffice to pasture their cattle. The number of these cities amounted in all to forty-eight. At first sight this provision appears too large for a tribe so comparatively small in numbers. But this semblance disappears when we consider that the cities were inhabited not by the Levites alone, but also by their artisans, etc., from other tribes, who in some cases constituted the greater part of the population: comp. Leviticus 25:33; 1 Chronicles 6:40-41. The distribution of these cities among the Levites was accomplished in the following manner: The tribe of Levi was divided into four minor sections. Levi had three sons: Gershom, Kohath, and Merari. The race of the Kohathites was again divided into a double section, the priestly and the non-priestly. Thus Aaron was Kohath’s descendant through Amram, and in his posterity, by the Mosaic decree, the hereditary priesthood was exclusively bound up. Of the four sons of Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar, the two former died in his lifetime, leaving no children. Eleazar and Ithamar therefore became the ancestors of the whole priestly race. These, so far as we can judge, were, even in the Mosaic time, surrounded by a considerable number of sons and grandsons; and it is only by a misunderstanding of Numbers 3:4 that Colenso assumes that there were at that time only three priests. He takes Eleazar and Ithamar to be merely individuals, whereas they ought rather to be considered as heads of races. Aaron died in the last year of the march through the wilderness, at an age of 123 years, so that the priestly race at his death might already have branched out far and wide. After these four divisions, the forty-eight cities were divided into four lots. By a special decree of divine providence it happened that the priestly race received the cities in Judah, Simeon, and Benjamin, and therefore in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, afterwards the seat of the sanctuary. The discrepancies between the list of the Levitical towns in the book of Joshua and that in 1 Chronicles 7 are most easily explained by the fact that a few of the towns assigned to the Levites were at that time still in possession of the Canaanites, and because the hope of immediate conquest proved deceitful, were provisionally replaced by others, which were afterwards retained to escape the inconvenience of changing. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 23: 23. § 4. RETURN OF THE TRANS-JORDANIC TRIBES.—JOSHUA’S LAST EXHORTATIONS.—ACCOUNTS GIVE... ======================================================================== § 4. Return of the Trans-Jordanic Tribes.—Joshua’s Last Exhortations.—Accounts Given in Other Places of the History of Joshua.—Condition of the Israelites under Him After the distribution of the land, the two and a half tribes were dismissed to their territory by Joshua. The departure took place at Shiloh. A decree which met them upon their way back had almost given rise to a bloody civil war; the event is of importance so far as it shows us how the strict judgments of God in the wilderness, and His manifestations of grace on the taking of the land, did not fall short of their aim, since they had inspired even the mass of the people with the desire to be well-pleasing to the Lord, and with holy awe of incurring His displeasure by neglect of His commands. When the tribes had come to the Jordan, therefore to the eastern boundary of the land of Canaan in the stricter sense, they there built an altar, on the shore on this side, not on the opposite side, as some have supposed, contrary to the clear, literal sense, and with total misapprehension of the meaning of the act. Their intention was that this altar, an image of the altar in the tabernacle of the covenant, should bear witness to posterity that its builders had communia sacra with those in whose land it was built, had part and inheritance in the Lord. The trans-Jordanic country was never expressly mentioned in the promises to the patriarchs, which is remarkable, and shows that they were not made only post eventum. They feared that because the land on their side of the Jordan was the true land of promise, the seat of the sanctuary of the Lord, the descendants of the tribes on this side might, at a future time, contest with them the participation in the prerogatives of the covenant-nation, and exclude them from the sanctuary of the Lord. In accordance with the spirit of antiquity, as it speaks most characteristically in the words of Joshua to the nation on another opportunity, Joshua 24:27, “Behold this stone shall be a witness unto us; for it hath heard all the words of the Lord which He spake unto us,” they believed that they could meet this danger in no better way; and the very fact that they sought so carefully to meet it shows that faith had struck its roots into them. They did not transgress the command of Moses to build no other altar besides that in the tabernacle of the covenant. What they erected bore the name of an altar only in a figurative sense. They had no intention of sacrificing there, in opposition to Deuteronomy 12:13, “Take heed to thyself that thou offer not thy burnt-offerings in every place that thou seest.” Their altar was nothing more than an image and memorial. They were to blame only in not telling their plan and design previously to Joshua and the high priest Eleazar, and obtaining their approval. The news of their undertaking caused great disturbance among the tribes on this side, who were ignorant of its object. It did not indeed occur to them that the altar was dedicated to another god than the God of Israel; so flagrant an apostasy could not have been imagined at that time. But the opinion was that they wished to honour the true God by sacrifice in a self-chosen place, and even this appeared as the beginning of a greater and complete apostasy, to guard against which had been the very object of the law relative to the imity of the sanctuary. The ἐθελοθρησκεία with regard to places leads to the ἐθελοθρησκεία with regard to objects of worship. This is the deepest reason of the Mosaic regulation. Worship must be withdrawn from the province of caprice, from the invention of the nation. Just as they were to worship God not after their own subjective ideas, but as He had revealed Himself, so also they were to worship Him where He had revealed Himself, where He had promised to be. The people flocked together to Shiloh, determined, to prevent the intended evil. But before going any further, Phinehas, the son of Eleazar the high priest, who had formerly distinguished himself by his zeal for the Lord, comp. Numbers 25, was sent in company with the ten princes of the tribes to the two and a half tribes, in harmony with the regulation in Deuteronomy 13:15, according to which the truth of the report of such evil was first to be examined into, before proceeding to punishment. His address to them is earnest and severe. The answer of the two and a half tribes removes the misunderstanding, restores peace, and awakens great joy. With the distribution of the land Joshua had fulfilled his vocation. He now retired to his town Timnath-Serach upon Mount Ephraim, Joshua 19:50, and there spent the last years of his pilgrimage in quiet retirement. When he perceived that his end was approaching he sent for the people—i.e., as appears from the limiting definition in Joshua 23:2 and Joshua 24:1, the representatives and officers of the nation, perhaps also those who had repaired voluntarily to the prescribed place of assembling—and there addressed them in the affecting speeches related in Joshua 23-24. Some—for example, Calvin and Maurer—have assumed that both chapters contain one and the same address of Joshua, uttered at Sichem—the former by extract, the latter in detail. But Masius, on Joshua 23, has already pointed out the contrary very clearly. The new mention of the assembly of the whole people, and of the place where it was convened, in Joshua 24, is totally inexplicable on the other hypothesis. The place where the first discourse was held—in which Joshua begins by reminding the nation of all the mercies of the Lord, and then represents to them the blessings which they have to expect if they are faithful, and the punishments if they are unfaithful—is not defined. And just because this is not done, we must conclude that the assembly was held at Shiloh, beside the holy tent, which from Joshua 18:1 to the death of Joshua appears throughout as the centre of the nation. The second, and far more solemn assembly, was called at Sichem. The reason why a second assembly was convened lies in the character of the place. It gave the people an incitement which had been wanting in Shiloh. The LXX. regarded it as so strange that Shiloh should not rather have served for the place of assembling, that they substituted Shiloh for Sichem. Some think they can explain it from the sole circumstance that Sichem was the place where the rulers of the people were assembled in order to bury the bones of Joseph, comp. Joshua 24:32. It is at least possible that this happened at that time, although it might equally well have happened before (which is even more probable), since in the passage referred to it is only told by way of supplement. But in no case is this supposition necessary to explain the choice of Sichem. We have already seen that it was a place especially hallowed by memorials of the patriarchs. There the patriarch Jacob had undertaken a similar consecration of his house, comp. Joshua 24:23, Joshua 24:26 with Genesis 35:2-4. Shiloh had nothing of the kind to show; already the name of the town, from שׁלה, to be at rest, and the way in which, in the book of Joshua, it is combined with the observation that the whole land rested from war, Joshua 18:1, appears to indicate that the town was first founded by the Israelites, and increased rapidly; because, by means of the national sanctuary, it had become the national centre. Sichem had received new meaning through Joshua himself, who there solemnly renewed the covenant with the Lord, immediately after the first entering the land; and perpetuated this renewal by a memorial. Owing to this very circumstance, it must have appeared to Joshua specially fitted for his present design, because it was his intention, before his end, to constrain the people once more to keep the covenant. From the circumstance that in Joshua 18:1 it is said that the Israelites appeared before the Lord at Sichem, many have supposed that Joshua had either the ark of the covenant alone, or else the whole sacred tabernacle brought to Sichem. לפנייהוה, certainly, is not unfrequently used of the ark of the covenant, and there is no lack of examples of its having been brought from its usual place to another on special occasions. But it follows from Joshua 24:26 that this was not the case here; at least we are not at liberty to assume that the words “before God,” לפניהאלהים, have reference to it. Here we read: “And Joshua took a great stone, and set it up there under the oak (not, as some maintain, an oak) that was by the sanctuary of the Lord.” By the “sanctuary of the Lord” it is impossible here to understand the ark of the covenant, or the tent, because we read that the oak stands in it. But even if we were to grant that the במקדשׁ might here mean “in the neighbourhood of the sanctuary,” although the ב can never exactly mean “near to,” it would yet be quite unsuitable to say that the oak was beside the ark of the covenant, since the latter would rather have been beside the former. The ark would only have been here temporarily, while the oak remained permanently. Evidently it is the author’s object to give an exact definition of the place where the memorial was. But how could the ark of the covenant or the tent serve as such, when it might perhaps be carried away again on the following day? Without doubt the correct view is the following: The oak is that tree under which Abraham had his first vision of the Lord, after his immigration into Canaan, and near which he had built an altar: comp. Genesis 12:6-7. Under the same oak Jacob had afterwards buried the idols which his wives had brought with them from Mesopotamia, Genesis 35:4. The environs of this oak were sacred by the events which had occurred there. They were therefore called מקדשׁ, sanctuary; just as Jacob called the place where he had a vision ביתאל, “the house of God.” Great was the number of sanctuaries in this sense in Canaan, because great had been the revelations of the Lord in the past. Their recognition was not at variance with the law respecting the unity of the sanctuary. For this had reference only to the sanctuary as a place of sacrifice. Here, therefore, where the nearness of God was especially palpable, Joshua summoned the nation before God. And here he begins by recounting to the Israelites the whole series of the benefits of God, beginning with the call of Abraham. The only difficulty we have is that in Joshua 24:12 it is said that the Lord sent hornets before the Israelites, which destroyed the Canaanites out of their land. We find no mention of this in the book of Joshua. Nevertheless many expositors have thought it necessary to assume that a number of the Canaanites were really driven away by hornets. The Catholics were the less able to do otherwise, since in the Book of Wisdom, Ws 12:8, the plague of hornets seems to be narrated as a historical occurrence. Some try to meet the objection drawn from the silence of the book of Joshua by supposing that reference is here made to an event prior to the occupation of the Israelites—a view whose untenableness, however, may readily be shown. In order to prove the possibility of the thing, those passages have carefully been collated which tell of great damages caused by flies, wasps, etc.: comp. Bochart, Hieroz. ii. 4, 13. But neither here nor in the promises, Exodus 23:28, Deuteronomy 7:20, to which Joshua alludes, and which he characterizes as fulfilled, is there any argument in favour of the view that the sending of hornets by the Lord is to be understood literally; which would only be the case if the history told of a literal fulfilment. With equal justice we might also maintain that Joshua 23:13 is to be understood literally, where we read that the Canaanites were made “snares and traps “to the rebellious Israelites, scourges in their side and thorns in the eyes. We find similar images elsewhere: comp. Deuteronomy 1:44; Isaiah 7:18. The hornets are an image of the divine terror, by which the minds of the Canaanites were first made soft and cowardly, so that they lost the power of resistance, as appears from Exodus 23:28, comp. with Exodus 23:27. Augustine already takes this view, August. Quoest. 27 in Josh.: “Acerrimos timoris stimulos quibus quodammodo volantibus rumoribus pungebantur ut fugerent.” Joshua then puts to the nation the solemn question, whether they will continue to serve the Lord. And when this is answered in the affirmative, and reiterated in the affirmative, after he has placed before the nation all the greatness of the promise, he solemnly renews the covenant of the Lord with them. On this renewal a document was written and appended to the law of Moses, to the Pentateuch, which lay by the side of the ark of the covenant. Later, when the book of Joshua had been composed, and the original documents had been incorporated in this, it ceased to be appended to the Pentateuch. Some, indeed, try to understand Joshua 24:26, where this particular is recorded, as referring to the whole book of Joshua; but the entire context speaks so clearly against this view, that its origin can only be attributed to the effort to make the book itself bear testimony to its having been composed by Joshua. Not long afterwards Joshua died at the age of 110 years (about the year of the world 2570). In ancient times much trouble was taken to find in heathen authors confirmations of the history of Joshua. In this respect those were most in error who made him the Hercules of the Greeks, a jeu d’esprit which now scarcely deserves mention. But, with special interest, in the same spirit in which people now in England inquire concerning the ten tribes of Israel, investigations were made concerning the region to which the Canaanites who fled before Israel repaired. There is scarcely any country of the earth in which some one has not placed the escaped Canaanites, drawing a strong proof for his assumption from the names of countries, places, and nations. It would be loss of time for us to subject these productions of a vain imagination to profound examination. Even the opinion, which has comparatively the best foundation, that the Canaanites fled to Africa, and especially to Numidia, of which theory the main support is a passage from the late and uncertain Procopius (Vand. ii. 20), does not deserve a thorough examination. We refer to the discussion of Anton v. Dale, at the end of the work de origine et progressu idololatrias, Amstld. 1696, p. 749 sqq., after reading which it will appear incomprehensible how Bertheau can still maintain that scarcely any objection can be made to its authenticity; or how Lengerke can speak of the well-known authentic inscription. At all events it is certain that the Canaanites were not all destroyed by the sword of the Israelites. Yet there is nothing inconsistent with the supposition that those who did not perish, nor, like the Jebusites, maintain themselves for a long period in the land taken by the Israelites, in that part of the country which had not been reached by the conquests of the Israelites, may have found refuge in Phoenicia and in the district of Lebanon and Antilebanon. It is also possible that a portion of these fugitive Canaanites may have helped to form Phoenician colonies. But it is improbable that great hosts of them emigrated and peopled whole countries, which is certainly not warranted by any consideration. We shall now make a few observations on the history of religion in Joshua’s time. That in this period there was no further advance of the Old Testament principle, such as took place afterwards by the prophets, may be inferred from the character of it, as portrayed in the previous historical sketch; so that we must regard it à priori as a totally useless undertaking when Ewald here tries to insert a whole series of religious institutions, which he has torn away from their natural soil, that of the Mosaic time. Inter arma silent leges. The main theme of the age was rather an external one—that of putting Israel in possession of the promised land, and so securing the condition of future development. The most fitting emblem for this period is the Angel of God with the drawn sword, which meets us just on its threshold. Joshua himself, the representative of Israel at this time, is throughout a warlike figure. Already the Pentateuch places him in remarkable contrast with Moses. But at the same time this period was entrusted with the task of exercising the nation in obedience to the law given by Moses, of teaching them to learn this law by heart. And the latter aim, as we have already fully seen, was attained in a high degree. In Judges 2:7 we read: “And the people served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that outlived Joshua, who had seen all the great works of the Lord that He did for Israel.” Yet this applies, as is self-evident, only to the mass of the people; it would clash with all experience and with the scriptural idea of human nature if we were to assume that every individual among the Israelites was free from idolatry. Idolatry was, as unbelief is now, the form in which at that time the mind of the natural man appeared. We can never separate it from this its basis, and regard it as something accidental, as an incomprehensible absurdity. Among the mass of the Israelites this natural tendency was suppressed and hindered from breaking out, if not completely destroyed, partly through love to the true God, whose magnanimous acts they had just experienced, partly through fear of Him and of the strict control of His servant Joshua. How distinctly Joshua stands out in the foreground at this time, and how little it helps the current interchange of theocracy and hierarchy, appears from the remark of Paulus: “This high priest (Eleazar) must have led Joshua with great delicacy, since his name appears so little in the history, while Joshua seems to do everything.” Nevertheless we cannot but suppose that individuals transgressed this barrier, and if not openly, yet in secret, practised idolatry—or at least did homage to subordinate gods besides the true God. For it is very difficult to conceive the complete non-existence of the heathen deities, those giant images, which had the consensus gentium against it. But we can prove by definite testimony that it was so. Joshua says in his farewell speech, Joshua 24:14 : “And put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt;” and Joshua 24:23 : “Now, therefore, put away the strange gods which are among you.” It is true that Augustine in the Quaest. 29 in Josuam, Calvin, and recently Keil, have supposed that reference was here made, not to external idolatry, but to idolatrous fancies and thoughts. But if these cannot be excluded in any way, the words clearly imply the putting away of literal idols. And, moreover, it is impossible to conceive of idolatrous thoughts without an effort after their realization in idolatrous worship. That the fear of God had not become absolutely universal also appears from Joshua 22:17, where the messengers of the ten tribes say to the two and a half tribes to which they are sent: “Is the iniquity of Peor too little for us, from which we are not cleansed until this day?” Some understand these words in a sense according to which they would not belong here. Thus Calvin thinks that “from which we are not cleansed until this day” is equivalent to “which we still have fresh in our memories;” Michaelis: “which even now tends to our reproach and shame.” But already Masius has shown that this meaning does not satisfy the text. The being cleansed from a fault means the granting of forgiveness for it, according to the prevailing usage of Scripture, which cannot be abandoned even here. It had, indeed, already been granted, after the heroic act of Phinehas, with regard to the whole nation, in so far that a stop was put to the destructive punishment, comp. Numbers 25:2. But the absolute bestowment of forgiveness was not yet implied in the cessation of the punishment. This was attached to a condition, the repentance of the individuals involved in the guilt; and, since the whole nation had more or less participated in it, to the repentance of the whole nation. Phinehas here explains that the unconditional bestowment of forgiveness had not yet come to pass; and hence we are justified in concluding that, even at that time, a considerable portion of the nation continued in a perverse mind; for if they had truly turned away from the sin, they would also have been freed from the divine anger which rested upon them. Concerning the external form of religion in this period there is little to be said. The sole remarkable change which took place in that respect, viz. the transfer of the sanctuary to Shiloh, has already been commented on. The impression made on the after-world by the events of Joshua’s time, the incitement thus afforded to the love of God, and their significance for the religious development of the nation, we and others learn from the beginning of the 44th Psalm: “We have heard with our ears, O God, our fathers have told us, what work Thou didst in their days, in the times of old. How Thou didst drive out the heathen with Thy hand, and plantedst them; how Thou didst afflict the people, and cast them out. For they got not the land in possession by their own sword, neither did their own arm save them: but Thy right hand, and Thine arm, and the light of Thy countenance, because Thou hadst a favour unto them.” ======================================================================== CHAPTER 24: 24. ESSAY ON THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF HENGSTENBERG ======================================================================== Essayonthe LifeandWritingsof Hengstenberg BY REV. W. B. POPE, PRINCIPAL OF THE WESLEYAN COLLEGE, DIDSBURY, MANCHESTER MORE than a quarter of a century has passed since Hengstenberg’s Commentary on the Psalms opened the present series of translations. From that time until now the “Foreign Theological Library” has given the works of this eminent expositor to the English public with unfailing regularity. Hence no German name is so familiar in England as that of Hengstenberg; certainly none is so thoroughly identified with all that is sound and honest and loyal in German theology. And this prominence among ourselves corresponds very fairly with his prominence on the Continent. In many respects, and in some departments, of which a slight account will be given in these pages, Hengstenberg has been the foremost man in Lutheran Protestantism for nearly a generation. No one has for a long time departed, leaving a more sensible blank, whether in his own country or in ours. And now that his last and posthumous work appears before the English reader, it seems not inappropriate to accompany it by some notice of his life and labours. As a biographical memorial, these pages will be brief and fragmentary, for the simple reason that nothing like a memoir of this eminent man has yet appeared. But, as a tribute to his character, claims, and work, it will aim at least at being complete and faithful,—the uncoloured and honest expression of respect for services which have laid the English theological public under very great obligation. Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg was one of a noble band of men who came in with the present century, and are about this time reaching the term of human life and passing rapidly away. He was born at Fröndenberg, in Westphalia, where his ancestors for several generations, indeed from the fourteenth century downwards, had figured largely and made themselves memorable in the local annals. A line of political Hengstenbergs are found leading the movements of a feudal aristocracy; and these are matched by an equal line of ecclesiastical Hengstenbergs, in unbroken succession, from Canonicus Hengstenberg, who gave his heart and soul to the Reformation, down to the present day. The father of our subject, a man of considerable endowments and large attainments, occupied several pastoral charges, and showed some zeal and energy, especially in the department of education. A firm friend of the Union between the Lutheran and Reformed Churches, he was a theologian rather of the Reformed or Calvinistic than of the Lutheran type; and, moreover, was something of a modern “humanist,” having no very profound convictions on religion, and giving himself up very much to classical literature. The son of such a father had the ministry always kept before his view, was trained in the Reformed system of doctrine, and received an early bias towards the Union. In the last respect paternal influence was happily neutralized or lost in other and stronger influences, of which more hereafter. A good mother lived long enough to watch over him up to maturity; and this was a special blessing to a youth who began life under the conditions of a diffident nature and an unsound constitution. Until seven years of age the lad was not permitted even to read,—a restraint, however, for which he made swift amends when he fairly began. Almost entirely confined to the room by lameness, he contracted the habit of steady poring diligence in study. From that time to the end of his life he was among his books daily, from five or six o’clock in the morning until eight in the evening, with the exception of about three hours’ intermission. He was accustomed to attribute much of his success to the troubles which inured him to a sedentary life so early, and to the necessity which this imposed of exceeding strictness in exercise and diet. “I have scarcely,” he said to his brother on his deathbed, “during life known for a single day the feeling of perfect health, and have done what I have done simply through having been obliged to keep my body under stern discipline.” This must be taken into account hereafter, when the prodigious amount of his literary labour comes under notice. Young Hengstenberg was at this early stage comparatively self-taught. His father was in failing health, and left the youth very much to his own resources,—not, however, without watching him and noticing his advancement. “He will be a professor,” he used to say, with more than the usual fond presentiment. He might well indulge the prophetic instinct when such evidences of his son’s diligence met him as the following:—“The astonished and amazed countenance of my father is still before me,” says the same brother, “as he took from my brother’s hands a little honorarium, which he had received from a Leipzic publisher for the translation of a Latin author, I think Aurelius Victor. The manuscript had been at once accepted by that firm, little dreaming that the author had just entered his seventeenth year.” The same authority tells us that his brother Ernst was confirmed by his father in October 1819, and adds some remarks which it is a pleasure to quote. “On the same day was the baptism of his brother Edward, who died at Berlin in 1861 as Consistorial Counsellor. Ernst was his godfather, and watched over his youth, as also over mine, with a tenderness and fidelity the remembrance of which will never be effaced. Piety was a fundamental feature in his character always, especially in relation to his own household, every member of which may say, ‘As he loved his own, he loved them to the end.’ Next day he went to the University of Bonn, and passed his examination with great credit.” Just at that time the German youth were enthusiastic in their patriotic fury against France, and zeal for the regeneration of the Fatherland. The fruits of that seedtime of Prussian revival the world has lately seen. In Bonn the Burschenschiaft, or confederation of German youth, Hengstenberg joined and co-operated with most heartily; he helped to keep up its dignity, and received from it in return a wholesome preparation for the discipline of public life. He also derived benefit to his health from the diversion thus afforded to his overtaxed mind, and the stimulant to bodily exercise. Meanwhile he pursued his studies with diligence, chiefly in a philosophical and philological direction. Before reaching his twentieth year he had finished a translation of Aristotle’s Metaphysics, as evidence of his success in the former branch. It was in the latter, however, that he was destined to win most distinction; and an edition of an Arabic author, Amrulkeisi Moallakah, in a Latin translation, and illustrated by notes, gave earnest of his success in oriental studies. This was his testimonial essay for the Doctorship of Laws, and proved to all the world that he had not studied under Freytag in vain, and that he would in due time become a high oriental authority himself. Arabic he studied rather as a cognate of the Hebrew, and for the sake of the biblical learning, to which he already began to devote himself. For though not as yet brought under the influence of personal religion, and with only an indefinite idea of consecration to the service of the gospel, he was impelled by a strong instinct to give the first-fruits of his intellectual vigour to the sacred languages. It would not, perhaps, be wrong to say that he was already under the guidance of the good providence which directs the early energies of men who have a great work to do. Hengstenberg’s sphere of labour was to be preeminently the Old Testament; and before his twentieth year he had laid the broad and deep foundations of an eminence in Hebrew, and its kindred dialects, which not even the most learned of his numberless enemies ever despised or disparaged. One effect of his remarkable success as an oriental editor was the high opinion of Sylvester de Sacy, who recommended him to the Basle Missionary College as every way competent to give instruction in the Eastern languages. Accordingly he removed to Basle, where the Spirit awaited him who leads the sincere student into all truth. Hengstenberg spoke of this period nearly half a century afterwards, when opening his heart to the readers of the Kirchenzeitung, as the time of his conversion and of the beginning of his Christianity. “I had been engaged at Bonn,” he says, “in seeking goodly pearls, but I had not yet found the pearl of great price.” It appears, however, that his theological principles were somewhat in advance of his religious life. For when his tutor, the well-known Professor Brandis, put into his hands Schleiermacher’s new book, the Glaubenslehre, a system of Christian doctrine, he read it with profound interest, but soon returned it with the remark: “I shall not remain what I am; if indeed I did so, I should never be a theologian; but to that man I shall never betake myself.” This shows two things,—first, that the youth was discontented with himself and his own character; and, secondly, that he was able, beyond most of his contemporaries, to sound the depths or the shallows of Schleiermacher’s theology. Considering that he was a mere youth at the time, and had not been very carefully trained in systematic theology when younger, this was a remarkable exhibition of precocity. Schleiermacher was then rising to the height of fame and influence. The book which young Hengstenberg thus threw from him was fascinating almost the whole world of German Protestantism, and literally inaugurating a new era of religious thought. Its influence was destined to divide the old from the new, and not only to stem, but to arrest and turn back, the tide of Rationalism. Had the youth been previously entangled in the snares of the Illuminists, it is probable that he might, like many others, have hailed Schleiermacher as his saviour. But, fortified by a strong and determinate bias towards pietism in sentiment and orthodoxy in creed, he saw only the negative and unreal elements in the new theology of dependence. He perceived plainly, or rather felt, that Schleiermacher’s God was not the triune God in personal manifestations to the human race; that his Christ was an ideal being, who accomplished only an ideal atonement; that in his hands the entire face of theology was changed, and man had become in a wonderful manner the centre of religious truth. He perceived how the subjective spirit of the new Christianity trifled with the objective facts, and was disposed to subordinate the firm external word to the internal consciousness of feeling. It may be gathered that he left Bonn with a rooted conviction of the truth of the Bible as a record of God’s dealings with the human race, and with a full preparation of heart for the reception of those personal influences which the associations of Bâsle would soon bring to bear upon him. In the missionary institution of that place he remained only a short time, but long enough to find what he called “the pearl of great price.” Hengstenberg was not a man given to much self-revelation; and it was at a season of unwonted freedom of spirit, when the approach of the end released his tongue from restraint, that he spoke of this period of his conversion. The details of his call and personal consecration are not at our command; nor do we need them. His whole life bore testimony, clear, consistent, and unvarying, to the reality of his devotion to the Person of Christ,—a devotion which he entered upon at Basle. He became what in Germany was called a Pietist,—what in England would be called an earnest Christian. To this pietistic, fervent, experimental type of religion, the soul of which is the personal relation of the believer to his Lord, he was faithful to the end, notwithstanding some appearances to the contrary. It classed him with bodies of men from whom, as to their doctrine and religious observances, he recoiled with something like aversion. It allied him, for instance, in spirit with Neander, and Tholuck, and Stier, from whom, as evangelical disciples of Schleiermacher, he kept at a doctrinal distance. But to this we shall have to return. Hengstenberg very soon reached the goal of his ambition and the scene of his long labours, the University of Berlin. This new foundation was fast becoming the glory of Prussia. It had not undergone the usual lot of such institutions, that of a gradual victory over prejudice and attainment of popularity, but took its place at once amongst the foremost factors in modern Christendom. The ministry who had charge of the education of the country, with a wise forethought gave every encouragement to young men of ability wherever found. Hengstenberg was one of those who profited by this patronage. He had obtained a Doctorship in Divinity at Tübingen,—another illustration of precocity, remarkable even in that region of early maturity, reminding us of the youthful veterans of our own universities in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. To attain this degree he must have worked hard in theology, at least in biblical theology, to which he seems to have devoted himself, as soon as his mind became truly Christian, with a concentration that never relaxed. Thus graced, he found his way to Berlin, and underwent the severe ordeals which test the ability of a candidate to become a private teacher of theology. Shortly afterwards, in 1828, he became ordinary Professor, and took the rank and position which he held to the end. Thus we find him, at an age when most of our students are looking out upon life, and pondering their vocation, in the dignity of a teacher of the most difficult science in one of the most important universities of Europe. No sooner was he settled in this post than he became settled in another respect. He married a lady of high birth and connections, who thus contributed materially towards securing his access to high society, and extending his influence among those who would otherwise have been inaccessible. It may be said here that this wife was a most faithful sharer of his joys and sorrows for thirty-two years. His home was in all respects happy, save indeed that Providence disturbed its peace by a succession of bereavements. Though he was left all but childless in later life, his children while spared to him were a source of the purest satisfaction. The fidelity with which he watched over the sons of his own generation entrusted to him was rewarded by the goodness of his own. His family was from the beginning well ordered. In due time his house became one, and not the least favoured, among the many centres in Berlin to which the cultivated in Church and State were attracted. His open hospitality will long be remembered; and still longer his more unostentatious but more influential private receptions of the students, for whom a certain portion of the day was always reserved. In this last respect Professor Hengstenberg was only complying with a familiar and kindly usage in the German universities. How perpetually do we fall in with grateful reminiscences placed on record by students under such men as Olshausen, Stier, Schmid, and especially Tholuck, who did so much by their private and unreserved influence towards reinforcing and confirming the public influence of their Chairs! When Hengstenberg began his public career in Berlin, the aspect of theology, and of religion generally, was very gloomy. The expectations excited some dozen years before by the fresh tide that had been poured into German thought and life by the war of freedom had been to a great extent disappointed. Sanguine men had hoped that the vulgar rationalism was effectually checked, and that the chastised nation would return to a simpler religious faith. A noble future of sound development was expected for the evangelical Church of Germany. It was thought, moreover, that this development would be greatly assisted by the Union which had been brought about, under the influence of King Frederick William and his ministry, between the Lutheran and the Reformed Confessions. This Union, it is true, had rather been imposed upon the Churches than matured as the growth of healthy tendencies from within; but it was hoped that it would nevertheless be consolidated in due time, and that, as a peace-offering to the tercentenary of the Reformation, it would be accepted of God and approved of men. The result was not what was hoped, though only what might naturally have been expected. The Union increased the division, and gave occasion to the old enemy to blaspheme. Confession waged war with confession. The spirit became manifest which, in Silesia and elsewhere, made Old-Lutheranism resist all attempts to bring it into concert with Calvinism; and the Government, already greatly embarrassed, was beginning to find out that this would be a question of long continuance and of endless difficulty. Evangelical Germany, divided amidst contradictory opinions, was much less able to resist the common foe of rationalism. The theological schools which began to be fashioned under the influence of Schleiermacher, and which afterwards split into two camps, that of the orthodox and that of the rationalists, had nothing strong and definite enough wherewith to encounter the practised adversary, skilled in the tactics of nearly a century. An internal, and subjective, and ideal religious system was not palpable enough for rough aggression, or even defensive warfare; at any rate, it had not yet put forth its strength, and its Neanders and Tholucks were men of might who had not yet found their hands. The orthodox Lutheran confessional divines, who have since done so much to restore systematic theology in Germany, were only beginning to form a consolidated party; and as yet the wonderful Lutheran divines of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries slumbered on the shelves. Meanwhile the rationalists, whether more or less unfriendly to supernaturalism, had the fatal prerogative of the highest learning and the highest places. The old and vulgar rationalism of Röhr and Bretschneider was in the ascendant in some seats of learning. In Halle, eight hundred young divines, the pride and hope of Germany, sat at the feet of Wegscheider and Gesenius, gathering up and surely remembering every word and every argument against traditionalism or the faith, catching the subtle influence of every innuendo and every sally of wit, and receiving into soil only too fruitful the plentiful seed of a no less plentiful harvest. The times seemed very unpropitious. Some hope there was in the pure and earnest godliness which Pietism nurtured in southern Germany, and which found its way, through the influence of individuals, into all the centres of the north. But Pietism was hated most cordially by the leading statesmen of the day, and by the leading professors also. The former were busy with the formularies of worship, but exceedingly anxious to keep out of those formularies the living spirit that would have given them their value. They seemed to have lost sight of the truth that a sound confession, a perfect liturgical service, and an evangelical life breathed into both, and working upon the world by love, make up the notion of the Christian Church. The dignitaries who taught theology were too often thoroughly sceptical as to the fundamental documents on which all depend. The Old and New Testaments were disintegrated; their unity surrendered and broken up into mere collections of literary fragments; criticism played havoc with the text; Rationalism cleared away all the miracles and the mysteries; and a hard and literal grammatical interpretation made the residue harmless to the conscience and the peace. Things seemed to have reached such a pass, that truth and fidelity cried out aloud, and almost in despair, for some champions who could meet the adversary with equal learning and with equal pertinacity. Such champions there were, and the organizations were ready through which they might rally the dispirited forces of evangelical Germany. The Government were to feel their rebukes, and the universities to come under their influence,—slowly, indeed, but surely, as we have since happily proved. Hengstenberg was scarcely firm in his seat before he made it very manifest that he had fixed his decision and taken his definitive place in the great struggle of the day. Though his natural disposition was tranquil, and even phlegmatic,—though his early tastes and predispositions were all in favour of retirement and solitary study,—though the traditions of the office he held would, if followed, have confined him to a continuous course of learned dissertation more adapted to the recluse student than to the arena of public controversy,—yet there was something stronger than all these motives that gave him such an impulse to religious controversy as never relaxed its impetus till his dying day. He became known, as soon as he was known at all, as the acknowledged defender of the documents of Scripture, especially the Old Testament, and the avowed enemy of all temporizing and compromise, whether in the domain of literature, or in the affairs of the University, or m the conduct of the State. This stedfast persistence in one course has scarcely a parallel. It must have been the result of some very powerful influence. That influence, we have no doubt at all, was nothing less than the strong confidence of a deeply religious spirit. No power other than divine grace could have enabled him to hold out so well and so long, through good and through evil report, until his name became the very synonym of desperate fidelity to scriptural truth and the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Some of his views he changed in the course of a long life, as will be hereafter seen; but in his loyalty to the word of God he never varied. Moreover, the things in which he changed were matters of isolated opinion,—questions which, with regard to the tenor of his life, were subordinate. In the great object of his life—instruction in Scripture— he never wavered. It is true, also, that he did not always maintain the meekness and gentleness of spirit and word that became the defender of divine truth; but his offences were venial when viewed in the light of that strong devotion to what he thought the word and will of God which never knew a stain. The testimony of all who knew him bears this out: that of his foes is reluctantly given, that of his friends most enthusiastically, to the same effect. Dr. Kahnis, one of Hengstenberg’s younger friends and disciples, says: “There can be no manner of doubt that the foundation of Hengstenberg’s theology was the living fellowship with God of a converted Christian.” But this is not saying enough. Many a true-hearted Christian rejoices in divine truth for himself, but leaves others to defend it, or defends it fitfully, and with conciliatory zeal. Hengstenberg had the priceless blessing of a clear and deep conviction. It is impossible to question for a moment that he really believed in what he so resolutely defended, and had a sublime confidence in the literal truth of every portion of the word of God. But it is time to consider distinctly, though briefly, the three departments of apologetic service to Christianity in which Hengstenberg was pre-eminent, and through which he has earned the gratitude of his own age and of posterity. These three were—his professorial chair; his editorship of the Kirchenzeitung; and his defensive and exegetical writings. As professor of theology, Hengstenberg was not distinguished by any remarkable ability; that is, he was not preeminent in the professional qualifications of a lecturer. His teaching was concentrated on biblical theology,—a department which he selected with a wise regard to his own preparations and aptitudes. He was thoroughly equipped with what may be called the instrumental and technical learning that this branch of theology specially requires. He gave continuous courses of lectures on the Old Testament, and on the New, the substance of which, especially so far as concerns the Old Testament, reappeared in his writings. As a lecturer, he had not the charm that attracted multitudes to the feet of some of his compeers. He was very much bound to his manuscript, and dispensed with the advantage of a direct personal address. He never swayed his audience by extemporary eloquence, or established between himself and them the electric current which free colloquy produces, but of which the paper is too often a non-conductor. What he lacked, however, in this respect, was abundantly made up by the indescribable vigour of a profound conviction expressed in unfaltering words. Whatever Hengstenberg was or was not, he knew nothing of vacillation or wavering. He was always decided, and therefore decisive. Wavering judgments he had no place for, either as a lecturer or as a writer. He did not simply guide his pupils on the way towards conviction, and conduct them through a process of investigation, which might or might not end in the determination of truth. He sat in his chair as a teacher, even when his years were immature. And he never changed that character. It may hardly be said that he gathered round him a school. He was not enough of a systematic theologian for that. But he trained, or assisted in training, a number of able men, some of them not much younger, and not much less influential in after years, than himself. Hävernick, Keil, Caspari, Philippi, Schultze, Kahnis, with many others, may be said to have been more or less moulded by him, so far at least as their attitude towards rationalism and their views of the Old Testament theology were concerned. Seated so very young in the chair, many of his own contemporaries, so to speak, were his pupils; and men who are grey-headed speak of Hengstenberg, lately gone, as their master with profound respect. It has been observed that his house was thrown open daily, and always with perfect freedom of access, to his pupils. There was an hour devoted to them, the benefit of which many now living refer to with gratitude. His nature was affectionate, confiding, and singularly disposed to attend to little details. His knowledge of men and things, growing rapidly as it did in consequence of his editorship and large acquaintance in Berlin, made him a good adviser. His counsel was always at the disposal of those who sought it. Nor was he tenacious as to his prerogatives, or unduly solicitous that his pupils should adhere to his opinions, or take his part in the many controversies in which he was constantly engaged. Though exceedingly impatient of unsettled views, and peremptory in his refusal to encourage discussion for the mere sake of looking at all sides of a question, he was content to let others, even his own pupils, differ from himself, provided they did not diverge from the truth. He allowed a wide latitude so far as concerned agreement with his own judgments, while the line was very sharply drawn so far as it concerned the word and truth of God. He had in this respect his reward. What he sought not was given to him. Few men of this generation have more firmly knit to themselves and to their views the mind and sentiments of others. Some there were, and are, who carried their deference to the master too far, and looked to Hengstenberg’s dicta as their oracles; but a far greater number did no more than justice to his clear teaching. He saved many from sheer infidelity, and many more from the mediating theology, which is little better; indeed, great as were his services in other respects, it is exceedingly probable that in this branch of service he effected his most essential and permanent good. His conversation, as described by those who were familiar with him, was not sparkling or humorous, or even ingenious; no book of table-talk could be constructed from the remembrances of it. His strength was, to repeat the assertion, the transparent honesty of his convictions, and their simplicity. There are a great number of theological teachers in Christendom, and there are many who far surpass Hengstenberg in multifarious learning and literary grace, but there are not many who equal him in pure and perfect belief of what they teach. Hengstenberg’s most obvious influence on the affairs of his own time, and on its religious tendencies, was exerted through the medium of the Evangelische Kirchenzeitung, a bi-weekly paper which was issued in the interests of Lutheran orthodoxy. This journal was dedicated at the outset to the defence of Christian principles against all kinds of heresies and all kinds of errors. It had no particular mission for or against any particular manifestation of modern thought, but was a champion against all comers from the regions of rationalism, and a watchful asserter of all kinds of neglected truths. It was projected by a band of earnest men, among whom the von Gerlachs and Tholuck were prominent. Hengstenberg, about twenty-five years old, was chosen as the editor. He undertook the service with a generous enthusiasm, and conducted it with a fidelity, that did great honour to him. For forty-two years he was its impulse, director, and leading writer; it was, in fact, his organ, intermediate between the professor’s chair and his expository writings. Through it he spoke to the age in clear tones,—sometimes harsh, sometimes melodious, but always certain and true to the gospel. Rationalism, disguised and undisguised, whether taking the form of infidelity or that of indifference or that of mediation, he pursued with unsparing animosity. He followed it in all its ever-shifting forms, tracked it through its manifold mazes, and encountered it without fear wherever it appeared,—in the court, in the family, in literature, in science, in hymn-books, in catechisms, and the sermons of the day. The journal helped him in his lectures, and the lectures helped him in the journal; thus, material being provided for each, neither suffered from the unusual combination. Those who have been accustomed to see that most venerable of all Protestant journals, will remember Hengstenberg’s annual Vorwort, which, as regularly as the year opened, was looked for by all parties as the oracles of a very different potentate were looked for in France. He spoke as from a throne. “What will Hengstenberg say?” was the common question, on the emergence of every new subject of interest. These Prefaces touched on every imaginable subject: all the struggles of the Union, all the innumerable discussions between Church and State, all the literary phenomena that teemed with every year, found their place in them. A collection of these annual addresses would be the history of the last generation in brief. It has been said by a not very friendly critic, that Hengstenberg in his journal united the utmost servility to the ruling powers with a spirit of the most demagogical independence. With regard to the former part of the compound his defence is comparatively easy. In the year 1830, soon after the paper began, he published a vigorous article, in which the Government was sharply rebuked for permitting Wegscheider and Gesenius to hold the word of God and the doctrines of the Church up to contempt. In doing this he imperilled his own position in the University, and thus gave no small pledge of his sincerity. What tried him still more was the fact that, by this and similar protests, he exposed himself to the imputation of bigotry, and gradually but surely alienated from himself the fellowship, if not the confidence and respect, of such men as Neander. So far was he from being thought a sycophant or time-server, the parallel between John the Baptist and him—comparing, of course, the greater with the less—was very frequent in the public comments upon his conduct. At a great cost of feeling—for he was naturally disposed to peace and private study—he continued his attacks on all sorts of abuses to the end. He said to his brother on his deathbed: “They thought me a kind of Hercules, always in my element when in wars and difficulties. How little they knew my nature! How often have I longed for rest, as the servant for the shade, or the hireling for the end of the day! But it was my calling to oppose the weak and accommodating spirit of the time.” His testimony to himself is confirmed by the documents that remain, as well as by the evidence of many witnesses, both friendly and adverse. No man of our century spoke so strongly and for so long a series of years against the abuses of the day both in high places and in low. His relation to the Church and State, and to the Union already referred to, will do something to explain both charges. In one sense his vehement devotion to the union between Church and State would tend to give the semblance of courtliness and secularity to his views, while his ardent Lutheranism, especially towards the end of life, made him a cold friend and finally a declared enemy of the other Union between the Lutheran and Reformed Confessions. His sentiments as to the relation between the civil power and the religious were moulded by the Old Testament. He was rooted and grounded in the theory of a Church bound up with and sanctifying the State. With regard to these points it may be said that he was unfaithful to his early self, and that here, though here alone, an exception is found to the law of unchangeableness which governed his life. He was brought up under Reformed influences, but became in the course of years a High Lutheran,—a remarkable change, as they will admit who study the grave differences between the Confessions. His views of the theocracy were fashioned by the Old Testament, and in harmony with Calvin’s, as he experimented with them on the civil estate of Geneva; but he became in due time what, to us at least, appears to have been a servant of the State, and the faithful administrator of its legislation. A Pietist in early life, and an evangelical lover of good men to the end, he nevertheless came to distrust the Union by which Germany has striven to heal the breach of the divided Confession inherited from the Reformation. He would rather have the Lutheran Church in a Lutheran State than the Union which would efface the distinction and exhibit the State as tolerant. Doubtless, if this were the fit occasion, it might be shown that the Union sacrificed principle to peace; that it made the articles of concord too simple and few, especially in regard to the ordination pledges of the ministry; that it compromised too much on both sides to lead to any good result; and that a universal laxity, with the occasional variations of hypocrisy, would necessarily follow. It might be urged that on these accounts Hengstenberg did well to oppose it so strenuously. Suffice that he did oppose it, though without helping in any perceptible measure towards solving the difficulty. He was no reformer, no legislator, no system-framer; he had not the profound sagacity and ready contrivance of an ecclesiastical statesman: and therefore, while the Kirchenzeitung provoked much agitation and helped forward the strife on these questions, it lent no aid towards amendment and reconstruction. It may be said, in passing, that the journal was in his hands until death folded them, and that he left it, with his dying blessing, to another guide of his own selection. He held it to the end as a duty, and said among his last deathbed words, “One of the benefits of heaven is this, that I shall have no more Vorwort to write.” He ended, as he began, in the spirit of duty; and his relation to the Kirchenzeitung is certainly one that has no parallel in journalism, religious or otherwise. No paper has had so long a career in the advocacy of the same interests, and certainly none was ever conducted by the same editor and controller so long. In other respects it was like most others, of various ability, alternately tranquil and stormy, and occasionally offending alike against charity and sound judgment. In the reckoning of Hengstenberg’s life and labour it is certain that the Kirchenzeitung must have a prominent place. But it is as a commentator on Holy Scripture, and defender of the authority of the biblical documents, that this great man will keep his hold on posterity. It is in that capacity that he is known among ourselves. Hengstenberg accomplished a great deal, even in a country where there is an order of men always accomplishing prodigies; and one of the secrets of his enormous amount of work was the unity of his life as spent upon a single subject. He was literally homo unius libri, and of one portion of that book. The Old Testament was his sphere through life. In it he was strong; in any other he was like other men, and inferior to many. In the vindication and exposition of the Old Testament he was in his own day pre-eminent. His earliest discipline pointed that way. Oriental studies engaged his attention long before they are usually entered upon; and the consequence was, that he was fully equipped with the apparatus for a vigorous prosecution of his task before the work of his life began. Thus two errors were avoided,—first, he did not occupy his time and squander his energies in the pursuit of multifarious learning, like some prominent German names of the present day; and, secondly, he did not take up a great subject in middle life, when the specific learning and tastes demanded by it are more difficult of attainment. Of course there were some drawbacks: doubtless his mind was by this concentration somewhat cramped; his New Testament studies were sacrificed to a great extent, as the works written upon it indicate; and his strictly miscellaneous acquirements were perhaps kept within a narrower range than was expedient. But these drawbacks scarcely deserve mention by the side of the great service that he was able to render to the defence and study of the ancient Scriptures. His first work was a bold challenge thrown down in vindication of the authenticity of the books of the Old Testament that were at that time especially contested. Several able and learned dissertations were gathered together and published as Contributions towards the Introduction to the Old Testament. This was mainly an apologetic work. Rationalism had attacked the ancient Scriptures as a whole, and certain portions, such as the Pentateuch, the unity of Isaiah and Zechariah, the authenticity of Daniel. These essays, considering when and by whom they were written, and the wide range and minute character of the learning brought to bear, were very remarkable, and stamped the writer’s fame at once. But it was as a startling vindication that they created the deepest impression. In Germany, much more than in England, the writings of the old economy were surrendered, so to speak, to rationalism. The revival of comparatively sound views, under the stimulating leadership of Schleiermacher, had almost entirely left the Old Testament out of the question, as if it were a hopeless province, inaccessible to light. The general estimate was that Judaism was a monotheistic belief of a people who supposed themselves favoured by Providence; who vaingloriously ascribed their history to a special concentration of the regard of Heaven upon their petty selves; who imagined a descent of the Divinity for the purpose of giving them their laws,—laws which, while they borrowed much from the surrounding nations, were carefully ordered so as to give back nothing in return, but to exclude” the rest of the world from their benefit; who supposed their peculiar religious enthusiasms to be the result of an immediate afflatus of the breath or Spirit of God; who would be content with no lower an authorship for their holy books than that Jehovah Himself, using certain men as His mechanical instruments. Rationalism poured unmeasured contempt on all these pretensions, and undertook to show that the history of the Jews was like every other history in what was good in it, inferior in some respects to some; in fact, that the Hebrew documents could not stand in the judgment when brought to the bar of either criticism, or morals, or history. It was necessary that some one should arise who could exhibit the evidences of authenticity which the texture of the books themselves afford, and which the annals of other peoples suggest in confirmation. Hengstenberg could do this well, and did it. But others were capable of the same service, and had in some sense performed it. What was peculiar to him was the exceeding boldness with which he avowed the unity of the Scriptures, the dependence of the New Testament on the Old, and the absolute necessity of faith in both if faith in either was to be maintained. He saw with clearness the whole compass and fulness of the issues involved. He saw that the stream of revelation must be traced up to its fountain; and that, if the fountain was not pure and divine, no streams issuing from it could be heavenly and undefiled. He saw that the entire literature of religion stands or falls with the early documents which are its elements and alphabet: that if these individual books were not written by the men to whom the later Scriptures ascribed them,—if they do not record facts that are historical,—if the New Testament inspiration is not really an approval and guarantee of an Old Testament inspiration,—if the Scriptures of the old and new covenants contradict each other,—if, in short, there is not a perfect unity in the grand and complete record,—then Christianity is undermined and ready to fall, bringing down with it the hopes of mankind. All this he saw, with perhaps a deeper insight than most men; and if he even exaggerated the expression of the principle, it was a venial fault. It is hard to deny that he was right in staking so much on the genuineness and integrity of the Old Testament. The work of Hengstenberg has surrendered much of its goodly material to other builders, who have made a better use of it than even he did. Hävernick, for instance, one of his pupils, systematized his facts with some skill; and he in his turn has been methodized and set before the public in a perfect form in the Introduction to the Old Testament, published by Keil, one of the noblest representatives of the spirit of the older master. Hengstenberg, as an apologist for the Old Testament, will of course never be obsolete. His works will be read still,—perhaps more than ever, when the supreme importance of the Old Testament comes to be acknowledged as it ought, both in Germany and in England. But it is well known that the ground of attack has since shifted, and that the dissertations referred to exhibit only a partially obsolete aspect of the question. The rationalists of the days of Hengstenberg’s early work were modest in comparison of what they are now. They did not then take the whole Bible to pieces, disturbing all dates, shifting all authorship, and reducing the whole to a constellation of nebulae, if that were possible, the scanty nuclei of which are left to the faith of believers, be their worth what it may. To us it seems that a long age divides us from the time when the most earnest opponents were content to deny the Pentateuch to Moses as a whole, to separate Isaiah and Zechariah into parts, and assign the book of Daniel to a Maccabean date, without denying the historical foundation of the Old Testament as a whole. For the more recent developments of scepticism we need new Hengstenbergs, who will need the same loyalty and concentration, with learning adequate to meet a much more extensive assault. The tendency at the present time seems to be to bring down the books of the Old Testament to one period of wonderful fertility, when a thousand scattered myths and legends and mouldy documents were woven into that amazing fabric by men who suppressed their own names, and thought to honour Jehovah by inventing a series of colloquies between Him and His imaginary servants, extending over many ages, and by declaring that a succession of institutions was founded, and historical events took place, during centuries that knew nothing of them. Such astounding theories as those now broached to account for the historical books of the Jewish legislation have of course some basis of argument to rest upon; in fact, there are a multitude of evidences which by ingenious torture may be made to serve in their defence. The new and rising race of apologists will have to do more than Hengstenberg ever dreamed of doing; but he has, by his integrity, by his happy use of materials gathered from every source and spoiling all kinds of Egyptians, by his skill in directing many lights upon some one dark place until its darkness vanishes, and, above all, by his serene confidence that God was on his side, set a noble example to the younger generation. We pass to another sphere of service, which, as more permanently important as well as more congenial to the devout student, occupied the greater part of his time,—that of biblical exposition. Here, again, Hengstenberg is a man of the Old Testament,—it may be said, exclusively such; for the books he published on the New Testament, the Commentaries on St. Johns Gospel and the Revelation, were commended to him by their analogies with the old covenant. A writer on Daniel could not fail to feel himself drawn towards the Apocalypse; and it is the peculiarity of Hengstenberg’s Gospel of St. John that it is really an exposition framed on the principle of illustrating the evangelist from the Old Testament. Valuable as these works are in some respects, they do not display the abilities of a master in New Testament exposition. That the author thought differently of them—that is, that he had a higher estimation of their value than of the value of some other of his expository works—says but little. Writers of books of unequal merit are proverbial for reversing their hands, like the patriarch, and laying the right on the wrong, but without any divine sanction for their preference. But of this more hereafter. His most important, ablest, and most influential work is the Christology of the Old Testament, exhibiting, in the second edition especially, with a rich and interesting variety, the Messiah in the Old Testament in the light of the Christ in the New. This was followed by a Commentary on the Psalms, which for a long time was, both in Germany and in the English translation of this Series, the leading book for the preacher’s use, combining in a remarkable way the results of adequate learning in the unfolding of the structure, and the materials of profitable application. A monograph on Balaam and his Prophecies appeared in 1842; then the Canticles and Ecclesiastes; then followed the Commentaries on the Revelation and on St. John’s Gospel. Lately to these has been added a very valuable Exposition of Ezekiel; and, finally, as a posthumous production, the present volumes on the History of the Kingdom of God in the Old Testament. Various estimates have been formed of Hengstenberg’s value as an expositor of the Old Testament; and estimates must needs vary so long as widely different theories are held of the relation of the New Testament to the Old. He does not in this department exhibit an absolutely unvarying fixedness of principle throughout his life. The earlier editions of his commentaries differ in a very considerable degree from the later in some very important respects,—not, indeed, affecting the evangelical tone of his exposition, but his conception of the relative value of the Old Testament theology. There is a school of evangelical expositors of the ancient covenant in whose judgment Hengstenberg’s views are, or rather were, at an earlier period, too little regulated by the principle of historical development in divine revelation. He was said to have been always too anxious to find everywhere the full truth of divine doctrine, scarcely disguised, and thus to have gone far towards effacing the distinction between the Old Testament and the New. He was also charged with unduly spiritualizing the predictions, and losing sight of the historical bases of events. But there does not seem much ground for these charges, especially as directed against his works when issued in their final form. There can be no doubt that Hofmann’s original and most suggestive volumes on Prophecy and Fulfilment, written on principles diametrically opposed to those of Hengstenberg, had the effect of making him more careful in the realization and exposition of the facts interwoven with all predictions. Nor can it be doubted that the works of another very eminent writer, Oehler, especially his Prolegomena to the Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, influenced considerably his estimate of the progressive character of revelation from Mosaism to Hebraism and prophetism. But Hengstenberg, like all voluminous writers, must be judged by his works in their final form. And the volumes which we now introduce will show that his conception of the Old Testament is distinguished by the very qualities which have been found wanting by his censors,—a comprehensive view of the order and progression of divine truth, and a careful historical sketch of all the dispensations. As to his facility in finding consummate truth in the Old Testament, we should be disposed to hold him to be right where these critics would hold him to be wrong. We believe also that a kingdom of grace and truth has never been absent from the earth; that the divine-human Person of Christ is more conspicuous in the old covenant than most theologians admit. We embrace heartily, against half the world, our expositor’s noble views of the Angel-Logos of the old economy, and of the essential divinity of the Messiah, not obscurely revealed by the prophets, though they did not understand their own revelation. We also think that the Holy Ghost has a history in the Old Testament which is the prelude and the germ, or more than the germ, of His history in the New. In fact, as to the question between Hengstenberg and his very severe critics, we should be drawn by our deepest convictions to side with him, and to wish that he had defended himself more copiously than he did from the assaults of which his exposition was the object. Hengstenberg was not at any time a systematic theologian, but biblical theology was cultivated by him with great ardour. Biblical theology, however, to be of any service, must be systematized; and here it was that our expositor failed. He was only an expositor, or, if he entered upon the discussion of the doctrines derived from Scripture, it was only in detached essays and monographs. Had he given a few years of his strength to the construction of an Old Testament biblical theology, he might have accomplished one of the most deeply needed tasks of the clay. There is no book that thoroughly exhausts, or even fairly exhibits, the doctrinal system that was gradually completed before the volume of inspiration ended. All that has been done amounts only to what Oehler called his able little book, Prolegomena. The mention of this last name reminds us of the great loss which this branch of theology has sustained in the premature death of this distinguished man, who, like Hengstenberg, has devoted himself ardently to the old covenant. The student who should desire to understand the bearings of the whole subject could not do better than read carefully, in addition to his Prolegomena, his admirable Essays on Prophecy, and kindred subjects connected with the Old Testament, in Herzogs Encyclopedia. If, besides these, he has acquainted himself with Hofmann’s treatises already referred to, he will have a just conception of the wonderful extent, difficulty, and superlative importance of the department of theology which is based upon an exposition of the Old Testament Scriptures. In the New Testament, Hengstenberg selected St. John for his exposition. The Apocalypse he took great delight in, as being an Old Testament prophet, as it were, risen again, and thus a confirmation of the views which guided him in his investigation of the doctrines of the old covenant. He had no doubt that the one evangelist wrote this book and the Gospel, and he set himself to detect and indicate in order the multitude of allusions to the ancient Scriptures which St. John’s works contain. Thus he would make it appear that that apostle, who is generally supposed to have least of the spirit conventionally ascribed to the Old Testament, and to be most evangelical, and tender, and mystical in his tone of mind, dwells more than all others in the ancient circle of ideas. The commentary on the Apocalypse has not secured much acceptance in England. It robs the millennium of its awful meaning for the future, makes it “past already,” having been simultaneous with the thousand years of the German ascendency, a gigantic exhibition of Church and State. Here and throughout the book the author spiritualizes away all that clashes with his great theory of a theocracy already set up among men, and varying in its forms. It is only right to say that the earlier parts of the book, the Saviour’s own letters to the churches, is expounded with much power, and that the whole work is pervaded by a profoundly reverent spirit, as well as enriched by many most valuable quotations from other authors, and especially from the less known comments of Bengel. The Commentary on St. John occupied a long time, and was very closely bound up with the writer’s personal experience and hopes. Its peculiarities are very striking. It omits much of the kind of learning in which others abound, and supplies the place by much that is found in no other. Though the Gospel never quotes the Old Testament formally and directly, save in such general reference as “The law was given by Moses,” Hengstenberg makes it bear incessant reference to the ancient economy. He will see the waters of the early reservoir reappearing through all the conduits of the New Testament, and not least of all in St. John. Perhaps this was the reason why he took such pleasure in it, and anticipated for it so hearty a reception. It was the first connected work that occupied his thoughts, and its Old Testament colouring gave it a fascination. St. Matthew, as might be supposed, was a favourite Gospel; but he never succeeded in satisfying himself with his exposition. The Epistle to the Romans he lectured upon, but not with such results, either to his own mind or to his readers’, as to warrant publication. St. John’s Gospel he minutely elaborated. He intended it to be much more acceptable to the public, and much more influential on the higher classes, than it ever became. He was heard to say that he thought his Psalms would at any rate give him joy in eternity, but that the Gospel of St. John would command the attention of learned and simple alike. It was honest toil; in the sweat of his brow he had cultivated an old field in a new way. But the work was never popular in Germany, not even so popular as it is in its English form. It was natural that Hengstenberg’s theory of allusion to the Old Testament should be somewhat exaggerated. For this we are prepared by the preface, which says that “in no Gospel are the allusions to the Old Testament so abundant, so delicate, so mysterious, so profound, as in John: those only who have lived in the Old Testament thought and phrase can immediately detect them.” At the very outset the tendency is observable. Other expositors and investigators have shown—Niedner, to wit—that the Philonic Logos is a very different being from the Johannean, and in that point Hengstenberg has all the argument with him. When, however, he asserts that the evangelist had no reference to any pre-existent operation of the Logos, but even in the beginning of the prologue refers only to the incarnate Word, and that the terms light and life are to be interpreted simply of the Messianic salvation, because those words have such a meaning in the ancient Scriptures, who does not feel that the theory is carrying the expositor away? So also he is quite justified in pouring a New Testament illumination into every verse and clause of the Shepherd idyll, Psalms 23; but when, inversely, he makes the ancient idyll interpret every verse and clause of the Good Shepherd’s words in John 10, we feel that the expositor is misled again, and begin almost to sympathise with the cavils of his critics, who would convict him of finding too much truth in the old covenant. So also it is as perilous as it is unjustifiable to interpret the “eating my flesh and drinking my blood” by the voice of ancient Wisdom crying, “Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled.” In his zeal to establish identity of authorship, the cabalistic employment of numbers and symbols, and all the minutiae of mystical allusion, as found in the Apocalypse, Hengstenberg seeks to trace in the Gospel, and sometimes not without success. But for the excessive adoption of this principle the reader has only to consult the subtle and elaborate comment on the Samaritan woman, who by some preconcerted divine arrangement was prepared to be a symbol of the idolatry and pollution of Samaria. Indeed, this is but one instance out of many. The Gospel, which was written to teach all men what and how to believe, which ends with the most remarkable victories of faith in illustration of its own principle, has been more instrumental than almost any other part of Scripture in instigating doubt; especially has this been the case within the last two decennia, and therefore every good commentary on St. John, which deals fairly and fully with its few pressing difficulties, should be welcomed with deep gratitude. Rich as is our orthodox Johannean library, it may be said that the sceptical is as yet still more rich. This of Hengstenberg is, as it respects its apologetic part, of great value, and therefore is a great gain. It should be read very carefully on the Paschal question, on the variations between the Synoptists and St. John, on the genuineness of the discourses assigned to our Lord, and on the last chapters generally. Again and again we have read Hengstenberg’s solution of the difficulty as to the harmony between St. John and the three in the date of the crucifixion, and each time with a deeper sense of the solidity of his argumentation. The same cannot be said—at least we should not say it—concerning the connection between the anointing at the supper in St. John and that of St. Luke. Hengstenberg’s scheme of the family relations of the Lord’s friends at Bethany is not exactly original; but he has made it such by the copiousness of his argumentation on the subject. According to his reading of the gospel narrative, our Mary sitting at the feet of Jesus, the symbol to all ages of the absorbed devotion of a pure and ethereal contemplation, was the reformed sinner whom Simon condemned in his heart. That Simon was the husband of Martha, who, only in part grateful for his healing, could not bring clown his soul or raise it up to the level of his duty to Christ. The details of this enforced harmony, which Origen and Augustine redeem from utter contempt, while its adoption by the Romish expositors makes it in its doctrinal aspect suspicious, we must leave to the reader of Hengstenberg’s commentary. One point alone demands further notice here. While Hengstenberg invests Mary with the characteristics of the converted Magdalene, he also invests the converted Magdalene with the charm of Mary’s devotion. Hence the interpretation of “for she loved much,” which in our expositor’s comment is made to mean that her forgiveness was in a very important sense the fruit of her love. Hengstenberg had to the very last to feel the effect of this unhappy exposition. On the one hand, the sceptics assailed him for making such great concessions in so hard and inconsistent a manner. Strauss, in particular, wrote “The Half and the Whole!” an essay in a periodical to pour ridicule upon the tortuous combinations of the exegete to arrive at the simple fact which scientific criticism discerns at once. The cry was everywhere, so to speak, “Is Hengstenberg among the rationalists?” He could bear this kind of attack—he was used to it; in fact, it added zest to his life, and gave him the stimulus he wanted. But there was another kind of impeachment not so easy to be borne. His evangelical friends mourned over the defection from the doctrine of justification by faith alone, which they thought they discerned in his words. This gave him a severe pang. But he was never known to shrink pusillanimously from the consequences of a position honestly taken up. The Kirchenzeitung, which had always been known by all as the Evangelical, became the organ of his defence, for the first time in the service of its editor’s orthodoxy. But his defence made matters worse. In 1866 there appeared in the paper an essay on the Epistle of St. James, which had been delivered as a lecture, and was then, according to his custom, reproduced in the journal. The reconciliation of St. James and St. Paul, easy enough when essayed in simplicity of purpose, he made rather mystical, and, many of his best friends thought, with a certain disparagement of St. Paul’s doctrine as generally received. So far did resentment and suspicion go, that the man who had for so many years been the watchword and bulwark of orthodoxy, was virtually condemned by an ecclesiastical court, from which issued a warning to the clergy, directed against his error. He was on all sides bewailed as an apostate in heart from the great principle of the Reformation. His more express justification of himself appeared in his paper in an essay entitled “The Sinner.” Without renouncing the exposition of the lecture on St. James, he expanded the thought of degrees of faith, as well as of degrees in the forgiveness of sins and justification. He maintained that faith laid the foundation for the first access to Christ, and was the instrument of the first participation in forgiveness; but that faith must then proceed onward through love and the good works flowing from love, in order to be capable of appropriating Christ more and more perfectly, and of drawing more and more abundantly from the treasures of grace concealed in Him. Whoever is acquainted with the shades of distinction on this subject which the contest with Rome renders necessary, will be prepared to find that such an essay as this did not allay the disaffection. The excitement was in fact increased, and extended its influence to a wider circle. Many who had hung on his words were offended; some of his own former pupils, to whom his writings were little short of a confession of faith, now were constrained to write against their master; and conferences, of which he used to be the very centre, were now assembled to renounce him and his doctrine. Though he resolutely maintained his innocence of any intentional abandonment of the fundamental principles of the gospel, and assumed the air of one who was perfectly tranquil on the subject, it is well known that this agitation embittered his latter days, and it is suspected that it had something to do with his comparatively sudden departure. The whole circumstance is to be deplored; for it is certain that Hengstenberg did no more than follow out to their just conclusion certain exegetical results, which a deeper pondering would have shown him to be worthless; and, on the other hand, it is equally certain that he did not abandon the guiding principles and the deepest convictions of his life, We have again and again indicated that, in our judgment, he was not a systematic theologian, or to be trusted for the definition of doctrine. While desperately faithful to the foundations of the Christian faith, and expert in defending those foundations from assault, he had no constructive faculty, and never added a stone to the superstructure of dogmatics. He had not the wisdom which was so necessary for the combination of scientific with biblical theology. He knew not the secret—the important secret—of controlling his biblical results by systematic definitions, and of moulding systematic definitions in the light of Scripture. There is an analogy of Scripture, there is an analogy of faith: each is of the utmost importance in its own sphere; but it is their mutual relation, harmony, and control that constitutes the highest gift and the most important qualification of a teacher of theology. This, however, requires a little further explanation. In a volume lying before us, The Christian Doctrine of Justification and the Atonement, by Albrecht Ritschl, the matter is exhibited in a striking light by one not very well disposed towards orthodoxy. Ritschl asserts that Hengstenberg, as the head of a party, strove to bind his followers to the dogmatic definitions of Old-Lutheranism while not really faithful to them himself, and that it was only an accident which brought to light at the end the secret inconsistency of his life. This is a grave charge, coming from a man of such eminence as Ritschl, especially as his work is published in English for circulation among us. But it is a reckless charge, and one that has no real foundation. Dr. Ritschl is perfectly correct in asserting that “for she loved much” does not specify the reason of the woman’s forgiveness, but indicates the reason for inferring that she was forgiven. And he is right also, to a certain extent, in his allegation of Hengstenberg’s inaptitude for dogmatic distinctions. But if he were perfectly unbiassed, he would be ready to admit that the worst passages of the censured essays only approximate to what seems like a variation from the Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith. And against that seeming variation must be set the strong, clear, unfaltering assurance given by Hengstenberg himself, that throughout his whole life the doctrine of the Reformation had been held by him explicitly and implicitly; that this precious truth had been continually the very food of his soul, and would be to the end. There are men whose testimony to their own sincerity ought to be an end of all controversy; and there are times when that testimony is enough to outweigh a great amount of plausible argument and evidence. Hengstenberg was such a man, and his dying confessional was such a time. For ourselves, we are deeply convinced that the question with him was not a doctrinal one, but an ethical. He regarded the love which flows from forgiveness as “the fulfilling of the law;” that is, as the gracious spring and strength of all those acts of devotion and obedience which secure the complacency of the Redeemer and the rewards of grace. Giving a rather wider meaning to the terms “forgiveness” and “justification” than Lutheran dogmatics would warrant, he intended to teach that the internal righteousness and sanctification of the soul, and consequently its internal acceptability in the sight of God, goes on increasing in proportion as love increases. Firmly convinced, but most erroneously, that the Mary of loving devotion and the Mary of much forgiveness were one and the same, he stretched the language of systematic theology to meet the case of the imaginary compound of those two. For the rest, there may be degrees in the sin forgiven, in the depth and fervour of the sense of forgiveness, in the expression of that sense, and in the capability of responding to the Lord’s love: all this may be admitted in harmony with the express words of the Simon-parable, and without the least infringement of the true elements of justification by faith. Before leaving the commentaries of Hengstenberg, one more remark may be made as to their very practical and devotional character. From beginning to end he aimed at unfolding the word of God as a text that cannot be understood save by the spiritual mind, and in relation to spiritual uses. Not that he stands alone in this: he was but one of a large and increasing school of exegetes, whose pietism has done much to redeem exegesis from the frightful scientific aridity that once was its leading characteristic. He was not, perhaps, the founder of this school; but he certainly was, or rather is—for though he is gone, his works have not in this sense followed him, but are with us still—the most interesting example of it. Let the reader make the experiment: let him take the commentaries in this Foreign Theological Library, and find the driest subject—if any can be dry—and follow the expositor, he will find that, while the scientific and the lexical and the dogmatic meaning are fairly brought out, the spiritual is never forgotten. Sometimes, indeed, the proportions are not perfectly observed, but that is not often the case. And the effect is enhanced by the insertion of striking observations taken from the older writers. Hengstenberg does not often make his own practical observations: he defers in this department to Bengel, and the rich old mystical Berlenberg Bible, and the Speners and Arndts. These, once more, are interwoven with the commentary proper in a very profitable way; and this style is, on the whole, much better than that adopted in the conglomerate expositions of Lange’s Series, for instance, where the critical and the doctrinal and the homiletical are kept mechanically apart. The perfect commentary is, wherever it can be found, the perfect fusion of these. Hengstenberg has aimed at this, and fairly succeeded. His works are very valuable to the preacher,—more valuable to him, perhaps, than to the systematic theologian or the miscellaneous biblical student. What he remarks in his last exegetical preface is a kind of manifesto that will suit them all:—“The time is no longer distant when every pastor worthy of his calling will make it a rule of life to read his chapter daily, as in the original text of the New Testament, so also in that of the Old Testament. The exposition of Scripture must meet such a laudable custom, which is formed even in education. There is a want of such exposition of the books of the Old Testament as truly corresponds with the requirements of the clerical office. The author has here earnestly aimed at this object. How far he has succeeded it is not for him to judge, but for those for whom he has written. It will depend very much on this whether he has succeeded in edifying, without going out of his proper sphere, by the introduction of ascetic considerations.” The last work of this indefatigable servant of Christ and of His word was that which is introduced by these preliminary notices. The veteran ends with the strain, to the music of which he attuned his life at the beginning. It might have seemed a superfluous thing to go over the track of the Old Testament history again after so many separate excursions in that territory, especially as the works of Kurtz and Keil, written on the same principles, were fresh before the public; but the author exercised a wise discretion in closing his life with this work. It is a final manifesto of his fidelity to the principles of his career, on the one hand, while, on the other, it is the depository of many a retractation, unconsciously made, of former errors, and of many a concession to fair and honourable criticism upon his works. The reader of these wholesome and readable volumes will be amply repaid, especially if he studies and ponders them. They contain a lucid account of the progressive history of the revelation of God’s will, with invaluable side references to the adverse criticism of infidelity. It is wholly disencumbered of the apparatus of heavy learning, and made interesting and readable by all. Reviewing the long series of Hengstenberg’s writings, dispassionate critics will agree that they combine more of the qualities that recommend this class of works than those of any other writer who has appeared in this century. In every one of those qualities—in learning, in grace, in exactitude, in profoundness, in spirituality, in finish—he is surpassed by some other author or authors who might easily be named, but there is no other who unites them all as he does. And if to the list of his known works were added a few volumes—the number might be made very large—selected from his terse and vigorous lighter essays, his importance as an author would be very much increased. There is one drawback, that the earlier works were not subjected before his departure to a stern revision. The apologetic works might have been greatly improved; the Commentary on the Psalms might have been recast to advantage; and, generally, an edition of Hengstenberg’s works from his own revising hand would have had a value that cannot now be attributed to them as a whole. Still there is not one of them that the theologian, rightly instructed, would like to miss from his shelves. Hengstenberg declined rather suddenly. It has been seen that from the beginning his constitution was not sound, and that he had rarely known the satisfaction of spending a day entirely without pain. All the details of his sickness and death were in strict keeping with the tenor of his life. Some one spoke to him, when he lay ill, of the services he had been able to render to the Church. “Ah!” he replied, with a well-known wave of his hand, “that is all nothing! If any one will glorify God in me, let it be for this, that I have laboured more to fear God than cared to fear man, which is a strange thing in these days.” He was full of peace, and greatly desired to depart. “From infancy,” he remarked once more, “I have longed for death. When I first came to the knowledge of saving faith, and learned my vocation, this feeling retired; but the homesickness never altogether left me.” Before his last communion, he was asked if he was ready to forgive all who, during the campaigns of life, had injured or grieved him, and answered, “I know none to whom I have to forgive anything. I am deeply thankful to all men who have admonished me to hold fast my fidelity in watchfulness and prayer.” These words obviously had reference to the misunderstanding as to his fidelity which has been already mentioned; so does the following. He was questioned as to whether he departed in the simple faith which he had taught throughout his course. “Yes, verily do I! The blood of Christ and His sacrificial death have been my only consolation in life, and shall be my solace and hope in death.” All the holy affections of his renewed nature were exhibited most impressively during a severe affliction. His charity was made perfect, as also his patience; both were delivered from every hindrance to their finished exercise, and saved from every taint of imperfection that both others and himself had mourned in them before. As to his patience, it had been severely tested always. Hengstenberg had known severe trials. Five children had been followed to the grave, as also his faithful wife, the mother of them all. His eldest son, Immanuel, died at the age of thirty-three. He was a man like-minded with his father, his faithful companion in arms, and bound up with all his literary labours. It may be supposed, therefore, what a deep sorrow is implied in the dedication of the third volume of his St. John: “To the pious memory of my son Immanuel, born 30th Sept. 1830; slept in the Lord, 4th Oct. 1863. He was deeply engaged with me in this work, which occupied him shortly before his departure.” This had been a very heavy calamity, the precursor of the disruption of all ties on earth; but the amazing energy of the veteran did not yield. He had serious thoughts of giving up the Kirchenzeitung, as well as of renouncing all other engagements. But a stern sense of duty and desire to be useful chained his limbs again to the oar, and, with a smitten heart, he continued every work on which he had been engaged; and not till the immediate approach of death did he make arrangements for a successor in the editorship of the journal. In March 1869 he was attacked by inflammation, which was followed by nearly three months of dropsy and great physical distress. Bereavement came again before death. His son John was removed, and then his only grandson was laid in the grave. “My God, this also!” he cried, and, folding his hands, looked steadily before him in amazement of heart. But he was spared any spiritual conflict. He had “ strengthened his brethren,” he was now himself strengthened. “My soul,” he said, “is like a deep ocean, full of the voice of God’s praise and honour.” Refusing to receive the narcotics they pressed on him,—“with perfect clearness of soul I would go into eternity,”—he departed in peace. At the funeral solemnities in Radensleben, a sermon was preached by Pastor Wölbling on Genesis 32:28, in which it was forcibly shown how applicable the words were to the faithful man who had gone: who wrestled with God in prayer and faith, and prevailed; who wrestled with man also for the faith of Jesus, and likewise prevailed. Another tribute was paid, that of Rathusius: “Suddenly has been called from us a man who was the most distinguished and important Germany had for the interests of the Church, without distinction of Confessions, as men of all Confessions will admit.” Such was the general strain of reference in the evangelical papers of Germany. All parties were united in the honour of one whose memory was held in esteem even by those who shrank from his severity and hated his religious earnestness. His friends were enthusiastic in their tributes: those who had suffered his fair fame to be beclouded before their eyes by prejudice artfully excited, or hasty and ill-advised resentment, forgot everything but his lifelong devotion to the truth. The man most spoken against, or most discussed, at any rate, in Lutheran Germany, was perhaps the object of a more unanimous expression of reverence and respect than any man who has departed during this century. “For forty years,” says Dr. Kahnis, “so-called public opinion has connected with the name of Hengstenberg all that it feels to be distasteful in relation to our return to the faith of our fathers. Pietism, dead orthodoxy, obscurantism, fanaticism, Jesuitism, league against all enemies of progress, and whatever other name may be given to the spirits of night that progress first invents, then fears, and finally fights against. Whatever has been alleged of every representative of the faith of the Church in any age, the name of Hengstenberg is in a certain sense the representative of it. He recapitulated all their evils. And this was not an accidental circumstance. The present time has no ecclesiastical theologian who, with such energy, such perseverance, such unsparing hardness towards himself, fought against the tendencies which are the favourites of the age.” The same disciple and friend says again, turning to the contemporaries of this champion of the faith: “How various are the notions which the fellows of Hengstenberg formed of him! Many who knew him only by his Old Testament writings pictured him with the simple dignity of Abraham, or the imperial spirit of Moses, or the flaming zeal of one of the prophets. To others he appeared like a true reformer,—like a genial Luther or a stern Calvin. Others thought that one of the great polemics of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries had returned. Others, remembering the sympathy with the Herrnhuters which he had always manifested, thought him a Pietist. Some, finally, regarded him only as an ecclesiastical politician, never led by feeling, but swayed always by motives of ecclesiastical expediency. Every one of these was more or less right in his estimate of the character of Hengstenberg. But the combination of the whole in him was something altogether different.” These observations may be extended to the personal character of this venerable man. As his works were of a peculiar order, and as the general estimation placed him in an isolated and unshared place, so his character as a Christian man was stamped with an impress of distinct individuality. He seemed predestined to combine opposites in himself. He was of a phlegmatic and inert constitutional tendency, and yet no man ever led a more impetuous and earnest life. He was thoroughly affectionate, and his nature was pervaded by tenderness, which beamed through every expression and action; yet he conveyed to the world around the notion of unyielding austerity, and was a man of war through life. He cherished a fervent devotion to the person of Christ, and his religion was altogether of an emotional character, having never lost the tinge of its earliest Pietism; yet he came to distrust theoretically what he practically exhibited, wrote some severe articles against Pietism in its relations to the Church, and never indulged in much free utterance in religious things. Rejoicing in a subjective internal experience as rich as most Christians know, he yet never ceased to magnify religion in its objective and internal character,—until the last, when the approach of death seemed to give him back a certain childlike simplicity, and he talked with effusion of divine things. Among his last words were, for instance, “No orthodoxy without pietism, no piety without orthodoxy;” and this beautiful combination, which is undoubtedly the perfection of the Christian estate, he probably, if all the truth were known, had been seeking to realize through life. His charity abounded, and showed to all men, and in all the relations of life, its best fruits; and yet his judgments were often intolerant, his invectives piercing, and his spirit as a controversialist sometimes intolerably harsh. He “took the sword,” and used it freely. For the sake of much heroic service done, we must forgive, even as his Master forgave, much that was intemperate in his warfare. Moreover, it must be remembered that he paid the penalty of any offence of this kind. He did not indeed “perish by the sword,” but he keenly suffered; and in due time the weapon of others was used for his chastisement, and in order to the perishing of his uncharitableness. His fine character blended at the last all Christian perfections, and lost its unevenness in the unity of a perfect love. His relations to the Christian Church and its Confessions were marked by the same peculiarity. He was born and brought up under Reformed influences; was confirmed under pietistic; but subsequently gave himself up wholly to the Lutheran creed. Yet the two abandoned elements never ceased to co-operate in forming his doctrinal judgments: they wove into the fabric their unobserved threads while he was unconscious, and the result was a remarkably composite theology. The Formula Concordioe, which made so noble an attempt to reconcile the conflicting tendencies and thoughts of the Reformation, he never accepted thoroughly; but his heart was faithful to the Augsburg Confession, which carried with it, as he thought, at least, his full and unwavering convictions. But he was not a dogmatic divine. Systematic theology he never thoroughly understood, and certainly contributed nothing to its modern forms. The works of the first generations of Lutheran systematic theologians—the Quenstedts, and Calovs, and Hutters, and Gerhards—he either never read or never understood. They never moulded his thinkings, as any one may see, for instance, in the theological essays appended to the volume on Ecclesiastes, especially that on the sacrifices of Scripture. In fact, with all his strictness as an advocate of the faith, he was not himself absolutely bound to any Confession. His theology was essentially biblical: the Scriptures were the norm and standard of truth to him. Tolerant enough, and even lax with regard to some points of confessional theology, he was exceedingly tenacious and even bigoted when the infallible standard was in question. It was as an advocate of Scripture that he uttered his most peremptory decisions; and it was in the name of the word of God that he condemned so unsparingly the manifold errors of the day. Dr. Kahnis remarks on this subject: “By the kingdom of God he did not understand the Lutheran Church, nor the kingdom of Protestantism, but the believing world as it pervades all the Confessions. With his strong realism, which always demanded a firm foundation, he required in the Church immoveable authorities and fixed norms. The authority of authorities, the norm of norms, was to him the Bible. A theologian who seeks in Scripture the unbending rule appointed of God and written by His Spirit, will be strongly disposed to insist upon the authenticity, credibility, and integrity of every jot and tittle of that word. We have seen, however, that Hengstenberg pressed this requirement of fixed norms beyond the demands of the Reformers and orthodox teachers of Lutheranism, and involved himself thereby in inextricable difficulties. In this legal position to the Bible we may find the principle of that categorical tone which he assumed in the Kirchenzeitung. It was not given to him to exhibit facts according to the laws of historical objectivity, to investigate them in their inmost motives, to deal gently with developing movements, to bear with the weak, to repel kindly the error. Things under the moon have commonly two sides; but Hengstenberg approved of no mixture. The grey must be either white or black; the green must be blue or yellow. In criticism he saw only unbelief, in speculation only self-deification, in mediating theology only the theology of halves, in the Gustavus-Adolphus union only a blending of belief and unbelief. Hengstenberg showed his own peculiar strength and idiosyncrasy when he painted the shady side of Church and State in apocalyptic colours, and poured out threatenings and promises accordingly. But, after all, he who loves the truth must confess that in this fearless and unsparing treatment of friends and foes, kings and people alike, there was something exceedingly grand, which suggested a parallel with the witnesses of the old covenant.” This passage fairly represents the general feeling with regard to Hengstenberg among the orthodox of modern Germany. They admire his principle of deep devotion to the word of God, but seem to sigh over it as a hopeless ideal. They reverence the simple grandeur of the censures which, in the name of the truth, were denounced on error; but think that it savours also of Old Testament severity, and entangles men in hopeless difficulties. But there can be no doubt upon one point,—that men of such unbending firmness and simplicity of faith are the pillars of the modern Church, and, under God, the only hope of Christendom. In Germany, however, all things religious and confessional are complicated by their relations with the Union between the Churches. This was through life a chronic embarrassment to Hengstenberg; indeed, it was in some sense an hereditary one. Almost every principle, save that of charity and peace, warred in his mind against the Union. He was not what might be called a rigid Lutheran, and yet sufficiently so to make him recoil from a surrender to any scheme of compromise with the Calvinistic Confessions. He was in spirit much attached to some of the doctrines of the Reformed Churches, but not enough to reconcile himself to their infusion into public formularies and rubrics. However, as a devoted adherent of another union,—that of Church and State,—he was constrained to accept what was an accomplished fact. Hence, in the ten years of conflict between the unbending Silesian Lutherans and the Union, he was obliged to consent to what he did not in his secret soul approve. But it was the national Church that he sided with, not the Union as such. In the year 1844, his annual Vorwort showed how gloomy were his views of the Union, and that he was fast preparing to be its opponent. After his experiences of the General Synod of 1846, and the revolutionary year 1848, the ceaseless vacillations of the Government, he took a very decided attitude of hostility to it. But these are questions with which the memorial of Hengstenberg has more to do in Germany than in England. The same may be said of his specific views as to the relations of the Church with the State in Prussia. It has been remarked that Hengstenberg held very high and in some respects very peculiar opinions on this subject. They were opinions which largely influenced his practice, and gave a tone to his writings. Through his paper he was a perpetual censor of public affairs,—one whose voice was heard, directly or indirectly, on every subject, rising shrill and clear above the din of strife. Like an ancient prophet in the theocracy, he brought the principles of divine truth to bear on every question, not shrinking from its application to any persons involved, from the highest to the lowest. It would need a tolerably extensive acquaintance with the various history, domestic and civil, of his fatherland, to understand how great a power he was in this capacity of advocate-general. He judged every question of politics and morals, education, divorce, trades’ unions, international commerce, from a purely scriptural point of view, and therefore often came into serious collision with public sentiment, whether expressed by philosophers or by the common people His conservatism was consistently, even with chivalrous consistency, carried into everything. Obedience to the throne was closely allied with obedience to the King of kings. He distrusted the popular voice in government, whether in the making or in the administering of laws. In ecclesiastical matters he was no friend to the massing of men together in presbyteries and synods, though, as may be supposed, his expedients for abolishing such a large representative element were of a rather grotesque description. He loved to dwell in the times and scenes of God’s manifestation of Himself through select agencies. The ideal was always present to him of the one God acting through one instrument, revealing His purposes and plans to the silent thinker and earnest pleader, while passing by the tumultuous assemblies of the rulers of the Church. In fact, he lived iu a modern and unrealizable theocracy,—an ideal which most men besides himself saw to involve an anachronism. It was not a hierarchy in the State that he wanted, nor a merely preaching synagogue, nor a temple of ritualistic offering. His theory was faithful to the universal priesthood as acknowledged by the State, and in one sense constituting the Church itself. In this, and in many other respects that might be indicated, he was a remarkable combination of Luther and Calvin, by turns the one or the other preponderating, but the latter having the ascendency. For nearly fifty years this noble-minded scholar and Christian instructed his generation, exerting an influence not surpassed by that of any other man upon his own country, and, through the translation of his works and the echoes of his influence, influencing the Christians of other lands. He is gone, and his works follow him. His works also remain, and it is long before they will cease to be standards of authority. In time, however, they will cease to be such; but his name will for ever take high rank among those who have devoted their lives to the Testimony of Jesus, to its vindication and enforcement, both in the Old Testament and in the New. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 25: 25. SECOND PERIOD: THE PERIOD OF THE LAW; FROM MOSES TO THE BIRTH OF CHRIST ======================================================================== Second Period: The Period of the Law; From Moses to the Birth of Christ ======================================================================== CHAPTER 26: 26. THIRD SECTION. THE PERIOD OF THE JUDGES; FROM JOSHUA’S DEATH TO THE ELECTION OF SAUL ======================================================================== Third Section. The Period of the Judges; From Joshua’s Death to the Election of Saul ======================================================================== CHAPTER 27: 27. §1. CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY ======================================================================== §1. Chronological Survey IN no part of sacred history is chronology of greater importance than here. The view taken by each one of the condition of the Israelites during this period must be essentially different, according as he comes to the conclusion that the contents of 1 Samuel 1-7 run parallel with those of Judges 11-16, so that the two one-sided accounts supplement each other; or assumes that they both refer to different times, and Eli first attained the dignity of high priest after Samson was already dead, or, as some believe, a considerable period later, so that between the judges and Samuel there would be a gap, a space of time of which we know nothing at all. We must therefore begin with the chronology. This question has been considerably facilitated by Keil, in his chronological examination concerning the years which elapsed between the exodus of the Israelites out of Egypt and the building of the temple of Solomon, in the Dorpater Beiträgne zu den theologischen Wissenschaften, 2d vol., Hamburg 1833, p. 303 ff., which has its best analogy among the ancients in the close translation and acute examination of the different views by Vitringa in the Hypotyposis hist, sacrce, p. 29 sqq. The intermediate researches of Joh. Dav. Michaelis have only served to complicate the matter. Bertheau also, in his Commentary on the Book of Judges, Leipzic 1845, and Ewald, in utter ignorance of the researches of Keil, have only obscured the question by a multitude of new chronological fancies. We have a firm starting-point for chronological inquiry in 1 Kings 6:1, according to which 480 years elapsed between the exodus of Israel out of Egypt and the building of Solomon’s temple. It cannot be the task of the chronologist to harmonize this statement with that made by St. Paul in Acts 13:20, in a discourse which he held in the synagogue at Antioch in Pisidia, where he makes the period of the Judges to have lasted only 450 years. Vitringa supposes that the chronological statements in the apostle’s discourse are glosses interpolated afterwards in an unsuitable place. This view is based on the fact that the chronological determination in Paul is merely a passing one. For the apostle’s object, accuracy was not demanded: he was not called upon to oppose and correct the chronological view then prevalent. For him, it was enough to give the historical view—a general chronological substratum. A century more or less was of no importance to him. That he has no intention of encroaching on the sphere of the chronologists, and putting them in fetters, he expressly declares by the ὡς, towards, about, which takes away the support from all those who make his statement the starting-point of chronological calculations, and likewise from those who charge the apostle 1 with a chronological error. The 450 years exactly agree with the numbers of the book of Judges from the first slavery to the death of Eli, recorded in the books of Samuel, which it was then the custom to reckon together, without considering that some of the periods might run parallel and thus include one another. Hence our only task is to bring the general chronological statement in the books of Kings into harmony with the particular determinations in the historical books. The following reasons make it necessary to disclaim a chronology definite and accurate in every single point:—1. Some chronological data are entirely wanting in the Old Testament, viz. the determination of the time which elapsed from the first division of the land of Canaan to the first hostile oppression—that of the Mesopotamians. Likewise the statement of the year of Samuel’s judgeship and Saul’s reign. 2. On glancing at the chronological accounts of the book of Judges, we are at once struck with the circumstance that the numbers are so often round, more frequently than is generally the case in chronologically accurate history. Half of the numbers are of this kind, such as 10, 20, 40, 80, 7. But this discovery only attains its full significance when placed in connection with the whole historical character of the book of Judges. Taking this fact into consideration, it appears to us à priori improbable that it was the author’s intention to give a chronology accurate to the year and day. For this the author is far too little of a chronicler, far too much of a prophet. Studied chronological precision would be at variance with the care with which in the historical representation he leaves out everything not subservient to his main object. These defects, however, are of comparatively small importance. The periods left indefinite are but few—only the two already mentioned; and even with regard to them, we have data which enable us to form an approximate determination. Nor must we allow the round numbers in the book of Judges to lead us astray. For in the definite numbers which are mixed up with them, such as 18, 22, 23, we have a guarantee that they are only put there when the definite number came very near the round one—40, for example, for 39 or 41; and this want of precision can exercise the less influence upon the whole, since the too much and the too little almost balance one another when such a course is pursued for a long period. We shall now turn to particulars, beginning with a chronological survey, and then going on to discuss the various difficult and doubtful points. The 480 years are divided thus:— The time from the exodus out of Egypt to the death of Moses, . . . . . 40 years. From the death of Moses to the distribution of the land (compare the earlier observation) , . . . . . 7 years. To the invasion of the Mesopotamians, . . . . . 10 years. From the beginning of the bondage to the Mesopotamians to the death of Jair, the separate dates in the book of Judges, Judges 3:8 to Judges 10:3, together amount to 801 years. So that from the exodus out of Egypt to the death of Jair we get a sum-total of 358 years. We now find in the book of Judges a series of parallel dates, Israel being attacked simultaneously by the Ammonites in the east and by the Philistines in the west. We shall here follow the latter chronological stream. The oppression by the Philistines lasted in all 40 years; comp. Judges 15:20. Of these, the first 20 years are the last 20 of the 40 years’ priesthood of Eli. The acts of Samson belong to the last 20. The period ends with the victory over the Philistines under Samuel. These 40 years added to the 358 make 398. Hence there still remain 82 years of the sum-total. Of these, 40 belong to the reign of David, and 3 to the reign of Solomon until the building of the temple. Thus we get a remainder of 39 years for the judgeship of Samuel and the kingship of Saul. Let us now turn to the other chronological series. The oppression by the Ammonites lasted 18 years, according to Judges 10:8. Jephthah was judge for 6 years, Ebzan for 7, Elon 10, Abdon 8. The whole series makes 49 years. They came to an end in the time of Samuel’s judgeship. Jephthah’s appearance takes place under the pontificate of Eli, shortly before the appearance of Samson. The victory over the Philistines under Samuel takes place in the last year of the judge Elon. We shall now consider separate particulars. 1. Many have thought it necessary to lengthen the time between the (first) distribution of the law and the invasion of the Mesopotamians (Bertheau, for example, computes the time from Joshua’s death to the invasion of the Mesopotamians at forty years), from misapprehension of the passage Joshua 24:31, and Judges 2:7, according to which the Israelites served the Lord as long as Joshua lived, and the elders, who lived long after Joshua. These words are not to be so misapprehended as to lead us to suppose that the Israelites were absolutely faithful to the Lord up to the moment when the last of the elders died, and were absolutely unfaithful from the time that his eyes were closed. They are not inconsistent with the fact that the depravity had already begun to germinate in the last years of Joshua, and in a short space of time acquired so much power that punishment became necessary. This punishment does not presuppose the complete apostasy of the whole nation, but rather implies the contrary by its mildness and short duration. Here also we see how perilous it is to reason immediately from the universal to the particular. That the period cannot have been much longer, appears with certainty from the fact that Othniel, who set Israel free after eight years’ bondage, was a valiant hero already in Joshua’s day, at the time of the occupation of the land; comp. Joshua 15:17, Judges 1:13. 2. Throughout the whole period from the invasion of the Mesopotamians to the death of Jair, the chronological reckoning proceeds quite simply. One date does not cover another. The events are all narrated in chronological succession. Only the victory of Shamgar over the Philistines occurs in the intermediate period between the Moabitish and the Canaanitish oppression, in which Israel on the whole enjoyed rest, as appears from the circumstance that Judges 3:31 neither gives the date of this act of heroism, nor records the fact that Shamgar judged Israel. 3. The most important questions relate to the time towards the end of the period of the judges. First, whether the oppression of the Philistines succeeded that of the Ammonites, or whether they were simultaneous. We decide unhesitatingly in favour of the latter view. Judges 10:7 speaks decidedly for it. We are first told how the children of Israel did evil again in the sight of the Lord, and especially how they served the gods of the Philistines and of the Ammonites; and then we read: a And the anger of the Lord was hot against Israel, and He sold them into the hands of the Philistines, and into the hands of the children of Amnion.” Then there follows a full account of the oppression by the Ammonites, Israel’s repentance, and their deliverance by the hand of Jephthah, Judges 10:11 to Judges 11:33. Judges 13-16 are occupied with what the Israelites had to suffer from the Philistines, and with the help vouchsafed to them by the Lord. If the oppression by the Philistines had only occurred after that by the Ammonites, how could the author put them together, as he does in Judges 10:7, even placing that by the Philistines first? That the oppression of the Philistines in Judges 10:7 is not distinct from that in Judges 13-16 is self-evident. For if they be separated, it follows that in the first oppression by the Philistines we have no account whatever of the subsequent course of events, or of the saving mercy of the Lord, which is quite at variance with the character of the book, whose author in the very introduction represents the merciful deliverances as the object of his writing, no less than the righteous oppressions, and who elsewhere records sin, punishment, repentance, and deliverance, in regular succession, observing the same course even in the Ammonitic invasion. 4. If the beginning of the oppression by the Philistines be definitely fixed, the question arises as to its end. Its duration is set down at forty years in the book of Judges. These forty years, however, reach beyond the events which are recorded in the book of Judges. For Samson, with whose death the book of Judges concludes, was only beginning to deliver Israel, Judges 13:5; he judged Israel in the days of the Philistines twenty years, Judges 15:20. When he dies, the power of the Philistines is still unbroken; his deeds were rather proofs that the God of Israel could deliver His people, prophecies of future deliverance, than themselves calculated to effect it. If we now turn from the book of Judges to the contiguous books of Samuel, we find ourselves here again upon the same ground on which the author of the book of Judges left us. In Judges 4 we find the Philistines at war with the Israelites; and the misfortune of the latter reaches its highest point in the fact that the ark of the covenant is taken by the Philistines,—an event in consequence of which Eli dies. There can be no doubt that the oppression of the Philistines, to which this battle belongs, is the same of which the book of Judges treats; for otherwise the one would want a beginning, the other an end. But the oppression by the Philistines in the books of Samuel lasted twenty years after that catastrophe. It was brought to an end by the great victory which the Lord gave to the Israelites, after they had earnestly turned to Him under the influence of Samuel, 1 Samuel 7:14 Sam. 7:14. According to this determination, the last twenty years of the forty years of Eli’s priesthood fall in the time of the oppression by the Philistines; the last twenty years of the oppression by the Philistines, which are left quite void in the books of Samuel, are filled out by the deeds of Samson narrated in the book of Judges. According to Judges 13:5, the Philistines reigned over Israel already at the time of Samson’s birth. While still a youth, Samson began his exploits, Judges 14:4. Assuming his age to have been twenty years, the end of his twenty years’ judgeship, which began with the death of Eli, borders on the beginning of Samuel’s judgeship, which was based on the decisive victory over the Philistines. Thus everything was in the most beautiful order. For the space of twenty years, the second half of Eli’s pontificate, Israel is in complete subjection. At the end of this time the climax of misfortune is reached by the taking away of the ark of the covenant. Then Israel rises again. For twenty years Samson makes the Philistines feel the ascendency of the God of Israel, supplemented by the reformatory activity of Samuel, which prepares the way for a lasting and complete victory. This victory takes place immediately after Samson’s death. At the time when Israel’s hope is carried to the grave with Samson, it re-awakens more gloriously with Samuel. The objections which have been brought against this arrangement may easily be set aside. It has been thought strange that nothing is said of Eli in the book of Judges; nothing of Samson in the books of Samuel. To this objection the true answer has been given by Joach. Hartmann, Chronol. S. 157: “Eli non nominatur in historia judicium, quia ipsi cum militia; Simson non nominatur in libris Samuelis, quia ipsi cum ecclesia et Samuele nihil negotii fuit.” Notwithstanding the clear and definite statement at the very beginning of the book of Judges, it has been too often forgotten that it was throughout not the author’s intention to give a complete history of this period, but that he only occupies himself with a certain class of events, with the acts of the judges in a limited sense, the men whose authority among the people had its foundation in the outward deliverances which the Lord vouchsafed to the nation by their instrumentality. In this sense Eli was by no means a judge, although in 1 Samuel 4:18 it is said that he judged Israel for forty years. Eli was high priest, and merely exercised over the affairs of the nation a more or less extended free influence, which had its origin in his priestly dignity. Hence the author of the book of Judges had nothing to do with Eli; and we are not at liberty to conclude, from the fact that he does not mention him, that Eli’s activity was no longer felt in the time of which he treats. And the author of the books of Samuel had just as little to do with Samson. His attention is fixed on Samuel, whose activity stood in no relation to that of Samson, had nothing whatever to do with it; and he mentions Eli only because his history was so closely interwoven with that of Samuel. If this be apprehended, the second objection disappears of itself. According to this view, the first book of Samuel was not so much a continuation of the history, as a partial repetition of that which belonged to the period described by the book of Judges. The book of Samuel takes up the thread of the history where the author of the book of Judges lets it fall, towards the end of the forty years’ oppression by the Philistines, in 1 Samuel 7. But it was not enough for the author’s aim to describe the new formation of things as established by Samuel, without repeating certain preparatory events which the author of the book of Judges had no object in communicating. Before narrating the decisive appearance of Samuel, he feels it necessary to make us acquainted with his personality and the circumstances of his appearance. It is clear that the author only speaks of Eli with reference to Samuel, from the whole manner of his representation. The most important events—for example, the manner in which the high-priesthood passed over from the family of Eleazar to that of Ithamar—he entirely omits. Finally, it has been objected that, according to this computation, the activity of those judges named in the book of Judges after the oppression of the Ammonites would coincide with the judgeship of Samson, and in part with that of Samuel. But this objection is based on an unhistorical conception of the office of judge. The judges were judges in Israel, each one belonged to the whole nation; but none was judge over all Israel, with the exception of Othniel in the very beginning of the period: most of them acted only among single tribes, or among a few neighbouring tribes. The judges enumerated in Judges 12:8-15 acted only among the eastern and northern tribes, which were not involved in the oppression of the Philistines. 5. The only point of controversy which now remains is the determination of the length of Samuel’s judgeship, which began with the end of the oppression by the Philistines, soon after the death. of Samson; and of Saul’s kingship. With regard to this we have no definite and explicit statements. That it is not possible to go much beyond the thirty-nine years at which we have already estimated this time, nor to attribute forty years to the reign of Saul alone, by reason of the general statement in Acts 13:21, which probably includes both Samuel and Saul, appears from the combination of several circumstances, for which we must refer to Keil, S. 358 ff., since the chronology here has not grown together with the history, as in the former examinations. As a guarantee for the correctness of our chronological calculation, we have not only 1 Kings 6:1, but also a second passage, Judges 11:26, where Jephthah says that Israel dwelt in the land east of the Jordan, conquered in the last year of Moses, for 300 years, until he fought against Amnion. Our calculation gave 318 years from the death of Moses to that of Jair, after which came the Ammonitic invasion. Bertheau is obliged to confess that his chronological computation stands in glaring opposition to these two general statements, and in so doing has passed judgment on it. From the exodus out of Egypt to the building of the temple he calculates more than 600 years. This large number of years he gets by calculating, on his own responsibility, forty years for “the sinful generation after Joshua,” by denying the synchronism of the Ammonitic and the Philistic oppression, and extending the judgeship of Samson, which he estimates at forty instead of twenty years, beyond the oppression by the Philistines. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 28: 28. § 2. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ======================================================================== § 2. Introductory Remarks The leading points of view for the history of this period are given by the author of the book of Judges himself, in Joshua 1:1 to Joshua 3:6. In many respects it bears a similarity to the forty years of the march through the wilderness. It also is to be regarded as a time of temptation. God’s palpable grace, as it had been experienced by the nation under Joshua, was in some measure withdrawn. The nation was left more to its own development, that it might gain a more perfect knowledge of itself. For the godlessness which was rather suppressed than rooted out soon asserted itself in its peculiar form; Nature freed herself from the burdensome restraint which had been laid upon her, and threw off the elements which were foreign to her. As a matter of course, the godlessness was accompanied by idolatry, the expression of it peculiar to the age. Yet, even in the time of its deepest degradation, the nation still retained so much piety that it did not openly revolt against the Lord, but sought to combine the heathen vanity with its own worship. The choice of Israel was shown just as much, perhaps even more than in the deliverances, by the fact that punishment invariably followed sin. If this had ceased to be the case, Israel would soon no longer have been Israel. By punishment sin was always recognised as such; and when only the beginnings of repentance were visible, God’s mercy removed the punishment. The nation scarcely got beyond the beginnings during this period. The rapidity with which they always sink back into their old sins, shows that they had not yet made very much advance, that this period could only have been preparation for another, that there must be a reformation, built on more solid grounds than the former ones. Towards the end of the period there stepped forth the man whom God had prepared for this purpose—Samuel, the counterpart of Moses. From his ministry we first learn to understand the character of this period. It was intended to prepare the ground for the reception of the seed which he was to scatter. Before he could succeed, like a second Moses, in bringing the law nearer to the heart of the people, they must become thoroughly acquainted with the carnal wickedness of their heart by long and painful experience, as had been the case under the first Moses. For centuries they must sigh under the oppression of sin and its consequences, that they might joyfully welcome the deliverance, and willingly submit to the regulations which secured to the new reformation a firm duration. But the fact that Israel passed through all these heavy trials without fundamental injury, that after every grievous fall they still rose up again, that Samuel found in them a point of contact for his vigorous reformation,—all this shows that the efficacy of Moses had not been in vain, that it had penetrated to the innermost soul of the nation, and there implanted truths which were indestructible. Divine seed is like oil, which, however much it may be shaken together with water, still comes to the surface again. And for individuals who find themselves involved in severe struggles with their corrupt nature, it is very consolatory to see this truth confirmed in so grand a way in the history of this time. But there is justice in the remark of Ewald: “This long period is one of many new experiences, but not of new truths fully recognised and accomplished; its greatness consists in the spiritual possessions which it has already won.” To maintain these against all temptations, this was the task. Progress belonged to a later time. In this period the standpoint of the ἐκλογή was purely conservative. That which here asserted itself as progress went for nothing. It is generally supposed that the author of the book of Judges represents the fact that the Israelites, in opposition to the command of Moses, failed to exterminate the Canaanites, but allowed them to dwell among them, and intermarried with them, as one of the main causes of the corruption among the Israelites. But on closer examination we find that throughout the whole introduction no blame is attached to the Israelites on this account; the non-expulsion of the Canaanites is not made a reproach to the Israelites, but is attributed to divine, not human causality. That the author attributes the incomplete conquest of the land under Joshua to innocent incapacity, we see clearly from Judges 1:19, “And he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain, but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron;” which does not, however, exclude the probability that individual idleness and want of faith had something to do with it. Nor can the non-expulsion of the Canaanites be made a direct reproach against the Israelites after Joshua’s death. According to Judges 2:21, they wanted the requisite power, because the Lord had withdrawn His promises of victory as a punishment for their apostasy. Most probably the Israelites were never deficient in the desire to expel the Canaanites utterly. Their own interest was too much involved in it. The point of view from which the author regarded the incomplete victory over the Canaanites under Joshua may be better seen from Judges 2:22 ff., Judges 3:1. Judges 2:21 shows plainly that the expeditions recorded in Judges 1 belong to Joshua’s time, and that afterwards nothing more of any importance was done against the Canaanites: “I also will not henceforth drive out any from before them of the nations which Joshua left when he died.”) According to these passages, a considerable remnant of the Canaanites was left for the trial and eventually the punishment of the Israelites,—a theory which agrees excellently with the character of the period of the judges. Sin in man can only be completely rooted out by making him pass through temptation, by giving him outwardly the opportunity for its development. Without struggle, no victory. In contact with the world, the people of God must prove themselves to be such; gradually and through many a severe fall they must become ripe for their vocation. It was from this point of view that the choice of a land for Israel had been made. It has been justly remarked, that if the intention had been to spare Israel the struggle, to give them a quiet retired life, calm development, and peaceful relations, a less suitable land than this could scarcely have been chosen,—a land bordering on the sea, much disturbed, influenced in many ways from without, adapted for intercourse with other countries. Intercourse with the Canaanites also gave the Israelites abundant opportunity for strife. That they stood the temptation badly was to be expected beforehand, since human nature is so constituted, that the inner alienation of a people from the world is slow to follow their outer withdrawal from it. The sensuous religion of the Canaanites found a powerful ally in the heart of the Israelites; it exactly answered to the demands of their nature. The easy unrestrained life was far more congenial to them than that enjoined by Moses, circumscribed by the strict requirements of the law, and demanding continual self-sacrifice; comp. Joshua 24:19. The splendour and the luxury which prevailed in the centres of Canaanitish commerce had the effect of making them ashamed of their poor mode of life. The inspiration which had arisen under Joshua disappeared more and more in proportion as the objects which had called it forth were withdrawn. Israel became secularized. The consciousness and the inner wall of partition which separated them from the Canaanites disappeared. Now was realized in them the eternal law by which he who is called and chosen by God, when he surrenders himself to the world, is punished by the world. The instruments of temptation were transformed into instruments of punishment. God had already bound the rods before the evil had been perpetrated. The Canaanites became to Israel in reality what, in accordance with the threats of Moses and Joshua, they were to become to them in event of their apostasy—snares and nets, pricks in their sides and thorns in their eyes. The servants of divine justice were established not only on all the borders of their land, but also within it. But just as that which was already attained by Israel intellectually and spiritually at last got the upper hand in spite of all perilous fluctuation, so likewise the external. Under Joshua they had conquered the high places of the land, and these the Canaanites never were able to reconquer. From these heights, in the course of centuries, they finally succeeded in conquering the valleys also, which the Canaanites had retained for a long time. However much appearances might be against it, yet in the end it became manifest that the land was really conquered under Joshua. The leadings of divine providence were shown not only in this preparation of means for temptation and punishment, but also in the fact that the original constitution of the Canaanites continued throughout the whole period, which made it impossible for them to offer permanent resistance to their enemies in the usual way. Each tribe was well organized in itself, but an external firm bond of union was wanting which should keep the twelve tribes together. This was especially the case after the mere personal authority of Moses and Joshua had ceased, the latter of whom named no successor. As long as they remained faithful to the Lord, and as often as they returned to Him, this was not felt to be a misfortune. We see this plainly in the history of Joshua to the time of the assembling of the whole nation shortly before his death, and of the war against the Benjamites in the beginning of the period of the judges, in which “the congregation was gathered together as one man.” If their faith were strong, the invisible Ruler rendered them infinitely more help than they could have had from a visible head; but if their faith were lost, if the living God became transformed into a mere abstraction, all the disadvantages of this form of government became apparent. The twelve tribes fell asunder, the externally weak bonds by which they were united were loosened, self-interest asserted itself, and the nation became an easy prey to the enemy. If they then humbled themselves before God, in His wisdom He gave them help which was only temporary. The bond of union formed by individual judges was in every case dissolved on their death. First in connection with a vigorous reformation, and firmly-established regulations for the security of its permanance, was a standing earthly representation of the divine supremacy given to the nation in kingship. “It was better,” says Ewald, “that human kingship generally should not come while the men were still wanting who could have established it in the right way.” The long series of heathen attacks to which we see Israel exposed during this period, is only rightly understood when we find its main cause in the heathen aversion towards Israel as the nation of the Lord, which, beginning at the time of their elevation to this dignity, runs through the whole history. That assumption of being the only chosen, that self-isolation, which seemed to the heathen consciousness to be an odium generis humani, was at all times an incentive to bitter hatred for those nations with which Israel came into contact. Almost all the wars which Israel had to undertake were religious wars. Where would it be possible to find an example of such ineradicable hatred between two nations, continuing for centuries with unabated violence? Amalek attacks Israel already in the march through the wilderness, because they declared themselves to be the people of God, Exodus 17:16. The history of the time of the judges first appears in its true light when we regard it as not purely external, but as having a lively reference to our own hearts, and to the relations of the present, when it forms a mirror in which we see the image of man in his depravity, and of God in His righteousness and mercy. This history then forms a rich source of edification to us. We shall now first notice the separate events of this period in succession, and then conclude with remarks on the civil constitution and the religious history. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 29: 29. § 3. PRINCIPAL EVENTS ======================================================================== § 3. Principal Events 1. The two events which are narrated in the appendix to the book of Judges, as examples of the licentiousness which prevailed during this period, belong to the time shortly after Joshua’s death. This determination of time can be subject to no doubt, since, according to Judges 20:28, Phinehas, the contemporary of Joshua, was then still high priest. The first event, the making of an image by Micah, is worthy of special note, because it shows us the transition from the pure worship of Jehovah, as it existed in the time of Joshua even among the masses, to idolatry, to which the inwardly faithless portion of the nation abandoned themselves far into the period of the judges, but in such a way that they always sought after some mediation between it and the worship of Jehovah. Here we have not to do with the ἐκλογή but rather with such as represent the worse tendency. Micah, who first had the image made, is a thief, upon whom the curse of a mother rests; and the Danites, who appropriate it in a thievish way, are rude associates bent on adventure. And yet we find Jehovah here, and nothing but Jehovah. At a later period, persons of their disposition would certainly have given themselves up to the worship of Baal and of Ashera. Private worship—in this also we see that we are still near the God-fearing and legal time of Joshua—appears throughout as an imitation of the public worship of Jehovah, which alone makes its origin comprehensible. There are four objects named as having been made by Micah,—a graven image, a molten image, ephod, and teraphim. But we infer from several passages that these objects, though separable, were joined together. The cast served as a pedestal for the image. With the ephod the image was clothed, and in the pocket of the ephod were the teraphim. The image served as a substitute for the ark of the covenant in the sanctuary; the ephod was an imitation of the ephod of the high priest; the teraphim served instead of the twelve precious stones which formed the foundation of the Urim and Thummim, a spiritual thing, and were present in the חשׁן. Instead of the high priest, Micah hires a Levite. At the close of the narrative it is stated that the image of Micah remained among the sons of Dan until the day of the captivity of the land. To this determination of time another more obvious one runs parallel, from which it receives its light, viz. all the days that the house of God was in Shiloh. Since the tabernacle of the covenant remained in Shiloh till the capture of the ark by the Philistines, and was then transferred to Nob, the “captivity of the land” can only refer to that Philistine catastrophe. Just at this time we find a most suitable opportunity for the abandonment of the illegal worship in Dan. Towards the end of the period of the Philistines the great reformation under Samuel took place, in which every illegal worship was laid aside; comp. 1 Samuel 7:4. The second event, the war of extermination against the Benjamites, caused by the shameful deed of the inhabitants of Gibeah, is remarkable in so far as it shows us that in the time immediately after Joshua the national unity still continued among Israel. The nation rose up with great energy en masse. We find the basis of this still existing national unity in the continuance of a considerable fund of pious disposition. That the lusts through which Israel afterwards fell into sin were already at that time springing up, we learn from the example of a whole town, which in moral degeneracy had already sunk to the depth of Sodomites, and from the conduct of the Benjamites, whose horror of sin is so weak, that it is outweighed by a morbid sense of honour, by displeasure,—conduct which arouses the interference of the whole nation in what was supposed to be the private affair of the tribe. In the mass of the nation, however, this horror is exceptionally strong. They fear lest they should call down the judgments of God upon themselves in omitting to punish the wickedness. Bertheau excellently remarks: “The community indeed waged war—a fearful war—against their own flesh and blood; but when under the kings do we find Israel so unanimously, vigorously, and earnestly undertaking the most difficult warfare for the highest possessions? Here we feel the influence of the elevated time of Moses and Joshua.” It appears strange that the tribes at first suffer a double defeat, notwithstanding the righteousness of their cause and the fact that they fought in the service of the Lord and at His command. We find an explanation of this on a closer consideration of the account in Judges 20:18 ff. At first they only go up (to the place where the ark of the covenant was, and the high priest), and ask. Then they go up, and weep and ask. Finally, they go up, not merely ambassadors, but all the sons of Israel, the whole nation, and weep and sit there before the Lord, and fast and bring burnt-offerings and peace-offerings. In this gradation we have the explanation of the varying result. At first they are impenitent, then there is a slight beginning of repentance, and finally it is complete. To the righteousness of the cause, which Israel thought sufficient, was now added individual righteousness, and the victory was theirs. The event affords a glimpse into the working of God’s retributive justice. Lightfoot makes an excellent remark on this subject, only that he takes too narrow a view of the guilt of Israel, when he makes it to consist mainly in not punishing the illegal worship of which the former narrative treats. Postquam deus usus erat Benjamine ad exsequendum judicium suum contra Israelem ob non punitam idololatriam, utitur porro Israele ad puniendum Benjaminitam ob Gibeam judicio non permissam. In an awful manner the divine retribution was made manifest in what befell the Levitical concubine, who may be regarded as a type of Israel. She had been faithless to her husband in secret, and must now serve to satisfy the coarse desires of the inhabitants of Gibeah, till she dies. The conduct of Israel towards the Benjamites has been very falsely judged, when it has been attributed to motives of barbarous cruelty and revenge. The question in Judges 20:28, “Shall I yet again go out to battle against the children of Benjamin my brother?” shows how far the thought of carnal revenge was removed from the people, even after they had sustained the most trying loss. They would willingly have given up the thing, but thought it necessary to fulfil the duty pointed out to them by the Lord, that the curse might not pass over from those who were guilty to them. This is evident from the words which they use to the Benjamites before the commencement of the battle, “that we may put away evil from Israel,” which contain a verbal reference to the command so frequently reiterated in Deuteronomy; comp. Deuteronomy 13:5, Deuteronomy 17:7. After what happened, we find an expression of the deepest sorrow in Judges 21:3 : “Lord God of Israel, why is this come to pass in Israel, that there should be to-day one tribe lacking in Israel?” They weep before the Lord. That what was done to the Benjamites was חרם—the same on a large scale as was now done to the evil-doers on a small scale—appears from Judges 21:11, according to which the inhabitants of Jabesh in Gilead were punished with the חרם, because they drew back from the holy war, and by their refusal to take part in punishing the sinners revealed their own love for sin. “And this is the thing that ye shall do, Ye shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman that hath lain by man” (תחרימו). The analogous treatment of the inhabitants of Jabesh is here expressly characterized as a curse. This and the proceedings taken against Benjamin are based on the passage Deuteronomy 13:12 ff., which forms the key to the whole thing. We here learn how an Israelitish town, which had incurred the guilt of worshipping other gods, was cursed with all that was in it, after the deed had been carefully investigated,—men and cattle were slain with the edge of the sword, and all the spoil burnt, “that the Lord may turn from the fierceness of His anger, and show thee mercy, and have compassion upon thee, and multiply thee, as He hath sworn unto thy fathers.” “Quod admodum rigidum et severum mandatum, illi jam exsecuti sunt,” says Michaelis. In the account of the treatment of the Benjamites and of the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead, we have verbal reference to this law, in accordance with the invariable habit of the authors of the book of Judges and the books of Samuel, who never actually quote, but have the law constantly in their mind, and by verbal reference to it indicate their judgment. Thus the Israelites acted as servants of divine justice. It is true that in the law there is no express mention of the worship of other gods. But the ground of their punishableness is their secession from the living and holy God, and this revealed itself in both cases by unmistakeable signs. And when this was the case, it was possible even at that time to conclude with certainty respecting the existence of the special declaration regarding putting away strange gods, which was expressly named in the law. The rulers of the nation quote the authority of the law, not only in the punishment, but also in that which they afterwards do for the restoration of Benjamin, in the measures which they adopt to make the weak remnant a new seminary. The words, “ that a tribe be not destroyed out of Israel,” in Judges 21:17, which they give as a reason, rest upon Deuteronomy 25:5-6, where, as a motive for the decree that the eldest son of a Levirate marriage should take the name of the deceased, we find, “that his name be not put out of Israel.” They avail themselves of a conclusion à minori ad majus, reduce the small to its idea, and hence infer the large: if the Lord therefore cares for the individual, how much more ought we to interest ourselves in the preservation of a whole tribe, and do everything to further it! Thus the actions of the rulers were at that time regulated in every respect by the law, and especially by Deuteronomy, which, in accordance with its whole object and character, must necessarily have the primas partes. The firmness with which the law was rooted at that time also appears from the ingenious means adopted by the rulers of the nation, on the one side, not to break the oath made to the Lord, that no Israelite should give his daughter to wife to a Benjamite, and, on the other side, to provide for the preservation of the tribe of Benjamin. This difficulty could not have arisen, if the Mosaic law prohibiting marriage with the Canaanites had not still been regarded as sacred and inviolable. The Benjamites would only have had to take Canaanitish wives. But this expedient does not even seem to have occurred to the rulers. It is a question of some importance whether by the feast, which, according to Judges 21:19, was annually celebrated in Shiloh, and at which, by the decree of the rulers of the nation, the Benjamites were to steal wives for themselves, we are to understand a local feast of indefinite origin, or the passover-feast, a feast of the whole nation. If the latter be proved, it follows that it must have been kept throughout the whole period of the judges, and at the same time we learn that we are not at liberty to conclude from the author’s silence respecting religious arrangements—a silence which was necessarily connected with his tendency—that these arrangements did not exist. In favour of the feast of the passover, we have, among others, the following arguments:—(1.) The designation, the feast of the Lord, חגיהוה, not a feast of the Lord, as it must have been termed if a particular festival had been meant. The feast of the Lord is in Shiloh, the elders say. This leads to the passover, the principal and fundamental feast of the Israelites, which is always meant when the feast κατʼ ἐξοχήν is spoken of. (2.) The circular dance performed by the daughters of Shiloh at the feast also leads us to suppose that it was the passover; for this has reference to Exodus 15:20, the circular dance of the Israelitish women under the direction of Miriam, which occurs within the seven days of the passover. Probably this dance was performed on the second day. That it took place on the principal day of the feast, we can scarcely suppose. (3.) The מימיםימימה. This occurs in the law of the passover, and of no other feast, Exodus 13:10 : “Thou shalt therefore keep this ordinance in his season “(מימיםימימה). And elsewhere it is only to be found where an allusion to the passover is unquestionable, or at least most probable; comp. afterwards. (4.) If the Benjamites were in Shiloh at the feast of the passover, their presence could excite no remark, and the stratagem could be carried out much more easily. That the Benjamites themselves took part in the celebration of the feast, and had come to Shiloh independently of the plan which they then took occasion to carry out, appears from Judges 21:20. In Shiloh itself the elders speak to them. Their advice to them is not, Come to Shiloh, etc., but merely, “Go and lie in wait in the vineyards.” We are still met by the question, how to explain the circumstance that the nation assembled in the cause of the Benjamites in three different places, in Mizpah, Bethel, and Shiloh. Further, how are we to reconcile the statement in Judges 18:31, that during the whole period of the judges the tabernacle of the covenant was in Shiloh, where we meet with it in the books of Samuel towards the end of this period, with the fact that all at once we find the ark of the covenant in Bethel during the Benjamitic war? The following is the simple solution. The nation assembled first of all in Mizpah, not in Shiloh, because this place was not only more in the centre of the land, but was situated specially in the territory of the Benjamites. The court was to be held among the guilty race, in order that, if they did not submit, execution might immediately follow. After the breaking out of the war, in which the Lord was to be leader, the ark of the covenant was brought to Bethel, generally, because this lay in the country of the Benjamites, near to the scene of battle, but particularly, because this place was consecrated by the history of the patriarchs. That there was no permanent sanctuary there, and that the sojourn of the ark of the covenant was merely temporary, appears from the express statement in Judges 21:4, that the people built an altar there, that they might offer up sacrifices. After the two defeats, the people assembled in Bethel. Thither also they repaired after the close of the campaign; and on this last occasion we have clear reference to that event of earlier times by which the place was consecrated. “And the people,” we read in Judges 21:2-3, “came to the house of God, and abode there till even before God, and lifted up their voices, and wept sore; and said, O Lord God of Israel, why is this come to pass in Israel, that there should be to-day one tribe lacking in Israel?” The very circumstance of אלהים occurring in a connection where in other places we always find Jehovah, points to Genesis. At Bethel, where in Jacob God blesses his posterity; where, on the journey to Mesopotamia, He tells him, “ And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth; and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee, and in thy seed, shall all the families of the earth be blessed; “where, after the return from Mesopotamia, Israel is told, “Be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee;”—the people give utterance to a bitter and grievous complaint of the contrast between the idea and the reality. Now, after the cause of the temporary abode of the ark of the covenant in Bethel had ceased, it was brought back to Shiloh. Thither, as the place of the sanctuary, the people also repaired, for the time of the passover was come. The celebration of the passover formed the keystone of the whole event. After the grievances had been removed, the feast of the covenant was kept. Then all returned to their homes. The final conclusion to be drawn from the two events narrated in the appendix to the book of Judges is, that although the good principle was at that time still predominant, yet the evil principle had already begun to assert itself, and with such power, that even at that time it was necessary to sever whole diseased members from the body. 2. The first enemy to whom the Israelites succumbed was Chushan-rishathaim, king of Mesopotamia, who is mentioned not only in the book of Judges, but also in Habakkuk 3:7, when in the victory over him the prophet finds a pledge of future assistance against the enemy, and judgment on them. In this passage he is merely called Cushan, but there is an allusion to his surname—Rishathaim, twofold wickedness—in the words, “I saw the tents of Cushan in affliction” (under punishment). This surname is probably of Israelitish origin. Chushan-rishathaim corresponds to Aram-Naharaim,—Aram of the twofold river, Chushan of the twofold wickedness. This fact, in connection with that recorded in Genesis 14, shows that already, long before the familiar period of the great Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian monarchies, kingdoms arose and perished in central Asia; and there, in very early times, a strife began for the possession of the coast-land. Here was attempted, but with transitory result, what was afterwards accomplished by the more extended and firmly-rooted power of the Assyrians and Babylonians. The apostasy of Israel, which had this punishment for a consequence, is thus described in Judges 3:7 : “And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord, and forgat the Lord their God, and served Baalim and the groves.” In accordance with the prevailing assumption, Ashera is identical with Astarte, the personification of the feminine principle in nature, in conjunction with Baal, the male principle. But it is more probable that Astarte is the goddess herself, and that Ashera is her image or symbol, mostly consisting of sacred trees or groves; hence the LXX. ἄλσος, the Vulgate lucus; comp. Bertheau on this passage. But there is no doubt that we can here look only for the beginnings of this worship, which proved so seductive for the Israelites, and prevailed throughout their whole territory. Othniel became the deliverer of Israel,—the same who, according to Judges 1:13, had been active in the conquest of Canaan under Joshua. In Judges 3:9 we read of him: “The Lord raised up a deliverer to the children of Israel, who delivered them. And the Spirit of the Lord came upon him, and he judged Israel, and went out to war.” The words, “And the Spirit of the Lord came upon him,” have frequently been understood here and elsewhere merely of the physical power and courage which are given by God for the good of His people. But this opinion is decidedly wrong. Otherwise, how could we account for the fact that this Spirit of the Lord is imparted only to servants of Jehovah? Here, as in the prophets, and throughout the Scriptures, the extraordinary gift rests upon the ordinary. This χάρισμα, like every other, has πίστις for its necessary foundation. This does not, however, exclude many weaknesses. Even in those gifts which are of a more internal nature, the amount is not always in proportion to the measure of faith. The deliverance by Othniel took place after eight years’ servitude. It was succeeded by a rest of forty years. It has frequently been assumed that Othniel judged the Israelites for the whole of these forty years. But this view, which is scarcely consistent with the age of Othniel, rests upon a misunderstanding of Judges 3:11-12, where the words, “and Othniel died,” must be taken in close connection with what follows: “And the children of Israel did evil again in the sight of the Lord; “equivalent to, And the children of Israel continued to do evil after the death of Othniel. If we suppose that the death of Othniel followed the forty years of rest, and that the apostasy was subsequent, no time is left for the latter, which was certainly a gradual development. For the punishment, the new oppression by the Moabites, followed immediately after the end of the forty years. Hence the apostasy must have taken place during the forty years; and since the death of Othniel, whose pious zeal kept the nation true to the Lord while he lived, is made one of the causes of it, this must have occurred a considerable time before the expiration of the forty years. The invasion of Cushan is the first and last oppression originating in the territory beyond the Euphrates during the time of the judges. The subsequent attacks were made by those nations dwelling in the more immediate neighbourhood of Israel: the Canaanites, who took advantage of the weakness of Israel to recover their old supremacy; the Ammonites and Moabites, who were related to the Israelites by race, and grudged them the beautiful inheritance which had been bestowed on them by the grace of their God; the Midianites, and other peoples of the desert, who would willingly have exchanged with them; and, finally, the Philistines, who cherished in their hearts a peculiarly deep hatred towards Israel. 3. First, there was a servitude of eighteen years to the Moabites. They were delivered by the Benjamite Ehud, who by cunning gained a private audience of the Moabite king, and slew him. This act has been very severely censured; and we certainly cannot assume, with the older theologians, that it was done by the express command of God. Judges 3:15 states nothing more than that Ehud was raised up and strengthened by God for the deliverance of the Israelites, the choice of means being left to himself. Let it be observed that with respect to Ehud nothing is said, except “the Lord raised them up a deliverer,” not, as in Othniel’s case, “and the Spirit of the Lord came upon him,” with special reference to the act. The demand that the author should expressly have condemned the act is based on a total misapprehension of his tendency, whose object was not to glorify and criticise human instruments. His glance is only directed to God’s faithfulness and mercy, which remain always the same, whatever may be our judgment concerning the act. But though, humanly considered, the act is by no means justifiable, yet it is very excusable. Ehud is described as a man who was left-handed. From Judges 20:16 it seems to follow that the brave men among the Benjamites took pride in neglecting their right hand, and in using the left, which was radically weak. We have there a description of 700 men who were left-handed. This probably had its origin in their name. They sought by this means to meet the derisive remarks called forth by it. The scene of the event was the former site of Jericho. On this important spot, which secured them an entrance into the country, the Moabites had set up a fortified camp. Studer’s opinion, that the event occurred east of the Jordan, in the proper land of the Moabites, is quite incorrect. It is remarkable that in Judges 3:19 we read, “And Ehud turned again from the quarries” (graven images), and afterwards, “And Ehud escaped while they tarried, and passed beyond the quarries (graven images), and escaped unto Seirath.” The Moabites had set up their idols as watchers and protectors on their borders; comp. the פמילים in Deuteronomy 7:25. Ehud came from them with his pretext of a message to the king, and passed them again in his flight, after having accomplished his design. The graven images were as little able to hinder his escape as to prevent the death of the king. Their impotency became manifest on this occasion, and Ehud took the opportunity of calling upon the Israelites to throw off the strange yoke. They lent a ready ear to his summons, and the land had rest for eighty years. 4. The Philistines made an inroad into the country, but were driven back by Shamgar, a valiant hero. Besides the Canaanites, the Philistines were the only nation whose territory was promised by God to the Israelites, and that because they had taken possession of Canaanitish land with hostile intention. But the occupation of their land was a difficult undertaking; for the Philistines inhabited the low country, where they could make the most of their skill, which consisted in chariots of war, against the Israelites, who were not accustomed to fight in this way. True, Judah, under Joshua, captured the three Philistine cities, Gaza, Askalon, and Ekron, Judges 1:18, but they were not able to keep possession of them, Judges 1:19. The five princes of the Philistines remained unconquered, comp. Judges 3:3, and the Israelites were obliged to relinquish the hope of supremacy over the low country of the Philistines, as well as over the Phenician coast-towns. It lay in the nature of the thing that the strife between the two nations should continue throughout the whole history. When we read of Shamgar that he slew 600 Philistines with the goad of an ox, which served him for a lance, we must remember that these Philistines were not proper warriors, but a mob eager for plunder, who took advantage of the humiliation of Israel, and expected no opposition whatever. The boldness of an individual reminded them of the saying, “Ex ungue leonem,” and life being dearer to them than booty, they fled in wild disorder. It is not stated that Shamgar slew the 600 men, but only that he smote them. And the fact that the deed is attributed to him alone does not altogether exclude the participation of others, but only their independent participation, such as could have enabled them to contest the honour of the deed, the success of which was due to him alone. We have only to compare what is told of Saul in 1 Samuel 18:7. With regard to the time of this act of Shamgar, it cannot have occurred during the eighty years of rest, but in the period of servitude to the Canaanites described in Judges 4. The Philistines here took advantage of the opportunity to make incursions on the land, just as they afterwards did in the invasion by the Ammonites. We infer this from the short notice itself. For at a time when the power of the nation was unbroken, the Philistines would not have ventured to act in this way, but only to invade the country with a well-equipped army. And we are led to the conclusion still more definitely by the song of Deborah, when, in Judges 5:6, Shamgar and Jael are associated as representatives of the melancholy past. In this passage Jael is no other than the wife of Heber the Kenite, mentioned in Judges 5:24, notwithstanding the contrary opinion of Ewald and others. The reason that the time of oppression is named after her in conjunction with Shamgar—her to whom Israel was so deeply indebted—is to do her honour. From the time which succeeded the years of rest, the author first of all narrates Shamgar’s isolated deed of heroism, which had no permanent result, and then goes on to describe the grievous oppression and the great deliverance. 5. The Canaanites had recovered themselves in the lapse of time, and in particular had founded a mighty kingdom in Hazor, which had been conquered and destroyed by Joshua. Jabin, the king of this city, oppressed Israel grievously, through his general Sisera, for a period of twenty years. The name Jabin seems to have been common to all the kings of this empire, Joshua 11:1. Jabin was able to take the field with 900 chariots of war,—a very considerable force, since Darius had only 200 in his army, and Mithridates only 100. Yet the principal strength even of his army consisted in the cavalry and infantry, and the war-chariots were merely accessory; the Canaanites, on the other hand, appear to have had no cavalry, and but little infantry. Then we must take into consideration that Jabin was not king of a single town, but probably ruler of all the Canaanites in North Palestine, especially the inhabitants of the plain of Jezreel, who by their war-chariots were so terrible to the Israelites already at the time of Joshua; comp. Joshua 17:16. Judges 5:19, where several kings are mentioned, seems to point to a confederacy of Canaanitish princes who marched against Barak. The oppression of the Israelites cannot be regarded as complete, for, according to Judges 4:4, they still had their own administration of justice; and the description in the song of Deborah points only to a condition of painful insecurity, called forth by the incessant inroads of the Canaanites, against whom they were no longer able to stand in the field. The oppression does not seem to have extended to Judah at all: throughout the period of the judges this tribe seems to have had less to suffer, and to have continued more in undiminished power. Israel was delivered by Barak, who acted, however, under the guidance of an inspired woman, Deborah. According to Judges 4:8, after Deborah had summoned Barak to deliver Israel, he replied, “If thou wilt go with me, then I will go; but if thou will not go with me, then I will not go.” Deborah answered, Judges 4:9, “I will surely go with thee: notwithstanding the journey that thou takest shall not be for thine honour; for the Lord shall sell Sisera into the hand of a woman.” This dialogue is generally misunderstood, as if Barak here revealed his cowardice, and Deborah taunted him with it. Studer unhesitatingly calls Barak the representative of the cowardly spirit which at this time had taken possession of the Hebrews. The LXX. have taken the correct view. After the words contained in the original text they add, ὅτι οὐκ οἶδα τὴν ἡμέραν, ἧ εὐοδοῖ κύριος τὸν ἄγγελον μετ̓ ἐμοῦ. Barak knew that in the warfare of the Lord’s people nothing is done by human strength and courage, but that higher consecration and calling are necessary; these he perceives in the prophetess Deborah in a higher degree than in himself. It is therefore humility, and humility which is not without foundation,—for his standpoint was really a lower one, he is not to be compared with a Gideon,—but not want of courage, which induces him to urge her to accompany him. There is no scorn in her answer. She merely points out to him that after the victory he will not be at liberty to judge differently from now,—to ascribe to himself what belonged to a woman, and at the same time to God. She draws his attention to God’s design in obliging him to lean upon a woman, or in choosing a man who required to depend on a woman. This was none other than to bring the ποῦ οὖν ἡ καύχησις; ἐξεκλείσθη clearly to the consciousness of the nation. When help comes through women, the glance which so readily remains fixed on the earth must be directed to heaven. If the honour belong to God alone, there will be the greater inclination to thank Him by sincere repentance. The fact that Barak was here directed to Deborah rests upon the same law by which Gideon is instructed to retain only 300 men of the whole assembled army: the women Deborah and Jael belong to the same category as the ox-goad of Shamgar. At all times God delights to choose out the small and despised for His service. What great things did He not do by means of the poor monk Luther! At the command of the Lord, Barak is obliged to blow the trumpet loudly on Mount Tabor. This is the usual way in which the deliverers begin their work in the book of Judges. The act has been misunderstood when its object is regarded as the assembling of the nation, so that the blowing of the trumpet would be like our alarm-bell. That Mount Tabor, where Barak was to blow, was not the place of assembling, appears from Judges 4:10, where it is said to have been Kadesh. The meaning is plain from Numbers 10:9 : “And if ye go to war in your land against the enemy that oppresseth you, then ye shall blow an alarm with the trumpets; and ye shall be remembered before the Lord your God.” This makes the blowing of the trumpets a symbolical act, by which an appeal was made to the Lord. He Himself had prescribed this custom. Therefore as certainly as the nation heard the sound of the trumpet, so certainly might they expect that the Lord would be with them. In this way they must have been filled with holy courage. We find this decree first carried out in Joshua 6:5, where the object cannot possibly have been to assemble the nation. That the act had reference only to the relation towards the Lord, appears from the relation of the משכתי in Judges 4:7 to the משכת in Judges 4:6, which necessarily leads us to infer that the משך in Judges 4:6 has a twofold meaning. The prolonged notes are intended as an appeal to God. Then, Judges 4:7, “And I will draw unto thee Sisera, the captain of Jabin’s army.” First God, then Sisera; first the helper from heaven, then the enemy on earth. The author indicates the point of view from which the victory is to be regarded by a hidden reference to the Pentateuch, which is characteristic of him. In Judges 4:15 he says: “And the Lord discomfited (ויהם) Sisera, and all his chariots, and all his host.” An allusion is here made to Exodus 14:24, “And the Lord troubled (ויהם) the host of the Egyptians;” and we are reminded that the present discomfiture, effected by means of the sword of the Israelites, is no less wonderful than the former, which was the immediate work of God, the result of fearful natural phenomena. If we mistake the reference to the Pentateuch, the expression appears inappropriate, especially on account of the addition לפיחרב, which has led many to attribute a different meaning to the words. But in other places where the המס occurs, the reference to the Pentateuch is unmistakeable: for example, 1 Samuel 7:10; 2 Samuel 22:15 Sam. 22:15; Joshua 10:10. The flying general Sisera turned into the tent of Jael, the wife of Heber, of the Midianitic tribes of the Kenites, which had accompanied the Israelites on their march from the wilderness to Canaan and had settled down there, in the most southern part of the country, close to the borders of the wilderness. But Heber had separated with his horde from the tribe, and had established himself in North Palestine.Befriended by this tribe, and hospitably received by Jael, Sisera believed himself secure, but was slain by her while sleeping. Here also the older theologians have attempted to justify what is unjustifiable. For although Jael by this act proves her faith in Jehovah, the God of Israel, yet the act itself is not praiseworthy. The commendation bestowed on Jael in Deborah’s song of victory, Judges 5:24, is only an expression of the gratitude which Israel owed to her, or rather to God, who gave the success. Israel rejoiced in the deliverance vouchsafed them, without taking part in the deed itself. They were not called upon to pass judgment, but only to show gratitude. This song of Deborah in Judges 5, whose genuineness has recently been very decisively defended by Ewald, Studer, and Bertheau, and is now, after some passing attacks, acknowledged even by the boldest critics, is clearly to be regarded as a counterpart to the song of the Israelites after the passage through the Red Sea. The introduction, in Judges 5:4-5, is a verbal reference to Deuteronomy 33:2, the introduction to the blessing of Moses, and to Exodus 19:16, the account of the phenomena which accompanied the giving of the law; just as “they chose new gods,” in Judges 5:8, is taken from Deuteronomy 32:17. It is of special importance, because it shows us that the leading point of view from which the author of the book of Judges regards the history of this time is not one arbitrarily devised and introduced by himself, the product of a later time, but the same from which those who were living in the midst of this time themselves regarded the events. The author begins with the covenant which the Lord had made with Israel; he then goes on to depict the sad state of dismemberment which has resulted in consequence of the breaking of the covenant and the worship of strange gods; finally, the deliverance vouchsafed to the nation by the grace of God. Here we have the same principles which lie at the basis of the author’s representation. Those who acknowledge the genuineness of the song, and at the same time maintain that the tendency of the Israelites to idolatry during the time of the judges cannot be regarded as a relapse into their old habits of evil, as the author from his later standpoint supposes, but must be attributed to the fact that the religion of Jehovah was not separated from natural religion until a later time, are guilty of great inconsistency. We here find the strongest contrast between Jehovah and the idols; the worship of the latter is regarded as a culpable apostasy from the plainly revealed and clearly recognised truth. The acknowledgment of the genuineness is also irreconcilable with the denial of the activity of the prophethood before Samuel. The song has throughout a prophetic character. Even if the author had not stated that Deborah was a prophetess, it would be evident from this song. 6. After the Israelites had enjoyed rest for forty years, they were grievously oppressed for seven years by hordes of the Midianites,—those who had their dwelling east of Canaan in the neighbourhood of the Moabites, and against whom a war of vengeance had been waged as early as the Mosaic time,—the Amalekites and other Arab Bedouins from the districts between Canaan and the Euphrates. It was a kind of migration; the wilderness rose up against the cultivated land. But the tribes were so successfully repulsed, that they remained quiet during the rest of the time of the judges. Here, as throughout, except in relation to the Canaanites, the Israelites were the aggrieved party. Throughout their history we find them only defending themselves, as became their position, not attacking and conquering. Hence they have a right to be heard when they attribute the only exception to higher motives. We learn the severity of this oppression, not merely from the relation in Judges 6:1 ff., but also from the first chapter of the book of Ruth; for the coincidence of the circumstances narrated in the two accounts shows that the history of this book, which is generally wrongly placed in the time of the judges, belongs specially to this period. Both tell of a great famine. In the book of Ruth it is said to have continued for a number of years, so that the Israelites were obliged to transfer their habitation to a foreign land. It cannot, therefore, have been caused by failure of the crops, which would equally have affected the neighbouring country of the Moabites. Elimelech leaves Bethlehem on account of the famine. According to Judges 6:4, the host of the Midianites extended as far as Gaza, and therefore over the district in which Bethlehem lay. After ten years, Naomi learns that the Lord has visited His people, and returns to her fatherland. The oppression by the Midianites lasted for seven years, and some time had to elapse before the land could quite recover the effects of it, and attain to the flourishing condition in which Naomi found it on her return. Here also matters take their regular course, and history proves itself an inverted prophecy. First the sin, then the punishment, then the sending of a teacher of righteousness, the raising up of a preacher of repentance, the ordinances of God for the spiritual redemption of the nation, which formed the condition of their external redemption, and finally this external redemption itself. The instrument employed by the Lord for the internal deliverance is not expressly named, but only characterized as a prophet whom the Lord sent to the children of Israel when they cried to Him against Midian. His discourse, as summarily given in Judges 6:8-10, rests entirely upon the law, and in the words of it contrasts the mercy of God and the ingratitude of Israel. With regard to the effect produced by it, nothing is definitely said; but the result clearly shows that it did not pass over without leaving some traces, for the external salvation was immediately prepared. We are not, indeed, entitled to assume a fundamental and complete change. The measures which Gideon had still to take against the worship of Baal prove the contrary. But God did not demand more than the beginnings of repentance. Where these were present, progress was furnished by contemplating the mercy which God displayed in the salvation of His people. God called Gideon to be the deliverer of the nation, of the family of the Abi-ezrites, a branch of the tribe of Manasseh, whose head, it seems, was Joash, the father of Gideon. Not without an object does Judges 6:15 lay so much stress upon the circumstance that the family of Gideon was the poorest in Manasseh, and that he was the youngest in his father’s house. Even rationalistic expositors have been forced toacknowledge the tendency of the narrative in this respect. Studer says, p. 174: “Jehovah chooses the youngest son of an obscure family of the small tribe of Manasseh to be the instrument for delivering His people, that His power, which is mighty in the weak, might be the more glorified, and that all might recognise that man can do nothing in his own strength, but that, by God’s assistance, the greatest result may be produced by the most insignificant means.” Strangely enough, he makes this tendency a proof of the mythical character of the narrative, as if God’s dealing in this respect did not remain the same through hundreds and thousands of years; as if the previous deliverance had not been effected by two weak women, as narrated in the song of Deborah, which he himself declares to be genuine. In Gideon’s dealings with the angel of the Lord, the main point to be noted is that here, as is universally the case in the post-Mosaic history, anything extraordinary concerning events and man’s relation to them rests upon the analogy of the Pentateuch; which was à priori to be expected, since it exactly corresponds with the universal relation of the patriarchal-Mosaic time to the later, which has in no respect an independent root, but is built throughout upon the foundation previously laid. The appearance of the angel of the Lord presents a striking affinity to Genesis 18 Gideon demands the same expression of his miraculous power that Abraham prescribed to the angel of the Lord, that he might be certain he was not deceived. The mode of this has its type in Leviticus 9:24. When Gideon makes his weakness a plea for declining the commission, the angel of the Lord repeats to him the great word, כיאהיהעמך, spoken to Moses in Exodus 3:12,—a point of union which, owing to the peculiar usage of the כי, cannot be accidental, referring to the earlier glorious confirmation of this promise, and to the former actual refutation of the theory that a man must be originally great in order to do great things. When Gideon is convinced that he has looked upon the angel of the Lord, he fears he must die. In Judges 6:39, “Let not thine anger be hot against me, and I will speak but this once,” Gideon borrows the words literally from Genesis 18:32, and excuses his boldness by recalling that of Abraham, which was graciously accepted of God. Together with this dependence, which might easily be traced still further, we have throughout great independence, proving that the agreement is not due to later authorship, but has its foundation in fact. It would be interesting and important to follow this relation through the whole history of revelation up to the New Testament,—the more, since, roughly and externally apprehended, it has furnished a handle for attack; whereas, rightly treated, it offers very significant apologetic particulars. The question arises, how the first sign which Gideon here receives, the consumption of the sacrifice offered to the Lord, is related to the second which is granted at his request, the bedewing of the fleece. At first glance, the first seems to make the second superfluous. But, on nearer consideration, it is apparent that they have a different meaning, and refer to a different object. By the first, Gideon is made certain that it is really the angel of the Lord who has spoken to him; by the second, he is convinced that the Lord, who has given him the commission, is really able and willing to make the work of deliverance successful. In both cases the sign presupposed the weakness of Gideon’s faith. If his spiritual eye had been perfectly clear, the apprehension that it was the angel of the Lord who spoke to him, which he had at the very beginning, as the אדני in Judges 6:15 shows, would have developed into perfect certainty even without a sign. If the weakness of his faith had not made him inconsistent, the certainty of his commission would have given him the certainty of its accomplishment, and the second sign would have been unnecessary. But since it was his sincere wish to do the will of God, notwithstanding his weak faith,—since his demand for a sign was an actual prayer, “Lord, I believe, help Thou mine unbelief,” having its origin in the deep and inward conviction that he could do nothing without God,—therefore God condescended to his weakness. The sacrifice which Gideon offered up in the night, after the appearance of the Lord, has much that is striking. “Sacrificium hoc,” says Lightfoot, “fuit mirae et variae dispositionis, oblatum noctu, loco communi, a persona privata, adhibitis lignis e luco idololatrico, ipsumque idolo fuerat destinatum.” Only on superficial consideration has this act of Gideon’s been regarded as a violation of the Mosaic constitution, or a proof that the sacrificial arrangements of the Pentateuch had not yet taken root at that time. These arrangements referred merely to the ordinary course of things: they laid down the rule, from which exceptions were to take place only at the express divine command. Gideon received such a command. A violation of the law would only occur if a standing worship had been set up in Ophrah. The transaction was therefore exceptional. It had a symbolical meaning. It was an actual declaration of war on the part of God against idols,—a prophecy that their supremacy over Israel was now at an end,—a manifesto that God would now demand again what had been unjustly taken from Him. The transactions after Gideon’s act—his supposed outrage on the sanctuary of Baal—had become known, show that the constitution of the time of Moses and of Joshua still remained unaltered. Joash, the head of the family of the Abi-ezrites, has the jus vitae et necis. The people turn to him with the demand that Gideon should be punished, and he threatens death to all who should lay hands on Gideon. In the account contained in Judges 6:29-30, of the course pursued by the inhabitants of Ophrah after Gideon’s deed—“And the men of the city said one to another, Who hath done this thing? And when they inquired and asked, they said, Gideon the son of Joash hath done this thing. Then they said unto Joash, Bring out thy son that he may die; because he hath cast down the altar of Baal,” etc.—we have an unmistakeable reference to Deuteronomy 17:5. Here we read: “If there be found among you any that hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, and it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and inquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which hath committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.” It does not appear that this reference belongs only to the narrator, whose bject it is by this means to point to the strangeness of the circumstance, that the attempt was made to do to the servants of the Lord what, in accordance with the law, was to be done to the servants of idols. Numerous traces lead us to conclude that the worship of Baal, which is here regarded as what it really was in its inner nature, a direct antagonism to the worship of God, was not intended as such by those who practised it, but that, embarrassed by syncretistic error, they identified Baal and Jehovah. With this idea, they supposed that Gideon had transgressed against Jehovah, and hence they made the law of Deuteronomy the basis of the punishment. From the battle against the spiritual enemy of his nation, with which Gideon appropriately began his work, he received the name of Jerubbaal—opponent of Baal. This name served for a perpetual memorial to the nation, reminding them that they could only enjoy the love of God by completely renouncing the idols which robbed Him of His honour. In the sign by which Gideon, in the face of danger, is assured of divine help, a symbolical meaning is apparent. The fleece is first wet by the dew, while everything else remains dry; then it remains dry, while everything else is wet,כלהארץ . Dew is, in Scripture, the symbol of divine mercy. The fleece, in contrast with the rest of the earth, denotes Israel. Thus Gideon was taught, by a living image, the truth that it was God alone from whom Israel had to expect times of refreshment, that God alone was the Author of their misery. The latter was no less encouraging for Gideon than the former. For if the misery of Israel had its origin in God, the great power of the enemy need cause them no anxiety. The prophetic meaning of the sign rested upon its symbolical meaning, as Lightfoot has well shown in the words: “Signum Gideoni ostentum in madido et sicco vellere vera Israelis imago fuit, madidi rore doctrinae (more correctly, gratiae) divinae, quando totus mundus reliquus erat siccus, nunc vero sicci, quando totus mundus reliquus est madidus.” If Israel’s salvation and misery proceed only from the Lord, and are dependent on the nation’s attitude towards Him, things must necessarily happen as they did: the apostasy of the nation must be followed by the deepest misery, while the dew of mercy and salvation fell upon the rest of the nations. The question arises, why Gideon first called together a great multitude of the people, then from the 32,000 chose only 10,000, and finally retained only 300 of the 10,000? Apparently he might have selected the 300 brave men at the very beginning. The object was, according to the way narrated in the history, by intentionally reducing the large number to a small one, to show clearly that God would be the Deliverer. This point of view has commended itself even to critics like Studer, who says, “The fact that the author makes Gideon intentionally diminish his army to a small number has a didactic aim, which is definitely expressed in Judges 7:2. The lesson, which had already been taught in the call of Gideon, that Jehovah makes use of the very weakest, in order by this means to glorify Himself, and to free man from the delusion that he is able to do anything in his own strength, was intended to be manifested in the way in which the victory was gained over the Midianites. How deeply this religious consciousness became rooted in the nation, we learn from the many analogous utterances in the prophets, down to the Apostle Paul, who found a new confirmation of the above doctrine in the means which God employed for the spread of Christianity, 1 Corinthians 1:25 ff.” But this point of view is not the only one. How can it explain the fact that Gideon, by a wisely-chosen test, selects the very bravest 300 of the whole number? If this were the only point of view, he would rather have chosen the weakest and most cowardly. The event is therefore intended to teach a second lesson. It is all the same to God whether He helps by many or by few; but the few through whom He helps must be true men, such as have received from Him the spiritus fortitudinis in the carnal and spiritual battles of the Lord. And these are less different from one another than might appear. This second point of view is the more obvious, since it is only by accepting it that we can explain the unmistakeable reference which the event bears to Deuteronomy 20:8. According to this passage, when the people are ready to march to battle, after the priests have inspired them with courage, the officers call out, “What man is there that is fearful and faint-hearted? let him go and return unto his house, lest his brethren’s heart faint as well as his heart.” In accordance with this injunction, Gideon speaks thus at the command of the Lord: “Whosoever is fearful and afraid, let him return and depart early from Mount Gilead;” Judges 7:3. Gideon learns that the time to attack Midian has come, when, at the command of the Lord, he repairs with a companion to the hostile camp, and there surprises the guards narrating and interpreting an unfortunate dream. The symbolism of this dream, a cake of barley-bread overturning the tent, has, it seems, been carried still further by Studer in one point. While the sense is generally interpreted thus, “the poor and despised nation of the Israelites will carry the day,” according to him the meaning is, “the despised husbandmen will completely defeat the tent-dwelling nomads.” Only by taking this particular view can it be explained why bread, the characteristic symbol of agriculture, should be selected; while in the usual opinion only the property of the bread, the fact of its being made of barley, comes into consideration. Gideon’s victory over Midian is also frequently cited by the prophets as one of the most glorious manifestations of divine grace, one of the clearest pledges of future deliverance: comp. Isaiah 9:3, Isaiah 10:26; Habakkuk 3:7. On the great invasion of the land of Israel by the sons of the desert, in the time of Jehoshaphat, Israel prayed, “Do unto them as unto the Midianites . . . Make their nobles like Oreb and like Zeeb; yea, all their princes as Zebah and as Zalmunna;” Psalms 83:9, Psalms 83:11. The two former were the leaders of the Midianites, the two latter their kings. That Gideon after the victory should have declined the dignity of kingship, and that not from an individual reason, but because it came too near the honour of the Lord who alone was King in Israel, seems strange at a first glance. Was not kingship in Israel constantly represented as a blessing, even in the promises to the patriarchs, as the aim to which its development was tending? And how could kingship be supposed to be incompatible with the theocracy, since Moses, in Deuteronomy 17, expressly prescribed what was to be done in the event of the people choosing a king for themselves? Bat these difficulties disappear as soon as we consider that Gideon does not reject kingship in abstracto, but a concrete kingship,—kingship in the sense in which it was offered to him by the nation. He felt deeply that kingship in this sense was not a form of realizing the dominion of God in Israel, but rather opposed to it. Ascribing the victory over Midian not to God, but to Gideon, the nation believed that by choosing him their king, they would in future be able to overcome their enemies without God. It was natural, therefore, that Gideon’s heart should revolt against the proposition,—the more, since he was convinced that if it were God’s wish that the important change should take place, He would give some definite sign; which was not yet the case. While declining the reward offered him by the nation, Gideon asks only for the golden ear-rings of the spoil that was taken. In Judges 8:27 we read, “And he made an ephod thereof, and put it in his city, even in Ophrah; and all Israel went thither a whoring after it: which thing became a snare unto Gideon, and to his house.” Here it is quite plain that Gideon imitates Aaron. In the same way Aaron had formerly asked the people for the gold ear-rings. “And he made an ephod thereof,” corresponds to Exodus 32:4, “And he made it a molten calf.” Gideon believes himself at liberty to follow the example of Aaron, in so far as his undertaking is not in express opposition to the letter of the law. His intention is not to make an image of the true God, as Ewald has recently supposed, still less to make an idol: the use of language forbids us to understand a statue by the אפוד, as even Bertheau has acknowledged; but the image which, he confesses, is not to be found in the narrative, he adds on his own authority, though the personality of Gideon is opposed to it. According to Judges 8:33, it was only after Gideon’s death that the Israelites fell back into the worship of Baal. If we follow established phraseology, we can understand by the ephod nothing but a copy of the ephod of the high priest. Without doubt Gideon thought he was doing nothing wrong in having it made, but rather intended to give a proof of his piety. He wished to have something sacred in his own possession, and thought he could satisfy the wish, in this rather gross way, without violating the law. In itself his undertaking was not exactly at variance with the letter of the Mosaic law, which only prescribes that there should be but one place for offering up sacrifices, and not, as Bertheau thinks, that there should be but one sanctuary in the wider sense. But we find no trace of sacrifice having been offered up in the sanctuary of Gideon. It cannot be denied, however, that he himself here betrays an element of religious egotism: his private sanctuary alienates his heart, more or less, from the common sanctuary of the nation; and even if the matter contained no danger for him, yet, out of consideration for the weakness of the nation, he ought to have desisted from the undertaking, which only too soon made the new sanctuary an object of exaggerated and separatistic love. In the sanctuary of Gideon, he himself was honoured. Thus, by a deviation, apparently so small, the foundation was laid for a series of divine judgments which are described in Judges 9 Gideon’s crime drew down divine punishment on his family, who took pride in exalting the new sanctuary. The instruments of this judgment, the Sichemites and Abimelech, were punished for the guilt thus incurred, through one another. It is only his interest in these judgments that induced the author to continue the history of Gideon up to his death, which is quite at variance with his usual habit. 7. Gideon’s victory over the Midianites was followed by a rest of forty years, during which he died. Idolatry, which was unable to make any progress during his lifetime, reappeared in great strength after his death. In Judges 8:33 we read: “As soon as Gideon was dead, the children of Israel turned again, and went a whoring after Baalim, and made Baal-berith their god.” It is of importance to investigate the origin of the name Baal-berith, since it leads to remarkable results respecting the nature of idolatry and its position with respect to the worship of Jehovah. The worship of Baal-berith is here attributed to Israel generally; but we find from Judges 9 that it belonged specially to Sichem and its environs. From Judges 9:46, it follows that the temple of Baal-berith was not in Sichem itself, but in the neighbourhood. Judges 9:6 contains a more exact determination. The inhabitants of Sichem, the adherents of Baal-berith, assemble to choose Abimelech as king, at the same place where Joshua had last assembled the nation immediately before his death, Joshua 24:1, Joshua 21:25-26, where he had erected the monument of stone as a token of the covenant which the nation had made with Jehovah and had solemnly sworn to keep. The name Baal-berith now becomes clear. We can no longer entertain the idea of an open antithesis to the worship of Jehovah, but only of a syncretistic worship of Jehovah. It is plain that the place could not be sacred to those who had apostatized. Apostasy was hidden under the mark of piety. Faithlessness veiled itself in the garment of loyalty. The law respecting the unity of the sanctuary was met by the argument that it was right to honour the place which the Lord Himself had honoured. The reason why the author enters so fully into the history of Abimelech lies, as we have already indicated, in the remarkable examples of divine retribution which it contains. The author himself draws attention to this tendency, by quoting the prophetic words of Jotham, the youngest and only remaining son of Gideon (his brothers had all been slain by the base Abimelech), in Judges 9:20, which contain a reference to Numbers 21:28 : “Let fire come out from Abimelech, and devour the men of Shechem; and let fire come out from the men of Shechem, and devour Abimelech; “also by his own reflection in Judges 9:23-24 : “Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech: that the cruelty done to the threescore and ten sons of Jerubbaal might come, and their blood be laid upon Abimelech their brother, which slew them; and upon the men of Shechem, which aided him in the killing of his brethren.” Finally and most decisively he indicates this tendency by his concluding observation in Judges 9:56-57 : “Thus God rendered the wickedness of Abimelech, which he did unto his father, in slaving his seventy brethren: and all the evil of the men of Shechem did God render upon their heads: and upon them came the curse of Jotham the son of Jerubbaal.” “First,” says Studer, “the avenging Nemesis strikes the inhabitants of Sichem, who had revolted against Abimelech. Unexpectedly attacked and conquered by him, they are abandoned to destruction, together with their city. Divine retribution then overtakes Abimelech himself on his way from conquering Sichem, towards Thebez which had also revolted against him. For during the siege a woman struck him on the head with a piece of a millstone, so that he died a most ignominious death by the hand of a woman, and his adherents dispersed.” With regard to the extent of Abimelech’s supremacy, we cannot place any reliance on the words in Judges 9:22, “And Abimelech reigned three years over Israel.” It is a prevailing custom in the book of Judges to attribute to Israel what concerned only a part of the nation,—a custom due to the author’s vivid apprehension of the unity of Israel. Abimelech was always an Israelitish ruler, even if he had but a few tribes under him. We could only infer from the passage that it was the author’s opinion that Abimelech reigned over all Israel, if instead of “over Israel” he had said “over all Israel.” The way in which Abimelech attained to kinghood, by the choice of the men of Sichem, speaks against his supremacy over all Israel; also the fact that these chapters treat almost exclusively of North Palestine; and that, according to Judges 9:21, Jotham found a safe place of refuge in the tribe of Judah. But, on the other hand, we must not limit the supremacy of Abimelech to Sichem alone. He had another residence, and could raise an army to wage war against Sichem. The following is the most probable conclusion: Sichem was at that time the principal place of the tribe of Ephraim, as it was afterwards when the tribes assembled there after the death of Solomon, and when Jeroboam made it his place of residence. Hence, in being chosen as king of Sichem, Abimelech acquired dominion over the whole tribe of Ephraim. But this tribe always maintained a certain superiority over the neighbouring ones,—a circumstance which prepared a later foundation for the kingdom of the ten tribes. Thus Abimelech’s recognition by the Ephraimites might involve his recognition by the other tribes also, without our being able to give any exacter definition of the extent of his kingdom, which is remarkable as the first attempt to found kingship in Israel. 8. Abimelech was succeeded by two judges, Tola and Jair, of whose acts we know nothing. Oppressed by the Ammonites, the trans-Jordanic tribes chose Jephthah as ruler for life. He had previously distinguished himself by expeditions against the Ammonites, and now conquered the enemy in a decisive battle. His joy at the victory was embittered by a vow he had made. Before going out to battle, he made a vow that if the Lord should give him the victory, he would offer up to Him the person who would first meet him on his return home. And when his daughter was the first to come and meet him, he considered himself bound by his oath, while the daughter calmly submitted to her fate. With regard to the nature of this fate, and what Jephthah’s vow really was, there are two different opinions. According to one, Jephthah offered up his daughter as a burnt-offering. Josephus, Justin Martyr, Chrysostom, Jerome, Augustine, and recently Kurtz, in Guericke’s Zeitschrift, 53, have defended this view. Others maintain that he consecrated her to the service of God in the sanctuary; so Clericus, Buddeus, and many others. That the latter view is the correct one, that the sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter must be understood spiritually,—that in consequence of the vow she entered the institution of holy women, which is first mentioned in Exodus 38:8, then in 1 Samuel 2:22, finally in Luke 2:37, where Hanna appears as one who was thus dedicated to the Lord,—is fully proved in the Beiträge, Th. 3, S. 127 ff., to which discussion we must refer, as well as to the supplementary section on the institution of holy women in Egypt and the Books of Moses. Bertheau and Kurtz have come forward in opposition to this view, without adding any new element to the discussion. Here we can only enter upon the most important arguments in favour of the respective views. The two principal ones which are adduced for bodily sacrifice are the following:—First, the letter of the text forms an unanswerable argument. Luther says: “We may wish that he had not sacrificed her, but the text is plain.” This argument must be quite decisive so long as it is not apprehended that the whole system of sacrifice is a grand allegory. It was necessary for it to give reiterated expression to the spiritual relations which it originally described, as may be proved by numerous passages in the Old and New Testaments: comp., for example, Hosea 14:3; Psalms 51:19, Psalms 119:108; Romans 12:1. Again, the bitter sorrow of the father is appealed to. But he had reason enough for this on the other supposition. His daughter would henceforward not be allowed to leave the tabernacle of the covenant, “serving day and night with fasting and prayer,” which was just the same to him as if she had been dead. All hope of posterity by her was taken from him. On the other hand, we have the following arguments for the figurative meaning of the oath:—(1.) The offering of human sacrifices is so distinctly opposed to the spirit and the letter of the religion of Jehovah, that in the whole history we do not find a single example of one who was only outwardly acquainted with Jehovah, offering a sacrifice of this kind. In the law, human sacrifices are spoken of as a crime deserving to be cursed, one which can only be met with in connection with complete apostasy from the true God. (2.) If the literal acceptation were the correct one, we might have expected that the monstrous deed, the death of the daughter by the hand of the father, would at least have been intimated, if only by a word. But this is not the case. (3.) If the daughter of Jephthah were devoted to death, we cannot understand why the whole subject of her lament should have been her celibacy, nor how the author can give prominence to this as the hardest and most painful circumstance. The tragic character of the event lies principally in the immediate succession of gain and loss, of exaltation and abasement; in the fact that while the one hand gave to Jephthah, the other took away. In surrendering his daughter to the Lord, he gave at the same time everything else, for she was heiress of the possessions and honours which he had just gained, and these would henceforward lose all meaning for him. By this means Bertheau’s objection is set aside: “It is the aim of the narrative to record an immoral, extraordinary event, as may be seen in every word.” In our opinion also the event bears that character. 9. With regard to the three judges, of whose deeds we are ignorant, who succeeded Jephthah, there is nothing more to be said. We shall therefore go back to the invasion of the Philistines, which ran parallel with that of the Ammonites, the heaviest and longest of all, and to the high-priesthood of Eli, which came to an end two years after the victory of Jephthah over the Ammonites, and began about twenty years before the Philistine-Ammonitic invasion. It is striking that all at once we meet with a high priest of the race of Ithamar. That he was of this race follows from 1 Chronicles 24:3, where it is said that Abimelech, who was descended from Eli, was of the posterity of Ithamar. This is confirmed by Josephus, from what source is uncertain, Ant. Jud. i. 5, chap. 12, where he says that after Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the grandson of Aaron, the high-priestly dignity passed to his son, and from him to his grandson and great-grandson. Then after him the high-priestly dignity passed over from the race of Eleazar to the race of Ithamar, and that too under Eli himself. Moreover, the list of the descendants of Eleazar is given in 1 Chronicles 6:51, without its being expressly stated whether they filled the office of high priest or not. The names are in essential agreement with those of Josephus. Josephus does not give the reason. The question now is, how to reconcile this with Numbers 25:13, where the dignity of high priest is promised by God to Phinehas the son of Eleazar for ever. The answer may be found in the nature of the divine promises, which generally rest on a condition either expressed or implied: if this be not fulfilled, the promise is null. In such a promise as this, the implied condition is that the descendants walk in the footsteps of their ancestors. We must therefore assume that, when one of the descendants of Eleazar had sinned grievously against God, the high-priestly dignity was taken from this branch and given to Eli, of the tribe of Ithamar. And since the Ithamarites received the promise of continual priesthood under the same condition, it was also taken from them when they did not fulfil the condition, and given back to the family of Eleazar, in which it remained to the end of the Levitical priesthood, comp. 1 Kings 2:26-27, 1 Kings 2:25; so that there was, properly speaking, only a suspension of the promise, similar to that which the promise of kingship in the family of David suffered by the temporary apostasy of the ten tribes, as well as during the period between Zedekiah and Christ. Only in the interval between Eli and Solomon did the family of Ithamar enjoy the dignity of high-priesthood. That the high-priesthood was not forcibly taken by the family of Ithamar, but became theirs by an unquestionable divine decree, we learn from 1 Samuel 2:30, where, in the speech of the man of God to Eli, there is a reference to an event respecting which the historical books are quite silent, to a solemn appointment of the family of Ithamar to the high-priesthood by God, and a promise of its perpetual duration, which was doubtless given in the same way as the threat of deposition, by a man of God. This circumstance must put us on our guard against inferring the non-existence of a thing from the fact of its not being found in the narrative, especially in the case of events such as these, which lay beyond the proper sphere of the narrator. For the author of the book of Judges they had no interest; he was occupied solely with the judges. Hence Bertheau is very rash in inferring that in the book of Judges the high priests stepped into the background, and that their activity and importance were very inconsiderable. The same may be said of the author of the books of Samuel, who only goes back to the history as far as the roots of Samuel’s existence extended into it. The assumption of a forcible transference, a usurpation, is rendered improbable by the whole personality of Eli, who had not the least desire to be a usurper. That he was the first high priest of the family of Ithamar is confirmed, not only by the express statement of Josephus, but also by chronology. Eli did not attain to the high-priesthood until he reached the age of fifty-eight years. For he was ninety-eight when he died, comp. 1 Samuel 4:15, and he judged Israel for forty years. If the succession had descended in the usual way, the office passing from father to son, Eli would scarcely have been so old when he received the dignity. We seldom find so great an age when the succession is regular. What first attracts our attention is the condition of religion as we find it in the time of Eli. The accounts respecting it in the books of Samuel would appear strange to us, if we had not already found considerable foundation for them in the scattered and casual statements of the book of Judges. As it is, we must regard them as a necessary supplement, as a filling out of that part of the description of the time which the author of the book of Judges, in following his aim, left incomplete. If we collect the scattered notices in the first chapters of the book of Samuel, we find a proof of the assumption of Buddeus which appears paradoxical and incorrect only on superficial consideration: “Religionis non alia hoc tempore ratio fuit, quam sub Mose.” “Idemque de cultu numinis externo censendum” is essentially well founded. We shall not enter fully into this subject, but refer to the copious dissertation in the treatise, “The Time of the Judges and of the Pentateuch,” in vol. iii. of the Beiträge. According to a multitude of data, the tabernacle of the covenant in Shiloh formed the religious centre of the whole nation, where the people assembled annually to celebrate the feast of the passover. By 1 Sam. 1 Samuel 2:18, Samuel was girded with a linen ephod when he served before the Lord. According to the law, linen is the sacred garment of office. From 1 Samuel 3:3 we learn that an event, which happened in the early morning, occurred before the lamp of God had been extinguished. From this it follows that the regulation contained in Exodus 27:20-21, was still in force, according to which Aaron and his sons were to order the lamp without the vail which is before the testimony. The account of the iniquity of Eli’s sons also gives us much information respecting the state of religion at that time. The fact that they dared to indulge in such sin, shows how great the authority of the priests then was. The author presupposes that there was an established law relating to the rights of the priests, according to which their conduct appeared to be illegal. He places the right which they usurped in contrast with the right which had been given to them; comp. 1 Samuel 2:14 with Deuteronomy 18:3. In 1 Samuel 2:14 he represents all the Israelites who came to Shiloh as subject to their oppression. But even internally considered, the prevalent idea of the condition of religion in the period of the judges is extremely one-sided. We encounter a beautiful picture of Israelitish piety in Elkana and Hanna. Hanna’s song of praise is a ripe fruit of the Spirit of God. Eli, with all his weakness, still remains a proof that the religion of Jehovah had at that time not lost its influence over the heart. We see the most beautiful side of his character in his relation to Samuel. The extraordinary gifts of God were rare at that time, in comparison with the more favoured one in which the author of the books of Samuel wrote. In 1 Samuel 3:1 he says, “And the word of the Lord was precious in those days; there was no open vision. “And since the extraordinary gifts stand in close connection with the ordinary, we must conclude that the latter also were sparingly dealt out,—that among the masses there was a great deal of lukewarmness, and even open apostasy. The want of a reformation was urgent. That the extraordinary gifts, however, had not quite disappeared, we learn from the example of the man of God who comes to Eli to upbraid him with his sins, and to announce the divine judgment. And with respect to the ordinary gifts, we are led to the conclusion that there was at that time a not inconsiderable ἐκλογή, not only by the institution of holy women, but also by the custom of the Nazirate, of which we have two contemporaneous examples in Samson and Samuel, and which must therefore have been pretty widely spread. Hence we infer that the spirit of piety was by no means dead, especially since an institution such as that of the Nazarites stands in close connection with the whole national tendency, and can only flourish when more or less supported by it. A few remarks on this institution will not be out of place here. The law respecting the Nazirate is to be found in Numbers 6:6. It seems that the Nazirate did not first originate with this law, but the law only reduced to established rules that which had arisen of itself from spiritual impulse and inclination. The fundamental idea of the Nazirate is, separation from the world with its pleasures, which are so detrimental to consecration, and from its contaminating influences. This is already expressed in the name נזיר, one who lives apart, which also explains all the legally-appointed duties of the Nazirate. First, the letting the hair grow, which, according to the law, was the proper mark of the Nazirate, the form of its outward manifestation. Hence the hair of the Nazarite is termed his נזר. The cutting of the hair belonged to the legal condition of that time; comp. Carpzov, App. p. 153. Whoever let it grow, made an actual declaration that for the time being he withdrew from the world, in order to be able to live for God alone. Again, the total abstinence from all intoxicating drinks, which, out of consideration to the tendency of human nature to free itself partially from burdensome restraint by means of absurd interpretations, was extended also to that which would have been allowable without this consideration, to the enjoyment of fresh grapes, and of everything prepared from grapes. The ascetic character of this ordinance is so plain that it need not be further developed. Finally, under no circumstances might the Nazarite touch a dead person. In Numbers 6:7 we read: “He shall not make himself unclean for his father, or for his mother, for his brother, or for his sister, when they die; because the consecration of his God is upon his head.” It was the duty of those who had not taken the vow of the Nazirate to pollute themselves, when death occurred in their family, in attending to the burial. The Nazarite, on the contrary, must consider himself dead to the world: he belongs to God alone; to him we may apply the words, “Let the dead bury their dead.” The law speaks only of a temporary Nazirate. The vow was taken for a stated time as an ascetic exercise; and, after the expiration of the self-allotted term, the Nazarite returned to the world which he had outwardly renounced for a time, in order to be able to live in it henceforward without sin. But human nature is such, that pious zeal seeks to increase what is in opposition to it, of which we have many proofs in the history of monasticism. And this tendency is exceptionally strong in times of great persecution of the Church from within and from without, such as the period of the judges. Piety then readily assumes an eccentric character. Here also we find an analogy in monasticism. We have but to think of Francis of Assisi. Samuel and Samson were consecrated to the Lord as Nazarites. While still in the womb, their mothers abstained from that which was prohibited to the Nazarites by law,—a circumstance which has its origin in the idea that the spiritual relation between mother and child is just as close as the bodily relation. Not only in the person of Samuel do we find the Nazirate in close connection with prophethood, but also in Amos 2:11, where the prophet represents it as a great favour shown to Israel, that the Lord has chosen prophets from their sons, and Nazarites from their young men. Here the Nazirate appears, like the prophethood, as an institution to which special dona supernaturalia were attached. We also see that the command is at the same time a promise: the Nazarite was not to bear the relation of donor towards God, but the commands laid upon him were only the conditions under which he was to become a recipient. But we must not overlook the fact that the Nazirate was only a definite form of consecration to the Lord, that everything prescribed to such an one comes into consideration only in its symbolical meaning,—as, for example, the most characteristic mark, allowing the hair to grow, symbolizing renunciation of the world, since, without regard to the symbolic meaning, one with cut hair may serve the Lord with equal uprightness. If this be apprehended, we shall not conclude, from the example of a personal union of Nazirate and prophethood in Samuel, that such regularly took place. The passage in Amos seems to regard the Nazirate and the prophethood as two different branches of the same tree. Those who consecrated themselves, or were consecrated to the sanctuary, were certainly not all Nazarites; but rather there were three institutions (besides that of the holy women) whose members devoted themselves to the Lord in an extraordinary way, viz. the Nazirate, the prophethood, and the service of the sanctuary (which latter form could only occur among the sons of Levitical families). The circumstance that Samuel united all three in his own person was something very unusual, perhaps the only example of the kind. This was in accordance with his whole personality, which is in every respect comprehensive, concentrating in itself what we find elsewhere only in an isolated form. To go back to the point from which we set out; the continuance of the Nazirate throughout the period of the judges shows that religious life was at that time much less corrupt than is generally supposed; comp. the remarks, Egypt, etc., p. 199 ff., where the false view of Bähr is refuted. The same thing applies also to the continuance of the institution of holy women, which is proved by the passage 1 Samuel 2:22, and by the example of Jephthah’s daughter. These holy women performed no external service in the tabernacle of the covenant; their service was rather of a spiritual nature: in complete retirement from the world they applied themselves to spiritual exercises, as we see most clearly by comparing Luke 2:37 with Exodus 38:8. Let us now turn from these general remarks on the time of Eli to the separate events which occurred in it. We shall begin just where the narrative begins, with the birth of Samuel. (Respecting his Levitical descent, comp. Beiträge, part iii. p. 60 ff., and the introduction to Psalms 89) In common with Isaac, John the Baptist, and Samson, he was given by God in answer to the prayer of a mother who had long been childless. This circumstance was intended to point out to his parents, to himself, and to the nation, that God had destined him to do great things. The fact that his birth took place against all human hope and expectation, pointed to very special divine co-operation, and was calculated to produce the conviction that God had some other object than to turn the sorrow of a woman into joy. The mother understood the word of the Lord. She perceived that the fact of his having been given by God necessarily involved his consecration to Him. Her perfect conviction of the former she expressed in the name of the child, Samuel, contracted from Shaulmeel. Similar abbreviations of proper names, having no regard to grammar, are current among all nations. As was the prayer, so was the man; and what must have been the prayer of a Hanna! Immediately after Samuel was weaned, he was brought to Shiloh, to the sacred tabernacle. There he was brought up under the eye of the high priest, and was already taught the service of the sanctuary before the time when he was legally entitled to it (according to Numbers 8:24, the Levites were commanded to come and establish themselves in the service of the sanctuary at the age of twenty-five). Eli, the high priest, was a man of true piety, who received Samuel with fatherly love, and certainly did much during his long activity for the foundation of true piety in the nation. He showed himself weak only in not putting a check to the degeneracy of his two sons. In this respect he sinned against God; and the divine displeasure with the rejection of his family was made known to him by a seer. The Scriptures represent him as a warning example of the accountability which rests upon parental weakness; and this example has had more effect than the most explicit commands and exhortations. Samuel grew to be a youth. The special circumstances connected with his birth, the example of his pious parents, residence at the sanctuary, constant occupation in the service of the Lord, the example and instruction of Eli, early awakened in him the pious disposition which distinguished him throughout his whole life. At a time when he slept in the fore-court of the tabernacle of the covenant to be ready for the sacred service, he was first favoured with a divine communication. The divine decree concerning Eli’s family was revealed to him. Eli hears it from him, and learns his fate with calm resignation. Now, when Samuel had entered into an immediate relation to God, a relation between him and the nation also began. Being soon favoured with several divine communications, he receives through them the dignity of a prophet, of a mediator between God and the nation. With him prophecy mounted a new step. While the prophets had previously entered powerfully into the history only in solitary decisive instances, his prophetic activity was a continuous one. For many successive years he was the spiritual leader of Israel. Again, while the earlier prophets had stood in a more isolated position, his gift was so superior, that its fructifying influence was widely felt, and at the same time it was his direct intention to exercise such an influence. In his old age we find an entirely new sign of the time,—whole bands of prophets, who co-operated with him towards the regeneration of the nation. He soon gained universal confidence (comp. 1 Samuel 3:20), and prepared the way for that influence over the minds of the people which he afterwards acquired. That which had been foretold with respect to the destruction of the family of Eli was soon partially fulfilled. Oppressed and conquered by the Philistines, who had again become powerful, the Israelites believed themselves certain of victory as soon as they marched against the enemy with the ark of the covenant, though they were stained with sin and with an idolatrous disposition. They based this belief on Numbers 10:35, according to which Moses said, when the ark went forward, “Rise up, Lord, and let Thine enemies be scattered; and let them that hate Thee flee before Thee.” Their hope deceived them. They were conquered. Eli’s sinful sons were slain, and he himself did not survive the sad news. Israel was then first robbed of the sanctuary, typifying the Chaldaic and Roman robberies. But, in comparison with the second and third robberies, this first one bore a mild and transitory character, for at that time the guilt of the people was less. Soon the arrogance of the Philistines was humbled. In their foolish presumption, in accordance with the prevailing idea of the old world, they believed that the God of Israel would be conquered by their idol Dagon,—a figure in the form of a fish, with human head and hands,—and that His holy ark would be brought to their temple in triumph. When the destruction of their idol, which came about without the intervention of human instrumentality, had no effect on them, they were afflicted with grievous plagues and diseases, under circumstances which led them to recognise them as punishments of the wrathful God of Israel. Expositors are at variance with regard to the true nature of this sickness. It is most probable that by עפלים in 1 Samuel 5:6, which means hill-shaped elevations, we should not understand hemorrhoidal pains, but boils, which are a characteristic symptom of the oriental pestilence; comp. Thenius on this passage. We must conclude that it was an infectious disease, from its rapid spread and devastating effect. Made wise by affliction, they sent back the sanctuary which had brought so much trouble on them. Accompanied by the princes of the Philistines to the borders of their territory, the ark arrived at Beth-shemesh. The exulting joy of the inhabitants on its return was changed into sorrow. Of fifty thousand men, seventy died a sudden death. This is the explanation of the difficult passage 1 Samuel 6:19; comp. Bochart in Clericus, whose objections to Bochart’s theory are insignificant. They are removed, not by supplying the preposition מן to the אלף, but by taking it as a concise expression, in which the relation is not expressly denoted,—fifty, a thousand, fifty for every thousand. In opposition to the narrative, some have sought to find a reason for this judgment in a special offence of the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh against the ark of the covenant. But the judgment came upon them only on account of the sin which was common to them with all Israel. By their punishment the Israelites were shown what they had to expect from Jehovah,—that the time of wrath was not past. The author fixes his attention only on the highest cause. A physician would have attributed the misfortune to infection caught by contact with the Philistines. The ark was then taken from Beth-shemesh to Kirjath-jearim in the tribe of Judah, and was thus separated from the sanctuary, which had been transferred by the Philistines from Shiloh to Nob immediately after the ark of the covenant had been stolen, and later, when Saul laid a curse on this city, was removed to Gibeon. The high priest remained with the holy tabernacle. The cause of the separation is plainly shown in the narrative. The ark had proved itself hurtful in a number of cases, last of all in Beth-shemesh. It was made evident that the nation was not yet worthy to receive the perfect fulfilment of the promise, “I will dwell in your midst.” They endeavoured to dispose of the ark in the best possible way. It was buried, as it were, at Kirjath-jearim, until the time when God would bring about its joyful resurrection. No sacrifices were offered before it. From this separation of the sanctuaries, it necessarily followed that there was a freedom with respect to the order of worship which the time of Joshua and the time of the judges had not known. Samuel did not work in direct opposition to this freedom, which continued till the building of Solomon’s temple, but himself offered sacrifice in different places. He regarded it as his task to bring about an internal reformation, persuaded that this was the most effectual means to obviate the external destruction of the institutions of worship brought about by God Himself. He looked upon this as a punishment, and thought it his duty to direct his energy, not against the effect, but only against the cause. And the result showed that he was right. 10. We shall now leave Samuel, whose reformatory activity extended over the twenty years from the death of Eli to the decisive victory over the Philistines, laying the only permanent foundation for the external salvation of the nation, and turn to the activity of Samson, which belongs to the same period. The object of his mission is best shown by the triumph of the Philistines after they got him into their power. In Judges 16:24 we read: “And when the people saw him, they praised their god: for they said, Our god hath delivered into our hands our enemy, and the destroyer of our country, which slew many of us.” If the weakness of Samson afforded a proof of the power of their gods, his strength must have made them painfully conscious of the powerlessness of their gods, and the superiority of the God of Israel. Looked at in this light, the acts of Samson form the intermediate link between that which happened to the Philistines on account of the ark of the covenant and Samuel’s final victory over them. It is true that the ark of the covenant was sent back; but the oppression by the Philistines still continued. Their strength at that time was due to what Israel then entirely lacked, to perfect unanimity,—their five small kingdoms and princes acted as one man. Nor was this oppression at an end; for it had not yet accomplished the object for which it had been sent; its continuance formed the necessary condition of the success of Samuel’s efforts for the conversion of the nation. Necessity alone teaches prayer. But before salvation could be fully accomplished, the bold appearance of Samson put a check to the arrogance of the Philistines and to the utter despondency of the Israelites, which must have been as prejudicial to their improvement as a too speedy deliverance. What he, as an individual, accomplished by the power of the Lord, showed sufficiently that the power of the world was not opposed to the people of God like a wall of brass; it was a prophecy of the glorious goal towards which the nation would advance, if it could only rise up again as one man against the many, in the might of the Lord. There seems to be only one objection against this point of view. Samson’s whole course of action appears little suited for that of an instrument and a servant of God. But here a distinction must be made between a twofold Samson, the servant of the Lord and the servant of sin. We find the former in Judges 13-15, the latter in Judges 16. What the first Samson does is not unworthy a servant of the Lord, if we do not set up a false spiritualistic standard. We must not compare him with Samuel, who had received a different calling from God, nor with Luther, who in a spiritual aspect presented a closer affinity with him than any other of the reformers; but with Gustavus Adolphus, or a Christian prince in the Crusades. There is a noble element in Samson, a fund of strong and living faith in God, which is everywhere plainly visible notwithstanding his weaknesses, and shows itself even in his fall. The second Samson became transformed from the servant of God to the slave of a woman; in his struggle against the enemies of the kingdom of God, he forgot the struggle with himself. The author himself clearly sets forth this distinction between the first and the second Samson. It is remarkable that so early as the end of Judges 15 we find the words, “And he judged Israel in the days of the Philistines twenty years,” as if his history here came to an end, although it is still continued in the following chapter. It is plainly the author’s intention to indicate in this way that the proper career of Samson was now at an end. The servant of the Lord, the judge over Israel, was now as good as buried,—subsequent history has reference only to his spiritual corpse. In the same way the author’s judgment is contained in his account of the fate of the fallen Samson. The eyes by which his heart was led astray are put out. The slave of sin is obliged to perform the most menial services among the Philistines. We could only object to Samson’s having been called to the service of the Lord, if the wonderful power with which he was filled as a sign and a wonder to the people, an assurance that in their God they possessed the source of infinite power, had remained unimpaired even after his fall. The narrative shows that the contrary was the case. But was God not to call him because He forsaw his fall? This could only be maintained if God were deficient in means to prove that Samson’s sin belonged to himself. But the contrary is apparent. We ought rather to say that God called him just because He foresaw his fall. By his example He intended to show how even the most splendid gifts become useless as soon as the recipient ceases to watch over his own heart. Without that great catastrophe, the power of Samson might appear as peculiarly inherent: now all must acknowledge that it was merely lent to him. The 16th chapter is one of the most edifying portions of Scripture. There are few which form so powerful an exhortation to watchfulness and prayer. If the loss of Samson’s strength here seems to be attached to something purely external, the loss of his hair, and thus loses its universal applicability and power of edification, we must not overlook the way in which the loss came about. Taking this into consideration, we perceive that the internal and external loss, the loss of the Spirit of God and the loss of the hair, were interwoven. If Samson had lost his hair by any accident for which he was not to blame, the case would have been different. But the cutting of the hair was only an isolated expression of the impure relation in which he stood. Even rationalistic exegesis must acknowledge this. Studer says: “As from Samson, so likewise did the Spirit of God depart from Saul, when by his disobedience he had violated the contract by which Jehovah had appointed him to be His earthly representative, and had anointed him; thus the Spirit of God was withdrawn from the whole nation when they had broken the covenant of Jehovah, and was afterwards given back to the young Christian Church in a higher sense, as a pledge of reconciliation to God and of restored sonship.” This parallel between Samson and the whole nation should be specially considered. It is plain that Samson was a type of the nation; that the fall of the individual has prophetic significance for the mass. It is specially noteworthy that his history fills up the last twenty years of the period of the judges. At the close of a long and important period, God revealed to the nation His whole course of action in the deeds and fortunes of an individual. In this sense it may be said that Samson was the personification of Israel in the period of the judges. Strong in the Lord, and victorious over all his enemies; weak through sin, of which Delilah is the image, and a slave to the weakest of all his enemies: such is the quintessence of Israel’s history, as well as of Samson’s. His life, which, as Ewald says, resembles a candle that flares up at times, and gives light afar off, but often dies down and goes quite out before its time, is at the same time an actual prophecy of a more satisfactory condition of the people, one more closely corresponding to the ideal, which was first to be imperfectly fulfilled under Samuel and David, and afterwards perfectly in Christ. For in the kingdom of God everything imperfect is a pledge and guarantee of the perfect. After these general remarks, we may turn to the separate events in Samson’s life, especially those which have given rise to doubts and difficulty. And here we shall first draw attention to the fact that the author, in accordance with his aim, conformably to the point of view from which he represents Samson’s life, is obliged to give as much prominence as possible to what is extraordinary in the acts, without violation of the truth; so that, taking this tendency into account, we must be allowed to assume intermediate causes and interventions where the author makes no mention of them, because this does not materially affect the thing itself, but only weakens the impression which it is his intention to produce. When, for example, he relates that Samson slew a thousand Philistines with the jawbone of an ass, all attempt to fill out the narrative, by assuming the agency of some other independent power besides that of Samson, must be unconditionally rejected; for if the author had omitted to mention such a circumstance, we could no longer believe him to be reliable, and should have no further reason for endeavouring to prove that the events took place in the ordinary course of nature. On the other hand, if this one main point be only firmly established, we can think of many circumstances which may help us to understand the course of events, without asserting that they happened exactly in that way. It is enough that the author does not by his narrative exclude such circumstances. Samson’s first act was to slay a lion without weapons. This exploit is not the only one of the kind. Ancient and modern writers give many examples. The same thing was done by David and Benaiah. Comp. Arvieux, Merkwürdig. Nadir, t. ii. cap. 13; Ludolphi Hist. Æthiop. sect. 48; Bochart, Hieroz. P. I. iii. cap. 1 et 4, and many others. There is one difficulty, however, in the circumstance that Samson afterwards finds a swarm of bees and honey in the carcase of the lion, while it is well known that bees fly from carrion. But the difficulty is removed by the fact that, according to Judges 14:9, this discovery was not made until a considerable time after the killing of the lion. The lion could therefore no longer have been carrion at that time. The flesh had either rotted away, or had been eaten by animals; or perhaps the body of the lion had been dried up by the sun, and had become a mummy, so that the bad odour, which bees avoid, had vanished. This frequently happens in that district; comp. Rosenmüller, Bibl. Alterthumsk. iv. 2, S. 424. And, moreover, since the spiritus fortitudinis was given to Samson only for fighting against the enemies of the covenant-nation, as we are expressly told by the author, this event cannot have its object in itself, but must be regarded as type and prefiguration. The action must be regarded as symbolical, like the cursing of the fig-tree by our Lord. The lion is an image of the power of the world, which rises in terrible opposition to the kingdom of God; comp. Daniel 7:4. This symbolical meaning extends also to the finding of the bees. Samson himself gives prominence to the general truth which is here contained in the particular, in the riddle which he founds on the circumstance. In this riddle we have the quintessence of the occurrence. In Judges 14:14 he says: “Out of the eater came forth meat, and out of the strong came forth sweetness.” Words whose sense is thus paraphrased by Brenz: “Qui omnia alia devorat, is praebuit ex se cibum, quem alii devorent, et qui in omnes est trux, crudelis, immanis, is exhibuit de se id, quod valde jucundum, suave et delectabile.” The truth of this maxim is confirmed by all time. God not only gives His people victory over their enemies, but also makes all enmity eventually subservient to their blessing and salvation; and the more powerful and terrible the enemy, so much the greater is the salvation. Only let us turn to the period of the judges. What would have become of the covenant-nation if they had had no enemies? Every fruit of righteousness grows upon this tree; all food comes to them from the eaters. Then let us come down to the most recent times. Every enemy has become a blessing to the Church. Looked at in this light, the riddle of Samson is a proverb which cannot be too deeply inculcated, an antidote to the sorrow caused by the devastators of the Church. It is a question of less importance whether Samson followed the laws of riddle; whether the question which he lays down may be called a riddle. It seems that the Philistines could not find the solution. Yet we must remember that the event which took place here was not an unusual one in that district, and that the Philistines, in their guessing, may have found the answer to the riddle given to them,—particularly since the terms “eater” and “strong one” were more applicable to the lion than to anything else, while it was most natural to predicate “sweetness” of honey, just as when sweetness is spoken of among us, our first thought is of sugar. In order to injure the Philistines, Samson caught 300 jackals or foxes, tied them together in pairs, and, furnishing them with firebrands, drove them into the standing corn of the Philistines. Neither is there anything improbable in this, since it is not stated that Samson caught the jackals in one day, nor that he had no assistance from others. For such an enterprise, there are always plenty of helpers to be had. According to the accounts of travellers, jackals are to be found in great abundance in Palestine. They are not timid, but seek men, even following them, and obtruding themselves on them. They run in great flocks, often as many as 200 together, and during the daytime they live in holes in the rocks in equally large numbers. A recent traveller, who was by no means a Samson, killed thirty at once in a cave of this kind. Comp. Oedemann’s Verm. Schriften, part ii. p. 18 ff.; Rosenmüller, iv. 2, p. 156. It has indeed been maintained that שועלים does not mean jackal, but fox. For the jackal the Hebrews have a peculiar name, איים, screamer; but this particular designation is only poetical, as appears from its appellative meaning, and still more decisively from the fact that it occurs only in poetical books; comp. Ewald, Song of Solomon, p. 89. That the species of jackal allied to the fox, and similar to it in form and colour, was included with it under the name שועל, is probable enough in itself. The unmistakeable origin of the name jackal, which has come to us from the East, from Shual, is in favour of this view, and also the interchange of the two species, which is still common in the East, according to the testimony of Niebuhr, Description of Arabia, p. 166. שועל is also applied to the jackal in Psalms 63:11. Samson is delivered up bound by the Israelites to the Philistines; he breaks his bonds, takes up a new jawbone of an ass, which he finds lying there, and smites a thousand Philistines. The narrative does not employ a word to lead us to suppose that Samson slew the thousand Philistines. There is nothing incredible, or even improbable in the act, if we only consider that he had already become an object of fear and terror to the Philistines by his former deeds, and that the old impressions were not merely revived, but must have been very much strengthened by the bursting of the bonds, which took place before their eyes; and, finally, that they had everything to fear from the 3000 men of Judah who were present, as soon as their cowardice would have time to vanish before Samson’s courage. It has been erroneously maintained that, in accordance with the narrative, the fountain from which Samson quenched his burning thirst must have sprung from the jawbone of the ass. That this was not the author’s meaning, is plainly shown by the addition, “Wherefore he called the name thereof En-hakkore, which is in Lehi unto this day.” The water must rather have sprung up at the place to which Samson had shortly before given the name Lehi, with reference to this event. This is clearly shown by Clericus on Judges 15:19; and even expositors like Studer have been forced to give up the theory of the jawbone. Against it, he says, we have (1) the usus loquendi; for a tooth-hole in the jawbone of an ass would have been called מכתשהלחי, while אשרבלחי can scarcely mean anything but what belongs to לחי. (2) Even for a miracle, it would be quite too wonderful for a fountain to spring up out of the socket of a tooth, especially since the jawbone was still fresh, and was therefore provided with teeth, in which case the water must have flowed out of the tooth itself. (3) The spring was still in existence at the time of the narrator. And, finally, (4) the analogy of the two streams in the wilderness, Exodus 17, Numbers 20. On the other hand, there is nothing at all to confirm the opinion that the water had its source in the jawbone. The מכתש, properly mortar, like our kettle, a recess, never occurs of a hole or gap in a tooth, but we find it in Zephaniah 1:11 as the name of a place; and in Psalms 78:15, Isaiah 48:21, it is used of the fissure in the rock from which Moses brought forth a stream in the wilderness. Moreover, the true interpretation forced itself even upon the Jews, notwithstanding their tendency to seek out absurdities. It is to be found in Josephus and in the Chaldee paraphrast. If Luther had not made an oversight here, there would scarcely be any further necessity for defending it. In the whole history of revelation we find nothing so extravagant, least of all can we expect it in the book of Judges, where, as a rule, everything occurs in so natural a way. The carrying away of the gate of Gaza certainly shows great, but by no means superhuman, strength. Pliny, in his Hist. Nat. 7. 20, tells of a man who bore away 600 pounds. A general lieutenant, in the seven-years’ war, lifted up a horse and his rider, together with a large cannon, with great ease. But here also an attempt has been made to invest the narrative with an extravagant character, which in itself it does not possess. It has been maintained that the author makes Samson carry the gate to Hebron, which was about five hours’ distance from Gaza. But, on the contrary, it is stated in Judges 16:3 that Samson carried the gate to the top of a hill near Hebron, not לפני but עלפני. According to Joliffe, p. 285, a small valley extends from Gaza towards the east, and behind it there is a considerable elevation, which is supposed to be the mountain to which Samson carried the gate of the town. Robinson says, book ii. p. 639: “Towards the east the view is cut off by the range of hills which we passed. The highest point is a partially isolated mountain, south-east from the city, at about half an hour’s distance.” Studer has justly pointed out that the false explanation, recently defended by Winer and Bertheau, would entirely destroy the effect produced by the circumstance that in the morning the inhabitants of Gaza saw the gate of their city on the top of a neighbouring mountain, while they thought that they had shut in the hero with it. The last act of Samson, the pulling down of the idol-temple of the Philistines, forms a necessary keystone; for without this his weakness would not have appeared in its true light. In his lowest humiliation he repented. The re-growth of his hair was no titulus sine re; the consecration which it betokened was an actual thing. Thus the Lord could again employ him as His instrument. But the fall had been so deep that the former relation could not be restored. The Lord required him only for one more deed, and this must involve him, as well as his enemies, in destruction. Henceforward Israel was to be delivered in a more spiritual way. The judgeship was buried with Samson. With respect to the external side of the event, the author has been supposed to have held the untenable view that the burden of a roof which supported 3000 men rested upon two pillars which stood close together. The contrary appears from the fact that in Judges 16:29 these two pillars are spoken of as the two middle pillars. The building rested on four side-walls or four rows of columns. The two principal of these, upon which the main weight of the building rested, stood in the middle, close together. Their fall, together with the burden of the great numbers on the roof, entailed the overthrow of the whole building. That there was nothing improbable in this event has been universally acknowledged by architects. 11. We have already remarked that through the whole period in which the acts of Samson gave rise to so much wonder, and were in every mouth, Samuel’s reformatory activity continued to work in silence. He used all his influence to bring back the people to the fear of the Lord, and so to freedom; and he found a susceptibility in them. Sorrow had exercised a softening influence on their minds. Above all, he sought to impress the young, to animate them with his own inspiration, and through them to influence wider circles. Finally, in the fortieth year of the oppression by the Philistines, Samuel concluded that everything was sufficiently prepared for the adoption of vigorous measures. At his command the people destroyed all their idols, and in sincere repentance dedicated themselves anew to God. Then, at his command, they assembled at Mizpeh to implore God’s help against their enemies. The symbolical act of pouring out water, which occurred there, according to 1 Samuel 7:6, serves as an expression of their miserable condition, as an exemplification of the words, “ I am poured out like water,” in Psalms 22, and is therefore a symbolically expressed κύριε ἐλήισον. No sooner had the nation turned again to God than He gave them a proof of His love, in order not to try their faith which was still weak. The invading Philistines were smitten by a natural event, which ensued at the entreaty of Samuel, more than by the weapons of the Israelites; their power was broken for a long period, and the cities which they had wrested from the Israelites were retaken. This victory must have served to increase the respect in which Samuel was held, and which he employed solely in the interest of the kingdom of God. He was chosen to be judge during his lifetime, holding office in a different spirit from that of his predecessors. He destroyed all traces of idolatry, and made an annual journey through the country to establish order and administer justice. He dwelt at Ramah, and had an altar there, where he himself performed the service, and thus united in his own person the extraordinary priestly and civil dignity, yet in such a way that he cannot be said to have held the office of high priest. This still existed independently of him, as we learn from 1 Samuel 14:3, comp. with 1 Samuel 4:21. It still continued in the family of Eli. Samuel only performed isolated priestly acts, just as his ordinary civil supremacy was in no way set aside by his office of judge. 12. The establishment of royalty. Samuel had already become old in his vocation, when a twofold cause incited the people to an impatient demand for the establishment of royalty. First, the unseemly behaviour of Samuel’s sons, whom he had appointed to assist him in his office of judge; then a war with which they were threatened by the Ammonites, and which they thought themselves incapable of maintaining while their former constitution still continued. The way in which Samuel received the desire of the nation, which was expressed through their legal organs, at first appears strange. His opposition seems to be irreconcilable with Deuteronomy 17, where directions are given how to act in case the people should desire a king, without a word expressing disapproval of the desire; and still more at variance with those passages in Genesis in which the patriarchs are promised, as a blessing, that kings should proceed from their loins. But the solution of this apparent inconsistency has already been anticipated by former remarks. Samuel’s opposition is not directed against kingship in itself, but only against the spirit in which the nation demanded it. In this there was a twofold element of ungodliness. (1.) They did not desire a king instead of a judge in abstracto, but a king instead of Samuel, the judge appointed and gloriously sanctioned by God, as in the time of Moses or Joshua. (2.) The desire of the people for a king was based on the false assumption that God was powerless to help them, and that the reason of their subjection was not their sin, but a defect in their constitution. “The people,” says Joh. Müller, “who sought the cause of the evil not in themselves but in the imperfection of their political constitution, chose a king.” Comp. the copious examination in Beitr., part iii. p. 246 ff. After Samuel had contended against the perverted mind of the nation, he submitted to the desire, which was in accordance with the will of God, but at the same time he sought to guard against the probable abuse of kingly power, by a document, probably founded on Deuteronomy 17, in which the conditions were laid down to which an Israelitish king must submit, lest kingship should endanger the supremacy of God; comp. 1 Samuel 10:25. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 30: 30. § 4. THE CIVIL CONSTITUTION AT THE TIME OF THE JUDGES ======================================================================== § 4. The Civil Constitution at the Time of the Judges We have already more than once drawn attention to the fact that the hereditary constitution of the Israelites remained unaltered throughout this period; during it the judicial and executive power was always in the hands of the natural rulers of the people, the heads of families and tribes. Besides the proofs of this already given, we may refer to the transactions of the elders in Gilead with Jephthah, in Judges 11:6 ff.: the power which is conceded to Jephthah appears as potestas delegata, and is so regarded by both parties. The transactions of the elders of the nation with Samuel respecting the establishment of royalty, also show plainly that the office of judge did not interfere with the continuance of the ordinary magistracy. A distinction between this and the former period obtains only in one point, and that of a nature which has nothing to do with the surrender of established institutions, but only with the dissolution of a bond which had always been mainly internal, and was never outwardly established. Owing to the nature of the Israelitish constitution as a nation of tribes, there was necessarily a want of the centrum unitatis. In earlier times this want was compensated by the unity of mind, which formed an internal bond of union among the twelve tribes who were outwardly separated, as well as by the free authority exercised by the leading representatives of this tendency, a Moses, a Joshua, and a Phinehas. In the events narrated in the appendix to the book of Judges, we do not find anything of this want. The people rise up as one man. Further on in the period of the judges the only bond which held the tribes together disappeared, and the whole was immediately resolved into its constituent parts. Nowhere do we find a co-operation of the whole nation; nowhere the summoning of a national assembly; nowhere an allied army of all the tribes, nor one commander-in-chief. We meet only with temporary confederacies of separate tribes, such as were called forth by common danger, or by the similar interests of their geographical position. Then the numerous, powerful, and proud tribe of Ephraim, in whose midst was the sanctuary at Shiloh, laid claim to a kind of leadership; and the remaining tribes, with the exception of Judah, which maintained its independence throughout, submitted more or less to this claim. We recognise this claim not only by the reproaches of Ephraim against Gideon in Judges 8:1, and their protest against Jephthah in Judges 12, but even more clearly from Psalms 78, which was composed in the time of David, and which represents it very fully. From it we learn also that this relation was by no means advantageous to the nation. The bad spirit afterwards manifested by Ephraim as the soul of the kingdom of the ten tribes, already characterized them in the time of the judges; and its effect at that time was equally deleterious. But the relation was of a very loose kind, and could not prevent the disunion of the nation. This severance was at once the necessary consequence and punishment of their apostasy from the true centrum unitatis, from the Lord. When the nation turned again to the Lord, it was in some measure remedied by the judges whom the Lord raised up. For though none of these succeeded in uniting the whole nation under his command, yet by their means a bond of union was generally established between a few tribes, if only for a time, and thus an end was put to that weakness against the enemy which was the result of separation. We have already shown that the opinion that his activity extended over the whole nation has arisen in a misunderstanding of the remark which the author makes respecting every judge, viz. that he judged Israel. With equal justice we might conclude from the title bishop of the evangelical Church that an evangelical pope was meant. The author does not intend by this remark to point out the special sphere of the activity of the separate judges, but only to draw attention to the fact that the divine benefit was conferred on a part only by virtue of its connection with the whole. The covenant of God, of which the raising up of the judges was an issue, was concluded, not with Dan or Naphtali, but with Israel. If the author had said of the judges that they judged Israel in any other sense than this, he would have directly contradicted himself in the case of Jephthah, of whom he states both that he judged Israel, and that he was merely head over the trans-Jordanic tribes. With respect to the position of the judges, it is generally estimated falsely when they are looked upon as proper judicial personages in our sense, men who were possessed of ordinary judicial power. This error has been occasioned by the assumption that the Hebrew שפט is perfectly synonymous with our judging, while in reality it has a much wider signification. The שפט in the book of Judges generally denotes the exercise of authority and superiority. It has undeniably this general meaning at the very beginning with respect to the first judge, Othniel, and therefore is a passage where the author certainly used the word in what he regarded as its true and principal meaning. In Judges 3:9-10, we read of Othniel: “The Lord raised up a deliverer to the children of Israel, who delivered them, even Othniel. And the Spirit of the Lord came upon him, and he judged Israel, and went out to war; and the Lord delivered the king of Mesopotamia into his hand.” This can have no reference to judging in the usual sense, for the words “and he judged Israel” stand before the giving of the Spirit of the Lord or gifts for the conquest of the enemy, and that conquest itself. They can therefore refer only to the authority which Othniel received, by the fact that he was made partaker of the Spirit of God. The history of Samson also necessarily leads to the same idea of the שפט. We read that he judged Israel for twenty years; where there can be no idea whatever of judging in the ordinary sense. Having once obtained a sure foundation in this way, it will certainly appear significant that of no single judge is it expressly stated that he sat in judgment. Only of Deborah do we read, in Judges 4:5, that the Israelites went up to her for judgment. But she cannot be placed on a level with the judges throughout. She pronounced judgment as a prophetess in matters where no confidence was placed in the decision of the ordinary judicial jurisdiction, and a judgment of God in the proper sense was desired; just as, according to Exodus 18, the nation, leaving their natural judges, thronged to Moses, to draw justice immediately from its source, and not from the tributary channels, which were so often corrupt. As little does Samuel belong to the ordinary judges: his position was exactly similar to that of Deborah; he was judge in another sense than the judges of the book of Judges. If the mention of judging were wanting only in the case of this or that judge, we might look for the reason in the fact that their activity in the national wars of deliverance was the proper subject of the narrative; but since it is wanting in all, this reason does not suffice. If the judges had really exercised judicial functions, there would at least be some mention of the circumstance, if only a casual one, such as we find in the case of Deborah. Moreover, the author relates much of the judges besides their principal activity. The result is this: the judges had nothing to do with the proper administration of justice. This remained in the hands of the natural rulers of the nation. The judges were men who had gained confidence and authority by what they had done in the strength of the Lord for the deliverance of the nation, and to whom the people were glad to appeal in public and private matters,—in matters of justice, too, in which, however, they acted merely as arbitrators,—and who exercised a guiding influence over them, which, however, was also of a free nature. The only exception was Jephthah, who formally claimed a kind of regency among the trans-Jordanic tribes before he entered into war, and had it confirmed by the natural rulers of the nation. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 31: 31. § 5. THE CONDITION OF RELIGION ======================================================================== § 5. The Condition of Religion In our previous representation of separate historical events, we have anticipated almost all that can be said on this subject, and may therefore be very brief. We have already shown, from a number of facts, how erroneous with respect to worship and religious feeling is the prevalent conception of the period of the judges, according to which it was a time of complete confusion or of rude barbarism. Respecting the worship, we have shown that throughout the whole period of the judges the tabernacle of the covenant formed the religious centre of the nation; that the great feasts, especially the feast of the passover, were then celebrated by the whole nation; that the partial and temporary participation in the heathen worship of Baal and Astarte did it no injury, because this worship was not regarded as antagonistic to the worship of Jehovah by those who practised it; that the Levitical priesthood was universally esteemed and recognised, and worship was performed only in the tabernacle of the covenant. With regard to the second point,—religious feeling,—we saw that, notwithstanding all the corruption which had crept in, there were still many tokens of the continuance of a better spirit, such as the song of Deborah, the prayer of Hanna, personalities like that of Gideon, institutions like that of the Nazirate and consecrated virgins, and many others. Here we shall only draw attention to the fact that we have the most complete representation of the religious and civil condition of the period of the judges in the book of Ruth, “whose historical truth regarding the description of ancient life,” Ewald says, “cannot be questioned.” We must bear in mind, however, that the events narrated in this book occur at a time in which Israel was purified in the furnace of affliction, and was mightily raised up by the wonderful help of the Lord, so that the picture is nothing but an exact counterpart of the better times of the period of the judges. If a good foundation had not remained even in times of degeneracy, the danger and the deliverance would have passed over without making any deeper impression. We cannot better describe the impression made by this picture than in the words of Roos: “The little book of Ruth stands between the books which treat of war and other things as a most graceful and unparalleled picture of honesty, propriety, wisdom, and uprightness exemplified by different persons in domestic life. This beautiful history contains a representation of every virtue required in the domestic and social life of man. It redounds to the everlasting glory of the God of Israel, that, in the freedom in which His people were living at that time, there was so much chastity, justice, love, and propriety. Who were Naomi, Boaz, Ruth? They were peasants. How charming is their eloquence! How pleasing their friendliness! How fine their manners! What wisdom and judgment they display! “In order to roll this stone out of the way, the credibility of the book of Ruth has been attacked. It has been asserted that the description, with its idyllic colouring, stands in irreconcilable opposition to the book of Judges, and that the preference must be unconditionally given to the latter. But we receive thankfully the candid confession that the book of Ruth is irreconcilable with the prevalent idea. To all unprejudiced persons it forms its own defence against the attack on its credibility. Only come and see! If ever a history bore testimony to its own truthfulness, it is this. In what light we are to regard the alleged inconsistency between this book and the book of Judges will appear from what has already been remarked. In the latter we have pointed out numerous points of contact with respect to the representation of the book of Ruth. We have shown that it was not the intention of the author of the book of Judges to give a complete history, but only to lay stress on a single part,—that it was his object to give special prominence to the scandala. Nothing can be more one-sided and narrow than to make the history of a war the measure of the whole religious and moral condition, and to cut away with the knife all that’ does not at once appear suitable. On the heights above it often snows and freezes, while below in the valleys there is genial sunshine. From this standpoint all the gospels must be regarded as a picture with idyllic colouring, but without any reality. For, in reading the books of Josephus on the Jewish war, we meet with a very different picture. In a time like this we find no footing for a Simeon and a Hannah, for a John the Baptist, for the whole Church of peace which meets us in the New Testament. In reading a description of the Thirty Years’ War, with all its horrors, we should not at first expect to find a Paul Gerhard living side by side with a Tilly; and yet his existence cannot be regarded as an isolated case, but is intelligible only on the supposition that he was a member of a whole community. What a contrast there is between the quarrelling of theologians of the seventeenth century and the songs of this period, the most beautiful that we possess! The same time which from one set of sources appears the saddest, when looked at from another point of view seems to be the most glorious of the evangelical Church. It still remains for us to notice an influential institution which owes its origin to this period, viz. the schools of the prophets. In 1 Samuel 10:5, where they are first mentioned, we find Samuel in connection with them,—a circumstance which has led to the too hasty conclusion that they were founded by him. Yet this view is certainly not far from the truth. For even if the schools of the prophets had begun to form themselves before the time of Samuel, which we have the less reason to doubt since the book of Judges bears adequate testimony to the existence of prophets, and since it lay in the nature of the thing that individuals bound themselves together as closely as possible and joined in a common activity against the spirit of the time, yet we cannot suppose that there was any great extension and formal organization of the institution previous to Samuel, from what is said in 1 Samuel 3:1 : “And the word of the Lord was precious in those clays; there was no open vision.” Add to this the sporadic character of the activity of the prophets, which we learn from the book of Judges. Finally, in favour of Samuel’s having virtually established the schools of the prophets, we have the fact that after his death we no longer meet with them except in the kingdom of Israel. This circumstance cannot be attributed to lack of information. The fact of our not meeting with them in the kingdom of Judah leads us to infer that they did not exist; and if this were the case, it is impossible to suppose that the schools of the prophets had taken deep root before Samuel. They appear as an institution established by him for a temporary object, and only continued, where necessity demanded it, in the kingdom of Israel, whose relations were in many respects similar to those in Samuel’s time, where the prophethood occupied quite another position than in the kingdom of Judah,—not being a mere supplement to the activity of the Levitical priesthood, but possessing the entire responsibility of maintaining the kingdom of God in Israel. The principal passages referring to the schools of the prophets, besides 1 Samuel 10:10, are, 1 Kings 19:20-21; 2 Kings 2:5 Kings 2:5, 2 Kings 4:38, 2 Kings 6:1. The designation is an awkward one, liable to cause misunderstanding. No instruction was given in the schools of the prophets: they were regular and organized societies. Taking all these passages together, it becomes evident that the schools of the prophets were in many respects a kind of monkish institution. Those who were educated there had a common dwelling and a common table; the most distinguished of the prophets standing at its head as spiritual fathers. Music was employed as a principal means of edification, and of awakening prophetic inspiration. But what distinguishes the schools of the prophets from the cloisters, or at least from a great number of them, is their thorough practical tendency. They were hearths of spiritual life to Israel. Their aim was not to encourage a contemplative life, but to rouse the nation to activity: every prophetic disciple was a missionary. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 32: 32. FOURTH SECTION. FROM THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ROYALTY TO THE DIVISION OF THE KINGDOM ======================================================================== Fourth Section. From the Establishment of Royalty to the Division of the Kingdom ======================================================================== CHAPTER 33: 33. § 1. EVENTS FROM THE ELECTION OF SAUL TILL HIS REJECTION ======================================================================== § 1. Events from the Election of Saul Till His Rejection Samuel chose a king, apparently as a concession to the impatient demand of the nation, but in reality following the will of God as it had been revealed to him. At the same time he took care that the anthropocracy should not be in opposition to the theocracy, but should serve as a means of realizing it. The choice was made from this point of view. The result was that Samuel did everything to awaken the king who was chosen to a true and earnest fear of God; and when this attempt failed, the family of the chosen was rejected as a warning example to his successors. It was the divine mission of Samuel to see that what was given to the nation for their salvation should not turn to their destruction. He stands forth as the representative of the people no less than of God; for everything that threatened to separate the people from their God undermined their nationality at the same time, the germ of it being a proper attitude towards God. By this relationship Israel had increased from a horde to a nation; and every disturbance of it threatened internal dissolution, which would necessarily be followed by an external one. Samuel’s former activity was an excellent preparation for royalty. He had smoothed the ground for it. The consciousness of religious and civil union was powerfully re-awakened by his means. The unanimity of the people, even as exemplified in their desire for a king, was a result of his activity. An able king had only to reap what he had sown. In recent times it has been asserted that Samuel was deceived in his choice; that he had afterwards every reason to be dissatisfied with his accidental selection, for nobody could have been less adapted than Saul to represent the king of so oppressed and broken a nation. The subsequent history of Saul may justly be regarded as a proof that the so-called utterances of God, by which the judges and afterwards the prophets give decisions, were often of a subjective nature merely. But this assertion is totally without foundation. What God revealed to Samuel as the task to be absolutely realized by the king who was chosen, “He shall save my people out of the hand of the Philistines,” 1 Samuel 9:16, was actually realized by him; comp. 1 Samuel 14:47 ff., where, after the counting up of the nations conquered by Saul, we have the concluding words, “And whithersoever he turned himself, he vexed them.” He raised Israel to an external power and importance such as it had not possessed since the time of Joshua. What great gifts Saul possessed in this respect, and how much Israel was indebted to him, we learn best from the lament of David over his death and Jonathan’s, 2 Samuel 1:17 ff. Besides this, Saul was zealous in maintaining the letter of the Mosaic law, everywhere introducing discipline and order, and putting an end to that state of things where “every man did that which was right in his own eyes,” which is represented in the book of Judges as characteristic of that period. Of this we have many examples,—in the severity of the measures by which he rooted out all kinds of superstition forbidden in the Mosaic law, 1 Samuel 28:9; in the anxious care with which he restrained the violation of the Mosaic regulations respecting the eating of blood, even in the thick of battle, 1 Samuel 14:34. It was his honest endeavour to fill the office which our older theologians have assigned to the civil authority, to be custos tabulae ulriusque of the law. But Samuel never gives expression to the conviction that he who is chosen will be and remain a servant of the law, truly devoted to the Lord; or to the assurance that this was a part of God’s plan: hence we are not justified in attributing it to him. He did what he could to bring about this result. The success of his endeavours, which were frustrated by Saul’s hardness of heart,—for he let thorns grow up while the good fruit was choked,—was so little necessary, that their failure was more advantageous to the cause of God. The theocratic principle was more fully developed in the reaction than could have happened had the king been truly pious, so that we may say that Saul was chosen by God, because in His omniscience He foresaw that he would not turn to Him with his whole heart. Saul and David are in necessary connection. On the threshold of royalty God first shows in Saul what the king of Israel is without Him; then in David what the king is with Him. Both are types or representatives. The events which befell them are actual prophecies, which first of all passed into fulfilment in the history of the Israelitish monarchy, and then through the whole history of the world. Before we turn to isolated events, we must make a remark relative to the character of our source in this period. It is evident that the author of the books of Samuel does not intend to give a complete history of Saul, from the circumstance that he either passes over the most important events in perfect silence, or mentions them very briefly. Thus, for example, we learn nothing of the commencement and origin of the new captivity to the Philistines, in which we here find Israel all at once; Saul’s important undertakings against several neighbouring nations are only briefly and summarily mentioned in 1 Samuel 14:46-47; we only hear casually of his vigorous measures against superstition; nothing is done for the chronological determination of those separate events which are communicated. Everything leads to the conclusion that the author followed a special aim; that he only gives prominence to certain facts because they were of special importance for sacred history. Hence he gives a full account of the war with the Philistines, because it was a realization of the promise of God that He would deliver His people from the Philistines by Saul; and of the Amalekite war, because Saul’s disobedience and perversity were specially manifested in it. The principal aim of the author is to point to these and their melancholy consequences; to show the causes which led to the rejection of Saul and the election of David; and his choice of subjects is explained by the fact that this was the germ of Saul’s history, important for all times. The king chosen belonged to one of the smallest tribes of Israel, the tribe of Benjamin, to the smallest family in this tribe, to an obscure branch of this family, 1 Samuel 9:21. This happened that he might be the more humble, which was really the case in the beginning, as we learn from the passage just quoted; but the principal object was to show the nation that God’s choice was not due to any natural privileges; that He can give greatness to whom He will. Natural greatness might readily have obscured what was to be given by God. In this way each one was led to the true origin of Saul’s subsequent greatness. Before Saul’s election he occupied a very low standpoint, intellectually and spiritually. He scarcely knew anything of Samuel, the centre of all higher Israelitish life. His servant speaks to him of Samuel as of one who was unknown, 1 Samuel 9:6 : “Behold now, there is in this city a man of God, and he is an honourable man; all that he saith cometh surely to pass.” Nothing moves him to make acquaintance with the celebrated prophet but anxiety respecting his lost asses. If Samuel had acted merely in accordance with human judgment, it could never have occurred to him that such a man was destined to be king. But he is at once absolutely certain of his business, and immediately meets him with an announcement. In the conversation he had with him, 1 Samuel 9:25-26, he seeks to stir up a higher life in him; and before leaving he anoints him, i.e. he gives him, in the name of God, a symbolical assurance of the bestowment of the gifts of the Spirit, which were necessary to the fulfilment of the office for which he was destined. He then condescends to his weakness, and tells him the principal things that are to befall him in the time to come,—a circumstance from which we perceive the extent of this weakness, how completely Saul had to be drawn out of the rough, how much the divine must manifest itself outwardly, in order that he might be able to recognise it. But the anointing soon developed its power. In 1 Samuel 10:9 we read: “And when he had turned his back to go from Samuel, God gave him another heart.” This is no mere figure of speech. We see that there was a decisive change in Saul’s life,—that in the parable of the sower he belongs not to the first class, but to the third. On his way he passed through Gibeah, where there was a school of the prophets. A band of the disciples came to meet him, and, having been powerfully stirred up, he was now carried away by their enthusiasm: the Spirit of the Lord came upon him, and he prophesied. What a striking contrast there was between his present condition and his former one, appears from the astonished question of the people, “Is Saul also among the prophets? “They had thought no one less likely to be the subject of higher inspiration than he. But the best answer was given by one of the by-standers: “But who is their father”? thus intimating that the heavenly origin of prophetic inspiration removed what was striking and unintelligible in the contrast between the past and the present, which it certainly had when looked at from a human point of view. That which had previously happened had reference only to the relation of Saul to God. Even the anointing had no direct reference to the nation, as appears from the circumstance that it was clone in secret. Now, after everything has been settled with regard to the higher relation, means are taken to bring about the recognition of the chosen king by the nation. First of all the divine choice is verbally proclaimed in an assembly of the nation called by Samuel at Mizpeh. It is generally supposed that Saul was here chosen by lot. But the mode and manner of proceeding, and the expression in 1 Samuel 10:19-21, are not in favour of this view. The fact that all are obliged to appear before the Lord, that the choice is first made among the tribes, then among the families, etc., can properly only serve to heighten the solemnity of the act and to increase attention to it. And it is at variance with 1 Samuel 10:22, “They inquired of the Lord further,” which speaks of an appeal to God, which cannot have been made by lot, but must have been made either by the Urim and Thummim, or else through Samuel. If the choice had been made by lot, there would probably have been some allusion in 1 Samuel 10:22 to the difference in the modus of asking. Saul’s humility appeared on this occasion. He thought himself so little worthy of kinghood, that he hid himself, in order, if possible, to escape the calling made known to him. But this verbal declaration of God was not enough. There must also be an actual one. God’s election is not vain and feeble; if it be real, it must prove itself in the gifts and deeds of him who is chosen. The people felt this, even those among them who acknowledged the election with all their heart. Saul himself also felt it. He went quietly home, and continued his former occupation, ploughing with his oxen; comp. 1 Samuel 11:5. Both the people and Saul waited for the future actual ratification. Until then everything remained as it had been. Samuel was still at the head of affairs. In the assembly at Mizpeh he endeavoured to make the people conscious of the limits put to royalty by the Mosaic law, of the difference which must necessarily exist between kingship in the theocracy and among the heathen. In 1 Samuel 10:25 we read: “And Samuel told the people the manner of the kingdom, and wrote it in a book, and laid it up before the Lord.” The “manner of the kingdom” here spoken of is to be distinguished from that which is mentioned in 1 Samuel 8, where reference is made to those rights which, alas! are often assumed by kings at the prompting of corrupt human nature; while, on the other hand, we have here to do with those rights which are conceded to them in accordance with the will and word of God. There can be no doubt that Samuel borrowed this “manner of the kingdom” from Deuteronomy 17. The actual ratification of the choice of Saul soon followed. A threatened invasion of Nahash, king of the Ammonites, who probably wished to reassert the old claims already made by the descendants of Lot, in the book of Judges, to the country beyond the Jordan, had, according to 1 Samuel 12:12, first called forth the vehement demand of the nation for a king. In the meantime this invasion actually took place. Nahash attacked the town of Jabesh beyond the Jordan; whose inhabitants in their great need sent messengers to their cis-Jordanic brethren. These came first to Saul, and when he heard their words, “the Spirit of God came upon him.” The peasant was suddenly transformed into a valiant hero, who brings help to the oppressed in the power of the Lord, and causes the enemy to fly in wild disorder. Saul’s true kingly mind manifests itself after victory. The nation, inspired with enthusiasm for him, demands the death of those who had formerly despised and insulted him. But he replies, “There shall not a man be put to death this day; for to-day the Lord hath wrought salvation in Israel.” The Lord had now set His seal on the election of Saul, and Samuel called the nation to Gilgal, a place hallowed by remembrances from the time of Joshua, that they might recognise this seal. Saul was there solemnly inaugurated as king. The relations into which he now entered are not quite clear to us. Respecting the revenues of the kings we have only scattered statements; comp. Michaelis, Mos. R. part i. sec. 59. But we learn from 1 Samuel 17:25 that his position was from the beginning truly regal; that he was not dependent only on the presents brought by those who had any business with the king, comp. 1 Samuel 16:20, but received regular taxes from all Israel. It is here stated that whoever would kill Goliath would receive, among other things, the exemption of his family from all taxes and imposts. The appointment of the new king involved Samuel’s solemn renunciation of office, so far as it was connected with the sphere of politics. The acknowledgment which the nation made to Samuel on this occasion puts his recent opponents to shame. Samuel provokes this acknowledgment, in order to gain a foundation for the subsequent reproof. He endeavours to make the people conscious that they sinned in desiring a king. But the sin lay partially in the circumstance that they desired a king instead of Samuel, the judge appointed by God. Above all, it must be established that Samuel invariably proved his divine mission by his deeds. He had foundation enough for the endeavour to make the people conscious of their sin. The kingship they demanded was not an external representation of the kingship of God, but was in direct opposition to it. But the king saw himself in the same light in which he was regarded by the people. Samuel attained his object. The nation were deeply moved by his words, and by the sign which confirmed them,—a storm which he predicted, and which occurred at a time of year when storms were most uncommon in Palestine. And they said unto Samuel, “Pray for thy servants unto the Lord thy God, that we die not; for we have added unto all our sins this evil, to ask us a king.” Samuel, however, does not take advantage of this frame of mind to overthrow the kingship, as he must have done in accordance with the recent view of the relation of the kingship to the theocracy and of Samuel’s character. He not only formed a just estimate of the subjectively considered sinful character of the demand of the nation, but undoubtedly he knew also that the vox populi, objectively considered, was at the same time the vox dei. He exhorts the people henceforward to be faithful to the Lord, with their king; and the Lord would then glorify Himself in both. But we must draw attention to the fact that he only gave up part of his office at Gilgal. Formerly he had united in himself the kingly, priestly, and prophetic office; now he retains only the two latter. In 1 Samuel 12:23 he says: “Moreover, as for me, God forbid that I should sin against the Lord in ceasing to pray for you: but I will teach you the good and the right way.” If this be remembered, we shall find no difficulty in the fact that in 1 Samuel 7:15 it is stated, “And Samuel judged Israel all the days of his life.” Only we must guard against attributing too narrow and external a meaning to the judging. Every prophet was in a certain sense judge. Samuel judged even the king after he had already resigned his office of judge in a strict sense. 1 Samuel 13:1 begins the history of Saul’s reign with the statement of his age on ascending the throne, and the number of years he reigned. But this is of no use to us whatever, owing to its critical inaccuracy. In the statement of his age on ascending the throne, the number is completely wanting; and in the statement of the years that he reigned, it is false, for it is quite impossible that Saul could have reigned only two years. The first important event was a war with the Philistines. They had probably availed themselves of the favourable opportunity when the Ammonites had taken arms against Israel. It is certain that the beginning of hostilities belongs to a time previous to Saul’s reign; for in 1 Samuel 9:16 a king is promised by God who should save His people out of the hand of the Philistines. According to 1 Samuel 10:5, the Philistines had a garrison at Gibeah, in the midst of the land of Israel, already before Saul was king. We learn that the oppression was very grievous, and extended far over the land, from the circumstance that the people had to do without arms, because, according to 1 Samuel 13:19, the Philistines had taken away all the smiths. But this measure, and the general intensity of persecution, can only belong to the beginning of Saul’s reign, since we find no indication that the Israelites were wanting in weapons in the campaign against the Ammonites. 1 Samuel 7:13 is also at variance with the supposition that the Israelites were heavily oppressed by the Philistines during the administration of Samuel; for we read here that “the hand of the Lord was against the Philistines all the days of Samuel.” It seems as if Saul’s accession to the throne, in which the Philistines saw a threatening of danger, incited them to their utmost exertions to extinguish the fire in its very beginning; and at first they appeared to be successful. The author, whose object is only to give prominence to certain events which are important for his aim, suddenly transports us into the midst of these warlike relations between Israel and the Philistines, to a point where the Philistines, with their main forces, had retreated, leaving only a few garrisons in the country. As a precaution against these garrisons, which had perhaps been left in the country in consequence of some treaty, after the principal forces had been disbanded, Saul established a kind of standing army, consisting of 3000 men, which he always retained. A quarrel between this army of observation and the Philistines caused the fire of warfare to break forth again into a clear flame. It is vain to attempt to justify the statement contained in 1 Samuel 13:5, that the number of Philistine chariots amounted to 30,000. The nature of the thing, biblical analogies,—Pharaoh, for example, had only 600 chariots in pursuing the Israelites,—the disproportion of the number of riders, who were only 6000,—everything leads to the conclusion that the number is critically corrupt. Some suppose that they had 1000 chariots; the ל belonging to the preceding ישראל being twice written by mistake as the numeral of 30, having given rise to our reading. The most probable supposition is that they had 3000. The number of riders or charioteers agrees best with this. The chariots were generally occupied by two men. On the occasion of this war it first became manifest that Saul’s change of heart had been only superficial. Immediately after his anointing, Samuel had enjoined him, by the command of God, to resort to Gilgal, the holy place, in all difficult circumstances of the State. There the prophet would come to him, and, after the presentation of sacrifice, would show him what he should do. Seven days the king was to wait for him, 1 Samuel 10:8. This command was expressly designed to try Saul, to reveal the thoughts of his heart. He did not stand the trial. He certainly went to Gilgal, and waited there almost to the end of the allotted period; but when the seventh clay was nearly at an end, and urgent danger, in human estimation, permitted no further delay, he performed the sacrifice without Samuel. The sin did not consist in the circumstance of his offering up sacrifice without being a priest; it is even highly improbable that he did so,—the action is probably attributed to him only because it was done at his command. It lay rather in his disobedience to the divine command, which he himself recognised as such, for he never ventured to question the divine mission of Samuel, even at a time when it would have been his highest interest to do so. Unconditional subjection to the will of the God who had revealed Himself in Israel was the barrier which separated Israelitish kingship from the heathen, and it was necessary to place this distinction clearly before the eyes of the king and the nation at the very beginning, and to punish every violation of it. If mercy had been shown in this case, it would have been the worst possible precedent for all future time, and have put the thing in an utterly false light. If we look merely at the external appearance of the sin, it seems, like the sin of our first parents, to have been very great, yet scarcely so great as to justify the severe judgment of Samuel. But we must remember that Samuel, as a divinely illumined seer, could look into the heart of Saul. He saw not merely the detached fruit, but the tree which had borne it. That he was not deceived, that he did not invade the province of God’s judgment, but that God pronounced sentence through him, is shown by the subsequent history of Saul, in which his inner nature revealed itself more clearly: his unbroken heart; his arrogance, which would always be sui juris, and refused to submit to a higher authority, still manifested itself more and more plainly. Those who accuse Samuel of severity on the ground of this circumstance, proceed on the false assumption that he possessed no other means of judging of Saul’s act than are open to us. But this judgment, when compared with Saul’s further development, proves the contrary. Moreover, Samuel does not tell Saul that he is rejected by God as king, but only that the kingdom will not remain in his family. Personal rejection only follows afterwards, when the inner godlessness of Saul, which was covered with the semblance of outward piety, was more plainly revealed. For the present the former relation of Samuel to Saul still continued. The frivolous oath made by Saul after the overthrow of the Philistines, that whoever should taste any food or drink till the evening should be punished with death, damaged the cause which it was intended to promote; for the nation, deprived of all refreshment, soon tired in pursuit of the enemy; comp. 1 Samuel 14:28-30. Yet Saul appears in a far more disadvantageous light even than this oath, in his conduct when his son Jonathan is found to have unwittingly broken the command. Instead of acknowledging what the silence of the Urim and Thummim was intended to indicate, that he had sinned, and humbling himself before God on account of the frivolous use he had made of His name, he lays the blame on Jonathan, and thinks it necessary to kill him, though he had been the author of the victory; but is prevented from carrying out his design by the powerful interference of the people. His hypocritical self-deception, his blind arrogance, goes so far that he would rather lose his son than relinquish aught of his imaginary pre-eminence. But Ewald has no reason in the narrative in 1 Samuel 14 for making him guilty of having allowed another to die for Jonathan. No example of this kind of substitution ever occurs in Israel. In Deuteronomy 25:19, in the Mosaic law, a command was laid upon the Israelites that when the Lord had given them rest from all their enemies round about, they were to accomplish the curse pronounced on Amalek in Exodus 17. This condition was now fulfilled by Saul’s victories over the neighbouring nations, told in 1 Samuel 14:47 ff. He therefore receives, through Samuel, a revelation that the time is now come to accomplish the judgment of divine righteousness on the rejected and radically corrupt race of the Amalekites, whose former offence against Israel is not to be regarded as the sole cause of this judgment, but only as a symptom of their whole state; comp. 1 Samuel 15:18-33. Saul spared the king of the Amalekites (whose name we do not know—Agag is the nomum dignitatis of all Amalekite kings), not from motives of humanity,—otherwise why should he not have spared the children?—but to do honour to the kingly dignity, and thus to himself, and allowed the people to retain the best part of the booty, showing that in so far as he fulfilled the divine commission, he fulfilled it not as such, but only employed it as an occasion for satisfying his own inclination which happened to be in unison with it. If he had remembered to act as the servant of divine righteousness, he would have felt it his first duty to judge the king in whom the bad spirit of the nation culminated; whose sword robbed the women of their children. It was but just, therefore, that the curse should give rise to a new one, which fell upon the unrighteous instrument of its accomplishment. This simple representation of the matter shows the injustice of asserting that Samuel only made use of this opportunity to revenge himself on Saul, who still showed more and more inclination to withdraw from his dictatorial power. With heartfelt sorrow Samuel executed the divine commission. It is true that he was filled with holy wrath on account of Saul’s crime, of whose godlessness this act was only a symptom, but he cried to God all night through, hoping to obtain some mitigation of the divine decree; and when this hope proved vain, and he found himself obliged to announce the divine sentence of Saul’s rejection, he was moved with such deep sorrow, that he felt it impossible to see him any more; 1 Samuel 15:35, 1 Samuel 16:1. We see how completely the single deed was only a symptom of the whole corrupt state, from the behaviour of Saul when Samuel called him to account. How different is the conduct of David after his adultery with Bath-sheba and the numbering of the people! First false and hypocritical excuses: the fault is not his, but the people’s; what he withheld from the curse he intended as a sacrifice to God, so that it would have belonged to God in the end. Finally, when he sees that his excuses are of no avail, he coldly admits, “I have sinned.” We see how similar in character this confession was to that of Pharaoh, from the request immediately attached to it, that Samuel would honour him before the people. We learn from 1 Samuel 15:17 that the root of his sin was arrogance, for Samuel here contrasts his present with his former position, when he was small in his own eyes. The father’s arrogance afterwards descended to his daughter Michal. External service of God served him as a means of making terms with the Lord. This is evident from 1 Samuel 15:22-23, where Samuel says to him: “Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams,” etc. Saul himself acknowledges the justice of the standard by which he is judged. It never occurs to him to denounce the principle which destroyed him, as false. In that which led to his overthrow, he acted against his own conviction. He never doubted the reality of the Lord’s supremacy in Israel, that unconditional obedience was due to His commands, or that Samuel was His servant. Those who have recently attempted to justify him at any cost have not considered this. Even from their standpoint he must be condemned. We may regard the theocracy as a delusion, but he shared this delusion. The semblance of injustice to Saul is only attributable to this circumstance, that Samuel’s energetic measures against the first manifestations of his evil disposition kept it within certain limits, and hindered it from fully revealing itself. If he could have done as he wished, there would soon have been an end to the supremacy of God in Israel. Rude despotism would have usurped its place. Saul tried to lay a foundation for this despotism by the formation of a standing army. He placed men of his own tribe in the places of command, and sought to bind them to his interest by considerable dotations; comp. his own words in 1 Samuel 22:7. Samuel’s antagonistic working kept Saul in fear of the principle which he did not love, and thus made the powerful realization of his wishes and tendencies impossible. Since he would not give up his inclinations, he fell into a state of unhappy dualism, which at last brought him to the verge of madness. He was prevented from consistently following out his desires not only by his own indecision, by conscience which was kept alive by Samuel, but also by fear of the nation, whose attention was drawn to his evil designs by the appearance of Samuel, and from the better part of whom he had to expect decided opposition if matters came to the worst. By the determination to reject Saul, we are not to understand that he ceased from that time to be the legal king of Israel. Samuel himself continues to recognise him as such, regarding the anointing of David as possessing only prophetic significance; so also David, whose whole behaviour towards him is guided by the conviction that he is the anointed of the Lord. His rejection involves only this: (1.) That God would henceforward leave him, and withdraw from him the gifts of His Spirit, His counsel through the Urim and Thummim and by His servant Samuel; and (2.) That in a short time the real deposition would be followed by tangible consequences,—the kingly ruins would be destroyed, and the kingdom would not pass to his descendants. Venema gives this interpretation of the divine decree briefly and well in the Hist. Eccl. i. p. 407: “Mansit quidem rex legitimus, sed spretus et brevi exscindendus, qui a deo desertus et furiis agitatus subinde nihil praeclari amplius gessit, sed continuis se commaculavit facinoribus et reatum suum auxit.” Those who would make Samuel instead of Saul a revolutionist, changing the parts, are unable to explain this patient waiting for the time when God Himself would execute His decree. The ἐκλογή followed the prophet. They looked forward with longing to the time when God would fulfil His determination. But no man ventured to do anything to hasten the overthrow of Saul. It is remarkable that he did not venture to do anything against Samuel, even at a time when he hesitated at no other deed of violence. In quiet retirement Samuel still worked for the kingdom of God. So powerful was the impression which his personal eminence exercised even over a hardened mind. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 34: 34. § 2. FROM THE REJECTION OF SAUL TO HIS DEATH; OR, SAUL AND DAVID ======================================================================== § 2. From the Rejection of Saul to His Death; or, Saul and David This section falls into two subdivisions: the first, David at the court of Saul; the second, David flying before Saul. 1. The rejection of Saul was immediately followed by the anointing of David. The fact that in the ruddy shepherd boy, who was personally unknown to him, Samuel recognised the man after God’s own heart, the future greatest one among Israel’s kings, shows that he was not left to his own judgment; and this choice not only throws light on the previous election, but also on the rejection. A separate little book makes us acquainted with the family of David. His ancestors were Boaz and Ruth the Moabitess, God-fearing people, whose beautiful history must undoubtedly have occupied David in his earliest youth. His father Jesse lived in that happy condition which the Psalmist asks in the words, “Give me neither poverty nor riches.” The act of anointing was to be kept secret, in order not to provoke the wrath of the king against Samuel and David. Samuel therefore concealed the main object of his going to Bethlehem under a subordinate one,—a circumstance which has been represented as a crime, without any foundation whatever, since the duty of telling the truth by no means includes telling the whole truth. What Samuel says to the elders of Bethlehem in 1 Samuel 16:4-5, respecting the object of his coming, gives us some insight into his activity. From it we learn that he often appeared unexpectedly in a place, to reprove unrighteousness and sin. The elders of Bethlehem tremble before him, and ask, “Comest thou peaceably?” We learn also that he held meetings for the worship of God, not only at the sacred places mentioned in 1 Samuel 7:16, but also here and there in the cities from time to time. At all events there were no witnesses of the anointing except the family of Jesse; and it is not even certain that they were present, since the words “he anointed him in the midst of his brethren,” 1 Samuel 16:3, may mean that he chose him from the number of his brethren. For the object of the anointing it was not necessary that it should be public, since its result with respect to office could only be a thing of the future; the present result was limited to the bestowment of the gifts, the kingly χαρίσματα. Not until the anointing had proved itself in existence, was it to be gradually proclaimed. It is self-evident that the words, “The Spirit of the Lord came upon David from that day forward,” cannot refer to the kingly χαρίσματα in contrast to the general gifts of the Spirit. The latter must rather be regarded as forming the foundation of the particular. The close connection of the two appears from the words which immediately follow: “But the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him,” which cannot possibly have reference merely to the χαρίσματα. In recent times the rational interpretation of the latter words has been supposed to be that Saul was afflicted with sombre melancholy. The author certainly states this to have been the case, but he says more too,—he points us to the efficient cause of the mysterious condition. It was produced by God; and if we compare the more developed doctrine of the New Testament in this respect, we are led to the conclusion that it was probably a kind of possession, at least at times, and in its highest stage. 1 Samuel 18:10 seems especially to point to this view, “And Saul prophesied in the midst of the house,” where ecstatic states were attributed to him, analogous to the prophetic, except that they lay at the opposite end. As a punishment for having given himself willingly into the power of the kingdom of darkness, he was also abandoned physically to this power. It is specially analogous when we are told of Mary Magdalene that before her conversion she had seven devils. Then, again, what the Lord says of the man out of whom the unclean spirit first went, but, because he did not watch over himself, goes and takes with him seven other spirits who are still worse than himself, Matthew 12:43 ff. Those who think that the cause of Saul’s dejection lay in the consciousness of his (intellectual) incapacity for government, apart from all else, make him into a completely unhistorical character. If he had been truly changed, he would certainly have made an excellent king. By a special leading of divine providence, the representative of the good and the representative of the evil principle were soon brought together. It was necessary that David for his education should soon be brought into the circle of those relations in which he was destined to exercise great activity, if further opportunity should offer for distinguishing himself, for displaying the gifts lent to him by God, that the attention of the people might be directed to him; and, what was the main thing, that the good spirit and the evil one should be separated from one another. David was sent to Saul in the school of sorrow and temptation; and not until he had been well trained in this school was he elevated to the dignity which had been previously promised him by God. It served as part of Saul’s punishment that David was brought into proximity with him. It helped to ripen the corruption which was inherent in him, and gave it an opportunity of manifesting itself. The position of David at the court of Saul was at first very insignificant; for which reason he was not yet an object of suspicion and jealousy. It is true that in 1 Samuel 16:21 it is stated that David was Saul’s armour-bearer; but this does not imply much, since the king had no doubt a considerable number of such armour-bearers or shield-bearers. Joab, a mere general, had ten of them. The proofs that David was held in little estimation are, (1) that before the victory over Goliath he did not remain permanently at the court of Saul, but returned to his father from time to time and tended his flocks, 1 Samuel 17:15, comp. with 1 Samuel 18:2; and (2) that when David presented himself to Saul as a champion against Goliath, the latter did not even know his father and his family, although he was probably acquainted with David himself,—so completely was he lost in the multitude. David’s contest with Goliath will only be apprehended in its true light if the latter be regarded as the representative of the world, and David the representative of the church of God. The strength of God triumphed in him over natural strength, the Spirit over the flesh. By this event David’s position was essentially altered. The author first records its immediate happy result in 1 Samuel 18:1-5. It gave rise to the temporary love of Jonathan for David. This friendship is even quoted as a pattern in the New Testament: it rests on the foundation of true religion, and has therefore no parallel in the heathen world. The reason of Jonathan’s devotion to David is that he sees in him a living source of faith and love to God, and feels himself elevated by communion with him, placed in an element which he could not reach independently. David was then promoted by Saul to high military dignity, and thus had an opportunity of attracting the attention of the people by his successful undertakings. In 1 Samuel 18:6 ff. we have a far fuller account of the consequences, so sad when looked at from a human point of view, which not merely succeeded to the former, but ran parallel with them. They began already, immediately after the events. It seems that it was the custom in Israel for choruses of women to receive the returning victors. These magnified David above Saul. From that hour Saul regarded him as his enemy: and on the following day, in a paroxysm of his sickness, which was probably called forth by powerful emotion, he made an attempt to kill him. The key to the whole position which Saul henceforward occupied with respect to David lies in the words, “And Saul was afraid of David, because the Lord was with him, and was departed from Saul,” 1 Samuel 18:12. Saul felt himself inwardly forsaken by God, and in this inner abandonment recognised the premonition of his soon-impending outward overthrow. It was this which gave the real sting to the words of Samuel. He looked anxiously and suspiciously about him to see whether he could not find some germinating greatness; and from David’s first deed of valour his glance was riveted on him. He guessed that he was the man after God’s own heart of whom Samuel had spoken. It frequently forced itself upon him that it would be in vain for him to try to stop his way to the dignity for which God had destined him; on several occasions he found himself constrained to confess this; but indwelling sin constantly impelled him to new strivings against God in David, to try whether by killing David he could not bring the counsels of God to nought. But the secret consciousness of the godlessness and foolishness of his attempt never forsook him. It invalidated all his measures against David; it made his strong and practised arm unsteady when he aimed at him; owing to it he sought to strengthen his wavering irresolution by consulting others, and revealed his intention to his servants and Jonathan, although he knew the tender love of Jonathan to David, and thus gave him an opportunity to warn his friend; comp., for example, 1 Samuel 19:1. This uneasiness of conscience, this inward uncertainty and vacillation of his mortal enemy, was one of the most effective means which God employed for the salvation of David. After the first attempt at murder, Saul tried to put David out of the way in a less offensive manner, employing him in dangerous warlike expeditions. Even his daughter Michal was obliged to serve as a means to his end, for he offered her to David as a prize. When all this was of no avail, but rather served to bring David nearer his destiny, Saul returned to his direct attempts at murder. At last David was obliged to seek safety in flight, which was accomplished by the cunning of his wife Michal. David repaired first of all to Samuel to Ramah, to seek comfort and counsel from him, and Samuel took him with him to the dwelling of the prophetic disciples, which was situated in the neighbourhood of the town, as a sacred asylum. Saul sent messengers there to look for him; but these messengers were vanquished by the power of God-given inspiration in the band of prophetic disciples, so that they also were obliged to prophesy against their will, without, however, being prophets. Saul then sets out himself, and the same thing befalls him. The attempt to do away with the proofs afforded by this event for the ecstatic character of the prophetic state, for the power of inspiration, is vain. Saul rends off his clothes, lies naked upon the earth, and prophesies the whole day and night; and we learn that his condition differed from that of the sons of the prophets only in degree, from 1 Samuel 19:24, “And he stripped off his clothes also, and prophesied.” The difference in degree may certainly have been of importance. The fact that inspiration under the Old Testament generally bore a character of violence, had its foundation in the circumstance that the divine principle was not yet sufficiently powerful to penetrate the human completely, and had therefore to be satisfied by overpowering it momentarily. The greatness of the struggle which then arose was in proportion to the degree of estrangement from God. The more violent the symptoms, the lower the state. When a Samuel was concerned, there was no outward manifestation whatever; but when a Saul was in the case, who had to prophesy in the grossest sense against his will, in whom, however, there could not fail to be an inward point of contact, a divine germ, it was accompanied by the most striking phenomena. David knew, doubtless, that Saul’s temporary possession by the Spirit of God could not guarantee him any permanent security, but only an opportunity for flight, because it was a forced state. Of this opportunity he availed himself. But before he formed the resolution of separating himself permanently from Saul, he sought to know his mind, through the intervention of Jonathan, in the way narrated in 1 Samuel 20, to ascertain whether his murderous intent was a momentary ebullition, or whether he had formed a definite plan for his destruction. Having ascertained that the latter was the case, he began his wanderings. 2. David in flight. David first turned towards Nob, then the seat of the holy tabernacle. In the beginning of the new epoch of his life it was his desire to make inquiry of God through the Urim and Thummim. We learn that this was the main object of his visit, and that he succeeded in accomplishing it, from 1 Samuel 22:10-13, although it does not appear from the narrative itself. Probably with the intention of not exposing the high priest Ahimelech to the persecution of Saul, he told him nothing of what had occurred. After having satisfied his first demand, the high priest, at his request, gave him some of the holy bread, since there was no other to be had: it had been taken from the table of the Lord, and was replaced by new. This holy bread, the symbol of the spiritual nourishment which it was the duty of Israel to present to their God and King, of good works, was not to be eaten except by Aaron and his sons in the holy place, Leviticus 24:9. Yet that is only to be regarded as the rule which, like all ceremonial laws, was open to exception in certain circumstances, since it was only a veil of the truth, not the truth itself. The saying “necessity knows no law” might be applied to every ceremonial law, but had no application to the moral. It was a duty, for example, to make oneself levitically unclean in a number of cases. The high priest then, at his request, provided David with a weapon, the only thing of the kind that was to be had in this peaceful place, the sword of Goliath,—everything on the presupposition that David was the servant of Saul, whom he held in high estimation. He then repaired to Gath, to the king of the Philistines. He had hoped to find a good reception there, owing to his separation from Saul; but this hope proved deceitful. The Philistines feared a stratagem; David was in great danger of his life, and only succeeded in escaping by feigning himself mad,—a means so uncertain in itself, that, as David himself acknowledged, comp. Psalms 34 and Psalms 56, the glory of his deliverance belonged to God alone, who blessed this weak means, which was perhaps not quite morally pure. Saul now vented all his wrath on the high priest, of whose conduct he was secretly informed by the meanness of Doeg, a proselyte of the Edomite race. In 1 Samuel 21:7 this Doeg is called the “chiefest of the herdmen,” though not the most distinguished among them, as we learn from 1 Samuel 22:7, according to which he was invested with military dignity, but was probably a commander of the troops appointed to protect the royal herds,—the “chiefest (champion and patron) of the herdmen.” According to 1 Samuel 22:9, he was the principal one among the servants of Saul. In consequence of a vow, or a temporarily-undertaken Nazirate, he was in the sanctuary at the time when David came there. He concealed his heathen heart under Israelitish forms. Saul, too, was very scrupulous in such things. The high priest represented his innocence in the most convincing manner; but Saul would not desist from his evil determination, because he felt that all true servants of the Lord were the natural friends of David, and because he hated the religious principle, whose reality he could not deny, and sought to damage it in its servants and instruments, and to revenge himself on it. But this occurrence shows in a remarkable way how much he was bound by the religious principle, notwithstanding his aversion to it. Saul slays eighty-five priests in Nob, besides everything in the city that had breath,—women, children, and even cattle. There can be no doubt that this course of action has reference to the law respecting the curse which was to fall upon an Israelitish city which should serve other gods, Deuteronomy 13:13 ff. Saul puts the alleged crimen loesoe majestatis on a level with idolatry; he extends what has been said by God even to His visible representatives, not without reason, comp. Exodus 22:28, according to which cursing the prince is equivalent to cursing God, who has impressed His image on the king, if (1) the crime were really established, and (2) if Saul had laid claim to his position on the ground of having fulfilled his duties. But since, like a hypocrite, he made the word of God an excuse for his deeds of horror, and at the same time recognised the theocracy when it answered his purposes, he gave it full scope wherein it appeared to him destructive. For David the incident must have been a painful one, because by his conduct he had aroused Saul’s suspicion of the high priest, though without any evil intention. But it had one happy result for him. A son of Ahimelech, Abiathar, escaped with the ephod and came to him; from which time he was his companion in wanderings, a new sign of Saul’s rejection and his own election. The two recognised means of inquiring of the Lord, through the prophets, and through the Urim and Thummim, were now taken from Saul by his own fault. David was henceforward accompanied, not only by a representative of the priesthood, but also by a prophet, Gad, and stood in close connection with the head of the prophets, Samuel. The event is also of importance, in so far as it shows us how numerous and important the priests were at that time. In a single town we find eighty-five priests, and they are held in such high estimation, that not one of all Saul’s Israelitish servants ventures at his command to lay a hand on them. Only Doeg, who still retained an Edomitish heart notwithstanding his outward turning to God, had courage to do it. It was doubtless in consequence of this event, whose memory is perpetuated by David in Psalms 52, that the holy tabernacle was transferred from Nob to Gideon, where we afterwards find it. It could not remain in Nob; for, according to Deuteronomy 1, a cursed city was to be made an eternal heap of ruins. After having happily escaped danger from the Philistines, David repaired to the cave of Adullam, in the tribe of Judah. There he sang the 57th Psalm, whose motto, “Destroy not,” represents his mental attitude throughout this whole period. There he was joined not only by his family, whose life Saul had endangered, but “every one that was in distress, and every one that was in debt, and every one that was discontented,” gathered themselves unto him as to their leader, 1 Samuel 22:2. But we learn better what kind of people they were from the psalm which David composed at the time than from this often misunderstood description. See Psalms 57, where they are represented as the צדיקים, the ענוים, the יראייהוה, the ישרילב. In Saul’s later days justice and righteousness were very little regarded. In 1 Samuel 22:7 he boasts that he has given fields and vineyards to all his Benjamite servants and accomplices; and what he gave to them he must have taken away from others. The creatures of the king were at liberty to do whatever they pleased; he was the centre about which all that was evil assembled, the soul of the עדתמרעים. Those who had lost their possessions and property through these, assembled round David as the bearer of the good principle. Among others, Gad the prophet belonged to them; comp. 1 Samuel 22:5. There was also a number of brave warriors among them, who soon formed an army of heroes under the guidance of David. He had no intention of leading them to battle against Saul. He organized them into a kind of free band, which he led against the predatory neighbours of Israel whenever an opportunity occurred. In this way he worked into the hands of the king himself, and formed the germ of an army for his own kingdom, with which he afterwards raised Israel to an importance scarcely before anticipated. With this band David went from place to place, partly from regard to his own safety, and partly to assist others who were in danger. First he took them to a place called Mizpeh Moab, a fortified town on the borders of the Moabites; but, at the direction of the prophet Gad, soon returned to the land of Judah. With his band he saved Keilah, a town which was besieged by an army of the Philistines. Saul was told that David was come to Keilah; and what he says on this occasion is characteristic of him: “God hath delivered him into my hand; for he is shut in, by entering into a town that hath gates and bars,” 1 Samuel 23:7. In every circumstance that seems to favour his criminal intent, like a hypocrite, he sees a sign from God, an actual assurance of divine aid. David flies to the wilderness of Ziph, and, being betrayed by the Ziphites, is in great danger of his life. He is saved, however, by the circumstance that Saul is obliged to make a hasty retreat on hearing of an invasion by the Philistines. Psalms 54 is devoted to the memory of this event. In the wilderness of En-gedi, whither David now resorted, and where Saul went to look for him with his 3000 men, the standing army which he had formed immediately on his accession to the throne, David was led into great temptation. Unsought, an opportunity was given him of slaying his mortal enemy. To many of his companions the opportunity even seemed to contain a divine command to this effect. There were many specious arguments to justify such an act: David chosen by God; Saul rejected; the murderer of so many servants of the Lord, the oppressor of the just, David’s persecutor, thirsting for his blood;—arguments so plausible, that many scholars—for example, Clericus—have maintained that David would have been justified in killing Saul. David himself does not seem to have been quite free from the temptation to do it. The words, “And it came to pass afterward, that David’s heart smote him (i.e. his conscience pricked him) because he had cut off Saul’s skirt,” 1 Samuel 24:5, are only intelligible on the supposition that on cutting off Saul’s skirt David’s thoughts were not directed only to the use which he afterwards made of it, at least in the beginning, but that his object was rather to prove the goodness of his thoughts at the first weak beginning he made to carry them into effect. But his better self soon awoke; all impure thoughts fled; his eye became clear; with horror he put the temptation from him. He himself gives the cause of this dread in 1 Samuel 24:6 : “Seeing he is the anointed of the Lord.” Saul had indeed no longer the gifts, but he had still the privileges of a king; God had reserved to Himself the right to deprive him of the latter. Well knowing that Saul’s momentary better impulses gave him no security, David repaired with his men to the wilderness of Paran after the death of Samuel, which occurred about this time. This wilderness is not, as Thenius supposes, on the borders of Egypt, but is the south-eastern part of Arabia Petraea; and here David was almost close to the southern boundary of Judah. In the incident which occurred with Nabal, who had his flocks on Mount Carmel,—not the well-known mountain, but one on the southern borders of Judah,—David sinned grievously, for he took an oath to revenge the injury done to him by Nabal (very characteristically called כלבו, “cor suum sequens, sui arbitrii homo,” in 1 Samuel 24:3) on his whole house. It needed, however, but a small excitement of his better self from without, and he repented, recognising the greatness of his danger, and thanking and praising God for having kept him from self-revenge and murder. On this occasion, therefore, we learn both his weakness and his strength, his old man and his new. We see how much he needed purification, but at the same time also that he was susceptible of it—that together with the dross there was noble metal. Events such as these give us the key to the heavy sorrows with which God afflicted David, showing us how necessary they were, and form the theodicy with respect to them. A second treason of the Ziphites, and a persecution by Saul to which it gave rise, gave David further opportunity to prove his magnanimity towards his enemy, and the vitality of his piety, on which alone it rested. In David’s address to Saul, who was deeply moved at the time, these words are specially remarkable: “If the Lord have stirred thee up against me, let Him accept an offering (i.e. let him seek to propitiate His wrath by sacrifice, not as opus operatum, but as an expression of a corresponding state of mind, and therefore by true repentance: offerings represent good works, and their presentation μετάνοια; comp. Beiträge iii. p. 649 ff.); but if they be the children of men, cursed be they before the Lord, for they have driven me out this day (David was just about to leave the land) from abiding in the inheritance of the Lord, saying, Go, serve other gods.” Both suppositions were true: God had stirred up Saul, and men had done it,—the latter as His instruments, which did not, however, by any means justify them. It was part of Saul’s punishment that he was constrained to persecute David, and in so doing he suffered more than David,—consuming hatred, fear, the perpetual consciousness of the fruitlessness of all his measures,—all this was perfect torture to him. Doubtless he would willingly have been freed from it, but there was only one way in which he could obtain this freedom, viz. by true repentance; and this way he refused to take. Because he would not desist from sin in general, he could not become free from this special form of sin. This was his fate. David’s piety is seen in the fact that he characterizes it as the greatest sorrow inflicted on him by his enemies that they obliged him to leave the land of the Lord and go out into the heathen world, depriving him of the blessing of religious communion, of which he felt all the importance. On this occasion Saul is again obliged to bear witness against himself: “Blessed be thou, my son David: thou shalt both do great things, and also shalt still prevail.” David does not distrust his momentary sincerity, but he knows too well that Saul was not his own master not to perceive that it would have been tempting God to have trusted himself to him on the basis of a transient emotion. He knew that this very emotion must serve to prepare the way for a stronger outbreak of Saul’s hatred; and hence, despairing of escaping the persecution of Saul any longer in the land of Israel, he repairs immediately after this event to the land of the Philistines, probably after having first assured himself that now, when the relation between Saul and David had become universally known, their king Achish was differently disposed towards him from what he had formerly been. Older theologians have attached great blame to David for leaving the land of Israel. He had received the command of God through the prophet Gad to remain in Judah. He showed want of faith in not believing that God could save him in his fatherland. These arguments are not decisive. For this command of God had reference only to a certain time; and it is scarcely appropriate to speak of want of faith, since David had not yet received a definite promise that God would protect him in the land of Israel. Hence he might have believed that he was tempting God by remaining there. Indeed, we see from the following history that he was exposed to great temptation in the land of the Philistines, to which he partially succumbed, and may therefore doubt whether he would not have done better by remaining in his fatherland, when the external dangers were greater, but the internal less. We cannot blame him, because, when the king of the Philistines had appointed him the deserted little town Ziklag as a residence for himself and his band, he made expeditions from it against Canaanitish races and the Amalekites. Neither are we justified in at once accusing him of cruelty for his conduct towards the conquered. This accusation would have had some foundation if he had been actuated merely by the prudential motives given in 1 Samuel 27:11. But this was certainly not the case. The principal reason is rather to be sought in the Mosaic law, which declares these races to be under the curse. But it is impossible to justify the equivocation by which David tried to make the king of the Philistines believe that he was in the habit of making inroads with his band on the territory of his own people, in order by this means to gain his confidence more and more, and thus to establish a secure footing in his country; whereas it is noticeable that those peoples upon whom David really made war were not friends, but enemies of the king, as nearly all those were who had anything to lose. This is evident at least with respect to the Amalekites, 1 Samuel 30:16. Such dishonesty attained its object; but by the very fact that it did so, it brought punishment with it. The confidence of the king of the Philistines was so great, that he proposed to David to accompany him with his people in a new campaign which he was about to undertake against Israel. This proposition must have placed him in a position of the greatest embarrassment. He could not take arms against his own people without incurring grievous sin; and a refusal, which he had made impossible by his former assertion, would have been ruinous to him and his people. In this embarrassment he formed a rash determination. He declared himself ready to go with the king, while in his heart he thought, Time will bring help; hoping that if he escaped the momentary danger, God would save him from that which lay farther away. And this actually came to pass in a way which must have filled his heart with the most profound gratitude. The Philistine princes, over whom the king only exercised a kind of supremacy, did not share his confidence in David, and obliged him to dismiss him with his men. Thus he was at liberty to return to Ziklag. New trouble awaited him there, but because he “encouraged himself in the Lord his God,” 1 Samuel 30:6, this trouble also was soon turned into joy. The Amalekites, taking advantage of his absence, had fallen upon Ziklag, and had carried away wife and child and property. But, under the visible assistance of God, whom he interrogated by the Urim and Thummim—Abiathar the high priest, with the ephod, was still with him, comp. 1 Samuel 30:7—he overtook the enemy, contrary to all human expectation, defeated them, and took all their booty from them, besides a great deal of other property, of which, with the wisdom which characterized him, he gave a part in presents to the elders of the neighbouring cities of Judah, always keeping his glance fixed on the goal pointed out to him by the Lord. In the great embarrassment into which David was brought by the Amalekites many have seen, not without apparent foundation, a punishment for his precipitate determination to join the Philistines, and his consenting to fight against his own people. But because he erred only from weakness in an urgent and perilous situation, in which it is so exceedingly difficult always to do right, the revelation of divine justice must at the same time give occasion for the revelation of divine love. In the time between David’s dismissal from the army of the Philistines and his victory over the Amalekites, the accomplishment of the divine decree of rejection fell upon Saul, as described in 1 Samuel 28. The king’s heart is filled with fear of the Philistines. It was not want of physical courage,—he was a valiant hero,—it was the consciousness that God had rejected him, which gave rise to this fear. He felt that his hour was come. In despair he turned to God, and sought comfort and counsel from Him; but all the sources of divine revelation were closed to him. The high priest, with the Urim and Thummim, had been obliged to fly before him from the land of the Lord. God spoke to him through none of His prophets; and even for internal promptings he waited in vain. These were only given to those whose hearts were sincerely attached to the Lord; and he was not willing to surrender his heart to the Lord even yet,—he would rather die in despair. What was denied him in a legitimate way by his own fault, he seeks in despair to obtain in an illegal way. In Deuteronomy 18 the prohibition of all wizards and necromancers was based upon the fact that God would give His people counsel and comfort in difficult cases by legitimate means, viz. by the prophets. From this event we see clearly how necessary it was that this command should be founded upon the promise. In a better time, when Saul had still free access to God in a lawful way, he himself had purged the land from all wizards and necromancers, in fulfilment of the determinations of the law, and had forbidden all practices of this kind under penalty of death, the punishment established by law, Leviticus 20:6; comp. 1 Samuel 28:9, from which it appears that “he had cut off” is not to be limited to mere banishment. Now when the right means were taken from him, he himself sought these miserable substitutes. Respecting the incident between him and the woman of Endor three leading views have to be considered:—(1.) Many suppose that Samuel did really appear to Saul. So, for example, Jesus Sirach, who represents the appearance of Samuel as his last act, chap. 46:23, and whose opinion is certainly not to be regarded as an individual, but a national one; Justin, dial. c. Tryph. p. 333; Origen on 1 Kings (Sam.), 28; Ambrose, Augustine, and others. (2.) Others maintain that the whole thing was a deception on the part of the woman; so Anton v. Dale, Balth. Bekker, Thomasius,—plainly suspicious names, notorious persons; comp. the proofs in Deyling, Observ. ii. p. 196. (3.) Finally, some maintain that an evil spirit assumed the form of Samuel. This latter view was the prevailing one among the Lutheran theologians. It is defended by Buddeus, p. 311 ff., Deyling, and Pfeiffer, Dub. vex. p. 379, who adduces the advocates of it in great numbers. Of these views the first is in harmony with the narrative. For, (1.) The author says, in 1 Samuel 28:14, that Saul “ perceived,” not fancied, that it was Samuel; and in 1 Samuel 28:15 he says, “And Samuel said to Saul;” while the paraphrase of the defenders of the other views, “Dixit personatus ille Samuel,” only shows how the author would have spoken if he had been of their opinion. (2.) The words which are put into the mouth of the apparition are fully worthy of a Samuel, and are quite unsuitable for an evil spirit. (3.) The appearing one foretells things which no human acuteness could have foreseen,—the defeat of Israel, which was to take place on the following day,, and the death of Saul and his sons,—a circumstance which tells strongly against the second opinion. The arguments which have been brought forward against the only view which has any foundation in the text may easily be set aside. (1.) This view, it is said, is at variance with God’s goodness and providence, which could not suffer the rest of one who had fallen asleep in Him to be disturbed by evil spirits in the service of godless men. But we have only to suppose that the power of these spirits is limited to those who have died in their sins, a part of whose punishment it is that they should be subject to such power, but that in this case God effected what the adjuration in itself would not have been in a position to do. (2.) Samuel’s appearance would have been a hazardous confirmation of necromancy. But in all Holy Scripture the warning against such things is never based on the fact that they have no reality, but rather that they are an abomination to God. The statement that Saul himself in his better days had cut off all sorcerers from the land, is a sufficiently plain condemnation of the king’s act on the part of the author. It is impossible for this event to inspire any one with an inclination for necromancy. Saul was punished by the appearance of Samuel. His violation of God’s law had truly awful consequences. (3.) The pretended Samuel says to Saul, “To-morrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me.” This was a lie, since Saul belonged to hell, Samuel to heaven. But under the Old Testament one and the same Scheol received both the pious and the godless, though to different destinies. It would only be possible to oppose the view that Samuel was also in Scheol, by fully identifying Scheol with hell. The account of Saul’s death in 1 Samuel 31 must be supplemented by 2 Samuel 1. To escape falling into the power of the Philistines, Saul falls upon his sword, 1 Samuel 31:4; and when he fell down for dead, his armour-bearer did the same thing, 1 Samuel 31:5. But Saul’s wound was not immediately fatal, because the armour paralyzed the force of the thrust. He came to himself again, and begged an Amalekite who was passing to put an end to his life, which he did, 2 Samuel 1:9-10,—a remarkable dispensation. As the curse on Amalek was accomplished by Saul, so that on Saul was accomplished by Amalek. It has been frequently maintained that the Amalekite, who had been received among Israel, only lied in stating that he had had part in Saul’s death, in hope of reward. But this view is certainly false. If such had been the case, the author would at least have given some indication of it. The diadem of Saul, which the Amalekite brings to David, puts the seal of credibility to his declaration. The king’s corpse, which was insulted by the Philistines, was stolen by the inhabitants of Jabesh in Gilead at night, with danger to themselves, for they remembered with noble gratitude the assistance which he had formerly given them against the Ammonites. At variance with the usual Israelitish custom, they burnt him, probably lest the Philistines, hearing what had happened, should make it a point of honour to recover the corpse, and that at great risk to themselves. Thus they prevented all further insult to the corpse. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 35: 35. § 3. DAVID AND ISH-BOSHETH ======================================================================== § 3. David and Ish-Bosheth David’s behaviour after Saul’s death; the lively sorrow to which he gave expression; the punishment which he inflicts on the Amalekite who had laid presumptuous hands on the anointed of the Lord—for although it was done at Saul’s own desire, yet this desire itself was presumption; and the message which he sends to the inhabitants of Jabesh,—have been frequently attributed to political reasons. David’s conduct is indeed such as to win all hearts; but this is only to be regarded as the blessing which invariably attends a noble course of action. To act nobly is always the best policy. The uprightness of his heart and the sincerity of his feelings cannot for a moment be doubted by those who read his lament over Saul and Jonathan with an unprejudiced mind. Pretended sorrow could never speak thus. David left the land of the Philistines, and repaired to Hebron, where he was at once recognised as king by his own tribe, the tribe of Judah. The same circumstance which made it easy for this tribe to recognise the divine choice, made it difficult to the other tribes, who were by no means ignorant of it, as appears from the confessions of Jonathan and Saul, of Abner, comp. 2 Samuel 3:9, and even of the elders of the tribes, 2 Samuel 5:2. The jealousy which had already existed for a long time between these tribes and Judah, and which at last led to the separation of the kingdom, made it somewhat difficult for them to come to the determination to submit to a Judaic king. Yet the divine influence which drove them to David would probably have triumphed over the human feeling which kept them at a distance from him, had not a man of imposing personality, Abner, made himself the representative of the interests of Saul’s weak son, Ish-bosheth, and given a handle to the evil disposition of the ten tribes. Thus David reigned in Hebron over Judah; Ish-bosheth at Mahanaim over the remaining tribes. It makes a difficulty that the length of Ish-bosheth’s reign seems to be limited to two years in 2 Samuel 2:10. For, (1) according to 2 Samuel 3:1, a tedious war was carried on between Judah and Israel; and (2) according to 2 Samuel 2:11, and 2 Samuel 5:5, David reigned seven years and six months at Hebron over Judah alone. But Ish-bosheth’s reign lasted as long as David was king merely over Judah. If David reigned seven years over Judah, Ish-bosheth must also have reigned seven years over Israel. We must therefore, with Thenius, regard 2 Samuel 2:11 as an interpolation, and connect the words, “and reigned two years,” immediately with 2 Samuel 2:12, equivalent to “he had reigned two years when Abner went.” Ewald has here committed himself to views which are quite untenable. In David’s conduct towards Ish-bosheth his fear of God shows itself in a very beautiful way. God called him to be king over all Israel; he had the courage and power to make good his claims; but nevertheless he waited in perfect quietness. During the whole seven years there was only one small fight, and this occurred in the absence of David, and was provoked by Abner. What God had destined for him, David would not have until God gave it to him. “Hitherto God had led and guided him; God had caused the throne to be vacant, and had made him what he was; God would provide for him in the future also. He would have everything from God.” His confidence in God did not disappoint him. The sole support of Ish-bosheth’s kingdom, viz. Abner, was offended by the weak king; and now, when it suited his inclination, he acknowledged the divine right of David, and made every exertion to vindicate it in Israel. It seems that Ish-bosheth himself, after Abner had openly and resolutely told him that he must henceforward work for David, perceiving that it would be impossible for him to maintain his power, had given his consent to the negotiations which Abner carried on with David, after he had gained the favour of the elders in Israel. We are led to this conclusion, (1) by the fact that Ish-bosheth sends back to David his former wife Michal, whom Saul had taken from him and married to another; and (2) by the remark, in 2 Samuel 4:1, that Ish-bosheth despaired when he heard of the death of Abner, which can scarcely be explained if Abner be regarded as a rebel and traitor, but is quite intelligible on the supposition that Ish-bosheth hoped to obtain an honourable satisfaction by his mediation. Abner was murdered by the ambitious Joab. The ostensible reason for this act was revenge for his brother, who had been slain by Abner,—a bad reason, for he was slain in battle, and no blame attached to Abner; but the secret reason was Joab’s fear lest Abner should be placed on a level with him, or even be exalted above him. This matter gave the deepest pain to David,—the more, since it was to be expected that he would be accused of secret participation in the deed which he detested. But he was obliged to be content with a loud and public expression of his pain and horror, since he was so little established on the throne, that Joab was too powerful to be visited with the rigour of the law. The words in which he calls to God for revenge have often been regarded as an expression of exaggerated passion: “I and my kingdom are guiltless before the Lord for ever from the blood of Abner the son of Ner: let it rest on the head of Joab, and on all his father’s house; and let there not fail from the house of Joab one that hath an issue, or that is a leper, or that leaneth on a staff, or that falleth on the sword, or that lacketh bread,” 2 Samuel 3:28-29. But David here wishes nothing more than what the law predicts; and it can never be sinful to wish God to do what, in accordance with His will, He must do. The extension of the curse to the descendants clearly refers to the threatenings of the law; and in both cases the offensive character disappears, if we only remember that whoever by true repentance freed himself from connection with the guilt was also exempted from participation in the punishment. Soon afterwards, Ish-bosheth was slain by two of his servants, whose crime David punished with death, instead of granting the expected reward. Notwithstanding David’s perfect innocence of the deaths of Abner and Ish-bosheth, and the moral detestation of them which he felt and expressed, certain malicious persons, judging him by themselves, did not hesitate to accuse him of having a share in these deeds. We see this from the example of Shimei, who calls David a man of blood on account of them. The prevailing view, however, must have been a different one, otherwise the elders of Israel would not unanimously have chosen David to be king after the death of Ish-bosheth. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 36: 36. § 4. DAVID KING OVER ISRAEL ======================================================================== § 4. David King Over Israel David’s first undertaking, after he had become king over all Israel at the age of thirty-seven years, was the conquest of Jerusalem. Hebron was well adapted for the capital of Judah, but not for the capital of the whole country. Jerusalem was admirably fitted for it: its firm fortress had remained invincible to the Israelites in Joshua’s time, and throughout the whole period of the judges. It was also very well adapted for the capital, because it lay immediately on the borders of Judah, and formed a part of the territory of this tribe; and yet it was not in Judah, but in Benjamin, so that the claims of Judah and the remaining tribes were alike satisfied. David enlarged and beautified the city. Saul had in reality been nothing more than commander-in-chief; David wished to be king in the full sense of the word; and for a well-ordered state, a large place of residence is indispensably necessary. From this time Jerusalem formed the focus of Israel’s spiritual life; connection with the principal town bound the separate tribes more closely together. Hiram, king of Tyre, sent experienced artisans for the erection of a magnificent citadel. David took more wives than before, making undue concession to the corrupt oriental custom according to which a full seraglio belonged to the royal position; he raised a body-guard, the Cherethites and the Pelethites, distinct from the heroes so often mentioned who formed the nucleus of his warlike power. The body-guard did not go to battle as a rule. He appointed such officers as were necessary for the enlarged and well-ordered state. The highest among these are reckoned up in 2 Samuel 8:15. Joab was commander-in-chief; Benaiah commanded the body-guard; Jehoshaphat filled the highest civil office, as מזכציד; Zeruiah was a kind of state secretary; the sons of David were priests, i.e. mediators between him and the nation, chief about the king, as it is explained in 1 Chronicles 18:17. They held the highest offices in the state, and formed a medium of access to the king and of intercourse between him and the nation. With envy and fear the surrounding nations saw the close consolidation and increasing prosperity of Israel, and David found himself obliged to undertake a series of wars, in which he was invariably the aggrieved party. We shall here briefly enumerate them in succession. The Philistines made a beginning. Hearing that David, who had already become so dangerous to them as the servant of Saul, was king over all Israel, they thought it necessary to crush his power, which threatened to destroy them, in the germ; but were conquered by David in two battles. In a third campaign he penetrated into their own land, and, according to 2 Samuel 8:1, “took Methegammah out of the hand of the Philistines,” i.e. he wrested from them the capital which ruled the country. In the parallel passage, 1 Chronicles 18:1, we read that he took Gath, which was at that time the principal city of the Philistines, and her daughters, i.e. the dependent towns. Then followed the siege and subjection of the Moabites, 2 Samuel 8:2; a war which must have been provoked by very cruel conduct on their part towards the Israelites as follows from the hard treatment to which David subjected the conquered, probably, however, only the warriors. In judging this and similar measures of David, we must take care not to apply the standard of our own times. We learn from his behaviour towards the Ammonites, in 2 Samuel 10:2, how willingly he would have lived in peace and friendship with the surrounding nations; and his conduct with respect to the Canaanitish remnant of the inhabitants of Jerusalem shows that he exercised mildness where it was judicious. According to 2 Samuel 24, Araunah dwells among the Israelites as a wealthy and respected landowner; Uriah the Hittite is among the heroes of David. But, as a rule, clemency towards the surrounding nations would have been the greatest severity to Israel. These nations were for the most part rapacious hordes, always intent on satisfying their desire for booty and their ardent hatred to Israel. It was necessary to employ energetic measures against them having the semblance of cruelty, and to meet like with like vigorously, in order to procure rest for Israel; scope for their inner development which was so necessary. We learn how needful it was that an example should be made of them, from the experience of some centuries in the period of the judges. It was appointed by God to David as one of the great tasks of his life, to take energetic measures in this case. What Florus says, t. 3, c. 4, applies here: “Nec aliter cruentissimi hostium, quam suis moribus domiti, quippe in captivos igne ferroque saevitum est.” The subjection of the Moabites caused great anxiety to the king of Zobah, between the Euphrates and Orontes, north-east of Damascus, who had the kings of Mesopotamia as vassals, according to 2 Samuel 10:16, 2 Samuel 10:19. He thought it necessary to offer temporary resistance to a power which seemed to endanger his supremacy beyond the river. But David conquered him, and at the same time also the king of Damascene Syria, who came to his assistance. The land of the latter was occupied and made tributary, and the conquest secured by the establishment of garrisons; comp. 2 Samuel 8:3-8. The Edomites also, who had taken advantage of this war to make incursions into the land, and whom fortune had greatly favoured in the beginning, comp. 1 Kings 11:15, Psalms 44 and Psalms 60, were conquered and made subject. Then followed war against the Ammonites, which, like all David’s wars, was provoked by the shameful treatment of his ambassadors. Notwithstanding the powerful Aramsean allies of the Ammonites, who made this war the most dangerous of all that David had to undertake, they were conquered and punished according to strict martial law; comp. 2 Samuel 10:18, a passage which some have tried in vain to soften by explaining away. Nor must we forget that it was the Ammonites who wished to put out the eyes of a nation who submitted to them, 1 Samuel 11:2, and who ripped up the women with child in Gilead, Amos 1:13. After the close of this war, a great thanksgiving festival was appointed, and Psalms 68 was sung on the occasion. This psalm bears the character of a concluding one. That war was the last important foreign one of David, and from the circumstances it was easy for him to perceive that it would be so. The name Solomon, which he gave to the son who was born soon afterwards, shows that he now regarded peace as secured for a long time. Thus all the surrounding nations were humiliated, and Israel stood in power and importance formerly unheard of. The idea expressed by Balaam, that the people of God should triumph with irresistible power over all the surrounding nations, was now fulfilled in its fullest extent, because the nation and the king more nearly answered to the idea of the people of God than had ever been the case before. All the countries east of the valley of the Jordan, from the Elanitic Gulf to the shore of the Euphrates in the extreme north, were subdued,—all at once Israel had become the great power in Western Asia. It has been very foolishly maintained that this position was quite different from that which had been assigned to Israel in the law. But the prophecies of Balaam suffice to prove the contrary. The standpoint of the law is not so limited that it placed itself in opposition to the natural, historical development. In it the Israelites are enjoined to warfare,—stout warfare against their enemies,—and they did nothing further than follow this command. History and prophecy everywhere regard this position as the blessing of God. We have here combined the wars of David in one sketch, and must now treat of an event which belongs to a time previous to most of them, to the time immediately after the first two victories over the Philistines. David recognised how important it was that Jerusalem should be not merely the civil but the religious capital of the nation; and, besides, it was the fervent wish of his heart to have the sanctuary as near as possible. In consequence of the capture of the ark of the covenant by the Philistines at the end of the period of the judges, the ark of the covenant and the holy tabernacle were then separated from one another, the first being at Kirjath-jearim, the other at Gibeon. David made a beginning by bringing the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem. This was the easiest to do, since no worship was connected with it, and no local interests were attached to the possession of it. He therefore wished to bring the ark of the covenant in solemn procession to Jerusalem; but here he committed the mistake of letting it be driven, instead of having it carried by the Levites as was enjoined by the Mosaic law. This gave occasion for the sin of Uzzah, the waggon-driver, who took hold of the ark in an irreverent way; and in the punishment of his sin David also was involved. From the severity here displayed, he thought himself justified in concluding that the time of resurrection for the ark of the covenant had not yet come; that God would not yet dwell among His people. The ark was therefore set down on the way, in the house of Obed-edom, a Levite, not far from Jerusalem. But David’s longing desire soon reasserted itself. A special blessing seemed to rest upon the house of Obed-edom from the time the ark of the covenant was with him, and thus the king perceived that the severity which he had experienced had been a consequence of his own indiscretion. The ark of the covenant was now brought to Jerusalem in safety. On this occasion David’s piety was strikingly manifested; and his light is enhanced by the shadow of Michal, the representative of the house of Saul. His humility is so great, that he completely lays aside the kingly attire, and enters the solemn procession in the simple dress of the Levites. 2 Samuel 6:21-22, gives us special insight into his heart, where he addresses the proud Michal, among others, in the words, “I will yet be more vile than this, and will be base in mine own sight: and of the maid-servants which thou hast spoken of, of them shall I be had in honour.” Several psalms were composed by David for this occasion, especially Psalms 23, “The Lord is my shepherd,” and Psalms 24. The expression of perfect trust in God in Psalms 23 he follows by a representation of the moral demands which God makes on His people, lest hypocrites should take to themselves what did not belong to them. Then follow Psalms 14 and Psalms 15, which stand in a similar relation to one another. David erected a new tent for the ark of the covenant. Already he occupied himself with the idea of building a permanent temple to the Lord, nor would he neglect the interests and attachments connected with the sanctuary at Gibeon in favour of a state which was simply provisional. Public worship was now performed in this Davidic tent, no less than in the Mosaic one at Gibeon, comp. 1 Chronicles 16:37 ff.; and hence it was necessary to inaugurate two high priests, Abiathar, who remained at Jerusalem with David, and Zadok, who was sent to Gibeon to the Mosaic tent, 1 Chronicles 16:39 ff. And just because David fully recognised the provisional with regard to the sanctuaries, he made no attempt to limit the freedom which had arisen in this respect since the capture of the ark of the covenant by the Philistines. He allowed everything to remain as it was, regarding the complete re-organization of this relation as only appropriate to the time of the existence of a permanent temple. But from the beginning and onward, the sanctuary at Jerusalem remained in the background. The psalms of the Davidic time have nothing whatever to do with the tabernacle of the testimony in Gibeon, that shell without a kernel. Wherever the sanctuary of the Lord is mentioned in them, the reference is to that in Zion, to which everything that was present in Israel of higher life turned with love, while only idle custom formed a link of attachment to the sanctuary at Gibeon. This is the only important point in which the condition of religion in the Davidic period is not conformable to the Mosaic legislation, far less than in the period of the judges. In other respects the Mosaic law was observed, even to the smallest details. We learn, for example, from 2 Samuel 11:2, 2 Samuel 11:4, that the laws respecting purification were in force; and in 2 Samuel 12:6 we find a most remarkable reference to a very special Mosaic law, and one which bears an accidental character. David passes judgment on the rich man who had taken away the poor man’s sheep in the parable of Nathan, after he had declared him to be guilty of death, and at the same time states that he would willingly have subjected him to far more severe punishment if it had been in his power, as fourfold compensation. According to Ex. 21:37 (Exodus 22:1), when a man had stolen an ox, he was to restore five; if a sheep, four. In connection with David’s provision for the sanctuary are his efforts for the organization of the priestly and Levitical constitution. He divided the priests and Levites into twenty-four classes, who had each to perform the service for a week in succession. Sacred music was raised to a completely new step of development by David in conjunction with his three distinguished minstrels, Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun. A company of 4000 Levites was devoted to it, the germ being formed by a select body of singers composed of members of the families of the three minstrels, which continued without interruption to the time of the return from captivity. This advance of sacred music, whose beginnings are coeval with the sanctuary of the Lord, had its foundation in the advance of sacred poetry, which was due to David. He was the true author of psalmody, with which we shall occupy ourselves more closely in the introduction to the Psalms. We have already remarked that the arrangements made by David with respect to the ark of the covenant were only provisional. His real intention was to erect a permanent temple. This thought lay very near. The sanctuary, which had formerly been portable, was properly adapted to the condition of the nation only during the march through the wilderness. The dwelling of God in a tabernacle presupposes the dwelling of the nation in tabernacles. Only from the fact that the whole constitution during the period of the judges was provisional, can we understand how it was that the idea of erecting a permanent sanctuary was not conceived and carried out during that time. Now, when Israel was consolidated, circumstances seemed to present the most urgent demand for the building of a temple; and David recognised the demand with joy, and was anxious to carry it out as soon as possible. Nathan the prophet, to whom he disclosed his plan, judging from the standpoint of ordinary consciousness, gave his full consent at first, but was immediately afterwards taught by a divine revelation that the building of a temple by David himself did not lie in God’s plan. Ewald’s attempt to attribute to him the view that a temple was by no means necessary is quite absurd. Nathan’s first answer is correct in the main, only it is more closely defined and modified. David is to build the house, not personally, however, but in his seed. Yet, as a reward for his zeal, God will build David a house of eternal duration. This revelation is an epoch-making one for his inner life. It brought an entirely new element into his consciousness, which, as the Psalms show, moved him powerfully. He received the promise of the perpetual supremacy of his tribe, of the establishment of his kingdom amid the changing of all earthly things. How deeply David was affected by this promise we learn from his prayer of thanksgiving in 2 Samuel 7:18 ff. It has reference, not to the Messiah originally, but to an ideal person of the race of David; indirectly it contained an assurance that it would find its final fulfilment in the Messiah, since the eternity of a purely human kingdom is inconceivable. David saw this more and more clearly when he compared the promise with the Messianic idea which had been handed down from the fathers, and finally attained to perfect certainty by the further inner disclosures attached to this fundamental promise, with which he was occupied day and night. Psalms 2 and Psalms 110 afford special proof that such spiritual disclosures were really given him. The Messianic hope, which had experienced no further development since Genesis 49, now acquired much greater fulness and life. It had a substratum for further development, hallowed by God Himself, in the kingdom which was already in existence, and especially in David’s personality and fortunes. The answer to the question why David was not allowed to build the temple himself, is given in 1 Chronicles 28:3, comp. 1 Chronicles 22:8. He had fought great battles and shed much blood. The reason is symbolical. War, however necessary it may be under certain circumstances for the kingdom of God, is only something accidental, the result of human corruption. The true nature of the kingdom of God is peace. The Lord appears to the Church as the Prince of peace already in Isaiah 9:5. According to Luke 9:56, the Son of man came not to destroy men’s souls, but to save them. In order to bring this view of the nature and task of the Church to mind, the temple, the symbol of the Church, could not be built by the warrior David, but only by Solomon the peaceful, the man of rest, 1 Chronicles 22:9. The long-continued fortune which David had enjoyed was now followed by a chain of misfortunes; and between these two experiences there lies an event which shows us how necessary it was that he should thus suffer affliction, and at the same time throws light on his long-continued former sorrows, viz. his adultery with Bath-sheba. It occurs soon after the last of the recorded successful wars, that against the Ammonites, who were no longer able to maintain themselves in the open field, and the conquest of whose principal town, Rabbah, David had left to his general Joab. This single act can only be regarded as an expression of his whole disposition of mind. Fortune in itself is difficult to bear, but especially fortune in war. The heart far too readily becomes unruly, and is even drawn into fellowship with the evil which has been subdued. We here see in a remarkable way how one sin begets another. The means which David took to extricate himself from the complications in which his adultery had involved him appeared well chosen; but there was one thing he had not taken into consideration, that he could not here, as in former embarrassments, confidently expect the assistance of God. It was God’s design that David’s sin should be fully manifested, for only in this way was perfect cure possible, and therefore He suffered the means to fail. Thus the king saw no other mode of extrication, and took the life of one of his thirty heroes, of Uriah. How Joab must have rejoiced when David sank down to his own level! Doubtless he had never executed any commission with so much pleasure. The melancholy state of David’s soul continued for a considerable time, for it was not until after the birth of Bath-sheba’s son that Nathan stepped forward reprovingly. His task was not to gain a confession, but only to facilitate it. He was appointed by God to await the time of the internal crisis in David. Calvin, on Psalms 51, has excellently depicted the character of this state. We are not to conceive of him as one who had quite fallen, nor as one spiritually dead, but as sick unto death. It is certain that he had not quite lost all desire after God, that he had not entirely given up prayer; doubtless there were still many fruits of faith perceptible in him, but his soul was checked in its flight towards God, a curse rested upon him, which made solitary communion with the Divine Being for any length of time intolerable, and moved him to seek distractions in order to escape the torment of conscience, and keep it from attaining to full life. In passing judgment on his sin, it ought never to be forgotten that he was a member of the old covenant, and that the same means of grace which we have were not at his command. His weakness cannot therefore serve as a palliation of our own; but his repentance is rather placed before us as a pattern. Let whoever is inclined to throw a stone at him first prove himself whether in this respect he is superior, or even equal with him. The plain and simple confession, “I have sinned against God,” is a great thing, if we remember how rich the corrupt human heart is in the discovery of excuses and apparent justifications, and that the king was assailed by one of his subjects with hard, unsparing rebuke. The narrative in the books of Samuel tells us scarcely anything of the greatness and difficulty of the repentance of David, nor of the length of time before he could fully appropriate the assurance of the forgiveness of his sins which he received through the prophets; but it is apparent from Psalms 32, Psalms 51, which have reference to this. As a circumstance which aggravated David’s sin, it is stated in 2 Samuel 12:14 that he made the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme. This observation gives us a deep insight into the whole position of David. In him the good principle had attained to supremacy , the godless party had seen this with terror; and now they mocked piety in its representative, who, because he held this position, ought to have kept watch over his heart the more carefully, and afterwards made use of the first opportunity which presented itself to throw off the burdensome yoke. The great success which attended Absalom’s conspiracy is scarcely intelligible except from this position of David. At the first glance it may appear strange that everything with which he was threatened as a punishment for his sin,—the entrance of the sword into his house to avenge the death of Uriah; the shame of his wives, as a punishment for his having allowed himself to lust after the wife of his neighbour; and, finally, the death of the child begotten in sin,—all these did actually take place, although he had found forgiveness. But in general the forgiveness of sins has only this result: punishment is changed into fatherly chastisement, the rod into the correction of love. Outwardly the consequences of sin remain the same, only their internal character is changed. If it were otherwise, the forgiveness of sins might too readily be attributed to caprice. The death of the child was the beginning. Then followed the murder of his son Amnon by Absalom, whose sister he had dishonoured,—a deed by which David was reminded in the most heartrending way, of the lust which had led him to commit adultery with Bath-sheba. Still greater evil was caused by the weakness which he showed in giving full pardon, at the instigation of the impure Joab, to Absalom, who had fled, and allowing him to return. This and many other things lead to the inference that David showed weak indulgence towards his children, and shut his eyes to their sins. But his own psalms, viz. Psalms 3, Psalms 4, Psalms 43, and Psalms 42, Psalms 43, Psalms 86, which the sons of Korah then sang out of his soul, show how David strengthened himself in God during that trying time of his life. At a later period, a new sin brought heavy affliction. This was the numbering of the people, 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21. In 2 Samuel 24 the event is placed at the end of his life, and, on internal grounds also, it can only belong to an advanced period of it. The numbering, which required nearly a year, could only be undertaken in a time of rest from the enemies round about, and the victory already gained over these enemies formed the ground of temptation to which David succumbed. By the favour of God, the children of Israel were raised to supremacy in the south-west of Asia. In the striving of the human heart after more, it occurred to them to extend the limits still farther by their own hand. We cannot suppose that this happened in the very last days of David, when death was constantly before his eyes. At such a time men do not undertake these far-seeing plans. In what did his sin consist? There can be no doubt that the numbering was a military one, a kind of muster. It was proposed in the assembly of chief officers, and was carried out by Joab, the commander-in-chief, in conjunction with them. All the souls were not counted, but only “valiant men that drew the sword.” To facilitate the numbering, a camp was set up; this is expressly mentioned at the place where the numbering began, and we may assume that it was the same at the other places. The length of time occupied by the numbering, almost a year, shows that it was a difficult and complicated business; and its military character is apparent from the circumstance that Joab waited as long as possible before extending the measure to Benjamin, lest he should provoke the rebellious disposition of that tribe, who could not forget the supremacy they had enjoyed under Saul. But we cannot attribute any direct military object to the measure. That it was first intended only as a means of ascertaining the number of men capable of bearing arms, is shown by 2 Samuel 24:2, where “that I may know the number of the people “is given as the object; and also by the fact that, in consequence of the divine judgment, the number of males was not recorded in the annals of the kingdom, 1 Chronicles 27:24. This must therefore have been the original object. But warlike thoughts certainly stand in the background; if we fail to see this, we lose the key to the whole transaction, and the divine judgment is incomprehensible. David feeds his heart on the great numbers, on the thought of what his successors on the throne would be able to attain with such power. From its first origin, Israel was called to the supremacy of the world. Already in the blessing of Moses (Deuteronomy 33:29) this assurance was given to Israel: “Thine enemies shall be found liars unto thee; and thou shalt tread upon their high places.” David now thought that he could rise step by step to such elevation without the help of God, who had provided for the beginning. The records should bear witness to all time that he had laid a solid foundation for this great work of the future. Had his perception been clear, he would not have disregarded the special hint contained in the law respecting the danger connected with the numbering of the people. In Exodus 30:11 ff. it is ordained that on the numbering of the people every Israelite should bring a ransom, “that there be no plague among them, when thou numberest them.” By the ransom offered to God they would be released, as it were, from the death incurred by their proud arrogance. It reminded them of the danger of forgetting human weakness, so imminent where an individual feels himself the member of a large whole. The important lesson for all time is this, that even the smallest feeling of national pride is sin against God, and, unless there be a powerful reaction, calls down the judgments of God. With this feeling even the Romans presented offerings of atonement at their census. In 2 Samuel 24 the narrative is introduced with the words, “The anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel.” The punishment falls upon the people, and on David only in so far as he made the sorrows of the nation his own. From this we see that the guilt belonged chiefly to the nation,—that they had infected the humble heart of the king with their own arrogance, which had been called forth by their success. The same thing appears from the fact that, when the punishment begins, he seeks the guilt in himself alone, and tries to excuse the nation. In 1 Chronicles 21:1, the determination to number the people is attributed to the influence of Satan on the mind of David, and, in 2 Samuel 24, to the influence of God. But we learn that this is not intended to exonerate him and the nation from participation in the guilt, from the fact that the punishment, which presupposed guilt, was accomplished on David and on the nation; and from the universal teaching of Scripture, which invariably attributes the first origin of sin to man, as James says, “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God;” “Resist the devil, and he will flee from you;” and finally and specially, from Psalms 30, which has reference to this event. Here David himself describes the state of his mind, which offered a point of contact for the temptation, and gave rise to it: “And in my prosperity I said, I shall never be moved. Lord, by Thy favour Thou hast made my mountain (i.e. my kingdom) to stand strong: Thou didst hide Thy face, and I was troubled.” According to this, confidence was the melancholy root of sin, both in David and the nation. Soft indolence, says Calvin, had taken possession of his mind, so that he had no inclination for prayer, nor any dependence on the mercy of God, but trusted too much to his past fortune. Where this corrupt disposition is found in the soul, God’s influence, making use of Satan as its instrument, leads the corrupt germ to its development, rousing to action that which slumbers in the soul, in order to bring about the retributive judgment in which man, if otherwise well-intentioned, learns fully to recognise his sinful condition, and is moved to repentance. The question is not of simple permission on the part of God, but of a real action, and that of a nature which each one may still perceive in his own tendencies. Whoever once yields to his sinful disposition, is infallibly involved in the sinful deed which leads to retributive judgment, however much he may strive against it. Even before the punishment, and still more decisively after it had begun, David’s better disposition reasserted itself, and the mercy of God, to which he had turned with humble supplication, checked the course of justice. The punishment had already begun its course in the metropolis, where some deaths had occurred, 1 Chronicles 21:15. On hearing of these deaths, David’s conscience was fully awakened; it had been powerfully affected even before the beginning of the judgment, immediately after the numbering was accomplished. The awakened conscience opened his spiritual eye, that he saw the angel of the Lord in his house, “by the threshing-place of Araunah the Jebusite,” 2 Samuel 24:16, “standing between the earth and the heaven, having a drawn sword in his hand stretched out over Jerusalem,” 1 Chronicles 21:16. As in 2 Kings 6:17 the source of seeing the heavenly powers was in Elisha, and by his mediation the eyes of his servant were opened, so here the flight of David’s mind communicated itself to the elders of his retinue, whom he had collected about him; and, after he had repaired to the place where he saw the vision, was revealed even to the sons of Araunah. The event is also of importance in so far as it gave occasion for the determination of the site of the future temple. The Lord forgave David on condition that he would build an altar on the place where He had appeared; and at the dedication He hallowed it by fire from heaven, 1 Chronicles 21:26. By this means He made an actual declaration that this should henceforward be the place of His worship; and the king followed the declaration. Even at this time the place was made the national sanctuary, and was called the house of God, Psalms 30:1; 1 Chronicles 22 :1 Chronicles 22:1 : for David foresaw that the form would soon be superadded to the essence, and already perceived in the spirit the building which was to be completed by his son, and for which he made preparations with great zeal; comp. 1 Chronicles 22:2 ff. It is very remarkable that the pardoning mercy of God towards His own people, which David extols in Psalms 30, on the basis of this event, was virtually characterized as its spiritual foundation, even before the laying of the external foundation of the temple. David’s last words form the keystone of his life, his prophetic legacy, 2 Samuel 23, to which the cycle of psalms, Psalms 138-145, must be regarded as supplementary. “No prince,” says Ewald, “can end his life with more blessed divine rest, and a clearer, more certain glance into the future.” He accompanies his own through the history, and offers them the anchor of salvation in the storms which, from his own life-experience, he knew that they had to encounter. He points to the fulness of salvation which the dominion of the righteous ruler will bring with it, after the affliction has been endured, and to the corruption which will then overtake the opposing evil. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 37: 37. § 5. THE LIFE OF SOLOMON ======================================================================== § 5. The Life of Solomon Solomon, a son of David and Bath-sheba,—according to 1 Chronicles 22:9, thus named by a command of God, given to David through Nathan before his birth,—the peaceful, in contrast to the warlike David, brought up under the supervision of the prophet Nathan, ascended the throne before he was 18 years of age. This happened half a year before the death of his father, in consequence of the machinations of one of his brothers, Adonijah. Solomon was not indeed the first-born; but the king had the right of naming as his successor the son whom he regarded as most capable. David’s choice had long fallen upon Solomon, and had received the divine sanction through the sentence of the prophet Nathan; he was therefore universally known as heir to the throne. Nevertheless Adonijah, disregarding the divine and the human right of Solomon, made an attempt to gain the supremacy. David, warned by Bathsheba and Nathan, caused Solomon to be publicly proclaimed king, and to be anointed by the high priest Zadok and the prophet Nathan. When this became known, the adherents of Adonijah dispersed. Solomon began his reign under the most favourable circumstances. Foreign enemies had been conquered by David, and every land from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates did homage to him. At the time of David’s death, Israel alone numbered about six million souls, 1,300,000 “valiant men that drew the sword;” comp. Michaelis on 2 Samuel 24:9. The Philistines, formerly an object of special terror to the Israelites, had lost their independence. Neither was there anything more to be feared from the cruel, rapacious Amalekites. Their power was first broken by Saul, and then by David completely and finally, so that they totally disappear from the history. The possession of the mountainous district of Idumea, whose inhabitants were famous for their valour, was secured by garrisons. The land of the Moabites offered great advantages by its rich flocks, of which a considerable number was given as tribute; comp. 2 Kings 3:4. The warlike Ammonites, who had pressed the Israelites so hard during the period of the judges, were held in subjection by the circumstance that the Israelites had possession of the fortress Rabbah in the centre of the land. All the conquered nations were tributary, and paid heavy taxes; they were so completely subdued by David, and the military power of the Israelites was in so good a condition, that it was impossible for them to think of rebelling. Only in the interest of an arbitrary interpretation of Psalms 2 has Ewald imagined a universal rising of the conquered nations at the time of Solomon’s accession to the throne. Internally there was a well-ordered constitution. But, what was the principal thing, true fear of God prevailed throughout the land. Solomon himself, educated by Nathan, was resolved in this respect to tread in his father’s footsteps. In 1 Kings 3:3 we read: “And Solomon loved the Lord, walking in the statutes of David his father;” and the supplementary clause, “Only he sacrificed and burnt incense in high places,” is not intended as a limitation of this praise, but only points to the fact that in the beginning of his reign, owing to the fault of the relations, the Mosaic law respecting the unity of the sanctuary could not be carried out. It was no fault of his, but only a misfortune, which it was part of his task to remove. Until this was possible, Solomon presented his offerings partly before the ark of the covenant in Jerusalem, and partly in the holy tent at Gibeon. 1 Kings 3:4-15 gives us a glance into the mind of the king at the time when he began his reign. He appointed a great religious feast of thanksgiving to be held at Gibeon, which was celebrated with great splendour and expense. Here he had a dream, which bears testimony to his pious disposition, and served to foster it. God appears to him in the dream, and says, “Ask what I shall give thee.” Solomon has only one wish, a request for a wise and pious heart, and God promises to grant it, and to give him also what he had not asked, just because he had not asked it, viz. riches and honour. Solomon was endowed with the greatest gifts. Those who suppose that his far-famed wisdom was an external possession, something acquired, are ignorant of what they say. The Proverbs sufficiently show what fulness of original spirit there was in him; and in them we also possess an absolutely certain testimony how the gift of wisdom under the sanctifying influences of divine grace became in him the χάρισμα, thus refuting those who, in opposition to the additional testimony of the historical books, apply to Solomon in general what can only be said of him in his old age, and refuse to recognise his apostasy, believing that he was never sincerely devoted to the Lord. These critics appeal, in the first place, to those acts of cold severity which characterized his very first measures. But these acts appear in another light if we look at the matter in an unprejudiced way. He had promised his brother Adonijah that he should be perfectly safe if he would remain quiet. This condition was not fulfilled. The latter thought of a means of acquiring a kind of right to the throne, and believed that he had found it in an alliance with Abishag the Shunamite, familiar in the history of David. Adonijah sought to gain his object by stratagems, and even succeeded in inducing the innocent Bath-sheba to intercede for him with Solomon. But Solomon saw through him, and sentenced him to death, as a punishment for his high treason. If we consider that Adonijah did not stand alone, but was supported by the two most powerful and influential men of the state, Abiathar the high priest, and Joab the commander-in-chief; that the question was not one of dealing with an ambitious thought, but with a concerted and mature scheme of rebellion, comp. 1 Kings 2:22; if we take into consideration the weakness of the kingdom, and the unutterable misery which David had brought upon himself and the whole nation by his ill-timed indulgence towards Absalom, with whom Adonijah may the more readily be compared, since he too is to be regarded as the representative of the godless principle, the centre of the godless party,—we shall certainly be more cautious in our judgment. Solomon deposed Abiathar the nigh priest, who also deserved death, and banished him to his own possessions, remembering that he had been his father’s companion in affliction. In his place he appointed Zadok, with whom the line of Eleazar again attained to the high-priesthood. Abiathar’s sin served to hasten the fulfilment of the prophetic judgment on the house of Eli, to which he belonged. In passing sentence of death on Joab and Shimei, Solomon only followed a charge of David’s. In the “fatal oblivion into which the old traitor had fallen,” we cannot fail to recognise the hand of God which led him on to punishment. But it is true that, with all Solomon’s sincere piety, he was yet deficient in the deeper life-experiences of his father, that he had not yet attained to an experimental knowledge of the depth of sin, to profound humility, or to a life of fear and trembling. Here was the point where the tempter might find admittance, and where he afterwards really did find it. Solomon was endowed with rich gifts, and did what he could to improve them. All that was worth knowing interested him. His knowledge of nature extended to all the kingdoms of creation, and the products of every country; comp. 1 Kings 5:13. He gave special attention to the study of man. His manifold observation and experience he expressed in maxims, of which, according to 1 Kings 5:12, he composed three thousand, and of which only some have been preserved in Proverbs, such as had a moral-religious tendency, and were written under the special guidance of the Spirit of God. The fame of Solomon’s genius and knowledge must have spread with a rapidity in proportion to the rarity of such a phenomenon at that time. Strangers thronged from foreign lands to learn to know the wise king, and to admire his institutions and appointments; comp. 1 Kings 4:34. Even the queen of Sheba or Yemen, in Arabia Felix, thought nothing of the trouble of the long journey, that she might be convinced of the truth of what she had heard. She is mentioned not only in the sacred historical books, but also in the traditions of other orientals; comp. Herbelot, Biblioth. Or. v. Balkis; Hiob L. h. A. t. II. c. 3. All these accounts, however, are dependent on the biblical narrative, and have therefore no historical importance whatever. The contest respecting them between the Arabs and the Ethiopians must be determined decidedly in favour of the former. שבא always belongs to Arabia. The designation βασίλισσα νότου in Matthew 12:42, Luke 11:31, also leads to Arabia. With a large retinue and many presents she appeared at Jerusalem, perhaps about the twentieth year of Solomon’s reign, as we learn from the fact that she found all the large buildings already completed; comp. 1 Kings 10:4-5. She made herself acquainted with all the appointments of Solomon, tried his acuteness by propounding difficult riddles, and her admiration was unbounded. Solomon proved his love for art by the erection of great buildings. He built himself a castle to reside in, and another palace was erected for his wife. He then made important arrangements for the security of the kingdom. Jerusalem was newly fortified. He established a series of new fortresses on the borders of the country, especially toward Damascus, which had raised itself to a new independent power during his reign; comp. 1 Kings 11:23-25. In Song of Solomon 7:4 of the Song of Solomon, the proud watch-tower toward Damascus serves as a symbol of the greatness of Israel. The ruins of this castle on the Lebanon are probably still in existence; comp. Thenius on 1 Kings 9:19. By the trade which he first created, Solomon opened new resources to himself and the nation. Outward circumstances favoured this enterprise. Palestine, as it then was, was better situated for trade than almost any country. It lay in the centre of the then known world. Its situation on the Mediterranean Sea gave it all the advantages possessed by the Phenicians, and in its proximity to Egypt it had an advantage over them. Moreover, David already possessed Idumea, which was situated on the Red Sea, and the two harbours, Ezion-geber and Elath. But Solomon could have profited very little by all these advantages, owning to his people’s ignorance of the arts of shipbuilding and navigation, and their inexperience in trade, if he had not entered into an alliance with the Phenicians. He concluded a treaty with the king of Tyre, which was equally advantageous for both parties. For on the one side the territory of the Phenicians was very limited. It consisted of a small stretch of land, about twenty-five miles in length, and perhaps nowhere more than four to five miles in breadth. Hence they were unable to maintain any great number of soldiers, and, moreover, the spirit of trade had crushed all disposition for war. In the piracy which was then prevalent, however, it was impossible for them to dispense with a military guard. Hence it must have been most desirable that they should be able to man their ships with Israelites, who had been brought up as warriors under David’s rule, harbours Ezion-geber and Elath would by this means be opened to the Phenicians, and an opportunity be given to them to extend their trade over the Red Sea, and even beyond it. It is probable that the Israelites as well as the Tyrians took no inland produce with them. Owing to the great population of the country, the export could not be very considerable. The superfluous wheat and oil were probably consumed by the Phenicians alone; comp. 1 Kings 5:11. It is more probable that they bought up the products of one land, and then disposed of them again with profit in another, thus carrying on a kind of barter. This view is confirmed by the long duration of the sea-voyages. Solomon carried on trade on his own account. The ships went partly from Solomon’s harbours on the Red Sea, partly from the Phenician harbours in the Mediterranean. From the former the Israelites sent out their own vessels, which, however, were doubtless built by the Phenicians, and were under the direction of Phenician pilots, to the famous gold district Ophir,—according to Genesis 10:29, undoubtedly in Arabia, but with vague geographical limits, so that it probably includes India also; comp. the discussions on Ophir by Lassen, IndianArchaeology, i. p. 538 ff. The voyage generally occupied three years, probably because they went from country to country, and bartered the products of the one against the products of the other. The navigation from the harbours of the Mediterranean Sea, on the other hand, was undertaken by Phenician ships. Besides this, Solomon carried on a very profitable trade in horses with Egypt. For a long time this land had reared the best horses, and was specially adapted for this object owing to its large and excellent pasturage. It must have been an easy matter for Solomon to monopolize the trade in Egyptian horses, and to provide all his neighbours with them. For all other purchasers,—Syrians and Arabs, for example,—were obliged to pass through Palestine, which Solomon could easily prevent; comp. Michaelis on the oldest history of horse-breeding, appendix to the third part of the Mosaic Laws. By this trade great riches were brought to Jerusalem. Gold and silver, every article of luxury, the most costly spices and kinds of wood, accumulated there. Jerusalem gained quite the appearance of the capital of a great oriental kingdom. But the enterprise had also a specious side. It brought the Israelites into contact with the most vicious nation of antiquity; and the danger was the greater, because in their high culture the evil was clothed in a garment of light. The constant intercourse tended first of all to beget a religious tolerance, such as was incompatible with the exclusive character of the religion of Jehovah; and from this it was easy to pass over to participation in the sinful worship of idols. Luxury endangered the old simplicity and severity of morals, and readily produced an aversion to the Mosaic law, which demanded such austerity; while it fostered an inclination for the religion of the idolatrous nations, in which a man might follow his own desires under the semblance of piety. But these consequences are not so necessarily connected with the thing, that Solomon was to blame for entering into such universal mercantile relations. It would be just as reasonable to reproach the present Government for favouring railways, which also bring so many new temptations with them. That the promotion of trade is contrary to the Mosaic law is a false theory advanced by Joh. Dav. Michaelis, and is carried to extremes by Bertheau. When Moses founded the state mainly upon agriculture, he had regard to the relations of his time, which presented no facilities for trade. In the blessing of Jacob in Genesis 49:13, Zebulun is characterized as happy in being so favourably situated for trade, and this is attributed to the blessing of God. The same thing occurs still more emphatically with respect to Zebulun and Issachar in the blessing of Moses, Deuteronomy 33:18-19. The nation was very happy under Solomon. In 1 Kings 4:25 we read: “And Judah and Israel dwelt safely, every man under his vine and under his fig-tree, all the days of Solomon.” “Judah and Israel were many, as the sand which is by the sea in multitude, eating and drinking, and making merry.” Not until nearly the end of his reign do we find a change taking place. The nation complained of heavy taxation and despotic rule; comp. 1 Kings 12:1-4. The erection of such huge buildings and the splendour of the court required immense means. In his old age Solomon fell into idolatry. Many, indeed—among others, Justi in his Miscellaneous Essays, i. pp. 88-145—have endeavoured to show how improbable it was that Solomon should really have fallen into idolatry. But where we have definite historical testimony, probabilities are of no account. Not only is it said in 1 Kings 11:4 that “his wives turned away his heart after other gods,” but also in 1 Kings 11:5, that he “went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians.” And we learn that the expression “to go after idols “really points to idolatry, from Deuteronomy 11:28, Deuteronomy 28:14, and especially from 1 Kings 18:18, comp. with 1 Kings 16:31. In 1 Kings 11:33 it is definitely affirmed that Solomon, and the nation led by his example, worshipped idols. Thus it came to pass that in the country which was consecrated to the worship of the true God, the same abominations of idolatry were practised on account of which the land had been wrested from its former inhabitants. For more than 300 years the evil seed which had been scattered by Solomon bore evil fruit. The altars on the high places were first destroyed by Josiah. And in proportion as the nation was irreligious, it was corrupt and immoral. The less worthy the king proved himself of the dignity of God’s representative, the more the nation lost their respect for him, which rested only upon his relation to the invisible Ruler; the more were they inclined to rebellion, which was scarcely kept in check till the death of Solomon. But the apostasy of Solomon is not to be regarded as complete. In 1 Kings 11:4 it is expressly stated, “And his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father.” Neither are we to suppose that he gave himself up to polytheism in that rude form in which it obtained among the surrounding idolatrous nations. He adhered firmly to the unity of the divine essence. The words, “Behold, the heaven, and the heaven of heavens, cannot contain Thee,” in 1 Kings 8:27, to which he gave utterance in his prayer on the consecration of the temple, and which bear remarkable testimony to the depth of his knowledge of God, were still his motto, even in the time of his apostasy. Having a clear consciousness of the glory of the one divine nature, he regarded it as a narrow conception to confine the revelation of this nature to Israel alone. In Jehovah he recognised the most perfect manifestation of this nature, and at the same time that which was specially intended for Israel. Jehovah was therefore the principal object of his adoration. But he thought it necessary to recognise imperfect and lower manifestations of the Divine Being in the idols of the neighbouring nations, and regarded it as the task of an enlightened and large-hearted piety to express this recognition in a palpable way, by the establishment of subsidiary worships for these idols, of whose unreality he was the less able to persuade himself, since he saw the power which faith in them exercised over the minds of his heathen wives. While recognising the incompleteness of the apostasy, we cannot fail to see that already in the earlier life of Solomon there was a predisposition to this apostasy, although we must repeat that the testimony of Holy Scripture is decidedly averse to making no distinction between the earlier and the later Solomon. We find this predisposition in the fact that from the beginning of his reign (his union with the daughter of the Egyptian king belongs to this period), in choosing his wives, he paid no regard to religion. This shows that from the beginning he had no deep consciousness of the sharp antagonism between the religion of Jehovah and heathenism, due to the definitely exclusive character of the former. Other accusations which have been brought against Solomon previous to his fall seem to us to be totally unfounded. Thus when it is assumed that the providing of many horses is in opposition to the law respecting the king in Deuteronomy 18. If this were the case, it would still be forbidden; for the reason given, “that his heart be not lifted up,” is not peculiarly Israelitish, but applicable to human nature in general. The command is evidently not externally binding, but is only to be regarded as drawing attention to the dangers connected with the maintenance of a splendid court. Whoever, recognising these dangers, kept watch over his heart that it should not be lifted up, might do externally whatever was demanded by altered circumstances. Solomon’s apostasy was followed by a series of divine punishments. While he was still on the throne, Idumea began to throw off its allegiance, under the guidance of a certain Hadad, a descendant of the old Idumean kings who had been deposed by David, who had married a daughter of the king of Egypt, and was supported by him. Another successful opponent, Rezon, took Damascus from him, and all Damascene Syria, and became the founder of a kingdom which afterwards proved very destructive to the Israelites. A still heavier punishment was to fall upon Solomon in his descendants. It was made known to him by a prophet that the greater part of his kingdom would be wrested from his son. Preparation was made for the fulfilment of this threat even in Solomon’s lifetime. It is generally supposed that Solomon repented before his end, and completely renounced the worship of idols. But this opinion is based only on the assumption, which is decidedly erroneous, that Solomon was the author of Ecclesiastes, which is regarded as bearing testimony to and proving his conversion, although the book nowhere expressly speaks of Solomon having repented, as many have asserted, nor even of his having fallen. Nor do the historical books contain the slightest indication of a later conversion of Solomon, and it is at variance with the passage, 2 Kings 23:13, according to which the idolatrous worship instituted by Solomon continued long after his death. The first fruit of his conversion would have been to destroy the scandals which he had established. Solomon died after having reigned for forty years. Unquestionably the most important event of his reign was the building of the temple. He found great treasures, which David had already collected for this purpose, as well as drawings and models. David, who was not allowed to build the temple himself, had at least tried to prepare everything for it. But Solomon was determined to build a temple which should far surpass the highest ideal of his father. With this object he entered into an alliance with the king of Tyre, with whom his father had already been on friendly terms. This alliance was most advantageous to him. By this means he obtained the best material, cedar wood; for king Hiram was possessor of the western part of Lebanon, on which the cedars grow. It also enabled him to procure workmen and artisans. We learn that the Tyrians had very skilful artisans even at that time, and that Hiram was acquainted with and promoted the art of building, not merely from the accounts of Scripture, but also from those fragments of Dius and Menander which have been preserved by Josephus. After these preparations a beginning was made by procuring materials. Notwithstanding the immense number of work-people, this occupied so much time, that it was not until the fourth year that the building could be begun. David had already fixed upon Mount Moriah as the site of the temple. Without doubt the proximate cause for the choice of this place was the divine vision which had there been vouchsafed to him; comp. 2 Samuel 24:1 ff., 1 Chronicles 21:28 Chron. 21:28, 1 Chronicles 22:1. But this vision was only a renewal of the remembrance of a former one, a strengthening of the demand already made, to choose this place. On Mount Moriah Abraham had confirmed his election by the highest proof of his faith: here the angel of the Lord had appeared to him and had renewed the promise. When the building of the temple was completed after seven years, the feast of dedication was celebrated with great splendour, in an assembly of the princes of the tribes and the heads of the families, and amid a great multitude of people. The ark of the covenant was brought from the tabernacle on Zion to the temple-mountain Moriah, and God’s mercy was sought by sacrifice, and songs, and prayers. The solemnity made a happy impression on the nation. Sacrifice on the heights, which had formerly been tolerated, was now entirely abandoned. It is true that Bertheau infers the contrary from 2 Kings 23:22, according to which the feast of the passover in Solomon’s time was not kept as enjoined by the Mosaic law, the whole nation being assembled at the sanctuary. But this passage only makes a general reference to the time of the kings, in which, for the most part, it was impossible to realize the Mosaic determination owing to the separation of the kingdom. The short time in which the Mosaic law was fully carried out is left out of sight. The arrangement of the temple has been discussed by Keil, The Temple of Solomon, Dorpat, 1839, and best by Bähr, 1848. The patriotic fancy of Josephus and the Rabbis satisfied itself in embellishing and exaggerating it; and they have been only too closely followed by Christian scholars until the latter half of the past century, when some have gone to the opposite extreme. Voltaire declared that, in all antiquity, he could remember no building, no temple of any nation, so small as the temple of Solomon. Joh. Dav. Michaelis thought that his house at Gottingen was larger than the admired temple of the God of Israel at Jerusalem. The truth is, that the temple itself, which was not, like our churches, intended to accommodate a congregation, but only to conceal the holy vessels and to give space for the performance of certain sacred acts, was of no very great extent; but the whole erection, including the fore-courts, was of an imposing size. The temple was nothing more than an enlarged and immoveable tabernacle of the covenant, and was characterized by the same threefold division. First came the fore-court of the people, which was surrounded by a wall containing porches for shelter in bad weather, and was entered by gates fastened with brass. This fore-court of the people led to the higher or inner or priests’ fore-court, which was separated from the outer one by three rows of freestone and a row of cedar beams. In this court there were large brass pedestals on wheels, five on the right side, and five on the left side, with large basins on them, intended for the washing of the meat-offerings; then the brazen sea, a basin ten cubits in diameter and five cubits high, resting on twelve brass wheels, for the purification of the priests; finally, the large brass altar for burnt-offerings, twenty cubits in length and breadth, and ten cubits in height. Next to the court of the priests came the temple itself. First of all there was a porch or court containing two large brass pillars, with artistically wrought chapiters. In breadth it was equal to the sacred court, and was ten cubits long. Leading from it into the temple-house was a door five cubits wide, with double wings of cypress wood overlaid with gold, and ornamented with carving of cherubs, palms, and open flowers. This was 60 cubits long, 20 wide, and 30 high: 20 cubits were set apart for the holy of holies, being separated by a cedar wall, with folding doors, and a curtain behind it. The walls of the temple were of hewn stone, and were wainscoted inside with cedar wood, ornamented with carving of palms and cherubim. Inside, the holy and the holy of holies were inlaid with thin gold plates. The floor was of cypress wood, the roof of cedar beams. In the sanctuary, besides the golden altar of incense before the entrance to the holy of holies, there were ten golden candlesticks and the table of shew-bread. Outside, round about the holy and the holy of holies, there was an accessory building which enclosed the temple on three sides, so that only the porch in front remained open. This building consisted of three stories, each five cubits in height, with simple chambers or sacristies. The temple, with the porch and the surrounding building, occupied a space of about 90 cubits in length and 46 cubits in breadth. The priests’ fore-court was probably about 200 cubits long, and nearly 100 cubits wide; the outer court was 300 cubits long, and of equal width. With regard to the symbolical meaning of the temple and its vessels, all that we said before respecting the tabernacle of testimony is applicable to it, for the distinction between them is only a material, and not a theological one. The only symbol peculiar to the temple is to be found in the palms and the flower and fruit ornaments, which, together with the cherubim, the representation of the living creation, revealed the God of Israel as the Lord of nature. The building of the temple had most important results. We learn how powerfully it promoted religious public spirit, from the fact that Jeroboam despaired of the success of his attempted division of the citizens, unless he could put a stop to the annual feast-journeys to the temple. For those who feared God among the ten tribes, the temple continued to be a magnet which drew them to Jerusalem. The greater the temptations to idolatry in the time of the kings, the more important it was that a centre of Jehovah-worship should be given to the nation in the temple, with its glorious service; otherwise idolatry would certainly have made much more rapid progress. Solomon’s reign was important not only for the building of the temple, but also because it gave birth to a new branch of sacred literature, viz. the creation of proverbs, which, with its predominant objective mode of view, could only flourish in a time of rest and peace, while times of battle and of excited feeling were favourable to sacred lyrics. Finally, because it gave a new substratum for the Messianic idea. Just as David’s reign quickened the hopes in the Messiah as the mighty victor over all the enemies of the kingdom of God, as we find from Psalms 2 and Psalms 110, which are founded on the relations of the Davidic time, so Solomon’s reign afforded a glance into the government of the Prince of peace, a name which is used by Isaiah in Isaiah 9:5 with plain reference to Solomon. We see from Psalms 72 and Psalms 45 how all that God granted in this respect under Solomon, was, even at that time, regarded as a prophecy of that which He would do far more gloriously in the future. This is still more clearly shown in the Song of Solomon, in which he extols his antitype under the name of the heavenly Solomon. Care was taken that the present should not afford perfect satisfaction, but should only awaken a more intense longing after the true and heavenly Prince of peace. In close connection with a high state of national prosperity, we perceive the beginning of a cancerous growth which incessantly eats away, destroying the nation’s fear of God, the condition of their salvation, and hence this salvation itself. We are taught that the peace given by a merely human ruler bears in itself the germ of decay; bringing temptations which an inferior anointed of the Lord cannot give power to overcome. The result of the whole brilliant period was a Kyrie Eleison, and the prayer, “Oh that Thou wouldst rend the heavens and come down!” ======================================================================== CHAPTER 38: 38. FIFTH SECTION. FROM THE DIVISION OF THE KINGDOM TO THE BABYLONISH CAPTIVITY ======================================================================== Fifth Section. From the Division of the Kingdom to the Babylonish Captivity ======================================================================== CHAPTER 39: 39. § 1. REHOBOAM AND JEROBOAM ======================================================================== § 1. Rehoboam and Jeroboam The punishment with which Solomon had been threatened was fulfilled soon after his death. And if these punishments fell upon the people also, they had the less cause to complain, since they had taken part in the apostasy of Solomon; they, not less than he, had succumbed to the temptations incident to a long time of peace. We see how low they had fallen under the reign of Solomon, from the fact that Jeroboam could venture to introduce the worship of calves without finding universal opposition. The states which show themselves so zealous in a political aspect, here show perfect indifference. The opposition is not national, but only proceeds from a small, God-fearing community. The punishment was a heavy one. Not only were their best powers diffused by the separation of the kingdom, but they were destroyed in bloody internal wars. The subjugation of Israel was now an easy matter for the great rising Asiatic world-empires: the weakness of the Israelites increased with the power of their enemies. It lay in the plan of the divine providence to abandon them to oppression, to lead them to repentance through the school of misery. The separation of the two kingdoms also in a great measure involved the loss of the other acquisitions which had been made under the reign of David and Solomon, of prosperity and higher culture. But the loss was accompanied by gain. The faith of the elect grew strong in the struggle with despair, which was so powerfully called forth by the visible. Opposition to the ever-increasing corruption enhanced the zeal of the pious, and developed their gifts. Among the better, the Messianic hope became more and more a central-point. Necessity drew them to the future Redeemer. The wonderful deliverances vouchsafed to the people when they cried to God in urgent need, such as those under Jehoshaphat and under Hezekiah, called forth a mighty working of the Spirit among the whole nation. The separation of the kingdom surrendered the ground which had given birth to the prophethood, so important for the Church at all times. And the long series of psalms characteristic of the struggle of despair with faith, in which the Church of all times has one of its noblest treasures, would never have existed had it not been for the disorder called forth by the separation of the kingdoms, which gave the death-blow to the greatness of Israel. The object of the prediction of the separation of the kingdom made by the prophet Ahijah, was that it might not be attributed to accident, but that the co-operation of a divine causality might be recognised, and that by this acknowledgment the attainment of its object might be promoted. The supremacy could not be quite taken away from the family of David, as it was from so many rulers in the later kingdom of Israel. This would have been inconsistent with the promise given to David in 2 Samuel 7, which demanded even more. According to it, the separation of the kingdom could only be temporary, for it promised the tribe of David the supremacy over Israel, though pointing to the interruptions due to sin. Hence the prophet Ahijah only declared the temporary separation. “I will for this afflict the seed of David,” says the Lord in 1 Kings 11:39, “but not for ever,”—a saying which has found its perfect fulfilment in Christ. We have now considered the separation of the kingdom in so far as it was the result of a divine causality. But this mode of consideration must be regarded as quite distinct from a merely human one. From the latter standpoint the separation appears as a result of the battle of sin against sin. Solomon was succeeded by Rehoboam, who was at once recognised as king by the tribe of Judah. But the ten tribes assembled in their delegates at Sichem, under the mere pretext of making him king there, having the secret intention of dethroning him. This intention already appeared from the choice of the place of assembling. Sichem was the principal city of the tribe of Ephraim. They thought they could act more freely there than at Jerusalem, where Solomon had been made king. Jeroboam, the type of all modern demagogues, was active in the matter from the beginning. Apparently they desired nothing further than a lightening of the burdens which Solomon had laid upon the nation; and there seems to have been justice in this demand. Solomon, who was never a man of the people as his father had been, had oppressed the nation toward the end of his reign by his excessive expenditure and his despotic rule. Rehoboam might therefore readily have promised to lighten their burdens, the more so since those who made the demand were not an assembled mob, but the legal representatives of the nation. We have already seen that kingly power among the Israelites was not absolute even in a political aspect,—that the king was restrained not only by the law of God, and by the ordinary and extraordinary servants, the priests and the prophets, who had been appointed for its administration, but also by the states, whose origin dated from the beginning of the nation, which were older than the kingdom, which had been first called into existence by them, and whose rights he had as little power to trample upon as they on his. Hence the answer which the king gave by the advice of his imprudent friends is most strongly to be condemned, especially on account of the mocking, disagreeable way in which it was put. “My little finger,” he said, “shall be thicker than my father’s loins. My father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions.” It is generally supposed that scorpions here mean scourges; but the usual meaning of the word is quite applicable here. Scorpions, the evil, poisonous reptile, are an image of the most severe measures. In these words we hear no “king by the grace of God,” who, conscious of the similar origin of his rights and his duties, is equally mindful of both, but an overbearing despot, who imagines he can easily become master of the people by the help of his warriors. This does not, however, by any means justify the conduct of the people. First of all, we must bear in mind that their demand was in all probability nothing more than a pretext; that they would have deserted Rehoboam even if he had redressed their grievances, or if there had been no well-founded grievances. This resolution was only the culminating point of the jealousy of the ten tribes against Judah, a feeling which had long been in existence, especially among the tribe of Ephraim, which had succeeded in acquiring ascendency over the remaining tribes. The two tribes Judah and Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh were looked upon as one tribe) were the most numerous among all. Moreover, both had no inconsiderable claims. Judah had already been brilliantly distinguished in the blessing of Jacob; Moses had given him the first place in the camp of the Israelites; in Canaan he had received exceptionally large territory. Ephraim, already preferred before his brother by Jacob and Moses, Genesis 48:19-20, Deuteronomy 33:17, and always appearing as the representative of the whole tribe of Joseph, was proud of the pre-eminence of his ancestor, called a prince over his brethren in the blessing of Jacob, proud that Joshua had sprung from his midst, proud of the distinction of having possessed the tabernacle of the covenant at Shiloh for so many years, proud of the leadership which he had maintained during the whole period of the judges; comp. his reproaches against Gideon in Judges 8:1, and his rising against Jephthah in Judges 12, also the 78th Psalm, which shows clearly that during the whole period of the judges Ephraim had been in possession of a certain pre-eminence. Pride on account of real or imaginary superiority could not fail soon to awaken jealousy between the two tribes. This was plainly seen after the death of Saul. To avoid being subject to the Judaite David, Ephraim and the remaining nine tribes, which he had succeeded in reducing to a kind of dependence, probably on the pretext that the disproportionate power of Judah demanded a strong counter-influence, joined Ish-bosheth without regard to the will of God, which had been revealed by Samuel, and confirmed by the destruction of Saul and of his sons, who were not capable of reigning. David’s personal qualities finally gained the victory over this jealousy. Internal differences were swallowed up by the prospect of external power. David was voluntarily acknowledged king by the ten tribes also. But the fire still smouldered in the ashes, and David’s wisdom, which led him to choose his residence and the seat of the sanctuary without the tribe of Judah, did not avail to extinguish it. The success of Absalom’s revolt is certainly mainly attributable to the jealousy of Ephraim: the tribe which had refused allegiance to David hoped to derive advantage in the general confusion. This was immediately followed by the revolt of Sheba, to whom all Israel deserted, while the tribe of Judah remained true to its king. The 78th Psalm, composed by the Davidic Asaph, is highly instructive with respect to these relations. The object of the whole psalm is to meet the danger of refusing to submit to the divine decree by which the prerogative of the tribe of Ephraim was transferred to the tribe of Judah, of regarding as usurpation that which contained a divine judgment, and rising up against the sanctuary in Zion, and against the supremacy of David and of his tribe. It shows plainly that the spirit of rebellion among the ten tribes, and especially in Ephraim, existed as early as David’s time. But under David and Solomon participation in the national fame of Israel founded by these great kings formed an antidote to the jealousy of Ephraim, by which means its energy was broken, just as the Republicans in France remained quiet during the brilliant period of Napoleon. But after Solomon’s death it broke forth into clear flame, and the consequence of disregarding the true warning of Samuel was the deplorable separation of the kingdom, which dealt the Israelitish nation a mortal wound. This must be attributed not only to the jealousy of Ephraim, but also in some measure to the deep-rooted hatred of Benjamin towards Judah, who could never forgive the loss of the kingdom. We see how great this hatred was, from the conduct of the Benjamite Shimei on Absalom’s revolt, from the rebellion of Sheba, himself a Benjamite, and from the circumstance that Benjamin was the only tribe that was not numbered, doubtless because Joab feared to awaken its rebellious disposition. But even granting that the Israelites had represented their grievances with honest intent, yet they would have had no right to rebel when they found no hearing. Some, indeed, such as Michaelis, have affirmed the contrary. The ten tribes were under no obligation to accept the king of the tribe of Judah. For seven years David had been king over Judah alone, before he had been chosen and appointed king by the remaining tribes, who in the meantime had a king of the house of Saul. But this assertion is based on a completely false view. The kingdom was never an elective one: until now God had always reserved to Himself the right of appointing the king; the states had nothing to do but to acknowledge His choice. Their omission to do this for the seven years succeeding the death of Saul was their first sin, and cannot serve as a justification of a second. God had called David and all his race to the throne; hence the apostasy was directed against Him until He gave the people permission to choose a new ruler. It is true, indeed, that this revelation of God’s will had been contained in the announcement made by the prophet Ahijah to Jeroboam during Solomon’s reign. But this does not by any means justify Jeroboam and the nation, even if the announcement did really contain a summons to action, and was not rather a prediction of the future, whose accomplishment Jeroboam and the nation should quietly have left to the Lord, without trying to bring it about by their own sin. Their conduct shows that they had little regard to this announcement of God’s, which was entitled to some consideration, even if misunderstood, as the spring of their actions. Their motives appear to be purely carnal, without the smallest trace of a higher spirit. But the announcement of Ahijah, still totally misapprehended by Ewald, cannot be otherwise regarded than as the promise of kingship to David through Samuel, and David’s conduct shows us how the ten tribes ought to have acted. The answer of Rehoboam was very welcome to the ten tribes, as his experienced counsellors had foreseen, according to 1 Kings 12:7. A soft answer would have placed them in an embarrassing position, by obliging them to reveal their disposition to rebel. They declared their desertion from the house of David, and broke up the assembly. Rehoboam now became aware of his imprudence, and sent Adoram, one of his servants, to pacify them. This too would have been successful if the people had really sought nothing further than an alleviation of their burdens; but since this was not the case, it only served to increase their rage, the more so because the king had been imprudent enough to choose as his ambassador a hated commissioner of taxes. The nation stoned Adoram, in order to make the breach irreparable. Rehoboam now fled in haste to Jerusalem. There he made preparation for war against Israel, but gave up his preparations as soon as the prophet Shemaiah, in the name of the Lord, forbade him to make war, revealing that the continuance of the separation was the will of the Lord. This obedience shows that he still retained more pious disposition than the wretched Jeroboam. Thus the kingdom was divided into two unequal parts. Besides the tribe of Judah, Rehoboam had supremacy over the children of Israel who dwelt in the cities of Judah, according to 1 Kings 12:17. By the former representation, these included the Simeonites and a part of the tribe of Benjamin, viz. Jerusalem and its nearest Benjamitic environs, those immediately dependent on the capital. It is generally supposed that the whole tribe of Benjamin remained true to the Davidic kingship; but it has been shown in my commentary on Psalms 80 that this view is wholly untenable. Only one tribe, therefore, remained to the royal house of David; for Simeon, which had been incorporated with Judah, no longer existed as a tribe at the time of the separation of the kingdom. This Judaic kingdom lasted for four centuries, the length of time which elapsed from the separation of the kingdom to the Chaldaic destruction. Of the foreign conquests, the royal house of Judah still retained the lands of the Philistines and the Idumeans, which bordered on the tribe of Judah. But the former seem to have emancipated themselves very early. Ewald conjectures that they took advantage of the Egyptian invasion under Rehoboam. Then Judah was joined by the whole tribe of Levi. Levi was bound to the sanctuary, and could not recognise the intended innovations of Jeroboam without the grossest apostasy. From the beginning Jeroboam had assumed the most insolent manner towards this tribe, because he despaired of winning it permanently to his cause. Thus the kingdom of Judah was at least in some measure on a par with Israel. Israel, indeed, had all the tributary lands in the east as far as the Euphrates; but under existing circumstances this was a most precarious possession, and was in fact soon lost. Jeroboam was the representative of the evil spirit which animated the tribe of Ephraim even during the time of the judges, as we learn from Psalms 78, and in the time of his leadership exercised as injurious an influence on the whole of the nation, as afterwards upon Israel. He sought to retain by carnal means the kingdom which had been won by carnal means. In 1 Kings 12:26 we read: “And Jeroboam said in his heart, Now shall the kingdom return to the house of David.” In 1 Kings 11:38 the Lord had promised him that He would give the throne to him and to his family if he would walk in His ways. But this promise made no impression on him, because he had no faith. His evil conscience kept him in continual fear. He was particularly suspicious when Jerusalem remained as before the seat of the sanctuary for the ten tribes also. Looked at merely from the standpoint of human wisdom, there was great foundation for this suspicion. The religious union which was maintained by the yearly pilgrimages to Jerusalem might readily awaken a desire for the restoration of civil union, and it would be a matter of great difficulty to stifle the old allegiance to the royal house of David, which was enveloped in special glory by the circumstance that it resided at the seat of the sanctuary, if it still received new and powerful incentive. If Jeroboam had been a truly pious king, he would have confidently left it to God to ward off these evil consequences; but he showed by his conduct that he was utterly godless, and regarded religion only as a means for his own ends. Religious separation would make the political breach irreparable. If sacra communia no longer existed, the striving after civil unity would of necessity cease also. Under the pretext that the pilgrimage to Jerusalem was too burdensome to the nation, owing to the great distance, he set up two golden calves,—the one at Dan, the northern limit of the kingdom, the other at Bethel, the southern limit,—and tried to deprive the thing of its offensive character by appealing to the example of Aaron, who had established a similar worship immediately after the exodus out of Egypt. We learn that Jeroboam appealed to the example of Aaron, from the complete agreement of his words with those of Aaron in Exodus 32:4 : “These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.” The calf-worship which he established was not, however, mere dead imitation, but had also a new root. We are led to this inference by what is said in 1 Kings 12:2 with reference to Jeroboam’s sojourn in Egypt,—“for he was fled from the presence of king Solomon,”—and also by the twofold number of the calves, and the fact of their being set up in different places. Two sacred bulls, the Apis at Memphis, and the Mnevis at Heliopolis, were worshipped by all Egypt. The worship of one of the two, of Mnevis probably, first began in the interval between Moses and Jeroboam. The erection of a new sanctuary in itself would have been a crime, even if the worship had been conducted in perfect accordance with the directions of the law. We see how deeply this was recognised in early times, by the dealings with the two and a half tribes, in the book of Joshua. But the establishment of this worship was a far greater crime. There can be no doubt that Jeroboam was actuated by a desire to destroy the inner unity, after the outer religious unity had been removed by the establishment of new places to worship God, and thus to form an indestructible barrier between Judah and Israel. It was impossible for the Judaites to regard the Israelitish worship except with horror. Complete idolatry was by no means intended, just as little as in the wilderness and in the image-worship of Micah. The calves were only intended as a symbolization of Jehovah. Hence throughout the books of the Kings the sin of Jeroboam is distinguished from idolatry proper, and represented as comparatively less: thus, for example, in 1 Kings 16:31-33; 2 Kings 3:2-3, 2 Kings 10:30-31. In the minor prophets also a distinction is made between the worship of calves and the worship of Baal, however strongly the former might be denounced; comp. Michaelis, Mos. Recht. S. 245. The passage, 1 Kings 14:9, where the prophet Ahijah says to Jeroboam, “Thou hast gone and made thee other gods,” only points out that the crime of worshipping Jehovah under the image of a bull was of the same nature as idolatry, just as the Lord had previously characterized the licentious glance as adultery, without meaning to assert that it was completely identical with it. But the worship of images was also most strictly prohibited in the law, and was characterized in the Decalogue as a kind of idolatry. The way in which it was punished in the wilderness shows what a grievous crime it was in the sight of the Lord. To those who are not acquainted with human nature, it seems incomprehensible, at the first glance, how Jeroboam could have influenced the ten tribes to commit such an abomination. It seems that it must have been impossible for him to find any plausible pretext. But experience suffices to show what incredible ingenuity man possesses in perverting the clearest statements of Scripture, when they are in opposition to his desires. We do not know what distinctions Jeroboam invented in order to show that the Mosaic law was not applicable to this case. We learn from 1 Kings 12:28 that he did really try to make his conduct appear consistent with the law. Probably he argued that the people had now become mature, so that the prohibition which had been intended for their childhood was no longer applicable. This innovation of Jeroboam’s had the most disastrous consequences. The chosen symbolization of Jehovah necessarily gave rise to low ideas of Him. His ethical attributes—that which distinguishes the God of Israel most markedly from the idols of the heathen—were by this means thrown completely into the background, only the aspect of power is made prominent. And, moreover, the prohibition of the worship of images in the Pentateuch was as definite and clear as possible. And since the people had allowed themselves to interpret the law against their better knowledge and conscience in so important a case, they naturally did the same thing in other matters, whenever the corrupt desire of their hearts suggested it. Every conscious unfaithfulness, if cherished and excused, inevitably leads to complete ruin in the community, no less than in the individual. The introduction of image-worship offered a loophole to heathenism, through which it could not be prevented entering. A second means which Jeroboam employed for the destruction of religious unity was this,—he robbed the Levites of the dignity which had been bestowed on them by Moses, and had been so gloriously ratified by the miracle of the budding rod and the destruction of the company of the rebels, and even drove them completely from the land: comp. 2 Chronicles 11:13-17; 1 Kings 12:31 Kings 12:31, 1 Kings 13:33. If the Levites had continued to be the common servants of the sanctuary in the two kingdoms, there would always have been an element of union between them. And even if it had been possible to gain over some of the Levites in the beginning to the interest of the innovations, yet the spirit of tribe and of position was too powerful to allow this intrusion to have any permanence. The deposition of the Levites, which was apparently justified by the opposition of the tribe to the changes made by the king,—an opposition which must have been very welcome,—gave him an opportunity of attaching a number of individuals to his own interest. He chose new priests from the midst of the nation. From these, whose dignity had no divine foundation, but rose and fell with the political government, he could expect no opposition to his attempt to constitute himself spiritual ruler and chief exponent of the law: comp. 1 Kings 12:32 ff., according to which he himself offered up sacrifice and incense and ordained the priests; Amos 7:13, where the high priest Amaziah calls the sanctuary at Bethel the “King’s Chapel.” It was of course necessary for the king to vindicate this position, otherwise an end would soon have been put to his innovations: they could only be maintained by the same power which had first called them into life. The worship of calves was first established at Dan, and then at Bethel; the feast of tabernacles was celebrated in both places, in the latter in the presence of Jeroboam, but not as it ought to have been done in accordance with the law, on the fifteenth day of the seventh month, but of the eighth month. Perhaps he availed himself of the pretext that the feast of tabernacles was at the same time a feast of thanksgiving for fruit and vintage, but in some northern districts of the ten tribes these did not come to an end until after the legal term. His true object was nothing else than to destroy the religious unity between Judah and Israel. Hence the time had now come for the Lord to assert His sovereignty over Israel, unless the godless king were to persevere in his evil course. The way in which this happened is narrated in 1 Kings 13. We take for granted a knowledge of the contents of this chapter. Jeroboam, in his carnal wisdom, had not thought of the strongest link which bound the people to the Lord and to one another, viz. the prophethood, which offered a more powerful and effectual resistance to the abuse of religion in the service of a self-seeking, political interest, than the priesthood would have done. He soon found to his cost that he had erred in his calculation. A prophet from the kingdom of Judah, who had come to Bethel at the command of the Lord, while Jeroboam was officiating in his assumed character of high priest, prophesied, with a precision adapted to existing circumstances, that at a future time a king of Judah would destroy the altar and slay the high priests,—a prophecy which was only fulfilled 350 years afterwards by Josiah, the pious king, who destroyed the altar of Jeroboam at Bethel, having special regard to the prediction of the prophet, whose grave the people of the city pointed out to him, and recognised what happened as the fulfilment of the well-known prophecy. A doubly remarkable event, the rending of the altar and the stiffening of the arm of the king, which had been threateningly raised against the prophet, together with the healing of it at his request, confirmed his divine mission, and strengthened the impression on the people, who were assembled in great numbers. If we take our standpoint on the sphere of revelation, events such as these must necessarily have occurred according to idea and analogy. This object was still more definitely attained by the subsequent fate of the prophet himself. The Lord had given him a command neither to eat nor drink by the way, nor to return by the same way. This command was given out of consideration to the weakness of the prophet. It was to be anticipated that the king, in order to do away with the injurious impression which the prophecy had made on the nation, would try by every means in his power to gain over the prophet to his side. Hence a long stay exposed him to great temptation, and, if he persisted in it, to great danger; if he were to choose another way, he would not be so readily found by the king’s messengers. He resisted the enticements of Jeroboam; but when the tempter assailed him in a more disguised form, he succumbed. The instrument of his seduction, the old prophet from Bethel, is a very remarkable man in a psychological aspect. In ancient times it has been contested whether he was a true or a false prophet. The truth lies between the two extremes. He was originally a true prophet of the true God, but sinned by keeping silence respecting the innovations of Jeroboam. He was not, however, quite hardened. This is shown by the same history which forms a monument of his apostasy. When he heard of the prediction and the deeds of the Judaic prophet, he was seized with deep shame on account of his fall; and the struggle to conceal from himself his own disgrace and to appease the torments of his conscience explains why he urged the prophet so strongly to go home with him. He sought to vindicate his honour, as it were, to himself and to others, by proving that a true prophet would have fellowship with him. The fact that to gain this object he employed such disgraceful means—the false pretext of a revelation received from God—shows how strong the stings of conscience were, so that he felt it necessary to purchase at any price what seemed to promise him some measure of rest. The assertion of those who look upon the old man simply as a false prophet, that it was pure wickedness which prompted him to lead the Judaic prophet to transgress the divine command, is inconsistent with the narrative throughout. The Judaic prophet pays no heed to his proposal until he feigns a divine revelation. Hence Michaelis designates his transgression as comparatively innocent, but very erroneously. He was firmly persuaded that the revelation which had been given to him was divine, which was not the case with respect to the other. He would therefore not have yielded to the entreaty if his inclination had not led him to believe in the truth of that which was least authenticated. His punishment, though quite just, would not indeed have been so severe, if it had not been intended to furnish a striking example of the severity with which God avenges the neglect of His commands, and at the same time to confirm his divine mission. God also so ordered the circumstances of the punishment, that it could not be regarded as the work of accident, and effected the salvation of both prophets. He who by a false prophecy had seduced the Judaic prophet, was compelled to announce the judgment that was to follow, overpowered, like Balaam, by the Spirit of God. The circumstance that the lion, contrary to his nature, left the corpse and the ass uninjured, must have excited universal astonishment. The old prophet must have been deeply moved by the knowledge that by his guilt, another, far more innocent than he, should have died so terrible a death. That the matter really did exercise a salutary influence upon him, appears from chap. 1 Kings 13:21, 1 Kings 13:32, where he expresses the strongest faith in the fulfilment of the promise with respect to Josiah, as well as from 1 Kings 13:33, where, in strong contrast to the salutary impression produced on the prophet, we have a representation of the obduracy of Jeroboam. Josiah held the grave of the Judaic prophet in great honour, as that of a holy man. Jeroboam persisted in his obduracy, and soon received another divine warning. The prophets of the true God must have been an abomination to him, for they were sworn opponents of his image-worship. Nevertheless, on the sickness of his son Abijah, anxiety impelled him to send his wife to one of these prophets, Ahijah. But lest this sending should be regarded as a public recognition of the divine calling of the prophet, and should therefore bring shame upon him, she was to disguise herself as a woman in humble life, and to take with her such small presents as were in keeping with this station. With the inconsistency always found in combination with unbelief, Jeroboam trusted that the prophet, in consequence of his age, was almost blind. But the Lord revealed to Ahijah what his bodily eye could not see. Immediately on the entrance of the queen he announced the complete rejection and destruction of the house of Jeroboam on account of his grievous sins, and at the same time predicted the heavy misfortunes which would come upon Israel, until their final carrying away into captivity beyond the Euphrates. And that there might be no doubt regarding the truth of his announcement, he made a prophecy with respect to the immediate future: the son of the king should die immediately on the return of the mother. He only of the posterity of Jeroboam should receive a solemn burial, because he was found to be good before God in comparison with the remainder of the house of Jeroboam. The boy must have distinguished himself from the remaining children of the rejected Jeroboam by a pious disposition. Jeroboam was so hardened, that even the accurate fulfilment of this prediction was powerless to move him. With respect to the other events which befell him, and his actions, the author refers us to the more systematically chronicled records of Israel, because they were not suitable for his object, which was to write sacred history. We remark further, that Jeroboam raised Tirzah to be the capital of his kingdom, without paying any regard to the established claims of Sichem. He was perhaps led to do this by the Song of Solomon 6:4. It is quite in keeping with his politics, which invariably sought to find substitutes for the privileges enjoyed by the kingdom of Judah,—setting Bethel, for example, in opposition to Jerusalem, and the calves which had been consecrated by the example of Aaron in opposition to the ark of the covenant,—that he should choose for his residence a town which had been so honourably named by Solomon in connection with Jerusalem, and had been characterized as enjoying equal privileges. Turning now to the kingdom of Judah, we see clearly that it was much more favourably situated. We here find the temple at Jerusalem as the one place of the pure worship of Jehovah, in opposition to the impure worship at Dan and Bethel, as well as many other sacred places, among which Gilgal and Beer-sheba, situated in the kingdom of Judah, were very much resorted to. The class of the priests and Levites, strengthened in their natural dependence on the law by their banishment from the kingdom of the ten tribes, formed a strong bulwark against the entrance of godlessness. Since the Mosaic separation between the ecclesiastical and the civil sphere had been maintained in the kingdom of Judah, the prophethood had greater scope. The dynasty of David, resting upon divine right, and surrounded by venerable memories, which guaranteed even to its weaker members the recognition and love of the people, continued to form the central point of the nation, and secured its quiet development; while in Israel no dynasty succeeded in establishing itself, revolution succeeded to revolution, the people were distracted by the bloody party struggles, and a rude military despotism prevailed. Even the heritage of higher culture and civilisation which had been gained under Solomon passed over to Judah. Memories of the time of David continually reacted against intruding corruption, and gave powerful assistance to the reformations by which they were set aside, never allowing the heathen tendency, which had been advancing ever since the last days of Solomon, to acquire permanent supremacy. Of Rehoboam the history tells comparatively less than of Jeroboam. The fact that 1 Kings 14:21 represents Rehoboam as having been forty-one years of age when he ascended the throne has given rise to suspicion. Grotius, Clericus, and Michaelis have maintained that we must undoubtedly regard this as a critical error. The following are the reasons which they adduce:—According to this, Rehoboam must have been born a year before Solomon began to reign. But at this time he was still very young. This argument is not decisive. Solomon was eighteen years of age when he began to reign, and in this respect we must not judge the East by the West; and the argument that on Rehoboam’s accession to the throne he is described as young, and as having grown up with the young counsellors, has no weight. There is certainly a youthful character about the answer which Rehoboam gives to the ten tribes; but, if not generally, yet very frequently, judgment fails to come with years. It must be conceded that a critical emendation, without the authority of manuscripts, is more admissible in a statement of numbers than elsewhere. But in this case the accuracy of the account is confirmed by the fact that we find the same thing in 2 Chronicles 12:13. Rehoboam’s first care was to erect fortresses on the frontier towards Israel; comp. 1 Chronicles 6:5 ff. In the first three years of his reign the condition of the nation in a religious, and hence also in a political aspect, was pretty flourishing, as we are expressly told in Chronicles. All the priests and Levites had repaired to the kingdom of Judah; and a great number of God-fearing laymen, who abhorred the worship of calves, preferred to leave their fatherland rather than give up the freedom of sacrificing to the true God in the place which He had commanded. By this means the kingdom of Judah not only received a considerable accession to external power, but was also greatly strengthened internally. Opposition towards the corrupt spirit which prevailed in the kingdom of Israel at first roused nation and king to active zeal for the law of the Lord. But here also it was shown that religious movements, when connected with political struggles, have no lasting character; already, after the expiration of three years, Rehoboam turned aside from the good course which he had first trodden. His example exercised a most injurious influence on the nation, though a considerable ἐκλογή still remained. Idolatry, even in its most detestable forms, prevailed also in the kingdom of Judah, not, however, as a part of the fundamental constitution, but as an abuse opposed to it. This indeed went so far, that even the shameless worshippers of the god of love, who were consecrated to abandon themselves for money, קדשים, were tolerated. Here the crime was immediately followed by punishment. Already, in the fifth year of Rehoboam, Judah was attacked by Shishak king of Egypt, whether at the instigation of Jeroboam, as Ewald suspects, or not, we cannot be certain. If this had been the case, there would probably have been some indication of it in the sources. The separation of the kingdoms was sufficient reason in itself. With envy and apprehension Egypt had seen a powerful Israelitish kingdom rise up in its neighbourhood; it was natural at once to take advantage of its weakness. On the approach of the hostile army, the prophet Shemaiah earnestly upbraids the terrified king and nation for their sins, which have called forth this judgment; and when they accepted this punishment in a repentant spirit, he announced the mitigation of the divine judgment. The city surrendered to Shishak; but he contented himself with carrying away the treasures of the king and of the temple. The account of this Egyptian invasion has received remarkable confirmation from recent discoveries in Egypt. In the first court of the great palace at Karnak has been found the gigantic figure of a king described by the name “Shishonk, the beloved of Amnion.” It is evident that this is Shishonk, from the circumstance that among the conquered nations there is one with a beard and of unmistakeably Jewish physiognomy, who bears the name Judah Hamalek, or Melk, the kingdom of Judah. In Manetho, Lesonchis, the first king of the twenty-second dynasty of the Bubasti: Rosellini, 1, 2, p. 79; Champollion, Pr. p. 66; Wilkinson, 1, p. 136. Yet the repentance of Rehoboam was not thorough. 1 Kings 14:30, where we read, “And there was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam all their days,” has reference only to the hostile feeling which manifested itself in individual disputes, in contrast to the alliances afterwards existing between various kings of Judah and Israel. There was no open war between them. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 40: 40. § 2. ABIJAM AND ASA IN THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH. NADAB, BAASHA, ELAH, ZIMRI, OMRI, AND ... ======================================================================== § 2. Abijam and Asa in the Kingdom of Judah. Nadab, Baasha, Elah, Zimri, Omri, and Ahab in the Kingdom of Israel Rehoboam was succeeded on the throne by his son Abijah or Abijam, who was contemporary with Jeroboam, who reigned, however, only three years. His history is very briefly given in the books of Kings, but more fully in Chronicles. In 1 Kings 15:2, his mother is said to have been a daughter of Absalom. According to the chronology, she cannot possibly have been his daughter in the true sense; but it was not unusual to pass by the obscure parents, and speak of the grandsons and granddaughters as sons and daughters of their grand-parents, or even of their great-grand-parents. Absalom left no son, but only a daughter, Tamar, 2 Samuel 18:18, 2 Samuel 14:27. Maachah must have been her daughter. This is expressly corroborated by Chronicles. In 2 Chronicles 11:20, according to the same mode of speech employed in the books of the Kings, the mother of Abijah is called “Maachah, the daughter of Absalom.” On the other hand, in 2 Chronicles 13:2 she is more accurately described as “Michaiah, the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah.” This Uriel had married the daughter of Absalom. Abijah, like Rehoboam, was not wholly devoted to the Lord. Yet, from 1 Kings 15:3, where we read, “And his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God,” we infer that he was not utterly godless; probably he had not polluted himself with the worship of idols, but was lukewarm in promoting the fear of God and in ejecting idolatry. The same thing also appears from the severity with which he rejected the illegal worship introduced by Jeroboam, which presupposes that he had at least in some measure a good conscience; and again, from 1 Kings 15:15, according to which he made valuable presents to the temple, to compensate for that which had been stolen by the king of Egypt. Under Abijah war broke out openly against Israel. In 1 Kings 15:6, it is merely stated, “There was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam all the days of his life.” The words “between Rehoboam and Jeroboam “have made unnecessary difficulty here. Rehoboam is named instead of Abijah, because the war waged by the son was merely a continuation of that which had been begun by the father, for whom it was carried on, as it were. Abijah was succeeded by his better son Asa, who had begun his reign by the destruction of all idolatry. In the commencement of his reign, his grandmother Maachah, who had inherited the bad spirit of her father Absalom, had considerable influence, which is explained by the circumstance that Asa must have been still very young when his father died. But when she made use of her power for the strengthening of idolatry, it was taken from her by Asa, and an image which she had dedicated to the Phenician goddess Astarte was publicly destroyed. מפלצת, which occurs only in 1 Kings 15:13, is most probably explained by horriculum, horrendum idolam, פלצות, frequently in the sense of horror. But notwithstanding all his zeal, Asa was not able to destroy the altars on the heights which had been consecrated to Jehovah in various parts of Judea, in opposition to the law respecting the unity of the sanctuary. Those who possessed one of these sanctuaries in their midst would not relinquish the freedom of offering up sacrifices in these places, which were hallowed by past events, and Asa was obliged to content himself with the knowledge that he had at least completely exterminated idolatry. The reason why it was so difficult to do away with the custom of sacrificing on the heights, was because it assumed the disguise of piety. The former hostile relation towards Israel still continued, for the kingdom of Israel was not yet recognised by Judah; whence we read in 1 Kings 15:16, “And there was war between Asa and Baasha king of Israel all their days.” But in the first ten years of Asa it was not open warfare, and during this period the land enjoyed perfect peace; comp. 2 Chronicles 14:1. He employed this time in making reformations, and in building fortresses. From the tenth to the fifteenth year of his reign Asa seems to have been involved only in struggles which were of little importance, and are therefore not mentioned in the historical books. The first great war against the Cushite king Zerah, which is not mentioned at all in the books of the Kings, but is fully narrated in Chronicles, was already at an end in his fifteenth year, but cannot have lasted long, since it was determined by a battle. The Cushites dwelt partly in Southern Arabia, partly in Africa, which lay opposite to it. But here the reference can only be to the African Cushites, for we find no trace elsewhere of the Arabian Cushites having been a conquered nation. And what is quite decisive is the fact that, according to 2 Chronicles 16:8, there were also Libyans in the army of Zerah. The enemy must therefore have come out of Egypt, which is corroborated by the circumstance that, according to 2 Chronicles 14:14, in their flight they took the way across Gerar, which lies on the usual route from Canaan to Egypt. Champollion, Précis, p. 257, ed. ii., has supposed that the Cushite Zerah was the Egyptian king Osorkon, in Manetho and on the monuments. In favour of this view, we have, (1) the fact that they lived at the same time. From the fifth year of Rehoboam to the defeat of Zerah there are thirty years; and the time occupied by the reigns of the two first Pharaohs of this dynasty, Lesonchis (i.e. Shishak) and Osorkon, amounts to thirty-six years, according to all the compilers of Manetho. (2) The similarity of name. The three first consonants of Osorkon reappear in the זרה. But Rosellini, 1, 2, p. 87 ff., has brought forward the following arguments in opposition to this view: (1) The omission of the n, which forms an essential part of the name Osorkon. (2) Zerah is called an Ethiopian, and not Pharaoh, nor king of Egypt, which occurs of Shishak and all the kings of Egypt. But these arguments are by no means to be regarded as decisive. Zerah had a twofold position, as Ethiopian monarch, and as king of Egypt. It is natural that in Egyptian sources the latter should be made prominent, while the biblical narrative should take his principal position into account. Asa gained a brilliant victory over this powerful king, and Israel was now left in peace for a considerable time, until Josiah, for the Egyptians were fully occupied with themselves. The returning king was received by the prophet Azariah with an earnest discourse, in which he drew his attention to the fact that the victory was only a result of his faithfulness towards God, and urgently exhorted him and the nation to continue in it, predicting that the future would bring a time of heavy affliction for the whole nation, in which it would not only be robbed of its worship, but would be totally deprived of every manifestation of God in its midst,—a prophecy which was first realized in the prelude to the time of the Chaldean exile, and completely fulfilled after the Romish destruction. This formed a powerful incentive to employ the time of grace, and thus to ward off the threatened misfortune. This discourse increased the zeal of the king. He called a general assembly of the nation to Jerusalem, and there solemnly renewed the covenant with the Lord. The whole nation was seized with lively enthusiasm. Many God-fearing people of the kingdom of the ten tribes emigrated to the kingdom of Judah. This invariably happened when pious kings reigned in Judah, and when, in consequence, the Lord made Himself known to the tribe by the deliverance which He granted it. For Judah this was a great blessing: the best powers of Israel flowed thither. But for Israel it was ruinous,—it became more and more a mass without salt. Open warfare afterwards broke out with the kingdom of Israel. In 2 Chronicles 15:9, 2 Chronicles 16:1, we read that there was no war until the thirty-fifth year of the reign of Asa; but in the thirty-sixth, Baasha undertook a campaign against Judah. Here the difficulty arises, that, according to 1 Kings 16:8, Baasha died in the thirty-sixth year of Asa. There are only two alternatives. Either the date in Chronicles must be critically corrupt, or the terminus a quo of the thirty-six years is not the beginning of the reign of Asa, but the separation of the kingdom; so that Asa, like Rehoboam, is not to be regarded as an individual, but as the representative of the kingdom of Judah, in the thirty-sixth year of the line represented by Asa. According to the latter view, the thirty-sixth year coincides with the fifteenth of Asa, and the war against Israel must have begun in the same year in which the war with the Cushites came to an end. This latter becomes probable by assuming an original union of the two wars, which may be demonstrated. According to 2 Chronicles 15:9, many Israelites went over to the kingdom of Judah in consequence of the victory over the Cushites. But, according to 2 Chronicles 16:1 and 1 Kings 15:17, this very circumstance gave rise to the war with Israel. Baasha resented these emigrations. He feared that, unless he could succeed in putting a complete stop to all intercourse with the kingdom of Judah, his subjects would all eventually return to the king of Judah, who seemed to be specially favoured by God. He therefore determined to fortify the city of Ramah, which was two hours’ journey from Jerusalem, situated on an elevation, and commanding the way to Judah, and thus to cut off the passage. If this work were successfully accomplished, it was probably his intention to invade the kingdom of Judah. With this object in view, he had concluded an alliance with Benhadad, king of the Damascene Syrian kingdom, which had arisen in Solomon’s time, comp. 1 Kings 15:19; and from 2 Chronicles 16:7 we learn that Benhadad’s troops were actually advancing. Asa thought he could only escape the danger by endeavouring to bring over the king of Syria to his side. With this object he sent him the treasure of the temple, which had been newly replaced by himself and his father. The plan succeeded. The king of Syria invaded Israel instead of Judah, and took several towns situated in the neighbourhood of the Sea of Gennesareth. Baasha was obliged to abandon the fortification of Ramah, and to hasten to the protection of the northern parts of his kingdom. But on this occasion Asa sinned from want of faith, and his sin was held up to him by the prophet Hanani, just as King Ahaz was afterwards reproved by Isaiah for seeking help from the king of Assyria against Israel and Syria. The king was not absolutely forbidden to make any alliance. Here, however, the question was not so much of an alliance as of subjection, which, though it might be temporarily advantageous, would be most prejudicial as a permanent thing. Asa would have seen this if he had not been blinded by fear; and this fear was the less excusable, because he had shortly before so definitely experienced God’s power and will to help, in far greater danger, on the attack of the Cushites. If he had looked at the matter with an unprejudiced eye, he could not have regarded the Syrians as the instrument appointed by God for his salvation. Unless looked at in this way, all use of human means is sinful, because it proceeds from want of faith. Not to use those natural means which are permitted is to tempt God; to use those which are not permitted is to blaspheme Him, since it shows a want of confidence in His will and power to help. That the king was really deeply moved by the censure of the prophet, he made evident by his conduct towards him. He threw him into prison. He is also accused of injustice towards others then in the nation, probably towards such as ventured to express disapproval of his conduct towards the prophet. Towards the close of his life the king was afflicted by a disease in his feet. The fact that he is reproved for having sought the help of physicians, and not of God, does not apply to the use of physicians in general, but to their use apart from God. These weaknesses of the otherwise pious Asa are only noticed in the books of Chronicles, and are not mentioned at all in the books of the Kings, which little accords with the partial predilection for the kingdom of Judah and its kings attributed to the Chronicles by rationalistic criticism. The king was interred in a grave which he himself had caused to be excavated, and a great number of fragrant things were burnt to do him honour. The view upheld by many—for example, by Michaelis in the note on 2 Chronicles 16:14, and in the treatise De combustione et humatione mortuorum ap. Hebr., in the first part of his Syntagma Commentt. p. 225 ff.—that the body of the king itself was burnt, is quite opposed to the sense of the passage in Chronicles which we have quoted, as Geier has amply proved, De Luctu Hebroeorum, chap. 6. Asa lived to see that with the rise of the house of Omri matters assumed a more peaceful aspect between the kingdom of the ten tribes and the kingdom of Judah. On the whole, the long reign of Asa must be regarded as an actual advance towards a better state of things. But in his son Jehoshaphat the principles by which he had been guided assumed a purer and more definite form. We now pass over from the kingdom of Judah to the kingdom of Israel. When Jeroboam died, in the second year of Asa, he was succeeded on the throne by his equally godless son Nadab. Under him the divine judgment, with which the house of Jeroboam had been threatened, passed speedily into fulfilment. In the third year of Asa, Nadab with a large army besieged the city Gibbethon, which is mentioned in Joshua 19:44 as belonging to the inheritance of the tribe of Dan. The city was at that time in the power of the Philistines, and the object of Nadab’s expedition was to take it from them again. During the siege, Baasha formed a conspiracy against him and slew him. Having thus gained the throne, he murdered the whole family of Jeroboam. Thus sin was punished by sin, which was again to be punished by other sin; for we are afterwards expressly told by the author of the books of the Kings that Baasha was not justified by the fact that what he did was in accordance with the divine decree. In the history of the kingdom of Israel we may learn how it fares with a kingdom which has no share in the favour of God, and how this is the heaviest scourge which can be laid upon a nation. The kingdom was founded by apostasy from the Davidic dynasty, which had been chosen by God, and this circumstance rested upon it as a continual curse. The right of kings belonged to Ephraim by human appointment, and consequently it could not violate the feelings of any when dissatisfaction with the royal race was followed by human deposition. Here there was no check to ambitious passion. Whoever found himself in possession of the same means as his predecessor, thought himself therefore justified in pursuing the same course of action. Thus dynasty succeeded dynasty, king after king was murdered. In the bloody battles thus occasioned, the nation became more and more unruly: sometimes there were interregna, and occasionally complete anarchy. By these internal wars external power was more and more broken. No regent could stop this source of evil; he would have had to give up his existence. Baasha showed himself just as godless as Jeroboam. For this reason the prophet Jehu was sent to him to announce the complete destruction of his house. The Lord upbraids him with his ingratitude; for though He had raised him from the dust and made him a prince, he had yet heaped sin upon sin. The thought is this: If God had treated him as he deserved, He would at once have allowed him to reap the reward of his revolt against his king, and of his selfish barbarity towards the king’s family. But because He forbore to do this,—because He allowed him to assume the sovereignty,—he was under the greater obligation to be led by the leniency of God to repentance for that which was past, and not by continued sin to perpetuate the remembrance of the former, and to call down punishment for it on his house. In 1 Kings 16:7 we find the fact that he slew the house of Jeroboam, his son and the other members, represented as a concomitant cause of the sentence of destruction on the house of Baasha pronounced through Jehu. At the same time this throws light on the revolt of Jeroboam. It is clear that it was not in the least justified by the circumstance that the separation of the two kingdoms was decreed by God. It throws light also on the acts of the subsequent murder of the king. Existing authorities will always be sacred in the eyes of him who fears God. If their power have been won by evil means, and be applied to sinful purposes, he will quietly wait until God destroy them. To this end God employs the ungodly as His instruments, and then again destroys them by the ungodly. This is the prevailing view of Scripture. The Assyrians and Chaldeans, for example, appear in the prophets as the scourge of God, as His servants, His instruments, by which He punishes the sins of His people and of others. Nevertheless they in their turn are abandoned to destruction on account of that which they have done against the covenant-nation and against others. This view of Scripture opens up a grand insight into the disposition of divine providence and the exercise of the divine government of the world. Baasha’s son Elah began to reign in the twenty-sixth year of Asa, but already in the second year he lost his throne in the very same way in which it had been won by his father. (The statement in 1 Kings 16:8, that he reigned for two years, is proximate.) The siege of Gibbethon was probably raised on account of the murder of Nadab. The new king Baasha was more importantly occupied in strengthening his government internally. His son renewed the siege, but while his army lay before the city, he was slain at a banquet by Zimri, one of his generals, who then slew all his family. Zimri, however, was not allowed to reign for so long a period as Jeroboam and Baasha. The army were not satisfied with his accession to the throne. They made Omri, their general, king, and at their head he marched towards the royal residence Tirzah. When Zimri saw that the besieged city could not hold out, he burnt himself with the royal palace—a second Sardanapalus. Zimri’s death did not yet secure to Omri the peaceful possession of the throne. A part of the nation joined Tibni, the opposition king. For several years Tibni reigned as well as Omri, but with less power, for Omri had the army on his side. After the death of Tibni—it is uncertain whether this took place in a natural way or not—Omri finally attained to sole sovereignty in the thirty-first year of Asa, according to 1 Kings 16:23. The struggle with Tibni had lasted for four years, from the twenty-seventh to the thirty-first year of Asa. Altogether the reign of Omri lasted not quite twelve years, from the twenty-seventh year of Asa to the thirty-eighth. In the first six years he had his residence at Tirzah, like the former kings. Afterwards he founded the city of Samaria, and built a citadel there. Samaria, situated on a mountain which forms a prominence in a fruitful plain, remained the royal residence to the end of the kingdom, for two hundred years. But Bethel continued to be the religious capital of the kingdom, though not in the same sense as Jerusalem for Judah. The kingdom of Israel had a multitude of places for offering up sacrifice. Omri sought peace without, that he might be able to establish his house firmly within. He kept on friendly terms with the kingdom of Judah, and the other members of his house remained true to his policy in this respect. He had to buy peace with Damascene Syria by some sacrifices. He gave up a few towns to the Syrians, and allowed them the right of making streets in Samaria, 1 Kings 20:34, i.e. to have a quarter of their own in it, where they might freely exercise their religion and have their own jurisdiction. But while it cannot be denied that Omri was wise in his policy, his religious influence was throughout destructive. He surpassed his predecessors in ungodliness, but was himself surpassed by his son Ahab, whose reign is very remarkable on account of the activity of Elijah, which belonged to this period. Formerly the worship of the Lord, though under images, had been the legal religion: idolatry proper was only practised by a few individuals, and that not in conscious opposition to the service of the Lord, but in syncretic blindness along with it (comp. what we have already said on this subject in the history of Solomon). Even the most depraved kings had not persecuted the prophets of the true God, however openly they had been opposed by them. Under Ahab the evil reached its highest pitch. The king himself was a servant of the Phenician gods, of Baal and Ashtaroth, personifications of the masculine and the feminine principles in nature, of its begetting and birth-giving power; comp. Münter, The Religion of the Carthaginians, pp. 6 and 62, and Movers, Phenicians, i. p. 188 ff., according to whom Baal was the begetting, sustaining, and destroying power in nature, and at the same time the god of the sun, while Ashtaroth was the goddess of the moon. The prophets, who could not keep silence respecting this abomination, suffered bloody persecution. The people for the most part united the worship of images with idolatry, if they did not quite give themselves up to the latter. But even at that time apostasy, which is at all times so loath to unveil itself completely, did not come forward in distinct opposition to the service of the Lord and to the Mosaic law. On the contrary, the servants of Baal, with Ahab at their head, maintained the identity of Baal and Jehovah; and the persecution was not directed against the servants of Jehovah in general, but only against those among them who bore powerful witness against the union of the irreconcilable, loudly maintaining that Jehovah identified with Baal was no longer Jehovah. The proposition, which Elijah from his standpoint expresses thus: whether Jehovah be God or Baal? was understood by the servants of Baal from their standpoint thus: whether Jehovah-Baal be God, or Jehovah in His exclusiveness? That this is the correct view is most clearly shown from 1 Kings 18:21 : “How long halt ye between two opinions?” (properly, super duabus opinionibus)—how long do ye hesitate undecided between two opinions? “If the Lord be God, follow Him: but if Baal, then follow him.” This plainly presupposes that in the view of the nation the heterogeneous religious elements had flowed together into one. This syncretism would indeed appear incomprehensible, if we did not recognise the influence which inclination exercises upon judgment, and call to mind the analogies offered by our own time, which is also zealously endeavouring to amalgamate the God of Scripture and the God of the spirit of the age, notwithstanding their infinite diversity,—even doing honour to the term “Mediation-Theology,” so weak in itself. The worship of Baal and Astarte is the most horrible known to all antiquity: human sacrifices were everywhere common to it, comp. Münter, p. 17 ff.; the unchastity practised in the temples of Astarte in her honour is notorious to all antiquity, comp. Münter, p. 79 ff., Movers, The Religion of the Phenicians, p. 689 ff. The fearful moral effects of this religion generally are described by Münter in a special section, p. 150 ff. Syncretism was in many respects worse than open opposition. He who identified Jehovah and Baal had the former only in name. Moreover, the servants of Baal-Jehovah still continued to rely upon the promises of Jehovah and His covenant, and to presume upon their external service, and therefore upon their sin itself, and were consequently strengthened in their false security. The union of the king with Jezebel, a daughter of the Phenician king Ethbaal, gave occasion for this change for the worse. Her energetic wickedness won absolute influence over Ahab’s effeminate weakness. Here we find a remarkable conformity between sacred and profane history. According to a fragment from the Syrian year-books in Josephus, viii. chap. 7, translated into Greek by Menander, Ithobalos was king of Tyre during the reign of Ahab. We find this by a comparison of the years there given with those in Scripture from Solomon to Ahab. The name Ithobalos signifies, with Baal, one connected with Baal. By this comparison, Ithobalos was born in the second year of the separation of the kingdom, and was therefore fifty-six years of age when Ahab came to the throne, and might therefore very well have been his father-in-law. Compare the copious calculation in Joh. Dav. Michaelis in the remarks on the books of the Kings. The fact that Ethbaal, or, with the Greek termination, Ithobalos, is spoken of in the books of the Kings as king of the Sidonians, while in Menander he appears as the king of Tyre, forms only an apparent difference. Sidon was the oldest, and had previously been the most powerful city of the Phenicians, to which the others were in a certain sense subordinate, and hence the name of the Sidonians was transferred to the Phenicians generally, and even clung to them long after Tyre had taken the place of Sidon; comp. Gesenius on Isaiah 23:4, Isaiah 23:12. At that time Sidon, as well as the other cities of Phenicia, stood in a certain relation of dependence towards Tyre, so that Ethbaal was also king of the Sidonians in the narrower sense. This appears from another fragment of Menander to be noticed afterwards, in which it is related that Sidon and the other Phenician cities, tired of the Tyrian oppression, combined with Shalmaneser against them. It is remarkable also that by Menander’s account, Ithobalos, formerly high priest, had made his way to the throne by regicide. In Jezebel we find the same union of zeal for idolatry with the spirit of murder, which we can suppose must have characterized the former high priest. Moreover, her fanaticism and her spirit of persecution exactly correspond with the character of the Phenician-Carthaginian religion, of which their union forms the characteristic feature, in distinction from most other religions of antiquity; comp. Münter, p. 157 ff., and with regard to the dependence of the Israelitish worship of Baal on the Phenicians, comp. Movers, The Phenicians, i. p. 178 ff. Ahab built a chief temple of Baal in Samaria, with a large pillar giving a representation of it, and several smaller pillars. We find no mention of a temple of Astarte. A sacred grove, עשרה, was dedicated to her. Four hundred and fifty prophets of Baal and 400 prophets of Astarte were placed in opposition to the prophets of the true God, as the spiritual representatives of the religion of this world; comp. 1 Kings 16:31 ff., 1 Kings 18:19; 2 Kings 3 :2 Kings 3:2, 2 Kings 10:25-27. There can be no doubt that those who had till then acted as calf-prophets now willingly appeared as prophets of this new form of worldly religion. Corruptibility is an essential characteristic of the false prophethood. It invariably lent itself to the ruling power, in order to gain advantage from it. This, therefore, was just the time for the appearance of a man with the ardour of Elijah, if the last traces of the supremacy of God were not to disappear from the kingdom of Israel. The great question of the existence or non-existence of the true religion in Israel was pending; a last attempt was made to save a sinking nation from the abyss. And if we powerfully realize this state of things,—if we consider how palpable it was necessary for the manifestations of the divine omnipotence to be, in order to make any impression on the deeply sunk nation and its depraved king, how mighty the consolations for the prophet himself, since all things visible were so entirely opposed to him,—we must acknowledge that everything extraordinary in his life appears quite natural. The wonderful can occasion the less surprise, since the prophet himself is the greatest wonder. A character such as this,—an iron will, a lightning glance, a voice of thunder, and at the same time showing mildness and friendliness where it was possible for him to display these qualities, as in relation to the widow of Sarepta, the kingdom of God his only thought, God’s honour his only passion,—such a character defies all natural explanation, especially in such surroundings. An expression peculiar to Elijah is the calling upon Jehovah “before whom he stood,” whom he served, whose word he was obliged to follow even if it brought him into conflict with the whole world, and cost him his life. We must consider also that the position of the prophets in the kingdom of Israel was essentially different from their position in the kingdom of Judah, and was far more difficult. Their relation to the priests was completely hostile. Because the prophethood had no support and foundation in a hierarchy venerable for its antiquity, and hallowed by divine signs and wonders, it was necessary that it should be far more powerfully supported from above, and far more palpably legitimized. With respect to the origin, culture, and earlier fortunes of Elijah, history is silent. It first brings him before us charged with an important mission to Ahab, which presupposes that he had already held the prophetic office for a considerable time. From 1 Kings 17:1, where he is said to have been of the inhabitants of Gilead, some have concluded that Elijah was not a born Israelite, but rather a proselyte from heathendom, who had settled in the country beyond the Jordan, perhaps with his immediate ancestors. But this conclusion is too hasty. In the passage adduced, Elijah is called the Tishbite of the inhabitants of Gilead. He was from Tishbah in Gilead, where, however, he possessed no civil rights, but dwelt as one who had no home. His forefathers had emigrated thither from another part of the Israelitish territory. This assumption is less remote than that of his heathen origin, of which there is no indication whatever. That God will not be mocked with impunity, Ahab first learned in a way involving comparatively little personal suffering. We have already seen that Joshua laid a curse on the rebuilding of Jericho. There can be no doubt that this was universally known; and until this time no one had ventured to think of rebuilding the city, fearing lest he should bring down the curse upon himself. Ahab may have treated this fear as childish superstition. Undoubtedly it was at his command that Hiel undertook the work, which promised great advantage from the position of the place. The prophecy was literally fulfilled: all the sons of Hiel died before the work was concluded. But this made no impression on Ahab, who may have ascribed it to accident. It was necessary, therefore, that a judgment should come upon him which should touch him more sharply,—one which could not be attributed to accident, since it followed immediately upon the prediction of Elijah. Elijah appeared suddenly before the king. His address is only given in part. Doubtless he either now preceded the announcement of punishment by a severe exhortation to repentance, as the prophets were always accustomed to do, or else he had previously done so. The punishment was to consist in a great drought, followed by a famine. Formerly the divine judgments had touched the kings alone, now king and nation were to be punished alike. The threat is an individualizing of Deuteronomy 11:16-17 : “Take heed to yourselves, that your heart be not deceived, and ye turn aside, and serve other gods, and worship them; and then the Lord’s wrath be kindled against you, and He shut up the heaven, that there be no rain, and that the land yield not her fruit.” The prophet does not say how long the punishment is to last. This would have weakened the influence of the threat. It is probable that the king paid little regard to the discourse of the prophet, whom he looked upon as a fanatic; hence he allowed him to depart without injury. The question now was, how to deliver the prophet from the power of Ahab. If that which was predicted should come to pass, Ahab, in accordance with his idolatrous superstition, could only think that the prophet had brought about the public calamity by a magic power exercised over his God, such as his priests pretended to be able to exercise. This was necessarily connected with the idea that by the same magic power, by incantation and spells, he could also cause it to cease, and Ahab would naturally make every exertion to oblige him to do this. And in event of the prophet refusing,—and he could not do otherwise even if he wished, since he had only foretold the plague at the command of God, and had not produced it, although it happened in consequence of his prayer, according to James 5:17,—his life, so valuable for the kingdom of God, would be exposed to the greatest danger. For this reason Elijah repaired to the most inaccessible hiding-place which the land offered him, to the brook Cherith, not otherwise known, supposed by some to be identical with the נחלחקנה, the river Kanah, Joshua 16:8; Joshua 17:9, comp. Reland, i. p. 293; according to Robinson, part ii. p. 533, the present Wady Kelt, in the neighbourhood of Jericho. Ewald and Thenius are wrong in urging the objection that, according to 1 Kings 17:3, the brook Cherith flowed on the east of the Jordan, rather eastwards from Samaria towards the Jordan. Elijah probably dwelt in a rocky cave of the thickly-wooded mountain through which the torrent flows. No man was to know his abode, otherwise he could not have escaped the zealous search instituted by the king, who even sent messengers into all the neighbouring countries. His maintenance must therefore be provided for by extraordinary measures. The way in which this happened seems so incredible to many, that they regard the most absurd hypotheses as preferable. These have already in ancient times been excellently refuted by Bochart, Hieroz. part ii. B. 2, chap. 14, and by Reland, i.e. ii. p. 913 ff. Taking into consideration the whole position of Elijah at the time, there is more probability in favour of an extraordinary course of things than of an ordinary: there can be no question of a miracle here. The natural side of the matter appears to be this, that the ravens, allured by the water of the brook Cherith, there consumed the booty that they had gained in inhabited lands. After the lapse of a year, with the increasing drought the brook Cherith dried up. Elijah now received a command from the Lord to repair to Zarephath in the land of the Sidonians; for the אשרלצידון, 1 Kings 17:9, must be explained thus, and not “which belongeth to Sidon.” There He had commanded a widow to provide for him. It required strong faith to follow this command. Already the king had sought him in every land, and now he was to repair to the very place of the godless father of the godless Jezebel. Elijah rose up without hesitation. Zarephath is Sarepta, a town on the Mediterranean between Tyre and Sidon, now Zarphan or Zarphend. The drought and the famine had extended even to those districts, as appears not only from this history itself, but also from a fragment from the Phenician year-books which we shall quote later on. Elijah finds the widow immediately before the gate of the city. By a divine revelation he becomes aware that he is not mistaken in the person. His address to her is intended to give her an opportunity of revealing her faith in the God of Israel, and thus justifying the divine choice. She was indeed a heathen by birth, which is confirmed by Luke 4:25-26; but the knowledge of the true God had come to her from the neighbouring Israel, which now itself renounced this knowledge in so disgraceful a way, and she had received it with joy. Her oath by the God of Israel shows this; and still more the fact that, believing the promise of God given to her through Elijah that He would sustain her, she prepared for the prophet the little food that she still had in store. She must already have had something in her mind, otherwise she would not have been so impressed by the divinity of the prophet as to renounce that which was certain for what to human understanding was uncertain. Elijah now took up his abode with the woman. He had no cause to fear betrayal, even if he had fully revealed himself to her, which is doubtful; for the widow reverenced him as a benefactor sent to her by God. He occupied the most retired part of the house, the upper chamber. It is certain that Elijah must have done everything to further the widow in her knowledge of salvation, and soon he found an opportunity of affording her faith an extraordinary confirmation. The son of the widow died. At the prayer of the prophet the boy was restored to his mother. This whole event bears a symbolical character, which is made specially manifest by its New Testament antitype. Christ, persecuted by the Jews, goes into the country of Tyre and Sidon, and there rewards the faith of the Canaanitish woman, in order to prefigure the future transference of the kingdom of God to the Gentiles. When, in accordance with the divine decree, the drought was to come to an end, Elijah received the command to repair to Ahab. According to 1 Kings 18:1, this happened after the lapse of a long time, in the third year. Here the terminus a quo is the sojourn of Elijah at Sarepta; and if we also reckon the year which he spent at the brook Cherith, according to 1 Kings 17:7, or even a longer or a shorter space of time, since the expression made use of in this passage is not quite definite, we get a period of three to four years for the whole duration of the drought, quite in harmony with the account in Luke 4:25, James 5:17, that at the time of Ahab it rained not on the earth for the space of three years and six months. A notice of the event has been preserved even in heathen history. In Josephus, viii. 13. 2, Menander says: “Under him (Ithobalos) there was no rain from October in one year to October in the following year; but at his prayer there was frequent lightning.” The only essential difference here is, that the time of the famine lasted only for a year. But it is not therefore necessary to assume a mistake in the Tynan accounts, for it is possible that there may still have been occasional rain in Phenicia when complete drought had already overtaken Israel, since Phenicia lay nearer to the Mediterranean Sea, from which Palestine gets nearly all its rain; comp. 1 Kings 18:43. The other variation—the statement that the rain came at the entreaty of the former idolatrous priest Ithobalos—may readily be recognised as a distortion due to jealousy. We have abundant proof of the fabrications and patriotic fancies of the Tyrians, even in the few fragments which have come down to us from them. For example, it is somewhat analogous when they represent Solomon as having engaged in a contest respecting the solution of riddles with Hiram, by whom, with the help of another wise Tyrian, he was conquered, and to whom he was obliged to pay an immense sum. Just as they there invested their own king with the honour belonging to Solomon, so here they give him the honour which was due to Elijah. It is remarkable, however, that even in this account the drought appears as an extraordinary event, and the rain as a consequence of the hearing of prayer. On his way to the king, Elijah meets Obadiah, a pious officer, who was travelling through a part of the country, by the king’s order, for the purpose of inquiring whether food were not to be had somewhere, while the king had taken the opposite direction with the same object in view. In the bloody persecutions of Jezebel, this man had concealed and supported 100 prophets, principally disciples and servants of the prophets, bat by no means only such, who received important revelations respecting the future—a thing which happened to comparatively few. These 100 prophets again call our attention to the difference between the Judaic and Israelitish prophethood. In Judah, where the activity of the prophets was merely supplementary, we never find the prophethood in such masses. In consequence of this, the false prophethood also appears far more powerful in the kingdom of Israel than in the kingdom of Judah. The vehement character of the defence of the religion of Jehovah called forth also a vehement character of opposition towards it. The hundreds of prophets of the true God are opposed by hundreds of prophets of calves, comp. 1 Kings 22, and at the time when the spirit of the world completely stripped off its veil, and openly professed the religion of the world, by hundreds of prophets of Baal and Astarte, who cannot be confounded with the priests of these deities, but whose existence rather presupposes that of the true prophethood. In Judah we find everywhere priests of Baal alone. Obadiah had already incurred the hatred of the queen and the suspicion of the king by his protection of the prophets. Hence, when Elijah commissions him to inform Ahab of his presence, he first begs to be spared this errand, lest the Spirit of the Lord should again suddenly carry him away, in which case the whole wrath of Ahab, on account of his deceived hopes, would be directed against him, and he would naturally be suspected of having a secret understanding with Elijah, with the intention of making sport of the king. It seems that there had already been similar cases of a sudden disappearance in the history of Elijah, otherwise it would be impossible to understand this fear on the part of Obadiah; comp. 2 Kings 2:16. Elijah sets him at rest by an assurance confirmed with an oath, and he executes the commission. On receiving news of the reappearance of Elijah, Ahab immediately hastens to meet him. At first he tries to impress him by a severe address, but soon perceives that nothing is to be gained in this way; for Elijah with reckless candour casts back on him the reproach of having been the originator of the misfortune that had come upon Israel,—an accusation which Ahab had made against Elijah on the presupposition that he had caused the drought by the magic exercise of his power over God. Elijah offers to prove the truth of his assertion that Ahab’s idolatry was the cause of the whole misfortune, in a visible way, and for this purpose desires that the king shall collect the (450) prophets of Baal and the (400) prophets of Astarte on Mount Carmel. The latter were fed from the table of Jezebel, the daughter of the high priest of Astarte. Although the king accepted the proposition of Elijah, and commanded all the prophets to assemble on Mount Carmel, it appears that the latter, guessing what was impending, were able to evade the royal decree by the assistance of the queen. At all events the prophets of Baal only are mentioned in what follows. Mount Carmel is a large and wide plateau, with fresh springs, hanging over the sea in the form of a promontory, covered with fragrant herbs on the summit, and offering an extensive sea-view. Where its base touches the sea, the brook Kishon falls into the famous Bay of Acre or Ptolemy, which flows from Mount Tabor through the mineral district of Esdraelon. The situation of the place, which made it even in later times one of the principal seats of the heathen worship of nature (comp. Movers, p. 670), was calculated to strengthen the impression of the act which Elijah was determined to undertake. On the appointed day, a great multitude of people, together with the priests of Baal, assembled on Mount Carmel. To the people Elijah first directed his address; for his object was to work upon them rather than upon the weak king, on whom he could scarcely expect to make any lasting impression, on account of the influence which the ungodly Jezebel had over him. The prophet addresses the people in these words: “How long halt ye between two opinions? If the Lord be God, follow Him: but if Baal, then follow him.” In this way he upbraids the people for their foolishness in striving to reconcile the irreconcilable. The religion of Jehovah was exclusive in its character; it must therefore either be entirely rejected, or the true God must be worshipped solely and exclusively. The people felt the force of the alternative: of Jehovah-Baal there was nothing to be said,—either Jehovah or Baal. But they did not know for whom to decide. It was time, therefore, that the great question, which was constantly reappearing in other forms, should be decided in a palpable way,—whether the Lord was God, or Baal, the god whom the world had invented in the interest of its own inclinations. We invariably find such a decision wherever, under the old covenant, the true God came into conflict with idols. It was the case in Egypt; in the time of the Assyrian invasion; in Babylonia, when the true God seemed to have lost His cause against the idols, by the destruction of His people. Under the Old Testament, in accordance with its whole character, it happened in a more visible and palpable way. Even under the New Testament it constantly recurs, but in a more refined and spiritual form. There we read: He wieldeth His power in secret. The priests of Baal could not do otherwise than accept the proposal of Elijah, with whom we take it for granted they were acquainted. The people had received it with enthusiasm: its fairness was the more evident, since Elijah as an individual was opposed to so great a mass. A refusal would have had the same consequences as inability to fulfil the stipulated condition. They doubtless supposed that Elijah would be just as little able to do what was prescribed as they, and thus the matter would remain undecided. No doubt also there were many among them who, being deceived and fanatics, expected that Baal would do what was demanded. When midday was already past, and it was not apparent that they had been heard, according to 1 Kings 18:26 they leaped upon the altar. This is an ironical description of the dances customary in the worship of Baal, which were of an enthusiastic kind, as the whole delineation shows (especially 1 Kings 18:29). Then, being mocked by Elijah with holy irony, they cut themselves with knives and lancets, as was customary in all enthusiastic worships, by the testimony of the ancients. In this way the orgiastic feasts of Cybele and of the Syrian goddess were celebrated, when, amid the beating of drums and the playing of flutes, and the moving in wild dances, they scourged each other till the blood came, and even, in the excess of their madness, laid violent hands on themselves before the eyes of the people, and unmanned themselves; comp. Creuzer, ii. p. 61 ff., and especially Movers, p. 681 ff. In the description of the whirling bands of Cenadi, principally after Apuleius, we there read: “A discordant howling opened the scene. Then they flew wildly about, the head sunk down towards the earth, so that the loosened hair dragged through the dirt. They begin by biting their arms, and finally cut themselves with the two-edged swords that they are accustomed to wear. Then follows a new scene. One of them, surpassing all the rest in madness, begins to prophesy, amid sighs and groans; he publicly accuses himself of the sins that he has committed, and will now punish them by chastisement of the flesh: he takes the knotty scourge, beats his back cruelly, and cuts himself with swords till the blood drops down from the mutilated body.” At last, when all was in vain, Elijah began his preparations, at the time when it was customary to offer the evening sacrifice in the temple at Jerusalem. There had been an altar to the true God on Mount Carmel, and here pious Israelites had been in the habit of sacrificing, after the institution of calf-worship. In erecting this or other altars, they had not sinned. If their minds were only directed towards the sanctuary in Jerusalem, the sin of violating the Mosaic law respecting the unity of the sanctuary belonged not to them, but only to the rulers of the people who had placed them in this difficulty. But Ahab had destroyed this altar, together with all those which were exclusively dedicated to Jehovah. Elijah in his haste repaired it. 1 Kings 18:34 is remarkable: “And he took twelve stones, according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob, unto whom the word of the Lord came, saying, Israel shall be thy name.” This was a virtual declaration on the part of Elijah that he did not acknowledge the rightfulness of the actually existing religious separation of the two kingdoms, but looked upon it as a result of sin, and regarded all the tribes together as still forming one covenant-nation. On this occasion the author points out the injustice of the ten tribes in appropriating to themselves alone the name of Israel, since this name, having been given by God to the ancestor of all the tribes, belonged equally to all. The form of decision chosen by Elijah has reference to Leviticus 9, where Aaron after his consecration offers up sacrifice, first for himself, then for the people. The glory of the Lord appears, 1 Kings 18:24 : “And there came a fire out from before the Lord, and consumed upon the altar the burnt-offering and the fat: which when all the people saw, they shouted, and fell on their faces.” The circumstances were now the same, only still more urgent. There the first solemn sanction of the worship of Jehovah; here the renewal of it, in opposition to the worship of Baal. In what God had done on the former occasion, therefore, Elijah justly saw a promise of what He would now do. In dressing the sacrifice, Elijah closely followed the injunctions which had been given in Leviticus with respect to the offering up of bulls. His object in surrounding the whole altar with water was to avoid all suspicion of deception. The idolatrous priests had attained to great excellence in these arts. They were able to kindle the wood by fire which they concealed in the hollows of the altars. Although the number of attentive observers was too great to allow such a deception to be practised in this case, yet they would probably have been shameless enough to accuse Elijah of it, if it had not been absolutely impossible for them to attribute a fire which consumed such a quantity of water to natural causes. The prayer of Elijah, “Hear me, O Lord, hear me; that this people may know that Thou art the Lord God, and that Thou hast turned their heart back again,” shows the point of view from which we must regard not only the miracle that immediately follows, but also everything miraculous in the life of Elijah and Elisha. The avowal of this aim excludes all opposition against the truth of the events narrated, except that which proceeds from the standpoint of a complete denial of revelation. The miracle, the consumption of the sacrifice by a flash of lightning from a clear atmosphere, attained its object. The people fell down worshipping, with the confession, “The Lord, He is the God; the Lord, He is the God.” The priests of Baal were then seized by the people, at the command of Elijah, taken down to the brook Kishon, and there slain. This proceeding must be judged by Deuteronomy 13:15-16, Deuteronomy 17:5, where it is made a sacred duty on the part of the people to punish the seducers with death. We have already shown that these injunctions bear a special Old Testament character. With regard to the priests of Baal, there were indeed special aggravating circumstances which might have called upon the civil government to carry out the punishment of death even under the New Testament, as, for example, the heads of the Anabaptists in Münster were justly punished with death. The priests of Baal had not been content with a religious freedom already quite irreconcilable with the Old Testament economy: at their instigation Jezebel had slain the servants of the true God; by her instrumentality the blood of the prophets had been poured out in streams. It was their intention to exterminate them even to the last man; comp. 1 Kings 18:4, 1 Kings 18:13, 1 Kings 18:22, 1 Kings 19:10, 1 Kings 19:14; 2 Kings 9:7 Kings 9:7. It has been asked whether Elijah did not on this occasion overstep the limits of his office, and encroach on the office of the government, to whom alone the sword has been entrusted by God. But this doubt is removed, by the remark that the prophet had received an extraordinary divine commission for the fulfilment of that which the disloyal king had not fulfilled, but countenanced by his silence. The fear that a similar special commission might be assumed by every fanatic has no foundation whatever. Such a one must first of all legitimize himself by an unquestionable divine wonder. The more boldly Elijah had opposed the king when the honour of God was at stake, the more humbly he behaved towards him when this had been vindicated. The whole occurrence had lasted from morning till evening. In eager expectation of the event, neither king nor people had eaten anything. Elijah invites the king to go up the mountain again, and there in all confidence to eat and drink; for since the cause of the curse was destroyed, this too would soon have an end. Already in the prophetic spirit he heard great clouds of rain disburden themselves. While the king contentedly follows his proposal, the prophet goes to a very different occupation. In an attitude of humble supplication he casts himself down on Carmel before the Lord, entreating Him to fulfil His promise and to accomplish His work. And when he sees the faintest beginning of fulfilment, when a small cloud arises from the Mediterranean Sea, he sends to the king and tells him to make preparation for his departure, lest he should be overtaken by the rain,—a mark of attention which, together with what follows, ought to have taught Ahab to love the servant of the Lord, whom he had previously only learned to fear. Elijah was so strengthened by the power of love, that, notwithstanding the immense exertions he had already undergone, he was able to keep pace with the horses of the king, and accompanied him to his residence. Just as he had assumed superiority over the king as the servant of God, so by this action he testified his deep submission as his subject, and thus sought to strengthen the impression made on the heart of the king, and to arm him against the powerful temptations of his wife, who made his weakness subservient to ungodliness. Such self-abasement presupposed the most profound humility; so distinct a separation between the personal unworthiness of the king and the dignity bestowed on him by God called for a wisdom such as the Spirit of God alone could impart. Just as the previous history shows us the prophet in his divine power, so the following reveals him in his human weakness. God subjected him to a severe temptation, lest he should be lifted up on account of the great divine revelations and powers which had been given to him, and at the same time to guard against any carnal admixture in the pure divine zeal; but He also comforted him when he was on the point of giving way, and raised him up after he had made him deeply conscious of his own weakness. What we here see in the leadings of Elijah constantly recurs in the way which God takes with all His distinguished servants and instruments: we find it, for example, in the life-history of a Paul and a Luther. The whole narrative has the deepest internal character of truth. The higher the divine power, the more necessary and therefore the deeper are always the humiliations on account of the depravity of human nature. The king tells Jezebel of all that has happened. As soon as he returned to her vicinity, he was unable to divest himself of her accustomed yoke. The queen fell into an impotent rage. On account of the people, and probably also from fear of the king, she dared not venture at once to sacrifice Elijah to her revenge. We learn that the event had made a powerful impression, from the fact that from this time without intermission the prophets again exercise free activity in the kingdom of Israel, and that Ahab does not venture to punish the prophet Micah, by whom he believes himself deeply offended, except by imprisonment; and again from the circumstance that from this time idolatry totally disappears from the kingdom of Israel, while the worship of calves, with which the Israelitish prophets Hosea and Amos have so much to do, again steps distinctly into the foreground. But the rage of the queen is so great that she cannot refrain from at least giving expression to the threat which she is still too weak to carry out: she sends word to Elijah that he must die on the morrow. The determination of so near a time is probably due to her passion. But nevertheless Elijah has reason to fear the worst, since the queen, even if she dared not act openly, had still so many secret means at her command. Hence he was warned by the passionate imprudence of the queen, and fled אלנפשו, 1 Kings 19:3, ad salvandam animam suam. He repaired first of all to Beer-sheba, at the extreme south of the kingdom of Judah. There he left his servant behind him, and set out on his journey into the Arabian desert. It is not quite certain what his object was,—whether he only resorted to the barren wilderness because he felt himself not secure even in the kingdom of Judah, owing to the friendly relations then existing between it and the kingdom of Israel; or whether it was his intention from the beginning to undertake a pilgrimage to Mount Sinai, in order to strengthen himself there by the lively remembrance of the great events of former time. The latter is the more probable hypothesis from what follows. But the divine object is more certain than the human object of Elijah. To him we may apply Matthew 4:1 : ἀνήχθη εἰς τὴν ἔρημον ὑπὸ τοῦ Πνεύματος πειρασθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου. Where Israel had been tempted, he also was to be tempted. After Elijah had ended the first day of his journey in the wilderness, the temptation reached its greatest height. He was already old; the immense exertions of the previous days had made great demands on his strength; his mind was filled with deep sorrow, since even the greatest manifestations of divine omnipotence appeared to have been so utterly fruitless. Everything seemed dark, even that which the Lord had actually done by his means; and the small remnant of true piety which still existed in the kingdom of Israel escaped his glance. He began secretly to murmur against God, because He did not, by the judgments of His omnipotence, destroy that which could not be improved. The waste desert offered nothing for the refreshment of his bodily weakness. He threw himself down under a broom-tree (not under a juniper), and besought God to let him die. “The broom,” says Robinson, chap. i. 336, “is the largest and most noticeable shrub in the wilderness, frequently found in the beds of rivers and in valleys, where travellers seek places of encampment where they may sit and sleep, protected against the wind and the sun.” But soon the Lord began to glorify Himself in the weakness of Elijah. Already he received preliminary consolation, but the definitive was given on Sinai. Exhausted by excess of grief, he fell into a deep sleep. On awaking, he found miraculous strengthening food. And the angel of the Lord said unto him, “Arise and eat; because the journey is too great for thee.” “And he arose, and did eat and drink, and went in the strength of that meat forty days and forty nights unto Horeb the mount of God.” Many think that during this time Elijah ate what nourishment the wilderness afforded; and this opinion is not irreconcilable with the letter, which only says that this meat, which corresponds to the manna, strengthened him miraculously, so that he was able to bear the long journey. Mount Sinai was about forty German miles distant from Beer-sheba; according to Deuteronomy 1:2, there are only eleven days’ journey from Sinai to Kadesh-barnea. If, therefore, the divine object had only been that he should reach this place, he would not have required a period of forty days. But it was appointed by divine decree that he should spend exactly forty days in this journey, to make it manifest to himself and to all others that the prophecy contained in the forty years’ guidance of Israel through the wilderness, of a similar guidance for all the servants of the Lord, was realized in him. The external agreement pointed to the internal. The germ, the temptation, is common to both. Arrived on Sinai, Elijah repairs to the cave in which Moses had once taken refuge when the Lord was about to reveal His glory to him; comp. Exodus 33:22. The promise which that appearance contained for him, and which he held up to God by the fact of choosing the place where it was given, was fulfilled in him. The word of the Lord came to him and said unto him, “What doest thou here, Elijah?” The object of this address was to lead Elijah to give expression to that state of mind on which the subsequent leadings of God were intended to operate. The answer of Elijah shows that he was not completely at rest, that he was not yet filled again with faith. It challenges God to punish the rejected, secretly reproaching Him for His long delay; it bears testimony to the most dismal view of things, for Elijah believes that he is the only remaining servant of God. All that happens has reference to this state of feeling. The object is to remove it, to free the servant of God from his weakness, and, after he has been sufficiently humiliated, to raise him up again. This is done first of all by a symbolical appearance, the interpretation of which is to be found in the words uttered, as in all similar cases,—a truth which is overlooked in the prevailing and evidently false exposition continually to be met with in sermons. Storm, earthquake, fire, in which the Lord with His grace is not manifest, are an image of the trials sent to all the people of the Lord and to His individual servants; the quiet stillness which follows them is an image of the καιροὶ ἀναψύξεως ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ Κυρίου, Acts 3:19, bringing purification and sifting. By the verbal revelation of God which follows, this general comfort is individualized, and the despair of the prophet met by a definite allusion to the previous leadings of God; the persons also are named who are to bring about the results in which God is to reveal Himself as King of Israel. The first place among these is occupied by Elisha, who is pointed out to the prophet, who feared lest the kingdom of Israel should die with him, as his servant and successor, and whom he consequently called immediately on his return from the wilderness. Elijah is commanded to repair to the wilderness of Damascus, in the neighbourhood of the kingdom of Israel, until a convenient time; here he was safe from the revenge of Jezebel, and was at the same time near the scene of his activity. Then he is to appoint Hazael king over Syria, Jehu king over Israel, and Elisha (descended from Abel-meholah on Mount Gilboa, between Sichem and Bethsean in the half-tribe of Manasseh) as his successor, i.e. to announce to them in God’s name that they are appointed to this dignity. He that escaped the sword of Hazael was to be slain by Jehu, and he who escaped the sword of Jehu was to be slain by Elisha. These men are to be the instruments by which God will accomplish His judgments on the obdurate: Jehu and Hazael by the sword, the former exterminating the family of Ahab, and the latter grievously oppressing Israel; Elisha by his word, which, being given by the Lord, must inevitably be fulfilled, and bring down the judgments of God on the sinners. Of these three commissions Elijah himself executed only one, the naming of Elisha as his successor. The other two were reserved for Elisha, upon whom his spirit rested, and whose prophetic activity can only be regarded as a continuation of that of Elijah. The Lord goes on to add, that in the impending judgments He will spare the seven thousand who have remained faithful to Him. This was at the same time humiliating and consolatory for Elijah: humiliating, in so far as it revealed to him his want of faith; for, looking only at the visible, he had failed to perceive the hidden workings of the Spirit of God: consolatory, because it showed him that his former activity had not been in vain, and also that his future activity would not be in vain, since the Lord would not yet repudiate His people; and at the same time, also, because it afforded him a proof of the particular providence of God, who knows His own by number and by name. Elijah now set out from Sinai, and journeyed to the place where Elisha, a rich farmer, probably already known to him, resided. He met him on the field ploughing with one of his team of oxen, while the remaining eleven were led by his servants before him; or, according to another interpretation, when he had just ploughed his twelve acres of land, and was working on the twelfth and last. But the former interpretation is to be preferred. This circumstance is made prominent, because the lower calling was a type and prefiguration of the higher. The twelve yoke of oxen represent the twelve tribes. Elisha is not to be prophet for the ten tribes alone, but for all Israel. His activity in a part is to pass over to the whole. For five and fifty years he was to work on this stony spiritual field. Elijah threw his mantle upon him, the distinctive dress of the prophet, and Elisha at once understood the significance of this symbolical act. Resolved to follow him, he only asks permission to say farewell to his parents. Elijah answers, “Go back again: for what have I done to thee?” equivalent to, Remember that the call comes not from me, but from the Lord, and that thou incurrest grave responsibility in delaying to follow Him. There is a reference to this event in the words of our Lord: “No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.” Elisha therefore followed him, when he had first sacrificed the yoke of oxen with which he himself had been ploughing, and had made his neighbours a feast of the animals that remained, cooking them with the woodwork of the plough and the yoke. This was intended to signify that he renounced his former calling for ever. The narrative of the war of Israel with Ben-hadad, king of Damascene Syria, shows that the former miraculous manifestation had not been quite without fruit. We find the prophets of the true God again in full public activity at Samaria. The king obeys their commands, and does not venture to do them any injury, although they proclaim the divine word in all severity, and announce his impending overthrow. It shows us how the Lord can vindicate His honour against all those who despise His name; how He gives the victory to the nation that is called after His name, lest the heathen, inferring His weakness from that of His people, should triumph over Him; and, at the same time, how He does not leave unpunished the transgressions of those who ought to be His servants. The name of the hostile king, the son of Hadad, the idol of Damascus, is less a proper name than a royal title; this explains its frequent occurrence. Ben-hadad had entered the kingdom of Israel with all his forces, and had advanced unchecked to Samaria, to which he laid siege. The boundaries of the Damascene kingdom had been greatly extended by him. He had succeeded in conquering all the surrounding smaller states; and their thirty-two kings, who were now his dependents, accompanied him with their people. By the bad reign of Ahab the power of the kingdom of Israel had been very much deteriorated. Ahab therefore thought he could only find safety in submission. Ben-hadad sent messengers to him with the words, “Thy silver and thy gold is mine; thy wives also and thy children, even thy goodliest, are mine.” Ahab understood this as if he demanded nothing more from him than from the other kings who were subject to him, viz. the recognition of his supremacy, so that in future he would hold in fee from Ben-hadad what he had formerly possessed independently. Ben-hadad had certainly so worded the message as to allow this interpretation, intending afterwards to keep the king to his word. Ahab was deceived, and consented; and now Ben-hadad came forward with his real meaning. He demanded the actual surrender of Ahab, with his possessions and those of his subjects, with wife and child, that he might carry them away, as the Assyrians and Babylonians afterwards did. Ahab was the more embarrassed owing to his former imprudent concession; for if he now took it back, he would appear in a certain sense faithless to his word, and Ahab would thus acquire a sort of advantage, over him. In this perplexity he turned to the elders or states of the people, who had fled from the whole country into the besieged capital. At their advice, he told Ben-hadad that he would fulfil the proposed conditions only according to his interpretation, and not in the sense given to them in the second message. Ben-hadad was greatly enraged by what he considered the impotent defiance of Ahab, and sent him word that, since he would not have peace under these conditions, he, with his immense army, would leave not a grain of dust in Samaria. Ahab answered, “Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off;” equivalent to, “It is impossible to sell the skin of a lion before it is caught.” The king, who was feasting with his subordinates when he received this answer, at once gave command to prepare for an assault. Now when extremity had reached its greatest height, the help of the Lord, if vouchsafed, must necessarily have a powerful effect on the people, if not on Ahab. A prophet of the Lord appeared before Ahab, and in His name foretold victory over the immense army of the Syrians, adding as a reason, “And thou shalt know that I am the Lord.” The king is commanded not to await the assault of the enemy, but to make a sally. The servants of the princes of the provinces were to go first. The heads of the city had fled to Samaria. These were accustomed to choose out for their servants, as a kind of body-guard, the largest, strongest, and bravest men. Ahab himself was to command the troops. Necessity had called forth a glimmering of faith; for if he had regarded the matter with merely human understanding, without any confidence in the Lord, he would not have ventured to expose himself to danger at the head of so small an army. The divine promise passed into fulfilment. The Syrians were totally defeated. The human causes which, under the guidance of God, helped towards the accomplishment of this end were, the confidence of Ben-hadad, which despised all precaution; his drunkenness, and that of his leaders; and, above all, as we see from what follows, the cowardice of the tributary kings, each of whom was anxious to spare his own people, and therefore fled whenever the small band of the Israelites turned in his direction. In the following year, however, the Syrians, to do away with this disgrace, undertook another expedition against Israel. The Syrians themselves did not presume to doubt that their defeat was due to the efficacy of the God of Israel. But, in accordance with their heathen ideas of divine things, they inferred nothing more from this than that the God of Israel had supremacy over their idols in mountainous districts, for this was the character of the whole country in which He was worshipped, and Samaria, its capital, was situated on a mountain; but the plains, they thought, were the proper territory of their deities, since Damascus lay on a plain. Expositors have collected a number of passages from heathen authors in which similar ideas are to be found. They resolved, therefore, only to engage in battle on the plain. Thus foundation was once more given for a divine determination. Moreover, on account of the reasons already given, the army was not commanded by the subordinate kings as before, but by royal generals. “The children of Israel,” we read, “pitched before them like two little flocks of kids.” Probably the Israelites had taken up their position on two adjoining heights; hence they are compared with two small flocks of kids pasturing on the slopes of the mountains. Ahab was encouraged by the announcement of the prophet that the Lord would give him the victory, as a proof that He was the true, absolute, omnipotent God. The Syrians indeed suffered a great defeat. The remnant fled to Aphek, now Fik, between Tiberias and Damascus. Probably one part of them took up their position, while another, covered by their guns, took refuge under the walls of this city. But suddenly the wall fell down—not by an actual miracle; Thenius suspects that it was undermined—and buried a number of the Syrians. Those who escaped with their life were scattered. But the Syrians were not all slain, as many have supposed; we see this clearly from 1 Kings 20:30. In mortal terror, Ben-hadad fled from one hiding-place in the city to another. In all humility his servants repaired to Ahab to beg for his life. Ahab was moved by impure motives to grant their request at once. It flattered his vanity to be so imploringly besought by his former arrogant opponent, and to be able to show magnanimity; in recognising the inviolability of the person of another king, he believed he was doing honour to his own royal dignity. All reasons to the contrary prevailed nothing against this determination. He did not stop to consider that clemency towards the faithless and cruel enemy of his nation was the greatest severity; and what is still more, he paid no regard to the command of God which he had received through the same prophet who had promised him the victory, as we learn from what follows. Peace was concluded, on condition that the king of Syria would deliver up the cities which had been taken from the kingdom of Israel by his father, and allow the citizens of the kingdom of Israel a quarter of their own in his capital Damascus, in which they might live under their own laws,—a privilege which the Syrians had formerly enjoyed in Samaria. A prophet received the commission to punish the king on account of his disobedience and his ingratitude. Following the example of Nathan in 2 Samuel 12, he tries to draw from the king a confession of his own guilt, and allows him to pronounce judgment on himself. He got another prophet to wound him, and came before the king disguised with blood and ashes. He told the king a feigned story. In battle against the Syrians a warrior had given a prisoner into his charge, under a threat of severe punishment if he should escape by his fault. This had happened, and the warrior had wounded him. The king declares that he deserved the fate which had befallen him, which was just what the prophet wished. He now made himself known to him, and announced that, because he had spared the king, destruction would overtake him and his people. Then follows the narrative of Ahab’s robbery of the vineyard, in which, his character betrays itself most openly. It is a remarkable proof of the shallowness of the Pelagian judgment, that in rationalistic times every possible attempt was made to excuse this king. Michaelis, for example, maintains that he was a very good man, but, as is generally the case with those whose heart is too good, made a bad king. Thenius, too, argues in the same way. As if weakness, such as we find in a remarkable degree in Ahab, were not just as much the result of guilty unbelief as carnal and positive vice; as if the form in which the depravity found expression were not due to mere difference of temperament, and other causes without the sphere of responsibility. The king was in his summer residence at Jezreel. He wished to enlarge his garden by the addition of the adjoining vineyard of Naboth, and believed that Naboth would accede to his proposal the more readily, since he himself, as we learn in the course of the narrative, had his actual residence not at Jezreel, but in another city, 1 Kings 21:8,—probably in Samaria, for Elijah prophesies to Ahab that in the same place where dogs had licked the blood of Naboth they would lick his blood also. But the latter happened in Samaria. Naboth refused to give up his field to the king,—not from stubbornness, as many have supposed, but from a religious motive. The Israelites were forbidden in the law to sell their inheritance, in order to keep alive the remembrance that they held their land as a loan from God; comp. Leviticus 25:23, Numbers 36:8. Only in case of the most extreme poverty was it allowed, and even then only until the year of jubilee. The whole history becomes intelligible solely by means of this key. Naboth might have made a very advantageous bargain; but he thought it would be a religious crime to consent to it. This presupposes that the Mosaic law had very deep roots in Israel. Ahab, accustomed to have all his wishes gratified, was greatly enraged by the answer of Naboth. It was not so much his kindly disposition as his weakness which would not allow him to employ force. When the ungodly Jezebel offered to undertake the responsibility, he gave her his seal, with absolute power to use every means; and from his knowledge of her character he could have no difficulty in conjecturing of what nature these means would be. His only reason for not taking anything more to do with the matter was, that he might be able to satisfy his conscience, which was at any rate not quite so hardened as hers, with the empty excuse that he had not expected her to act in this way. Jezebel sought to attain her object by the most indirect means. The letter of the law, which Naboth had in his favour, stands in opposition to her despotic mind like a wall of brass, which cannot be broken through, but must be circumvented. Her whole conduct is regulated by the purpose of gaining her end within the limits of the Mosaic law, even by means of the law. Under the authority of the king, she wrote to the chief men in Samaria. She accused Naboth of the crime of high treason, which was at the same time a crime against God, because the king was honoured as bearing the image of God. The accusation is based specially on Exodus 22:28 : “Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people;” equivalent to, “Thou shalt not curse thy prince;” for every crime against a visible representative of God in His kingdom is a crime against God. When it serves her detestable ends, the ungodly Jezebel speaks good theocratic language. She carries her hypocrisy so far as to command the appointment of a fast-day, as was the custom when the whole country or any single place had been polluted by great crime. Then, after the fast had roused the nation to the greatest horror of the crime, an assembly was to be called, in which Naboth was to be set on high and accused by two witnesses, in accordance with the prescription of the Mosaic law respecting condemnation, comp. Numbers 35:30, Deuteronomy 17:6-7; but these witnesses had been corrupted by Jezebel. When we find them termed bad men in the writing of Jezebel herself, we must unhesitatingly attribute this designation to the author. Instead of “two men, sons of Belial,” there probably stood “two men, such a one, and such a one;” for otherwise we should have to assume that Jezebel openly betrayed her infamy, and that the whole magistracy, notwithstanding the clearest, so to speak, official conviction of Naboth’s innocence, condemned him to death out of disgraceful complaisance,—both hypotheses equally improbable. The plan succeeded. Naboth was stoned, together with all his family, as we infer from 2 Kings 9:26. The punishment to be inflicted on him who blasphemed the king was not determined by law. But if it were established that to curse the king was equivalent to cursing God, the ordinances in Deuteronomy 13:11 and Deuteronomy 17:5 appeared applicable, according to which those who gave themselves up to idolatry were to be punished with death, and that by stoning. Ahab learned that Naboth was dead, and, taking good care not to inquire into the circumstances, he joyfully took possession of the vineyard. The property of those who were condemned on account of idolatry, under which the crime of Naboth had been classed, fell to the crown. But his joy in the new possession was very much embittered when suddenly Elijah entered the vineyard,—a representative of his slumbering conscience,—sent by the Lord, and greeted him with the double accusation of murder and of robbery. The terror with which his appearance inspired the king is revealed in the cry of anguish, “Hast thou found me, O mine enemy?” in which the term “mine enemy” betrays the hypocrite, who seeks to justify himself, and to attribute the censure and threat of the prophet to personal enmity, though against his conscience, as his anguish shows. It is not this, the prophet answers, but the sin which has bound thee in its fetters, that is the cause of my unwelcome coming. The prophet then foretells not only his violent death, which he had already announced on his entrance, but also the complete extermination of his family and the fearful end of Jezebel. Ahab shows all the signs of a repentance which was indeed sincere for the moment, as the consequent softening of the punishment shows, but, as we learn from his subsequent history, was not thorough. The prophet now declares that the Lord will not accomplish the total destruction of his family until the days of his son. That which had been decreed with respect to himself, and which had been foretold by another prophet even before this time, remained unaltered. In the third year after the former battle with the Syrians, Ahab entered into an alliance with Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, for the purpose of making war on them. Occasion was given by their violation of the conditions of peace. Ramoth, a free Levitical city in the tribe of Gad, had not been delivered up by the Syrians. A number of the prophets with one voice foretold success to Ahab. All these were prophets who approved of calf-worship. Idolatry proper had almost entirely disappeared from the kingdom of Israel since that great catastrophe. No prophet of Baal here appears. The prophecies of the followers of the false worship are suspicious to Jehoshaphat. He inquires if there be no prophet who adheres to the worship of the true God as prescribed in the law. Elijah had gone back again to his concealment in the wilderness. The king therefore names Micaiah, the son of Imlah, but at the same time declares his hatred towards him, because he prophesies no good but only evil concerning him. Many have suspected that Micaiah is the same who had received the king with unwelcome tidings after the last war with the Syrians. At all events, the king must already have learned to know him from this side on some definite occasion; for we must infer from his command to lead him back to prison, 1 Kings 22:26, that he was then in prison. It is generally regarded as a piece of childish absurdity on the part of the king to be angry with Micaiah because he prophesies only evil, and of the messenger to beg him to prophesy good. But the matter has a deeper foundation in the heathen ideas of prophecy with which Ahab was infected. We have already seen that he ascribed to the prophets a magic power over the Deity, and hence regarded Elijah as the author of the drought which he had foretold. His anger had its root in this error. Jehoshaphat tries to express his fear to Ahab, and Micaiah is brought. In the meantime the prophets of the calves did their best, by words, gesticulations, and symbolical acts, to convince the two kings of the truth of their announcement and the divine character of their mission, and thus to do away with the evil impression of the prophecy of Micaiah, which might possibly bear a different character. A certain Zedekiah especially distinguished himself. He made himself horns of iron, and said, “Thus saith the Lord, With these shalt thou push the Syrians until thou have consumed them.” We here see plainly how the prophets of the calves concealed their ungodliness under the semblance of piety. The symbolical act is plainly an embodiment of the image in Deuteronomy 33:17, where we read of Joseph, “His horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people,” etc. This brilliant promise, specially referring to the posterity of Joseph, was the foundation on which the false prophets took up their position, while they overlooked only the one circumstance, that the promise was conditional, and that the condition was not present. Everywhere we find this marked distinction between false and true prophecy, that the former announced salvation without repentance, gospel without law, and thus destroyed the ethical character of the religion of Jehovah. When Micaiah arrives, he finds the calf- prophets all assembled in corpore before the two kings, and still in full occupation. The ironical answer with which he first met the question of Jehoshaphat respecting the issue of the war was in keeping with the ridiculous spectacle. The meaning which his expression and countenance led the king to infer, although the words themselves foretold success, he soon reveals in the dry words: “I saw all Israel scattered upon the hills, as sheep that have not a shepherd,” 1 Kings 22:17. The prophet in a vision sees the Israelites under the image of a flock robbed of their shepherd, which represents the death of the king. The foundation is formed by Numbers 27:16-17, where Moses beseeches the Lord “that the congregation of the Lord be not as sheep that have no shepherd.” Here, because Israel was no longer Israel, there came to pass what Moses had designated as incompatible with the existence of the covenant-nation. For this he censures the false prophets in another vision. The mistaking of the symbolical clothing has here given rise to much misunderstanding. In ancient times it was the common idea that Satan was meant by the spirit who offered to deceive Ahab by putting false prophecies into the mouths of the prophets of the calves. But this idea is untenable, on account of the article in הרוח; for there is no proof whatever that (הרוח, the spirit, was ever employed as a kind of nomen proprium of Satan. By the spirit we ought rather to understand personified prophecy, prophecy taken as a whole, without regard to the distinction between true and false prophecy. This at least is contained in the passage,—an assumption that the false prophets as well as the true were subject to an influence external to their nature; and the exposition of many recent commentators, who limit the meaning of the whole vision to the prediction that Ahab, led away by false prophets, should be unfortunate, is plainly nugatory, and throwing away a part of the kernel with the shell. The existence of a spirit influencing the false prophets is also assumed elsewhere, as in Zechariah 13:2; and in the teaching of the New Testament, appearing most prominently in the parable of the tares among the wheat, and again in the Apocalypse, Revelation 16:13, according to which three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, represents the spirit of the world, which fills the minds of the ungodly,—the antithesis of the Holy Spirit. Our narrative points to the fact that this spirit of the world is no less subject to the disposition of God than the Holy Ghost. It forms part of the judgment on the ungodly, that they are suffered to be led astray by false prophets, against whom God could easily protect them if He would. Zedekiah is bold enough to mock Micaiah by word and action. The prophet tells him that he will learn the truth of his prediction in the day when he shall go from one chamber to another to hide himself. This prophecy was undoubtedly fulfilled, after the prophecy of Micaiah with respect to the issue of the battle had been accomplished. According to the Mosaic law, those prophets whose prophecies the result proved to be false were punished with death. Micaiah was led back to prison at the command of Ahab, there to be fed with the bread and water of affliction, i.e. to have this for his dailyfood (comp. Psalms 42, “My tears have been my meat day and night”), until the king would return in peace. It was his intention then to slay him; he did not venture to do it now, because he could find no just pretext. The only two were these: if a prophet prophesied in the name of a false god, or if his prophecies were not fulfilled. He might, however, imprison him with an appearance of justice, in order that he might not escape if the result should prove his prophecy to have been false, as Ahab presupposed; comp. the similar treatment of Jeremiah, Jeremiah 37:15-16, and Jeremiah 26. Micaiah, though conscious of his good cause, has no objection to make to this conduct. “If thou return at all in peace,” he says, “the Lord hath not spoken by me.” Referring to Deuteronomy 18:20-22, he declares himself perfectly willing to submit to the prescribed punishment, if his prophecy be disproved by the result. He probably foresaw that his later release would place the victory of the true God in the clearer light, and with this object appeals to the whole nation as witnesses, in words which the later canonical Micah has placed at the head of his prophecies, drawing attention to the oneness of spirit which characterized him and his older namesake. Both kings now went up to Ramoth in Gilead. Ahab had learned through his spies that the king of Syria had given orders to single him out in battle; for Ben-hadad had no stronger wish than to have him in his power, either dead or alive, to wash out the disgrace he had suffered three years before. Ahab therefore disguised himself. Jehoshaphat, on the contrary, went to battle in his royal dress, and was in the greatest danger of his life, because the Syrians mistook him for the king of Israel. A cry to which he gave utterance in his extremity, probably intended to summon his people, was the means of his deliverance in the hand of the Lord. The Syrians became aware of their error, and ceased to press so violently in that direction. The precaution of Ahab, on the other hand, failed to protect him against the destiny which God had appointed him. Those who sought him were not able to find him, but the source gives prominence to the fact that he was discovered by an arrow shot at a venture into the whole mass by a common Syrian. Mortally wounded, he wished to be carried out of the battle; but either the charioteer was unable to obey his command because the press was too great, or Ahab himself reversed his determination, lest by his absence the battle, which raged more and more violently, should be lost. So he bled, and died. The battle remained indecisive. But when the death of the king was known, the Israelitish army turned homewards. Ahab was brought to Samaria, and there buried. When his chariot was washed in the pool, the dogs licked up his blood. The chariot was washed by harlots. So great was the curse which rested upon him, that no respectable persons would undertake the task, which thousands would willingly have done for a pious king, blessed by God and beloved by his people. It was therefore necessary to employ the most despicable persons to do it for wages. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 41: 41. § 3. JEHOSHAPHAT ======================================================================== § 3. Jehoshaphat We must now go back to the history of Jehoshaphat, Ahab’s contemporary in the kingdom of Judah, the successor of Asa,—to those events which occurred during the reign of Ahab, but were not interwoven with the history of Israel, and have therefore not yet been mentioned. While the author of the books of the Kings, 1:22, only gives a few brief notices, the author of Chronicles, 2:17 ff., draws from the common source at greater length. Jehoshaphat zealously strives to walk in the way of the Lord. For this reason the kingdom of Judah was flourishing and powerful at the same time when the kingdom of Israel sank down completely. The love of his subjects was so great, that by rich voluntary contributions, in addition to the ordinary taxes, they placed him in a position to pay those debts which had probably been incurred by his father in his wars. Jehoshaphat’s zeal increased when he found that the Lord blessed all his undertakings. The dwellers in the country had succeeded in concealing some idolatrous altars and groves from the search made by Asa, or in restoring them after they had been overthrown. Jehoshaphat destroyed this last residue of idolatry. But he also did what was still more advantageous: he sent Levites through the whole land, with authority to instruct the people in the law, and to reform everything according to the direction of the law. It was this which gave the first foundation for the visitation of the churches. In order to give greater authority to these spiritual members, he appointed them to several of the highest state offices. The commission always carried with them the book of the law, as the rule by which the visitation was held and reform undertaken. One result of the flourishing state of the kingdom is to be found in the circumstance that the Philistines, who had been made tributary by David, but had neglected the payment of the tribute under the former weak governments, now voluntarily returned to their allegiance. Some Arabian nationalities also, who had probably been subdued by David, and had continued to pay tribute to Solomon, comp. 1 Kings 10:15, sent presents in order to propitiate the powerful king. Jehoshaphat tried to strengthen his military power by organizing a kind of militia, to which all belonged who were able to bear arms, in addition to the standing army which occupied the fortresses. Yet Jehoshaphat was not free from error. One of these was the close connection into which he entered with King Ahab. He saw how injurious the former enmity between Judah and Israel had been to both kingdoms, and this knowledge led him to the other extreme. He sought to consolidate the union by an alliance of Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, with his son Jehoram. In spite of the warning of Micaiah, he accompanied Ahab in his campaign against the Syrians. The Lord had patience with his weakness, and allowed him to escape with his life, but at the same time administered a sharp rebuke on his return to Jerusalem, through the prophet Jehu. This was in every respect deserved. Jehoshaphat acted wisely in striving to put an end to the war with Israel, but he was greatly to blame for entering into close alliance and friendship with an enemy of God, and being on familiar terms with him; for giving his son a wife who had had so bad an example in her parents, and who, as the result showed, was fully worthy of them; and for joining himself with the ungodly Ahab in common undertakings, although he ought to have known that they must necessarily end in failure. He showed that at times a false wisdom outweighed higher considerations. Yet the way in which he accepted the censure proved that he had erred only from weakness. He redoubled his zeal for the spread of the true fear of God, and for the establishment of a settled administration of justice, which seems to have been very inferior in earlier times. He represented to the judges the loftiness of their calling, since they were destined under Israel to administer justice as the instruments of God. The way in which he did this testifies to the depth and force of his spiritual life, and shows that he formed a true estimate of his own position in its distinction from that of the heathen kings. He set up a supreme court of judicature at Jerusalem, half composed of civil and half of spiritual members, whose business it was to administer justice to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to receive appeals from the inferior tribunals throughout the whole land. Formerly, it seems, the final appeal had been to the king in person. Here also he had regard to the highest aim of the theocratic administration of justice. The judges were to instruct the parties respecting right and wrong from the word of God, and by this means to prevent the crime which led to sentence of punishment. This court of justice had a spiritual president for the settlement of spiritual affairs, and a temporal one for temporal affairs. A great danger which soon afterwards threatened the kingdom of Judah was only intended to strengthen the nation and king in their pious disposition, by the glorious deliverance vouchsafed. Jehoshaphat received news of the approach of a large hostile army, which had already occupied Engedi on the western shore of the Dead Sea. In 2 Chronicles 20:1, they are characterized as the Moabites, Ammonites, and מהעמונים. This can only mean “nations living at a distance from the Ammonites,” beyond them. Besides the Ammonites and Moabites, who are expressly named in Psalms 83 as the instigators, there were great swarms of the inhabitants of Western Arabia in the army, whom the author does not designate more exactly, because they had no common nomen proprium. In 2 Chronicles 20:2 they are spoken of as a great multitude from beyond the sea on this side Syria, i.e. from the district east of the country which is bounded on the north by Syria, on the south by the Dead Sea, and therefore from Western Arabia, whose hordes invariably made Palestine the object of their predatory incursions. This therefore exactly corresponds to the expression, beyond the Ammonites. In all probability the matter stands thus. Instigated by the Moabites and Ammonites, a movement arose among the tribes of the wilderness similar to that at the time of the migration of the nations. They wished to exchange their waste dwelling with the fruitful Palestine. They attempted what they afterwards finally accomplished in the middle ages, while the Arabs of the wilderness continued to overrun Palestinian Syria, till at last they had dislodged almost all the older inhabitants. For it is evident that the reference here is not merely to passing strife and robbery, from the fact that in 2 Chronicles 20:11 Jehoshaphat expressly says, “The enemy come to cast us out of the possession which Thou hast given us to inherit.” According to Psalms 83:5, the enemy intended nothing less than to do to Israel what Israel had formerly done to the Canaanites. Moreover, the immense booty which the Israelites made shows that the enemy had gone out with bag and baggage. The sons of the wilderness now turned to the country of the Ammonites, by whom they had been stirred up. In them, as well as in a portion of the Edomites, they found willing allies. Respecting their further march Robinson observes, part ii. p. 446: “Without doubt they travelled south of the Dead Sea to Engedi, by the same route, as it appears, which is now taken by the Arabs in their predatory excursions along the shore as far as Ain Idy, then up the pass, and so northwards to below Thekoa.” “The way,” he says, p. 485, “which we took to-day is the great Arabian street through the wilderness, the Dead Sea, by which the Arabs of the south-west, and those who come round from the east by the southern end of the sea, are able to penetrate far north without the tribes or villages which lie farther west knowing anything of their movements.” The consideration that in this way alone they could get rid of their troublesome guests without injury to themselves, must in itself have been a strong inducement to the Edomites to join the movement; but how much more the hope of enriching themselves by the overthrow of their hereditary enemy, for whom they could have been no match by themselves, and the prospect of being safe from them in the future, and receiving a portion of their land! Probably the object of the enemy in going so far south, instead of entering by the pass on the Jordan, as the Israelites had done, was to conceal the aim of their expedition. This explains why Jehoshaphat heard nothing of it until the enemy had already occupied Engedi. Josephus thinks that they passed through the Dead Sea at Engedi, for there are places which can be waded through, so that even now the Arabs wade through with their camels. But it is more probable that the enemy travelled as far as the southern extremity of the sea, then suddenly turned and entered Palestine from the south-east; for the sea is only wadeable in the south, and although this ford very much shortens the way from the east to Judea, it is but little used, since the march through the brine is very difficult for naked feet. But if wading through the sea present difficulties even to individuals, it is the less probable that the heavily laden army of the enemy should have purchased the small shortening of the march at such a price. Moreover, we learn from what follows that some of the Edomites had joined the enemy, which seems to presuppose that they had touched their land also. Jehoshaphat was indeed in great dismay at the beginning, but he sought help where it was to be found. He appointed a fast-day, that by true repentance the nation might remove the only cause which could deprive them of divine assistance. He then besought the help of the Lord in a solemn public prayer, and received the promise of it through Jahaziel, of the sons of Asaph, probably the author of the eighty-third psalm, in which the help of the Lord is entreated in that danger. Firmly trusting in the promise, he marched at the head of his people towards Tekoa, a city to the south-east of Jerusalem, where the wilderness of Judah begins, through which the enemy must march against Jerusalem. Jehoshaphat’s faith was so strong, that he made the Levites go before the army in their sacred garments, singing psalms of praise and thanksgiving, placing equal value on the help which was promised and on that which had already been vouchsafed. The enemy were swept away by bloody discord, which arose among them before the eyes of the Israelites without any intervention on their part. This very concise narrative has recently been quite misinterpreted by Ewald and Bertheau (Com. on Chron.), who make the מארבים in 2 Chronicles 20:22 a kind of evil spirits sent forth by God against the enemy. The following is the explanation: Only a part of the Idumeans had joined the enemy, the rest thinking it more advisable to remain true to the king of Judah, to whom they were tributary,—the revolt of the Idumeans under Solomon had not quite destroyed their relation of dependence,—and when opportunity offered, to attack the enemy, whose spoil promised greater satisfaction to their rapacity, and by whom they probably feared to be attacked even in their dwellings after they would be in possession of Palestine. The Idumeans might have been joined also by rapacious swarms of tribes from Waste and Stony Arabia. They concealed themselves in the mountains which surrounded the Dead Sea. The sound of the singing told them of the approach of the Israelites, and gave them the signal of attack. But since the Judeans did not at once fall upon the enemy, as they had expected, it would have been easy for the latter to slay the troops who were so few in comparison with themselves. But now the enemy turned their arms against each other. Because the assailants were mainly composed of Idumeans, the rest began to suspect that the Idumeans associated with themselves had only entered into the alliance for purposes of treachery, and had an understanding with their opponents. They therefore fell upon them and slew them. And suspicion soon extended still further. Each nation believed that the others had joined it merely for treachery sake and only awaited the attack of the Judeans to carry out its plan. Thus a general slaughter ensued, and those who remained took to flight, leaving all their possessions, because the attack of Judah was momentarily expected. When the Judeans, therefore, reached an elevation commanding a view of the wilderness, they saw the remarkable spectacle of a camp destitute of enemies, and covered with corpses and rich spoil. After having taken possession of the latter, they held a great thanksgiving feast, first in the neighbourhood of the battle-field, and then at Jerusalem. On the former solemn occasion Psalms 47 was sung; on the latter, Psalms 48. The place where the first thanksgiving was held, the valley of blessing or praise, has been discovered by recent travellers, Robinson and others, in a wadi and a place called Bereikut, in the vicinity of the ancient Tekoa; comp. Ritter, part xv. p. 635. Little more is told of the subsequent life of Jehoshaphat, to which we pass on at once by way of sketch, although the narrative extends into the following section. By the event last narrated, the Idumeans were again completely subject to Jehoshaphat. In 1 Kings 22:47, we read that they had no independent king, but only a deputy. This observation, as well as the whole subsequent narrative, presupposes an event such as that which has been related, an event by which the Idumeans were again placed in the same relation to the kingdom of Judah into which they had been brought by David. Hence the important harbour Ezion-geber on the Ælanitic gulf of the Red Sea, the present Assium, which had formerly been at the command of Solomon, was now again in the hands of Jehoshaphat; comp. Burckhardt, part ii. p. 831. He would not leave this advantage unused, and entered into an agreement with Ahaziah, king of Israel, to build a merchant fleet. One part of the fleet was to leave the Ælanitic Gulf for Ophir, another was destined for Tartessus. The latter was not intended to circumnavigate Africa, as Michaelis assumes, but was to be transported across the small neck of land which separates the Heroopolitan arm of the Arabian Gulf from the Mediterranean Sea, the isthmus of Suez,—an attempt which was afterwards made with more numerous and doubtless with larger ships; comp. the compilations in Vitringa on Isaiah 1, p. 84, Keil on the Hiram-Solomonic voyage to Ophir and Tarshish, Dorpat, 1834, p. 8 ff. But immediately on leaving the harbour the fleet was destroyed by a storm. The harbour of Ezion-geber is full of rocks, and was afterwards quite abandoned on account of the frequent shipwrecks. Ahaziah tried to persuade Jehoshaphat to build a new fleet. But Jehoshaphat, warned by a prophet, would not, by union with an ungodly king, expose himself a second time to the misfortune which must inevitably befall such undertakings, and gave up his design of renewing the Solomonic trade. The short notices of the commercial enterprises of Jehoshaphat in 1 Kings 22:48, and 2 Chronicles 20:36 ff., contain many difficulties, on which comp. Keil, p. 21 ff., whose solution, however, seems to be incorrect. Notwithstanding all his zeal, Jehoshaphat was unable to do away with the practice of worshipping the true God on the heights, owing to the stubbornness of the people, which clothed itself in a pious garment, but all traces of idolatrous worship were happily destroyed. He died, after having reigned for twenty-five years, including the years of the co-regency of his son Jehoram. He was guilty of grievous error in taking Athaliah the daughter of Ahab as a wife for his son. By this means he helped towards the destruction of that which it had been the highest aim of his life to build up. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 42: 42. § 4. AHAZIAH IN THE KINGDOM OF ISRAEL ======================================================================== § 4. Ahaziah in the Kingdom of Israel Ahaziah ascended the throne in the beginning of the seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat, and reigned until the end of the eighteenth. He closely resembled his father. Soon after the death of the latter, the Moabites, who had been subject from the time of David, fell away from the kingdom of Israel, to which they had been annexed on the separation of the kingdom; comp. 2 Kings 1:1. In all probability this happened on the occasion of their union with the Arab tribes, which belongs to the very same period. For, according to Chronicles, it happened after the death of Ahab, and before the common building of the fleet. Thus there is no single event more fully narrated in Chronicles to which there are not references in the books of the Kings. In the second year of his reign the king met with a dangerous accident. He was leaning on the lattice-work of the gallery on his flat roof, when it gave way and he fell down; but this misfortune failed to make any impression on him. He sent to the Philistine idol Baal-zebub to ask whether he would recover from his illness. It is generally supposed that this god is honoured as having possessed the power of protection against flies, which gave rise to his name. It has been argued that even the Greeks have their Ζεὺς ἀπόμνιος, their Herculeslocustorius, their Ἀπόλλων μυόμνιος. But these examples would only be analogous, if it could be proved that a god was worshipped by a whole city or a whole district with sole reference to benefits so comparatively small. The correct idea is rather that Baal-zebub is a contemptuous transformation of the true name of the idol. Of this falsification of names not a few examples might be quoted; comp. the compilations in part ii. of the Beiträge, p. 26. The proper name of the idol was Baal-zebul, under which name it also appears in the New Testament, dominus hahitationis. זבול, habitatio, stands for heaven, God’s throne and habitation, so that Baal-zebul is synonymous with the Phenician Baal, Baalsamen, dominus coelorum. By the change of one letter the Israelites altered the alleged king of heaven into what he really was,—a fly-king, a king with no real authority. Elijah was commissioned to reprove the king for his wickedness. He suddenly stepped forth from his concealment to meet the messengers of the king, and commanded them not to continue their journey to Ekron, but to return to the king and to tell him that his death was irrevocably decreed. The king at once conjectured from whom the message came, and his conjecture was changed to certainty when the messengers described the outward appearance of the prophet, dressed in a hairy garment with a leathern girdle about his loins. But his designs of revenge were frustrated in the manner fully narrated in the source. The outward habitus of Elijah, as described on this occasion, had a symbolical meaning,—it was a sermo propheticus realis. The hairy garment is always the garb of repentance. The preacher of repentance appeared as repentance personified. In that which he did he set an example to the nation; comp. 1 Kings 21:27, where Ahab imitates the repentance which the prophet exemplifies: “And it came to pass, when Ahab heard those words, that he rent his clothes, and put sackcloth upon his flesh, and fasted.” John the Baptist afterwards borrowed this habitus from Elijah, as an indication of the idea which he possessed in common with him. Ahaziah, like Ahab, believes that Elijah, as his personal enemy, not only foretells, but also effects the threatened misfortune. He wishes to bring him into his power, for the purpose of either compelling him to avert the misfortune, or, if unable to do this, at least to revenge himself on him. With this object he sends out a captain, as ungodly as himself, with his troop, to seize the prophet. This captain, fearing lest the prophet should escape while he was ascending the mountain, sought by stratagem to induce him to give himself up voluntarily. The most certain means to accomplish this end seemed to be to gain his favour by a feigned recognition of his prophetic dignity. Hence he addresses him: “Thou man of God, the king hath said, Come down.” But Elijah sees into his unbelieving heart. Thou shalt soon learn that I am in reality what thou termest me in thy hypocrisy. A flash of lightning slew the captain and his host. Ahaziah, after the usual manner of scepticism, attributed the misfortune to accident. He sent a second captain, who was no better than his predecessor, and failed to take warning from his example. He too was overtaken by righteous judgment. The king then sent a third captain with his troop. It seems, however, that the second misfortune had softened him in some measure, so that he no longer thought of laying hands on the prophet, but only wished to speak with him, that by gentleness he might perhaps induce him to alter his determination, and designedly chose a pious captain, hoping through him to attain his object more easily. The justice of Elijah’s former conduct, which the Lord in Luke 9:55 does not blame, but only characterizes as inappropriate to the new covenant, is plainly shown in the whole manner of his behaviour towards this captain. He goes back with him to the king, and simply repeats what he had said to his messengers. His sentence was speedily fulfilled. The king died, and because he had no son, his brother Jehoram succeeded to the throne. The statement in 2 Kings 1:17, that this happened in the second year of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat, presupposes that Jehoshaphat had taken his son Jehoram as co-regent in the seventeenth year of his reign; for, according to 2 Kings 3:1, Jehoram began to reign over Israel in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat. Soon after the death of Ahaziah, Elijah was miraculously taken away from this life,—an event which was destined to seal his whole life of activity, to impart strength of faith to his successor Elisha, and to the whole remaining ἐκλογή in Israel, who had gathered about him as their head. The narrative of this event in the books of the Kings has verbal reference to Genesis 5:24, and in this way draws attention to the fact that the miracle with respect to Enoch was repeated in Elijah. In general most of the miracles of Elijah and Elisha are prefigured in the Mosaic history,—for example, the fire from heaven which kindles the offering and consumes those who are refractory; the dividing of the water of the Jordan; the healing of the bitter spring, etc. The object of this conformity is to point to the fact that the God of Israel is still the same, the ancient God still living; that Elijah and Elisha stand towards Him in the same relation as His anointed servants of former time; that the cause which they served was equally the cause of the Lord; that the community which they represented was the continuation of the original community of the Lord. Just as the miracles of Elijah and Elisha are connected with those in the Mosaic history, so to these are attached the miracles of the New Testament, where the object is to show the connection between this and the Old Testament, to represent the New not as being in antithesis to the Old, but as its fulfilment. This connection between the miracles of Scripture must be postulated if we take the Scripture standpoint, and is far from throwing doubt on its historical truth. We are the less justified in coming to such a conclusion, since the dependence is everywhere associated with independence, the later miracles never appearing as simple reproduction. Elijah knew by a divine revelation what would befall him; it was also made known to Elisha, but without the knowledge of Elijah. The latter made several attempts to free himself from Elisha, his companion. His extreme modesty would fain have dispensed with all witnesses to his glorification. But Elisha steadily refused; he would enjoy his beloved master to the last moment of his sojourn upon the earth. Elijah repaired beforehand to the place where his activity had borne the most joyous fruits, the seat of the prophetic schools of Bethel and Jericho. It seems that in the former place Elijah had established a seminary of the Holy Spirit, in order by powerful measures to check the corruption which had gone out from this city over all Israel, viz. the false worship of God, and to influence the numbers who made pilgrimages thither. Elijah wished to make a few final arrangements in these places, and to exhort the prophetic schools as his spiritual sons. He thought that they would know nothing of that which was impending; but the Lord had revealed it to some among them, or to their heads. If the event were to have its intended effect, it must be known to many of the faithful with unerring certainty. Elijah’s ascension happened not for his own sake, but for the sake of those who were left behind. So far as he alone was concerned, we see no reason why he should not have gone the way of all flesh. The prophetic disciples told Elisha what they knew, and he exhorted them to silence. He was too well acquainted with the mind of his master not to know his strong aversion to all display. From Jericho Elijah and Elisha took their way towards the Jordan. Fifty disciples of the prophets accompanied them part of the way. While these remained standing at a short distance from the Jordan, Elijah parted the waters of the Jordan by the power of the Lord, so that he and his companion passed over dry-shod. When they had reached the farther shore, Elijah permitted Elisha to make a last request, persuaded that the Lord would grant it at his petition. “I pray thee,” Elisha asks, “let a double portion of thy spirit be upon me.” Many have understood this request as if Elisha had demanded a double measure of the spirit possessed by Elijah. But the words themselves do not admit of this interpretation. The ברוחך, “of thy spirit,” shows that Elisha only asked for a portion of the spirit which rested upon Elijah; otherwise the request would have been too bold, and its fulfilment, though promised by Elijah, could not be historically proved. Elisha appears throughout as subordinate to Elijah, only carrying on his work, and standing towards him in the same relation as Isaac to Abraham, Joshua to Moses, Timothy to Paul, Bugenhagen and Jonas to Luther. Elijah, and not he, appears in the transfiguration with Moses the head, as the second representative of the old covenant, as the coryphaeus of the whole prophethood. It is more correct to suppose that Elisha requests Elijah to grant him a double portion of his spirit, that he would appoint him his spiritual heir, with an allusion to the law, according to which a double portion of the inheritance fell to the lot of the first-born, Deuteronomy 21:17. The very request that he would leave him his spirit points to a spiritual relation of dependence on the part of Elisha towards Elijah, and proves that the former was far from laying claim to a higher position than his master’s. This narrative also throws light upon the former, where a task is given to Elijah which is only accomplished by Elisha; perhaps also upon a later narrative, in which, after the death of Elijah, mention is made of a scriptural prophecy respecting it. Elijah associated the granting of the request with a visible sign: if he should be a witness of his ascension. He did this in order to help the weakness of Elisha. In the troubles incident to his divine calling, he could comfort himself with this assurance: As certainly as I saw my master ascend to heaven, so certainly am I divinely called to be his successor. Even if I fail to perceive in myself the requisite gifts, yet I must possess them. The ascension took place with accompanying phenomena which presented to Elisha the appearance of fiery horses and chariot. The connection of these phenomena with the cherubim is based on an utterly false view of the latter. When Elisha sees his master disappear, he cries out, “My father, my father! the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof.” Elijah had been the pillar of the Israelitish nation, its support in temporal and spiritual need. Chariot and riders typified the greatest power of the states then in existence: with chariots and riders Aram had prevailed against Israel. In token of his sorrow, Elisha rent his garments. He then set out to return to the country on this side of the Jordan, to enter upon his calling. Having reached the Jordan, he commanded its waters to divide, saying, “Where is the Lord God of Elijah, He Himself?” The words אףהוא have here given much difficulty to expositors, and have been subjected to false interpretation from the earliest times. The simplest explanation is this: and He, equivalent to He Himself. Elisha expresses his firm confidence that the God of Elijah, the same who had proved Himself so powerful through him and in him, He Himself, and no other deity less powerful and gracious, would also hear his request as Elijah’s successor. From the fact that this request was granted, it is evident that it was not a tempting of God, but rather a suggestion of the Holy Spirit Himself. The object of the granting of the request was not only to assure Elisha himself of his calling and to strengthen his faith, but still more to attest his appointment as the successor of Elijah to the prophetic schools, and indirectly to the nation. This appears from the explicit observation of the author, 2 Kings 2:15 : “And when the sons of the prophets saw him, they said, The spirit of Elijah doth rest on Elisha. And they came to meet him, and bowed themselves to the ground before him.” The whole contents of 2 Kings 1-2 show that by the efficacy of Elijah the prophets in the kingdom of Israel had received a certain organization, and that a certain distinction of rank obtained among them, proportionate to the difference in the divine gift,—not, however, as among the priests, an external distinction resting upon carnal birth, but an internal one resting upon spiritual birth. After Elisha had now by a doubly remarkable event been legitimized by God as the successor of Elijah, he was recognised as the head of the whole institute. The second miracle performed by Elisha, the healing of the water at Jericho, must be looked at from the same point of view. This place, situated in a region like Paradise, was deficient in wholesome drinking water. Among other evils, the waters gave rise to premature births,—a property which still characterizes many of the mineral springs in Germany. Mineral water abounds in the vicinity of the Dead Sea, and for this reason cannot be drunk by those who are pregnant. Elisha sent for salt in a new dish, and shook it into the waters. Of course the salt could not of itself produce the effect which was intended, and which was actually realized. The act was symbolical. Salt was in olden times the symbol of purification and healing. Just as salt seasons what has no taste, so the power of God would have a salutary effect on the water. The use of the new dish also belonged to the symbol. The power of spiritual salt is weakened when mixed with impurities. The prophetic disciples at Jericho, though not doubting that Elijah had been taken away by the Lord,—for they themselves had been witnesses,—were yet unable to reconcile themselves to the belief that his body had been taken away from the earth for ever. They thought it probable that the Lord had taken his soul to Himself in heaven, but that after this had happened, his body must have fallen again somewhere upon the earth; they wished, therefore, to search for it to pay it the last honours. Elisha tried to dissuade them from their purpose, but finally yielded to their request, that they might be convinced of the futility of the attempt. Fifty men now set out in all directions to seek the corpse. The fruitlessness of this zealous searching served to confirm the truth of the ascension of Elijah in its whole extent, and to exclude all possibility of doubt. This is the object of the author in narrating the event. From Jericho Elisha turned to Bethel. Here also, in the place of the illegal worship, it was necessary that his divine mission should be ratified. The boys who mocked him there were the ungodly children of ungodly parents, who scoffed at the prophet as such, and in him therefore scoffed at God. The baldness of the prophet, the result not of age, but of excessive intellectual labour, was only a vehicle, and not the actual ground of their mockery. The punishment which befell them was not the satisfaction of a carnal desire for revenge on the part of the prophet, but a righteous divine judgment, intended to serve as a warning to others who were like-minded, and was especially necessary in this place. It was a settlement of the dispute between the adherents of the calf-worship and those who worshipped the God of Israel according to His word. For the mockery of the boys is only to be regarded as an isolated expression of the bitter feeling of the former towards the latter. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 43: 43. § 5. JORAM IN THE KINGDOM OF ISRAEL AND IN THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH ======================================================================== § 5. Joram in the Kingdom of Israel and in the Kingdom of Judah Ahaziah, as we have already stated, was succeeded by his brother Jehoram, who reigned for twelve years. He renounced the service of idols; but calf-worship was so closely bound up with the national interests of Israel, that he had not courage to abolish it. While in the beginning he paid little heed to the prophets of the true God, they afterwards by their deeds, especially those of Elisha, acquired great authority over him,—without his experiencing a true change of heart, however. His first care was to regain his ascendency over the Moabites, who had revolted immediately after the death of Ahab, and had refused to pay the heavy tribute obtained from their large flocks, which found rich pasture partly on their own land, and partly in the neighbouring Waste and Stony Arabia. With this object in view, Jehoram besought King Jehoshaphat for his assistance, who promised it the more readily, since by this means he had an opportunity of punishing the Moabites for the invasion of his land which they had made shortly before, in conjunction with the tribes of the wilderness. Notwithstanding the great extremity in which the kings at first found themselves, the war came to a prosperous ending. There were two ways of invading the country of the Moabites,—either from the northern boundary, passing the Jordan in the neighbourhood of Jericho, and then crossing the Anion; or the allied army might advance to the southern end of the Dead Sea, and then reach the southern territory of the Moabites through the northern part of the Edomite mountain-district. The king of Israel left the choice to the king of Judah, because the latter way, which led through his territory, could only be undertaken with his permission. The king of Judah decided in its favour. It was attended with such great hardships and dangers, that the Moabites probably thought themselves secure on this side, where Mount Seir seemed to form a boundary-wall insurmountable to a whole army; and might therefore be surprised the more easily. In this way, too, it would be easier to collect the auxiliary troops of the king of the Edomites, who was tributary to Judah. When, in 1 Kings 22:47, we read that there was no king in Edom at the time of Jehoshaphat, the meaning, as we see from the context, is that there was no independent king, in distinction from a vassal. But notwithstanding the apparent wisdom of the plan, it brought the army into the greatest danger. It was necessary for them to traverse the mountain-pass formed by the Wadi Hossa, which hastens from the west to the east towards the Dead Sea, the natural boundary on the side of Arabia Petraea, probably the same way which was formerly taken by Naomi when she left the land of the Moabites and returned to her home in Bethlehem, which was followed by the Crusaders when they journeyed from the Valley of Salt, Seyon, to Syria Sobal, and was afterwards taken by Seetzen on his way from Moab, past the Dead Sea, to Jerusalem. The kings had probably calculated that the Wadi Hossa would afford them a sufficient supply of water; but in this hope they were deceived. The brook had been dried up by long-continued drought. Their position was desperate; the fainting army was in hourly expectation that the Moabites would come down on them from the northern mountains. In this extremity the difference of disposition between the king of Judah and the king of Israel betrays itself in a remarkable way. Jehoram is quite in despair: he thinks he sees certain destruction before him, because he knows that he has deserved the punishment of the Lord. Jehoshaphat has a better conscience, although it is not quite pure, since his connection with the king of Israel, which he had probably regarded as allowable because Jehoram was not an idolater like his predecessor, might now appear to him in another light. He refuses to give up hope, and inquires whether there is not a prophet of the Lord in the place. Elisha was in the camp, or in its vicinity,—a circumstance only explicable on the supposition that he had received a revelation from the Lord to the effect that He would want him there. For the embarrassment in which the king was involved immediately when he began his reign, was intended as a means in the hand of the Lord to procure authority and perfect freedom for His prophets in the exercise of their calling, under this new reign. The kings, humiliated by misfortune, repair to Elisha in person. Elisha at first gives the king of Israel an evasive answer, referring him to his calf-prophets. He knew that this was the time, if ever, when punishment would make a salutary impression on the king. Jehoram is deeply humbled by sorrow. He begs Elisha not to repel him in this way, now when the Lord has brought such heavy misfortune upon him and his allies, but, if possible, to show him the way out of his embarrassment. Elisha perceives that the repentance of the king is merely superficial, and therefore seeks to move him still more deeply, by declaring that he will only interest himself in the matter for the sake of the pious Jehoshaphat. He now sends for a minstrel, and by a stringed instrument is brought into the frame of mind necessary to the reception of the Spirit of God. Where the Spirit was to speak, it was requisite first to wrap one’s own life in silence, and to fill the soul with utter rest and stillness. Perhaps Elisha felt the greater need of such a preparation, because he had been agitated by his conference with the king of Israel. But it is unnecessary to assume this to have been the case, since music appears even elsewhere as the ordinary means employed by the prophets for the suppression of self-consciousness. The prophet now prophesies that they will soon not only receive an abundant supply of water, but will completely conquer the Moabites. The natural means employed by God for the fulfilment of the former prophecy was doubtless as follows: Violent showers of rain, or a kind of waterspout, fell in the Edomitic mountains. The water ran in streams through the bed of the dried-up torrent on which the allied armies were encamped, to the Dead Sea. Thus the army received water without having seen a rain-cloud. Because the mountain-torrent, which had its origin in a sudden shower of rain, would necessarily soon subside, and the former need recur, therefore the army, at the command of Elisha, had made ditches in the bed of the torrent itself, and round about it, in which the water was retained. By divine decree the water did not come until the day after these preparations were already ended, and just at the time when the morning sacrifice was offered in the temple at Jerusalem, in order at the same time to serve for a confirmation of the legal worship. In many miraculous manifestations of God, prominence is given to the fact that they happened just at the time when His mercy was entreated by sacrifice and prayer in the sanctuary appointed by Him. In the meantime the Moabites with all their forces had repaired to their southern border, and had occupied the mountainous district north of the wadi. In all probability the water had taken a reddish hue from the red ground over which it flowed. According to Burckhardt, the mountains there are composed principally of sandstone. The illusion was strengthened by the rays of the rising sun, which were refracted in it. The Moabites, with their accurate knowledge of the district, knew that the wadi was dried up. Hence it was difficult for them to think that it was water which they saw shimmering down in the distance. The recollection of the way in which the former campaign had been thwarted by mutual destruction was still fresh in their memories. They knew the former hostile relation, and the natural jealousy existing between Israel and Judah; they knew that the Edomites were less voluntary than compelled allies of the Judaites. Thus the idea suggested itself to some, that what they saw was blood, and that their enemies had destroyed one another. The mass of the people assumed the truth of what they wished, without waiting to prove it. Eager for booty, they left their secure position in the mountain, and fell upon the hostile camp. In the valley the superior force gained an easy victory over them. Their whole land was now conquered and laid waste, as Elisha had foretold, though without approving of the cruelties then perpetrated, which, however, cannot be judged according to our more recent martial law and the code of nations. The king had thrown himself, with a part of his troops, into the fortress Kir-hareseth. This was the most important fortress in the country. It appears in Isa. Isaiah 16:7 under this name, and in Isaiah 15:1 under the name מואב, the walls of Moab. It was situated on a very high and steep mountain-rock in the neighbourhood of Zared, and commanded a view over the Dead Sea, and across to Jerusalem. In the twelfth century the ruined fortress was rebuilt, and played an important part under the name of Karak; comp. Gesenius on Isaiah 15:1, Isaiah 16:7. This fortress was besieged by the allied armies, and the slingers did great damage to the garrison. Yet it was only by starving out the garrison that they could hope to occupy the fortress, unless, like Saladin, who besieged this fortress in the middle ages, they had sling machines which were included among the slingers. Machines of this kind appear in the history of Uzziah in 2 Chronicles 26:15. The Moabitish king, reduced to the last extremity, made an attempt with seven hundred men to cut his way through the enemy, choosing the side occupied by the Idumeans, because he expected less resistance in this quarter. When his attempt failed, he offered up his own son on the wall to his god Chemosh. His object was to make an impression on the minds of his enemies,—to fill them with fear of the divine revenge on account of their unmerciful conduct. That in cases of extreme need the heathen sought to propitiate the wrath of their idols by human sacrifices, is proved by not a few examples. Even in a much more enlightened age, the Tyrians, when besieged by Alexander, were on the point of resorting to it at the advice of the Carthaginians. This deed of horror was revolting to the heart of the pious Jehoshaphat, and perhaps also to the Idumeans. Their anger was kindled against the Israelites, because they had given occasion for this crime by their want of compassion in reducing the besieged to the utmost extremity. The king of Israel was obliged to yield to their decidedly expressed wish to raise the siege, and the allied armies departed homewards with the booty from the country which they had laid waste. It redounds to the honour of the covenant-nation that, from fear of God, they forbore to carry matters to extremes; and it is in vain for Ewald to represent as superstition what was the result of deep and living piety. The miraculous deeds of Elisha narrated in 2 Kings 4 of the second book of Kings find their vindication in the fact that in the kingdom of Israel the Levites had not a legally recognised position as the servants of God, as was the case in Judah; hence the prophethood had far greater importance in the latter. Moreover, the miracles performed by some among them who were specially gifted, served as an authorization of the whole class, which was the more needed, because they stood not in transitory opposition to individual ungodly kings, but in permanent hostility towards the state-religion, which was closely connected with the state. The fact that, notwithstanding these miraculous manifestations of God, the people as a whole were so little improved that the Lord was obliged to visit them with the punishment of the captivity, is a strong argument for their necessity. We shall first of all make a few observations on the history of the Shunammite. Shunem was a town of the tribe of Issachar, through which Elisha passed on his journey from his usual abode on Mount Carmel to Samaria, where, as we learn from 2 Kings 4:13, he was held in high estimation, and had unbounded influence with the king and his highest officers,—an influence which he carefully made use of for the establishment of good or the destruction of evil. In visiting the prophetic schools at Bethel, Gilgal, and Jericho, which were subject to his supervision, Elisha was obliged to touch at Shunem also. In these journeys he was entertained by a rich pious Shunammite with eager hospitality, based on his relation to the Lord. As a reward, her marriage, which had formerly been childless, was blessed at the prayer of the prophet. The death of the child was intended to reveal the faith of the woman and the power of the Lord. The former shows itself in the answer which she sent to her husband. He was still in the field with his men, at some distance, it appears, from the city, and knew nothing of the death of the child. The woman sends, asking for a servant to accompany her to the prophet,—a message which causes some anxiety to the husband, who inquires, “Wherefore wilt thou go to him to-day? It is neither new moon nor sabbath.” He was accustomed to his wife’s visiting the prophet on holy days. From this passage it follows that on these days a small number of the faithful were in the habit of assembling about the prophets, to be taught and edified by them. But now, on an ordinary day, the husband has a presentiment of something unusual. In the kingdom of Judah we find no example of this kind of regular teaching on the part of the prophets. The history of Jehoshaphat shows that this duty devolved on the priests and Levites. The woman, without telling him the object of her journey, sets his mind at rest with the assurance that nothing evil has occurred. She was firmly convinced that the prophet would raise her dead child to life again. Hence she resolves not to trouble her husband, whose faith is weak, with news of a calamity which, persuaded by the eye of faith, she regards as no longer in existence. Her faith is still more fully shown in her address to the prophet himself. She has no doubt whatever that he can come to her assistance if he will; and from his own promise she shows him that he must be willing to do so. He had promised her a son, as a reward for the love and faith which she had shown him. A child who dies again so soon, she maintains, is no reward, but a punishment. From the way in which Elisha treats the dead child, it seems as if the Lord had suffered him to retain a faint germ of life, which was ripened by the power imparted to Elisha. But the event must by no means be removed from the sphere of the miraculous. Gehazi finds no sign whatever of life in the child, and in 2 Kings 8:5 the event is expressly characterized as a miracle. The similar miracle of Elijah was undoubtedly greater, because it had no point of contact in natural causes. After this event Elisha left his customary abode on Mount Carmel and went to Gilgal, where he had last been with Elijah. There he remained for a long time, and inspected the greatly frequented schools of the prophets, whose members, the sons of the prophets, must invariably be regarded not as pupils, but as subordinate teachers,—as those who, under the supervision of their head, were responsible for the spiritual nourishment of the people. A famine there gave him an opportunity of proving the divine nature of his authority in a twofold way before the eyes of the sons of the prophets, and also of ratifying the position of the servants of God in the kingdom of Israel in the face of the calf-prophets. A disciple of the prophets had gone out into the field to look for all kinds of herbs as vegetables for the whole community. These disciples dwelt together in a kind of convent, and the arrangements among them seem to have been more like those of a cloister than the earlier evangelical theologians, from false polemic interest against the Romish Church, would concede, though not so much so as this Church asserted. The fruit of a climbing plant attracted the attention of the youth, who had more experience in divine things than in household matters, since, owing to its great size, it promised great gain. It was a kind of wild gourd—the coloquintida. The fruit, about the size of a fist, and covered with a white skin of the nature of leather, has a soft, spongy juice, which has the bitterest and most horrible taste. It is called the devil’s apple. Taken frequently, it produces violent sickness, and finally causes death. The youth gathered as much of this plant as he could carry; and those who provided for the common kitchen were no better skilled in natural science than he: it was only by tasting it that they gained experience. Elisha remedied the evil by a means which in itself could not have had this effect. Another incident occurred in the same place. According to the law, the first-fruits of corn, wine, and oil were to be given to the priests; also some of the first bread baked of fresh corn,—the amount of the present being left to the will of the giver; comp. Deuteronomy 18:4-5, Numbers 18:13. But because the priests were banished from the kingdom of Israel, those who feared God, finding it impossible to fulfil the law according to the letter, sought to fulfil it in spirit. While there can be no doubt that the great mass of the people transferred to the calf-priests what had been appointed for the Levitical priests, the God-fearing brought their first-fruits to the extraordinary representatives of the priests appointed by God,—the prophets and their disciples. In the time of the famine there came, among others, a man from Baal-shalisha,—a place otherwise unknown,—bringing twenty loaves of bread to the prophetic school at Gilgal. Besides this, on the foundation of Leviticus 2:14, Leviticus 23:14, he brought a bug full of carmel,—a word of uncertain meaning,—according to some, “green ears.” These are roasted by fire in the East, and then eaten, which is the case in Egypt, as modern travellers attest. Elisha commands that this food be given to the famishing disciples of the prophets to eat. “What! should I set this before an hundred men?” his servant replies. The school of the prophets had greatly increased, owing to the presence of Elisha. Twenty loaves were a small thing for a hundred men; for Eastern loaves are only the size of a plate and the thickness of a finger; comp. Korte’s Travels, p. 458. But Elisha foretells in faith that all shall be satisfied, and a remnant be left over. His word was fulfilled,—a prefiguration of the similar but far greater miracle of Christ. In both narratives, and also in that of the lost axe, which has erroneously been regarded as an actual miracle, (the extraordinary part of the thing was, that the prophet should have hit the handle of the axe at the first stroke of the stick, thus raising the iron with the wood), the life of the disciples of the prophets appears as one of great poverty,—as a life of renunciation and want,—and we can well conceive that it was necessary for God to reveal Himself to them in a very powerful way, if they were to give up all earthly things for His sake. With reference to the healing of Naaman the Syrian, related in 2 Kings 5, we have only a few remarks to make. We there have the story of the cure of the leprosy of Naaman the Syrian captain, who had acquired great influence with the king of Syria, owing to the skilful discharge of his office. He was indeed afflicted with leprosy, but had nevertheless retained his post, for the laws of separation on account of leprosy were not so strict among the Syrians as in Israel. By an Israelitish prisoner who dwelt in his house, his attention was directed to Elisha as the only one who was in a position to free him from his most irksome malady. The king probably thought that the prophets were subject to the king of Israel, just as his own venal idolatrous priests were subservient to him. To specify more definitely the way in which the cure was to be effected, was beneath his dignity, he thought. Hence Joram thought that the object in demanding from him what he was not in a position to render, was nothing less than to find a pretext for war. His unbelief made him forget the power of the Lord, which, as he himself had already experienced, was able to effect that which was impossible to man. He was greatly perplexed. Owing to these circumstances, under the guidance of God the healing of the Syrian produced a powerful impression not only on Naaman and his countrymen, but also on the king of Israel himself and his people, making them conscious of the infinite distance which separated their God from the dead idols of the heathen, and constraining them to worship him with grateful hearts. Elisha sends word to the king to send the Syrian to him, that he may know that there is a prophet in Israel. These words give the highest object of the miraculous cure. In every case when the heathen either mocked the true God, or sought His aid, He revealed His power. In this respect the character of God remains the same throughout all centuries, as a proof that He is a true historical God, and not the mere invention of fancy. Elisha does not suffer Naaman to come into his presence, but tells him through his servant what he is to do. Many have attributed this conduct to false motives. It was undoubtedly intended to humiliate the Syrian, who prided himself on his dignity, and could not yet have understood the humility of Elisha; while asserting his dignity as a servant of the true God, Elisha at the same time pointed him to the reverence due to God on his part also. The means which Elisha prescribes to Naaman for his bodily cure, form an excellent representation of those which true religion affords for spiritual purification. They are as simple as possible, dispensing with all appearance of inherent power, that the divine power may be the more strikingly manifested. Naaman’s first words give us a true picture of the mind of the natural man. The means which the prophet prescribes to Naaman are too simple for him: he himself has scarcely any part in them; and the prophet will not even be present on their application. Thus so far all human instrumentality is excluded; and yet the natural man still places his hope on it, and in his heart ascribes to it the greatest part of the result, though confessing with his mouth that he expects everything from God alone. The observation of Naaman’s servant is quite true: had the prophet told him to do some great thing, he would have done it at once. We here see the origin of the opposition of the natural man to the doctrine of the atonement. “Wash and be clean,” is just as incomprehensible and offensive to the natural man in a spiritual aspect as it is here in a corporeal aspect. Yet Naaman at last follows the command of the prophet, and at once experiences the rich blessing which follows his obedience. He now wishes to give Elisha the rich presents which he had brought with him for this purpose. But Elisha refuses them, which seems strange at the first glance. We have many other examples showing that the prophets did receive presents; it even appears that the schools of the prophets were entirely supported by free-will offerings. But there can be no doubt that these gifts were only taken from those to whom the prophets stood in a pastoral relation. The prophet could accept nothing from the stranger without weakening the effect of that which had happened, on the still unstable mind of Naaman, and on his countrymen. At the same time, Naaman’s further conversation with the prophet shows that he did not stop at the gift, as is generally the case, but raised himself to the giver, in whom, by an illumination from God Himself, he recognised not one deity among many, endowed with special power, in accordance with the polytheistic notion, but the only true God; but this new light had not yet expelled all darkness of perception and will. He wishes to take a few loads of earth from Canaan, for the purpose of building an altar with it, where he might sacrifice to the true God. An element of superstition, though innocent, is here unmistakeable. Naaman goes on to say that on one point he must ask the forbearance of the Lord. When accompanying the king in his official capacity to the temple of the idol Rimmon, he cannot avoid bowing down with him before this idol. Many—for example, Buddeus—have endeavoured to set aside this inconvenient sense by a forced interpretation. Others, as Michaelis, maintain that Naaman was obliged to bow down, not to worship the idol, but from respect to the king, who was most grossly insulted if any one remained standing beside him while he was prostrate on the ground. But this latter argument plainly proves nothing. It might indeed be Naaman’s duty to bow down with the king as long as he retained his office; but why could he not give up his office for the sake of God? He is in some measure excused, though not justified, on the supposition that he zealously and assiduously made known his faith in the one true God, and his complete renunciation of all idols, so that at least the greater number of those who saw him bow down knew that he did it only for the sake of the king, and not for the sake of the idols. In this case his taking part in the ceremonies could only in an imperfect sense be called the profession of a cause which he despised in his heart. Elisha’s conduct on this occasion is remarkable. He dismisses Naaman with the words, “Go in peace.” By many these words have erroneously been regarded as conceding the points referred to by Naaman, not only that just mentioned, but also his desire to take away earth from the holy land for the building of an altar for the Lord in Syria. The words are only the customary formula of departure, here spoken with emphasis and with their original and certainly show that on the whole Naaman was in the right way, and that his attitude of heart pleased the prophet. The prophet designedly refrains from entering into the two points. With respect to the former, Naaman had not asked his permission, nor made the matter dependent on his decision. He had absolutely stated that the Lord must pardon him in this matter, since it could not be otherwise. Elisha had too much wisdom not to see that by insisting on the discontinuance of these outward acts he might have done more harm than good, perhaps even have destroyed the work which had been begun; the refusal of the presents shows that there is no question except of a faith still future. He therefore left him to the guidance of the Lord, who alone was able to lead him on in spirit, but took care not to utter a single word in justification of his weakness. The favour extended to the heathen was followed by another remarkable prefiguration of the future,—the punishment of a member of the covenant-nation, and that of one who, by virtue of his constant intercourse with the prophet, stood in a near relation to God. Gehazi, the servant of Elisha, who held the same relation towards his master as Elisha had formerly held towards Elijah, both carnally and spiritually, as the history of the Shunammite shows, was led away by avarice to hasten after Naaman, and, under a false pretext, in the name of Elisha, to ask a portion of the possessions which his master had rejected. Avarice here truly showed itself to be the root of all evil. It led him into falsehood,—first towards Naaman, and then towards his own master. It stifled all higher considerations; for if he had yielded to these, he would have hesitated to destroy the work of God, so far as it lay in his power. Naaman’s faith clung to the instrument which God had employed as a means of calling it forth. But what must he think of this instrument, when he, who had shown himself so disinterested in his presence, now sent after him, and on a suspicious pretext yet demanded his reward? The punishment which fell upon Gehazi was not simply just, it was necessary for the sake of the cause. The news of it must soon spread abroad in every direction, and would reach even Naaman. The leprosy with which Gehazi was afflicted was a far heavier calamity for him than it had been for Naaman. For the latter, it was only of the same nature as any other sickness. It was evident that among the Syrians no ignominy was attached to leprosy, from the circumstance that Naaman held his high dignity afterwards as well as before, continuing to live in the society of his wife and children, and visiting the temple of the god Rimmon. It was quite different with leprosy in Israel. By the law, it was appointed to be a type of sin, and the leper was treated as the actual sin, being thrust out from society. And the fact that leprosy was by law an image of sin, explains why the punishment of leprosy was inflicted on Gehazi. The image of sin is best adapted to reflect it: the sinner before God is in this way revealed as a sinner before man, before whom he must bear the image of sin. This punishment was the more appropriate in this case, since Gehazi had played the hypocrite, concealing his sin under the semblance of piety. God now made it manifest before the eyes of all the world. After a short interruption, the war with the Syrians began again. Elisha had here another opportunity of convincing the king and the nation of the deity of the Lord, and of the divinity of his own mission. The magnanimity shown to the captive Syrians, and at the same time the divine co-operation so apparent in the matter, induced Ben-hadad, the Syrian king, to suspend hostilities for a time. Soon, however, these motives lost their power. Ben-hadad again invaded Israel with a large army, and besieged Samaria. But palpable punishment was destined to overtake nation and king, because all their previous experience had failed to bring forth in them the true fruits of repentance; they had contented themselves with mere admiration of the divine power and external obedience to the prophets, and had not felt themselves constrained to seek help in their spiritual need, which is the object of all temporal aid. The famine reached its greatest height in the city. Even kinds of food which were forbidden in the law, and were unclean according to it, could only be had for a high price. An ass’s head was sold for eighty pieces of silver, and a small measure of dove’s dung for five pieces of silver. The latter designation ought perhaps to be taken figuratively, as the name of a coarse kind of food unknown to us, similar to that which bears the same name among the Arabs; comp. Bochart, Hieroz. ii. 1. 1, chap. 7. Ewald and Thenius, indeed, hold to the literal meaning. “If the excrement of snipe can be eaten as a luxury,” the latter remarks, “necessity might readily permit the use of dove’s dung.” Experience alone can decide, and the defenders of this view ought to have made the experiment. Scenes of horror occurred such as Moses had foretold as a divine judgment on the transgressors of the law, Deuteronomy 28:53 ff., and were afterwards repeated when Jerusalem was besieged -by the Chaldeans, comp. Lamentations 4:10, and again by the Romans. But when the need was greatest, divine help appeared. Not long afterwards, Elisha repaired to Damascus, or to the neighbourhood of this town. Notwithstanding the importance of the services which Elisha had rendered to Jehoram, no lasting impression had been made on prince and people. Jehoram, though not personally attached to heathendom, yet suffered it to pursue its course, and his mother Jezebel retained great influence; comp. 2 Kings 10:13, 2 Kings 9:30. It was God’s design soon to make a reckoning with nation and king. Elijah had been commanded by God to anoint Hazael, a chief servant of the king of Syria, as king over Damascus, i.e. to declare solemnly that by divine decree he was appointed to this dignity. Elijah had left the carrying out of this command to Elisha, who now received the divine instructions that the time for it was come. This interference in the affairs of a foreign country by a prophet who was only designed to be active among his own people, seems strange at the first glance. But the strangeness disappears on closer consideration. It becomes evident that the interference of the prophet stands in the closest relation to the kingdom of Israel. Hazael was destined to be a fearful instrument for the accomplishment of the divine revenge on Israel. If these judgments were to attain their object,—if they were to lead the nation to repentance,—it was necessary that they should be recognised as such, and should not be regarded as accidental effects of the sin of the human instrument. This mode of consideration was excluded by the fact that the divine decree of the exaltation of Hazael to the Syrian throne was pronounced by the prophet: all that happened by his instrumentality must now appear as foreordained by God. The sorrows which He inflicted upon Israel formed an argument not against, but in favour of His deity. We have already seen that the proclamation of such a divine decree does not justify the human deed, which is condemned by the law of God; and even Hazael did not on this account acquire the smallest right to murder his lord and king. It is a different thing when the Lord commands something to be done by His prophets, and when he simply makes known that it will happen. At that very time Ben-hadad lay sick. He had already had opportunity enough to learn to know the prophet as such; hence he no sooner heard of his arrival than he sent a messenger to him—by God’s dispensation Hazael himself—to ask whether he would recover. The rich presents destined for the prophet, in accordance with the custom of the East, were borne by a multitude of beasts of burden quite disproportionate to their magnitude, in order to make them appear still greater than they were in reality. According to another view, the words “forty camels’ burden” only indicate the value of what was sent,—the quantity of corn carried by a camel being taken as the measure. The answer of Elisha has given rise to many discussions. In 2 Kings 8:10 we find two different readings. The reading of the text is, “Go, say unto him, Thou canst not recover: howbeit the Lord hath showed me that he shall surely die.” The marginal reading is, “Go, say unto him, Thou shalt live.” Instead of the לא, “not,” of the text, the margin has לו, “to him.” If the reading of the text be taken as correct, no difficulty exists. Moreover, this alone has external authority in its favour. The marginal readings are only conjectures ex ingenio? the textual readings so strongly confirm what is in the MS., that the Masoretes did not venture to insert their “emendations” or deteriorations in the text. The marginal reading presents this difficulty: it makes the prophet charge Hazael with a lie,—a supposition which we cannot accept. The way in which the marginal reading originated is easily explained. It was thought that the prophet must necessarily have charged Hazael with the same message which he delivered to the king. Elisha then makes known to Hazael his future dignity, and at the same time with deep sorrow foretells the misery which he will bring upon Israel. Hazael feigns astonishment, in order not to betray himself, though he had no doubt conceived the plan long before, and prepared everything for its accomplishment. By his lying declaration he makes Ben-hadad glad with the certain prospect of recovery. On the very day following he carried out his murderous intent, in such a way that the corpse of the king showed no external marks of violence or injury. He dipped the net, or perhaps a cloth (the meaning of the expression is uncertain), which is used in the East during sleep as a protection against mosquitoes and other insects, in water, so that no fresh air could penetrate it, and spread it over the sleeping king, so that he was suffocated. We must now give a brief summary of the parallel history of the kings of Judah, because it is closely connected with that of Israel. In 2 Kings 8:16 we read that Jehoram became king over Judah in the fifth year of Joram of Israel. This does not imply, as the verse itself shows, that Jehoshaphat was then already dead. He lived for two years afterwards. But he then transferred the greater part of the government to Jehoram, whom, according to 2 Kings 1:17, he had taken as co-regent several years before. In the acts of Jehoram we soon perceive the injurious effects of the union of Ahab with the Phenician Jezebel, whose equally infamous daughter Athaliah had been married by Jehoram. The Mosaic prohibition against marrying heathen wives, which is still binding in spirit on the Church of God, here receives its justification. Michaelis says very justly: “In this respect Tyrian, Israelitish, and Jewish history coincide. The spirit which then possessed Tyre, together with much misfortune, was brought into Israelitish history by marriage. The king of Tyre contemporary with Jehoram is Pygmalion, who murdered the husband of his sister Dido, merely to gain possession of his treasures. So also, according to 2 Chronicles 21, after the death of Jehoshaphat, Jehoram slew all his brothers, for no other reason, as it appears, than to have the treasures which his father had bequeathed to them. As idolatry had formerly been openly introduced into Israel at the instigation of Jezebel, so it was now in Judah at the instigation of Athaliah.” Here also apostasy was followed by divine judgments. The first of these was the revolt of the Idumeans, whose king had previously been a vassal of the Jewish kings. Faithfulness towards the Lord was the principle of the Israelitish nationality; the necessary consequence of the apostasy was weakness within and feebleness without. In God alone lay the strength of Israel. Soon afterwards Jehoram received a prediction of still heavier misfortune by a writing in the hand of Elijah. This appears strange at the first glance, since Elijah had already been dead for some time. Among the various attempts which have been made to solve this problem, some of which are absurd enough, two only deserve notice. According to one of these, the thing which was accomplished by Elisha is here attributed to Elijah. This explanation loses the forced character which it bears at first sight, when we take into consideration what has already been said respecting Elisha’s relation of dependence towards Elijah, whose spirit was bestowed upon him. But there is another view which has still greater probability in its favour. According to 1 Kings 19, Elijah had foreseen the elevation of Jehu to the throne of Israel, and the impending destruction by his instrumentality of the family of Ahab; also the accession of Hazael to the throne, and the heavy misfortunes inflicted on the Israelitish kingdom through him. If in this case the future were revealed to him, the greatest of all the prophets of the old covenant, why might it not also have been revealed to him that Jehoram, who came to the throne about four years after his death, and already before it had allied himself with the infamous Athaliah, would draw down upon himself the judgments of the Lord by grievous sin? This prophecy, which he had written down and given to Elisha, was at the proper time sent by the latter to the king of Judah, and was soon afterwards fulfilled. The Philistines, in alliance with Arab Bedouins, entered the land and fell upon the camp of the Judaites, where Joram was with his wives and children and a part of his treasures. All his sons, with the exception of the youngest, Jehoahaz, or, by transposition, Azariah, were slain. This was retribution for what he had done to his brothers. Jehoram himself died in the eighth year of his reign of a dreadful disease. The angry people would not suffer him to be buried in the royal sepulchre. The solemnities usual on the burial of kings were omitted. His son Ahaziah ascended the throne at the age of twenty-two years; comp. 2 Kings 8:26. It is plainly a mistake of the copyist when 2 Chronicles 22:2 represents him as forty-two years of age, since it is stated immediately before that his father died at forty years of age. He was completely under the influence of his ungodly mother Athaliah. An important crisis took place at this time. In both kingdoms heathenism, favoured by royalty, threatened to supplant the true religion. It is a striking example of divine retribution, that since Ahaziah had taken part in the crime of the family of Ahab, with which he had so closely allied himself, so too he was involved in their destruction, after having reigned for one year. This was brought about by Jehu, the captain of the host, who slew the king of Israel, Jezebel, and all the house of Ahab, and afterwards the king of Judah, who was on a visit to the king of Israel, together with a whole company of princes of the royal house of Judah whom he encountered on their way to the Israelitish court. Various judgments have been passed on this act of Jehu’s. The following is the correct view: The family of Ahab had wickedly sought to destroy the foundation of the kingdom of God in Israel; they had not only continued the worship of calves, but had also introduced idolatry; from 2 Kings 10 we see that in the latter days of Jehoram the service of Baal, which had been suppressed for a time by Elijah, now reasserted itself in the kingdom of Israel with all its horrors. They had persecuted and slain the prophets and other servants of the true God. For this, by the law of retribution, destruction was to overtake them, otherwise the threats of Moses in Deuteronomy 28, and in so many other passages, would have been falsified. But if any one had undertaken to destroy the house of Ahab with his own hand, however well-merited the destruction may have been, yet he who had been the cause of it would have incurred grievous sin, and have been an object of the divine wrath. Here, however, the case was very different. Two prophets, who proved their divine mission in a way excluding all doubt and all abuse of their example, had pronounced the divine sentence of punishment on the house of Ahab, and empowered Jehu to execute it. This was done in order that the punishment might be openly manifested as such,—that every one might recognise in Jehu only a servant of divine righteousness, and in that which befell the family of Ahab a prophecy of their own fate if they would incur similar guilt. If Jehu’s act, however, were to be perfectly just, it was not sufficient that it should be in external harmony with the divine command, it was necessary that internally also he should be guided by no other motive, that he should not be influenced by human ambition and cruelty. This was nevertheless the case. The honour of God served him for a veil. We go on to remark that the condition of Israel, which left the pious mind in a state of dissatisfaction, called forth peculiar separatists phenomena. Among these are the Rechabites mentioned in 2 Kings 10:15-23, and in Jeremiah 35. Their founder was Jonathan the son of Eechab, contemporary with Jehu, and associated with him against the worship of Baal. They strictly refrained from all participation in civil and ecclesiastical fellowship, led a solitary life in the wilderness, and for food limited themselves to its productions. From the Nazarites, whose continuance in the ten tribes appears from Amos 2:11 ff., they borrowed the principle of total abstinence from wine and all intoxicating drinks. In them Christian asceticism has an Old Testament type. We see from Jeremiah that it still continued in the time of the Babylonian exile. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 44: 44. § 6. JEHU, JEHOAHAZ, JEHOASH, JEROBOAM II, AND ZECHARIAH, THE FIVE KINGS OF THE DYN... ======================================================================== § 6. Jehu, Jehoahaz, Jehoash, Jeroboam II, and Zechariah, the Five Kings of the Dynasty of Jehu—In the Kingdom of Israel—Joash, Amaziah, Uzziah, In the Kingdom Of Judah One of Jehu’s first acts after he came to the throne was one of murder, perpetrated on the servants of Baal. With respect to this deed the same thing holds good that we have already said regarding the acts by which Jehu made his way to the throne. Objectively considered, it was just, for by the law idolatry was punishable with death. But we are led to form a different judgment when we examine into the subjective motives of Jehu, even apart from the unjustifiable stratagem. These motives seem to have been almost exclusively selfish. The servants of Baal were by every interest attached to the house of Ahab. By their destruction Jehu hoped to bring over to his side the far more numerous party of the adherents to the worship which had formerly been legally introduced into the kingdom of Israel. This view is based not solely on the universally reprehensible character of Jehu, but also specially on the circumstance that he allowed the continuance of calf-worship. This shows that he used religion only as a means to his end. If his zeal had been truly pious, he would have destroyed the illegal calf-worship. But he feared by this means to break down the wall of separation between the kingdom of Israel and the kingdom of Judah, and at the same time to make enemies of the followers of calf-worship. As a punishment for this reprehensible frame of mind, it was foretold that his family would retain the throne only to the fourth member, and even during his lifetime the kingdom of Israel was very much oppressed and weakened by the Syrians under Hazael. He died, after having reigned for a period of twenty-eight years. When the wicked Athaliah received news of the death of her son Ahaziah, in the kingdom of Judah, her ambition, which amounted almost to madness, led her to slay the royal princes and take possession of the government. Yet Jehosheba, a sister of Ahaziah, probably by another mother, married to the high priest Jehoiada, had succeeded in keeping Joash, a very young son of Ahaziah, from her murderous hands, and concealed him in an apartment adjoining the temple. After Athaliah had ruled over the kingdom for six ye Joash, the lawful heir to the throne, whom the people followed with enthusiasm, with whose preservation the fulfilment of the promise made to David was associated, was raised to supreme authority. “The party inclined to heathenism,” Ewald remarks, “which had been formed in Jerusalem during the short supremacy of the two former kings, may have supported Athaliah, as well as the faithful followers of the house of Omri who might fly to her in Jerusalem when persecuted in the kingdom of the ten tribes. But in the kingdom of Judah, since the days of Asa and Jehoshaphat, the attachment to the old religion had become too powerful, and the love to David’s house could not long be suppressed. The foreign element which had been introduced by Jehoshaphat’s close connection with the house of Omri, was thrust out.” Joash was seven years of age when he ascended the throne, and remained for a considerable time under the influence of the high priest Jehoiada, even after he was grown up, and, while this priest lived, proved himself a God-fearing ruler. He showed great zeal in the restoration of the temple, which, according to 2 Chronicles 24:7, had not only been neglected, but intentionally destroyed. After the death of Jehoiada a great change took place. It became apparent that the piety of the king had been without independent basis,—that he had only followed Jehoiada. To the worldly-minded higher nobility the supremacy of the priesthood, as it may be called, had always been an abomination. Yet while Jehoiada lived they had not ventured to make any revolt; but after his death, according to 2 Chronicles 24:17, they had turned to the king with a request that he would remove the prohibitions against idolatry and proclaim universal freedom of religion. The king yielded, and soon the disorder which had existed under Ahaziah and Athaliah again prevailed. As invariably happened in time of need, the Lord raised up prophets, who reproved the people for their sin, and announced the punishments which threatened them. By the commandment of Joash, Zechariah, the most prominent among them, the son of his fatherly teacher Jehoiada, was slain, because the king’s conscience testified too loudly to the truth of his censure. While dying, he continued to predict the closely-impending judgments The instrument of their accomplishment was the army of the Syrian Hazael, which inflicted a severe defeat on the stronger Judaite army,—Joash being slain by some of his own servants, after having reigned for forty years. His son Amaziah succeeded to the throne. In the kingdom of Israel, in the twenty-third year of Joash king of Judah, Jehoahaz ascended the throne. Of him little is related of any consequence. During his reign the Syrians brought the kingdom to the brink of the abyss. But its allotted time had not yet run out. The weak beginnings of repentance in king and nation were followed by deliverance. After having reigned for seven years, Jehoahaz was succeeded by his son Joash, under whom Elisha died at an advanced age. The news of the mortal illness of the prophet deeply affected the king, though not at other times piously disposed. He thought he must now necessarily succumb to the dangers which threatened him on the part of the Syrians, who were again making preparations for war. The Lord graciously accepted even this weak beginning of faith, and comforted the king by a favourable promise given through the prophet. The prophet connected this promise with a symbolical action. The king was to shoot an arrow from the window towards the direction of the Syrian kingdom. This arrow, the prophet says, is a symbol of the complete destruction which thou shalt bring upon the Syrians. He then tells the king to take the remaining arrows and shoot them into the earth. The king complies, but ceases after having shot three arrows. By this means he betrayed his want of faith, or rather the weakness of his faith. He knew from what had gone before that the shooting of an arrow signified a victory over the Syrians. Hence he could have had no other reason for ceasing so soon, than doubt as to whether the Lord could do more than what was already promised. Three victories over so mighty an army strike him as something so great, that he scarcely believes the Lord sufficiently powerful to grant it. With justice, therefore, the prophet is angry; with justice he accuses him of having deprived himself of complete victory over the Syrian kingdom by the want of faith which betrayed itself in this outward act. King and people—the people are not to be regarded as in opposition to the king, but as represented in him—thus saw how faith was the only means of salvation, want of faith the sole cause of their misfortune. The promise of Elisha with respect to the Syrians was accurately fulfilled. Thrice conquered, they were obliged to restore the cities which they had wrested from the Israelites under the former reign. In the kingdom of Judah Amaziah appeared at first in a favourable light. His first care was to put to death the murderers of his father. In 2 Kings 14:6 it is expressly stated that he spared their children on account of the law. At that time, therefore, the word of God had more influence over him than the oriental custom, the result of carnal disposition, arising on the one hand from a spirit of revenge, and on the other from timidity. Afterwards, however, he was guilty of great crimes, in consequence of which the judgments of the Lord overtook him and his people. He began a war against the Idumeans, who, as already related, had revolted under Joram, without his having been successful in reducing them to subjection again. The Idumeans sustained a great defeat in the Valley of Salt, at the extreme end of the Dead Sea, and the victorious army of Judah succeeded in penetrating to their capital, Seia or Petra. This battle very much weakened the power of the Idumeans, and it was long before they recovered themselves. From Amos 2:1-3, it seems to follow that the king of the Idumeans lost his life on this occasion, his corpse becoming an object of revenge for the Moabites, on account of the former participation of the Edomite in the Moabite expedition. Incidentally, however, this war led to the fall of Amaziah. He had captured several Edomite idols, and to these, it is related in Chronicles, he paid divine honour. This is explained on the assumption that he was infected by heathen ideas. Doubtless he looked upon Jehovah as the supreme God, and could not do otherwise, since he had just experienced His superiority over the Edomite idols. Nevertheless he regarded the latter as having a real existence, and thought that by showing honour to them as well as Jehovah, he would bring them over to his side, and thus best prevent their rendering assistance to their oppressed people, and making it more difficult for him to keep them to their allegiance. It was therefore sheer unbelief which prompted this mode of action; and, being blamed for it by a prophet, he threatened him with death. The prophet declared that the Lord would punish him, and the prediction was speedily fulfilled. The victory over the Idumeans had in every respect exercised a most injurious influence on the king, who was not sufficiently strong in spirit to be able to bear good fortune. It had led him to indulge in foolish arrogance and pride. On an empty pretext, he declared war against Joash the king of Israel, who had become very powerful through his conquest over the Syrians. Joash warned him in vain. He then anticipated him, and made war in the territory of Judah. At Beth-shemesh the Judaites suffered a great defeat. Jerusalem was taken, the treasures of the king and of the temple were carried away, and a portion of the wall broken down, in order to give free access to the Israelites. Joash died soon afterwards; Amaziah survived him for fifteen years. It seems, however, that the angry people dethroned him immediately after the taking of Jerusalem, in consequence of which he was obliged to flee to Lachish, a city of Judah. The government was then carried on in the name of his son Uzziah; and Amaziah, making a final attempt to recover it, was slain. In favour of this we have 2 Chronicles 25:27, where we read that from the time when Amaziah turned away from following the Lord, they made a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem; so also 2 Kings 14:19. In the books of the Kings the successor of Amaziah is called Azariah; but in Chronicles, Isaiah, and Zechariah he appears under the name of Uzziah. This is explicable from the circumstance that the names of oriental kings were more appellativa than propria, and hence others, having the same meaning, were frequently substituted for them. Under the long reign of Uzziah (he was sixteen years of age when he came to the throne, and reigned for twenty-five years), the kingdom of Judah rose to great prosperity and power,—a consequence of the pious disposition of the king. But the nation was not able to bear its prosperity, and sank into luxury and immorality, though there still remained a considerable number who feared God in spirit and in truth. Externally the fear of God prevailed almost universally under Uzziah. This God-fearing community attached itself to the prophets, who continued to come forward more and more powerfully and numerously from the time of Uzziah, as the great divine judgments in the kingdom of Judah approached nearer to their consummation. Uzziah was under the spiritual guidance of the prophet Zechariah; but when Zechariah died, and he was thus left to himself, he was unable to bear his prosperity. Not satisfied with the kingly dignity, arrogance led him to aspire to the priestly dignity also. This could only happen by means of a gross violation of the Mosaic constitution. And when the king was guilty of this, he was smitten with the punishment of leprosy. He now lost his own dignity, as a retribution for having striven after that which did not belong to him. For, being a leper, he could not associate with any one, but was obliged to dwell in a house apart; hence he could not carry on the government, which fell to his son Jotham, who held it in the name of his father. What makes the reign of Uzziah specially remarkable, is the fact that the first beginnings of prophetic authorship belong to it,—a circumstance which is by no means accidental, but is due to the fact that from this period prophetic prediction found richer material. We shall readily be convinced of this, if we consider the subjects with which prophecy occupies itself in Isaiah: for example, Isaiah appeared in the latter days of Uzziah; as early predecessors he had the three prophets, Hosea, Amos, and Jonah, in the kingdom of the ten tribes, and also Joel and Obadiah, the two prophets of Judah. The kingdom of Israel was destined to rise once more to brilliant supremacy, then to sink down for ever. Jeroboam II., the son of Joash, enlarged it to the same extent which it had had at the time of the separation under Jeroboam I. But with the death of Jeroboam the kingdom of Israel advanced towards destruction with rapid strides. Under his long reign, which was not characterized by a spirit of piety, immorality and apostasy from the Lord prevailed more and more. Bloody internal dissensions prepared the way for ruin, which was finally accomplished by the Assyrians. Ewald says: “The germs of internal dissolution and destruction, which lay hid in the kingdom from its foundation, broke forth the more rapidly and unchecked owing to the long period of undisturbed prosperity; and the rising supremacy of the Assyrians found it the more easy to destroy a kingdom which from the beginning had possessed no healthy life.” The death of Jeroboam, which took place after a reign of forty-two years, was followed by an interregnum of twelve years. Finally, his son Zechariah was established on the throne by his adherents; but, after a wicked reign of six months, he was slain by Shallum, and thus the prophecy was fulfilled that the family of Jehu should occupy the throne only to the fourth member. God had taken care that the nation should know the interpretation of its fate. The predictions of the two prophets,—viz. Amos, who was sent out of Judah into the kingdom of the ten tribes under Jeroboam, but was soon driven thence, and Hosea, who appeared towards the close of the reign of Jeroboam, and preached almost to the end of the kingdom of the ten tribes,—pointed unmistakeably to the perverted foundations of this kingdom, rebuked its apostasy, and announced the impending judgments—the fall of the house of Jehu, and the complete overthrow of the kingdom of the ten tribes. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 45: 45. § 7. HISTORY OF THE KINGDOM OF ISRAEL TO THE TIME OF ITS COMPLETE DISSOLUTION ======================================================================== § 7. History of the Kingdom of Israel to the Time of Its Complete Dissolution Shallum maintained the throne, to which he had made his way by murder, only for a month. He was slain by Menahem, a general, who usurped the reins of government. Under his reign the Assyrians first marched into the Israelitish kingdom, and the king was obliged to buy them off by a heavy tribute. Our first historical knowledge of the Assyrians dates from this period, when they begin to enter into Israelitish history. There can be no doubt that a powerful Assyrian kingdom existed in very early times. This is equally confirmed by biblical, Egyptian, and Greek accounts. With regard to the first, according to Genesis 2:14, the Euphrates flows “towards the east of Assyria.” This presupposes that at the time of its composition an Assyrian monarchy was already in existence; for it is impossible to predicate of Assyria in the narrower sense that it lay west of the Euphrates. Moreover, the Assyrians appear in Balaam’s last prophecy as one of the most important peoples of Asia, who should extend their conquests in the future as far as the Mediterranean Sea. On the Egyptian monuments the Assyrians, under the name Shari, appear as already engaged in war with the Egyptians, under the reign of the great Raamses, so that even at that early time they must have possessed that tendency towards the west which afterwards brought them into violent and lengthened conflict with the Egyptians. The Greek accounts, notwithstanding their prevailing unhistorical character, yet lead to the conclusion that a primitive Assyrian kingdom did exist. But not only is this older Assyrian kingdom little known in history, but it seems also that in the post-Mosaic time it had lost much of its importance. In the time of which we now treat, the Assyrian kingdom received a new impulse. Favoured by the wars of the Syrians, Israelites, and Judaites among themselves, it succeeded in gaining supremacy over western Asia. This it maintained, yet without being able to swallow up Judea altogether, till it was supplanted by the Chaldeans, who founded a new world-empire, making Babylon, which had till then been subject to the Assyrians, their capital. The motive which led the Assyrians and Chaldeans to turn their eyes constantly to Israel and Judah, is shown by the following words of Schlosser, Universal Historical Survey of the History of the Old World, part i. p. 213: “From this time Palestine became the battle-field of the two powers, who marched against each other from the Euphrates and Tigris, and from the Nile, with immense armies. Whoever had occupied Palestine was certain of his retreat, for all marches necessarily led through it.” The following is the order of the Assyrian kings mentioned in Scripture: Pul, to whom Menahem was tributary, 773 B.C.; Tiglath-pileser, about 740; Shalmaneser, about 720; Sennacherib, about 714; and Asarhaddon. Sargon also is frequently put between Tiglath-pileser and Shalmaneser, on the authority of Isaiah 20:1. But an examination of Assyrian monuments has led to the conclusion that this Sargon was identical with Shalmaneser. He here appears under the name Sargina, and the same acts are attributed to him which Holy Scripture attributes to Shalmaneser; comp. Niebuhr, The History of Assyria and Babylonia, p. 160. “The reign of Sargina,” he says, “whom the Jews called Shalmaneser, was very brilliant, and under him the kingdom of Nineveh stood on the highest summit of its power after its restoration and before its fall.” We meet with the same king in Hosea 10:14 under the abbreviated name Shalman. After a reign of ten years, in the fiftieth year of Azariah, Menahem was succeeded by his son Pekahiah, who was slain, however, after having reigned for two years, by one of his captains, Pekah the son of Remaliah. Pekah reigned for a period of twenty years. Of his alliance with Rezin, the Syrian king, we shall speak hereafter. One consequence of this alliance was the carrying away captive by the Assyrians of a portion of the two and a half tribes beyond the Jordan. Ahaz had appealed to the Assyrians for help, and in the same campaign they conquered Damascus also. This was only the prelude to the total destruction of the Israelitish kingdom. Pekah was slain by Hoshea, the last king of Israel, who reigned for nine years. Hoshea, though otherwise comparatively worthless, at least distinguished himself above his predecessors by the circumstance that he gave his subjects freedom to make pilgrimages to Jerusalem. He was made tributary by Shalmaneser, but sought to throw off his dependence by entering into a treaty with the king of Egypt, the natural enemy of the Assyrian, as afterwards of the Babylonian kingdom. This gave rise to a new expedition on the part of Shalmaneser, in which Samaria was conquered after a siege of three years. The Assyrians now followed the universal policy by which Asiatic conquerors sought to render themselves secure in the possession of conquered territory. They led away all the Israelites of whom they could gain possession into exile in Assyria and the countries subject to them. The pain which Judah felt on the captivity of the ten tribes found its expression in Psalms 77 and Psalms 80, psalms which bear remarkable witness to the catholic spirit which has at all times pervaded the Church of God. Probably the king of Assyria intended from the beginning to people the country by a new colony, and it is uncertain what caused the execution of this project to be deferred until the reign of Asarhaddon, his second successor. In the interval, the Israelites who had concealed themselves in forests and caves, or had fled to neighbouring countries, reassembled and occupied the unappropriated land, whose desolation and depopulation occasioned a great increase of beasts of prey in it. It was not until Asarhaddon colonized the country from Babylonia, Syria, and other lands, on which occasion, in all probability, the remnant of the old inhabitants were also led away captive, that the Israelitish kingdom entirely ceased to exist. Asarhaddon is the Israelitish name of the king; in Ezra 4:10 the Aramaean colonists call him by another name, Asnapper, which, however, makes no difficulty, since the oriental kings had several names or titles. At first the new heathen colonists established their idolatry in the land, but soon resolved to worship Jehovah also, the former God of the country, as one among many; and at a later period they entirely abandoned the worship of idols, but without ever being able altogether to renounce their heathen nature. These heathen colonists, covered with a thin Israelitish varnish, are either called Cuthites, after the former dwelling-place of some of their number—Cutha was a town in the vicinity of Babylon—or Samaritans, after their later habitation. Between them and the Judaites there was irreconcilable enmity, because the Judaites neither would nor could allow their claim to an independent part in the kingdom of God. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 46: 46. § 8. JUDEA UNDER JOTHAM, AHAZ, HEZEKIAH ======================================================================== § 8. Judea Under Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah With regard to Jotham’s reign there is little to be said. In it the conditions were in every respect the same as they had been under Uzziah. After having reigned for sixteen years, Jotham was succeeded by Ahaz, the worst among all the rulers of the kingdom of Judah. He combined the worship of Jehovah with idolatry, and was so fanatical in the latter, that he offered up one of his sons to Moloch. In all probability Ahaz perpetrated this horror when he was placed in the utmost extremity by the expedition of the Syrians and Israelites. Rezin king of Syria, and Pekah king of Israel, had already, in the latter days of Jotham, entered into an alliance against Judah; but it was only in the first years of the reign of Ahaz that they began to carry out their plan, which was destined to serve as a just judgment on this king. He thought he could only prevent the destruction of the whole kingdom by seeking help from the Assyrians, to whom accordingly he sent great presents. Isaiah, who directed him to the Lord as the sole helper, and warned him against alliance with the Assyrians, found no hearing. He had to repent his unbelief bitterly. He sustained a great defeat from Rezin and Pekah. Probably the retreat of these kings was caused by fear of Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria, who had promised to come to the assistance of Ahaz. and did really advance with his army a short time afterwards, occupying Damascus, the capital of Syria, and leading away captive a considerable number of the inhabitants of the kingdom of the ten tribes. But Ahaz was obliged to purchase this help at a great sacrifice. Even at that time he was heavily oppressed by the Assyrians, comp. 2 Chronicles 28:20; and under his successor Hezekiah the dependent relation of the country towards Assyria brought heavy misfortune upon it, for its bulwarks against Assyria, Syria, and Israel, had been broken down by the fault of Ahaz. After a reign of sixteen years, Ahaz was succeeded by his pious son Hezekiah, who made it his first care to remove the abominations of idolatry and to re-establish a worship in accordance with the Mosaic law. His reformation is very fully described in the books of the Chronicles. The faith of the king at once brought salvation to him and his people. His victory over the Philistines is but a small thing in comparison with the help which the Lord vouchsafed him at the time when the nation was most grievously oppressed by the Assyrians, after the counsels of the ungodly nobles who had sought help from Egypt, unknown to the prophet Isaiah and contrary to his advice, had by the result been shown to be utterly worthless. The Egyptian cavalry, they had hoped, would offer effectual opposition to the dreaded Assyrian cavalry. The assumption that the overthrow of the Assyrians before Jerusalem was caused by a ravaging pestilential disease sent upon them by the Lord, probably owes its origin to the account of the dangerous illness which fell upon Hezekiah after the retreat of the Assyrians. A distorted tradition of the event is to be found in Herodot. ii. p. 141, drawn from the account of Egyptian priests. Here also the defeat of the Assyrian army appears as a most remarkable occurrence, and as having taken place in one night, owing to divine agency. The fact that it is attributed to the Egyptian idols and not to the true God forms no essential difference. This does not alter the fact itself, but only the judgment with respect to its causes. The transference of the event to Pelusium also owes its origin to Egyptian vanity. It is characteristic that it remained at the frontier town. When Egyptian tradition relates how field-mice ate the arrows, bow-strings, and shield-straps of the Assyrian forces in one night, we must undoubtedly understand this symbolically,—the mouse being an image of secret destruction. The king of Assyria now returned home in hasty flight. Here he was afterwards slain by two of his sons,—a statement which has received confirmation from a fragment of Berosus in the Armenian Chronicle of Eusebius, i. pp. 42, 43. Niebuhr says, p. 170: “For those who, notwithstanding the deadness of our day, still retain capacity for the vivid contemplation of the past by means of the simple and few words of the old narratives, there is nothing more striking than the Old Testament description, how Sennacherib, in all the arrogance of the conqueror, in the delusion of supernatural endowments, was dashed to the ground by a sudden stroke direct from the hand of God. It is a judgment such as that which took place in Moscow, but more sudden, and hence more fearful. And in fact there are few greater turning-points in history. From this time the supremacy of the Shemites draws ever nearer and nearer to its end.” The sign of the retrograde movement of the shadow, which was given to Hezekiah through Isaiah, caused so much excitement, that, according to 2 Chronicles 32:31, an embassy of Babylonians, who occupied themselves with astronomic and kindred investigations, was sent to the king in order to ascertain the true nature of the phenomenon. In addition to this and its other avowed object, the embassy was sent to congratulate the king on his recovery. Probably it had also another hidden motive. The Babylonian monarchy was not independent at that time; the king of Babylon was only a subordinate king appointed by the Assyrians. It is not improbable that the then king of Babylon, taking advantage of the great defeat of the Assyrian army before Jerusalem, had either already revolted from Assyria, or was about to do so, and the embassy was designed to invite the king to enter into an alliance against the common enemy, as well as to make observation of his resources. This conjecture, already previously made, is raised almost to certainty by the Armenian Chronicle of Eusebius. According to a fragment of Berosus to be found there, i. pp. 42, 43, the Assyrian vice-king Merodach-Baladan revolted at Babylon, but was slain after having reigned for six months; whereupon his successor returned to the old relation towards Assyria, until a later period, when the rebellion was renewed under more favourable circumstances, and Babylon took the place of Nineveh in the Asiatic supremacy. Niebuhr’s remarks on the mutual relation of Assyria and Babylon, p. 146, are very important for the understanding of many Old Testament passages, especially for the prophecies of Isaiah, in which Babylon, with its Chaldeans, appears as successor to Assyria in the dominion of the world: “Among the nations to whom the ruling people belonged, Assyria was by no means the most important or the oldest. It was the inhabitants of Shinar, the Babylonians, that were so. The Ninevites had gained ascendency over them by bravery and good fortune; and the older race, who possessed the centre of religion, the greatest wealth of the land, the origin of history, was obliged to submit to the younger. We see how galling the Babylonians felt this disgrace from their repeated attempts to revolt. It is very probable that the Babylonians under Nineveh’s supremacy may have had an independence which must, according to our political ideas, be called very great. It is not impossible that there was a kind of twin-relationship between the Ninevites and Babylonians, the Babylonians having a sort of participation in the government. This does not, however, exclude a state of oppression.” Supplementary to Isaiah’s account respecting an embassy from Babylon to Judea, we have Ezekiel 23:14-18, a passage of great historical importance. In a historical survey of the political fickleness and idolatry of Israel, he there states that attempts had been made by Judah to enter into an alliance with the Chaldeans at a time when the Assyrian power was still in existence, and therefore before the embassy of Merodach-Baladan, Judah taking the initiative in every respect. The pictures on the walls mentioned in this passage are doubtless traditionary representations of the Chaldeans as a proudly aspiring power, who might perhaps be able to afford help against the old oppressor Assyria. This embassy prepared a temptation for Hezekiah to which he succumbed. He was not so well able to bear fortune as misfortune. The proposition of the Babylonians flattered his vanity. He wished to show that he was worthy of such a proposal, that he was an ally not to be despised. Triumphantly he showed the ambassadors all his treasures; and where his treasure was, at that moment his heart was also. Instead of giving the honour to the Lord, he placed a carnal confidence in his human resources, which might so easily and quickly be taken from him by the same hand which had bestowed them. A union of his power with the Babylonian, he thought, would render both invincible to the Assyrians. The greater the mercies which had formerly been granted to him, the more he deserved the censure of Isaiah. His enthusiasm for the Babylonians must have cooled very considerably, when the prophet told him that all these treasures, the object of his vain joy, and even the royal family, would at a future time be carried away captive into that land, and by those in whom in his blindness he now placed a sinful confidence. That this remarkable prediction, with which the other prophecies of Isaiah respecting the Babylonish captivity are connected, and which is also announced by his contemporary Micah, had a natural foundation in the present, upon which it rested, appears from the fact of the revolt of the Babylonian vice-king, which, though fruitless at the moment, shows us a rising greatness in opposition to a decaying one. The answer of the king shows recognition of his sin, and a mind in harmony with the leadings of God. The subsequent life of Hezekiah, who reigned altogether twenty-nine years, fifteen after his illness, which occurred at the close of the fourteenth year, is passed over in silence in the historical books, doubtless because it passed quietly and without any very remarkable events. What most of all distinguishes the reign of Hezekiah is that it forms the culminating point of the activity of Isaiah, who, moved by the threatening aspect of the power of the world, drew the picture of the future Redeemer with a clearness and completeness previously unheard of, making it the centre of the spiritual life of the elect in Israel. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 47: 47. § 9. FROM MANASSEH TO THE CAPTIVITY ======================================================================== § 9. From Manasseh to the Captivity Hezekiah was succeeded by his very dissimilar son Manasseh, who was twelve years of age when he ascended the throne, and reigned altogether fifty-five years. He abandoned himself to every kind of idolatry, and his example exercised a most injurious influence on the nation. He instituted bloody persecutions against the prophets, who were loud in their censure of the apostasy and announced the punishment of the impending captivity. The history of Manasseh in the books of the kings closes with these accounts. Chronicles here contains additions which are of special importance. Manasseh was taken prisoner without the walls of Jerusalem by the Assyrian king Asarhaddon, and carried away to Babylon, which was then still under Assyrian rule. This probably happened in the same campaign in which Asarhaddon drove out the remnant of the Israelites and placed new colonists in the kingdom of the ten tribes. The misfortune of the king had no further influence upon the state. In accordance with the prophecy of Nahum, of which the danger then threatening from Asshur formed the starting-point, the city and temple remained uninjured. Misfortune had a good effect on the king. He repented, and became truly changed. After a time he was set at liberty, and again came to the throne. The nearer circumstances connected with this release are unknown to us. Manasseh was succeeded by his son Anion, who resembled his father in his earlier period, when he was addicted to idolatry. After having reigned only two years, he was slain by conspirators, who again met with the destruction they deserved at the hands of the people. The kingly dignity now passed to Josiah, his son, who was only eight years of age, of whom we read in 2 Kings 23:25, “And like unto him was there no king before him, that turned to the Lord with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses.” Prominence is given in Scripture to the eighth, twelfth, and eighteenth years of Josiah’s reign as important for his development and activity. In the eighth year of his reign, and therefore in the sixteenth year of his age, he began to seek the God of his father David; comp. 2 Chronicles 34:3. In the twelfth year he began his reformation. In the eighteenth year the finding of the temple copy of the law gave new impulse to his zeal. Ewald very unjustly reproaches him for being no friend to religious freedom in a modern sense. His proceedings against idolatry rested altogether upon the law of God. The reformation of Josiah, however, was the less able to restrain the course of divine judgment for any length of time, since the nation had for the most part only submitted to it reluctantly and from fear, not having experienced any fundamental internal reformation. The beginning of these judgments, a presage of their full approach, was the early death of Josiah himself. Humanly speaking, it was caused by the expedition of Pharaoh-nechoh, the mighty Egyptian king, against Nabopolassar, the king of the Chaldees. Ewald’s view, incautiously adopted by Niebuhr, that the expedition was at first directed against the Assyrians, and that it was only during it that the new power of the Babylonians rose up, is based merely on a false interpretation of the passage 2 Kings 23:29, where the king of Babylon is called the king of Assyria, because he ruled over the same district. The Chaldees were the original inhabitants of Babylon, and were not transplanted thither at a later period by the Assyrians. Against the latter view compare Delitzsch on Habakkuk, p. 21; it rests only on a misunderstanding of the passage Isaiah 23:13. These Chaldees, after having destroyed Nineveh in conjunction with the Medes, under Josiah (compare the discussions in Delitzsch, p. 18, on the period of these events), had taken the place of the Assyrians in the Asiatic supremacy, and had likewise inherited from them the enmity against Egypt. The Egyptian king believed he could stifle in its infancy the power which threatened danger to his supremacy. First of all he marched towards Charchemish or Circesium, on the Euphrates. It was not his intention to make war on the kingdom of Judah. It even appears that, in order to avoid touching it, he had not taken the nearest route from Egypt to Syria by land, but had transported his army in ships to Akko or Ptolemais, which must have been an easy matter, judging from Herodotus’ account of the size of his fleet. Only on this assumption can we understand how the battle between the Egyptians and Judaites should have occurred at Megiddon, a town situated farther north than the kingdom of Judah, in the vicinity of Mount Carmel and the Bay of Akko. In all probability Josiah had hastened thither with his army on hearing of the intended landing of the Egyptians. Not trusting their assurances, he feared that instead of going to Syria they would first of all proceed to Jerusalem, and that their only object was to make sure of it. This suspicion, which was probably unfounded, proved the cause of his fall. He was slain in battle. Herodotus also mentions this engagement from Egyptian sources, betraying no knowledge of the fact that it was the Chaldees against whom the expedition of Pharaoh-nechoh was properly directed, and that he was soon afterwards conquered by them in the great battle at Circesium,—an omission due to the circumstance that his informants were Egyptian priests, who were silent respecting all that was offensive to their national vanity. When he calls the place of battle Magdalon, this is probably a perversion of Megiddon, where, according to Zechariah 12:11 also, the battle occurred, and may have arisen by confounding the true place with Magdolon, an Egyptian town on the Arabian Gulf. A place called Megdel, not far from Akko, which Ewald suggests, is too obscure. Cadytis is undoubtedly Jerusalem, called by the Jews קרושה, the holy city, a name which it still bears among the Arabs. This view has, however, been contested by Hitzig in a special treatise and in his Early History of the Philistines, as well as by Ewald and others, but has been proved by Niebuhr in his treatise on the Armenian Chronicle of Eusebius, by Bahr on Herodotus, and others. Gaza never appears under this name. The death of the king caused great sorrow in Jerusalem. The mourning for Josiah was employed as a designation of the deepest grief even after the time of the captivity, as appears from Zechariah. Jeremiah, the first half of whose activity falls in the reign of Josiah, composed a lament on him. From this time Judah advanced with rapid strides to its destruction, which was accelerated by the ever-increasing corruption of the people, who were deaf to all exhortation and blind to all threatening signs. Pharaoh-nechoh, after having taken Jerusalem, either himself or by a detachment of his army, continued his way to the Euphrates. He seems at first not to have troubled himself as to which of the sons of Josiah should succeed to their father’s throne. Two sons of Josiah contended for supremacy,—Eliakim, the eldest in years, and Jehoahaz, who laid claim to the right of the first-born because he was the eldest son of that wife of Josiah who had held the first rank. The latter was raised to the throne by the nation. Eliakim now turned to the king of Egypt, whom he brought over to his side, probably by the promise of a large tribute. Necho summoned Jehoahaz to his camp at Riblah in the land of Hamath, and there put him in chains, afterwards carrying him away into Egypt. He raised Eliakim to the throne, after having changed his former name into Jehoiakim, which has the same meaning. This was very generally done by oriental conquerors, as a sign of their supremacy. For the first three years of his reign the ungodly Jehoiakim remained under Egyptian dominion. Towards the end of the third year, according to Daniel 1:1, with which Berosus fully coincides, the great expedition of Nebuchadnezzar against the Egyptians began. He had been taken as co-regent by his father Nabopolassar, who had become weak from old age. The decisive battle at Circesium, in which Pharaoh-nechoh was totally defeated, occurred in the fourth year. The Chaldee conqueror now pursued his way unchecked. After subduing Syria and Phenicia, both under Egyptian supremacy, he advanced to Jerusalem and took the city. Nebuchadnezzar’s first intention was to carry Jehoiakim away into Babylon, but he spared him, and contented himself with carrying away a number of prisoners, most of whom were of high rank, and among whom were Daniel and his companions. He also carried away many of the vessels of the temple. He then continued his march to Egypt; but on reaching its borders, received news of the death of his father, and returned home in haste. This was the first of the many deportations to Babylon. For three years Jehoiakim paid the tribute imposed upon him. In his seventh year, or the beginning of his eighth, he rebelled, trusting to Egyptian power. Nebuchadnezzar deferred his revenge until a more convenient time, which only presented itself in the eleventh year of Jehoiakim. Jerusalem was then taken by a Chaldee army, and the king slain, as a just judgment for his neglect of all the warnings and rebukes of the prophets who had been raised up by the Lord, especially of Jeremiah, who is the main prophetic figure of this whole period. Jehoiachin, or Jeconiah, the son of Jehoiakim, now succeeded to the throne. He soon, however, made himself suspicious to the Chaldees; probably they thought that he had a leaning to the Egyptian side. Three months after his accession to the throne, a new Chaldean army appeared before Jerusalem. The king voluntarily surrendered, and was carried captive to Babylon, where he was set at liberty, after thirty-seven years, by Evil-merodach, the son of Nebuchadnezzar. With Jehoiachin the germ of the nation was led away captive. This is the first great deportation, in which, among others, Ezekiel was carried away captive, and from which he dates his chronology. As Jehoiachin’s successor, Nebuchadnezzar appointed Zedekiah, his father’s brother, the third son of Josiah. From the prophecies of Jeremiah, we infer that he was not so bad as Jehoiakim, but excessively weak, and therefore under the influence of evil counsellors, who at last succeeded in leading him, in violation of his oath, to revolt against the Chaldees, disregarding the urgent warnings of Jeremiah, and foolishly trusting in Egypt. This led to the city being besieged by the Chaldees; and, after an obstinate defence, it was conquered and laid waste, together with the temple, the national independence of the nation being utterly destroyed. With the exception of a few unimportant individuals, the whole nation was carried away captive to Babylon, 390 years after the separation of the kingdom. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 48: 48. SIXTH SECTION. JEWISH HISTORY FROM THE CAPTIVITY TO THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM. ======================================================================== Sixth Section.Jewish History From The Captivity To The Destruction Of Jerusalem. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 49: 49. § 1. THE BABYLONISH CAPTIVITY. ======================================================================== § 1.The Babylonish Captivity. The first point is to determine the chronological relations of this period, so important for Israel, where we must neces­sarily enter into a discussion of a somewhat dry nature. The duration of the period is prophetically given as seventy years by Jeremiah, in two passages: Jeremiah 25:11, “And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years;” and Jeremiah 29:10. The same number of years is historically attributed to the period by those who lived after its expiration, 2 Chronicles 36:21, Ezra 1:1; compare with these Zechariah 1:12 and Daniel 9:2. Respecting the terminating point of these seventy years there can be no doubt. The first year of Cyrus forms their natural boundary, when the Israelites, after the fall of the Chaldean supremacy, were dismissed to their home. But the point at which they began is not so clearly defined. Yet it too may be ascertained with certainty. For this object we have only to consider the first of the two passages from Jeremiah already quoted. In Jeremiah 25:1, the prophecy begins with the words: “The word that came to Jeremiah concerning all the people of Judah, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, that was the first year of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon.” And when a seventy years’ servitude is threatened in the lltli verse of this prophecy, which is not without reason so accurately defined as to chronology, the terminus a quo can only be placed in that year in which the prophecy was uttered, viz. the fourth year of Jehoiakim. Moreover, the whole contents of the chapter are in harmony with this view. They show that the beginning of the threatened catastrophe was immediately impending, that the threatened misfortune was already at hand. The prophet holds a great reckoning with the nation. He reproaches them for having given no hearing to the sum­mons to repentance which he had already given them for so many years, and declares that the divine long-suffering is now at an end, that those who would not hear must now feel, now when in the place of Josiah, the last pious king, the throne was occupied by a king after the people’s own heart. With this result obtained from the first passage of Jere­miah, the second is not at variance, as has been supposed. This prophecy, uttered already in the middle of the period, and addressed to the Jewish exiles, in which also the length of the period of the humiliation of the people of God is fixed at seventy years, does not give a new terminus a quo, to be sought in the time of the composition of the prophecy, but contains a statement, with express reference to the former well-known prophecy, that the appointed number of years must, in accordance with the unalterable divine decree, first run their course before there could be any thought of a return of the exiles; thus showing how foolish it was to listen to those false prophets, who, pointing to a great anti-Chaldaic coalition then forming under the guidance of Egypt, flattered the exiles with vain hopes of a speedy return, agitating their minds, and bringing them into external danger, but what was still worse, leading them away from the task to which they had now been set, viz. with true repentance to seek re­conciliation with the Lord. In Jeremiah 29:10 we read: “For thus saith the Lord, That after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon (i.e.. when Babylon shall have had dominion over you for seventy years, when the Babylonian captivity will have lasted for seventy years) I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place.” The expression “my good word” shows that the prophet here refers to something definite already known, the former announcement that the Babylonish captivity would last for seventy years, but only for seventy years, and that judgment would then be fulfilled on the oppressor; comp, Jeremiah 25:12-26. We are led to the same result, to place the beginning of the seventy years in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, if we consider what is spoken of as constituting this beginning, and then, turning to the history, look at the time when it occurs. In Jeremiah 25:11 we read: “And these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” We must therefore look for the beginning of the seventy years in that period, since Judah with the surrounding nations was already subject to the Chaldees, before the time when the temple was destroyed and the whole nation carried into captivity, which did not happen until eighteen years afterwards. But the servitude of Judah and the surrounding nations began in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. In this year the Egyptians were conquered by Nebuchadnezzar in the great battle at Charchemish, and, in consequence of this victory, Phenicia, Judea, and Syria came into the power of the Babylonians. Berosus tells us this explicitly in the third book of the Chaldee history in Josephus, Ant. x. 11, 1, classing the Jews among those nations from which Nebuchadnezzar carried away captives into Babylon, even naming them first. The same expedition is spoken of in 2 Kings 24:1, 2 Chronicles 36:6; and Jeremiah alludes to it in Jeremiah 25, when in this prophecy, uttered in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, he considers the Babylonish servitude to be close at hand. The day of fasting and repentance, which, according to Jeremiah 36:9, was held in the fifth year of Jehoiakim, in the ninth month, was probably the anniversary of the day of the occu­pation by the Chaldees. Finally, it is expressly stated in Daniel 1:1, that in the third year of Jehoiakim, Nebuchad­nezzar entered upon the campaign in which Jerusalem was taken. The result already obtained is also confirmed by the fact that the seventy years exactly coincide, if we take the fourth year of Jehoiakim as the starting-point,—a circumstance which serves at the same time to refute those who maintain that the number seventy in Jeremiah expresses only an inde­finite time, an assumption which is already sufficiently refuted by the fact that those who lived after the restoration fix the servitude at seventy years, declaring the prophecy of Jere­miah to have been literally fulfilled. These passages we have already quoted. According to Berosus, Nebuchadnezzar reigned forty-three years. But this is the number of the years in which he was sole occupant of the throne; while the first year of Nebuchadnezzar mentioned in Jeremiah, coinciding with the fourth year of Jehoiakim, is the first year of his co-regency with his father, who stands in the background from an Israelitish point of view, because Israel had to do only with the son. Nebuchadnezzar only became sole monarch in the beginning of the sixth year of Jehoiakim, so that we get forty-four years for Nebuchadnezzar. To these we add two years for Nebuchadnezzar’s son Evil-mero-dach, four years for Neriglossar, nine months or one year for Laborosoarchad, seventeen years for Nabonned, and two years for Darius the Mede,—altogether exactly seventy years. From the facts given, it follows that it is not quite accurate to speak of a seventy years’ exile, although not absolutely wrong, since a deportation did take place already at this first occupation, though very inconsiderable so far as numbers were concerned. Daniel and his companions were carried away captive at that time. Accurately speaking, the exile, so far as we understand by it the removal of the whole nation from their former dwellings, did not begin until eighteen years later, seven of which belong to Jehoiakim and eleven to Zedekiah. It was not until this time that the city and temple were destroyed. Hence it is better to speak of a seventy years’ servitude to Babylon, following the example of the Scriptures themselves. Ewald’s assertion (History of Israel, iii. 2, p. 83), that in 2 Chronicles 36:21 the seventy years of Jeremiah refer to the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, “as long as she lay desolate she kept sabbath, to fulfil threescore and ten years,” until the seventy years of the Babylonish servitude were at an end, is incorrect. This is the only explanation suited to the context. With respect to the Chaldee rulers during this period, Berosus names Nebuchadnezzar and Evil-merodach as the two first: Josephus, c. Ap 1.20. The latter, a son of Nebu­chadnezzar, was slain, he says, in the second year of his reign, by Neriglossar, his sister’s husband, on account of the dis­graceful graceful and wanton abuse which he made of his power,— a statement for the truth of which we have no trifling guarantee in the fact that the name of the king appears also in the Bible. It is evident that his proper name was only Merodach, and that Evil, fool, is only a later nickname. Berosus then goes on to relate that the son of Neriglossar, Laborosoarchad, only maintained the throne, to which he succeeded while still a boy, for nine months, and was slain by his friends. The conspirators then placed Nabonned, the Babylonian, one of their number, on the throne. In the seventeenth year of the reign of this king Babylon was taken by the Persians under Cyrus. Of Nebuchadnezzar Niebuhr says, in his History of Assy­ria and Babylon, “He was one of the most powerful princes that Asia has ever seen, and raised the kingdom of Babylon to a might and a splendour such as it had not had since the mythical ages.” The book of Daniel gives important infor­mation with respect to this king; and what it says respecting his frenzy and the royal edict published after his recovery, has been confirmed by the decipherment of the cuneiform inscriptions, in so far as we learn from them that the great kings in Asia were accustomed to tell their own history to their subjects and to the after-world on public monuments of this kind. That Nebuchadnezzar invaded Egypt in the latter years of his reign, in harmony with the prophecies of Jeremiah, in Jeremiah 44:30; Jeremiah 46:25 ff., and of Ezekiel, in Ezekiel 29:17-20, is shown by the statements of Abydenus in Eusebius in the Proep. Evang. 9: 41, and of Syncellus, who relates that the Chaldees only left Egypt from fear of an earth­quake. Not one of the three last-named Chaldean kings appears in Scripture under this name. Neriglossar and Laborosoarchad are nowhere mentioned in it, but Nabonned is undoubtedly the Belshazzar of the book of Daniel. Nie­buhr has made it probable that the name Belshazzar was not the proper name, but a mere honorary title, “such,” he says, “as was given to Daniel also, with a slight difference in form.” In vain some have sought in ancient times to identify Belshazzar with Darius the Mede; while in modern times Havernick and others have asserted his identity with Evil-merodach. One single argument suffices to overthrow all such attempts, and to establish the identity of Belshazzar and Nabonned, viz. this, that the death of Belshazzar and the division of his kingdom among the Medes and Persians are immediately connected in Daniel 5:28 ff., which can only be explained on the assumption that Belshazzar, like Nabon­ned, was the last Chaldee monarch. Evil-merodach’s death was in no way connected with the division of the kingdom. The arguments which have been brought against the identity of Belshazzar and Nabonned have but little weight. When it is asserted that, according to the book of Daniel, Bel­shazzar was the son of Nebuchadnezzar (i.e.. his descendant; he was his grandson by Evil-merodach), and that, on the other hand, according to Berosus, Nabonned was not of the royal family at all, Berosus is made to say what in fact his narrative does not contain. True, he does not say that Nabonned was of royal blood, but neither does he say the contrary. If he did so, we should have a strong reason for rejecting his narrative. The passages, Jeremiah 27:7, where Israel is made subject to Nebuchadnezzar, to his son, and his son’s son, and 2 Chronicles 36:20, “They were ser­vants to him and his sons, until the reign of the kingdom of Persia,” necessarily demand that during the exile there should have been another direct descendant of Nebuchadnezzar on the throne besides Evil-merodach. But Neriglossar was Nebuchadnezzar’s son-in-law, and Laborosoarchad was the son of Neriglossar. Hence the reference can only be to Nabonned, which is the more probable, since it is presup­posed that the Chaldean supremacy came to an end under a son of Nebuchadnezzar. Nor must we leave out of con­sideration the fact that Herodotus also represents the last king of Babylon, whom he calls Labynet, as a son of Nebu­chadnezzar. Again, it is a priori most natural and probable that Nabonned took possession of the throne as the repre­sentative of the rights of the male succession, in opposition to the female. It is neither probable, nor does it correspond to the historical relations in the ancient Asiatic kingdoms, that, as one in the midst of the nation, he should have put forth his hand to the throne with success. The condition of the Israelites in exile was from an ex­ternal point of view quite tolerable. The Judaites were by no means slaves of the Chaldees, as appears from the fact that they were set at liberty by Cyrus with so little hesita­tion. Certain districts were made over to them, from which they probably paid a moderate tribute. Compulsory service, such as their ancestors had performed in Egypt, was not required of them. They stood in exactly the same position as the heathen colonists whom Asarhaddon had planted in the kingdom of the ten tribes. Evil-merodach did not treat the Jews with his usual severity and cruelty. Immediately on his accession to the throne, he released King Jehoiachin or Jeconiah from his bonds, and gave him the first place among all the subordinate kings, together with a liberal maintenance; comp. 2 Kings 25:27 ff., Jeremiah 52:31 ff. In Psalms 106:46, the Lord is extolled because He made Israel to be pitied of those who had carried them away captive; and Psalms 137 : also leads us to infer that the former bitter hatred against Judah was replaced by a better feeling after they had been led away into captivity. We are not even justified in supposing that the civil independence of the Judaites was quite destroyed. The elders of the people— their chiefs and judges—are mentioned in many passages of Ezekiel; and the ease with which the people are organized, when Cyrus grants them permission to return, is only explicable on the assumption that the foundations of an organization still remained, even during the exile. This was the case even in Egypt, where the Israelites had lived in very different and much harder relations. It is certain that many individuals attained to considerable prosperity. Oppor­tunities of becoming rich were probably more numerous than in Palestine. Nevertheless we cannot maintain, as some have recently done, “that the position of the Israelites during their exile was not so oppressive as is generally supposed,” if by the Israelites we understand not those who were merely acci­dentally and externally allied to this race, those of whom the Apocalypse says, in Revelation 2:9, οἱ λέγοντες Ἰουδαίους εἶναι ἑαυτοὺς οὐκ εἰσίν,—these might be satisfied with the flesh-pots of Babylon, just as they had longed after Egypt in the wilderness,—but rather those to whom the Lord in John 1:48 applies the term ἀληθῶς Ίσραήλίταί, whom St. Paul in Romans 2:29 speaks of as τοὺς έν τῷ κρυπτῷ Ἰουδαῖους with the περιτομὴ καρδίας, those who were animated by the principle which formed the true national essence of Israel, viz. faith in the God of Israel. It is a lowering of humanity to make man’s material welfare the sole measure of his happiness. Even a faithful dog is not satisfied with abundant food, when separated from his master. The position of a true Israelite in exile was very trying; his legitimate frame of mind was deeply sorrowful, even if he were not wanting in prosperity. We must not, however, forget that most of those who were carried away captive had lost all their pos­sessions, and it must have been very difficult for them to gain even small means. Let us remember that the exile was not simply a misfortune, it was punishment,—chastisement for the sins of the people, which the Lord had already declared through Moses, which had been threatened for centuries by the prophets. When the time was now fulfilled, it fell on the heart of the people with hundredfold weight; they were burdened with a deep and oppressive sense of guilt. They dared not look up to God,—He appeared as their enemy; and if they often succeeded in rising up to take hold of the forgiveness of sins and the promise, of which we have an elevating example in the ninth chapter of Daniel, yet they invariably sank back again; their glance always reverted to themselves by reason of their sinfulness and the conse­quent wrath of God, as long as the consequences of this wrath rested upon them. And the intention was that it should be so. The sorrows of repentance were to be deeply and permanently felt by the Israelites, that they might be radically changed. They were not intended to derive com­fort so easily. This is why the punishment was so hard, and the exile of so long duration. The people only received so much mercy and comfort as to keep them from despair, but at the same time the continuance of the punishment guarded against that frivolity which had made the former lighter visitations fruitless. If any one will fully realize the mind of the Israelites in this respect, the depth and intensity of their repentance, let him read the prayer of penitence offered up by Daniel in Daniel 9 in the name of the people, also the 106th psalm, which may be regarded as the lyrical echo of this prophetic passage, with which it is in striking harmony. It is from beginning to end mainly a confes­sion of sin. It also refers to the divine mercy which had formerly been the salvation of Israel notwithstanding their sin, and would now again deliver them. It is always a great misfortune for a people to be driven from their ances­tral home, and robbed of their national independence and honour. But this misfortune affected Israel much more severely than is generally the case. Canaan was to them more than a fatherland in the ordinary sense,—it was the holy land of the Lord, the land which they had received as a pledge of His grace, and had lost in consequence of His displeasure. They had not merely ceased to exist as a nation, but at the same time had ceased to exist as the people of God. The height of their shame was that they could now with justice be asked the question, Where is now thy God? They had lost that which had been their greatest ornament, their privilege over all the nations of the earth. They went about with the feeling that they were marked with a brand. One great cause of sorrow was the loss of the temple. All true worship was by the law connected with the national sanctuary, no offering might be presented in any other place. Thus the nation was deprived of its lovely feasts and the beautiful services of the Lord. The house where they had dwelt with the Lord (in a spiritual sense) was broken down, and they wandered about without shelter. (Already in the law the sanctuary is called the tent of assembly, where the Lord dwells together with His people.) Joy in the Lord, and with it all other joy, had departed. This sorrow is very graphically depicted in Psalms 137.: “By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down; yea, we wept, when we re­membered Zion. We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof. For there they that carried us away cap­tive required of us a song; and they that wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion. (But we said,) How shall we sing the Lord’s song in a strange land? If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy.” The children of Israel sit by the rivers of Babylon, because they regard it as the image and symbol of their rivers of tears. The harp comes into consideration as an accompaniment of joyful song. Out of Zion this must be dumb, because there alone the nation re­joiced in the presence of its God, and this joy is the con­dition of all other joy. The request of the conquerors, that Israel should sing a joyful song, such as were customary in Zion, especially on occasion of feasts, proceeds from the wish that they should forget the old and true Zion, and in imagination build up a new one in Babylon, that they might feel at home in the land of their banishment. Israel puts back this desire with a firm hand. To sing joyfully and to rejoice in the strange land would be shameful forgetfulness of Zion, and would deserve that the misused tongue should lose the power to sing, the misused hand the power to play. How deep a sorrow it was to the faithful among Israel to be surrounded on all sides by heathen impurity,—external impurity and the internal which it represented,—is shown in a vivid manner by Ezekiel 4:12-15; and in Ezekiel 36:20 he shows how painfully the nation was burdened with the consciousness that by their sins they had made God a subject of mockery and scorn among the heathen, who in­ferred the weakness of the God from the misery of His people. To these causes of sorrow we may add much hard treat­ment on the part of the oppressors. Actual religious per­secution was far from the mind of the Chaldees; but yet we learn from Daniel 3. that toleration had its limits, when opposed by the inflexible exclusiveness of the religion of Jehovah, to which the heathen consciousness could not at all reconcile itself; for the world tolerates only the world, and there were cases in which the choice had to be made between martyrdom and a denial of the God of Israel. But the Israelites had far more to suffer from mockery and wantonness, which they were often obliged to provoke by the duty laid upon them of bearing testimony against the heathen, than from actual persecution. Belshazzar, according to Daniel 5, went so far that he boldly desecrated the vessels of the sanctuary. This mockery, which went side by side with the kinder treatment represented in Psalms 137, was the more felt because it was in reality not without foundation in the subject, and found an ally in the disposition of the Israelites, which painfully opened up old wounds. Its principal subject, the contrast between their assertion that they were the beloved people of the Lord, and their sad and miserable condition, served therefore to increase their despair, and made the battle by which they had to reach the divine mercy, in spite of the visible signs of divine dis­pleasure by which they were surrounded on all sides, still more difficult for them. If we consider the internal condition of the exiles, it is impossible not to see that there was a great difference between them and those who had remained behind in Jerusalem, as well as those who had fled to Egypt, who, according to Jeremiah 44, gave themselves up to idolatry with almost frantic zeal, and instead of attributing their misfortune to ungodliness, attributed it to the neglect of idolatry. Jeremiah, in Jeremiah 24, speaks of them as the seminary, the hope of the king­dom of God. This difference is not due solely to the whole­some influence exercised on them by the exile,—no sorrow contains in itself any improving power, but is just as likely to make a man worse as to make him better, as we see from the example of those Egyptian exiles; we may apply to sorrow the proverb, “To him that hath shall be given; but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that which he hath,”—but its first ground, to which the other passage of Jeremiah gives a clue, lies deeper, in the fact that it was exactly the better part of the nation that was carried away into captivity, while the worse remained in the country, and were either destroyed there by the judgments of the Lord, or escaped to Egypt, and were there overtaken by them. At the first glance, it seems quite incomprehensible that there should have been such a difference, but on nearer consideration we can discover the reason of its origin. First, it is not improbable that the ungodly, who mocked the pro­phets and their threats respecting the total destruction of the state and the city, and expected speedy help from Egypt, sacrificed everything for permission to remain in their father­land; while those who feared God, knowing, especially from the constantly-repeated announcements of Jeremiah, that the destruction of the town was inevitable, and formed the indispensable condition of restoration, voluntarily obeyed the first summons, and joyfully entered on the death which was the sole gate to life,—just as the Christians fled from Jerusa­lem to Pella before the destruction by Rome. But the main thing is, that the victors recognised in the theocratic prin­ciple the Israelitish nationality, and therefore made it their special object to carry away the representatives of this prin­ciple, well knowing that their removal would necessarily lead to the dissolution of the nation, and that those who remained would no longer be dangerous to them; for in fact, through­out the whole history of the Jews, we find no other courage than that which had a theocratic basis. Those who were inwardly infected with the spirit of heathenism would neces­sarily be unable to offer any effectual external resistance to this spirit. They had no longer any sanctuary for which to strive; they contended only for accidents. It is not mere conjecture that the conquerors were led by this principle in their choice of captives, but we can prove it by definite facts. From Jeremiah 29:1 it appears that already, in the first great deportation under Jehoiakim, principally priests and prophets were led away. Among those who returned from exile, the proportion of priests to people is such, that in a total of 42,360 there were not less than 4289 priests, the priests making a tenth part of the whole. This proportion cannot be explained from the fact that a comparatively far greater number of the priests returned than of the others. The pro­portion of those who returned to those who were led away does not allow the assumption inseparable from such an explana­tion, viz. that a considerable remnant remained behind in the lands of exile. The preponderance of priests can be explained solely on the assumption that the Chaldees carried away mainly the priests; and since the only reason of this can be that the priests were regarded as the principal repre­sentatives of the theocratic principle, it is impossible not to believe that the Chaldees were well acquainted with the inner relations of the Jews, as their considerate treatment of Jeremiah shows, and were at other times influenced in the choice of their captives by regard to the theocratic tendency. One sign of the good disposition of the exiles is to be found in the reverence with which the elders of the com­munity gather about Ezekiel in order to hear his prophecies; comp. Ezekiel 8:1; Ezekiel 11:25; Ezekiel 14:1; Ezekiel 33:31 ff. On the last passage adduced Vitringa remarks: “Supponit deus in tota hac oratione sua ad prophetam, populum solitum esse statis vicibus ad Ezechielem venire, coram ipso considere, ipsius coargutiones recipere cum reverentia, et ab ipso solenniter instrui cognitione viarum dei.” These passages are quite suf­ficient to refute the theory advanced by Hitzig and Ewald, that Ezekiel was condemned by the circumstances of the time to lead the life of a private student, “a dim, quiet life in the law and in recollection.” Everywhere we find Ezekiel surrounded by a corona of zealous hearers. He is a public orator just as much as any of the earlier prophets. Another circumstance which speaks in favour of the exiles is, that in the time succeeding the exile the state of religion is far more in conformity with the divine law than it had been before,— that idolatry and the tendency to heathenism seem to have disappeared all at once, and only regained their ascendency among a portion of the people some centuries later, in the times when Syria was subject to Greek rulers, and then only with a small minority, so that the nation must have ener­getically put away this tendency as anti-national. Since it is plain that the first foundation for this remarkable change was laid already in our period, we shall here enter somewhat more closely into its causes. Many have occupied themselves with the examination of these. This has been most fully done in two treatises which have appeared in Hol­land: Suringar, de causis mutati Hebraeorum ingenii post reditum e captivitate Babylonica, Leyden, 1820; and Gerritzen, comm, de quaestione, cur Hebraei ante exilium se ad idolorum cultum valde propensos, postea autem vehementer alienos ostenderint, Utrecht. The change has frequently been attributed to false causes. Joh. Dav. Michaelis, Mos. Recht, 1: § 32, and others lay great emphasis on the opinion that the Israelites during the time of exile entered into closer relations with the enlightened Persians. Not the smallest proof, however, can be adduced that the Persian religion exercised any such influence on the Israelites. The prophets at least were far from giving it a preference over other heathen religions. Ezekiel speaks with horror of its practices, Ezekiel 8:16. It becomes more and more evident that the idea of the Persian religion, which lies at the basis of this assumption, is an incorrect one. Stuhr, in his Religious Systems of the East, has tried to prove that the Persian religion, as represented in the writings still extant, is a late composition of very heterogeneous elements; that it was originally the pure worship of nature; and that the ethical elements, loosely laid over the physical, which still decidedly preponderated in the later form, are borrowed from the Jews, and, in the latest books, even from Chris­tianity. At the same time, the assertion that the Jews were led by foreign influence to the more determined maintenance of their national religious principle is at variance with all analogy and probability. In all other cases the Israelites are led to apostasy from without; the reaction against it, all reformation, invariably proceeds from within. The relation which, according to Daniel 6, Daniel holds towards Darius the Mede, is also unfavourable to this view. Here, as for­merly in relation to Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar, Daniel is not the recipient, but the donor. He, the worthy repre­sentative of exiled Judaism, stands firm and immoveable in faith on Jehovah, and by this faith so influences the Medish king, that he makes a proclamation commanding that the God of Daniel shall be feared and shunned throughout the whole extent of his kingdom. Herodotus says with respect to the Persians, that they betray unusual willingness to accept strange customs, B. .: chap. 135. Spiegel, in his Elaboration of the Avesta, 1: p. 11, remarks, “In this his­torical time the Persians certainly borrowed much from their more civilised Semitic neighbours;” and in p. 270 lays down the canon: “If a Persian idea have a foreign sound, we may in most cases assume that it is borrowed.” The true fundamental reason is contained in that which we have already proved, viz. that it was the ἐκλογὴ of the nation who were carried away into exile. If this be so, we cannot pro­perly speak of a revolution in the national mind. Even before the exile, the nation as a whole had never been addicted to idolatry. At all times, even the darkest, there was still an ἐκλογὴ by whom idolatry was utterly abhorred. The differ­ence lay solely in this, that theἐκλογὴ, who could formerly only occupy the position of a party, were now, under the providence of God, more or less identical with the nation, their principle being absolutely dominant. Many other causes also contributed to this end, strengthening those who already belonged to the ἐκλογὴ in their faithfulness towards the Lord, and quickening their zeal against all contamination by idolatry, and at the same time leading many of the ungodly who had been carried away into exile to repent and renounce all heathen vanity. What they suffered from the heathen destroyed their earlier sympathy with heathenism, just as in our day French sympathies were completely rooted out by the French tyranny, just as the sorrows of the year ’48 quite cured many of their democratic tendencies. The more decidedly all hope in human aid disappeared, the more certainly the nationality of Israel was, humanly speaking, destroyed for ever, the greater was the attention paid to the promise already given in the law side by side with the threat, and continually repeated by the prophets, that the Lord would redeem His captive people, the more earnest was the striving to fulfil the God-given condition of this redemption: putting aside all idolatrous practices, the nation turned to the Lord with true repentance. The promises were believed with a readiness proportionate to the accuracy with which the threats had been fulfilled, and the opportunities they had had of learning by painful experience the veracity of God. Zechariah says, Zechariah 1:6 : “But my words and my statutes, which I commanded my servants the prophets, did they not take hold of your fathers? and they returned and said, Like as the Lord of hosts thought to do unto us, according to our ways, and according to our doings, so hath He dealt with us.” The fall of the heathen nations and religions with which Israel had previously been connected, and especially the last great event of this kind, the fall of the apparently invincible Chaldean power, made them suspicious of the power and religion of the world generally, at the same time quickening their faith in the deity of their God alone, who had foretold all these changes by His prophets, and had pointed to Himself as their author. Considerable influence was exercised on the people by those proofs of election which they continued to receive in the midst of their misery, but they were still more strongly affected by their deliverance from exile. A no less part in the great change must certainly be attributed to the long and powerful activity of the highly-gifted Ezekiel, about whom the exiles gathered as their spiritual centre. But misery itself exercised the strongest influence, not indeed upon rude minds, which sorrow only the more hardened, but upon those in whom grace had already begun its work, to whom, as we have already seen, most of those who had been led away captive belonged. In what they suffered they recognised what they had done, and awoke to μετάνοια. “What all the better kings and prophets had never been able perfectly to accomplish in the fatherland,” Ewald says, “was now done in a short space of time by the inextinguish­able earnestness of these times, in a strange land, without much assistance from man.” But it is necessary not only to explain the fact that the religious consciousness of the nation was much more dis­tinctly opposed to heathenism in the times immediately suc­ceeding the exile than it had been before it, as we have already done, but also to show how it was that this impres­sion was so lasting,—quite different in this respect from the reformations before the exile, which scarcely ever extended their influence beyond the reign of one single king. With reference to this we may remark generally, that the impulse which the nation received by the exile was far stronger than any former one, and that the change in the national con­sciousness which took place during the exile was also far deeper and more universal, and therefore more lasting. And if love towards God soon again died out among the masses, yet it was impossible to throw off the fear of God with equal facility. We must also take into consideration the position occu­pied by the priesthood in the time subsequent to the return from captivity, which was essentially different from their former one. Their very number must have given the priests considerable influence in the new colony, and still more the circumstance that the civil government was in the hands of heathen oppressors. The priesthood was now the sole re­maining truly national dignity, and it was quite natural that the eyes of the nation should be directed towards them as to the centre of national consciousness. We see the very same thing among the Greeks before the emancipation. Under the Turkish supremacy, the hierarchy there acquired influ­ence, even in civil affairs, such as they had not formerly possessed. Among the Israelites, until the time of the exile, there had been a theocracy without a hierarchy. Even before the establishment of royalty, the priests had, properly speaking, no political position. The political influ­ence which they exercised here and there was invariably free, and even this disappeared with the establishment of the kingship. After the exile, on the other hand, theocracy gradually developed into hierarchy. The influence of the priesthood extended into every sphere of civil life, and was great in proportion as the heathen oppressors did not endea­vour to put everything into the hands of their officials. It is easy to see the importance of this change. The priest­hood, now so influential, was bound by all its interests to the Mosaic constitution. Its revenues, its influence—in short, its whole existence—depended on its adhering to this, and endeavouring to keep it in respect with the nation. At the same time, a better spirit had at all times subsisted in this body. Even at the time of the greatest degeneracy of the nation, which would naturally have some influence on them, this spirit was not quite dead. The priesthood had never quite ceased to be the salt of the nation. Prophetic denun­ciations of their crimes, which at first seem to testify to the contrary, as, for example, Malachi 2:5 ff., when looked at more closely, confirm our statement. They could not have de­manded so much from the priests, nor have been so indig­nant respecting their errors, if the institution had been quite degenerate,—had it not contained a beautiful fund of the true fear of God. Owing to the increased influence of the priests, the better spirit which had animated them now passed over to the masses. The higher position of the priests and their increased influence had indeed its dark side also. If it formed a powerful antidote to the tendency to idolatry, yet, on the other hand, it gave an impulse to the spirit of ex­ternality, to justification by works, and to Pharisaism, which were the forms of sickness peculiar to the priestly nature. We find that these appeared in the new colony in proportion as the tendency to idolatry disappeared; they are the prin­cipal enemies combated in Malachi and in Ecclesiastes. Moreover, we must also consider that the heathen con­sciousness did not at first meet those who returned from exile in a very powerful form, and hence offered small temptation. The neighbouring nations, the Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites, and Phenicians, and, in the opinion of the old world, also their gods and religions, were trodden under foot by the victories of the Chaldees. The Chaldees, with their religion, received the death-blow by the victory of the Persians, who stood on a much lower step of cultivation than the Israelites. Their religion had throughout an uncertain, misty, vacillating character. Soft as wax, it yielded readily to every impression from without, never properly attaining to any finality, but remaining always in a state of transition; hence it was itself incapable of making any impression on other religions. Things assumed a very different aspect, however, when the Greeks and Romans took the place of the Asiatic oppressors. The heathen principle then again met the Israelites in a form which was really seductive. Their oppressors had the superiority in science and in culture, no less than in power. The national spirit of the conquerors had constituted itself the spirit of the world, and pronounced its curse on the little people that refused to submit to its utterances. It then became clearly evident that the ex­ternal faithfulness to the Lord, which had formerly charac­terized the new colony, had its foundation to some extent only in the weakness of the temptations. In the time when Syria was under Greek rule, whole bands apostatized to the heathen principles; even priests served the heathen idols. And though this apostasy called forth a powerful and suc­cessful reaction, yet it was never fully set aside,—it merely assumed a more honourable garb, and appeared as Sadduceeism. The circumstance that it was obliged to assume such a garb shows, indeed, that there was still a funda­mental difference between the time preceding the exile— when heathenism appeared in the most shameless way, often for long periods completely suppressing the public worship of God—and the time subsequent to the exile, in which the theocratic principle was, on the whole, absolutely predominant among the nation. The reason of this change is probably to be sought partly in the fact that heathenism, even in its more powerful forms, had already begun to bear a character of decrepitude, at least as a religion. Its seduc­tive power lay only in its worldly wisdom and its culture, and therefore had no influence on those deeper minds for which religion was a necessity. In proof of this we have the numerous secessions to Judaism, such as had never occurred in the time before the exile. The decline of hea­thenism, which called forth these secessions, must have made it easier for those who were at all well-disposed among the Israelites to adhere to the religion of their fathers. Let us now return to our observations on the internal condition of the exiles. Though we have given them a decided preference before those who had remained behind, yet this must in all cases be looked upon as merely relative. This is self-evident; but it may also be proved, by many decided passages, that even during the exile there was no lack of sin on the part of Israel, and consequent lamentation from the faithful servants of the Lord. God was obliged to make the forehead of Ezekiel as an adamant, harder than flint, that he might not fear them, nor be dismayed at their looks, for they were a rebellious house, Ezekiel 3:9. With earnest censure he comes before the people, who, though they listened to the words of the prophets, did not obey them, Ezekiel 33:30 ff. Even among the heathen, whither they went, they profaned the holy name of God, and continued to practise the abomination of murder, and to defile every one his neighbour’s wife, so that it was said of them, “Are these the people of the Lord that are gone forth out of this land?” Ezekiel 33:26; Ezekiel 36:20-21. Even the vanity of false prophecy was not confined to Jerusalem, but had spread to the exiles, which could not possibly have happened if the better spirit had held absolute sway among them. Jeremiah 29:20-22 enumerates a few of these exiled pseudo-prophets. These misleaders of the people flattered them with vain hopes of a speedy release, and by this means readily incited them to pernicious revolt, leading them away from the sole work which was incumbent on them, and formed the only means of salvation, viz. repent­ance. The threat expressed against them by Jeremiah in his letter addressed to the exiles, that God would deliver them into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar that he might slay them before the eyes of all, shows that even the Chaldees were well aware what a spirit of restlessness prevailed among those who had been led away captive, and that they care­fully watched every manifestation of this spirit. If we consider the many weaknesses and sins of the exiled people, who had dwelt among a nation of unclean lips, and whose love had been cooled by the spread of unrighteous­ness; if we remember how great were their temptations to apostasy,—cast out into the midst of the heathen world, on which the idolatrous spirit of the time was impressed with fearful power, robbed of their sanctuary and their worship, and of so many other pledges of the divine grace; if we consider that the exile, in accordance with the first threatenings of it in the law, comp. Deuteronomy 4:30; Deuteronomy 30:2 ff., though, on the one hand, intended as a punishment, was, on the other hand, destined to serve as a means of grace: we shall a priori be led to expect that proofs of the divine election of Israel will not be wanting at this period,—that the love of God will find an expression as well as His anger, for its com­plete absence would involve the nation in frivolity and despair, two equally dangerous enemies of salvation. Such manifestations on the part of God were the more neces­sary, since without them the judgment respecting the great catastrophe of the Israelitish state, even in the heathen world, would be entirely incorrect, and would tend to the decided detriment of the God of Israel, being inevitably regarded as a proof of His weakness. The series of signs of continued election for the captive community begins with the writing already mentioned, sent to them by Jeremiah,—doubtless a very weak beginning. A second sign was the continuance of sacred psalmody in Israel, to which the three psalms composed in exile, Psalms 104-106., bear testimony. These psalms could not fail to make a deep impression on the nation. The first bases confidence in the destruction of the heathen power and the deliverance of Israel, on the greatness of God’s works in nature; the second, on the greatness of God’s works in history, especially on that which God had done for the fulfilment of the pro­mise of Canaan given to the fathers. The third, by pointing to the pardoning mercy of God, sets aside the last enemy who threatened to deprive the nation of the assistance pro­mised to them by nature and history, and to prevent their returning to their country. A far more important fact was, that God raised up Ezekiel to be a prophet to them, who was of priestly origin and himself a priest, and had been carried away in the deportation under Jeconiah. In the fifth year of his captivity, after having completed the thirtieth year of his age,—at the same time, therefore, when, under other circumstances, he would have begun his priestly functions in the outer sanctuary,—he began his office among the exiles on the river Chebar in Mesopotamia, more than six years before the final downfall of Jerusalem, so that his activity among the exiles ran parallel for a considerable time with the activity of Jeremiah among those who had re­mained. This circumstance tended not a little to strengthen the impression produced by their discourses. The spirit which foretold the very same thing in Babylon and in Judea appeared as something more than human. We can follow the traces of Ezekiel’s activity, whose beginning was occasioned by the formation of the anti-Chaldaic coalition, up to the twenty-seventh year of his captivity, the twenty- second of his call to the prophethood. The twenty-fifth year gave birth to that exalted vision of the second temple in Ezekiel 40-68, the figurative representation of the glorious exaltation of the people of God, by which, at a future time, their deepest humiliation was to be followed, —one of the most glorious monuments of the faith which sees the thing that is not as if it were, in its form re­vealing the priestly mind and character of Ezekiel, like so many other of his prophecies. In the twenty-seventh year the announcement of the great victory of Nebuchadnezzar over Egypt was made, Ezekiel 29, 30. At this time the divine mission of Ezekiel, the Godhead of Jehovah, and the election of Israel, were confirmed by the fulfilment of a number of Ezekiel’s prophecies, viz. those which re­ferred to the final overthrow of the Jewish state, in which the minutest circumstances had been foretold; comp., for example, the prediction of the fate of Zedekiah in Ezekiel 12:12 ff., and that respecting the destruction of the city, Ezekiel 24., as well as what is said with reference to the neighbouring nations. Not long before, Nebuchadnezzar, by taking Tyre, had verified the prophecy concerning that insular city, which had already been connected with the mainland by a dam. That this did really happen has been proved in my work, De Rebus Tyriorum, Berlin, 1832, in Havernick’s Commen­tary on Ezekiel, and in Niebuhr’s History of Assyria and Babylon, p. 216. In these prophecies Ezekiel often states the exact time, giving year, month, and day of the divine revelation (comp., for example, Ezekiel 1:1-2; Ezekiel 8:1; Ezekiel 20:1; Ezekiel 24:1; Ezekiel 33:21), in order to escape all suspicion of a vaticinii post eventum; by which assumption rationalistic criticism, as exemplified in Hitzig, has in vain tried to escape the embar­rassment of making Ezekiel a deceiver. But not merely these special prophecies, referring in most cases to the imme­diate future, and passing into fulfilment before the eyes of the exiles, but also the whole mission of Ezekiel, afforded a proof that the Lord was still among His people. Truly he preached in manifestation of the Spirit and of power; he is a spiritual Samson, who with a mighty arm grasped the pillars of the idol-temple and shook it to the ground,— a gigantic nature, and by this very circumstance adapted to offer effective resistance to the Babylonian spirit of the time, which delighted in powerful, gigantic, grotesque forms. In him we have a remarkable union of Babylonish form and Israelitish nature. “If he has to contend with a people of brazen forehead and stiff neck,” says Havernick, “he, on his side is of an inflexible nature, meeting iniquity with undaunted and audacious courage, and words full of consuming fire.” Ewald’s and Hitzig’s subjectivity is no­where more plainly to be seen than in the fact that they try to transform this very prophet into a timid, retiring student. Daniel as well as Ezekiel, and in a still higher degree, arrests our attention. He did not, like Ezekiel, exercise a personal activity among the exiles, for which reason the book of Daniel is not ranked among the prophetic writings (we here assume the genuineness of this book to be proved in the introduction to the Old Testament); he was not a prophet by office, but stood in the service of the court. Neverthe­less the eyes of the people were directed to him from the beginning, as we learn from the passages Ezekiel 28:3; Ezekiel 14:14, where it is assumed that his deep piety and his almost superhuman wisdom are universally known, though he had then only entered on years of manhood. His position at court was necessary for the fulfilment of his mission. How important this was, already appears from the circum­stance that the historical portion of his book, which gives us isolated facts from his life, is in fact the only historical account that we possess relative to the period of the captivity. This period as a whole was not an object of sacred historio­graphy, just because it is sacred, though Israel at this time was in the main rejected by God and cast out. This period bears the same character as the last thirty-eight years of the march through the wilderness. It was only necessary to record those separate events which revealed the love concealed behind the anger, the election concealed behind the rejection; and in these events Daniel had a principal part. In order to under­stand the historical portion of the book of Daniel, it is necessary, above all, to keep the object of it clearly in sight. All the sepa­rate narratives seem intended to show that the God of Israel, the nation that was despised and trodden in the dust, was the only true God; that He would not suffer those who despised Him, and were at enmity with His people, to go unpunished, but would help His servants in every time of need. This aim dominates not merely the narrative, but also the facts themselves. If they were subservient to it, they must neces­sarily abound in comfort and strength for the exiled people who were exposed to such great temptation, and deprived of so many former wholesome influences, at the same time forming an encouragement to repentance, since the iso­lated signs of continued election quickened the hope of its future complete manifestation. But besides this principal aim, which is far from appearing strange when we recognise the reality of the kingdom of God in Israel, but is rather what might have been expected, and seems quite natural and in order, the events which happened were also intended to make the outward lot of the Israelites tolerable, since by the high position in which they placed Daniel, they enabled him to work for his people; again, they were intended to prepare the way for the release of Israel under Cyrus, in which in all probability Daniel had a considerable share; and, finally, to awaken the heathen to a wholesome fear of the God of Israel, and to set limits to their proud contempt of Him, which had been greatly increased at that time by the weakness of His people. The prophecies of Daniel must likewise be regarded as a sign of the continued elec­tion of Israel. Their great significance already appears, from the fact that New Testament prophecy, from the prophetic revelations of the Lord to the Apocalypse, attaches so much importance to them. Their fundamental idea is the final victory of the kingdom of God, predicted with absolute confidence. Kingdoms fall, and new kingdoms rise up in their place; the people of God have much to suffer; but let them take comfort, for their God will overcome the world, and on the ruins of the kingdoms of the world the eternal kingdom shall finally be established. By these prophecies, therefore, the people of God were set as it were on a high mountain, from which they could see the confusion on the plains far below their feet. Keeping in view what we have said with reference to the signs of the continuing election of God during the captivity, it will easily be seen how very different this exile was from that in which the Jews are now. In the latter such signs are completely wanting; hence the foolishness of the Jews in always expecting to be delivered from it. Deliverance is only conceivable where these signs have continued even during the time of misery. Israel received such signs during the last thirty-eight years of the march through the wilder­ness, in the continued presence of Moses, in the pillar of cloud and of fire, etc. Where the signs are wanting, there can be no election; and where this does not exist, the hope of redemption is vain. Of this we have already a proof, in the fact that for eighteen hundred years this redemption has failed to come, while the former mere suspensions of the relation of grace lasted only for a comparatively short time. The position of orthodox Judaism becomes daily worse; and we can almost make a mathematical calculation respecting the time when its end will come. The Jews profess to be the chosen race, and during a period of eighteen centuries can point to no way in which this election has been mani­fested; they hope for redemption, and all the termini which they have appointed for it from century to century have passed away without the expected result. The unten­ableness of the position occupied by orthodox Judaism is shown also by its undeniable internal hollowness and in­consistency, nor can the Jew conceal this fact even from himself. With respect to the external worship of God, the offering of sacrifices necessarily ceased entirely during the time of exile. For, according to the law, sacrifices could only be offered in the national sanctuary, Deuteronomy 12, and this no longer existed. By later revelations from God, it was also established that Jerusalem was destined to be the seat of the sanctuary for ever (comp, for example, Psalms 78:68; Psalms 132:13-14), and therefore only the worship there offered was acceptable to God; so that there could be no idea of building a new sanctuary in the place of banishment. On the con­trary, it must have been evident that it formed part of the punishment of the nation to be deprived of the opportunity of offering sacrifices. The author of the book of Baruch indeed tells how, in the fifth year after the destruction, the exiles sent the sacred vessels which had been carried away by Nebuchadnezzar to Jerusalem to the high priest Jehoia­kim, together with money to procure sacrifices. But this is a palpable fiction, for the book does not pretend to give history, but only poetry. According to the books of the Kings, Jerusalem was completely laid waste; according to the book of Ezra, the high-priestly race was in exile; and in the same book, Ezra 1:7, we read that the sacred vessels were first given back by Cyrus; and the book of Daniel tells of their desecration by Belshazzar, the last Chaldee king. The zeal for prayer shown by the Jews in exile was very great, if we may take the example of Daniel as a criterion of all the rest, and was probably increased by the want of a sacrificial worship. Just as it was customary in prayer to turn the face towards the sanctuary of the Lord at the time when the sanctuary was still standing, comp. Psalms 5:8; Psalms 28:2; Psalms 138:2, thus indicating a turning not merely to the Deity, but to the revealed Deity, the God of Israel; so it was habitual to turn towards Jerusalem during the period of exile, Daniel 6:10. Even the places where the temple had stood, where a temple was again to be erected, remained sacred. The Jews could think of no better way to symbolize the turning of the mind to the God of Israel than by turning the face to the place where He had formerly manifested Himself as such, and would again manifest Himself, as they confidently hoped, trusting in His word. According to the same passage from the book of Daniel, it was customary to pray three times a-day,—doubtless, as in former times, morn­ing, noon, and evening; comp. Psalms 55:18. At the principal turning-points of the day, prayer rose up to the Lord of life. Morning and evening prayer was offered up at the same hour in which daily morning and evening sacrifice had been presented in the temple as long as it stood. This sacrifice was itself an embodied, symbolic prayer; and that it was customary to associate verbal prayer with it is shown by Ezra 9:5, where Ezra begins his prayer, a spiritual sacrifice, at the time of the evening oblation. From Daniel 9:21, where Gabriel appears to Daniel when he is praying at the time of the evening sacrifice, we learn that during the exile, when verbal prayer only was possible, the time of the presentation of offerings at least was preserved. From this we see that the exiled Jews re­cognised the closeness of the relation of sacrifice to prayer, and must therefore have looked upon the removal of sacri­ficial worship as an incentive to greater earnestness in sup­plication. The favourite place of prayer, as appears from Daniel 6:10, was the most lonely part of the house, in the upper room, where, according to 1 Kings 17:19, Elijah also retired to pray. The manner and substance of the prayer of those who truly feared God is best seen in a petition uttered by Daniel in the name of the whole nation, given in Daniel 9 : The substance is concentrated in vers. 15 and 16, in the words, “And now, O Lord our God, . . . we have sinned, we have done wickedly. O Lord, according to all Thy righteousness, I beseech Thee, let Thine anger and Thy fury be turned away from Thy city Jerusalem, Thy holy mountain; because for our sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and Thy people are become a reproach to all that are about us.” The joys and sorrows of the individual were absorbed in the great hopes and sorrows of the community. The whole Church of those who feared God prayed more at this time than at any other. Just as the cessation of sacrifice gave rise to greater zeal in prayer, on the one hand, so, on the other, it must have in­creased the zeal in keeping holy the Sabbath, the neglect of which Ezekiel frequently enumerates among the causes which had brought the divine judgments on Jerusalem, Ezekiel 20:12 ff; Ezekiel 22:8, etc. The keeping of the Sabbath was now the only universally visible mark by which to distinguish the worshipper of Jehovah, the only national acknowledgment of their God which the Israelites could make amid the heathen, and at the same time also the sole outward means of awakening the religious national feeling. We have already referred to those passages which show that it was customary to gather about the prophets in order to hear their revelations. Whether there were regular religious meetings besides, representative of the sacred assemblies in the temple, we have no certain testimony. It is very pro­bable, however: in favour of it we have a strong argument in the existence of the exile psalms of which we have already spoken, which proceed collectively out of the soul of the Church. It is almost inconceivable that a people of God should have existed for so long a period without any divine worship. Even before the exile, though the temple was the only place of sacrifice, yet assemblies for divine service were by no means confined to it. We cannot, indeed, place any reliance on the statement of the Talmud, comp. Buddeus, 2: p. 861, that the exiles built synagogues. In accordance with the universal character of such statements in the Talmud, it is a mere conjecture, and has not the weight of historical testimony. The succession of the high-priesthood was not interrupted during the exile. The last high priest before the captivity was Seraiah. His son Jehozadak, who succeeded him, was carried away captive, 1 Chronicles 6:15. The son of Jeho­zadak was Joshua, who returned with Zerubbabel, and was the first high priest in the new colony; comp. Ezra 2:2, Zechariah 3:1 ff. From the position which Joshua at once takes in the new colony, we are led to infer that the high priests exercised considerable influence over the nation, even during the captivity. Another ray of hope illuminating the existence of the exiles was the continuance of the Davidic race, with which such great hopes were connected, and which could not have perished without powerfully undermining faith. The son of Jeconiah the king of Judah, whom Evil-merodach had released from captivity, was Salathiel, or Shealtiel (for many reasons supposed not to have been a true son, but a son by adoption; also, however, of Davidic origin); the son of Salathiel was Pedaiah, whose son Zerubbabel was the leader of those who returned under Cyrus; comp. 1 Chronicles 3:19. This continuance of the Davidic race formed a centre for the national consciousness of the nation, a founda­tion for its hopes. That the confidence in a glorious future for this race, resting on the word of God, was unbroken even during the exile, is shown by 1 Kings 11:39. These books were composed in exile, at the time of the deepest humiliation of the race of David. The same thing appears also from the Messianic prediction of Ezekiel; comp. Ezekiel 17:22-24. The hope in the future is so strong in Ezekiel, that in Ezekiel 38, 39, not satisfied with predicting the restoration of Jerusalem, which was then lying in ruins, and the fall of its present oppressor, he foretells even the glorious victory of the redeemed over those enemies of the future who were not yet at the scene of action. We shall now consider the way in which the condition of the Israelites, which has hitherto occupied our attention, came to an end. The deliverance of the Israelites did not quite coincide with the fall of the Chaldee power. The latter took place already at the close of the sixty-eighth year of the Babylonish captivity. The king of the Medes, who was the next ruler of the Babylonian monarchy, did nothing to bring the prophecies respecting the deliverance of Israel nearer to their fulfilment. In the Scriptures (Daniel 6) he bears the name Darius of Media; in profane history (in the Cyropedia of Xenophon) he is called Cyaxares,—a difference which may be explained from the fact that the names of the Medish and Persian kings were mostly only titles, and were therefore many and variable. On this sub­ject Niebuhr has made exhaustive researches, p. 29. He thus gives the result of his examination:—“The same king may appear under several different names—(a) under his original personal name, (b) under the name taken as king on ascending the throne, (c) under one or several surnames, (d) under the universal title of the king of his country.” In recent times many have questioned the existence of a Medish king of Babylon; but the completely independent agreement of two important testimonies is a sufficient guarantee, all the more since the only argument to the contrary is drawn from the silence of Herodotus and Ctesias, which proves nothing. A full discussion of this question may be found in the Beitrage, vol. 1:, Havernick, Commentary on Daniel, and his later Examination of the Book of Daniel, Hamburg, 1838, p. 74 ff., Auberlen, Daniel and the Apocalypse, and last of all, Pusey in his copious work on Daniel. When Niebuhr, p. 61, speaks of Cyaxares, the mythical hero of Xenophon, he forgets that the proof lies not in the historical credibility of the Cyropedia in itself, but in its remarkable agreement with Daniel. His assertion that, apart from Daniel, our only knowledge of a Medish king of Babylon is derived from the legendary Cyropedia, is incorrect. AEschylus, in The Persians, also speaks of such a one; and Abydenus even designates him by the same name as he bears in the book of Daniel. In Daniel 9 : we have a vivid representation of the mind of the exiles (of the ἐκλογὴ) among them) after the great blow had been struck, when Babylon the proud had fallen, and the storm which the Lord had foretold by His servants the prophets at a time when the sky was perfectly clear, be­ginning in a little cloud, had gradually risen higher and higher in the heavens, and had finally discharged itself with a fearful crash. This chapter contains a vision which was revealed to the prophet in the first year of Darius the Mede, and therefore in the sixty-ninth year of the captivity. At this time Daniel is occupied with Jeremiah, and his mind is deeply affected on reperusing the prophecies so familiar to him, according to which the misery of the covenantnation is to last for seventy years, and then to be followed by the return and the commencement of the rebuilding of the city and the temple. By the fulfilment of the one great prediction of the prophecies of Jeremiah, faith gained a visible support with reference to the other. Now ensued a time of great suspense, prayer was zealously offered up, and all were moved by a powerful impulse to intercede earnestly for the nation, the temple, and the city of the Lord. Doubtless many prayers, such as that of Daniel, rose up to the Lord, and the words of this prayer, “We do not present our sup­plications before Thee for our righteousness, but for Thy great mercies,” no doubt express the universal feeling at that time. In Psalms 106 we have a supplement to Daniel 9, which we judge from Psalms 106:46 was sung when the prospects of Israel had already assumed a brighter aspect, after the Lord had given His people favour with their oppressors. Darius was already aged when he began to rule over Babylon; and when he died, after a reign of two years, the kingdom passed over to Cyrus the Persian. In many re­spects this king stands alone in the whole history of the old world. He is the only conqueror who shines equally in sacred and in profane history. Profane history represent? him as a monarch characterized by great mildness and love of justice, a helper of the oppressed. So Xenophon in the Cyropedia, whose ideal description has an historical basis throughout, and Herodotus in Book iii. chap. 89. In pro­phecy (in the second part of Isaiah, to which he probably owes the name by which he is familiar to us) he is charac­terized in a way which almostplaces him in the rank of theocratic rulers, as the anointed of the Lord, who will not merely accomplish His will on Babylon, but will also redeem His captive people, and that as a servant who knows the will of his lord. In sacred historyhe appears as one who had acquired a deeper knowledge of the God of Israel, a know­ ledge essentially distinct from that which had impressed a Nebuchadnezzar, a Belshazzar, or a Darius Medus, without having a deeper root in the mind. While the heathen monarchs had hitherto served only as instruments for the humiliation and punishment of Israel, he serves God in the realization of His thoughts of peace towards His people. In the God of Israel he recognises the author of his victories, and proves his gratitude by the benefits which he confers upon His people. His position in this respect has a symbolic- prophetic character. It awakens in us a presentiment that the hostile position which the power of the world had hitherto occupied with respect to the community of God would be altered, that the prophecy of Isaiah would at a future time be fulfilled in a wide sense, according to which kings would be their nursing-fathers and nursing-mothers. He is a foreshadowing, and therefore a prefiguration, of the future removal of the former rude contrast between the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world. At this period we are met everywhere by manifold indi­cations that the time foretold by the prophets of “the gathering of the heathen” is at hand. The most remarkable preparation for this is to be found in the relation of the Jews in the mother country to the Jews in the διαοπορὰ, which was formed under the guidance of divine providence. Remembering this, we see clearly that the carrying away of the nation into exile was intended not only as retributive pun­ishment and a salutary incentive to repentance, but had other aims also which were wider and higher. Judah is carried into exile in order to gather the scattered sheep of Israel, to reanimate the spirit of true piety among the exiled citizens of the ten tribes, which had become nearly extinct, and to effect a reunion of the ἐκλογὴ) with the Church of God. When this object is attained, and one Israel again exists, the nucleus and stem of the nation return, that the Israelitish religious life may find a centre in the new temple. The whole nation, however, does not return, but a considerable number remain in exile. These are kept from sinking into heathenism by the close connection in which they continually stand with the centre. In them a great mission is organized among the heathen, which by divine providence becomes more and more extended in later times, the Jews being scattered over all the countries of the earth. Thus the attention of the heathen world was directed to the light which was already in existence, the true God has witnesses everywhere; and, what is of most importance, care is taken that when the perfect light appears in Israel, it should at the same time be visible to all the nations of the earth. The Babylonish exile thus forms the necessary presupposition of the founding of Christianity among the heathen; and what apparently destroyed the supremacy of the Lord even in the small corner which it had reserved to itself, became a means in His hand of extending it over all the nations of the earth. Many hypotheses have been laid down respecting the motives by which Cyrus was influenced in his treatment of the Jews. We are led into the right track by a considera­tion of the contents of the decree which he issued respecting them. This is given to us in Ezra 1:1-4; and that the account is a faithful one appears from Ezra 6:1-5, accord­ing to which, a document was found in the time of Darius, in the archives at Ecbatana, which fully agreed with the import of this edict. In this edict Cyrus acknowledges Jehovah, the God of Israel, as the universal Lord of heaven and earth, confesses that this Jehovah has given him all the kingdoms which he has conquered, and states that He has commanded him to build Him a temple at Jerusalem in Judah. In the two latter points there is an unmistakeable reference to the second part of Isaiah; comp., for example, Isaiah 45:13 : “I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, saith the Lord of hosts;” Isaiah 41:2-4; Isaiah 41:25; Isaiah 44:24-28; Isaiah 45:1-6; Isaiah 46:11; Isaiah 48:13-15. The reference of the edict to these passages in Isaiah is sometimes verbally exact; comp, the proof given in Kleinert, The Authenticity of the Prophecies of Isaiah, p. 142 ff. It is the less to be regarded as an interpolation on the part of the author of the book of Ezra, since he does not expressly indicate that the prophecies exercised an influence of this kind on Cyrus. To the fact that Josephus, Ant. xi. chap. i. § 1, 2, explicitly states that Cyrus was influenced to the publication of this edict by those prophecies, we attach little weight. Only on the edict itself do we found our assumption that this was really the case, that the wonderful agreement of the prophecies with the past dispensations of his life called forth in Cyrus the determination to do the will of this great, almighty God, who had taken so great an interest in him even before he knew Him, and in gratitude to give glory to His name (Isaiah 45:4-5). If in this way we have discovered with certainty the im­mediate cause for the determination of Cyrus, we can at least find probable reasons for a more remote cause. The fact that the prophecies made such an impression on Cyrus, presupposes that he had already attained to a certain know­ledge of the true God, and that he had received these pro­phecies from a credible source. Here everything points to Daniel, formerly one of the most illustrious servants of the Chaldee state, and now of the Medo-Persian. He had already influenced the Chaldee rulers to acknowledge the God of Israel to be the Lord of all lords, and the God of all gods; Darius the Mede, who had raised him to the highest dignity, had been led by him to express his recognition of the God of Israel in a public edict. What is more natural than to assume that he, with his ardent longing for the deliverance of his people, should likewise have influenced Cyrus to the promulgation of his edict, partly by virtue of the great respect in which he was held by him on account of all that had happened under the previous reigns, and partly because he laid before him the prophecies in question, which were confirmed by his authority? All other solutions of the problem have either no historical guarantee, or else they are insufficient to explain the facts. This was formerly the case even when the mere release of the Israelites was in question; but here there is more at stake, and therefore more than ordinary motives are re­quired. It is necessary to explain how Cyrus came to the consciousness that Jehovah had given him all the king­doms of the earth, and had commanded him to build Him a temple; how it was that he not merely generously gave up the numerous and valuable vessels of the temple, but also laid a tax in behalf of the building of the temple on his heathen subjects, from whose midst the Israelites had gone forth, and encouraged them to give voluntary contri­butions to it. We must also explain how it was that the result was so directly and without any interposition attri­buted to Jehovah the God of Israel, whose co-operation must therefore have been evident; comp. Psalms 126:1. The edict of Cyrus has reference not merely to Judah, but to the whole nation, and was made known, according to Ezra 1:1, in the whole kingdom, and not merely in the provinces in which the Judaites dwelt. Nor are proofs wanting that the new colony on the Jordan consisted not merely of Judaites, but also of members of the ten tribes, although in the first great expedition the Judaites no doubt made by far the greater number; which is easily explained from the circumstance that they were the more God-fearing portion of the nation, and also from the fact that the ten tribes, during their much longer abode in the lands of exile, had struck far deeper roots. The very fact that there are twelve leaders of the first expedition of the exiles, ten besides Zerubbabel and Joshua,—in Ezra 2:2 only nine, but the tenth is added in Nehemiah 8:7,—plainly referring to the twelve tribes, shows us that the consciousness of the unity of the whole nation was again present; and this presupposes that the wide distinction between Israel and Judah had ceased during the time of exile. We are also led to the same result, by the fact that on the consecration of the new temple a sin-offering of twelve bulls was presented for all Israel. It is evident that at the time of Christ the inhabitants of Canaan were by no means Judaites alone, but rather belonged to all the twelve tribes, from the designation given to the nation in Acts 26:7, τὸ δωδεκάφυλον ήμῶν, and again from Luke 2:36, accord­ing to which Anna was of the tribe of Asher, as Saul was of the tribe of Benjamin. The whole relation is probably to be understood thus:—The prophets, with one consent, give expression to the hope that the great common misfortune impending in the future will put an end to the melancholy breach between Judah and Israel, that both will in consequence repent and become reconciled to God. The fact that this hope is to be found in undi­minished strength in Jeremiah, comp. Jeremiah 3, 31, and in Ezekiel 37, shows that even at that late period the members of the kingdom of the ten tribes had in the main kept themselves strictly separate from the heathen, and had not succumbed to the destroying influences of heathenism. This hope was fulfilled. With the destruction of the king­dom of the ten tribes, the main hindrance to reunion was done away. The separation was mainly due to political reasons, to which also its continuance must be attributed. The religious element in it was only subordinate. The strength of the desire of the Israelites for reunion with respect to religion, appears from the fact that all the Israelitish rulers of the various dynasties despaired of conquering it by con­siderations of a purely political character, and endeavoured by the maintenance of an Israelitish state-religion to keep the balance, to awake religious antipathies which paralyzed it. Nevertheless they were unable to prevent the whole God­ fearing portion of the nation, who gathered about the pro­phets, from constant sorrowful regrets on account of the separation, from looking upon it as having no internal exist­ence, and longing for its outward abolition. Nor could they prevent continual emigrations to Judea, which were especially numerous at all times when the Lord glorified Himself in the Davidic kingship. With the destruction of the kingdom of the ten tribes the artificial wall of separation which had been built up fell into complete ruin. The cause which had for a considerable period prevented all external approach, viz. the great local distance, fell away when Judah too was led into exile. The hearts of the Judaites were softened by misery, and they made loving advances to their brethren who were in similar affliction, upon whom the revival of piety which had taken place among the Judaites exercised a bene­ficial influence. They felt that in this respect the Judaites occupied a higher standpoint, and willingly submitted to them, attaching themselves to them. Judah therefore be­came the centre, during the exile, about which the whole Church of God again collected. The ten tribes in their sepa­ration entirely ceased to exist. All its members who retained any Israelitish religiousness entered into the union, which was the more easily done, since the illegal Israelitish priest­hood was in no sense animated by a religious esprit de corps, but was rather a pure state-institution, which would neces­sarily perish with the destruction of the state; while the Jewish priesthood, even in exile, still formed a compact mass, and presented an excellent centre round which the whole nation might assemble. Those individuals of the ten tribes in whom the Israelitish consciousness was completely destroyed, the reformed Jews of that time, were lost among the heathen. When the edict of Cyrus was promulgated, it was there­fore quite natural, for reasons already given, that in the beginning the members of the ten tribes should only have returned in comparatively small numbers. By this circum­stance it came to pass that Judah became still more decisively the centre of the whole, so that all were collectively called by the name of this tribe. The erection of the new temple necessarily served to consolidate the union still more. The eye of the Israelites who had remained in exile was directed to it no less than that of the Judaites. They fully recognised that the temple, with all that pertained to it, was the sole sup­port for the Israelitish national consciousness. Great num­bers set out for Judea after the new colony there had become consolidated, principally, perhaps, in the centuries between Nehemiah and the Maccabees, which are shrouded in almost total historical darkness. Even those who remained behind entered into close connection with the temple, sent their gifts to it, and undertook pilgrimages thither. Another argument in favour of the correctness of this view is, that the great number of Jews whom we afterwards find in Judea, and no less in the diaspora—a great many millions—can scarcely be explained if we assume that they were all descendants of the Jewish exiles. So also the pas­sage 2 Chronicles 34:9, which shows that after the fall of the Israelitish state, the remnant of the Israelites who had remained in the land were driven back into religious fellow­ship with Judah. All that can be said of those who remained behind is equally applicable to the exiles also. Again, we have the passage Jeremiah 41:5-8, where we are told that, after the destruction of Jerusalem, eighty men from Sichem, Shiloh, and Samaria, from the centres of the former kingdom of the ten tribes, journeyed to the place of the former temple, there to lament over the destruction, and to present their offerings. If our idea be established, it is evident that the many researches which have been made, even to recent times, respecting the abode of the ten tribes, who have always been looked for as a separate nationality, are quite in vain. Grant, an American, whose work appeared in a German translation at Basle, 1842, thought he had discovered the ten tribes in the independent Nestorians in the mountains of Kurdistan, and for a long time it was a favourite idea to look upon the Indians in North America as their descendants. Many identify them with the Afghans, who, having been subject to Jewish influences, regard themselves as descendants of the ten tribes. All these, however, are mere fancies. The rem­nant of the ten tribes, subsequent to the dispersion, assumed a Jewish character, and afterwards became amalgamated with the Jews who had gone out into the heathen world from the time of Alexander, and especially after the destruction of Rome. The complete fruitlessness of all attempts hitherto made,—in every case where an apparent discovery of the ten tribes has been made, either a Jewish element has sub­sequently appeared, or it has become manifest that nothing Israelitish existed,—which was to be expected a priori, forms another argument in favour of our view, which is of no little importance with respect to many questions. Josephus has already led the way to that error regarding the ten tribes, remarking, Ant. xi. 5. 2, that even in his time they dwelt in countless multitudes beyond the Euphrates. So also the author of the fourth book of Ezra, who, according to Ezra 13, imagined the Israelites to be peacefully living in a far-distant land, situated to the north-east. The fact that such opinions could arise, may be explained from the circumstance that the amalgamation of the Israelites with the Judaites took place very gradually and imperceptibly. Cyrus appointed Zerubbabel to be the leader of those who were returning, and governor of the new colony. In Ezra 1:8 he appears under the Persian name Sheshbazzar; the name Zerubbabel, scattered to Babylon, he bore as the native representative of the nation that had been carried away into captivity. There is no doubt respecting the identity of the two. Cyrus confirmed in his dignity the man who was the native ruler of the Jews, and enjoyed the greatest respect among them. Already he was prince of Judah, and now he became Persian governor, פחה. As such he stood immedi­ately below the king. The Persian governors in Samaria were expected, however, to keep a watchful eye on the new Jewish colony, to frustrate all plans of rebellion, and to give information of all that was suspicious. The Samaritans, as native heathen, looked upon the Persian court as their natural ally against the Jews, which proves that only very extra­ordinary motives could have influenced them to relinquish to this nation a province so important in a political and strate­gical aspect. The whole position which the Persian govern­ment assumed towards the new colony shows that ordinary motives could not have sufficed in this case, that the walls of policy must here have been broken through by higher con­siderations. But where anything of this kind happens, it does not generally continue long. Ordinary policy soon re­asserts itself, and so it was in this case. The heart of Cyrus, awakened to faith in the God of Israel, had permitted the return, and all that it involved. But the further develop­ment of the matter fell to the judgment of his counsellors, and there Israel fared badly. It is plain that Cyrus intended to confer a benefit on the Jews by giving them a leader out of their midst; but it certainly proved less effective than the Jews expected. They thought that their redemption was inseparably con­nected with the re-establishment of the race of David, although they had received no special grounds for this idea from the predictions of the prophets, in which nothing is ever said of kings of David’s race after the exile, but at this time prominence is invariably given to the kingdom of the Messiah. Doubtless they thought that Zerubbabel would at least have the title of king. But in God’s plan it was other­wise ordained. Even the dignity of governor did not remain in the family of David. Zerubbabel was the first and the last who held this position. Persian policy did not suffer it to be otherwise. We see that it was only necessary to give an indication respecting the family of David at the begin­ning of the new development, with reference to the later grand position which they were to occupy in it; it was not yet intended to raise them to this position. First, they were to sink lower and lower, in order that the exaltation might plainly appear as the work of God. This course of events had also been foretold by the prophets. The burden of their teaching throughout is, that the Messiah should pro­ceed from the family of David at a time when it had sunk into complete obscurity. Comp., for example, Isaiah 11:1, “There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots,” where the cut stem of Jesse denotes the Davidic race robbed of their kingly dignity, and involved in complete obscurity, now no longer remem­bering their regal, but only their rustic ancestor;—and again, Isaiah 53:2, “For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground,”—in which passage, it is true, only the humiliation of the servant of God is directly spoken of, but this presupposes the humilia­tion of his race;—also Ezekiel 17:22-24, where the Messiah appears as a small, thin branch, which the Lord has taken from a high cedar and planted upon a high mountain, and which grows into a proud tree, under which all the birds of the air find a dwelling-place. In Jeremiah and Zechariah (Zechariah 3:8; Zechariah 6:12) the Messiah is called The Branch, with refer­ence to the image of a cut stem of the branch of David employed by Isaiah. All the silver and golden vessels of the temple, which had been kept in the temple of Belus at Babylon since the time of Nebuchadnezzar, and whose number was very great, accord­ing to Ezra 1:11, were unhesitatingly given up to Zerub­babel. Just as Zerubbabel stood at the head of civil affairs, so Joshua the high priest stood at the head of religious matters. Among those who returned there must have been comparatively many with means. We see this from the great number of men-servants and maid-servants, from the rich contributions to the building of the temple, and from passages such as Haggai 1:4, according to which many built themselves ceiled houses at the very beginning. The attempt made by some to represent those who returned as a pauper nation is therefore quite unhistorical. It is a com­plete misapprehension of the power of the religious principle, and is an insult to the human race, to suppose that only those went forth who neither possessed nor could hope to gain anything in exile. It is remarkable that, according to Ezra 1:4; Ezra 1:6, the heathen in whose midst the Jews dwelt responded to the demand of Cyrus by bringing rich pre­sents for the building of the sanctuary, and for those who were returning. This shows us that at that time there was a powerful movement among the heathen in favour of Judah, of the God of Judah and His sanctuaries, and is a prefiguration of the future complete change in the position of the heathen world with respect to the kingdom of God predicted by the prophets, of the time when kings and queens should be the nursing-fathers and nursing-motliers of the kingdom of God; comp. Isaiah 49:22 ff., Isaiah 60:8-10; Isaiah 61:5-11. This move­ment culminated in many transitions. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 50: 50. § 2. THE NEW COLONY ON THE JORDAN TO THE COMPLETION OF THE BUILDING OF THE TEMPLE; ... ======================================================================== § 2. The New Colony on the Jordan to the Completion of the Building of the Temple; Or, Zerubbabel and Joshua The principal source for this period is the first part of the book of Ezra, Ezra 1-6. This, however, does not contain a complete history; but the author, whose object it is to write sacred history, limits himself to that which is at this time its sole object,—the proper theme which had been given to him, viz. the restoration of the temple. While the book of Ezra gives us a statement of the facts which occurred during this period, the writings of the prophets whose activity belongs to it—of Haggai and Zechariah—give us a clear representation of the mind of the Israelites and their spiritual condition. In the latter respect, great importance is also due to a number of psalms which were composed for use in the restored worship of God. Of these, Psalms 107 deserves special mention. It celebrates the gathering of Israel from the four ends of the earth, and, according to Psalms 107:22 and Psalms 107:32, was sung at a great thanksgiving feast of the nation, probably at the first celebration of the feast of tabernacles after the return, on which occasion all Israel flocked to Jerusalem, and sacrifices were offered up to the Lord on the newly-erected altar; comp. Ezra 3:1 ff. And again, Psalms 111-119, a cycle of psalms sung with the preceding Davidic trilogy on laying the foundation-stone of the new temple. Also the ten anonymous psalms in the collection of pilgrim-songs in Psalms 120-134, which collectively refer to the melancholy circumstances in which Israel was involved by the machinations of the Samaritans. Finally, the group Psalms 135-146, sung after the successful completion of the temple, and probably at the time of its consecration, consisting of three new psalms at the beginning, and one at the end, with eight Davidic psalms between. All the psalms from Psalms 107 to Psalms 146, therefore, serve as a source for this period, only excepting those which have been inserted in the various cycles and applied to the relations of that time, which bear the name of David in the superscription. The company of those who returned found the land empty on their arrival. The last Jewish inhabitants had fled to Egypt on the murder of Gedaliah, and none of the surrounding heathen nations had ventured to anticipate the occupation of the trans-Euphratic rulers by taking possession of it; for they still expected that the conquerors would send a colony into the land, just as the land of the ten tribes had only been colonized a considerable time after the inhabitants had been led away into captivity. And these nations had the less inducement to make the attempt, since they themselves had been very much weakened by the campaigns of Nebuchadnezzar, and were quite satisfied with their dwellings. It is not improbable that they roamed through the land, and employed it as pasture for cattle; but when they heard of the command of Cyrus, they at once retreated in fear. Bertheau, in his treatises on the History of the Israelites, p. 382 ff., has indeed laid down the hypothesis that a great number of the Judaites remained behind in the land, the deportation being only partial. But this assumption has no foundation. The desolation and depopulation of the country is everywhere represented as total; for example, in Jeremiah 44:6, Jeremiah 44:22, 2 Chronicles 36. How earnest the Chaldees were in carrying away all Judah, appears from the notice in Jeremiah 52:30, according to which Nebuzaradan carried away 745 Jews into captivity in the twenty-third year of Nebuchadnezzar, such, no doubt, as had by degrees reassembled in the land. The returning exiles find a country completely desolate and uncultivated (comp., for example, Psalms 107), and not the smallest trace appears of their finding any inhabitants there. The book of Ezra everywhere proceeds on the assumption that those who returned were the sole inhabitants of the land. Immediately after their arrival in the land, which had now lain waste for more than half a century, the returning exiles distributed themselves in the various cities, according to their tribes and families, and began to rebuild their houses and to cultivate again their pieces of ground. It was necessary, owing to the small number of those who returned, to choose only a limited number of cities at first to settle in, the preference being given to such as lay in the vicinity of Jerusalem, the centre,—a circumstance from which Ewald has falsely inferred that only these cities were ceded to the Jews in the edict of Cyrus. But the first consideration was to restore the service of God, of which they had so long and so painfully been deprived. They erected a new temporary altar for burnt-offering in the ruins of the temple at Jerusalem, in the same place where the old one had stood. On this provisional altar, and in the temporarily-erected sanctuary, the daily offerings prescribed in the law were offered up. It was consecrated on the first celebration of the feast of tabernacles. Psalms 107, which was sung at that celebration, enables us to realize the mind of the Israelites at that time: everything in it breathes a spirit of joy, of thankfulness for the glorious mercy of the Lord. We see that the people are celebrating their feast of restoration. They began at once to make every preparation for the rebuilding of the temple. In these preparations the first year passed away. In the second month of the second year they laid the foundation amid great solemnities. But the old men who had seen the first temple lamented, and their loud weeping mingled with the rejoicings of the youth; comp. Ezra 3:12-13. Everything seemed to them so small and poor—not a trace of the former glory; and this difference affected them the more painfully, since they looked upon it as a sign that the grace of God had not fully returned to them, and felt themselves still in a state of partial exile. We also gain some clue to the disposition of Israel at that time, by the psalms which were sung on the laying of the foundation-stone of the temple. It is one of soft and quiet melancholy, finding comfort in God. On the one hand we find exultation on account of the help already vouchsafed by the Lord; but on the other hand a striving against sorrow and anxiety is perceptible, caused by a recollection of the misery which still remains, of the small number of the people of God (Psalms 119:86-87), of the oppression of the mighty heathen world under which they sighed (Psalms 119:51), and of the ignominy which rested upon them. By these things the people are impelled to cling more closely to their God, and to form a vivid conception of His former deeds and His glorious promises (comp. Psalms 111-114), to resolve by true observance of the command of the Lord to prepare the way for His salvation. The strange mixture of jubilee and mourning, which, according to the book of Ezra, took place at the consecration of the temple, meets us in these psalms. But even their joy on account of the weak beginnings of the restoration of divine grace was soon disturbed. When they had begun to rebuild the temple, the Samaritans turned to the rulers of the people with the proposal, “Let us build with you: for we seek your God as ye do; and we do sacrifice unto Him since the days of Esar-haddon king of Assur, which brought us up hither.” And when the chiefs sent them the answer, “Ye have nothing to do with us to build an house unto our God; but we ourselves together will build unto the Lord God of Israel, as king Cyrus the king of Persia hath commanded us,” they were embittered by it, and did all that they could to hinder the building of the temple, and for a length of time were successful. In order to understand this event, and the whole subsequent relation of the Jews and Samaritans, we must here necessarily enter into the question of the origin of the Samaritans. On this subject there are two opposite views. According to one, the Samaritans were originally a purely heathen nation, who at first included Jehovah in the number of their gods, because they looked upon Him as the national deity, and worshipped Him together with the gods which they had brought with them, but by degrees, specially under the influence of their relations to the Jews, came to worship Him alone, renouncing their other gods. The other view, on the contrary, makes the Samaritans a mixed nation, consisting not only of a heathen element, but also of a very strong; Israelitish element, members of the former kingdom of the ten tribes,—part of them having remained in the country at the time of the Assyrian destruction, while the remainder had returned to it by degrees out of banishment. The former of these views is undoubtedly the correct one. In favour of the latter we have only the assertion of the later Samaritans themselves, who maintain that they are descended from Israel,—an assumption, however, which has no weight, because it is met by a recognition on the part of the older Samaritans of their purely heathen origin; comp. Ezra 4:9-10, where they call themselves “the nations whom the great and noble Asnapper brought over and set in the cities of Samaria;” and again, Ezra 4:2, where the Samaritans make no attempt to found their demand for participation in the building of the temple on their Israelitish origin. Moreover, they acknowledged their purely heathen origin at a later time, when it became their advantage to do so; comp. Josephus, Ant. ix. 14, § 3, xi. 8, § 6, xii. 5, § 5. Hence it follows that the pretension to Israelitish extraction is only one of the many lies by which the later Samaritans tried to make themselves of equal birth with the Jews; while the latter made the purely heathen origin of the former the basis of their assertion, that notwithstanding their worship of Jehovah, they had no part in Him and in His kingdom. On the other hand, the assumption of the purely heathen origin of the Samaritans has the strongest arguments in its favour, besides the earlier utterances of the nation itself. In 2 Kings 17 the heathen colonists appear as the sole inhabitants of the land. According to 2 Kings 17:26 ff., they besought the king of Assyria to give them an Israelitish priest, because they had nobody in their land who could give them even the rudest conception of the way in which the God of the country was to be worshipped. Those prophets who lived after the destruction of the kingdom of the ten tribes universally represent its members as having been completely carried away, only to be brought back at a future time; comp. Jeremiah 31:5 ff.; Zechariah 10. In Matthew 10:5-6, our Lord places the Samaritans on a level with the heathen, and together contrasts them with the Jews. In John 4:22 He characterizes their religion as subjective throughout, and their piety as self-invented—an ἐθελοθρησκεία: they know not what they worship, i.e. they have no essential knowledge of the object of the religion of God, no participation in His revelation, from which alone such knowledge can spring; in short, they are ἄθεοι ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ no less than the heathen. The Saviour would never have denied all essential knowledge of God to the ten tribes, nor have excluded them from participation in the kingdom of God. To these arguments we might readily add a number of others, but regard it as unnecessary. The latest defenders of the view that the Samaritans were a mixed nation—Kalkar in Pelt’s Theological Researches, iii. 3, and Keil in the Commentary on the Books of the Kings, on 2 Kings 17—have quoted in their own favour the passage 2 Chronicles 34:9, according to which there was at Joshua’s time still a remnant of Israel in the cities of Manasseh and Ephraim, from whom the Levites collected money for the restoration of the temple. But this passage proves the very contrary from what it is intended to prove. It shows that the remnant of Israel, which no doubt existed, strove against intermixture with the heathen colonists, binding themselves closely to the temple at Jerusalem, and entirely giving up the separation. Probably they afterwards went over completely to Judah,—an hypothesis which would serve to explain the passages already quoted, presupposing the total evacuation of the land by its former inhabitants. Or if this were not the case, they must at least have been so unimportant that they could be entirely overlooked. In any case they prove nothing in favour of a mixed nation. If what we have advanced with respect to the Samaritans hold good, we must regard the position which Zerubbabel and the rulers of the Jews assumed towards them as fully justified, without our finding it necessary to appeal to arguments such as that recently revived by Ewald, that they were at that time partially addicted to idolatry, and that union with them would therefore have been fraught with great danger to the Jews. If Samaritan individuals as such had asked to be received into the community of Israel, their request would certainly have been granted without hesitation. But here the case was very different. The Samaritans demanded that the Jews should recognise them as the second division of the nation of God: they thought it was enough to serve Jehovah in order to be His people. They had no idea that it was necessary before all to be chosen and called of God, and to have His revelation in the midst of those who were chosen and called. If the Jews had not opposed this pretension, they would have shown that their own piety was an ἐθελοθρησκεία, that their own religion was subjective. Our Lord’s statement in John respecting the nature of the Samaritan worship of God, already cited, forms the best apology for the conduct of the Jewish rulers, which Ewald has very superficially attributed to a narrow scrupulousness. If the Samaritan religion were such as it was there described, the Jews could not do otherwise than deny them all part in the building of the temple. The reverse would have been an injurious anticipation of the times of the New Testament, in which the narrow limits of the revelation of God were removed, and the revelation was extended to all the nations of the earth. Just as the correct view of the origin of the Samaritans throws light upon this separate fact, so also upon their whole subsequent relation to Judaism. From this time the most bitter enmity existed between the Jews and Samaritans, occasioned by this event. On the side of the Jews, we find the cause of it in the unfounded claim made by the Samaritans to belong to the people of God, and, on the side of the Samaritans, in the fact that the Jews would not recognise this claim. The attempt to prove and justify their pretensions, to make themselves of equal birth with the Jews, gradually became the fundamental principle of the nation. In favour of it they banished all idolatry from their midst; they obtained the Jewish law, and followed even its most burdensome ordinances,—for example, those with respect to the sabbatical year; they built a temple on Gerizim, and invented a multitude of lies in order to place it on a par with that at Jerusalem; they received every Jewish priest who fled to them for refuge with the greatest joy,—first of all the priest Manasseh, to whom they assigned the highest priestly dignity. The machinations of the Samaritans against the Jews must have been the more dangerous to the latter, since the Samaritans, as native heathen, would be more fully trusted by the Persian court, and moreover the Persian officers in Samaria had from the beginning been invested with a kind of supremacy over the Jews. They first succeeded in frustrating the well-meaning designs of Cyrus towards the Jews, for they gained over his counsellors to their side. In this way the Jews missed the help which had been promised to them in building the temple. They were discouraged, and relinquished the work. Their zeal was not great enough to outweigh the continual hindrances and annoyances. That there was no absolute hindrance, appears from the fact that Haggai and Zechariah afterwards reproached them severely with their neglect in carrying on the building of the temple. The assumption that the Jews were prohibited from continuing to build the temple by a formal edict of the Persian king is based on a false presupposition. Ezra 4:4-5, contains the sole reference to the hindrances in building the temple: “Then the people of the land weakened the hands of the people of Judah, and troubled them in building; and hired counsellors against them, to frustrate their purpose, all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia.” Ezra 4:6-23 form a parenthesis, in which we are told how afterwards the Samaritans, under Ahasuerus, Xerxes, and Artaxarta, Artaxerxes, combined against the building of the city wall in a similar way. Ezra 4:24 returns Ezra 4:4-5. It was not until the second year of Darius, after Haggai had severely censured them for their neglect, that they recommenced the work with zeal, and this zeal was powerfully quickened by the encouraging and comforting predictions of Haggai and Zechariah. Haggai and Zechariah are the only prophets whose activity stands in connection with the building of the second temple. To them only is there a reference in the passage Zechariah 8:9, on which Ewald founds his false assumption that numerous prophets assembled about the sanctuary which was rising out of its ruins. In the third year of Darius there was a new interruption. The royal officers in Samaria commanded the Jews to cease for a time, until they would have laid the matter before the Persian court, and have received directions respecting it. These officers, however, quite unlike those who had probably been deposed, seem to have been men of a just spirit, who were satisfied with the mere duties of their office. They notified to the king that the Jews appealed to the edict of Cyrus, and begged that the archives might be examined whether there were really such an edict. This was done; the edict was found and ratified by Darius in the beginning of the fourth year of his reign, in so far that a part of the cost of the building was to be defrayed from the royal coffers, from the revenues of the territories in the cis-Euphratic lands, and at the same time the Jews were to receive means to enable them to carry on their worship: comp. Ezra 6:8-9, a passage which is perfectly clear in itself, and could only be used by Bertheau in favour of a totally unfounded hypothesis by forcible misinterpretation. The restoration of the temple stands in immediate connection with this edict of Darius, which appears the less strange, since we elsewhere find in him traces of that magnanimity towards prisoners and subordinates which characterized Cyrus. In consequence of this edict, the building of the temple made rapid progress, so that it was quite finished within a period of three years. It is remarkable that just as there were seventy years from the first occupation of Jerusalem by the Chaldees to the first year of Cyrus, so there were exactly seventy years from the destruction of the temple to the edict of Cyrus; just as there were eighteen years between the beginning of the destruction and its completion, so also between the beginning of the restoration and its completion. It is remarkable, also, that soon after that edict, in the fifth year of Darius, heavy punishment fell upon Babylon in consequence of its revolt, by which means it was brought considerably nearer to its complete overthrow. Judgment and mercy, which are placed in close connection by the prophets, especially by Jeremiah, Jeremiah 25:12-13, kept equal pace in history also. The end of the two periods of seventy years shows us m like manner both connected. The final completion of the temple, which in Ezra 6:17 is expressly characterized as the common sanctuary for Israel in all the twelve tribes, took place in the sixth year of Darius. The consecration was very solemn, the people gave themselves up to lively joy. But the newly-built temple was not only very inferior to Solomon’s externally, but was also deficient in very important things which the latter possessed. The following are mentioned as such by the Jews:—1. The Urim and Thummim. Externally, indeed, this was still present: the high priest wore the breastplate with the precious stones even under the second temple, but no divine answers were imparted through it. That the Urim and Thummim had really lost its significance under the second temple, is evident from Ezra 2:63, Nehemiah 7:65, where the determination of a difficult case is deferred to the time when a priest should again stand up with the Urim and Thummim. This loss, however, was not simultaneous with the destruction of the first temple. Already, after David’s time, the Urim and Thummim disappears completely out of the history; and there is little doubt that this is due to its cessation, and not to the mere fact of its not being mentioned. The cause is to be looked for in the fact that the immediate higher illumination, of which the answers through the Urim and Thummim were the result, withdrew more and more from the priests and confined itself to the prophets. The more powerfully the prophethood asserted itself as a special institution, the more completely the prophetic elements which had formerly characterized the priesthood disappeared from it; the priestly and the prophetic spirit gradually became purely antithetic. We can only attribute the loss to the time after the exile in so far as it then actually took place, partly because the priestly principle then universally acquired absolute supremacy, partly because, owing to the political position taken by the high priests in the new colony, spiritually-minded men were far less frequently found among their number than had been the case previous to the exile. According to the Jews, the second temple wanted (2) the ark of the covenant. There can be no doubt that this really was wanting. It does not appear on Titus’ arch of triumph, which is still in Rome. That which was by many for a long time supposed to be it, has since been unanimously recognised as the table of shewbread. Moreover, Josephus makes no mention of it in his description of the triumph, De Bell. Jud. l. 7, 17, in which it would necessarily have appeared if it had existed, since it was the first sanctuary of the nation. He, the eye-witness, speaks of three things which were carried before the conqueror—the table for shew-bread, the golden candlestick, and the law; he says explicitly that the holy of holies was quite empty. Those who maintain that the ark of the covenant was present even in the second temple, appeal mainly to the idea that it is inconceivable how the Jews should have erected a new altar for incense, a new table for shew-bread, and a new candlestick, in the place of that which had been destroyed, and not have made a new ark of the covenant. But this argument has no weight. With the ark of the covenant the case was quite different. Among all sanctuaries it was the only one whose preparation the Lord had not left entirely to the people. The writing on the tables of the law had a mysterious origin, according to the Pentateuch; and if it were impossible to procure such tables again, it would be useless to restore the ark which was destined to conceal them. Herein lay a definite indication that God would not have the ark restored. Again, it has been said that if the ark of the covenant were wanting, there would no longer have been any reason for separating the holy of holies from the holy place by a curtain; for this separation had no meaning except in relation to the ark of the covenant. But here the sign is confounded with the thing signified. The latter, God’s presence in the holy of holies, was still there, only its outward symbol was wanting. The loss of the ark must have been extremely painful to the nation. This alone justified the words spoken by Haggai in Haggai 2:3, that the second temple was as nothing in comparison with the first, which refer chiefly to external things. The author of the book of Cosri, in part ii. § 28, says very truly that the ark with the mercy-seat and the cherubim was the foundation, the root, the heart, and the seal of the whole temple and of the whole Levitical worship. The way in which everything holy under the Old Testament was connected with the ark of the covenant already proved that the ark of the covenant was made before everything else. ‘Area foederis,’ says Wits. Miscellanea Sacra, tom. i. p. 439, ‘veluti cor totius religionis Israeliticae primum omnium formata est.’ It was esteemed the most costly treasure of the nation. This, the place where God’s honour dwelt, Psalms 26:8, where He manifested Himself in His most glorious revelation, was called the glory of Israel; comp. 1 Samuel 4:21-22, Ps. 68:61. It is true that in a spiritual sense the ark of the covenant still existed under the second temple, as we have already intimated; to the eye of faith it was still visible in the empty holy of holies. If this had not been so, there could never have been any thought of building the second temple. The God of heaven and of earth was still in a special sense the God of Israel; the temple had still a numen praesens. But the visible pledge of this presence which He had formerly given to the nation was now wanting, the support which He had formerly vouchsafed to their weak faith was taken away; and hence it must have been far more difficult to rise to the consciousness of His mercy. If we inquire into the reasons of this withdrawal, we see that on the one side it was continued punishment for the sins of the nation. The non-restoration of the pledge of the presence of God in the nation showed the people that their repentance, and therefore their reconciliation with God, was incomplete, and threatened them with the total cessation of this presence, unless they became truly reconciled with the Lord. Hence it forms the link between the Chaldee and the Romish destructions. In this respect the loss of the ark of the covenant stands on a level with so many other signs of the incompleteness of the restoration of the grace of God, of the melancholy external condition of the nation, etc. This was what the want of the ark of the covenant testified to the mass of the people. For them it was an actual punishment and threat. But the circumstance had a different meaning for the ἐκλογὴ. In the kingdom of God there is no decay without compensation. The decay of the old forms a guarantee of the approach of the new and more glorious. In order to make the longing for this the more intense, the old was taken away considerably sooner, before the new was given; just as it was necessary for the Davidic race to lose the glory which it already possessed, before it could attain to its true and perfect glory. It must have been the more easy to recognise this meaning in the circumstance, since Jeremiah had already foretold that at a future time the Lord would manifest Himself in a far more real way than by the ark of the covenant, so that the loss of the most glorious thing that they possessed would seem to be their gain; comp. the remarkable prophecy, Jeremiah 3:16 : “And it shall come to pass, when ye be multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, saith the Lord, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the Lord; neither shall it come to mind, neither shall they remember it, neither shall they visit it, neither shall that be done any more.” The third thing which, according to Jewish writers, was wanting in the second temple was the Shekinah, the habitation of God,—a cloud of fire which, according to Jewish tradition, is said to have floated constantly in the space above the mercy-sent between the two cherubim. This visible presence of God ceased with the destruction of the temple of Solomon. But the theory of a constant visible presence of God in the tabernacle of the testimony, and in the first temple, proves, on nearer examination, to be a Jewish figment. It is only in so far true, that the presence of the Lord in the tabernacle of testimony and in the first temple, which was generally invisible, sometimes on extraordinary occasions manifested itself also in a visible way, as Vitringa rightly perceived, Obrs. S. T. p. 169. The principal passage, Leviticus 16:2, does not speak of a constant visible presence, but of isolated appearances; of these, however, it speaks most distinctly, so that only the most forced interpretation, such as Bähr has attempted, p. 396, can take this meaning out of it. And, moreover, in every other place where mention is made of a visible presence of the Lord, on the consecration of the tabernacle of testimony and of the temple of Solomon, it appears as something extraordinary and momentary. The defenders of the Shekinah—among whom Rau, Professor in Herborn, is the most learned and is the author of a whole book on the subject, de Nube super Arcam Foederis, Utrecht, 1760—appeal to the fact that Ezekiel saw the glory of the Lord above the cherubim rise out of the temple before the destruction, Ezekiel 11:22. But this argument has no weight. We have to do with a vision, which by its nature must necessarily drag the invisible into the sphere of the visible, and materialize the spiritual. If, therefore, the presence of the Lord had, as a rule, been spiritual even in the tabernacle of testimony, and under the first temple, it follows that in this respect there was no difference between the first temple and the second, for the same presence continued even under the second temple. The fourth blessing in which, according to the Jews, the second temple was deficient, is the spirit of prophecy. They believe that Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi only prophesied until the time of the completion of the temple, and then all three died in one year. With the completion of the temple prophecy entirely ceased. On the other hand, we must remember that Malachi did not appear until some time after Zechariah and Haggai, and was contemporary with Nehemiah. There are arguments of considerable weight for supposing that Ezra is concealed under the name of Malachi, which is taken from the prophecy itself. On the whole, however, there is no doubt with regard to the correctness of the Jewish opinion. Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi were plainly the only prophets of their time, and the last of the old covenant. They hold the same position with respect to the prophethood under the first temple, as the dominion of Zerubbabel to the earlier Davidic kingship. In their isolated appearance they are rather to be looked upon as suggestive of the prophethood, pointing to its absence and its future impending glorious restoration, than as representing the prophethood in themselves. This cessation of the prophethood, which continued till the time of the manifestation, is intelligible from the whole character of the post-exile time. It is characteristic of this period that Ezra, the scribe, plays so important a part in it. Scholarship now took the place of prophecy. The period bears throughout the character of dependence, of a leaning upon the former, which is perceptible even in the few prophets who still come forward. These, by the statement of the Jews, are the most important things in which the second temple was deficient. Let us now look once more at the mind and spirit of the nation during this period, which we recognise intuitively from Haggai and Zechariah. Those who returned were inspired with a universal and lively enthusiasm. The beginning of the salvation which had been foretold by the prophets before the exile, was now at hand; and since these prophets had made no separation between the beginning and the end, but rather, in accordance with the nature of prophecy, had depicted the salvation in its whole extent without temporal separation, the nation had no doubt that the accomplishment would soon follow, that the kingdom of God was on its way to glorification, while the power of the world was near its overthrow. But the reality by no means corresponded to this expectation,—it rather offered a direct contrast. Israel remained under the dominion of the heathen, a poor, wretched, despised nation; it was still without a capital; there could be no thought of restoring the walls of Jerusalem, for this would at once have aroused the suspicion of the heathen rulers,—it was an open village; the house of God, which they had begun to build, presented a very meagre appearance in comparison with the former splendid edifice, and even the completion of this tabernacle was for a long time prevented by the machinations of the enemy, so that the nation seemed to be partially deprived even of that which the Lord had given them through Cyrus. Heathenism, on the other hand, still continued in the bloom of its power, full of pride in its own might and that of its idols, scarcely deigning to bestow a glance on Israel and its God. In this state of things the thoughts of hearts were laid open. Two separate parties now appeared, which had formerly been undistinguishable, owing to the all-absorbing enthusiasm. The first consisted of those who truly feared God. These justly recognised in the state of things an actual declaration on the part of God that the repentance of the nation was still incomplete, that it was not yet ripe for a higher stage of redemption. But in thus directing their glance towards the sin, they were in danger of losing sight of the mercy; they thought the guilt and sinfulness of the nation were so great that the Lord could never again have mercy on them; they were almost in despair. The Lord comforts them by His servants; He gives them the assurance that all the glorious predictions of the prophets will at a future time be fulfilled; especially He directs their glance to the Redeemer, through whom the Lord will simultaneously put an end to the sins and the sorrows of His people. The Messianic prophecies of Zechariah are the most important, the clearest, and the most characteristic of all, next to those of Isaiah. This mission was given not only to the prophets, but also to a man who was singularly gifted in the department of sacred song, the author of the anonymous psalms of degrees, more correctly pilgrim-songs, Psalms 120 ff ., in which the burden is comfort to all. Among these psalms the reference to the time of the origin is most clearly stamped on the first, Psalms 120, which calls God to help against evil calumny (the machinations of the Samaritans) in confident expectation of His assistance. Again, the same object characterizes also the group of psalms which were sung at the dedication of the new temple, Psalms 135-146. The tendency to comfort and raise up the people of God is common to the whole group. Psalms 135-136 point to the glorious works of God in nature and history. Psalms 137 quickens the hope in the impending judgment on the enemy. Psalms 146 represents the Lord as the omnipotent and faithful helper of His suffering people. The interpolated psalms of David occupy themselves chiefly with the glorious David and the promise given to the nation of the eternal kingship of his race; they carry the Davidic race and the nation comfortingly through all the changes of the world which threaten to bring this promise to nought, and conclude with a solemn “We praise thee, O God, for the final glorious fulfilment of this promise.” The second party consisted of the hypocrites. These did not hesitate to seek the cause of the delay of the salvation in God, instead of in themselves. Ignorant of true righteousness, they thought that because the nation had renounced gross idolatry, all had been done on their side that could be required of them. They murmured and forgot even the slight external fear of God which they had still retained. For them also the prophets, especially Zechariah, describe the future blessings of God, in order by this means to give them an incentive to true repentance. But at the same time they make it distinctly understood that without this repentance they can have no part in the blessings; they recall the judgments which befell those who mocked the warning of the earlier prophets, and threaten new judgments, equally terrible. Here also the psalms of this time are closely connected with the prophets. In Psalms 125:4-5, we read, “Do good, O Lord, unto those that be good, and to them that are upright in their hearts. As for such as turn aside unto their crooked ways, the Lord shall lead them forth with the workers of iniquity: but peace shall be upon Israel.” ======================================================================== CHAPTER 51: 51. § 3. EZRA AND NEHEMIAH ======================================================================== § 3. Ezra and Nehemiah The sources for this period are the second half of the book of Ezra, in which we have an account by Ezra himself of his activity until the coming of Nehemiah, and the book of Nehemiah, with a statement of what he did for the welfare of the new colony, but also giving a very full account, in Nehemiah 8-10, of an event in which Ezra had the primas partes. Parallel with the book of Nehemiah, giving remarkable disclosures respecting the mind and disposition at that time, we have the prophecy which bears the name of Malachi, a name which in all probability was not a proper name but a symbolical one, borrowed from the prophecy itself. The four Psalms , 147-150, which were sung at the dedication of the walls, under Nehemiah, also serve as a source. Finally, the book of Ecclesiastes, which undoubtedly belongs to this period, whose historical presupposition is the deep humiliation of the people of God, and their bondage to the power of the world, and whose tendency is to give comfort on the one hand, and on the other to expose the moral religious evils of the time, and to urge their removal. Among these we find especially moroseness, avarice, and a righteousness merely external and apparent, the first beginnings of Pharisaism. With respect to chronological relations, this period is not immediately connected with that which precedes it, but they are separated by a considerable interval, which is passed over in sacred history because it offers no material. The former period comprised the twenty years from the first year of Cyrus to the sixth year of Darius. Our period begins with the march of Ezra to Canaan in the seventh year of Artaxerxes. Between them therefore lie the remaining thirty years of the thirty-six years of Darius and the whole reign of Xerxes, regarding the duration of which there is a difference of opinion, some maintaining that it was twenty-one years in length, while others, on the contrary, assert that it was only eleven. Finally, six years of Artaxerxes. These forty-seven years are completely passed over in our first important source, the book of Ezra. In Ezra 7:1 ff. the events which follow are connected with the words, “And after these things Ezra went up.” Among the remaining books Esther alone supplements it. The history narrated in this book belongs, as is now universally acknowledged, to the time of Xerxes, and he is the Ahasuerus of the book. It is necessary for an introduction to the Old Testament to occupy itself much more fully with this book than Old Testament history. The latter has merely to indicate the principal point of view from which this event must be regarded. The centre of it is formed by the great deliverance vouchsafed to the Jews in the diaspora, outside Palestine, in a danger where no human help was available, into which they had fallen by their faith in Jehovah and their acknowledgment of Him; for Mordecai refused to worship on religious grounds, and Haman based his proposal to punish the whole nation on a religious motive. This incident contains an important doctrine, viz. this, that the government of God was not confined to the colony on the Jordan, but that the diaspora was also an object of His special oversight; and it is evident that the Jews took this meaning out of the event, from the circumstance that the feast of Purim, which perpetuated the memory of it, was introduced into the colony on the Jordan no less than the diaspora. If we consider the event and the doctrine contained in it, we recognise that the diaspora was destined in the future for the realization of important designs of God; that we are not to seek the cause of its origin only in the indifferentism of the great mass of the Israelites, but must rather direct our attention to the divine causality. With respect to the condition of the colony on the Jordan in the time between Zerubbabel and Ezra and Nehemiah, we have only one single incidental notice which contains any information. From Nehemiah 5:15 we learn that the new governors who were placed over the people after the death of Zerubbabel did not consider what was best for the people of God in the discharge of their office, but only consulted their own interest. It is true that Zerubbabel had sons, but none of them succeeded him on the throne. Here we read: “But the former governors, that had been before me, were chargeable unto the people, and had taken of them bread and wine, besides forty shekels of silver; yea, even their servants bare rule over the people: but so did not I, because of the fear of God.” How little these governors, who were probably heathen officers, did for the good of the people, is apparent from the melancholy external condition in which Nehemiah found affairs on his coming. And we perceive that even internally everything had become worse after the death of Zerubbabel and the two prophets Haggai and Zechariah, from the great abuses which Ezra finds on his arrival. Many scholars, after the precedent of Josephus, c. Ap. i. § 22, believe they find a notice referring to the Jews in this interval, in a passage which he has preserved from the poet Choerilus, who, in describing the march of the various nations of which the army of Xerxes consisted, says: “Then followed a nation of peculiar physiognomy and dress, speaking the Phenician language. They inhabit the mountains of Solyma, along which there is a great sea.” The Phenician language, the name Solyma resembling Jerusalem, the mountains, the sea (the Dead Sea),—everything in this description appeared to point to the Jews. But nevertheless Bochart, Geog. Sacr. P. ii. 1. 1, chap. 2, has shown by overwhelming arguments that the Solymi in Pisidia are meant. Let us now turn to the events of our period. It begins with the mission of Ezra. The most important thing here is to establish the correct view with respect to the authority of Ezra, which is given in Ezra 7:11 ff., and also with regard to his whole position, resting upon it. The common view, recently brought forward again by Auberlen, is that his authority extended to all ecclesiastical and civil matters; that it gave him not merely the rights of a spiritual reformer, but also the dignity of a Persian governor,—the position previously occupied by Zerubbabel, and afterwards by Nehemiah. But this view is undoubtedly false, and has given rise to much perplexity and erroneous thought. The following is the correct view:—Ezra’s mission was only such as became a priest and scribe. It was limited to the sphere of religion. The only passage which is quoted in favour of a more comprehensive mission is Ezra 7:25, “And thou, Ezra, after the wisdom of thy God that is in thine hand, set magistrates and judges, which may judge all the people that are beyond the river, all such as know the laws of thy God; and teach ye them that know them not.” But since this refers only to matters in which the determination was taken from the law of God, it was quite natural that some authority should be conceded to Ezra in this department also, even if he were simply a spiritual reformer. This was the only passage under the Mosaic legislation where the priests took part in civil affairs, while they were quite exempt from administration and government. Nothing appears elsewhere in his authority which would lead to the inference that Ezra had any political position. Against this hypothesis we have the fact that he is always called “the scribe,” a name denoting the character of his office, and never “the governor,” like Zerubbabel and Nehemiah; and, again, all his transactions of which we have any account relate to the sphere of religion in Israel. Moreover, Nehemiah would not have expressed himself as he does, in Nehemiah 5:15, respecting his predecessors, if Ezra had immediately preceded him in his office; the passage presupposes that besides the office of Ezra there was also the office of a governor. Nor can we explain the melancholy state in which Nehemiah found the civil affairs of the colony, if Ezra had received royal authority to ameliorate it; and there is nowhere the slightest indication that Nehemiah, who worked along with Ezra for a considerable time, interfered with him in his office, but, on the contrary, they worked peaceably together without any contact between their respective spheres of activity, holding the same relation towards one another as Zerubbabel and Joshua. According to the more recent view, Ezra must have been partially deposed. Ezra did not come to Judea alone, but with a considerable number of his countrymen. His first important undertaking was the removal of foreign wives. The main thing here is to ascertain the relation of this measure to the Mosaic law. If Ezra put away all the strange wives with their children, it appears at the first glance that he went beyond the Mosaic law. In the Pentateuch, for example, there is no prohibition against marriage with Canaanitish women and the heathen generally, in itself, but only against a certain kind of marriage, where the native heathen remained heathen. Wherever we find any ordinances of this nature, the prohibition is only against such marriages as are the result of a covenant with the inhabitants of the land. Heathen women who were captured in war, and were therefore removed from all national intercourse, might be married by Israelites, according to Deuteronomy 21:10-14. Hence it would appear that Ezra might have been satisfied with insisting that the heathen wives should renounce all heathen practices. But, on nearer consideration, it is evident that under existing circumstances the command against unequal marriages was to be regarded as absolutely forbidding all marriages with heathen wives, and involved the unconditional dissolution of all such marriages. For, owing to the circumstances of the time, marriages with heathen wives must necessarily have borne more or less a character of inequality, and it was impossible to remove the deeply-rooted heathen spirit except by the dissolution of these marriages. The great number of heathen women in the new colony was in itself calculated to strengthen individuals in their heathen faith. And, again, it was much less probable that a heathen woman would renounce her heathen consciousness when the nation into which she entered had sunk so low, and was in a state of such deep degradation. Finally, at that time heathen wives had much greater facility in communicating with their kindred. The heathen nations from whom they were descended and the Judaites were both subjects of the Persians, and the case was therefore very different now from the time when the state was independent and flourishing, when a heathen woman who married an Israelite was, eo ipso, cut off from all external communication with heathenism. In this state of things the conduct of Ezra will be found to have been in perfect conformity with the law and the spirit of the lawgiver. The very fact that so many were married to foreign wives, shows how much contact there must have been with the heathen, and under these circumstances it would have been most dangerous to have prepared a hearth for heathenism within the state itself. The heathen woman could have worked more effectively for the spread of heathenism in Israel than any mission. The question was of the existence or non-existence of the people of God; and it redounds to the great honour of Ezra, and to his everlasting credit, that he did not suffer himself to be deterred from vigorous measures by any false sentimentality. The prayer uttered by Ezra on this occasion is characteristic of his whole standpoint, and of the spirit of the post-exile piety generally. In speaking of it, Hess says with some justice, Rulers of Judah after the Exile, part i. p. 367: “A prayer which almost forces upon the reader the conviction that, notwithstanding all his well-meant zeal, the man was not the most spiritual suppliant. It is characteristic of the religious history after the exile, that those who were the most zealous observers of the Mosaic customs were proportionately deficient in the spirit of freedom and heartiness. But we cannot therefore accuse an Ezra either of hypocrisy, or of that small-minded tendency to strange tradition and scholastic lore with which religion was afterwards overladen.” The prayer is certainly calculated to show us the difference between a scribe, however pious, and a prophet, whose place was now filled by the scribes. The tension of extremes had ceased, the religion of Jehovah had gained the victory; but the spirit was not yet so powerful under the old covenant, as to be able to dispense with the powerful impulse which had been given to it by the struggle against a mighty opposition. Under the new covenant the case is different. The spirit then required nothing more for its invigoration than friction and external incentives generally. Of the other efforts of Ezra until the coming of Nehemiah we know very little, and of the time which followed it we have only an account of his participation in one single important act. From his authority, and from the analogy of that first undertaking, which betrays an important personality and a determined zeal for the carrying out of the Mosaic law, which could not possibly have been satisfied with one single performance, we must conclude that he made every exertion to promote the public observance of the ordinances of the Mosaic law, even to its minutest details. That his activity in this respect was extremely important, successful, and regulative for centuries, also appears from the great respect in which he was held by the later Jews. He could not have been so highly esteemed if he had not done far more than he tells us himself in his book. Even Mohammed thought that the Jews looked upon Ezra as the son of God. They do, in fact, call him the second Moses, the chief of the scribes; compare the eulogiums in Buxtorf, Tib. c. 10, § 99 ff. The so-called third and fourth books of Ezra represent him in mythic glorification. The most enduring merit of Ezra is for what he accomplished, for the canon of the Old Testament,—a merit which is unanimously ascribed to him by Jewish tradition. But this must be more fully treated in the introduction to the Old Testament. In order to show that the activity of Ezra, and other men who worked in the same spirit and had a similar mission, was not enough, but that the appearance of a man like Nehemiah was absolutely necessary,—one who would occupy the same position with respect to civil affairs as Ezra had occupied with regard to spiritual matters,—we shall here examine into the condition of Jerusalem, the civil and religious centre of the nation, on whose strength and importance so much still depended at the time of Ezra, and until the coming of Nehemiah. It is also of importance to realize this condition, because a knowledge of it best enables us to understand the very depressed feeling of the God-fearing in Israel, and the murmuring defiance of the hypocrites, with which the three post-exile prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, have everywhere to do. As long as the head was sick, all the members must feel sick; and this feeling of sickness led either to the verge of despair or to defiance, according to the respective dispositions of the individuals. Our view of the condition of Israel until the time of Nehemiah, which teaches us at the same time the importance of his mission and the mercy which was shown in it to the nation, is briefly as follows:—Until the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, the nation had properly no capital. Jerusalem was in a state similar to that of Athens before the Greek war of freedom. It was an open, thinly-inhabited village, exposed to all the attacks of its neighbours. In the wide space covered with the ruins of former splendour, a few isolated dwellings were lost among the rubbish. This lay in such great heaps about the city, that the way round it was impassable. We must first set aside the arguments which have been brought forward against this view of the condition of Jerusalem and in favour of a more advantageous one. In the first place, Haggai 1:4 is appealed to. The prophet there, in the beginning of the reign of Darius Hystaspis, reproaches the inhabitants of Jerusalem for dwelling in ceiled houses while the house of the Lord lay waste. But nothing more can be inferred from the passage than the existence of a number of better built houses in Jerusalem, which no one doubts. On this supposition alone the prophet had sufficient foundation for making the contrast palpable, for applying to the whole what in reality applied only to a part. If he had spoken as an historian, he would have said, “While the people of the Lord already dwelt in houses, of which many were even ceiled, the habitation of the Lord still lay in ruins.” Again, appeal is made to Ezra 4:12, where the enemies of the Jews write to Artaxerxes, that the Jews, with rebellious intent, are restoring the walls of the city. But here the allusion is to an unsuccessful attempt to restore the walls, made in the earlier time of Artaxerxes. Immediately after its beginning, a strict prohibition came from the Persian court, at the instigation of the enemies of the Jews. The passage shows, on the contrary, that Jerusalem was an open village very shortly before the coming of Nehemiah. Only a misunderstanding of the passage Ezra 9:9 has led Auberlen to quote it in favour of a restoration of the walls before the time of Nehemiah. The allusion there is not to the restoration of the walls, permitted by the grace of God, but to a hedge. The hedge is an image, borrowed from Isaiah 10:5, of the protection which hovered over Israel. Finally, appeal is made to Nehemiah 1:3, where those who had come from Jerusalem to Nehemiah say, “The remnant that are left of the captivity there in the province are in great affliction and reproach: the wall of Jerusalem also is broken down, and the gates thereof are burned with fire.” On the presupposition that it was necessary for these strangers to tell Nehemiah something quite new, some have concluded from the passage that the town was already built up again before the time of Nehemiah, and was provided with walls and doors, but that it was again destroyed by the surrounding enemies, and that the only merit due to Nehemiah is that of having obviated the consequences of this destruction immediately after it had taken place. But this presupposition is certainly false. What Nehemiah heard from the strangers he knew very well, but it had probably never affected him so deeply as now, when he heard it from eye-witnesses, who spoke with an emotion drawn from their own painful experience, of the misery, of the deep humiliation of the people of God; for in them he saw, as it were, the delegates sent to him by the ruins of Jerusalem. The destruction of the walls and gates here spoken of, is no other than the Chaldee. Nowhere do we find the slightest trace of any other. The enemies of the Jews, in Nehemiah 4:2, know only of one. The book of Ezra contains no allusion to the walls having been restored. No edict of any Persian king, previous to that issued by Artaxerxes in his twentieth year in favour of Nehemiah, gave them the slightest vestige of permission to undertake the work; and surely no one will maintain that this permission was taken for granted. The contrary is evident, from the fact that the enemies of the Jews could find no more effective accusation against them than that they were building the walls. It was a different thing to give an unarmed nation permission to return, and to give this same people permission to fortify their capital. The Persians still vividly remembered how much this capital had troubled the Chaldees, their predecessors in the supremacy over Asia; and if they had forgotten it, they would have been reminded of it by the hostile neighbours of the Jews. Only the closeness of the relation in which Nehemiah stood to Artaxerxes had power to overcome the suspicion common to all Asiatic rulers, who were well aware that their power rested solely on the weakness of their subjects. In positive confirmation of our view we may adduce the following arguments. In Zechariah, the condition of Jerusalem appears throughout as provisional. Those who mourned over the melancholy present he comforts with a prediction of the impending future restoration; comp., for example, Zechariah 2, Zechariah 6:13, Zechariah 8:5. That this condition lasted until the time of Nehemiah, we learn from his own book. In Nehemiah 2:3, Nehemiah 2:5, for example, Nehemiah says to the king of the Persians, “The city, the place of my fathers’ sepulchres, lieth waste, and the gates thereof are consumed with fire. Send me unto Judah, unto the city of my fathers’ sepulchres, that I may build it.” According to Nehemiah 2:17 of the same chapter, he says, in Jerusalem itself, to the inhabitants, “We see the distress that we are in, how Jerusalem lieth waste, and the gates thereof are burned with fire.” Nehemiah 7:4 is also very significant: “How the city was large and great, but the people were few therein, and the houses were not builded,”—a passage which refers to the time immediately after the completion of the city walls. These had been restored in their old extent, for it was not necessary to make an absolutely new erection, but only to repair the old. The walls were of course not completely thrown down, but only very much broken, and the few houses were completely lost in the great area. We have a remarkable contrast to this condition of the city before Nehemiah, in what we are told by some heathen writers respecting its condition after Nehemiah; and here let us refer to them, in order by this contrast to throw light on the whole significance of the mission of Nehemiah, and to show how great things the Lord did for His people by His invisible activity. The most remarkable accounts are contained in Herodotus. That the Cadytis which he mentions was Jerusalem we consider fully established, notwithstanding the contradiction of Hitzig, who tries to prove that it is Gaza. The conviction forces itself upon every unprejudiced reader, and has therefore always been upheld by the greater number of critics and the most important authorities. Among the earlier ones we shall name only Prideaux, i. p. 106 ff., and Cellarius, ed. Schwarz, ii. p. 456; and among the later, Dahlmann, Researches, Part ii. p. 75, and Bähr on Herodotus, l. 922, where other literature is also found. Herodotus mentions the town Cadytis in two passages. The first, ii. 15 “After the battle he took Cadytis, which is a large city in Syria,” refers to the occupation of Jerusalem by Pharaoh-necho, therefore to the time previous to the Chaldee destruction. Yet Herodotus describes Jerusalem as a city which was very large, even in his day. But the second passage, iii. 5, is far more important. He here speaks of Cadytis, “a city of the Syrians, which is called Palestine,” in his opinion not much smaller than Sardis. But even under the Persian supremacy, and after it had ceased to be the residence of the Lydian kings, Sardis was so important a town, that in antiquity it was always called The Great. While these passages in Herodotus refer to a time which bordered closely on that of Nehemiah, the account of Hecatäus of Abdera, a writer of the time of Alexander and of Ptolemy Lagi, has reference to the condition of the city about a hundred years later, but nevertheless possesses no small interest for our purpose. It is to be found in a fragment in Josephus, l. 1, c. Ap. § 22, and in Eusebius, proep. ix. c. 4. “The Jews,” we there read, “have many citadels and villages in their territory; but they have one fortified city, of about fifty stadia in circumference, inhabited by nearly twelve myriads of men. They call it Jerusalem.” The maturity of the Israelitish nation had begun at the time when David raised it to be the capital of the kingdom, and enabled it really to fulfil this its destination. Nehemiah was not able to do as much for Jerusalem, and, through it, for Israel, as David had done. The nation remained in subjection to the Persians; yet the national consciousness was very much strengthened by what he did, while a foundation was given for Israelitish piety. Hence Jesus Sirach justly exclaims, in Sir 49:13 : Νεεμίου ἐπὶ πολὺ τὸ μνημόσυνον τοῦ ἐγείραντος ἡμῖν τείχη πεπτωκότα καὶ στήσαντος πύλας καὶ μοχλοὺς, καὶ ἀνεγείραντος τὰ οἰκόπεδα ἡμῶν (has restored our waste places, our ruins). Only a false, unpractical spiritualism can mistake the importance of acts such as those of Nehemiah, or object that he did not possess the same spiritual maturity which we find in other servants of God, whose mission was more immediately directed to spiritual things, while his only aim was to place them on a secure foundation. With regard to the personal relations of Nehemiah we know but little. His ancestors must have dwelt in Jerusalem, for in Nehemiah 2:3 he says that the graves of his fathers are there. But we know neither his race nor his tribe. His father Hachaliah had not availed himself of the permission to return to the fatherland, withheld probably by possessions and honours acquired in the land of captivity. It appears that he dwelt at Susa, and that it was he who opened up to his son the path to the influential position which he occupied. Nehemiah was namely one of the cupbearers at the court of Artaxerxes,—a very important post, since it gave an opportunity of being often about the king, and of taking advantage of his favourable humours. This position also gave him an opportunity of increasing the considerable fortune which he probably possessed originally,—a circumstance which afterwards very much facilitated the success of his mission, since he did not set his heart on riches, but willingly and joyfully employed them in the interest of his calling. In spite of his great fortune, he was not a rich man. Although born and educated in a strange land, yet his heart clung to Zion. His constant wish to be able to do something for it became a definite resolve, when the melancholy condition of affairs there was brought home to him by people who came from Jerusalem. He began to carry out this resolve by making an earnest petition to the Lord for Israel, His people, and for the sanctuary of His choice, having first fasted,—the symbolic expression of the repentant heart under the old covenant,—and Nehemiah here regarded himself as the representative of the whole nation. Having assured himself of help from above, he turned to the earthly king. Looking at the matter from a merely human point of view, he had some reason for hoping to prevail with his request. For Artaxerxes—called The Long-handed by Grecian historians, because he could touch his knees with his hands when standing upright—was a magnanimous and gracious prince, and the special favour in which he was held by him already opened up and prepared the way for his mission before he received it. The king himself gave him an opportunity of preferring his request. He noticed his melancholy, and inquired into the cause of it. Nehemiah answered, that he mourned for Jerusalem, and begged to be sent there with authority to do what was best for it. At once a decree was issued, commanding the restoration of the walls and gates of Jerusalem, and Nehemiah was invested with the dignity of a governor of Judea, and charged with the carrying out of this decree. The king gave him a military escort, sent instructions to the royal governor on this side of the Euphrates to give him every assistance, and commanded the head overseer of the royal forests in that district to supply him with as much wood as he required. Nehemiah retained his position at court. He was to return there as soon as he had finished his work. But it seems that his patriotism, which had its root in piety, did not permit him to return as soon as the king expected, according to Nehemiah 2:6, but that he remained twelve full years in the new colony without undertaking a journey to the court; and even when he did set out on this journey, in the thirteenth year, he did so with the determination to return to his sphere of activity in Jerusalem, for he recognised that the fulfilment of this was the true task of his life, while he attached no importance to his position at court except as a means to an end. Nehemiah encountered not a few difficulties on his arrival at Jerusalem. He had first to deal with foreign enemies, whose heads were Sanballat the Samaritan, Tobiah the Ammonite, and Geshem the Arabian. The surrounding nations were bent upon forcing the people of the Lord to relinquish their obstinate exclusiveness, and heathenizing them; and an undertaking such as that of Nehemiah, which consolidated the nation in itself, must necessarily interfere with this plan. Moreover, there was a heathenizing party even in the nation itself, who combined with the enemy outside in making every effort to hinder the undertaking, and even attempted to work on the people by false prophets. In almost every period we find a heathenizing party of this kind among the covenant-nation, which was, à priori, only to be expected. How powerful they were at this time, we already see from the many mixed marriages which Ezra found, as well as from the fact that the vigorous measures which he instituted against it proved effectual for so short a time. There does not, however, seem to have been any actual idolatry at that time. The broken power of heathenism is seen in the circumstance that the heathenizing tendency within Judaism after the exile, as a rule, shares only the heathen scepticism, but holds aside from heathen superstition. That heathenizing party, which powerfully reasserted itself during the subsequent absence of Nehemiah, rightly saw in the external openness of Jerusalem to the heathen a symbol and pledge of the abolition of the inner wall of partition. This explains their opposition. But Nehemiah would not be discouraged by these difficulties. He urged on the work with such zeal, that it was accomplished in fifty- two days. It would have been impossible to have finished it in so short a time if it had been necessary to build up an entirely new wall. That very important remains of the former city-wall were still standing, is not merely probable, but can be demonstrated by positive proof, so that there was nothing more to do than to fill up the gaps. Owing to the machinations of the enemy, it was necessary for one part of the nation to remain under arms while the other built, and even those who were building had their weapons at hand, that they might seize them at the first signal,—a fact which has often been regarded as having symbolic significance, as an individualization of the truth that in every reformation of the people of God which is to raise them from a deeply degraded condition, the building and the struggling activity must go hand in hand. This necessity has its basis in the fact that important interests are invariably attached to the maintenance of the old wickedness, of the old man, of the world, of Satan, who cannot bear to see the kingdom of God flourish; therefore it is impossible to recover in a peaceful way from a state of decay. The first great work of Nehemiah was therefore now finished, that which has always been regarded by the Jewish nation as the principal object of his mission, as we learn from the passage quoted from Jesus Sirach. The consecration of the walls and gates was performed with great solemnity. The psalms sung on this occasion, which have already been pointed out, the last of the whole collection, are distinguished from all others belonging to the post-exile period by their tone of unqualified rejoicing, without any background of sadness. The nation here first exhibits renewed joy in its existence. In Psalms 149 we even meet with a warlike tone again. At the building of the wall Judah had again raised the sword against the heathen for the first time since the Chaldee destruction, and with a happy result. This taking up of arms awakened in the nation the new and lively hope of future victory over the servile heathen world,—a hope which was first of all externally fulfilled in the victories of the time of the Maccabees, whose success had their foundation in what was done by Nehemiah; but infinitely more gloriously when Israel in the time of the Messiah took up the sword of the Spirit, and with it executed the most noble revenge on the heathen conquerors. Nehemiah now proceeded to provide for the civil welfare of the city, leaving the care of spiritual affairs, in so far as they did not directly interfere with civil matters, to Ezra, who held the same relation towards him which Joshua had formerly held towards Zerubbabel. The next thing which he did was to make regulations respecting the way in which the re-fortified city was to be guarded. His attention was then drawn to the small population of Jerusalem, which would necessarily make its defence a matter of far greater difficulty; and he saw clearly how the strength of the national consciousness was dependent on the strength of the centre. He first persuaded the heads of the nation to build themselves houses in Jerusalem, and to dwell there. Others followed their example, and voluntarily resorted to the capital, whose good fortification, in the view of many, outweighed the advantages offered by a residence in their country possessions. Of the remainder, every tenth man was to move into the city. What most strikes us here is the proportion of priests and Levites who determined to repair to the city to those who remained. After all who had resolved to become citizens had carried out their determination, the number of grown up men was 468 of the tribe of Judah, 928 of the tribe of Benjamin, 1192 members of the priesthood, and 456 Levites. The cause is easily understood. The vicinity of the sanctuary must have been especially attractive to the priests and Levites; but in its consequences the circumstance was necessarily very significant. The preponderance of the priesthood in the capital must infallibly act as a powerful incentive to the priestly spirit in the nation, which had already made great progress even apart from this. Not only would the priests by this means obtain a direct influence in affairs of government, but by their strength in the very centre of the nation they must necessarily exercise a far more powerful influence on its spirit. One circumstance which very much facilitated the official activity of Nehemiah was his freedom from material interests, and his considerable fortune, which enabled him to renounce all those advantages to which his external position gave him a just claim. His predecessors, who had probably belonged to the great families who combined against Nehemiah with his foreign enemies, had taken advantage of their position to enrich themselves. They demanded a very considerable salary. But Nehemiah took nothing; and of his own means provided free tables, generally containing 150 covers. This disinterestedness could not fail to tell in his favour, especially in the reform which he undertook respecting matters of debt. By his example he put to shame the rich men who practised usury contrary to the law, who had taken possession of the lands of the poor, and even of their persons; and he succeeded so far as to obtain the remission of all debts, and the emancipation of possessions and persons. By all these ameliorations of their outward condition the people were rendered very susceptible, and their chiefs thought it would be unjustifiable to allow this favourable moment to pass by without trying to make a deeper impression on them. What use they made of it we learn from a section of Nehemiah, Nehemiah 8-10, which in recent times, after the example of Joh. Dav. Michaelis, has generally been taken out of the connection in which it there stands, and made to refer to the time previous to the coming of Nehemiah, on the utterly false ground that, according to Josephus, Ezra did not Jive to see the coming of Nehemiah. This testimony of Josephus has no weight whatever against the testimony of the book of Nehemiah, which represents Ezra as having performed that religious act under the civil rule of Nehemiah. It is a strange quid pro quo to correct the book of Nehemiah by Josephus. Ezra, on whom, as the spiritual head of the nation, the direction of the solemnities devolved, appointed on the civil new-year’s feast, and on the feast of tabernacles which also fell in the seventh month, a great public reading of the law, connected with a translation of it into the Chaldee language,—a circumstance from which we gather that Hebrew was at that time quite unintelligible to the mass of the nation, who had brought the Chaldee language with them out of exile. This reading made a very deep impression on the nation, which is not to be explained on the assumption that the law had hitherto been unknown to them, but solely and alone from the circumstances under which they now heard it. The proofs of faithfulness to the covenant which the Lord had just given them had touched their heart, and the reading of the law made them painfully conscious of their own unfaithfulness. Ezra and Nehemiah, discerning this repentant spirit, ordained a fast, i.e. a fast-day, two days after the feast; and on this day a solemn act was undertaken, by which the nation bound itself thenceforward to try and keep the law inviolable. This covenant was signed and sealed by the most important members of every class, Nehemiah at the head. In particular, they pledged themselves to keep certain prescriptions of the law which had been most frequently neglected in the times after the exile, as appears from the prominence here given to them, as well as from other reasons, viz. to avoid all mixed marriages, and to keep the sabbaths and sabbatical years, to pay the annual taxes to the temple, and also the tithes to the priests and Levites, from whose payment avarice was so prone to try and escape, as we learn from Malachi. The good impression which the reading of the law produced on this occasion called forth the determination that in future the law should be read in every city by the most learned Levites, or other scholars who had studied it well. This reading, like that of Ezra, may have taken place at first in the open air. But the inconveniences connected with this mode soon made themselves felt; the reading was transferred to tents or houses, and thus the institution of synagogues reached its full development, though its germs go back into far earlier times; comp. Acts 15:21. After Nehemiah had held his office for twelve years, he undertook a journey to Persia, which took place, therefore, in the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes. We have already seen that he had not been finally dismissed from Persia, but had only received temporary leave of absence. It might be of consequence to him to re-establish himself in the favour of the king, whose assistance he needed so much in the face of powerful opposition both at home and abroad. It is uncertain when Nehemiah returned from this journey. In Nehemiah 13:6 we read that it happened לקץימים. It is evident that this expression must be translated “after some time,” thus leaving the length of the absence undetermined, and not, as most translate it, “after the expiration of a year,” for the abuses which he found on his return were too great and numerous for so short an absence. After his return, he applied himself with the greatest zeal to the removal of the abuses which had crept in. The most important of these was the renewed prevalence of mixed marriages. The fact that this should have recurred so soon after the activity of Ezra, which was directed against it, and who must have died before the departure of Nehemiah, or at least soon after it; that it should have recurred so soon after the formal obligation to refrain from such marriages, which the nation had undertaken on the occasion already named,—shows how strong a temptation to such marriages lay in the relations of that time, and how difficult it then was to maintain the Israelitish national consciousness upright. The other abuses also belong mostly to the same department, and are due to a weakening of this national consciousness, to a removal of the barrier between Israel and heathendom. We see, therefore, how important it was that this evil should be opposed in the most energetic way. A false spiritualism would here have led to the destruction of the covenant-nation. We learn how deeply-rooted the evil was, from the fact that even the family of the high priest was tainted with it. One of the sons of Jehoiada the high priest had married the daughter of Sanballat the Horonite, a native of Horon or Beth-horon, a city formerly in the tribe of Ephraim, now in Samaria, who, according to Josephus, was Persian governor in Samaria. Nehemiah acted with great severity. He obliged all those who had taken strange wives either to separate from them or to leave the country. The son and brother of the high priest, called by Josephus Manasseh, preferred the latter. He repaired to his father-in-law in Samaria, who made him high priest in the temple on Gerizim, built on the occasion of his going over: so that the measures of Nehemiah against mixed marriages produced most important results, But here we must enter somewhat more closely into an important difference which occurs between Nehemiah and Josephus respecting this marriage of a son of the high priest, since the determination of the time of the building of the temple at Gerizim depends on it. In Nehemiah 13:28-29, we read, “And one of the sons of Joiada, the son of Eliashib the high priest, was son-in-law to Sanballat the Horonite: therefore I chased him from me. Remember them, O my God, because they have defiled the priesthood, and the covenant of the priesthood, and of the Levites,” i.e. of the covenant which Thou hast concluded with them. God had given glorious promises and prerogatives to the priests and Levites, but He had also imposed sacred obligations upon them. They were to set a pattern to the whole nation in their observance of the law, in their fulfilment of the command, “Be ye holy, for I am holy.” According to this, the event belonged to the time of Nehemiah, and therefore occurred under Artaxerxes. In Josephus, on the other hand, Ant. xi. 8. 4, it is related that Sanballat, who was made governor of Samaria by the last Darius, married his daughter to a distinguished priest of the Jews; his son-in-law was deprived of the priesthood and. banished from Jerusalem on account of this marriage, which was forbidden by the law. Sanballat then got permission from Alexander, whose party he espoused at the time of the siege of Tyre, to build a temple on Mount Gerizim, close to Samaria, after the pattern of the one in Jerusalem, and to appoint his son-in-law as high priest. After Sanballat, at the head of 8000 men, had personally assisted Alexander in this siege and that of Gaza, he died about the time when the latter place was taken. There is therefore a difference of more than a hundred years. The usual way of obviating this difficulty is by assuming that Nehemiah and Josephus spoke of a different event,—that there were two Sanballats. But this explanation is quite inadmissible. The Sanballat mentioned in the last chapter of Nehemiah is the same who frequently appears in the first chapters as the great adversary of Nehemiah, who sought to thwart every attempt for the deliverance of his people. And this Sanballat of Nehemiah is also identical with the one spoken of in Josephus. The Sanballat of Nehemiah was governor of Samaria, according to Ne 3:34; so also was the Sanballat of Josephus. Each was a great enemy of the Jews. Each gave his daughter to a distinguished Jewish priest. The authority of Josephus must indeed be extraordinarily great, if it were able to set aside such convincing arguments as these which speak for the identity, or to justify the assertion that the error is due to the author of the book of Nehemiah, which is the less admissible, since Nehemiah himself speaks in this passage; and all critics, even those who hold that the book contains later elements, and did not come from Nehemiah in its present form, agree in this, that all the passages in which Nehemiah himself speaks, do really belong to him. But in Josephus the history of the Persian period is full of the most palpable errors. For example, he speaks of a second return of the Israelites under Darius Hystaspis, of which the Scriptures know nothing. No less than 4,008,680 men are said to have returned on this occasion, but he gives them only 40,740 wives and children. The events narrated in the book of Esther he places under Artaxerxes instead of Xerxes; and, on the other hand, represents Ezra and Nehemiah as having come to Jerusalem under Xerxes instead of under Artaxerxes; he makes Ezra die before Nehemiah arrives, and places the coming of the latter in the twenty-fifth year instead of in the twentieth, while he makes the building of the walls to have lasted for three years and a half instead of fifty-two days, etc. When such is the character of his statements, how can it be a matter of surprise that in this case also he should have taken events out of their true connection, and have placed them in a fictitious one? The confusion is probably due to the fact that Josephus held the opinion common to nearly all Jews, that the Darius whom Alexander dethroned was the son of Ahasuerus (in his opinion, of Artaxerxes) and of Esther. From Artaxerxes he suddenly passes over in his history to Darius Codomannus, without saying a word of those who reigned in the interval. But however great the inaccuracy of Josephus be, yet his account is of essential value to us. Nehemiah carries his history no farther than the expulsion of the priest who had allied himself by marriage with Sanballat. The consequences of this expulsion had probably not begun to appear at the time when Nehemiah concluded his book. We learn what they were from Josephus, who throws light on the connection between that expulsion by Nehemiah and the building of the temple on Gerizim. This connection is quite natural. Owing to the whole tendency of the Samaritans, to the insecurity of a bad conscience which everywhere characterizes them, it must have been a matter of great rejoicing to them that they could oppose something analogous to the Jewish priesthood which was consecrated by the law. Not until they were able to do this did they summon courage to establish a Samaritan sanctuary in opposition to the Jewish one. Probably by the advice of Manasseh, they built it on Mount Gerizim, because this mountain, according to Deuteronomy 27:12 and Joshua 8, had been made sacred by the circumstance that the blessing on the faithful observance of the law had been pronounced there by the direction of Moses, after immigration into the land. To this real dignity they added a stolen one, by changing Ebal, which occurs in Deuteronomy 27:4 of the same chapter in Deuteronomy where the stones on which the law was written are commanded to be set up on Mount Ebal, into Gerizim. The example of Manasseh found many imitators. Not a few members of the heathenizing party, among them even priests, were attracted by the freer tendency of the Samaritans, who could never deny their origin, and, going over to them, were received with open arms. To these renegades (and not to the kingdom of the ten tribes) we must attribute the Israelitish element presented by Samaritanism, and even the language of the Samaritans. By this Jewish influence the last remnants of idolatry were banished from their midst. The Jewish hatred did not, however, diminish on this account, but acquired still greater intensity. It burned far more violently against the Samaritans, who were regarded as heathen that laid claim to the dignity of the people of God, than against the heathen themselves. It even went so far that all intercourse with them was forbidden; all the fruits of their land, and all that belonged to them, especially food and drink, was pronounced to be defiled, and equally unclean with pork; while all the members of this nation were for ever excluded from the right of being accepted as proselytes. So also they were excluded from all participation in eternal life after the resurrection from the dead. Compare the compilation in Lightfoot, Opp. i. p. 559. Jesus Sirach, Sir 50:26-27, speaks of “the foolish nation at Sichem as the most detestable of all nations;” and in the New Testament, John 8:48, the Jews employ the phrases, “Thou art a Samaritan,” and “Thou hast a devil,” almost indiscriminately. There is scarcely a doubt that it was Manasseh who first brought the Mosaic book of the law to the Samaritans, and introduced it among them. The idea that they possessed the Pentateuch at a much earlier time, and that it was transmitted to them from the kingdom of the ten tribes, is connected with the very erroneous opinion that the Samaritans were to a great extent descendants of the Israelites. Even the Israelitish priest who was sent to them, according to 2 Kings 17:28, by Asarhaddon, to teach them how they should fear the Lord, probably did not take them the law. At that time they were still too rude to have wanted it. Even towards the close of the exile, according to the testimony of the author of the books of the Kings, they united the worship of their old idols with the worship of Jehovah, which could scarcely have been the case if the Pentateuch had been publicly recognised among them. Their later acceptance of the Pentateuch rested, it seems, on the same ground as their joyful readiness to receive Jewish priests, and to entrust them with the guidance of their sacrificial offerings; which also accounts for their lying assertion that they were descendants of the ten tribes, viz. the endeavour to make themselves of equal birth with the Israelites, which may be regarded as the centre of the Samaritan nationality. The first legitimization for a nation which laid claim to a part in the covenant was the possession of the book of the covenant, and the regulation of their lives according to it. In observing the precepts of the Pentateuch, the Samaritans displayed no little zeal, though this had its origin in the external reasons already given, more than in any of an internal nature. The Jews themselves are obliged to bear testimony to this; comp. the passage from Maimonides in Reland, de Samarit. p. 10. Even the most troublesome ordinances, such as that with respect to the sabbatical year, were practised among them. Josephus tells that they entreated Alexander that he would remit their taxes, like those of the Jews, in the seventh year. But we recognise the continuance of a heathen background in the Samaritan consciousness, in the fact that they eagerly adopted every freer tendency which appeared among the Jews. Thus they borrowed the Sadducee doctrine respecting angels, and held that they were mere powers which emanated from God and returned to Him. The Sadducee denial of the resurrection also found acceptance with them. The striving of the Alexandrian Jews to avoid everything anthropomorphic and anthropopathic likewise passed over to them, for they were especially dependent on Alexandrian-Jewish theology, on account of its greater tendency to freedom. But no sooner was a freer view or tendency separated from the Jewish consciousness as heretical and heathenizing, than they also timidly drew back from it, fearing that by retaining it they would give a handle to their opponents, and injure their claim to belong to the people of God. Though they always went as far as those who went farthest among the Jews, yet they fell back as soon as they were forsaken by their models, which accounts for the fact that we find no more trace among the later Samaritans of the denial of the personality of angels or the resurrection. The other sacred books, besides the Pentateuch, were not accepted by the Samaritans; which may be explained from the circumstance that the post-Mosaic sacred literature had its centre in the temple at Jerusalem. With the Pentateuch it is quite different. It speaks very frequently of the future place of the sanctuary, but never designates it more exactly. The Samaritans interpreted these passages as referring to their sanctuary on Gerizim. Some of the later sacred books, such as Joshua and Judges, like the Pentateuch, are free from all allusions to Jerusalem as the relative centre of the nation. But if the Samaritans had accepted these, they would have rendered their rejection of the remaining ones suspicious. Hence they could only do this with plausibility by laying down the principle that the divine Lawgiver alone was to be heard. Among the Samaritans, however, we find in full development even those Old Testament dogmas which are so faintly indicated in the Pentateuch that they could scarcely have been drawn from it alone; for example, the doctrine of the resurrection and of the Messiah. This may be explained from the dependence of the Samaritans on the later Jewish theology, which had taken these doctrines from the later sacred writings. This theological and religious dependence of the Samaritans on the Jews is universal. Nowhere do we find among them any trace of peculiar and independent development. Their whole virtuosity consists in the invention of lies by which they seek to pervert the true relation, and to ascribe the priority to themselves. So much for the temple at Gerizim and the Samaritans. The information respecting Nehemiah comes to an end with the account of his reformation after his return from the Persian court. We know neither how long his activity still continued, nor when he died. With respect to the political condition of the Jews in the time of Nehemiah, there was still much to be desired, even after the great benefits which God had conferred upon His people through his instrumentality. It was still far removed from what Moses had promised to the nation in event of the faithful observance of the law, Deuteronomy 28, and therefore formed a strong and real accusation against them. In Nehemiah 9:36-37, we have a very vivid description of this state: “Behold, we are servants this day; and for the land that Thou gavest unto our fathers, to eat the fruit thereof, and the good thereof, behold, we are servants in it: and it yieldeth much increase unto the kings whom Thou hast set over us because of our sins: also they have dominion over our bodies, and over our cattle, at their pleasure; and we are in great distress.” It appears from this that the Jews were obliged to pay a very heavy tribute to the Persians, and that even the favour in which Nehemiah was held by Artaxerxes had brought them no alleviation in this respect. In harmony with this, we have the allusions contained in the book of Ecclesiastes respecting the state of matters at that time. According to the beginning of Ecclesiastes 4, the people of God were in deep affliction; heavy misfortune had come upon them; everywhere the tears of the oppressed; the dead more to be praised than the living. According to Ecclesiastes 7:10, they lamented bitterly that the former days were better than the present. According to Ecclesiastes 7:21, Israel was derided and insulted by the heathen; those who, by the law of God and justice, ought to have been servants of the nation which, in its first beginning, had been called to the supremacy of the world, were exalted. It was a time when, to judge from the beginning of Ecclesiastes 9, the facts of life threw great stones of stumbling in the way of faith, since it led to perplexity respecting God and His just rule upon the earth; for the lot of the righteous and of the wicked was entangled together. That this condition was no contradiction of the law, but rather a remarkable confirmation of it—the outward misery being a true representation of the inner wretchedness, consistently with the statement of the law, that God could not give more than He did give; that He was not hard towards the nation, but that the nation was hard towards itself;—all this we learn from the prophecy of Malachi, which, as we have already seen, was contemporaneous with the last reformation of Nehemiah. The very superscription, “The burden of the word of the Lord to Israel,” points to the retributive and threatening character of the prophecy, allowing no anticipation of good. Even Zechariah found occasion to announce a new and heavy judgment on Judah, to take place after the ungodliness, which was already germinating in his time, would have struck deeper roots and have thrown out branches; comp. Zechariah 5 and Zechariah 11. In the interval between him and Malachi, the development of the germ made rapid progress, as the prophecy of the latter shows. Only on the form in which the ungodliness manifested itself did the exile still continue to exercise any great influence. There was no return to gross idolatry, although doubtless there still existed a not insignificant heathenizing party in the nation, the forerunner of later Sadduceeism. The main tendency, however, was towards the later Pharisaism; and this, in its fundamental features, is to be found in Malachi. Characteristic of this externally pious, inwardly godless party, or rather national tendency, we have the complete want of a deeper recognition of sin and righteousness, the boasting of the external fulfilment of the law, the eagerness for judgments on the heathen, who can only be regarded as the object of the divine retributive justice, and the murmuring against God, which is always to be found where the punishment of sin coincides with a want of the recognition of sin. It is remarkable that Malachi, the last of the prophets, concludes with the words, that unless the nation repent, the Lord will come and smite the land with a curse. In describing the moral condition of the people, the book of Ecclesiastes runs side by side with Malachi. In it also we find no traces of idolatry in its description of the internal defects of the nation, but, on the contrary, we are everywhere met by a tendency to the later Pharisaism,—a hollow righteousness, which sought to compensate for the want of a lively fear of God and inward resignation by miserable outward works, empty sacrifices (Ec 4:17), copious prayers Ecclesiastes 5:1-2),—the murmuring spirit which always accompanies a spiritless piety and a soulless righteousness when deceived in their speculations,—the avarice which can only be destroyed where there is a true impulse of the soul towards God, such as pharisaic piety cannot take away, but only excites—an avarice which proves itself especially seductive in troublous times: here lies the danger of constant accumulation. Yet even at this time, as at all periods prior to every infliction of the curse, there was still an ἐκλογὴ in the nation which was advancing towards its destruction. They are expressly mentioned in Malachi 3:16 : “Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another: and the Lord hearkened, and heard it; and a book of remembrance was written before Him for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon His name.” The vindication of God by the truly pious though small community is here placed in opposition to the godless but seemingly pious masses. In Malachi 3:9 the whole nation is represented as murmuring. In Malachi 3:17 the Lord gives a comforting promise to the faithful: the day of judgment on the ungodly will at the same time be the day of salvation for the godly. With respect to the worship, we may already infer, from the national tendency to Pharisaism, that the regulations of the Pentateuch regarding it were more strictly observed at this time than at any former one. Nehemiah strengthens the observance of the Sabbath, which was far more closely kept immediately after the exile than it had been before it, by new and stricter regulations; comp. Nehemiah 13:15 ff. From Nehemiah 10:31 we learn that even the sabbatical years were kept; and the more burdensome this ordinance is, the better can we argue from the observance of it, to that of the other ordinances. At this time there was an addition made to the feasts in the establishment of Purim. According to the book of Esther, this was introduced into those districts which had been the scene of the events it was intended to perpetuate, immediately after these events. Whether it was also observed in Palestine or not, we are not told; but if we consider the way in which the feast was celebrated in later times, we can scarcely look upon its establishment as a gain. The celebration had a profane, sensuous character. It gave bold prominence to the worst sides of the Jewish national character, viz. national pride and revenge. How completely it left the ethical-religious ground of the old Jewish feasts, and lost itself in heathenism, already appears from the fact that drinking was on this occasion regarded as meritorious; it was the custom to drink until it became impossible to distinguish between “Blessed be Mordecai” and “Cursed be Haman.” But the very circumstance that the feast bore this carnal character gave it the greatest importance in the eyes of the carnally-minded nation, which was especially the case when, by the destruction of the temple, the three principal feasts lost a portion of that dignity which distinguished them from all the rest. We have now only to speak of two institutions which Jewish tradition ascribes to this period, viz. the Synedrium magnum and the Synagoga magna. Of the former we find just as little trace at this time as in earlier ones. At this time, as before, we meet with elders of the nation under the name of שרים, and heads of families, who were consulted by the royal governors on important occasions. But nowhere do we find any trace of a Synedrium. Here the argumentum e silentio has great significance, since the Synedrium must necessarily have been mentioned had it been in existence. The most important things are done, and the Synedrium has no part in them. On the renewal of the covenant, which is described in Nehemiah 8-10, the document is signed by many of the most distinguished of the nation, priests and Levites, but no mention whatever is made of a Synedrium. While the Synedrium is an actual Jewish institution to which Jewish tradition attributed far greater antiquity than belonged to it, only for the purpose of giving it additional glory, the so-called Great Synagogue is a pure Jewish fiction, invented in the interest of pharisaic propositions. This was already pretty universally acknowledged when the work of Joh. Eberh. Rau, entitled De Synagoga magna, appeared at Utrecht, 1726. But to this work, which may be regarded as a model of critical research, the merit is due of having finally settled the matter, and completely destroyed the authority of the tradition. Many, indeed, have subsequently given credence to the tradition, but only because the work was unknown to them. Ewald has in vain sought to reestablish it on a historical basis; it is his way never to acknowledge truth without fiction, nor fiction without truth. The substance of Jewish statement respecting the Great Synagogue is as follows:—In the time of Ezra, and under his superintendence, there was a college of 120 distinguished men, which, under public authority, preserved, inculcated, and transmitted the so-called oral law, i.e. the pharisaic statutes, which had been handed down to them from the prophets. This was the main business of the Great Synagogue, and is attributed to it alone in the oldest passages which refer to it, in the Pirke Aboth, chap. i., where we read, “Moses received the (oral) law on Mount Sinai, and transmitted it to Joshua; Joshua to the elders; the elders to the prophets; but the prophets (whose chain ended in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah) to the men of the Great Synagogue.” In later Jewish writings other occupations also are ascribed to the Great Synagogue. Thus it is said to have done meritorious work for the Holy Scriptures, and especially to have written out those books whose authors lived out of the Holy Land, where no sacred book could have been written, such as Ezekiel, Daniel, and Esther; then again, to have added the K’ris, the vowels and accents to the text, and to have divided the Pentateuch into sections, and the text generally into verses, besides having composed certain formulas of prayer, given regulations with respect to Purim, and so on. Evidently the Great Synagogue was a depositary for everything that was difficult to dispose of otherwise. The tradition is already sufficiently refuted by the circumstance that the alleged main business of the Great Synagogue, care for the oral law, will not suit the time of Ezra. Of this oral law we find no trace whatever in Ezra and Nehemiah. Their whole endeavour seems rather directed to the enforcement of the ordinances of the Pentateuch. But the silence of all credible sources regarding this institution, which is said to have been so magnificent, is decisive. We do not read a word of it in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Even Josephus knows nothing of it. The first trace of it is to be found in the Pirke Aboth. In this state of affairs it is no longer worth the trouble to prove, from the separate employments of the Great Synagogue, that we have to do with a mere fable. We learn the origin of this fable from the oldest passages referring to it, viz. those in the Pirke Aboth. The task was to prove an unbroken succession of trustworthy depositaries for the so-called oral law. A link was wanting between the prophets and the rabbis, the pharisaic teachers of the law, and this empty space must be filled up by the men of the Great Synagogue. After the Great Synagogue had thus come into existence, a multitude of other things were attributed to it for which there was no authority, however much it might be desired. But, owing to the gross historical ignorance of the later Jews, they were unable to invest the fiction with even the semblance of truth. They represent as members of the Great Synagogue men such as Mordecai and Daniel, who were never at Jerusalem. Haggai, Malachi, and Simon the Just, separated from each other by comparatively great distances of time, take part in it as contemporaries, etc. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 52: 52. § 4. FROM THE DEATH OF NEHEMIAH TO THE TIME OF THE MACCABEES ======================================================================== § 4. From the Death of Nehemiah to the Time of the Maccabees This period includes a considerable number of years;—the exact length of time we cannot determine, since we do not know the year of Nehemiah’s death. If we reckon from the time when Nehemiah first came to Jerusalem, the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, we have 287 years till the first appearance of the Maccabees,—about two and a half centuries, therefore, after the activity of Nehemiah had come to an end. Of this time about a hundred years (from the twentieth year of Artaxerxes to one hundred and nineteen) belong to the Persian supremacy, while the rest belong to the Greek supremacy. But in this period our sources are excessively scant and confused, so that, notwithstanding its length, it offers scarcely as much that is noteworthy as one of those that preceded it, which taken all together are far from reaching to the same length. The canonical books of the Old Testament leave us with Nehemiah, from which it appears that this period offered no important gain for sacred history; so that the theologian as such has little to regret in the scantiness of accounts respecting it. The only non-canonical native author who extends over the whole period is Josephus; but with him we are not much concerned. Throughout his history he shows himself incapable, owing to his religious shallowness, of grasping those deeper religious phenomena among his people with which we have specially to do. In addition to this, we have the fact that his work was destined for the heathen, which led him to remain on the surface, without even going as deep as he might have done. Then again we must consider that at this period his sources must have been remarkably meagre. Properly speaking, his work contains no history at all, but only a series of disconnected notices; and even these have an uncertain character. Everywhere we feel that we must be on our guard, that we are on ground where not only ignorance, but intentional dishonesty, has been at work, and false patriotism; we feel that we have entered on that time, so disastrous for historiography, when the national vanity of the peoples who had been subjugated by Macedonian power sought to regain on paper that which they no longer possessed in life. Of the remaining Jewish works composed at this period, or having reference to it, none are of any importance except the book of Jesus Sirach, properly the only literary monument which affords us a deeper insight into the religious tendency of the Jews at this period. The rest are less calculated to give us any knowledge of the time, than to expose the evil Jewish literary activity which characterized the period of their composition,—an activity which finds its only excuse in the fact that the Jews were not the originators of this literary deception, but only participated in what was universal, and had its principal seat in Alexandria. The story of the seventy interpreters of the Pseudo-Aristeas is a miserable fabrication, in which even a basis of historical truth has been looked for in vain. The same may be said of the third book of the Maccabees. This book contains an account of the persecutions which Ptolemy Philopator is said to have inflicted on the Jews in Egypt, and therefore does not mention the times of the Maccabees. Nevertheless it is justly entitled to its name. There can be no doubt that its origin must be explained by the endeavour, which arose after the appearance of the Maccabees, to multiply as much as possible the number of persecutions and deliverances experienced by the people of God: it is an invention copied from what in the time of the Maccabees was reality. The completely fabulous character of the book must be clear to every one who reads it. Authentic history contains no indication whatever that the Ptolemies had any tendency to religious persecution. Even in heathen authors we find but little information respecting the history of the Jews at this time. Their testimony is important only in so far as they contain the history of the kingdom in whose fate the Jewish nation was implicated. Respecting the Jews themselves they give but little special information; and where this does occur, we are obliged to be extremely cautious, lest we fall into the hands of Jewish deceivers, who, from motives of false patriotism, have palmed their inventions on heathen authors. Among these the most important, and at the same time the most secure from the suspicion of such deceptive supposititiousness, are the fragments of Hecatseus of Abdera, who is said to have written a separate book about the Jews under Ptolemy Lagi. These are given by Josephus, c. Ap. 1. 21, and published in a separate work by Zorn, Altona, 1730. He professes to derive his knowledge of the Jewish nation principally from the accounts of the high priest Hezekiah, who resided with him at the court of Ptolemy. According to the first book of Origen c. Celsum, the fact of his being favourable to the Jews was already brought forward by Herennius Philo as an argument against the composition of the book by the historian Hecataeus. This argument, however, cannot be regarded as decisive, and is outweighed by others in favour of the genuineness, especially this, that a Jew would scarcely relate that many myriads of Jews had been transplanted to Babylon by the Persians;—an argument, however, which is not conclusive, since the Persians may probably mean the Asiatic power in general, the designation being borrowed from the nationality which wielded this power immediately before it passed over to the Greeks, a supposition favoured by the connection. Again, Alexander is said to have given even the territory of the Samaritans to the Jews on account of their loyalty and honesty,—a statement so palpably at variance with historical truth, that it could scarcely have been asserted by any Jew. But neither is this argument conclusive, for liars and boasters often go to extremes, and the masked Jew might fancy that in his heathen garb he could irritate and annoy the Samaritans with impunity. But it cannot fail to arouse actual suspicion, when Hecataeus says of the Jews that they were so devoted to their laws and their religion, that, notwithstanding the opprobrium which they hereby incurred from neighbours and strangers, and even the ill-treatment which it drew down upon them from the kings and satraps of Persia, they refused to depart from their principles, choosing rather to suffer the most cruel martyrdom and death than to renounce the law of their fathers. Here there seems almost to be an allusion to the religious oppressions of Antiochus Epiphanes. At the time of Ptolemy no actual religious persecution had yet been inflicted on the Jews. The persecution instigated by Haman cannot exactly be called a religious one. Moreover, the circumstance which Hecataeus relates immediately afterwards is somewhat suspicious, viz. that Alexander wished to rebuild the temple of Belus at Babylon, and commanded his soldiers, the Jews among others, to assist with the work, but when the Jews refused, and the king found that no punishments were of any avail, he gave them a dispensation. In this we seem to see that Jewish imagination which received a powerful impulse by the events of the time of the Maccabees. In other cases the deception is undeniable and lies on the surface. This may be said, for example, of the passage which Josephus, c. Ap. l. § 22, professes to take from the book of Klearch, a well-known pupil of Aristotle. Here Aristotle himself narrates how in his travels he made an acquaintance, which proved of great importance to him, with a man of an extremely regular and wise manner of life. This was a Judaite from Coelesyria, a nation descended from the philosophers in India. Philosophers were there called Calani, but among the Syrians, Judaites. This man entered into friendly relations with him and other students of philosophy, and inquired into their sciences, but gave more than he received. It is scarcely comprehensible how Hess, who thinks that “this foreign monument is to be reckoned among those which are authentic,” and others could have fallen into so great a snare. Evidently the narrative cannot be isolated, but must be regarded as in connection with the many other attempts by which the Jews sought to secure for themselves the honour of priority in philosophy, since the time when they themselves had entered into connection with it, especially in Alexandria. It seemed a disgrace to them that the people of revelation should concede this priority to the unenlightened heathen. They themselves were a priori persuaded that it belonged to them; but this did not satisfy them, their vanity demanded an acknowledgment on the part of the heathen also, and with this object they had recourse to the arts of deception, which, according to the remarkable passage of Galenus in Dähne, Jewish- Alexandrian Philosophy of Religion (1834), i. p. 82, had its first origin and its principal seat in Alexandria, and was so prevalent there, that moral feeling was almost blunted where it was concerned. That alleged passage of Klearch was fabricated in the same forge as the great number of verses which have been attributed to Orpheus, the Sibyl, to Linus, and other honoured names; or as the statement of Aristobulus, that Plato took the most and the best of what he wrote from Moses, as well as much else. Comp. Dähne, l.c. p. 76 ff. After these introductory remarks, let us now turn to the events themselves. The whole period, comprising about a hundred years, which the Jews still spent under the Persian supremacy, remains unnoticed, with the exception of one single event, which, though unimportant in itself, yet deserves mention on account of a conclusion which may be drawn from it. Under the reign of Artaxerxes Mnemon, a strife arose between the high priest Jochanan and his brother Jesus. The latter tried, with the help of the Persian general Bagoses, who was friendly towards him, to usurp the high-priestly dignity. Jochanan, being informed of it, slew him in the temple. Bagoses then came to Jerusalem to avenge his friend. In spite of all opposition, he penetrated to the temple, and laid a tribute on the nation as a punishment. This event is remarkable, in so far as it shows us that the position of the high priest was even at that time one of great political importance. It seems that after the death of Nehemiah no more civil governors were appointed by the Persians, but the highest civil dignity devolved upon the high priest, who was at the same time responsible for the payment of the taxes. This change can only be regarded as detrimental. The union of the civil position with the spiritual, which Moses had most carefully avoided, led to a deterioration of the high-priesthood, such as had never taken place in former times. We now very seldom find an able, truly spiritual-minded man among the high priests; the dignity is the object of ambition, and not unfrequently we find crimes committed in order to obtain or preserve it. The great catastrophe under Antiochus Epiphanes, which threatened the Jewish nationality and religion with complete destruction, had its first foundation in this secularization of the high-priesthood, as we shall see in the course of this history. Leo has already drawn attention to the fact that the condition of the Jews at this period was in many respects analogous to that of the Greeks at the time when they were still quietly subject to the Turks. The nation, he says, had throughout no true political existence, just as little as the Greeks, but, like the Greeks, they had a religious existence. The consequence naturally was, that all common interests found their organ in the priests, that all interests were drawn into the circle of spiritual jurisdiction, and were thus settled independently, without the intervention of the Persians. It was the same with the Greeks before the revolution: the clergy took cognizance of all common interests of the nation, and the nation was represented before the emperor by the patriarch in Constantinople, who was therefore esteemed the head of the nation. Thus the high priest of the Jews became at this time more and more the head of the nation. The two hundred years of the Persian supremacy had on the whole been one of prosperity for the Jews, if we except the oppressed feeling which invariably accompanies the desire for independence, and was peculiarly strong in this people, who, in the first beginnings of their existence, were impressed, under divine authority, with the idea that they were absolutely free, and were subject to no ruler but God, and who therefore necessarily regarded oppression as a heavy punishment, the sign of an angry God. They owed their temple and their walls to the good-will of the Persians, under whom they had enjoyed perfect religious freedom; and several Persian kings had done homage to the God of Israel. The condition of the nation at the end of the Persian rule was essentially different from what it had been at the beginning. The thickly-populated land, the flourishing capital, bore witness to the comparative clemency of the rulers. No wonder, therefore, that the Jews were in no haste to throw themselves into the arms of the rising Greek supremacy. It would have been equally unwise and ungrateful. With respect to the manner in which the Persian supremacy gave way to that of the Greeks, Josephus gives us a full account, Ant. xi. 8. The substance is as follows:—The Tyrians got their grain and their provisions principally from the neighbourhood, especially from Judea and Samaria. When Alexander undertook the siege of Tyre, his attention was directed to the same districts; and by his ambassadors he sent a summons to the Jews to surrender, and to provide his army with the means of subsistence. The Jews, however, refused, appealing to the oath of fidelity which had been made to them by Darius. Alexander was exasperated by this, and determined to punish the Jews most severely for their obstinacy, after the conquest of Tyre. In this danger the nation, with the high priest Jadduah at their head, turned in zealous prayer to God. Jadduah had a vision in the night, in which he was commanded to advance to meet the conqueror in his high-priestly garments, accompanied by the priests in their official vestments, and the nation clothed in white. In obedience to this command, they repaired in procession to a height, viz. Sapha. Alexander was amazed on perceiving the high priest. Full of awe, he advanced to meet him, and bending, greeted him. This unexpected acknowledgment caused universal astonishment; and to Parmenio’s question respecting the cause of it, Alexander answered that at Dion in Macedonia, when he was absorbed in thinking of the war against the Persians, this same man, in the same garb, had appeared to him in a dream, and had told him to have no fear, but only to advance boldly to Asia, for God would be his leader in this campaign, and would give him the kingdom of the Persians. Alexander then manifested a friendly disposition towards the Jews, and presented offerings in the temple. Jadduah showed him the prophecies in Daniel foretelling the destruction of the Persian kingdom by a king of Greece. Alexander then commanded the Jews to ask a favour before his departure. They requested freedom in the exercise of their religion, and exemption from taxation in the seventh year, which was granted. Scarcely had Alexander left Jerusalem, when the Samaritans sent a deputation to him with a request that he would visit their temple at Gerizim also. (Josephus here contradicts himself, for he asserts elsewhere that the temple on Gerizim was built in consequence of the permission given by Alexander at the siege of Tyre, in which case it could not have been ready at this time.) The Samaritans had at once submitted to the demand made on them by Alexander at the siege of Tyre, and had not merely sent him provisions, but also an auxiliary force of 8000 men. Hence they thought they had far greater claims on the favour of the king than the Jews, and confidently entreated him to come to their city also; and when Alexander explained that there was now no time to do so, they begged that they too might have freedom from taxation in the seventh year. Alexander inquired whether they were then Jews. They answered that they were Hebrews, and observed the same law as the Jews. Alexander, however, delayed his examination into the matter and his decision respecting it until his return. There is nothing to throw suspicion on the perfect historical certainty of this whole narrative, except the fact that it appears in an author such as Josephus, and in a part of his work where suspicion is most natural, having to do with a subject where the disfigurement due to his false patriotism is especially prominent. With this exception, everything is in favour of its credibility and nothing against. In the first place, the event narrated suits the connection. All historians of Alexander mention that after the battle of Issus he besieged Tyre for seven months, and went from it to Gaza. Arrian says that Judea voluntarily surrendered. We cannot maintain that Alexander did not, as Josephus asserts, march from Tyre to Gaza, and from Gaza to Jerusalem, but from Tyre to Jerusalem, and from Jerusalem to Gaza. The strong citadel of Gaza seemed to be of much more consequence. The subjection of Jerusalem was regarded only as a secondary object. Hence the more important was accomplished first. The favour shown by Alexander towards the Jews, to whom, after the founding of Alexandria, he granted the same privileges as to the Macedonians, is confirmed by history, and seems to demand some such cause as that given in the narrative of Josephus. That which has no express historical sanction commends itself by its internal truthfulness. For example, the conduct of Alexander is in striking harmony with his historical character. Everywhere we find in him a tendency to employ religion as a means to serve his ends, and to represent himself as favoured by deity. He knew the power which religion exercised on the oriental spirit, and sought to derive advantage from it, while in secret he scoffed at all religion. It was his aim to be declared the favourite of the gods by the most various voices; and the attainment of this object cost him exertions and sacrifices, compared with which the favours granted to the Jews were as nothing. Thus, in order to procure for himself the same advantages which the Persian kings enjoyed by their divine dignity, he undertook the wearisome, difficult, and dangerous journey to the temple of Jupiter Amnion, in which he almost perished with thirst, together with his whole army. He humbly submitted to the requirements of the priests that none but himself should enter the temple. At a time when his power was already much more firmly established, he restored the temple of Belus at Babylon at an immense cost. But however much may still be said in favour of the narrative of Josephus, yet there remains always this one great objection, the want of a valid external authority, and we must therefore leave uncertain how much it contains of truth and how much of fiction. On the disposition of the provinces after the death of Alexander, Judea was first united with Syria. But only four years afterwards it was conquered by Ptolemy Lagi, the regent of Egypt, and Laomedon was taken. Ptolemy took Jerusalem on the Sabbath, knowing that he was certain to meet with no opposition on this day. Until the time of the Maccabees, the Jews were of opinion that it was not right to do anything, even in defence of life, on the Sabbath. With respect to this conquest, we have the credible witness of a heathen author, Agatharchides of Cnidos, given to us by Josephus, which runs thus: “There is a nation called the Jews. This people looked on while their strong and great city of Jerusalem was occupied by Ptolemy, and, owing to their untimely superstition, they refused to take up arms, preferring rather to be subject to a hard master.” According to Josephus, Ptolemy took an immense number of captive Jews back to Egypt with him. But it is plain that he here follows no other authority but that of the Pseudo-Aristeas, who only represents Ptolemy Lagi as having carried away 100,000 Jews, in order that Ptolemy Philadelphus might be able to release that number. Moreover, what Josephus says of the distinctions which Ptolemy conferred on the Jews in his army, because he regarded them as people who never broke their oath of fealty, is subject to well-founded suspicion. It is certain, however, that Ptolemy granted the same privileges to the Jews who wished to repair to Egypt, and especially to Alexandria, as had already been bestowed on them by Alexander. Under these circumstances, it was natural that the Jews should settle there in ever increasing numbers. The unity of the government must have tended to increase this very much. To explain the fact, we require neither measures of compulsion on the part of Ptolemy, nor a special predilection for the Jews. The Jews had already left Egypt in great numbers for Cyrene and Libya. In vain does Josephus try to bring in Ptolemy here again, maintaining that he felt the more secure in his possession of this district the more Jewish inhabitants it contained. The Jewish inclination for trade, which had even then shown itself, affords a better explanation. We see, however, how with Alexander the spread of the Jews, which formed the necessary condition for the realization of their world-historical destination, had reached its second stadium. But however much this extension increased, yet the temple at Jerusalem always remained the religious centre of the nation, and Judea, in a certain measure, the fatherland. The Jews in the διασπορὰ looked upon themselves as all strangers and pilgrims. It was of great importance for the Jews that Seleucus took possession of Syria, and founded a kingdom which extended to the Indus. By this means Judea fell into the same fatal position which it had formerly occupied when the Egyptian and Assyrian, and afterwards the Chaldee monarchy, had been at variance among themselves. Palestine, with its richly-wooded Lebanon and the sea-coast, was the natural apple of contention between the kingdom of Egypt and the great Asiatic monarchy; yet these collisions did not take place in the immediate future. Palestine still remained for a considerable space of time in undisturbed possession of Egypt; for we cannot maintain, with Usher and Hess, on the most unsatisfactory authority of Sulpicius Severus, that Seleucus added Palestine to his dominions during the lifetime of Ptolemy Lagi. On the contrary, Antiochus the Great was the first who conquered Palestine, after it had remained for more than a hundred years under Egyptian supremacy. But Seleucus held an important position with regard to the Jews, in so far as he granted them the same privileges in the numerous cities which he built as the Macedonians, probably because he regarded them as natural allies against the natives. They were especially numerous at Antioch; comp. Josephus, xii. 3, § 1. But they were scattered everywhere throughout all Syria and Asia Minor. The reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus is only remarkable in so far as it is the scene of the romance of the Pseudo-Aristeas respecting the origin of the Alexandrian version of the Pentateuch. That in this professedly authentic account we have really only a romance, is now universally acknowledged. It is proved by the most palpable arguments: thus, for example, the author, though he represents himself as a Greek, always speaks as a Jew; then, again, the enormous sums given by Ptolemy Philadelphus to obtain a mere translation of the Jewish law-book, etc. In this point, also, theologians agree that the object of the invention is partly the glorification of the Jews, and partly the glorification of the Alexandrian version. Most, however, try to preserve at least some measure of historical truth. Some think they have already done enough when they have struck out thirty-six of the seventy-two translators, and so also in other things (so Parthey on the Alexandrian Museum); others think that the narrative contains at least this basis of fact, that the translation was made and placed in the library at Alexandria under Ptolemy, and at his desire. But we must question even this. The desire of Philadelphus, it is assumed, follows naturally from his zealous endeavours to complete his library. But here the position in which the Greeks stood towards the Jews and their sacred literature is not enough considered. Of all the Greek and Latin authors that have come down to us, not one has thought it worth his while to cast even a glance into the religious book of the Jews, although it existed in the Greek language, and would therefore have been so readily accessible. For the whole literary heathen world the Alexandrian version, a hundred years after its composition, was still as good as non-existent. How then can it be considered probable, even necessary, that a heathen monarch, whose exertions it is plain were only directed to the literature of the world, should have given the first impulse to the composition of this translation % The nature of the translation itself also speaks against this view. Everywhere it bears evidence of having been composed by Jews for Jews,—not for the satisfaction of heathen literary curiosity, but to supply the religious need of Greek-speaking Jews. We cannot even tell the time when the translation was made with any certainty from the writing of Aristeas. In the sphere of literature, Ptolemy Philadelphus has become a sort of mythical personage. His name as the great promoter of learning is interwoven in a multitude of literary fictions. Thus, for instance, the author of an Egyptian history, or rather a historical romance, who wrote under the name of Manetho in the time of the Romish supremacy, represents himself as a distinguished Egyptian priest of the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, who wrote his work at the request of the king, and dedicated it to him. The following is undoubtedly the correct view of the origin of the Alexandrian version:—The Jews, who dwelt in Alexandria in great numbers from the time of Alexander, and especially since the reign of Ptolemy Lagi, soon adopted Greek as the prevailing language, just as their forefathers had done with Chaldee in the period of their exile. Thus arose the want of a translation of the sacred books. First the Pentateuch was translated, for which there was a specially urgent demand, because it was generally read aloud in the synagogues. The necessity of the Jews requires that this translation should have been made not later than the time of the first Ptolemies. The other books followed gradually. According to the prologue of Jesus Sirach, the whole must have been completed about the year 130 B.C. at the latest. We learn from the nature of the translation that it was not composed by Palestinian Jews brought for the purpose, but by Alexandrian Jews. It contains not a few traces of an Alexandrian-Jewish tendency, the result of the existing relationship between the Jewish population and the heathen, who were superior to the former in number and in scientific culture. It already shows that the philosophic mode of thought and instruction, which prevailed among the heathen population in Alexandria, exercised a certain influence upon the Jewish population also. Not unfrequently anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms, which did not harmonize with the refined religious mode of thought, are set aside, although in this respect the translators are not altogether consistent. In other respects also a rationalizing tendency makes itself evident in many places. But when Dähne, in his Jewish- Alexandrian Philosophy of Religion, part ii. p. 3 ff., maintains that the authors of the Alexandrian version were already familiar with the maxims of the Philonic philosophy, he asserts far more than he is afterwards able to prove. The more widely the Jews became scattered, the more the importance of the Alexandrian version increased. At last it came into ordinary use even in Palestine, where Greek had already taken very deep root at the time of Christ; but it was through Christianity that it first attained its full dignity. The very fact of its frequent use in the New Testament served to recommend it. All the Grecian churches made use of it; the Latins, until the time of Jerome, had only a Latin translation made from it. Not a few converted nations made it the basis of translations into their own language. But just in proportion as it rose in Christian estimation did it fall in the estimation of the Jews, and it was not long before it fell into complete disuse. Jadduah was succeeded in the high-priesthood by his son Onias, who was again succeeded by his son Simon surnamed the Just, a designation bestowed on him, according to Josephus, on account of his piety towards God and his benevolence towards his countrymen. There is a brilliant eulogy on him in Jesus Sirach, in Sir 50:1 ff., which, however, gives no true indication of the spirit that characterized him, whether he was a man of true reflective tendency and of a spiritual mind. He is said to have rendered great service by a series of buildings, and again he is lauded on account of the solemn state with which he conducted his office: “How honoured was he in the midst of the people, in his coming out of the sanctuary! He was as the morning-star in the midst of a cloud, and as the moon at the full, as the sun shining upon the temple of the Most High,” etc. In later Jewish tradition he appears in mythic glorification; so also in the Mishna, and still more in the Gemara. But what is told of him is too absurd to be worth quoting. From this time the history offers nothing of any value for our object till Antiochus the Great. Under him Judea threw off the dominion of Egypt, to which it never reverted, and became subject to Syria. In the very beginning of the war against King Ptolemy Philopator, Antiochus was on the point of taking Judea. But the victory which Ptolemy obtained over him at Raphia, not far from Gaza, put a limit to his conquests. To this actual fact of the victory at Raphia, the author of the third book of the Maccabees attaches his romance. Ptolemy is represented as having visited Jerusalem after the victory. Notwithstanding the most active opposition on the part of the whole nation, he persisted in carrying out his determination to penetrate into the interior of the sanctuary, and did actually reach the second court; but there God struck him with sudden fear, so that he had to be carried out half-dead. He left the city thirsting for revenge against the Jews, and first directed his rage against those in Alexandria; but these were saved from the impending destruction by immediate divine intervention. How little this narrative deserves credence, appears from the fact that Josephus in his Antiquities says nothing of all this. In the book against Apion brief mention is made of a similar event, but it is placed under the reign of Ptolemy Physkon, a considerable time later. It is plain that we have to do with an uncertain tradition, which had its origin in the time of the Maccabees, and whose first germ, though certainly found by the author of the third book of the Maccabees, was extended and embellished by his hand. The date of this book cannot be determined. At the time of Josephus it seems not yet to have been in existence. Its position is also in favour of its later origin, after the two first books of the Maccabees, although it describes events which in point of time are earlier than the first book of the Maccabees. The second book of the Maccabees is also of a comparatively later date. The first who mentions the third book is Eusebius in the Chronicon. In the Latin Vulgate it was not received; in consequence of which it has also been rejected by most ecclesiastical translations into modern language since the Reformation. After the death of Philopator, Antiochus made use of the opportunity which presented itself in the minority of his surviving son, Ptolemy Epiphanes, to invade Coelesyria and Phenicia, and took possession also of Judea. But Scopas, the general of the young king, reconquered Judea. Soon, however, Antiochus again acquired the upper hand. The Jews, as soon as he approached their land, hastened to offer their allegiance. When he came to Jerusalem, the priests and elders went in procession to meet him, received him with the greatest demonstration of joy, and helped him to drive out the Egyptian garrison which Scopas had left in the castle. We do not know whether this conduct on the part of the Jews had its foundation in oppressions experienced in the latter time of the Egyptian supremacy, or whether it was clue only and solely to the great aversion with which the nation always regarded heathen dominion, and which might make the change in so far agreeable, as it gave them an opportunity of revenging themselves on their former oppressors, in so far, also, as the secession to the new ruler was an act of freedom, a sort of prelude to a fuller exercise of it. Respecting the favourable disposition of Antiochus towards the Jews, called forth by this ready advance, Josephus has plenty to say. He communicates several edicts that were made in their favour; among others, one in which all who were not Jews were forbidden to enter the temple, to bring into the city the flesh of animals that were impure according to the Mosaic law, or to keep such animals in the city. Whether these edicts really were published in the form in which we find them in Josephus, is doubtful. One of them at least is somewhat suspicious from internal reasons, viz. the command to Zeuxis, an old general of his, to transplant, with great favour, two thousand Jewish families from Mesopotamia and Babylonia into Lydia and Phrygia, in order that the inhabitants, who were inclined to rebellion, might be the better kept within bounds. The passage in this work, “I have confidence in them, that they will watch faithfully over our rights, on account of their religiousness, and because, as I well know, they inherit the reputation of faithfulness and of willing obedience from olden times,” sounds somewhat Jewish. All things considered, however, it must à priori seem very probable that Antiochus made every exertion to attach the Jews to his interest, in order by this means to give greater security to his uncertain conquest. This conquest took place in the year 198 B.C. Antiochus the Great was succeeded first by his elder brother Seleucus Philopater, who showed equal favour towards the Jews, and then by his son Antiochus Epiphanes. The high-priesthood was occupied at that time by Onias III. According to Josephus, l. xii. chap. 4, § 10, this high priest received a writing from Areus, a king of Sparta, to this purport: “Since there was a written monument, according to which Spartans and Jews were descended from the same ancestor Abraham, he offered every act of friendship to the Jewish nation, and expected the same from them in return.” Besides the reference to this event contained in Josephus, it is mentioned not only in the second book of the Maccabees (2Ma 5:9 Macc. 5:9), but also in the first (1Ma 12:7-8), which speaks also of another event which necessarily presupposes the former, viz. the writing which Jonathan sent to the Spartans. Hence there can be no doubt with regard to the accuracy of the fact, if we take into consideration the weight of authority belonging to the first book of the Maccabees. One thing only remains doubtful, viz. the date. Josephus places the event under Onias III. The first book of the Maccabees, on the other hand, calls the high priest Onias without any closer designation; and from the circumstance that in the letter of Jonathan to the Spartans there given, it is stated that a long time has already elapsed since that letter to Onias, Onias III seems to be excluded, for he died only twelve years before Jonathan entered upon his office. Moreover, history proves that at the time of Onias in. the Spartans had no king of the name of Areus, or Darius, as he is called in the first book of the Maccabees, by a confusion of the less common name with the more common. Yet these arguments have but little weight. Ἄρειος, from Ἄρης, Mars, may have been an honorary title of the Spartan kings. Great trouble has been taken to explain how the idea of relationship with the Jews could have originated among the Spartans, and what was the writing upon which they based it. But if we take into consideration the whole mass of Jewish productions which collectively have the one object of making the Jews beloved and respected among the heathen nations, we can scarcely doubt that the Spartans, who were not well versed in literary intelligence, were here the victims of a Jewish literary deception. The fact of their claiming relationship with this nation has its natural foundation in the great fame which the Spartans enjoyed in olden times, even after the fall of their state, and in the honour which it must therefore bring to be recognised by them as brethren. Moreover, the Jewish deception certainly did not emanate from the Jewish nation as such, but only from a single individual, a Jewish Simonides. We cannot, however, exempt the rulers of the Jews from the imputation of having accepted the error of the Spartans utiliter. They must have known from their sacred books that the Spartans were not descendants of Abraham. We have an analogy in the circumstance that not a few of the nationalities of Asia maintain that they are descended from the ten tribes of the Israelites,—an opinion to which they can scarcely have come except through Jewish influence. There is therefore no difficulty in explaining the fact, nor is there any reason for accepting, with Leo, the assumption of Joh. Dav. Michaelis, that by a misunderstanding a statement was made respecting the Spartans which ought rather to have been understood of the Sepharads, or Jewish exiles who had settled at Sepharad, probably on the Bosphorus, and had there founded an independent kingdom (Mich, on 1 Maccabees 12). The Jew who planned the deception would certainly not thank Michaelis for having thus baffled his intention. Rome and Sparta might well be classed together; but we cannot understand how it could have occurred to Jonathan to send an embassy to Rome and Sepharad at the same time, or how the author of the first book of the Maccabees could have looked upon Rome and Sepharad as in any sense equal. In the year 175 B.C. Antiochus Epiphanes ascended the throne. He stands as one branded with a curse, not only in sacred history, but also in profane. Polybius, Livius, Diodorus, all heathen authors, represent him as the incarnation of every crime. The people called him Epiphanes instead of Epiphanes. In order to understand the events which took place under him in Judea, we must premise the following remarks:—By the conquests of Alexander, and the Greek supremacies to which they gave rise, Greek culture, morals, and philosophy were brought into the East, which received impressions with that softness peculiar to the conquered in relation to the conquerors. Even the Jews were unable to withstand Greek influence. The heathenizing party which had always existed among them now became stronger and stronger. They were unwilling to bear the contempt of the heathen any longer, and were anxious to participate in the spirit of the world, ashamed of their antiquated superstition. It was natural that the orthodox, stirred into opposition against this party, who aimed at nothing less than the complete overthrow of Judaism, should be moved to greater and more active zeal for their faith, and should combine the more closely. Matters soon came to such a pitch, that it was necessary for each one to declare himself in favour either of the one party or the other. The orthodox party, however, who took the name of the Chasidim, were decidedly on the decrease; and if matters had gone on progressing quietly as before, the Israelitish principle had everything to fear. But God now intervened. The compulsory measures adopted by the heathen government in connection with the heathenizing party, led many who were already wavering to a decision; the Israelitish-religious interest gained an ally in the Israelitish-national interest; and the issue of the thing was, that the heathen principle, though not entirely thrust out, was obliged to disguise itself in the garb of tame Sadducism. We can scarcely doubt that the entrance which heathenism found was facilitated by the unspiritual character which had become more and more common to orthodox Judaism during this period. To this time belongs the origin of the so-called oral law. The Pentateuch is not content to lay down the highest moral-religious maxims, and to impress them on the mind by exhortation, but wishes to carry the law into the heart of the national life, and for this purpose gives a number of special directions, which, however, collectively flow from the highest principles, and are continually traced back to them, especially in Deuteronomy, where the command to love God is constantly repeated as the highest and only real command. In this way, however, a good handle was given for an external, mere legal spirit; and we learn how imminent this was, from the solicitude with which the prophets contend against it. Owing to this opposition, the tendency never attained to any firm consistency and dominion. But after the exile, when the prophethood was extinct, and the spirit was gradually disappearing, it gained ground. And now, in directing the glance to the external as such, it soon became evident that the Mosaic law was most incomplete, and by no means contained an adequate rule for all external action. Life presented a number of cases for which there were no regulations; and where such cases did not actually occur, casuistry was indefatigable in inventing them. Not content with representing these supplementary laws in their true character, as mere inferences and applications, the product of scholarly subtlety, the authors thought it necessary to invest them with a higher authority, and thus arose the fiction of an oral law, received by Moses from God along with the written law, and handed down to the present by a succession of safe depositaries. Under cover of this, Rabbinical casuistry now weighed down all life with an intolerable burden of commands, which descended to the very minutest details, and gave Judaism a character of unspirituality which must have been very revolting, especially to the young. Yet Rabbinical sophistry was still far from its height at the end of this period, and was only consolidated in its tendency by the victory which the orthodox party afterwards gained over heathenism, of which the result was the manifestation of developed Pharisaism, which had just as little existence before the time of the Maccabees as Sadducism. The Chasidim, whom we encounter towards the end of this period, possessed the elements not merely of the sect of the Pharisees, but also of that of the Essenes, to whom their name descended. After these preliminary remarks, we shall consider those events at the close of this period which paved the way to the beginning of the following. We have already shown how the political position which devolved on the high priest in the times after the exile necessarily had the most injurious effect, leading worldly ambition to make this dignity the object of its strivings. This was the case here also. Soon after Antiochus came to the throne, a brother of Onias the high priest, called Jesus, a name which he afterwards changed into Jason, the Greek equivalent, offered him a large sum if he would appoint him to the dignity of his brother. The proposition was accepted, the God-fearing Onias was deposed, and the godless Jason installed in his place. Owing to the character of Jason, and the way in which he obtained his office, he was naturally at variance with all that was in any way attached to the religion of the fathers. In order, therefore, to maintain his position, he made it his object to introduce heathenism more and more among his people. By encouraging heathenism, he hoped at the same time to make himself very popular at the heathen court. He offered the king 150 talents more for permission to establish a gymnasium in Jerusalem, a theatre for combat and other athletic sports for the youth, in accordance with the Greek custom. He also obtained permission from the king to bestow the very valuable freedom of the city of Antioch, and conferred it only on those who joined the Greek faction. These measures led to important results. Even priests left the temple to take part in the games and diversions of the gymnasium. Jason had even the audacity to send ambassadors with presents to the feast of Hercules in Tyre. But he soon lost his dignity in the same way in which he had obtained it. He had sent a certain Menelaus to the king at Antioch, for the purpose of paying him the tribute due, and of treating with him on important matters. According to Josephus, this Menelaus was a brother of Jason, the third son of Simon the high priest. The author of the second book of the Maccabees, on the contrary, says that he was a brother of Simon the Benjamite. This latter view is the more probable. The former probably had its origin in the fact that Jewish authors found it difficult to reconcile themselves to the idea that a man who was not of the high-priestly family should have occupied the position of high priest. But Menelaus may have been of priestly origin, notwithstanding the fact that he is called a Benjamite; for the Levites were counted as belonging to those tribes among whom they dwelt. Menelaus now asked the king for the priesthood, offering a larger sum for it than Jason had paid. His request was granted. But the mere payment did not suffice. He required strong military support in order to dispossess Jason. To obtain this, he and his adherents made a declaration to the king that they renounced the laws of their country, and accepted the religion of the king and the worship of the Greeks. The king now supplied him with troops, and, accompanied by these, he took possession of his office without any opposition. The hope of retaining it could only rest on his zeal in the promotion of heathenism. Only in this way could he remain in favour with the court, or rely on the assistance of the heathenizing party; he could have no hope of winning over the Chasidim, the pious party, and must therefore make it his aim to destroy them. In full confidence he took the way that was opened up to him by circumstances. He publicly renounced the law of Moses and embraced the religion of the Greeks, making every effort to lead others to the same apostasy. In order to pay the sum promised to the king, he sold a great number of the vessels belonging to the temple. The legal (but deposed) high priest Onias was slain by Andronicus, a court officer, bribed by Jason, under circumstances so revolting, that even Antiochus was filled with indignation when he heard of it, and commanded Andronicus to be executed on the spot where the crime was committed. The object which Antiochus followed with the most strenuous zeal was the possession of Egypt. He undertook three great expeditions against this kingdom. On the third, an end was put to all his ambitious projects, for he received a definite command from the Romans to keep within the limits of his kingdom. Josephus has mixed up together the things that Antiochus did on his return from the second expedition and on his return from the third; but the books of the Maccabees discriminate exactly what was done on each occasion. From them we learn that after the second expedition Antiochus himself earned out his measures of persecution, but that after the third he left their accomplishment to Apollonius, his commander-in-chief. Between these two events lies a period of two years. The former took place in the year 170 B.C., the latter in the year 168 B.C. When Antiochus was in Egypt on the second expedition, a false report arose in Palestine that he was dead. Jason thought it necessary to take advantage of this opportunity. He came to Jerusalem with a small military force, and, with the assistance of his party there, drove out Menelaus, who retired to the palace, and perpetrated the greatest cruelties. When Antiochus heard an account of all this, he was greatly enraged, principally because the inhabitants of Jerusalem had received the news of his death with the greatest demonstration of joy. He marched at once to Jerusalem, and took the city by storm, κατὰ κράτος according to the account of the second book of the Maccabees and of Diod. Sic, with which Josephus also is in harmony in De Bell. Jud. i. 1, but in the Ant. xii. 7 he contradicts himself, and states that the city was taken ἀμαχητί. He instituted a great massacre; 40,000 persons are said to have been slain, and an equal number sold as slaves to the surrounding nations. He penetrated to the interior of the temple, sacrificed a pig on the altar of burnt-offering, and sprinkled every part of the temple with the blood of this unclean animal. He carried away the altar of incense, the table of shew-bread, the golden candlestick, and other vessels of the temple, together with the spoil of the plundered city. Jason fled on the news of the arrival of Antiochus, and died at Sparta in the greatest misery. On his return from the third expedition, Antiochus, filled with displeasure on account of the failure of his projects, determined to revenge himself on the Jews, although they had given him no cause for anger. On his march through Palestine he sent Apollonius with 22,000 men against Jerusalem. This general executed his bloody commission on the Sabbath, when the nation was peacefully assembled in the synagogues. He commanded his troops to slay all the men, and to take the women and children prisoners, and sell them into slavery. After the massacre they plundered the city, and set fire to it in several places. A number of houses were pulled down, and a fortress was built of the materials opposite to the temple, and commanding a view of it. In this fortress there was placed a strong garrison, which attacked all those who went to worship in the temple. The temple was defiled in every way. The morning and evening sacrifices, and the worship of God generally, now ceased, until three and a half years later, when Judas rescued the temple from the hands of the heathen, and purified it. Jerusalem was almost entirely deserted by Jewish inhabitants. Antiochus now issued a decree that all the nations of his states should abandon their old religious customs, and embrace the religion of the king. This decree was given with special reference to the Jews, notwithstanding its comprehensive form. Its aim was the complete destruction of their religion and nationality. We best learn the motive which here influenced Antiochus from 1Ma 1:43 Macc. 1:43. He was anxious that all his subjects should be one nation,—the same motive which led Louis XIV to murder the Protestants. He acted less from heathen fanaticism than in the interest of his own despotism. Every observance of a particularity in his kingdom he regarded as an infringement of his rights. The Jewish religion must have been odious to him, in proportion as it placed the will of another higher King in opposition to his will, in proportion to the decision with which the professors of this religion asserted the principle of obedience to God rather than man, a principle which had no footing in heathenism. Doubtless also the Jewish apostates helped to increase the animosity of the king. They continually assured him that no reliance could be placed on the submission of the Jews so long as they retained their own religion, but that they would take the first opportunity of making themselves independent; and there may have been various manifestations of a restless political spirit in the orthodox party to offer a foundation for such accusations. The conduct of the Samaritans on this occasion is highly characteristic, and affords great insight into their whole religious position. We here see that they were self-constituted worshippers of Jehovah, that they had chosen Jehovah without His having chosen them, without His having revealed Himself to them or having taken form among them; so that to them Jehovah was in fact an idol. For it is characteristic of all idolatry (with which rationalism is on a par) that the initiative belongs to man, who worships a God who has not revealed Himself, while all true worship of God can appear only as an answer on the part of the Church. Formerly the Samaritans had taken every opportunity of representing themselves as the followers and descendants of the ten tribes. Now, when the pretended relationship with the Jews seemed likely to prove injurious to them, they came out with the truth. They declared that they were originally heathen, who had only resolved to pay a certain homage to the God of the country in order to avoid certain evils. But they were quite willing to comply with the command of the king, and only begged that they might not be involved in the same punishment with the criminal nation of the Jews. They besought permission to dedicate their temple on Gerizim, which had hitherto been consecrated to a God without a name, to the Greek Jupiter, and because they were strangers in the land, to Jupiter Xenios. In saving that their God had until now been without a name, they spoke the truth, although with the intention of deceiving, for in the biblical sense their God was indeed without a name,—He had done nothing among them from which a name could have arisen in a living way. Among the Jews also many obeyed the law of the king, not from fear alone, but also from inclination. These apostates then became more violent in persecuting their brethren than the heathen themselves. The king now sent a commission, with Athenseus at their head, to Judea, for the purpose of carrying out his law. With the help of the Syrian soldiery, these men made it their first aim to destroy every trace of the Jewish religion in the capital. Circumcision was forbidden, and the observance of the Sabbath; every copy of the law that could be found was destroyed; the temple was dedicated to Jupiter Olympus, whose statue was erected on the altar of burnt-offering, and to whom sacrifices were presented. A similar course of action was adopted in the other cities. Once in every month, on the birthday of the king, the inhabitants were compelled to sacrifice on the heathen altars, which were erected everywhere, and to eat the flesh of swine and other unclean animals that were presented as offerings. Many, however, gave up their life for their religious convictions. The author of the first book of the Maccabees, 1Ma 1:62-63, only makes this general statement; but the author of the second book gives us a full history of many such martyrdoms, in which, however, we are unable to distinguish how much is historical truth and how much embellishment. What Josephus relates in the book de Maccaboeis is mostly taken from the second book of the Maccabees. Hence we see how everything was at stake. And the more trying the time was for those who feared God in Israel, the more natural must it appear that God should have given them consolation in the prophecies of Daniel long before the consolation itself appeared; the more natural, since prophecy itself was at this time completely extinct, so that the consolation could not proceed from the midst of themselves. Daniel pointed out that the object of this dispensation was the trial and purification of the nation. We see how necessary this was from what has already been said. Before turning to the succeeding period, we must speak of a literary production belonging to this time, which serves not a little to throw light on the better tendency of Judaism which prevailed in it. This is the book of Jesus Sirach, which, together with the book of Wisdom, the book of Tobias, Baruch, and the first book of the Maccabees, forms the kernel of the Apocrypha. This book received the name of Ecclesiasticus from the circumstance that, although possessing no canonical authority, it was yet in ecclesiastical use. The (merely) ecclesiastical books are opposed to the canonical; and because Jesus Sirach occupied the first place among these, having the greatest authority, and being the most read in the Church, it was called κατ’ ἐξοχὴν Ecclesiasticus. Among the Church fathers we find it also under the names πανάρετος and πανάρετος σοφία which form an excellent indication of its contents. In determining the age of the book, we have a double date at our service. First, the high priest Simon is described in a way which suggests the idea that the author must have seen him in his official activity. But there can scarcely be a doubt that this was Simon the Just, elsewhere so celebrated, who lived in the last quarter of the third century B.C., and not the obscure Simon the Second, who lived in the second quarter of the same century. The author knows only one Simon. If he had meant Simon the Second, he must have distinguished him from the famous Simon the First. Then again the translator, the grandson of the author, says that he came to Egypt under the reign of Ptolemy Evergetes, in the thirty-eighth year. Of the two Ptolemies who bore the name Ptolemaeus Evergetes, the first from 246-241 B.C., the other about the middle of the second century, we have in favour of the former, agreement with the first chronological date. On the other hand, it has been asserted that the first Evergetes did not reign for thirty-eight years; but it is not stated that the translator came to Egypt in the thirty-eighth year of Ptolemy. Many, among others Winer, Disputatur de utrinsque Siracidoe oetate, Erlangen, 1832, have justly supposed that reference was made to the thirty-eighth year of the translator’s age, just as in the superscription of Ezekiel the thirtieth year means the thirtieth year of the prophet. According to this, the composition of our book must not be placed in the first half of the second century, as is now generally done, after the example of Eichhorn, and has been recently by Fritzsche in his commentary, Leipzig, 1859, but rather in the first half of the third century,—a view which has lately been defended by Hug, in a special treatise, in the Journal for the archbishopric of Freiburg, in vol. 7. The book was originally written in the Hebrew language, as the grandson of the author states in the preface. There is also another Jewish book of Proverbs, by a certain Ben Sira, which has been frequently edited. This Ben Sira is without doubt no other than Jesus Sirach. Not only is the name in favour of this view, but also the agreement of many sentences. The book, however, is not the original, but a free elaboration after the Greek, bearing the same relation to the true Jesus Sirach as Josephus Ben Gorion bears to the true Josephus. Of the author of the book we know nothing more than what we can gather from the book itself. The way in which he speaks of the γραμματεῖς in chap. 38:25-39:1-15, the decision with which he gives the preference to this calling before every other, makes it highly probable that he was himself a scribe. From that description, however, and the example of the author himself, we learn that among these scribes, who in themselves were regarded only as literati, but from whose midst all public teachers and officials were chosen, there were most honourable men; that at that time the pharisaic propositions had not yet supplanted the deeper and devoted study of Holy Scripture, which here appears as the highest task of the scholar. In estimating the book, a false criterion has only too frequently been applied. We ought not to compare it with Isaiah and the Psalms in the Old Testament, or with the Gospel of John in the New Testament, but with the Proverbs in the Old Testament, and perhaps with the Epistle of James in the New Testament. There will still, no doubt, be a considerable difference—the difference between an apocryphal and a canonical book—but we shall yet have sufficient reason for rejoicing in the work of the author, regarding it as a beautiful memorial of Israelitish piety and recognition of God. Those who look upon Christ only as a moral teacher have no reason to place Him much higher than Jesus Sirach, who continued to work on the foundation laid by Solomon, and whose moral maxims are frequently in striking harmony with those of the New Testament. “With respect to the forgiveness of injuries,” says Hess, “and the hope built upon it of finding grace with God; with respect to freedom from the spirit of revenge; regarding benevolence and the best mode of practising it; conjugal fidelity, etc.,—probably nothing was written before the time of Christ which more nearly resembled His mode of thought, although not quite conformable to so high a standard.” ======================================================================== CHAPTER 53: 53. § 5. THE TIME OF THE MACCABEES ======================================================================== § 5. The Time of the Maccabees The most important sources for the beginning of this period, the time of the true struggle for freedom, are the books of the Maccabees, the first of which, the only one that can lay claim to perfect credibility, leads us down to the time of John Hyrcanus. From these two books, on which we possess an excellent monograph by Wernsdorf, 1749, Josephus has drawn; perhaps also from a fourth book of the Maccabees, containing the life of John Hyrcanus, which is said to have been seen as late as the sixteenth century. For the remaining time we have only Josephus and the scattered accounts of heathen authors. The whole period comprises 125 years, of which sixty years passed away under the ethnarchy of the Maccabees, forty-two under their kingship, and twenty-three under the ethnarchy of Hyrcanus, under whom the supremacy was only nominally with the race of the Maccabees. Those who form the centre of Jewish history at this period bear a twofold name—the Hasmonians and the Maccabees. Many, in imitation of Josephus, have derived the former designation from an individual of this name. But there can be no doubt that the name is the Hebrew השמנים, optimates, Psalms 68:32, and a title of honour which was conferred on the family. The name of Maccabee was first borne by Judas alone, as the bravest of the brethren, and is probably derived from מקב, hammer, the hammerer; comp. Jeremiah 23:29, where the word of God, of which Judas was an instrument, is compared to a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces. It then passed over to the whole race of heroes, especially in the Christian Church, and was even employed in a still wider sense, being applied to all those who resembled them in zeal for the defence of the true religion. It is not our intention here to enter into the details of the struggles which led to the release of the Jews. For these we must refer to the first book of the Maccabees. The principal, almost the only, personages who attract our attention at this time are Mattathias the son of John, a priest of the tribe of Joarib, who first rose against the heathen persecutors in the hill city Modin, and soon collected the Chasidim about him, but died only a year afterwards; and three of his five sons, Judas, Jonathan, and Simon, who successively came to be leaders of the nation, and all died in the service of their country. It is quite evident that these men, and the Chasidim under their leadership, manifest a truly heroic spirit; yet we must not overlook the fact that the final success of their undertaking, the emancipation, is attributable just as much to the state of the Syrian kingdom at that time, as to this spirit of heroism. One change of government followed another. In many cases the various pretenders made every effort to attach the Jews to their interest. It is very remarkable how often, just when matters had come to the worst, a change of this kind in the Syrian kingdom rescued the Jews from the threatened destruction. This concurrence of what the world calls chance was not sufficiently considered by the Jews, when, trusting to their success in the time of the Maccabees, they afterwards rebelled against the Romish power. The destruction which they met at the hands of this power may be regarded as the natural consequence of their success against the Syrians. It was at the same time a righteous judgment on them, because they had not shown their gratitude in the right way for the salvation which God had granted them at that time. Hence, in this case, the salvation was changed into destruction. In the first twenty-three years of this period, under Judas, who stood for six years at the head of affairs, and Jonathan, who held the reins for seventeen years, the condition of the nation was on the whole a melancholy one, glorious victories alternating with defeats,—matters having frequently gone so far that all hope was apparently lost, the country being laid waste by hostile armies, who raged cruelly against the Chasidim. The six years of Judas, in which Antiochus Epiphanes died a miserable death, were especially wretched. We find one bright spot in the restoration of the worship of God in Jerusalem, after the heathen abominations had been done away and the temple had been purified. It was an event which gave occasion for the founding of a yearly feast, the Encaenia, which, according to 1Ma 4:59 Macc. 4:59, was kept for eight days, beginning on the twenty-fifth of Casleu or December. From John 10:22 we learn that this feast, the only one besides the feast of Purim that was introduced after the Mosaic time, was still observed at the time of Christ. It was called also λυχνοκαΐα, the feast of candles, because lights were then kindled everywhere, as a sign that God would allow the light of His salvation to appear in the darkness of the misery. A happier time began under Simon, who was distinguished alike for bravery and wisdom, and who accomplished the work of emancipation in the first year of his primacy. From this time the Syrian kings themselves had dealings with the Jews, as with their φίλοις συμμάχοις, and the nation remained in possession of freedom, until the unfortunate disputes of Hyrcanus and Aristobulus regarding the supremacy led to interference on the part of the Romans, which resulted in a new servitude of the Jews. According to Josephus, xii. chap. 17 and 19, Judas already held the office of high priest, having been raised to this dignity by the people; but from 1Ma 9:54-55, it follows that Judas died before Alcimus, the ungodly high priest; and Josephus contradicts himself, for in xx. chap. 8, he says that after the death of Alcimus the nation was seven years without a high priest. The correct view is that Jonathan only attained to the dignity of a general, as well as that of a high priest, six years before his death; comp. 1Ma 10:20 Macc. 10:20. In all probability the nomination was first made by the nation, and the actual appointment by Alexander Balas, the Syrian king. Alcimus, however, did not belong to the family in which the high-priesthood had remained for centuries; and when this office now passed over to the Maccabees, they lost all expectation of regaining the dignity. A descendant of this family, Onias, sought to indemnify himself for what had been lost, and, with the permission of Philometer, the Egyptian king, built a temple in the district of Heliopolis, where the worship of God was performed by priests according to the Mosaic ritual. This temple was only closed under Vespasian. At first sight, there is something very strange in this circumstance. We cannot understand how Onias could have had such presumption, in the face of the strict ordinances of the Pentateuch with regard to the unity of the sanctuary, and the later declarations of God respecting the exclusive choice of Zion. We have a presentiment beforehand that Onias had some other authority by which he thought he could defend himself against this, which was actually the case. Doubtless he appealed to the passage, Isaiah 19:18-21, where the prophet foretells the future conversion of Egypt to the true God, and the erection of altars there to His name. It is quite evident that the passage could not really serve as a justification of his undertaking. It refers not to a sanctuary for Jews, but for converted Egyptians. We must not forget, however, that his undertaking did not by any means receive the approval of the nation, but in all probability his temple was only recognised and visited by a small schismatic party. Josephus expressly condemns his undertaking: οὐκ έξ ὑγιούς γνώμης ταῦτα ἔμπαττεν, he says, de Bell.Jude 1:1. vii. chap. 10, § 3. Nor must we neglect to point out that this attempt to effect what God had reserved to Himself to accomplish in the Messianic time, is by no means a solitary one. The circumcision which John Hyrcanus forcibly imposed on the Edomites belongs to the same category, and the restoration of the temple attempted by Herod, which latter was occasioned by the prophecy of Haggai. But when the true fulfilment began, these apparent fulfilments were revealed in all their meagreness. Judas had received the dignity of a general, and Jonathan that of a general and high priest, only as a personal thing; but Simon received from the nation and the council the formal and solemn assurance of the hereditary primacy as well as the high-priesthood. In 1Ma 14:35 Macc. 14:35 ff. we have the decree of the council and nation. It was engraved on tables of brass, and hung up on the wall of the sanctuary. From this alone we see that the position of the Maccabee princes was a very difficult one, and subsequent history confirms the view. The decree is based on the presupposition that the power was properly only with the nation and the council, the power of the prince being merely a potestas delegata,—the prince and high priest appointed purely by favour of the people, and the people purely by the favour of God. With absolute power the nation decides what dignities are to be united in the prince, and what insignia he is to bear. A power which has originated in this way cannot be independent even after its establishment; and every attempt to make it so—and there can be no lack of such attempts, at least in an oriental state—must entail severe conflicts. There was a stronger motive to opposition at this time, since the priestly-pharisaic party at the head of the nation must soon become cognizant of the evils caused by the formerly unheard of union of the high-priestly dignity and the highest civil power. This union had been the result first of the necessity of the times, and afterwards of gratitude; when the necessity was over and the gratitude extinct, many scruples arose. Thus, immediately after the happy termination of the external struggle, and even during it, the foundation was laid for an internal conflict, equally injurious to the nation and the rulers. The determination contained in 1Ma 14:41, that Simon should be their governor and high priest for ever, ἀναστῆναι προφήτην πιστόν, is remarkable. The Maccabee time, notwithstanding all its zeal for the law, was yet conscious of having been forsaken by the Spirit. It had no prophets to make known the hidden decrees of God; comp. 1Ma 9:27, which is in perfect agreement with the fact that in the sole authentic source, the first book of the Maccabees, we find nothing in what occurred like a miraculous intervention on the part of God, but everything seems rather to depend on natural ground, while the second book of the Maccabees strenuously endeavours to destroy this character. It was hoped, however, that this state, so little in unison with the idea of a people of God, would be only temporary; that in the future God would enter into closer and more immediate connection with His people. In this expectation only a provisional character was given to the most important determinations. Here there was a special reason for giving prominence to the thought, and pointing to the possibility, that the decree might at a future time be reversed by divine authority. The kingdom had been given and confirmed to the race of David by a series of prophetic oracles; that it should permanently be taken away from this race was inconceivable. From it the Messiah was to proceed at a future time, who, according to Psalms 110 and the prophecies of Zechariah, should combine the dignity of high priest and king. Hence, when the kingly and the high-priestly dignity were transferred to a race not proceeding from David, it could only be done with the consciousness that it was a momentary concession to the force of circumstances, which called loudly for such a measure, but that the elevation could have only a temporary character, and this race, as an intermediate one, would, at a future time determined by God, have to yield again to the only legitimate one. In all probability the firm constitution and the consolidation of the supreme tribunal at Jerusalem, composed of seventy members and a president, which bore the name συνέδριον, סנהדרין, took place in the time of the struggle for freedom against the Syrians. This Greek name itself is an argument against those who attribute its origin to a far earlier date. It was not merely the highest judicial court, but also legislated for the whole religious community. The less definitely the boundaries of this and the princely power were marked out, the more readily must quarrels arise; and nothing was more probable than that the pharisaic-priestly party, who were always supreme in this council, should make it a means of concentrated opposition against the princely power. It is probable that the constitution of the synagogue also received its fuller development during the struggle for religion and freedom; its beginnings date back to the earliest times, and are as old as the Mosaic law. In proportion as the zeal for the religion of the fathers increased, it was thought necessary to erect synagogues in every place where the Mosaic law was taught. According to the statement of the Jews, there were more than four hundred synagogues in Jerusalem alone; and from the gospel history we learn that in Galilee there were synagogues even in the smaller places. The Jews maintain that synagogues were erected in every place where there were ten men of distinction and wealth who had leisure to attend divine service daily. At the time of the Syrian oppression, we are told, it became the custom to read sections from the prophets as well as from the law. For at the time of Antiochus Epiphanes the reading of the Mosaic law had been forbidden, and instead of it selections were made from the prophets, called Haphtharas. These were afterwards retained along with the Parashas. But the correctness of this Jewish statement may well be doubted. The selection of passages from the prophets as well as from the law is so natural, that we can scarcely believe it could have been occasioned by a cause so purely external. Respecting the constitution of the synagogues we have a classic work by Vitringa, de Synagoga, lib. iii. Simon was treacherously assassinated by his son-in-law Ptolemy, after a reign of only eight years, a time of great prosperity for the nation. Coins with his stamp are still in existence. They bear the name שמעוןנשיאישראל, together with the first, second, etc., year of the redemption of Israel. The genuineness of these coins was triumphantly proved in the contest between Tychsen and the Spanish scholar Bayer (principal work, de Numis Hebr. Samaritanis, Valentia, 1781, 4to); compare the full account of this dispute in Hartmann’s Oluf Gerhard Tychsen, ii. 2, pp. 295-495. Ptolemy’s plot to slay John Hyrcanus also, the heir to the throne, was unsuccessful, and the latter succeeded to the dignity of his father, which he held for twenty-nine years. His reign also was beneficial to the nation. He knew how to make himself feared by the surrounding nations. He took possession of Sichem, and destroyed the temple on Gerizim, which was never rebuilt; and at the time of Christ the Samaritans had no longer any temple,—a fact which is often overlooked. Yet the mountain still served them for a sanctuary. He then conquered the Idumeans, and compelled them to be circumcised,—not, as many affirm, to adopt the rite for the second time. The assumption that they had formerly been circumcised, and that the rite had only been discontinued from the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, is quite untenable. We have already indicated the motive by which he was led. He had the prophecies of the future conversion of the heathen before his eyes, and intended, as far as was possible to his limited understanding, to accomplish it by force. From this time the Idumeans were reckoned as Jews. But the deed bore bitter fruit for the Jews. It led to the supremacy of the family of Herod the Idumean. It is of special importance to note that it was under Hyrcanus that the Pharisees and Sadducees first appeared prominently in history. Josephus states that hitherto Hyrcanus had always advocated the principles of the Pharisees, and had shown favour to this party. But it now happened that one of this party publicly called upon him, in a hateful and dishonourable manner, to renounce the dignity of high priest; and the way in which the heads of the party behaved on this occasion led Hyrcanus to suspect that the individual was only the organ of the whole party, and that the mode alone in which he asserted the party-feeling was peculiar to him. That Hyrcanus was not deceived in this opinion, we have already shown. The union of the highest civil with the highest spiritual power must have appeared highly hazardous to the Pharisees. From a high priest who was at the same time prince they could not expect such unconditional devotion to the strictest ecclesiastical maxims; and if he were to act in opposition to these principles, their defenders would be without protection and centre. Hyrcanus now went over to the side of the Sadducees. This is the place to treat somewhat more fully of the three principal sects of the Jews, of which the two former especially play so important a part in the following history. First with regard to the Pharisees, there can be no doubt as to the meaning of their name. פְרִישׁ, as the Pharisees are called in Aramaean, viz. in the Syrian translation of the New Testament, is the participle Pail of the verb פרש, to separate, corresponding to the Hebrew participle Paul. Separatists, this was the name adopted by the members of this party, because they were distinguished by an especially strict observance of the law, particularly of the ceremonial parts, from the great mass of the nation, who were more lax and careless in this respect, and probably still more because they anxiously avoided all nearer contact with them, fearing lest they should be contaminated with their uncleanness. Elias Levita, in his dictionary Tisbi, says: “These are they who are separated from the ways of this world, like the Nazarites; “so also Suidas, Φαρισαῖοι, οἱ ἑρμηνευόμενοι ἀφωρισμένοι, παρὰ τὸ μερίζειν καὶ ἀφορίζειν ἑαυτοὺς τῶν ἄλλων ἁπάντων; and the author of the Talmudic dictionary Aruch, “A Pharisee is one who separates himself from all uncleanness and from all unclean food, and from the common people, עםהארץ, who pay no particular attention to the distinction of meats.” That the name is characteristic of the thing, when thus interpreted, appears from passages such as Luke 18:11, Mark 7:7. Respecting the origin of the Pharisees there are many different opinions. According to Josephus, Ant. l. xviii. chap. 1, § 2, the three sects of the Jews were known from very early times, ἐκ τοῦ πάνυ ἀρχαίου. He first mentions them in the history of Jonathan the Maccabee, when in his latter years he made a covenant with the Romans and Spartans. At that time, he says, Ant. xiii. 5, 9, there were three sects among the Jews, without meaning that they first originated at that time. Their first important appearance occurs in the time of Hyrcanus. We get a middle course between the different views, by distinguishing between Pharisaism as a tendency and as a party. As a tendency, Pharisaism was very old,—in its most general outlines almost coeval with the giving of the law. Even in the times previous to the exile, we find not only the openly godless, heathenizing disposition, but also another, which sought by external piety to conceal the inner estrangement from God, or godlessness, not only from others, but also from itself and from God. The prophets declaim against them in many passages; for example, Isaiah in Isaiah 1 and Isaiah 66, and the author of Psalms 1. After the return from the captivity, this form of godlessness became the prevailing one, and remained so until the influence of the Greek supremacy raised the other, the heathenizing tendency, to new importance. As a party, however, Pharisaism is young. In this respect its roots only lie in the time of the Maccabees. It owes its origin to the machinations of the heathenizing party to destroy the paternal religion. In consequence of this, all those who remained true to the religion of their fathers—the Chasidim of the books of the Maccabees—formed a close union among themselves. But when the continuance of their religion was secured, those among them who differed internally separated into the two parties of Pharisees and Essenes, of whom the former were by far the more important in number and influence. From this time the Pharisees, though possessing no external bond of union, yet formed a kind of order, whose members were so well known that they could be counted, and who, after the manner of the Jesuits, made every effort to acquire and retain supremacy in the state for the Israelitish-religious principle, according to their conception of it, and for themselves as its representatives. With this object in view, they placed themselves in the closest contact with the masses, and, relying on their support, thought they could set at defiance those rulers who placed themselves in opposition to their interest. The necessary presupposition of the continuance of this party was that heathenism possessed an influence with respect to Israel both internal and external. If this influence had disappeared, the party, as such, would also have disappeared, and only the spirit could have remained in existence. Moreover, by the fact that the Pharisees formed themselves into a party, Pharisaism as a tendency was considerably modified. All its lines were more sharply drawn; the more distinctly and prominently the Pharisees appeared in public as representatives of the Israelitish-religious principle, the more they sought to legitimize themselves in this capacity by the strictest, and at the same time the most public, fulfilment of the commandments. At the same time a number of most unworthy members joined the party, who could not have participated in the tendency, because this had reference only to the satisfaction of personal religious wants, while the party offered abundant satisfaction to ambition and other passions. The gross hypocrisy which sounded a trumpet before it, etc., must have been greatly encouraged by the circumstance that Pharisaism as a party never lost sight of its position with respect to the people, always striving to impose upon them and to gain glory in their eyes, knowing well that without the assistance of the nation it was powerless. If we now proceed to inquire into the main peculiarities of Pharisaism, we must first of all designate it a form of Israelitish piety which refused to acknowledge the forgiveness of sins and the Holy Spirit, and therefore regeneration. That this characteristic was present even in the noblest Pharisees, we learn from our Lord Himself, when He says to Nicodemus, “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God;” and “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” All piety without regeneration seeks a substitute in order to silence the demands of the conscience, at least in some measure. The Pharisees found this substitute in the observance of the external Mosaic commands, especially of those which treat of legal purity and impurity. In all these matters, that could be performed while the heart was still unregenerate, they were most scrupulous. The better of them, however, were not content with observing the mere externalities of the Mosaic law, but strove to fulfil it in its whole extent; and the impossibility of reaching this goal from their standpoint involved them in conflicts such as those which Paul, the former Pharisee, describes in Romans 7 from his own experience. But this was not the rule. On the contrary, superficiality and perversion of the Mosaic law belong to the characteristics of the party, just as we invariably find a tendency in those minds which recognise neither forgiveness nor the Holy Ghost, to deaden the law, in order to escape from its accusations. From the polemic which our Lord directs against them in the Sermon on the Mount, we learn that they placed sin only in the sphere of action, in striking contrast to the Mosaic law, and made its banishment from this sphere their sole aim. But even with respect to action they had divers expedients for allowing free scope to the sinful inclination that was kept down by the law. Thus Matthew 15:4 ff. shows how, by their doctrine of the collision of duties, they paralyzed the command regarding the reverence due to parents, to which Moses assigned so high a place. How great the blindness of Pharisaism was respecting the true sense of the law, is shown by the answer of the Pharisee youth when our Lord referred him to the ten commandments: πάντα ταῦτα ἐφύλαξα· τί ἔτι ὑστερῶ; They thought they could not only fulfil the law, but could do even more than the law required. Thus D. Kimchi, on Psalms 103:7, defines the חסליד as one who does more than is commanded. What they took away on one side they added to the other. The so-called oral law was fostered and cherished by the Pharisees, and its validity formed a great subject of dispute between them and the Sadducees. They were well satisfied with the exchange. It is true that every oral law imposed a number of burdensome obligations, but it did not invade the life of the natural man, and the idea of obtaining merit with God indemnified them for sacrifices and deprivations. Again, self-righteousness is a peculiar characteristic of Pharisaism, and is found wherever religiousness exists without forgiveness and the Holy Spirit. Their doctrine of the powers of the human will was subservient to this selfrighteousness. If not entirely Pelagian, it was more than semi-Pelagian. The doctrine of the Pharisees respecting the providence of God, of His influence and His co-operation in the actions of men, and of the freedom of the human will, are mentioned by Josephus in three passages, Antiq. xiii. 5. 9, and xviii. 1. 3, and De Bell. Jud. ii. 7. In all these passages he makes use of the word εἱμαρμένη, fate, but in a different sense from that of the Greeks,—not in the sense of a blind fatality, but of an influence exercised by God on human affairs. The expressions of Josephus are not quite clear, and want doctrinal accuracy. He does not sufficiently discriminate between the actions and the destinies of men. This much, however, is clear, that with reference to the former question, the Pharisees, after the manner of the rationalists, only attributed an uncertain co-operation to God, and regarded virtue as well as vice as properly the work of man, allowing only supervision, punishment, and reward to God, while the Sadducees denied Him even this. From this it is self-evident how superficial their knowledge was with reference to human sinfulness. They are characterized by all the faults invariably connected with self-righteousness, by want of love generally, and especially towards their fallen brethren (Matthew 9:11), by carnal aims, and many other defects. The remaining doctrines said to be peculiar to them were common to them with all those who adhered to the religion of their fathers. Thus, for example, the doctrine of the resurrection, whose denial, however, was characteristic of the Sadducees. They would only have been peculiar with respect to the doctrine of the resurrection if they had taught the transmigration of souls. But this idea is based only on an intentional ambiguity, which Josephus employs for the eyes of his Greek readers. He says, De Bell. Jud. ii. 7. 14, the Pharisees maintain that souls pass into another body, μεταβαίνειν εἰ ἕτερον σῶμα, but only the souls of the pious; those of the ungodly are appointed to everlasting punishment. The words are so placed that they may be understood of resurrection with a glorified body, in harmony with the doctrine of the Old Testament. In 1 Corinthians 15 the resurrection-body is described by Paul as different from the present body. But Josephus has avoided expressing himself more definitely, because the doctrine of the resurrection of the body was offensive to the heathen philosophers, and to those educated in their schools; comp. Acts 17:32 and 1 Corinthians 15. From Acts 23:8 and Luke 20:39, it is certain that the Pharisees did not teach the transmigration of souls, but the resurrection in the biblical sense. And there can be no doubt that their further ideas of eternal life were regulated by their moral condition, just as with us. The ordinary Pharisees, having their treasure upon earth, conceived of eternal life as analogous to this. Their carnal ideas were ridiculed by the Sadducees, and generally employed as the foundation for attacks against the doctrine of the resurrection; comp. Matthew 22:24 ff. In Matthew 23:15 the striving of Pharisaism to make proselytes appears to be peculiar to it. This it has in common with every self-made piety. Indifferentism is entirely free from it. So also is the true faith which is the work of the Holy Spirit, though for a very different reason. This faith knows from experience that nothing can be artificial in the sphere of religion, but everything must be given from above. The mere form of religion, which is all that proselytism can produce, is nothing in itself. The Pharisees were not, like the Essenes, a close corporation under rulers, but only a party. As such, however, they held closely together, and this very union, increased by the powerful opposition against which they had to contend, formed their greatest strength. A kind of free organization had formed itself among them, but only by the force of habit. The youth were very respectful towards their elders, and dared not contradict them. In Josephus the heads of the party are termed οἱ κρῶτοι τῶν Φαρισαίων, to distinguish them from the rest who in the New Testament are called μαθηταὶ τῶν Φαρισαίων: comp. Matthew 22:16. It is scarcely necessary to state that many adhered outwardly to the party of the Pharisees only on political grounds. The Pharisees were held in high esteem by the nation, and for this reason their influence in public affairs was very great. They owed this partly to their actual piety, partly to the appearance of godliness which they displayed. Not only did they make it their systematic object to gain this esteem, but they also knew how to take advantage of it. This relation towards the nation was very injurious to Pharisaism. It must have served as a strong encouragement to hypocrisy, to which there is already a tendency in every self-made piety. In all that they did, they considered the nation more than God. In the New Testament we not unfrequently find Pharisees and scribes spoken of in connection. The scribes were the literati of the nation. Many teachers, as well” as judges and officials, went out from their midst. Since the Pharisees were the ruling party, and enjoyed the favour of the people, it was natural that most of the scribes should attach themselves to their interest. The Sadducees were conscious that as scribes—teachers or officials—they must occupy an untenable position; moreover, constant occupation with Scripture and the propositions connected with it was distasteful to them. Yet the Sadducees were not entirely excluded from public offices. Thus the Sanhedrim in Jerusalem consisted principally of Pharisees, learned γραμματεῖς and unlearned; yet, according to Acts 23:6 ff., there were also assessors of the party of the Sadducees, and, according to Josephus, Antiq. xx. 9. 1, Ananus the high priest himself was a Sadducee: the Sadducees, however, were obliged to embrace Pharisaism when they held public offices. According to the statement of the Jews, the Sadducees took their name from a certain Zadok; but the accounts are too late, and the analogy of the Pharisees and Essenes speaks against the derivation from an individual. The most probable view is, that it is a title of honour which they themselves adopted. They called themselves צדיקים or צָדוֹקִים, the righteous, in contradistinction from the חסידים and the פרישים, the pious and the separated, taking righteousness not in its comprehensive Israelitish, but in its limited Grecian sense. No reliance can be placed on the fable that they derived their wisdom from an individual. If we consider what the books of the Maccabees relate respecting the open apostasy to heathenism in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes; if we consider that a tendency of this kind could not have disappeared so soon, least of all when it was so greatly favoured by outward relations; there can be no doubt respecting the origin of Sadduceeism. They are nothing more than the same heathen, godless party in Israelitish clothing. The Israelitish element which characterizes them seems to be mere accommodation. There is nothing that would lead us to infer that they had any closer internal sympathy with the Israelitish principle. So far, at least, as the great mass was concerned, they remained internally at the standpoint of the ἀσεβεῖς of the books of the Maccabees. It is a mistake to try to identify them with the Karaites, a Jewish sect which does not appear until the eighth century after Christ. This attempt has originated in purely Jewish ground. Their rejection of the oral law was the result of a true recognition of the written law; while the Sadducees in their heart recognised the written law just as little as the oral one, and only took up the standpoint of belief in the word for the more effective refutation of their opponents, just as many among us when they want to attack the creeds. It has frequently been asserted that the Sadducees, like the Samaritans, acknowledged only the Pentateuch. The correct view, however, is that the Sadducees externally acknowledged the whole canon, though internally they acknowledged the five books of Moses just as little as the rest. When our Lord, in Matthew 22:31-32, refutes the Sadducee denial of the resurrection from the writings of Moses, although the other books offered far more convincing arguments, He does this only because they had drawn their argument from these writings, and because the Mosaic writings were the most important for every Jew. And when Josephus, Antiq. xii. 10, says that the Sadducees held only to what had been written by Moses, he does not place the Pentateuch in opposition to the other books, but rather contrasts the written and the oral law. The Sadducees boldly advocated such doctrines as they could with any plausibility bring into harmony with the writings of the Old Testament; where this was not possible, they kept them to themselves. What they openly defended, however, sufficiently proves that they had lost the substance of the divine teaching. The doctrine which they most confidently contested was that of the resurrection. Here, so far as the Pentateuch was concerned, they could easily embarrass their opponents. The plainer passages in Isaiah, Ezekiel, and especially in Daniel, they probably explained away by giving them a figurative meaning. According to Acts 23:8, they also denied the existence of angels. Josephus makes no mention of this; but the denial of this doctrine stands in the closest connection with the denial of the resurrection. The denial of the resurrection was with them a result of their materialism. The soul exists only in and by virtue of its connection with the present body. Hence they must also deny the existence of angels as incorporeal beings. Doubtless they did not come into direct opposition with the Pentateuch, but professed to acknowledge what was there said of the appearance of angels, and then proceeded to explain that these were only divine intelligences,—a view which gains plausibility by the way in which Holy Scripture speaks of angels. According to Acts 23:8, they taught that there was no spirit, πνεῦμα. The same thing necessarily follows from what Josephus says of them in his Antiq. xviii. 1. 4, that in the opinion of the Sadducees the soul ceased at the same time with the body; so also, de Bell. Jud. ii. 7, the Sadducees deny the resurrection of the soul and retribution in the lower world. As materialists, they could neither accept the doctrine of the resurrection nor the doctrine of angels, nor yet the doctrine of God, though they did not venture to deny the last. It must have been difficult for them to bring the denial of the divine providence into harmony with Holy Scripture. Yet Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 5, § 9, so distinctly states their denial of this doctrine, that they must have propounded it openly: “They maintain that everything proceeds from us, that we acquire what is good, and draw down evil upon ourselves by wicked actions;” comp. de Bell. Jud. ii. 8. Probably they here availed themselves, like rationalism, of an accommodation or condescension. Josephus, De Bell. Jud. ii. 8, states that even in their intercourse with one another they were excessively rude and uncourteous. This is only what must be expected à priori. Their tendency was so egotistic throughout, they were so completely wanting in all spirituality, that they were not even able to organize themselves into a true party. According to Josephus, the most distinguished and the wealthy belonged to the sect of the Sadducees. This may be explained from the fact that these, by their position, were brought into closer connection with heathen society and culture. Finally, the Essenes. That these are of far less importance than the two other parties, already appears from the circumstance that they are not mentioned in the New Testament. This shows that they had no importance for the sum-total of national life, but were a mere sect. Among the various derivations of the name, only two deserve consideration. According to one of these, the name comes from the Syriac אסא, to heal. Some of the defenders of this view take the healing in its ordinary sense, appealing to Josephus, according to whom the Essenes occupied themselves with the preparation of medicines, probably boasting, like so many theosophs, of a deeper insight into nature. Against this view, however, we have the fact that this activity was very partial, and was practised only by a few individuals. Others, on the contrary, understand the אסא spiritually, as those who are intent on the practice of virtue, worshippers of God. But, spiritually taken, the name could only denote the physician of souls, the spiritual physician for others; and this name seems unsuitable. It would be a strange thing in any case for a sect to call itself after the conversion of others, and, moreover, the tendency of the Essenes was not in this direction; they did not enter into connection with others, but separated themselves as much as possible from the world. According to the other derivation, the name of the Essenes had its origin in חסידים—Esseni softened from Esdeni. We have already shown that in the time of the Maccabees the Essenes were connected with the Chasidim. From the Chasidim arose the Pharisees and the Essenes; and while the Pharisees adopted a new name more distinctively characteristic, the general name of חסידים continued with the Essenes. Respecting the origin of the Essenes, it is a problem not yet solved whether they sprang up only on Jewish ground, or arose through heathen influence, by means of the Alexandrian-Jewish philosophy of religion. The latter view has been advocated especially by Dähne. But the traces of heathen influence are by no means so certain. Only two doctrines can with any great probability be reckoned as such: firstly, the doctrine of the body as the prison of the soul,—comp. Josephus, De Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 11, according to whom they taught immortality but no resurrection, while on Israelitish soil both are united; and, secondly, their existence as an order, and their adoption of mysteries, which is very remote from the Israelitish standpoint, and vividly recalls heathen analogies, especially Pythagorism. According to Philo and Josephus (the latter alone serves as an historical source; Philo idealizes too much), the Essenes amounted to about 4000, and were scattered throughout the whole land; and when the elder Pliny names a district beside the Dead Sea as their exact place of abode, we can only take this to mean that they had an important settlement there. From the Therapeutae in Egypt, who were essentially the same sect, they were distinguished only by the fact, that while the former devoted the whole day to contemplation, these occupied a part of it in manual labour, and did not altogether withdraw from human society; they did not all forswear matrimony, nor did they entirely renounce riches, but had only community of goods. On superficial consideration, the Essenes must appear to be worthy of great honour, as Christians before the time of Christ, so that many, indeed, have derived Christianity from Essenism. But, on deeper consideration, the matter assumes quite a different aspect. A spirit of piety cannot be denied. How superior they were to the Pharisees and Sadducees in this respect, appears from their doctrine that everything is under the supervision of God, or under the εἱμαρμένη (Josephus, Ant. xviii. 2), by which we are not to understand a blind fate, but the will of God, in opposition to the godless assumption of Pharisaism, which ascribed all action to man, and of Sadduceeism, which ascribed both action and passivity to man. But on the other hand there are also dark shadows. First, we find a large residuum of bare externality, which contrasts strangely with the false spiritualism shown in the doctrine of the resurrection. They regarded the use of oil, which belongs to oriental custom, as unworthy, and considered it honourable to wear a white garment, not putting it off until it was quite worn out; they observed the Sabbath with scrupulous accuracy; so also the washing before meat; they not only avoided all the heathen, but within the sect itself the members of a higher grade avoided all contact with those of a lower: comp. Josephus, de Bell. Jud. ii. 8, § 4. Essenism was a developed separatism; and its strict retirement from the world is quite at variance with Christianity, which announces itself as leaven that is to leaven the whole lump, whose aim it is to overcome the whole world, and to be of service to it. Our Lord says, “Go forth, and teach all nations.” Essenism destroyed even the relations towards one’s own nation. The Essenes looked upon it as unlawful to present offerings in the temple, fearing lest they should contaminate themselves by association with the worldly crowd who were less rigorous in their ablutions. According to Josephus, they presented sacrifices in their private dwelling-houses; while, according to Philo, they offered only spiritual sacrifice, which is the more probable. In thus isolating themselves so completely from church-life, they not only cut themselves off from all comprehensive activity, but also shut themselves out from a number of wholesome influences, their heart became contracted, and their views more and more one-sided. Essenism had not merely the faults of a sect, but also those of an order. The greatest slavery was formally sanctioned; the saying, “Thou shalt be no man’s servant,” was quite disregarded; and blind submission to the ruling power prevailed. Even when they wished to do good to a relative, they were obliged to ask permission from the rulers first. Theosophic trading in secrets also prevailed among them. On their inauguration they were obliged to take an oath—at other times they were not allowed to swear—and, among other things, to swear that they would tell to none the angel-names imparted to them. Then they had secret books. With all this it was not easy for the Essenes to become Christians after the manner of Christ. In one aspect Essenism was less accessible to Christianity than Pharisaism, because the latter did not shut itself up in the same way. It is commonly supposed that every Jew belonged to one of the three sects named. But the very germ of the nation, the ἐκλογὴ, stood outside these sects, having only a more or less intimate connection with the Pharisees, because the latter represented themselves as defenders of the nationality and the faith. These people, the Israelites without guile, were the quiet of the land; and if we had only Josephus, who confines himself to the noisy element, we should scarcely suspect their existence. But in the New Testament we encounter their lovely forms, Zacharias, Simeon, Joseph, Nathanael, Elisabeth, Hannah, the three Marys, etc. We learn what a treasure of hungering after salvation and childlike surrender still had a place in the nation, from the example of the apostles in the first days of their relation to Christ, and the attachment with which the ὄχλοι met Christ. Perhaps there never was a deeper religious life in the nation than at this time, in which we are everywhere met by traces of the greatest moral confusion. But when Christianity attracted that genuine Israelitish element to itself, the nation became a shell without a kernel. Authors such as Josephus and the heathen were in their place, but the destruction of the nation was near at hand, and the eagles were gathering about the carcase. John Hyrcanus was succeeded in the year 105 B.C. by his corrupt son Aristobulus, who signalized the beginning of his reign by several infamous acts. He assumed the title of king, but died after a reign of only one year. His brother Alexander Jannaeus succeeded him on the throne. We are far more interested in the internal conflicts which raged violently under this king, than in the wars which he carried on against his neighbours. In the year 94 the hatred of the people, which his father had brought upon himself and his family by going over to the sect of the Sadducees, broke forth. For a moment the rebellion was suppressed by Alexander, who instituted a great massacre by his hired soldiers among the rebels; but a defeat which the king suffered in the following year, in a war against the Arabs, gave occasion for a new insurrection, which became a violent struggle against the king, and lasted for six years. Finally peace was restored by the most inhuman cruelties against the rebels. After several campaigns, Alexander died in the year 77, in the twenty-seventh year of his reign. By his means the territory of the Jews had been considerably augmented. After his death his widow Alexandra assumed the reins of government, and was able to retain her position by showing favour to the Pharisees, and making them the ruling party,—a course of action to which she had been advised by her dying husband. Her eight years’ reign was peaceful. After her death, which took place in the year 69, her younger son Aristobulus took possession of the throne, having defeated his elder brother Hyrcanus, who was supported by the Pharisees. Hyrcanus remained quiet for some years; but in the year 64, at the instigation of Antipas or Antipater, the father of Herod the Great, a distinguished Idumean, he concluded a treaty with Aretas, the king of the neighbouring Arabs, and, accompanied by Antipas, fled to him for refuge. According to Josephus, Antipas was the original name of Herod’s father, most appropriate for a contentious Idumean, an Idumean bandit, and he assumed the name of Antipater afterwards as his official title. Aretas now accompanied Hyrcanus back to Judea with a large army; Aristobulus was defeated, Judea taken. But when all appeared to be lost, the king, who had taken refuge in the temple, purchased the help of the Roman general Scaurus, who was then at Damascus. Owing to his threats, Aretas was obliged to retreat, but was overtaken by Aristobulus, and suffered a great defeat. Aristobulus then sent an embassy to Pompey, who had arrived at Damascus, to demand his recognition of him as king, while Hyrcanus turned to Pompey through Antipater. Pompey summoned both brothers to Damascus, without, however, giving any decision. Aristobulus, foreseeing that the result would be unfavourable to him, turned back and made preparations for war. Irritated by this, Pompey invaded Judea. Aristobulus surrendered and was put in chains, while Jerusalem was conquered and made the scene of a great massacre. This happened in the year 63 B.C. Pompey threw down the walls, but left the treasure of the temple and the sacred vessels untouched, and commanded the restoration of divine worship. Hyrcanus was appointed prince and high priest, a dignity in which he was afterwards confirmed by Julius Caesar, who appointed Antipater to be his ἐπίτροπος. Yet the country lost its independence and became tributary to the Romans. It is remarkable that here also the first interference of the Romans in Jewish affairs, to which the Maccabees had incautiously approached very near, originated with the Jews themselves. The end was already contained in the beginning. The Romish thirst for power could not rest until the nation had been brought into complete subjection; and the Jewish national pride, which rested on a pseudo-religious basis, and was increased by memories from the time of the Maccabees, could not submit to such subjection. If matters were to come to open warfare, there could be no doubt as to the result. The enemy with whom the Jews had now to deal was very different from their former enemy, as only blind fanaticism can fail to see. The hard disposition of the Romans gave just as little hope of a mild lot for the conquered as of a tender sparing of their sensibility before the war. Hence we can already foresee the destruction of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the nation, and history has little more to do than to answer the question: When will this come to pass? ======================================================================== CHAPTER 54: 54. § 6. THE JEWS UNDER THE SUPREMACY OF THE ROMANS ======================================================================== § 6. The Jews under the Supremacy of the Romans Antipater now made himself of more and more consequence, which was not difficult, owing to the indolence of Hyrcanus. He made his elder son Phasael governor of Jerusalem, and his second son Herod governor of Galilee. Later, at the recommendation of Hyrcanus, they were both appointed tetrarchs of Palestine by Antonius. Soon afterwards the Parthians, under the leadership of Pacorus, took possession of Syria, and were induced by a large sum of money to raise Antigonus, the youngest son of the former king Aristobulus, who had previously come to Judea, but had been defeated by Herod, to the supreme power in Judea. After both parties, Antigonus and his Parthian auxiliaries on the one side, and on the other side Herod and Phasael, who supported the cause of the indolent Hyrcanus,—Antipater had already been slain,—had fought for some time with changing fortune, without any great advantage having been gained on either side, Phasael and Hyrcanus were taken prisoners by the Parthians by means of a stratagem. Herod escaped while there was yet time with his family and his treasures to the mountain fortress of Masada on the western side of the Dead Sea, where he left a garrison of 800 men under the command of his brother Joseph. He himself went to Alexandria, and there embarked for Rome. Jerusalem and the surrounding district was now plundered by the Parthians, and Antigonus established as king. Phasael committed suicide in the prison; and Hyrcanus, with his ears cut off, was led away by the Parthians to Seleucia on the Tigris. In the meantime, Herod, favoured by Antonius and Octavianus at Rome, was appointed by the senate to be king of Judea, an honour which he had never sought. On his return to Palestine, the Parthians had already been driven back by the Romans beyond the Euphrates. Nevertheless he found it no easy task to occupy the country. It was not until the year thirty-four, after having obtained a large force of Romish troops through Antonius, that he conquered Jerusalem, where the Romans, exasperated by the obstinate resistance with which they had met, instituted a great massacre against his wish. The king Antigonus surrendered, and was executed at the command of Antonius. With him the Hasmonaean or Maccabee dynasty came to an end; and Herod, who was descended from an Idumean family, though allied to a wife of the Hasmonaean house, a granddaughter of Hyrcanus, obtained the crown. We must content ourselves with a few general remarks respecting his character and position. The position of the Hasmonaean rulers had already been one of great difficulty. Every attempt on their part to exercise the kingly power in its full extent was anxiously and jealously watched by the nation, or rather by the pharisaic party, who had the nation in their power. But the position of Herod was one of far greater difficulty. The Maccabee rulers had been of ancient Jewish blood, and the nation could never quite forget their obligations to their family. Herod, on the other hand, was of Idumean extraction, and the Idumeans, though received into Israel by circumcision, were yet by no means regarded as brethren. It was looked upon as a disgrace to have such a king, more especially since he did not hold his kingdom, like the Maccabees, in fee from the nation, but from the heathen, the Romans. And the position, in itself so difficult, was made still more so by the personal disposition of Herod. He was born a despot, and submitted willingly and gladly to be dependent on the Romans, only because he well knew that without their assistance he was lost; the idea of rights pertaining to the nation apart from his interest he found insufferable, and could scarcely prevail upon himself to leave even a shadow of importance to the Sanhedrim and the high-priesthood. Moreover, Herod was not only heathen by descent, but also in feeling; and he had a twofold reason for giving prominence to this heathen disposition, partly because he thought he could in this way make himself popular with the Romans, partly because, like the apostate high priest in the time of the Maccabees, he hoped by encouraging heathenism in the nation to break the power of the orthodox principle that was hostile to his supremacy. His predilection for heathenism went so far that he erected heathen temples in the land of Jehovah. The animosity to which this gave rise on the part of the nation, and especially among the Pharisees, had no bounds; and it availed him little that he proved his love of splendid buildings by embellishing also the temple at Jerusalem. There arose a violent and long-protracted struggle, which served to reveal more and more fully the badness of both parties, and at last made Herod an object of horror, of whose like history affords but few examples. In recent times many attempts have been made to justify him. His whole position, it is alleged, necessarily made him a tyrant. The despotic power which he exercised only appears as a consequence of the continual mortifications offered to him by the Pharisees. It was only through the instrumentality of this hostile pharisaic party that he was led to execute one member of his family after another—for the Pharisees eagerly supported all that were dissatisfied—Aristobulus, Mariamne, Alexandra, and Hyrcanus, and finally his own sons. This fact alone made them dangerous, and gave them the boldness and proud confidence with which they opposed Herod until he put them to death. In all his severity, his cruelties and persecutions, Herod fought only against this one party. It is no wonder if, under such circumstances, the noblest man were to become a hyena. But if this mode of justification be universally admissible, it may be applied also in favour of the Pharisees. The cause for which they fought was after all a better cause than that of Herod, who had no higher object in view than his own personal interests. And if they contended for their partially good cause in a bad disposition and with bad means, if their baseness developed his and brought it to maturity, his baseness had just as much to do with the development of theirs. This mode of looking at history leads to the abrogation of all human responsibility. On the contrary, we must firmly maintain that although circumstances may tend to the development and maturity of evil, they can never create it; that all things must work for good to them that love God; and that faith is the victory that overcometh the world. Whoever fails to recognise this, has a very low conception of man as well as of God. The more completely the earthly prosperity of the people of God decreased, and the deeper those sank who had staked their existence on its restoration, until every truly pious mind shrank with horror from the deeds which they performed for the alleged glory of God, the more earnest did the longing in such minds become for a spiritual salvation, the more completely in their case did that mist disappear which concealed the true form of the promised future Redeemer from the mass of the people, and the more joyfully did they welcome Him. Shortly before the end of the reign of Herod the Saviour was born. This ending was a fearful one. It is impossible to read it in Josephus without horror. In the very face of death he altered his will, and appointed his son Archelaus to be his successor in the kingdom, Herod Antipas to be tetrarch of Perea and Galilee, Philip to be tetrarch of Batania, Gaulonitis, Trachonitis, and Paneas. Archelaus hesitated to assume the title of king until he would have received confirmation of it from Rome. Immediately after his accession to the throne, the long-suppressed dissatisfaction of the nation broke forth. A formal rebellion arose, in which three thousand men perished, and the insurrection became still more fearful when Archelaus had set out for Rome. Sabinus, procurator of Syria, had during the time taken forcible possession of the treasures, strong-holds, and royal palaces, and had even plundered the temple of its treasures. The nation, who were assembled in Jerusalem in great numbers at the feast of Pentecost, attacked Sabinus, and kept him closely surrounded, with his troops. At the same time all Judea became agitated; the land was filled with bands of rebels, each having their own king. This state of things continued until the Roman general Varus marched into the country and restored peace by the most severe measures. He left a legion as a garrison in Jerusalem. Notwithstanding the objections and complaints of the Jews, who demanded that Palestine, as a Roman province, should be annexed to Syria, Augustus persevered in carrying out the will of Herod, though refusing to give Archelaus the title of king, instead of which he gave him that of ethnarch. Archelaus now took possession of his ethnarchy. But his hard rule caused the Jews and Samaritans to make new complaints to Augustus, in consequence of which he was deposed in the twelfth year of Christ, and banished to Vienne in Gaul. Judea and Samaria were now annexed to Syria, while the two brothers of Archelaus, Herod Antipas and Philip, remained still in possession of their tetrarchies. The census, which was taken in the very beginning by Quirinus for the purpose of regulating the taxation, led to an insurrection, headed by Judas the Gaulanite or Galilean, for the nation regarded it as a violation of their dignity as the people of God: Acts 5:37. Although this insurrection was put down at the time, yet the seed then sown continued to grow until the final rebellion. It is no longer a part of our task to describe in detail how this rebellion continued to spread more and more widely; how, after a series of separate revolts, it burst forth fully, and led to the destruction of the city and the temple. We have already given the leading outlines, and there can be no charm in the details unless given with that fulness with which they are described by the eye-witness Josephus in his books De Bello Judaico.THE END MURRAY AND GIBB, EDINBURGH, PRINTERS TO HER MAJESTY’S STATIONERY OFFICE ======================================================================== Source: https://sermonindex.net/books/hengstenberg-e-w-history-of-the-kingdom-of-god-under-the-old-testament/ ========================================================================