A critical history of the doctrine of a future life, in Israel, in Judiasm, and in Christianity; or, Hebrew, Jewish, and Christian eschatology from pre-prophetic times till the close of the New Testament canon...

Front matter

i aa ‘ Dic munca Font U non

» ts i i :

Sere

Preface

THE present work is the result of studies begun over twelve years ago, and pursued unremittingly for the past ten. This long period of preparation is partly to be explained by the fact that some of the most important books in the history of the development of Jewish eschatology had to be studied afresh and re-edited before their evidence was available for such a work as the present. After a severe and prolonged examination of the Apocalyptic and Apocryphal literature of Judaism, I proceeded to carry my investigations backward into the Old Testament and forward into the New, and in both cases, I hope, with fresh and fruitful results. I am painfully aware, however, of the unsatisfactory treatment of some of the books in the New Testament, such as the Apocalypse, and of the need of a deeper and fuller treatment of the Messianic hope of the Nation in the Old Testament.

It seemed good, however, not to delay publication further, and accordingly I gladly accepted the invitation of the Jowett Committee to give a course of lectures on the subject of these studies.

vil PREFACE

Throughout this work I have been obliged repeatedly to abandon the beaten track in dealing with the eschatology both of the Old and of the New Testament. This has been due in part to the method pursued ; for it became clear to me many years ago that, in order to apprehend the evidence of a passage dealing with the religious hopes of Israel, it was necessary to study it not only in its textual but also in its historical context.

All scholars with any pretension to thoroughness have already recognised the duty of studying a passage in its textual context; but very few have seen that it is just as necessary to study it in its historical context, that is, in its rightful place in the development of religious thought. Thus two writings may be composed within the same decade: yet one may be reactionary in character, and belong to a bygone period of development, while the other may be spiritual and progressive, and in the van of the religious thought of the time. In such cases it is the part of the historian to allow the definitive passages in both writings their full weight, and not to force them into unnatural conformity by spiritualising some or materialising others.

It is only by such a scientific method of investigation that we can hope to arrive at any valid conclusions on such subjects as Universalism, Conditional Immortality, or Eternal Damnation. Such conclusions are not to be gathered so much from

PREFACE vil isolated statements in the New Testament books, which may vary in accordance with the spiritual endowments of the writer, as from the consummation to which the eschatological development of the past undoubtedly points, and, above all, from that consummation foreshadowed and implied in the great fundamental truths proclaimed by Christ and variously unfolded in Apostolic teaching.

As in nature, so in religion, God reveals Himself in the course of slow evolution.

A learned book on the same subject as the present work has recently been published by Principal Salmond. Since, however, our method and treatment have taken different lines, I have refrained throughout from referring to the work of this well-known scholar.

In order to make this book easy to consult, I have provided it with an elaborate index. This index consists of an alphabetical list of names and subjects: but it is more; for under each subjectheading an analytical treatment is attempted, from which the reader can gather the historical development of the particular conception through the course of nearly a thousand years.

Finally, I wish to express my thanks to Messrs. A. & C. Black, the publishers of the Eucyclopedia Brblica, and to its editors, Drs. Cheyne and Black, for permitting me to use my article on Eschatology in that work as the basis of the present work.

vill PREFACE

I would also gratefully acknowledge the many helpful suggestions which I owe to Dr. Cheyne, as well as Dr. Black’s revision of the proofs, notwithstanding the multitudinous claims on his time and energies.

BOING EEN TS

ESCHATOLOGY OF THE INDIVIDUAL IN THE OLD TESTAMENT PRIOR TO THE ORIGIN OF THE BELIEF IN IMMORTALITY

CH A PAPER }

ESCHATOLOGY OF THE INDIVIDUAL—RISE OF THE DOCTRINE OF AN INDIVIDUAL IMMORTALITY

GTP BE RAEI

THE ESCHATOLOGY OF THE NATION AND THE SYNTHESIS OF THE TWO ESCHATOLOGIES IN THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL AND OF THE FUTURE LIFE AMONG THE GREEKS

GUAR TER TV.

SUMMARY OF OLD TESTAMENT TEACHING ON INDIVIDUAL CONCEPTIONS

CHAPTER V

THE ESCHATOLOGY-. OF APOCRYPHAL AND APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE DURING THE SECOND CENTURY B.C.

Cre van RV]

ESCHATOLOGY OF APOCRYPHAL AND APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE DURING THE FIRST CENTURY B.C.

PAGES

51-80

81-151

152-161

162-199

200-241 x CONTENTS

ESCHATOLOGY OF APOCRYPHAL AND APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE DURING THE FIRST CENTURY A.D.

CRA Taka Lit

ESCHATOLOGY OF APOCRYPHAL AND APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE DURING THE FIRST CENTURY A.D. (continued)

CHAPTER Tx

EscHATOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT—GENERAL INTRO- DUCTION : THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

CAPAC ah aes

ESCHATOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT—REVELATION, JUDE, 2 PETER, JAMES, HEBREWS, JOHANNINE GOSPEL AND EPISTLES, I PETER 5 . ‘ : Z

CAP UE Rex

THE PAULINE ESCHATOLOGY IN 1TS FOUR STAGES

INDEX OF NAMES AND SUBJECTS “ ¢ :

PAGES

242-268

269-305

306-344

345-378

379-417

419-428

Gillen ale rier

BoeliatOLOGY OF THE “INDIVIDUAL IN THE- OLD TESTAMENT PRIOR “TO. THE ORIGIN OF: THE BELIEF IN IMMORTALITY.

THE purpose of this work is to deal with Hebrew, Jewish, and Christian eschatology, or the teaching of the Old Testament, of Judaism, and of the New Testament on the final condition of man and of the world. It is but too generally assumed that we are already fully acquainted with this subject; but such an assumption is by no means justified. We have yet much to learn, and the work of patient research is still far from fruitless in this field.

So far as this work bears on Old Testament eschatology, the writer is under infinite obligations to Old Testament scholars,* but notwithstanding the fulness of their labours, he has not unfrequently been compelled in the special subject of these lectures to take new departures and pursue paths

1 Particularly to Cheyne, Stade, Robertson Smith, Schwally, Smend, Nowack, and a host of others.

I

Scope of this work.

CHAP, =I.

Doctrine of the conception of God must to some extent

be studied concurrently with Hebrew eschatology.

Illustration.

of his own. The necessity for such new departures, alike in the Old Testament and the New Testament, arose in connection with his attempt to grasp the whole course of eschatological development from the time of Moses to the close of the New Testament. The nature of such new departures will appear in the sequel.

From the period of Moses, the religious and political founder of Israel, to the time of Christ, we can with some degree of certainty determine the religious views of that nation on the after- world. But the facts are often so isolated, the sources so often defective and reset in later environments, that, if we confine our attention to ideas of the after-life alone, it is possible to give only a disjointed statement of beliefs and expectations with large lacune and unintelligible changes, and lacking that coherence and orderly development without which the mind cannot be satisfied.

Now we find that we can impart some degree of coherence and intelligibleness to the subject by considering the development of the conception of God in Israel. On this conception hinges ultimately every other religious conception of the nation. Obviously, however, only the salient points in this development can be dealt with; but these will be sufficient for our present purpose.

Let me give an illustration of the necessity of treating the conception of God in connection with that of the after-world. How comes it that in the second century B.c. the conception of the afteri

OF TAL ANDIVIDOAL IN ISRAEL 3 world is mainly moral and retributive, whereas from= cuap. 1. the fourth century back to Moses’ time it is non- ae moral, being in fact a piece of pure Semitic heathenism. This change of conception is mainly due to monotheism, which, partially apprehended by the great prophets of the eighth century, and more fully by those of the sixth, was at last carried to its logical results. No part of the Universe created ~ by God, religious men felt and religious men reasoned, could be withdrawn from His influence. Hence in due course the rejection of the heathen Semitic view of Sheol for one that was moral and retributive. Till, however, monotheism was the accepted belief of the nation, this transformation of Sheol was impossible.

Before I enter on the subject I may premise Old Testament

: not to be

that, though I have to deal so to speak with the explained as anatomy of Old Testament religious thought, I do ae et not pretend or hold it possible to explain it as a merely natural development. All true growth in religion, whether in the past or the present, springs from the communion of man with the immediate living God, wherein man learns the will of God, and becomes thereby an organ of God, a personalised conscience, a revealer of divine truth for men less inspired than himself. The truth thus revealed through a man possesses a divine authority for men. In the Old Testament we have a catena of such revelations. At the Exodus God took Israel, Semitic heathens as they were for the most part, and taught them in the measure of their

Chap. I

The divine name to be pronounced Yahwe, and not Jehovah.

4 PRIMITIVEVHEATHEN VESCHATOLOGY.

capacity: revealed Himself at the outset to them as their God, the God of their nation, and claimed Israel as His people. He did not then make Himself known as the Creator and Moral Ruler of the world, for in the childhood of Israel’s religious history these ideas would: have been impossible of comprehension. Yahwe was Israel’s God, and Israel was the people of Yahwe. Yahwe was a righteous God, and required righteousness in His people. From this stage the divine education of Israel is carried forward, till in Jeremiah and the Second Isaiah God becomes known to Israel as the Sole Supreme all-loving Creator and God of all mankind.

In the following chapters our investigations will be guided by the results of Old Testament criticism. Since, however, some of these results are still provisional, the same provisional character will attach to some of our conclusions.

We shall throughout these studies revert to the original pronunciation of the divine name Yahweée. Owing to their dread of misusing this name (Exod. xx. 7; Lev. xxiv. 11) the Jews avoided pronouncing it with its legitimate vowels, and supplied its vocalisation from Adonai; or where this word had appeared immediately before, with the vocalisation of Elohim.

From an ignorance of these facts the false pronunciation Jehovah was introduced through a sixteenth-century scholar, Petrus Galatinus, in his work, De Arcanis Catholice Veritatis, 1518 (see

OP PMI INDIVIDOAL IN ISRAEL 5

Pratt. Cresci. a.-/s7, Rel. p. 60). The true pronunciation is attested by Clement of Alexandria CIaové) and Theodoret (‘Ia8é), not to speak of authorities of an earlier date.

I. Preprophetic Yahwism.—We shall make no attempt to trace the various stages through which Yahwism passed before it became monotheistic, but consider it broadly as divided into two periods, namely, (i.) Preprophetic Yahwism, from Moses to the eighth century; and (ii.) Prophetic Yahwism. Our attention will be mainly confined to the former, for the possibility of understanding Early Hebrew eschatology is conditioned by our prior comprehension of the limited scope of preprophetic Yahwism. From whatever source the worship of Yahwé! was ultimately derived, it was probably through Moses that Yahwe became the God of Israel, that is, the national God. Now a nation originates not merely through the increase and extension of the tribe, but through the federation of tribes descended from the same or from different ancestors, and worshipping independent tribal gods. » Such a federation may arise from a common danger or from common interests. Should the community of interest and action thus established be of lasting duration, a

1 Full information on the development of Yahwism from different standpoints will be found in Marti, Geschechte der tsraelitischen Religion, 1897 ; Kuenen, Zhe Religion of Israel (translated from the Dutch); Montefiore, Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion, 1892; Konig, Dze Hauptprobleme ad. altisrael. Religionsgeschichte, 1884; Smend, Alttestamentliche Religtonsgeschichte, 1893; Valeton in Chantepie de la Saussaye’s (elzgionsgeschichte,* i, 242-325, 1897. Davidson, Art. ‘*God” in Hastings’ &zdde Dictionary, ii. 199-205.

I, Preprophetic Yahwism.

CHAP. T.

Was this divine name known before the time of Moses ?

6 PRIMITIVE HEATHEN LSCHATOLOGY nation is the result. The incorporation of different tribes into a nation is a sign that the tribal consciousness has vailed to the consciousness of the larger community, and that in this process the tribal gods have been forced into a subordinate relation to the new god of the nation.

This god had often no doubt been the god of the chief tribe in the confederacy. Wellhausen thinks that Yahwe was originally the God of the tribe of Joseph, on the ground that the ark was placed in the territory of Joseph; and that Joshua—the oldest historical name compounded with Yahwe—belonged to the tribe of Joseph. But there are overwhelming difficulties in the way of this theory. Into these, however, it does not concern us to enter here. The origin of Yahwism is still buried in mystery.

It is a moot question whether God was known under the name of Yahwe before the time of Moses. On the one side it has been argued by Smend (4/- testamentliche Religionsgesch. pp. 17, 18) and others that Moses would have appealed in vain to the tribes in Egypt if he had come to them in the name of a hitherto unknown god. This, moreover, was the view of the Yahwist (Gen. iv. 26, ‘‘ Then began men to call on the name of Yahwe”). On the other hand, in the Elohist in Exod. iii. 11-14, and the Priests’ Code in Exod. vi. 2, 3, it is stated that the name Yahwe was first revealed to Moses. The latter passage runs as follows: “And God spake unto. Moses, and said unto him: I am Yahweée, and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto

Jacob as El Shaddai, but by my name Yahwe was I not known unto them.” The latter view is strongly supported by the evidence of proper names. Thus the first proper name undoubtedly compounded with Yahwe is that of Joshua.’ But as this question does not closely affect our subject we may pass on to more important issues, only adding that the higher teaching of Moses must have had points of affinity with pre-existing beliefs within his people or tribe.

Whatever Yahwé may have been conceived in His essential nature,?, whether as God of the thunderstorm or the like, this question fell early into the background, and all stress was laid upon the nature of His activities within the nation. Hence the character of His religion is therefore not metaphysical and dogmatic, but ethical and experiential. The very name, moreover, being so indefinite in content and free from associations which could limit its development, presented a framework within which the unhampered growth of piety was possible. This fact is of especial importance for the development of monotheism. The ultimate derivation of Yahwism could thus affect only the external form: its true content and character within Israel were unique.

Moses, as we have above remarked, was the

1 See Buchanan Gray’s Hebrew Proper Names, 190, 191, 257, 258. Possibly it appears in Jochebed, Exod. vi. 20.

2 On the various derivations of this divine name, see Smend, A/¢testamentliche Religionsgeschichte, p. 21; Marti, Geschichte der israeletischen Religion, pp. 61, 62; Davidson in Hastings’ Bzble Dicteonary, ii. 199.

CHAP. Tf.

Whatever the ultimate derivation of Yahwism may have been, its character in Israel was unique.

Faith in Yahwe the motive force in the founding of. the nation,

GHAR. I.

Religion and history of Israel interwoven from the beginning.

8 PRIMITIVE HEATHEN ESCAAT OLOGY true founder of the nation and of Yahwism. Through his personal communion with God he reanimated an enslaved race that was perishing under Egyptian oppression. His certainty that the living God was his inspirer and stay was the impelling force in his action, and in this certainty he carried with him the bulk of the people. There was, however, no absolute break with the past. The traditions and spiritual limitations that Israel had in the past in common with their Semitic kindred reappear in the early forms of Yahwism. The name Yahwe formed the point of departure, and the mainstay of the religious movement thus initiated, in which Israel became a nation. It was not Israel that had chosen Yahwé to be their God, but Yahwé that had chosen Israel to be His people, and revealed Himself to Moses as the living God. This faith was the motive force in the formation of the nation.

As the national God, Yahwé was the invisible Head of the nation. As such, He inspired and controlled its action and shaped its destinies. Thus the religion and history of Israel were interwoven from the beginning, and the unfailing inspirations of the former so influenced the march of the latter that Israel’s spiritual development is absolutely unique in the world: for despite frequent halts and retrogressions, its advance was steadily from strength to strength and truth unto truth, till at last it was consummated in the final revelation of the personality of the Christ.

That the first revelation of Yahwe’s intervention on behalf of Israel is connected with the deliverance from Egypt is full of significance. His religion is thus characterised from the outset as a religion of redemption: “I am Yahwe thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (Exod. xx. 2), Herein Israel found the stay of its faith, the ground of its trust, and pledge of salvation in the dawn of evil days.

As the Head of the nation, Yahwé was pre-eminently its Leader in battle and War-god. It isin this character that He mainly appears in the earlier days. His presence was nowhere felt so strongly Baeeeeally as -in the battlefield.) He is,, as the Hebrew poet declares, “A man of war” (Exod. eva), and Elis people are called Israel, that is, meo.diets of God.”*» The first altar erected in His name by Moses is named ‘‘ Yahwé nissi,’ that is, “Yahwe is my banner” (Exod. xvii. 15). Religious and national enthusiasm were in preprophetic times almost synonymous. Israel’s enemies were Yahwe's enemies (I Sam. xxx. 26); Israel’s wars were the Mets ot Vahwe (Num. xxi. 14; 1 Sam. xvili. 17). He is the God of the armies of Israel (1 Sam. mie 20,.30; 45).

These considerations supply us with the original sense of the divine name ‘“ Yahwé of Hosts.” That this meant at the outset the Lord of the hosts of Israel is clear from 1 Sam. xvii. 45, where David

1 So Gesenius, Ewald, Kautzsch. Dillmann and E. Meyer take it to mean ‘‘ God contends,” Buchanan Gray (of. cz¢. 218) ‘‘let God contend.”

CHAPS TI:

Yahwism a religion of redemption.

Yahwe as the War-god of Israel.

Yahwe of Hosts.

GHAP, 1.

Ark originally sanctuary of Yahwe the War-god.

Yahwe the God of justice and purity.

declares that he goes forth to meet Goliath “in the name of Yahwé of Hosts, the God of the armies of Israel.” With the later significations* of this phrase we have at present no concern.

The ark was originally regarded in Israel as the actual sanctuary of Yahwe the War-god.? As such it was borne into the field and represented Yahwe’s presence (1 Sam. iv. 3-11, v. 6; 2 Sam. vi. I-12). In this connection we can apprehend the significance of the ancient prayers when the ark set forward and when it rested: “Rise up, Yahwe, and let thine enemies be scattered, and let them that hate thee flee before thee”: and, ‘‘ Return, O Yahwe, unto the thousands of the thousands of Israel” (Num. x. 35, 36). But it was not merely that the interests of Israel were Yahwe’s interests: the interests of Yahwe were likewise those of Israel. Thus the tribes of Israel mustered to the help of Yahwe (Judg. v. 23): in His honour was the war cry raised, “A sword for Yahwe and for Gideon” (Judg. vil. 18, 20). .

But Yahwe was not only the God of war: He was also the God of justice and right. On Israel’s

1 Tn later times He was conceived not as the God of the hosts of Israel but of all powers, whether human, stellar, or angelic. This later development is due probably to Amos. See p. 86; Marti, Gesch. 139-141 ; Driver on Joel and Amos, 231, 232.

2 A later view of the ark as the receptacle for the two tables of stone is found in Deut. x. 1-3; Exod. xxv. 10-22. That the ark originally contained @ stone, z.é. a Bethel or ‘* house of God” (Gen. xxviii. 18, xxxv. 14), is generally accepted. This fact would point to the ark as a constituent of Semitic heathenism before its adoption into the service of Yahwism. In any case the ark lost its significance on the advent of monotheism. See

Benzinger, Hebraische Archdologie, 367-370; Marti, Gesch. 67-69 ; Nowack, Flebrartsche Archdologie, ii. 3-7.

Ofer ANDIVIP COAL: IN ISRAEL II deliverance from Egypt naturally followed their internal organisation. This was carried out under the name of Yahwe, who was recognised as the central authority of justice. His sanctuary was the depository of law, and the priests were the interpreters of His will. The teaching or torah of the priests had at once a legal and a moral character. In the course of many centuries this teaching came to assume a stereotyped form in the written Law or Pentateuch. But besides being the God of justice, Yahwe was essentially the God of purity. Whilst the worship of other Semitic deities was characterised by various forms of licentiousness, none such was ever connected with the uncorrupted worship of Yahwe. Though conceived as a person, He had no other deity, and particularly no goddess beside or beneath Him. These important ethical elements in Yahwe’s character, which required justice and purity in His people, lie at the base of primitive Yahwism, and contain the promise and potency of the later monotheism.

Having now recognised two of the chief characteristics of Yahwe, namely His warlike and His ethical character, in accordance with which He moulded the outer and inner histories of Israel, we have next to touch on the views held by Israel regarding the gods of the neighbouring nations, which were in some degree applicable also to Yahwe. In these preprophetic times the actual existence of such independent deities outside Israel

CHAP, I.

Sovereignty of Yahwe originally conceived as conterminous with His own land and! people.

CHAP. I.

12 PRIMITIVE HEATHEN LSCHATOTCGW was fully acknowledged. Each nation had its own god. Milcom was the god of Ammon, Ashtoreth of the Zidonians, and Chemosh of Moab (Num. xxi. 29; 1 Kings xi. 33; Jer. xlvili. 46). According to the beliefs of the time, it was these gods that had given their respective peoples their territories, just as Yahwé had given Canaan to Israel. Thus in Judg. xi. 24 Jephthah sends the following message to the Ammonites’: ‘Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god giveth thee to possess ? So whomsoever Yahwé our God hath dispossessed before us, them will we possess.” Not only was the power of the national deity conceived to be paramount within his own land, but all who were resident in his country were regarded as in duty bound to worship him. Thus David complains to Saul that he had been driven forth from his own land and forced to forsake the worship of Yahwe for the service of other gods (1 Sam. xxvi. 19): “If it be Yahwé that hath stirred thee up against me, let him accept an offering; but if it be the children of men, cursed be they before Yahwe; for they have driven me out this day, that I should have no share in the inheritance of Yahwe, saying, Go serve other gods.” Thus the sovereignty and interest of the national deities were popularly held to be conterminous with the bounds of their own lands.

1 There is clearly a mistake in the text here; for Milcom and not Chemosh was the god of the Ammonites: see 1 Kings xi. 7, 33; 2 Kings xxl. 13; Jer. xlviii. 7, 13, 46; Num. xxi. 29, and the Mesha Inscription, where Chemosh is always spoken of as the god of Moab.

OPPS HEINDIVIDGAL IN ISRAEL 13

Again, just as Israel explained its national reverses through the anger of Yahwe with His people, so likewise did Moab, as we learn from the Moabite Stone; for there the subjection of Moab to Israel is represented.as due to the wrath of Chemosh with his people. When, however, this wrath was appeased, Chemosh restored to Moab its lost provinces through the agency of Mesha. The Moabites no doubt regarded the might of their god as superior to that of Yahwe.'

We shall point out two further analogies between Yahwe and the neighbouring Semitic deities. The first of these is that certain unethical and unintelligible moods appear in Yahwe just as we might expect in a national god; for the national god is a personification of the genius of a people, the embodiment of its virtues and its vices on an heroic scale. Thus the anger of Yahwé is at times unintelligible. It was, for example, kindled against Uzzah to his destruction when he stepped forward to prevent the ark from falling at the threshingfloor of Nacon (2 Sam. vi. 6, 7), and likewise against the men of Beth Shemesh for gazing too curiously upon it (1 Sam. vi. 19). David can imagine that Saul’s undeserved enmity may be due to the motiveless incitement of Yahwe (1 Sam. xxvi. 19), and the early Iustomian in 2 Sam. xxiv. 1-finds no difficulty in attributing to Him an apparently unreasonable wrath; for he represents Yahwe as causing David

1 See the description of the Moabite Stone in Driver’s WVotes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel, pp. \xxxv.-xciv.

CLEAD als

Certain unethical traits in the early conceptions of Yahwe.

CHAP. I.

Interests of Yahwe and of Israel originally identified.

to number the people, and then as punishing the people for the sin which He had prompted. It is noteworthy that when the chronicler some centuries later was recounting the same event he assigns this action not to Yahwé but to Satan (1 Chron. xxi. 1): ‘And Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel.” Thus the anger of Yahwe in preprophetic times was not necessarily conceived as due to sin in Israel: it might spring from other causes. But this imperfect conception of the divine wrath is not recognised by the prophets. To them Yahwe’s wrath is never unaccountable; for it is always ethically conditional and kindled by the sin of the nation.

The next analogy between the conception of Yahwe and that of the gods of the heathen nations is that as a national god His interests were absolutely identified with those of His nation. Though He might become temporally estranged, He could never forsake His people. To imagine such a possibility would have been the act not merely of a blasphemer but of a madman. This was the fopular view in Israel in the eighth century, and even later.

Accordingly, the reverses that Israel sustained at the hands of the neighbouring nations were to the unthinking masses so many proofs that Yahwé had temporarily forsaken His land, but to the prophetic vision they were the discipline wherewith Yahwe was educating His people. In the case of a purely heathen religion outward disasters involved the people and their god in the same humiliation, and ultimately in the same destruction, but in the very catastrophes that proved fatal to the gods of the heathen Yahwe vindicated His true sovereignty over the earth.

We have now considered the chief defects that clung to the conception of Yahwe in preprophetic times. These shortcomings mark nearly all the period when Israel was passing from a monolatrous to a true monotheistic belief. They are clearly to be regarded as heathen survivals in the domain of Yahwism, that is, in the people's conception of Yahwe. They form the ground of Yahwe’s great controversy with Israel. In this controversy Yahwé manifests in ever clearer form His will and purpose, which are directed to the spiritual enfranchisement of His people. While the heathen gods always remained on the same moral level as their worshippers, and so were powerless to deepen and develop character, it was otherwise in Israel. To serve Yahwe aright involved spiritual effort and personal sacrifice, and consequently led to growth in righteousness.

The people had hardly attained a certain religious level when the messengers of Yahwe urged them on to loftier heights in life and thought than their present achievement. Thus one by one the false views attaching to Yahwe in Israel were in the course of its divine education expelled. Hence we conclude that the essential superiority of Yahwism to the neighbouring Semitic religions lay not in its moral code, in which indeed it was unquestionably

CHAP AR:

These limitations and defects are heathen survivals in the domain of Yahwism, and as such were attacked and destroyed by the prophets.