T H E O L D T E S T A M E N T L I B R A R Y
General Editors
G. ERNEST WRIGHT, The Divinity School, Harvard University JOHN BRIGHT, Union Theological Seminary, Richmond, Virginia
JAMES BARR, Princeton Theological Seminary PETER ACKROYD, University of London
WALT-HER EICHRODT
VOLUME ONE
Translated by J . A . B A K E R
The Westminster Press Philadelphia
Copyright 0 1961 S.C.M. Press, Ltd.
Translated by J. A. Baker from the German Theologie des Alten Testaments, Teil I
(sixth edition, 1959, published by Ehrenfried Klotz Verlag, Stuttgart,
in association with
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Gattingen, with the author’s revisions to November I 960)
Library of Congress Catalog Card No. X 6 I-I I 867
Eighth Printing, 1975
T Y P E S E T I N G R E A T B R I T A I N
P R I N T E D I N T I I E U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A
This edition in the English language is dedicated to the
Society for Old Testament Study and to the
SocietJy of Biblical Literature and Exegesis with the gratitude of the author
for honoray membership of these British and American learned bodies
C O N T E N T S From the Preface to the First Edition
Preface to the Fifth Revised Edition Preface to the English Edition
Translator’s Preface Abbreviations
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Old Testament Theology: The Problem and the Method
The Covenant Relationship
I, The meaning of the covenant concept
2. The history of the covenant concept
I The jeopardizing of the Yahweh covenant
II The re-fashioning of the covenant concept
The Covenant Statutes
A. THE SECULAR LAW
I. Its distinctive character
2. Some crucial phases in the development of the law
The Covenant Statutes (continued)
B.
I . 2 .
T H E CULTUS
The significance of the cultus for religion in general The significance of the cultus in the religion of Israel
I II III IV
V
Sacred sites Sacred objects Sacred seasons Sacred actions
(a) Consecration and purity rites (b) Sacrificial worship
(c) Prayer Synthesis
7
I I
13 17 23 24
25
36 36 4545 49
7074 74 83
9898 98
1 0 1 1 0 2
*o7“ 9 I33‘33 14’172 176
8 C O N T E N T S
V. The Name of the Covenant God 178
I. General semitic designations of God 178
2. Specifically Israelite designations of God 187
3. Epithets of Yahweh ‘94
VI. The Nature of the Covenant God 206
A. AFFIRMATIONS ABOUT THE DIVINE BEING 206
I. God as personal 206
2. God as spiritual 210
3. God as one 220
V I I . The Nature of the Covenant God (continued) 228
B. AFFIRMATIONS ABOUT THE DIVINE ACTIVITY 228
I. The power of God 228
2. The lovingkindness of God (hesed Yahweh) 232
3. The righteousness of God 239
4. The love of God 250
5. The wrath of God 258
6. The holiness of God 270
7. The relation of the Old Testament picture of God to the
moral norm 282
8. Synthesis 286
V I I I . The Instruments of the Covenant 289
A. THE CHARISMATIC LEADERS 289
I. The founder of the religion 289
2. The seers 293
3. The Nazirites 306
4. The judges 306
5. Nabism 309
I The basic characteristics of the phenomenon 309 (a) The phenomenon of group ecstasy 309 (b) The general religious character of the phenomenon 3 I 3 (c) The effects of spirit-possession 319
II The theological significance of nabism 3 ’ 8
III The degeneration of nabism 332
6. Classical prophecy 338
I Links with nabism 339
II The distinctive character of classical prophecy 34’
C O N T E N T S 9
III The religious structure of classical prophecy The new exnerience of the divine reality
(4 w
(B> (4
(Y>
(8) (4
(0 (4 P>
(4
345345 The working out of the experience of God in the prophetic system of thought
The new sense of the unity of I@
The divine-human relationship transferred to the indi- vidual level
The prophetic critique of daily life The prophetic attitude to the cultus
The prophetic attitude to the national religion ( I) Common presuppositions
(2) The prophetic re-shaping of the national religion Sin and judgment
353353
The prophetic conception of history Eschatolog_y
Synthesis
356360 364369 369371 374381 385387
I X . The Instruments of the Covenant (continued)
B. THE OFFICIAL LEADERS
I. The priests
I The formation of the priesthood in the history of Israel
II The religious structure of the priesthood (a) General
(b) The distinctive character of the priestly concep- tion of God
(c) The relations between God and the world (d) The place of man in the world
(a) Human right conduct (18) Cultic activity
(y) Human existence in time (history and eschatology) (e) Synthesis
2. The king
I The origin of the monarchy
II The ambivalent assessment of the monarchy in the sources
III The monarchy as a religious office in the history of the covenant people
IV The religious effects of the monarchy
392 392 392 402392 402 406410 4154 ’ 5 4 ’ 9 424433 436438
44’
442452
X. Covenant-Breaking and Judgment 457
I. Judgment as a guarantee and restoration of the covenant 457
I The possibility of annulment 457
II A new evaluation of God’s covenant 458
IO C O N T E N T S
III The hope of the overthrow and punishment of Israel’s enemies
IV Foreign influences
v An execution of Yahweh’s righteous judgment
2. Judgment as abrogation of the covenant
I The transformation of the limited vision of the future
II The change in the character of the expectation of doom
III Individual retribution
3. Individualist and universalist elements in the expectation of judgment
XI. Fulfilling the Covenant: The Consummation of God’s Dominion
I. The principal forms of the Old Testament hope of salva- tion
2. The importance of the hope of salvation for the doctrine of God
I The entry of God into history
II The supramundane character of the messianic king- dom
I I I The solution of the pressing problems of religion 3. The origins of the Old Testament hope of salvation
I Mythical elements
II Its cultic derivation III Its nationalist origin Iv Its religous core 4. Prediction and fulfilment
I The various attempts at a solution
II The double relationship of prediction and fulfilment 459461 461 462462 467464
467
472 473 490 490 491 492 494 494 497 498 499 50’502 508
Excursus : The Problem of Old Testament Theology 512
Index of subjects Index of modern authors Index of biblical passages
521 530 535
From the PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION
T
HE spiritual situationin general and that of theology in particular is impressing ever more peremptorily on everyone concerned with Old Testament studies the need for a new essay in OT theology.There are quite enough historical descriptions of Israelite and Judaistic religion: but by contrast only the most rudimentary attempts have been made to present the religion of which the records are to be found in the Old Testament as a self-contained entity exhibiting, despite ever-changing historical conditions, a constant basic tendency and character. It is precisely such a presentation, however, which has today become quite indispensable in the face both of the deep issues raised by the comparative study of religions and of the current impassioned analyses of the Christian religion and its relation to its Israelite past. Indeed, to anyone who is in any way acquainted with the problems involved the whole difficulty of the project is so strongly contemporary, that a doubt whether the question can be solved with the means at present at our disposal must seem only too well justified.
The author of the present work has, therefore, entered on his task not light-heartedly but only under the strongest pressure from very diverse quarters. The experience which he has been able to gain in working over the material during repeated courses of lectures has indeed been encouraging: but in addition what has helped him to persevere in his work is the conviction that it is better at least to hazard an attempt to master a problem which has become too insistent to ignore-and thereby, perhaps, to provide a stimulus for better solutions-than to leave the whole matter undisturbed. He is fully aware that in doing so he has departed from the usual procedure, not only in the arrangement of the material, but even more in the effort to determine which questions are fundamental to the faith of the OT. This will be especially noticeable with regard to the signifi- cance of the Covenant, its institutions in Law and Cult, and its instruments of expression in Prophecy and Priesthood. But this pproach wi.ll seem a disadvantage only to those who cannot see how
I I
12 F R O M T H E P R E F A C E T O T H E F I R S T E D I T I O N
miserably inadequate at just these points is the usual theology-one which thinks that the essence of OT religion can be displayed in the bloodless abstraction of ‘ethical monotheism’, simply because it can- not free itself from the values of a rationalistic individualism and the structure-patterns of developmental theories. It is, therefore, the author’s hope that this first part of the Theology of the Old Testa- ment, which aims at clarifying the most important fundamental questions, may be of some service to many who in the controversy about the OT are looking for new lines along which to direct their thoughts.
Base1
34)
‘933W. EI~HRODT
P R E F A C E T O T H E F I F T H R E V I S E D E D I T I O N
S
INCE the appearance of the First Edition of the present work therehas been a very happy revival oftheological work on the OldTesta- ment, and such work has now won back its rightful place in acade- mic studies in a field where the religio-historical approach for a long time held wellnigh undisputed sway. In 1933 it was still necessary to fight for recognition of the fact that a new conception of the OT system of faith in its particular quality of revelation was needed at all ; today this has penetrated even the academic world. We are still, however, in the thick of the argument over the nature, method and purpose of an objective exposition and balanced presentation of the message of the OT; and the discussion is still far from coming to any agreed results. It seemed imperative to the author, therefore, to retain the basic lay-out and exposition of his material, in order that in the present conflict of opinions the approach to the problem con- fronting us which he personally advocated should be given a hearing in its strongest form. This means, in the first place, a conscious insistence on treating OT theology as a historical question and the rejection of all attempts, however enticing, to draw it into the domain of the normative sciences, as has been proposed, for example, by F.
Baumgartel (‘Erwagungen zur Darstellung der Theologie des Alten Testaments’, TLS 76, 1951, pp. 257 ff.). That this has nothing to do with ‘historicism’, but rather with a new concept of the essential nature of true historical study, ought to be clear enough from the first chapter of this book; and this impression will be confirmed by the fact that a fundamental opposition to that understanding of the OT which characterizes the developmental theory is maintained through- out the work. Secondly, in the face of all objections, the ‘covenant’ has been retained as the central concept, by which to illuminate the structural unity and the unchanging basic tendency of the message of the OT. For it is in this concept that Israel’s fundamental convic- tion of its special relationship with God is concentrated. The decisive consideration on this point is neither the presence nor absence of the
J3
‘ 4 P R E F A C E T O T H E F I F T H R E V I S E D E D I T I O N
actual term bvit, as certain all too na’ive critics seem to imagine (for a discussion of the avoidance of the word by many of the prophets, cf. e.g. pp. 5 I f.), but the fact that every expression of the OT which is determinative for its faith rests on the explicit or implicit assumption that a free act of God, consummated in history, has raised Israel to the rank of the People of God, in whom the nature and will of God are to be revealed. The word ‘covenant’, therefore, is so to speak a convenient symbol for an assurance much wider in scope and controlling the formation of the national faith at its deepest level, without which Israel would not be Israel. As an epitome of the deal- ings of God in history the ‘covenant’ is not a doctrinal concept, with the help of which a complete corpus of dogma can be worked out, but the characteristic description of a Ziz&zgprocess, which was begun at a particular time and at a particular place, in order to reveal a divine reality unique in the whole history of religion. Reference to this living process in every single paragraph of this work will not escape the attentive reader.
But this is not to say that the scientific understanding of the witness of the OT may only take the form of repeating the OT’s own account of its history. Something of this sort, allowing for deliberate over- emphasis, seems to have been the aim of G. Ernest Wright in his short programmatic work, God Who Acts: Biblical Theology as Recital (1952: cf. my own review in 3BL 73, 1954, pp. 240 ff.) and G. von Rad comes very close to the same position in his ‘Typologische Auslegung des Alten Testaments’ (EuTh 12, Ig52/53, pp. 17 ff., re- printed in Vergegenwiirtigung, Aufstitze zur Auslegung des Alten Testa- ments, I 955, pp. 47 ff.). This emphasis on the objective historical facts and events in the OT message at the expense of the testimony of faith to the divine revelation, which is advocated by both writers, has grown out of an understandable aversion from the misuse of the OT in the construction of dogmatic systems of doctrine. It comes, how- ever, hazardously near to an uncontrolled and arbitrary attestation of God in individual facts of history, which can then only acquire real significance for faith in two ways; either by an extremely exaggerated ‘salvation-history’ approach, or by typological meta- morphosis as ‘prefiguring’ the NT Christ-event. This is not, of course, to suggest that such a conclusion accurately describes the ultimate purpose of these particular efforts at securing the unity of the biblical faith. Nevertheless, it seems necessary to us to emphasize that the withdrawal from all ‘conceptualism’ with regard to the activity of
P R E F A C E T O T H E F I F T H R E V I S E D E D I T I O N ‘ 5 God in history ought never to involve isolating this activity in such a way as to ignore the testimony of faith evoked in response to it from the OT community. It is rather that the latter affords the only legitimate commentary on that activity. It is the interior overmaster- ing of the human spirit by God’s personal invasion, which in the first place brings to life the OT understanding of history. Here is to be found the decisive inward event, without which all external facts must become myth. Therefore the activity of God in the OT salvation- history can only be presented and expressed in words in combina- tion with the response of the People of God to the historical event sent to them. It is from this involvement with a binding will of God that clearly defined expressions of faith spring, forming a testimony to God’s nature and purpose which achieves perfect clarity only in the NT. If, however, there is to be any talk either of a unity of the biblical faith, or of any living meaning of the OT for Christians, then this state of affairs must be able to commend itself intuitively as self- evident-and in that case clearly defined concepts cannot be dis- pensed with anyway.
For this reason it is not a ‘self-contained dogmatic totality, but a real God becoming manifest in history’ (pp. 502 f.) to which the Scriptures of the OT bear witness. To enable this testimony to be heard once more, and by this means once more to make practicable the long obstructed path from the Old Testament to the New, is the reason for undertaking the theology of the OT-is, at any rate, the goal which all the expositions in this book are striving to reach. To this end the citation of the OT evidence in the notes has been made as thorough as possible: similarly, the index has been newly revised and corrected. The reshaping of whole sections was only undertaken where the burning issues of contemporary OT studies compelled it, namely in the matters of the Kingship of Yahweh and its expression in the cult, and of cult prophecy. The book has, however, been im- proved or clarified in a good many particular points, and especial note has been taken of the most important theological literature, though naturally only a selection of contributions to periodicals could be cited. To strive for absolute completeness-a goal which is hardly feasible now that in this ‘ecumenical age’ the boundaries have been pushed back far beyond the area of the German language-was no part of the author’s intention. He must be content with the hope that no really serious gaps have been left.
In conclusion it is the author’s prayer that this new edition of the
16 P R E F A C E T O T H E F I F T H R E V I S E D E D I T I O N
first volume (which should be followed in the foreseeable future by volumes 2 and 3) may meet with a friendly reception and, like the earlier editions, be of service beyond all confessional frontiers, both in the sphere of academic study and in the practical ministry of the pastor and missionary, to the glory of God and the happiness of the reader.
Base1
February 1957
W . EI C H R O D T P R E F A C E T O T H E E N G L I S H E D I T I O N
I
T IS a great joy to the writer to be able at last to make Part Oneof his Theology of the Old Testament available to English-speaking readers; and he would like to acknowledge his great debt of grati- tude to the SCM Press and to the Westminster Press for sharing the risk of this undertaking. Likewise his heartfelt thanks go to the translator, who has accomplished his arduous task with great competence and insight. In this new revision the work has remained true to its original programme as defined in the Preface to the first edition.
This was ‘to present the religion of which the records are to be found in the Old Testament as a self-contained entity exhibiting, des$Gte euer- changing historical conditions, a constant basic tendency and character.’ The main concern was then, and is still, to arrive at a new understanding of the religious world of the OT precisely in respect of its religious quality, an aspect which for too long had been buried either under the schematizations imposed by ‘development’ theories or under the bloodless abstractions of a rationalist individualism. This meant deliberately striking away from the well-worn paths, not only in the arrangement of the material, but even more in deciding what ques- tions really were fundamental to the religious life of the OT; above all in assessing the significance of the covenant, of its terms in law and cultus, and of the men who were its instruments in prophetism and priesthood. The concept of the covenant was given this central posi- tion in the religious thinking of the OT so that, by working outward from it, the structural unity of the OT message might be made more readily visible.
Notwithstanding many alterations in detail, and in spite of the fact that many objectors were prepared to see in it no more than an artificial construction, this overall orientation of the work has been deliberately retained. For the concept of the covenant enshrines Israel’s most fundamental conviction, namely its sense of a unique relationship with God. The crucial point is not-as an all too na’ive criticism sometimes seems to think-the occurrence or absence of the
17
18 P R E F A C E T O T H E E N G L I S H E D I T I O N
Hebrew word berZt,l but the fact that all the crucial statements of faith in the OT rest on the assumption, explicit or not, that a free act of God in history raised Israel to the unique dignity of the People of God, in whom his nature and purpose were to be made manifest.
The actual term ‘covenant’ is, therefore, so to speak, only the code- word for a much more far-reaching certainty, which formed the very deepest layer of the foundations of Israel’s faith, and without which indeed Israel would not have been Israel at all. As epitomizing God’s action in history ‘covenant’ is not a dogmatic concept with the help of which a ‘corpus of doctrine’ can be evolved, but the tyfiical &m-i+
tion of a living process, which began at a particular time and place, and_ 1 which was designed to make manifest a divine reality quite unique in the whole history of religion. The references to this living process in every single chapter of this work will not escape the attentive reader.
Even today this fundamental orientation, argued for in the follow- ing pages, needs stressing as much as ever. It is true that in the last decades theological work on the OT has revived in a most satisfactory way, and regained its proper place in academic studies. A whole series of treatments of the subject, such as those of Procksch, Vriezen and Jacob, to mention only a few, have in their different ways, but on the basis of a similar assessment of the contemporary theological situation, striven toward a common goal. But we are still in the Flhick of the argument about the nature, methods and purpose of an objec- tive exposition and correct presentation of the OT message. Above all, the OT Theology of G. von Rad,2 now completed with the publi- cation in 1960 of the second volume, gives evidence of a highly interesting reappraisal of the problem here confronting OT studies, and one that will doubtless evoke lively discussion. Whether the route explored by its author- a path significantly different from the one trodden in the present work-can lead us to a solution of the questions still outstanding, or at least make a decisive contribution thereto, will call for the most careful consideration.3 In any event, however, the attempt which we have made in these pages to unfold the content of the faith of the OT may perhaps be permitted to
1 On the avoidance of this term in many of the prophets, cf. ch. II. 2. II.
a Theologie des Alten Testaments. Vol. I : Die Theologie der geschichtlichen Uberliefeer- ungen Israels, 1957. Vol. II : Die Theologie der prophetischen uberlieferung Israels, 1960.
3 A discussion of the most important points of disagreement between von Rad and myself in the assessment of the present state of the problem will be found in the Excursus on ‘The Problem of OT Theology’ in the Appendix to this book.
P R E F A C E T O T H E E N G L I S H E D I T I O N ‘9 stand as a pointer to a problem of OT Theology which remains urgent, and which must be solved if we are to understand the place of the OT in the Canon and, therefore, as a standard of faith for the Christian congregation.
iVliinclzen.stein Base1
December I 960
WALTHER EI C H R O D T
T R A N S L A T O R ’ S P R E F A C E
T
HE English version of the present work has taken the lion’s share of what spare time the translator has been able to salvage from work in parish and university during the past four to five years.On reading the result he is aware acutely of defects in the style, which is still in many places too leaden-footed to make enjoyable reading. But to correct this fault right through a book of such size would have meant a delay unjustified by any probability of improvement, and a taxing of the publishers’ already generous patience; it is only to be hoped, therefore, that students will not be put off by any superficial difficul- ties of this kind. For the intimate knowledge that can only come from rendering into a new language has deepened the translator’s own conviction that this is incomparably the greatest book in its field- a work in which burning faith and scientific precision combine to give the reader a living experience of that ‘new reality of God’ of which it so often speaks, and which is the unique possession of the Old Testament.
The translator’s deep gratitude is due to Professor Eichrodt and his daughter who have checked the accuracy of the entire MS. That it is a faithful rendering the reader can therefore be sure; more than that let him be charitable and not require !
JO H N BA K E R
Car-us Christi College Oxford
May 1961
21
AAG ANEP ANET AOB A O T AT BWANT BZAW CH E T Ev l-h E V V HG HRE JBL JTSN.F.
3vK.X OTS RB RGG
TLfzTWJVT
A B B R E V I A T I O N S Altassyrische Gesetze (see p. 74 n. I)
J. B. Pritchard, The Ancient Near East in Pictures, 1954 J. B. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts relating to the
Old Testament2, I 955
H. Gressmann, Altorientalische Bilder Cum AT2, 1927
H. Gressmann, Altorientalische Texte zurn AT2, 1926 Alte Testament, alttestamentliche
Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testa- ment, ed. A. Alt and G. Kittel
Beihefte zur <A W Codex Hammurabi English translation Euangelische Theologie English versions
Hethitische Gesetze (see p. 74 n. I)
J. J. Herzog, Realenzyklopiidie fiirprotestantische Theologie und Kirche3, ed. A. Hauck
Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Theological Studies
Neue Folge
JVeue Kirchliche <eitschrift Oudtestamentische Studien Revue Biblique
Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, and edn, ed. H.
Gunkel and L. Tscharnack, 1927-31; 3rd edn, ed. K.
Galling, 1956 ff.
Theologische Literaturzeitung
Theologische Wiirterbuch Zum Neuen Testament, ed. G. Kittel, 1933 ff
9Q‘J
A B B R E V I A T I O N S
<eitschriftftir die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
<eitschrzft fiir die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft
Biblical references are according to the chapters and verses of the Hebrew Bible. (Where these differ from EVV, they are noted in the margin of the RV and RSV.)
O L D T E S T A M E N T T H E O L O G Y : T H E P R O B L E M A N D T H E M E T H O D
MONG ALL THE PROBLEMS known to OT studies, one of the
A
most far-reaching in its importance is that of the theology of the OT: for its concern is to construct a complete picture of the 0 T realm of belief, in other words to comprehend in all its uniqueness and immensity what is, strictly speaking, the proper object of OT study. The tasks of this science are very various in character, but this \F,\, _, is the crown of them all; and to this, therefore, the other disciplines involved are ancillary.
But though the domain of OT theology proper is comparatively restricted, yet it is closely linked both to the prolific variety of pagan religions and to the exclusive realm of NT belief. Thus it exhibits a double aspect.
On the one side it faces on to the comparative study of religions. To adapt a well-known dictum of Harnack l (which he coined in opposi- tion to the thesis of Max Mtiller that ‘The man who knows only one religion knows none’) one might say, ‘The man who knows the religion of the OT knows many.’ For in the course of its long history it has not only firmly consolidated its own unique contribution, but also, by a process of absorption and rejection, has forged links with the most varied forms of paganism. Hence the study of it can become at the same time a course in the comparative study of religions. Jvp_
presentation of 0 T theology can properly be made without constant reference to_* .- its connections with the whole world of .Near Eastern religion. Indeed it is in its commanding such a wide panorama of the rich domain of man’s
‘Die Aufgabe d e r theologischen Fakttltiiten und die allgettteine Religiotlsgeschichte,
1(30x, 11. I O .
25
26 O L D T E S T A M E N T T H E O L O G Y
religious activity that many will prefer to see the special significance of the faith of the OT.
And yet there is this second aspect, looking on towards the-New Testament. Anyone who studies the historical development of the OT finds that throughout there is a powerful and purposive move- ment which forces itself on his attention. It is true that there are also times when the religion seems to become static, to harden into a rigid sys tern ; but every time this occurs the forward drive breaks through once more, reaching out to a higher form of life and making everything that has gone before seem inadequate and incomplete.
This movement does not come to rest until the manifestation of ,,_ Christ, in whom the noblest powers of the OT find their fulfil- ment. Negative evidence in support of this statement is afforded by the torso-like appearance of Judaism in separation from Christianity.
The affinity with the NT is not, however, exhausted by a bare historical connection, such as might afford material for the historian’s examination but no more. It rather confronts us with an essential characteristic, which must be taken into account if the OT is to be understood. Moreover this is an impression which is confirmed over and over again when we enter the unique spiritual realm of the NT.
For in the encounter with the Christ of the Gospels there is the asser- tion of a mighty living reality as inseparably bound up with the OT past as pointing forward into the future. That which binds together indiuisibly the two realms of the Old_ and Jvew Testaments-dij?erent in externals though they may be-is the irrufition of the Kingship of God into this world and its establishment here. This is the unitive fact because it rests on the action of one and the sameGod in each case; that God who in promise and performance, in Gospel and Law, pursues one and the selfsame great purpose, the building of his Kingdom. This is why the central message of the NT leads us back to the testimony of God in the old covenant.
But in addition to this historical movement from the Old Testa- ment to the New there is a current oflife flowing in the reverse direction from the New Testament to the Old. This reverse relationship also elucidates the full significance of the realm of OT thought. Only where this two-way relationship between the Old and New Testaments is understood do we find a correct definition of the problem of OT theology and of the method by which it is possible to solve it.
I
T H E P R O B L E M A N D T H E M E T H O D 27Hence to our general aim of obtaining a comprehensive picture of the realm of OT belief we must add a second and closely related pur- pose-to see that this comprehensive picture does justice to the essential relationship with the NT and does not merely ignore it. Naturally this does not mean that the language of the OT must be artificially screwed up to the pitch of the New in order that both Testaments may be on the same spiritual plane. To seek to do this would merely betray a very poor idea of the difference between a process in real life and a process in logical thought. It was just at this point that the old orthodoxy, in spite of having a sound idea of the correct course, had the misfortune to lose its grasp of the living reality and to slip back into the procedures of logical demonstration, thereby conceal- ing rather than clarifying the actual relation between the Old and New Testaments. The reaction to this was rationalism with its root- and-branch rejection of the OT.
This then is the problem that confronts us. In expounding the realm of OT thought and belief we must never lose sight of the fact that the OT religion, ineffaceably individual though it may be, can yet be grasped in this essential uniqueness only when it is seen as completed in Christ. None other than B. Stade, well known for the radical nature of his criticism, emphasized this ‘homogeneity and similarity of the Old and New Testament revelations’ in his own theology of the OT; and he saw in this fact the premiss from which this branch of OT studies could be proved to be a necessary part of Christian theology. l
The more clearly the shape of this problem is seen, the more apparent it becomes that it is not to be solved along the lines which OT studies have so far taken, namely the consideration of the process of historical development only. It is not just a matter of describing the all-round expansion of OT religion, or the phases through which it passed, but of determining to what extent-as B. Stade remarked -it ties up with the NT revelation and is analogous to it. But this can only be done by taking a cross-section of the realm of OT thought, thus making possible both a comprehensive survey and a sifting of what is essential from what is not. In this way both the total structure of the system and the basic principles on which it rests can be exposed to view. In other words we have to undertake a systematic examination with objective classification and rational arrangement of the varied material. This does not in any way imply that the historical method
llliblische Theologie des Alten Testaments, 1905, p. 15.
28 O L D T E S T A M E N T T H E O L O G Y
of investigation is worthless, nor that it should be set aside. We ought rather to build deliberately on its conclusions and make use of its procedures. Nevertheless developmental analysis must be replaced by systematic synthesis, if we are to make more progress toward an interpretation of the outstanding religious phenomena of the OT in their deepest significance. l
A glance at the history of our particular discipline will abundantly confirm that this method, deriving as it does from the nature of the material, is the proper one. As we have already stated, rationalism tore to shreds the inadequate attempts of orthodoxy to demonstrate the inner coherence of the Old and New Testaments by the collation of proof-texts and an extensive system of typology. 2 It proved that it was impossible to reduce the whole realm of OT thought, conditioned as it is by such an immense variety of ages and individuals, to a handbook of dogmatic instruction without doing violence to it.
Rationalism itself, however, was quite unable to offer any substitute;
for in its delight in critical analysis it lost its feeling for the vital synthesis in the OT and could only see the differing teachings of individual biblical writers. 3
Into the meaningless confusion of disjecta membra, into which the OT on such a view degenerated, the new approach to history which began to flower with the age of romanticism brought a unifying principle. It dismissed once for all the ‘intellectualist’ approach, which looked only for doctrine, and sought by an all-inclusive survey to grasp the totality of religious life in all its richness of expression.
Furthermore it brought this unexpected expansion of the field of study under control with the magic formula of ‘historical develop- ment’, allowing all the individual elements to be arranged in one historical process and thus enabling the meaning of the whole to be demonstrated in its final achievement.
This method of treatment, which began with Herder * and de
11 have given the main outlines of the relationship between this task and the dogmatic religious presentation, properly so called, of OT religion in my lecture, ‘Hat die alttestamentliche Theologie noch selbstandige Be- z;;ng innerhalb der alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft ?‘, <A W 47, 1929, pp.
. *21t is not possible to take into consideration in this work such exceptional cases as G. Calixt and J. Cocceius.
3Cf. C. F. Ammon, Bib&he Theologie, I 792 ; G. L. Bauer, Theologie des Alten Testaments, I 796, and others.
4The Spirit of Hebrew Poetry, Letters on Theology, The Oldest Documents of the Human Race, etc.
T H E P R O B L E M A N D T H E M E T H O D 29 Wette, l reached its high-water mark with Wellhausen2 and his school, and for decades diverted work on OT theology into historical channels. Of what avail was it that a Beck 3 or a Hofmann * should attempt, about the middle of the last century, to develop a system of biblical doctrine? By making use of the OT for this purpose they were indeed standing up for its vital importance for the Christian faith, but they made no headway against the rising stream of historical investigation-to say nothing of the fact that the dogmatic system to which they harnessed the thought of the OT was seriously defective.
All the more deserving of notice, therefore, are three men who in the second half of the nineteenth century, right in the thick of the triumphal progress of historical criticism, attempted to expound the essential content of the OT in systematic form, while at the same time giving full consideration to the newly emergent problems connected with it. These were G. F. Oehler, 5 A. Dillmann, 6 and H. Schultz. 7 All three took account of the new movement by prefacing their exposition with a historical summary of OT religion. They then went on, however, to contend earnestly for a systematic correlation of the elements which had so far been examined only as they occurred in the course of the historical process. It was unfortunate that the two first- named works did not appear until after the deaths of their authors and so were already at the time of their publication no longer defensible in many details. 8 Nevertheless, repeated new editions witness to their having met a pressing need. Even today they still provide the most thorough treatment of the realm of OT belief from the systematic standpoint; and even though since that time research has brought to light much new relevant material and has introduced different ways of framing the problems, so materially altering the total picture, one can turn to them again and again. It is significant that for twenty-five years after the last edition of Schultz’s Theology no one ventured on a further attempt to provide an exposition of this kind in the realm of OT belief. The historical approach had triumphed on every side.
lBeitriige zur Geschichte des Alten Testaments, 1806-7; Biblische Dogmatik, x81 3, 3rd edn, 133 I.
ZProlegomena to the History of Israel, ET, I 885 ; originally 1878; History of Israel, E T , I 894; Die israelitisch-jiidische Religion, 1906 (Kultur der Gegenwart I, 4).
3Die christliche Lehrwissenschaft nach den biblischen Urkunden, I 84 I.
4Der Schriftbeweis, 1852-55.
5 Theologie des Alten Testaments, I 873 ; 3rd edn, I 89 I.
6Handbuch der alttestamentlichen Theologie, ed. R. Kittel, 1895.
‘Old Testament Theology: ET in 2 vols., 2nd edn, I 898 ; 5th German edn, I 896.
sThis applies also to the less important OT Theology of E. Riehm, 1889.
30 O L D T E S T A M E N T T H E O L O G Y
To say this is of course not to attempt to deny that this method accomplished an immense amount for the historical understanding of OT religion. It is impossible even to conceive of a historical picture that does not make use of its findings, and to that extent not one of us can help being in its debt. For this very reason, however, the method had a particularly fatal influence both on OT theology and on the understanding of the OT in every other aspect, because it fostered the idea that once the historical problems were clarified everything had been done. The essential inner coherence of the Old and New Testaments was reduced, so to speak, to a thin thread of historical connection and causal sequence between the two, with the result that an external causality- not even susceptible in every case of secure demonstration-was substituted for a homogeneity that was real because it rested on the similar content of their experience of life.
How appallingly this impoverished the conception of the relationship of the two Testaments strikes one at once; but it is also clear that the OT itself, if valued only as the historical foundation or forerunner of the New, was bound to lose its own specific value as revelation, even though from the historical angle it might be assessed as highly as ever.
One consequence of this is the fact that the OT has completely lost any effective place in the structure of Christian doctrine. Indeed, in the circumstances, it sometimes seems more from academic politeness than from any real conviction of its indispensability that it is so seldom denied all value as canonical Scripture l-a step which would enable the whole subject to be transferred from the sphere of theology to that of the comparative study of religions.
That OT theologians for their part were content to put up with this development, and thought that the value of the OT could be safeguarded even along these lines, can only be understood if we remember that the full flood of historicism, which overflowed every academic discipline, had blinded them to the fact that historical investigation, for all its glittering achievements, could yet offer no serious substitute for the concept of the essential coherence of the Old and New Testaments. The little still left to OT theology to do, viz., the historical presentation of the Israelite and Judaistic religion, was quite insufficient to conceal, even with the help of the magic word ‘development’, how serious the loss had been. There was no longer any unity to be found in the OT, only a collection of detached periods which were simply the reflections of as many different
‘Harnack (Ma~cion, I gz I, pp. 247 ff.) was one notable exception.
r
T H E P R O B L E M A N D T H E M E T H O D 3’religions, In such circumstances it was only a logical development that the designation ‘OT Theology’, which had formerly had quite a different connotation, should frequently be abandoned and the title
‘the History of Israelite Religion’ substituted for it. l Even where scholars still clung to the old name, 2 they were neither desirous nor capable of offering anything more than an exposition of the historical process.
When, therefore, in 1922 E. Konig ventured to publish a Theology of the OT which attempted to take its title seriously, it was a real act of courage which deserves to be recorded. It is true that to some extent a hybrid form is still noticeable in the book. The historical- developmental method of examination, carrying over from the opening historical section into the systematic part, never allows the synthesis its rightful scope. Furthermore, the recalcitrant material is forced into a Procrustes’ bed, because it has been made to fit a dogmatic arrangement foreign to the subject. Nevertheless, that the author had rightly sensed the need of the contemporary situation was proved by the grateful reception accorded to his work.
It is high time that the tyranny of historicism in OT studies was broken and the proper approach to our task re-discovered. This is no new problem, certainly, but it is one that needs to be solved anew in every epoch of knowledge-&e problem
of how
to understand the realm of 0 T_b_elief in its structural unity and how, by examining on the one hand its religz’ous environment and on the oth_e_r_ $s e.pfntial coherecc_e with the AT, to_ - ~_ - __ _ ._ -- ._illuminate its PIofoundest mean&g. 3 Only so shall we succeed in winning-_
back for OT studies in general and for OT theology in particular that place in Christian theology which at present has been surrendered to the comparative study of religions.
We are not for one moment trying to make light of the difficulties that stand in the way of this undertaking. It is a fact that the unique
1So R. Smend in his widely-used Lehrbuch der alttestamentlichen Religionsgeschichte2, 1899; F. Giesebrecht, Grundziige der israelitischen Religionsgeschichte, 1904; K. Marti, Geschichte der israelitischen Religions, I go7 ; K. Budde, Die Religion des Volkes Israel bis zur Verbannung3, I g I 2 ; E. Konig, Geschichte der alttestamentlichen Religion2, I g I 5 ;
R. Kittel, The Religion of the People of Israel, ET, 1925; G. Holscher, Geschichte der israelitischen und jiidischen Religion, I 922.
2B. Stade, Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments, E. Kautzsch, Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments, 19 I I. So also A. Kuenen, De godsdienst van Israel, 1869 ff., and the work of the same name by B. D. Eerdmans, 1930.
31n this connection cf. the examination by R. Kittel of the importance of OT theology in his essay, ‘Die Zukunft der alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft’, <A
W
39,1921, p p . 94 ff.
32 OLD T E S T A M E N T T H E O L O G Y
quality of Israelite religion obstinately resists all efforts to subject it comPlctelY to systematic treatment. For if there is one feature that it exhibits more than any other religion, it is an abundance of creative religious Personalities, who are closely involved in the historical experiences of the people. In any religion where this is not so the main content
of the
thought is usually present at its foundation and changes but little in the course of time, being rather worn away and levelled down than made more profound or fashioned afresh. In the OT, however, we fisd both a stock of spiritual values firmly estab- lished at the outset and also an incessant process of growth which is continually enriching the religion by drawing into its sphere new content from without. At the same time the internal shape of the religion becomes increasingly well-defined. It is this prominenceof the
Personal and historical factors in Israelite religion which constitutes a constant temptation to the writer to resort to an exposition along the historical line of development.
But though such a motive may be justifiable, it should not be overriding. A picture of the historical development of Israelite religion can equally well be conveyed by means of a History of Israel, so long as the religious life is allowed that place in the work which its &se contact and interaction with the political history merits- It is true that to this extent OT theology presupposes the history of’ Israel. Nevertheless, in so far as the spiritual history of
Israel has brought about a drastic remodelling of many religious
ideas, the right way lo make allowance for this is to have the historical principle operating side b
In treating individual_Y side with the VsteEatic in _a complementary role.
religious concepts the major elements of their
historical background must be taken into account. Only so can we hoPe to do justice to the great unitive tendency that runs through
the whole reWouS history of Israel and makes it with all its variety a Self-consistent entity.
One thiW, however, must be guarded against and that is any
arrangement
Of the wh&
body of material which derives not from the laws Of its Own nature but: from some dogmatic scheme. It is impossible to use a system whic4 has been developed on a basis quite differentfrom that
of the
realm of OT thought to arrive at the OT belief aboutGod* A11 that results k a grave danger of intruding alien ideas and of
barring the way to understanding.
It has often been observed that the OT contains very little actual
‘doctrine’. Nowhere are formal ‘instructions’ about the Being OfGod
T H E P R O B L E M A N D T H E M E T H O D 33 or his attributes delivered to the Israelite. His knowledge of God comes to him from the realities of his own life. He learns about the nature of God by reasoning a posteriori from the standards and usages of Law and Cult, which rule his personal life with divine authority, from the events of history and their interpretation by his spiritual leaders, in short, from his daily experience of the rule of God. By this means he comprehends the divine essence much more accurately than he would from any number of abstract concepts. The result is that the formation of such concepts in the OT lags far behind, while the same spiritual values which they are normally the means of conveying
to us are yet, uncompromisingly real and effective.
In deciding, therefore, on our procedure for the treatment of the
realm of 0~
thought, we must avoid all schemes which derive from Christian dogmatics-such, for example, as ‘Theology-Anthro- pology-Soteriology , ‘m&~ s&W’ and so on. Instead we must plot ourcourse as best we can along the lines of the OT’s own dialectic. This
~ speaks of a revelation of the God of the People, who in his rule proves
himself to be also the God of the World and the God of the In&
vidual. We arc therefore presented with three principal categories, within which to study the special nature of the Israelite faith in God : (&I< and the People,_ - God and the World and God and Afan. ’
i 11 owe this preg nant formulation of the three major categories to the outline by 0. Procksch, which formed the basis of his university lectures on OT theology and which has provided me with many stimulating ideas. The division Of the material
here suggested had already been anticipated by H. Schultz in the arrangement of
the second part of his 0 ‘I_ ‘Iheology, except that in a way characteristic of him he
treated Hope separately in a special section.
Since the first edition
of
this work several expositions of the faith of the OT haveappeared, which l&&se accept as their controlling concepts the ones here de-
veloped. pre-eminent is the monumental work of 0. Procksch (Theo&% des Alten Testaments, 1950) which formed the crowning achievement of the extremely productive life of this scholar, but which he unfortunately did not live to see In
print. By prefacing the systematic treatment with a historical sketch he sought to
relieve tile former of the burden of historical problems and SO free himself to take a cross-section of the OT message and arrange it according to the same basic Plan
as we have adopted. Next there is the fine work of T. C. Vriezen (Hoofd&en der I Theologie van bet O u d e T e s t a m e n t , 1949, 2nd edn, 19.54; ET, *An Outline Of Old Testament The&u, x958), which seeks in the first part to elucidate the Problem
’ in order in the second to be able
‘Knowledge and Faith, History and Revelation
1 to expound the central elements of the witness to God found in the OT. Here the
corlcept which controls the arrangement is that of the new God-given community relationship, and by this means a vital comprehension is achieved both of the inner unity of the OT and of its overall pointing to Christ. E. Jacob (ThboZogie de Z’Ancietl Testament, 1956; ET, Theology of the Old Testament, 1958) has aimed at a
systematic synthesis of the essential content of OT theology in the framework of
~od’s activity as Creator of the world and man and as Lord
of history.
A prefatoryT . O . T . - B
T H E C O V E N A N T R E L A T I O N S H I P
I. THE MEANING OF THE COVENANT CONCEPT
T
HE CONCEPT IN WHICH Israelite thought gave definitive ex-pression to the binding of the people to God and by means of which they established firmly from the start the particularity of their knowledge of him was the covenant. That the basis of the. . .._.- _ _ _ _. _ relationship with”God can be regarded as embodied in a covenant from Mosaic times has of course bee> sharply- contested. l Never-__ . . theless, it can be demonstrated that the covenant~union between Yahweh and Israel is an original element in all sources, despite their being in part in very fragmentary form. Indeed this is still true even of those passages where the word berit has disappeared altogether. 2 The whole course of early Israelite history, in which the religious sense of solidarity is bound ub with the Sinai tradition, affords further evidence of this. 3 Moreover, in the post-Mosaic era, wherever the relationship with God has the character of a relationship of grace, that is to say, it is founded on a primal act in history, maintained on definite conditions and protected by a powerful divine Guardian, then even where the covenant is not explicitly mentioned the spiritual
rThe principal exponent of this view was R. Kraetzschmar, who in his work Die Bundesuorstellung im AT, 1896, argued that the idea of the covenant first appeared as a result of the work of the major prophets. Such a conclusion was only the natural consequence of his contention that the early religion of Israel was a nature religion. Similarly B. Stade designates Jeremiah as the first prophet to conceive of Israel’s relationship with Yahweh as a bvit (Biblische Theologie des AT, P. 234).
2Cf. Ex. 24.9-r I (Jr) ; 24.3-8 (E) ; 34.10, 27 ( JZ). H. Gressmann (Mose und seine <eit, 1913, pp. 183 ff.) has demonstrated this particularly happily for the narrative of the divine meal on the mountain.
3Judg. 5.4 f., 9, 23; 6.13; I 1.16; I Sam. 2.27; 4.8; 10.18; 15.6; Ex. 15.1 ff., 21;
Num. 23.22; 24.8.
36
THE MEANING OF THE COVENANT CONCEPT 37
premisses of a covenant relationship with God are manifestly present. l Finally, the use of the covenant concept in secular life argues that the religious b v-it too was always regarded as a bilateral relationship; for even though the burden is most unequally distributed between the two contracting parties, this makes no difference to the fact that the relationship is still essentially two-sided. 2 The idea that in ancient Israel the bv-it was always and only thought of as Yahweh’s pledging of himself, to which human effort was required to make no kind of response (Kraetzschmar), can therefore be proved to be erroneous. 3 The safest starting-point for the critical examination of Israel’s relationship with God is still the plain impression given by the OT itself that Moses, taking over a concept of long standing in secular life, based the worship of Yahweh on a covenant agreement. This, how- ever, makes the task of defining clearly the theological meaning of the covenant concept all the more important.
(a) First of all it must be noted that the establishment of a cove- nant through the work of Moses especially emphasizes one basic element in the whole Israelite experience of God, namely the factual nature of the A&e revelation. God’s disclosure of himself is not grasped speculatively, not expounded in the form of a lesson; it is as he breaks in on the-life of his people in his dealings with them and moulds them according to his will -that he grants them knowledge of his being.
This interpretation of the covenant is indicated by the whole his- torical process leading up to it. The foundation of an enduring covenant order appears as the purpose and consummation of the
rCf. the exhaustive discussion in E. Sellin, Beitrtige zur israelitischen undjiidischen Xeligionsgeschichte, I, 1896, pp. 15 ff. Also P. Volz, Mosel, 1907, pp. 28 ff.; Mose und cein Werk2, 1932, pp. 108 ff.
2Gen. 21.23; 26.29; Josh. 9.1 ff.; I Sam. 11.1; 20. I ff. ; I Kings 20.34; Ezek.
17.18 etc.
3Cf. J. P. Valeton, ‘Bedeutung und Stellung des Worts berit im Priesterkodex usf.‘, <A W 12, 1892, pp. I ff., 224 ff.; 13, 1893, pp. 245 ff. This statement is in no way dependent on whatever may be the root meaning of the word, which is ctymologically uncertain. According to Valeton and Kautzsch this is ‘cutting’, with reference to the sacrificial ceremony; according to Kraetzschmar and Karge
‘fettering’, with reference to the binding of the free will of the partners in the contract; according to Hempel (art. ‘Bund’, RGG2 I, col. 1360) ‘eating’ or ‘meal’
with reference to the ceremony necessary to seal the covenant; in RGG3 I, col.
‘5’4, all attempt at derivation is abandoned. The various types of covenant- making both within and outside the OT (cf. Hempel, ofi. cit.; M. Noth, ‘Das :tlttestamentliche Bundschliessen im Lichte eines Maritextes’ in Gesammelte Studien
;Tum AT, 1957, pp. 149 ff. ; J. E. Mendenhall, Law and Covenant in Israel and the
. lncient .Near East, 1955) leave no doubt of the reciprocity of the Israelite covenant relationship.
38 T H E C O V E N A N T R E L A T I O N S H I P
mighty deliverance from Egypt; the power, the ready assistance, the faithfulness of Yahweh experienced thus far are offered to the people for their permanent enjoyment, while at the same time their be- haviour is subjected to definite standards. Moreover, because this demonstration of the will of Yahweh appears as a concrete fact of history, as a covenant expressed in the forms of actual events, it lays quite unmistakable emphasis on the practical relationship of living founded on these events, and causes the formation of religious con- cepts to be left to the natural advance of spiritual knowledge.
(b) Strong pressure in this direction is in any case already to be found in the immediate circumstances of the divine covenant. First a clear divine will becomes discernible, which can be depended upon-&d to which appeal can be made. The covenant knows not only of a demand, but also of a promise: ‘You shall be my people and I will be yo& G&d.’ &-this way‘it>~provides life with a goal and history with a meaning. Because of this the fear that constantly haunts the pagan world, the fear of arbitrariness and caprice in the Godhead, is excluded. With this God men know exactly where they stand; an atmosphere of trust and se&rit_y is created, in which they find both the strength for a willing surrender id the wiil bf God and joyful courage to grapple with the problems of life. l
Such an account can, of course, only be fully valid on one assump- tion, namely that the concrete content of the covenant order warrants and confirms the deductions that may be made from its formal character. Only if we recognize that the simple laws of ancient Israel, infused with a deep feeling for righteousness, which are to be found in the Decalogue and the ‘Book of the Covenant’, do to some extent constitute the basis of the actual Mosaic covenant contract, 2
‘This statement is, of course, not to be crntroverted by reference to certain inexplicable divine acts of punishment, such as those in II Sam. 6.6 ff.; 24. I, for the point about these events is precisely that they are the exceptions which fail to shake the certainty of God’s fundamental attitude to his people. On the subject of the value attached to resignation in the face of the inexplicable dealings of God cf. ch. VII. 5, pp. 259 ff.; 6, pp. 276 f. Of that uncertainty concerning the divine will which is so eloquently expressed in the famous ‘royal lament’ of the Babylonian Job (cf. Ungnad, Religionder Babylonierund Assyrier, 1 g2 I, p. 228) Israel knows nothing.
2Estimates of what the extent may actually be vary considerably according to the importance attached to the orally transmitted paradigms (‘Normen’) or to the fixing of a basic text in writing. Those who consider, in opposition to the view taken here, that generally speaking nothing can be known of the terms of the Mosaic covenant are bound to regard statements about the direction of the divine will as no more than conjecture, inevitably lacking any real force: so e.g., Kautzsch, Bib&he Theologie des AT, pp. 66 ff.
T H E M E A N I N G O F T H E C O V E N A N T C O N C E P T 39 can we get beyond the realm of mere possibilities and attractive suppositions, and see in the establishment of a moral and social order by one all-ruling divine will the basis not only of the strongly unified character of the Israelite view of the world, but also of its robust ’ affirmation of life, two marks that distinguish it clearly from the , fissile and pessimistic tendencies of paganism. (Cf. further discussion,/
of this point in ch. III: ‘The Institutions of the Covenant’.)
(c) The content of the will of God thus defined in the covenant- also shows its formative power by the way in which it makes the human-party to the cavenant aware of his unique position. For pariicipation % the divine covenant impressed a special character on the loose tribal coalition, in which Israel awoke to historical self- awareness. It is no tightly closed national community giving religious expression to national feeling in the worship of Yahweh. That which unites the tribes to one another and makes them a unified people with a strong sense of solidarity is the will of God. It is in the name of Yahweh and in the covenant sanctioned by him that the tribes find the unifying bond, which proves a match even for the centrifugal tendencies of tribal egoism and creates from highly diversified ele- ments a whole with a common law, a common cultus and a common historical consciousness. It is small wonder that in a nation which was built up on this foundation it was the idea of the divine Lord of the Covenant which exercised a dominating influence. The concerns of the nation as a whole derived their power to bind together the individual component parts solely from the idea of the authoritative divine will, as this was expressed in the covenant and thus subordin- ated the entire national life to its own purposes. l It is striking that this association draws no clear line to exclude the stranger, but is continually absorbing outsiders into itself. 2 Moreover, the decisive requirement for admission is not natural kinship but readiness to submit oneself to the will of the divine Lord of the Covenant and to vow oneself to this particular God. The size of a nation which grows
1P. Volz speaks of a ‘Yahweh league’ (Mosel, pp. 94, gg), ?‘I. Weber of the Israelite ‘confederacy’ (Gesammelte Aufssiitze .zur Religionssoziologze, III: Das antzk Judentum, 192 I, passim) and E. Sellin sees Moses as the founder yf. an .F;o.terlc religion within a nation already fully formed (Geschichte des z.sraelztzsch-Judzschen
Volkues I, 1924, pp. 85, g3 f.)
2From the time of the Exodus from Egypt onwards new elements were con- tinually entering the tribal covenant union. Sometimes these were Hebrew-the Joshua covenant of Josh. 24 refers to such a case-sometimes foreign, especially among the southern tribes which had not been into Egypt. This explains why the twelve tribes are enumerated differently in Judg. 5; Gen. 49; and Deut. 33.
