Tlie special teaching of the individual prophets
is treated under their respective names. Here only two or three general points can be alluded to.
(1) The prophets all teach that J" alone is God of Israel, and that He is a moral Being, whose accept- able service is a religions and ri'jliteous lite (.Mic li"), and not mere ritual (Hos6', Is I""'-, Jer 7-"'-, 1 S 1 j-"-). Questions have been raised whether in tliese points the prophets follow a law, such as the Deca- logue, or whether the moral Decalogue be not, in fact, a concentration of their teaching. All classes of the people agreed with the prophets that J" was the particular God of Israel, but a theoretical monotheistic faith cannot have prevailed among the mass of the people. Such a faitli, though only iniormally and indirectly enunciated by them, evidently prevailed among the prophets from Elijah downwards; but how much older the belief may be and how widely it was entertained among the people, the very scant}' history scarcely enables us to determine- Perhaps too much stress luav be laid on the value, particularly in early times of simple thought, of an abstract monotlieism. What was important was the nature of J", the closeness of relation to Him which conditioned human life, and the worshipper's feeling that He was his God; whether other biniigs to be called gods existed, and were served by the nations, was practically of little moment. Even the polytheism of the heathen sometimes came practically near Id monotheism. Worshippers usually devoted thcmseh es to one out of the many gods 'known in their country ; they usually, therefore, thought of him as god alone, and gradually assigned all the distinctive attributes of other deities, i.e. virtually of deity, to him. And one can conceive how particularism or monolatry, the idea that J" was the particular God of Israel and of Israelites, may have had in a rude age an educative and religious inlluence which an ab.stract monotheism might not have exerted. To it may be gieatly due that extraordinarj' sense of the presence of J" in the people's history and the individual s life, that personal intimacy with God, characteristic of UT religion.
So far as the worship of J" is concerned, it is re- markable that Elijah, though contending against Baal worship, is not said to have assailed the calves. The history of Elijah is a fr.-igment, and it may be precarious to draw conclusions from the historian's silence. Even Amos does not refer formally to the calves ; he condemns the ritual worsliipas a whole, and threatens with destruction the seats of calf- worship ; and his condemnation of the whole prob- ably applies to the details ; at least it is wholly inept to infer that he saw no evil in the calves. Hosea is the lirst to condemn them expressly, and in Judali Isaiah in like manner often assails images (Is 2* 17"). When the early i)ropliets assail the worship at the high places, it is the nature of the worship that they attack, not the niultiplicitj' of altars. But Jer. and Ezek., along with Dent., go further, and condemn the high places themselves; they are Canaanite and heathen (Dt 12-, Jer 2', Ezk 20i-'"'-).* The prophets' attacks on sacrilice are in opposition to the exaggerated worth assigned to ritual by tlie people. Tlicir position is not, as is often said, that sacrilice without a righteous life is an abomination to J", but rather this : that sacrilice as a substitute for a righteous life is an abomination. It is a question of service of J" : and J " desires a righteous life so much more than sacrifice, that He may be said not to desire sacrilice at all (llos 6').
(2) Though the prophets use the word 'covenant' little down to the tune of Dent, and Jer. , the idea they express of the relation of J" and Israel is the same. J" says in Am 3- ' You only have I known of all ths
* !n Mio 10 LXX reads ' tiD of Judah ' for ' bi^h places o« Judah.*
T20 PROPHECY AXD PROPHETS
PROPHECY AND PROPHETS
families of the earth.' J"'s choice of Israel was a conscious, historical act. With tliis all the pro- phets agree. No motive is assigned for the choice, and no purpose to be served by Israel thus chosen is referred to. In Amos for all that appears, the choice of Israel is virtually an act of wh.it is called sovereignty. In Hosea the act is regarded as due to .I"'s love (11')- This makes the act moral, and expl.ains it, though the love itself is necessarily in- explicable. In Deut. the love is denied to be due to anj'thing in Israel, and seems just explained by itself (Dt 7*). In Isaiah the idea of a purpose had in view in the choice begins to appear. J" is the universal sovereign, and His making of Israel His people was in order that He might be recognized as God ,inil alone exalted (2"). In Isaiah sin is insensibility to J" the King, levity and self- exaltation ; and religion is recognition of J" and His benehts, a constant consciousness of Him and trust in Him. Wliile Jer. shares Isaiah's idea of what true religion is {9-*), he speaks of Israel being chosen ' that they might be unto me for a people, and for a name, and for a glory.' In other words, Israel was chosen that by its character it might reflect moral fame upon its God, that is, make known J" to the world of men, if not by active operations, by showing in its own character the nature of its God. The prophet of Is 40 fl'. often expresses the same idea (43'-'' 44'-^), but he adds to it the conception of an active operation of Israel in making J" known to the nations (Is 42'-' 49'-" 60"-). This is the highest generalization regarding Israel's place in the religious history of mankind, and the purpose of J" in its election.