God (Ps 6°, Is 3818). He has nothing to fear, and nothing to hope for. Into this conception of Sheol
‘no moral element enters; there is no distinction
made between good and bad. Personal identity, however, is not lost, and the kingdom of the dead reflects the family and other distinctions of the upper world. Thus men are gathered into tribes (Gn 25% ete.), and kings sit upon thrones (Is 14%),
Although they did not actually formulate either the doctrine of immortality or that of the resur- rection, the Prophets by their ethical tendency prepared the way for a more spiritual develop- ment. Their insistence upon the fact that Israel’s relation to J” is morally conditioned, was fitted to awaken the consciousness of a new life through fellowship with God. The conception of a life of blessedness beyond the grave was the necessary corollary of the law of individual retribution as proclaimed by Jeremiah (31°) and developed by Ezekiel (184). That this law as thus stated caused much perplexity to the afflicted righteous is evi- dent from Job and Ecclesiastes as well as from several of the Psalms. And, although the doc- trine of a blessed future life in which the wrongs of the present will be righted is nowhere definitely taught in these books, they contain passages in which it certainly seems to be implied (Job 14°# 19°, Ps 49. 73). Ifin Job the immortality of the individual is no more than a deep aspiration, in Ps 49 and _ 73 it becomes a settled spiritual con- viction. Early in the 3rd cent., and even perhaps late in the 4th, it was merged in the larger doctrine of the resurrection, which embraced not only the idea of an individual immortality, but also that of the Messianic kingdom. Thus for a time the former idea completely fell into the background, since to the Jew the future blessed- ness of his nation was more than the well-being of the individual.
This eschatology of the nation is reflected in the Prophetical books of the OT, especially in the conception of the day of J’, when judgement will be meted out to Israel’s enemies, and unmingled happiness to the chosen people, the judgment on the former being the inaugural prelude to the national blessedness of the latter. We have here the oldest expression of a conception which subsequently assumed various forms. In the 7th cent., when the Jews chafed under the cruelty of their Assyrian oppressors, Nahum and Habak- kuk_ reasserted it with only slight modification. According to Amos, however (and also Hosea, who, while not using the expression ‘day of Jehovah,’ predicts the judgment which it denotes, 13""), it is upon Israel itself that the judgment will most severely fall (32’), for in His Saya will manifest Himself, not in order to the triumph of Israel, but for the vindication of His own righteousness. In Isaiah and Micah the judg- ment is represented as falling chiefly upon Judah and Jerusalem (Is 1°4* 298, Mic 312), while in Zeph- aniah it is set forth for the first time as embracing the whole world (1'*), and leaving only a righteous remnant in Israel (3). In Jeremiah the day of J” is mainly, although not exclusively, directed against Judah (375) ; but at the same time there is held out the hope that the national life will be regenerated and restored (237 24°) and that the Gentiles shall be converted, and only the impeni- tent destroyed (12'*-),
The epoch of the Exile witnessed a revival of individualism in religion. According to Ezekiel and his followers, judgment means the destruction of the Gentiles and the purification of Israel man by man in order to the establishment of the Mes- sianic kingdom, which will be introduced by the day of J’. In the post-exilic age the idea of judg-
DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE
DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE 303
ment recedes before that of a universal Messianic kingdom. Through Israel as the Servant of J” all nations shall embrace the true religion (42% 49° 5215_5312), and yield themselves to Him of their own accord (Is 27% = Mic 41). In Is 19165 Eeypt and Assyria are placed alongside of Israel as sharing in her spiritual blessedness, while in Mal 1. we have the language of unqualified uni- versalism, and the acceptance by J” as a pure offering even of the unconscious sacrifices of the heathen. In contrast to this standpoint, however, the particularism of Ezekiel continued to have its advocates, and the Messianic kingdom was viewed as the close preserve of a reunited Israel (Hos 3°, Mic 5%, Is 91*-), the Gentiles being either excluded or represented as in subjection to Israel. In Hag. (2?8-) and Zee. (138%) the day of J” is depicted as involving the destruction of the heathen powers, and the establishment of the Messianic kingdom as consequent on the rebuilding of the temple. Joel’s point of view is already apocalyptic; the nations generally will be destroyed, and Israel justified ; there is no moral sifting of Israel as in older prophets. In the apocalypse of Daniel it is taught that when evil has reached its height the end of the world will ensue.
It needed a combination of both the individual and the national aspects of the thought of a blessed future for the righteous to form the fuller doc- trine of the resurrection as apparently conceived by the end of the 4th or beginning of the 3rd cent. B.c. If we accept Cheyne’s view as to the date (c. 334 B.C.) of the remarkable passage Ts 26, and Charles’ interpretation of its meaning, it was then held that immortality would indeed be secured to the righteous individual, but would consist in his resurrection to share in the blessedness of the Messianic kingdom.