6. The truest reflexion of the manners and morals of our period is preserved, without doubt, in the stories of the patriarchs in Gn 12-50. In these figures we have a twofold presentation of types that are thoroughly true to life—in Abraham a kind of ideal of ancient Israelitish piety, in Jacob the empirical phenomenon of the ancient Israelite, with his virtues, but also with his shady side.* We may leave it an open question whether the Abraham - narratives in their present form were not developed a good deal later than those about Jacob-Israel, the type of the character of the people with the same name. In any case, both fall within the period with which we are dealing. Of both types it is pre-eminently true that their con- duct is by no means actuated simply by custom, but quite expressly also by religious motives.
The whole life of Abraham, as related in both the ancient Pentateuchal sources, is viewed as a continued trial of his faith and obedience. With faith in the promise of Jahweh he leaves his father- land and sets out for the unknown country afar ; he acquiesces in the expulsion of Ishmael, and even shows himself willing to sacrifice his late- born only son. The latter narrative (Gn 22), even , if it is based upon some cult-legend,} is, in its present form (cf. v."), the record of the last and severest trial of his faith to which Abraham was subjected by God. The brilliant manner in which he sustained the test is reckoned to him (v.¥) a proof of true fear of God. It is very remarkable that already in 15% it is not an act, but simply trustful confidence in Jahweh that is counted to Abraham for ‘righteousness,’ i.e. a display of eenuine piety. The Apostle Paul (Ro 4’) is per- fectly entitled to find here the proof that the righteousness of Abraham is grounded, even in Genesis, in quite an evangelical fashion, upon no merit of works.
Ag in the case of Abraham, so in that of Jacob, in spite of his wholly different character, there are not wanting marks of that humility and resigna- tion by which true piety and fear of God are char- acterized. So in the grand confession of Gn 32" () (J): ‘Lam not worthy of all the mercies and all the faithfulness which thou hast shown unto thy servant’; the expression of resignation in 4344, and the beautiful thanksgiving of 48°46, A counterpart is presented by the expression of pro- foundest resignation put in the mouth of David in 28 15%t and 16Ut, Again, what a high level of moral appreciation of the actions and fortunes of men is found in the words of Joseph (Gn 50”), in
* We may leave Isaac out of account here, since, in com- parison with Abraham and Jacob, he plays almost throughout a passive réle. es
+ According to Gunkel (Com. on Genesis) it is the cult-legend of the place of sacrifice at Jeruel, and is intended simply to ex- plain how the former practice of child sacrifice had been super- seded by the offering only of rams.
ee STE
664 RELIGION OF ISRAEL
RELIGION OF ISRAEL
NN.
which he, as it were, sums up his own and his father’s fortunes: ‘Ye, indeed, meant evil against me, but God has turned it to good, to... save much people alive.’ To recognize that God makes even the sins of men serve His purposes, without thereby lessening in the least their moral responsi- bility, is the only solution that is worthy and satisfying, from the point of view of religion, of the seeming contradiction between the universal activity of God and the moral freedom of man ; and it is not the smallest of the evidences of a Divine factor in the religion of Israel, that even at so early a period it had discovered this solution.
Other features that are honourable to Abraham, such as his ready hospitality (Gn 18! ; ef. its still more striking exhibition by Lot, 19’), may be best put down to the credit of custom. On the other hand, we are certainly true to the intention of the narrator if we ascribe to religious principle his peaceable attitude and disinterestedness (Gn 13”f-), as well as his unwearied intercession even for the wicked inhabitants of Sodom (1875),
7. All the above evidences of a high moral stand- point in the patriarchal narratives appear to be little in harmony with the serious moral defects and transgressions which are recorded without a word of censure. Abraham lies (Gn 12!° 207; so also Isaac, 267) in passing off his wife as his sister ; Jacob artfully deceives his twin-brother Esau in order to obtain the blessing of the firstborn, and his uncle Laban in the matter of the increase of his herds. Does this not justify the conclusion that God has two standards of measurement; that the Israelite in dealing with the foreigner, the chosen of God in dealing with the rejected, may go any length without its being counted to him a sin?
(a) If the above question is to be correctly answered, two things must be taken into account. Firstly, as a matter of fact, it is one of the prin- ciples of ancient ethics, from which even Israel freed itself only with difficulty and slowly, that towards a stranger the same moral obligations do not hold that apply in dealing with a fellow- countryman. In particular, cunning and deceit in the former case are not liable to the same con- demnation as in the latter. They appear rather in the light of a duty of self-defence, especially as one has to look for nothing but damage and de- frauding at the hands of a stranger, whenever he has the power to inflict harm. But, again, the idea of the national god involves (at least for the older naive conception) his taking the part of his own people against the foreigner, and protecting them without scruple not only in their rights, but wherever their interests are concerned. So Jahweh acts in relation to Pharaoh (1217), and, according to 201", towards Abimelech.