In view of all these testimonies to a lofty view of history and a conception of God which embraced the whole Universe, we can now see also the polemic against images in its true light. We perceive how to the prophets every attempt to give to this fowertal, majestic God a petty visible form, must have been anabomination. But we understand also how, in the case of the heathen idols, they could recognize no reality except that of metal, wood, andstone. This is not yet (except perhaps in Hab gist. Jer 2 16), and in the later Deuteronom. stratum, Dt 28%: 64) expressed so definitely as in the next period; but the above-described notion of God leaves no doubt that there is no room for real ‘other gods’ alongside of the one God who rules over the Universe and the world of men, A proof of this is found even in the numerous desig- nations of the idols which lay stress either upon their repulsiveness or upon their utter nothingness (or unreality). Some at least of these designations are as early as the pre-exilic period. Evidently, there lies at the root of almost all of them the assumption that the gods whom they represent
are nothing but vain imaginations of the heathen. To the first category, that of opprobrious epithets, belong the following terms: jp ‘abomination’ (Jer 417°; and used repeatedly by the Deuteronom. redactors of the Books of Kings, 1 K 115, 2 K 23%. 4), and, with the same sense, niayin (2 K 23%); still later probably is odi3, i.e. perhaps ‘round blocks or dolls,’ if not rather, ‘excrements’ (Dt 2915!) ‘ of wood and stone, of silver and gold,’ 1 K 218, 2 K 17”, and oft. in Ezekiel). To the second category, terms expressive of unreality, belong: az, lit. ‘breath,’ ‘nothingness’ (Jer 2°, 1 K 16%, 2 K 17%; in plur. Jer 8” 14”); and sw ‘vain,’ ‘null’ (Jer 18”). Cf., finally, the threatening of Dt 4 (that is to say, within the later framework of Deut.) that Israel in exile will have to serve gods which are the work of men’s hands [and nothing more], wood and stone, which can neither see nor hear nor eat nor smell.
(e) If, by way of supplement to this, we fur- ther ask in traditional fashion how the being of Jahweh reveals itself in the prophets in the way of special attributes, we must from the very first re- nounce all idea of discovering any didactic abstract statements or purely scholastic definitions. Here, again, it holds good that the mission of the pro- phets was primarily to preach repentance to their people. Hence they exhibit to them their God in a light corresponding to changing needs, now as the terrible avenger of their apostasy, now as the long-suffering and merciful One. Nay, these qualities always make their appearance first in the special bearing of Jahweh in concrete instances. It was not till the days of the late-Jewish theology that it became possible to draw up a ‘doctrine of the attributes,’ upon the basis of a scholastic analysis of the living being and acting of Jahweh, which to the prophets had been the object of direct vision.
(a) Under the heading of ‘attributes’ it has from the first been usual to discuss, above all, the holiness * of God, and to follow the definition, borrowed from dogmatics, according to which God is called holy because He loves only good and hates evil. But we shall find that this definition, how- ever it may answer to the NT conception of holi- ness, is true only in a very limited measure to the OT conception.
We might have spoken of the latter concep- tion, even in dealing with the earlier periods, for the terms wip ‘holy,’ &7p ‘holiness,’ and wap ‘to declare holy,’ ‘to consecrate,’ are, beyond doubt, very ancient. But they occur primarily—and that as marking an attribute especially of things, rarely of (human) persons—in a ritual connexion, and, as is a matter of course in the case of things, without any ethical connotation. Anything is called wp+ which is withdrawn from profane possession and use, nay even from profane touch, and in place of this is destined for the possession and service of the Deity. Thus the name ‘holy’ is given naturally to all the ritual apparatus, all the rooms which serve as the dwelling-place or the spot of worship of Jahweh, all the sacrificial gifts intended for Him. But the same name is given also to such things as have, for some special reason, been forfeited, not indeed to the service
* Of. the very thorough discussion by Baudissin, ‘ Der Begriff der Heiligkeit im AT’ (Studien zur semit. Religionsgeschichte, ii, pp. 1-142); R. Schroter, Der Begriff der Heiligkeit im AT’ wnd NT, Halle, 1892. See also art. Honiness (in OT) in vol. ii. of the present work.
+ The etymology is disputed. There is still, however, most to be said in favour of tracing it to the root wp, in the sense of ‘separate,’ ‘segregate.’ At all events this answers admirably to the Hebrew usage, which is more than can be said of the proposal to trace it to the Heb. v7 ‘new,’ and hence ‘pure,’ ‘bright,’ ‘sparkling’ (cf. also Assyr. kuddushu, ‘shining,’ ‘ pure’).
682 RELIGION OF ISRAEL
RELIGION OF ISRAEL
Raper ane ee
of God, but so as to be His property and that of His sanctuary. Thus the censers of Korah and his com- pany become ‘holy’ (Nu 17° [16°"]), and are accord- ingly to be employed to overlay the altar. In the same way, however, even a person by unauthorized touching of what is itself holy may ‘ become holy,’ i.e. fall forfeit to the sanctuary, enter into a special relation to God: so, for instance, by touching the altar (Ex 297) or the sacred vessels (30%, Hag 2” etc.). In such an event, special offerings and atone- ments are needed in order to remove the condition of ‘being holy,’ which presses upon the individual as a danger. The danger lies in the fact that, while he is in this condition, every species of defilement, whether due to his own fault or no, may readily prove fatal to him.