* Of., on this subject, art. PROPITIATION in vol. iv. EXTRA VOL.—44
other hand, the sins of Manasseh inevitably bring about the destruction of the nation (Jer 154, 2 K 24°), Deuteronomy, however, is far from infer- ring the false converse of this postulate that virtue is sure of reward, and wickedness of punishment ; it does not assert, what was afterwards the popular opinion, that all human suffering is a consequence of sin, and that a very severe affliction must be due to a very heinous transgression. No less does the prophet Jeremiah (312%) oppose the proverb (whose currency is witnessed to also by Ezk 18?) with which it was then customary to ridicule the misunderstood retribution doctrine of Ex 20°» ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on-edge.’ No, says the prophet, every man must pay the penalty of his own guilt (cf. also Dt 24!*); no one can shirk the moral responsibility that rests upon him, and in this lies the proof that the fulfilment of Jahweh’s demands is thought of as practicable.
Under all circumstances, however, rewards and punishments are thought of as bestowed in this present life; of any expectation of a continued life after death or of a resurrection there is not a trace in pre-exilic prophecy. On the contrary, so far as its view of the conditions after death is con- cerned, the latter evidently still occupies the posi- tion of the old popular belief in Shéol (cf. above, p- 668 f.), although mention of the latter is onl rare and incidental (Am 9?, Is 514 711 28%. 18 Ha 2°). The national religion, with which the pre- exilic prophets have mainly to do, had its interest simply in the continuance and, if necessary, the restoration of the earthly theocracy. Questions of immortality and resurrection concern the indi- vidual. We shall therefore first make acquaint- ance with these at a time when, after the political downfall of the nation, the interests of the religious unit as opposed to the mass obtained more and more recognition.
3. The relation of the nation to Jahweh.—How far now does the people chosen by Jahweh answer to the picture we have just sketched of God’s demands by the mouth of the prophets? It is a very sorry view that is opened up to us in almost all the writings of the pre-exilic prophets ; and one has no right to assert that, after the manner of preachers of repentance in all ages, the conditions are painted too black in order that denunciations and warnings may have more effect. On the con- trary, the principle which underlies all these de- scriptions is that the high privilege accorded to Israel involved an equally high responsibility, but that this was precisely what the people refused to see. They were only too ready to hear of the privilege, ‘You only have I chosen of all the nations of the earth’ (Am 3”); but the conclusion, ‘for that very reason [ will visit upon you all your transgressions,’ appeared to them incomprehensible. The words of Amos we have just quoted are ad- dressed primarily to the inhabitants of the Northern kingdom, like the whole of Hosea’s prophecies, and a variety of sayings elsewhere (¢.g. Is 17° 281% ; ef. also Jer 317 2", as well as the judgment ex- pressed by D? in 2 K 13° 14°, and the whole viewpoint of 177:). In point of fact, the prophets show no difference in their judgment of the two kingdoms, in so far as Ephraim, even after the dis- ruption, is still counted the people of Jahweh, and is consequently under precisely the same respon- sibility, and exposed therefore to the same con- demnation for its apostasy and wickedness. *
In the forefront of all the charges against Israel stand those which concern the root of all their perverse conduct : denunciations of idolatry proper,
* Of. the elaborate discussions of O. Procksch, Geschichts-
betrachtung und geschichtliche Ueberlicferung bet den voreat- lischen Propheten, Leipzig, 1902.
690 RELIGION OF ISRAEL
of false views of Jahweh and His will, and of the false service of Jahweh based thereupon.
(a) With reference to idolatry, we had oceasicn, in dealing with the preceding period (see above, p. 645), to show that what is in view is not a complete denial of Jahweh as the national God (not to speak of a denial of His existence), but simply an ineradicable attachment to a syncretism which will not. break with Baal (or, more precisely, the baals, 7.e. the various localized forms of Baal). This, which was the complaint of Elijah, is still heard with equal loudness from the lips of Hosea (27%), that is, about 25 years before the downfall of the kingdom. However unobjectionable such con- duct might appear to the people, the prophet brands it as adultery (1? 2“ and often; cf. also Jer 3" 13”). We leave it an open question whether the comparison between Jahweh’s relation to Israel and a married or betrothed relation was introduced by Hosea in allusion, first of all, to the unfaithful- ness of his own wife, in which he saw a reflexion of the unfaithfulness of Israel to Jahweh. In any case this picture fulfilled the prophet’s purpose, to portray to the common understanding the conduct of Israel as something shameful and worthy of the most unreserved condemnation.