J

ABSTRACT
TEE .ELATIONSHIP OF THE PRIESTS

5ND PROPHETS IN PRE—EXILIC ISRAEL AS TO
THEIR RESPECTIVE TEACHING FUNCTION

By Leon James Wood

The purpose of this dissertation is to determine the
relationship which existed in pre-exilic Israel between the
priests and prephets in respect to their teaching positions.

Since the teaching activity of both groups was related
to a method of revelation, it is necessary to examine as to
their revelational procedures as well as to teaching prOper.
Accordingly, two chapters are devoted to the subject of rev-

elation, and two chapters to the teaching activity itself.

+4

n an earlier chapter, the degree of dependence of Israel on
adjacent countries in such matters is investigated.

The dissertation shows that priests were occupied in
a major function of teaching, in addition to their ritual
service. They were the regular, normal teachers in contrast
to prOphets who carried out special assignments. The priests
inherited their positions, lived in designatel cities which
were evenly distributed among the tribes, and so had ready
access to the people. They were free for this work for at
least eleven months of the year since their ritual service
required less than one month. Their subject matter was the
torah, which they believed was given by Yahweh, their God,

through Moses. It contained basic, moral precepts, and both

Leon James Wood

civil and ceremonial laws.

The method of revelation employed by the priests in—
volved the Urim and Thummim, by which answers of affirmation
or implied negation could be gained when consulted by the
high priest. These answers supplied some additional informa—
tion to be conveyed to the peeple, and added to the priest's
authoritative standing. The priests taught with varying de—
grees of success: in early tribal days providing the main
resistance to engulfment of Israel by Canaanite culture; but
eXperiencing gradual decline following the kingdom division.
In the northern division, Jeroboam, the first king, departed
from the torah regulation in using as priests other than Le—
vites. Accordingly, many of the Levitic priests moved to
the southern kingdom, and those who remained eXperienced re—
striction in their teaching ministries.

The prOphets carried out Special tasks, particularly
in the role of reformers. This work was necessary because
either the priests did not do their work adequately, or the
peOple, in spite of them, still did not obey the torah re—
quirements. Thus, the prOphets did not teach the torah as
such, in a "line upon line" fashion as did the priests.
Rather, they urged conformance to that which the priests had
already taught. They did not inherit their positions, nor
have designated cities of residence, but were especially
called persons for particular assignments. Great ingenuity,
courage, and faith were required of them since these tasks

were often difficult and even dangerous. They did not have

Leon James Wood

3
an additional responsibility in ritual service, as did the
priests, but could give themselves solely to receiving and
prOClaiming Yahweh's message.
As to method of revelation, the prOphets emperienced
a "direct contact“ with Yahweh. They did not employ divina—
tion instruments, nor seek loss of consciousness in ecstatic
frenzy. This “direct contact" was effected by the prOphet‘s
being "filled with the Spirit," so that his natural powers
were heightened and he came to know more than he had before.

He proclaimed the message thus received as the "word" of

Yahweh o

THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE PRIESTS
ND PROPHETS IN PRE—EXILIC ISRAEL AS TO
THEIR RESPECTIVE TEACHING FUNCTIONS

By

Leon James Wood

.A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Division of Social Sciences

1963

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author wishes to express appreciation to his many
teachers who have had a part in supplying background neces—
sary for the writing of this dissertation; to the Grand
Rapids Baptist Bible College and Seminary, where he has
taught for eighteen years, for encouragement and granting
of time for graduate studies; and to his wife, Helen, for
her patience and help, and also for reading and .aking sug—

gestions in connection with this manuscript.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . .

Problem of the Dissertation
Previous Study in the Field
MethodOIOgy of the Dissertation

II. THE BEARING OF ADJACENT CULTURES . .

Existent Parallels
Opportunity for Influence
Evaluation

III. THE PRIEST AND THE DIVINE DISCLOSURE
The Evidence

The Nature of the Urim and Thummim
History of the Urim and Thummim

IV. THE PROPHET AND THE DIVINE DISCLOSURE.

Meaning of "to prOphesy"
Ecstasy and Israel s PrOphets
The PrOphetic Divine Disclosure
V. THE TEACHING MINISTRX OF THE PRIEST.
Identity
Occasions of the Teaching
Content of the Teaching
History of Priestly Teaching
VI. THE TEACHING MINISTRY OF THE PROPHET

Characterization
Content of the Teaching

VI I O SUI'E'QATI on o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
BI BLI OGRAPI-IY o O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

11

iv

1+7

91

144

198

244
250

AASOR
Ac Or
AJSL
ANET
BA
Babyl
BASOR
CAH
DB
ERE
ET

IB
ISBE
JBL

JNES
JR
KDC

SHERK
ZAW

ABBREVIATIONS

Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology

Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research
Acta Orientalia

American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures
Ancient Near Eastern Texts

Biblical Archaeologist

Babyloniaca

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
Cambridge Ancient History

Dictionary of the Bible, J. Hastings (ed.)
Encyc10pedia of Religion and Ethics

Expository Times

Interpreter‘s Bible

International Standard Bible EncyclOpedia

Biblical Literature

Journal of

Egyptian Archaeology

Ha

Journal 0
Journal of Near Eastern Studies
Journal of Religion

Keil and Delitzsch Commentaries

Revue d'assyriologie et d'archaeologie orientale
Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge

Zeitschrift fur die altestamentliche Nissenschaft

iv

Chapter I
INTRODUCTION

I. Problem of the Dissertation
Israel‘s main claim to importance in world history
concerned her religion. She did not produce great builders,
merchants, scientists, or artisans, and her political power
never rivaled Egypt or Babylonia. Indeed, she would be
little remembered had it not been for her outstanding con-

tribution in religion, as revealed particularly in the Old

1

Testament. Responsible in large part for this importance

were her religious functionaries, the priests and prephets.
Of these two groups, the prOphets are the better known.

Especially the pre—exilic, literary representatives of this
group stood out as unique in all the world of their day for
method and message.2 But the priests must not be minimized

either for their highly significant role.

A_. _‘

lHarry Orlinsky, Ancient Israel (Ithaca, N. Y.: Cor-
nell Univ. Press, 195A), pp. 90—91; Franz Bohl, "Some Notes
on Israel in the Light of Babylonian Discoveries," gap,
LIII(1934), lkZ; William Irwin, The Old Testament: Keystone
9: Human Culture (New'York: Henry Schuman, 1952), pp. 235~36.

2H. H. Rowley, Re—discovery of the Old Testament (Phil—
adelphia: Westminster Press, 1946), p. 131; S. A. Cook, Th3
Old TestamentLRA Reinterpretation (New'York: Macmillan Co.,
1936), p. 167; Martin Noth, History of Israel (2d ed.; Lon-
don: A. C. Black, 1958), p. 256; G. E. Wright, The Old Testa—
pent against Its Environmept (London: SCM Press, 1950),
pp. 107-108 . I

 

 

l

2

The relation between these two groups has often been
framed as follows: the priest represented the people to God;
and the prophet, God to the peeple. In part this was true,
but only in part. For the priest, though indeed engaged in
sacrificial intercession—for the people, also had a major
responsibility in communicating God's message to the peeple.
In fact, this activity occupied much more of his time than
the ceremonial.1 what is more, he possessed an approved
means for the reception of Divine revelation Just as well as
the prOphets. Theirs came by direct contact, but his by the
Urim and Thummim. Thus, both received Divine disclosure,
and both communicated the Divine message to the peeple.

In view of these parallels, the question arises as to
the relationship between them. How were they similar to each
other in these functions, and how were they different? What
part did each play in Israel's history? To supply an answer
to these and similar questions is the purpose of this disser-

tation, with the inquiry being limited to the pre—exilic era.

II. Previous Studykin the Field
With the rise of the Wellhausen position,2 a major

change in vieWpoint came concerning Israel's history. Until

1H. H. Rowley, Faith of Israel (London: SCM Press,
1956), p. 37; J. Pedersen, Israel, Its Life and Cultugg (Lon—
don: Oxford Univ. Press, l9§E—EO), I-II, pp. 161—62; Aubrey
Johnson, The Cultic Prophet in Ancient Israel (Cardiff: Univ.
of Wales Press Board, 194E), p. 11; H. OrlifiEky, op. cit.,
p. 142.

2Often said to have begun with suggestions by a French
physician, Jean Astruc. For a history, of. R. Pfeiffer, lg:
troduction to the Old Testamegt (New York: Harper & Bros.,
l9hlf, pp. 136~Al.

3
that time, little serious question had been voiced as to the
Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch or to the historicity of
the account given therein. But with the new develOpment, the
Pentateuchl came to be viewed as a compilation of at least
four different documents, the earliest of which could not
have been written earlier than the ninth century, 8.0. The
history recorded in these documents was thought to be highly
colored by these later writers who fixed upon it theological
and ethical concepts characteristic of their own day rather
than that of which they wrote.

Accordingly, the viewpoint concerning Israel's priests
and prOphets came to be changed as well. The priesthood was
seen as the product of a long develOpment. The first priests
were merely wandering "holy men" whose services were desir—
able, but not indispensable for cultic service. They became
organized around a central sanctuary in Jerusalem during the
seventh century, but still lacked any distinction in higher
and lower orders of priests and Levites. This came only
with the writing of the priestly document during and follow;
ing the exile. The first prophets were through to have aris-
en under the influence of Canaan, and so were seen as char-
acterized by Canaanite ecstaticism. Gradual refinement in
the movement was experienced, especially in the early days
of the monarchy, with the final emergence of the great lit-

erary figures coming in the eighth and seventh centuries.

 

lOften spoken of as the Hexateuch when including
Joshua.

4
The relation between the priest and prophet was viewed
as one of antagonism: the priest advocating sacrifice and

cultic service; the prophet, ethical conduct of life.1

Cer—
tain passages from the eighth century prOphets and Jeremiah
were pointed out as even demanding abolition of the sacrifi-
cial system.2 Later, Sigmund Mowinckel was influential in
starting a trend to an Opposite extreme in which the two
groups were viewed, not as Opposed, but as even common cultic
officials.3 Both priests and prephets had the same inter-
ests, and both engaged in much the same work, with differ—
ence only in stress. As evidence, MesOpotamian parallels
were sought in BREE and pghhg,priests.u
More recently, many studies have been in reaction
again. These find both the earlier "antagonistic" idea and

the later "common cultic" presentation too extreme, and see

the truth lying somewhere between.5 The prephets did criti-

 

1As representative of this viewpoint may be listed
J. Wellhausen, J. A. Bewer, J. G. Matthews, J. Philip Hyatt,
John Skinner, W. Robertson Smith, George B. Gray, A. Guil-
laume, C. H. Dodd, Elmer A. Leslie.

zAmos 5:21—25; Hosea 6:6; Isa. 1:11—17; Mic. 6:6~8;
Jer. 6:20; 7:21—23.

3For a good survey of this development, of. O. Eise—
feldt, "The PrOphetic Literature," The Old Testament and
Modern Study, ed. H. H. Rowley (New York: Chas. Scribner's
Sons, 19317, pp. 113—61. Especially important in this viewe
point is Aubrey Johnson, op. cit.

“Carried the furtherest by Alfred Haldar, Associationg
of Cult Prophets Among the Ancient Semites (Uppsala: Alm—
quist and Wiksells Boktrycheri, 1945).

 

5H. H. Rowley, speaking of the ”common cultic" view;
point, gives a typical comment: "Here again there are disa-

5

cize the sacrificial system of their day, but not in a de-

l

sire for its abolition; only its reform. There probably

were some prophets who were closely allied with ritual activ-

ities, but not all and, for the most part, not the great

literary figures.2

There has come change also in the vieWpoint of the date
of-much of the material in the Pentateuch. Though its final
compilation is seen much as before, substantial portions of
it are now thought to have been in either oral or written
form considerably earlier, including even legal materials
from Deuteronomy and the priestly writings.3 This in turn

has issued in seeing greater reliability in the history of

L,

the records. George Mendenhall cites three reasons as

A_.

greements as to how far this should be pressed, and it is
probable that we should not regard all the prophets as
priestly persons or draw sharp lines of distinction within
the prOphetic circles"; “Trends in Old Testament Study,"
The Old Testament and Modern Study (New York: Chas. Scrib-
ner's Sons, 1951), p. xiii. V

1Walter Williams, The Prophets, Pioneerspto,Christian—
gpy.(New'York: Abingdon Press, 1956), p. 36. 'I I

2Writes T. Meek, Hebrew Ori ins (2d ed.; New York: Har-
per & Bros., 1950), pp. 178-79, "It is questionable whether
many of the canonical prOphets were cult officials despite
the opinions of modern scholars to the contrary."

3Walther Eichrodt is especially notable here: Theology
of the Old Testament, trans. J. Baker (Philadelphia: es -
minster Press, 1961), pp. 71-73. Cf. G. E. Wright, op. cit.,
p. 62; also John Bright, History of Isragl (Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1959), p. 137.

”Cyrus Gordon says, "It cannot be overemphasized that
the discoveries of archaeology tend to Justify the literal
meaning of the text as against scholarly and traditional
interpretation"; The World of the Old Testament (Garden
City, N. J.: Doubleday & Co., 1958f: p. 120. In an article,

primarily responsible:
(l) Breakdown of source analysis as the primary method
of reconstructing Israelite history and religion; (2)
the introduction of new methods and new data; and (3)
the changes in the Zeitgeist, both in the academic and
the world scene.
The new methods and new data Mendenhall mentions come par-
ticularly from the area of archaeology. William Albright
states in this connection that the Wellhausen view, formed
before this information was available, was accordingly based
only on speculative, historical assumptions, and so lacked
the validity of the more recent position.2 Respecting the
priests and prOphets, this vieWpoint presents a picture
which is far more like the older, traditional presentation.3
The position of the present writer is nearer to that
of this most recent development, only he finds himself yet
more sympathetic to the historic, conservative vieWpOint.
He is appreciative of the valuable contributions and in—
sights supplied by those who have represented these various

positions, and believes that the conservative scholar should

avail himself Of them in his own conclusions.

 

"Higher Critics and Forbidden Fruit," Christianipy Today,
IV(1959), 131—34, Gordon gives a polemic against an unwar-
ranted, continuing construction of the JEDP stratification.

1"Biblical History in Transition," The Bible and the
Ancient Near East, ed. G. E. Wright (Garden City, N. J.:
Doubleday & Co., 1961), pp. 31-32.

2”Archaeology Confronts Biblical Criticism," The Amer-
ican Scholap, IV(1938), 181.

3H. H. Rowley says in this connection, 0 . cit., p.
xvii, ”In general, it may be said that there has been a ten—
dency towards more conservative views on many questions than
were common at the Opening of our period.“

 

7
III. Methodology of the Dissertatigp

One can scarcely examine the teaching activities of
Israel‘s priests and prOphets without first giving attention
to the means of Divine disclosure by which some, if not much,
of the information they taught was first communicated to
them. In other words, revelational media are much involved
in this type Of study. Accordingly, two basic tasks must be
undertaken: (1) a comparison of the Divine disclosure means
for both groups; and (2) the same for the teaching activi—
ties prOper. Two chapters will be devoted to each compari-
son. As a preliminary concern, it will be necessary to de-
vote a chapter also to possible influence from adjacent cul-
tures; and at the close a chapter for the purpose of summa—
tion.

Quotations used from the Bible will be either original
translation or else taken from the American Standard Version.
In either case, the form, Yahweh, rather than, Jehovah, will

be used for the Hebrew tetragrammaton, thh.

Chapter II
THE BEARING OF ADJACENT CULTURES

The first concern is Israel's relation to her neigh—
bors. How much was she influenced by them? Did her reli—
gion result from a combination of foreign elements along
with her own? This question has long been seriously studied

by scholars.1 Some believe that outside influence was very

2

extensive, while others see it as having pertained only to

the less significant features of the culture.3 The question

LA __.__. W

1G. W. Anderson, "Hebrew Religion,“ The Old Testament
apd Modern Study, ed. H. H. Rowley fLondon: Oxford Univ.
Press, 1951), p: 291, says, "How far that borrowing went and
how much of it became part of the Officially recognized re-
ligious system, is one of the most strenuously debated prob-
lems of Old Testament study today."

2J. M. P. Smith, "Semitic PrOphecy," reprint from The
Biblical World, XXXV(l9lO), 223, writes, "It is now gener-
ally recognized that not a single institution of Israel's
life was exclusively Hebraic.“ W. C. Graham in "The Reli-
gion of the Hebrews," JR, XI(1931), 2AA, states, "Little by
little, in the long process of settlement, they became in
all but name Canaanites." And T. J. Meek in "The Interpreta—
tion of Cultures as Illustrated by the Character Of the Old
Testament Literature," JR, VII(l927), 244, suggests that it
was "just because the Hebrew peOple" did borrow so largely
from others "that they so far outdistanced their contempor-
aries in real cultural deveIOpment." However, he does not
amplify this thought.

3c. E. Wright, The Old Testament against Its Environ-
ment (London: SCM Press, 1950), p. 7%, declares,m“What Israel
borrowed was the least significant." William Albright, "Re-
cent Progress in North Canaanite Research, " BASOR, LXX(1938),
24, states, "Every fresh publication of Canaanite mythologi-

8

9

here is quite specific in this regard, asking mainly as to
this influence in respect to religious personnel. Were the
concepts regarding characterization and function of prOphets
and priests borrowed from surrounding nations? The question
carries importance for this discussion principally in two
respects: first, as a means by which to gain background in
which to view Israel's own religious persons; and second, as
a means by which to determine the degree to which evidence
may be taken from adjacent cultures for describing these Of—
fices in Israel.

The answer to the question will be sought in three steps:
first, a survey of the parallels existent between Israel's
religious persons and those of adjacent countries; second, a
consideration of the Opportunity by which borrowing could
have transpired; and third, in view of these findings, an

evaluation proper of the extent Of influence thus shown.

I. Existent Parallels

 

Two countries come to mind as the most Obvious in which
to look for parallels to Israel‘s culture: Egypt, from where
the tribes migrated, and which continued to be a close neigh-
bor after the conquest; and Canaan where they settled. How»
ever, a third country is equally, if not more, important, and

that is Babylonia. The reason is that Babylonian culture

._‘_A

cal texts makes the gulf between the religion of Canaan and
Of Israel increasingly clear." Y. Kaufmann backs up similar
Observations with convincing arguments in his The Biblical
Account of the Conquest of Palestine, trans. M. Dagut (Jeru-
salem: Hebrew7UEiv. Press, 1953): pp. 87~9l.

 

10
influenced all the ancient Near East,1 including Canaan, and
so, when Canaan in turn influenced Israel, she acted in large
part as a medium.2 This is not to say, of course, that Ca—
naan did not have distinctions of her own, or that she did
not supply variation to what she mediated. Thus, both Baby—
1onia and Canaan must be considered; in addition, of course,
to Egypt. Then too, some attention should be given to an—
scient Mari, half way up the Euphrates, for some highly sig—
nificant documents were discovered there; and the same is

true for the Hittite region to the north.

A. Babylonia
Though the principal interest is in comparing reli-
gious personnel, still there is reason to give some atten—
tion also to religious concepts. This will enlarge the ba—
sis of comparison so that a more accurate judgment can be
made as to the extent Of the influence, and also broaden
the religious picture in view of which the personnel can be

better understood.

1. Religious personng;

Religion was of great importance to early Babylonians.

H E— __4 L

1Back of the Babylonian culture was the Sumerian, and
A. Guillaume, Prophecy_and Divination amopg the Hebrews and
Other Semites (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1938), p. 1, says
of it: “The religion of all but a comparatively small frac—
tion of the Semites was influenced and moulded by that great
ancient MesOpotamian peOple the Sumerians."

2As Elmer Leslie puts it, The Psalm§_(New'York: Abing—
don-Cokesbury Press, 1949), p. 25, "To a great extent Canaan
was simply the cultural medium through which both Egyptian
and Babylonian influences reached Israel."

11

PeOple lived in constant fear of the unknown and were willing
to expend great effort to obtain divine favor.l Hence, tem—
ples were central in villages, and priests were numerous and
powerful.2

Four basic types of priests served: the ashipu who
were exorcists and whose main function was to relieve per—
sons of demons who had assaulted them;3 the kalu.whose spe—

cial responsibility was temple music; the gadishtu, priest-

 

esses, whose main function was serving as temple prostitutes;
and the oracular priests, in which the interest of this in-

quiry centers, called by four different names, baru, shajilu,

4

 

shabru, and £33132.
The special province of these last was divination.5

They interpreted omens for the pe0p1e by which it was thought

the gods communicated their will. Omens were of two general

types, the unarranged and the arranged. The first type con—

x._.__‘

lGuillaume, op. cit., pp. 10—11.

2Guillaume, ibid, p. 40, says the priests exercised
"an enormous influence“ and later, p. #2, states that "the
power of the barn priests must have been incalculable." Cf.
Henri Frankfort, The Birth of Gigglization in the Near East
(Garden City, N. J.: Doubleday & Co., 1956), pp. 54—77.

3Guillaume, op. cit., p. 18.

“For a description of these different classes, cf.
S. H. Hooke, Babylonian and Assyrian Religion (London:
Hutchinson's Univ{*Library, 1953), pp. 51-52.

5E. 0. James, in his The Nature and Function of Priest-
hood (New York: Barnes & Noble, 1959), p. 61, says divination
in at least two forms (hepatoscOpy and astrolOgy) can be
traced back to 3000 B.C. Its founder was the legendary
Enmemduranna (or Enmemduranki), an early Sumerian king.

12
sisted in natural occurrences which were thought to be in
some way unusual; the second, particularly in hepatosCOpy
(observation of animal liver) and hydromancy (observation of
oil on water).1 An extensive literature arose as observa—
tions were catalogued through the years, and a detailed
science evolved which young priests had to learn.
Of all these means, hepatoscopy was the most common.
The animal, usually a sheep, was slain and his stomach laid
cpen. The baru priest then
inspected the liver, gall, and attached entrails as they
lay in the Opened stomach of the sheep; then with his
left hand he lifted them up for closer inspection; then
. the entrails were drawn out in order to expose completely
the organs lying behind them. It then became possible
to distinguish the fsvourable and unfavourable aspects
of the liver itself.
Every line of the liver carried meaning. Manuals existed
eXplaining each, and even clay models of the liver were em-
ployed on which young priests could practice.3
Astrology, an unarranged type, was also practiced widely.
The moon, sun, stars, cloud formations, storm portents-all

could portray omens. Dreams were studied carefully and even

induced by a process called incubation.” In this process,

 

the priest, normally the sha'biru, would shut himself in a

A A 4 4 ._A__‘ A w _._A kg

1S. H. Hooke describes these means; Op. cit., . 62.
E. 0. James gives yet greater detail; op. o ., p. 3?

2Hooks, Op. cit., p. 89.

3At Mari alone 32 such models were found; cf. Menden—
hall, ”Mari," BA, XI(1948), 18.

“That Nebuchadnezzar, then, should have wanted his
dreams interpreted was not unusual; cf. ANET, p. 450 for
pertinent texts.

13
special chamber. The pgpp would give the interpretation
when the dream came.

The place which divination held in the lives of the
peOple, including the rulers, was of the greatest signifi-
cance.1 The building of a temple, the appointment of an Of-
ficial, or the waging Of a war would not be undertaken with-
out due consultation. Unfavorable omens would set the pro—
Ject aside, or at least postpone it until favorable ones
would be obtained. It is easy to see that unprincipled
priests could have exercised strong influence in the opera—
tion of the government.2

Divination was unable to provide any descriptive mes-
sage for the inquirer. It was limited to merely an affirma—
tion or negation. However, by careful and repeated question—

ing a certain amount of information could be Obtained.3 The

EL
r

lRecognized in Ezek. 21:21 when the king of Babylon is
said to have used divination, mentioning particularly arrows,
images, and the liver. Cf. ANET, p. 8#.

2Guillaume, Op. cit., p. 42, says that the types of
questions asked by the inquiring ruler "must have lent them—
selves to intrigue and counter~intrigue tO which the priests
must have been a party, unless they differed from the priest-
hood of all other countries in the orient."

3Morris Jastrow illustrates this in his Rpligion pg.
Babylonia and Assyria (Boston: Ginn & Co., 1898), p. 329 as
he gives the questions which Esarhaddon asked when a Bartatua,
king of Ishkuza, desired to marry his daughter. He wanted
to know if this person "is to be trusted, will he fulfill
his promises, will he observe the decrees of Esarhaddon, the
king of Assyria, and execute them in good faith?" He gives
also the same king's questions when he desires to appoint
his own son in the government: "Is the entrance of Siniddin-
abal, the son Of Esarhaddon, the king Of Assyria, whose name
is written on this tablet, into the government in accord
with the command of thy great divinity? Is it to come to

pass?“ Ibid.

 

14

priests followed strict rules in the framing Of all such
questions; as indeed they did in all matters of preparation
for giving them, including the sacrificing of the sheep,
which itself had to be without blemish, and their own prOper
dress and ritualistic purity.l

To find a parallel to Israelite prophets in Babylonia,
scholars have referred especially to the pgppp priests. How;
ever, there are difficulties in making the desired compari-
sons, one Of which is that no text of a "prOphetic“ nature
has been found from them. A few texts of this kind from
other sources have been found, however, and these should be
noted. These consist of the "Oracles of Arbela" and a few
catastrOphic texts of which the "Myth of Irra" is the best
known. The former are a series of eight oracles addressed
to Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, as coming from the goddess
Ishtar. They contain factual information besides encourage—
ments for the ruler.2 The latter tells hOW'the plague—god,
Irra, was to destroy the whole world including Babylon.3

Thus, there is more than a mere Yes or NO type of communica-

A L . A _ . _‘

le. ibid., p. 335 for good explanation.

2Guillaume, op. cit., pp. 42—43, finds parallels to
Hebrew prophecy in these oracles as follows: “Like the Hebrew
prOphets, the priestesses employed the first person in speak—
ing on behalf of Ishtar. The frequent injunction to 'fear
not,‘ the promise of help, and of the overthrow of the king's
enemies, and the assertion of the goddess's greatness, are
all suggestive Of Hebrew prophecy."

3Guillaume, ibid., pp. 52—53, however, rejects the view
of Gressman that this Irra story influenced Isaiah in his
prOphetic word against the sins of Jerusalem which were to
bring punishment upon the city.

15
tion here and in some measure a parallel with Old Testament

prOphecy.

2. Religious_poncepts,

There is need here to notice only a few of the more
basic religious concepts, since, as Observed, this is not the
main interest. The first to consider is sin. Babylonians
thought of sin mainly in terms of cultic infraction. The
person had omitted some required ceremony, or else performed
it inadequately. E. 0. James believes that sin was "always
within the sphere of ritual holiness";l though S. H. Hooks,
while stating that this was normally the case, says that the
suppliant was also “conscious of having committed moral Of-
fences,” including such€u3"untruthfulness and lack Of clemen—.
cy."2

The concept of punishment for sin is evidenced by many
texts recording prayers for forgiveness. The priests acted
as intercessors for the guilty. The idea, holiness, too
played a part. When the priest drew near for cultic ceremony,
he had to purify himself.:3 This involved mainly ritual wash-
ings. But again this holiness pertained almost exclusively

to ritual sanctity and not moral.

 

1Qpigins of Sacrifice (London, 1933), pp. 193—94,

202. cit., p. 99.

3A. Haldar, Associations of Cult PrOphets Among‘the
gncient Semites (Uppsala: Almquist and Wiksells BOktryCheri,
1945), p. Zjfiwrites that "in order to approach the deity,
the priests had to be pure, ellu (i.e. holy) and this quali-
fication was not required once and for all by initiation, but
had to be renewed every time the priests were to officiate.“

16
The Babylonian ideas relative to "substitution" in
cultic ceremony are also pertinent. Hooke describes three

basic aspects:

First, the animal which served as a substitute for a
sick person, since all sickness was regarded as the re-
sult of the anger of the gods or the hostility of evil
demons, was sent away alive into a desert place, like
the Hebrew scape—goat, carrying the sins Of defilement
of the person for whom it was the substitute. Second,
the substitute animal, usually a kid, was regarded as
the symbol of Tammuz, and by the act of slaying this
victim the sick man was thought of as being identified
with the god in his death and subsequent resurrection,
and thus delivered from the consequences Of whatever he
had done to cause his sickness. Thirdly, at certain
grave crises in the history of the kingship, a human
substitute might take the place of the king, and possi-
bly evin undergo death to avert evil consequences to the
state.

As to the Babylonian view of life after death, two
points stand out. The first is "the inseparableness of the
living and the dead."2 That is, though the dead person was
no longer visible, still it was felt somehow that his soul
communed with the living in solemn moments, and that guilt
would be incurred if offense was given to him. The second
is that their view of the dead’s existence was gloomy and
foreboding, a sort of empty void. Reward for good and pun—

ishment for wrong were dispensed solely in this life.

B. Mari and Anatolia
Mari, halfway between Babylonia and Canaan, and capi—

tal of the ancient middle Euphrates' region, shows the same

#4 g bk h.‘ A 4

fi

1Op. cit., p. 70

2S. Langdon, "Babylonian Eschatology,‘l Babyloniaca,
VI(1912), 213, gives good discussion of this matter.

 

17

basic religious culture as Babylonia.l

For instance, that
divination occupied the same prominent place is indicated in
a letter from an ambassador of Mari's king, Zimri—Lim, to
Hammurabi saying that in the Mari army there Was a diviner
for every section of the troops.2

But the item of greatest significance concerns prOphecy.
For among the many texts found there, one contains a “pro—
phecy" of remarkable parallels to that found in Israel.

A. Lods gives the class name of the "prOphet" concerned as

agpi-lum, which he translates as repondanp, "one who responds."3

 

This a-pi-lum communicates a message to the king, using the
words of the god, Adad, himself, in which the king is remind—
ed that he had been raised on Adad's knees and been placed

by Adad on his throne. He then tells him that as Adad had
instated him there, so he could take nihlatum out of his

hand if he did not make "the libation," indeed he could take
all he had given him, the throne, the territory (?) and the
city. However, if on the contrary, the king should fulfill
Adad's desires, then he would be given "thrones on thrones,
houses on houses, territories (?) on territories (7), cities

on cities and the country from the east to the west."

AH A 4H L4_.

1Mari was excavated by Andre Parrot whose work brought
to light more than 20,000 tablets from the royal palace.

2Menden‘hall, Op. cit., p. 18.

3Lods gives the entire text, both in transliteration
and translation, on which the account here is based, in his
"Untablette inedite de Mari, interessante pour 1'histoire
ancienne du prophetisme Semitique," Studies in Old Testament
Prophecy, ed. H. H. Rowley (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1950),
pp. 107—110 0

13

Two parallels to Old Testament prOphecy especially
stand out. First, the very words Of the deity are employed.
And second, there is reminder to the king of his dependence
on his god, and then promise of blessing if he does well
along with warning of difficulty if he does not. However,

a marked contrast also exists: the doing well for the Mari
king concerns only cultic "libation," whereas Israel's kings
were enjoined to moral Obedience.

Anatolia, during the Hittite regime, is also well known
today and portrays again basic similarity to Babylonia. Re-
ligion was of paramount importance. H. Guterbock states,
"The thousands Of religious texts contained in the royal ar—
chives Of the Hittite capital at Boghaz-Koy . . . is a vivid
manifestation of the religious character of the Hittite king—
ship."1 Divination was widely practiced and shows the same
common forms, with a corresponding large omen literature.2
The concept of sin was once more ritualistic in kind. It
had to be confessed and sacrifice made for it if misfortune
from the gods was to be averted.3 A man might be quite ig—
norant of his error, and then various inquiries Of the deity

would have to be made in order to identify the wrong.“

. . A A_4

l"Hittite Religion " re rint from F0 otten Religions
(New York: The Philosophical ibrary, 19 , p. .

 

21bid., p. 96.

3For a good discussion, of. O. R. Gurney, The Hittites
(2d ed.; Hammondsworth: Penguin Books, 1954), p. 158.

”Gutterbock, o . cit., p. 97. describes as follows:
"The system of questEonIng consisted in putting a question

19
C. Canaan

Coming now to Canaan prOper, it is well to look first
at the pantheon represented, which carried similarity to
that of Babylonia, but also had its own unique stamp. The
chief god was El, a solar deity. At his side was his femi—
nine counterpart, Asherat—of-the-sea, the mother of the gods.
Next in importance was Baal Who was represented in various
localized manifestations, so that the Old Testament rightly
speaks of Baal Peor, Baal Herman, Baal Meon, eto.l Baal
was the god of rain and fertility, and, in the Canaanite
mythology, struggled annually with the death god, Mot, who
defeated him; after which the goddess Anath, sister and lov—
er of Baal, restored him to life in representation of spring
resurrection in nature.2 In southern Canaan, Anath appears
to have been replaced by Ashera as Baal's consort, with her
wooden pole serving as an emblem along with his altar.3

Surprisingly enough, only a few indications are given

 

which could be answered "yes" or “no." The procedure by
which the answer was secured——observation of the entrails of
an animal or of the flight of birds or throwing dice——and
the result were registered together with the question.“

lcr. Num. 25:3; Jud. 3:3; Num. 32:28.

20f. P. K. Hitti, History of Syria (New'York: Macmil-
lan Co., 1951), p. 116f; A. S. Kapelrud, Baal in the Rgg
Shamra Texts (COpenhagen: Gad, 1952); C. H. Gordon, ggaritic
Literature (Roma: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1949);
Claude Schaffer, The Cuneiform Texts of Ras Shamra—Ugarit
(London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1939).

 

 

3According to Jud. 6:25-26, Gideon "cut" (karath) down
such a pole and then used the wood for fuel. These poles
stood beside the Baal altar and were likely carved in some
Obscene representation. Cf. I Kgs. 18:19.

20

in Canaanite texts as to divination. Bird watching is men—
tioned1 and also dream interpretation,2 but there is no
reference to hepatoscOpy. Cyrus Gordon affirms that the
divination priest would go with the army to battle, however.3

There was prOphecy of a kind. Zakir, king of Hamath,
under enemy attack received encouragement from his god:
"Fear not, for I have made thee (king, and I will) stand at
thy side and I will save thee from all these (kings . . .)"4
And an ecstatic state is indicated for a noble youth of
Byblos in the story of the Egyptian, Wenamon.5 It seems

also to have been evident in the behavior of the Baal pro—

phets on Mt. Carmel.6

The Old Testament calls the Canaanite places of wor—

ship bamoth, "high places." These were numerous in the land,

1One text from Ras Shamra so implies, cf. Haldar, pp.
p$§., p. 80; also an Amarna Letter, ibid., p. 15; and a
statement from a young ruler, Idrimi, exiled from Alalakh,
which Albright translates as, "I interpreted (the flight of)
birds," in his "Some Important Recent Discoveries: Alphabetic
Origins and the Idrimi Statue," BASOR, CXVIII(1950), 11—20.

21. Engnell quotes from the Ras Shamra text, I Krt, ll.
31b-37a, which speaks of a dream interpretation, and the set-
ting suggests a dream which had been induced, in his Studies
in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East (Uppsala: Alm—
quist and Wiksells Boktrycheri, 1943), p. 151.

3Introduction to Old Testament Times, p. 82, now re—
edited as The World of the 01d Testamenfi (Garden City, N. J.:
Doubleday & Co., 1958).

“Quoted by Haldar, Op. cit., p. 75.

5For text and discussion, Of. John Wilson's treatment
in ANET, p. 26.

61 Kgs. 18:26—29. There is no indication of any pro-
phetic oracle at this time, however.

21
but archaeolOgy has revealed little about them.1 They were
likely enclosed, though uncovered, places which housed both
an altar and the "Asherah" pole. A list Of sacrifices of-
fered at them reveals many names familiar to the Old Testa-
ment student:

The perfect offering, the peace offering, the sin offer—
ing, the sacrifice intended to secure Justice, the sacri—
fice of thanksgiving for the rain, the whole burnt offer-
ing, the sacrifice of expiation, the gffering made by
fire, and the sacrifice of communion.

Doubtless similarity of this kind would have encouraged bor~
rowing on Israel's part.3

The Canaanites also had their regular feast occasions.
The most important was the autumnal celebration in which the
king was annually re-enthroned. It was likely a direct
transfer of the Babylonian Akitu festival which long held a
central place in the parent culture. An important aspect of
the Babylonian feast was the marriage of the king to the

mother-goddess, Ishtar, which was supposed to insure good

crOps for the ensuing year.“

)_‘_‘ 944

10. c. McCown deals with this matter in his "Hebrew
High Places and Cult Remains,“ JBL LXIX(1950), 205.

2E. Leslie, Old Testament Religion in the Light of Its
Canaanite Background (New'York: Abingdon Press, 1936), p.745.
He also lists the animals used: “Bulls, castrated sheep,
heavy and fat rams, calves one year Old, and sucking lambs.
In addition to these the Phoenician tariffs included bulls,
he—goats, kids, cocks, and pullets"; ibid.

3Canaanite influence on Israel is indicated in Jud.
6:25° 8:33; 10:6; I Sam. 7:4; 12:10; I Kgs. 16:31; 18:18;
19:16; 22:53; etc.

“Cf. E. Leslie, The Psalms (New York: Abingdon—Cokes—
bury Press, 1949). Po 56.

 

22
Again sin pertained only to ritual infraction. The
moral degradation of the Canaanites is revealed in their
mythology. For instance, E1 dethroned his own father, mur-
dered his son, and decapitated his daughter. Passion and
lust characterized his life, and Albright states that the
description of his seduction of two unnamed women is the

most scnuous in Near Eastern literature.l

Both male and fe-
male prostitutes, called “holy men" and’holy women," played
a prominent cultic role. Child sacrifice too was observed

and even snake worship with all its revolting aspects.2

D. Egypt
Egypt again reveals the same stress on religion. Here
priests not only controlled the peOple, but they owned much
of the land as well.3 Divination held a prominent place. As
in Babylonia, signs were taken from nature objects, such as
the stars or the wind; and even greater place was given to
dreams. Egypt did little with hepatoscopy and omen study,

however. Instead statues with moveable parts were employed.

A mouth might Open or a head nod in reply to the question,

le. his Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (3d
ed.; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1953), p. 73f. for a
discussion Of these matters.

2Amplified by E. Leslie, Old Testament Religion in the
Light of Its Canaanite Backgroung (New York: Abingdbn Press,
1936), p. 43; also by M. Unger, Archaeology and the Old Tes—
tament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Pub. Co., 1954), p. 175.

3E. 0. James states that "by the time of Rameses III
(c. 1198 B.C.) more than a tenth of the entire country was
wned by Theban priesthoods”; op. cit., p. 281.

23

when put by the priest.1 Also actions of sacred animals
were thought significant.2

From Egypt too have come "prOphetic" texts, which some
scholars have compared favorably with the Old Testament,3
though their date is much earlier.u One is from an Ipu—wer
who, standing before the king, denounces him, points out so—
cial deficiencies, and recommends improvements.5 Another is
from a Nefer—rohu who predicts the downfall of the current
regime and even names the next.6

A temporary emergence of monotheism in the reign of

Amenhotep IV (Akhnaton) did not last long enough for consid—

eration here.7 The concept of sin, even of ritualistic kind,

 

1In the Oriental Institute in Chicago is an original
statue of the falcon god, Horus, which has two holes running
the length Of the body presumably for cords which could be
manipulated by hidden priests to make the head and beak work
in answer to the question. For other materials, of. John
Wilson, ANET, p. 448.

2For instance, at Memphis, the bull Apis would be ob~
served as to which of two chambers provided for’him he would
enter, each indicating a different meaning.

3J. M. P. Smith does in his "Southern Influence upon
Hebrew PrOphecy," JBL, XXXV(1918-19), 8.

“At the close of the third millennium B.C.; cf. ANET,
p. 441.

5James Breasted gives a good description in his Th§_
Dawn of Conscience (New York: Chas. Scribner's Sons, 1935),
pp. 197-98; also J. M. P. Smith, "Semitic PrOphecy," reprint
from The Biblical World, XXXV(1910), 227.

6Cf. John Wilson, op. cit., pp. 444—46.
7Breasted gives a good discussion, Op. cit., pp. 272-

75, also citing a similar tendency as having emerged as
early as the Pyramid age.

24
did not play as great a part in Egyptian thinking as in Baby—
lonian. Errors were not thought sinful, but foolish for

they brought unhappiness.l

Of much greater importance was
their strong emphasis on the after life, in which the idea

of reward and punishment for life behavior was involved.2

II. Opportunity for Influencg

The interest now is in viewing the contacts Israel had
with these cultures that could have made borrowing possible.

The contact with Babylonia, through the medium Of Ca—
naan,3 was made possible by early migrations of sizable
groups of people from the east, as well as by general inter-
play in trade for the whole Fertile Crescent region. One
important migration was that of the Amorites. Their origin
is somewhat clouded, but it is certain that they lived in the
regions of both Mari and Babylonia shortly after 2000 B.C.
From there large numbers of them moved to the Syria-Palestine
area in the early centuries of the second millennium. They
would Of course have brought their eastern culture with

them.#

le. Henri Frankfort, Ancient Egyptian Religion (New
York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1948), p. 73.

2Breasted discusses, op. cit., pp. 250~51.

3Abrahamof course provided an early direct contact.

“Albright gives a good discussion in his "The Babylon-
ian Matter in the Predeuteronomic Primeval History (JE) in

Gen. l-ll," JBL, LVIII(1939), 101; also in his "The Old Teen
tament World," IE, I, pp. 248-50.

25

The Hurrians, slightly later, served to the same end.
Discoveries at Nuzi, east of the Tigris, reveal an estab-
lished Hurrian occupancy during the Old Babylonian period,
and other texts have shown Hurrian names later scattered all
across MesOpotamia and again into the Syria-Palestine sector.
Apparently they wandered freely, with colonies developing in
many places.1 The Old Testament speaks of them as Horites.2

That Babylonian influence did spread by these and other
ways is indicated signally by the wide usage of the Babylon—
ian language. Particularly important is the fact that it
was even used for correspondence between Canaan and Egypt,
and this when Canaan was under Egyptian Jurisdiction; as the
Amarna letters clearly show.3 The same time saw “religious

L:

lyrics, modelled on the Accadian" existent in Canaan; and,
further still, reason exists to believe that Babylonian gods
were worshipped in Canaan in view Of such a city name as
Beth-shemesh, after the god, Shamash.5

The Hebrew contact with Canaan is of course obvious.

 

le. E. A. Speiser, "Ethnic Movements in the Near East
in the Second Millennium B.C.," AASOR, XIII(1931-32), 16.

2For instance, Gen. 14:6; 36:20—29; Deut. 2:12,22.

3For listing of pertinent literature as well as the
most recent translation of several of the letters, of. ANET,

pp. 483—90. Albright, op. cit., pp. 257—59, discusses the '
language aspect.

“George Widengren, The Accadian and Hebrew Psalms of
Lamentation as Religigus Documegpg (Stockholm: Bokforlags
Aktiebolaget Thule, 1937), p. 5.

5E. Leslie, 0 . cit., pp. 21—22, discusses this matter;
also S. H. Hooke, BaBylonian and Asgyrian Religion (London:
Hutchinson's Univ. Library, 1953), p. vii.

26
And there are several factors which would have encouraged
borrowing from these neighbors so close at hand. The most
important would have been the Canaanite advance over the in—
vaders in material culture to which the incoming Hebrews
would have been attracted, eSpecially in agricultural tech~
niques.1 There was also some similarity in cultic Obser-
vance as shown by the terminology from Ras Shamra.2 Then
there was the common Philistine menace which would.have en—
couraged mutual assistance between Hebrews and Canaanites.3
And some scholars have also mentioned the similarity in the
language which, of course, would have been true if the mi—
grants used the Hebrew at that time, which is likely.“

The Old Testament itself indicates that borrowing in
some measure did occur. In Gideon's day, for instance, his
neighbors wished to take his life for daring to destroy the
local Baal altar.5 Samuel proclaimed the need of putting
away the “Baal and Ashtaroth" Observances.6 Later, the

Phoenician, Jezebel, made work of importing the Baal cult

A___A .. .4

1Cf. M. Noth, The History of Israel (2d ed.; London:
A. & C. Black, 1958), pp. 141444; also J. Pedersen, “Canaan-
ite and Israelite Culture,” Ac Or, XVIII(1939), 1.

2Cf. A. Welch, PrOphet and Priest in Old Israel (Lon—
don: Lutterworth Press, 1936), p. 57.

3Cf. E. Leslie, 0 . cit., p. 106; also N. K. Gottwald,
A.Light to the Nationg (New York: Harper & Bros., 1959),
p. 166. .

”80 John Peters, The Religion of the Hebrews (Boston:
Ginn & Co., 1914), p. 111.

5Jud. 6:24-30.
6For instance, I Sam. 7:3-4.

27
after her marriage to Ahab.l Car aanite type "hig fll places"
became common in the land,2 and even the degraded practice
of sacred prostitution all too prevalent.3 It is signifi-
cant, however, that never is this borrowing approved by the
Old Testament writers.

The Opportunity for Isre e1 to borrow from Egypt is
self—evident also. The tribes migrated from there and cer—
tainly carried memories with them of the former associations.“
Further, they were never far away from Egypt when settled in
Canaan, and t1 ade was continuous between the two regions.

For this reason some scholars believe the influence of Egg pt

was as great as of Babylonia.5

III. Evaluation

 

It is the task now to make a Judgment as to the ex—
tent of Israel's borrowing. The question is: how far does
Isr ael's religious culture, as revealed in the Old Testament,

show similarity to the culture now described so as to sug—

 

11 Kgs. 16:31—33; 18:4,19.

2I Kgs. 3:2; 11:7; 14:23; 15:14; etc.

3I Kgs. 14: 24; 15:12; 22:46; II Kgs. 23: 7; cf. Beatrice
Goff, "Syncretism in the Religion of Israel, " JBL, LVIII

(1939). 151—56.

“From this point of view, note Jeroboam's words when
establishing the new worship at Dan and Bethel: "Behold thy
gods, 0 Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of
Egypt"; I Kgs. 12:28.

5J. M. P. Smith, ”Southern Influence upon Hebrew Pro—
phecy," AJSL, XXXV(1918—l9),3 ; also A. C. Mace, "The Influ—
ence of Egypt on Hebrew Literature," AAA, IX(l922), 3-5.

28
gest borrowing on her part.1 The task, then, is mainly to
make comparisons. It is well to do this in relation first
to the religious concepts and then to the more pertinent per—

sonnel.

A. Comparison of Religious Concepts
The following concepts have been described and so con~

stitute apprOpriate points to compare.

1. Deity concept

It is well to begin with deity concept, for this is fun-
damental. And, doing so, it is contrast rather than similar—
ity that appears. As to number of gods worshipped, adjacent
cultures had many, while Israel held to only one. As to eth-
ical level, neighboring gods lacked moral quality themselves
and did not make moral demands of their peOple, while Yahweh
always acted in keeping with His own moral law and did re-
quire conformity also on the part of His worshippers. As to
fundamental character, other gods represented aspects of na—
ture, but Yahweh was supreme over nature and worked His pur—
poses through it. As to sex distinctions, gods of other
countries played either male or female roles and both sexes
were represented, while Yahweh, though implied as male, was

never presented as having sex.2 And as to images of the

_‘ A

lIrving F. Wood, writing of this matter in his "Borrow—
ing Between Religions,“ QBL, XLVI(1927), 98, stresses that
more than mere likeness of a general nature is necessary to
prove borrowing, but in addition “some likeness of detail."

. " A L _A M

20f. H. H. Rowley, The Faith of Israel (London: SCM

 

29
gods, adjacent lands abounded in them, but these were pro-

hibited in Israel.1

2. Sin concept

It is contrast that appears also in respect to the con—
cept of sin. Sin was spoken of in adjacent lands, but not
in a way that could “be rendered 'sin' in the Biblical sense

of the term."2

For sin elsewhere was only ritual infraction.
The gods were interested only in ceremonial due: the peOple
might live as they pleased otherwise. In contrast, for
Israel the good life consisted in "doing the will of God."3
Men were to live right and observe justice. Also, sin was
thought of in Israel, not only as individual in SCOpe, but
corporate. Daily sacrifices were made to atone for the sin
of the peeple collectively.“ And a principal message of the
writing prOphets was that the nation as a whole would be pun—
ished due to her sin.5 But in other lands, sin was seen only
as an individual matter, and ideas of expiation and s00pe of

6

punishment were governed accordingly.

lJohn Bright treats all these distinctions, Historngg
Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1959), pp. 137342.

 

2G. E. Wright, The Old Testament against Its Environ:
ment (London: SCM Press, 1950), p. 105.

3Row1ey, op. cit., p. 124.

”Burnt offerings, meal and drink offerings, and most
peace and sin offerings were corporate in scOpe. Cf. “Sac-
rificial Offerings," Unger's Bible Dictionary (Chicago:
Moody Press, 1957), pp. 945~52.

5In§ra, chap. VI, pp. 238-40.

60f. W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, trans.
J. A. Baker (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961, p. 166.

 

30

Similar contrast shows also in sin confession; for, as
G. E. Wright states, in Babylonia the "penitential psalms
abound in confessions of guilt but ignore the sense of sin;
they are vibrant with despair but not with contrition-—with
regret but not with repentance."l Ritual washing was ob—
served for priestly purification in Babylonia as well as in
Israel, but again, in Babylonia the material (usually water)
worked of itself, while in Israel it could only symbolize

a necessary repentant heart.2

3. Substitution concept

More similarity with Babylonia exists in respect to
the idea of substitution. Indeed, that both countries should
have had this distinctive idea in their religious thinking
is noteworthy. Two of the three aspects cited by Hooke, as
quoted, are pertinent: that of the ”scapegoat“ idea, and
that of the slaying of a kid as symbolic of Tammuz. However,
again there are some basic differences. For one thing, when
the animal in Babylonia was either sent into a desert place,
or else killed, as a substitute, it was only in reference to
someone who was sick, and so carried out in order that the
person might be made well. But in Israel the sin had to be
removed for its own sake, whether any person was suffering

from it or not. And for another, as Eichrodt points out,

102. cit., p. 278.

2E. 0. James discusses the matter, citing other purifi—
cation means in Babylonia as "blood or fire, or carried away
by an animal or bird"; The Nature and Function of Priesthood
(New York: Barnes & Noble, 1959), p. 178.

31
the Babylonian idea did not involve the concept of sin Ias
a state of personal guilt." Rather, the sick person was
thought to be "overpowered and enchanted by evil spirits"
which somehow had to be appeased. "Hence, every eXpiatory

rite" had to "conclude with an expulsion of the demons."1

4. Life after death concept

Relative to the concept of life after death, both Baby—
lonia and Egypt had a viewpoint requiring notice. The former
saw that time as only a foreboding mystery and believed that
rewards or punishments were received only in this life. The
latter, in contrast, placed stress on the after life; seeing
it as a time when at least some rewards and punishments were
dispensed, and especially as requiring extensive preparation
for it of a material nature. For this reason, embalming was
practiced and also the storing of the grave with physical
comforts.

The Old Testament does not dwell at length on this sub-
ject, but what it says points to contrasts with both posi—
tions. It agrees with Babylonia that this life holds re-
wards and punishments, but it disagrees in that the next
life contains those of yet more serious nature.2 Like Egypt,
a resurrection experience was anticipated, but unlike her
there was no physical preparation either needed or possible

in view of it, since everything material must be left be—

lEichrodt , w.
2Dan. 12:2; Ps. 1:5,6; 49:14,15.

32
hind at death.1 Unlik e Ba b3mlo is, that time was visualized
as one of joy for the righteous; and unlike Egrpt, this joy

was not viewed in physical pleasures out in seeinr God 2

5. Prophecy concept

 

As to the matter of prOphecy, some parallels between
the "prOphetic" texts of Ba bylonia, Mari, and Egypt and those
of the Old Testament have been indicated; the Babylonian
texts particularly in providing encouragement for the king;
the Mari text in quoting the very words of the deity admon—
ishing the king to prOper conduct; and the Eiyptian texts in

rging social reform and promising improvement with even
"messianic" overtones.3

However, here too the contrasts appear more signifi—
cant. For one thing, these other instances show no condem—
nation of moral wrong. A. B. Mace as ye that the Egyptian
samples show a "passionate zeal for reform" in "the existing

order of society,"4

but the social decay had not been due to
sin. Again, "intimacy between God and prOphet, which is the

outstanding characteristic of Hebrew prOphecy, is almost en—

 

lPs. 49:16—18.

2Job 19:23—27; Ps. 16:8—11; 17:15.

3For "messianic" a spects, of. Breasted, Develooment of
Religion and Thoug ht in Ancient E ypt (New York: Ch.m. Scrib-
ner's Sons, 1912), p. 213; also Alan H. Gardiner, “New Lit—
erary Works from Ancient Egypt," JEA, 1(1914), lOO.

 

4"The Influence of Egypt on Hebrew Literature," AAA,
IX(1922), 23. Comments Eichrodt in refel ence to the Iviari
text, "The distinction of Old Tests -ment pro; shecy lies in the
reference of everything to a divine will which applies to a
whole peOple"; on. cit., p. 322.

 

33

tirely lacking in" these adjacent areas.1 Further, "in con—
trast with the higher aspects of prOphecy in Israel, the pro-
phets of Babylon never succeeded in disengaging themselves
from the meshes of sorcery, witchcraft, magic, and necroman—
cy."2 And further still, Franz Bohl rightly indicates a con~
trast as to degree of punishment foreseen. He says it was
"the typically Israelite idea that God can and will destroy
His own chosen peOple as a punishment for their sins," which
thought adjacent prOphets never came close to mentioning,
for this would have meant the end of their own power as well.3

The "messianic" element in the Egyptian samples carries
interesting parallels, but their date is too early for seeing
any real connection. Indeed, the Mari text too antedates
any prOphetic text of the Old Testament by a substantial mar~
gin. And finally as to amount, the Old Testament carries an

extensive prOphetic section, while scholars have scanned

scores of texts elsewhere to find even these few examples.

6. Qonclusigg

 

In view of these observations, it is easily seen that
little real similarity existed between the religious con-

cepts of Israel and the adjacent countries. There were some

 

1A. Guillaume, Prophecy and Divination among the He—
brews and Other Semites (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1938),

p. 59'.

2J. M. P. Smith, "Semitic PrOphecy," reprint from The
Biblipal World, XXXV(l9lO), 226.

 

3"Some Notes on Israel in the Light of Babylonian Dis—
coveries," JBL, LIII(1934), 142.

34
general likenesses, and these should not be minimized. But
as Irving Wood points out, as quoted, more than general
likeness is necessary to evidence borrowing. There must be
some specific details. And of these there were very few.
Thus, it may be said that, if Israel borrowed at all on the

score of religious concepts, it was only in a small way.1

B. Comparison of Religious Personnel

The comparison now as to religious personnel is of
greater pertinence for this study, as noted. The former has
been only anticipatory to it. For if substantial borrowing
on this count should be evidenced, then, as observed, it
would be possible and necessary in the following chapters
to draw descriptive materials relative to Israel's priests
and prOphetsfrom.sources outside Israel as well as the Old
Testament.

To make this comparison, it is unnecessary to consider
more than the representatives of Babylonia. These are much
better known than those of Canaan or Egy;m, and by general
agreement, provide the closest parallels. Alfred Haldar has
done the most in showing these parallels, seeking particular-
ly to demonstrate similarity between the Babylonian bggg.and
the Israelite gghgg, as well as the Babylonian manhu‘and the

Israelite nabi'. In view of the generally recognized stand—

A
vv

lSimilarities which could suggest borrowing are some—
what greater regarding certain outward forms of Israel's
religion, such as, for example, the general plan of Solo-
mon's Temple found paralleled particularly closely by the
temple at Tayinat in the Amuq plain of northern Syria.

35
ing of his w rk,l and as a means of making this discussion
as sre ecific as possible, the com3a rison here will be in ref-

SJ.

erence to his study. The baru-kohen relationship will be

 

considered first; then the mahhu— ne oi'; and lastly a summary

 

evaluation.

1. The baru~kohen comparison

 

a. Number of priestly groups

Haldar's first task is to show that the Babylonians
thou ght of their bagg, she'ilu, and sheoru priests as really
only one basic group; which group he believes, then, consti—

tuted the parallel with the Israelite k hen. He admits that

 

 

several scholars do not agree with him in this. Zimmern,

Dhorme, Frank, and Contenau, for instance, say "the special

function of the sha‘ilu priests was" dream interpretation.
Haldar seeks laroof age-inst this contention for the

‘

sna'ilu by showing that the baru and the E3iehu groups also

 

S .lOt

interpreted dreams, and that the sha ‘ilu w imited to

go

this task. He employs four arguments to sustain this last:

(I) that the name, he 'ilu, comes from the verb, sEM ala,

 

lAssocie tions of Cult Propr lets men; the Ancient Sem—
ites (Uppsala: Almeuist and l.iksells Boktrycheri, 1955).
Rowley comments in his "The Nature of the Old Testament Pro-
phecy in the Light of Becent Study " The Servant of tr e Lord
and Other Ess says on the Old Testa.ment (Lor don: Lutterm rth
Press, 1952), p. 105, “Haldar has pressed the theory the far-
therest." Cf. N. W. Porteous for similar evaluation in his
"The Basis of the Ethical Teaching of the PrOphets," Studies
in Old Testament PrOphccy, ed. H. H. Rowley (Edinburgh: T. &
T. Clark, 1950), p. 1H3;

2

 

 

Haldar, on. cit,, p. 13.

36

‘which means "to ask," which then leads logically to the idea
of deity inquiry, the function of the BEER; (2) that at
least one textl views the sha'ilu in parallel with the bggg
in receiving "word" from the deity; (3) that another text
depicts the two groups in a parallel capacity; and (h) that
other texts show the sha'ilu active in such divination rites
as hydromancy and observation of bird flight, again like the
Ibggg.

Haldar then argues similarly regarding the shabru and,
though not able to present as much evidence as with the

sha'ilu, still makes a rather good case.2

b. More than a Yes or No message

Haldar seeks to prove that the Eggg gave more than
simply Yes or No communications, which thing he recognizes
was true of Israel's kghgg. However, he has greater diffi—
culty here, for the only texts he can use in evidence cannot
with certainty be traced to bggg authorship. He can show3
satisfactorily that the messages of these texts "are freer
than the omen texts prOper," i.e. more than Yes or No in con—
tent, but has only the same evidence as to their authorship

which he says Franz Bohl cited before him, and which he ad—

 

lIbid., pp. 14—15. Haldar quotes this text and also
those of the following two points, indicating sources.

2Ibid., pp. 17-18.

3Ibid., p. 10, where he also quotes the texts con-
cerned. Guillaume, op. cit., p. 59, disagrees on this point,
saying the baru confined himself only to the omen type, Yes
or No, communication.

MI)
\1

mits was not conclusive.

c. Many forms of divination

As has been observed, the bggg practiced many forms of
divination. Hence, Haldar attempts to show that Israel's
kghgg did this also. He uses several Old Testament passages
in evidence. His treatment of them is examined in the fol—

l

lowing chapter and found to be seriously at fault, however.

d. Hereditary membership

On the count of hereditary membership, Haldar seeks to
prove that Israel's priests were not determined by Levitic
ancestry, and then gives evidence that family relationship
was not necessary for the bggg.either. He contends that a
key phrase, "son of a bggp,priest,“ only had reference "to
the Eggg as a member of the corporation of 9333 status.”2
He appears to have adequate evidence that other qualifica-
tions besides such family lineage were necessary, and also
that when they were met the person could be admitted to

priesthood whether the son of another bggg or not.

e. King as leader of the priests
Haldar desires also to show a parallel respecting the
king as leader of the priests. As evidence that this was

true in Babylonia, he quotes a text in Which Esarhaddon

 

lInfra, p. #7. The main passages he cites are: Ps. 5:3;
Ps. 27:#; and II-Kgs. 16:15, where the phrases appear, respec—
tively, "will keep watch," to inquire in," and "inquire by."
He works also with the idea that “liver“ is mentioned pro—
minently in connaction with sacrifice: Lev. 3:3f.

21bid., p. 38.

8

\J)

kneels before Shamash and Adad and then orders "the seers

to enter bit mummi," which Haldar believes was a divination
chamber. The seers do this and return the king answer "with
a faithful yea."l Thus, the king held a position where he
could give such orders to the priests, and so must have been
leader over them. Haldar believes that Israel's king also

served in such a role, though he does not seek to prove it.

f. Three—fold function of the priest

In a more general vein, Haldar further cites three
main functions of the Babylonian priest, believing that in
each a clear parallel with Israel‘s 5223p is observable.
(1) They acted as physicians. ‘This came about in that 111-
ness was considered the result of sin, and so to get rid of
this illness the sin had to be prOpitiated, and this required
the priest. (2) They acted as Judges. Oracles were consult—
ed to determine court decisions. They then preserved these
legal dispositions and so became “transmitters" of legal
codes. And (3) they had great influence in political af—
fairs in that they were regularly consulted in connection

with important decisions.2

2. The mahhu—nabi' comparisog
In showing parallels for the mahhgenabgé relationship,
Haldar admits the evidence is much less. He has no "prophe-

tic“ texts as such from the mahhu; and, without them, he is

llbid., pp. h7—48.

2Ibid., p. 65.

39
left with arguing only indirectly that the mghthWere ecsta—
tics, which he assumes also characterized the gapii.1 He
does this by first giving positive evidence and then consid-

ering two objections that they were not.
a. That the mahhu were ecstatics

l) Etymology of mahhu.—Haldar argues first from the etymol-
ogy of EEEEE; agreeing with Delitzsch and Bezold that the
word comes from the verb, fléflha meaning "to rave." He then
substantiates this idea as basic in the word by showing that
another form of it, mahhutu, is used in the phrase, illika
mahhutas, meaning "he was out of his senses."2 Hence, the
gghhg must have been a frenzied person, one out of his senses

when in ecstasy.

2) Three ideograms.-Haldar then speaks of three ideograms

used to describe the mahhu. He says the first, lual-e-de,

 

"seems to have the meaning mghg, 'to be overwhelmed' or the
like,“ which must have been by "the god," which leads him to
conclude that "ecstasy does not consist merely of 'the depar—
ture of the mind‘; in its place comes the 'breath' from the
god."3 However, this deduction of "breath" from the idea of
"overwhelm," is only by implication. Haldar is unable to

give direct proof. The second is dinger-dib—ba-ra. He says

 

1In chapter IV it will be shown that ecstasy of this
type did not characterize the nabi‘.

ZHaldar, op. cit., p. 22.
3Ibid.

40
"Since §;b_means ‘to enter,' 'to seize,‘ etc.“ that "thus
dingsr~dib~ba has the meaning 'one whom god has seized,‘
'made mad.”1 However, again the idea, "made mad," is fur—
ther implication, for Divine seizure does not necessarily

mean this. And of the third, im—zu—ub, Haldar merely as—

 

serts, without evidence, that it "must refer to the 'breath'"

and so “apparently has the same sense“ as the other ideograms.2

3) ggpation of mahhu with shehanu.—Haldar finds mghhg used
in equation with shehanu. "Shehanu seems to have a synonym
in sha shehi" Which means "he who has shghg," One meaning
for ghghgiis "wind" or "breath," so that the "ggghgrshehanu—
sha shehifl can be "one who has a 'breath' coming from the

god."3

4) Ritual danc§.~Haldar argues further from the idea of the
ritual dance. Such a dance, he believes, characterized the
annual New'Year's festival in which the mghhg.engaged. Cyl-
inder seal pictures are cited in evidence. Thus, he says,
"Theritual dance was practiced in MesOpotamia" and, if so,
"it must have had the same import as elsewhere," namely,

#

ecstatic frenzy.

5) Use of stimulants.-Lastly, Haldar shows that the mahhu

 

lIbid.

N

Ibid.

w

3ibid., p. 23.

:-

Ibid., p. 61.

Ml
used various stimulants, particularly gagg, any intoxicating
drink, in their functions. Thus, since similar stimulants
were commonly used elsewhere to induce ecstasy, he believes
the same was true here in Babylonia. One difficulty arises
for him, however, and that is that these stimulants were
also used by the bggg. Thus he must admit, "It would seem
difficult to deny that the bgggg could also participate in
the ecstatic rites. . . . If the mahhus are ecstatics, then

so to some extent are the barus."l

b. Two objections considered

Haldar prOperly brings into his treatment also two mat-
ters Which serve to counter his position. He gives reply to
both, but one is not impressed that he does so with great

SUCCESS.

l) Contrary Opinion of others.—The first he observes is that
Holscher and other scholars deny that ecstasy was known in
Babylonia. Haldar only replies, "Holscher must be wrong in
maintaining that the complete absence of these phenomena in
the cuneiform material has its cause 'in Wesen der ganzen
babylonische—assrischen Religion and Kultur.”2 He seeks
support for this by repeating the last two points given
above, as to the ritual dance and use of stimulants, upon

which he appears to place considerable reliance. Then he

H__

1Ibid., p. 63.

2Ibid., p. 25. He quotes here from Holscher's Die
Profeten, p. 140.

#2
adds further that this Babylonian ecstasy may not have been
as violent in form as existed in Asia Minor to which Holscher

has special reference.1

2) No mention by Greek writers.-The second is the fact that

 

Greek writers never mention ecstasy among Babylonians. To
this Haldar only says, "The fact that ecstasy is not mentioned
by Herodotus and Diodorus is not definite evidence to the con-
trary, for neither of these Greek writers are infallible
authorities on MesOpotamian religion."2 In this, of course,
Haldar is right, but still the fact remains that they do not

mention it.

3. Summary evaluation

 

a. The bargrkohen relationship

 

It is evident that Haldar shows some definite paral—
lels between the pggg and the kghgp, There are also some
important differences.

The parallels are the following. (1) Though the kg§§p_
did not act as a physician as such, and certainly not in the
sense of prOpitiating sin as a direct means of healing one
who was sick, as the Qggg, still he did pass Judgment respect—
ingleprosy cases, and so carried some relation to this func—

tion.3 (2) As to the function of the Judge, the kohen did

_4
fl

1It is generally agreed that ecstasy for the Near East
had its home in Asia Minor.

2Haldar, op. cit., p. 25.
3Lev. 13:1—46; in 1—9.

 

 

VIII}.

’5
1
/

give advice in court cases.1

(3) The kghgg.was also politi—
cally important. Joshua was instructed to consult the high
priest who, through the Urim and Thummim, would tell the Di-
vine decision in important matters.2 And (4) as to inquiry
means, the kgpgg, particularly the high kphgg, employed the
Urim and Thummim which, as shall appear in the next chapter,
was limited to a somewhat parallel, affirmation type of com—
munication.

The differences, however, again appear more signifi-
cant. (I) As to divination, though the high kghgg did use
the Urim and Thummim, the employment was limited to him, and
he does not appear to have used it with great frequency;
whereas divination for the pggg was of several types, was
used by all the bggE'priests, and constituted their princi-
pal activity. (2) Whereas the 2333 office was evidently not
hereditary, the kghgp.had to be a descendant of Levi.3 (3)
The Babylonian king seems to have been the head of the bggg,

4 And (4) particu-

but Israel's king was not for the kohen.
larly pertinent for this discussion is it that Haldar does

not find the baru having had any extensive teaching respon—

 

lDeut. 17:8—12; 19:17; of. chapter v, 1» 183
2Num. 27:21.
3Cf. chapter V, pp. 1&6-50.

uJ. Morgenstern agrees with Haldar, "A Chapter in the
History of the High—Priesthood," AJSL, LV(1938), 5; but H.
Frankfort does not, Kingship and the Gods (Chicago: Univ. of
Chicago Press, 1948), p. 339; nor does G. E. Wright, The Old
Testament against Its Environment (London: SCM Press, 1950),
p. 65f. These last have the better evidence.

 

an
sibility, whereas, as shall be seen at length, this was a

major function for the kohen.

b. The gghhprggbli.relationship

In regard to the mahhu-nabii relationship, it is ap-
parent that Haldar is much less successful. Indeed, it may
be said that he shows no significant parallel between the
two groups. For, granting his contention that the Egghglwas
an ecstatic, contrary to Holscher and the Greek writers,
there is still the decisive difference that Israel's Egg;1_
was not so characterized, as shall be demonstrated. The one
place where he comes the closest concerns his assertion that
the ggggg'was “overwhelmed" by the "spirit." For it will ap-
pear that Israel's ggb31.1n some manner did eXperience a Spir-
it possession. However, to Haldar, this experience means ec-
staticism of a frenzied type, whereas this was not so in
Israel. And moreover, as was observed, he has difficulty in
proving that this ”spirit" aspect was involved in the over—

whelming of the mahhu; only being able to imply it.

c. The baruegahhu relationship

It is also in order to notice that Haldar does not
really show great difference between the bggguand the mgth
in Babylonia. It will be shown in the ensuing treatment
that great difference did exist between Israel's kghgg and
gapii, with almost no areas of overlapping. But this was
not true of the bg33.and gghhg, Two factors in what has

been observed from Haldar are particularly significant in

 

 

'11)

‘0

A
.

 

45
this respect. The first is that the ppppp practiced divina—
tion as well as the pppp; and the second is that the p333
used stimulants as well as the pghhp, and so must also have
been an ecstatic if the pgppp was. Other scholars agree
with Haldar that there was likely more difference between
the pppp and the pghpp, than between the pppp.and either the
sha'ilu or the shabru,l but this does not place them in cate-
gories as distinct and separate as the kpppp_and pgpgl,
They both had specialties, but either seems at times to have

performed the functions of the other.

d. Conclusion

In view of these observations, G. W. Anderson seems
right when he says of Haldar: ”In spite of the great learn—
ing with which he presents his case, Haldar all too often
gives the impression of fitting the evidence into a Procrus—
tean bed.“2 He simply does not have the evidence to prove
his case. The parallels he is able to show for the pgpp and
ggpgp are no more than should exist between priests of any
culture. The decisive point is to demonstrate similarities
for the Eggpg and pgpgi, and here he is unable to prove any

for sure.3 Thus, a conclusion similar to that drawn regard—

‘

1As shown, for instance, in that Hooke, Bab lonian and
Apsyrian Religipp_(London: Hutchinson's Univ. EIErary, ,

p. 92, and James, The Nature and Function of Priesthood (New
York: Barnes and Noble, 1959), p. 37, both agree with him.

 

ZuHebrew Religion," The Old Testament and Modern Study_
(New York: Chas. Scribner's Sons, 1951), p. 301.

3With this agrees Guillaume as he says in his op. cit.,

46
ing religious concepts appears necessary: if Israel borrowed
at all in respect to her priests and prOphets, t was only
in minor aspects.

Accordingly, the ensuing discussion will not find fre-
quent cause to draw upon the adjacent cultures for evidence
in respect to the problem at hand. Israel's priests and
prOphets will have to be studied as her own, using as evi—
dence almost solely what is found in the Old Testament.

The over—all picture that has been seen will be helpful for
general comparison and contrast, but specific matters will
have to be determined within the compass of Israel's own

literature.

 

p. 108, "With the diviners of Babylon and Assyria, the Heb—
rew prOphets have nothing, or very little, in common."

Chapter III
THE PRIEST AND THE DIVINE DISCLOSURE

The concern of this chapter and the next is revela-
tional media. Here that concern pertains to the priests.
Did the priests possess a means of Divine disclosure? If so,
what was it?

Haldar believes that they not only had one, but sev—
eral, after the pattern of the Babylonian pgpp.l As noted
in the prior chapter, he uses as evidence the phrases, “will
keep watch“ (Ps. 5:3), "to inquire in" (Ps. 27:4), and "to
inquire by" (II Kgs. 16:15). Inquiry, as thus referred to,
he believes must have been by divination. And, taken by
themselves, these phrases could have this reference; but if
that was what was meant, then their context should imply div—
ination as well. However, this is clearly not the case with
at least two of them, Ps. 5:3 and 27:4. In the first, the
"watching“ indicated is for an answer to prayer, with the
Psalm giving no hint that this ansWer was looked for in terms
of omens. Rather, the request given concerned the destruc-
tion of the wicked (vss. 5,6,10), and so the answer antici-

pated would, of course, have been in accordance. In the sec-

 

1Associations of Cult PrOphets among_the Ancient Sem-
ites (Uppsala: Almquist and Wiksells Boktrycheri, l9fl5), pp.
121~22. R. Scott, The Relevance of the Prophets (New York:
Macmillan Co., 1944), pp. 7—8, shows agreement.

47

 

 

i

48

ond, the “inquiring" is better taken as the writer's desire
to learn religious information from an attendant priest,
probably out of the pppgh. As will appear, priests had an
important function in such instruction.

There is greater possibility of divination with the
third instance (II Kgs. 16:15), for Ahaz, given to an affin—
ity for foreign influence, had just c0pied an altar of Damas—
cus, and so may have c0pied also some form of divination.
But if so, it was only an importation and not an observance
characteristic of Israel.1

Haldar also finds evidence in the prominent mention of
the "liver" in connection with some of the Hebrew sacrifices,
saying that this "can hardly have any other significance
than divination."2 However, this conclusion must be read
into the text, for it is not stated, nor is there any hint
in the context of hepatosCOpy. All that the text concerns
is the proper preparation of the sacrificial animal, and, to
that end, certain specifications are given regarding the
liver, kidneys, etc.3

10. F. Keil, however, in "The Books of the Kings,"

KDC p. 406, takes the passage to mean that Ahaz wanted to
ma ntain both the old altar along with the new one, at least
for a time, “about which he would consider" as to which he

would keep permanently. He thus avoids any idea of divina—
tion.

202. cit., p. 212.

3R. K. Yerkes, quite Oppositely to Haldar, says in his
Sacrifice in Greek and Roman Religions and Early Judaism
(New York: Chas. Scribner's Sons, 1952), p. 31, "The repeat—
ed prescription to burn 'the caul above the liver' voices
direct Opposition to hepatoscOpy."

 

49

R. Scott sees significance for divination in Gideon's
“fleece" incident and also the sign of the balsam trees with
David.1 Both occasions did yield Divine guidance for the
persons concerned, and so could be said to have been instan—
ces of a sort of divination. However, neither appears to
have been a part to any divination pattern in Israel, not
having been repeated at any time in Israel's history. They
were unique, one-time events only. Moreover, neither occa—
sion shows any priest present to manipulate or interpret,
which was the normal rule for divination in other countries.
Scott thinks too that the presence of a "divining" cup in
Joseph's sack is significant, but of course the cup was
Egyptian, not Hebrew.2 Divination, as has been observed,
was practiced in Egypt.

In Opposition to this vieWpoint, now, it may be pointed
out that the Old Testament itself gives clear statements
against divination. Deut. 18:9~22, for example, is particu—
larly pertinent. Israel is to dispossess the Canaanites be-
cause they "hearken unto them that practice augury, and unto
diviners" (vs. 14). In contrast, Israel is to do away with
"one that useth divination" because these are "an abomina—
tion unto Yahweh“ (vss. 10~12). Also, Lev. 20:6 requires
that the "soul that turneth unto them that have familiar

spirits, and unto the wizards“ shall be cut off "from among

 

lOp. cit., P. 7. These incidents are found in Jud.
6:36—40 and II Sam. 5:24.

2Gen. 44:5.

50
his peOple." And the reason cited is that Israel is to be
different from her neighbors.1 Thus, G. E. Wright in a treat-
ment of the matter concludes, "We imply from this that the
whole pagan world of magic and divination is simply incom—
patible with the worship of Yahweh."2 And R. H. Pfeiffer
states, "Omens interpreted by professional diviners, played
an insignificant role in Israel. Divination, . . . may be
disregarded here."3
This, of course, does not mean that Israel had no forms
of Divine disclosure. In fact she had several. But these
cannot be called divination. A decisive distinction sepa~
rates them from this category: namely, the matter of coer-
cion. In every form of divination, the priest coerced an
answer. There was always either a Yes or No, but never a
"no reply." The science of omenology was simply set up that
way. But in Israel this was not so. The Old Testament pre-
sents Yahweh as the one who controls all revelation. As
G. E. Wright says,
He will make known his will when, where, and how he

chooses. He cannot be tricked or coerced into revela-
tion. He will make himself known, not by the hidden

 

lCf. Lev. 20:23,27; Ex. 22:18; Jer. 27:9,10; Isa. 47:
12‘15 o

2The Old Testament against Its Environment (London:
SCM Press, 1950), p. 86.

3Introduction to the Old Testament (New York: Harper
& Bros., 1941), p. 32. For similar views, of. W. Eichrodt,
Theology of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 1931), pp. 302-303; T. c. Foote, "The Ephod," gpp,
XXI(1902), l9; and M. Jastrow, "Ro‘eh and Hozeh in the Old
Testament,” ggp, XXVIII(1909), 48.

 

 

1.4

 

51

world of the occult, but by the means which he himself
chooses.

Of these several means of revelation in Israel, one
was assigned to the priests as theirs alone.2 That was the
Urim and Thummim. To it, then, the attention of this Chap-
ter is directed. Two principal matters must be considered:
first, the nature of the Urim and Thummim; and second, the
place it maintained in the priestly experience. The initial

task is to assemble the evidence with which to work.

I. The Evidence

There are no contemporary references outside the Old
Testament to the Urim and Thummim, nor have any divination
means really similar to it been found in adjacent countries.
Thus, the evidence bearing upon it is limited to the Old
Testament. The pertinent passages found there may be divid-
ed into two classes: first, those in which either or both
names, Urim and Thummim, are used; and second, those in
which the employment of this revelation means is only implied

though with sufficient clarity to make them also usable.
A. Passages Naming the Urim and Thummim

l. EX. 28:39

And thou shalt put in the breastplate of Judgment the
Urim and the Thummim; and they shall be upon Aaron's
heart, when he goeth in before Yahweh: and Aaron shall

4

102. cit.

2Evidence to this end will appear in the discussion
following.

52

bear the Judgment of the children of Israel upon his
heart before Yahweh continually.

This mention occurs in directions for the high priest's
clothing. The "ephod," a covering garment for both the
front and back of the high priest, and the "breastplate"
(hgggg, from an uncertain root) of Judgment, made of linen,

a span square, and attached to the ephod, are described; and
then these eXplanations are given in respect to the Urim and

Thummim.

2. Lev. 8:8

And he placed the breastplate upon him: and in the
breastplate he put the Urim and the Thummim.

In this mention, the directions, laid down in the prior
verse, are being carried out as the high priest is clothed

for the first time with the prescribed items.

3 0 Dent o 3315

And of Levi he said,

Thy Thummim and thy Urim are with thy godly one,

Whom thou didst prove at Massah,

With whom thou didst strive at the waters of Meribah;

Here is found the principal aspect in the blessing of

Levi pronounced by Moses Just prior to his death. In the
same chapter, parallel blessings are pronounced also for the
other tribes. The "godly one" mentioned is the high priest,
in the light of Ex. 28:30, just quoted. Levi's Thummim and
Urim thus dwelt with him, whom, in the person of Aaron and
in company with Moses, the peOple had vexed severely at

Massah (Ex. 17:7) and later at Meribah (Num. 20:7-13). both

times in connection with water from the rock.

w

 

53

4. Num. 27:21
And he shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall
inquire for him by the Judgment of the Urim before Yah—
weh: at his word shall they go out, and at his word they
shall come in, both he, and all the children of Israel
with him, even all the congregation.
This verse constitutes a part in the Divine instruc—

tion at the time of Joshua's induction to office.

5. I Sam. 28:6

And when Saul inquired of Yahweh, Yahweh answered him
not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prOphets.

In this instance, Saul, the king, was facing what
proved to be his final battle with the Philistines. Samuel,
his former source of Divine communication, was dead. He
wanted to know what to expect in the impending conflict, but
God did not tell him, neither by dreams, nor Urim, nor pro—

phets.

6. Ezra 2:63 (identical with Neh. 7:65)
And the governor said unto them, that they should not
'eat of the most holy things, till there stood up a priest
with Urim and with Thummim.

Here many centuries had elapsed, with the peOple having
been taken captive and now returned to their own land once
again. Some of the priests had lost their credentials, and
Zerubbabel, the governor, was here stating that they could
not be fully instated as priests, along with the others, un-
til a Divine decision could be determined by the Urim and

Thummim.

54
B. Passages Implying the Urim and Thummim
There are nine passages which may safely be said to

imply the use of the Urim and Thummim,l

and these may be di-
vided into two groups. The first group concerns five occa—
sions which fall chronologically together early in the his—
tory and show a common means of implying the Urim and Thum—
mim: first, in that each instance did require a definite Di—
vine communication; second, each passage recording an in-
stance lacks any mention of any other type of communication
being involved, such as a dream or prOphet's message; and
third, the kind of communication required was a type for which
the Urim and Thummim was capable.2 The passages are: Josh.
7:14—18, where need existed to identify Achan whose sin had
cost Israel a victory at Ai; Josh. 9:14, where the peeple
were reprimanded for not having asked counsel of God respect-
ing the Gibeonites; Jud. 1:1—2, where there was need to se—
lect the tribe first to strike against the Canaanites; Jud.
20:18—23, where a similar decision was needed as to which
tribe should first attack BenJamin; and I Sam. 10:20—22,
where an identification of the new king was in issue.

The second group concerns four incidents which fall

together later in the history and again show a common means

1Besides these nine, some scholars also include II Sam.
2:1; 5:19,23f; and 21:1. However, none of these instances
mentions the presence of the high priest or the ephod. More-
over, both Gad and Nathan were then active through whom David
may well have made the inquiries involved. It is safer, then,
not to include them.

2The nature of this capability will be studied later.

55
of implying the Urim and Thummim: namely, the presence each
time Of the ephod to which was attached the breastplate con-
taining the Urim and Thummim. The first is I Sam. 14:37—42,
where Saul needed Divine communication, first as to a possible
attack by the Philistines, and then as to who had eaten food
contrary to his order; and it is mentioned in vss. 3 and 36
that the high priest was in the camp with the ephod. The
second is I Sam. 22:10—15, where David is said to have in-
quired often of the high priest at Nob where the ephod was
located, I Sam. 21:9. The third is I Sam. 23:9-12, where
David needed to know as to a possible action by the "men of
Keilah,' and vs. 6 preceding states that Abiathar, the high
priest, had Just arrived with the ephod. And the fourth is
I Sam. 30:7—8, where David inquired whether to pursue the
raiding Amalekites, and again he called Abiathar with the

ephod for that purpose.

II. The Nature of the Urim and the Thummim
With these sources of evidence identified, it is possi-
ble to ask now the first main question: what sort of disclo-

sure means was the Urim and Thummim?

A. Various Answers
Views have been numerous relative to the Urim and Thum—
mim, and it is well to look at some of them before beginning
this study. This will show the type of answer to which
others have been led..

W. Muss—Arnolt wrote a well known article on the sub—

56
Ject at the turn of the century, and in it he summarized
positions then existent as follows;
In general we may summarize that the Urim and Tummim
have been identified with (a) stones in the high
priest's breastplate, 5b) sacred dice, (0) little
images of truth' and Justice,‘ suchlas hung round the
neck of an Egyptian's priest's mummy.
He reJected all three himself and found instead a parallel
with the Tablets of Destiny in the Babylonian creation story.2
Few, in turn, have followed him in this, however.3
Today, many agree on the idea of "sacred dice," the
second vieWpoint he indicated, but discussion continues as
to how these may have been manipulated. B. D. Eerdmans, for
instance, says,
The priest put his hand into the pouch and took out of
it one of these stones. In this simple way they got an
answer to a question in the nature of Yesuor No, like
the modern practice of tossing up a coin.
However, if the matter was this simple, a problem arises as
to how a "no answer" could have been given, such as in the
case of Saul in I Sam. 14:37 and 28:6. Accordingly, Rowley
describes the procedure a little differently:

The view which seems to me most probable is that they

 

1"The Urim and Thummim," AJSL, xv1(1899—1900), 204.
2Ibid.

3Cf. remarks by E. Kautzsch, “Urim and Thummim,"
SHERK, XII, p. 109; and A. Kennedy, "Urim and Thummim," DB,
IV, p. 840, both of whom reJect his vieWpoint and tell why.

“The Religion of Israel (Leiden: Univ. Pers. Leiden,
1947), p. 52. Eichrodt has a similar view: “According to
which little sticks Jumped out when the container of the
lots was shaken, the answer of the deity was taken to be
”Yes“ or uNo“; Theology of the Old Testament (Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1961), p. 113.

 

 

 

 

57

were two flat stones, one side of which was the auspi-

cious side and one the inauspicious, so that if they

both fell with the same side upward, the answer was

given, while if they revealed different sides there was

no answer.
However, on this basis, the "no reply" would have appeared
no less than half of the time, and this seems very frequent
if the peOple were to remain satisfied. Another view reduc-
es the chance to one-third by positing a third stone in the
pouch for this “no reply." But this would still have yielded
a high percentage, and, further, there are reasons for re—
Jecting the idea of a third stone.2

Thus, viewpoints have indeed been numerous, and not al-

together satisfactory. But it is unnecessary to consider

them further. The one to be develOped herein awaits atten—

tion.
B. Pertinent Matters

1. Meaning of the names

 

Several matters bear upon the answer to this inquiry,
one of which concerns the meaning of the names, Urim and
Thummim. There are four main Opinions to notice and then

the significance of the correct one.

a. Four main viewpoints
l) The most common viewpoint, and that held by the present

writer, is that Urim is the plural of the verb, 'ur, meaning

 

1The Faith of Israel (London: SCM Press, 1956), p. 29.
2Infra., pp. 62—63.

58
"light," and that Thummim comes from thamah, meaning "com—
plete, perfect." Thus, the noun forms would mean "lights
and perfections."
2) A view espoused by Wellhausenland later by others, includ—
ing Paul Haupt,2 is "that iggim must be combined with 133
'to curse,’ while thumim means 'blamelessness, acquital.”3
Thus, the one was the curse stone, giving the No, and the
other the acquittal stone, giving the Yes.
3) More recently A. Johnson has held that Urim comes from
L3; with Wellhausen, but that Thummim comes from thamah with
the first View.“ The No and Yes indications would be the
same.
4) W. Muss-Arnolt, in the article quoted, found Urim coming
from the Babylonian 2333, meaning "command," and Thummim

from tamitu, meaning "oracular decision."5

b. Significance of the correct view

It is generally admitted that the first view cited has
the most to commend it on the basis of etymology alone.
What has mainly motivated scholars to look for other mean—

ings is that this first one does not give two Opposing ideas.

 

1But A. Kennedy states, "In his later works, however,
Wellhausen has given up this etymology," 0p. cit., p. 838.

2As indicated in Haupt's "Babylonian Elements in the
Levitic Ritual," JBL, XIX(1900), 58.

3Haupt, ibid.

4The Cultic Prophet in Ancient Israel (Cardiff: Univ.
of Wales Press Board, 1944), p. 9.

502. cit., p. 219.

59
That is, "lights and perfections" are close together in
thought, and what is needed, according to the usual view-
point, is a pair in contrast, so that one could have indicat-
ed the No and the other the Yes. However, it is thought by
the present writer to be a more logical procedure to keep the
"difficult" but more natural meanings and work from there.
Doing so, three significances appear. (a) Since the names are
not Opposites, the idea of a No and Yes for them should be
drOpped. Neither "lights" nor "perfections" gives any sug-
gestion of a negative reply. (b) What they do signify should
be established on the basis of their meanings elsewhere in
the Old Testament. "Light" regularly points to mental illu—

1 and "perfection" comes by derivation from the idea

mination,
of completeness and finality. Hence, "lights" could well
speak of the mental illumination received because of this
revelation medium, and "perfections" of its finality and ac-
curacy.2 (0) Since "lights" seems to have been the more ba-
sic Of the two terms,3 it may give the clue also as to how
these ObJects worked in the revelation; i.e. somehow in con-

nection with giving light, of which possibility more will be

seen presently.

 

10f. e.g;, Ps. 119:105; Isa. 9:2.

2Writes Oehler in his Theology Of the Old Testament,
ed. G. E. Day (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1883), p. 218,
“The term 'urim refers to the divine illumination, the
thummim to the unimpeachable correctness of the divine
decision."

 

3"Urim" is almost always given first, and sometimes
alone: Num. 27:21; I Sam. 28:6.

 

 

 

6O

2. ObJects in a pouch

Some have held that the Urim and Thummim ObJects were
fastened in some manner to the outside of the breastplate.
Quite often, in fact, they have been identified with the
twelve precious stones located there (Ex. 28:17-21).1 How;
ever, the following factors indicate they were placed in the
pouch formed by the breastplate. (a) They were distinct from
the breastplate. In Ex. 28, the breastplate is first des-
cribed, including the identification and location of the
twelve precious stones set in it (vss. 15—29), and then fol-
lows the adding to it in some manner the Urim and Thummim
(vs. 30). Also in Lev. 8:8, the same division is implied
when Aaron first puts the articles on. (b) In both of these
pertinent verses, the preposition used as to how the Urim and
Thummim were added to the breatplate is igg, meaning ”unto,"
not 12;; meaning "upon." The latter would be eXpected if
they were fastened outside; as is true, for instance, when
both the chains and the two attaching rings are thus indicat—
ed to have been fastened to the breastplate (Ex. 28:22-23; cf.
vss. 26—27). And (c) the breastplate seems to have been con-
structed in the form of such a pouch. Ex. 28:16 describes
it as "foursquare . . . and double." “Double" is the pas—
sive participle of kaphal meaning "to double." Since there

is no apparent need for added strength for this doubling, it

k

lSo Josephus and the Talmud, of. N. Isaacs, "Urim and
Thummim,“ ISBE, V, p. 3014.

61

is likely that it was to form such a pouch.

3. Two precious stones
The evidence suggests that these ObJects were precious

stones and that they were two in number.

a. They were not images

Some scholars have held that these ObJects were small
images. Evidence has been sought in a parallel with the
images which were hung around the neck of the mummy of the
Egyptian priest;1 and also from certain mentions regarding
"teraphim" in the Old Testament where these are associated
with an ephod.2 However, several factors militate strongly
against this viewpoint. (l) Israel's religion was aniconic;
images were forbidden.3 Archaeology has substantiated this
fact: G. E. Wright, for instance, stating, "No where can we
place our hands on a figure Of Yahweh among the excavated

"4 (2) Images would.have been too large

ruins in Palestine.
to fit easily into the breastplate pouch which measured only
nine inches square.5 For this reason it has been suggested

that they may have hung about the priest's neck, after the

1Referred to by Muss-Arnolt in the quotation given
above. Cf. E. Kautzsch, op. cit., for further description.

2Jud. 17:5; 18:14; Hos. 3:4; also according to Ezek.
21:21, the king of Babylon used teraphim for divination.

3For instance, in the Decalogue, Ex. 20:4.

u"How Did Early Israel Differ from Her Neighbors?" BA,
VI(FebO, 19LI'3), 160

5Teraphim evidently varied in size: I Sam. l9zl3~l6
indicates they were large; but Gen. 31:34 shows them small.

62
Egyptian usage; but it has already been observed that they
were placed in the pouch.1 And (3), respecting the teraphim
in particular, they are never cast in a favorable light in
the Old Testament,2 while the Urim and Thummim always are.

It is not likely, then, that the two were identical.

b. They were likely precious stones

The evidence is not conclusive, but it favors the idea
that the Urim and Thummim ObJects were precious stones. (1)
These ObJects had to be small enough to fit readily into the
pouch. (2) They must have held high intrinsic value to be in
keeping with their importance and also the ornate character
of the ephod and breastplate which held them. (3) The breast—
plate itself was set with precious stones, and so a common
motif would have been maintained. Likely the Urim and Thum-
mim would have been yet more valuable in size and kind. And
(4) the name Urim, "lights,” is in keeping, since precious
stones reflect light unusually, and so the physical charac-

ter would have matched the Spiritual meaning.

c. They were likely two in number
The evidence again is not conclusive, but it favors
the idea of two ObJects. (l) The small size of the pouch

argues for fewness in number. Two stones would have been

_.i

1To do this easily, as would have been necessary, even
the teraphim Rachel was able to hide in the chair (Gen. 31:
34) would probably not have been small enough.

2Even directly disapproved in I Sam. 15:23; and dir—
ectly outlawed by Josiah, II Kgs. 23:24.

Ab.»

 

a»;

 

63
enough to fit readily into a flat pouch only nine inches
square, for they must have had some size to them for ease of
handling by the priest. (2) The fact that two names were
used, of course, argues for two. And in the two key verses,
Ex. 28:30 and Lev. 8:8, both the article and sign of the dir—
ect obJect (lggh) are used with each name as if they were two
separate items. Both names are plural in form, but this is
commonly held to be due only to their importance. And (3),
as a rationale for having two ObJects, rather than one (when
both gave the same indication), two would have provided a
double signal for certainty, as well as an obJect for each

hand of the priest to hold.

4. Limited to employment by the high priegt

 

The use of the Urim and Thummim was limited, not only
to priests, but specifically to the high priest. (1) Two
passages particularly signify that it was limited at least
to the house of Levi: Deut. 33:8, where the principal aspect
in Levi's blessing concerns this fact; and I Sam. 2:28, where
God is said to have chosen the house of Eli's father "out of
all the tribes of Israel to be" His "priest, . . . to wear
an ephod before" Him. (2) Then Ex. 28:30 and Lev. 8:8 show
that it was limited to the high priest in that the garments
there described, as associated with it, are the high priest‘s
alone. (3) Further, in Num. 27:21, Joshua, newly coming to
leadership, is told to make a practice of consulting Eleazar,
then high priest, who would inquire for him by the Urim and

Thummim. Never does Joshua make such an inquiry for himself.

 

 

64
And (4), in every Old Testament passage where the person is
identified who employed the Urim and Thummim, he is the high
priest: Ahiah (probably same as Ahimelech), I Sam. 14; Ahime-

lech, I Sam. 22; Abiathar, I Sam. 23; and Abiathar, I Sam. 30.

5. To be used onlyg"before Yahweh"

The phrase, "before Yahweh," appears in certain of the
Urim and Thummim passages in a way to suggest particular
significance. For instance, Eleazar was to inquire "by the
Judgment of the Urim before Yahweh.“l (italics mine.) It is
safely conJectured that the reason for this insertion was
to divest the peOple of ever thinking that the high priest
himself was in any way self-sufficient in this revelation.
Yahweh did the revealing. As to what this meant practically
for the manner Of inquiry, a consideration of the instances
gives the answer. It is that this inquiry had to be made
only when the Ark of Yahweh was at hand; or, if that should
be impossible, then at least when the Divinely prescribed
ephod was present. The following observations bear this out.
(a) In the instance when the other tribes were to make war

2 they made inquiry of the Urim and Thummim as to

on BenJamin,
who should attack first; and, to do so, they went to where
"the ark of the covenant of God was," where Phinehas, the

high priest, "stood before it."3 It would, Of course, have

__

1Num. 27:21; of. Ex. 28:30 for two other instances.
2Jud. 20:18—27.

3The place to which they went is called Beth—e1, which

/
05

been more convenient for them simply to have called Phinehas

Cf

out to their battle area, bu they did not do this: they

went to him where the Ark was. (b) Following the Philistine

1 when it became no longer possible to

capture of the Ark,
inquire in this normal manner, it is significantly stated
each time, with one possible exception, that the high priest
was present with the ephod. And in the one exception the

2

likelihood of his presence is very strong. (0) The reason

why Zerubbabel could not at the time consult the Urim and
Thummim as to the qualification Of the unpedigreed priests,
following the return from captivity,3 was doubtless that the
Ark had not yet been established in the Temple about to be
built. The high priest, Jeshua, the son of Jozadak, was on

4

hand, and certainly he would have had an ephod; hence, it
must have concerned the Ark that Zerubbabel felt it necessary

to we t.

6. The method of communication

 

 

could be either the city, Bethel, or the "house of God,"
which would have meant Shiloh. If it was the city, Bethel,
then the Ark for some reason had been temporarily moved. It
makes little difference for the point here, for the peOple
went to wherever the Ark was.

1I Sam. 4. They seemingly destroyed Shiloh also.

21 Sam. 10:20-22, where the peOple had been called to
Hinah to inquire as to the identity of the new king. At
such an important time, it is likely that the high priest,
with the ephod, would have been on hand.

3Ezra 2:63 (Neh. 7:65). These returned priests some-
how had lost their credentials.

“Cf. Ezra 2:2; 3:2; 4:3; etc.

66
The last question here is also the most important:

what method was used by which it was believed Yahweh commun—
icated through these stones? The evidence favors the answer
that the stones were seen to glow with added light when an
affirmative reply was being given. It has been seen that
the name, Urim, meaning "lights," is in keeping with this
eXplanation, as is also the likelihood that these ObJects
were precious stones. Other factors also bear on the matter
and these must now be considered. The first two are nega—
tive in force and concern two functions for which the stones

did not have to be characterized.

a. Not a Yes and No respectively

It has been observed that likely the two stones did
not indicate a Yes and a NO respectively, in that the names,
Urim and Thummim, do not themselves carry such contrasting
meanings. It is necessary now to investigate this point a
little further, particularly in reference to I Sam. 14:41-42,
(for to this passage adherents of the Yes and NO idea repeat—
edly refer. The passage concerns the time when Jonathan was
identified as the one guilty of eating on the day when Saul
had forbidden it.

The first and more pertinent portion of the passage
reads, according to the massoretic text, "Therefore Saul

said unto Yahweh, the God of Israel, Show the right."1 Ad—

 

le. 41a. The two vss. continue: "And Jonathan and
Saul were taken, but the peOple escaped. And Saul said, let
cause to fall between me and Jonathan my son. And Jonathan
was taken."

67
herents of the View amend this text, however, and commonly
follow S. R. Driver's rendition,l which in turn is patterned
after the Septuagint.2 This rendition is: "Therefore Saul
said unto Yahweh, the God of Israel, If this fault be in me
or in Jonathan, my son, give Urim, and if it be in thy peo-
ple Israel, give Thummim." It is then pointed out that the
text, thus "restored" and much extended, depicts a drawing
of lots: one favorable from the king's viewpoint, and one un—
favorable; that is, Thummim (favorable) if the peOple are
guilty, and Urim (unfavorable) if he or Jonathan is. And so
it is argued that indeed the "lot" idea Of Yes or No was
practiced in the employment of the Urim and Thummim.

This argument hangs entirely on the change of the text,
however; and a change which is so extensive as to be subJect
to challenge. For the science of textual criticism has re-
peatedly shown the care with which the Old Testament was
transcribed. Occasionally a letter, and sometimes a word or
phrase, has been found impaired, but seldom an entire sen—
tence as here. Driver's Justification for it is based main-
ly on what he considers a difficult phrase in the massoretic
text, habah thamim, meaning literally, "give perfectly," or
as translated above, "Show the right." He says, thamim "is

'perfect,‘ i.e. in a physical sense, of an animal, unblem—

ished; in a moral sense, innocent, blameless,"3 and so is

_—

1Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of

Ehe Books of Samuel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), p. 117.

2Driver does not follows the Septuagint exactly either.

302. cit.

68
not applicable here. However, in this he does not take ac—
count Of such an instance as Job 36:4, where thamim means
"accurate“: "One that is perfect in knowledge." (italics
mine.) The context shows the thought to be in Opposition to
ufalse."l And using this sense in the phrase, the meaningful
idea presents itself that Saul was thus asking Yahweh to
"give accurately" in connection with this decision. There is
no difficulty with the phrase on this basis. Hence, Driver's
reason is removed for making this extensive change of text,
and that in turn takes away the evidential value of this pas-

sage for the respective Yes and No explanation.

b. NO descriptive message

The second negative point counters a suggestion from
quite a different quarter,2 namely that the Urim and Thummim
could bring descriptive messages of more than Yes or No con-
tent. However, evidence of two kinds does not favor this

idea.

1) The first is that none of the passages where it is used3

shows that it ever gave more than this limited type of com—

 

1The whole verse reads, "For truly my words are not
false: One that is perfect in knowledge is with thee.“ (ital—
ics mine.) For other meanings too, of. Lev. 23:15; 25:30;
Josh. 10:13; Jud. 9:16; II Sam. 22:31.

2For instance, Keil, Biblical Commentapy_on the Books
of Samuel, 329, p. 146; also C. Eerdmans, who quotesiKeil
favorably, The Books of Samuel, trans. & ed. C. H. Toy and
J. A. BroaduSWTChas. Scribnefrs Sons, 1877), p. 197.

 

 

 

3Listed, suppg, pp. 5l~55.

69
munication. The one which is nearest is I Sam. 10:22, where
the reply is: "Behold, he hath hid himself among the baggage."
The occasion concerned the location of the newly identified
king, Saul. However, even this much information could have
been given by the question method. A few questions would
have been needed to obtain the Yes reply, but the possible
alternatives of which to ask would not have been so many as
to make the inquiry impractical. Saul would have either left
the area entirely, or else been secluded near at hand; and
if the latter, then either among the peOple, or the "baggage,"

or some other such general category.

2) The other is that, at the same time as these invariably
brief, question-type communications were being employed, an—
other disclosure means was being used, Just as invariably,
for the descriptive type of message. This other means was
what may be Called the "direct contact" type. Moses experi-
enced it, as one reads so often, "And Yahweh said unto him."1
Joshua received it also; Josh. 1:1 stating, "Yahweh spake
unto Joshua, . . . saying," with the message then occupying

the next eight verses.2

The same was true of Gideon (Jud.
6:25) and with Samuel (I Sam. 3:11); also with the prOphets.
Always the same basic formula begins these sections, as "And

Yahweh said," and always some descriptive message is then

 

1Ex. 4:2,4,6,ll,14, etc.

2Other Joshua instances occur at 3:7; 4:1,15; 5:2; 6:2;
7:10; 8:1,18; 10:8; 11:6; 13:1; 20:1.

70
related. From this it follows that this "direct contact"
type of disclosure was the normal means for the longer, des—
criptive communications; wlich then leaves the Urim and Thum—

mim as having been limited to the brief type message.

0. Answers to questions

Having Observed the above two functions as not having
been a part to the Operation of the Urim and Thummim, it is
now in order to move on to note these which were. And, doing
so, itIMinappear that the ”light" explanation fully meets
the requirements for each.

The first to observe is that the Urim and Thummim had
to give answers to questions. Both Ex. 28:30 and Num. 27:21
speak of the communication as a mishnat, meaning "Judgment"
or "decision." And one type of such decision was this of
giving reply to direct questions. Illustration may be taken
from I Sam. 23:9—12, where David asks two such questions:
first, as to the possibility of Saul coming against him at
Keilah; and second, as to whether the Keilah inhabitants
would betray him. He also asks two in I Sam. 30:7-8: first,
as to whether he should pursue the invading Amalekites; and
second, as to whether he would be successful if he did. All
four questions receive the Yes. To such questions, of course,
only an affirmative indication would have been necessary to
give the answer. The No would have been implied so long as

the Yes was not indicated. Hence, a glowing of the stones

would have suited well for this aspect of inquiry.

71

d. Identifications

Another type of decision concerned identifications.
Some one tribe or some particular person had to be selected.
And here the "lijht" eXplanation not only meets the require-
ments, but it does so much better than the Yes or No idea.
The latter would have suited the need as well in the former
function, but not here. For in the identifications, a large
number of decisions had to be made, and mostly NO, as the
various identifies had to be refused until the right one was
presented. Tne instance of Achan's identification probably
was the most extreme. At that time there was need first to
pick the right tribe, then the right family, then the house-
hold, and finally the person.1 The Yes or No explanation
would have required a drawing of one of th stones for each
refusal of an identity as well as an approval. This would
have been highly impractical, if not impossible, in view of
the high He requirements. But on the "light" basis, the high
priest would merely have had to hold out the stones, having
drawn them from the pouch, while either the names were re—
peated, or the persons passed by, until the identifying

"light" was seen.

e. "No reply"
It has been observed that in I Sam. 14:37 and 28:6

Saul received no answer to his inquir of the Urim and Thum—

lOther identifications would have also required many
decisions: Jud. 20:18; I Sam. 10:21; I Sam. l4:41~42; and
also Jud. 1:1-2 where not only an identification but also a
direct question was involved.

72

mim, and that the Yes or No explanation has difficulty in
accounting for this possibility. H. H. Rowley's position
was shown to yield in "no reply" answers no less than half
of the time, and the idea of three stones in the pouch no
less than one-third of the time.1 Either would have been a
high percentage. However, again the "light" explanation has
no difficulty. For in such an instance, there would merely
have had to be no affirmation indicated to any question

asked.

f. Agreement with tradition

The "light" eXplanation also finds advantage in the
testimony of tradition. Tradition varies as to details, but
it revolves around the idea of glowing light. Josephus, for
instance, who identifies the Urim and Thummim with the pre-
cious stones of the breastplate, says that a “splendor shown
forth from them.“2 And the Talmud, arguing for a message
type of communication, states that certain letters from words
printed on the outside of the breastplate would glow to make
the signification.3 The several requirements noticed above
indicate the impossibility of both positions except for the
common kernel of glowing light. But, being thus common, it

could well be the historically true kernel from which both

 

lSupra, p. 57.

2Antiquities, III, viii, 9

 

3N. Isaacs cites this from Yoma 73 a,b, "Urim and Thum—
mim," ISBE, V, p. 3041.

73
grew. And with this kernel, of course, the "light" explana—

tion agrees very well.

7 . Summary

The evidence observed thus favors the view that the
Urim and Thummim was an inquiry means employing two precious
stones, bearing these names which meant "lights" and "perfec—
tions," signifying, respectively, "mental (and physical) il—
lumination,“ and "perfect accuracy." The stones were kept
in a pouch formed by the doubled, linen breastplate on the
front of the ephod. At the time of inquiry, the high priest,
who alone could thus officiate, took one stone in each hand
from the pouch and made both visible, probably to the inquir—
er as well as himself. When, and if, an increased light was
seen in them in response to the question, the Divine affir-
mation became known. The inquiry had to be made in the vicin—
ity of the Ark if at all possible, and at least with the em-
ployment of the ephod if not; this to insure the peOple's
realization that the anSWer indeed came from Yahweh.

This construction, of course, involves the idea of
miracle in connection with the glowing of the stones. Some
scholars hesitate in accepting a conclusion of this kind.
However, the evidence has led to it, and other alternative
explanations have been found incapable of meeting the re—
quirements. For this reason the present writer believes this

position warranted and necessary.1

 

1It should be observed in anticipation that miracle
will be found involved also in respect to the Divine disclo—

74
III. History of the Urim and Thummim
The second main question is now to be considered.
That concerns the place this priestly means of revelation
maintained in the history of Israel. Two aspects will be
treated: first, the place of this disclosure means in Israel;
and second, the duration of time in which it maintained that

place.
A. Place of the Urim and Thummim

1. An official means of revelatiqg

It has been pointed out that the Urim and Thummim was
limited as a disclosure means to a mere affirmation or im-
plied negation. Content messages were reserved for the "dir-
ect contact“ means. There was also limitation in that only
official matters were to be brought before it, not private
concerns. This is evidenced, for instance, by Ex. 28:30
where the high priest was to wear "the Judgment of the 2§$lr
dren of Israel upon his heart," (italics mine) not the Judg—

ment of individuals. Also, according to Num. 27:21, the af—

 

sure of the prophets, and occasionally also elsewhere. In
this connection enerally, the words of H. H. Rowley in his
Faith ofllsrael London: SCM Press, 1956), p. 58, seem well
taken: “If miracle be defined as divine activity within the
world, a belief in its possibility would seem to be funda—
mental to a belief in God. He cannot be excluded from the
world he has made, or reduced to the position of a spectator
on the interplay of forces which he had once set in motion.
. . . that there is a truly miraculous element in the story
I am fully persuaded. We have not merely the working out

of human impulses and the chance interplay of natural forces.
We have the activity of God in inspiration and revelation,
and the evidence of his presence in nature and history."

75

fairs of both Joshua "and all the children of Israel with
him, even all the congregation" were to be regulated thereby.
And then the examples of its employment invariably show a
group concern being settled, not something individual: a man
must be identified whose sin had caused the nation to suffer;
the tribe should be selected who should make an initial mili-
tary attack; the king mustknow who had.disobeyed in the army.

However, within these two limitations, the Urim and
Thummim was the officially recognized means of Divine disclo-
sure in Israel. Several factors so indicate. First, this
revelation means was alone established as such by the Mosaic
law. Prephecy, dreams, and the casting of lots were all re-
cognized there, but none were commanded or described; only
the Urim and Thummim. Second, this means was actually made
a part to the high priest's dress. In fact, it was made
central there in being located on the breast area, the most
conspicuous place. Third, the language of Ex. 28:30 implies
that the wearing of the Urim and Thummim in the breastplate
was indispensable to the high priest's acceptability before
Yahweh as he performed his duties. And fourth, Joshua was
specifically instructed, at his induction to office, that he
should regularly consult the high priest who would in turn
inquire of the Urim and Thummim. This last is highly signif-
icant for it would show that all official questions, within

the limitations observed, were to be decided in this manner.

2. Its actual use limited
From this official position held by the Urim and Thum—

76
mim, one could eXpect that it would have been used exten—
sively. However, the evidence shggests that it was somewhat
less than this. This evidence should be noted; then that
there was an apparent increase of use with David; and lastly
what the reason may have been why this employment was not as

great as one would eXpect.
a. Evidence of two kinds

1) One aspect of this evidence is that the number of record—
ed times of Urim and Thummim employment are very few. For
instance, from the conquest until Samuel, a period of over

1 only three occasions are cited.2 Of course,

300 years,
there is no reason to believe that every instance was re-
corded. In fact, probably the most were not, since minor de—
cisions would not have been thought sufficiently important.
Yet the fact remains that only three are reported in this
long period. One would think there would have been more in-
stances than this calling for mention had the Urim and Thum-
mim been used extensively.

2) A second aspect of evidence comes from a direct indication
that the Urim and Thummim inquiry was omitted in at least

one instance when it should have been made. That involved

the Gibeonite league, of which occasion it is stated that

the peOple "asked not counsel at the mouth of Yahweh."3 If

4__

1This is on the basis of the early date of the Exodus.

2Josh. 7:14—18 (Achan); Jud. 1:1—2 (Judah first to oc—
cupy their land); and Jud. 20:18 (Judah again first to at—
tack the Benjaminites).

3Josh. 9:14.

77
there was one such time, there likely were more. Indeed,
such an instance as when the peeple took the Ark into battle
without making inquiry is suggestive of the same type of de—

fault.l

b. An increase with David
However, there appears to have been an increase in the
use of the Urim and Thummim with David.“ Especially two pas-

sages so indicate.

1) I Sam. 22:10-l§,—This passage records the instance when
King Saul investigated Doeg's charge that Ahimelech, the

high priest, had aided the fleeing David; having, among other
things, "inquired of Yahweh for him." In reply, Ahimelech
says significantly, "Have I today pgggg to inquire of God for
him?" (italics mine.) In other words, this recent inquiry
had not at all been the first one. Thus, David had been con—

sulting Ahimelech rather often before this.

2) I Sam. 23:11-lg.—In this passage David appears first in
the forest of Haroth (22:5) in his continued flight from
Saul, and the prOphet, Gad, is with him (22:4). He learns
that the Philistines are Oppressing the peeple of Keilah and
so inquires of Yahweh whether he should help them. The an-

swer is that he should, and that he would be successful. He

11 Sam. 4:3-5. This action was contrary to the Hebrew
law. The peeple should have not even considered it, and, if
so, at least to have made inquiry first.

2The evidence here given concerns only David personally,
but he would have likely encouraged the same with others.

78
complies with the indication, and then while he is thus at
Keilah, Abiathar, the neW'high priest,1 arrives bearing the
ephod. At this point David learns that Saul plans to attack
him in Keilah and so again makes inquiry, but this time by
asking Abiathar to "bring higher the ephod." Apparently,
then, the first inquiry had been made through the prOphet,
Gad; but now that Abiathar was on hand with the ephod, he
changed to him that he might use the Urim and Thummim.
There is no reason to think either that Gad had left the
camp. Hence, David must have considered the Urim and Thum-
mim as the normal means for such inquiry, and so changed to

it in this instance as soon as it became available.

0. The reason for this lesser employment

A reason for this employment having been less than
one would eXpect is suggested by the tenor of the Book of
Judges. In brief it is that, following the death of the
strong leaders, Moses and Joshua, a religious declension set
in among the peOple. No one arose to replace them in lead—
ing the peeple on in faithfulness to Yahweh; and also most
of the peOple lived at some distance from the central sanctu-
ary and its influence. Even more, of course, there was the
powerful pull of Canaanite culture which urged allegiance to
Baal. The picture in the Book of Judges may be blacker than

the average situation of the time,2 but there is no question

 

lSaul had nOW'killed his father, I Sam. 22:16—20.

2The intention of the Book is to present this defec—
tion, and so stresses it; cf. infra, Chapter V, p. 165.

79
but what the peOple's sense of loyalty to Yahweh became
greatly reduced during these tribal years.

And that this included the area of ceremonial observ—
ance is indicated by the Micah story (Jud. l7 & 18), where
this man first made his own private sanctuary, then estab—
lished a wandering Levite as his private priest, and finally
saw both taken by migrating Danites. Then still worse, that
this spirit reached even to the central sanctuary is shown
by the sorry story of Hephni and Phinehas who were priests
there and perverted the sacrificial system to such an extent.1
Thus it follows that, if the Mosaic requirements were disre—
garded to this degree even at the Tabernacle, regulations as
to the Urim and Thummim could easily have been neglected as
well. It probably had been consulted with regularity while
Joshua lived,2 but then gradually less, as the declension
spirit grew, until finally it reached its lowest point with
these two degenerate priests. In this light too, it is under—
standable that there should have been renewed interest on
David's part. He is always portrayed as one faithful to
Yahweh, and so would have desired to make frequent use of

the official disclosure means set forth in Yahweh's law.

3. Relation to other revelational media

The Old Testament speaks of three other approved reve—

 

lI Sam. 2:12—17,22, where their conduct is called
"trampling" the sacrifices and offerings (2:29).

2Though it was during Joshua's time that the neglect
concerning the Gibeonites had occurred (Josh. 9:14).

80

lational media besides the Urim and Thummim: namely, "direct

contact," casting of lots, and dreams. None of these was

k.)

given the same standing by law as the Urim and Thummim, but
still each was used many times with approval. This gives

reason for making comparisons with the Urim and Thummim.

a. "Direct contact"

The "direct contact" form has already been discussed
in some part and will be considered at length in the follow~
ing chapter; and so need not be enlarged upon here. It em—
ployed no material instrument, such as with the Urim and
Thummim and the casting of lots; and it was used for the

longer, descriptive type of message.

b. Casting of lots
In casting of lots, Israel shared a means with many

other nations.1 Israelites used it throughout the old Tes—

1The Bible itself indicates this: for instance, regard—
ing Persians, Esther 3:7; 9:24; the heathen sailors, Jonah
1:7; and of. Obad. 11; Joel 3:3; Nah. 3:10; Matt. 27:35.
Homer even indicates the gods themselves cast lots, Iliada,
xxii, 209. Indeed, when scholars find parallels with Is-
rael's Urim and Thummim, what they really find are parallels
with the lot. Ezekiel (21:21) describes the king of Babylon
as employing arrows in divination, which was a form of lot
casting. A. B. Davidson comments on this reference with a
general description: "Then arrows (among the Arabs they were
pointless and unfeathered), inscribed with the names of
things between which a decision was sought from the god,
were cast into a vessel or bag; these were shaken and brought
before the god from whom the decision was sought; one was
then drawn, and the inscription it bore was the answer of
the god. . . . This method of divination by arrows was com—
mon among the Arabs (cf. Wellhausen, Skizsen, III, p. 127),
and apparently also in Chaldea (Lenormant, La Divination
chez les Chaldeens, ch. II. IV)"; The Book of the Prophet
Ezekiel (Cambridge: At the Univ. Press, 1892), p. 156.

 

 

(I)

1

tament time and even into thenew.l In that it was used so
generally elseWhere in the world, it is pertinent first to
ask whether this indeed was an approved means in Israel;
then to note the areas in which Israel employed it; and last

to observe its relation to the Urim and Thummim.

1) Approved means of revelation.~Two passages in particular
indicate approval for the casting of lots. Prov. 16:33
states, "The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole dis—
posing thereof is of Yahweh." In other words, Yahweh con—
trols the casting of lots. And In Josh. 18:6—10, Joshua
tells the peOple that he will cast lots "before Yahweh our
God" as to the respective land inheritances of each tribe.
He would not have spoken in this way if lot casting were not
approved. Then there are also the many instances, as shall
be seen next, where important matters were decided by lot,

and always in an approval atmosphere.

2) Types of decisions made by lot.—The following five points
give either an instance or a subject area in which the lot
was used: (a) the selection of the scapegoat on the Day of
Atonement (Lev. 16:8-10); (b) the division of the land among
the tribes and selection of the Levite cities (Num. 26:55—56;
33:54f; cf. Josh. 14:2; 15:1; 16:1; etc); (0) the division
of the priesthood into its 24 orders (I Chr. 24:5,7,31) in
David's reign; (d) the assignment of tasks to Levites (I Chr.

 

1The early church used it in the selection of Matthias
to replace Judas (Acts 1:26).

82
26:13—14; Neh. 10:34); and (e) the selection of those who
were to move to Jerusalemftmmioutlying areas in the time of

Nehemiah (Neh. 11:1).

3) Relation to the Urim and Thummim.—The relation in general
between the lot and the Urim and Thummim was that it was a
less formal means of revelation, with less safeguards in-
volved to insure it as Yahweh's decision, and so used normal—
1y for matters of lesser importance. The following observa-
tions lend evidence to this end or else provide further ex—
planation. (a) Whereas the employment of the Urim and Thum—
mim is regularly described as "making inquiry of Yahweh,"

the casting of lots never is. The indication regarding the
lot is only that it either was, or should be, cast.1 (b)
There is no indication that the lot had to be cast only "be—
fore Yahweh," i.e. where the Ark was, as with the Urim and
Thummim. It could be used more freely.2 (c) The lot could
be cast by other than the high priest, or even a regular
priest. For priests are never mentioned as required, other
than with the scapegoat on the Day of Atonement, which was
priestly in function for other reasons. And Neh. 11:1 clearly
states that "the rest of the peOple cast lots" as to who of

them should move to Jerusalem. (d) Whereas the Urim and

H

1The following verbs are used: tul, "to throw down";
shalak, "to cast or throw"; ygggh, "to cast"; ygggdh, "to
go down"; and na hal, "to fall."

2Though Joshua does speak of casting lots "before Yah—
weh" in one instance (Josh. 18:6—8), the context shows that
he had no reference to the presence of the Ark.

83
Thummim had two prescribed objects for manipulation, evident-
ly always the same, the lot casting did not, and probably
used different objects for different types of decisions.
For instance, a determination between only two alternatives
would not have required as complex a device as, for instance,
selecting what families should move to Jerusalem. For this
last, perhaps objects with names on them were drawn from a
receptacle. (6) The determination of relative importance
for different decisions is not easily objectified. The ob-
servation above that the lot was used normally for less im~
portant matters than the Urim and Thummim is based mainly
on the considerations just listed. However, it is not dif—
ficult to see that the choice between which of two goats
should die on the Day of Atonement, or which families should
move to Jerusalem is hardly as crucial as that regarding
which man should die for a sin against his nation,1 or who

was to be the new king over Israel.2

0. Dreams
According to I Sam. 28:6, dreams were considered legi—
timate as a disclosure means along with the Urim and Thum—

mim and the prOphets.3 Thus, here again the Israelites

 

lAches, Josh. 7:14—18.

2Saul, I Sam. 10:19—21.

3The text reads, "And when Saul enquired of Yahweh,
Yahweh answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor
by prOphets.” Two other passages are also pertinent. The
first is Deut. 13:1f where the peOple are warned against a
"dreamer of dreams" urging them to follow strange gods;

84
shared a means with other nations, for, as observed in the .
prior chapter, dreams were high on the divination list of
all the adjacent regions.
However, judging from the number of recorded instanc-
es when dreams were received by Israelites, this means was
seldom used. Only three peOple received them:1 Jacob,2

L:

Joseph,3 and Solomon. On the other hand, when Yahweh de-
sired to communicate with non~Israelites, this was the only
means He did employ; and several times: to Abimelech regard~
ing Sarah (Gen. 20:3—6); to Laban regarding Jacob (Gen. 40:
5-16); to Pharoah regarding the famine (Gen. 41:7-32); to
the Midianite regarding Gideon (Jud.7:13); and twice to
Nebuchadnezzar in the time of Daniel (Dan. 2 & 4). G. Vos
finds reason for this use of the dream with non—Israelites

in that, in this form of revelation, the unfit personality

of the heathen was "to some extent neutralized, and the mind

 

which is not a criticism of dreams as such, but only their
wrong employment. The other is Num. 12:6 where Yahweh says,
"If there be a prOphet among you, I Yahweh will make myself
known unto him in a vision, I will speak with him in a
dream." Here, of course, the dream is again put in a fav-
orable context.

1The reference, of course, is only to dreams which
were interpreted as revelation.

2Jacob received two dreams: one at Bethel (Gen. 28:12f),
and one while with Laban (Gen. 31:10—11).

3Joseph also received two: one concerning the bowing
sheaves (Gen. 37:5-7) and the other concerning the sun, moon,
and stars which made obeisance (Gen. 37:9—10); however,
these came close together.

“Solomon's dream concerned Yahweh's promise of wisdom,
riches, and honor (I Kgs. 3:5f).

 

‘I

‘u

85
was a mere receptacle of the message."1
In these respects, dreams contrasted, of course, with
the Urim and Thummim, which was used normally in Israel, and
never outside. There was contrast also in that dreams, like
the "direct contact" means, brought the longer, descriptive
type of message, whereas the Urim and Thummim gave only the

limited affirmation.

B. Duration of the Urim and Thummim
The question yet remains as to how long the employment
of the Urim and Thummim continued in Israel. The facts of
the matter should be observed first and then an accounting

for one unexpected feature.

1. The facts

Grouping the occasions of Urim and Thummim employment
in Israel's history, the following picture appears: no in—
stances before Joshua; one in his day (Josh. 7:14-18); two
in the Judges' period (Jud. 1:1«2; 20:18—23); one with Sam—
uel (I Sam. 10:20—21); two with Saul (I Sam. 14:37-42; 28:6);
three definite, with several implied, with David (I Sam. 22:
10—15; 23:9—12; 30:7—8); but none at all following David's
time until after the captivity.2 Following David'sday,

then, over five centuries elapsed with no mention of the

 

'lBiblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's
Pub. Co., 1948), p. 85.

2As noted, supra, p. 54, note 1, some scholars also
believe that II Sam. 2:1; 5:19,23f; and 21:1 are instances,
but reasons were there given for rejecting these. If they
should be included, they still would fall no later than
David's time.

I
Be

Urim and Thummim, which has caused many to believe that it
fell into complete neglect.

Without question it did suffer neglect, and it is this
fact for which an accounting must be given. However, this
neglect does not appear to have been complete in view of the
one mention following the captivity (Ezra 2:63). The situa—
tion then was that certain_priests had lost their creden—
tials. Zerubbabel ruled that they should not be instated
tofde.priestly rights until a Divine disclosure was re—
ceived. And the means he named for receiving such was the
Urim and Thummim. Haggai the prOphet must have been on hand
too, but Zerubbabel did not speak of him.1 The significance
seems obvious. Zerubbabel would not have thought thus read—
ily of the Urim and Thummim if it had fallen into complete
disuse during the prior years. It must, then, have continued
in some degree, though without mention. However, that it
did suffer considerable neglect is also apparent, and the

reason for it must now be considered.

2. Reason for the neglect

The reason most commonly cited for the decline of the
Urim and Thummim is that prOphecy came in to take its place.2
There is doubtless some truth in this. For certainly with

the ministry of Elijah and Elisha, and then of the great

 

1He was older than Zechariah. Both urged the peeple
to resume building the Temple in 520 B.C., the second year
of Darius (Hag. 1:1; Zech. 1:1), which was only some 16 or
17 years after this.

20f. A. Kennedy, "Urim and Thummim," pg, Iv, p. 840.

()1

87
eighth and seventh century prOphets, there was a strong im—
pact upon Israel. Consequently, the attention of the people
would have been drawn to these spokesmen for Yahweh, and so,
at least in some measure, away from the priests. They could
thus have come to depend more on them for Divine communica—
tion and less on the priestly Urim and Thummim.

However, there are certain factors for which this ex-
planation does not account. For one thing, there were pro—
phets too before the decline set in, and they were also im-
portant individuals. Moses acted as a prOphet.l Joshua is
not so called, but he often acted in this capacity.2 Samuel
of course was an outstanding prOphet. And in David's day,
when the Urim and Thummim was used the most, there were the
two prominent prOphets, Nathan and Gad. And, as will be
pointed out more in chapter VI, these were likely only the
better known of a rather large group during these years.
Hence, if the Urim and Thummim existed during their ministry,
why should it have suffered so much more when the later pro—
phets appeared? They were, on the average, greater personal—
ities, but hardly so much so as to account alone for this
marked change in the Urim and Thummim employment.

A second factor is that the decline set in too soon
for the later prophets to have been solely responsible for

it. The mentions cease with David, and it was more than a

 

lDent. 18:5.

2Joshua received numerous communications from Yahweh,
and often relayed them to the peOple: 3:7f; uzlf; #:le; etc.

88
century yet until Elijah, and another until Amos.l Thus,
these great prOphets could not at least have started the de-
cline.

And a third factor is that the prOphetic function did
not carry the intention of replacing the priestly activity;
nor the prOphetic Divine disclosure, the Urim and Thummim.
This fact has already been noted in some part, and will be
more later on. The prOphets were basically reformers, seek-
ing to bring peOple back to what they should have already
learned from the priests; and their ”direct contact" means
of revelation only continued what had paralleled the Urim
and Thummim from the first. Both means had been necessary
before; both should have continued to be with the later pro—
phets. Thus, there was no real reason for the peOple chang—
ing to the prOphets, and so away from the Urim and Thummim,
Just because these prOphets now became better known and car—
ried greater impact in their message.

Consequently, there must have been some other reason
beside this for the marked Urim and Thummim decline. And
that reason was the increasing disloyalty to Yahweh on the
part of the people. This disloyalty, indeed, had called
for the prOphets themselves and motivated their messages.
The peOple were quite unique in the world for this unfaith-

fulness to their God,2 but that they certainly were is be—

 

;David died about 971 B.C. and Elijah about 852 B.C.
Amos began his ministry around 770 B.C.

2Ueremiah has a significant statement to that end: "For
pass over the isles of Kittim, and see: and send unto Kedar,

89
yond all doubt. The prOphets preached in view of this sin,
and warned of its consequences continually.

This same lawless spirit is what had led to Urim and
Thummim neglect already in the Judges period, as has been
observed. When the peOple, and even the priests themselves,
lost interest in their God, a concomitant loss of interest
in what He might reveal followed naturally. With David, in—
terest revived. David loved Yahweh and held the law in high
esteem.1 Accordingly, he made frequent use of the Urim and
Thummim. But with Solomon, it was again declension that set
in. And followingifllncame the kingdom separation, with the
northern nation even establishing a substitute worship. Oc—
casional resurges of Yahweh loyalty came to the southern
division, but also there serious defection was more the rule.
Josiah‘s reforms brought to light the most flagrant viola-
tions: Baal vessels, an Asherah pole, sacred prostitutes!

And the prophets tell us that the priests themselves were
leaders in it all.

The situation was probably this, then. In times of re—

vival,2

the Urim and Thummim was employed in varying de—
grees of frequency. But with the times of defection, it was
again set aside, as indeed were other prescribed, but more

peripheral, ceremonial functions. The revivals came often

 

and consider diligently; . . . Hath a nation changed its
gods, which yet are not gods?" (2:lO,ll)

le. his psalm 19:7-10.

2As with Asa and Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and Josiah.

9O

enough to keep the memory of the Urim and Thummim alive; and
the last one helpfully appeared shortly before the captivity
with Josiah. Then, during the captivity, and so until the
return under Zerubbabel when the last notice appears, the se~
rious reflection of the peOple served to maintain it. And

so a knowledge of it was kept alive for those returning to
the land. Accordingly, Zerubbabel, in his desire to please
Yahweh, naturally turned to it as the proper means of inquiry

following the return.

Chapter IV
THE PROPHET AND THE DIVINE DISCLOSURE

The interest now turns to the prOphets and their means
of Divine disclosure. This means has already been described
in general terms as a "direct contact" type, but it is nec-

essary to give a closer examination.

1. Meaning of "to PrOphesy"

The first item which needs to be determined concerns
the meaning of “to prOphesy." More than one word is used
in the Old Testament for the idea, and not always in the
same way. Thus, it is well to begin by considering the

meaning of the three words used.

A. The Terms, ro'eh, hozeh, and nabi'

 

l. Meaning_of ro'eh and hozeh

The name, gabiL, is much the more important, being
used in the Old Testament nearly 300 times in its noun form
alone. In contrast, ggigg is used only 12 times, and hgggh,
only 18. But these last two also make their contribution to
the total picture, and so must be studied as well.

Both of them mean the same thing; namely, "seer.“l And

 

1Their roots are respectively ra‘ah and hazah, both
meaning "to see."

91

92
the question quickly rises as to why, then, both names
should have been used. M. Jastrow suggests that the ggigh
may have been a "seer" for anyone, while the hggghiwas "more
specifically the official diviner of the court."1 There may
be some truth to this, but a more basic distinction may be
found in respect to the period of time in which each was used.
For both have their respective periods of pOpularity: gpi§h_
in the time of Samuel, with eight of the twelve occurrences
coming then;2 and hgggh in the day of David, with five of the
eight persons so designated living in his time.3 Both appear
occasionally otherwise, but with nothing like the concentra—
tion that comes at these two periods.
A note in I Sam. 9:9 regarding qugh also lends evi—
dence in this regard. The verse reads,
Before time in Israel, when a man went to inquire of
God, thus he said, Come, and let us go to the seer;
for he that is now called a PrOphet was beforetime

called a Seer.

The exact meaning of this verse has been cause for contro—

 

1"Ro'eh and Hozeh in the Old Testament," JBL, XXVIII
(1909). 52.

2A11 eight are applied to Samuel himself. After him
Zadok is once so called (II Sam. 15:27). Hanani twice (II
Chr. 16:7,10, Asa's reign), and once used generally (Isa.
30:10).

3Gad (II Sam. 24:11), sons of Heman (I Chr. 25:5), He—
man himself and Jeduthan (II Chr. 35:15), and Asaph (II Chr.
29:30). Later Iddo (II Chr. 12:15, Rehoboam's reign),
Hanani (II Chr. 19:2, Asa's reign) and Amos (Am. 7:12) also
receive the term. Johannes Pedersen speaks similarly of
a time distinction for the two words, in his Israel, Its
Life and Culture (London: Oxford Univ. Press, l926—h0),
I-II, p. 111.

 

 

93
versy, but its indication that the name seer (gqigh), came
to die out is very clear.1 The time involved here is that
of Samuel which fits this explanation exactly.

And in keeping yet further is the fact that at least
one person is called by both names: Hanani, during the reign
of Asa.2 This would be difficult to understand on the basis
of a difference in meaning, such as suggested by Jastrow; but
not if the difference pertained rather to periods of pOpular—
ity, for then sufficient overlapping in usage could nicely
account for this type of duplication.

A word is also in order here as to an alleged relation—

ship between the ro'eh—hozah and the Babylonian baru. The

 

Eggg, as was shown in chapter II, was also by etymology a
“seer." M. Jastrow, who along with Haldar believes that the
Israelite ro'eh—hozeh was basically the same in function as
the Eggg, holds that the "seeing" of the Israelite represen—
tatives must have been originally the same as that of the
Raga: namely, of inspecting "something with a view of ob—

taining an answer to a given question."3 For this position,

 

1Some have sought evidence in this verse for a marked
distinction between the nabi' and the ro'eh—hozeh, e.g.
A. Johnson, The Cultic PrOphet in Ancient Israel (Cardiff:
Univ. of Wales Press Board, 19Eh), p. 313. But Rowley re-
marks, The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on the Old
Testament (London: Lutterworth Press, 1952), p. 99, "In any
case the text could not of itself establish that originally
the seer and the nabhi were two distinct types." And J.
Pedersen comments, Op. cit., that the text is only the "sign
of an altered usus loquendi.“

 

20alled a ro'eh in II Chr. 16:7, and a hozeh in II
Chr. 19:2. Rowley also mentions this point, op. cit.

30p. cit., pp. 46—47.

 

(I:

94
however, there is no evidence in the Old Testament outside
of the similarity of names. On the contrary, in the in—
stance of Saul and his servant coming to ask Samuel as to
the lost asses,l Samuel not only did not consult any physi—
cal instrument, but he is said to have received his informa—
tion regarding Saul directly from Yahweh.2 Hence, the term,
seer, did not connote divination inspection. Rather, its
employment depicts the idea of mental discernment. The men
so named were considered discerners of Yahweh's will, who
then could relay that information to peOple.

t is worthy of note too that high respect was accord—
ed these individuals. Thinking again of Saul's inquiry of
Samuel, Saul hesitated from going to him for the leek of a
gift to bring, wIich suggests respect on his part. And when
Saul later returned home, his uncle, learning where he had
been, quickly said, ”Tell me, I pray thee, what Samuel said
unto you" (I Sam. 10:15). There was urgency on his part too.
One factor so indicating is the employment of the emphatic
imperative to express "Tell me"; and another, the additional
use of the enclitic particle for stress, "I pray thee."
Since Saul had not related the nature of Samuel's communica—

tion, it could not have been this which caused this interest.

Thus, it must be ascribed solely to a general curiosity in

C3

 

lI Sam. 9. This is the main instance in chich those,
who believe the nabi‘ and ro'eh differed basically in func—
tion, find evidence for typical ro'eh activity.

2Vss. 15 and 17.

whatever such a seer said.

2. Meaning_of nabiL

Mgbil, as observed, is used much more than both ggigh
and.hgg§h.combined. It occurs throughout the Old Testament,
and also supplies the verb by which the activity of prOphets
was designated.

This importance is commensurate with the effort that
has been eXpended to discover its etymology. Gesenius finds
it in naba', meaning "to cause to buble up."1 He sees this
concept in keeping with the ecstatic behavior which he be-
lieves characterized the prOphets. A. Johnson says it should
be linked to the Accadian £322: meaning in its active sense,
"to speak," thus giving the idea of "speaker."2 Albright
thinks this word is right, but takes its passive sense of
"one Spoken to" or "called," thus stressing the person's
call to service.3 Others have made the relation to the Ara-
bic naba'a, meaning "to announce," or to the Assyrian god,
Nebo, who is then thought of as speaker, or even the Hebrew
root, 291, meaning "to come" or "to enter in."u

It thus becomes apparent that etymology alone is not

conclusive here. But arguing from the basic function of the

 

1Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, trans. Tregelles, p. 525.
2

 

02. Cit. ’ p. 24.

3From the Stone Age to Christianity (2d ed.; Balti—
more: Johns H0pkins Press, 1946), p. 231.

 

”Cf. Rowley, op. cit., p. 97; also G. Vos, Biblical
Theology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1958), pp.
20 "2 00

96
prOphet, as shall be indicated presently, the idea of "speak—
er" should be favored.

No real distinction in office need be made between the
ro'ehrhozgh and the EEElL- Many have done so seeing the for—
mer as non—ecstatic diviners, the latter as frenzied ecsta—
tics; the former as working alone, the latter in groups; the
former as waiting for consultations, and the latter as speak-
ing readily wherever Opportunity camefl But "all these neat
divisions break down," says Rowley, when the passages are

studied.2

One way he shows this is by noting that some per—
sons are even called by both names, Q3211 and hgggh, includ—
ing the important representatives, Gad, Iddo, and eSpecially
Amos.3

These distinctions are also based on insufficient evi-

dence. Regarding the ro'eh-hozeh using divination, evidence

 

has already been found lacking. Respecting the contrast of
working alone or in groups, the argument rests mainly on the
groups of prOphets of Samuel's day as over against himself
who was alone when consulted by Saul. However, it is clearly

stated that Samuel was himself the head of these groups

 

1For instance, T. H. Robinson, PrOphecy and the Pro—
hets (New York: Chas. Scribner's Sons, 1923), pp. 28—29;
also M. Jastrow, 0p. cit., p. 56.

2The Re—discovery of the Old Testament (Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1936), p. 137.

3sad (I Sam. 22:5; II Sam. 24:11; I Chr. 21:9; 21:29;
II Chr. 29:25); Iddo (II Chr. 13:22; 9:29; 12:15); Amos is
called hozeh (7:12); and Jehu, the son of Hanani, who is
himself called both a ro'eh and a hozeh, is called a nabi'.

97
(I Sam. 19:20), and thus in so far identified with them. In—
deed, he is himself called a g3§ii_(I Sam. 3:20). Then re—
garding the third contrast of the gglgh waiting for consul-
tation and the EE321.999: this thought is taken again from
Samuel being consulted by Saul But elsewhere it is stated
that Samuel also moved about in his work; for instance, lead—
ing in the Mizpah revival (I Sam. 7:1—14); making a regular
circuit (I Sam. 7:15—17); anointing and later counselling
Saul (I Sam. 10:1,20—25; 13lef; 15:1f; etc.); anointing
David (I Sam. 16:1—13); etc.

B. Speaker for God

C

The inquiry thus far had been basic as to the meaning
of "to prOphecy," but it is more important to see how the
concept was used. Several areas of evidence show the prin—
cipal idea involved was that of being a speaker for God.

D

First, one of the most significant indications is found

T '|

in Ex. 7:1. he oackground to the mention there comes in Ex.
4:1-16, where Moses has objected to God's call to return to
Egypt, claiming, among other things, incapability of speech.
To this God has answered that He would provide Aaron to Speak
in his place, even being a mouth for Moses. And then in 7:1,

God speaks of Aaron, in this capacity, as Moses‘ nabi'. Thus,

1
a nabi' was one who spoke in the place of another.‘

 

1N. K. Gottwald, in his A_Li:ht to the Nations (New
York: Harper & Bros., 1959), p. 277, after commenting on this
verse, concludes, "The pith of Hebrew prOphecy is not predic—
tion or social reform but the declaration of divine will."

 

g

\0

Second, Deut. 18:15—22 carries significance. Here,
Moses has Just promised that God would raise up for the peo-
ple a prOphet like unto himself. And in vs. 18, Yahweh adds
that He will put His words in this prOphet's mouth so that
he would "speak unto them all that" He, Yahweh, would command
him. Thus, his task clearly was to be God‘s spokesman.
Third, indication is found also in the nature of the
assignment given to the prOphets at the time of their call.
Isaiah was instructed to “Go, and tell this pecple" (Isa.
6:9). God told Jeremiah to "Go to all that I shall send
thee, and whatsoever I command thee thou shalt Speak" (Jer.
1:7). And to Ezekiel the command was, "I send thee unto
them; and thou shalt say unto them" (Ezek. 2:3—h). Each,
thus, was commissioned to speak God's message.
Fourth, the well—known text in Amos (7:12—16) is highly
pertinent. Amos is at Bethel, speaking against the false
worship there and against the king, Jeroboam II. Amaziah,
the Bethel priest, rebukes the prOphet, saying,
0 thou seer, go, flee thou away into the land of Judah,
and there eat bread, and prOphesy there: but prOphesy
not again any more at Beth~el: for it is the king's
sanctuary, and it is a royal house.

To this Amos replies,
I was no prOphet, neither was I a prOphet's son; but I
was a herdsman, and a dresser of sycamoreutrees: And
Yahweh took me from following the flock, and Yahweh said
unto me, Go, prOphesy unto my pecple Israel.

The point concerns the significant usage here of the

Verb, prOphesy. Amaziah urges Amos not to "prOphesy" any

more at Bethel, but to do so in Judah; and Amos in turn says

 

l

99

that Yahweh had sent him to Israel to "prOphesy." Thus,
what he had been doing before, and which motivated Amaziah's
rebuke, was prOphesying. And what this had been, of course,
was simply Speaking God's message.l

And fifth, it is of real significance too that when—
ever prophets are depicted, either being given assignments,
or else in action carrying them out, the thought is always

centered in speaking God's message.

C. Three Minor Meanings for 232$:

The principal idea in the concept, ggbll, is thus es-
tablished. And the great bulk of its occurrences in the Old
Testament are in this vein. However, there are a few occa-
sions when it carries other connotations, and these too must
be examined. Two of the connotations seem well established,
while one (the second to be noticed) appears less so. All
three will be considered and then a summation of significance

given.

1. Ecstatic ravipg

 

The first is that of ecstatic raving, where self con—

 

1The question has long been debated whether Amos here
:as saying that he had not been in the past a prOphet, but
now was in that God had recently called him; or whether he
was disclaiming all connection with prOphets, either past of
present. The latter vieWpoint normally holds also to the
idea of ecstaticism among the professional prOphets of the
day, and that it was this especially to which Amos was ob—
Jecting. Cf. J. M. P. Smith, The PrOphets and Their Times
(2d ed. rev. W. Irwin; Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press,
1945), p. l; or H. Knight, The Hebrew Prophetic Conscious-
ness (London: Lutterworth Press, l9h7), p. 70. The present
writer agrees with the first position. However, for the
point here, this difference really has no bearing.

100
trol is all but lost. Two occasions indicate this connota—
tion. The first involves the initial time that Saul became
angry at David (I Sam. 18:10). In this anger, in which he
threw a Javelin at David, it is stated that Saul "prophesied
(yithnabbe') in the midst of the house." No message from
God was concerned. Hence, the meaning must be in reference
only to the angry raving at the young attendant. The other
occasion concerns the frenzied activity of the Baal prOphets
on Mt. Carmel (I Kgs. 18:29). This activity had involved
leaping, loud crying, and even the cutting of their own bod—
ies. And they are said thus to have "prOphesied" (yithnab-
pglp) until the offering of the evening sacrifice.

One other occasion (I Kgs. 22:10~12) has also been in—
cluded in this category by some. It was when Ahab's 400
prophets are said to have "prOphesied" (mithnabbe'im) before
Ahab and his guest, Jehoshaphat. This may have been by the
same type of ecstatic behavior, but there is one marked dif-
ference from the instance of the Baal prOphets. That is
that a message was given in this instance. Thus, the mean—
ing may be merely that all were in some way involved in con—

veying this word.

2. Mental abnormalpy_
The second, variant connotation concerns mental ab—
normalcy. Three instances occur which show that at least to

some pecple, the conzept, nabi', could include the thought

 

of one who is mentally unbalanced (meshuggai). It is well

101
here first to cite the instances and then make a judgment as
to their significanccs, for the evidence this time is not so

clear.

a. The instances cited

The first regards a young prOphet whom Elisha sent to
anoint Jehu as king of Israel (II Kgs. 9:1—12). After he
had performed the mission and departed, one of the men pre—
sent asked Jehu, "Is all well? Wherefore came this mad (Egg
shugga') fellow to thee?" The young prOphet's actions had
been proper for the occasion, and so this "mad" characteri-
zation can hardly have been other than something this man
customarily assigned to prOphets. And that he had recognized
the man as a prOphet is suggested by vs. 11.

The second appears when Jeremiah (29:26) quotes a cer-
tain Shemaiah, then in Babylon, as having used the parallel
phrases in a letter to Jerusalem: "Every man that is mad
(meshugga'), and maketh himself a prOphet," thus equating
such a mad man with a prOphet.

And the third is seen as Hosea (9:7), again in paral—
lism, characterizes a point in Israel's thinking: "The pro-
phet is a fool, the man that hath the spirit is mad (meshug—
.g§_)." The context shows that this was Israel's thinking in
her iniquitous state, but, in that state, she did think of

prOphets as fools and madmen.

b. Significance of these instances

It is necessary to make an evaluation regarding the

102
significance of"these instances, for it is not nearly so
conclusive as with those of the other two connotations.
Scholars regularly appeal also to these,1 but they may indi—
cate nothing more than that certain persons, Opposed to pro—
phets, were given to characterizing them derogatorily as men-
tally unbalanced. Three observations give evidence to this
end.

The first is that none of these instances indicates
definitely that the word, ggpiL, itself meant "mad." Each
can well be taken otherwise as only the employment of an epi-
thet. The second is that in each instance the atmosphere is
one of derision, in which such an uncomplimentary epithet
might be eXpected. And the third is that, at least in the
last instance, the characterization is clearly unapproved
by the writer, and the same could easily have been true for

the other two had they lent themselves to such an indication.

3. Praise to Yahweh

 

The third, variant connotation concerns praise to Yah—
weh. Three passages are again involved, all of which have

been used often as evidence of ecstaticism among Israel's
prophets,2 The position to be set forth here, however, is
that they rather depict instances of praise-giving to Yahweh,
which is still a variation, of course, from "speaking" for

Him. Due to their importance, it is necessary to discuss

 

1For instance, J. Pedersen, Israel, Its Life and Cul—
ture (London: Oxford Univ. Press, 19261h077'IBII, p. 111.

2For instance, Gottwald, op. cit., pp. 254—55.

103
them at some length. The instances will first be cited;
then the arguments for ecstaticism will be reviewed; third,
the argumentation will be refuted; and finally positive ar—
guments against ecstaticism and for the "pcaise" eXplanation
will be presented. None of the instances involve a spoken

message of any kind.

a. The three instances

The first instance (Num. 11:25-29) concerns the "pro~
phesying“ of the seventy in the wilderness. Moses had Just
appointed this group to assist him in administrative duties
(vss. 16—17), and Yahweh had then taken "of the Spirit that
was upon" Moses and placed it upon these seventy, ostensibly
to enable them for the new work. Then, "when the Spirit

rested upon them, they prOphesied (yithnabbe'u)." Two of

 

their number, Eldad and Medad, continued thus to prophesy
longer than the others, which brought a complaint to Moses,
but Moses rebuked the complainer saying he wished all the
pecple were also prOphets.

The second instance (I Sam. 10:1—13) concerns a simi-
lar; prOphesying by Saul following Samuel's indication to him
that he would be Israel's new king. Samuel also told him
what would occur to him on his homeward Journey. Among other
things, he would meet a “band of prOphets" coming down from
"the high place with" a number of musical instruments, and

they would "prOphesy (mithnabbe'im)"; also that "the Spirit

 

of Yahweh" would then "come mightily upon" him so that he

104

would also prOphesy (hithnabbitha) with them, and be "turned

 

into another man." These events occurred as predicted.

The third instance (I Sam. 19:18-24) also concerns
prOphesying by Saul. He had sent three different groups of
messengers to bring David who was visiting Samuel at Ramah.l
All three times the messengers had met Samuel standing head
over a group of prOphets, who were prOphesying, and the re—
sult was that the messengers did likewise. Finally Saul
himself went. While yet on the way, the "Spirit of God came
upon him also" and he "prOphesied (yithnabbe')." Later, he
"stripped off his clothes" and "lay down naked all that day
and all that night."

b. Arguments for ecstaticism

Many scholars hold that the prOphesying portrayed in
these instances was a frenzied, ecstatic, demonstration sim-
ilar to that among the Canaanites.2 Their argumentation to

that end may be divided into five points.3

1) The first is an a priori argument: namely, that in view

 

1The text says that they were at "Naioth in Ramah.“
Naioth means "dwelling," and so, since the group of prOphets
was also there, it is likely that this was the dwelling of
the school over which Samuel was head.

20f. H. Knight, op. cit., pp. 80~81; c. T. Francisco,
Introducing the Old Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press,
1950), pp. 85~86; John Bright History of Israel (Philadel-
phia: Westminster Press, 1959), p. 166; H. Rowley, The Faith
of Israel (London: SCM Press, 1956), pp. 37-39; A. C. Welch,
Kings and Prophets of Israel (London: Lutterworth Press,
1952), p. 70.

3This five-fold division of the argumentation is that
of the pesent writer.

 

105
of the probability of Canaanite influence in this respect,
in view of the ideas, "raving" and "madness," being associat—
ed with the concept, ggpgl, in the passages already consid—
ered, and in view of the fact that these instances did not
involve any spoken message, this prOphesying could only be
expected to have been ecstatic in type, eSpecially at this

comparatively early stage in Israel‘s history.

2) The second concerns the fact that in one of the instances
the prOphesying group was coming down from a "high place
(bgggh)” (I Sam. 10:1-13). Such high places were themselves
Canaanite in origin, and so the type of persons associated

with them could well have been characterized similarly.

3) The third relates to the fact that persons of this same
group were playing musical instruments. Since music was a
common means in other countries by which to induce the ecsta—

tic state, it likely was being used to that same end here.

4) The fourth concerns the statement that Saul was "turned

into another man." This would suggest loss of self—control
which normally accompanied ecstaticism. This would fit also
the apparent surprise on the part of those looking on, when

they said, "What is this that is come unto the son of Kish?"

5) And the fifth relates to Saul's lying naked all day and
all night following the second instance of his prOphesying.
This action suggests stupor on his part which again fits the

idea of lost self—control in ecstasy.

c. Refutation

The observations that follow are designed either to
show fallacy in the above arguments, or to account for the
factors upon which they are based in a manner deemed more
plausible. Each argument will be treated separately and in

the same order.

1) Regarding the a priori argument, a remark is called for
relative to each of the three points made. As to the proba—
bility of Canaanite influence, it was shown in chapter II
that such did exist unofficially among the pecple, but did
not cause any appreciable change in the official law, and
that accordingly any results of this influence are never ap-
proved in the sacred writings. Thus, in that all three of
these occasions are reported in an approval atmosphere, it

is not likely that the actions described were considered the
product of this influence. As to the bearing of the "raving"
and "madness" ideas, the latter has already been shown to be
weak as a source of evidence, and the former will be evaluat—
ed a little later. And as to the absence of a spoken mes—
sage, this may be accounted for on the basis that the action

involved was that of "praising" Yahweh, as shall be shown.

2) Regarding the "high places" argument, it is true that high
places came into Israel as a result of Canaanite influence,
and accordingly they are always disapproved; that is, always
except for one period of time. That was the period follow;

ing the loss of the Shiloh sanctuary until the building of

107
the Jerusalem Temple by Solomon, during which there was no
"official" place of worship.1 It is of course in this very
period when this incident occurred. Consequently, that pro—
phets were coming down from such a high place at this time
does not necessarily imply that they were Canaanite in type.
Samuel was certainly not a Canaanite—type prOphet, and he,

during this period, went up to such a high place to offer

sacrifice (I Sam. 9:19).

3) In respect to the "music" argument, it is true that music
was used in other countries to induce ecstasy, but, as Martin
Buber points out, ecstasy
is not stirred up in a pecple of early culture by such
acts as these, but by an enthusiastic singing of mono-
tonous songs. Truly such singing is ecstatic, but it is
also bound up with a strict rhythm and ig accompanied by
rhythmical movements of all its members.
And this requires prOper mental attitude on the part of sym—
pathetic participants. There is nothing to suggest this was
true of these few prOphets coming down from the high place
playing instruments, and it is indeed out of keeping for

Saul who had not been among them until this moment of meet-

ing.

4) In regard to the argument that Saul was turned into an—

other man, two matters are pertinent. First, Samuel pre-

w

le. infra, chapter V, pp» 188—69.

2The Prophetic Faith, trans. Carlyle Witton—Davies
(New York: Macmillan Co., 1949), p. 63. Buber here is arg —
ing that "nebiism came from the movement of faith, . . .
which demanded a militant devotion to YHWH God of Israel,"
and so not as a product of Canaanite influence.

108
dicted this change for Saul; and, in doing so, he implied
approval which would be out of character for Samuel if he
meant thereby a loss of self—control as in Canaanite ecsta-
ticism. Samuel's message otherwise always centered in resist-
ance to Canaanite influence. And second, it is logical to
connect this change for Saul with the similar notice in vs.
9 that "God gave him another heart." But this notice in no
way suggests any such loss of control. Rather, "a new heart"
speaks of a new attitude, a new intellectual and emotional
outlook. And this meaning fits very well into the story as
a whole. Saul had been hesitant about going to see Samuel
at the first, thus suggesting lack in self—confidence. But
now Samuel has Just anointed him for the kingship. Here was
a great challenge for a young man. What could excite more?
And if he was to become a good leader, there was indeed need
for a new outlook, greater confidence, a more aggressive at—
titude, and Just now a keen interest in these signs predicted

by Samuel.

5) As to the last argument involving Saul's lying disrobed
for several hours, this must indicate a lack of self—control
on his part. No normal person would act in this way. How;
ever, two factors show that even so this was not the result
of self—induced ecstasy. The first is that he alone, of all
who prOphesied here, did this. None of Samuel's group so
acted, nor any of the messengers whom Saul had sent ahead of

himself. Yet these all prOphesied and all stripped off their

109

clothes.l Thus, if this prOphesying was a self-induced ec-
stasy for all, why did not all lie down in the same continued
stupor? And the second factor is that Saul again had had no
Opportunity for preparation for such induced ecstasy. In—
deed, it is stated that he began to prOphesy even before he
arrived where the others were (vs. 23), and certainly he was
a most unsympathetic subJect when he had come in disgust,
having previously sent three fruitless groups of messengers.

In this light, it is better to explain this incident
in terms of melancholy and despair. It is clear that he was
given to these emotional moods. And he had.for some time
been especially disturbed relative to David and his pepular~
ity with the people. He had Just been ineffective too in
procuring efficient service from subordinates in bringing
David to him. And now, most of all, he had found David in
the approving company of Samuel himself, which spelled his
own reJection again in the clearest terms. All of this, cou-
pled with the additional emotional surge of the Spirit of

2

God having Just come upon him to prOphesy, could have

brought upon him both exhaustion and despair of overpowering

measure.

1That all so disrobed is made clear in vs. 24 by the
element gag hal, "also he," usediXIreference to Saul doing
what the others had done. This disrobing probably did not
involve complete nudity. In such prOphesying activity, like-
ly ease of movement was desirable which could have been
achieved by removing the cumbersome outer robe. The word,
"naked" ('arom), can mean merely poorly clothed; cf. Isa.
58:7; Job 22:6; 24:7,10.

2Vs. 23. The meaning of this possession by the Spirit
of God will be discussed later in the chapter.

110
d. Positive arguments
Not only do the arguments for ecstaticism allow for
this direct refutation, but additional items may be observed
which either add to the implausibility of the "ecstasy" ex-

planation or point instead to the idea of "praise."

l) The first is an enlargement of a factor already mentioned
but which calls for additional comment. It is that in self—
induced ecstaticism, the subJect not only has to be willing
to experience this state, but also to seek it, actively, and
with studied measures. Only by practiced mental control,
then a participation in some rhythmic dance, or taking nar—
cotics, or breathing some inebriating gas can this condition
be attained.1 It has been shown that Saul was not even a
sympathetic subJect, much less one who at these times was

seeking this state.

2) The second concerns the incongruity of Samuel having been
associated with a group of prOphets practicing Canaanite ec-
staticism. Surely he was not himself such an ecstatic, but,

on the contrary, continually urged the pecple to resist all

2

such outside influence. And yet he was here the head3 of

1E. 0. James, The Nature and Function of Priesthood
(New York: Barnes and Noble, 1959), p. 31, says that "Only
those who exhibit a genuine psychOpathic personality, in-
volving a high degree of auto~suggestibility, inner disci~
pline and specialized training, can produce the abnormal
psychological state required" for this type of activity.

 

20f. I Sam. 7:3—4; 8:5-6; 12:6-25; etc.

3The niphal participle nitsabh from Eggeahh, “to set

111

this group and depicted as approving this activity.1

3) The third is an argument voiced by W. Eichrodt.2 He says
that there must have been a strong anti-Canaanite force in
Israel to have withstood the complete engulfment of Israel

by the Canaanite culture, so advanced as it was over her own.
And the most likely source of that force, he says, was the
prOphets, who then from the earliest must have preached
strongly against it.3 If Eichrodt is correct, this of course
means that these prOphets were not themselves the product of

that which they opposed.

4) But if the prOphesying was not ecstaticism, and it was

not a speaking for God, then what was it? The answer is that
it was a "praising" activity. This answer finds support in

I Chr. 25:1—3 where the meaning, "praising," is clearly as—
cribed to the idea of prOphesying. David there selects the

sons of Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun "who should prophesy_(neb—

 

be'im) with harps, with psalteries, and with cymbals." (ital-

ics mine.) A similar use of prOphesying comes in vs. 2; and

 

or place," is used here and means "one who had been placed
over" this group.

1Elmer Leslie, ggo Testament Religion in the Light of
Its Canaanite BackgroundJTNew York: Abingdon Press, 1936), p.
118: seeks to account for this association by Samuel by say—
ing that Samuel "had the wisdom not to Oppose" a movement
that was inevitable. However, Samuel does not appear other—
wise as ona who would thus have compromised his convictions.

ZTheology of the Old Testameht_(Phi1adeiphiaz Westmin—
ster Press, 1961), pp. 328-29.

 

3The following chapter will show that the priests also
constituted a strong means of counter-action.

112
then in vs. 3 it is directly stated that these singers "2327
phesied in giving thanks and praising Yahweh." (italics mine)l
Thus prOphesying could mean "praising." And a consideration
of each of the three instances here concerned shows that this
idea fits well into the circumstances of each.

In the instance of the seventy in the wilderness, the
meaning would be that they merely began to praise Yahweh,
when the Spirit was placed upon them, perhaps in the form of
some chanted song. With such praise Moses would, of course,
have been pleased, and so naturally would have refused to
rebuke Eldad and Medad as the story indicates.

In the first of the two instances regarding Saul, this
vieWpoint would see the prOphet group coming down from the
high place rendering praise to Yahweh, again in song, to the
accompaniment of their instruments. Saul, now changed in
mental and emotional outlook, could be expected to have
Joined with them, which must have been quite out of charac-
ter for him as seen by the wonder of the pecple looking on.
The fact of the Spirit of God coming upon him at this junc—
ture should not be minimized either in respect to this sud~
den change in his manner.

And in the second instance involving Saul, the prOphets

would be seen doing the same, and Samuel, then, standing ap-

 

1W. Eichrodt believes this prOphesying indicates that
prOphets had now been absorbed into "the ranks of the Temple
offices“; op. cit., p. 337. However, it is stated elsewhere
(e.g. I Chr. 15:22; II Chr. 8:14) that Levites were appoint—
ed to "praise" as well as other functions, and so this need
not imply the presence of prOphets. In either case, the
idea of "praising" for "to prOphesy" is still valid.

113
provingly over them. That the messengers and especially the
disgruntled Saul should have also Joined in this activity
seems a little strange this time, but the text accounts for
it again by significant mentions of the Spirit of God coming
upon them (vss. 20~23). The bearing of this explanation can
be seen better later after considering the nature of the

Spirit possession.

D. Conclusion

A conclusion is now in order as to the full meaning of
"to prOphesy." The principal meaning was found to be "speak—
ing" for Yahweh. Also two variant meanings were established:
"raving" and "praising." A third, "madness," was found doubt—
ful. Thus, the question rises as to whether a relation may
exist between the two lesser meanings and the main one which
might color the main one for its fullest significance.

The answer is that such a relation does exist and that
the added color it gives to the idea of "speaking" is that
of doing so with fervor. This follows from the fact that
both "raving" and "praising" share a common area of thought
in respect to wrought emotions. Both are eXpressions of
strong emotional activity. Thus, the idea of speaking with
wrought emotions logically follows. And this thought is al-
together in keeping with the work of prOphets. They were not
merely to give a recitation; they were to bring a vital mes—
sage that could change pecple's lives. They were to speak
fervently.

Thus, the conclusion here is that "to prOphesy“ in its

114
fullest significance meant "to speak fervently for Yahweh."
The "fervency" connotation could, and in the instances con—
sidered above did, receive special stress in the meanings,
"to rave“ and "to paise." PeOple could use the idea, EEELL:
in this way, and thus say, for instance, that Saul in his
anger against David ”prOphesied." However, since these oc—
currences as recorded were very few, this does not seem to
have been done frequently. In contrast, the several hundred
uses of the term for "speaking" show clearly the normal
idea ascribed to the word; but then with importance being

laid on the added, qualitative idea, fervency.

II. Ecstasy and Israel‘s PrOphets

The matter now to be treated concerns more directly
the nature of the prophetic means of Divine disclosure, the
main question of the chapter. It has been necessary first,
however, to clarify the meaning of "to prOphesy,“ for those
holding to the "ecstaticism" eXplanation believe that this
of itself constituted the disclosure means; that God spoke
to these persons in their state of frenzy.l The passages
studied have long been the main source of evidence for this
vieWpoint, which has called for the somewhat extended con—
sideration of them. The conclusion has shown, however, that

they do not evidence ecstaticism, and so has removed the

1For instance, E. 0. James, The Nature and Function of
Priesthood (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1959), p. 80, writes
"Filled with the divine afflatus (ruach) these cult prOphets
were moved to speak words which were interpreted as divine
oracles.“ Cf. C. Whitley, The Exilic Age (Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1957), p. 31.

 

115

idea, "to prOphesy," out of the area of Divine disclosure,
and instead related it solely to the “speaking" of the mes—
sage.1

But this, then, leaves the nature of the disclosure
means still unidentified. This identification must now be
made. And, doing so, it will be found that an aspect of ec—
staticism was involved after all, though of quite a differ—
ent variety than of the vieWpoint now refuted. And this be—
ing so, it is necessary, as the first concern, to look more
closely at the rejected variety so that comparison can be

made.

A. Frenzied Ecstasy
As has been indicated, Canaan is held to have been the
source of frenzied ecstasy for Israel.2 A still earlier in-

fluence on Canaan, however, came from Asia MinorBand the

1Reference here, of course, is only to nabi', not to
either ro'eh or hozeh, the connotations of which did refer
to the reception aspect of the prOphetic activity. However,
also these, it was observed, did not imply divination, but
only that these persons had special perception concerning
the Divine will.

2H. Knight makes the point that the origin of ecstasy
had to be elsewhere than in Israel herself, for the “Hebrew
psychology, with its stress upon the animated body as the
organ of personality, is obviously unfavourable to the de—
velopment of an ecstatic type of religion“; Op. cit., p. 33.

3T. J. Meek, Hebrew Origins (New York: Harper & Bros.,
1950), p. 155, says this movement swept through Asia Minor
"toward the end of the second millennium into Greece on one
side and into Syria and Palestine on the other." Oesterley
and Robinson, Hebrew Religion (2d ed.; London: S. P. A. K.,
1937), pp. 185-86, state that "these phenomena at a later
time were spread over the whole of the Mediterranean world,"
though without reaching Egypt until the fifth century, B.C.

 

116
Grecian peninsula. And, of course, frenzy of a type has
been identified also in many parts of the world.1 Probably
the oracle of Delphi is the most famous of ancient ecstasy
centers. E. 0. James describes the action there as follows:
It would appear the inspired prOphetess, when an oracle
was demanded, arrayed herself in long robes, a golden
headdress, and a wreath of laurel leaves, and drank of
the sacred spring kassotis. She then, it is said, seated
herself on a tripod over a vaporous cleft in a chasm
of a cave below, unless she actually entered the cave
to encounter the vapour, in order to attain a state of
enthusiasm. In this gondition she gave counsel as the
mouthpiece of Apollo.

Certain forms of ecstasy were carried out only as a
ritualistic exercise for some festal celebration,3 but the
type to which prOphecy is compared was motivated by a desire
for revelation. The spirit world was sought. And to that
end release from contact with reality was wanted. To achieve
this ecstatic state, such means as a vaporous gas, a sacred
dance, or even narcotics were employed. Reason needed to
be set aside and the mind made Open for the reception of the

Divine word. Accompanying this rapport with the spirit realm

was normally a physical seizure, which T. H. Robinson de-

 

1E. 0. James gives a list of many of the areas,.gp.
cit., pp. 30—31.

21bid., p. to.

3For instance, Herodotus, Speaking of Thrace, and

Lucian, of northern Syria, tell of a particular form of ec—
stasy related to fertility cult ritual in which, in the midst
of the exotic dance, the young men would even grab swords

and emasculate themselves, burying the organs to aid fertil-
ity; cited by R. Anderson, Attitudes of the Pre—Exilic_Can-
onical PrOphets Toward the Cultus (Unpublished Ph.D. disser-
tation, Boston University Graduate School, 1957, pp. 64—65.

117

scribes as follows:

It consists of a fit or attack which affected the whole
body. sometimes the limbs were stimulated to violent
action, and wild leaping and contortions resulted. These
might be more or less rhythmical and the phenomenon would
present the appearance of a wild and frantic dance. At
other times there was more or less complete constriction
of the muscles, and the condition became almost catalep—
tic. The vocal chords were sometimes involved, noises
and sounds were toured out which might be unrecognizable
as human speech.

Normally some priest would be on hand to interpret such utter—
ances, for these would be taken as the speaking of the god.
This type of ecstasy, then, is what is thought to have
'been shared by the Israelite prOphets. E. O. James's comment
is only typical: “It was this aspect of shamanistic behaviour

. . . that constituted the principal role of the profession-

 

al ecstatics described in Israel as nebi‘igm,"2 Indeed, it
is believed by some that, apart from ecstatic displays of
this kind, the prOphets would not have been accepted by the
peOple as authentic;3 for to be capable of this eXperience

constituted their badge of authority.“

B. Ecstasy of the PrOphets

However, not all scholars share this viewpoint; partic—

_.__4

lggpphecy and the PrOphetg (New York: Chas. Scribner's
Sons, 19235: p0 310

200. cit., p. 79.

 

3Some scholars believe this condition was true for the

early prOphets, not the later. This matter will be discussed
later in this chapter.

“So stated by Porteous, "PrOphecy," Record and Revela—
tion, ed. H. Wheeler Robinson (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1938),
p. 229, as he speaks of others, not himself.

118
ularly in recent years. Whitley, for instance, says, "Una—
nimity, however, has not been reached as to what extent ‘ec—
stasy' or aiy such psychic experience was a characteristic

of the true prOphet."1

And Knight counsels, "In discussing
prOphetic psychology, it is of the utmost importance to de—
fine the precise shade of meaning which we are to attach to
the much—abused term 'ecstasy'£"2

It is in keeping with Knight's counsel that the discus—
sion now centers. What was the degree of ecstaticism which
the prOphets experienced in their moment of revelation? The
Old Testament gives little direct description of the event,
but still, both from significant omissions and implications
arising from accompanying factors, a rather clear picture

appears. The following matters, of both a negative and posi—

tive nature, are evidenced.

1. There is no indication of any means of self-stimulation
having been employed. The music of the band of prOphets in

I Sam. 10 has been found better explained otherwise. David's
"sacred dance" of II Sam. 6 has received mention by scholars
in this connection, and at that time David did lead others

in a leaping and dancing procession before the Ark. But no

revelation was then imparted. Moreover, David's rational

 

102. cit., p. 31.

2The Hebrew PrOphetic Consciousness (London: Lutter—
worth Press, l9b7), p. 91. The “precise shade of meaning"
Knight himself accepts is not that of frenzy, as he says,
"PrOphetic inspiration means, not the absorption or disso-
lution of the prOphet's personality, . . ."

 

119
faculties were wellixihand during the occasion.1 This was

not, then, a time of self—stimulation to receive revelation.

2. There is no indication that the prOphets sought to ini-

tiate the revelation experience.2

God did the initiating;
the prOphets awaited His word.3 The pattern is illustrated
graphically with Samuel while still a lad. Yahweh spoke to
him and he thought it was Eli. Indeed, only after the third
time did the boy finally recognize that God was speaking

(I Sam. 3:4—14). Of course, prOphets could, and did, pray
for such communication. In I Sam. 8, Samuel asked Yahweh for
counsel relative to the pecple's request for a king, and it
was given. But still God controlled the revelation. Samuel

could only wait after having given the request.LL

3. At no time does a frenzied state appear as a badge of au-

thority for a prOphet. To the contrary, the occasion, for

 

lDavid proceeded to make sacrifices, then blessed the
people, and gave them all bread and wine, after which he left.

2In this respect is found a marked difference with the
Urim and Thummim, which was a means by which the revelation
occasion could be initiated. Even then, however, God did
not have to answer, but at least the priests could set the
stage for His disclosure.

3A. Guillaume, Prophecy and Divination among the He-
brews and Other Semites (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1938),
p. 29E, says, "Again, the mystic is generally a seeker
after ecstatic eXperience. . . . The prOphet, on the other
hand, was summoned to a definite task and given a definite
message. The initiative was divine." Eichrodt states,
"Israel knows nothing of the prOphet's being able thus to
gain mastery over God and to force his way into the divine

world"; op. cit., p. 318.

”Cf. other instances: Ex. 5:22-6zl; 15:25; II Chr. 20:
5—7-

 

d

v‘\

5

120
instance, when Nathan rebuked King David for his grievous
sin with Bath—sheba (II Sam. ll~12) speaks strongly against
such an idea. For Nathan did not demonstrate this state be—
fore the King, nor did David demand it before accepting the
rebuke. And the situation surely called for such an authen—

tication if it had at all been in order.

A. The prOphets give no indication of any loss in rational
power in the moment of revelation. Moses could think quick—
1y of objections to God‘s call back to Egypt when spoken to
out of the burning bush (Ex. 3-4). The lad Samuel, Just
mentioned, could yet relate the next morning all that God
had told him the night before. And Isaiah, after his vision
in the temple, was able to think of his own unworthiness and

then volunteer himself to be God's emissary (Isa. 6:1—8).1

5. Yet the prOphet's disclosure eXperience was more than
merely an exercise of reason. There was also an ecstatic ex—
tra; a going beyond reason, while still retaining its power.
There was a contact with the Divine without any negation of
the human. The human mind was enabled to transcend its own
finite limitations and come away from the moment knowing

more than it had before. Or, as Knight puts it, it was an
enounter when "the eye of the soul" was "Opened to the real-

ity of the transcendental world."2

_4

1S. A. Cook writes, Thg Old TestamentLAA Reinterpreta—
tion (New York: Macmillan Co., 1936), pp. 188—89, "It was
the sanity of the prOphets and not their manticism which
made them such tremendous factors in human history."

292a_2$£na Po 95. Porteous says in his "PrOphecy’"

121
6. And the center of this experience was always the "word"
of Yahweh. A message was communicated, and the prophet was
convinced that God had spoken it. He would then go forth
and assert without hesitation, "Thus saith Yahweh." H. W.

Robinson comments in this respect:

When we would trace the most essential part of the Old
Testament religion back to its most essential element,
we find a man standing in the presence of God, and so

wrought upon by Him that he comes away from that pre—

sence ready to declare in the teeth 0 all Opinion and
all persecution, 'Thus saith Yahweh.'

This "word" thus given was more than the prophet's own; more
than his reason could supply of itself though heightened to
fullest degree. As H. Rowley says,

The mission of the prOphet was to be an extension of the
divine personality, and the utterer of a word which was
not his but God's. . . . Their word came through the or-
gan of their personality, but in so far as it was true
prOphecy, it 31d not arise merely from that personality,
but from God.

Record and Revelation, ed. H. W. Robinson (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1938), p. 2E6, "The personality of the prOphet is not
negated in the act of inspiration, but neither is prophecy

to be explained as the emergence in religion of free and un—
fettered personality. . . . If we are to be true to the evi—
dence of the Old Testament, we must insist on the essential-
ly dialectical character of the prOphetic experience; in it

we see . . . the confrontation of human personality by the
divine and the determination of the human by the divine will."

1"The PhiloSOphy of Revelation," Record and Revelation,
ed. H. W. Robinson (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1938), p. 313.
W. Robertson Smith, The Old Testament in the Jewish Churgh:
(New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1881), p. 27%, says "The char~
acteristic mark of a true prOphet is that he has stood in the
secret counsel of Jehovah and speaks the words which he has
heard from His mouth."

2The Re—discovery of the Old Testament (Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 19b6), p. 1E1. He says also, Faith of
Israel (London: SCM Press, 1956), p. 24, "God's will for men
may 5e known because he has of his grace chosen to communi-
cate it. He has not left man to stumble along in darkness,
but has declared his will.“

122
And further, this ”word" was intelligent, communicable, not

needing special interpretation by an attendant priest.l

C. Spirit Possession

A matter tangent to the degree and nature of ecstasy
among the prOphets concerns the meaning of being possessed
by the Spirit. The fact of this experience by the prOphets
has been observed. The seventy in the wilderness received
the Spirit, and so did Saul on the two occasions considered.
Thus, what sort of an eXperience was this, and what bearing
did it havecnlprOphesying generally and on the disclosure as-

pect particularly?

1. Not frenzied ecstasy

Those who hold to ecstaticism among the prOphets, be-
lieve that this pessession by the Spirit was an indication
of that fact. By being thus outwardly possessed, they lost
their own self—possession. As noted in chapter II, Haldar
seeks to show identity between the prOphets and the Babylon—
ian pgppg priests on this basis.2 8. Mowinckel too builds a
case for distinction between the early and later prophets in
the same reference, believing that the earlier were such ec—\
statics, while the later would have disdained the idea.3

However, both positions have been proven untrue in

le. Knight, 0 . cit., p. 32.

20f. supra, pp. 38-42.

3Mowinokel, "The'Spirit' and the 'Word' in the Pre—
exilic Reforming PrOphets," JBL, LIII(1934), 199—227.

123

that ecstasy has been shown not to have been characterized
in any of Israel's true prOphets. And so too, then, has it
been implied that Spirit possession could not have been re-
lated to such a frenzied state. There is also positive evi-
dence for this last, however, and the interest now is to ob—
serve it. It appears from a study of other types of Spirit—
filling, of which two are particularly pertinent for compar-
ison. Neither involved an ecstatic eXperience.

The first type occurs with the Judges. They were indi~
viduals who in many instances were raised up to deliver the
land from outside enemies and, having done so, continued in
an accepted role of supervision for several years. Among
these leaders, Othniel, Gideon, Jephthah, and Samson were
principals, and of each it is said that the "Spirit of Yah—

weh came upon him."1

Following this statement in each in—
stance, the account of some great military achievement is
described; but never is any suggestion made of some frenzy
display.

The other concerns two mentions regarding a craft.
Bezaleel, skilled in the building trade, is said to have
been "filled" with "the Spirit of God" for his work on the
Tabernacle and its furnishings (Ex. 31:3; 35:31). Then la—
ter, regarding the Temple, it is said that David passed
along to Solomon "the pattern of all that he had by the Spir—

it" (I Chr. 28:12). The implication is that the Spirit had

 

lJud. 3:10 (Othniel); 6:34 (Gideon); 11 29 (Jephthah);
and 13:25; 14:5,19; 15:14 (Samson).

 

\ I.

AN¥

12h
supplied guidance in regard to these plans. Neither instance
suggests any aspect of ecstatic action. In contrast, indeed,
both occasions, and especially the building responsibility
of Bezaleel on the Tabernacle, demanded the greatest pre—
sence of mind.

Then there are other works too which God is said to per-
form by His Spirit, and again the idea of ecstasy is in no
way involved. He works in nature by His Spirit: creating
(Job 33:4; Ps. 104:30; Isa. 40:13), and garnishing the heav—
ens (Job 26:13). He thus restrains men from sin (Job 27:3)-
He Judges sinners (Isa. 4:4),1 He gathers men (Isa. 3Q:16),
He withers the grass (Isa. hO:7), and He defeats the enemy
(Isa. 59:19). And often He is said to bring blessings on
His peOple by the Spirit (Isa. 32:15; #:3; Ezek. 36:26—27;
37:14; Joel 2:28-29; Hag. 2:5).

The point is that, if God is said to have employed the
Spirit in this variety of ways, in none of which ecstasy was,
or could have been, involved, then there is reason to doubt
that ecstasy was involved either when He endowed the pro—

phets With the Spirit.

2. A means of Divine enablement

But the question remains, then, what this Spirit pos—

A

1In this regard, N. Snaith's comment, The Distinctive
Ideas of the Old Testament (London: Epworth Press, l9hb, p.
Th9, is pertinent: "The phrase 'ruach of Judgment' is found
in Isaiah xxviii. 6. It refers to the power being given to
'him that sitteth in Judgment,‘ by which he is enabled to
exercise his Judicial functions. This power is given him
by God."

 

 

125

session did mean when given to persons. The answer that is
in keeping with the instances cited is that it meant the per—
son's Divine enablement for an assigned task. The Judges
needed special wisdom, strength, and skill to lead against
the enemy. Bezaleel required his normal craftmanship
heightened for the work on the house of God. David had need—
ed special discernment for making the Temple plans. And
this answer suits also the situation with the prOphets. For
they required special ability for both the reception and com-
munication of their messages. Thus it was, for instance,
with Azariah, following Asa's victory over Zerah the Ethio-
plan, as he gave the returning king words of encouragement
and advice (II Chr. 15:1—7); and similarly too with Jahaziel
when Jehoshaphat, a few years later, needed encouragement
and instruction in view of eastern invading armies (II Chr.
20:14f).l

Applying this explanation to the instance of the sev—
enty in the wilderness, the placing of the Spirit upon them
would have been to enable them for judging and administra-
tive work. They had just been appointed to help Moses in
this capacity. As a by-product of this endowment, they gave
the praise to Yahweh noted. As for Saul, his Special enable—
ment in I Sam. 10 was in anticipation of his newly appointed
office as king. He had been introverted and shy, and now

needed to be made aggressive and confident. Again the by-

 

lOther instances: Amassai (I Chr. 12:18); Zechariah
(II Chr. 24:20); and in general, Neh. 9:20,30; Hos. 9:7; and
Zech. 7:12.

126
product of praise to God was evidenced.

ReSpecting the instance with Saul in I Sam. 19, which
was left priorly to be more fully eXplained at this point,
the enablement involved was, as then suggested, in reference
to the praising function itself. Saul had already ruled for
some time, and even been rejected in that rule prior to this
time, and so no extra empowerment was to be eXpected in that
connection. But such Spirit possession would account for
the rendering of praise by both himself and his messengers.
Saul, particularly, had been disgruntled and in no mood for
giving praise, and so had needed this endowment if he were
to do so. There is reason too why such a change of mood was
called for: namely, the protection of David, and perhaps
even of Samuel, from Saul's anger otherwise. Sometime later
Saul did not hesitate from slaying the high priest Ahimelech
and his fellow priests at Nob in a similar situation. As
it was, David was not even apprehended, though Saul had pre—
viously sent three companies to bring him. Instead, Saul
lay in a fit of despair all night long at the complete de-

feat he had experienced.1

3. The writing prOphets and Spirit possession

 

In the light of this meaning for Spirit possession,

all prOphets should have had this eXperience, for one would

1Only culminated here with this instance, of course.
He had previously been rejected as king, and here David was
clearly in Samuel's favor. Hence, though he joined for a
while in.a chanted praise song, perhaps as a sort of gesture
of surrender, he could not avoid for long the flood of des—
pair that swept over him.

127

have needed enablement as well as another. Yet the writing
prOphets give little testimony that they were Spirit filled.
There is no direct statement to this effect regarding Isaiah,
Jeremiah, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk,
Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, or Malachi. Of only two,
then, is it made: Ezekiel (several times: 2:2; 3:12,14,24;
8:3; etc.) and Micah (3:8). Four prOphets do use the term,
Spirit, but not as applied to themselves; namely, Isaiah
(4:4; 11:2; 19:14; etc.), Hosea (9:7), Haggai (2:5), and
Zechariah (4:6; 7:12). It is this fact eSpecially upon which
Mowinckel builds his case for the distinction observed be—
tween early and late prOphets. He believes that these pro—
phets were not Spirit filled, and so did not ascribe the fact
to themselves}‘ This answer, it may be repeated, has been
shown to be in error.2

However, the question remains as to why these prOphets
make such little mention of the Spirit. Here they Spirit
filled or not? And if so, why did they not speak of it?

The answer is that they did consider themselves thus filled;

 

1On this basis, Mowinckel has some problem, of course,
with both Ezekiel and Micah, which do ascribe Spirit posses—
sion to themselves. Of Ezekiel, he says, cp. cit., p. 226,
that he was simply "a true ecstatic of the ancient type"; in
other words, quite out of place for this late time; and of
Micah that here was an "ideological 'throw back' to the older
nebh‘ism"; but neither observation appears satisfactory.

2Supra,p. 122. Rowley cites this viewpoint of Mo—
winckel and comments: "It is doubtful if this represents any
sounder distinction. It is quite improbable that the true
prOphets would have repudiated the idea that the spirit of
God was the source of their inspiration"; The Re—discovery
of tie Old Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1946),
p. 1 9.

 

 

‘o.

128
but filled continuously, so that there was no need to speak
of any refilling. It was simply to be assumed that, since
they were Yahweh‘s prOphets, they were of course Spirit
filled. Evidence to this end is found in two directions.

The first concerns two direct statements from two
post—exilic writers to the effect that prOphets of former
days had been Spirit enabled. Zechariah (7:12) is one, writ-
ing, "The words which Yahweh of hosts had sent by his Spirit
by the former prOphets.” Nehemiah (9:30), some seventy years
later, is the other, saying that God had testified against
this pecple in time past by His "Spirit through" the "pro—
phets." The pre—exilic, writing prOphets would, of course,
have been mainly in mind for each of these statements.1

The second is more indirect in nature, but of equal
significance. It is that a continuous Spirit possession of
this kind was eXperienced by a number of leading persons in
the Old Testament as definitely indicated, and so it should
not be thought unusual if all the writing prOphets considered
themselves endowed similarly.

One such person was Saul, so much discussed already.

In I Sam. 16:14, it is stated, "Now the Spirit of Yahweh de—
parted from Saul." The Spirit had come upon him priorly

just before the Jabesh—gilead battle (11:6).2 Thus, the im—

 

le. N. Snaith, Op. cit., p. 154, for discussion of
these two texts, along with Ezekiel and Micah, in this regard.

2Evidently the earlier coming upon Saul of the Spirit
in I Sam. 10 was only temporary. The continued aspect did
not begin until he took over actual leadership with the
Jabesh—gilead battle.

129
plication is that the Spirit had been continuously upon him
from that time unti this mention in 16:14, where he had
just been rejected from enjoying a long rule with David hav—
ing been anointed to take his place.
Then a similar reference is made regarding David. In
I Sam. 16:13, following David's anointing, it is said, "And

the Spirit of Yahweh came mightily upon David from tiat day

 

forward.“ (italics mine.) Then in the well known 51st psalm,
David prays to Yahweh, "And take not thy holy Spirit from
me," thus implying his own reCOgnition of continual Spirit
possession. And finally, in his last words (II Sam. 23:2),
he states in a similar vein, "The Spirit of Yahweh spake by
me,“ with the implication that this had been a regular ex-
perience.

The same may be pointed out also for Israel's first two
leaders, Moses and Joshua. The clues are incidental, but
they are clear. Indeed, the fact that they are incidental
could itself carry significance that such leaders were taken
for granted as thus continuously Spirit filled; and this, in
turn, could suggest the reason why similar clues are not found
for every great leader, including the writing prOphets.

Regarding Moses, a clue appears in the passage again
concerning the seventy in the wilderness (Num. 11:17). The
Spirit there placed on the seventy had been dwelling on
Moses, and was not removed from him at this time. Isaiah
(63:ll,14), much later, gives another, stating that Yahweh

had led His pecple through the wilderness by His Spirit, and

130
referring prominently to Moses at the same time in a way as
to imply that he had been the intermediary for this leading.
As to Joshua, the clue appears in Num. 27:18 where
Moses anoints the younger man as his successor. To that end,
God instructs Moses, saying, "Take thee Joshua the son of

Nun, a man in whom is the Spirit." (italics mine.) Thus, the

 

Spirit was indwelling Joshua at thi time. Then Deut. 34:9
speaks to the same effect: "And Joshua the son of Nun was

full of the Spirit of Wisdom." The element here, "of wisdom,"
would characterize the aspect of Joshua's enablement, so need—
ed as Israel’s leader.

Turning now to similar clues regarding prOphets, a sig-
nificant one comes in II Kgs. 2:9, where Elisha makes the re~
quest of his departing master, Elijah, "I pray thee, let a
double portion of thy Spirit be upon me." Hence, Elisha
recognized that the Spirit had been dwelling upon Elijah.l
Then in vs. 15 following, after Elisha had recrossed the
Jordan, the "sons of the prOphets," watching, say, "The Spir—
it of Elijah doth rest on Elisha." Thus, they too recog—
nized what had been true of Elijah, and here were persuaded
that the same was now true also of Elisha.

Then two of the writing prOphets, themselves, can be

shown to have been similarly Spirit indwelt. They are the

 

1This request was not that Elisha might have twice as
much of the Spirit as did Elijah, for this would be quite
meaningless, but that he might have from his master the in-
heritance share of the first—born, namely the double por-
tion. Cf. Cyrus Gordon, The World of the Old Testament
(Garden City, N.J.: Doubleday & Co., 1958), p. 200.

131
two mentioned earlier as alone claiming this status, namely
Ezekiel and Micah. Both indicate a continuous Spirit posses—
sion for themselves. 0f Ezekiel it is necessary to speak at
some length, for his indications are numerous, have been dis—
cussed frequently by scholars, and so call for some argumen-
tation to be develOped. This will follow presently.

However, Micah can be considered at this point. He
says, "But as for me, I am full of power by the Spirit of Yah—
weh, and of judgment, and of might" (3:8). It should be no—
ticed that he not only indicates he was Spirit filled, but
that he considered this continuous; saying, "I am full (Thlfilr
thi). "1

In view of this evidence now, it may be concluded that
the other writing prOphets, in addition to Micah and Ezekiel,
were also Spirit filled even though they do not themselves
say anything about it. The clear statements of Zechariah and
Nehemiah cannot be discounted, and the clues for continous
indwelling of great leaders carry a combined weight that can
not be denied. This Spirit possession for them would have
meant the same, of course, as for the other prOphets, namely
Spirit enablement.

A further clarification is called for at this point as
to just who these "other" prOphets were; that is, those con—
cerning whom the mentions are made that the Spirit came upon

them. Mowinckel's vieWpoint simply calls them "early." But

 

lThis verb form is in the perfect state, thus signify—
ing a condition already existent.

132
this was true only to a point; for none, who are definitely
mentioned to have been thus filled, lived earlier than David,
and the last preceded Amos by less than half a century. In
Samuel's day, of which prior discussions have dealt, only
Saul and his three messenger bands, none of whom were pro—
phets, had this experience; and the seventy in the wilderness
were not prOphets either.

Hence, a more basic distinction is in order; and one
logically commending itself concerns relative importance.
These others were all relatively less important as prOphets;
receiving occasional assignments, but otherwise seldom if
ever mentioned.l On the other hand, the writing prOphets
were of major importance, receiving assignments often and en—
gaged regularly in prOphetic activity. Hence, the reason ap-
pears as to the difference between them in type of filling:
the former only needed special enablement for the occasional
duties, while the latter required it daily. On this basis,
indeed, it may be believed that the earlier, great prOphets
too, like Samuel, Nathan, Gad, etc., also thought of them»

selves as continuously Spirit filled.

4. The special case of Ezekiel
The special case of Ezekiel may now be considered. Two
matters call for attention: first, the reason, in view of

the above conclusions, why Ezekiel speaks as he does concern—

 

lTo indicate them again, they are: Amassai (I Chr. 12:
18, David's reign); Azariah (II Chr. 15:1, Asa‘s reign); Ja—
haziel (II Chr. 20:14 Jehoshaphat's reign); and Zechariah
(II Chr. 2%:20, Joash‘s reign).

0’3

1.)
ing the Spirit; and second, how Ezekiel gives further corrob—

oration that Spirit possession meant Spirit enablement.

a. Continuously Spirit filled

Considering the first of these matters, there are three
mentions by Ezekiel which particularly appear out of keeping
with the conclusions made above. They are: "And the Spirit
entered into me" (2:2); “Then the Spirit entered into me"
(3:24); and "The Spirit of Yahweh felltgxnlme" (11:5). Sev—
en other times, Ezekiel speaks of the Spirit'transporting"

him some place,1

and these also have a bearing which will be
discussed; but these three alone state directly that the
Spirit entered into him, an indication which seems to say
that he was not continuously indwelt. The following observa-

tions show, however, that, even so, Ezekiel yet thought of

himself on this count just as did the other writing prOphets.

l) The first concerns the fact that Ezekiel uses different
verbs here than employed in the other, earlier instances.

The earlier mentions use five different verbs, and three of
them depict a vigorous action by the Spirit. Samson and Saul
were both "attacked" (tsalah, "to attack, succeed over") by

2

the Spirit. Gideon, Amassai, and Zechariah were each

"clothed“ (labash, "to put on clothes").3 And Bezaleel was

 

13:12.14; 8:3; 11:1,24; 37:1; “3:5.

28amson: Jud. 14:6,19; 15:14; Saul: 1 Sam. 10:10; 11:6.

BGideon: Jud. 6:34; Amassai: I Chr. 12:18; Zechariah:

"filled" (mgggl, "to be full").1 In contrast, Ezekiel uses
only the two verbs, "entered into" (221.2, "to come in“) and
"fell upon" (naphal g1, "to fall upon"), neither of which de-
picts this stronger type of action.

It is believed that the significance of this change is
that Ezekiel is not thus speaking of an actual, renewed pos—
session by the Spirit, as in the earlier instances, but only
of a strong, renewed awareness on his part of the Spirit's

continuous enablement.

2) The second observation pertains to a factor which could
have prompted this awareness on Ezekiel‘s part: namely, a new
revelation which accompanied each of these mentions. For in—
stance, in 3:24 it is stated, "Then the Spirit entered into
me . . . and said unto me," with the message then following.
And 2:2 ties this revelation factor yet closer to this re-
newed awareness, saying, "And the Spirit entered into me wh§p_
he spake unto me." (italics mine.) Ezekiel would'have been
aware of this speaking first, which, then, could indeed have

served to prompt the fresh awareness of enablement.

3) The third concerns another factor which could have prompted
this awareness; namely, a new assigned task each time. To
receive such would have naturally called for a renewed aware—

ness of this kind. In the first mention (2:2), that assign—

__-

lBezaleel: Ex. 31:3; 35:31. The other two verbs are
"was upon," (Jud. 3:10; Jud. 11:29; II Chr. 15:1; II Chr.
20:14); and "rested upon" Num. 11:26).

13 5
ment concerned his very commission; in the second (3:24), an
object lesson for his ministry; and in the third (11:5), a

fresh message to deliver to the pecple.

4) The fourth pertains to the seven times he makes mention

of being "transported” by the Spirit to some location, such
as the temple in Jerusalem (8:3). None of these tells of any
filling having been necessary before the transportation could
be effected, but the implication is that this was possible

at any time; in other words, as though his Spirit enablement

for such was continuous.

5) And the fifth couples these seven mentions with eight
others in which the prOphet speaks of the Spirit doing yet

other things;L

and concludes that, therefore, in order to ac-
count for such frequent references to the Spirit, Ezekiel
must have been unusually Spirit conscious. But such Spirit
consciousness is much more in keeping with a continuous en—

ablement than with merely temporary fillings.

6) In summary, then, this evidence points to the fact that
Ezekiel did believe himself continuously indwelt by the Spir—
it; that he was unusually conscious of this fact, ascribing
numerous activities, including his own "transportation," to
the Spirit; and that he eXperienced a particularly strong,
renewed awareness of this state through certain revelations

by the Spirit when new assignments were given, which renewed

A

l1:12,20,21; 10:17; 36:26,27; 37:14; 39:29.

136
awareness combined with this revelation he then described as

being "entered into'l or "fallen upon" by the Spirit.

b. Further evidence for “enablement"

The second task here concerns how Ezekiel gives unique,
further evidence that Spirit indwelling meant Spirit enable—
ment. This evidence appears clearest in the well—known "dry
bones" section (37:1—14). As N. Snaith points out, "We get
the word gggph in its most effective context" in this pas—
sage.l The dry bones are animated by the coming on them of
the Eggh (normally translated here "wind“ or "breath"). And
then the parallel is drawn with Israel (vs. 14) as Yahweh
says to His people, "And I willjnfl:my Spirit (Eggg) in you,
and ye shall live." Thus, as the “wind” (3222) made the dry
bones live, so the Spirit (gpgh) will make Israel take on
life. This means enablement. They were dead; the Spirit
mould enable them to live.

Three other instances in Ezekiel also bear out this
thought. In 36:27,2 God is said to place His Spirit "with—
in" Israel so that they will be caused (enabled) to walk in
His statutes and keep His ordinances. In 13:3, the false
prOphets are said to "follow their own spirit" in this false

activity, implying the lack, accordingly, of being enabled

 

lThe Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament (London:
Epworth Press, 1944), p. 15. Snaith gives a well rounded
treatment of this passage.

20f. 36:29 where God is said to save them from all
their uncleannesses, and then increase the corn that no fa—
mine will come; all implied as being done through the Spirit.

137
for true prOphetic work by God's Spirit. And in 1:20 (also
1:12,21; 10:17), the "wheels" and the "four living creatures"
are directed by the Spirit and thus enabled to move about in
their unusual manner. Thus, each of these mentions deals with
the concept of enablement by the Spirit and so further rein—

forces the enablement idea.

5. Spirit possession and Divine disclosure

It has not yet been shown definitely what aSpect of the
prOphet‘s function this Spirit enablement concerned: whether
the reception or the declaration of the message. The evi—
dence of the pertinent passages is that it concerned both.
For instance, Micah's reference (3:8) is to the declaration
aspect, as he says, "I am full of power by the Spirit . . .
to declare." (italics mine.) Nehemiah's general reference
(9:30) is similar, saying that God had warned Israel by the
Spirit "through the prOphets."l On the other hand, Ezekiel,
in the three places just discussed, refers clearly to the
reception aspect, as he gives each time the very words that
were spoken to him. Also Jahaziel's eXperience before Je—
hoshaphat (II Chr. 20:14) was of the same kind, as a message
of instruction came to him to relay to the pecple.2 In fact,
in every instance where a prOphet (not of the classification

where Spirit possessionimusconsidered continuous)) receives

 

lThis "declaration" aspect is shown also with Amassai
(I Chr. 12:18) and Zechariah's mention (7:12).

20f. Neh. 9:20.

3Besides Jahaziel mentioned, this involved Amassai,

138
a revelation, it is said that the Spirit came upon him in
connection with it. Thus, Spirit possession was considered
necessary for all prophetic activity, both the receiving and
the giving. Relative to Divine disclosure, then, the inter—
est here particularly, it may be said that Spirit possession
was that which was believed necessary for enablement for the

revelation eXperience.

III. The PrOphetic Divine Disclosure
Much of the material thus far has been necessarily
more foundational to, rather than dealing directly with, the
nature of the prophetic Divine disclosure. Hence, it is
well to close the chapter with a section devoted to this mat—
ter as such, in which both summary statements and further

elaboration are included.

A. Summary Statement

It has been seen that the prOphetic Divine disclosure
came by means of direct contact, without the use of instru~
ments as with the Urim and Thummim, characterized by the for—
mula, "Thus saith Yahweh." The occasion was to a degree "ec—
static," for the prOphet‘s normal powers were transcended,
through the means of Spirit possession, so that a meeting of
the Divine with the human was effected. This was not by the

loss or sublimation of rational power, but through its height-

 

(I Chr. 12:18), Azariah (II Chr. 15:1), and Zechariah (II
Chr. 24:20). The prOphets who were continuously filled are
not pertinent for evidence here, for they, then, could never
have received revelation without Spirit possession.

139
ening for the reception and understanding of the Divine
"word." The prOphet came away from this disclosure eXperi—
ence knowing more than he had before and with the conviction

that he had received a Divine communication.

B. Early and Late Pr0phets

Many scholars have made a sharp distinction in respect
to Divine disclosure between the earlier and the later pro-
phets. That distinction pertains to the matter of ecstasy;
with those earlier thought to have been highly ecstatic, and
the later much less so. For instance, Buttenweisser writes:
"The inspiration of the great literary prOphets has nothing
in common with the ecstasy of the prophets of the older
type."1

However, it has been shown that ecstasy of this fren—
zied variety did not characterize any of Israel's true pro-
phets. These scholars take their evidence primarily from

the events of Samuel's dar, but it has been substantiated

9

that both his company of prOphets and Saul were not frenzied,

___.‘ h4___

lThe PrOphets of Isragl (New York: Macmillan Co., 1914),
p. 138. J. Skinner speaks of "The older nabi'ism of the
period from Samuel to Elisha" and "the new type inaugurated
by Amos“; PrOphecy and Religion (Cambridge: At the Univer-
sity Press, 1922), p. 5; cf. pp. 220-21. C. Sauerbrei, in
his "The Holy Man in Israel: A Study in the DevelOpment of
Pr0phecy," JNES, VI(1947), 209, says that the distinction
was so great that the later prOphets must even have devel-
oped separately from the early "ecstatics." On the other
hand, J. Bright, The History of Israel (Philadelphia: West—
minster Press, l959),p. 247, feels the similarities should be
stressed, since "The entire prOphetic attack is rooted and
grounded in the tradition of the Mosaic covenant." Still dif—
ferently, T. H. Robinson emphasizes similarity, but because
both early and late prOphets were ecstatics, Pr0phecy and the
PrOphets (New'York: Chas. Scribner's Sons, 1923), pp. 36—46.

 

 

 

 

140

but were engaged rather in "praising" Yahweh. No evidence
to this end can be found either regarding any of the other
early prOphets, as Samuel himself, or Nathan, or Gad.1 And
Elijah on Mt. Carmel, somewhat later, but still before the
literary prOphets, shows outright scorn for the frenzied dis-
play of the Baal representatives, both in his contrasting
manner and his mockery at the noon hour.2

It has been shown that no difference existed either in
respect to the filling of the Spirit. Early prOphets, such
as Moses, Samuel, Nathan, Gad, were thought of as continuous—
ly filled just as well as the later. And prOphets filled
temporarily, as observed, are found from the time of David un-
til within a half century of Amos.3 Thus, this special en—
ablement of the Spirit did not change. And the formula,
"Thus saith Yahweh," did not change either. It is used from
the day of Moses until after the exile. In basic respects,

then, early prOphets did not differ from later.

0. A True Divine Communication
A further matter much debated conserns the real meaning
of "Thus saith Yahweh." Was the event so described truly an

3p extra for the prOphet, an impartation from without? It

is generally admitted that its experience was vital to the

 

1
In contrast, every instance recording early prophet
activity ShOWS only sobreity manifested.

21 Kgs. 18:25—39. In view of such, Eichrodt concludes
"that the early prOphetic movement . . . was fundamentally
distinct" in its day; Theology_of the Old Testamegt_(Phila-
delphia: Westminster Press, 1961), p. 323, cf. pp. 316—23.

3Supra, pp. 131-32.

141
prOphet, one which he believed came from God; but many have
found the explanation for it only in a heightened mood or
psychic insight of the prophet himself. For instance, writes
W. F. Lofthouse, "The prOphet uses the term, 'Thus hath Yah—
weh spoken' when he is really uttering his deepest convic—
tions."l And H. W. Robinson closes a treatment of this sub—
ject with the words, "Hebrew prophecy is revelation, because
it is realization——true to God, because so true to man."2
On the other hand, others have found difficulty in ex—

plaining certain features of the record apart from such an
extra factor. A question from Guillaume is typical:

How, for example, can we eXplain the fact that Micaiah,

the son of Imlah, knew that all Israel would be "scat—

tered upon the mountains as sheep that have no shepherd, "

or if he did not know that such a disaster impended,

how cguld he stake his life on the truth of the asser—

tion?
And H. Rowley, who has previously been quoted as believing
4

in such a Divine contact, speaks in similar fashion relative

 

l"Thus Hath Jahweh Said, N AJSL, XL(1923-24), 249.

2"The Psychology and Metaphysics of 'Thus Saith Yah~
weh, '" ZAW, XLI(1923), l5. Writes J. Skinner, op. cit., p.
10, "The prOphetic vision is undoubtedly a creation of the
sub—conscious mind, working uncontrolled by voluntary re—
flexion, and producing subjective images which have some—
thing of the vividness and reality of actual sense percep-
tion.“ Cf. W. O. Irwin, "Revelation in the Old Testament,"
The Study of the Bible Today and Tomorrow, ed. H. Willoughby
(Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1947), p. 257; G. E. Wright,
Old Testament against Its Environment (London: SCM Press,
1950), p. 75; and W. Williasm The Pr0phets (NeW’York: Abing-
don Press, 1956), pp. 137-49.

3Prophecy and Divination among the Hebrews and Other
Semites—(London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1938), p. 107.

4Supra, p. 121.

142
to predictions of the Red Sea deliverance, Deborah's victory,
and the loss of Sennacherib's army.l
In View of such considerations, Eichrodt states his
Opinion:
The state of ecstasy enabled many to impart information
in the name of Yahweh in a way which revealed the pre-
sence of a higher kind of knowledge. . . . The nabi' be-

came the proclaimer par excellence . . . aszthe speaker
empowered by God to reveal his hidden will.

 

And G. Joyce writes,

Those who have eXperienced the abiding power of the pro-
phetic message over the human soul will know better than
to be content with any account of the matter which re—
duces the whole process to the level of a purely natural
event. Whatever light may be thrown upon the phenomena
of prOphecy by comparison with other religious expgri-
ences, the innermost secret will remain inviolate.

This viewpoint is shared by the present writer. The
power of the prOphet's message, the compulsion he felt, the
committment unto death he gave, the fulfillment of predic—
tions he made—~these are not to be denied in their evidence

for the extra factor. The prOphets did eXperience an outside

.__.4

1The Faith of Israel (London: SCM Press, 1956), p. no.
209. cit., p. 312. In a footnote he says that "this
point is being grasped more and more clearly, and mentions
especially Rowley and Eissfeldt.

 

3The Inspiration of PrOphegy_(Oxford; Clarendon Press,
1910), p. 65. Though H. Knight, The Hebrew Prophetic Con—
sciousnesg (London: Lutterworth Press, 1997), pp. 99.61,
warns against taking "Thus saith Yahweh" in a "too literalis-
tic and short-sighted" manner as to believe this implied
“the audition of external spoken words," in another context,
commenting on Isa. 21, he says, "Here the sense of being
gripped by an overpowering, invading, presence becomes so in-
tense that the prOphet eXperiences a violent disruption of
his personality. The spiritual force ab extra, by which he
is inspired, stands out and is objectified over against the
prOphet's more normal consciousness."

1&3

addition to their natural powers in the moment of Divine dis-
closure. It came as a result of Spirit possession. Because
the prOphet already had, or was at a given moment filled by,
the Spirit, he was enabled to know what he had not known be—
fore. As N. Snaith writes,

The idea of a more than human power runs through the

whole of the phrase ruach-adonai. As a result of this

special endowment of divine power men are able to do

that which, in the ordinary way and relying u on purely

human resources, they are quite unable to do.

D. Final Summation
In final summation, the prOphetic Divine disclosure can

be described as that direct type of revelation, not mediated
by instruments, common to both early and late prophets, ini-
tiated and empowered by the Spirit, by which such a meeting
of the Divine and the human transpired in the personality of
the prOphet that, without sensing any negation of his normal,
rational powers or eXperiencing any form of ecstatic frenzy,
the prOphet came to know more than he had before and was giv—

en the unequivocal conviction that he had received a "word"

from Yahweh.

 

 

lThe Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament (London:
Epworth Press, 19Eb), p. 154. Martin Buber's comment, The.
Pr0phetic Faith, trans. C. Mitten—Davies (New York: Macmil~
lan Co., 1949), p. 64, is pertinent: "Dabhar does not die-
place ruah, but Joins with it. According to the Biblical
view he to Whom full power is given first experiences the
ruah, and afterwards receives the dabhar. In the one case
one received the stimulus, in the other the content."

Chapter V
THE TEACHING MINISTRX OF THE PRIEST

I. Identity
With the questions regarding means of revelation for
the priests and prOphets now answered, it is possible to take
up the teaching ministries prOper. Th ministry of the
priests is treated first, and the initial question concerns

their identity.

A. Usage of the Term, kghgg

Israel's word for priest, kghgg, was not limited to the
Hebrews, but was used commonly in the Semitic world. However,
only in Arabic is its verbal form found, where kahana means
"to divine."l Everywhere hut in Israel the function of the
kghgg.was in keeping with this meaning, i.e. divination. Re—
garding Israel, however, R. Yerkes observes, "The Hebrews ap—
parently took the word from the Canaanites to describe their
cult officers, but their radical Opposition to divination

robbed kohen of all its original significance."2 E. 0. James

le. R. K. Yerkes, Sacrifice in Greek and Roman Reli-
gions and Early Judaigm (New York: Chas. Scribner‘s Sons,
1952), p. 122; S. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and To—
ppgraphy of the Books of Samuel (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1913), pp. 28h-85; E. 0. James, The Nature and Function of
Priesthood (New York: Barnes & Noble, 1959), pp. 7h,92—93.

2

 

 

 

 

 

Op. cit.
12m

1&5

believes that something of that original meaning was pre—
served in Israel in connection with the Urim and Thummim em—
ployment, but feels that "under the influence of the cultus
centralized in the Temple . . . it became increasingly spe~
eialized and concentrated upon sacrificial worship."l Its
Old Testament usage does indeed indicate the broader meaning,
but not only as to including the idea of sacrifice, but also
the prominent teaching ministry carried on by the priests.
The Old Testament also uses kemarim in reference to priests,

but, as Baudissin correctly states, "only of heathen priests."2

B. Identity of the Priests
The question of the identity of the priests is tied in

with the identity of the Levites, and the latter must be iden—
tified first. Disagreement among scholars exists as to who
the Levites were. The question hinges on whether the name
applied originally to a family or to an office.3 To assign

it merely to the office is to deny the strong testimony of

the Old Testament that the Levites were a tribe.LL But some

scholars find it unreasonable that an entire tribe should

 

lOp. cit., p. 74.

2"Priests and Levites," 2Q, IV, p. 57-

3Oesterley and Robinson, Hebrew Religion (New York:
Macmillan Co., 1930), p. 164, state, "We do not know whether
the name ‘Levi' applied originally to a clan or to an of—
fice."

4T. J. Meek, Hebrew Origigg (New York: Harper & Bros.,
1950), p. 121, writes, "That the”Levites were originally a
tribe is the unequivocal testimony of the Old Testament nar—
ratives"; cf. Baudissin, Op. cit., p. 68.

 

 

 

146

have been made into a religious body, which involved, among
other things, their forfeiting tribal territory of their own.
Eichrodt, indeed, finds both consideration: compelling and
believes it quite impossible to be sure on the matter.1 To
the present writer, however, the testimony of the Old Testa—
ment that Levites were a tribe is too great to be set aside.2

A further question concerns whether or not to be a mem-
ber of this tribe was considered an absolute requirement for
being a qualified cultic official. Certain instances have
been pointed out which suggest this was not so: namely, Mi—
cah's appointment of his son as a priest (Jud. 17:5); David
and Solomon said to have offered sacrifices (II Sam. 6:17,18;
I Kgs. 3:4; 8:62—6u); and especially David appointing his
sons to be priests (II Sam. 8:18). None of these individuals
were descendants of Levi. Thus, it is necessary to examine

and evaluate the evidence here concerned.3

 

lTheologygof the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Westmin—
ster Press, 1961), p. 392f. R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel, trans.
John McHugh (New‘York: McGraw Hill Book Co., 1961), pp. 369~
71, accepts the force of the tribal evidence and seeks to ac—
count for this tribe becoming a religious group by suggesting
that they spread themselves thinly among the other tribes,
rather than staying together, and so lost something of a
unifying tribal spirit.

 

2With the testimony spread all the way through the Old
Testament that Levites were a family, one must believe that
this was so. In reply to the Opposing argument, the Levites
simply believed seriously that ahweh had designated them as
a family for religious service, and accordingly gave them—
selves to it.

3Because of these instances, which he discusses, G. B.
Gray Sacrifice in the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
192 ), p. 2&0, holds that—“The’Levitical priesthood of the
seventh century B.C. . . . was preceded by a yet wider priest-

 

147

Speaking first of the Micah instance, the possibility
exists that this appointment constituted an irregularity on
Micah‘s part. A prime intention in the book of Judges is to
portray infractions of the law, and the verse following this
mention states significantly, "Every man did that which was
right in his own eyes" (Jud. 17:6). The implication is that
this act of Micah was such a case. Hence, there is lack of
warrant for using this instance as an illustration of what
was normal in Israel.

As to the instances of David and Solomon sacrificing,
it is likely that they did not do this personally, but rath-
er through attending priests. Two times Solomon is involved
(I Kgs. 3:4; 8:62—64), and in the first he is said to have
offered a "thousand burnt—offerings," and in the second some
22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep. Obviously he did not offer all
these personally; and if not all, then likely not any. He
offered them in that he directed proceedings, but attending
priests did the work. Then in David‘s case too (11 Sam. 6:
17,18) the circumstances suggest priestly activity. He had
Just brought the Ark into Jerusalem, with much public cere—
mony. Certainly there would have been priests in such a pro—
cession. And if so, they would have been on hand when the
sacrifices were made, and they would not, of course, have

watched while David did the sacrificing.

 

hood, a priesthood which was not limited to Levites." J.
Peters, Religion of the Hebrews (Boston: Ginn & Co., 1914),
p. 139, argues similarly, saying, "Priests might thus be
chosen from any family."

 

 

 

1M8

As to David's appointment of his sons as kohenim, there
is reason to believe that they were not made priests in the
normal sense, but only as a type of religious, confidential
advisor. Several factors suggest this.

First, these sons thus appointed are not listed along
with the normal priests. ine passage involved (II Sam. 8:
16—18) gives a listing of officials during David's reign, and
priests are named in vs. 17. Then follows the naming of a
scribe, then of bodyguards, and only then of David's sons as
kohenim. If the intention was to classify them as normal
priests, this order of listing is strange.

Second, the same list of officials is repeated in I
Chr. 18:14—17, and this time the designating word for these

sons is not kohenin, but "heads (hari'shonim)." Why should

 

this designation have been changed if they were normal
priests?l

Third, a S‘3gestion that the term, kohen, was sometimes
used in a broader sense than just for the normal priest is
found in II San. 20:26. There, following an indication that
Zadok and Abiathar were priests, it is stated that "also Ira
the Jairite was hohen unto David." Two matters are notewor-

thy. One is that this mention is also separated from the

 

lJames Orr, Problem of the Old Testament (London:
James Nisbet & Co., 1907), p. 505, comments that this "need
not be set down to the motive of recognizing none but Aaronic
priests." His reference is to the fact that some scholars
believe the Chronicler here in using the term, "head," had
purposely changed from "priest“ since by this time it had
come to be accepted that all priests should be descendants
from Aaron. For instance, S. R. Driver so eXplains, oo. cit.,
pp. 219—20, 293-94.

1&9

list of regular priests, thus suggesting another type of of-
fice; and the other is the unusualness of the phrase, "priest
to David (kohen ledhawidh)," for a normal priest. Priests
were public servants, not private. It would fit, however, if
this man were some type of religious advisor.

Fourth, this suggestion is corroborated by I Kgs. 4:
4—5. Here again priests are listed together and then, after
an intervening naming of another type of official, it is
stated that "Zabud . . . was kghgg, the king's friend." Here
too, in addition to the same, significant separation of this
man from normal priests, there is an unusual phrase for a
normal priest, namely "the king‘s friend.” It again suggests
intimacy out of keeping with a public servant, but not with
a religious advisor.

And fifth, in the several times in which various of
David's sons are listed,1 with thelives of some being rather

well known,2

no suggestion is made that any engaged in such
priestly activity. If some did, they could only have been
individuals of whom nothing is known otherwise. Thus, it is
better not to think of them as having been appointed regular

priests, but as a type of religious, confidential advisor.

 

lListings in II Sam. 3:2—5; 5:13—16; I Chr. 3:1—9;
14:3-7; II Chr. 11:18.

2Amnon, the oldest, II Sam. 13; Absalom, the third is
mentioned often from II Sam. 13 to 18; Adonijah, the fourth,
I Kgs. l; and of course Solomon became king. David's second
son, Chileab (called Daniel in I Chr. 3:1) is not mentioned
in later life and probably died young since Adonijah felt
himself in line for the throne with both Absalom and Amnon
dead.

150

This, then, accounts for each of these occasions in a
way which removes the evidence claimed for them. And without
such conflicting evidence, the general indications elsewhere
that Levites by office were always descendants of the same
family should stand.1

The matter yet needs attention as to the relation be-
tween those called priests and those called Levites. Many
scholars believe that until the time of Ezekiel there was no
distinction between the two groups. All Levites were priests,
and all priests were Levites. Ezekiel inaugurated the idea
of limiting the term, priests, to a special group within the
Levites, namely those who were descendants of Zadok, and then
later writers broadened the number by assigning Aaron as the

2

priestly progenitor. Other scholars, however, taking the

Old Testament more literally, believe this Aaronic distinc—
tion should be taken even from the time of Moses. On this
basis, from the Mosaic period on, priests were descendants
of Levi who could also count Aaron as their father.

This last is the position of the present writer. How-
ever, this distinction between priests and Levites is not of

vital importance to this discussion respecting teaching func-

.4

1An exception to this came following the division of
the kingdom when Jeroboam, in the northern division, "made
priests from among all the pee 1e, that were not of the
sons of Levi" (I Kgs. 12:26—33 . However, it is made clear
that in so doing Jeroboam was running counter to the tradi—
tional law.

2For discussion, of. S. R. Driver, Introduction to the
Literature of the Old Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,
189E), pp. 146450.

 

 

151

tion. For in this respect there was little difference be—
tween them. They differed in their sacrificial duties, but
little in their teaching activity. And because this is true,
it will not be necessary in the ensuing treatment to distin—
guish often as to whether Levites or priests are in mind.

For the most part, both willtmawhenever teaching activity is
concerned, and normally the term, priest, will be used for

the designation.

II. Occasions of the Teaching

 

A. A Major Function

Scholars agree that the teaching function of the priest
constituted a major part of his activity. It Was not Just
something he did occasionally, nor was it arbitrary with his
inclination. It was his Job, and an important one. Indeed,
he was the standard teacher. Others, such as prOphets and
elders also had teaching responsibilities, but not as regular
or as standard as the priest.

Writes Eichrodt, as he describes the various functions
of the priest: "Pro—eminent among these is the work of coun—
selling and teaching, which was already of central importance
in the very earliest period."l G. Gray states that besides
the priest's sacrificial tasks, "an equal or greater demand
was made upon their time by other duties which may be broad—

"2

ly classified under the teaching function. And J. Pedersen

 

102. cit., p. 395.
202. cit., p. 217.

152
says, "The influence of the priests as . . . teachers of the

Tora may be traced throughout the history of Israel."1

This
agreement is the result of clear indications in the Old Testa—
ment. They may be divided into two classes: those of offi—

cial commandment, and those of historical example.

1. Official commandments

 

Two passages giving a general command to teach stand
out. The first, Deut. 33:10, comes in the section where
Levi's particular blessings and responsibilities are enumerat—
ed. As one of these responsibilities it is stated:

They shall teach Jacob thine ordinances,
And Israel thy law.

Of similar import is Num. 10:11 where the words are directed
particularly to Aaron, but in a representative capacity:

And that ye may teach the children of Israel all the
statutes which Yahweh hath spoken unto them by hoses.

Then, of a more specific nature, there is a command to teach
leprosy instructions (Lev. 14:57; Deut. 24:8); to give regu—
lations pertaining to "the tenor of the law" as this should
apply in any particular case for judgment (Deut. 17:8f; 19:

17); and to bring encouragement for warriors in time of bat—

tle (Deut. 20:2—3).

2. Examples of priestly teaching

 

The earliest clear examples of priestly teaching come

 

lIsrael, Its Life and Culture (London: Oxford Univ.
Press, 1926940), I—II, p. 163. Cf. J. Peters, op. cit., pp.
147—49; E. 0. James, 0 . cit., p. 232; and R. Bowman, "Kah—
weh the Speaker," JNES, 111(1944), pp. 1—8.

 

153
in the reign of Jehoshaphat, when two are described. The
first occurs in a reviVal context when Jehoshaphat, recently

come to power, lifts up his heart "in the wave of Yahweh" and

I]

4-

takes away ”the high places and the Asherim out of Judah."1

Then he sends Levites, naming nine, and priests, naming two,
to instruct throughout the land in the law: II Chr. 17:9

' Q

U

stating, "And they taught in Judah, havin the book of the

law of Yahweh with them; and they went about through all the
cities of Judah, and taught among the pecple.”

The second comes after a reprimand to Jehoshaphat by
the prOphet, Jehu, for mahing alliance with the "wicked"
Ahab at Ramoth—gilead. As a result, the king personally
tours his land which serves to bring the peeple "back unto
Yahweh." And then he instructs Levites and priests, and this

.1.

time also ”heads of the father‘s houses," to act

r‘J

8 judges
for controversies that might arise, and in that capacity to
warn the pecple "that they be not guilty towards Yahweh."2
A later example comes following the fall of Israel to
the Assyrians. Captives from the east had been quartered in

Israel, and, with a lion menace having shown itself among

them, they sent a request to the king of Assyria3 that one of

‘5
D
(D
H
U)
*3

aelite priests, formerly tahen from the land, be re—
turned so as to teach them "the law of the god of the land."

Thus, contemporary pecales too thought of priests as the pro-

‘v
d. ‘-

 

lII Chr. 17:6.

2Found in II Chr. 19:1—10.

3Sargon.

154

cf

per ones to sive such ins ruction.

Jeremiah describes the priests as those that handle
"the law" (2:8). His Opponents say their interest is that
"the law shall not perish from the priest" (18:18). Thus,
both believed that the handling of the law was particularly
the province of th e priest. Ezekiel, shortly after, implies
his similar belief as he predicts a day when "the law shall
perish from the priest" (7:26). Then later he says that the
priests of the future temple, which he has Just described,
"shall teach my peOple the difference between the holy and
the common, and cause them to discern between the unclean and
the clean" (M4:23).

Following the exile, the thinking is the sam . Haggai
goes to the priest to find an answer to a legal Question (2:
10f). Ezra is described as one prepared "to teach in Israel
st atutes and ordinances" (7:10). Then, when it is time to
read the law to the pecple, he does it and Mpp rently is as—
sisted by Levites (Neh. 8:lf). And Malachi, rep rimandin3 the
priests of his dai, says "the priest's lips should keep know—

ledge, and they should seek the law at his mouthu (2:7).

B. Levitical Cities
In the light of this Levitical responsibility for in~
struction, the reason for the Levitical cities being dis—

persed throughout the land appears.l According to Hum. 18:

 

lThese cities are com monly celled Levitical thou3h
they housed priests as well as Levites.

l 5

the Levites were to have no inheritance in the land,

U1

20f,l

but, of course, they needed some place to live. This was pro-
vided by designating forty—eight cities out of the other

2 And these were not to be in

tribes for their residence.
one area only, but diapersed among all the tribes, with an
average of four each.3 The advantage for priestly teaching
in this arrangement is easy to see. They would be near the
pecple so that none would have far to go for instruction.
Several indications in the later history show this plan

LL
was carried out.‘ For instance, when the Ark was returned to

Beth—shemesh by the Philistines, it was taken from the cart

 

1On the basis of Num. 18:20 (also 26:62 which is simi—
lar), R. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament (New
York: Harper & Bros., 1941), p. 261, says that these Leviti—
cal cities were only "a late afterthought, born in the fancy
of a priest but never put into practice." However, all that
these verses need to mean is that no tribal division of land
was given to the Levites. They had to have some place to
live, and so rather than give them a unit section, they were
provided these cities. From Lev. 25:32—33, it appears that
they did not possess all the houses in these cities, but on—
ly as many as they needed. Cf. J. Pedersen‘s discussion,

OE. Cit. , pr). 177“78.
2mum. 35:1—8; Deut. 19:1—13; Josh. 21.

 

3To the priests were assigned 13 cities from Judah,
Simeon, and Benjamin, The Levites held four in each of the
other tribes, except that Naphtali had only three. Cf.
"Levitical Cities," Unger‘s Bible Dictionary_(0hicago: Moody
Press: 1957): pp. 65gt59-

“There are no actual illustrations of Levites teaching
out from these cities, but this could well be due only to
lack of reason for giving such. Regular and routine matters
seldom find reason for mention. It should be observed too
that certain of the prescribed cities could not have been oc—
cupied by Levites for some time in that they were not ahen
from the Canaanites; for example, Gezer (Josh. 21:21° of.
Josh. 16:10) and Taanach (Josh. 21:25; cf. Jud. 1:275.

156

on which it had been carried and Levites, who were eVidently
present, made sacrifices in celebration.1 That Beth—shemesh
was listed as one of the Levitical cities would account nice—
1y for these Levites being thus handy. Again, regarding Ana—
thoth, another of these cities, Abiathar, the priest, was
told by Solomon to return there unto his "own fields" (I Kgs.
2:26). Hence, his ancestry had been assigned to this city.
Also Jeremiah attempted at one time to leave Jerusalem so as
to redeem property at Anathoth which had recently become his
by right of inheritance.2 And in the Opening words to his
book he states that he was of "the priests that were in Ana—
thoth" (1:1).

The Chronicler also gives a number of such intimations.
In I Chronicles there is first another listing of all the
Levitical cities, 6:50f; then in 9:2 he states tha priests
and Levites were among those who "dwelt in their possessions
in their cities"; and in 13:2, he observes that the "priests
and Levites are in their cities." In II Chronicles still
more instances occur. In 19:10, Jehoshaphat is made to say,
asidespeaks to the Levites, "Your brethren that dwell in
their cities”; in 2°:2, he tells of Jehoiada the priest as
having "gathered the Levites out of all the cities of Judah";
in 31:15, he speaks of "The cities of the priests"; in 31:19,
he talks of "The sons of Aaron the priests, that were in the

fields of the suburbs of their cities"; and in 35:3, he says

1I Sam. 6:15, the story occupying all the chapter.

2Jeremiah was informed of this inheritance privilege
by a relative, called his uncle's son (Jer. 32:8).

157
that Josiah instructed ”the Levites that taught all Israel."
Evidence may also be taken from the existence of cities

of refuge.1

There were six of these. Three were located on
the west of the Jordan and three on the east, and placed well
apart for convenience to the person who had killed someone.
He could run to the one nearest and be safe until trial could
be held. The evidence arises in that these refuge centers
were chosen from the Levitical cities. The reason for so
selecting them becomes apparent in the light that one of th
tasks of Levites was to give counsel in cases of this sort.2
Thus, they would be conveniently present for this purpose,3
as well as to give official protection to the person.4 Hence,
the fact of the refuge cities lends support to the fact and
operation of the Levitical cities.

Thus, the Levitical cities did exist; they were scat—
tered evenly through all the land; and the logical reason
for this was that Levites migit be near the peOple to in—

struct them. Though no details are supplied, it is likely

__4____

lNum. 35:1—34; Josh. 20:1-9.
2Deut. 17:8f; 19:17; 21:5.

3It would appear that elders did the actual Judgin
these cases. Josh. 20:4 states that they would hear the
slayer's case when he first entered the city. And from other
Judicial patterns (Deut. 17:8—11; 21:1—9) it would appear
that the Levitical function was limited to an advisory capa-
city.

g in

Q

”Both before trial and after, if the person was proven
innocent of malevolence. If innocent, he was to remain in
the refuge city until the deat of the high priest, after
which he could return home. So long as he complied with
this regulation, no person could legally take his life in
vengeance (Num. 35:25-28).

158
that the Levites, using these cities as a base, circulated
out among the villages of their region, perhaps holding reg—
ular classes, as well as providing individual instruction
and counsel. Samuel‘s pattern of circuit from Bethel to Gil-
gal to Minah and back to Ramah (I Sam. 7:15-17) may have

been suggested to him by this activity of the Levites.l

0. Relation to Other Responsibilities
The question must now be answered as to the relation
of this teaching ministry of the priests to their other du~
ties. wo general areas should be considered: that of sanc—

tuary service and that involving the Urim and Thummim.

l. Sanctuary service

 

Many scholars hold that there was no real central place
of worship until late in the seventh century following what
is called the Deuteronomist reform. Only then were priests
required to come to Jerusalem to conduct sacred service, hav—
ing been free before to perform sacrifices in many smaller
sanctuaries throughout the land. This thinking has accom—
panied the idea that the twelve tribes had little or no uni-

fying factor anong them until the time of the monarchy under

 

1With these cities thus spread out, no one tribe was
greatly burdened either. However, this advantage of itself
would hardly have been a Sufficient reason for the disper—
sion, for this alone would have been offset by the advantage
for these men to have lived nearer the central sanctuary.
They had to take their turn in service there, and so a near—
er proximity in residence would have been desirable. On
this basis alone, it would have made sense to assign them a
territory of their own near their work, which, indeed, was
often done in other lands.

 

159
Saul, and so no central place of worship before then
1y came to think in that direction after having lived thus
as a nation for many years.

Other scholars, however, believe there was the unifying
factor of a common heritage from the time of Moses, and that,
though the tribes were often divided in purpose after enter—
ing the land, a central sanctuary xisted among them symbol-
izing this fact.1 Individual altars were permitted in places
and on occasions of particular importance,2 but they had only
one place for general, public worship. This place was at Shi~
loh until the seizure of the Ark by the Philistines,3 and later
at Jerusalem after the erection of the temple. This is the
viewpoint of the present writer, and it is in term of it

that the activity of the priests will be viewed. A

 

l"’ith tr e sumces ion of M. Noth, The History of Is
(2d ed.; London: A. d C. Black Co., 19 8), p. 91, and others,
of a parallel in this history with the later Grecian amphic-
tyony, the number of scholars holding to an early, central
sanctuary has risen in recent years. Albright, indeed,
writes in a critical vein of the opposing viewwoint as he
says, "The only reason wh y the school of Wellhausen has con—
sistently disregarded or even rejected the straight~fcrward
Biblical account of the central Tabernacle at Shiloh is that
it does not fit into the postulated, but never demonstrated,
theory of progressive centre aliz ation of cult"; From the Stone
Age to Christianity (Baltimore: Johns HOpkins Press, l9bé),
p. 215. Neither Noth nor Albright acceptsthe idea of a com-
mon heritage for all the tribes, but only that they made a
confederation early, with the Shiloh sanctuary as a central
point of focus.

 

 

 

 

eon (Jud. 6 2 5—26), Manoah

2Such as illu us tr id
d( 5), etc.

(Jud. 13:16f), Da.vi It
3It may have been at Bethel for a short time; of. s n
pra, chap. III, p. 6“, note 3.

alt is believed unnecessary to bring here an argument
for this position. For the most part, those who reject an

160

What the pattern of Operation was for the priestly ac—
tivities at the central sanctuary before the time of David
may be conjectured in some part from the type of regulations
he established in his day, and which, then, continued through
ensuing centuries. David divided the priests into 24 courses,
with one course to be employed per week at the sanctuary.1
Each priest thus had an average of just over two weeks per
year responsibility. The frequency for the Levites is not
made quite so clear, though an inference of about the same
amount may be made.2 David took a census of those who were
of age for service and found them to number 38,000.3 Of these
he appointed 4000 singers, 4000 gatekeepers, 6000 "officers
and judges," and the remaining 24,000 for the normal work of
helping with the sacrifices. All these in turn were divided
into courses, though only the number of such for the singers

is indicated; namely, 24,4 like the priests. However, if

 

early sanctuary also reject an early organized priesthood
in the respective cities, for these matters are closely re—
lated. Hence, there is relevance for this discussion, at
least as it pertains to Israel's early history, only if
there was such an early sanctuary.

1These divisions are recorded in I Chr. 24.

2I Chronicles 23 gives general information as to the
Levites, and chapters 25 and 26 details as to the singers,
gatekeepers, and other special group divisions.

31 Chr. 23:3. The age of 30 here cited is probably a
COpyist's error following Num. 4:3. In I Chr. 23:24, the age
is given as 20 years and older. Moses himself had changed
the age down to 25, Num. 8:23-26. Later, II Chr. 31:17 in—
dicates this age of 20 to have been recognized in Hezekiah's
time, and Ezra 3:8 shows the same following the captivity.

“These courses are named in I Chr. 25:8—31.

_.__ p

161
these were 24, the probability is that the others were also,
or at least not greatly different. Consequently, it is war-
ranted to think in terms of about the same two weeks per year
responsibility for the Levites as for the priests.

This was the regulation following David's time. But
chat of before? Is it likely that David began something alto—
gether new? There is reason to think not. The reason is
that the same motivation existed prior to this time for these
divisions as prompted David's regulations; namely, too many
Levites to serve all at one time}‘ Also, the plan of having
priests and Levites quartered at some distance from Shiloh
from the first speaks of an infrequent call to sanctuary ser—
vice. Hence, probably about all that David did was to give
official formulation to what had been practiced for some time.
The frequency of service may have been lessened a little, and
perhaps a few other minor changes, but nothing major. Thus,
it is reasonable to think in terms of two weeks, or possibly
up to a month, of service per year at the sanctuary from ear-
ly in the tribal history; which means that each priest and
Levite had eleven months or more to spend in his home city.

And while at home, the time of these individuals, sig-
nificantly, was kept free from manual labor. Each had a little
land for pasturing a few animals,2 but none to farm. Indeed,

he was not supposed to, for his living was provided by the

 

1Due to the entire Levitic family being included. It
would have grown yet more, of course, by David‘s time.

2Rum. 35:3, where this pasture area is said to have ex—
tended a thousand cubits from the city on all sides.

152
tithes of the peOple.l Thus,}nmatime was kept free for teach-
ing. Which means, then, that so far as sanctuary service is
concerned, though this was important, it did not detract

greatly in point of time from the function of teaching.

2. Urim and Thummim_

 

As to the relation of the teaching of the priests to
their function with the Urim and Thummim, little need be add-
ed to the conclusions drawn in chapter III. It was there
pointed out that the Urim and Thummim, though given to the
Levites as a whole, was to be employed only by the high
priest. Thus, the responsibility of the regular priests
must have been limited to bringing questions, whether of
themselves or their constituency, to the high priest for an—
swer, and then returning the answer to those who had asked.

At times there would have been decisions affecting pecple gen-
erally, and these also would have had to be conveyed.

Hence again, though this Urim and Thummim activity was
also important, it would not have detracted greatly either
from the time for teaching. Rather, it would have nicely
complemented that activity, for the decisions to be convey—
ed would have provided a part of the information to be taught;
and, even more, it would have reminded the pecple each time

that these priests were indeed Yahweh's authorized messengers.

D. Little Early Mention

The Old Testament gives little direct indication of

1Lev. 27:30~33; Num. 18:21—24.

n!

1

(fl

(1)

H)

(1

163.
this teaching being carried on by early priests. In fact,
as observed above, the first definite mention comes only in
the time of Jehoshaphat, and then merely as a special activity,
not a routine function. Accordingly, the task arises of ac-
counting for this little mention.

In brief, the answer is flaund in the fact of lack of
reason for including mentions to this effect. That is, this
teaching was too much a routine feature of life for the writ—
ers to find cause for speaking of it. Evidence is found in
three observations.

The first is that regular, routine teaching by the
priests is not described in the later history either. The
two instances with Jehoshaphat, as noted, do not record such.
The case of the foreigners in Israel, calling for the return
of a teaching, native priest, does not illustrate it. And
the references made by Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Haggai, Ezra, and
Malachi, though all implying it, only mention it in passing
and do not describe it. In fact, what they say is largely as
applicable to early teaching as to later. But if its exis—
tence did not call for mention in the later history, it fol—
lows that it need not have done so either in the early history.

The second concerns the type of information that Old
Testament writers saw fit to include in their records, noting
that it did not involve such as routine teaching. The s00pe
of subject matter was really quite limited. For instance,
they did not include even outstanding historical events of

their time. Ahab might join an international alliance to

/n

164
stOp the invading Shalmaneser III at Karkar, but to learn of

it one must consult the records of Assyria, not Israel.l

Or
Ahab's father, Omri, might conquer the neighboring Moabites,
but to learn of it one must read a Moabite inscription, not
Israel's Old Testament.2
And neither did these writers include record Of normal
home activities in any detail; in fact, activities which were
basic to their way of life. Next to nothing, for instance,
is included relative to civil government for the tribal per—
iod. A few hints that elders were in general supervision are
given,3 but no information as to what type of organization
they worked through, or their relation to the occasional judg-
es who arose. And there is even surprising lack of mention
regarding the central sanctuary. Its existence is made clear
enough, but there is so little as to its operation. The book
of Joshua specifies its establishment,4 Judges says enough
to indicate its existence,5 and I Samuel describes something
as to its Operation, but only because it was being Operated

6

wrongly. Really at no time is the normal activity depicted.

 

lDescribed on the Monolith inscription of Shalmaneser
III. This battle was fought in 854 B.C.; of. G. Barton, gag
chaeology and the Bible (7th ed.; Philadelphia: American Sun—
day School Union, 19377, pp. 457—58.

 

2Recorded on the Moabite Stone, written by Mesha, king
of Moab, against whom Jehoram of Israel and Jehoshaphat of
Judah joined in battle (II Kgs. 3); of. W. Bennett, "Moab,
Moabites," 2E, III, pp. 402—413, for text and description.

3Jud. 8:14—16; 11:5—11; 21:16.
1+Josh. 18:1-9; 19:51; 22:9—12.

5Jud. 18:31; 21:19. 61 Sam. 2:12—17.

F...

165

Consequently, if important historical events were not
recorded, and especially if other routine functions of this
kind were not included, then it should not be thought unus—
ual that regular teaching activity was not mentioned.

And the third is that there is even more reason for
such omission in the book of Judges, which is mainly concerned
here, in that its author had the Special interest of record—
ing only the deviant behavior of the day. The twice-used
phrase supplies the key: "Every man did that which was right
in his own eyes" (Jud. 17:6; 21:19). The first chapter indi-
cates lack in occupying the land as directed. Chapter two
tells of the pecple generally forsaking Yahweh for Baal, stat~
ing t.at because of this the series of foreign occupations was
permitted. Charters three through sixteen describe this ser—
ies, giving record of the recurring cycle of invasion, repent~
ance, deliverance, and renewed defection. And then the clos—
ing chapters give particular examples of bad behavior: concern—
ing Micah, the moving Danites, the ravaging of he Levite's
concubine, and the resulting civil war. Thus, no record of
normal, peaceful, legal activity, like priestly teaching,
could find a place of entry here.

Such considerations as these adequately account for the
little mention of early priestly teaching. It did exist. In
fact, it is because it existed as such a routine part of life

that it was not mentioned.

E. Bulwark against Canaanite Influence

An important question concerns why Israel was not influ—

166
enced more than she was by the Canaanites. She was influ-
enced, as observed in chapter II. But there was reason for
much more. There was the wide difference in cultural level ,
between them; there was the significant fact that Israelites
had to learn agricultural techniques from this pecple who
believed worship of Baal the most important part; and there
was the common enemy of the Philistines which encouraged mu-
tual protection. Yet Israel was not engulfed by the Canaan—
ite culture. The distinction between the two pecples always
remained clear, and this especially in morality and religion.
The words of A. Guillaume are much to the point:

Thus the religious history of the Near East presents us
with a general rule and an exception. The rule was that
every peOple who entered the orbit of Sumerian influence
succumbed to its mythology. The exception was Israel.

If we endeavor to eXplain this exception on purely human
analogies, there seems to be no ground for it. The Is-
raelites began as other invaders of Palestine had begun.
They came as a comparatively ignorant pecple to learn

the arts of civilization from the subject peOples. They
intermarried with them, formed alliances with them, spoke
substantially the same language, and were ultimately con»
quered by another still more civilized and powerful branch
of the great Semitic race. Unlike every other nation,
they did not abandon their God in favor of the gods of
the conquerors who had overthrown them.

W. Eichrodt suggests as a reason for this unusual re-
sistance, as pointed out in the prior chapter, the fact of an
Opposed, early prOphetic movement. But would this source of
resistance have been enough? It would seem not. And it need

not have been either, for there was available in the priests

lPrOpheoy and Divination among the Hebrews and Other
Semites ILondon: Hodder & Stoughton, 1938), p. 98. Cf. N.
Gottwald, A Light to the Nation§‘(NeW'York: Harper & Bros.,
1959), p. 179; Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (Phil—
adelphia: Westminster Press, 1961), p. 121.

167

a potential for Opposition yet stronger and better organized.
They were the official teachers, recognized to this end.
They were of large number, and were in close, continuous con—
tact with the peOple. To them pecple would naturally have
turned for advice on such a matter. And, of course, being
teachers of Yahweh's law, their advice would have been to re—
siet all such foreign influence. Consequently, it is altogeth-
er reasonable to think of the priests in this capacity. It
may be, indeed, that many times a major part of their instruc—
tive efforts were lent in this direction. For the pull away
from Yahweh would have been strong. Often, a given community
likely wavered on a fine edge of indecision. Abi-ezer, in—
deed, where Gideon lived, for a time decided for Baal (Jud.
6:25-3k). Likely other places did too. But in general their
resistance was successful, for Israel maintained her unique—
ness especially in religion.

This fact may be cited as further evidence for the exis—
tence of the priest group as it has been described. For it
is highly doubtful if any other eXplanation would be adequate
for this resistance. PrOphets would have been helpful, but
they would not have commanded nearly the influence of the

priests with their greater numbers and strategic situations.

III. Content of the Teachipg

 

The fact of the priestly teaching has been the concern
thus far. But what now of its content? What did the priests
teach? The Old Testament indicates that they taught the

torah. But what was the torah? This question must be an—

168

swered both formally and materially.

A. Identification Formally

1. Parallel terms

 

Certain terms appear frequently in parallel with, or
in relation to, the term, torah. They are five in number:
mishpatim, "Judgments"; huggim, "statutes"; mitswoth, "com-

mandments"; 'edoth, "testimonies"; and piqqudim, "precepts."

 

The first three are the more common.

Though these words are often used thus parallel with
Iggggg, still Egpph alone is also used in reference to law gen-
erally. It is regularly used, for instance, in such a phrase
as "the Egggh of Yahweh," or "the Egggh_of Moses," while one

never finds such as "the mishpatim of Yahweh" or "the mitswoth

 

of Moses." Thus, it is correct to speak here of the content
of priestly teaching as involving the Egggh, rather than the
mishpatim, etc. It is necessary, however, to take notice of
these other words for they supply background and content for

the more inclusive term.

a. Mishpatim, "judgments"

 

This word comes from the verbal root, shaphat, meaning

"to Judge." Thus, mishpatim are judgments which issue from

 

acts of Judging. When used in its legal sense, the term car—
ries reference to a particular kind of law, namely "case-

law.“1 A good example may be seen in Ex. 21:1, where the

 

le. G. T. Manley, The Book of the Law; Grand Rapids:

 

169
term is directly followed by a series of laws of this type;

the pattern being, "If a man do . . . then he shall ."

b. Hugeim, "statutes“

This word is from the root, hgggg, meaning "to cut" or
"to inscribe," and so here means something inscribed as a
permanent rule of conduct. Again a specific kind of law is
intended; namely apodictic law, carrying the pattern: "Thou
shalt do . . ." In contrast to the former type, there is no
"if" clause setting up a situation, and so these are more
general in scope. G. Manley distinguishes between them fur-
ther, saying that the "Judgments" were a matter for the judge
to decide, the "statutes" for one's own conscience.l And in
keeping with this distinction, Solomon is told to “walk" in
God's "statutes" and "execute" God's “judgments" (I Kgs. 6:
12). An illustration of "statutes" can be found directly fol—
lowing the instance of "judgments" Just cited, running from

Ex. 2:21 to 23:19.

c. Mitswoph, "commandments"

This word is from the root tsawah, meaning “to com-
mand." Hence, mitswoth are the commandments thus issued. It
is used in the Old Testament generally of commandments as
given either by God or man. It thus does not carry the Spe—

cific sense as do the first two, though M. Kyle believes it

Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1957), p. 72; also M. G. Kyle, The
Problem of the Pentateuch (Oberlin, Ohio: Bibliotheca Sacra

Co., 1920), pp. 13—15.

102. cit.

 

170

often carries particular reference to the Decalogue.l

d. 'edoth, "testimonies"

This word and the next occur much less frequently than
the first three; 'edoth appearing only 22 times in the sense
here pertinent, with only three of these in the Pentateuch.2
It comes from the root Lpdh, meaning "to bear testimony,"
thus connoting God testifying to man of His will. M. Kyle

"3

says it represents "the law as the voice of God. In a form
closely allied, igdpph, it is used to describe the Tables of
Law (Ex. 31:18), the Ark (Ex. 26:33), and the Tabernacle (Ex.
38:21), thus connoting these as representing God's witness

here on earth.

6. Piqqudim, "precepts"

 

This word is from the root paoadh meaning "to visit"
or "to oversee." The latter meaning is significant here;
thus giving the thought to piogudim Of "oversight." That is,
laws so designated were seen as means by which oversight or
supervision was effected. The word is extremely limited in
use, not being found at all in the Pentateuch, but only the

Psalms.

2. Meaning_of torah

 

The etymology of torah is not so easily determined, and

accordingly difference Of Opinion exists. 8. R. Driver finds

 

low. cit., pp. 10,27.

The others are in the Psalms.

Op. cit., p. 8.

b) N

171

the derivation in the root, yargh, meaning "to point out" or
"to cast," taking the idea "pointing out” in the sense of in-
structing.l H. W. Robinson uses the same word, but in the
sense of "casting,“ seeing connoted the idea of "casting"
the Urim and Thummim by which to determine Yahweh‘s laws.2
G. Manley and M. Kyle agree with Driver but particularize
the "pointing out" in instruction as by Yahweh, not by human
priests as Driver primarily thought of it? 'W. Albright takes
a different word, the Babylonian tertu, meaning "commission,
command, oracle," and so stresses the idea of Divine utter—
ance.4

Since the Old Testament places stress on relating the
tgrah to Yahweh, as will be observed presently, the two posi—
tions which also connote Divine origin are to be favored;
namely, that of Manley and Kyle using yarah, and of Albright
using tgrgg. Between these two, however, it is hard to de—

cide. Either fits the picture of the torah as set forth by

the sacred writers.

8. Identity of the torg_

J

 

What now was the torah? How did the priests, and those

whom they taug.t, think of it? Several considerations show

llntroduction to the Literature of the Old Testament
(5th ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1893), p. 1H5.

 

2The Old Testament, Its Meaningkand Mahin: (Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 1937), pp. 171—72.

 

3Manley, 0p. cit., p. 67; Kyle, 0p. cit., p. 2.

“umhe Names 'Israel' and ‘Judah,'" ggp, XLVI<1927), 180.
Tertu implied the idea of Divine origin for the command.

172
that they thought of the torah as a body of law given by

Yahweh through Moses.l

a. The torah is commonly referred to in the Old Testament as
of Yahweh. Not counting the mentions of torah occurring be—

fore the close of Deuteronomy, there are more than 150 uses

,

of tne word, and nearly half relate it to Yahweh, either by

use of the personal name or such pronouns as "my," "thy," or

2

"his." Two times the torah is said to have come from the

mouth of Yahweh (Job 22:22; Ps. 119:72).

b. In this same portion of the Old Testament, the phrase,
"torah of Moses," occurs 15 times, and some additional in—
stances use both names, Yahweh and Moses; as, for example, II
Chr. 34:14, "The book of the law of Yahweh given by Moses."
Joshua in his closing message first admonishes the pecple to
keep the "law of Moses," and then is said to have written
"these words in the book of the law of God," (italics mine)
thus showing the close relation of both God and Moses to this

law (Josh. 23:6; 24:26).

c. The Pentateuch portrays the torah as having been given by

Yahweh to Moses. In Ex. 13:9, Hoses is promised that the

A AA

lJ. Robertson, Early Religion of Israel (2d ed.; Phil—
adelphia: Westminster Press, 1903), p. 335, says, "The per—
sistance with which it is presented that law, moral and cere—
monial, came from Moses, and the acceptance of the laws by
the whole pecple as of Mosaic origin, proves at least that
it was a deeply rooted belief in the nation. . . . The tes—
timony of a nation is not so lightly to be set aside."

2 i. .

~It is apprOpriate to exclude the Pentateuch nere for
Moses yet lived and the torah, accordingly, was in process
of preparation.

173
"law of Yahveh“ shall be in his mouth. In 18:20, he is in—
structed to teach the pecple "ordinances and laws." And in

24:12, God directs him to "come up to me into the mount, and

0.]

e there: and I will give thee the tables of stone, and the
law and the commandment, which I have written, that thou may—
est teach them.“ Hoses obeys and is said to have remained on

the mountain forty days, presumablv receiving the same.

0.)

d. In contrast, never is the torah ascribed in a parallel
way to the priests. Never does such a phrase occur, for in-
stance, as "the law of the priests," or “the law of Yahwe.
gave through the priests." Priests are its adminis~
ters. They teach and counsel in view of it, but they are

never represented as having originated it.

e. To account for such a major role being ascribed to Moses,
it has been said that this was a type of "blind ascription

to some great ancestor," but James Robertson presents a force—
ful objection. Ie says, ”There are ordinances and customs
which are not traced to him,” such as the Sabbath being
grounded in creation, circumcision being already given to
Abraham, nacrifices being practiced long before Moses, and

the "abstaining from the sinew that shrank" being traced to
Jacob. He then asks why, if Moses was simply thus given a

blind ascription, all these matters were not so ascribed.1

O

i. A viewpoint held by many scholars is that the torah was

 

to

O

K 0
k1)
U1

 

174
a body of gradually growing law which resulted mainly from
Urim and Thummim determinations. New determinations, when
of general significance, would be considered individual £237
ahg to be added to the collective Egggh.l But the Old Testa—

ment gives no indication to this effect. Indeed, never does

the word, toran, occur in connection With he Urim and Thum—

 

mim. A most aperpriate place for such a mention too comes
in Rum. 27:21, there Joshua is instructed to listen to the
high priest for directives, which he, in turn, would receive
by Urim and Thummim. If such directives were considered £237
ah, why were they nctso called in this place?

In the light of these considerations, the conclusion is
definite that the pecple believed the torah had been given
by Yahweh through Hoses. This torah carried Divine authority,

consequently, as the priests taught it to the pecple.

4. Date of the torah

 

It has long been customary to find three main codes of
law in the Pentateuch; one assigned to the Yahwist document
of the ninth century, one to the Deuteronomist of the seventh,
and the third to the Priestly of the fifth. But on this ba—
sis, the early priests would have had little to teach, In
recent years, however, many have revised this thinking, if not
in terms of final composition of these codes, at least as to
the date when many of the laws were first formulated.

One point of view in this revision is that of the oral

 

10f. N. Snaith, Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament
(London: Epworth Press, 1944), p. 75.

 

175
traditionalists of the Uppsala school. They see a long oral
transmission for much of the Old Testament, including these
legal portions, prior to being putixlwriting. Thus, they
believe a substantial part of the law was likely in existence
in this oral form from earliest days.1 Others, not of this
school, have also come to view much of the Pentateuch as hav—
ing existed from early times at least in oral form. For in-
stance, W. Albright says "that the background of the Book
of the Covenant, . . . must go back substantially to the Mo-
saic age.“2 J. Bright states, "A vast quantity of material,
even in the latest documents--poems, lists, laws, and narra-
tives" have been pushed back to "the early periods of Is-
rael's history."3 And N. Eichrodt, speaking even of the
"Priestly law," normally put last in date, says, "The basic
stratum of the law goes right back to the beginnings of the
nation's history and confirms the tradition that Moses regu-

lated its cultic life as well."LP

 

1For a fine survey of recent develOpments, not only in
the oral traditionalist school, but also other reactions
against the older literary criticism, of. C. R. North, "Pen—
tateuchal Criticism," The Old Testament and Modern Study,
ed. H. Rowley (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1951), pp. 48—82.

 

2"Archaeology of the Ancient East," The Old Testamen:
and Modern Study, ed. H. Rowley (Oxford: Clarendon Press,

1951). p. 39.

3"Modern Study of Old Testament Literature," The Bible
and the Ancient Near East, ed. G. Wright (Garden City, N.J.:
Doubleday & ce., 1961), p. 22.

”Op. cit., p. 73. Eichrodt grounds this thinking in
what he believes was a fundamental, covenantal relation be—
tween Yahweh and Israel from the day of Moses; ibid., pp.
37-39. This idea is shared by others. For instance, G.
Wright says, "Recent study, however, makes it increasingly

 

 

 

 

176

On the basis of these viewpoints, a different picture
presents itself. For these see a substantial part of the
Pentateuchal laws as having existed from early days, and so
the priests would have had ample material to teach. The pre-
sent writer finds himself fa r more in agreement with this
position; believing, indeed, that the torah in its entirety
came from the time of Moses, with possibly certain minor sup~

plementations.l

B. Identification Materially
Before looking at the content prOper of the tore h, it
is well to make a brief comparison with other laws of the
day. The question is of interest 1Mhet er Israel's priests
taught a unique law to their pecple or whether it was similar

to others in the world.

1. Comparison with other laws

 

difficult to give credence to" the idea that the concept of

a "special covenant between God and Israel" arose late; "The
Faith of Israel, " IE, I, p. 356. J. Bright, A History of
Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1959), p. 137,

says, "These features—-election and covenant, the stipula—
tions of covenant and its promises—-were of the structure

of Israel's faith from the beginning and so remained throu gh—
out all her history.“ H. Orlinsk Ancient Israel (2d ed.;
Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press, 1960 , pp. 1L8é55, presents

a similar viewpoint.

 

 

1This position is based eSpecially on the following
reasons, briefly stated: (1) Moses' ability for the task,
both in terms of education and accessibility to necessary
information. (2) Advanced stage of writing he could have
used. (3) That six times the Pentateuch states that he wrote
some part of it. (4) The strong testimony of the remainder of.
the Old Testament to his authorship. And (5) the testimony
of Christ and the New Testament, even equating the name,
Moses, to one division of the Hebrew Bible, the torah.

177

Six codes of law of the ancient Near East have been dis-
covered. G. Mendenhe 11 list s them in t1 e follot1ng order:
(1) the Ur—nammu code, c. 2050 B.C., from the Third Dynasty
of Ur; (2) the code of Bilalama, c. 1925 B.C., from Esr nunna;
(3) the code of Lipit-Ishtar, c. 1860 B.C., from Isin; (u)
the code of Hammurabi, c. 1700 B.C., from Babylon; (5) the
Hittite code, 0. 1450 B.C., from Boghazkoy; and (6) the As—
syrian code, 0. 1350 B.C., from Assur.1

These codes have been carefully compared, especially
that of Hammurabi, with the Mosaic law. Some similarities
have been found, but more diffe ences. H. Orlinsky concludes
some discussion of the matter, saying, "By and large the Is—
raelit es made and comriled their own laws to suit their own
way of life, and what they did borrow from others they adapt-
ed to their own needs."2 And T. J. Meeks concludes similarly,
"Most of their law, however, was their own, . . . and what
they did borrow they made their own."3 The principal con—

trasts follow.

a. Difference in form

Hebrew legislation has both the casuistic and apodictic

 

lMendenhall, "Ancient Oriental and Biblical Law, " BA,
XVII(May, 1954), 33, note 18. For text and discussion of “the
codes, cf. ANET, pp. 159—98.

2Ancient Israel (2d ed.; Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press,
1960), p. 62.

3Hebrew Origins (New York: Harper & Bros., 1950), p.
81. For other Judgments, of. G. Ricciotti, The History of
Israel (2d ed.; Milwaukee: Bruce Pub. Co., 1958), I, p. 204;
R. Harrison, A History of Old Testament Times (London: Mar—
shall, Morge an & Scott, 1957), p. 116.

 

 

 

178
law types (called respectively "Judgments" and "statutes"
above); the former beginning with an "if," and so setting up
a specific situation, and the latter covering a general area
of conduct. The other codes major almost exclusively on the
casuistic type, though Mendenhall has correctly pointed out
that the apodictic is used though rarely.l The significance
is that Israelites, in contrast to their neighbors, were ex—
pected to observe laws which covered conduct in all situations

and not Just specific instances.

b. Difference in general character

G. Manley states that Hammurabi's code (to which the
others are similar) is legal and secular in its approach,
dealing with "prOperty, marriage, and inheritance, . . . the
legal rights of employers and employed in various trades, . .
. the fines and penalties for damage or misdemeanour."2 In
contrast, the Hebrew legislation is deeply religious in atmos-
phere, with a large percentage of laws pertaining to morality
and religion. In Deuteronomy alone, the name, Yahweh, ap—
pears 189 times. And when purely secular regulations are

stated, they often are grounded for their rationale in a re—

 

lOp. cit., pp. 29-30, where Mendenhall corrects others
who had said srael was unique in this respect, citing evi-
dence mainly from the Hittite code. T. J. Meek also finds
examples in the Assyrian laws, ANET, p. 183, note 24. How—
ever, Eichrodt, op. cit., p. 71, writing yet later, still
says that "we are dealing in Israel with a genuinely new for-
mulation" in respect to the apodictic type law.

2The Book of the Law (Grand Rapids: U. B. Eerdmans
Pub. Co., 1957). p- 67-

 

179

ligious framework.

0. Difference in moral tone
A difference in moral tone exists between Israel's law
and these other codes. A. Jeremias, speaking particularly
of the Babylonian code, says in this regard:
(1) There is no control of lust. (2) There is no limi—
tation of selfishness through altruism. (3) There is
nowhere to be found a postulate of charity. (4) There
is nowhere to be found the religious motif which recog—
nizes sin as the destruction of the pecple because it is
in Opposition to the fear of God.
d. Difference in social distinctions
The Hammurabi code (to which again the others carry sim-
ilarities) distinguishes three classes of pecple in its so—

ciety: free men (awelum), semifree (mushkenum), and slaves.

 

Israel‘s torah has nothing parallel. Slaves are mentioned,
but in the sense of protecting their rights, not maintaining

their existence for a privileged class.

e. Difference in implied life situations

Hammurabi's laws are directed to an urban pecple, set~
tled, with irrigation in process, and industry and trade well
established. Israel's law, in contrast, is addressed to an
agricultural pecple, where food and clothing are a chief con—

cern, and city problems are as yet non—existent. This differ-

 

1The Old Testament in the Light of the Ancient East,
trans. C. L. Beaumont (London: Williams & Norgate, Univ. of
Wales Press Board, 1911), II, p. 112. Deut 4:8 is pertinent
here for contrast: “And what great nation is there, that
'hath statutes and ordinances so righteous as all this law,
which I set before you this day?"

180
ence fits the contrasting situations of the two pecples at

the time of the Hebrew‘s entrance into Palestine.

2. Content prOper

 

A general survey of Israel's torah now follows. The
three customary divisions of moral, civil, and ceremonial

law are observed.1

a. Moral law

The term, moral law, has the disadvantage of implying
that the civil and ceremonial divisions of the pgggh_are non—
moral. This of course is not so. What is meant is that the
moral law, often called the Ten Commandments or Decalogue,
supplies the broad, moral principles for governing life gen-
erally, and also the moral basis upon which the more specific
civil and ceremonial regulations rest.
The Ten Commandments carry two fundamental divisions,2
often called the Two Tables. The first concerns man's duties
to God: as to God‘s being, His worship, His name, and His
day. The second concerns man‘s duties to fellow man: as to
honoring parents, not murdering, not committing adultery, not
stealing, not bearing false witness, and not coveting.

There is reason to believe that these laws were consid—

 

lFor helpful treatments, cf. G. Mendenhall, op. cit.,
pp. 26—46, and also his "Covenant Form in Israelite Tradi—
tion," BA, XVII(Sept., 1954), 50~76; "Law of Moses," Unser's
Bible Dictionary, pp. 647—u9; and S. R. Driver, "Law (in Old
Testamentx“.2§, III, pp. 64—73.

2Listed in Ex. 20:1-17 and Deut. 5:6—21. The numbering
here observed is that commonly held by protestant churches.

181
ered of great importance in Israel. They were stressed by
being engraven on stone, and then placed, as symbolic of all
the law, in the sacred Ark.l In Deut. 4:13, Moses even
equates them with the covenant, saying, "And he, Yahweh, de-
clared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to per—
form, even the ten commandments." Then, showing the think—
ing of Jews regarding them in New Testament time, the rich
young ruler, hearing Jesus respond to his inquiry by quoting
from the Decalogue, understood quickly the significance of

2 And at another time the Jews desired to know

Jesus' answer.
which was the greatest commandment, and Jesus again referred
directly to the Decalogue as He summarized its two Tables,
saying that they should first love God and then their fellow
man as themselves.3
It is likely, then, that these laws comprised a funda—
mental part in the priestly instruction. The pecple should
be grounded in these that they might carry out the more spe—
cific regulations prOperly. There was not so much here for
them to learn, but there was a great deal respecting voli~

tional conformance. Constant reminder and urging would have

been necessary to bring the desired result.

b. CiVil law

The civil law gave specific instructions as to daily,

 

lEx. 34:28,29; Deut. 10:1-5.

21m. 10:17-20

3Matt. 22:36-40.

182

social relationships. Many of the laws dealt with personal
inter—relationships: fathers and children, husbands and
wives, masters and slaves, and kindness toward the stranger.
Fathers were to maintain authority over their children (EX.
21:15,l7; Lev. 20:9); the first born was to inherit a double
portion (Deut. 21:15-17); unmarried daughters were to remain
entirely dependent on their fathers (Num. 30:3-5). Mar—
riages within a certain degree were forbidden (Lev. 18:1f);
the widow could claim the right of raising up seed by the
unmarried brother of her deceased husband (Deut. 25:5—10);
slander against a wife's virginity was punishable by fine
(Deut. 22:13—21). The master could not punish his slave too
severely or else he became subject to punishment himself
(Ex. 21:2—27); slaves were to be freed at the sabbatical year
(EX. 21:1—6); Deut. 15:12-18); foreign slaves could be held
for life (Lev. 25:45,46). Kindness to the stranger was a
duty for all (Ex. 22:21; Lev. 19:33.34).

Then there were laws dealing with land and prOperty
(Lev. 25:22—28); Deut. 24:19—21); with debts (Deut. 15:1—11);
with non—exaction of interest (Ex. 22:25—27; Deut. 23:19—20);
with taxation (Ex. 30:12-16); the Spoils of war (Num. 31:26f);
and the right of the poor to glean fields and vineyards (Lev.
19:9,10; Deut. 24:19-22).

Further, there were the judicial laws to which the
priests carried a special relationship. There appear to
have been two levels of courts: the local courts and a high—

er court. As to the local, Deut. 16:18 states, "Judges and

183
officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates," and then ad—
monishes strict justice to be observed in all decisions made.
It is of interest that these court officials were to sit in
the gate to hear their cases, as was customary also in adja—

cent countries.1

The higher court was for cases "too hard"
for the lower (Deut. 17:8). It sat at the central sanctuary,
and was composed of priests, serving there, and a lay Judge.
The judge conducted the investigation (Deut. 19:18) and the
priests served as legal counsels.

Besides these courts, there was also judicial activity
by the elders of the cities. For instance, they were to re—
turn the murderer to the ”avenger of blood" (Deut. 19:12);
to decide the case of a rebellious son (Deut. 21:18f); and
to hear a husband's charge against the virgin chastity of
his new bride (Deut. 22:13f). These matters likely did not
require as much investigation, and perhaps could be handled
with greater dispatch by civic officials. They also sat in
the gate for these dispositions (Deut. 21:19; 22:15).2

Court decisions required at least two witnesses (Deut.
29:15). If a witness proved false, he received the punish—
ment of the accused had he been proven guilty (Deut. 19:16—

l9). Punishment was executed without delay (Num. 15:36;

 

1The Lachish ostraca were discovered in the gate of
Lachish, for they were part to the evidence in a trial in
progress at the time of the city's destruction. Cf. Deut.
21:19; Prov. 22:22; Amos 5:15.

2An illustration of perverted Justice by elders serv-
ing in this capacity occurred in connection with Naboth when
Jezebel sent letters requiring his false conviction and
death (I Kgs. 21:5«13).

184

Deut. 22:18), was sometimes carried out in the presence of
the Judge (Deut. 25:2f), and even by the officials them—
selves (Deut. 22:18). If the sentence was stoning, then
many peOple assisted (Num. 15:36; Num. 22:21), and the wit—
nessess had to cast the first stones (Deut. 13:9).

The importance of instruction in this civil law is ob-
vious. These laws concerned daily conduct. Hence, the
priests doubtless spent much time with them, helping the peo—

ple to know their responsibilities and privileges.

c. Ceremonial law

The ceremonial law had to do with the religious life
of the peOple. It required personal faith and love toward
God and laid down numerous regulations as to how those atti—
tudes should be demonstrated.

A maJor portion of these regulations pertained to sanc-
tuary service. Such were of primary importance to the offi—
cials themselves, indicating their clothing, the description
of the sacrifices to offer, and the procedures in doing so.1
Accordingly, they must have spent much time in acquainting
themselves with this information, but probably much less in
detailing it to the peOple. Some matters would have been im-
portant to teach, however; particularly as to the offerings
the pecple themselves were required to make, such as the sin

, 9
offering, the trespass offering, and peace offerings.”

 

lFound mainly in Leviticus, a sort of priestly handbook.

2The sin offerings and peace offerings had both a pub—
lic and private aspect; i.e. certain of them were offered

185

Another aspect of the ceremonial law concerned the an—
nual festivals. Three were of primary importance: the feast
of Passover in the spring (Ex. 12:1-28; Hum. 28:16-25; Deut.
18:1—8); the feast of Pentecost fifty days later (EX. 34:22;
Lev. 23:15; Deut. 16:10); and the feast of Tabernacles in the
fall (Lev. 23:34—42; Num. 29:12—40). Two others also came
in the fall: the feast of Trumpets (Hum. 28:11~l5; 29:1—6),
and the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:1—34; Ex. 30:10-30; Num.
29:7—11). Then the Sabbath came weekly, when twice the num—
ber of animals were sacrificed as on ordinary days (Ex. 20:
8—11; Lev. 23:1—3); and there was the monthly observance of
the New Moon, when yet more were required. The pecple had
definite responsibility with all these matters, and so the
priests would have had to spend considerable time with them.

Then, beside these broader areas, there were also more
individual regulations. Among these, the matter of clean
and unclean food would have been important to knowg'also laws
of purification, as for a new mother (Lev. 12:2—8), or for
either a man or woman with a "running issue" (Lev. 15:2—33).
Further, leprosy regulations were detailed (Lev. 13-14) and

the priests were told to make these clear (Deut. 24:8).

 

regularly for all, collectively, and others were only offered
on occasion by private individuals as need arose. For the
most part, the peace offerings were entirely voluntary, be—
ing rendered at times of deep thanksgiving for some special
blessing received.

lEzekiel, speaking of his predicted temple, states spe—
cifically that its priests will give instruction as to "the
holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the un-
clean and the clean" (Ezek. 44:23).

186
‘IV. History_of Priestly Teaching
Some attention must yet be given to the history of the
priests in their effectiveness as Israel's teachers. The in-
formation with which to work is meager, but sufficient for

a general survey.

A. Until the Destruction of Shiloh

Some of the more important features of the earliest per-
iod have been cited in prior connections: namely, that the
priests occupied cities evenly distributed throughout the
land; that for at least eleven months of the year they could
dwell in them and so be near the peOple for teaching; that
the Canaanite influence was a maJor factor for them to combat
from the first; and that they were in the main successful in
this Opposition.

Some defection arose among the priests during this time,
as illustrated eSpecially by the wandering Levite in the Micah
story.1 No indication is given that he had turned from Yah—
weh as his god, but it is clear that he had turned away from
the normal life of a priest. He evidently had not liked his
assigned city and so was out looking for a new one. His 0p-
portunist nature is revealed as he remained with Micah only
until a more attractive situation presented itself with the
moving Danites.

Later, defection of a yet more serious nature appeared

at the central sanctuary itself. HOphni and Phinehas, two

 

1Jud. 17—18. He must have moved first to Bethlehem,
from which he had come, for this was not a Levitic city.

187

sons of the high priest, Eli, were the leaders in the lawless
activity. They illegally seized much of the meat brought for
sacrifice by the peOple (1 Sam. 2:12~l7); they "lay with the
women that did service at the door of the tent of meeting"
(I Sam. 2:22); and so caused men to abhor "the offering of
Yahweh." PeOple thus no longer wished to carry out their
sanctuary responsibilities. Doubtless there would have been
a resulting effect on priestly activities in the cities. Reg—
ular turns of service at the sanctuary certainly would have
been interrupted, and a general lowering in sense of dedica-
tion may eaSily have come. Teaching efficiency likely reached
its lowest point, consequently, at this time.

The climax came when the Ark was taken from Shiloh out
to battle and then captured by the Philistines. The two
wicked sons were killed in the conflict, and this left the

time ripe for the emergence of Samuel, now of age and ready.1

B. Destruction of Shiloh to David
Nothing more is heard of Shiloh as a place of worship
after the loss of the Ark.2 However, this loss did not mean
the end of the Tabernacle, for the Chronicler states that in

David's day "the tabernacle of Yahweh which Moses made in

 

1The degree of dominance which the Philistines held over
Israel here is strikingly indicated by the lack of retalia—
tion on Israel's part. However, it must be remembered that
the army had Just been tragically defeated and no strong
military figure was on hand to Spark such retaliation.

2Jeremiah‘s word to Jerusalem is in keeping as he later
stated that the same would happen to her for her sin as did
to Shiloh (Jer. 7:12—14; 26:6—9; of. P8. 78:60).

188

the wilderness, and the altar of burnt-offering, were at that
time in the high place at Gibeon."l It was at Nob slightly
earlier when David fled from Saul, for it was there that
Ahimelech, the high priest, gave him "showbread" to eat,2
and where it is said Goliath‘s sword lay "behind the ephod"
(I Sam. 21:4—9). Also it was to Nob that Saul sent, follow;
ing this time, to bring Ahimelech "and all his father's house"
for an accounting for this favor to David (I Sam. 22:11). It
is likely, then, that the Tabernacle in substantial part had
been rescued from Shiloh and moved first to Nob.3 Then with
Saul's destruction of the priests there, as well as the city
itself (I Sam. 22:17—19), it was moved to Gibeon where it
stayed at least until the erection of the Temple.

It has been observed that during this in—between per-
iod, after the Ark's capture and prior to the Temple, the
"high places (bamoth)" are mentioned favorably in the Old Tes—

tament, when otherwise the opposite is true.“ The torah dis—

 

lI Chr. 21:29; II Chr. 1:3—6. R. de Vaux remarks, "Dur—
ing these troubled years, Gibeon seems to have taken the
place of Shiloh"; Ancient Israel, trans. John McHugh (New
York: McGrawhHill Book Co., 1961), p. 331.

2This ”showbread" speaks of the "holy place" in the
Tabernacle.

 

3Shiloh was then taken, but there would have been Warn-
ing so that priests could have begun immediately to transfer
the Tabernacle fearing Just such an advance by the Philis-
tines. Indeed, it is stated that a runner did reach the
city quickly, at the report of whom Eli fell and died.

“Supra, chap. IV, pp. 106~107. R. de Vaux also ob—
serves this fact, on. cit., p. 288, though he does not be—
lieve they were condemned at any time priorly, reJecting
the idea that the record in Numbers and Deuteronomy was early.

 

189
approves them, identifying them with the Canaanites (Num. 33:
52; Deut. 33:29); and then following the building of the Tem-
ple they are condemned repeatedly. For instance, Solomon
does evil in building a "high place for Chemosh" (I Kgs. 11:
7); and Rehoboam‘s wickedness includes that he "built them
high places" (I Kgs. 14:23).1 But during this in—between
time, no criticism is once heard. Instead, approval is given.
Samuel is found by Saul ready to sacrifice at the "high
place" (I Sam. 9:12); and Samuel then tells Saul to look for
prOphets who will be coming down from "the high place" (1
Sam. 10:5—13). And Solomon is clearly approved in Yahweh's
unusual message to him when he comes to sacrifice at "the
great high place" in Gibson (I Kgs. 3:4).

What accounted for this difference? The answer is im-
plied in the context describing this last action of Solomon:
"Only the people sacrificed in the high places, because there
was no house built for the name of Yahweh" (3:3). That is,
the Shiloh center with the Ark was no more; and a new offi—
cial center had not yet been instituted.2 Thus, the "high
places" were found to be the most available and suitable lo—
cations for the worship of Yahweh.

All of this would have had affect upon priestly activ—

ities. Before, there had been the routine attendance at Shi—

lNotice also from the prOphets: Amos 4:13; Hos. 10:8;
Isa. 36:7; Mic. 1:3.

2It would appear that neither Nob nor Gibson had been
generally accepted as replacing Shiloh, and Samuel is never
said to have been associated with either place.

190
loh. Now this was over. Some continued service may have
been carried out at Nob and later Gibeon, but with the Ark1
not in attendance it probably was not extensive. T1 de priests
from Nob slain by Saul appear to have been serving on a per-
manent basis, which would argue that others, from other cities,
were not being used. It may be that many of the Levitic cit-
ies erected their own high places.

The teachingrninistry of the priests would also have
been affected. For with these changes in worship centers,
pecple would have had many serious questions for them to an—
swer. Indeed, it was a very crucial time. Variance among
the tribes had been serious enough prior to this, when the
central sanctuary had yet existed as a unifying influence.2
But now this was gone. Then there was the continuing at—
traction of Canaanite culture, and this likely accentuated
now due to the freightening menace of the powerful Philis—

tines. And further, the Ark had been captured, the army

shattered, and no strong leader existed.

 

1The Ark was returned to the land only 7 months after
capture (I Sam. 6%, but so long as it remained at Beth-
shemesh and then irJath—Jearim, it never served in its for-
mer capacity, nor was it brought either to Nob or Gibeon.
Three reasons for this may be cited: (1) a general apathy
of the peOple in view of the Shiloh destruction and the prior
defections of Eli's sons; (2) an employment nam of high
places for worship which made a central sanctuary less neces-
sary; and (3) a fear of the Ark after word spread of cmany
lives lost in connection with it at Beth—shemesh (I Sam. 6: 19).

2M. Noth, A History of Israel (2d ed.; London: A. a
C. Black, 1958), p. 91, arguing from a comparison with the
amphictyonic, Grecian alliances, where "the essential fea—
ture of the institutions of these tribal associations was al—
ways the central shrine," makes a stong point that Shiloh
served similarly to unify the Israelite tribes.

 

191

Still there does not seem to have been panic, nor a
spirit of revolution or secession on the part of the tribes.
In contrast, it was right at this time when yet another foe,
the Ammonites, rose to challenge one of the tribes, that Saul
was able to effect a greater unification than ever before,1
even forming the start of the monarchy.2 Thus, there must
have been a saving factor in all this,3 and it was likely the
priests: those to whom the pecple would have resorted with
their questions. For the common level of thinking becomes
so important at such a time. And the priests, spread out in
their cities, would have been able to w rk on Just that level.

But how did the priests have sufficient vision and
courage in this crisis? It has been observed that likely a
general defection had set in among them due to the Shiloh
situation. The answer to this is found in Samuel. As noted,
when the Ark was captured, he was Just coming to active age.
The statement is significant: “And all Israel from Dan even
to Beer-Sheba knew that Samuel was established to be a pro-
phet“ (I Sam. 3:20). He knew the situation firsthand and
so would have been in an advantageous position for bringing
the needed remedy. It is easy to believe that he would have
done all in his power to offset the damage done by the two
wicked priests and encourage the priests to faithfulness in

this crucial time.

 

lInvolved Jabesh—gilead (I Sam. 11:1-ll).
2Various steps involved, of. I Sam. 10:17-27; 11:12—15.

3Cf. E. Leslie, Old Testament Religion (New Yorz: Ab—
ingdon Press, 1936), p. 112.

 

192

A word should yet be included regarding the Urim and
Thummim. Until the Shiloh fall, its employment had been
maintained there. However, as observed in chapter III, with
the Ark's capture, change came. I Sam. 21:9 states that
when David fled to Nob from Saul, the ephod, in which the
Urim and Thummim was kept, was there. Prior to this, how;
ever, it had been taken by Ahimelech to battle with Saul‘s
army, where inquiry was made (I Sam. 14:3,36—42). Later,
Abiathar, son of the then slain Ahimelech, fled with it to
David and consulted it for him (I Sam. 23:6—12). Thus, until
the settlement of another central sanctuary in Jerusalem, the
Urim and Thummim also experienced unusual employment. Priest-
ly teaching would have been affected in that most priests no
longer would have had access to it by which to have questions
answered. Accordingly their teaching would have suffered

this lack.

C. Organization with David
David brought the Ark to Jerusalem,1 doubtless with the
thought in mind of making the new political capital also the

religious capital.2 And another move to that same end was

._4

1II Sam. 6:12—18. The pecple did not object, for nei-
ther Nob nor Gibson had ever been accepted as a substitute
for Shiloh; and also David‘s pcpularity was at high tide, for
he had recently won two signal victories over the Philis-
tines (II Sam. 5:18-25) and wrestled Jerusalem from the
Jebusites (II Sam. 5:6—8).

2He did not move the Tabernacle from Gibson, however,
likely intending soon to build t-e Temple. This he was re—
fused through Nathan, but he then gathered materials for it
at least, of. I Chr. 22:1—5,14—16; 28:10—21; 29:1—9.

193
his organization of the priesthood in a more formal manner.
This organization has been described,1 with its twenty—four
courses for the priests, and the division of Levites into
singers, gatekeepers, "officers and Judges," and regular
sanctuary attendants.

This step of organization would also have had some ef—
fect on priestly teaching. As suggested, this teaching had
taken on renewed impetus with Samuel's leadership. However,
there had been no regular turn of service at a central sanc—
tuary now for many years, and Samuel's influence could hardly
have penetrated through all the country with equal effect.
Hence, Just such a move as this by David would have been need—
ed to complete this work of Samuel. It would have affected
everyone, for all received classifications. Indeed, a prin-
cipal factor motivating David in this action may have been
Just to stir up and impart discipline to lax personnel in
many of the more distant points. Accordingly, it may be con-
cluded that priestly teaching did take on increased profi-
ciency at this time; probably, in fact, the highest in all
its history. And likely this condition continued through
most of Solomon's reign as well, for it is stated that in
these matters he continued "according to the ordinance of

David his father" (II Chr. 8:1M).

D. Jeroboam and the Northern Kingdom

Jeroboam, in fear that his pecple might be lured back

A w

lSupra, pp. 160-61.

191+

to Jerusalem, inaugurated a new religious program with cen—
ters at Dan and Bethel in place of the former capital (I Kgs.
12:26—29). As a result he found it necessary to break with
the torah of Yahweh in some basic respects, one of which per—
tained to religious personnel. It is stated that he a‘point—
ed priests "from all the pecple, that were not of the sons of
Levi" (I Kgs. 12:31). Likely the former priests would not
COOperate in this substitute program.1

This would have brought great change for the rightful
priests scattered through Jeroboam's territory.2 Indeed, it
is directly stated that many even left the country for Judah,3
where they likely Joined forces with priests already there.
Those who did not leave, would not have been permitted to
continue their turns at the Jerusalem Temple, and, without
assignment either at the new worship centers, they would have
lacked any sanctuary service. They would also have been with—

‘

out contact with tne Urim and Thummim in Jerusalem. And as
to teaching, their mdnistry would have been severely re-
stricted. Jeroboam. would not have wanted any instruction
which might lead pecple back to the former capital. If some

tried to give such counsel, it would have been at great risk.

But if this teaching would have been hazardous under

 

lcr. 11 Chr. 13:9.

2Not many of the cities assigned to priests proper
would have been in Jeroboam‘s territory, for those cities
were only from Judah, Simeon, and Benjamin. However, he
could have used Lev tes who were available in large number.

311 Chr. 11:14.

195
Jeroboam, it would have been far more so after the Baal in—
trusion with Ahab's queen, Jezebel.1 For under her vigorous
leadership in this foreign religion, even Ahab's own prOphets
of Yahweh were killed (I Kgs. 18:4). What then would have
been the lot of Levites in their cities trying to teach Yah—
seh‘s Egggh? Doubtless their teaching all but stOpped. Per—

haps many lost their lives.

E. Defection Also in Judah

In view of this lack of pgggh‘instruction in Israel,
one is not surprised when Hosea laments regarding the north-
ern kingdom that the "pecple are destroyed for lack of know;
ledge” (4:6). But with Judah also there is similar rebuke;
not as general, but still very serious.

It begins already with the eighth century prOphets, Ni—
cah and Isaiah. Kicah reprimands the priests that they
"teach for hire" (3:11).2 Isaiah says that both prOphet and
priest err through strong drink, and compares them in this
with Israel (28:7). In the seventh century, Zephaniah la—
ments that the "priests have profaned the sanctuary" and
"done violence to the law" (3:4).

But it is Jeremiah, also of the seventh century, who
has the greatest rebuke. In 2:8 the priests are said not

to ask, "Where is Yahweh?" In 5:31, the priests are said to

1I Kgs. 16:31f. This was a diplomatic marriage. Jez—
ebel brought her religion with her, and, being of forceful
personality, was able to thrust it upon the country.

2The tithes of the pecple were to support them (Lev.
27:30—33; Num. 18:21-24).

196

"bear rule" because of the support of false prOphets. In
6:13, priests, with these prOphets, are said to practice
"covetousness." In 20:1f, it is Pashur, a priest, who leads
in Opposing Jeremiah. In 23:11, he says that "both prOphet
and priest are profane." And on through the book these in—
dications continue.1

However, the picture is not complete by citing only
criticisms. The maJority of priests were good, and are often
so indicated. For instance, when Uzziah attempted to in—
trude into the priest's office in burning incense, Azariah,
the high priest, and eighty regular priests withstood him at
the peril of their lives (II Chr. 26:16—21). Also in Heze-
kiah‘s reign, priests assisted in the reform and conducted
the passover (II Chr. 29—31). Likely priestly behavior var-
ied with who was then ruling, whether he was himself inter-
ested in allegiance to the tpgghlor not. Accordingly, the
criticisms of both Micah and Isaiah may have come during the
reign of the wicked Ahaz, who, for instance, even gave spe—
cific directions to his high priest to build a foreign type
altar (II Kgs. 16:9-16).

As for teaching, this situation would suggest that de-
fection came regarding it after the same pattern. Infraction
in one area would have led to the same in another. Likely

the migration of northern priests in Jeroboam's rule would

 

1Passages from Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Micah, and Jeremiah
which criticised the manner of sacrifice of the day have not
been included. They do not bear so directly on teaching and
will be treated in the following chapter where prOphets are
the subJect.

197

have increased zeal for teaching for some time. But by the
time of Ahaz this could have been wearing off, and so ac—
count for the sharp words of Micah and Isaiah.

Then by the time of Jeremiah, especially in view of
the sinful reign of Nanasseh, the defection could have become
far more serious. Josiah's reforms would have brought some
counteraction, as he "put down the idolatrous priests . . .
in the high places in the cities of Judah," who burned in—
cense to Baal, etc. (II Kgs. 23:5), which would have given
courage to good priests for increased activity in torah in—
struction?‘ But in the reign of Jehoiakim, and then Zedekiah,
when Jeremiah's criticisms were mainly voiced, the situation
had evidently deteriorated again, perhaps more than before.
This does not mean that the priests had begun to advocate de~
parture from worship of Yahweh, for even those Opposed to
Jeremiah were doing this in Yahweh's name.2 But they were
doing little teaching at all, spending their time rather in
their own interest; and what was taught was only in the vein
of the empty formalism decried by Jeremiah as characterizing

3

the Temple ceremonies.

 

lPriests of Josiah's time are commendably noted as
those "that taught all Israel" (II Chr. 35:3).

2Significantly, the Lachish Ostraca, when referring
to deity, always refer to Yahweh, using the tetragrammaton,
thh, and not Baal or some other. Evidently, Josiah was
quite successful in his eradication of Baal worship. The
Ostraca date from c. 586 B.C.; of. Harry Torczyner, Lachish
I, The Lachish Letters (London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1938).

3Jeremiah writes, "Your burnt—offerings are not accept—
able, nor your sacrifices pleasing unto me" (6:20).

Chapter VI

THE TEACHING MINISTRY OF TH PROPHET

[I]

I. Characterizatign

 

The subJect now concerns prOphets. They too had an
important teaching function in Israel, and it differed from
that of the priests. This difference can be seen in three

basic areas: identity, mission, and method.

A. Identity
The first matter to consider concerns the classifica—

tion and type of person who served as a prOphet.

1. Offipe_pot inherited nor legglly prescribed

It has been observed that priests received their of~
fice by inheritance. If a person was a descendant of Levi,
he was constituted a Levite, and if in addition he descended
from Aaron, he was a priest. But this was not so with pro—
phets. There was no tribe nor family lineage devoted to pro—
phets. They were individually selected, called by Ya.weh to
office. Moses was called while in the desert (Ex. 3:“); Sam—
uel as a lad in the Tabernacle (I Sam. 3:1—21); Isaiah by a
vision in the Temple (Isa. 6); Ezekiel by the river Chebar
(Ezek. 1:1-2:3).

Levites were constituted by law for priestly service.

198

199
A large portion of the ceremonial law was given to the nature
and description of this service. But the same was not true
for the prOphets. Neither their role nor duties were described
in the torah, and even their existence was not really estab—
lished there, though it was clearly recognized. This recog—
nition comes in Deut. 18:9—22, which should be noticed.

The first eight verses of chapter 18 give further in—
dication as to the Levitic office. But with vs. 9, a change
comes which leads to this prOphetic recognition. There Noses
directs that the pecple, upon entering Canaan, should not try
to communicate with God by any form of divinationl after the
pattern of other nations, for such is an "abomination to Yah—
weh"; but instead God would give this communication through
a prOphet. The word, prOphet, is used in the singular, but
it is commonly agreed that this was in representation of pro-
phets generally.2

Thus, the prOphet was legally recognized, and here es-

pecially for Divine disclosures,3 but not legally prescribed.

 

1Various forms of divination are here listed; cf. E. J.
Young, My Servants the Prophets (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerd—
mans Pub. Co., 1952), pp. 21—22, for a discussion of each as
well as the entire passage.

20f. Young, ibid., pp. 29—35; G. Oehler, Theology of
the Old Testament (rev. ed., 3. E. Day; New York: Funk &
Nagnalls,_1883), pp. 362—63; C. Keil & F. Delitzsch, "The
Fifth Book of Moses," The Pentateuch, KDQ, III, p. 394.
Each of these also discusses the messianic implications,
which need not be treated here.

 

 

 

3See supra, chap. III, pp. 68-70 for the difference in
type of information to be given through the prophet in con—
trast to that by the Urim and Thummim of the priests.

200

2. Courageous individuals

One reason why an inheritance relationship was not
suitable for the prophets was that each had to be a special
kind of person. Not Just anyone would do. The priestly of—
fice did not find this nearly so true. A weak son could
still carry on rather well, for the work was quite routine.

But the prOphet did not act by pattern. He had often
to chart his own course, and it might be different from any
before. He might anoint a king to office, or bring him the
severest reprimand. He might bring cheer, or cause for great
sorrow. His assignment might lead to grave danger, or to
high honor. He had to be prepared for suffering and injus—
tice, as well as ease and plaudits. He had always to be an
individualist in courage and ingenuity. There was no room
for mediocrity.l

The first act of young Samuel, as God's newly called
prOphet, was to tell no one less than the high priest that
his house had been rejected by Yahweh (I Sam. 3:4—18). Later
he was to anoint Israel's first king (I Sam. 9:15—21; 10:1-8),
and still later to inform him that he too had been rejected
(I Sam. 13zll~l#). Nathan was instructed to rebuke David
for his sin with Bathsheba (II Sam. 12:1—12). Gad was later
sent to give David choice of three punishments for his sin in

numbering the people (II Sam. 24:10-17). Ahijah had first

 

lSays G. Gray, Sacrifice in the Old Testament (Oxford;
Clarendon Press, 19257: p. 224, "The great personalities are
to be sought among the prOphets; the living force in times
of crisis is theirs, but the maintenance of a permanent, eth—
ical and religious tradition . . . was the task of the priest."

201
to promise the new nation of Israel to Jeroboam (I Kgs. ll:
29—39), and then to tell him that it was to be taken from him
again (I Kgs. 14:6—16). The "man of God" was sent to repri—
mand Jeroboam for his false altar at Bethel (I Kgs. 13:1-10).
Elijah warned of a famine and effected a remarkable contest
on Mt. Carmel (I Kgs. 17:1; 18:25—38). Elisha anointed a
foreign king and wept in doing so for the havoc he would
bring on Israel (II Kgs. 8:7—13). Jonah was sent even to
1

foreign Nineveh to preach repentance (Jon. l:l~2° 3:1—2).

“"1

3. Not professionals

 

The matter is pertinent whether Israel's prOphets were
professionals, as the term has often been used regarding
them. Many scholars believe they were. But the picture seen
above as to their rugged individualism does not correspond
to what is normally associated with this idea.

Those who believe they were view the prOphets as having
associated together first in bands.2 At first these were en—
ergetic groups, quite in contrast to a priesthood which had
become professionalized in manner. However, later these too
lost this original spontaneity and became regulated and stand—
ardized in their functions, thus also falling into a profes-

sionalism. This became normal prOphetism, which was not in

1The Iliad presents an interesting parallel when the
prOphet, calchas, rebukes Agamemnon for keeping the captive
girl Chryseis. Agamemnon becomes angry but still obeys the
the order; Iliad, trans. S. Butler, ed. L. Loomis (New'York:
Walter J. Black, 1942), pp. 9—11.

2Of such, J. Pedersen, Israel, Its Life and Culture
(London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1926—40), I-II, p. 109, writes,
"‘The sons of prOphets' . . . lived together in a kind of
monastary."

202
itself necessarily bad, but it led to lack of committment
and a willingness to cater to court pressures in a desire for
position and money}' Accordingly, reactionary prOphets would
arise occasionally who would severely criticize such practic—
es and denounce as false those who were involved.2 A pion—
eer in this reaction was Micaiah, who withstood the 400 pro-
phets of Ahab (I Kgs. 22:13—28).3 Such persons were the rug—
ged individualists; not the norma prOphets.

The present writer agrees with this position in that
certainly there were two types of prOphets in Israel and Ju-
day. Micaiah contrasted strongly with those whom he opposed.
And in Judah, the same was just as true, for instance, with
Jeremiah. Micaiah and Jeremiah were the fearless individuals;

the others, called false prOphets, were the professionals

who were concerned with pleasing the king.

 

1T. J. Meek, Hebrew Origins (2d ed.; New York: Harper
& Bros., 1950), p. 17h, says, “Thus did prophecy become com—
mercialized and professionalized. It went the way of the
priesthood, and for that matter of all institutions. It
lost its spontaneous, inspired character and became in time
as professional as the priesthood against which it was orig—
inally a protest."

2Cf. H. Knight, The Hebrew Prophetic Consciousness
(London: Lutterworth Press, l9Q7), pp. 83-8E; C. Whitley, Ezg_
Exilic Age (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1957), pp. 32—
33; S. A. Cook, "The Prophets of Israel," ggg, III, p. #59.

3T. H. Robinson, Prophecy and the Prgphets (New York:
Chas. Scribner's Sons, 1923), pp. 39—40, writes, "The first
person of whom this independence is recorded is Micaiah. .
. . A century later the individual prOphet had become a famil—
iar figure. It was no longer on the crowds of ecstatics
that men relied for the divine message. It was rather the
single, independent speaker whose words they held to be due
to the direct inspiration of Yahweh"; of. J. Pedersen, 92.
933., pp. 131-32.

203

However, he disagrees in respect to the historical
background of both groups. The position presented sees the
traditional group as the professionals. But this is not in
keeping with the Old Testament evidence. For here the rug—
ged individuals constitute the historical line. One does not
read of "false" prOphets before Hicaiah;l but he does read
of Elisha, Elijah, Jehu, Hanani, Shemaiah, Ahijah, Gad, Na-
than, and Samuel. These were not professionals, seeking
self honor, catering to a king. They were fearless and cou-
rageous, bringing rebuke more often than commendation. If
Micaiah was the first "reactionary," how does one account
for these before him?

A better answer is that, after Samuel and his band of
young, training zealots, there continued a line of committed
men, who could serve acceptably under the Yahweh—fearing
David,2 and later bring needed reprimand to apostatizing rul—
ers. It is reasonable that only the more outstanding repre—
sentatives of this line would have been mentioned, and also
that all of the total group would not have been equally com—
mitted. As greater numbers of pecple came to turn from
faithful allegiance to Yahweh, there came attraction for the

weaker members of the group to seek self—advancement by play—

 

1Indeed, in Judah this comes only with Isaiah and Micah,
more than a century after I"ticaiah.

2Serving acceptably under David meant even willingness
to bring rebuke to the king himself. In the instances when
either Nathan or Gad brought such, David accepted it as from
Yahweh, and without remonstrance to the prOphets. The idea,
thus, of professional king—pleasers does not fit the pic—
ture under David.

20h

ing to the king. Thus came into being the "false" prOphets,
and their numbers grew until the regular, strong prOphets
found it necessary to bring the denouncements observed.l

From this it follows too that false prOphets would
have been more numerous in Israel than in Judah. For there
Jeroboam had made certain defections from the torah a matter
of law, and so those who w uld not bring rebuke would have
been the more welcome.2 Judah remained legally true to the
torah, but several of her kings also defectedillspirit, which
would have encouraged false prOphets there as well. Vith
strong Yahweh—followers recurring periodically on the throne,
however, their number would have been curtailed in comparison
with Israel to the north. In Judah, then, the actual number
of false prOphets at any given time likely depended, as with
the priests, on who was ruling. It apparently was very high
in the time of Jeremiah for he hadifluamost to say about them.3

The answer, then, to the question as to whether or not

 

1That Elisha had groups of prOphets under his direc-
tion has also been used as evidence of large groups of train—
ing professionals (I Kgs. 20:35; II Kgs. 2:3—15; Ez38; etc.).
They were in training, it would seem, but not as potential
king—pleasers. Elisha was not such and so he would not have
taught them to be such. Those who may have assumed this
role later would have done so in spite of their teaching,
not because of it.

2Consequently, Elijah, Elisha, and hicaiah appear al—
most as solitary figures, against the false 400 of Ahab's
time. Later, Amos is sent north from Judah to bring rebuke
in Israel; as was true also of the "man of God" earlier in
Jeroboam‘s day.

3Kuch less is said in the 8th century. What is said
by Isaiah and Micah could well have come in the reign of
Ahaz when false prOphets would have felt quite at home.

205
the prOphets were professionals is that the traditional
group, the true prOphets, were not, They were not mercenary
men—pleasers. On the other hand, it should be recognized
that many of these individuals likely were occupied full
time in their work. To say, then, that they were not profes~
sionals does not mean that they were prOphets only as a side
line. Samuel, Nathan, Gad, Elisha, Isaiah, etc. do not ap-
pear to have had other occupations. They were called of Yah—
weh early in life to this service, and they gave themselves
to it as their life work. There were exceptions, of course.
Amos, for instance, says he was "no prOphet” but rather a
"herdsman and a dresser of sycamore trees" (7:14). Likely

his call was somewhat temporary.l

4. Not another order of priests

 

A vieWpoint, identified especially with Scandinavian
scholars, holds that the prOphets were really another order
of priests, closely associated with cultic service. Priests
proper engaged primarily in sacrificial activity at the altar,
while prOphets gave Divine oracles in response to questions

2

of the pecple. S. Mowinckel is credited with innovating this

line of thinking.3 He took evidence from several psalms

 

ls. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament (New
York: Harper & Bros., l9El), p. 577, thinks AmosT ministry
lasted no more than a few months.

 

2O. Eissfeldt, "The PrOphetic Literature," The Old Tes—
tament and Modern Studi, ed. H. H. Rowley (New York: Chas.
Scribner‘s Sons, 1951), pf. 113—61, gives an excellent sur—
vey of viewpoints.

 

 

31m his Psalmenstudien III: KultprOphetie undngOphe—
tische Psalmen (Kristiania: In Kommission Bei Jacob Dybwad,

1923).

 

 

206
which depict Yahweh speaking in the first person,1 which
Mowinckel says can have reference only to such prOphets,
speaking for Yahweh, giving reply to questions of inquirers.
A. Haldar especially has sought support, as observed in chap—
ter II, in a comparison of Israel's kohen and nabi' with Bab-

ylonia's baru and gghhg,2

Other leading eXponents are I.
Engnell and A. Johnson;3 The latter points to the following
as evidence: (1) that the 70 elders, when they prOphesied,
were stationed near the sacred tent; (2) that Saul (I Sam.

10) found nebhi'im coming down from a high place; (3) that

 

Samuel the prophet was reared at Shiloh, a priest center;

(4) that David was consulted by the prOphet Nathan in refer-
ence to building the Temple (II Sam. 7:4—17); (5) that Nathan
the prophet and Zadok the priest cooperated in making Solomon
king (I Kgs. 1:10-42); (6) that Elijah the prOphet sacrificed
on Mt. Carmel (I Kgs. 18:25-40); (7) that Elisha resorted to
fit. Carmel (II Kgs. 4:25) where-was a high place (according
to the Elijah episode); and (8) that Jehu called both pro—
phets and priests of Baal to their temple, showing that they
were both cultic officials for the Canaanites, which, then,

could present a parallel to what was true also in Israel (II

w

lSuch as Psalms 60, 75, 82, 110, etc.

2Also shown in chapter II to be wanting for evidence.

31. Engnell, Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient
Near East (Uppsala: Almquist and Wiksells Boktrycheri, 1943).
A. Johnson, The Cultic PrOphet in Ancient Israel (Cardiff:
Univ. of Wales Press Board, l9h4).

 

 

 

207

Kgs. 10:19).1

It is unnecessary to treat all of these arguments by
Johnson separately for all but the last are of the same pat-
tern and subject to the same rebuttal. They give only im—
plied evidence from association. But Just because 70 elders
were near the sacred tent when they prOphesied, or that ne—
bhi'im were coming down from a high place, or that Samuel was
reared at Shiloh, etc., does not prove that prOphets were cul-
tic personnel. It is only to be expected that they, being
religious functionaries, would be interested in places of wor—
ship and so often found near them. Such proximity does not
prove that they worked there as officials. The last argument,
pertaining to a possible parallel with Canaanite personages,
is again based on inference. But the likelihood is that these
Canaanite officials were similar to those of Babylonia which
have been shown not to be parallel with Israel‘s k9h§g_and
EEEAL: And as to Nowinckel's argument, as to the "first per-
son" passages in certain of the psalms, his interpretation
of these is only one of others suggested, and so need not be,
and is not here, accepted. The type of evidence which would
substantiate the position would be a clear case of one or
more prOphets giving oracular utterances out of the central

sanctuary. But this is not found.

 

1Ibid., p. 26f. These arguments are taken from the
period preceding the writing prOphets. He also treats their
writings in detail, the arguments of which are too lengthy
to be enumerated here. Suffice it to say that their eviden-
tial value is no more direct than of these mentioned. One
must admire, however, the great care which Johnson gives to
this analysis.

208

In contrast, what is found is an attitude on the part
of the prOphets which is sometimes even highly critical of
current, cultic practices. Isaiah, for instance, quotes Yah-
weh as saying, "What unto me is the multitude of your sacri—
fices? . . . I have had enough of the burnt-offerings of rams.
. . . Bring no more vain oblations," etc. (1:11—13). A few
years ago, many scholars thought this and similar passagesl
indicated a definite anti—cultic attitude on the part of the
prOphets.2 This one-sided viewpoint is not shared by many
today, but it is another thing to swing to an Opposite ex—
treme and see these same prOphets as themselves playing a
prominent role in the cultic service.

Particular occasions also give evidence to the con—
trary. For:instance, even in Israel, which had defected
greatly from pgggg regulations, Ahab's 400 prOphets do not
seem to have been connected with the Dan and Bethel sanctu-
aries. They gave their counsel to Ahab and Jehoshaphat in
"the gate of Samaria," not either Dan or Bethel.3 In the
reign of Jeroboam II, Amos came north to rebuke Amaziah the

priest and the cultic service in general at Bethel (Amos 7).

 

lAmos 5:21-25; Hos. 6:6; Mic. 6:6-8; Jer. 6:20; 7:
21‘23 o

2For a recent discussion of these passages, of. R.
Anderson, Attitudes of the Pre-Exilic Canonical Prophets
Toward the Cultus (Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Boston
University Graduate School, 1957). ,

 

31 Kgs. 22:10. Vs. 6 states too that all 400 were
present. it is not likely that the whole group would have
walked from Bethel to Samaria.

209

And yet later in Judah, Jeremiah rebuked the priests for
their manner of sanctuary service and general behavior.l

Further, the torah neither prescribes nor recognizes
any such activity on the p rt of the prOphets. Great detail
is given too regarding sanctuary regulations, but prOphets
are not once named in connection with them. Thus, lacking
both legal reason and historical example for so conceiving
of Israel's prOphets, the conclusion is warranted that Israel

did not include prOphets in her sanctuary service. They were

‘1 1 A. 2
not another order of priests.
B. Mission

1. Not innovators, but reformers

 

Until recently, a majority of scholars saw Israel's
writing prOphets as innovators of new teaching. They intro—
duced new ideas of monotheism and ethical requirements.3
But of late, many are calling them reformers, saying that
their message was not new, but had been implicit in the 3337

gh and the ministry of earlier prOphets from early in Is-

 

1The false prOphets he similarly rebuked may have been
linked in some manner to the cultic service, but, even if so,
still they are rebuked; cf. 6:13,20; 8:10; 13:13; 23:11; etc.

20. Eissfeldt, op. cit., p. 122, touches upon the main
weakness of adherents of the position, as he says that in
their books "the external analogies have been given prece—
dence over the illustrative material to be found within the
Old Testament itself."

3For instance, of. R. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the
Old Testament (New York: Harper & Bros., l9bl), p. 580; or
Oesterley and Robinson, Hebrew Religion (2d ed.; London:
SPEK: 1937, PP- 234f.299-

 

 

rael's history.l

With this position, agreement is here accorded. Amos
was reiterating what his predecessors had stated often be—
fore. The torah had presented it, in its own way, from the
first; and the priests, scattered in their cities, had been
teaching it from the days of the conquest. The pecple had
often failed to live up to it; and in the time of Amos, this
failure was on the increase. But the basic instruction of
Amos was the same as it had been, only adapted to current con—
ditions.

Eichrodt investigates this matter with particular care.
He finds basic similarity between the late and early pro—
phets, not only as to message, but also as to the manner in
which they received the revelations, the inner compulsion to
speak, and the principal wrongs they desired to remedy; in
other words, in all ways fundamental to showing continuity be-

tween the early and later prOphets.2 And the message that

 

lJohn Bright's comment, A History of Israel (Philadel-
phia: Westminster Press, 1959), p. 2&6, is typical: "The
classical prophets represent, indeed, a novel phenomenon in
Israel. Yet they were certainly not the spiritual pioneers,
specifically the discoverers of ethical monotheism, that they
have so repeatedly been made out to be. Although the origin—
ality of their contribution is not to be questioned, they
were nevertheless not innovators, but reformers who stood in
the mainstream of Israel's tradition and adapted that tradi—
tion to a new situation." Of. A. Welch, Prgphet and Priest
in Old Israel_(Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1953), p. 35.

 

 

 

2Theology of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: West-
minster Press), pp. 339f,3b5f. Eichrodt says the main change
with the later prOphets was their greater understanding of
the reality of Yahweh‘s presence, which gave them greater
urgency for their task and increased concern for the por—
tending Judgment on the pecple.

 

211

all brought, he says, was that of reform. The pecple needed

to be brought back to the teachings of the torah.

2. Relation to the torah

This leads now to a closer consideration of the pro—

phets' relation to the torah. If they were not Opposed to

$$

it, or assigned to give additional instruction to what it con-

tained, what did they do which was not already done by the

normal teachers, the priests?

a. Taught in keeping with the tpral
It is well first to settle the matter that they did

'teach in keeping with the torah. A few pertinent texts will

sflnow this. In Isa. 30:8—10, the pecple of Judah are described
Eas "rebellious" who will "not hear the law (torah) of Yahweh"

sand.who accordingly say "to the prOphets, PrOphesy not unto

11s right things." Thus, the law is made equivalent to the

"right things" which the prOphets were prOphesying to the peo-

gole. II Kgs. 17:13 states that "Yahweh testified unto Israel,

sand.unto Judah, by every prOphet, and every seer, saying,
Thirn ye from your evil ways and keep my commandments and my
sstzatutes, according to all the law (tgrah) which I commanded."
AU1C1 Daniel laments before God, "Neither have we obeyed the
V131.ce of Yahweh out God, to walk in his laws (toroth), which

h€3 set before us by his servants the prOphets" (9:10).l

b‘ IDid not teach the torah as such
\
10f. Jer. 26:4—5; Zech. 7:12.

212

The prOphets did not teach the torah as such, however.
This was the task of the priests, who taught "precept upon
precept; line upon line; . . . here a little, there a lit—
tle" (Isa. 28:10). This kind of teaching required a class—
room situation, continuous contact with students, and perma—
nence of residence. These things were true of priests in
their cities, but normally not true of prOphets who moved
about. Elijah, for instance, is seen first before a king,
then by a remote brook, later with a widow at Zarephath,
again on Mt. Carmel in a contest, and still later on Mt. Hor—
eb far to the south (I Kgs. 17-19). Besides this, what was
taught, at least by the writing prOphets, is revealed in
their books; and, though they speak about the torah, they

never state its precepts in any "line upon line" form.1

0. Urged reform in view of the torah

what they did do has already been suggested: they
urged reform in view of the torah. The priests also urged
the pecple to conform their lives to the teaching; but the
prOphets took note of where this was not being done, and then
urged in stronger tones that correction be made. Two mat~
ters related to this basic mission should be observed.

The first is that this reform so advocated was both

lWrites Walter Williams, The Prophets Pioneers to
Christianity (New York: Abingdon Press, 1956), o. 39, "Tra—
ditionally the priest had been the educator. . . . As a
teacher, the priest knew how to work painstakingly with peo—
ple, leading them step by step in the direction of pro-
phetic ideals." A. Welch, on; cit., p. 77, says, "The dif—
ference between priest and prOphet was one of tempo; rather
than of principle."

 

213
social1 and religious in kind. The writing prOphets have
much to say on both counts. Regarding the social, Amos, for
instance, cries, "Hear this word, ye kine of Bashan, that are
in the mountain of Samaria, that Oppress the poor, that
crush the needy, that say unto their lords, ring, and let
us drink" (4:1). And Isaiah proclaims, l"E'foe unto them that
decree unrighteous decrees, . . . To turn aside the needy
from judgment and to take away the right from the poor of the
pecple, that widows may be their prey and that they may rob
the fatherless" (10:1-2). Regarding the religious, they
call the people back to God. N. Gottwald rightly says, "Ev-
erything in their outlook was grounded in Israel's relation

to Yahweh, in the persistent preaching of religious meaning

into every facet of life."2

Hosea, for instance, urges,
"Come and let us return unto Yahweh: for he hath torn and he
will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up" (6:1).
And Micah pleads, "Hear ye now what Yahweh saith" (6:1).

The second matter is that, not only were the writing
prOphets such reformers, but so too the earlier representa-
tives. Samuel's inauguration into the reformer's role came

early in life as he was called upon to tell Eli of God's

Judgment upon his wayward household (I Sam. 3:1-18). His

 

1W. Eichrodt observes that also the priests were con—

cerned with right social conduct, but differed still from
the prOphets in two respects: (1) they held to supremacy of
outward obedience over heart attitudes; and (2) they failed
to see the ethical aspects as having absolute supremacy over
cultic Operations; on. cit., p. 415.

2

A Light to the Nations (New York: Harper & Bros., 1959),
p. 276.

 

21a
persistent efforts in this respect with the pecple was

Iith success in a clear decision for Yahweh on their
1

crowned I

"-

part at Mizpah (I Sam. 7:1—14). The "man of God" urged re-
form on Jeroboam (I Kgs. 13:1—10). Hanani did the same with
Asa (II Chr. 6:7—9). And Elijah‘s efforts on Mt. Carmel are
well known (I Kgs. 18). In fact, the reason for mention of

most of these earlier prOphets is some occasion in which they

urged reform on one or more individuals.

d. Infrequent mention of the torah

The prOphets do refer to the torah, but not often.
The question rises as to why. Eichrodt supplies a reason~
able answer. He says the mention of the name, torah, was re—
duced to lessen the danger of "dead externalism in religious
practice and mechanical routine in religious thought."2 The
pecple tended to think of the ceremonies as effective in
themselves, and priests did little to correct this. Thus,
the prOphets wished to do nothing which might foster this
error yet more, such as undue use of the name, torah. For
Eichrodt believes that to many of the pecple this name had
come to mean in large part Just such outward ceremony. Hence,
the prOphets proclaimed the torah message, but with little
use of the name. And in keeping are the passages mentioned

)

above:3 in which the prOphets directly speak against this

 

1This was a crucial occasion for the Ark had been tak—
en and Philistine dominance was strong.

2Oo. cit., p. 304.

3Supra, pp. 4—5, 208.

215

"dead externalism" in sanctuary service.

e. Lack of prescription in the torn}

It has been observed that prOphets are only recognized
in the torah, not legally prescribed as are the priests. The
reason may be found in the fact that prOphets were reformers,

rm ~
*1.

not prime teachers. e torah was laid down for the ideal
state of the pecple. And in that ideal state, they would be
taught the torah by the priests; hence, priests needed legal
establishment. But reformers would then not be needed, and
so no legal prescription was called for. Apart from the
strict, legal provisions, however, it was evident that this
ideal state would not be achieved and so reformers would be

necessary. Accordingly, at least a more unofficial recogni-

1
tion mas given to them as recorded in Deut. 18.*
.4 3

f. Need for means of revelation

As such reformers, the prOphets had a provision for
revelation as well as the priests. The priests had been giv—
en their torah through Moses, and then the Urim and Thummim
provision for additional information on detailed decisions.
But, in that the prOphets were primarily reformers only, thus
to urge return to the priestly torah, the question arises as
why they needed an information source also.

One reason is that this reformation ministry itself re-

 

1In keeping with this distinction is a parallel fact
that prOphets were not anointed to office either, as were
the priests. B. D. Eerdmans, Religion of Israel (Leiden:
Univ. Pers Leiden, 1947), p. 51, gives some discussion of
this matter.

 

216

quired certain information, not given in the torah, by which
to carry it on. For instance, there was need for Samuel to
warn Eli of the consequences of his son's actions, but Samuel
could not have known of what to give warning apart from the
revelation. David was to have selection from three possible
punishments, but Gad would not have known their identity ex-
cept again for the revelation. Isaiah and Jeremiah were thus
informed of the coming Babylonian captivity that they might
warn the pecple and so more strongly urge reform. Also the
prOphets needed direction as to what specifically to say in
the reformation ministry, and where and how to say it.

And another reason is that there was need in Israel of
an information source of greater compass than supplied in the
Urim and Thummim. As indicated in chapter III, the Urim and
Thummim was limited to giving or withholding an affirmation.
Hence, a source was needed for descriptive information, and
this the prOphetic source gave. This information was some—
times needed for the reformation function, as noted; but some—
times the need lay elsewhere. For instance, Samuel needed
to know of Saul's coming to see him he following day so that
he might be prepared to anoint him as the new king of Israel
(I Sam. 9:15—22; 10:1—8). Isaiah needed to know what was to
happen to Sennacherib‘s army that he might encourage the

eart of Heaekiah (II Kgs. 19:32—34).l

D”

 

 

1It is significant that the privilege of prOphet's re-
ceiving this type of information, rather than other persons,
is recognized in the Old Testament. For instance, in this
last example, Hezekiah prayed to God for this deliverance,
but the answer was given through Isaiah; cf. II Chr. 20:14.

217
C. Method

Uhat now was tne prOphetic method in this reformation

ministry? Three observations provide the answer.

1. Preaching

 

In contrast to the ”line upon line" instruction of the
priests, the prOphets brought their messages more by preach—
ing.l his was in keeping with their reformation purpose.
Careful analysis of legal precepts was unnecessary here; but
rather strongly worded exhortation, inspiration, and warning.
The need was to solicit action. Not pecple's minds so much,
but their emotions and wills were the objects of interest.
PeOple needed to be taught love for God and then impelled
to live accordingly. Thus, Hosea shouts forth: "Hear the
word of Yahweh, ye children of Israel" (4:1), and again,
"Hear this, 0 ye priests, and hearhen O house of Israel, and
give ear, 0 house of the king" (5:1). Amos tells Amaziah,
priest of Bethel, that Yahweh had taken him from following
the flock to "prOphesy unto my peOple Israel" (7:15). Isai—
ah‘s orders were to “Go, and tell this peOple, Hear ye in—
deed, . . ." (6:9). Jeremiah is told to "Go, and cry in the
ears of Jerusalem" (2:2). Later, upon at least two differ—
ent occasions, he is told to do this standing "in the gate

of Yahweh's house” where the pecple passing by would have to

 

lJ. Hoschander, The Priests and PrOphets (New York: Jew-
ish Theological Seminary, 1938), p. 69, states, "Preaching
was the special function of the prOphets for whom the abso-
lute truth was the supreme law, and who cared for nothing if
thereby they aroused against themselves the hostility of the
pecple."

 

218
listen (7:1). Another time he was to preach in the valley of

Hinnom which was by the "gate Harsith" (19:2).

to

This minis try we carried on not only with the large

audie ce, but also with the small and even separate individ-
uals,1 The purpose was the same in each case: change in
behavior rather than knowledge. W'th the earlier prOphets,
the single individual type of contact seemed to predominate,
wit h large audiencesseldmnimplie ed.2 Iknmwer, the motivation

was still no different: peOple needed to conform their lives

to Yahteh‘s will.

2. Key individualg

 

Any reformation movement depends in large part on the
leadership of those in authority. If M} ey are sympathetic,
the pecple will likely give heed. Hence, another aspect in
the prOphetic method was to contact key individuals and urge
reform on them, both as to their personal behavior and the
conduct of their office. Kings, of course, were especially
sou»? ght out. 3 To Saul came Samuel; to David, Nathan and Gad;
to Rehoboam, Shemaiah; to Jeroboam, Ahijah and the "man of
God"; to Ahab, Elijah and Micai h; to Jehoram and Jehu, Eli—
sha; to Asa, M ariah and Hanani; to Jehoshaphat, Jehu° to

3

Joash, Zechariah; to Amaziah, "the prOphet"; to Uzziah, Zech—

 

lAs Jeremiah with Pashur (ch. 20) or Hananiah (ch. 28).

2However, Samuel preached to many at Mispah (I Sam. 7:
3-9) and Elijah on Mt. Carr e1 (I Kgs. 18).

30f. J. Pedersen‘s discussion of prOphets contacting
kings; Israel, Its Life and Culture (London: Oxford Univ.

 

219
ariah; to Ahaz and Hezekiah, Isaiah; and to Jehoiakim and
Zedekiah, Jeremiah. Of such individual contacts, one reads
more than of the preaching occasions, but this does not mean
they were more frequent. Rather, they were more unusual and

significant for mention.

3. Object lessons

 

The prOphets often used object lessons for illustration.
This served to make their messages more concrete and meaning-
ful. Amos used a "basket of summer fruit" to illustrate that
Israel was ripe and in line for soon Judgment, parallel to
the fruit being soon to experience rotting and corruption
(8:1—2). Hosea used his own wife‘s unfaithfulness to illus-
trate how unfaithful Israel had been to Yahweh.l Isaiah
walked about without shoes or outergarment to show how Egypt
would be shamed before the invasion of Assyria (Isa. 20:2-6).
Jeremiah hid his linen girdle by the Euphrates River until it
was marred and then used it to illustrate that God would sim-
ilarly “mar the pride of Judah, and the great pride of Jeru—
salem" (Jer. 13:1—11). Ezekiel saw dry bones restored to
life by the blowing of wind upon them and was told that in
like fashion God would breathe upon dead, aptive Judah and

restore the people again to their land (Ezek. 37:1—14).

II. Content of the Teaching

The matter now concerns the content of the prOphetic

1The entire book of Hosea works with this comparison,
but especially chapters 1 and 3.

220
teaching. It has be n observed that the prOphets taught in

keeping with the torah, with the purpose in mind of reforma—

 

tion, but of what they spoke in so doing has not been dis~
cussed. As to the message content of the writing prOphets,
there is a'undant evidence in their books. Of the earlier
prophets, the evidence is much less, but still sufficient

for specific conclusions. It is helpful to divide the con-

sideration between these two groups.

A. Early PrOphets
The prophets of the early period fall also into two
groups: those active before the monarchy, and those after.
The task of reformation changed substantially with this ma—

jor change in government.

1. Pre—monarchy_period

From the nature of the case, the interest here must be
historical as well as in relation to subject matter. That
is, it is necessary to know who was prOphesying as well as

what they said, for often the two questions are interrelated.

a. Identification

Not many prOphets are named in the Old Testament prior
to the monarchy establishment. Moses is so called, but he
died before the conquest; and this was true also of his sis-
ter, Miriam, called a prOphetess (EX. 15:2 ). Joshua may be
included for, hough not called a prOphet, he served in that

capacity, receiving Divine communications and relaying them

221
to the peOple.l Deborah, one of the Judges, is called a
prOphetess (Jud. 4:4). In Gideon's day, a prOphet is men-
tioned, though not by name, as having warned the pecple of
their sinfulness (Jud. 6:8). Samuel is the prOphet best
known, and recognized as such even early in life by "all Is—
rael from Dan to Beer—sheba" (I Sam. 3:20). And he, in turn,
superintended a group of young prOphets, evidently stationed
at Naioth near Ramah, where Samuel maintained his headquart-
ers (I Sam. 10:5-10; 19:18—20‘. They appear to have been meme
bers of a training school which probably Samuel himself had
started.

These are all the prOphets definitely indicated. How—
ever, a few clues suggest there were more. First, Moses' own
prediction that other prOphets like himself would arise, to
whom the pecple should go for Divine communication,2 is hard—
ly fulfilled by these alone.3 Second, the manner of mention
regarding Deborah as prOphetess implies others were living.
This identification is uncalled for in terms of the story re—
lated, for it depicts her only as a Judge. The thought must
be, then, that she was also a prOphetess like others of whom

the pecple would know. Third, there is the prOphet in Gideon's

 

lOther scholars refer also to Balaam, but he was ear-
lier before the conquest, and was not a member of any of Is—
rael‘s tribes. N. Gottwald, for instance, so discusses Ba-
laam at some length; A Light to the Nations (New York: Harper
& Bros., 1959), p. 254.

 

2Deut. 18:9—22; cf. supra, p. 199.

3On the basis of the early date of the Exodus, the time
involved was over 300 years; indeed, a long time for these
few names.

222
time, mentioned casually, and not at all like he was a
unique person for his time. Fourth, there is the well—known
verse from Samuel's time, which implies that the prOphet, or
seer,l was customarily in pecple's thinking: "Beforetime in
Israel, when a man went to inquire of God, thus he said,
Come and let us go to the seer; for he that is now called a
PrOphet was beforetime called a Seer" (I Sal. 9:9). If
there had been only a few individuals of this kind by this
time, such a customary manner of speaking would hardly have
arisen. And fifth, there is no reason why all should have
been mentioned. Not all are presented in any other period

either, but only those involved in the history related.

b. Message
The message of these early prOphets may be determined
both from the need of the day and from what record is direct-

m, ‘_
ly given. *ne reat need of the day was resistance to Canaan-

UQ

ite influence which urged allegiance to Baal in place of Yah-
weh. And there were many attractions for doing so, as has
been observed. Many pecple wanted to, and, indeed, too many
did. Thus it follows that this would have comprised a main
area of attention in the prOphet's thinking. The pecple
should not turn from their own Yahweh and His law. They
should not follow the Canaanite Baal.

Two of the prophets mentioned supply testimony: namely

1The offices of prOphet and seer have been shown in
chapter IV to have been basically the same, only with names.
of different connotation.

223

Samuel and the anonymous figure of Gideon‘s time. And the
message from each shows the same stress. For instance, Sam-
uel urged the pecple, "If ye do return unto Yahweh with all
your heart, then put away the foreign gods and the Ashtaroth
from among you, and direct your hearts unto Yahweh, and serve
him only; and hethJ.deliver you out of the hand of the Phil—
istines" (I Sam. 7:3). And the prOphet of Gideon's day first
reminded the pecple of Yahweh‘s past deliverances, then of
Yahweh's command that they "not fear the gods of the Amor—
ites," and then reprimanded them for not obeying. The "gods"
to which he referred were the same Baal and Ashtaroth men—
tioned by Samuel. Thus, the message of the early prOphets

is made clear: do not follow the foreign Baal; follow Yahweh.

2. Monarchy prOphets

 

a. Identification

A much larger number of prOphets are 'identified for
the monarchy period. They are: in the time of David, Nathan
(II Sam. 7:2; 12:25) and Gad (II Sam. 24:11), with Zadok, the
priest, being called a "seer" upon one occasion (II Sam. 15:
27) and the Levite, Heman, being also referred to by the same
designation (I Chr. 25:5 :1 in the time of Jeroboam, Ahijah
(I Kgs. 11:29; 14:2—18), a "man of God" who spoke against

Jeroboam's altar (I Kgs. 13:1—10), and an "old prophet in Beth-

 

lSamuel was also both a Levite (I Chr. 6:27,28,33,34)
and a prOphet. There was nothing to prohibit one from the
priestly family from also serving in the prOphetic office.

224

el" who tricked him (I Kgs. 13:11-32); in Rehoboam's reign,
Shemaiah (II Chr. 11:2-4; 12:5-15), and Iddo (II Chr. 9:29;
13:22);1 in Asa's reign, Oded (II Chr. 15:1—8), and Hanani
(II Chr. 16:7); in Baasha's reign, Jehu, son of Hanani (I
Kgs. 16:1—12); in Jehoshaphat's reign, Jahaziel (II Chr. 20:
14) and Eliezer (II Chr. 20:37); in Ahab's reign, Elijah
(I Kgs. 17—19, etc.), Elisha (I Kgs. 19:19—21),2 one simply
called "the prOphet" (I Kgs. 20:13—28), an“ Micaiah (I Kgs.
22:8-28); in the reign of Joash of Judah, Zechariah (II Chr.
24:20); and in the reign of Amaziah "a prOphet" (II Chr. 25:
15).3

Twenty different prOphets are here designated and the
time runs from the establishment of the kingdom until the
reign of Jeroboam II, or approximately two and one—half cen—
turies.’+ In this span of time, were there more prOphets than
this? t is certain that there were. Indeed, it is directly
stated that groups of prOphets, probably in training, lived

in Bethel, Jericho, and Gilgal.5 And some of them are also

lIddo was also active already in Solomon‘s reign.

2Elisha's ministry continued into the reigns of Aha—
ziah, Jehoram, Jehu, Jehoahaz, and Jehoash (II Kgs. 2—13).

3The next prOphet to be mentioned in the Old Testa—
ment is Jonah in Jeroboam's reign (II Kgs. 14:25), one of the
writing prOphets, and so here this period stOps.

uLatter half of the llth century to the first half of
the 8th.

5Mentioned especially in II Kgs. 2:1—7. Elijah may
have renewed the training school idea of Samuel, and Elisha
then continued it. It is said that some 50 watched as Eli—

225
seen in action in certain of the Elish .a stories.l Then a
few incidental clues also exist. For instance, if there hap~
pened to live an "old prOphet" in Bethel at the time when the
"man of God" denounced the altar there, it is likely that
other cities would have housed the same.2 Also in the reign
of Joash, following the death of the high priest, Jehoiada,
it is stated that ”prOphets" were sent to reprimand the faith-
1ess princes of the day (II Chr. 24:19). But there is only
one prOphet named for the time, Zechariah. And further, the

same observation is again in order that one could not expect

all represents tives to have been recorded.

b. Message

More information is given for this period as to the con—
tent of the messages which these prOphets brought. Not all
they said is included, for many carried on long service re—
cords; but there is good representation. Four main subject

areas are involved.

1) Social reform.—The writing prOphets, who come later, have

 

more to say as to social reform than the prOphets of this per—

iod, but still some clear references are included here. Two

 

Jah and Elisha made their way across the Jordan (II Kgs. 2:7),
and the implication is made later that 100 lived at Gilgal

(II Kgs. 4: 43). They seem to have grown in number so that
new quarters near the Jordan were needed (II Kgs. 6:1—2);

cf. G. Oehler, Theolocy of the Old Testament, ed. G. E. Da
(New York: Funk & Jagnalls, 1883), pp. 392—93.

1

 

For instance, II Kgs. 4:1; 4:38; 6:1; 9:1.

2I Kgs. 13:11—32. He is described as being old and
so no longer active in prophetic service.

00.4
4.9V

come in David's time and involve David himself. Nathan
brings the first, rebuking the king for sinning with Bath—
sheba and then ordering the murder of Uriah her husband (II
Sam. 12:1—14). Gad brings the second, reprimanding the king
for taking a census, and then offering David three choices of
punishment (II Sam. 24:10-14). A third is brought by Elijah
to Ahab for an injustice with Naboth in seizing his vineyard
(I Kgs. 21:17—26).1 And a fourth is brought by Eliezer in
reprimanding Jehoshaphat for joining himself with Ahaziah,
king of Israel, in a maritime venture (II Chr. 20:37).2
Three observations are in order. The first is that
these social messages are never given only as such. Each is
delivered because the person involved has sinned against Yah—
weh. And Yahweh each time sends corresponding punishment.
The second is that each message concerns some specific occa-
sion of wrongdoing, with the person involved being directly
rebuked. This will be different with the writing prOphets,
who speak generally, to the pecple as a whole, talking about
types of social wrongs rather than specific cases. The rea—
son for this difference is that the latter preached more to

the crowds, being more nationalistic in outlook, whereas the

 

lThough Jezebel directed the actual injustice with
Naboth, still Ahab was in charge of his kingdom and so respon—
sible for the action.

2Jehoshaphat made such an alliance with Israelite kings
three different times: first, with Ahab for the Ramoth—gilead
battle (I Kgs. 22), this one with Ahaziah, and the third with
the second son of Ahab, Jehoram, in his venture against the
Moabites (II Kgs. 3).

227
earlier worked mainly with individuals and were concerned
with personal deficiencies.
The third observation concerns chronological placement
of these instances; namely, that they predominate with kings

otherwise approved by Yahweh. Two occur with David and one

‘

Q

with Jehosnaphat. The reason certainly is not that social
wrongs existed more in their times, or that either David or
Jehoshaphat personally fell short of standards with other
rulers. In fact, quite the Opposite was true. The most like—
ly reason is that during the reigns of "wicked" kings other
matters took precedence. That is, prOphets considered it more
serious that a ruler should prove unfaithful to Yahweh than

that he should commit some social injustice.

2) Unfaithfulness to Yahweh.—There are four occasions in
which general rebuke is administered for disobedience to the
requirements of Yahweh. Shemaiah brought such to Rehoboam,
warning that, because of his disobedience, Yahweh had "left"
him in the hand of Shishak, king of Egypt, who was then in-
vading the land. Rehoboam and his princes showed a repent—
ant spirit for which, it is stated, Yahweh granted some re—
duction in the extent of destruction Shishak would bring (II
Chr. 12:1—8). Oded brought reprimand to Asa and found a re—
pentant heart also with him, as the King "put away the abomi—
nations out of all the land" and "renewed the altar of Yahweh"
(II Chr. 15:1—8). Hanani was less successful at a later

time, however, with the same king, for Asa then responded by

228
imprisoning the prOphet. The rebuke had concerned Asa's
trusting in his own abilities rather than in the delivering
hand of Yahweh (II Chr. 16:7-10). And then Zechariah suf-
fered even worse in the time of Joash, when he rebuked the
priests for transgressing "the commandments of Yahweh," for
they "conspired against him with stones at the commandment
of the king" (II Chr. 2hzl7—21).

These four instances show that the prOphets were con—
cerned that the kings conduct their office in a manner pleas-
ing to Yahweh. The kings involved, being all of Judah where
the full torah continued in effect, should have known how to
rule prOpeer. These prOphets believed that Yahweh‘s bless—
ing depended upon this being done, and accordingly brought

their reprimands. Two suffered greatly for their effort.

3) False worship at Dan and Bethel.—The third subject area

 

relates to the religious centers of Dan and Bethel in Israel,
where Jeroboam instituted the substitute worship of Yahweh.
The first reprimand for this defection from the torah came
from one simply called "a man of God" sent north from Judah.l
Jeroboam was personally addressed as the prOphet predicted
that a future king, Josiah, would one day offer upon the

4.. V 1 ‘ A- 2
Bethel altar tne bones of "the priests" tnere offiCiating.

Jeroboam, stretching forth his hand in rebuke, found his hand

 

1It is significant that a prOphet had to be sent from
Judah. True prOphets were very few in Israel at this time.

2This was fulfilled by Josiah (II Kgs. 23:15—16) as he
dug up the bones of these priests, buried near the altar, and
burned them as predicted.

0

pa

U)

. -J
Y‘

('1‘
9 J
9

suddenly withered and had t e prOphet to pray for its
restoration (I Kgs. ljzu—é).

The second reprimand also concerned Jeroboam. This
came from Ahijeh, who had earlier foretold to Jeroboam that
he would rule (I Kgs. 11:29—38). This time, however, he
told him, through his wife, that Yahweh had now rejected his
family from longer holding the throne. The reason was that
Jeroboam had "done evil above all that were before” him, par—
ticularly in respect to the substitute worship (I Kgs. 14:
6~16). This prediction was fulfilled when his son, Nadab,
was killed in office. Then his assassin and successor,
Baasha, in turn, received the third rebuke. Jehu brought it,
forewarning a similar end for Baasha's dynasty since he was
continuing to walk ”in the way of Jeroboam" (I Kgs. 16:1—12).
And the fourth rebuke is the well known word of Micaiah to
Ahab. He did not speak directly of the substitute worship,
but he implied it in his withstanding the 400 prOphets asso—

ciated with it (I Kgs. 22:8—28).

#) Worship_of false gpds.—The fourth area concerns, not only

 

the forsaking of Yahweh, but the giving of positive alle-
giance to other gods. Both Judah and Israel were involved.
The first rebuke was given in reference to Solomon.
Ahijah brought t at the time he foretold Jeroboam's coming
rule over ten of the tribes. He cited as a reason the fact
that Solomon had forsaken Yahweh and "worshipped Ashtoreth

the goddess of the Sidonians, and Milcom the god of the chil—

dren of Ammon" (I Kgs. 11:29—38). A second rebuke in Judah
came a century and a half later when "a prOphet" reprimanded
Amaziah on a similar count. Amaziah had recently returned
from a victory over the Edomites and brought back with him
some of their "gods" and set them up as his own. The pro-
phet ask d the question, ”Why hast thou sought after the
gods of the pecple which have not delivered their own pecple
out of thy hand?" (II Chr. 23:15).

In Israel the occasions of these reprimands concerned
Baal worship, introduced by Jezebel. The instance with Eli—
jah on Mt. Carmel is well known, as he solicited and received
the committal of the pecple that Yahweh is God and not Baal.
Elisha following did not have as much to say of Baal worship,
but in at least two instances his implications regarding it
are clear enough. One occurred in southern Moab as three
kings resorted to his counsel in their dire need for water.
Jehoram, son of Ahab, was one, and to him then Elisha signif—
icantly stated, "Get thee to the prOphets of thy father and
to the prOphets of thy mother." In other words, since Jehor—
am had been holding these Baal prOphets in such high regard
before, why did he not resort to them now? (II Kgs. 3:33-14).1
The other occurred in the anointing of Jehu as successor to

Jehoram. One of Jehu's actions in his blood purge of Ahab's

house was the slaughter of the Baal prOphets. Since Elisha

.A-A

lJehoram may have had some of these prOphets with him.
If so, Elisha was referring to them. If not, he was chiding
him for not having brought them for such an emergency. Did
not Jehoram have such confidence in them after all?

231
had directed his anointing, instructing him to destroy "the

house of Ahab," it is likely he included this destruction of

the Baal prOphets as well (I1 Kgs. 9:1-10; 10:19-28).

5) Summarv.—A summary now of the message of these monarchy
prOphets reveals it to have been quite different from that

of the pre—monarchy period. Then, the one main theme of re-
sistance to Canaanite influence predominated. But here, this
was no longer heard. The reason is that this problem no
longer existed, with Canaanites having been well subdued.

The message now concerned the four aspects noted. One in-
volved social wrongs; the others pertained to religious mat-
ters. In Judah, there was the general area of failure to
please Yahweh, and also that of giving allegiance to foreign
deities. And in Israel, there was the matter of Jeroboam's
institution at Dan and Bethel, in addition to the Baal inroad
under Ahab. The messages were given almost exclusively to

individuals for specific wrongs, rather than in general, pub-

lic denouncements.

B. The Writing Prephets
The interest now turns to the writing prOphets, common—
ly called the greatest of the prOphets. Certainly they are
the best known, and their preaching and writings stand in a
class by themselves for the world of their day. They were
great spirits, with great minds and hearts. The glory of

their message was only rivalled by the courage with which

they gave it.

232

Little need be said as to their identification, for
they are simply those whose messages are recorded in the pro—
phetic books of the Old Testament.1 There were others who
lived contemporaneously, some of whom are mentioned,2 but the
concern here is with those who wrote.

Whereas in both periods thus far considered the material
for conclusions is meager, the Opposite is true here. For
complete books now contain the messages preached. Indeed, it
is so much that anything like an adequate survey lies beyond
the scOpe of this writing. Uhat can be done is to give an
analysis of main themes deveIOped by four representatives;
namely, the well known eighth century prOphets, Amos, Hosea,
Isaiah, and Micah. They are among the more important of the
group, and their themes are in large part only restated and

amplified by the others. They stress three broad areas.

1. The area of rebuke for sin

 

 

The first area is identical in type to the whole message

of the prior period; namely, rebuke for sin. And the kinds

g

1It is unnecessary here to discuss the matter of how
much of their prOphecies these prOphets themselves wrote.
Baruch clearly wrote much of what Jeremiah preached (Jer.
36:4). Some scholars believe that the prOphets wrote very
little, but that their followers later recorded most of what
came to comprise their books. The evidence cited is not
great, however. Cf. O. Eissfeldt, "The PrOphetic Literature,"
The Old Testament and Modern Study, ed. H. H. Rowley (London:
Oxford Univ. Press, 1951), pp. 126—34 for an excellent sur—
vey of representative thinking.

 

2For instance, in Manasseh‘s reign it is said that
"Yahweh spake by his servants the prOphets" (II Kgs. 21:lO),
and only Nahum is otherwise known for the time. Jeremiah
mentions Urijah for his time (Jer. 26:20—23). Huldah is
listed as a prOphetess in Josiah's reign (II Kgs. 22:14).
And Isaiah refers to his wife similarly (8:3).

233

of sins dealt w th are also basically the same. Two differ—
ences exist, however: first, they are dealt with more as
sins of pecple generally speaking, rather than of Specific

individuals; and second, th s being so they are described in

a. Social sins

Social sins again come in for attention, but now in
much greater degree than before. Here too they are wrong
I

basically because of being sins against Yahweh.

{D

l) Oppression of the poor.-The most common rebuke concernes

 

the Oppression of the poor.2 Amos, for instance, warns that
Judgment will fall on those "that Oppress the poor, that
crush the needy" (2:7). Again, he warns those "that trample
upon the poor, and take exactions from himcfi'wheat," saying
that consequently they will not dwell in the fine houses they
have built nor drink wine from the vineyards they have been
able to plant (5:11). Further, he describes such Oppressors
as those who "lie upon beds of ivory, and stretch themselves

upon their couches, and eat the lambs out of the flock, . .

. that drink wine in bowls, and anoint themselves with the

 

1N. Gottwald's comment, A Light to the Nations (New

York: Harper & Bros., 1959), p. 276, is of interest here:
"While reformers talk of 'the rights of men,‘ the prOphets
speak of the word of Yahweh.‘ . . . Everything in their out-
look was grounded in Israel's relation to Yahweh, in the per-
sistent preaching of religious meaning into every facet of
life."

 

2Amos particularly stresses this matter, and so cita—
tions are limited to his book; but see also: Isa. 2:7; 3:1“;
5:7,8,23; Mic. 2:2; 3:2,3; 6:12; Hos. 12:7,8.

234
chief oils" (6:4-6). Amos is not thus condemning riches as

J—

such, bUO rather the injustice which is commonly meted out

by those of wealth, and also that they so often neglect the
true meaning of Yahweh's torah. This last is made clear as
he depicts the rich asking when the sabbath and new moon fes-
tival will be passed so t.at they can again ”sell grain" and
once more "set wheat, making the ephah small, and the shekel

great, and dealing falsely with balances of deceit“ (8:4,5).

£4 1

2) Pride.—The sin of pride is mentioned especially by Isaiah
and Hosea. Writes the former, ”The lofty looks of man shall
be brought low, and the haughtiness of men shall be bowed
down" (2:11; of. 2:17); and again, Speakin: of pecple gen—
erally, that "their glory and their multitude and their pomp"
shall be swallowed by Sheol when she Opens her "mouth with—
out measure" (5:14); and still again, that "the mean man is
bowed down, and the great man is humbled, and the eyes of the
lofty are humbled" (5:15). He further exclaims, "Woe unto
them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their
own sight!" (5:21). And then he speaks more specifically

of the pride of fancy apparel, saying that in a day to come
"The Lord will take away the beauty of their anklets, and the
cauls, and the crescents; the pendants, and the bracelets,
and the mufflers; the headtires, and the ankle chains, and
the sashes, and the perfume boxes, and the amulets," etc.
Hosea, writing to the northern nation collectively, says,

"And the pride of Israel doth testimy to his face: therefore

Israel and Ephraim shall stumble in their iniquity" (5:5 ;

 

235
and again, ”The pride of Israel doth testifv to his face:

U

yet they have not returned unto Yahw h their God" (7:10).

3) Intoxication.—Isaiah often mentions the sin of intoxica—

 

tion. For instance, he says, ”Toe unto them tha

Cf"
“3
H
U)
(D
C
FO

early in the morning, that they may follow strong

k) )
p
*3
I...“
q
’Fn

V 0
ct
{3‘
93
cl"

tarry late into the night, tillrflmuainflame them" (5:11).

And again he sees Yahweh calling to a time of seriousness and

findin;

k.)

”Joy and gladness, slaying oxen and killing

{)1

instea

(

sheep, eating flesh and drinking wine: Let us eat and drink,

for tomorrow we shall die,” with Yahweh seen consequently say—
1

'v 1

in? tnat tnis "iniquity shall not be forgiven (22:13,14).

x.)

4) Egger sins.—Hosea gives a sort of miscellaneous listing
of sins preValent in his day, saying "There is nought but
swearing and breaking faith, and killing, and stealing, and
committing adultery" (4:2). Again he writes, "Whoredon and
wine and new wine take away the understanding" (4:11). He
may have cultic prostitution in mind when he states, "I will
not punish your daughters when they play the harlot, nor
your brides when they commit adultery: for the men themselves
go apart with harlots, and they sacrifice with the frosti-
tutes" (4:14). And Amos may be thinking similarly as he
says, "A man and his father go unto the same maiden, to pro-

fane my holy name" (2:7).

b. Unfaithfulness to Yahweh

 

le. Isa. 28:1,3,7 further.

236

"with the earlier moner hy prOphets, division was made
between the sin of forsahin , HY h‘..eh generally and that in—
volved particularly with the substitute worship of Jeroboam.
That division was called for in view of the newness of Jero—
boam's innove-tion, which made it a special kind of unfaith—
fulness for rebuke. By the time of the writin: proghets,
however, that newness seems to have worn off in part;1 for
Hosea, who ministered in the northern kingdom, speaks usually
of unfaithfulness only in rwener l. 2 For ins ance, he writes,
"There is no truth, nor 3oodness, nor knowledge of God in the
land" (4:1); and again, "They have left off taking heed to
Yahweh” (4:10). In other places he says, "They have dealt
treacherou sly a5ainst Yahweh" (5:7); "But they like Ada m have

transgressed the covenant” (6:7); "They have spoken lies

J
O
:3
(D
9.1
fl)
U]
{D
U)
c f
’23

agains ct” Yahweh (7:13); and they have c ange
thin3" the "ten thousand things" of Yahweh's law (8:12).
Isaiah also, writing to Judah, nas similar general ref—

erences. He says, for instance, that the pecple honored Yah—

weh "with their lips" but "their h art was far from" Him (29:

 

11' 4.1 0
more than one and one—hall centuries had elacs from

L
about 931 B.C. to appr ximately 750 B.C.

V

2Hosea s; ea he more in this way than does Amos. Amos
does have th.a t worslip in mind when he writes, "T.e high
mil ces of Isaac shall be desolate and the sanctuaries of Is—

rael shall be laid waste; and I will rise against the house
of Jeroboam w th the sword," which thi.3 is clear from Ama-
ziah‘s reply, "Go, flee thou away into the land of Judah. .
. . But prephesy not again any more at Bethel" (7:9—13). In
one place, Hosea too speaks of it pa ticularly: ”He hath
cast off thy calf, O Samaria ° . . . h workman made it, and
it is no God: yea, the ca f of Samaria shall be broken in

pieces" (8:5—6).

t

13); and a3ain he calls them ”a rebellious pecple, lying
children, that will not hear the law of Yahweh," and accord—
in3ly bids the prOphets not to preach to them (30:9—11). He
also rebukes them for seekin:3 Yahweh in the wrong way, call-
in; thezn "soothsayers like the Pri listir es" (2:6).

Then in this same ca te3" ory must be placed the general

denouncements of sacrifice voiced so strongly by these pro—
1

phets. As observed in grior connections, these did not con—
stitute rejections of sacrifice as such, but criticisms of
the manner in which they were performed: as empty, forms
ceremonies rather than exhibitions of faith. Micah, for in—
stance, asks, "Will Yahweh be pleased with thousands of rams
or with ten thousa ands of rivers of oil? . . . What doth Yah-
weh require of thee, but to do Justly, and to love kindness,

and to walk humbly with thy God?" (6:6—8). Words from Isaiah

(1:11—15), Amos (5:21—23), and Hosea (6: ) are similar.

Rebuke for worship of false gods also carries on from
the earlier prOphets. It is more strongly emphasized by Ho—
sea in the northern kingdom, but it is also sounded by Isaiah
and Micah in Judah. Hosea uses the illustration of harlotry.
He writes, for instance, "The spirit of whoredom hath caused
them to err, and they have played the harlot, departing from
under their God. They sacrifice upon the teps of the moun—

tains, and burn incense upon the hills, under oaks and pep—

 

lSupra, pp. 205, 214.

238

ulars and terebinths" (4:12). And again he says, "The more
the prOphets called them, the more they went from them: they
sacrificed unto the Baalim, and burned incense to graven im—
ages" (11:2 . He could give particular force to this lan—
guage for his own wife, Gomer, had similarly been unfaithful
to him. Thus, his presentation was: as Gomer had left him
for other lovers (2:5), so Israel had gone from Yahweh after
other gods.

Speakin: of Judah, Kicah writes, "All her graven im—
ages shall be beaten to pieces, and all her hires shall be
burned with fire, and all her idols will.I lay desolate"
(1:7). Later he is a bit more Specific as he says, "And I
will pluck up thine Asherim out of the midst of thee" (5:14).
Isaiah states, "They shall be utterly put to shame, that

trust in gaven images, that say unto molten images, Ye are

2. The area of punishment

 

A second genera area treated by these prOphets con—
cerns impending punishment. The peOple had sinned and there—
fore God would punish then. The earlier prOphets had spoken
of punishment also, but not nearly so much nor on the same
collective, national level. Then it was punishment of a per—
son or family for individual infraction of Yahweh's law.

Now it was punishment for the entire nation.
Notes of such warning come often in general terms.

Hosea, for example, says, "For they sow the mind, an they

239

shall reap the whirlwind" (8:7). mos uses strong imagery
as he writes, ”But I will send a fire upon Judah, and it shall
devour the palaces of Jerusalem" (2:5). Kicah warns that
Yahweh "will hide his face from them at that time, according
as they have wrought evil in their doings" (3:4). And Isaiah
states, "For a full end, and that determined, will the Lord,
Yahweh of hosts make in the midst of all the earth" (10:23).

Both Isaiah and Amos speak of the Judgment time as the
"day of Yahweh." Amos declares, "Woe unto you that desire
the day of Yahvehl Wherefore would ye have the day of Yah—
weh? It is darkness, and not light" (5:18). Isaiah, early

1

in his book, uses the term as ne Speaks of punishment on the

9'1]

proud: " or there sha 1 be a day of Yahweh of hosts upon all
that is proud and haughty, and upon all that is lifted up"

(2:12). Later he states more 3enerally, "Wail ye; for the

DJ

ay of Yahweh is at hand; as destruction from the Almighty
shall it come" (13:6).

Several indications as to the nature of this punishment
are given. Amos speaks a word regarding the Bethel altar in
particular: "For in the day that I shall visit the transgres—
sions of Israel upon him, I will also visit the altars of
Bethel" (3:14). Hosea says it will include famine: "And they
shall eat, and not have enough" (4:10); and again,'Ephraim
shall become a desolation in the day of rebuke" (5:9). This
concept of desolation is further dev010ped by Isaiah: "Be—
hold, Yahweh maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste,

and turneth it upside down, and sea tereth abroad the inhab—

240

its nts thereof" (2L: 1). 1

This punishment will even issue in captivity for the
peOple. Both Amos and Hosea make this clear regarding Israel.
Amos writes, "For, behold, I will raise up against you a na-
tion, 0 house of Israel, taithV a weh, the God of hosts: and
they shall afflict you from tr e entrance of Hamath unto the
brook of the Arabah" (6:11—ls). And Hosea savs, “But I will

U

drive them out of my house; . . . Ky God will cast them away,

{‘4

...ar

they shall be wanderers among the nations" (9:15-17).

"3

Hosea also implies that Assryia rill be the country to affect
this ca itivi ty, warning that Israel would "eat unclean food
in Assryia" (9:3), and that the “calves of Bath—aven"2 would
be carried "unto Assryia" (10:/

Both! i ah and Isaiah state tnat Judah will also suf—
fer captivity, and both indicate Babylonia as the country to
bring it. Urites Micah, "Beijipain, and labor to bring forth,
0 daughter of Zion, like a woman in travail; for now shalt
thou go forth out of the city, and shnlt dwell in the field,
and shalt come even unto Babylon" (#:10). And Isaiah states,

"Behold the days are coming, when all that is in thy house,

. . . shall be carried to Babylon" (39:6; of. 13:5).3

 

1T0 stress tha.t all L 11 be affected, he continues by
even listing the various g:roups to be afflicted; nagmin peo~
ple and priests, servants and masters, the ma id and her mis—
tress, the buyer and seller, the creditor and debtor, the
taker of interest and the giver of interest.

2Meaning the calves of Dan and Bethel.
3Jeremiah, writing later, gives yet greater detail,

even naming the number of years the captivity trill last (25:
11; of. 29:10).

2M1
3. The area of deliverance and hope

The last area is that of future deliverance and hOpe.
This aspect did not come at all within the view of the ear—
lier prOphets. But the writing pr0flets bring it as a Joy—
ful note of bright prospect.

Amos sounds it as he predicts release from the captiv—
ity, saying, "And I will bring back the captivity of my peo—
ple Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and in—
habit them; and they shall plant vineyards and drink the wine
thereof" (9:14). And Micah announces the same, as, sneaking
of Babylon, he says, "There will Yahweh redeem thee from the
hand of thine enemies" (4:10).

Hosea speaks of a time when the land will be rid of
Baal worship: "For Iyfijj.take away the names of the Baalim
out of her mouth, and they shall no more be mentioned by
their name" (2:17); and also of a day when "Ephraim shall say,
that have I to do any more with idols" (14:8).l Isaiah tells
of a time of spiritual enlightenment: ”They all that err in
Spirit shall come to understanding, and they that murmur
shall receive instruction" (29:24).

The same two prOphets speak of blessing in general to
come upon the pecple. Hosea writes, "I will be as the dew
unto Israel: he shall blossom as the lily, and cast forth

his roots as Lebanon” (l@:5). Again, he depicts Israel as

saying, "Come, let 1M3 return unto Yahweh: for he hath torn

 

1This last is a reference to the Dan and Bethel calves.

242

and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up"
(6:1). And Isaiah promises, "In that day shall this song be
sung in the land of Judah: We have a strong city; salvation
will he appoint for our walls and bulwarks" (26:1).

Kicah becomes enthusiastic in viewing other nations
as then desirous of coming to this blessed land: "But in the
latter days it shall come to pass that the mountain of Yah—
weh's house shall be established on the top of the mountains,
. . . and pecples shall flow unto it. And many nations shall
go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of Yah-
weh" (4:1-2). He sees it also as a time of world peace, as
peOple are described as beating "their swords into plow—
shares, and their spears into pruninghooks; nation shall not
lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war
any more" (4:3).

And Isaiah predicts that, in contrast, Babylon, who
had taken Judah captive, will herself then eXperience punish—
ment: "Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, . . .
And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chal-
dean's pride, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomor-
rah. It shall never be inhabited" (13:17—20). Later he
says that because this Oppressor has ceased, "The whole

earth is at rest, and is quiet" (14:7).

4. Summary

In summary, then, hese prOphets taught particularly

cf

in three subject areas: rebuke for sin, warning of punish—

243
ment due to it, and promise of deliverance and hOpe. In
their role as reformers, they placed greatest stress on the
first. Three types of sin received the most attention: so-
cial sins, unfaithfulness to Yahweh, and worship of false
gods. Regarding social sins, they spoke mainly of Oppres—
sion of the poor, pride, intoxication, and a miscellaneous
group. Their message of warning was also in keeping with
the reformation interest. If the pecple did not heed the
call from sin, they would be punished; even by captivity to
a foreign land. This was a new note in the prOphetic his-
tory. Also new was the promise of better things to come.
This did not fit logically in the reformation theme; but
went beyond the punishment announcement to give hOpe for a

brighter future following the punishment.

The main conclusions of this dissertation follow.

A. Priests and PrOphets Were Teachers
Both priests and prOphets were teachers in Israel, with
priests as well as prOphets spending a major portion of their

time in this work.
B. Priests Were the Normal Teachers

1. The priests inherited their position, being called Levites
if they descended from Levi, and priests if in addition

Aaron, in the Levitic line, was their ancestor. The differ-
ence in teaching function, whether a Levite or a priest, was

negligible.

2. The priest‘s office was legally prescribed in the torah,

both as to character and function.

3. The priests lived in the evenly dispersed Levitical cities

which gave them close access to the pecple for their teaching.

4. The subject matter taught was primarily the torah, which
was believed to have been given by Yahweh through Moses, and
which the Old Testament presents as having existed for this

am

245

teaching from Israel‘s early tribal days.
5. Besides this teaching, the priests had an important, per-

iodic r.sponsibility to serve at the central sanctuary.
This, however, took something less than one month per year

which left ample time for this instruction.

6. The remarkatfle fact that Israel, in her early history, was
not engulfed by the advanced Canaanite culture is best ex—

plained in terms of this continuous teaching by the priests.

7. Israel‘s history shows that the priests functioned in this
activity with varying degrees of dedication and success. (a)
During tribal days, their success was commendable as shown
especially by the basic resistance to Canaanite influence.
Against their record, however, are the facts that this for—
eign influence did make some inroads, and also that the peo-
ple too often demonstr ted an unfa thful spirit toward Yah—
weh's requirements, especially during the decadent regime of
Eli. (b) Under the inspiration of Samuel, efficiency was re—
stored in large part; and during the united monarchy period
it reached its zenith. (c) With the kingdom division, de—
cline came. In the northern nation, the traditional priests
left for Judah in large numoers, and those who stayel were
not used at the substitute centers of worship. They doubt-
less expressed antagonism at Jeroboam‘s innovation, and ac—
cordingly were severely repressed in their teaching. In

Judah, priestly efficiency varied with the manner of the

246
king then ruling, whether himself a loyal follower of Yahweh

or not.

C. Prophets Here Special Teachers
ine prOphets were special teachers who functioned main—
ly as reformers, and were needed because either the priests
did not do their work satisfactorily, or the pecple, in Spite

of their efforts, still did not obey the instruction.

1. The prOphets did not inherit their office, but were espe—
cially called by Yahweh in view of need and personal qualifi-

cations.

2. The prOphets were not legally prescribed in the torah, as
were the priests, though they were recognized there, which

fact is in keeping with their "extra" type of function.

3. The prOphets did not teach the torah as such, in a "line
upon line" fashion, but did teach in keeping with it as they

urged peOple to conform their lives to it.

4. The prOphets did not have designated cities in which to

live and teach, but were free to move about according to need.

5. The prophets were usually persons of outstanding courage

Q

and faith, who could be entrusted with missions both diffi—

.1

cult and dang rous.

6. PrOphetic teaching was often in the manner of preaching,

in which exhortation was the stress rather than factual infor—

247
mation. Their audiences were sometimes large, but often

small; and even many times one person only.

7. Many of the prOphets considered this activity their life
occupation. Some, such as Am s, were calledfkmmiother labor
for a short time. In either case, as prOphets they had no
other task than proclaiming Yahweh's message, as did the

priests with their additional sanctuary responsibilities.

8. Israel‘s history shows some change in method and message
on the part of the prOphets. (a) Though few prOphets are
named for the early tribal period, still many did live then
and found their main task, much as the priests, in resisting
Canaanite influence. (b) with Samuel's "schools," the number
increased. During the monarchy, and preceding the writing
prOphets, Canaanite resistance no longer required attention,
but rather certain social ills, unfaithfulness to Yahweh, and
worship of false gods. The main work consisted in personal
reprimands. In Israel, following the kingdom division, where
certain defections from the torah were made a part of law,
true prOphets, who might bring rebuke for the same, were few
in number. (0) With the writing prophets, a broader, nation—
a1 approach was taken. The same basic sins were rebuked,

and in addition a warning given as to impending punidiment,

as well as a promise of deliverance following

F).
-

D. Divine Disclosure Means

Both priests and prOphets had a special means of Divine

248

disclosure related to their teaching functions.

1. Priests had Urim and Thummim

 

a. The Urim and Thummim consisted of two stones, likely pre—
cious, carried in the pouch at the front of the high priest's

ephod.

1

b. The nigh priest alone could make the consultation.

0. He did this by tak ng a stone in each hand from the pouch,
holding both before Yahweh, speaking the question to be an—
swered, and watching them for a glow of light which would

indicate an affirmation.

d. Thus the possible message was limited to an indicated or

withheld affirmation.

e. Consultation had to be made in a situation where attention
would be called to Yahweh as the one supplying the answer:
either by proximity of the Ark, so long as that was possible,

and at least in connection with the ephod.

f. This function was related to the priest's teaching in that
they presented questions from the peOple for answer and re-
layed the decisions back to them again. It was related too
in that, as they did this, a continual reminder was supplied

the peOple of their authority as Yahweh's teachers.

2. Prophets had "direct contact“

249
a. The prOphets did not employ physical instruments, such as
the Urim and Thumm m stones, nor inebriating devices such as

gases or narcotics to lose self—consciousness.

b. The disclosure came through Spirit possession by which a
meeting of he Divine and human was effected within the per-
sonality of the prouhet, so that, without sensing any nega—

f his own rational powers, he came to know more than he
had before, and was given the conviction that he had received
Yahweh's message. Ecstasy thus was involved only in that
more than natural power was concerned, but not in any form of

frenzy or loss of consciousness.
c. This means made a descriptive type of message possible.

d. This means did not vary in any significant way during all
of prOphetic history, being employed with Moses, Samuel, Na—

than as well as Amos, Isaiah, Jeremiah.

e. This means was related more fully with the prophet's
teaching, than the Urim and Thummim with the priest's, in
that by it the prOphet often received both the message and

method for his assignments.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Albright, H. F. ArchanIOgy and the Religion of Israel. 3d
ed. Baltimore: Johns HOpkins Press, 1953.

. The Archaeology of Palestine. Revised ed. Ham-
mondsworth: Penguin Books, 1956.

 

From the Stone Age to Christ anity, 2d ed. Bal—
timore: Johns HOpkins Press, l9b6.

Anderson, R. T. Attitudes of the Pre—Exilic Canonical Pro—
phets Toward the Cultus. Unpublished Ph. D. disserta—
tion, Boston University Graduate School, 1957.

 

'

Bade, h. F. The Old Testament in the Light of Today. Boston:

Barton, G. A. Archaeology and the Bible. 7th ed. Philadel—
phia: American Sunday School Union, 1937.

 

The Religion of Israel. New York: Macmillan Co.,

 

 

Breasted, J. H. The Dawn of Conscience. New York: Chas.
Scribner's Sons, 1935.

 

_, The Development of Religion and Thought in An—
cient Egypt. New York: Chas. ScribnerTs Sons, 1912.

 

 

. A History of the Ancient Egyptians. New York:
Chas. Scribner's Sons, 1908.

Bright, John. A History of Israel. Philadelphia: Westmin—
ster Press, 1959.

 

Buber, Martin. Mosesi_the Revela ion and the Covenant. New
York: Harper & Bros., 1958.

. The Prophetic Faith. Translated by Carlyle
Witton—Davies. New York: Macmillan Co., 1949.

 

Buttenweiser, Moses. The PrOphets of Israel from the Eighth
to the Fifth Century. New York: Macmillan Co., l9lfl.

 

 

250

Cook, Stanley. The Old Tes e LA He inter 3reta tion.
New York: Macmillan Co., l9SEi

Davidson, A. 3. Old Testament Prouhecr. Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1912.

DeVaux, Roland. Ancient Israel Its Life and Institutions.

Translated by John thugn. New York: McGraw Hill Book
Co., 19$

Driver, S. R. Introduc
t1

ion to th e Literature of the Old Tes—
tament. 5 ' r

gn: T. & T. Clark, 189D.

f.)

(D

f);

[11 cr
DJ °
Fl

5'

U

C

on the Hebrew T wt and the TOpogrgphy of the
muel. O: Hfo u' Clarendon Press, 191:.

Eerdmans, B.D. The Religion of Israel. Leiden: Univ. Pers
Leiden, 1947.

 

Eichrodt, Ualther. Theology of the Old Testament. Translated
by J. A. Baker. Philadelphia: Iestminster Press, 1961.

 

Engnell, Ivan. Israel and the Law. 2d ed. Uppsala: Alm—
quist and 'uiksell s Boktrycheri, l9; 4

 

. Studies in Divine Kiggs hip in the Ancient Near
East. Upjsa la: Almquist and Niksells Boktrycheri, I943.

 

Erman, A. The Literature of th e Ancient Egyptiang. Translat—
ed by A. N. Blackman. New York: E. P. Dutton Co., 1927.

Finegan, Jack. Light from the Ancient Past. Princeton:
Princeton Univ. PIess, I936.

Francisco, C. T. Introducing the Old Testament. Nashville:
Broadman Press, 1950.

Frankfort, Henri. Ancient Egyptian Religion. New York: Co-
lumbia Univ. Press, 194B.

 

. The Birth of Civilization in the Near East. Gar—

den City, N. J.: Doubleday & Co. Anchor Books, 195 6.

. Kinrshin and the Gods. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago

_.__..._.._._.._ AV u .1
Press, l9u8.

 

Garsta ang, John. Joshua.J Judges. London: Constable & Co.,

1931.

 

Glueck, Nelson. The Other Side of the Jordan. New Haven:
American 801 ools of Oriental Research, l9bO.

 

Gordon, Cyrus. The World of the Old Testament. Garden City,
N. J.: Douoleday & Co., 1958.

252

Gottwald, Norman K. . Light to the Nations. New York: Har_
per & Bros., 1959.

 

Graham, N. C. The PrOphets and Israel's Culture. Chicago:
Univ. of Chicago Press, 1934.

Gray, George B. Sacrifice in the Old Testament. Oxford;
Clarendon Press, 1925.

 

Guillaume, A. PrOphepy and Divination among the Hebrews and
Other Semites. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 193B.

 

 

Gurney, O. R. The Hittites. 2d ed. Hammondsworth: Penguin
Books, 1955:

 

Halder, Alfred. Associations of Cult Prophets among_the An—
cient S mites. Uppsala: Almquist and Wiksells Boktry—
cheri, 1945.

 

Harding, G. L. The Antiquities of Jordan. New York: Thomas
Y. Crowell Co., 1959.

Harrison, R. K. A History of Old Testament Times, London:
Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1957.

Hitti, Philip K. History of Syria,_Inoluding Lebanon and
Palestine. New York: Macmillan Co., 1951.

 

Hooke, S. H. Babylonian and Assyrian Religion. London:
Hutchinson's Univ. Library, 1953.

. The Sieg§_Perilous. London: SCM Press, 1956.

Hoschander, Jacob. The Priests and PrOphegg. New York: The
Jewish Theological Seminary, 1938.

Lyatt, J. Philip. Prgphetic Religion. New York: Abingdon—
Cokesbury Press, 1947.

rwin, N. A. The Old Testament: Keystone of Human Culture
New York: Henry Schuman, 1952.

Jacob, Edmund. Theology of the Old Testament. Translated
by A. N. Heathcote and P. J. Allcock. New York: Harper
& Bros., 1958.

James, Edwin O. The Nature and Function of Priesthood. New
York: Barnes & Noble, 1959.

. Origins of Sacrifice. London: Hutchinson's Univ.
Library, 1933.

 

Jastrow, Morris. The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria
Boston: Ginn & Co., 1898.

253

Jeremias, Alfred. The Old Testament in the Light of the
Ancient East. Translated by C. L. Beaumont. London:
Williams & Norgate, 1911.

 

Johnson, Aubrey R. The Cultic Prophet in Ancient Israel.
Cardiff: Univ. of Sales Press Board, isfih.

Joyce, G. C. The Inspiration of Prophecy, Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1910.

 

Kaufmann, Yehezkel. The Biblical Account of the Conquest of
Palestine. Translated by H. Dagut. Jerusalem: Hebrew
Univ. Press, 1953.

 

Knight, Harold. The Hebrew Prophetic Consciousness. London:
Lutterworth Press, 19h7.

Kuhl, Curt. The Prophets of Israel. Richmond, Pa.: John
Knox Press, 1960.

 

Kyle, Melvin G. The Problem of the Pentateuch. Oberlin:
Bibliotheca Sacra Co., 1920.

Leslie, Elmer. Old Testament Religion in the Light of Its
Canaanite Background. New York: Abingdon Press, 1936.

 

_, The PrOphets Tell Their Own Story. New York:
Abingdon—Cokesbury Press, 1939.

. The Psalms. New York: Abingdon—Cokesbury Press,

1 E9.

 

Manley, G. T. The Book of the Law. Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1957.

 

Meek, TheOphile. Hebrew Origins, 2d ed. New York: Harper
& Bros., 1950.

 

Nendenhall, George. Law and Covenant in Israel and the An—
cient Near East. Pittsburgh: Biblical Colloquim, 1955.
Includes both his "Ancient Oriental and Biblical
Law," Biblical Archaeologist, XVII(May, l95u), 26—46,
and "Covenant Form in Israelite Tradition," Biblical
Archaeologist, XVII(Sept., 1954), 50-76.

 

 

 

 

 

Mercer, S. A. B. The Religion of Ancient Egypt. London:
Luzac & Co., 19b9.

 

Neufeld, E. The Hittite Laws. London: Luzac & Co., 1951.

 

Newman, Murray L. Jr. The People of the Covenant. New York:
Abingdon Press, 1962.

 

254

m‘ J. J— 4..
L Old Testament Interoreta ion of

pworth Press, 19h6l

North, ChristOpher.
Hist ry. London:

 

.8
H
L

.rtin. The History_of Israel. 2d ed. London: A. &
C. Black, 1958.

 

Oehler, Gustav. The Theology of the Old Testamegg. Revised
ed. by G. E. Day. New York: Funk & Wabnalls, 1883.

Oesterley, W. and Robinson, T. Hebrew Reliéion. New York:
Macmillan Co., 1930.

 

lmstead, A. T. History of Assyria. New York: Chas. Scrib—
ner's Sons, 1923.

. History of Syria and Palestine. NeW'York: Chas.
Scribner‘s Sons, 1931.

Oppenheim, A. Lee. The Interpretation of Dreams in the An—
cient Near East. Philadelphia: Transactions of the
American PhiIOSOphical Society, 1956.

 

Orlinsk‘, Harry. Ancient Israel. Ithaca: Cornell Univ.
Press, 1954.

 

Orr, James. The Problem of the Old Testament. London: James
Nisbet & Co., 1907.

 

Owen, G. F. Archaeoloay and the Bible. Westwood, N. J.°
Fleming H. Revell Co., 1961.

 

Payne, J. Barton. The Theology of the Older Testament. Grand
'3 -. ~ /
Rapids: Zoncervan Puo. Co., 19o2.

 

Pedersen, Johannes. IsraelL Its Life and Culture. Vols.
I—II translated by Mrs. A. Holler; vols. III—IV by Miss
A. Fausboll. London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1926~40.

Peters, Johi. Religion of the Hebrews. Boston: Ginn & Co.,

1914.

 

Pfeiffer, R. H. Introduction to the Old Testament. New
York: Harper & Bros., 1951.

 

. Reliaion in the Old Testament. Edited by Chas.
C. Forman. New York: Harper & Bros., 1961.

 

Pritchard, James B. (ed.) Ancient Near Eastern Texts. Re—
vised ed. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1955.

 

Riciotti, G. The History of Israel. 2 vols. 2d ed. Hi1—
waukee: Bruce Pub. Co., 1958.

 

255

Robertson, James. The Earl;r Religion of Israel. Revised ed.
Philadelphia: sesaminster Press, 1903.

A)

Robinson, George L. The Beari.g of Archa eology on the Old
Teste.ment. New York: American Tract Society, l9h1.

 

 

Robinson, H. Hheeler. InSi)i tion and Revelation in the Old
Testament. Oxford:w1ndon Press, 1946}

 

. The Old Te
ville: Abingdon

1,! o _‘ 1'? 1r.
s meaning_and Hakinv. Nasn-

 

Robinson, Theodore H. The Old Testament: A Consgectug, Lon—
don: Ducliworth, 1953.

. Proohccy and the ProPhets. London: Chas Scribner's
Sons, 1923.

m:

Rogers, R. T. -n Reli ion of Ba bylonia And Assyria. New
York: Eaton & Hains s, 1908.

Rowley, H. H. The Faith of Is . London: SCM Press, 1956.

 

' The Re“di°cove?1 0f the Old Testament. Philadel—
Phia! Gstmingter Dress’ l9u0.

 

 

 

. The Servant of the Lord an d Other Essays on the
stament. Lor den: Lutterworth Press, 1952.

 

tz, Samuel J. The Old Testament Speaks. Iew York: Har~
r
per & Bros., 1960.

 

 

 

B. Y. The Relevance of the Prophets. New York:
Macmillan Co., 19H4.

Skinner, John. Prophecy and Reliaion. Cambridge: The Uni—
versity Press, 1922.

 

 

2d ed. re-

Smith, J. M. P. The Pr shots and Their Tim
of lCRTO Press

vised by T. Irwin. Chicagoszniv.
1945.

Smith, H. Robertson. The Old Test: ment in the Jewish Church
New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1881.

He
Ch

. The PrOphets of Israel and Their Place in History
London: A. 85 Co Pal-B.C.: C11, 1095.

Snaith, Norman H. The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testa—
ment. London: Epworth Press, 194k.

 

Steindorff, G. and VSeele, K. When Egypt Ruled the East Re—
vised ed. byV ... Seele. Chicago: Univ. of Chi car_;f

1957.

256

Thomson, James G. S. S. The Old Testa meiit View of Revela—

tion. Grand Rapids: Um. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1960.

Torczyner, Harry. The Lachish Letters. London: Oxford Univ.
Press, 1938.

 

Unger, Herrill. Archa solo; v and ‘e Old Testament. Grand
f 1—

ofl
Rapids: Zondervan Pun. Co., 1954.

“q_. Introdu torv Guide to the Old Testament. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan Pub. Co., 1951.

. Unger's liole Dictionary. Chicago: Hoody Press,
1 A ,1
2:7.

Vos, Gecrha dus. Biolic

a1 THeoloQV. Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdrans Pub. Co., 1948.

 

Neiser, Arthur. The Old Testament: ts Formatigg_and Devel-
ogment. Translated by Dorothea H. Barton. New York:
. ._ /
Association Press, 1961.

 

Nelch, Adam C. Kin; :s and Proohet s of Israel. London: Lut-
terworth Press, 1952.

 

. Prophet and Priest in Old Israel. Oxford: Black—
well, 1953.

 

Uhitley, Chas. F. The Exilic Ame. Philadelphia: Westminster
P146853, 19570

 

Men :ren, Geor3e. The Accadian and Hebrew Psalms of Lamen—
tation as Re1i23ious Documents. Stockholm: Bokforlags
Aktieoolaget Thule, U9 7.

 

Hilliams, Halter G. The Pro nets, Pioneers to Christia nitV.
New York: Abin3‘ don Press, 1956.

 

Hilson, John A. The Burden of Erypt. Chicago: Univ. of
Chicago Press, 1951.

 

Hri3h G. Ernest. Biblical Archaeology. Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1957.

 

. The Old Testament again at Its Environ . ent. Lon—
do : SCH Press, 1950.

Yerlm es, Royden K. Sacrifice in Greek and Roman Religjons
and Early Judaism. New York: Chas s. ScribnerTs Sons,
1952.

 

 

Young, Edward J. An Introduction to the Old Testament.
~rand Rapids: H“. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1949.

 

257

1t . n .L. 4.1 - . 4.
. 3y Servcnts tne Prophgts.
"1 n s“- ‘ 1’
Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1955.

DJ
’11

Um.B.

{DJ
0)

ran .331

(,1)

 

 

 

Albright, N. F. "Archaeology Confronts Biblical Criticism,"
The American Scholar, VII(1938), 176—88.

 

"The Babylonian nNatter in the Predeuteronomic
Pri mevel History (JE) in Gen. 1—11," Journal of Bibli—
cal Literature, LVIII(1939), 91—103.

 

 

 

"The Biblical Period," The JeJS Their Histo3y,
Culture, and Religion, pp. 3—65. Edited by L. Finkel—
stein. New York: Harper & Bros., 1949.

 

 

. "The Nan es 'Israel' and 'Judah,'" Journal of ngr
lical Literatir , XLVI(1927), 79-89.

 

 

 

"Th 1e Old Testament and the Archaeolo y of the An-
cient East, The Old Testament and Modern Study, pp.
27—47. Edited by H. H. Rowley . NeJ York: Chas. Scrib—
ner's Sons, 1951.

 

. "The Old Testament World," The Interpreter's Bible,
'-—“ff:fpp. 233_71. New York: Abin3don Press, 1952.

 

"Recent Pr03ress in North Cana anite Resea.rch,"
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research,
LXX(1938) , Jig—21+.

 

"The Role of the Canaanites in the History of Civ—
ilization," The Bible and the Ancient Near East, pp.
328- 62. Edited by G. E. ri('t Garden City, N. J.:
Douoleda y & Co., 1961.

 

"Some Important Recent Discoveries: Alphabetic
Origins and the Idrimi Statue," Bulletin of the American
Schools of Orientcl Resear h, CXVIII(1950), 11—20.

 

Anderson, C. T. "Hebrew Reli3ion," The Old Testament ang
Modern Study, pp. 283—310. Edited by H. H. Rowley.
New York: Chas. Scribner's Sons, 1951.

 

 

Barton, G. A. "A Comparison of Some Features of Hebrew and
Babylonian Ritual," Journal of Biblical Literature,
XL(1927), 78—89.

Baudissin, Jolf. "Priests and LevitesL” A Dictionary of the
Bible, IV, pp. 67—97. Edited by James Has ting. s.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

258
Bentzen, Aage. "The Cultic Use of the Story of the Ark in
Sarnuel, " Journal of Biblical Literature, LXITI(l9L ),
37- ~33-

Bohl, F. X. T. "Some Notes on Israel in the Lijht of Babyl—
onian Discoveries," Journal of Biblical Literature,
LIII(l934), 140—46.

Bowman, Raymond A. "Yahweh the S ierker, " Journal of Near
E‘storn Studies, III(1934),l—3.

Bright, Joqn ”Ilodern Study of Old Testament Litere “ture
The Bible and the Ancient Near East, pp. 13—31Edit—
ed “y 3. E. Uright. Garden City, N. J.: Doubleday &
Co., 1961.

Brooks, Beatrice A. "Ferti lity Cult Functione.ries in the Old
Testament,” Journal of folical Literature, LX(l9Ll),
227—53.

Burrows, Killer. "Ancient Israel The Idea of History in
the ncient N rEest, pp. 99—132 Edited by R. C.

Dentan. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1955.

Cook, Stanley A.

"The Proohets of Israel,
History, III,

II
pp 458—500.

Cambridge Ancient
Davidson, A. B.

 

"Proahecy and the PrOphets," A Dictionary of
the Bible, IV, pp. 106—27. Edited by James Hastinro
Davies, G. H. ”The Yahxzistic

PrOphets,"

 

 

T adition in the Eighth—Century
Studies in Old Testament Proohecv, pp. 37—51.
Edited by H. H. Rorley. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clerl

DeVaux, Roland. "Les

. c, 1950.
textes de Re 3 Shar

 

ra et l'ancien testa-
ment " Revue biblique internationale, XLVI(l9?7), 526-55.
Dussaud, Rene. "Le

 

anctuaire et les dieux phenicienq de Res

Snanra," Revue de l'histoire des reli ions, CV(l932)
245—302.

Eissfeldt, O.

 

"The PrOphetic Literature," The Old Test
and I iodern Study,

ament
pp. 113—01. Eulted by H. H. “Rowley.
lev York: Cb as. Scribner's Sons, 1951
Foote, Theodore.

"The E-hod,' Journal of Biblic 1 Literature,
XXI(l902), 1—47.

 

Fosbrokei Hughell. "The PrOphetic Literature, The Internre—
ter 3 Bible, I, pp. 201-11. New York:
1952

Abingdon Press,

259

 

 

 

Freedman, David. "Tie Chronolo y of Israel and the Ancient
Near East," The Bible .nd :Uhe Ancient IIear East, pp.
203—14. Edited by G. E. Wright. Garden Ci tgr , K. J.:
Doubleday & Co., 1961.

Gardiner, Ala n H. "Ilew Literary WorksI from Ancient E3ypt,
Journa .l of Eoyptia n APChPeOlONV,I(1914), 20— 36, 100—06.

Goff, Beatrice L. "Syncretism in the Beli ion of Israel,"
Journal of Biblical Literature, LVIII(1939), 151—61.

Gordon, Cyrus. "Hi3her Critics and Forbidden Fruit," Chris-
tia Mi Todav, IV, No. 4(1959), 131—34.

 

.________. ”Tr 1e Poetic Literature of Ugarit," Orientalia,
XII(1943), 31-75.

 

Graham, U. C. "Tb ne Reli ion of the Hebrews," Journal of Re—
liéion, XIV(l93L), 306—29.

 

Gray, John. "Cult ic Affinities between Israel and Ras Sham—

ra," Zeitschrift fur die altestamentliche Uissenschaft,
LXII(l950), 207—20.

. ”Th God YW in the Reli3ion of Ca anaan, " Journal of
so r Eastern %UCl€S, XII(l953), 278—83.

‘T

 

Gressman, H. "Forei3n Influences in Hebrem PrOphecy, " Journ—
al of Theological Studies, XXVII(1926), 241—54.

Gutterbock, H. G. ”Hittite Reli:ion," reprint from Forgotten
Religions. Lew York: PhiIOSOphica al Liorarw, 195 O.

 

Haupt, Paul. "Babylonian Elements in the Levitic Ritual,
Journal of Biblical Religion, XIX(l900), 55-81.

Irwin, U. A. "Revelation in the Old Testament," Studv g:
the Bible Today and Tomorrow, pp. 237—67. Edited by
H. R. Willoughby. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1947.

_. "Samuel and the Rise of the 1Won archy, " American
Journal of Semitic Lanrua es and Literatures LVIII

(397kl), 113—34“

 

 

Isaacs, Nathan. "Ur im and Thummim " International Standard
Bible Encyclopedia, v, pp. 3050—3ou1.

 

Jastrow, Morris. "Ro‘eh and Hozeh in the Old Testament,"
Journal of Biblical Literature, XXVIII(l909), #2-56.

Job nson, Aubrey R. "The PrOphet in Israelite Worship," 33—
ppsitory Times, XLVII(l935— 36), 312—19.

Kapelrud, A. S. "Ugarit," The InteLfreter's Dictionary of
the Bible,IV,;3u 72fl-32.

260

He utzsch, E. "Urim and :durnlm,' Schaff~Her203 En cyclooedia
of :R.eli3ious Knowledge, XII, pp. 107—09.

 

 

Kennedy, A. R. S. "Urim and Th mmim, " A Dictionary of the
Bible, IV, pp. 38—41. Edited by James Hastings.

 

Kraeling, Emil. "The Real Reli: 3ion of Ancient Israel
Journal 01 Biblical Literature, XLVII(l928), 133—59.

 

Lacheman, Ernest. “An Omen Text from Huzi," Revue d'assyr~
iolo ie et d'a Mohaeolo ie orients le, XXXIV(19377} 1—8.

 

 

Lang don, Stephen. "Babylonian Eschatology," Babyloniaca,
VI(l912), 193-215

 

Lods, Ad. "Une tablette inedite de Mari, interessante pour
l'histoire ancienne du prOphetisme Semitique," Studies
in Old Testament Prophecgj pp. 103-110. Edited by H.
H. Rowley. Edinburgh: 3. a T. Clark, 1950

 

 

 

Lofthouse, W. F. "Thus Hath Jahveh Said," American Journal
of Semitic Lan3ua3§s and Literatures, XLTl923-2b),

Lutz, H. F. "An Omen Text Referrin3 to the Action of a
Dreamer," American Journal of Semitic Lan nag :es and Lit—
eraturgg, XXXV(19IB—l9), lE5-57.

 

 

Hace, A. B. "The Influence of E3ypt on Hebrew Literature,"
Annals of Archaeology and Anthropoloaw, IX(1922), 3-26.

 

Haisler, B. "Canaan and the Canaanites," Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research, CII(l§h6Y} 7—12.

 

 

Hay, Herbert G. "Ephod and Ariel, American Journal of Se—
mitic Langua 383 and Literatures, LVI(l939), “flu—69.

 

 

HcCown, Chester C. "HebreW'High Places and Cult Remains,"
Journal of Biblical Literature, LXIX(l950), 205—19.

 

I-IcCullou3h, W. S. "The Enthronement of Yahweh Psalms," g
Stubborn Faith, pa. 53—61. Edited by E. C. Hobbs.
Dallas: Southern Methodist Univ. Press, 1956.

 

Heek, TheOphile. "The Interpenetration of Cultures as Illus—
trated by the Character of the Old Testament Literature,"
Journal of Religion, VII(1929), 244—62.

 

Hendelsohn, I. "Samuel's Denunciation of Kin 3ship in the
Light of the Akhadian Documents from Ugarit,' Bulletin
of the American Schools of Oriental Research, CXLIII
(1956): 17‘220

 

261

. "Urim and Thummim,” Interpreter's Dictionary of
the Bible, IV, p. 740.

 

 

Kendenhall, George. ”Biblical History in Transition," The
Bible and the Ancient Near East pp. 31—53. Edited by

[V

2
a. E. Uright. Garden City, N. J.: Doubleday & Co., 1961.

"Mari,” Biblical Archaeologist, XI(1948), 1—19.

 

Morgenstern, Julian. "A Chapter in the History of the High—
Priesthood," American Journal of Semitic Languages and
Literatures, Lv(193e), 1—24, 183—97, 360—77.

Mowinckel, Sigmund. "Ecstatic EXperience and Rational Elab—
oration in Old Testament PrOphecy," Acta Orientalia,
XIII(l934—35), Zoe—91.

 

. "The 'Spirit' and the 'Word' in the Pre-exilic Re-
forming PrOphets," Journal of Biblical Literature, L111
(1934). 199—257.

Kuilenberg, James. "The History of the Religion of Israel,"
The Interpreter‘s Bible, I, pp. 292—348. New York:
Abingdon Press, 1952.

 

Muss-Arnolt, W. "The Urim and Thummim: A Suggestion as to
Their Original Nature and Significance," American Jour—
nal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, XVI(1899-l900),
193-224.

 

Newman, Murray L. "The PrOphetic Call of Samuel," Israel's
Prophetic Heritage, pp. 86—97. Edited by B. W. Ander-
son and W. Harrelson. New York: Harper & Bros., 1962.

 

North, ChristOpher. "Pentateuohal Criticism," The Old Testa—
ment and Modern Study, pp. #8-93. Edited by H. H. Row—
ley. New York: Chas. Scribner‘s Sons, 1951.

 

Noth, Martin. "The Background of Judges 17—18," Israel's
PrOphetic Heritage, pp. 68-85. Edited by B. W. Anderson
and W. Harrelson. New York: Harper & Bros., 1962.

 

Paton, L. B. “The Use of the Word Kohen in the Old Testament,"
Journal of Biblical Literature, XII(1893), l~lu.

Pedersen, Johannes. "Canaanite and Israelite Culture," Acta
Orientalia, XVIII(l939), 1-14.

Porteous, N. W. "The Basis of the Ethical Teaching," Stud—
in Old Testament PrOphegy, p8. 143-56. Edited by'HT—H.
Rowley. Edinburgh: T. & T. lark, 1950.

262

_. . "Old Testament Theology," The Old Testament and
Modern Study, pp. 311-3L5. Edited by H. H. Bbwley. New
York: Chas. Scribner' s Sons, 1951.

"Prophecy," Record and Revelation, pp. 216—L9.

Edited by H. Wheeler Robinson. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1938.

 

Robinson, H. Wheeler. “The Philos0phy of Revelation," Re—
cord and Revelation, pp. 303—20. Edite.d by H. The<ler
Robinson. Oxford; Clarendon Press, 1938.

"The Psychology and Metaphysic of 'Thus Saith Yah—
weh,'" Zeitsehrift fur die altestamentliche Wissenschaft,

 

 

 

Robinson, Theodore H. "The History of Israel, The Interpret-
er's Bible, I, pp. 272—91. New York: Abingdon Press,
1952.

. "The Old Testament and the Modern world, The

 

Old Testament and Modern Study, p;o. 3N6~70. Edited ”by
H. H. Howley New York: Cha 3. Scribner‘s Sons, 1951.

Ross, James E. "The PrOphet as Yahweh's Messenger," Israel's

Pi Ophetic Heritage, pp. 98—107. Edited by B. W. Anderson
and U. Harrelson. New Yorl : Harper & Bros., 1962.

Roxrley, H. H. "The PrOphets and Sacr ifice," Ex ository
Times, LVIII(1940-47), 305-07.

 

pg "Trends in Old Testament Study," The Old Testa—
ment and Modern tudy, pp. xv—xxxi. Edited by H. H.
wley. New York: Chas. Scribner's Sons, 1951.

 

Smith, J. i. P. "The Indebtedness of Israel to Its Neigh-
bors," American Journal of Semitic Languages and Litera—
tures, XLIX(l9/3—347, 172—80.

 

pk . "Semitic P70phecy," reprint from The Biblical
World, XXXV(l9lO).

 

_lpp+~,. "Southern Influences upon Hebrew proghecy n Amer—

ican Journal of Semitic LanMuages and Literatures
XXXVII918-l9), l—l9.

 

 

 

 

Speiser, E. A. "Ethnic Iiovements in the Near East in the
Second Millennium B.C.," Annurl of the American Schools
of Oriental Research, XIIIII931-32), lB—Ew.

Lillie mc., Halter G. "The Ras Shamra Inscriptions and Their

Sionifioance for the History of Hebrew Religion," Amer—
ican Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, LI

(1934-35). 233-40;

PO

63

Nilson, John. "E3yptian Culture and Relic ion The “31018
and the Ancient Near East, pi1295—3l‘. Garden City,
N. J.: Doubleday & Co., 1961.

Wood, Irvin; F. “Etymology of Todah and Torah," Journal of
Biblical Literature, XLVI(1927). 151—85.

D 1

. "Borrowing Between Religions," Journal of g 311-
cal Literature, XLVI(l927), 98—105.

s "The Faith of Isr " The Interpreter 3
pp. 349—89. New York: Aoin don Press, 1952.

. "How Did Israel Differ from Her Neizhbors?" Bib-
lical Archaeologist, VI(19L3), l-lO, 13—20.