CONCEPTION OF JEHOVAH 117 real Leader in battle comes out vividly in the Song of Deborah, loud in its praise of Jehovah who has left His home on Sinai to hasten by Mt. Seir to the battle-field of Megiddo. Hence the inhabitants of Meroz are cursed "because they came not to the help of Jehovah, to the help of Jehovah among the heroes." Hence, too, Deborah's panegyric on the valiant tribes in the field with Jehovah against His and their foe, and her bitter scorn on those tribes that stayed at home and fought not with Him. This conception of God as Israel's War-God explains His new name, Jehovah Sabaoth, Jehovah the God of the hosts 1 (of Israel). We also begin to hear of Him under new titles, eg. "The Angel of the Lord," 2 "The Name of God." It is dawning on men's minds that He is too great and "holy" (= unapproachable) for men to see His actual face and live. He still appears to men, but not in His actual body or person; it is still Himself and not another, but a paler manifestation of Himself in angelic form. As to the title "The Name of God," we have already spoken of the magical power of Names in olden days (p. 62, sup.). The name was regarded as part and parcel of its bearer, a power in itself, and "Name of God" is equivalent to Jehovah Himself present with power. Again, as represented by His Ark, His shrine, Jehovah accompanies His Israel wherever they go. Even in David's day the Ark stood for Jehovah's Presence: "And David arose, and went with all the people that were with him, from Baale Judah, to bring up from thence the Ark of God, 1 Jehovah-Sabaoth = J. of armies or hosts. But what hosts? Are they the armies of (1) angels, or (2) "all the hosts of heaven," e.g. sun, moon, stars, storms, etc., or (3) the armies of Israel? All these views find able supporters, but (1) is improbable, for belief in angels is largely post-exilic (see Ch. XV.). At a relatively early date, in passages originally representing Jehovah as appearing, speaking, etc., to men, an attempt was made to replace Jehovah by His Angel, which was not very successful, e.g., in several passages, He alternates with His Angel. This is a very ancient title of God. The name Samu-el is best explained "The Name is God." The same expression appears in two (Amorite) names of the First Babylonian Dynasty kings: Sumu-abi, "The name is my father"; "Sumu-la-ilu," "The name indeed is God" (Dr. Burney). which is called by the Name, even the Name of the Lord of hosts" (2 Sam. vi. 2). This also comes out strongly in that old fragment Numb. x. 35: "When the Ark set forward, Moses said: Rise up, O Lord, and let Thine enemies be scattered; and when it rested, he said: Return, O Lord, to the ten thousands of the thousands of Israel." Hence the appalling punishments on men, like Uzzah, who ventured to touch it. Images of Jehovah seem quite common in this period, even with fervent worshippers of His, e.g. Gideon, Micah. At this time the Ephod was all but certainly an image, though not so after c. 700 B.C.1 But if Jehovah is Israel's God, so is Baal Canaan's god; even Israel recognised that. They also firmly believed that a god and his people were so identified that their fortunes rose or fell together, in proportion as a god's nation beat other nations or was beaten by them. Through a nation's defeat, its god was eclipsed by the more powerful god of the victorious nation, but his existence was not ended, though he became lower than the victorious god. Thus Babylon's supremacy in 2225 B.C. made its god Marduk (= Merodach) chief god, Lord over the other gods, but their worship still went on. Hence, in Hebrew eyes, Israel's invasion was a trial of strength between Jehovah and Baal. If Jehovah's Israel beat Baal's 1 Dr. Burney insists that "ephod and teraphim were regarded as means of enquiring the oracle of God, but were not themselves regarded as images of Jehovah." See Burney, Judges, pp. 236 sqq. on the whole question. = Was Baal one particular god, or were there a legion of local Baals? "the worship of Baalim," i.e. is Baalim an intensive plural, "the great Baal" (cf. Elohim), or a collective plural? Again, when we read that Israel served Baal, does it at this period-mean the actual god of Canaan, or that they worshipped Jehovah under His Canaanite form, i.e. spoke of Jehovah as Baal and also adopted Baal rites in His worship? If Baal was not a proper name, but descriptive and Lord, master, owner, then quite easily, as actually happened in Hosea's day, Israel could speak of Jehovah as Baal of His people, i.e. their owner and husband (Hos. ii. 16). If we accept this view, then Baal-worship at this period was largely, not sheer apostasy and idolatry, but a debased form of Jehovah-worship, and Dr. Burney's contention that there was at this time a sharp conflict between (1) the purer worship of Jehovah on the part of the Mosaic tribes, and (2) the lower Jehovah-worship of the "handmaid" tribes longer settled in Canaan and tainted with Canaan's superstitions, is largely confirmed. In the text above, I personally stand for the older view that Baal BAAL;-TEMPLES AND PRIESTS IN ISRAEL 119 Canaan, then Jehovah would dethrone Baal, rule in his stead, make Baal His vassal. It took centuries to rid Israel of the conviction that Baal still was god in his land. The long and hard struggle from 1200 B.C. onward showed Baal very much alive in his fight with Jehovah. Even when the Canaan conquest was complete, Baal was not yet ousted so long as he still had his Canaanites in the land. Moreover, as a nature-god, the giver of fertility, the soil of his native Canaan was his, and its corn and wine and oil (see Hos. ii. 8). Till Jehovah had wrested it all from Baal, He could not leave His Sinai and make Palestine His one dwelling-place. Thus Israel, while cleaving to their own God Jehovah as their one God, still believed in Baal as the God of Canaan. Of a regular hierarchy of priests, or of worship only in official temples, we hear nothing in this period. Men continue to offer sacrifice in person, and altars and sacred places are to be found everywhere. But temples are beginning to arise, though on a modest scale. The most important was at Shiloh, where the Ark was kept, and to which people resorted at the three great agricultural Festivals, the Feasts of Unleavened Bread, Weeks, and Tabernacles, the last a harvest-festival originally. Eli and his house officiated at Shiloh. Although any one could, and did, offer sacrifice in person, a certain portion of the sacrificial meat fell to the temple-caretaker or priest. At Shiloh it was his "customary" and therefore legal due, which he exacted at times by force (e.g. 1 Sam. ii. 12 sqq.). Priests, as in Moses' day, need not be Levites, though they were preferred (see p. 108, sup.). The Sabbath was observed mainly as a feast-day. Thus the period of the Judges is one of partial originally was one supreme god, afterwards broken up into many local baals as his local cults became prominent. Even to Jehovah this happened, and He had special names according as He was worshipped at Beersheba (Gen. xxi. 33), Bethel (xxxi. 13), Shechem (xxxiii. 20), or Ophrah (Judg. vi. 24), like Baal-peor, Baal-Hermon, cf. Baal-berith, Baal-zebub. religious decay and partial advance. Its one great redeeming feature comes towards its close. In the religious revival after Aphek, and especially in the rise of the new "schools of prophets," we have the dawn of a great new religious era. It will produce a Nathan and an Elijah as its first-fruits, and culminate in an Amos and Isaiah with their highly spiritual conception of God, out of which will spring humaner thoughts of what man owes to God and to his brother-man. NOTE ON THE HISTORICITY OF "Judges.” Judges gives a true picture of morals and society then; but what of its facts of history? Its stories, for centuries, were handed down orally, not in writing. But comparison of that historical gem, the contemporary Song of Deborah (v.), with the parallel prose-version (iv.) clearly points to a large amount of genuine history in such other old stories (e.g. Gideon (J), Abimelech, Micah,) as contain intrinsic evidence of their truth to the circumstances of their day. Broadly speaking, Deborah, Barak, Gideon, Abimelech, Micah are certainly historical figures, and their stories largely true; so, probably, of Ehud and Jephthah. Probability inclines against Samson's historicity, but the picture of Israelite-Philistine relations is true to fact. "Shamgar, son of Anath" (v. 6) is a real person, but the late author of iii. 31 probably had only the hint of v. 6 to go upon, and may have turned a foreign oppressor into a deliverer. "Othniel and the five minor Judges, Tola, Jair, Ibzan, Elon, Abdon, are undoubtedly not individuals, but personified clans." The one story of no historical value, apparently, is the Gibeah outrage and the ensuing vengeance of Israel on Benjamin xix.-xxi., evidently written out of animosity to Saul's memory; yet some facts may be embedded in it. (See Burney, Judg. cii.) |