C Piepenbring.

Theology of the Old Testament online

. (page 19 of 26)
Online LibraryC PiepenbringTheology of the Old Testament → online text (page 19 of 26)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

and as supreme artist assisted in the creation of all
things,^ also in that of man.^^ She knows the past, and
she foresees the future. ^^ Her power extends from one

1 xxiv.

2 iv. 11 ff. ; vi. 18 ff. ; xi. 1 ; xiv. 20 ff. ; xv. 2 ff. ; li. 13 ff. ; comp.
Prov. i. 20 ff. ; viii. 1 ff. ; ix. 1 ff.

3 i. 6 ; vi. 12 ff. ; viii. 1 ff., 8 ff., 16 ff. ; ix. 4, 9 ff. ; x. ; xi. 1.

* vv. 21-24. 5 y^. 25 f. 6 yy. 27, 23. - viii. 3. « ix. 4.

9 ix. 9, 11 ; viii. 5 f. ; vii. 21, 12. 1° ix. 2. " viii. 8.


end of the world to the other, and she governs wonder-
fully all things. 1 She is active in the moral w^orld as
well as the universe in general. From generation to
generation she enters into holy souls, she makes them
friends of God and prophets, she teaches them to recog-
nize and fulfil the divine will, and she also procures
them salvation. 2 She providentially controlled the his-
tory of the first men, and that of the people Israel.^
It is God who sends her from his glorious seat.* In-
asmuch as she performs her work in the physical and
the moral world she is identified with the spirit of God^
and the word of God,^ both of whom here also appear
as genuine hypostases.

We see that though the Israelites under the influence
of prophetism did not engage in speculations that could
serve as a starting point for the dogma of the trinity, it
is possible to show that speculations of this kind flour-
ished among the Jews in proportion as they felt the
influence of Greek philosophy. Here then is where
this famous dogma has its roots, and not in prophetic


The same reason that led the Jews to make the word
and the wisdom of God genuine hypostases, intermedi-
ate beings, through whom the transcendent God com-
municates with men and acts upon the w^orld, contrib-
uted also to the development of angelology. This was,

1 vii. 12 ; viii. 1. 2 yn. 9,7, 23 ; ix. 1-19. ^ Chaps, x. -xii.

* ix. 10. 5 i. 4 ff. ; ix. 17 ; xii. 1.

6 ix. 1 f . ; xvi. 12, 26 ; xviii. 15 ff.


however, only a popular belief without further impor-
tance. Before the Exile, in fact, there is seldom men-
tion of angels among the prophets, the best accredited
representatives of the religion of Israel. From the
Exile onward, on the contrary, there arises a genuine
angelology, which takes an important place in the
Jewish religion, and appears even in some of the last

In these latter the angels play the entirely new part
of mediators and interpreters of prophecy. They ap-
pear in this part in Ezekiel,^ oftener still in Zecha-
riah,2 and especially in Daniel.^ They play the same
part in 1 Kings xiii. 18 and 1 Chron. xxi. 18. For-
merly, on the contrary, God communicated his revela-
tions directly to the prophets.

In the documents of Hebraism the angels appear as
simple agents of the Deity, temporarily commissioned
to make known or execute the will of God. They do
not bear proper names to distinguish them from one
another; they are not organized into a hierarchy; they
all appear to be equal in dignity, and to derive their
authority only from God. A single text, Josh. v.
13-15, designates an angel as the leader of the army of
Jehovah. But it is impossible to infer from this pas-
sage any precise idea respecting a hierarchical organiza-
tion of the angels. After the Exile it is different.
Then the angels are organized as a hierarchy; they
have leaders designated by proper names; they are
classified into various divisions, each of which has

1 ix. 2 ff. ; xl. 3 ff. ; xliii. 5 ff.

2 i. 8 ff. ; ii. 1 ff. ; iii. 1 ff. ; iv. 1 ff. ; v. 5 ff. ; vi. 4 ff.

3 iv. 13, 23 ; vii. 16 ; viii. 13, 15 ff. ; ix. 21 ff. ; x. 5 ff., 15 ff. ; xii. 5 ff.


special functions to fulfil, a particular department to

In Ezekiel reference is made to seven angels who
appear as the principal executors of the judgments of
God.i These seven angels are perhaps the seven eyes
of God of which Zechariah speaks, ^ and probably the
leaders or princes of whom Daniel speaks.^ The book
of Tobit also speaks of seven principal angels who have
peculiarly free access to the presence of God, and who
present to him the prayers of the saints,* like the ser-
vants and the seven leaders who immediately surround
the king of Persia.^ It at the same time mentions the
name of one of these celestial primates or archangels,
Raphael,^ who serves as guide to young Tobias, accom-
panies him to foreign parts, and brings him back to
his home. The book of Daniel makes us acquainted
with the names of two other archangels, viz.: Gabriel'^
and Michael.^ Other Jewish writings contain several

The development of angelology that we have just
noticed appears also in the fact that the Jews attributed
to the angels the government and protection of the
various peoples of the earth. In the book of Daniel,
for example, the angel Michael is represented as the
leader and protector of Israel, and at the same time ref-
erence is made to a leader of the kingdom of Persia and
a leader of Javan.^^

1 Ezek. ix. 2 ly. 10 ; iii. 9. ^ x. 13. * xii. 15 ; comp. Rev. viii. 2.
5 Esther i. 10, 14. e Tob. iii. 16 ; ix. 5 ; xii. 15.

7 viii. 16 ; ix. 21 ; comp. Luke i. 19, 26.

8 X. 13, 21 ; xii. 1 ; comp. Judith ix. ; Rev. xii. 7.

9 Nicolas, pp. 221 f. ; Stapfer, pp. 53 ff. ; [Toy, pp. 149 ff.].
10 X. 13, 20 f. ; xii. 1.


The version of the Seventy even makes Deut. xxxii.
8 say that, on the dispersion of the sons of iVdam, God
fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number
of the angels of God. This is giving to each people
an angel as a guardian, an idea expressed also by
Sirach.^ These celestial protectors ^ waged war with
one another, each defending the people that had been
especially confided to him.^ They constantly watched
over their charges.*

We remark, finally, that angels surround the throne
of God to execute, under his supervision, judgment
ujDon the world. ^

It follows from the above that angelology was well
developed in Judaism. The Persian religion doubt-
less had some influence upon it.^ But there must also
have been an internal process analogous to that which,
in the Catholic church, has more and more magnified
the saints and their functions.


Angelology had its roots in Hebraism although it
did not reach its doctrinal development until later; de-
monology, on the contrary, had its origin in Judaism.
We have seen that, in the eyes of the Hebrews, God
could do evil as well as good, and he did the one or the
other according to circumstances, by his spirit or through
other agents, especially his malakh.

The first passage in which there is a reference to an

1 xvii. 17. 2 2 Mace. xi. 10. 3 Dan. x. 13, 20.

4 Dan. iv. 13, 17, 23. ° Dan. vii. 9 f. ; comp. Zech. iii. 1, 3.

6 Nicolas, pp. 48 ff., 227 ff.


evil spirit is 1 Kings xxii. 19-23. Jehovah is seated
on his throne, and surrounded by the whole heavenly
host. He says to those about him : " Who will mislead
Ahab?" One replies in one waj-, another in another.
Then the spirit approaches, stands before Jehovah, and
declares that he will go forth to mislead Ahab, becom-
ing a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets.
This is done, and the prophet Micaiah says to Ahab:
"Jehovah hath sent a lying spirit into the mouths of
all thy prophets." There is, as will be observed, a dif-
ference between this account and the one that we cited
in the preceding period concerning the spirit of God.
The spirit that is here referred to does not seem to be
a simple power or emanation from Jehovah. He belongs
to a council of personal beings ; he seems himself to be a
personal- spirit. He is called haruach^ the spirit, though
most of the translators omit the article. However, we
do not by an}^ means find here the notion of Satan.
The lying spirit belongs to the host of the heavens; he
is one of the servants of God. Micaiah says also that
it is Jehovah who has sent a lying spirit into the
mouths of all the prophets of Ahab. This spirit is in
reality the spirit of prophecy. Hence especially the
article. God, who ordinarily sent it to the prophets
to communicate to them the truth, now sends it to
declare a lie, because this enters into his providential
purposes. We still have here, therefore, to some extent
an expression of the old Israelitish view.

If we pass to the book of Job we find in it, with
respect to the question under discussion, as it were,
a transitional stage between Hebraism and Judaism, i.e.
the beginning of demonology. In the first two chapters


Jehovah appears surrounded by the sons of God, in the
midst of whom is Satan. He, with the consent of God,
puts Job to the proof, sending upon him the various
misfortunes ^ with which the reader is familiar. The
real signification of the word satan is clearly seen in a
number of passages in which it means adversary.'^ Satan
appears also as the adversary of Job.

It is interesting to compare with the Satan of the
book of Job what we read Num. xxii. 22 and 32.
Here we see the angel of Jehovah, who is oftenest a
protecting malakh^ playing the part of a satan, an
adversary. The term satan is used without an article
as a common noun. In the book of Job, on the con-
trary, we find ourselves confronted by a person whose
proper name is Satan, lias-satan^ with the article. As
will be observed there is an analogy between this being
and the spirit of whom we spoke above.

Are we here already confronted by a veritable Satan ?
Many theologians say no. "It is generally admitted,"
says M. Nicolas, "that this being has none of the
characteristics that befit a spirit evil by nature. In
the prologue to this book Satan fulfils the functions
of a public prosecutor, nothing more. He smites Job
only by express permission of God, and even then he
only causes the angels of evil who execute the decrees
of God to fulfil their office. He is, it is true, pictured
as having little confidence in human virtue. But he
does not, of his own motion, seek to lay snares for it,
and prepare for it some signal overthrow. He is there-

1 i. 6 ff. ; ii. 1 ff.

2 Num. xxii. 22, 32 ; 1 Sam. xxix. 4 ; 2 Sam. xix. 22 ; 1 Kings v.
18 ; xi. 14, 23, 25 ; Ps. cix. 6.


fore not the father of evil, in the proper sense of the
expression. "1 Haag expresses himself to the same
effect. 2 It is certain that the Satan of the book of Job
is not that of traditional theology. He lacks one
of the chief characteristics of the latter, he is not the
adversary of God ; on the contrary, he is of the number
of his servants. He seems, however, to be a little
nearer Satan than Nicolas and Haag would make him.
He does not resemble a simple public prosecutor to the
extent of being "personally indifferent to the result,"
as the latter of these scholars expresses it. Is he not
happy to find Job wanting, to show that his piety is
purely selfish ? Does he not begrudge him his happi-
ness? Does he not, with unalloyed malignity, profit
by the permission to try him?

In Zech. iii. 1, Satan appears as accuser before God's
tribunal. But he finds himself sharply rebuked by the
supreme judge. In this case he plays, in a sense,
the part of adversary of the kingdom of God, since he
attacks the high-priest, the most exalted representative
of the chosen people. Joshua, in fact, is not. accused
on account of his own sins ; he figures in this vision as
high-priest; it is his sacerdotal garment that is soiled,
and Satan claims that there is no expiation for the
people, loaded with sins, and that consequently Israel
should be rejected.^ It is, therefore, the opposition
of God to Satan and reciprocally of Satan to God, that
appears in this passage.

The last canonical passage that speaks of Satan is 1
Chron. xxi. 1. Satan is there said to arise against Israel,
and incite David to make a census of the people, i.e. to

1 p. 243 ; [Toy, p. 165]. 2 p. 416. a Oehler, § 200.


act contrary to the will of God, and thus bring upon
Israel divine penalties. Satan, therefore, here appears
as the adversary of the people of God and of God him-
self. This passage, compared with the parallel pas-
sage, 2 Sam. xxiv. 1, shows us the difference between
the Hebrew and the Jewish point of view relative to
the question under discussion. In the older account it
is God who moves David to make the census ; God is
therefore still regarded as the sole and supreme author
of all that happens, of evil as well as good. In the
passage from Chronicles we find an entirely different
conception, the fear of bringing reproach upon the
majesty of God by placing him in immediate contact
with the world, and especially by attributing evil to
him; this fear makes it necessary to have recourse to;
the influence of evil spirits to explain the existence of 1

The Satan of the Old Testament is then not yet the
prince of this world. We find there, however, the
starting point of the demonology of later times. We
have yet, it is true, to consider some canonical passages

jthat have often been cited in support of this doctrine.

- Traditional theology has tried to find the devil in
the serpent of the account of the Fall. This is an error.
This serpent is a genuine beast of the field, created by
God. ^ He is, it is true, a marvellous animal, but he
is not more wonderful than the trees that, like him, are
found in the garden of Eden. On a soil that produces
such trees, the existence of an animal of this sort is
nothing that should astonish us. In other religions of
antiquity the serpent, moreover, plays an analogous
1 Gen. iii. 1, 14.


part.^ We. entirely agree with Baudissin who says on
this subject : " The serpent does not here appear as the
incarnation of any supernatural power. The idea that
it is Satan who speaks for it has been read into the
account by later interpretation, it has not been drawn
from it. Though the serpent speaks it does not, in so
doing, leave the bounds of the animal kingdom, any
more than Balaam's ass when it speaks; for the whole
narrative bears a mythical character. Neither is wick-
edness attributed to it; but to explain sin, which
cannot have its origin in man, created good by God,
the cause of it must be ascribed to some other being.
None appeared fitter for it than the serpent, Vhich
inspires aversion in man, and which the Semites re-
garded as more cunning than the other animals. "^

The attempt ha« also been made to find the devil in
the shedhim,^ and the seirim^ as well as in azazel.^
The exact signification of these terms, which are found
only in the passages cited, is not easy to determine.
However, competent modern exegetes no longer admit
that they denote the devil, but simply species of phan-
toms, sprites, or evil sjDirits, that existed only in popu-
lar belief.^ Since there is reference to them only in
some few passages, almost all of recent date, it would
not be proper to see in them integral elements of the
religion of Israel. In several passages the sacred
authors treat even these imaginary beings as vain idols,
while the unfaithful Israelites offer them sacrifices.'''

1 Baudissin, I. pp. 255 ff. 2 1. p, 290. '^ Deut. xxxii. 17; Ps. cvi. 37.

* Lev. xvii. 7 ; Isa. xiii. 21 ; xxxiv. 14 ; 2 Chron. xi. 15.

5 Lev. xvi. 8, 10 f ., 26.

6 See Knobel on Lev. xvi. 10 ; xvii. 7 ; Deut. xxxii. 17 ; Isa. xiii. 21.
"' Deut. xxxii. 17 ; Ps. cvi. 37 ; Lev. xvii. 7 ; 2 Cliron. xi. 15.


When we pass to the apocryphal books we find,
Wis. ii. 23 f., the idea that God had created man for
immortality, that he had made him in his own image,
but that the devil, out of envy, introduced death into
the world. This is the first time that the tempting
serpent of the account of the Fall is identified with the
devil. In the book of Baruch, idols and demons are
identified.^ The version of the Seventy, in a number
of passages, renders the words denoting idols or spec-
tres, demons.^ The demons are thought to prefer the
desert for their dwelling-place.^ They are called evil

The book of To'bit gives us the proper -name of a
demon that plays an important . part in the narrative ;
he is called Asmodeus. He is enamored of Sara,
daughter of Raguel, and slays one after another her
seven^ former husbands.^ But the son of Tobit, by
the ad?ice of the angel Raphael, puts him to flight, by
burning, the day before his marriage with Sara, the
heart and the liver of a fish, the smell of which the
demon cannot endure.^ In Upper Egypt, whither As-
modeus escapes, he is strangled by Raphael.'^

We see that demonology was considerably devel-
oped in the midst of Judaism, and the ground p^pared
for the more complete demonology of later ages. Dual-
ism, so thoroughly antagonistic to the ancient religion
of Israel, after the Jews, from the Exile onward, be-

1 iv. 7. V

2 Deut. xxxii. 17 ; Isa. xiii. 21 (Sept. 23) ; xxxiv. 14 ; Ixv. 11 ; Ps.
xcvi, 5 ; cv. 37 (Sept. xcv. 5, and cv. 37) .

3 Bar. iv. 35 ; Tob. viii. 3. * Tob. vi. 8. ^ m g ; vi. 14.
6 vi. 8, 15-17 ; viii. 2 f. 7 yiji. 3.


came acquainted with it through the Persian religion,
seems to have powerfully assisted the development of
Jewish demonologt.


Of all the questions relating to man the only one
that we have to treat here is that concerning death and
the future life.

Respecting death there exists a twofold view in the
Old Testament. On the one hand it is regarded as
something natural; on the other, it appears as the con-
sequence and the penalty of sin. This can be shown
even from the first narratives of document A .

In fact we see God threaten Adam with death in case
he shall transgress his will,^ and after the transgres-
sion execute his threat. ^ But in the same fragment,^
we read that man was taken from the dust^ef the earth,
and that he will return to it.^ Though he represents
death as at once a penalty and a natural consequence of
the terrestrial origin of man, our author reconciles this
twofold view by showing that man would have been able
to rise to a higher and eternal life by the special grace
of God, and obedience to his will. Man had the right
to eat of the tree of life, the tree that communicates
eternal life, and he lost this right only in consequence
of his disobedience.* Though man was mortal by nature
he could have attained to immortality by his faithful-
ness to God. In the old fragment. Gen. vi. 1-4, man

1 Gen. ii. 17 ; iii. 3. 2 Gen. iii. 19, 22-24.

3 Gen. ii. 7 ; iii. 19 ; comp. Ps. xc. 3 j cxlvi. 4.
* Gen. ii. 9, 16 ; iii. 22 ff.


is called flesh, ^ like the animals, which seems to imply
the idea that he is mortal by virtue of his physical con-
stitution. But the same fragment says that God re-
duced to a hundred and twenty years the duration of
human life, which had formerly been much longer, and
that he did this to punish human perversity. Accord-
ing to the account of the Fall, man dies because he can
no longer eat of the fruit of the tree of life. Accord-
ing to the passage just cited, on the contrary, his days
are reduced because the spirit of God, the vital princi-
ple of every thing that exists, will not always remain
in man.

The translation of Enoch and Elijah ^ seems also to
indicate that man was not necessarily subject to death,
that death was not inseparable from human nature.
The same thought recurs in the prophetic declaration
that foretells the abolition of death under the reign of
the Messiah.^ We see, finally, that dead bodies, and
all that came into contact with them, were regarded as
unclean and defiled,* as things for which God feels
repulsion, and which he cannot have desired. It also
follows from a multitude of other passages too numer-
ous to be cited here that death, while appearing natural,
is 3^et, according to the Old Testament as a whole, the
result and the principal penalty of sin.

What did the Israelites think of the condition of man
after death? Though the contrary has* often been
asserted, it is certain that, from remote antiquity, the
Hebrews believed in the survival of the dead, in a
future life. This is proven by the practice of invok-

1 V. 3. 2 Gen. v. 24 ; 2 Kings ii. ^ isa. xxv. 8 ; comp. xxvi. 19.
4 Num. V. 2 ; xix. 11 ff.: Hag. ii. 13.


ing the dead, which was so deeply rooted, that in spite
of repeated and severe prohibitions, it was long main-
tained in Israel.^ Though it was forbidden, this was
not because there was doubt about the survival of the
dead ; but the invocation of the dead was regarded as a
superstition, and a token of unfaithfulness to Jehovah,
who alone was to be consulted. It is said that the dead
"have been gathered with the fathers," with the ances-
tors, not only in the rec£jit passages of document C,^
but also in those of an earlier date.^ This formula is
employed even when the dead have not been buried
with the fathers. Thus Jacob says that he shall go
down with sorrow to his son Joseph, to the abode of
the dead,^ though he believed that this son had been
devoured by a wild beast. Is it not also faith in a
sojourn of the dead where the departed are found again,
that dictated the words of David on the death of a dear
child: "I shall go to him; but he will not return to
me ? " ^ Without faith in a future existence the transla- ;
tion of Enoch and Elijah would be difficult to explain.
And then the various resurrections mentioned in the ;
Old Testament:^ are they not incompatible with the
idea that death is a complete destruction of a human
being ? Though some passages speak of death as de-
struction,^ it is so called because it is the destruc-

1 1 Sam. xxviii. 3, 7 ff. ; Isa. viii. 19 ; xix. 3 ; xxix. 4 ; Deut. xviii.
11 ; Lev. xix. 31 ; xx. 6, 27 ; 2 Kings xxi, 6 ; xxiii. 24.

2 Gen. XXV. 8, 17 ; xxxv. 29 ; xlix. 29, 33 ; Num. xx. 24, 26 ; xxvii.
13 ; Deut. xxxii. 50.

3 Gen. XV. 15 ; Jud. ii. 10 ; 2 Sam. vii. 12 ; 1 Kings i. 21 ; ii. 10 ;
xi. 21. 4 Gen. xxxvii. 35. & 2 Sam.xii. 23.

« 1 Kings xvii. 21 ff. ; 2 Kings iv. 34 ff. ; xiii. 21.

" Job vii. 8, 21 ; xiv. 10 ; Isa. xxxviii. 18 ; xxvi. 14 ; Ps. xxxvii, 36 ;
S2;2£U. 13.


tion, the end of the present life,^ or because the future
life appears unreal as compared with the present. Ec-
clesiastes without doubt places man on the same level
as the beast, and finds that their lot is the same.^ But
in this entire book appears a skepticism and a pessimism
that is not found in any other book of the Old Testa-
ment. It is therefore unfair to regard the view that it
expresses as that of the Hebrew Scriptures.

The abode of the dead is called sheol^ a word whose
etymology is not perfectly certain. It is found even
in document A.^ When we examine more closely
what the Old Testament says about the abode of the
dead we find that the Israelites had no very definite
ideas on the subject, that they hardly thought of the
departed except to represent their condition as a lam-
entable one. They pictured to themselves slieol as an
abyss, where man will perish, in a sense, after death;
for the word ahJiaddon^ a synonym of sheol and of death
in several passages,^ means at the same time abyss and
destruction. This abyss is in the depths of the earth. ^
It is an insatiable gulf,^ whence nothing can return.'^
It is a dark^ and silent^ place. It is the region of

1 Job vii. 8-10. 2 iii. i8_21.

3 Gen. xxxvii. 35 ; xlii. 38 ; xliv. 29.

* Job xxvi. 6 ; xxviii. 22; Prov. xv. 11 ; xxvii. 20.

s Num. xvi. 30-33 ; Job xxvi. 5 ; Ps. xxx. 3 ; Iv. 15 ; Ixiii. 10 ;
Prov. vii. 27 ; ix. 18 ; xv. 24 ; Isa. xiv. 9, 15 ; Ezek. xxvi. 20 ; xxxi.
141, 18; xxxii. 18, 21, 24.

6 Isa. V. 14 ; Hab. ii. 5 ; Prov. i. 12 ; xxvii. 20 ; xxx. 16.

7 Job vii. 9 ; xvi. 22 ; xvii. 13-15.

8 Job X. 22 ; xvii. 13 ; xviii. 18 ; Jer. xiii. 16 ; Ps. xlix. 19 ; Ixxxviii.
6, 12 ; cxliii. 3 ; Lam. iii. 6.

9 Isa. xxxviii. 18; Ps. xxx. 9; xxxi. 17; Ixxxviii. 10; xciv. 17;
cxv. 17.


forgetf Illness,^ where nothing is seen, or done more,^
where there is no longer even any relation with God,^
though self-consciousness, personality, is not lost.^

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 21 22 23 24 25 26

Online LibraryC PiepenbringTheology of the Old Testament → online text (page 19 of 26)