holiness of the people. In so doing he became in fact the father of those who rested their hopes of the future upon Israel as a separated and law-keeping people, while, on the other hand, the growing apocalypticism, going side by side with this legalism, built its hope upon deeds of external power by which in a sudden revolution Jehovah should bring in the new day.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

From this brief review it will be seen that there were two tendencies at work in Hebrew-Jewish thought concerning the future hope. The one is spiritual, ethical, universal. It rests back upon the prophetic vision of Jehovah which we find, for example, with Amos, Micah, and Isaiah, the conception of Jehovah as the God of righteousness and the God of all men. The implications of their faith were not always worked out, and yet its outlines were present. It meant the emphasis upon righteousness as against ritual. It laid little stress upon the religious forms and institutions that were peculiar to Israel. Its ideal of religion, as of God, pointed to universalism. Jehovah is interested in all nations and plans for all; Israel is chosen for service, not for selfish privilege. In Jeremiah, at length, there comes the realization that the rule of such a God must come by spiritual transformation, and that this will be the essence of the new kingdom.

The other tendency is equally clear. The conception of God is nationalistic and so is the hope. Jehovah is, first of all, the God of Israel; his coming rule will be the triumph of the nation Israel with other peoples in subjection. The coming judgment is thought of more and

more as a judgment on the nations. With this rule over the nations there goes the ideal of separation from the nations. The special laws and institutions of Israel are therefore emphasized, for, on the one hand, they bring out her position of favor as the people of the law, and, on the other, they help to separate her from the nations (circumcision, Sabbath, laws of holiness). Thus the ritual emphasis tends to displace the ethical, and the scribe and priest to supplant the prophet. With political glory comes naturally the thought of material blessings. It must not be supposed that Old Testament writers can be divided clearly between these two positions. These are tendencies, and Ezekiel is an illustration of how they mingle in one man; but the tendencies are both present, and it is the latter that triumphs in Judaism.

In all this we do not yet have the explanation of premillennialism. There is nothing here of a limited earthly kingdom, nor any suggestion of a heavenly kingdom to succeed this. On the other hand, the millennial kingdom of the Adventists is just such a political kingdom as that in these Old Testament writings. As between the two tendencies indicated above, however, modern premillennialism follows the second, or lower. It emphasizes the permanent privilege of the Jews unforfeited by the conduct of that people, it puts the other nations in a subordinate position, the judgment which introduces the millennium is upon the nations and the last great conflict is waged against them, while the central religious feature of its coming kingdom is an elaborate reintroduction of temple sacrifice and ceremonial holiness as outlined by Ezekiel.

CHAPTER II

THE APOCALYPTIC HOPE

THE Jewish apocalypses are a group of writings that appear in the three centuries between B. C. 200 and A. D. 100. The word "apocalypse" means "an unveiling," in this case an uncovering of the future. Tracts for bad times some one has aptly called them. They face the ancient problem; how can we believe in a good God in this world where evil triumphs and the people of God suffer? Their answer, broadly speaking, is that of the prophets: the evil is to be overthrown and the good is yet to reign. This answer is given not in argument or by simple declaration of faith. It is set forth in the form of an extended program of future events given through dreams and visions with elaborate pictures and symbols. The apocalyptists are the successors of the prophets, and yet a comparison, especially with the great preexilic prophets, shows far-reaching differences. Several circumstances help to explain this change from Hebrew prophecy to Jewish apocalyptic.

CHANGED CONDITIONS

1. The problem of the individual had appeared. The earlier stages of human thought consider man only as part of a group; religion is a matter of the family or clan or nation. The prophets dealt with the future of the nation, and alike the punishment and the blessing of which they spoke was for the people as a whole. But Israel was sharing in a general movement of thought in

that old world, the growing sense of the significance of the individual. There might be a glorious future for Israel, but what did this avail the saints who would not see that day? And what about the wicked who flourished and went in peace to their graves after a long life? This is a new aspect of the question of the future hope, and the answer to it brings in a new circle of ideas that meets us here for the first time: individual resurrection and judgment, individual punishment and reward, heaven and hell. All this necessarily brought with it radical changes in the thought of that deliverance to which men looked forward.

2. The outward lot of the Jews as a nation had changed for the worse. Aside from the temporary triumph under the Maccabees, the people found itself helpless in the grasp of great world powers. The mood was one of growing pessimism. The world seemed to be under the absolute domination of evil. There seemed less and less chance of any deliverance that might come in the course of historic events; only some miracle of divine intervention could save. The hopeless outlook is reflected again and again: “I have seen how thou dost suffer the sinners and dost spare the ungodly, how thou hast destroyed thy people and preserved their enemies; and hast not made known at all unto any how this course of thine shall be abandoned. Have the deeds of Babylon been better than those of Sion?" (4 Ezra 3. 30, 31.)

3. There is a change in the thought of God's relation to the world. More and more the emphasis is laid upon the transcendence of God, and the sense of God's living presence and action in the world grows ever less. Vari

ous influences probably mingle here. In part it may have been the effort to guard the idea of God from things earthly and to separate him from the hopelessly evil world. Persian dualism with its doctrine of spirits may have aided. The pessimistic outlook had its influence, for how could God be present in such a world? In any case, God was more and more removed from his world. An earlier day had shown a vivid sense of a God who was present in all the world's life, whose favor was seen in falling rain and gleaming harvest, whose voice could be heard in the thunders of the storm, whose presence led the people to victory, whose frown was felt in time of defeat, whose plans even a great conqueror like Cyrus was carrying out. The apocalyptist sees this living God only in the past or in the longed for future. The present world does not know him. He sits far aloft. Angels great and lesser stand between God and man, and various heavens separate his abode from earth.

All this is reflected in the spirit of the apocalyptic writer and his method. The simple personal name of Jehovah disappears; it is used now only in magic rites. God is the great Sovereign, like an Oriental potentate, and we meet only such names as Most High, King of Kings, Lord of Lords. The prophet heard the word of Jehovah in his heart; the apocalyptist in sleep or swoon sees a vision. The prophet spoke with God, the apocalyptist is instructed by angels or brought by them to the heavenly places. There is a keen and regretful sense that the age of prophecy is past, the time when God spoke directly to men. The mood is reflected in one of the late psalms (74. 9):